CAENL 10

Anna-Latifa Mourad

The Enigma of the Hyksos

VOLUME II
Transforming Egypt into the New Kingdom
The Impact of the Hyksos and Egyptian-Near Eastern Relations

Harrassowitz
 Anna-Latifa Mourad
The Enigma of the Hyksos Volume II
 Contributions to the Archaeology
of Egypt, Nubia and the Levant
CAENL
Edited by
Manfred Bietak, Rahim Shayegan and Willeke Wendrich

Volume 10

2021
Harrassowitz Verlag · Wiesbaden
 Anna-Latifa Mourad

The Enigma of the Hyksos Volume II

Transforming Egypt into the New Kingdom
The Impact of the Hyksos
and Egyptian-Near Eastern Relations

2021
Harrassowitz Verlag · Wiesbaden
Cover illustrations: redrawn by Anna-Latifa Mourad after https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/
object/Y_EA17774 (left); after M. Littauer and J. Crouwel, Wheeled Vehicles and Ridden Animals in the
Ancient Near East, Leiden, Köln, 1979, fig. 36 (right).

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 is an open access title published under the terms of the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 licence. is published. This
permits non-commercial use, distribution and and reproduction in any medium, provided no modificati-
ons are made and the original author(s) and the original author(s) and publication are credited.
Further information: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/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.
Harrassowitz Verlag reserves the right to protect the publication from unauthorised use. unauthorised use.
Requests for commercial exploitation, use of parts of the publication and/or translations should be
addressed to Harrassowitz Verlag.

Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek

Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen
Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet
über https://www.dnb.de abrufbar.

Informationen zum Verlagsprogramm finden Sie unter

https://www.harrassowitz-verlag.de
© by the authors.
Published by Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden 2021
Printed on permanent/durable paper.
Typesetting and layout: Kim-Denise Uhe, u.ni medienservice, Hönze
Printing and binding: Hubert & Co., Göttingen
Printed in Germany

ISBN 978-3-447-11590-2 e ISSN 2701-5831

ISSN 2627-8022 Ebook ISBN 978-3-447-39128-3
DOI series 10.13173 Doi book 10.13173/9783447115902
 5

Table of Contents

Preface of the Editor....................................................................................................................... . 9

Preface and Acknowledgements...................................................................................................... . 11
1. Introduction................................................................................................................................... . 13
1.1. Introduction............................................................................................................................... . 13
1.2. Research Problems.................................................................................................................... . 13
1.3. Research Goals and Approach.................................................................................................. . 15...
1.4. Research Parameters................................................................................................................. . 16
1.4.1 Geographical Scope and Terminology................................................................................ . 16
1.4.2 Chronological Considerations............................................................................................. . 16
1.4.3 Evidential Scope and Limitations....................................................................................... . 22
2. Cultural Encounters and Transformations.............................................................................. . 25
2.1 Introduction................................................................................................................................ . 25
2.2 Identifying Ancient Cultures and Identities.............................................................................. . 25
2.3 Cultural Encounters, Cultural Mixing, and Cultural Transformation...................................... . 28 ..
2.3.1 World-Systems Approach................................................................................................... . 28 ..
2.3.2 Diffusionism....................................................................................................................... . 30 ..
2.3.3 Migration............................................................................................................................ . 31...
2.3.4 Trade Diasporas and Ports of Trade.................................................................................... . 32...
2.3.5 Transnationalism................................................................................................................. . 33 ..
2.3.6 Acculturation...................................................................................................................... . 34 ..
2.3.7 Appropriation...................................................................................................................... . 36 ..
2.3.8 Creolisation......................................................................................................................... . 37 ..
2.3.9 Hybridisation...................................................................................................................... . 38 ..
2.3.10 Mestizaje........................................................................................................................... . 39 ..
2.3.11 Cultural Entanglement...................................................................................................... . 40 ..
2.3.12 Bilingualism...................................................................................................................... . 40 ..
2.3.13 ‘Middle Ground’ Approach............................................................................................... . 41 ..
2.3.14 Cultural Interference......................................................................................................... . 41 ..
2.3.15 Transculturalism............................................................................................................... . 42 ..
2.4 The Way Forward...................................................................................................................... . 43
3. Socio -Political Transformations and Foreign R elations....................................................... . 45 ..
3.1 Introduction................................................................................................................................ . 45 ..
3.2 Trade and Connectivity in the Eastern Delta............................................................................ . 45 ..
3.2.1 Tell el-Dab‘a: A Harbour City in the North........................................................................ . 47 ..
3.2.1.1 Overview of site development and trade before the New Kingdom............................ . 47 ..
3.2.1.1.1 Phases N to I.......................................................................................................... . 49 ..
3.2.1.1.2 Phase H.................................................................................................................. . 50 ..
3.2.1.1.3 Phases G/4–G/1–3................................................................................................. . 51 ..
3.2.1.1.4 Phases F–E/3......................................................................................................... . 55 ..
3.2.1.1.5 Phases E/2–D/2...................................................................................................... . 60 ..
3.2.1.2 Overview of site development and trade leading into the New Kingdom................... . 63 ..
3.2.2 Other Communities of the Delta......................................................................................... . 72 ..
3.2.2.1 Kom el-Hisn................................................................................................................. . 72 ..
3.2.2.2 Tell Hebwa I................................................................................................................. . 73
3.2.2.3 Tell Basta..................................................................................................................... 75
3.2.2.4 Wadi Tumilat............................................................................................................... 76
6

3.2.2.5 Other communities...................................................................................................... 79

3.2.3 Observations....................................................................................................................... 82.
3.3 Means of Diplomacy and Exchange.......................................................................................... 83
3.3.1 Language and Diplomacy................................................................................................... 83.
3.3.1.1 Language transformations and contact-induced change.............................................. 83.
3.3.1.2 Letter correspondence and the use of cuneiform......................................................... 88.
3.3.2 Weights and Exchange........................................................................................................ 91.
3.4 Outlook to the North and the Near East..................................................................................... 95.
3.4.1 Warfare and Foreign Affairs............................................................................................... 95
3.4.1.1 The Sixteenth and Seventeenth Dynasties..................................................................... .. 95..
3.4.1.2 The early Eighteenth Dynasty...................................................................................... .. 97
3.4.2 Egyptian Kingship and the Ideology of Territorial Expansion........................................... . 108
3.5 Observations on Socio-Political Transformations and Foreign Affairs..................................... . 111
4. Religious Transformations.......................................................................................................... 113
4.1 Introduction................................................................................................................................ 113
4.2 Seth and the Storm Deity: Fit for a King?................................................................................. 115
4.2.1 The Storm Deity in the Near East....................................................................................... 115
4.2.1.1 Nature of the storm deity............................................................................................. 115
4.2.1.2 Kingship...................................................................................................................... 115
4.2.1.3 The enemy(s) of the storm deity.................................................................................. 117
4.2.1.4 Divination and oath-taking.......................................................................................... 120
4.2.1.5 Iconography................................................................................................................. 120
4.2.2 The Cults of Seth: From the Predynastic to the Second Intermediate Period.................... 121
4.2.2.1 The Predynastic and Early Dynastic Periods............................................................... 121
4.2.2.2 The Old Kingdom and First Intermediate Period........................................................ 122
4.2.2.3 The Middle Kingdom and the early Second Intermediate Period............................... 123
4.2.2.4 The Second Intermediate Period.................................................................................. 128
4.2.3 The Near Eastern Storm Deity in Egypt: From the Middle Kingdom to the
Second Intermediate Period................................................................................................ 134
4.2.3.1 Personal names............................................................................................................ 134
4.2.3.2 Iconography................................................................................................................. 135
4.2.3.3 Cultic spaces, equid burials, and rituals...................................................................... 138
4.2.3.4 Baal-Seth or Seth-Baal: The syncretisation of Seth?................................................... 141
4.2.4 The Egyptian Storm Deity in the Eighteenth Dynasty....................................................... 142
4.2.4.1 Kingship and the cult of Seth Nb.ty............................................................................. 143
4.2.4.2 The Netherworld.......................................................................................................... 144
4.2.4.3 The sea and the harbour............................................................................................... 146
4.2.4.4 The name and the classifier......................................................................................... 150
4.2.4.5 Observations................................................................................................................ 152
4.2.5 The Egyptian Storm Deity in the Nineteenth Dynasty....................................................... 154
4.2.5.1 Kingship and warfare.................................................................................................. 154
4.2.5.2 Excursus 1: Seth or Baal? Other representations of the transcultural storm deity...... 162
4.2.5.3 Excursus 2: Literature, magic, and a transcultural storm deity................................... 168
4.2.5.4 Observations................................................................................................................ 172
4.2.6 The Transformation of the Egyptian Storm Deity.............................................................. 173
4.3 Goddesses.................................................................................................................................. 174
4.3.1 The Near Eastern Goddesses Astarte, Anat, Qedeshet, and Baalat.................................... 175
4.3.1.1 Nature and characteristics............................................................................................ 175
4.3.1.2 Iconography................................................................................................................. 177
4.3.2 The Near Eastern Goddesses in Egypt................................................................................ 180
4.3.2.1 Personal names and epithets........................................................................................ 180
 77

4.3.2.2 Iconography................................................................................................................. 186

4.3.2.3 Cultic spaces................................................................................................................ 196
4.3.3 Influence and Confluence: The Case for Continuation....................................................... 197
4.3.3.1 Astarte.......................................................................................................................... 197
4.3.3.2 Anat.............................................................................................................................. 199
4.3.3.3 Qedeshet...................................................................................................................... 200
4.3.3.4 Observations................................................................................................................ 202
4.4 Other Religious Concepts and Deities....................................................................................... 204
4.4.1 Reshef in Egypt.................................................................................................................. 204
4.4.2 Practice of Severing Hands................................................................................................. 209
4.4.2.1 The archaeological evidence in Egypt......................................................................... 209
4.4.2.2 The textual and artistic evidence in Egypt................................................................... 210
4.4.2.3 The evidence from the Near East................................................................................ 214
4.4.2.4 Severing the enemy..................................................................................................... 216
4.5 Observations on Religious Transformations.............................................................................. 217
5. Technological and Militaristic Transformations. .................................................................. 219
5.1 Introduction................................................................................................................................ 219
5.2 Metalwork, Weaponry, and Chariotry........................................................................................ 220
5.2.1 Metalwork and Metallurgy................................................................................................. 220
5.2.1.1 Copper alloys............................................................................................................... 220
5.2.1.2 Metal ingots and associated moulds............................................................................ 221
5.2.1.3 Refractory materials.................................................................................................... 225
5.2.2 Chariots and Horses............................................................................................................ 229
5.2.2.1 The introduction of the horse and chariot.................................................................... 229
5.2.2.2 The archaeological evidence in Egypt......................................................................... 231
5.2.2.3 The textual evidence in Egypt..................................................................................... 236
5.2.2.4 The artistic evidence in Egypt..................................................................................... 238
5.2.2.5 Factors of influence..................................................................................................... 239
5.2.3 Weapon Types..................................................................................................................... 242
5.2.3.1 Scimitar or khopesh..................................................................................................... 242
5.2.3.1.1 The origins of the scimitar.................................................................................... 242
5.2.3.1.2 The archaeological evidence in Egypt.................................................................. 244
5.2.3.1.3 The textual and artistic evidence in Egypt........................................................... 246
5.2.3.1.4 Observations......................................................................................................... 249
5.2.3.2 Daggers........................................................................................................................ 250
5.2.3.2.1 Developments up to the late Middle Kingdom.................................................... 250
5.2.3.2.2 Developments from the late Middle Kingdom onwards...................................... 252
5.2.3.3 Axes............................................................................................................................. 260
5.2.3.3.1 Developments up to the Middle Kingdom........................................................... 260
5.2.3.3.2 Levantine axe types in Egypt from the Middle Kingdom to the
Second Intermediate Period.................................................................................. 260
5.2.3.3.3 Egyptian axe types from the late Middle Kingdom onwards............................... 263
5.2.3.4 Bows and arrows......................................................................................................... 268
5.2.3.4.1 Developments up to the late Middle Kingdom.................................................... 268
5.2.3.4.2 The origins and advantages of the composite bow............................................... 268
5.2.3.4.3 The archaeological evidence in Egypt.................................................................. 270
5.2.3.4.4 The artistic evidence in Egypt.............................................................................. 272
5.2.3.4.5 Observations......................................................................................................... 274
5.2.4 Protective Measures............................................................................................................ 275
5.2.4.1 Shields......................................................................................................................... 275
5.2.4.2 Helmets and body armour........................................................................................... 277
8

5.2.4.2.1 The evidence from the Near East......................................................................... 277

5.2.4.2.2 The evidence from Egypt..................................................................................... 278
5.2.5 Observations....................................................................................................................... 280
5.3 Ceramics.................................................................................................................................... 282
5.3.1 General Developments in the Ceramic Repertoire of the Eastern Delta............................ 282
5.3.2 General Developments in Methods of Manufacture........................................................... 283
5.3.3 Continuation of Particular Vessel Types............................................................................. 285
5.4 Other Concepts, Crafts, and Technologies................................................................................. 295
5.4.1 Glassmaking and Production.............................................................................................. 295
5.4.2 Jewellery............................................................................................................................. 299
5.4.2.1 Granulation and gold-working.................................................................................... 299
5.4.2.2 Earring and/or penannular ring use............................................................................. 301
5.4.3 Textile Production............................................................................................................... 306
5.4.3.1 Near Eastern textiles and weavers in Egypt................................................................ 307
5.4.3.2 Transformed concepts and tools in Egypt................................................................... 310
5.4.3.2.1 The dome-shaped spindle whorl........................................................................... 311
5.4.3.2.2 Spin direction....................................................................................................... 312
5.4.3.2.3 Loom types........................................................................................................... 312
5.4.3.2.4 Weaving and decorating techniques..................................................................... 314
5.4.3.3 Observations................................................................................................................ 316
5.4.4 Music and Musical Instruments.......................................................................................... 317
5.4.4.1 The lyre........................................................................................................................ 318
5.4.4.2 The lute........................................................................................................................ 320
5.4.4.3 The tambourine or frame drum and the oboe.............................................................. 322
5.4.4.4 Observations................................................................................................................ 324
5.4.5 Flora, Fauna, and Foodways............................................................................................... 326
5.4.5.1 Introduced plants and animals..................................................................................... 326
5.4.5.1.1 Nuts, olives, pomegranate, and more................................................................... 327
5.4.5.1.2 Humpedback and/or zebu cattle........................................................................... 328
5.4.5.1.3 Wool-sheep........................................................................................................... 330
5.4.5.1.4 Observations......................................................................................................... 332
5.4.5.2 Irrigation and the shaduf.............................................................................................. 332
5.4.5.3 Viticulture, wine, and drinking habits......................................................................... 336
5.4.5.3.1 The evidence from the Near East......................................................................... 336
5.4.5.3.2 The evidence at Tell el-Dab‘a............................................................................... 337
5.4.5.3.3 The evidence from the New Kingdom................................................................. 338
5.4.5.3.4 Observations......................................................................................................... 340
5.4.6 Scarab and Seal Production................................................................................................ 340
5.4.6.1 Developments up to the late Middle Kingdom............................................................ 340
5.4.6.2 The Tell el-Dab‘a workshop........................................................................................ 342
5.4.6.3 Continuation into the New Kingdom.......................................................................... 343
5.5 Observations on Technological and Militaristic Transformations............................................. 347
6. The Transformation of Egypt...................................................................................................... 349
6.1 Introduction................................................................................................................................ 349
6.2 Contexts of Encounters and Agents of Change......................................................................... 349
6.3 Change and Changing Continuities........................................................................................... 352
6.4 A Transformed Culture.............................................................................................................. 356
6.5 A Final Glance........................................................................................................................... 357
Abbreviations..................................................................................................................................... 361
Selected Bibliography...................................................................................................................... 363
List of Figures................................................................................................................................... 455

Preface of the Editor
After publishing her thorough thesis on the Hyksos at
Macquarie University, Anna-Latifa Mourad joined our
team of the ERC Advanced Grant project “The Enigma
of the Hyksos” where she took over the research track
of the cultural interference between the Western Asiatic
immigrants and Egypt during the late Middle Kingdom
and Second Intermediate Period. These people were
carriers of the Middle Bronze Age culture and were
confronted with the contemporary Egyptian culture.
Besides that, the main objective of Anna-Latifa Mourad
was to elucidate the impact of this substantial foreign
population in the Eastern Nile Delta, who stayed on
Egyptian territory for over 250 years, on the cultural
appearance of the Egyptian New Kingdom. This subject
was for a long time neglected in Egyptological studies
and is presented within this book for the first time in
99
an in-depth approach. Her study shows how strong this
impact had been on Egypt and what kind of technologies
in metal- and ceramic production, glass making, military
equipment, mobility, hippological exercises, diplomacy,
influence in religious matters, myth building and literature
came to Egypt through interference with these foreign
immigrants. This study shows to what extent the contact
with people of the Levant who came to Egypt had its effect
on Egyptian culture and history and to what extent such
foreigners were able to rise in the Egyptian hierarchy to
top decision makers. It makes clear that Egypt was not a
solitary cultural entity as presented in many textbooks,
but was in contact with its neighbours in the East, learned
from them and taught them the Egyptian way of life and
statehood. We wish the author much success with her
contribution on the Enigma of the Hyksos.
Vienna, Austria
May 2021
Manfred Bietak
PI of the ERC Advanced Grant
“The Enigma of the Hyksos”
10

Preface and Acknowledgements
The world today is characterised by its connectivity. The
ramifications of increased cross-border encounters have
been all the more prevalent in recent years. Indeed, this
publication was completed in the wake of a global pandemic,
a clear indicator of the impact of consistent interactions.
However, our preserved history reveals that such outcomes
are to be expected: interactions typically lead to change,
whether social, cultural, political, or environmental in
nature. This entanglement between change and cultural
encounters is the focus of the present study. As its title
suggests, it explores the impact of the Hyksos and Egyptian-
Near Eastern relations during the Middle Bronze Age
on the formation of the New Kingdom in Egypt, and the
transformation of Egyptian culture and society.
The study was undertaken in three years as part of the
European Research Council Advanced Grant Project “The
Enigma of the Hyksos” (Grant Agreement Nr. 668640),
under the direction of Professor Manfred Bietak. The
completion of the publication’s final stages was supported
by the author’s Macquarie University Research Fellowship
Project investigating “The Ties that Bind: Negotiating
Foreign Relations in the Second Millennium BC”.
The study specifically ties to The Hyksos Enigma’s
Research Track 5 on “Multidirectional Cultural Interference
Studies”. The aims of RT 5 were to: study cultural
interference during the Second Intermediate Period and the
New Kingdom through the application of anthropological
theories; define the impact of Hyksos rule on the New
Kingdom; investigate whether communities in the Delta
with populations of Near Eastern origin show signs of
continuity from the Second Intermediate Period into the
New Kingdom; and examine whether an array of innovations
that emerged in the New Kingdom were genuine Egyptian
developments, or the result of Hyksos interference and the
presence of Near Easterners who continued to dwell in
Egypt following the conquest of Avaris. In turn, the study
examines cultural encounters through their complexity,
questioning the supposed static nature of Egyptian cultural
elements to ascertain whether persistent contact with the
Near East resulted in the transformation of Egyptian culture
and society. It elucidates the tangible and intangible effects
of contact by focussing on a range of data types, including
archaeological, artistic, and textual material.
Since this study was sent to print, new publications have
appeared on material culture and social group identities in
ancient Egypt. Unfortunately, it was too late to incorporate
their evaluations into the present analysis, but they can
be consulted by readers for more on these topics. These
include Bettina Bader’s Material Culture and Identities in
Egyptology. Towards a Better Understanding of Cultural
Encounters and their Influence on Material Culture,
Archaeology of Egypt, Sudan and the Levant 3 (Vienna,
2021); as well as Danielle Candelora’s ‘The Eastern Delta
as a Middle Ground for Hyksos Identity Negotiation’,
11
11
Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts
Abteilung Kairo 75 (2020), 77–94. As in this monograph,
these two publications also support the validity of the ‘third
space’ for examining cultural encounters, particularly
those in the Eastern Delta and the period of focus.
The study greatly benefited from discussions with
and advice from several individuals. It would have
never come to fruition if not for The Hyksos Enigma’s
Principal Investigator, Professor Manfred Bietak, who
generously offered his years of experience and expertise
on the Hyksos, Tell el-Dab‘a, and Egyptian-Near Eastern
relations. I would like to express my deepest gratitude for
his valuable counsel, and the opportunity he gave me to
travel to Austria and research with his team. I additionally
thank him for reviewing the manuscript and offering
insightful feedback. As an aside, this study on the impact
of cultural encounters was itself a result of intercultural
relations, of a multicultural researcher crossing borders for
a vocational opportunity.
I also extend my sincerest thanks to The Hyksos
Enigma’s project team members for their support and the
many fruitful discussions which contributed in various
ways to this research. These include Dr. Silvia Prell for her
insights on the material culture of Tell el-Dab‘a and her
valuable feedback on the manuscript, Dr. Elisa Priglinger
for conversations on migration in the ancient world,
Ms. Silvia Gómez-Senovilla for her insights on ancient
Egyptian and Near Eastern settlements, and Dr. Sarah
Vilain for generously offering her expertise on Middle
Bronze Age trade and pottery. I also much appreciate
all the administrative support and encouragement of the
Project Manager, Ms. Rosa Matic.
Special thanks are due to Olivier Fuchs, for his financial
assistance towards a conference and research visit to the
USA. For guidance on the postdoctoral experience during
my stay in Vienna, I thank Dr. Stephan Kloos. I also thank
Dr. Karin Sowada for her advice and consistent support
in bringing this manuscript to print while in Sydney. I am
very grateful to those participating in the discussions in
project workshops for their comments, and also for the
constructive feedback of the manuscript’s anonymous
reviewers. Moreover, I would like to thank a number of
colleagues for kindly taking the time to provide helpful
insight on and/or access to pertinent research, and for
assisting me with questions on the material. These
include Dr. Niv Allon, Dr. Bettina Bader, Dr. Julien
Cooper, Dr. Ernst Czerny, Professor Orly Goldwasser,
Dr. Alexander Ilin-Tomich, Dr. Karin Kopetzky,
Dr. Christine Lilyquist, Dr. José Manuel Alba Gómez, and
Dr. Fred Vink. I am also grateful to Dr. Camilla Di Biase-
Dyson, who generously offered her advice on parts of this
manuscript, Assistant Professor Irmgard Hein for much-
appreciated conversations on pottery and the transition
from the Second Intermediate Period to the Eighteenth
12
Dynasty, as well as her helpful feedback after reading
pages from an earlier draft, and Dr. Olivier Rochecouste
for checking through the text. Certainly, however, any
inherent errors are my own.
I am indebted to Macquarie University and The
Rundle Foundation of Egyptian Archaeology, Australia,
for financial assistance towards the preparation of this
manuscript for print. All figures, unless otherwise
stated, were redrawn by the author. Special thanks are to
Mr. Patrick Aprent for his time and skills in drawing a
number of illustrations, and to Ms. Kim-Denise Uhe for
her efforts in putting together and finalising the layout and
graphic design of this publication. I also thank Professor
Naguib Kanawati for his consistent support and permission
to include line drawings from The Australian Centre for
Egyptology’s work at Beni Hassan and Meir. Thanks
are also due to the Austrian Archaeological Institute
for permission to reproduce images from archives and
publications on Tell el-Dab‘a; as well as Professor Manfred
Bietak, Dr. Irene Forstner-Müller, Dr. Aleksandra Ksiezak,
and Dr. Silvia Prell for permission to reproduce figures
from their research and publications.
Lastly, my greatest thanks are for the incredible support
of my family, my partner, and my friends, dispersed
across the world. I owe an immense debt of gratitude to
my parents, both migrants who have continually strived to
pass on the knowledge of my ancestors to their children,
while giving us the freedom to navigate between cultures,
despite the difficulties. I am also grateful for the unfailing
encouragement and close friendship of my sisters, Zena
also spending several hours reading chapters of an early
draft. Herr Jan, my love, this one is for you.
Sydney, Australia
March 2021
Anna-Latifa Mourad
 Introduction
1. Introduction
1.1 Introduction
The Second Intermediate Period is generally believed
to reflect a period of collapse, when the heights
of the unified Middle Kingdom Egyptian power
were averted by strife, division, and a breakdown
of cultural and social traditions. Its categorisation
alone exudes a time when Egyptian history was
punctured. However, spanning over 200 years, this
‘puncture’ should be considered more reflective of
the absence of a central administrative organisation
in Egypt. Much research has proven it to be a period
of regionalisation, when local communities adapted
to changing external and internal stresses. Some
grew in power to become significant political and
economic centres in their region, and, towards
the second half of the period, two major centres
emerged: one in the south, at Thebes; and one in the
north, at Avaris. Eventually, the rulers of Thebes
reportedly mounted consecutive campaigns against
those of Avaris, gaining control over their territory
to establish a new political and administrative
apparatus that heralded the beginning of the New
Kingdom. Although Egypt was once again unified,
its society had irreversibly transformed.
The major powers of the Second Intermediate
Period had each developed according to a different
trajectory, influenced by variant social and economic
factors that gave rise to diverse cultural elements,
practices, and identity markers. Perhaps one of
the most famous of these is the title attributed to
the rulers of Avaris: HqA xAs . w t ‘ruler of foreign
lands’. Known today as the Hyksos, their capital
has been identified with the site of Tell el-Dab‘a,
its stratigraphy extending over 500 years of history
that witnessed the critical transitions from the
Middle to the New Kingdom. The harbour city was
also a hub of intercultural encounters, with various
peoples and groups negotiating their concepts of
life, religion, technology, politics, and power. Their
material culture points to both Egyptian as well as
Near Eastern influences. Indeed, a large population
of Near Eastern origin has been traced across Egypt
in the Middle Kingdom and Second Intermediate
Period, interactions with whom are posited to have
greatly impacted the rise of Avaris as an independent
political centre, contributing to the destabilisation
of the central Middle Kingdom administration.
However, apart from the effects of these cultural
encounters on the political developments between
the Middle and the New Kingdoms, what of their
influence on Egyptian society? How were the socio-
cultural transformations between the Middle and
New Kingdom impacted by Egyptian-Near Eastern
relations and the existence of a harbour city in the
north, with its rulers of foreign lands?
13
1.2 Research Problems
Egyptologists originally supported the presence of a
static, unchanged, and largely homogenous culture
throughout much of pharaonic history.1 More recent
discussions have instead focussed on the prevalence
of both continuity and change, incorporating shifting
views on the nature of culture itself as a set of ideas,
values, beliefs and practices that are manifested by
physical elements, and subject to change.2 Therefore,
the history of Egypt should be viewed alongside
significant political, social, cultural, economic, and
environmental transformations that dynamically
altered across time and space, a myriad of which are
observable between the Middle and New Kingdoms.
While some internal and external factors of
influence have been acknowledged, the multifaceted
mechanisms leading to change, especially using a
larger perspective of relational patterns, remain poorly
understood. One possible explanation for this is that
many studies typically focus on one form of evidence
(e.g. a type of pottery),3 or a particular element (e.g.
the worship of a deity),4 tracing developments across
a defined period of time or space. Certainly, all
such approaches are necessary and valuable, but the
research parameters often neglect earlier, overarching,
or interconnected processes that may have been
additionally significant, especially when related to
Egyptian culture and society in its entirety.5
Only recently have Egyptological studies sought
anthropology and sociology for insights on ancient
Egyptian social and cultural change, especially those
linked to interactions between Egyptians and their
neighbours.6 While Egypt’s political, social, and
cultural impact on surrounding lands are well-studied,
current theories on cultural encounters highlight that
influences are largely, if not always, multidirectional.
1 See, for instance, Wilson 1951; Assmann 1992a; 1992b,
69–70.
2 See, for instance, Baines 1997, 217; Wenke 1997;
T. Schneider 2003b; Wegner 2010.
3 For example, Bourriau 2004; Bader 2009; M aguire
2009; Kopetzky 2010; Aston and Bietak 2012.
4 For example, Cornelius 1994; Assmann 2014; Wilson-
Wright 2016.
5 For the significance of larger interconnected processes,
see Wenke 1997.
6 See, for instance, S.T. Smith 2003a; 2003b; T. Schneider
2003b; Flammini 2008; 2011; Bumann 2009; Bader
2011a; 2013; van Pelt 2013; Mourad 2015; Buzon, S.T.
Smith and Simonetti 2016; Wilson-Wright 2016; Staubli
2016; R eali 2017; Candelora 2019b; Miniaci 2019; de
Souza 2020. Other insightful studies are mentioned
in relevant sections throughout this monograph. See,
especially, Chapters 2, 4.1 and 5.1.
14 Chapter 1
As such, more studies are now considering the various
forms of cultural changes and exchanges that may
have occurred in hubs of interaction, as at Tell el-
Dab‘a, or with non-local groups migrating to Egypt
or encountering Egyptian entities. Yet, reciprocal
influences on cultural elements well-embedded in
communities and groups in Egypt, or ‘Egyptian
cultural elements’, require further examination. In
regards to Egypt’s ‘cultural flexibility’, T. Schneider
stresses that ‘Egyptian civilization promoted and
enhanced cultural contact as a stimulus to the progress
of its civilization.’7 Such an approach favours ‘a
complex society with multiple cultural codes; a
plurality of cultural phenomena; ongoing change
caused by innovation which to a considerable extent is
appropriation from abroad’.8
Nevertheless, despite their potential insights, the
use of current theories, particularly those on cultural
encounters, to trace mechanisms and processes of
change remain largely under-utilised in Egyptology. In
relation to the adoption of new concepts, for example,
observations generally assign their incorporation into
the Egyptian social and cultural framework to the date
in which they appear. If even mentioned, the reasons
are usually linked to the foreign policies of the central
administration, or to the superiority of Near Eastern
elements in comparison to those already exhibited in
Egypt, especially if tied to technology. For instance,
several elements of apparent Near Eastern origin have
been attributed to Thutmose III and his domination
over parts of the Levant, or to the political reforms
of the Amarna Period alongside its diplomatic ties
with the Near East. In reference to the impact of New
Kingdom imperial ambitions, Redford writes that
‘Alien cultures, belonging all to communities that had
been defeated in battle by the Egyptian conqueror, were
now making their presence felt within the conqueror’s
country itself. It was infinitely more difficult to defeat
ideas’.9 ‘Alien cultures’, however were in contact with
Egyptian communities well before the New Kingdom,
their presence also felt via a number of various
diplomatic and hostile encounters evidenced by both
royal and non-royal sources. Certainly, the nature and
frequency of interactions altered in particular reigns,
yet attributing the adoption of foreign concepts as
an outcome of these kings’ interactions would also
infer that earlier relations with foreigners may have
similarly impacted Egypt. It also does not explain why
specific elements, as opposed to others, were adopted
at a particular time, how they were incorporated into
the Egyptian culture, and the extent of their influence
on other entities.
7 T. Schneider 2003b, 157. For more on T. Schneider’s
interpretation of cultural appropriation in the New
Kingdom, see Chapter 2.3.7.
8 T. Schneider 2003b, 161.
9 R edford 1992, 214.
Largely devoid of these explorations are further
studies that mention the impact of the Hyksos on Egypt.
Most group both the rulers as well as the inhabitants
of their city as the agents behind a range of introduced
ideas and elements from the Near East.10 Such studies
acknowledge that the northern dynasties of the Second
Intermediate Period significantly contributed to
change and innovation. As Hayes has written:
‘For the Egyptians, in return, the Hyksos did two
things. They rid them once and for all of the old
feeling of self-sufficiency and false security…;
and... they brought Egypt into more intimate and
continuous contact with the peoples and cultures of
western Asia than ever before in her history. Over
the Hyksos bridge there flowed into the Nile Valley
in unprecedented quantity new blood strains, new
religious and philosophical concepts, and new
artistic styles and media, as well as epoch-making
innovations of a more practical nature–the well
sweep, the vertical loom, the composite bow, and,
toward the very end of the Hyksos occupation,
the horse-drawn chariot. Though represented
as an unmitigated disaster by native historians
of later times, the Hyksos domination provided
the Egyptians with both the incentive and the
means towards “world” expansion and so laid the
foundations and to a great extent determined the
character of the New Kingdom, or, as it is often
called, “the Empire” ’.11
Indeed, the New Kingdom was surely impacted
by Second Intermediate Period social, cultural, and
political developments. Not merely a continuation
of Middle Kingdom traditions, this period of
regionalisation should also be considered instrumental
in defining the Eighteenth Dynasty. However, how
exactly the ‘unprecedented quantity’ of ‘new’ ideas
flowed into the Nile Valley remains uncertain. The
mechanisms of adoption and incorporation of these
ideas are typically not mentioned. So, the validity
and extent of the impact of consistent Egyptian-
Near Eastern relations as well as the Fourteenth and
Fifteenth Dynasties on Egyptian culture, technology
and society, remain insufficiently addressed, especially
in accordance with extant and recently published
evidence from Egypt and the Near East.
10 See Labib 1936, 10; Stock 1942, 72–75; Säve-Soderbergh
1951, 71; H ayes 1959, 4; R edford 1992, 148.
11 H ayes 1959, 4.
 Introduction
1.3 Research Goals and Approach
The study aims to shed light on the nature of socio-
cultural transformations by focussing on the influence
of consistent Egyptian-Near Eastern cultural
encounters on Egyptian society and culture. While
their relation to the rise of the Hyksos Dynasty have
already been examined by the author,12 this study instead
explores the impact of the northern dynasties, as well
as Twelfth to Fifteenth Dynasty Egyptian-Near Eastern
relations, on the New Kingdom. It is stressed here that
such influences should not be considered as the only
explanation for socio-cultural transformations from the
Middle to the New Kingdoms, and that this study does
not argue for such a monocausal explanation. It instead
argues for the pertinence of cultural encounters among
several other significant stimuli for change.
‘Transformation’ is approached as a reorganisation of
an element or system to a distinct and different state.
It entails dynamic, multifaceted, multidirectional, and,
to some extent, interlinked processes that could either
manifest some continuity or result in a completely
altered state.13 Influential factors may be internal
(such as administrative reorganisation), external
(such as warfare, migration or altered environmental
conditions), or both.14 Mentioned throughout the book,
although equally deserving of study, are a range of
such internal and external forces that helped shape the
New Kingdom, including social group interactions and
hierarchies, political and administrative policies, as
well as environmental conditions. The aim here is to
examine the extent to which transformed concepts that
manifest in the New Kingdom were related specifically
to earlier encounters with Near Eastern elements.
An important aspect in this regard is questioning
the fate of communities in the Delta formerly under
Hyksos rule, especially the continuity of the population
at Tell el-Dab‘a and its cultural elements. An in-depth
examination of the cultural developments at the site is
not possible here, and has indeed been the subject of a
number of recent studies that have verified Near Eastern
influence.15 The developments in such communities are
instead assessed as part of the influential factors or
processes that may have helped transmit originally Near
Eastern aspects into the New Kingdom. Several other
avenues of influence from Near Eastern elements may
have affected cultural elements of the New Kingdom.
These include earlier cultural encounters with Near
Eastern entities in other areas of Egypt, and continuing
encounters in the New Kingdom with groups formerly
influenced by entities in or from the Near East.
12 Mourad 2015.
13 See McAnany and Yoffee 2010; Spielmann et al. 2016.
14 See Spielmann et al. 2016; Faulseit 2016, 8–9.
15 For an overview, see Bietak 1981, 284–288; 1996a; 1997;
Bader 2013; Mourad 2015.
15
To determine influence from elements embedded in
Near Eastern cultural repertoires, the study explores
comparative material from the Near East that is
contemporaneous and generally of secure or known
context. It is not the intention here to pinpoint a
particular area of the Near East that may have been the
most influential or the ‘source’ of influence, although
the examination may refer to points of interest
according to the evidence. Indeed, most elements
that were adopted and adapted in Egypt underwent
earlier processes of transformation at variant times,
among diverse social groups, and in different regions
of the Near East, if not elsewhere, until they were
transmitted. Even following transmission, they
may have continued to undergo transformation, and
repeated ‘transmissions’, across geographic borders.
The study’s methodology thereby appreciates
the complexity of cultural encounters and does not
intend to present an exhaustive analysis of all their
potential processes, influences or outcomes, as such
a feat would not be feasible, especially in view of the
preserved and published evidence, and the limitations
of one monograph. Due to the larger-scale and longer-
term perspective required to assess socio-cultural
transformations, a multifaceted approach must be
taken, despite the possibly greater risk of over-
simplification. Therefore, the study explores cultural
elements manifested by archaeological, artistic, and
textual evidence, analysing them according to their
nature and context. It applies a variety of theories for
insights on processes of change linked to the movement
and incorporation of elements of postulated foreign
origin, which are further discussed in Chapter 2.
Theories that have been typically applied to specific
forms of cultural elements are further explored in
relative sections of Chapters 3–5. Each chapter is
organised thematically, examining specific groups
of cultural elements heuristically divided into those
linked to historical socio-political transformations
(Chapter 3), religious developments (Chapter 4), and
technology (Chapter 5). Both tangible and intangible
cultural elements are evaluated, the selections
sufficiently exemplifying the nature and extent of Near
Eastern influence on a number of different Egyptian
socio-cultural features. The focus is on New Kingdom
elements with possible MBA Near Eastern precursors
recognisable in Egypt at, for instance, hubs of persistent
or heightened Egyptian-Near Eastern encounters such
as Tell el-Dab‘a. The validity of identifying particular
aspects as ‘Hyksos innovations’ or introductions is also
explored. Important to note is that cultural elements
are interlinked and cannot be easily separated from
one another. As such, discussions on manifestations in
funerary material, the Egyptian lexicon and language,
as well as artistic representations and iconography are
included in relevant sections of Chapters 3–5. Each
also concludes with general observations on processes
of change, and the role of the northern dynasties in
contributing to such change.
16 Chapter 1
In Chapter 3, the study centres on transformations
linked to foreign affairs. The chapter provides a
historical review of developments in the Eastern Delta
from the Twelfth to early Eighteenth Dynasties, trade
relations with the Near East, as well as the political,
commercial and diplomatic developments associated
with the northern dynasties and the Near East across
the transition to the New Kingdom. It examines
the repercussions of the Hyksos Dynasty on early
Eighteenth Dynasty politics, discussing influences on
foreign policies and relations, as well as approaches
to the inhabitants of the Delta and to Near Easterners.
Chapter 4 examines particular religious concepts
and ritualistic practices postulated to be of Near
Eastern origin and tied to pre-New Kingdom
encounters. The chapter questions the nature and
impact of the so-called ‘Hyksos religion’ and the
theorised worship of foreign deities in Egypt before
the Eighteenth Dynasty. It includes a detailed study
on the growing association of Seth with Baal, and the
linked role of the Hyksos rulers who appear to have
selected Seth as lord of a new capital. The chapter
also assesses the incorporation of aspects connected
with other Near Eastern gods and goddesses, as well
as the ritual of severing hands.
Chapter 5 focusses on transformations linked to
technologies and functional utilities. It examines the
influence of warfare and militaristic factors on the
incorporation of Near Eastern elements in Egypt,
moving past the postulated ‘supremacy’ of ‘Hyksos’
and Near Eastern weaponry and military prowess to
focus on the interplay of multiple factors involved in
transformation. Other technological developments
linked to the Hyksos Dynasty and the Near East
are also explored, including those associated with
pottery production, glassmaking, jewellery, textile
manufacture, and music.
1.4 Research Parameters
1.4.1 Geographical Scope and Terminology
The study focusses on Egypt, as it is traditionally
interpreted to geographically extend from the
Mediterranean coast along the north of the Delta, to
the First Nile Cataract near Elephantine in the south
(Fig. 1.1). Settlements in the Wadi Tumilat during the
Second Intermediate Period and the New Kingdom
are considered, as is evidence from areas exhibiting
archaeological material from Egypt or with close ties
to Egypt, such as Buhen to the south or Serabit el-
Khadim to the east. Encounters with other entities in
Nubia (generally incorporating the area south of the
First Nile Cataract and Sudan), the Western Desert, the
Aegean, or Anatolia (mostly modern-day Turkey) are
only considered if related to processes of transformation
linked to Egyptian-Near Eastern relations.
The Near East (Fig. 1.2) is considered as a culturally
and politically heterogeneous region. It was occupied
by various groups that exhibited many similar, and
some different, cultural traits. Not all groups can
be assigned to specific geopolitical borders, and so
material from the Near East is largely referred to by
site (ancient or modern name). If cultural elements
ascribe to more general patterns in a particular
region, the following geographical terminology is
used: (1) the Levant, including the Northern Levant
for sites in present-day southern Turkey, western
Syria and Lebanon, and the Southern Levant for sites
in modern Israel, the Palestinian occupied territories,
and Jordan; and (2) Mesopotamia, for sites in present-
day eastern Syria and Iraq.
Regarding Egyptian artistic and textual
representations of conceptually ‘foreign’ entities,
the terminology follows that which is commonly
found in the Egyptology discipline. Apart from
their problematic origins, readers should note that
these identifications are broad, and do not accurately
delineate the place of origin, social identity, or mode
of subsistence of the designated individuals.16 If no
better terms can be used to more clearly identify such
entities, ‘Asiatic’ is utilised to refer to those generally
originating from the north(east) of Egypt, ‘Nubian’
for those from the south and southeast, and ‘Libyan’
for those from the west. It should also be noted that
the study utilises the term ‘Hyksos’ to specifically
refer to the rulers of the Fifteenth Dynasty, only
some of whom apparently used the title from which
it stems, HqA xAs . w t ‘ruler of foreign lands’. While
‘Hyksos’ has been commonly employed by scholars
to further identify a population and/or particular
material cultural elements, this is not followed here.
However, as this earlier usage may impact how
the term ‘Hyksos’ is interpreted by readers, such
expressions as ‘Hyksos ruler’, ‘Hyksos capital’ or
‘Hyksos Dynasty’ are used to avoid confusion when,
for instance, referring to the rulers, the city they
ruled, or the period in which they reigned.17
1.4.2 Chronological Considerations
The study focusses on the period spanning the
Middle to the New Kingdom (Fig. 1.3). It specifically
questions the impact of Egyptian-Near Eastern
cultural encounters that occurred in the Middle
Kingdom and Second Intermediate Period, on the
New Kingdom. The Middle Kingdom is considered
to cover the Eleventh Dynasty, from the reign of
Nebhepetra Montuhotep (II), to the Thirteenth
Dynasty. The Thirteenth Dynasty may partially or
wholly be part of the Second Intermediate Period,
although scholars generally assume that particular
parts of Egypt had already become independent
from its central administration by the late Thirteenth
Dynasty. Ryholt’s argument for the emergence of
16 See Mourad 2020, 107–109, with references.
17 For more on the use of the term ‘Hyksos’, see van Seters
1966, 3; Ryholt 1997, 123–125; Mourad 2015, 9–10, 201;
Candelora 2017; 2018, 46–47.
 Introduction 17

Fig. 1.1 Map of Egypt and parts of Nubia with pertinent sites mentioned in the text.
Map by Patrick Aprent
18
Fig. 1.2 Map of the Near East with pertinent sites mentioned in the text. Map by Patrick Aprent
the Second Intermediate Period at the beginning
of Dynasty 13 cannot yet be disproven.18 However,
as some royal texts of Dynasty 13 still refer to the
power of the pharaoh and the central administration
at Itjtawy, the early Thirteenth Dynasty is here
interpreted as of the Middle Kingdom.
Apart from its period of emergence, the study
follows Ryholt’s chronological overview of the
Second Intermediate Period (Fig. 1.4).19 Its first stage
generally covers the disintegration of a weakened
Thirteenth Dynasty and its partition into at least
two kingdoms, the Fourteenth Dynasty in the north,
and the Sixteenth Dynasty in the south. Its second
stage comprises the Fifteenth Dynasty in the north,
with its capital at Avaris, and the Seventeenth
Dynasty in the south, with its capital at Thebes.20 It
is very likely that particular dynasties of the Second
Intermediate Period chronologically overlapped
with one another, their precise lengths uncertain.
While some kings of these dynasties are known, the
18 Ryholt’s reliance on scarab typology as well as
questionable archaeological material has been criticised.
For more, see D. Ben-Tor, S.J. A llen and J.P. A llen
1999; Dodson 2000; Spalinger 2001.
19 Ryholt 1997. See, however, T. Schneider 2008a.
20 Ryholt 1997. See also von Beckerath 1964.
Chapter 1
attribution of many as kings, to specific dynasties, or
to specific reign lengths, is conjectural and subject to
ongoing research.21 This study thus largely adheres
to Ryholt’s assessment as it is the most recent,
thorough investigation; however, it also considers
later revisions of his outline.22 Only where possible
are specific pieces of examined evidence assigned to
a particular reign.
In comparison to the Second Intermediate Period
chronology, the beginning of the New Kingdom is
better conceived. A number of texts refer to Ahmose’s
efforts in creating a central administrative state. He
is considered here as the first king of the Eighteenth
Dynasty, for which the sequence of pharaohs is also
accepted by Egyptologists (Fig. 1.4). This, however,
does not negate the possibility of a transitional period
that eventuated in the hegemony of the Theban
Dynasty over Egypt.
According to the nature of the evidence, periods
before the Middle Kingdom may be mentioned to
show precursors of particular cultural elements
within the Egyptian milieu (Fig. 1.3). Those from the
21 For an overview of the chronological issues pertaining
to the Second Intermediate Period, see most recently
V. Müller 2018.
22 See Bourriau 1986/1987; 2010b; Seiler 2005; 2010; Polz
2007; Franke 2008; J.P. A llen 2010b; Ryholt 2018.
 Introduction 19

Egypt Levant

Predynastic Period Naqada IIIC1 EBIB (late)

Early Dynastic Period Dynasties 1–2 EBIB (late) to EBII
Dynasties 3–4 EBIIIA

Old Kingdom Dynasties 5–6 (to ~ Pepy I) EBIIIB

Dynasty 6 (late)
First Intermediate Period Dynasties 7–11 (to ~ Intef III) EBIV/MBI
Dynasties 11 (Montuhotep II)–12 (early)
Middle Kingdom
Dynasties 12–13 (~ first half) MBIIA
MBIIA–B
Dynasty 13 (~ second half)
Second Intermediate Period MBIIB
Dynasty 15/17
MBIIC

Dynasty 18 (to ~ Thutmose IV) MBIIC to LBI

New Kingdom Dynasty 18 (late) LBIIA
Dynasty 19 LBIIB

Fig. 1.3 General chronological correlations between Egypt and the Levant, from the Predynastic Period to the
New Kingdom. Following Sowada 2009, tables 2–3; Bietak 2010a

Nineteenth Dynasty may also be discussed to show
continuity of aspects or to explore their posited re-
emergence after a length of time. For these periods, the
relative chronology follows the sequence published by
Hornung, Krauss and Warburton.23
Regarding Near Eastern chronology, the study utilises
evidence that occurs in the Early Bronze Age (EBA),
the Middle Bronze Age (MBA) and the Late Bronze
Age (LBA), focussing on that of the MBA and the
early LBA for its contemporaneity with the Egyptian
dynasties under examination. Several divisions of
these periods can be found in the literature, many of
which are in accordance with terminologies applied
in studies on the Northern or the Southern Levant.
For consistency, this study follows the terminology
in Figs. 1.3 and 1.5. The terms ‘Old Babylonian’,
‘Old Syrian’ and ‘Middle Syrian’ are utilised when
referring to cylinder seal classifications, and generally
accord to the MBA and LBA respectively.
Chronological synchronisms followed herein are
outlined in Fig. 1.5.24 For Mesopotamian chronology,
23 Hornung, K rauss and Warburton 2006, 490–495.
24 Third Millennium BC correlations follow Sowada 2009,
2–4, tables 2–3. Second Millennium BC correlations
follow Bietak 1991b, fig. 24; 2013a; Gasche et al. 1998,
91; S. Cohen 2002, fig. 27. See also K antor 1992; Dever
1992; R eade 2003; G. Schwartz 2008.
the study adheres to the general correlation
of the late Uruk Period with the Predynastic
Period, Early Dynastic I and II with the Egyptian
Early Dynastic Period and early Old Kingdom,
Early Dynastic III with the Old Kingdom, the
Akkadian Period with the late Old Kingdom, and
Ur III with the First Intermediate Period. The
Isin-Larsa Period, Old Babylonian Period, and
Old Assyrian Period roughly coincide with the
Middle Kingdom and the Second Intermediate
Period. The Middle Babylonian, Kassite and
Middle Assyrian Periods are approximate to
the New Kingdom, extending somewhat into
the Third Intermediate Period. It is important to
note that these synchronisms are highly tentative,
and will surely be refined in future studies.
The synchronisation of Egyptian with Near
Eastern chronologies, especially for the examined
periods, has further been the subject of much
scrutiny and debate. The study predominantly
depends on relative dates, with little reference
to absolute dates, as such general relative
synchronisations suffice for the larger-scale
relational observations assessed here. However,
further refinement of the chronology will
surely provide more insight into supra-regional
transformations and the influences of specific
political shifts or environmental events.
20 Chapter 1

Dynasty Nomen Prenomen Dynasty Nomen Prenomen

11 Montuhotep II Nebhepetra 16* Djehuty Sekhemresementawy
Montuhotep III Seankhkara Sobekhotep VIII Sekhemresewesertawy
Montuhotep IV Nebawyra Neferhotep III Sekhemresankhtawy
Montuhotepi Seankhenra
12 Amenemhat I Sihotepibra
Nebiryraw I Sewadjenra
Senwosret I Kheperkara
Nebiryraw II –
Amenemhat II Nebkaura
– Semenra
Senwosret II Khakheperra
Bebiankh Seweserenra
Senwosret III Khakaura
– Sekhemreshedwaset
Amenemhat III Nimaatra
Amenemhat IV Maakherura 17* Rahotep Sekhemrewahkhaw

Sobeknefru Sobekkara Sobekemsaf I Sekhemreshedtawy

Intef VI Sekhemrewepmaat
13* Sobekhotep I Sekhemrakhutawy
Intef VII Nebkheperra
Amenemhat V Sekhemkara
Intef VIII Sekhemreherhermaat
aAmw/Qemau -
Sobekemsaf II Sekhemrawadjkhaw
Sihornedjheritef Hotepibra
Siamun (?) Senakhtenra
Siwesekhtawy Sihotepibra
Tao Seqenenra
Hor Awibra
Kamose Wadjkheperra
Khendjer Weserkara
18 Ahmose Nebhepetra
Neferhotep I Khasekhemra
Amenhotep I Djeserkara
Sihathor Menwadjra
Thutmose I Akheperkara
Sobekhotep IV Khaneferra
Thutmose II Akheperenra
Sobekhotep V Merhotepra
Thutmose III Menkheperra
Sobekhotep VI Khahotepra
Hatshepsut Maatkara
Ibiaw Wahibra
Amenhotep II Akheperura
Aya Merneferra
Thutmose IV Menkheprura
Sobekhotep VII Merkaura
Amenhotep III Nebmaatra
14* Ykbm Sekhaenra Amenhotep IV/ Neferkheprura
YAamw Nebweserra Akhenaten
QArH Khaweserra Smenkhkara/ Ankhkheprura
Nefernefruaten
aAmw Aahotepra
Tutankhamun Nebkheprura
^Si (Sheshi) Maaibra
Itnetjer Aya Kheperkheprura
Nehsy Aasehra
Horemheb Djeserkheprura
15* %mqn –
19 Ramesses I Nebpehtyra
apr-anti –
Sety I Menmaatra
%krhr –
Ramesses II Wesermaatra
#yAn (Khayan) Siweserenra Setepenra
Ippi (Apophis) Aaweserra Merneptah Baenra
#Amwdi Hotepibra Sety II Weserkheprura
Amenmesses Menmira
Abydos* Senebkay Weseribra
Siptah Akhenra
Towsra Sitra Meritamun

Fig. 1.4 Kings of the Middle Kingdom to the New Kingdom, with selected rulers of Dynasties 13–17
(*sequence not fixed). Collated after Hornung, K rauss and Warburton 2006; Ryholt 1997
 Introduction 21

Indeed, some completed and current projects have

tackled synchronised chronologies for the Third to
Second Millennium BC.25 Unfortunately, scholarly
consensus has not yet been reached. Overall,
scholars ascribe to a high, middle, or low absolute
chronology, according to the same or variant pieces
of evidence.26 Despite the increasing amount of data
from the Southern Levant, the Northern Levant,
Egypt, Mesopotamia, and the Aegean, reliance on
material from unsecure contexts or date, as well
as discrepancies between scientific analyses and
archaeological-historical assessments, have only
extended deliberation on the topic.
Proponents of the low chronology for the MBA and
early LBA largely point to the archaeological material
and its synchronisations with sites across Egypt and
the Eastern Mediterranean.27 Excavations at Tell
el-Dab‘a have revealed a consecutive stratigraphy
that has allowed for the relative correlation of Tell
el-Dab‘a’s phases to the Egyptian chronology, as
verified by a number of studies on the archaeological
data.28 The local material culture, especially the local
ceramic assemblage, supports the general attribution
of Phases N to H to a Twelfth Dynasty cultural
horizon, Phases G/4 to E/3 to the Thirteenth Dynasty
and the early Second Intermediate Period, Phases E/2
to D/2 to the late Second Intermediate Period, and
Phase C to the Eighteenth Dynasty (Fig. 1.5). Strata
assigned to the chronological ‘borders’ of periods
could reflect material of a residual nature or of a
transitional cultural horizon.
Also well-stratified at the site were MBA Levantine
imports, as well as Cypriot imports of the second half
of the MBA and the early LBA. Several studies have
thus examined this material for parallels from secure Fig. 1.5 Chronological correlations between Egypt,
contexts in the Levant and Cyprus to link the site’s Tell el-Dab‘a and the Levant. After Bietak 2010a.
phases with Eastern Mediterranean chronologies.29 * Following Bietak’s low chronology

25 See Bonani et al. 2001; Bietak 2000b; 2003a; 2013a;

Bietak and Czerny 2007; Hornung, K rauss and
Warburton 2006; Höflmayer et al. 2016; Höflmayer
2017; 2018; 2019; Höflmayer and S. Cohen 2017.
26 For the low chronology, see A lbright 1964; Weinstein
1981; 1991; 1992; 1995; Bietak 1984a; 1989b; 2013a;
2016b; S. Cohen 2002; D. Ben-Tor 2003; 2017a. For
a middle to high chronology, see Dever 1992. For a
higher chronology, see K enyon 1966; B. M azar 1968;
Gerstenblith 1983; M anning 2014; Höflmayer et al.
2016; Höflmayer 2017; S. Cohen 2017.
27 See, especially, the series ‘Contributions to the
Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean’, as well as the
publication of the Tell el-Dab‘a volumes. For an overview,
see Bietak 1991b; 2013a.
28 See Bietak 1991b; 1996a; 1997; 2010a; 2010b; Bader 2001;
2009; 2020; Czerny 1999; 2002; 2015; Aston 2004a; Hein
and Jánosi 2004; V. Müller 2008; Kopetzky 2008; 2010;
2015; Schiestl 2009; Aston and Bietak 2012.
29 See, among many, Bietak 1991b; Hein 1998; 2001a;
2007; 2018; Bietak, Forstner-Müller and Mlinar 2001;
Aston 2002; 2004a; Bader 2001; 2011b; Czerny 2002;
Aston and Bietak 2012.
In correlation with other archaeological material,
including the local ceramic assemblage as well as
scarab typology,30 the combined evidence has been
used to support a low chronology. As such, the MBIIA
was correlated with Dynasty 12 and early Dynasty 13;
the MBIIA–B with mid-Dynasty 13; the MBIIB
with late Dynasty 13 to the first half of Dynasty 15;
the MBIIC with late Dynasty 15 transitioning to
Dynasty 18; and the LBI with early Dynasty 18. The
low chronology was further confirmed by the SCIEM
2000 project, which compared the material from Tell
el-Dab‘a with such sites as Ashkelon, Ifshar, Sidon,
Tell ‘Arqa, Alalakh, and Cyprus. The so-called Moat
Deposit at MBIIA Ashkelon, for instance, revealed
30 See, for instance, D. Ben-Tor 1994; 2003; 2004; 2007a;
2010; 2017a; Bietak, Forstner-Müller and Mlinar
2001; Mlinar 2001; 2004; Czerny 2002; 2015; Aston
2004a; Kopetzky 2008; 2010; 2015; Aston and Bietak
2012; Bagh 2013.
22
both Egyptian ceramics as well as seal impressions
made by Egyptian-type scarabs that, altogether, point
to a synchronisation with Phases G/4 and G/1–3 at
Tell el-Dab‘a.31
Much disagreement has ensued on the absolute
dating of respective stratigraphic phases and
synchronisations with the Levant and the Aegean.32
This has been expounded by the 14C dates of organic
material from Egyptian sites, including Tell el-
Dab‘a, as well as others in the Eastern Mediterranean
that pointed to a higher chronology for the Third
and Second Millennia BC.33 Consequently, the
synchronisation of absolute dates between the EBA,
MBA, and early LBA with the Egyptian Old to
New Kingdoms ranges by around 100 to 200 years
between the low and high chronologies. The periods
of greatest contention and discrepancies have been the
‘transitional’ periods between the late Third and early
Second Millennium BC, and around the mid-Second
Millennium BC. The high chronology thus opts for the
beginning of the MBIIA in late Dynasty 11 to early
Dynasty 12, the transition of MBIIA to MBIIB to the
second half of Dynasty 12, that of MBIIB to MBIIC
to mid-Dynasty 13, and the beginning of LBI to the
second half of Dynasty 15. It remains uncertain how
the proposed chronological shift impacts historical
assessments on interrelations for the second half of
the MBA,34 and how it can explain and correlate with
the well-established and well-assessed developments
in local and imported ceramic types and scarabs
from late Middle Kingdom to Second Intermediate
Period contexts at Tell el-Dab‘a and other areas in
Egypt that underpin the low chronology. Indeed, it
is worthy of note that the collection of absolute dates
used to bolster the high chronology should now be
updated in view of the latest curve for calibrating 14C
radiocarbon dates.35 While, at the time of writing,
this process has only recently begun, studies thus
far indicate that the newer calibration favours a
lower chronology.36 This serves as a reminder that
absolute dates and synchronisations based on this
technique will likely continue to be refined with
ongoing scientific developments and advances, and
31 See Bietak et al. 2008; Stager and Voss 2011; 2018;
D. Ben-Tor and Bell 2018.
32 See Dever 1992; Weinstein 1992; K itchen 2007;
T. Schneider 2008a; Kutschera et al. 2012; Bietak
2013a; 2016b; 2020; 2021a; H agens 2014; M anning 2014;
Höflmayer 2015b; 2017; Höflmayer et al. 2016; S. Cohen
2017; D. Ben-Tor 2017a.
33 See Bonani et al. 2001; Shortland and Bronk R amsey
2013; Höflmayer 2015b; 2017; 2019; Höflmayer et al.
2016. See however M arcus 2013.
34 For Twelfth Dynasty relations with the Southern Levant
in view of the high chronology, see S. Cohen 2017.
35 See Plicht et al. 2020; R eimer et al. 2020.
36 See, for instance, Pearson et al. 2018; 2020; Plicht
et al. 2020; M.A.S. M artin et al. 2020, 234; R egev et al.,
forthcoming.
Chapter 1
that they should instead be applied in tandem with
the archaeological and historical material for the most
valid results.
Undoubtedly, however, the search for absolute
chronological correlations has been compounded
by the inherent difficulties in determining
synchronisations across variant cultural and political
zones and, in turn, during periods of increased
cultural and political variability. Correlating Second
Intermediate Period relative with absolute dates
within Egypt may itself be a difficult task hampered
by the limited evidence naming specific kings, the
accompanying uncertainty regarding the kings’
chronological placement, as well as the data’s usually
unspecified archaeological context. In the Near East,
differences in local and regional cultural traits across
geopolitical entities in Mesopotamia, the Northern
Levant, and the Southern Levant, as well as limited
textual material that can be utilised for synchronising
rulers or elite households, have hindered conclusions
regarding chronological correlations. Some areas
may have further experienced cultural transitions
before others, especially in the examined period of
increased transformations. As such, synchronisations
of dynasties within Egypt during its politically
fragmented periods are uncertain, those between Near
Eastern geopolitical entities remain to be completely
elucidated, and, accordingly, those between Egypt
and the Near East are open to debate.
Due to these difficulties, the study has sought to limit
dependence on absolute dating and synchronisations
of narrow periods of time, and relies on the relative
synchronisations of Egyptian-Levantine chronology
as offered by Tell el-Dab‘a and its attribution to the
low chronology. It first and foremost depends on the
immediate archaeological context of a piece of evidence.
It then assesses this according to its stratigraphic
attribution, the local developments assigned to the
stratum or phase, and, if possible, regional developments
that share its traits. The examination follows the most
recent thorough assessments of a site’s stratigraphy and
chronological attribution, as well as studies regarding
local material culture in correspondence with regional
parallels. It is, therefore, dependent on the nature of the
published evidence, and the available data regarding its
local and regional context. In turn, further excavation,
the additional publication of material, as well as more
up-to-date assessments of stratigraphies or of related
chronological developments in Egypt and the Near East
will further refine both chronological correlations as
well as the observations herein presented.
1.4.3 Evidential Scope and Limitations
The study focusses on a variety of archaeological,
artistic, and textual material. Due to its scope as
well as its research limitations, it was not possible
to personally and physically examine each artefact.
Hence, it is reliant on the accuracy and completeness
of an artefact’s publication, as well as specialist studies
 Introduction
regarding its physical and/or chemical attributes. The
use of artefacts of unknown provenance or date of
deposition has been limited, while those purchased
from antiquity dealers have been largely avoided.
Pieces of questionable origin or date are clearly
marked as such in the discussions.
Pertinent to note is that observations and conclusions
are greatly determined by the nature of published
material from excavations in Egypt as well as the
Near East. Generally, only a small percentage of a
society’s material culture is excavated, and arguably
not all is sufficiently published.37 The First and Second
Intermediate Periods, as well as the beginning and end
of the Middle Kingdom and the early New Kingdom
are represented by limited textual and artistic
evidence in comparison to Dynasties 12, 18 and 19.
Among the artefacts which have survived, a large
proportion is fragmentary, open to interpretation, and
often difficult to date. It is also challenging to assign
the archaeological evidence, if of secure context and
provenance, to a particular reign.
Furthermore, not all social groups are represented
in the uncovered evidence. It is commonly
recognised that Egyptologists of the Nineteenth
and Twentieth Centuries have mostly concentrated
on researching temples and cemeteries, especially
those with tombs of the elite. Only in recent decades
have they focussed on stratified settlements, a small
number of which have incorporated a variety of
scientific analyses, environmental assessments,
and investigations to determine the presence of
different social groups and subsistence strategies.
While settlement archaeology is more common in
the Near East, earlier excavations concentrated on
37 For more on issues in excavations and publications of
Egyptian material, see Baines and Eyre 1983; Baines and
Lacovara 2002; J. R ichards 2005, 67–69.
23
monumental structures, especially those of a palatial
or cultic nature, restricting insight into social
dynamics and the variety of cultural manifestations.
Certain areas across the regions have also attracted
more attention than others. A limited number of
excavations has, for instance, explored the Egyptian
Western Delta, the Beqa‘ Valley of Lebanon, and
southern Israel. In addition, some sites in these areas,
as well as the Wadi Tumilat, northern Lebanon and
western Syria, have only been revealed through
surveys, leaving only tantalising clues of MBA or
LBA activity.
If investigated, the researcher has the added
limitation of depending on material which may have
been excavated, recorded, or published partially
or incorrectly. Unfortunately, publication quality
of results is not equal across all sites. This could
understandably reflect the date of some excavations
and publications, a number of which are over a
century old. Many are also only preliminarily or
incompletely published, some with little information
concerning specific details on artefacts’ physical
characteristics or contexts. Scientific analyses that
could be beneficial for this study, such as those linked
to the identification of particular glass elements,
textiles, or plant and animal species, are also limited.
Therefore, new excavations as well as publications
of old, ongoing, and new archaeological and
historical research, will all potentially enhance and
refine the observations of this contribution. Our own
understanding of the impact of cultural encounters
during the Second Millennium BC can thus only
benefit from this continued transformation and
transmission of knowledge.
24 Chapter 1
 Cultural Encounters and Transformations
2. Cultural Encounters and Transformations
2.1 Introduction
Cultural encounters, whether direct or indirect,
are almost always dynamic and complex. Any
conceptualisation of the nuances of such interactions,
however, must begin with an understanding of the
involved entities and their repertoires, both abstract
and material. The latter could be expressions,
catalysts and outcomes of dynamic and multifaceted
processes. This concept, however, was only fully
appreciated in the late Twentieth Century. In
response, a plethora of terminologies and approaches
have been utilised to further perception of the nature,
impetus and impact of intercultural relations, the
most pertinent of which are briefly presented below.
It should be noted that these include what have
been much debated and contested concepts, some
of which developed from negative connotations.
Other theories more specifically concerned with
developments of particular cultural elements, such as
language, religion, or technology, are mentioned in
relevant sections of Chapters 3, 4 and 5.
2.2 Identifying Ancient Cultures and
Identities
Most pertinent in a study on cross-cultural influences
is an understanding of the concept of culture itself.
The emergence of the study of anthropology in the
Nineteenth Century witnessed various attempts at
defining ‘culture’, all of which were highly influenced
by the Darwinist paradigms of the time. In his preface
to Culture and Anarchy, late Nineteenth Century critic
M. Arnold defined culture as ‘the best which has been
thought and said in the world’, consequently leading
to conceptions of a ‘high’ or ‘superior’ culture.1 His
contemporary E.B. Tylor went into further detail,
describing culture as ‘that complex whole which
includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom,
and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man
as a member of society’.2 His seminal study formed
the basis of many subsequent anthropological works
due to its analysis of culture as a learned, shared and
social experience that was not based on biological
traits.3 Towards the early Twentieth Century, Boas
took this concept further, arguing that cultural
practices could only be understood in their specific
contexts rather than in broad evolutionary trends;
1 M. A rnold 1869. For more, see Stocking 1963; Aveling
2008, 156.
2 E.B. Tylor 1871, 1. For more, see Stocking 1963; 1968a;
1987, 301–302; Fortes 1969, 12–14; Moore 2004, 5–17.
3 E.B. Tylor 1871; Beattie 1964; Stocking 1995; Aveling
2008, 156.
25
each culture developed according to its own values
and priorities, and as such should not be construed as
‘superior’ or ‘primitive’ to another.4
In defining culture, anthropologists and sociologists
discussed its manifestations. They offered the study
of such elements as art, artefacts and language as a
possible means to help establish the links between
symbolic forms, social connections and cultural
contexts.5 Aligning with anthropological definitions
of culture in the late Nineteenth Century was the
culture-historical approach to archaeology. This
identified artefact assemblages from a group of sites
as markers for a particular culture (i.e. the ‘pots
equal people’ approach).6 A history of a cultural
group could thus be formulated via the examination
of its chronology and geographic spread, with
developments linked to processes of invention
(creating an innovation from a novel idea), diffusion
(the process of transmitting inventions from one
culture to another), migration (the movement of
people from one area to another), or conquest.7 This
methodology was popularised by Childe8 and refined
by Boas, who stressed the importance of relying on
empirical data (including artefacts, assemblages,
artistic styles, settlement patterns, funerary practices)
and its comparative analysis across space and time.9
Based on this approach, a cultural group would
largely manifest homogenous markers. Elements
typically associated with another culture would thus
signify the presence of foreigners and/or trade. In
Egyptology, the influences of culture-history are best
observed in Petrie’s work on Predynastic Egypt and
his pioneering contributions to seriation.10
4 Boas 1920; 1966. For more on his works and contribution
to theories of ‘cultural relativism’, see Stocking 1968b;
1992, 162–164; Lewis 1998; Moore 2004, 33–47; M.F.
Brown 2008.
5 See A.L. K roeber and K luckhohn 1952; Beattie 1964;
Pouwer 1968; Swidler 1986; Brumann 2002, 509–510;
Silverstein 2004.
6 For a discussion on culture-historical archaeology, see
Heine-Geldern 1964; Trigger 2006, 211–313. See also
Schmidt 1939.
7 H atch 1973; Michaels 1996. For more on diffusion and
migration, see Chapter 2.3.2–3.
8 Childe 1925; 1935; 1936; 1950a; Tringham 1983; M.E.
Smith 2009.
9 Stocking 1968b; Boas 1989; Michaels 1996, 162;
Erickson and Murphy 2013.
10 Petrie 1901a; 1901b, 4–12, 45–49. See also Liszka 2012,
43.
26 Chapter 2
The approach’s reliance on a static nature of culture
was largely rejected by proponents of the processual
school, who instead maintained that culture was
multidimensional.11 Cultural developments were
thereby outcomes of a variety of multifaceted
factors, their study made possible by assessing the
role of cultural manifestations rather than only the
quantitative and qualitative shifts in material culture.
Even-Zohar, for instance, describes culture as ‘a
heterogeneous set of parameters, with the help of
which human beings organize their life’.12 He finds
two major concepts of culture: (1) ‘culture-as-goods’,
material or semiotic artefacts that signify status
and wealth, the nature of which shifts according to
social and domestic dynamics; and (2) ‘culture-as-
tools’, a set of tools essential for the organisation and
cohesion of collective and individual life, including
norms, skills, values and views.13 As proposed, some
‘goods’ could be converted into ‘tools’, the combined
‘cultural repertoire’ contributing to the establishment
of a collective identity.14 The introduction of a new
repertoire could then cause instability or be met
with resistance, particularly if imported from other
cultural entities.15 As such, those incorporated into the
repertoire are likely to be transferred as ‘goods’ then
translated into ‘tools’.16 The degree and trajectory of
transfer are accordingly based on whether the goods
fill particular functions previously absent in the
targeted group, as well as the willingness of this group
to receive them.17 Although Even-Zohar’s research
stems from literary translation methods, his studies
on culture offer valuable insight into inter- and intra-
cultural relations, further explored in Chapter 2.3.14.
His approach to culture embraces its heterogeneity and
utilisation in the organisation of life. It is, however,
but one definition amongst many, with currently no
scholarly agreement on the nature of culture,18 perhaps
a reflection in itself of its complexity.19 Nonetheless,
overall, many support the persistence of the following
characteristics of culture:20
11 See S. Jones 1997, 106–110; Binford 1965; Hodder 1978;
K amp and Yoffee 1980, 94–95; Shennan 2000, 811–812;
Even-Zohar 2010.
12 Even-Zohar 2010, 38.
13 Even-Zohar 2000, 389–396; 2010, 9–14. See also
Swidler 1986.
14 Even-Zohar 2000, 389–396; 2010, 9–14, 71–76.
15 Even-Zohar 2010, 73–74.
16 Even-Zohar 2010, 13–14, 72–76.
17 Even-Zohar 2010, 72–76.
18 A pte 1994, 2001; Ferraro 2002, 19.
19 For more on cultural complexity, see Eriksen 2015.
20 See Schein 1984; 1990; Hofstede 1994, 5–10; M atsumoto
1996, 16–22; Avruch 1998, 5–20; Lustig and Koester
1999, 31–32; Ferraro 2002, 18–41; Spencer-Oatey 2008,
3; Even-Zohar 2010.
• it includes a set of basic assumptions, beliefs, values
and behaviours;
• it is learned but not inherited, and shared among a
group of people;
• it can be both an individual and social construct, and
as such ‘it is not perfectly shared by individuals in a
population’,21 but rather it is causal and can display a
non-uniform distribution;
• it manifests itself in both tangible and intangible
forms, such as observable artefacts (for instance,
objects, architecture, technology, dress, art, and
languages), assumptions and values; and
• it is subject to change, either as a result of internal
forces, such as invention or discovery, and/or external
forces, such as import.
The identification of ‘Egyptian culture’ is thus
determined by these characteristics, with its dynamism
and subjectivity to change being of utmost pertinence
for this study.
Of further importance is the identification or identity
of the carriers of a culture, or the agents of cultural
encounters. In recent years, studies on complex
societies have called for an increased acknowledgement
of the multifaceted nature of identity. Hall discusses
the concept of social identity as one that incorporates
the knowledge and significance of attachment to a
social group.22 Such an identity can include many
elements, including ethnicity, gender, age, sexuality,
class, and profession.23 For all, the concept of shared
characteristics that lead to ‘membership’ to a group, as
well as the idea of difference, are essential.
Investigations into social identity emerged in the
field of philosophy during the Eighteenth Century, and
became prominent in social psychology and sociology
in the mid-Twentieth Century.24 As with discourse on
culture, early anthropological research viewed social
identity as fixed and stable. This mirrored approaches
to ethnic identity, with the ‘primordial school’
viewing ethnicity as a social bond characterised by
inherent biological and psychological ties that are
bounded by kinship, religion, language, custom, and
territory.25 Accordingly, one’s ethnic identity would
be static and uniform, allowing anthropologists and
archaeologists to define a culture-history of a bound
ethnic unit based on a fixed artefact assemblage, with
its presence, diffusion or disappearance observable
across time and space.26
However, as the culture-historical approach was
rejected, so was the approach to an immutable social
identity, including ethnicity, criticised for its failure to
21 Avruch 1998, 18–20.
22 As cited in K napp 2008, 31.
23 Stein 2002, 905; K napp 2008, 31.
24 K napp 2008, 32. See also Erikson 1950.
25 See Shils 1957; Geertz 1963.
26 See Shils 1957; Geertz 1963.
 Cultural Encounters and Transformations
account for change and personal agency.27 Accordingly,
the impact of socio-political contexts in the formation
and manipulation of one’s self-expression was
stressed, recognising dispersed and multidimensional
identities.28 As Stein writes, aspects of one’s identity
are ‘overlapping, contextually dependent, continually
renegotiated, and subject to change’.29 It arises from
an individual’s complex encounters with social
groups, and incorporates one’s changing conception
of a group’s shared norms and values, as well as the
ways in which an individual or group is distinguished
from another.30 As more than one group operates on
various levels of civilisation, such as national, religious
or occupational, individuals continually renegotiate
their affiliations, often maintaining multiple or new
identities.31 In regards to ethnicity, for instance, the
‘instrumentalist’ or processual approach argues that
ethnic identity is mutable, dynamic and diachronically
influenced by economic, social, political, and cultural
contexts.32 Individuals could thus display, develop or
manipulate aspects of their ethnic identity, exhibiting
‘situational ethnicity’ in response to internal and
external developments.33 As Barth outlines, ethnicity
is not determined by biological or genetic factors.34
Due to this mutable and fluid nature, some contend
that identity cannot be viably used in analysing
the past.35 Processual archaeologists have even
conjectured the validity of searching for specific
groups in ancient material remains and sites.36 Others
also argue that the search is more a reflection of
modern, western understandings of society and
the self.37 However, as an important aspect of social
identity is the attachment to a social group, the
identification of group ties and relations could help
shed light on the general characteristics of an identity.38
27 See S. Jones 1997, 15–29; S.T. Smith 2003a, 14–15; Lucy
2005, 86, 88, 91.
28 As summarised in K napp 2008, 32. See also Rowlands
1982.
29 Stein 2002, 905. For similar views, see Meskell and
Preucel 2004; Chenoweth 2009, 320. See also Padilla
and Perez 2003, 42–43.
30 Stein 2002, 905; M eskell 2002, 279–280; K napp 2008,
32–33.
31 K napp 2008, 32–33.
32 Barth 1969; A. Cohen 1974; Eller and Coughlan 1993;
Hutchinson and Smith 1996, 8; S. Jones 1997, 68–79;
Voss 2008, 27.
33 S.T. Smith 2003a, 17; Lucy 2005, 96; Jenkins 2008, 17–
27; K napp 2008, 37.
34 Barth 1969, 10–13.
35 H andler 1994; Brubaker and F. Cooper 2000; K napp
2008, 32.
36 Bursche 1996. For more, see S. Jones 1997, 124.
37 H andler 1994; K napp 2008, 32.
38 S. Jones 1997, 72–79; S.T. Smith 2003a, 6, 17–19; Lucy
2005, 96–97; A. Wimmer 2013, 1–2. See also González-
Ruibal 2011, 245–247.
27
This, together with the idea of difference, or the
boundaries that are conceived to distinguish one group
from another, can thereby be assessed to ‘recognize
practices shared between individual people, social
groups or ideals, and thus to make certain statements
about social identity’.39 Several have asserted that such
affiliations between an individual and a social group
can indeed be observed in its material remains.40 This
has been demonstrated in numerous studies examining
aspects of ancient social identity, such as ethnicity,
gender, class, or profession.41
The degrees to which such an approach can be
applied to the material culture vary according to
the quality of the preserved evidence. However,
acknowledging the complexities of social identity
can help discern multiple perspectives on the
nature of and shifts in material culture, or cultural
repertoires, manifested by both individuals and
collectives. In turn, adopting a more active view of
the archaeological record can assist in analysing the
dynamic and reciprocal influences between socio-
political, environmental, and cultural developments,
and social identity.42
Taking ethnic identity as an example, the
postprocessual approach favours a fusion of
elements of the primordial and processual concepts,
appreciating ethnicity’s multidimensional, dynamic
and subjective nature while observing implied
common traits or ethnic markers that are manifested
to varying degrees.43 Hutchinson and Smith, for
instance, propose a minimalist approach to observe
ethnicity via the interpretation of such markers
as a common name, a myth of common ancestry,
shared historical memories, common cultural
elements, a link with a homeland, and a sense of
solidarity.44 Archaeologists and anthropologists have
also demonstrated that ethnicity’s implied cultural
elements are not randomly deposited in socio-
historical contexts, and so the nature, function and
context of traits related to ritual custom, funerary
belief, culinary practices, foreign dress, and private
and communal architecture could be analysed to
39 K napp 2008, 35. See also Chenoweth 2009, 336–337.
40 Routledge 2000, 63–64; Stein 2002, 905. See also
J.D. Rogers 1993; C.M. Roberts 2011.
41 K napp 2008, 33–34. See, for example, K amp and Yoffee
1980; S.T. Smith 2003a; K anawati and Woods 2009;
Liszka 2012; Saretta 2016. See also the variety of
articles in S.L. James and Dillon 2012; McInerney 2014.
42 As also proposed in A mundsen-Meyer 2011, 1–2.
43 For example, S. Jones (1997) describes ethnic groups
as self-defining while ethnicity itself is situational, and
Royce (1982) argues for an instrumental ethnicity that is
consistent with its cultural context. See also A.D. Smith
1981; Hutchinson and Smith 1996, 9–10; Fearon 2003;
Lucy 2005; González-Ruibal 2011, 265; A. Wimmer
2013, 1–3, 7.
44 Hutchinson and Smith 1996, 6–7. See also Dever 2007, 53.
28 Chapter 2
determine aspects of ancient ethnic groups and
identities.45
Determining agency and activity, or ‘the self-
conscious use of specific cultural features as
identifying markers’46 would further help distinguish
these traits. Knapp discusses the advantages of
identifying habitual, non-binding practices and
representations in the material culture, or habitus,
to ascertain possible links to a social group such as
one defined by ethnicity.47 Based on the essential idea
of difference through which a group defines itself, it
is argued that individuals and groups express their
identity more noticeably when in close contact with
others.48 As such, areas and periods of intensified
intercultural contact could bear more conspicuous
markers of social group identity, including ethnicity.49
As the following section shows, such areas and
periods were also foci for heightened knowledge
exchange as well as socio-cultural transformations.
The links binding social groups are closely interwoven
with the spatial (‘horizontal’) and temporal (‘vertical’)
transmission of specific knowledge, such as that related
to cultural characteristics, geography, economy,
politics, or skilled crafts.50 This greatly facilitates the
adoption and adaptation of innovations or transfers
from one cultural repertoire to another.
2.3 Cultural Encounters, Cultural Mixing,
and Cultural Transformation
Processes of transfer have been explored via several
different approaches. Some favour a large-scale
relational perspective, and others a smaller-scale
individual- or group-based perspective. In assessing
the influences of Egyptian-Near Eastern relations on
Egypt, both have the potential to provide insights on
the mechanisms of transformation. To help define this
multiscalar approach further, the following examines
some of the most prominent theories utilised in studies
45 Hutchinson and Smith 1996, 6–7. See also McGuire 1982;
Santley, Yarborough and B. H all 1987; Emberling
1997; S.T. Smith 2003a, 6–7, 32–53; Dever 2007, 52–53;
Bietak 2010b, 153; Liszka 2012, 58–59; Faust 2016.
46 Shennan 1989, 16; K napp 2008, 40.
47 K napp 2008, 41–48. For more on habitus, see S.T. Smith
2003a, 17–19.
48 K amp and Yoffee 1980, 96–97; S. Jones 1997, 109–110,
113, 124–125; Routledge 2000, 63–64; S.T. Smith 2003a,
17–19; T. Schneider 2003b; 2010b, 143–144, 146; K napp
2008, 43–44; González-Ruibal 2011, 262–265; Liszka
2012, 52–53; A. Wimmer 2013, 1–3.
49 S. Jones 1997, 96; S.T. Smith 2003a, 2, 6; Liszka 2012,
52–53.
50 For more on the transfer of elements linked with culture,
see, with references, Antos 2001; Eisenberg 2003;
Musner 2005; Greenblatt 2009; Wendland 2012;
Lüsebrink 2012; Rossini and Toggweiler 2014; Beck
2019.
exploring the nature and impact of cultural encounters
and exchanges, particularly those of the ancient world.
The first five concern transfers and connectivity over
vast spaces (the world-systems approach, diffusionism,
migration, trade diasporas and ports of trade, and
transnationalism). These are followed by an overview
of nine other processes that have been proposed
as outcomes of cultural encounters (acculturation,
appropriation, creolisation, hybridisation, mestizaje,
cultural entanglement, bilingualism, the ‘Middle
Ground’, and cultural interference), with one further
process that is perceived to take place across time in
both local and transregional spaces (transculturation).
The selection is not exhaustive nor in-depth; it is
intended to showcase the various perspectives that
have been applied to explore cultural encounters,
cultural mixing, and cultural transformations, and
to provide how the terms are used throughout this
analysis. Each has its advantages and shortcomings,
depending on definition and application.
2.3.1 World-Systems Approach
In the 1970s, Wallerstein conceived the world-
systems approach to understand patterns of power
and domination.51 Proposed as a framework and
not a theory, the approach relies on the existence of
three major systems in society: culture, politics, and
the economy.52 The cultural sphere operates within a
single system, while the political and economic spheres
characterise larger world-systems with extensive and
hierarchical labour divisions.53 Each world-system is
composed of an exchange network with competing
polities that eventually form two distinct zones: the
‘core’, and the ‘periphery’.54 The model assumes
core dominance of the periphery, core control of an
asymmetric exchange system, and the pivotal role of
trade in structuring the periphery’s social development
and political economy.55 According to the approach,
the core is highly developed, with diverse economies
that manufacture high-value items for consumption by
both the core and the periphery, the latter providing
the core with raw materials.56 Due to the unequal
distribution of social and economic complexity, the
periphery can often modify its own organisation to
meet the demands of the core.57 The system may also
51 Wallerstein 1974a; 1974b.
52 Wallerstein writes that the three derive from
anthropological concepts outlined by Polanyi, namely
reciprocity (the cultural), redistribution (the political)
and exchange (the economic). Wallerstein 1974a, 347;
Babones 2015, 5.
53 Babones 2015, 5–6.
54 Wallerstein 1974a; Hopkins and Wallerstein 1982;
Stein 2002, 904.
55 Stein 2002, 904; Flammini 2008, 50.
56 Wallerstein 1974a, 349; Babones 2015, 8–9.
57 A. Sherratt and S. Sherratt 1991, 355; S. Cohen 2009,
70.
 Cultural Encounters and Transformations
include a ‘semi-periphery’, or a stronger entity with
higher levels of political control than the periphery;
it is one that serves the interests of economic elites
and, as such, can feature often violent competition
for economic control.58 Areas not integrated into this
world-system and its trading networks are considered
‘external arenas’.59 The system is thereby delineated by
economic borders.60
Due to its insights into power and trade,
archaeologists and historians have applied the
world-systems approach to enhance understanding
of interregional contacts.61 Cores are accordingly
identified with regions bearing the earliest and/or
more advanced or complex practices, artefacts or
features, often with the highest frequency, while
peripheries are regions where such elements appear
later, underdeveloped or in smaller quantities.62 The
core dominates the periphery in a hierarchical and
asymmetric exchange system. As the influence of the
core on the periphery and the ‘spread’ of ideas and
innovations aligns with diffusionism (Chapter 2.3.2),
the models have been utilised to temporally and
spatially plot the distribution of traits and artefacts.63
However, the world-systems approach allows for
a more complex flow of interregional influences
and social developments, taking into account the
impact of economic and commercial relations and
hierarchical power dynamics.
Yet, as many have highlighted, the classical world-
systems approach proposed by Wallerstein reduces
the importance of internal dynamics, especially
local agency and local economies at the periphery.64
It also insinuates a mainly unidirectional flow of
influences, the impact of the periphery on the core
largely neglected as the core is the initiator from
whence social change would spread.65 In response
to such critiques, Chase-Dunn and T.D. Hall
offered a revision of the world-systems approach
that emphasises the importance of interaction for
change.66 Interregional contact could entail exchange
in prestige goods, political symbolism, warfare, and
political security.67 Core dominance and the unequal
58 Wallerstein 1974a, 349–350; 1974b, 403–405; 1979, 72;
Babones 2015, 8–10.
59 Wallerstein 1974a, 301–344; Babones 2015, 10.
60 See Babones 2015, 10.
61 However, Babones (2015, 16) notes that ‘there is only one
world-system that can effectively be studied in detail, the
modern world-economy’.
62 McGuire 2000, 132.
63 McGuire 2000, 133.
64 See Lane 1976; S. Stern 1988; Dietler 1998; Stein 2002,
904.
65 See also McGuire 2000, 135.
66 Chase-Dunn and T.D. H all 1993. See also Chase-Dunn
and Grimes 1995.
67 Chase-Dunn and T.D. H all 1993, 856, 862–863; Stein
2002, 904. See also Rowlands 1987.
29
division of labour between core and periphery are
not necessary, and the semi-periphery could act as
mediator, geographically located between the two.68
Units within the world-system could thus embody
different levels of social complexity in a core-
periphery differentiation model. They could also
exhibit a core-periphery hierarchy for which three
preconditions should be proven to exist: exploitation,
domination, and unequal exchange.69 Kohl added
that multiple cores could co-exist, the periphery
also able to initiate technological developments.70
This coincides with Even-Zohar’s polysystem theory
wherein core-periphery relations involve a series of
oppositions but with one dominating centre.71
As the world-systems approach has been modified,
archaeologists and historians have applied a revised
model in their investigations on ancient Egypt and
the Near East.72 Algaze, for instance, employs it
in his study of the Fourth Millennium BC spread
of the Mesopotamian Uruk culture, arguing for
its identification as an early example of economic
imperialism but positing decreased domination with
increasing distance from the core.73 Flammini uses
the world-systems approach to investigate Egyptian-
Nubian relations in the Middle Kingdom, identifying
Egypt as the core, Lower Nubia as semi-periphery
and Kerma as periphery.74 She also proposes Egypt
as core in the early Second Millennium BC, with
Kerma and Byblos as part of the periphery.75
S. Cohen similarly recognises Egypt as core in an
early MBA world-system that integrates regions in
the Southern Levant and Nubia as periphery.76 This
larger core-periphery differentiation system more
readily explains the lack of Egyptian interest in the
Southern Levant in the early Middle Kingdom, the
Twelfth Dynasty kings only directing focus on the
Southern Levant once their control over Nubia’s
resources was established and maintained.77 Yet,
based on its implied importance of interaction for
change, adhering to the world-systems approach
68 T.D. H all and Chase-Dunn 2006, 35.
69 Chase-Dunn and T.D. H all 1991, 8.
70 Kohl 1987a, 20–21; 1987b.
71 Even-Zohar 1990, 88.
72 As an alternative to the core-periphery approach, the
‘peer-polity’ model has also been proposed, wherein
internal interactions within a region are more significant
to culture change than external links. See R enfrew
1986a; McGuire 2000, 136.
73 A lgaze 1993; 2001. For a revision of these findings, see
Stein 1999; 2002, 909–912. For an opposing view, see
Rothman 2001. See also Flammini 2008, 51.
74 Flammini 2008, 51; 2020a; 2020b. See also S.T. Smith
1998; 2003a, 58–60.
75 Flammini 2011; 2020a; 2020b.
76 S. Cohen 2002; 2009; 2012; 2015; 2016. See also T. Levy
and van den Brink 2002.
77 S. Cohen 2012, 6–7; 2015, 256; 2016, 47–50, 86–90.
30 Chapter 2
would infer a link between the urban development of
Southern Levantine sites and Egypt. This is indeed
affirmed by S. Cohen, who finds a ‘removed core
presence’ in the early MBA with influences that
were limited enough to allow the development of
‘significant self-sufficiency and organization’ in the
periphery.78 That is, the near absence of Egyptian
interaction contributed to urban development in the
Southern Levant.
The benefits of applying this approach are clearly
reflected by these insights. However, as S. Cohen
notes, the scale of this world-system is not clearly
delineated, nor are its boundaries or the borders of its
entities.79 The approach can also limit the importance
of interregional dynamics, including the possibility of
other polities or peoples influencing the development
of a ‘peripheral’ zone such as the Southern Levant.80
Indeed, core and periphery boundaries, particularly
in ancient societies, are often difficult to ascertain,
particularly if dynamic cultural encounters and
movements are occurring. The model also focusses
little on the formation of relations between units across
space and time, and over-emphasises the significance
of economic exchange and organisation as motivators
for change.81 It further generalises power dynamics,
forms of maintaining interests with other entities,
as well as forms of reacting to such interests (or the
lack thereof).82 In essence, as Stein writes, ‘the
modified world systems perspective continues to
minimize the roles of agency and internal dynamics in
peripheries since the cause of change is always situated
somewhere on the outside’.83 So, despite its usefulness
in understanding power dynamics in commercial
and economic relations, the world-systems approach
cannot completely clarify all aspects of multifaceted
and varied intercultural encounters.
78 S. Cohen 2016, 47–50, 86–90.
79 S. Cohen (2016, 16–20) does, however, note the importance
of examining such boundary zones for evidence of change.
Babones (2015, 16) questions ‘whether or not there are even
any really robust data for periods before 1970’.
80 S. Cohen 2016, 7, 47–48. As S. Cohen emphasises in
one publication, the goal of applying the world-systems
approach with Egypt as core is to ‘undertake a diachronic
comparison of urban development in a peripheral region
in order to assess the effects of a strong core presence
vs. the lack of intrusive core activity in that region’
(S. Cohen 2016, 47). However, it remains unclear whether
and how the political and economic shifts in Egypt’s First
Intermediate Period affected its status as ‘core’ and if this
impacted the power dynamics of the proposed world-system.
81 This is also pointed out in McGuire 2000, 136.
82 For instance, in reference to indigenous peoples’ responses
to colonial encounters in the Americas, Liebmann and
Murphy (2010, 4) list ‘cooperation, compliance, collusion,
mimicry, mockery, ambivalence, flight, feigned ignorance,
dissimulation, and a host of other calculated tactics’. See
also Lightfoot 2015, 9218–9219.
83 Stein 2002, 904–905.
2.3.2 Diffusionism
In exploring culture change and development, the
culture-historical approach incorporates the concept
of diffusionism. Responding to the evolutionary
frameworks dominating Nineteenth to early Twentieth
Century anthropology and archaeology,84 diffusionism
was conceived to refer to the processes through which
knowledge or concepts are communicated within
a specific social context over time.85 Essentially, it
accounts for the spread of ideas and information
from one cultural group and its adoption by another,
with origins of cultural traits thereby traceable by
determining this spread.86 In reference to the core-
periphery model, innovations and inventions originate
in the core and then spread or diffuse across time
and space to the periphery.87 Accordingly, diffusion
would be an essential catalyst for culture borrowing
or appropriation, and thus culture change,88 also
explaining cultural similarities between groups in
different zones.
Early Twentieth Century applications of diffusionism
ranged from the Kulturkreise89 or Nile-centric schools90
that generally identified all cultural traits as borrowed
from one culture (heliocentric diffusion) or a limited
number of cultural centres (culture circles), to others
that allowed independent development.91 Several
difficulties were soon encountered in applying diffusion
in anthropological and archaeological studies. These
include recognising diffusion mechanisms other than
the spread of people, understanding internal processes
to explain adoption, and specifying the presence and
effects of external influences on a cultural group.92 In
response, some have sought anthropological theories
like acculturation (Chapter 2.3.6), sociological concepts
like the world-systems approach (Chapter 2.3.1), or an
expansion of diffusionism itself to further clarify the
diffusion process.93
For instance, several criteria have been put forth
to identify diffusion in the archaeological record
as opposed to, for instance, trade, migration or
84 For an overview on the development of diffusionism, see
Schortman and Urban 1987, 40–43; Storey and Jones
2011, 7–15. See also D.D. Davis 1983, 56–60; Winthrop
1991, 82–85.
85 D.D. Davis 1983, 55.
86 E.M. Rogers 2003, 5–11; Trigger 2006, 211, 228.
87 Trigger 2006, 228.
88 Boas 1966, 251; Schortman and Urban 1987, 43; Trigger
2006, 211–313.
89 See, for example, Graebner 1903; 1911; Schmidt 1939.
90 See especially Perry 1923; 1924; G.E. Smith 1923.
91 See Boas 1937; 1938; N.C. Nelson 1938, 210–211. For a
recent consideration of Boas’s stance on diffusionism,
see Evans 2006.
92 See Schortman and Urban 1987, 45.
93 See Willey 1953; D.D. Davis 1983; Schortman and
Urban 1987, 45–62.
 Cultural Encounters and Transformations
independent innovation.94 In reference to interactions
between the Pacific Islands and the Americas, Storey
and Jones specify that the archaeological repertoire
must be examined to identify particular and fully
developed intrusive artefacts, styles or other cultural
elements.95 These elements must also be traced to
another contemporaneous cultural group in which
they emerged or transformed.96 This can be achieved
either by plotting the geographical distribution of these
traits, or through their comparative analysis. Evidence
for diffusion could also comprise a group of unrelated
innovations that occur in the same assemblage,
linguistic similarities between cultural groups, as well
as introduced plants and animal species.97
Once diffusion has been identified, D.D. Davis
recognises key elements that must be analysed in
order to apprehend its processes. These include:
(1) the nature and attributes of the entity that diffuses,
including its advantages, complexity, compatibility
and application; (2) the receptor(s), whose willingness,
prior knowledge, and accessibility affect the diffusion
process; (3) the channels of diffusion, including donors
whose extent of knowledge and expertise affects the
rate and degree of diffusion; and (4) the social context
in which diffusion takes place, including wealth,
social identities, relationships, organisation, and
aspects of homophily or ‘alikeness’.98 D.D. Davis also
highlights the impact of geography and geographic
boundaries on the rate and degree of diffusion,
citing geographers’ study of ‘distance decay’ or the
‘neighbourhood effect’ wherein diffusion decreases
with distance from its source.99 Similar to such a
methodology in studying diffusion, several models
have been proposed to empirically measure the
spatial diffusion of stylistic traits, most incorporating
the variables of function, channels of diffusion,
and social context.100 Such models, however, do not
explain all aspects of culture change.
In fact, the application of diffusion in archaeology has,
as Trigger notes, been largely mechanical, so much so
that diffusion has been described as a ‘nonexplanation’.101
Many have neglected diffusion’s major shortcoming in
explaining the internal dynamics of change, how and
why culture change occurs, or why particular traits are
adopted and others are not.102 The distinction between
the awareness of a trait, its use, and then its adoption,
94 Storey and Jones 2011, 20. See also Burmeister 2000,
540.
95 See I. Rouse 1958, 63–68; M eggers 1975, 1–27; Storey
and Jones 2011, 21.
96 K elley 1971; M eggers 1975; Storey and Jones 2011, 21.
97 K elley 1971; M eggers 1975; R. Rouse 2002, 63–68;
Storey and Jones 2011, 21–22.
98 D.D. Davis 1983.
99 D.D. Davis 1983, 65.
100 For an overview, see D.D. Davis 1983, 79–83.
101 Schortman and Urban 1987, 47.
102 As also pointed out in Schortman and Urban 1987, 45.
31
is largely neglected, with the focus on awareness
commonly emphasised.103 Furthermore, archaeologists
have tended to focus on unilinear diffusion, failing to
recognise the effects of consistent interactions on all
involved entities. Nevertheless, the process of diffusion
should not be abandoned altogether as an element of
explanation of culture change;104 instead it is better to
use it as one of many possible macro processes through
which transformations can occur.
2.3.3 Migration
While diffusionism seeks to explain the movement
of ideas, knowledge or objects within a social context
over time, migration can be defined as the movement
typically performed by defined groups with set goals,
travelling to known destinations usually via familiar
routes.105 This movement is influenced by social
organisation, kinship ties, transportation modes, and
knowledge access.106 Early studies into European
prehistory incorporated the migration model, often
based on and combined with diffusionism, to explore
culture change.107 In the first half of the Twentieth
Century, various methodologies were proposed for
its identification in the archaeological record but, as
D. Anthony notes, these neglected the exploration of
the mechanisms influencing migration.108 With the
advent of processual studies, the study of migration
was largely abandoned due to its employment in
evolutionary history and culture history, but it was later
reinvigorated by postprocessualists of the late Twentieth
Century, who recognised its links to behavioural,
social and cultural changes, as well as its significance
in studies of demography and population.109
Responding to what has been described as
‘inadequate’ archaeological research into migration,110
new discourse has consequently emerged on its
applications to archaeology. D. Anthony, for instance,
called for a better understanding of migration as a
process that recognises return migration and the
patterned structure of migratory events.111 The latter
includes an exploration of (a) the push factors under
which migration occurs, such as economic, social,
environmental or political stresses, as well as forced
migration by a dominant authority, and (b) the pull
103 See Eliason and Goldman 2003, 12.
104 See Shennan 2000, 813, 823.
105 D. Anthony 1990, 895–896.
106 D. Anthony 1990, 895–896; K napp 2008, 47.
107 Childe 1925; 1950; D. Anthony 1990, 896; H ackenbeck
2008, 12–13.
108 D. Anthony 1990, 896; H ackenbeck 2008, 12–13. See
also H aury 1958; I. Rouse 1958.
109 Bettinger and Baumhoff 1982; D. Anthony 1990, 896–
897; Burmeister 2000, 539–540; H ackenbeck 2008,
14–16; Bellwood 2013. For its various approaches by the
different disciplines of sociology, demography, history,
and anthropology, see K napp 2008, 47–51.
110 Burmeister 2000, 552; Bader 2012, 214.
111 D. Anthony 1990, 897–899.
32
factors, including transportation costs and knowledge
of routes, access to information about potential
destinations, vocational opportunities, and the
presence of kin at these destinations.112 Migration is
also more likely to occur with increased intercultural
encounters, in ‘streams’ rather than ‘waves’, initially
by young males, and typically by individuals with
kinship linkages.113
Accordingly, the archaeological visibility of
migration can also vary. If occurring in ‘streams’,
patterns in artefact types and settlement structure may
point to enclaves of migrant communities.114 Domestic
pottery and residential architecture, for instance, have
been put forward as possible archaeological reflections
of migrant behaviour.115 Return migration may be
observed through investments in prestige goods or
land at the point of origin of those who had migrated.116
Bioarchaeological methods investigating the isotope
levels of skeletal samples (particularly teeth) can also
clarify population movements for microtheoretical
approaches to migration, with a focus on individuals
and/or small social units, as well as macrotheoretical
approaches, with a focus on larger social units.117 If
the process forces both migrants and local inhabitants
to reassess their personal and collective identities,118
then migration may additionally be observable
through studies of shifts in the expression of such
identities. In this case, changes can be illuminated by
investigating identity markers in the archaeological
record in combination with their synonymous textual
and artistic representations as well as anthropological
theories of identities. Such an approach has borne
fruitful insights in recent studies of Levantine and
Nubian populations in ancient Egypt.119 Therefore, the
assessment of migration in archaeology requires an
acknowledgement of the process itself, its structure,
and a careful scrutiny of its possible manifestation in
a variety of data types.120 Reliance on one type could
cause inconclusive or erroneous results, whereas
acknowledgement of other means for the movement
112 D. Anthony 1990, 897–899, fig. 1; Burmeister 2000,
543–544; K napp 2008, 49–50.
113 D. Anthony 1990, 900–905; Burmeister 2000, 543;
K napp 2008, 48–49.
114 K napp 2008, 52.
115 Such material culture, as Burmeister attests, is
representative of the private ‘internal domain’ as opposed
to the public ‘external domain’. Burmeister 2000, 540–
542, 553. See also Bader 2012, 214.
116 Cameron 1995, 116; K napp 2008, 52.
117 H ackenbeck 2008, 19; Bader 2012, 214. For the
microtheoretical and macrotheoretical approaches to
migration, see Burmeister 2000, 546; K napp 2008, 48.
118 Burmeister 2000, 545–546; Bernardini 2005, 35; K napp
2008, 48.
119 See, for instance, T. Schneider 2003a; Bietak 2010b;
Bader 2012; Liszka 2012; Mourad 2015; Priglinger 2019.
120 For a similar opinion, see Burmeister 2000, 553; K napp
2008, 52–53; Bader 2012, 224.
Chapter 2
of people and ideas could help delineate and further
refine the occurrence of migration. An example of the
latter is the possible existence of trade diasporas.
2.3.4 Trade Diasporas and Ports of Trade
A trade diaspora refers to a group of merchants
living in a new community for a prolonged period
of time during which they acquire cultural and
commercial skills to negotiate trade relations.121
A. Cohen was among the first to develop the concept
in his study on Hausa communities in Yoruba towns
of Nigeria, observing a trade diaspora as a network
bound by kinship, commercial relations and religion,
and based on economic organisation and social
interdependence.122 Others have since proposed that
such a diaspora is composed of spatially dispersed
groups, socially and culturally distinct from their host,
heterogeneous, communities.123 As the latter’s state
institutions cannot economically or physically secure
trade, the diaspora emerges to transfer knowledge and
maintain commercial links with members of the same
group but in other regions, effectively controlling all
or some aspects of trade in particular commodities.124
Some diaspora members could also immigrate to
centres along their trade routes to advance commercial
initiatives.125 Accordingly, the diaspora creates
a networked monopoly, forming and supporting
commercial ties between their host community and
external cultures and centres.126
Stein discusses three possible modalities for
power relations between the trade diaspora and host
community. The first, ‘diaspora marginality’, finds the
host community tolerating the diaspora as a marginal
and socially distinct group.127 The second, ‘diaspora
autonomy’, is when both communities negotiate their
status, with neither enforcing full control over the
other in a symmetric exchange system.128 The third,
‘diaspora dominance’, identifies the situation where the
diaspora controls the host, with asymmetric exchange
relations and economic inequalities (as in world-system
models, colonisation, and conquest), or following the
accumulation of wealth by the diaspora.129 R. Cohen
adds the ‘auxiliary diaspora’, which could emerge in
communities controlled by another dominant group,
the diaspora still able to continue some commercial
121 Curtin 1984, 1–3; Seland 2016, 125.
122 A. Cohen 1969; 1971, 266–281. See also R. Cohen 2008, 83.
123 Curtin 1984, 11–12; Stein 2002, 908.
124 Holladay 2001, 141–142; Stein 2002, 908; Seland 2016,
125–126.
125 Holladay 2001, 141–142; Stein 2002, 908.
126 Stein 2002, 908.
127 Stein 2002, 908.
128 Stein 2002, 909.
129 Curtin 1984, 12–13; Stein 2002, 909, 912; R. Cohen
2008, 84.
 Cultural Encounters and Transformations
autonomy.130 Each modality could be represented
by different levels of intercultural mixing. Curtin
proposes that some diasporas could, across the passage
of time, fully integrate into their host community,
while others may develop systems to maintain cultural
heritage and social identity, including ethnicity.131
The trade diaspora model should not be confused
with the ‘port of trade’ concept. Polanyi formulated
the latter to explain pre-modern economics, describing
the port of trade as a neutral zone (a town or small
state) where local authorities administered trade
between foreign and native merchants.132 It could
encompass reciprocity and redistribution with, for
instance, exotic products or information that served
to enhance the prestige and power of the local elite.133
This model has been utilised by Stager for his ‘port-
power’ paradigm to explain the increased economic
power of typically oligarchic merchants, protected by
local rulers, in the EBA and MBA Mediterranean.134
Stager identifies an integrated but hierarchical and
decentralised network composed of local village
clusters, often with marketing centres on established
trade routes, larger intermediate markets, and major,
economically powerful, seaports.135 This network is
bound by patron-client and trade-partner relationships
through which ports are able to funnel commodities
from the smaller villages to inland markets and other
coastal centres, each with its own social structure.136
Yet, as with the world-systems approach, the ‘port
of trade’ model is marked by the domination of the
port, or core, in economic exchange.137 In contrast,
the trade diaspora model focusses on the role of the
merchants themselves, especially as negotiators or
‘cross-cultural brokers’ for trade centres.138 It also
acknowledges the possibility of different power
relations, economic motivations, commercial trends,
and cultural interactions.139 The processes through
which culture change or continuity occur, however,
are not completely explored by the trade diaspora
structure. In fact, arguing for complete social, cultural
and political distinction from the host and/or other
trading groups simplifies the complexities of cultural
encounters.140 Nevertheless, the trade diaspora model
130 R. Cohen 2008, 84. R. Cohen bases this concept on
Tinker’s ‘imperial auxiliaries’ or ‘auxiliary minorities’
as found in Tinker 1977, 96–137.
131 Curtin 1984, 11; Holladay 2001, 142.
132 Polanyi 1963; 1975. See also Curtin 1984, 13–14;
Holladay 2001, 139–140; H alevi 2014, 33–34.
133 Polanyi 1975; Holladay 2001, 140. See also K napp 1998,
195.
134 Stager 2001; 2002, 360–361. See also S. Cohen 2009, 72.
135 Stager 2001; S. Cohen 2009, 72.
136 Stager 2001; S. Cohen 2009, 72.
137 S. Cohen 2009, 72.
138 Curtin 1984, 12, 103; Berdan 2000, 43; Holladay 2001,
140–141; H alevi 2014, 34.
139 Holladay 2001, 140–141; H alevi 2014, 34.
140 See H alevi 2014, 39, n. 40.
33
is useful as one of many possible heuristic paradigms
for the nature of intercultural commercial relations and
their organisation.
2.3.5 Transnationalism
Transnationalism may be loosely defined as the
sustained social existence, relations and formations
of individuals and groups across several cross-
border places or none.141 It was originally conceived
in relation to globalisation and economic theory,
which, however, focus on interactions between
state institutions, ‘international’ travel, and trade.142
Instead, transnationalism refers to ‘sustained linkages
and ongoing exchanges among non-state actors
based across national borders’.143 These include non-
government organisations, and groups of individuals
who share a variety of characteristics such as cultural
elements, religious ideologies, and geographic
origins.144 Accordingly, the study of transnationalism
incorporates the structure and nature of these
cross-border linkages and exchanges, the processes
contributing to their emergence and maintenance,
and their ensuing implications.145 Lionnet and Shih
also observe ‘minor transnationalism’ for relations
between ‘minority’ groups of transnationals that
occur within the same space.146
The acknowledgement of these transnationals in
cultural encounters offers an important perspective
on the role of agents, agency and identity in
interactions. Rouse notes that their ‘ways of living
are fundamentally distinct, involving quite different
attitudes and practices concerning the use of time
and space, the conduct of social relationships, and
the orchestration of appearances’.147 Such attitudes
take into account the transnationals’ identification
with multiple identities of, for instance, ethnicity
and culture, that are manifested by ‘a fluidity of
constructed styles, social institutions and everyday
practices’.148 In this regard, the manifestations
are related to transcultural processes or those of
creolisation, hybridisation, entanglement, cultural
interference and syncretism (see Chapter 2.3.8–15).149
141 Eriksen 2007, 172; Vertovec 2009, 2. For more on the
various approaches to transnationalism, see K earney
1995, 548; K hagram and Levitt 2008; Vertovec 2009,
4–26.
142 Vertovec 2009, 3. Bourne (1916) originally coined
the term in his argument for reasons to accommodate
immigrants in the United States of America. For more
on the term and its uses, see Frassinelli, Frenkel and
Watson 2011, 2–3.
143 Vertovec 2009, 3.
144 Vertovec 2009, 3.
145 Vertovec 2009, 3.
146 Lionnet and Shih 2005. See also Pratt 2009, 310; Fenkel
2011, 134.
147 R. Rouse 2002, 163. See also Leal 2011, 331.
148 Vertovec 2009, 7.
149 Vertovec 2009, 7.
34
They can also be linked to such phenomena as
migration, circular migration, and trade diasporas,
exhibiting the maintenance of kinship, economic
and commercial ties with migrants’ place of origin,
and a return or multiple travel to this origin (see
Chapter 2.3.3–4).150 In addition, they may be related
to the establishment of associations among migrants.
Religious organisations, for instance, may demonstrate
a reorientation of devotion for the migrant or diaspora
community and greater politicisation, often with
fundamental shifts in belief that transcend their place
of origin.151 Accordingly, transnationalism can also
help identify the agency and agents involved in the
knowledge transfer and religious transformations
accompanying the movement of people across borders.
Several scholars have argued that, although stemming
from modern occurrences, transnationalism is in fact an
old phenomenon.152 Individuals and groups have been
regularly traveling across great distances throughout
history, developing transnational relations and
exhibiting transnational processes of transformation.
However, if applying the concept of transnationalism
to the past, the term’s inclusion of ‘nation’ should
perhaps be understood as an entity delineated by
borders, whether ethnic, social, geographical, or
political. For example, in a study of transnationalism
in the early Iron Age, Pratt distinguishes this entity as
the collective ethnic identity of the Phoenicians that
spanned multiple city-states.153
It is also important to note that, while the study of
transnationalism emerged alongside globalisation, it
is not dependent on the latter. Instead, the occurrence
of globalisation brought an awareness of the processes
involved in the constant movement of people across
zones of difference. While such processes transpired
at different frequencies and to varying degrees
across history, globalisation has increased their
rate and occurrence, and expanded the types of
involved groups or institutions.154 In an overview of
transnationalism in the past, Howard notes the various
factors enabling transport and communication, the
nature of transnational relations (such as commercial,
political or marriage alliances), the routes linking
major centres of power and commerce, the main types
of groups frequenting such routes (such as religious
personnel, pilgrims, traders and soldiers), and the
specialised communities that emerged in response
to such transnationalism.155 The benefits of studying
150 Vertovec 2009, 13–21, 133–137. As Vertovec clarifies,
diasporas emerge from migration, and transnationalism
can comprise migration processes and diasporas; yet,
migration does not necessitate the formation of diasporas,
and diasporas need not develop transnationalism.
151 R. Cohen 2008, 154; Vertovec 2009, 152–153.
152 Portes 2003; Vertovec 2009, 3; Leal 2011, 330.
153 Pratt 2009, 311.
154 See Howard 2012, 3–4; Casinader 2017.
155 Howard 2011; 2012.
Chapter 2
transnationalism in the past have also been raised by
Müller, who identifies it as a key concept to further
understanding about the interests, relations, and
exchanges of Greek city-states.156 Moyer additionally
utilises its approach to assess the ‘transnational’ nature
of Isis and her worship in Isidorus’s Greek hymns by
analysing the literary aspects of the hymns as well as the
architectural layout of the Temple of Isis at Narmouthis,
Fayoum.157 The hymns’ inclusion of Greek and
Egyptian literary and religious traditions are explained
as a reflection of their ‘international’, or at least ‘trans-
regional’, reader, with the two showcasing the poet’s
attempts to ‘domesticate the transnational Isis into the
local temple at Narmouthis and its traditions’.158 Such
transnational aspects are thereby utilised to not only
explain the syncretistic characteristics of the deity
and her worship, but also the agency promoting the
creation of her hymns. While transnationalism, or
the term favoured here, transregionalisation, has only
begun to be incorporated into such studies on ancient
history, it can potentially provide broader insight on the
agents, agency and processes involved in regular and
non-state cross-border interactions and movements,
counterbalancing other theories that largely focus on
power and economy.
2.3.6 Acculturation
The process of acculturation has been approached with
varying definitions by a multitude of disciplines.159
Its earliest and most general was published by
anthropologists Redfield, Linton and Herskovits in the
1930s as ‘those phenomena which result when groups
of individuals having different cultures come into
continuous first-hand contact, with subsequent changes
in the original patterns of either or both groups’.160 The
article describes it as one aspect of culture change
that could include assimilation and diffusion.161
Contacts could be hostile or friendly, voluntary or
involuntary, and between groups of unequal degrees
of status as well as social, economic, political and/or
cultural complexity.162 The process of acculturation
incorporates (a) the selection of traits based on agency,
with the recognised influences of an individual’s social
identity, status, accessibility and experience; (b) the
determination of traits due to practical advantages,
desirability and immediacy; and (c) the integration
of traits as influenced by time, resistance, and degree
or method of transfer.163 The article concludes with
156 C. Müller 2016.
157 Moyer 2016.
158 Moyer 2016, 239.
159 For more on the term as well as its historiography, see
Cusick 1998.
160 R edfield, Linton and Herskovits 1936, 149; Guarnaccia
and H ausmann-Stabile 2016.
161 R edfield, Linton and Herskovits 1936, 149, 152.
162 R edfield, Linton and Herskovits 1936, 150–151.
163 R edfield, Linton and Herskovits 1936, 151–152.
 Cultural Encounters and Transformations
three main outcomes of acculturation: (1) acceptance,
wherein the former culture is mostly lost as the donor
culture is accepted, as in assimilation; (2) adaptation,
where both original and donor traits are combined,
reworked or reconciled; and (3) reaction, in which
acculturation is countered perhaps as compensation
due to the oppression of the recipient culture or an
established prestige of original cultural traits.164
Following this seminal study, anthropologists
expanded and modified the concept of acculturation.
Several, for instance, applied it to assess the cultural
impact of Western cultures on the indigenous and
African populations in the ‘New World’.165 In his
study on African and French cultural interactions in
Haiti, Herskovits contended that acculturation should
be integrated into analyses of cultural and historical
contexts to further comprehend the emergence of
new cultural wholes, such as the hybrid voodoo cult
he observed at Haiti.166 He described acculturation
as ‘diffusion “on the spot’’ ’,167 a tool to interpret
cultural contacts and their various outcomes. Other
anthropologists argued that acculturation exclusively
occurs between groups with ‘autonomous cultural
systems’, noting their adaptability to change.168
G.M. Foster proposed a dominant-subordinate
relationship for acculturation to take place,169 while
Teske and B.H. Nelson contended that the process is
dynamic and reciprocal, occurring as a group rather
than individual process that is to be distinguished
from assimilation.170
Opposing this view, Graves and Berry asserted
that individuals as well as groups can acculturate to
consistent interaction with a donor culture, changing
at both cultural and psychological levels.171 To
determine the latter developments, cultural contexts of
acculturation must be assessed. These include aspects
of the two original cultures, the two ethnocultural
groups, and the nature of their encounters.172 The
attitudes of a society as well as individuals towards
immigration, ethnic or cultural pluralism, and
maintaining heritage may influence the degree and rate
of acculturation, as do behaviours exhibited in day-
to-day contacts.173 According to these factors, Berry
distinguishes four different approaches or ‘strategies’
to acculturation, each with a different name depending
164 R edfield, Linton and Herskovits 1936, 152.
165 For an overview, see Leal 2011, 315–317.
166 Herskovits 1937; 1948. See also Guarnaccia and
H ausmann-Stabile 2016.
167 Herskovits 1948, 528, as quoted in Leal 2011, 317.
168 Barnett et al. 1954. See also Guarnaccia and H ausmann-
Stabile 2016.
169 G.M. Foster 1960, 10.
170 Teske and B.H. Nelson 1974. See also Guarnaccia and
H ausmann-Stabile 2016.
171 Graves 1967; Berry 1980; 2005; Berry et al. 1987.
172 Berry 2005, 702.
173 Berry 2005, 703–704. For a similar view, see Padilla
and Perez 2003, 37–41.
35
on which group is considered.174 If the so-called ‘non-
dominant’ group interacts and absorbs the traits of
the ‘dominant’ group, then assimilation takes place;
if the reverse is desired then ‘separation’ occurs.175
The non-dominant group’s maintenance of heritage
but involvement in intercultural relations leads to
‘integration’; but, if the group does not maintain
heritage or relations, ‘marginalisation’ emerges.176
Similarly, the dominant group’s strategies can exhibit
‘multiculturalism’ or a ‘melting pot’ in cases of
increased interactions, or ‘segregation’ and ‘exclusion’
if a policy of limited interaction is persevered.177 If
these experiences are problematic for an individual, as
in times of socio-cultural, environmental or political
shifts or strain, ‘acculturative stress’ is observed.178
Evidently, the changes occurring to a person’s
behavioural repertoire can encompass cultural
shedding, culture learning, and cultural conflict.179 A
person and/or group can consequently ‘adapt’ to the
acculturative process by exhibiting (a) assimilation,
first absorbing another culture’s material traits, then
changing public behaviours, private behaviours
and finally social identity, (b) integration or
accommodation, by immersing in both former and
new cultures and societies, (c) rejection of some or all
aspects of a new culture, or (d) deculturation, reverting
to the former cultural heritage and identity.180
Such an approach to acculturation takes into account
its multidimensional aspects and outcomes, as well
as an individual’s choice in the process. Changes to
social identity, including ethnicity, are incorporated,
explaining how the process could lead to identification
with one or more cultures or identities. The approach
also emphasises the importance of context, explaining
how entities can respond to specific circumstances
by adopting or exhibiting a particular identity.181
They also respond differently, with the possibility of
‘segmented’ assimilation or acculturation occurring
to a broader population or subgroup as, for instance,
in a family unit.182 In their attempts to assess such
multifaceted acculturation, Berry, together with
other psychologists, utilised various quantitative
and statistical measures,183 some of which aimed at
assessing the degree of ‘immersion’ by analysing
changes in language, interaction, food, and media.184
This methodology has since received several critiques,
174 Berry 2005, 704, fig. 3.
175 Berry 2005, 705, fig. 3.
176 Berry 2005, 705, fig. 3.
177 Berry 2005, 705–706, fig. 3.
178 Berry et al. 1987; Berry 2005, 706–708.
179 Berry 2005, 707–708. See also S.T. Smith 2003a, 19.
180 Berry 1980, 505.
181 See also Liszka 2012, 105.
182 Portes and Zhou 1993; Guarnaccia and H ausmann-
Stabile 2016, 122.
183 Berry et al. 1987; Stephenson 2000; Padilla and Perez
2003, 37–38; Zane and M ak 2003.
184 Stephenson 2000.
36
which have also noted a heavy reliance on a uniform,
unilineal, ahistorical, and acultural acculturation
process that doesn’t accurately incorporate its
complexity.185 The process also insinuates a top-
down, dominant to non-dominant, and unidirectional
acculturation process.186 Still, it is the model which
has most often been employed by archaeologists,
who have typically examined shifts in the presence
of artefacts from the dominant or donor culture in
assemblages of the non-dominant or recipient culture
to directly measure acculturation.187 The methodology
is thus similar to that used in diffusion, showcasing a
dependence on a unidirectional flow of material objects
linked with cultural traits.188 For instance, in regards to
the continued presence of Egyptians in Nubia during
the Eighteenth Dynasty, Säve-Soderbergh and Troy
observed a rapid acculturation of the Nubian elite class
by assessing the quantity and quality of grave goods
at Fadrus.189 The dominant culture in these encounters
remained the Egyptian, despite other power and group
dynamics which could have influenced the adoption
of Egyptian material traits. The Egyptian culture was
also the donor in T. Schneider’s assessment of textual
representations of Asiatics in Middle Kingdom and
Second Intermediate Period Egypt, with shifts in their
portrayal explained by the process of acculturation.190
While significant in understanding the nature of such
representations, T. Schneider’s study also attributes
the preservation of non-Egyptian elements as relics
or symbolic ethnicity, supporting a more unilineal
approach to acculturation.191
However, as previous and recent studies on
acculturation note, the process is not uniform,
unidirectional or unilineal. Guarnacci and Hausmann
-Stabile propose to approach acculturation as
a multidimensional process in a multicultural
context that comprises both enculturation (wherein
individuals, families and communities learn and
maintain their cultural traits) and assimilation
(wherein entities adopt cultural features from a new,
often socially or politically dominant, population).192
According to changing social contexts, acculturation
can occur at various stages, to several extents and to
multiple directions.193 Studies into the process should
incorporate the emergence of new or mixed cultural
traits and practices, temporal and spatial variations,
185 See Stein 2002, 905; Padilla and Perez 2003, 50; Zane
and M ak 2003, 42; Chirkov 2009; Guarnaccia and
H ausmann-Stabile 2016, 115.
186 See, for instance, the remarks of Stein 2002, 905;
Lightfoot 2015, 9220.
187 See Stein 2002, 905.
188 For more on the ‘flaws in acculturative models as applied
in archaeology’, see Cusick 1998, 135–136.
189 Säve-Soderbergh and Troy 1991, 212–293.
190 T. Schneider 2003a, 316–338; 2003b; 2010b, 144–146.
191 T. Schneider 2010b, 145.
192 Guarnaccia and H ausmann-Stabile 2016, 122.
193 Guarnaccia and H ausmann-Stabile 2016, 122.
Chapter 2
shifting power dynamics, and agency.194 Applied to
archaeology, acculturation should thus be analysed
as a process that occurs in a network of interacting
cultures and power relations.195 It would not suffice to
assess only statistical shifts in the quantity or quality
of particular materials in specific assemblages.
A methodology that incorporates the assemblage
as a whole, as well as site or settlement structure,
architecture, ritual and cult practices, iconography
and textual or artistic representations can help
establish how the material record reflects changing
intercultural relations.196 In turn, when analysed in
view of social, historical, political, economic and
environmental contexts, one can better discern the
individual and group negotiations of the expression
of identity(s) and culture(s), thereby clarifying the
occurrence of acculturation or another possible process
of cultural or social development.
2.3.7 Appropriation
One of the many terms employed to describe aspects
of cultural transformation is appropriation. Cultural
appropriation refers to the acquisition of external
objects, practices and concepts by a cultural group or
civilisation.197 Its modern usage implies acquisition
without permission, particularly in regards to Western
appropriation of non-Western objects or practices, but
also acquisition through self-directed collaboration
and hybridisation.198 The transfer, reproduction
or copying of objects and styles belonging to one
culture by individuals or groups of another may have
underlying immoral, unethical or racist intentions,
possibly highlighting unequal power relations or
inherent biases.199 Recent anthropological (re-)
interpretations of the concept, however, have utilised
it to explore how knowledge, ideas or objects from
one culture are transferred to another.200 Hahn argues
that, unlike other terms used to describe the effects of
cultural mixing, appropriation can reveal the agency
of those who redefine and re-establish the meanings
of appropriated entities.201 The latter transformation
can be spontaneous, successful, temporary, or
unsuccessful.202 It involves the former context of
an object and its producers, the object itself, and the
194 Guarnaccia and H ausmann-Stabile 2016, 122.
195 K napp 2008, 56.
196 A lexander 1998, 492–493; K napp 2008, 56–57.
197 T. Schneider 2003b, 157.
198 Berman 2004, 385. H ahn (2012, 29) observes that, as
many studies on cultural appropriation also focus on case
studies from colonial and/or post-colonial contexts, it is
often recognised as ‘a subversive tactic of the powerless’.
See also H ahn 2008, 196.
199 See Young and Brunk 2009.
200 For the early usages of the term in social sciences, see de
Certeau 1984. See also H ahn 2008, 195–196, n. 11.
201 H ahn 2012, 20–21.
202 H ahn 2012, 21. See also H ahn 2008, 197.
 Cultural Encounters and Transformations
appropriating person or agent.203 Silverstone, Hirsch
and Morley offer four further aspects of cultural
appropriation to help guide research: (1) material
appropriation and modification, or the process through
which objects acquire personal value and significance;
(2) objectification and classification, or the formation
of cultural associations to objects; (3) incorporation, or
the creation of functional uses for objects, especially
in the private sphere; and (4) transformation, or the
conversion of an object into one that is different, newly
and locally defined, and often with added symbolic
significance.204 These four fields do not represent all
aspects of cultural appropriation which, due to its
nature, is continually renegotiated, comprising what
Hahn has termed as ‘hermeneutical interpretation and
pragmatic action (improvisation)’.205 Nevertheless, it is
because of this renegotiation that the study of cultural
appropriation can provide a useful tool to explore how
objects are incorporated and redefined, and how they
can eventually lead to cultural and social change.206
T. Schneider offers examples of such change
in ancient Egypt.207 While identifying the entire
civilisation of the New Kingdom as a ‘refigured’ one,
he utilises the term ‘intercultural ligatures’ to identify
appropriated traits.208 The three examples include glass,
the horse, and Baal. As he argues, all were originally
transferred as royal prerogatives, but they had a
lasting impact on status, society, and religion.209 The
elite drove the import of glass as a luxury item, until
eventually its manufacture was transferred to Egypt,
its incorporation evidently not affecting the Egyptian
cultural repertoire as the style of glass objects and their
motifs remained Egyptian.210 The horse and chariot
was primarily appropriated as a status symbol for
royalty and the elite, and secondarily for militaristic
purposes, its influences argued to have ‘far-reaching
consequences’ with the introduction of new technology,
industries and religious associations.211 The third
ligature centres on the worship of the Levantine god
Baal and his possible integration into the ideology of
kingship, which was originally considered ‘immune
from innovation and not affected by change’.212 By
questioning the static nature of ancient Egyptian
civilisation, T. Schneider offers a new and much needed
perspective on its transformation across time. Each of
the discussed ligatures could be viewed in terms of
the interpretations and innovations associated with
203 A. Schneider 2003, 221.
204 Silverstone, Hirsch and Morley 1992, 20–26; H ahn
2012, 21–26.
205 H ahn 2008, 199. See also H ahn 2012, 26.
206 See also A. Schneider 2003, 225.
207 T. Schneider 2003b.
208 T. Schneider 2003b, 158.
209 T. Schneider 2003b, 158.
210 T. Schneider 2003b, 158–159.
211 T. Schneider 2003b, 159–160.
212 T. Schneider 2003b, 161.
37
cultural appropriation. Their study could also be taken
further, questioning their origins as royal prerogatives,
the process through which they were appropriated, and
the extent of their influences on Egypt. For instance,
while T. Schneider asserts that the manufacture of
glass was appropriated with little influence on the
Egyptian cultural repertoire, it may be argued that such
manufacture would have necessitated the introduction
and dissemination of new technological expertise and
knowledge, and accordingly a new class of craftsmen,
industry and institutions, a modification of trade
relations, and perhaps an expansion of belief and value
systems to incorporate glass and its production into
Egyptian culture. Thus, an indirect impact on society,
culture and intercultural relations could be theorised,
certainly necessitating further research.
2.3.8 Creolisation
The concept of creolisation has appeared in several
studies on cultural mixing. However, the origin of
the term carries various implications. In the early
colonial encounters between the ‘Old World’ and
the ‘New World’, the term ‘creole’ emerged with
negative connotations, distinguishing children of
‘Old World’ progenitors who were born and raised in
the ‘New World’.213 By the late Seventeenth Century,
it also denoted mixed languages, with mid-Twentieth
Century linguists utilising ‘creolisation’ to identify
the amalgamation of two languages into a blended
dialect or creole language.214 This process, or ‘creole
continuum’ comprises the ‘acrolect’, or original
language, ‘mesolect’, the intermediate language,
and the creole ‘basilect’.215 Attracted by this concept,
anthropologists and historians applied it to understand
the milieu in which creole languages and societies
developed, first in studies on the colonial ‘New World’,
and then, by the late Twentieth Century, to other
societies.216 In addition to this, the term has come to
positively express the identity of some individuals and
groups in the Americas, who embraced their ‘mixed’
character.217 One scholar from the Caribbean finds
creolisation as a global process through which all
world cultures continue to absorb influences in culture
contact situations.218 Agreeing with this concept,
others have also postulated a ‘world in creolisation’,
with constantly changing cultures.219 Ethnographers,
however, have criticised this application.220 In effect, the
term still has both positive and negative connotations
213 C. Stewart 2007, 1, 7–8.
214 C. Stewart 2007, 2.
215 C. Stewart 2007, 2.
216 C. Stewart 2007, 2; H annerz 1987.
217 C. Stewart 2007, 1–2, 16–17; Gallagher 2007.
218 Glissant 1989, 140. See also C. Stewart 2007, 3.
219 H annerz 1987, 551; Gallagher 2007, 227–228.
220 K han 2001; C. Stewart 2007, 4–5.
38 Chapter 2
in contemporary cultures.221
Alongside these varying interpretations of the
concept are its different definitions by sociologists,
anthropologists, historians, and archaeologists.
C. Stewart approaches creolisation as the
‘re-structuring’ of elements through mixture,
reorganisation or simplification of features,222
coinciding with Ferguson and Deetz’s description of
the process as a ‘multicultural adjustment’ or
reformulation of cultures that produces a different,
integrated mixture.223 Abrahams views it as a ‘complex
process of cultural mirroring and blending’ that takes
places in encounters promoting exchange, such as trade
zones, where new allegiances are developed.224 Eriksen
suggests that creolisation refers to social encounters
and influences between or among two or several groups
that result in a dynamic exchange of cultural elements
and, eventually, new creole qualities or cultural
elements.225 Groups utilising these elements could be of
mixed origins and ethnicities, assuming a stable ‘creole
identity’ bound by birth, achievement, or force.226 The
overall basic premise of creolisation, therefore, is that it
is a complex process where two or more elements mix
to form a new entity, different from the original.
The social context and power dynamics in which
creolisation occur have, however, been disputed. As the
term first emerged in colonial contexts, S. Hall follows
some linguistic studies that favour asymmetrical power
relations between the dominant acrolect and subordinate
creole speakers or languages, thereby viewing such
relations as crucial for creolisation to exist.227 In a
paper on cultural mixing in Egyptian archaeology,
Bader employs this definition, questioning the
application of creolisation at Tell el-Dab‘a for its fused
material culture because of the site’s representation of a
periphery in the Middle Kingdom and then core power
in the Fifteenth Dynasty.228 In contrast, others observe
that cultural creolisation need not only manifest in the
controlled groups of dominant-subordinate dealings,
arguing against the conceptualisation of creolisation
based upon linguistic models.229 Instead, the encounters
that spur on the process could involve reciprocal
221 As C. Stewart (2007, 5) writes, ‘the term “creole” has
itself creolized, which is what happens to all productive
words with long histories’.
222 C. Stewart’s (2007, 18) approach, however, also includes
the physical changes observed in the human body when
its environment is altered, such as ‘the experiences of
disease, deprivation and general adaptation’. See also
C. Stewart 2015, 355–356.
223 Ferguson 1992, xli; Deetz 1996, 213; Ewen 2000, 36.
224 A brahams 2011, 285.
225 Eriksen 2007, 172–173.
226 Eriksen 2007, 175.
227 Wassink 1999; S. H all 2010, 28. This definition is also
followed in Bader 2013, 262. See also Webster 2001,
217–223; Hitchcock 2011.
228 Bader 2013, 279.
229 Stein 2002, 906; Baron and Cara 2011, 10.
cultural, political, and commercial interactions
between various and/or multiple cultural and ethnic
groups.230 It is this definition that is preferred here,
wherein creolisation refers to a global rather than
culture-specific process through which new and
distinct creole qualities and/or creole identities are
formed following dynamic interactions between
different cultural and social groups. The process is not
reliant on dominant-subordinate power relations, with
only the latter experiencing creolisation; instead, it is
reciprocal and mutual, the influence of varying power
dynamics still borne in mind. Some have noted the
difficulties in distinguishing hybridity (Chapter 2.3.9)
from creolisation, especially in archaeology.231 While
both refer to the mixture of elements, the definitions
favoured here identify specific variances in the
processes’ outcomes, namely that creolisation results
in the creation and manifestation of new and distinct
qualities,232 cultural elements, or even identities.
2.3.9 Hybridisation
In biology, a hybrid is a crossbreed between two plant
or animal species.233 The term came to represent
negative connotations in the Nineteenth and Twentieth
Centuries, identifying humans of mixed racial origins
with assumed weakness or inferiority.234 In 1936,
Linton described human hybrids as viable creatures,
and further utilised the term to describe the culture of
the United States of America, for which he observed
nearly all cultural elements as imported.235 Such
influences, he added, did not affect group identity
or cohesion.236 The term was eventually applied to
linguistic and cultural studies. For example, Bakhtin
found hybridity to be the coexistence of two languages
or linguistic consciousnesses, its inherent innovation
and improvisation intensifying in cultural contacts
along border zones.237 Bhabha utilised hybridity in
reference to colonial and postcolonial encounters
where two or more individuals or groups consciously
mix and negotiate elements of their cultures to
form new expressions with new meanings.238 When
they interact, a virtual ‘third space of enunciation’
emerges where transformation or hybridity occurs.239
While the third space has been variously defined by
other scholars as either an abstract or actual space,
it nevertheless can be approached as a space of
encounters in which concepts and objects, including
230 Eriksen 2007, 172–175; R. Cohen and Toninato 2010;
M aier 2015, 83–84.
231 Bader 2013, 277–280.
232 See Voicu 2014, 999.
233 K napp 2008, 57; Silliman 2015, 280.
234 Silliman 2015, 280.
235 Linton 1936.
236 Linton 1936.
237 Bakhtin 1968; K napp 2008, 58.
238 Bhabha 2004, 102–122, 171–197. See also Knapp 2008, 58.
239 Bhabha 1994; 2004.
 Cultural Encounters and Transformations
those of hybrid nature, are conceived.240 The
application of hybridity in colonial and postcolonial
studies continued throughout the Twentieth Century,
the process of hybridisation consequently associated
with interactions between colonists and the colonised
or, as one definition has described it, ‘the creation
of new transcultural forms within the contact zone
produced by colonialism’.241 These forms need not
only be social or cultural, but could also be reflected
in the material culture, as well as mixed identities.242
As the term has been applied in various contexts
and studies, some have also fused its definition
with others on cultural mixing, such as creolisation,
mestizaje, or syncretism.243 Stockhammer also relates
hybridisation with ‘entanglement’, the resulting
mixed traits being ‘entangled objects’ (Chapter
2.3.11).244 Thomas, on the other hand, describes it as
‘a thing being “a cross between” other types’.245
The use of hybridisation in culture studies is not
without criticism. Several have noted its implications
that the entities involved in the process are
themselves ‘pure’, thereby disagreeing with current
understandings on the fluidity and complexity of
culture and its structures.246 Hahn has also criticised
the lack of agency in hybridisation, or its acceptance
as ‘normality’ by local groups and their readiness to
negotiate mixture rather than possibly question or
reject it.247 The approach followed in this study relies
on Eriksen’s more precise explanation approaching
hybridisation as the process through which individuals,
groups, or cultural elements of diverse origins become
reflexively and self-consciously mixed, displaying
hybridity through such mixture of elements.248 As
also noted by Voskos and Knapp, the process ‘neither
presupposes the dominance of colonial cultures over
indigenous ones nor maintains any sociocultural
divisions’.249 Those involved in the process may be
etically distinguished as belonging to a particular
culture, identity or entity for analytical purposes, but
this distinction does not assume that they are pure,
static, or homogenous.
Hybridity in archaeological and Egyptological
studies is most often employed to refer to modified
240 For an overview, see Fahlander 2007.
241 Ashcroft, Griffiths and Tiffin 1998, 118, following
K napp 2008, 57. See also Leal 2011, 328.
242 K napp 2008, 58. For more on hybridisation in
anthropology and archaeology, see the articles and
references in Stockhammer 2012 (ed.).
243 Pappa 2013. For an overview, see Silliman 2015, 280–283.
244 Stockhammer 2012; Bader 2013, 261. See also Hodder
2012.
245 Thomas 1991, 105.
246 J. Friedman 1995, 73, 80–85.
247 H ahn 2008, 197.
248 Eriksen 2007, 172. See also van Dommelen 2005, 117.
249 Voskos and K napp 2008, 661.
39
objects.250 ‘Hybrid’ objects or traits represent a mixture
of elements belonging to distinct cultures that settled
in close proximity.251 Researching hybridity can thus
often entail searching for specific objects with mixed
features, a search which, as Silliman writes, finds
‘fleeting phantoms of creative adjustment rather than
obvious links in a persistent chain’.252 In other words, by
removing objects from their contexts, associated ‘non-
hybrid’ objects could be problematically distinguished
as those belonging to the ‘original’ culture(s), and the
function and meaning that may have been attributed
to the modified material is no longer as apparent.253
To help avoid this, the processes of negotiation in the
formation of hybrid traits can be clarified by their
examination alongside social and spatial contexts,
function, and historical developments. Accordingly,
the links between mechanisms associated with
adaptation and adoption and the configuration of new
meanings and forms can be better understood.
2.3.10 Mestizaje
While the term ‘creole’ initially emerged as an
identifier for those who were born of ‘Old World’
progenitors but raised in the Americas, ‘mestizo’
originally referred to those born to parents of mixed
origin or intermarriages in the Sixteenth Century
colonial ‘New World’.254 It also may have delineated
those who transgressed the political order, including
individuals involved in intermarriages.255 The term
has since been utilised in a variety of contexts. In
Nineteenth Century Latin America, for instance,
mestizaje was regarded as a problematic process of
cultural or biological mixture linked to hybridity and
race, and observable through phenotypic features.256
In the Twentieth Century, it came to be associated
with nation-building strategies, assuming both
racial and cultural overtones.257 As de la Cadena
explains, the concept not only refers to a biological
or cultural mixture, but one that resulted from
long-term non-egalitarian relations in contexts
of exploitation and domination.258 It could also
represent an ‘active rejection of purification’, with
groups choosing to be differentiated by their mixed
racial and cultural attributes.259 Recently, mestizaje
has become associated with transculturation, the
creation of a new culture based on the reconstruction
and remanifestation of indigenous traditions
250 Bader 2013, 261. For more, see Silliman 2015, 284–285;
M atić 2017a.
251 Bader 2013, 261.
252 Silliman 2015, 285.
253 See also Deagan 2013, 274; Silliman 2015, 285.
254 C. Stewart 2007, 7–8.
255 De la Cadena 2005, 266–267.
256 A lonso 2004, 461; de la Cadena 2005, 259–260.
257 C. Stewart 1999, 44, 47, n. 4.
258 A lonso 2004, 460; de la Cadena 2005.
259 De la Cadena 2005, 283–284.
40 Chapter 2
following colonial or cultural encounters.260 Similar
to creolisation and hybridisation, and perhaps
synonymous with some of their definitions, mestizaje
represents the culture in-between, with several
describing it as subversive hybridity.261 Due to this
approach, as well as the term’s continued associations
with racial mixture as well as transformed cultures
and identities in the Americas, its applications to this
study and others on cultural encounters in the ancient
world are limited.
2.3.11 Cultural Entanglement
To avoid hybridisation’s assumed biological and
postcolonial connotations, some have argued
for its replacement by the concept of ‘cultural
entanglement’.262 Stockhammer developed the latter
based on cultural hybridisation, focussing on the
importance of creativity in liminal spaces or situations
of intercultural encounters.263 Accordingly, the
process of entanglement begins with such encounters,
and transitions into one and/or two types of cultural
entanglement: (1) relational entanglement, where
creativity results in new classifications, practices and
meanings connected with appropriated objects;264
and (2) material entanglement, where creativity
results in new objects combining the familiar with the
foreign.265 Local agency as well as social conventions
and rituals are influential factors in the formation of
both forms.266 The process could also include other
reinterpretations, modifications and incorporations,
and ends with the creation of the entangled object.267
Silliman emphasises that such a process does not
specifically lead to an ‘entangled state’ or ‘entangles’
of people and identities.268 Instead, as a process, it
can be repeated again, or lead to a flourishing local
production of entangled objects.269 Archaeologically,
it can be methodologically assessed similar to
creolisation and hybridisation, or by the careful
contextual analysis of patterns in the material
culture with its associated practices or imbued
meanings.270 Differentiating whether such patterns
reflect hybridity or entanglement, however, is very
260 Wade 2005, 245; A rrizón 2006, 1.
261 Wade 2005, 243.
262 Thomas 1991; Dietler 1998; Hodder 2012; Stockhammer
2012; 2013.
263 Stockhammer 2012; 2013.
264 Stockhammer (2012, 49–51) develops the concept
of relational entanglement based on appropriation,
especially Hahn’s study on this phenomenon (see
Chapter 2.3.7). See H ahn 2008; 2012.
265 Stockhammer 2012, 49–51.
266 Stockhammer 2012, 49–51.
267 Stockhammer 2012, 51.
268 Silliman 2015, 291; 2016, 39.
269 Stockhammer 2012, 51.
270 Stockhammer 2012, 51–56. For some of its applications
in Egyptology, see Bader 2013; van Pelt 2013; Buzon,
Smith and Simonetti 2016.
difficult considering that both relate to similar, if not
synonymous, concepts.
2.3.12 Bilingualism
Approaching such models as hybridisation and
creolisation as processes of replacing the old with
the new, Wallace-Hadrill offers an alternative:
bilingualism.271 The model is inspired by studies on
bilingualism, wherein individuals, groups and texts
express evidence of speaking, writing or thinking in
more than one language.272 The interplay between the
languages manifest in, for instance, ‘interference’
(transferring an element from one language to the
other), ‘morphological borrowing’ (transferring
grammatical morphemes), and ‘code-switching’
(switching between languages in one utterance or
text).273 Perceiving language as an important, but not
essential, marker of identity, Wallace-Hadrill applies
bilingualism to culture in the Roman Empire.274 He
utilises the concept and its display of code-switching
to argue that the empire was composed of populations
from diverse culture-systems with multiple identities,
who could consciously code-switch between the
different systems.275 An individual need not be
identified as, for instance, Greek, Roman, or a
fusion of the two, but rather could be all at the same
time.276 Advising caution in comparing linguistic
with cultural negotiations, Wallace-Hadrill offers
bilingualism as a hypothesis for evaluating multiple
identities and ‘their strategic deployment in diverse
contexts’.277 The idea of code-switching additionally
coincides with the manipulation of (multi)ethnic
identity, or situational ethnicity, and does not limit
an individual or group to an either-or expression of
culture and/or ethnicity. It thus offers an insightful
approach to the dynamics of the in-between zone of
cultural interactions.
271 Wallace-H adrill 2008.
272 See, for instance, A dams, Janse and Swain 2002; A dams
2003.
273 A dams 2003, 18–28.
274 Wallace-H adrill 2008, 3–143.
275 Wallace-H adrill 2008, 13.
276 Wallace-H adrill 2008, 67–68.
277 Wallace-Hadrill 2008, 85. See also Mullen 2012, 30–31.
 Cultural Encounters and Transformations
2.3.13 ‘Middle Ground’ Approach
Another model that seeks to enhance understanding of
the in-between zone is the ‘Middle Ground’. It was first
explored by White in his seminal study on interactions
between indigenous Algonquians and Frenchmen
in the North American Great Lakes region from the
mid-Seventeenth to early Nineteenth Centuries.278
The model envisions a physical and abstract space
wherein cultures of near equivalent power consciously
negotiated their differences through several stages.
These include the first conceptual assimilation of
knowledge of the other, the adaptation of culture and
behaviour to new situations, and then the creation of
a new, hybrid or entangled set of conventions and/
or inventions that promoted cooperation and avoided
conflict.279 As White writes, the Middle Ground
is where ‘diverse peoples adjust their differences
through what amounts to a process of creative,
and often expedient, misunderstandings’.280 Such
an approach thus highlights the role of mediation
and compromise in reciprocal cultural interactions
and innovations by all involved groups. Despite
the approach’s positive reception,281 several have
criticised its applicability beyond the time and
space proposed by White, additionally noting other
regions’ unbalanced power relations.282 Some have
also commented on the inherent dependencies in
Middle Ground interactions, with culture change
linked to relative weakness and underlying power
structures.283 Still, the model is perhaps best applied
as a hypothesis regarding strategic negotiation in
cultural interactions, its possible insights dependent
on the spatial, social, and cultural context of
encounters, as well as power dynamics.
Indeed, it is because of these insights that the Middle
Ground approach has been employed in studies on
the ancient world.284 Classical archaeologists have
sought the Middle Ground in Greek and non-Greek
interactions, finding accommodative rather than
conflictual outcomes.285 Mairs, for instance, observes
278 White 1991.
279 White 1991, 50–53.
280 White 1991, xxvi.
281 See, for instance, R ichter 1992; Sleeper-Smith 2006.
282 See R ichter 1992, 716; Deloria 2006; S. Schwartz and
Green 2013, 539–541.
283 S. Schwartz and Green 2013, 542. As the authors write,
‘since hybrid middle-ground interactional practices
reflect underlying mutual need and balance of power,
cultural hybridity is read as an index of interdependence
and power equivalence, while interaction that is more
Indian than European indexes Indians’ relative strength
and Europeans’ relative weakness and interaction that is
more European than Indian indexes Europeans’ relative
strength and Indians’ relative weakness’.
284 The Middle Ground approach appears as one of Gosden’s
three types of colonialism. See Gosden 2004, especially
30–33.
285 Antonaccio 2007, 201–202.
41
the physical and abstract Middle Ground in her study
on the culturally complex Hellenistic Arachosia of
southern Afghanistan,286 cautioning however that
archaeologists ‘need to pay serious attention to specific
historical circumstances and the various social forces
at work’.287 Antonaccio and Malkin also use the
model to explain how new cultures emerged in early
Greek colonies.288 Phoenician cults and cities have
similarly been approached,289 with C. Bonnet finding
Phoenician mediators working in a new Middle
Ground at Sidon to consciously and strategically
associate the Sidonian deity Eshmun with the Greek
Asclepios.290 The introduction of the latter did not
fundamentally alter Sidonian rituals or practices;
instead, the Sidonians intentionally utilised Greek
language, iconography and architecture as cultural
compromises.291 This would have allowed different
people of the Hellenistic world, including pilgrims,
to visit the Sidonian Temple of Eshmun and make
offerings to a shared deity, consequently participating
in a wide religious network.292 Although C. Bonnet’s
proposition somewhat removes the physical Middle
Ground from White’s original model,293 it does show
the advantages of applying the approach to ancient
contexts to further explore reasons for culture change.
In this respect, the Middle Ground can be used in
conjunction with other concepts such as hybridisation,
which White himself utilised, as well as creolisation
and cultural entanglement.
2.3.14 Cultural Interference
Bilingualism and its aspect of code-switching are
not the only language-based phenomena that have
been translated to culture studies. Interference, or the
transference of one element to another language, has
also been explored as a means to understand culture
change. As aforementioned in Chapter 2.2, Even-
Zohar identifies two aspects of a cultural repertoire,
culture-as-goods and culture-as-tools, with the
introduction of new elements via exchange usually
transforming from ‘goods’ to ‘tools’.294 This process
is what he has termed ‘cultural interference’, or the
‘relation(ship) between systems, whereby a certain
system A (Source system) may become a source for
direct/indirect loans for another system B (Target
system)’.295 It is interconnected but not overlapping
with either persistent or intermittent, direct or
286 M airs 2011.
287 M airs 2011, 187.
288 M alkin 2004; 2005; 2011, 45–47; Antonaccio 2007;
2009, 36, 44–45; 2013.
289 See M alkin 2005.
290 C. Bonnet 2013, 46–49.
291 C. Bonnet 2013, 48–49.
292 C. Bonnet 2013, 48–49.
293 See M airs 2011, 178.
294 Even-Zohar 2000, 389–396; 2010, 9–14.
295 Even-Zohar 1990, 92. See also Even-Zohar 2010, 52.
42 Chapter 2
indirect, contact.296 Direct contact can occur without
institutionalised intermediaries whereas indirect
contact usually necessitates intermediate agencies;
both can lead to increased exposure to a source culture
but such exposure is not essential for the occurrence
of interference.297 Similarly, the process is usually
stronger when systems are in a state of emergency or
major historical development, as the need for innovation
increases; thereby, the readiness or receptive attitude
of a target culture influences the degree and rate of
interference.298 As Even-Zohar contends, ‘this is how
interference becomes a strategy of a culture to adapt
itself to changing circumstances’.299
Even-Zohar observes ‘laws’ or, as he clarifies,
patterns and regularities in cultural interference.300
Generally, the process is (1) imminent as it has been
observed in most systems, agreeing with the complex
dynamics inherent in culture and identity; (2) mostly
unilateral; and (3) may be restricted to particular
domains of culture.301 It is usually dependent on
(4) contacts, which would ‘sooner or later’ generate
the process whether it is favoured or not, encouraged
or resisted; (5) demand for unavailable goods or those
that fulfil newly needed functions; (6) a prestigious
association with the source culture, especially if it is
established and/or highly visible in a world network;
and (7) dominance by the source culture, with the
usual occurrence of interference at the periphery of
a polysystemic cultural structure.302 Interference may
(8) take place in only one sector of the target culture,
afterwards proceeding to other parts often via
secondary intermediaries that have modified features
to more schematised or consumable models.303 It
can also (9) result in goods that assume a different
function in the target culture.304 The nature of these
goods and the extent to which they are transferred
is influenced by their accessibility and availability.305
When these goods are ‘domesticated’ or ‘translated’
and locally produced to the extent that the source is
no longer needed, the process can be identified as one
of interference.306
In describing Law (1), Even-Zohar also notes that
interference is ‘the rule rather than the exception’,
and the most likely reason for introduced elements.307
The presence and potential availability of an
element often generates and accelerates change.308
296 Even-Zohar 2010, 53.
297 Even-Zohar 2010, 54, 59.
298 Even-Zohar 1990, 93.
299 Even-Zohar 2010, 19.
300 Even-Zohar 2010, 52.
301 Even-Zohar 2010, 54–59.
302 Even-Zohar 2010, 49, 54, 59–67.
303 Even-Zohar 2010, 54, 67.
304 Even-Zohar 1990, 94; 2010, 54, 68–69.
305 Even-Zohar 1990, 93.
306 Even-Zohar 2010, 53.
307 Even-Zohar 2010, 55.
308 Even-Zohar 1990, 92.
With such an approach, the significance of local
agency and innovation in culture change is vastly
undervalued, despite the cited active engagement
of the target system throughout the process of
interference. Pym also criticises the vagueness of
Even-Zohar’s systems which ‘suppress a humanized,
subjective systematicity’.309 The transference of
‘goods’ as opposed to ideas, beliefs or concepts is
also overrepresented in the model of interference,
as are cases for interference between systems of
more symmetrical power dynamics. Nevertheless,
the concept’s focus on the adoption and adaptation
of elements from one system to the other can be
interwoven with other concepts of culture change in
asymmetrical power relations. As with appropriation
and cultural entanglement, cultural interference can
thus offer another perspective as to how objects are
incorporated into a cultural repertoire.310
2.3.15 Transculturalism
Transculturality involves the continuous
transformation of cultures.311 It occurs in various ways
and in relation to differing mechanisms.312 It is ‘always
accompanied by reverse processes of reaffirmation
and of the assertion of some kind of difference’.313
Although some consider transculturality a modern
phenomenon associated with globalisation, others
contend that it represents a structural element of all
cultures and societies.314 The transcultural perspective
itself, however, is modern, only recently being applied
to fields across the humanities.315 As Flüchter and
Schöttli observe, the frameworks of religion and
politics have begun to be ‘deconstructed’ via the
transcultural perspective, which views aspects like
art as transcultural elements rather than bound
entities ascribed to one religion or representation.316
Transcultural studies investigate ‘the mechanisms
and medium through which concepts are translated,
adapted, and/or contested’.317 While concepts are
generally understood to be transmitted via influence
or inspiration, often in a unilinear direction (as in the
309 Pym 1998, 122.
310 See Mourad 2019.
311 Flüchter and Schöttli 2015, 2.
312 Flüchter and Schöttli 2015, 2.
313 Flüchter and Schöttli 2015, 2.
314 Flüchter and Schöttli 2015, 3.
315 The term was first coined by Ortiz (1947, 97–98), who
proposed its use instead of ‘acculturation’ to express the
varied phenomena observed in Cuba.
316 Flüchter and Schöttli 2015, 4. See also Fazio 2015. Juneja
(2011) also discusses the transcultural approach to history,
examining processes of transformation that are involved
in art practice. For instance, on discussing imitation via
a transcultural perspective, Juneja (2011, 282) writes
‘Imitation can be a creative form of relating to migrant
objects, forms, and practices, of dealing with difference,
of acknowledging authority, or of dialogical practice’.
317 Flüchter and Schöttli 2015, 6.
 Cultural Encounters and Transformations
abovementioned concepts of cultural interference,
appropriation and acculturation), transcultural
perspectives opt for reciprocal, multidirectional,
and circular processes.318 The processes are usually
initiated by a movement, a transfer, a circulation or
a flow, of tangible (e.g. people, animals or objects)
or intangible entities (e.g. knowledge, ideas or
practices), from one place to another.319 The paths of
such movements are dynamic, shifting, circulating
or reversing among or between differing entities,
while the elements themselves are also susceptible
to change.320 This fluidity of how ‘concepts and
institutions change during the process of transfer or
recontextualisation in a new environment’ can be
understood as the transculturisation of elements.321
The dynamism involved in such a process is
additionally mirrored in the various actors involved
in the movement of elements, as well as those who
adapt or recontextualise their meanings for and in the
new environment.322 The mechanisms of adaptation
could incorporate such processes as appropriation,
negotiation (perhaps including the Middle Ground
approach), or entanglement.
Due to the multifaceted and dynamic nature of
transculturality, the process has been employed in
recent analyses of culture change and mixture in
the past. A rather new field to ancient studies, its
methodology continues to incorporate various means
that consider dynamic processes. An example is Nagel’s
examination on the transfer of foreign concepts into
the visual system of another culture, wherein focus
was on representations of Isis in the Graeco-Roman
world.323 By employing a variety of approaches to the
pictorial conceptualisation of Isis and her cult that take
into account individual contexts and actors, Nagel
discerned several processes of ‘translation’ that sought
to make foreign religious concepts easily accessible
to a transcultural society.324 Another example is
Hitchcock’s study on changing identities at the end of
the Bronze Age, wherein she favours transculturalism
for its incorporation of the ‘multivocal, intertwined, the
complex, the experiential and the contextualized over
the dualistic or monocausal explanations of previous
approaches’,325 the latter including creolisation and
hybridisation. As analysed here, however, the use of
such approaches depends on how they are defined
and methodologically investigated. Usually, methods
revert to a quantitative examination of shifts in the
absence or presence of artefacts from a donor culture
in assemblages of a recipient culture, or the stylistic
318 Flüchter and Schöttli 2015, 9, 11.
319 Flüchter and Schöttli 2015, 11, 13.
320 Flüchter and Schöttli 2015, 12–13.
321 Flüchter and Schöttli 2015, 13.
322 Flüchter and Schöttli 2015, 14–15; Giffard 2016, 37–38.
323 Nagel 2015.
324 Nagel 2015, 209–211.
325 Hitchcock 2011, 278.
43
analysis of artefacts, without proper scrutiny of their
context; thus, the dynamic and complex nature of
culture and identity is often not taken into account.
Accordingly, it is the conceptual and methodological
approach to the various models on culture change
and mixture that can affect the extent to which their
multifaceted dynamism is understood.
2.4 The Way Forward
Many of the concepts and processes examined here
have been variably defined and studied. Approaches
are largely dependent on perspectives to culture and
identity, and are often encumbered by methodologies
that do not specifically acknowledge or incorporate
all aspects of the selected approach. This is most
observable in historical and archaeological studies
that focus on quantitative or stylistic methodologies
of examining data that is often removed from its
actual, historical, geographical, political, and/or
social context. Perhaps this is due to the nature of
available evidence, with several facets of the remaining
material missing or inaccessible. Nevertheless, a
holistic approach to a variety of evidence can better
envisage the catalysts, processes, entities, agents,
and outcomes involved in cultural encounters and
socio-cultural transformations. Readers should note
that, to a certain extent, this evidence has largely
been previously assessed by scholars via the culture-
historical approach, which continues to determine
understandings and synchronisations of Egyptian and
Near Eastern history and material cultural remains.
As such, the categorisation of material to a particular
space and time remains reliant on the approach, and
consequently cannot be completely abandoned herein.
However, the supposition that culture is bounded and
fixed is not followed. Instead, the approach utilised in
this study moves beyond the culture-historical model
to take into account:
• the dynamic and complex nature of culture and
identity, including that of social groups;
• the influences of power dynamics between
all involved entities, whether symmetrical or
asymmetrical. It should be borne in mind, however,
that such dynamics are not always essential for socio-
culture change and mixture;
• the context of encounters, including historical,
social, political, economic, commercial, ideological,
environmental, and intracultural situations and
developments, which could impact the nature, degree
and rate of encounters, as well as their catalysts,
mechanisms, and outcomes;
• a multidirectional or circular flow of the transfer
of tangible and intangible elements, which is
favoured in most, if not all, encounters. This counters
approaches that are solely dependent on unilinear
and unidirectional influences from the ‘dominant’
or ‘donor’ to the ‘subordinate’ or ‘recipient’ culture.
44 Chapter 2
Heterogeneity should also be acknowledged, as
encounters and change could involve more than
two cultural or social groups who may interact in
an abstract or physical space, such as Bhabha’s third
space or White’s Middle Ground;
• the agents and agency behind all stages of
encounters, knowledge transfer, and socio-cultural
change, and the influences of individual and group
identities. While some processes can be viewed
as ‘imminent’, individuals and groups can also
consciously: initiate, pursue, negotiate, reject, or
reduce a variety of encounters; and adopt, adapt,
accept, reject or reverse transfers, influences or
changes to both material culture as well as identity;
• the variety of facilitative links and media involved
in the transference of tangible and intangible
elements. Concepts and processes that can be used to
explore this include but are not limited to diffusion,
migration, trade diaspora networks, the world-
systems approach, the Middle Ground space or
transnationalism/transregionalisation;
• the different processes involved in the acceptance,
rejection or translation of tangible and intangible
elements, including but not limited to acculturation,
appropriation, creolisation, hybridisation,
bilingualism, Middle Ground negotiations, cultural
interference, and transculturalisation; and
• the variety of possible outcomes resulting
from encounters, including the formulation
of new elements with so-called ‘mixed’ features
(e.g. hybridised or material entangled objects),
new reinterpretations (e.g. appropriated objects,
cultural ligatures or relational entangled objects),
new objects or concepts (e.g. creoles), negotiated
concepts and identities (e.g. bilinguality
or transculturality), and also a rejection or return to
the (redefined) ‘original’.
This approach intends to provide a means to
avoid the pitfalls of historical and archaeological
studies on cultural encounters and socio-cultural
transformations. The proposal of a new term to
identify it is inconsequential and would perhaps
detract from its inherent reflection of the complexities
of cultural encounters and socio-cultural change. In
other words, the dynamic and changing nature of
culture, society and identity has and will continue
to lead to new processes, new perspectives, and new
theories on both old and new processes, and thus
new classifications. By acknowledging the variety
of concepts and mechanisms already distinguished
and studied in history, the evidence can be examined
from multiple and different perspectives, without
the need to justify the existence of only one concept
or process, or ‘fit’ the evidence to support one
theory. The focus is on the nature, manifestations
and context of the content itself; thereby it responds
to ‘calls for a more aware study of culture… for good
history rather than a recipe for a radical new way of
doing it’.326
326 Giffard 2016, 39.
 Socio-Political Transformations and Foreign Relations
3. Socio -Political Transformations and Foreign Relations
3.1 Introduction
Some of the discussed theories in Chapter 2 signify the
role of power dynamics and larger-scale relations in
facilitating change and exchange. The world-systems
approach, as well as concepts on ports of trade, trade
diasporas, diffusion, and migration, all highlight the
dynamic interplay between interregional contacts
and trends, and socio-cultural transformation. As
such, any study on the impact and influences of
Egyptian-Near Eastern relations on Dynasty 18
requires an identification of existing power dynamics
and social ties across cultural, political, and/or
geographic borders. This is particularly relevant
when considering the repeated notion that the Hyksos
Dynasty stimulated the creation of the New Kingdom
Empire.1 As Redford writes:
‘on the morrow of the Hyksos occupation, Egypt
began to regard hither Asia in a new light and to
value this region for its strategic location vis-à-vis
points further north. For Pharaoh could not be sure
that those “foreign rulers,” the HqAw - xAswt, were
not about to attack Egypt again and restore the scions
of the 15th Dynasty; and well into the 18th Dynasty
the perception of himself as launching a preemptive
strike against “the foreign rulers who had attacked
him” or “who were intending to destroy Egypt” and
“were on the march against him” dominated the
18th Dynasty monarch’s thinking’.2
Current theories on the rise of Dynasty 15 no longer
agree with the invasion model advocated by Redford.3
However, royal inscriptions of the Eighteenth Dynasty
indeed reflect an ideology of expansionism to secure
Egypt from external threats. Several texts emphasise
the importance of maintaining Egypt’s security from
foreign forces, while others highlight the significance
of Western Asia for access to precious commodities.
While this partially continues Twelfth Dynasty policies
regarding the Near East, the main point of divergence in
the New Kingdom is the greater Egyptian participation
and active involvement in Near Eastern political and
commercial affairs. The reasons for this, however,
deserve discussion, especially as the Hyksos invasion
into Egypt has been revised, limiting the validity of
an Eighteenth Dynasty empirical outlook emerging
in response to such an invasion. In turn, the influence
of commercial and social ties that developed in the
Middle Kingdom and Second Intermediate Period
may be significant. Indeed, evidence from non-royal
1 See, for instance, Säve-Soderbergh 1951, 71; H ayes
1959, 4; R edford 1992, 148.
2 Redford 1992, 148. See also R edford 1984, 15–16.
3 See Mourad 2015.
45
Middle Kingdom sources stress continuous diplomatic
and peaceful encounters between those represented
completely as Egyptians and those identified as of Near
Eastern origin. Some were involved in multi-year and/
or multicultural ventures, and many are attested within
Egyptian households, workshops and institutions.4
Undoubtedly, the resultant social and commercial
ties together with repeated processes of political
fragmentation and unification between Dynasty 12
and 18 impacted relations with the Near East.5
The following chapter thereby explores if and
how earlier relations with the Near East, and the
mechanisms promoted by the northern dynasties,
persisted or influenced those of the New Kingdom.
It begins with an overview of developments at Tell
el-Dab‘a, exploring its trade connections and the
general archaeological manifestations of Near Eastern
elements at the site. The importance of the city as a
hub of exchange is discussed, followed by an outline
of other communities in the Eastern Delta and their
links to Tell el-Dab‘a and the Near East. To further
facilitate these links, a ‘language’ of diplomacy and
contact, inclusive of textual, artistic, ritualistic and
other symbolic modes of communication, would have
surely been required. Two important means, language
and weight metrology, are herein explored, with others
examined in relevant sections of Chapters 4 and 5.
The possibility of contact-induced language change
is further questioned, as are means of correspondence
with the Near East that may have continued in use
during the New Kingdom. Following the discussion on
social and mercantile developments under Dynasties
14 and 15, the last section explores their political
impact on Upper Egyptian Dynasties 16 and 17, and
whether they affected Eighteenth Dynasty foreign
policies and ideologies regarding northerners, Near
Easterners, and relations with the Near East.
3.2 Trade and Connectivity in the Eastern
Delta
The political and social developments of Dynasties
12 to 18 would have affected all essential elements of
trade and connectivity (the meeting points or nodes,
the paths, and the means). From the late Twelfth to
Fifteenth Dynasty, Tell el-Dab‘a grew in both size
and power to become a hub for interregional and
intercultural contacts, and a significant meeting
point in the region for trade and exchange. By the
Fifteenth Dynasty, further sites in the Eastern Delta
4 See Mourad 2015.
5 For an overview, with references, see Popko 2013.
46 Chapter 3

Fig. 3.1 Map of the Eastern Delta with pertinent sites mentioned in the text. Map by Patrick Aprent

Fig. 3.2 Map of Tell el-Dab‘a. After Bietak 2013b, fig. 1

 Socio-Political Transformations and Foreign Relations
were linked into its close network. Strategic access to
land, sea and riverine routes connected the inhabitants
of the Eastern Delta to the rest of Egypt, the Sinai,
the Eastern Mediterranean and the Levant. Several
ships and cargoes of various goods, and people of
different origins and ranks were likely frequenting
the area, including merchants, administrative officials,
representatives, craftsmen, scribes, and possibly
members of the Near Eastern elite. Political, social
and economic demands, as well as elite patrons, would
have promoted the occurrence of these encounters.
Fortunately, significant pieces of evidence reflecting
such interactions have been uncovered at several sites
in the Delta, most prominently Tell el-Dab‘a, a harbour
city in the north (Fig. 3.1).
3.2.1 Tell el-Dab‘a: A Harbour City in the North
Tell el-Dab‘a is strategically located near the Pelusiac
branch of the Nile (Figs. 3.1–2). It is positioned along
a land route that could provide access to the Northern
Sinai, and a riverine branch that could be navigated
northeast to the Mediterranean Sea and southeast
to the Nile River. According to recent geological
and geophysical surveys, the site featured one large
harbour almost in the centre of the town, near R/III
and R/IV, which was in use in the Second Intermediate
and Ramesside Periods, and possibly earlier in the
Thirteenth Dynasty (Fig. 3.3).6 A second harbour
has also been identified north of ‘Ezbet Rushdi,7 with
additional mooring places and docks observed across
the site.8 This development of Tell el-Dab‘a as a harbour
and trading port likely helped solidify the Delta,
particularly its eastern region, as a significant strategic
node of the Bronze Age that connected Egypt to the rest
of the Eastern Mediterranean and Western Asia. Such
an importance is further reflected by the very name
of the district. According to the stela of Senwosret III
from Area R/I, the settlement may have been named
@w. t -Im n - m -HA. t - mAa- n . t - rA-
wA. ty ‘district of Amenemhat, justified, of the
beginning of the two roads’,9 agreeing with its situation
at the merging of different routes. By the Fourteenth
and Fifteenth Dynasties, the city was likely identified
as @w. t - w ar. t ‘administrative centre of the
district’, better known today as Avaris.10
6 Tronchère et al. 2008; Tronchère 2010; Herbich and
Forstner-Müller 2013, 262; Forstner-Müller 2014;
Forstner-Müller et al. 2015; Bietak 2017.
7 Dorner 1994, fig. 1; Forstner-Müller 2010, 117;
Herbich and Forstner-Müller 2013, 262.
8 H erbich and Forstner-Müller 2013, 262–272.
9 S. A dam 1959, pl. 9; Czerny 2015, fig. 11B [c].
10 The name can also be translated as ‘the (royal) foundation
of the district’. See van Seters 1966, 149–151; Atzler
1972; Bietak 1996a, 40; Czerny 2001.
47
3.2.1.1 Overview of site development and trade before
the New Kingdom
There are several published and ongoing studies on
the nature of trade and commercial interactions with
Tell el-Dab‘a.11 Briefly summarised here, the extant
material at the site seems to evince ebbs and flows
within a wide and complex network of exchange. The
site’s access to imported products evidently initiated
in the Twelfth Dynasty with a steady flow of material
gradually increasing to reach a peak around the mid-
Thirteenth Dynasty, after which a decrease has been
observed. Such products included a variety of ceramics,
metal items, scarabs, and other small objects.12 Apart
from the ceramics, however, imports have been mainly
only stylistically attributed a non-local origin. No
scientific analysis of metal items from the site has yet
been able to determine their specific origins, although
several types, including weaponry, clearly bear
MBIIA, MBIIA–B and MBIIB Near Eastern shapes.13
This is further complicated by the posited presence
of on-site metalworking activities as suggested by
the refractory materials discovered at Tell el-Dab‘a,
particularly in Area F/I and mostly in Phases H–E/3.14
Indeed, from the mid-Thirteenth Dynasty onwards,
it is highly possible that local workshops in the Delta
catered for its inhabitants, producing, for instance,
locally made MBA-type pottery.15 These workshops
could have also necessitated imported materials from
non-local sources, such as copper or precious stones,
access to which feasibly shifted alongside political and
commercial developments.
Studies on imported ceramics at Tell el-Dab‘a have
provided useful insights on trade according to the
different geographic sources of clays, as well as the
vessels’ production techniques, shapes, and decoration.16
The evidence and corresponding analyses thus far
published point to the site’s access to local and regional
production centres within Egypt, those of the Sinai,
the Eastern and the Western Deserts, Nubia, as well
as Near Eastern and Aegean sites. Regarding imported
versus locally produced ceramics, figures enumerated
in this section follow statistical analyses as carried out
by Kopetzky (Figs. 3.4–3.5) according to material from
Areas A/II, F/I, A/IV and A/V,17 and Vilain, according
to material from Areas A/II, A/V and F/I.18 The collation
11 A forthcoming reassessment of shifts in trade at Tell el-
Dab‘a is under preparation by S. Vilain.
12 For some examples, see Chapter 5.
13 See Philip 2006.
14 See Philip 2006. For further discussion, see also Chapter
5.2.1.
15 See Chapter 5.3.
16 See Bietak 1991b; Bietak and Hein 2001; Hein 2001a;
2007; 2018; Bietak, Forstner-Müller and Mlinar 2001;
Bader 2002; Aston 2004a; M aguire 2009; Kopetzky
2010; 2015; Aston and Bietak 2012; Bagh 2013; Vilain
2019a; forthcoming.
17 Kopetzky 2010.
18 Vilain 2019a; 2019b.
48 Chapter 3
Fig. 3.3 Stratigraphy of Tell el-Dab‘a. After Bietak 2010a, fig. 7
of Nubian-type pottery follows Aston and Bietak
(Fig. 3.6),19 and the stratigraphical distribution of
Cypriot pottery follows Maguire20 and Hein (Fig. 3.7).21
A petrographic analysis of imported MBA pottery
identified fabric groups corresponding to 11 different
regions, namely (Fig. 3.8): (A) the northern Syrian
coast; (B) the Lebanese or northernmost Israeli coast;
(C) the area of Byblos; (D) the coast between Byblos
and Beirut; (E) the ‘Akkar plain; (F) the Carmel
region; (G) the coast between Ashdod and Carmel;
(H) the mountainous Mediterranean region; (I) Judea
or Samaria; (J) the Shephelah region; (K) the Negev
coastal plain; and (?) unknown.22 The study concluded
19 Aston and Bietak 2017.
20 M aguire 2009. See also Vilain 2019a.
21 Hein 2018.
22 The findings oppose those carried out by a study relying
on Neutron Activation Analysis. The latter concluded
that the majority of vessels were from the Southern
Levant, particularly the area around Tell el-‘Ajjul and
Ashkelon. Due to methodological errors in the study, its
conclusions cannot be securely utilised. For more, see
McGovern 2000; Goren 2003; Aston 2004b; Cohen-
Weinberger and Goren 2004; Ownby 2010, 8–9, 179.
that over 60% of the vessels across the late Twelfth to
Fifteenth Dynasties were from the Northern Levant.23
The prominence of groups near the Levantine coast
(Groups A–G, K) strongly points to the persistence
and importance of maritime trade between Levantine
coastal areas and Tell el-Dab‘a. Pottery from Groups
H–J may have been distributed via land-based routes,
or a combination of land and sea-based paths. Cypriot
products would have also been initially accessed
via sea-based routes, although they could have been
distributed via other intermediaries. Additional items
sourced from the west, east, or south of Tell el-Dab‘a
were likely transported via land and riverine routes,
with the Red Sea also possibly traversed. Agents of
transfer could have been traders or merchants, but
products could have also been transported by mobile
and semi-nomadic populations, migrants, elite or
diplomatic personnel, as well as expedition members
and other itinerants. The routes utilised by such
individuals and groups were likely closely affiliated
with those used for commercial purposes.
23 Cohen-Weinberger and Goren 2004, 80–84, fig. 1, table 2.
 Socio-Political Transformations and Foreign Relations 49

Fig. 3.4 Percentage of Levantine imports and locally made MBA-type pottery at Tell el-Dab‘a from domestic
contexts (Areas A/II, F/I, A/IV and A/V), according to Kopetzky 2010, fig. 52

Fig. 3.5 Percentage of Marl C and Marl F pottery at Tell el-Dab‘a from domestic contexts
(Areas A/II, F/I, A/IV and A/V), according to Kopetzky 2010, fig. 44

3.2.1.1.1 Phases N to I
The establishment of Tell el-Dab‘a has been traced to
at least the late Eleventh to early Twelfth Dynasty (see
Fig. 3.3 for its stratigraphy). Thus far, the earliest evidence
of activity stems from Areas R/I (‘Ezbet Rushdi) and
F/I. While a hiatus in the latter is proposed around the
beginning of Dynasty 12, two large structures adhering
to Egyptian-type architecture were soon constructed in
Area R/I, one identified as an administrative compound,
and the other a temple.24 The structures, as well as the
small finds and inscribed statues and stelae found in the
vicinity of the temple, point to the site’s promotion by
the central Twelfth Dynasty administration, likely in
an attempt to consolidate power in the Eastern Delta.
The structures continued in use until late Dynasty 12,
when occupation in other areas of Tell el-Dab‘a appear.
24 S. A dam 1959; Bietak and Dorner 1998a; Czerny 1999;
2015.
The site’s ensuing growth into one of the largest
of its time in Egypt, and possibly also the Near
East, was coupled with its almost continuous access
to imported goods. Chronologically, the earliest
ceramics of non-Egyptian form are represented
by fragments of holemouth handmade cooking
pots, possibly flat-bottomed, from Strata e/1–3 at
Area F/I.25 While the origins of the vessels has been
disputed, they denote the presence of a non-Egyptian
MBI element at the site.26 It is uncertain if they were
products of trade, especially as those from Area R/I
were locally made.27 Also from these early strata are
vessels of Marl C, postulated to be from the Memphis-
25 Bietak 1991b, 31.
26 Holladay 1997, 184; Forstner-Müller 2007, 92; Bader
2011a, 144; Mourad 2015, 24–25.
27 Czerny 2002, 138, fig. 23; Aston 2002, 46–47; Forstner-
Müller 2007, 89.
50 Chapter 3

Fig. 3.6 Number of published Nubian-type pottery at Tell el-Dab‘a and ‘Ezbet Helmi, according to Aston and
Bietak 2017, 507

Fig. 3.7 Number of Cypriot-type pottery at Tell el-Dab‘a and ‘Ezbet Helmi,
according to Maguire 2009, table 3; Hein 2018, fig. 4

Fayoum region.28 Of the collected sherds from the early
Twelfth Dynasty (F/I, Stratum e), 11% were identified
as of Marl C.29 Stratum e also produced pottery of
Levantine clay, including Levantine Painted Ware
vessels as well as fragments of amphorae, in R/I’s
temple area.30 Levantine Painted Ware jugs/juglets, the
earliest of which occur in Stratum e/4, parallel vessels
from el-Lisht, Kom el-Hisn and Byblos.31 Of these, three
samples, one from Stratum e, one from d–e/1, and one
from c were petrographically assessed and identified as
from the Northern Levant (Group B3).32 Six samples of
amphorae were additionally analysed, three of which
were assigned to groups stemming from the Northern
Levant (Groups A2, B3 and E; respectively from
28 See Bader 2002, 29–54.
29 Czerny 2015, 315.
30 Bagh 2002b, 93–96, fig. 3.
31 Bagh 2002b, fig. 4 [8]; Czerny 2015, 357–359.
32 Cohen-Weinberger and Goren 2004, 80, tables 1a, 2.
Stratum e/2, e and d–e), two from the Negev coastal
plain (Group K from Stratum e/2–e/1), and one from
the Mount Carmel region of modern-day Israel (Group
F from Stratum e/3).33 Such finds indicate that, by the
mid-Twelfth Dynasty, the site had access to products
distributed from elsewhere in Egypt, as well as from a
number of points in the Levant, mostly along the coast
and so likely accessed via shipborne trade.
3.2.1.1.2 Phase H
The developments observed in Phases N to I continue
into the late Twelfth Dynasty, as reflected by the
collected ceramics from Phase H of Areas A/I–A/IV
and F/I. This phase is represented by a rise in population
across the site, with a rebuilt settlement at Area F/I,34 a
marginal settlement in Area A/II, a domestic sector in
33 Cohen-Weinberger and Goren 2004, 80, tables 1a, 2;
Mourad 2015, fig. 4.16.
34 Bietak 1991b, 32.
 Socio-Political Transformations and Foreign Relations
Fig. 3.8 Geographical designates of petrographic Groups A–K of imported vessels found at Tell el-Dab‘a. After
Cohen-Weinberger and Goren 2004, fig. 1
Area A/IV, and the continued use of the temple at ‘Ezbet
Rushdi. In Area F/I, a reoccupation with rectangular
mudbrick houses is identified (Stratum d/2),35 together
with a structure following the architecture of the Northern
Levantine Breitraumhaus (o/20–21), and another that
follows the Mittelsaalhaus (i–j/21–22) architecture
(Fig. 3.9).36 Elements of these Near Eastern types can
be found at EBA and MBA settlements in the Southern
and Northern Levant.37 Funerary customs also parallel
those of the Near East, with the deposition of weaponry,
silver jewellery, and animal offerings of caprids and
equids in association with some tombs.38 Burials at Area
A/II appear to belong to a lower social echelon than
those in F/I who were possibly of an emerging elite.
The differences signal the site’s increasing wealth and
prosperity, perhaps one developing into a port of trade.39
35 Bietak 1984b, 325–326; 1991b, 32; Eigner 1985.
36 Bietak 1984b, 325–326, fig. 3; 1996b, 10–12, fig. 8;
Eigner 1985.
37 For instance, EBA settlements at Arad (Amiran and Ilan
1996, pl. 96) and Meser (Wright 1985, 286) in the Southern
Levant, and Tell Brak (Akkermans and G. Schwartz 2003,
fig. 8 [26]) and Byblos (Bou-Assaf 2008, fig. 3) in the
Northern Levant, as well as the MBA palace at Mari (Gates
1984, 73).
38 See Bietak 1996a, 10–14, fig. 10 [5]; Schiestl 2002, fig. 2;
2009, 201; Prell 2019a; 2019b.
39 See Chapter 2.3.4.
51
This coincides with a growing influx of non-local
ceramics. Kopetzky’s assessment of the pottery
from domestic contexts (see Figs. 3.4–5) revealed
approximately 13% to be of Marl C and 11.7% of
imported MBIIA forms.40 The percentage of Levantine
imports corresponds with that from funerary
contexts.41 The Levantine vessels include amphorae,
carinated bowls, Tell el-Yahudiyah ware and related
juglets. According to their petrographic analysis, most
samples were from the Northern Levant (Groups A1,
B, and D), with individual samples from the Southern
Levant (Groups G and F).42
3.2.1.1.3 Phases G/4–G/1–3
By the Thirteenth Dynasty Phases G/4 and G/1–3,
significant pieces of evidence point to the site’s rising
importance as a commercial hub, as well as further
Near Eastern influences on its material culture.
The growing wealth of the elite manifested
in the construction of a large Egyptian-style
40 Kopetzky 2010, figs. 44, 52.
41 Vilain 2019b; forthcoming.
42 One sample of a painted jug (Nr. 6115G) is from Group
E, which however could not be identified to a specific
region, only to the ‘Eastern Galilee or Jezreel Valley or
the Yarmuq area, or the Akkar or Middle Orontes north of
Qadesh’. Cohen-Weinberger and Goren 2004, tables 1b, 2.
52 Chapter 3

Fig. 3.9 Plan of houses identified as of Mittelsaal (‘Middle-room’) and Breitraum (‘Broad-room’) architecture.
Area F/I, Stratum d/2 (Phase H), Tell el-Dab‘a. After Bietak 2010a, fig. 12

administrative complex at Area F/I, Stratum d/1
(Fig. 3.10). The compound includes two residential
units, a large pillared courtyard, and a ‘reception’
room with smaller associated rooms.43 Its manner of
construction atop a late Twelfth Dynasty complex
with observable architectural similarities to the Near
Eastern Mittelsaalhaus suggests some links between
those who commissioned its construction or utilised
its space in the late Twelfth Dynasty and those of
early Dynasty 13.44 The compound has been attributed
43 Bietak 1996a, 21, fig. 18, pls. 5–6.
44 Bietak 1996a, 21–22; Schiestl 2002, 341.
with a palatial function,45 although a residential or
administrative purpose is equally possible given
its architectural similarities to Egyptian residences
of high officials at, for instance, Tell Basta.46 The
45 Eigner 1985, 78–80; Bietak 1991a, 71; 1991b, 34; 1996a,
21–22; 2010a, 19–20.
46 Bietak 1984b, 325–326; Wegner 1998, 25. The compound
at Tell Basta features a storage area, a colonnade courtyard,
a private residential area as well as a nearby cemetery with
tombs of officials carrying the title of HA. ty -a ‘count’. For
more on the compound see van Siclen III 1988, 193–194,
pl. 1; 1996, 245–246, figs. 1, 3, 5, 8; Grajetzki 2006, 131;
Kemp 2006, 341, fig. 117; Bietak 2019a.
 Socio-Political Transformations and Foreign Relations 53

Fig. 3.10 Plan of complex with associated tombs. Area F/I, Stratum d/1 (Phase G/4), Tell el-Dab‘a.
After Bietak 1991b, fig. 6
54
Fig. 3.11 Plan of Tomb F/I-m/18-Nr. 3 and its associated grave goods. Area F/I, Stratum d/1 (Phase G/4),
Tell el-Dab‘a. After Schiestl 2009, figs. 332, 335, 337–338
cylinder seal impression of a smiting figure from
the compound,47 as well as finds from its garden
and tombs correspondingly verify that its occupants
were of high status and either influenced by a
Levantine culture or were of Levantine origins
themselves.48 These burials yielded Levantine-type
weaponry, equid burials,49 and a variety of imported
MBIIA vessels, such as amphorae, unburnished
combed and red burnished dipper juglets, as well
as fragments of Levantine Painted Ware.50 Tomb
F/I-m/18-Nr. 3, for example, contained seven buried
individuals, two offering pits (one with two equids,
the other with caprids), silver spearheads, a bracelet,
a notched axe head, and a single-edged knife with a
curved blade.51 The latter ends in a spiral tip, a feature
otherwise closely paralleling a knife from Khargi,
near today’s Beirut.52 Also from the tomb was an
amethyst scarab mounted on a gold ring with a
hieroglyphic inscription translated as either [i m .y] - rA
xAs.wt [m]Tn %bk - m -HA. t ‘[overseer] of foreign lands
47 Porada 1984, fig. 1. For more, see Chapter 4.2.3.2.
48 Schiestl 2009. See also Mourad 2015, 26–29.
49 For more on the significance of equid burials, see
Chapter 4.2.3.3. See also Prell 2019a.
50 Bietak 1996a, 21–22, fig. 18, pls. 5–6; Schiestl 2002,
341; 2008; 2009.
51 The bodies belonged to two males, three females, one
juvenile and one infant. For the tomb and its repertoire,
see Schiestl 2002, 343–350; 2009, 363–387, figs. 321–
340; P hilip 2006, 67, 75, fig. 34 [2]; Bagh 2013, 54,
fig. 18 [e].
52 The knife was collected from Chamber 1 of Cave 4.
Saidah 1993/1994, 189, pls. 4–5; Philip 2006, 149.
Chapter 3
and caravan leader, Sobekemhat’53 or [HqA n .y R]Tn w
_i - s bk - m -HA. t ‘[ruler of] RTn w, Disobekemhat’
(Fig. 3.11).54 Both would indeed support the elite tomb
owners’ access to the foreign goods deposited in the
burial, especially those from the Levant.
In fact, petrographic analysis confirms that around
80% of analysed Levantine pottery are from the
Northern Levantine coast up to Ugarit (Ras Shamra;
Groups A–E), the rest from groups near the Southern
Levantine coast (Groups F–G and K).55 Statistically,
the ceramic assemblage of Phase G/4 included,
from domestic contexts, 6.6% Marl C pottery and
16% imported MBA vessels (see Figs. 3.4–5).56 Of
the ceramics assigned to Phase G/1–3 were 11.3%
of Marl C and 19.7% of imported Levantine clay.57
According to Vilain’s analysis of the pottery from
funerary contexts, Levantine imports also continued
to increase across Phases G/4 and G/1–3. 58
Stratum d/1 of Area F/I ends with the sudden
abandonment of its large complex,59 and possibly
the destruction of the larger than life-size statue
of a seated dignitary with features representing
Egyptians and Asiatics in Egyptian art that was
53 Bietak 1991a, 67; Hein and Mlinar 1994, 97.
54 TD 7322. G.T. M artin 1998, 110; Schiestl 2009, 375,
fig. 335.
55 Cohen-Weinberger and Goren 2004, 80–81, tables 1c, 2.
56 Kopetzky 2010, figs. 44, 52.
57 Kopetzky 2010, figs. 44, 52.
58 Vilain 2019b; forthcoming.
59 Bietak 1996a, 29–30.
 Socio-Political Transformations and Foreign Relations
Fig. 3.12 Plan of the ‘sacred precinct’. Area A/II, Tell el-Dab‘a. After Bietak 2010a, fig. 34
found in pieces in its courtyard.60 The following
Phase G/1–3 is additionally marked by the first
known attestation of Cypriot pottery at the site,61
numerous shallow pit graves, and a disruption in the
settlement area.62 Perhaps linked to an increase in
population, an epidemic, or conflict, such evidence
supports the occurrence of internal social or political
developments that could have disrupted trade, its
consumption, and/or the deposition of imported
materials.63
60 The statue was found in fragments from the plundered
tombs of Strata d/2, d/1 and possibly c. These include
Tombs F/I-p/19-Nr. 1 (head, fist, garment fringe, seat,
and base; Stratum d/2), F/I-p/21-Nr. 1 (right shoulder;
Stratum d/1), F/I-o/20-Nr. 11 (left foot; Stratum d/1)
and F/I-p/19-Nr. 10 (painted limestone chips; possibly
Stratum c). Schiestl 2006, 175; 2009, 77–84.
61 A connection with Cypriot pottery traditions is also
indicated by the insertion of the handle of a handmade
globular Tell el-Yahudiyah vessel into the wall of its
body. A technique otherwise commonly applied to
Cypriot-type vessels, it is attested on Tell el-Yahudiyah
vessels assigned to Phases G/1–3 and E/3. M aguire 2009,
21–24; Aston and Bietak 2012, 531–541, pls. 118–123.
See also Chapter 5.3.
62 Bietak 1981, 295; 1991b, 38; 1996, 35.
63 Cohen-Weinberger and Goren 2004, 84. Bietak suggests
that the burials could be associated with an epidemic, such
as the so-called ‘Asiatic disease’ attested in later sources.
See Bietak 1991b, 38; 1996, 35; Mourad 2015, 30.
55
3.2.1.1.4 Phases F–E/3
Marked variations have been observed in the material
assigned to the second half of the Thirteenth Dynasty
or Fourteenth Dynasty Phases F–E/3. Elsewhere,
this has been connected to a political turnover after
which an increased representation of cultural and
religious elements atypical in Egypt is recognisable.64
Social differentiation is more apparent with greater
variety in differing house sizes.65 It is also reflected
by the so-called ‘villa’ type houses of Area F/I with
nearby quarters for servants or dependants,66 and the
attendant burials of Areas F/I and A/II.67 Area A/II
also experienced a reorganisation of plots, coinciding
with the construction (Stratum F) and renovation
(Stratum E/3) of a sacred precinct (Fig. 3.12).68
The earliest remains of a large palatial complex in
Area F/II were also excavated,69 with one of
its storerooms yielding a seal impression of
HqA n (.y) RTn w ‘ruler of RTn w’, implying
sustained connections with this Levantine region
64 Mourad 2015, 43.
65 Bietak 1991b, 38–39; 2010a, 18.
66 Bietak 1991b, 38–39; 2010a, 18; Mi. Müller 2012; 2015.
67 Bietak 1989a.
68 Bietak 1981, 241; 1991b, 39; Forstner-Müller 2002,
275. For more, see Chapter 4.2.3.3.
69 Bietak et al. 2012/2013, 17–53; Kopetzky and Bietak 2016.
56
(Figs. 3.13–15).70 Tombs continued to include
Levantine-type weaponry, including the first known
occurrence of a scimitar,71 while equid burials and
infant jar burials are also attested.72
The ceramic assemblage features both local and
non-local fabrics. A slight increase in the number of
Cypriot wares has been observed in Phase F, with
many collected from F/II’s complex, but they again
decrease in E/3.73 Of the statistical analyses, that of
Phase F consists of, from domestic contexts, 7.6%
Marl C pottery, and 28.7% pottery from the Levant.74
Ceramics from funerary assemblages similarly
comprise a negligible number of Marl C vessels but
an almost consistent number of Levantine imports,75
with 24.7% of those from Area A/II imported from
the Levant.76 The collected pottery from Phase E/3
includes, from domestic contexts, 5.1% of Marl C,
and 13.9% of Levantine fabrics,77 and again a
negligible number of Marl C vessels from funerary
assemblages.78 Pottery from funerary contexts from
Area A/II includes 14% of Levantine imports.79 As
such, in both domestic and funerary contexts, there is
a noticeable decrease in Marl C vessels in Phases F
and E/3, suggesting possibly continually limited
access to products from the Memphis-Fayoum region.
For Levantine imports, the increase in number across
both funerary and domestic assemblages in Phase F
stands markedly against its reduction, almost by half,
in the next Phase E/3.
Of the imported vessels analysed petrographically,
around 60% are from the Northern Levant (Groups
A–E) and 30% are from the Southern Levant (Groups
70 The seal impression (TD 9402H) was found in L1421,
its findings recently assigned by Kopetzky and Bietak to
Stratum d. It comprises seven rows depicting (from right-
to-left): (1–2) reclining caprids; (3) hieroglyphs; (4) caprids;
(5) a guilloche above further hieroglyphs; (6) seated
monkeys or baboons; and (7) heads of caprids. The upper
central half of the impression is best preserved, allowing
the confirmed reading of the hieroglyphic title in Row 3.
The name underneath the title, and likely extending to
Row 5, has been reconstructed by Kopetzky and Bietak
as aA wr n (.w) wr.w Ipi-Smw mAa [x rw?] ‘greatest of the
great, Ipi-shemu, justified (?)’ (Kopetzky and Bietak 2016,
369, fig. 3). The name is similar to that of a ruler of Byblos,
YpSmw - ib, as inscribed on material from Tomb II at Byblos.
The obverse of the seal impression preserves vertical and
perpendicular striations, most likely the impression of a
papyrus. Bietak and Forstner-Müller 2009, 112, fig. 30;
Kopetzky and Bietak 2016, 357–375, figs. 1–3.
71 Forstner-Müller 2002, 167; 2008, 50–51. See also
Chapter 5.2.3.1.2.
72 Bietak 1991b, 39; Forstner-Müller 2002; 2008.
73 Maguire 2009, tables 2–3; Vilain 2018, 496–498, graph 1.
74 Kopetzky 2010, figs. 44, 52.
75 Vilain 2019b; forthcoming.
76 Vilain 2019a.
77 Kopetzky 2010, figs. 44, 52.
78 Vilain 2019b; forthcoming.
79 Vilain 2019a.
Chapter 3
G–I, K), two thirds of which are from Group K.80
The rise in imports from the Southern Levant also
include newly attested petrographic Groups H and
I for amphorae uncovered in burial contexts from
Area F/I’s b/2 and b/3–b/2.81 The data suggests that,
while seaborne trade was still favoured, Tell el-Dab‘a
was accessing products sourced via different routes,
especially in Phase E/3. Alongside the observed
reduction in overall Levantine and Cypriot imports in
this phase (see Fig. 3.7), it is possible to suggest that
the site’s trading network may have experienced some
shift at this time. This is also supported by the earliest
identified Kerma sherds uncovered in the pre-palatial
complex of Area F/II’s relative Stratum d (E/3) (see
Fig. 3.6).82 Likely correlated with these developments,
either as an adaptation to or a cause for the fluctuation,
is the noticeable increase in locally made MBA-
type pottery, amounting to 39.2% of ceramics from
domestic contexts in Phase F, and 22.2% of those from
Phase E/3.83
This highlights that the commercial interactions
at Tell el-Dab‘a were impacted by both internal and
external dynamics. Developments in trade as observed
between Phases N to E/3 were not linear, but punctuated
in close relation with political and social changes.84
The site was likely initially promoted by the Twelfth
Dynasty administration to provide a node along
different routes, especially those leading to the Levant.
Goods continued to be imported from this region in
Phase H, feasibly contributing to the growing wealth
of the site’s elite who, as suggested by the material
from Phase G/4, were likely heavily participating in
managing trade and the flow of entities into and out
of Tell el-Dab‘a. These elite began to display elements
ascribing more to a Near Eastern cultural system
than to that of Egypt, reflecting either a catalyst or
effect of imbalanced power dynamics in the region
that eventually manifested in the evidence assigned
between the end of Phase G/4 and G/1–3. Following this
cluster of developments, the site exhibits significant
changes that welcomed or reinforced deviation from
its previous social organisation. The elite were able
to instigate and manage the construction of public
works expressing transformed cultic practices and
administrative centres, while representations of social
status altered and the trade network experienced a
noticeable shift.
80 Cohen-Weinberger and Goren 2004, 81, fig. 2, tables 1d, 2.
81 Cohen-Weinberger and Goren 2004, table 1d [Nrs. 7, 25].
82 The sherds were found in contexts L1204/155 and L195.
Bietak et al. 2012/2013, 24, 32–36; Aston and Bietak
2017, 496–497, fig. 6.
83 Kopetzky 2010, fig. 52.
84 For more on the theory of punctuated equilibrium and its
applications to studying the nature of political and social
change, see Gans 1987; Gersick 1991; Snooks 1996;
True, Jones and Baumgartner 2007, 160; Gould 2009,
172–289; Baumgartner and Jones 2009; Cairney 2012,
175–199.
 Socio-Political Transformations and Foreign Relations 57

Fig. 3.13 Plan of large palatial complex. Area F/II, Strata c/2–c/1 (Phases E/2–D/3), Tell el-Dab‘a.
Bietak et al. 2012/2013, fig. 3
58 Chapter 3
Fig. 3.14 Findspot of seal impression in earlier level of palatial complex.
Area F/II, Stratum d (Phase E/3), Tell el-Dab‘a. Bietak et al. 2012/2013, fig. 16a
In taking a macro perspective of change, it is
tempting to heuristically refer to mercantile entities
at Tell el-Dab‘a as those of a trade diaspora living in
a community that was possibly initially developing
into a port of trade.85 In assessing its relations with
the Egyptian administration, it could be interpreted
to closely resemble Stein’s three possible modalities:86
(1) diaspora marginality or formation at least in Phase H;
(2) diaspora autonomy in Phase G/4; after which
significant socio-political developments could have
resulted in a political turnover that led to (3) diaspora
dominance, or perhaps even R. Cohen’s auxiliary
diaspora,87 in Phases F–E/3. One setback in such an
approach is its inability to explain the observed changes
in trade, especially from Phase E/3. Another is the lack of
confirmed verification that all mercantile entities at Tell
el-Dab‘a belonged to one diaspora, bound by kinship,
that was socio-culturally distinct from the Egyptian
community in the Eastern Delta and the rest of Egypt.
Multiple groups within Tell el-Dab‘a were possibly
involved in varied commercial and cultural exchanges
with Mediterranean, Near Eastern, and perhaps Nubian
85 See Chapter 2.3.4.
86 Stein 2002, 908–909.
87 R. Cohen 2008, 84.
communities. Nevertheless, the possible existence of
trade diasporas offers a suitable explanation for how
continued links with particular regions in the Levant
were facilitated. Indeed, one toponym that occurs in
the discussed material and with which commercial
interactions could have been promoted is RTnw. The
name is also attested in four inscriptions from Serabit
el-Khadim that specifically mention the ‘brother of the
ruler of RTnw, #bdd (m)’.88 Artistically portrayed as
an Asiatic of high status with his retinue, #bdd (m) is
included in expedition lists dating from at least Year 4
to 25 of Amenemhat III’s reign, one of which verifies
that his group travelled from an Egyptian locale to the
Sinai.89 While it can only be speculated that this specific
group from RTnw utilised Tell el-Dab‘a as a base of
88 Inscription Nrs. 85, 87, 92 and 112. Gardiner and Peet
1917, pls. 23–24, 27, 37; Černy 1955, 92–95, 100, 113–
116. See also Goldwasser 2012/2013, 353–358; Mourad
2015, 136–137, fig. B.3.
89 The individuals are portrayed in Inscription Nrs. 87 and
112. The former notes the arrival of the expedition from
Egypt at Serabit el-Khadim. Gardiner and Peet 1917,
pls. 24, 37; Černy 1955, 95, 113–116. See also Goldwasser
2012/2013, 353–358; Mourad 2015, 136–137, figs. 5.8,
5.11, B.3.
 Socio-Political Transformations and Foreign Relations 59

Fig. 3.15 Seal impression TD 9402H, with reconstruction. Kopetzky and Bietak 2016, fig. 3
60 Chapter 3
operations,90 the evidence provides an antecedent for
continued enterprises of over 20 years between the
Egyptian king and the RTn w elite, specifically those
who were represented with ties of kinship with the
ruler of RTn w that could have promoted negotiations
between the various entities.
Perhaps the titles sA n s w ‘king’s son’ or sA n s w
s m s w ‘king’s eldest son’ attributed to Fourteenth
and Fifteenth Dynasty individuals, including
those with names of likely Semitic origin such as
Ir- m rk w, Ip q and Yk b m, may be interpreted in
the same manner.91 Inscribed on numerous seals
distributed across Egypt, Nubia, and the Levant, the
titles apparently were ascribed to officials who are
believed to have held administrative roles.92 While
their identity as princes remains unconfirmed, the
titles represent loyalty, subordination, prestige, and
kinship relations with the ruler whom they served.93
They also adhere to both contemporary Egyptian
and MBA to LBA expressions of political hierarchy,
perhaps furthering political and diplomatic
negotiations between Egypt and the Near East.94 As
such, the ‘king’s sons’ could be local or regional elite
members who utilised or were attributed the title to
express and strengthen their role and participation
in commercial exchanges with each other during the
Fourteenth and Fifteenth Dynasties.95
3.2.1.1.5 Phases E/2–D/2
Although the next Phases E/2 to D/2 are assigned to
the Fifteenth Hyksos Dynasty, their finds point to
further continuity in trade relations, administration,
and burial and cultic practices. The main differences
are reflected in the increase in settlement size,96
the number of burials (especially in Area A/II,
Stratum E/1’s infant jar burials, intramural burials
90 Bietak 2010b.
91 For an overview, with references, see Ryholt 1997,
99–101, 105–110. The titles were also utilised by late
Thirteenth, Sixteenth and Seventeenth Dynasty officials
(Shirley 2013, 553–556).
92 Schmitz 1976; Ryholt 1997, 110; Shirley 2013, 538.
93 Shirley 2013, 538.
94 Shirley 2013, 539–546. For an examination of other
titles utilised in this period that could point to similar
negotiations, including that of the Hyksos rulers itself
(HqA xAs.w t), see also Ryholt 1997, 123–125; Flammini
2013; 2015, 241–242; Mourad 2015, 201; Candelora
2017.
95 Shirley 2013, 538. In reference to those found in tombs
in the Southern Levant, Ryholt (1997, 110) suggests
that they belonged to a ‘group of officials permanently
stationed abroad to maintain the interests of their
government such as trade and diplomatic relations’. For a
critique, see D. Ben-Tor, S.J. A llen and J.P. A llen 1999,
59–60.
96 Bietak 1991b, 43.
and multiple burials),97 local ceramic production,98
and possibly housing demands.99 At its onset, the
complex at F/II was destroyed by fire (Stratum d), the
same location then used for a new palatial complex
(Fig. 3.13).100 Settlements grew in Areas R/III and
A/V.101 In Strata g to e/2 at ‘Ezbet Helmi, a buttressed
mudbrick wall originally 6.20 m wide at the base
(later 8.50 m wide) was developed to enclose a tree
garden or vineyard (H/I) that was possibly part of a
larger enclosure system protecting sizeable complexes,
perhaps palatial residences (Fig. 3.16).102 Temples
were constructed in F/I (b/1–a/2), and possibly in
the area between A/II and A/I (Strata D/3–D/2; see
Fig. 4.17).103 In A/II’s sacred precinct, Temples I, II
and V were renovated, and Temple III was extended in
Strata E/2–E/1.104 Ritual practices again share
affinities with those from Egypt as well as the
Levant, such as the sacrifice of equids and pigs.105
Pits with ceramics and animal bones, the possible
remains of so-called ‘ritual banqueting’, were also
found before the new temple in F/I.106
Analyses on this phase’s ceramic repertoire suggest
an initial continuation of the trends observed in
Phase E/3. Thereby, in domestic contexts at Tell el-
Dab‘a, the percentage of Marl C pottery continues to
decrease to 2.9% in E/2, 2.4% in E/1, 0.9% in D/3, but
2.6% in D/2 (see Fig. 3.5).107 The imported Levantine
pottery also reduces to 11.5% in E/2, 6.2% in E/1,
3.8% in D/3, but 5.6% in D/2 (see Fig. 3.4).108 Of the
ceramics from funerary assemblages, the Marl C
occurrences are negligible, while the imported MBA
pottery decreases in number between E/2 and E/1,
97 Bietak 1991b, 41–43; Forstner-Müller 2008, 99, 245,
272.
98 Bietak 1991b, 43; H ein and Jánosi 2004, 251–252; Aston
2004a, 106–107, 224, 367; Forstner-Müller 2008, 99.
99 See Mourad 2015, 35–36.
100 Bietak et al. 2012/2013, 17–53.
101 H ein and Jánosi 2004, 27–35.
102 Bietak 1996a, 63–65; 2010b, 21–22; Bietak, Dorner and
Jánosi 2001, 27–129.
103 Bietak 1985a; 1991b, 43; 2009c; 2016c; 2019b.
104 Temple I’s tripartite procella is similar to that of Hazor’s
LBA temple. Yadin 1972a, 87–95, fig. 19; Bietak 1981,
257; 1991b, 41; 2009c; 2016c; 2019b.
105 V. Müller 2002; 2008.
106 One pit, 2.34 m x 2.0 m, contained 792 vessels some
of which showed evidence of intentional burning. The
presence of miniature bowls points to a cultic function,
while bowls, cooking pots, cups, beaker jars and dipper
juglets were used for consuming food and water. Similar
rituals were practiced in the MBIIA and MBIIB Levant,
as evident with the favissae of Ebla (Tell Mardikh), or
remains of cultic activities at Byblos, Ugarit, Nahariya,
Megiddo or Lachish. See V. Müller 2002; 2008. For
more on the cultic activities in the Levant, see, with
references, M archetti and Nigro 1997, 34–36; 1999,
281–282.
107 Kopetzky 2010, fig. 44.
108 Kopetzky 2010, fig. 52.
 Socio-Political Transformations and Foreign Relations
Fig. 3.16 Plan of ‘Ezbet Helmi with structures assigned to Stratum e/2 (Phase D/2). Bietak 2010a, fig. 25
and then slightly increases in D/3 and D/2 albeit
remaining under 10% of the ceramic repertoire.109 As
abovementioned for the figures in Phase E/3, the shifts
in production of locally made MBA-type pottery could
also be related to the number of imported Levantine
wares, especially as they reflect almost the opposite
trend. As calculated by Kopetzky, the local varieties
continue to increase in Phases E/2 and E/1, decreasing
slightly in D/3 and then noticeably in D/2.110 Vilain
has also estimated that around 70% of the pottery
from funerary assemblages in Area A/II of Phase E/1
ascribes to local MBA types, decreasing to circa 24%
in Phase D/2.111
Also found in these levels are pottery from Cyprus,
Nubia, and the Western Desert Oases. Only two
fragments of Cypriot juglets from non-funerary
109 Vilain 2019a; 2019b.
110 Statistically, the total ceramic assemblage comprises of
24.1% locally made MBA-type pottery in E/2, 24.9%
in E/1, 20.8% in D/3, and 16.4% in D/2. Kopetzky 2010,
fig. 52.
111 Vilain 2019a.
61
contexts of A/II and F/I have been specifically assigned
to Phase E/2,112 with no Nubian or Oases ceramics yet
published from this phase. A secure context from which
all were collected is Pit Assemblage L81 of Court B of
Area F/II’s palatial compound, relative Stratum c/1.113
They were uncovered among approximately 1800
vessels of local and non-local fabrics, animal bones,
scarabs, seal impressions, toggle pins and other small
finds.114 Together with the Levantine and Marl C
pottery were sherds of Cypriot juglets, Nubian wares
(see Fig. 3.6) assigned to still undefined Middle
Nubian traditions, as well as two storage jars and
two lids of Oasis ware.115 As the pottery corresponds
well with the cultural horizon of E/1–D/3, the pit
could be dated to the Fifteenth Dynasty, the nature
of its filling indicative of ritualistic or banqueting
112 TD 9070A and TD 3179C. M aguire 2009, 142 [DAB
244], 153 [DAB 303].
113 Bietak et al. 2012/2013, 22; Aston and Bader 2009.
114 Aston and Bader 2009.
115 Aston and Bader 2009, 40–67; Aston and Bietak 2017,
497–501.
62 Chapter 3
activities likely hosted by the elite.116 Nubian pottery
otherwise included one Kerman sherd from relative
Stratum d (E/1) of R/III’s domestic or administrative
quarter, and a small number of Nubian sherds from
the later Fifteenth Dynasty levels of R/III as well
as the palatial quarter of ‘Ezbet Helmi (general
Phases D/3 and D/2).117 Cypriot juglets, on the other
hand, are more numerous in E/1, their attestations
more than doubling in number in D/3, reaching
unprecedented levels, and then slightly decreasing
in D/2 (see Fig. 3.7).118 They are usually represented
by several types of wares and in all areas of Tell el-
Dab‘a.119 Many have also been collected from ‘Ezbet
Helmi’s Strata f to e/2 (D/2).120 However, in comparison
to the Levantine imports, Cypriot pottery seems to
still be the minority.
The figures thereby suggest an overall decrease in
imported Marl C and Levantine products between E/3
and D/3, with a slight reversal by D/2. On the contrary,
an increase in Cypriot and Nubian attestations between
E/2 and D/3 is noticeable, with the Oasis material
from Offering Pit Assemblage L81 suggesting the
possible distribution of Nubian ware via a Western
Desert route.121 Therefore, the inhabitants at Tell el-
Dab‘a, especially the elite, seem to have had access
to pottery distributed from various nodes; however
Marl C, Nubian, and Western Desert Oasis pottery
were overall very limited in number. According to such
ceramics, the site apparently received more products
via northeasterly, and likely maritime, routes. It is
uncertain whether the Cypriot ware was transported
alongside other Levantine material to Tell el-Dab‘a.
The petrographic analysis in fact points to a gradual
increase in Fifteenth Dynasty levels of products from
the Northern Levant. Despite their lower numbers,
approximately 68.4% of the petrographically analysed
imports specifically from E/2 and E/1 are of Northern
Levantine coastal Groups A–E, with 21.1% from
Southern Levantine coastal Groups G and K, and
10.5% from Group J.122 Samples assigned to D/3 and
D/2 comprise of 82.6% from Groups A–E, 13% from
116 Aston and Bader 2009, 64, n. 191, fig. 11.
117 Fuscaldo 2008, 110 [Nr. 1]; Aston and Bietak 2017, 501.
For the Nubian sherds from R/III, see Forstner-Müller
and Rose 2012.
118 M aguire 2009, table 3; Vilain 2018, graph 1.
119 M aguire 2009, 36, table 3, fig. 9.
120 Hein 2018, fig. 4.
121 As already suggested in Aston and Bader 2009, 61–
63. For Tell el-Yahudiyah sherds at sites in Bahariyah
(Khataba and Qaret el-Toub), see Colin 2005, 42–45. For
more on routes through the Western Desert, see Hope and
K aper 2010, 137–138; Darnell 2013.
122 Cohen-Weinberger and Goren 2004, 81, tables 1e, 2.
Groups F and G, and 4.4% from Group I.123 When
compared to the previous phase, this implies more
a shift in the flow, number, or nature of incoming
products, rather than in trading routes accessing the
Levantine coast, and perhaps Cyprus. Whether or not
this was connected to internal developments, or more
belligerent interactions with the Seventeenth Dynasty,
remains hypothetical. Perhaps it is connected to the
promotion of a network linking sites in the Eastern
Delta and based on land-based routes, which could
have increased distribution via these routes and/or
diminished resources towards maritime connectivity.
In contrast to the archaeological evidence, a short
passage in the Second Stela of Kamose recounts
a variety of numerous goods looted from the
harbour city. Written in first person as if spoken by
the Theban king himself, the text mentions that
n wAH=i p x Xr bAw S.wt n (.y) aS wAD mH(.w) m n b w
x s bd HD m f kA. t Hs m n m in b n n Tn .wt s t Hrw - r bAq
s nTr aD bi . t it wrn ss nDm s p ny x t =s n n b Spsy in .w
n b n f r n (.y) RTn w ‘I did not leave a single plank to
the hundreds of ships of fresh aS-wood which were
filled with gold, lapis lazuli, silver, turquoise, bronze
axes without number, apart from bAq-oil, incense,
fat, honey, it wrn-wood, ss nDm-wood, s p ny-wood
and all their fine woods, and all the good products of
RTn w’.124 The literary aspects of the text restrict the
identification of these shiploads as true, historical
itineraries imported into Tell el-Dab‘a.125 However,
the enumeration could be interpreted as an attempt
to portray a rich city worthy of defeat and plunder by
Kamose, one ruled by a aAm, with access to luxurious
and exotic products of RTn w. The text possibly intended
to represent a formidable enemy which, despite its
wealth, was still benefitting from taxing the Thebans,
as mentioned in the First Stela of Kamose. Such a
representation implies that the Seventeenth Dynasty
administration was knowledgeable of Avaris’s role
123 Cohen-Weinberger and Goren 2004, 81, tables 1e, 2. One
of the analysed amphorae (TD 4537=4032c) from A/II-
l/17-Nr. 8, Stratum D/2, bears a scarab seal impression on
its handle reading HA. ty - a ^ i m w ‘the ruler (of?)
^ i m w’ (Bietak 1996a, 60, fig. 51, pl. 25B; Forstner-
Müller 2008, 306–307, fig. 227 [3]). The petrographic
analysis identified the vessel’s fabric as of undetermined
Northern Levantine origin (Cohen-Weinberger and
Goren 2004, 84, tables 1e [7]). This, together with the
parallels of the impression’s name and title with rulers
of Byblos, has led to the suggestion that ^ i m w could
refer to a Byblite ruler. Perhaps it could also refer to a
toponym.
124 Second Stela of Kamose, lines 13–15. Helck 1983a, 93
[119].
125 See Chapter 3.4.1.
 Socio-Political Transformations and Foreign Relations 63

Fig. 3.17 Plan of storage facilities and small complex.

Areas H/III and H/VI, Stratum e/1.2 (Phase D/1), ‘Ezbet Helmi. Bietak 2010a, fig. 27

as a harbour city, and likely one with commercial
connections with Western Asia. It was also aware of
the variety of products that could be imported from
RTn w, perhaps referring to earlier administrative texts
with similar lists, such as that in Amenemhat II’s
daybook, or existing contemporaneous intel as sources
of inspiration. Consequently, it is very likely that
the Seventeenth Dynasty administration would have
recognised the importance of regaining control over
Avaris and its trade network. As such, the impetus
for reunification may not have been solely the Theban
ruler’s desire
r nHm Km . t Hwi . t aAm .w ‘to save Egypt and smite
the aAm .w’.126 Economic motivations and desires for
territorial power may have also triggered the pursuit
for geopolitical domination.
126 Carnarvon Tablet I, lines 4–5. Helck 1983a, 84 [119].
Redford translates this expression as ‘to rescue Egypt,
which the Asiatics have destroyed’ (R edford 1997, 13).
For issues in this translation, see Peirce 2015, 108, n. 2.
3.2.1.2 Overview of site development and trade leading
into the New Kingdom
Unfortunately, the phases leading into the Eighteenth
Dynasty at Tell el-Dab‘a and its districts, especially
D/1, have been largely denuded by later activity,
particularly in Area F/I. The surviving evidence
indicates a significant reduction in the population
density and occupation of the site, with little to
no signs of destruction.127 A bronze lance head
purchased from an antiquities dealer in Luxor bears
an inscription naming Ahmose that also identifies the
object as loot from Avaris.128 It offers a tantalising clue
that the city may have been plundered by the Thebans.
127 The looting of tombs, however, did occur. Some
conflagration is also attested in Area H/I. Bietak 1996a, 67.
128 Pushkin Inv. Nr. I.1.a.1762 (Online catalogue Pushkin
Inv. Nr. I.1.a 1726). The author thanks A. Ilin-Tomich
for bringing the online catalogue entry to her attention.
Hodjache and Berlev 1977, 23–29, fig. 1. See Chapter
3.4.1.2.
64
The biography of Ahmose-si-Ibana also mentions the
capture of war prisoners from Avaris. It specifically
records:
wn . in =t w Hr HAq @w. t - w ar. t wn . in =i Hr
in i . t HAq . t i m s i 1 s. t -Hm . t 3 d mD r- t p 4 wn . in Hm =f
Hr rDi . t s t n =i r Hm .w ‘then one captured Avaris, and I
brought booty from there: one man and three women, a
total of four people. Then his majesty gave them to me
as Hm .w ’.129 Although a list of servants is additionally
provided in the biography,130 their place of origin is not
delineated and so they could be from any of the other
locations reached by the captain, including Sharuhen.
Nonetheless, this offers one plausible pathway through
which individuals under former Hyksos rule were
transferred from Avaris to other areas in Egypt.
Despite this possibility of relocation, settlement
activity persisted in some areas at Tell el-Dab‘a,
but on a limited scale, as in A/V.131 The trapezoidal
complex between Areas A/II and A/I, identified with
a temple for Seth, was apparently in use, yielding a
waste deposit, and an enclosure wall surrounding a
vineyard or garden (see Fig. 4.17).132 Also hinting at
some cultic activity is a pit at the eastern pylon of
R/I’s temple with the remains of caprids, ceramic
vessels, and two donkeys of the late Fifteenth or early
Eighteenth Dynasty.133 The sacred precinct of A/II
was apparently abandoned, but not occupied until
the Late Period.134 The evidence from ‘Ezbet Helmi’s
H/III and H/VI point to the areas’ use for a palatial
structure, paved courts, and numerous silos attached
to magazines likely including stables assigned to
Stratum e/1.2 (D/1.2) (Fig. 3.17).135 The latter have
been connected to an increased need for storing large
quantities of food, either for construction projects or
military campaigns.136 It is also likely that the function
of the area had transformed, perhaps to supply other
regions in Egypt with agricultural harvests. The
129 Biography of Ahmose-si-Ibana, lines 13–14. Urk. 4, 4.
130 Three individuals in this list bear Semitic-sounding
names (@A- ry, Is - tA- rA- iw - m i and &A- aAm -Tw) and one
is called ‘the aAm’ (PA- aAm). Biography of Ahmose-si-
Ibana, lines 55–56, 61, 63. Urk. 4, 11. For more on the
names, see T. Schneider 1992, 42 [N 68], 229–230 [N
487], 270–271 [N 595]. For more on Is - tA- rA- iw - m i, see
also Chapter 4.3.2.1.
131 Hein and Jánosi 2004, 183–186; Bietak 2010b, 164.
132 According to the excavator and the site’s stratigraphy, the
temple was abandoned during the Amarna Period, and
rebuilt either by the reign of Tutankhamun or Horemheb.
See Chapter 4.2.3.3; Bietak 1985a; 2010b, 164.
133 Bietak and Dorner 1998b, 12, pl. 11; V. Müller 2002,
271; 2008, 279, n. 524.
134 Bietak 2010b, 164.
135 Bietak and Forstner-Müller 2009. At Area H/VI,
settlement may have continued but the evidence is not
concrete (Bietak 2010b, 164).
136 Aston and Bietak 2017, 503.
Chapter 3
pottery of both Phases D/1.2 and D/1.1 also reflects
a culturally transitional phase between the Second
Intermediate Period and the New Kingdom.137
Several burials of men aged 18–45, some with signs
of trauma, were additionally found in Area H/III,
Stratum e/1.1 (Figs. 3.18–19).138 They are attested
alongside e/1.2 and e/1.1 pits of various sizes filled
with pottery, interpreted as remnants of rituals, as well
as pits with the remains of horses and other equids.139
Stratum e/1.1 (D/1.1) is further represented by fire-
places, ash deposits, ovens, a limestone mould and
perhaps batteries for metallurgy.140 As such, the
material altogether has been identified as part of a
military camp,141 the buried men perhaps soldiers. It
is, however, feasible that they were also workers142
involved in other local, perhaps agricultural or
metallurgical, activities.
The limited and mostly preliminarily published data
from ‘Ezbet Helmi restricts any overall statistical
analyses regarding shifts in the site’s access to
imported material after Phase D/2.143 The publications
of some deposits assigned to Stratum e/1 (D/1) at ‘Ezbet
Helmi’s H/III and H/VI nevertheless provide some
insight. They include L1016, a pit dug into a courtyard
surface of Stratum e/1.1 southwest of Phase D/2’s
citadel complex (Fig. 3.20).144 It comprised two male
skeletons at the bottom, animal bones, broken pottery
belonging to over 300 vessels, limestone fragments,
and other small finds.145 The ceramic assemblage
includes shapes typical of both the late Second
Intermediate Period as well as the early Eighteenth
Dynasty, clearly reflecting the date of deposition and
transitional stage of the area’s cultural horizon rather
than their date of manufacture or distribution.146
Among 229 identified vessels, approximately 11.8%
(27 vessels) ascribe to locally made MBA-type pottery
and 9.2% (21 vessels) are of imported Levantine
pottery of various fabrics, predominantly amphorae
with one handmade cooking pot.147 From other
contexts at ‘Ezbet Helmi assigned to Phase D/1, Hein
137 See Chapter 5.3.
138 Bietak and Dorner 1998a; Bietak, Dorner and Jánosi
2001, 67–69.
139 Bietak and Dorner 1998a; Bietak, Dorner and Jánosi
2001, 67–69; Bietak 2010b, 164. See also Chapters
3.2.1.2, 4.2.3.3 and 5.2.2.
140 Bietak, Dorner and Jánosi 2001, 69, fig. 32; Bietak
and Forstner-Müller 2007, 43, figs. 26–28; Aston and
Bietak 2017, 503. See also Chapter 5.2.1.3 and 5.5.
141 Aston and Bietak 2017, 503–504.
142 Aston and Bietak 2017, 504.
143 The material is currently being prepared for publication
by I. Hein. See Chapter 5.3.
144 Bietak, Dorner and Jánosi 2001, 67–73; Fuscaldo 2010, 23.
145 Bietak, Dorner and Jánosi 2001, 67; Fuscaldo 2010, 10,
23. Fuscaldo (2010, 23, 31) lists fragments of 376 vessels.
146 According to Fuscaldo (2010, 31, 34, 83–86), 92% are of
late Fifteenth Dynasty shapes. The imported Levantine
vessels are calculated among these.
147 Fuscaldo 2010, 31, 34, 83–86.
 Socio-Political Transformations and Foreign Relations 65

Fig. 3.18 Plan of offering pits and burials. Area H/III, Stratum e/1 (Phase D/1), ‘Ezbet Helmi.
After Bietak, Dorner and Jánosi 2001, fig. 24

lists 19 occurrences of various Cypriot ceramics (see The next Strata d and c (Phases C/3 and C/2) at ‘Ezbet
Fig. 3.7).148 Seven sherds of Nubian pottery were Helmi (Areas H/I–VI) are characterised by settlement
further collected from Strata e/1.1 and e/1.2 (see remains. These include a palatial precinct, of which
Fig. 3.6).149 are preserved the foundational platforms of two
palatial compounds (Palaces F and G) on either side of
an artificial lake and courtyard (Fig. 3.21). Fragments
148 Hein 2018, fig. 4. of Minoan-style wall paintings, assigned to Stratum d
149 Fuscaldo 2008; Aston and Bietak 2017, 503–504, fig. by the excavator, were predominantly collected from
16. the vicinity of Palace F (the base of the ramp and to its
66 Chapter 3

Fig. 3.19 Detail of plan of Area H/III. Bietak, Dorner and Jánosi 2001, fig. 25

north), and Palace G (to its north and atop its debris).150
Also north of Palace F, from an area of workshops
assigned to Phase C/2, were a number of scarabs,
some bearing the names of Eighteenth Dynasty
kings ranging from Ahmose to Amenhotep II.151
Of the preliminary reports regarding the ceramics
of these phases, one dipper juglet of identifiable
Levantine fabric has been specifically assigned to
this phase,152 one Levantine amphora to Stratum d–c

150 Initially, some ascribed the fragments to Dynasty 15 (see
Cline 1998; Manning 2014, 94–107), but the stratigraphy
has since been clarified. For more, see Bietak 1994b;
1996b; 1996c; 1999; 2000a; 2000b; 2005c, 83–89,
fig. 3.5; 2007; 2013b; 2018; Bietak and Marinatos 1995;
2003; Morgan 1995; 1997; 2004; 2006; 2010a; 2010b;
Marinatos 1998; 2000; 2010; Aslanidou 2002; Marinatos
and Morgan 2005; Bietak, Marinatos and Palivou 2007;
Bietak et al. 2012/2013; Becker, Jungfleisch and von
Rüden 2012/2013; Bietak and von Rüden 2018.
151 Scarabs of Ahmose, Amenhotep I, Thutmose I,
Thutmose III, Amenhotep II, as well as Ahmose-Nefertari,
were collected. For the findspots, see Jankovich 2008, 245,
figs. 11–12. For more, see, with references, Bietak, Czerny
and Prell 2016. The article also discusses other material
at the site associated with Ahmose.
152 Inv. Nr. K-6531 [61] (H/III-s/16). Fuscaldo 2007, 309,
fig. 6 [K-6531 [61]]. A number of vessels assigned to
relative Stratum d are of questionable Levantine or
Cypriot fabric (Hein 2001b, 124, 136, table 1).
 Socio-Political Transformations and Foreign Relations
Fig. 3.20 Plan of L1016 in Area H/III. Bietak, Dorner and Jánosi 2001, fig. 31a–b
(Phase C/3–C/2),153 and one Levantine handle-less
amphora from relative Stratum c–b/3 (C/2–C/1).154
In marked contrast, Hein lists 102 occurrences of
a variety of Cypriot ceramics from Stratum d (C/3),
67 from Stratum d–c (C/3–C/2), 64 to Stratum c
(C/2), and 14 to Stratum c–b/3 (C/2–C/1),155 while 27
Nubian sherds are ascribed to Stratum d (C/3), eight to
Stratum d–c (C/3–C/2), 43 to Stratum c (C/2) and two
to Stratum c–b/3 (C/2–C/1) (see Figs. 3.6–7).156 Bader
has published one amphora of a Western Desert Oasis
fabric from Area H/VI-s/26-Pl.2, and ascribed it to
relative Stratum c (C/2).157 Also of an Oasis fabric is a
fragment of a pilgrim flask’s neck from Area A/V and
of Phase C.158 According to published contexts, none of
this Eighteenth Dynasty material is from burials, with
all assigned to areas of the palatial precinct, such as its
magazines, workshops, the basement of Palace G, or
the so-called ‘bathroom’ of this compound.
The published material thus suggests a general
continuation in imported ceramics between D/2 and
153 Inv. Nr. 8731 N (H/III-t–u/17). Fuscaldo 2001, 161, fig. 7,
pl. 3 [d]. Another jug’s fabric could not be confirmed as
of Levantine origin (Fuscaldo 2001, 161, fig. 6 [e]).
154 Inv. Nr. 8498 B (H/V-m/15-Pl. 1). Hein 2001b, 136,
table 1, fig. 7 [44]. One jug and two amphorae of
Levantine fabric from Area A/V are generally assigned
to Phases D/2–B (Hein and Jánosi 2004, 223, fig. 157).
155 Hein 2018, fig. 4. See also Fuscaldo 2001, 160–161,
fig. 6 [a–d], pl. 3 [a–d]; 2007, 309, figs. 5–6; Hein 2001b,
table 1; Bader 2006, 44, figs. 5 [b], 6. Area A/V has
additionally yielded numerous Cypriot and Aegean
ceramics generally assigned to Phases D/2–B (Hein and
Jánosi 2004, 223–230, figs. 158–159).
156 Aston and Bietak 2017, 507; Fuscaldo 2008, 119–125;
Aston 2012a, 167; Hein 2001c, 202.
157 Bader 2006, 41, fig. 3.
158 One other pilgrim flask of an Oasis fabric was collected
from Area A/V and generally assigned to Phases D/2–B.
Hein and Jánosi 2004, 231, fig. 161.
67
D/1, but with a significant decrease in Levantine
imports when compared to Cypriot and Nubian pottery
between Phases D/1 to C/2. However, this observation
is reached very cautiously due to the reliance on one
context for the estimates of Levantine pottery for D/1,
as well as the predominance of studies on Cypriot and
Nubian vessels from early Eighteenth Dynasty levels.
Still, the publications of repertoires from specific
contexts assigned to D/2 to C/2 generally support the
presence of more Cypriot than Levantine pottery in
these phases.159 Perhaps, the area’s previous access to
imports from the Levant, and thereby its connections
to a Levantine trade network, had significantly altered,
or was maybe even hindered, in the first half of the
Eighteenth Dynasty, shifting to either intentionally or
unintentionally receive more Cypriot goods. It could
have also shifted to other parts of the site and its
surrounds. For instance, a small number of imported
sherds were collected from the earliest phases of
nearby Qantir, Area Q/I (Fig. 3.23b), albeit from the
badly disturbed Strata D/1–C of which only a few
bricks and small floor areas were identified 160 Utilised
as temper for mudbricks, the imported LBI–IIA
pottery predominantly included fragments of Levantine
amphorae, along with sherds of bowls and possibly a
pilgrim flask of Levantine fabric, and a Bichrome ware
jug of Cypro-Levantine fabric.161 Early Eighteenth
Dynasty non-funerary contexts in Area Q/IV
additionally revealed Levantine amphorae of MBIIC
or LBI style, as well as an Oasis clay flask.162
Following Stratum c (C/2) at ‘Ezbet Helmi and Tell el-
Dab‘a, and Stratum C of Qantir Q/I, the area appears to
159 See Hein 2001b, table 1; Fuscaldo 2001, 159–161; 2007,
306–309; Bader 2006, 41, 46, 48.
160 MBIIB–C, LBI and LBIIA sherds were also collected as
stray pieces in upper levels. Aston 1998, 3, 627.
161 Inv. Nrs. 2541–2566. Aston 1998, 627–633.
162 Aston and Pusch 1999, 53–54 [Nrs. 99–100].
68 Chapter 3
Fig. 3.21 Plan of palatial precinct at ‘Ezbet Helmi. Bietak 2010a, fig. 28
have been abandoned for yet unconfirmed reasons. The
hiatus, particularly at the trapezoidal complex between
Areas A/II and A/I, could have been associated with
the Amarna Period and the religious, cultural and
political developments within Egypt.163 Large walls
identified as a fortress were likely constructed in the
proceeding Stratum b/3 (Phase C/1) at ‘Ezbet Helmi.164
In Stratum b/2 (B/3), they were enlarged while the
complex between Areas A/II and A/I (see Fig. 4.17)
was also renovated. Regarding these levels’ pottery,
only Aston has produced a preliminary report of
H/VI South, in which he assigns ceramics of relative
Stratum b to the reigns of Amenhotep III to
Akhenaten,165 and relative Stratum a to the reign
163 Bietak 1985a; 2010b, 164.
164 Bietak and Forstner-Müller 2007, 53, fig. 30.
165 A fragment of a statue of Sekhmet from H/V (TD 8430)
also stylistically supports this dating. Bietak, Dorner
and Jánosi 2001, 107, fig. 56.
of Horemheb.166 The former produced Levantine
amphorae, but as of yet no Cypriot or Aegean pottery
has been identified.167 The later stratum yielded
fragments of Levantine amphorae and two sherds of
Mycenaean stirrup jars.168
At Area Q/I of Qantir, Stratum B/3 likely coincides
with the late Eighteenth or early Nineteenth
Dynasties, the site selected for the new capital of the
new dynasty, Piramesse (Fig. 3.23). It is characterised
by two areas separated by a large enclosure wall; to
its north was a bronze metalworking complex, and
to its south were workshops likely for processing
such materials as wood, leather, metal and stone.169
The following Stratum B/2b is assigned to the reign
166 Aston 2001.
167 Aston 2001, 188, 193 [Nr. 47], fig. 12 [8].
168 Aston 2001, 167, 175, 177 [Nrs. 29–30], fig. 3 [12–13].
169 Aston 1998, 3; R aedler et al. 2007, 37–40; Prell 2011.
 Socio-Political Transformations and Foreign Relations 69

Fig. 3.22 Geomagnetic survey map of walls in Strata b/3–b/2 (Phases C/1–B/3).
Bietak 2017, fig. 7

of Ramesses II, during which the southern workshop
activities continued while the northern complex was
replaced by a large courtyard.170 Likely connected
to chariotry activities, the area was later renovated
in B/2a, possibly in the latter half of Ramesses II’s
reign.171 It was then demolished in B/1, which is
assigned between the reign of Ramesses III and the
end of Dynasty 21.172
The ceramic repertoire of the Nineteenth Dynasty
levels comprised around 2% of LBIIB type amphorae,
a smaller number of imported Levantine ceramics
including pilgrim flasks, one bowl and one handle-
less amphora, as well as a small number of vessels
produced from Oases fabrics, and Mycenaean
pottery.173 While the fabrics were sourced from
various regions across the Mediterranean, their
overall number and the predominance of closed
shapes are markedly different from the Middle
Kingdom to Second Intermediate Period imported
assemblage. Two other Nineteenth Dynasty contexts,
the well of Sama‘na and administrative building of
Area Q/V, produced a much higher percentage of
Levantine pottery, most of which are from a variety
of Northern Levantine and northern Southern

170 Aston 1998, 3; Raedler et al. 2007, 40; Prell 2011. 173 Inv. Nrs. 2201–2219, 2567–2794. Aston 1998, 536–539,
171 Aston 1998, 3; R aedler et al. 2007, 40; Prell 2011. 635–676. For the Mycenaean pottery, see also Mountjoy
172 Aston 1998, 3; R aedler et al. 2007, 40; Prell 2011. and Mommsen 2001.
70 Chapter 3

River

Innundation Area

1 Temple of Tell Abu el-Shafa‘ei 7 Ramesside Cemetery of ‘Ezbet Helmi (Area H/VI)
2 Temple of Amun Ra Horakhty Atum 8 Limestone Platform (Area A/IV)
3 Installation for Chariot Troops 9 Ramesside Cemetery (Area F/I)
4 Royal Horse Stud 10 Vineyard (Area A/V)
5 Living Quarter (houses of different sizes, gardens, 11 Thutmoside Palace
streets, canals, quai installations) 12 Fortress of Horemheb
6 Landing for Ships with Quai Installations 13 Pre-Horemheb Installation

Fig. 3.23a Plan of landscape of Tell el-Dab‘a and Qantir. Bietak 2010a, fig. 4
 Socio-Political Transformations and Foreign Relations 71

Fig. 3.23b Plan of excavated areas at Qantir. After Dorner 2009, plan 2, fig. 5; Pusch and Becker 2017, fig. 33
72 Chapter 3
Levantine fabrics.174 Clearly then, the area still
retained access to products from the Levant;175 yet,
unsurprisingly, the nature of imported goods (i.e. the
types of vessels and their commodities) and the flow
of materials had shifted by the Nineteenth Dynasty.176
It adds to the largely unpublished material from the
region which will surely further illuminate the nature
and development of trade between Dynasties 18–20.
Overall, the published ceramic analyses emphasise
the continued role of the area of and around Tell
el-Dab‘a as a connecting node to the rest of the
Mediterranean from the Middle to the New Kingdom.
In establishing a new capital for the Nineteenth
Dynasty, the nearby Qantir was selected, the
archaeological evidence supporting further utilisation
of the region for the harbour of Piramesse. Some have
also contested that the site should be identified with
the Eighteenth Dynasty capital of Perunefer, another
important harbour city.177 It is indeed noteworthy that
the region of Tell el-Dab‘a was not entirely abandoned
174 The well is generally assigned to the reign of Ramesses II
(Franzmeier 2010), its pottery inclusive of an estimated
9.15% of Levantine imports (Ownby et al. 2014, 15, table
3). The remains of Area Q/V are thus far divided into
four main strata: B/3, with evidence of glassmaking
activities of Dynasty 19; B/2 and B/1 of administrative
facilities of Dynasties 19–20; and B/0, characterised
by fillings, pits and perturbations of Dynasties 20–21.
Ceramics collected from Q/V, Stratum B/3 of the mid-
Nineteenth Dynasty include an estimated 9.28% of
Levantine imports. Those specifically from Square b/19
amount to almost 64% of the context’s pottery, a ratio
unparalleled in Q/V. For more on Area Q/V, see Pusch
and R ehren 2007, 41–44; Franzmeier 2010; Ownby et al.
2014, 14–16, table 2; Pusch and Becker 2017, 75–80.
175 According to petrographic analysis of pottery from the
well and Q/V, Square b/9, the Levantine fabrics were
from the same regions as those identified in analyses of
Levantine imports from Amarna and Memphis.
Ownby et al. 2014, 16; Serpico and White 2000a;
Bourriau, L. Smith and Serpico 2001; L. Smith et al. 2004.
176 The pottery from Area Q/IV is, as of yet, only
preliminarily published. Most derives from Stratum
Bb of around the reigns of Sety II to Dynasty 20, which
is characterised by a royal stud. The stratum produced
Mycenaean and Levantine pottery, as well as amphorae
of an Oasis clay. Excavations into earlier levels, Bc
(possibly Ramesses II’s reign) and Bd (late Eighteenth to
early Nineteenth Dynasty), were limited due to the high
water table. They nonetheless revealed remnants of an
earlier stable, as well as what appear to be products of
glassmaking workshops in a leveling layer. For more, see
Mountjoy and Mommsen 2001; Laemmel 2008. For more
on the excavations at Qantir, see Herold 1999; 2006;
Tillmann 2007; Pusch and R ehren 2007; Pusch 2009;
Franzmeier 2010; Prell 2011; Pusch and Becker 2017.
177 See Chapter 4.2.4.3. Spiegelberg 1927; Daressy
1928/1929, 225, 322–326; Roehrig 1990, 126–127;
Pumpenmeier 1998, 89–93; Collombert and Coulon
2000, 218; H abachi 2001, 9, 106–107; Bietak 2005b;
2009a; 2009b; 2010b, 167–168; 2011, 26–32; 2017; 2018;
Gundacker 2017.
by the Eighteenth Dynasty state. The wall paintings
and imported material uncovered at ‘Ezbet Helmi and
its palatial precinct indicate that this particular area
of the Delta continued to espouse connectivity with
the Eastern Mediterranean at least between the reigns
of Hatshepsut or Thutmose III and Amenhotep II.
Whether or not this was related to the ongoing use
of the site’s harbours for accessing sea routes during
the Eighteenth Dynasty necessitates further research.
Nevertheless, Egyptians apparently retained the
memory of the site’s spatial role as hub for intercultural
encounters, continuing its dynamic interactions and
possible exchange patterns as promoted by various
agents, including the Hyksos rulers and those of Near
Eastern origin, since its establishment.
3.2.2 Other Communities of the Delta
The growth of the harbour town of Tell el-Dab‘a
coincided with the occupation of a number of sites in the
surrounding region bearing evidence of activity at least
from the Middle Kingdom or the Second Intermediate
Period (see Fig. 3.1). While they have yielded material
that closely parallels that of Tell el-Dab‘a, their exact
association with the settlement and its inhabitants
remains to be completely elucidated. This is largely
due to the nature of archaeological reports, which are
either incomplete, preliminary, or based on salvage or
ongoing excavations. Nevertheless, according to the
present state of accessible data, some nodes and routes
in the Delta can at least be connected to Tell el-Dab‘a,
their political developments between the Fifteenth and
Eighteenth Dynasties thereby equally of pertinence.
3.2.2.1 Kom el-Hisn
Kom el-Hisn is located at the edge of the Western Delta,
on or near a bank of a Nile distributary. Excavations
have produced evidence for the site’s occupation from at
least the Fifth Dynasty to the First Intermediate Period,
likely as a ‘specialized provincial community devoted
to large-scale raising of animals – particularly cattle
– for export’.178 Simple mud-lined graves of the early
Middle Kingdom included bronze weaponry (such as
duckbill axes, daggers with crescent-shaped pommels,
and a socketted spearhead), Levantine pottery, as well
as copper or silver torques and bracelets.179 Philip
thus suggests that the graves represent a formative
or earlier stage to Phase H burials at Tell el-Dab‘a,180
although the differences in architecture and deposition
should be noted. Additional late Middle Kingdom
or Second Intermediate Period activity at the site is
hinted by the discovery of Tell el-Yahudiyah sherds
178 Wenke, R edding and Cagle 2016, 367.
179 H amada and el-A mir 1947, 105–106; H amada and Farid
1947, 201–205, pl. 56; 1948, 301, pl. 7; Orel 2000; Philip
2006, 225, 231–232; Petschel 2011, 438–442 [Nrs. 129–
130, 132–133, 135, 137–138].
180 Philip 2006, 231.
 Socio-Political Transformations and Foreign Relations
from an auger core survey.181 These point to possible
trade or the mobility of products perhaps accessed
from Tell el-Dab‘a. While other burials at Kom el-Hisn
were assigned to the New Kingdom, some with scarabs
of Thutmose III and Amenhotep III,182 the evidence
remains too scant to determine the extent of Second
Intermediate Period and New Kingdom presence at the
site and the exact nature of its connectivity with the
rest of the Delta.
3.2.2.2 Tell Hebwa I
Tell Hebwa I features evidence of occupation from
the Middle Kingdom to possibly the early Nine-
teenth Dynasty, with some Graeco-Roman activity
(Fig. 3.24).183 The site is located near a Nile distributary
and at the entrance of the North Sinai (see Fig. 3.1).
Its large New Kingdom fortifications have led to its
identification with Tjaru of the Ways of Horus, a
system of fortified settlements that was strategically
developed along the route to the Southern Levant
perhaps from the late Old Kingdom onwards.184
Epigraphic evidence from around the Thirteenth
Dynasty (Level 5b) at Tell Hebwa I points to the
presence of elite individuals at the site influenced
by Levantine traditions, one of which reached the
position of treasurer.185 A number of inscriptions
naming Nehsy assigned to early Second Intermediate
Period Level 5a suggest the site’s possible occupation
during Dynasty 14.186 The following Level 4c
produced Egyptian and Levantine-influenced pottery,
as well as Tell el-Yahudiyah vessels, one of which
parallels a MBIIA–B type common at Tell el-Dab‘a’s
Phases E/2–E/1 (early Fifteenth Dynasty).187 By
Level 4b, the number of silos at the site increased,
their number and proximity to houses signalling the
site’s rising economic importance as a storage location
for foodstuffs (Fig. 3.24).188 The ceramics include
Egyptian and local Levantine-type vessels assigned
by the excavator to MBIIC, imported Levantine
wares, as well as Classic Kerman cups.189 Contracted
burials, some within or near silos, hint at the presence
of different, possibly Levantine-influenced, funerary
181 K irby, Orel and S.T. Smith 1998.
182 Farid and H amada 1950, 371, pl. 7 [16–17, 19].
183 A bd el-M aksoud 1998, 35–44.
184 S. H assan 1953, 49, 52, fig. 42, pl. 28; A bd el-M aksoud
1989, 181–184; 1998, 30–33; Morris 2005, 46–50;
Hoffmeier 2004.
185 See Chapter 4.2.3.1 for more on the inscription of ap r-
BaAr. See also Mourad 2015, 44–45.
186 One stela mentions the son of Ra Nehsy with Tany, a name
which otherwise occurs in affiliation with Apophis. A bd
el-M aksoud 1983, 1–3, figs. 1–2; 1998, 39, 271–273; A bd
el-M aksoud and Valbelle 2005, 5–11, figs. 3–4, 6, pl. 5.
187 A bd el-M aksoud 1998, 38.
188 A bd el-M aksoud 1998, 38, 52–62, fig. 19.
189 Seiler 1997, 23–30; A bd el-M aksoud 1998, 38, 189, 191;
al-Ayedi 2000, 100–101; Mourad 2015, 46.
73
traditions.190 One tomb assigned to Level 4 produced
three imported jugs paralleling MBIIB vessels from
the Southern Levant, as well as a bronze dagger.191
Equid burials of uncertain date were also uncovered.192
The next Level 4a is ascribed to the transitional
Second Intermediate Period to New Kingdom, the
evidence pointing to a dense occupation of several
houses. Burials near granaries were found, as
well as infant burials in amphorae.193 The ceramic
assemblage features Cypriot pottery, Bichrome
ware, as well as local Egyptian and Levantine-type
vessels (Figs. 3.25–26).194 Tell el-Yahudiyah pottery
is rare.195 Both late Second Intermediate Period and
early Eighteenth Dynasty types occur, those of the
former finding close parallels with the pottery from
Phases D/3 and D/2 at Tell el-Dab‘a, and those of the
latter paralleling early Eighteenth Dynasty types
attested across Egypt.196 According to the excavator,
the increasing representation of Egyptian vessels
indicates the political shift leading to Dynasty 18.197
This agrees with Bourriau’s assessment of the pottery,
with the appearance of Upper Egyptian styles possibly
indicating the advent of the Eighteenth Dynasty.198
A large palatial or administrative building yielding,
among other finds, the remains of a horse, has also been
assigned to the transitional Second Intermediate Period
to New Kingdom at Tell Hebwa.199
The successive Level 3, dated to around Thutmose III’s
reign, is represented by local Egyptian and Levantine-
influenced ceramics.200 At the nearby Tell Hebwa IV,
Cypriot Base Ring vessels and an imported LBI
amphora were found in a tomb assigned to the reigns of
Thutmose III to Amenhotep II.201 Imported products are
also attested in other disturbed tombs in the area likely
of this date; they include Cypriot Base Ring and Red
Lustrous Wheelmade vessels, an imitation of a Cypriot
Base Ring jug made from a Levantine fabric, as well as
amphorae fragments.202 The now fortified settlement
of Tell Hebwa I was enlarged, with some buildings
constructed on sand (see Fig. 3.24). Others feature
thicker walls (described as military installations) on
190 A bd el-M aksoud 1998, 59, 96–97, fig. 25; al-Ayedi 2000,
100–101.
191 T. 103. A bd el-M aksoud 1998, 94, 191–193; Mourad
2015, 46–47.
192 A bd el-M aksoud 1983, 2–3, pl. 2; al-Ayedi 2000, 115,
n. 98; Hoffmeier 2004, 131; Morris 2005, 46.
193 A bd el-M aksoud 1998, 37–38; al-Ayedi 2000, 100.
194 A bd el-M aksoud 1998, 37–38; al-Ayedi 2000, 100.
195 A bd el-M aksoud 1998, 37.
196 Seiler 1997, 23–30.
197 A bd el-M aksoud 1998, 37.
198 Bourriau 1997a, 137–138.
199 Chaix 2000, 177; R aulwing and Clutton-Brock 2009,
48–49, fig. 20. For the horse burial, see also Chapter
5.2.2.2.
200 A bd el-M aksoud 1998, 36, 175–177, 197–200, 206–209.
201 Dorner and Aston 1997, 41–42.
202 Aston 2012b.
74
Level 4
Level 3
Level 2
Fig. 3.24 Plan of Area B, Tell Hebwa I. After Abd el-Maksoud 1998, fig. 19
earlier, late Second Intermediate Period, complexes.203
They are in close proximity to the Second Intermediate
Period and New Kingdom granaries that continued in
use, signalling the prolonged importance of the
site’s role for the storage of foodstuffs. This function
was apparently revitalised in the early Nineteenth
Dynasty (Level 2), with reinforced fortifications and
new magazines. Inscriptions from the site as well as
other historical material link this Level 2 with the
reign of Sety I.204
The evidence at Tell Hebwa overall suggests that the
site may have been influenced by Levantine cultural
elements from at least the Thirteenth Dynasty. By the
Fifteenth Dynasty, its function as a settlement and
storage area or food supply point is apparent. The
lack of rich burials implies that it was linked with a
larger node of trade, possibly Tell el-Dab‘a. However,
the discovery of a large building ascribed to the late
Second Intermediate Period or the early New Kingdom
could signal at influential local powerholders. Still,
203 A bd el-M aksoud 1998, 36–37; al-Ayedi 2000, 100.
204 A bd el-M aksoud 1998, 35–36; al-Ayedi 2000, 100.
Chapter 3
a connection with Tell el-Dab‘a is supported by the
presence of a similar ceramic assemblage of local
and non-Egyptian types, as well as burials with
paralleling attributes. If the identification is correct,
then the Rhind Mathematical Papyrus’s mention of
the southern prince’s attack on Tjaru before Avaris
is also of interest.205 Perhaps the site provided Tell el-
Dab‘a with a storage and supply point along a route to
the Southern Levant, thus presenting a logical target
in the takeover of Avaris.206 While no corroborating
archaeological evidence for such an attack has yet
been found, the text may still reflect Tjaru’s important
ties with the Hyksos capital. By the early Eighteenth
Dynasty, the occurrence of pottery adhering to Upper
Egyptian forms has been utilised to support the political
shift in the region. Still, however, the site continued
to have access to Levantine and Cypriot imports, its
function as a food supply point also persisting into
Dynasties 18 and 19, especially in periods associated
with heightened contact with the Southern Levant.
205 See Chapter 4.2.2.4 for the text.
206 A l-Ayedi 2000, 167–169; Mourad 2015, 48.
 Socio-Political Transformations and Foreign Relations
Fig. 3.25 Levantine imports (Group VI) and locally
made MBA-type pottery (Groups VII–X) assigned to
the late Second Intermediate Period from Tell Hebwa I.
Not to scale. Drawing by Patrick Aprent,
after Abd el-Maksoud 1998, figs. 14–17
3.2.2.3 Tell Basta
South of Tell Hebwa and Tell el-Dab‘a is Tell Basta
(Bubastis) (see Fig. 3.1). The site was strategically
positioned between the Pelusiac and Tanitic branches
of the Nile, and near the beginning of the Wadi
Tumilat. It featured an almost continuous occupation
from the Old Kingdom to the Late Period,207 with a
Middle Kingdom palatial complex, the largest of its
time in the Delta, likely constructed in the Twelfth
Dynasty.208 The complex, however, was abandoned
and burnt. Elsewhere, this has been interpreted as
a possible power shift, perhaps related to Tell el-
Dab‘a replacing Tell Basta’s mayoral seat of power.209
The exact repercussions of this hiatus on the site’s
inhabitants is uncertain. No later Middle Kingdom
data from the site has thus far been published, the
excavators instead finding hundreds of burials that
were assigned to the New Kingdom.210 However,
according to a recent publication, some tombs
should be redated to the Second Intermediate
Period, principally to the Fifteenth Dynasty.211 Their
assemblages include pottery similar to those from
207 Naville 1891; H abachi 1957; Farid 1964; el-Sawi 1979;
Tietze and A bd el-M aksoud 2004.
208 Van Siclen III 1988, 187–19; 1996; Bietak 2019a.
209 See, with references, Mourad 2015, 42.
210 Bakr 1992; Ashmawy A li 2016b, 146.
211 Ashmawy A li 2016b, 145–155.
75
Fig. 3.26 Cypriot-type pottery (Group XI) and
Bichrome Ware (Group XII) assigned to the late
Second Intermediate Period and Eighteenth Dynasty
from Tell Hebwa I. Not to scale. Drawing by Patrick
Aprent, after Abd el-Maksoud 1998, figs. 18–20
Tell el-Dab‘a’s Phase E/1 to D/2, such as flat-based
cups, a dipper juglet, and Tell el-Yahudiyah juglets.212
They also yielded scarabs with Second Intermediate
Period motifs as well as equid burials possibly in
relation to tombs.213
Additionally found in the Hypostyle Hall of Tell
Basta’s Great Temple were the lower half of a statue
usurped by Khayan, as well as blocks and a fragment
of a red granite door jamb naming Apophis.214 While
Redford suggests that the latter was originally from
Avaris,215 its inscription could also be linked with Tell
Basta’s temple. It preserves only a few words from two
columns: (1) sA Ra.w I- p p i Di (.w) an x
‘the son of Ra, Apophis, may he be given life’; and
(2) [iri .] n =f s n .w (t) aSA.wt aA
m Hm . t n nTr p n ‘[he made] many flag-staves and a
door from copper for this god’.216
212 Ashmawy A li 2016b, 145–155.
213 Ashmawy A li 2016b, fig. 1.
214 Two statues of so-called ‘Hyksos’ type were also collected
from the entrance of the Great Temple’s First Hall. Porter
and Moss 1934, 28–29; Borchardt 1925, pls. 60, 90;
Naville 1891, 22–24, pls. 10, 12, 22 [A], 25 [C–D], 26 [B],
35 [A, C]. Ryholt (1997, 149), suggests that Khayan
converted an existing kA chapel for use at the site.
215 R edford 1997, 7 [Nr. 35].
216 Naville 1891, pl. 35 [C]; Helck 1983a, 57 [84].
76 Chapter 3
The evidence supports the site’s occupation during
the Second Intermediate Period, perhaps with direct
links with the Fifteenth Dynasty administration.
However, until the burials of this period as well as
the New Kingdom are more completely published, it
is not yet possible to discern how the site may have
been affected in the very early Eighteenth Dynasty.
Resumed interest in its temple occurs at least by
Amenhotep III’s reign.
3.2.2.4 Wadi Tumilat
The Fifteenth Dynasty activity at Tell Basta coincides
with contemporaneous developments in the Wadi
Tumilat, a valley situated between the Delta and the
Sinai Peninsula that could feasibly provide access to
land-based routes to Egypt, the Levant, and perhaps
the Red Sea (see Fig. 3.1). Several sites in the Wadi
have thus far only produced evidence of occupation
from the Fifteenth Dynasty onwards. These include
Tell el-Mansheya,217 Tell el-Koa, Tell el-Maskhuta
(Fig. 3.27),218 Tell el-Retaba,219 and Tell el-Sahaba.220
The Fifteenth Dynasty material largely parallels the
material culture of other sites in the Eastern Delta.
The pottery typically features local Egyptian and
Levantine-influenced types found at Tell el-Dab‘a’s
Phase E/2 to D/2,221 with imported amphorae collected
from Tell el-Maskhuta and possibly Tell el-Sahaba.222
One type, the Nile B-2 one-handled squat juglet with
rounded base and painted black horizontal lines, has,
so far, only been found at sites in the Wadi Tumilat.223
Although it may have been a version of an earlier type
from Tell el-Dab‘a, it suggests that a more localised
pottery tradition was surfacing in the Wadi. This is
further supported by the gradual emergence of new
fabric types used for Tell el-Yahudiyah ware at Tell
el-Maskhuta.224 Other local industries or workshops
may have also flourished, with one complex at Tell
el-Maskhuta revealing evidence for the possible
217 A hmed et al. 2018.
218 Holladay 1982; Redmount 1989; 1995a; 1995b; Paice,
Holladay and Brock 1996; Holladay 1997.
219 Wodzińska 2011, 109–110; R zepka et al. 2014, 39–56,
94–98; R zepka et al. 2015, 97–103; Nour el-Din et al.
2016, 75–114; R zepka et al. 2017, 22–32.
220 Redmount 1989, 162, fig. 56 [7–12]; van den Brink 1982,
56.
221 R zepka et al. 2014, 39–56, 94–98; R zepka et al. 2015, 97–
103; Nour el-Din et al. 2016, 75–114; R zepka et al. 2017,
22–32; R edmount 1989, 250–251, 801–806, 876–877,
figs. 56 [7–12], 131–132, 146; 1995b, 74–77; A hmed et al.
2018, 27–52.
222 R edmount 1989, 847, table 39, figs. 56 [7–12], 143 [1–15].
223 A vase with similar decoration was also found at Tell el-
Retaba. R zepka et al. 2014, 97, fig. 101; Nour el-Din et al.
2016, 104, fig. 29; Wodzińska 2014, 109–110, fig. 1.
224 Ksiezak 2019. The changes may be connected to
‘adaptation to available resources and modifications to
the chaîne opératoire to optimize the process’ (Ksiezak
2019, 267).
production of ‘some sort of composite apparatus or
adornment, such as red-dyed leather goods with locally
made metal ornaments and fittings’.225
Adults and children could be buried in rectangular
mudbrick tombs of various sizes and types, including
those with vaulted roofs. Intramural infant burials are
attested at Tell el-Retaba226 and, in imported amphorae,
at Tell el-Maskhuta.227 Equid burials were found at
Tell el-Maskhuta.228 Apart from pottery, graves could
include scarabs with Levantine-influenced motifs, gold
earrings, silver adornments, bronze toggle pins and
bronze weapons.
While the material points to shared cultural traits
across the Wadi in the Second Intermediate Period, that
from the late Second Intermediate Period and the early
New Kingdom suggests a significant shift. A number of
sites experienced a short interval of abandonment or a
change in material culture. The six Second Intermediate
Period phases at Tell el-Maskhuta, for instance, are
only correlated to the end of Tell el-Dab‘a’s Phase
E/1 and the beginning of Phase D/3, the site evidently
not occupied until Dynasty 26.229 The evidence from
Tell el-Mansheya has been generally assigned to the
second half of the Fifteenth Dynasty, the site possibly
abandoned by the end of the dynasty.230
Of sites that continued in occupation, the nearby Tell
el-Koa yielded Fifteenth and early Eighteenth Dynasty
material.231 Excavations at Tell el-Retaba also revealed
several phases dating from the Second Intermediate
Period to the modern age. Although ongoing, the
preliminary reports on Tell el-Retaba point to an
alteration in use of Areas 4 and 7 from domestic and
funerary (Phases G3 and G2, Second Intermediate
Period) to funerary activity in Area 4 (Phase F5, early
Dynasty 18), with a gravel deposit (Phase G1) covering
the settlement remains to demarcate the change
(Figs. 3.28–30).232 The earliest Eighteenth Dynasty
material thus far excavated is represented by a cemetery
in Area 4, Phase F5, the tombs of which bear features and
grave goods that show both Second Intermediate Period
and Eighteenth Dynasty traditions or, more accurately,
a transitional cultural horizon.233 One yielded silver
items such as a toggle pin, a plate (perhaps a diadem
225 The evidence was collected from a ‘shed’ along the
northern face of House B of Phase 4. It included red-
ochre mottles across the floor, ochre-stained red palettes,
grinders, and leather dressings. Paice, Holladay and
Brock 1996, 167.
226 R zepka et al. 2015, 100, fig. 5.
227 R edmount 1989, 847, fig. 179; 1995b, 77,
228 R edmount 1989, table 39.
229 Holladay 1997, 188; R edmount 1995a, 185.
230 A hmed et al. 2018, 53.
231 A hmed et al. 2018, 53.
232 Hudec et al. 2018, 93.
233 Individuals are buried both in supine and contracted
positions, while grave goods ascribe to the late Second
Intermediate Period and early Eighteenth Dynasty.
Hudec et al. 2018, 101–103, fig. 6.
 Socio-Political Transformations and Foreign Relations 77

Fig. 3.27 Development of occupation at Tell el-Maskhuta, Phases 1–6.

Ksiezak 2019, fig. 3. Courtesy of A. Ksiezak

or dress ornament), a ring, beads, and an amethyst
scarab mounted on silver. These signal the presence of
individuals of higher status at the site, with funerary
customs that were influenced both by earlier regional
practices originally inspired by those in the Near East
(such as the use of the toggle pin), as well as emerging
practices that parallel those of the New Kingdom.234
Following the abandonment of the cemetery, Area 4
was reutilised for domestic activity in Phase F4A–B,
initially perhaps for silos and then for the so-called
‘Green House’ (Fig. 3.30).235 Area 3 similarly yielded
huts and silos.236 In Phase F3, the ‘Black Houses’ of
234 Tomb 2458. Hudec et al. 2018, 103, fig. 6 [S3423, S3238,
S3272, S3240].
235 R zepka et al. 2017, 32–35; Hudec et al. 2018, 103.
236 R zepka et al. 2011, 157–158, figs. 46–48.
Areas 4 and 7 were constructed. They yielded ovens
that produced ashy layers with copper and copper-alloy
prill,237 perhaps reflecting the use of the space for metal
processing activities.238 Other small finds from Phases
F4 to F3, such as a spinning bowl, loom weights, red
ochre, galena, antimony and pumice, suggest further
specialised craft production at Tell el-Retaba.239 Their
ceramics largely parallel those assigned to around the
reigns of Hatshepsut and Thutmose III.240 As with Tell
237 R zepka et al. 2014, 56–64; R zepka et al. 2015, 103–108;
R zepka et al. 2017, 35–41; Hudec et al. 2018, 105, fig. 7.
238 R zepka et al. 2017, 36; Hudec et al. 2018, 105.
239 R zepka et al. 2014, 61–62; R zepka et al. 2017, 35–41.
240 R zepka et al. 2011, 165–167; R zepka et al. 2014, 56–64,
98–101; R zepka et al. 2015, 104, 107–108, 139–141,
figs. 67–68; Wodzińska 2013, 96–97, fig. 1.
78 Chapter 3

Fig. 3.28 Plan of Second Intermediate Period cemetery at Tell el-Retaba.

Drawing by Patrick Aprent, after Nour el-Din et al. 2016, plan 1
 Socio-Political Transformations and Foreign Relations 79

Fig. 3.29 Plan of Second Intermediate Period occupation at Area 4, Tell el-Retaba.
Drawing by Patrick Aprent, after Hudec et al. 2018, fig. 2

el-Dab‘a and Tell Basta, Mediterranean imports were
also deposited in early Eighteenth Dynasty levels and
include Cypriot juglets, as well as a Levantine amphora
probably dating between the reigns of Hatshepsut or
Thutmose III and Amenhotep II (Fig. 3.31).241 Later
Eighteenth Dynasty Phase F2 is only represented by
scattered remains, while no archaeological material
has yet surfaced from Phase F1.242 The evidence
instead suggests a reoccupation in the early Nineteenth
Dynasty, with the construction of a fortress.243
241 Wodzińska 2009, 126, fig. 4; 2011, 1019, fig. 6; 2012;
R zepka et al. 2011, 166, fig. 60.
242 R zepka et al. 2017, 19–22, 41–46; Hudec et al. 2018, 93,
106–110.
243 R zepka et al. 2011, 142–156; R zepka et al. 2015, 108–116;
R zepka et al. 2017, 19–22, 41–46.
3.2.2.5 Other communities
Other communities in the Delta that yielded material
closely paralleling the abovementioned sites are
Tell Farasha, Inshas, Kom el-Khilgan, and Tell el-
Yahudiyah. Not all have been completely excavated or
published.
West of Tell el-Dab‘a and part of Avaris is el-Khata‘na.
Naville’s brief report mentions burials with scarabs
bearing Levantine-type motifs, bronze weapons,
and pottery similar to those from Tell el-Dab‘a’s
Phases E/1–D/3, such as cylindrical and piriform
Tell el-Yahudiyah ware, red-polished jugs, flat-based
cups, and an ovoid black polished juglet.244 An infant
burial in a jar of unknown fabric and style was also
244 Naville 1889, 21–22; Naville and Griffith 1890, 56–57,
pl. 19; Mourad 2015, 48–49, fig. 4.20.
80 Chapter 3
recorded.245 More recent excavations at el-Khata‘na
North, between el-Khata‘na and ‘Ezbet Helmi, revealed
scarabs and fecundity figurines of the New Kingdom,
as well as architectural remains of possible late Second
Intermediate Period living quarters.246
Around 8 km west of Mendes is Kom el-Khilgan.
A Predynastic Period cemetery as well as a Second
Intermediate Period cemetery and settlement were
uncovered. Not yet completely published, petrographic
analyses on the Second Intermediate Period amphorae
revealed six regions of origin, including: (1) coastal
Syria (4.55% of the samples); (2) the ‘Akkar Plain of
northern Lebanon (9.1%); (3) different areas along
the Lebanese coast (50%); (4) coastal Israel (9.1%);
(5) a site on the outskirts of the Egyptian Delta
(9.1–13.6%); and (6) a region producing clay with
plagiogranite and large inclusions of pyroxene and
amphibole minerals, like Cyprus (13.6%).247 The
results agree with other petrographic analyses on
vessels from Kom Rabi‘a and Tell el-Dab‘a, with most
samples stemming from the Northern Levantine coast,
and a smaller percentage from the Southern Levant.
The possible Cypriot fabric, however, is thus far only
attested at Kom el-Khilgan.248 This may point to
another, yet unexplored, flow of traded goods across
the Mediterranean and the Delta. Nevertheless, the site
still had access to products that were possibly locally
circulated during the Second Intermediate Period.
At Tell Farasha, between Tell Basta and Tell el-Dab‘a,
were rectangular mudbrick burials with vaulted roofs
and such burial goods as scarabs, bronze weapons,
and earrings. Tell el-Yahudiyah ware paralleling those
from Tell el-Dab‘a E/1–D/2 was also found.249 No other
material from the site has yet been published.
Another site mentioned only in brief preliminary
reports is Tell el-Kebir. Also in the Eastern Delta,
excavations revealed eight mudbrick tombs assigned
to the Fifteenth Dynasty.250 Funerary goods include
pottery, scarabs, and bronze items, as well as a
reported horse burial near one tomb and horse
bones near another. The dating, as well as the horse
burials, cannot be confirmed until the data is more
completely published.
Further south and also only with reported Second
Intermediate Period remains is Inshas. Habachi
excavated at least 70 so-called ‘Hyksos burials’.251
These included rectangular mudbrick tombs with
245 Other similar jars were found, some reportedly with
charcoal and ash remains. Naville 1889, 21–22; Naville
and Griffith 1890, 56.
246 Bietak and Forstner-Müller 2007, 38, figs. 3–6;
Forstner- Müller et al. 2007, 97–100.
247 Ownby 2012a, 33–38, fig. 1.
248 Ownby 2012a, 36.
249 Yacoub 1983, 175–176, pls. 1–6.
250 Leclant and Clerc 1995, 246; R aulwing and Clutton-
Brock 2009, 58–59; S. Turner 2015, 449–451.
251 Desroches-Noblecourt 1949, 12–13.
vaulted roofs, within which were contracted bodies,
scarabs and Tell el-Yahudiyah ware.252 At least a dozen
tombs evidently had associated equid remains.253
The southernmost site in the Delta thus far known
to have yielded similar Second Intermediate Period
material to Tell el-Dab‘a is Tell el-Yahudiyah.254 It
comprises two Tells, the southern Tell el-Kebir and
the northeastern Tell el-Soghier.255 Tell el-Kebir is
marked by an earthen embankment with sloping
perimeter walls.256 Identified by some as a ‘Hyksos
camp’ or fortification,257 it today lacks a gate or other
apparent defensive elements, leading to the suggestion
that it was not primarily a fort.258 As such elements
were possibly destroyed, the embankment can, at the
very least, be regarded as a marker of authority or
legitimisation, and may be assigned a terminus ante
quem of the late Thirteenth to early Fifteenth Dynasty
based on the dating of the finds within its perimeter.259
These include a number of tombs that add to several
excavated to the northeast of Tell el-Kebir (near the
Temple of Onias), and at Tell el-Soghier. Based on
recent assessments of the tombs,260 it is apparent that
Tell el-Kebir was utilised from the late Thirteenth/
early Fifteenth Dynasty to at least the reign of
Thutmose III, with Nineteenth and Twentieth Dynasty
statues and inscriptions within the earthenwork
attesting to continued use.
Burials at Tell el-Soghier also reflect a similar
continuous use, the earliest tomb thus far found
assigned to the Middle Kingdom, although this
252 Desroches-Noblecourt 1949, 12.
253 Desroches-Noblecourt 1949, 12–13.
254 The site of Heliopolis (Matariya), south of Tell el-
Yahudiyah, has produced pottery similar to those
found in Second Intermediate Period assemblages of
the Eastern Delta. Site 200, at the northwestern part of
the temple precinct, yielded, among other locally made
ceramics, fragments of MBA-influenced vessels, the so-
called ‘fish dishes’, Tell el-Yahudiyah ware of Nile clay, a
Marl C zir, and imported Levantine amphorae (M ahmud
et al. 2008, 197–205, figs. 5b–6b; Ashmawy and R aue
2012). Further excavations, however, are required to
ascertain whether these similarities extend beyond the
ceramic material. The function of Petrie’s so-called ‘fort
bank of the Hyksos Period’ (Petrie 1915) or Ricke’s
‘High Sand of Heliopolis’ (R icke 1935) has also been
reassessed (R aue 2016/2017, 100–101). For more on the
site, see A bd el-Gelil et al. 2008; Ashmawy and R aue
2015; R aue 2016/2017.
255 Ashmawy A li 2010, 31.
256 Petrie 1906, 1–2, pl. 2; Naville and Griffith 1890, 6–7;
du M ensil du Buisson 1929, 158.
257 Petrie 1906, 1–2; A lbright 1922; 1935, 224; K enyon
1966, 70.
258 R icke (1935, 108) and Wright (1968, 17) propose a cultic
function. However, no cultic elements dating before
the Nineteenth Dynasty have been found within the
perimeter. For more on this, see Mourad 2015, 57–58.
259 See Mourad 2015, 57–59.
260 Aston 2003; Ashmawy A li 2010; 2016a; Mourad 2015,
57–58.
 Socio-Political Transformations and Foreign Relations 81

Fig. 3.30 Plan of New Kingdom occupation at Area 4, Tell el-Retaba.

Drawing by Patrick Aprent, after Hudec et al. 2018, fig. 4

is based mostly on the type of coffin found within
it.261 Burials of the Second Intermediate Period
to the Eighteenth Dynasty are mostly rectangular
mudbrick pits without superstructures, although a
few of Second Intermediate Period date have vaulted
roofs or projecting bricks.262 Those of the Second
Intermediate Period contain assemblages similar to
burials at abovementioned sites in the Eastern Delta,
with pottery including local Egyptian and Levantine-
influenced ceramics such as Tell el-Yahudiyah ware,
bronze items such as weapons and toggle pins, as well
as scarabs with Levantine-type motifs.263 Donkey
burials have also been found at Tell el-Soghier either
in association with Fifteenth Dynasty tombs or in
separate pits.264 By the early Eighteenth Dynasty, the
assemblages include developed Second Intermediate

261 Tomb YG15/2010. According to a preliminary report of the

tomb, it included a white anthropoid coffin and was found
in the vicinity of Fifteenth Dynasty tombs YG20/2010 and 263 Petrie 1906, 11–12; Tufnell 1977, 77–100; Mourad
YG34/2010. Ashmawy Ali 2016a, 22, fig. 7. 2015, 59–60, figs. 4.27–4.30.
262 Ashmawy A li 2016a, 21–22, fig. 4. 264 Ashmawy A li 2010, 38; 2016a, 22, 28–29, fig. 6; 2019.
82 Chapter 3
Period pottery types and some Upper Egyptian
forms.265 Imports seem restricted to Cypriot White
Painted VI pottery.266
The evidence thereby suggests that Tell el-Yahudiyah
was, at the very least, used for burial grounds from
the Middle Kingdom to the Eighteenth Dynasty. At
some time between the late Thirteenth and Fifteenth
Dynasty, its earthenwork was constructed. During
the Fifteenth Dynasty, its material culture largely
shows ties with the rest of the Eastern Delta, for
which Levantine influence is apparent. By the
Eighteenth Dynasty, tombs reflect the changing
material culture, with renewed access to Upper
Egyptian elements. While further excavations could
help elucidate the direct impact of the political shift
and transition from Dynasty 15 to 18, the dating of
Tell el-Yahudiyah’s tombs to both the late Fifteenth
Dynasty and prior to Thutmose III’s reign negates
the proposed abandonment of the site before the fall
of the Hyksos rulers.267
3.2.3 Observations
This brief overview of the material shows that the
region of the Delta experienced both continuation
and change across the Middle Kingdom to the New
Kingdom and alongside the shifting power dynamics.
Apart from the material at Tell el-Dab‘a, the Western
Delta’s Kom el-Hisn presents the earliest evidence
in the examined period for funerary traditions that
harken to the EBIV to MBIIA cultural sphere. As
Tell el-Dab‘a was developing into a commercial and
cultural hub of the late Twelfth to early Thirteenth
Dynasty, so were Tell Hebwa and Tell Basta evidently
important nodes, all significantly situated on
strategic routes. Yet, Tell el-Dab‘a thus far appears
to be the only site to have had a sizeable harbour by
the Second Intermediate Period and, accordingly,
access to seaborne trade. Tell Hebwa possibly
housed at least one high official, a treasurer, who
was represented with Levantine cultural affiliation,
while Tell Basta featured the largest mayoral
residence in the Delta. This administrative centre,
however, was greatly affected in the Thirteenth
Dynasty, possibly coinciding with a slightly later
abandonment of the palatial complex of Area F/II
at Tell el-Dab‘a. The ensuing internal developments
at Tell el-Dab‘a leading up to the Fifteenth Dynasty,
which witnessed the growing power and legitimisation
of the city’s independence, are scantily represented
by the material in the rest of the Delta. Tell Hebwa
may have been occupied at this time, while some
activity could have occurred at Kom el-Hisn and Tell
el-Yahudiyah, although the evidence from the latter
two could also date to the early Fifteenth Dynasty.
265 Aston 2003, 142, fig. 1a.
266 Aston 2003, 142.
267 Weinstein 1992, 28; 1995, 87–88.
With the complete establishment of Tell el-Dab‘a as
capital of a new dynasty, activity across the Eastern
Delta increased. The evidence points to a shared
regional material culture that was inspired by both
Egyptian and Near Eastern elements, an extension
of the earlier developments that could be traced at
Tell el-Dab‘a. While further material is required to
assess this settlement process, the occupation of the
Wadi Tumilat and Kom el-Khilgan, and the use of
Tell Basta, Tell Farasha, Inshas and Tell el-Yahudiyah
at least as burial grounds, could have been linked to
the contemporaneaous increased population density
witnessed in the Eastern Delta at, for instance, Tell
Hebwa and especially Tell el-Dab‘a. The developments
may have also been fostered by the area’s elite and
merchants, including those at Tell el-Dab‘a, to expand
their economic resources. Households may have
also sought to profit from the socio-political shifts
in the area. Accordingly, production and resource
management in the Delta may have further been
promoted, as reflected by the workshops at Tell el-
Maskhuta and the storage facilities at Tell Hebwa.
Together, an integrated network of local and possibly
regional trade may have been cultivated by all involved
parties.
Towards the late Fifteenth Dynasty, the communities
at Wadi Tumilat appear to have developed more
localised ceramic forms, perhaps signalling shifting
economic or power dynamics in the region. The
continued decrease in imports at Tell el-Dab‘a could
also signal economic strains or commercial shifts,
perhaps associated with the promotion of land-based
routes to and through other sites in the Eastern Delta.
The consequent transitional period leading to the
Eighteenth Dynasty finds the abandonment of Tell
el-Maskhuta and Tell el-Mansheya, and possibly
reduced activity at Tell el-Retaba. This postulated
abandonment or reduction in occupation, particularly
observable at Tell el-Dab‘a, could be seen as a decrease
in population density. Yet, explaining the shift merely
as evidence for the Theban campaigns contradicts the
thus far limited archaeological evidence for settlement
destruction. The changes could instead be interrelated
with the dispersal of power, both economic and
political, from a previous hub in the Eastern Delta,
and the corresponding impact on the integrated
regionalised network possibly promoted by the Hyksos
Dynasty. This, together with the campaigns against
Tell el-Dab‘a as well as the site’s altered function in
early Dynasty 18, may have triggered the movement
of some individuals or groups to other areas. The
proposition that a large proportion of Tell el-Dab‘a’s
inhabitants migrated to the Levant, even to Sharuhen,
is not yet substantiated by concrete, contemporaneous
 Socio-Political Transformations and Foreign Relations
1 375-5038
2 375-5072
0 10 cm
Fig. 3.31 Imported vessels at Tell el-Retaba. Drawing by Patrick Aprent, after Wodzińska 2012, figs. 1, 4
evidence.268 Indeed, it is difficult to archaeologically
trace such movements, especially in a narrow period
of time as well as a culturally transformative one. It is
even more difficult to discern population movements
in the archaeological material of late Seventeenth
and early Eighteenth Dynasty contexts, not only
due to their scarcity, but also due to the continued
transformation of regionalised cultures in Egypt into
the early Eighteenth Dynasty. Still, some inhabitants
of Avaris, as Ahmose-si-Ibana’s biography attests,
together with possible captives from other
settlements in the Delta targeted by the Thebans,
were relocated elsewhere in Egypt from the end of
the Second Intermediate Period. In accordance with
later Eighteenth Dynasty accounts of war prisoners,
perhaps some were also placed in service of Egyptian
temples.269
Despite the possibility of such relocation, a number
of sites in the Delta continued to be occupied after
the Second Intermediate Period. Tell Hebwa was, in
fact, evidently densely settled at this time, perhaps
because of its sustained economic importance in the
268 This is largely in line with Josephus’s record of Manetho’s
history, that the ‘shepherds’ retreated from Egypt to
Avaris, its siege culminating in a treaty with the Theban
administration by which the shepherds would ‘all depart
from Egypt… with their possessions and households
complete… over the desert to Syria’. Manetho,
Aegyptiaca, frg. 42 (Josephus, Contra Apionem 1.14.85–
90). Translation after Waddell 1971, 86–89.
269 The Annals of Thutmose III, for instance, mention that
1588 captives were placed to serve the Temple of Amun
in Thebes (R edford 2003, 138–139). See also Chapter
3.4.1.2.
83
3 375-5042
4 1-3985
0 5 cm
region, or for the Eighteenth Dynasty administration.
Its ceramic assemblage showcases the similar
continuation represented at Tell el-Dab‘a 270 and Tell
el-Yahudiyah, with the gradual dissipation of local
Second Intermediate Period and imported Levantine
forms, the increasing occurrence of Upper Egyptian
pottery types, and the sustained presence of Cypriot
wares. These communities, then, persisted into the
Eighteenth Dynasty, although evidently without a
strong need for the earlier integrated network promoted
by the Fifteenth Dynasty collective. By Thutmose III’s
reign, however, this network was apparently
revitalised with the palatial precinct at ‘Ezbet Helmi,
the reintensified settlements in the Wadi Tumilat,
as well as the fortification at Tell Hebwa and its
expansion. Interestingly, these nodes were again
fostered in the early Nineteenth Dynasty, but with the
establishment of a new capital in the region, at Qantir.
3.3 Means of Diplomacy and Exchange
3.3.1 Language and Diplomacy
3.3.1.1 Language transformations and contact-induced
change
As examined in Chapter 2, several theories on the
transformation of language have been applied to
understand processes of culture change. Cultural
interference studies, bilingualism, code-switching
and creolisation have all been, to some extent,
utilised to explain the mechanisms involved in
the development of languages, and the interplay
270 See Chapter 5.3.
84 Chapter 3
of two different languages or dialects.271 Shifts
in language and writing undeniably occur over
time, with several influential spatial, temporal,
political, social, and cultural factors. Amid these
are interactions of individuals and groups of
various identities. Reiterating the manifestations
of such interactions, as suggested by bilingualism as
a model, are: interferences (elements of one language
that are transferred to another); morphological
borrowings (grammatical morphemes that are
transferred); and code-switching of languages (or
elements thereof) in one text or utterance.272 Schneider
also proposes the possible development of a pidgin or
mixed language in areas promoting language contact,
such as Tell el-Dab‘a.273
Identifying such manifestations in the textual record
of the period under examination is highly complex
and largely hindered by the nature of the evidence, as
well as the fluid dynamism of language itself. Ancient
languages are recorded in writing, which consequently
provides insight only into the literary language of
particular social groups (usually of higher echelons)
and specific modes of expression set within a system
of conventions.274 As such, any attempt to discern the
impact of consistent interactions of different languages
should also take into account genre and register,
as well as different scribal traditions, including
their diatopic (geographical) and diastratic (socio-
cultural) dimensions, and the standardisations and
experimentations in written languages as opposed to,
and corresponding with, spoken vernaculars.275 When
attempting to discern the latter, there is additionally the
possible existence and interplay of dialects, sociolects
and idiolects. Dialects, in this case, could entail
geographically or temporally based diversifications of
a language.276 Sociolects incorporate diversifications
based on social groups, such as those related to age,
gender or occupation.277 Idiolects refer to habits of one
or a small number of individuals, such as a family.278
It is, therefore, not surprising that the transitions
between different language stages in ancient Egypt
remain to be completely elucidated. This includes the
emergence of Late Egyptian before the Eighteenth
271 See Chapter 2.3.8, 2.3.12 and 2.3.14.
272 A dams 2003, 18–28.
273 T. Schneider 2020, 421.
274 See Baines 1990, 6–10; 2007, 146–171; Junge 2001b, 18;
Loprieno 2006, 167–168; Polis 2018, 69–70.
275 For an overview, see, with the quoted references, Polis
2018. As often cited, a letter preserved on Papyrus
Anastasi I from the Nineteenth Dynasty scribe Hori to
another scribe comments that the latter’s discourses ‘are
so confused when heard that no interpreter can unravel
them. They are like a Delta man’s conversation with a
man of Elephantine’ (Wente 1990, 109).
276 For more on the definition of ‘dialect’, see H asan 1971;
K linkenberg 1994, 34–38; Winand 2015, 241–243.
277 Winand 2015, 243.
278 Winand 2015, 243.
Dynasty. It is classified as the first stage of ‘Later
Egyptian’ or ‘Egyptian II’, which otherwise includes
Demotic and Coptic. ‘Earlier Egyptian’ or ‘Egyptian I’
comprises the stages of Old and Middle Egyptian,
the latter chiefly utilised in hieroglyphic and hieratic
texts from the late Old Kingdom onwards.279 It
is, however, also in the later Middle Kingdom and
Second Intermediate Period that lexical, phonological
and grammatical traces of Late Egyptian occur.280
According to Goldwasser, these are found in the
‘fringes of the Egyptian literary repertoire in genres
and registers that are naturally closer to the colloquial,
such as letters, citations of spoken phrases, and, to
a rather limited extent, some administrative texts
originating in the royal circles.’281
Stauder observes innovative expressions in
documentary, monumental and biographical texts
of the Second Intermediate Period, as well as texts
concerning military action and narrative of the late
Second Intermediate Period and early Eighteenth
Dynasty.282 Examples of the latter come from the
inscriptions of Kamose. Mostly written in Middle
Egyptian, the texts comprise a number of Late Egyptian
constructions such as the use of the pronominal
subject of the Present I (e.g. t w = i or t w = k) and new
grammatical features (e.g. the ‘exploratory Future III’
that was not transmitted into Late Egyptian).283
Another text displaying such mixed grammatical
features, apart from its use of Semitic loanwords
and Near Eastern motifs, is the Astarte Papyrus.284 It
comprises, for instance, the Middle Egyptian usage
of the sDm . n = f form,285 the ‘transitional’ Eighteenth
Dynasty usage of the Hn a- n t f sDm form,286 as well
as the common Late Egyptian usage of the definite
or possessive article.287 According to Collombert
and Coulon, this hybrid language is consistent with
the vernacular of the text’s proposed pre-Amarna
Period date,288 which would consequently mark it as
one of the earliest to utilise Late Egyptian features
in a literary register.289 By the Amarna Period,
a significant shift in the use of Late Egyptian as a
279 For an overview of language and writing in ancient
Egypt, see J.P. A llen 2010a; 2013; Loprieno 1995;
Loprieno 1996 (ed.).
280 B. K roeber 1970; K ruchten 1999; Winand 2015, 243.
281 Goldwasser 1992a, 448.
282 Stauder 2013, 53.
283 B. K roeber 1970, 93–97; K ruchten 1999, 7–12; Stauder
2013, 43–50; Winand 2015, 254.
284 Collombert and Coulon 2000, 211–216; Stauder 2013,
33–35, 53–54. See Chapters 4.2.4.3 and 5.2.4.2.2.
285 K ruchten 1999, 6–22; Collombert and Coulon 2000,
212.
286 B. K roeber 1970, 162; Collombert and Coulon 2000,
212–213.
287 Collombert and Coulon 2000, 214.
288 Collombert and Coulon 2000, 211–216.
289 Collombert and Coulon 2000, 215–216. See also Ayali-
Darshan 2017, 197.
 Socio-Political Transformations and Foreign Relations
written idiom can be observed,290 after which it
became the standard written language in Egyptian
vernacular texts until the Late Period, with newly
introduced literary and colloquial forms.291 Yet, it
was not the only language variant in use.292 Different
genres, for instance, could feature Middle Egyptian,
with ‘Traditional Egyptian’ remaining favoured in
royal, ritualistic and religious or archaising texts.293
Features of both Late and Middle Egyptian could also
be blended or selectively employed, perhaps as a form
of code-switching, according to different registers of
the same text.294
In tracing such linguistic developments in the
Middle and New Kingdoms, a number of intra- and
extra-linguistic explanations have been proposed.
The gradual transition and mutual use of Middle and
Late Egyptian, together with several grammatical
similarities between Old and Late Egyptian, has led
some to suggest that the different language stages
could in fact be based on or related to dialect variants.295
Accordingly, J.P. Allen and Winand propose
that Old and Late Egyptian possibly originated in
Lower Egypt, while Middle Egyptian stemmed from
Upper Egypt.296 While persuasive, this has been
countered by suggestions linking Old, Middle or
Late Egyptian to other or different places of origin,297
signalling that ‘the dialectal study of pre-Coptic
Egyptian is still in its infancy’.298 Other approaches
instead focus on particular linguistic attributes,
identifying the presence of diaglossia between texts
from specific areas.299 While the presence of different
dialects in Egypt during the examined period is very
feasible, identifying them in the limited Thirteenth
to early Eighteenth Dynasty range of texts from
Upper and, especially, Lower Egypt deserves further
analysis, if at all possible. Additionally, any search
for geographic origins of local and regional linguistic
varieties should take into account other possible
290 Goldwasser 1992a, 448–449; H ammam 2018.
291 M. Gregory 1967; Israelit-Groll 1975/1976;
Goldwasser 1992a; 1999; Baines 1996a.
292 Nagai 2006.
293 For more on Traditional Egyptian, see, with references,
Vernus 2016. See also Moers 2013.
294 See Baines 1996a, 158–159, 165–171; Sweeney 2001;
Winand 1992, 23–25; 2018.
295 Concerning dialects in pre-Coptic Egyptian, see
Edgerton 1951; Edel 1955/1964, §§21–22; Vycichl 1958;
Osing 1975; Meltzer 1980; Schenkel 1990; Peust 1999,
33, n. 15; J.P. A llen 2004; 2013, 4; K ammerzell 2005;
Gundacker 2010; Uljas 2010; Winand 2015, 243; Ilin-
Tomich 2018. For the development from the Old to the
Late Egyptian, with their similarities and differences,
see Zöller-Engelhardt 2016.
296 Winand 2015, 255–262, figs. 2–10; J.P. A llen 2004,
6–10; 2013, 4.
297 Polis 2018, 66–67. For an overview, see Peust 1999, 33,
n. 15; Winand 2015, table 2.
298 Polis 2018, 68.
299 See, with cited literature, Polis 2018, 67, n. 43.
85
explanations for the variations, as well as the socio-
cultural mechanisms of linguistic development that
influenced their transmission.300
Some studies in regards to the latter may be
mentioned. Gundacker broaches the probable origins
of Middle Egyptian among the higher social echelon
of Upper Egypt, with the emergence of a new language
stage likely linked to political shifts.301 Stauder’s
analysis of Middle Egyptian texts in the New Kingdom
touches upon the possibly deliberate archaism in
Thutmoside inscriptions as motivation of language
change.302 Language variation as observed in the
textual record of Ramesside Deir el-Medina has also
been assessed in relation to the community’s unique
social situation and highly literate scribal network.303
The influence of the Amarna Period on the use of Late
Egyptian has additionally been well explored. For
instance, some propose that, as Late Egyptian likely
reflected the vernacular of the time, the marked shift
in use of the language as a written idiom correlated
with socio-political developments that witnessed the
official canonisation of a new set of syntactical forms,
or the use of Late Egyptian ‘undercurrents’ in religious
and royal texts.304
Despite the insight garnered from such studies, the
socio-cultural environment that could have affected the
earlier emergence of Late Egyptian has largely not been
considered. Feasibly influential on changing vernaculars
within Egypt were the political fragmentation of the
Middle Kingdom administration, the corresponding
loosened control over standardised scribal traditions,
as well as the increased regionalisation during the
Second Intermediate Period. These could explain the
use of Late Egyptian constructions in the late Middle
Kingdom to the Second Intermediate Period, as in
the royal inscriptions of Kamose. Apart from the
interactions of speakers of various Egyptian dialects,
perhaps another influential factor is the possible
interactions with bilingual speakers and scribes within
specific social spheres across the Middle Kingdom to
the Amarna Period, although admittedly more evidence
is needed to validate this assumption.305
Such individuals should not be solely identified with
foreigners beyond Egypt’s borders, but also bi- or
multilingual individuals and groups residing within
and outside Egypt. The increasing attestations of
individuals of various origins within Egypt, as well
300 According to Berruto (2010), there are four types of
factors in the societal structure of a linguistic community
that can correlate with linguistic variation: the historical
or temporal situation, the geographic location, social
stratification, and social situations.
301 Gundacker 2010, 85, 100, n. 271.
302 Stauder 2013, 18, 26–27, 238–239, 327.
303 Sweeney 2001; Polis 2018, 78–88.
304 Goldwasser 1992a, 448–449; Hammam 2018.
305 See the suggestion in Bumann (2009) of possible Semitic
intrusions into the Egyptian language as an outcome of
the presence of individuals of Levantine origin.
86 Chapter 3
as heightened cross-cultural interactions, intercultural
mixing, and diplomatic or commercial exchange, would
have feasibly been related with the growing knowledge
of different languages and language variants,
particularly in hubs of intensified cross-cultural
interactions such as that of Serabit el-Khadim or Tell
el-Dab‘a. This is supported by the likely presence of
bilingual officials and scribes in the examined period.
For instance, the stela of Middle Kingdom Hepetrehu
mentions that he was one to wHa m d w
xAs.wt n b. (w) t ‘interpret the speech of all foreign
lands’.306 Bilingualism is also implied by the inscribed
scarabs produced in the Northern Levant307 as well as a
bilingual text on a sphinx at Serabit el-Khadim.308 The
latter further brings to the fore the presence of different
scripts in areas frequented by Egyptians, which include
Proto-Alphabetic as indicated by the Middle Kingdom
inscriptions at Wadi el-Hol,309 Wadi Maghara,310 and
Serabit el-Khadim,311 and perhaps on a heddle-jack
from el-Lahun 312 and a Fifteenth Dynasty amulet from
Deir Rifeh.313 While possibly utilised by individuals of
non-Egyptian origin,314 the socio-cultural interactions
leading to their manifestation hint at knowledge and
negotiation of different writing systems and perhaps
even the different spoken vernaculars of their scribes.
Within such social situations, bi- or multilingualism
could have theoretically also manifested in Egyptian
language variations, interferences or morphological
borrowings, including sociolects.315 Two examples of
the latter include sociolects of ‘migrant’ communities,
or specialised groups, such as merchants, diplomats
or those of the military.316
Perhaps these interactions influenced the
development of the Egyptian transcription system of
foreign words. In the Old and Middle Kingdom, the
306 CG 20765, line 3. The stela also mentions expeditions to
the lands of the MDA.y. Grajetzki (2000, 101) dates it to
the Thirteenth Dynasty. Lange and Schäfer 1908, 398;
Meyrat 2016, 322; T. Schneider 2020, 424.
307 See Chapter 4.2.2.3.
308 See Chapter 4.3.2.1.
309 Darnell et al. 2005.
310 Butin 1932; Sass 1988, 16–17, figs. 23–26.
311 See Gardiner 1916a; Cross 1954; A lbright 1966;
Sass 1988; H amilton 2006; Goldwasser 2006a; 2011;
2012/2013; Mourad 2015, 139–141; Morenz 2019.
312 See Chapter 5.4.3.1. Petrie 1890, pl. 27 [85]; Dijkstra
1990, 55–56; H amilton 2006, 330–331. See, however,
Sass 1988, 104.
313 The seal is of uncertain context. H amilton 2009, 51–79,
figs. 1–2, pls. 1–2. See, however, Morenz 2019, 228.
314 See Mourad 2015, 70, 98, 108–109, 134–135, 139–141,
figs. 4.38, 4.65, 5.4, 5.14–5.17. Another example
connecting bilingualism and individuals of possible
non-Egyptian cultural affiliation is that of the bilingual
Carian and Egyptian texts (see K ammerzell 1993;
Höckmann 2001).
315 For the possible Egyptian interferences in Akkadian
texts originating in Egypt, see M a. Müller 2010.
316 T. Schneider 2008c.
transcription system typically relied on consonant-
to-consonant orthography, utilising uniliterals, and
sometimes bi- or triliterals in rebus writings.317
Apart from the Execration Text corpus, the newer
system seems to have emerged by the Second
Intermediate Period.318 The so-called ‘group writing’
or ‘syllabic orthography’ utilised what appears to be
consonant-vowel groups, biliterals or other groups of
types CA, Cw, Ci, or Cy with digraphs to transcribe
both non-Egyptian terms, or newer writings of
Egyptian terms.319 The use of A for /r/ or /l/ in these
transcriptions also became rare in the New Kingdom,
and was replaced by r.320 The latter allograph is already
gleaned, for instance, among the list of named aAm in
mid-Thirteenth Dynasty Papyrus Brooklyn 35.1446
wherein the use of r for /r/ or /l/ dominates,321 while
different transcription attempts are represented by
the variant spellings of the Hyksos king Khayan’s
name as #yAn and on one preserved seal
as #y rAn .322 Such examples suggest the
presence of different scribal traditions in transcribing
foreign terms, or experimentation in rendering non-
Egyptian sounds. While further research is required to
trace this process, especially taking into account other
non-Egyptian and African lexical material, it adds to
the evidence for knowledge and adaptation of different
writing systems during the late Middle Kingdom and
Second Intermediate Period. The presence of Semitic-
speaking individuals and a need to more accurately
render non-Egyptian terms, with a better indication of
vowels and using an Egyptian script, could have thus
been influential.323
In accordance with these processes, Winand has
already proposed the possible correlation between
the bilingualism of New Kingdom scribes, probably
in elite circles, and the emergence of Semitic
loanwords in Eighteenth and Nineteenth Dynasty
texts.324 He roughly classifies the loanwords into two
main semantic classes: cultural borrowings, referring
317 Hoch 1994, 487–498; Quack 2010, 73–77.
318 For an overview, see Hoch 1994, 487–501.
319 The system appears to be similar to cuneiform
syllabaries. See Černy and Israelit-Groll 1993, 2; Hoch
1994, 487–504; T. Schneider 1992, 9–13; Peust 1999,
218–222; Quack 2010, 79–82; Winand 2017.
320 Hoch 1994; Satzinger 1994; J.P. Allen 2013, 31, 35, 39–40.
321 A lbright 1954a.
322 The former transcription is preserved on a number of
objects (G.T. M artin 1971, 91–92 [1169–1181a], pls. 40
[28–35], 41 [5], 42A [7], 46 [1, 3]; Ryholt 1997, 383–385).
For the cylinder seal, see G.T. M artin 1971, 92 [1181],
pl. 46 [2]. See also T. Schneider 1998, 39–40; Hoch 1994,
499; Ryholt 1997, 128–129.
323 See the discussion in J. Cooper and Mourad 2019. As
Quack (2010, 87) also highlights, ‘one of the driving
factors of developing a system of writing for foreign
words with efforts at indicating the vowels was magic, or
at least ritual in a wider context’.
324 Winand 2017.
 Socio-Political Transformations and Foreign Relations
to entities that are newly acquired in the culture of
a recipient language (e.g. s s m ‘horse’);325 and core
borrowings, that parallel words already existing
in a recipient language (e.g. y m instead of wAD-
w r ‘sea’).326 While the former class includes newly
incorporated elements such as lexemes related to
the military, textile production, music, or flora and
fauna,327 the latter features terms for psychological
states, sexual behaviour, as well as rare grammatical
functional words, such as prepositions, pronouns or
auxiliaries.328 According to their contexts, Winand
suggests that highly stylised texts, such as royal
inscriptions or literary pieces, largely feature core
borrowings.329 They are commonly initially attested
in texts related to the elite and/or alongside Near
Eastern motifs or contexts, as with the first known
occurrence of y m in the Astarte Papyrus.330 Thus,
they could be a form of code-switching recognised
in scribal and elite circles,331 as well as by bilinguals
involved in interlingual correspondence. Less
stylised or non-literary texts possibly reflecting the
vernacular of different, perhaps lower echelons,
such as the ostraca of Deir el-Medina, instead more
commonly feature cultural borrowings.332 The latter
are, however, overall more frequently attested than
core borrowings, perhaps as they are more readily
diffused and accepted into the recipient language.333
They are, nonetheless, but one possible textual
rendition of concepts or terms adapted from a foreign
culture.334 As seen in Chapter 5, the use of Egyptian
terms could also be extended to identify such
entities, possibly with an additional descriptive term
or classifier, as with Hs m n m s s n (.y) aHA ‘bronze
combat garment’ for body armour.335 A new term
deriving from the Egyptian lexicon could additionally
be coined, perhaps as reflected with the term wrr.y t
‘chariot’.336 Both venues could thereby be identified as
manifestations of contact-induced language change,
but they do not require the initial prerequisite of
bilingualism.337 Their attestation before or alongside
325 See Chapter 5.2.2.3.
326 Possibly the earliest reference to y m occurs in the Astarte
Papyrus. See Chapter 4.2.4.3. Winand (2017) follows
H aspelmath’s (2009, 46–49) dichotomy of loanwords,
as also described by Myers-Scotton (2002, 41; 2006,
212–218).
327 For examples, see Chapter 5.
328 Winand 2017, 488–489, fig. 4.
329 Winand 2017, 505.
330 Winand 2017, 505, 507–508.
331 Winand 2017, 505, 507–508.
332 Winand 2017, 505.
333 Winand 2017, 507–508.
334 For more on the manifestation of foreign expressions
in Egyptian texts, see T. Schneider 1992; Hoch 1994;
A llon 2010; Quack 2010; Goldwasser 2017, 57–60.
335 See Chapter 5.2.4.2.2.
336 See Chapter 5.2.2.3.
337 Goldwasser 2017, 58.
87
loanwords signals at different processes of negotiating
new items or concepts, perhaps pointing to temporal,
geographic, or social variants.
Similar processes have been observed in other
linguistic, sociological and anthropological studies
on contact-induced language change, language shifts
and creolisation.338 Accordingly, these often occur
over several generations and in such conducive
conditions as those of political fragmentation and/
or the consistent exposure to multilingualism.
While these conditions were arguably present in
the examined period, as Schneider also argues,339
further evidence is required to establish the possible
development of contact-induced language variants,
and their continuation, within the Egyptian language
in direct relation to the Second Intermediate Period
socio-cultural history of the Eastern Delta. Still,
it is imperative that future studies on language
transformations from the Middle to New Kingdom
take into account the extra-linguistic socio-cultural
factors, including the heightened interactions of
groups of various origins and social levels. Perhaps
then, it would be possible to better assess whether
the language of such texts as the Astarte Papyrus, if
indeed motivated by the establishment of a harbour
and/or negotiation of interactions in Lower Egypt or
the Near East,340 was specifically selected with its
Late Egyptian constructions, Semitic loanwords and
Near Eastern motifs, to target particular groups.
Indeed, it is important to keep in mind that
language as a means of communication is also
a means of negotiation. The establishment of
some lingual commonalities or a shared language
would have been fundamental for the promotion
of communication and mediation, at the very least
for political or commercial purposes. As with other
forms facilitating negotiations across socio-cultural
borders, such as visual elements of communication
or shared cultic or ritualistic activities, the promotion
of knowledge in different yet key languages,
or particular diatopic and diastratic variations,
offers an important interface that would enable
the acceleration of transactions and exchanges for
mutual interests. The evidence in fact suggests that
(a) particular groups in the Delta and elsewhere in
Egypt were multi- or bilingual, including but not
limited to scribes, merchants, military personnel
or expedition members, and the elite, (b) different
groups across Egypt utilised different variations of
the Egyptian language, and (c) increased and varied
socio-cultural, commercial and political interactions
were occurring among and between groups (a) and (b).
338 See Thomason and K aufman 1988; Holm 2003; Myers-
Scotton 2006; H an 2017; C. Lucas 2015. See also the
papers in Chamoreau and Léglise 2012; A lbaugh and de
Luna 2018; Chapter 2.3.8.
339 T. Schneider 2020.
340 See Chapter 4.2.4.3.
88 Chapter 3
1 cm
0
Fig. 3.32 Fragment TD 9420 with cuneiform text.
L1045, palatial complex, Area F/II, Stratum c/2–c/1
(Phase D/3–D/2).
After Bietak 2010e, fig. 14
As such, it is not impossible that a shared language or
lingual commonalities were transforming to facilitate
such interactions across the late Middle Kingdom
to the early New Kingdom. In the Near East, as
comparison, Akkadian was generally promoted as
the lingua franca of MBA and LBA correspondence,
and indeed knowledge of the cuneiform script was
also very likely existent among the Fifteenth Dynasty
officials and the elite, signalling at further evidence
for language contacts and the possible negotiation of
a common lingual interface.
3.3.1.2 Letter correspondence and the use of cuneiform
The Egyptians were well aware of the existence
and importance of written communication between
spatially separated entities. The Twelfth Dynasty
Tale of Sinuhe specifies the letter exchange between
the Egyptian official and Senwosret I while he was in
Northern Levantine IAA,341 while Khnumhotep III’s
biography at Dahshur mentions letter correspondence
between Senwosret III and the Levantine rulers of Kb ny
and WATi /WAiT.342 Possible contemporary Egyptian
knowledge of a system of written correspondence is
represented in the Second Stela of Kamose. The text
mentions that the Theban ruler was able to intercept
a letter sent from Apophis to the ruler of Kush. As it
specifies:343
341 Tale of Sinuhe, lines B174–176, B204–238. K. Koch
1990, 59, 64–68.
342 Biography of Khnumhotep III, lines 3P1–34, 3P6–10,
3C1. J.P. A llen 2008, 35–36.
343 Second Stela of Kamose, lines 18–24. H elck 1983a, 94
[119]. The translation relies on R edford 1997, 14–15
[Nr. 69].
k f a. n =i wp (w) . t =f m Hr. t WHAt Hr x n . ty t r KSi Hr
Sa. t sS.w gm . n =i Hr=s m Dd m sS m Dr. t HqA n (.y)
@w. t - w ar. t aA- ws r-Ra.w sA Ra.w I- p p i Hr nD- x r. t
n . t sA344 HqA n (.y) KSi Hr- m i aHa=k m HqA n n rDi . t
rx =i in iw gmH=k iri . t n (.y) Km . t r=i HqA n . ty m
Xn .w =s KA- m s Di (.w) an x Hr t h m (w) i Hr i (w)Tn =i
n pH=i sw m i q i n iri . t n =f n b. t r=k s t p =f pA tA.wy
r iAd w =s<n> pAy =i tA Hn a pAy =k xb. n =f s t m i xd i
m Aa m =k sw aA m -a=i n n n . t [y a]Ha(.w) n =k Hr tA
Km . t m =k n n Di=i n =f wA. t r s pr. t =k kA psS=n nA- n
d m i .w n (.w) tA Km . t wn [#n . t -Hn -] n f r Xr rSw. t
I captured his messenger in the Oasis travelling south
to Kush with a written document. I found upon it
the following in writing by the hand of the ruler of
Avaris: Aaweserra, the son of Ra, Apophis greets the
son of the ruler of Kush. Why have you become as
ruler without letting me know? Do you see what Egypt
has done against me? The ruler who is in it, Kamose,
may he be given life, is attacking me upon my soil.
I have not attacked him in this way as to all he has
done to you. He has cut the two lands to punish them,
my land and yours, he has hacked it up. Come, travel
north, do not hold back. Behold, he is here with me.
There is none who will be waiting for you in the land
of Egypt. Behold, I will not give him a path until you
have arrived. Then we shall divide the towns of the
land of Egypt. [#n . t -Hn -] n f r shall be in joy.
According to Van Seters, the contents of the
intercepted message are similar to Near Eastern
diplomatic correspondence in the MBA and LBA, not
only specifically presenting the Hyksos ruler as author
of the letter, but also highlighting the importance of
notifying allies of recent political developments via
such correspondence.345
This would not counteract the royal topos of the
stela and its posited effect on the historicity of cited
344 This could alternatively be read with a suffix pronoun
as sA=i, which would alter the political relation between
Apophis and the Kushite ruler. According to the use of
kinship terms as expressions of political hierarchy in
MBA and LBA diplomatic correspondence, a relationship
described as between siblings would likely represent rulers
of equal or near equal standing, while that between a
father and son would likely reflect the father’s overarching
authority. In this case, if the suffix pronoun is added, it
could either represent Apophis’s higher authority, or his
perception of the new Kushite ruler’s lower authority,
especially as he had assumed power without notification.
Accordingly, the expression does not securely indicate
vassalage. For more on the latter, see Flammini 2011/2012;
2015, 241; 2020, 133.
345 Van Seters 1966, 165–170; 1983, 146.
 Socio-Political Transformations and Foreign Relations
Fig. 3.33 TD 9421. Collected from surface, Area A/II.
Van Koppen and Lehmann 2012/2013, fig. 1a–b. © Manfred Bietak: ÖAI/ÖAW archive
events. The inclusion of this correspondence could
be interpreted as a representation of foreigners
attempting to collude against the Theban king. By
doing this, it portrays their desire to partition Egypt,
as well as Kamose’s success in diverting this goal
by capturing the messenger in time. The depiction
is clearly in line with emphasising Theban strength.
It seems to rely on a realistic setting, including
contemporary characters, political borders, and
settlements, and therefore likely also represents
known mechanisms of communication. While one
can only speculate whether the rulers of Avaris, Kush,
and perhaps even Thebes, were historically utilising
letter correspondence between each other, the stela
conveys the realistic possibility that the Hyksos kings
could have used letter correspondence as feasibly
as they could have accessed an oasis route linking
Tell el-Dab‘a with Kush.346 If so, then it remains
viable that the Fifteenth Dynasty employed letter
correspondence to communicate with their trading
partners and other powerful rulers of the time.
In fact, this may be supported by archaeological
material discovered at Tell el-Dab‘a. The large Fifteenth
Dynasty palatial complex of Area F/II at the site
yielded several artefacts that highlight the site’s access
to the MBA trade network.347 Among the alterations
to the complex in its later phase was a large rectangular
346 Indeed, the discovery of pottery from both the Oases
and Nubia in Fifteenth Dynasty levels at Tell el-Dab‘a
would support access to this route. See above, Chapter
3.2.1.1.5; Aston and Bader 2009, 40–67; Aston and
Bietak 2017, 497–501. For a differing opinion, see
Darnell 2013, 243–244.
347 See Chapter 3.2.1.1.5.
89
1 cm
well or pool (L1045) that cut into Building S, south
of Court B (see Figs. 3.13–14).348 This well was later
filled towards the end of the Fifteenth Dynasty, or
Phase D/2.349 The fill itself revealed a number of
ceramics assigned to the second half of Dynasty 15,
together with sealings, and a fragment of a clay
cuneiform tablet, TD 9420 (Fig. 3.32).350 The fragment
only preserves the ends of five lines originally
inscribed on the lower left of a tablet. Words include
the conjunction [k]i ‘if/because’, as well as the
pronoun a-na-ku ‘I’.351 The remnants nevertheless
proved sufficient in identifying the text as Akkadian,
its style and orthography finding close parallels with
scribal practices of the late Old Babylonian Period,
or the last phase of the First Dynasty of Babylon,
after Hammurabi’s reign.352 The use of the first person
singular pronoun, as well as the tablet’s deposition
within a palatial complex, strongly suggest that the text
may have been a letter.353
One other artefact from Tell el-Dab‘a could also
point to cuneiform at the site in the second quarter of
the Second Millennium BC. At Area A/II, the filling
of the walking surface between Late Period houses
comprised a thick deposit of soil, stone and ceramic
348 Bietak and Forstner-Müller 2009, 106–108, figs. 2, 19–
20; Bietak 2010e; Kopetzky and Bietak 2016, fig. 1.
349 Bietak and Forstner-Müller 2009, 108; Bietak 2010e,
986–990.
350 Bietak and Forstner-Müller 2009, 108, figs. 21–22;
Bietak 2010e, 986–990, fig. 14.
351 Van Koppen and R adner 2009, 118.
352 Van Koppen and R adner 2009, 115–118.
353 Van Koppen and R adner 2009, 116–117.
90 Chapter 3
Fig. 3.34 TD 9373. Offering Pit Assemblage L81, palatial complex, Area F/II, Strata d–c/2 (E/1–D/3).
After Sartori 2009, fig. 12
fragments, as well as other small finds.354 The latter
included a fragment of a clay seal impression, TD
9421, with three rows of cuneiform signs on one
face, and impressions of a twisted string on the other
(Fig. 3.33).355 It is overall slightly convex in shape,
indicating that it may have sealed an object of flexible
or rolled fabric.356 While the secondary context cannot
provide a confirmed date for the object, the inscription
has been proposed to be of the first half of the Second
Millennium BC. It includes a legend with the name
of the seal owner (‘Arad-[…]’), his parentage (‘son
of Ili-[…]’), as well as his affiliation to a particular
ruler or deity (‘servant of […]’).357 This formula is
commonly attested in Mesopotamian cylinder seals,
and is most typical of those used to seal clay tablets of
the second half of the Babylonian First Dynasty.358 It is
also attested, although less frequently, in the Northern
Levant, as for instance at Alalakh Level VII.359
Another seal impression of interest was collected
from Offering Pit Assemblage L81 in Court B of
Area F/II’s palatial compound among other local
and imported material fitting the cultural horizon of
Phases E/1–D/3 (see Fig. 3.13).360 One side depicts
at least five rows of animals with parallels to MBA
Syrian seals and sealings from Kültepe, Alalakh,
Byblos, and the so-called ‘green jasper workshop’,
354 Van Koppen and Lehmann 2012/2013, 91.
355 Van Koppen and Lehmann 2012/2013, 91, fig. 1a–b.
356 Lehmann suggests a vessel or a bag. Van Koppen and
Lehmann 2012/2013, 91.
357 Van Koppen and Lehmann 2012/2013, 91–92.
358 Van Koppen and Lehmann 2012/2013, 92.
359 Van Koppen and Lehmann 2012/2013, 92.
360 Aston and Bader 2009; Bietak et al. 2012/2013, 22. See
also Chapter 3.2.1.1.5.
as well as the later North Syrian and southeast
Anatolian seals from Acemhöyük.361 On its obverse
is an imprint of creases that mimic threads or plant
strands, indicating that the clay was likely used
to seal a papyrus artefact, perhaps a roll of written
correspondence.362
The cuneiform tablet as well as the two sealings
do not exclusively indicate that the elite and the
Hyksos rulers at Tell el-Dab‘a were utilising cuneiform
for diplomatic correspondence with Mesopotamia.
However, in view of the script’s use in such exchange
in the Near East, as well as the fragmentary tablet’s
context, the finds could be interpreted as an extension
of the elite’s involvement in diplomatic or commercial
relations with Near Eastern rulers and traders. During
the MBA, Old Babylonian had become the standard
mode of written communication, as well as a means
to promote contacts, negotiations and agreements,
between different groups and individuals. Texts occur
across the Levant, Anatolia and Mesopotamia, with
the archives of such cities as Mari, Alalakh, Tell el-
Rimah or Tell Leilan attesting to the utilisation of
Old Babylonian cuneiform tablets for administrative,
judicial and/or cultic purposes, a few also preserving
literary texts.363 Additionally among the tablets were
those recording correspondence between kings,
361 TD 9373. See, with references, Sartori 2009, 288–289,
figs. 12–13. For more on the green jasper workshop, see
the discussion in Collon 1986; 2001; Boschloos 2015;
Kopetzky and Bietak 2016.
362 Sartori 2009, 289.
363 For a list of Old Babylonian texts collected from
controlled excavations, see Charpin 2014, 50–52. See
also Horowitz, Oshima and Sanders 2002; 2006, 10–15;
Charpin and Ziegler 2003, 20–27.
 Socio-Political Transformations and Foreign Relations
merchants, officials and other dignitaries, as well
as details of diplomatic and commercial ventures or
treaties. Letters were likely commonly composed by
the sender, or a scribe in the presence or on behalf
of the sender. They could then be distributed by a
messenger, envoy, or other agent, and then stored
after inspection.
The tablet at Tell el-Dab‘a hints that some individuals
either residing in or passing through the site may
have been able to read Old Babylonian cuneiform.
This is also supported by TD 9421, which follows a
long-established Near Eastern tradition of the use of
the more personal cylinder seals. They were typically
worn on the body as personal adornments, markers
of status, and/or to seal, mark or acknowledge
ownership or responsibility when impressed on clay.
The seals’ decoration and cuneiform legends were
also usually purposefully selected to identify the
individual using them, and their role.364 Although the
sealings at Tell el-Dab‘a may have reached the site
amid other traded or redistributed items, one cannot
rule out the possibility that the cuneiform legend
on TD 9421 could have been read or translated for
administrative purposes by a recipient in Egypt. At
the very least, this scant material suggests that the
Fifteenth Dynasty rulers and elite were aware of
cuneiform writing and its importance in Near Eastern
relations.
However, in view of the later New Kingdom
cuneiform scribal tradition, such evidence cannot
yet verify the transmission of this knowledge to the
Eighteenth Dynasty. The tradition exhibited by the
Amarna Letters largely conform to contemporaneous
LBA scribal practices. The Akkadian cuneiform
from Egypt reflect Hurro-Akkadian and Hittite
features, with scholars suggesting a Hittite source
for the Egyptian cuneiform tradition.365 Traces of
the continuation of this tradition are represented
by the Egyptian-Hittite correspondence from
Ḫattuša and a fragmentary letter from Nineteenth
Dynasty Qantir.366 However, Mynářová suggests
that the possible Babylonian traces of the literary
documents from Amarna, as well as Amarna Letter
EA 1, might represent an earlier tradition that was
probably later replaced by one influenced by Hittite
practices.367 In fact, EA 1 (letter to a Babylonian king)
as well as EA 369 (letter to Gezer’s ruler) comprise
attestations of the non-Hittite verb-subject-object word
order, perhaps signalling influence of the Egyptian
grammar or a West Semitic substratum, such as
364 Van Koppen 2011, 156–157.
365 See Moran 1992, xx–xxi.
366 Pusch and Jakob 2003; Mynářová 2015, 91.
367 Mynářová 2015, 89–102.
91
Canaano-Akkadian, on local scribal practices.368 Such
transformations in cuneiform scribal traditions are
indeed attested across the MBA and LBA, with local
dialects gradually changing the written Akkadian.369 As
Y. Cohen writes in reference to the Southern Levantine
corpora, ‘although the type of textual materials (school
texts, administrative documents, letters) is shared
between the Middle Bronze Age and the Late Bronze
Age, the late period exhibits scribal trends and fashions
that have become widespread’.370 As such, if the
development of the New Kingdom Egyptian cuneiform
scribal tradition was linked to the late Fifteenth
Dynasty Tell el-Dab‘a, then the process would have
been similarly lengthy and complex.371 It may have also
impacted, to some extent, the evolving Egyptian scribal
tradition and the sociolect(s) of bilingual scribes and
elite within Egypt who originally could have utilised
Akkadian cuneiform in their exchanges. Nevertheless,
more evidence is required to validate this postulated
connection and its mechanisms of change.
3.3.2 Weights and Exchange
An established system of weights can significantly
facilitate the exchange of goods. It also logistically
provides a means of measuring and validating the
amount of incoming and outgoing items, and offer a
metrological expression of value, as perceived either
by the sender or receiver.372 A node exchanging various
products between two or more groups, especially of
variant cultural, political, or administrative affiliation,
would feasibly have utilised different systems of
weights. A consideration of these systems would
accordingly provide an insight into an entity’s possible
trading partners and network. Significant shifts in
these systems could also imply changing commercial,
and perhaps socio-political, trends. Despite such
insights, the analysis of the origins and transformations
of such systems across a supra-regional network
is largely hindered by the correct identification of
weights and standards in the archaeological record,
as well as balance weights’ physical condition and the
possibility of corrosion, abrasion and/or diminution.
As such, studies on the nature and mechanisms of
368 The early letters from Amurru, as well as the Canaano-
Akkadian Amarna Letters from Levantine cities, include
the verb-subject-object word order. See, for example,
EA 60 and EA 62. Moran 1992, xxi, 366 [EA 369],
n. 1, 130–132 [EA 60], 133–134 [EA 62]; Böhl 1909,
78; Finley 1979, 73–94; M andell 2015, 312–321, tables
17–20. See also Vita 2015.
369 See Demsky 1990; von Dassow 2010; R ainey 2010;
Izre’el 2012; M andell 2015; Vita 2015, 143–144.
370 Y. Cohen 2019, 247.
371 As Mynářová (2015, 91) writes, ‘Without doubt this process
occurred over a lengthy period of time, intermittently
and with at least three waves according to the preserved
evidence; the late Second Intermediate Period tradition,
and the Amarna and Ramesside corpora’.
372 K isch 1965, 79; Ratnagar 2003.
92 Chapter 3
transformations of metrological systems, especially
for the period under study, remain few.
Nevertheless, some balance weights are inscribed
with their denominations, allowing the correlation
of their preserved and estimated weights with the
original standard. Uninscribed balance weights
could further be identified and analysed according
to their regularised shape, material, relation to others
according to a standard unit of mass, and possible
recovery in a set.373 In Egypt, pre-New Kingdom texts
such as the Mit Rahina daybook of Amenemhat II
indicate that incoming products were recorded using
Egyptian units of volume and capacity (e.g. HqA. t or
Hn w), as well as weight (e.g. d b n). Balance weights
additionally attest to different weight systems. Petrie
was among the first to collate and analyse eight
standards of weight used across ancient Egyptian
history.374 Later investigations have since largely
relied on this collection,375 although several of
Petrie’s selected specimens were without provenance
and not of certain context or identification.
Out of over 2750 weights, 101 were assigned to
Dynasties 1–4, three to Dynasties 9–10, 96 to
Dynasty 12, 243 to Dynasty 18, and 169 to Dy-
nasty 23.376 Objects classified as Predynastic weights,
also not securely identified, were calculated by Petrie
to reach a mean of 13.15 g for cylindrical stones found at
Naqada, and 13.1 g for conical objects from Tarkhan.377
For the Old Kingdom, weights inscribed with the
names of Kings Snefru, Khufu, Weserkaf and
Sahura have provided a standard unit between 13 g
and 13.6 g.378 Other marked weights suggest that this
fluctuated by 7–8%, leading to an estimated 13.6–
13.9 g for the Old Kingdom unit of standard, identified
as the d b n or the Egyptian Standard.379 According to
Cour-Marty, around 86% of Old Kingdom weights
are in the shape of a square or rectangle, with a small
number that are cone- and trapezoid-shaped, and
single instances of weights in the shape of a disc,
truncated cone, ovoid, rounded cube, or polygon.380
They are made of various materials, but ‘alabaster’
and basalt predominate.381
Middle Kingdom weights inscribed with royal
names provide a unit between 12.25 g to 13.8 g.382 A
mean of 13.8 g has been calculated for 23 complete
weights from tombs or debris of the Middle Kingdom
373 R ahmstorf 2006, 9–10.
374 Petrie 1926a. See also the earlier publication, Weigall
1908.
375 See Hemmy 1937; Cour-Marty 1990; 1997; Mollat 2007.
376 Petrie 1926a; Hemmy 1937, 42.
377 Petrie 1926a, 18. See also Cour-M arty 1990, 21, fig. 26.
378 Cour-M arty 1990, 22, n.7; von Beckerath 1997, 156–
159; R ahmstorf 2006, 14.
379 Weigall 1908, iii–iv; Petrie 1926a, 17–19; R ahmstorf
2006, 14–16.
380 Cour-M arty 1990, fig. 26.
381 Cour-M arty 1990, fig. 26.
382 Cour-M arty 1990, 22; H ayes 1953, 195.
to the Second Intermediate Period at el-Lisht North.383
Variations, however, are noticeable; two weights
with the name of Amenemhat I, for instance, point to
estimated units of 17.5 g and 89.4 g, corresponding
with other unmarked weights assigned to the Middle
Kingdom.384 Furthermore, Hayes mentions 15 stone
weights collected from the same general area at el-
Lisht as those abovementioned but which approximate
to a unit between 8–10 g or close to the qd . t of the
New Kingdom.385 Based on this measurement alone,
he assigns them to the New Kingdom, although an
earlier date is possible.386 As for the weights’ shapes,
Cour-Marty estimates around 87% to be square or
rectangular, with a few shaped as cones and rounded
cubes, one as a trapezoid and another as a truncated
cone.387 Some of known provenance were collected
from sites that likely experienced intergroup trading
activities, such as el-Lisht, Coptos, el-Lahun, the
Sinai, Buhen, Mirgissa, Uronarti, as well as Byblos.388
Sphendonoid weights are also attested at el-Lisht.389
Calcite(?)-alabaster and basalt stones are used, but
other mineral stones are commonly attested, including
haematite.390 Apart from this archaeological evidence,
a scene from the early Twelfth Dynasty tomb of
Amenemhat at Beni Hassan depicts the weighing
of metal in a balance featuring what appear to be
sphendonoid or barrel-shaped, rectangular, conical,
and spherical weights (Fig. 3.35).391
As such, Cour-Marty suggests that the weight
system was already changing in the Middle Kingdom,
possibly due to influences from the Levant, with
early markers of the use of the qd . t unit that would
become common by the Eighteenth Dynasty. Petrie’s
discoveries at el-Lahun have also been used to suggest
foreign influence, or the presence of foreign traders,
as the majority of weights uncovered at the site did
not adhere to the Egyptian unit.392 Although cultural
elements of various origin are attested in the extant
material from the site, the association of the weights
with Middle Kingdom foreign influence is hampered
383 The debris surrounded the pyramid of Amenemhat I.
H ayes 1953, 297.
384 Cour-M arty 1990, 22. See also Michailidou 2004, 314,
table 26.1.
385 H ayes 1953, 297.
386 H ayes 1953, 297. See also MMA 11.151.275, 15.3.625,
22.1.802–806 and perhaps 16.3.8 in The Metropolitan
Museum of Art’s online collection. These haematite
sphendonoid weights are assigned in the collection to the
Middle Kingdom.
387 Cour-M arty 1990, fig. 26.
388 Cour-M arty 1990, 22.
389 H ayes 1953, 297. See also MMA 11.151.275, 15.3.625,
22.1.803–806 and perhaps 16.3.8 in The Metropolitan
Museum of Art’s online collection.
390 Cour-M arty 1990, fig. 26; H ayes 1953, 297.
391 Newberry 1893a, pl. 11; 1900, pl. 27 [3]; Kanawati and
Evans 2016, pls. 24b, 91. See also Hafford 2002, 506, n. 12.
392 Petrie 1891, 14; 1926, 6.
 Socio-Political Transformations and Foreign Relations
Fig. 3.35 Detail of a scene depicting the weighing of metal.
West wall, tomb of Amenemhat (Nr. 2), Beni Hassan, reign of Senwosret I, Dynasty 12.
Courtesy of the Australian Centre for Egyptology
by the lack of their contextual information. They could
be assigned to any period between the Middle to New
Kingdoms, and so cannot be utilised as a reflection of
Middle Kingdom intercultural trading activities.393
By the early Eighteenth Dynasty, weights bearing
the names of Amenhotep I and Thutmose I ascribe
to the earlier unit of approximately 13.2 g.394
Uninscribed weights also attest to its continued use,395
but they are outnumbered by those that accord to a
different system. Stones marked with the d b n , its
tenth (the qd . t), and its twelfth (the Sn a. ty), provide
approximate units of respectively 91 g, 9.1 g and
7.56 g, the smaller weights likely for measuring
precious materials such as metals.396 The qd . t
corresponds with the majority of weights assigned to
the New Kingdom, as at Deir el-Medina, Amarna and
Medinet Habu, which indicate the use of a base unit
between 9.0 g and 9.5 g.397 The change in units may
have additionally corresponded to the use of different
materials and shapes for weights. Calcite(?)-alabaster
still dominates the analysed weights by Cour-Marty,
but previously rarely attested haematite is the second
most common material.398 The majority of weights
393 A Middle Kingdom date has been followed by, for
instance David 1996, 172–173, 186, 188–189; 1999, 432;
Callender 2000, 167. Sparks (2004, 36) instead assigns
them to Dynasty 18.
394 Cour-M arty 1990, 23.
395 Eran 1985.
396 Cour-M arty 1990, 23.
397 Cour-M arty 1990, 23, fig. 26; 1985, 190, fig. 1; Petruso
1981, 47.
398 Cour-M arty 1990, fig. 26. Hemmy (1937), on the other
hand, argues that the qd . t was in use from the Old
Kingdom onwards, becoming dominant in the Delta by
the Second Intermediate Period. However, ‘during the
Hyksos period, the Stater, the Khoirine, and the Sela are
introduced, the first becoming the predominant standard
during Dyn. XVIII, whilst the Beqa and Peyem disappear’
(Hemmy 1937, 56). The evidence which Hemmy assigns to
each dynasty is unfortunately not published in the article
to confirm these observations.
93
are almond- or barrel-shaped, while a high number
of zoomorphic weights additionally occur, with
reclining quadrupeds commonly associated with
bronze items, and ducks with stone.399
Although Cour-Marty and Petrie do not provide the
contextual information of several of these weights
for closer analysis, the transformations between the
Middle and New Kingdoms are clear. One influential
factor proposed for these developments is foreign
influence. Weigall was among the first to attribute
them to ‘the foreign invasions between the XIIIth and
XVIIIth dynasties’,400 with Rahmstorf also noting the
possibility of external impact.401 A recent publication
of weights uncovered at Tell el-Dab‘a has further been
used to support the introduction of the new system
in the Fifteenth Dynasty. According to forthcoming
publications, around 50 weights of iron oxide were
found in Second Intermediate Period to early New
Kingdom levels at the site.402 One intramural tomb,
A/I-g/3.4-Nr. 1, of Phase D/3 included the remains
of at least five individuals, bronze weaponry, knives
and toggle pins, scarabs, pottery (including Tell el-
Yahudiyah ware), as well as two sets of weights.403
One set of 11 weights of iron oxide and steatite were
deposited together, and likely at the torso of one of the
individuals. It contained five originally sphendonoid
objects, one cylindrical, and the others of varying
shape (Fig. 3.36). The second set of seven weights, all
iron oxide, was scattered around the tomb, and included
two sphendonoid objects, one cylindrical, and the rest
of random shape. Prell and Rahmstorf suggest that the
399 Cour-M arty 1990, fig. 26; H afford 2002, 505.
400 Weigall 1908, ix.
401 R ahmstorf 2006, 16.
402 Prell and R ahmstorf 2019; 2021. Examples include one
haematite sphendonoid weight of 9.8 g that was retrieved
from ‘Ezbet Helmi, Area H/I-l/26-Pl. 1 (Jankovich 2008,
117 [Nr. 163]), likely of the early Eighteenth Dynasty,
and another of the same weight from Qantir, Area Q/I,
likely of the Nineteenth Dynasty (Prell 2011, 85, fig. 31).
403 Prell and R ahmstorf 2019; 2021.
94 Chapter 3
Fig. 3.36 Weights from Tomb A/I-g/3.4-Nr. 1-Burial 4, Stratum D/3 (Phase D/3), Tell el-Dab‘a.
Prell and R ahmstorf 2019, fig. 32
objects mostly ascribe to a unit between 9.1 g and 9.4 g,
with one stone possibly closer to 8.3 g.404 Accordingly,
the sets occur in a funerary context of what appears
to be the tomb of high status individuals influenced
by Near Eastern practices. Their shape, material, and
weight further imply a connection with the Near East,
while their inclusion may also attest to the importance
of commercial activities to the interred.
While the Tell el-Dab‘a objects could be the earliest
yet known archaeological instances of the qd . t in
Egypt from clear contexts, the unit is attested at least
from the EBA Levant, the Aegean, and Troy.405 It
continued to be utilised in the MBA across the Near
East, but also in the Aegean, Cyprus, Anatolia, and
Susa, until it became the dominant standard of the
LBA.406 This so-called ‘Levantine’ unit is calculated
at an average of 9.4 g. It was, however, one of several
weight units utilised in the Bronze Age Near East, with
other examples including the so-called ‘Karkemiš’
404 The latter, Inv. Nr. 462k, weighs 2.05 g and is marked
with four lines. This has been interpreted to represent a
quarter of the unit of approximately 8.3 g, which closely
parallels the so-called ‘Mesopotamian’ unit. Prell and
R ahmstorf 2019; 2021.
405 R ahmstorf 2006, 21, 23–25; Ascalone and Peyronel
2006a; 2006b; Ascalone 2006.
406 See Petruso 1978; Zaccagnini 1979; 1986; 2000;
Courtois 1990; Ascalone and Peyronel 2000; 2001;
H. Lassen 2000; Pulak 2000; A lberti 2006; H afford
2012; Kulakoğlu 2017.
unit (around 7.83 g), the ‘Mesopotamian’ unit also
used in Kanesh (around 8.33 g), and the ‘Hittite’ unit
(around 11.75 g).407 Weights of the EBA and MBA are
typically sphendonoid, ovoid and cylindrical, with
zoomorphic shapes, especially of the Mesopotamian
unit, also recorded.408 Those of the Levantine unit are
predominantly of haematite.409
In view of such material, it is highly likely that
the common unit of measurement utilised in the
New Kingdom emerged as a means of facilitating
exchanges between Egypt and the rest of the
Mediterranean and Near East. Although further
material from provenanced contexts is required to
assess the process of transformation, the intensified
close interactions with the Levantine coast from the
Middle Kingdom to the Second Intermediate Period
provide a feasible environment for the transfer and
increased use of various units of measurements.
This is supported by the different weights and
shapes attested in the Middle Kingdom, as well as
the artistic detail of possible sphendonoid weights
at Beni Hassan. It also parallels commercial
developments in the MBA Near East, in which
different weight units were similarly locally utilised
407 For an overview, see R ahmstorf 2006, 19–30,
with references. This also includes similar units of
measurement found in the Arabian Gulf and the Indus
Valley.
408 R ahmstorf 2006, 19–30.
409 R ahmstorf 2006, 22.
 Socio-Political Transformations and Foreign Relations
until the Levantine unit became most common across
the region.410 In Egypt, this process was possibly
furthered with the increased import of Levantine
products at Tell el-Dab‘a, as now evident by the
occurrence of the typical Levantine unit, together
with the sphendonoid shape and haematite material
of weights in late Second Intermediate Period to
early New Kingdom levels at the site. The Hyksos
rulers may have formalised its use to promote trade
with Western Asia and the Mediterranean, but the
paucity of published material as well as the lack of
evidence specifically from administrative contexts
cautions against this top-down approach. In fact, it
is equally likely that individuals in Egypt involved
in commercial activities with Near Eastern and
Aegean merchants were increasingly utilising the
system for efficiency and in accordance with the
intensity of interactions. Its escalated popularity
in the Egyptian qd . t of the New Kingdom
could thus be a continuation of this process,
and again coincides with the LBA convergent
use of a shared or correlated system of weights.
3.4 Outlook to the North and the Near East
3.4.1 Warfare and Foreign Affairs
Late Seventeenth to early Eighteenth Dynasty texts
emphasise the renewed utilisation of Egyptian
ideological expressions of foreigners. The ruler of the
Fifteenth Dynasty was already marked by Kamose as
a ‘miserable aAm’, the negative attitude continuing in
biographical inscriptions of military personnel tied to
the Theban administration. It clearly manifested by
Hatshepsut’s reign in the well-known inscription at
Speos Artemidos. However, the extent to which these
reflect accurate and altered relations with the Near
East after the fall of the Fifteenth Dynasty remains
uncertain. Despite the scarce material from Tell el-
Dab‘a, the preserved data from elsewhere in Egypt
suggests a general continuation of Twelfth Dynasty
representations, with Levantine regions portrayed
either as targets of military skirmishes, or as sources
of precious commodities. Much research has already
focussed on the nuances of Levantine and Egyptian
evidence for early Eighteenth Dynasty military
presence in the Levant, with the debate in correlations
between scientific, archaeological, and textual evidence
410 As argued in Ialongo, Vacca and Peyronel 2018,
different local systems could be simultaneously utilised
with a ‘meta-system’ that provided ‘acceptable accuracy
in the conversion between different standards, while
still complying with each official system’ (Ialongo,
Vacca and Peyronel 2018, 31). For a similar opinion, see
Michailidou 2004, 319–320.
95
still ongoing.411 As this topic has been well-explored,
the following presents an overview of the varied types
of Egyptian-Near Eastern interactions represented
in late Seventeenth and early Eighteenth Dynasty
material to ascertain the extent to which these differed
from Middle Kingdom norms, and to which their
development could be related to the Hyksos Dynasty.
3.4.1.1 The Sixteenth and Seventeenth Dynasties
Regarding the ideological treatment of northeasterners
in Egyptian material, bellicose representations before
the Seventeenth Dynasty are surprisingly few.412 The
last well-dated Middle Kingdom militaristic skirmish
likely in the northeast is recorded in the Abydos stela
of Khusobek of Senwosret III’s reign.413 The last
attested scene showing the Egyptian ruler smiting
a Mn t .y /%t . ty occurs on a pectoral from Princess
Mereret’s tomb at Dahshur of Amenemhat III’s
reign.414 Assigned to the Sixteenth Dynasty, the stela
of Ikhernefret (Neferhotep III) at Karnak depicts the
king as protector, guardian and devoted ruler. Pertinent
passages refer to him as:415
m k i (.w) sy Hn a xAs. tyw [sh r(.w)] n =s xAs.wt
bSt . (w) t Xr bA.w it =f Im n .w sx r [n =s rq] w.w
bSt .w Hr=f wd Sa. t r pH.w [sw…]Hr apr.w m x prS
t wt an x n (.y) Ra.w n b [m r. t…]
The one who guards it along with the foreigners,
[who pacifies] for it (the city) the rebellious foreign
lands, through the power of his father Amun, who
overthrew [for it the enemies] who rebelled against
him, who slaughters those who attacked [him…].
Equipped with the blue crown,416 living image of Ra,
the lord beloved of […].
The stela thus mentions the king protecting his city as
well as foreigners against xAs.wt bSt . (w) t ‘rebellious
foreign lands’. In another stela from Karnak, his
411 See A bdul-K ader 1959; A ḥituv 1978; R edford 1979;
1992; 2003, 185–194; Shea 1979; Weinstein 1981; 1991;
Na’aman 1981; 1994; F.M. Sabbahy 1986; R ainey 1987;
Hoffmeier 1989; 1990; 1991; 2004; Dever 1990; 1998;
M azar 2003; 2011; Morris 2005; Polz 2007; Burke
2010; Burke and Lords 2010; Höflmayer 2015a; 2019;
I. Koch 2019; Oren 2019, 261–262.
412 Grimal (1988, 250) additionally mentions fragments
from the Temple of Min at Coptos assigned to the reign
of Intef VII that depict Asiatic and Nubian prisoners.
413 Mourad 2015, 127.
414 For an overview, with references, see Mourad 2015, 63–
64, 100–101, 204, 281, figs. 4.32, B.2.
415 Lines 6–9. Helck 1983a, 45 [62]; Vernus 1982, 131, pl. 1.
416 This is the first known attestation of the blue crown. For
more on its origins and iconography, see W.V. Davies
1982; S. Collier 1993; H ardwick 2003; Bryan 2007.
96 Chapter 3
successor Seankhkara Montuhotep is similarly
described as w af (.w) xAs.wt n b. (w) t
‘the one who drives back all the foreign lands’.417
Although the elusive xAs.wt ‘foreign lands’ could be
linked with areas under Hyksos rule, their identity
remains uncertain and could equally be entities of any
origin that were not allied with the Thebans.
A small number of texts may additionally point
to the presence of individuals of possible Near
Eastern origin in Upper Egypt, or those with
names representing some association with Asiatic
elements, signalling continuation of Middle
Kingdom practices.418 Although most are generally
dated to the late Middle Kingdom to early Second
Intermediate Period, only two can be more firmly
assigned to the late Second Intermediate Period.419
The first is an inscription at Wadi Hammamat, a
quarry site located between the Red Sea coast and
Qift. Dating to the reign of Seventeenth Dynasty
king Sobekemsaf Sekhemrawadjkhaw, it refers to the
i m .y - rA sx . ty aAm ‘overseer of
fieldworkers, aAm’.420 Whether utilised as a name or
ethnonym, the use of aAm signifies the representation
of an individual via a term usually associated with
those from an area north(east) of Egypt, who was
employed as part of a Seventeenth Dynasty expedition
to the Wadi. The statue of a Sobekhotep from Edfu of
likely late Second Intermediate Period date features
m w. t =f wr. t IbSy ‘his great mother, IbSy’, whose
name T. Schneider interprets to be of Semitic origin.421
If correct, this points to the mimetic representation of
a non-Egyptian element alongside that which appears
to be Egyptian, and perhaps even the Near Eastern
origins of not only IbSy but Sobekhotep as well.
A third stela has also been mentioned in relation to
Asiatic representations, although it is of uncertain
417 Stela of Seankhkara Montuhotep at Karnak, line 7.
Vernus 1989, 147, pls. 6–7.
418 See, for instance, those at Abydos, Edfu, or el-Rizeiqat.
For a study of these representations, including those
generally assigned to the late Middle Kingdom to
early Second Intermediate Period, see, with references,
Mourad 2015, 99–100, 105, 112.
419 The inscription of Sobeknakht at el-Kab, assigned
by the excavator to the probable early Seventeenth
Dynasty, reportedly mentions a ‘neighbourhood of
Asiatics’ affected by a Kushite invasion. Not yet
completely published, the excavator proposes that
the ‘neighbourhood’ may refer to a northern Hyksos-
controlled area. Yet, as the reported inscription
otherwise mentions toponyms and ethnonyms
related to Nubia and the Eastern Desert (such as
Kush, Wawat, Khent-hen-nefer and the MDA.y),
perhaps the Asiatic enclave was further south.
W.V. Davies 2003a; 2003b; 2003c; 2010; 2016.
420 Gasse 1987, 212, pls. 39–42. Gasse reads the name as
QmAw, although the final m supports its reading as aAm .
421 Borchardt 1925, 66–67 [489]; T. Schneider 2003a,
129–130.
provenance.422 More firmly assigned to the reign
of Kamose by the presence of his cartouche, it is
dedicated by BAk, depicted with short hair bound with
a fillet, an axe at the shoulder and a dagger at the belt,
as well as his wife, Yd n t, who wears a one-shouldered
garment (see Fig. 5.24).423 While their attire could
be connected to Asiatics, their identification as such
remains tentative.
In contrast, the inscriptions of Kamose clearly
reflect the reuse of the topos treatment of Asiatics
as the traditional northern enemies of Egypt. As in
the Carnarvon Tablet, the opening sentences of the
king’s speech to his magistrates sets the political and
ideological scene:
s iA[= i] s w r i x
pAy =i n x . t wr m @w. t - w ar. t ky m KSi Hm s i . k wi
s mA. k wi m aAm (NH) sy s i n b Xr fd q =f m tA Km . t psS
tA Hn a=i ‘Let me recognise it, to know my strength.
A prince is in Avaris and another in Kush, while
I sit united with a aAm and a NHsy. Every man has
his portion in the land of Egypt, and the land is
partitioned with me’.424 One should note that the
Carnarvon Tablet identifies Avaris with the classifier of
a town (O49, ), while the Second Stela favours that of
a foreign land (N25, ).425 The difference may be due
to the later, early Eighteenth Dynasty, transcription
of the Tablet, during which other attestations also
represent Avaris with the classifier of a city.426 On the
other hand it could be related to the medium itself as a
scribal writing board,427 and thereby reflect the scribe’s
variant perspective of the northern city as opposed to
that on a stela placed in Karnak’s Temple. In either
case, the stela shows that Avaris was designated as a
foreign city in Seventeenth Dynasty royal texts.
422 Petschel 2011, 189, fig. 39.
423 Louvre E.6141/C.201. The stela bears the cartouche
of Kamose’s nomen pA hqA aA. Winlock 1924, 264;
Pierret 1874, 59–62; Ryholt 1997, 399 [14]. See Chapter
5.2.3.2.2.
424 Carnarvon Tablet, line 3. Helck 1983a, 83–84 [119].
425 Second Stela of Kamose, lines 2, 7–8, 15–16, 19–20. See
also Hodjache and Berlev 1977, 25–27.
426 Hodjache and Berlev 1977, 25–27.
427 The tablet (JE 41790) was found with another writing
board among debris near the entrance of Tomb Nr. 9
at Birabi, in the vicinity of Deir el-Bahari. The tomb is
believed to be of Seventeenth Dynasty date; however,
the debris may not have been from the tomb itself.
Furthermore, pots associated with the tomb ascribe to
either a Seventeenth to early Eighteenth Dynasty date,
or the following ceramic phase from around the reigns of
Hatshepsut and Thutmose III (Lilyquist 2019, 167). For
more on the tablet and its context, see Gardiner 1916b,
95; Carnarvon and Carter 1912, 34–37, pls. 25–28;
Lilyquist 2019, 159–167, figs. 1–10.
 Socio-Political Transformations and Foreign Relations
Kamose then presents his intentions to rescue Egypt
and to Hw. t aAm .w ‘smite the aAm .w’ by sailing north
to strike regions wherein the %t . ty w and aAm .w
roam. He utilises the force of Amun’s command,
his brave army, as well as MDA archers.428 He first
plunders Nefrusi, repelling aAm .w as well as their
allies, and then persists to other areas, causing some
to flee before him.429 The campaign continues in the
Second Stela of Kamose, the text alluding to the fear
gripping Avaris and its ruler.430 In direct speech to
Apophis, Kamose notes that
i ri = k w i w r i w = k HqA ‘you have made me a prince,
while you are a ruler’,431 then names the Hyksos
king as a w r n (.y)
RTn w Xs i a. wy ‘prince of RTn w, weak of arms’,432
wh m ib =k irf aAm Xs i
‘wicked is your heart, miserable aAm‘.433 Paralleling
earlier Old and Middle Kingdom texts describing the
destruction of enemy strongholds, the text proceeds
with details of plundering and destroying Avaris
along with those allied with Apophis, specifically
Di .w s t Hr sDm iAaS n aAm .w bT. n =s n Km . t
Hm . t =s n ‘they who caused them to serve aAm .w
when they overran Egypt, their mistress’.434 Inevitably,
Kamose was victorious, returning to Thebes without
loss and offering incense at the Temple of Amun. He
was one dAr rsy sAsA mH. ty
‘who subdued the south and repelled the north’.435
The text, then, shares several similarities with
earlier representations of Asiatics. The pervasion of
Egypt by foreigners echoes literary pieces arguably
assigned between the First Intermediate Period
428 Carnarvon Tablet, lines 3–11.
429 Carnarvon Tablet, lines 13–17. The imagery here
strikes parallel with the late Fifth Dynasty siege scene
of Kaemheset’s tomb at Saqqara. The scene portrays at
least one elderly man, a woman, a child, as well as cattle
heading towards hemispherical structures, possibly
entrances to escape routes, as the Egyptian army
surrounds their settlement. McFarlane 2003, fig. 17. See
also Mourad 2011.
430 In contrast to n. 429 above, the representation of the
inhabitants of Avaris parallels another Fifth Dynasty
siege scene of Inti’s tomb at Deshasha depicting the
occurrences within a fortress occupied by Asiatics as the
Egyptians breach its walls. The ruler, identified by his
seated posture and staff, joins other women in tearing
their hair, while a soldier breaks his bow, and two others
defecate. K anawati and McFarlane 1993, pl. 27. See also
Mourad 2011.
431 Second Stela of Kamose, line 1. Helck 1983a, 91 [119].
432 Second Stela of Kamose, line 4. Helck 1983a, 91 [119].
433 Second Stela of Kamose, lines 11 and 16. Helck 1983a,
93 [119].
434 Second Stela of Kamose, line 18. Helck 1983a, 94 [119].
The motif of landscape destruction is attested at least
from the Old Kingdom onwards. For more, see S. Heinz
2001; Meurer 2001; Lundh 2002; M atić 2017b.
435 Second Stela of Kamose, line 35. Helck 1983a, 96 [119].
97
and the Middle Kingdom, such as the Instructions
for Merikara, the Prophecies of Neferty and the
Admonitions of Ipuwer. The negativity towards the
Hyksos ruler is closely connected with his depiction
as a weak, wicked, miserable aAm , the latter akin to
the aAm Xs i of Merikara’s Instructions,436 or RTn w
Xs i . t of Khusobek’s stela.437 However, it diverges
from these texts in representing a divided Egypt as
the primary affliction linked to foreign presence. It is
not all inhabitants of Hyksos-controlled areas that are
represented as weak or miserable. Their leader was the
epitome of such malevolence.
This topos is absent from other contemporary texts
associated with Kamose’s campaigns. The stelae of
Emheb and Tjaw at Edfu, most likely of late Dynasty
17 to early Dynasty 18, both refer to reaching Avaris,
but neither refer to its weak or miserable inhabitants,
its ruler, or the aAm enemy.438 The stela of Emhab may
include a one-on-one duel against t m rh t n, similar
to those of Khusobek439 or Sinuhe,440 although there
are no details regarding the opponent and so his
identification remains unknown.441 The stela of Tjaw
refers to the establishment of a northern boundary at
Avaris, mirroring the ideology of gaining control of
the north in Kamose’s inscriptions. While these texts
thereby hint at a Seventeenth Dynasty rhetoric of
repelling foreigners to the north of Theban-controlled
Egypt, they do not share the same negative portrayal of
foreigners which appears largely, if not solely, confined
to the royal ideological sphere.
3.4.1.2 The early Eighteenth Dynasty
The material of the late Seventeenth to early
Eighteenth Dynasty promotes and expands this
ideology. This is clearly exemplified by a bronze
lance head of uncertain provenance inscribed with
nTr n f r Nb - pH. ty -Ra.w sA Ra.w IaH- m s Di (.w) an x
436 Papyrus Leningrad 1116A, lines 91–92. Golénischeff
1913; Quack 1992. The Instructions of Merikara are
preserved on three papyri of the Eighteenth Dynasty
(Papyrus Leningrad 1116A, Papyrus Moscow 4658,
and Papyrus Carlsberg 6). Some date the text’s original
composition to the Eleventh Dynasty, and others to the
Twelfth Dynasty. For more, see Lichtheim 1973, 97, with
references; Scharff 1936, 53; Seibert 1967, 88; Burkard
1977, 6.
437 Manchester 3306, line C.2. Garstang 1901, pls. 4–5;
Peet 1914a, pls. 1–2; Simpson 1974, pl. 31 [69.1]. The term
Xs i is also applied to other foreigners.
438 For the stela of Emhab (JE 49566), see Černy 1969;
Baines 1986, pl. 8; Grimm 1989; Redford 1997, 12 [Nr. 61];
Kubisch 2008, 238–244; Klotz 2010, pls. 20–22. For the
stela of Tjaw, see Gardiner 1916b, 100; Helck 1983a, 78
[114]; Redford 1997, 12 [Nr. 62]; Kubisch 2008, 232–234.
439 Manchester 3306, line C.4. Garstang 1901, pls. 4–5;
Peet 1914a, pls. 1–2; Simpson 1974, pl. 31 [69.1]; Baines
1987; Goedicke 1998.
440 Tale of Sinuhe B109–146. K. Koch 1990, 46–53.
441 See K lotz 2010, 222–228, with references.
98 Chapter 3

ATP 4057/2487

ATP 1941/1944
0 10 cm

Fig. 3.37 Fragments depicting representations of Asiatics, horses and related texts. Funerary Temple of Ahmose,
Abydos, Dynasty 18. After Harvey 1998, figs. 76–77, 80

in i . t n =f m n x t .wt =f m @w. t - w ar. t Xs i . t ‘The
perfect god, Nebpehtyra, son of Ra, Ahmose, given
life. That which was brought by him from his victories
at miserable Avaris’.442 This text points to a number
of battles against Avaris, as well as the king looting
such precious items as bronze weaponry from the city.
Interestingly, the scribe chose the classifier O49 ( )
for the city, despite its negative attribution as Xs i . t
‘vile’, perhaps as it was already under Theban control.
Indeed, a few pieces of evidence from the site, such
as a scarab naming Ahmose and two fragmentary
inscriptions, could point to such Theban presence.443
A vessel fragment naming Apophis from an early
Eighteenth Dynasty royal tomb at Dra‘ Abu el-Naga
could also originally be from Avaris.444
442 Pushkin Inv. Nr. I.1.a.1762 (Online catalogue Pushkin
Inv. Nr. I.1.a 1726). Hodjache and Berlev 1977, 23–29,
fig. 1.
443 Scarab TD 7729, Sculptor’s Workpiece Inv. Nr. 9600 M,
and Stela Fragment Inv. Nr. 9600 R. Bietak, Czerny and
Prell 2016.
444 MMA 21.7.7, Tomb AN B. The fragment also mentions
the ‘king’s daughter’, @- r- i - t i, believed to be Apophis’s
daughter (H ayes 1959, 7, fig. 2; Helck 1983a, 56 [80]).
Written in a cartouche, T. Schneider (2003a, 155)
postulates a Semitic origin for the name. For more
on her identity and problems with connecting her
to a diplomatic marriage between the Fifteenth and
Seventeenth Dynasties, see Ryholt 1997, 257–258.
The attack(s) may also be portrayed on fragments
from the eastern part of Ahmose’s Funerary Temple at
Abydos (Fig. 3.37).445 Likely constructed towards the
end of the king’s reign,446 the pieces preserve elements
of events that he and his administration memorialised
in commemoration of the king and in line with
Egyptian funerary and cultic principles. Several
artistic and textual details indicate that the fragments
belonged to one or more siege scenes. They include
a small but significant number that likely reflect the
king’s campaigns in securing power over Hyksos-
controlled areas, suggested by pieces preserving
the names of Apophis and Avaris.447 Among the
fragments are those that depict bearded individuals
with shaven heads, one with some hair remaining
behind the ear, and another fragment showing an arm
in a fringed long sleeve.448 Together, these details
could be identified as features of Asiatics, presenting
the earliest known representation of these foreigners
445 H arvey 1998, 314–350, figs. 75–90, 97; 2002/2003, 22–
23; 2008, 143.
446 H arvey 1998, 314–350, figs. 75–90; 2002/2003, 22–23.
447 One fragment preserves Ip p near an outline of an arm
and body of an individual; while this could be Apophis,
the name could also be related to an individual or official
who shared the former Hyksos king’s name. Another
fragment contains Hw. t w ar most likely in reference
to Avaris. H arvey 1998, 325–327, fig. 80.
448 Harvey 1998, fig. 80.
 Socio-Political Transformations and Foreign Relations
Fig. 3.38 Detail of stela of Neferperet, near Tura, reign of Ahmose, Dynasty 18. After Daressy 1911, 263
wearing garments with sleeves extending to the wrist,
and a clear indication of developments not only in
Egyptian art but also in the artistic manifestation of
altered knowledge regarding Near Eastern elements
(see Figs. 5.46–47). The attire afterwards occurs in
several Eighteenth Dynasty representations of Near
Eastern men, some of whose captions associate them
with northerly regions such as RTn w, Naharin, or
Kf t i w.449 Ahmose’s fragments portray one Asiatic
who is armed, and several others in non-static poses,
suggesting that they are involved in a battle.450
The scene could thereby artistically represent the
subjugation of the northern enemy.
Ahmose’s inscription at Karnak provides further
insight on his ideological treatment of these foreigners.
It states:
iw xAs. ty w m hi m s w a aHa r arr.y t =f iw Sat =f
m #n . t -Hn - n f r h m h m .wt =f m tA.w Fn x .w s nD. t
Hm =f m -Xn .w tA p n m i Min rn p. t iy i=f ‘Foreigners
are humbly together at his gate. His terror is in
#n . t -Hn - n f r and his war cries are in the lands of
the Fn x .w. The fear of his majesty is in this land like
Min in the year when he comes’.451 The text, however,
also mentions foreigners as sources of precious
commodities, adding that
in i=s n mAa.w n f r.w ATp.w m
in .w n n sw. t ‘they bring good produce, laden with gifts
for the king’.452 The text includes items commissioned
for the temple, some produced of lapis lazuli, silver,
ebony and gold which, if not plundered from elsewhere
in Egypt, would have been sourced via Nubia and the
Near East. A barque of aS mA(a)
n (.y) &p - #tyw ‘aS- mA(a)-wood of &p - #tyw’ as
well as other temple furnishings of aS-wood were
449 N. de G. Davies 1929b, 41, fig. 5; 1933a, pl. 4; Pritchard
1951, 38–41; Wachsmann 1987, 45–46. For more on the
conception of Kf t iw in connection to the Levant and
Crete, see M atić 2014.
450 H arvey (1998, 324) suggests that two fragments may
depict captives.
451 Inscription of Ahmose on the Eighth Pylon at Karnak,
lines 12–14. Urk. 4, 18 [3–7].
452 Inscription of Ahmose on the Eighth Pylon at Karnak,
line 14. Urk. 4, 18 [8–9].
99
additionally commissioned.453 Thus, the inscription
represents Ahmose’s effectiveness in securing precious
items of prestige and cultic value from neighbouring
lands. Although the cultic context of the inscription
could affect its historicity, access to products of the
Levant is supported by Neferperet’s stela near Tura of
Ahmose’s 22nd Year, in which bulls brought by aAm .w
from the lands of the Fnx .w are mentioned (Fig. 3.38).454
The biographical inscription of Ahmose-si-Ibana
provides further details, some specifically associated
with the career of the captain and others in reference
to the pharaohs’ activities. In approaching such
biographies, one should certainly take note of
their underlying purpose to highlight an official’s
achievements and perpetuate his memory in
accordance with contemporary ideology and
decorum. Only details of campaigns in which the
official participated are specifically selected in
line with this purpose, with the topos treatment
of foreigners more apparent when the pharaohs’
activities are recounted. The text follows Ahmose-si-
Ibana’s achievements in Ahmose’s attack on regions
of and around Avaris, as well as the multi-year siege
at Sharuhen.455 The soldier collected booty in the form
of captives and hands, and was awarded the Gold of
Honour for his role in Ahmose’s successes in slaying
(s mA) the Mn t .yw %t . t, a group
and toponym that is attested from at least the reign of
Pepy II as the ideological foreign entity encountered at or
453 Inscription of Ahmose on the Eighth Pylon at Karnak,
lines 31–33. Urk. 4, 23 [10–15]. &p - #ty w may be literally
translated as ‘the top/head of the terrace’. #ty w is also
attested as a source of aS-wood from the Old Kingdom.
See, for instance, H ayes 1949, 46, pl. 4.
454 Lines 4–6. Urk. 4, 25 [12]; Daressy 1911, 262–264;
Vandersleyen 1971, 102–120. See Chapter 5.4.5.1.2.
455 Sharuhen has been identified by many as Tell el-‘Ajjul,
an important MBA and LBA site strategically positioned
on an estuary providing access to small vessels to the
Mediterranean Sea, and a land route that could potentially
provide the Egyptians with access to the Levant. It is
additionally believed by many to be a Hyksos stronghold
(see, for instance, J.R. Stewart 1974, 61; K empinski 1974;
Weinstein 1981, 8; Bietak 1996a, 60–63; Oren 1997;
Morris 2005, 29, 51–53); however, Ahmose-si-Ibana’s
biography does not link the inhabitants or rulers of Avaris
with those of Sharuhen. For more on Ahmose’s campaigns
to the north, see Vandersleyen 1971, 30–48, 89–127.
100 Chapter 3
beyond Egypt’s conceptual borders in the northeast.456
As in Ahmose’s reign, the campaigns of Amenhotep I
and Thutmose I were successful in massacring enemies
in the south and crushing rebellions. In Thutmose I’s
reign, the captain was sent to the north again:
n n wDA r RTn w r i at ib =f x t xAs.wt s pr Hm =f [r]
Nh ry nA gm . t Hm =f an x (.w) wDA(.w) s n b (.w) x rw
p f TAs=f s k i .w wn . in Hm =f Hr iri . t XA. t aA. t i m =s n
n n Tn .wt m s q r.w -an x in n Hm =f m n x .wt =f ‘One
proceeded to RTn w to vent his wrath throughout the
foreign lands. When his majesty reached Nh ry nA, his
majesty, may he live, prosper and be healthy, found that
enemy gathering troops. Then his majesty carried out
a great massacre among them. Innumerable were the
captives that his majesty brought from his victories’.457
The account of these expeditions emphasises the power
of the Egyptian kings beyond Egyptian territory,
specifically quelling rebellion and opposition.
Significantly, activities in the north are described more
as raids than as expansion or acquisition of territory.
Similar campaigns of the early Eighteenth Dynasty
kings to the south and north of Egypt are represented
in the biography of Ahmose-Pennekhbet. Recorded
in his tomb at el-Kab, the biography follows the main
achievements of the treasurer, chief commander
of the infantry, and ‘captor’ during the reigns of
Ahmose to Thutmose III.458 The biography mentions
several campaigns in which the official was involved,
including that to +Ahy in the Levant during
Ahmose’s reign (captured a prisoner and a hand),459
KS and mH. ty IAm . w - k hk in
Nubia in Amenhotep I’s reign (captured a prisoner,
and three hands respectively),460 KS in the
south and xAs (. t) n . t Nh ry nA in
the Levant in Thutmose I’s reign (captured two
prisoners, and 21 hands, a horse and a chariot,
456 Biography of Ahmose-si-Ibana, lines 9–16. Urk. 4, 3–5.
For more on the Mn t .y w %t . t, see Mourad 2017a. It is
likely that the Iwn . ty w %ty of Khent-hen-nefer
and Kush, also mentioned as the enemies of Ahmose,
Amenhotep I and Thutmose I (lines 17, 25, 35. Urk. 4, 5
[6], 7 [3], 9 [5]), represent Egypt’s southern ideological
enemies. For more on the gift of gold in exchange for
capturing hands and prisoners, see Chapter 4.4.2.
457 Biography of Ahmose-si-Ibana, lines 36–38. Urk. 4, 9
[8–14].
458 Urk. 4, 32–39. See also Chapter 4.4.2.
459 Biography of Ahmose-Pennekhbet, line C3. Urk. 4, 35
[14–16]. For more on the toponym, see Vandersleyen
1971, 90–100.
460 Biography of Ahmose-Pennekhbet, lines C4–6. Urk. 4,
36 [1–4].
respectively),461 as well as against ^Asw of
the Sinai or Levant in Thutmose II’s reign (captured
many prisoners).462 Clearly, these campaigns are
mentioned for their portrayal of Ahmose-Pennekhbet’s
effectual fulfilment of his duty as ‘captor’.
The biography supports the abovementioned texts
of Ahmose and Thutmose I reaching the Levant
(Fig. 3.39). The regions associated with Ahmose
include those typically identified with areas of the
Southern Levant (i.e. Sharuhen) and the Northern
Levant (i.e. &p - #ty w and +Ahy),463 while those
accessed by Thutmose I include RTn w and Nh ry nA.
Their description suggests that the early Eighteenth
Dynasty campaigns to the Levant followed those
from the Twelfth Dynasty, such as the expeditions
to IAsy and IwA(i) in the Mit Rahina inscription, or
that to %k m m near RTn w in the stela of Khusobek:
the regions were reached, attacked, and then looted,
but no further Egyptian interference is mentioned.464
Correspondingly, the Levant, especially the northern
coastal area, was represented in both periods as
a source of precious commodities, some of which
was redistributed to Egyptian temples. Apart from
the spoils of these expeditions, the forays in the
Levant further offered the Egyptians the opportunity
to exhibit the new political leadership of Egypt,
especially along important trading hubs and routes.465
By eventually reaching the borders of Mitanni, the
Egyptians would have been showcasing their strength
to rising powers that could have been potentially
461 Biography of Ahmose-Pennekhbet, lines C6–9. Urk. 4,
36 [5–10].
462 Biography of Ahmose-Pennekhbet, line C10. Urk. 4, 36
[12–13].
463 +Ahy has also been identified to be located in the Southern
Levant, particularly in Dynasty 19, or in reference to
the Near East in general (Vandersleyen 1971, 90–100).
Mention of the Fn x .w in Neferperet’s stela, and earlier
in the Pyramid Texts (J.P. A llen 2005, 190 [P 541], 246
[N 67]) and the Tale of Sinuhe (B221), implies the use of
the term to refer to a group of people and not a toponym.
It could be preceded by tA.w or tA.wy, which would point
to lands frequented or inhabited by the group. According
to Sinuhe, the tA.wy Fn x .w are listed after Qd m i and
#n ty - kSw, implying a topographic location in modern
Lebanon or Syria. This is further supported by later
New Kingdom texts that associate Fn x .w more with
the Northern Levant. See T. Schneider 2002, 266–267.
For an opposing view locating Fn x .w in the Southern
Levant, see Vittmann 2003, 44, 257, n. 1; Müller-
Wollermann 2004, 444.
464 F.M. Sabbahy 1986, 349–350; Burke 2010, 57. As
R edford (1992, 149) also writes, the early Eighteenth
Dynasty campaigns were likely ‘throwbacks to a well-
known mechanism’.
465 See F.M. Sabbahy 1986, 349–353; Kopetzky 2008, 227.
 Socio-Political Transformations and Foreign Relations 101

King Activity to the North Source Source Site

Kamose - Attack on Nefrusi Second Stela of Kamose Karnak
(becoming a nest of aAm.w)
- Caused Pershak to empty
- Attack on Avaris and allies of aAm.w
Ahmose - Victories at Avaris (Xsi. t) Bronze lance head –
- Attack on Avaris (?) Funerary Temple, Abydos Abydos
- Attack on Avaris Biography of Ahmose-si-Ibana El-Kab
- Multi-year siege on Sharuhen
- Slaying Mnt.yw %t. t
- Attack at +Ahy Biography of El-Kab
Ahmose-Pennekhbet
- War cries heard in the lands of the Fnx .w Inscription on Eighth Pylon Karnak
- Foreigners bringing produce and gifts
- Commissioned barque of Amun from
fresh aS-wood of &p - #tyw, and other
temple furnishings from imported
materials, including silver, lapis lazuli,
aS-wood and fresh aS-wood of &p - #tyw
- Bulls brought from the lands of the Fnx .w Stela of Neferperet Tura

Thutmose I - Proceeded to RTnw to vent his wrath Biography of Ahmose-si-Ibana El-Kab

- Attack on enemy troops at NhrynA
- Attack in NhrynA Biography of El-Kab
Ahmose-Pennekhbet
- Commissioned barque of Amun from fresh Royal stela Abydos
aS-wood of &p - #ty w, and other temple
furnishings from imported materials,
including silver, lapis lazuli, and black
copper
- Activity concerning elephants, chariots, Inscription at the Punt Hall of Deir el-Bahari
and Nyy Hatshepsut’s Mortuary Temple
? - Activity concerning Qd m Stone vessel fragment, Tomb Dra‘ Abu el-Naga
AN B
- Activity concerning Mtiny Biography of Amenemhat Sheikh ‘abd el-
Qurna
- Smites the %T. tyw Biography of Ineni Sheikh ‘abd el-
- Destroys the Mnt.yw Qurna
- Commissioned the construction of items
from imported materials, including
bronze, copper from %T. t , aS-wood from
#nty -S, as well as fresh aS-wood from
&p - #tyw
Thutmose II - Attack on ^Asw Biography of El-Kab
Ahmose-Pennekhbet
- Attack on Asiatics (?) Funerary Temple Western Thebes
- Receives gifts from the Mnt.yw as well as Inscription Aswan Philae
the Iwn. tyw %ty
- Messenger is not repulsed in the lands of
the Fnx .w

Fig. 3.39 Overview of interactions with Hyksos-controlled areas and the Near East as attested in texts assigned to
the reigns of Kamose to Thutmose II
102 Chapter 3
either commercial or diplomatic allies, or foes.466 In
essence, this initiative may have not occurred if not
for the political changes within Egypt and the fall of
the Fifteenth Dynasty.
Two further texts connect Thutmose I with the
Northern Levant: an inscription from Abydos, and
another at Deir el-Bahari.467 The first is a royal stela
that focusses on the construction and embellishment
of monuments for Osiris.468 The furnishings include
a palanquin of silver, gold, lapis lazuli, black
copper and precious stones,469 as well as a barque of
aS mAa n (.y) &p - #ty w ‘aS- mA(a)-
wood of &p - #ty w’.470 While the copper could have
been sourced from the renewed campaigns to Serabit
el-Khadim, probably under Amenhotep I,471 all other
materials were either from regions further south or
north of Egypt. The second is an inscription from the
Punt Hall of Hatshepsut’s Mortuary Temple which,
although fragmentary, preserves what appears to be
a record of the king hunting elephants.472 Excluding
Sethe’s now questioned reconstruction,473 the text
retains a few words, including Ab w ‘elephant’,
Ht ri ‘chariot’, and the likely toponym
Nyy.474 The latter is also mentioned in inscriptions of
Thutmose III’s reign referring to elephant hunting in the
466 A hrens (2015, 360–361) suggests that Thutmose I’s
campaigns would have only been possible after the
destruction of Yamkhad and Babylon by the Hittite
Mursili I, and the political shifts in other MBA city-states
in the Northern Levant. The withdrawal of the Hittites
may have contributed to a power vacuum that enabled the
rise of the Hurrian city-state. Spalinger 2005, 49–50.
467 Another text is the Tombos Stela of Thutmose I. Assigned
to Year 2 of the king’s reign, it mentions his victories in
Nubia and the recognition of his authority by southern
lands and peoples. Boasting the king’s achievements,
it notes how he opened valleys or paths in the south,
and records the extent of his territorial reach, namely:
tAS=f rs.y r x n . tyw tA pn mH. ty r
mw p f qd .w xdd .y m x n . ty ‘his southern boundary reaches
the beginning of this land and his northern to that reversed
water that flows south’ (Urk. 4, 85 [13–14]). While this could
be interpreted as a reference to the rivers in the Levant that
flow south, such as the Euphrates River (otherwise known
as Px r-wr) or the Litani River, it has also been identified
with the Red Sea, or another area south of Egypt. For a
discussion, with references, see Spalinger 1978, 37, n. b.
468 Urk. 4, 94–103.
469 Abydos Stela of Thutmose I, lines 7–8. Urk. 4, 97–98.
470 Abydos Stela of Thutmose I, line 9. Urk. 4, 98 [14].
471 Gardiner and Peet 1917, pl. 106 [172–173]; Černy
1955, 149. Fragments from Serabit el-Khadim are also
inscribed with the name of Ahmose-Nefertari, and could
point to earlier exploitation of the mines (Černy 1955,
149).
472 Urk. 4, 103–105.
473 See Busch 2006, 88; E. Fischer 2007, 71.
474 Respectively, the beginning of lines 3, 4, and 6. Urk. 4,
104 [2, 4, 7].
Northern Levant.475 Whether or not a similar activity
was carried out by Thutmose I, the inclusion of the
toponym in the Deir el-Bahari fragment points to some
interest in this area in the early Eighteenth Dynasty,
and in an activity shared by the elite of the Northern
Levant.476 This is supported by the retrospective mention
of Thutmose I’s stela at the Euphrates, next to which
Thutmose III reportedly erected his monument.477
Due to such evidence, three additional early
Eighteenth Dynasty texts recalling Egyptian-Near
Eastern relations have been attributed to Thutmose I’s
reign. One is a fragmentary stone vessel from Tomb
AN B at Dra‘ Abu el-Naga which preserves the
placename Qd m, also in the Northern Levant.478
The second occurs in the biography of the official
Amenemhat, who served Ahmose, Amenhotep I and
Thutmose I, the fragmentary passage referring to the
xAs. t Mt iny ‘the foreign land Mitanni’
as enemies, along with a possible reference to the king
in this area.479 The third is found in the biography of
Ineni, who was involved in construction projects likely
from the reign of Amenhotep I to Thutmose III. Very
likely referring to Thutmose I, he mentions
nTr n f r Hwi %T. ty w n b pH. ty ssH Mn t .yw
iri . n =f tAS=f r wp. t - tA pH.ww m q bH n (.y) [@r.w]
‘the good god who smites the %T. tyw, the lord of
strength who destroys the Mn t .yw. He has made his
boundary to the horn of the Earth, the northern to
the cold water (or sky?) of [Horus]’.480 The biography
475 The presence of elephants and the significance or
prestige of elephant hunting, especially for the elite,
in the Northern Levant is confirmed by the discovery
of elephant bones in a number of MBA and LBA
contexts. These include the Royal Palace of Qatna, a
possible palatial context at Alalakh Level VIII and the
Level IV palace, and a domestic MBA area and an early
LBA temple at Kamid el-Loz. For more, see Pfälzner
2013; 2016; Çakirlar and Ikram 2016. Ivory artefacts are
also found in Egypt, with elephant bones identified among
animal remains collected from Qantir, Area Q/I (Boessneck
and von den Driesch 1982; see also Prell and Kitagawa
2020). For an overview of elephants, ivory, and other related
materials in Egypt, see K rzyszkowska and Morkot 2000.
476 See Pfälzner 2013; 2016.
477 Annals of Thutmose III, line V.19–20. Urk. 4, 697 [5].
478 For more on the toponym, see Mourad 2013. A
fragmentary doorway from Karnak also mentions this
toponym alongside &wn p i and +Aiwny in the Northern
Levant, each inscribed atop an offering bearer before an
inscription describing the transport of Levantine goods.
The figures carry handled jars akin to MBIIA or MBIIB
amphorae. As such, the inscription has been variably
dated to the Middle Kingdom (Le Saout 1987), the reign
of Amenhotep I (R edford 1979) or that of Thutmose I
(Bradbury 1986; R edford 2003, 185, n. 4; Spalinger
2005, 27–28, 64–65).
479 Biography of Amenemhat (TT 53), lines 1–2. Helck
1983a, 110 [125]. For the spelling of Mitanni, see Görg
1978; 1979; Stockfisch 2006.
480 Biography of Ineni (TT 81), line 5. Urk. 4, 55 [3–5];
Dziobek 1992, 48.
 Socio-Political Transformations and Foreign Relations
additionally includes a number of items constructed
using imported materials either in the reign of
Thutmose I or Thutmose II. These include bronze,
copper from %T. t, aS-wood from #n ty -S, as well as
fresh aS-wood from &p - #ty w.481
In contrast to the material pointing to Thutmose I’s
relations with the Near East, that which is specifically
assigned to Thutmose II’s short reign is limited. Apart
from the mention of his attacks against the ^Asw in
Ahmose-Pennekhbet’s biography, fragments of a battle
scene from his Theban funerary temple depict armed
bearded men, some fallen, that could represent Asiatic
adversaries (see Fig. 5.14).482 One inscription at Aswan
Philae contains an additional reference to the Near
East. Purposed to describe the king quelling a rebellion
in Kush and Khent-hen-nefer, the text opens with a
portrayal of the ruler’s effectiveness in protecting his
people, the Nine Bows beneath his feet as he receives
awe from those in the id b.w Haw - n b.wt ‘lands of the
island-dwellers’,483 and gifts from the Mn t .yw as well
as the Iwn . ty w %ty.484 It adds that
tAS=f rs r wp. t - tA mH. ty r pH.ww %T. t m
nD. t Hm =f n x s f -a n wpw. ty =f x . t tA.w F(n)x .w
‘his southern boundary reaches to the horn of the
Earth, the northern to the ends. %T. t is subject to his
majesty, one doesn’t repulse his messenger throughout
the lands of the Fn x .w’.485 Securing safe passage of
messengers was evidently of importance to the ruler,486
highlighting the associated significance of accessing
land routes through the Levant.
As with the evidence from the reigns of Amenhotep I
and Thutmose II, material ascribed to Hatshepsut’s reign
on royal interactions with Near Easterners is limited. The
most well-known is the Speos Artemidos inscription.
It commemorates the renovation of the Temple of
Pakhet, its location in Middle Egypt, near Beni Hassan,
strategically linked to routes accessing the Eastern and
Western Deserts. The text describes the goddess as
Px t wr. t x n s. t in .wt Hr.y - ib. t iAb. t t [wp i . t]
wA.wt s n m .w ‘Pakhet the Great, who traverses the
481 See Biography of Ineni (TT 81), lines 1–2, 5–6, 8–9.
Urk. 4, 53–56; Dziobek 1992, 47–49.
482 Bruyère 1952, pls. 3–4. For more on the scene’s
representation of weapons, see Chapter 5.2.3.2.2 and
5.2.3.4.4, and for its depiction of horses and chariots, see
Chapter 5.2.2.4.
483 These have been identified with the Aegeans. For more,
see Bontty 1995; Goedicke 2002; Quack 2007.
484 Inscription of Thutmose II at Aswan-Philae, lines 3–4.
Urk. 4, 137–138.
485 Inscription of Thutmose II at Aswan-Philae, lines 4–5.
Urk. 4, 138 [7–10]. De Buck 1948, 47–48; H annig 1995.
486 Morris (2005, 33–34), suggests that the campaign against
the ^Asw was associated with this. She also connects the
routes with Thutmose II’s access to precious diplomatic
gifts.
103
valleys in the East, who [opens the] rain-swept roads’.487
The fruits of such routes are indirectly referenced
elsewhere in the inscription, in the form of statues
of Dam aAm .w ‘electrum of the aAm .w‘,488 doors with
copper elements,489 doors of copper from %T. t,490 and a
variety of other precious stones and minerals utilised
in the construction and embellishment of temples by
Hatshepsut. The reason for their former ruinous state
is also provided:491
n aawy. n =i m hy s rwd . n =i wn . t wAs.w iw Ts. n =i
st p HA. t -a Dr wn aAm .w m qAb n (.y) &A- mHw @w. t -
w ar. t SmA.w m qAb =s n Hr s x n iry. t HqA. n =s n
m - x m . t Ra.w n iri=f m wD nTr n f r.y t - r Hm . t =i
m n . k wi Hr n s.wt Ra.w s r. n t w =i r Hn . ty rn p.wt m
x pr=s iTi (=s) iy i . k wi m @r.w Wa. t t Hr n sw. t r
xf t . y w =i sHr. n =i b w. t nTr.w in i . n tA Tb.wt =s n
I did not sleep like one who forgets, I having
established what was in ruin. I raised up what was
previously dismantled since the aAm .w were in the
midst of the Delta (and) Avaris, (when) the foreigners
in their midst were destroying what had been made.
They ruled without Ra, he not giving a divine decree
until the time of my majesty. I am established on the
thrones of Ra, as I was foretold many years ago as the
born conqueror. I come as Horus Watet, firing against
my enemies. I have driven off the abomination of the
gods, and the land has removed their footprints.
The passage provides the first preserved Eighteenth
Dynasty textual representation of aAm . w in the Delta
and Avaris, the city signified by the classifier of a
foreign land (N25, ), mirroring attestations in
the Second Stela of Kamose. In fact, the aAm . w are
mentioned as a historical reference to a time when
the temples were in ruin, and when Avaris was
considered as ‘foreign’ territory, not under Theban
rule. Interestingly, and as with Kamose’s inscription,
it is not the aAm . w who are specified as the culprits,
but the SmA. w who are singled out.492 They were
not decreed by Ra to rule Egypt, and thus were
illegitimate kings. This brief mention of the Fifteenth
487 Speos Artemidos Inscription, lines 19–20. Urk. 4,
386 [15–16]. See also Gardiner 1946; Chappaz 1994;
R edford 1997, 16–17 [Nr. 73]; J.P. A llen 2002; Goedicke
2004.
488 Speos Artemidos Inscription, line 6. Urk. 4, 384 [7].
489 Speos Artemidos Inscription, line 21. Urk. 4, 387 [2–3].
490 Speos Artemidos Inscription, line 28. Urk. 4, 388 [10–12].
491 Speos Artemidos Inscription, lines 36–40. Urk. 4, 390
[4–16]. See also Gardiner 1946, pl. 6; J.P. A llen 2002.
492 This is also observed in Candelora 2017, 207.
104
Fig. 3.40 Detail of a scene depicting marshland activities. East wall, tomb of Puyemra (TT 39), el-Khokha,
reign of Thutmose III, Dynasty 18. After N. de G. Davies 1922, pl. 15
Dynasty could be interpreted as a remembrance of
the wars against Avaris and the Hyksos rulers, and
the continued representation of an enemy ruling in the
north (rather than all northerners as enemies). On the
other hand, it could also be interpreted as a reflection
of Hatshepsut’s own legitimisation by portraying her
divine right to rule, and her unique connection to Ra.
It is very possible that she was utilising the memory
of the illegitimate kings as a reason for why Ra did
not decree the reign of any previous king, including
those of Dynasty 18. Accordingly, she may have been
connecting herself with its founders by mirroring
their actions in ‘driving off the abomination’, not
through battle but by restoring and embellishing
temples across the land. This strategy may have been
further used to parallel that of Ahmose as exemplified
in the Tempest Stela.493 Essentially, the queen refers
to a period when the divine legitimacy of kings in
Egypt was being questioned and restructured, and
which especially remained preserved in the cultural
memory of the elite.
The inscription further inadvertently hints at some
access to Near Eastern items, the metals possibly
sourced via the Sinai or the Eastern Desert. Such
access is supported by the extant inscription on
Hatshepsut’s obelisk at Karnak representing access to
aS-wood, juniper, and m r-wood, all typically sourced
from the Levant.494 Hatshepsut’s use of epithets to
display strength against foreigners is additionally
493 See Chapter 4.2.2.4.
494 Urk. 4, 373 [1–5]. See also Morris 2005, 34. For more on
these woods, see Bardinet 2008; R ich 2017.
Chapter 3
recorded, corresponding with those of other
Eighteenth Dynasty rulers and the representation
of royal divine protection and power.495 This adds to
a plethora of additional archaeological and artistic
material generally ascribing to her or Thutmose III’s
reign that support contact with the Near East and
Near Easterners.496
Apart from the royal and highly ideological
representations of aAm . w in the Delta, comparatively
limited textual and artistic material from the reigns
of Ahmose to Thutmose II points to their presence in
Egypt. Ahmose-si-Ibana’s biography, for instance,
mentions a number of captives from Near Eastern
campaigns, the official provided with some as
servants.497 T. Schneider’s onomastic study of names
of Semitic origin in Egyptian texts adds a small
number dating to the early Eighteenth Dynasty.
Of these, the steward I- b ty, for instance,
is attested on at least four funerary cones from
Asasif of the late Seventeenth to early Eighteenth
Dynasty,498 while a scarab of IbkAr was
retrieved from a tomb at Aniba likely of the
beginning of Dynasty 18.499 Of the first half of
Dynasty 18 are Florence Stela Nr. 2510 recording
495 R edford 1992, 149–153.
496 For an overview, see R edford 1992, 149–160;
Panagiotopoulos 2006.
497 See Chapter 4.3.2.1.
498 MMA 13.180.43–13.180.46. H ayes 1959, 35;
T. Schneider 1992, 20 [N 14].
499 E 11020, Tomb SA 19. Steindorff 1937, 223–224, pl. 47
[3]; T. Schneider 1992, 19–20 [N 13].
 Socio-Political Transformations and Foreign Relations
a scribe, @ m t w, amongst the household of
Muimwia,500 and Hannover Stela 2939, mentioning
the son of the stela owner and head of goldworkers,
R- t.501 Also of the first half of the Eighteenth
Dynasty is an ostracon possibly from Thebes, that
provides a list of the
nA n .y #A- r. w n .y MAt ‘those #A- r. w of MAt’,
preserving a total of 21 names of Semitic origin.502
Although originally believed to be ‘slaves’, they are
not identified as such. Altogether, such data could be
interpreted either as evidence for the Near Eastern
influenced former inhabitants of Hyksos-controlled
areas; individuals who retained northern or Near
Eastern ancestry and continued to be represented
with ties to groups from the area north(east) of
Egypt; or those who had newly migrated or travelled
into Egypt, including captives. Important to note
is that not all individuals with names of Semitic
origin came from the Near East itself. This is clearly
emphasised in a mid-Eighteenth Dynasty writing
tablet enumerating the
i ri . t rn . w n (. w) Kf t i w ‘Making the names of the
Kf t i w’, who include those with names of Semitic and
Egyptian origin.503
Certainly, a higher number of artistic and textual
sources assigned to the reigns of Hatshepsut and
Thutmose III represents individuals with Asiatic or
Near Eastern elements in Egyptian households or
with administrative or official titles. Yet, it is often
difficult to identify whether these individuals were
residing in Egypt for a longer period of time under the
reigns of multiple rulers, perhaps even as descendants
of migrants who retained some Near Eastern cultural
elements, or whether they had newly travelled
to Egypt. Both are indeed feasible, considering
attestations generally assigned to the first half of the
Eighteenth Dynasty or in records of officials that
served consecutive reigns. A possible example of the
latter occurs in the tomb of the architect Ineni (TT 81)
who served Amenhotep I to Thutmose III. Among
its inscriptions are those referring to Ineni’s relative,
w ab-priest PAy -Yn nA, whose name
500 Florence Stela 1581 Nr. 2510. Bosticco 1965, 24–25 [16];
T. Schneider 1992, 167–168 [N 355].
501 Munro 1971, 25 [16], fig. 16; T. Schneider 1992, 159–160
[N 338].
502 Ostracon Leipzig Inv. Nr. 495. Steindorff 1900;
T. Schneider 1992, 21 [N 19], 22–23 [N 21], 33 [N 47],
35 [N 52], 45 [N 73], 55 [N 97–98], 59–60 [N 106], 60–61
[N 108], 64–65 [N 113], 68 [N 119], 120 [N 257], 146 [N
311], 149–150 [N 317], 164–165 [N 350], 174–175 [N 370],
179–180 [N 380], 180–181 [N 382], 231 [N 491], 236 [N
503], 278 [N 640].
503 BM 5647. Peet 1927; T. Schneider 1992, 5, 44–45 [N 72],
47 [N 77–78], 50 [N 88], 92 [N 181], 107 [N 229], 137–138
[N 293], 144 [N 308], 184 [N 389], 270 [N 593]. See also
K iriakidis 2002.
105
is of Semitic origin.504 From what is preserved, he is
otherwise portrayed as an Egyptian.505
According to Morris, Ineni’s tomb also includes
additional artistic representations of workers of Near
Eastern origin.506 Similar depictions of individuals
are found in 21 other Theban tombs mostly dating
to Thutmose III’s reign.507 Their foreignness is
expressed mostly by their hairstyle, high at the
hairline or half-shaved and long at the back, some
with a tuft at the front of the head, and some with
a thin beard (Fig. 3.40; see Fig. 5.37).508 The men
are shown among other workers in a variety of
activities, including those related to the marshland,
agriculture, viniculture, animal husbandry, as well as
several crafts, such as carpentry, leather-processing,
chariot working, weapon-making (composite bows
and arrows), and pottery production.509 Some are
employed in temple workshops and others on private
estates.510 Morris identifies them as prisoners of war
or captives, and suggests that they are of Mitannian
origin, mainly due to their appearance in tombs of the
first half of Dynasty 18.511 Their later absence would
accordingly be related to the lack of later Eighteenth
Dynasty campaigns to Mitanni and the captives’
assimilation in Egypt.512 While possible, the men
could also be of different origins: the half-shaven
504 Dziobek 1992, 67, 87; T. Schneider 1992, 101–102
[N 207]. A tomb likely completed before the reign of
Hatshepsut, TT 83, for a vizier and mayor of Thebes
features his name, Ahmose-aAm iTw, and that of his
wife, &AaAm i t w, both with the element aAm, the name
perhaps of Semitic origin (T. Schneider 1992, 71–72 [N
129], 230 [N 488]). The vizier is mentioned in a number
of additional texts, his career likely spanning the reigns
of Amenhotep I to Hatshepsut/Thutmose III (Dziobek
1998, 103–111; see however Polz 2007, 282–284). The
aAm element in his and his wife’s name is particularly
intriguing considering the power of this family in
Thebes, the vizier being father of Weser, vizier of
Thutmose III, and ancestor of a third vizier, Rekhmira.
Shirley (2010, 98–107) also proposes that TT 83
belongs to a family complex of tombs at Sheikh ‘abd el-
Qurna that includes that of Ineni (TT 81), Weseramun
(TT 131 and 61), Neferhotep and Amenemhat (TT 122),
Amenmose (TT 228), and Rekhmira (TT 100).
505 Dziobek 1992, 67, 87; T. Schneider 1992, 101–102 [N 207].
506 Morris 2014, 362.
507 Morris 2014, 362–363.
508 Morris 2014, 363.
509 Morris 2014, 367–371, figs. 15.1–15.16.
510 Morris 2014, 368.
511 Morris 2014, 376–379. Their status as prisoners of war is
based on fragmentary scenes from the tomb of Sennefer (TT
99) showing the men accompanied by at least one bowman,
and TT 143 depicting them with hands behind their back
(Morris 2014, 365). However, bowmen could have been
involved in a variety of expeditions that could lead to their
portrayal accompanying non-military men (e.g. as security
guards to higher status officials inspecting their estates),
while workers could also be bound as punishment.
512 Morris 2014, 374–375.
106
hairstyle is not consistently portrayed in Morris’s
selected scenes, neither is the hair colour. Their
absence in later tomb scenes could also be related to
the limited campaigns to the Near East in general, or
even to developments in funerary art and/or artistic
representations of foreigners.
Nonetheless, the scenes could be considered
alongside those portraying individuals bringing
tribute from Nubia and the Eastern Mediterranean,
with the ‘foreigners’ fulfilling their role as suppliers
of exotic and luxurious products, or useful skills,
for the Egyptians.513 They emphasise that Egypt
was, at least in funerary art, represented to compose
different social groups that interacted with each other
in various contexts, and that perhaps could include
individuals of foreign origin, or foreign elements tied
to identity such as physical appearance or personal
name. This inclusivity may already be gleaned in
some Middle Kingdom instances, as among the battle
scenes of Beni Hassan, the expeditions to Serabit el-
Khadim, or the temple and administrative papyri of
el-Lahun, all of which are associated with periods or
areas of intensified cultural encounters. As such, its
occurrence in the early Eighteenth Dynasty material
signifies some continuation, as well as little impact
of the Hyksos Dynasty on non-royal Egyptian
representations of the perception or treatment of
individuals of Near Eastern origin visiting Egypt,
working for Egyptian institutions, or as members in
Egyptian households. Context, decorum in funerary
art, and Theban preference to particular scenes were
likely more influential. Contemporaneous events
and foreign affairs would have especially shaped
representations of foreigners composed by the
Theban administration and for the king, especially as
the very number of officials involved in Near Eastern
interactions had increased by Thutmose III’s reign.
Thutmose III’s accomplishments in the Near
East mark a significant peak in relations as well as
an important development in the nature of Egypt’s
involvement in Western Asia. They build on
interactions with the area north of Egypt, including
the Levant, from the reign of Ahmose to Hatshepsut.
To a certain degree, they were shaped by the ideologies
and encounters of Thutmose III’s predecessors. His
foreign policy utilised the Middle Kingdom ideology
of extending boundaries, and the emergent early
Eighteenth Dynasty ideology of extending these
boundaries to demarcated northern and southern
limits by pacifying rebellions and repelling enemies
that would threaten Egypt. Thutmose III’s relations
with the Near East, however, also diverged. The
evidence from his reign points to interactions of
varied nature, from the construction of fortresses or
garrisons, to lengthy sieges and frequent battles, as
513 For an overview, with references, see F. Anthony 2017.
Chapter 3
well as more diplomatic and commercial contacts.514
Each reflects the political reality of shifting alliances
and competing city-states in the Levant. Well-studied
in the literature, the data exemplifies Egypt’s altered
role in the Near East, as Thutmose III likely annexed
territories and forged treaties to expand Egyptian
political control over parts of the Levant.515
On the one hand, his initiatives would not have
been possible if not for the operational developments
that likely initiated with the battles against the
Hyksos Dynasty, the process continuing with the
redefined needs, policies and efforts of the Eighteenth
Dynasty.516 The stelae of Kamose are indeed among
the first in Egypt to provide an in-depth narration of
a military expedition, including the initial state of
affairs in the land, with the Hyksos ruling the north
and the Kushites to the south of the Thebans. This
continues with the Theban king’s strategy to firstly sail
to the north and ‘engage’ with the %t . ty w and aAm . w,
contributing to the ultimate objective of expanding
territory that was, at least in representations,
accomplished by his successor.517 Thus, in planning
their campaigns, the Thebans would have required
and acquired particular logistical knowledge and
resources, including intelligence of their enemies’
technological and militaristic capabilities. The
representation of a multi-year and perhaps multi-
reign military objective or, as Heagren describes it,
‘long-term territorial acquisition through systematic
conquest’,518 mirrors not only later Eighteenth
Dynasty campaigns, such as those of Thutmose III,
but also strategies that are attested across the Bronze
Age in the Near East. The emergence of this objective
may not be directly ascribed to the Hyksos rulers,519
but it might have been promoted by the strategies
and operations involved in the Thebans’ territorial
acquisition that commenced in the late Seventeenth to
early Eighteenth Dynasties. The associated acquired
logistical knowledge of the geopolitical situation
in the Levant and Anatolia, as well as means of
communication and confrontation, would have been
extremely valuable to Thutmose III.
514 See Helck 1971b, 119–156; Spalinger 1978; F.M. Sabbahy
1986; Redford 2003; Morris 2005; Burke 2010, 53–57.
See also the articles in Cline and O’Connor 2009.
515 Grapow 1949; Weinstein 1981; R edford 1992, 155–166;
2003; Morris 2005; Gabriel 2009; Burke 2010; A hrens
2020, 40–42. See also the articles in Cline and O’Connor
2009.
516 See also Spalinger 2020, 80.
517 As Heagren (2010, 406–407) suggests, this indicates
‘that obtaining certain strategic objectives could span
multiple reigns if required’.
518 Heagren 2010, 418.
519 See I. Shaw 2012, 107.
 Socio-Political Transformations and Foreign Relations
Of equal significance was the knowledge collated
via commercial and diplomatic interactions with the
north at least from the late Second Intermediate Period
onwards. Although early Eighteenth Dynasty
Egyptian material in the Northern Levant is
meagre,520 the pertinence of trade and diplomacy
with this region is supported by the frequent mention
of cultic embellishments from %T. t, #n ty -S and
&p - #ty w. Indeed, a new dynasty restoring and
(re-)building temples would have necessitated the
essential construction materials for their cults,
such as woods and metals, as well as access to
such materials. This additionally brings to the fore
the importance of land and sea-based routes for
commercial and militaristic purposes. The use of
routes via Tell Hebwa, the Sinai, and Tell el-‘Ajjul
in this period remains unconfirmed by the available
evidence, but likely considering the installations
and continued use of the settlement at Tell Hebwa I,
as well as the Egyptian material from Tell el-‘Ajjul.521
By the reign of Thutmose III, securing such routes
was arguably even necessary considering the king’s
campaigns to the Levant.522 Control over the harbour(s)
of Avaris, previously the major Middle Kingdom
and Second Intermediate Period port of trade with
the Mediterranean region, would have additionally
been advantageous whether utilised for marine
transportation or repurposed to showcase royal power
in the Eastern Delta. Indeed, many researchers have
identified it with the port of Perunefer.523 Renegotiations
with merchants who likely participated in trade
with the city could have also occurred. This might
520 A hrens (2015, 361–367; 2020, 283) collates only four
objects likely produced in the early Eighteenth Dynasty
discovered in the Northern Levant. Two are from Qatna
and mention Ahmose-Nefertari, but both come from
contexts that cannot be fixed to the early Eighteenth
Dynasty: the first is a stone vessel from the royal tomb,
utilised from the MBIIB to LBIIA, and the second is
a lapis lazuli scarab from Tomb VII, in use from the
MBIIB to the end of LBIA. One inscribed faience bowl
was collected from Alalakh Level V, and one bezel ring
of faience inscribed with the name of Thutmose I was
found at Hama on the Orontes, but is of uncertain context.
For objects likely produced in Egypt and deposited in
LBI contexts at such sites as Tell el-‘Ajjul, Megiddo and
Taanach, see the recent analysis in I. Koch 2019.
521 The strategically situated Tell el-‘Ajjul has been usually
identified with Sharuhen. The site yielded, among other
Egyptian-type material, pottery that may be assigned
to the early Eighteenth Dynasty. For more, see Morris
2005, 28–29, 40–66; Kopetzky 2011; I. Koch 2019, 267–
269, figs. 14.1–14.3. See also Chapter 3.4.1.2, n. 455.
522 Spalinger 2020, 55, 80.
523 See Chapter 4.2.4.3. Spiegelberg 1927; Daressy
1928/1929, 225, 322–326; Roehrig 1990, 126–127;
Pumpenmeier 1998, 89–93; Collombert and Coulon
2000, 218; H abachi 2001, 9, 106–107; Bietak 2005b;
2009a; 2009b; 2010b, 167–168; 2011, 26–32; 2017; 2018;
Gundacker 2017.
107
correspond with the cautiously observed shifts in
published imported pottery from the late Fifteenth to
early Eighteenth Dynasty that appear to coincide with
closer interactions with Cyprus.524 Although Levantine
products are still attested in late Second Intermediate
Period to early Eighteenth Dynasty contexts,525 the
growing links with the Aegean are further supported
by imported pottery from other sites in Egypt, such as
Kom Rabi‘a526 and Saqqara,527 as well as the artistic and
textual repertoire.528 Thus, while it remains uncertain
that the site (and its ship arsenal) continued to be used
as a port in the very early Eighteenth Dynasty, it is
not unfeasible that the same agents could have been
employed to access shipborne and/or land-based trade
and transportation to the Near East, perhaps until the
inauguration of the new harbour of Perunefer and the
theorised revitalisation of communities in the Delta
around the reigns of Hatshepsut and Thutmose III.529
In turn, the cooperation of the inhabitants of the
Delta would have been vital for the Thebans in the
Eighteenth Dynasty. Not only were they significant
for the reclamation of control over former Middle
Kingdom territory, the Delta was also rich in
agricultural resources and strategic points accessing
routes to the Mediterranean Sea, the Levant, as
well as the Western and Eastern Deserts. This may
explain why the inhabitants of the Delta or Hyksos-
controlled areas are not themselves represented as the
instigators of chaos against the Thebans in the few
remaining texts of this period. The late Seventeenth
and early Eighteenth Dynasty accounts largely
identify the rulers and rebels as the enemies of
Egypt. As this rhetoric additionally parallels extant
representations of those in the Levant, with Thutmose I
seemingly attacking after provocation at Naharin,
perhaps it extended to other entities who could have
formerly negotiated with the Hyksos rulers and their
administration. That is, continued commercial or
diplomatic relations with them may have been desired,
and so they were not labelled and targeted as enemies
unless they rebelled against the new administration.
524 See Chapter 3.2.1.2.
525 See Chapter 3.2.1.2.
526 Bourriau 2010a, 5, 35–36, 53, 66, 86–87, tables 6–7.
527 R.S. Merrillees 1968; 2001, 27; Aston 2007, 207–211.
528 Vercoutter 1956; M atthäus 1980; 1995; Wachsmann
1987; Panagiotopoulos 2001; Kyriakidis 2002;
Vandersleyen 2002; Duhaux 2003.
529 See Chapter 3.2.3. Interestingly, it is also by this period
that interactions with Kp ny are again mentioned in the
available, albeit limited, Egyptian sources.
108 Chapter 3
3.4.2 Egyptian Kingship and the Ideology of
Territorial Expansion
What initially appears to have stemmed from the
administration’s aspirations to take over polities
in the Delta and Kerma, to its north and south,
continued with the representation of extending
Egypt’s boundaries across the Levant and Nubia. The
portrayal of Avaris as a city ruled by a aAm in the
north presented an ideological objective to expand
power by conquering foreign entities who threatened
Egypt and its prosperity. The economic, commercial,
and geopolitical benefits surely also warranted
the attacks, but their representation in line with
Egyptian beliefs and the ideology of kingship would
have additionally been relevant. Congruently, the
representation of Egyptian kingship and elite status
transformed.
The titles of the late Seventeenth and early Eighteenth
Dynasty kings emphasise particular elements tied to
authority and power (Fig. 3.41).530 From at least the
reign of Seqenenra Tao, they included references to
the king’s personal warrior characteristics, such as
bravery, strength, or victory; symbols of kingship, such
as the bull or white crown; or anticipated or completed
achievements aiming towards a unified Egypt, such as
binding the two lands, subduing the lands, and striking
the Nine Bows.531 Kamose, Ahmose and Amenhotep I
were additionally provided with epithets that feature
the term HqA, initially with Kamose as pA HqA rsy and
then with Ahmose and Amenhotep I as HqA tA.wy.532
The epithets stand in contrast and perhaps in response
to the Fifteenth Dynasty’s self-ascribed use of HqA
xAs.wt, HqA n (.y) @w. t - w ar. t ‘ruler of Avaris’, and
that which was attributed to Apophis in the Kamose
inscriptions, HqA n (.y) RTn w ‘ruler of RTn w’.533 Such
titles reflect the growing power of the Theban Dynasty,
as well as the possible desire to represent control over
all of Egypt through the use of a term that was linked
to Second Intermediate Period rulers.534 Perhaps this
would have also been recognised by those allied with
the former Fifteenth Dynasty as an immediate signal of
the political changes in Egypt. The posited pertinence
of this altered representation may be gleaned by the
continued use of HqA in epithets of later Eighteenth
530 Leprohon 2010; 2013, 91–98.
531 See also Barbotin 2008, 70; Leprohon 2010, 11–12.
532 A funerary cone of the high priest of Amun and overseer
of sealbearers, Djehuty, includes HqA tA.wy in a cartouche.
Another funerary cone of the same official instead refers
to Nebpehtyra, connecting the epithet with Ahmose. As
such, Harvey suggests that HqA tA.wy was an earlier name
of the king. While highly noteworthy, the inclusion of
HqA tA.wy IaH- m s on two scarabs also supports its use as
an epithet. For more, see, with references, H arvey 2007,
343, 345, figs. 4–5.
533 See H arvey 2007; Candelora 2017, 214–215.
534 The title HqA n (.y) KS is also attested in the Kamose
inscriptions, as well as two further inscriptions mentioning
the kingdom of Kerma (Kubisch 2008, 166–171).
and Nineteenth Dynasty kings.535 For instance,
Thutmose III was HqA WAs. t ‘ruler of Thebes’, HqA
mAa. t ‘ruler of Maat’, HqA Iwn w ‘ruler of Heliopolis’,
and HqA nTr ‘divine ruler’.536 Sety I was also HqA WAs. t
‘ruler of Thebes’, and HqA mAa. t ‘ruler of Maat’, but
was additionally labelled as HqA tA.wy.537 The latter
echoes the earlier use of the epithet by Ahmose and
Amenhotep I, and perhaps was similarly utilised to
emphasise the political shifts in power in Egypt.538
A most obvious and much discussed development in
the representation of this power is exemplified in the
portrayal of the pharaohs’ treatment of Near Eastern
entities. This is well reflected by the earliest preserved
depictions of the Eighteenth Dynasty ruler striking
his enemy. The axe from Ahhotep’s burial provides
the first known of a pharaoh, Ahmose, smiting a
foe while wearing the blue crown (see Fig. 5.33).539
However, it is represented alongside other artistic
elements with Eastern Mediterranean associations
with power, exemplifying the influence and adaptation
of motifs previously unattested in Egyptian royal
representations, especially that on weaponry.540 If
correct, the reconstruction of Ahmose’s battle scene
against Avaris would also be the first to show the king’s
active and personal involvement as a warrior in battle,
aiming his bow from the newly incorporated horse-
drawn chariot to hunt the foreign, chaotic foe.541 This
early portrayal is verified by the scarab of Thutmose I,
535 The Golden Horus name of Thirteenth Dynasty king
Amenemhat VI is also recorded as HqA mAa. t ‘ruler of
Maat’. Amenhotep II: HqA WAs. t ‘ruler of Thebes’, HqA nTr
WAs. t ‘divine ruler of Thebes’, HqA nsw. t WAs. t ‘kingly
ruler of Thebes’, HqA Iwnw ‘ruler of Heliopolis’, and HqA nTr
Iwnw ‘divine ruler of Heliopolis’; Thutmose IV: HqA mAa. t
‘ruler of Maat’; Amenhotep III: HqA hqA.w ‘ruler of rulers’,
HqA WAs. t ‘ruler of Thebes’ and HqA nTr WAs. t ‘divine ruler
of Thebes’; Akhenaten: HqA nTr WAs. t ‘divine ruler of
Thebes’; Tutankhamun: HqA mAa. t ‘ruler of Maat’ and HqA
Iwnw Sma ‘ruler of Southern Heliopolis’; Ay: HqA mAa. t
‘ruler of Maat’ and HqA WAs. t ‘ruler of Thebes’; Horemheb:
HqA mAa. t ‘ruler of Maat’; Ramesses I: HqA mAa. t ‘ruler of
Maat’; Ramesses II: HqA WAs. t ‘ruler of Thebes’ and nTri
HqA Iwnw ‘divine one and ruler of Heliopolis’. Leprohon
2013, 63, 101–104, 106–107, 109, 120.
536 Leprohon 2013, 100.
537 Leprohon 2013, 114.
538 Sety I also had the Two Ladies name of wHm m sw. t ‘one
who has repeated births’, shared with Amenemhat I, who
also instigated a new dynasty. Leprohon 2010, 11–12.
539 JE 4673 (CG 42648). M aspero 1903/1904, 137; Eaton-
K rauss 1990; A ruz and Lacovara 2008. The blue crown
had apparently emerged at least by Dynasty 16, as
verified in the Karnak stela of Ikhernefret (Neferhotep)
(see Chapter 3.4.1.1; Helck 1983a, 45 [62]; Vernus 1982,
131, pl. 1). For more on the blue crown’s origins and
iconography, see W.V. Davies 1982; S. Collier 1993;
H ardwick 2003; Bryan 2007. For more on the pharaoh
smiting his enemies, see E.S. H all 1986; Schoske 1994.
540 A ruz and Lacovara 2008.
541 H arvey 1998, fig. 97. See also Chapter 5.2.2.4, 5.2.3.4,
5.2.5.
 Socio-Political Transformations and Foreign Relations 109

Pharaoh Nomen Prenomen Horus Golden Two Ladies Selected

Horus Epithets
Seqenenra +Hwty -aA %q n. n -Ra.w #ai- m - tA.wy – – qn
Tao
Thoth is He whom Ra has He who appears in the Brave one
great made Brave two lands

Kamose KA- ms WAD- x pr-Ra.w #ai-Hr- ns. t=f %hr- tA.wy WHm - mnw qn
Nfr-XAb - tA.wy pA HqA aA
%DfA- tA.wy pA HqA rsy
pA HqA q n
The bull is The flourishing He who appears on He who pleases He who renews Brave one
born one is the his throne the two lands monuments The great ruler
manifestation The perfect one who The southern ruler
of Ra curbs the two lands The brave ruler
He who provisions the
two lands

Ahmose IaH- ms Nb - pH. ty -Ra.w aA- x pr.w *s.w- tA.wy &wt - msw. t nx.t
KA- m -WAs. t HqA tA.wy
The moon The possessor The great of He who binds The image of Victorious one
god is born of the strength manifestations the two lands (re-)birth Ruler of the two
of Ra The bull in Thebes lands

Amenhotep I Imn -Ht p +s r- kA-Ra.w KA-w af - tA.w WAH- rnp.wt aA- nrw HqA WAs. t
HqA tA.wy
Amun is The sacred one The bull who subdues Enduring of Great of dread Ruler of Thebes
satisfied of the kA of Ra the lands years Ruler of the two
lands

Thutmose I +Hwty - ms aA- x p r- kA-Ra.w KA nx . t mr.y MAa. t Nfr rnp.wt #ai- m - nsr. t xai m i Ra.w
KA nx . t n.y Ra.w %anx - ibw aA- pH. ty s t p n .y Ra.w
Mr.y Ra.w #ai- m - @wi- pD.wt -9 IT tA.w nb.w
HD. t aA- pH. ty -wsr- _wA It m .w xa-
x pS WAD-rnp.wt xa.w
m Hw.t aA.t mAa.t
Thoth is The great Victorious bull, Perfect of years, He who appears The one who
born one is the beloved of Maat he who has through the appears like Ra
manifestation of Victorious bull of Ra sustained minds serpent goddess, The choice of Ra
the kA of Ra Beloved of Ra, who He who has great of strength
appears in the White struck down the He who seizes all
Crown nine bows lands
Great of strength He who worships
and strong- Atum, radiant of
armed, enduring appearances
of years in the
temple

Thutmose II +Hw ty - m s a A - x p r - n . y - KA n x . t Ws r- pH. ty %x m - x p r.w NTri - n s w. t nD. ty Ra.w

Ra.w
Thoth is The great Victorious bull, Powerful of Divine of Protector of Ra
born one is the strong of strength manifestations kingship
manifestation
of Ra

Hatshepsut @A. t -Sps.w t MAa. t - kA-Ra.w Ws r. t - kA.w NTr. t - xaw WAD. t - rn p.w t Xn m . t Im n
Foremost The true one of Powerful of kAs Divine of Enduring of United with
of noble the kA of Ra appearances years Amun
women

Fig. 3.41 Selected titles and epithets of rulers from the reign of Seqenenra Tao to Hatshepsut.
Collated after Ryholt 1997, 400; Leprohon 2013, 91–98
110 Chapter 3
its base decorated with the archer on a horse-drawn
chariot shooting at a falling enemy (see Fig. 5.12).542 As
Chapter 5 discusses, the stance, as well as the devices,
again closely match MBA and LBA iconography. They
also parallel imagery of Old and Middle Kingdom
kings as sphinxes trampling foreigners (rather than
actively riding horses), or hunting desert animals.543
This adds to a host of religious elements, new weapon
types, and stances in the iconography of Egyptian
kingship that correspond with symbols recognisable
in the MBA and LBA Near East. The processes of
adoption and adaptation of significant markers are
further explored in relevant sections of Chapters 4
and 5, including the transculturalisation of religious
or cultic concepts (Chapter 4), and technologies
linked to warfare (Chapter 5). Important to note here
is that they all were incorporated into a system of
communication of power that remained in line with
traditional Egyptian representations, as well as those
that transformed in an Upper Egyptian milieu during
the Second Intermediate Period. That is, the emergent
Eighteenth Dynasty portrayals of kingship retained
elements of former Middle Kingdom depictions,
together with regionalised Second Intermediate
Period expressions from across Egypt, as well as those
contemporary with the late MBA to LBA cultural
sphere.544 The abovementioned examples all reflect
the use of traditional Egyptian artistic representations
of the king smiting or trampling his enemy, but the
means through which their power was communicated
had transformed. The image of a ruler as a striking
charioteer on the battlefield, the status markers of the
scimitar, the horse-drawn chariot, and the composite
bow, as well as the transculturalisation of Near Eastern
deities and possible concepts linked with warfare, all
possibly developed in congruence with supra-regional
trends. They offered a new means of communication, to
showcase power, strength, cooperation, and authority,
that promoted and aligned with hostile and commercial
interactions with Eastern Mediterranean entities while
remaining in line with Egyptian decorum.
This, however, does not overshadow other
significant means of disseminating the ideology
of royal power and strength within Egypt. While
the Fifteenth Dynasty rulers and population may
not have actively contributed to early Eighteenth
Dynasty developments in this regard, their presence
in the north and representation as the foreign targets
of Theban campaigns very likely helped perpetuate
542 H.R. H all 1913, 50 [Nr. 475]; Newberry 1908, pl. 27 [4].
See Chapter 5.2.2.4, 5.2.3.4, 5.2.5.
543 See, for instance, the sphinxes of Niuserra or Sahura
trampling foreigners in scenes from their pyramid
complexes (Borchardt 1907, figs. 1–2, 4, 6, pls. 9–12;
1913, pl. 8), or that of Sahura hunting with bow and arrow
(Borchardt 1913, pl. 17).
544 It is not unlikely that they also incorporated elements
familiar in the Nubian cultural sphere.
the emerging royal ideology to expand to the
limits, and repel that which threatened Egypt. Also
participating in the propagation of this ideology
were the officials and elite individuals involved in
the organisation, logistics, and endorsement of the
campaigns, as well as the military personnel serving
Thebes.545 As exhibited by their titles, the quantity
of preserved stelae, as well as the growing presence
of garrisons, military officials during the Sixteenth
and Seventeenth Dynasties were likely increasing in
number and status.546 Correspondingly, as Spalinger
suggests, the battles of the late Seventeenth to early
Eighteenth Dynasty were creating a cohesive Theban
army that, following its successes, likely grew in
confidence and experience.547 All early Eighteenth
Dynasty biographies of officials involved in these
battles recount careers under several kings, beginning
from Ahmose’s reign.548 It is thereby very feasible
that the officials’ warrior ethos and morale, their
collective experiences and memories of Thebes’s
rise to power and territorial gains, as well as the
rewards for their services, influenced their perception
of Egypt’s role in Africa and the Near East. As
the events likely sharpened their group solidarity
and identity, they additionally helped strengthen
allegiance to their leader’s authority and thus the
pharaoh’s representation as commander of the army,
actively participating to ensure his military’s success.
Many military personnel, such as Ahmose-si-Ibana
or Ahmose-Pennekhbet, were likewise respected
and wealthy members of Egyptian society. Their
achievements feasibly bolstered the status and prestige
of their families.549 Ahmose-si-Ibana’s descendants, for
instance, became important administrative officials
in el-Kab and Esna, their ties extending to the royal
court.550 Their loyalty to the new administration,
and role in representing an ideology and collective
memory of the campaigns in their immediate social
surroundings, likely facilitated royal initiatives.
Accordingly, it was not one battle or event, nor
solely the Hyksos rulers themselves that defined this
ideology connecting Egyptian kingship with strength
in territorial expansion to secure Egypt’s escalating
imperial power in the Levant. The interactions of
several social groups across space and time could have
helped inculcate it, just as it was expressed via different
visual and textual elements that individually and
collectively transformed from the Second Intermediate
Period to the early New Kingdom.
545 In a sociological assessment on war in ancient and modern
history, M alešević (2010) highlights the importance of
the army in structural and proto-ideological expansion,
especially for new states.
546 Spalinger 2005, 70–82; Shirley 2013, 566–568.
547 Spalinger 2005, 47–48, 70–82.
548 See Chapter 3.4.1.2.
549 See Spalinger 2005, 71–73; Shirley 2013, 568–569, 581.
550 See Shirley 2013, 581.
 Socio-Political Transformations and Foreign Relations
3.5 Observations on Socio-Political Trans-
formations and Foreign Affairs
The political and social transformations spanning
the Second Intermediate Period to the early New
Kingdom were not only marked by shifting hubs
of economic and political power. This chapter has
traced the development of communities in the Delta,
exploring the impact of the independence of Tell el-
Dab‘a on surrounding sites, as well as the influence
of its takeover by the Eighteenth Dynasty. The
transition into the New Kingdom is characterised
by significant change across the Eastern Delta.
Sites that may have been dependent on the capital
and its posited promotion of an integrated regional
network experienced abandonment or interruption
(e.g. Tell el-Maskhuta and Tell el-Mansheya), with
some exhibiting continuity albeit with decreased
evidence of activity (e.g. Tell el-Dab‘a and Tell el-
Retaba). To some extent, this may be explained by
the world-systems approach, with the identification
as analogy and on a smaller geographic region, Tell
el-Dab‘a as core of a northern Egyptian network with
surrounding communities in the Delta interconnected
as periphery.551 The theory would support a hierarchy
of power and economy, as well as the capital’s role in
not only supplying high-value items but also largely
consuming products of its integrated network. Likely
related to a variety of factors, including consistent
political, economic, and militaristic competition
for power with the rising Theban Dynasty, it
collapsed as core, thereby affecting the peripheral
areas in the Delta. Tell Hebwa, on the other hand,
evidently flourished. This could be due to the
internal dynamics at the site, its inhabitants perhaps
developing strategies of resilience to counteract the
developing situation at Tell el-Dab‘a by reaffirming
their continued economic significance and strategic
positioning to the new power in the area.
Such continued occupation of the Delta highlights the
adaptation of local communities to postulated socio-
political and economic stresses. Indeed, attestations
of the destruction of Tell el-Dab‘a by the Theban
administration are not verified by the evidence.
Instead, the very early Eighteenth Dynasty is typified
by a transitional cultural horizon at a number of sites,
which itself is evidence for societal transformation and
perhaps a different form of resilience to collapse.552
Certainly, the possibility that some individuals
or groups were relocated is also supported by the
biography of Ahmose-si-Ibana. This offers different
viable pathways for the persistence and transmission,
both vertical and horizontal, of knowledge regarding
Eastern Deltaic cultural elements.553
551 See Chapter 2.3.1. See also Flammini 2020, 131–135.
552 For more on collapse and resilience, see Yoffee 2010;
McAnany and Yoffee 2010; Faulseit 2016.
553 For more on knowledge transmission, with specific
examples, see Chapter 5.5.
111
The nature and flow of imported Near Eastern items
also changed from the Twelfth to the Eighteenth
Dynasty. For Tell el-Dab‘a, trade with the Levant,
although fluctuating, was most evident in the
Middle Kingdom and Second Intermediate Period.
This corresponded with the use of diplomatic and
commercial means of exchange that were commonly
utilised by MBA Near Eastern entities. Evidence for
letter correspondence, possibly with the use of Old
Babylonian, is attested in the Fifteenth Dynasty, while
the use of the Levantine unit of measurement as well
as the sphendonoid shape and haematite material of
Near Eastern weights is also traceable in late Second
Intermediate Period to early New Kingdom levels at
the site. Although it is, as of yet, difficult to ascertain
whether the later New Kingdom Egyptian cuneiform
scribal tradition was linked to that of the late Fifteenth
Dynasty Tell el-Dab‘a, the use of the Levantine unit
and common system of weight measurement in Egypt,
represented by the qd . t, continued into Dynasty 18.
As argued here, this is not only tied to the Fifteenth
Dynasty, but also to Egypt’s continued involvement
with LBA Near Eastern and Aegean merchants that
were utilising a convergent, shared system of weights.
Worthy of note, however, is that the published material
from Tell el-Dab‘a and ‘Ezbet Helmi indicates a
decrease in trade with the Levant in the very early
Eighteenth Dynasty coupled with an increase in Upper
Egyptian, Nubian, and Aegean pottery.
These observations are likely associated with the
socio-political shifts at the site. The rise of Dynasty 18
led to a turnover in those who promoted relations
with the Eastern Mediterranean, and changing
consumption demands. Representations of the
Theban rulers’ relations with the Near East resumed
Middle Kingdom ideological portrayals of foreigners
and foreign lands as sources of precious commodities,
or as sources of rebellions that required dissuasion.
Correspondingly, Avaris was represented as a
foreign city, providing justification for the Thebans
to extend their geopolitical power into the Delta, and
contributing to the ideology of territorial expansion.
Coupled with biographical texts, the forays into the
Levant from the reigns of Ahmose to Thutmose I may
have intended or inevitably contributed to exhibit the
new political leadership of Egypt, especially along
important trading hubs and routes. Evidence from the
reign of Thutmose II further points to the importance
of securing safe passage of messengers across the
Levant. It is not until the reign of Thutmose III that
the ideological geopolitical expansion of Egypt’s
power had manifested in increased physical presence
of Egyptians in the Levant.
This intensification aligns with the revitalisation
of communities in the Eastern Delta. As argued
here, the cooperation of the inhabitants of the Delta
would have been pertinent for the Thebans who
promoted a similar network in the region, with nodes
strategically positioned for effective access to and
112 Chapter 3
efficient connectivity with land and sea routes to
the Eastern Mediterranean and the Near East. The
Speos Artemidos inscription of Hatshepsut even
indicates that it was not the inhabitants of Avaris
or even the aAm . w in the Delta who were the direct
propagators of discord, but their illegitimate rulers.
Arguably, this may also correspond with the early
Eighteenth Dynasty’s objectives to represent itself
as annexing territory to further Egypt’s limits,
while enabling cooperation from local populations.
The elite and inhabitants of the Delta had, by the
Hyksos Period, transformed and negotiated several
cultural elements, many of which were inspired by
and aligned with those in the Near East. As such,
cooperation with communities in the Eastern Delta
would have offered the Thebans significant insight
on their regionalised culture, as well as contem-
porary means of diplomacy and communication
(visual or otherwise) with the Near East. This would
have plausibly contributed to further processes of
adoption and adaptation, and, inherently, continued
social transformations into the New Kingdom.
 Religious Transformations
4. Religious Transformations
4.1 Introduction
Religion and religious practice in the past constituted
significant elements of cultural and social identity.
Such elements were transmitted alongside the
movement of people, objects, and ideas across physical
and conceptual borders. According to such processes
as the Middle Ground approach, bilingualism
or transculturalism, this transfer could result in
varied and multifaceted interactions, albeit those
influenced by context, power dynamics and agency.
The following section examines possible influences
and transformations to Egyptian ideologies that were
spurred by encounters with individuals, groups, and
concepts of Levantine or Near Eastern origin. Due
to Egypt’s heightened LBA relations with the Near
East, such transformations in the New Kingdom were
extensive and are indeed well researched.1 However,
as Wilson-Wright notes, studies either emphasise the
role of royalty and the elite (a top-down approach),2
or that of such subordinate groups as prisoners of
war (a bottom-up approach),3 with many theorising
the introduction of deities as stemming from one
event or policy.4 Only recently have more complex
transference processes been applied in studies on
religious transformations during and after the New
Kingdom.5 Possible connections to MBA encounters,
however, deserve further investigation.
In view of these encounters, the concept of
syncretism should be noted as one commonly applied
to analyses on religious transformations.6 Originally
attributed with positive connotations in the First
Century AD, syncretism came to be associated
with negative and controversial undertones related
to religious mixture in Christian theology from the
1 Stadelmann 1967; Hulin 1982; R edford 1992, 231–
233; Zivie-Coche 1994; 2011, 3; Cornelius 1994; 2008;
Lahn 2005; Tazawa 2009; Wilson-Wright 2016, 27–71;
Münnich 2013, 80–119.
2 For example, Horn 1969; Hulin 1982, 271; Zivie-Coche
1994, 57–58; 2011, 3; T. Schneider 2003b; Lipiński 2005.
3 For example, Stadelmann 1967, 146–150.
4 As also observed by Wilson-Wright 2016, 28–31. Sadek
(1988, 152–153) proposes four ways in which foreign
deities entered Egypt, whether via the Hyksos, Egyptian
merchants and officials living abroad, foreign captives
and migrants in Egypt, or pharaohs who worshipped
foreign deities. See also Helck 1966a.
5 See, for instance, Tazawa 2009; Quack 2015; Wilson-
Wright 2016.
6 Syncretism has also been utilised to explore cultural
mixture (C. Stewart 1999, 47–48). Herskovits (1937),
for instance, approached it as one possible stage in the
process of cultural integration and assimilation. See also
A pter 2004.
113
Sixteenth Century to the present day.7 Traditionally,
it alluded to the blending of two or more ‘pure’
religious belief systems into ‘impure’ but new
mixtures.8 These concepts of purity and authenticity
have since been rejected by the argument that
syncretism is an essential process in the development
of religion and ritual.9 In criticism, some have noted
that if all belief systems were considered syncretistic,
then it becomes an ‘empty signifier’.10 Others
have highlighted that it could further be utilised
as a ‘euphamizing signifier that effaces radical
asymmetries of power, misrepresenting situations like
those of colonialism’.11 C. Stewart, however, argues
that the term can be used in a theological framework
to explore dynamic and strategic intercultural
and intracultural social negotiations of religious
synthesis.12 Such negotiations could entail practicing
dual belief systems which may converge in the same
physical space, ritual or practice.13 Lincoln adds that
these negotiations could also be conflictual, resulting
in changes occurring as a response to confrontation
with another, often dominating, society.14 They could
also be a consequence of adaptation to interaction
or historical developments.15 Scholars have also
proposed the term ‘anti-syncretism’ in reference to
processes advancing ideas of religious purity and
authenticity.16 Such notions consequently consider
syncretic religions as impure, weak, and disorderly.17
Overall, though, discourse agrees on identifying
syncretism as the systems, agencies and outcomes
of the process of religious synthesis following the
amalgamation of distinct world views, meanings, and
religion.18
7 R. Shaw and C. Stewart 1994, 3–6; C. Stewart 1999,
45–46.
8 Leopold and Jensen 2004, 2.
9 R. Shaw and C. Stewart 1994, 1–2.
10 Lincoln 2001, 454.
11 Lincoln (2001, 454) also finds in the literature critiques
of syncretism as a ‘disparaging signifier’, employed to
discredit particular beliefs or practices.
12 C. Stewart 1999, 55, 58.
13 C. Stewart 2015.
14 Lincoln (2001, 456–457) refers to it as ‘conflictual
engagement, in which every signifier is a site of
encounter, maneuver, advance, retreat and negotiation’.
15 Clack 2012.
16 R. Shaw and C. Stewart 1994, 6–9; Mosko 2001, 260;
Clack 2012.
17 R. Shaw and C. Stewart 1994, 6–9; Mosko 2001, 260;
Clack 2012.
18 Eriksen 2007, 172; Clack 2012.
114 Chapter 4
Several historical and archaeological studies have
observed syncretistic religions and traditions in the
past. Romanisation, for instance, presents an imperialist
model wherein the ‘dominant’ or ‘civilised’ Roman
religion, ideals and practices replaced seemingly
obsolete notions in Roman provinces.19 Religion in
the Hellenistic Period has also often been described
as syncretistic,20 wherein, with increasing trade and
communication, Greek gods were transferred to the
east as local deities and eastern gods were transported
to the west, adopted and adapted by the local populace.21
Mythologies and legends incorporated Greek deities,
becoming further ‘hellenised’ by assuming the Greek
language to suit ‘the common Hellenistic ideals and
the needs of the community’.22 However, the presumed
asymmetrical power relations proposed by such studies
have received criticism, with several instead supporting
a more dynamic approach to syncretism.23 For Greek-
Phoenician interactions, Malkin favours the terms
‘langue’ to describe their religion, and ‘parole’ for the
several names, characteristics and cults of deities, with
syncretism acting as intermediary between the two.24
Egyptological approaches to syncretism also vary,
and describe the coexistence or possible cooperation
of two or more deities for political or theological
purposes.25 Each retains his/her own characteristics,
the syncretistic deity combining aspects of the two
in text and art.26 In such pairings, Baines notes that
the ‘dominant’ deity is the second-named, but the
iconography mostly represents features of the first.27
Hornung adds that this representation was to show the
manifestation of aspects of the first deity by the second-
named.28 Such syncretism could be temporary, where
one deity ‘inhabits’ another.29 The gods could also still
continue to be distinguished as separate or unmerged.
Approaches to syncretism in ancient religions and
cultural interactions thereby vary, especially when
polytheistic and dynamic religious beliefs are studied.
Its underlying premise of the amalgamation of religious
meanings, views and/or expressions, or, according to
C. Stewart, of dynamic negotiations, shares some
similarity to other approaches to cultural encounters
discussed in Chapter 2, such as transculturalisation,
and the Middle Ground approach. These could
be particularly informative in assessing religious
transformations connected to consistent interactions
between diverse and dynamically developing groups,
19 H averfield 1923; Collingwood 1932. See also Woolf
1998; Clack 2012.
20 See, for instance, K raeling 1927; Grant 1953.
21 Tripolitis 2002, 11.
22 Tripolitis 2002, 11.
23 See Moyer 2011, 38, 142–207.
24 M alkin 2004, 350–351; 2011, 131.
25 Luft 2001, 142.
26 Luft 2001, 142.
27 Baines 2000, 33.
28 Hornung 1982, 92.
29 Hornung 1982, 91–92.
particularly in periods of varying power dynamics as
traced between the Twelfth to Eighteenth Dynasties.
Regarding the Fifteenth Dynasty in particular,
much discussion on ‘Hyksos religion’ has surfaced,
with some scholars arguing for the worship of foreign
deities in Egypt30 and others refuting this hypothesis.31
The first clarification that should be made here is with
the term ‘Hyksos religion’ as, despite its usage in the
literature, HqA xAs.wt was only utilised to refer to rulers
of foreign lands, a title attributed to Fifteenth Dynasty
kings, among others. By employing the expression
‘Hyksos religion’, an association between the rulers
and the practiced beliefs and ideologies of groups
and individuals affiliated or ruled by the Fifteenth
Dynasty is implied. That is, the role of these groups and
individuals is not adequately taken into account, nor are
developments in the preceding and proceeding periods.
The second clarification is that these groups and
individuals were most likely of heterogeneous character,
belonging to a variety of social identities exhibiting
both Egyptian and/or non-Egyptian attributes.32
Therefore, to understand religious transformations
leading up to and including the Fifteenth Dynasty, the
variety of religious ideologies and practices, from the
local to the state-official, should also be considered.
The textual evidence alone suggests that some Fifteenth
Dynasty rulers formally acknowledged Egyptian
deities through their titulary and epithets (such as Ra,
Seth and Horus), as well as their dedications (such as
Hathor, Wadjet, Sobek, Thoth, Seshat, and Maat).33
The inhabitants of their capital, Avaris or Tell el-Dab‘a,
also appear to have followed certain Egyptian religious
and funerary practices, which are exemplified by the
architectural and material remains of a number of
temples and tombs from the Twelfth to the Fifteenth
Dynasties.34 An in-depth examination of the complex
processes and mechanisms that contributed to these
manifestations have been examined elsewhere.35
Their occurrence certainly influenced the Egyptian
religious transformations discussed below. Due to
the extant evidence, the following only focusses on
specific cases, namely the development of ideologies
surrounding the storm god in Egypt, the influences
of Near Eastern goddesses on Egyptian thought and
practices, the representation of Near Eastern deities in
the New Kingdom, and one ritual or practice that has
been linked to the Hyksos Dynasty.
30 R edford 1992, 116–118. See also Horn 1969, 37; Bietak
1990; 2005a; T. Schneider 2003b; 2010a, 406; Schmitt
2013, 219–220.
31 Ryholt 1997, 148–150. See also D. Ben-Tor 2004, 38;
2007a, 192; Zivie-Coche 2011, 3.
32 See Bader 2011a; 2011b; 2013; Mourad 2015.
33 For an overview with references, see Ryholt 1997, 119–
130, 149; R edford 1997, 6–7 [Nrs. 26–29, 32–37, 39–44].
34 See Bietak 2010b; 2016a; Bader 2013; Mourad 2015,
21–43.
35 See, for instance, V. Müller 2002; 2008; Mourad 2015;
Mi. Müller 2018.
 Religious Transformations
4.2 Seth and the Storm Deity: Fit for a King?
4.2.1 The Storm Deity in the Near East
4.2.1.1 Nature of the storm deity
Storm deities are among the most prominent across the
Near East, occurring in the panthea of several regions,
including Mesopotamia, Anatolia, and the Levant. The
gods of storms, thunder and lightning were identified
by various names and, due to their similarities, can be
grouped into one typological classification.36 While
such a classification is imposed for etic purposes,
ancient scribal traditions suggest that particular
deities were also identified with others across the
ancient Near Eastern panthea.37 In cuneiform texts, for
instance, the name of a deity could be determined by
a specific Sumero- or Akkadogram that represents a
god or goddess of a different pantheon.38 This is but
one outcome of the various religious and ritualistic
influences, adoptions and adaptations that transpired
following intercultural encounters that were promoted
by the close proximity and co-existence of Near
Eastern cultures.39 Schwemer argues that even ‘local
forms of the same god could be worshipped under
various different names or epithets within one cultural
context’.40 Accordingly, the following Near Eastern
deities are usually classified into the typological
group of ‘storm god’: Semitic Hadda/u or Haddad
(Levant and Upper Mesopotamia); Akkadian Adad or
Addu and Sumerian Ishkur (Babylonia and Assyria);
Semitic Baal(u) (Levant); Hurrian Teshub and Urartian
Teisheba (Northern Levant, Mesopotamia, Anatolia);
and Hattian Taru and Hittite Tarkhun(t) (Anatolia).41
Generally, all storm deities were associated with the
storm, the tempest, and related natural phenomena
such as lightning, thunder, clouds, winds, and rain.42
Whether they developed separately or via influences
from neighbouring lands (a combination of both
more probable), noticeable variations in each deity’s
worship and accompanying beliefs can be linked
with regional climatic conditions as well as social
identities and political organisations.43 For instance,
Baal’s prominence in the Ugaritic pantheon may be
partially explained by the importance of rain for the
harbour city’s agricultural yield, and the significance
36 Schwemer 2007, 121. See also Schwemer 2001; Green 2003.
37 Schwemer 2007, 124.
38 Green 2003, 51–52; Schwemer 2007, 123–124.
39 Schwemer 2007, 123–124. See also Cornelius 1994.
40 Schwemer 2007, 124.
41 Schwemer 2007, 125. Ishkur is perhaps the earliest
attested storm deity. His name occurs in a city-list of the
Uruk Period mentioning his cult city (Karkar), and he is
also mentioned in such Early Dynastic god-lists as those
of Fara and Tell Abu Salabikh. Other deities that are
linked with such phenomena as storms, winds and floods
are Enlil, Ninurta/Ningirsu, Marduk, Anzu, Dagan, and
Iturmer. For more, see R enger 1970; Schwemer 2001,
11–12, 29–31, 129; 2007, 125–131; Green 2003.
42 Green 2003, 1–2; Schwemer 2007, 130.
43 Green 2003, 281–285; Schwemer 2007, 130.
115
of seafaring for its commercial activities and foreign
relations. Accordingly, Ugaritic myth incorporates
the deity’s death and resurrection (vis-à-vis the battle
against Mot, god of death), and victory in controlling
the sea (represented by his defeat of Yamm, god of
the sea). Ishkur/Adad, on the other hand, had a less
prominent role in the Babylonian pantheon, with little
to no association with the agrarian rituals of Babylonia
wherein agriculture was reliant on irrigation. Instead,
he was venerated more as lord of destruction, especially
of dust-storms.44
4.2.1.2 Kingship
Storm deities were significant figures for kingship,
acting as divine kings and/or bestowers of kingship
to earthly rulers. Ishkur/Adad was protector of the
early Babylonian kings of Isin and Larsa.45 In Mari,
Addu, together with Dagan, was protector of the king,
enthroning him to power.46 His temple was not only
a beneficiary of the city-state’s resources, but its staff
also included members of the high-ranking elite,
including Princess Inibshina, ‘wife of Addu’.47 In the
Old Babylonian Period, the city-state of Yammkhad
was identified as ‘land of Addu’, its king a ‘beloved
of Addu’ who acted on behalf of the storm god’s will
and oracle in both political and militaristic cases.48
Accordingly, those who fell under the patronage of
Yammkhad were initiated as rulers by Addu.49 In the
Hurrian pantheon, Teshub was divine king, his rise
to and maintenance of power preserved in fragments
of the ‘Kumarbi Cycle’, which outlines the violent
conferral of kingship from the primeval Alalu to his
son, the sky god, Anu, to Kumarbi, and then to Teshub,
who, after several attempts, was able to stop Kumarbi
from regaining power.50 The struggles against Kumarbi
could have additionally featured the defeat of a sea god
or creature as well as the storm god’s reception in the
underworld as a guest, details of which are preserved
in fragmentary texts.51 Another incomplete text, the
‘Release’, mentions Teshub’s role in more earthly
matters, threatening Megi, ruler of Ebla, with the
destruction of his city lest he fails to release prisoners.52
Like Teshub, Taru and Tarkhun(t) were also kings of
the Hattian and Hittite divine realms, ruling alongside
their respective consorts and solar deities, Eshtan
and Eshtanu.53 Each couple’s sons were worshipped
as manifestations of the storm god, with the Hittite
king himself possibly considered a son and sun god,
44 Green 2003, 49–51, 282; Schwemer 2007, 130.
45 Green 2003, 285–288; Schwemer 2007, 139.
46 Schwemer 2001, 279–304; 2007, 156; Green 2003, 169, 171.
47 See, with references, Schwemer 2001, 280, 299; 2007, 156.
48 Schwemer 2007, 163.
49 Schwemer 2007, 163.
50 Güterbock 1961; Schwemer 2008, 3–5.
51 Schwemer 2008, 6–8.
52 Wilhelm 1997; 2001; Schwemer 2008, 7.
53 Schwemer 2008, 20.
116 Chapter 4
identifying the gods as ‘father’ and ‘mother’.54 The
king also ruled as the storm god’s administrator, his
land under the divine couple’s patronage.55
For other city-states across the Levant and Upper
Mesopotamia, kingship was emphasised by the
nature and characteristics of Baal, the name of
whom translates to ‘lord’.56 This has led to some
confusion in the identification of the deity as well as
his possible syncreticised associations. In regards to
his origins, for instance, scholars suggest that Baal
as a deity emerged from the usage of the term bēlu or
baalu as an epithet for Haddu by Levantine coastal
dwellers in the mid-Second Millennium BC.57
Others date his worship to the Third Millennium BC,
utilising as evidence the name’s attestation in the
Early Dynastic god-list of Tell Abu Salabikh as
well as its occurrence in personal names at Ebla.58
Texts also compound the deity’s name (DN) with
that of a geographical region (GN), with attestations
including Baal of Ugarit, Baal (of) Sapan, and Baal
of Aleppo.59 Some are listed in a single document,
as in the Ugaritic Canonical List that mentions Baal
Sapan followed by six other Baals.60 While scholars
such as de Moor and del Olmo Lete explain the
entries as repetitive invocations for a single Baal,61
S.L. Allen interprets them as a representation of the
multiplicity of Baal-named gods, with each entry
signifying a distinct deity.62 Indeed, each cult centre
of a named Baal evidently received offerings,63
but perhaps they can be viewed as different
manifestations of Baal64 that originally were or
eventually became separate entities.
Due to the discovery and translation of Ugaritic
texts, the best attested of the Baals is the LBA Baal
(of) Sapan and Baal of Ugarit. The texts describe
Baal as a divine king who, despite his subordination
to his father El, represented the earthly king and
his subjects.65 His rise to power is preserved in the
‘Baal Cycle’ which, unlike the Hurrian Kumarbi
Cycle, describes El’s enthronement of the sea god
Yamm as divine king, and Baal’s subsequent victory
54 Schwemer 2008, 21–22.
55 Green 2003, 287; Schwemer 2008, 24.
56 A lbright 1978, 140–145; A. Cooper and Pope 1981;
Green 2003, 173; Schwemer 2008, 8.
57 Oldenburg 1969, 57–59; A. Cooper and Pope 1981, 347–
361; Pardee 1997, 247, n. 42; Green 2003, 174; Schwemer
2008, 8–9.
58 Biggs 1974, 83 [Nr. 83], pl. 46 [Nr. 83, V. 12]; Pettinato
1980; Cox 2013, 55.
59 Van Zijl 1972, 332–336; A. Cooper and Pope 1981, 410–
413; Green 2003, 174.
60 KTU 1.118:4–10. Healey 1985, 118.
61 De Moor 1970, 219; S.L. A llen 2015.
62 Del Olmo Lete 1999, 75.
63 S.L. A llen 2015, 202–215.
64 De Moor 1970, 219; Schwemer 2008, 10–11.
65 Schwemer 2008, 11.
over him.66 Baal proceeded to build his palace, his
kingship confirmed by El, but he is consequently
defeated by Mot, descending into the underworld and
taking the storms and rains with him.67 Eventually,
he is rescued by his sister Anat, re-emerging from the
underworld as the resurrected deity.68
While this has been correlated with observations
of natural seasonal phenomena and the role of
vegetal deities,69 the struggles of Baal have also been
connected to political realities of the LBA. Baal’s
power stems from victory, his kingship not reflective
of supreme authority.70 Tugendhaft thereby suggests
a representation of the strained relationship between
vassal (Baal) and suzerain (Yamm and El), or Ugarit
as a subordinate city-state to the Hittite power of the
LBA Near East.71 Accordingly, El, as suzerain, granted
Yamm kingship as a higher-ranked king.72 Yamm
overstated his kingship, disrespecting El’s power and
rank; El, however, remained supportive of the sea god
whom he chose, enthroned and tasked with defeating
Baal.73 Eventually, the latter rebelled against Yamm’s
insubordination and the reigning political status quo,
leading to Yamm’s request for his extradition, an
appeal that is paralleled in contemporary diplomatic
treaties.74 The gods acquiesced, in line with governing
law and tradition, but Baal, as hero rebel, was still able
to defeat Yamm.75 Tugendhaft thus finds a political
critique in the Cycle, wherein Ugarit was ‘witness to
and participant in a world of incessant power struggles
and competing assertions of authority’.76 Such political
metaphors are certainly apparent;77 however, the
struggles for power and its precariousness are not only
applicable to Ugarit and the LBA. The Cycle could
reflect other historical contexts, particularly of cities
along the Levantine coast, and may even stem from
earlier myths in the region.78 It is likely that, among
its several nuances, the Baal Cycle incorporates the
66 KTU 1.1–1.2. M.S. Smith 1994; N. Wyatt 2002, 34–69.
Other similarities with the Kumarbi Cycle, however, should
be noted, including tensions between father and son, as well
as a possible struggle against a sea deity or creature as part
of the Kumarbi Cycle. For more, see Schwemer 2008, 12.
67 KTU 1.3–1.6. N. Wyatt 2002, 70–146; Green 2003, 196–
198; Schwemer 2008, 12; M.S. Smith and Pitard 2009.
68 Green 2003, 202; Schwemer 2008, 12.
69 Green 2003, 198–218; Schwemer 2008, 12.
70 M.S. Smith 1994, 105; 1995, 2032; 1997, 84–85; Green
2003, 176, 216; M.S. Smith and Pitard 2009, 1–3; Cox
2013, 63.
71 Tugendhaft 2012.
72 Tugendhaft 2012, 370–371.
73 Tugendhaft 2012, 371–373.
74 Tugendhaft 2012, 373–382.
75 Tugendhaft 2012, 373–383.
76 Tugendhaft 2012, 383.
77 For more on the political metaphors in the Baal Cycle,
see M.S. Smith 1994, 105; 1995, 2032; 1997, 84–85;
N. Wyatt 1996; 1997; 2005; M.S. Smith and Pitard
2009; Tugendhaft 2012; Töyräänvuori 2016.
78 See M alamat 1998, 28; Töyräänvuori 2016, 258–260.
 Religious Transformations 117

complexities of Levantine kingship,79 commenting

on how power required legitimisation and demanded
maintenance, regardless of kinship relations.

4.2.1.3 The enemy(s) of the storm deity

The Ugaritic Baal Cycle’s inclusion of the conflict
between Yamm and Baal is echoed by other Near
Eastern texts that refer to the storm god’s battle(s)
against otherworldly creatures, particularly those of
the sea. The earliest attestations occur in incantations
of EBIIIB Ebla which invoke Hadda to destroy evil in a
storm.80 In an Old Babylonian letter of correspondence
addressed to King Zimri-Lim of Mari from the official
Nur-Sin, Haddu of Aleppo is attested to have attained
kingship following his defeat of the sea goddess,
Temtim.81 The weapons which he used in this battle, or
their cultic symbols, were allegedly bestowed to Zimri-
Lim, possibly as a coronation gift.82 The defeat of a sea
monster is also attested in Hittite texts, which detail
how Teshub had to overcome his father’s allies, the sea
serpent Ḫedammu and the stone giant Ullikummi, who
also dwells in the sea.83 A marriage alliance is formed,
Teshub’s son marrying the daughter of Ḫedammu. His
son, however, eventually allied himself with another of
Teshub’s enemies, the snake dragon Illuyanka, and so
Teshub inevitably slayed both his son and Illuyanka.84
The name of the serpent Ḫedammu has been feasibly
related to Hurrian apši, which has similarly been
equated with Akkadian ṣēru ‘snake, serpent’ and
Ugaritic tunnanu ‘serpent, sea monster’ in vocabularies
from Ugarit.85
In fact, the latter is included in contexts associated
with Baal and, possibly, his conflict with Yamm. For
instance, one Ugaritic text describes how Anat, on
behalf of Baal, defeated the river Nahar, the serpent
dragon Tunnan, the Twisty Serpent, and the Powerful
One with Seven Heads.86 Whether all are aspects or
epithets of Yamm, or distinct entities,87 they are joined
by another enemy of Baal, the ‘fleeing snake’ Lotan,
whose defeat is mentioned in a separate tablet assigned
to the Baal Cycle.88 Forged by the deity Kothar-wa-

79 For a similar view, see Töyräänvuori 2016, 261–262. Fig. 4.1 A stela depicting the LBA storm god from
80 The incantations also invoke two other deities, Dunnan
Ugarit. © RMN-Grand Palais (Musée du Louvre) /
and Ammarig. Schwemer 2007, 154–155.
81 Lafont 1984; 1993; Durand 2002, 38.1–4 [A. 1968];
Hervé Lewandowski
Schwemer 2001, 213–216, 223–226; 2008, 24.
82 See also Sasson 1994, 313; M alamat 1998, 27; Schwemer
2001, 216; Nissinen 2003, 22; Bunnens 2006, 65. Ḫasis, the weapons with which Baal conquers Yamm
83 KUB 33 108 and CTH 785. Schwemer 2001, 232–234; were either the ṣmd-weapons (clubs?) called ygrš
2008, 24–25. See also Rutherford 2001; Ayali-Darshan ‘expeller’ and aymr ‘all-driver’, or a bladed ktp-
2015a; 2016. weapon.89
84 Güterbock 1961; Beckman 1982; Green 2003, 148; Iconographically, LBA stelae from Ugarit show Baal
Schwemer 2008, 24.
poised to strike with his raised right hand carrying a
85 Dijkstra 2005; Schwemer 2008, 25, n. 67.
86 KTU 1.3: III.36–47. N. Wyatt 2002, 79–80.
club or mace, his left grasping a downward-pointed
87 See Pitard 2007; M.S. Smith and Pitard 2009, 54. For
a different interpretation linking the names with water
courses, see Töyräänvuori 2016, 305–343. 89 KTU 1.2: I.5–10, 1.2: IV.10–23, 1.6: V.2. De Moor 1990,
88 KTU 1.5: I.1–3. N. Wyatt 2002, 115. 86; N. Wyatt 2002, 140; Niehr 2014, 175.
118
spear designed with plant-like lines at its upper shaft,
linked to either lightning or thunder (Fig. 4.1).90 This
stance is repeated in other depictions of the storm
deity on, for instance, LBA reliefs from Ugarit and
Aleppo, a MBIIA–B cylinder seal from Ugarit91
and impressions from Ebla (Fig. 4.2a–b),92 as well
as LBA cylinder seals and seal impressions from
Ugarit, Alalakh, Emar, Byblos, Jerusalem (Fig. 4.2h)
and Tell Deir ‘Alla.93 The god could wield a mace
or a curved/scimitar sword, or clench a balled fist in
his raised arm, his other arm either fisted or carrying
a spear, a staff, or an axe, with the possibility of
an item, such as a dagger, tucked at the waist.94 A
plethora of Old Syrian seals additionally depict the
victim of the storm deity’s attack, identified most
commonly as a winding serpent and often a dragon-
like creature, typically before a goddess.95
Such conflicts of the storm deity overall espouse
his warlike attributes and fierceness, which are
repeatedly represented by disturbances linked to
storms. In Mari, for instance, the destructive power
of Adad is connected to his role as warrior-god,
supporting the kings in their conquests.96 Similarly,
Baal is given the epithets of ‘conquering hero’,
‘valiant Baal’, and ‘valiant warrior’ in the Ugaritic
Baal Cycle.97 In an Old Babylonian text of the Isin
Dynasty, Ishkur/Adad’s tempest is equated with a
great lion that instils fear in his enemies.98 Another
90 Williams-Forte 1993; Cornelius 1994, 135–137,
pl. 32 [BR1]; Schwemer 2001, 227, n. 1575; 2008, 36,
n. 91; Green 2003, 165, fig. 28a–b. The Baal Cycle also
describes the lightning weapon as a cedar tree or branch
(KTU 1.4: VII.41). For more, see Williams-Forte 1983,
25; Lambert 1985, 442; Töyräänvuori 2012, 164–165,
n. 52.
91 A miet 1992, 31 [Nr. 42]; Teissier 1996, 51 [Nr. 9].
92 M atthiae 1969, pls. 1 [1–2], 2 [1, 3]; Collon 1987,
127–128 [Nr. 545]; Teissier 1996, 27–29 [Nr. 184], 103
[Nr. 199]. For other examples of unprovenanced cylinder
seals depicting the storm deity in this stance, see Teissier
1996, 58 [Nr. 42], 64 [Nr. 70], 81 [Nr. 141], 82 [Nr. 143],
87 [Nr. 164], 115 [241].
93 Albright 1934, 7–8, fig. 1; Schaeffer 1949, fig. 13 [1];
Woolley 1955, 180, pl. 64 [Nr. 73]; Vanel 1965, 82, fig. 39;
Stadelmann 1967, 43, 105; Keel 1989c, 312, fig. 113;
Cornelius 1994, 171–174, pls. 45–46 [BM3–8]. For more
unprovenanced items depicting a storm deity with raised
arm, see Cornelius 1994, 175–178, pls. 46–47 [BM9–16].
94 Cornelius 1994, 178–179; Green 2003, 156, 160–162.
For more on the representation of the storm deity as a
rider of equids, see M agen 2001.
95 Williams-Forte 1983, figs. 4, 6–11; Lambert 1985,
442–444; Cornelius 1994, 212; Keel 1989b, figs. 66,
68; 1992, 212–215; 1996a, figs. 45–52; Uehlinger 1999;
Green 2003, 157–165, figs. 23–25, 27.
96 Green 2003, 59.
97 See, for instance, KTU 1.3: III.10, 1.3: V.32–33, 1.4:
VIII.30–35, 1.6: I.6–7, 1.6: III.20. Van Zijl 1972, 341–
345; Watson 1999, 180; N. Wyatt 1992, 404–406; 2002,
77, 87, 113, 129, 137; Green 2003, 177.
98 VAT 8212. Green 2003, 54.
Chapter 4
hymn for Adad of the Ur III Period refers to his
violent destruction of the land through a storm, after
which he is directed to bestow rain and fertility on
his own land and march with the king against his
enemy.99 His chariot is drawn by the lion and the bull
as he mounts the storms as if they were donkeys.100
Adad is also attested to have largely brought about
the flood in the Old Babylonian flood myth of
Atrahasis, riding in with the winds and the storms
while roaring with thunder.101 This imagery is also
reflected in Baal’s epithet as ‘rider of the clouds’
who must destroy his adversaries and protect the
city of Ugarit.102 Evidently, then, the storm deity
could embody destructive forces manifested in the
benevolence of the storm, the roaring thunder and the
violent winds, but which could also be utilised for
protection and fertility.103
The bull and the lion most likely further imbue
such characteristics.104 Their representation of
kingship is perhaps additionally connected to the
storm deity’s role as divine king and/or bestower
of rulership. Artistically, the two animals are
frequently portrayed with the god on reliefs, cylinder
seals and seal impressions (Fig. 4.2c–d). The bull’s
direct association with Ishkur/Adad occurs in the
Akkadian Period, before which Ishkur was usually
shown with a lion-dragon.105 From the Ur III
period, the association of the bull with the storm
god began to supersede those of the lion-dragon,
becoming prevalent by the MBA and continuing
into the LBA across the Near East and Anatolia.106
The storm deity is generally found, with regional
differences, standing on a bull with one or both feet
on its back, or with one or more bulls by his feet that
are kneeling, possibly leashed, or pulling the god’s
chariot.107 In texts, Baal is not directly provided with
the epithet of ‘bull’, which is instead related to El.
His belligerence, however, is equated with that of an
ox.108 A text from Ugarit additionally describes Anat
99 CT 15, 3–4, 15–16. Schwemer 2001, 420–421; 2007,
150–151; Green 2003, 49–51, 282.
100 CT 15, 15–16. Green 2003, 54.
101 B.R. Foster 1996, 181; Schwemer 2001, 422; 2007, 151.
102 See, for instance, KTU 1.2: IV.7–9. N. Wyatt 2002, 65.
103 See Green 2003, 281–285.
104 See del Olmo Lete 2004, 108.
105 Green 2003, 86; Schwemer 2007, 138; 2008, 33–34.
106 Van Buren 1930, 137, fig. 181 [Nr. 664]; Porada 1948,
368, 507–508, 511; 1950, 155–162, figs. 10, 12, 14; A bou
Assaf 1966, 78–80; Gese, Höfner and Rudolph 1970,
129; Cornelius 1994, 179–180 [BM4, BM6, BM16,
BM85, BS1]; Green 2003, 20–21, fig. 1; Schwemer 2008,
33–34. For the uncertain likelihood of earlier associations
of the bull with the weather god, see Green 2003, 18–19,
86; Schwemer 2008, 34–35. See also Chapter 4.2.1.5.
107 For an overview, with references, see Green 2003, 18–24,
105–113, 156–157; Schwemer 2008, 6–7, 18, 22–23, 33–35.
108 KTU 1.6: VI.17–18. N. Wyatt 2002, 142. See also
Cornelius 1994, 165.
 Religious Transformations 119

(a) Seal impression, MBIIA–B, Ugarit (b) Seal impression, MBIIA–B, Ebla
(after Teissier 1996, 51 [9]) (after Teissier 1996, 103 [199])

(c) Seal impression, Akkadian Period, unknown (d) Seal impression, MBIIA–B, Kanesh, Level Ib
provenance (after Green 2003, fig. 7 [b]) (after Green 2003, fig. 18)

(e) Seal impression, MBA, Samiya, (f) Seal impression, Akkadian Period, Mari
Mari (after A miet 1960, fig. 7) (after U. Winter 2012, fig. 459)

(g) Seal impression, MBA, unknown provenance (h) Seal impression, MBII–LBA, Jerusalem
(after Vanel 1965, fig. 17) (after U. Winter 2012, fig. 214)

Fig. 4.2 Depictions of the smiting Near Eastern storm god

120 Chapter 4
proclaiming the birth of a bull calf as progeny of
Baal, which has been linked to his fertility roles.109
4.2.1.4 Divination and oath-taking
Alongside his destructive and protective roles, the
storm deity of some Near Eastern cities also appears
in connection with divination and oath-taking. In
the Old Babylonian texts of Mari, Sippar and Tell
Leilan, Adad, together with other deities such as the
sun god Shamash and the moon god Sin, is called
as a divine witness for legal cases, political treaties
and temple loans.110 Other texts mention Adad and
Shamash offering oracular determinations following
the inspection of entrails.111 The judicial significance
of Adad is also mirrored by the recorded practice
of ratifying oaths and treaties in his temples at, for
instance, Aleppo and Arrapha.112 The storm deity’s
divine weapons, or their cultic symbols, were further
likely employed in ‘witnessing promissory oaths
and testimonies, meting out divine judgements
and settling disputes, and sanctioning military
undertakings’.113 They were possibly used to ratify
other administrative functions such as the sealing
of documents and harvest management.114 The
selection of yearly eponyms additionally occurred
before the deities Ashur and Adad in the ḫamrum of
Ashur during the Neo-Assyrian Period and possibly,
as Schwemer suggests, earlier in the Old Assyrian
Period.115 LBA texts correspondingly bear evidence
for the continued importance of the storm deity in
oath-taking and treaties, most likely because of the
god’s sustained significance in Near Eastern panthea.
An Amarna Letter from Tushratta, king of Mitanni,
to Amenhotep IV, for instance, refers to Teshub and
Amun,116 while the Hittite peace treaty between
Ramesses II and Hattusilis III invokes many gods
of Egypt, Hatti and the Northern Levant, including
Shamash and Teshub.117 Evidently, the storm deity’s
109 KTU 1.10: III.33–38. N. Wyatt 2002, 160. The mother
of the progeny has been identified with Anat, despite
the text’s ambiguity. For more, see Lipiński 1965, 62–63;
Stadelmann 1967, 89–90; K apelrud 1969, 95; Gese,
Höfner and Rudolph 1970, 157, n. 423; N. Wyatt 1984,
337; P. Day 1992, 184; del Olmo Lete 2004, 108.
110 Charpin 1990; Schwemer 2001, 221–226, 284, 683–686;
2007, 140; N. Weeks 2004, 25–26; Fleming 2004, 44–45;
Eidem 2011, 329–330.
111 Schwemer 2001, 221–226, 284, 683–686; 2007, 149.
112 Moran 1969, 628; Durand 2002, 4–7; Stökl 2014, 54–55.
113 Töyräänvuori 2012, 151–152.
114 Töyräänvuori 2012, 151–152. See also Spaey 1993, 411;
Postgate 1994, 136, 280; Töyräänvuori 2016, 167–168.
115 Schwemer 2001, 245–256; 2007, 140.
116 EA 27, 1.87. The passage, however, is very fragmentary.
Moran 1992, 88, n. 16; Quack 2015, 260. See also
Chapter 4.2.4.5.
117 See Chapter 4.2.5.2. Te Velde 1967, 119; Goetze 1969,
203; M.S. Smith 2008, 51–57. For other Hittite treaties
also invoking Teshub, see Goetze 1969, 203, 205.
significance surpassed his representation of natural
weather phenomena. These were undoubtedly
correlated with divine messages, determinations
and omens,118 but the deity’s links with judicial,
diplomatic and economic matters appear interwoven
with his associations with kingship and warfare.119
4.2.1.5 Iconography
The artistic portrayal of the storm deity varies
across the Near East.120 The earliest representations
are attested from the Old Akkadian Period. These
appear on cylinder seals and seal impressions and
typically show Ishkur/Adad standing either on the
back of a lion-dragon, or on a chariot pulled by this
creature, while brandishing a thunderbolt and mace,
or a whip of thunder and lightning (Fig. 4.2c).121 He
is commonly shown with a rain goddess, either nude
or clothed.122 This iconography noticeably shifted
in the Ur III Period, when the god is increasingly
shown in association with a bull, holding a symbol
of lightning and/or the bull’s reins while sporting
a beard and conical headdress, albeit depictions
with the lion-dragon persisted on Old Babylonian
seals.123 Representations with the bull further
continue throughout the MBA across the Near
East and Anatolia (Fig. 4.2d).124 For instance, an
unprovenanced Old Syrian cylinder seal of the
‘servant of Adad’ depicts a standing deity poised
to strike with a mace in his upraised arm, the other
extending to a leash reining a bull.125 The animal,
title of the associated official, weaponry and stance
all point to his representation of a storm deity, if not
Adad himself.126 The similarities with a LBA relief
118 Schwemer 2001, 222, 416–419; 2007, 150.
119 For more on the political and judicial significance of the
cross-cultural correlations of deities, see M.S. Smith
2008, 52; Hendel 2020.
120 As Schwemer (2008, 31) writes, ‘there is no
comprehensive study of the iconography of the various
storm-gods with reliable illustrations and up-to-date
information’. See also Vanel 1965; A bou-Assaf 1983;
Cornelius 1994; Green 2003, 13–34, 103–127, 154–165.
121 Vanel 1965, 18–28, 41–45, 54–56, figs. 5, 8, 21–23;
Green 2003, 27–34, figs. 4–6; Schwemer 2008, 31–32.
122 Vanel 1965, 23–27, figs. 5–6; Green 2003, 30, 33;
Schwemer 2008, 33.
123 Van Buren 1930, 137, fig. 181 [Nr. 164]; Porada 1948,
507–508, 511; 1950, 161–162, fig. 14; Vanel 1965, 31–37,
figs. 10, 12, 14; Green 2003, 20, 31–33; Schwemer 2008,
33.
124 Van Buren 1930, 137, fig. 181 [Nr. 664]; Porada 1948,
368, 507–508, 511; 1950, 155–162, figs. 10, 12, 14; A bou
Assaf 1966, 78–80; Gese, Höfner and Rudolph 1970,
129; Cornelius 1994, 179–180 [BM4, BM6, BM16,
BM85, BS1]; Green 2003, 20–21, fig. 1; Schwemer 2008,
33–34. For uncertainties of earlier correlations between
the bull with the weather god, see Green 2003, 18–19, 86;
Schwemer 2008, 34–35.
125 Porada 1948, 129 [Nr. 964]; Eggler 2007, 1.
126 Porada 1948, 129 [Nr. 964]; Eggler 2007, 1.
 Religious Transformations
from Ugarit depicting and naming Baal also support
this identification as storm god.127
The latter’s features can be identified as typical of
MBA and LBA storm deities. They can be shown with
a conical or pointed headdress, often horned or akin
to the Egyptian white crown, a long thick beard, one
or two curled locks of hair, a short kilt often decorated
with stripes or a long tunic with one protruding
leg, crossed bands across the chest, and a youthful,
muscular physique (Fig. 4.2).128 Additionally, Old
Syrian cylinder seals commonly illustrate storm gods
in association with a nude goddess, also with upraised
arms as on a seal from Samiya (Fig. 4.2e).129 Other than
their striking stance and positioning near or on the
bull, lion or lion-dragon, storm deities can additionally
be represented: standing peacefully, with or without a
staff;130 or standing with one or both feet on one or two
mounds or mountains. The latter could represent the
realm of the storm god,131 the mountains which Adad
guards in the Epic of Gilgamesh,132 the mountainous
dwelling and palace of Baal,133 or perhaps even the
allies of Teshub, mountain gods Ḫazzi and Nanni.134
From the LBA, the storm deity can also be shown with
wings or in association with the horse.135
4.2.2 The Cults of Seth: From the Predynastic to
the Second Intermediate Period
4.2.2.1 The Predynastic and Early Dynastic Periods
Postulated to have emerged in the Predynastic Period,
the worship of Seth experienced developments and
modifications across Egyptian history. Although
animals later associated with the deity, such as the
hippopotamus and crocodile, were represented in
two- and three-dimensional forms in the Badarian
and Naqada I Periods,136 the earliest known possible
127 Schaeffer 1934, 1–18, pl. 1; 1949, 46–49, 121–130,
pls. 23–24; Porada 1948, 129 [Nr. 964]; Cornelius 1994,
135–138, pl. 32 [BR1]; Eggler 2007, 1.
128 Vanel 1965, 73–77, figs. 30–36; Cornelius 1994, 134–
233, 246–253, pls. 32–33, 44–47 [BR1–2, BM1–17];
Green 2003, 13–34, 103–127, 154–165, figs. 25–28;
Schwemer 2008, 31–36; Tazawa 2009, 114.
129 Parrot 1959, 212–215, fig. 115, pls. 43–44; A miet 1960,
221–226, fig. 7; Green 2003, 161, fig. 27.
130 Cornelius 1994, 151–153, 182–185, 186–192, pls. 39–40,
47–48 [BR11–12, BM17–23, BM25, BM27–44].
131 Dijkstra 1991, 127–140, pls. 1–3.
132 OB III col. iii 127–134. Schwemer 2001, 207, 423; 2007,
151; George 2003, 198–199.
133 See, for instance, KTU 1.3: III.25–31, 1.101: R.1–4.
Herrmann 1999, 133; Collombert and Coulon 2000,
207–208; N. Wyatt 2002, 78, 388.
134 Goetze 1969, 205–206; Dijkstra 1991, 133–137; K. Koch
1993; Schwemer 2001, 487–489; 2008, 7.
135 Cornelius 1994, 161–162, 166, 181–182, 209–212, 253,
pls. 43–44, 47–48, 50 [BR18, BM23a, BM25, BM27–41,
BM69–73]; K eel 1996a, 196; Tazawa 2009, 115–116.
136 Ayrton and Loat 1911, 26–27; Scharff 1926, 17;
Baumgartel 1955, 30, 33–34, fig. 6 [8]; Midant-R eynes
2000, 158, 172, fig. 5 [b]; Darnell 2002, 23, n. 107.
121
portrayal of Seth comes from el-Mahasna and dates
to Naqada I.137 Carved out of ivory, the representation
bears some characteristic attributes of the so-called
Seth-animal with its long flat-bottomed curved snout
and long ears. The creature’s representation has been
postulated for other ivory pieces of Naqada I,138 and for
figurines and perhaps a rock inscription of Naqada II
date,139 but its veneration is clearly manifested by its
illustration on the Scorpion Macehead.140 Positioned
on a standard in a form canonical of the Seth-animal,
the creature has a long snout, large rectangular
ears, narrow almond-shaped eyes, a long forked tail
and a slender canine or asinine body. Attempts to
zoologically identify the animal have led to various
suggestions, including its association with the giraffe,
anteater, okapi, donkey, camel, Oryx antelope,
aardvark, or boar.141 Nevertheless, for the most part
of Egyptian history, it should most likely be regarded
as a fantastical creature, not only due to its atypical
combination of characteristics, but also because it
appears among such creatures in two scenes of Middle
Kingdom tombs at Beni Hassan (see Fig. 4.4).142
The Seth-animal’s representation on the Scorpion
Macehead further hints at its connection with
particular Predynastic and Early Dynastic centres.
Occurring on at least two standards amid a row,
each with an animal hanging from it, Midant-Reynes
suggests a correlation with defeated enemies from
the south143 who may have fled to the Delta.144 This
veneration is more noticeable in the extant evidence
of the Early Dynastic Period, which confirms
associations with royalty. Queens of Dynasty 1, for
instance, bore the title mAA. t @r. w %t x ‘beholder of
Horus and Seth’, the gods identified logographically
by the falcon (Gardiner’s G5) and recumbent Seth-
animal (E21) respectively.145 In Dynasty 2, serekhs of
137 Ayrton and Loat 1911, 27, pl. 12 [2]; Baumgartel 1955,
34, 37; Te Velde 1967, 8, fig. 1b. For an overview of early
portrayals of the Seth-animal, see Te Velde 1967, 7–12;
P.J. Turner 2013.
138 Petrie and Quibell 1896, 26, pl. 60 [13]; Scharff and
Moortgat 1950, 18; Te Velde 1967, figs. 1a, c, 2.
139 Darnell 2002, 19–24. See also Wainwright 1963, 13;
K ahl 2001, 51–57.
140 McDonald 2000, fig. 2; Whitehouse 2009, 19–25.
141 Newberry 1928; Te Velde 1967, 13–26; McDonald 2000;
de M aret 2005; R ikala 2007, 220; Schorsch and Wypski
2009, 184; B. A llen 2016, 104.
142 Newberry 1893b, pls. 4, 13. See also Te Velde 1967, 13–
26; McDonald 2000; de M aret 2005, 111.
143 Midant-R eynes 2000, 249–250.
144 Although still conjectural, the association of the Seth-
animal with estates or centres is suggested by its possible
depiction on several labels from the early Naqada III
Tomb U-j at Abydos. Dreyer 1998, 120–121, figs. 75–76;
Wenke 2009, 231.
145 The use of the Golden Horus name has also been linked
with the conflict between Horus and Seth. D.D. Baker
2008, 512.
122 Chapter 4
Peribsen are also surmounted by the Seth-animal146
while those of Khasekhemwy have both the Horus-
falcon and Seth-animal, the former depicted with
the double crown and the latter with the red crown,
inferring a link between Seth and Lower Egypt.147 An
anthropomorphic figure identified with either Seth
or Ash also occurs on a fragment of a bowl dated to
the Second Dynasty.148 The figure stands with a wAs-
sceptre in his right hand and a an x -symbol in his left
above an accompanying epithet(?) regarding Nb. t,
likely in reference to the fifth Upper Egyptian nome
and one of Seth’s known cult centres.149
4.2.2.2 The Old Kingdom and First Intermediate Period
The association with kingship and Nb. t continues
into the Old Kingdom.150 Royal women of the Fourth,
Fifth and Sixth Dynasties are still provided with the
epithet ‘beholder of Horus and Seth’.151 The deity is
additionally depicted in anthropomorphic form in
the causeway of Sahura’s pyramid complex at Abusir
(Fig. 4.3).152 Portrayed in a register among other
deities and labelled Nb. t, the god stands grasping
a wAs-sceptre in his right hand, the left holding the
shaft of an axe, a an x -symbol, and two ropes lashed
at the waists of individuals in the lower register who
may each be identified according to their features as
a Nubian and a Libyan man.153 This connection with
the foreign showcases the distinctive link between
Seth and the ‘other’, the perceived chaotic forces that
transcend and contradict the ideologically ordered
attributes of the Egyptian world. It is because of this
association that Ikram has interpreted a faunal deposit
as possible evidence for the ritualistic abolition of
146 Petrie 1901c, 31, pl. 22 [178–181, 184–186]; Naville 1914,
pl. 10; K aplony 1968, 39–41, pls. 5, 23. The inclusion of
seals in Peribsen’s tomb inscribed with i n .w %T. t have
led to the association of the toponym %T. t with Sethroe
and Seth. For more on the toponym, see Grdseloff 1944,
295–299; Zibelius 1978, 225; R edford 1986a, 125, n. 4;
T.A.H. Wilkinson 1999, 76, 133; Mourad 2017a.
147 Petrie 1901c, 31, pls. 23 [191–200], 24 [202–205].
148 K aplony 1963, 780–790, n. 673; M athieu 2011, 139–140,
fig. 7.
149 Wainwright 1963, 13, n. 2; Schorsch and Wypyski
2009, 184. See also PT 222, which mentions the nome
as a dwelling of Seth (M athieu 2011, 139–142). For a
translation of the Pyramid Texts as followed here, as well
as their concordance, see J.P. A llen 2005.
150 A fragmentary Third Dynasty relief from Heliopolis
preserves glyphs of the Seth-animal alongside Nb. t . The
fragment has been assigned to Djoser’s reign. M athieu
2011, 139–140, fig. 8.
151 Reisner 1942, 253 [15]; D. Dunham and Simpson 1974, 8–9,
13–15, 17–18, 20–21, figs. 2–3, 6–7, 9–10, 12–14, pls. 2,
6a–b, 7, 10–11, 12c, 15a–d; Strudwick 2005, 379–382.
152 Borchardt 1913, pl. 5.
153 The deity next to Seth is Sopdu, n b xAs.w t ‘lord of
the foreign lands’, who grasps ropes tying individuals
portrayed as a Nubian (?) and an Asiatic in the lower
register. Borchardt 1913, pl. 5.
entities connected to the deity.154 Uncovered west of
the Step Pyramid at Saqqara and dated to the Sixth
Dynasty,155 the deposit included the remains of fish,
a donkey, a pig, a hartebeest, and a canid, animals
which, as Ikram writes, were thought to be ‘wild,
chaotic, and Typhonic forces, generally identified
with the Egyptian god Seth’.156 A harpoon found
alongside Sixth Dynasty pottery 0.70 m beneath
the faunal deposit has also been connected to the
remains to further the suggestion that the ritual could
be related to hunting, specifically of another animal
linked to Seth, the hippopotamus.157
Other characteristics of Seth surface in the Pyramid
Texts. According to P.J. Turner, the god is mentioned
in 133 of the 759 utterances of the texts,158 wherein his
name is written as %tS in all bar those of Wenis, which
instead employ a recumbent Seth-animal.159 The
references note Seth’s violent birth,160 his striking-
power,161 his wings,162 his defeated followers,163 as
well as his association and conflict with Horus.164
Although these focus on Seth’s violence and anger,
other texts point to his role in protection and support,
particularly in the Opening of the Mouth ceremony,165
and in helping overcome snakes,166 death,167 and the
ascent to the heavens.168 Additional texts allude
to his ‘mounds’ or realms, especially in parallel to
those of Horus,169 and his invocation in ritualistic and
154 Ikram 2000; 2004.
155 The deposit was found at the end of Corridor 1, a rock-
cut passage that was cut into the moat area near the Step
Pyramid. The dating is based on the Sixth Dynasty pottery
recovered from a layer 0.70 m below the faunal deposit,
although some disturbance to the latter’s context should
be noted. Ikram 2000, 128, figs. 1–2; 2004, 41–42, fig. 1.
156 Ikram 2004, 42.
157 Ikram 2000, 127–132; 2004, 41–46.
158 P.J. Turner 2013. See also M athieu 2011.
159 Roeder 1912, 84; Te Velde 1967, 1.
160 See, for instance, PT 222. Te Velde 1967, 27; J.P. A llen
2005, 39–40.
161 See, for instance, PT 574.
162 PT 615. Te Velde 1967, 20; J.P. A llen 2005, 234. See also
Cornelius 1994, 166, 181–182.
163 See, for instance, PT 136, 356, 535. PT 535 includes the
so-called cannibal text which has been postulated to
represent the ceremonial sacrifice of the defeat of Seth
(Eyre 2002).
164 For the removal of the eye of Horus, see PT 29, 47, 54,
57O, 57Q, 57R–S, 59A, 64, 69–70, 88–90, 97, 111, 135,
145, 160–164, 166, 168, 192, 260, 356–357, 475, 497, 562,
652, 658, 686, 696, 752. For Horus’s dismemberment of
Seth’s foreleg and testicles, see PT 61, 327, 359, 386.
165 See, for instance, PT 21.
166 See, for instance, PT 385.
167 See, for instance, PT 81, 217–218, 268, 271, 570–571, 575,
610, 615, 723.
168 See, for instance, PT 271, 322, 478, 510–511, 539, 719.
169 See, for instance, PT 213, 306, 308, 424, 470, 474, 477,
480, 572, 612, 665–666A, 690, 718.
 Religious Transformations 123

Fig. 4.3 Seth Nb. ty. Causeway of the pyramid complex of Sahura, Abusir, Dynasty 5.
After Borchardt 1913, pl. 5

purification incantations.170 Of particular interest are
PT 247 and PT 511 which denote Seth’s association
with the natural phenomena as ‘lord of the storm’, and
controller of earthquakes, thunder and hailstorms.
Indeed, the terms nSn i ‘storm, rage’, sSn ‘storm’, and
is d ‘dribble, saliva’, are classified by the recumbent
Seth-animal (E21), further emphasising the deity’s
links with weather disturbances.171 Additional terms
of the First Intermediate Period utilise the Sethian
classifier. According to Allon and McDonald, these
are instead associated with sickness and illness, and
include inD ‘to be sick’, n q m ‘to be afflicted’, m r
170 See, for instance, PT 25, 34–36, 210, 215, 219, 224–225,
254, 390, 419, 443, 450, 455, 459, 580, 600–601, 667A,
681. For more on Seth’s representation in the Pyramid
Texts, see P.J. Turner 2013.
171 PT 261a. Sethe 1933, 182–183 [4]; Strudwick 2005,
284–285; Goldwasser 2005, 108–109; A llon 2007, 16,
18, fig. 1a. For more on the significance of determinatives
as classifiers denoting conceptual frameworks, see
Goldwasser 1995; 2002; 2005.
‘pain, to be ill’, pry t ‘crisis’, and m n t ‘to suffer’.172 The
favoured classifier for these terms is the seated Seth
(C7) rather than the recumbent Seth-animal.173
4.2.2.3 The Middle Kingdom and the early Second
Intermediate Period
The corpus of terms is again enlarged in the Middle
Kingdom with the addition of those related to confusion
and disruption.174 The association with weather
phenomena resurfaces and additionally comprises a
unique attestation of a seated Seth (C7) classifying
rswt ‘dream’, as well as q ri ‘storm, clouds’, classified
by a recumbent Seth-animal above a rainy sky (E21
with N4).175 The latter combination is further attested
for the term hiw on a Middle Kingdom stela likely of
172 A llon 2007, 16–18, fig. 1a-b; McDonald 2007.
173 McDonald 2002; 2007, 32; A llon 2007, 16–18, fig. 1a–b.
174 A llon 2007, 16–18, fig. 1a–b.
175 Szpakowska 1999; McDonald 2002; A llon 2007, 16–18,
fig. 1a–b.
124 Chapter 4
Fig. 4.4 The Seth-animal among other fantastical creatures. East wall, tomb of Baqet III, Dynasty 11 (?).
Courtesy of the Australian Centre for Egyptology
the early Thirteenth Dynasty.176 As the term in used
in parallel to Sd - x rw ‘noise-maker’ or ‘disturbance’,
and occurs with the classifier of a donkey (E7) in the
Coffin Texts, W.A. Ward translates it as ‘braying-
ass’ and links the loud boisterous sound with Seth’s
attributes.177 The term is also classified by the snake
(I14) in Pyramid Texts and Coffin Texts, leading
W.A. Ward to additionally associate the hissing sound
of the serpent with Seth.178 Other attestations regarding
Seth in the Coffin Texts are akin to those in the Pyramid
Texts, and describe the storm lord’s conflict with Horus
and Osiris,179 his followers’ defeat,180 the mounds and
magic of Seth and Horus,181 as well as Seth’s protective
role, association with the solar barque, and assistance
in reaching the afterlife.182 Horus’s wound following
the removal of his eye by Seth is further likened to
a black pig in CT 157. The spell also mentions Seth’s
transformation into a pig, an animal ‘detestable to
176 Wiedemann 1891, 51–53, pl. 2 [8]; Monnet-Saleh 1970,
20–21 [Nr. 7]; W.A. Ward 1978a, 23–25, fig. 1a.
177 Ward 1978a.
178 Based on the provenance of known texts, W.A. Ward
(1978a) adds that attestations associating the term with the
hissing serpent were likely composed by Lower Egyptian
scribes, while those associating it with the braying ass
possibly represent a Middle Egyptian tradition.
179 CT 9, 11, 37, 50, 60, 73–74, 113, 118, 131, 148, 157, 227,
303, 312, 315–316, 335, 359, 397–398, 405, 424, 441,
444–446, 532, 587, 607, 681, 790, 837–839, 856, 862,
900, 935–936, 960, 1119. For a translation of the Coffin
Texts as followed here, see Faulkner 2004.
180 CT 12, 37, 315–316, 405, 531, 595, 646, 666, 900.
181 CT 526, 803, 832.
182 CT 119, 160, 268, 349, 353, 407–408, 519, 528, 530, 564,
571, 581, 630, 649, 665, 686, 694, 769, 857, 945, 1017,
1128. For more on Seth’s representation in the Coffin
Texts, see P.J. Turner 2013.
Horus’. This has led some to interpret a possible taboo
against pigs in certain parts or specific times of the year
in Egypt, although the evidence for this remains scant.183
The Ramesseum Dramatic Papyrus further includes
a text that details the performance of a ritual likely
concerning the royal image. It was uncovered among
other papyri and objects, some of likely ‘magical’ or
ritualistic function, in a late Middle Kingdom shaft
tomb in the Ramesseum of Thebes.184 One column of
text involves Horus, Osiris and the followers of Seth; it
mentions how oxen, together with Seth’s donkeys as his
followers, trample wheat as a representation of agrarian
Osiris, the donkeys then likely carrying the grain or
Osiris to the q bH ‘place of purification’.185
The conflict between Horus and Seth may
additionally be preserved on a fragmentary text from
el-Lahun, possibly of the first half of the Thirteenth
Dynasty, which specifies Isis protecting Horus from
Seth’s guiles.186 The connection between protection
and Seth are also manifested by the inclusion of the
deity and the Seth-animal on several Middle Kingdom
183 Ikram 1995, 30–33; Griffiths 1930, 31–33; P.J. Turner
2013; van Wyk 2014, 115–116. For more on the
consumption of pork in ancient Egypt, see R edding 1991;
2015, 329–335, 351–352, table 1; M. H arris 1997; Swabe
1999, 47–48; Brewer 2002, 440–443; A lcock 2006, 139–
140, 243.
184 See Sethe 1928, 134–137; Gardiner 1955; Lorand 2009;
Miniaci 2020.
185 Papyrus Ramesseum B, column 33, vignette 6. Sethe
1928, 134–137; Lorand 2009. For a discussion, with
references, see Vandenbeusch 2020, 208–209.
186 UC 32150A and UC 32158. The text’s function has
been conjectured to be either literary or for recital to
secure good health. Griffith 1898, 4, 64–65, pls. 3, 26a;
M. Collier and Quirke 2004, 20–25; 2006, 36–39;
Quirke 2016, 142–144, 146, 148.
 Religious Transformations 125

magic wands.187 This apotropaic function has been

viewed in relation to the solar cult, its decoration linked
with protection against evil forces, or the ideology
of kingship.188 Accordingly, Seth would represent
ambivalence, disturbance and the ‘other’, combatting
evil to preserve order on behalf of the sun god and
those mythically or magically associated with him.189
These protective and perhaps magical aspects are also
exemplified in the depiction of the Seth-animal among
mythical and desert creatures in the tombs of Baqet III
(Nr. 15) (Fig. 4.4) and Khety (Nr. 17) at Beni Hassan,190
the former likely of the Eleventh Dynasty and the latter
possibly completed in the early Twelfth Dynasty.191
Other Middle Kingdom sources emphasise Seth’s
significance in kingship. As with references in the
Coffin Texts and the queens’ epithet, Seth’s apposition
to Horus likely expresses the totality of kingship that
can unite the known realms under Egyptian control.192
An Eleventh Dynasty relief from Montuhotep II’s
mortuary temple at Deir el-Bahari shows Seth and
Hathor standing behind the throned king.193 The storm
god also bestows the founder of the Twelfth Dynasty,
Amenemhat I, with countless years on a block from Fig. 4.5 Seth and Horus binding the s mA- tA.wy
the king’s Pyramid Temple at el-Lisht.194 Seth is again symbol. Temple of Amun, Karnak, reign of
depicted at the Temple of Amun at Karnak binding Senwosret I, Dynasty 12. After Te Velde 1967, pl. 5 [1]
the s mA- tA.wy symbol alongside Horus, and standing
with Amun before Senwosret I (Fig. 4.5).195 He is
shown in animal form opposing Horus as sphinx, upon it and the other with Horus (Fig. 4.6).197 The latter
with a frontal figure of Hathor with cow horns and presents a rn p. t symbol to a seated king wearing the red
ears, on a gold pectoral probably from Dahshur (see crown whereas the Sethian standard presents it to the
Fig. 4.35).196 Lintels commemorating the heb-sed king wearing the white crown.198 Almost the exact scene
festival of Senwosret III additionally display two can be found on lintels commemorating the heb-sed of
personified standards, one with a Seth-animal seated Amenemhat III from the Mayor’s Residence at Tell
Basta,199 signifying the deity’s representation as a uniter
of Egypt. In the Turin Canon, one king assigned to the
187 Altenmüller 1965, 157; vol. 2, 11–12 [10], 20 [20], 30–31 first half of the Thirteenth Dynasty is even attested with
[32], 37–38 [40], 54–55 [60], 58 [65], 64–65 [74], pls. 1, 11,
the name [Mr] - ib - [Ra.w] %tx ‘Meribra Setekh’.200
16.
188 A ltenmüller 1965; Vink 2016, 266–267, 271; 2016/2017,
Further light on the association between Seth and
13–15. kingship can be observed on a seal impression assigned
189 A ltenmüller 1965, 157; Vink 2016, 266–267, 271; to the Middle Kingdom. The impression, however,
2016/2017, 13–15.
190 The Seth-animal is labelled SA in both tombs, and is
portrayed alongside a griffin (s f r), a serpent-headed 197 JE 56497A and JE 56496bis. The two lintels most likely
creature (sDA), and other desert animals. Newberry originate from the heb-sed chapel of the king. They were
1893b, pls. 4, 13; K anawati and Evans 2018, pls. 13a, 60; excavated at Medamud. Willems 1984, 103–104, pl. 7;
2020, 17b, 84. Ryholt 1997, 336; Cruz-Uribe 2009, 211, n. 75, fig. 3.
191 Brovarski (2010) dates the tombs’ construction between 198 Cruz-Uribe 2009, 211, fig. 3.
the late Tenth and Eleventh Dynasty, whereas Willems 199 Farid 1964, 94–95; Tietze and A bd el-M aksoud 2004, 19
(1983/1984) and Schenkel (1962) prefer an early Twelfth (top figure).
Dynasty date, in the reign of Amenemhat I. Recently, 200 Turin Canon 7/23. The king’s reign length and activities
K anawati and Evans (2018; 2020) suggest a late Eleventh are uncertain. Beckerath lists him as the twentieth king
to possibly early Twelfth Dynasty date. For more, see of the Thirteenth Dynasty while Ryholt places him as
Willems 1983/1984, 83–84, 92–93, n. 26; Schenkel 1962, the twenty-fifth king. Ryholt also assigns a stela from
78–84; Brovarski 2010, 49–50, 55–56, 63. See also Hölzl Abydos to his reign, suggesting that this was usurped by
1992; K anawati and Woods 2010, 41; K anawati and Neferhotep I. Based on its inclusion of a large sun disk,
Evans 2018, 15–16; 2020, 15–16. he also proposes that other structures at Medamud with
192 Te Velde 1967, 68–71. a similar sun disk were originally for King Seth but were
193 Naville 1907, pl. 5 [a, d]. later usurped by his successor Sobekhotep III. One of these
194 H awass 2003, 329. structures may preserve elements of Seth’s prenomen. For
195 Porter and Moss 1972, 135. more on the elusive king, see von Beckerath 1984, 69,
196 Patch 2015, 141 [74]. 204; Ryholt 1997, 244, 284–286, 342–343, n. 1031.
126 Chapter 4
Fig. 4.6 The Seth-animal personified. Lintel
commemorating Senwosret III’s heb-sed festival,
Medamud, reign of Senwosret III, Dynasty 12.
After Cruz-Uribe 2009, fig. 3
does not originate from Egypt. It is found on the base
of Alalakh Tablet 93, which was recovered from Room
22 of Alalakh’s Level IV palace and is inscribed with
details of a marriage contract.201 Albeit from a context
assigned to the LBA, the stylistic details of the sealing
(Alalakh 194) point to its MBA date and Levantine
origin, with Teissier noting parallels with seals of the
so-called green jasper workshop.202 The impression
portrays an At f-crowned deity with ram horns carrying
a sx m-sceptre in his left hand, his right upraised as if
blessing the figure standing before him (Fig. 4.7). This
figure carries an axe and is dressed in a typical long
Near Eastern garment, his head either shaven, with
cropped hair, or capped, as with figures of high officials
or rulers on other MBA to early LBA cylinder seals.203
In front of him are two opposing falcons wearing the
Egyptian double crown, while behind him stands a
falcon-headed deity with two plumes at the head, his
right arm also raised in a blessing gesture while his left
grasps a wAs-sceptre. The deities have been identified as
either Khnum and Montu,204 or Sopdu and Herishef,205
their Egyptian origin uncontested. Other elements of the
scene include two anx -symbols and the outline of wings,
perhaps of the vulture-goddess Nekhbet.206 Therefore,
the iconography displays two Egyptian deities blessing
a Near Eastern figure whose dress, as well as associated
falcons, suggest a connection to rulership. Two columns
of fragmentary text are positioned left of this scene.
Various translations have been offered, the most recent
201 Collon 1975, 103–104; Teissier 1990, 65.
202 Teissier 1990, 68–71; 1996, 16–22, 29. Seals of this group
have been argued to originate from a Byblite place of
manufacture (Collon 1986; 2001), or from multiple
centres (Teissier 1990; K eel 1995a). See also Boschloos
2014; 2015.
203 Teissier 1990, 67.
204 Teissier 1990, 66–67; 1996, 31, 63.
205 Eder 1995, 51 [Dok. 38]; G.T. M artin 1999, 204;
S.J. Wimmer 2005, 130.
206 Teissier 1990, 67.
reading HA. ty -a Kp n
NHs i an [x mAa- x rw m r.y] n b Rb [n] w [n] ‘count
of Kp n, NHs i an [x, justified, beloved of] , lord
of Rb [n] w [n]’.207 Malek favours a reconstruction that
links the text with a funerary context and identifies the
first sign in the second column as a recumbent Anubis
(E15) rather than Seth (E21) animal.208 The tail, however,
is one of the most distinguishing features of the two and,
as the latter is otherwise also attested in an epithet used
by a Levantine official (see below),209 the reading of the
Seth-animal is preferred here.210
The toponyms’ reconstruction suggests a Near Eastern
locale, which is further supported by their association
with a Near Eastern figure. The MBA use of the title
HA. ty -a in the Levant is also known for the rulers of
Byblos.211 The suggested name, NHsi an [x], is elsewhere
unattested but interestingly finds close parallels with
that of the Fourteenth Dynasty king Nehsy.212 Hence,
Alalakh 194 implies that a Near Eastern ruler, possibly
of Byblos, utilised Egyptian-inspired iconography, the
hieroglyphic script, an Egyptian title, as well as an
epithet expressing devotion to a deity represented by the
Seth-animal.213 This god is perhaps additionally linked
to a Near Eastern toponym, suggesting either Seth’s
devotion in a foreign locale, the devotion of a local
deity associated with the glyph, or the association of a
local deity with the glyph as recognised by a bilingual
scribe. As the epithet, ‘beloved of DN’, was utilised in
inscriptions from at least the Old Babylonian Period
onwards, and is also attested for kings as ‘beloved of
Addu’,214 it is possible that the hieroglyphic text was
207 S.J. Wimmer 2005. Based on the published photographs
and facsimiles of the impression, the reconstructed
toponyms remain hypothetical. Rb [n] w [n] may be
connected with the name Lebanon.
208 M álek 1996.
209 Loffet 2006, 81–83; Goldwasser 2006a, 123; Doumet-
Serhal 2013, 135; Mourad 2015, 179, fig. 6.24 [22].
210 As also followed by G.T. M artin 1999, 206; S.J. Wimmer
2005, 129.
211 See Mourad 2015, 166–171, 201, fig. 7.11.
212 S.J. Wimmer 2005, 129–130.
213 A cylinder seal thought to be from Amrit and assigned
to Teissier’s Period IIB class, or the MBIIB–C, depicts
several Egyptian-inspired elements. One of these is an
anthropomorphic figure whose head Teissier describes as
being that of the Seth-animal. The deity stands with left
arm raised in a gesture of adoration before a standing
figure, probably a royal child. The rendering of the snout,
jaw and ears, however, is unusual and cannot be confirmed
as Sethian by published photographs. Nonetheless, if
correct, the seal further supports the representation of
Seth in the MBA Levant. Further, this would align with his
postulated connection to the Levantine elite, as the scene’s
inclusion of a hawk-headed deity, a human-headed sphinx,
a leonine deity, a vulture, as well as lions and bulls all point
to its association with kingship or the divine. Seyrig 1963,
258–259, n. 1, pl. 21 [4]; Teissier 1996, 49–50 [5].
214 See Chapter 4.2.1.2; Schwemer 2007, 163; Töyräänvuori
2016, 281–305.
 Religious Transformations
Fig. 4.7 MBA-type seal impression Alalakh 194, on Alalakh Tablet 93. Room 22, Level IV Palace, LBA, Alalakh.
After Teissier 1996, 30 [77]
an attempt at translating epithets utilised in the region.
Indeed, such bilingualism can also be interpreted in
the iconography of the sealing which, together with
the text, may be identified as a marker for linguistic,
artistic and, perhaps, even cultural negotiation. It has
also been interpreted as elite emulation, although this
hints at the political subordination of MBA Levantine
areas to Egypt, which cannot yet be verified.215 Based on
its iconographic and textual details, Teissier favours a
date in the MBIIA to early MBIIB period, or the Twelfth
Dynasty.216 If correct, then the Seth-animal may have
been already revered or identified with a Levantine deity
at this period. S.J. Wimmer, on the other hand, dates the
sealing later in accordance with the similarities between
the depicted ruler’s name and Dynasty 14’s Nehsy, as
well as the latter’s reverence for Seth.217
215 Teissier 1996, 31; Flammini 2010, 160–161. See Mourad
2015, 170–171, 179–185.
216 Teissier 1990, 68–71; 1996, 30.
217 S.J. Wimmer (2005, 130) also associates Nehsy with
Herishef, a link which is based on the questionable
correlation of two fragments that are assumed to belong
to one obelisk. The deity is mentioned on one fragment of
the top of an obelisk recovered near those bearing Nehsy’s
inscription and dedication to Seth (Petrie 1885, 8, pl. 3
[19a–e]). Ryholt (1997, 378, n. 1) writes that ‘it seems more
likely that the obelisk top belongs to a different monument’,
indicating that references to both Seth and Herishef on
the same monument were improbable. As the association
between the inscriptions cannot be confirmed, Nehsy’s
reverence to Herishef remains conjectural. Herishef-
Ra is otherwise attested in association with the count of
Kpny, IbSmw on an obelisk of likely local manufacture
uncovered at the Temple of Obelisks, Byblos (Dunand
1954, pl. 32 [2]; Montet 1962, 89–90, fig. 5; Mourad 2015,
166). See also van Seters 1966, 100–103.
127
Two texts indeed relate Nehsy with Seth. The first is
inscribed on the base of a black granite seated statue
from Tell el-Muqdam.218 Probably commissioned to
be set up at Tell el-Dab‘a, ‘Ezbet Rushdi or even the
Memphite area, perhaps by a Twelfth Dynasty king,
the statue was reused by Nehsy and Dynasty 19’s
Merneptah, before being transported to Tanis.219 At
either side of the feet is the fragmentary inscription
nTr n f r n b tA.wy
sA Ra.w [NHsy] m r.y [ ] n b ¡w. t - w ar. t ‘the good
god, lord of the two lands, son of Ra, [Nehsy], beloved
of [ ], lord of Avaris’.220 Bietak suggests that this is
the earliest attestation of the epithet ‘beloved of Seth’
and the name Avaris.221 Ryholt, on the other hand,
writes that if the statue was originally for a Twelfth
Dynasty king, then the epithet and name are thereby
to be dated earlier.222 Notwithstanding ramifications
concerning the mention of the toponym, this would
point to a Twelfth Dynasty cult of Seth at Avaris,
which would seemingly support the inclusion of
the ‘beloved of Seth’ epithet on Alalakh 194 and
Teissier’s preferred dating of the sealing. The
fragmentary inscription and its origins, however, are
too ambiguous for a definitive conclusion, with the
present evidence corroborating a later date.
218 Porter and Moss 1934, 37–39; Naville 1894, 28, pl. 4b;
Borchardt 1925, 87–88, pl. 89 [538].
219 Bietak 1996a, 40; Ryholt 1997, 150, n. 545; Sourouzian
2006. Ryholt (1997, 150, n. 545) suggests that the statue
was originally set up by a Twelfth Dynasty king based
on the problematic postulation that ‘there was little
monumental activity during the Fourteenth Dynasty and
no other royal sculptures are known’.
220 Naville 1894, pl. 4b; Borchardt 1925, 87–88, pl. 89
[538]; Helck 1983a, 48 [66].
221 Bietak 1990, 14.
222 Ryholt 1997, 150, n. 545.
128 Chapter 4
Indeed, the second inscription was clearly
commissioned by the king’s son Nehsy. It occurs on
an obelisk fragment discovered at Tanis223 and reads
[…] sA
n sw NHsy [… iri n =f ] m n w =f n n b RA-AH.wt
ss p. t Hr=f [… sA- n sw] s m sw NHsy m r.y n b RA-
AH.wt ‘[…] the king’s son Nehsy [… he has made it as]
his monument for , lord of RA-AH.wt , who directs
his countenance (?) [… the king’s eldest son] Nehsy,
beloved of , lord of RA-AH.wt’.224 Although its exact
location remains unknown, RA-AH.wt has been identified
with a cultivated land east of the Bubastite branch.225
The two inscriptions therefore refer to the existence of
Sethian cults in the Eastern Delta by the Fourteenth
Dynasty, and both express the deity’s reverence by
the elite. As Te Velde points out, these cult locations,
combined with Nb. t near the Eastern Desert in Middle
Egypt, occur at or near the borders of Egypt, reflecting
Seth’s role as deity of frontiers and foreign lands.226
In fact, Middle Kingdom and Second Intermediate
Period scarabs and inscriptions from sites in the Delta,
among others, include attestations of personal names
with the Seth element.227 The Seth-animal occurs in
the names of Iunisetekh, daughter of a count at Tell
Basta,228 as well as a ‘district councillor of Tjaru’,
Setekhemwesekhet, whose name is inscribed on a
statue from the early Second Intermediate Period
(either Level 5a or 4c) at Areas A and B, Tell Hebwa
I.229 Mention can also be made of a late Middle
Kingdom to early Second Intermediate Period statue
with a dedication to Ra-Atum, lord of Heliopolis,
by the ‘controller of a phyle’ Khakheperra[…] who
served the great chapel of Seth.230 This chapel is also
mentioned on an unprovenanced scarab for the ‘count
of Heliopolis’,231 leading Simpson to postulate the
presence of a sanctuary at Heliopolis.232 The deity’s
223 Petrie 1885, pl. 3 [19a–d]; Helck 1983a, 48 [67].
224 Lines 1–3. Petrie 1885, pl. 3 [19a–d]; Helck 1983a, 48
[67]; Yoyotte 1989; R edford 1997, 4 [Nr. 6].
225 Bietak 1990, 14; Redford 1997, 4, n. 17; Ryholt 1997, 103.
226 Te Velde 1967, 117–118.
227 One such scarab was uncovered in Grave 424 at Tell
el-‘Ajjul, assigned to the MBIIB Period. The scarab is
inscribed with the personal name %t x written using both
the initial s followed by the Seth-animal. See Newberry
1932, 142; Petrie 1934, pl. 4; G.T. M artin 1971, 33 [363],
106 [1366], 127 [1663–1665], 128 [1666], pls. 1 [7], 4
[13], 7 [29], 11 [10], 15 [18], 38 [3]; R anke 1935, 132 [12],
284 [19], 294 [1], 305 [13], 321 [29], 322 [4]; 1977, 119;
D. Ben-Tor 1994, 13 [9].
228 Van Siclen III 1988, 194; Mourad 2015, 21.
229 A bd el-M aksoud and Valbelle 2005, 7–8, fig. 5, pl. 4;
Mourad 2015, 45.
230 Simpson 1976.
231 Newberry (1932, 142) reads the name of the count
as ‘Nemaatrēa-m-het-aa-Set’, which is followed by
G.T. M artin (1971, 53 [637], pl. 19 [28]). See also Simpson
1976, 43.
232 Simpson 1976, 43–44.
worship at this site is justified by his significance in
the solar cult which, as aforementioned, is exemplified
by references in the Pyramid and Coffin Texts,
the apotropaic objects, as well as the mythology
surrounding Osiris and Horus. The combined evidence
thus supports the worship of Seth as well as the
existence of his cults and/or chapels in Lower Egypt,
especially the Delta, before the Hyksos Dynasty.
4.2.2.4 The Second Intermediate Period
For the Hyksos Period, Seth’s worship can be gleaned
in texts largely dating to the second half of the dynasty.
An offering table from Cairo believed to have been
placed at Tell el-Dab‘a is inscribed with:233
@r. w sHt p (. w) tA. wy nTr n f r aA- q n - n -Ra. w an x (. w)
i ri . t n = f m m n w = f n i t (= f ) [ ] n b @w. t - w ar. t
rDi . t (= f ) s n . w t = f i ri = f Di (. w) an x m i Ra. w D. t
@r. w sHt p (. w) tA. wy nTr n f r aA- q n - n -Ra. w an x (. w)
i ri . t n = f m m n w = f n i t (= f ) [ ] n b @w. t - w ar. t
rDi . t = f tA. w n b. w Xr Tb. wy = f
Horus, pacifier of the two lands, the good god Aakenenra
(Apophis), may he live: that which he has made as his
monument for his father [ ], lord of Avaris, (is) his
placing of his flag-staves so he may be given life like
Ra forever. Horus, pacifier of the two lands, the good
god, Aakenenra (Apophis), may he live: that which he
has made as his monument for his father [ ], lord of
Avaris, (is) his placing of all lands beneath his two feet.
Evidently, the text identifies the dedication of the
setting up of flag-staves or cultic activity as well
as the subordination of ‘all lands’ for Seth, lord of
Avaris.234 While Seth, as the object of this dedication,
is described as father of the Hyksos king,235 the solar
deities Horus and Ra are also mentioned in association
with Apophis; all are also logographically represented.
The dedication ‘beloved of Seth’ also occurs in
other inscriptions assigned to Dynasty 15. These
include the reconstructed inscriptions of usurped
233 Lines A–B. M ariette 1872, 10–11, pl. 38; K amal 1909,
61–62 [23073]; Helck 1983a, 55 [76]; R edford 1997, 7
[Nr. 33].
234 The setting up of flag-staves is additionally mentioned
on a fragment of a building inscription recovered from
Tell Basta but ascribed to Tell el-Dab‘a. Its text has been
reconstructed and translated by Redford as ‘(1) Horus:
pacifier-[of-the-Two-Lands…], Son-of-Re, Apopi, given
life. (2) [He made it as his monument for his father Seth
(?), making] for him many flag-staves and a fixture(?) of
bronze for this god’ (R edford 1997, 7 [Nr. 35]). For the
inscription, see Naville 1891, pl. 35 [b–c]; H.R. H all
1914, pl. 18 [339]; Helck 1983a, 57 [84].
235 For more on this expression, see Vittmann 1977. For its
usage by Nineteenth Dynasty kings, see Chapter 4.2.5.1.
 Religious Transformations 129

sphinxes originally naming Apophis.236 Apophis also

usurped a pair of colossi of the Thirteenth Dynasty
king Imyrameshaw that were originally set up at
the Memphite Temple of Ptah, likely moving them
to Tell el-Dab‘a.237 On the shoulder of one of the
statues, he commissioned the text
nTr n fr aA- q n - n -Ra.w sA Ra.w I- ppi
an x (.w) Di (.w) m r.y [ ] ‘the good god, son of
Ra, Aakenenra Apophis, given life, beloved of
[ ]’.238
This epithet further occurs on a scarab uncovered
in Sidon’s Level 6 of the MBIIB period, the finds
of which support a chronological correlation
with Dynasty 15.239 The scarab was retrieved
near burials and ovens, its base inscribed with
+d qAr a m r.y
n b IAy ‘+d qAr a,240 beloved of , lord of IAy’ Fig. 4.8 Scarab from Level 6, MBIIB, Sidon.
(Fig. 4.8).241 Although some have dated the scarab After Loffet 2006
to the late Twelfth Dynasty,242 others assign its
production between the late MBIIA and MBIIB
periods, its precise dating restricted by damage to the Northern Levant were linking their elite patrons
its back and side.243 While feasibly made in Egypt, with an entity manifested by the Seth-animal.
the text’s orthography has been used to postulate its The combined evidence thus indicates that, from
local manufacture.244 Indeed, its ascription to a local the early Middle Kingdom to the end of the Hyksos
official named +d qAr a is possible considering the Dynasty, Seth was revered by the kings and queens
inclusion of a toponym that is most likely located of Egypt as an important figure in the Heliopolitan
in the Northern Levant.245 If correct, then the object Ennead. He was tied to the ideology of kingship and
points not only to the utilisation of the Egyptian script the maintenance of order. By Dynasty 14 and perhaps
by a Levantine scribe, but also to the worship of a Dynasty 15, the deity was additionally correlated with
deity identified by the Seth-animal in the area.246 This the elite and perhaps even rulership in the Northern
would consequently agree with the interpretation of Levant. Yet, why and how did this association develop?
Alalakh 194, and adds to the inference that scribes in Before entering this discussion, it is pertinent to note
that Seth’s links with weather phenomena continued
into Dynasty 15. As with the abovementioned texts
236 H abachi 1978; Ryholt 1997, 133, 386 [14–15] and corroborating the god’s worship by the Hyksos kings,
references. Hill (2015, 294–295, 298) writes that the evidence for his association with wild weather also
reused monuments ‘hardly constitute appropriation
stems from texts of the late Second Intermediate
or usurpation’ with Apophis’s name ‘respectful of the
integrity of a work while adding information about its
Period, namely the Rhind Mathematical Papyrus and
“transmission” to his collection of art of knowledge’. the Tempest Stela. On the former’s verso is a column
237 The colossi were later usurped by Ramesses II, who of hieratic text that may be read as:247
perhaps set them up at Piramesse, after which they were
moved to their findspot at Tanis. See von Beckerath [1.1] [2.1]
1964, 274; Bietak 1975, 213–220; Ryholt 1997, 133;
[2.2] [2.3]
R edford 1997, 7 [Nr. 36], n. 41; Hill 2015, 294–295.
238 Petrie 1885, pls. 3 [17c], 13 [6]; Helck 1983a, 56 [77]; [3.1] [3.2]
R edford 1997, 7 [Nr. 36].
[3.3]
239 Doumet-Serhal 2013, 135.
240 Loffet (2006, 78) reads the name as Semitic ‘Sadok- [1.1]
Re’. The name may be related to the Egyptian Djedkara rn p. t - s p 11 Abd 2 Sm w aq . t w Iwn w [2.1] Abd 1 Ax . t
which is, however, spelled differently (see R anke 1935, sw 23 t wn [2.2] p (A) - n - rsy r *Arw [2.3] sw 2[5] sDm . t w r
412 [17]). Bietak (2010b, 157, n. 138) also mentions a Dd aq (.w) *Arw [3.1] rn p. t - s p 11 Abd 1 Ax . t m s.wt
suggested reading of the name as the Semitic +d q - l - r a. [3.2]
rDi . t w x rw =f in Hm n (.y) nTr p n [3.3] m s.wt As. t
241 Loffet 2006, 78–84; Goldwasser 2006a, 123; Doumet- iri . t p. t Hwi . t
Serhal 2013, 135; Mourad 2015, 179, fig. 6.24 [22]. [1.1]
Year 11, month 2 of Smw: Heliopolis was entered.
242 Goldwasser 2006a, 123; Bietak 2010b, 157. [2.1]
Month 1 of Ax . t, day 23: [2.2] he-of-the-south rose
243 Loffet 2006, 81–83.
244 Loffet 2006, 79–80.
(against) *Arw. [2.3] Day 2[5]: It was heard that Tjaru was
245 Loffet (2006) connects IAy with Sinuhe’s IAA and locates it
near Sidon. See Gubel and Loffet 2011/2012, 79, 86. For
more on the toponym, see Mourad 2013; 2015, 179, 197. 247 Budge 1898, pl. 21 [2]; Peet 1923, pl. Y; Helck 1983a, 78
246 See Goldwasser 2006a, 123; Bietak 2010b, 157. [113]; Robins and Shute 1987, pl. 23.
130 Chapter 4
entered. [3.1] Year 11, month 1 of Ax . t, Birth(day) of
[3.2]
the majesty of this god caused his voice of thunder to
be heard. [3.3] Birth(day) of Isis: the sky made rain.
Spalinger observes ‘the more cramped style and
more cursive use of hieratic’ in the passage,
interpreting it as a significant historic event that
was recorded in the north then transported to
Thebes.248 He assigns it to the reign of the last king of
Dynasty 15, Khamudi.249 Ryholt prefers a dating to
Ahmose’s rule, noting that, based on his proposed
chronological outline, Khamudi could not have reigned
for more than ten years.250 Yet, as Ryholt himself writes,
the reference to ‘he-of-the-south’ supports the passage’s
composition by a scribe in the north;251 if subordinate to
Ahmose while writing the text, the scribe would have
more likely referred to this ruler as king. The missing
title thus suggests that the regnal year instead belongs
to a Hyksos ruler.252
The mention of Heliopolis and *Arw as being
‘entered’ additionally relates the passage’s events to the
southerner’s campaigns against the Hyksos rulers who,
as evidence suggests, held power in these towns.253
Bietak further suggests that the absence of Avaris
indicates that the scribe had written the text from
this city.254 Whether or not this is correct, the attack
on Avaris likely eventuated after rather than before
the noted assaults,255 the accounts of which would
have been relayed to the Hyksos administration. The
text thus most possibly reflects a northern, Fifteenth
248 Spalinger 1990, 335.
249 Spalinger 1990, 335.
250 Ryholt 1997, 188. The ascription to the Seventeenth
Dynasty is also preferred in Redford 1979, 283, n. 64;
Goedicke 1986b, 38–39; Ritner and Moeller 2014b, 13–14.
251 Ryholt 1997, 188.
252 As also preferred in Helck 1976; Franke 1988, 263;
Bietak 1994a, 29.
253 Reports on excavations at Heliopolis (Matariya) attest to
Second Intermediate Period activity at the site, including
the area near or within its temple (Abd el-Gelil et al. 2008;
Mahmud et al. 2008; Ashmawy Ali and R aue 2012; 2015;
R aue 2016/2017). The pottery includes ceramics similar to
those found at Second Intermediate Period Tell el-Dab‘a
(Abd el-Gelil et al. 2008; Mahmud et al. 2008; Ashmawy
Ali and R aue 2012; 2015). Site 200, at the northwestern
part of the temple precinct, produced fragments of: MBA-
influenced vessels; Tell el-Yahudiyah ware of Nile clay,
similar to those of Tell el-Dab‘a Phases E/1–D/2; a Marl
C zir; the so-called ‘fish plates’; and imported Levantine
amphorae (Mahmud et al. 2008, 197–205, figs. 5b–6b;
Ashmawy Ali and R aue 2012). For more on *Arw, its
identification with modern Tell Hebwa (Chapter 3.2.2.2),
and its association with the Fifteenth Dynasty, see al-
Ayedi 2000, 167–169. For the territory controlled by the
Hyksos rulers, see also Ryholt 1997, 130–137.
254 Bietak 1994a, 29; 2016, 265.
255 Despite his dating (see above n. 250), Goedicke (1986b, 39)
also suggests that, at the time of writing, Ahmose had not
yet entered Avaris. Conquering Heliopolis and *Arw before
attacking Avaris would have also been more strategic.
Dynasty, record and so it is from this perspective that
the specific weather phenomena on the Birthdays of
and Isis were correlated with *Arw’s breach.
The accuracy of such events has nevertheless been
questioned. Goedicke correctly notes that the Birthdays
do not occur in the month of Ax . t but respectively fall
on the third and fourth epagomenal days preceding this
month.256 This discrepancy may be explained either by
Spalinger’s observed ‘cramped style’ of the text and its
probable hurried composition, or the scribe’s calendrical
(mis)understandings. Goedicke adds that it would have
been ‘exceptional’ for a thunderstorm to transpire
on these days, estimated to fall on the Gregorian
Calendar’s August 29/30, and ‘remarkable’ to occur
with the thunder on one day and the rain on the other.257
As such, he suggests to link the phenomena with
volcanic activity at Thera, namely an earthquake and
ash ‘raining’ from the sky.258 Though this brings to
the fore issues in chronological synchronisation,259 the
rarity of either meteorological or volcanic events would
justifiably warrant the documentation of the ‘voice’ of
Seth and the subsequent rain. Perhaps the dating of the
events and even their inaccurate proscription to the
same month of Ax . t points to their metaphorical weight.
Accordingly, this would suggest that the observed
phenomena were regarded as omens foreseeing the fall
of a Hyksos-controlled town. Such phenomena may
have also been viewed as an expression of either divine
support for the Fifteenth Dynasty kings, or discontent
against Heliopolis and Tjaru being entered, their
recording significant for ensuing cultic and perhaps
administrative proceedings by Avaris’s rulers.
Documentation of similar meteorological
phenomena was also seemingly significant for
the southern administration. It is represented by
fragments of the so-called Tempest or Storm Stela,
which most certainly dates to the Seventeenth
Dynasty rule of Ahmose who namedly erected it at
the Temple of Karnak.260 The stela’s decoration can
be divided into two sections. Its upper part illustrates
a damaged scene of the king and a female figure
presenting offerings before a now missing image,
likely of Amun-Ra. Its lower part contains the
following inscription:261
256 Goedicke 1986b, 40.
257 Goedicke 1986b, 40. See also von Beckerath 1964, 211.
258 Goedicke 1986b, 41.
259 See Chapter 1.4.2.
260 Vandersleyen 1967; 1968; Wiener and J.P. A llen 1998,
1–17, fig. 1 [a–b].
261 The texts on the recto and verso of the stela are near
identical, only with minor orthographic differences. As
such, the translation reconstructs an overall text based
on the surviving lines on both the verso and recto. Helck
1983a, 104–110 [124]. The translation relies on Redford
1997, 16 [Nr. 72]; Wiener and J.P. Allen 1998, 3–17; Ritner
and Moeller 2014b, 3–11. See also Klug 2002, 35–46.
 Religious Transformations
Names and epithets of Ahmose (vs. 1/r. 1)
[an x @r.w aA x pr.w Nb. ty] &wt - m sw. t @r.w - n b (.w)
*s (.w) - tA.wy n sw. t - bi . ty Nb - pH. ty -Ra.w sA Ra.w
aH- m s […] an x (.w) D. t
[Living Horus: great of form; Two Ladies:] perfect of
births; golden Horus: he who binds the two lands; king
of Upper and Lower Egypt: Nebpehtyra; son of Ra:
Ahmose […] living forever.
Appointment of Ahmose by Ra and Ahmose’s activities
in the south (vs. 1–5/r. 1–6)
[(i) sT] r= f i w. t Hm = f [… d h n] . n s w Ra. w r n s w. t
Ds = f i s t gr. t Hm s i . n Hm = f m d m i n (.y) %DfA(. w) -
&A. wy [… m w w n t p] n . t rs . t Iw n . t i s t r= f I[m n . w
n b n s . w t tA. wy] m Iw n Sm a. w i n Hm = f x n t i r
r[Di . t t Hn q . t (i) x . t n b (. t) n f r. t] w ab (. t) x r m - x . t
tA aA[b. t . . .] n x r rDi . t w Hr m […] w w p n i s t gr. t
sSm [. w n (.y) nTr p n . . .] Ha. w = f Xn m m rA- p r(. w)
p n aw. f [X] r rSw. t
[Now] his majesty having come […] Ra had appointed
him as king of Upper Egypt himself. Now his majesty
had dwelt in the town of %DfA(. w) -&A. wy [… in the
region at the fore] of the south of Denderah, while
A[mun, lord of the thrones of the two lands] was in
south Thebes. It is his majesty who travelled south
to give bread, beer and every good and pure thing.
Now after [this offering…] then attention was given
to […] this district. Indeed [the statue of this god…]
his body was provided with this temple, and his limbs
were in joy.
Weather phenomena (vs. 5–8/r. 6–10)
[…] i [s t grt nTr] p n aA Hr Ab.y t […] w Hm =f nTr.w
Hr Sn i . t H[Dn .w =s n…] nTr.w iwi . t p. t m Da n (.y)
H[wy. t k k w] m r- a(. wy) i m n . t p. t Sn a. t i n w n [. t
Ab w qA. t i r x] rw rx .y t ws r[. t i r… k hA H(w) y. t] Hr
xAs . w t r x rw q r(r) . t i m .y t Ab w
[… Indeed] this great [god] desired [...] his majesty
(while) the gods uttered their discontent […] the gods
131
(cause?)262 the sky coming as a storm(-wind) of rain
[darkness] at the limit of the west,263 the sky was a
storm-cloud. It was without cessation, [louder than the
voices] of the people, more powerful [than… (while)
the rain raged furiously] upon the mountainous/
foreign lands, louder than the voice/noise of the
cavern which is in Elephantine.
Impact of the weather phenomena (vs. 8–10/ r.10–12)
wn . in pr(.w) n b iw.yt n b. t spr. t=sn [... XwA.wt=sn]
Hr mH(i). t Hr mw m i smH.w n .w mH.yt [m] r(wt)y Hr
aXnw. ty Hn . ty r h rw […] n sHD. n tkA.w Hr tA.wy
Then every house and every town quarter that they
reached […… their corpses] floating on the water like
papyrus skiffs outside the palace audience chamber for a
period of […] days, while no torch was lit in the two lands.
Ahmose’s immediate reaction (vs. 10–14/r. 12–16)
Dd . in Hm =f wr.wy nA r bA.w n (.y) nTr aA [r sx] r.w
nTr.w hAi . t pw iri . n Hm =f r i m w =f q n b. t =f
m - x t =f mSa [=f Hr] iAb. t Hr i m n . t t Hr HAp.w n n
Hb s.w Hr=s m - x t x pr bA.w nTr s pr pw iri . n Hm =f
r Xn w WAs. t n b w Hs i m [n b w] sSm (.w) p n Ss p =f
Ab (i) . n =f wn . in Hm =f Hr s m n . t tA.wy Hr sSm . t
mHy.wt n [HD] =f Hr s n m . t s t m HD m n b w m Hm . t m
m rH. t Hb s.w m gAw (. t) n b n (.y) Ab (i) .w
Then his majesty said: how much greater is this than
the power of the great god and the [plans] of the gods.
His majesty descended to his ship while his council
of magistrates was behind him and [his] army was on
the east and west, the face concealed (as) no clothing
was on it after the manifestation of the god’s power.
His majesty reached the interior of Thebes with gold
262 The grammatical association of nTr.w with iwi . t p. t is
not very clear due to the missing section in version line 6.
J.P. Allen translates it as ‘[Then] the gods [made] the
sky come…’ (Wiener and J.P. A llen 1998, 3). R itner
and Moeller (2014b, 5) prefer ‘[Then] the gods [caused]
that the sky come…’, as does K lug (2002, 38) with ‘[Da
haben] die Götter [veranlaßt] (?)’. R edford (1997, 16),
however, renders it as ‘… they were angry […] of(?) the
gods. The sky came on…’.
263 J.P. Allen (Wiener and J.P. A llen 1998, 3) translates
this as ‘the western region’, R edford (1997, 16) as ‘the
western heavens’, and R itner and Moeller (2014b, 5) as
‘the condition of the West’.
132
facing (aggressively) the [gold] of this statue, so that
he accepted/received what he had desired. Then his
majesty (re-)established the two lands and guided/
conducted the flooded territories. He did not [fail] in
providing it with silver, gold, copper, oil, cloth and
every bundle of that which is desired.
Devastation to funerary places (vs. 14–16/r. 16–18)
s nDm pw iri . n Hm =f m Xn w pr(.w) -aA an x (.w)
wDA(.w) s n b (.w) wn . in t w Hr sxA. t n Hm =f aq (.w)
DAt .wt 264 wh n (.w) isy.w xbA.w Hw.wt w a m r.w iri .y t
t m m . t ir
His majesty seated himself in the palace of the
pharaoh, may it live, be prosperous and healthy. Then
it was mentioned to his majesty that the (funerary)
estates had been entered, the tombs had been thrown
down, the funerary chapels destroyed, and the
pyramids toppled. What had been done was what had
been made undone.
Ahmose’s commands to restore cultic and sacred
places (vs. 16–18/r. 18–21)
aHa. n wD. n Hm =f s rwd rA.w - pr.ww n . ty w wA(.w) r
Dam m tA p n r Dr=f s m n x m n .w (w) n .w nTr.w Ts (i) . t
s n b.wt =s n rDi . t Ds r.w m a. t Sps. t HAp s. (w) t StA.wt
s aq . t sSm .w r kAr.w =s n wn n .w m p t x r tA sS ax .w
s aHa xAw.wt s m n . t pA.wt =s n q b aq .w n (.y) iAw. ty w
rDi . t tA m i t p. t =f -a iri . n t w m i wD. t n n b. t Hm =f
Then his majesty commanded to restore the temples
which had fallen into ruin in this land in its entirety,
to refurbish the monuments of the gods, to raise their
enclosure walls, to place the sacred objects in the noble
chamber, to conceal the secret places, to reintroduce
the cult images which had been cast to the ground into
their shrines, to post the braziers, to erect the altar
chambers, to establish their bread offerings, to double
the income of the office-holders, and to place the land
as its earlier condition. Then it was done according to
all that his majesty commanded.
264 The transliteration as DAt.wt agrees with Wiener and
J.P. Allen 1998, 15; Ritner and Moeller 2014b, 9,
n. 71. Ryholt’s preferred transliteration, s pA.wt is possible,
although unlikely given the proceeding words referring
to tombs, funerary chapels, and pyramids. Further, the
passage seems to focus more on funerary places while
vs. 16–18 centre on temples and sacred objects.
Chapter 4
Despite the lack of a regnal date, J.P. Allen suggests
that the inscription recounts events that occurred in
Ahmose’s first year as ruler.265 Others point to the spelling
of the king’s name with its upturned lunar crescent, and
favour a date before his 22nd year when this sign became
inverted,266 although, as Ryholt points out, the criteria
for this orthographic change is not concrete.267 The text
recounts Ahmose’s voyage to the south, conceivably
to Thebes, following his appointment as king (vs. 1).
The king proceeds to make offerings to Amun
(vs. 2–5), after which a series of anomalous weather
phenomena manifest. These appear connected to the
appeasement of the great god Amun (aA Hr Ab.yt) at
the discontent of other deities (nTr.w Hr Sn i. t) (vs. 6).
The phenomena featured rain, darkness extending to
the west, and a storm-cloud across the sky, its noise
evidently powerful and raging (vs. 7–8). This great
tempest resulted in a deluge with many fatalities,
reaching several towns and residences, including that
of the king (vs. 8–9). It lasted for a number of days,
during which darkness extended specifically across the
‘two lands’ (vs. 9–10).268 An ensuing passage describes
the occurrences to be greater than the power of the
great god as well as the plans of other deities, with
gold figures ‘aggressively facing’ one another (n bw
Hsi m [n bw] sSm (.w) pn) in what appears to be either
divine opposition or Ahmose confronting the divine
(vs. 10–12).269 Ahmose then proceeds in re-establishing
order in the ‘two lands’, possibly by redirecting the flood
waters, and paying homage to the gods (vs. 13–14).
After being informed of further devastation to funerary
chapels, estates and tombs, he commands the restoration
of cultic places and the re-establishment of the land to
‘its earlier condition’ (vs. 16–18). The relation of this
devastation to the tempest is not certain, but a direct or
indirect association is likely, given the overall theme of
the inscription.270
265 Wiener and J.P. A llen 1998, 17. See, however, R itner and
Moeller 2014b, 4.
266 Vandersleyen 1967, 151; 1968, 132; K lug 2002, 45;
R itner and Moeller 2014a, 67. See also H arvey 2007.
267 Ryholt 1997, 186–187, n. 669. See also K itchen 2000, 46;
Polz 2007, 15, 57.
268 J.P. Allen estimates between 4–5, 7–9, 14–19 or 24–29
days in Wiener and J.P. A llen 1998, 12.
269 J.P. Allen prefers to read this as an encounter, representing
‘Ahmose coming before the image of Amun’ (Wiener and
J.P. A llen 1998, 14).
270 Egyptian kings typically initiated construction,
restoration, and renovation campaigns. The description of
the monuments in a state of ruin need not be specifically
related to the Hyksos rulers, as Ryholt has proposed (1997,
144–145), but could be due to any other human, temporal
or environmental agent. If not sufficiently maintained by
an organised institution, such monuments would have
feasibly required restoration over time and may have also
been targets for robbery. Additionally, if impacted by such
natural occurrences as the tempest, the need for repair
would have been further pronounced. Metaphorically, the
restoration works could also be viewed as the ideological
duty of the king to restore order and appease the gods.
 Religious Transformations
A literal interpretation of the stela thus finds
a sequence of events starting from the king’s
coronation, the presentation of offerings to Amun,
the occurrence of a great tempest across Egypt, the
restoration of flooded areas, the realization of the
land’s state of ruin, and the proceeding commands
to re-establish temples and the land to its former
condition. The text’s somewhat fragmentary state,
questionable date, and ambiguous phrasing have led
to divergent interpretations associating it with a range
of historical and metaphorical events. Some propose
a factual observation of a localised storm in Thebes,
with Manning suggesting a relation to equatorial
monsoons.271 However, the mention of darkness in the
‘two lands’ suggests that a more expansive territory
was intended. Several have thereby linked the tempest,
and its associated rain, darkness, deluge, great noise,
and, as some have implied, an earthquake, with the
aftereffects of the Thera eruption, with consequent
implications to chronological synchronisations.272
Others read the events more as a metaphor for the
king’s appointment to a land in chaos followed by
its restoration to order. Ryholt interprets the storm
as the invasion and domination of the Hyksos, with
their divinely ordained widespread devastation, and
the subsequent restorations by the divinely appointed
Theban king.273 Wiener and Allen similarly note the
text’s theme of forging order from chaos, but specify
that the events’ historical basis remains possible.274 As
explained, the ruinous state of funerary and sacred
places could have been the ‘result of the destructive
actions and neglect of human agents’, the storm acting
as a theological manifestation of Amun and his wish to
restore the temples and their services.275
Whether historical or metaphorical, the theological
connotations of the text indeed deserve attention and,
contra other interpretations, should perhaps be viewed
as the underlying purpose and theme of the text. While
focus has centred on the inscription itself, it must be
borne in mind that the stela (1) was likely erected in
the Temple of Amun-Ra at Karnak; (2) included an
associated scene of offerings presented by the king
before a deity, feasibly Amun-Ra; (3) describes the
natural phenomena in direct reference to the gods, and
as a manifestation of a god’s power (bA.w nTr); and
(4) focuses the king’s reaction on the restoration
of sacred places. While Wiener, Allen and
Beylage interpret the storm, and the god behind its
manifestation, as Amun, T. Schneider proposes that it
271 Vandersleyen 1967, 123–159; 1968, 127–134; M anning
1995, 200–216.
272 E.N. Davis 1990; Goedicke 1992a; K.P. Foster and
R itner 1996; R itner and Moeller 2014a; 2014b.
273 Ryholt 1997, 144–145. See also R itner and Moeller
2014b, 8, 11–12, n. 63.
274 Wiener and J.P. A llen 1998, 17–28. See also K lug 2002,
44–45.
275 Wiener and J.P. A llen 1998, 24. See also Beylage 2002,
77–85, 608–613.
133
is actually Seth who represents the tempest.276 Indeed,
the Seth-animal occurs in recumbent form on the glyph
of a sky with rain (N4) to classify the term Sn a. t i in a
sub-clause that describes ‘the sky as a storm-cloud’
(p. t Sn a. t i). T. Schneider also correctly notes that the
meteorological occurrences are clearly described to
have been greater than the power of the great god as
well as the plans of the gods, which would indicate that
they should not be seen as representative of Amun’s
power.277 T. Schneider proposes that the occurrences
should also not be viewed as a direct result of the
gods’ discontent outlined in vs. 6.278 Although they
are described immediately following mention of this
displeasure, the missing sections at the end of line 6
and beginning of line 7 would have feasibly clarified
the perceived correlation between the tempest and the
gods.279 In fact, what does remain hints at divergence
among the gods, the power and desire of Amun
written in apposition with that of the other deities at
two separate points in the text (vs. 6–7 and vs. 10), and
the tempest seen as a third and distinct manifestation
in both sections. In response, Ahmose first gathers his
council and his magistrates, then travels to Thebes to
evidently confront the image of Amun, appeasing him
for a second time with offerings before taking care of
the flooded territories and resuming his throne. The
ensuing restoration of sacred places can consequently
be regarded as an attempt to please the gods and
complete ideological responsibilities as divine king.
Accordingly, the tempest was the driving catalyst
for this response and therefore possibly represents
a theophany or an omen of impending calamity that
had to be evaded. The most likely agent behind its
manifestation is the deity believed to represent its
elements of rain, darkness, storming clouds and,
specifically, its great noise: the god Seth. In fact,
the combined hieroglyph of the recumbent Seth-
animal over a rainy cloud has also been linked with
the Ugaritic title for Baal, ‘rider of clouds’, while the
storm’s noise has been compared to the ‘thundering
voice’ and theophany of Baal.280 Other Near Eastern
storm deities, such as Adad, could also bring about
such calamities as floods by riding the clouds while
enclosed in storms and roaring with thunder.281
Without further concrete evidence, the direct
association with a Near Eastern storm deity, or one
of his aspects, remains circumstantial. However,
276 T. Schneider 2010a, 405–409.
277 T. Schneider 2010a, 406.
278 T. Schneider 2010a, 406–407.
279 The same section is missing on the recto, line 8. For an
opposing view, see R itner and Moeller 2014b, 8, n. 63.
280 T. Schneider 2010a, 406.
281 T. Schneider 2010a, 406. For an example of a theophany
of Baal manifesting in his voice, see KTU 1.4: V.6–9
and 1.4: VII.29–35 in the Baal Cycle (N. Wyatt 2002,
101, 109). See also Stadelmann 1967, 27; Green 2003,
194–196. For Adad’s description and role in the Old
Babylonian flood myth, see B.R. Foster 1996, 181;
Schwemer 2001, 422; 2007, 151.
134 Chapter 4
it is worthy to note that, according to the theory
of cultural interference, the specific mention of
the Near Eastern storm deity or one with a Near
Eastern-type manifestation may not have been
particularly consumable by the Seventeenth Dynasty
administration, who may have instead opted for a
more favourable, palpable or accessible representation
of the deity via a tempest.282 Accordingly, this could
be a form of resistance by the Upper Egyptians to
fully incorporate aspects of a non-local deity.
Another point highlighted by T. Schneider is that
the tempest ‘would have been seen as a demonstration
of the god’s support for the Hyksos dynasty in the
North’.283 In contrast, the lack of specific reference to
the Hyksos rulers has led Ritner and Moeller to instead
infer that they ‘are certainly irrelevant to the events of
the stela’.284 Yet, irrespective of the historicity of its
cited weather anomalies, the theological connotations
of the stela would not necessitate direct mention of the
northern rulers. Politically, Ahmose was faced with
the task of unifying Egypt throughout most of his reign
and so, ideologically, the gods had to also be united in
support of one ruler. The manifestation of the tempest,
or Seth as assumed here, suggests that this was likely
not yet accomplished. Was the tempest construed in
association with the mythological conflict between
Horus and Seth, with Ahmose’s appeasements to
the gods representing an appeal for divine support
for his kingship? Could this be hinting that Seth was
believed to be opposed to Ahmose’s kingship in favour
of another? If so, is this evidence for Seth’s elevation
as representative of divine kingship by others in
Ahmose’s time, namely the main earthly opposition
to Ahmose’s kingship, the Fifteenth Dynasty? Such
questions also arise from the weather phenomena
noted in the Rhind Mathematical Papyrus: if correct in
its ascription to the Hyksos Dynasty, the phenomena
could have been interpreted by Dynasty 15’s diviners
to represent the celestial response to, or plan for,
political instabilities across Egypt. In a segmented
land undergoing cultural and political developments,
particularly at the horizon of the New Kingdom, such
divine will and support would have surely been sought.
Observing meteorological phenomena, or utilising
them in reference to divine endorsement (or the lack
thereof), may have thus been of high importance
for the unfolding events. The added consequence of
these divine dealings for the ruling elite would also
justify their association with kingship. Accordingly,
Ahmose’s eventual victory in unifying Egypt may
have been considered as the ordained plan of the
gods, including Seth who, as aforementioned, was a
significant figure in the cosmic maintenance of order.
Indeed, the deity’s worship continues into the New
Kingdom, but his possible perceived manifestation as
282 Even-Zohar 2010, 52; Mourad 2019, 236–237.
283 T. Schneider 2010a, 408–409.
284 R itner and Moeller 2014b, 12.
a tempest perhaps initially in support of non-Theban
kingship likely remained in the cultural memory of, at
least, the elite.
4.2.3 The Near Eastern Storm Deity in Egypt:
From the Middle Kingdom to the Second
Intermediate Period
4.2.3.1 Personal names
Seth’s association with the tempest and possible
elevated significance in kingship were likely
emphasised by the late Second Intermediate Period.
As discussed in Chapter 4.2.1, these two aspects
are shared with the Near Eastern storm deity, who
is in fact attested in Egypt from at least the Twelfth
Dynasty. The earliest evidence occurs in personal
names on two unpublished papyri dating to the reign
of Amenemhat III. The first is Papyrus Berlin 10004,
a text that dates to the king’s Year 21 and lists singers
labelled with the ethnonym aAm.285 Among several
with non-Egyptian names, one singer is designated
as Bari, which is most likely related to the Northwest
Semitic baali(ya) ‘my (lord is) baal’ or ‘my lord’.286
The name similarly occurs in Papyrus Berlin 10002,
which also evidently registers 50 singers that were to
perform at the Residence in Year 36.287 This performer
was additionally accorded with the Egyptian name
Senwosret, hinting at his acquisition of Egyptian traits
assigned to him either by an Egyptian institution, or
by his, or his kins’, own volition.288 Although probable
that the two individuals are the one and the same, the
shared name Bari suggests that Levantine individuals
entering and working among Egyptians, particularly
in elite or royal contexts, revered Baal. Given the
ascription of one with an Egyptian name, such
individuals likely remained affiliated with Egypt for
a length of time,289 pointing to one possible means for
the transportation of concepts regarding Near Eastern
deities into Egypt. The transference of their cult and
worship is also probable, but not yet justified by the
available evidence from the Twelfth Dynasty.
Nonetheless, the data from the proceeding period
indicates further points of transfer. Area B at the site
of Tell Hebwa I yielded three fragments of a left door
jamb.290 The inscribed fragments were found scattered
and damaged by fire in an earlier layer of debris from
Building I’s Room C, with the excavator assigning
285 K aplony-Heckel 1971, 3 [4]; Luft 1993, 294.
286 T. Schneider 1992, 87 [N 165]; 2003a, 146; Luft 1993,
294. See also Mourad 2015, 71.
287 K aplony-Heckel 1971, 2 [2]; Luft 1993, 292–296;
T. Schneider 2003a, 26–27, 146.
288 See Mourad 2015, 71, 199–200.
289 If Bari in Papyrus Berlin 10004 and Senwosret Bari in
Papyrus Berlin 10002 are the same individual, then the
texts’ listed regnal dates would indicate that the singer
was performing at the Residence and perhaps other
Egyptian institutions for at least 15 years.
290 Abd el-Maksoud 1998, 271. See also Mourad 2015, 44–45.
 Religious Transformations
them to his Middle Kingdom strata Level 5b.291 They
have been reconstructed into one column of text that
reads: 292
Ht p Di [nsw. t] WAD.yt n b. t Im . t Di=s Ht p.wt DfA.w
ix . t [n b. t n fr. t …t] mw […] nTr.w [A...] n (.y) ir.y -
pa. t HA. ty -a [xt m . ty bi. ty s m r] w a. ty im .y - rA xt m . t
apr-BaAr n=i m r.y WAD.yt […]
An offering which the [king] gives and Wadjet, lady of
Imet, that she may provide [every good] thing [...] the
gods [...] of/to the hereditary prince, count, seal-bearer
of the king of Lower Egypt,293 sole companion,294
overseer of the treasury,295 apr-BaAr,296 to me, beloved
of Wadjet.
The name, apr-BaAr, adheres to the apr-DN pattern,
with DN signifying the Levantine Baal.297 A similar
apr-BaA occurs on two unprovenanced scarabs of the
Middle Kingdom, one of a ir.y x t m . t
apr-BaA ‘keeper of a seal,298 apr-BaA’,299 and the other
for sr apr-BaA ‘nobleman,300 apr-BaA
the younger(?)’. Despite the Semitic origins of this
301
name and the implied worship of Baal, the individuals
are otherwise represented with Egyptian titles of high
officials. The sequence of those listed in the Tell Hebwa
inscription additionally points to a late Middle Kingdom
date.302 Its offering formula as well as the epithet after
apr-BaAr’s name denote the representation of reverence
to the crown goddess of Lower Egypt, Wadjet of Imet,
indicating the assumption of Egyptian cultural and
religious traits, or the representation thereof. Combined
with the inclusion of Baal, this signifies that individuals
of Near Eastern origin had knowledge of at least two
291 A bd el-M aksoud 1998, 39, 271.
292 Lines 1–3. A bd el-M aksoud 1998, 271, pl. 1.
293 W.A. Ward 1982, 104–105 [864], 170 [1472].
294 W.A. Ward 1982, 151 [1299].
295 Quirke (2004, 48–49) notes that the sequence of titles
‘seal-bearer of the king, sole companion and overseer of
the treasury’ was of more ‘national’ significance in the
administration. See W.A. Ward 1982, 171 [1476].
296 See W.A. Ward 1975/1976, 593; T. Schneider 1987, 258;
1992, 66–69; 2003a, 141–142 with references.
297 The first element, ap r, has been correlated with various
terms of Semitic origin such as epēru ‘foster’ (A lbright
1954a, 225), apr ‘dust’ (A lbright 1978, 66; Ryholt 1997,
127, n. 439), or abd ‘servant’ (Rössler 1966, 222–223;
T. Schneider 1987, 258–261; 1992, 66–69 [N 118–126];
2003a, 141–142).
298 W.A. Ward 1982, 66 [539].
299 Petrie 1917a, xvi [12.AS], pl. 15 [12.AS]; G.T. M artin
1971, 30 [319], pl. 10 [14].
300 As W.A. Ward (1982, 153 [1317]) writes, the term is
rarely used as a title and is more commonly a general
designation for a high official.
301 R anke 1935, 60 [16]; G.T. M artin 1971, 30 [320];
K aplony 2016, pl. 3 [53].
302 Quirke 2004, 49.
135
religious sets of beliefs. Theoretically, the adoption of
Egyptian traits could be seen as: (a) an expression of
mixed ethnic origins or culture, thereby implying the
worship of both Egyptian and Near Eastern deities;
or (b) an expression of the decorum at the time for
high officials within the Egyptian administration,
which could imply that the individual’s reverence
to the Egyptian deities need not be entrenched in his
private life. In either case, the reconstructed door jamb
illustrates how worship for both Egyptian and Levantine
deities could be presented together. Its ascription to
the late Middle Kingdom, most likely Dynasty 13, as
well as its retrieval from a site in the Eastern Delta
also implies that such a display of veneration to both
Egyptian deities and Baal had surfaced by this time.
4.2.3.2 Iconography
The worship of a storm god in the Eastern Delta
is further denoted by finds from Tell el-Dab‘a.
One of the most significant was collected from an
Egyptian-style complex in Area F/I, Phase G/1–4 of
the Thirteenth Dynasty.303 The northern wing of the
complex produced a haematite cylinder seal designed
with elements that uniquely express a particular belief
system, if not a specific myth, originating in the Levant
(Fig. 4.9).304 These include a striding figure wearing a
horned helmet(?) with a long streamer extending from
the head. Each foot is atop a mound or mountain, his
torso slightly bent forwards with one arm raised above
the head, its hand grasping an axe(?), and the other
hand holding the shaft of a mace. The positioning
of the torso follows Egyptian renditions,305 but the
placement of the feet upon mounds, the choice of
weapons in both hands, the horns(?) and the streamer
at the head all find close parallels in the iconography
of the Near Eastern storm deity (see Fig. 4.2).306
Behind the figure is also a bull with its head forwards
as if poised to attack, the guilloche beneath it likely
representing fertility and/or water.307 Under the
guilloche is a simplified bird 308 above a lion whose paw
303 Eigner 1985, 19–25. See Chapter 3.2.1.1.3.
304 Porada 1984, 485; Bietak 1996a, 26–29, fig. 25; 2005a, fig. 4.
305 Porada 1984, 486.
306 See Vanel 1965, 35–39, 73–84, figs. 12, 17, 30–31, 34–
36; Schaeffer-Forrer 1983, 25, 69–70, pls. 1 [3], 6 [1],
12 [18], 13 [15]; Porada 1984, pl. 65 [2]; Teissier 1984,
242–243 [475–477], 244–245 [480–481, 483]; Dijkstra
1991, 127–140, pls. 1–3; A miet 1992, 34, 37, 73, 81,
figs. 45, 158; Cornelius 1994, 172, pl. 45 [BM5]; Green
2003, 154–165, figs. 18, 23–28.
307 Otto 2016.
308 Porada (1984, 487, n. 9) and Bietak (1990, 15) suggest
that the bird may be a composite mythological creature
of a bird and fish. The lack of wings can perhaps also be
associated with the Story of Aqhat and its description
of how Baal was invoked to tear the wings of falcons,
including those of their Queen, Sumul, after she devoured
the body of Aqhat (KTU 1.19: III.1–35; N. Wyatt 2002,
304–305).
136
Fig. 4.9 Depiction of haematite cylinder seal
TD 2995. Northern wing of complex, Area F/I,
Stratum d/1–c (Phase G/1–4), Tell el-Dab‘a.
After Bietak 1990, fig. 5
extends towards a sinuous serpent extended above a
dais or platform.309 In front of this serpent is the outline
of a sailboat, within which are depicted the heads of
two men, and below which are the angled strokes of
two oars. Above this is the preserved edge of a wing,
perhaps of a sun disc or bird. Underneath it and in front
of the striding figure is an animal with head pointed
down towards the boat.310
The seal’s elements distinctly point to Near Eastern
iconographic traditions. The lion and bull are both
frequently portrayed with the Near Eastern storm
deity, whose enemy is similarly a winding serpent
(see Fig. 4.2).311 The two can also be mythically
construed in relation with the storm god, described
in association with the bull or a king (the bull and
lion), who must strike a sea creature, typically a
serpent, that threatens his rule (the dais?).312 Porada
and Bietak specifically identify the deity with the
Ugaritic Baal Sapan and the snake as Yamm, adding
that the sailboat represents Baal Sapan’s protection
of seafarers.313 Marcus and Brody link the snake and
lion with Asherah, patron goddess of mariners.314 The
inclusion of the sailboat indeed implies a connection
with seafaring, suggesting that the illustrated storm
deity should likely be identified with a god, such as
Baal, who was revered as patron of seafaring by a
maritime population.315 Consequently, the scene could
have been purposed as a ritualistic invocation to
provide safe passage for mariners. Its elements further
309 For the correlation of the platform with a dais or throne,
see Porada 1984, 487, n. 8.
310 Porada (1984, 485) proposes that the animal could be a goat.
311 See KTU 1.3: III.36–47, 1.5: I.1–3; Lafont 1993, 41–61;
Schwemer 2001, 213–216, 223–226, 232–234; 2007, 154–
155; 2008, 24–25, 36; N. Wyatt 2002, 79–80, 115; Green
2003, 161–164.
312 See Mourad 2015, 27–28.
313 Porada 1984, 487, n. 10; Bietak 1996a, 26–29.
314 Brody 1998, 29–30; M arcus 2006, 188.
315 For Baal’s role as patron of seafaring, see Brody 1998,
10–26; Schwemer 2008, 13.
Chapter 4
Fig. 4.10 Cylinder seal impression TD 7669.
Area A/IV, Tell el-Dab‘a.
After Hein 2006, fig. 3
point to its composition by one likely knowledgeable
in both Egyptian and Levantine artistic traditions,
as well as the iconography of the storm deity and his
associated myth.316 If Porada is correct in allocating
the seal’s manufacture to a local workshop,317 then it
provides further proof for the familiarity of the storm
god in the Delta during the Thirteenth Dynasty.
Its context additionally supports aforementioned
material linking Baal with high officials in Egypt, and
suggests that the high status occupants of Area F/I’s
complex were seemingly in contact with seafarers
and worshippers of a Near Eastern storm god. The
inference that the cylinder seal alone indicates the
establishment of a cult of Baal at Tell el-Dab‘a,
however, remains tentative,318 and requires further
evidence.
Such evidence includes a cylinder seal impression
from Area A/IV (TD 7669) (Fig. 4.10). Although
uncovered in a later context (A/IV-j/6), the impression’s
elements suggest a MBIIA–B date with similarities
with Old Syrian seals.319 Set upon a strip of clay utilised
for administrative purposes, it depicts four to five
robed figures facing left. One additional figure faces
right and, albeit damaged, clearly wears a headdress
with two short protrusions at the top (horns or spikes?),
and a longer strip down the back, his raised right arm
holding a mace or axe. The preserved end of a long thin
object is likely grasped in the left hand. The figure’s
posture, positioning, and features highly suggest that
he portrays the Levantine storm god.
316 Even if, as Ryholt (1997, 150, n. 545) suggests, the seal
design was ‘brought by one of the Canaanite immigrants’
or ‘copied from a Canaanite original’, its design points
to knowledge in the iconography of the storm god and
his associated elements, and very feasibly the symbolism
garnered by these elements.
317 Porada 1984, 488.
318 Bietak 1996a, 28–29. See also Ryholt 1997, 150, n. 545.
319 Hein 2006, fig. 3; Collon 2006, 99–101, fig. 2; Mourad
2015, 39, fig. 4.14.
 Religious Transformations
(a)
(c)
(b)
Fig. 4.11 Scarab seals showing a smiting figure from
Tell el-Dab‘a. Mlinar 2004, figs. 4 [5], 5[3], 8[9].
(a) TD 110, Tomb F/I-o/20-Nr. 2, Stratum c
(Phase G/1–3); (b) TD 1077, surface find; (c) TD 1036,
surface find
A further scarab seal with iconography of Near
Eastern inspiration was collected from another tomb
associated with the complex (Fig. 4.11a). Unearthed
in Phase G/1–3’s Tomb F/1-o/20-Nr. 2, the scarab,
TD 110, has been assigned to the Tell el-Dab‘a
workshop of the late Middle Kingdom (Mlinar’s
Type IIa).320 The base is designed with a striding
figure, his right hand carrying a mace raised above
the head, and the left hand grasping the head of a
seated caprid. Two branches and a fish also occupy
the base. Mlinar notes that the posture of the figure,
along with the branches, parallel Old Syrian cylinder
seals portraying the Near Eastern storm god.321
Similar iconography is depicted on another scarab
collected from the surface at the site (Fig. 4.11b).322
Based on its design, Mlinar ascribes it to her Type IIIb
of the late Middle Kingdom (TD 1077).323 The scarab
bears a figure in the same smiting stance as that in
TD 110, with a fish also behind him. Between his legs,
however, is a triangular motif, perhaps symbolising
the mound commonly associated with the smiting
320 D. Ben-Tor’s Design Class 10A. Mlinar 2001, 194–195;
vol. 2, 122–126; 2004, 118–119, fig. 6a [7, 9]; Bietak
2005a, fig. 5 [e]; D. Ben-Tor 2007a, 98–100. See Chapter
5.4.6.2.
321 Mlinar 2004, 118–119.
322 D. Ben-Tor’s Design Class 10A. Mlinar 2001, 194–195;
vol. 2: 628; 2004, 122, fig. 8 [9]; Bietak 2005a, fig. 5 [d];
D. Ben-Tor 2007a, 98–100.
323 Mlinar 2001, 194–195; vol. 2: 628; 2004, 122. See
Chapter 5.4.6.2.
137
Fig. 4.12 Scarab seals and an amulet showing a
smiting figure alongside marsh elements.
After K eel 1995a, figs. 492–493; 1996b, pls. 4 [17a],
5 [20–21]; Vink 2016, fig. 9
storm deity.324 This mound is additionally portrayed
on an unprovenanced scarab that has been assigned to
Mlinar’s Type III (Fig. 4.12).325 Interestingly, the smiting
figure on this seal wears a red crown, an element that
indeed occurs on a third scarab from Tell el-Dab‘a with
a smiting figure (TD 1036) (Fig. 4.11c).326 Also a surface
find, the latter shows the figure between two fish, his
right hand upraised and grasping a mace and the other
holding a branch, perhaps mimicking lightning.327
This choice of weapons finds exact parallels in images
of storm deities on Old Syrian cylinder seals (see
Fig. 4.2),328 as well as the later LBA stela from Ugarit
(see Fig. 4.1).329 The red crown and Sn d .y t-kilt worn by
the figure, however, are of Egyptian origin.
324 The mound may have been rendered between the feet,
rather than beneath them, because of space restraints and/
or to keep the image of the smiting figure as the main
subject of focus in the scarab design. For more on the
mountain and the storm god, see Dijkstra 1991, 127–140,
pls. 1–3.
325 D. Ben-Tor’s Design Class 10A. K eel 1996b, pl. 5 [21];
Bietak 2005a, fig. 5 [c]; D. Ben-Tor 2007a, 99, pl. 41 [2].
326 D. Ben-Tor’s Design Class 10A. Mlinar 2001, 194–195;
vol. 2, 574–575; 2004, 116, fig. 5 [3]; Bietak 2005a, fig. 5
[f]; D. Ben-Tor 2007a, 99.
327 The exact design is inscribed on the base of a scarab
currently in the Biblical Institute of the University of
Fribourg, Switzerland. K eel 1996b, fig. 25 [a]; Mlinar
2004, 116, n. 53; Bietak 2005a, fig. 5 [g].
328 See, for instance, Porada 1948, 129 [967]; Teissier 1984,
242–243 [477], 244–245 [480–481, 483]; 1996, 58 [42];
K eel 1989b, 263, 265, fig. 67.
329 Cornelius 1994, 135–137, pl. 32 [BR1]; Schwemer 2001,
227, n. 1575; 2008, 36, n. 91; Green 2003, 165, fig. 28a–b.
138 Chapter 4
Keel suggests that the red crown points to the
design’s representation of the king of Lower Egypt
maintaining order in the Delta, the associated branch
thereby also correlating with the Delta marshlands.330
As further evidence, he refers to other late Middle
Kingdom scarabs bearing Egyptian(-inspired) motifs
of a figure often standing on a papyrus skiff in a
smiting stance while harpooning a hippopotamus,
striking a caprid, or grasping a lotus(?) (Fig. 4.12).331
An amulet from Tell Basta additionally shows a
scene of Amenemhat III harpooning a hippopotamus
on both sides, the king wearing either a red or white
crown on each (Fig. 4.12).332 Indeed, hippopotamus
hunting may be related to the conflict of Horus and
Seth, as the animal is believed to represent the latter.
If so, then the absence of this particular motif in the
locally produced scarabs at Tell el-Dab‘a could be of
significance, as could its apparent replacement with
fish, and caprids.
Another seal design that can be added to the corpora
of those of a smiting king is preserved on a sealing
recovered from the Eighteenth Dynasty Stratum c
(Phase C/2) of a workshop in Area H/VI (Fig. 4.13).333
The fragmentary sealing depicts a king with his torso
slightly bent forwards. Carrying a mace in his upraised
left hand, he wears a wig with an uraeus, a collar with
crossed bands at the chest, and a striped kilt. Before
his face is the cartouche for N.y -MAa(. t) -Ra.w, the
prenomen of either Amenemhat III or Khendjer,
which would assign the sealing a late Middle Kingdom
date.334 Behind him are incomplete signs that could
either be translated as sA HA(i= f ) ‘protection is behind
(him)’,335 or as added flora perhaps for a marshland
background. Bietak associates the king’s posture
with that of Baal on the abovementioned haematite
cylinder seal, and suggests that the missing foe could
be a caprid.336 Indeed, the figure’s role as warrior or
hunter is exemplified by the crossed bands at his chest
as well as his raised mace,337 which do not occur in
the attested scarabs depicting hippopotamus hunting.
Whether or not the features originally displayed closer
affinities to TD 110 of the Tell el-Dab‘a workshop, or
other late Middle Kingdom scarab designs remains
uncertain, especially as the king’s posture is similar to
those shown on scarabs with the hippopotamus hunt.
Nevertheless, the observed differences and
similarities among these seals are worthy of note.
Those not from Tell el-Dab‘a likely represented
330 K eel 1996b, 125–127.
331 One of these scarabs also shows the figure wearing the
red crown. K eel 1996b, 125–127, 130, pls. 4 [16–17], 5
[20], 6 [37–38]. See also K eel 1993, 64–68, figs. 1 [a–c],
4; D. Ben-Tor 2007a, 100, pl. 20 [7–13].
332 Vink 2016, 268, fig. 9.
333 TD 8995. Bietak 2004, 49–52, fig. 11; 2005a, 201, fig. 3;
Zeger 2009, 39–40, 91.
334 Bietak 2004, 49; 2005a, 202.
335 Bietak 2004, 49; 2005a, 201–202.
336 Bietak 2004, 49–52; 2005a, 202.
337 Bietak 2005a, 203.
the maintenance of order, possibly via the defeat of
Sethian aspects, while those assigned to the Tell el-
Dab‘a workshop evidently select features of Egyptian
inspiration that are related to kingship or power, such
as the red crown. The latter also bear figures whose
posture, weapons and other associated elements
could be connected to the Near Eastern storm deity.
Perhaps, the hybrid combination of both Egyptian
and Levantine artistic characteristics could indicate
that the meanings conveyed by these aspects also
influenced or merged with one another. In other
words, the scarabs, seals and sealings ascribed to the
late Middle Kingdom workshop at Tell el-Dab‘a point
to knowledge in two artistic traditions and so also hint
at knowledge in the imbued symbolism of elements
connected to Egyptian kingship and perhaps the
conflict of Horus and Seth on the one hand, and those
associated with the Near Eastern storm deity on the
other. Consequently, the scarab designs may provide
evidence for the developing correlations between
the Near Eastern storm deity, kingship in the Delta,
and perhaps even Seth. The discovery of TD 110 in
one of the tombs near the palatial compound further
supports that such correlations involved not only the
artists producing the designs, but also those utilising
the scarabs, namely the elite at Tell el-Dab‘a.
4.2.3.3 Cultic spaces, equid burials, and rituals
Despite the examined iconographic evidence from Tell
el-Dab‘a, direct data for a Second Intermediate Period
cult of a Near Eastern storm deity remains absent.
The worship of foreign deities is, however, implied
by the architectural designs of some temples of A/II’s
sacred precinct (see Fig. 3.12). Temple III, for instance,
was constructed in the early Fourteenth Dynasty
(Stratum F) following a broad-room design with a
rectangular niche in its shrine and two procellas.338
Such elements find close parallels to those in temples
of the MBA Northern Levant.339 In the next phase,
Stratum E/3 of the Fourteenth Dynasty, Temple II
was built with a bent axis, also paralleling temples of
the Levant.340 Despite the lack of direct evidence for
the identity of the deities worshipped in these Near
Eastern-type temples, archaeological remains of
ritualistic activities in their shared forecourt can shed
some light.
Assigned to Stratum G or F, or the period dating just
before or at the time of Temple III’s construction, is
Pit A/II-l/14-Nr. 11, a deposition that contained the
skeletal remains of two whole donkeys.341 This type
338 Bietak 1991b, 39; 2009c; 2016c; 2021b.
339 For examples of temples of the late MBA and LBA with
similar architectural features, see Busink 1970; Werner
1994; Warner 2008, 232; Bietak 2009c; 2016c; 2019b;
2021b; K amlah 2012.
340 Bietak 2016c; 2019b; 2021b.
341 Van den Brink 1982, 47; Boessneck and von den Driesch
1992, 13; Bietak 1996a, 36–40, pl. 15 [a]; V. Müller
2002, 271; 2008, 291.
 Religious Transformations
of burial is attested earlier at the site, in a late Twelfth
to early Thirteenth Dynasty pit that contained four
caprids and two donkeys associated with the cemetery
of F/I (Phase H–G/4, Pit F/I-o/19-Nr. 3).342 It was also
uncovered in Pit A/II-n/18-Nr. 1 at the forecourt of the
Egyptian-style Temple V in A/II, which was assigned
to the period of the rebuilding of the temple, or the
early Fifteenth Dynasty’s Stratum E/1.343 The forecourt
of a much denuded Egyptian-style tripartite temple
in Area F/I additionally yielded a pit with donkey
remains dating to the mid-Fifteenth Dynasty Phase
D/3.344 Similarly, the eastern pylon of the temple at
R/I featured a sacrificial pit dating to the late Fifteenth
or early Eighteenth Dynasty (R/I-j/61), around a
hundred years after the temple was dismantled, with
the remains of ceramic vessels, four caprids, and
two donkeys.345 These depositions add to the many
tombs at Tell el-Dab‘a and at other areas in the Delta
that contained related equid burials dating from the
late Twelfth Dynasty to the Second Intermediate
Period.346 Combined, the contexts of these donkey
depositions point to their funerary significance, their
cultic importance, and perhaps their relation to temple
foundation ceremonies. Worthy of note is that they
were found near temples that follow architectural
traditions of both the Near East (mid-Thirteenth
Dynasty Temple III, and late Thirteenth Dynasty
Temple II) and Egypt (early Fifteenth Dynasty Temple
V and the mid-Fifteenth Dynasty temple at F/I).
The lack of exact contemporary parallels in Egypt
beyond the Delta indicates that the origins of equid
burials likely stem from elsewhere.347 Indeed, the
342 V. Müller 2002, 271, n. 9; 2008, 291.
343 Van den Brink 1982, 47; V. Müller 2002, 271–275.
344 Bietak 1996a, 40, pl. 15 [b]; V. Müller 2002, 275, fig. 4;
2008, 234.
345 Bietak and Dorner 1998b, 12, pl. 11; V. Müller 2002,
271; 2008, 279, n. 524; von den Driesch 2015, 451.
346 For tombs at Tell el-Dab‘a, see van den Brink 1982, 46–51;
Bietak 1991b, 41; 1996a, 25, figs. 20–21, pls. 9 [b], 10; Schiestl
2002, 330–331; 2008, 341; Forstner-Müller 2008, 177–184.
Donkey burials related to tombs have also been found at
such Delta sites as Tell el-Maskhuta and Tell el-Yahudiyah:
Holladay 1982, 46–47; MacDonald 1980, 57; Ashmawy Ali
2010, 34, 38; 2019. For an overview, see Prell 2019a.
347 Nevertheless, donkeys were important creatures in
ancient Egypt. Non-contemporaneous equid burials,
likely of donkeys, have been found in Egypt, near royal
enclosures at Abydos (Early Dynastic Period; Rossel et
al. 2008; Mitchell 2018, 41–44, fig. 3.3); Abusir (Early
Dynastic Period; Boessneck, von den Driesch and Eissa
1992); Tarkhan (Early Dynastic Period; Petrie 1914, 6,
pls. 18–19); Helwan (Early Dynastic Period; Saad 1951,
37–38, pl. 47; 1969, 69, 80, pl. 120; Way 2010, 221); and
perhaps Hierakonpolis (Van Neer, Linseele and Friedman
2004, 73, 88–92; R. Friedman 2009). For more on the
donkey’s significance in ancient Egyptian religious beliefs
and customs, and their association with Seth (among
other deities), see Vandenbeusch 2020. For archaeological
evidence pertaining to horse burials, see Chapter 5.2.2.2.
139
0 1 cm
Fig. 4.13 Cylinder seal impression TD 8995.
Workshop, Area H/VI, Stratum c (Phase C/2),
Tell el-Dab‘a. After Bietak 2004, fig. 11
ritualistic deposition of equids in temple forecourts
is attested at such sites as Tell Brak, Umm el-Marra
and Tell Haror, with several others across the Near
East also featuring equid burials of funerary, cultic,
or uncertain context.348 Moreover, MBA texts from
Mari,349 Tell el-Rimah 350 and Tell Leilan 351 refer to
the slaughter of donkeys for treaty ratification, which
was performed as part of a ritual that often took place
at the temples of Sin of Harran, Dagan and Addu.352
The Mari letters of Ašqudum mention the ‘donkey of
Addu’ which was offered upon the safe arrival of men
to Aleppo;353 other texts refer to donkey sacrifices
348 See Petrie 1932, 40; Stiebing 1971, 115; van den Brink
1982, 74–83; Zurins 1986; Finet 1993; Wapnish 1997;
Wygnańska 2008; Silver 2014; Prell 2019a. The
foundation deposits of the MBA Temple of Obelisks at
Byblos yielded bronze figurines of animals with slightly
angled straight ears. Although one is identified by Montet
as a possible antelope, the shape of the figurines is more
akin to that of equids. If correct, then these figurines
could also represent the ritualistic deposition of equids
in a ritualistic context. Montet 1928, 93 [194–195, 201],
pl. 53 [194–195, 201].
349 See, for instance, ARM II 37.12; ARM XXVI/1 24.10–
12. Jean 1950, 82–83; Finet 1993; Lafont 2001, 263–266;
N. Weeks 2004, 118–119.
350 OBT Tell el-Rimah 1.11, as cited in Wygnańska 2008,
611, n. 14.
351 Letters 56 and 89. Eidem 2011, 124–125, 159–161, 311–317.
352 Dossin 1938, 108; 1939, 986; Mendenhall 1954; Finet
1993; Lafont 2000; 2001, 263–271; N. Weeks 2004, 119;
Silver 2014, 342. See also Charpin 1990; 1994; Fleming
2000, 172. For more on the sacrifice of donkeys, horses,
and camels in the Near East, see Dirbas 2014.
353 ARM XXVI 19.5–6, 20.7. Heimpel 2003, 187.
140 Chapter 4
performed in honour of Addu and Ishtar;354 and some
from LBA Ugarit note their sacrificial offering on
special occasions in honour of such deities as Baal and
El.355 Donkeys in the Near East are also associated with
socio-economic status, and are typically represented
as ridden by elite or royal individuals, as well as by
such deities as Athirat, and Adad, who mounts the
storms as donkeys.356 Therefore, the evidence from
the Near East points to the donkey’s association with
the elite, with travel, and with travellers, its sacrifice
at temples connected to diplomatic and commercial
treaties and oaths that were evidently ratified before
important figures, including the storm god.
Such correlations with Near Eastern traditions
have led to a variety of interpretations. Bietak, for
instance, suggests that the donkey offering pits at Tell
el-Dab‘a were remnants of rituals associated with the
conclusion of treaty negotiations, their placement in
funerary contexts representing the tomb owners’ roles
in expeditions.357 P.J. Turner and Maeir, on the other
hand, posit a connection to Seth due to his association
with this animal,358 with Maeir proposing that the
donkey burials of the temple forecourts relate to
the ritual destruction of chaotic forces embodied by
Seth.359 Most evidence for this apotropaic practice,
however, dates to the Third Intermediate and Late
Periods, when the cult of Seth seems to have reduced
importance in some regions,360 and when the deity
was typically portrayed with features of a donkey,361
his body, in some cases, shown bound or pierced with
knives.362 Earlier evidence is meagre but includes a mud
sealing from a First Dynasty tomb at Helwan depicting
animals akin to the Seth creature, three of which
are ridden like donkeys,363 the abovementioned Old
Kingdom deposit at Saqqara, Coffin Text references
to the braying donkey, as well as the Ramesseum
Dramatic Papyrus’s correlation of Seth’s followers
with donkeys trampling grain Osiris.364 Perhaps
354 Ristvet writes that the sacrifice of a donkey also occurred
as part of the kispum rituals performed during Mari’s
‘Feast of the Land’ or Feast of Ishtar that ‘created blood
obligations and established a larger community of the
living and the dead’. R istvet 2015, 92, 122.
355 KTU 1.40: R.25–V.42, 1.119: R.15. Van den Brink 1982,
77; Bietak 1996a, 40; N. Wyatt 2002, 345–347, n. 17;
Way 2011, 41–48, 75–82.
356 CT 15, 15–16. M agen 2001; Lafont 2001, 268; Green
2003, 54. For Athirat on a donkey, see KTU 1.4: IV.1–15;
N. Wyatt 2002, 98. See also Silver 2014.
357 Bietak 1996a, 40.
358 M aeir 1989, 64; P.J. Turner 2013.
359 M aeir 1989, 64.
360 See Te Velde 1967, 138–151; Schorsch and Wypyski
2009, 184–185; Vandenbeusch 2020.
361 See, for instance, Cruz-Uribe 2009, figs. 20–22, 24–25, 28.
362 See, for instance, Cruz-Uribe 2009, fig. 25. See also
Frankfurter 1998, 112–115.
363 Mitchell 2018, 52–53, fig. 3.10.
364 For more, see Vandenbeusch 2020, 207–220.
further related to a ritual associated with Seth is the
discovery of a harpoon within the filling of Temple II’s
cult podium (Stratum E/3), likely as a votive deposit.365
Another was found beneath a door threshold of a Phase
G building in Area A/II.366
As the worship of Seth in Lower Egypt from at
least the late Twelfth Dynasty is herein supported,
knowledge of Seth and the animals related to his
worship could have also been borne by the elite,
religious personnel and/or other inhabitants of
the region. If the equid burials near Tell el-Dab‘a’s
temples were thus somehow connected to the worship
of Seth, then one should also assume that other
animals in the deposits, such as the caprids, were
related to the deity. The Old Kingdom ritual deposit,
however, did not include a caprid, and little exists to
prove that this animal was connected to Seth before
the Middle Kingdom. The specific absence of pig
remains before the Near Eastern-type temples, in
contrast to their presence in the Old Kingdom deposit
as well as before the Egyptian-type temples,367 also
suggests that the donkeys were more likely associated
with the Near Eastern characteristics of the temple
and its cult, rather than Egyptian traditions.
Nevertheless, the postulated Near Eastern origins of
the ritualistic donkey depositions do not restrict the
possibility of their transferred association with Seth.
This translation is, in fact, feasible considering the
mixed Egyptian and Near Eastern cultural elements
at Tell el-Dab‘a, the possible shared cultic space in
A/II’s sacred precinct, knowledge of rituals, animals
and other elements connected to Seth, and the
aforementioned knowledge of the storm deity at the
site, the evidence for which is contemporary to the
ritual deposits.
Although highly tentative, two threads of
commonality can perhaps be proposed between the
donkey, Seth, and the storm deity. The first can be
found in the actual sacrifice of an equid. If W.A. Ward
is correct in identifying a connection between the
noise of a braying ass and Seth, then perhaps those
acquainted with the worship of Seth associated the
deity with the cries of the equids during their sacrifice.
The second is in the postulated association between the
ritual and travellers. The sacrifice of donkeys at Mari
seems to be linked with the safe passage of travellers,
so perhaps this was correlated with Seth’s role in
guaranteeing security across the hazardous terrain
of the hereafter. For both suggestions, the sacred
precincts at Tell el-Dab‘a could have acted as a type of
Middle Ground or a third space of encounters in both
the physical sense where two or more cultures were
influencing cultic rituals in the same space or region,
and in an abstract sense where cultural and religious
365 TD 2506. Philip 2006, 121, fig. 55 [5].
366 TD 2688. Philip 2006, 121, fig. 55 [6].
367 Boessneck and von den Driesch 1992, 10–11, 21;
V. Müller 2002, 280.
 Religious Transformations
interaction and perhaps negotiations were experienced
by the rituals’ officiants and the worshippers of the
temples’ deities. This approach also posits that the
result of such interaction would include a conceptual
assimilation of knowledge, its adaptation, and/or the
creation of conventions visible in evidence from the
proceeding phases at the site and others in Egypt.
The examined data thus far agrees with these posited
outcomes.
4.2.3.4 Baal-Seth or Seth-Baal: The syncretisation of
Seth?
Seth was revered as a deity related to kingship from
at least the Early Dynastic Period, his apposition to
Horus also emerging at this time, with the significance
of their conflict persisting throughout the examined
period. His association with weather disturbances,
foreign entities, and possibly chaotic forces is attested
from the Old Kingdom, with the Seth-animal linked
with illnesses during the First Intermediate Period.
In the Middle Kingdom, the Seth classifier is further
connected with loud noise, perhaps of donkeys and
serpents, while the deity’s apotropaic function also
surfaces in funerary contexts, as well as in textual
and artistic representations for ‘magical’ protection
and perhaps good health. While evidence for the
cult of Seth at Nb. t arises from the Early Dynastic
Period, his worship in Lower Egypt at such sites as
Tell Basta, Tell Hebwa and Heliopolis is attested from
the late Twelfth Dynasty, with the epithet ‘Seth, lord
of Avaris’ perhaps emerging soon after. Also of the
Middle Kingdom is a cylinder seal impression from
Alalakh that associates the Seth-animal with a foreign
region in an epithet reconstructed as ‘lord of Rb n w n’,
and scarab seals portraying the hippopotamus hunt,
which is perhaps linked to the conflict of Horus and
Seth. The latter share similarities with seals from Tell
el-Dab‘a that also bear aspects of the Near Eastern
storm deity, with those on one cylinder seal from the
site arguably depicting a storm deity of seafaring or
seafarers, such as Baal. The foreign god’s presence in
Egypt is otherwise observed in the personal names of
Twelfth Dynasty singers and late Middle Kingdom
high officials of the Egyptian administration,
one of which is attested at Tell Hebwa. At Tell el-
Dab‘a, his cultic worship can only be gleaned from
circumstantial evidence, namely mid-Thirteenth to
Fifteenth Dynasty ritualistic equid burials that may
have some connection to Addu and his role in oath-
taking, and which were found in the forecourts of Near
Eastern- and Egyptian-type temples. Nevertheless, in
the Second Intermediate Period, the epithet of Seth as
‘lord of Avaris’ is verified by inscriptions for Nehsy
and Apophis, while a scarab seal from Sidon identifies
the Seth-animal as ‘lord of IAy’. Towards the end of
the Second Intermediate Period, Seth and possibly
his manifestations as destructive weather phenomena
are recorded in the Rhind Mathematical Papyrus and
the Tempest Stela. In the former, the disturbances are
141
written in the same context as a breach of Hyksos-
controlled areas, perhaps as omens of war; in the
latter, they were possibly construed as a theophany
that spurred Ahmose to seek divine endorsement.
Overall, the characteristics of Seth as a god
of rulers and of weather disturbances became
increasingly associated with Near Eastern regions
and cultural traditions from the late Middle Kingdom
onwards. The contemporaneous presence of the Near
Eastern storm deity in Egypt supports the existence
of different religious, cultic and mythical traditions,
particularly in shared cultic spaces and elite or royal
contexts, at Tell el-Dab‘a, el-Lahun, and Tell Hebwa I.
Assuming Nehsy’s statue at Tell el-Muqdam was
originally set up by a Twelfth Dynasty king, Seth,
as ‘lord of Avaris’ was perhaps venerated at the site
from the Twelfth Dynasty, although the evidence for
this remains ambiguous. At around the same time or
slightly after, the Seth-animal was used in a similar
epithet for MBA scarabs and seals of Levantine
origin, supporting the bilingualism of scribes and
artists, or their knowledge of distinct cultural systems
that were combined to associate the Seth-animal with
lordship over a Levantine area. This knowledge, or
its assimilated conceptual outcome, was seemingly
mirrored at Tell el-Dab‘a shortly thereafter, leading
to local productions of seals that fused Near Eastern
iconography related to the storm deity with Egyptian
iconography of kingship and power possibly related
to the conflict of Horus and Seth. Also dating to this
time are tombs and Near Eastern-type temples with
associated donkey depositions that may be connected
to, among other possibilities, rituals of oath-taking
and treaty negotiation, two aspects also of import
for the Near Eastern storm deity and his worship.
Although conjectural, these rituals may have been
further correlated with Seth through the braying
noises of the donkey and his role in guaranteeing
safe passage over dangerous terrain, whether for
transregional activities or those crossing to an
afterlife. The Seth-animal’s connection to lordship
continues in the Second Intermediate Period as
well as the concurrent MBIIB Levant. Towards the
end of this period, the belief in Seth’s perceived
support of non-Theban and likely Hyksos kingship
may have surfaced in both the Hyksos and Theban
areas of rule. Significantly, the latter may have been
represented through Seth’s manifestation of weather
phenomena, which indeed provides yet another
shared commonality with the Near Eastern storm
deity. This commonality is further accentuated by
its possible interpretation as an omen of Seth or his
theophany, which were likewise observed by Near
Eastern worshippers of the storm god.
Overall, the evidence highlights a dynamic and
cyclical transfer of knowledge in the iconographic and
textual expression of power and divinity. The sources
of inspiration were both Egyptian and Near Eastern,
but the path of transfer was evidently shifting and
142 Chapter 4
circulating among different entities in both Egypt
and the Levant. They were apparently related to
developing historical situations, from the late Twelfth
Dynasty’s increased links with the Levant which led
to individuals knowledgeable in both Egyptian and
Levantine language and traditions, to the growing
independence of the Delta and its heightened
emphasis on elements of Near Eastern origin or
insipiration around the mid-Thirteenth Dynasty, and
then with the ongoing conflicts towards the end of the
Second Intermediate Period in Egypt and the possible
search for divine support or insight. The process was
therefore transcultural, involving the transfer of
intangible and tangible elements. Based on available
evidence, it was largely motivated by an elite or royal
class. Its outcomes may have surfaced already by
the late Second Intermediate Period with the altered
conceptualisation of the Egyptian storm deity,
whose relation to kingship or lordship, particularly
over the Delta and Levantine regions, was evidently
accentuated before the Eighteenth Dynasty.
The question remains as to why this aspect of Seth
was accentuated. Many have already commented that
Seth and Baal had been identified as one and the same
by the Hyksos rulers, a type of syncretism that was
facilitated by Seth’s obvious relation to the storm and
tempest. Others have remarked that Seth was chosen
by the Hyksos rulers as their representative due to
his association with foreign elements. Some have
additionally argued that a syncretism emerged only
after the Fifteenth Dynasty, either in the Eighteenth
Dynasty to link the dynasty’s rulers to the chaotic
foreign forces of Seth, or in the Nineteenth Dynasty
to emphasise connections to cults of Seth and non-
Theban rulership in the Delta. The data examined
here, however, suggests that the process of mergence
or syncretisation of a Near Eastern storm deity
with Seth had initiated before the Hyksos Period.
It was traced in evidence associated with: (1) an
elite or royal social class, (2) kingship or lordship,
(3) weather phenomena, (4) ties with seafaring
activities, and/or (5) possible links with oath-taking
and treaty ramification. By the end of the Hyksos
Dynasty, the evidence also indicates possible
links with (6) divination and theophany, perhaps
in connection to warfare. Seth’s manifestation
of elements connected with Aspects (1–3) can be
considered already entrenched in the Egyptian
culture by the Middle Kingdom, while all are attested
for Near Eastern storm deities prior to the MBA. As
such, while certainly influential, the presence of cults
of Seth in the Delta and his association with weather
phenomena and foreign forces were not the only points
of commonality that supported the creation of links
between the Near Eastern storm deity and Seth. His
oft-neglected ties to kingship, and the conflicts related
to securing it, are also of significance. As interpreted
in the Ugaritic Baal Cycle, legitimate kingship need
not only be based on kinship relations, and could oft
entail conflict, whether political or otherwise; the
Near Eastern storm deity attained kingship, and was
not initially and necessarily bestowed with it. In the
process of becoming independent kings, the rulers
of Tell el-Dab‘a might have utilised this concept to
legitimise their reign.
Furthermore, following the theory of syncretism,
as Tell el-Dab‘a became an independent city with
a heterogeneous population of various origin and
likely mixed cultural affinities, this ruling class
may have searched for ways to promote inter- and
intracultural relations, or contacts with those that
practiced Egyptian customs both within and beyond
Tell el-Dab‘a, as well as those that practiced Near
Eastern traditions. Their commercial activities with
the Levant and their initiatives to further trade would
have also theoretically necessitated the negotiation
of common ground. The formation of treaties and
commercial agreements in the Near Eastern world
necessitated oath-taking and divination, the storm
deity herein of significance. Shared rituals or the
bringing of offerings by traders to local cults are also
attested elsewhere in the MBA world. The transfer of
such practices to Tell el-Dab‘a could have therefore
been mediated by its increasingly independent ruling
class and elite. Via the promotion of textual, artistic,
and conceptual fusions of an Egyptian deity with
characteristics of a Near Eastern god, the rulers could
have fostered engagements in a wider commercial
and cultural network. In other words, the negotiation
would have allowed Near Eastern concepts regarding
the storm deity’s importance in kingship, divination,
warfare, and treaty ratification to be accessible to an
Egyptian populace and vice versa. To further explore
the continued impact of these concepts on Egyptian
society and history, evidence from the New Kingdom
must be explored.
4.2.4 The Egyptian Storm Deity in the Eighteenth
Dynasty
Eighteenth Dynasty evidence for the worship of either
Seth or a Near Eastern storm deity is meagre. Although
this has been linked to Seth’s ostracisation ‘because
of political and emotional reactions to the fact that
this god was main deity of the Hyksos’,368 the absence
of evidence alone cannot be used as justification. In
fact, in comparison, material regarding the deity from
earlier periods is similarly limited, while the nature
of surviving evidence hints that the worship of Seth
in Egypt continued almost uninterrupted, reaching
a pinnacle in Dynasty 19. The following examines
whether or not aspects of Seth’s worship in Dynasty 18
can be traced back to the Fifteenth Dynasty or earlier.
368 Tazawa 2009, 156, n. 769.
 Religious Transformations
Fig. 4.14 Lintel, Temple of Seth Nb. ty. Reign of Thutmose I, Dynasty 18.
After Petrie and Quibell 1896, pl. 77
4.2.4.1 Kingship and the cult of Seth Nb. ty
The earliest secure New Kingdom reference to Seth
dates to the reign of Thutmose I, who constructed
a temple for the deity at Nb. t.369 A lintel retrieved
from the site pictures two parallel standing figures
of the god with the head of the Seth-animal
(Fig. 4.14). Surrounding glyphs mention ‘he of
Nb. t’ who, like Ra, offers stability, dominion, joy,
and health. Another sandstone jamb from the site
likewise represents Seth of Nb. t seated alongside
Thutmose III while wearing the double crown.370
The jamb, as well as other objects uncovered in a
foundation deposit, provide the king with the epithet
m r.y %t x Nb. t ‘beloved of Seth of Nb. t’.371
Some bricks of the temple’s temenos additionally
feature the names of Thutmose III and Amenhotep II.
The latter’s name is also written on a large blue-
glazed wAs-sceptre, its head clearly delineating
the features of those of the Seth-animal.372 The
Temple of Seth at Nb. t features further Eighteenth
Dynasty finds dedicated by non-royal individuals.
These include a seated figure of the official Sennefer
inscribed with an offering formula to %t x
Nb. t ‘Seth of Nb. t’, son of Neith and the one at the
front of the sacred barque of Ra.373 Another stela
369 Petrie and Quibell 1896, 67–68, pl. 77.
370 Petrie and Quibell 1896, 68, pl. 79.
371 The objects include an alabaster vase and cup, two
grinders, a model shell, and a model copper axe. Petrie
and Quibell 1896, 68, pl. 79.
372 Petrie and Quibell 1896, 68, pl. 78.
373 Petrie and Quibell 1896, 68, pls. 78–79.
143
of the official Anhotep is also dedicated to
%t x Nb. ty ‘Seth Nb. ty’ and includes a depiction of
the deity with the head of the Seth-animal.374 Such
finds signal at the continued use and renovation of
the Temple of Seth of Nb. t, wherein the deity was
venerated by kings and officials.
Evidence relating to Seth’s importance for Egyptian
kingship surfaces in other areas of Upper Egypt.
Thutmose III’s commissioned reliefs at the Temple of
Amun, Karnak, included several showing Horus and
Seth offering the king life, health, power or strength
in scenes related to, for instance, his coronation and
heb-sed festival.375 One scene from the Festival Hall
depicts anthropomorphic Seth, labelled Nb. ty,
with arms around Thutmose III guiding him
as he draws his bows and arrow (Fig. 4.15).376
The depiction is adjoined by another showing
anthropomorphic Horus standing near the king
as he retrieves arrows. This added emphasis on
Horus and Seth’s support for the king in warfare
activities is also mirrored in Thutmose III’s Annals.
In the Battle of Megiddo, the king is described
to be on his chariot in the midst of his army like
Horus and Montu, with Amun protecting him
and pH. ty x t a (w) . t = f ‘the
374 Petrie and Quibell 1896, 68, pls. 78–79.
375 See LD 3, pls. 33 [g], 34 [c], 35 [b, e], 36 [e]; Troy 2009,
146–152.
376 LD 3, pl. 36 [b].
144 Chapter 4
strength of pervading him’.377 Also from Karnak
is a block likely from Hatshepsut’s Red Chapel that
shows anthopomorphic Seth offering the combined
an x-wAs-symbol to the God’s Wife.378 Texts echoing
Hatshepsut’s coronation rituals on her obelisk at the
Temple of Karnak as well as her Mortuary Temple at
Deir el-Bahari also note that she rules a unified land
like Horus and Seth ( on the obelisk; and
at Deir el-Bahari), who have united it for her.379
Such texts and reliefs highlight Seth’s significance in
apposition to Horus in the ideology of a unified state.
They indicate that, likely due to the presence of his
cult and temple at Nb. t, Seth Nb. ty was represented
consistently throughout the Eighteenth Dynasty, mostly
in Upper Egypt and in relation to scenes of coronation,
jubilee, or kingship. Thutmose III’s focus on ’s
strength in war, however, suggests an expanding
repertoire of characteristics linked to the god.
The display of Seth’s importance in kingship
persists into the late Eighteenth Dynasty. For
instance, Amenhotep III’s temple at Sulb features a
relief of the king’s coronation by Horus and Seth.380
While the reformations of Amenhotep IV/Akhenaten
interrupted the reverence of Seth and Horus by the
royal family,381 the two were included among a list of
377 Annals of Thutmose III, Part I, lines 85–86. Urk. 4, 657.
Three plaques with the prenomen of Thutmose III may
also be interpreted as a display of strength of the Egyptian
storm deity. But, due to their uncertain findspot as well
as the use of the king’s prenomen after his reign, their
date remains unknown. Two plaques display very similar
designs of two figures on a n b w-symbol (S12) opposing
each another: one figure faces left and features the
prenomen Mn - (x p r) -Ra.w above his head and is thus to
be identified with Thutmose III; the other figure, slightly
larger than the first, faces right and stands in a smiting
pose, with the left hand grasping a plant-like sceptre
and the right hand raised, perhaps fisted or grasping a
weapon (mace?). He has an unidentifiable headdress, but
wears a kilt and tail akin to Egyptian style. As examined
in Chapter 4.2.1.3, 4.2.1.5 as well as 4.2.3.2, the figure’s
weapons, stance and plant-like sceptre are shared with
the Near Eastern storm deity, and occur at Tell el-Dab‘a
from the Thirteenth Dynasty onwards. Their utilisation
on these New Kingdom plaques may thus have some
relation to the Tell el-Dab‘a tradition. The third plaque
features two cobras flanking a winged figure with a
streamer at the head. Although Seth is also attested with
wings in the Pyramid Texts, the figure has been identified
with Reshef or Baal, the latter more likely. J. Ward 1902,
107, pl. 13 [39]; Cornelius 1994, 169, 177, 188, pls. 44
[BM1a], 47 [BM15], 48 [BM36]; Tazawa 2009, 19–20
[Docs. 17–19].
378 Cruz-Uribe 2009, 213 [9], fig. 8.
379 For the text on the obelisk at Karnak, see Urk. 4, 366 [3].
For the text at Deir el-Bahari, see Urk. 4, 244 [16–17],
249 [13–14], 250 [7]. See also Troy 2009, 127.
380 LD 5, 233–234.
381 Seth’s worship was likely not completely abolished; the
Seth-animal occurs on talalat of Amenhotep IV’s heb-
sed festival at Karnak. R.W. Smith 1976, pl. 85 [1].
deities in the Coronation Text of the last king of the
Eighteenth Dynasty, Horemheb.382 The latter’s temple
at Gebel Addah additionally features a damaged relief
preserving the king’s standing figure between the
anthropomorphic Seth Nb. ty and Horus (Fig. 4.16),383
while a fragmentary block from Karnak retains a
scene of Seth with a crook, perhaps standing before
the king.384 Clearly, then, Seth was not ostracised in
the Eighteenth Dynasty; his role in kingship and the
maintenance of order, as well as his cults, continued.
4.2.4.2 The Netherworld
Seth’s roles in funerary beliefs and as a figure
related to the solar barque continue into Dynasty 18.
Preserved in royal tombs are scenes of the Amduat
that reflect Seth’s duties as protector against evil
forces and maintainer of divine order.385 In the
First Hour, aHa r id b ‘ stands at
the riverbank’, representing the inherent dangers
of the Netherworld, while a goddess of the Seventh
Hour is labelled x s f. t s mA. w t
‘she, who repulses the gang of ’,386
adhering to similar attestations in the Pyramid and
Coffin Texts.387 By the Seventh Hour, Seth is at the
prow of Ra’s barque. Joined by Isis, Seth faces the
serpent and creature of chaos, aAp p ‘Apophis’, and
casts a spell to subjugate the being. Although this
conflict of Seth versus the serpent could be interpreted
as one borrowed from MBA and LBA Near Eastern
myths, Apophis is attested in First Intermediate
Period texts388 while Seth overcomes serpents in the
Pyramid Texts.389 The continuation of Seth’s role in
this capacity of protector of order, guarantor of safe
passage over treacherous terrain, magician, and the
one who overcomes the serpent, can, however, be
seen as points of commonalities shared with the
Near Eastern storm deity. Such parallels could have
served to strengthen associations between Egyptian
and Near Eastern aspects, but they also indicate that
Seth retained characteristics that were embedded in
Egyptian thought since the Old Kingdom.390
382 The text is inscribed on the back of a statue of the king
and his queen Mutnedjmet. Gardiner 1953.
383 LD 3, pl. 122 [a].
384 Cruz-Uribe 2009, 214 [10], fig. 9.
385 See Schweizer 2010.
386 Te Velde 1967, 141; Hornung and A bt 2007, 18 [110],
23 [37].
387 See Chapter 4.2.2.3–4; Te Velde 1967, 141.
388 Morenz 2004, 201–205; Te Velde 1967, 99.
389 See Chapter 4.2.2.3; Te Velde 1967, 99.
390 See also the ‘Hymn to Osiris’. Lichtheim 1976, 81–85.
Transformations spurred by Old Kingdom interactions
remain plausible, and require further research. On the
origins of Osiris, for instance, see Shalomi-Hen 2006.
 Religious Transformations 145

Fig. 4.15 Relief, Temple of Amun at Karnak. Reign of Thutmose III, Dynasty 18. After LD 3, pl. 36 [b]

Fig. 4.16 Relief, temple at Gebel Addah. Reign of Horemheb, Dynasty 18. After LD 3, pl. 122 [a]
146 Chapter 4
4.2.4.3 The sea and the harbour
Previously unattested traditions specifically regarding
Seth surface in the first half of the Eighteenth
Dynasty. The Hearst Medical Papyrus, variably
dated to the reign of Amenhotep I,391 or the joint
reign of Thutmose III and Hatshepsut, 392 features one
reference to the storm deity and the sea.393 Following
a spell with a correlated medical remedy against the
mSp n . t disease, Remedy 170 reads:394
Sn . t n t (A) n . t (y) aAm . w p ty rx m i Ra (. w) p ty
rx m i . t t nTr p n Dab X. t m D ab. t r mH m pA nTr Hr.y
i r m i Sn i . n pA wAD- w r Sn i t n m m . t t t (A)
n . t (y) aAm . w kA t m = t n m t s p 2 m Haw n (.y) m n
m s i n m n .t Dd . t w rA p n s p. w 4 Hr bAq wAD x n f. t
n . t rhd . t Sn i sy i m x t m sy m x t m .w n (.w) St t .w t
A spell for that which pertains to the aAm . w: who is
knowing like Ra? Who is knowing like this god, who
(makes) coal-black the body with charcoal in order to
seize the god who is on high. As has encircled
the sea, likewise will encircle you, that which
pertains to aAm. w. Then you will not enter twice into
the body of so-and-so who is born to so-and-so. This
utterance is said four times over fresh bAq-oil and
xnf.t-bread of the rhd.t boiler. Utter it there, then
seal it with the seals of the religious mysteries(?).395
As the text is purposed to record medical and magical
remedies against disease, it was possibly transferred
verbally for some time before its composition on the
papyrus, or via other sources, perhaps signifying a
date to the early Eighteenth Dynasty if not earlier. The
incantation reveals two key interconnected details:
(1) a tradition in which the storm deity was believed to
391 R eisner 1905, 1.
392 Roehrig 2005b; Strouhal, Vachala and Vymazalová
2014, 15.
393 A peasant near Deir el-Ballas evidently brought the
papyrus to the Hearst Egyptian Expedition of the
University of California in 1901. R eisner 1905, 1.
394 Lines 12–15. A photograph of the text can be found in
R eisner 1905, pl. 11. Transcription follows Wreszinski
1912, 39–40 [Nr. 170]. See also von Deines, Grapow and
Westendorf 1958, 258; Grapow 1958, 440.
395 The term St t . w t is unclear. The translation followed
here is for the similar StAw ‘secrets, religious
mysteries’, according to Faulkner 1962, 273. Another
possibility is StA ‘scrub, brushwood(?)’, or perhaps
even StA. t , concerning the hippopotamus as symbol of
Seth. For the latter, see Wb. 4, 555. The author thanks C. Di
Biase-Dyson for thoughts on this difficult text.
have overcome the sea; and (2) the invocation of this
deity to treat a disease which is associated with the
aAm . w. Both may be related to Seth’s representation
of chaotic elements, so it can be argued that the
deity’s association with aquatic animals as well
as weather phenomena could have incorporated
otherwise unknown and pre-Eighteenth Dynasty
correlations with the sea. However, the inclusion of
the sea in association with the god is not attested
in earlier Egyptian records. It thus may be proposed
that the idea linking the Egyptian storm deity with
the sea was influenced by those of the Near Eastern
storm god repelling or defeating representatives
of the sea. The Near Eastern influences are indeed
supported by another text dating to Amenhotep II’s
reign: the so-called Astarte Papyrus.
The Astarte Papyrus is composed of two main
fragmentary papyri. The first, Papyrus Amherst
9, was initially published in 1899 by Newberry
who assigned it to the Eighteenth or Nineteenth
Dynasty.396 One of its characters, Astarte, has
been verifiably associated with the Near Eastern
goddess of the same name, while its highly
fragmentary content has been interpreted as the
official incorporation of Astarte and her cult into
the Memphite Ennead.397 Gardiner proposed that the
text’s main protagonist and its mention of ‘the ruler’
was the personified sea, Yamm, who contended for
tribute with the gods.398 The text was afterwards
associated with Near Eastern myths such as the
Babylonian Enuma Elish399 and a Hittite myth on
the god Kumarbi and the Sea.400 Lefèbvre also
outlined some similarities with the Ugaritic Baal
Cycle, noting the conflict over the throne between
Baal and Yamm, as well as the mention of Seth
in one of the fragments of Papyrus Amherst 9.401
While the LBA Near Eastern origins of the text were
postulated, others, like Posener, argued for an earlier
yet unpreserved Egyptian myth of the sea and the
gods.402 The Egyptian aspects of the text, as well as
its earlier date, were supported by the publication
of its second main papyrus, Papyrus Bibliothèque
Nationale 202.403 Although fragmentary, it preserves
the first page of the account and includes the regnal
date (Year 5, p r. t month 3, day 19) and name of
Amenhotep II, a dating corroborated by the text’s
paleography. It also comprises elements that support
396 Newberry 1899, 47, pls. 19–21. See also Möller 1920, 42.
397 Spiegelberg 1902.
398 Gardiner 1932a.
399 Gardiner 1932a.
400 Sayce 1933.
401 Lefèbvre 1949, 106–113.
402 Posener 1953/1955, as referenced in Collombert and
Coulon 2000, 219, n. 139.
403 C ollombert and C oulon (2000, 193–242) present
a strong case that connects the fragments together.
See also Möller 1920, 36; T. Schneider 2003c;
2011/2012.
 Religious Transformations 147

allusions to the Near Eastern storm deity, the most Papyrus Amherst 9.1.x+1
pertinent of which are presented below.404
…
Papyrus BN 202 1.2 […] pAy =f kA.wy …
[…] and his two bulls …
. . .
… Papyrus Amherst 9.2.x+18–19

… i ri . w = f n tA p sD. t r aHA Hn a pA Yw m w …
… that he acted for the Ennead to fight with Yamm … ...
… aHa. n Dd . n =f n =s iy i [t n w] tA Sri . t sA. t PtH tA
Papyrus BN 202 1.5 nTr(. t) q n d . t nSny…
… then he (Yamm) said to her: from where did you come,
... ... daughter of Ptah, you goddess of anger and rage? …
. . . Hb s.w m Tryn Hr pD.wt …
… (his) clothing is armour405 and bows … Papyrus Amherst 9.14.y

Papyrus BN 202 1.6-1.8 …

...
. . . [Hn a n t f …r] Hb s.w pA iwt n Hn a nAy n (.y) Dw.w…
… [and his…] covering the ground and the mountains…

Papyrus Amherst 9.15.y

Dw.w Hn a nA n (.y) d h n .wt […] iw =t w Hr SA n =f ...
qAi m i tA p. t ir Dr.w m n […] rwqArwqA iri . t w tA […
Dw] .wy r dgA dgA.y nAy =k x rw.y w […] m i dgA dgA.w […] r aHA Hn a= f r n . ty Hm s i . n = f q (b) b n n i w = f r
gAS.w […] iy i .y t r aHA m =n Hm s i p w i ri . n […]
The mountains with the mountaintops […] and … […] to fight with him and against him (?) then he
one ordained him exalted like the sky, the walls sat down calmly. He will not come to fight with us.
a monument […] haste406 […] it was made […] the Then sat down.
two mountains to trample your enemies […] like the
reeds407 are trampled […] Following Amenhotep II’s regnal date, line 1.2 of
the papyrus notes a battle between Yamm and possibly
Papyrus BN 202 1.9 the heroic character.408 Wearing horns and armour
while equipped with bows, the ‘hero’ is connected to
… two mountains that trample his enemies, as well as
… iw pAy =f d b.w […] two bulls.409 His dwelling place is also related to the
… and his horns […] sky.410 Following the mention of the four regions of the
world,411 and the throne of the ruler,412 the text notes the
gods bringing tribute to Yamm ( Ym w)
for fear, perhaps, of being taken captive.413 Astarte,
‘daughter of Ptah’, evidently weeps and then converses
with Yamm, after which she joins the Ennead.414 After
several lacunae, the text refers to the covering of the
404 Transcription of Papyrus BN 202 follows Collombert earth and mountains, followed by sitting down
and Coulon 2000, pl. 3. Transcription of Papyrus calmly due to uncertain circumstances.415
Amherst 9 follows Gardiner 1932a. Transliteration and
translation rely on Collombert and Coulon 2000, 200–
201, 226–229; T. Schneider 2003c, 610–617.
405 For the Semitic origins of this term, see Wb. 5, 386; 408 Papyrus BN 202 1.5
Collombert and Coulon 2000, 204, with references. 409 Papyrus BN 202 1.5–1.9; Papyrus Amherst 9.1.x+1.
406 The term has been identified as a hapax legomenon. 410 Papyrus Amherst 9.1.x+2, 1.x+10.
The classifier hints at an association with rk rk ‘crawl’. 411 Papyrus Amherst 9.1.x+7.
For more, see Collombert and Coulon 2000, 205, with 412 Papyrus Amherst 9.1.x+8.
references; T. Schneider 2003c, 611, n. 18. 413 Papyrus Amherst 9.1.x+9–13, 2.x+1–3.
407 Collombert and Coulon (2000, 205–206) translate 414 Papyrus Amherst 9.2.x+10–5.y. Ayali-Darshan (2015a,
the term as ‘roseaux’ and T. Schneider (2003c, 611) as 33) notes the sexual nature of this encounter.
‘Schilf’. See Wb. 5, 156. 415 Papyrus Amherst 9.14.y–15.y.
148 Chapter 4
The Near Eastern influences on the text are
evident.416 It includes several terms and deities of Near
Eastern origin, such as Astarte and Yamm, the latter’s
name later subsumed in the lexicon as a reference to
the sea. The text also appears to be inspired by the
overall Near Eastern motif of divine conflict over a
throne, with a sea deity overstating his kingship (for
instance, through imposed tribute).417 The protection of
kingship by a goddess of rage is further reflected in
such Near Eastern myths as the Ugaritic Baal Cycle,
wherein Baal is instead predominantly supported by
Anat.418 The Near Eastern storm deity can be identified
in the character of the ‘hero’ through his association
with the horns, the two bulls, the two mountains, and
his weaponry.419 The apparent conflict with Yamm
additionally supports this identification.420
A direct correlation of the heroic figure with Seth is
not preserved in the fragments of the text. However, the
mention of a calm storm deity in Papyrus Amherst 9.15.y
suggests that he played an important role in the story,
possibly even as the heroic figure himself who, following
the conflict, was able to calmly ‘sit’, perhaps on a throne.
In fact, the Seth-animal appears twice in the text. In one
instance, a recumbent Seth-animal (E21) classifies nSny
‘anger’, used in an epithet for Astarte,421 and in another,
a seated classifier (E20) is used to represent an important
figure in the text.422 If Seth is indeed the ‘hero’, then the
Astarte Papyrus evidently indicates that a myth of the
Near Eastern storm deity was well-known in Egypt,
its elements absorbed and translated into a hieratic text
representing both Egyptian and Near Eastern religious
and mythical traditions and language.
While the dating of the text supports the assumption
of such elements by the New Kingdom, if not
specifically to Amenhotep II’s reign, the underlying
related motifs of a storm deity, rulership, and the
sea stem from at least the late Middle Kingdom.423
These motifs are in fact comparable to their artistic
representation on the cylinder seal from Tell el-
Dab‘a, which also refers to the two mountains.424
416 Helck 1983b; R edford 1990; 1992, 234–235; Durand
1993; Collombert and Coulon 2000, 218–220; Ayali-
Darshan 2015a, 31–51; 2016.
417 See Chapter 4.2.2–3.
418 See Chapter 4.2.2–3.
419 See Chapter 4.2.1.
420 See Chapter 4.2.1.3.
421 Papyrus Amherst 9.2.x+18–19.
422 Papyrus Amherst 9.15.y. Collombert and Coulon (2000,
220) add that the classifier can also designate Baal: ‘Le
procédé permet de rester dans un univers égyptien mais
d’investir le dieu Seth des potentialités et de la sphère
d’action de Baâl, qui devient en quelque sorte une de ses
manifestations’.
423 See Chapter 4.2.3.4. T. Schneider (2003b, 160–161)
also suggests that the Middle Kingdom story of the
Shipwrecked Sailor had adapted some of the motifs of the
conflict between Baal and the sea.
424 See Chapter 4.2.3.2; T. Schneider 2003c, 605–627.
They indicate that the emergence of the process of
‘translation’ or transculturation of the Near Eastern
storm deity and his associated aspects in the Middle
Kingdom likely continued and developed into the
New Kingdom. The Astarte Papyrus offers evidence
for their clear manifestation, and combines them with
additional elements otherwise not attested earlier,
signalling further influences or points of inspiration
perhaps sourced from earlier Eighteenth Dynasty
encounters with Near Eastern aspects.425
One such element is the mention of Astarte’s
acceptance into the Memphite Ennead. Indeed, she is
pictured in a row of seven Memphite deities standing
before Amenhotep II on a relief from the quarries
of Tura.426 Dating to Year 4 of his reign, the goddess
is labelled ‘foremost of Perunefer’, indicating her
reverence at the military harbour of Thutmose III and
Amenhotep II. T. Schneider infers that the expedition
to Tura was to retrieve stone for Astarte’s sanctuary at
Perunefer, the inauguration of which occurred a year
later and was commemorated in the Astarte Papyrus.427
While the preserved dates of both texts support this
correlation, the Astarte Papyrus’s motif of the struggle
for victory over a tumultuous sea may have also been
of significance for the harbour’s establishment as a
naval base for commercial and military expeditions.
If correct, it would also follow that the ‘hero’ of
the papyrus was similarly commemorated at the
site. In fact, the remaining lines suggest a close
connection between this character and Astarte who, as
aforementioned, also shares the quality of nSny ‘anger’
with the storm deity. Pehal also proposes that the text
was politically motivated, an attempt to incorporate or
appropriate Near Eastern motifs either to strengthen
the Egyptians’ claim over the Levant or to promote
negotiation with communities of Near Eastern origin
residing in Egypt.428
Often cited as further justification for the
establishment of cults at Perunefer is a brief
reference in Papyrus Hermitage 1116A.429 The text
dates to Amenhotep II’s reign and is part of a longer
enumeration of a distribution of offerings.430 It reads:
Ht p. w nTr n
m Pr. w - n f r ‘the offerings to in
425 See also T. Schneider 2003b, 160–161; 2003c; 2011/2012.
426 The deities include Ptah, Osiris, Khenty, Sekhmet,
Hathor and Wadjet. Stadelmann 1967, 104; Cornelius
2008, 113 [Cat. 3.4]; Tazawa 2009, 87 [Doc. 13].
427 T. Schneider 2003b, 161.
428 Pehal 2014. See also Chapter 3.3.1.1.
429 Helck 1966a, 2–3; Stadelmann 1967, 32–33; R edford
1992, 232–232.
430 Golénischeff (1913, 2–3) dates the papyrus to the co-
regency of Thutmose III and Amenhotep II, and has
been followed by several others. This dating, however,
has been contested by R edford (1965, 109–110), who
proposes its compilation after Amenhotep II’s eighteenth
year on the throne.
 Religious Transformations
Tell el-Dab‘a
Temple of Seth
Fig. 4.17 Plan of trapezoidal complex. Bietak 2011, fig. 3
Perunefer’.431 Despite the representation of the
recipient of offerings only by a recumbent Seth-
animal, several have translated it as Baal due to its
association with Perunefer,432 yet it may equally
be translated as Seth. Like Astarte,433 the deity of
Papyrus Hermitage 1116A was evidently the subject
of veneration at the site. The harbour is usually
associated with the Memphite region,434 which has
led to the supposition that Baal ‘found a residence
along with his consort Astarte among the Canaanite
merchants in north Memphis’.435
431 Papyrus Hermitage 1116A, vs. 1.42. Golénischeff 1913,
pl. 16.
432 See Stadelmann 1967, 32–33; Te Velde 1967, 122.
433 See Chapter 4.3.3.1. See also Bietak 2009a, 16.
434 See Glanville 1931; 1932; Helck 1939, 49–59; Badawi
1943; Edel 1953, 155; Stadelmann 1967, 32–35; K amish
1986; Jeffreys and H.S. Smith 1988, 61; Forstner-
Müller 2014. Sea-going ships, however, could have
only easily navigated the Nile to Memphis during
inundation, thereby severely limiting activities.
435 R edford 1992, 232.
149
Tree-Pit
Spinx
Yet, some have contrarily argued that the harbour
is in the Delta and should be identified with the
same site of Avaris and Piramesse.436 Other than
the similarity in function of the toponyms as
harbour towns, Bietak suggests that all three share
a tradition in the continuity of Levantine cults.437
The Near Eastern influences in the architectural
and ritualistic remains of the Thirteenth to Fifteenth
Dynasty sacred precinct of A/II have already been
mentioned,438 and it is noteworthy that this precinct
was not occupied in Dynasty 18, signalling continued
knowledge of it as sacred ground.439 To the north
of this precinct, between Areas A/II and A/I, are
436 Roehrig 1990, 126–127; Pumpenmeier 1998, 89–93;
Collombert and Coulon 2000, 218; H abachi 2001, 9,
106–107; Bietak 2005b; 2009a; 2009b; 2010b, 167–168;
2011, 26–32; 2017; 2018. For its Delta location, see
Spiegelberg 1927; Daressy 1928/1929, 225, 322–326.
437 Bietak 2010b, 167.
438 See Chapter 4.2.3.3.
439 Bietak 1981, 266; 2010b, 165; 2011, 23.
150
the enclosure walls of a large trapezoidal complex
(Fig. 4.17).440 Based on stratigraphy and ceramic
remains, the structure was assigned to Stratum B/3
of the first half of the Eighteenth Dynasty, its walls
postulated to have been constructed or enlarged
in the early Eighteenth Dynasty Stratum D/1 or
earlier.441 The sizeable dimensions of its walls point
to its function as either a temple or palatial building,
the former more likely given the presence of offering
pits within the precinct that yielded late Second
Intermediate Period pottery,442 and the finds collected
from within its enclosed area.443 The latter include
a displaced limestone block of a lintel preserving
both the name of Horemheb and a dedication to
aA [pH. ty] ‘ , great [of strength]’
(Fig. 4.18).444 A faience object with this king’s
name was also found at the surface, as was a scarab
of Horemheb.445 Such items point to Nineteenth
Dynasty activity at the site and perhaps, as Bietak
postulates, an association with the Temple of Seth
that is mentioned in inscriptions of Horemheb and
the first kings of Dynasty 19.446 The enclosure was
additionally surrounded by tree groves, its interior
yielding remains of settlement activity including
those for waste disposal and vineyard foundations.447
It was apparently abandoned in the Amarna Period,
only to be rebuilt towards the end of Dynasty 18.448
Relying on this evidence, Bietak has identified the
enclosure as an early Eighteenth Dynasty temple of
Seth that was continuously used from the Eighteenth
to Nineteenth Dynasties, with the possibility that an
earlier Fifteenth Dynasty level lies underneath.449 In
turn, this would support the theory of a continuous
cult of Seth at Avaris, and adds weight to the
proposition that Perunefer was situated at Tell el-
Dab‘a. Further exploration is required to confirm that
the structure is a temple specifically for Seth; yet,
its monumental architectural elements, as well as
its continuous use from at least the early Eighteenth
Dynasty, if not earlier, to Dynasty 19, with an
interruption during the Amarna Period, strongly
440 Bietak 1985a; 1990; 2010b, 164–165; 2011, 23.
441 Bietak 1985a, 272–274, pls. 1–2; 2011, 23, figs. 3–4, 15.
442 Forstner-Müller 2010, 111, fig. 6.
443 Bietak 1985a, 271–276, pls. 1–2, 6–7; 2011, 23, figs. 3–5,
15.
444 Bietak 1985a, 272–274, pls. 1–2; 2010b, 164; 2011, 23,
figs. 3–4, 15; Bietak and Forstner-Müller 2011, 33–36,
figs. 5–6.
445 Bietak 1985a, 271–272, pls. 1–2, 6–7; 2011, 23,
figs. 3–5.
446 Bietak 1985a; 1990, 12–14; 2010b, 164; 2011, 23–24;
Bietak and Forstner-Müller 2011, 28–30. See Chapter
4.2.5.1.
447 Bietak 1985a, 267–278; 1990, 11–12; 2010b, 164; 2011,
23–24; Bietak and Forstner-Müller 2011, 34, fig. 6.
448 Bietak 1985a, 267–278; 1990, 11–12; 2010b, 164; 2011,
23–24; Bietak and Forstner-Müller 2011, 34, fig. 6.
449 Bietak 2010b, 164–165, n. 198.
Chapter 4
points to its significance to the local community at
the site, as well as its cultic function.
The worship of Seth at Perunefer is additionally
further corroborated by an administrative document
concerning activities at the site’s dockyard. Dating
to Thutmose III’s or Amenhotep II’s reign, British
Museum Papyrus 10056 mentions an individual with
the Seth-animal in their name.450 These, as well as
others, are discussed in the next section.
4.2.4.4 The name and the classifier
Studies by Goldwasser and Allon on Eighteenth
Dynasty terms have uncovered noteworthy
developments in the use of the Seth-animal classifier.
Allon divides words utilising the determinative or
‘category’ into main semantic clusters: those that
denote aggressive behaviour, such as x n n ‘disrupt’,
khb ‘rage’ or khA ‘shout, bellow’; and those related to
weather phenomena, such as nSn i ‘storm, rage’ or s n m
‘rainstorm’.451 He notes the omission of such negative
attributes as illness or suffering which, for the First
Intermediate Period, were otherwise explained as
Seth’s representation of misfortunes that were observed
in a fragmented state.452 The changes, as Allon posits,
may be related to developments in the characteristics
and worship of Seth, especially his association
with Baal who was ‘promoted to the status of god
of Egyptian kingship already by Amenhotep II’.453
The ‘enrichment of the Seth concept’ involved the
identification of Seth with Baal and vice versa.454
As aforementioned, Te Velde argues that this
manifestation emerged due to Seth’s responsibility
as lord of the foreign countries,455 and Allon adds the
commonality of shared storm deity characteristics.456
Goldwasser and Allon both argue that the latter were
accentuated following Seth’s identification with Baal,
leading to greater use of terms linked with aggression
and weather phenomena in the New Kingdom.457 The
evidence from the Middle Kingdom to Dynasty 18
suggests that other characteristics, such as kingship
and its associated and inherent conflicts, were also
related to the storm deity and the Seth-animal.
The name of Seth is mostly, if not always,
represented in Eighteenth Dynasty textual attestations
by a seated (E20) or recumbent (E21) Seth-animal,
often followed by the classifier of a seated deity (A40)
or a falcon on its perch (G7). The translation of this
450 Glanville 1932, 25–26 [76]; R anke 1952, 315 [2];
T. Schneider 1992, 181 [N 383]; Collombert and Coulon
2000, 218. Gundacker (2017) dates the papyrus to
Year 51 of Thutmose III’s reign.
451 A llon 2007, 18, figs. 1a–b, 2.
452 A llon 2007, 19; McDonald 2007.
453 A llon 2007, 19–20.
454 Te Velde 1967, 123; A llon 2007, 20.
455 Te Velde 1967, 123.
456 A llon 2007, 19. See also Zandee 1963; Bietak 1990,
12–14. See Chapter 4.2.3.4.
457 Goldwasser 2005, 108–110; 2006, 123; Allon 2007, 19–21.
 Religious Transformations 151

Fig. 4.18 Fragmentary lintel. Reign of Horemheb, Dynasty 18. Bietak 2011, fig. 5

animal as Seth, however, is reliant on context and open
to question. Its use in personal names of the period,
for instance, indicates that the Seth-animal could also
represent the DN Baal. For instance, one individual in
BM Papyrus 10056 is called %bi - b n r,458
which is very similar to another name on the papyrus,
&iy - s bi - b n r. The orthography of
the latter, however, supports a reading either as ‘Teshub-
Baal’ or ‘Teshub is lord’.459 The appellation reveals that
the Seth-animal was utilised to determine both the
Semitic meaning of the noun bēlu ‘lord’, as well as its
association with a Hurrian storm deity. From another
document assigned to the beginning of Dynasty 18
is a list enumerating
nA n .y #A- r.w n .y MAt ‘those #A- r. w of MAt’, with
names of individuals likely newly migrated into
Egypt from an area possibly in the Levant.460 One of
these is ap r-Bar, whose name, like
Dynasty 13’s ap r-BaAr at Tell Hebwa I, adheres to the
ap r-DN pattern, the DN here being Baal.461 Unlike

458 BM Papyrus 10056 r. 16.2. Glanville 1931, 5*; 1932,

22 [52]; R anke 1952, 315 [2]; T. Schneider 1992, 181 460 Steindorff 1900; T. Schneider 1992, 68 [N 119]. See
[N 383]; Collombert and Coulon 2000, 218. Chapter 3.4.1.2.
459 BM Papyrus 10056 vs. 4.3. Glanville 1931, 6*; 1932, 461 T. Schneider 1987, 258–261; 1992, 66–69 [N 118–126];
25–26 [76]; T. Schneider 1992, 240 [N 513]. 2003a, 141–142. See Chapter 4.2.3.1.
152
the Middle Kingdom attestations of the name,462
however, the seated Seth-animal is used as a classifier
for Baal, indicating that it was now clearly correlated
with the storm deity.
This is further supported by a stela of the
Thutmoside Period which was dedicated by an
individual whose name is written in two different ways,
Ywt aw -Bar and
Ywt aw -Bari, signifying that the Seth-animal alone
could be used to represent Baal.463 Another appellation
inscribed on an Eighteenth Dynasty stela from Abydos
is written as Iyi-BaAr, the r acting as a phonetic
complement to the logogram of the Seth-animal.464 The
addition of the complement evidently indicates that
the Seth-animal could represent various logographic
readings, including that of baAr. If this phonetic
complement was not included, the name could be
read as Iy i -%t x, especially as the first element is of
Egyptian derivation.
This brings to the fore other names that combine
genitival attributes with the Seth-animal: the translation
of the sign as Seth should perhaps remain tentative
unless the same individual’s name is elsewhere attested
with phonetic signs or complements that signify the
spelling as Seth, or he/she appears in association with
the deity. For example, a Saqqara tomb of a royal butler
in the administration of Amenhotep III features the
owner’s name as both and , verifying its
reading as %tS ‘Seth’.465 Another wooden statue of
also notes that the official was a singer and prophet of
%tx Nb. ty ‘Seth Nb. ty’, suggesting that his
name is to be construed as Weser-Seth.466 Furthermore,
the name of Baal need not always be classified by the
Seth-animal, as denoted in the spelling of PT-
Bar of Thuthmose III’s reign.467 In all, such personal
names, whether classified as belonging to foreigners or
not, clearly show that the Seth-animal was employed by
scribes in Egypt to represent the name of the deity Baal,
the meaning of bēlu as lord (or lord of storms), and as a
logogram reading baAr. Consequently, these should be
added to the classifier’s other representations of the god
Seth and associated terms.
462 See Chapter 4.2.3.1.
463 MMA 679. H ayes 1959, 170; T. Schneider 1992, 63
[N 111]; The Metropolitan Museum of A rt, ‘Stela of
Itubaal and Masutu’.
464 Lacau 1926, 132–133, pl. 42; T. Schneider 1992, 15 [N 1].
465 The tomb owner was also evidently involved in the
military. Zivie 1997; 2003, 72–73; 2007, 62–63.
466 Pellegrini 1898, 96 [7665].
467 A very similar name, PTA-Bar, is attested in Ramesses III’s
reign with the Seth-animal as classifier. T. Schneider
1992, 120–121 [N 258–259].
Chapter 4
4.2.4.5 Observations
The examined material from the first half of
Dynasty 18 points to the continued importance
of Seth in Egyptian kingship. Several artistic and
textual representations, mostly from Upper Egypt,
attest to the worship of Seth Nb. ty by pharaohs as
well as officials, with many rulers portraying him in
scenes related to coronation, rejuvenation, as well as
a unified and ordered Egypt. Seth’s importance in
the maintenance of order is further expressed in his
placement at the prow of Ra’s barque, guaranteeing
safe passage for the sun god through his display of
magic, strength, and ferocity. From at least the reign
of Thutmose III, this strength was represented in the
sphere of warfare, with the storm deity’s strength
appearing alongside the king on the battlefield. Such
aspects are paralleled in the Astarte Papyrus as
well as the Hearst Medical Papyrus, both of which
feature ’s rage. Both texts additionally reveal a
correlation between the storm deity and the sea, one
which may have been manifested by the god’s cult
at the site of the newly (re?-)established harbour of
Perunefer. The link with the sea may be viewed as an
extension of the deity’s demonstration of ferocity and
strength against disorder, but such a demonstration
is equally inherent in the Near Eastern storm deity
and his conflict against serpent-like and marine
creatures. This agrees with the use of the Seth-animal
as classifier for terms of aggression and weather
phenomena, as well as in association with the name,
meaning and reading of baAr. It also agrees with the
shared aspect of lordship between Seth and Baal, both
of whom were significant figures in the maintenance
of rulership. Significantly, the parallels in rulership,
aggression, strength, and physical prowess, as well as
an association with weather phenomena and the sea,
all arguably emerged before Dynasty 18. Their clear
representation in the first half of the dynasty signifies
a continuation in the development of the Egyptian
storm deity into a transcultural one. As with sources
from Dynasties 12–15, the majority of evidence
stems from royal and temple contexts, although
the scribal tradition of the Eighteenth Dynasty was
evidently incorporating the shifts in the perception of
an Egyptian storm deity in texts belonging to upper
and middle class officials.
This is all the more apparent when another aspect of
the storm deity is considered: diplomacy. If the process
of transculturisation was fostered by rulers in search
for commercial and cultural engagements in a wider
network, then this aspect of the Egyptian storm deity
would be expected to continue into the Eighteenth
Dynasty. The cult of this deity at Perunefer has
already been discussed. His relation to the harbour
and the Astarte Papyrus suggests that the god may
have also been revered for safe passage across the
sea and successful expeditions. As a hub for cultural
encounters between incoming and outgoing voyagers,
the association of Perunefer’s cults with others of
 Religious Transformations
the Near East could have been further promoted
for diplomatic purposes. Indeed, evidence for the
diplomatic significance of the storm deity occurs in
five Amarna Letters: 468
• EA 52 from Akizzi of Qatna, lines 3–5
Sevenfold at the foot of my lord, my storm god
(bē-li-ia IŠKUR-ia), have I fallen …
• EA 108 from Rib-Hadda of Byblos to Akhenaten (?),
lines 8–13
Furthermore, is it good in sight of the king, who is
like the storm god (IŠKUR) and the sun god (UTU)
in heaven, that the sons of ‘Abdi-Ashirta are doing
whatever they please? …
• EA 147 from Abi-Milku of Tyre to Akhenaten,
lines 5–15
My lord (EN-lí-ia bē-li) is the sun god (UTU) who
has come forth over all lands day by day according
to the manner of the sun god (UTU)… of whom
all the land is established in peace by the power of
(his) arm (ḫa-ap-ši);469 who has given his voice in
the sky like the storm god (IŠKUR), and all the land
was frightened at his cry.
• EA 149 from Abi-Milku of Tyre, lines 6–7
O king (LUGAL), my lord (bē-li-ia), you are like the
sun god (UTU), like the storm god (IŠKUR) in
heaven!
• EA 159 from Aziru of Amurru, lines 7–8
[My lord (EN-ia)], you are like the st[orm god
(IŠKUR) and yo]u are like the sun god (UTU) …
The five letters originate from Northern Levantine
city-states. In their opening greetings to the
Egyptian pharaoh, the letters liken the king to the
storm god and the sun god, two deities of prime
importance in the Near East before whom treaties
and oaths were taken. While the solar aspects of
Egyptian kingship were prominent at the time, the
association between the storm god and the king
likely reflects the deity’s importance in the ideology
of rulership. His ferocity is highlighted in EA 147,
wherein the voice or cry of the god in the sky
frightened the land. This display of power possibly
represents Abi-Milku’s acknowledgment of Egypt’s
influences in the region. By likening the pharaoh to
468 The transliteration and translation are after R ainey 2015,
386–387, 584–585, 742–743, 752–753, 790–791. See also
Moran 1992, 123, 181, 233, 245. Another fragmentary
letter, EA 207, could additionally refer to the king ‘like
the sun god (UTU) and the storm god (IŠKUR)’. For the
text, see Moran 1992, 280; R ainey 2015, 924–925. For
the dating of the letters, see Moran 1992, xxxiv–xxxix,
and references.
469 For ḫa-ap-ši as a weapon, see Moran 1992, 234, n. 3.
153
the storm deity, the Northern Levantine rulers were
showing that they linked the qualities of the Near
Eastern storm deity, god of rulership and kings, with
the Egyptian pharaoh.470
Similarly, the transculturisation of Seth in Egypt
would promote such associations, especially in areas
where cross-cultural interactions were frequent, such
as Perunefer. The political and religious developments
in Egypt, with the lack of official texts mentioning Seth
or any other deities bar Aten, need not have affected
the comparison of the king with the storm deity. In
fact, the Hymn to the Aten adopts such qualities for
the state god: 471
...
...
… Di . n = k Hapy m p. t HAy = f n =s n i r= f h n w Hr Dw w
m i wAD- w r r (t) x b AH. w t =s n m d m i =s n s m n x . wy
sy s x r. w = k pA n b nHH Hapy m p. t <Di = k > s w n
xAs . ty w n aw. t xAs . t n b (. t) [Sm] . w (t) Hr rd . wy
Hapy iy i = f m d wA. t n &A-Mr.y…
… You have set the inundation from the sky so that
it may descend to them, to make waves upon the
mountains like the sea, to irrigate their fields and
their towns. How effective are they, your plans, lord
of eternity! The inundation in the sky <that you> give
to the foreigners, to all foreign cattle that walks on two
legs. The inundation that came from the Netherworld
to Egypt…
The extract makes clear the reliance on rainfall for
agricultural purposes in foreign lands, namely those of
the Levantine and Anatolian coastal regions. This role
of rain, which is manifested by the Near Eastern storm
deities of these areas, is not previously attested for the
Egyptian storm deity, but it attests to knowledge of the
significance of rainfall in these regions, its allusions
most likely related to Baal or Adad.472 Its inclusion in
the hymn highlights the representation of the Aten’s
far-reaching hegemony over foreign lands, offering
rainwater for their fields, towns and cattle, and is likely
related to Egypt’s political and diplomatic reach in the
latter half of the Eighteenth Dynasty. The references in
the Amarna Letters thereby incorporate this developed
ideology, pointing to multidirectional access to the
shifting and primary nature of state religion and
diplomatic decorum between Egypt and the Near
East. Hence, as M.S. Smith writes, ‘international
translatability thus travelled in both directions’.473
470 Schwemer 2001, 506–510; Siddall 2010.
471 Lines 9–10. N. de G. Davies 1908, pls. 27, 41; Sandman
1938, 95. Transliteration and translation rely on Siddall
2010, 29.
472 Siddall 2010, 29. See Chapter 4.2.1.1.
473 M.S. Smith 2008, 66.
154
Fig. 4.19 Relief, Temple of Amun at Karnak.
Reign of Sety I, Dynasty 19.
After Cruz-Uribe 2009, fig. 12
Such access would have been advantageous for
communication and negotiation, indicating that the role
of the storm deity in interregional diplomacy remained
significant in Dynasty 18, perhaps as a remnant of late
Middle Kingdom to early Second Intermediate Period
negotiations associated with the Egyptian storm god.
4.2.5 The Egyptian Storm Deity in the Nineteenth
Dynasty
4.2.5.1 Kingship and warfare
The association between the king and the Egyptian
storm deity reached its peak in the Nineteenth
Dynasty, included in this analysis due to its insights
on the continuation of the cult in the Eastern Delta.
Seth is attested repeatedly in representations, his
name adopted by two pharaohs of the dynasty.474
His traditional roles in apposition to Horus continue
in scenes relating to purification ceremonies or the
unification of Egypt. Sety I, for instance, is shown being
purified by Horus and anthropomorphic Seth Nb. ty
on two reliefs, one from Karnak,475 and Ramesses II
is portrayed at Abu Simbel being blessed by the two
474 Sety I and Sety II.
475 Karnak relief: LD 3, 124; Gardiner 1950, 4; H.H. Nelson
1980, pl. 148; Cruz-Uribe 2009, 215–216 [14], fig. 13.
The second relief was destroyed by fire. Of unknown
provenance, it has been postulated to originate from
Heliopolis, although Seth Nb. ty is portrayed. For more on
this relief, see Gardiner 1950, 5, pl. 1; Te Velde 1967, pl. 5
[2]; Brand 2000, 140 [3.23]. See also Murnane et al. 2004,
fig. 2.
Chapter 4
gods.476 The relation to kingship is also exemplified
on an unprovenanced offering table that records
Sety I as m r.y sA Nw. t ‘beloved of
, son of Nut’, a corresponding scene illustrating him
kneeling and presenting offerings before a throned
Seth Nb. ty.477 Another relief at Karnak additionally
shows Sety I offering bread n it (=f ) %wt x ‘to
(his) father, Seth’, who is identified by a caption
aA pH. ty ‘ , great of strength’, positioned above
the bearded deity (Fig. 4.19).478 This portrayal is also
followed in other representations, such as that of Seth
Nb. ty in Ramesses II’s reliefs of the Theban Ennead.479
Such developments coincide with a new political
framework in Egypt for which, following Akhenaten’s
reforms, Thebes was no longer capital, its temples and
gods no longer recipients of all the state’s foremost
offerings. Instead, these were feasibly dispatched
to the new capital of Egypt, Piramesse, which has
been identified with the modern site of Tell el-Dab‘a/
Qantir (see Fig. 3.23). Previously, the site may have
hosted Perunefer,480 but its status as state capital was
also connected to Dynasty 15. The shared space is of
great significance considering the postulated Deltaic
milieu of Dynasty 19’s royal family and likely many
of the high officials of its central administration
and military. It would be expected for its local cults
to increase in significance and wealth. Indeed, texts
such as Papyrus Anastasi II and IV mention that the
temples of Piramesse included those of Amun in the
west, the pr.w %wt x ‘the house of Seth’
in the south,481 Astarte in the east, and Wadjet in the
north.482 That of Seth has been correlated with the
abovementioned Eighteenth Dynasty trapezoidal
complex at Tell el-Dab‘a, the excavators postulating
its renovation under Horemheb as well as Sety I (see
476 LD 5, 173; H.H. Nelson 1980, pl. 139. Scenes from
Ramesses II’s reign at the Great Hypostyle Hall at
Karnak also portray Seth Nb. ty as part of the Great
Ennead. See H.H. Nelson 1980, pls. 36, 52, 201; Cruz-
Uribe 2009, 216–217, figs. 14–16.
477 The offering table features two parallel scenes, one showing
the king before the hacked image of anthropomorphic
Seth, and the other portraying him before Nephthys.
KRI 1, 234–235; Brand 2000, 188–190 [3.67].
478 H.H. Nelson 1980, pl. 139; Cruz-Uribe 2009, 215 [13],
fig. 12.
479 H.H. Nelson 1980, pl. 36. See also Cruz-Uribe 2009, 215,
n. 79. For more on Seth in the Nineteenth Dynasty, see,
with references, Sourouzian 2006; Cruz-Uribe 2009;
Hope and K aper 2010.
480 See Chapter 4.2.4.3.
481 Papyrus Anastasi II.1.4. Gardiner 1937, 12 [12]. Papyrus
Anastasi II.6.4 spells the deity’s name as
(Gardiner 1937, 41 [1]).
482 Papyrus Anastasi II.1.4–1.5 and Papyrus Anastasi
IV.6.4–6.5. Gardiner 1937, 12 [11–13], 40 [16], 41 [1–2].
 Religious Transformations
Fig. 4.20 Fragmentary stela Aleppo National Museum 384. Tell Nebi Mend, reign of Sety I, Dynasty 19.
After Pézard 1922, pl. 22
Figs. 4.17–18).483 They point to the discovery within its
enclosed area of a scarab of Horemheb as well as the
displaced and fragmentary lintel naming the king and
‘ , great [of strength]’ (see Fig. 4.18).484 Accordingly,
this would suggest the continued presence of a cult of
the storm deity, with the rise of a dynasty originating
from or based in the region around Tell el-Dab‘a
leading to an emphasis of regional customs and
traditions, possibly including that of the storm god, in
state records and commissioned works.
One of the earliest of such works to mention the
Egyptian storm deity was retrieved from Tell Nebi
Mend (Qadesh) (Fig. 4.20).485 Commemorating Sety I’s
victory at Qadesh, the stela preserves the upper part
of the fragmentary outlines of five figures, with
483 Some also suggest that, if the passages in Papyrus
Anastasi II and IV refer to temples near the palace of
Ramesses II, then another temple of Seth might have been
constructed southwest of the palace at Qantir, although
no remains of it have thus far been found. See Bietak
1985a, 272–274, pls. 1–2; 2010b, 164; 2011, 23, figs. 3–4,
15; Sourouzian 2006, 353–354; Bietak and Forstner-
Müller 2011, 33–38, figs. 5–6. See also Chapter 4.2.4.3.
484 Bietak 1985a, 272–274, pls. 1–2; 2010b, 164; 2011, 23,
figs. 3–4, 15; Bietak and Forstner-Müller 2011, 33–36,
figs. 5–6. See also Chapter 4.2.4.3.
485 Aleppo National Museum 384. Pézard 1922, 108, fig. 6,
pl. 22; Loukianoff 1924; Stadelmann 1967, 42–43; Te
Velde 1967, 130; Cornelius 1994, 153, pl. 40 [BR12];
Tazawa 2009, 13–14 [Doc. 1].
155
Sety I standing on the right receiving a x pS-sword
from Amun-Ra. The third figure slightly raises his
right arm and wears a thick beard and a high conical
crown from which a streamer hangs.486 Based on this
detail, he has been identified with Baal, although an
identification with Reshef has also been suggested.487
An incomplete inscription above his head retains
pH. ty ‘strength’, which is otherwise attested in epithets
for Seth.488 The figure thus appears to be artistically
represented with elements of a Near Eastern deity. His
inclusion on the stela and, in particular, behind Amun-
Ra signifies the god’s reverence both as a state god of
kings and as an advocate of Egypt’s supremacy, both
in war and in foreign lands.
Such aspects are paralleled in inscriptions of Sety I
at Karnak relating to his campaigns against the Shasu,
the Hittites, and the Libyans. That against the Shasu,
assigned to his Year 1, includes reliefs of the king on
486 Whether or not the figure carries an object in his raised
hand is disputed. The fourth figure is likely a goddess
wearing a crown with double plumed feather, perhaps
Hathor. The fifth figure has been identified as Montu
based on the accompanying inscription. Cornelius 1994,
153 [BR12]; Tazawa 2009, 13–14 [Doc. 1].
487 Stadelmann 1967, 43; Cornelius 1994, 153 [BR12];
Tazawa 2009, 13–14 [Doc. 1].
488 See, for instance, Thutmose III’s reference to the strength
of Seth on the battlefield at Megiddo in Chapter 4.2.4.1;
Annals of Thutmose III, Part I, lines 85–86. Urk. 4, 657.
156
a horse-drawn chariot aiming his bow and arrows at
Shasu men, their fortresses, and their well(s). Above
the scene is a text noting how he, the sun of Egypt, is
Montu in the foreign lands and aHa
ib m i Barw ‘persistent like Baal’.489 In a similar scene
against the Hittites, the king is valiant like Montu,
one hb pri m i
i m Nb. ty aA Hr.y t m i Bar Hr xAs.wt ‘who enters the
battlefield like he of Nb. t, great of terror like Baal in
the foreign lands’.490 Against the Libyans, he is also
like Montu, a hero, and mi
Bar hb =f Dww ‘like Baal who treads the mountains’.491
Unlike earlier attestations, the storm god is named
specifically as Baal, whose qualities of persistence,
instilling fear, and treading mountains are likened to
the king on the battlefield. In the second attestation,
Baal is correlated with ‘he of Nb. t’, or Seth, who is not
classified by the Seth-animal. The latter, in reclined
form, is instead used as a classifier for the phonetic
rendering of Baal. This seems to be the opposite of the
representation in the Sety I’s stela at Qadesh, wherein
the text could refer to Seth while the classifier, if
assumed to be the figure of the deity himself, is shown
with Near Eastern aspects. Perhaps the combination of
the visual and textual denotes the nature of the storm
deity as both Baal and Seth.
This conception is followed in representations
dating to Ramesses II’s reign, perhaps the most
cited of which is the so-called 400 Year Stela.492 The
item was discovered at Tanis but was likely set up
at Piramesse, most likely in front of the pylon of the
temple for Seth, the deity to whom it is dedicated.493
Both the textual and artistic elements of the stela
reveal significant details regarding reverence to the
Egyptian storm deity, as well as his status in the early
Nineteenth Dynasty. They are divided into two main
sections, the upper of which comprises of three figures
with associated columns of text (Fig. 4.21), and the
lower of which is damaged but retains twelve rows of
hieroglyphs. To the left of the upper section stands a
bearded figure with a wAs -sceptre in his left hand and
a an x-symbol in his right, the caption above identifies
him as [ ] n (.y) Ra.w - m s - sw
Mr.y -Im n .w Di (.w) an x =f n b ‘[ ] of Ramesses
489 Line 5. KRI 1, 6 [15]; Oriental Institute 1986, pl. 5 [ 5];
Tazawa 2009, 27 [Doc. 60].
490 Lines 6–7. KRI 1, 17 [14]; Oriental Institute 1986,
pl. 34; Tazawa 2009, 27 [Doc. 61].
491 Lines 5–6. KRI 1, 21 [3–4]; Oriental Institute 1986,
pl. 28; Tazawa 2009, 27 [Doc. 62].
492 JE 60539. See Sethe 1930; Montet 1931; von Beckerath
1951, 38–41; Stadelmann 1965; Goedicke 1966; 1981;
Helck 1966b; Te Velde 1967, 124–126, fig. 15, pl. 10;
R edford 1970, 23–31; H abachi 1977; 2001, 122–127;
Cornelius 1994, 147–148, pl. 35 [BR5]; Tazawa 2009, 14
[Doc. 2], 154.
493 M ariette 1865, 169–185, pl. 4; Montet 1931, 191–193;
Cornelius 1994, 147–148, pl. 35 [BR5]; Bietak 2010b,
164–165, pl. 16.
Chapter 4
Meryamun, given all his life’. He wears a conical crown
with a disc and horns at the front, as well as a streamer
extending from its top to his ankle, the tip of which is
shaped as a flower. Bangles adorn his upper arms and
wrists, a broad collar is at his neck, and two crossed
bands are placed at the chest. He is dressed in a long
transparent covering as well as a short tasselled and
striped kilt. Before him stands
n sw. t bi . ty Ws r-MAa. t -Ra.w %t p - n (.y) -R.w sA Ra.w
Ra.w - m s - sw Mr.y -Im n .w ‘king of Upper and Lower
Egypt, Wesermaatra Setepenra, son of Ra, Ramesses
Meryamun’. He wears a blue crown, a kilt, and a bull’s
tail, and offers in each hand a n w-vessel relating to,
as written before him, rDi . t irp n
it ir=f Di (.w) an x ‘an offering of wine for the father
who created him, given life’. The third figure to the
right has both arms raised in adoration and is similarly
dressed in a short kilt with a bull’s tail. He is identified
in two columns of text that separate him from the other
two figures:
n kA sA Nw. t Di=k aHa(.w)
r a n f r Hr Sm s kA=k n kA n (.y) ir.y - p a. t [i m .y - rA n w. t
TAy. ty] sS n sw i m .y - rA ss m .w (t) i m .y - rA xAs.wt
i m .y - rA x t m n (.y) *Arw [%t i .y mAa- x rw] ‘For the kA
of , son of Nut, may you give a perfect lifetime
in the following of your kA for the kA of the hereditary
prince, [mayor, vizier], royal scribe, overseer of horses,
overseer of foreign lands, overseer of the fortress of
*Arw, [Sety, justified]’. The rows inscribed beneath the
three figures of the Egyptian storm deity, Ramesses II,
and possibly Sety are translated here:494
Titulary of Ramesses II (lines 1–4)
an x (.w) @r.w kA n x t m r.y MAa. t n b Hb - s d m i it =f
PtH n sw. t bi . ty Ws r-MAa. t -Ra.w sA Ra.w Ra.w - m s -
sw Mr.y -Im n .w an x (.w) D. t Nb. ty m k i Km . t w af
xAs.wt Ra.w m s (.w) nTr.w grg (.w) tA.wy @r.w - n b
ws r rn p.wt aA- n x t .w n sw. t bi . ty Ws r-MAa. t -Ra.w
%t p - n (.y) -R.w sA Ra.w Ra.w - m s - sw Mr.y -Im n .w
it i .y grg tA.wy m m n w Hr rn =f wbx n (.y) Ra.w m
Hr. t n m r.wt =f n sw. t bi . ty Ws r-MAa. t -Ra.w %t p -
n (.y) -R.w sA Ra.w Ra.w - m s - sw Mr.y -Im n .w
Living Horus: strong bull; beloved of Maat, lord of the
heb-sed festival, like his father Ptah; king of Upper
and Lower Egypt: Wesermaatra Setepenra; son of Ra:
Ramesses Meryamun (Ramesses II), living forever;
Two Ladies: protector of Egypt who curbs foreign lands;
Ra, who fashioned the gods, who established the two
lands; golden Horus: rich in years, great in victories;
king of Upper and Lower Egypt: Wesermaatra-
494 KRI 2, 288; Montet 1931, pls. 11, 15.
 Religious Transformations
Fig. 4.21 The upper section of the so-called 400 Year Stela (JE 60539). Tanis, reign of Ramesses II, Dynasty 19.
After Bietak 1990, fig. 1
Setepenra; son of Ra: Ramesses-Meryamun; sovereign,
the one who established the two lands with monuments
in his name for the love of Ra shines in the sky, king of
Upper and Lower Egypt: Wesermaatra Setepenra; son
of Ra: Ramesses Meryamun.
Command of Ramesses II (lines 5–6)
wD Hm =f iri . t aHa aA m in r n mAt Hr rn wr n (.y)
it .w =f n m r.wt s aHa rn it it .w =f n sw. t Mn -MAa. t -
Ra.w sA Ra.w %t i .y - m r- n (.y) -PtH m n (.w) w aH n D. t
m i Ra.w r a.w n b
His majesty commanded the making of a great
granite stela for/with the great name of his fathers
to establish the name of the father of his fathers, the
king Menmaatra, son of Ra, Sety-Merneptah (Sety I),
established and long living for eternity, like Ra every
day.
Titulary of Seth (line 7)
rn p. t - s p 400 Abd 4 Sm w s w 4 n s w. t bi . ty - aA-
pH. ty sA Ra. w m r.y = f %t x -Nb. ty m r.y Ra. w - @r. w -
Ax . ty w n n = f r nHH D. t
Year 400, month 4 of Sm w, day 4 of the king of Upper
and Lower Egypt: , great of strength; son of Ra: his
beloved, Seth Nb. ty; beloved of Ra-Horakhty, may he
exist in eternity forever.
157
Titulary of vizier Sety (lines 8–10)
i w i . t p w i ri n i r.y - p a. t i m .y - rA n w. t TAy. ty TAy - x w
Hr w n m (.y) n (.y) n s w Hr.y pD. w t i m .y - rA xAs . w t
i m .y - rA x t m n (.y) *Arw w r n (.y) MDAw. w sS n s w
i m .y - rA s s m . w (t) sSm Hb n (.y) Xn m n b +d . w t
Hm - nTr t p (.y) n (.y) Xr.y -HAb (. t) n (.y) WAD.y t
w p. t tA. wy i m .y - rA Hm . w nTr n (.y) nTr. w n b. w
%t i .y mAa- x rw sA i r.y - p a. t i m .y - rA n w. t TAy. ty
Hr.y pD. w t i m .y - rA xAs . w t i m .y - rA x t m n (.y) *Arw
sS n s w i m .y - rA s s m . w (t) PA-Ra. w - m s - s mAa- x r
m s i n n b. t p r(. w) Sm a. ty n (.y) PA-Ra. w & i w mAa-
x rw (. t)
It is the coming which is done by the hereditary
prince, mayor, vizier, fan-bearer on the right of the
king, foremost of the bowmen, overseer of foreign
lands, overseer of the fortress of *Arw, chief of the
MDAw.w, royal scribe, overseer of horses, festival
leader of the ram lord of Mendes, high priest of ,
lector-priest of Wadjet who opens the two lands,
overseer of the priests of all gods, Sety, justified, son
of the hereditary prince, mayor, vizier, foremost of
the bowmen, overseer of foreign lands, overseer of
the fortress of *Arw, royal scribe, overseer of horses,
Paramesse, justified, born to the lady of the house, the
musician of Pira, Tiu, justified.
158 Chapter 4
Hymn of vizier Sety (lines 10–12)
Dd=f nD- [Hr=k] sA Nw. t aA pH. t (y) m wiA n (.y)
HH s x r(. t) xf t .y w =f m HA. t wiA n (.y) Ra.w aA h m h m . t
[…] =i aHa(.w) r a n f r Hr Sm s kA[=k] iw =i m n m […]
He says: Hail [to you], , son of Nut, great of strength
in the barque of millions, the one who overthrows his
enemies at the prow of the barque of Ra, great of war
cry [… may you give] me a perfect lifetime in the
following of [your] kA, (because) I am established in
[…]
The text is divided here into five main sections. The
first and second identify Ramesses II as the one who
commissioned the stela (lines 1–6), the third refers
to the rule of Seth (line 7), the fourth presents the
titulary and ancestry of vizier Sety (lines 8–10), and
the fifth preserves a fragmentary hymn to Seth (lines
10–12).495 Textually, the storm deity is represented as a
king, his names written in cartouches and his epithets
reinforcing his connections to the Heliopolitan gods
Ra and Ra-Horakhty.496 The cartouches could perhaps
be interpreted as two significant manifestations of
the deity: , great of strength; and Seth Nb. ty. The
quality of pH. ty is attested for the storm deity from
at least Thutmose III’s reign, occurring in assocation
with the battlefield.497 Its emphasis in the stela is
furthered by the military offices of Sety and his father,
the inclusion of Ramesses II’s blue crown, as well as
the military origins of the Nineteenth Dynasty.
These origins are likely the reason why the stela
was commissioned. In the upper section, the caption
accompanying Ramesses II’s action specifically refers
to the portrayed deity as it ir=f ‘the father who created
him’, signalling a relation also mentioned on Apophis’s
altar498 and Sety I’s relief at Karnak;499 in the main
body of text, the king wishes to establish the name of
his ancestor by recording the name of his fathers.500
495 For a discussion on the genre(s) of the text, see R edford
1970, 25–27.
496 Goedicke 1966, 35–38.
497 See Chapter 4.2.4.1.
498 See Chapter 4.2.2.4.
499 See H.H. Nelson 1980, pl. 139; Cruz-Uribe 2009, 215
[13], fig. 12.
500 R edford (1970, 24, n. 2) argues that the name that
Ramesses II sought to establish in the stela is that of
Sety I, however this contradicts the only other reference
on the stela to the father of Ramesses II in singular form,
which specifically refers to the pictured deity. Redford’s
other suggestion that it it .w =f ‘could be taken in
coordination with Sety I’s name’ is possible. Perhaps the
inclusion of m n (.w) following Sety I’s name infers that
he is already ‘established’.
In fact, the representation of this ancestral relationship
between the king and the deity is emphasised by the
third representation of the god specifically as of
Ramesses Meryamun. While some have postulated
this to be Ramesses II’s own form of Seth rather than
those mentioned in the text,501 it is more likely that,
in establishing the name of the king’s ancestor, the
stela included the most powerful manifestations of the
storm deity in Egypt: the artistically portrayed god,
feasibly the local form revered at the temple at which
the stela was erected; , great of strength; and Seth
Nb. ty. Based on the usual depiction of the latter in
anthropomorphic form with the head of a Seth-animal,
it remains possible that , great of strength, is the
deity depicted in the upper portion of the stela,502 and
indeed Sety I presents to the ‘father’, , great of
strength on his relief at Karnak.503 In support of this
representation of the totality of the Egyptian storm
god’s attributes is his cartouches’ allocation with a
specific regnal date in line 7. On this date, the vizier
Sety conducted ‘a coming’ and offered a hymn likely
at the site where the stela was originally erected and
possibly in his office as high priest of .504 Overall,
the inscriptions thus point to three main functions of
the text: (1) to honour Seth, specifically the cult of
as the ancestral deity and ancestral king of the
ruling pharaoh; (2) to honour the event on which the
vizier Sety offered his hymn, whether historical or
not;505 and (3) to honour the vizier Sety.
The identity of the vizier as a forefather of
Ramesses II has been a matter of debate. Goedicke
argues that he was not an ancestor of the king, but
a vizier who was possibly born in Sety I’s reign.506
Lines 5–6, however, strongly infer that he is one
of Ramesses II’s ancestors, who, according to his
titles, originated from the Eastern Delta.507 It is now
widely favoured that the vizier is Sety I, the father of
Ramesses II, with the vizier’s father, Paramesse, being
501 Goedicke 1981, 27; H abachi 2001, 125.
502 The deity of the Rhetorical Stela and the stela at Gebel
Murr is also labelled as , great of strength.
503 H.H. Nelson 1980, pl. 139; Cruz-Uribe 2009, 215 [13],
fig. 12.
504 Due to the text’s lack of specificity, it is also feasible
that the regnal date is linked to Ramesses II’s preceding
command. According to the stela’s inclusion of
Ramesses II’s title as ‘lord of the heb-sed festival’,
as well as the writing of his Two Ladies name, a date
following his thirty-fourth year has been suggested. For
more, see R edford 1970, 27–28; Goedicke 1981, 32–33;
Bietak 1990, 14.
505 See Stadelmann 1965; R edford 1970, 26, 30; H abachi
2001, 125, n. 520.
506 Goedicke 1966; 1981. See also H abachi 2001, 125.
507 The artistic separation of the vizier from the king and
deity by a column of hieroglyphs could also indicate that
the vizier is deceased.
 Religious Transformations
Ramesses I.508 Opposing this hypothesis is the name
of the vizier’s mother, Tiu, which varies from known
attestations of Sety I’s mother, Sitra.509 Goedicke
also points out that the stela’s vizier is portrayed
neither artistically nor textually as a king.510 As such,
Stadelmann proposes that the vizier Sety should
instead be identified with Ramesses I’s father, who is
attested with the same name and similar titles;511 but,
evidence for an Eighteenth Dynasty vizier with the
name and titles of Paramesse has not yet been found.
Nevertheless, Stadelmann’s proposition is appealing,
especially when considering that the connection
between non-royal but military forefathers of the
king, and his divine father, Seth, would have been
necessary to strengthen his legitimacy and lineage.512
It thus seems more likely that the stela represents a
commemoration presented by Ramesses II’s great-
grandfather before the rise of the Nineteenth Dynasty,
one which perhaps served to show the continuity of
service to the storm deity by the ‘great name’ of the
king’s fathers from Dynasty 18.
The attribution of 400 years to the storm deity further
infers a continuous cult, but one that was significantly
established before the Eighteenth Dynasty.513 If a
fantastical date, then it may have been utilised to
stress the antiquity of the cult. If the date relates to the
establishment of the cult calculated from the erection
of the stela backwards, this would coincide with the
beginning of Hyksos rule; but, if it instead marks
Sety’s commemoration, then the cult could be dated
before Hyksos rule.514 In both cases, if the stela was
placed at Seth’s temple at Piramesse, this would infer
knowledge regarding the establishment of a local cult
or temple of the represented deity in the Delta and,
accordingly, also indicate its deep-rooted significance
in the region by Ramesses II’s reign.515
Consequently, this would support the continued
worship of the storm deity at Tell el-Dab‘a, from
whence the process of Seth’s transculturisation has
been traced from the Middle Kingdom. His portrayal
with elements of the Near Eastern storm deity, such
as the horns, streamer, beard and banded kilt, should
not be considered revolutionary,516 but a result of
508 Sethe 1930; Helck 1966b; R edford 1970, 23–31; Brand
2000, 336–339; Assmann 2008, 40.
509 H abachi 2001, 126.
510 Goedicke 1981, 28–29.
511 See Cruz-Uribe 1978; Dodson and Hilton 2004, 174.
512 Goedicke (1981, 39) also writes that the text may have been
written as a Königsnovelle. For more on this genre, see
Hermann 1938; Jansen-Winkeln 1993; Loprieno 1996.
513 Sethe suggests that the ‘reign’ of Seth could refer to the
foundation of the city of Tanis. Sethe 1930.
514 See van Seters 1966, 97–98; Goedicke 1966, 38–39;
1981, 32–33; R edford 1970, 27–30; 1992, 118; Bietak
1990, 14; H abachi 2001, 123–124.
515 See also von Beckerath 1951, 38–41.
516 Te Velde (1967, 126) writes of it as ‘an act of reformation’.
See also R ikala 2007, 225–226.
159
this process of Seth’s continuous correlation with
the Near Eastern storm deity. The noted elements
in fact surface on the late Middle Kingdom sealings
from Tell el-Dab‘a, the horns also mentioned in
Dynasty 18’s Astarte Papyrus. Significantly, the name
of the deity throughout the stela is only marked by
the Seth-animal which, by this stage, represented
Baal and/or Seth. Its inscription within cartouches
emphasises the storm deity’s persistent importance
in kingship which was accentuated in Dynasty 15
and likely also in Amenhotep II’s reign.517 As with
Akhenaten, Dynasty 19’s early rulers had established
a new capital and, evidently, (re-)elevated a deity
as representative of kingship. Their non-royal but
military background likely required legitimacy, both
in the divine and physical realms, which, according
to the interpretation followed here, is reflected by
the creation of the 400 Year Stela. Its combined
textual and artistic representations likely served
to illustrate the dynasty’s relation to a local cult of
Seth, and the cult’s long tradition to the time before
the Theban rulers unified Egypt, perhaps when the
storm deity was remembered to be of prominence for
the region’s reigning administration. By mentioning
the name of his ancestors (his royal father and
perhaps high priest great-grandfather), Ramesses II
was establishing the name of the father of his fathers,
the one whom his ancestors continuously worshipped,
and his own spirtual father, the storm deity, as a
supreme god of kingship.
Indeed, a number of texts and images from
Ramesses II’s reign similarly highlight this deity’s
significance. Several monuments usurped from
Twelfth and Fifteenth Dynasty kings assign the king
with the epithet ‘beloved of Seth’ or ‘beloved of Seth of
Ramesses Meryamun’.518 The upper part of Rhetorical
Stela Tanis V also features the king extending an
offering(?) to aA pH. ty n b p. t Di (. w)
an x = f ‘ , great of strength, lord of the sky, given his
life’.519 The glyphs caption a standing bearded figure
holding the wAs-sceptre in his right hand and a an x-
symbol in his left while wearing a high conical crown
with one extended streamer. The connection with
strength is further referenced in the stela’s text (line
2), which recalls how the king is aA pH. ty m i
‘great of strength like ’. Another stela of the same
king from Gebel Murr preserves the right half of a
517 See Chapters 4.2.3.4, 4.2.4.1 and 4.2.4.5. The portrayal
of a deity in such a manner, however, finds parallels
in inscriptions mentioning Amun-Ra, as well as the
Aten, whose name was similarly written in cartouches
and provided with a regnal date that extended before
Amenhotep II’s rule.
518 See Sourouzian 2006, 346–349; Hill 2015, 298–299 [1e–
f, 1j–k, 4c, 4e].
519 Lines 1–2. KRI 2, 294; Yoyotte 1950, 47–62, pl. 7;
Stadelmann 1967, 43, n. 3; Cornelius 1994, 148, pl. 36
[BR6]; Tazawa 2009, 14–15 [Doc. 3].
160 Chapter 4
Fig. 4.22 Musées Royaux d’Art et d’Histoire E.06190.
Unknown provenance, reign of Ramesses II,
Dynasty 19 (?). Drawn from photograph after Musées
Royaux d’Art et d’Histoire E.06190
standing figure with a similar crown and streamer who
is also labelled aA pH. ty an x wAs n b ‘
great of strength, (given) all life and dominion’.520 The
artistic depiction of the anthropomorphic storm deity
in both stelae is akin to those of of Ramesses
Meryamun on the 400 Year Stela.
A third stela depicts the deity in sphinx form but
with the head of a Seth-animal in a manner similar
to representations of the sphinx of Sety I.521 A caption
520 Ismailia Nr. 2758: KRI 2, 303 [4]; Goyon 1938, 119–120,
pl. 21; Stadelmann 1967, 43–44; Cornelius 1994, 149–
150, pl. 36 [BR8]; Tazawa 2009, 15 [Doc. 4]. Another
stela at the site, Ismailia Nr. 2757, includes the name of
Bar ‘Baal’ in a very fragmentary text. An effaced
associated relief could have featured an artistic portrayal
of the deity, perhaps similar to that on Nr. 2758. For
Ismailia Nr. 2757, see KRI 2, 302 [9]; Goyon 1938, 119,
pl. 20; Cornelius 1994, 150, n. 2.
521 For Ramesses II’s stela, Louvre E.26017, see Vandier
1969, 193–194, pl. 7b; Goldwasser 1995, 49–50, fig. 3;
Cornelius 2008, 113–114 [Cat. 3.6]. Fragments of an
obelisk of Sety I recovered from Alexandria’s harbour
show the sphinx with the Seth-animal’s head (Corteggiani
1998, 32, fig. 4; Brand 2000, 134–135, with references).
Another fragment collected from a secondary context
from the Southern Levantine site of el-Qubeba also
portrays a sphinx with the Seth-animal’s head (Leibovitch
1957, pl. 20 [1]; Goldwasser 1992b, figs. 1–2; Schroer
2008, 116 [320]). Although Leibovitch (1957) assigns it
to the MBIIB, a Nineteenth Dynasty date is more likely
(Goldwasser 1992b).
near the deity reads: nTr
aA n b p. t m r.y n (.y) Ra.w Di . n n =k q n i (.w) ‘ , the
great god, lord of the sky, beloved of Ra, has given you
strength’.522 An additional faience plaque of unknown
provenance presents this strength performatively
(Fig. 4.22).523 The name of a Ramesses (?) is inscribed
on its side while on one of its faces is the portrayal
of a sphinx with a ram’s head. Depicted on its other
face is a bearded and winged figure in a smiting
stance wearing a high conical crown delineated as a
bunch of gathered reeds524 with one thick streamer and
perhaps a Seth-animal’s head at its front.525 The figure
is dressed in a short Sn d .y t-kilt and crossed bands at
the chest, with a broad collar at his neck and bangles
on his upper arms and wrist. The left hand grasps
the head of a serpent, and the right aims a spear at its
body. A caption behind the figure reads an x
sA HA(=f ) n b [m i Ra.w] ‘all life and protection behind
him [like Ra]’,526 while an inscription before his face
is not preserved. The figure’s dress, crown and beard
all agree with his identification as the Egyptian storm
deity of the 400 Year Stela, the wings attested for both
Seth and the Near Eastern god.527 This is furthered by
the occurrence of a similar but fragmentary winged
figure wearing a kilt with tassels while spearing
a serpent on a relief from Ramesses II’s temple at
Matmar (Fig. 4.23).528
The spearing of the serpent feasibly reflects the god’s
strength in defeating his enemy, likely Apophis, to
secure Ra’s journey in the Netherworld.529 The motif,
however, is also attested on Near Eastern cylinder seals
from, for instance, Ugarit.530 It is additionally found on
LBA scarabs collected from a tomb at Tell el-Far‘ah
522 Line 1. KRI 2, 779 [278].
523 Griffith 1893/1894, 88–89; Vandier 1969, 191, 196;
Dąbrowski 1992, 38, fig. 2 [c]; Cornelius 1994, 217–218,
pl. 50 [BM82]; Tazawa 2009, 20 [Doc. 20].
524 A similar crown adorning the head of a metal statuette of
Baal also clearly delineates its bundled reeds, for which
see Schaeffer 1936, 147, fig. 25, pl. 21. A statue head
of the Ramesside Period also wears this crown with bull
horns (Cornelius 1994, 228–229, fig. 59).
525 Some have identified the symbol as an uraeus or a
gazelle’s head, although Cornelius questions whether it
could be the head of a Seth-animal (Cornelius 1994, 217,
n. 6). For the catalogue entry, see Musées Royaux d’A rt
et d’H istoire E.06190.
526 The last two signs could also represent an x to read ‘life
and protection are behind the lord of life’ (see Cornelius
1994, 218 [BM82]). For a similar epithet, ‘the protection
of all life surrounding him’, on a stela of Sety I, see
Darnell 2011, 130–131, fig. 2.
527 See Chapter 4.2.1.5, 4.2.2.2 and 4.2.4.1.
528 Brunton 1948, 61, pl. 49 [13]; Vandier 1969, 191;
Cornelius 1994, 162, pl. 43 [BR17].
529 See Dąbrowski 1992. See also Chapter 4.2.4.2.
530 Schaeffer 1956, 122–123, figs. 32–33; Cornelius 1994,
218–220, pl. 51 [BM85–86]. See also Chapter 4.2.1.3.
 Religious Transformations
South531 and a chamber at Lachish,532 as well as other
unprovenanced scarabs and seals.533 A fragmentary
LBA stela of unknown provenance also shows a
winged deity on the prow of a papyrus skiff spearing
an unpreserved enemy, likely a serpent.534 Wearing a
n m s-headdress, a kilt with tassels, and bangles on his
upper arms and wrists, this figure is represented with
the head of a bull and horns, but is identified as
%t x kA Nb. t ‘Seth, bull of Nb. t’.535 Although the figure’s
head has been identified as of Cretan inspiration,536 the
horns and bull are known in association with the Near
Eastern storm deity,537 the kA n (.y) Bar ‘bull
of Baal’ attested in an epithet to Ramesses II.538 Thus,
the figure’s head, wings, dress, posture, and activity
represent a combination of iconographic elements of
various origin related to a (supra-?)regional storm
deity. Their correlation with Seth of Nb. t points to a
more widespread representation of the Near Eastern
characeristics of this deity across Egypt and perhaps
regions under its hegemony, likely as a result of
Dynasty 19’s selection of Seth as a state god. In other
words, elements either previously shared with the
Near Eastern storm deity or that embodied traditions
evidently of Egyptian origin, like that of slaying the
serpent in the Netherworld, markedly reflect more
Near Eastern qualities or associations by Dynasty 19.
Textual representations of the Egyptian storm deity
similarly emphasise this in references to the king’s
strength in war. When Ramesses II prepares to head
into the battlefield in the so-called Poem of the Battle
of Qadesh, the text describes that
sw m i Bar m wn w. t =f ‘he was like Bar in
his hour’.539 In a prayer to Amun, the Karnak version
likens the king to m A. t =f m
Hr=s n ‘ in his moment before them’, the name of
the deity preserved at Luxor as %wt x ‘Seth’, in
Papyrus Sallier III as Bawr ‘Baal’, and
at Abydos as MnTw ‘Montu’, the latter perhaps
due either to Montu’s roles in warfare or to the text’s
531 Petrie 1930, 7, pls. 12 [171], 37 [902]; Dąbrowski 1992,
fig. 2 [a]; Cornelius 1994, 214, pl. 50 [BM76].
532 Cornelius 1994, 214–215, pl. 50 [BM77].
533 Cornelius 1994, 213, 215–218, pls. 50–51 [BM74–75,
BM78–81, BM83–84].
534 Copenhagen AEIN 726. Te Velde 1967, 20, pl. 7 [1];
Vandier 1969, 191; Cornelius 1994, 163–164, pl. 44
[BR19]; Tazawa 2009, 18 [Doc. 12], pl. 3.
535 Te Velde 1967, 20, pl. 7 [1]; Vandier 1969, 191; Cornelius
1994, 163–164, pl. 44 [BR19]; Tazawa 2009, 18 [Doc. 12],
pl. 3.
536 Leibovitch 1953, 107–108, fig. 15; Cornelius 1994, 164
[BR19].
537 See Chapters 4.2.1.3 and 4.2.1.5.
538 Rhetorical Stela of Ramesses II, Tanis VII. KRI 2, 296
[15]; Petrie, Griffith and Murray 1888, pl. 2 [75–77];
Yoyotte 1952a, 81–84, pl. 6; Tazawa 2009, 30 [Doc. 71].
539 For the various transcriptions at Karnak and Luxor, see
KRI 2, 29 [1–6]. Tazawa 2009, 28 [Doc. 64].
161
Fig. 4.23 Fragmentary relief, temple at Matmar,
reign of Ramesses II, Dynasty 19.
After Cornelius 1994, pl. 43 [BR17]
placement at the Osirian cult centre of Abydos.540
Following the prayer, after attempting to energise his
troops, the king heads into the battlefield on his horse,
m i Bar m - sA=s n m pH. t ‘like
Bar in his moment of strength’.541 Other lines in the
Poem find Seth equated to Baal, with the king being
%wt x aA pH. ty Bar m
Ha.wt =f ‘Seth, great of strength, Baal himself’,542 or
%wt x Bar [m Ha.wt =f ] ‘Seth,
Baal [himself]’.543 The equivalence of Seth with Baal
is also apparent in similar attestations in the Bulletin.
Preparing to head into battle, the king is %wt x
great of strength at Luxor544 but Bar in his hour
540 In this case, Montu could be linked to characteristics
of strength and warfare. The replacement with Montu
may have been a deliberate avoidance of the names of
both Seth and Baal, as the storm god was considered
Osiris’s murderer and, as Robins suggests, his mention
would be ‘dangerous in the context’. If correct, this
also supports the association of Seth with Baal. For
the various transcriptions, see KRI 2, 45 [§131]. Other
scenes that usually show Seth also featured deities who
fulfilled similar duties. For more on the replacement of
Seth at Abydos as well as Sety I’s tomb in the Valley of
the Kings, see Wilson 1927, 271, n. 1; 1969, 249, n. 10;
Te Velde 1967, 132; Robins 1997, 172–174; Cruz-Uribe
2009, 202–203, 209–210. See also M.S. Smith 2008, 38.
541 For the various transcriptions at Karnak, Luxor and
the Ramesseum, see KRI 2, 71 [1–3]. Tazawa 2009, 29
[Doc. 66].
542 For the various transcriptions at Abydos, Karnak and
Luxor, see KRI 2, 53 [1–5]. Tazawa 2009, 29 [Doc. 65].
543 For the various transcriptions at Luxor, see KRI 2, 90
[8–10]; Tazawa 2009, 29 [Doc. 65].
544 KRI 2, 120 [1–3]; Tazawa 2009, 29 [Doc. 68], n. 137.
162 Chapter 4
at Abu Simbel and the Ramesseum.545 In one caption,
the Hittite king likens Ramesses II to
%wty aA pH. ty Bar m
Ha.wt =f [m wn w.] t (=f ) ‘Seth, great of strength, Baal
himself, [in] (his) hour’,546 an expression that finds a
close parallel in the Ramesside tale of Thutmose III in
Asia.547 Another relief at Karnak of battle against an
unnamed Levantine town also refers to Ramesses II
as hAb (.w) pri
m i m Nb. ty [Hr.]y [t] =f [m i Ba] r Hr xAs.wt ‘the one
who treads the battlefield like (he who is) in Nb. ty,
his terror like Baal upon the mountainous/foreign
lands’.548 Manassa explains that the mention of one’s
hour or moment reflects a ‘concentration of energy
released in a sudden burst’;549 but it is also possible
to liken it to Seth’s display of strength in the seventh
hour of the Amduat, within which the storm deity
repels the serpent. Accordingly, the references could
be metaphorically equating the king on the battlefield
against his foreign enemies, with the god in his
battle against otherworldly creatures. In this conflict
to maintain order, the king evidently becomes Seth
and Baal; Baal is Seth in his hour, and Seth is Baal
himself. The Near Eastern entity is subsumed into the
Egyptian representation of kingship and its role in the
maintenance of order.
4.2.5.2 Excursus 1: Seth or Baal? Other representations
of the transcultural storm deity
The embodiment of Seth as Baal and vice versa
continues in the Nineteenth Dynasty.550 The Tell el-
Muqdam statue of Nehsy was reworked by Merneptah
who retained Nehsy’s epithet as
m r.y [ ] n b ¡w. t - w ar. t ‘beloved of [ ], lord
of Avaris’.551 The throne of another usurped statue
545 KRI 2, 120 [4–5]; Tazawa 2009, 29 [Doc. 68], n. 137.
546 KRI 2, 139 [9–12]; Tazawa 2009, 30 [Doc. 69].
547 %w t x aA pH. (t)y
Bay r m wn w. t [=f ] ‘Seth, great of strength, Baal in [his]
hour’ (Papyrus Turin 1940+1941, lines 4–5). M anassa
2013, 188–190, pl. 8.
548 Bar Hr xAs.w t could also be translated as ‘Baal against
the foreign lands’. KRI 2, 159 [a, i. 3–5]; Tazawa 2009,
30 [Doc. 70].
549 M anassa 2013, 113.
550 For evidence dating to Dynasty 20, see KRI 5, 13, 25,
31–32, 34, 36, 38, 44, 49, 57, 66, 70, 79, 82; Stadelmann
1967, 40–41; Tazawa 2009, 30–34 [Docs. 72–86].
551 See Chapter 4.2.2.3; Naville 1894, pl. 4b; Borchardt
1925, 87–88, pl. 89 [538]; Sourouzian 2006, 341–343,
fig. 5. The epithet additionally occurs on two other
usurped granodiorite statues of unknown provenance
that were originally for Senwosret I (Cairo RT 8-2-21-
1: Lorand 2011, 133–141 [C 50]; Hill 2015, 299 [3d].
ÄM Berlin 7265: Roeder 1913, 141–143; 1924, 19–22;
Te Velde 1967, pl. 12 [1]; Cornelius 1994, 151, pl. 38
[BR10]; Tazawa 2009, 18 [Doc. 13]). ‘Beloved of Seth’
is additionally inscribed in association with Merneptah
on other usurped monuments (see Souzourian 2006,
346–349; Hill 2015, 298–299 [1e–1g, 3e, 4e]).
comprises a scene depicting Merneptah bringing
offerings before a standing figure wearing a conical
crown with a streamer and horns (Fig. 4.24).552 The
figure is labelled %w t x nTr aA n b p. t
‘Seth, great god, lord of the sky’.553 A reconstructed
stela from Qantir assigned to the reign of Ramesses II
or later preserves the lower half of a figure seated
on an Egyptian-type throne (Fig. 4.25).554 Although
the reconstruction is highly doubtful, what remains
preserved behind the throne is a streamer ending in
a floral motif that likely extended from the figure’s
crown, while in front of the feet is the lower end
of a wAs-sceptre. Remaining elements of a second
register point to an original rendition featuring a row
of worshippers, including a ‘lady of the house’. This
may point to non-royal households worshipping this
deity in the Delta. Although he has been identified by
excavators as Seth,555 the deity could also be Reshef.
Seth’s worship in Thebes is supported by a possible
Nineteenth Dynasty stela dedicated by Djehutynefer
(Fig. 4.26a).556 While the top register of the stela
depicts the official before a seated Amun-Ra, the
lower features a row of deities including Ptah, Sobek,
Amun, and, to the left, a standing figure with a high
conical crown decorated with horns and a streamer
that ends in a floral tip. Wearing a broad collar and
a short kilt with tassels, he is n b x pS. t ‘ ,
lord of power’. Evidently, the stela of Djehutynefer
marked the official’s devotion to several deities in
the Egyptian pantheon, including this storm god.
Another official that offered his dedication to this god
is Montutauinakht, whose stela at Serabit el-Khadim
shows him presenting lotus flowers to n (.y)
pH. ty ‘ of strength’ (Fig. 4.26b).557 As with the other
Nineteenth Dynasty representations, the deity is again
pictured here standing with a conical crown decorated
with horns and a streamer ending in a flower.
Because of the inclusion of such elements otherwise
linked with the Near Eastern storm god, these figures
have been identified solely as Baal.558 Indeed, the
names of most are simply written with the Seth-
552 ÄM Berlin 7265. Roeder 1924, 21 [D]; Te Velde 1967,
pl. 12 [1]; Cornelius 1994, 151, pl. 38 [BR10]; Tazawa
2009, 18 [Doc. 13].
553 Roeder 1924, 21 [D.1–2].
554 Pusch and Eggebrecht 2006, 249–256, figs. 4–7.
555 Pusch and Eggebrecht 2006, 249–256.
556 ÄM Berlin 8440. Roeder 1924, 199 [B.5]; Vandier 1969,
190; Cornelius 1994, 150, pl. 37 [BR9]; Tazawa 2009, 17,
pl. 2 [Doc. 10].
557 Ashmolean E.714. Petrie 1906, 127, fig. 134; Gardiner
and Peet 1917, pl. 79 [308]; Černy 1955, 196 [308];
Vandier 1969, 189; Cornelius 1994, 154, pl. 40 [BR13];
Tazawa 2009, 18, pl. 2 [Doc. 11].
558 For instance, in his entry for ÄM Berlin 7265, Cornelius
(1994, 151 [BR10]) writes that ‘The figure can be
identified as Ba’al, although the inscription has Seth’.
See also Pusch and Eggebrecht 2006, 252–253; Tazawa
2009, 17–18 [Docs. 9–10].
 Religious Transformations
Fig. 4.24 Detail of usurped statue’s throne (ÄM Berlin
7265). Unknown provenance, reign of Merneptah,
Dynasty 19. Drawn from photograph,
after Cornelius 1994, pl. 38 [BR10]
animal as logogram; however, the phonetic spelling
on Merneptah’s throne as %w t x suggests that, to
the Egyptian artist and/or scribe, the pictured deity
was identified with Seth. This agrees with other
Nineteenth Dynasty attestations, such as that of the
400 Year Stela, wherein the Egyptian storm deity is
artistically portrayed with Near Eastern features but
can be referred to as Seth. It also supports textual
representations in which the names of both Seth and
Baal are used interchangeably to refer to the storm
deity and, in particular, to his strength. As observed,
this correspondance was already manifest in the
hieroglyphic symbol of the Seth-animal by Dynasty 18,
the sign classifying the names as well as the aspects of
both deities. Therefore, just as characteristics of the
Near Eastern god were incorporated in metaphorical
expressions of the king’s strength in his battle for
order, so was the Egyptian storm deity conceived
artistically and textually as both Seth and Baal. This
conception was evidently not only restricted to the
royal sphere, but was also represented in monuments
of non-royal individuals in Egypt.
It similarly occurs in portrayals of the deity in
inscriptions discovered beyond Egypt. This is best
exemplified by a stela retrieved in five fragments
163
Fig. 4.25 Reconstruction of Stela FZN 87/0890
and 0891. Area Q/I-a/3, Stratum B/2b, Qantir.
After Pusch and Eggebrecht 2006, figs. 2, 4, 6
from Ugarit’s Temple of Baal.559 Its upper part shows
two standing and opposing figures (Fig. 4.26c): that
on the right with both arms raised in adoration is
the official Mami, a royal scribe and overseer of the
king’s domain who wears a traditional Egyptian garb,
and that on the left is the bearded
Bay r +ApwnA ‘Baal Sapan’, who bears a conical
crown with a streamer ending in a flower(?). While
the name points to an identification with the Ugaritic
storm deity, his portrayal follows other Nineteenth
Dynasty representations of the storm god. These,
however, were either dedicated by the king himself,
or were situated at a cultic location in Egypt or under
the direct control of the state. Although Mami was in
the Egyptian administration and had commissioned
a stela in the Egyptian manner, his dedication to the
storm deity was contrarily placed in a temple beyond
Egypt’s borders, where worshippers venerated the god
in his form as Baal Sapan. This context could have
thereby influenced the writing of the deity’s name,
559 Louvre AO 13176. Schaeffer 1929, 294; 1931, 10–12, pl. 6;
Montet 1931, 203; van Seters 1966, 174–175; Vandier 1969,
190; Stadelmann 1967, 37–39; Cornelius 1994, 151–153,
pl. 39 [BR11]; Tazawa 2009, 16–17 [Doc. 8]; E. Levy 2014.
164 Chapter 4

(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 4.26 Details of stelae showing the storm god, Dynasty 19 (?). (a) Stela of Djehutynefer (ÄM Berlin 8440),
Thebes (drawn from photograph, after Cornelius 1994, pl. 37 [BR9]); (b) Stela of Montutauinakht (Ashmolean
E.714), Serabit el-Khadim (after Gardiner and Peet 1917, pl. 79 [308]); (c) Stela of Mami (Louvre AO 13176),
Temple of Baal, Ugarit (drawn from photograph, after Cornelius 1994, pl. 39 [BR11])

suggesting that the portrayed figure was perceived
as Baal Sapan at Ugarit.560 Such a conception would
support the shared iconography of a (supra-?)regional
storm deity, which is further vindicated by other
scarabs, seals and seal impressions from the Levant.561
LBA seal impressions from Tell Fakhariyah show
the deity in a smiting stance with a conical but
knobbed headdress from which extends a single
streamer, a banded kilt with tassels, a staff, and
perhaps a raised weapon.562 A scarab collected from
a Thirteenth Century BC tomb at Deir el-Balah
presents the standing deity with a conical crown
with horns and streamer, and a wAs-sceptre,563 the
stance akin to figures on scarabs collected from
560 The same interpretation may be applied to the god portrayed
on a stela from Beth Shean. Seated on a throne, the deity,
MakAr, is bearded and wears a conical headdress
with bull horns and a streamer ending in a lotus flower.
Two figures dressed in Egyptian garb and with Egyptian
names, the builder Amenemopet and his son Paramheb,
are shown raising their arms in dedication before him.
While the identity of the deity, based on his features, has
been postulated to be Baal, Reshef, Seth, El or Nergal, he
is more likely a major local city deity, and most possibly a
local storm deity. For more on the stela and its deity, see
Vincent 1928; Rowe 1930, 9–14, pl. 33; Stadelmann 1967,
55; Thompson 1970, 50–77, pl. 5; Fulco 1976, 22, 51–54;
Lipiński 1987; Cornelius 1994, 25–26, 159, fig. 1; Eggler
2006; E. Levy 2016, 111; 2018, 359–378, fig. 1.
561 See K eel 2009; Görg 2013.
562 The seal impressions were found in a context assigned
to the Middle Assyrian Period. McEwan et al. 1958, 42,
78–79; Cornelius 1994, 170, pl. 44 [BM1]. For the deity’s
identification with Baal-Teshub, see Culican 1970,
28–30, fig. 1 [a].
563 Cornelius 1994, 183, pl. 47 [BM19]. Similar scarabs of
uncertain context and date were also collected from the
surface at Byblos (Cornelius 1994, 182, pl. 47 [BM17–
BM18]).
contexts of the same date at Tell el-Far‘ah South.564
The winged deity with the same crown and flanked
by uraei is also known from a number of LBA
scarabs from Buhen,565 Tell Basta,566 Saft el-Hinna,567
and Levantine sites like Tell el-Far‘ah South,568
and Byblos.569 The winged and crowned figure is
additionally represented in association with other
animals related to Seth on scarabs from, for instance,
Tell el-Yahudiyah (standing on a lion),570 Tell el-Far‘ah
South (with a hippopotamus and falcon; smiting a
serpent),571 Megiddo (standing on an unidentifiable
animal),572 Lachish (standing on an unidentifiable
animal; smiting a serpent),573 and Byblos (standing on
a lion),574 as well as on a seal from Tell el-Safi (smiting
a lion and a serpent).575 As some of these attestations
show, the shared iconography can extend to the storm
deity’s portrayals as serpent slayer beyond Egypt.576
564 Petrie 1930, 7, pl. 22 [187]; Starkey and H arding 1932,
30, pl. 73 [20]; Cornelius 1994, 183–184, pl. 73 [BM20–
BM21].
565 R andall-M acIver and Woolley 1911, pl. 57 [10067];
Cornelius 1994, 185–186, pl. 47 [BM26]; Tazawa 2009,
23 [Doc. 35].
566 Cornelius 1994, 185, pl. 47 [BM24].
567 Petrie 1906, 45, pl. 37 [20]; Dąbrowski 1992, 34–35,
fig. 1 [a]; Cornelius 1994, 185, pl. 47 [BM25].
568 Petrie 1930, pls. 21 [308], 22 [186]; Cornelius 1994, 187,
pl. 48 [BM32–BM33].
569 Cornelius 1994, 186, pls. 47–48 [BM27–BM30].
570 Petrie 1906, 15, pl. 11 [209]; Cornelius 1994, 197, pl. 48
[BM45].
571 Starkey and H arding 1932, 25, pl. 55 [299]; Giveon 1978,
83, fig. 40; Cornelius 1994, 191, 214, pls. 48 [BM43], 50
[BM76]; Tazawa 2009, 24 [Doc. 44], pl. 3.
572 Cornelius 1994, 198, pl. 49 [BM48].
573 Cornelius 1994, 201–202, 214–215, pls. 49 [BM58], 50
[BM77].
574 Cornelius 1994, 198, pl. 49 [BM47].
575 Giveon 1978, 97–98, fig. 49; Cornelius 1994, 222, fig. 49 [a].
576 See the discussions in Dąbrowski 1992, 35–39; Cornelius
1994, 220–224; K eel 2009; Görg 2013.
 Religious Transformations
Combined, the evidence supports the
transculturalisation of Seth into a (supra-?)regional
storm god who could be worshipped across temples
of the storm deity in major Near Eastern centres
that had established ties with Egypt. The reverse
is also possible, with Near Easterners, and others,
plausibly offering to the (supra-?)regional storm
deity if residing or travelling to Egypt. Perhaps a
much-contested passage in Papyrus Sallier IV can
be interpreted from this perspective. Dated to the
end of Ramesses II’s reign, the text is part of a letter
written by the chantress of the goddess of Hathor
at Memphis, Setyka, to the chantress of Amun at
Thebes, Sekhmetnefret.577 The letter proceeds with
offerings of prayers to deities,578 beginning with Ptah
the great, and including Amun-Ra ‘lord of the throne
of the two lands, great ram of Perunefer’, Amun ‘of
the temple of the gods’, the Ennead in Pi-Ptah, as
well as
[n Bart i] n QdSt n Mrn
Ay t Bay ry - +ApynA ‘[to Baalat], to Qedeshet, to
Mernayet,579 (to?) Baal Sapan’.580 The list continues
with other deities’ names including, for instance,
Sopdu, Hathor, Sekhmet, the Ennead of Thebes, and
all deities in the region of Memphis. The mention
of Amun-Ra as ‘lord of the throne of the two lands’,
Amun ‘of the temple of the gods’, Sobek of Meryra,
who is believed to refer to a cult in the Fayoum,581
and even the Ennead of Thebes signals that the list
refers to deities with cultic centres elsewhere who
were also revered at Memphis.582 Accordingly, the
mention of Levantine deities, including Baal Sapan,
could be similarly interpreted, with their followers,
whether of foreign origin or otherwise, presenting
offerings at a shared cultic space.583 Baal Sapan here
would thus refer to Baal as venerated by his cult at
Ugarit and so, despite having the foreign topographic
affiliation, he was still classified with the hieroglyph
of a seated deity with the head of the Seth-animal.
577 Papyrus Sallier IV. vs. 1.3–1.10, 2.1–2.2. Gardiner 1937,
88–92; Caminos 1954, 333–349.
578 Papyrus Sallier IV. vs. 1.3–1.10, 2.1–2.2. Gardiner 1937,
88–92; Caminos 1954, 333–349; Stadelmann 1967, 36;
Tazawa 2009, 35 [Doc. 94].
579 The name has been translated as that of an unknown
goddess, Anyt, in Caminos 1954, 338. Others read it
as Anat, despite the differences in spelling (see, for
instance, Tazawa 2009, 35 [Doc. 94]).
580 Papyrus Sallier IV. vs. 1.6. The transcription is based
on Gardiner 1937, 89 [6–7]. The transliteration and
translation rely on Caminos 1954, 333.
581 Caminos 1954, 340.
582 Bietak writes that the mention of the Levantine deities
with Sopdu refers to the religious topography of the
Eastern Delta. Bietak 2010b, 167–168; 2011, 27–28.
583 The papyrus indeed notes that ‘the aAm .w of Memphis
sit at ease, they are confident, embraced…’ (vs. 2.8),
following a list of items perhaps imported into the city.
Gardiner 1937, 90 [10–13]; Caminos 1954, 334.
165
This would agree with the representation of the deity
on the abovementioned stela from Ugarit and also
coincides with those of the Egyptian storm god on the
400 Year Stela. Hence, the storm god could have been
recognised in textual and/or artistic representations
distinctly in relation with a particular cult or toponym,
and indistinctly as a supra-regional storm deity with
shared attributes across the Near East and Egypt.584
In addition, the diplomatic significance of the god
also continues into the Nineteenth Dynasty. Perhaps
the best-known representation occurs in the treaty
between Ramesses II and Hattusili III, which was
finalised in Year 21 of the former’s reign. Preserved
in both Akkadian and Egyptian, its copies offer
evidence for the translation of the storm deity and his
role in international affairs.585 Two Egyptian versions
were transcribed at Karnak and the Ramesseum,586
and four fragmentary clay tablets were found at
Ḫattuša (Boğazköy), perhaps originally deposited
at its royal archives.587 Pertinent extracts from the
Egyptian version at Karnak are presented here.588
Previous treaties before the sun and storm deities (§2;
lines 8–9)
…
… p t r #tAsAr pA wr aA n (.y) #tA […n t -a] n Di . t m n pA
sx r iri .w pA Ra.w iri .w %wt x n pA tA n (.y) Km . t i - r
m -a.w pA tA n (.y) #tA r t m Di . t x pr x r.wy r iwd=s n
r nHH
… Behold, #tAsAr, the great ruler of #tA [… duty] for
establishing the plan which Ra and Seth made for the
land of Egypt with the land of #tA to not allow warfare
to occur between them for eternity
Divine witnesses (§21; lines 26–30)
…
…
584 Singer 1994, 90.
585 For more on the treaty, see, with references, R ainey and
Cochavi-R ainey 1990; Goelet and Levine 1998; Bryce
2006; Sürenhagen 2006.
586 LD 3, 146; KRI 2, 225–232; Edel 1977; 1983.
587 K ammenhuber 1988, 36; Beckman 1996, 90–95.
588 KRI 2, 227 [4–6], 229–230, 232 [1–7]. Sections are based
on Edel’s divisions (1983, 145, 150–152). The names of
the gods Ra and Seth in §21 and §26 are translated as
such for emphasis, but respectively relate to the sun and
storm gods of the non-Egyptian locales.
166 Chapter 4
… i r nAy m d w. t 1000 nTr m nTr. w aHA[. w ty] m nTr. w
Hm . w t m nAy pA tA n (.y) #tA m - a 1000 n (.y) nTr m
nTr. w aHA. w ty m nTr. w Hm . w t m nAy n pA tA n (.y)
Km . t s t m - a= i m m t r. w w […] w nAy m d w. t pA Ra. w
pA n b n (.y) tA p. t pA Ra. w [n (.y) d ] m i n (.y) Irn n w
%w [t] x pA n b n (.y) tA p. t %w t x n (.y) # [tA] %w t x
n (.y) d [m i] n (.y) I[rn] nA %w t x n (.y) d [m i] n (.y)
+Ap w i rn dA %w t x n (.y) d m i n (.y) PAy rqA %w t x
n (.y) d m i n (.y) #y sAsApA %w t x n (.y) d m i n (.y)
%Ary s w %w [t x] n (.y) d m i n (.y) #y rpA %w t x n (.y)
d m i n (.y) RxAsy nA %w t x [n (.y) d m i n (.y) R…
%w t x n (.y) d m i n (.y) … %w t x n (.y) d m i n (.y) …
sA] %w t x n (.y) d m i n (.y) %Axy pAnA… Im n pA Ra. w
%w t x nA nTr. w aHA. wy t nA [nTr. w Hm . w t] nA Dw. w nA
i t rw.y w n (.y) pA tA n (.y) Km . t tA p. t pA i w t n pA y m
aA pA Taw nA Sn a. w
… As for these words, a thousand male gods and a
thousand female gods of those of the land of #tA,
with a thousand male gods and a thousand female
gods of those of the land of Egypt, they are with me
as witnesses […] of the words of the Ra, the lord of
the heaven, the Ra [of the] city of Irn n w, Se[t]h, the
lord of the heaven, Seth of [#tA], Seth of the city of
I[rn] nA, Seth of the city of +Ap w i rn dA, Seth of the
city of PAy rqA, Seth of the city of #y sAsApA, Seth of
the city of %Ary s w, Se[th] of the city of #y rpA, Seth of
the city of RxAsy nA, Seth [of the city of R…, Seth of
the city of…, Seth of the city of… ], Seth of the city of
%Axy pAnA, … Amun, the Ra, Seth, the male gods and
the [female gods], the mountains and the rivers of the
land of Egypt, the sky, the ground, the great sea, the
wind, and the storm-clouds.
Sealing the treaty (§26; lines 36–37)
… Egyptians is evident in the hieroglyphic version of
… Egyptians. Indeed, this is in accordance with Near
… n . ty m Hr.y - i b pA an . w n (.y) HD Hr tAy [= f ]
ri [w] . t HA. t Xp i . w m t w t n (.y) %w [t x] Hr [q n i…
n (.y) pA w r aA n (.y) #] tA i nH. w m s m d . t m d . w m Dd
pA x [t] m . w n (.y) %w t x pA HqA n (.y) tA p. t pA x t m . w
n (.y) pA n . t a. w i ri . w #tAsAr pA w r aA n (.y) #tA t n [r]
pA [Sri] n (.y) M[ar] sAr pA w r aA n (.y) #tA t [n r m]
Xn w pA i nH. w [n (.y)] pA Xp i . w pA x [t m . w n (.y)
%w t x HqA n (.y) tA p. t]…
… that which is in the middle of this silver tablet, on
its front side is the figure of the image of Se[th] upon
[embracing… of the great ruler of #] tA surrounded by
the words that say: the seal of Seth, the ruler of the
heaven, the seal of the treaty which #tAsAr, the great
ruler of #tA, the strong one, the [son] of MarsAr, the
great ruler of #tA, the strong one [in] the palace, the
warrior, made, [of] the figure of the [seal of Seth, ruler
of the heaven] …
Due to the incomplete nature of the Akkadian
version, the list of divine witnesses and the description
of the sealing are not preserved. The text, however,
includes an overview of previous treaties before the
sun and storm deities, recording:
Ramesses, beloved of Amun, great king, king of Egypt,
is doing this in order to bring about the relationship
which [the sun god] and the storm god established for
Egypt with Hatti in accordance with their relationship
from the beginning of time, so that for eternity he might
[not permit] the making of war between [them]… The
eternal regulation which the sun god and the storm god
made for Egypt with Hatti is intended <to provide>
peace and brotherhoods and to prohibit hostilities
between them. (§3; A obv. lines 11–13, 24–27)589
While copies of these earlier treaties remain unknown,
they are mentioned in other Hittite texts. Mursili II, for
instance, records the discovery of two tablets that refer to
events likely occurring in the reign of Suppiluliuma I.590
They note that ‘the men of Hatti and the men of Egypt
were bound by the oath of the storm god of Hatti’.591 The
Hittites, however, transgressed the oath by attacking
land under the protection of Egypt.592 The delineation
of borders is again mentioned in another tablet of
Mursili II’s reign, as ‘those borders which were set for us
by the storm god’.593 The acknowledgement of the storm
deity’s significance in this respect can also be found in
a letter from Ramesses II to Hattusili III, wherein the
pharaoh writes that ‘the sun god and the storm god
have granted you exercise kingship in the Hatti lands in
the place of your grandfather’,594 dually expressing the
deities’ roles in granting kingship as well as lands.
That this storm god is equated with Seth by the
Ramesses II’s treaty. Agreeing with the Akkadian copy,
it lists the sun god and the storm god as the architects
of the relations and treaty between the Hittites and the
Eastern treaties and oaths made and ratified before
the sun and storm gods, likely in/before one’s major
temple. The list of divine witnesses in §21’s lines 26–30
first lists a thousand male and a thousand female gods of
Egypt and Hatti, the expression paralleling the Hittite
formulae referring to male and female divinities as
589 The translation is after Beckman 1996, 97. See also Edel
1977, 22, 24 [§3; 6a]; 1983, 137–138 [§2; lines 11–13; §5a,
lines 24–27].
590 Sürenhagen 2006. As cited by Sürenhagen, see Singer
2004. See also Helck 1971b, 182, 215; Singer 2006,
731–732; Z. Simon 2007; Groddek 2008; Devecchi 2015,
167–170.
591 The translation is after Sürenhagen 2006, 61.
592 Sürenhagen 2006, 61.
593 Sürenhagen 2006, 61.
594 The translation is after Bryce 2006, 7. See also Edel
1994, 50–51 [Nr. 20]; Bryce 2005, 84.
 Religious Transformations
well as ‘the thousand gods of Hatti’.595 It then includes a
series of Hittite gods translated into the Egyptian with
the DN + GN formula, providing a good example of
code-switching. The storm god was thus represented
with the divine name of Seth, which would thereby
translate to ‘storm god’, combined with geographical
regions of the Near East, which likely corresponded
to local manifestations of the storm god(s) as patron
or major deity of the cities.596 The subsequent gods in
the list include those of the region of Egypt, for which
Amun is first mentioned, followed by Ra, Seth, and a
general reference to the deities of Egypt and of natural
elements shared by all parties.597 The final description
of the original silver tablet notes that it was sealed with
a design that included the image of Seth embracing
the Hittite ruler, as well as representations of the ruler,
his daughter, and the sun deity.598 As the latter are all
associated with the Hittite culture, the representation
of the storm god could have plausibly featured elements
associated with the (supra-)regional storm deity that the
iconography of Seth had adopted by this period. The
treaty thus makes clear that the storm god, designated in
the Egyptian as Seth, was represented in the Egyptian-
Hittite correspondances, as in Hittite treaties, as:
(1) establisher of alliances, treaties and land boundaries,
usually alongside the sun god; (2) divine witness in
treaty ratification, also commonly alongside the sun
god; and (3) patron city deity or main god of some Hittite
lands. Rather than listing the local name(s) of these
deities, the treaty’s scribe(s) instead recognised their
association with the Egyptian storm god, translating
their name into Seth.
The marriage agreement between Ramesses II and
Maathotneferura, daughter of Hattusili III, additionally
represents the deity’s role in international affairs.
Assigned to Year 34, the ‘Marriage Stela’ is attested at
several sites, although only that of Abu Simbel depicts
the Hittite ruler and his daughter paying homage to
three throned and seated figures of Ramesses II, Ptah,
and %wt x aA pH. ty ‘Seth, great of strength’,
the latter shown in human form with the crown of Upper
Egypt.599 The main body of the text consists of several
references to Seth. Line 25, for instance, features direct
speech by the king who states that
wD n =i it =i %wt x n x t w r tA n b ‘my father Seth
allotted to me victory over every land’.600 This is
paralleled in the Hatti king’s apparent speech to his
595 Singer 1994, 81–102; M.S. Smith 2008, 52.
596 See Chapter 4.2.1.1. As Singer (1994, 90) writes, ‘the
possibility of distinctness and indistinctness of the same
deity, which may strike us as rather paradoxical, was perfectly
acceptable to the ancient theologian’. See also Hendel 2020.
597 M.S. Smith 2008, 53. The elements also follow a Hittite
expression, for which see Singer 1994, 99.
598 The Egyptian version of the Treaty of Ramesses II and
Hattusili III, §19; lines 36–38. KRI 2, 232 [1–14].
599 LD 3, 196; KRI 2, 234 [10]; Fisher 2013.
600 The transcription follows Karnak’s Marriage Stela,
line 20. KRI 2, 243 [5]; Kuentz 1925a, 208, 230.
167
army and nobles, in which he says that
iw tA=n
f x w n b =n %w t x Spw m - a.w =n n n Di n p. t m w
m - a. w qAy. w = n ‘our land is wasted, our lord, Seth,
is blind from us, the sky no longer offers us water
for our arable lands’.601 To pacify Ramesses II,
the Hittite king sends his eldest daughter along
with a dowry, leading the pharaoh to ponder over
the treacherous path and the convoy’s safe passage.
In response:
aHa. n
s mAa. n =f aA bi (A) t aA. t n it =f %wt x s pr. n =f Hr=f
i m Dd p. t Hr-a a.wy =k tA Xr rd .wy =k wD. n =k pw
x pr.wt n b m i t m =k iri . t Hwy t q b w s rq r s pr n =i
bi (A)y t wD=k n =i ‘Then he presented richly and
a great marvel to his father Seth, and he appealed
to him saying: the sky is in your two hands, the
land is under your two feet, all that occurs is that
which you command. So may you not create rain,
the cold wind, or the snow, until the marvel which
you had commanded me reaches me’.602 The text
continues:
aHa. n sDm it = f
%wt x i <Dd>.wt =f n b. (w) t wn x r p. t Ht p.w h r.ww
Sm w x pr m pr. t i Sm . t mSa.w =f s r.w wn f Ha.w =s n
p d ib =s n m rS.wt ‘Then his father Seth heard all that he
<said>. So the sky became calm, summer days in winter.
His army and officials were moving/marching, their
bodies were joyful, they were glad in joy.’603 Here, Seth
is specifically named as the guarantor of victory against
the Hittites, despite being worshipped as their storm
deity. This also agrees with a reference in Merneptah’s
‘Israel Stela’ that points to Seth as the instigator of the
fall of the Tjehenu, or xAa %w t x
HA= f r pAy =s n w r ‘Seth turned his back on their
ruler’.604 As controller of weather phenomena, his role
in safeguarding land-based travel across the regions
is apparent. Offerings to the deity were performed to
guarantee the safe passage of troops, diplomats, and
valuable goods. In turn, they were also significant
for the arrival of the Hittite princess, with whom
marriage would ratify alliance.605
601 The transcription follows Abu Simbel’s Marriage Stela,
line 31. KRI 2, 246 [9–10]; Kuentz 1925a, 212, 231.
602 The line continues with the cartouches of Ramesses II in
genitival relation with bi (A)y t ‘marvel’. The transcription
follows Abu Simbel’s Marriage Stela, lines 37–38.
KRI 2, 249 [7, 10, 13]; Kuentz 1925a, 215–216, 232–233.
603 The transcription follows Abu Simbel’s Marriage Stela, lines
38–39. KRI 2, 250 [1, 4, 7]; Kuentz 1925a, 216–217, 234.
604 The transcription follows the Cairo version of the stela,
line 17. KRI 4, 15 [11].
605 See Röllig 1974; Schulman 1979; Liverani 2001, 189–
195; Fisher 2013.
168
The correspondance between the Hittites and the
Egyptians indicates that the Egyptian storm god
was not only of importance for the maintenance of
weather phenomena, kingship, and order, within the
borders of Egypt. Identified with the name of Seth, the
storm god was also present beyond Egypt, delineating
boundaries between and among the powers, whether
by guaranteeing victory through warfare, or
establishing, witnessing, and ratifying alliances and
agreements. The deity was also believed to safeguard
passage of entities through his association with
weather phenomena. Such roles could be viewed as an
extension of Seth’s duties in maintaining cosmic order
and Egypt’s stability, but it also amplifies the storm
god’s significance in cross-cultural relations, relations
which would have been central for an Egyptian
state that was partially reliant on commercial and/or
empirical power for its prosperity.
4.2.5.3 Excursus 2: Literature, magic, and a trans-
cultural storm deity
The Egyptian storm god’s role as a transcultural
deity and maintainer of order within and across
Egypt’s borders is echoed in the literary texts of the
Ramesside Period. The Taking of Joppa, for instance,
features the worship of Seth by the inhabitants of
the Levantine city. The Late Egyptian tale follows
the Egyptian Djehuty on Thutmose III’s campaign
against Joppa, describing how, through strategy
and trickery, Djehuty enabled Egyptian troops to
infiltrate and besiege the city.606 As part of his plan,
the Egyptians spread the rumour
i -Di . t (n) =n %wt [x]
+Hw. ty H[n] a Hm . t =f Xrd .w =f ‘that Seth has given
us Djehuty is with his wife and his children’,607 the
‘us’ referring to Joppa’s people who were evidently
tricked into believing that Djehuty had surrendered.
This ultimately led to their defeat, a conquest awarded
to the Egyptians by Amun-Ra,608 but also by Seth
who allowed the trickery to occur. The inclusion of
Seth worship has been interpreted as a representation
of the foreigners’ otherness, with Di Biase-Dyson
commenting that ‘Seth, most probably in connection
with Baal, or in his guise as god of the foreign lands, is
presented as being well-disposed towards Joppa’.609 It
is also possible that Seth, as (supra-)regional storm god,
was additionally acting as ‘Seth of Joppa’, or the storm
606 Gardiner 1932b, 82–84. For more on the text, see
Goedicke 1968; 1986a; R edford 1986b, 290–295; Junge
2001a; Wente 2003a; Di Biase-Dyson 2013, 242–253,
391–400; M anassa 2013, 66–101.
607 Papyrus Harris 500, vs. 2.11. Gardiner 1932b, 84 [5].
608 As in the tale, ‘Amun, your good father, has given
you the rebel of Joppa and all his people as his town’
(Papyrus Harris 500, vs. 2.11). The translation follows Di
Biase-Dyson 2013, 399 [J078].
609 Di Biase-Dyson 2013, 253. See also Te Velde 1967, 120;
Junge 2001a, 146, n. 2.
Chapter 4
god of the Levantine town, who allowed Egyptian
victory according to the god’s character as trickster,
his duty to uphold order, as well as his corresponding
transcultural aspects in this period.610
It is these aspects which also appear in the Quarrel
of Seqenenra and Apophis. Preserved on Papyrus
Sallier I, the Late Egyptian text is dated to Year 10
of Merneptah’s reign and is found among others for
use in a scribal school.611 Although of unknown
provenance, it is thought to belong to a collection of
papyri originating in a Saqqara tomb that includes
well-known Middle and New Kingdom texts.612
Incomplete, the text features two main historical
characters who were likely still prominent in the
collective consciousness of the Nineteenth Dynasty:
Seqenenra, Seventeenth Dynasty ruler of Thebes; and
his contemporary, Apophis, Fifteenth Dynasty ruler of
Avaris. Despite the text’s significance in its entirety,
only essential lines are translated below.613
Apophis and Seth (lines 1.2–1.4)
[aHa. n] nsw. t I- ppi anx(.w) wDA(.w) sn b(.w) Hr iri. t
n=f %wtx m n b iw=f (Hr) t m (. t) bAk n nTr n b n . ty
m pA tA r-Dr=f [wpw. t] %wtx iw [=f ] Hr qd Hw. t - nTr
m bAk n fr nHH r-gs [pr.w n (.y) nsw. t I] ppi anx(.w)
wDA(.w) sn b(.w) [i]w=f xai […] h rw.w r rDi. t
mAa. t […n] m n . t n (.y) %wtx iw nA sr.w […] anx(.w)
wDA(.w) sn b(.w) Xr.y m (A)Hy.w m i i iri=t (w) (m)
Hw. t - nTr n (.y) PA-Ra.w - @r.w -Ax . ty Hr aqA=f sp 2
[Then] the king Apophis, may he live, prosper and
be healthy, made for himself Seth as lord, and he
did not serve any god that was is in the land in its
entirety [except] Seth, and he built a temple in fine
workmanship (for) eternity beside [the palace of king]
Apophis, may he live, prosper and be healthy, and he
appeared […] days to make sacrifice […] daily for Seth,
the officials […], may he live, prosper and be healthy,
were under the garlands like that which is done in the
Temple of Pra-Horakhty upon its extreme exactness.
610 See M anassa 2013, 91.
611 M anassa 2013, 32.
612 Spalinger 2002, 127–132; M anassa 2013, 32.
613 Gardiner 1932b, 85–89. Transliteration and translation
rely on Di Biase-Dyson 2013, 382–390; M anassa 2013,
166–169.
 Religious Transformations 169

Assessing divine power (line 2.1)
[…] Hn a=f m [n b]y n n h n [=f s] w n nTr n b n . ty m pA
[tA r-Dr] =f wpw. t Im n -Ra.w n sw. t nTr.w
[…] with him as protector. He does not submit himself
to any god which is in the [land in] its [entirety] except
Amun-Ra, king of the gods.
The complaint (lines 2.4–2.7)
w n . i n pA w p. w ty Hr Dd n = f m n s w. t I- p p i an x (. w)
wDA(. w) s n b (. w) [r] hAb n = k [r] Dd [i m] i t w r[w i] . t w
Hr tA Hn w d b. w n . ty m pA w b n n (.y) n w. t pA w n b n
s t (Hr) Di . t i w. t n = i tA qd m h rw. w m grH. t i w x rw
(m) [m s]Dr n w. t = f w n . i n pA w r n (.y) n w. t Hr rsy. t
Hr sgA.y m iAd . t [aA(. t)] i w = f x p r. w i w b (w) rx = f
an [s m i] . w n pA w p. w ty n (.y) n s w. t I- p p i an x (. w)
wDA(. w) s n b (. w)
Then the messenger said to him: ‘It is king Apophis,
may he live, prosper and be healthy, who has sent you
[in order to] say: [Cause] to be [expelled] from the lake
the hippopotami that are in the east of the city, because
they do not allow sleep to come to me in the day or in
the night, the noise being (in) the ear of his city. Then
the ruler of the Southern City was surprised for a long
time, he being transformed, he not being able to return
a [message] to the messenger of the king Apophis, may
he live, prosper and be healthy.
Line 2.1’s subsequent mention of Amun-Ra’s worship in
the south suggests that the protector is the deity himself,
signalling that perhaps the ‘offence’ could be related
to the opposing exclusivity of the worship of Seth in
the north and that of Amun-Ra in the south. Indeed,
Apophis’s message is preserved in his messenger’s
speech before Seqenenra, in which he orders the king
to expel the hippopotami whose noise no longer allowed
him to sleep.617 The southern ruler is at first stupified by
this request, but then, after provisioning the messenger
with supplies, says to him that he agrees to fulfil the
king’s demand.618 The king then informs his officials,
who are equally surprised by the order.619 Whether or not
they completed it is unknown, the tale’s scribe instead
choosing to copy onto the papyrus an instruction on
letter writing.620
As with the Taking of Joppa, the Quarrel is presented
in a historical setting, its characters, geography,
and likely political situation resting in the Second
Intermediate Period.621 Its literary features, however,
are also clear in its choice of literary Late Egyptian,
as well as its description of Apophis’s demand, its
formation, and its reception.622 The combination of both
settings has led to historicist interpretations that use
the text as a commentary on the religion of the Hyksos
rulers as well on the political climate at the end of the
Fifteenth Dynasty,623 or as a reflection of contemporary
Ramesside Period rivalry between Thebes and
Piramesse.624 Others have approached the text as a
Königsnovelle that relates to the king’s activities, and/
or as a parody, the mockery and humour supposedly
inherent in Apophis’s ludicrous demand.625 The
historical content indeed supports a surviving cultural
memory regarding the Second Intermediate Period,
yet the postulated ‘trauma’ of this memory relies on
both New Kingdom as well as post-Ramesside views
on Fifteenth Dynasty kings.626 In fact, as some have
proposed, the memory of the religious reformations
imposed during the Amarna Period could have feasibly
persisted into the Nineteenth Dynasty, the Quarrel’s
reference to the exclusivity of the royal worship of one

The rendition begins with the mention of Egypt in a

state of disarray, with Seqenenra in the south as ‘king’
and pestilence at Heliopolis.614 The land was under
617
control of the ‘ruler’ Apophis, who collected taxes
618
from its entirety, and directly ruled the north.615 Lines
1.2–1.4 then note that Apophis, here titled ‘king’, chose 619
Seth as his deity, worshipping him solely at a newly 620
built temple near his domain, his officials also revering 621
the god with rites otherwise practiced at the Temple 622
of Pra-Horakhty. Following this setting, the narrative 623
focusses on Apophis’s wish to send an offensive
message to Seqenenra, the fragmentary lines referring
624
to hippopotami, the southern ruler, and his protector.616
625
614 Papyrus Sallier I.1.1. Gardiner 1932b, 85 [4–6]. 626
615 Papyrus Sallier I.1.2. Gardiner 1932b, 85 [6–8].
616 Papyrus Sallier I.1.4–2.1. Gardiner 1932b, 86 [2–14], 87 [1].
Papyrus Sallier I.2.4–2.6. Gardiner 1932b, 87 [7–13].
Papyrus Sallier I.2.7–2.10. Gardiner 1932b, 87 [13–16],
88 [1–7].
Papyrus Sallier I.2.11–3.3. Gardiner 1932b, 88 [8–15].
Caminos 1954, 303 [3.4]; M anassa 2013, 33, fig. 2.5.
See Di Biase-Dyson 2013, 194, 223–224.
See Di Biase-Dyson 2013, 194.
See von Beckerath 1964, 188; Habachi 1972, 50;
K aplony-Heckel 1983, 525, n. d; Goedicke 1986a, 32;
Goldwasser 2006b.
See M aciejewski 2009 (as cited in M anassa 2013, 34,
n. 24); Di Biase-Dyson 2013, 229–231.
See Loprieno 1996, 286; Di Biase-Dyson 2013, 195–200.
See Assmann 1997, 28–29; 2008, 44–48; T. Schneider
1998, 76–98, 163; Spalinger 2010, 121–125. See also
Winthrop-Young 2005; Assmann 2006.
170 Chapter 4
deity perhaps bringing them to the fore.627 However,
it remains questionable whether the text was equating
the Amarna religion with the possibility of Apophis’s
historical monotheistic or henotheistic reverence to
Seth. The text, in actuality, similarly mentions that
Seqenenra submits only to Amun.
Another oversight with the various interpretations
lies in the scholarly emphasis on the humour
in Apophis’s demand. While on the surface the
hippopotamus episode may seem comical, to explain
it only as thus reduces its significance, and leads to
the ‘universal consensus that Seqenenra emerged
as the victor of the tale’.628 Yet, based on Di Biase-
Dyson’s work, ‘if we follow grammatical cues, this
would only happen in an unexpected or suprising
manner’.629 Perhaps Seqenenra is defeated by Apophis,
leaving his successor(s) to emerge as victors.630 Such
an unexpected turn could be interpreted as a further
element in the story’s surprising developments. While
the gods are not themselves playing an active part,
the text clearly begins with a divided land: the king is
in the south, his nomen pointing to his worship of Ra;
and ‘pestilence’ or disease is in Heliopolis, a cult city
of Ra, with the entire land controlled by the ruler at
Avaris, his prenomen lacking the Ra element.631 The
text then continues with a description of how Apophis
worshipped Seth, and how he wished to strategically
offend Seqenenra. The juxtaposition is evident, and
the religious connotations of his demand, rather than
its humour, thus deserve attention.
As Spalinger notes, Apophis’s request is
transmitted via a messenger as in diplomatic dealings
of the time.632 Such exchanges are often couched
in a language of diplomacy that often requires
a pensive and calculated reply. Accordingly, the
reaction of Seqenenra and his officials was justified:
what at first seemed like a ludicrous message by the
northern king was, as the tale notes itself, composed
to elicit a specific response. Perhaps this trickery
of wit could itself be taken as an indication of
Apophis’s worship of Seth. Also relating to Seth are
two particular details inherent in the demand: the
hippopotami in their lake near Seqenenra’s city, and
their loud noise.633 Some have postulated a link to the
hippopotamus rite at Thebes, perhaps the ‘festival
of the white hippopotamus’, and its association
627 Whether or not Fifteenth Dynasty religious practices
were equated with the Amarna reformations is unclear
and, based on the Quarrel, not verifiable. See Goldwasser
2006b, 131.
628 Di Biase-Dyson 2013, 233.
629 Di Biase-Dyson 2013, 233.
630 Feinman 2015, 115–126.
631 M anassa 2013, 37, 44.
632 Spalinger 2010, 125–126.
633 For others who also find the ‘hippopotamus episode’
significant, see, with references, Säve-Söderbergh 1953,
41–45; T. Schneider 1998, 163; Spalinger 2010, 125–126,
n. 37.
with Hathor and Lower Egypt,634 but the hunting
of hippopotami also represents the maintenance of
order through the destruction of typhonic elements.635
As aforementioned, the latter could be related to the
conflict between Horus and Seth, the iconography of
which possibly merged with those of the Near Eastern
storm deity in late Middle Kingdom Tell el-Dab‘a.636
If controlling these forces was thus a kingly duty, and
one related to the storm god, then Apophis would
seem to have targeted Seqenenra in exercising this
role. Similarly, the noise of the hippopotami, if also
symbolic of Seth, are suggestively directed against
Apophis. Due to the latter, Manassa proposes that
the animals roar at the northern king because he
represents Seth’s enemy, the creature Apophis, and
so ‘Although Apepi worships Seth, his selfish request
will bring him into direct conflict with the god’.637
Yet, it is worthy to again note that the request was
contrived. Following Manassa, Apophis would be
ordering Seqenenra to exercise a kingly function by
expressing divine disdain to his own rule by the god
whom he worshipped, perhaps hinting that Seqenenra
could not control the hippopotami as he was not king
of a unified land. The more likely case, according to
Säve-Söderbergh, is that the noises heard by Apophis
were caused by the ritual of hunting hippopotami,
signalling at an affront to Seth and thereby to Apophis
who demands the Thebans to stop this ritual.638 In both
cases, the message suggests that Apophis is spurring
Seqenenra to battle. The southern ruler replies that
the demand would be met, and then summons his
commanders, hinting that the war would take place.
While the outcome is not preserved, reference can
be made here to the initial pestilence mentioned in the
text; Egypt and the city of Ra were afflicted. To expel
the disease, perhaps Seth’s magic and protection were
required.639 This is certainly the case in several spells
of the Ramesside Leiden Magical Papyrus that call
upon the help of Seth, among other gods, to cure
diseases.640 Spell §4, for instance, garners the rage of
the Egyptian storm deity:641
634 T. Schneider 1998, 163; Spalinger 2010, 125–126.
635 R edford 1986b, 278, n. 79. For a more detailed discussion
on the significance of the hippopotamus in the Quarrel,
see M anassa 2013, 53–58; Feinman 2015, 115–118.
636 See Chapter 4.2.3.2.
637 M anassa 2013, 57. See also Feinman 2015, 115–117.
638 Säve-Söderbergh 1953, 41–45.
639 See Chapters 4.2.2.3 and 4.2.4.3.
640 M assart 1954; Beck 2018.
641 Papyrus Leiden I.343 + I.345, r. 4.9–5.7. The complete
spell can be found in lines r. 4.9–6.2, which is partly
duplicated in vs. 7.5–7.12. The transcription follows
M assart 1954; Beck 2018, 40–41. The translation relies
on Tazawa 2009, 36–37 [Doc. 99]; Beck 2018, 43.
 Religious Transformations
[pA] khAb.w n (.y) r pA [ax] .w pA [H]DnDn [n (.y)
] r=k [pA] khAb.w n (.y) pA XA[XA. t i] iw [=f ] Hr ibi
H(w. t) r tA p. t r=k kA aDn =f tA pH. ty […p]Ay =f x pS 2
Hr=k kA [d p. t] =k nA d p w pA […] =n Ym m Dr. t =f
kA ir.y pA [m w…] sAH [=n <k > H] t t wy B[a]y r [r] =k
m pA aS n . ty m Dr. t =f wHm =f t w m nA n (.y) Hn .y wt
n (.wt) aS n [. ty m] Dr. t =f [wn . n =k m i] nA m - r a pA
sAm wnA iw nA n (.y) nTr.w Hr iri . t r=k pA sx r. t [n (.y)]
irr.w pA nTr Hn [a] pA m w Hn [a] nA n (.y) m t w.wt
aSA.w (t) n (.wt) %t x Hn a nA n (.y) m t w.wt dHr.w (t)
n (.wt) ^w sA Ra.w Hn a nA n (.y) m t w.wt [n (.wt)]
WpwA.wt n . ty m i HfAw Hn a nA n (.y) m t w.wt n (.wt)
pA nTr Hr.y Hn a Nwn wkAr tAy =f Hm . t nA n (.y)
m t w.wt n (.wt) RSpw Hn a It wm tAy [=f ] Hm . t
The raging of is against the [ax] w, the fury [of
] is against you, [the] raging of the storm while
it is thirsty for the water from the sky is against you.
So it will complete the strength [...] his two arms upon
you, so you will taste that which the […] sea (Ym) has
tasted by his hand. Then the [water] will approach
[you]. Baal will strike [against] you with the aS-wood
that is in his hand. He repeats (to strike) again with
the spears of aS-wood that are [in] his hand. [So indeed
you] will also be, %Am wnA, the gods garner against you
the plan which the god makes with the water and the
many poisons of Seth and the bitter poisons of Shu,
son of Ra, and the poisons [of] Wepwawet, which are
like the snake, and the poisons of the god above and his
wife Ningal, and the poisons of Reshef and Adammu,
[his] wife.
The spell brings together the rage of , Baal and
the poisons of Seth, among other deities, to destroy
[ax] w and %Am wnA, diseases or demons with names of
Semitic origin.642 It merges Egyptian and Near Eastern
entities to combat malevolent forces. This adds to both
the Egyptian storm deity’s transcultural aspect as
well as his continued role in magic against typhonic
elements for the maintenance of order.
In reference to the ending of the Quarrel, the worship
of the storm deity as seen in other Ramesside texts
did not guarantee victory in war, and so it may have
featured yet another element of trickery, with Seth, as
642 For more on the papyrus, see Gardiner 1906; Stadelmann
1967, 125; M a. Müller 2008; Ayali-Darshan 2015b;
Beck 2018.
171
upholder of order and great magician, turning against
the Hyksos king to expel the disease that plagues the
land. Indeed, the latter is also suggested in the Rhind
Mathematical Papyrus as well as the Ahmose Tempest
Stela, wherein Ahmose’s battles and victory against
the Hyksos kings could have necessitated support by
all gods, including the Egyptian storm deity.643
Such an interpretation fits well with the role of the
storm god in Dynasty 19. The 400 Year Stela, as
interpreted here, represents the dynasty’s ancestral
and continuous worship of the local cult of Seth,
which was suggested to likely originate before the
Theban unification. The Quarrel, with its historical
context, mentions such worship of Seth by Apophis,
which the Nineteenth Dynasty kings could not deny.
In fact, their usurpation of monuments inscribed with
the names of Hyksos kings and the epithet, ‘beloved of
Seth’, would have clearly brought this to the attention
of contemporary scribes. Similarly, the collective
cultural memory, as well as the available records to
Nineteenth Dynasty scribes, including those of Seth’s
local cult, would have showcased Fifteenth Dynasty
veneration to the storm deity in the Delta. While some
have regarded the Quarrel’s mention of such worship
as a major offence,644 the text itself is not so clear, and,
historically, reverence to this deity was prevalent. In
fact, the description of Apophis’s temple to be in ‘fine
workmanship (for) eternity’ does not appear to have
any negative connotations, but infers the opposite.
The exclusivity of worship could be offensive,645
however it is paralleled by Seqenenra’s worship of
Amun-Ra;646 each deity was a chief city god, and
both were supreme gods of kingship in the Ramesside
Period. A third observation that could possibly be
seen as more offensive is the worship of Seth in the
way Pra-Horakhty is worshipped,647 although the
text again does not clearly verify this. Instead, the
initial mention of pestilence suggests that the political
fragmentation and state of Egypt was likely the major
focus of offence. In this case, as order is not upheld,
the worship of Seth alone in his cult city, or Amun-
Ra alone for that matter, would not assure victory.648
Unified divine support would be necessitated, and
Seth, who was evidently worshipped by foreigners
and Egyptians in Ramesside texts, would assist in
maintaining stability in Egypt, especially as a god
of kingship. Accordingly, if the text is written either
in favour of the postulated Theban resistance against
the Ramesside kings, or in favour of the Ramesside
kings’ control of Egypt, the Egyptian storm deity’s
role remains the same. Perhaps, if written in support
643 See Chapter 4.2.2.4.
644 See Stadelmann 1967, 18; Goedicke 1986a, 10–11.
645 See Goldwasser 2006b, 129–132; Assmann 2008, 48.
646 Di Biase-Dyson 2013, 227–228.
647 See Goedicke 1986a, 13–14, 33; Spalinger 2010, 127; Di
Biase-Dyson 2013, 228.
648 For a similar opinion, see M anassa 2013, 65.
172 Chapter 4
of Theban power, the Quarrel could be justifying the
eventual fall of the Fifteenth Dynasty and Avaris; the
war was lost not because of the worship of Seth, but
because of the loss of divine support from Amun-Ra
and Seth, which the Ramesside kings had contrarily
strived to establish.649
4.2.5.4 Observations
The examined evidence concerning the Egyptian
storm deity in the Nineteenth Dynasty reflects both
continuation and innovation in his worship and
representation. His cult’s persistent presence at Tell el-
Dab‘a, and the cultural memory of his elevated position
within the region’s Second Intermediate Period polity,
provided the Nineteenth Dynasty rulers with some
pretense for his selection as a state god of kingship.
Just as the early Eighteenth Dynasty Theban rulers
worshipped their region’s deity Amun-Ra as state
and supreme god to guarantee kingship, so did the
Nineteenth Dynasty rulers revere a local cult’s
storm deity in the establishment of a new dynasty
and capital in the Eastern Delta. Seth retained
his traditional roles in apposition to Horus in, for
instance, scenes regarding the unification of Egypt or
the king’s purification. The deity’s importance in the
afterlife also continued, with his position at the fore
of the sun god’s barque and his responsibility to quell
the serpent Apophis demonstrating his cosmic duties
in the maintenance of order. This also showcases his
persistent significance in the Heliopolitan Ennead,
particularly in association with Ra and Ra-Horakhty,
with whom his ties are attested in such texts as the
400 Year Stela, Papyrus Sallier IV, and, as interpreted
here, the Quarrel of Seqenenra and Apophis.
As a state god of kingship, the Egyptian storm deity is
also represented as the ancestral father of Dynasty 19’s
kings, the forefathers of whom, according to their
titles, also likely originated from the Eastern Delta.
They, like the Hyksos kings, are beloved of Seth, of
Ramesses-Meryamun, great of strength and son of
Nut. As Seth was named father by Apophis, so he
was named father by Ramesside kings. Textually,
the storm deity’s name could be written either
phonetically as %w t x, or logographically with a seated
anthropomorphic deity or the seated or recumbent
Seth-animal. The latter also classifies the names of
Baal, Baalti, and Baal Sapan in sources found within
Egypt and Ugarit. This correlates with the earlier use
of the Seth classifier for both Seth and Baal.
Iconographically, the Seth-animal is associated with
the representation of the deity with such characteristics
as a high conical crown with horns and a streamer, a
beard, a kilt with tassels, armlets and bracelets, and
crossed bands at the chest. He can also be portrayed
with wings, grasping a spear, standing in a passive or
649 For kingship as portrayed in the Nineteenth Dynasty
Tale of Two Brothers, see T. Schneider 2008b.
smiting stance, or in association with animals linked
to Seth, like the serpent or hippopotamus. Such
features find parallels with earlier iconography on
items from Tell el-Dab‘a as well as the Near East, the
wings also attested in textual references to Seth from
the Old Kingdom. Some elements additionally occur
on contemporary scarabs and seals from the Levant,
signalling the perpetuation of a shared iconography.
The combined textual and artistic representations
point to further ideological correlations between the
Egyptian and Near Eastern storm deities, with the
Egyptian storm god manifesting as the Near Eastern
deity in war, and the latter incorporating Netherworld
beliefs of Seth in his moment. Seth in his hour,
perhaps in reference to his cosmic battle against
Apophis, is also Baal in his moment. The iconography
of this deity smiting the serpent additionally
garners elements of otherwise Near Eastern aspects,
possibly fusing Seth’s battle with the Near Eastern
storm god’s conflict against a serpent-like creature.
Cosmically protecting Egypt, the Egyptian storm
deity thus maintains order across the state’s borders.
He guarantees victory in battle, grants lordship, and
bestows land to the rightful ruler. The representations
further infer that the portrayal of this (supra-)regional
storm deity could be interpreted by Egyptians or in
Egypt as Seth, and by Near Easterners or in the Near
East as the Near Eastern storm deity.
Therefore, this combination of both textual and
artistic elements that relate to both Egypt and the
Near East not only signals the complex syncretism
of the deity’s nature and characteristics, it also
implies various modes of reception. It is feasible that
individuals who venerated the Near Eastern storm
deity but could not read hieroglyphs would have
identified their god in the examined artistic portrayals,
while those knowledgeable in the Egyptian script
would have recognised the Seth-animal, thereby
associating the represented deity with the Egyptian
storm god. If correct, this adds to the hypothesis
that the Egyptian storm god had transformed into a
transcultural one that had been adapted to become
easily accessible to people from various geographic,
social, political and religious spheres. It also supports
and explains the representation of his reverence
by foreign entities and at foreign locations or cults,
accentuating his significance in cross-cultural
relations including diplomacy and the movement
of entities over vast distances. Hence, the evidence
infers the existence of transregional devotees, perhaps
at Piramesse, Ugarit, or other cult centres in close
correspondance with Egypt, who extended the storm
god’s worship at multiple locations across the supra-
region. This logically furthers the representations’
importance in promoting cross-cultural interactions
and transregional movements.
Regarding Dynasty 19’s origins, it is possible
to thus question if such characteristics were
accentuated and combined with traditional Egyptian
 Religious Transformations
notions about Seth due to the influence of the local
cult at Tell el-Dab‘a. In other words, the process of
transformation that had emerged in the late Middle
Kingdom at the site would have theoretically
continued to develop through to the Nineteenth
Dynasty, especially given the cited endurance of
the local cult and the possibility of the continued
presence of its devotees in the region. The aspects
of Seth, great of strength, and his characteristics
in literary and ‘magical’ texts could be linked with
this cult’s own traditions regarding the Egyptian
storm deity who was represented as the dynasty’s
ancestral father. They emerge in some evidence of
the Eighteenth Dynasty, in particular those relating
to Perunefer and diplomacy, but are amplified
in Nineteenth Dynasty creations of the central
administration, as well as of non-royal individuals,
possibly because of the establishment of the state’s
new capital at Piramesse. With this, perhaps it can
be further postulated that the Near Eastern aspects
of the Egyptian storm deity were, for those at
Piramesse, not necessarily considered completely
Near Eastern traditions. They had been adopted
and adapted into the local cult of the storm god,
and eventually became embedded into aspects of a
transcultural, patron city god, and state god, Seth.
4.2.6 The Transformation of the Egyptian Storm
Deity
The nature, characteristics and role of the Egyptian
storm deity continually and dynamically developed
throughout the examined period. A god of the
Heliopolitan Ennead, his position within the Egyptian
pantheon generally retained its significance within the
ideology of kingship and a unified land of Egypt. Seth
was principally a deity of unruly forces and behaviour,
representing loud and rowdy noises such as the braying
of a donkey or the cries of a hippopotamus, as well as
the thunderclap and associated weather disturbances.
Such forces also included diseases, evidently of foreign
origin, foreigners, and foreign lands. Alongside such
characteristics, however, the deity’s protective and
supportive role was instilled in Egyptian traditions; he
was a trickster but, as such, he was also a great magician
who could divert and control the forces with which he
was linked. His behavioural tendencies of anger and
violence garnered the strength that was conceivably
required to subdue the ‘other’. This complexity is
mirrored in his relationship with other members of
the Heliopolitan Ennead: he battled with Horus and
Osiris, but assisted rejuvenation after death, helping
Ra on his journey through the Netherworld, and the
king on his path to the afterlife. His apposition and
opposition to Horus was also consistently represented
in the unification of Egypt, reflecting the cosmic
ideology of the maintenance of order through the
control of chaos. Accordingly, the deity was considered
of great importance for upholding order, kingship,
and stability in the Egyptian state.
173
The combined textual, artistic, and archaeological
evidence points to the emergence, transference,
adoption, and adaptation of Near Eastern concepts
regarding the storm deity. Individuals bearing the
name of Baal had initially entered Egypt in service
of its mortuary cult at el-Lahun in the Twelfth
Dynasty. By the mid-Thirteenth Dynasty, perhaps
in Dynasty 14, the rulers at Tell el-Dab‘a had
commissioned the construction of temples with
features similar to those in Egypt and the Near East.
They utilised iconographic elements displaying
a belief system connected to the storm deity of a
maritime population, combining them with others
possibly associated with kingship, the maintenance
of order, and perhaps the conflict of Horus and Seth.
Around the same time, clear evidence surfaces that
the epithet ‘beloved of Seth of Avaris’ came into use,
noting the deity’s cult at the site; indeed, the epithet
with the Seth-animal was utilised by bilingual scribes
for the Northern Levantine elite. In the late Second
Intermediate Period, the storm deity was ‘father’ of
a Hyksos king, the display of weather phenomena,
or the manifestation of the storm deity also related
to destructive events throughout Egypt. By Dynasty
18, the Seth-animal had become a classifier for Near
Eastern and Egyptian storm gods, the latter’s strength
garnered against foreigners in warfare, the sea, and
disease, while the king became as storm and sun god in
diplomatic correspondance. Nineteenth Dynasty rulers
furthered their association with Seth, their ‘father’,
worshipping him at Piramesse while showcasing
his strength and kingship, stressing his role in the
maintenance of order through the bestowal of land and
victory across foreign lands. Seth had become Baal
and Baal was Seth, defeating the creature Apophis
and the foes of Egypt in his moment, protecting the
throne from the serpent sea, the unjust ruler, and the
disease(s) of the foreign, controlling meteorological
forces and creatures to safeguard passage through
difficult terrain, and helping to establish and guard
control over the foreign for the pursuits of diplomacy
and trade. Seth had thus transformed from a local
cult deity to a state deity and then to a (supra-)
regional deity. Interestingly, and perhaps indicative
of some form of resistance to this process, the Seth-
animal alone was predominantly utilised in official
Eighteenth Dynasty texts that relate to Seth’s new
roles, perhaps as a more palpable representation for
its administration than the clearer correlation of the
Egyptian storm god with the Near Eastern deity.650
With the rise of a dynasty centred in Lower Egypt,
however, texts commissioned by the Nineteenth
Dynasty state more precisely correlate Seth with
Baal, associating aspects of the latter with those
embedded in Egyptian thought and religious beliefs.
650 Even-Zohar 2010, 52; Mourad 2019, 237.
174 Chapter 4
This process was not unidirectional nor bound to
events solely ascribed to the Hyksos Period. In its
initial stages, ideas regarding Seth travelled to the
Northern Levant, perhaps by traders commissioned by
their Egyptian and Levantine patrons. Here, they were
utilised alongside the iconography of rulership for this
elite class. The concepts were also likely transferred,
adopted and adapted at Tell el-Dab‘a in scarab and seal
designs that combined symbols of kingship, power and
its maintenance with those of the Near East, coinciding
with the shifting political and social milieu of Egypt,
as well as escalating supra-regional relations. Aspects
of the worship and mythology of the Near Eastern
storm god, such as those related to the sea, lordship,
warfare, and weather phenomena, and possibly those
connected to oath-taking, treaty ramification, divination
and theophanies, may have surfaced as points of
convergence. In the process of becoming an independent
city, or city-state, the leaders of Tell el-Dab‘a would
have feasibly accentuated the characteristics of its
local deity, which possible enabled the representation
of attained kingship, and the development of these
convergence points, in search for legitimacy, support
and the negotiation of common ground.
The negotiated ideas evidently transferred to other
areas in Egypt and were similarly employed by the
Theban elite. They would have feasibly furthered trade
and diplomatic relations with Levantine neighbours,
who could possibly partake in shared rituals or
offerings at Tell el-Dab‘a’s cult to the storm god, the
deity in whose negotiated form was accessible for
worship by individuals adhering to different belief
systems. Following the reunification of Upper and
Lower Egypt, the local cults at Tell el-Dab‘a seem
to have persisted, maintaining the negotiated ideas
regarding a state god of kings, Seth. Evidence for such
ideas can be traced in the altered conceptualisation of
the Seth-animal classifier, its association with strength
on the battlefield, and the correlation of the storm
deity with the sea. Egypt’s empirical ambitions would
have still necessitated a means to maintain power in
foreign lands, and the negotiated form of the Egyptian
storm deity would have displayed a king who attained
it through warfare in the first half of Dynasty 18, and
then through diplomacy in the late Eighteenth Dynasty.
The altered conceptualisation more clearly surfaces
in the Nineteenth Dynasty, when military and civil
officials gained power of what was now a unified Egypt
with hegemony in the Near East, the royal city in Egypt
relocating to the Eastern Delta. The transformed god
became yet again a patron deity of these rulers, his
characteristics similarly utilised for legitimacy, support,
and the negotiation of common ground with other cities
in Egypt and surrounding regions. Overall, the shifting
political and social circumstances across the examined
period were closely interlinked with the transformation
of Seth and the perpetuation of transformed ideas
regarding the deity throughout the regions reached by
the Egyptian authority. The change in political centres
from the Middle Kingdom to Dynasty 19 appears to
have also influenced how the worship of the storm deity
was represented and exploited by the elite.
Nevertheless, the role of other local agents should
not be dismissed. Bilingual individuals were required
to produce tangible elements that were accessible
to multiple recipients; transregionals transported
both the tangible and intangible between centres
of powers and cultic sites throughout the region;
and local devotees negotiated and maintained the
shared cultic practices and beliefs. Practices related
to magic were evidently a means to access concepts
regarding the storm deity and related typhonic forces,
their representations emerging on magical wands
and recorded spells. Similarly, the myth of the storm
deity could be transferred through both artistic and
textual representations, as expressed on the cylinder
seal from Tell el-Dab‘a as well as the Astarte Papyrus.
Further means for knowledge transfer is hinted by the
presence of individuals of a variety of social groups
with personal names associated with Near Eastern
storm deities from the Middle Kingdom onwards; their
devotion to such deities is expressed and recorded, yet
the means through which they pursued such religious
beliefs are unclear.
Therefore, the process of the transculturalisation of
Baal as Seth and Seth as Baal was multidirectional,
dynamic, and cyclical. The transfer of knowledge was
evidently inclusive of artists, scribes, transregionals,
and worshippers of various social identities, who
encountered and/or were familiar with multiple artistic
and textual traditions, as well as different cultural
belief systems, from the late Middle Kingdom to the
Nineteenth Dynasty. Power dynamics and elite pursuits
were essential in the evolving conceptualisation
of the Egyptian storm god, the shifting political
centres in Egypt accentuating particular negotiated
ideas to further political legitimisation as well as
intra- and intercultural relations. Hence, the historic
developments of the Middle Kingdom and Second
Intermediate Period could be directly correlated to
the transformation of Seth, perhaps not a ‘god of
confusion’, as Te Velde proposes, but a misunderstood
storm god of Egypt.
4.3 Goddesses
Goddesses were central figures in Near Eastern panthaea.
Whether or not the populace in Egypt encountered such
deities in the first half of the Second Millennium BC,
however, still remains heavily reliant on circumstantial
evidence. The textual evidence from the Eighteenth
Dynasty onwards clearly designates that the goddesses
Anat, Astarte and Qedeshet had been incorporated into
Egyptian religious traditions. The following sections
examine the nature of the evidence pertaining to these
deities and explores whether they, or some of their
aspects, were revered in Egypt as a result of Middle
Kingdom and Second Intermediate Period interactions.
 Religious Transformations
4.3.1 The Near Eastern Goddesses Astarte, Anat,
Qedeshet and Baalat
4.3.1.1 Nature and characteristics
Although traditionally and generally regarded as
goddesses of love, fertility, and warfare, recent
explorations on prominent Near Eastern goddesses
have revealed the complexity and, in some cases,
specificity of their varying roles across political,
social, and cultural landscapes.651 As with the storm
gods, for instance, the many Astartes could be
identified as one major goddess worshipped across the
Near East, or different goddesses who, sharing several
characteristics, could be etically grouped under one
typological classification.
One such shared characteristic between the Meso-
potamian goddess Inanna (Sumerian) and Akkadian
Ishtar (Akkadian) is warfare, with images of the
warrior goddess being among the most prominent
of any other female divinity in the Old Babylonian
Period.652 Ishtar’s name could be translated either as
a proper name or noun for ‘goddess’,653 her character
embodying complex characteristics linked to the so-
called family of astral deities (including the sun god
Utu/Shamash and the moon good Nanna/Sin), that
of city-state deities, the royal household, as well as
warfare and sexual love.654 Prior to Sargon’s reign,
Ishtar is mentioned in a limited number of examples,
but later appears in non-royal and royal Old Akkadian
contexts in, for instance, personal names of individuals
such as Ishtar-ummi (‘Ishtar is my mother’) and Ishtar-
mui (‘Ishtar is my warrior’).655 The deity has been
connected to the morning and evening star (Venus),
the symbol of which is often portrayed as an object
with eight points.656 In the Hymn to Inanna, she assists
the king of Sumer to victory; her divine rage and
connection to the storm god Ishkur are noted while she
is in battle.657 Other kings, such as Sargon and Naram-
Sin, also invoke the goddess’s help to defeat their
651 See, for instance, Goodison and Morris 1999; Stuckey
2003; Cornelius 2008; Budin 2011; 2015a; 2015b; Asher-
Greve and J.G. Westenholz 2013; Sugimoto 2014;
Wilson-Wright 2016. See also H ackett 1989.
652 Asher-Greve and J.G. Westenholz 2013, 252.
653 M atsushima 2014, 1.
654 Asher-Greve and J.G. Westenholz 2013, 43–44;
Matsushima 2014, 2–3.
655 Selz 2000, 32, ns. 33–34.
656 The name itself, ‘Ishtar’, is thought to derive from that
of a male deity, Ashtar, with the additional grammatical
feminine ending (t), with both Ashtar and Ashtart
being manifestations of, respectively, the morning and
evening star (Venus) (Albright 1978, 134; Selz 2000,
32). However, this relation between Ishtar, Ashtar and
Ashtart has been contested, with M.S. Smith (2014, 34,
n. 4) pointing out that the female Ashtar of Ebla could
be attested without the final feminine -t form. See also
J.G. Westenholz 2007; Asher-Greve and J.G. Westen-
holz 2013, 43–44. For the astral symbol, see Moortgat-
Correns 1994; Steinkeller 1998; 2002.
657 Lines 1–19, 42–59. See Hallo and van Dijk 1968, 17, 21, 53.
175
enemies, signifying both her connections to rulership
as well as warfare.658 Another important aspect can
be gleaned from Sumerian and Akkadian texts that
narrate Inanna/Ishtar’s descent to the Netherworld
where she was defeated by its queen, Ereshkigal, after
an attempt to rescue her lover Dumuzi.659 As Inanna/
Ishtar is then resurrected, she has been described as
a liminal figure linked to the transition between life
and death.660
In the LBA repertoire of some Levantine and
Northern Mesopotamian regions, Athtart or Astarte
was similarly an important figure for rulership as
well as aggression. The cult of Astarte of combat
at Emar attests to her continued association with
valiance on the battlefield.661 Other attestations refer
to the cults of Ishtar of Nineveh, of Assur, and of
Arbela. She has also been identified with Hurrian
Shaushka of Shamukha and Hittite Shausha, both
of whom were worshipped as ‘lady of heaven’ and
goddesses of warfare, with close ties to rulership.662
At Ugarit, Astarte is named among other goddesses
in lists of deities,663 indicating possible varying roles
among different social echelons and groups. The
connection to the royal house, however, is signified
by her attestation in a number of administrative
and ritual Ugaritic texts connected to the elite. Her
title as aTt rt Sm bal ‘Astarte, name of Baal’ further
signals a prominent position in the city’s divine
patron family.664 Further support for her connection
to those of high status occurs in one letter of a high-
ranking Ugaritic official from Alashiya. The goddess
is mentioned after Baal Sapan, and before Anat and
the gods of Alashiya, hinting at her possible added
importance in diplomatic or mercantile dealings.665
This is also exhibited in a decree between the kings
of Carchemish and Ugarit that lists Astarte as a divine
witness.666 In another text, perhaps a dream-oracle,
the śśw aTt rt ‘horse of Astarte’ is mentioned,667
658 A. Westenholz 1999, 49.
659 The texts include the Sumerian Descent of Inanna to the
Netherworld and the Akkadian Descent of Ishtar to the
Netherworld. For more, see Alster 1974; Dalley 2000;
Barrett 2007, 20–23; Black 2018.
660 For further evidence and aspects on this characteristic,
see R. H arris 1991; Barrett 2007, 20–24.
661 M.S. Smith 2014, 56.
662 H aas 1979; Beckman 1998; Lambert 2004; Porter 2004;
Gestoso Singer 2016.
663 KTU 1.148:7, 1.47:25, 1.118:24. M.S. Smith 2014, 41.
664 M.S. Smith 2014, 38–45, 61–63. N. Wyatt (1999b) and
Dussaud (1947) translate aTt rt Sm bal as ‘Astarte heavens
of Baal’. For more, see Selz 2000, 33.
665 KTU 2.42:6–9. K napp 1983; Pardee 1987; M.S. Smith
2014, 41–42.
666 RS 17.352:12. M.S. Smith 2014, 43–44.
667 KTU 1.86:6–7. Schmitt 2013, 216. The line in Helck
(1971a, 167, n. 34) is reconstructed as śśw aTt rt w śśw an t
‘horse of Astarte and horse of Anat’, however the name
of the second goddess is fragmentary. See Pardee 2002,
145–146.
176 Chapter 4
indicating some association with the equid. Her role
in incantations is evident in the Baal Cycle, wherein
the storm god’s curse against Yamm leads Hauron
and Astarte to attack the sea god,668 and in the Legend
of Keret, in which the same curse is utilised by Keret
against his son.669 Astarte is additionally frequently
mentioned alongside Anat, the two goddesses
attempting to calm the storm god in his treatment
of Yamm’s ambassadors,670 Astarte also intervening
when he seeks to kill Yamm.671 The goddesses are
further invoked in Ugaritic spells against snakebites,
signifying an apotropaic function.672 While Astarte’s
astral links seem to be of less importance at Ugarit,
greater focus is placed on her pugnacity in hunting
with her aspect as aTt rt ṣw d t ‘Astarte the huntress’
highlighted in KTU 1.92:2. It is this skill that draws
Baal’s attention,673 but contrary to what others have
suggested, this does not infer that Astarte was his
consort or sister, as no concrete evidence for such a
relationship exists.674 Indeed, her pairing with Anat
is more noticeable in Ugaritic texts, with several
references noting their roles together in magico-
medical incantations, hunting and, in a limited
number of cases, on the battlefield.675
Although mentioned in earlier mid-Third and early
Second Millennium BC texts from Mari and its
vicinity,676 the LBA Ugaritic texts remain the primary
source of material on Anat in the Bronze Age.677 In one
ritual text from Ugarit, Anat is referred to as an t gTr
‘Anat of might’, a lady (balt) of kingship, sovereignty
and the heavens.678 The Baal Cycle also mentions
how the ‘virgin’ goddess and sister of Baal supports
the storm god in acquiring his throne and palace.
She helps defeat his serpentine enemies, and later
avenges his defeat by the god of death, Mot, whom she
‘ritually’ destroys.679 Her endorsement of the storm
god is described as that of ‘the heart of a cow to her
calf’ or ‘a ewe to her lamb’,680 signalling maternal
668 KTU 1.2: I.7–8. N. Wyatt 1999b, 109.
669 KTU 1.16: VI.54–57.
670 KTU 1.2: I.40.
671 KTU 1.2: IV.28–30.
672 KTU 1.100: 20, 78; 1.107:39; RS 24.244; RS 24.251.
Pardee 2002, 172–184; M.S. Smith 2014, 39–41.
673 See, for instance, KTU 1.92. Herrmann 1969; de Moor
1986, 225–226; Dijkstra 1994; Pardee 2008; M.S. Smith
2014.
674 Stuckey 2003, 131; Schmitt 2013, 216; M.S. Smith 2014,
58–61.
675 De Moor 1987, 30, 33, 43, 188, n. 5; Stuckey 2003, 131;
M.S. Smith 2014, 34, 43, 53, 55, 57, 64–65.
676 Lloyd 1994, 12–26.
677 Walls 1992.
678 RS 24.252:6–10. Pardee 2002, 194, 205, n. 9. For a brief
overview on the etymology of the goddess’s name, see
Selz 2000, 35–36.
679 KTU 1.3–1.4, 1.6: I–II. N. Wyatt 2002, 37–38, 72–73,
78–114, 128–136.
680 KTU 1.6: II.28–30. N. Wyatt 2002, 135.
tendencies that, as Stuckey proposes, could be linked
to her role as a protective deity.681 However, the same
text earlier describes her performance in battle,
alluding to the defeat of her enemies whose heads and
palms surrounded her in heaps, the heads adorning
her back and the palms affixed to her girdle.682 While
the Legend of Keret similarly refers to Anat as a wet
nurse for the king, this is likely more associated with
her ties to kingship and endorsement of the royal heir
rather than her representation as a mother goddess.683
Her postulated role as consort to Baal is also based
on interpretation rather than concrete evidence.684
Similarly, while clearly a goddess of hunting, it is
uncertain whether Anat was also a patron of birthing
animals and herds, or a ‘mistress of animals’, although
this seems possible based on Day’s reinterpretation of
Ugaritic texts.685
From a port city-state further south are attestations
of another goddess linked to Baal, Baalat Gubal.
With a name that literally translates to ‘lady of
Byblos’, Baalat Gubal has often been identified with
Asherah,686 Ashtarte687 or Anat, yet evidence for such an
identification from the Third and Second Millennia BC
is scant.688 Indeed, balt gbl has been interpreted both
as a name in itself or as a title, the correlations with
Hathor evident in this Egyptian goddess’s epithet as
n b. t Kpn ‘lady of Kpn’.689 Yet the Temple of Baalat
at Byblos was constructed in the first half of the Third
Millennium BC, before the earliest attestation of this
hieroglyphic epithet on a relief assigned to the reign of
Sixth Dynasty king Pepy. This indicates that the temple
was established for a local cult and not specifically for
Hathor.690 This is not to negate the Egyptian influences
on the EBA cult of Baalat, which are highly likely given
the continued connections between Egypt and Byblos
in the EBA.691 Although beyond the scope of this study,
the possibilities of such early religious interconnections
suggests that cultic practices at the temple, as well as
681 Stuckey 2003, 130.
682 KTU 1.3: II.6–17. N. Wyatt 2002, 73–74; Stuckey 2003,
130. The Hindu goddess Kali is also portrayed with
severed hands and heads (Pope 1968; Walls 1992, 54–59).
683 As also suggested by Stuckey 2003, 130. See also Walls
1992, 154. N. Wyatt (1999a, 560; 2002, 209, n. 149)
reconstructs the passage differently.
684 For more, see, with references, P. Day 1992, 183–186.
685 P. Day 1992, 185–190.
686 See, for instance, Brody 1998, 28.
687 A Fourth Century BC clay model of an empty throne
features a bilingual inscription that names Astarte in
Greek and Baalat Gebal in Phoenician. For more, see
Bordreuil 1998.
688 Zernecke 2013.
689 See Scandone-M atthiae 1991, 401; Espinel 2002.
690 Stadelmann 1967, 1–8, 10–11; Scandone-Matthiae 1991;
Espinel 2002, 104, n. 5. For more on the temple itself, see
Dunand 1937–1939, 290–296, fig. 246; Saghieh 1983, 40–58,
106, 131, fig. 13, pls. 10–17; Lauffray 2008, 229–330,
355–361, figs. 196–198; Sala 2015, 36–39, figs. 6–8.
691 See Espinel 2002, 103–119; Colonna 2018.
 Religious Transformations
the worship of Baalat at Byblos, could have already
manifested traditions and concepts influenced by those
from Egypt by the Second Millennium BC. The temple
itself bears evidence for a continued cult of Baalat from
the Third to the First Millennium BC.692 The number
and nature of Egyptian finds suggests that it may
have received emissaries and their gifts as diplomatic
offerings, signifying the importance of the cult and the
role of the goddess in the Byblite pantheon and for the
elite, with a further possible link between Baalat and
trade, traders, and diplomacy.693 Supporting this are
references to her in the LBII Amarna Letters of Rib-
Adda, king of Byblos, which describe Baalat as a patron
deity and protector of rulership.694
Another goddess worthy of mention here is
Qedeshet. Unlike the aforementioned goddesses,
however, evidence for a Near Eastern cult of a deity
called ‘Qedeshet’ is, as of yet, absent. The name
derives from the Semitic qdS ‘to be holy’, ‘holy one’
or ‘holy place’.695 In LBA Ugaritic texts, it is used as a
title for El and his consort, Athirat (Asherah), who is
also a ‘great lady who tramples Yamm’ and a ‘mother
of gods’.696 It is additionally utilised in ritualistic texts
for cultic officials and temple singers.697 Some have
attempted to link the LBA Levantine iconography
of the nude female with raised arms to the goddess
Qedeshet, however evidence for this is scant.698
Indeed, while the worship of a Near Eastern Qedeshet
is circumstantial, it remains possible that a goddess
was known by this name, the term perhaps developing
in the same manner as other deities’ appellatives such
as Baal (literally ‘lord’), Baalat (‘lady’), El (‘god’), Elat
(‘goddess’) or Ishtar (‘goddess’).699
692 Sala 2015, 36.
693 For more on this concept as applied to the Temple of
Baalat at Byblos, see Espinel 2002, 103; Hollis 2009,
2. For the concept as applied to ancient Near Eastern
temples, see Nakata 1971; H allo 1992; Silver 1995.
694 EA 68–69, 74, 77, 81, 109, 132. R ainey 2015, 436–441,
454–457, 466–467, 482–483, 588–589, 682–683.
695 Pardee 2002, 239–240.
696 A lbright 1954b; 1978, 106; Pope 1955, 43–44; Binger
1997, 54–56, 86; H adley 2000, 47; Pardee 2002, 239–
240; Stuckey 2003, 132; Cornelius 2008, 94–95. See
also R ahmouni 2008, 281–284 [Nr. 94].
697 The postulated association with prostitution is unjustified
by the available material. Pardee 2002, 239–240;
Cornelius 2008, 94–95, with references.
698 For more on the scholarly literature, see, with references,
Cornelius 2008, 94–95. See also Budin 2015b.
699 The Arabic ‘qedysat’ is today used as a title for female
saints. For a perusal of names of ancient Near Eastern
and Egyptian goddesses and their use as titles or names,
see Zernecke 2013, 232–235.
177
4.3.1.2 Iconography
Artistic portrayals of goddesses and the scenes in
which they appear have been intensively studied by a
number of scholars.700 Near Eastern goddesses or, more
specifically, the roles that they are believed to embody,
can often be distinguished by particular aspects in
their iconography. They are typically represented in
offering, presentation or cultic scenes,701 their roles
indicated by their dress, scale and context, with their
identification often verifiable by associated texts. A
certain flexibility in identification should be taken,
as a goddess could be depicted in a generic form that
restricts identification of a specific name but ‘may
have enabled each ethnic or local group or individual
to “see-in” their own deity’.702 This translatability
of the iconography not only suggests a multiplicity
of goddesses,703 but also a means of intercultural
negotiation and communication. It is, however, perhaps
best not to assign a name to such goddesses if they are
not textually identified, but rather to analyse them
case-by-case, first by the imbued role of the pictured
deity, for example, as huntress or patron goddess, and
then by its context and associated data.704
From the Old Akkadian Period, the warrior goddess
was represented in partial or full frontal view,
partially or fully nude or wearing a flounced robe, with
weapons at her shoulders while carrying a mace or a
sword, and often with wings (Fig. 4.27).705 Identified
as Inanna/Ishtar, she can also have one or two feet
on a lion(s), showing her association with the animal
and, possibly, its loud roar, strength, and ferocity.
The goddess has additionally been connected to the
colours red and blue, and the respective associated
gems carnelian and lapis lazuli.706
The iconography of LBA Ugaritic Astarte is more
difficult to assess due to her similar characteristics with
Anat. The latter goddess is, for instance, described to
be armed and winged, as an t d i d it ‘Anat of the wing,
the kite’.707 Her postulated role as ‘mistress of animals’
is also thought to be represented by depictions of
700 See, among others, Pritchard 1943; Schroer 1989;
2008; Cornelius 1999; 2008, 2–4; 2009; 2014; K eel and
Uehlinger 2001; Lahn 2005; U. Winter 2012; Asher-
Greve and J.G. Westenholz 2013; Tsukimoto 2014.
701 Asher-Greve and J.G. Westenholz 2013, 176–189.
702 Asher-Greve and J.G. Westenholz 2013, 174.
703 Asher-Greve and J.G. Westenholz 2013, 176.
704 As for instance already followed in Cornelius 2008;
Schroer 2008; U. Winter 2012.
705 Seidl 1976; Asher-Greve and J.G. Westenholz 2013, 207,
252, figs. 12–13, 16, 20, 106–107, 109, 133; Tsukimoto
2014. Tsukimoto (2014, 3) also notes that the goddess
is sometimes provided with a beard as emphasis of her
masculine characteristics. For a textual reference to such
a beard, see Asher-Greve and J.G. Westenholz 2013, 116.
For more on the goddess’s masculine attributes, see Teppo
2008, 76.
706 Barrett 2007, 25–27.
707 RS 24.252:8. Pardee 2002, 194.
178 Chapter 4
a goddess bearing an animal in each upraised hand
(Fig. 4.28b).708 However, as with other MBA and LBA
representations of goddesses from the Near East,
artistic representations are typically not accompanied
by textual identifications, and so her identification
cannot always be confirmed.
One added representation of a sacred figure
manifests in the form of the naked female.709 The
naked female occurs across Near Eastern art of the
Third to First Millennium BC. Postulated to be of
Northern Levantine origin,710 perhaps representing
female sexuality or mediation,711 she has been
identified with a goddess, a musician, a priestess,712 or
a cognitive performative construct.713 The figure could
indeed be correlated with several known deities, and
may have represented more than one according to the
context of her representation as well as the intended
purpose, but some association with sexuality and
mediation (human and divine, human and animal),
perhaps even of apotropaic nature, is highly feasible.
The standing nude female is first attested in the early
Second Millennium BC cylinder seal impressions
of Kanesh.714 Old Syrian and Anatolian seals as
well as MBA plaques and figurines represent her
with an elaborate hairstyle, standing frontally with
feet often pointed in the same direction as the head
(Fig. 4.29).715 Arms could be positioned straight at the
side, raised, or folded at the chest. They could also
be shown near or holding the breasts or the labia. In
MBA and LBA representations, the naked female can
be adorned with wings, jewellery, tattoos, streams
from the shoulder, or crossed bands at the chest, the
latter linked with the warrior goddess.716 She can also
be shown standing on a lion,717 a bull,718 a donkey,719
or a dais.720 From the early Second Millennium BC,
she is attested as ‘mistress of animals’, flanked on
708 See, for instance, P. Day 1992, 188–190.
709 For more on the nakedness of figures in Egyptian and
Mesopotamian art, including the nude female, see Asher-
Greve and Sweeney 2006.
710 U. Winter 2012, 193.
711 U. Winter 2012, 193–197; Asher-Greve and Sweeney
2006, 151–153.
712 See, for instance, Frankfort 1939, 160.
713 In an examination of pendants with features of the nude
female, Benzel (2013) proposes that ‘the pendant itself
functions as an item of jewelry to be worn as the depicted
figures do, presumably it is capable of endowing, in
some talismanic, propitious, or performative manner, its
biological wearer with similar aspects of eroticism and
sexual allure’.
714 U. Winter 2012, 142–143.
715 For an overview, see Schroer 2008, 167–178; U. Winter
2012, 194–197, figs. 70–78; Budin 2015a, 323–332.
716 Budin 2015a, 319; U. Winter 2012, figs. 20, 23, 126, 136.
717 See, for example, U. Winter 2012, fig. 96.
718 See, for example, U. Winter 2012, figs. 135, 293.
719 See, for example, U. Winter 2012, fig. 77.
720 See, for example, U. Winter 2012, figs. 86–87, 90, 94–95,
106–107, 110, 112, 114–115, 123.
either side by, or grasping in one or two raised hands,
an animal such as a lion, goat, gazelle, hare, bird, or
snake.721 She is additionally depicted holding other
items, such as a plant or a weapon.722 The standing
naked female can occur in a variety of scenes, as a
main or subsidiary figure, primarily in association
with rulers or the elite, or with such divine figures
as the storm god and the patron or warrior goddess.
MBA Levantine scarab bases can additionally
feature the standing naked female (Fig. 4.30). A scarab
from Beth Shemesh assigned to the early MBIIB has
been presented as the earliest known example, and
depicts a frontal standing female with head to the
side, hair in an updo, arms at the side and feet pointed
outwards, with two items flanking her, perhaps plants
as suggested by Schroer (Fig. 4.30a).723 Another from
Jericho illustrates the goddess with large curled horns,
large ears, and a branch at each side (Fig. 4.30b).724
Some later MBA Southern Levantine scarabs of this
figure show her with larger ears, the arms hanging at
the body, and her head adorned with so-called Hathor
curls, which have been linked to Egyptian art.725
While possible, several of these features could have
also been inspired by earlier and contemporaneous
parallels from Old Syrian cylinder seals.
In fact, the so-called Hathor curls need not only be
Egyptian. The origin is indeed questionable, especially
if, as Bouillon has argued, they are attested in earlier
Mesopotamian and contemporary MBA Levantine
art.726 Plaques of the early Second Millennium BC
Isin-Larsa Period depict the curls for, for instance, a
standing naked female as well as a mythical figure of
a half-man half-bull (Fig. 4.31).727 The similar omega-
shaped symbol (Ω) (Fig. 4.32) also occurs on one such
plaque, the sign first attested in the Third Dynasty of
Ur and later utilised in association with the fertility
and mother goddess Ninhursag in the Kassite Period,
and in the iconography of Second Millennium BC
seals and scarabs across the Levant and Anatolia.728
Old Syrian and Old Babylonain seals and seal
impressions similarly feature the naked goddess with
721 M arinatos 2000, 11–13, figs. 1.8–1.10, 1.17–1.20;
Schroer 2008, 167–178; U. Winter 2012, 194–197,
figs. 77, 89, 95, 144–148.
722 See, for example, U. Winter 2012, figs. 77, 124, 134.
723 D. Ben-Tor’s Design Class 10D1. Schroer 1989, 95–97
[Nr. 1], figs. 5–6; D. Ben-Tor 2007a, 149–150, pl. 63 [27].
724 D. Ben-Tor’s Design Class 10D1. Schroer 1989, 99
[Nr. 41]; D. Ben-Tor 2007a, pl. 63 [28].
725 D. Ben-Tor’s Design Class 10D1. Schroer 1989, 97
[Nrs. 2–6, 11, 13], 98 [16–17, 19–24, 27, 32–33, 40]; K eel
1995a, 211; D. Ben-Tor 2007a, 181, pl. 105 [8–28].
726 Bouillon 2014. See also A lbright 1939; Pritchard
1943, 41; Spycket 1954, 113–128, figs. 65–68. An amulet
portraying two naked women with the curled hairdo was
found in the late MBIIA or MBIIB Tomb II at Byblos
(Montet 1928, 185–186 [707], pl. 94 [707]).
727 Bouillon 2014, 213–214, figs. 9–10.
728 Bouillon 2014, 213, figs. 7–8; K eel 1989a.
 Religious Transformations 179

(a) Seal impression, Akkadian Period, unknown provenance

(b) Seal impression, Akkadian Period, unknown provenance

(c) Seal impression, Old Babylonian Period, unknown provenance

(d) Seal impression, Old Babylonian Period, Mari

Fig. 4.27 Depictions of the Near Eastern warrior goddess. After U. Winter 2012, figs. 111, 184, 188, 487
180
(a)
(b)
Fig. 4.28 Depictions of nude females of the LBA, from
(a) Akko; and (b) Minet el-Beida.
After U. Winter 2012, figs. 40, 42
a shoulder-length hairstyle that ends in curls, visually
akin to the omega-shaped sign (Fig. 4.29e–f).729 A
patron goddess is also depicted on an Old Syrian seal
of unknown provenance with shoulder-length hair
that ends in a curl, but the head is in profile view,730
possibly representing the hairstyle from a different
perspective. The hairdo is later commonly attested in
LBA representations of goddesses and other female
figures from the Near East.731
In Egypt, the earliest known occurrence for this
curled hairstyle is found on early Middle Kingdom
female figurines of possible ritualistic function. The
figurines were placed in tombs of men, women and
children, and later in the Middle Kingdom on statues,
sistra and other objects connected to Hathor and Bat
(Fig. 4.33).732 The hairdo also became associated with
upper class Middle Kingdom women, including those
of the royal family.733
The curled hairstyle is but one type of hairdo
linked to sacred Near Eastern figures that may have
been similarly donned by their cultic officiants or
729 See, for example, U. Winter 2012, figs. 101–102, 105,
113, 117.
730 U. Winter 2012, fig. 119. A naked goddess stands in front
of this figure but has a high updo hairstyle instead.
731 Bouillon 2014, 217–222. The author agrees with Bouillon
that the hairstyle should be called ‘curled hairstyle’ rather
than ‘Hathor curls’ to avoid imbued connotations.
732 Pinch 1983; 1993, 136; Waraksa 2008; Teeter 2010;
Bouillon 2014, 210–212.
733 Bouillon 2014, 210–212, figs. 4–5.
Chapter 4
adherents.734 Old Syrian, Syro-Cappadocian and Old
Babylonian cylinder seals and their impressions also
show the warrior goddess with long loose hair.735
The naked goddess could sport this as well as a high
ponytail or a single stream of hair(?) extended from
the head,736 a short coiffed hairdo737 which can also
feature a single short curl at the base,738 and a more
elaborate hairstyle with two or more tufts, one at the
front and a bun-like shape at the base, and sometimes
one at the upper back of the head (see Fig. 4.29c).739
Such seals, as well as figurines, also portray the naked
female with a high bun that appears to be tied together
with a headband,740 a crown, or other headgear (see
Fig. 4.29b; compare Fig. 4.27b).741 Although usually
wearing the divine horned helmet, patron and warrior
goddesses are also depicted with similar hairstyles,
such as the curl at the base of the neck,742 or that of the
more elaborate type.743
4.3.2 The Near Eastern Goddesses in Egypt
4.3.2.1 Personal names and epithets
The Egyptian material bears a limited number of cases
for individuals with personal names associated with
Near Eastern goddesses. That of Astarte, for instance,
can be feasibly identified in only one occurrence
from the late Second Intermediate Period or early
Eighteenth Dynasty. Among a list of 19 servants
(10 female) mentioned in the biography of Ahmose-
si-Ibana as rewards following his participation in
military campaigns is Hm . t Is -
tA- rA- iw - m i ‘the female servant, Is - tA- rA- iw - m i’.744
The name adheres to the Akkadian Ishtar-ummi
(‘Ishtar is my mother’) as attested from Old Akkadian
contexts onwards.745 If theoretically from a region in
the north or northeast of Egypt, then the servant could
734 For an overview of Third Millennium BC hairstyles, see
Spycket 1954.
735 See, for example, U. Winter 2012, figs. 188, 191. For
Akkadian examples, see U. Winter 2012, figs. 182–184.
736 See, for example, U. Winter 2012, figs. 70–71, 80, 88, 91,
93–98, 104, 106.
737 See, for example, U. Winter 2012, figs. 72, 83, 109, 134,
136. For a MBA figurine, see U. Winter 2012, fig. 20.
738 See, for example, U. Winter 2012, figs. 73–74.
739 See, for example, U. Winter 2012, figs. 81, 122, 124, 126,
128, 130–131, 133, 135, 140, 269–272, 274–277, 279–285,
287–289, 292–294.
740 See, for example, U. Winter 2012, figs. 79, 132, 250, 260.
741 See, for example, U. Winter 2012, figs. 14, 78, 85–86, 89,
138.
742 For examples of the patron goddess, see U. Winter 2012,
figs. 70, 116, 119–121, 124, 137, 140, 193, 206, 235, 265.
For those of the warrior goddess, see U. Winter 2012,
figs. 194, 196–198, 201, 203–207.
743 For those of the warrior goddess, see U. Winter 2012,
fig. 195.
744 Biography of Ahmose-si-Ibana, line 63. Urk. 4, 11 [11];
T. Schneider 1992, 42 [N 68].
745 T. Schneider 1992, 42 [N 68]; Selz 2000, 32, ns. 33–34.
See Chapter 4.3.1.1.
 Religious Transformations 181

(a) Seal impression, Old Syrian Period, (b) Seal impression, Old Syrian Period,
Megiddo unknown provenance

(c) Seal impression, Old Syrian Period, (d) Seal impression, Kassite Period,
unknown provenance unknown provenance

(e) Seal impression, Old Babylonian Period, (f) Seal impression, Old Babylonian Period,
unknown provenance Larsa

(g) Seal impression, MBIIA–B, Kanesh, Level Ib

Fig. 4.29 Depictions of the Near Eastern nude female. After U. Winter 2012, figs. 77, 101, 116, 139, 301, 303
182 Chapter 4

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)

Fig. 4.30 MBA scarab seals showing the nude female, from (a) MBIIB, Beth Shemesh; (b) MBIIA–B, Jericho;
(c) Late MBIIB, Gezer; (d) Late MBA, Tell el-Far‘ah South; (e) MBIIB, Lachish.
After Schroer 1989, 97 [Nrs. 1, 6, 11], 98 [Nr. 19], 99 [Nr. 41])

(a) Cylinder seal impression, Third Dynasty of Ur

(after Bouillon 2014, fig. 8)

(b) Scarab base, MBIIA–B, Kanesh, Level Ib

(after Keel 1989a, fig. 9)

Fig. 4.31 A terracotta plaque. Tell Asmar, Isin-Larsa

Period, late Third to early Second Millennium BC. Fig. 4.32 Depictions of the so-called
After U. Winter 2012, fig. 68 omega-shaped symbol
 Religious Transformations 183

Fig. 4.33 The so-called Hathor curls on Middle Kingdom figurine MMA 08.200.18. Pit 252, el-Lisht North,
late Dynasty 12 to early Dynasty 13. The Metropolitan Museum of Art,
CC0 1.0 Universal License: https://images.metmuseum.org/CRDImages/eg/original/08.200.18_front.jpg
184 Chapter 4
be one of the females awarded to the soldier following
his involvement in the campaigns against Avaris or
Sharuhen.746 Theophoric names with a divine element
linked to Astarte are later attested in the New Kingdom
with at least three occurrences from Dynasty 19
referring to [Ra.w - m s - sw] -
m r.y -aTrTt (literally ‘Ramesses, beloved of Astarte’),747
as t rt i -Hr- wn m =f (‘Astarte upon
his right’),748 and asTrT- m -Hb (‘Astarte
in festival’),749 all of which associate the deity’s name
with Egyptian words. Note, however, that the name is
phonetically written differently, with an initial ‘ayin in
the New Kingdom.
The name of the deity Anat occurs from the mid-
Thirteenth Dynasty onwards in Egypt. The earliest
known attestation is found in the mid-Thirteenth
Dynasty Papyrus Brooklyn 35.1446, a text that features
entries concerning administrative lists, letters, decrees
and deeds, most of which are connected to the x nr. t wr
‘great enclosure’.750 Postulated to be from Thebes,751 the
verso includes a list of household members associated
with a Senebtysy, which has been assigned to the
reign of Sobekhotep III.752 The list includes at least
45 individuals of aAm descent, many of whom bear
Semitic names that suggest they had recently migrated
into Egypt.753 One such individual is
aAm . t an t [...] [Dd . t
n=s] Iw=n - r- tA- n DA HA. tyw ‘aAm . t an t[...] [She is
746 Biography of Ahmose-si-Ibana, lines 13–16. Urk. 4, 4
[6–12]. According to the text, the soldier was given one
man and three women after the campaigns at Avaris, two
women following that at Sharuhen, two women following
the attack against the Iwn . ty w %ty, and two women and
perhaps one other captive following the campaign in
Kush (see Chapter 4.4.2.2). From two other campaigns
against southern ‘rebellions’, eight people of unidentified
gender are awarded to Ahmose-si-Ibana. Although many
captives are noted following Thutmose I’s campaign to
Naharin, the biography does not indicate that any were
placed in the service of the soldier.
747 The name of one of Ramesses II’s son. T. Schneider
1992, 149 [N 316].
748 Assigned to the reign of Ramesses II. T. Schneider 1992,
74 [N 140].
749 Assigned to the reign of Ramesses I. T. Schneider 1992,
75 [N 141].
750 H ayes 1972, 5–16. For more on the x n r. t, see Quirke
1988; 2004, 94–95.
751 H ayes (1972, 16–17) believes the papyrus was originally
deposited in the tomb of Senebtysy, the name of whom
is frequently mentioned in the text, while Menu (2012,
23) proposes that it was placed in the tomb of a scribe.
The papyrus indeed has several entries concerning the
Theban region, thus supporting an Upper Egyptian
provenance. For more, see Mourad 2015, 116–117.
752 H ayes 1972, 11–16,
753 A lbright 1954a, 222–223; Hayes 1972, 99; Mourad
2015, 117.
called] Iunertan,754 warper(?)755 of HA. tyw-cloth’.756 The
name thus suggests knowledge of the Near Eastern
goddess by the aAm worker and, potentially, awareness
of her name by at least one scribe as well as members of
an Upper Egyptian household.
The worship of the goddess by individuals of a higher
echelon is additionally supported by the preserved
names of two kings of the Second Intermediate
Period. The first has been assigned by Ryholt to the
Fourteenth Dynasty and is provided with the Egyptian
prenomen +d - kA-Ra.w and the nomen aA- n -
nA- t i.757 The second is of Ryholt’s Fifteenth Dynasty
and is attested on an unprovenanced scarab with an
inscription on the base reading
HqA xAs.wt apr-an t i ‘ruler of foreign lands, apr-
an t i’.758 The latter follows the typical Semitic apr-
DN pattern,759 signifying the representation of the
ruler’s worship of the goddess Anat. Altogether, the
data points to knowledge of the deity by both lower
to middle class workers of Near Eastern cultural
background who likely worked in Upper Egypt, as
well as kings of Lower Egypt. Later attestations of
personal names featuring that of the goddess date from
the reign of Amenhotep II/Thutmose IV to at least that
of Merneptah.760
Another name that occurs among the list of workers
of Papyrus Brooklyn 35.1446 is
aAm . t BaAt wy Dd . t n =s
WAH- rs - s n b (.w) T. t kA. t ‘aAm . t BaAt wy, she is called
Wahressenebu,761 labourer(?)’.762 The name of this aAm . t
BaAt wy, has been linked to that of Baal,763 however it
is equally plausible that it is related to Baalat. Indeed,
the deity could have been alluded to in other texts by
her association with Hathor and the epithet n b. t Kp n.
Inscription Nr. 345 from Serabit el-Khadim features
two scripts on a sphinx that has been dated to the
754 The name is not attested in R anke 1935–1977. However,
it is clearly derived from the Egyptian.
755 The translation as DA for ‘warper’ is uncertain. The
occupation appears to be associated with the manufacture
or preparation of cloth. See H ayes 1972, 105–106.
756 Papyrus Brooklyn 35.1446, line 59. Van Seters 1966,
178; Helck 1971b, 81; H ayes 1972, pls. 8–13.
757 Turin Canon 9/27. Ryholt 1997, 100, 380, n. 319, fig. 11.
758 G.T. M artin 1971, pl. 41 [3]; Ryholt 1997, 125–127, 383.
759 For the use of this pattern in hieroglyphic attestations
of the DN Baal, see Chapter 4.2.3.1 and 4.2.4.4. For a
similar personal name, Abdu-Anat (literally, ‘servant
of Anat’), from the archives of Mari, see Lloyd 1994,
21–22.
760 T. Schneider 1992, 72–74 [N 131–135], 91–92 [N 177–
179], 94 [N 186–187].
761 The name is not attested in R anke 1935–1977. However,
it is clearly derived from the Egyptian.
762 Papyrus Brooklyn 35.1446, line 35. H ayes 1972, 97;
W.A. Ward 1982, 185 [1597].
763 A lbright 1954a, 231; Posener 1957, 150; Helck 1971b,
80; H ayes 1972, 97; T. Schneider 1987, 271.
 Religious Transformations
late Middle Kingdom.764 Its right shoulder bears the
hieroglyphic inscription m r.y @w. t - @r.w
[n b. t] Mf kA. t ‘beloved of Hathor, [lady] of Mf kA. t’.
Above this is a Proto-Alphabetic text reading m’hbalt
‘beloved of Baalat’.765 The two evidently synonymous
texts were likely also written by the same implement, as
indicated by the thickness and depth of the characters,
signalling that a bilingual individual had produced
both scripts.766 Thus, Sphinx Nr. 345 suggests that
the name Hathor, [lady] of Mf kA. t, was translated as
that of the lady, Baalat, the two likely identified as the
one divinity who was revered at Serabit el-Khadim.
Translations of other Proto-Alphabetic texts at the site
similarly feature Baalat. Together with hieroglyphic
dedications to Hathor discovered at or near the site’s
Hathor Temple as well as its mines, they point to the
shared worship of ‘the lady’ of Serabit el-Khadim by
its multitude of Egyptian and Near Eastern visitors.767
Similarly, the identification of Hathor as the ‘lady of
Byblos’ is well attested in Middle Kingdom sources. It
is first recorded in Spell 61 of the Coffin Texts amid a
series of clauses describing the barque of the deceased
and its safe passage as guaranteed by a number of
gods, noting @w. t -
@r.w n b. t Kb n ir sHm .w n .w wiA.w =T ‘Hathor,
lady of Kb n, makes the steering-oar of your sacred
barque’.768 The association with the steering-oar could
further be linked with one of the main exports of the
Northern Levant to Egypt, aS-wood, as well as its
assumed sacred properties and associations with boats
and navigation.769 The biography of Khnumhotep III
at Dahshur also refers to a speech made by the ruler
of WATi to Senwosret III, mentioning that the Egyptian
king is blessed by Sopdu, lord of the foreign lands, as
well as @w. t - @r.w n b. t Kb ny ‘Hathor,
lady of Kb ny’.770 From the reign of Amenemhat IV, el-
Lahun’s papyrus UC 32196 hints at additional uses of
the epithet with its mention of a servant, Horuwerra,
in the favour of @w. t - @r.w [n b] . t
764 The sphinx has been also assigned to the reign of
Hatshepsut; however, recent arguments have convincingly
dated it to the late Middle Kingdom. For more, see Černy
1955, 202; Sass 1988, 12–14, 135–139, figs. 1–8; Hamilton
2006, 335–338, figs. A.7–11; Morenz 2019.
765 Sass 1988, 12–14.
766 See Goldwasser 2006a, 135, n. 86; Mourad 2015, 139–
141, fig. 5.14.
767 For more, see Bloxam 2006; Mourad 2015, 135–142.
768 De Buck 1935, I.262 [B4C.55]. See also Faulkner 2004,
56–57.
769 A Middle Kingdom personal name from Beni Hassan,
Nf r-Hp.w t - @w. t - @r.w also shows a link with
navigation in its direct translation as ‘beautiful are the
oars of Hathor’. Hollis 2009, 3.
770 Inscription of the tomb of Khnumhotep III, 3C1.
J.P. A llen 2008, 36, pl. 4; Mourad 2015, 269.
185
Kp ny n w. t ‘Hathor, [lady] of Kp ny, the city’.771 The
association with Baalat and Byblos is more clearly
pronounced in the base inscription of a Middle
Kingdom scarab that reads
HA. ty -a n (.y) Kp n Ht p Di n sw @w. t - @r.w n b (. t) Kp n
n kA I[n] ‘count of Kp n, an offering which the king
gives and Hathor, lady of Kp n, for the kA of I[n]’.772
Both G.T. Martin and D. Ben-Tor typologically assign
the scarab to the Thirteenth Dynasty, with D. Ben-Tor
also suggesting that it was produced in the Egyptian
royal workshop.773 Accordingly, at least two of the
references to Hathor as lady of Byblos are connected to
the region at or near Byblos, in the guise of blessings or
dedications by and for Northern Levantine rulers.
In fact, ‘lady of Byblos’ also occurs as a personal
name during the Middle Kingdom. A late Twelfth
Dynasty hieratic graffiti at Wadi el-Hol mentions
Msy m s i n Nb. t -Kp n ‘Mesy,774
born to Nebet-Kp n’. 775 The name of a aAm . t
Nb. t -Kb n ‘aAm . t Nebet-Kb n’ also occurs on a late
Twelfth to early Thirteenth Dynasty stela of unknown
provenance among a series of aAm individuals.776
Another stela of the mid-Thirteenth Dynasty from
Abydos lists s n . t =f n b. t pr(.w)
Nb. t -K(b) ny mAa. t - x r.w ‘his sister, lady of the house,
Nebet-K(b) ny, justified’, a member of the household
of deputy treasurer Ibiau.777 The name is additionally
attested on two other Middle Kingdom stelae from
Abydos of uncertain date, the first in connection to the
mother of a scribe, Nb. t -Kb n ‘Nebet-Kb n’,778
and the second is the mother of an overseer of the canal
of Denderah, the n b. t pr(.w) Nb. t -Kp ny
mAa. t - x rw n b. t i mAx ‘the lady of the house, Nebet-
771 UC 32196, line 26. M. Collier and Quirke 2004, 48–49;
Mourad 2015, 270. Horváth (2015, 126) writes that the letter
is one of many that practise ‘standard epistolary formulae’
and mention ‘a series of strange toponyms and mythical
locations… which may thus be regarded as inventions
serving didactic purposes in the scribal curriculum’.
Consequently, the papyrus’s reference to this Hathor is not
regarded as a ‘local form’ worshipped at el-Lahun.
772 The scarab is postulated to be from the royal cemetery
of Byblos. G.T. M artin 1968, 141–142, pl. 2. See also
G.T. M artin 1971, 129 [1689], pl. 20 [37]; 1996; D. Ben-
Tor 2007b. G.T. Martin reads the name as KAi n, however
the author agrees with D. Ben-Tor’s assessment that the kA
is more likely an element of the offering formula.
773 G.T. M artin 1996, 595–596; D. Ben-Tor 2007b, 178–179.
774 For a similar name, see R anke 1935, 164 [18].
775 R anke 1935, 189 [17]; Darnell et al. 2005, 88–89, fig. 22.
776 Stela Moscow I.1.A.5349 (4161), line F6. The stela is
thought to be from Abydos. It is dedicated by the ‘hall-
keeper and butler’ Senwosret, who is postulated to have
resided near el-Lisht or at Thebes. Hodjash and Berlev
1982, 77–79 [34]; T. Schneider 2003a, 59; Mourad 2015,
119–120, 300.
777 CG 20086. K. Lange and Schäfer 1902a, 101–103;
Mourad 2015, 283, fig. B.2.
778 CG 20224. K. Lange and Schäfer 1902a, 244; Mourad
2015, 284, fig. B.2.
186 Chapter 4
Kp ny, justified, possessor of veneration’.779 The names
are thus assigned to women of apparent Egyptian and/
or Near Eastern origin, from a variety of lower to
upper social echelons, who are otherwise represented
as adherents of Egyptian customs.780
Altogether, the attestations clearly indicate that
Hathor as ‘lady of Byblos’ represents the most
common form of a goddess with Near Eastern
affiliations in Egypt. Interestingly, other epithets
of this deity directly parallel those of Near Eastern
goddesses, including Hathor as ‘lady of the stars’,
‘lady of the sky’, ‘lady of lapis lazuli’ and ‘lady of
turquoise’, the blue colour of the mineral possibly
correlating with the celestial aspects of the goddess
that are shared with Ishtar and Astarte and, to some
degree, Anat.781 Like the latter goddesses, as well as
Baalat, Hathor was a divinity of the royal household
who supported the pharaoh and helped in bestowing
kingship.782 Similar to Ishtar, she is also regarded as
a liminal deity as indicated by her epithets as ‘lady
of the west’ and ‘lady of the sycamore’, with such
aspects supported by her postulated ties to the solar
passage and birth/rebirth.783 The liminality was not
only with the passage from/to life and death, but also
in liminal zones of interaction between Egypt (or its
representatives), and the foreign. It is best expressed
in her role as ‘lady of the port’. Her cultic centre at
Denderah provided access to the ports of the Red
Sea and, consequently, to a variety of minerals and
metals,784 that at Serabit el-Khadim was a cultural
melting pot for officials and workers in search of such
minerals,785 while her connection with the harbour
city of Byblos provided access to the routes and profits
of Near Eastern trade.786 Furthermore, the worship of
Hathor in Middle Egypt at, for instance, Meir and
Beni Hassan, could also be tied to the region’s access
to the Eastern Desert.
4.3.2.2 Iconography
The epithets of Hathor are not the only points of
commonality with aspects of Near Eastern goddesses.
Apart from the so-called ‘Hathor curls’ or the curled
hairdo as previously discussed, three other artistic
elements somewhat linked with Hathor can also
779 CG 20678. K. Lange and Schäfer 1902b, 305; 1908,
pl. 51; Mourad 2015, 285, fig. B.2.
780 For New Kingdom attestations of the name, see R anke
1935, 189 [17].
781 For Hathor as a sky goddess, see Bleeker 1973, 46–48.
For the importance of blue as a symbol of divinity and
rebirth in Egyptian art, see R. Wilkinson 1994, 107–108;
Wegner 2009, 456, n. 15. For the epithets, see also A llam
1963, 77.
782 See Bleeker 1973, 51–53.
783 For a convincing argument regarding Hathor’s liminal
qualities, see Wegner 2009, 458–459, 461.
784 A llam 1963, 132, n. 134; Hollis 2009, 3; Gilli 2010, 56.
785 Bloxam 2006.
786 Hathor was also ‘lady of Punt’. Gilli 2010, 56.
be associated with Near Eastern female divinities.
The first, identified as a Hathor-headed emblem, is
represented on scarab base designs, masks, sistra and
other objects as a frontal human face with bovine ears
and/or horns that could end with spirals (Fig. 4.34).787
The symbol was likely adopted from earlier depictions
of Bat, a buffalo goddess with similar bovine, astral
and royal associations, who was eventually identified
as a manifestation of Hathor in the Middle Kingdom
(Fig. 4.35).788 It is first attested on First Intermediate
Period design amulets and gradually became more
schematised in the late Middle Kingdom.789 The
symbol is also attested in the Levant,790 with more
scarabs of the late MBIIB and MBIIC bearing slight
variations as well as such accompanying motifs
as vegetation, the curled hairdo, and the horns as
leaves, all of which, as Schroer has shown, point to
the scarabs’ Levantine origin (Fig. 4.36).791 Sharing
similarities with the Levantine design scarabs are two
likely Second Intermediate Period scarabs from el-
Lisht (Fig. 4.37a–b),792 two scarabs from late Fifteenth
Dynasty tombs at Tell el-Mansheya (Fig. 4.37c–d),793
and one of uncertain context from Tell el-Yahudiyah
(Fig. 4.37e).794
The development of motifs has been connected with
scarabs assigned to the Tell el-Dab‘a workshop.795
The earliest is of the late Thirteenth Dynasty
Stratum E/3 and was retrieved from Tomb A/II-q/20-
Nr. 1 (Fig. 4.38a).796 As its back and legs differ from
contemporary Egyptian examples, Mlinar assigns
787 D. Ben-Tor’s Design Class 10D. Schroer 1989, 146–153;
A. Roberts 1997, 56–60; D. Ben-Tor 2007a, 33, pl. 19
[19–28]; Wegner 2009, 452, 458–459, figs. 3–4.
788 H.G. Fischer 1962; Schroer 1989, 139; Gillam 1995,
215; R ashed 2009; R eali 2017, 15–16. As Gillam (1995,
217–218) argues, this correlation adds to the plurality
of Hathor as an ‘entity that manifested itself in various
forms and places’, the manifestations thought to have
been encouraged by the elite to perpetuate the ideology
of kingship.
789 Schroer 1989, 146–153; D. Ben-Tor 2007a, 33; Patch
2015.
790 For a possible early Egyptian import displaying the
emblem from a foundation deposit of the MBA Temple
of Obelisks at Byblos, see Montet 1928, 98 [254],
pl. 55 [254].
791 Schroer 1989, 139–146.
792 MMA 22.1.408, found beneath the right hand of a
mummy in Pit 830, and MMA 15.3.325, evidently from
the settlement debris at el-Lisht North. D. Ben-Tor 2007a,
49, ns. 186, 189.
793 Tombs 6 and 10. A hmed et al. 2018, 35, 43, pls. 1
[MAN_29], 4 [MAN_24].
794 The scarab bears the motif flanked by Levantine-style
red crowns. Naville and Griffith 1890, pl. 10 [34];
D. Ben-Tor 2007a, pl. 105 [35].
795 See Chapter 5.4.6.2.
796 TD 304. Mlinar’s Type IIIa. Mlinar 2001, vol. 2, 217–
225; 2004, 119, fig. 6b [14]; D. Ben-Tor 2007a, 150, 181,
pl. 31 [11].
 Religious Transformations
(a) (b) (c)
Fig. 4.34 Middle Kingdom scarab seals showing the
so-called Hathor-headed symbol, from (a) El-Lahun
(after Schroer 1989, fig. 81); (b) Uronarti (after
Schroer 1989, fig. 84); (c) El-Lisht (after D. Ben-Tor
2007a, pl. 19 [27]). Drawing by Patrick Aprent
the scarab to the Tell el-Dab‘a workshop, bringing
the total of likely locally produced scarabs with this
motif to four, the other three collected from Fifteenth
Dynasty tombs.797 The Fifteenth Dynasty complex
of R/III at Tell el-Dab‘a additionally yielded 16 seal
impressions with the motif (Fig. 4.38b–c). Some
include associated plant elements similar to those
from D. Ben-Tor’s Late Palestinian Series of the
late MBA.798 To these, one could also add a faience
sistrum with a Hathor-head and a likely composite
faience and ivory handle discovered in Storeroom
L1421 of Area F/II’s palatial complex of Stratum d
(Phase E/3) or the Fourteenth Dynasty (Fig. 4.39).799
Combined, the so-called Hathor-headed emblem
appears in Egypt with Levantine design influences
first in a likely locally made example from a funerary
context at Tell el-Dab‘a, and then in funerary and
administrative contexts at Tell el-Dab‘a, Tell el-
Mansheya, el-Lisht, and possibly Tell el-Yahudiyah.
This agrees with the postulated funerary and royal
aspects of some of the motifs accompanying the
emblem,800 with plant elements possibly associated
either with Lower Egypt801 or connotations of fertility
and rebirth. Indeed, all are connected to Hathor’s
characteristics.
797 Mlinar 2001, vol. 2, 217–225; 2004, 119, 128, figs. 6b
[14], 11a [5, 10], 11b [21]; D. Ben-Tor 2007a, 150, pl. 41
[4–5]. The three other scarabs include TD 603 from Tomb
A/I-g/3-Nr. 1 (Stratum E/1–D/3, early Dynasty 15);
TD 802 from Tomb A/II-m/15-Nr. 1 (Stratum D/3–D/2,
late Dynasty 15); and TD 8934 from Tomb H/VI-u/15-
Nr. 1 (likely Stratum e/2, late Dynasty 15).
798 D. Ben-Tor’s Design Class 10D2. R eali 2017, 14, 17–25,
figs. 1–8; D. Ben-Tor 2007a, 181–182, pls. 105 [29–46],
106 [1–13].
799 Bietak et al. 2012/2013, 32–35, fig. 17.
800 These include the red crown, the uraeus, the HqA-symbol,
the Dd-pillar, and the an x-symbol. R eali 2017, 17–25.
801 R eali 2017, 21.
187
Fig. 4.35 A pectoral showing a frontal female figure
flanked by a falcon-headed sphinx (Horus) and the
Seth-animal. Probably from Dahshur, Dynasty 12 (?).
After Schroer 1989, fig. 140
The second artistic representation linked with
Hathor as well as Near Eastern divinities is that of the
naked female, as found in Egypt. As aforementioned,
Near Eastern examples are attested from the
Third Millennium BC, with those of the ‘mistress
of animals’ occurring from the early Second
Millennium BC. Figures represented with frontal
bodies in Egypt include those of the ‘Bes-image’802
as well as figurines of nude females.803 The latter
generally occur from the Twelfth Dynasty to the Late
Period,804 and are attested in a variety of contexts
(domestic, sacred or funerary), materials (stone,
faience, clay, wood, and ivory), modelling techniques,
details, and postures, with or without such additional
elements as children.805 The so-called paddle dolls
of the late Sixth to Thirteenth Dynasty may also be
related,806 with Morris arguing that they represented
female members of the x n r musical performers
who served Hathor at Thebes,807 and Moreno García
recognising their relation with a supra-regional
phenomenon.808 Among the figurines of the naked
female are those that closely resemble the Near
Eastern nude female in their representation of mostly
naked women, independently standing or lying on, for
instance, bed-like objects, with head generally en face
but also attested turned to the side, the arms at the side
802 Romano 1989.
803 Desroches-Noblecourt 1953; Tooley 1989, 305–368;
Pinch 1993; Waraksa 2009; Teeter 2010.
804 Desroches-Noblecourt 1953; Tooley 1989, 305–368;
Pinch 1993; Waraksa 2009; Teeter 2010.
805 Pinch (1993) and Waraksa (2009) offer variant typologies
for the figures, each divided into six different categories.
For more on kourotrophic figures in Egypt, see Budin
2011, 35–148.
806 See, with references, Tooley 1989, 307–314; Pinch 1993;
Morris 2011; Moreno García 2017.
807 Morris 2011.
808 Moreno García 2017.
188 Chapter 4

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f)

Fig. 4.36 Late MBA scarab seals showing the so-called Hathor-headed symbol, from
(a) Jericho; (b) Jericho; (c) Jericho; (d) Tell el-‘Ajjul; (e) Tell el-‘Ajjul; (f) Tell Nagila.
After Schroer 1989, figs. 141 [Nr. 59], 142 [Nrs. 74, 84], 143 [Nrs. 90–92]

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)

Fig. 4.37 Scarab seals from Egyptian contexts of likely Second Intermediate Period date showing the so-
called Hathor-headed symbol. (a) MMA 22.1.408, el-Lisht North (drawn from photograph, after https://images.
metmuseum.org/CRDImages/eg/original/22.1.408_EG DP020340.jpg); (b) MMA 15.3.325, el-Lisht North (drawn
from photograph, after https://images.metmuseum.org/CRDImages/eg/original/15.3.325_bot.jpg); (c) MAN_29,
Tell el-Mansheya (after A hmed et al. 2018, pl. 1); (d) MAN_24, Tell el-Mansheya (after A hmed et al. 2018, pl. 4);
(e) Tell el-Yahudiyah (after Naville and Griffith 1890, pl. 10 [34])

of the body.809 Some women wear jewellery or wigs,

and a number bear Bes tattoos on the upper thighs. If
on a bed, added elements could include a child, plants
(such as papyri), red snakes, and mirrors in the field
around the body of the woman. Recent interpretations
have analysed the figurines as votive fertility icons,810
and/or as objects associated with protection, childbirth,
healing or medical and magical rites, including those
to repel diseases and venomous creatures.811 Their
nudity, in association with nakedness in Egyptian art,
(a) (b) has further been associated with female sexuality,
fertility, and childbearing.812 In all cases, context is
significant for determining such function.813 In terms of
the nude women’s identification, different suggestions
have been proposed. Morris, for instance, compares
Twelfth Dynasty figures with the paddle dolls and
infers an association with female performers serving
Hathor.814 In reference to those represented on beds,

(c)
809 Pinch 1993; Waraksa 2009; Teeter 2010.
Fig. 4.38 Scarab seals from Tell el-Dab‘a showing the 810 Pinch 1993; Teeter 2010.
811 Waraksa 2009.
so-called Hathor-headed symbol.
812 For more on nudity and naked females in Egyptian art,
(a) TD 304, Area A/II (after Mlinar 2004, fig. 6b [14]); see, with references, Robins 1996; 2015; Asher-Greve
(b) TD 9455N, Area R/III (drawn from photograph, after and Sweeney 2006.
Reali 2017, fig. 1); (c) TD 9458S, Area R/III 813 For an overview, see Waraksa 2009, 16–18.
(drawn from photograph, after Reali 2017, fig. 3) 814 Morris 2011.
 Religious Transformations 189

Teeter has argued for a Hathoric association,815 while

Stadelmann and Mueller have suggested a correlation
with Qedeshet.816 Interestingly, it is this variation that
suggests that the Egyptian nude female could, like
that of the Near East, be identified with more than
one sacred figure or as a performative construct, its
function determined by its intended purpose. This
falls in line with Waraksa’s argumentation, wherein
‘it is likely that female figurines were fashioned as
generic females so that they could serve as any of
numerous goddesses, depending on the situation at
hand’, with the chosen goddess, or her protective,
healing or life-giving attributes, possibly invoked
through a spell recitation.817
Such attributes can further be observed with the
iconography of the so-called ‘Bes-image’. According
to Romano, the ‘Bes-image’ could visually illustrate
different deities, its feminine form dating from the
Middle Kingdom onwards (Fig. 4.40).818 Portrayals
of the latter are attested on several Middle Kingdom
magical wands,819 a decorated birth brick from a
domestic context at South Abydos,820 as well as at
least four figurines. One of the latter is a late Middle
Kingdom statuette retrieved from a box alongside
other equipment presumably for magical purposes
beneath the Ramesseum.821 The second is from el-
Lahun,822 the third from el-Lisht,823 and the fourth is
an unprovenanced figurine currently at the Pushkin
Museum.824 The depictions generally display a nude
female with straight or slightly bowed legs, the feet
pointed in opposite directions. Her head is usually
leonine or with lion ears, her arms straight or bent at
the elbows with the hands each typically grasping an
animal such as a snake, hare, or lizard.825 While the
associations with the male ‘Bes-image’ are apparent,
Wegner is correct in noting the similarities of this
naked female with the Near Eastern ‘mistress of
animals’, not only artistically with her frontal form
and such associated animals as the lion and snake, but
also in the possible apotropaic function.826 Linking
these similarities with the Cretan adaptation of the

815 Teeter 2010, 163.

816 Stadelmann 1985, 268; Mueller 2003, 101–102. See
Chapter 4.3.3.3.
817 Waraksa 2008, 3; 2009. See also Lipiński 1986, 90.
818 Romano 1989, 52–54, 212. See also A ltenmüller 1965,
36–39.
819 The depictions are collated in A ltenmüller 1986;
Wegner 2009, fig. 10 [2–11].
820 Wegner 2009, figs. 10 [1], 11.
821 Quibell 1898, 3, pl. 3; R itner 1993, 223, n. 1037; Wegner
2009, fig. 10 [12]; Miniaci 2020, 54–56, fig. 24.
822 Petrie 1890, pl. 8 [14]; Romano 1989, 159–161 [Cat. Nr. 50];
Wegner 2009, fig. 10 [13].
823 Romano 1989, 162–164 [Cat. Nr. 51].
824 Romano 1989, 168–169 [Cat. Nr. 53A]. Fig. 4.39 Fragments of a sistrum collected from
825 See Wegner 2009, 467. Storeroom L1421, palatial complex, Area F/II,
826 Wegner 2009, 469. See also Moreno García 2017; Stratum d (Phase E/3). Bietak et al. 2012/2013, fig. 17.
Chapter 4.3.1.2. © Manfred Bietak: ÖAI/ÖAW archive
190 Chapter 4

1. Abydos Birth Brick, Nude Goddess

2. UCL 15917 3. Luzerne A100 4. Florence 5076 5. Ramesseum

6. Florence 6883 7. UCL 15917 8. Geneva private collection

9. Berlin 1420 10 MMA 15.3.197 11. Berlin 6709

12. Ramesseum Statuette 13. Lahun Statuette

Fig. 4.40 Middle Kingdom representations of frontal figures ascribing to the feminine form of Romano’s
‘Bes-image’. Drawing by Patrick Aprent, after Wegner 2009, fig. 10
 Religious Transformations
‘mistress of animals’ motif in the Second Millennium
BC, Wegner writes that the image ‘expressed the
notion of the harnessing of powerful natural forces
for mastery over chaotic animals and demons and
providing ultimate benefit to human fertility’.827
The image was feasibly transformed for Egyptian
purposes, to be utilised alongside emblems or
rituals related to Egyptian goddesses, particularly
Hathor, likely in domestic settings for magical and
ritualistic purposes to, for instance, protect an entity
as it transgressed a liminal space, such as birth or
death.828 Despite identifications with Beset (feminine
Bes) or Ahat, the Egyptian ‘mistress of animals’ is
once labelled as sAw ‘one who protects’,829 and could
perhaps be approached, like Bes and her Near Eastern
counterpart, as a visual representation of several
deities or one which was interpreted as a particular
deity by its wielder.
Portrayals of the nude female on scarabs and seal
impressions in Egypt could also be interpreted in a
similar manner. Artistic inspirations from the Near
East are likewise highly possible, given both the
number and nature of attestations in the Levant, as
well as similarities with Near Eastern cylinder seals.830
Evidence of one such Near Eastern-type seal was
indeed uncovered in Area R/IV (Fig. 4.41).831 Collected
from a street level assigned to the Fifteenth Dynasty,
it portrays two standing nude females: one at the left
is partially preserved with one arm by her side as she
holds her right arm (and a plant?) likely up to her face;
the second has an elaborate updo, both arms at her
chest, with feet possibly pointing out. The females are
shown in association with robed figures, one of whom
is seated and so is perhaps a king or a deity.
Other scarabs and seals from Egypt commonly
show the nude female grasping or flanked by plant-
like elements,832 signalling a correlation with the
Near Eastern ‘mistress of animals’ motif. In a few,
the female is surrounded by elements that are more
akin to representations of the labia or lifted skirt
on Old Syrian and Anatolian cylinder seals and
impressions (Fig. 4.42).833 Those from the Delta
may have been locally produced. These include one
scarab surface find at Tell el-Dab‘a (Fig. 4.42a),834
five sealings from R/III’s complex of the Fifteenth
827 Wegner 2009, 470. See also Weingarten 2013.
828 Wegner 2009, 470–475.
829 Weingarten 2013, 373.
830 Schroer 1989, 92–138; D. Ben-Tor 2007a, 149.
831 TD 9662L. Forstner-Müller et al. 2015, 81, fig. 71.
832 Schroer 1989, 97 [Nrs. 6–7], 98 [Nr. 19], 99 [Nr. 42],
102–103; R eali 2017, 29.
833 Schroer 1989, 97 [Nrs. 3–4, 10–15], 98 [Nrs. 16, 18,
20–25, 27–31], 99 [Nrs. 32, 40–41]; U. Winter 2012,
figs. 135, 268–272, 274–277, 279–284, 286–287, 290.
834 TD 1073. Mlinar 2001, vol. 2, 529, 617–621; 2004, 132,
fig. 13b [15].
191
0 1 cm
Fig. 4.41 Seal impression TD 9662L, Area R/IV,
street layer assigned to Dynasty 15. Forstner-Müller
et al. 2015, 81, fig. 71. © ÖAI/ÖAW archive
Dynasty (Fig. 4.42b–c),835 one from Tell el-Retaba’s
Tomb 4, assigned to the second half of Dynasty 15
(Fig. 4.42d),836 one from Tomb 8 at Tell el-Mansheya
of the late Fifteenth Dynasty (Fig. 4.42e),837 and two
scarabs from Tell el-Yahudiyah (Fig. 4.42f–g).838 A
fragmentary seal impression showing only the lower
half of the nude female was also found in a magazine
of the early Eighteenth Dynasty Thutmoside palatial
complex at Tell el-Dab‘a’s ‘Ezbet Helmi, the motif
dating the item to the second half of Dynasty 15.839
Among these Delta examples, the nude female stands
with feet together or pointed out, with arms generally
at her side. She could be positioned on a n b-sign
perhaps identifying her status as a ‘lady’,840 and/or she
could be surrounded by the plant-like elements also
observed on Levantine scarabs. The latter’s postulated
representation of the labia would, like portrayals of
the Near Eastern nude female, suggest an association
with female sexuality and, perhaps, fertility.841 Such an
association is also inferred by the inclusion of large ears
on two sealings from R/III of the figure with a frontal
face,842 which could be connected to the lion ears of the
aforementioned Egyptian ‘mistress of animals’ motif
835 R eali 2017, 28, figs. 9–13.
836 Grave 4, Nr. 676. Nour el-Din et al. 2016, 82–84, 106,
pl. 2 [676].
837 A hmed et al. 2018, 38, pl. 3 [MAN_19].
838 Petrie 1906, pl. 9 [137–138].
839 Inv. Nr. 8980. Zeger 2009, 40, 77.
840 R eali 2017, 30, n. 122.
841 For its interpreted links to fertility, see Schroer 1989,
104; R eali 2017, 31.
842 Area R/III, Inv. Nrs. 9452 H and 9456 C. R eali 2017,
figs. 11–12. Another sealing from R/III displays the
figure’s head in profile and with a long hairdo which also
finds parallels in Levantine examples (Area R/III, Inv.
Nr. 9453 J; R eali 2017, fig. 9).
192
(a) (b) (c)
(d) (e)
(f) (g)
Fig. 4.42 Scarab seals from the Eastern Delta
showing the nude female. Drawing by Patrick Aprent.
(a) TD 1073, surface find (Mlinar 2001, fig. 13b [15]);
(b) TD 9453J, Area R/III (drawn from photograph,
after R eali 2017, fig. 9); (c) TD 9452H, Area R/III
(drawn from photograph, after R eali 2017, fig. 11);
(d) Nr. 676, Tell el-Retaba (after Nour el-Din et al.
2016, pl. 2 [676]); (e) MAN_19, Tell el-Mansheya
(after Ahmed et al. 2018, pl. 3); (f) Tell el-Yahudiyah
(after Petrie 1906, pl. 9 [137]); (g) Tell el-Yahudiyah
(after Petrie 1906, pl. 9 [138])
or the bovine ears of the Hathor-headed emblem.843
They could also be related with the figurines of nude
females, and the nude female on a bed, which have
been linked to fertility.
In fact, the earliest securely dated piece of a
representation very similar to this nude female on
a bed occurs in Pit Assemblage L81 of Area F/II’s
palatial compound at Tell el-Dab‘a (Fig. 4.43a).844
Assigned to relative Stratum c/1 (Phase E/1), the
fragment is of Nile B-2 fabric, black-slipped and
burnished, the outlines of the figure bearing remnants
of white incrustations, perhaps comparable to those
843 See, however, Schroer 1989, 110, 132; Reali 2017, 33.
844 See Chapter 3.2.1.1.5; Aston and Bader 2009.
Chapter 4
of Fifteenth Dynasty Tell el-Yahudiyah ware.845
Certainly locally produced, it preserves the middle of
a figurine incised with the midriff, thighs, and lower
arms of a nude female. Several similar fragments of
these figurines have been recovered at Area A/V, as
surface finds possibly of the Fifteenth or Eighteenth
Dynasty, but likely of Nineteenth Dynasty date,
much like those from New Kingdom levels at ‘Ezbet
Helmi’s Areas H/I and H/V.846 Area R/III-q/17-L982
also produced the upper part of a ceramic nude female
statuette from an uncertain context, perhaps of Phases
D/3–D/2, yet it slightly differs with its affixed eyes
and breasts, and a series of small punctures arranged
in vertical and horizontal lines along the torso and
head.847 Also of different form, yet similarly of pottery,
is the preserved upper half of a Nile B-2 statuette from
Area F/II-n/24, Pit L153, clearly representing the
facial features, perhaps large ears, and affixed breasts
of a possible nude female. The statuette may be of the
Second Intermediate Period or later, yet this cannot
be confirmed until the context is completely published
(Fig. 4.43b).848
The figurines, the scarabs, and the seal impressions
of the nude female from Egypt strongly point to
iconographic influences from the contemporary Near
East. It would, however, be erroneous to suggest that
all representations of the Egyptian nude female from
the Middle Kingdom onwards were directly influenced
by Near Eastern precursors. There are indeed
noticeable similarities in function, identification, and
representation that may reflect points of interference,
especially in view of scarab iconography. However,
motifs were apparently either recontextualised for
Egyptian purposes, as with the curled hairdo or the
‘mistress of animals’ motif from the early Second
Millennium BC, or developed concurrently but with
slight variations from those of the Near East, such
as the Hathor-headed emblem and nude female of
examined scarabs and seal impressions from the late
Thirteenth Dynasty onwards. Whether or not the
latter represented specific Near Eastern goddesses is
not certain; yet, the scarab and seal iconography could
possibly be interpreted in the same manner as those of
the nude goddesses in the Near East, or the figurines
of the nude goddess and the ‘mistress of animal’
motif across the region. They could represent several
deities, perhaps for a variety of individuals who
adhered to different traditions, or to fulfil different
purposes. While contexts vary from those of funerary,
845 TD 9027T. Aston 2015. Aston suggests that the figure
appears to have been made in a mould, which, if so,
would be the first known case of this technique for figure
production in Egypt.
846 See Hein and Jánosi 2004, 199–200, fig. 144. Many of
the surface finds are stylistically similar to figurines of
the Ramesside Period (Prell, personal communication).
847 Inv. Nr. 9653 O. Prell 2015, 30–31, fig. 23.
848 Inv. Nr. 9400 W.
 Religious Transformations
(a) TD 9027T, Area F/II, Pit Assemblage L81
Fig. 4.43 Fragments of ceramic figurines collected from Tell el-Dab‘a.
© Manfred Bietak: ÖAI/ÖAW archive
administrative or domestic function, an underlying
association with an apotropaic purpose, liminality,
sexuality and/or fertility can be observed.
The third visual representation that could also bear
such associations is in the form of another adopted
hairstyle which, however, specifically points to
the north of Egypt, either to the Delta or to women
influenced by Near Eastern customs. The earliest
securely dated attestation for the hairstyle is in the
tomb of Wekhhotep (C1) at Meir (Fig. 4.44). Assigned
to the reign of Senwosret III or Amenemhat III, the
tomb contains unique scenes of women involved
in several activities typically reserved for men.849
The north wall comprises rows of bearers bringing
a variety of offerings to the tomb owner, the lower
two with inscriptions that the offerings are from
the Delta region (Fig. 4.44a).850 Among the bearers
are eight women with an ‘atypical’ appearance, one
in each of the lower two registers with slight traces
of red on their hair,851 and at least four in the upper
register. The women feature a distinctive hairstyle
849 Blackman 1914, 17–18; 1953, 8, 13, 35, pls. 13, 17;
Grajetzki 2006, 109.
850 Blackman 1953, 19–21, pl. 18; Mourad 2015, 95–97,
fig. 4.59.
851 Blackman 1953, 19.
193
(b) TD 9400W, Area F/II-n/24, Pit L153
with a bulb-like protrusion at the back that is akin
to a bun. In some cases, the hairdo could include a
fillet, a smaller wedge-shaped protrusion(s) from
the head, and/or a ponytail. Likened to a cap-like
turban,852 the hairdo can additionally be observed for
one woman on the south wall in a marsh-related scene
(Fig. 4.44b), and two on the east wall, north of the
entrance (Fig. 4.44c).853 Do. Arnold has noted the
similarities between the hairstyle and those of women
from EBA Syria and Mesopotamia, justifying the
chronological discrepancy with the possibility that
the hairstyle was copied from imported heirlooms
stored at the nome’s temple to Hathor.854 However,
more contemporary evidence for the hairdo from the
MBIIA could point to a different source of inspiration.
The style is indeed very rare in Egypt, the remaining
traces of red hinting that the women are associated
with foreign entities.
Very close parallels can be observed with two
statuettes of likely Twelfth Dynasty date. The first is a
wooden figurine from Shaft Tomb 191 at Beni Hassan
852 Do. A rnold 2010a, 24 [17–31].
853 Blackman 1953, pls. 10–11; Mourad 2015, 95–97,
figs. 4.57–4.58.
854 Do. A rnold 2010a, 28–29, fig. 10. See also Saretta 2016,
164–171, figs. 4.24a–c.
194 Chapter 4
which architecturally tentatively dates between the
reigns of Amenemhat I and Senwosret I, the figurine
assigned to the first half of the Twelfth Dynasty.855
It represents a woman wearing a long-sleeved red
garment with a probable zig-zag pattern as well as
yellow footwear, the head of a yellow-skinned child
emerging at the back from the wrapped material
around her shoulders. Her black hair is tied into a
bun and held together with three bands, its flattened
top with a drilled hole likely for a fixture such as a
comb or hairpiece.856 Regardless of her hairstyle, the
woman’s garment, the skin colour of the child at her
back, as well as his positioning, are all suggestive of
her northeastern origin.857 Another ivory statuette of
uncertain Egyptian provenance is also of a female
figurine with a long patterned garment, carrying a
child of whom the head is seen, and sporting a similar
banded hairdo.858 Although the head is damaged at the
back, the shape of the voluminous hairstyle as well as
the hole at its top points to some similarity with that of
the Beni Hassan statuette.859
Such details agree with Do. Arnold’s interpretation
of the figurines as of foreign, possibly Near Eastern,
origin.860 Indeed, a similar hairstyle is found on
an early Thirteenth Dynasty Stela Musée Joseph
Déchelette, Roanne Nr. 163 of a standing woman
labelled aAm . t =f m r.y t =f %n b -HqA ‘his aAm . t, his
beloved, Senebheqa’ (Fig. 4.45).861 Dressed in a one-
shouldered long garment, Senebheqa has a bulb-like
protrusion at the upper back of her hairdo, from which
extend two wedge-shaped nodules. She is represented
among other members of the household of the ‘overseer
855 National Museum of Scotland, Edinburgh, A.1911.260.
Garstang 1907, 139–141; Seidlmayer 1990, 217–231,
fig. 95; Do. A rnold 2010a, figs. 1–3; Mourad 2015, 91,
pl. 3. A similar unprovenanced figurine of a woman
with a child at her back and leading an animal is at The
Metropolitan Museum of Art (MMA 26.7.1407; H ayes
1959, 35, fig. 16).
856 Garstang 1907, 140; Do. A rnold 2010a, 17–24, n. 6,
fig. 9b. Do. Arnold observes light reddish paint around
the woman’s ears, and correctly notes the rarity of a
tray or basket on the head of a female figurine who also
carries a child at the back. Several other clay figurines
of the Second Intermediate Period and Eighteenth
Dynasty from, for instance, Deir el-Bahari or Faras, are
represented with a head surmounted by a disc-like object
or hairstyle. The latter may be pierced by three or more
holes through which, according to preserved examples,
strands of artificial hair may have been affixed. For more,
see, with references, Pinch 1993, 201–203, 211–213, 228–
229, pls. 46 [C–D], 47–48.
857 See Mourad 2015, 91.
858 MFA 54.994. Wildung 1984, 182, fig. 159; Do. A rnold
2010a, 19–21, figs. 4–7.
859 Do. A rnold 2010a, 19–21.
860 Do. A rnold 2010a, 19–22, 24, 31. See also Saretta 2016,
163–164, fig. 4.26.
861 De Meulenaere 1985, 75–84, fig. 1; Gabolde 1990, 35–
38; T. Schneider 2003a, 70; Mourad 2015, 120, fig. 4.68.
of the storehouse and treasury’, Heriwah, and, from her
stature, position and epithet, appears to be a respected
or important individual in this household.862 With
clothing akin to aAm .w pictured in Khnumhotep II’s
tomb at Beni Hassan,863 as well as her caption as a aAm . t,
Senebheqa was most likely represented as of Near
Eastern origin. From an uncertain provenance from
the Northern Levant and assigned to the early Second
Millennium BC is a copper statuette representing a
barefoot pregnant female in a long garment and a child
at the back.864 Her hairstyle is also designed with a
voluminous high bun and a bulb at the base, and is kept
together with a headband. This parallel, as well as the
iconography of the statuettes, consequently supports
their identification as women (specifically mothers) of
likely Near Eastern origin, which would thereby link
their hairstyle with the Near East.
In view of this, the aforementioned women in the
tomb of Wekhhotep could accordingly also be linked
to Near Eastern aspects. The lack of wedge-shaped
protrusions for some hairdos leads to closer parallels
with hairstyles of women on Old Syrian cylinder
seals, including the naked and patron goddesses, with
slight differences in volume, the positioning of bands,
or the presence of an additional tuft of hair.865 The
added identification of some of the scene’s offerings
with Near Eastern-type products further justifies this
association. The last woman in the uppermost register,
for instance, balances a table on her shoulders with
globular handled jars, and carries another handled
jar in her left hand, the shape of which is similar to
Levantine vessels from EBIV/MBI Megiddo, Tell Beit
Mirsim, and Tell ‘Arqa.866 However, the preserved
women with the bulb-like hairdo do not carry these
products and are not dressed in similar garments
to those of Senebheqa or the female statuettes.
Intead, they wear Egyptian-type dresses and bear
characteristic Egypian products, such as baskets,
jars, lotus stems, birds, and trays laden with foods.
Combined with the inscription that points to the Delta,
the women in Wekhhotep’s scene may be identified as
Lower Egyptians influenced by Near Eastern aspects,
if not of Near Eastern ancestry. Accordingly, they
would be bringing a variety of imported and local
offerings from the Delta to the tomb owner. One can
thus consider if they are somehow associated with
the tomb owner’s role as high priest and overseer of
862 Gabolde 1990, 36–37, n. 8.
863 See Newberry 1893a, pl. 26; K anawati and Evans 2014,
pls. 42–48, 124, 128–129; Mourad 2015, 86–88, fig. 4.52.
864 Brooklyn Museum, Brooklyn, L86.1.9. Brooklyn
Museum, ‘Figure of a Pregnant Female with a Child on
her Back’.
865 See, for example, U. Winter 2012, figs. 124, 126, 128,
130–131, 133, 135, 269–272, 274–277, 279–285, 287–289,
292–293, 298.
866 If metal jars, as identified by Do. A rnold (2010a, 24),
then a similarity with imported silver cups from the Tod
Treasure can also be observed.
 Religious Transformations 195

(a) North wall

(b) South wall

(c) East wall, north of entrance

Fig. 4.44 Details of scenes from the tomb of Wekhhotep (C1), Meir, Dynasty 12.
Courtesy of the Australian Centre for Egyptology
196
Fig. 4.45 Detail of Stela Musée Joseph Déchelette,
Roanne Nr. 163, Dynasty 13.
After De Meulenaere 1985, fig. 1
priests of Hathor, and the theorised correlation of
his chapel’s scenes, particularly those on the north
and south walls, with the Hathor festivals at Qusiya.
Indeed, Do. Arnold suggests that the ‘women with
the striking coiffure could be household servants who
have joined the offering bearers in Ukhhotep’s tomb,
and they could be members of the temple personnel of
Hathor of Cusae who functioned under the overseer
of priests in life as well as in death’, adding a certain
foreign exoticism to the festivals.867 However, if, as
argued here, the atypical women from Wekhhotep’s
tomb are from the Delta, then it is equally possible
that they are temple personnel of a cult of Hathor, or
a goddess equated with Hathor, from this region.868
The latter has been suggested from the iconography
of the haematite cylinder seal found in Area F/I,
Stratum d/1 of the early Thirteenth Dynasty at Tell
el-Dab‘a (see Fig. 4.9).869 The snake situated above
the platform or dais and the lion behind it have been
associated with Asherah, a patron goddess of seafarers
and consort of El at Ugarit.870 While both animals can
also be correlated with Astarte/Ishtar or Anat, those
on the seal are more likely to be identified with the
sea creature and storm god of Near Eastern traditions.
Still, the iconography of the seal points to knowledge in
a Near Eastern storm god of a maritime population
and his associated mythology. Consequently, it is
feasible that those carving the motifs and utilising
the seal were equally knowledgeable in the role(s)
of the goddess(es) in the myth of the storm god. Yet,
867 Do. A rnold 2010a, 28.
868 Cults of Hathor are attested in the Delta at, for instance,
Busiris and Kom el-Hisn. A llam 1963, 90; Bleeker
1973, 75–76; H.G. Fischer 1976; Wenke 2016, 25.
869 See Chapter 4.2.3.2.
870 Brody 1998, 29–30; M arcus 2006, 188.
Chapter 4
this remains tentative. Instead, the abovementioned
artistic material, especially the scarab seal iconography
developing in the Delta from the late Middle Kingdom
to the Second Intermediate Period, is more indicative of
the local knowledge of one or more goddesses, possibly
with Near Eastern influenced attributes. Indeed,
veneration of such a goddess has been suggested by
analyses of cultic spaces at Tell el-Dab‘a.
4.3.2.3 Cultic spaces
The mid-Thirteenth Dynasty or early Fourteenth
Dynasty witnessed the development of a new sacred
precinct in Stratum F of Area A/II at Tell el-Dab‘a (see
Fig. 3.12).871 In Stratum E/3 of the Fourteenth Dynasty,
Temple II was built with a bent axis, paralleling bent-
axis temples of the Levant.872 Bietak’s recent survey of
these parallels has observed that many are dedicated
to goddesses, the bent-axis design with two doorways
likely for a procession.873 The temple’s forecourt also
yielded fragments of blue paint,874 hinting that either
Temple III or II was originally decorated with a colour
closely associated with a sky goddess such as Ishtar
or Hathor. The discovery of acorns in the forecourt’s
altar alongside two tree pits has additionally been
interpreted as a possible indication of a tree cult, such
as that of Asherah.875 Vegetation is likewise associated
with the iconography of the smiting figure and the
naked goddess on scarabs and sealings from the
site.876 Tree groves surrounding the early Eighteenth
Dynasty trapezoidal complex north of Area A/II,
identified by Bietak as a temple dedicated to Seth,
can also be interpreted in the same manner (see
Fig. 4.17).877
Certainly, more exploration and evidence is required
to conclusively verify the identity of goddesses
worshipped at Tell el-Dab‘a. However, if combined
with the aforementioned iconographic developments,
it may be proposed that its inhabitants potentially
worshipped one or more goddesses who were either of
Near Eastern origin, or whose aspects were inspired
by Near Eastern elements, and were then shared with
and/or transferred to that of a local or regional deity.
In view of the Temple of Hathor at Serabit el-Khadim
and its shared use for the worship of Baalat, as well
as the already embedded assocations between Hathor
and this Near Eastern goddess, perhaps a postulated
local goddess could be identified as a manifestation
of Hathor.
871 See Chapter 4.2.3.3.
872 V. Müller 2002, 277; Bietak 2003b; 2009c; 2016c; 2021b.
873 Bietak 2019b.
874 Bietak 1991b, 39; 1996a, 36.
875 Bietak 1996a, 36.
876 See Chapter 4.2.3.2, 4.3.2.2. See also Na’aman and
Lissovksy 2008; Ziffer 2010.
877 Bietak 1985a; 1990, 9–16; 2010b, 164–165; 2011, 23–24,
figs. 3–5, 15; Bietak and Forstner-Müller 2011, 34, fig. 6.
 Religious Transformations 197

4.3.3 Influence and Confluence: The Case for

Continuation
4.3.3.1 Astarte
A number of scholars have studied the cult of
Astarte in the New Kingdom.878 Although some have
attributed its introduction by the ‘Hyksos’,879 others
have specified its incorporation in the following
dynasties. For instance, Helck suggests that Astarte’s
worship was introduced by captives brought back
from Thutmose III’s campaigns,880 or by Syrian
sailors,881 while Stadelmann and Ranke indicate that
Amarna Letter EA 23 marked her incorporation with
the arrival of the statue of Ishtar of Nineveh to cure
Amenhotep III.882 Tazawa and Stadelmann additionally
note that the goddess was adopted due to her relation to
chariots or horses, fulfilling a demand for such a deity
with the newly introduced military technology.883
Combining the theories together, Wilson-Wright
proposes four different modes of transmission for the
goddess: two are connected to her equestrian roles, one
of which was introduced by Semitic-speaking horse
trainers and prisoners of war under Thutmose III,
a royal cult later developing based on this goddess;
a third is her Syrian manifestation which was
distinguished in texts by the name, as t r #Arw;
and a fourth represents her magico-medical
characteristics, and occurs in Nineteenth to
Twentieth Dynasty magical papyri with connections 0 5 cm
to the Ugaritic Astarte.884
The earliest known and well-defined evidence Fig. 4.46 Stela of Betu (TBO 760) showing the deities
for Astarte’s worship has been assigned either to Reshef and Astarte. Tell el-Borg, Dynasty 18.
the reign of Thutmose III or Amenhotep II. A stela After Hoffmeier and Kitchen 2007, fig. 1b
from Tell el-Borg, North Sinai, was discovered as a
reused block in the foundation of a fortification moat
that most likely dates to the reign of Amenhotep II rn ‘Astarte, the name’, perhaps referring to the title
(Fig. 4.46).885 Divided into two sections, the lower of Ugaritic Astarte as aTt rt Sm bal ‘Astarte, name of
represents the one dedicating the stela, the ‘overseer Baal’.886 The stela clearly associates the goddess with
of horses’, Betu, and the upper consists of two horses, her depiction also displaying warrior aspects,
figures facing each other. That on on the left stands as shared with Reshef. Such aspects are also found
with a long kilt and high conical crown that bears a in other depictions that label Astarte. For instance, a
gazelle at its front. Holding a shield in his left arm, fragmentary stela assigned to the late Eighteenth or
an upraised blade mace in his right, the bearded early Nineteenth Dynasty similarly shows her (asy t)
god is labelled RSp n b p r. w iHw ‘Reshef, lord of with an At f-crown, holding a shield (?) in her left hand
the house of the stable of horses’. The figure on and a spear (?) in her right, but directly seated on a
the right is seated on a chair positioned on top of a horse.887 Another from Buhen dating to the reign of
striding horse and, wearing a long garment and At f- Ramesses II shows the equestrian (as t i t) in the same
crown, holds a shield in her right hand and a spear posture with different weapons and a white crown
in her upraised left hand. She is captioned aAs t rt i from which extend two ribbons.888

878 For an overview, see Stadelmann 1967, 101–110;

Tazawa 2009, 7–8; Wilson-Wright 2016, 28–30.
879 See, for instance, van Seters 1966, 179; Schmitt 2013, 886 Hoffmeier and K itchen 2007, 132; M.S. Smith 2014,
219–220. 38–45, 61–63. N. Wyatt (1999b) and Dussaud (1947)
880 Helck 1971b, 446. translate aTt rt Sm bal as ‘Astarte heavens of Baal’. See
881 Helck 1966a, 1–14. also Selz 2000, 33.
882 R anke 1932, 412–418; Stadelmann 1967, 101. 887 Stela of Nefersekheru from his tomb at Zawyet Sultan.
883 Stadelmann 1967, 102; Tazawa 2009, 134. Osing 1992, 23; Cornelius 2008, pl. 4.1; Tazawa 2009,
884 Wilson-Wright 2016, 28–70. 84–85 [Doc. 5].
885 Hoffmeier and K itchen 2007, 127–136, figs. 1–3. 888 Cornelius 2008, pl. 4.4a; Tazawa 2009, 85 [Doc. 7].
198 Chapter 4
Despite the limited number of references, other
representations of a female deity on horseback in
a brandishing pose, with or without an At f-crown,
have been identified as of Astarte. They occur
on stelae, reliefs, ostraca, scarabs, a plaque, a razor
and a possible axe, and date from the reign of
Thutmose III to the Nineteenth and possibly even
the Twentieth Dynasties.889 Some justification for the
equestrian warrior correlation can also be found in
texts from this date range, the earliest from the reign
of Amenhotep II. An inscription on the Sphinx Stela
refers to how Thutmose III placed his son to care for
the horses of the royal stable, with which Reshef and
Astarte were pleased.890 A text on the outer panel
of a chariot from Thutmose IV’s tomb, situated
between the image of the king and his horses, reads
Tn r Hr s s m (. t) m i aAs t i rt w
‘valiant with the chariot team like Astarte’.891 On a
relief from Karnak, Sety I stands in his chariot and
shoots arrows at the Shasu, with an inscription before
his face referring to the king as
m r.y MnTw aAs [t r] t i ‘beloved of Montu and
As[tar]te’.892 Another so-called ‘Poem on the King’s
Chariot’ assigned to Sety II’s rule describes the ‘hands’
or saddles of the chariot as those of Anat and Astarte.893
Other sources naming and portraying the goddess
show her in a less menacing pose, and in otherwise
typical stances for Egyptian deities. At Tura, a relief
with Amenhotep II facing seven Memphite deities
incorporates as t irtT x n t .y Pr.w - n f r
‘Astarte, foremost of Perunefer’, with an At f-crown,
a sceptre in her left hand and a an x-symbol in her
right.894 On a stela for Ramesses II, she is portrayed
standing in front of the king, wearing a dress and an
At f-crown while holding a sceptre in one hand and a
an x-symbol in the other,895 and is named
asTrt n b. t p. t Hn w. t tA.wy ‘Astarte, lady of the sky,
mistress of the two lands’.896 Another fragmentary
stela from the reign of Merneptah depicts the goddess
with a shield in her right hand and a shaft (spear?)
in her left, the corresponding text reading
as ty rt n b. t p. t Hn w. t nTr.w n b (.w)
889 See Leclant 1960; Cornelius 2008, 40–44, pls. 4.2–
4.26; Tazawa 2009, 83–85 [Docs. 2–4, 6, 8], 88–91
[Docs. 16–30]; Wilson-Wright 2016, 40, fig. 2.
890 Urk. 4, 1276–1283; Stadelmann 1967, 101–102; der
M anuelian 1987, 181–188; Tazawa 2009, 56 [Doc. 52].
891 Urk. 4, 1559 [6]; Carter and Newberry 1904, 24–33, pl. 10.
892 Oriental Institute 1986, pl. 3.
893 Dawson and Peet 1933, 169, pls. 27–28 [12–14].
894 For a discussion regarding the deity and her role at
Perunefer, see Chapter 4.2.4.3. The other divinities are
Ptah, Osiris, Khenty, Sekhmet, Hathor, and Wadjet.
Stadelmann 1967, 104; T. Schneider 2003b, 161;
Cornelius 2008, 113 [Cat. 3.4]; Tazawa 2009, 87 [Doc. 13].
895 For Ramesses II’s stela, Louvre E.26017, see Chapter
4.2.5.1; Vandier 1969, 193–194, pl. 7b; Goldwasser 1995,
49–50, fig. 3; Cornelius 2008, 113–114 [Cat. 3.6].
896 KRI 2, 779 [7].
[…] ‘Astarte, lady of the sky, mistress of all gods […]’.897
She is also aAsyrTt n b(. t) p. t ‘Astarte,
lady of the sky’, amid other deities on Siptah’s relief
at Abu Simbel.898 Such references allude to Astarte’s
incorporation in at least the royal cults of Perunefer
and Memphis, as lady of the sky, of the gods, and of
Perunefer, with an added correlation with warfare as
displayed by the items she carries as well as her crown.899
Inscriptions of non-royal individuals corroborate
her worship at Memphis or, specifically, the worship
of Astarte of #Arw. They include (1) the stela of
Ram, dated between the reigns of Thutmose IV and
Amenhotep III, who presents offerings to Astarte of
#Arw, lady of the sky, mistress of the two lands, and
mistress of the gods, for, among other things, a burial
in Memphis;900 and (2) the offering basin of Ptahankh,
naming Qedeshet and Astarte of #Arw, lady of the sky,
mistress of the two lands, and mistress of the gods, in
the Temple of Ptah.901 Also in association with Ptah,
as mentioned in the vessel of stable-master Sennefer
of the reign of Horemheb, is Astarte (as lady of the
sky), Anat, Reshef, and Qedeshet.902 A further cult of
the goddess at Piramesse can also be inferred, with
the mention of the Temple of as t irt it
‘Astarte’ to the east of the city in Papyrus Anastasi II
and IV,903 as well as the possible inclusion of the
deity’s fragmentary name on an architrave originally
from Piramesse, wherein her martial aspects as
kA n (.y) ‘bull of ’ are also represented.904
’
Her relation with the harbour city, as well as that
of Perunefer, has been discussed earlier, especially
897 Lines 1–2. KRI 4, 52 [iv]; Stadelmann 1967, 104;
Cornelius 2008, pl. 1.8.
898 Lines 7–8. The other deities include Amun-Ra, Nut,
Ra-Horakhty and Seth. KRI 4, 362 [i.7–8]; Stadelmann
1967, 106; Cornelius 2008, pl. 3.5.
899 Representations of a goddess with similar attributes
but no corresponding or clear caption with her name
have also been identified as Astarte. See, for instance,
a scarab collected from the stables of Qantir (Area Q/
IV) showing a crowned figure on a horse (Pusch 2004,
262 [Q 48]), a Nineteenth Dynasty stela from the Temple
of Amenhotep III at Beth-Shean (Cornelius 2008,
pl. 3.2; Tazawa 2009, 87 [Doc. 12], with references), or
the much-debated cylinder seal assigned to the reign of
Horemheb (Cornelius 2008, pl. 1.10; Tazawa 2009, 88
[Doc. 15], with references).
900 Stadelmann 1967, 107–108; Tazawa 2009, 92 [Doc. 33];
Wilson-Wright 2016, 62–64, fig. 16.
901 Stadelmann 1967, 108; Tazawa 2009, 92 [Doc. 34];
Wilson-Wright 2016, 64–65.
902 Tazawa 2009, 58 [Doc. 58].
903 Papyrus Anastasi II.1.4–1.5 and Papyrus Anastasi IV.6.4–
6.5. The other temples include that of Amun in the west,
Seth in the south, and Wadjet in the north (see Chapter
4.2.5.1). Gardiner 1937, 12 [11–13], 40 [16], 41 [1–2].
904 KRI 2, 457 [14]; Montet 1966, 27, fig. 5. A relief
block from a temple of Astarte and a doorjamb from
a sanctuary of Reshef were also collected from Qantir
(P usch 2004, 241).
 Religious Transformations 199

as presented in the so-called Astarte Papyrus,905

and is supported by a fragmentary relief from the
Nineteenth to early Twentieth Dynasty royal stables
at Qantir of a figure offering to an equestrian deity,
identified as Astarte.906
The deity’s name also features on a fragmentary
Twentieth Dynasty stela of Neferhotep presumably
from Deir el-Medina, presenting a different aspect of
the goddess that, according to Wilson-Wright, emerges
in late Nineteenth and Twentieth Dynasty sources.907
The stela bears the names of three deities,
QdSt ‘Qedeshet’, aAsTrt ‘Astarte’, and
anTt i ‘Anat’ (Fig. 4.47).908 It also depicts one nude
female wearing a broad collar and bracelets, holding
lotus stems in her right hand and a snake in her left,
while standing on the back of a lion. The mention
of the names together with the snake points to an
apotropaic role that is supported by references to Anat
and Astarte together in medical or magical texts of
the Nineteenth and Twentieth Dynasties.909 Arguably,
this function was manifested in the iconography of the
nude goddess and Hathor-affiliated symbols already
in the Middle Kingdom. The inclusion of four divine
representations on this much-discussed stela has led
to various interpretations in the identification of the
nude goddess.910 The underlying apotropaic function,
perhaps linked to the goddesses’ other attributes,
Fig. 4.47 Stela of Neferhotep (Winchester 830).
was nevertheless represented and so perhaps the
Presumably from Deir el-Medina, reign of
nude female is to be identified as one of the textually
Ramesses III, Dynasty 20.
represented goddesses, all three, or as another deity
After U. Winter 2012, fig. 37
who shares the artistic aspects, by both literate and
illiterate people. If so, the iconography would manifest
sacred qualities that reinforce the fundamental purpose and the lower mentioning that
of the stela. Dd . t w n = f an t i t h r. t i ‘it is called an t i t-is-content’.
The connection with chariots again surfaces in the
4.3.3.2 Anat aforementioned Poem on the King’s Chariot referring
New Kingdom textual and artistic representations to the saddles of Anat and Astarte.912 Similarly
of Anat predominantly surface in the Nineteenth denoting militaristic associations are two reliefs
Dynasty. Apart from the text on Sennefer’s vessel of dating to the reigns of Merneptah and Ramesses III.
the reign of Horemheb (see Chapter 4.3.3.1), the deity The former is a relief from Heliopolis depicting the
is attested in a relief from Karnak depicting Sety I an t i Hn w. t tA n b ‘mistress of every land,
receiving tribute from Near Eastern rulers.911 Above an t i’ in a long dress and an At f -crown with horns,
his chariot are two rows of inscriptions, the upper offering the king a weapon (scimitar?), perhaps
noting its name as ‘Amun-decrees-valour-for-him’, symbolising his sovereignty.913 The second describes
Ramesses III’s second campaign against Libyans,
with Anat and Astarte acting as a shield for him.914
905 See Chapter 4.2.4.3.
906 For the relief, see Herold 1998, 140–142; Cornelius Papyrus Chester Beatty VII, of Ramesses II’s reign,
2014, 88; Wilson-Wright 2016, 39–40, fig. 2. additionally presents Anat as a ‘victorious’ warrior,
907 Wilson-Wright 2016, 67–68. a woman clad as a man, who assists Isis in a spell
908 Stadelmann 1967, 112–116; Tazawa 2009, 86–87 [Doc. 11].
909 These include the Harris Magical Papyrus r. 3.8–9,
Papyrus Chester Beatty I. r. 3.1, and Papyrus Leiden I.343
+ I.345, r. 4.9–5.7. The complete spell can be found in lines
r. 4.9–6.2, which is partly duplicated in vs. 7.5–7.12. See
Chapter 4.2.5.3; Massart 1954; Beck 2018; Tazawa 2009,
36–37 [Doc. 99], 79 [Docs. 22–23], 94–97 [Docs. 44–46]; 912 See Chapter 4.3.3.1; Dawson and Peet 1933, 169,
Wilson-Wright 2016, 67–68. pls. 27–28 [12–14].
910 For references, see Tazawa 2009, 86–87 [Doc. 11]. 913 KRI 4, 38.i.1; Cornelius 2008, 80, 106 [Cat. 1.7]; Tazawa
911 KRI 1, 7 [14]; Oriental Institute 1986, 11, pl. 4; Tazawa 2009, 75 [Doc. 8].
2009, 81 [Doc. 30]. 914 KRI 5, 59–60; Tazawa 2009, 77 [Doc. 14].
200 Chapter 4
to counteract poison.915 The latter reference resembles
other Nineteenth and Twentieth Dynasty attestations
of the goddess in spells alongside Seth, Astarte, and
other Egyptian deities against a variety of diseases and/
or malevolent entities, some of Near Eastern origin.916
Such evidence showcases Anat’s protective
characteristics against dangerous forces, including
those on the battlefield, and her nature in
safeguarding the king. This connection with kingship
is more clearly emphasised in representations of the
goddess in association with Ramesses II. The king
is m r.y an t i ‘beloved of Anat’917 and
m h ri an t i ‘nursling of Anat’,918
the goddess also described as his mother.919 In
some representations, she is artistically represented
alongside Ramesses II standing with two bands at
the chest, standing with an At f-crown, or seated with
an At f-crown with horns, one hand at the knee, the
other on the shoulder of the king.920
A more aggressive posture is attested in the stela of
Qaha, also of the Nineteenth Dynasty.921 Anat is again
portrayed seated on a throne but holds a weapon in
an upraised hand, and a shield and spear in the right.
The stela was dedicated by the household of the chief
workman Qaha at Deir el-Medina, signalling the
goddess’s worship in Upper Egypt by the lower to
middle social echelon. Another stela assigned to the
reign of Ramesses III and discovered at Beth Shean’s
Temple of Anat also indicates the worship of her local
915 Papyrus Chester Beatty VII. vs. 1.5–2.4. The spell opens
with an account of Seth mating with a goddess he espied
by the sea, which then causes an illness that leads to Anat
asking Pra for a cure, as well as the protective spells of
Isis and Anat. The goddess with whom he mated has
been identified as Anat, despite a lacuna where her name
would be mentioned. Based on comparisons with different
versions of the story, van Dijk (1986) proposes that Seth
instead mated with a personification of Pra’s semen. See
also Lévai 2008, 138–139; Tazawa 2009, 78 [Doc. 20].
916 Harris Magical Papyrus vs. 1.1.III, vs. 1.5, vs. 10, r. 3.8–
9; Papyrus Chester Beatty I. r. 3.1; Papyrus Leiden I.343
+ I.345, r. 4.9–5.7, vs. 6, r. 6, r. 8.x+1–2; Papyrus Turin
CGT 54051. Tazawa 2009, 78–81 [Docs. 20–29], with
references; Lévai 2008, 140–142.
917 KRI 2, 445 [9–10], 458–459; Montet 1933, 125–126,
pls. 70–72; Tazawa 2009, 74 [Doc. 4], 77 [Docs. 17–18].
918 KRI 2, 238 [1], 408 [11]; Montet 1933, pl. 29; Tazawa
2009, 75–77 [Docs. 10, 15].
919 KRI 2, 445; Montet 1933, 107–109, 125–126, pls. 47 [2],
54–55, 70–72; Stadelmann 1967, 91–92; Cornelius 2008,
114 [Cat. 3.7]; Tazawa 2009, 74 [Doc. 4]. His daughter,
son and, perhaps, dog, are also given names that feature
that of Anat (see KRI 2, 196, 401, 867; Stadelmann 1967,
94–95; Tazawa 2009, 81–82 [Docs. 31–33], 132–133).
920 Montet 1933, 71, pls. 47 [2], 54–55, 70–72; Stadelmann
1967, 43–44, 92–94; Cornelius 2008, 108 [Cat. 2.1], 114
[Cat. 3.7–3.8]; Tazawa 2009, 74 [Docs. 4–5], 75 [Docs. 7,
9], 120.
921 Stadelmann 1967, 95, 119; Cornelius 2008, 104 [Cat.
1.1]; Tazawa 2009, 72 [Doc. 1]; U. Winter 2012, 110–111,
fig. 36.
manifestation by an Egyptian official who uses the
same epithets attested in inscriptions from Egypt, that
is, an [t]y t n b (. t) p. t Hn w. t
nTr.w n b (.w) ‘Anat, lady of the sky, mistress of all the
gods’.922 The adoption of the goddess into the Egyptian
pantheon is further verified by inscriptions naming
her as daughter of Ra, daughter of Ptah, in association
with Seth, or among other Egyptian deities.923
4.3.3.3 Qedeshet
Qedeshet surfaces in texts of the Eighteenth Dynasty,
and in captioned artistic representations by Dynasty 19.
An offering basin of uncertain provenance, probably
from Memphis, includes an inscription dedicated by
Ptahankh, chief of the musicians in the Temple of
Ptah, naming on the rim QdS n b. t tA.wy
‘Qedesh, lady of the two lands’ and
n b. t p. t Hn w. t nTr.w n b.w ‘lady of the sky, mistress
of all gods’.924 The front of the basin includes a further
dedication to Astarte of #Arw with similar titles to
Qedeshet, the two also associated with praise to the
wr. t HqA.w ‘great of magic’, a title connected
to royalty or to Isis.925 The vessel of stable-master
Sennefer of the reign of Horemheb, additionally
mentions Ptah alongside Astarte (as lady of the sky),
Anat, Reshef, and QdS n b. t s bA.w n .w
p. t ‘Qedesh, lady of the stars of the sky’.926 A further
connection with Ptah occurs in Papyrus Sallier IV as
part of a letter assigned to the end of Ramesses II’s
reign by the chantress of Hathor at Memphis to a
chantress in the Theban Temple of Amun.927 Qedeshet
is mentioned among several gods, including Ptah,
Amun-Ra of Perunefer, Hathor, Baalat, and Baal
Sapan, deities of likely various cultic centres in
Egypt.928 Additional links to Ptah, as well as these
922 Rowe 1930, 32, pl. 50 [2]; 1940, 31, 33–34, pls. 35 [3],
65A [1]; Stadelmann 1967, 96; Cornelius 2008, 111–112
[Cat. 3.1]; Tazawa 2009, 73 [Doc. 3]; U. Winter 2012,
250. The veneration of non-Egyptian manifestations by
individuals of seemingly Egyptian origin or affiliation
can also be gleaned in an ostracon text from Deir el-
Medina dated to the reign of Ramesses IV, in which
provisions are sent from Egypt for the ‘festival of Anat
at Gaza’ (KRI 6, 156; Grdseloff 1942, 35–39, pls. 7–8;
Tazawa 2009, 76 [Doc. 12]).
923 N. Wyatt 1984, 332; Lévai 2008; Tazawa 2009, 77–78
[Docs. 17, 19], 132–133. For an association with Sekhmet,
see Walls 1992, 53–54, 163–165, 170.
924 See Chapter 4.3.3.1; von Bergmann 1886, 196;
Stadelmann 1967, 108; Tazawa 2009, 92 [Doc. 34], 101
[Doc. 18]; Wilson-Wright 2016, 64–65.
925 Von Bergmann 1886, 196; Cornelius 2008, 96; Tazawa
2009, 123.
926 See Chapter 4.3.3.1; Tazawa 2009, 58 [Doc. 58], 101
[Doc. 19], pl. 7.
927 Papyrus Sallier IV. vs. 1.3–1.10, 2.1–2.2. See Chapter
4.2.5.2; Gardiner 1937, 88–92; Caminos 1954, 333–349;
Stadelmann 1967, 36; Tazawa 2009, 35 [Doc. 94], 101
[Doc. 20].
928 Papyrus Sallier IV. vs. 1.6. See Chapter 4.2.5.2.
 Religious Transformations
cultic centres, are scanty, as remaining preserved
attestations of Qedeshet concern characteristics tied to
her artistic representation.
The earliest of these that can be verifiably dated to a
particular king’s reign stem from that of Ramesses II.
They include the Deir el-Medina stelae of: (1) Ramose,
noting that the goddess is n b. t
p. t Hn w. t nTr.w n b.w i ri . t Ra.w ‘lady of the sky,
mistress of all gods, eye of Ra’, while depicting a nude
frontal deity with a curled hairstyle on the back of a
lion, with a lotus stem in her right hand and a serpent
and spear in the left, alongside Min (left) and Reshef
(right);929 (2) Qaha, showing the goddess n b. t
,
p. t ‘lady of the sky’, standing on a lion while holding
lotus stems in the right hand and serpents in the left,
represented with Min (left) and Reshef (right);930 and
(3) Huy, presenting Qedeshet as n b. t p. t
Hn w. t nTr.w n b.w ‘lady of the sky, mistress of all
gods’, standing nude on a lion also with lotus stems in
her right hand, a serpent in the left, and with Min (left)
and Reshef (right).931 The title ‘lady of the sky’ hints
at the aforementioned connection with Ptah, which is
corroborated by another stela of unknown provenance
generally assigned to the Nineteenth Dynasty. The
latter refers to QdSt m rr. t n (. t) PtH
‘Qedeshet, beloved of Ptah’, in a text corresponding
with a nude goddess with a curled hairstyle standing on
a lion’s back with a serpent in each hand, an additional
lotus stem in the left, as well as six circles positioned
near her.932 The circles parallel those on a pendant
postulated to be from LBA Ugarit that also depicts a
naked frontal goddess with a curled hairstyle.933 They
most likely represent stars,934 aligning with another
of Qedeshet’s titles on a Nineteenth Dynasty stela
from Deir el-Medina, n b. t p. t wr HqA.w
Hn w. t s bA.w ‘lady of the sky, great of magic, mistress
of stars’, that portrays her in a similar fashion.935 While
most of these surface in non-royal representations, a
connection with the royal crown could be inferred by
the goddess’s links with Ra and Ptah, as well as such
epithets as ‘great of magic’; however, the extent of
this connection does not seem as embedded in royal
ideology as the associations of Astarte and Anat with
the pharaohs.936
929 Stadelmann 1967, 116, 119; Cornelius 2008, 83 [5.3],
124 [Cat. 5.3]; Tazawa 2009, 97–98 [Doc. 5].
930 Stadelmann 1967, 95, 119; Cornelius 2008, 83 [5.1], 123
[Cat. 5.1]; Tazawa 2009, 98 [Doc. 6].
931 Stadelmann 1967, 55, 120–122; Cornelius 2008, 83
[5.4], 124 [Cat. 5.4]; Tazawa 2009, 98 [Doc. 7].
932 Stela of Takeret, Berlin 21626. Stadelmann 1967, 115–
116; Cornelius 2008, 84 [5.17], 129 [Cat. 5.17]; Tazawa
2009, 98–99 [Doc. 9].
933 Cornelius 2008, 130–131 [Cat. 5.20a].
934 Stadelmann 1967, 115–116; N. Wyatt 1984.
935 Stela of Iniahay, Moscow I.1.a.5613 (3177). Cornelius
2008, 84 [5.7], 125 [Cat. 5.7]; Tazawa 2009, 98 [Doc. 8].
936 As Cornelius (2008, 97) suggests, Qedeshet was ‘never
worshipped by the pharaohs’.
201
The iconography of a nude frontal deity akin to
Qedeshet surfaces in at least 12 additional objects
of likely Egyptian origin, including ten stelae and
two amulets. Most are assigned to Dynasty 19,
but three are dated by Tazawa to the Eighteenth or
Nineteenth Dynasty and one to the Nineteenth or
Twentieth Dynasty.937 The majority show the figure
with a variation of the curled hairdo with or without
a headdress, holding serpents and/or lotus stems in
her hands while standing on the back of a lion facing
right, although some cases present her on the base
line,938 and one illustrates the goddess with bare
hands.939 She is typically represented en face, at
least one stela portraying her facing right,940 with
feet either facing forward, splayed, or pointing in
one direction.941 The figure is commonly joined by
male divinities generally identified as Reshef and
Min (see Fig. 4.48d). Originally a Near Eastern deity,
Reshef represents a warlike spirit that was associated
with conquering disease,942 and Min emerged in
the Egyptian pantheon as a deity of fertility and
regeneration, with some links to the Eastern Desert.
While an association with aspects of fertility and
sexuality has been proposed,943 both could also have
some connection with protection against disease or
restorative properties. Such concepts are clearly
tied with the epithets of Qedeshet (such as ‘great of
magic’) as well as the iconography of the nude female,
with its inclusion of serpents and lotus blossoms
and their links to healing and regeneration,944 the
curled hairdo and its association with apotropaia
and liminality,945 and the lion’s connection with
power.946 Indeed, Papyrus Leiden incorporates the
deity in an incantantation against disease,947 thereby
emphasising her association with magic and healing.
This function interestingly ties with that of earlier
representations of the nude female from the Middle
Kingdom as well as the Second Millennium BC Near
East, wherein numerous depictions similar to those
of Egyptian Qedeshet have surfaced, albeit without
937 Tazawa 2009, 96–101 [Docs. 1–4, 10–13, 15–17]. Budin
(2015b, 1–2) suggests that none are of the Eighteenth
Dynasty.
938 See, for instance, Cornelius 2008, 126 [Cat. 5.10], 132–
133 [Cat. 5.26]; Tazawa 2009, 96–97 [Docs. 2, 4].
939 Von Bergmann 1886, 190–191; Cornelius 2008, 125
[Cat. 5.5]; Tazawa 2009, 99–100 [Doc. 13].
940 Cornelius 2008, 128 [Cat. 5.15]; Tazawa 2009, 96 [Doc. 1];
Budin 2015b, 2.
941 Budin 2015b, 2.
942 Münnich 2013, 265–266. See Chapter 4.4.1.
943 Tazawa 2009, 167.
944 For more, see K eel 1992, 208; Cornelius 2008, 98;
Tazawa 2009, 123.
945 See Chapter 4.3.1.2.
946 Cornelius 1989, 25–43.
947 Papyrus Leiden I.343 + I.345, r. 22–24. M assart 1954;
Beck 2018; Tazawa 2009, 101 [Doc. 21].
202
an associated text specifically naming the goddess.948
Similarities hint that Qedeshet may have been ascribed
with the originally Levantine-inspired iconography of
the Middle Kingdom and Second Intermediate Period
nude female949 that performatively manifested the
qualities of protection and, possibly, liminality. As
Tazawa and Shoemaker note, Qedeshet could have
acted as mediator between the attributes manifested
by Min and Reshef, to emphasise regenerative
power,950 echoing one of the postulated roles of the
Near Eastern nude female.951 While Budin argues
that the absence of ‘Beset iconography’ after the
Second Intermediate Period restricts its connections
to the later emergence of the naked female,952 the
continuation of such artistic aspects need not have
remained solely in Egypt. The constant movement
of concepts across Egypt and the Near East could
have retained some aspects of the earlier ‘mistress
of animals’ attested in both regions.953 The Semitic
name ‘Qedeshet’ in fact also points to the Near East,
the iconography corresponding with that of the MBA
and LBA.954 These features would have subsequently
transformed among different social groups to include
such elements as the deity standing on the back of
a lion, rather than a deity with leonine features, an
otherwise atypical Near Eastern representation of a
goddess.955 According to the Egyptian sources, these
social groups are predominantly associated with the
middle and lower classes in Egypt.
As such, perhaps the attributes of this goddess were
either reintroduced into Egypt in the Nineteenth
Dynasty, or resurfaced with transformed elements
during the resumed heightened significance of
cults of deities of liminal zones such as Perunefer
948 See Chapter 4.3.1.2, 4.3.2.2; Lahn 2005; Lahn Dumke
2015.
949 Helck 1971a, 218; Tazawa 2009, 122.
950 Shoemaker (2001) further suggests that Reshef represents
forces of death (war, destruction, and plague) while Min
symbolises forces of life (vitality, fertility, and virility),
the two united by Qedeshet. The available evidence does
not clearly evince negative attributes for Reshef (Tazawa
2009, 166–167). Lahn Dumke proposes that Reshef
and Min respectively represented protective and erotic
aspects that were assigned to Qedeshet (Lahn 2005; Lahn
Dumke 2015). See also Münnich 2013, 119, n. 210.
951 See Chapter 4.3.1.2.
952 Budin 2015b, 5.
953 Ritner 2006, 213; Cornelius 2008, 98; U. Winter 2012,
110–112; Budin 2015b, 15. See, however, Helck 1971a,
218–219. Rather than a direct flow from Anatolia and the
Northern Levant in the MBA to Egypt in the Nineteenth
Dynasty, and then the Southern Levant in the LBA, as
argued by Budin (2015b), this movement would entail more
dynamism across the temporal and cultural landscapes.
The presence of the earlier ‘mistress of animals’ in Egypt
and Mesopotamia indeed supports such complexity.
954 For a discussion, see Budin 2015b.
955 See Helck 1971b, 463; K eel 1977, 152–158; Tazawa
2009, 122.
Chapter 4
and Piramesse, and with the increased contacts with
individuals of Near Eastern and Anatolian origin,
the latter mostly supported by Eighteenth Dynasty
texts.956 As with the iconography of Seth in the
Nineteenth Dynasty, perhaps the artistic elements
of Qedeshet represent transcultural aspects that
could be interpreted as one or more goddess(es) by
individuals of various backgrounds. Such aspects
apparently continually developed from earlier
influences on the apotropaia of the early Second
Millennium BC in Egypt, manifesting qualities that
harkened to the Near East. Indeed, even the epithets
of the goddess as well as the literal meaning of her
name as ‘holy one’ could theoretically be ascribed
to various female deities from Egypt as well as the
Near East, supporting a transcultural process
that inspired her worship in Dynasties 18–19. As
abovementioned in Chapter 4.3.1.1 regarding the
posited worship of a Near Eastern goddess by the
name of Qedeshet, it is also possible that this name was
initially an epithet or characteristic of another deity
that was later identified as a particular manifestation
of a goddess in Egypt.
4.3.3.4 Observations
Some elements of the examined Egyptian attestations
of Astarte, Anat, and Qedeshet could be viewed
as a result of, or an extension of, processes that
had initiated before the New Kingdom. All reveal
a recontextualisation of aspects associated with
Near Eastern goddesses for Egyptian purposes of
worship. The incorporation of their cults into the
Egyptian pantheon required the development of
established links with prominent deities, alluding to
their integration into the Heliopolitan, Memphite,
and, perhaps, Theban Enneads. Unlike the Near
Eastern storm god, the goddesses were not directly
and predominantly identified as manifestations of
specific Egyptian deities in the New Kingdom, at
least not textually. One possible explanation for
this was their representation of roles that were not
thoroughly materialised by a specific goddess in
earlier periods. Astarte and, to a lesser extent, Anat,
were both connected to the use of horses and chariotry
for militaristic royal purposes, while Qedeshet
represented a liminal, protective, role possibly
connected to fertility, which was earlier portrayed by
a ‘holy’ female of seemingly unspecified name. In
view of the theory of cultural interference, their
worship would thereby coincide with the need for
otherwise ‘unavailable’ cultural elements. However,
also in line with this and other theories, their clear
emergence around the mid-Eighteenth Dynasty
suggests that the processes through which they
were incorporated into the Egyptian pantheon had
initiated earlier.
956 As also argued in Tazawa 2009, 122.
 Religious Transformations
Anat is first attested in the mid-Thirteenth Dynasty
as a personal name, but then is incorporated into
the names of Fourteenth and Fifteenth Dynasty
kings. Although surfacing in personal names of
the Eighteenth Dynasty, her links with kingship
are again reintroduced in the Nineteenth Dynasty.
Theoretically, Second Intermediate Period rulers
could have revered the goddess, perhaps either simply
to conform to Northern Levantine theophoric personal
names, or worshipping her in the same capacity as
her later role in safeguarding kingship. If the latter,
the process could be compared to that of Seth’s
manifestation of Baal’s qualities, but with fewer and
less concrete sources of evidence. Hypothetically, a
connection to the rulership of Avaris’s rulers may be
proposed, followed by continued reverence albeit in
less prominent streams by a cult perhaps in Lower
Egypt, and then by a renewal of her importance in
relation to Nineteenth Dynasty kingship, with the
establishment of a new dynasty centred in this region.
The attestations are, interestingly, also contemporary
to those known from Second Millennium BC sources
from the Northern Levant, with earlier attestations
in the MBA archives of Mari tied to the higher and
lower social echelons, and then, after an apparent gap
in the evidence, later LBA attestations at Ugarit.957
Her continued worship in the Northern Levant across
this period, however, is not as widely contested as her
reverence by particular entities in Egypt before the
New Kingdom, largely because of her non-Egyptian
origins. While Nineteenth Dynasty kings may have
been inspired by her prominent role in the LBA
Levant, such as at Ugarit, references to her close
maternal relationship with Ramesses II suggest that
an earlier embedded worship of the goddess, or the
knowledge of this reverence in the Eastern Delta’s
cultural memory, is plausible.
Evidence for the worship of Astarte, however, is
even more meagre than than of Anat. Ishtar occurs
in the name of one of Ahmose-si-Ibana’s captured
servants, indicating knowledge of the goddess by a few
individuals of this period. The Eighteenth Dynasty
references emphasise Astarte’s association with the
equestrian class, royal chariotry, and warfare, agreeing
with the goddess’s Near Eastern warrior attributes.
Her introduction into the Egyptian pantheon has been
viewed as a need for a deity with such characteristics
during the New Kingdom, particularly in relation to
the introduction of horses into Egypt.958 Nevertheless,
the use of both chariotry and horses by those in Egypt
is attested before the Eighteenth Dynasty, likely in the
same conflict noted in the biography of Ahmose-si-
Ibana, that is, between the Fifteenth and Seveneteenth
Dynasties. Accordingly, this would infer that the
need for a deity with Astarte’s characteristics may
957 See Chapter 4.3.1.1.
958 See Chapter 5.2.2. Stadelmann 1967, 102; Tazawa 2009,
134.
203
have been present in the Second Intermediate Period
with knowledge of Anat and the Near Eastern storm
god also related to a mythology tied to rulership and
the attainment of power. Due to the nature of the
evidence, however, it is only possible to infer that
such knowledge and need provided a catalyst for
the Eighteenth Dynasty emergence of Astarte’s cult
in Egypt. The historical situation, with the growing
demand for chariotry and horses in Dynasty 18,
could have spurred the popularity of Astarte’s cult.
Later attestations of her medico-magical role could
be related to different modes of transmission,959
applications of her pugnacity in different contexts, or
her transforming character.
In the case of Qedeshet, the similarity of
Nineteenth Dynasty artistic representations with
Middle Kingdom and Second Intermediate Period
sources in characteristics and function signify a
continuation in iconography across temporal and
spatial landscapes. The earlier Egyptian ‘mistress
of animals’ was likely inspired by Near Eastern
iconography, its apparent absence in the Eighteenth
Dynasty coinciding with the limited attestations of
both Anat and Seth as Baal in this period, particularly
in artistic form. Unlike the latter, however, the
nude frontal female iconography surfaced both as
the so-called Beset image and later as Qedeshet
predominantly in non-royal sources. This could
be related to the goddess’s role, which might be
connected more to domestic situations rather than
stately, administrative matters. Still, the New
Kingdom attestations showcase influence from both
earlier Egyptian sources as well as contemporary
Near Eastern representations, signifying the
continued transformation of the iconography and
its identification perhaps by individuals of various
identities across this period.
Qedeshet’s iconography in fact highlights the
importance of artistic representations in preserving
performative roles and characteristics. Such
iconography as that of the frontal nude female, the
Hathor-headed emblem, the curled hairstyle, and the
bulb-like hairstyle, adds to the significance of the
Eastern Delta, particularly Tell el-Dab‘a, as a point
of influence and confluence. As argued here, the
region likely retained a cult of a local manifestation
of Hathor. Indeed, Hathor shares several attributes
with the other examined goddesses of Near Eastern
origin in Egypt.960 These include common titles,
celestial aspects, ties to kingship (especially in
reference to Anat), fertility (particularly similar to
Qedeshet), protection in relation to childbirth, as well
as liminality, not only across metaphysical realms, but
also in contact zones such as harbours. A significant
text that connects all deities, as well as the Delta, is
959 As argued in Wilson-Wright 2016, 28–70.
960 See Chapter 4.3.2.1.
204
the likely New Kingdom ‘Destruction of Mankind’.
It follows Hathor’s role in the destruction of humans
as ‘eye of Ra’, an expression otherwise also attested
for Qedeshet, and an activity that echoes Anat’s
bloodlust and slaughter of captives in the Ugaritic
Baal Cycle.961 The text further relates Hathor with
Sekhmet, a leonine warrior goddess with cults in the
Delta,962 signifying shared attributes between these
leonine goddesses as powerful warrior deities with
ties to kingship.963
While Tell el-Dab‘a, as a contact zone, would
have promoted the transmission of knowledge
regarding goddesses, aspects regarding fertility,
magic, protection and/or healing may have also been
transferred at the household-level at the site, and
in other cultic and domestic spheres across Egypt.
Indeed, a growing body of evidence points to women
of Near Eastern origin in Egyptian households and
temples of the examined period,964 the presence of
non-local women at Tell el-Dab‘a now verified by
isopotic analyses.965 Perhaps these women offered
or transmitted their knowledge of, among other
facets,966 childbirth, fertility, sexuality, and health,
thereby promoting the transfer of religious, cultic,
and ritualistic concepts associated with the examined
deities and their related iconography.
Therefore, although the evidence is scant, the
proposition of the worship of a local manifestation of
Hathor in the Eastern Delta, possibly at Tell el-Dab‘a,
could explain some observations in the emergence and
re-emergence of traits from the Middle Kingdom and
Second Intermediate Period, and then the Nineteenth
Dynasty. While studies have already persuasively
argued for varied streams of transmission of Near
Eastern origin in the New Kingdom, the evidence at
least supports the adoption of some traits that were
already embedded in the Egyptian cultural memory,
or in that of the Eastern Delta, prior to the Eighteenth
Dynasty. Such traits expanded and transformed with
frequent and multidirectional contacts across the
examined period.
961 KTU 1.3: II. Van Seters 1966, 178; Lichtheim 1976,
197–198; Spalinger 2000, 258–261; M.S. Smith and
Pitard 2009, 161, 177–178. For differences between the
bloodlust of Hathor and Anat, see Lloyd 1994, 131–132.
962 For more on cults of leonine deities in the Delta, see
Tazawa 2009, 163–165; E. Lange 2016.
963 Walls 1992, 53–54, 163–165, 170; Tazawa 2009, 164.
964 See, for instance, Chapter 5.4.3.1, 5.4.4.4. See also, with
references, Mourad 2015, 100, 189, 202–203.
965 Stantis et al. 2020.
966 See Chapter 5.4.3.1, 5.4.4.4.
Chapter 4
4.4 Other Religious Concepts and Deities
4.4.1 Reshef in Egypt
Reshef is first attested in Third Millennium BC sources
as an important deity in the Eblaite pantheon.967 Some
texts associate him with disease and healing, while
onomastic data points to his protective attributes.968
Most of the evidence points to his cults or reverence
in the Northern Levant and Middle Euphrates, with
Second Millennium BC representations occurring at
such sites as Mari, Terqa, and Tuttul, and later at Ugarit,
Emar, Alalakh, and Anatolia.969 Initially believed to be
a god of the underworld970 or a storm god,971 Münnich’s
recent analysis convincingly argues that the deity
was predominantly characterised by his warlike spirit
and dominance over disease, his worship common
among all social echelons.972 LBA Ugaritic texts
mention Reshef with some relation to horses, the deity
commonly attested in connection with Astarte and in
incantations for protection, his arrows conquering such
dangerous entities as disease.973 Reshef’s iconography
during the Third and early Second Millennia BC cannot
yet be clearly identified. Two LBA stelae from Ugarit
depicting a deity with a pointed helmet have been
assigned as representations of Reshef. Both emphasise
a connection to archery. Others of the LBA associated
with the god show a brandishing figure with a shield.
The LBA material, however, signals some influence
from Egyptian New Kingdom artistic attestations
of the deity. The earliest known representation is
on a stela from Tell el-Borg retrieved from a moat
foundation assigned to Amenhotep II’s reign (see
Fig. 4.46).974 Dedicated by the ‘overseer of horses’,
Betu, it shows a standing RSp n b p r. w iHw ‘Reshef,
lord of the house of the stable of horses’ dressed in
a long kilt, a curved beard, and a white crown with
a gazelle protome. Carrying an upraised blade mace
in the right hand and a shield in the left, he stands
on a dais before a seated Astarte on a horse.975 The
stela thus showcases the deity’s warrior and protective
attributes, highlighted by the weapon and shield, as
well as a connection with horses and horsemanship.
Such qualities similarly surface in texts dating to the
reigns of Amenhotep II and Ramesses III, and one
of Eighteenth Dynasty date at Sai, that are linked
967 Münnich 2013, 13–68.
968 Münnich 2013, 13–68.
969 Münnich 2013. For Reshef in Byblos, see Montet 1962,
89–90; Bietak 2019c; contra Lipiński 1995, 186; 2009,
219; Münnich 2013, 120–121.
970 A lbright 1926; M atthiae 1979, 566, n. 24; J. Day 2002,
198–199; Tazawa 2009, 126. For more, see Münnich 2013,
65, 147, n. 254.
971 Conrad 1971, 183.
972 Münnich 2013, 265–266.
973 For more on Reshef’s characteristics as represented in
sources from Ugarit, see Münnich 2013, 124–169.
974 Hoffmeier and K itchen 2007, 127–136, figs. 1–3.
975 Hoffmeier and K itchen 2007, 127–136, figs. 1–3. See also
Chapter 4.3.3.1.
 Religious Transformations
with chariotry, stables, and/or the use of horses in
warfare.976 Amenhotep II is also attested as ‘beloved
of Reshef’.977
One further representation assigned to the
Eighteenth Dynasty depicts the god as a standing
figure brandishing a weapon in the right hand,
carrying a shield in the left, and wearing a kilt
and a white crown (Fig. 4.48a).978 Surfacing on
a stela of a non-royal official, it was collected
from Deir el-Medina,979 and captions the deity
as nTr aA ‘the great god’. Possibly also from the
Eighteenth Dynasty is a relief from Tushka, Nubia,
that shows a seated Reshef as RSs p nTr
aA n b p. t ‘Reshef, the great god, lord of the sky’,
holding a weapon in his upraised arm and a shield
in the other.980 He is included alongside a deified
Senwosret III and Horus before a row of five
worshippers of likely Nubian origin, one of whom
brings a gazelle for sacrifice. If the date is correct,
the relief signals that Reshef’s worship had extended
further south and beyond social groups of apparent
Egyptian and/or Near Eastern cultural affiliations.
Nevertheless, his reverence by individuals influenced
by the latter is hinted by the name
ap r-RSf ‘ap r-Reshef’ shared by two officials, one
among workers listed on an ostracon from Deir el-
Bahari dated either to the reign of Thutmose III
or Amenhotep III,981 and one of the overseer of a
vineyard mentioned on a wine jar from the tomb
of Tutankhamun.982 The name is postulated to be
from the Semitic apr-Ršpw, following the apr-DN
pattern.983 Altogether, the contexts of sources
assigned to the Eighteenth Dynasty point to Reshef’s
reverence in both royal and non-royal spheres,
976 As argued by numerous scholars, depictions of a figure
riding a horse cannot be definitively identified with
Reshef as none include captions naming the god. The
Tell el-Borg stela, however, portrays the equestrian deity
as Astarte. For more, see Fulco 1976, 3–6 [E4, E11–12];
Schulman 1977; Tazawa 2009, 116–117; Münnich 2013,
113–114.
977 Stadelmann 1967, 136; Tazawa 2009, 57 [Doc. 54];
Münnich 2013, 113–114.
978 Tazawa (2009) assigns the Stela of Shedu[…] (UC
14400) from the Memphite Temple of Ptah to Dynasty
18; however this is not certain. Stadelmann 1967, 65, 69;
Fulco 1976, 5 [E10], 11 [E23]; Cornelius 1994, 35–36
[RR10], 44 [RR21]; Tazawa 2009, 39 [Docs. 2–3].
979 Stela of Amenemopet, JE 70222. Stadelmann 1967, 65,
69; Fulco 1976, 5 [E10]; Cornelius 1994, 44 [RR21];
Tazawa 2009, 39 [Doc. 2].
980 Leibovitch 1939, 156–157, pl. 19 [2]; Cornelius 1994,
49–50 [RR27].
981 Simpson 1960, 74; Fulco 1976, 3; Dorman 1991, 89 [Field
Nr. 27057.5, line 10], pls. 48 [a], 49 [a]; Münnich 2013, 98
[48].
982 Tazawa 2009, 59 [Doc. 63]; Münnich 2013, 98 [49].
983 A lbright 1954a, 225; Posener 1957, 148; H ayes 1972,
94. See also R anke 1935, 60 [12–18]; T. Schneider 1987,
258–261. See also Chapter 4.2.3.1, n. 297.
205
at sites within Egypt or frequented by a variety of
groups along major routes to neighbouring lands.
The deity’s iconography emphasises his protective
attacking warrior stance, which is evidently related
more to his apotropaic qualities and involvement in
‘battles’ against disease rather than those against
human enemies.984 Such attributes thereby agree with
contemporary evidence regarding the worship of
Reshef in the Near East.
Nineteenth Dynasty material reflects a continuation
of such characteristics (Fig. 4.48b–d). The majority
are on stelae dedicated by officials found at or
near Deir el-Medina and Qantir, with those of
clear date assigned to the reign of Ramesses II.
Common epithets are ‘lord of the sky’ and ‘the great
god’;985 the god also attested as ‘ruler of the divine
Ennead’,986 ‘mighty amidst the divine Ennead’,987
‘lord of eternity’,988 and ‘lord of the marrow’.989
The latter coincides with Reshef’s Nineteenth and
Twentieth Dynasty occurrence in spells against
disease,990 mirroring the roles of other deities of
Near Eastern origin in this period. Reshef could
be depicted standing or seated while brandishing
a weapon in one hand and holding a shield in the
other, standing and holding a weapon and/or a shield,
or standing with a wAs-sceptre and an x-symbol.991
He is also portrayed with Qedeshet and Min,992 as
well as Ptah.993 Based on his iconography, similar
uncaptioned representations from Egypt and the
Levant have been identified as those of the deity.994
These representations could show the god with a
white crown from which two streamers could extend
984 See also Stadelmann 1967, 73–74, 139; Cornelius 1994,
257–261; Münnich 2013, 115–118.
985 Tazawa 2009, 130–131.
986 KRI 3, 603 [9], 621 [6]; Stadelmann 1967, 116, 119;
Cornelius 1994, 59–60 [RR28], 62 [RR30]; Tazawa
2009, 40, 42 [Docs. 6, 10].
987 KRI 3, 791 [13]; Stadelmann 1967, 55, 120–122; Cornelius
1994, 61–62 [RR29]; Tazawa 2009, 41–42 [Doc. 9].
988 KRI 3, 621 [6]; Stadelmann 1967, 116, 119; Cornelius
1994, 59–60 [RR28]; Tazawa 2009, 40 [Doc. 6].
989 Papyrus Chester Beatty VII. vs. 4.8–4.9. Tazawa 2009,
58 [Doc. 59].
990 Harris Magical Papyrus vs. 1, 1.3.5 and Papyrus Leiden
I.343 + I.345, r. 4.9–6.2, r. 11.2–14. See Chapter 4.2.5.3;
M assart 1954; Tazawa 2009, 58–59 [Docs. 59–62]; Beck
2018.
991 Cornelius 1994, 53–54, pls. 1–25; Tazawa 2009, 117–118,
pls. 4–6; Münnich 2013, 113–114.
992 See Chapter 4.3.3.3.
993 Cornelius 1994, 27 [RR1]; Tazawa 2009, 47 [Doc. 24].
994 Cornelius 1994, 27 [RR1], 29 [RR3], 31–32 [RR5–6],
34–35 [RR9], 38–39 [RR13–15], 43–45 [RR20, RR22],
64–65 [RR31, RR33], 91–124 [RM1–40], 125–131 [RB1–
3], pls. 1 [RR1], 2 [RR3], 4–5 [RR5–6], 7 [RR9], 10–12
[RR13–15], 15 [RR20, RR22], 23 [RR31], 25 [RR33],
27–32 [RM1–40, RB1–3]; Tazawa 2009, 41 [Doc. 7], 43–
45 [Docs. 14, 16–18], 46–48 [Docs. 21–22, 24–27], 49
[Doc. 29], 50–51 [Doc. 32, 34–35], 53–56 [Docs. 39–51].
206 Chapter 4

(c) Stela of Pashed (Cambridge EGA 3002.1943),

Deir el-Medina, early Dynasty 19

(a) Stela of Amenemopet (JE 70222), Deir el-Medina,

reign of Tutankhamun

(b) Stela of Sul (OIC 10569), bought in Memphis, (d) Stela EA 191, presumably from Deir el-Medina,
Dynasty 19–20 Dynasty 19

Fig. 4.48 Details from stelae showing the deity Reshef. Drawn from photographs,
after Cornelius 1994, pls. 5 [RR7], 15 [RR21], 16 [RR23], 22 [RR30]
 Religious Transformations
Fig. 4.49 Detail of a scene showing men identified as Asiatics. Tomb of Khnumhotep I, reign of Amenemhat I,
Beni Hassan. Courtesy of the Australian Centre for Egyptology
at the back, with a fillet tied around the forehead, or
with a gazelle protome.995 He typically wears a knee-
length kilt with a bull’s tail, a banded belt, and/or
tassels that reflect an association with portrayals of
Asiatics in Egyptian art.996 Weapons could include a
spear, an axe, a mace, or a scimitar, while his shields
are of Egyptian type.997 Additional elements could be
a collar, a pectoral, bangles, an empty or full quiver
on the shoulder, a fan or lotus flower near the deity,
and a small rectangular- or circular-shaped item with
cords and tassels.998 Although the latter has been
identified as a lute,999 the shape is also reminiscent
of weapons (slings?) carried by, for instance, Asiatic
warriors in the late Eleventh to early Twelfth Dynasty
tombs of Baqet III (Nr. 15) and Khnumhotep I
(Nr. 14) at Beni Hassan (Fig. 4.49).1000
A small number of aspects related to Reshef can
in fact be traced to an earlier date. Among the list of
household members of the mid-Thirteenth Dynasty
recorded on Papyrus Brooklyn 35.1446 is the
[aAm a] p r-
RSp w [. . .] af ty ‘[aAm a] p r-Reshef [...], brewer’.1001
As with other theophoric names attested in the
papyrus,1002 that of the brewer points to knowledge
995 Cornelius 1994, 53–54, pls. 1–25; Tazawa 2009, 117–118,
pls. 4–6.
996 Cornelius 1994, 53–54, pls. 1–25; Tazawa 2009, 117–118,
pls. 4–6.
997 Cornelius 1994, 54–55, pls. 1–25; Tazawa 2009, 117–118,
pls. 4–6.
998 Cornelius 1994, 54–55, pls. 1–25; Tazawa 2009, 117–118,
pls. 4–6.
999 Cornelius 1994, 55–56, pls. 1–25; Tazawa 2009, 117–118,
pls. 4–6.
1000 Newberry 1893a, pl. 5; Mourad 2015, 81, fig. 4.46A;
K anawati and Evans 2018, pl. 77; Lashien and Mourad
2019, pls. 73–74.
1001 Papyrus Brooklyn 35.1446, line 9. H elck 1971b, 81;
H ayes 1972, 5–16, pls. 8–13; W.A. Ward 1982, 73 [595];
Mourad 2015, 116–117. See also Chapter 4.3.2.1.
1002 See Chapter 4.3.2.1.
207
of the deity among individuals of Near Eastern
background working in Upper Egypt, perhaps in the
Theban region.1003
The gazelle protome, first attested in specific
association with Reshef on the Tell el-Borg stela,
also occurs on a diadem assigned to the Fifteenth
Dynasty (Fig. 4.50). The item is part of the so-called
‘el-Salhiyah Treasure’ reportedly from a tomb or
hoard in the Eastern Delta, perhaps even Tell el-
Dab‘a.1004 It is of hammered sheet gold, the ends
tapered and rolled into loops through which a string
was threaded for fastening. At its front is the head
of a deer, its meticulously carved elements allowing
Do. Arnold to identify it as a Dama mesopotamica.1005
It is flanked on either side by two eight-pointed stars
or flowers and two Dorcas gazelle heads, each made of
separate pieces of hammered gold soldered or attached
together. Although the eight-pointed elements allude
to the rosette or star of Astarte or Ishtar,1006 they also
occur on Egyptian jewellery such as those of the late
1003 A limestone sarcophagus from Asyut, also assigned to
the Thirteenth Dynasty, evidently belonged to another
individual named ‘Reshpu’ and was reportedly found
near a sarcophagus of a Baalu. The sarcophagi, however,
have not been published. See A. H assan 1976, 93; Giveon
1980, 148; Lipiński 2009, 163; Münnich 2013, 98 [47].
1004 MMA 68.136.1. Lilyquist 1993, 55, n. 99; Do. Arnold 2008a,
fig. 64; The Metropolitan Museum of Art, ‘Headband with
Heads of Gazelles and a Stag Between Stars or Flowers’.
Some objects in the group bear late Middle Kingdom
forms, such as scarabs, an amulet for Amenemhat III, gold
shell pendants, a shen amulet, and beads, while others are
of MBA Levantine type, such as two late MBIIB design
scarabs, a torque, and a toggle pin (MMA 68.136.1–28.
Lilyquist 1993, 55; Do. Arnold 2008a).
1005 Do. A rnold 2008a, 116.
1006 See Chapter 4.3.1.1; Ziffer 1990, 57, 66, 70, figs. 69, 76.
Do. A rnold (2008a, 116) suggests that the details could
also represent the mandrake plant, which first emerges in
Dynasty 18 and ‘could well have been introduced during
the Hyksos period’.
208 Chapter 4
Twelfth Dynasty found in a tomb at Dahshur assigned
to Princess Khnemet, daughter of Amenemhat II,1007
as well as a tomb at el-Lahun assigned to
Sithathoryunet, daughter of Senwosret II.1008 Both the
gazelle and deer have also been interpreted as symbols
of royalty,1009 with scholars pointing out the popularity
of horned animals on Near Eastern jewellery, as with
the diadem of Queen Puabi from Ur, or late MBA
to early LBA pendants from Megiddo and Tell el-
‘Ajjul.1010 The gazelle is also common in Egyptian
art, wherein it is associated with the desert, sacrificial
offerings, and divinity.1011 However, its first use as a
protome on a diadem occurs on the el-Salhiyah item,
the manufacture and motifs of which all strongly
suggest knowledge in Near Eastern techniques and
iconography, if not a production by Fifteenth Dynasty
craftsmen in the Eastern Delta.1012 Bar those of Reshef,
later attestations of the gazelle protome in Egypt are
evidently connected to royal women likely of younger
age or of the harem, the animal also linked with
Hathor.1013 Hence, knowledge of its inherent meaning
could have been feasibly retained by the individual to
whom it belonged, and her associations with royal or
elite women, perhaps utilised to visually communicate
their status or role.
The protome’s association with Reshef has usually
been connected with its Egyptian interpretation as a
desert animal and the god’s role as a desert god. Giveon
adds its manifestation of the ‘principle of beauty’,
due to its gracious movement.1014 An association with
healing and regeneration has also been surmised,1015
which would fit Reshef’s role in defeating disease.
An earlier connection with foreigners can also be
gleaned in the procession of aAm . w in the tomb of
Khnumhotep II at Beni Hassan (Nr. 3), wherein the
man standing behind the HqA xAs . t IbSA ‘ruler of a
foreign land, IbSA’ controls a Dorcas gazelle by rope,
presenting it as an offering, as an item collected
from the nearby Eastern Desert, or as a marker of the
individual’s rank.1016 While such interpretations are
1007 Lilyquist (1993, 36–37) suggests a Cretan or Anatolian
origin for the motifs and manufacture of the jewellery.
1008 Brunton 1920, 24, 26, pls. 5, 11, 13.
1009 A miet 1980a, fig. 119A. See also Lilyquist 2003, 159–
161, figs. 91 [g], 92 [a–d].
1010 Lilyquist 1993, 55; Do. A rnold 2008a, 116.
1011 Lilyquist 2003, 159–160.
1012 Lilyquist 1993, 55; 2003, 159–160; Do. Arnold 2008a, 116.
1013 Troy 1986, 130; Lilyquist 2003, 160–161; Strandberg
2009, 135–140.
1014 Giveon 1980, 145.
1015 Quaegebeur 1999, 141; Lilyquist 2003, 160; Strandberg
2009, 190, 193.
1016 The word ‘gazelles/wild deer’ is used for chiefs in
the LBA Ugaritic Epic of Kirta, pointing to an added
association of high officials to the animal (KTU 1.15: IV.
6–7; Parker 1997, 27, ns. 81–82). K anawati and Evans
2014, pls. 42 [a], 43 [b], 124, 129; Mourad 2014, 74–75;
2015, 88–89.
merely speculative, the use of the gazelle protome on
the el-Salhiyah diadem suggests that its Eighteenth
Dynasty occurrence in the iconography of Reshef was
most likely connected to earlier artistic developments,
possibly including those of the Fifteenth Dynasty and
perhaps the Eastern Delta.
The presence of Reshef’s name and some elements
of his iconography, however, is insufficient to justify
the existence of a cult of Reshef in Egypt before the
Eighteenth Dynasty. With knowledge of a few of
his attributes, such as the gazelle protome, perhaps
circulating before Dynasty 18, it is more feasible that
the deity was recognised among some groups of Near
Eastern origin who were working in Egypt from at
least the Thirteenth Dynasty. In tracing any viable
link to the Eighteenth Dynasty worship of Reshef,
it is worthy to note that the first known reference of
the deity occurs at an Egyptian fortress in the North
Sinai, along a route to the Levant, around the period
of Perunefer’s establishment and the representation
of other examined deities of Near Eastern origin
in Egypt. Like Astarte, Anat, Baal, and Qedeshet,
Reshef yields protective qualities against diseases
that manifested in magical spells. He also shares
warrior attributes with these deities, namely in his
warlike spirit and association with chariotry, the latter
predominantly occurring in royal representations.
Yet, unlike Baal, Reshef was not identified with a
specific Egyptian deity.1017 He was represented in
royal contexts, but more so by non-royal individuals,
signalling his worship among various social echelons
from different backgrounds, particularly in areas
with noted craft workshops and stables. Such contexts
could theoretically relate to the presence of workers
of Near Eastern background who revered the deity
from the Middle Kingdom onwards, his continued
popularity resulting in a cult in Egypt that may have
been adopted into the royal sphere by Amenhotep II.1018
If historically accurate, perhaps the king’s represented
skills as a talented equestrian were partly acquired
from individuals who worshipped Reshef and Astarte,
like the ‘overseer of horses’ Betu. Amenhotep II
may have then emphasised that these deities
supported him in his military pursuits, selecting
Reshef for his association with military might and
fiery temperament.1019 The worship of Reshef as a
protective deity, however, continued among lower to
upper class individuals in Egypt, his warrior attributes
emerging only sporadically in later royal texts.
1017 For the identification of Reshef with Herishef, see
Münnich 2013, 100–101, 120–121.
1018 This view is also shared by Münnich 2013, 108.
1019 Münnich 2013, 114.
 Religious Transformations 209

Fig. 4.50 Diadem MMA 68.136.1 from the so-called ‘el-Salhiyah Treasure’. Presumably from the Eastern Delta.
The Metropolitan Museum of Art,
CC0 1.0 Universal License: https://images.metmuseum.org/CRDImages/eg/original/DP140433.jpg

4.4.2 Practice of Severing Hands
4.4.2.1 The archaeological evidence in Egypt
Excavations at Tell el-Dab‘a’s Area F/II yielded a
large, possibly palatial, complex preliminarily
assigned to Phases E/3 to D/3 or the late
Thirteenth/Fourteenth to Fifteenth Dynasty.1020 Its
mid-late Fifteenth Dynasty Stratum c/2–c/1 featured,
among other new architectural elements, a pillared
broad-room hall at its northwest with an L-shaped
annex along an enclosure wall (see Fig. 3.13).1021
Inside the hall, at the enclosure wall, were two pits
comprising one severed right hand each (L1777
and L1913), while in front of the complex were two
further pits with the remains of a total of 14 severed
right hands (L1542 and L1543; Fig. 4.51).1022 The
excavators have suggested a link with the Eighteenth
Dynasty Gold of Honour practice of exchanging a
slain enemies by counting their right hands. They
question ‘if it is an original Egyptian custom or if it
was introduced from abroad’.1023
Another pit from the palace district of Area H/III
at ‘Ezbet Helmi (L1055) also produced buried limbs,
albeit from a different type of context and likely
purpose (Fig. 4.52).1024 Assigned to Stratum e/1.2
(D/1.2) of the early Eighteenth Dynasty, the pit
reportedly yielded three human skulls, the bones of
nine fingers from the right hands of three humans,
possibly males, and fragments of pottery.1025 As it
was found in association with a foundation deposit
1023 Bietak et al. 2012/2013, 32.
1024 Bietak, Dorner and Janosi 2001, 60–64; Fuscaldo 2003,
185–188; 2010, 23.
1025 Two of the skulls were identified as of young males and

severed enemy’s hand for gold, or the tallying of
1020 See Chapter 3.2.1.1.5. Bietak, Forstner-Müller and
Herbich 2007, 121; Bietak et al. 2012/2013.
1021 Bietak et al. 2012/2013.
1022 Bietak 2012; Bietak et al. 2012/2013, 31–32, figs. 10, 14
[a–c].
the third of a mature adult. One skull had a hole above
the right ear, which has been interpreted as evidence of a
blow to the head, perhaps at the temple (Bietak, Dorner
and Janosi 2001, 60–64; Fuscaldo 2003, 185; 2010, 23,
fig. 6, pl. 1a). Recent unpublished examination of the
skeletal material from L1055 has suggested that the fingers
could have belonged to three hands originally deposited in
the pit (Matić 2018, 93).
210 Chapter 4
Fig. 4.51 Remains of severed right hands uncovered in Pit L1543. Palatial complex, Area F/II, Stratum c/2–c/1
(Phase E/1–D/3), Tell el-Dab‘a. Bietak 2012, 43
and another pit with two human skeletons and
broken pottery (L1016), it has been interpreted as an
execration ritual,1026 with the limbs associated with
a ritual of severing hands.1027 Indeed, a deposit at
Mirgissa produced a human skull with, among other
items, ceramics painted with execration texts.1028 The
lack of associated execration texts at ‘Ezbet Helmi
has led Matić to argue against a ritualistic deposition,
especially one associated with execration, but rather
for a secondary deposition of the skeletal material.1029
This, however, does not completely explain why, if
correct, all limbs belonged to right hands possibly
of males.1030 Still, it remains uncertain whether or
not the severing of the hands and fingers occurred
1026 Fuscaldo 2003, 185–188. For a similar view, see
Muhlestein 2008, 195–196; 2011, 20.
1027 Janzen 2013, 314–315.
1028 The deposit was between the fort and the settlement,
and contained a human skull within a cup, four
anthropomorphic limestone statuettes, numerous mud
figurines, and deliberately broken red pottery painted
with execration texts. Near the deposit was a pit with a
decapitated body. For more, see A. Vila 1963, 146–147,
fig. 6; 1973; Vercoutter 1974, 61; Koenig 1990; R itner
1993, 162–163.
1029 M atić 2018.
1030 The skeletal material from L1055 and L1016 is badly
preserved. The anthropological examinations of the
remains are also not yet published, restricting further
comment. For more discussion, see M atić 2018.
specifically for and at the time of the depositions.1031
Based on the evidence, the limbs could have been
collected from live or dead individuals, captured,
killed or redeposited. While they suggest that the
right hands may have been specifically collected and
placed in pits associated with palatial complexes of
the Fifteenth to the early Eighteenth Dynasty, the
evidence from H/III remains insufficient to link to
earlier practices. Nevertheless, the contexts seem to
express a more ritualistic deposition, differing from
later attestations of the severing of hands as collated
from the textual and artistic repertoire in Egypt.
4.4.2.2 The textual and artistic evidence in Egypt
The gift of gold for decapitated hands surfaces from
the early Eighteenth Dynasty as part of the so-called
‘Gold of Honour’ practice, which arguably draws
from earlier traditions of rewarding officials with
gold ornaments.1032 It is first attested in the biography
of the ‘captain of sailors’ Ahmose-si-Ibana in his
tomb at el-Kab (Nr. 5). Providing an overview of his
career, the text recounts the official’s involvement
in Ahmose’s campaigns in areas in/around Avaris
1031 Muhlestein (2011, 20) argues for their sacrifice
specifically for the ritualistic deposition.
1032 For an overview, see Binder 2008. Lorton (1974, 57)
suggests that ‘the elaborate system of rewards for specific
captures’ was introduced during the Hyksos Period and
was possibly a ‘Hyksos innovation’. See also Bietak 2012.
 Religious Transformations 211

H/III-s/ Locus 1055, Pit 13, Stratum D/1.2

Fig. 4.52 Pit L1055. Area H/III, Stratum e/1.2 (Phase D/1.2), ‘Ezbet Helmi.
After Bietak, Dorner and Jánosi 2001, fig. 21

and Sharuhen, and his and his associated rewards
of gold; his reward in relation to Amenhotep I’s
campaign in Nubia; and a further reward for his
part in Thutmose I’s campaign in the Levant. The
presentation of rewards is translated in the following
pertinent passages:1033
Campaigns against Avaris (lines 9–11)
Campaign against Sharuhen (lines 14–16)
w n . i n = t w Hr Hm s i . t Hr ^ArAHAn m rn p. w t 3 w n . i n
Hm = f Hr HAq =s aHa. n i n i . n = i HAq . t i m s . t -Hm . t
2 d r. t 1 w n . i n = t w Hr rDi . t n = i n b w n q n . t m = k
rDi . t (w) n = i HAq . t r Hm . w
Then one besieged ^ArAHAn for 3 years. Then his
majesty captured it and I brought booty from there:
two Hm . t women and one hand, and one gave to me
gold for bravery. Behold, captives were given to me
as Hm .w.

wn . in =t w Hr aHA Hr m w m PA- +d k w n (.y) @w. t - Campaign against the Iwn . ty w %ty (lines 16–18)
w ar. t aHa. n xf a. n =i in i=i Dr. t 1 s m i . t (w) n wHm -
n sw. t wn . in =t w Hr rDi . t n =i n b w n q n . t aHa. n
wHm .w aHA m s t t n wn . in =i Hr wHm xf a i m in i . n =i
d r. t 1 wn . in =t w Hr rDi . t n =i n b w n q n . t m wHm -a
Then one fought on the water at PA- +d k w of Avaris.
Then I made a capture and brought one hand which
was reported to the royal herald. Then one gave to
me gold for bravery. Then there was fighting at this x r- m - x . t s mA. n Hm = f Mn t .y w %t . t w n . i n = f Hr
place, and again I made a capture there and brought x n t .y t r #n . t -Hn - n f r r s k s k Iw n . ty w %ty w n . i n
one hand, and one gave to me gold for bravery again. Hm = f Hr i ri . t XA. t aA. t i m =s n aHa. n i n i . n = i HAq . t
i m s i an x 2 d r. t 3 w n . i n = t w Hr i w a= i m n b w Hr
s n . n w - sy m = k rDi . t (w) n = i Hm . t 2
1033 Biography of Ahmose-si-Ibana. Urk. 4, 3–5, 7. Transliteration After his majesty had smote the Mn t.yw of %t. t, he
and translation rely on Binder 2008, 146–147. sailed south to #n . t -Hn - n fr to destroy the Iwn . tyw of
212
Fig. 4.53 A fragment showing a pile of hands (?).
Pyramid Temple of Ahmose, Abydos, Dynasty 18.
After Harvey 2002/2003, fig. 8
%ty. Then his majesty did a great massacre among them.
Then I brought off booty from there: two live males and
three hands. Then one rewarded me with gold again.
Behold, two Hm . t women were given to me.
Campaign against Kush (lines 26–27)
is t wi m t p n (.y) mSa=n iw aHA. n =i r wn - mAa mA. n
Hm =f q n . t =i in i . n =i d r. t 2 m s (.w) n Hm =f
Now, when I was at the head of our army, I had fought
rightly. His majesty had seen my bravery when I
brought two hands and presented them to his majesty.
The text signals the practice of presenting severed
hands as evidence of Ahmose-si-Ibana’s bravery
in warfare. In exchange, the official is rewarded by
the king, or his representative, with gold as well as
captives as servants. The custom is first attested in a
series of battles in the Delta against Avaris’s rulers,
but also occurs in relation to the official’s performance
in battles in other regions to the northeast and south.
It further surfaces in the biography of the overseer
of seals, Ahmose-Pennekhbet, specifically in the
following passages: (C.3–4)
k f a=i n =f Hr +Ahy an x 1 d r. t 1 ‘ I captured for him
(Ahmose) in +Ahy: one live person and one hand’;
(C.5–6)
k f a(=i) n =f Hr
mH. ty IAm . w - k hk d r. t 3 ‘I captured for him
(Amenhotep I) in the north of IAm . w - k hk: three
hands’; and (C.8–9)
k f a= i n = f Hr xAs . t n . t Nh ry nA
d r. t 21 s s m 1 w rr.y t 1 ‘I captured for him (Thutmose
I) in the foreign land of Nh ry nA: 21 hands, one horse
Chapter 4
and one chariot’.1034 Clearly, the custom was already
employed by the Theban administration as a military
award for the exceptional performance of personnel
in battle from the late Second Intermediate Period
onwards, regardless of the enemy. Its mention in the
biography of Amenemhab-Mahu of Thutmose III’s
reign, also in association with battles against
Naharin, attests to its continued practice in the
Eighteenth Dynasty.1035
The tallying of hands to identify the number of
fallen enemies is also possibly attested from the late
Second Intermediate Period in the Theban milieu.
A fragment from Ahmose’s Funerary Temple at
Abydos, possibly related with others portraying a
battle scene likely against Hyksos-controlled areas,
bears elements which, according to its excavator,
represent a heap of severed hands (Fig. 4.53).1036
The pile is otherwise artistically represented in
the Nineteenth and Twentieth Dynasties in, for
instance, the scenes of Ramesses II’s battles in the
Northern Levant at the Temple of Sety I at Abydos
(Fig. 4.54),1037 or those of Ramesses III’s battle against
the Sea Peoples as portrayed at Medinet Habu,1038
with nearby scribes recording the number of collected
hands.1039 Textually, this practice is mentioned in a
stela of the viceroy of Nubia, Merymose, persistent in
Sad d r. t ‘cutting off hands’,1040 which records
Amenhotep III’s campaign against the Nubians as
well as his tallying of the dead by their hands (312
hands and 740 living individuals).1041 The Annals of
Thutmose III similarly mention the collection of 83
hands of the enemy in the battle of Megiddo,1042 and
29 hands following that of Naharin.1043
Severed hands are also documented in other warfare-
related activities and scenes. The stela of Amenhotep II
at Amada notes how the bodies of the slain princes
1034 Biography of Ahmose-Pennekhbet. Urk. 4, 35–36. See
also W.V. Davies 2014.
1035 Biography of Amenemhab-Mahu. Urk. 4, 9–14. See also
Binder 2008, 157–159. Nineteenth Dynasty attestations
are scant.
1036 H arvey 2002/2003, 24, fig. 8.
1037 Kuentz 1928, 16–17 [1–3], pl. 17; Wreszinski 1935,
pls. 24, 70. See also Wreszinski 1935, pl. 25b.
1038 Oriental I nstitute 1930, pls. 22–23.
1039 For more examples, see Stefanović 2003, figs. 7–13.
Stefanović writes that the occurrence of scenes in the
Nineteenth and Twentieth Dynasties suggests that
the hands were transported to Egypt where they were
counted, as opposed to their tallying after battle. If
correct, their representation in relation with a possible
battle against Hyksos-controlled areas would point to the
much earlier practice of counting severed hands when
soldiers returned from their campaign(s).
1040 Stela of Amenhotep III between Aswan and Philae,
line 7. Urk. 4, 1666 [9].
1041 Semna Stela (BM 158), lines 10–12. Urk. 4, 1660
[11–19]; Breasted 1906, 341 [§ 854].
1042 Annals of Thutmose III, Part I, line 96. Urk. 4, 663 [7].
1043 Annals of Thutmose III, Part VI, line 13. Urk. 4, 731 [3].
 Religious Transformations 213

Fig. 4.54 Detail of a scene showing a pile of hands in association with the battle of Qadesh. Temple of Sety I at
Abydos, reign of Ramesses II, Dynasty 19. Wreszinski 1935, pl. 70

Fig. 4.55 Detail of a fragment showing an Egyptian soldier aiming his weapon at the right hand of a fallen enemy.
Pylon II, Temple of Karnak, reign of Tutankhamun, Dynasty 18.
After Galán 2002, fig. 1

who were in &x sy were hung before the Theban
gate along with hands.1044 A caption related to
Amenhotep II on a chariot with Levantine captives
notes a pile of hands, likely in the chariot itself.1045
This corresponds with a Late Egyptian Ramesside text
that similarly describes a king’s chariot as laden with
hands.1046 Another concerning a campaign against
the Levantine region of Khashabu describes the
king’s chariot with 16 live captives tied at its rear and
20 hands tied at the heads of its horses.1047 Some
artistic motifs feature soldiers aiming weapons at
the arms of their enemies as if to sever the hands, as
represented on a block from Karnak (Fig. 4.55),1048
and Abydos reliefs of the battle of Qadesh.1049 They
also show enemies in the battlefield without hands,
as shown on a wooden box of Thutmose IV’s
1044 Urk. 4, 1297–1298; Kuentz 1925b, 47–56; R ainey 1973;
R edford 1992, 162.
1045 Urk. 4, 1368 [18–19]. Der M anuelian 1987, 79; Galán
2002, 447.
1046 Papyrus Anastasi II.5.3–4. Gardiner 1937, 15 [3–4];
Caminos 1954, 45.
1047 Urk. 4, 1304 [12–13]. Der M anuelian 1987, 224; Galán
2002, 447.
1048 S. H einz 2001, 238 [III.5]; Galán 2002, 441–450, fig. 1,
pl. 1.
1049 Wreszinski 1935, pls. 20, 70, 137; Stefanović 2003,
figs. 1–3.
chariot (see Fig. 5.15)1050 as well as a Karnak relief
of Sety I in battle;1051 and soldiers carrying hands
either by rope, as in Abydos reliefs of the battle of
Qadesh,1052 or skewered onto spears, as in a relief
from the reign of Tutankhamun (Fig. 4.56).1053 Thus,
combined, the textual and artistic record from Egypt
points to the logistic utilisation of severed hands for
the enumeration of fallen enemies, as well as the
representation of the practice in association with
warfare, from at least the reign of Ahmose to the
Twentieth Dynasty. Only one instance is known to the
author of an expression translated to the severing of
a hand as punishment for theft, perhaps ordered by a
king.1054 This, however, occurs on a papyrus assigned
to the late Nineteenth to Twentieth Dynasty.1055
1050 Carter and Newberry 1904, pls. 10–11; Galán 2002, 448.
1051 Oriental I nstitute 1986, pl. 3; Trimm 2017, 321, fig. 5.6.
1052 Wreszinski 1935, pl. 70; Stefanović 2003, figs. 5–6.
1053 The fragment has also been dated to the reign of
Amenhotep IV. S. Heinz 2001, 239 [III.6]; Helck 1975,
23; Schulman 1987, 56, 64, pl. 14 [3]; Galán 2002, 448;
Stefanović 2003, fig. 4.
1054 Papyrus Salt 124, line 7 (BM 10055). Černy 1929, 245,
247, n. 8. According to Černy (1929, 247, n. 8), ‘The
native sources do not tell us anything about the cutting
off of the hands of criminals, but the punishment is
attested at least by Diodorus, I, 79’.
1055 Černy 1929, 244, 255–256.
214 Chapter 4
Fig. 4.56 A fragment showing soldiers carrying
spears with severed hands.
Reign of Tutankhamun (?), Dynasty 18.
After S. Heinz 2001, 239 [III.6]
4.4.2.3 The evidence from the Near East
Severed and severing hands are attested in MBA Near
Eastern contexts. Textual evidence associates hand-
severing with punishment for certain crimes,1056 while
Old Syrian cylinder seals and impressions incorporate
open hands in their iconography. The limbs can
appear either in registers side-by-side (horizontally or
vertically) or among other objects, such as heads, amidst
rows of caprids, hares, and other possible animals.1057
They also occupy fields with associated scenes featuring
divine, mythical, and/or royal figures.1058 The hands have
been interpreted as of possible apotropaic function,1059
as abstract representations of different actors, or
as decorative additions.1060 The motif continues in
Mitannian seals of the early LBA.1061
Although hypothetical, the process of severing hands
may be interpreted from cylinder seal iconography. It
may occur, for instance, on an Old Babylonian seal
owned by Mukannishum, a servant of Zimri-Lim of
Mari (Fig. 4.57a).1062 The seal pictures a ruler and a
winged, armed goddess, possibly Ishtar, standing on
1056 According to Hammurabi’s Law Code, the hands of a
thief could be severed (Law 253), those of a son could be
hewn off if he strikes his father (Law 195), while those of
a physician could be cut off in cases of errors in surgery
(Law 218). For more on the legal attributes of severing the
right hands of males and their possible transfer via the
Hyksos rulers to Egypt, see Candelora 2019a.
1057 See, for instance, Teissier 1984, 278–279 [Nrs. 564–565];
A miet 1992, 26, 29 [Nr. 27]; P.H. Merrillees 2003,
144–145 [Nr. 173]; The Metropolitan Museum of A rt
1999/2000.
1058 See, for instance, Gordon 1953, 249, pl. 57 [Nr. 32];
Teissier 1984, 96, 224–225 [Nr. 438], 232–233 [Nr. 454],
238–239 [Nr. 470], 244–245 [Nr. 483], 250–253
[Nrs. 496, 500], 262–263 [Nr. 521], 266–269 [Nrs. 531,
533, 536], 272–275 [Nrs. 546–547, 549, 556]; Mittmann
1997, fig. 1 [b, d–k].
1059 K eel 1980, 172.
1060 M ittmann 1997, 20–21, 25.
1061 See, for instance, Teissier 1984, 96, 288–298 [Nrs. 600–
608, 610, 634–637, 649].
1062 Brentjes 1983, 171; U. Winter 2012, 219, fig. 188;
Tsukimoto 2014, 18–19, fig. 7.
corpses. With a scimitar in his right hand, the ruler
strikes that of his enemy, as if to sever the hand. A robed
goddess stands at the right, her arms up in adoration.
A similar scene is attested on an MBIIA–B haematite
seal of uncertain provenance, with a robed figure in
a high headdress grasping an axe(?) in his upraised
right arm, and the right hand of a captive in his left,
also as if to strike him (Fig. 4.57b).1063 He is joined by
others, including a robed goddess and another armed
semi-nude goddess. Although the severing of the
captive’s hand is not clearly displayed, the inclusion of
the goddesses as well as the similarity with the Mari
seal suggests an association between controlling the
right hand of an enemy, and conflict. The same appears
in another MBIIA–B impression of a haematite seal
of unknown provenance showing a robed figure in a
high headdress facing left while raising an axe(?) in
his left hand, the right grasping the wrist of a kneeling
captive (Fig. 4.57c).1064 Despite the fact that the latter’s
body faces left, with the head turned towards the
striking figure, it is the vanquished person’s right hand
that is grasped not that closer to the standing figure.
In comparison, pre-New Kingdom depictions of the
Egyptian pharaoh smiting his enemy usually show
him grasping the captive’s hair, the latter’s hand often
raised as if in defence or defiance.
A further probable correlation between controlling
the hand and conflict may be observed on an
unprovenanced MBIIA–B seal depicting a hand
beneath a two-horse chariot next to two standing
figures (warriors?), one of whom carries a scimitar.1065
Mention can also be made of the Ugaritic Baal Cycle’s
reference to Anat in warfare, with heads beneath
her and the palms of warriors about her, piled ‘like
grasshoppers’, the limbs also adorning her with heads
at her back and palms at her girdle.1066
Although no textual or archaeological evidence
for a ritual concerning the deposition of severed
hands has yet been found, circumstantial data from
a tomb at Jericho could hint at a further association
between the practice and conflict. Tomb P19 was
first constructed and utilised in EBIV for a single
burial, the skeletal remains of which were later
pushed to the front of the tomb’s chamber and
covered with earth.1067 The disruption most likely
took place in the MBIIB period, when the chamber
was reused to inter seven individuals in a row; six
were intact and one was disarranged (Skeleton E).1068
The latter was of a female, with three of the others
also of females (Skeletons A, D and G; aged 15, 11
and 17 respectively), and the remaining three of
males (Skeletons B, C and F; aged 26, 11 and 24
1063 Teissier 1984, 234–235 [Nr. 455].
1064 Teissier 1996, 117 [248].
1065 Teissier 1984, 272–273 [Nr. 546].
1066 KTU 1.3: II.9–13; 1.7: R.1–3. N. Wyatt 2002, 73–74, 149.
1067 K enyon 1965, 388–410, fig. 193, pl. 18 [1].
1068 K enyon 1965, 389, fig. 193.
 Religious Transformations 215

(a) Seal impression, Old Babylonian Period, Mari

(after U. Winter 2012, fig. 188)

(b) Seal impression, MBIIA–B, unknown provenance

(after Teissier 1984, 234–235 [Nr. 455])

(c) Seal impression, MBIIA–B, unknown provenance

(after Teissier 1996, 117 [248])

Fig. 4.57 Depictions possibly showing elements related to the process of severing hands
216 Chapter 4
respectively).1069 The intact skeletons all retained
evidence of simultaneous burial as well as violent
blows to their skulls, the males also missing their
right hands.1070 While the deposition had led Kenyon
to infer a mass execution of six thieves caught robbing
the tomb of female Skeleton E,1071 several have
correctly pointed out the improbable burial of thieves
in the same tomb that they had desecrated, as well
as the care taken in interring the remaining six and
the wealth of their grave goods.1072 More feasible
is that they were killed following some violent
event, and then buried in the same tomb of a family
member or other socially related individual of high
status.1073 If correct, this scenario would correlate
the severing of the right hands of males with their
possible involvement in violence or conflict.1074
Consequently, this may suggest some relation with
the later Egyptian practice of severing right hands of
male warriors, which instead is from the perspective
of the perpetrators.1075
4.4.2.4 Severing the enemy
The examined evidence suggests a correlation between
severing/severed hands and violence. This may be first
attested in the MBIIA–B, if the iconography of seals
from the Northern Levant and Northern Mesopotamia
is interpreted as indicative of the process of severing
hands. Some examples may associate the severing of
hands with royal figures overpowering enemies in
the presence of goddesses, with a LBA Ugaritic text
linking the display of a war goddess’s strength in battle
and severed hands. A possible archaeological case has
also been suggested for the MBIIB burials in Tomb
P19 at Jericho, with six respected individuals bearing
evidence of violent blows but only males preserved
with amputated right hands. Either from this period or
the early MBIIC are the Fifteenth Dynasty pits from
Tell el-Dab‘a’s Area F/II, c/2–c/1 that were filled with
such hands. Like the MBIIA–B iconographic evidence,
the severed limbs are associated with a royal or elite
sphere; the context, however, is more suggestive of a
ritualistic practice. This context is similarly implied
1069 Cartwright et al. 2009, 111–112.
1070 K enyon 1965, 389–390; Cartwright et al. 2009, 112.
1071 Kenyon 1965, 390.
1072 Burial goods included a variety of ceramic and alabaster
vessels, wooden furniture (some with carved bone
inlays), baskets, beads, scarabs, and a decorated ostrich
eggshell. Skeletons B, C and D were also placed on mats.
Remnants of two complete lambs suggest some funerary
offerings or feasting. K enyon 1965, 388–410; Chapman
1986/1987, 29–33; Tubb 2000; Cartwright et al. 2009,
112.
1073 Chapman 1986/1987, 31–32; Tubb 2000; Cartwright et
al. 2009, 112–113.
1074 Chapman 1986/1987, 32; Tubb 2000; Cartwright et al.
2009, 112–113.
1075 For an overview of the practice of mutilating enemies in
ancient Egypt, see Galán 2002.
by, according to available reports, the deposition
of fingers in a pit dated to the reign of Ahmose at
‘Ezbet Helmi’s palatial district. The link with conflict
also surfaces in this reign in the artistic and textual
Egyptian repertoire, evidently as a militaristic display
of strength, a reward for the brave, and a means of
enumerating fallen enemies; nevertheless, the earliest
cases for these seem to have been in connection with
the Thebans’ battles in the late Second Intermediate
Period to the early New Kingdom.
Such data for the severing of hands attests to a
variety of ritualistic, funerary, and administrative
functions, as well as connections with prestige. An
underlying commonality between most, if not all,
is their association with conflict, and/or the display
of violence or bravery. With the earliest known
archaeological evidence for the custom in Egypt
attested in the region formerly ruled by the Hyksos,
and the first representations alongside the conflicts
between the Fifteenth and Seventeenth Dynasties,
it is very possible that the custom emerged in the
military and elite spheres.1076 Perhaps the importance
of the hand itself in relation to protection from evil,
as interpreted for those on Near Eastern cylinder
seals, or ferocity in warfare, as displayed by a Near
Eastern war goddess, was first encountered with
increasing Egyptian-Near Eastern connections. If the
Fifteenth Dynasty rulers and officials had themselves
practiced the custom, hypothetically to showcase
their own victory and strength, to deter violence, or
as a form of punishment,1077 then the concept itself
would have feasibly also been known to the Thebans,
especially if the two dynasties encountered each other
particularly in warfare. Thebans may have witnessed
Fifteenth Dynasty warriors or high-ranking officials
sever hands as an expression of power. Perhaps as
an affront to this expression, they severed hands
themselves to show the Fifteenth Dynasty their own
strength and superiority. Like other developments,1078
the practice of severing hands could have also been
performed by military personnel and elite in Egypt
with the escalating importance of military logistics
and the need to demonstrate prowess. It could have
then been possibly modified to correspond more with
earlier traditions already embedded in the Egyptian
culture, such as the rewarding of officials, the
mutilation of a body part to impair the deceased in the
afterlife, or perhaps the ritual that has been suggested
for the early Eighteenth Dynasty evidence at Tell el-
1076 While the mutilation of body parts is attested in earlier
periods, particularly in association with warfare or
punishment, the evidence for that of hands does not date
before the Fifteenth Dynasty. See Galán 2002, 446,
n. 27.
1077 See Candelora 2019a.
1078 See Chapter 5.
 Religious Transformations
Dab‘a.1079 In such a case, the emergence of the practice
in the early Eighteenth Dynasty is an innovation, but
one which could have been theoretically inspired by
concepts stemming from the Fifteenth Dynasty which,
themselves, could have been inspired or influenced by
those surfacing from at least the MBIIA–B Levant
and Northern Mesopotamia.
4.5 Observations on Religious Transformations
The examined transformations in the nature and
representation of religious concepts reflect ongoing
diverse processes across the studied period. Certain
limitations in the evidence have restricted concrete
conclusions regarding specificities in processes of
change. Nevertheless, the presence of a few key
pieces of evidence from the Middle Kingdom and
Second Intermediate Period points to a complex
interplay between Egyptian and Near Eastern
agents. The influence of context and power dynamics
clearly surface in observed streams of transmission,
reflecting the initiation or catalysis of some processes
following interactions between various groups and
individuals before their well-defined manifestation in
the New Kingdom. Simply put, some ingredients for
the examined concepts of Near Eastern origin were
available to the Egyptians before the New Kingdom.
This thereby agrees with the processes of syncretism,
the Middle Ground approach, transculturalisation and,
to some degree, multidirectional cultural interference.
Yet, the application of one type of process to all
transformations would be erroneous. Similarities are
indeed noticeable but are largely related to influential
contextual, historical, and political factors, as well
as the nature of the evidence. Generally, the earliest
attestations of concepts inspired from the Near East
stem from earlier processes beyond the scope of this
study. Examples include the identification of Hathor
with Baalat and the iconography of the Egyptian
‘mistress of animals’. Nevertheless, these persisted
into the Middle and New Kingdom culture, becoming
embedded into local artistic traditions but retaining
some connection to ideologies concerning the foreign.
In the same manner, artistic elements that are first
attested in the early Middle Kingdom, such as the
curled ‘Hathoric’ hairstyle and particular features
of Asiatics (e.g. banded kilt, and perhaps, albeit
inconclusively, the sling-like weapon and gazelle),
were possibly influenced by observations of Near
Eastern cultural aspects in Egypt and, theoretically
in the case of the artistic representations of Asiatics,
were later utilised in the iconography of deities of
Near Eastern origin. As Quack remarks but in the
context of Egyptian divine iconography in the Levant:
‘All this begs the question: Is it easier for images to
1079 Stefanović
(2003, 165) also suggests that the ritual could
have prevented a vengeful spirit from seeking revenge.
217
travel than names? The answer is probably, yes’.1080
The images evidently also retained some of their
conceptual meaning, which was later adapted in the
iconography of deities based on their shared attributes.
In most cases, the attribution of divine names to the
iconography mostly emerged in the New Kingdom,
those of Reshef from around the reign of Thutmose III
or Amenhotep II at Tell el-Borg, those of Qedeshet
during the Nineteenth Dynasty, and those of Seth as
Baal also in the early Nineteenth Dynasty.
However, bar that of Qedeshet, the names are
attested from the late Twelfth Dynasty onwards. The
earliest known appellatives belong to personal names
of lower to middle class workers of apparent Near
Eastern origin. While these do not justify the presence
of cults of these deities in Egypt, they do point to one
means of transmission of concepts via transregional
individuals, or migrants, traders, and other workers
who resided in Egypt long enough to be incorporated
into local households or institutions. Hypothetically,
such individuals and, later, groups, would have required
methods to pursue their own religion, perhaps via
shared cultic spaces, as is observed at Tell el-Dab‘a.
One may also wonder whether prolonged domestic
interactions could have provided knowledge of Near
Eastern household deities, especially those linked with
magic, health, and medicine. The numerous records of
aAm . t women could have led to knowledge in divinities
who, for instance, were related to childbirth or fertility.
Indeed, all examined deities of Near Eastern origin share
attributes concerning liminality, magic, and protection.
The use of the Seth-animal in the MBA Levant
in connection to rulership also suggests that
transformed concepts were retransmitted to the Near
East in a circular and constant process. It additionally
highlights the role of the upper social echelons in such
transformations, and their negotiation of concepts
likely for the pursuit of justification, legitimisation,
and further power. The storm god’s heightened
emphasis from the late Middle Kingdom eventually
influenced his representation as ‘father’ and royal
deity in the Hyksos Period. The attestations of two
Second Intermediate Period kings with a theophoric
name that features Anat also hints that this goddess
was of import for the northern dynasties. Indeed,
Ramesses II follows Fifteenth Dynasty references
to the Delta storm god as his father, and also
represents Anat as his mother, perhaps similarly
corresponding with her former worship in the
region. The re-emergence of the Eastern Delta
as the location for the capital of Egypt clearly
influenced the transformation of religious concepts,
and it is highly feasible that regional traditions and
cults would have (re-)gained prominence with the
political takeover of the Ramesside kings. If Bietak
1080 Quack 2015, 267.
218 Chapter 4
is correct in situating Perunefer near Tell el-Dab‘a,
then the contemporary rise in popularity of Astarte,
Qedeshet, and Reshef may also be connected to
power shifts in the Eastern Delta.
Nonetheless, this should not deter from the
additional noticeable links of these deities with
warfare. Chariotry and horses are commonly
represented in association with Astarte and Reshef
and, to a lesser degree, Anat. The fierceness of Baal
and Astarte in battle are also clearly identifiable, the
deities securing the Egyptian kings’ victories against
hostile forces, many of which stemmed from the
Near East. In view of the custom of severing hands,
posited Near Eastern inspired concepts of rituals
connected to the pursuit of such victories may have
also been witnessed in more belligerent interactions
between the northern and southern dynasties of the
later Second Intermediate Period. Theoretically,
the possible Egyptian development of such rituals
could have been linked with the need to represent
victory, ferocity, and/or bravery to their allies and
their enemies in battle. The increased significance
of other newly introduced concepts related to horses
and chariotry also led to the promotion of their
divine representatives likely under Amenhotep II,
afterwards becoming more widespread in Egypt.
This promotion, however, does not exclude the
possibility of their worship among equestrians, horse
groomers or hostlers, but merely infers that their
cults had now become firmly established within the
Egyptian state.
In turn, the multifaceted interplay among and
between various social groups, different modes of
transmission, as well as political and historical shifts,
led to divergent processes of religious transformation.
The degree of interference of Near Eastern concepts
on Egyptian religion varied, contributing to various
manifestations in New Kingdom culture, from the
transculturalisation of the Egyptian storm god to
the adaptation of Near Eastern divine iconography
and the emergence of an innovative practice perhaps
inspired by Near Eastern customs. All incorporated
some adaptation or translation of elements into the
Egyptian, whether through the use of Egyptian
divine iconography (e.g. Egyptian-type regalia), the
employment of titles and epithets, or the incorporation
into Egyptian Enneads (e.g. the familial relations with
Ptah and Ra). Connections to such liminal deities as
Hathor and Seth are also worthy of note.1081 While the
evidence points to the direct impact of the Hyksos
Dynasty only in specific cases, it overall emphasises
the initiation of processes of transformation in earlier
periods of heightened interactions. Nevertheless, the
region of Tell el-Dab‘a acted as an important liminal
space between Egypt and the Near East, its political
shifts, cultural developments and local cults spurring
interactions between individuals, groups, and their
inherent religious practices and ideologies.
1081 Horus may have also served as a later liminal deity
assisting in the role of ‘mediator’ between the different
religious traditions. For more on this and ‘translative
adaptation’, see Tazawa 2009, 169.
 Technological and Militaristic Transformations
5. Technological and Militaristic Transformations
5.1 Introduction
Several studies have surfaced on technological
transformations in Egypt, particularly of the Bronze
Age.1 The period spanning the Second Intermediate
Period and early New Kingdom has usually been
noted as one that witnessed many militaristic and
technological developments, some of which have often
been connected with the ‘Hyksos’.2 The predominance
of the ‘invasion model’ regarding the establishment of
the Fifteenth Dynasty inevitably led to the invaders’
association with superior military technology and
skills. Consequently, the rulers and the people they
ruled have been viewed as agents for the introduction
of the horse, chariot, composite bow, body armour, and
a host of other technological artefacts and methods.
However, I. Shaw correctly notes that ‘it is often
difficult to determine the extent to which each of these
changes and innovations are linked in any causal way’.3
The following presents selected technological
and militaristic concepts, as well as material
cultural aspects tied to late Middle Kingdom to
Second Intermediate Period interactions between
Egyptian and Near Eastern elements, including those
commonly attested in the literature. It does not aim to
cover all technological transformations that occurred
in the examined period. The selection is instead
largely based on the availability of preserved,
excavated, and published data. It is analysed in view
of the influence of social, political, cultural, and
institutional factors on technological transformations,
rather than as a focus on the specific technical
elements of production and manufacture.4
This approach has, in recent years, gained visibility
in studies on ancient technology.5 It significantly
1 See, for instance, A. Lucas 1962; Nicholson 1993;
Nicholson and I. Shaw 2000; Shortland 2001; Wilde
2003; 2011; Bourriau and Phillips 2004; Wissa 2010;
I. Shaw 2012.
2 See Labib 1936, 10; Stock 1942, 72–75; Säve-Söderbergh
1951, 60, 71; Schulman 1980; I. Shaw 2001; 2012;
Spalinger 2005, 121.
3 I. Shaw 2012, 104. See also I. Shaw 2001, 66.
4 For more on theories of the social shaping or construction
of technology and technological paradigms, including
the chaîne opératoire and dynamic systems framework,
see Leroi-Gourhan 1964, 164; Creswell 1976;
M acK enzie and Wajcman 1985; Mokyr 1990; Lemonnier
1992; Bijker, Hughes and Pinch 1993; R. Williams and
Edge 1996; Schlanger 2005; Bauchspies, Croissant and
R estivo 2006; Olsen and Engen 2007; Tehrani and R iede
2008; Roux 2016.
5 See the articles in Shortland 2001; Bourriau and
Phillips 2004. See also R enfrew 1986a; Costin 1991;
Sillar and Tite 2000; Fagan and Trundle 2010 (eds.);
I. Shaw 2012; Hodgkinson 2018.
219
stresses that such technology should be approached
as ‘a system, not just of tools, but also of related
behaviours and techniques’.6 It merges technological
and social determinism to emphasise the significant
interplay of multiple factors that can lead to
transformation.7 In Egyptology, I. Shaw incorporates
the impact of social and economic processes in his
analysis of ancient Egyptian technology, especially
chariotry. He observes:
‘In order for a new piece of technology to be
adopted, several basic factors need to be in place:
(1) access to necessary resources or materials,
(2) knowledge of methods of manufacture,
(3) availability of suitably skilled craftsmen both
to make and use the artefact, (4) a social need or
political requirement for the technology in question,
(5) a suitable social or economic context within
which the technology can be deployed’.8
Such dynamic attributes are intrinsic to technological
transformation. They are also important for
technological invention, or alteration at the individual
or local level, and technological innovation, when it
affects a wider system. Inspiration to change, invent or
innovate is affected by internal (Nrs. 1–3 of I. Shaw’s
preconditions) and/or external factors (Nrs. 3–5)
that are closely tied with interactions and encounters
with objects, concepts, individuals, and groups.9
Accordingly, why technological change occurs at a
particular time corresponds to all these preconditions.
This can be aligned with the adoption and adaption
of cultural elements as explored in such theories as
appropriation, cultural entanglement, diffusionism,
and cultural interference.10 In view of other emergent
elements, processes such as creolisation and
hybridisation could also be of benefit.11 Such theories
can help clarify the processes and agencies involved
in the negotiation of all five of I. Shaw’s preconditions
to manifest in the transformed technology observed in
the New Kingdom.
Nevertheless, it is also important to consider the
impact of this technology as a system that integrates
other tangible and intangible elements, not only
6 Pfaffenberger 1988, 241. See also Pfaffenberger 1992.
7 See Winner 1986; M.R. Smith and M arx 1994; Dobres
2000, 5–6, 9, 96, 126; Prakash and Sinha 2008;
S. Wyatt 2008; Dafoe 2015; K iriatzi and K nappett 2016;
Burmeister 2017.
8 I. Shaw 2012, 97. See also I. Shaw 2001, 62.
9 Roux 2003.
10 See Chapter 2.3.2, 2.3.7, 2.3.11, and 2.3.14.
11 See Chapter 2.3.8–9.
220 Chapter 5
including manufacturing techniques or finished
products, but also terminology, organisational
structures, and links to social groups and identities.12
In her discussion on technological transformations in
association with rites of passage in Bantu-speaking
Africa, Wadley suggests a possible irreversible link
between technology and culture that ultimately
shapes identity.13 The changes to Egyptian weaponry,
metallurgy and interrelated technology in the New
Kingdom clearly impacted the military, particularly
in its organisation, logistical demands, connected
administrative apparatus, and status markers.
However, the extent to which these are connected to the
period before the early Eighteenth Dynasty remains to
be elucidated. As many scholars have cautioned, not
all developments should be attributed to the Hyksos
Dynasty. The social, economic, cultural, and political
shifts of the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Dynasties would
have certainly continued to influence technological
and militaristic transformations, including those
which had initiated earlier. As the following discusses,
several of the ‘innovations’ attributed to the Hyksos
Dynasty are in fact attested earlier, while others can
only be observed in material dating after the Hyksos
Period. As such, a reassessment of these concepts
and items is especially necessary when considering
the complex transformative processes resulting from
consistent cultural interactions.
5.2 Metalwork, Weaponry, and Chariotry
Perhaps one of the most discussed influences of the
Hyksos Dynasty is its impact on the Egyptian military
and metallurgical practices.14 Many argue that such
technology was adopted due to its superiority and
effectiveness, especially on the battlefield. Largely
adhering to technological determinism, this would
thereby follow certain aspects of such theories as
acculturation or diffusionism, which favour a top-down
approach of transfer wherein traits of a ‘dominant’
group are absorbed by the ‘non-dominant’ group. The
advantages of one technology over another are indeed
important factors for its adoption by different cultures
or groups, however they are not the only influential
factors. Especially in the absence of a context wherein
effectiveness of metal items and weapons could be
tested, such as battle, explanations for their adoption
need to take into account other forces that may have
shaped developments, including the social, cultural,
economic, and political factors from the Twelfth to
early Eighteenth Dynasty that may have helped mould
transformations. It is also significant to note which
aspects were favoured over others, and how they were
incorporated into Egyptian traditions. The dynamic
12 See Creswell 1976; Roux 2003; Olsen and Engen 2007.
13 Wadley 2016, 60.
14 See Labib 1936, 10; Stock 1942, 72–75; Säve-Söderbergh
1951, 60, 71; Schulman 1980; I. Shaw 2001; 2012; Booth
2005, 36–46; Spalinger 2005, 121; Herold 2009.
interplay of these forces are examined in the sub-
sections below, which include discussion on selected
metallurgical aspects, weapon types, protective
measures, as well as the chariot and the horse.
5.2.1 Metalwork and Metallurgy
5.2.1.1 Copper alloys
The composition of artefacts made of copper and
traces of additional metals can help elucidate
metallurgical processes of extraction, smelting, and
production.15 Shifts in the use of particular copper
alloys have been observed across the pharaonic
period,16 with a noticeable change from the Middle
to the New Kingdom. In the former, the majority of
copper objects featured more than around 1% arsenic,
signalling either the intentional use of arsenic-rich
copper ores or the addition of arsenic.17 Copper-
arsenic alloys increase the metal’s fluidity (when
molten) and hardness, the latter a significant property
for weapon durability.18 However, fluidity, hardness
and sharpness are also increased by the addition of
tin with copper (bronze). This alloy requires a lower
melting temperature,19 and can be produced with
fewer toxicity hazards than copper-arsenic, allowing
for larger-scale production of metal objects.20 As
with copper-arsenic alloys, the presence of more than
approximately 1% tin is regarded as an intentional
addition.21 Artefacts of copper-tin alloys with
between 1% and 7–9% tin are attested as early as the
Second Dynasty, but appear in greater quantity in the
Middle Kingdom.22 Despite the alloy’s advantages, it
generally occurs in objects alongside those of copper-
arsenic until around the Nineteenth Dynasty, after
which the latter are rarely attested.23
At Tell el-Dab‘a, however, results on a limited
selective sample of metal artefacts has revealed slight
differences in this general trend.24 According to
Philip’s analysis, copper-based objects with high levels
of arsenic are few, the arsenic almost always under
15 Ogden 2000, 149.
16 See R iederer 1982; Cowell 1986, 463–468, fig. 1; Ogden
2000, 151–155.
17 Little evidence supports the use of arsenic in its metallic
form in Egypt and Mesopotamia. Moorey 1994, 240;
Ogden 2000, 152.
18 Cowell 1986, 466; Ogden 2000, 152.
19 1083°C for pure copper to 1005°C for copper with 10%
tin. Ogden 2000, 153.
20 Ogden 2000, 153.
21 Ogden 2000, 153.
22 Approximately 16% tin has been observed in a Twelfth
Dynasty bracelet fragment from Dahshur. Berthelot
1895; Cowell 1987, 98–99, table 2b; Ogden 2000, 153.
See also Garènne-M arot 1984, 107–108, 112; Wilde
2003, 82–86; Odler et al. 2018.
23 Cowell 1986, 465–466, fig. 1; Ogden 2000, 153. For
further New Kingdom developments in metallurgy, see
Wilde 2003, 94–100.
24 Philip 2006, 204–214.
 Technological and Militaristic Transformations
2%.25 This more likely indicates its presence in the
copper ore rather than the deliberate creation of copper-
arsenic alloys. The objects are from contexts dating
across the Middle Kingdom and Second Intermediate
Period, with no clear relation with a particular artefact
type.26 Copper-tin alloys contain more variable levels
of tin, including those with (1) less than 0.2–0.3% tin,
(2) between 1–5% tin, and (3) between 5–6% and
12% tin.27 The highest tin content was observed in a
metal rod at the centre of a dagger’s handle (around
21% tin), the level manipulated to produce a yellowish
colour that was developed to possibly mimic gold.28
As with arsenic, artefacts of copper-tin alloy are
not specifically linked to a single type of artefact.
However, those of Levels 1 are mostly associated
with axes and daggers from Phases E/3 to D/2, while
those of Levels 2 are attested for other artefacts found
across Phases H–D/2.29 More axes and daggers from
Phases H–F bear Levels 3.30 As such, copper-tin
alloys were evidently mostly used for weapons from
Phases H–F. Those from the later E/3–D/2 were mostly
of unalloyed copper. As these selected artefacts are
largely from funerary contexts, Philip interprets this
shift as a possible change in the intrinsic value of such
weapons as status markers during the late Second
Intermediate Period.31
Nevertheless, the more common use of copper-
tin as opposed to copper-arsenic at Tell el-Dab‘a,
especially between the late Twelfth to mid-Thirteenth
Dynasty, points to the site’s leading role in the
utilisation of bronze in Egypt. Although the scarcity
of contemporary provenanced metal objects in Egypt,
and related archaeometallurgical studies, should
be borne in mind, the evidence from Tell el-Dab‘a
suggests greater access to tin or bronze artefacts than
other areas along the Nile Valley, a more concentrated
presence of metalsmiths knowledgeable in processing
copper-tin alloys, a greater social need for copper-tin
objects or the burial of such items, and/or the alloy’s
advantageous properties in specific metallurgical
processes.32 The reduction in its use for weapons at
Tell el-Dab‘a in the late Second Intermediate Period
correspondingly indicates a decrease in one or more
of these factors. Its attestation in items from elsewhere
in Egypt from the Second Intermediate Period and
New Kingdom suggests continued knowledge of its
25 Philip 2006, 211, 214, tables 17–21.
26 Philip 2006, 211.
27 Philip 2006, 211, 214, tables 17–21.
28 Dagger Nr. 6141. Philip 2006, 211, table 19.
29 Philip 2006, 214, table 21.
30 Philip 2006, 214, table 21.
31 Philip 2006, 240–242.
32 Philip 2006, 214.
221
properties and likely its value.33 As such, Winlock’s
suggestion that ‘bronze was the great Hyksos
innovation in Egyptian metallurgy’34 is not confirmed
by the evidence. Instead, what the data suggests is
the heightened use of the alloy and the limited use of
copper-arsenic at Tell el-Dab‘a before the Fifteenth
Dynasty, thus reflecting a trend that would continue
into the New Kingdom.
5.2.1.2 Metal ingots and associated moulds
Metals are commonly cast into ingots for easier
transportation and/or later modification into a different
alloy or new product. Various shapes are attested in
ancient Egypt and the Near East. The so-called ox hide
ingot with its trapezoidal shape, for instance, gained
popularity in the LBA Mediterranean, its mass often
weighing around 30 kg.35 The earliest shapes, however,
that are attested in Egypt and the Levant are rectangular
and oval ingots,36 followed by elongated bar-shaped
ingots that occur towards the late EBA (EBIII–IV)
in the Levant with a weight of approximately 100–
300 g.37 The latter, along with bun-shaped or plano-
convex ingots that typically weigh a few kilograms
each, are among the most common forms in the MBA
Near East.38 Bun-shaped ingots continued to be used
in the LBA Near East and the Eastern Mediterranean
alongside other shapes,39 their smaller mass providing
some advantage over the larger, heavier, ox hide ingots.
One of the earliest sites in Egypt to yield bun-
shaped ingots is Tell el-Dab‘a. One complete and one
fragmentary ingot were found in contexts dating to
the Fifteenth Dynasty Phase E/2–E/1 (Fig. 5.1); the
complete piece is from the debris of Planum 3 walls
(A/II-k/16-Pl. 3/4; maximum diameter 9 cm),40 and the
33 See, for instance, the bronze asymmetrical axe inscribed
with the cartouches of Kamose (EA 36772; W.V. Davies
1987, 50; Chapter 5.2.3.3.3, Fig. 5.29g), with 84.4%
copper, 14.3% tin and 0.1% arsenic. Other lugged
asymmetrical axes of the late Second Intermediate
Period to early New Kingdom also exhibit high tin
quantities (EA 30087 [12.1%], 6051 [11.3%], and 67488
[10.7%], as in W.V. Davies 1987, 51).
34 Winlock 1947, 162.
35 See Gale and Stos-Gale 1999; Graziadio 2014; Giménez
Izquierdo 2015.
36 See R izkana and Seeher 1989, pl.4; Eichmann, K halil
and Schmidt 2009, 30, fig. 13; Pfeiffer 2009, 307, 323,
fig. 17; K limscha 2013.
37 See Moortgat and Moortgat-Correns 1978, 66, fig. 29
[a–b]; Tallon 1987, Nrs. 687–692, pls. 262–264; Moorey
1994, 244; V. Piggott 1999; Genz 2000; H auptmann et
al. 2015.
38 Moorey 1994, 244–245; J.W. Lehner 2014, 140. See also
Weisberger 1983; L.R. Weeks 2003, 37, 47; Kutterer
and Jasim 2009, fig. 6; Kutterer, Neureiter and Jasim
2013, 186.
39 See Tylecote 1962, 31–32; Bass 1967, 80–81, n. 146;
Muhly, Stech-Wheeler and M addin 1977, 353–362;
Evely 2000, 343–346; H akulin 2004, 54–55. For an
overview and further references, see M.R. Jones 2007.
40 TD 5334. Philip 2006, 169, fig. 61 [1].
222 Chapter 5
5334
Fig. 5.1 Bun-shaped ingots from Tell el-Dab‘a. Philip 2006, fig. 61 [1–2]
fragment from pit A/II-k/16-Pl.4 (maximum diameter
11.5 cm).41 Both are of unalloyed copper, with the
complete ingot containing 3% iron as opposed to the
minute traces in the fragment.42 The two were in close
proximity to each other; however, any association to
metallurgical or commercial activities is uncertain
due to their secondary deposition. No contemporary
parallels from Egypt are known, yet the metal in
such ingots may have been reused, and published
material related to metallurgical activity in the Second
Intermediate Period and New Kingdom is scarce.43
Still, in contrast, both the shape and composition of
the ingots are well-attested in the Near East, where
those of unalloyed copper are the norm.44
The possible on-site production of similar bun-
shaped ingots is supported by the discovery of
limestone moulds in earlier strata (Fig. 5.2). Three
41 TD 5335. Philip 2006, 169–170, fig. 61 [2].
42 Philip 2006, 209, 213–214, table 18.
43 Although a fragment of a Cypriot copper ox hide ingot
was reported from Piramesse, no other tin ingots have yet
been found (Pusch 1995, 123). See Gale and Stos-Gale
1999, 272; Muhly 2009; Stos-Gale 2011; R ademakers,
R ehren and Pernicka 2017, 54, 56. For possible smaller
units, see Prell 2011, 121–122.
44 Philip 2006, 214.
5335
0 10cm
have been published, including one with a circular
concave matrix (diameter 7.6 cm) retrieved from
F/I-i/21-Pl. 3, Stratum c–b/3 (Phase G–F), earlier a
corridor of Area F/I’s large complex.45 The smooth
surface of the limestone supports the use of a lid
atop the matrix for the casting of a plano-convex
object.46 Another with a circular depression (diameter
6 cm) was collected from a secondary context also
in Area F/I’s former complex (F/I-i/23-Pl. 3) and
assigned to Stratum b/3–b/2 (Phase F–E/3).47 The
third is an unfinished, rough, circular depression
(diameter 6.4 cm) that was carved into a mould found
in Area A/IV-h-j/6, Stratum F–E/3.48 All moulds are
thus assigned to the second half of the Thirteenth
Dynasty. Despite the secondary contexts of at least
one mould, the retrieval of two among several others
in areas previously occupied by Area F/I’s complex
45 TD 3110. Philip 2006, 171, 176, fig. 64.
46 Philip 2006, 189–190. No lids have been found at Tell el-
Dab‘a, although fragments could be misidentified. Philip
notes examples from a Third Millennium BC context at
Halawa in the Northern Levant, and Second Millennium
BC contexts from Tell el-Dhiba‘i in Mesopotamia and
Gebel Maghara in the Sinai.
47 TD 4066. Philip 2006, 177, fig. 68 [1].
48 TD 7670. Philip 2006, 181, 184, fig. 74.
 Technological and Militaristic Transformations
B
B'
A'
C C'
A
3110
A A'
B B'
C C' 0 10cm
Fig. 5.2 Moulds with circular concave matrices from Tell el-Dab‘a. Philip 2006, figs. 64, 68 [1], 74
led Philip to suggest the presence of a Middle
Kingdom institutional metallurgical workshop or on-
site melting or casting activity at the site.49 Indeed,
the implied production of ingots signals a demand for
smelted copper, either on-site or at a different location
to where they would be transported.50 The use of an
ingot shape and composition common in the Near
East signals that this demand was in line with the
supra-regional copper trade network, and hints at the
site’s greater role in producing and distributing ingots
according to the MBA exchange system (Fig. 5.3).51
Like the bun-shaped ingots, limestone moulds
from Egypt bearing similar circular depressions are
rare. In situ casting moulds were discovered at the
metalworking area of the Mortuary Temple of Sety I
at Qurna, Thebes, dated to the Ptolemaic Period or
earlier.52 Mine L at Serabit el-Khadim also yielded
49 Philip 2006, 204.
50 As K limscha (2013, 5) writes, ‘This means that there had
to be a distinct network for the distribution of artefacts
as well as knowledge of local needs before copper ingots
were cast, because it would be rather pointless to “trade”
ingots within a single settlement’.
51 For weights and exchange, see Chapter 3.3.2.
52 Scheel 1988a; 1988b; 1989, 27–28, figs. 23–24. For an
earlier dating, see Pusch 1994.
223
7670
0 10cm
B
A
B
D B
C A
4066
0 20cm
five complete moulds ranging in size from 7.5–8 cm to
15–20 cm in diameter (Fig. 5.4).53 All but one had a
smooth surface.54 A number of fragmentary moulds
were further discovered at the site. These, together
with others retrieved from the mine, have been
typologically dated to the New Kingdom,55 although
an earlier Middle Kingdom dating may also be
possible, given the mines’ exploitation at this time.56
Still, the uncertain dating restricts the moulds’ use
53 Beit-A rieh 1985, 104–106, figs. 9 [6], 12 [1–4].
54 Beit-A rieh 1985, 105.
55 Beit-A rieh 1985, 115–116.
56 Philip 2006, 171, 239. The matrices of the moulds
share similarities with both Middle and New Kingdom
forms from, for instance, Tell el-Dab‘a. The finds’
association with Proto-Alphabetic inscriptions has also
been utilised as justification for a later date (Beit-A rieh
1985, 115–116), although recent studies now assign a
number of inscriptions to the Middle Kingdom. As such,
Philip’s suggestion that the moulds might be related
to Middle Kingdom activity at the site is possible, and
consequently may provide a contemporary parallel to
those from Tell el-Dab‘a. For an overview of the Middle
Kingdom activity at Serabit el-Khadim, as well as the
Proto-Alphabetic texts, see Černy 1935; Seyfried 1981;
Goldwasser 2006a; 2012/2013; Tallet 2012; 2018;
Mourad 2015, 135–142; Morenz 2019.
224 Chapter 5

B B

A–A

B–B

DA 3998

0 10 cm

(a) Ingot from Tell Sifr (Iraq), Old Babylonian Period (b) Ingot from el-Maysar (Oman), Third Millennium
(after Moorey et al. 1988, fig. 3) BC (after Hauptmann and Weisgerber 1981, fig. 3)

Fig. 5.3 Bun-shaped ingots from the Near East.

Drawing by Patrick Aprent

Fig. 5.4 Moulds with circular concave matrices from Serabit el-Khadim.
Drawing by Patrick Aprent, after Beit-Arieh 1985, figs. 9 [6], 12 [3]
 Technological and Militaristic Transformations
Fig. 5.5 Two-piece mould with three matrices, two for socketed axes, and one for a harpoon.
Philip 2006, fig. 77
in the assessment of the impact of Tell el-Dab‘a’s
metallurgical practices on Egyptian metalwork. Their
possible appearance in the New Kingdom is noteworthy
and could point to the continued presence of such
practices, or knowledge pertaining to them, within
Egypt. However, they could also reflect an extension of
contemporary Near Eastern practices in the continued
use of bun-shaped ingots for the transportation of
copper alloy. In either case, the specific use at Tell el-
Dab‘a of this more typical Near Eastern ingot shape
significantly points to one of the earliest attempts in
Egypt to process bun-shaped ingots in accord with a
Near Eastern system of ingot transport and exchange.
5.2.1.3 Refractory materials
Refractory materials allude to objects linked to high-
temperature metallurgical activities, such as moulds
and pouring vessels.57 As with other finds from Tell
el-Dab‘a, refractory materials bear elements with
parallels from Egypt as well as the Near East. Based
on those from clear contexts assigned to particular
strata, limestone moulds were retrieved from Twelfth
to late Thirteenth Dynasty levels (Phases H–E/3),58
with one assigned to the earlier Stratum e (Phase N) in
Area F/I.59 As mentioned in Chapter 5.2.1.2, most are
found in association with areas previously belonging
to Area F/I’s large complex and, despite the
57 Philip 2006, 171.
58 Philip 2006, 171–184.
59 TD 7013c.1 and TD 7013c.2. Philip 2006, 181.
225
7413
0 10 cm
secondary contexts, may be linked to an institutional
workshop that might once have existed here.60
Limestone univalve moulds largely correspond to
straight-sided metal rods that could be hammered
into different products, flat axes or adzes, and tanged
blades possibly for knives or daggers.61 The majority
of types have Middle Kingdom Egyptian parallels,
with similar moulds and matrices found at Serabit
el-Khadim62 and el-Lahun,63 while parallels may also
be found in Second Intermediate Period contexts at
Buhen.64
One limestone mould, however, featured the
matrix of a socketed spearhead.65 Matrices on some
two-piece steatite moulds are also of weapons of
Levantine type, including tanged blades of possible
daggers, the ribbed blade of a dagger, and socketed
axes.66 One mould for the latter from Area A/IV
(Stratum E/3–E/2) additionally comprised a harpoon
otherwise common in Egypt (Fig. 5.5),67 signalling
60 Philip 2006, 204.
61 Philip 2006, 190.
62 Beit-A rieh 1985, 92–103, figs. 6–9, pls. 7 [1–9]; Philip
2006, 190.
63 Philip 2006, 190.
64 Emery, H.S. Smith and Millard 1979, 122, pls. 43, 103;
Philip 2006, 190.
65 TD 3110, which also has a matrix for a bun-shaped ingot
(see above, Chapter 5.2.1.2). Philip 2006, 171, 176, fig. 64.
66 Philip 2006, 193–197.
67 TD 7413. Philip 2006, 193–194, fig. 77.
226
the craftsmen’s knowledge in manufacturing metal
objects of various uses and of possible different
stylistic origins. Also attested in the MBA Levant,
the utilisation of two-piece steatite moulds indicates
knowledge in particularly appropriate techniques for
the production of Levantine weapon types.68 Further
specific matrices of weaponry or ingots similar
to those from the Near East are discussed in other
relevant sections in this chapter.
It is worthy to note here that one limestone mould
of an Egyptian-type axe was also uncovered in ‘Ezbet
Helmi’s H/III-u/17, but is assigned to early Eighteenth
Dynasty Stratum e/1.1 (Phase D/1.1).69 It is not the
only piece of evidence for possible early Eighteenth
Dynasty metalworking at the site. South of H/III, in
Area H/VI-v/22 were long shallow pits interpreted
as batteries for melting copper (Fig. 5.6).70 Similar to
batteries uncovered at Ramesside levels at Qantir,71
they have been assigned either to Stratum e/1.1 or
early Stratum d (Phase C/3).72
Crucibles were additionally recovered from
stratified contexts at Tell el-Dab‘a. Most were
assigned to late Twelfth to Thirteenth Dynasty
Phases H to G in Area F/I.73 One was retrieved from the
earlier Middle Kingdom (Area F/I, Stratum e/2–e/1;
Phase N/2–N/1)74 and another from a Fifteenth
Dynasty rubbish deposit (Area A/II, Stratum E/1).75
Handmade of clay, they are open and slightly ovoid,
each with a spout at one end (Fig. 5.7). Ranging
between approximately 10–14 cm in length, 8–9 cm
in width, and 3–4 cm in depth, their form is similar
to those depicted in the Eighteenth Dynasty Theban
tombs of Puyemra (TT 39; Thutmose III’s reign; see
Fig. 5.37)76 and Rekhmira (TT 100; Thutmose III to
Amenhotep II’s reign; Fig. 5.8).77 Earlier crucibles in
Egypt range in shape, and include those with greater
depth, thicker walls, and a low exit hole, such as those
depicted in the Sixth Dynasty tomb of Mereruka78 or
collected and assigned to Middle Kingdom Buhen.79
Still, according to Philip, the pinched spout and
more ovoid shape of the Tell el-Dab‘a crucibles more
closely resemble those attributed to a later date,
68 Philip 2006, 196–197. See also Philip 1989, 159; Shalev
2009; el-Morr and Mödlinger 2014.
69 Bietak, Dorner and Jánosi 2001, 69, fig. 32. See
Chapter 5.2.3.3.3.
70 Bietak and Forstner-Müller 2007, 43, figs. 26–28.
71 Pusch 1994, 164; 2001, 84–100.
72 The features are assigned to Stratum d in Bietak and
Forstner-Müller 2007, 43, with an earlier dating
offered in Aston and Bietak 2017, 503, n. 17.
73 Philip 2006, 199–204.
74 TD 7020w. Philip 2006, 203, fig. 79 [4].
75 TD 5335b. Philip 2006, 202, fig. 83 [1].
76 N. de G. Davies 1922, pl. 23.
77 N. de G. Davies 1943, pl. 52; Philip 2006, 203–204.
78 K anawati et al. 2010, pls. 20–21, 75.
79 Emery, H.S. Smith and Millard 1979, 94, pl. 43.
Chapter 5
as with spouted crucibles at Buhen.80 Crucibles
from Amarna have no preserved spouts.81 Thus,
it is tempting to propose a continuation between
Middle Kingdom crucibles from Tell el-Dab‘a and
those of the New Kingdom; however, Davey is
correct in stating that ‘chronological variations
and development will not be evident until a greater
number of crucibles are known’ from Egypt as well
as the Near East.82
The same limitations are also observed in the
assessment of archaeological, textual, and artistic
evidence on smelting and metalworking techniques
in Egypt. This is particularly the case with the use of
pot-bellows. Believed to be introduced in the Hyksos
Dynasty,83 the first clear attestations of pot-bellows
from well-dated Egyptian contexts occur from the
reign of Thutmose III onwards.84 Examples are
depicted in the Theban tombs of Puyemra (TT 39; see
Fig. 5.37),85 Rekhmira (TT 100),86 Menkheperraseneb
(TT 86; Thutmose III to Amenhotep II’s reign),87
and Hepu (TT 66; Thutmose IV’s reign).88 They
respectively portray one man, or in Rekhmira’s case
two, operating by foot a pair of dish pot-bellows with
leather or skin coverings (Fig. 5.8). Each bellow is
connected by a reed or pipe to a clay nozzle or tuyère
that leads pumped air into the fire. The bellows
would have allowed the more efficient melting of
greater quantities of metal, enabling more reliable
and effective ventilation for larger furnaces.89 In
some scenes, such as those of Puyemra (TT 39) or
Hepu (TT 66), they are utilised alongside blowpipes
also portrayed with a tuyère attached at its end.90
The latter was indeed the only device represented
in earlier scenes of metalworking to direct air onto
a crucible or fireplace.91 Identifications of an object
as a skin-bellow brought with the aAm . w depicted in
the Twelfth Dynasty tomb of Khnumhotep II (Nr. 3)
80 Philip 2006, 203–204; Emery, H.S. Smith and Millard
1979, 123, fig. 3 [6, 9]. For a crucible from Qantir/
Piramesse, see R ademakers, R ehren and Pusch 2018,
506–507, fig. 34.3.
81 Eccleston 2012, 364.
82 Davey 1985, 142. For more on crucibles in Egypt,
see Davey 1988; Davey and Edwards 2007, 148–156;
Herslund 2015.
83 See, for instance, Davey 1979, 110; Garènne-M arot
1985, 89.
84 Pot-bellows mentioned in association with high
temperature hearths uncovered in a Second Intermediate
Period context at Tell el-Maskhuta remain unpublished.
Holladay 1997, 194.
85 N. de G. Davies 1922, pl. 23.
86 N. de G. Davies 1943, pl. 52.
87 N. de G. Davies 1933a, pl. 12.
88 N. de G. Davies 1963, pl. 8.
89 Davey 1979, 111; Scheel 1989, 24.
90 N. de G. Davies 1922, pl. 23; 1966, pl. 8.
91 See, for instance, Newberry 1893b, pls. 7, 14; K anawati
1980, fig. 9; K anawati et al. 2010, pls. 20–21, 74–75;
K anawati and Evans 2016, pl. 91.
 Technological and Militaristic Transformations 227

Fig. 5.6 Long shallow pits, possibly batteries for melting copper. Area H/VI-v/22, Stratum e/1.1 (Phase D/1.1)
or early Stratum d (Phase C/3). Bietak and Forstner-Müller 2007, figs. 26–27
228 Chapter 5

3115a

7020W

5335b 5776a

3115b

3115 3116
0 10 cm

Fig. 5.7 Crucibles from Tell el-Dab‘a. Philip 2006, figs. 79 [4]–83

at Beni Hassan is counteracted by its inclusion of an
outlet at each end, rather than just one.92 On the other
hand, the suggestion that a Middle Kingdom Coffin
Text refers to a skin-bellow is possible,93 as it reads:
xAy. w t
t w p w n . t %k r n . t (y) n b (i) . t = f Ds = f n n n b (i) .y t
xAw. w t = f ‘it is the skin/hide of Sokar which belongs
92 See Shea 1981, 222, 225–226; Nibbi 1987, 33; R edford
1992, 83; K amrin 2009, 26–27; Mourad 2014, 75,
pls. 124, 128–129, 130 [c].
93 A ltenmüller 1984, 7–8; Scheel 1986, 194, n. 38; 1989,
23.
to his own fire-blowing; there will be no fire-blowing
of his craftsmen’.94
Archaeological finds are similarly vague regarding
the use of bellows in Egyptian-controlled areas prior
to the New Kingdom. Leather components might not
94 CT 660. De Buck 1956, CT VI.284a-b. See also
Faulkner 1977, 231. While the classifier for n b (i) ‘fire-
blowing’ shows a man using a blowpipe, the reference
to an animal’s hide suggests the use of a bellow. If the
technology of the latter was present in Egypt, perhaps it
was not yet fully integrated into the Egyptian language
and/or writing script.
 Technological and Militaristic Transformations
Fig. 5.8 A scene showing metallurgical activity. South wall of passage, tomb of Rekhmira (TT 100),
Sheikh ‘abd el-Qurna, reign of Thutmose III to Amenhotep II, Dynasty 18. After N. de G. Davies 1943, pls. 52–53
have survived, especially in the wet conditions of
the Delta, while fragments of clay or stone parts are
not easily recognisable.95 At Tell el-Dab‘a, no pot- or
skin-bellows were recovered from pre-New Kingdom
contexts, with the Eighteenth Dynasty Phase D/1.1 or
C/2 of Workshop 2 at ‘Ezbet Helmi’s palace precinct
yielding four limestone pot-bellows.96 A number of
tuyères were found across the site, as from a secondary
mid-Thirteenth Dynasty context of a pit at Area F/I
(Stratum c; Phase G/1–3),97 and a Fifteenth Dynasty
context from a courtyard in Area A/II (Stratum
D/2).98 The objects, however, only point to some
metalworking activity, with their attachment to either
bellows or blowpipes possible. Sandstone foot bellows
were retrieved from Mine L at Serabit el-Khadim.99 If,
as Philip contends, these and other metalworking finds
from the site date before the New Kingdom, then they
would be the earliest of their type to be found in an
area with intense Egyptian activity.100
The use of such bellows was otherwise known by at
least the early MBA in Mesopotamia. Foot-operated
pot-bellows101 were retrieved from Tell el-Dhiba‘i102
and Tell Asmar103 in Mesopotamia (clay bellows; Isin-
Larsa Period), as well as Tell Beit Mirsim104 (stone
bellow; Stratum D; MBIIC) and possibly Mari in
95 Pot-bellows, for instance, have been identified as
crucibles. Davey 1979, 103; Philip 2006, 215.
96 Bietak, Dorner and Jánosi 2001, fig. 48a; Bietak 2010a,
15–17; 2018, 243.
97 TD 3115c. Philip 2006, 197, 199, fig. 79 [1].
98 TD 5926. Philip 2006, 199, fig. 79 [2]. Philip suggests
that a ceramic object from Area A/V identified by Hein
and Jánosi as a possible amphora base could also be a
tuyère. See Hein and Jánosi 2004, 222, fig. 153 [3].
99 Beit-A rieh 1985, 106–111, fig. 14, pls. 7 [5], 8 [2].
100 Philip 2006, 215. For more on the dating, see
Chapter 5.2.1.2.
101 Hand-operated pot-bellows were found in MBA and
LBA contexts in Anatolia, Northern Mesopotamia, and
the Levant. Davey 1979, 101–111, fig. 5.
102 A l-Gailani 1965, 37, pl. 7 [Nrs. 614/1–2]; Davey 1979,
106, fig. 5.
103 Delougaz 1952, 101, pl. 190; Davey 1979, 107, fig. 5.
104 A lbright 1938, 53, pls. 31 [7], 40 [7–8]; Davey 1979, 106,
fig. 5.
229
the Levant.105 According to Muhly, crucibles with a
pinched spout, of the form found at Tell el-Dab‘a and
Serabit el-Khadim, are also associated more with
bellows than blowpipes.106 The occurrence of foot-
operated bellows with such crucibles in Theban tomb
decoration as well as the pot-bellows at ‘Ezbet Helmi’s
workshop, all ascribing to Thutmose III’s reign or
later, could thus relate to an earlier MBA tradition,
with the transfer of knowledge occurring during the
Middle Kingdom to Second Intermediate Period. The
circumstantial data, however, restricts any further
observations regarding the mode and means of this
postulated transfer. One may only surmise that the
assumed introduction of bellows into Egypt during the
Fifteenth Dynasty is less likely than an earlier transfer
of its technology during the Middle Kingdom.
5.2.2 Chariots and Horses
5.2.2.1 The introduction of the horse and chariot
The introduction of the horse and chariot in the Third
and Second Millennia BC has been of particular
interest to scholars.107 Various theories have circulated
on how and when the horse (Equus caballus)
was domesticated.108 It is generally believed that,
either during the Neolithic or EBA, the equid was
domesticated as a source of food, transport, or traction
in one or more places in Europe or the Eurasian
steppe.109 It is attested in Anatolia, Iran, Northern
Mesopotamia and the Levant from the Fourth and
Third Millennia BC, and then Southern Mesopotamia,
Harappa and Egypt from the Third to the Second
Millennium BC.110 In comparison to the donkey
or other hybrids, the relatively rarer evidence for
horses in the Near East during the EBA and MBA
suggests that other equids remained preferred.111 This
could be due to the expenses in keeping horses, the
105 Davey 1979, 108, fig. 5.
106 Muhly 1999, 524.
107 For an overview, see Littauer and Crouwel 1979. For an
overview regarding Egypt, see Herold 2009, 201–206.
108 See D. Anthony 1991; Clutton-Brock 1992; Grigson
1993; 2012; Benecke 1999; Levine 2005.
109 Levine 2005, 5.
110 For an overview, see Shev 2016.
111 Moorey 1986, 198; Shev 2016, 133.
230 Chapter 5
required knowledge in their breeding, training and
harnessing, or the availability of other cheaper and more
easily manageable draught animals.112 Nevertheless,
by the MBA, horses were prized creatures at such
sites as Mari and Alalakh. Though previously believed
to be tied to a particular ethnic group,113 no direct link
can be observed in the extant record.114 Instead, different
sedentary and non-sedentary groups were utilising
horses, the equids treated as luxury items and/or
highly valued animals.115 They were increasingly used
across the MBA alongside developing technologies in
harnessing and wheeled vehicles.
Possibly the most influential of these wheeled
vehicles is the MBA light spoked wheel chariot.
Typically drawn by two horses, it allowed for the
equids’ easier and quicker manoeuvrability. Like the
domestication of the horse, the origin of the vehicle
has also been contended. Some have surmised that
it was invented by non-urban communities in the
Eurasian steppe, including those who spoke an Indo-
European language, the vocabulary of which was
utilised for some aspects of chariotry.116 Yet, the
use of Indo-European terms need not point to the
origin of the chariot, but rather to possible agents
of exchange.117 More widely accepted and verified
by the archaeological evidence is Littauer and
Crouwel’s hypothesis of a local Near Eastern and
Anatolian evolution with a series of modifications to
various elements of wheels, vehicles, and harnesses
leading to the MBA chariot.118 MBA cylinder seals
from Anatolia and the Near East indicate that the
chariot ‘was a prestige vehicle for men of status;
over restricted distances in suitable terrain it served
to convey those wealthy enough to possess it; it
was used in hunting and perhaps also for racing’.119
Its cultic significance is alluded to by the discovery
of one of its components, a metal bridle bit, in a
MBIIC donkey burial at Tel Haror in the Southern
Levant.120 Its use in ritual processions can also be
gleaned in, for example, a letter from Mari in which
Shamshi-Adad I requests a horse-drawn chariot for
the New Year festival at Ashur.121 Evidence for its
role in warfare is limited, but supported by sealings
showing a chariot atop fallen victims,122 near armed
112 Shev 2016, 133.
113 See, for instance, Goetze 1963, 124–125.
114 Moorey 1986, 198.
115 Moorey 1986, 198.
116 Goetze 1963, 124–125; S. Piggott 1978; 1979; 1983.
117 Moorey 1986, 203.
118 Littauer and Crouwel 1979, 68–71; Moorey 1986,
199–203.
119 Moorey 1986, 205.
120 Bar-Oz et al. 2013.
121 ARM 1.50. Von Soden 1949, 201–202; Oppenheim 1967,
109 [55].
122 Littauer and Crouwel 1979, figs. 31, 33; Moorey 1986,
fig. 5, pl. 2; Collon 1987, fig. 728.
figures,123 or in the vicinity of decapitated limbs
(Fig. 5.9a, c).124 According to Hittite Old Kingdom
texts (late MBA), chariots were also components of
the armies of Hattusilis I, Mursilis I, and the king of
Aleppo.125 Although little is known on how they were
used in battle, those of Hattusilis I were evidently
utilised to patrol and help besiege the city of Ursum
in Southeastern Anatolia.126 Only later in the LBA did
chariots, charioteers, and horse teams become integral
aspects of Near Eastern and Anatolian armies. Still,
their earlier association with elitism, royalty, and, to
some extent, divinity continued into the LBA.127
The Hyksos rulers have been usually attributed
with the introduction of the horse and chariot
into Egypt, the wheeled vehicles offering them
a military advantage that guaranteed the rulers’
claim to power.128 Both the rulers’ postulated
Hurrian origins and their supposed construction of
fortification systems with sloping ramparts were
used as corroboration for their horsemanship and
chariotry.129 The discovery of horse burials at such
sites as Tell el-‘Ajjul even prompted Petrie and others
to identify them as evidence for Hyksos rule, thereby
interpreting them as a cultural or ethnic marker.130
However, studies now support the rulers’ gradual
and relatively non-violent establishment of power,131
their ties to specific fortification designs or Hurrian
origin questionable and unrelated to the military use
of horses.132 Therefore, the very basis of the original
argument regarding the Hyksos rulers’ introduction of
the horse and chariot is no longer verified by current
understandings of their dynasty.133 Nevertheless,
123 Littauer and Crouwel 1979, figs. 3, 29, 34–35; Dalley
1984, 162; Moorey 1986, fig. 6, pls. 2–5; Collon 1987,
fig. 729.
124 Moorey 1986, pls. 4–5.
125 Laroche 1971, Nrs. 5, 7, 12–13; Littauer and Crouwel
1979, 64–65.
126 Laroche 1971, Nr. 7; Littauer and Crouwel 1979, 65;
Moorey 1986, 204.
127 For a thorough assessment of the horse-drawn chariot
in LBA Egypt and the Near East, see Schulman 1963;
Hofmann 1989; Rommelaere 1991; Herold 1999; 2004;
2006; Sandor 2004a; 2004b; Spalinger 2007; Feldman
and Sauvage 2010.
128 See Engberg 1939. For more on the role of chariotry in
the early Eighteenth Dynasty, see Wilde 2003, 112–119;
Diaz Hernández 2014.
129 See Engberg 1939; Yadin 1955; Fitzgerald 1956, 95–96;
W.A. Ward 1961, 137–138; von Beckerath 1964; Helck
1971b.
130 Petrie 1931, 3–5; 1932, 5; 1934, 16; Winlock 1947,
150–170, 153–157.
131 For an overview and further references, see Mourad 2015.
132 See Wolf 1929, 72; von Bissing 1936/1937, 333; Säve-
Söderbergh 1951; Raulwing 1998, 524–527; 2000, 26;
R aulwing and Clutton-Brock 2009, 67–68. For a recent
reconsideration of Hurrian origins, see Bietak 2019b.
133 For a discussion, see Bibby 2003; R aulwing and Clutton-
Brock 2009, 68–86.
 Technological and Militaristic Transformations 231

(a) Seal impression, Old Babylonian Period (reign of (b) Seal impression, MBIIA–B, purchased in Beirut
Hammurabi), unknown provenance (after Littauer and Crouwel 1979, fig. 36);
(after Littauer and Crouwel 1979, fig. 31)

(c) Seal impression, MBIIA–B, purchased in Aleppo

(drawn from photograph, after https://collections.ashmolean.org/object/486027)

Fig. 5.9 Depictions of the horse-drawn chariot

recently published material has again raised the
question of this dynasty’s contribution in this field.
5.2.2.2 The archaeological evidence in Egypt
The archaeological evidence for domesticated
horses134 in Egypt before the New Kingdom largely
derives from the Delta. Thus far, the earliest known
from this region stems from Tell el-Dab‘a. From a
context in Area F/I assigned to Phase G /1–3 (F/I-i/22)
134 R aulwing and Clutton-Brock 2009, 40 (with references).
As R aulwing and Clutton-Brock (2009, 40) note, ‘all
remains of horses found in Egypt must be derived from
domesticated animals since no fossil remains of wild
horse (Equus ferus) have been found anywhere in North
Africa in the post-Pleistocene period’.
are 15 cattle bones, three caprid bones, the remains
of a pig’s foot, as well as a broken femur evidently
of a horse (Equus caballus).135 Correlated with the
Thirteenth Dynasty, the finds have been interpreted
as a foundation deposit.136 Other Fifteenth Dynasty
attestations of minor horse remains include: (1) a horse
tooth from Tomb A/II-m/12-Nr. 9 of Phase E/2, found
among donkey, bovine, caprid, and pig remains;137
(2) a horse tooth from A/II-m/12-Pl. 3 (P3, P4 or M1)
of Phase E/1, among bovine, sheep, pig, flamingo,
and fish bones, the deposit perhaps formed when the
135 Boessneck and von den Driesch 1992, 24–25.
136 Boessneck and von den Driesch 1992, 25.
137 Boessneck 1976, 13, 25.
232 Chapter 5
Fig. 5.10 Burial of a mare. Palatial complex, Area F/II-k/26-L1418, Stratum c/2 (Phase E/1).
Bietak 2010e, fig. 5
nearby tomb A/II-m/12-Nr. 9 was plundered;138 and
(3) an incomplete distal of a metacarpus bone identified,
based on its density, as that of a horse,139 and retrieved
alongside cattle remains from Tomb A/II-o/21-Nr. 4 of
Phase E/1–D/3.140
The so-called ‘Hyksos Palace’ of Area F/II yielded
the almost articulated skeleton of a five year old
mare.141 The horse was buried in a magazine’s
vestibule northeast of Building Unit A (k/26-L1418),
and assigned to Stratum c/2 of the first half of the
Fifteenth Dynasty (Fig. 5.10).142 Its positioning has
led the excavators to suggest that the animal was
of special value to the palace’s leading occupant,
presumably the Hyksos Khayan.143
138 Boessneck 1976, 13, 25.
139 Boessneck and von den Driesch 1992, 25.
140 Boessneck and von den Driesch 1992, 25.
141 Bietak and Forstner-Müller 2009, 99–100, figs. 7–9;
Bietak 2010c, 100, figs. 4–5.
142 The pit with the horse burial was later cut into by an
infant burial assigned to the late Hyksos Period. The
burial offers a clear terminus ad quem for the date of the
horse burial. Pottery fragments assigned to the Fifteenth
Dynasty were also found in the vicinity of both the infant
and horse burial. Bietak and Forstner-Müller 2009,
100; Bietak 2010c, 100.
143 Bietak and Forstner-Müller 2009, 100; Bietak 2010c,
100, 102.
Remains of horses have also been uncovered in
the nearby ‘Ezbet Helmi inside a compound of the
early Eighteenth Dynasty, possibly of a necropolis
(Fig. 5.11). A near complete burial of a six to
seven year old stallion was found in a pit of the
early Eighteenth Dynasty (Area H/III-q/16-Nr. 9),
together with the phalanx of a mule.144 Five other
pits with pertinent equid bones have been dated to
Phase D/1 (Stratum e/1.1) of the early Eighteenth
Dynasty. Two pits, H/III-q/18E-Nr. 51 and Nr. 52,
each produced an incomplete skeleton of a four-year
old horse and a 13–15 year old stallion respectively.
Three others, H/III-s/18–19-Nr. 23, s/18E-Nr. 27,
and p/19-Nr. 11, each yielded an incomplete skeleton
of an equid, either a horse or mule. The burials were
found amid graves, many of which belonged to
young men, some of whom showed signs of injury
144 The pit was positioned amongst others near a wall,
its context excluding its identification as a possible
foundation deposit. Von den Driesch and Peters 2001,
301–304, figs. 1, 7.
 Technological and Militaristic Transformations 233

0 10 m

Fig. 5.11 Plan of Area H/III pinpointing findspots of equid remains.

After von den Driesch and Peters 2001, fig. 1
234 Chapter 5
or trauma.145 The burials are thought to belong to
soldiers related to a nearby military camp who died
of either an epidemic or executions, however their
involvement in other activities cannot be negated.146
At the entrance of the North Sinai, the site of
Tell Hebwa I reportedly yielded five horse burials
ascribed to the Hyksos Dynasty.147 At least one
partially complete skeleton belongs to an adult mare,
between five and eight years old.148 The skeleton
was uncovered in the eastern part of a large palatial
building ascribed to the late Second Intermediate
Period or the early New Kingdom.149 Its context and
age parallel those of Tell el-Dab‘a’s L1418, signalling
a probable regional importance of adult mares.150
A brief report on excavations at another site in the
Eastern Delta, Tell el-Kebir, also mentions two horse
skeletons that were apparently uncovered a few metres
from the entrances of tombs assigned to the Fifteenth
Dynasty.151 One contained four burials as well as a
myriad of grave goods that imply the high status of
its owner(s).152 Further details remain unpublished.
Similarly unpublished are two apparent horse bones
from Tomb R8.8079 at Tell el-Maskhuta.153 The
vaulted tomb yielded the flexed bodies of an adult and
child together with silver and gold jewellery as well as
145 According to the excavator, the burials were not
contemporaneous, but were dug into a layer of deposits
dating to the early Eighteenth Dynasty. One pit (s/16-
Nr. 1) revealed skeletal remains of two males lying on
their stomach beneath more than 300 stone fragments
and smashed pottery vessels believed to represent an
execration ritual. Bietak and Dorner 1998a; Bietak,
Dorner and Jánosi 2001, 67–71, figs. 24–25, 31; von der
Driesch and Peters 2001, 310. For another deposit with
three human skulls and the fingers of three males from
an earlier intermediary phase Stratum e/1.2 (Phase D/1)
of the nearby palace district, see Chapter 4.4.2.1.
146 See Chapter 3.2.1.2. Bietak, Dorner and Jánosi 2001,
69–71; von der Driesch and Peters 2001, 310.
147 A bd el-M aksoud 1983, 4–5, pl. 2; al-Ayedi 2000, 115,
n. 98.
148 Chaix 2000; R aulwing and Clutton-Brock 2009,
48–49, fig. 20.
149 Chaix 2000, 177.
150 In regards to the sex of the horses, Eighteenth and
Nineteenth Dynasty representations suggest that
royal horses were commonly male, often stallions.
However, Ashmawy A li (2007, 674) suggests that those
comprising the names of female goddesses were mares,
but this is not necessarily so. For more, see S. Turner
2015, 418–419.
151 Leclant and Clerc 1995, 246; Hoffmeier 1996, 68;
R aulwing and Clutton-Brock 2009, 58.
152 Leclant and Clerc 1995, 246. According to Hoffmeier
(1996, 68), Second Intermediate Period tombs at the site
reportedly yielded remains of high quality, implying a
connection to royalty.
153 Wapnish 1997, 354, n. 19.
bronze daggers.154 It is assigned to the site’s Phase 2,155
which roughly corresponds with Tell el-Dab‘a Phase
E/1 or the early Fifteenth Dynasty.
The skeletal remains of around two thirds of a male
horse, approximately 19 years old, were additionally
uncovered at Buhen. The deposition has sparked much
debate regarding the introduction of the horse into
Egypt, especially as it was first dated to the Thirteenth
Dynasty.156 A thorough re-examination of this so-
called ‘Buhen horse’ by Raulwing and Clutton-Brock
has highlighted uncertainties surrounding the find,
its date, and the bit wear evidence of the remains,
their context, and associated radiocarbon dating.157
The horse was found atop Buhen’s Middle Kingdom
fortress rampart during the removal of charred
debris that had accumulated following the complex’s
abandonment. The site was then reoccupied in the
early New Kingdom. The terminus ante quem of the
deposition could thus be securely assigned to the end
of the Second Intermediate Period or the beginning
of the Eighteenth Dynasty, while the terminus post
quem is related to the abandonment of the fortress,158
the dating of which is conjectured.159 Emery, among
others, assigned the latter to the late Thirteenth
Dynasty,160 while S.T. Smith proposes that the site
was sacked by Kamose’s army.161 In either case, the
deposition itself signals the presence of horses in
this region by the late Second Intermediate Period.
Although its use as a draught animal is inconclusive,
the horse’s age indicates that it was well cared for by
individuals who garnered some knowledge on horse-
breeding and grooming.162
Further south and dating to the early Eighteenth
Dynasty are horse burials at Soleb and Sai in modern
Sudan. The skeleton of a male horse, around 10 years
old, was found in a pit, buried beneath a male skeleton,
at the cemetery of Soleb.163 Around 20 km north, on
the island of Sai, was a horse burial found at the centre
of a tumulus.164 Another burial of the first half of the
Eighteenth Dynasty is of a mare that was equipped
154 Redmount 1989, 904, table 39; Holladay 1997, 223,
table 7.1.
155 R edmount 1989, table 39.
156 Emery, H.S. Smith and Millard 1979. See also R aulwing
and Clutton-Brock 2009, 1–106.
157 Raulwing and Clutton-Brock 2009, 1–106.
158 R aulwing and Clutton-Brock 2009, 40–41.
159 See Schulman 1980, 109; Burleigh 1986, 235; Wapnish
1997, 355; Vernus and Yoyotte 2005, 535; R aulwing and
Clutton-Brock 2009; Bietak 2010b, 170.
160 H.S. Smith 1976, 82; Emery, H.S. Smith and Millard
1979, 1–13.
161 S.T. Smith 2003a, 81–82.
162 R aulwing and Clutton-Brock 2009, 73–77.
163 Ducos 1972. See also Chaix 2000, 179; R aulwing and
Clutton-Brock 2009, 51–52. G rigson (2012, 190)
suggests that the horse could be a mule.
164 Chaix and Gratin 2002. See also Chaix 2000, 179;
R aulwing and Clutton-Brock 2009, 52.
 Technological and Militaristic Transformations
with a saddle-cloth, wrapped in fine linen and placed
in a wooden coffin before the tomb of Senenmut at Deir
el-Bahari (TT 71).165 A chief of works during the reign
of Hatshepsut, the official was seemingly provided
in death with a horse as with others before him with
equid burials in the Second Intermediate Period and
early Eighteenth Dynasty Eastern Delta.166
Overall, the archaeological evidence clearly attests
to the presence of the domesticated horse in Egypt
during the Second Intermediate Period. Excluding the
debated Buhen horse, the equid occurs in deposits of a
ritualistic, funerary, or elite nature in contexts dating
possibly from the Thirteenth Dynasty, and noticeably
from the Fifteenth Dynasty, corresponding with Tell
el-Dab‘a’s Phases E/1–D/3. It is also from this period
that the near complete burial of a mare surfaces in a
palatial context, with another from the same age and
sex also purportedly from a late Second Intermediate
Period to early New Kingdom palatial context at Tell
Hebwa. Reported horse bones from other Delta sites
are additionally connected with tombs of high status
individuals, with a funerary deposition similarly
attested for the early Eighteenth Dynasty horse burials
at Sai, Soleb, and Thebes. Further worthy of mention
are the skeletal remains of an adult male, 35–40 years
of age, found in the tomb of Senebkay at Abydos.167
The remains are believed to belong to a king of the so-
called ‘Abydos Dynasty’ of the Second Intermediate
Period. Although not yet completely published, the
skeletal evidence includes indications on the muscle
attachments of the femur and pelvis that the individual
spent a significant time in his adult life riding an
equid.168 Similar indications were found on another
skeleton uncovered in a nearby tomb, possibly also
for a ruler. The remains of Senebkay further exhibit
wound marks on the right ankle, knees, and hands
that are consistent with those delivered to a seated but
elevated individual such as a horse rider. If belonging
165 Chard 1937; Boessneck 1970. See also R aulwing and
Clutton-Brock 2009, 52–53.
166 Chard 1937; R aulwing and Clutton-Brock 2009,
52–53. Mention, however, should also be made of the
Early Dynastic Period donkey burials found near royal
enclosures at Abydos (Rossel et al. 2008; Mitchell
2018, 41–44, fig. 3.3). Other Early Dynasty Period equid
burials have been found at Abusir (Boessneck, von
den Driesch and Eissa 1992), Tarkhan (Petrie 1914, 6,
pls. 18–19), and Helwan (Saad 1951, 37–38, pl. 47; 1969,
69, 80, pl. 120; Way 2010, 221). Animal bones, including
those of donkeys, were also found possibly in association
with burials of the Predynastic Period at Hierakonpolis
(Van Neer, Linseele and Friedman 2004, 73, 88–92;
R. Friedman 2009, 79–103). For more, see Vandenbeusch
2020, 39–62.
167 Penn Museum 2015.
168 For more on equid-riding in ancient Egypt, see Schulman
1957; Leclant 1960; Brentjes 1971, 136–137; Houlihan
2002; Stadelmann 2006; Köpp-Junk 2013, 113–116; 2015,
165–173.
235
to Senebkay, the skeleton perhaps is of a king who
received wounds in battle, training, or in an ambush
while riding an equid.
The function and significance of horses in Upper
and Lower Egypt and in Nubia may not be connected
to a singular phenomenon. As Bibby notes, the ‘entry
of the horse into the Delta is a different matter to the
entry of the horse into Upper Egypt’.169 Nevertheless,
it is noteworthy that none of the horse deposits show
unambiguous evidence for their use as draught
animals for chariots. Second Intermediate Period
remains instead favour the horse’s importance as a
status marker, or in ritualistic contexts, with those
of Senebkay hinting at a possible connection to
violence or conflict. This, however, only becomes
more apparent from the early Eighteenth Dynasty,
as suggested by, if the excavators are correct, the
evidence from ‘Ezbet Helmi.
In comparison, the earliest known archaeological
evidence for a chariot occurs in the tomb of
Amenhotep II (KV 35).170 The fragmentary remains
were found alongside quivers and harnesses. A number
of other chariots or chariot-related material were
recovered in Eighteenth Dynasty contexts, mostly of
royal or elite tombs.171 These include that of the tomb
of Thutmose IV (KV 43), found in a decorated box
alongside leather pieces, a bow-case, and quivers;172
the chariot wheel part of Amenhotep III’s tomb
(KV 22);173 the chariot sets of the tomb of
Tutankhamun;174 as well as the chariot of the tomb of
Yuya and Tuya (TT 46).175 A chariot now in the Egyptian
Museum in Florence was also possibly collected from
a tomb in Thebes, while harness attachments and other
chariot pieces were found in the tomb of Ay (KV 58).176
Several leather pieces associated with chariotry were
additionally collected from Amarna.177 Nineteenth
Dynasty material primarily surfaces in non-funerary
contexts, signalling a possible shift in practices or the
value of chariots in funerary assemblages.178
169 Bibby 2003, 16.
170 Daressy 1902, 169–170; Veldmeijer and Ikram 2018,
14. The tomb of Maiherpri (KV 36) of the reign of
Hatshepsut/Thutmose III produced leather quivers and
wrist guards believed to be connected to chariotry.
171 For an overview, see Feldman and Sauvage 2010, 84;
Veldmeijer and Ikram 2018, 14–21.
172 Carter and Newberry 1904.
173 Veldmeijer and I kram 2018, 16–17.
174 Veldmeijer and I kram 2018, 18.
175 Littauer and Crowel 1979, 75.
176 Feldman and Sauvage 2010, 84.
177 Veldmeijer and I kram 2018, 17–18, table I.1.
178 H erold 1999; 2006. Feldman and Sauvage (2010, 86)
question whether this was related to shifts observed
in tomb art, with Nineteenth Dynasty attestations
associating chariots with scenes from the Book of the
Dead as opposed to those of daily life, or whether ‘the
infatuation with chariots faded’.
236 Chapter 5
5.2.2.3 The textual evidence in Egypt
The earliest known textual attestations of horses in
Egypt have been dated to the reign of Kamose. The
Carnarvon Tablet, a hieratic copy of the fragmented
First Kamose Stela, follows the king’s battles against
Fifteenth Dynasty allies.179 After attacking Nefrusi,
the unidentified area of Pershak was evidently
abandoned, Ht r=s n w ar. t
r Xn w ‘their horses (?) had fled inside’.180 The term
Ht r was utilised in the Old and Middle Kingdoms to
refer to draught animals, namely yoked quadrupeds.181
Classifiers include the hide and tail (Gardiner’s F28),
or a quadruped animal such as an ox or donkey.182 Its
likely use for horses in this text, as well as that in later
texts with and without the use of a horse as classifier,
shows a continuation of the visual association between
the animal and the yoke. As Goldwasser explains, this
denotes a new meaning to an old local lexeme that
classified the introduced animal by its utilitarian and
morphological aspects as a draught quadruped.183
The vehicle to which the animal was yoked may
have also been known by Kamose’s reign. The Second
Kamose Stela continues with the king’s attacks
on Avaris. In a direct speech to Apophis, Kamose
mentions some loot he captures from the city, including
nHm =i tA n . t Ht ri ‘I have
carried off that which belongs to the twin span’.184 The
missing classifier in the latter tA n . t Ht ri has obscured
its confirmed reading. Some have translated it as a
metonymic reference to ‘chariotry’,185 while others
favour ‘plough spans’.186 The object is mentioned
after trees and ship holds, and before wood planks,
signalling its wooden characteristics.187 Although
Herslund is correct in noting that Eighteenth Dynasty
texts instead list chariotry among weaponry,188 the
term for chariot (wrr.y t or m rk b. t) can carry the
classifier for wood (M3).189 This indicates that the
object could have also been classified amid wooden
items, especially if its military applications were not
yet thoroughly embedded in Egyptian perception. If
it does refer to chariots, perhaps tA n . t Ht ri reflects
an early attempt to incorporate them into the local
179 Gardiner 1916b; Helck 1983a, 82–97 [Nr. 119]; Barbotin
2008, 169–179.
180 Carnarvon Tablet, line 16. Gardiner 1916b, 106–107,
pls. 12–13; Helck 1983a, 91.
181 Goldwasser 2017, 47–49.
182 Goldwasser 2017, 48–52.
183 Goldwasser 2017, 48–49.
184 Second Stela of Kamose, line 13. Helck 1983a, 93. See
also H abachi 1972, 36, fig. 22; H.S. Smith and A. Smith
1976; Enmarch 2013.
185 See, for instance, H abachi 1972, 36, n. g; H.S. Smith and
A. Smith 1976, 60; Goldwasser 2017, 51–52.
186 See Herslund 2018, 175–176.
187 Diaz Hernández (2014, 112–113) proposes that the
reference is to the chariot’s bodywork.
188 Herslund 2018, 175–176.
189 Hoch 1994, 145–147; Goldwasser 2002, 39–55.
lexeme.190 Further support may be found on a
fragment reportedly from the tomb of an overseer of
the treasury, Sipair, at Saqqara.191 Assigned generally
to the Eighteenth Dynasty, possibly the early half,192
it includes a title for the tomb owner as
s ab.w t n . t Ht ri m HD
n b w x s bd m f kA. t aA. t n b. t Sps. t ‘one who provides
chariotry with silver, gold, lapis lazuli, turquoise
and every precious stone’.193 If the transcription
is correct, the term Ht ri would be represented by
the horse logograph (E6), and the text would point
to both the different valuable materials used to
equip chariots, and the direct role of the treasury in
supplying these materials. Still, the ambiguity both in
the date of this fragment as well as the preserved state
of Kamose’s stela restricts the translation of tA n . t
Ht ri in the Seventeenth Dynasty text unequivocally
as ‘chariotry’.
A clearer reference is in the biography of Ahmose-
si-Ibana. In recounting the beginning of his career in
Ahmose’s reign, the official notes:
wn. xr=i
Hr Sm s it i .y an x (.w) wDA(.w) s n b (.w) Hr rd .wy =i
m - x t swt w =f Hr wrr. (y) t =f ‘then I was in the
following of the sovereign, may he live, be prosperous
and healthy, on my two feet, after him travelling on his
chariot’.194 This is mentioned before Ahmose’s siege
of Avaris, in which Ahmose-si-Ibana served as a foot-
soldier and a sailor. It implies that the king travelled by
chariot before and during the attack on Avaris, with other
soldiers travelling by foot close by.195 Despite further
campaigns in Egypt and Nubia, the horse and chariot
are only mentioned again in reference to Thutmose I’s
battle in Naharin. The biography highlights Ahmose-
si-Ibana’s triumph in the army:
in =i wrr.y t ss m =s n . ty Hr=s m s q r-
an x m s n [Hm] =f wn . i [n] . t w Hr iw a m n b w Hr
s n . n w - sy ‘I brought away a chariot, its horse, and
he who was upon it as captive, and presented them to
190 The word Ht ri was used in the New Kingdom, especially
the Ramesside Period, to refer to chariots (Herslund
2018, 176).
191 Only fragments from the monument are known, one
of which was transcribed by R. Hays and published
alongside a note that it was retrieved from Saqqara and
likely belonged to a tomb there. Roeder 1924, 231–232;
M álek 1989, 61–76, pl. 8.
192 M álek (1989, 68–69) cautiously proposes an early
Eighteenth Dynasty date.
193 Line A.11. The transcription relies on R. Hay’s copy in
M álek 1989, 66–67, fig. 1 [A.11], pls. 7–8. The title also
occurs in line B.2 as s ab.w t n . t Ht ri m HD n b w ‘one who
provides chariotry with silver and gold’.
194 Biography of Ahmose-si-Ibana, lines 7–8. Urk. 4, 3.
195 Diaz Hernández (2014, 114) suggests that Ahmose
may have used chariots which Kamose had plundered
following attacks against Hyksos-controlled areas.
 Technological and Militaristic Transformations
his [majesty]. I was rewarded with gold once more’.196
The text names three key components of chariotry: the
chariot, the horse, and the driver. All were of value
to the king, who interestingly rewarded Ahmose-si-
Ibana with gold rather than the elements themselves.
A further observation is that the three were among the
opponent’s arsenal, signalling that the Egyptians had
to face chariotry in the Northern Levant. Accordingly,
they too would have needed to be equipped with the
necessary techniques and knowledge to effectively
combat chariotry on the battlefield.
Another near contemporary attestation occurs in the
biography of Ahmose-Pennekhbet. Similarly, during
Thutmose I’s campaign in Naharin, the overseer of
sealers and captor notes that
k f a=i n =f Hr xAs. t n . t
Nh rynA d r. t 21 ss m 1 wrr.y t 1 ‘I captured for him in
the foreign land of Nh rynA: 21 hands, one horse, and
one chariot’.197 For his service, the king rewarded him
with gold, jewellery, and battle-axes. Assumedly, the
horse and chariot were either too valuable to be gifted
to the official, thus warranting mention, or they were
not appropriate rewards to gift Ahmose-Pennekhbet.
The terms used in both biographies for horse and
chariot are, respectively, s s m and w rr.y t. The two
are specifically linked with the horse and wheeled
vehicles from the New Kingdom onwards. This is
visibly manifest in the newly introduced classifiers
for the two, with the hide and tail (F28) also found
for s s m, and the branch (M3) for w rr.y t.198 s s m has
been convincingly shown to be related to the Old
Akkadian sisā’um ‘horse’.199 This suggests (1) the
Egyptian incorporation of the Akkadian mimation,
which was predominantly used in the first half of
the Second Millennium BC, and (2) an integrated
term that is not written syllabically, as is common
for loanwords from non-Egyptian languages.200
Such reflections have been taken as justification
for an early borrowing of s s m from the Near East,
possibly in the late Third Millennium to early Second
Millennium BC.201 Goldwasser posits its entrance
into the Egyptian lexicon via a colloquial register,
perhaps to address the need for a term that directly
specifies the horse.202 It is also possible that the horse
was encountered by transregional Near Easterners,
196 Biography of Ahmose-si-Ibana, line 39. Urk. 4, 9–10.
197 Biography of Ahmose-Pennekhbet, lines C.8–9. Urk. 4,
36. See also W.V. Davies 2014.
198 Goldwasser 2002, 39–55, 82–85; 2017, 50, 54; Vernus
2010, 26–29.
199 The term also occurs in similar forms in Neo-Sumerian
(anše.zi.zi), Ugaritic (śśw), Hebraic and Old Aramaic (sūs),
Indo-Aryan (áśva-), and Hurrian (e/išši). Hoffmann 1989,
26; Decker 1994. See also Donner 1955; R aulwing 2000,
102–109; R aulwing and Clutton-Brock 2009, 79–81.
200 Hoffmann 1989, 26; R aulwing and Clutton-Brock
2009, 79–81; Vernus 2010.
201 T. Schneider 2008c, 189.
202 Goldwasser 2017, 53.
237
Egyptians, or those of mixed origin, and transferred
into Egypt either textually or verbally during the
consistent interactions of the Middle Kingdom
and Second Intermediate Period.203 The postulated
Akkadian origin of the term only signals a Near
Eastern agent of transfer, rather than a Near Eastern
innovator.204
In contrast, the lexeme w rr.y t could be of
Egyptian origin. Several have sought to trace it to
a foreign language such as Hurritic205 or Hittite,206
but these have been refuted based on orthography
and chronology.207 It is equally possible that the
term originates from the Egyptian root w r ‘great’.208
This definition would correspond well with its
predominant use in relation to royal activities.209
Another term for the chariot, m rk b. t, is clearly
derived from a Semitic word.210 It is first attested in
Amenhotep II’s Karnak Stela, wherein the Levantine
prince’s chariot is m rk b. t, which is written
out syllabically and differentiated from the w rr.y t of
the Egyptian king.211 m rk b. t is later mostly found in
hieratic administrative texts, while w rr.y t typically
occurs in monumental hieroglyphic inscriptions.212
The textual evidence thus leans in favour for the
integration of the horse and chariot into the Egyptian
lexical system by the early Eighteenth Dynasty. The
terms Ht r and tA n . t Ht ri are associated with Kamose’s
campaigns against Fifteenth Dynasty allies and could
be respectively translated as ‘horse’ and ‘chariotry’,
although this is in no way definite. In Ahmose’s
reign, the Egyptian king had assumed the w rr.y t
chariot in his procession, and feasibly in battle. The
item, together with the s s m, were greatly valued, and
clearly sourced from the Near East, if not particularly
from the Northern Levant in the early Eighteenth
Dynasty. Different modes for the incorporation
of the new words are possible, namely: the use of
a local lexeme for the new items (Ht r and possibly
tA n . t Ht ri), with new classifiers; the creation of a new
lexeme from the available lexicon (possibly w rr.y t);
or the creation of a new lexeme from a foreign
language (s s m and m rk b. t).213 Although these appear
to be in chronological sequence, with Ht r possibly
203 See also Goldwasser 2017, 53.
204 See Moorey 1986, 203.
205 Speiser 1933, 49–51; Helck 1971b.
206 T. Schneider 1999; 2004, 20; 2008b, 184.
207 Groddek 2000; Z. Simon 2010.
208 Herslund 2018, 171.
209 Goldwasser 2017, 50, n. 14.
210 Hoch 1994, 145–147; Herslund 2018, 172.
211 Karnak Stela, line 8. Edel 1953, 142, pl. 7; Herslund
2018, 172.
212 Goldwasser 2017, 50; Herslund 2018, 172–173.
213 These also relate to possible venues of linguistic
acculturation as explored by Goldwasser 2017, 45–65.
See also C.H. Brown 1999.
238 Chapter 5
Fig. 5.12 Scarab seal EA 17774 of Thutmose I.
Unknown provenance, Dynasty 18.
Drawn from photograph,
after https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/
object/Y_EA17774
the earliest and s s m the latest as examined here,214
the earlier, perhaps verbal, transfer of ss m via some
cultural encounter(s) remains viable.
5.2.2.4 The artistic evidence in Egypt
The artistic evidence largely corroborates the textual
and archaeological material. Scenes of both horses and
chariotry are first attested in the very early Eighteenth
Dynasty, with possible links to Second Intermediate
Period inter-dynastic conflict. Early attestations occur
on fragments from Ahmose’s Funerary Temple at
Abydos, some of which depict horses and chariots
(see Fig. 3.37).215 According to Harvey, the details can
be classified into two groups: (1) those with teams of
horses and chariots in full gallop; and (2) slower or
resting teams of bridled horses.216 All horses seem to
be either yoked or associated with chariots, the drivers
of which are unknown. The chariots are represented
with four-spoked wheels.
Such a wheel further occurs on the base of an
unprovenanced green jasper seal inscribed with a
cartouche of Thutmose I’s prenomen.217 It shows the
king in a crown or helmet(?), perhaps with a knot at
the back, aiming his bow and arrow while standing
on a horse-drawn chariot, the reins tied at his waist
(Fig. 5.12). Two horses trample a falling armed
figure with an arrow pierced in his chest. An
214 Many more terms associated with chariotry are arguably
of foreign origin. As they surface in the New Kingdom,
with no clear links to the Middle Kingdom or Second
Intermediate Period, they are not examined here. For
more on these terms, see T. Schneider 2008c; Herslund
2018, 169–198.
215 H arvey 1998, 316–320, table 12, figs. 76–79.
216 H arvey 1998, 316.
217 EA 17774. Newberry 1908, pl. 27 [4]; H.R. H all 1913, 50
[Nr. 475]; S. Heinz 2001, 235.
Fig. 5.13 Scarab seal Basel Cat. Nr. 213 of Amenhotep I.
Unknown provenance, Dynasty 18.
After Hornung and Staehelin 1976, 233 [213]
earlier unprovenanced scarab of Amenhotep I also
shows the king on a horse-drawn chariot but with
a six-spoked wheel (Fig. 5.13).218 The different
types of wheels continue to be represented in
the first half of the Eighteenth Dynasty, with the
eight-spoked wheel possibly attested by at least the
reign of Thutmose II as portrayed in fragments of a
siege scene from his Funerary Temple (Fig. 5.14).219
The scarabs present the earliest clear portrayals of the
Egyptian king as a warrior charioteer. The importance
of this iconography is highlighted by its consequent
consistent artistic and textual representations in
battle, the hunt, as well as royal or divine processions,
throughout the New Kingdom.220 Nevertheless, the
Ahmose temple fragments indicate that knowledge
of the use of chariotry on the battlefield, whether
by the Thebans, their allies, or their opponents, was
already encountered in Egypt possibly by the end of
the Second Intermediate Period. The artists of the new
administration clearly had access to details of horse
morphology, bridles, and wheel types by the early
Eighteenth Dynasty. Their incorporation into battle
scenes as well as the artistic repertoire of a royal
pyramid complex signifies their early importance both
in warfare and the representation of kingship.
218 Fraser 1909, 25 [190]; Hornung and Staehelin 1976, 233
[Nr. 213], pl. 21. A scarab (BM 57929) assigned to the
reign of Amenhotep I according to its inscription depicts
a reclining horse, its features distorted to fit the available
space. For more, see S. Turner 2015, 155–156.
219 Bruyère 1952, pls. 2–4; H arvey 1998, 318, 354–361,
figs. 91–92, 95–96; S. Heinz 2001, 23. See also Yadin
1963, 87. A four-spoked wheel may also be represented
in a fragmentary scene from the tomb of mayor Renni
at el-Kab of Amenhotep I’s reign (J. Tylor 1900, pl. 2).
220 L. Sabbahy 2013, 191; 2018; Herslund 2018, 165–169.
 Technological and Militaristic Transformations
Fig. 5.14 Fragments showing a battle scene. Funerary Temple of Thutmose II, Western Thebes.
After Bruyère 1952, pls. 3–4
5.2.2.5 Factors of influence
The textual, artistic, and archaeological evidence
indicate that the process of adopting horses and
chariots into Egypt had initiated before the New
Kingdom. The role of the Hyksos rulers in this
process is vague. The archaeological evidence
supports the horse’s presence in the Delta by the
early Fifteenth Dynasty, if not earlier. Its occurrence
in largely funerary contexts signals that horses
were valued for ritualistic and funerary purposes,
agreeing with their economic and social significance
in the Near East as highly prized markers of prestige
and power.221 Those in Hyksos-controlled areas
may have introduced the horse to the Thebans;
however, taking into account the suggested earlier
incorporation of the term s s m, it is also possible
that the animal was encountered before the Hyksos
Dynasty.222 Still, the introduction of the horse need
not equate with its immediate widespread use for
transport. Donkeys and bovines already offered the
Egyptians draught strength and pack capabilities.
Compared to horses, donkeys could be more easily
trained, are more vigilant, and are more suitable to
221 See Wapnish 1997, 335–367; Weber 2008; Bar-Oz et al.
2013; Dolce 2014.
222 I. Shaw 2012, 103.
239
carry loads over rough terrain.223 Horses are highly
beneficial as draught animals, but to best harness
their speed and agility, necessary equipment and
knowledge were required. The equids had to be well-
trained in both their activities and to accept the various
bridle devices. When attached to a light vehicle via
bit wear, the horse could be better controlled for more
optimum speed. Thus, a high level of technological
expertise, animal husbandry, and horse training were
necessary for the advantageous use of the horse over
other draught animals. To further its incorporation
into the technological apparatus of Egyptian social
groups, a heightened need for the horse’s advantages
would thereby have been required.
Some have suggested that the advantages of
chariotry may have contributed to its increased
rate of incorporation into the Egyptian culture.
As I. Shaw outlines, ‘the Egyptians already had
access to nearly all of the necessary materials and
technology for chariot production by the Middle
Kingdom’.224 However, they required imported woods
and other elements, the technology and skills to
produce finished chariots, and access to horses.225
223 J. Gregory 2007, 193–200. See also Mitchell 2018, 25–
26.
224 I. Shaw 2012, 101.
225 I. Shaw 2012, 101.
240
The Fifteenth Dynasty administration could feasibly
garner all these materials and expertise; however,
its use of chariots is thus far unsubstantiated by the
present material. Instead, the vehicles are mostly
attested in Egyptian sources of the early Eighteenth
Dynasty. They are mentioned in association with the
Theban campaigns against Hyksos-controlled areas,
from which they may have been sourced, and they
were also retrieved from the Northern Levant.
Another point to add is that those of the Fifteenth
and Seventeenth Dynasties might not have found
the production and use of chariots for/in battle
particularly advantageous before the presence of
conflict.226 Earlier texts from the Near East offer
some insight on the disadvantages of the chariot. As
MBA texts from Mari stress, chariots were rare and
highly valued as luxury products.227 High official Ila-
salim writes to Zimri-Lim:
‘the king gave me a chariot, but when I went away
between the country and the mountains, that chariot
broke in the middle, and now as I travel to and fro
there is no chariot for me to ride. If it please my
lord, may my lord give me another chariot, so that
I can organise the country until my lord comes’.228
The letter highlights limitations in the use of the
chariot. The vehicle breaks down on a voyage into
the mountains, suggesting its suitability more for flat
rather than rough terrain. Comparably, the marshy
Delta terrain would have proven difficult to traverse
with a chariot except on purpose-built paths.229 The
restricted number of open plains in the Nile Valley may
have additionally limited the chariot’s applications in
battles within Egypt.230 Another issue is the specialised
knowledge required in repairing the vehicle.231 Instead
of acquiring the services of local craftsmen to repair
the chariot, Ila-salim requested an entirely different
vehicle from the king. Apparently, the ruler had better
access to chariot workshops, and the resources to gift
the valuable product to his officials. In turn, the text
indicates that workshops were likely sponsored by
larger institutions like the palace. Such institutions
would have garnered the necessary wealth and access
to resources for their production.
The text also implies that representatives of the
king preferred the chariot. Their involvement in
diplomatic and commercial exchanges presents them
as possible agents encouraging the transmission of
knowledge on horse-drawn chariots, as well as their
connection to the royal court. In fact, commercial and
diplomatic dealings with such elite may have helped
226 See Spalinger 2005, 4–5.
227 See Sasson 1969, 31–32; Dalley 1984, 150, 159, 163–164.
228 ARM 5.66. Dalley 1984, 164; H amblin 2006, 146.
229 A rcher 2010, 74; Diaz Hernández 2014, 111.
230 Spalinger 2005, 5; A rcher 2010, 74.
231 H amblin 2006, 146.
Chapter 5
circulate knowledge of chariotry, and its associations
with particular social groups. Perhaps their links with
palatial institutions may have furthered the circulation
of products, craftsmen, and other experts involved
in horse-grooming and training, promoting the
transmission of knowledge regarding chariotry and
related technologies in the Near East.232 Accordingly,
the tA n . t Ht ri of the Kamose text could be translated
as elements of chariotry imported among other
commodities as luxury items. As such, with limited
applications in open-field battles in Egypt, the use of
chariots by those of either the Fifteenth and Seventeenth
Dynasties could have also been due to their prestigious
value in representing the established hierarchy and
power of the ruling elite and/or the upper class.
Altogether, the consequent occurrence of chariots
in Egyptian battle scenes of the early Eighteenth
Dynasty is likely a reflection of their incorporation
into new contexts of heightened significance for the
elite and for military personnel. As corroborated
by the aforementioned evidence, details regarding
horses and chariotry were already known in Egypt
by the early Eighteenth Dynasty. Their increased use,
rather than point of introduction, should be aligned
with their enhanced need in connection with warfare,
and especially their interrelated display of power
on the battlefield and elsewhere, towards the end of
the Second Intermediate Period onwards. Indeed,
they would have been more advantageous for the
Egyptians during campaigns in the Levant, from
where chariot teams were ‘captured’ exclusively for
the king. Accordingly, instead of presenting a barrier
between the Egyptians and their access to imported
goods for chariot production or new weaponry,233 the
Hyksos rulers were likely contributing to a barrier to
the Thebans’ participation in Levantine warfare and
political affairs. In recognising the contemporaneous
transition to chariot warfare in the Levant,234 as well
as its prominent display on the battlefield and among
high officials, the Theban administration would
have promoted its access to associated technological
elements, weaponry, and expertise.235
This is also likely related to the endorsement of
iconography and ideologies linked to chariots and
warfare. Ahmose-si-Ibana’s portrayal of the king on
his chariot followed by foot soldiers mirrors MBA and
LBA motifs. Numerous seals from MBA Mesopotamia,
the Levant and Anatolia show royal or divine figures
riding chariots.236 Other examples, such as two
MBIIA–B seals of unknown provenance, illustrate
232 Moorey 1986, 211–212; H amblin 2006, 146.
233 I. Shaw 2001, 69; 2012, 108.
234 H amblin 2006, 153; Trimm 2017, 219–225.
235 As Diaz Hernández (2014, 118) writes, ‘after the expulsion
of the Hyksos, the Egyptians concentrated on the
development of a chariotry unit that contributed to balance
Egypt’s military power with that of its Asiatic foes’.
236 Hamblin 2006, 147–150; Dolce 2014, 61–64.
 Technological and Militaristic Transformations 241

Fig. 5.15 Depiction of Thutmose IV tied by waist to a horse-drawn chariot.

Right exterior of chariot body, tomb of Thutmose IV, Valley of the Kings, Dynasty 18. Wreszinski 1935, pl. 1

marching men near a horse chariot with a driver.237 On
another Syrian seal, the chariot tramples a decapitated
hand (?), its driver holding a bow (?) and quiver with
four other men nearby (see Fig. 5.9c).238 A further
example finds a recumbent human body and detached
heads in the field.239 Yet another unprovenanced
MBIIA–B seal presents the earliest known case of a
single charioteer wearing possible scale armour and
a quiver at his back, aiming his bow and arrow with
the reins likely tied at his waist (see Fig. 5.9b).240 The
archer hunts fleeing animals, a more practical activity
for hands-free driving than the ‘too dangerous and too
uncontrolled… risk under the uncertainty of battle
237 Teissier 1984, 272 [Nrs. 545–546].
238 Ashmolean Museum AN 1912.115. Moorey 1986, pl. 5.
239 Ashmolean Museum AN 1920.50. Moorey 1986, pl. 4.
240 The seal was purchased in Beirut. A miet 1969, 7, n. 21,
fig. 9; Littauer and Crouwel 1979, 63, fig. 36; H amblin
2006, 133, 149, fig. 4e.
conditions’ as depicted in Egyptian examples.241 These
links between chariotry and archery, victory over
unruly forces, as well as kingship, are all reflected
on Thutmose I’s scarab (see Fig. 5.12). They persist
throughout the New Kingdom, both in Egypt and
the Near East, indicating the continued expertise and
prestige of chariotry among the upper classes. This
is clearly manifest by the altered iconography of the
king as warrior, his power and might represented by
that of the striking charioteer in the New Kingdom.
A clear example is Thutmose IV’s or Amenhotep II’s
portrayal as a strong warrior, a skilled archer, and
an accomplished equestrian without equal on the
battlefield (Fig. 5.15).242 Chariots also continued to
be part of divine and royal processions and transport,
and were eventually related to solar imagery similarly
241 Littauer and Crouwel 1979, 63.
242 Wreszinski 1935: pl. 1; L. Sabbahy 2013, 123–124;
Herslund 2018, 165.
242 Chapter 5
linked to sun deities and the king.243 For the elite, the
value of chariots was perhaps of equal if not greater
importance to their tactical military advantage.244 They
were used for hunting and transport for administrative
purposes (as with Ila-salim), and could also feature as
part of an official’s funerary equipment.245
This highlights a further observation regarding
the enduring prestige attributed to horses. The
archaeological material in the Delta signifies that this
prestige was present before the New Kingdom, likely
as an extension of the equid’s cultic and funerary
importance as well as its connection to the elite in the
MBA Near East. Its role as an essential component of
chariotry possibly grounded the horse’s significance
for the Egyptians, thus extending its value in the Near
East. This can clearly be seen with the horse burial
near Senenmut’s tomb at Deir el-Bahari (TT 71),
the careful deposition of which reflects the animal’s
pertinence to the tomb owner.246 It is additionally
correlated with the increased popularity of cults of
deities associated with the horse, most notably those
of Astarte and Reshef.247 As argued in Chapter 4,
knowledge of these deities in Egypt, like that of the
horse, could have existed before their intensified
significance in the Eighteenth Dynasty. With the
greater Egyptian interactions with groups in the
Levant, there was a greater need for chariotry and
its associated technologies, weaponry, and other
components. This in turn led to a rise in importance
of these elements in Egyptian culture, paralleling
their increased significance across the MBA to LBA
Near East.
243 For a useful overview, see L. Sabbahy 2013, 121–125,
131–135; 2018; Köpp-Junk 2015, 166–173, 188–200, 294–
297; Herslund 2018, 167–169.
244 ‘The chariots were impressive weapons designed for
frontal attacks in order to disperse the enemy infantry, but
their performance relied on surprise, speed and favorable
conditions, and they remained extremely breakable and
difficult to control at top speed’ (Rey 2010, 40).
245 See L. Sabbahy 2013, 125–130, 135–138; 2018; H erslund
2018, 162–165.
246 Chard 1937; Boessneck 1970, 43–47; Chaix 2000, 179;
R aulwing and Clutton-Brock 2009, 52–53. Compare
also with the Early Dynastic Period burials of donkeys
on reed mats in mudbrick-walled chambers near royal
enclosures at Abydos (Rossel et al. 2008; Mitchell 2018,
41–44, fig. 3.3), as well as the Early Dynastic Period
equid burials identified at Abusir (Boessneck, von den
Driesch and Eissa 1992, 1–10, pl. 1), Tarkhan (Petrie
1914, 6, pls. 18–19), and Helwan (Saad 1951, 37–38,
pl. 47; 1969, 69, 80, pl. 120; Way 2010, 221). For more, see
Vandenbeusch 2020, 39–62.
247 See Chapter 4.5 for an overview.
5.2.3 Weapon Types
5.2.3.1 Scimitar or khopesh
5.2.3.1.1 The origins of the scimitar
The scimitar is a sword typified by a handle and hilt
linked via an arch to a convex curved blade, its cutting
edge on the outside.248 Also known as a sickle-sword,
curved sword, or harpé, a main feature is the casting
of the blade and hilt together. Several types of this
sword have been identified in the archaeological
records of Egypt, the Levant, Mesopotamia, Anatolia,
and further afield.249 Its origins appear to date to Early
Dynastic Mesopotamia, from whence depictions
associate a similar instrument with royalty, divinity,
or warriors.250 Those of the Akkadian Period bear
parallel associations, the comparable weapon
identified as a type of axe with a rectangular blade.251
These are most likely the predecessors of the
typical scimitar that appears in the MBA, again in
royal and ritual contexts. Bronze examples from the
Levant include one from Shechem (Tell Balata; see
Fig. 5.18c)252 of uncertain context, and three from the
royal tombs of Byblos, one each in Tombs I–III.253
Although damaged, the scimitar from Tomb I was found
inside a sarcophagus, parallel to and at the right side of
the body, with its handle downwards.254 It is decorated
with a gold and electrum uraeus motif set into a raised
dark metal alloy (black bronze?)255 that extended from
the blade to the hilt (Fig. 5.16a). Rosettes belonging to
the weapon were likely originally decorative nails on
its pommel, similar to those found on the scimitar from
Tomb II. The latter was recovered from the right hand
of the buried individual, its blade and hilt decorated
with the same uraeus motif incised on both faces with
the title and name of the count of Kp ny YpSm w - ib,
presumably the tomb owner (Fig. 5.16b).256 Close
examination of the hieroglyphs, particularly the HA-
ty sign (F4) with its lengthened neck, beak-like nose
and no ears, signal that the sword was likely locally
248 For studies on the scimitar, its typology and its development,
see Maxwell-Hyslop 1946, 41–44; H.W. Müller 1987;
Philip 1989, 142–143, 170; Martinez Babón 1995; Shalev
2004; Vogel 2006; 2013; Massafra 2012.
249 H.W. Müller 1987; Shalev 2004, 51–60; Gernez 2008a,
128–129, fig. 8; M assafra 2012; Vogel 2013.
250 H.W. Müller 1987, 109–116; Philip 1989, 143; H amblin
2006, 66–71; Gernez 2007, 427–432.
251 H.W. Müller 1987, 112–116; Philip 1989, 143; H amblin
2006, 66–71; Gernez 2007, 427–432.
252 Sellin 1914; H.W. Müller 1987, 123–124 [Nr. 9], fig. 37 [9].
253 Montet 1928, 173–180 [Nrs. 652–654], pls. 99–101
[652–654]; H.W. Müller 1987, 120–123 [Nrs. 6–8],
fig. 37 [6–8].
254 Montet 1928, 173 [Nr. 652], pl. 101; H.W. Müller 1987,
120 [Nr. 6], fig. 37 [6]; M assafra 2012, 127 [L.11], pl. 4.
255 For more on this metal alloy, see Thomas 2005; 2011.
256 Montet 1928, 174 [Nr. 653], pls. 99–100; H.W. Müller
1987, 121–122 [Nr. 7], fig. 37 [7]; M assafra 2012; 128–
129 [L.12], pl. 5.
 Technological and Militaristic Transformations 243

(a) Nr. 652, (b) Nr. 653, (c) Nr. 654,

Royal Tomb I Royal Tomb II Royal Tomb III

Fig. 5.16 MBA scimitars from the royal tombs of Byblos (not to scale).
Drawn after H.W. Müller 1987, fig. 37; from photographs, after Montet 1928,
pls. 99–100 [Nrs. 653–654], 101 [Nr. 652]

made.257 The third sword from Tomb III is similar in
shape and composition to the others.258 Although its
decoration has suffered more from corrosion, it bears
a sharper angle at the arch that links the blade with the
hilt (Fig. 5.16c).
The material, execution, and context of these three
provenanced MBA scimitars highlights the weapons’
257 Mourad 2015, 168. See Hakiman and de Lapérouse 2008,
58 [Nr. 30].
258 Montet 1928, 177 [Nr. 654], pl. 101; H.W. Müller 1987,
123 [Nr. 8], fig. 37 [8]; M assafra 2012, 130 [L.13], pl. 4.
representation of royal power, an aspect further
suggested by contemporanoues MBA depictions.259
259 For instance, BM 16815 is a tablet assigned to
Hammurabi’s reign. It features a cuneiform text
concerned with the sale of a plot of land, as well as a
sealing portraying a high official bringing an offering
before a king on a chariot. The figure brandishes a curved
implement above his head, the chariot trampling an
enemy (Fig. 5.9a). He is followed by four individuals in
what appears to be a procession before divinity. H amblin
2006, 147, fig. 4 [d].
244 Chapter 5
Egyptian decorative influences are clear; however
this is more likely a reflection of the elite’s utilisation
of Egyptian elements in the MBA rather than the
items’ Egyptian production. Their combination of
both Near Eastern and Egyptian details are typical
of other Byblite artefacts of this time.260 Despite the
swords’ clear archaeological context, the date of
the tombs remains contested. Based on analyses of
published ceramics, metal vessels, and jewellery, the
present study favours a late MBIIA to MBIIB date for
Tombs I–III.261
5.2.3.1.2 The archaeological evidence in Egypt
The MBA scimitars from Byblos roughly coincide
with the dating of the earliest known scimitar retrieved
from a secure context in Egypt. The bronze item was
found in the tomb of an adult male at Tell el-Dab‘a
(Tomb A/II-p/14-Nr. 18).262 Assigned to Stratum F,
the tomb was associated with a subsidiary burial, an
equid burial, as well as a copper belt and dagger, all of
which indicate the owner’s high status.263 The sword
was positioned at the arms of the deceased, its details
suggesting that it was cast in a two-piece mould, the
bone handle affixed to the tang by three copper nails
(Fig. 5.17). The blade bears a riveted socket and a
voluted point, the latter finding parallels in early MBA
examples from Mesopotamia and Iran (Fig. 5.18a–b).264
It was accompanied by a corroded sheath, probably
originally of leather.265 Other parallels of this classic
scimitar in Egypt are of uncertain context. These
include one from Abydos with a lotus motif along
the blade and hilt (Fig. 5.18d), the sword apparently
retrieved from a burial at the site variably assigned to
the Twelfth Dynasty or Middle Kingdom.266 Another
with the blade and handle cast together is evidently
from the Eastern Delta but was acquired through the
260 See Mourad 2015, 165–171.
261 Tomb I would be the oldest and Tomb III the latest of
the three. This later MBA date for the tombs follows
Kopetzky’s compelling argument and re-examination
of their material (Kopetzky 2018). For more on the
dating, see Montet 1928, 285–286; A lbright 1964, 39;
K itchen 1967, 40, 48, 53; D. H ansen 1969, 282; Tufnell
1969; Dever 1976, 11, 27, n. 69; Gerstenblith 1983,
38–41; W.A. Ward 1987, 528–529; Lilyquist 1993, 41–
44; Kopetzky 2008, 225; Nigro 2009, 160–161, table 2;
Mourad 2015, 169.
262 TD 8909. Philip 2006, 151, fig. 60a; Forstner-Müller
2007/2008, 207–211, figs. 1–3; 2008, 181 [8909], fig. 103a.
263 Forstner-Müller 2008, 177–184.
264 H.W. Müller 1987, 112, 115–116 [Nrs. 3–5], fig. 35 [3–
5]; Forstner-Müller 2007/2008, 208; M assafra 2012,
118–120 [M.2–M.4], pls. 1–2. For a parallel, see also
Louvre AO 4354 from the early Second Millennium BC
Tomb 8 at Tello, Mesopotamia (Cros 1910, 129; Gernez
2007, 425).
265 Forstner-Müller 2007/2008, 207; 2008, 180.
266 H.W. Müller 1987, 124–127 [Nr. 10], fig. 37 [10];
M assafra 2012, 126 [E.10], pl. 6.
antiquities trade market (Fig. 5.18e),267 and a third with
a similar voluted point at the blade was bought from an
arts dealer.268 A curved blade from Tomb A/I-g/3-Nr. 1,
Stratum D/2, at Tell el-Dab‘a is typologically different
from the scimitars, and could, as Philip suggests, be a
‘one-off’ hybrid.269
Other finds from Egypt and the Levant ascribe to
later types of the scimitar, for which the blade (now
elongated), hilt, and handle were all cast as one piece.
Archaeological attestations from Egypt include two
scimitars from the tomb of Tutankhamun: a larger
sword that preserves ivory at the handle, found with
sticks at the SW corner of the chamber’s floor; and
a shorter sword retrieved among other artefacts on
the floor.270 Another sword was collected from Tell
el-Retaba, but is of uncertain context.271 Levantine
examples from funerary contexts include two from
LBIIA tombs at Tell Jedur in the Judean Hills,272
and one from the LBIIA Tomb 30 at Gezer.273 From
larger palatial buildings are one from Building 7050
(Area A) at Hazor,274 and one from a LBI public
building at Kamid el-Loz.275 Other examples are a
sword from a LBIIA context at the Mekal Temple of
Beth Shean (Level IX),276 and another of the LBIIA
from the ‘square-temple’ near the Amman airport.277
To these may be added a scimitar retrieved from
267 Munich ÄS 5557. H.W. Müller 1987, 131–132 [Nr. 12],
fig. 39 [12]; M assafra 2012, 134 [E.16], pl. 7.
268 Forstner-Müller 2007/2008, 208; 2008, 50–51.
269 TD 387. Philip 2006, 79–81, fig. 36. For the tomb and its
inventory, see Prell and R ahmstorf 2019.
270 A. M ace 1927, 136–137, pl. 45 [b–c]; H.W. Müller 1987,
149 [Nr. 13], 160 [Nr. 22]; Vogel 2006, 281 [Nrs. 13, 22],
figs. 3 [13], 5 [22].
271 Griffith and Naville 1890, 57, pl. 19 [30]; Petrie 1917b,
pl. 27 [202]; H.W. Müller 1987, 158–159 [Nr. 21], fig. 51
[21]; Shalev 2004, 59; Vogel 2006, 280 [Nr. 21], fig. 5
[21].
272 Ben A rieh 1978; 1981, 123, fig. 6 [2–3], pl. 21 [2–3];
H.W. Müller 1987, 152 [Nr.17], 163 [Nr. 25], figs. 49 [17],
52 [25]; Shalev 2004, 56 [Nr. 166], pl. 18 [166]; Vogel
2006, 280–281 [Nrs. 17, 25], figs. 4 [17], 6 [25].
273 M acalister 1912, 312–314; Petrie 1917b, pl. 27 [201];
H.W. Müller 1987, 161 [Nr. 23], fig. 52 [23]; Shalev
2004, 56 [Nr. 167], pl. 19 [167]; Vogel 2006, 281 [Nr.
23], fig. 5 [23]. A find from el-Zumma, Sudan, was also
brought to the Sudan National Museum in Khartoum by
locals who said they had found it from the area of the
Anchorite Grotto, a possible Kushite or pharaonic tomb.
Zurawski 2002, 84, pl. 11; W.V. Davies 2004, 108 [Nr.
82].
274 A. Ben-Tor 1996, 264; H esse 2008, 148.
275 H achmann 1983, 116 [Nr. 73]; H.W. Müller 1987, 157–
158 [Nr. 19], fig. 51 [19]; Shalev 2004, 59 [Nr. 175], pl. 21
[175]; Vogel 2006, 280 [Nr. 19], fig. 4 [19].
276 Rowe 1929, 90, pl. 15 [2]; H.W. Müller 1987, 164
[Nr. 26], fig. 54 [26].
277 Lancaster H arding 1958; H anckey 1995, 178–179,
fig. 6, pl. 13 [3]; H.W. Müller 1987, 155 [Nr. 18], fig. 51
[18]; Shalev 2004, 59 [Nr. 174], pl. 21 [174]; Vogel 2006,
280 [Nr. 18], fig. 4 [18].
 Technological and Militaristic Transformations 245

0 10cm

Fig. 5.17 TD 8909. Tomb A/II-p/14-Nr. 18, Stratum F (Phase F), Tell el-Dab‘a. Forstner-Müller 2008, fig. 103a [3].
© ÖAI/ÖAW archive

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)

Fig. 5.18 Examples of scimitars (not to scale), from (a) Susa, Iran (Louvre Sb. 15512); (b) Tello (Girsu), Mesopotamia
(Louvre AO 4354); (c) Shechem (Munich ÄS 2907); (d) Abydos, Egypt; (e) Eastern Delta (Munich ÄS 5557).
Drawing by Patrick Aprent, after H.W. Müller 1987, figs. 35 [3, 5], 37 [9–10], 39 [12]

Ugarit alongside a statue of Baal in a residential
district,278 as well as a number of other scimitars
from LBA shipwrecks (pointing to one means for
their distribution), those inscribed with the names of
278 Schaeffer 1936, 145, pl. 18 [2]; H.W. Müller 1987, 151
[Nr. 15], fig. 49 [15]; Shalev 2004, 57 [Nr. 171], pl. 20
[171]; Vogel 2006, 280 [Nr. 15], fig. 3 [15].
Ramesses II and Sety I,279 and those from uncertain
contexts.280 Generally, the association of these swords
with power, particularly of a royal or divine nature,
279 H.W. Müller 1987, 152–153 [Nrs. 16–17a], figs. 49 [16],
50.
280 See H.W. Müller 1987, 151–167; Shalev 2004, 55–60;
Vogel 2006, 280–281; M assafra 2012.
246 Chapter 5
(a) EA 39125
Fig. 5.19 Scarab seals of Thutmose III carrying a scimitar, of unknown provenance.
After Keel 1974, fig. 21 [a–b]
is evident from their material, findspots and/or
inscriptions.281 A funerary deposition, especially close
to the body of a deceased person of prestige, whether
in the Levant or Egypt, stresses their significance as
markers of status or identity.
5.2.3.1.3 The textual and artistic evidence in Egypt
Such a significance is also apparent when the
textual and artistic material from across the
region is examined. Early depictions of the
scimitar are, however, equivocal. For instance, the
tomb of Khnumhotep I (Nr. 14) at Beni Hassan
(Amenemhat I’s reign) includes a portrayal of an
Asiatic leading a group of warriors while holding
a curved weapon, most likely a throwstick but,
according to a slight angle at its lower half, perhaps
a scimitar.282 Dating to Amenemhat III’s reign
and found at Serabit el-Khadim, Sinai Inscription
Nr. 112’s portrayal of the brother of the ruler of RTn w
shows the figure riding an equid with an axe and
another item that has been interpreted as a scimitar,
although its small size is indeed odd.283 Of later and
likely Thirteenth Dynasty date are the graffiti in the
subterranean complex of Senwosret III’s pyramid
bearing motifs related to Asiatics. These include
a curved etching that, according to Do. Arnold,
could be a scimitar, despite its unusual rendition.284
Perhaps more feasible is the mention of items
resembling the curved instrument in the Mit Rahina
inscription of Amenemhat II. These are listed among
281 Massafra 2011; 2012, 67–69.
282 The angle is positioned where a blade would meet the
hilt. Mourad 2015, 84, fig. 4.49; Lashien and Mourad
2019, pls. 74, 75b.
283 Goldwasser 2012/2013, 355, figs. 1–2; Mourad 2015,
fig. 5.11.
284 The etching is only a line with a curved end that appears
to hang from a horizontal double line. The details, as well
as associated elements, are thus peculiar in comparison
to other MBA representations of the scimitar.
Do. A rnold 2010b, 204, fig. 3; Mourad 2015, fig. 4.35.
(b) EA 40799
the weapons brought back from the expedition to IwAi
and IAsy as 33 As x .w ‘33 sickles/reaping
implements’ of bronze and wood,285 supporting
a probable interpretation of the instruments as
scimitars.286
While these Middle Kingdom references all associate
the curved objects with individuals from the northeast
of Egypt and, in the case of the depictions at Beni
Hassan and Serabit el-Khadim, with those of possible
higher status, they remain open to interpretation.
Instead, confirmed representations of the scimitar
all date to the New Kingdom. At least three different
motifs that associate the sword specifically with the
pharaoh are attested:287 (1) the king is handed the
weapon by a deity; (2) the king holds the weapon itself
in his upraised smiting hand, either with or without
a present deity;288 and (3) the king is associated with
the weapon as part of his attire, in contexts mostly
related with warfare.289 The earliest known attestation
of a scimitar in Egypt is of the first motif. It occurs on
three scarabs dated to Thutmose III’s reign that show a
deity (Nefertem or Montu) handing the sword to a king
who smites his enemy(s) (Fig. 5.19).290 Earlier parallels
of this motif usually portray a deity handing a wAs-
sceptre or an x, both symbols of royalty and lasting
power, to the king.291 Other representations do not
always show the smiting scene in connection with the
divine gifting of the scimitar, but associated captions
285 Mit Rahina inscription, M16. The sickles are mentioned
between 10 axes and 12 daggers. Other listed items of
bronze and wood include ‘4¼ saws, 79 daggers, 1 chisel,
4 shoulder-blades/razors, [...x+]330, m aq with 5 rods,
45 mSd-weapons, 36 harpoons, 3 hands of balance, 61
six-spoked objects’. Altenmüller and Moussa 1991,
12, folding pl.; M arcus 2007, 143; A ltenmüller 2015;
Mourad 2015, 276.
286 R edford 1997, 79; Hamblin 2006, 71, 279.
287 Following Vogel 2013.
288 Vogel 2013, 71–79, figs. 2–7.
289 Vogel 2013, 79, fig. 14.
290 K eel 1974, 51–55, fig. 21 [a–b].
291 K eel 1974, 55–58.
 Technological and Militaristic Transformations
Fig. 5.20 Detail of a scene showing armed Egyptian soldiers.
Mortuary Temple of Hatshepsut, Deir el-Bahari, Dynasty 18. After Naville 1901, pl. 90
or texts can reflect a connection with smiting, or the
beginning or end of a campaign.292
Further associations with the military and the
foreign are alluded to in other artistic representations.
A relation with the military can be observed in cases
wherein the scimitar is artistically represented on the
body of soldiers. The first known of such portrayals is
from Hatshepsut’s Mortuary Temple at Deir el-Bahari,
where a soldier is depicted carrying the scimitar in
his right hand, the left holding a shield (Fig. 5.20).293
It is also an item brought by Asiatics as gifts, traded
goods or tribute. Among registers of gifts presented to
Thutmose IV in the Theban tomb of Tjanuny (TT 76)
is a depiction of a scimitar with a decorated handle and
a uraeus motif along the blade and hilt, similar to that
on the swords from Byblos.294 Among the many items
brought by northeastern foreigners represented in the
chapel of Menkheperraseneb (TT 86; Thutmose III
to Amenhotep II’s reign)295 are two scimitars, one
carried by an individual with a sheath presumably
for the weapon (Fig. 5.21), and the other by a man
bearing the scimitar while accompanying a horse-
drawn chariot. The tombs of Horemheb (TT 78)296
and Meryra II (Amarna Tomb 2, Akhenaten’s
reign)297 additionally include the weapon among
imported objects, particularly weapons, shields, and
copper ingots, brought by northeasterners. A variant
depiction occurs in the tomb of Kenamun (TT 93;
Amenhotep II’s reign), wherein six scimitars are
stacked in a sub-register bearing the products of royal
workshops.298 The accompanying caption describes
292 Vogel 2013, 71–79, figs. 8–13.
293 Naville 1901, pl. 90.
294 Säve-Söderbergh 1957, 50, pl. 72.
295 N. de G. Davies 1933a, pls. 5, 7; Montet 1928, 178, fig. 79.
296 An. Brack and A r. Brack 1980, pl. 87.
297 N. de G. Davies 1905a, pl. 37.
298 On the same sub-register are a dagger, a mirror, vases,
and chests. On the sub-register above are other products
including quivers, shields, axes, daggers, and protective
garments or body armour. N. de G. Davies 1930, pl. 22A.
247
them as Hm . t 360 x pS. w ‘Of bronze:
360 x pS. w’.299 Such portrayals point to two ways of
accessing the swords: either via dignitaries from the
northeast, or through Egyptian royal workshops, the
latter pointing to the Egyptian production of scimitars
by at least the reign of Amenhotep II, if not before.300
The caption from the tomb of Kenamun provides a
very clear name for the sword, x pS. The classifier
of the sword itself was used (T16), its utilisation
as a logogram occurring from at least the reign of
Thutmose III and not, as some attest, from the
Second Intermediate Period. Most scholars arguing
for the latter date refer to the Thirteenth Dynasty
stela of Khonsuemwaset from Edfu, which was
erroneously transcribed by Helck to include the
sword’s logogram.301 The stela instead mentions
rDi . n =f n =i s bx . t r HA. t =i m x . t
m k <m> HD […] 2 m n b w [kAp] x pS m iri . t Ht p Di
n sw. t @r.w ‘he gave me a pectoral at my front of wood
and covered <with> silver, […] 2 of gold, fumigations,
and a x pS, by making an offering which the king and
Horus give’.302
299 Curved knives, coloured salmon pink, with a less
concave blade are depicted as products of the workshops
of Amun’s Temple in the tomb of Rekhmira (TT 100;
Thutmose III to Amenhotep II’s reign). Although their
shape is similar to the scimitar, the colour suggests
otherwise. N. de G. Davies 1943, pl. 37.
300 Morkot (2007, 182) and Vogel (2013, 82) suggest the
reign of Thutmose III at the latest.
301 Helck 1983a, 41 [Nr. 57, line 5]. The stela, assigned to the
reign of the Thirteenth Dynasty king Dedumose (or the
Sixteenth Dynasty king, according to Ryholt), preserves
the term x pS with the classifier of an ox’s foreleg and not,
as copied by Helck, the scimitar. For a photo of the stela
that clearly shows this, see Barsanti 1908, pl. 1. For an
example of its mistaken reading, see Galán 1995, 70. See
also M artinez Babón 1995, 56–73.
302 Stela of Khonsuemwaset, lines 4–5. Barsanti 1908, pl. 1.
See also el-Sayed 1979, 169–173.
248 Chapter 5
As identified by several scholars, x pS is derived
from the Egyptian x pS, written from the Old
Kingdom onwards with the classifier of an ox’s foreleg
(Gardiner’s F23).303 Depending on context, the term
can be translated as ‘foreleg’, ‘strong arm’ or ‘strength’.
As Galán explains, it refers to the ‘embodiment of the
strength that enabled someone to act and succeed’, its
classifier becoming equally significant as an offering
in tomb scenes.304 Several Old and Middle Kingdom
examples, for instance, portray the foreleg being
offered to the tomb owner by his successor, or the eldest
son. Thus, the attestation of x pS on Khonsuemwaset’s
stela most likely refers to an offering of the foreleg,
among the other offerings of fumigations and the Ht p
Di n sw. t . A clearer reference to the scimitar, and one
of the earliest to include its logogram, occurs in the
Annals of Thutmose III. Among a list of tribute from
RTn w is Hm . t m ss n (.y)
aHA x pS.w n (.y) iqHw ‘of bronze: mail-shirts, x pS.w
of hacking’.305 In this instance, both the classifier and
the addition of n (.y) iqHw reflect that it is the actual
sword that is mentioned.306 The inclusion of both also
suggests that the scribe was distinguishing it from
other physical and abstract concepts related to x pS,
which indeed have led to ambiguities in identifying
textual references to the scimitar.
The notion of x pS was further used to refer to
heroic power. Accordingly, it was attributed to
the strength of the king in fulfilling his duty to
control foreigners, or to the heroism of soldiers.
Montuhotep II was given by ‘the mistress’ the
x pS r d r xf [t .y w] ‘x pS to subdue
his enemies’.307 In the portrayal of the reversal
of order, the aAm . w of the Prophecies of Neferty
travelled in x pS=s n ‘their strength’.308
In praising Senwosret I to the ruler of Upper RTn w,
Sinuhe mentions that
n x t p w gr. t i ri m x pS= f p r- a n n
t w t n = f ‘now, he is a hero who acts with his x pS,
a champion without equal’.309 Representing this
might in the Levant, Sinuhe later utilises x pS
to defeat his enemies in RTn w. As he describes:
303 Galán 1995, 69–73; M artinez Babón 1995, 56–73;
M assafra 2012, 65–66.
304 Galán 1995, 70.
305 Annals of Thutmose III, Part VI, line 5. Urk. 4, 726 [17].
306 R edford (2003, 93, n. 211) suggests that the term could
also be referring to the long sword of the later LBA.
307 Naville 1907, 5, fig. 1a.
308 Papyrus Hermitage 1116B, line 18 (Helck 1970, 16). The
papyrus is assigned to the reign of Amenhotep II, and so
the inclusion of the sword logogram here is more likely
reflective of the New Kingdom date when the text was
transcribed rather than its earlier origins. For more on
this dating, see Golénischeff 1913, 2–3; R edford 1965,
109–110.
309 Tale of Sinuhe, lines B51–52. K. Koch 1990, 33. See also
Montet 1928, 179.
s mA. n =i rmT(. t) i m =s m x pS=i
m pD. t =i m n m t .wt =i m sx r.w =i iq r.w ‘I killed its
people with my x pS, my bow, my movements, and my
excellent plans’.310 Perhaps the special class of x pS.w
soldiers of the New Kingdom similarly represent this
strength as an extension of the king’s ‘strong arm’
abroad.311 The prenomen of Apophis is also
Nb - x pS-Ra.w, literally ‘Ra is the lord of x pS’, but with
the classifier of the ox’s foreleg.312 Although suggested
by some as evidence for the use of the weapon by the
Hyksos kings,313 the word could instead be referring
to the ‘strength’ imbued by the lordship of the king, as
bestowed by Ra.314 The similar epithet ‘lord of x pS’,
typically with the foreleg and not the sword classifier,
is repeated in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Dynasties
in relation with Thutmose III and IV, Amenhotep II
and III, and Ramesses III.315 As is clear from titles, the
term was also used to refer to an armoury, and could be
classified with the sign for a house (Gardiner’s O1).316
Another Second Intermediate Period attestation of
x pS occurs in the Second Stela of Kamose. Following
campaigns against Apophis, the text mentions censing
to Amun at his sanctuary, where it is said
Ss p b w n f r m i Dd=f pA x pS n sA Im n .w an x (.w)
wDA(.w) s n b (.w) n sw. t wAH WAD- x pr-Ra.w sA Ra.w
KA- m s (.w) Di (.w) an x ‘ ‘Receive the good!’, as he
gives the x pS to the son of Amun, may he live, prosper
and be healthy, the enduring king, Wadjkheperra, son
of Ra, Kamose, given life’.317 The imagery mirrors the
earlier reference concerning Montuhotep II, as well
as later depictions of deities handing the scimitar to
the ruling pharaoh, highlighting that the source of this
strength was considered divine. It is also probable that
the mention of x pS here, following Kamose’s attacks
against Apophis, was an intimation against the Hyksos
ruler’s prenomen Nb - x pS-Ra.w, with the text noting
310 Tale of Sinuhe, lines B104–106. K. Koch 1990, 44–45.
See also Montet 1928, 179–180.
311 Galán 1995, 70.
312 The prenomen is attested twice, once on a dagger from
Saqqara (JE 32735; see Fig. 5.27), and once on a fragment
of a Tell el-Yahudiyah vessel (EA 32069). Quirke 1994,
149 [Nr. 123]; Jánosi 1994, 155 [Nr. 132]. For further
references, see Ryholt 1997, 386–387.
313 See, for instance, van Seters 1966, 59.
314 See also Montet 1928, 180.
315 Urk. 4, 1310 [7], 1316 [1–3], 1559 [7–8, 16], 1566 [13–
14], 1706 [7], 1942 [8]; KRI 5, 37 [10]; Galán 1995, 71;
Bienkowski and Tooley 1995, 56, pl. 82; Leprohon 2013,
100, 127. For further epithets that include the term x pS,
see Galán 1995, 71.
316 See, with references, H erold 2003, 197; Prell 2011,
238–239, 252; Herslund 2013, 124. A dagger from
Qantir (Q 23) features the hieroglyph of an ox’s foreleg
on its blade, either referring to strength or an armoury
(Pusch 2004, 252 [Q 23]; Prell 2011, 238–239, fig. 112).
317 Second Stela of Kamose, line 34. H abachi 1972; H elck
1983a, 96.
 Technological and Militaristic Transformations
Fig. 5.21 A scene showing the arrival of foreigners bearing gifts. West wall, tomb of Menkheperraseneb (TT 86),
Sheikh ‘abd el-Qurna, reign of Thutmose III to Amenhotep II, Dynasty 18. After N. de G. Davies 1933a, pl. 5
that Kamose was granted the x pS from Amun, and that
he, not Apophis, was the rightful divine king. In either
case, the stela itself does not shed further light on
the use of the term as the sword. Despite translations
of x pS as ‘scimitar’,318 the text could warrant other
translations related to strength.
5.2.3.1.4 Observations
With this, it is pertinent to mention the similarities in
shape and symbolism between the Egyptian rendition
of the ox’s foreleg and the scimitar. The connotations
may have facilitated the incorporation of the scimitar
within the Egyptian milieu, especially in Egyptian
religious and political ideologies. The symbolism
possibly necessitated knowledge of the weapon’s
analogous significance in the Near East. In this
sense, the use of the logogram of the scimitar for x pS
expressed knowledge, transmission, and adaptation
of the scimitar as well as its abstract values. Yet,
the lack of clear references to the sword as a x pS
from before the New Kingdom restricts conclusions
regarding the complete incorporation of both its
abstract and physical concepts into Egypt as a result
of the Hyksos Dynasty.
From the concrete evidence, it is only possible to
surmise that the scimitar was available and known
to the Egyptians by at least the Thirteenth Dynasty.
The archaeological evidence from Tell el-Dab‘a and
possibly Abydos point to its funerary significance, with
that from Tell el-Dab‘a highlighting an added symbolic
value as a marker of prestige. The transmission of
this value to the rest of Egypt remains uncertain.
In describing the state of the tomb of Seventeenth
Dynasty king Sobekemsaf II, Papyrus Amherst
318 As noted in H.S. Smith and A. Smith (1976, 65), the
reference to x pS is the earliest mention of the item as part
of the royal insignia. See also R edford 1997, 15.
249
notes that thieves found his mummy equipped with
a x pS.y,319 suggesting that Near Eastern
associations of the weapon with royalty, and possibly
even the tradition of placing it at the body of an elite
person, had transferred to Thebes. Yet, the Nineteenth
Dynasty date of the papyrus cautions against firmer
conclusions.320 The sword’s symbolic associations
manifest more clearly and completely by the reign of
Thutmose III, with artistic and textual representations
relating it to divinity, royalty, the military, and the
concept of x pS.
The role of the northern dynasties in this process
is uncertain, with the elite of Tell el-Dab‘a (at least
from Phase F) feasibly promoting the transmission
of the weapon from the Near East to Egypt. Reasons
for its adaptation into the Egyptian concept of x pS are
likely multifaceted, but may have been facilitated by
similarities between the shape of the sword and the
already symbolic ox foreleg. Perhaps the Egyptians
desired a symbol that could transcend both Egyptian
as well as Near Eastern concepts of divine strength and
victory across ritualistic, militaristic, and ideological
spheres to promote their claim of power over rulers
of Near Eastern origin and/or Near Eastern lands.
In this sense, one may only theorise that Apophis,
who perhaps knew of the weapon and utilised x pS
in his own prenomen, influenced the negotiation of
the Egyptian x pS with the Near Eastern scimitar as
a symbol imbued with divine strength and authority.
On the other hand, his chosen prenomen may have
inspired the Thebans to relate the weapon with a term
reflective of the Egyptian divine right to rule in their
pursuit of power. Similarly, the campaigns of the early
Eighteenth Dynasty kings to the Near East would
319 Papyrus Amherst, line 2.4. Peet 1930, 48, pl. 5.
320 See Wernick 2004, 153; Forstner-Müller 2007/2008,
208–209.
250
have also provided a suitable context for utilising
Near Eastern symbols of prestige and power, thus
progressing the process of transmission of both the
physical and abstract significance of the scimitar into
Egypt. In both cases, the assumption that the sword was
‘immediately adopted as part of the standard Egyptian
military equipment’321 should be revised in light of the
scimitar’s availability to the Egyptians before the New
Kingdom, as well as its eventual integration with the
Egyptian concept of x pS.
5.2.3.2 Daggers
5.2.3.2.1 Developments up to the late Middle Kingdom
Daggers are close-combat, offensive, and defensive
weapons that are attested across Egypt and the Near
East. Different typologies have surfaced to better
assess their development and significance throughout
the Bronze Age, particularly for those in the Levant.322
These include narrow daggers of the EBA and MBA,
MBA long-tanged daggers, daggers with broad-flat
midribs, and those with flanged hilts, as well as MBA
and LBA hooked tang daggers, daggers with cast
blade-guards, and cast hilt daggers.
Elaborately decorated daggers surface from the
Early Dynastic III Period of Mesopotamia onwards.323
Towards the end of the Third and the early Second
Millennia BC, they are more commonly found
in funerary contexts, signifying their growing
importance as part of the so-called ‘warrior burial’
phenomenon.324 As small weapons, Philip highlights
that they belonged to a restricted group, usually men,
of high social status.325 Daggers, together with axes
and spears, marked particular social connotations that
furthered their standardisation and broadened their
geographical adoptions or adaptations as a form of
performative, symbolic means of communication in
MBA networks.326 As such, their possession, whether
by force, purchase, inheritance, or merit, would
represent particular attributes of the owner. Gifting
individuals with such weapons, including daggers,
would have been considered highly appropriate
rewards for exceptional performances or services.327
The development of the dagger in Egypt can be
traced from at least the Predynastic Period.328 Those
of the Early Dynastic Period were largely made of
stone, although a number of copper examples have
321 Vogel 2013, 52.
322 See M axwell-Hyslop 1946, 1–65; Philip 1989, 102–126;
Shalev 2004; Gernez 2007, 444–523; Petschel 2011.
323 Philip 1989, 140.
324 See, for an overview, Philip 1989, 140; 1995c; Prell
2019b.
325 Philip 1989, 151.
326 Philip 1989, 152.
327 Philip 1989, 160–161.
328 See A ksamit 1989, 325–332; Herold 2009. For a recent
typology of Egyptian daggers, see Petschel 2011. For
earlier classifications, see Petrie 1917b, 28–30, pls. 33–
36; Wolf 1926.
Chapter 5
survived.329 Examples of their use in battle include a
depiction of an Egyptian soldier striking a dagger in his
Asiatic enemy in a fragment of a battle scene from the
causeway of Wenis at Saqqara.330 The dagger, together
with the mace and bow, occurs as part of the royal
insignia in the king’s ‘arming ritual’ in the Pyramid
Texts.331 From the Fifth Dynasty siege scene of Inti at
Deshasha is the detail of an Asiatic child grasping the
weapon,332 while a captive represented as of Asiatic
origin in Pepy II’s Mortuary Temple also bears the
item tucked into his belt.333 Such attestations signal
that the dagger’s use by individuals from the northeast,
perhaps as a status symbol, may have already been
recognised by Old Kingdom Egyptian artists.
Its multiple uses continue into the Middle Kingdom.
The Eleventh Dynasty siege scene of the tomb of
Intef at Thebes, for example, shows one Egyptian
soldier carrying a dagger with a shield, and one
grasping a dagger alongside an axe as they proceed to
a besieged fortress defended by Asiatics.334 The siege
scenes of Beni Hassan similarly arm the attacking
party, including those of possible Nubian and Asiatic
origin, with daggers bearing semi-hemispherical
pommels.335 In defeating the hero of RTn w, Sinuhe
mentions that he sharpened his bAgs w
‘dagger’.336 The weapon was also carried by a guard,
identified as of Libyan origin, portrayed in a hunting
scene in the tomb of Senbi (B1) at Meir,337 and hunters,
one possibly Nubian, in the desert hunt scene of the
tomb of Khnumhotep I (Nr. 14) at Beni Hassan.338
It is listed among the retrieved products following
Amenemhat II’s expeditions to the northeast. As the
Mit Rahina text preserves, the latter include
bAgs w 12 ‘12 bAgs w-daggers’ and n m 79 ‘79
n m-daggers’ of bronze and wood from IwA(i) and
IAsy, 339 as well as mAgs w 16 ‘16 mAgs w-
daggers’ of bronze, gold and silver and
mAgs w 21 ‘21 mAgs w-daggers’ of bronze and ivory
329 H amblin 2006, 324–325.
330 S. H assan 1938, pl. 95.
331 H amblin 2006, 356.
332 For the siege scene, see Kanawati and McFarlane 1993,
pl. 27. See also Mourad 2011, fig. 2.
333 Another captive with the dagger but of unknown origins
is also depicted. Jéquier 1938, pls. 14, 38.
334 Jaroš-Deckert 1984, pl. 17.
335 See Lashien and Mourad 2019, pls. 73–74; Mourad
2020. For more on this dagger type, see Petschel 2011,
106–169.
336 Tale of Sinuhe, line B128. K. Koch 1990, 49.
337 Blackman 1914, pl. 7; K anawati and Evans 2017, pls. 3a,
75. For the individual’s identification as a Libyan, see
Moreno García 2018, 163.
338 See Lashien and Mourad 2019, pl. 72; Mourad 2020.
339 Mit Rahina inscription, M16. A ltenmüller and Moussa
1991, 12, folding pl.; A ltenmüller 2015; Mourad 2015,
276.
 Technological and Militaristic Transformations
from #n ty -S.340 The Twelfth Dynasty pectoral of
Mereret shows Amenemhat III smiting Mn t .yw,
each of whom carries a throwstick in one hand and a
probable dagger with a crescent-shaped pommel in the
other.341 Likely for his services in a campaign near the
Southern Levantine %k m m, Senwosret III additionally
rewards Khusobek with a staff of electrum, a bow,
and m t p n . t Hn a
bAgsw bAk (.w) m Dam Hn a xf a [w …] ‘a sheath with a
dagger worked with electrum and a handle with […]’,
as noted in Khusobek’s stela.342
The archaeological record supports the import
of Levantine-type daggers into Middle Kingdom
Egypt. Daggers with crescent-shaped pommels and
decorated handles of precious metals were recovered
in tombs of likely early Middle Kingdom date from
the necropolis of Kom el-Hisn in the Western Delta.343
They were found alongside other weaponry (D-shaped
fenestrated or duckbill axes and a socketed spearhead)
and elements inspired by Levantine traditions,
indicating either Near Eastern influences at the site
or the presence of those of Levantine origin. Only
a few metal daggers and similar crescent-shaped
pommels were retrieved from closed Middle Kingdom
contexts.344 These include a fragment of an ivory
pommel from Elephantine,345 and one dagger found
in the sarcophagus of Twelfth Dynasty Princess
Ita in a shaft-tomb within the pyramid complex of
Amenemhat II at Dahshur. The context was, however,
recently assigned to the reuse of the complex during
the Thirteenth Dynasty,346 the dagger consisting of a
bronze blade and semi-hemispherical pommel of lapis
lazuli and gold. Its details parallel those of daggers
found at sites in Yemen of the late Third to early Second
Millennium BC as well as Third Millennium BC
Mesopotamia, while its typology is akin to Philip’s
Type 13 of Levantine origin.347 A blade of another
dagger from the tomb of Princess Nebhotep at Dahshur
340 Mit Rahina inscription, M21. A ltenmüller and Moussa
1991, 16, folding pl.; A ltenmüller 2015; Mourad 2015,
276.
341 Grajetzki 2001, fig. 69; Gee 2004, 27.
342 Manchester 3306, line C.5. For more on the stela, see
Garstang 1901, 6, 32–34, pls. 4–5; Peet 1914a, 5, pls. 1–2;
Sethe 1924, 83 [8–15]; Simpson 1974, pl. 31 [69.1]; Baines
1987, 59–61; Goedicke 1998, 35; Bárta 2003, 127–128;
Mourad 2015, 100–101, 281, fig. B.2.
343 Hamada and el-A mir 1947, 105–106; H amada and Farid
1947, 201–205, pl. 56; 1948, 301, pl. 7; Philip 2006, 225,
231–232; Petschel 2011, 438–442 [Nrs. 129–130, 132–
133, 135, 137–138].
344 Wooden daggers of a similar shape, with the crescented
pommel, were also collected from several tombs of the
Middle Kingdom (Petschel 2011, 356–361, 432–437).
The wood possibly acted as an alternative for the more
precious metal.
345 R aue et al. 2006, 211–213, fig. 4 [4].
346 De Morgan 1903, 52, pl. 6; B. Williams 1975/1976;
Ryholt 1997, 83; Philip 2006, 146.
347 Philip 2006, 146. See also Philip 1989, 121; Potts 2018.
251
has been preserved,348 while a third dagger of bronze
with an ivory pommel was retrieved from the burial
chamber of Senwosret III’s pyramid but was likely
deposited at a later, possibly Thirteenth Dynasty,
date.349 A coffin from late Middle Kingdom tomb
QH33 at Qubbet el-Hawa also produced, at the left
of the pelvis of a mummified male, a well-preserved
dagger with a bronze blade, and a handle of wood with
silver fittings and a crescent-shaped ivory pommel.350
As this dagger type has not yet been found in Egypt
in secure contexts earlier than the Twelfth Dynasty,351
Philip suggests a Western Asiatic origin.352 Other
examples include a bronze dagger with an ivory hilt
from a possibly Thirteenth Dynasty tomb at Abydos,
Cemetery E (Grave 860),353 and another from Burial
Nr. 168 at Sheikh Farag.354
Yet, at some point during or prior to this date, the
dagger with crescent-shaped pommel was evidently
incorporated into the Egyptian and Nubian cultural
repertoires. As exemplified by the daggers at Kerma’s
tombs,355 it acquired symbolic value with attributes
apparently different to those of the Levant. As the
process of transmission precedes that of the examined
period in this study, it is not examined here further.
However, warranting further analysis, the dagger
type’s incorporation suggests that, by the Middle
Kingdom, Egyptian artists, scribes, soldiers, and those
of the upper class were likely aware of the use of the
dagger by a variety of cultural and social groups, and
perhaps even of its cultural significance in the Near
East. Its continued associations to a particular, upper,
social group is clearly reflected by the bronze dagger
of Kamose, with its crescent-shaped gold pommel.356
Found in a non-royal sarcophagus at Dra‘ Abu el-
Naga, and as with Ita’s dagger, the gold nails on its
handle also find parallels from Third Millennium BC
Mesopotamia.357
348 The dagger was found with archery equipment.
De Morgan 1895, 113, fig. 267; Philip 2006, 226.
349 De Morgan 1903, 97, fig. 141; Petrie 1917b, 29, pl. 33 [6];
Di. A rnold 2002, 41–42; Petschel 2011, 406 [Nr. 82].
350 The cedar coffin was found in Burial Chamber C19.
Jiménez-Serrano and Forstner-Müller 2020.
351 See also the discussion in Raue et al. 2006, 213. One
dagger from Cemetery W at Hu (Diospolis Parva), with a
blade tapering to a narrow point and a ribbed medial zone,
was found in a tomb assigned by Petrie to Dynasty 11.
This dating, however, cannot be confirmed based on
the published data, neither can the presence of a semi-
hemispherical ivory pommel. Petrie 1901b, 43, pl. 32 [4].
352 Philip 2006, 146, 226.
353 EA 54679 (British Museum). Petschel 2011, 420 [Nr. 102].
354 MFA 13.3778a–b. Petschel 2011, 440 [Nr. 134].
355 Such daggers were also found at Kom Ombo, Sai and
Buhen. See Gratien 1978, 250, table 8; Philip 2006, 146;
Petschel 2011, 106–169, 442–444 [Nrs. 139–154].
356 Von Bissing 1900, pl. 8 [20]; Naster 1975/1976, 419–426,
pl. 16; Callataÿ 2008, 118 [Nr. 66].
357 See, for instance, the dagger from PG 1054, the Royal
Cemetery of Ur. Zettler and Horne 1998, 169 [Nr. 146].
252 Chapter 5
5.2.3.2.2 Developments from the late Middle Kingdom
onwards
The Near Eastern parallels of daggers are particularly
important in light of the material from the late
Middle Kingdom to the early New Kingdom. Philip
has published 23 daggers from Tell el-Dab‘a (Figs.
5.22–23), while Forstner-Müller has published one
additional dagger from Area A/II.358 The earliest
was retrieved from Tomb F/I-o/20-Nr. 17, assigned to
Stratum d/2 (Phase H) or the late Twelfth Dynasty.359
Of Philip’s Type 12, with a crescent-shaped pommel
and a blade with a central longitudinal groove with
ribs on either side, it bears close similarities to
Northern Levantine examples collected from MBIIA
tombs.360 Akin to daggers from across the MBIIA–C
Levant are seven of Type 13, two of which were found
in Stratum d/1 tombs of Area F/I361 and the rest in
Thirteenth Dynasty tombs of Area A/II, Strata F
and G.362 With a blade bearing a broad midrib, their
shape corresponds to a two-piece mould found on-
site, signalling local production of the weapon type.363
One dagger fragment of a smaller blade was found
in a chamber grave coffin of Area F/I, Stratum d/1
(Phase G/4).364 Two broad undecorated daggers were
collected from Area F/I’s tombs of Strata c–b/3 and
b/1–a/2.365 One with a broad blade and concave or
straight butt (Type 34) was found in a tomb of Stratum
E/2–E/1 at Area A/II;366 a similar dagger was also
collected from a disturbed A/V secondary context;367
and a smaller version was discovered from an open
context in Area A/IV, near an oven.368 Six styled
daggers of Type 17, with a broad, flat and thick medial
zone,369 and three of Type 18, without a distinct flat
medial zone, are from tombs of the Fifteenth Dynasty
Phases E/2–E/1 to D/3.370 Only one fragment was
retrieved from a clear settlement context, a house of
Stratum E/1 in Area A/II.371 A dagger found during the
358 Forstner-Müller 2008, 180, fig. 103a [2].
359 Philip 2006, 42, fig. 10.
360 Philip 2006, 42, fig. 10.
361 Tomb F/I-m/18-Nr. 3. Philip 2006, 46, fig. 14.
362 Tombs A/II-l/12-Nr. 5, A/II-m/10-Nr. 8, A/II-l/16-Nr. 4,
A/II-m/15-Nr. 9, and A/II-p/14-Nr. 18. Philip 2006,
42–47, 144, figs. 11–12; Forstner-Müller 2008, 180,
fig. 103a [2].
363 See Chapter 5.2.1.
364 Tomb F/I-p/17-Nr. 14. Philip 2006, 54, fig. 20 [3].
365 Tombs F/I-i/21-Nr. 34-Secondary Burial and F/I-d/23-
Nr. 1. Philip 2006, 52, fig. 18. Kopetzky and Bietak
(personal communication) have recently dated TD 4041
to a secondary burial.
366 Tomb A/II-p/20-Nr. 3. Philip 2006, 53–54, fig. 19 [1].
367 A/V-n/19-Pl. 4. Philip 2006, 54, fig. 19 [2].
368 A/IV-j/5-Pl. 4. Philip 2006, 54, fig. 19 [3].
369 Tombs A/I-g/3-Nr. 1 (3 daggers), A/II-p/21-Nr. 7,
A/II-p/20-Nr. 3, and A/II-o/20-Nr. 4. Philip 2006, 47–50,
figs. 15–16, 17 [4].
370 Tombs A/II-l/14-Nr. 5, A/II-n/15-Nr. 1 (Burials 1 and 3).
Philip 2006, fig. 17 [1–3].
371 A/II-n/12-Pl. 3/4. Philip 2006, 54, fig. 20 [4].
digging of an irrigation channel near Qantir was of an
Egyptian type common in the New Kingdom.372
Overall, it is clear that most daggers were deposited
in funerary contexts, all of those of identifiable sex
belonging to young or adult males.373 They were
typically found with axes, positioned at the left side of
the body, at the pelvis or femur, or in one case at the
right side of the chest.374 This combination is similarly
represented on the body of an individual with axe at
chest, dagger in belt, depicted on a stela of unknown
provenance but assigned to the reign of Kamose
(Fig. 5.24).375 Of those from open or settlement
contexts, a utilitarian function can perhaps be
proposed.376 Overall, however, the dagger types and
mode of deposition are not only similar to those of the
Near East, but also share synchronous developments
with daggers from both the Northern and Southern
Levant, signalling at, as Philip convincingly argues,
knowledge of, and adherence to, the symbolic value of
particular styles.377
This symbolic value may also be postulated for
daggers retrieved from similar Second Intermediate
Period contexts in the Delta and Wadi Tumilat (see
Fig. 5.22). Recent excavations at Tell el-Retaba have
uncovered an undecorated dagger with a trapezoidal
tang from Second Intermediate Period Tomb 2009.378
Another site in the Wadi Tumilat, Tell el-Mansheya,
also revealed a Second Intermediate Period tomb
with material paralleling Tell el-Dab‘a’s Phase D/2,
including a leaf-shaped dagger blade that is similar to
an unpublished dagger from Tell el-Koa.379 Although
not completely published, some tombs at Tell el-
Maskhuta yielded a reported total of six daggers.
Assigned to Phase 1 of the site’s six-phase Second
Intermediate Period occupation is Tomb L12.12321 in
which were found silver adornments, a bronze axe,
as well as a broad bronze dagger with a flat medial
zone tapering to a sharp point (possibly Philip’s
Type 17), and a sub-globular pommel (possibly
372 Philip 2006, 54, fig. 20 [2].
373 Philip 2006, 218, table 22.
374 Philip 2006, 218.
375 Louvre E.6141/C.201. See Chapter 3.4.1.1. A (Libyan?)
guard from the tomb of Senbi at Meir also carries
a lugged axe with a dagger tucked into his belt. He,
however, additionally holds a quiver with arrows, the
weapons likely additional supplies for the tomb owner
who stands in front of him, aiming his bow at desert
animals. Blackman 1914, pl. 7; K anawati and Evans
2017, pls. 3a, 75.
376 For more on the utilitarian-type daggers or knives, see
Petrie 1917b, 26–27; Shalev 2004, 41–54, pls. 15–18;
Petschel 2011, 191–221, 267–269. Found across the
LBA Mediterranean, they are attested in New Kingdom
contexts as smaller, thinner, and more rounded daggers.
377 Philip 2006, 143–144.
378 S 2722. R zepka et al. 2017, 25–27, fig. 8.
379 Tomb 2. A hmed et al. 2018, 28, pl. 1.
 Technological and Militaristic Transformations 253

Nr. Dagger Type Site Context Dynasty Reference

1 TD 6141 12 Tell el-Dab‘a Stratum d/2; F/I-o/20-Nr. 17 12 (late) Philip 2006, 42, fig. 10
2 TD 7323 13 Tell el-Dab‘a Stratum d/1; F/I-m/18-Nr. 3 13 (early) Philip 2006, 45, fig. 13
3 TD 7324 13 Tell el-Dab‘a Stratum d/1; F/I-m/18-Nr. 3 13 (early) Philip 2006, 46, fig. 14
4 TD 7330 – Tell el-Dab‘a Stratum d/1; F/I-p/17-Nr. 14 13 (early) Philip 2006, 54, fig. 20 [3]
5 TD 4128i 13 Tell el-Dab‘a Stratum G; A/II-m/15-Nr. 9- 13 (mid) Philip 2006, 45, fig. 12
Burial 1
6 TD 7974 34 Tell el-Dab‘a Stratum G; A/IV-j/5-Pl. 4 13 (mid) Philip 2006, 54, fig. 19 [3]
7 TD 3081 31 Tell el-Dab‘a Stratum c–b/3; F/I-d/23-Nr. 1 13 (mid)/SIP Philip 2006, 52, fig. 20 [1]
8 TD 810 13 Tell el-Dab‘a Stratum F; A/II-l/12-Nr. 5 13 (mid)/SIP Philip 2006, 42–43, fig. 11 [1]
9 TD 1756 13 Tell el-Dab‘a Stratum F; A/II-m/10-Nr. 8- 13 (mid)/SIP Philip 2006, 43, fig. 11 [2]
Burial 1
10 TD 2911b 13 Tell el-Dab‘a Stratum F; A/II-l/16-Nr. 4- 13 (mid)/SIP Philip 2006, 45
Burial 1
11 TD 8908 13 Tell el-Dab‘a Stratum F; A/II-p/14-Nr. 18 13 (mid)/SIP Forstner-Müller 2008,
180, fig. 103a [2]
12 TD 3059 17 Tell el-Dab‘a Stratum E/2–E/1; A/II-p/21-Nr. 7 15 (1st half) Philip 2006, 48–50, fig. 16
[2]
13 TD 3105 17 Tell el-Dab‘a Stratum E/2–E/1; A/II-p/20-Nr. 3 15 (1st half) Philip 2006, 50, fig. 17 [4]
14 TD 3106 34 Tell el-Dab‘a Stratum E/2–E/1; A/II-p/20-Nr. 3 15 (1st half) Philip 2006, 53–54, fig. 19
[1]
15 TD 1356 18 Tell el-Dab‘a Stratum E/1; A/II-l/14-Nr. 5 15 (mid) Philip 2006, 50, fig. 17 [1]
16 TD 1747 – Tell el-Dab‘a Stratum E/1; A/II-n/21-Pl. 3/4 15 (mid) Philip 2006, 54, fig. 20 [4]
17 TD 4041 31 Tell el-Dab‘a Stratum b/1–a/2; F/I-i/21-Nr. 34- 15 Philip 2006, 52, fig. 18
Secondary Burial
18 TD 350 17 Tell el-Dab‘a Stratum E/1–D/3; A/I-g/3-Nr. 1 15 (mid) Philip 2006, 47, fig. 15 [1]
19 TD 433 17 Tell el-Dab‘a Stratum E/1–D/3; A/I-g/3-Nr. 1- 15 (mid) Philip 2006, 47, fig. 15 [2]
Burial 5
20 TD 461 17 Tell el-Dab‘a Stratum E/1–D/3; A/I-g/3-Nr. 1- 15 (mid) Philip 2006, 48, fig. 16 [1]
Burial 4
21 TD 4139 17 Tell el-Dab‘a Stratum E/1–D/3; A/II-o/20-Nr. 4 15 (mid) Philip 2006, 50, fig. 16 [3]
22 TD 2174 18 Tell el-Dab‘a Stratum E/1–D/3; A/II-n/15-Nr. 1- 15 (mid) Philip 2006, 50–52, fig. 17 [2]
Burial 1
23 TD 2194 18 Tell el-Dab‘a Stratum E/1–D/3; A/II-n/15- 15 (mid) Philip 2006, 52, fig. 17 [3]
Nr. 1-Burial 3
24 TD 7138 34 Tell el-Dab‘a Surface; A/V-n/19-Pl. 0/1 – Philip 2006, 54, fig. 19 [2]
25 S 2722 – Tell el-Retaba Phase G3–G2; Area 4, SIP R zepka et al. 2017, 25–27,
Tomb 2009 fig. 8
26 MAN_50 – Tell el-Mansheya Tomb 2 SIP (?) A hmed et al. 2018, 28, pl. 1
27 (NP) – Tell el-Maskhuta Phase 1; Tomb L12.12321 SIP Holladay 1997, fig. 7.8
28 (NP) – Tell el-Maskhuta Phase 2; Tomb L12.12317 SIP R edmount 1989, table 39
29 (NP) – Tell el-Maskhuta Phase 2; Tomb R8.8079 SIP R edmount 1989, table 39
30 (NP) – Tell el-Maskhuta Phase 2; Tomb R8.8079 SIP R edmount 1989, table 39
31 (NP) – Tell el-Maskhuta Uncertain phase; Tomb L2.2016 SIP R edmount 1989, table 39,
fig. 163 [1]
32 (NP) – Tell el-Maskhuta Uncertain phase; Tomb L2.2029 SIP R edmount 1989, table 39
33 (NP) – Tell el-Yahudiyah Grave 5 15 (2nd half) Tufnell 1977, fig. 8 [73]
34 (NP) – Tell el-Yahudiyah Grave 1 15 (late) Tufnell 1977, fig. 8 [72]

Fig. 5.22 List of daggers published by Philip from Tell el-Dab‘a, together with other attestations of daggers
assigned to the Second Intermediate Period from the Eastern Delta.
*According to Philip 2006. Abbreviations: NP, Not Published; SIP, Second Intermediate Period
254 Chapter 5

(a) (b) (c)

6141 7323 3059

(d) 2194 (e) 4041 (f) 7974

0 10cm

Fig. 5.23 Dagger types found at Tell el-Dab‘a, following Philip’s typology.
Philip 2006, figs. 10, 13, 16 [2], 17 [3], 18, 19 [3]).
(a) Type 12. TD 6141, Tomb F/I-o/20-Nr. 17, Stratum d/2 (Phase H); (b) Type 13. TD 7323, Tomb F/I-m/18-Nr. 3,
Stratum d/1 (Phase G/4); (c) Type 17. TD 3059, Tomb A/II-p/21-Nr. 7, Stratum E/2–E/1 (Phase E/2–E/1);
(d) Type 18. TD 2194, Tomb A/II-n/15-Nr. 1-Burial 3, Stratum E/1–D/3 (Phase E/1–D/3); (e) Type 31. TD 4041,
Tomb F/I-i/21-Nr. 34, Stratum b/1–a/2 (Phase E/1–D/3); (f) Type 34. TD 7974, A/IV-j/5-Pl. 4, Stratum G (Phase G)
 Technological and Militaristic Transformations 255

Philip’s Type 1).380 An equid burial was also positioned

south of the tomb. Also with an equid burial but
of Phase 2, Tomb L12.12317, produced a dagger
fragment,381 while another of Phase 2, Tomb R8.8079,
contained two daggers, each with a rivet on each
shoulder and one on a short tang (possibly Philip’s
Type 32).382 Two other tombs of uncertain phase each
contained a bronze dagger, at least one of which was
equipped with a donkey burial.383 South of Tell el-
Dab‘a, Tell el-Yahudiyah yielded two bronze daggers,
possibly of Philip’s Type 18 or 32.384 One was found
in Grave 5 of the mid-late Fifteenth Dynasty, and
the other in Grave 1 of the late Fifteenth Dynasty.385
MBA-type bronze daggers have additionally been
noted at Tell el-Sahaba, but remain unpublished in
detail.386
So, it appears that while the use of the dagger
with a crescent-shaped pommel and its symbolic
associations were likely already in the process
of adaptation in Egypt and Nubia from at least
Dynasty 12, such associations continued to
progress in the Delta in line with contemporaneous Fig. 5.24 Detail from Stela Louvre E.6141/C.201.
developments in the Near East. This multidirectional Unknown provenance, reign of Kamose, Dynasty 17.
and multicontextual process was most likely After Petschel 2011, fig. 39
influenced by both local and regional factors, with
some Deltaic practices perhaps encountered and with hieroglyphs.389 The Deltaic and/or Levantine
transferred to other communities further south. inspirations in the rosette motif, association with
Evidence for this may be gleaned from the axe and the axe, and deposition in a burial, are possible,
dagger combination in two graves apparently of and may suggest some contact with the north or
males at Hu’s Cemetery Y.387 While one can only knowledge of northern practices by Nebiryraw I’s
be generally dated to the late Middle Kingdom to administration.390 Certainly, the custom of placing
Second Intermediate Period, the second grave’s daggers with crescentic pommels in burials
dagger presents a clear indicator of a terminus post continued into the late Second Intermediate Period
quem of the Sixteenth Dynasty: its blade is inscribed at, for instance, Kom Medinet Gurob, el-Arabah, Hu,
with the cartouche of Sewadjenra (Nebiryraw I;
Fig. 5.25).388 While Egyptian in type, it was
apparently attached to a crescent-shaped pommel
by nails and silver rosettes, closely paralleling those
of gold used for the scimitars from Byblos Tombs I
and II, the blades of which were also decorated 389 See Chapter 5.2.3.1.1. The description follows Petrie
(1901b, 52, pl. 32 [17]) and not Petschel (2011, 362
[Nr. 17]), which does not mention the rosette shapes.
390 Ryholt’s (1997, 178) interpretation of the cemetery as
380 The dagger and pommel types are attested together at one of mercenaries of Pan-Grave culture stationed at
Jericho. R edmount 1989, table 39, fig. 151; Holladay the northern border or front of the Sixteenth Dynasty is
1997, fig. 7.8; Philip 2006, 145. interesting considering the range of material uncovered at
381 R edmount 1989, table 39. Hu. Cemetery Y yielded Cypriot-type pottery, including a
382 R edmount 1989, table 39, fig. 156 [1–3, 15]; Philip 1989, Red Lustrous spindle bottle (Y 50) and Base Ring I bottles
473–474. (Y53 and Y150), as identified in R.S. Merillees 1968, 118.
383 R edmount 1989, table 39, fig. 163. Philip also notes the presence of sets of tweezers, similar
384 Petrie 1906, 12–13, pl. 6 [7]; Tufnell 1977, fig. 8 [72– to those at Tell el-Dab‘a, suggesting the cemetery’s use
73]; Philip 1989, 473–474; 2006, 142; Mourad 2015, 60. by groups who had non-traditional elite practices (Philip
385 Petrie 1906, 12–13; Tufnell 1977, fig. 8 [72–73]; Mourad 2006, 227). Petrie (1901b, 48, pl. 40 [41]) additionally
2015, 60, fig. 4.30 [17]. mentions Tell el-Yahudiyah ware from Cemetery X stating
386 Bietak 1975, 90, n. 319; Leclant 1975, 202, n. 19; van that one was of red pottery and not incised. Although not
den Brink 1982, 56; R edmount 1989, 162. very clear, its line drawing suggests that it could bear
387 Graves Y 165 and Y 237. Petrie 1901b, 51–52, pl. 32 [15, painted decoration, similar to those inspired by Cypriot
17–18, 22]; Philip 2006, 226–227. decoration as attested at Tell el-Dab‘a from Phase E/2
388 JE 33702. Petrie 1901b, 52, pl. 32 [17]; Petschel 2011, onwards. For an example of the latter, see Maguire 2009,
362 [Nr. 17]. For the king’s assignment to the Sixteenth 226, fig. 50 [DAB 829]. See also Vilain 2018. The author
Dynasty, see Ryholt 1997, 155, 158–159, tables 25, 42. thanks S. Vilain for insights on this vessel.
256 Chapter 5

Abydos, and Edfu.391 Interestingly, unprovenanced

daggers presumably from Egypt also seem to bear
blades of Levantine, MBIIA, type.392
Of slightly later date than the Sewadjenra dagger is
that of Nehmen (Fig. 5.26c).393 It was found by the left
leg of a man buried in an Egyptian-type coffin that
provided the Semitic name of its owner, abd, the coffin
itself placed in the Sixth Dynasty Funerary Temple
of Queen Iput at Saqqara.394 As with the scimitars
developing at the time, the blade and handle of the
dagger were cast in a single piece. They belong to a new
type that finds parallels in contexts of approximately
the same date in the Aegean, becoming common in
the New Kingdom as well as the LBA Levant, and
eventually developing into the short sword or long
dagger, and likely the longer sword.395 The origins
of this type are much discussed, but as Shalev notes,
the cast hilt type is a final version of a dagger ‘whose
technological concept was born in Canaan, spreading
rapidly throughout the entire region with different
local developments in each area under the influence and
inspiration of its immediate environs’ (Fig. 5.26a–b).396
As its earliest attestations in Egypt are associated with
the Fifteenth Dynasty,397 both archaeologically as with
the Nehmen dagger, or artistically as with Ahmose’s
portrayal of an Asiatic with a short sword or long
dagger,398 the Hyksos rulers’ role as mediators for its
transmission is highly likely.

391 See, with references, Petschel 2011, 106–123, 132–137,

140–141, 364 [Nr. 22], 366 [Nr. 23], 382 [Nr. 47], 388 [Nr.
57], 408 [Nr. 83], 414 [Nr. 96]. One dagger from Abydos
(Petschel 2011, 408 [Nr. 83]) could be of late Seventeenth
to early Eighteenth Dynasty date.
392 Petschel 2011, 386 [Nrs. 53–54]; Bietak, personal
communication.
393 JE 32735 (CG 52768). Daressy 1906; Vernier 1927, 260;
Petschel 2011, 460 [Nr. 183].
394 Daressy 1906, 115–116; Do. Arnold 2008a, 116; 2010b, 210.
395 H.W. Müller 1987, 61–67; Papadopoulos 1998, 16–17,
pls. 10–11; Shalev 2004, 41–54; Do. A rnold 2008a, 116.
According to Shalev (2004, 1), a sword is defined as ‘a
metal tool with a hilt and blade, and a total length of no
less than 50 cm’.
396 Shalev 2004, 43.
397 Another dagger of this type clearly linked with the
Fifteenth Dynasty is the so-called ‘Corble dagger’, with
the prenomen of Apophis on its bronze blade (Dawson
1925). See also H. Bonnet 1926, 66; M axwell-Hyslop
1946, 33–36; Shalev 2004, 42–43, 54.
398 Harvey 1998, 321, fig. 80. Daggers with long narrow
blades, or swords, are among the weapons carried by the
Asiatics bringing goods, for instance a scimitar or chariot,
in the tomb of Menkheperraseneb (TT 86; Thutmose III
0 10cm to Amenhotep II’s reign; N. de G. Davies 1933a, pls. 5, 7).
Rekhmira’s tomb (TT 100; Thutmose III to Amenhotep II’s
reign) additionally features foreigners carrying a sheath,
possibly with a dagger inside (N. de G. Davies 1943, pls.
Fig. 5.25 A dagger inscribed with the cartouche of 19, 22). See also the Asiatics carrying what appears to be
Nebiryaw I (JE 33702). Grave 237, Cemetery Y, Hu, this type of weapon on a fragment from the Temple of
Dynasty 16 (?). Drawing by Patrick Aprent, Thutmose II (Bruyère 1952, pl. 4 [1]), and on Thutmose IV’s
after Petrie 1901b, pl. 32 [17] chariot (Carter and Newberry 1904, pls. 9–10).
 Technological and Militaristic Transformations 257

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)

0 10cm

Fig. 5.26 Dagger type with flanged hilt and fanned, T-shaped or cylindrical pommel.
(a) Dagger from Tomb LVI, Ugarit, MBIIB–C (after Schaeffer 1939, fig. 63); (b) Dagger from Loc. AT 722, Tell
el-‘Ajjul, MBIIC–LBI (after Petrie 1933, pl. 18 [4]); (c) Dagger of Nehmen, coffin of Abdu, Saqqara, reign of
Apophis, Dynasty 15 (drawn from photograph, after Petschel 2011, 461 [Nr. 183]); (d) Dagger of Apophis, unknown
provenance, Dynasty 15 (drawn from photograph, after Petschel 2011, 463 [Nr. 186]); (e) Dagger of Djehuty,
unknown provenance, Dynasty 18 (drawn from photograph, after Petschel 2011, 463 [Nr. 187])

The Nehmen dagger additionally features flanged
rims and nails that attach the handle to plates of wood
layered with sheet gold. The plates were decorated
with a repoussée (hammering) technique on one side
with the inscription n f r nTr n b tA. wy Nb - x pS-Ra. w
sA Ra. w Ip p Di (. w) an x ‘the good god, lord of the
two lands, Nebkhepeshra, son of Ra, Apophis, given
life’; the other side is adorned with further details
(Fig. 5.27). These can be divided into two halves.
The lower section bears the hieroglyphs sSm
n b = f NHm n ‘the follower of his lord, Nehmen’.399
The upper section is designated for the image of a
hunter standing on an undulated line representing
the desert landscape. Dressed in a short Egyptian-
type Sn d .y t-kilt with a short hairstyle, and armed
399 The name is provided with the classifier of a nHm . t
lotus bud (Gardiner’s M2). For more on the name, see
T. Schneider 2003a, 146–147.
with a dagger placed at the waist and a throwstick
in his raised left hand, the hunter looks upwards at
the speared lion above him. The space to its upper
left is occupied by a fleeing horned animal and a
possible shrub.400 The motif of a lion hunt performed
by a non-royal figure is not attested in Egypt before
the New Kingdom, neither is hunting a lion with
a spear.401 This, as well as details in rendering the
figures and desert landscape, has been compared
400 Do. Arnold suggests either a rabbit or a leafy plant. A
piece of wood by the right leg of the body in abd‘s coffin
has been postulated to be a throwstick, which would
suggest parallels between the body’s weapons and those
of the hunter depicted on the dagger. Daressy 1906, 115;
Do. A rnold 2008a, 116; 2010b, 210.
401 A ltenmüller 1980; Collon 1987, 29–30 [79–87], 46
[158–164], 156 [710], 195 [951–956]; Do. A rnold 2008a,
117; 2010b, 210.
258 Chapter 5
Fig. 5.27 Detail of the decoration on the hilt of
Nehmen’s dagger (JE 32735/CG 52768).
Drawn from photograph, after Petschel 2011, 461
[Nr. 183]
to those of Aegean prototypes, Levantine seals and
scarabs, as well as Middle Kingdom examples.402
The combination supports a production by artisans
knowledgeable in such artistic traditions, possibly
even those commissioned by the Fifteenth Dynasty
king whose name appears on the handle.403
The mixture of Near Eastern and Egyptian
techniques and decorative motifs is similarly observed
in other daggers of the late Fifteenth to early Eighteenth
Dynasty. One was collected from the Theban burial
of Ahhotep (Fig. 5.28). The queen’s coffin contained
a range of jewellery and weapons including an axe
and dagger set, the dagger found in a sheath.404 With
blade and handle cast together, the blade features a
raised strip of a dark metal alloy, similar to that on
the scimitars from Tombs I and II at Byblos.405 Also
like the latter, it is inlaid with gold-wire glyphs on
402 See, for instance, Helck 1971b, 58–59; Ziffer 1990, 72–73;
Aruz 1995, 40, fig. 17; Do. Arnold 2008a, 117; 2010b, 210.
403 M linar (2004, 114, ns. 51–52) posits that the dots on the
hunter’s chest are related to bands represented on Near
Easterners to fasten a dagger at their side, as shown on
scarabs of the Southern Levant and the Eastern Delta.
Do. A rnold (2008a, 117) also notes the branch pattern
incised in the ears of the animals, otherwise found on
an earring from Tell el-‘Ajjul and the diadem from el-
Salhiyah (Fig. 4.50). Such details further strengthen the
identification of the dagger as a product of the Fifteenth
Dynasty.
404 JE 4666 (CG 52658). M aspero 1903/1904, 137; Eaton-
K rauss 1990; Petschel 2011, 231–235, 486 [Nr. 222].
405 See Chapter 5.2.3.1. For more on this metal alloy, see
Thomas 2005; 2011.
both sides that read (1) n f r nTr n b tA.wy Nb - pH. ty -
Ra.w Di (.w) an x m i Ra.w D. t ‘the good god, lord of the
two lands, Nebpehtyra, given life like Ra forever’, and
(2) sA Ra.w n X. t =f IaH- m s (.w) Di (.w) an x m i Ra.w
D. t ‘son of Ra, from his body, Ahmose, given life like
Ra forever’. These are accompanied by decorative
motifs: on one side is a lion chasing a bull, both in
full gallop, with undulated lines above them, and a
shrub separating them from four locusts; on the other
side is a floral design. The handle, also patterned
with gold chevrons inlaid on the black metal alloy,
is topped by a pommel carved with four heads. The
artistic techniques and motifs have been paralleled
with those of the Levant and Mycenae, but, as with
the previous examples, are intermixed with Egyptian
traditions.406 The same may be said for the axe and
dagger combination that was found with other symbols
of warfare on the body of the deceased (for instance,
the ‘Golden Flies’),407 but for a queen. They highlight
the Seventeenth Dynasty’s continued utilisation of
both earlier traditions that appeared in the Twelfth
Dynasty, those that are similar to customs attested in
the Sixteenth Dynasty at Hu, as well as the adoption
of synchronous developments in the Fifteenth Dynasty
and MBA Eastern Mediterranean, testament in itself
of the dagger’s supra-regional stylistic attributes. The
Egyptian production of the Ahhotep dagger is probable
but uncertain. Indeed, the representation of narrow
long-bladed daggers or short swords in association with
royal workshops and chariotry equipment (including
curved bows and helmets) only later occurs in the tomb
of Kenamun (TT 93; Amenhotep II’s reign), signalling
that such daggers were produced by state-sponsored
workshops from at least the reign of Amenhotep II.408
A further feature that is shared by all three
aforementioned daggers of Grave Y 237 at Hu, abd’s
coffin at Saqqara, as well as Ahhotep’s dagger, is that
they bear the name of an Egyptian king. While Tomb
Y 237’s contents indicate that the tomb did not belong
to Nebiryraw I, the Saqqara dagger is inscribed with
the name of Nehmen and Apophis, and Ahhotep’s
dagger with that of her son, Ahmose.409 It is thus highly
likely that the daggers were bestowed to the tombs’
respective owners by the named kings. This gifting
of weapons, including the dagger, parallels the earlier
attestation of Khusobek receiving a dagger from
Senwosret III for his deeds in a Levantine campaign,
and continues into the New Kingdom, with Ahmose-
406 See Warren 1995, 5; A ruz and Lacovara 2008, 121–122
[Nr. 68]. For more on locusts in Egyptian art, see K eimer
1932; 1933; 1937.
407 Gestoso Singer 2009.
408 N. de G. Davies 1930, pl. 22A. For scenes showing
daggers and swords brought into Egypt by foreigners,
see Chapter 5.2.3.2.2, n. 398.
409 For another example but of unknown provenance, see the
bronze ‘Corble dagger’, with the prenomen of Apophis
on its blade. Dawson 1925, 216–217.
 Technological and Militaristic Transformations 259

Pennekhbet recording the bAgs w dagger

given by Amenhotep I.410 Further examples include
the dagger of Djehuty of Thutmose III’s reign, cast
using a similar technique to the Nehmen dagger but
with a longer narrower blade, the handle inscribed
with the official’s military titles (see Fig. 5.26e).411
The wooden plates of an unprovenanced dagger
bearing the cartouche of Thutmose I also evince
the weapon’s association with royalty.412 Additional
examples from known Egyptian contexts include a
short sword of similar type to these daggers, with
blade and hilt cast together, from an early Eighteenth
Dynasty tomb at Thebes.413 To this can be added the
elaborate dagger and sheath from Tutankhamun’s
tomb, which exemplifies the continued value of this
weapon in embellished form, representing a myriad
of Egyptian, Aegean and Levantine motifs including
that of the hunt.414 In all, the continued deposition of
this type of weapon in funerary contexts reinforces
its significance for the deceased.
The combined evidence clearly indicates that the
dagger and short sword as items of prestige and
reward had become entrenched in Egyptian culture
by the Eighteenth Dynasty. The dagger was tied with
notability and the concept of rewarding officials for
their excellence, particularly in activities such as
hunting and warfare, both themselves linked with
defeating wild forces on behalf of the state. That
its symbolic value in Egypt had developed in line
with that of the Near East and Mediterranean could
reflect an overarching adoption and continuous
technological and artistic modification of a supra-
regional marker of status, identity, and/or military
distinction. While this process likely initiated before
the Twelfth Dynasty, its continuation according
to synchronous developments of the dagger in the
MBA world showcases both the impact of persistent
interactions with this region, as well as the role of the
northern dynasties in transmitting and most likely
negotiating Levantine trends with Egyptian concepts
of the weapon as well as its links with the military
and heroic achievement.

410 Biography of Ahmose-Pennekhbet. Urk. 4, 38. See also

W.V. Davies 2014. Texts from Ebla also attest to weapons,
including a dagger, as funerary gifts. For an example, see
A rchi 2002, 181.
411 Darmstadt Inv. Nr. Ae:I, 6. Urk. 4, 999–1002.
H.W. Müller 1987, 66–67, fig. 20 [e]; Petschel 2004, 87
[Nr. 76].
412 MMA 22.3.75a–b. Roth 2005, 15 [Nr. 1].
413 MMA 16.10.453. The copper alloy weapon was found
beside or on the inner coffin of Burial D1, Pit 3, Courtyard
CC 41, at Asasif in Thebes. H ayes 1959, 68, fig. 36. Fig. 5.28 The dagger of Ahmose (JE 4666/CG 52658).
414 JE 61584 A–B. The dagger is of meteorite iron. A ruz Burial of Ahhotep, Dra‘ Abu el-Naga, Dynasty 18.
2008, 391–392, fig. 121. See also Comelli et al. 2016, 1–9; Drawn from photograph, after Maspero 1903/1904;
Broschat et al. 2018. Aruz and Lacovara 2008, 121–122 [Nr. 68]
260 Chapter 5
5.2.3.3 Axes
5.2.3.3.1 Developments up to the Middle Kingdom
Several types of axes have been identified in the
repertoires of Egypt and the Near East.415 Initially used
as a tool and hunting weapon in the Neolithic Period
of Western Asia, their employment in combat likely
soon followed.416 While also made of stone (Fig. 5.29a),
developments in metallurgy led to the production of
the copper axe, which first surfaces in contexts tied to
those with access to both the metal and the expertise
for its production: the elite.417 Early influences on
Egyptian craftsmanship is posited with the similarities
in shape between the splayed and narrow rectangular
axe heads in Egypt and those in the Near East.418 Axes
in Egypt were utilised at least from the late Predynastic
Period onwards, with the earliest artistic attestations of
their use as a weapon represented in late Old Kingdom
scenes, and the earliest archaeological evidence
occurring in First Intermediate Period contexts.419
A new axe type commonly used as both a weapon
and tool is the common copper Egyptian rounded or
semi-circular axe head, which was designed with
perforations and lugs through and around which cords
were lashed to attach the head to a wooden handle
(Fig. 5.29b–c). Another axe type attested at this time is
the scalloped or three-tanged crescent axe (Fig. 5.29d).
Its design again suggests a transfer of ideas and likely
technology between Egypt and the Near East. It shares
close parallels with a form attested in the first half of the
Third Millennium BC Levant, where it persisted until
the end of this millennium.420 Based on provenanced
archaeological and pictorial material, the crescent
axe dates from Fifth Dynasty to Second Intermediate
Period contexts in Egypt.421 It is later depicted in New
Kingdom scenes typically of cultic or funerary function.
These include one representation from the tomb of
Rekhmira (TT 100; Thutmose III to Amenhotep II’s
reign) illustrating items brought by Egyptians for the
415 For more on axe typologies, see Petrie 1917b, 5–11;
M axwell-Hyslop 1949; Kühnert-Eggebrecht 1969;
W.V. Davies 1987; Philip 1989, 37–68; E. Miron 1992;
Gernez 2007, 110–219.
416 H amblin 2006, 15, 20–21.
417 H amblin 2006, 29, 31.
418 W.V. Davies 1987, 22–23.
419 W.V. Davies 1987, 22–23; Herold 2009, 195–198.
420 E. Miron 1992, 44–51. For a different opinion, see
W.A. Ward 1964, 9–10.
421 A stone vase fragment of a relief of uncertain provenance
preserves the figure of a male carrying a crescent axe
(ÄM 15084). Based on its artistic style, the relief has
been dated to the Predynastic or Early Dynastic Period.
However, as pointed out in E. Miron (1992, 50–51), this
would be ‘several hundred years earlier than other dated
examples from Egypt or the Levant’, the axe type absent
from the Egyptian record until the Fifth Dynasty. For the
fragment, see Wolf 1926, 9; H. Bonnet 1926, 27, pl. 13;
Kühnert-Eggebrecht 1969, 122 [Nr. R1], pl. 6 [3]. For
more on the axe type, see Gernez 2007, 184–187.
performance of rites before Anubis,422 and another in
the tomb of Sennefer (TT 96; Amenhotep II’s reign)
as part of the funerary equipment being transported
to the burial.423
5.2.3.3.2 Levantine axe types in Egypt from the
Middle Kingdom to the Second Intermediate
Period
The newer Levantine axe type, the fenestrated
or ‘duckbill axe’, was known in certain Egyptian
regions by the early Twelfth Dynasty, if not earlier.
Only limited examples are attested. An anchor
axe, the precursor of the fenestrated type, was
found in First Intermediate Period Tomb 304 at
Helwan (Fig. 5.30a),424 and another from Abydos
has been attributed to Twelfth Dynasty Tomb 51
(Fig. 5.30b).425 Duckbill axes were noted among
the assemblages of early Middle Kingdom tombs
at Kom el-Hisn alongside daggers with crescentic
pommels and a socketed spearhead.426 A tin-bronze
duckbill axe was also found in Tell el-Dab‘a Tomb
F/I-o/9-Nr. 8 of Phase H (Fig. 5.30c).427 This form
has additionally been identified in scenes from Beni
Hassan428 and Serabit el-Khadim’s inscriptions,429
all of which show mostly elite individuals of Asiatic
origin carrying the weapon. Based on the context
and limited number of attestations, the duckbill axe
was likely never produced in Egyptian workshops.
Unlike axes of splayed, narrow rectangular or
crescent type, its adoption by Egyptian warriors or
workers is uncertain. One possible explanation for
this is the use of tin-bronze for Levantine examples,
its better casting qualities rendering the metal more
suitable for the production of the duckbill axe.430 The
inaccessibility to either the metal and/or appropriate
metallurgical knowledge regarding its manufacture
may have affected the axe type’s production and
adoption in Egypt.431
422 N. de G. Davies 1943, pl. 90.
423 Virey 1899, 127, fig. 9.
424 Saad 1947, 173, pl. 88.
425 Petrie ascribed the axe first to Tomb 30b in his description,
but Tomb 51 in the plates, as found in Petrie 1925, 6,
pl. 5 [28]. Sebelien (1924) noted it as part of Tomb 51’s
assemblage.
426 H amada and el-A mir 1947, 105–106; H amada and Farid
1947, 201–205, pl. 56; 1948, 301, pl. 7; Philip 2006, 225,
231–232; Gernez 2007, 191.
427 TD 6139; Philip 2006, 33, fig. 4 [2].
428 The scenes occur in the tombs of Khnumhotep I (Nr. 14),
Amenemhat (Nr. 2), and Khnumhotep II (Nr. 3). See
Mourad 2015, 84, 88, figs. 4.49–50, 4.52.
429 Inscription Nrs. 112, 115, 163 and 405. Gardiner and
Peet 1917, pl. 51; Mourad 2015, 137, figs. 5.9, 5.11–13.
430 Philip 1989, 515, table 1c; 2006, 212; E. Miron 1992,
52, table 1; Rosenfeld, Ilani and Dvorachek 1997, 859,
tables 1–2; Shalev 2004, 279, table 13.2.
431 An axe cast in one piece with its handle was identified as
an ‘Egyptian fenestrated axe’, although it is of unknown
provenance. E. Miron 1992, 69, fig. 5.
 Technological and Militaristic Transformations 261

(a) (b) (c)

(d) (e) (f)

(g)

Fig. 5.29 Axe types of the Middle to New Kingdom found in Egypt, following the typology by W.V. Davies (not to
scale). After W.V. Davies 1987, pls. 5 [Nr. 27], 6 [Nr. 35], 9 [Nr. 63], 16 [Nr. 93], 18 [Nr. 102], 20 [Nr. 117], 26 [Nr. 151]).
(a) Round form with lugs. EA 67617, el-Lahun, Dynasty 12 (?); (b) Lugged, perforated, round form. EA 32581,
unknown provenance, First Intermediate Period to Middle Kingdom; (c) Segmental form. BM 30083, unknown
provenance, Middle Kingdom; (d) Tanged form. EA 51035, unknown provenance, Middle Kingdom; (e) Lugged
form with splayed or incurved side. EA 63224, Mostagedda, Dynasty 16 (?); (f) Lugged form with splayed or
incurved side. EA 6058, Deir el-Bahari, Dynasty 18; (g) Lugged, asymmetrical, form. EA 36772, uncertain
provenance, Dynasty 17

By the time such knowledge was available, initially
at Tell el-Dab‘a and later across Egypt, newer forms of
the axe had become common in the Near East.432 These
include the narrow-bladed socketed axe, of which 16
of Philip’s Types 1–3 at Tell el-Dab‘a are published
(Fig. 5.31).433 On-site production of axes is confirmed
by the matrices of two moulds of Type 2 from Areas
432 For an overview of the development of the axe types, see
E. Miron 1992, 55–67.
433 Philip 2006, 33–41, figs. 5–9.
A/I (Phase E/1–D/3) and A/IV (Phase E/3–E/2; see
Fig. 5.5).434 Although tin-bronze remained the metal
of choice for socketed axes produced in the Levant,435
only three of the narrow-bladed axes at Tell el-Dab‘a
434 See Chapter 5.2.1. TD 7413 and TD 300. Philip 2006, 40,
140, 193–194, figs. 77, 78 [3].
435 Philip 1989, table 1a; 2006, 212; E. Miron 1992, table 1;
Rosenfeld, Ilani and Dvorachek 1997; Shalev 2004,
279, table 13.2.
262 Chapter 5

(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 5.30 Anchor and duckbill axes found in Egypt (not to scale). Drawing by Patrick Aprent.
(a) Anchor axe. Tomb 304, Helwan (drawn from photograph, after Saad 1947, pl. 88);
(b) Anchor axe. Tomb 51, Abydos (drawn from photograph, after Petrie 1925, pl. 5 [28]);
(c) Duckbill axe. TD 6139, Tomb F/I-o/9-Nr. 8, Stratum d/2 (Phase H) (after Philip 2006, fig. 4 [2])

are of tin-bronze, the rest of unalloyed copper.436 This
agrees with the composition of a socketed copper
axe excavated at el-Khata‘na, and another reportedly
from Tell el-Yahudiyah.437 Whatever the reason for
the differences in metal choice, workshops in the
Delta evidently overcame the difficulties in producing
socketed axes from unalloyed copper and two-piece
moulds.438 Evidently, this metallurgical expertise was
not transferred to other workshops in Egypt.
Another explanation put forward for the limited
adoption of specific Levantine axe types in Egypt
relies on the symbolic meaning manifested by
the fenestrated, or duckbill, and socketed axes.439
Their contexts point to a representation of identity,
and suggest ritualistic and religious attributes. For
instance, miniature axes from Ugarit were found in a
ritual context while axes from Byblos were associated
with temples and temple deposits, their gold and silver
material clearly pointing to their non-functional and
most likely ritual or ceremonial use.440 Depictions of
axes of similar shape are found in association with the
Byblite metal figurines of warriors or deities, as well
as divinities represented on cylinder seal impressions.
The latter include one from Alalakh bearing Egyptian
hieroglyphs (see Fig. 4.7), and another from Tell el-
Dab‘a representing the storm-god carrying a possible
axe (see Fig. 4.9). Iconography correlating certain
divinities with the axe is additionally attested in
Anatolia and Mesopotamia, signalling a widespread
Eastern Mediterranean and Near Eastern symbolism,
with possible local variations in meaning.441 Even
436 Philip 2006, 212, table 17.
437 W.V. Davies 1987, 54 [Nrs. 167–168]; Philip 2006, 212.
438 Philip 2006, 212.
439 Philip 2006, 212.
440 E. Miron 1992, 67.
441 E. Miron 1992, 67–71.
in Egypt, the axe type has been identified in
association with Asiatics, mostly of the upper class.
Archaeologically, it is prominently attested in funerary
contexts at Tell el-Dab‘a, usually in association with
the dagger and other markers of status, such as donkey
burials.442 Its symbolic use at other sites in the Delta
is supported by the discovery of a narrow-bladed
socketed axe of Philip’s Type 2 in Tomb L12.12321 of
Phase 1 at Tell el-Maskhuta, alongside a dagger and
silver jewellery.443
The weapon perhaps additionally retained a
ceremonial function tied with the display of strength
in subduing enemies.444 In his battle against the hero
of RTn w, Sinuhe mentions his foe first attacking him
with ikm=f
m i n b = f Hp t = f (n . t) n s w. w t ‘his shield, his axe, and
an armful of his spears’.445 In defeating him, Sinuhe
describes that
s x r. n = i s w (m) m i n b = f w d i . n = i
iSn n = i Hr iA. t = f ‘I threw him down with his axe and
I uttered my war-cry on his back’.446 Indeed, wounds
likely formed by a duckbill axe have been identified
on the skull of Senebkay, and by a narrow-bladed
socketed axe on the skull of Seqenenra Tao.447 Those
of a duckbill axe could have damaged the skulls of a
juvenile male buried in a Phase 6 grave, and a female
and dog buried in a Second Intermediate Period
442 Philip 2006, 226–227. For more on the axe-dagger
combination, see Chapter 5.2.3.2.
443 R edmount 1989, table 39, fig. 151 [6]; Philip 1989, 40–41.
444 H amblin 2006, 180–181, fig. 5 [d].
445 Tale of Sinuhe, lines R159–160. K. Koch 1990, 50. For
more on the shield, axe and spear combination as used in
the Levant, see H amblin 2006, 253–254.
446 Tale of Sinuhe, lines B139–141. The version in the
Ashmolean Ostracon of Sinuhe instead has m i n b w =i
‘my axe’. K. Koch 1990, 51–52.
447 Bietak and Strouhal 1974, pls. 1–10. See also Berge and
van de Goot 2002.
 Technological and Militaristic Transformations 263

grave at Tell el-Maskhuta.448 The individuals’

temporal and historical context has led to the
proposition that they were ceremonially killed via
the axe by those linked to Tell el-Dab‘a’s rulers. In
Egypt, this role was usually fulfilled by the mace
and, from the New Kingdom, the scimitar.449 Axes
of Egyptian type were also connected to particular
gods. The flat axe, for example, is carried by Sopdu
and Seth in the causeway of Sahura;450 model
and large rounded axes were found in foundation
deposits from the Eleventh Dynasty onwards,451 and
the m t ny t axe is wielded by Horus in the Coffin
Texts.452 Interestingly, Reshef is also depicted on
a Nineteenth or Twentieth Dynasty stela carrying (a) Type 1. TD 3082,
a tanged axe.453 As such, while Near Eastern axe Tomb F/I-d/23-Nr. 1, Stratum c–b/3 (Phase G–F)
types held particular symbolic and ceremonial
associations, those of Egyptian type are likewise
attested in cultic and funerary contexts.

5.2.3.3.3 Egyptian axe types from the late Middle

Kingdom onwards
Despite the apparent lack in producing and using
Levantine-type fenestrated, or duckbill, and socketed
axes, Egyptian axes continued to develop across
Egypt. A new form of the splayed axe head without
perforations but with straight or incurved sides
surfaced in the late Middle Kingdom.454 W.V. Davies

(b) Type 2. TD 339,

448 Holladay 1982, 47, figs. 73–74; Paice, Holladay and Tomb A/I-g/4-Nr. 3, Stratum D/3 (Phase D/3)
Brock 1996, 170.
449 However, one reference to Amenhotep II notes that he
wielded an iqHw ‘battle-axe’ in his right hand
to capture his Asiatic enemies (Urk. 4, 1307 [15]). This
has instead been interpreted as a metaphor for a ‘military
contingent’, in much the same way as x pS could also
refer to ‘strong arm’ (Goedicke 1992b, 149–150; 1995, 15;
Morschauser 1997, 224. See also Chapter 5.2.3.1). Still,
the axe is clearly identifiable in a stela of Ramesses II
(JE 46189) which shows the king grasping the hair
of three enemies in his left hand, and an axe against
his shoulder in the other. For the stela, see Saleh and
Sourouzian 1987, Nr. 206. For the motif of the axe head
turned backwards, see R. Wilkinson 2015, 96.
450 Borchardt 1913, pl. 5.
451 Kühnert-Eggebrecht 1969, 120–121; W.V. Davies 1987,
61–63.
(c) Type 3. TD 1377,
452 W.V. Davies 1987, 66. Tomb A/II-l/14-Nr. 5, Stratum E/1 (Phase E/1)
453 See Chapter 4.4.1. Cornelius 1994, 32–33 [RR7], 55,
pl. 5 [RR7]; Tazawa 2009, pl. 2 [Doc. 28]. E. Miron
(1992, 70) writes that ‘the axe shown here is definitely an 0 10 cm
Egyptian axe… but the clear Asiatic context shows that
it was intended to depict an Asiatic blade’. Supporting
this is the upraised hand in which the weapon is wielded,
the stance typically associated with smiting which, in
Egyptian representations, is usually performed with
other weapons. So, if Miron is correct, then the axe
could represent (a) the god’s Near Eastern origins, (b) an
extension of an iconography inspiring that in Egypt, and/
or (c) the power manifested in a weapon that the Egyptians
possibly perceived as of Near Eastern symbolic value, Fig. 5.31 Socketed axe types found at Tell el-Dab‘a
and so particularly effective against Near Easterners. according to Philip’s typology.
454 W.V. Davies 1987, 23. Philip 2006, figs. 5 [2], 6 [2], 9 [1]
264
differentiates between those that are symmetrical
(mostly tools) and those that are asymmetrical
(mostly weapons), both in use throughout the Second
Intermediate Period and possibly the early Eighteenth
Dynasty.455 The early symmetrical short-lugged form
can be identified on an axe mould and three axes
from el-Lahun, all collected from settlement contexts
dating between the mid-Twelfth and Thirteenth
Dynasties.456 Two open or lidded moulds from
Tell el-Dab‘a’s Area F/I bear matrices for this type
(Fig. 5.32a), the earliest assigned to Phase G/1–3
(i/22-Pl. 3/4) and the second to Phase F–E/3 (i/21–
Pl. 1).457 Artistic representations and extant examples
of Second Intermediate Period date include those
from graves at Mostagedda’s Cemetery 3000, Balata,
Qau, Hu, and Buhen.458 The settlement levels of the
latter also yielded moulds for symmetrical axes.459
Despite their on-site production, no tombs at Tell
el-Dab‘a have yet produced flat axes. Although this
supports W.V. Davies’s identification of the axe type as
a tool, its discovery in funerary contexts in Egypt and
Nubia highlights its absence in such depositions at Tell
el-Dab‘a, especially when compared with the presence of
narrow-bladed Levantine-type axes. This confirms the
symbolic importance of narrow-bladed axes in funerary
customs at the site as with others in the Levant.460
Towards the late Seventeenth and early Eighteenth
Dynasty, symmetrical axe heads were produced with
an elongated blade. The earliest known evidence
occurs in the form of two axes from the North Palace at
Deir el-Ballas, two models from the foundation deposit
of Thutmose I at Karnak,461 and one matrix of a mould
found in ‘Ezbet Helmi, H/III-u/17, of Phase D/1.1
(Fig. 5.32b).462 This elongated type remained in
455 W.V. Davies 1987, 23.
456 Two were found with other implements in a basket left in
a mid-Twelfth Dynasty house, the context likely utilised
until the end of the Thirteenth Dynasty. The third was
found with a private scarab of late Middle Kingdom
type. Short-lugged axes were also retrieved from almost
contemporary graves at Kerma. R eisner 1923, 200–201,
fig. 190 [17, 20]; D. Dunham 1982, figs. 2 [9], 3 [10], pl. 1b;
W.V. Davies 1987, 48.
457 TD 3108 and TD 4229. Philip 2006, 171, 180, 190, figs. 62,
70 [1].
458 Petrie 1901b, 52, pl. 32 [13–15]; R andall-M acIver and
Woolley 1911, 216, pl. 91 [10885]; Brunton 1930, 5, 13,
pls. 9 [20], 21; 1937, 131, pls. 74 [7], 76 [66], 77 [6–8, 12,
16, 19]; Bourriau 1981, 28, 31; W.V. Davies 1987, 48.
459 Emery, Smith and Millard 1979, 122, pls. 43, 103; W.V.
Davies 1987, 48.
460 One MBA tomb at Khargi of modern Lebanon, however,
produced a flat axe. As it was unsharpened, it was most
likely deposited for its value as an imported item. Saidah
1993/1994, 186, pl. 2 [1]; Philip 2006, 137–138.
461 W.V. Davies 1987, 49.
462 Bietak, Dorner and Jánosi 2001, 69, fig. 32. For a bronze
axe head (TD 7672) of later date collected from ‘Ezbet
Helmi, Area H/I-l/26-Pl. 3–4 (Phase C/2), see Schwab
1994, 255 [Nr. 343]; Jankovich 2008, 161 [Nr. 231].
Chapter 5
production throughout the Eighteenth Dynasty, and
developed into the thicker heavier axe of the Nineteenth
Dynasty.463
Of the asymmetrical variety, examples were found
at Hu, Deir el-Ballas, and Thebes, many of which can
be assigned to the transitional period between the
Seventeenth and Eighteenth Dynasties.464 One example
is a bronze lugged asymmetrical axe of unrecorded
provenance inscribed with the cartouches of Kamose
(Fig. 5.29g).465 It contained 84.4% copper, 14.3%
tin, and minor traces of other metals, highlighting
the continued use of copper-tin alloys in metalwork
from the late Middle Kingdom.466 Another of the
early Eighteenth Dynasty from Abydos Tomb D211
is similarly composed of copper-tin alloy with 13.8%
tin.467 This axe type eventually develops to bear a more
asymmetrical axe head, its cutting end more skewed. It
became the most common battle-axe of the Eighteenth
Dynasty, occurring across Egypt with some examples
in Nubia and the Levant.468
Despite this prevalence, the origins of the
asymmetrical type remain unclear. The narrower
cutting edges of the splayed axe head have been
identified as a main reason for its introduction, the
shape more effective for penetration, particularly of
a smaller area. As such, Yadin proposed that it was
the Egyptian response to the greater use of helmets or
better body armour,469 paralleling the MBA Levantine
response to these developments with the creation of
the narrow-bladed axe.470 In support, W.V. Davies
associates the ‘warlike conditions of the period’ in
which the axe type develops, with ‘the consequent
impetus for the development of more efficient weapon
forms’.471 However, the use of body armour and helmets
during this period in Egypt remains unconfirmed
by the present evidence, as does their widespread
utilisation in the MBA Near East.472 Instead, MBA
seals and sealings depict the axe and dagger as weapons
associated with the charioteer, likely for when he
dismounts and enters close combat.473 Thus, the posited
introduction of chariots into Egypt around the same
period as the introduction of the asymmetrical lugged
463 W.V. Davies 1987, 49.
464 Petrie 1901b, 52, pl. 32 [23]; Kühnert-Eggebrecht 1969,
pl. 13 [5]; W.V. Davies 1987, 53.
465 EA 36772. The axe is purportedly from the tomb of
Ahhotep. W.V. Davies 1987, 50, pl. 26.
466 W.V. Davies 1987, 50. See Chapter 5.2.1.1.
467 EA 52917. W.V. Davies 1987, 51 [Nr. 157]. See Chapter
5.2.1.1, n. 33.
468 For an overview of these attestations with references, see
W.V. Davies 1987, 24, 53.
469 Yadin 1963, 60, 77. See also Spalinger 2005, 17; Philip
2006, 137.
470 Yadin 1963, 60, 77.
471 W.V. Davies 1987, 24.
472 P hilip 1989, 176–177; H amblin 2006, 279. See
Chapter 5.2.4.
473 H amblin 2006, 147–149.
 Technological and Militaristic Transformations 265

3108

A A‘

B B‘ C C‘

0 10 cm

Fig. 5.32 Moulds found at Tell el-Dab‘a and ‘Ezbet Helmi with matrices for axes.
(a) Limestone mould TD 3108 with matrices for a symmetrical lugged axe, a flat axe/adze and a rod. F/I-i/21-Pl. 1,
Stratum b/3–b/2 (Phase F–E/3) (Philip 2006, fig. 62); (b) Clay mould with a matrix for a symmetrical lugged axe.
H/III-u/17, Stratum e/1.1 (Phase D/1.1) (Bietak, Dorner and Jánosi 2001, fig. 32)
266 Chapter 5
Fig. 5.33 The axe of Ahmose (JE 4673/CG 52648). Burial of Ahhotep, Dra‘ Abu el-Naga, Dynasty 18. Drawn from
photographs, after Maspero 1903/1904; Aruz and Lacovara 2008, 120 [Nr. 67]
axe suggests a similar use of the weapon. Despite the
appeal of this explanation, it is somewhat dependent
on whether the symmetrical and asymmetrical lugged
axes were introduced together. The archaeological
evidence indicates that the former was earlier and so,
according to W.V. Davies, its use as a tool would have
been at first more prominent. This would consequently
question its initial introduction in response to the
warlike conditions of the late Second Intermediate
Period. Perhaps, as with earlier developments of the
axe in Egypt, the use of the symmetrical short-lugged
form as a tool was transposed to the military sphere, its
blade then modified for greater piercing capabilities.
Accordingly, instead of adopting the highly symbolic
narrow-bladed Levantine axe types, craftsmen could
have favoured the adjustment of that which was already
known in Egypt and by Egyptian metalsmiths. If this
is the case, then the introduction of the symmetrical
short-lugged form would warrant further exploration,
perhaps in connection to non-military activities. Given
its earliest attestations at el-Lahun and Tell el-Dab‘a,
both of which display cross-cultural interactions across
different professions, some non-Egyptian influences or
inspirations remain possible.
Regardless of the mechanisms concerning its
introduction, the asymmetrical lugged axe developed
to retain an association with warfare. To some
extent, this parallels the significance of weapons in
both Near Eastern and Egyptian spheres as items of
status and prestige. The axes’ inclusion in funerary
and cultic contexts is also reflective of their function
as gifts, rewards, and items of value. Among the
products brought to Egypt following the expeditions
of Amenemhat II to IwA(i) and IAsy were
m ib. t 10 ‘10 axes’ of bronze and wood.474 The ships
looted by Kamose upon attacking Avaris included
Hs m n m in b n n Tn (w) t s t ‘bronze
axes without number’.475 For his performance on the
battlefield, Thutmose I awarded Ahmose-Pennekhbet
with AqHw 2 ‘2 battle-axes’, and Thutmose II
gave him HD AqHw 2 ‘of silver, 2 battle-
axes’.476 Following Thutmose III’s military campaign
to the Levant, Amenemhab-Mahu records the capture
of men, donkeys, and Hs m n m in b 13 ‘13
bronze axes’,477 adding to the several examples of
the weapon’s transfer as booty from the Near East to
Egypt.478 A reference to an iqHw ‘battle-axe’
as a valued weapon of the king also occurs in a letter
from Amenhotep II to Wesersatet.479 The ceremonial or
symbolic value of the axe in Egypt is further confirmed
by a number of asymmetrical lugged axes of the New
Kingdom that are designed with openwork decoration,
474 Mit Rahina inscription, M16. Note the rounded axe head
of the classifier. For more on the lexicography of the axe,
see W.V. Davies 1987, 64–70.
475 Second Stela of Kamose, line 14. Helck 1983a, 93 [14].
476 Biography of Ahmose-Pennekhbet. Urk. 4, 39 [10]. Note
the splayed axe head of the classifier.
477 Biography of Amenemhab-Mahu. Urk. 4, 891 [6]. Binder
2008, 157–158.
478 See, for instance, the iqHw as part of the tribute from
RTn w in the Annals of Thutmose III (Urk. 4, 722 [15],
726 [17]).
479 Letter of Amenhotep II to Wesersatet, line 13. Urk. 4,
1344 [16]. For more discussion on the metaphorical use
of this term, see Morschauser 1997, 214.
 Technological and Militaristic Transformations
their thinner and more delicate axe heads clearly of
non-functional, ceremonial, or apotropaic use.480
Interestingly, however, one of the earliest attestation
of this type features a nude(?) figure, perhaps Astarte,
riding a horse in full gallop, the iconography bearing
non-Egyptian influences.481
The combination of an Egyptian-type axe with
non-Egyptian artistic aspects is similarly apparent
in the asymmetrical lugged axe retrieved from the
burial of Ahhotep.482 Found alongside a dagger,483 the
axe features a wooden handle, leather lashings, and
an axe head of copper alloy. The latter is inlaid with
semi-precious stones and gold set in a black metal
alloy that finds parallels with the accompanying
dagger, as well as the earlier MBA Levantine
scimitars.484 Also like these valuable weapons is
the mix of Egyptian and non-Egyptian decoration
set in the black substance. Each side is divided into
three sections. On one face (Fig. 5.33), the upper
section bears the titulary and cartouches of Ahmose;
the central shows the king wearing a blue crown,
striding forward to hold his enemy’s hair in one hand
while striking him with a dagger (?) in the other; and
the lower section depicts a recumbent griffin with
an inscription naming Montu. Although griffins and
sphinxes are attested in Old and Middle Kingdom
royal iconography, the execution of the crested
griffin’s facial features and neck curls finds Aegean
parallels that were popular in palatial or elite contexts
across the Eastern Mediterranean, the raised wings
also of Minoan type.485 On the other side of the axe
head, the upper section bears the seated figure of the
god of eternity, Heh, below which are the Nekhbet
vulture perched on lilies and the Wadjet cobra on a
papyrus plant. At the lower section is a recumbent
sphinx offering a decapitated head, possibly the
deity Aker who occurs in the Book of the Dead in
the fight against Apophis.486 Altogether, these details
indicate that the axe was crafted to specifically
highlight the defeat of enemies for the endurance of
Egyptian kingship. Its form, materials, techniques
of production, and decoration were all very likely
selected with the knowledge of Egyptian and
possibly Eastern Mediterranean associations with
power. In this respect, the axe’s discovery alongside
a dagger could also be of significance, pointing to a
custom that is earlier attested in the Levant, then the
480 Kühnert-Eggebrecht 1969, 65–91, pls. 22–29;
W.V. Davies 1987, 52–53 [Nrs. 163–165].
481 EA 36766. The axe is of unknown provenance.
W.V. Davies 1987, 52–53 [Nr. 163], pl. 28 [163]; Dreyfus
2005. See also Chapter 4.3.3.1.
482 JE 4673 (CG 42648). M aspero 1903/1904, 137; Eaton-
K rauss 1990; A ruz and Lacovara 2008, 120 [Nr. 67].
483 See Chapter 5.2.3.2.
484 See Chapter 5.2.3.1–2. See also Thomas 2005; 2011.
485 Lilyquist 1993, 50; Teissier 1996, 148–150; A ruz and
Lacovara 2008; Bryan 2019, 542.
486 Bryan 2019, 542.
267
Delta, and perhaps in adapted form in two tombs at
Hu and Ahhotep’s burial at Thebes.487
The mixture of elements even led to Bryan’s
proposition that Ahhotep’s axe and dagger were
probably made by ‘craftsmen trained in Levantine
gold working and employed inside Egypt’.488 Given
their historical context, the weapons at least played
an important role in transferring the concepts that
inspired their manufacture and design. It is tempting
to further suggest that the weapons’ makers may have
been trained in the Delta workshops of the Fifteenth
Dynasty. This would also provide one explanation for
the questionable absence of similar decorated axes in
the New Kingdom, particularly those that displayed the
royal subjugation of enemies. Perhaps, the knowledge
once retained by these craftsmen was not passed down
to the royal Theban workshops, and thus the techniques
and artistic aspects were not replicated until craftsmen
skilled in their creation were once again available. On
the other hand, it is also possible that the axes were
modified into those with open decoration, depicting
elements of Egyptian and non-Egyptian inspiration
but embedded in an Egyptian context related to an
apotropaic or ceremonial function.
The similarities in the use and function of axes
between Egypt and the Near East are to be understood
against a long history of the weapon’s importance
across cultures. It developed both mutually and
independently, at times reflecting similar types that may
point to knowledge transfer in periods of heightened
contacts. Local variations in the use of axe types are
evident, especially in the late Middle Kingdom and
Second Intermediate Period as exemplified by the
contexts and forms of axes in the Delta and those
found in the rest of Egypt. However, the transfer of
some northern customs to the south is also possible,
particularly in circles affiliated with the elite.
487 See Chapter 5.2.3.2. Hu Tombs Y 165 and Y 237. Petrie
1901b, 52, pl. 32 [15, 17–18, 22].
488 Bryan 2019, 543.
268 Chapter 5
5.2.3.4 Bows and arrows
5.2.3.4.1 Developments up to the late Middle Kingdom
The bow is one of the oldest instruments used in hunting
and warfare that has been traced to the Epipalaeolithic
Period. Its long-range capabilities were likely employed
in Egyptian and Near Eastern battles after the Neolithic
Period.489 In Egypt, the earliest known type of bow (pD. t)
is the simple bow (Fig. 5.34a). Constructed from a single
stave of wood, preferably acacia or sidder,490 it could
have either one or two curves, as is attested from various
artistic and archaeological attestations.491 Arrowheads
from the Predynastic Period until the Middle Kingdom
were usually of flint, although some were also made of
wood, ivory or fish bones.492 Metal arrowheads occur
from the Eleventh Dynasty, gradually becoming more
common in the archaeological record.493
Representations of the use of the bow in the hunt
were, until the late Old Kingdom, a royal prerogative,
with the bow symbolising royal strength and the extent
of power, as it did in the Near East.494 In warfare, one
of the earliest representations occurs on a reused block
from el-Lisht attributed to the reign of Khufu. It shows
two individuals postulated to be Asiatics aiming their
bows and arrows.495 The siege scene of the tomb of
Inti at Deshasha also depicts several Asiatics pierced
by arrows, carrying bows, or breaking the bow in an
act that possibly shows their defeat or surrender. The
Egyptians’ use of the bow is not preserved in the scene
but is attested on another fragment from the causeway
of Wenis that shows an Egyptian aiming his bow at
a fallen Asiatic.496 Middle Kingdom representations
continue to depict individuals utilising the bow in both
hunting and warfare.497 Many betray non-Egyptian
489 Clark, Phillips and Staley 1974; R. Miller, McEwan
and Bergman 1986; Genz 2013, 95.
490 Western and McLeod 1995; Cartwright and Taylor
2008.
491 McLeod 1958, 397.
492 Wolf 1926, 16–18; Clark, Phillips and Staley 1974;
Genz 2013, 95.
493 Genz 2013, 95. See also Huret 1990.
494 R. Wilkinson 1991, 83; N. M arshall 2012, 131; Genz
2013, 95.
495 Goedicke 1971, 74–75; K eel 1975, 417; R edford 1986a,
table 1. See also W.S. Smith 1965, fig. 187.
496 S. H assan 1938, 519–520, pl. 95.
497 See, for instance, fragments depicting foreigners from
the Temple of Nebhepetra Montuhotep at Deir el-Bahari
(Naville 1901, pl. 14 [f]; W.S. Smith 1965, fig. 185), the
siege scene and naval engagement of Intef’s tomb at Thebes
(Jaroš-Deckert 1984, pls. 14, 17), the siege and hunting
scenes from Beni Hassan’s tombs of Baqet II (Nr. 33),
Baqet III (Nr. 15), Khety (Nr. 17), Khnumhotep I (Nr. 14),
Amenemhat (Nr. 2), and Khnumhotep II (Nr. 3) (Newberry
1893a, pls. 13–14, 16; 1893b, pls. 4–5, 13, 15, 35; K anawati
and Evans 2014, pls. 33–36a, 48a, 123–124, 128; 2016,
pls. 33, 35b–36a, 40, 42a, 48, 52b, 94, 98, 101–102; 2018,
pls. 76–78; 2020, pls. 102–103; Lashien and Mourad 2019,
pls. 72–74), and a scene of the hunt in the tomb of Senbi (B1)
at Meir (Blackman 1914, pls. 6–7, 23).
cultural markers, signalling that Egyptians encountered
those of foreign origin, including Asiatics and Nubians,
who employed the bow.498 Such individuals pictured in
the procession of aAm .w in the tomb of Khnumhotep II
(Nr. 3) at Beni Hassan possibly carry a different bow
type that perhaps may be identified by its curved ends
as a composite bow (Fig. 5.34b).499
5.2.3.4.2 The origins and advantages of the composite
bow
Alongside the horse-drawn chariot, the composite
bow has been described as a decisive weapon on
the battlefield.500 A laminate type comprising of
more than one material, the bow is commonly of
wood covered with layers of sinew and horn above
which is a sheath of bark.501 This composite shape
allows for an approximately 120 m range, and is thus
considered stronger, more sophisticated, and more
powerful than the simple bow.502 It likely originated
in EBA Mesopotamia and Elam before increasing
in importance in the MBA Near East, gaining most
visibility in the LBA record.503 From its earliest
attestations, the composite bow was considered an
item of prestige, most possibly due to its complexity,
valuable materials, and cost of production.504 Based
on preserved specimens in Egypt and Western Asia,
composite bows typically required ash, birch or
probably cherry or yew wood, all of which are not
native to Egypt and are scarce in Mesopotamia.505 The
strips of horn glued onto some bows are also believed
to be of the Cretan wild goat.506 The layers and glues
used for the bow’s manufacture additionally required
498 See the siege and hunting scenes from Intef’s tomb (Jaroš-
Deckert 1984, folding pls. 1–3), and Beni Hassan’s tombs
of Baqet III (Nr. 15), Khety (Nr. 17), Khnumhotep I
(Nr. 14), Amenemhat (Nr. 2), and Khnumhotep II
(Nr. 3) (Newberry 1893a, pls. 13–14, 16; 1893b, pls. 4–5,
13, 15; K anawati and Evans 2014, pls. 33–36a, 48a, 123–
124, 128; 2016, pls. 33, 35b–36a, 40, 42a, 48, 52b, 94, 98,
101–102; 2018, pls. 76–78; 2020, pls. 102–103; Lashien
and Mourad 2019, pls. 72–74). For more discussion on
the association between Nubians and archery, see Bietak
1985b; 1987; Meurer 1997, 96–7, 125–6; Liszka 2012,
289–308; Mourad 2020.
499 K anawati and Evans 2014, pls. 48a, 128.
500 Winlock 1947, 158; Gnirs and Loprieno 2009, 271;
Diaz Hernández 2014, 110. For the limitations of the
composite bow, see R andall 2016, 175–176.
501 McLeod 1970, 35; I. Shaw 2012, 104–105.
502 Moorey 1986, 182–187; Bergman, McEwen and
R. Miller 1988, 660; Partridge 2002, 42–44.
503 Moorey 1986, 208–209; Donato 1994; Credland 1994;
Betteridge 1995. Based on physical testing of the bow’s
mechanics, R andall (2016, 175) notes that ‘the degree of
improvement was typically less than commonly claimed
in the majority of sources’.
504 Moorey 1986, 209.
505 McLeod 1958; 1962; 1970, 36; I. Shaw 2012, 105–106.
506 Wachsmann (1987, 78–92) argues that LBA Crete only
supplied caprid horns. Warren 1995, 7; I. Shaw 2012, 106.
 Technological and Militaristic Transformations 269

(a) Simple bows. East wall, tomb of Khnumhotep I (Nr. 14), Beni Hassan, reign of Amenemhat I, Dynasty 12
(courtesy of the Australian Centre for Egyptology)

(i) (ii)

(b) Composite (?) bows. North wall, tomb of Khnumhotep II (Nr. 3), Beni Hassan, reign of Senwosret II, Dynasty 12
(courtesy of the Australian Centre for Egyptology)

(c) Drawn and angular composite bows. Left exterior of chariot body, tomb of Thutmose IV, Valley of the Kings,
Dynasty 18 (Wreszinski 1935, pl. 2)

Fig. 5.34 Scenes showing bows known in Egypt

270
time to cure, dry, and set. The overall production
time ranged from one to ten years, and so composite
bows were best suited for batch-production in larger
workshops.507 As such, palace or temple workshops
were likely commissioned with producing the bows
as well as their associated equipment (such as arm
guards and quivers), while the use of the bows would
have been limited to those with access to these
workshops, whether direct or indirect.508
The bow’s introduction into Egypt has been usually
aligned with the use of the horse-drawn chariot, its
associated chariotry equipment, and, accordingly,
to the Hyksos Dynasty.509 Despite the uncertainties
regarding the common use of body armour and helmets
in MBA warfare, the composite bow’s advantages
over the simple bow may have been noticeable
against such protective measures. Nevertheless, they
were likely not the decisive motives for its use on the
chariot. Instead, the overall length of the bow has been
considered as a primary reason for its simultaneous
development with the chariot; its shorter form is
thought to be more favourable for the confines of
mounted archery, and could produce improved arrow
velocity and range for both hunting and warfare.510
The correlation with chariots likely affected its
consequent production or use by those who had
access to its materials as to those of chariotry, that is,
skilled craftsmen, warriors, and the elite (Fig. 5.34c).
Therefore, it is feasible that the composite bow’s
relation to chariotry was first established in the Near
East, possibly as recognised by the Egyptians by the
Twelfth Dynasty, and then transferred to Egypt as
part of an ‘equipment set’ that included chariots. Still,
as with the circumstantial evidence regarding the use
of chariots, little remains to connect the composite
bow with the Fifteenth Dynasty.
5.2.3.4.3 The archaeological evidence in Egypt
In reviewing the evidence from Tell el-Dab‘a, no
bow remains or associated archery equipment, such
as stone,511 bone, ivory or metal arrowheads, have
yet been found from stratified and closed contexts.
The perishable materials in composite bows may,
however, hinder their retrieval from the wet conditions
at Tell el-Dab‘a and surrounding sites. One leaf-
shaped arrowhead assigned to the Fifteenth Dynasty
507 R. Miller, McEwen and Bergman 1986, 187; Philip 1989,
145; 2003.
508 R. Miller, McEwen and Bergman 1986, 184; Philip 1989,
145; 2003, 187.
509 Longman 1895; McLeod 1958, 397–398; 1962, 13;
Herold 2009, 206–211; Woods 2016–2018, 108.
510 Credland 1994, 21; Hulit and R ichardson 2007,
62; I. Shaw 2012, 104; R andall 2016, 110–111. For a
discussion on whether the introduction of the horse-
drawn light chariot led to the invention of the composite
bow, see H amblin 2006, 146; R andall 2016, 109–127.
511 No arrowheads of silex are known from MBA layers (see
Tillmann 2007).
Chapter 5
Phases E/1–D/3512 was retrieved from Area A/I-g/4-
Pl. 2 at Tell el-Dab‘a, a context disturbed by New
Kingdom pits and Late Period foundations.513 Indeed,
its shape was also ascribed to an Egyptian-type
arrowhead common in the New Kingdom and Late
Period.514 Generally, the shape was first developed
in the MBA Levant, but is otherwise attested in
Second Intermediate Period Egypt.515 The arrowhead
type later occurs in Tutankhamun’s archery set, and
Nineteenth Dynasty levels at Qantir.516
Also extant are arrowheads from ‘Ezbet Helmi’s
palatial precinct. These include at least two
metal arrowheads from H/VI, Phase C/2 that are
unpublished but of leaf shape,517 and others of
different type.518 Of the latter, the cellars below
the royal apartment of Palace G (Phase C/3–C/2)
yielded several bifacial stone arrowheads as well as
bone- and one bronze-tipped arrow alongside a piece
of scale armour.519 From the palatial workshop of
Phase C/3–C/2 were two lumps of around 140 bronze
arrowheads identified as of Late Helladic type.520
Given the importance of archery, Philip rightly
points out the absence of arrowheads in Middle
Kingdom and Second Intermediate Period burial
assemblages in the Delta compared to the rest of
Egypt.521 This parallels findings from the Southern
Levant from where few arrowheads were collected
from MBA graves.522 Bows and metal arrowheads
have also only been occasionally retrieved from EBA
and MBA sites in the Northern Levant.523 Despite
such scarcity in the MBA archaeological record, the
textual and iconographic record has produced some
evidence for the use of composite bows in battle and
in relation with chariots as, for instance, in MBA
512 Philip 2006, 68– 69, fig. 29 [1].
513 Philip 2006, 69.
514 Philip 2006, 69.
515 Wolf 1926, 85–86; Genz 2013, 97.
516 McLeod 1982, 19–21; Pusch 2004; Genz 2013, 97.
517 Inv. Nrs. 9617 and 9622. Prell, personal communication.
518 See, for instance, those collected from Areas H/I and
H/III, Phases C/2 and C/3 (Jankovich 2008, 167–170
[Nrs. 238–243]).
519 Tillmann 1994, 108, 257 [Nrs. 348–349]; Aston and
Bietak 2017, 504, 507, 509, fig. 12; Bietak 2018, 231.
For a discussion on the proposed Nubian origin of the
stone arrowheads, see Graves-Brown 2015, 40–42. Silex
arrowheads, and their refuse, were collected from the
workshops at Qantir, suggesting that they were produced
on-site (see Tillmann 2007, 64–69).
520 TD 8315 (H/III-r/18-Pl. 1) and TD 8452 (H/III-q/17-
Pl. 2–3). The lumps were originally in linen bags and
were, as excavators note, probably imported to be
assembled locally. Bietak, Dorner and Jánosi 2001,
88, fig. 43; Bietak 2010d, 17, fig. 2.6; 2018, 242, 245;
Jankovich 2008, 165–166 [Nrs. 236–237].
521 Philip 2006, 148.
522 Philip 1989, 145; 2006, 148.
523 Genz 2013, 97–98.
 Technological and Militaristic Transformations
Fig. 5.35 Detail from Stela J. 129 showing Amenhotep II aiming at a copper target. Temple of Karnak, Dynasty 18.
After Giménez Izquierdo 2017, fig. 2
texts from Mari.524 A greater number of arrowheads
and composite bows are attested in funerary and
settlement contexts from the beginning of the LBA.525
This, however, may be linked to the development of
funerary assemblages. The LBA ‘warrior’ tomb of the
Southern Levant transformed to include a composite
bow, arrows with bronze heads, and leather armour
scales.526 Elite and royal tombs at, for example, Qatna,
Kamid el-Loz, Tell el-‘Ajjul and Dan, also commonly
feature arrowheads in their assemblages. Such finds
signal that the popularity of the weapon, as well as its
representation of social prestige, reached a pinnacle
in the LBA Levant.527
In contrast, arrowheads and archery sets are
attested in Egyptian tombs before the New Kingdom.
Fragments of self or simple bows were, for example,
collected from a burial chamber of the Sixth Dynasty
tomb of Niankhpepykem at Meir,528 late Old Kingdom
to First Intermediate Period tombs at Naga el-
Deir,529 as well as the graves of soldiers attributed to
524 The composite bow has been identified as the tilpānum
in the Mari texts. Durand 1983, 333 [Nr. 295]; Moorey
1986, 210; H amblin 2006, 254–255; Genz 2013, 98.
Tablets from Alalakh Level VII also mention bowmen
with chariots (Moorey 1986, 210).
525 Philip 1989, 146; 2003, 187.
526 For more on the continuation of the concept of ‘warrior
burials’ into the LBA Near East, see H achmann 1996,
207–209; Hulit 2002, 210–215; Philip 1995c; 2006, 148;
Prell 2019b.
527 The bow was also a prestigious item in Anatolia. Petrie
1933, pl. 9 [24–25, 29–33]; R. Miron 1990; Ben-Dov
2002, 124–136; al-R awi 2011; 2015; Genz 2013, 98–100.
528 Burial Shaft IV. K anawati et al. 2015, 52, pl. 38a.
529 Clark, Phillips and Staley 1974, 326–328, 346–347;
Western and McLeod 1995, 79–80.
271
Montuhotep II’s reign or the early Twelfth Dynasty at
Deir el-Bahari.530 An early Eleventh Dynasty burial
at Dra‘ Abu el-Naga yielded a set of arrows;531 the
Twelfth Dynasty tomb of Nakht at Asyut included
a set of model arrowheads, bows, and possible
quivers;532 the Middle Kingdom Tomb 16L25/1 at
Deir el-Bersha produced arrowheads;533 and the
Middle Kingdom tomb of Sobekhotep (Nr. 723) at
Beni Hassan contained seven arrows and a simple
bow.534 The tradition evidently continued into the
New Kingdom, with, for example, two self bows
and 20 arrows found in the burial chamber of early
Eighteenth Dynasty tomb TT 11–12,535 and 14 simple
bows found in the tomb of Tutankhamun.536
Fewer specimens of composite bows are attested.
Those of known provenance were commonly collected
from tombs of warriors and the upper class, as well
530 Winlock 1945. For more on the nature and possible
Twelfth Dynasty date of these graves, see Vogel 2003.
531 Five arrows were found, intentionally broken in two (see
below, n. 534). Galán 2015, 332, fig. 3 [a–d].
532 Chassinat and Palanque 1911, 47–48, fig. 3.
533 The arrows alongside eight copper spearheads were
collected from the tomb’s Shaft 16L25/1A. An additional
copper spearhead was found in Shaft 16L25/1B.
De Meyer 2016, 96–97, 100, figs. 15–16, 21.
534 Garstang 1907, 160, figs. 161–162. Of uncertain date,
Tomb Nr. 183 at Beni Hassan also yielded pieces of a
bow placed in a box. Garstang suggests that the bow
was intentionally broken and accords to earlier examples
from Egypt that could relate to a ritual possibly aiming
to render the weapon ineffective. See Clark, Phillips
and Staley 1974, 325. For more on bows and arrows in
Middle Kingdom tombs, see Podvin 2000.
535 García and Galán 2016.
536 W. McLeod 1982, 6–12, pl. 1.
272
as those of the royal family. One of the earliest was
tentatively traced to a tomb under the foundations of
Hatshepsut’s Mortuary Temple at Deir el-Bahari and
assigned to the late Seventeenth or early Eighteenth
Dynasty.537 Its sheath was identified as of European
white birch, a type non-native to Egypt and likely
imported from a region to its north.538 Another two
were retrieved from the tomb of the warrior Ahmose-
Penhat, an attendant of Thutmose I;539 one was
collected from the Dra‘ Abu el-Naga tomb of Seaa,
apparently from #Arw, of Thutmose III’s reign;540 and
one was retrieved from a reused Eleventh Dynasty
tomb at Dra‘ Abu el-Naga that was dated to the
Nineteenth Dynasty.541 Of the royal tombs, only a
gold wrist-guard inscribed with the name of Ahmose
was collected from Ahhotep’s burial,542 and an
incised composite bow was found in Amenhotep II’s
tomb.543 Tutankhamun’s tomb preserved at least 29
composite bows, a number of which were extensively
decorated and incised, signalling their high value and
production for royalty.544 Such evidence indicates
that the LBA prestige associated with the composite
bow is also encountered in Egypt, where instead
it perhaps occurs as an extension of the earlier
significance attributed to archery activities. This is
further confirmed by the iconographic developments
linked with archery.
5.2.3.4.4 The artistic evidence in Egypt
Different stances and bow types have been identified
in Egyptian art. The unstrung composite bow
is believed to have a double-curved profile; the
strung weapon is depicted as an angular bow with a
triangular profile; and the drawn composite bow is
shown with a large curve.545 The earlier association
of the bow with royal power continues and transforms
in the New Kingdom with the iconography of the
pharaoh on the battlefield. While the king was shown
aiming his bow and arrow in hunting scenes of the
Old and Middle Kingdoms, it is from the very early
Eighteenth Dynasty that he is portrayed on the
horse-drawn chariot aiming against his enemies.546
This largely coincides with developments in the
representation of the king on a chariot. According
to Harvey’s reconstruction, the motif may have
537 MMA 28.9.9. Winlock 1947, 158, n. 20; H ayes 1959, 29;
McLeod 1962, 15–16, pls. 11 [figs. 1a, 2a], 12 [fig. 3].
538 H ayes 1959, 29; McLeod 1962, 16.
539 MMA 25.3.303. Winlock 1942, 48; 1947, 158, n. 20; Hayes
1959, 211; McLeod 1962, 16–17, pls. 11 [fig. 1b], 12 [fig. 4].
540 JE 31389. McLeod 1970, 29 [E].
541 Berlin Inv. Nr. 4712. McLeod 1970, 29 [G].
542 H.W. Müller 1989, pl. 1.
543 JE 32612. Urk. 4, 1363 [4–20]; McLeod 1962, 14, n. 19;
1970, 29 [F].
544 McLeod 1970.
545 McLeod 1958, 397–401; 1962, 13–19; 1970, 35; Morkot
2010, 51.
546 See Chapter 5.2.2.4.
Chapter 5
already been introduced into the royal funerary
artistic programme for Ahmose’s Funerary Temple
at Abydos.547 Although the fragment of its battle
scenes have not preserved Ahmose’s figure,548 they
do represent Egyptians and perhaps Asiatics carrying
bows of unidentifiable type (see Fig. 3.37).549 If the
scene represents the king’s attack against one of
Apophis’s strongholds, the latter’s inhabitants could
accordingly have been armed with bows and arrows.
The same may be proposed for the fallen Asiatics
portrayed on fragments of the battle scene from
Thutmose II’s Funerary Temple in Western Thebes
(see Fig. 5.14).550 Again, however, the bow types are
unidentifiable as they are either shown already drawn,
or are unpreserved. The drawn bows of Thutmose I
and Amenhotep II as portrayed on their seals
could also be either simple or composite bows (see
Figs. 5.12–13).551 The latter, however, is more likely
as they are associated with the king on his chariot.
Indeed, later depictions of the king with an undrawn
bow shows the weapon with a triangular profile.552
547 H arvey 1998, 362–363, fig. 97.
548 Harvey mentions a small fragment that ‘may derive from
the rear legs of the royal horse team’. H arvey 1998, 365.
549 An individual on one fragment identified as an Asiatic
by his fringed long sleeve carries an object in his hand
that could be either a dagger or a bow. Another fragment,
not illustrated in Harvey’s dissertation, could possibly
represent a man’s arm through a bow, the positioning
perhaps signalling that he is also a fallen Asiatic. H arvey
1998, 328–332, n. 747, figs. 80, 82.
550 Bruyère 1952, pls. 2–4; H arvey 1998, fig. 92; S. Heinz
2001, 235.
551 Newberry 1908, pl. 27 [4]; H.R. H all 1913, 50 [Nr. 475];
Desroches-Noblecourt 1950, pl. 5; S. Heinz 2001, 235.
552 For examples of the king on a chariot carrying
the angular bow, see Tutankhamun’s belt buckle
(Desroches-Noblecourt 1963, pl. 22a); a limestone
stela of Amenhotep III from Thebes (Petrie 1897,
pl. 10); Sety I’s battle scenes at Karnak (Wreszinski
1935, pls. 34, 40, 43, 47, 50); Ramesses II’s battle scene
at Abu Simbel (Wreszinski 1935, pl. 181), Beit el-Wali
(Wreszinski 1935, pl. 164), Karnak (Wreszinski 1935,
pls. 56–56a), and Luxor (Wreszinski 1935, pl. 75); as well as
Ramesses III’s battle scenes at Medinet Habu (Wreszinski
1935, pls. 112, 143). For further attestations of the king with
the angular bow, see also Amenhotep II’s smiting scene
(LD 3, pl. 61); Sety I’s presentation of captives scenes in
the Karnak Temple (Wreszinski 1935, pls. 37, 48, 52);
Ramesses II’s smiting scenes at Aksha (Vercoutter
1962, pl. 34c), Beit el-Wali (Wreszinski 1935, pls. 163–
163a, 164a), and Luxor (K itchen 1964, fig. 1 [4–5]);
Ramesses II’s presentation of captives scenes at Karnak
(Wreszinski 1935, pl. 59), and Luxor (Wreszinski 1935,
pl. 73); Merneptah’s smiting scene at Karnak (Wreszinski
1935, pl. 58b); as well as Ramesses III’s presentation of
captives scenes at Medinet Habu (Wreszinski 1935,
pls. 142–143, 150, 155). For more, see McLeod 1958,
397–398, n. 10; 1970, 35, n. 2; S. Heinz 2001, 237, 243–
246, 249–252, 259–260, 268, 270, 275, 295, 306, 310–311,
315, 317.
 Technological and Militaristic Transformations 273

Fig. 5.36 A scene showing craftsmen at work. East wall, tomb of Menkheperraseneb (TT 86), Sheikh ‘abd el-Qurna,
reign of Thutmose III to Amenhotep II, Dynasty 18. After N. de G. Davies 1933a, pl. 12

Fig. 5.37 A scene showing craftsmen at work. East wall, tomb of Puyemra (TT 39), el-Khokha, reign of
Thutmose III, Dynasty 18. After N. de G. Davies 1922, pl. 23

This can clearly be observed on Thutmose IV’s
chariot, which is decorated on its right exterior with
an image of the king on his chariot drawing a curved
bow against Asiatics, some of whom are armed with
angular bows, and on the left exterior with the king on
his chariot holding an angular bow in his right hand,
the left upraised and grasping a short-lugged axe
(Fig. 5.34c; see Fig. 5.15).553
The prestige of archery continues to be highlighted
in illustrations of the king’s prowess as an archer in
other activities. These include hunting or aiming at
553 Carter and Newberry 1904, 24, pls. 10–11.
copper targets (Fig. 5.35).554 The introduction of the
latter motif could, according to Giménez Izquierdo,
be associated with the display of the pharaoh striking
foreign or chaotic elements.555 It also emphasises his
athleticism and strength over such forces.556
554 The feat is attested for Thutmose III on the Armant stela
(Urk. 4, 1245 [1–11]), Amenhotep II on the Karnak,
Amada and Elephantine stelae as well as several reliefs
(Schäfer 1929; 1931), Thutmose IV on the Sphinx
stela (Urk. 4, 1541 [10]), as well as Ay and Ramesses II
(T.M. Davis 1912, 127; Giménez Izquierdo 2017,
figs. 2–3). See also N. de G. Davies 1935; McLeod 1962,
13–15; 1970, 37; Giménez Izquierdo 2017.
555 Giménez Izquierdo 2017.
556 Giménez Izquierdo 2017.
274 Chapter 5
Apart from the composite bow becoming closely tied
with the iconography of the king, it was also mostly
associated with warriors or upper class officials.557
While this may be linked with its importance as a
status symbol in the LBA Near East, the composite
bow additionally required particular resources for
production that classified it as a luxury item. As
abovementioned, composite bows as well as their
related items were likely produced in larger workshops.
In Egypt, this is confirmed by depictions of temple and
royal workshops in Theban tombs from the reign of
Thutmose III onwards. They show the production of
composite bows with associated archery sets (including
arrows and new types of round-bottomed quivers
and arm guards)558 and, in some cases, chariotry
equipment, daggers, and/or scimitars. Examples
include the workshop scenes of Menkheperraseneb
(TT 86; Thutmose III to Amenhotep II’s reign;
Fig. 5.36),559 Puyemra (TT 39; Thutmose III’s reign;
Fig. 5.37),560 Mery (TT 95; Amenhotep II’s reign),561
Kenamun (TT 93; Amenhotep II’s reign),562 Hepu
(TT 66; Thutmose IV’s reign),563 and Kairy (Saqqara,
early Nineteenth Dynasty).564 Some tomb scenes
further indicate that composite bows were brought
into Egypt by foreigners, most of whom appear to
be of Near Eastern origin.565 These occur in the so-
called ‘tribute’ scenes of the tombs of Intef (TT 155;
Hatshepsut to Thutmose III’s reign),566 Rekhmira
(TT 100; Thutmose III to Amenhotep II’s reign),567
Menkheperraseneb (TT 86; see Fig. 5.21),568 Weseramun
(TT 131; Thutmose III’s reign),569 Amunedjeh (TT 84;
Thutmose III to Amenhotep II’s reign),570 Amenmose
(TT 42; Thutmose III to Amenhotep II’s reign),571
Amenmose (TT 89; Amenhotep III’s reign),572
Sobekhotep (TT 63; Thutmose IV to Amenhotep III’s
reign),573 and Nebamun (TT 90; Thutmose IV to
Amenhotep III’s reign).574
Such evidence supports the restriction of
technological expertise and resources for the
composite bow’s production to particular social
557 McLeod 1970, 35; Genz 2013, 97.
558 For more on these items, see McLeod 1982, 62–63;
I. Shaw 2012, 105.
559 N. de G. Davies 1933a, pl. 12.
560 N. de G. Davies 1922, pl. 23.
561 N. de G. Davies 1933a, pls. 11–12.
562 N. de G. Davies 1930, pl. 22A.
563 N. de G. Davies 1963, pl. 8.
564 Herold 2003, fig. 2.
565 See also Wachsmann 1987, 76.
566 Säve-Söderbergh 1957, pl. 13.
567 N. de G. Davies 1943, pl. 22.
568 N. de G. Davies 1933a, pls. 5, 7.
569 N. de G. Davies 1926, figs. 4–5.
570 N.M. Davies and N. de G. Davies 1941b, pl. 13.
571 N. de G. Davies 1933a, pl. 35.
572 N.M. Davies and N. de G. Davies 1941a, pl. 24.
573 Dziobek and A bdel-R aziq 1990, pl. 33.
574 N. de G. Davies 1923, pl. 28.
groups. Knowledge on the use of the composite bow
also seems to be limited to these circles. A scene and
its accompanying caption in the tomb of Min at Sheikh
‘abd el-Qurna (TT 109) showcases the tomb owner, a
mayor of Thinis and overseer of the prophets of Osiris
and Onuris training Amenhotep II on how to use both
the composite and the simple bow.575 Combined with
artistic and textual evidence from both Egypt and the
Near East, the draw technique of the composite bow
evidently differed.576 Further training, and thus more
resources, may have been required for its use, which
would only add to its value across the region.
5.2.3.4.5 Observations
In view of these factors, the possible occurrence of
Thutmose I and perhaps Ahmose aiming the composite
bow on the battlefield suggests that the weapon was
already incorporated into Egyptian royal iconography
from the very beginning of the Eighteenth Dynasty.
Given its earlier use in the Near East, it is feasible that
the resources, production techniques and expertise in
using the composite bow were transferred to Egypt
from the north. If the iconography is a reflection
of available equipment, the complexity of these
elements favours a date of introduction before their
incorporation into the royal artistic programme, and
so before the reign of Thutmose I. This would align
with the postulated Seventeenth Dynasty date of the
composite bow from Deir el-Bahari as well as the
reconstruction of Ahmose’s battle scene. The extant
evidence indicates that the process of transfer had
reached its final stages by the reign of Hatshepsut and/
or Thutmose III. By this stage, the composite bow had
become incorporated into the known repertoire of
luxurious commodities of Egyptian elite circles, and
the required facilities for its production had developed
in state-controlled workshops.
The role of the Hyksos Dynasty in the earlier stages
of this process can only be conjectured based on
(1) the imported material of the Deir el-Bahari
specimen, and (2) the bow’s increasing symbolic
importance and use on the Near Eastern battlefield.
For (1), Avaris’s posited monopoly of trade with
the Eastern Mediterranean may have consequently
regulated access to the required materials and expertise
for the production of the bow, suggesting perhaps that
it is a looted item. However, one may argue that either
the bow and/or its related technical elements could
have already transferred to Upper Egypt before this
monopoly had developed, or via a different source.577
Regarding (2), evidence for the transfer of the bow’s
significance, especially in funerary contexts, has not
yet been found in Lower Egypt, so whether or not it
was a known prestige item cannot be ascertained.
If the chariot was available to the Hyksos kings and
575 Wachsmann 2009, 246*–248*, fig. 11 [a].
576 See Wachsmann 2009.
577 Genz 2013, 101–102.
 Technological and Militaristic Transformations
used on the battlefield, then it is also possible that the
composite bow was utilised by them and their military
personnel. However, this very fact remains unclear,578
and does not reduce the possibility of the weapon’s
simultaneous use in battle by those affiliated with the
Seventeenth Dynasty. Indeed, the potential occurrence
of such a battle featuring chariotry towards the end of
the Second Intermediate Period could have provided
adequate initiative for both Upper and Lower Egypt to
adopt the associated composite bow for its advantages.
Consequently, the weapon’s effectiveness and symbolic
value may have added further motives for the Theban
administration’s adoption of a new, Near-Eastern
influenced royal iconography that displayed the ruler
conquering foreign forces through the use of shared
symbols of power and strength. Still, while theoretically
feasible, no concrete conclusions regarding the
weapon’s introduction by the rulers of Avaris can yet
be made based on the available evidence.
5.2.4 Protective Measures
The transfer of new metallurgical technologies,
weaponry, and vehicles that were affiliated with
warfare entailed additional elements that were likely
introduced as ‘part of the package’.579 Indeed, some
of the items discussed display a certain degree of
interconnectedness. The introduction of chariots
was reliant on the presence of horses and may have
influenced the adoption of the composite bow, which in
turn led to an increase in the production of heavier metal
arrowheads, a new type of quiver, as well as arm-guards.
As the introduction of the light horse-drawn chariot and
composite bow have often been attributed to the Hyksos
Dynasty, so have related protective and defensive
measures in combat.580 The extant evidence regarding
these measures’ association with this dynasty, however,
is not so clear. Nevertheless, in assessing the extent of
the impact of the northern Second Intermediate Period
dynasties on the region’s unfolding history, one should
also consider the possibility of related developments.
As discussed in this section, the use of the bow and
new types of daggers and axes could have introduced
new methods of attack that required different protective
measures. These include a new type of shield, helmets,
and scale armour. Coincidingly, to ensure their most
effective utilisation, all these measures necessitated
certain developments and adaptations in the military
and administrative apparatus, as well as new offensive
and defensive tactics.581
578 See discussion in Chapter 5.2.2.
579 As I. Shaw (2012, 106) writes, ‘each individual weapon is
part of an organic and dynamic system, so that individual
pieces of military technology constantly interact with one
another and adapt to the system, operating as components
in a complex and slowly changing overall military strategy’.
580 See I. Shaw 2001, 66–68; 2012, 104–106.
581 Herold 2009, 212–214. For more on these factors, see
Chapter 5.5.
275
5.2.4.1 Shields
Shields were a common piece of defensive equipment
in both Egypt and the Near East.582 In Egypt, no full-
sized shields assigned to pre-New Kingdom contexts
are known to have survived.583 However, based on
representations, the shield ( ik m) from the
Predynastic to First Intermediate Period was depicted
rectangular and large, its likely wooden frame covered
with animal hide.584 It became slightly smaller by the
Middle Kingdom, and was represented with a rounded
top, a flat base, and a horizontal handle placed on its
upper-third quadrant (Fig. 5.38b–c).585 Estimated to
have measured approximately 70–100 cm long and
50–60 cm wide,586 the shield would have effectively
protected soldiers from projectiles or stones aimed
from a besieged location. In open-field combat,
however, it would not have been as protective.
By the New Kingdom, shields were smaller and
rounded at the top, the sides tapering inwards
towards the bottom.587 The earliest examples date
to the Eighteenth Dynasty. Infantrymen depicted
in Hatshepsut’s Mortuary Temple at Deir el-
Bahari carry this new shield type,588 the design also
occurring in the workshop scenes of Puyemra (TT 39;
Thutmose III’s reign; Fig. 5.37),589 Amenmose (TT 42;
Thutmose III to Amenhotep II’s reign),590 and Hepu
(TT 66; Thutmose IV’s reign).591 Relief fragments of
Tutankhamun’s battle scenes from Karnak592 as well as
preserved specimens from the tomb of Tutankhamun
betray a similar shape.593 The shield design continues
into the Nineteenth Dynasty, with chariot riders
commonly shown carrying it, perhaps for improved
protection of the face.594
582 Gilbert 2004, 43–44.
583 Nibbi 2003, 170; Wernick 2014/2015, 50.
584 Nibbi 2003, 170–171; Herold 2009, 212; Wernick
2014/2015, 54–58, table 1.
585 See, for instance, the shields depicted in the scenes from
the Beni Hassan tombs of Baqet III, Khety, Khnumhotep I
and Amenemhat (Newberry 1893a, pls. 14, 16, 47; 1893b,
pls. 5; 15; K anawati and Evans 2016, pls. 40, 42a, 48, 52a,
97–98, 101–102; 2018, pls. 76–78; 2020, pls. 102–103;
Lashien and Mourad 2019, pls. 21a, 32, 46b, 47b, 49b, 72a,
73–74, 76b, 77b). See also the models and scene from
Asyut (Bietak 1985b; 1987, 117–118; Meurer 1997, 96–97,
125–126; el-K hadragy 2006, 151). For further examples,
see Nibbi 2003, figs. 11–14; Wernick 2014/2015, 50–51.
586 H amblin 2006, 427; Wernick 2014/2015, 51.
587 Nibbi 2003, 177–178, fig. 14.
588 Naville 1901, pl. 90.
589 N. de G. Davies 1922, pl. 23.
590 N. de G. Davies 1933a, pl. 35.
591 N. de G. Davies 1963, pl. 8.
592 Legrain 1929, 135, fig. 87; Chevrier 1956, 8, pl. 1, fig. 1.
593 Nibbi 2006, 67.
594 Littauer and Crouwel 1979, 91–92. For examples, see
Wreszinski 1935, pls. 54a, 183; Wernick 2014/2015,
52–54, figs. 6, 9–12. For depictions of Reshef with this
shield, see Cornelius 1994, pls. 9–12 [RR11–15, RR18],
14 [RR19b], 18 [RR23–24], 28 [RM7].
276 Chapter 5

(b) Siege scene, pillar IIb, tomb of Intef (TT 386),

Asasif, reign of Montuhotep II, Dynasty 11
(after Hamblin 2006, fig. 11)

(a) Siege scene, Mari, Third Millennium BC

(after Yadin 1972b, fig. 1)

(c) South wall pillar, tomb of Khnumhotep I (Nr. 14),

Beni Hassan, reign of Amenemhat I, Dynasty 12
(courtesy of the Australian Centre for Egyptology)

(d) Fragment, Temple of Karnak, reign of Tutankhamun

(after Chevrier 1956, fig. 1)

(e) Battle of Kadesh, Karnak, reign of Sety I (f) Battle of Kadesh, Abu Simbel, reign of Ramesses II
(after Wernick 2014/2015, fig. 14 [A]) (after Wernick 2014/2015, fig. 12 [A])

Fig. 5.38 Details showing shields and handles

 Technological and Militaristic Transformations
Alongside the new shield type was a change in the
handle’s placement from a horizontal to a vertical
orientation, and closer to the centre of the shield.595
According to their dimensions, Wernick has identified a
number of surviving items generally assigned between
Dynasties 11–18 with originally vertically orientated
handles on shields.596 This signals that the change in
handle placement may have occurred before extant
evidence for the new shield type. A similar situation
is found in the Near East, wherein the vertical handle
is used for a shielding device before it is attested on
smaller shield types.597 Representations mainly surface
in a Third Millennium BC siege scene from Mari that
shows a warrior in a melee attack holding a curved
object with the handle for protection (Fig. 5.38a).598
In Egypt, one of the first known attestations for the
incorporation of the vertical handle with the new shield
type occurs on relief fragments of Tutankhamun’s
battle scenes at Karnak (Fig. 5.38d).599 Asiatic chariot
riders and soldiers portrayed in New Kingdom scenes
(Fig. 5.38e), such as those depicted on the right outer
side of Thutmose IV’s chariot, on Tutankhamun’s
wooden chest, or in Sety I’s battle scenes at Karnak,
also carry a rectangular shield bearing a vertically
orientated handle.600 The latter is additionally attested
on shields of various shape carried by Nubians,601
Hittites,602 and Aegeans during the LBA.603
Overall, the evidence seems to suggest that by
the mid-Eighteenth Dynasty, Egyptians and their
neighbours were utilising shields with a vertically
orientated and centrally positioned handle, especially
595 Nibbi 2003, 170–181; Wernick 2014/2015, 52–54.
596 These include MMA 27.3.70, collected from Tomb
MMA 116 at Deir el-Bahari; MMA 14.1.413, from the
tomb of Sobeknakht (MMA 808) at Sheikh ‘abd el-
Qurna; Romer-Pelizaeus Museum Nr. 6096 from Asyut;
and the unprovenanced MMA 12.182.52, EA 49245 and
EA 49246 (British Museum), as well as MM 19742 and
MM 19850. See, with references, Wernick 2014/2015,
58–60, table 2. See also H ayes 1953, 278, fig. 181.
597 Evidence for the use of shields from the Third to the mid-
Second Millennium BC Near East is scant. See Gernez
2007, 105–106.
598 Yadin 1972b, fig. 1; Wernick 2014/2015, 64, fig. 25 [B].
599 Legrain 1929, 135, fig. 87; Chevrier 1956, 8, fig. 1, pl. 1.
600 Carter and Newberry 1904, pl. 10; Wreszinski 1935,
pl. 36; Desroches-Noblecourt 1963, pls. 16–17b. See
also Nibbi 2003, fig. 8.
601 An example may be found on the wooden chest of
Tutankhamun, which depicts fallen Nubians with oval-
shaped shields, the handles of which are placed vertically
(Desroches-Noblecourt 1963, pl. 17a).
602 An example of Hittites with figure-of-eight shields
and more rectangular-shaped shields with vertical and
central handles is represented on Ramesses II’s Battle
of Kadesh scene at the Ramesseum (Wreszinski 1935,
pls. 96–99).
603 This placement is attested for the circular and figure-
of-eight shield types. See Wreszinski 1935, pl. 146;
Georganas 2010, 311–312.
277
in association with the chariot. The smaller shield
design with tapering sides was evidently used by the
Egyptian infantry by the reign of Hatshepsut. The
handle type, however, may have already developed in
the Middle Kingdom. Further specification on the date
and process of its introduction and adoption is limited
due to the lack of insufficient data. Nevertheless, its
combination with the newer shield type suggests a
strategic development likely related to its functional
advantages. Wernick proposes that the new design
would have been more effective in protecting against
missile attacks (e.g. arrows or stones), with the rounded
top and wider upper section limiting overhand strikes
while providing greater coverage of the upper torso.604
This hints that the shield may have developed in
response to the increased use of the composite bow,
possibly protecting its wielder from missiles projected
from an angle, as from a chariot or a fortification.
5.2.4.2 Helmets and body armour
5.2.4.2.1 The evidence from the Near East
To safeguard the head from direct attacks, helmets
were introduced into the Egyptian armament. Their
use is elsewhere earlier attested from the First Dynasty
of Ur as, for instance, with the copper helmets found
on the skulls of bodyguards buried in the city’s royal
tombs.605 Gold helmets were also discovered in the
tombs, and possibly ceremonially represent or mimic
those worn by the kings in battle.606 According to other
artistic representations, such as on the Standard of Ur
or relief fragments from Ebla and Mari, soldiers could
also wear metal or leather caps,607 the former likely for
more elite bodyguards.608 Such helmets continue to be
attested in the artistic repertoire of Mesopotamia and
the Levant in the Third Millennium BC.609
In the first half of the Second Millennium BC,
evidence for their use is scant. This could be explained
either by their limited adoption or, if leather, by the
nature of their perishable material. A silver cap was
uncovered in a sarcophagus from Susa of the early
Second Millennium BC,610 suggesting that metal
helmets continued to be a prerogative of the wealthy.
In the Levant, helmet-wearing soldiers have been
identified on MBA seals as well as bronze figurines.611
604 Darnell and M anassa (2007, 83) add that the design
would have been suitable to push a line of enemy
infantry, although a horizontally placed handle may be
more effective for this. Wernick 2014/2015, 62–63.
605 Collins 2003a, 103 [Nr. 56]; H amblin 2006, 48.
606 A miet 1980b, pl. 45; H amblin 2006, 48.
607 Contenau 1947, 2049–2051, fig. 1138; Parrot 1956,
136–155, pls. 56–57; D. H ansen 2003, 97–100 [Nr. 52];
Collins 2003b, 175–176 [Nr. 115c]; H amblin 2006, 49,
246–247.
608 H amblin 2006, 49.
609 Collins 2003b, 175–176, ns. 4–5; H amblin 2006, 55, 58,
86–88, 138, 246–247, figs. 1–3.
610 De Mecquenem 1943, pl. 3.
611 Seeden 1980, pls. 86–87, 94–95; Philip 1989, 176.
278 Chapter 5
Two haematite cylinder seals purchased from Aleppo,
for instance, show men likely wearing helmets: on one,
they are following a horse-drawn chariot driven by an
archer, and on the other,612 the chariot driver himself,
also with a quiver, possibly wears a helmet and scale
armour.613 The use of helmets has additionally been
translated in texts from Mari614 as well as on a Hittite
cylinder seal.615 They continued to be used in the
second half of the Second Millennium BC and were
usually shown as ovoid or conical objects, oftentimes
with projections protecting the ears and/or neck.616
They were either of bronze scale armour plates,
bronze plate, or leather strengthened with bronze, and
could feature plumes or crests.617 Despite the limited
evidence, some connection to the elite as well as
chariotry may be ascertained.618
The same has been construed for the use of
metal body armour, thought to first occur in the
late MBA.619 No material has survived to clarify
its origins and development, but, as the earliest
examples are well-formed, they were very likely an
outcome of several stages of development.620 The
first known representations occur on MBIIA–B
seals from the Northern Levant showing charioteers
with quivers and/or a bow, as well as possible scale
armour identified by their rectangular hatching (see
Fig. 5.9b).621 This association with chariotry has
led to some arguing that the armour was developed
in response to the more widespread military use
of the chariot in combination with the composite
bow, as archers would not have been able to bear
shields while aiming from the chariot’s platform.622
Support for this link has been sought in LBI texts and
material remains from Nuzi, wherein scale armour
is known as sariam (Hurrian).623 While the dating
612 Ashmolean Museum AN 1920.25. Moorey 1986, pl. 3;
H amblin 2006, 148.
613 Ashmolean Museum AN 1912.115. Moorey 1986, pl. 5;
H amblin 2006, 148–149.
614 The word qurpissum in the Mari texts was originally
translated as ‘body armour’, but is now posited to be
‘helmet’. Sasson 1969, 30–31; K endall 1981; Durand
1998, 391; Heimpel 2003, 205 [26.71]; Dezsö 2002, 201–
204; H amblin 2006, 254, 478–479, n. 25.
615 Collon 1987, 161 [Nr. 737]; H amblin 2006, 303.
616 Pollastrini 2017, 513.
617 Dezsö 2002, 200; Pollastrini 2017, 513, fig. 1.
618 Philip 1989, 176–177; H amblin 2006, 279.
619 H amblin 2006, 478–479, n. 25.
620 Gonen 1975, 79. For the proposed but unconfirmed
evidence for the use of body armour in the Third
Millennium BC, see Moorey 1986, 210–211; H amblin
2006, 246.
621 See A miet 1969, 7, fig. 9; Littauer and Crouwel 1979,
63, fig. 36; Moorey 1986, 210, pl. 5; H amblin 2006, 133,
148–149, fig. 4 [e].
622 Yadin 1963, 84; K endall 1974, 263.
623 Starr 1939, 475–480; Kendall 1974, 263–286. The word
is utilised in other Near Eastern languages likely as a
loanword. See Chapter 5.2.4.2.2, n. 662.
of this material has been used to propose that scale
armour was a Hurrian innovation,624 the MBA seals
hint at possibly different origins and more complex
processes of development in the Near East. Indeed,
pieces of scale armour have been collected from
other LBA contexts,625 such as at Megiddo (LBI),626
Tell el-‘Ajjul (early LBA),627 Tell ‘Arqa (likely LBI),628
Kamid el-Loz (LBII),629 Ugarit (LBA),630 and Alalakh
(LBA, Level IV destruction).631
5.2.4.2.2 The evidence from Egypt
In Egypt, evidence for the use of scale armour (m ss;
Tryn) and helmets (d b n) before the New Kingdom
has not yet been discovered.632 Perhaps an early
attempt at portraying the blue crown as helmet may
be found on the jasper seal of Thutmose I depicting
the king with the khepresh crown, aiming his
bow and arrow at an enemy from his chariot (see
Fig. 5.12).633 The helmet is more clearly identified
among the items brought by northern foreigners in
the tombs of Amenmose (TT 42; Thutmose III to
Amenhotep II’s reign)634 and Menkheperraseneb
(TT 86; Thutmose III to Amenhotep II’s reign; see
Fig. 5.21).635 Fragments of Tutankhamen’s battle scene
also depict Egyptian charioteers with helmets,636 as
well as one helmet strewn on the battlefield near a fallen
Asiatic.637 The headgear additionally occurs among the
piles of offerings brought to the temples as depicted
in the tomb of Rekhmira (TT 100; Thutmose III to
Amenhotep II’s reign);638 as part of the king’s New
Year gifts in the tomb of Kenamun (TT 93) alongside
chariotry equipment,639 and in the tomb of Sennefer
(TT 96);640 and in the workshop portrayed in Kairy’s
tomb (Saqqara, early Nineteenth Dynasty).641 It is also
worn by the Near Eastern charioteers pictured on the
624 K endall 1974, 263.
625 For further discussion and examples, see Hulit 2002,
135–175; Dezsö 2002, 196.
626 K empinski 1989, 144, fig. 42.
627 Petrie 1933, 9.
628 Thalmann 2006, pl. 144 [9]; Gernez 2008b, 231.
629 Ventzke 1986; A dler 1994, 194, fig. 20.2; M. Heinz et al.
2010, 32, fig. 17.
630 Schaeffer 1962, fig. 61.
631 Woolley 1955, 278, pl. 71.
632 See H. Bonnet 1926, 210.
633 Newberry 1908, pl. 27 [4]; H.R. H all 1913, 50 [Nr. 475];
S. Heinz 2001, 235. See also W.V. Davies 1982; S. Collier
1993; H ardwick 2003; Bryan 2007.
634 N. de G. Davies 1933a, pl. 35.
635 N. de G. Davies 1933a, pls. 5, 7.
636 Legrain 1929, 134–135, fig. 87; Bisson de la Roque 1930,
43–44, fig. 36; Pollastrini 2017, 516.
637 S. H einz 2001, 238. Pollastrini (2017, 514) identifies
the strewn helmet as a topos representing the surrender
of enemies.
638 N. de G. Davies 1943, pl. 37.
639 N. de G. Davies 1930, pl. 22A.
640 N. de G. Davies 1928, fig. 6.
641 Herold 2003, fig. 2.
 Technological and Militaristic Transformations
left and right side of Thutmose IV’s chariot body (see
Figs. 5.15, 5.34c).642
These charioteers additionally wear scale armour,
otherwise known from Thutmose III’s Battle of
Megiddo as Hs m n m ss n f r n (.y) aHA
‘best quality combat bronze garment’. The text
notes that two suits were collected from the rulers
of Kadesh and Megiddo alongside 200 additional
leather armour.643 This parallels the bronze armour
( Hs m n m ss n (.y) aHA) and helmets
( Hs m n d b n n (.y) t p ‘bronze helmet for
the head’) collected from Naharin’s king and army.644
Apart from the war booty, the items also occur as part
of the in .w from RTn .w.645 Amarna Letter EA 22, from
the Mitannian Tushratta to Amenhotep III, similarly
refers to gifts of helmets, as well as leather and
bronze suits of armour (sariam) for both soldiers and
horses.646 EA 24 contains a reference to armour as part
of the Hurrian armament.647 Such garments are also
depicted in the tombs of Kenamun (TT 93),648 Paimosi
(TT 13),649 and Ramesses III.650 Several Nineteenth
Dynasty battle scenes also show soldiers of different
origin wearing helmets and possibly scale armour.651
The archaeological evidence is also assigned to
the New Kingdom. A fragment of scale armour
was retrieved from the cellars beneath the royal
apartment of Palace G at ‘Ezbet Helmi (Eighteenth
Dynasty Phase C/3–C/2) alongside arrows,652 while a
complete leather corselet was collected from the tomb
of Tutankhamun.653 A bundle of copper and bronze
metal including two armour scales was retrieved
from rubble near the entrance of the pyramid of
Senwosret I. Provided with a seal bearing the name of
Tutankhamun, the bundle has been dated to this king’s
642 Carter and Newberry 1904, pls. 10–11; H. Bonnet 1926,
214; Dezsö 2002, 200–201, figs. 1–2; Kendall 1981, fig. 8.
643 Annals of Thutmose III, Part I, line 97. Urk. 4, 664 [3–5].
644 Annals of Thutmose III, Part V, lines 41–43. Urk. 4,
711 [7–9, 16], 712 [1]. Thutmose III’s Gebel Barkal stela
(Urk. 4, 1235 [9]) as well as Amenhotep II’s Karnak stela
(Urk. 4, 1311 [16]) also mention bronze scale armour
(see Pollastrini 2017, 515). See also Spiegelberg 1908,
154–155.
645 Urk. 4, 718 [17], 726 [17], 732 [1]. See also Pollastrini
2017, 515–516.
646 Moran 1992, 55 [III.37–41].
647 Moran 1992, 69 [§26.112, 117–118].
648 N. de G. Davies 1930, pl. 22A.
649 LD 3, pl. 64; M anniche 1988, 91.
650 The tomb also features depictions of fenestrated axes,
helmets, composite bows, and scimitars. Champollion
1835, pl. 262.
651 See, for instance, Sety I’s battle scenes at Karnak against
Kadesh and the Hittites (Wreszinski 1935, pls. 45, 53),
and Ramesses II’s battle scene at Luxor against Dapur
(Wreszinski 1935, pl. 78). See also K endall 1981,
figs. 2–3, 5–8.
652 See Chapter 5.2.3.4.3. Aston and Bietak 2017, 504;
Bietak 2018, 231.
653 Carter 1933, 143.
279
reign and is thought to belong to a metalsmith’s kit.654
Armour scales were additionally collected from the
palace of Amenhotep III at Malkata,655 and a workshop
assigned to Ramesses II’s reign at Qantir.656 From
such evidence, body armour may be construed as a
garment composed of an underlying textile tunic sewn
with overlapping scales of metal (typically bronze),
leather, or linen.657 Its production would have been
time consuming and expensive, the armour reaching
approximately 20 kg in weight.658 Providing protection
and some flexibility for its wearer, it could feature
sleeves and/or flaps hanging from the waist.659
The data further points to the introduction of
new expressions to identify helmets and body
armour in the Egyptian lexicon. That for helmets,
Hs m n d b n n (.y) t p, utilises a verb for
‘encircle’ (d b n), alongside markers for its material
(Hs m n ‘bronze’) and location (t p ‘head’). Similarly,
Hs m n m ss n (.y) aHA signifies a bronze
m ss ‘tunic’ used in battle. Another term, however, is
also attested for the metal garment. It is first recorded
in the Astarte Papyrus as Tryn in relation
to the hero’s clothing,660 sariam in the Akkadian text
of the abovementioned Amarna Letters, and Tryn in
Nineteenth Dynasty Late Egyptian texts.661 The term
is most likely a loanword, first identified in the Hurrian
siriam/sariam at Nuzi and later found in other Near
Eastern languages.662 Thus, in adopting the new items,
Egyptian scribes of the Eighteenth Dynasty favoured
the use of compound extensions of Egyptian terms.663
The loanword Tryn was initially likely recognised
654 Lansing and H ayes 1934, 8, figs. 12–13; Di. A rnold
1988, 99; Hulit 2002, 145.
655 H ayes 1959, 254–255.
656 Pusch 1990, 92, 100; 1993, 133–137; Prell 2011, 114,
227, 238–239.
657 H. Bonnet 1926, 210; Yadin 1963, 84–85, 192–193, 196–
197, 214, 216–217, 240–241; K endall 1974, 263–286;
Hulit 2002, 7.
658 Hulit 2002; Dezsö 2002, 198–199, 208–209, diagrams
1–2.
659 K endall 1981, 202–203; Hulit 2002, 116–133.
660 Papyrus BN 202 1.5. See Chapter 4.2.4.3.
661 KRI 1, 28 [7, 9–10], 119 [12–13, 15], 175 [3–4, 7, 11–13,
15]; W.A. Ward 1960, 327; Hoch 1994, 366–367 [546].
For the term rAbASAy, also attested in Dynasty 19 and
related to armour, see Hoch 1994, 202–203 [274]. For the
title i ri .w Try n ‘maker of body armour’, see Steinmann
1980, 151.
662 The term is attested in Akkadian as sariam/siriam,
Hittite as saryanni/siryanni, Ugaritic as tryn, and
Hebrew as širyôn. Due to these attestations, its origins
are contested. See Gardiner 1947, 68; Speiser 1950, 47;
W.A. Ward 1960, 327; Gordon 1965, 506 (Texts 1123.5–6);
J.P. Brown 1971, 4–5; Hoch 1994, 366–367 [546]; Dezsö
2002, 195, n. 4.
663 For the paradigm of linguistic acculturation and its
variables on how concepts are incorporated into a
lexicon, see C.H. Brown 1994; 1999; Goldwasser 2017,
57–58.
280
by some who were knowledgeable in Near Eastern
concepts or languages otherwise expressed in the
Astarte Papyrus. Its preservation perhaps continued
among particular circles in Egypt, later manifesting
in Late Egyptian texts, or it re-entered the lexicon via
later encounters.
The terminology supports other material in Egypt
that indicate the transmission of scale armour and
helmets. The items appear to have been first most
likely imported by Near Easterners and then later
manufactured in Egypt.664 In the Eighteenth Dynasty,
they are represented as war booty, gifts, and luxury
items of palaces and temples, similarly occurring in
archaeological contexts associated with royalty. The
production of armour at Qantir in the Nineteenth
Dynasty signals continued royal control over such
items’ use and distribution, which is expected
considering the materials and costs involved in their
production. Accordingly, helmets and body armour
were mainly utilised by the elite or upper class
military. The evidence for their introduction into Egypt
leans towards the Eighteenth Dynasty, to the reign of
Thutmose III. However, considering their association
with chariotry, and their earlier use in the Near East,
it is also feasible that they were encountered prior to
the Eighteenth Dynasty. Nevertheless, their adoption
in Egypt before this date is arguable, especially
considering the lack of clear evidence for their use or a
confirmed martial or social need for their employment
in the Middle Kingdom or by the Second Intermediate
Period powers in Egypt.
5.2.5 Observations
Several transformations linked to metalwork,
metallurgy, weaponry, and warfare occurred across
the Middle to New Kingdoms. To simply explain the
adoption of new types of, for instance, weaponry,
as due to their ‘superiority’ or ‘effectiveness’
underestimates the role of human agency, the realities
of warfare, as well as the persistence and impact of
social ideals.665 The process of transfer was shaped by
various dynamics, including existing technologies, as
well as their social, cultural, and economic values.666
The examination of some elements of metalwork
and metallurgy at Tell el-Dab‘a, for instance, showed
both similarities and differences in metallurgical
practices between Egypt, Tell el-Dab‘a, and the Near
East. While some aspects converge with those in
Egypt, others parallel Near Eastern customs.
Especially during the late Twelfth to mid-Thirteenth
Dynasty, the metalwork at Tell el-Dab‘a played a
leading role in Egypt in the utilisation of bronze, two-
piece steatite moulds, bun-shaped ingots, and perhaps
a different crucible shape. Such elements, especially
of the ingots, signal not only at thorough knowledge
664 H. Bonnet 1926, 210.
665 See R ey 2010, 35–37.
666 I. Shaw 2012, 153–154. See also Candelora 2019b.
Chapter 5
of Near Eastern metallurgical practices but perhaps
also at the promotion of the site’s metalwork to
various consumers, including those involved in
the Near Eastern metal trade. The production of
alloys and different metal products relied on the
broader community, from support in accessing
different materials and resources (ore extraction
and processing, facilities, etc.), to sustenance for
specialised metalsmiths, and aid in the exchange
and consumption of products.667 As such, the
procurement of resources and the organisation of the
metal workshops were part of a network of craftsmen,
traders, miners and other specialists, possibly
managed or controlled by the high officials and elite
of Tell el-Dab‘a, mostly to cater to demands that
were likely in line with their social ideals and values.
The observed shifts in metalwork and practices
during the late Second Intermediate Period, as
discussed here, could thereby be linked to changes
in any or all of these factors linked to the acquisition,
production, consumption, and distribution of metal
items. Correspondingly, their continuation into the
New Kingdom would be reliant on the presence of
such factors, including the consumption of similar
metal products, as well as the social, political and
economic need for a persistent involvement in the
exchange of metals across the Eastern Mediterranean.
In effect, this is also closely tied with the
developments in weaponry and other militaristic
elements, for which an association with a particular
need is a similarly persistent factor that influenced
when, how, and why they occurred. As consistently
observed in history, ‘military innovations requiring
significant changes in sociocultural values and
behavioral patterns spread more slowly, less
uniformly, and with more unpredictable outcomes’.668
Many introduced concepts and aspects were
noticeably recontextualised in the process of
transmission and adaptation. Those that manifested a
symbolic value or that visually communicated status
were accordingly woven into the fabric of a particular
social group and its cultural expressions, such as the
horse-drawn chariot, the dagger, the axe, and the
scimitar. Others, such as scale armour or the helmet,
were possibly eventually transmitted as ‘part of the
package’, their use dependent on the requirements of
other tools and weaponry.
This, however, should not disregard the interplay
of transformed and introduced elements with warfare
and the Egyptian military. The growing desire to
participate in the LBA Near Eastern world may
have spurred the Egyptians to adopt and adapt new
military technology, which would have also led to
transformed operational, logistic, and organisational
developments.669 This included access to new expertise
667 B. Roberts, Thornton and Pigott 2009, 1018.
668 Eliason and Goldman 2003, 8–10.
669 Heagren 2010, 479. See Chapter 3.4.1.2.
 Technological and Militaristic Transformations
and skills both for the production and use of a new
technology or technique, the required materials and
facilities, and the necessary resources for upkeep. For
instance, in reference to Greek warfare, Rey highlights
that ‘weapons were in fact a continuous problem for
the commander, who had to provide the logistics
required for their use: cavalry needed horses that had
to be fed; swords and spears frequently broke, and
specialized craftsmen and increasing amounts of raw
materials were needed to repair or replace them’.670
In line with this, the impact of the horse and chariot
on Egyptian military technology, administration,
crafts, culture, society, and environment is not to be
underestimated. Horses themselves required people
knowledgeable in breeding, rearing, driving and
training, a range of feeding requirements,671 as well
as suitable breeding, feeding and training grounds
and facilities.672 Chariots necessitated particular
equipment and materials, skilled craftsmen,
workshops, charioteers and drivers, as well as
specific weapons and bodily protective measures
for the chariots’ optimum use if on the battlefield,
notwithstanding associated archers and other
military personnel. Together, these correspondingly
necessitated new administrative and organisational
infrastructure,673 suitable transportation systems, as
well as strategists, mediators and facilitators who
organised the use of the horse and chariot within non-
military contexts (e.g. processions), on expeditions,
as well as on the battlefield.674 The Egyptian lexicon
developed to include new lexemes either from the
available lexicon or a foreign language, or by using
local lexemes but with different classifiers. New
social groups, ranks and occupations evolved as the
horse and chariot developed a symbolic association
with status and prestige.675 The king’s iconography
transformed to include this equipment, while those
portrayed driving chariots were typically royal, elite,
670 R ey 2010, 40.
671 According to S. Turner’s estimates (2015, 395), a horse’s
daily requirements include a minimum of approximately
31 litres of water and 1.5–3.1% of its body weight in food,
typically grass and grains. Based on her estimates of the
weight of the Egyptian horse (500 kg), this would amount
to a minimum of 8.3 kg of food per day. As S. Turner
(2015, 395, n. 1010) indicates, Spalinger’s ‘22 kilos of
forage and 30 liters of water’ are incorrect (Spalinger
2005, 35).
672 For a detailed overview, see S. Turner 2015, 394–399,
406–408. See also Lagenbach 2009, 348, n. 28.
673 In reference to such infrastructure at Qantir, see Prell
and K itagawa 2020, 47–48.
674 See Schulman 1963, 84; S. Turner 2015, 400–412.
675 Examples of occupations include charioteers, scribes,
stable-masters, and overseers of horses. See Schulman
1963; Hoffmeier 1973, 44; al-Ayedi 2006, 132–135 [376–
380], 138 [395], 205 [645], 385–389 [1245–1252], 423
[1377–1378], 542–545 [1782, 1788], 606 [1978], 634–640
[2073–2090]; Lagenbach 2009, 345–356; Ashmawy A li
2014; S. Turner 2015, 401–426.
281
administrative or military personnel.676 This was
most likely intertwined with the coinciding growing
importance of horses and chariots in the Near East,
signifying a shared social expression of power, status,
and wealth.
Alongside such logistical developments were the
increasingly ceremonial or symbolic function of
particular weapons from the Second Intermediate
Period onwards. Towards the end of this period,
certain types of axes and daggers seemingly
represented aspects of their carrier’s identity. Not only
is this evident in the north, but the motifs, materials
and contexts of the daggers found further south
hint that the weapons’ adaptation was possibly not
limited by ethnic boundaries. As Bryan writes, this
instead displays the ‘tastes of a rapidly changing elite
culture stretching from the Delta to Megiddo, which
coexisted in the Nile Valley with traditional Egyptian
religion and iconography’.677 The influences of
Deltaic and Levantine practices on the deposition and
use of weapons of the Sixteenth to early Eighteenth
Dynasties perhaps signals attempts at negotiating
non-Egyptian symbols of status and exchange by
merging them with those well-embedded in Egyptian
thought and tradition. Thus, the scimitar became
linked with the x pS, and artistic and technological
features of daggers and axes transposed to those
already developing in Egypt, sharing with the
continued supra-regional ideals of weapons as status
markers, gifts, and rewards. Acquiescing with Near
Eastern concepts, the ‘gifting’ of the scimitar by
a divinity to the pharaoh became a symbol for the
handing of political power, authority, and military
supremacy. Similarly, the ‘gifting’ of the transformed
dagger by a king to a soldier or warrior represented
the confirmation and acknowledgement of military
prowess and achievement.
While the weapon forms were new, they were
embedded into a changing but existing structure of
visual and symbolic communication that was locally
developing, very likely in response to and in line
with supra-regional transformations. For instance,
Lorton argues that the complex system of reward
and recompense for soldiers likely emerged after
the Hyksos Period, possibly as a result of adopting
its warfare customs.678 I. Shaw, on the other hand,
postulates that it was Egypt’s later involvement in
the Near East that led to the development of this
system.679 The evidence, however, signals that the
gifting system was already in place, but transformed
with the incorporation of new types of symbolic
676 For a detailed examination of officials mentioned in
association with horses and/or chariotry, see S. Turner
2015, 412–415, 420–424, table 11.2.
677 Bryan 2019, 543.
678 Lorton 1974.
679 I. Shaw 2012, 107.
282 Chapter 5
weapons, jewellery,680 and likely practices,681 each
aspect continually developing across the Second
Intermediate Period and early New Kingdom rather
than all at one point in the early Eighteenth Dynasty,
when it manifested into the complex recompense
system frequently attested in Egyptian sources.
All such aspects therefore stress the dynamic
entanglements of transformations in metallurgical
and militaristic attributes. A direct causal link solely
to the Fifteenth Dynasty disregards the interplay
of several social, cultural, political and economic
factors, as well as the complexities of acquiring,
adopting, and adapting each of the many concepts
and objects discussed here. It also underplays the
importance of earlier processes and developments,
as well as the significance of the early Eighteenth
Dynasty milieu for such transformations to either
flourish or decline. However, this is not to downplay
the developments at Tell el-Dab‘a from the Twelfth
to the early Eighteenth Dynasty, which were
instrumental in promoting local or regional concepts,
workshops, and the production of particular items.
The transmission and recontextualisation of some
elements both spatially to the rest of Egypt and
chronologically to the Eighteenth Dynasty did not
occur specifically at the same time or via the same
process, but very likely involved various routes of
transfer and incorporation, according to different
levels in society, and for different purposes.682
5.3 Ceramics
The ceramic repertoire of Tell el-Dab‘a and its
surrounds continue to provide significant insights
into the cultural developments of the area across
the Second Intermediate Period. Equally significant
are the observed parallels between the flourishing
Second Intermediate Period local ceramic production
of the Eastern Delta and the preserved repertoire of
assemblages from the New Kingdom, specifically the
early Eighteenth Dynasty. In a pattern paralleling
other regional ceramic assemblages in Egypt, it is
generally agreed that a continuation of particular
pottery types occurred, signalling the transfer of
some pottery traditions from the Second Intermediate
Period to the Eighteenth Dynasty.683 This possibly
included related technological developments in
pottery-making, potentially influencing the types of
emergent ceramic forms. Particular developments
in the local pottery’s shapes, fabric, decoration,
and manufacturing techniques from the Middle
Kingdom to the Second Intermediate Period have
680 See Chapter 5.4.2.2.
681 See Chapter 4.4.2.
682 For more on knowledge transmission of technological
concepts, see Chapter 5.5.
683 See, for instance, Bourriau 1997b, 159; Seiler 2005,
159–160; 2010; Aston 2003, 142; 2007.
been well-researched, while those from the Second
Intermediate Period to New Kingdom at ‘Ezbet Helmi
are not yet completely published, but are currently
being assessed.684 As such, only an overview of
the published material exploring the possibility of
knowledge transfer from the Second Intermediate
Period to the Eighteenth Dynasty is provided in the
following paragraphs.
5.3.1 General Developments in the Ceramic
Repertoire of the Eastern Delta
The ceramic material of the Eastern Delta presents a
sound reflection of shifting traditions and connections
from the Second Intermediate Period into the New
Kingdom. While local ceramic forms, including
imitations of MBA vessel shapes, have been identified
from the Thirteenth Dynasty, the regionalisation of
the Eastern Delta ceramic repertoire is observed by
Tell el-Dab‘a’s Phases E/2 to E/1 or the early Fifteenth
Dynasty.685 New pottery types betraying distinct
local traits are attested, some of which display what
can perhaps be described as hybrid features of both
Egyptian and MBA shapes, as well as creolised
traits.686 A number of these vessel types, including
those of local Marl F fabric, continue to be attested in
Eighteenth Dynasty levels at sites in the Delta.687
Most of the early New Kingdom forms were
retrieved from ‘Ezbet Helmi, which is thus far only
preliminarily published. According to available
reports, many are of a sandy Nile B-2 fabric, a mostly
hard fired coarse clay tempered with visible plant
fibres and sand grains.688 The fabric is commonly
attested at ‘Ezbet Helmi by the late Fifteenth
Dynasty, and is utilised for new pottery shapes in
the Eastern Delta from the early Eighteenth Dynasty
onwards.689 Local Marl F fabric is still used for open
and closed vessels, with a new variation inclusive of
limestone grits attested from the early Eighteenth
Dynasty.690 Area H/V yielded ceramics typical of
Phases E/2 to D/3 in relative Stratum e/f (Phases
D/2–D/1; late Fifteenth to early Eighteenth Dynasty),
including slender jars, simple bowls, dishes with ring
bases, carinated bowls, and jars with flaring everted
684 A study on the stratigraphy and development of the
ceramics from ‘Ezbet Helmi H/I, H/IV and H/V is
currently the subject of a project by I. Hein. For a detailed
study of the Middle Kingdom to Second Intermediate
Period pottery at Tell el-Dab‘a, see Aston 2004a;
Kopetzky 2010; Czerny 2015; Bader 2020.
685 Bietak 1991b, 31–47; Bourriau 1997b, 159; Aston
2004a, 364–372. For an overview of developments at the
site, see Chapter 3.2.1.
686 Bietak 1991b, 31–47; Bietak, Forstner-Müller
and Mlinar 2001; Aston 2004a, 364–372. See also
Chapters 2.3.8–9.
687 Bourriau 1997b, 159; Aston 2003, 143.
688 Fuscaldo 2001, 149. See also Hein 1994a.
689 Fuscaldo 2001, 149.
690 Fuscaldo 2001, 150.
 Technological and Militaristic Transformations
rims.691 In H/I, Fifteenth Dynasty pottery types
occur alongside sherds of Eighteenth Dynasty bowls,
globular jars, drop pots and red burnished ware in
the garden level around the so-called Platform F,
suggested to be of relative Stratum e/2 (Phase D/2).692
The early Eighteenth Dynasty settlement layer atop
the gardens produced pottery types paralleling those
from New Kingdom contexts elsewhere in Egypt,
as well as LBA imported wares.693 By Stratum d
(Phase C/3), the ceramic repertoire shows clear
diversions from the Second Intermediate Period
material. This parallels the clearly differentiated
Second Intermediate Period and New Kingdom
forms identified in the pottery corpus of other
contexts at ‘Ezbet Helmi in Area H/III and H/VI,
assigned between Phases D/2 and C/3 at L66694
or offering pit L6382.695 The differences between
Stratum e/2 and Stratum d (Phases D/2 and C/3) thus
signal to what Hein has described as a ‘transitional
phase’ in which local potters persisted to produce
the types of pottery that were common under Hyksos
rule,696 or when individuals at the site still utilised
pottery made in the Second Intermediate Period.
Some of these types continue to occur into the
Amarna Period, as attested, for instance, at Area
H/VI South, Stratum b.697 Their consequent reduction
and disappearance may be linked with the absence
of evidence for the site’s occupation from this time
possibly until the reign of Horemheb. It has also been
related to the establishment of Piramesse, and the
proposed movement of former Memphite officials
and craftsmen to the new capital.698
Similar observations have been made for the ceramic
developments at other sites in the Eastern Delta. For
instance, tombs assigned to the early Eighteenth
Dynasty at Tell el-Yahudiyah have produced pottery
showing continuation of earlier Second Intermediate
Period regional forms.699 This has also been observed
at Tell el-Retaba, where domestic dwellings and
691 Hein 2001b, 122.
692 Hein (1998, 547–548) preliminarily estimates for these
levels that 97% of the diagnostic sherds are of Second
Intermediate Period types, the remaining 3% belonging to
New Kingdom types. As she explains, the New Kingdom
forms could be either intrusive or could reflect the use
of the garden during the early Eighteenth Dynasty. A
detailed stratigraphic study of the area, including its finds,
is currently the subject of a project by I. Hein.
693 Hein 1998, 548–549.
694 Fuscaldo 2000.
695 Bader 2006, 46–48, 54–55, fig. 7.
696 Hein 2018, 125.
697 Aston 2001, 167–196.
698 Aston 2001, 194.
699 Aston 2003, 142, fig. 1a. According to Aston’s analysis,
these include Tombs 5, 6, 9, 11, 16, 30, 31, 45, 48–49, 76,
90, 104, 109 and 413; however, Tombs 5, 6 and 16 have
been dated elsewhere to the Fifteenth Dynasty. See Petrie
1906, 11–13; Tufnell 1977; Mourad 2015, 59–61, fig. 4.30.
283
burials support the site’s occuption across the late
Second Intermediate Period to the Eighteenth
Dynasty. A transitional phase confirming this
continuation may be represented by tombs in Area 5,
Phase F5, that bear funerary traditions ascribing
to both the late Second Intermediate Period and
Eighteenth Dynasty.700 Although not completely
published, the ceramic corpus also evidently features
some forms that may have continued in use by the
local community, and others that attest to changes
associated with the altered political situation.701
5.3.2 General Developments in Methods of
Manufacture
Several developments in the methods of manufacturing
pottery have been noted for the pharaonic period,
including that between the Twelfth to early Eighteenth
Dynasty. Certainly, these involved dynamic processes
that were affected by internal social, economic, and
political changes as well as external influences. Two
main methods for shaping pottery have been observed
for the ceramic assemblage at Tell el-Dab‘a, as at other
sites in Egypt: handmade, and wheelmade.702 Both
may have been utilised to form a particular vessel
type. Handmade techniques include ‘non-radial’
methods such as hollowing or pinching the clay, or
‘free-radial’ methods, such as coiling. Wheelmade
techniques include the use of a simple low wheel
(W1), the tall-stemmed simple wheel (W2), or an
improvement in technique on the simple low wheel
involving more force (W1–2).703 The use of the first
is usually detected by shallow throwing marks on
finely ribbed vessel walls;704 that of the latter two can
be observed by the presence of spiral incisions along
the base of a vessel, concentric circles created after
cutting the base from the rotating wheel with a string,
and the slightly concave shape of some vessel types.705
A pair of diorite blocks found at Tell el-Dab‘a,
assigned to the late Twelfth to Thirteenth Dynasties,
have been identified as another type of wheel, the
extra-low simple wheel.706 Each block bears one
smooth and other roughly cut sides, the two fitting
together to form a pivot. The wheel type is attested in
wooden models of the Eleventh to Twelfth Dynasties,
a Middle Kingdom pair of stones from Nubian Saras
East,707 another pair from Amarna,708 and in a pottery
700 Hudec et al. 2018, 101–103, fig. 6.
701 Wodzińska 2018. See also Chapter 3.2.2.4.
702 See Bietak 1991c, 330; Do. A rnold 1993, 15–83; Aston
2004a, 51.
703 Bietak 1991c, 330; Do. A rnold 1993, 15–83; Aston
2004a, 51. See also Holthoer 1977; Seiler 2005; Schiestl
and Seiler 2012.
704 Bietak 1991c, 330.
705 Bourriau, Nicholson and Rose, 2000, 126. See also
Seiler 2005; Schiestl and Seiler 2012.
706 Inv. Nr. 3379. Do. A rnold 1993, 75, fig. 87 [a].
707 Khartoum Museum 19397. Hope 1981, 128, fig. 1a, pl. 4.
708 AM 1929.417. Hope 1981, 127–128, pl. 3.
284 Chapter 5
workshop scene from the tomb of Kenamun (TT 93;
Amenhotep II’s reign),709 wherein the potter is for the
first time shown using his foot on a wheel while aided
by an assistant.710 It is also attested in the Levant.711
According to studies on its ceramic assemblage,
the tall-stemmed simple wheel (W2) was first
utilised at Tell el-Dab‘a in the late Thirteenth
Dynasty.712 A pottery workshop scene from the tomb
of Djehutyhotep at Deir el-Bersha indicates that this
type of wheel was already known by the Twelfth
Dynasty.713 It adds to excavated pottery of the later
Twelfth Dynasty of improved finished quality bearing
deeper throwing marks.714 Do. Arnold’s study on
pottery from Dahshur also revealed the proliferation
of throwing techniques by the late Middle Kingdom,
especially for the production of Marl clay pottery.715
Vessels were typically made on a wheel, either the
tall-stemmed or extra-low simple wheel, with their
bases shaped by hand.716 However, by the Second
Intermediate Period, examples from Tell el-Dab‘a and
elsewhere in Egypt support the production of round
and flat bases on the wheel.717
Interestingly, an Egyptian-type hemispherical cup
found in a late MBIIA to transitional MBIIA–B
context at Tell Fad‘ous in modern Lebanon was made
of local clay but completely produced on the wheel,
according to the Northern Levantine shaping method
and newly applied technique at Tell el-Dab‘a.718
Another of a form attested in mid-Thirteenth Dynasty
Egypt was collected from a burial at Sidon’s Level 5
(early-mid MBIIB) and was made of local clay on the
fast wheel.719 This cup, however, shows evidence of
knife-trimming at the base. Such contemporaneous
examples signal that the early Second Intermediate
Period or MBIIA–B may have been an experimental
709 The pottery-making workshop scene in the tomb is also
the only known New Kingdom scene of its type. N. de
G. Davies 1930, pl. 59; Bourriau, Nicholson and Rose
2000, 136.
710 For a detailed overview on the nature and evidence of
the extra-low wheel type, see Do. A rnold 1993, 69–79,
figs. 82–92.
711 A miran and Shenhav 1984.
712 See Bietak 1991c, 330; Aston 2004a, 51.
713 Newberry 1895, pl. 25; Do. A rnold 1993, 56, fig. 67.
714 Do. A rnold 1993, 57–63.
715 Do. A rnold 1993, 61.
716 Do. A rnold 1993, 63, 78.
717 Do. A rnold 1993, 62; Seiler 2005, 155–156.
718 The cup was collected from Tomb 736. The tomb also
produced a late Middle Kingdom type scarab of either
Egyptian or Levantine origin. Genz et al. 2010, 249, pls. 4
[2], 13; Genz and Sader 2010/2011, 116, fig. 7 [3]. See also
Czerny 2002, 133–134; Aston 2004a, 62–66; Mourad
2015, 174.
719 The cup was retrieved from Burial 4, which also yielded
a Marl C jar stylistically assigned to the Twelfth and
Thirteenth Dynasties. Doumet-Serhal 2004, 130, 139,
table 25, fig. 73; Forstner-Müller and Kopetzky 2009,
150, fig. 8.
phase in learning and applying different techniques
on Egyptian-type vessels, which could have involved
potters in the Northern Levant. This also hints at
possible multidirectional knowledge exchange in
shaping methods between potters in the Eastern Delta
and those in the Northern Levant. The improvements in
the shaping of wheel-thrown pottery (W1–2) at Tell el-
Dab‘a are then evident by the late Second Intermediate
Period, especially on finer vessels of various fabrics.
These developments are more noticeable across Egypt
by the Eighteenth Dynasty,720 for which throwing
wheel marks on Marl and Nile clay vessels are deeper
and more regular,721 creating vessels of improved
quality.
As some vessels from Tell el-Dab‘a were likely
inspired by non-Egyptian forms, it is feasible that
their production may have also been influenced by
developments in methods of manufacture, perhaps
even those not commonly practiced in former
Egyptian workshops. Indeed, as the locally made
cups from the aforementioned Northern Levantine
burials suggest various means of shaping Egyptian-
type vessels in the Levant, the reverse could have
also occurred in Egypt. Imported MBA vessels found
in the Eastern Delta, as elsewhere in Egypt, were
usually wheel-combed or wheel-smoothed, and likely
made on a fast wheel.722 Many locally made MBA-
type vessels, such as Tell el-Yahudiyah ware and
dipper juglets, would have been produced on such a
wheel before the Fifteenth Dynasty, their markings
identified as those associated with the tall-stemmed
simple wheel (W2).723 However, the bases of vessels
from earlier strata show signs of production different
to that of the imported variety. For instance, the bases
of some imported dipper juglets from Phase F were
closed on a wheel, while those made of Nile B-2
were cut off on the wheel, trimmed, and smoothed
by hand.724 Handmade globular Tell el-Yahudiyah
vessels of Nile D were also made following a
technique characteristically applied to Cypriot-type
vessels, with the body shaped by hand and the handle
inserted through the wall of the vessels.725 As these
Tell el-Yahudiyah vessels are attested within a fairly
restricted period between Phase G and E/3, mostly
in funerary contexts, knowledge concerning their
production was likely retained by a specific potter
720 Seiler 2005, 155–156.
721 Do. A rnold 1993, 61–62.
722 See Roux 2009; 2013, 319; Roux and de Miroschedji
2009.
723 Bietak 1991c, 330.
724 Bietak 1991b, 40.
725 Aston and Bietak’s Group N. Aston and Bietak 2012,
531–541, pls. 118–123. The decoration on these vessels
also parallels that of the White Painted V Fine Line
Style. The similarities in techniques has led to the
suggestion that at least one Cypriot potter was producing
such vessels in the Delta. For more, see M aguire 2009,
21–24, fig. 26; de Vreeze 2017, 169–179.
 Technological and Militaristic Transformations
or workshop and was apparently not transmitted
to others. By Phase E/3, the production of some
vessel types, such as Tell el-Yahudiyah juglets,726
completely on the wheel became more common.
Around Phase E/1, the dipper juglets, as well as
most local wheel-made MBA-type vessels, Cypriot
imitations, and some Egyptian types, bear marks
of the bases’ production on the wheel.727 According
to published material from the Eastern Delta, this
method continued to be used for such ceramic types
into the New Kingdom.728
As this general development parallels that observed
for pottery across Egypt around this period, it is
difficult to pinpoint whether the production of
MBA-type pottery in the Eastern Delta inspired
the technological shift.729 In this regard, it is worthy
to note that ‘the learning of a new shape does not
imply the same mechanisms then (sic) the learning
of a new technique’.730 Knowledge of a new shape or
decorative element may only require encountering
a related object, and not necessarily the person/
group that produced it. A new shaping method or
an alteration in its production process or chaîne
opératoire, especially using a different wheel type,
requires specialisation, skill, and time.731 Not only is
it a learned knowledge by an individual potter and/
or a community of potters, it is also closely linked to
production and consumption demands.732 In trialling
or developing different shaping methods, the potters
of the Eastern Delta were instigating a changed
chaîne opératoire while responding to historic and
socio-economic shifts.733 The continuation of these
changed methods or practices would have thus been
equally affected by social factors. This feasibly
explains the discontinuation of the technique used
in making the handmade globular Tell el-Yahudiyah
726 For the evolution in the production of Tell el-Yahudiyah
vessels, see de Vreeze 2017, 95–190.
727 Bietak 1991b, 43. For the Cypriot imitations, see Vilain
2018.
728 See Chapter 5.3.3.
729 See Bietak 1994a.
730 Roux 2013, 319.
731 For a detailed discussion, see Roux and Corbetta
1989. See also Chapter 5.5. While two samples are not
enough to make concrete conclusions on a pattern of
development, it is interesting to note that the cup from
Tell Fad‘ous (MBIIA-transitional MBIIA/B context) was
made using a more familiar Levantine method, and the
example from Sidon (MBIIB context) was produced with
a technique more commonly applied in Egypt.
732 For more on the social aspects embedded in pottery
production, see van der Leeuw 1993; Livingston Smith
2001; Roux 2003; 2016; D.E. A rnold 2008, 38–40;
Laneri 2011. See also Chapter 5.5.
733 The dynamic attributes of change in open and complex
systems, including biological, physical, and technological
systems, form the basis of the so-called Dynamic
Systems Framework. For an overview, with a case-study
on developments in pottery-making, see Roux 2003.
285
juglets as either due to the absence of demand by the
local population, and/or the absence of knowledge in
the shaping method itself.734 It also provides a reason
for why some base-shaping methods continued to be
adapted to multiple shapes, including local Cypriot-
type vessels. As they were consistently applied, they
were regularised and formalised.735
As such, it is possible to surmise that the increase
in production of local MBA shapes very possibly
promoted the learning, transmission, and use of
methods more commonly employed to make MBA-
type pottery. This allowed the manufacture of
vessels of a quality that mirrored their Levantine
counterparts, with the techniques continually used
into the New Kingdom for their production. This
improvement in quality evidently contributed to
and mirrored the overall developments of ceramics
observed between the late Second Intermediate
Period and early New Kingdom in Egypt; however,
until a clearer understanding of these developments
across Egypt is gleaned, it is not yet possible to
conclude that they were the primary inspiration for
such developments. Still, in view of the postulated
continuity of some ceramic types in the Delta, as
further discussed in the following section, it is likely
that local shaping methods and pottery traditions
were transmitted into the early Eighteenth Dynasty,
developing accordingly with the altered socio-
political milieu.
5.3.3 Continuation of Particular Vessel Types
The combined published ceramics uncovered in the
Eastern Delta point to the occurrence of both open
and closed Second Intermediate Period vessel types
in Eighteenth Dynasty contexts (Figs. 5.39–40), a
selection of which is offered here. Important to note
is that these include pottery types that originate
from a Middle Kingdom, Egyptian, tradition. Their
development and production in the Eastern Delta
emphasise their continued and significant use by the
local population.
One of the most common forms that persisted into
the New Kingdom is the flat-based cup of Nile B-2
fabric (I-b-2) (Fig. 5.39 [1–3]). It is attested from
Fifteenth Dynasty contexts at Tell el-Dab‘a (Phase E/1
onwards) as well as other sites in the Eastern Delta
and the Northern Sinai.736 A similar flat-based cup of
Nile B-2 was also found at Tell el-‘Ajjul, probably of
the MBIIC to early LBI period.737 The flat-based cup
occurs, with certain developments, up to the reign of
Thutmose III at, for instance, ‘Ezbet Helmi’s early
Eighteenth Dynasty ‘Bathroom’ of Palace G at H/III
734 This is also observed in de Vreeze 2017, 176.
735 De Vreeze 2017, 167.
736 Aston 2004a, 199–200, 360, fig. 96 [j]; Oren 1997,
fig. 8.23 [5].
737 Tomb 1473. Petrie 1934, pl. 48 [24Z5]; Kopetzky 2011,
203, 209, fig. 108 [24Z5]; Oren 2019, 271, pl. 4.1.13 [1].
286 Chapter 5

1 4

2 5

3 6

7 8 10

11

12
16

15

14

13

Fig. 5.39a Selected ceramics assigned to the Second Intermediate Period to early New Kingdom
at Tell el-Dab‘a and ‘Ezbet Helmi. Drawing by Patrick Aprent
 Technological and Militaristic Transformations 287

Nr. Inv. Nr. Fabric (Relative) Stratum Context Reference

1 TD 5504 I-b-2 D/2 Tomb A/II-k/19-Nr. 34 Aston 2004a, fig. 96 [j]

2 TD 9096 I-e-4 e/2–e/1 H/VI-p/24-Pl. 5 L6382 off. pit Bader 2006, fig. 7 [b]
3 (K9014) I-b-2/e-1 b H/VI-t/11-Pl. 4 L4049 Aston 2001, fig. 13 [4]
4 TD 79 I-b-2 E/1 Tomb A/II-l/12-Nr. 1-Burial 4 Aston 2004a, fig. 86 [g]
5 TD 3554A I-b-2 b/1–a/2 F/1-i/23 off. pit 5 Aston 2004a, fig. 86 [h]
6 (K9014) I-b-2/e-1 b H/VI-t/11-Pl. 4 L4049 Aston 2001, fig. 13 [1]
7 TD 8948S I-e c H/VI-v/17-Pl. 2–3 L4559 Aston 2007, fig. 6 [a]
8 TD 8948W I-e c H/VI-w/16-Pl. 2 L4599 Aston 2007, fig. 6 [c]
9 TD 7542 I-e-2 E/1–D/3? Tomb A/IV-j/4-Nr. 2 Aston 2004a, fig. 100 [o]
10 TD K3354–6 I-e-2 D/2–A A/V-m/19-L89 disruption Hein and Jánosi 2004, fig. 139
11 (K9017) I-e-1 b H/VI-u/12-Pl. 0–1 L4180 Aston 2001, fig. 13 [5]
12 TD 4020 I-b-2 D/2 Tomb A/II–m/17-Nr. 3 Aston 2004a, fig. 110 [c]
13 TD 8481B I-b-2 c/2–c/1 H/V-k/16-Pl. 3–4 L4/5 Hein 2001b, fig. 4 [26]
14 TD 5966A, B I-e-1 D/2–later? A/II-h/11-pit 6 Aston 2004a, fig. 110 [d]
15 TD 8497D I-e-1 c/2–c/1 H/V-m/15-Pl. 1 L2/16 Hein 2001b, fig. 4 [30]
16 TD 8955L I-e c H/VI-w/15-Pl. 1 L4576 Aston 2007, fig. 6 [g]

Fig. 5.39b Selected ceramics assigned to the Second Intermediate Period to early New Kingdom at Tell el-Dab‘a
and ‘Ezbet Helmi

of Strata d–c,738 and H/VI, relative Stratum b.739
The fabric changes slightly, with more sand, dung
inclusions, and possible ash inclusions attested in
early New Kingdom cups.740 In creating the vessels,
marks at their bases signal that the simple low wheel
(W1) was utilised to produce those of the Fifteenth
Dynasty, which commonly bear a red-washed rim.741
On the other hand, those of later date were typically
made on the rotating wheel and are completely red-
washed.742 Cups were not only utilised for functional,
household purposes. As some samples were collected
from offering pits dating before and during the New
Kingdom, their use in rituals and/or cultic activities
is also likely.
Also of such multifunctional use are flat-based
dishes with a direct rim (Fig. 5.39 [4–8]). Typically
produced on a simple low wheel (W1), they occur
from Tell el-Dab‘a’s Phase E/1 and persist into
Eighteenth Dynasty levels. They have been identified
at ‘Ezbet Helmi, Area H/VI, Stratum c743 and relative
Stratum b,744 as well as New Kingdom Kom Rabi‘a.745
Commonly of Nile B-2 fabric but also found in Nile E
(I-e), they could have uncoated straight walls or could
be slightly rounded in profile.746 A red slip is usually
on the interior, but is also attested on the rim, and/or on
the exterior.747 Marks along the base suggest that they
were cut from the wheel.748
A number of other open vessel types are attested
from the late Second Intermediate Period to the
Eighteenth Dynasty. These include larger shallow
bowls commonly of Nile B-2 with flat or raised bases,
undulating walls, and rolled direct flaring rims.749
Red-slipped burnished carinated bowls inspired
by those of the MBIIB,750 as well as large carinated
bowls typically of Marl F with modelled rims and
flat, raised or rim bases, were also found at sites in
the Eastern Delta and further south.751

744 Aston 2001, 188, fig. 13 [1]; 2004a, 186–188, 359–360,

fig. 86 [g–h].
745 Bourriau and Eriksson 1997, fig. 10 [1, 6–8]; Aston
738 Fuscaldo 2001, 151. A flat-based cup of Nile E-4 was 2007, figs. 5 [1, 6–8], 7 [1]; Bourriau 2010a, fig. 15 [565].
also found (Fuscaldo 2001, 151, 159 [Nr. 2], fig. 1 [b]). 746 Aston 2001, 188.
739 Aston 2001, 188, fig. 13 [4]; Bietak and Kopetzky 2012, 111. 747 Aston 2004a, 360.
740 Bietak and Kopetzky 2012, 111. 748 Aston 2001, 188; 2004a, 186–188, 359–360, fig. 86 [g–h].
741 Bietak and Kopetzky 2012, 111, fig. 8 [1–5]. For the types 749 Aston 2004a, 201, 387, fig. 109 [c].
of wheels, see Do. A rnold 1993, 41–78. For the methods 750 Kopetzky 2004, 262; Bietak 2011, 32, fig. 17.
of manufacture at Tell el-Dab‘a, see Bietak 1991c, 330; 751 Aston 2004a, 200–201, 219, 392, fig. 111 [i–j]; Peet
Aston 2004a, 51. See also Chapter 5.3.2. 1914b, pl. 29; R edmount 1989, 801, 803, fig. 132; von
742 Bietak and Kopetzky 2012, 111. Pilgrim 1996, 331, pl. 146f [1]; Seiler 1997, 28, fig. 2 [zn
743 Aston 2007, fig. 6 [a, c]. 94/87]; Holladay 1997, 230, pl. 7.3.
288 Chapter 5

20
19

17 1:2

21 22

18

23 24 25 26 27

28 29

30 31 32 33

34

Fig. 5.40a Selected ceramics assigned to the Second Intermediate Period to early New Kingdom at Tell el-Dab‘a,
‘Ezbet Helmi and Tell Hebwa I. Drawing by Patrick Aprent
 Technological and Militaristic Transformations 289

Nr. Inv. Nr. Fabric (Relative) Stratum Context Reference

17 ZN 94/105 II-f – Tell Hebwa I (late SIP) Seiler 1997, pl. 3

18 TD 6473 II-f D/2–D/1 A/V-n/17-Bezirk I-L61 Hein and Jánosi 2004, fig. 57
19 TD 8979Y II-f d–c H/VI-r/26-Pl. 2 L6312 FN 3 Bader 2006, fig. 4 [b]
20 K6538-7 II-f d–c H/III-t–u/17 (Bathroom) Fuscaldo 2001, fig. 4 [h]
21 TD 1129 I-b-2 D/2 Tomb A/II-n/13-Nr. 1 filling Aston 2004a, fig. 109 [h]
22 TD 8943H I-e-4 d–c H/III-t–u/17 (Bathroom) Fuscaldo 2001, fig. 2 [f]
23 TD 3451 I-b-2 D/2 Tomb A/II-m/17-Nr. 3 Aston 2004a, pl. 270 [991]
24 TD 6478 I-b-2 D/2–D/1 A/V-n/17-Bezirk I-L61 Hein and Jánosi 2004, fig. 60 [1]
25 TD 6479 I-b-2 D/2–D/1 A/V-n/17-Bezirk I-L61 Hein and Jánosi 2004, fig. 60 [2]
26 TD 8484N I-a c/2–c/1 H/V-l/16-Pl. 1 L2/19 Hein 2001b, fig. 4 [30]
27 TD 8484 I-b-2 c/2–c/1 H/V-l/16-Pl. 1 L2/19 Hein 2001b, fig. 4 [30]
28 TD 5927 I-b-2 D/3–D/2 A/II-i/11-Pl. 6 Aston 2004a, fig. 107 [h]
29 TD 8959G I-e d H/VI-w/18-Pl. 4 Aston 2007, fig. 23 [f]
30 TD 2834 I-b-2 D/2 A/II-n/15–16 off. pit 3 Aston 2004a, fig. 112 [g]
31 TD 9101 I-b-2 e/2–e/1 H/VI-p/24-Pl. 5 L6382 off. pit Bader 2006, fig. 7 [e]
32 TD 8488W I-b-2 c/2–c/1 H/V-l+k/15-Pl. 1–2 L5/41 Hein 2001b, fig. 3 [12]
33 (K9014) I-b-2/e-1 b H/VI-t/11-Pl. 4 L4049 Aston 2001, fig. 13 [9–10]
34 TD 2497J I-b-2 D/3 Tomb A/II-m/11-Nr. 4 Aston 2004a, fig. 104 [k]

Fig. 5.40b Selected ceramics assigned to the Second Intermediate Period to early New Kingdom at Tell el-Dab‘a,
‘Ezbet Helmi and Tell Hebwa I.

Another common vessel type across the Second
Intermediate Period is the wheelmade holemouth
cooking pot (Fig. 5.39 [9–11]).752 The functional vessels
commonly have round bases with rolled or folded
rims.753 Most are uncoated, but some have a white slip
or a red-banded rim.754 Believed to have developed
from a MBA type,755 those from Tell el-Dab‘a are
commonly of Nile E-2 (I-e-2) and were produced on
a simple low wheel (W1); those of the late Second
Intermediate Period and the early Eighteenth Dynasty
could also be of Nile B-2 and were evidently produced
on the same type of wheel (W1) but evince minor
changes in form.756 New Kingdom examples include
Nile E-2 fragments from a disturbed context at Area
A/V-m/19,757 as well as vessels from ‘Ezbet Helmi,
752 Examples include those collected from the Eastern Delta
at Tell el-Dab‘a (Aston 2004a, 244, 378, fig. 100 [o];
Fuscaldo 2000, 84), Tell Hebwa (Seiler 1997, 27, fig. 3
[zn 94/43]), and Tell el-Maskhuta (Holladay 1982, 78–
79; R edmount 1989, 828, fig. 138), as well as from the
Northern Sinai (Oren 1997, fig. 8.23 [3]).
753 Aston 2004a, 244, fig. 100 [o].
754 Aston 2004a, 244.
755 The origins of the vessel type remain disputed. Czerny
2002, 138, fig. 23; Aston 2002, 46–47.
756 Aston 2001, 189; 2004a, 244.
757 Hein and Jánosi 2004, 183–184, 186 [K3345–6], n. 192,
fig. 139 [9].
H/III, Strata d–c,758 and H/VI, relative Stratum b.759
Cooking pots of similar form are further attested in
Second Intermediate Period and Eighteenth Dynasty
contexts in Upper Egypt.760 Those from Level V
at Kom Rabi‘a occur in both Nile B-2761 and Nile E,762
the latter possibly imported from the Eastern Delta.763
Some from the treasury of Thutmose I are red-slipped
and of coarse Nile B-2 and Nile C fabric.764
Several closed vessels are additionally represented.
An example is the slender, beaker-like jar with a
round base and direct rim that is found across Egypt
in the Second Intermediate Period and the New
758 Hein and Jánosi 2004, 183–184. For an example from
H/III, Strata d–c, see Fuscaldo 2001, 152.
759 Aston 2001, 189, fig. 13 [5].
760 The processes leading to the wholemouth cooking
vessel’s adoption and adaptation into the New Kingdom
are of particular interest, especially given the shape’s
similarities with Nubian cooking pots. I. Hein, personal
communication. For more on Nubian cooking pots, see
Gratien 2000.
761 Bourriau 2010a, 35, 66, 68, 71, figs. 5 [3380], 15 [3573],
26 [8.7.1–8.7.3].
762 Bourriau 2010a, 35, 66, 68, 71, figs. 7 [3380], 17 [3343,
1431, 2376].
763 Bourriau 2010a, 35.
764 Jacquet-Gordon 2012, fig. 31 [f]. Coarse Nile B-2 is
termed Nile C var. 1 according to Jacquet-Gordon’s
classification.
290 Chapter 5
Kingdom (Fig. 5.39 [12–13]).765 The bag-shaped type
occurs at Tell el-Dab‘a from Phase E/1 onwards and is
typically made of Nile B-2, uncoated, and often with
a red band across the rim.766 A red-washed jar of Nile
B-2 was collected from ‘Ezbet Helmi, H/V, relative
Stratum c/1–c/2.767 Another, possibly red-washed,
large beaker of Nile B-2 fabric was retrieved from
Tell Hebwa I and assigned to the early Eighteenth
Dynasty.768 Other jars of typical Egyptian shape and
commonly found in the later Second Intermediate
Period to early New Kingdom include those of Nile
B-2 with round bases and complex inturned rims that
occur relatively from Stratum b/1 at Tell el-Dab‘a
onwards.769 Similarly attested across this timeframe
but into the mid-Eighteenth Dynasty is the slender
jar with a narrower neck, more bulbous body, and a
red-burnished surface, such as that retrieved from the
substructure of the large Platform G (Area H/II).770
The ovoid white-washed jar, or the so-called WF-
Vase, is an additional type that is found from Phase D/2
at Tell el-Dab‘a, becoming popular in Phase D/1, with
some attestations in the early Eighteenth Dynasty
(Fig. 5.39 [14–16]).771 Featuring an elongated folded
rim and a nipple base, the jar is typically of a sandy
Nile fabric (either Nile C, I-c-1, or Nile E, I-e-1).772
Thin-walled and produced on a tall-stemmed simple
wheel (W2), it is usually white-slipped and heavily
fired.773 Although not frequently attested in the New
Kingdom, some examples collected from Eighteenth
Dynasty contexts were found at ‘Ezbet Helmi (for
instance, at H/III [W1], H/V, Stratum c/1–c/2 and
H/VI, Stratum c),774 Qantir,775 Tell Hebwa IV,776 and
the Northern Sinai.777
765 Examples include those from Tell el-Yahudiyah, Tell
el-Maskhuta, Qantir, Deir Rifeh, Hu, and Qau. Aston
1998, 92–93, fig. 46; 2004a, 203, 387, fig. 110 [c]; Petrie
1901b, pls. 24 [58], 35 [74–77]; 1906, pl. 10 [63–76];
1907, pls. 25 [14–15, 17–18], 26 [63–67], 27d [49–60];
Brunton 1930, pl. 14 [20]; R edmount 1989, 823, fig. 136
[3–5]; R zepka et al. 2017, fig. 30 [6]. For more discussion
and earlier parallels, see Schiestl and Seiler 2012,
532–533.
766 Fuscaldo 2000, 64–70, figs. 26–29; Aston 2004a, 203,
387, fig. 110 [c].
767 Hein 2001b, 128, 141 [8481 B], fig. 4 [26].
768 Seiler 1997, fig. 4 [zn 94/82].
769 Aston 2004a, 208–209, 361, fig. 90 [c].
770 Hein 1998, 551, fig. 2 [Nr. 8079].
771 Aston 2004a, 214, 387–389.
772 Aston 2004a, 214, 387, fig. 110 [d].
773 Aston 2004a, 214, 387, fig. 110 [d]; Bietak and Kopetzky
2012, 113, fig. 11 [6–7].
774 Fuscaldo 2000, 72–73 [144], fig. 36, pl. 2 [f]; Hein
2001b, 129, fig. 4 [8497 N]; Aston 2007, fig. 6 [g].
775 Aston 1998, 102–103.
776 Aston 2004a, 214.
777 Oren 1997, fig. 8.24 [10–11, 13]; Bietak and Kopetzky
2012, 113, fig. 11 [6–7].
Developing from earlier Marl C examples are
the larger handmade storage zirs of Bietak Type 6/
Bader Type 9 attested in Marl F (II-f) in possible late
Fifteenth to Eighteenth Dynasty contexts (Fig. 5.40
[17–20]).778 While Nile B-2 and Marl F rim
fragments from Tell el-Dab‘a’s Phases D/3 to D/2
have been linked to this zir type,779 it is more clearly
identifiable from rims of Marl F collected from
late Second Intermediate Period Tell Hebwa,780 as
well as fragments assigned to Phase D/2–D/1 from
Area A/V.781 Sherds of Marl F storage jars were
additionally retrieved from Eighteenth Dynasty
‘Ezbet Helmi, for instance from Stratum d–c at
H/VI East782 and H/III’s ‘Bathroom’,783 as well as
relative Stratum b at H/VI South.784 These suggest
that they were not residual sherds from Fifteenth
Dynasty levels, but were continuously produced in
the Eastern Delta into the Eighteenth Dynasty.785
Other closed vessels of most likely MBA origin
are similarly found in later contexts. The squat S-jar
(Fig. 5.40 [21–22]) with a flat base and simple, direct
rim, was collected from late Second Intermediate
Period contexts at Tell el-Maskhuta786 and Tell
Hebwa I.787 A further example from a grave filling
at A/II, Tell el-Dab‘a, attributed to Stratum D/2
was possibly made using the new wheel method
(W1–2).788 Its shape parallels that of a fragmentary
vessel from ‘Ezbet Helmi’s ‘Bathroom’, H/III,
Stratum d–c.789 The latter, however, has a red wash
and a dark red rim band akin to similar vessels
retrieved from tombs assigned to the period before
the reign of Thutmose III at Tell el-Yahudiyah.790
Also continuing into the Eighteenth Dynasty is the
tall jar with a ring base and a conical neck (Fig. 5.40
[23–27]).791 Inspired by MBIIB vessels,792 Hyksos
778 For storage jars of Nile clay also attested across this
period, see Bader 2006, 50–51; Oren 2019, 266–267.
779 Aston 2004a, 220.
780 Seiler 1997, 28, pl. 3 [zn 94/105].
781 Hein and Jánosi 2004, 84, fig. 57.
782 Bader 2006, 41, fig. 4 [b].
783 Fuscaldo 2001, 153, fig. 4 [h].
784 Aston 2001, 191, fig. 13 [11]; Bietak 1991c, 328.
785 Bader 2006, 42.
786 R edmount 1995b, 70, fig. 4.3 [71]; Oren 1997, pl. 7.7
[11–15].
787 A bd el-M aksoud 1998, 170–171
788 Aston 2004a, 198, 387, fig. 109 [h], pl. 212 [836]. See
Chapter 5.3.2.
789 According to Fuscaldo, the tall-stemmed simple wheel
(W2) was utilised. Fuscaldo 2001, 152, 159 [Nr. 14], fig. 2
[f].
790 Tombs 11 and 104. Petrie 1906, pl. 12a. This dating
is also supported by the published ceramics from
the tombs, as in Aston 2003, fig. 1 [a]. It is, however,
supplied here cautiously as a re-examination of their
assemblages and dating is necessitated.
791 Aston 2004a, 228–229, 379, fig. 104 [f]. See also Bietak
and Kopetzky 2012, 113, fig. 12 [5].
792 For more, see Kopetzky 2004, 252.
 Technological and Militaristic Transformations
Period examples from Tell el-Dab‘a are made
on both the simple low wheel (W1) and the tall-
stemmed simple wheel (W2). They are of Nile B-2,
red-polished793 or with broad red bands at the neck
and shoulder.794 Similar early Eighteenth Dynasty
pieces produced on the simple low wheel were
collected from Area A/V and ‘Ezbet Helmi, H/V,
relative Stratum c/1–c/2, and are red-burnished,
attested in Nile B-2 and Nile A (I-a).795 Another
large red-rimmed jar of Nile E, possibly produced
on the simple wheel (W1), was found in Stratum d,
H/VI (Fig. 5.40 [29]).796 Although it has a rounded
base, it is uncoated, with a conical red-rimmed neck
and an ovoid body that closely parallel the features
of a large tall jar with a ring base found in Stratum
D/3–D/2 at A/II (Fig. 5.40 [28]).797
Of the smaller vessels, sherds of wheelmade (W2)
Egyptian biconical Tell el-Yahudiyah juglets were
collected from early Eighteenth Dynasty levels at
‘Ezbet Helmi.798 It has been suggested that these
could have been produced in the early Eighteenth
Dynasty.799 However, due to their rare attestations,
the vessels could also be residual or relic items
produced in the late Second Intermediate Period.800
Originally imported and then locally produced are
amphorae and dipper juglets, the shapes of which
are attested into the early Eighteenth Dynasty.801
Dipper juglets of the late Second Intermediate
Period from Tell el-Dab‘a and Tell Hebwa I are
typically slender with round handles and pointed
793 Hein and Jánosi 2004, 86, fig. 60 [1–2].
794 Bietak 1991b, 44, fig. 11 [8]; Hein 2001b, 132; Aston
2004a, 228–229, 379, fig. 104 [f]. See also Bietak and
Kopetzky 2012, 114.
795 Hein 2001b, 132, 141 [8484, 8484 N], fig. 3 [15–16].
796 Aston 2007, fig. 23 [f].
797 Aston 2004a, fig. 107 [h]. The vessel was retrieved
from A/II-i/11-Pl. 6, a possible lane or court area that
may have been later used for a vineyard (Bietak 1985a;
Kopetzky 2004, 51).
798 Aston and Bietak’s Type L.5–L.8 (Aston and Bietak
2012, 463–497). Such vessels were typically of Nile
B-2 or Nile D fabric. In studying the evolution of the
production of Tell el-Yahudiyah juglets, de Vreeze
(2017, 181–193) proposes that the simplication and
standardisation of techniques may have been responsible
for their eventual disappearance. Another influential
factor is the corresponding increase in popularity of
Cypriot-type juglets, which may have fulfilled the same
or similar function as the Tell el-Yahudiyah vessels.
I. Hein, personal communication.
799 Aston and Bietak (2012, 556) write, ‘Whilst such sherds
could be residual, it is probably significant that all such
sherds derive from biconical jars of our groups L.5–L.8,
which is suggestive of the fact that the biconical type
(Kaplan’s Biconical 1) did indeed continue to be produced
during the early years of the Eighteenth Dynasty’.
800 Bietak 2021a; I. Hein, personal communication.
801 Kopetzky 2002; 2008, 208, fig. 13; Bietak 2011, 32,
figs. 17–18.
291
bases.802 While vertical burnishing is commonly
attested in earlier phases, a combination of
horizontal burnishing on the rim and shoulders and
vertical burnishing on the rest of the juglet occurs
in the later phases of the Second Intermediate
Period and into the New Kingdom (Fig. 5.40
[30–33]).803 Dipper juglets at Tell el-Dab‘a could be
of Nile D (I-d) or B-2, the latter more common from
Phase D/3.804 Unlike earlier juglets, spiral-like marks
at the base support their cutting from a rotating
wheel.805 Also bearing such marks is a juglet of
Nile B-2 from Tomb A/II-p/13-Nr. 4 assigned to the
end of Stratum D/2.806 With a more conical body, it
closely parallels shapes common in later levels at the
site.807 Assigned to the transition from the Fifteenth
to the early Eighteenth Dynasty are further juglets of
sandy Nile B-2 fabric with a more angular shoulder,
comparable to contemporaneous Levantine parallels,
from ‘Ezbet Helmi’s L66.808 Those from the early
Eighteenth Dynasty could be in Nile E-4 (I-e-4) and
with a rounder body as, for instance, exhibited by
an example from the ‘Bathroom’ at ‘Ezbet Helmi
H/III.809 Two with shorter necks, one with a pointed
base of Nile B-2 and the other with a rounder base of
Nile B-2 or E-4 were also collected from an offering
pit at Stratum e/2–e/1 at H/VI.810 Red-slipped dipper
juglets from H/V’s magazine, relative Stratum
c/2, are of Nile D and B–2,811 the latter similar
to fragments from ‘Ezbet Helmi, H/VI, relative
Stratum b.812 In comparison to the late Second
Intermediate Period, the fewer attestations of the
juglets by Phase C indicates that those present may
have been relics, the vessel type perhaps no longer
needed or produced.813 Nevertheless, as Kopetzky
highlights, the shape and traits of the juglets develop
from the Fifteenth to Eighteenth Dynasties without
interruption, strongly indicating a ‘continuation
of an already existing local tradition’.814 Equally
significant is the continued occurrence of the juglets
in offering pits, perhaps signalling persistence in
their use in relation to Eighteenth Dynasty ritualistic
feasts or practices. Their deposition alongside
802 Kopetzky 2002, 210–211; Aston 2004a, 238, 379, 386,
figs. 104 [j], 108 [b], 112 [g].
803 Kopetzky 2002, 237.
804 Aston 2004a, 238, 379, 386.
805 Kopetzky 2002, 237.
806 Kopetzky 2002, 237, fig. 6; Forstner-Müller 2008, 377,
fig. 397 [8666].
807 Kopetzky 2002, 237.
808 Fuscaldo 2000, 101, fig. 54 [a–b]. See also Petrie 1933,
pl. 38.
809 Fuscaldo 2001, 152, 159 [Nr. 20], fig. 3 [e], pl. 1 [c].
810 Bader 2006, 46–48 [9101–9102], fig. 7 [e–f].
811 Hein 2001b, 126–127, 140 [8455], 141 [8479 T; 8488 W],
fig. 3 [12–14].
812 Aston 2001, 191, fig. 13 [9–10].
813 I. Hein, personal communication.
814 Kopetzky 2002, 244.
292 Chapter 5
Levantine-type amphorae could also be due to the
continuation of linked consumption habits, as has
been identified for similar depositions of amphorae
and dipper juglets as well as consumption practices
in the Levant.815
Amphorae imported from the Levant are indeed
frequently found in contexts across the Old to New
Kingdom, highlighting the continued demand for
the products transported within the jars, if not for
the vessels themselves. At Tell el-Dab‘a, they are
attested from at least the first half of the Twelfth
to the latest Fifteenth Dynasty levels.816 The region
continued to have access to these imports into
the Eighteenth Dynasty, with the earliest known
imported amphora assigned to Stratum e/1 at
‘Ezbet Helmi.817 The inhabitants of the Eastern
Delta, however, also had access to locally produced
amphorae, the earliest thus far uncovered at Tell el-
Dab‘a assigned to the second half of the Thirteenth
Dynasty.818 A well-preserved example from Phase
D/3 has a rounded base, an oval body and a short
neck (Fig. 5.40 [34]).819 Second Intermediate Period
examples are also attested at Kom el-Khilgan, as
identified via the petrographic analysis of sherds
made out of a fabric originating from another site
in the Egyptian Delta, perhaps Tell el-Dab‘a.820 Such
815 Kopetzky 2002, 228; Aston 2004a, 43. For a map
showing the distribution of dipper juglets across Egypt
and the Levant, see Kopetzky 2008, fig. 11. To these one
should add the dipper juglet found in the MBA wine
storage complexes of the palace of Tell Kabri (Yasur-
Landau et al. 2018).
816 Levantine amphorae and their sherds have been identified
in the ceramic repertoire of Tell el-Dab‘a from the
pre-Temple Rushdi Strata e/1–4 and d (Phase M) of
Area R/I (Bagh 2002b, 96, fig. 3; Czerny 2015, 359–361,
fig. T118). For a recent review, see, with references,
Cateloy 2019. Amphorae are also attested from the
Twelfth Dynasty onwards across Egypt, at Dahshur (Do.
Arnold 1982, 41–42), Kom Rabi‘a (Ownby 2010, 61–62,
141–149), el-Lisht (Do. Arnold, F. Arnold and S.J. Allen
1995, 22–23, 27–28, fig. 6), Kom el-Khilgan (Ownby
2012a), Tell el-Maskhuta (Redmount 1989, 847, fig. 143 [1–
15]), Wadi Gasus (Bard and Fattovich 2010, 9–10), and
possibly Tell el-Sahaba (Redmount 1989, fig. 56 [7–12])
and el-Lahun (Petrik 2011, 218). Representations of what
resemble the store jars are also found on a fragment dating
to Amenemhat I’s reign at el-Lisht and on Inscription
Nr. 112 at Serabit el-Khadim (Mourad 2015, figs. 4.40,
5.11).
817 Aston 2004c, 176. See also Chapter 3.2.1.2, 3.4.1.2.
818 Kopetzky (2010, 194, 216–217) assigns the earliest
attestation of Nile B-2 amphorae to Phase E/3, with
amphorae of Nile E-2 perhaps occurring already in
Phase F but more securely by Phase E/2. Aston (2004a,
240) assigns the earliest occurrence of locally made
amphorae to Stratum a/2 (D/3). Kopetzky (personal
communication) and H ein (personal communication)
support the earlier production of amphorae in Egypt.
819 Aston 2004a, fig. 104 [k].
820 Ownby 2012, 33–38, fig. 1. See Chapter 3.2.2.
local amphorae are most likely copies of wheel-
made MBA Levantine storage jars imported into
Egypt. Local Fifteenth Dynasty examples exhibit
signs of production on the simple low wheel (W1)
and are commonly of Nile B-2 and E-2, and possibly
Marl F.821 Amphora rims from Tell el-Maskhuta
have also been identified as of ‘local’ fabric.822
Marl C examples have additionally been observed
from Eighteenth Dynasty Tell Hebwa and el-Lisht,823
with most New Kingdom amphorae assigned a
general Marl D fabric believed to be sourced by some
to the region around Memphis or to Upper Egypt.
Given their prominence in the New Kingdom and
the availability of evidence for their institutional
impact, including the development of new associated
vessel types such as the pilgrim flask, the amphorae’s
transformation is of particular interest.824 Although
few early Eighteenth Dynasty amphorae with fabric
details have been published, the earliest were found
at Serra East, Deir el-Medina, and East Karnak
(Marl D), and are dated by their cartouches to the reign
of Thutmose I (Fig. 5.41a).825 Marl D and Nile B-2
fragments of amphorae were also uncovered at Kom
Rabi‘a and assigned to Level IV of the early Eighteenth
Dynasty up to the reign of Thutmose III.826 Dating
approximately to the latter are a Marl D fragment
from ‘Ezbet Helmi, relative Stratum c (Fig. 5.41b),827
Marl D fragments from Tell el-Retaba,828 Marl D
fragments from tombs at Tell Hebwa IV,829 and those
from the tombs of Nakhtmin (TT 87; Fig. 5.41c)830 and
821 The Marl F in these instances is ‘known only from
body sherds of closed vessels which may, or may not, be
amphorae’ (Aston 2004a, 240). This is also the case with
a Marl F body sherd from ‘Ezbet Helmi’s L66 (Fuscaldo
2000, 85, fig. 48 [c]). For more Fifteenth Dynasty
examples of locally made amphorae at Tell el-Dab‘a, see
Bietak 1991b, 45; Aston 2004a, 240–241, 386, fig. 104
[k]; Kopetzky 2010, 194, 216–217, figs. 209, 248, 290,
333, table 29.
822 R edmount 1989, 847, fig. 143 [16–23]; Aston 2004a, 241.
823 See Nordström and Bourriau 1993, 181–182; Aston
2004a, 241.
824 For more on New Kingdom amphorae, see Wood 1987;
Hope 1989, 87–138; 2002; Leonard 1995; Lesko 1995;
Aston 2004c; Bavay 2015.
825 Aston 2004c, 187, fig. 6 [a]; Bourriau 2004, 79–80.
826 One Marl D fragment (Nr. 4161) was found in Level V,
context 707, and has been reinterpreted as contamination
from Level IV. Bourriau 2010a, 5, 53, 83, figs. 14 [g],
27 [10.14.4], 29 [10.14.1], 34 [k–l, n]. See also Bourriau
1990; 2004, 80–82, figs. 5.1–5.2; Bourriau, L. Smith and
Serpico 2001; Aston 2004c, 187.
827 TD 8945K. Aston 2004c, 187, fig. 6 [c]. The context of
this fragment is not yet published.
828 An imported Levantine amphora was also found at the
site. R zepka et al. 2011, 166, 171, fig. 59 [2–4].
829 Aston 2012b, 20–21, 25 [Nr. 76], 28 [Nr. 114]. A model
amphora of Nile B-2 uncoated fabric was also collected
from the site (Aston 2012b, 28 [Nr. 108]).
830 Gursch 1995, 82, fig. 36 [a–d]; Aston 2004c, 187, fig. 6 [d].
 Technological and Militaristic Transformations 293

(a) Naga el-Tawil (b) ‘Ezbet Helmi (c) Tomb of Nakhtmin (TT 87)
(Karnak) (TD 8945K, Phase C/2)

Fig. 5.41 Marl D amphorae of the New Kingdom.

Drawing by Patrick Aprent, after Aston 2004c, fig. 6 [a, c–d]

Thutmose’s three foreign wives.831 Several further
examples from Thutmose III’s reign onwards signal
a continued Egyptian production of amphorae.832
Generally, Eighteenth Dynasty amphorae, especially
those designed for wine storage, gradually developed
in shape, the neck becoming more elongated, the
body more slender, and the base pointier and more
concave.833 The production of such storage vessels can
thus be observed from the reign of Thutmose I, with
numerous examples attested from Thutmose III’s
reign onwards. This has been viewed as a rather rapid
development urged by the sudden need for Egyptian
amphorae and the associated growing demand for
wine around this period, a need which was not as
prominent nor existent in earlier phases.834 As such,
it has also been suggested that the manufacture
of Egyptian amphorae in the New Kingdom is an
innovation.835 In view of earlier evidence for wine-
making in Egypt and the local fabrics of amphorae
at Tell el-Dab‘a, Egyptian amphorae are likely the
outcome of a process involving both continuity and
development that initiated before the New Kingdom.
Considering aspects of the production of amphorae
as part of pottery manufacture in Egypt,836 their
function as vessels for storage and transportation was
likely fulfilled in the Middle Kingdom by large Marl C
831 Lilyquist 2003, 73, 76, 101–103, figs. 75 [a–e], 76 [a–b],
77 [a–b]; Aston 2004c, 187.
832 Bourriau 2004, 81–82; Aston 2004c, 187–207,
figs. 6–18.
833 Aston 2004c, 206.
834 Aston 2004c, 206.
835 Bourriau 2004, 78–95.
836 Amphorae as well as wine and wine production in the
Delta are considered in Chapter 5.4.5.3.
jars with corrugated necks.837 However, these Marl C
jars are not attested after Phase E/1 at Tell el-Dab‘a.838
Possibly due to the assumed Memphis-Fayoum origin
of the clay, this has been linked to limited contacts
between the Eastern Delta and the Memphis-Fayoum
region.839 This shift provides an incentive for using
different storage and transportation vessels in the
Eastern Delta. A further reason could lie within
the shape of the Marl C jar itself, which would
have been cumbersome due to its heavier weight,
thicker walls, and, accordingly, reduced efficiency
in transportation and stacking.840 Nevertheless, the
need for an efficient storage and transportation vessel
seems to have remained present in the Eastern Delta,
as supported by references to wine production in the
region and by the Fifteenth Dynasty.841 The large
number of imported Levantine storage jars attested
in Thirteenth to Fifteenth Dynasty Tell el-Dab‘a also
signal that the amphora was the preferred vessel for
storage and transportation. However, an observed
837 Based on inscriptions on some jars, they were likely
filled with water, wine, and perhaps beer. One Marl C jar
from the Twelfth Dynasty burial of Sitweret in the tomb
of Horkherti, Dahshur, was provided with a label that
evidently reads i rp n (.y) KT ‘wine of KT’, the toponym
possibly referring to a locale in the Northern Levant
(see Chapter 5.4.5.3). If correct, the label supports the
storage of imported wine within locally made jars. Bader
2001, 142–143, 231; 2002, 41; Aston 2004a, 96–97, 354,
figs. 14, 57 [e], 65 [c]; Bourriau 2004, 84. For the Dahshur
jar, see S.J. A llen 2009, 327, fig. 1 [11]; Mourad 2015,
64, 73, n. 846, fig. 4.33.
838 Bader 2001, 142–143, 231; 2002, 41, n. 141.
839 Bader 2002, 29–54; Vilain 2019a.
840 Bourriau 2004, 84.
841 See Chapter 5.4.5.3.
294 Chapter 5

decrease in imports in later Fifteenth Dynasty levels
at the site842 may have been counteracted by the use
of amphorae produced in Egypt.843 In supporting the
latter, an established ceramic workshop(s) catering
Tell el-Dab‘a may have experimented with different
available local clays, including Nile B-2, E-2, and
possibly Marl F.
Following the demise of Hyksos rule, the early
Eighteenth Dynasty administration still had
continued access to LBA Levantine amphorae. Yet,
several studies have determined that these vessels
were likely mostly imported for other commodities,
namely oils and resins.844 Wine, nonetheless,
remained a valued beverage for the elite, and, as
with previous periods, continued to be produced in
the Delta.845 Accordingly, demand for an efficient
storage vessel for wine, especially with the increased
local wine production from around the reigns of
Hatshepsut and Thutmose III, would have spurred
amphorae production.846 The presence of Nile B-2
amphorae in early Eighteenth Dynasty levels at
Kom Rabi‘a hints at continued experimentation but,
evidently, with the same late MBA to early LBA
amphora shape observed with the local amphorae at
Tell el-Dab‘a. Marl D became favoured, perhaps for
its reduced porousity or its availability to individuals
in the Memphite region.847 In time, the shape of the
amphora diverged from its Levantine predecessor to
evolve mostly independently into different shapes.848
With the Nineteenth Dynasty resurgence of the
Eastern Delta, particularly Qantir, as a centre for the
Egyptian administration, the use of Marl F, abundant
in the region, for the amphorae supplanted those of
Marl D during Ramesses II’s reign.849
This hypothesised development in the production
and use of the amphora vessel was thus influenced
by multiple factors, including the availability of
material and expertise, as well as shifts in supply
and demand. Such factors were likely also influential
in the continuation of other open and closed vessels
attested in the Eastern Delta across the Middle to the
New Kingdom. Some may have survived as relic or
residual items into the Eighteenth Dynasty, and many
eventually seize to be attested in the New Kingdom
repertoire. However, several vessels apparently
continued to develop with slight variations in shape,
manufacturing technique, surface treatment, and
fabric type. Regardless of their Levantine or Egyptian
origin, the need for some localised or regionalised
Fifteenth Dynasty pottery types seems to have
persisted into the Eighteenth Dynasty. This could
relate to the continued engagement of local potters
or workshops across the Fifteenth to Eighteenth
Dynasties,850 and/or the continued demand for
specific ceramic forms by various entities. They
included wares of different size and function and
possibly different levels of production or chaînes
opératoires, from cooking pots that were mostly for
functional, household use, to cups and dipper juglets
that fulfilled consumption habits (including those
possibly linked to cultic or ritualistic activities),
as well as amphorae for larger wine-producing
institutions. The presence of economic and/or social
demands feasibly promoted or supported potters or
workshops to continue to develop the production
of particular vessel types. Hence, in anticipation to
the detailed publication of further material from the
Eastern Delta dating to the transitional phase from
the Fifteenth to the Eighteenth Dynasty, the data
thus far available strongly points to the transfer of
knowledge in Second Intermediate Period customs of
pottery production and uses.

842 The reduction in the number of imported amphorae is

also observed at Tell el-Maskhuta. R edmount 1995b, 77;
Aston 2004a, 239–240.
843 Thus far, no concrete evidence for the on-site production
of ceramics at Tell el-Dab‘a has surfaced. I. Hein,
personal communication.
844 Serpico and White 2000b; Serpico et al. 2003; B. Stern
et al. 2003; Tallet 2003; Bavay 2015, 129–130.
845 See Chapter 5.4.5.3.
846 Aston 2004c, 206; Bourriau 2004, 78–95.
847 For more discussion, with references, on the source of
Marl D, see Nordström and Bourriau 1993, 181–182;
Aston 2004c, 184–187; Bourriau 2004, 85–88.
848 See Wood 1987, 79–81; Hope 1989, 87–138; Aston 2004c. 850 For observations on knowledge transfer in relation to
849 Aston 2004c, 195–198. social groups tied to workshops, see Chapter 5.5.
 Technological and Militaristic Transformations
5.4 Other Concepts, Crafts, and Technologies
5.4.1 Glassmaking and Production
To define it simply, glass is a vitreous, almost
homogenous, material typically composed of several
elements, most usually silica, soda, and lime.851 The
temperature required for glassmaking, or the mixing
together of these elements, varies according to the
composition: pure quartz necessitates over 1700oC
while the addition of lime and soda could lower the
temperature to 725oC.852 Once glass is made, it can
then be worked into different products.853 The origins
of intentional glassmaking continue to be elucidated
with ongoing scientific analyses; however, it is
generally accepted that glass became popular from
the mid-Second Millennium BC onwards.854 Several
suggestions have been proposed regarding its earliest
intentional production.855 This is largely due to the
scattered small finds found across the region from
the late EBA that signal to what some have termed
‘Stage 1 glass’ or ‘the by-product of another
technology, produced intermittently and sporadically
used, but not thought to possess any great value or
novelty’.856 ‘Stage 2 glass’ indicates the full realisation
of glass’s properties as manifested by its rapid spread
and increased larger-scale production.857
Glass of both stages seems to have been comparably
represented in both Egypt and the Near East, with no
clear source of innovation yet identified.858 Peltenburg
notes that the value of ‘Stage 1 glass’ was perhaps
realised by the MBA, as indicated by Egyptian-type
scarabs of glassy appearance and a glass bowl fragment
851 For an overview on the structure of glass, see Brill 1990;
Paul 1990; Shelby 2005; Shortland 2012, 19–32.
852 Shortland 2012, 24, 27.
853 Shortland 2012, 27.
854 See Oppenheim 1970 et al.; Oppenheim 1973; Peltenburg
1987; Lilyquist and Brill 1993; Nicholson 1993; Moorey
1994, 189–198; Nicholson and Henderson 2000; Shortland
and Tite 2000; Shortland and Eremin 2006; Degryse et al.
2010; 2015; Henderson, Evans and Nikita 2010; Shortland
2012; Rehren 2016; Shortland et al. 2017.
855 See, for example, Petrie 1924/1925; 1926b; Moorey
1994, 190; Oppenheim 1973, 259–266; Schlick-Nolte and
Lierke 2002; R ehren and Pusch 2005; Nicholson 2006,
12–13; 2007; Shortland et al. 2017, 16–17.
856 Shortland 2012, 45. The two stages of glass production
are as proposed in Peltenburg 1987, 18.
857 Shortland 2012, 45–46. Wilde (2003) opts for a four-
stage process involving a primary phase wherein
new materials are exceptions, a secondary phase of
experimentation, a tertiary phase of the expansion and
standardisation of materials and their production, and a
final phase of acceptance and full incorporation into the
material culture.
858 Peltenburg 1987, 18, tables 2–3; Moorey 1994, 193;
Shortland et al. 2017, 17. Glass pendants, plaques
and beads were also found in Sixteenth to Fifteenth
Century BC contexts in the Aegean (Barag 1970, 89;
Moorey 1994, 194).
295
from Tell Asmar dating to the Isin-Larsa Period.859
The scarabs, however, are of unknown provenance
and could be glassy faience,860 while the Tell Asmar
fragment is not yet published in full.861 Other MBA
material includes glass beads from Boğazköy and
Alishar in Anatolia,862 as well as polychrome glass
beads from Level VII at Alalakh.863 From Levels VI
and V were further sherds of polychrome glass,864
as well as the first attested moulded glass objects,
namely nude female plaques, one from the temple’s
Level VI and another from a Level V tomb at the
site.865 Moulded glass beads were also collected from a
tomb at Nimrud equipped with weapons, including an
axe type assigned to MBIIC.866 A survey of the Beqa‘
Valley produced glass beads assigned to the LBIA,867
while Lilyquist identifies glass beads, game pieces, and
inlays in the early LBA levels at Kamid el-Loz.868 In
the Southern Levant, Megiddo yielded numerous glass
objects, including a glass bead from a tomb assigned
to the MBIIB,869 another glass bead in a transitional
MBIIC to LBIA tomb,870 and several small glass
objects from LBIA Stratum IX, such as a moulded
pendant, female plaque, spacer beads and jewellery
inlays.871 Glass inlays and beads were also discovered
at Tell el-‘Ajjul and are likely of the MBIIC or LBIA.872
The use of ‘Stage 1 glass’ during the MBA and LBIA
thus appears limited to small personal items, especially
body adornments, that are of clear local or Near
Eastern type. Its employment seems to have paralleled
that of precious stones or metals. The occurrence of
glass vessels is not common, and could also be related
to personal use, perhaps mimicking stone vessels.
859 Peltenburg 1987, 18, table 2.
860 G.T. M artin 1971, 39 [441], 94 [1199]; Lilyquist and
Brill 1993, 8–9. For more on glassy faience, see
A. Lucas 1962, 164–165; Nicholson 2012, 18.
861 Delougaz , H ill and Lloyd 1967, 264 [As. 31:58];
Peltenburg 1987, 18; Moorey 1994, 192.
862 Von der Osten 1937, 284–285, fig. 309; Boehmer 1972, 175
[1809]; Peltenburg 1987, 18, table 2; Moorey 1994, 193.
863 Woolley 1955, 269; Peltenburg 1987, 18, table 2; Moorey
1994, 193.
864 Woolley 1955, 300 [AT/39/225]; Barag 1970, 150–151
[3]; Moorey 1994, 193; Shortland 2012, 47–48.
865 Woolley 1955, 220 [AT/39/106], 247, pl. 56b; Barag
1970, 188; Moorey 1994, 193; Shortland 2012, 48. For
further glass finds from Levels VI to IV, see Lilyquist
1993, figs. 27, 29a.
866 Moorey 1994, 194; Shortland 2012, 48.
867 McGovern 1986, 202–204, table 29; Lilyquist 1993, 56.
868 Lilyquist 1993, 56, fig. 29c.
869 Tomb 44. Guy 1938, 52; Dever 1976, 18; Lilyquist 1993, 52.
870 Area BB, Tomb 5250. Loud 1948, 188; Negbi 1970, 24,
27–28; Lilyquist 1993, 52–53.
871 Loud 1948, 157, 164, 167–169, 182, 188, pls. 210 [39, 41],
241 [4]; Barag 1970, 188, 192; McGovern 1985, 5, 71;
Lilyquist 1993, 52–53, figs. 17, 26, 28.
872 M axwell-Hyslop 1971, 118–120; McGovern 1985, 71,
104; Lilyquist 1993, 53–54; Moorey 1994, 193–194.
296 Chapter 5
The earliest known intentionally-made glass
objects in Egypt also appear to share this function.
Following a thorough analysis of early Egyptian glass,
Lilyquist and Brill note that the first reliable glass
objects occur in assemblages dating between the late
Second Intermediate Period and the early Eighteenth
Dynasty.873 Among them is a gold toggle pin of late
MBA type believed to stem from within the vicinity of
Tell el-Dab‘a (Fig. 5.42).874 Its bulbous head features
what has been identified as glass.875 Blue glass beads
and a blue glass ring have also been recently identified
among the jewellery of a young female buried in a
wooden coffin in the area in front of the courtyard of
Djehuty’s tomb (TT 11) at Dra‘ Abu el-Naga.876 The
finds have been dated to the Seventeenth Dynasty,
the female further found with two spiral earrings in
her left ear. Reports of a multiple burial at northwest
Saqqara of the late Second Intermediate Period to
early Eighteenth Dynasty mention blue and red
hemispherical glass beads possibly from girdles at a
female’s body.877 They were among a myriad of objects,
including bronze earrings and a Black Lustrous juglet,
placed in a coffin.878 Two tombs at Qau also of the
late Second Intermediate Period to early Eighteenth
Dynasty additionally contained blue hemispherical
glass beads.879 One of the tombs, Tomb 902, featured
873 Lilyquist 1993, 55. It should be noted that earlier cases
of glass may still be revealed with ongoing analysis of
artefacts, especially those labelled as faience or glassy
faience. Larsen (1936, 52; 1941, 46–47, fig. 22) mentions
the discovery of glass fragments at the site of Abu Ghalib
in the Western Delta. Although the site largely yielded
Middle Kingdom material, the fragments were mostly of
uncertain context, but one glass rim fragment was collected
from an evidently secure Middle Kingdom context. Due to
uncertainites regarding the early date of such pieces, as
well as the fact that they remain unpublished and have not
yet been closely examined, they are not considered here.
For more, see Bagh 2002a, 43.
874 MMA 68.136.2 (Purchase). Lilyquist and Brill 1993, 32,
fig. 20; Wilde 2003, 23, 187 [Kat. I–9].
875 Lilyquist and Brill 1993, 6–7, 32, fig. 20; Lilyquist
1993, 54–55.
876 At the time of writing, the finds have not yet been
published. For more information on the Spanish and
Egyptian archaeological mission to Luxor, see http://
www.excavacionegipfo.com/ (last accessed 06.05.2020).
877 The colours are as identified from a published photo
of the beads. Their material was confirmed by
X-ray fluorescene spectrometric and powder X-ray
diffractometric analysis. Other beads were of faience,
precious stones, and ostrich egg. Yoshimura and K awai
2008, 4–5; K awai 2012, 43–44, fig. 14.
878 The inclusion of the Black Lustrous juglet in the burial
supports an early Eighteenth Dynasty date. Two surface
burials above the coffin yielded bronze objects that ‘seem
to be pins of some kind’ (Yoshimura and K awai 2008, 4).
Based on such items, Yoshimura and K awai (2008, 4–5)
suggest that the burial belonged to non-Egyptians.
879 Tombs 3757 and 902. Brunton 1930, pl. 5; Lilyquist and
Brill 1993, 23, fig. 25; Lilyquist 1993, 55; Wilde 2003,
23–24, 190 [Kat. I–319].
an Egyptian Bichrome vessel,880 while the other Tomb
3757 contained gold earrings, hinting at the tomb
owner’s high status.881 Clearly of high status and
assigned to this period is Queen Ahhotep, the tomb
of whom contained pieces with glass. These include
round pendants with hemispherical glass inlays that
parallel those of Megiddo and Tell el-‘Ajjul,882 and a
pectoral showing Ahmose being blessed by Amun-Ra
and Ra, their names and representations forged of gold
inlaid with carnelian as well as dark blue and turquoise
blue glass.883 An amulet naming Amenhotep I and two
unprovenanced plaques, one bearing Ahmose’s name
and the other Ahmose and Amenhotep I, also contain
turquoise blue glass.884 A decorated glass fragment of
a vase was additionally retrieved from a layer above
the early Eighteenth Dynasty gardens of ‘Ezbet Helmi,
Area H/I-l/27, alongside a scarab of Thutmose I.885
Further ‘Stage 1 glass’ items dating up to the reign
of Hatshepsut include amulets and beads from Ballas
Tomb 154, as well as a hairpin and fish amulets from
tombs at Asasif.886 The official Senenmut also had
his name inscribed on a number of glass beads.887
Thutmose III’s tomb was provided with a glass kohl
jar lid,888 at least three further glass vessels889 and
a glass inlaid inner coffin.890 That of his ‘foreign
wives’ produced a glass lotiform cup, beads as well
as numerous glass inlays for a headdress, collars,
880 Lilyquist 1993, 55; R.S. Merrillees 1970, 14–15.
881 Brunton 1930, pl. 5.
882 Lilyquist and Brill 1993, 23, fig. 21; Lilyquist 1993, 55;
Wilde 2003, 24, 187 [Kat. I–10].
883 Possibly also of glass are the dark blue inlays in the
Kamose armlet discovered in the tomb. Lilyquist and
Brill 1993, 23, fig. 23; Lilyquist 1993, 55; Wilde 2003,
23, 188 [Kat. I–29], pl. 1 [2].
884 Plaque naming Ahmose: MMA 10.130.170; Plaque
naming Ahmose and Amenhotep I: MFA 1978.691;
Amulet of Amenhotep I: UC 11894. Petrie 1917a,
pl. 24 [15]; H ayes 1959, 44; Lilyquist and Brill 1993, 23,
fig. 24; Lilyquist 1993, 55; Wilde 2003, 23–24, 187
[Kat. I–11], 188 [Kat. I–30], pl. 1 [5–6].
885 TD 8063. Hein 1994b, 248 [Nr. 233].
886 Lilyquist and Brill 1993, 24, figs. 26, 28; Wilde 2003,
189 [Kat. I–115], 190 [Kat. I–316]. Two fragments were
collected from the debris of KV 38, believed to be the
tomb of Thutmose I. As the king was reburied during
the reign of Hatshepsut or Thutmose III, the fragments
may postdate Thutmose I’s reign. For more on these
fragments, see Daressy 1902, 301 [Nr. 24981]; Barag
1970, 181; Lilyquist and Brill 1993, 24.
887 R eeves 1986, 387–388; Lilyquist and Brill 1993, 24,
fig. 27; Nicholson 2006, 11.
888 CG 32220. Lilyquist and Brill 1993, 25, fig. 30. See also
Shortland 2012, 51.
889 CG 24961, CG 24959, and Brooklyn 53.176.4. Daressy
1902, 293 [Nr. 24961]; Nolte 1968, 46–47; Barag 1970,
181; Lilyquist and Brill 1993, 25–26; Shortland 2012, 51.
890 CG 61014. Lilyquist and Brill 1993, 25; Shortland 2012,
51. See also Nolte 1968, 50–52.
 Technological and Militaristic Transformations
Fig. 5.42 Gold toggle pin with a glass inlay. MMA 68.136.2, possibly from the Eastern Delta, Dynasty 15.
The Metropolitan Museum of Art, CC0 1.0 Universal License:
https://images.metmuseum.org/CRDImages/eg/original/68.136.2_EGDP019550.jpg
armlets, and necklaces.891 This adds to further
sherds and vessels all identified as glass, some
core-formed and some cold-worked,892 including
an unprovenanced sherd of a small pitcher with
Thutmose III’s cartouche, the shape and vegetal
decoration of which is similar to MBA faience or
painted juglets.893 Such types of glass objects continue
to be attested in contexts assigned to Amenhotep II,
but occur in greater variety and more numbers. For
instance, they are portrayed among items brought by
Egyptian porters for the New Year’s festival in the
tomb of Kenamun (TT 93),894 while a glass shabti
of the official possibly also came from his tomb.895
Glass objects, including at least 76 vessels, were
further identified in Amenhotep II’s tomb,896 their
different forms, sizes and decoration signalling an
‘experimentation in the styles and patterns used in
glassworking’.897
As some of these items are inscribed with the names
of kings or clearly evince Egyptian stylistic features,
they indicate that, by the Eighteenth Dynasty, glass was
likely worked by craftsmen highly skilled in Egyptian
traditions. Those that are cold-worked mimic, in form
891 Winlock 1948, 61, pl. 35; Lilyquist and Brill 1993, 26,
figs. 34, 37–40; Wilde 2003, 23–24, 187 [Kat. I–12], 188
[Kat. I–17], 193 [Kat. I–8], pls. 1 [3], 2 [4]; Shortland
2012, 51–52. See also Lilyquist 2003.
892 Nolte 1968, 46–50; Lilyquist and Brill 1993, 25–26,
figs. 19, 31; Nicholson 2006, 13–21, table 1; Shortland
2012, 52, figs. 4.3–4.5.
893 Lilyquist and Brill 1993, 26–28, figs. 41–44.
894 N. de G. Davies 1930, 30, pl. 18.
895 Newberry 1930, 1–2 [Nrs. 46530–46531]; Lilyquist and
Brill 1993, 30.
896 Daressy 1902, 191–207 [Nrs. 24753–24832]; Nolte 1968,
53–62; Lilyquist and Brill 1993, 28–30; Nicholson and
Jackson 2013.
897 Shortland 2012, 59. See also Wilde 2003, 38–39, 48–49,
199 [Kat. I–39, I–240], 205 [I–44], pls. 5 [8], 7 [8].
297
and decoration, stone or faience vessels,898 and were
likely produced from raw glass, whereas those that are
core-formed point to a different method of production
perhaps, as Peltenburg suggests, affiliated with
metalworking.899 As the craftsmen were producing
items specifically for royal or elite use, they were very
likely commissioned by a state body. Despite the lack of
evidence in this phase for glassmaking, the glass objects
may have been produced in Egypt from imported glass.
In fact, raw glass is among the items brought from RTn w
in the Annals of Thutmose III, wherein it is described
as in r.w aSA(.w) n (.w) wdH ‘many stone
blocks of that which is poured’,900 the identification
clearly showing its perceived connection to stone. It
is also believed to be among the tribute given to the
Temple of Karnak following Thutmose III’s campaigns
in the Levant, with labels reading [x s] bd
Mn - x pr-Ra.w ‘lapis lazuli of Menkheperra’ and
m f kA. t Mn - x pr-Ra.w ‘turquoise of
Menkheperra’, the two denoting the stone-like
qualities of glass, their respective dark blue and light
blue colours, as well as their connection to the king. 901
Wachsmann also suggests that three baskets with blue-
green material represented among foreign exotica
in Menkheperraseneb’s tomb (TT 86; Thutmose III
to Amenhotep II’s reign) could be laden with
raw glass.902
The occurrence of some objects with Near Eastern
898 Wilde 2003, 25–26; Nicholson 2006, 20–21; 2012;
I. Shaw 2012, 91.
899 Peltenburg 1987, 20–23; I. Shaw 2012, 90–91.
900 Annals of Thutmose III, Part IV, lines 16–17. Urk. 4, 695
[1]; R edford 2003, 73, n. 98.
901 Schlick-Nolte and Lierke 2002, 20; Shortland 2012,
141–145, figs. 7.2–7.4; Nicholson 2012, 17.
902 They have also been interpreted as lapis lazuli or emerald.
N. de G. Davies 1933a, 6, pl. 4; Vercoutter 1956, 364,
pl. 64; Wachsmann 1987, 54, pl. 35a.
298 Chapter 5
parallels, such as the toggle pin, Ahhotep’s pendants,
or the pitcher, signals that glass items may have also
been worked by artists knowledgeable in non-Egyptian
styles, and so could have been imported or inspired by
their counterparts.903 Indeed, glass vessels have been
identified as part of the offerings brought by Levantine
dignitaries depicted in the tomb of Rekhmira (TT 100;
Thutmose III to Amenhotep II’s reign).904 As some
pieces additionally evince both Egyptian and Near
Eastern aspects,905 they may also hint at some degree
of convergence of styles.906 Whether this reflected
the presence of foreign craftsmen in early Eighteenth
Dynasty Egypt remains to be confirmed.907 It is equally
plausible that the workers were (a) previously affiliated
with Fifteenth Dynasty workshops, (b) in Near Eastern
workshops but familiar with Egyptian styles, or (c) in
Egyptian workshops but well-acquainted with Near
Eastern forms. In all cases, the contexts and materials
of early glass across the region suggest that it was
considered a precious substance connected to royalty
and the elite.908 The small, closed types of glass vessels
also point to the value of the substances stored within.
This continues in ‘Stage 2’ of glassmaking and
production, which develops across the region between
the LBI and LBIIA. Popular items include beads,
inlays for prestige objects or jewellery pieces, vessels,
amulets, pendants, and smaller valuable pieces.909
Following Thutmose III’s reign, glass appears more
commonly in Egyptian contexts, its vessels attested
in more standardised shapes and as mostly core-
formed items. Although scientific analyses of glass
colourants suggest that glass may have been produced
in Egypt around Thutmose III’s reign,910 the earliest
known glass-producing workshops were identified at
Malkata911 and Amarna,912 and are dated respectively
to the reigns of Amenhotep III and Akhenaten. The
Nineteenth Dynasty workshop identified at Qantir/
Piramesse is also worthy of note for its close proximity
903 Nicholson 2006, 21.
904 N. de G. Davies 1943, 28, pl. 9; Shortland 2000, 159–
161, pl. 22 [1]; 2012, 54–55. Nolte (1968, 18) suggests
that the vessels are of stone.
905 Lilyquist and Brill 1993, 43.
906 For more on the gradual convergence of technologies
and styles to more homogenous patterns in the LBA
Eastern Mediterranean and Near Eastern region, see
I. Shaw 2012, 112–113, 121. On cultural convergence, see
Brumann 1998, 499–500; Leal 2011, 324, 327.
907 Oppenheim 1973, 263–264; Lilyquist and Brill 1993,
43; Shortland 2001; 2012, 56–57; Nicholson 2006, 21;
I. Shaw 2012, 84.
908 Nicholson 2006, 12.
909 Wilde 2003, 36–41, 50–56, 63; Shortland 2012, 75–82.
910 Lilyquist and Brill 1993, 31–32; Nicholson and Jackson
2012, 41; 2013, 99; Shortland 2012, 59–60.
911 See K eller 1983.
912 See Petrie 1894, 25; Nicholson 1995; Jackson, Nicholson
and Gneisinger 1998; Nicholson 2007; Hodgkinson 2018,
78–105, 244–248; 2020; Hodgkinson and Frick 2020;
Hodgkinson et al. 2019.
to faience and bronze workshops, as well as its highly
specialised and complex organisation.913 Such data
confirms that workshops producing glass objects
were closely connected to and/or mostly controlled by
the central administration in Egypt.914 Nevertheless,
glass-production on a smaller scale also seems to have
occurred in the households of the elite and by specialised
craftsmen.915 Despite its own apparent flourishing glass
workshop(s), the Egyptian state continued to value
glass as an imported item of prestige. It is included
among the imports brought by foreigners in the tomb
of Menna (TT 69; Thutmose IV to Amenhotep III’s
reign).916 A number of Amarna Letters also refer to the
trade of material identified as glass (eḫlipakku) from
cities along the Levantine coast,917 with one containing
a fragmentary mention of the export of glass as a gift
to the Babylonian king Burnaburiash II.918 However,
no glassmaking workshops have yet been found in the
Near East. Larger-scale glassmaking and production
is believed to have occurred around the same period
that glass became more commonly attested. The large
collection of glass discovered in Stratum II at Nuzi,
originally assigned to the early LBI, has been used to
support a Near Eastern origin for ‘Stage 2 glass’ with
a possible production centre at the site.919 However,
its redating to the LBIIA aligns it with the Eighteenth
Dynasty glassmaking and glass-producing workshops
at Amarna and Malkata.920
An overview of the evidence thus suggests that glass
was likely available in Egypt from at least the Second
Intermediate Period onwards. Based on the available
material, its initial occurrence in items paralleling
913 R ehren 1997; R ehren and Pusch 1997; 2005; 2007;
Pusch 1999; Pusch and R ehren 1999; 2007.
914 As Hodgkinson (2018, 39–40, 45) writes, possible
exceptions are the fortress at Beth Shean and the
Twentieth Dynasty settlement at el-Lisht; however,
glassmaking at the latter remains inconclusive.
915 For a thorough discussion of glassmaking and production
in the New Kingdom, see Hodgkinson 2018, especially
38–45, 78–105, 289–290, fig. 8.1.
916 Shortland 2000, 159–161, pl. 22 [2]; H artwig 2013, 77–
78, fig. 2.15a.
917 EA 148, 235 (with 327), 314, 323 and 331. Moran 1992, 235
[4–17], 293, 347, 351–352, 354–355; Shortland 2012, 147–
152; Rehren 2014, 219–220; 2016, 259–262. The Hurrian
term eḫlipakku has been translated as ‘a kind of precious
stone’ and is attested in relation to Alalakh, Ugarit, Qatna,
Ashkelon, and Nuzi. Another term identified as glass
in texts from Assyria, Tyre and Ugarit is the Akkadian
mekku. For a discussion of these terms, see Oppenheim
1973.
918 EA 14. Moran 1992, 28 [11]. Glass ingots were
also collected from the Uluburun shipwreck, with
elemental analyses suggesting that three samples show
a composition consistent with glass manufactured in
Egypt (Jackson and Nicholson 2010). For more on the
shipwreck, see Pulak 2005.
919 Barag 1970; Vandiver 1983.
920 Shortland 2012, 64–65; Shortland et al. 2017, 17.
 Technological and Militaristic Transformations
Near Eastern jewellery pieces, or in tombs bearing
other items of non-Egyptian origin or influence,
indicates that glass was likely imported during the
Fifteenth and Seventeenth Dynasties. Its value as
a precious object by the upper classes was possibly
due to its association with finely worked pieces of
jewellery or imported valuable products. Accordingly,
perhaps its specific qualities were only realised at this
stage by the craftsmen and workshops commissioned
to forge these small items. Around the reigns of
Hatshepsut and Thutmose III, glassworking seems to
have incorporated larger objects that were imported
and produced in Egypt, including both core-formed
and cold-shaped vessels. Glass’s associations with
stoneworking, as well as the appreciation of its specific
qualities in comparison with precious stones, was now
likely fully realised by state-sponsored workshops
and their beneficiaries. This is possibly expressed in
Thutmose III’s reliefs and inscriptions, wherein it is
also apparent that royal scribes were attempting to
develop the lexicon to best describe this material,
choosing terms closely related to stones. As I. Shaw
proposes, the connection to stoneworking could
express an unwillingness or inability to produce core-
formed vessels.921 It could also point to the quicker
production of cold-shaped vessels from imported
raw glass, the limited availability of infrastructure
for creating core-formed vessels, and/or the greater
number of skilled craftsmen knowledgeable in creating
cold-shaped vessels. Following Thutmose III’s
reign, the central administration likely proceeded to
supply the necessary resources for glassmaking on
a larger scale. The product’s value across the region
persisted as glass continued to be traded between
Egypt and the Near East.
It is this trade in items of high craftsmanship which
finds parallels in the Second Intermediate Period; but,
the influence of the Hyksos Dynasty in the process
of the development of glass production in Egypt is,
based on current evidence, slim to nonexistent. An
unintentional connection to the Fifteenth Dynasty
could be related to its access to mediators or workshops
producing glass items, and their consequent transport
into Egypt for use by the elite. However, the presence
of glass in Second Intermediate Period contexts is
more likely a reflection of supra-regional developments
in technology and craftsmanship, the products that
comprised glass seeping into Egypt from the Near East
as items of luxury connected to those of high status
rather than as items specifically of glass.
921 I. Shaw 2012, 91.
299
5.4.2 Jewellery
Several studies have examined developments in
jewellery technology, typology, and iconography
in ancient Egypt.922 Some convincingly attributed
several transformations to the interactions between
Egypt and the Near East between the Middle and New
Kingdoms. The following presents an overview of
two select and interrelated transformations, assessing
their possible relation to the socio-historical shifts
in the Eastern Delta. It includes developments in
the use of gold granulation, a metalworking process
specifically associated with jewellery, and the increased
prominence of earrings in Egyptian contexts.
5.4.2.1 Granulation and gold-working
As supported by finds from the Predynastic and Early
Dynastic Period, gold was one of the first metals to be
worked by the Egyptians.923 It could be accessed from
a number of mines to Egypt’s east and south, especially
those in the Eastern Desert and Nubia.924 Early pieces,
alongside Old and Middle Kingdom tomb scenes,
attest to the use of several gold-working methods
by Egyptian goldsmiths.925 Typically, the metal was
initially melted with the aid of blowpipes, and then
poured onto slabs for further working and shaping.
This could involve casting it into particular shapes,
such as figurines, although this is not frequently
attested.926 More common is the hammering of the
poured metal into sheet gold that was then used
either to sheath a variety of objects as, for instance,
furniture and jewellery, or to create smaller elements
of larger pieces, such as wires or small spheres.927 In
order to fuse pieces together, solders of silver, copper,
or a combination of the two, could be applied via
different techniques.928 Hard soldering using copper
(diffusion bonding) is more commonly attested, and
generally featured an organic adhesive that was added
to the copper to keep two gold pieces together.929
Following the application of heat, the copper diffused
into the gold to thereby bond the components.930
When spheres are fused onto a metal sheet via the
implementation of such a soldering technique, it
results in granulation.931 Different patterns of spheres,
922 See, for instance, A ldred 1971; Ogden 1983; 1992;
Andrews 1990.
923 Ogden 2000, 161.
924 Vercoutter 1959; Ogden 2000, 161.
925 See T.G.H. James 1972; Ogden 2000, 161; Wilde 2011,
18–43; Swinton 2012, 173, pl. 111.
926 Ogden 2000, 161.
927 Ogden 2000, 161.
928 Demortier 1988; Ogden 1992, 52–53; Schorsch 1995;
Politis 2001, 162–169; Troalen et al. 2009.
929 Ogden 2000, 161; Politis 2001, 165, figs. 9.1–9.5; Troalen
et al. 2009, 116.
930 Ogden 2000, 161; Politis 2001, 165.
931 Ogden 2000, 161; Politis 2001, 161; Wilde 2011, 40–41.
For more on the use of the term ‘granulation’ and its
associated techniques, see Wolters 1981.
300 Chapter 5
Fig. 5.43 Gold shell pendant with the name of
Senwosret II, Dynasty 12. MMA 26.7.1353, possibly
from Dahshur, Dynasty 12. The Metropolitan
Museum of Art, CC0 1.0 Universal License:
https://images.metmuseum.org/CRDImages/eg/
original/26.7.1353_front.jpg
or types of granulation, may be formed; they could be
separated (separate or point granulation), arranged in
lines (linear granulation), packed together (massed or
field granulation), or clustered into three-dimensional
forms (cluster granulation).932
Granulation is first attested in Egypt in the Twelfth
Dynasty and has been considered as an imported
technology.933 This is largely due to the nature
of the earliest granulated material, as well as the
appearance of the technique on items from the Near
East, Crete, and Anatolia attributed to the mid-Third
Millennium BC onwards.934 Such material has been
closely studied by Lilyquist, and so does not need
to be repeated here in depth.935 Briefly, those of the
Third Millennium BC include rings from the Royal
Cemetery of Ur, a bead from Akkadian Tell Brak, and
earrings from Troy.936 Of the first half of the Second
Millennium BC are such jewellery pieces as earrings
from Ur, pendants from Larsa, crescent earrings
932 Wolters 1981, 120–122.
933 Ogden 2000, 165.
934 See, with references, Prévalet 2006/2007.
935 Lilyquist 1993, 31–51.
936 M axwell-Hyslop 1971, 18–19, 30–31, 70–71, figs. 22, 38
[c–d], 46 [b, f–g]; Lilyquist 1993, 33; D. Oates, J. Oates
and McDonald 2001, 242–246; Prévalet 2006/2007, 32.
from Assur and a crescent hair ring from Kültepe
(Kanesh), as well as Akkadian cylinder seal caps (or
their impressions), and several jewellery pieces from
Byblos and Ebla.937 Examples retrieved from contexts
assigned to the late MBA to early LBA from Megiddo
and Tell el-‘Ajjul, and those from early LBA Alalakh
and Kamid el-Loz should also be noted.938
From Egypt, several pieces showing granulation
were assigned to the period extending from the
reign of Amenemhat II to the Second Intermediate
Period. The so-called Tod Treasure consisted, among
numerous likely imported items and jewellery pieces
with MBA parallels, a silver bracelet with granulated
gold.939 The burial of Princess Khnemet at Dahshur
additionally produced a number of jewellery pieces
bearing mostly Near Eastern forms and/or motifs,
including granulated spheres on pendants of rosettes,
stars and butterflies, as well as beads.940 Granulation
on shells, rings, and cylindrical amulets can also be
added to Middle Kingdom and Second Intermediate
Period examples (Fig. 5.43).941 Among the few that
name Egyptian kings, Lilyquist notes only one, a shell
with the cartouche of Senwosret II that, ‘on the basis
of design, quality, and epigraphy – appears to have
been made by an Egyptian’ at a time during or after
his reign.942
Indeed, although much of the Egyptian corpus
features motifs that are attested in Egyptian art,
they are also attested on pieces emulating Egyptian
material but from the Near East. This, together with the
occurrence of aspects of posited non-Egyptian origin,
such as rosettes,943 signals that the granulated pieces
may have been inspired by or produced in the Near East.
This continues into the New Kingdom, as indicated by
the close parallels between jewellery from the early
Eighteenth Dynasty burial of Ahhotep and those from
Megiddo and Tell el-‘Ajjul.944 Other New Kingdom
examples generally date from around the period of
937 For an overview of the material alongside an examination
of the applied granulation technique, see Lilyquist 1993,
33–41.
938 Lilyquist 1993, 47–51; Politis 2001, 170–177, figs. 9.7,
9.10–9.11.
939 Lilyquist 1993, 35, fig. 8 [a]. While the date of the
treasure’s deposition remains contested, its items likely
date from Amenemhat II’s reign onwards. For more
on the dating, see Bisson de la Roque, Contenau and
Chapouthier 1953, 15–35; K emp and Merrillees 1980,
290–296; Porada 1982; M aran 1987; Laffineur 1988;
Warren and H ankey 1989, 131–134; G. Pierrat 1994.
940 Lilyquist 1993, 36–37.
941 Lilyquist 1993, 37–38.
942 Lilyquist 1993, 37.
943 Some aspects also occur across other media in Egypt,
such as wall paintings, and a few, like rosettes, appear
already but rarely in the Old Kingdom, if not earlier. For
an example of reconstructed rosettes at ‘Ezbet Helmi
(H/VI-u/15, Strata d–c), see Bietak, Dorner and Janosi
2001, 101, fig. 53. For more on rosettes, see K antor 1945.
944 Guy 1938, pl. 115 [25]; Lilyquist 1993, 50, fig. 25.
 Technological and Militaristic Transformations
Hatshepsut and Thutmose III onwards, and include
well-crafted pieces from the tombs of Thutmose III’s
foreign wives945 and Tutankhamun.946 Close parallels
with Aegean artefacts and styles, as evinced for
instance by the workmanship of Tutankhamun’s
buckle, signal that the technique continued to be
related with non-Egyptian representations.947 This
has led to the suggestion that foreign craftsmen had
produced granulated pieces in Egypt,948 although the
technique itself may have also symbolically imbued
supra-regional relationships.
The combined evidence supports Lilyquist’s
conclusions that granulation mainly became more
prominent from the early MBA onwards. Politis
further observes a close connection between the
growing spatial distribution of granulated items (from
Mespotamia, Anatolia and the Aegean, to the Levant,
Egypt, Cyprus and Mycenaean Greece), and changing
networks of long-distance trade in metals.949 This, as
she explains, might point to a link between ‘the early
‘foreign intrusions’ of granulation in Middle Kingdom
Egypt’ and the ‘Asiatic presence in the Nile Delta
region’.950 The possible Egyptian-Levantine enterprise
in Serabit el-Khadim, formally officiated by the
Twelfth Dynasty administration,951 may have thus been
instrumental in this process. Granulated objects were,
in a sense, possibly an extension of the negotiations of
shared visual and symbolic means of communicating
status, social identity, and prestige.952 Granulation
itself could be visually identified easily and quickly,
especially when applied on bodily adornments, and
its mastery clearly expressed access to both precious
metals and specialised knowledge.953 In assessing the
origins of the items from Egypt, however, a number
of possible workshops or groups across the region
or trade network likely practiced the technique.954
Pinpointing the exact location of these groups is
difficult and further complicated by the possibility of
local experimentation and production.955 Knowledge
of the technique in Egypt is likely, but it appears
rarer than others of jewellery-making. Some propose
that this could perhaps be due to the foreignness
of the technique,956 whereas Lilyquist suggests that
preference for style or sufficient availability of gold
could have also limited its popularity.957 While
945 Lilyquist 2003.
946 For example, see Desroches-Noblecourt 1963, pl. 21
[a–b].
947 Politis 2001, 186, fig. 9.15.
948 Politis 2001, 186.
949 Politis 2001, 187–188.
950 Politis 2001, 188.
951 See Mourad 2015, 135–142.
952 Politis 2001, 189.
953 Politis 2001, 189.
954 Lilyquist 1993, 51.
955 Politis 2001, 176–177.
956 Trokay 1968; Ogden 2000, 165.
957 Lilyquist 1993, 36.
301
(a)
2099
(b)
4749 4757
(c)
2303 2325
0 10 cm
Fig. 5.44 Rings, likely earrings, collected from Tell el-
Dab‘a. Philip 2006, fig. 51 [1, 5–6, 13–14]).
(a) TD 2099, gold, found below the skull and left
mandible of an infant, A/II-n/10-Nr. 4, Stratum E/3–E/2
(Phase E/3–E/2 ); (b) TD 4749 and 4757, silver, found by
the left shoulder of an infant, F/I-k/23-Nr. 33,
Stratum b/2 (Phase E/3); (c) TD 2303 and 2325, silver,
found below the right shoulder of Burial 2,
A/II-m/15-Nr. 3, Stratum E/1 (Phase E/1)
methods involved in producing granulation were
likely learnt by Egyptian metalsmiths to create other
effects,958 knowledge of granulation could have also
been restricted to particular workshops or craftsmen.
As such, a variety of factors could have impacted the
occurrence of granulated jewellery in Egypt. The
evidence, nevertheless, suggests that the process of
its development and use were not initiated solely by
the socio-historical situation in the Eastern Delta
during the Second Intermediate Period. Granulation
and its links to precious elite objects had appeared
earlier, likely in conjunction with or parallel to other
markers of status or identity that developed across the
supra-region.
5.4.2.2 Earring and/or penannular ring use
As a form of bodily adornment, earrings can display
wealth, status, and identity. In ancient Egypt and the
Near East, as with other areas in the ancient world,
the materials, techniques, types and iconography of
earrings could all add to their value and symbolic
significance. They were commonly attached to the ear
by ring or wire, either pierced through or suspended
958 Politis 2001, 184.
302 Chapter 5
from or over it. Various attachments could be applied to
then embellish the jewellery pieces, such as granulation
or decorated pendants. It should be noted that, in
the archaeological record, some smaller rings could
have been nose or perhaps beard rings;959 however, in
burials, the proximity to the sides of an individual’s
head is usually interpreted as a good marker for the
use of earrings. Artistic and textual representations
may also aid in identifying whether nose rings and/or
earrings were commonly worn. Still, in practice, one
ring could have been utilised for different purposes.
The production of earrings and their use are attested
from Mesopotamia and the Levant from at least the
Fourth Millennium BC onwards, with some noted
associations with identity.960 For instance, at Early
Dynastic III Ur, men typically had one ring in their
burials while women had at least one, usually large,
earring for each ear, and one child burial also revealed
three gold rings.961 These add to other examples from
the Near East and Anatolia of infant burials yielding
the object.962 Alongside such associations with social
group identity are the different shapes of rings that
could imbue symbolic significance. An example is the
lunate-shaped earrings, as, for instance, the late Third
to Second Millennium gold lobed and crescented rings
and silver penannular rings from Mari.963 Continuing
into the Iron Age, they have been linked with the
Near Eastern crescent symbol of particular deities,
hinting that the earrings were worn to invoke an
amuletic function and/or astral qualities associated
with lunar deities.964 While their metallic materials
would enhance their luminosity and possible symbolic
representations, they would have also expressed
wealth and status, and accordingly made suitable gifts.
Texts from Ebla, for instance, note that women were
provided, among other jewellery items, with earrings
on several occasions, including marriage, ordination
as priestesses, childbirth, and death.965 Thus, earrings
were clearly among the bodily adornments worn, often
for specific purposes, by individuals in the Near East.
However, south of the Eastern Delta in Egypt, earrings
are not commonly represented in the archaeological,
textual, or artistic record prior to the late Seventeenth
to Eighteenth Dynasty. Early attestations include
959 The second individual from the right portrayed in the
procession of aAm .w of Khnumhotep II’s tomb at Beni
Hassan wears, at the tip of his beard, what could be a
jewelled adornment or a droplet of some sort. Mourad
2014, 74, pl. 129; 2015, 88, fig. 4.52.
960 See M axwell-Hyslop 1971; Musche 1992; Genz 2000,
58.
961 Woolley 1934, 241, 247, pls. 129, 133, 145, 146 [b–c],
147; Gansel 2007.
962 See, for instance, von der Osten 1937, 51, fig. 43 [2238–
2239]; Prag 1978, 39; Jean-M arie 1999, 50.
963 Jean-M arie 1999, 22, pls. 149 [6], 175 [2], 218 [7], 229
[13], 242 [6, 20].
964 Ilan 2016.
965 A rchi 2002.
an ivory figurine from Hu with spiral earrings from
a burial variably dated to the Twelfth Dynasty or
the Second Intermediate Period,966 as well as two
large gold-plated copper earrings and one earstud
from Middle Kingdom Sheikh Farag.967 In a recently
discovered coffin assigned to the Seventeenth Dynasty
at Dra‘ Abu el-Naga, a young female was found with
two spiral earrings in her left ear.968
Several earrings have additionally been collected
from burials in the Eastern Delta (Fig. 5.44). At Tell
el-Dab‘a, they occur from Phase H, although in a
disturbed grave, to Phase D/3. They are shaped as
penannular rings, either less than 1.5 cm or 2–3 cm in
diameter.969 The smaller rings, occurring from Phase F
to D/3, are generally of silver and, when in primary
contexts, were commonly found in infant burials.970
Larger earrings were usually in adult female and
infant burials and are also mostly of silver, with some
gold, one bronze, and one copper earring attested.971
When found in situ, both smaller and larger rings
966 Grave W 72. Petrie 1901b, 43–44, pl. 26; Eaton-K rauss
1982, 227; A. Wilkinson 1971, 121.
967 The earrings were from Graves 203 and 208, and the
earstud from Grave 153. R eisner 1923, 256, 280; Eaton-
K rauss 1982.
968 The finds have not yet been published. According to news
reports, the mummy of the 15–16 year old female was
adorned with jewellery, including glass beads and a glass
ring, and buried in a wooden coffin in the area in front
of the courtyard of Djehuty’s tomb (TT 11). For more
information on the Spanish and Egyptian archaeological
mission to Luxor, see http://www.excavacionegipto.com/
(last accessed 06.05.2020). For more on glass items, see
Chapter 5.4.1.
969 Inv. Nrs. 3396 (Tomb F/I-j/29-Nr. 14, Stratum d/2),
7322 (Tomb F/I-m/18-Nr. 3, Stratum d/1), 3942 (Tomb
A/II-r/18-Nr. 1, Stratum F), 4749 (Tomb F/I-k/23-Nr. 33,
Stratum b/2), 4757 (Tomb F/I-k/23-Nr. 33, Stratum b/2),
8942 (Tomb A/II-p/14-Nr. 11-Side Burial, Stratum E/3),
8940 (Tomb A/II-p/14-Nr. 12-Side Burial 3, Stratum E/3),
7660 (Tomb A/II-k/14-Nr. 8, Stratum E/2), 2099 (Tomb
A/II-n/10-Nr. 4, Stratum E/3–E/2 ), 127 (Tomb A/II-
l/12-Nr. 1–7, Stratum E/1–D/3), 2303 (Tomb A/II-m/15-
Nr. 3-Side Burial 1, Stratum D/3), and 2325 (Tomb
A/II-m/15-Nr. 3-Side Burial 2, Stratum D/3). Bietak
1991c, 145–148, 175; Philip 2006, 109 [2099], 110 [7322],
111 [127, 3942, 4749, 4757], 114 [7660], 163, fig. 51 [1–2, 10,
12–15], table 9; Forstner-Müller 2008, 189 [3653=3942],
209 [8942], 212 [8940], 220 [7660], 314 [2303], 316 [2325],
figs. 109 [2], 127 [2], 133 [8], 146 [7], 234 [4], 236 [29];
Schiestl 2009, 225 [3396], 241, fig. 132 [3].
970 Philip 2006, 114, 163.
971 One of the larger earrings was also found in the vicinity
of equid bones buried outside Tomb F/I-o/17-Nr. 4, and
perhaps may have been a nose ring for the equid (Bietak
1991c, 59). For more on nose rings for equids in the Near
East, see H ančar 1955, 433–435; Littauer and Crowel
1979, 30–31, figs. 3, 6, 12a–b; Heimpel 1994, 10–11. For
the portrayal of nose rings in Twelfth Dynasty scenes
at Serabit el-Khadim, see Gardiner and Peet 1917,
pl. 85; Černy 1935, fig. 3; Goldwasser 2012/2013, fig. 2;
Mourad 2015, figs. 5.10–12.
 Technological and Militaristic Transformations
were typically near the head, often in pairs and, in
the case of the larger earrings, occasionally in two
pairs.972 Also from Second Intermediate Period
graves generally corresponding to Tell el-Dab‘a’s
Phase E/1 to the beginning of D/3 are silver, gold,
and a fragment of a bronze penannular ring from Tell
el-Maskhuta.973 These were typically retrieved from
graves interred with children or pre-adolescents, or
children with adults. Earrings were further collected
from graves assigned to the Second Intermediate
Period at Tell Farasha, however lack of published
details restrict further comment.974 Large thin gold
hoop earrrings were also among the so-called el-
Salhiyah Treasure, presumably from the Eastern
Delta and of the Fifteenth Dynasty.975 Accordingly,
the evidence altogether points to a practice in the
Eastern Delta wherein earrings, particularly of the
penannular metal type, occur among the funerary
bodily adornments, usually of females, infants, pre-
adolescents, or individuals associated with infants.
As other material among the tombs’ published
funerary repertoire suggests influence or inspiration
from the Near East, the inclusion of these earrings
in such a manner may also be associated with Near
Eastern customs.
The Eastern Deltaic practices have been proposed
to be the main source for the proceeding popularity
of earrings among both men and women during the
New Kingdom.976 However, another, Nubian, source
of influence has also been suggested.977 Earrings,
usually of metal, stone, shell or wood, as well as
earstuds and plugs are documented in Nubian
burials, or those associated with a Nubian culture in
Egypt. For instance, silver earrings and penannular
rings of alabaster and shell have been uncovered in
the so-called Pan-Grave burials at mid-late Second
Intermediate Period Mostagedda, particularly those
of women and children,978 while penannular shell
rings were collected from Balabish.979 Silver earrings
972 Philip 2006, 114, 163.
973 These include four silver earrings from Grave L12.12312
(belonging to a pre-adolescent, Phase 1), one gold earring
from L12.12508 (child, Phase 1), two gold earrings from
R8.8079 (adult and child, Phase 2), three silver earrings
from L12.12736 (adult and child, no defined phase),
four silver earrings from H6.6026 (child, no defined
phase), and a fragment of a bronze earring from H6.6035
(unknown, no defined phase). R edmount 1989, table 39,
figs. 150 [4–7], 153 [1], 156 [16–18], 159 [25–26], 171
[2–5].
974 Yacoub 1983.
975 MMA 68.136.12–16. H.G. Fischer 1969, 70.
976 A ldred 1971, 142; Sparks 2004, 35; Philip 2006, 164.
977 A. Wilkinson 1971, 121; Bakr 1977; C. A ndrews 1990,
110; Bianchi 2004, 128.
978 Brunton 1937, 129.
979 Wainwright 1920, 13.
303
have been identified at Qau,980 with one pair from
Burial 3834 exhibiting a penannular shape. Although
they were ascribed a Pan-Grave attribution and
Second Intermediate Period date, this cannot be
confirmed by the published evidence.981 From Kerma,
and assigned a late Second Intermediate Period date,
are faience and ivory earstuds as well as a black stone
ear plug.982 Of very likely late Second Intermediate
Period date is a burial at Dra‘ Abu el-Naga of a
woman and her child, with at least six classic Kerma
beakers.983 While the woman was supplied with
a gilded rishi coffin and several pieces of gold and
electrum jewellery, the child was endowed with two
earrings of gold, two ivory bangles, and hundreds
of gold ring beads.984 The quality and quantity of
funerary goods has led Ryholt to propose that the
woman was a member of the Seventeenth Dynasty
royal family of Nubian origin and perhaps involved
in diplomatic marriage.985 Although her identity
is difficult to confirm, the association of the gold
earrings with the child would still strongly point to
their representation of wealth and status.
Earrings are additionally represented in other
archaeological material of the late Second
Intermediate Period to early Eighteenth Dynasty.
Several pairs of silver penannular earrings, gold and
silver spiral earrings, ribbed penannular earrings,
copper or bronze pennanular earrings covered with
gold foil, as well as copper wire earrings were retrieved
from Dynasty 17–18 burials at Asasif, Thebes,986 and
Qurna,987 and from Eighteenth Dynasty burials at
Abydos, Semna, and Dra‘ Abu el-Naga, among other
980 One was found in association with beads in Burial
1300/1, two in Burial 1301, two in Burial 3834, one in
Burial 5465 and one in Burial 5478. Brunton 1930, 7,
pl. 9 [19].
981 Burial 3834 also contained Nerita shells, commonly
from the Red Sea and associated with the Pan-Grave
culture (Säve-Söderbergh 1989, 138). It was in a wooden
coffin, which would suggest a later date.
982 R eisner 1923, 256–257.
983 Petrie 1909, 6–10, pls. 22–29; Bourriau 1981, 34–35, 37;
1991, 132; S.T. Smith 1992, 231, fig. 9.
984 Petrie 1909, 6–10, pls. 22–29; Bourriau 1981 34–35, 37;
1991, 132; S.T. Smith 1992, 231, fig. 9.
985 Ryholt 1997, 180–181.
986 The earrings were found usually in association with
the body of the interred individual, as collected
from Courtyard CC 41’s Pit 2, Burial D4; Courtyard
CC 41’s Pit 3, Burials B1, E3, E4 and E5; Courtyard
CC 41’s Tomb R 8, Burials A2, B2 and D2; as well as
CC 37’s Burial 83. See the collection of The Metropolitan
Museum of Art online, especially the following pieces:
MMA 16.10.310–313, 16.10.337–338a–b, 16.10.344–
347, 16.10.407–408, 16.10.416–417, 16.10.466–470,
16.10.473–474, 16.10.478, 26.7.1321–1323, 26.7.1334–
1336, 26.7.1337. See also Patch 2005, 201.
987 Petrie 1909, 6–10. For the dating, see Aston 2007, 218.
304 Chapter 5
sites.988 To these may be added two pairs of circular
bronze earrings apparently in association with a
female buried amongst a multiple burial at northwest
Saqqara assigned to the late Second Intermediate
Period to early Eighteenth Dynasty.989 Earrings also
continue to be attested in the Eastern Delta, as with a
circular pair of gold rings from Tell el-Yahudiyah.990
Indeed, by the New Kingdom, earrings, earstuds
and ear plugs are more frequently found in
association with men, women, and children. Of
the earrings, different types continued to develop,
including the penannunular, hooped, and tube-
and-boss earrings.991 A variety of materials (some
precious) and techniques were utilised, including
granulation.992 They were represented in association
with a number of groups, including the divine and the
sacred. Their depiction on foreigners is additionally
confirmed by attestations of Nubians, more usually
men, and Asiatic women wearing circular earrings.993
Although Egyptians are shown wearing earrings
from Amenhotep I’s reign onwards,994 pharaohs are
not represented with the adornments, despite the
presence of perforations on some of their mummies’
earlobes.995 Those portrayed with earrings are often
of the upper class, and usually female, with elite
women from the mid-Eighteenth Dynasty onwards
typically attested with double-pierced ears and/or
two pairs of earrings.996
This association of earrings with status or social
group may be gleaned from the very early Eighteenth
Dynasty. Among the earliest representations of
women and, more rarely, men wearing earrings are
those from the tomb of the official Tetiky (TT 15)
who served Ahmose and Amenhotep I. The tomb
includes a scene showing Queen Nefertari censing
before the cow of Hathor while wearing a double
uraeus and, according to N. de G. Davies’s drawing,
what seems to be an earring (Fig. 5.45a).997 Another
988 See C. Andrews 1990, 109–116; Lilyquist 2003, 162–
163, 224; Galán 2014, 254.
989 The coffin was in a multiple burial that included a Black
Lustrous vessel, glass beads and bronze objects that
‘seem to be pins of some kind’ (Yoshimura and K awai
2008, 4). Yoshimura and K awai (2008, 4–5) suggest that
the burial belonged to non-Egyptians. For more on glass
items, see Chapter 5.4.1.
990 H ayes 1959, 185, fig. 102.
991 Eaton-K rauss 1982, 227.
992 Wilde 2011, 56–58.
993 See, for example, the Nubian men portrayed in the tomb
of Rekhmira (TT 100; N. de G. Davies 1943, pl. 19) and
Horemheb (TT 78; An. Brack and A r. Brack 1980,
pls. 50–51a, 87), and the Asiatic woman in the tomb
of Ineni (TT 81; W.M. Müller 1906, pl. 9). For an
overview, see F. Anthony 2017, 20–26, 59.
994 A. Wilkinson 1971, 122.
995 M arkowitz 2001, 205.
996 Bianucci et al. 2015, fig. 7.
997 If correct, perhaps the dotted details on the earring
represent granulation. N. de G. Davies 1925, pl. 2.
offering scene depicts Tetiky with a broad collar,
armlets and wristlets on both arms, as well as large
penannular earrings (Fig. 5.45b).998 In a banquet
scene, five of Tetiky’s male relatives also wear the
same adornments (Fig. 5.45c).999 The jewellery
set has been linked to the Gold of Honour, which
was perhaps awarded to Tetiky by Ahmose in
recognition of his military services.1000 Its inclusion
of penannular earrings as an award from the
king further occurs in scenes from the tomb of
Sennefer (TT 96; Amenhotep II’s reign),1001 and the
Saqqara tomb of Horemheb.1002 It is also attested in
association with the Gold of Honour collar on the
mummy of Kha from Deir el-Medina.1003
Based on such evidence, it is possible that the
adoption of earrings was influenced by interactions
with individuals and communities to the south as
well as to the north of Egypt. The slightly more
frequent occurrence of earstuds and plugs in Kerma
could point to their transfer to Egypt, however as
they are very few in number, it is difficult to further
assess this process. Nevertheless, it is noteworthy
that the penannular rings at Tell el-Dab‘a occur in
burials ascribed earlier than the Pan-Grave material,
and that the closest parallels from the Eastern Delta
and the Pan-Grave burials to the New Kingdom
earrings are the silver penannular rings. The shared
association with women and children is also of
interest, and hints at some intercultural negotiations
or perhaps fashion styles between those from Tell
el-Dab‘a, influenced from the Near East, those in
Egypt, as well as those with ties further south.1004
Indeed, while the source of the silver earrings in the
Pan-Grave burials remains unknown,1005 all would
have prized the rare metal.1006
998 N. de G. Davies 1925, pl. 3; N. R eeves and Taylor 1992,
87; Eaton-K rauss 1998, 206, fig. 1.
999 N. de G. Davies 1925, pl. 4; N. R eeves and Taylor 1992,
87; Eaton-K rauss 1998, 206, fig. 1.
1000 Vandersleyen 1971, 46, n. 3; Eaton-K rauss 1998, 206–
207; Binder 2008, 37, n. 141.
1001 Sennefer also wears a special gift of a necklace with two
hearts. Virey 1899, fig. 3; Eaton-Krauss 1998, 206–207.
1002 G.T. Martin 1989, pls. 106–107.
1003 Bianucci et al. 2015, figs. 2–3.
1004 A. Wilkinson (1971, 121) suggests that earrings from the
Pan-Grave material were influenced by Near Eastern
earrings during the Hyksos Dynasty.
1005 As Philip (2006, 164) writes, ‘The fact that the majority
of earrings from Pan Graves were made from silver
(Bakr 1977:60), a metal almost certainly linked to the
Mediterranean world, and which had no particular
associations with Nubia, might well suggest that earrings
were adopted for use in Pan Grave and Nubian burials as a
result of contact with Delta societies’.
1006 The different materials utilised for earrings throughout
the New Kingdom may reflect the items’ varying values
across time, space, and social groups.
 Technological and Militaristic Transformations 305

(a) The king’s daughter, sister and wife, Nefertari, censing (b) The ‘king’s son’ Tetiky censing before a
before the cow of Hathor. East wall statue of Osiris. West wall

(c) Men at a banquet. North wall

Fig. 5.45 Details of scenes from the tomb of Tetiky (TT 15), Dra‘ Abu el-Naga, reign of Ahmose and
Amenhotep I, Dynasty 18. After N. de G. Davies 1925, pls. 2–4

The differences and similarities in gender
associations are also noteworthy. Thus far, the
available evidence indicates that women are
associated with pairs of earrings, often two, at Tell el-
Dab‘a, as well as with a woman at the newly excavated
find at Dra‘ Abu el-Naga, followed by elite women
of the mid-Eighteenth Dynasty onwards in the rest
of Egypt. In the early Eighteenth Dynasty, however,
earrings on men of the highest social standing were a
sign of status and perhaps royal reward, with parallel
representations of Nubian men with earrings. As
such, in viewing such comparanda, the practice of
wearing earrings in the New Kingdom may have
been inspired by customs in the Near East and Nubia,
but it was initially adapted or recontextualised as an
innovative, divergent, perhaps fashionable, socio-
cultural expression tailored to particular groups in
Egypt of different social identities.1007
1007 As also observed in Philip 2006, 165. This process
aligns with contemporary developments in the practice
of wearing earrings by some groups, usually of the elite,
in the Mediterranean. For instance, while earrings are
evidently a rarity in Crete, the Theran wall paintings
mainly represent women wearing double-hooped, and
possibly granulated, earrings. One young male boxer and
another man with curly hair are also shown with earrings.
Doumas 1992, 38–41, figs. 6–7, 9–10; Politis 2001, 177–
179, figs. 9.12–9.13.
306 Chapter 5

(a) (b)

(c)

Fig. 5.46 Clothing associated with Asiatics, according to representations from tombs at Beni Hassan,
Dynasty 12. Courtesy of the Australian Centre for Egyptology.
(a–b) Men’s clothing; (c) Women’s and a child’s clothing

5.4.3 Textile Production
A variety of archaeological, textual, and artistic
sources have provided insight into ancient Near
Eastern and Egyptian technologies associated with
textile production.1008 As with other technologies
and crafts, that of textile-making and consumption
1008 Formore on such technologies, see, for instance, R. Hall
1986; Tata 1986; Barber 1991; Vogelsang-Eastwood
2000; Kemp and Vogelsang-Eastwood 2001; Gillis and
Nosch 2007 (eds.); Matoïan and Vita 2009; Michel and
Nosch 2010 (eds.); Nosch, Koefoed and Andersson Strand
2013; Breniquet and Michel 2014; Andersson Strand and
Nosch 2015 (eds.).
was equally dynamic and interrelated with different
social groups and practices. According to several
analyses, shifts in the nature of textile production
can point to differences or changes in supply and
demand or economic fluctuations, as well as political
developments and affinities.1009 Of the observed
developments from the Middle to New Kingdom
Egypt, some have been linked to influences from the
1009 See, for instance, Militello 2007; N.K. Adam 2007;
Warburton 2012; Goshen, Yassur-Landau and Cline
2013; Lumb 2013; A.W. Lassen 2013; Moreno García 2017.
 Technological and Militaristic Transformations 307

(a) (b) (c)

(d) (e)

Fig. 5.47 Clothing associated with Asiatics, according to representations from Theban tombs, Dynasty 18.
(a–d) Men’s clothing (after Pritchard 1951, 39);
(e) Women’s clothing (after N. de G. Davies 1943, pl. 23)

Near East, the Near Eastern population in Egypt,1010
or the Hyksos Dynasty.1011
5.4.3.1 Near Eastern textiles and weavers in Egypt
Evidence for possible processes of transformation
involving direct influences on textile-making
in Egypt from non-Egyptian sources are scant,
especially for Dynasty 15. The earliest detailed
portrayals of Asiatics, particularly from the Fifth
1010 See, for instance, Sparks 2004, 43–45; Saretta 2016, 109–
121. For developments from the Old to Middle Kingdom in
relation with the Near East, see Moreno García 2017.
1011 Winlock 1947, 166; Vogelsang-Eastwood 1993, 7.
Dynasty onwards, highlight encounters with and
knowledge of Near Eastern textiles and clothing.1012
As the representations of these individuals changed
in the Middle and New Kingdom, so did their
clothing styles, from the commonly portrayed
patterned kilts and one-shouldered garments of the
Middle Kingdom (Fig. 5.46),1013 to the simplified
1012 See, for instance, Newberry 1893a, pl. 16; 1893b, pls. 5, 15;
Jaroš-Deckert 1984, 27–44, 63, fig. 15, pls. 1–2, 6, 14, 17,
folding pls. 1–3; McFarlane 2003, 13–15, pl. 48; Kanawati
and Evans 2014, pls. 124, 128–129; 2016, pls. 88 [a–c], 97–
102; Lashien and Mourad 2019, pls. 26–52, 73–76.
1013 For an overview, see Mourad 2015, 202.
308
0 5 cm
(a) (b)
Not to scale
Not to scale
(d) (e)
Fig. 5.48 Toggle pins collected from sites in Egypt.
(a) Silver pin TD 375, Tomb A/I-g/3-Nr. 1-Burial 1,
Stratum D/3 (Phase D/3), Tell el-Dab‘a (Philip 2006,
fig. 44 [4]); (b) Copper pin TD 4966, Tomb F/I-
k/21S-Nr. 24, Stratum b/3 (Phase F), Tell el-Dab‘a
(Philip 2006, fig. 46 [4]); (c) Copper pin TD 340,
Tomb A/I-g/4-Nr. 3, Stratum D/3 (Phase D/3), Tell
el-Dab‘a (Philip 2006, fig. 45 [1]); (d) Bronze pin,
Tomb L12.12736, Dynasty 15, Tell el-Maskhuta (after
Holladay 1997, fig. 7.9 [19]); (e) Bronze pin 476,
Tomb 117, late Second Intermediate Period to early
Dynasty 18, Tell Hebwa I (after Abd el-Maksoud
1998, fig. 46 [476]); (f) Bronze pin, New Kingdom,
Gurob (after Petrie 1891, pl. 22 [1]); (g) Gold pin,
New Kingdom, Gurob (after Petrie 1891, pl. 22 [3])
Chapter 5
kilts, long- or short-sleeved robes, and flounced or
pleated dresses shown in New Kingdom depictions
(Fig. 5.47).1014 One-shouldered garments were indeed
worn in the Near East, as illustrated on cylinder
seals and their impressions, wall paintings, and other
two- and three-dimensional art pieces from the EBA
to LBA Anatolia, Levant, and Mesopotamia (see,
for examples, Figs. 4.2, 4.27, 4.29).1015 The presence
of toggle pins, often in funerary contexts and at the
shoulders of buried individuals also supports their
contemporary use in the Near East.1016 However, the
pins may have additionally fastened other garments
and textiles, such as burial shrouds.
Some tombs in Egypt yielded similar toggle
pins, signalling that the practice was likely
influenced by non-Egyptian customs (Fig. 5.48a–e).
Such tombs were mainly found in late Middle
Kingdom to Second Intermediate Period contexts in
the Eastern Delta, at Tell el-Dab‘a (Phases H–D/2),1017
(c) Tell el-Yahudiyah,1018 Tell el-Maskhuta,1019 Tell el-
Retaba,1020 Tell el-Mansheya,1021 and Tell Hebwa I,
the latter from a level assigned to the late Second
Intermediate Period to early New Kingdom.1022 An
early Eighteenth Dynasty tomb from Tell el-Retaba
additionally produced a silver toggle pin.1023 A
bronze pin was also collected from ‘Ezbet Helmi’s
‘House 2’ of Area H/I-l/27-Pl. 3, Phase C/2.1024
Other pins from domestic contexts assigned to the
New Kingdom include those found at Kom Rabi‘a1025
and Gurob (Fig. 5.48f–g),1026 with some noting the
possibility of ‘foreigners’ utilising them at the sites.1027
This is largely due to the more frequent occurrence
of the items in the Near East. However, it is possible
that the individuals at Kom Rabi‘a and Gurob, as at the
earlier sites, were not foreigners but were influenced
to some degree by Near Eastern customs or earlier
Not to scale
Not to scale
1014 Pritchard 1951; F. Anthony 2017, 23–25.
1015 See Moorey 1986, figs. 2–3, 5, pls. 2, 4–5; Teissier 1996, 18
[76, 245, 265], 70 [103], 115 [243], 120 [257]; B.R. Foster
2010, figs. 7.2, 7.7–7.8, 7.14.
(f) (g) 1016 Ziffer 1990, 59*–60*; K lein 1992; Sparks 2004, 33;
J.L. Baker 2012, 86–87; Iamoni 2012. For a recent overview,
see Prell 2020.
1017 Toggle pins are attested in funerary as well as settlement
contexts. The earliest is from a Phase H grave pit, the toggle
pins occurring in almost every phase until D/2. Philip 2006,
94–107, 157–161, 220–223, table 8, figs. 44–48; Prell 2015,
34–35, fig. 29; 2020.
1018 Tufnell 1977, fig. 9 [11–16].
1019 R edmount 1989, table 39; Holladay 1997, fig. 7.9 [19–20].
1020 Nour el-Din et al. 2016, 83, pl. 2 [617].
1021 Ahmed et al. 2018, 45, pl. 5 [47].
1022 Abd el-Maksoud 1998, 262, fig. 46 [476]. For more on
toggle pins in the Eastern Delta, see Prell 2020.
1023 Tomb 2458, Area 4, Phase F5. Hudec et al. 2018, 103, fig. 6
[S3423].
1024 Jankovich 2008, 190 [Nr. 282].
1025 Giddy 1999, 167–168, 176.
1026 Petrie 1891, 19, pl. 22 [1–3]; Gasperini 2018, 13.
1027 Sparks 2004, 34; Gasperini 2018, 12–15.
 Technological and Militaristic Transformations 309

(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 5.49 Textiles associated with equids. (a) Detail from the north wall, tomb of Khnumhotep II (Nr. 3),
Beni Hassan, reign of Senwosret II, Dynasty 12 (courtesy of the Australian Centre for Egyptology);
(b) Detail from the north wall, tomb of Khnumhotep II (Nr. 3), Beni Hassan, reign of Senwosret II, Dynasty 12
(courtesy of the Australian Centre for Egyptology); (c) Detail from the scene of the New Year festival’s gifts,
outer hall, west wall, tomb of Kenamun (TT 93), Sheikh ‘abd el-Qurna, reign of Amenhotep II, Dynasty 18
(after N. de G. Davies 1930, pl. 22)

regionalised traditions in the Delta that were
originally inspired by these customs.
Two further aspects reflected in representations
of textiles related to Asiatics can be compared to
corresponding evidence from the Near East: the
most likely use of wool, as may be gleaned from
the ‘heaviness’ of the garments and their often
displayed fringed hems; and their patterned coloured
appearance, either intricately across garments or
merely along borders and hems.1028 The latter extends
to other textiles utilised by Asiatics, as with the back
cloths of the donkeys depicted in the procession
of aAm . w of the tomb of Khnumhotep II at Beni
Hassan (Fig. 5.49a–b),1029 and the horse cloth among
the imported New Year festival’s gifts portrayed
in Kenamun’s tomb (TT 93; Amenhotep II’s reign;
Fig. 5.49c).1030 Both aspects are mirrored in textual
and artistic representations from the MBA and
LBA Near East that emphasise the dominant role
of wool as well as patterned and dyed cloths in
textile production.1031 Correspondingly, complex and
multicoloured garments could indicate status and
affiliation to a particular social or cultural group,
with the most elaborate associated with royalty and
the elite. Their purposes ranged from the functional
to the symbolic and ritualistic, with those of great
value passed down generations or exchanged as gifts
and/or dowries.1032 In Egypt, attestations of both
1028 See also Moreno García 2016.
1029 K anawati and Evans 2014, pls. 124, 128–129.
1030 N. de G. Davies 1930, 31, pl. 22.
1031 See Pettinato 1981, 165–166; Good 2006; Biga 2010;
Waetzoldt 2010; Veenhof 2010; Firth and Nosch 2012;
T.C. Wilkinson 2014, 267–284; Becker et al. 2016.
1032 For an overview, see Barber 2007; Breniquet 2013.
patterned clothing as well as wool occur from the
Predynastic Period onwards, but both are much rarer
than the mostly plain, white, linen produced from
flax for which a variety of archaeological and artistic
evidence has survived.1033 Nonetheless, according
to the postulated presence of wool-sheep from the
Twelfth Dynasty onwards,1034 the Egyptians would
have had access to the principle resource needed to
produce larger quantities of wool.
Such data indicates that some Egyptians would have
known of the differences between the commonly
produced clothes and textiles generally worn by
Egyptians, and those worn by individuals adhering
to Near Eastern fashion. If the toggle pins found in
Egypt were for fastening garments, one wonders
where the associated textiles were produced, if they
were woollen and/or multicoloured, if the materials
or finished products were imported into the Eastern
Delta, or if they were partly or wholly produced on-
site. According to some evidence from the Middle
and New Kingdoms, weaving skills by those of Near
Eastern origin were acknowledged and perhaps desired
by the Egyptians. Papyrus Brooklyn 35.1446 of the
mid-Thirteenth Dynasty reign of Sobekhotep III, for
instance, ascribes several titles to women identified
by their Semitic names or the appellative aAm . t who
are involved in textile productions.1035 These include
at least nine women who were s x . ty HA. ty w ‘weaver
of HA. ty w-cloth’, one as s x . ty sSr ‘weaver of sSr-
cloth’, five as DA HA. ty w ‘warper(?) of HA. ty w-cloth’,
1033 Vogelsang-Eastwood 2000, 269–270, 286–290; Sparks
2004, 32.
1034 See Chapter 5.4.5.1.3.
1035 Hayes 1972, pls. 8–13; Mourad 2015, fig. 7.11.
310 Chapter 5
Fig. 5.50 A heddle-jack of Pinacaea hard wood and its inscription. El-Lahun. After Quirke 2005, 95
and four as DA sSr ‘warper(?) of sSr-cloth’.1036 Based
on the likely Theban origin of the papyrus, the women
were possibly in an Upper Egyptian household,1037
signalling the use of their skills in areas other than
the Eastern Delta, and for workshops apparently not
linked to a state or temple institution.
Perhaps they were using objects with which they were
familiar, such as the spindle whorls and cylindrical
heddle-jack of imported Pinacaea hard wood found at
el-Lahun (Fig. 5.50).1038 Although their exact context
is not recorded and the imported wood may have been
reused or recycled, the heddle-jack features five incised
signs, likely linear, that have been paleographically
assigned to the MBA.1039 This, together with its use
on the horizontal loom, popular during the Middle
Kingdom, suggests that it could be of Thirteenth to
Fifteenth Dynasty date.1040 Fragments of tools utilised
in textile manufacture have been found in the Eastern
Delta, principally those of spindle whorls and possible
loom weights, as described below, as well as spinning
bowls from Tell el-Dab‘a1041 and Tell Hebwa I (Fig.
5.51).1042 The spinning bowls are of Nile clay, pointing to
some local textile production, the origins and extent of
1036 Hayes 1972, pls. 8–13; Mourad 2015, fig. 7.11.
1037 Hayes (1972, 16–17) suggests that the papyrus was from
Thebes, and probably from the tomb of Senebtysy, who is
named on the verso. Menu (2012, 23) proposes that it was
likely deposited in a tomb of a scribe, similar to Papyrus
Boulaq 18. All entries are evidently related to the Theban
region.
1038 Petrie 1890, pl. 27 [85]; Cartwright, Granger-Taylor and
Quirke 1998; Gallorini 1998, 241; Quirke 2005, 93–95;
Mourad 2015, 70, fig. 4.38. The so-called ‘weaver’s waste’
from el-Lahun, with dyed wool (blue strands, blue with
red and green ends, and red unspun dyed wool), has been
assigned to the Middle Kingdom and as evidence for contact
with Levantines (Petrie 1890, 28; Saretta 2016, 117).
However, the fleece type suggests a terminus post quem of
the Roman Period, and its radiocarbon dating points to the
Medieval Age. As such, it cannot be definitively assigned to
the examined period. For more, see Cooke 1993; Kemp and
Vogelsang-Eastwood 2001, 34–55.
1039 Hamilton 2006, 330–331; Morenz 2019, 221. Dijkstra
(1990, 55–56) assigns it to the MBIIC or Fifteenth Dynasty.
1040 Gallorini 1998, 245–249; Quirke 2005, 95–96.
1041 Aston 2004a, 166–167, 243, pls. 177 [646], 293 [1084].
1042 Abd el-Maksoud 1998, fig. 23.
which cannot, however, be surmised from the existing
evidence.1043 Recently published material from ongoing
excavations at Tell el-Retaba also suggest possible local
textile production and dying during the Eighteenth
Dynasty, as discerned from the loom weights, needle,
spinning bowl, and pigments (red ochre and galena)
found in Phases F4 and F3.1044
By the New Kingdom, women of non-Egyptian origin
are still portrayed as weavers, as in one scene from
the tomb of Rekhmira showing them in association
with textiles produced for the Temple of Amun
(Fig. 5.52).1045 This corresponds with a mention in the
Annals of Thutmose III of Levantine captives placed
to work as weavers in the temple to produce a variety
of linens and thick cloth.1046 Contrary to the Middle
Kingdom attestations, those of the New Kingdom
place the weavers in larger workshops not solely
related to a household economy. Both, however,
would have offered possibilities for the transmission
of textile skills.1047
5.4.3.2 Transformed concepts and tools in Egypt
The presence of such individuals from the Middle
to New Kingdom, as well as encounters with Near
Eastern fashion, would have provided Egyptians of
different status with access to knowledge regarding
certain qualities of Near Eastern-type textiles,
as well as the know-how to produce them. This,
as Sparks feasibly argues, ‘does offer a plausible
environment in which new ideas and methods might
be introduced’.1048 The ideas and concepts to which
she refers are largely associated with household-
level textile production. They include (1) the use
of the dome-shaped spindle whorl, (2) the change
1043 Barber (1991, 73–77) suggests that Old and Middle
Kingdom spinning bowls were adopted from Crete. For
more on spinning bowls, see Dothan 1963; Vogelsang-
Eastwood 1987/1988; S.J. Allen 1997.
1044 Spinning bowl S2804, limestone loom weights S761 and
S754, and needle S1216. Rzepka et al. 2014, 61–62, fig. 43;
Rzepka et al. 2017, 35–41. See also Chapter 3.2.2.4.
1045 N. de G. Davies 1943, 47–48, pl. 57.
1046 Urk. 4, 742–743. R edford 2003, 138–139.
1047 See Iancu 2018.
1048 Sparks 2004, 43.
 Technological and Militaristic Transformations 311

(a) TD 4756C (b) TD 6807E

(c) XVb, 212

(not to scale)

0 10 cm

Fig. 5.51 Spinning bowls from the Eastern Delta. Drawing by Patrick Aprent.
(a) TD 4756C. Offering pit F/I-k/23, uncertain Stratum, Tell el-Dab‘a (after Aston 2004a, pl. 177 [646]);
(b) TD 6807E. A/V-p/19-Pl. 2, Stratum D/2 (Phase D/2), Tell el-Dab‘a (after Aston 2004a, pl. 293 [1084]);
(c) XVb, 212. Zone B/2, GR.IV, Tell Hebwa I (not to scale) (after Abd el-Maksoud 1998, fig. 23)

Fig. 5.52 A scene showing female textile weavers. South wall of passage, tomb of Rekhmira (TT 100),
Sheikh ‘abd el-Qurna, reign of Thutmose III to Amenhotep II, Dynasty 18. After N. de G. Davies 1943, pl. 57

in direction of spin, and (3) the use of the vertical
loom.1049 To these may be added possible concepts
regarding weaving and decorating techniques.
5.4.3.2.1 The dome-shaped spindle whorl
The dome-shaped spindle whorl is attested from the
late Middle Kingdom and was used across Egypt
by the Eighteenth Dynasty, with those of the New
Kingdom bearing a flatter appearance.1050 Examples
include those collected from domestic contexts at
Tell Hebwa I, with the whorl centrally positioned
1049 Sparks 2004, 43–45.
1050 Vogelsang-Eastwood 2000, 272; Sparks 2004, 43.
on the spindle (Fig. 5.53d–e),1051 although others
from Egypt are usually placed at the top.1052 To
these may be added pieces from Tell el-Dab‘a and
‘Ezbet Helmi, including one dome-shaped stone
object with a puncture in the centre, collected
from Area R/I-k/59–60-Pit 10, Stratum e/3–4
(disturbed context);1053 two published plano-convex
bone artefacts, possibly whorls, from a disturbed
but likely Second Intermediate Period street layer
1051 See Abd el-Maksoud 1998, 255, figs. 43 [441], 44 [443–
446].
1052 Vogelsang-Eastwood 2000, 272.
1053 TD 8950B. Czerny 2015, 375–376, fig. T137.
312 Chapter 5

(a) (b)

(c)
(d) (e)
0 10 cm

Fig. 5.53 Spindle whorls. (a) Inv. Nr. 9469 D+E, Area R/III, Tell el-Dab‘a (Prell 2015, fig. 28);
(b) Inv. Nr. 9653C, Area R/III, Tell el-Dab‘a (Prell 2015, fig. 28); (c) Whorl from Room 690 (2302-2), palace,
Tell Kabri, MBIIB (drawn from photograph by Patrick Aprent, after Goshen, Yasur-Landau and Cline 2013,
fig. 3.5); (d) Nr. 441, Zone B/2, House I/E.3, Tell Hebwa I (not to scale, drawing by Patrick Aprent, after Abd el-
Maksoud 1998, fig. 43); (e) Nr. 445, Zone D, House 1, Tell Hebwa I (not to scale, drawing by Patrick Aprent,
after Abd el-Maksoud 1998, fig. 44)

at Area R/III (Fig. 5.53a–b);1054 as well as three
dome-shaped spindle whorls from the so-called
‘House 1’ north of Palace F at Area H/I-l/26, Phase
C/2.1055 In the Levant, dome-shaped spindle whorls
occur from the EBA and became very common in
the MBA and LBA, particularly at such sites as Tell
Kabri (Fig. 5.53c), Hazor, Hama and Megiddo.1056
Several exhibit similarities to the Egyptian examples,
including the centrally-placed whorls on spindles
from Megiddo, or the flatter dome-shaped spindles
attested from MBA Ebla1057 and the MBA to Iron Age
Hazor.1058
5.4.3.2.2 Spin direction
To produce thread or yarn, textiles could be spun
either anti-clockwise (s-spun) or clock-wise (z-spun).
In Egypt, evidence for z-spinning is very rare, and
has been identified only on early samples from
Fayoum and Abydos,1059 and a limited number from
the New Kingdom, including nine of z-spun yarn
1054 Inv. Nr. 9469 D+E and Inv. Nr. 9653 C. Prell 2015, 33–34,
fig. 28.
1055 TD 8046–8048. Another flat spindle-whorl was collected
from H/III-q/18 (TD 8182). Jankovich 2008, 126–129
[Nrs. 180–182].
1056 Guy 1938, 20, 95, 100, 170; Loud 1948, pls. 171–172;
Fugmann 1958, 89, 104, 108, 131, figs. 109, 127, 132, 139,
161; Sass 2000, 374, 377; Spinazzi-Lucchesi 2018, 40–43.
1057 Peyronel 2004, 161, 191; 2007; Spinazzi-Lucchesi 2018, 40.
1058 Yadin et al. 1958, pls. 86 [21], 89 [17], 95 [19], 110 [13], 142
[19], 160 [9], 166 [15]; 1960, pls. 126 [28], 127 [34], 137 [26,
28], 146 [30], 179 [22]; 1961, pl. 200 [29]; Spinazzi-Lucchesi
2018, 41, 44.
1059 J. Jones 2002a; 2002b.
and one of z-spun wool from Amarna.1060 The rest
mostly exhibit s-spinning, the direction in which flax
naturally twists.1061 In the Near East, both s-spun and
z-spun textiles are attested from the Neolithic Period
onwards.1062 By the Bronze Age, the spin direction was
evidently manipulated for visual effect, the design
choice for wool often featuring z-spun thread.1063
Despite the clear differences in choice of the direction
of spin, the lack of preserved textiles from the Eastern
Delta or other Second Intermediate Period sites
restricts analysis on the transfer of ideas. Furthermore,
as Sparks correctly points out, the direction of
spin would only reflect a particular stage of textile
manufacturing that may or may not have been carried
out in the same workshop as weaving.1064
5.4.3.2.3 Loom types
For making lengths of cloth, three main types of looms
were utilised: the horizontal loom, the warp-weighted
loom, and the vertical loom. As all were of perishable
material, only their portrayals or related elements could
indicate their use. In the archaeological record, for
instance, stone socket blocks that held vertical looms
in position could point to this loom type, whereas loom
weights could suggest the use of the warp-weighted
1060 K emp and Vogelsang-Eastwood 2001, 59–60.
1061 J.Jones 2002a, 326; Sparks 2004, 44; Skals, Möller-
Wiering and Nosch 2015, 64–66.
1062 Shamir 2014; 2015; Skals, Möller-Wiering and Nosch
2015, 64–67.
1063 Skals, Möller-Wiering and Nosch 2015, 67.
1064 Sparks 2004, 44.
 Technological and Militaristic Transformations 313

Fig. 5.54 A scene showing women at the horizontal loom. West wall, tomb of Khnumhotep II (Nr. 3),
Beni Hassan, reign of Senwosret II, Dynasty 12. Courtesy of the Australian Centre for Egyptology

Fig. 5.55 A scene showing men at the vertical loom. Tomb of Djehutynefer (TT 104), Sheikh ‘abd el-Qurna,
reign of Thutmose III to Amenhotep II, Dynasty 18. After N. de G. Davies 1929a, fig. 1a

loom.1065 According to the artistic record, the earliest
loom type in Egypt was the horizontal loom, depicted
from the Predynastic Period onwards commonly in
use by female weavers (Fig. 5.54).1066 The loom type
was likely mainly utilised to produce tabby and basket
weaves, and was employed across the Bronze Age
Eastern Mediterranean.1067
The second type of loom, the vertical warp-weighted
loom, seems to have been in use from the EBA in the
Levant, as indicated by loom weights identified at
Hama.1068 Based on the occurrence of such weights,
the loom type was likely more popular in the Southern
Levant than in the north, however this remains
dependent on their correct identification as the weights

1065 Vogelsang-Eastwood 2000, 276–278; Kemp and

Vogelsang-Eastwood 2001, 60–61, 373; Sparks 2004, 44.
1066 Vogelsang-Eastwood 2000, 276–277.
1067 Vogelsang-Eastwood 1992, 28–29; 2000, 276–277;
Andersson Strand 2015, 52.
1068 Its
earlier use in Anatolia, and other areas of Europe, has
been proposed. Fugmann 1958, 40, 56, 61–62, 71, 74, 127,
251; P.M. Fischer 2009; Schoop 2014; Andersson Strand
2015, 52–53; Spinazzi-Lucchesi 2018, 58–59.
314 Chapter 5
may have been employed for other purposes.1069 Such
difficulties in identification also extend into Egypt,
where objects akin to loom weights were recorded
from Middle Kingdom to Second Intermediate Period
Tell el-Dab‘a,1070 Second Intermediate Period Tell
el-Maskhuta,1071 Second Intermediate Period to New
Kingdom Tell Hebwa I,1072 as well as New Kingdom
contexts at, for example, ‘Ezbet Helmi,1073 Tell el-
Retaba,1074 el-Lisht,1075 Kom Rabi‘a,1076 and Tell el-
Yahudiyah.1077
Nevertheless, the third type of loom, the vertical loom,
is clearly identifiable in Egypt from its earliest known
representation in the Theban tomb of Djehutynefer
(TT 104; reign of Thutmose III to Amenhotep II),
wherein male weavers are portrayed at the loom’s two
beams (Fig. 5.55).1078 This marks a significant shift
in representation, not only in loom type but also the
transformations that led to the depiction of a new or
different group of weavers working the loom. Two
further tombs include fragmentary scenes of vertical
looms, namely those of Neferhotep (TT 49; reign of
Tutankhamun to Horemheb)1079 and Neferrenpet (reign
of Ramesses II),1080 the latter showing both male and
female weavers at the looms. Stone socket blocks for
the beams have also been identified at Amarna.1081
Despite the fact that Djehutynefer’s vertical loom
is also the first known representation of this loom
type across Egypt and the Near East, several scholars
have identified it as an introduced technology from
Mesopotamia or the Levant.1082 It apparently developed
alongside the introduction of wool to effectively weave
tapestry, for which the warp-weighted loom may have
1069 See Kemp and Vogelsang-Eastwood 2001, 394; Spinazzi-
Lucchesi 2018, 59–61, 66, 93–97.
1070 Examples include those from Areas R/I, A/V and R/III.
Area R/I: TD 8974A, L25, Stratum d–c; and TD exK8248,
l/61-Pit 1, Stratum b(–a) (Czerny 2015, 377, fig. T138). Area
A/V: TD 6998, o/17, surface find; TD 7005, o/17, surface find;
TD 7006, o/18-L145, Stratum D/2–1; TD 7007, p/19-L176,
Stratum D/2; and TD 7010, o/17, surface find (Hein and
Jánosi 2004, 198–199, fig. 142 [15–17]). Area R/III:
Inv. Nr. 9690 Q (Prell 2015, 46–47, fig. 45).
1071 Holladay 1997, 192, pl. 7.22 [c].
1072 Abd el-Maksoud 1998, 255, figs. 42 [430–436], 43 [437–
440]; Sparks 2004, 45, fig. 3.7 [c].
1073 Jankovich 2008, 117–118 [Nrs. 164–165], 119–124 [Nrs.
167–176].
1074 R zepka et al. 2014, 61–62, fig. 43; R zepka et al. 2017, 39.
1075 A. Mace 1922.
1076 Giddy 1999, 193, 195–197, pls. 39–41.
1077 Petrie 1906, pl. 21B [6–11]. See also Sparks 2004, 45.
1078 N. de G. Davies 1929a, fig. 1 [a]; Vogelsang-Eastwood
2000, 277–278, fig. 11.8.
1079 N. de G. Davies 1933b, pls. 49, 60.
1080 N. de G. Davies 1948, pl. 51.
1081 K emp and Vogelsang-Eastwood 2001, 60–61, 373. For a
different interpretation, see Barber 1991, 88–89.
1082 R iefstahl 1944, 31–32; Ellis 1976; Barber 1991, 157–158,
161–162; Vogelsang-Eastwood 2000, 278.
also been employed.1083 Regarding the involvement
of male and female weavers, both are attested
performing textile activities in, for instance, Ur III
texts of the late EBA as well as LBA Linear B texts.1084
5.4.3.2.4 Weaving and decorating techniques
The tapestry technique refers to weaving patterns
and figures to create multicoloured designs on
both sides of a fabric.1085 Although no physical
evidence of tapestry cloth has survived outside
of Egypt,1086 its use in Mesopotamia and the
Northern Levant by at least the early MBA has
been argued on the basis of the Akkadian term
mardatum, which appears throughout the Second
Millennium BC in association with valuable
multicoloured cloth possibly associated with royal
or elite power.1087 The term’s usage and meaning
differed across time and space, but it is usually
linked to tapestry cloth.1088 Mostly believed to be
of wool, although linen mardatum are attested,
the fabric was associated with the draped cloth of
authority, either worn by rulers or covering items
of palatial furniture.1089 Mardatum details or cut-
out cloth may have been also appended to items
of clothing. Its quality and connections to those of
the higher social echelons would have made it a
suitable product for exchange among/for the elite.
As such, it has been related to the Egyptian term
mk, attested from the Eighteenth to Twentieth
Dynasties.1090 Associated with high quality linen,
the term is found on labels uncovered in
Tutankhamun’s tomb that may have been originally
for textiles, perhaps those with tapestry weaving.1091
Such tapestry-woven cloth is attested only from the
New Kingdom onwards, with the earliest from
the tomb of Thutmose IV bearing the cartouche
of Amenhotep II.1092 Other examples include
the tapestries of Kha (reign of Amenhotep II to
Amenhotep III)1093 and those of Tutankhamun’s
tomb.1094
For both the elite and those of the royal family,
the tapestries are typically of linen threads woven
into coloured fields of decoration, such as of
lotus flowers, rosettes, hieroglyphs, geometric
1083 J.S. Smith 2013, 165.
1084 See Barber 2007, 173–178; Andersson Strand and Nosch
2015, 374.
1085 J.S. Smith 2013, 161.
1086 J.S. Smith 2013, 168.
1087 Waetzoldt 2010, 208; Michel and Veenhof 2010, 235–
236; A.W. Lassen 2010, 279–280; J.S. Smith 2013, 162.
1088 J.S. Smith 2013, 170–175.
1089 J.S. Smith 2013, 170–175.
1090 J.J. Janssen and R. Janssen 2000.
1091 J.J. Janssen and R. Janssen 2000.
1092 Thomson 1904.
1093 Schiaparelli 1927, 129–130.
1094 Vogelsang-Eastwood 1999, 24, 43, 57–59, 61.
 Technological and Militaristic Transformations 315

patterns, and other figural designs.1095 They are

attributed to a variety of uses, for instance as parts
of clothing, wall and furniture coverings, armour
or weapon coverings (a quiver, arm guards or
gauntlets), sashes, as well as gloves.1096 J.S. Smith
interestingly observes that the main difference
in the tapestries of the Near East and those of
Egypt lay in their use as an embodiment of power:
tapestries were mainly draped over the throne
and palatial furnishings in the Near East, but over
the body of the pharaoh in Egypt.1097 Therefore,
despite its rarity, tapestry weaving appears to have
transferred from the Near East to Egypt, retaining
a general association to prestige and power, but
recontextualised to express more Egyptian
expressions of these attributes. Egyptian weavers
tailored the technique for production of linen
tapestries bearing Egyptian symbols for different
functions, but with a related underlying purpose to
visually communicate status.
One aspect of tapestry cloth that correspondingly
occurs in the New Kingdom is the use of coloured
threads. Evidence for dyed linen utilising ochreous
iron oxide may stem from the Early Dynastic
Period, however most dyed cloths are attested
from the New Kingdom onwards.1098 This parallels
artistic representations of Egyptian materials and
clothing, which are mostly white.1099 Although this
could have added symbolic attributes, coloured
linen thread is generally difficult to dye and so
may not have been as commonly produced.1100
Nevertheless, some depictions of local governors
from the mid-Twelfth and Thirteenth Dynasties Fig. 5.56 Detail of a scene showing Wekhhotep
represent them with coloured ‘heavier’ cloaks wearing a heavy, one-shouldered, garment.
(Fig. 5.56), perhaps of wool, that have been West wall of approach to statue recess, tomb of
identified as probable influences from encounters Wekhhotep (B4), reign of Amenemhat II, Dynasty 12.
with Near Eastern and other mobile populations.1101 Courtesy of the Australian Centre for Egyptology
The patterned and multicoloured middle-sleeved
garment of the fragmentary statue of a high official
from Tell el-Dab‘a (Fig. 5.57), bearing other aspects Egypt.1102 Colourful patterns on ceiling and wall
typically attributed to Egyptians and Asiatics as paintings of funerary and palatial complexes of both
portrayed in Egyptian art, additionally supports the Twelfth Dynasty and from around the reign of
the transfer of Near Eastern fashion elements to Thutmose III onwards have additionally been linked

1095 Vogelsang-Eastwood 1993, 74–75, 141–142; 1999, 24, 43,

57–59, 61, 88; 2000, 275; J.S. Smith 2013, 175–177.
1096 Vogelsang-Eastwood 1993, 74–75, 141–142; 1999, 24, 43,
57–59, 61, 88; 2000, 275.
1097 J.S. Smith 2013, 182.
1098 Vogelsang-Eastwood 2000, 278–279.
1099 Germer 1992, 137; Vogelsang-Eastwood 2000, 278;
Kemp and Vogelsang-Eastwood 2001, 152.
1100 Germer 1992, 137; Vogelsang-Eastwood 2000, 278.
1101 The garments are worn by high officials as portrayed in
tombs at Deir el-Bersha and Meir, as well as on statues
from Asyut, Riqqeh, and Thebes. For an overview, with
further references, see Moreno García 2016; 2017. See
also Newberry 1895, pl. 7; Blackman 1915, pl. 18; 1924,
pls. 12–13; Oppenheim et al. 2015, 128–130 [Nr. 63], 132–
133 [Nr. 65], 146–148 [Nrs. 82–83].
1102 The fragments were collected from plundered tombs of
Area F/I’s Strata d/2, d/1 and possibly Stratum c. They
were reconstructed into a statue which may have been
set up in a tomb’s superstructure. The statue has been
stylistically dated to the late Twelfth to early Thirteenth
Dynasty, and features a seated male figure with a coiffed
mushroom-like hairdo, yellow skin, and a long tight-
fitting garment with ornate stripes and wavy fringes.
The garment appears to have covered both shoulders and
both arms up to the elbows. See Schiestl 2006, 173–175;
2008, 77–89; 2009, 77–84; Do. Arnold 2010b, 198–199;
Mourad 2015, 28–29, fig. 4.9.
316
Fig. 5.57 Reconstruction of a limestone statue of an
official. Fragments from Tombs F/I-p/19-Nr. 1,
F/I-p/21-Nr. 1, and F/I-o/20-Nr. 11.
Area F/I, Strata d/2, d/1 and possibly Stratum c
(Phases H–G/1–3), Tell el-Dab‘a.
After Schiestl 2006, fig. 2
Chapter 5
with those of Aegean and Near Eastern textiles.1103
By the Eighteenth Dynasty, a variety of colours
were also evidently applied to linen threads, the
dyestuffs either ochreous minerals or plant-based
colourings.1104 The most common of the latter are
indigotin and alizarin, both of which are not native
to Egypt and were possibly first imported from
the Levant.1105 Apart from adding beads and other
small jewellery pieces to clothing, most methods of
decorating fabrics with additional coloured fields
are attested from the Eighteenth Dynasty onwards,
including such techniques as embroidery, applique,
or by simply painting them.1106 This, together with
continued New Kingdom attestations of importing
Levantine textiles either as prized gifts for royalty
and the elite, or as booty,1107 supports a heightened
demand for coloured fabrics and a changing fashion
inclusive of multicoloured cloths that were formerly
mostly represented for those of Near Eastern origin and
by Near Eastern activities related to such textiles.1108
5.4.3.3 Observations
The process of transfer and adaptation of ideas could
be gleaned across several stages of textile production
and consumption, from selecting, spinning, weaving
and decorating the desired type and shape of cloth,
to choosing the favoured tools associated with
their production. However, pinpointing the exact
mechanisms that caused and influenced each of
these processes remains highly tentative. The scant
evidence seems mostly grouped into that which
occurs from the Twelfth and Thirteenth Dynasties,
indicating local or household-level textile production
and the possible use of coloured textiles by local elite,
to that which is attested from around the reign of
Thutmose III, associated with large households,
temples, as well as royal and elite clientele. The
depiction of such high status individuals with patterned
1103 M.C. Shaw 1970; Barber 1991, 345–347, 351–352;
Dorman 1991, pls. 27 [b], 28 [c–d]; Aslanidou 2005; 2012;
Nicolakaki-Kentrou 2007; Kanawati and Evans 2014,
pl. 4; Moreno García 2016.
1104 Germer 1992, 20–73, 101–104; Vogelsang-Eastwood
2000, 278–279.
1105 Germer 1992, 20–73, 101–104; Vogelsang-Eastwood
2000, 278–279.
1106 Vogelsang-Eastwood 2000, 278–281.
1107 See, for instance Moran 1992, 32 [EA 14, 11–33], 52–56
[EA 22, I.44, II.36–42, III.24–28, IV.11–15], 79–80 [EA 25,
IV.3, IV.45, IV.47], 97 [EA 29, 182–189], 101 [EA 31, 28–
38], 199 [EA 120, 20], 314 [EA 265], 366 [EA 369]; Sparks
2004, 45.
1108 Some New Kingdom sculptured pottery vessels depict
women wearing fringed shawls akin to those worn in the
Near East. While other elements of the vessels attest to
Near Eastern influence, such as the women’s hairstyles,
their origin remains uncertain. Bourriau (1987) suggests
an Egyptian manufacture whereas Lilyquist (2005, 65)
proposes that they could have been made by ‘immigrants
in Egypt responding to their interaction with Egyptians’.
 Technological and Militaristic Transformations
garments suggests a transformation in the visual
communication of status. For the local rulers of Middle
Egypt and Tell el-Dab‘a, such textiles could have
perhaps expressed their roles in mediating interactions
between different groups within their domain.
Unfortunately, no direct evidence that could point
to changing textile production is yet attested for the
period in between, and none thus far connects the
changes specifically to the Hyksos Dynasty. Certainly,
the Delta environment would not have provided
suitable conditions for the preservation of fabrics or
the wooden tools used for their manufacture, and little
is known of any on-site production of linen, wool, and
their associated textiles. Yet, the preserved spindle-
whorls and loom weights of the Second Intermediate
Period to New Kingdom, excavated toggle pins,
and the representation of a patterned garment from
the Eastern Delta support textile consumption in
the region, and possibly at least small-scale textile-
working.
Theoretically, the social shifts associated with
developments in textile production and consumption
could have also warranted either a longer period of time
for specific processes to develop, or a shorter period
of time to meet the demand of changing fashions. It
is not surprising that the periods from which most
evidence stems (the second half of the Twelfth to
Thirteenth Dynasties, and the Eighteenth Dynasty
from Thutmose III’s reign onwards) are those which
are associated with increased intercultural interactions
as well as a greater body of evidence reflecting these
interactions. Both the presence of imported textiles,
as well as weavers knowledgeable in producing
them, could have spurred knowledge transmission
and technological transformation. By examining
such textiles, a skilled Egyptian weaver could gain
information about the yarn preparation, weave
construction, and finishing processes, especially if the
same or similar loom type was utilised.1109
Correspondingly, acquiring such knowledge, as
with the introduction of new tools and methods, would
have necessitated training and associated periods of
apprenticeships, the lengths of which would have
been dependent on the degree of required skill. From
the late Middle Kingdom onwards, attestations of a
different spindle-whorl type as well as the presence
of aAm . t weavers hints at the presence of multiple
techniques in use in Egypt, not necessarily all of
Egyptian origin. The employment of these weavers
could have provided a fruitful environment for idea
transfer, while the large presence of a population
influenced by Near Eastern customs would have
warranted the promotion of textile workshops that
catered the patterned garments evidently desired for
their funerary and domestic needs, and perhaps for
local elite elsewhere in Egypt.
1109 See Bier 2004; Gleba 2014, 96–97.
317
By Dynasty 18, weavers of possible Near Eastern
origin continued to work in textile workshops,
possibly as the demand for multicoloured fabrics
persisted. Perhaps to meet these demands,
new weaving and decorating techniques were
utilised alongside previously unattested tools in
Dynasty 18. Each technique would have feasibly
necessitated the establishment and transmission
of a specific process that developed in association
with a corresponding demand for its products. New
groups of specialists could have been involved,
such as the male weavers employing the vertical
loom, or those knowledgeable in tapestry-weaving
or dyeing cloths. As such, the developments
feasibly occurred to differing degrees, in varying
levels of society, and for shifting purposes across
the Middle to New Kingdom. Initially, it seems
that they occurred at the household-level of textile
production, perhaps influencing the transmission of
knowledge in particular circles. When the demand
extended to the uppermost echelons of society,
this knowledge was either transmitted to larger
households or institutions, and/or new circles were
established.1110 Associations with Near Eastern
concepts, techniques, styles and textiles are clear, as
is a recontextualisation or negotiation of transferred
elements for Egyptian purposes and demands.
5.4.4 Music and Musical Instruments
Although archaeomusicology of ancient Egypt and
the Near East is only beginning to be appreciated
for its insights on social and cultural encounters, the
available evidence from across the region highlights
the importance of music and musical instruments in
assessing developments and interactions.1111 A new
type of musical instrument did not only necessitate
a development in technological knowledge to create
the artefact, but also associated knowledge in sound
acoustics, related skills of the musician, and possibly
associated performances (songs, dances, etc.). The
role of music also extended across different activities
in Egypt and the Near East; it could be secular, sacred
or militaristic, performed for entertainment at social
1110 Utilising an analysis of weaving communities in East and
Southeast Asia, Buckley and Boudot (2017) identify three
types of transmission in weaving communities: vertical
transmission across time, within a household or group;
horizontal transmission across space, between households
or groups; or horizontal transmission between different
dialect communities, wherein a barrier to the horizontal
flow occurs. Despite the rarity of the third type, estimated
at a transfer rate of less than once-per-generation, it is
essential for innovation and invention. Perhaps all three
types could have occurred from the Middle to New
Kingdom. See also R. Mace and Jordan 2011.
1111 For an overview, see C. Polin 1954; Manniche 1975; 1991;
Lawergren 2001; Dumbrill 2005; Emerit 2013; Tonietti
2018; Shehata 2018; Köpp-Junk 2018. See also Kunst 1950;
Mirelman 2009; Hickmann and Eichmann 2000–2011.
318
Fig. 5.58 Detail of a scene showing a male lyrist among
aAm .w. North wall, tomb of Khnumhotep II (Nr. 3),
Beni Hassan, reign of Senwosret II, Dynasty 12.
Courtesy of the Australian Centre for Egyptology
events at banquets, rituals, ceremonies and festivals,
and as accompaniment while undertaking a variety
of, for instance, agricultural, marsh or militaristic
activities. Despite approaches that view Egypt as a
‘conservative music culture’ in comparison with the
Near East,1112 several developments are witnessed
from the Middle to New Kingdom, many of which
have been described as Near Eastern or ‘Hyksos
introductions’. The main difficulty in analysing this
hypothesis is the meagre evidence as well as limited
investigations into the creation and transmission
of music across Egypt and the Near East. A clear
indicator of transfer are occurrences of instruments
in Egypt that were previously attested in the Near
East, including the lyre, the long-necked lute, the
tambourine, and the oboe.1113 However, it is only the
lyre for which evidence in Egypt stems before the
New Kingdom.
1112 Lawergren 2001, 452.
1113 Manniche 1991, 45–49; von Lieven 2008. The terminology
utilised for all musical instruments follows Manniche
1975.
Chapter 5
Fig. 5.59 A partially restored lyre (MMA 16.10.504).
Chamber E, Pit 3, Courtyard CC 41, Asasif, early
Dynasty 18. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, CC0 1.0
Universal License: https://collectionapi.metmuseum.
org/api/collection/v1/iiif/546960/1206390/main-image
5.4.4.1 The lyre
The earliest known occurrence of the lyre in Egypt
is found in the scene of the procession of aAm . w in
the Twelfth Dynasty tomb of Khnumhotep II (Nr. 3)
(Fig. 5.58).1114 Here, a aAm holds a lyre horizontally
with a double set of strings. The instrument is
akin to the Levantine thin eastern lyre with its flat
bottom edge and four to eight strings, which is
attested from the late EBA Mesopotamia and the
Northern Levant.1115 The lyrist strums these with
a plectrum in his right hand, the left plucking the
strings. The detail in the fingers and the instrument
both suggest keen observation of the object and
how it was strummed, while its positioning in a aAm
procession points to knowledge of ‘foreign’ music
and associated instruments, as well as its possible
performance in an Egyptian context. It is not,
however, until the later Second Intermediate Period
to early New Kingdom that the lyre is attested again,
albeit with different, curved, arms.1116 Two wooden
1114 Manniche 1991, 37.
1115 Lawergren 1998, 43, 47, fig. 1.
1116 Manniche 1975, 83.
 Technological and Militaristic Transformations 319

Fig. 5.60 Detail of a scene showing a female lyrist in a banquet. Tomb of Wah (TT 22), Sheikh ‘abd el-Qurna,
reign of Thutmose III (?), Dynasty 18. After N.M. Davies 1936, pl. 26

and bronze lyres from burials at Asasif are assigned

to the early Eighteenth Dynasty (Fig. 5.59).1117 A
lyre of uncertain provenance is also dated by its
inscription to the reign of Amenhotep I and is likely
of the period before Hatshepsut’s reign.1118
The lyre eventually became a common Egyptian
instrument, mainly depicted in the hands of
women and carried either vertically or horizontally
(Fig. 5.60).1119 Illustrations of men playing a larger
symmetrical lyre placed on a base or floor at a
royal banquet are additionally preserved at Amarna

1117 One lyre currently at The Metropolitan Museum of Art

(MMA 16.10.504) was collected from Pit 3, Chamber E,
Courtyard CC 41, from a burial that contained, among
other items, a 63 cm long sword (Lansing 1917, 24–26,
fig. 27). The other lyre is, according to Hayes (1959, 24,
fig. 9), at the Museum of Egyptian Antiquities in Cairo. Fig. 5.61 Detail of a scene showing a large
1118 Manniche 1975, 81. symmetrical lyre at a banquet. South wall, tomb of
1119 Manniche 1991, 37–38; Emerit 2013. For examples, see Huya (Nr. 1), Amarna, reign of Akhenaten,
N. de G. Davies 1905a, 35–36, pl. 32; Roehrig 2005a. Dynasty 18. After N. de G. Davies 1905b, pl. 5
320 Chapter 5

Fig. 5.62 Detail of a scene showing a male lutenist in a banquet. North wall, tomb of Amenemhat (Nr. 82),
Sheikh ‘abd el-Qurna, reign of Thutmose III, Dynasty 18. After N. de G. Davies 1915, pl. 15

(Fig. 5.61).1120 The musicians are each dressed in

a flounced garment and a conical hat, signalling
their identification as of Near Eastern origin. In the
Admonitions of Ipuwer, the lyre has been linked
with the DADA. t and in association with a ‘lesser’
harp, although the term is later used for the angular
harp.1121 One attestation in the Nineteenth Dynasty
Papyrus Anastasi IV 12.2 instead offers a new lexeme
k i n n i w r in a performance
featuring singers as well as other instruments.1122 A
likely Semitic loanword, it has been related with the
Ugaritic knr and Akkadian kinnāru, both of which
are used for ‘lyre’.1123 This further supports the
introduction of the instrument via a Near Eastern
agent.

5.4.4.2 The lute

Of the other newly attested musical instruments,
limited evidence points to the lute’s adoption by
the very late Second Intermediate Period and early
New Kingdom (Fig. 5.62). A late Seventeenth to
early Eighteenth Dynasty tomb at Dra‘ Abu el-Naga
produced, among Egyptian-type harps, a three-

1120 N. de G. Davies 1905b, pls. 5, 7; Lawergren 2001, 452;

Fig. 5.63 Bow-legged male lutenists among nude
Emerit 2013, fig. 6.
1121 Lawergren 2001, 452.
females and monkeys.
1122 Hoch 1994, 324–325 [467]. Terracotta relief, Old Babylonian Period.
1123 Hoch 1994, 324–325 [467]. After U. Winter 2012, fig. 256
 Technological and Militaristic Transformations 321

Fig. 5.64 Female frame drummer and male lutenist. Fig. 5.65 Female lutenist. Drawing on a piece of
Terracotta relief, Old Babylonian Period. wood from the tomb of Djeserkaraseneb (TT 38),
After U. Winter 2012, fig. 261 Sheikh ‘abd el-Qurna, Dynasty 18.
After Manniche 1991, fig. 66

Fig. 5.66 Female musicians in a banquet scene. Tomb of Djeserkaraseneb (TT 38), Sheikh ‘abd el-Qurna,
Dynasty 18. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, CC0 1.0 Universal License:
https://images.metmuseum.org/CRDImages/eg/original/LC-30_4_9_EGDP030084.jpg
322 Chapter 5
stringed portable long-necked oval lute.1124 According
to Manniche, it is first artistically represented
in the tomb of Djehuty (TT 110) of Hatshepsut
to Thutmose III’s reigns, where a man plays the
instrument.1125 The lute, with two or three strings,
is otherwise attested in the Near East at least from
the Old Akkadian Period onwards.1126 Some Second
Millennium BC Mesopotamian representations
show naked men playing the lute (including those
with bow-shaped legs; Fig. 5.63),1127 which has
been linked with the erotic connotations of the
instrument.1128 Accordingly, gender orientations have
also been observed on MBA terracotta figurines
from Mesopotamia and the Northern Levant,
some of which portray a male lutenist and a female
tambourine musician or frame drummer engaged
in lovemaking or dancing (Fig. 5.64).1129 Similarly,
Hittite depictions typically show men playing lutes
and lyres, and women with percussion instruments
such as cymbals.1130 From approximately the mid-
Second Millennium BC across the rest of the LBA
and the Iron Age, representations of musicians from
the Levant, mostly the Southern Levant, suggest a
growing association of the lute with women.1131 In
Egypt, both men and women are illustrated playing
the lute (gngn t i?), but female lutenists are commonly
represented in erotic scenes (Fig. 5.65).1132 This has
led to the suggestion of multidirectional exchange
between the Near East and Egypt, the lute first
transferring to Egypt during the Second Intermediate
Period, where it was recontextualised to more
commonly associate women with the instrument
(Fig. 5.66), and then this association was subsequently
transmitted to the Levant.1133 The developments
may have also been regionalised and dependent on
multiple factors, including artistic standards, the social
role of music, and the status of musicians in society.
Manniche, for instance, notes that the lute would have
been easier to depict in erotic scenes; its smaller shape
could be held by the musician without interfering with
facial aspects.1134 It is, however, interesting to note the
similarities in representing particular instruments in
relation with erotica and fertility.
1124 Hayes 1959, 23–24, fig. 9.
1125 Manniche 1975, 71.
1126 Turnbull 1972; Collon and K ilmer 1980; Eichmann 1988;
Dumbrill 2005, 321–329; 2015, 4–6.
1127 Collon and K ilmer 1980; Lawergren 1997, 157.
1128 Caubet 2016, 36–37.
1129 Representations from Susa only associate women with the
tambourine. Caubet 2016, 36–37, fig. 3.
1130 Şare 2017, 557, 559, figs. 1–2.
1131 Braun 2002, 80–85; Paz 2007. Or, according to Burgh’s
interpretation (2006, 84–87), the figures could have also
represented men dressed as women.
1132 Manniche 1991, 47, 110–114, figs. 66–67; Lawergren 2001,
452.
1133 Braun 2002, 85.
1134 Manniche 1991, 111.
5.4.4.3 The tambourine or frame drum and the oboe
Similarly included in erotic depictions are the
tambourine or frame drum and the oboe, both
of which are first attested in Egypt during the
early Eighteenth Dynasty. The earliest confirmed
depiction of the double oboe (wDny) occurs in the
tomb of Baka at Qurna, likely of Thutmose I’s reign,
wherein a woman plays a pair of long thin pipes in
the presence of the tomb owner (Fig. 5.67).1135 It is
then principally depicted in use as a pair of reed
pipes played by female musicians,1136 eventually
supplanting the flute, and the two tied parallel pipes
of the double clarinet.1137 The instrument may have
been played in Third Millennium BC Mesopotamia,
as suggested by the two silver pipes uncovered in the
Royal Cemetery at Ur; it continued in use into the
Second Millennium BC.1138
The tambourine or frame drum is also attested in
Third Millennium BC Mesopotamia, but becomes
more commonly depicted in the MBA and LBA
across the Near East and Elam, often alongside
lutes but especially with terracotta figurines of nude
women playing the instrument (see Fig. 5.64).1139 The
rectangular or square small drum is additionally
attested from the late Third to Second Millennium BC
Mesopotamia.1140 Labelled as s r, both the rectangular
and circular frame drums occur in Egypt from around
the reigns of Hatshepsut and Thutmose III.1141 As
with the oboe, they are usually depicted being played
by women in ensembles, the instrument held high
(Fig. 5.68).1142 One of the earliest attestations of the
circular drum, however, occurs in association with
Bes, in the tomb of Amenhotep (TT 73, reign of
Hatshepsut to Thutmose III; Fig. 5.69).1143 Indeed,
the earlier Near Eastern associations of the lute
1135 Petrie 1909, 11, pl. 34. Manniche (1975, 26) suggests
that a woman portrayed in the Twelfth Dynasty tomb
of Wekhhotep (C1) at Meir could be playing the oboe
(Blackman 1953, pl. 19). Only the end of the long thin
aerophone is preserved, its identification as an oboe due
to, as Manniche explains, the portrayal of a female playing
the instrument. However, as the tomb presents other unique
scenes of women involved in roles otherwise commonly
depicted for males, the female musician here is more
likely taking the place of a male clarinet player, otherwise
typically illustrated in Old and Middle Kingdom scenes.
1136 Duchesne-Guillemin 1981, 291; Manniche 1991, 48.
1137 Manniche 1991, 48; Emerit 2013. For more on the
identification of these aerophones according to these terms,
see Manniche 1975, 12–31.
1138 Duchesne-Guillemin 1981, 291; Lawergren 1997, 149;
Dumbrill 2005, 350, pl. 1.
1139 Lawergren 1997, 159–160; Dumbrill 2005, 373–383,
pls. 20a–74.
1140 Dumbrill 2005, 383, 386.
1141 Säve-Söderbergh 1957, 1–2, 5, pl. 4; Manniche 1975, 2–5;
1991, 49.
1142 Manniche 1991, 49.
1143 Säve-Söderbergh 1957, pl. 4; Romano 1989, 68, 70–71. See
also Daressy 1905, pl. 41 [38735, 38735 bis].
 Technological and Militaristic Transformations 323

Fig. 5.69 Detail of a scene showing the drum.

Northwest wall, tomb of Amenhotep (TT 73),
Sheikh ‘abd el-Qurna, reign of Hatshepsut to
Thutmose III, Dynasty 18.
After Säve-Söderbergh 1957, pl. 4

Fig. 5.67 Detail of a scene showing an oboist. East

wall, tomb of Baka, Sheikh ‘abd el-Qurna, reign of
Thutmose I (?), Dynasty 18.
After Petrie 1909, pl. 34

Fig. 5.68 Detail of a scene showing female musicians. West wall, tomb of Neferhotep I (TT 49),
el-Khokha, reign of Tutankhamun to Horemheb, Dynasty 18.
After N. de G. Davies 1933b, pl. 18
324 Chapter 5
with the bow-legged figure find a certain degree of
parallel with the New Kingdom portrayals of Bes
in contexts related with music, musicians, fertility,
and erotica.1144 The deity appears for the first time
around the reigns of Hatshepsut and Thutmose III
playing the tambourine or frame drum, with other
New Kingdom attestations also showing him with
the oboe or in association with musicians.1145
5.4.4.4 Observations
Evidently, the impact of the introduced musical
instruments surpassed the technology of their
production; it also extended into the social, cultural,
and religious fabric of the New Kingdom. The
associations of the lute, oboe, small percussive
instrument and, to some extent, the lyre with sexuality
and fertility may be observed across Egypt and the
Near East. The common full or partial nudity, the
youthful appearance of musicians, as well as their
association in several cases with erotic scenes and
fertility figures signify a shared symbolic value of
music. Correspondingly, more female musicians
are represented in the New Kingdom in association
with these introduced instruments, likewise
impacting the represented character of ensembles.1146
Theoretically, different musical performances may
have also developed with the introduced instruments,
which offered a larger range of sounds and rhythms
associated with membranophones (the frame drum or
tambourine), aerophones (the oboe), and chordophones
(the lyre and the lute). Each type would have required
different knowledge of production and tuning, as well
as skills in playing and performing. Likewise, new
positions in society would have emerged in relation
to the instruments’ production, instruction, and use
in performances.1147 While connotations to erotica and
fertility were more prominent in the New Kingdom,
the contexts of most performances, or the sacred
and secular activities in which they were performed,
generally appear to have remained the same.1148
Still, the mechanisms that intitiated or spurred such
transformations remain to be elucidated. The evidence
points to different paths of transfer extending from
Dynasties 12 to 18, and not specifically to the Hyksos
Dynasty. The following observations pertain to those
prior to the New Kingdom. The lyre’s inclusion in
the Twelfth Dynasty procession of aAm .w of
Khnumhotep II’s tomb signals one manner in which
Near Eastern music and associated instruments
may have transferred to Egypt: Near Easterners on
1144 Manniche 1991, 57, 110, 118–119, figs. 71–72. See also
Chapter 4.3.2.2.
1145 Romano 1989, 68, 70–71.
1146 Manniche 1991, 49–50.
1147 The wDny ‘double oboe player’ occurs, for instance, in the
New Kingdom following the introduction of the instrument.
Emerit 2013. See also von Lieven 2008.
1148 For more, see Manniche 1991.
diplomatic or commercial ventures entering Egypt
could have brought with them their music, instruments,
as well as musicians.1149 Another hypothetical means is
with the employment of singers and dancers from the
north(east) of Egypt, both of which are attested in papyri
from el-Lahun. The temple papyri, dating between
the reigns of Senwosret III and Amenemhat III, for
instance, list male and perhaps female singers.1150
Papyrus Berlin 10002 names 50 male singers who
performed at the Residence during Amenemhat III’s
reign (Year 36), many of whom are labelled as of aAm
affiliation.1151 aAm dancers performed in local, regional,
and state festivals for Egyptian deities, as attested in
UC 32191, also of Amenemhat III’s reign (Year 35).1152
It is also not implausible that musicians skilled in Near
Eastern music and musical instruments might have
been employed by temples or the Residence, or perhaps
accompanied such artists in their performances.
In fact, this is exactly what is suggested in the later
scenes from Amarna showing musicians of likely Near
Eastern origin welcomed in the court of Akhenaten
(see Fig. 5.61).
A third option is the transfer of musicians and/or
their instruments alongside the increased movement
of peoples from the Near East to Egypt.1153 As shown
in Chapter 4, the presence of some rituals and religious
beliefs inspired by Near Eastern customs may have
manifested in Egypt, especially in the Eastern Delta.
Associated festivals, ceremonies, and ritualistic
performances connected with fertility could have
required as accompaniment musicians and singers
knowledgeable in a variety of hymns and songs. The
noted banquets postulated to have occurred at Tell
el-Dab‘a could have also theoretically warranted
musical performances.
A limited number of archaeological material has
surfaced in support of such activities. A hut complex
constructed atop the Egyptian-style compound
in Area F/I, Stratum c (Phase G/1–3) of the mid-
Thirteenth Dynasty yielded objects identified as
musical instruments (Fig. 5.70).1154 In Hut Nr. 1 were
fragments of two clay drums, while in Hut Nr. 3 were
a fragmentary clay drum and, nearby, a notched Bos
metacarpal object.1155 The drums are all of a local Nile
1149 The reverse may have also occurred, with Egyptian
musicians attested in foreign lands during the later New
Kingdom. Manniche 1991, 59–60, 126–127.
1150 Papyrus Berlin 10391 a–e, 10002, 10004, 10047 and 10071.
Papyrus Berlin 10391 a–e may list a female aAm . t singer.
Kaplony-Heckel 1971, 227 [576]; Luft 1993, 292–297. See,
however, Petrik 2011, 213.
1151 K aplony-Heckel 1971, 2 [2]; Luft 1993, 292–296;
T. Schneider 2003a, 25–27.
1152 M. Collier and Quirke 2006, 92–95.
1153 For more on the links between music and migration, see
Eichmann 2001; Gratzer and Grosch 2018.
1154 Bietak 1985c.
1155 TD 3187–3188, 3405F, 3406A. Bietak 1985c, 6 [1–4], fig. 4
[1–4], pl. 3.
 Technological and Militaristic Transformations
(b) TD 3188
Fig. 5.70 Items identified as musical instruments. Area F/I-j/20–21, Stratum c (Phase G/1–3) Tell el-Dab‘a.
After Bietak 1985c, fig. 4 [1–4]
fabric, their type rarely attested in Egypt but identified
at el-Lahun and late Middle Kingdom to Second
Intermediate Period Harageh.1156 Open at both ends,
they likely originally featured a leather membrane
and possible surface decoration.1157 They are similar to
hand-held portable New Kingdom drums depicted, for
instance, in the tomb of Neferhotep (TT 49; reign of
Tutankhamun to Horemheb; see Fig. 5.68).1158 Perhaps
they may also be compared with the Near Eastern
hourglass drum, represented at least from the Third
Millennium BC onwards, typically held by women for
votive purposes,1159 or the MBA beaker-shaped drums
excavated from Mesopotamia and Anatolia.1160 The
long incised object, however, is similar to a significant
number of notched bones from the Near East and
Cyprus.1161 Most are incised scapulae, with those
assigned to the EBA and MBA found in Anatolia,
the Southern Levant, and the Northern Levant.1162
They have been tentatively recognised as musical
scraping instruments, record keeping tallies, tools,
or items used in divination.1163 The association with
musical instruments as well as the ritualistic contexts
1156 Engelbach 1923, pl. 41 [92M]; Burton-Brown 1959, 16, 78,
fig. 10; Bietak 1985c, 6 [1–4], 10; Aston 2004a, 170, pl. 182
[665].
1157 Bietak 1985c, 9–10; Aston 2004a, 170.
1158 N. de G. Davies 1933b, pl. 5; Manniche 1975, 9–10; Bietak
1985c, fig. 7.
1159 Braun 2002, 55–57, fig. II.5; Dumbrill 2005, 370,
pls. 11–13.
1160 Lawergren 1997, 160–162.
1161 For an overview, see S. Dunham 1994; R eese 2002.
1162 R eese 2002, 184–185.
1163 R eese 2002, 184–185; Braun 2002, 94.
325
(a) TD 3405 F
(c) TD 3406 A
(d) TD 3187
0 10 cm
of a number of these artefacts support their link with
music, especially that of a sacred nature.1164
In turn, a significant aspect that may have
influenced the transfer of music is its role as a
system of communication tied to social and cultural
performances.1165 Music, like dance, performed in and
for a group generally enhances social cohesion, likely
due to the shared experience and its involvement of
synchronous actions.1166 Generally unique for each
culture, it can promote the maintenance of social
bonds in one group and enhance group identity.1167
Yet, when individuals of different groups perform or
experience musical activities together, they partake in
a shared experience that may act as a form of inter-
group communication.1168 The use of a shared space
for religious or ritualistic expression, such as that at
Tell el-Dab‘a’s sacred precinct, the temple at el-Lahun,
or the Temple of Hathor at Serabit el-Khadim, as well
as the performances that occurred at elite and royal
courts, would have presented different forms of music
to various groups. These presumably promoted a form
of cross-cultural communication that more easily
transcended such group boundaries as those imposed
by language or status. Across time, the continuation
of such communicative and shared performances may
1164 S.Dunham 1994, 41.
1165 For music as communication, see Miell, MacDonald and
Hargreaves 2005. For more perspectives on music and
culture, see Trehub, Becker and Morley 2015.
1166 Freeman 2000; Dunbar 2012; Loersch and Arbuckle
2013; Trehub, Becker and Morley 2015.
1167 Freeman 2000; Dunbar 2012.
1168 Harwood, Qadar and Chen 2016; Harwood 2017.
326 Chapter 5
have then led to a transformation or negotiation of
musical elements.
In all, the increased movements between the Near
East and Egypt from Dynasties 12 to 18 could have
feasibly led to the transfer of musical concepts and
instruments. All discussed instruments were portable
and could have been easily transported across borders,
although their local production is also possible. The
lyre uniquely occurs first in the hands of a aAm pictured
in an Egyptian tomb, ceramic drums and a scapula
are attested in mid-Thirteenth Dynasty Tell el-Dab‘a,
while the lute appears in the archaeological record of
the late Seventeenth to Eighteenth Dynasty. The oboe
is represented from the reign of Thutmose I, and the
tambourine or frame drum from around the reigns
of Hatshepsut and Thutmose III. It is also to the first
half of the Eighteenth Dynasty when further scenes
represent the transformed Egyptian ensemble featuring
the lute, lyre, oboe, and small drum, indicating that
the instruments were now well-embedded in Egyptian
culture and society. Most of the early evidence
stems from tomb scenes and preserved funerary
material, generally from Thebes. Though this area is
consequently highlighted as a significant zone where
initial encounters may have occurred, the imbalance
of evidence from elsewhere restricts observations on
more regionalised processes. The fragile materials of
most musical instruments may not have survived the
Eastern Delta environment, albeit the ceramic and
bone instruments have been identified in domestic
contexts. The latter, together with the noted possible
transfer of social, particularly gendered, connotations
linked with the instruments, suggests that the processes
of incorporation had impacted different levels of the
social fabric. This may reflect transformations that
continuously occurred from periods of encounter to
adaptation, each relative to a particular instrument but
possibly converging with correlated developments in
the Eighteenth Dynasty.
5.4.5 Flora, Fauna, and Foodways
This section examines various objects and concepts
associated with foodways, or the social, cultural,
and economic aspects linked with the production
and consumption of different foods. One of the least
investigated aspects of transformations in the studied
period are the shifting ways in which Egyptians utilised
and manipulated their environment. Yet, these were
fundamental in producing the basic necessities of life,
including valuable primary and secondary products
such as fruits, nuts, meats, dairy products, wines, oils,
textiles, wood, and bones. They were well-integrated
into the economic systems of the Bronze Age world,
providing valuable products for local, regional, and
interregional exchange. Several were also intertwined
with social acts linked with identity, with some
consumption practices not only becoming associated
with rituals but also ‘the highly condensed symbolic
representation and the active manipulation of social
relations’.1169 The cultural encounters and population
movements that occurred across the examined period
very feasibly introduced different concepts and
objects related to such foodways or processes linked
with their production. Some have been particularly
connected to the ‘Hyksos’, although with little evidence
or examination. The following thus provides a brief
discussion based on published material on postulated
introduced plants and animals that were eventually
incorporated into Egyptian animal husbandry and
agricultural or horticultural activities. It also explores
the conjectured introduction of a new irrigation
mechanism that was later linked with these activities
(the shaduf ), as well as changes in wine consumption
habits and viticulture.
5.4.5.1 Introduced plants and animals
Several plant and animal species are first attested
in Egypt during the Middle and New Kingdoms.
While very likely associated with the continuous
movements of peoples and goods between Egypt and
the Near East, some, like the olive, pomegranate,
horses, humpedback cattle or wool-sheep, have been
described specifically as ‘Hyksos introductions’.1170
In assessing their transfer, however, the uncertainties
in the available evidence must be noted. The socio-
cultural implications of an introduced species vary
considerably from those that are imported (and at
what particular stage of their maturity), and those
that are introduced and reared in Egypt. The presence
and identification of botanical and faunal remains is
dependent on their nature, context, the expertise of
the excavator, as well as the possibilities of scientific
analyses. Archaeological material, especially without
such scientific investigations as isotope analysis,
is usually not sufficient to differentiate whether
the cultivation of plants and the rearing of animals
occurred within Egypt or elsewhere. Similarly,
attestations of plants and animals in offering or
administrative lists and/or scenes only point to
knowledge of and possible access to (or the desire to
access) such items. Indeed, Old to New Kingdom
textual and artistic attestations, as well as LBA
organic ship cargoes, confirm the continued and
valued transport of a variety of animal and plant
species into Egypt.1171 Depictions of the cultivation of
particular plants in gardens, however, could indicate
that a particular species was grown along the Nile
Valley. Consistent portrayals across generations could
suggest that a species had become well-embedded
in agricultural and horticultural knowledge and
1169 Dietler 2011, 179. See also Bray 2003; S.T. Smith 2003b.
1170 See, for instance, Samkange 1971, 64; Bradley 2014, 280.
For the introduction of horses, see Chapter 5.2.2.
1171 For examples, see the fragments from Sahura’s Funerary
Temple (Borchardt 1913, pl. 3), the Mit Rahina daybook
(Altenmüller and Moussa 1991; Altenmüller 2015) and
the finds on the Uluburun shipwreck (Haldane 1993).
 Technological and Militaristic Transformations
activities. Some representations of animal-rearing,
or titles and texts associated with such activities, may
also reflect their incorporation into the Egyptian
fauna. A strong case for the breeding and training
of the horse, for instance, may be gleaned from
such material. Still, the existence and preservation
of organic material, as well as their textual and
artistic representations, remains very limited for the
assessment of the full extent of the environmental
impact of constant movements between Northern
Africa and the Mediterranean region during the first
half of the Second Millennium BC. Nevertheless,
what has been preserved offers some insight into the
long-term impact of exchanges.
5.4.5.1.1 Nuts, olives, pomegranate, and more
Egyptian sites occupied during the studied period
have yielded remains of plants native to the
Mediterranean and Levantine region. These include
Kom Rabi‘a, el-Lahun, and Tell el-Dab‘a. If a Middle
Kingdom date for those from el-Lahun is accepted,
then its settlement produced the earliest recorded
archaeological occurrences of the carob plant
(Ceratonia siliqua) and juniper berries (Juniperus
oxycedrus),1172 both of which were likely imported
from the Levant. Carob may also be represented in
Old and Middle Kingdom tombs, as with those at
Beni Hassan, pointing to the elite’s access to this
product and its significance in funerary offerings.1173
El-Lahun also yielded black cumin (Nigella sativa L.)
and safflower (Carthamus tinctorius L.), for which
earlier late Old Kingdom attestations at Saqqara
have also been identified.1174 Other likely imported
samples from the Thirteenth Dynasty settlement at
Kom Rabi‘a include those of olive (Olea europaea;
see below) and pistachio (Pistacia terbinthus or
Pistacia palestina).1175
At Tell el-Dab‘a, Thanheiser’s analyses of botanical
remains assigned to Phase D/2 have confirmed the
presence of a number of plants that may have been
imported from the Near East. Primarily found at
Area A/II’s cemetery, with one sample from a court
in A/V, these include: (1) pomegranate (Punica
granatum L.; one sample from Area A/II-i/11);
(2) olive (Olea europaea L.; one sample from Area
A/V-q/16-L201, one from A/II-i/11, and five from
A/II-k/9); (3) almond (Prunus amygdalus; one sample
from Area A/II-i/11 and six samples from A/II-k/9);
and (4) pistachio (Pistacia vera L.; six samples from
1172 Petrie 1890, 47, 50; Battle and Tous 1997, 20–21; Germer
1998, 88–89; Zohary 2002.
1173 A plant with long black pods among piled offerings
is portrayed in the tombs of Amenemhat (Nr. 2) and
Khnumhotep II (Nr. 3). Kanawati and Evans 2014, pl. 138;
2016, pl. 103. See also Mourad 2015, 85, 90, fig. 4.54.
1174 R zeuska 2006, 292–293, table 1.
1175 Murray 1991, 5.
327
Area A/II-k/19).1176 The almond samples are, to the
author’s knowledge, the earliest clearly identifiable
finds from Egypt.1177 Both almond and pistachio are
native to the area generally extending the Eastern
Mediterranean to Central Asia, and both were likely
imported from this area during the New Kingdom,
their cultivation in Egypt thus far unattested.1178 Yet,
samples of olive or Olea europaea have been found in
Fourth Dynasty Heit el-Ghurab, Giza,1179 as well as a
Thirteenth Dynasty settlement level at Kom Rabi‘a,1180
pre-dating those from Tell el-Dab‘a.1181 Olive has
otherwise been identified in material dating from the
reign of Akhenaten onwards. It is archaeologically
attested among the botanical remains at Amarna, the
tomb of Tutankhamun, as well as the New Kingdom
levels at Kom Rabi‘a.1182 Olive is additionally
represented in the Temple of Aten, the king offering
an olive twig to the god; on a mural from Amarna;1183
and perhaps in the tomb of Neferhotep (TT 49;
reign of Tutankhamun to Horemheb).1184 Based on
such evidence, Kelder feasibly proposes that the
introduction of olive in Egyptian iconography, ritual
and daily life started from the reign of Akhenaten.1185
By the reign of Ramesses II, jar dockets from Deir
el-Medina referring to olive oil ( Dd w)1186
could point to oleioculture in Egypt, although this
remains unconfirmed.1187 As with the almond and
1176 Thanheiser 1987, table 6; 2004, table 1.
1177 Thanheiser 1987, 50–51.
1178 Thanheiser 1987, 50–51; Manniche 1989, 138–139; de
Vartavan 2007.
1179 Charred olive wood was identified among charcoal
fragments. A pit from an ashy deposit at the site has also
been identified either as olive or plum. Several combed
ware jars are additionally postulated to have contained olive
oil. Gerisch, Wetterstrom and Murray 2009, 3; Sowada
2009, 160–161; Malleson 2013; M. Lehner 2016, 120.
1180 Murray 1991; 2000, table 24.1.
1181 Occurring from the Middle Kingdom onwards, the term
bAq has also been interpreted either as olive oil or moringa
oil, but this remains debated. For more, with references, see
Serpico and White 2000b, 399.
1182 Murray 2000, table 24.1. A wreath of olive leaves placed
on the mummy of Amenhotep II at Deir el-Bahari is of
uncertain date, and could have been deposited during the
Twenty-Second Dynasty. See Germer 1985, 25, fig. 22;
Kelder 2009, 343, n. 39.
1183 K elder 2009, 343, fig. 2.
1184 N. de G. Davies 1933b, 36, pls. 48–49.
1185 K elder 2009, 344; 2010, 131.
1186 KRI 7, 76–78. The earliest known textual attestation for
olives occurs on the Silsileh Quarry stela assigned to the
reign of Sety I. For the Semitic origins of the term, see
Hoch 1994, 395 [594]. See also Meeks 1993, 5–6, 8; Kelder
2009, 344.
1187 Many suggestions for the introduction of oleioculture in
Egypt have been proposed, the dates ranging from the
Middle Kingdom, the late Second Intermediate Period
(especially Dynasty 15), or the New Kingdom. See Bietak
1991a; Meeks 1993, 3–6, 8; Serpico and White 2000b, 398–
399; Brun 2003, 69; Gómez 2015, 211; 2020.
328 Chapter 5
pistachio, earlier occurrences of olive were thus most
likely a result of trade, possibly with the Levant,
where olive use and cultivation is attested from the
EBA onwards.1188
Pomegranate, however, was likely cultivated in
Egypt before the Nineteenth Dynasty. The A/II-
i/11 sample from Tell el-Dab‘a is thus far the earliest
clearly identified specimen recorded from Egypt. The
pomegranate attested from Twelfth Dynasty Dra‘ Abu
el-Naga cannot be substantiated,1189 while that from
a tomb at Mayana (Sedment), initially assigned to the
Second Intermediate Period, is likely of early New
Kingdom date.1190 At Tell el-Dab‘a, pomegranate seeds
have also been reportedly found in the forecourt of Area
A/II’s Temple III, with the cultivation of pomegranate
trees postulated for the gardens of the early Thirteenth
Dynasty administrative complex of Area F/I,
Stratum d/1 (Phase G/4).1191 Indeed, the self-pollinating
deciduous tree, typically grown in tropical or temporal
climates, was likely cultivated in Egyptian gardens of
the New Kingdom. Its first recorded textual attestation
occurs in the tomb of the architect Ineni (TT 81; reign
of Amenhotep I to Thutmose III) where, among a list
of trees of an orchard designed by the architect, are
five of the in h m n tree.1192 While the term
is apparently not of Semitic origin, it does have Semitic
cognates with phonological differences, such as the
Akkadian armannu, that suggest its transfer via a Near
Eastern agent.1193 The tree is further portrayed in the
garden of Thutmose III among other plants brought
back from his Levantine campaigns, as at the Temples
of Karnak and Amada.1194 It continues to be attested in
scenes of orchards and gardens, signalling its persistent
cultivation in Egypt. The pomegranate fruit also
occurs among funerary offerings, either as the fruit
itself, as pomegranate-shaped vessels and adornments,
or in offering lists and scenes.1195 Thus, the combined
evidence for the pomegranate strongly indicates that it
1188 Frankel 1999, 37; Serpico and White 2000b, 400.
1189 K eimer 1967, 104; Thanheiser 1987, 50.
1190 Tomb 1257. The burial is of a child placed on a matting
of rope and fibre. Its brick coffin yielded pomegranates,
sycamore figs, dates, cyperus grass, and buckthorn. The
published pottery evidently included a black-rimmed
jar, suggesting that the tomb is of the very late Second
Intermediate Period or the early New Kingdom. Petrie
1924, 16, pl. 44 [39].
1191 Nigro and Spagnoli 2018, 52, fig. 3a.
1192 Urk. 4, 73 [12]. In his biography, Ineni also mentions that
the west banks of Karnak were planted with different kinds
of ‘sweet trees’ (Urk. 4, 57 [11]).
1193 Hoch 1994, 24–25 [12], 187 [252].
1194 K eimer 1967, 47; Thanheiser 1987, 50.
1195 For instance, a large dried pomegranate fruit was found
among the offerings of flowers and fruits in the tomb of
Djehuty (TT 11). A silver bowl, golden pendants, and stone
and ivory models in the form of the fruit were also found in
the tomb of Tutankhamun. Hepper 2009, 62–64, pl. 40. See
also Germer 1985, 42–43; Manniche 1989, 139–141; Nigro
and Spagnoli 2018, 52–53, fig. 4 [b–d].
became well-incorporated among the desired fruits of
the Egyptians by the mid-Eighteenth Dynasty.
This corresponds with the fruit’s significance
in the Near East and Mediterranean. Although
mostly represented in elite, sacred and funerary
contexts,1196 the fruit is attested archaeologically
from the Fourth Millennium BC in the Levant and
Mesopotamia, spreading across the EBA and MBA
to become commonly attested in the Near East,
and likely as a typical part of the elite’s diet.1197 An
added symbolic significance tied to fertility and
rebirth, hinted by the fruit’s association with fertility
deities in Mesopotamian art,1198 is postulated to have
extended to other areas of the Mediterranean during
the MBA to the LBA, and most certainly by the Iron
Age.1199 Such connotations, however, may only be
assumed from the evidence at Tell el-Dab‘a and the
early Eighteenth Dynasty with the more frequent
occurrence of the pomegranate in funerary or sacred
contexts. Nevertheless, the data clearly indicates
that the pomegranate continued to be highly desired
or valued by the Egyptians. Its occurrence at Tell el-
Dab‘a suggests that it was likely first imported and
possibly consumed by the city’s inhabitants, perhaps
initially for sacred or elite purposes. Whether or not it
was cultivated at the site remains uncertain, as is any
relation to Eighteenth Dynasty cultivations. Indeed,
Thutmose III’s depiction at Karnak suggests that the
tree was imported from the Levant during his reign
and then planted in Egypt. Still, the tree, along with its
name, may have already been known by the Egyptians
via earlier contacts with the north.
5.4.5.1.2 Humpedback and/or zebu cattle
Regarding the translocation of animals, one
encounters several difficulties in distinguishing
particular variants of a species as well as pathways
of transfer. Some speculation has surfaced in relation
with the identification of the humpedback bull, or
the zebu (Bos indicus), in artistic representations
in Egypt. According to some, the zebu occurs in
Twelfth Dynasty tomb scenes at Beni Hassan, where
shorthorned cattle with a slight hump at the base
of their neck (cervico-thoracic humps) are depicted
among several animals being brought before the
tomb owner by Egyptian herdsmen (Fig. 5.71).1200 A
team of similar shorthorned cattle are later depicted
1196 C. Ward 2003, 529–541, tables 1–2; Nigro and Spagnoli
2018, 51.
1197 As Nigro and Spagnoli write (2018, 52), ‘The spread of
this species in the Levant increased in 2nd millennium
BC, and it was found in almost all excavated sites where
paleo-botanic samples were collected and studied’. See also
C. Ward 2003, 529–541, tables 1–2.
1198 Nigro and Spagnoli 2018, 51.
1199 Nigro and Spagnoli 2018, 49–66; C. Ward 2003.
1200 See, for instance, Newberry 1893a, pl. 30; Epstein 1971,
505–506; Kanawati and Evans 2014, pls. 125–126.
 Technological and Militaristic Transformations
Fig. 5.71 Detail of a scene showing a herd of cattle. North wall, tomb of Khnumhotep II (Nr. 3), Beni Hassan,
reign of Senwosret II, Dynasty 12. Courtesy of the Australian Centre for Egyptology
dragging a sledge on Neferperet’s stela at Tura,
dating to the reign of Ahmose (Year 22).1201 An
associated text specifically mentions that
i tH. t w i n r m kA. w i n . w
[aAm . w] f […] x t [tA. w] Fn x . w ‘the stone was dragged
by the bulls that the [aAm . w] brought [… from the
lands] of the Fn x . w’ (see Fig. 3.38).1202 Despite
the representation of the bulls with clear humps at
the base of their necks, they are designated by the
general hieroglyph utilised for cattle.1203 Attestations
of humpedback cattle, some with pronounced humps
at the shoulder (thoracic-humps), are clearer and
more frequent from around the reigns of Hatshepsut
and Thutmose III onwards, with representations
in the tombs of Menkheperraseneb (TT 86;
Thutmose III to Amenhotep II’s reign; Fig. 5.72),1204
Amenmose (TT 42; Thutmose III to Amenhotep II’s
reign),1205 Benia (TT 343; possibly Thutmose III’s
reign), Horemheb (TT 78; Thutmose III to
Amenhotep III’s reign),1206 Nebamun (TT 17; reign of
Amenhotep II),1207 Tjanuro (TT 101; Amenhotep II’s
reign), Paser (TT 367; Amenhotep II’s reign),1208
and Kenamun (TT 162; probably Amenhotep III’s
reign),1209 as a few examples.1210 They could occur
either in offering scenes, led by individuals who
appear to be Egyptian,1211 or in market or gift-giving
1201 Accompanying the bulls are three men portrayed with no
delineating features but for their short beards, kilts, and
sticks with which they lead the animals. Daressy 1911,
262–263.
1202 Stela of Neferperet, lines 4–6. Urk. 4, 25 [12]; Daressy
1911, 262–264.
1203 The translation here as kA.w is favoured based on the
representation of the animals as mature and likely male
cattle. Several other designations for cattle are attested in
Egyptian texts, but they typically identify those of different
sex, age, colour, or use, rather than type. For further
discussion, see Wassell 1991, 31–45.
1204 N. de G. Davies 1933a, pl. 14.
1205 N. de G. Davies 1933a, pl. 36.
1206 An. Brack and Ar. Brack 1980, pls. 30, 84.
1207 Säve-Söderbergh 1957, pl. 23.
1208 Fakhry 1943.
1209 N. de G. Davies and Faulkner 1947, pl. 8.
1210 Hornblower 1927, 222–223, figs. 1–3; Alred 1956, 150–
152, pl. 17; Epstein 1971, 506; Ikram 1995, 13; Shirley
2007, 389.
1211 For instance, the scenes in TT 86, TT 343, and TT 367.
329
Fig. 5.72 Detail of a scene showing a herd of cattle.
East wall, tomb of Menkheperraseneb (TT 86),
Sheikh ‘abd el-Qurna, reign of Thutmose III to
Amenhotep II, Dynasty 18.
After N. de G. Davies 1933a, pl. 14
scenes, led by those represented as Asiatics.1212 As
such, it is plausible that the humpedback cattle may
have been both reared in Egypt and imported from
the Levant, although their overall rarity in Egyptian
material could suggest the more common occurrence
of the latter.1213
In both cases, their identification specifically as
Bos indicus is not confirmed, as the depictions could
instead represent a variation of the shorthorned
cattle.1214 If we assume that they are Bos indicus (or
a crossbreed), then the Twelfth Dynasty illustrations
would be the earliest albeit questionable evidence for
the cattle thus far attested in Egypt, with more data
1212 For instance, the scenes in TT 17, TT 42 and TT 162. In
TT 17, the bulls are shown dragging wheeled carts near
a ship. According to Shirley (2007, 389), the scene likely
portrays the loading of a ship in the Levant rather than its
arrival in Egypt; the bulls and their attached wagons are
thus used for transportation to the ship. Indeed, that of
TT 42, shows individuals from NgAw leading humpedback
cattle away from a fortress likely in the Levant.
1213 Aldred 1956, 151.
1214 As Ikram (1995, 13) writes, ‘even with more faunal analysis
it is doubtful if one can definitively resolve the question
of whether zebu were present in ancient Egypt’. See also
Epstein 1971, 388; Grigson 1991, 127; Osborn 1998, 196.
330 Chapter 5
assigned to Ahmose’s reign, slightly increasing from
Thutmose III’s reign onwards.
This would also correspond with the Near Eastern
evidence for knowledge of, and very possibly the
domestication of, the cattle species.1215 Representations
of humpedback cattle identified as of Bos indicus first
occur from the late Fourth and Third Millennia BC
at Susa, Southern Mesopotamia and Southeastern
Arabia, with the earliest known from Northern
Mesopotamia and the Northern Levant assigned to
the MBA.1216 Artistic depictions of humpedback cattle
and faunal identifications of Bos indicus then occur
across the Levant and Anatolia during the LBA.1217
Although artistic and archaeological evidence of the
zebu from the Horn and East Coast of Africa before the
First Millennium BC remains uncertain,1218 a number
of depictions from Kerma, dating to the first half of
the Second Millennium BC, show cattle with a slight
hump at the base of their neck.1219
This chronological distribution has led some
to propose the movement of zebu to Egypt via
southeastern Africa.1220 On the other hand, the
Eighteenth Dynasty attestations would imply an
introduction via maritime and perhaps land routes
from the Levant.1221 While a variety of pathways are
possible, it is interesting to note that the increased
attestations of the zebu across the region have also
been related with ‘episodes of environmental stress
involving aridification’ during the Third to Second
Millennium BC.1222 Although Bos indicus is well-suited
for more arid conditions, further evidence from Egypt
and the rest of Africa is required for more concrete
1215 Recent evidence places the origins of the Bos indicus around
the late Seventh Millennium BC in South Asia. Meadow
1984; Chen et al. 2010; Ajmone-Marsan, Fernando Garcia
and Lenstra 2010, 149–150.
1216 For an overview of the material, with further references
see Matthews 2002, 438–446, figs. 3–5. See also
Hornblower 1927, 223–225; Bökönyi 1997, 648–649, 653;
Uerpmann 2001.
1217 See Matthews 2002, 438–446; Meiri et al. 2017.
1218 Mid-Second Millennium BC inhumations of cattle bone
found at In Tuduf in Niger could be of Bos indicus. Grigson
1991; Paris 2000, 117; Magnavita 2006, 58.
1219 C. Bonnet 2000, 63, figs. 46, 63; Magnavita 2006, 76;
Chaix 2017, 414–426, fig. 26.2 [a, c].
1220 The movement of cattle, among other floral and faunal
species, has also been proposed across this route for
different points in history. Epstein 1971, 505–506, 513;
F. Marshall 1989; Matthews 2002, 444; Magnavita 2006,
78; Boivin, Blench and Fuller 2009; Boivin and Fuller
2009; Boivin 2017, 355–356.
1221 The genetic data also suggests both overland and maritime
movement of Bos indicus from South Asia to Mesopotamia,
Arabia, and Africa. See Hanotte et al. 2002; Kumar et al.
2003; Fuller and Boivin 2009.
1222 The association between the domestication or increased
pastoral activities related to Bos indicus and climate
change has also been inferred for other periods in history.
F. Marshall 1989, 238–239; Matthews 2002, 445.
conclusions regarding the mechanisms that spurred the
spread and domestication of the cattle species.
Based on the MBA evidence for the zebu in
Mesopotamia and the Northern Levant, it is only
possible to surmise that the Egyptians could have
accessed and transported the cattle species into Egypt
during the Second Intermediate Period. No evidence
points to the introduction of the species by the Hyksos
rulers, nor to the knowledge of such a species by the
Fifteenth Dynasty and the population at Tell el-Dab‘a.
Indeed, their introduction in the Fifteenth Dynasty
must be ruled out if the earlier representations from
Beni Hassan and Kerma are identified as Bos indicus
or a crossbreed thereof.
5.4.5.1.3 Wool-sheep
The introduction and adoption of the wool-sheep can
be traced to the Middle Kingdom. Generally, two types
of sheep (Ovis aries) have been identified in Egyptian
art and texts: (1) a thin wool or hair variety, with long,
horizontal, curving, corkscrew horns; and (2) a thick
wool or heavy fleece variety, the wool-sheep, with
curving horns at the side of the head and a fat tail.1223
The first is represented from the Early Dynastic Period.
Its hieroglyph, (Gardiner’s E10) was utilised
to delineate both types of sheep, while its form was
identified with the ram of Khnum, the designation
of which (bA) was applied to several deities.1224 The
worship of such a deity in the Eastern Delta during the
Second Intermediate Period is supported by a stela from
Tell el-Hebwa I showing the son of Ra, Nehsy, offering
incense to a local ram-headed deity Banebdjedet.1225
The second variety of sheep occurs from the Middle
Kingdom onwards. It is first attested in the tomb
of Khnumhotep II (Nr. 3) at Beni Hassan, at the end
of the same register as the abovementioned cattle
(Fig. 5.73).1226 A herd of sheep including both the hairy
and wool variants is portrayed, suggesting that the
wool-sheep was known by the Egyptians, and possibly
reared with the hairy-sheep as part of the Oryx nome’s
husbandry practices. The presence of both types is also
inferred at Tell el-Dab‘a according to the faunal remains
from Areas A/II (Strata H to D/2) and F/I (Strata e to
a/2), which were collected from graves, offering pits,
1223 The first variety is often identified in the literature as
Ovis longipes palaeoaegyptiacus, and the second as Ovis
platyura aegyptiaca. Osborn 1998, 186–194; Vogelsang-
Eastwood 2000, 269; Clutton-Brock 2012.
1224 Wassell 1991, 83.
1225 The stela also features the cartouche of Tany. Abd el-
Maksoud and Valbelle 2005, 8–9, fig. 6, pl. 5.
1226 A man accompanying the sheep is labelled HA. t xA
‘chief of a herd’, suggesting that both were reared together.
Newberry 1893a, pl. 30; Kanawati and Evans 2014, pl. 125.
 Technological and Militaristic Transformations 331

and settlement contexts.1227 In texts, the term sr was

utilised for both types of sheep, however the hieroglyph
for the wool-sheep, (E185), is attested after the
New Kingdom.1228
Evidence from the early Eighteenth Dynasty
associates the wool-sheep with Amun(-Ra). The deity
is represented with the head or horns of the ram, or by
the ram itself as rh n.1229 While this clearly points to
the Egyptians’ knowledge and adoption of the animal
as part of their cultural practices, its manifestation
was likely influenced by several processes and/or
agents emphasised by the more common attestation
of the ram-headed or criocephalus Amun(-Ra) in
Nubia. The earliest are depicted on a fragment of a Fig. 5.73 Detail of a scene showing two varieties of
ram-headed object from Ahmose’s Funerary Temple sheep. North wall, tomb of Khnumhotep II (Nr. 3),
representing a divine barque of Amun (Fig. 5.74),1230 Beni Hassan, reign of Senwosret II, Dynasty 12.
as well as on Thutmose I’s inscription at Hagr el- Courtesy of the Australian Centre for Egyptology
Merwa.1231 Evidence from such sites as Kerma, Aniba,
and Askut additionally signal at some funerary
or cultic significance of the wool-sheep in Nubia
from the first half of the Second Millennium BC,
contemporaneous with or dating after the example
from Khnumhotep II’s tomb.1232 Thus, some have
postulated that the official adoption of a Nubian
ram-headed deity through criocephalus Amun(-

1227 Boessneck 1976, 28; Boessneck and von den Driesch 1992,
28–29, diagrams 1a–1b, tables 2–3, 48. While caprids with
coiled horns additionally occur on late Middle Kingdom
and Second Intermediate Period scarabs from such sites
as Tell el-Dab‘a, Tell el-Maskhuta, Tell el-Yahudiyah
and Qau, as well as from Nubia and the Levant, their
identification as sheep, goat or antelope remains uncertain.
For more, see Keel 1990, 263–266; Mlinar 2001, 179,
pl. 66; vol. 2, pls. K 321–323.
1228 Wassell 1991, 83–84.
1229 The rhn ram was otherwise also associated with Seth.
Wassell 1991, 83.
1230 Harvey 1998, 338–339, fig. 89. The barque would be similar
to one portrayed in the Temple of Montuhotep II which
instead features a ram with corkscrew horns (Naville 1910,
pl. 13 [b]).
1231 W.V. Davies 2017, 69, n. 6, figs. 5–7. For more on
representations of criocephalus Amun, see Pamminger
1992; Yoyotte 2005; Toye 2009, 257–263, pl. 7.
1232 These include a figurine with the head of a ram from a
room outside the fortress of Askut with a shrine, a clay
sheep figurine from a grave at Aniba, as well as a glazed
fragment of a ram’s head and a vessel with a ram’s head
handle from Kerma, the latter also from a grave. The items’
production in Egypt cannot yet be completely excluded.
Wenig 1978, 28, 122–123 [Cat. Nr. 12], 129 [Cat. Nr. 19],
145–146 [Cat. Nr. 44], 157–158 [Cat. Nr. 65]. Remains of
sheep from tombs at Kerma have been identified with the
long-legged variety that lacked wool (Ryder 1984; 1987;
Chaix and Grant 1987, 80; Bangsgaard 2014). Behrens
(1986, 1244, n. 1) mentions earlier depictions of the
‘Amun ram’ in Saharan rock art; however, the sheep in
these prehistoric representations are likely of the barbary
species from North Africa, which was possibly never fully
domesticated (see Marshall and Weissbrod 2011, S398–
S400, table 1; Chazan 2018, 237).
Fig. 5.74 A fragment showing the divine barque
of Amun. Funerary Temple of Ahmose, Abydos,
Dynasty 18. After Harvey 1998, fig. 89
Ra) was an attempt by the Egyptians to promote
their control over the area.1233 Beyond the scope of
this study, the negotiation of such cultural elements
between Egyptians and Nubians certainly deserves
further investigation, especially in consideration of
the material from Beni Hassan and Tell el-Dab‘a. It
nonetheless points to the complexity of the wool-
sheep’s transfer and adoption in eastern Africa.
The wool-sheep was also of great significance in the
Near East.1234 Osteometric analysis of sheep remains
1233 The process of adoption has been described as an
assimilation or incorporation of the Nubian manifestation
of Amun into the Egyptian pantheon, or the assimilation of
Amun with Khnum. Pamminger 1992; Toye 2009, 258, n. 8;
Török 2009, 224, 227; T. Woodcock 2019, 291.
1234 As Muigai and Hanotte (2013, 43) write in regards to the
fat-tailed sheep, ‘We cannot fully exclude the possibility
that this phenotype might have emerged independently
from the fat-tailed sheep of the Fertile Crescent, but we
think it unlikely in light of the continuous geographic
distribution of these fat-tailed populations with their Asian
counterparts’.
332 Chapter 5
from across Mesopotamia and the Levant, as well as
representations of sheep of the Uruk Period, indicate
that both the hairy- and wool-sheep varieties were
known by at least the Chalcolithic Period.1235 The
increased exploitation of the smaller-sized woolly
breed in Northern Mesopotamia across the Third
Millennium BC corresponds with the growing
production of wool and the development of woollen
textile workshops and exchange in Mesopotamia and
the Levant.1236 This led to the dominance of the wool-
sheep as well as its escalated economic significance
in the Near East. In comparison, the hairy variety
may have been more common in Old Kingdom Egypt
due to its earlier introduction and integration into the
Egyptian agricultural and economic system. The need
to produce wool would have also been restricted, with
the most favoured textile being linen.
Still, the evidence points to the consequent
attestation of the wool-sheep alongside the hairy-
sheep at least from the Twelfth Dynasty onwards, in
an apparent Egyptian herd at Beni Hassan, and with
added funerary and cultic significance at Tell el-
Dab‘a, Abydos, and Nubia. By the New Kingdom, the
wool-sheep dominates in the material record. Routes
of introduction were likely varied and dynamic. The
transport of the wool-sheep to Egypt could have been
either via a northern land or maritime route from the
Levant to Egypt, and/or via a southern maritime path
through Arabia and the Horn of Africa, occurring
alongside the movement of both mobile and urban
populations.1237 Indeed, both Tell el-Dab‘a and
Beni Hassan were hubs frequented by different
groups of people, including nomadic pastoralists,
from the north of Egypt as well as the south. As
such, this could have led to a gradual mixing of
herds, the wool-sheep perhaps then dominating
or selectively bred according to environmental
conditions and/or human preferences. In regards to
physical characteristics, both the thin- and fat-tailed
varieties are well-adapted for arid environments,1238
but the latter also provides an additional source of
edible fat in its tail that may have been favoured
by particular herders or communities.1239 Shifts in
textile production and the demand for wool in Egypt,
perhaps at Twelfth to Fifteenth Dynasty Tell el-Dab‘a
or at Eighteenth Dynasty Amarna, could have also
1235 E. Vila and Helmer 2014.
1236For more, see the articles in Breniquet and Michel 2014.
See also McCorriston 1997; Becker et al. 2016.
1237 Muigai and Hanotte 2013, 43, fig. 2; Gifford-Gonzalez
and Hanotte 2011, 11, fig. 2b.
1238 While the hairy-sheep is more common among nomadic
pastoralists (E. Vila and Helmer 2014, 34), the fat-tailed
sheep could also survive long periods of drought or scarce
feed (Rocha, Chen and Beja-Pereira 2011, 1238). Whether
or not the fat-tailed variety was bred in response to the
possible climatic shifts between the late Old Kingdom and
the First Intermediate Period deserves further study.
1239 Serpico and White 2000b, 407.
affected the increased breeding of the wool-sheep.1240
Its postulated funerary and cultic associations may
have additionally influenced its adoption, although
such a significance likely continued to be attributed
to the hairy variety. Therefore, the process leading to
the wool-sheep’s adoption as part of Egyptian animal
husbandry was feasibly multifaceted and dynamic,
likely inclusive of the developments at Tell el-Dab‘a
but especially of other regions in Egypt and Nubia.
5.4.5.1.4 Observations
Overall, then, the conscious and deliberate introduction
of particular plants and animals in the Fifteenth
Dynasty cannot be verified by the available evidence.
As with the horse, the entry of these species into Egypt
was likely not related to a singular phenomenon.
Tell el-Dab‘a’s population clearly had access to flora
and fauna from the Near East, certain species of
which were likely of greater dietary and/or symbolic
significance than others. Some species, however,
were also imported into Egypt prior to and during the
independence of the harbour city, occurring at sites
that feasibly had good access to trade routes and/or
were frequented by groups of non-Egyptian origin.
Several routes have been conjectured, including
movements across land and/or sea via the Levant,
and those via the Horn of Africa or eastern Africa.
Those that were evidently integrated into Egyptian
horticultural or agricultural activities, or animal
husbandry, include the pomegranate tree and the wool-
sheep, both attested at Tell el-Dab‘a but the latter also
at other sites. If representations of humpedback cattle
are related to Bos indicus, then this species may also be
assumed as introduced fauna of the Middle Kingdom,
although with no evidence as of yet surfacing from Tell
el-Dab‘a. Both animal species would have been well-
suited to the Egyptian environment, and both likely
did not necessitate very divergent skills in breeding
or rearing as those related to the hairy-sheep or Bos
taurus already in Egypt. This could have promoted
their incorporation into the activities of communities
across Egypt. The pomegranate tree could also be
cultivated in more temperate areas of Egypt, the
gardens of the New Kingdom elite providing suitable
conditions. Its value and perhaps cultic significance
possibly spurred its cultivation, as did the socio-
economic importance of the wool-sheep. To a certain
extent, both were eventually incorporated into other
Egyptian cultural elements, the wool-sheep becoming
the most dominant sheep variant in Egypt.
5.4.5.2 Irrigation and the shaduf
Different and various irrigation techniques in
Egypt and the Near East enabled communities to
more efficiently harness the provision of water for
agricultural and horticultural demands. Due to the
generally regular annual cycle of the Nile River, the
1240 See Chapter 5.4.3.
 Technological and Militaristic Transformations
Fig. 5.75 A cylinder seal impression (Louvre A.156) showing the use of a shaduf. Akkadian Period.
After Bagg 2012, fig. 14.1
need for artificial irrigation in Egypt was, as commonly
assumed, limited.1241 Predominantly based on artistic
and textual evidence, most farmers relied on natural
flood basin irrigation, especially during the Old
Kingdom.1242 While the textual record of the Middle
Kingdom reveals further evidence distinguishing
the irrigation of fields, the archaeological record
additionally points to the development of canal
systems for the supply of water.1243 Alongside such
irrigation systems were devices for the transport
of water. Old and Middle Kingdom scenes attest to
porters carrying water-containers suspended from
shoulder yokes. However, those of the latter half of
the Eighteenth Dynasty represent a new water-lifting
device: the shaduf.
The shaduf consists of a long wooden pole affixed
on a pivot that acted as a lever.1244 One end is for a
counterweight that offsets a container on the other.
The lever device allowed the container to be lifted,
albeit for only 1–3 m. When multiple devices are set up,
further water may be drawn over longer distances.1245
The raised water can be poured into small canals
leading to a garden, vineyard or orchard that needs to
be irrigated.1246 A main advantage of this water-lifting
device is thus its ability to supply water to land higher
than a local water source.1247 It is also relatively simple
to produce.1248 Pre-Sargonic, Third Millennium BC,
1241 See Willcocks and Craig 1913; Butzer 1976; Murray
2000, 513–515.
1242 Butzer 1976; 1984; Mays 2010.
1243 Butzer 1976, 46–48; Eyre 1994, 63–64; 1995. For a
thorough study of water management in Egypt, see Driaux
2010.
1244 N. de G. Davies 1933b, 70–73; Molenaar 1956, 8; Butzer
1976, 44; Bagg 2012, 264–265.
1245 Molenaar 1956, 8; Bagg 2012, 264.
1246 Manniche 1989, 10–13; Thanheiser 2006, 304.
1247 Oleson 2000.
1248 Eyre 1994, 63–64.
333
texts from Girsu indicate that the device was utilised
in Mesopotamia, where artificial irrigation systems
were essential for the distribution and management
of water supplies.1249 Its earliest depiction occurs on
a late Akkadian cylinder seal that represents it as
a triangular-shaped device (Fig. 5.75).1250 In Egypt,
portrayals of the shaduf occur centuries later, leading
some to identify it as a foreign influence;1251 Bietak has
recently proposed its introduction at Tell el-Dab‘a.1252
Direct evidence from Egypt, however, is scarce.
The identification of the shaduf in Eighteenth and
Nineteenth Dynasty texts remains doubtful,1253 and
only four scenes are known to depict it in use. Two
date to the Amarna Period, and two to the reign of
Ramesses II. Of the Eighteenth Dynasty, the Theban
tomb of Neferhotep (TT 49) features the device with
an amphora receptacle watering a garden of what
appears to include date-palms, dom-palms, sycamore
and perhaps olive trees, as well as a small vineyard
(Fig. 5.76a).1254 The Amarna tomb of Meryra preserves
only one end of the device (the counterweight?) in the
midst of a garden filled with a variety of trees, again
including date-palm but also dom-palm, pomegranate,
and perhaps persea or mandrake (Fig. 5.76b).1255 The
utilisation of the device in gardens with trees again
surfaces in the Nineteenth Dynasty tomb of Ipy
(TT 217) at Deir el-Medina, wherein gardeners work
a series of shadufs with amphorae receptacles to water
various plants such as pomegranate, persea, mandrake,
poppies, sycamore, cornflowers, papyrus, and lotus
1249 Bagg 2001, 40–41.
1250 Bagg 2001, 40, fig. 2; 2012, 264, fig. 14.1.
1251 See, for instance, N. de G. Davies 1933b, 70–73; Butzer
2001, 186.
1252 Bietak 2010a, 20–21; personal communication.
1253 N. de G. Davies 1933b, 70.
1254 N. de G. Davies 1933b, 36, pl. 47.
1255 N. de G. Davies 1903, 41–42, pl. 32.
334 Chapter 5
flowers (Fig. 5.76c).1256 A series of shadufs is similarly
represented in the tomb of Nedjemger (TT 138) at
Sheikh ‘abd el-Qurna among a garden of such trees as
date-palm and olive (?) (Fig. 5.76d).1257
It is uncertain whether the rare attestations of the
shaduf in Egypt point to the restricted importance
of its inclusion in scenes and texts related to
horticultural activities, or its limited use. Certainly,
the very employment of such a water-lifting device in
Egypt is dependent on the need for transporting water.
Technological knowledge of its leverage principle
would have been known by the Egyptians well before
the New Kingdom, while materials required for its
manufacture would have been readily accessible.
Despite its simplicity, the shaduf was likely limited
in its capacity and thus only suitable for small-scale
water distribution.1258 Furthermore, associated labour
costs are estimated to be quite high for a relatively
small area to be watered using the shaduf.1259 To
more effectively utilise the device, as reflected in all
its artistic portrayals, plants, trees or vines could be
arranged in straight rows, along which runnels could
be constructed to feed individual pits.1260 In turn,
the shaduf ’s use may have been tied to the existence
and proliferation of gardens, orchards or vineyards
that required smaller-scale water distribution, which
would have been owned by individuals who could
afford the shaduf ’s labour costs. The representation
of smaller opulent gardens with new crops and
trees became more commonly attested by the mid-
Eighteenth Dynasty. These were closely related to the
development of private wealth centred on small-scale
irrigated agriculture and the cultivation of different
crops for an urban elite.1261 Correspondingly, the need
for a water-lifting device such as a shaduf may have
been more prominent in such a context.
As to whether the concept was introduced from
the Near East, a few points should be highlighted.
The first is the occurrence of all known depictions
of the shaduf in tombs assigned to two periods of
heightened Egyptian-Near Eastern interactions, when
newly established capitals may have necessitated
modified water management initiatives.1262 The use of
the amphora as receptacle cannot be used as a clear
indicator of foreign influence, as, by the Amarna
Period, the amphora type was locally and commonly
1256 N. de G. Davies 1927, 52–53, pl. 28.
1257 The shape of the receptacles cannot be verified. Feucht
2006, 7, 56, folding pl. 1.
1258 One man working on the device is estimated to be able to
raise an average of 3 m2 of water per hour. Molenaar 1956,
8; Bagg 2012, 264.
1259 Willcocks and Craig 1913, 370, 374–375; Eyre 1994, 64.
1260 Eyre 1994, 64.
1261Moreno García 2014, 244.
1262 In reference to Akhenaten’s capital, N. de G. Davies
(1933b, 73) comments that ‘The task of supplying the large
population and the gardens of the palace and private houses
with water was formidable’.
produced in Egypt.1263 Its triangular shape and
pointed base, however, are close equivalents to the
features of the receptacles depicted in Mesopotamian
representations of the shaduf.1264 The inclusion of at
least one type of introduced plant species in most,
if not all, of the Egyptian representations is also
noteworthy.1265 Though one may propose that their
cultivation required an irrigation device, such as the
shaduf, the plants are attested in other sources, and
so the extent of the device’s incorporation may not be
solely related to their cultivation. On the other hand,
the Egyptians may have sought the knowledge or
skills of Near Eastern gardeners and horticulturalists
to grow such plants, who may have then introduced the
concept of the water-lifting device to restricted circles
in Egypt. Such Near Eastern vintners are mentioned
in Eighteenth Dynasty texts,1266 especially during the
Amarna and Ramesside Periods. This could provide
one explanation for the rare attestations of the shaduf
in the Egyptian records.
In regards to such vintners, one may speculate
whether the garden or vineyard found in Stratum B/3
near the trapezoidal complex, or so-called Temple
of Seth, at Tell el-Dab‘a featured the shaduf (see
Fig. 4.17).1267 Postulated to have been in use from
Phase D/1, the garden comprised widely spaced pits,
perhaps the foundations of a trellised vineyard,1268
that may have benefitted from an irrigation system
utilising a water-lifting device. Such a device has also
been connected to the earlier water supply system
uncovered in the large complex of Area F/I, Stratum
d/1 (Phase G/4), the scale of which perhaps required a
shaduf to transport water across irrigation canals and
along rows of tree pits and flowerbeds.1269 The later
palatial complex of Area F/II additionally featured a
well, circa 12.5 m x 10 m x at least 4 m deep, that
would have necessitated vessels to move water to
the complex, while that of the late Hyksos Period in
Area H/III, Phase D/2, also yielded a complex water
supply system.1270 The tentative introduction of the
cultivation of such plants as the pomegranate at Tell
el-Dab‘a may have additionally correlated with
different water-distribution techniques. From this
evidence, the presence of both access to knowledge
regarding the shaduf as well as the need for such a
device at the site may be postulated. However, the
evidence altogether still remains too restrictive to
confirm its introduction and adoption by the Egyptians
in direct relation to Dynasty 15.
1263 See Chapters 5.3.3 and 5.4.5.3. On the reuse of amphorae,
see Leonard 1995, 250–252, fig. 15.13.
1264 N. de G. Davies 1933b, 72.
1265 For more on introduced plant species, see Chapter 5.4.5.1.
1266 See Chapter 5.4.5.3.
1267 See Chapter 5.4.5.3.
1268 Bietak 1985a; 1990; 2010b, 164–165; 2011, 23; Bietak and
Forstner-Müller 2011, 34, fig. 6. See also Chapter 3.2.1.2.
1269 Bietak 2010a, 20, fig. 26a; personal communication.
1270 Bietak 2010a, 21, figs. 24, 26b; personal communication.
 Technological and Militaristic Transformations 335

(a) Scene from the tomb of Neferhotep (TT 49),

(b) Scene from the tomb of Meryra, Amarna, Amarna
el-Khokha, reign of Tutankhamun to Horemheb,
Period, Dynasty 18 (after N. de G. Davies 1903, pl. 32)
Dynasty 18 (after N. de G. Davies 1933b, pl. 47)

(c) Scene from the tomb of Ipy (TT 217), Deir el-Medina, reign of Ramesses II, Dynasty 19
(after N. de G. Davies 1927, pl. 28)

(d) Scene from the tomb of Nedjemger (TT 138), Sheikh ‘abd el-Qurna,
reign of Ramesses II, Dynasty 19 (after Feucht 2006, folding pl. 1)

Fig. 5.76 Scenes showing the use of the shaduf

336 Chapter 5
5.4.5.3 Viticulture, wine, and drinking habits
Wine and beer were consumed in Egypt at least since
the Predynastic Period.1271 It is also from this time
onwards that beer became a common and valuable
beverage for all social classes, and wine became a
favoured prestigious product for royalty, the elite,
and the upper classes.1272 The funerary significance
of both is gleaned from, for instance, the presence
of storage jars for a variety of beverages from Early
Dynastic Period tombs onwards, as well as tomb
scenes and offering formulae and lists mentioning
beer and wine. Imported Near Eastern storage jars, as
well as inscriptions on wine jars from before the Old
Kingdom support the early institutional control of the
distribution of imported beverages, and possibly the
production of wine.1273 Beer was commonly produced
at various small- and large-scale operations, the
beverage an important staple of the Egyptian diet and
even a form of payment. In contrast, labels for wine
include details of the type of product, its quality and
quantity, geographic origin and destination, the date
(regnal year) in which it was sealed, as well as the
winemaker.1274 The earliest confirmed use of wine in
cultic activities and ritual offerings surfaces in Old
Kingdom texts and artistic depictions, suggesting
that the Egyptians also considered it to have sacred
properties.1275 Jar labels and offering lists of the Old to
New Kingdom further point to the production of wine
in the Delta. They additionally indicate that most of
Egypt’s state, temple and private vineyards were in the
Eastern and Western Delta, although New Kingdom
vineyards in the Western Desert and Upper Egypt
are also attested.1276 The corpus of evidence increases
in the New Kingdom, signalling more widespread
consumption of wine and, possibly, a different type or
method for its production,1277 with new vessel types or
other equipment to facilitate drinking the beverage.1278
This has been attributed to heightened interactions with
the Near East, either specifically to the Hyksos Period
or to the campaigns of the Eighteenth Dynasty.1279
5.4.5.3.1 The evidence from the Near East
Several beverages were produced and consumed by
societies across the Near East, including different
types of wine and beer. From the Fourth to the
Second Millennium BC, wine and possibly beer
1271 Murray, Boulton and Heron 2000, 577.
1272 Poo 1995, 28–29; T.G.H. James 1995; Tallet 1998a.
1273 Emery 1961, 208; Dreyer 1992; 1993; Poo 1995, 5;
Murray, Boulton and Heron 2000, 577; Hartung 2002;
Hartung et al. 2015.
1274 Koenig 1979; Tallet 1998a; 1998b; Guasch 2010.
1275 Poo 1995, 5.
1276 This is also the case for Theban temples with vineyards in
Lower Egypt. Poo 1995, 13–17.
1277 Lerstrup 1992; Lesko 1995; Tallet 1998c; Murray,
Boulton and Heron 2000, 577–578.
1278 See Bourriau 2004, 82.
1279 Tallet 1998c, 108–109; Bourriau 2004, 85; Bietak 2011, 32.
consumption emerged as significant practices among
elite groups in ancient Mesopotamia, Anatolia and the
Levant, correspondingly transforming agricultural
and production activities, as well as the ceramic
repertoire.1280 As in Egypt, beer was an important
dietary staple that was consumed by peoples of
different social classes, and produced at the household
and institutional levels. Both beer and wine were
drunk at feasts, rituals, and festivals. Representations
of banqueting on Third and Second Millennia BC
cylinder seals attest to the symbolism of ‘raising
a cup’, likely of wine, and its ties to kingship and
status, the banquets themselves associated with feasts,
ritual activities, and other celebratory events such
as victory in battle.1281 Textual sources of the early
Second Millennium BC from, for instance Mari, Tell
Leilan or Tell el-Rimah, confirm the importance of
wine for gods, royalty, and others of high status, the
liquid additionally consumed on special events and
gifted to dignitaries, both local and foreign.1282 An
essential element of cultic activities, wine also played
an important role in funerary rituals.1283 This inclusion
in feasting and ritualistic activities emphasises the
significance of wine in events that help demarcate
social relations, the alcoholic beverage itself expressing
status and wealth.1284 Supplying this demand for wine
were commonly the wine-producing regions of the
Levant, Anatolia, and Iran, with evidence for the
early development of grape cultivation and viticulture
occurring in the Neolithic Period to the EBA.1285
Further confirming the production of wine in the
Levant is its evidence from Egypt. A Marl C jar from
the burial of Sitweret at Dahshur, for instance, was
provided with a label that may be read as irp n (.y)
KT ‘wine of KT’, a toponym identified with a site near
Homs in modern Syria.1286 The Tale of Sinuhe also
contains a reference to Levantine drinking habits
and viticulture. In describing the land of IAA, the
text notes that
iw dAb.w i m =f Hn a iArr. t wr
n =f irp r m w aA ‘figs were in it as well as grapes. It
had more wine than water’.1287 As a guest of a ruler of
RTn w, and eventually as a minor ruler himself, wine
was offered to Sinuhe daily.1288 The trade in wine most
likely continued throughout the Middle Kingdom
1280 See Algaze 1995; Powell 1995; I. Winter 1999; Yasur-
Landau, Cline and Samet 2011; Laneri et al. 2015; Laneri
2018.
1281 See Ziffer 2005; I. Winter 1999. See also Zuckerman 2007.
1282 Laneri 2018, 228. For the trade in Anatolian wine, see also
Corti 2017; Barjamovic and Fairbairn 2018.
1283 Tsukimoto 2010; Laneri 2018, 228–229. See also Lev-Tov
and McGeough 2007.
1284 See Joffe 1998; Dietler 2001; Steele 2004, 281–284.
1285 For an overview, see Zohary and Hopf 1994, 149; Zohary
1995; McGovern et al. 1997; N.F. Miller 2008.
1286 S.J. Allen 2009, 327, fig. 1 [11].
1287 Tale of Sinuhe, lines B82. K. Koch 1990, 41.
1288 Tale of Sinuhe, lines B87–88. K. Koch 1990, 42.
 Technological and Militaristic Transformations
and Second Intermediate Period. Imported Levantine
amphorae at such sites as el-Lisht, Kom Rabi‘a, and
other sites in the Eastern Delta, for instance, may have
been for the storage and transportation of wine.1289
It should be noted, however, that while the textual
evidence suggests that the Egyptians valued wine
imported from the Near East, particularly the Levant,
these vessels could have been used for other liquids.
5.4.5.3.2 The evidence at Tell el-Dab‘a
Both textual and archaeological evidence supports
the consumption and production of wine by the
population at Tell el-Dab‘a. Imported Levantine
amphorae and their sherds were collected from
Twelfth Dynasty Strata e/1–4 and d of Area R/I
onwards.1290 The number of imported Levantine
amphorae across the site’s occupation signals the
high demand for their products which, as molecular
analysis suggests, included wine.1291 This, together
with the corresponding use of vessels associated with
drinking wine, especially dipper juglets,1292 suggests
that the practice was not only limited to those of high
status. Their eventual local production also supports
the continued demand for the vessels and/or likely
the product(s) which they contained. Alongside
these developments is the observed reduction in
the number of Egyptian-type beer jars, which are
absent from the ceramic repertoire of Tell el-Dab‘a
by Phase D/3.1293 Although this could be related
to the use of different vessels, a change in social
customs from beer-drinking to wine-drinking at the
site has been proposed, perhaps already evolving
in Phases F–E/3.1294 Whether or not this occurred,
the funerary and cultic contexts of some types of
vessels highly suggest that wine was a significant
element of ritualistic and/or communal activities
at Tell el-Dab‘a. Further support for this could be
sought in the offering pits of A/II’s sacred precinct
and near the forecourt of F/II’s palatial complex,1295
the latter particularly mirroring remains of the ritual
banqueting inferred for the elite of the EBA and
MBA. Perhaps wine was an essential element of
feasts and ceremonies marking significant events for
local cults (such as festivals or burial rites), as well
as those of high status (such as trading ventures or
dignitary visits).
Wine production at Avaris is further mentioned
in the Second Stela of Kamose. The Theban king
1289 See Chapter 5.3.3.
1290 Bagh 2002b, 96, fig. 3; Aston 2004a, 162–165, 239–241.
1291 The molecular analysis of the interior of some jars revealed
that they were filled with resinated wine. Aston 2002,
44–45, figs. 1–9; Bagh 2002b, 96, fig. 3; Schiestl 2002,
346–350; McGovern 2003, 118; Kopetzky 2008, 223.
1292 See Aston 2002, 50; Kopetzky 2008, 207–208.
1293 Bietak 1991b, 39–43; Szafrański 1998, 95–119, fig. 4.
1294 Bietak 2011, 32.
1295 Bietak et al. 2012/2013, 32–38.
337
boasts to Apophis:
m = k s w ri = i i rp n (.y) kAm w = k 1296 m at x
n = i aAm . w n (. w) HAq = i x bi = i s . t = k Hm s i . t Sad = i
m n . w = k ‘Behold, I drink the wine of your vineyard
which the aAm .w whom I captured pressed out for me.
I hack up your place of residence1297 and I cut down
your trees/plantation’.1298 In view of the Near Eastern
practice of a ruler ‘raising his cup’ in banquets, and
likely drinking wine following a battle, it is interesting
that the initial clause here refers to the Theban ruler
assuming this symbolic function. The text, cautiously
approached, also seems to point to the presence of
a vineyard worked by aAm .w in the environs of the
Hyksos city, perhaps near a royal residence and
cultivated land.1299 This adds to the archaeological
evidence uncovered near the large trapezoidal complex
at the site. Assigned to Phase B/3 but postulated to
have been constructed or enlarged in Phase D/1, the
structure was surrounded by tree groves and enclosed
further pits; these are described to be too small for trees
and too widely spaced and large for most plants, and so
appear to be the foundations for the vines of a trellised
vineyard (see Fig. 4.17).1300 Nearby was a plastered
stone basin (1.28 m x 0.62 m) with a bifurcated trough,
each drain of around 3.5 cm each.1301 Its use as a vat
for grape-treading is supported by the identification
of grape following a molecular analysis of its plaster
surface.1302 The combined data thus seems to point to
wine consumption at Tell el-Dab‘a from at least the late
Twelfth Dynasty, and wine production possibly from
the Fifteenth to Eighteenth Dynasty. Its continued
production in the area is corroborated by attestations
of the vineyard of Piramesse, KA- n - k m . t.1303
1296 The stela records the first known attestation of the term
kAmw, which has been interpreted as a Semitic loan-word
(Bietak 1985a, 276; McGovern 2003, 120). Indeed, it is
like the Akkadian karmu ‘mound, grain heap’ or the
Ugaritic krm ‘cultivable land, vineyard’. Yet, as the term
is most likely associated with the earlier kAnw/kAny
‘vineyard’, attested in hieroglyphic texts of the Second
Dynasty, its introduction by Semitic-speaking individuals
during the Middle Kingdom to Second Intermediate
Period is questionable. Perhaps the slight difference may
instead be evidence for dialectal variants of the term (see
Gardiner 1947, 96–97; Hoch 1994, 479; Lesko 1995, 229).
Still, an earlier point of interference cannot be excluded.
1297 R edford (1997, 14) translates this as ‘resthouse’.
1298 Second Stela of Kamose, lines 11–12. Helck 1983a, 93.
See also Habachi 1972, 36; H.S. Smith and A. Smith 1976,
60.
1299 H.S. Smith and A. Smith 1976, 73–74. See Chapter 3.4.1.1.
1300 Bietak 1985a; 1990; 2010b, 164–165; 2011, 23; Bietak and
Forstner-Müller 2011, 34, fig. 6. See also Chapter 3.2.1.2.
1301 Despite its small size, the angle of the outlets would have
efficiently drained the liquid. Bietak 1985a, 274.
1302 McGovern 2003, 120.
1303 Derived from the term kAmw (see Chapter 5.4.5.3.3,
n. 1296). Lerstrup 1992, 63–64; McGovern 2003, 120.
338 Chapter 5
5 cm
0 A stela from Amarna depicts a couple seated before
Fig. 5.77 Strainer or sieve TD 8070.
Chamber of substructure beneath the platform of
Area H/II, ‘Ezbet Helmi, Dynasty 18.
After Bietak 2011, fig. 18
5.4.5.3.3 The evidence from the New Kingdom
As the MBA-type dipper juglets and amphorae also
continue in use into the New Kingdom, the Second
Intermediate Period developments in the Eastern
Delta have been linked to increased wine production
and transformed drinking habits in Egypt.1304
Support for this has been sought in the discovery
of a MBA-inspired polished strainer, or a sieve for
wine or beer, that was collected from a chamber of
the substructure of H/II’s platform at ‘Ezbet Helmi
(Fig. 5.77).1305 Its parallels were commonly discovered
in association with drinking sets, as retrieved from a
MBIIC context at Jericho1306 and metal examples in
later New Kingdom contexts.1307
Furthermore, the Asiatic production of wine
continues to be represented into the New Kingdom.
As Kamose reports to have benefitted from the
knowledge and labour of the captured aAm . w from
Avaris, so did the viticultural activities of the New
Kingdom. A number of wine-making scenes in
tombs of the Eighteenth Dynasty artistically and/
or textually represent individuals with features
commonly attributed to Asiatics. These include the
vintners in the tombs of Intef (TT 155; Hatshepsut
to Thutmose III’s reign; Fig. 5.78), where they
are designated as ap r. w,1308 as well as those in the
1304 Bumann 2009; Bietak 2011, 32.
1305 Hein 1998, 551, fig. 2 [TD 8070]; Bietak 2011, 33, fig. 18.
1306 Garstang 1934, pl. 20 [9]; Ziffer 1990, 120, fig. 134; Hein
1998, 551–553.
1307 Hein 1998, 551. A bronze sieve was collected from Tell
el-Ghurab (Von Bissing 1901, 53 [Nr. 3536]), and another
from Tomb Nr. 114 at Deir el-Balah (Dothan 1979, 20).
1308 Save-Söderbergh 1957, 17, pls. 14c–15. See also N. de G.
Davies 1922, pl. 12; Save-Söderbergh 1952.
tomb of Khaemwaset (TT 261; Thutmose III to
Amenhotep II’s reign).1309 T. Schneider also identifies
a %t wy nA mentioned on an amphora label from the
reign of Hatshepsut as a proper name of Semitic origin
belonging to a vintner.1310 Whether these individuals
were from Western Asia or of Egyptian-Levantine
origin is uncertain, however their Near Eastern
cultural affiliation is supported by attestations of
other gardeners with Semitic names.1311 They could
have been forced to work on the vineyards, or
retained wine-making skills suitable for employment
on Egyptian vineyards.1312
The drinking habits of individuals of Near Eastern
origin were also represented in the Egyptian milieu.
an amphora, the man with the Asiatic features
of a beard, hair fillet and patterned clothing, and
the woman in an Egyptian-type dress.1313 The
accompanying inscription provides them with
Semitic-sounding names &rr and Irb r.1314 Assisted
by a servant, the man drinks from the amphora
before him, perhaps with wine or beer, via the use of
a long drinking straw.1315 Cylinder seal iconography
supports the utilisation of this item from the EBA
onwards in Mesopotamia (Fig. 5.79), while strainers,
usually of metal, from several sites in the Levant and
Mesopotamia likely point to its use by the LBA.1316
Similar strainers were uncovered in New Kingdom
contexts from Egypt, such as at Amarna, Tell el-
Retaba, and Gurob, although their use with other
beverages remains possible.1317 While no evidence
for the drinking straws has yet been found in earlier
contexts, the New Kingdom evidence does signal
at the continued recognition of drinking habits by
individuals of Near Eastern origin.
1309 N.M. Davies 1936, pl. 28.
1310 MMA 36.3.83. Hayes 1957, 79, fig. 1 [d]; T. Schneider
1992, 195 [N 414].
1311 See Spiegelberg 1923, 32; Helck 1971b, 354–360, 367.
Near Easterners and captives continued to be placed to
work in vineyards into the Twentieth Dynasty, as attested
in Papyrus Harris I, 7, 10–12, of Ramesses III’s reign,
and into the Twenty-Fifth Dynasty, as found in Taharqa’s
inscription at the Temple of Kawa, Nubia (see Poo 1995,
11–12).
1312 Lesko 1995, 223; Morris 2014, 371, fig. 15.13.
1313 Berlin 14122. Brovarski, Doll and Freed 1982, 109,
fig. 34; A rnst et al. 1991, 129 [Nr. 80]; Sparks 2004, 37,
fig. 3.4 [a].
1314 T. Schneider 1992, 34–35 [N 51], 237–238 [N 506], 303
[N 51], 339 [N 506]; W.A. Ward 1994, 62.
1315 See C. Simon 1992.
1316 The strainers were possibly positioned at the tip of the
straw. Collon 1982, 38–39 [Nr. 7]; Amiet 1992, figs. 4 [8],
12 [54], 45 [250]; Sparks 2004, 37–38, fig. 3.4 [b]; Ziffer
2005, 134, fig. 2; Laneri 2018, 234, fig. 8.
1317 Petrie 1906, pls. 34a [Tomb 24], 35b; Griffith 1926, 22–
23, fig. 1; C. Simon 1992, 555–556; Sparks 2004, 37–38,
fig. 3.4 [c].
 Technological and Militaristic Transformations 339

Fig. 5.78 A scene showing wine-making activities. Right wall of hall, tomb of Intef (TT 155), Dra‘ Abu el-Naga,
reign of Hatshepsut to Thutmose III, Dynasty 18. After Save-Söderbergh 1957, pls. 14c–15

(a) Louvre II.A.907

(b) Berlin VA 00522

Fig. 5.79 Old Syrian cylinder seal impressions showing drinking customs (after U. Winter 2012, figs. 245, 247)
340 Chapter 5
5.4.5.3.4 Observations
The historical and social developments at Tell el-Dab‘a
appear to have contributed to the overall transformation
of drinking habits and customs in Egypt. The extent of
their influence, however, cannot be fully ascertained.
Wine was always a significant beverage for those of
high status, and featured, for instance, in activities of a
cultic and funerary nature both in Egypt and the Near
East. The value of Levantine beverages was recognised
by the Egyptians since the beginnings of pharaonic
history, while the Delta was consistently represented
as a prime region for wine production. The political
shifts of the Second Intermediate Period and the
growing manifestation of MBA cultural elements in
the Eastern Delta could have likely led to the promotion
of wine production, trade, and consumption from the
mid-Thirteenth to the Fifteenth Dynasty. With the
increased demands of a growing population’s active
cultic and ritualistic activities, initiatives were perhaps
introduced to develop or strengthen the elite’s control
over viticulture alongside the production of MBA-type
vessels linked with wine. Possibly influential were
related consumption habits, including the postulated
significance of the beverage in activities of the elite
and of cults that helped to define and perpetuate social
status and ties, and, perhaps, Near Eastern ways of
drinking beverages. The importance of wine for the
population in the Eastern Delta, especially Avaris,
may have been recognised at least by the Seventeenth
Dynasty administration. Its successors feasibly
encouraged the perpetuation of wine production in
the region into the New Kingdom, with the reputation
of Near Easterners as viticulturalists persisting
and continually transforming alongside consistent
interactions with the LBA.
5.4.6 Scarab and Seal Production
Scarabs, seals, and their impressions of the MBA
and LBA are well-studied for their insights into
not only administrative practices, but also social,
religious and funerary customs, and chronological
determinations. Different workshops in Egypt and the
Near East produced scarabs and seals, with evidence of
interaction and inspiration noticeable in their designs
and shapes. As much research has already been
dedicated to the typology of scarabs and developments
in their features,1318 the following provides only a brief
overview of the impact of MBA Egyptian-Levantine
relations on Egyptian scarab production and practices.
Focus is on key aspects that pertain to the transfer
and transformation of knowledge across Egyptian-
Near Eastern borders into Egyptian socio-cultural
spheres. Discussion of specific motifs, such as that of
the Egyptian storm deity or the nude female, may be
found in respective sections of Chapters 3–5.
1318 See Petrie 1917a; Hornung and Staehelin 1976;
W.A. Ward 1978b; Tufnell 1984; W.A. Ward and Dever
1994; Keel 1995a; Mlinar 2004; D. Ben-Tor 2007a.
5.4.6.1 Developments up to the late Middle Kingdom
In Egypt, the production and use of carved
cylindrical seals may be traced to the Early Dynastic
Period.1319 These continue to surface in Old Kingdom
contexts, with stamp seals, often pyramidal, zoo-
or anthropomorphic, or button-shaped, occurring
from the Sixth Dynasty onwards.1320 Scarab seals
are also more frequent in the late Old Kingdom,
and add to the zoo- and anthropomorphic seals that
continue to be attested in the First Intermediate
Period, when an amuletic function may be discerned.
As amulet, the scarab may have represented the
Egyptian sun and creator god Khepri.1321 Its base
became more frequently carved with designs from
the First Intermediate Period onwards, its impression
attested with a seal function around the early Twelfth
Dynasty.1322 The scarab could be produced from
hard or precious to semi-precious stone, especially
steatite, as well as faience. As it could be embedded
into pectorals, armbands, necklaces and rings, the
production of a scarab may have required several
skills. Depending on its complexity, features and
associated adornments, its production may have
further benefitted from the resources of a network of
craftsmen or workshops.
By late Dynasty 12, seals, particularly scarabs,
were extensively utilised to confirm ownership,
authenticity, or identity by various officials as well as
members of the elite and royal households.1323 Their
administrative function is reflected by such findspots
as those in administrative units of settlements and
fortresses.1324 Several studies have suggested that
this large-scale production of both private- and royal-
name scarabs was fuelled by an initiative of the
central administration, likely under Senwosret III and
Amenemhat III.1325 Common in late Middle Kingdom
archaeological assemblages, scarabs also became the
most dominant of funerary amulets,1326 some of their
designs imbued with healing, protective or apotropaic
functions. Such amuletic and administrative purposes
of scarabs cannot always be differentiated, with a
multifaceted purpose likely in several cases.1327
Albeit difficult to distinguish from late Twelfth
Dynasty productions, Egyptian-type scarabs and seal
impressions continued to be deposited in contexts
1319 See B. Williams 1977, 135–136.
1320 See B. Williams 1977, 135–136.
1321 Hornung and Staehelin 1976, 13–23; W.A. Ward 1978b,
43–47; D. Ben-Tor 2007a, 5.
1322 K eel 1995a, 269–270; Wegner 1995; von Pilgrim 2001,
162; D. Ben-Tor 2007a, 5.
1323 See G.T. Martin 1971.
1324 D. Ben-Tor 2007a, 5–9.
1325 Hornung and Staehelin 1976, 50; B. Williams 1977, 136;
Quirke 1986, 109; Gratien 2001; S.T. Smith 2001; D. Ben-
Tor 2007a, 5.
1326 D. Ben-Tor 2007a, 5.
1327 Tufnell 1984; W.A. Ward and Dever 1994; D. Ben-Tor
2007a, 5–6.
 Technological and Militaristic Transformations
dated, according to their archaeological assemblages,
to Dynasty 13.1328 While some of the scarabs may be
heirlooms, others were likely produced by the central
administration, perhaps before the abandonment
of Itjtawy and the decline in the capital’s sponsored
workshops. Such decline in control over the
production of scarabs is clearly reflected by their
reduced quantity in Second Intermediate Period
assemblages.1329 Nevertheless, production continued,
likely by a small number of workshops in Egypt, to
meet the limited demand for the scarabs’ amuletic and
possibly administrative purposes.1330 Within Egypt,
the majority of provenanced scarabs and impressions
of Dynasty 13 to the Second Intermediate Period were
collected from tombs and cemeteries,1331 with few but
notable exceptions from settlement contexts at, for
instance, Tell Edfu1332 and Tell el-Dab‘a (see below,
Chapter 5.4.6.2).
The Middle Kingdom large-scale production of
scarabs eventually led to multifaceted influences on
local practices beyond Egypt. Egyptian-type scarabs
have been uncovered in Nubia, the Near East, and the rest
of the Eastern Mediterranean.1333 Some were similarly
used for funerary, amuletic or administrative function,
while others were repurposed for use by local groups
for their own needs. In the Levant, several examples
of Egyptian-type scarabs are attested in funerary
contexts, including those of MBIIA and MBIIB Sidon
(Levels 1–6),1334 and the late MBIIA to early MBIIB
Aphek and Tell el-Far‘ah North.1335 Possibly for a
different cultic purpose are the scarabs and seals of the
so-called ‘Montet Jar’ from Byblos. Gathered along
with other items bearing Mesopotamian, Levantine
and Egyptian aspects, such as amulets, pendants, and
beads, the scarabs and seals were placed in a jar and
deposited at the site’s Syrian Temple arguably at some
point between the EBIV/MBI to MBIIA.1336 Examples
of Egyptian-type sealings used for administrative
purposes are the impressions found in the so-called
‘Moat Deposit’ at Ashkelon.1337 Assigned to Phase 14
or the mid-MBIIA period, the deposit yielded 41 seal
impressions, all made by Twelfth to early Thirteenth
1328 Hayes 1953, 191; B. Williams 1977, 136–137; S.T. Smith
1995, 51–80; Wegner 1998, 3–4, 37–41; D. Ben-Tor 2007a,
8–9.
1329 For an overview, see D. Ben-Tor 2007a, 44–45.
1330 D. Ben-Tor 2007a, 44–45.
1331 D. Ben-Tor 2007a, 43–71.
1332 Moeller and Marouard 2011; 2018.
1333 See D. Ben-Tor 2007a, 55–63; Phillips 2008, 121–128.
1334 For an overview, see, with references, Mourad 2015, 176–
180, fig. 6.24 [1–17].
1335 For an overview, see, with references, D. Ben-Tor 2007a,
118–119. See also Mourad 2015, fig. 6.2.
1336 The dates of the jar’s contents and deposition have been
contested. For more, see Tufnell and W.A. Ward 1966;
Kemp and Merrillees 1980, 44–46; O’Connor 1985;
W.A. Ward 1987; D. Ben-Tor 1998.
1337 Stager 2002, 353.
341
Dynasty Egyptian scarabs.1338 They were attached
on a range of materials, including Levantine-type
pottery and perhaps imported chests.1339 According to
Neutron Activation Analysis and petrographic tests,
local clays were used for the sealings. Whether or not
directly involving Egyptians, this signals at the local,
administrative, use of Egyptian-type seals.1340
The presence of such Egyptian scarabs and seals
across the Northern and Southern Levant in the
MBIIA corresponds with the pre-existing local use
and, in some areas, posited Levantine production,
of other seal types, including cylinder seals.1341 Very
possibly, this influenced or inspired the types and
designs of seals created by local workshops which,
around the later phase of the MBIIA, likely began
to produce scarabs.1342 Although no such workshop
has yet been clearly identified in the archaeological
record of the Levant,1343 the details of these scarabs
and their sealings strongly argue against their
production by the workshops producing late Middle
Kingdom scarabs, and for a Levantine origin. The
latter is also supported by the large number of
attestations in Levantine deposits, especially those
dated to the MBIIB and MBIIC. Some of these
objects’ details and shapes imitate their Egyptian
counterparts, some may bear Egyptian motifs in ways
unattested in Middle Kingdom examples, and some
may portray designs previously unknown in Egypt.
In other words, the variety of designs point to their
adaptation by craftsmen for the needs and purposes
of primarily Levantine contexts or Levantine-
influenced consumers. In fact, the dominant
occurrence of Levantine design scarabs in Levantine
burials points not only to an amuletic function, but
also to their increasing importance as part of MBA
funerary assemblages, particularly in sites across the
Southern Levant.1344 Attestations of these Levantine
design scarabs in Second Intermediate Period
contexts in Egypt and Nubia further suggest added
1338 Stager 2002, 353; D. Ben-Tor 2007a, 117–118; D. Ben-Tor
and Bell 2018.
1339 Stager 2002, 353; D. Ben-Tor 2007a, 117–118; Brandl
2018.
1340 Note, however, that this administrative use was possibly
not widespread in the Southern Levant. As D. Ben-Tor
(2007a, 118) writes ‘the small number of late Middle
Kingdom scarabs in the Palestinian series, and the
almost complete absence of sealings in Middle Bronze
Age deposits argue that unlike in the case of Kerma,
this practice did not become common in Middle Bronze
Age Palestine’. In comparison, the administrative use of
scarabs in sealing practices is attested at Kerma during the
Second Intermediate Period (D. Ben-Tor 2007a, 45, with
references). See also Stager 2002, 353.
1341 See, for instance, Teissier 1996.
1342 D. Ben-Tor 2007a, 117.
1343 K eel 1995a, 102–103. For postulated local production
centres in the Northern Levant, see Boschloos 2012a, 181.
1344 D. Ben-Tor 2007a.
342 Chapter 5
uses integrated into transregional activities, some
of which were possibly but not necessarily linked to
Levantine customs.1345
According to D. Ben-Tor, the main impetus for
scarab production in the Southern Levant was
possibly ‘the close commercial contacts and cultural
interaction between Egypt and Palestine during
the Second Intermediate Period’, and between the
Southern Levantine populations and those of the
Eastern Delta.1346 Keel adds that the Levantine
design scarabs may have been produced by Egyptian
craftsmen, or Levantine craftsmen trained in Egypt,
trained by Egyptians, or knowledgeable in Egyptian
designs.1347 Indeed, interactions between the Southern
Levant and the Eastern Delta had increased by the
Second Intermediate Period, indicating a possible
source of inspiration for the posited Levantine scarab
production. On the other hand, contacts with the
Northern Levant were also ongoing while scarabs,
perhaps of Levantine origin, are attested in such
MBIIB burials as those of Sidon.1348 Furthermore,
the use of Egyptian-inspired motifs is otherwise
known, but in different variations, on cylinder seals
of the MBA.1349 As Boschloos concludes in her study
on scarabs in the Northern Levant, local productions
generally arose and flourished when Egyptian imports
were either absent or decreasing in number.1350
Perhaps, then, the proposed Levantine production of
scarabs may be viewed as one of several responses
or adaptations to other regional and supra-regional
socio-cultural and commercial shifts, including the
regionalisation of Egypt and the associated collapse
of large-scale Middle Kingdom scarab production,
as well as the changing roles of several Southern
Levantine sites in the MBA network. The developments
in scarab production in the Eastern Delta and Tell
el-Dab‘a may similarly be viewed as local adaptations
to such emerging situations.
5.4.6.2 The Tell el-Dab‘a workshop
Tell el-Dab‘a and ‘Ezbet Helmi have yielded over 300
scarabs and several hundreds of seal impressions.
A complete corpus of these is yet to be published,
however preliminary publications have already
revealed significant insights regarding scarab
production and practices in the Eastern Delta.1351
Mostly well-stratified and predominantly collected
from tombs, the scarabs from Tell el-Dab‘a have
1345 For an overview, see D. Ben-Tor 2007a, 43–72; Mourad
2017b.
1346 D. Ben-Tor 2007a, 119.
1347 K eel 1995a.
1348 Burials 83 and 100. Loffet 2011/2012, 116–119. See also
Boschloos 2012a, 180; Mourad 2015, 178–179, fig. 6.24
[18–21].
1349 Teissier 1996.
1350 Boschloos 2012a, 179.
1351 See M linar 2001; 2004; Zeger 2009; R eali 2017.
been typologically analysed and, accordingly, some
were assigned to a local workshop.1352 Mlinar’s
seminal study categorises the scarabs into six Types,
Types I–III generally of the Thirteenth Dynasty, and
Types IV–VI of the Fifteenth Dynasty.1353
Type I is the earliest group found at Tell el-
Dab‘a. Of Egyptian type and with parallels from
Thirteenth Dynasty contexts in Egypt and Nubia, it
is only attested from Phases G/1–3 to F.1354 Thus far,
Types II and III have only been uncovered at Tell el-
Dab‘a, although a few examples found in the Levant
at, for instance, Ashkelon or Byblos, may be attributed
to these types.1355 Type II occurs from Phases G/1–3
to F, and Type III from Phases G/1–3 to E/1. Unlike
Type I scarabs, those of Types II and III feature
motifs that are attested on late Middle Kingdom
Egyptian scarabs, and those that are not found on
Egyptian scarabs. Previously unparalleled motifs,
some of which exhibit knowledge in Near Eastern
iconography, include the so-called Hathor-headed
emblem,1356 pseudo-hieroglyphs, and branches.1357
The two types further evince head and back designs
that vary from Middle Kingdom scarabs. Despite
additional differences between Types II and III
in the features of the head, back and side, Mlinar
suggests that they were produced by one workshop
and perhaps one seal cutter.1358 The emergence of this
local scarab workshop aligns well with the known
socio-political and cultural developments observed
in Phases G/1–3 to F, especially with the increasing
Near Eastern influences on the material culture and
the postulated growing independence of Tell el-Dab‘a
from the central administration.1359
From Phase E/2 to D/2, new scarab types are
attested. Some have been identified as imports
from the Southern Levant, some were made by a
local workshop to imitate these imports, and a few
display variant features to those of the imported
types, perhaps signalling a different, Egyptian,
source of inspiration.1360 Type IV scarabs bear
close parallels with those from MBIIA and MBIIB
contexts in the Southern Levant, with such motifs as
the lotus or branch on the back, or an r a-signs and
a tripartite division by uraei on the base.1361 They
were uncovered in contexts assigned to Phases E/2 to
D/3, with one, perhaps an heirloom, in D/3–D/2.1362
Mlinar assigns five additional scarabs to Type V, all
1352 M linar 2001; 2004.
1353 M linar 2001; 2004.
1354 M linar 2004, 107–113, figs. 1–3.
1355 M linar 2004, 119–120; D. Ben-Tor 2007a, 69, n. 340.
1356 See Chapter 4.3.2.2, Fig. 4.38a.
1357 See Chapter 4.2.3.2, Fig. 4.11a–b. M linar 2004, 113–
122, figs. 4–8.
1358 M linar 2004, 113, 120.
1359 See Chapter 3.2.1.1.3–4.
1360 M linar 2004, 122.
1361 M linar 2004, 122–128, figs. 9–11.
1362 TD 802. M linar 2004, 125, fig. 11 [10].
 Technological and Militaristic Transformations
of which uniquely have a ‘head resembling a sickle at
its ventral edge’.1363 The Type V scarabs were found
in tombs of Phases E/1 to D/2, the latest from D/2
from a secondary deposition.1364
In comparison, 19 scarabs are assigned to Type VI,
or the Tell el-Dab‘a workshop of the late Hyksos
Period.1365 All have a trapezoidal head, a plain back,
and six slightly-raised legs, without hairs.1366 They
include one scarab of the otherwise unattested Hyksos
king Shenshek (TD 711), and one of the well-attested
sDAw. ty - bi . ty i m .y - rA sDA.w t @Ar ‘sealer of the
king of Lower Egypt, overseer of the treasury, Har’
(TD 909).1367 Scarabs of this type may also feature
deeply cut figures, such as the human and crocodile
motif, as well as motifs similar to Levantine designs,
such as those of the naked female, and the caprid.1368
Those from stratified contexts occur in deposits
assigned to Phases D/3 to D/2.
The finds at Tell el-Dab‘a thereby reflect the
local use of both late Middle Kingdom Egyptian
and imported Levantine design scarabs, as well as
the local production of scarabs influenced by both
Egyptian and Levantine types. These observations
align with the designs of scarab seal impressions
uncovered at the site, as outlined in preliminary
publications.1369 However, while most scarabs were
unearthed in funerary contexts, seal impressions
were also found in settlement and administrative
contexts,1370 reflecting the multifaceted functions of
the items. Reali notes that this points to the relational
as well as the material entanglement of scarab use
and production at the site.1371
The evidence indicates that both the early and
late Tell el-Dab‘a workshops produced scarabs with
hybridised and possibly creolised elements, with
local developments impacting production as well as
the selection of designs. Indeed, the supra-regional
development of scarab types up to the Fifteenth
Dynasty suggests the occurrence of different,
multidirectional interference processes leading
to the local scarab workshop(s) at Tell el-Dab‘a.
These involved the influences of (1) the large-scale
scarab production in Egypt during the late Middle
Kingdom on both Levantine scarabs and seals as
well as Tell el-Dab‘a Types II and III, (2) the local
socio-political developments on Tell el-Dab‘a’s
workshop(s), including the adaptation of some motifs
1363 M linar 2004, 128–129.
1364 M linar 2004, 129, fig. 12.
1365 M linar 2004, 129–133, figs. 13a–14.
1366 M linar 2004, 129–133, figs. 13a–14.
1367 M linar 2004, 129–133, fig. 13a [2, 4].
1368 M linar 2004, 129–133, figs. 13a–14. See Chapter 4.3.2.2,
Fig. 4.42a.
1369 See R eali 2017; Forstner-Müller and R eali 2018.
1370 See R eali 2017; Forstner-Müller and R eali 2018.
1371 R eali 2017.
343
for local practices/beliefs,1372 officials, and possibly
rulers; and (3) the proliferation of scarab production
in the MBIIB Levant on the use and production of
scarabs at Tell el-Dab‘a. Some scholars, such as Keel
and Reali, further speculate that the local workshops
in the Eastern Nile Delta may have additionally
exported either their products, or knowledge of their
unique motifs, to the Levant.1373 As also examined in
Chapter 4.3.2.2, there is certainly a possibility that
the increased contacts between the regions led to
this exchange of ideas and thereby multidirectional
influences on scarab designs across the regions.1374
In fact, it may be further argued that a few features
promoted by the Tell el-Dab‘a workshops continued
into the New Kingdom.
5.4.6.3 Continuation into the New Kingdom
Scarabs and seals continued to be produced and used
across the Eastern Mediterranean into the LBA.1375
Generally, New Kingdom design scarabs as well as
royal- and private-name scarabs were retrieved from
funerary, cultic and administrative contexts, attesting
to the items’ sustained multifaceted functions.
Nevertheless, significant changes are noticeable in the
designs and motifs of scarabs. Apart from large heart or
commemorative scarabs, they are relatively smaller in
size than scarabs and seals of the Middle Kingdom and
Second Intermediate Period. Side and back features
are more naturalistic, while base designs commonly
feature a simple line bordering representations of
divine and royal figures and animals, royal and divine
names and associated epithets, or, less commonly,
private names.1376 However, the prevalence of royal,
divine or amuletic motifs points to these objects’
primarily amuletic or protective purpose.
In comparing early Eighteenth Dynasty scarabs
and other seals to those of the Second Intermediate
Period, three main trends have been observed:1377
(1) archaism or a revival of First Intermediate Period
to early Middle Kingdom features; (2) continuation
of selected features attested in scarabs produced in
the late Middle Kingdom and Second Intermediate
Period; and (3) newly emerging inclinations towards
particular features.
The demise of the Fifteenth Dynasty is believed to
have promoted an ‘archaising’ trend noticeable with
early Eighteenth Dynasty scarabs, with a resurgence
of scarab shapes and motifs common in the First
1372 For an example, see Chapter 4.3.2.2.
1373 K eel 1995a; Reali 2017.
1374 R eali 2017.
1375 See, for instance, Jaeger 1982; K eel, K eel-Leu and
Schroer 1989; K eel 1995a; 1995b; Boschloos 2012a;
2012b; D. Ben-Tor 2015; 2017b; Phillips 2018, 108–138;
Boonstra 2019.
1376 H ayes 1959, 88; Hornung and Staehelin 1976, 54;
D. Ben-Tor 2015, 140–143.
1377 See D. Ben-Tor 2015, 140–143; Boonstra 2019.
344 Chapter 5
Intermediate Period and the Middle Kingdom.1378
Examples may be observed with the scarabs from
the foundation deposits of Hatshepsut’s Mortuary
Temple complex at Deir el-Bahari, some of which
feature lunate heads, lined backs and carved legs, or
such motifs as the n b. ty-design, and combinations of
spiral and floral designs.1379 Their features, material
(mostly glazed steatite), context, and high quality
suggest their early Eighteenth Dynasty production in
a royal or temple workshop, very possibly one located
in Thebes.1380 As D. Ben-Tor notes, the attestation
of scarabs naming two Second Intermediate Period
kings, including Kamose, signal that Theban scarab
production was already operational.1381 Therefore,
the (re-)appearance of scarab features comparable to
those of the early Middle Kingdom may have been
tied to the promotion of local scarab workshops that
catered to the Theban administration.1382 D. Ben-Tor
further proposes that the archaism was associated
with the promotion of iconographic conventions that
paralleled earlier Theban traditions, and to a dynasty
when Thebes was the capital of a ‘unified’ Egypt.1383
At the same time, a few features interestingly parallel
shapes and motifs of the late Middle Kingdom and the
Second Intermediate Period, including those produced
by the Tell el-Dab‘a workshop as well as those of
Levantine design. One shape that is attested in posited
early Eighteenth Dynasty productions is the cowroid
type, as exhibited by MBIIB finds from the Southern
Levant.1384 According to Keel, these cowroids have a
smooth back and are commonly found in MBIIB to
LBII contexts.1385 Narrower and longer than the rounder
early Middle Kingdom to early Second Intermediate
Period cowroids, the MBIIB Levantine examples find
some similarity to cowroids from early Eighteenth
Dynasty tombs contexts. The latter are more varied
in proportions, and were collected from, for instance,
Hatshepsut’s Mortuary Temple foundation deposits,1386
the late Second Intermediate Period to early Eighteenth
Dynasty deposits at the sanctuary of Gebel el-Zeit,
Site 1,1387 and the tomb of Hatnefer and Ramose (below
TT 71) at Sheikh ‘abd el-Qurna, dating between the
reigns of Thutmose II and Hatshepsut.1388
1378 D. Ben-Tor 2007a, 113; Boonstra 2019.
1379 D. Ben-Tor 2015, 140, figs. 1–2; Boonstra 2019, 211.
1380 D. Ben-Tor 2015, 140, figs. 1–2; Boonstra 2019, 194–197.
1381 D. Ben-Tor 2007a, 113.
1382 D. Ben-Tor 2007a, 113; 2015, 140. For more on the
workshops of the early Eighteenth Dynasty, see Boonstra
2019.
1383 D. Ben-Tor 2015, 140–141.
1384 K eel 1995a, 79–80 [Nrs. 190–193]; D. Ben-Tor 2015, 142.
1385 K eel 1995a, 78.
1386 Hayes 1959, 87, fig. 84 [top row, first and second from the
left]; D. Ben-Tor 2015, 142.
1387 R égen and Soukiassian 2008, 131, 140–146; Boonstra
2019, 124.
1388 Boonstra 2019, 125. For additional sites that yielded such
cowroids, see Boonstra 2019, 124–126.
Two examples of similar scarab back features
include V-shaped marks and the so-called ‘Shesha’
back type. V-shaped marks on the shoulders of the
back of a scarab (‘humeral callosities’) are attested
on one inscribed with the name of Apophis that could
date to the late Second Intermediate Period.1389 They
also occur on Eighteenth and Nineteenth Dynasty
scarabs, such as the likely locally made scarabs
from the early Eighteenth Dynasty Deir el-Bahari
foundation deposits.1390 The ‘Shesha’ type with small
marks on the sides of a plain unlined O-type back
is also usually found on scarabs from the Tell el-
Dab‘a workshop and MBA Levantine contexts,1391
but additionally occurs on a number of scarabs from
the late Second Intermediate Period to the early
Eighteenth Dynasty. These include the scarabs from
the sanctuary at Gebel el-Zeit1392 and Tombs CC 37
and CC 41 at el-Khokha. One scarab with the
‘Shesha’ back type was also collected from the tomb
of Hatnefer and Ramose.1393
Some motifs are further attested in contexts
assigned to the MBIIB in the Levant, as well as
the late Second Intermediate Period and the early
Eighteenth Dynasty in Egypt. For instance, a scarab
from the tomb of Neferkhawet at el-Khokha portrays
deeply cut representations of a falcon-headed figure
near a vertical crocodile atop a n b-sign.1394 Deeply cut
signs, including that of the falcon-headed figure, are
otherwise attested for scarabs of the late Hyksos Tell
el-Dab‘a workshop (Type VI) as well as Levantine
design scarabs.1395 The el-Khokha scarab, however,
features closer parallels to a Type VIa scarab from
Tell el-Dab‘a,1396 and so may be a product of the late
Hyksos Period Tell el-Dab‘a workshop. If so, perhaps
it was traded, gifted, looted, or kept as an heirloom,
until it was deposited in the tomb. As deeply cut
figures and signs are also attested on scarabs from
early Eighteenth Dynasty deposits at ‘Ezbet Helmi,
as elsewhere in Egypt,1397 it is possible that this style
continued to be produced into the Eighteenth Dynasty.
A similar scenario may be reflected by the findspots
of scarabs with an r a-signs. Arguably of Levantine
origin, the an r a-formula is attested in Mlinar’s
1389 Tufnell 1984, pl. 62 [3460]; D. Ben-Tor 2015, 142. The
scarab was found in the tomb of Amenhotep I and could
have been altered after the base’s design. As such, some
have dated the appearance of the V-marks to the Eighteenth
Dynasty (O’Connor 1985, 9, 33; Andrews 1994, 52).
1390 Roehrig 2005c, 142–143 [Nrs. 75c, e, g, m]; D. Ben-Tor
2015, 142.
1391 Boonstra 2019, 112–114.
1392 Boonstra 2019, 113.
1393 MMA 36.3.26. Boonstra 2019, 113, fig. 5.9.
1394 MMA 35.3.46. Boonstra 2019, 213–214, fig. 7.1.
1395 Mlinar 2004, 129–132; D. Ben-Tor 2007a, 95–97, 174.
1396 TD 913. Mlinar 2004, 129–132, fig. 13a [6].
1397 Bietak 2011, 32, fig. 19.
 Technological and Militaristic Transformations
Type IV scarabs at Tell el-Dab‘a.1398 It occurs on scarabs
from such late Second Intermediate to early Eighteenth
Dynasty contexts as the sanctuary of Gebel el-Zeit,
Site 1, Tomb CC 41 at el-Khokha and Tomb 27 at Gurob,
the latter with a ‘Shesha’ back and trapezoidal head.1399
Although most attestations may be products of the
Second Intermediate Period or MBA Levant, Richards
notes that five an r a Southern Levantine scarabs of
uncertain provenance bear otherwise Eighteenth
Dynasty side and back types.1400 Two further scarabs
from Gebel el-Zeit also exhibit the an r a-signs alongside
common Eighteenth Dynasty features.1401 Even if
imported from the Levant, this suggests that the items,
and perhaps the formula, retained some value in Egypt
well into the Eighteenth Dynasty.
Often cited as an indicator of the ‘life-span’ of
scarabs and seals is the corpus collected from floor
deposits of a Phase C/2 workshop complex of the
palatial precinct (Palace J, Workshop W2) at ‘Ezbet
Helmi (Area H/VI, v/18–20).1402 Zeger’s analysis of the
sealings observes that the majority exhibit late Middle
Kingdom, Second Intermediate Period and Levantine
design motifs; and only a few betray Eighteenth
Dynasty features.1403 Bietak suggests that the mixture
points to the reuse of late Midde Kingdom scarabs,
possibly looted from tombs, to seal items during the
Fifteenth Dynasty, followed by the recovery and
storage of these items during the early Eighteenth
Dynasty.1404 Moeller and Marouard instead propose
that the assemblage points to the continued production
of scarabs with a variety of motifs, signifying
the transitional cultural horizon of the Second
Intermediate Period to the Eighteenth Dynasty.1405 The
latter would greatly favour the transmission of local
knowledge of scarab production in the Eastern Delta
from the Second Intermediate Period to the New
Kingdom. Indeed, both theories support the possibility
that some individuals in the early Eighteenth Dynasty
encountered sealings and/or scarabs that were
produced by the Tell el-Dab‘a workshop. Perhaps,
then, the impact of these encounters is reflected in the
continuation of particular scarab features into the New
Kingdom, alongside newly emerging types.1406
1398 Mlinar 2004, 128. For more on this motif, see Tufnell
1984, 121; Keel 1995a, 175–176; F. Richards 2001;
D. Ben-Tor 2007a, 83–85.
1399 R égen and Soukiassian 2008, 211, 256, 265.
1400 F. R ichards 2001, 111, fig. 4.35.
1401 Boonstra 2019, 161, 213.
1402 Bietak 2004; Zeger 2009.
1403 Zeger 2009.
1404 Bietak 2004.
1405 Moeller and Marouard 2018, 192–193.
1406 Scarabs collected from Area H/I, an area of workshops
assigned to Phase C/2 north of Palace F, include the royal
names of early Eighteenth Dynasty kings, signalling
continued access to scarabs produced in the New Kingdom.
For the scarabs, see Bietak, Czerny and Prell 2016. See
also Chapter 3.2.1.2, n. 151.
345
As such, the combination of Middle Kingdom and
Second Intermediate Period motifs with Eighteenth
Dynasty features suggests the transmission of
knowledge of scarab designs produced in the Levant
and/or at Tell el-Dab‘a, even if via the reuse of scarabs.
It remains uncertain whether or not this points to the
sustained operation of the scarab workshop at Tell el-
Dab‘a, hinted at by the sealings from ‘Ezbet Helmi; the
movement and continued employment of craftsmen
and/or apprentices from the Tell el-Dab‘a workshops
elsewhere in Egypt; or the adaptation of Levantine
design or Fifteenth Dynasty design motifs by other
workshops, perhaps at Thebes. The continuity of
scarab features could have further been affected by
other sources of influence or inspiration. This includes
the possible continued imports of scarabs from the
Levant and their consequent influences on Egyptian
scarab production, which may have occurred until
Levantine production was generally overtaken either
by Egyptian scarab production or Egyptian control
over Levantine scarab production in the LBI.1407 The
shift is assumed to have occurred around the reign of
Thutmose III, with most Eighteenth Dynasty scarabs
recovered from LBA Levantine contexts believed to
be imports.1408
Another path of transmission is via encounters with
individuals from the Near East, as opposed to the groups
formerly ruled by the Fifteenth Dynasty, who may have
affected early Eighteenth Dynasty scarab production.
Such influence has been posited for the manufacture of
a small number of scarabs predominantly of red jasper
or carnelian, with a simple X-sign, six-pointed star,
or additional vertical and horizontal lines decorating
the base.1409 They are found in Egypt, the Levant, as
well as the Aegean, one of the earliest from the tomb of
Hatnefer and Ramose.1410 Based on Boschloos’s analysis
of their chronological and geographical distribution,
the scarabs were likely produced in an Eighteenth
Dynasty Memphite workshop.1411 This agrees with the
known attestations of increased cultural interactions in
the Memphite region at this time.1412
However, as aforementioned, Thebes likely hosted
other workshop(s) producing early Eighteenth
Dynasty scarabs and seals. This raises the question
of how archaistic trends were contemporaneous with
the display of features previously attested in the
Levantine or Tell el-Dab‘a corpora, as observed with
the scarabs of Hatshepsut’s foundation deposits. In
this case, it is feasible that their production at a temple
or royal workshop provided a suitable space wherein
skilled craftsmen or products from Tell el-Dab‘a, the
Eastern Delta or the Levant may have been present.
1407 K eel
1994, 225–226. See also D. Ben-Tor and Keel 2012.
1408 SeeKeel 1994, 225–226; D. Ben-Tor and Keel 2012.
1409 Boschloos 2012b.
1410 MMA 36.3.158. Boschloos 2012b; Boonstra 2019, 156–159.
1411 Boschloos 2012b.
1412 Boschloos 2012b, 9–10.
346 Chapter 5
Furthermore, while scarab motifs and features may
be arguably copied after personal examination, it is
questionable that only a few particularities exhibited
by Levantine design or Tell el-Dab‘a scarabs are
attested into the New Kingdom. For instance, apart
from those listed above, the motif of the caprid and
branch also emerges among the deposits’ scarabs,1413
and continues to be attested throughout the Eighteenth
Dynasty.1414 Perhaps, then, the workshop that
produced these motifs did not only require knowledge
of the features, but also consumers that would value
their symbolic significance. Although this could be
related to beliefs held by the local groups at Tell el-
Dab‘a and/or the Levant, the motifs may have also
been interpreted differently by those who used the
early Eighteenth Dynasty scarabs in Egypt, south of
the Eastern Delta.
Eventually, by the mid-Eighteenth Dynasty,
quintessential Eighteenth Dynasty scarab features
dominate the scarab corpus both in Egypt and the
Levant. These include an increase in royal and divine-
name scarabs, as well as zoo- and anthropomorphic
figures, hieroglyphic texts, and a small number of
scarabs with spiral patterns.1415 This trend continues
into the later Eighteenth Dynasty, during which
scarabs with amuletic texts further proliferate. A
brief decrease in production is, however, posited
during the Amarna Period.1416
Changes are again noticeable by the Nineteenth
Dynasty, with scarabs bearing features inspired
by MBA Levantine design scarabs as well as those
from Tell el-Dab‘a. These include such base designs
as deeply cut representations,1417 the falcon-headed
figure,1418 the an r a-formula,1419 the wDA. t-eye with
an L-shaped red crown,1420 the Dd -sign between
L-shaped red crowns,1421 and the horizontal lion as
primary motif.1422 Aspects common in the Second
Intermediate Period are also attested, as with a
particular symmetric layout of hieroglyphs.1423 As
1413 MMA 27.3.394. D. Ben-Tor 2015, fig. 5 [4].
1414 Jaeger 1982, 171 [Nr. 10].
1415 Hayes 1959, 88; Hornung and Staehelin 1976, 54; D. Ben-
Tor 2015, 140–143.
1416 Phillips 2008, 117–118.
1417 Phillips (2008, 118) notes another possible source of
inspiration for the deep cuts: ‘The popular use… of sunk
rather than raised relief for large scale decoration of
temples’.
1418 Teeter 2003, 65; Gromadzka and R zpeka 2011, 105.
1419 For a discussion and references, see D. Ben-Tor 2017b,
202–206, figs. 7–9b.
1420 For a discussion and references, see D. Ben-Tor 2017b,
196–198, fig. 1a–b.
1421 For a discussion and references, see D. Ben-Tor 2017b,
198–200, fig. 2.
1422 For a discussion and references, see D. Ben-Tor 2017b,
206, fig. 11.
1423 For a discussion and references, see D. Ben-Tor 2017b,
200–202, fig. 4.
a large number of scarabs with these features has
been uncovered in LBIIB Levantine contexts, some
have suggested that large-scale scarab production
in the Levant was revitalised.1424 This, however, has
been refuted by specialists who have pointed out the
scarabs’ high quality, the attestation of royal- and
divine-names, as well as the use of predominantly
Egyptian features for the scarab’s heads, sides and
backs; as argued, these more likely imply Egyptian
production of the majority of scarabs from early
LBIIB contexts.1425
Temple or royal workshops producing such scarabs
may have been located in Thebes, Memphis, or
Piramesse.1426 The re-emergence of Levantine-inspired
designs has thereby been explained in relation to the
establishment of the new dynasty’s capital and ‘the
Ramesside historical and cultural recollection of the
Hyksos capital’.1427 As the Theban administration may
have intentionally commissioned scarabs displaying
archaistic motifs from the early Middle Kingdom,
so it is possible that the Ramesside administration
promoted the use of iconography which was
common in the region when it hosted the capital of
a former dynasty. Indeed, as examined elsewhere
in this study,1428 the proposed continuation of some
occupation and cultic activity in the Eastern Delta,
especially at Tell el-Dab‘a, from late Dynasty 12 to
19 would have also allowed for the transmission and
continued transformation of knowledge. Perhaps this
hints at the continued operation of scarab workshops
in the Eastern Delta across this period;1429 however,
admittedly, no concrete evidence for this has thus far
been found.
Overall, the developments in scarabs and other
seals from the Middle Kingdom to the New Kingdom
highlight the multidirectional influences between
Egypt and its neighbours on Egyptian scarab
production. This, however, was clearly affected
by socio-political and cultural shifts across the
supra-region. Simply summarised, the prevalent
production and distribution of late Middle Kingdom
scarabs reached, among other regions, the MBA
Levant, leading to similar and dissimilar uses by
local populations. With the decline of the Middle
Kingdom, a demand for the scarabs remained,
leading to the promotion of scarab production, with
adopted, adapted and new scarab features, in local
communities as at Tell el-Dab‘a and other areas of the
MBA Levant. Towards the late Second Intermediate
1424 Brandl 2003; D. Ben-Tor 2017b, 195.
1425 K eel 1989c, 294–319; D. Ben-Tor 2011, 207; 2017b;
Boschloos 2012a, 180.
1426 D. Ben-Tor 2017b, 212.
1427 D. Ben-Tor 2017b, 212.
1428 See Chapters 3.2.1.2, 4.2.5–6.
1429 For the proposed continuation of seal production in the
Delta, see also Bietak and Jung 2007/2008, 217–218,
figs. 4–5; Bietak 2011, 23, 32; D. Ben-Tor 2017b.
 Technological and Militaristic Transformations
Period to the early Eighteenth Dynasty, the rising
Theban administration seems to have sponsored
its own scarab production, with influences from the
Theban sphere and evidence of some adaptations
from items produced in the Levant and/or the Eastern
Delta. With the transition into the Eighteenth Dynasty
and the LBA, the scarab production of Levantine
designs in the Levant dwindled alongside apparently
increasing interactions with Eighteenth Dynasty
Egypt and the growing influences of a stronger
Egyptian administration. Nevertheless, the persistent
interactions with the Eastern Mediterranean could
have led to further posited design influences on
Egyptian scarab production as indicated by the
proposed red jasper or carnelian workshop at Memphis.
By the Nineteenth Dynasty, the political shifts in Egypt
seem to have led to the promotion of iconography
earlier attested in MBA Levantine design scarabs as
well as those of the Tell el-Dab‘a workshop. Whether
fuelled by the promotion of local scarab production
in the Eastern Delta, the (re-)escalated significance of
this region with the new capital of Piramesse, and/or a
political attempt of the new dynasty to associate with
the Delta’s previous affluent dynasty, the Nineteenth
Dynasty scarabs stress the sustained impact of MBA
Egyptian-Levantine encounters on New Kingdom
Egyptian culture.
5.5 Observations on Technological and
Militaristic Transformations
This chapter has discussed selected technological
transformations in Egypt that may have been
introduced or influenced by Near Eastern agents, and/
or the rulers and population at Tell el-Dab‘a. They
range from the military apparatus to items utilised
for functional and other daily activities. Some had
a lasting impact on socio-cultural ideals as well as
social groups, especially those of the military and
upper classes. They involved complex techniques,
imported products, and different skills and expertise,
both for production and use, that would have required
specific knowledge, resources, and facilities. Certain
developments in the military and administrative
apparatus would have been needed to meet these
demands and ensure the most effective utilisation
of these elements. Correspondingly, the monopoly
over these elements would have transformed status
symbols, iconography, and social classes.
The processes of transfer and adoption were highly
dynamic, influenced by several internal and external
factors that could hinder, delay, or promote transmission.
As listed in the introduction to this section, these factors
included access to materials, resources and skills, as well
as the need for a technology and suitable environment that
promoted knowledge exchange.1430 Generally, adopting
1430 I. Shaw 2001, 62; 2012, 97; Roux 2003.
347
different or non-Egyptian technology first necessitated
the precondition of encountering such technology.
Encounters could be either via objects themselves
(e.g. imported via land or sea), or an individual or
group (e.g. mobile populations, migrants, individuals
of non-Egyptian origin, possibly traders), usually at
a node or hub of intercultural interactions or along
a path of exchange (e.g. Tell el-Dab‘a, Beni Hassan,
or Kom Rabi‘a).1431 Knowledge to produce particular
objects, such as weapons, militaristic devices, ceramics,
earrings, scarabs, or textiles, could be gained by the
close observation of their shape, structure and decorative
elements. Based on the visibility of these traits, the
skills involved in producing them, and the skills of the
observer, these aspects could be replicated with the use
of existing technological knowledge in Egypt.
Others, such as methods of shaping or forging,
specific materials and tools used in these methods,
as well as the function and, in some cases, symbolic
value, of the object, could be more definitively
transmitted between individuals. As most of the
discussed concepts that were transmitted from the
Near East to Egypt, or first attested at Tell el-Dab‘a
and then across Egypt, retained many of the latter
aspects, their original transmission by a Near Eastern
individual or group, or via groups in the Eastern Delta,
is highly likely. Indeed, for some, this is supported
by the textual and artistic material, such as the lyre
in the hands of a aAm in Khnumhotep II’s tomb, or
the aAm . t weavers of Papyrus Brooklyn 35.1446.
This, however, does not warrant the adoption of an
object, only access to the knowledge and possibly the
skill to produce and use it. As confirmed by several
studies on transformations in material culture,1432
the incorporation of such knowledge could lead to
changes in technical systems that involved long
processes, not necessarily following a continuous
evolutionary path.
Of the influential factors determining the rate and
nature of the adoption, appropriation, or customisation
of newly acquired technological knowledge is group
identity. According to the chaîne opératoire approach,
processes of production and manufacture are socially
learned and transmitted between individuals or groups
linked by social ties.1433 In Egypt, specialisation in
such crafts as metalworking, jewellery-making, textile
production, pottery-making, or music were likely passed
on through restricted groups, including those tied by
kinship, such as extended families.1434 Those involved
1431 See Gell 1998; Dobres 2000; Layton 2003.
1432 For more on the social aspects embedded in craft
production, see Costin 1991; Lemonnier 1993; Dobres
2000; Shimada 2007; D.E. Arnold 2008; Perlès 2013.
1433 For more on the chaîne opératoire approach, see Leroi-
Gourhan 1964, 164; Creswell 1976; Lemonnier 1992;
Schlanger 2005; Tehrani and Riede 2008; Roux 2016.
1434 Stevens and Eccleston 2007, 155; B. Roberts, Thornton
and Pigott 2009, 1018–1019.
348 Chapter 5
in the military may also be considered as specialists
who developed their unique social organisations.
These groups were feasibly either spatially or socially
restricted, limiting more widespread transmission and
adoption of technological knowledge.1435 However,
as the boundaries of these groups altered, so did the
transmission rate and level affect horizontal (spatial)
and/or vertical (temporal) knowledge transmission.
Also affecting the transmission were organisational
changes connected to shifts in administration and the
identity/structure of the stakeholders.1436 The postulated
slow incorporation of technological elements by the
Eighteenth Dynasty that are otherwise earlier attested
at, for instance, Tell el-Dab‘a, may not only be explained
by the proposed rejection of ‘foreign’ elements.
The trend could be reflective of the persistence and
promotion of Theban groups, especially those tied
to the military who would have their own favoured
arsenal of equipment and commissioned workshops.
It could also be due to a restriction in the movement
and sponsorship of particular groups of craftsmen
following the political shifts in the region. Ties with
former rulers would have been annulled, with the new
administration likely favouring or promoting allied
groups or workshops in the new capital. Craftsmen in
the Delta, for example, may have either discontinued,
or persisted in practicing their acquired skills in the
aforementioned specific, restricted groups, leading to
vertical knowledge transmission, albeit at a likely local
scale, as with some ceramic types. Some crafts possibly
resurfaced at a later stage due to the renewed need for
specific products, as with those perhaps worked by the
metalworkers of Eighteenth Dynasty ‘Ezbet Helmi,
or the seal cutters, metallurgists, and vintners of
Piramesse/Qantir in the Dynasty 19. Craftsmen, such
as textile workers, seal cutters, or vintners, could have
also been incorporated into state-administered, royal
or temple workshops, and households elsewhere in
Egypt after the fall of the Dynasty 15, triggering both
horizontal and vertical knowledge transmission from
the Second Intermediate Period Eastern Delta to the
rest of New Kingdom Egypt.
Therefore, the role of the elite was just as important
as the role of other social groups. Transformations
of elements entangled in daily life activities or cultic
and funerary practices, such as ceramics, textiles,
scarabs or musical instruments, as well as newly
introduced animals involved interactions among and
within groups of herders, musicians, artists, pottery-
makers and weavers. Their promotion coincided with
production and consumption demands, which in turn
was linked to the local elite, regional and/or supra-
regional economies, as well as shared markers of
status, prestige, and power. The organisational and
logistical requirements of some technologies, like
1435 Forsimilar and more recent cases in sub-Saharan African
communities, see Iles 2018, 93–94.
1436 Dardeniz 2017, 143.
metallurgical practices, glassmaking, chariotry, and
even the development of some foodways (e.g. gardens
with pomegranate trees, viticultural activities, and
perhaps the use of the shaduf ) would necessitate
the endorsement and resources either of a state or of
the elite, who would have mutually benefitted from
the economic and/or social values of their products.
Correspondingly, introduced or altered concepts or
technologies would have continually transformed the
organisation and logistics of production or utilisation,
as demand for these values proliferated.
Hence, the interplay of all these factors could help
explain the initial occurrence of Near Eastern or
Near Eastern inspired items or concepts in the late
Middle Kingdom or Second Intermediate Period, and
then their more clear incorporation as ‘innovations’
into the Egyptian social and cultural system by the
New Kingdom. These include, for example, the
composite bow, the lyre, the domed spindle, the
scimitar, and perhaps even the horse. It also provides
a possible explanation for why some do not become
popular, such as particular axe types, or notched bone
musical instruments. In other words, ‘innovations
spread or are rejected precisely because they are
socially relevant’.1437 After they are recontextualised,
they could then develop along a different trajectory
in accordance with shifting values and pursuits,
as is observed with the development of particular
weapon types, the practice of wearing earrings,
tapestry-making, or amphorae production. Of course,
technologies could also be transferred as ‘part of the
package’, their function and use to a certain extent
intertwined with other devices. The most apparent
example of this is the utilisation of particular shield
types, helmets, and body armour alongside the chariot.
As such, it is not surprising that most of the evidence
for discussed technological transformations appears
clustered within particular periods that witnessed
either significant political shifts or policies, or
marked changes in diplomatic or bellicose encounters
with different regions.1438 These include the mid-
Twelfth to early Thirteenth Dynasty, the late Second
Intermediate Period to early Eighteenth Dynasty,
and the Eighteenth Dynasty reigns of Hatshepsut to
Amenhotep II. This does not, however, suggest that
changes did not occur in other periods, but that the
rate and level of transformation could differ according
to the presence of socio-political, organisational,
economic, and functional demands on a local,
regional, and supra-regional scale.1439
1437 S. Hansen et al. 2016, 780.
1438 This has also been observed in other periods of human
history. See S. Hansen et al. 2016, 782.
1439 For this punctuated approach to innovation and change in
technology, see Abernathy and Utterback 1978; Loch and
Huberman 1999. See also S. Hansen et al. 2016, 782–783.
 The Transformation of Egypt
6. The Transformation of Egypt
6.1 Introduction
The emergence of New Kingdom Egyptian culture
was not only related to shifts in the political
organisation of Egypt. It was closely intertwined
with dynamic, multifaceted, and multiple processes
that involved a variety of social groups generating
continuity, adaptation, and innovation. Some of
these processes were influenced by interactions with
foreign elements, or aspects that were previously
not well-embedded in Egyptian society and culture,
as defined by archaeological, artistic, and textual
material from Egyptian contexts. Among these foreign
elements were those from the Near East. The agents
and mechanisms that furthered the presence and rate
of transmission from the Near Eastern repertoire to
the Egyptian repertoire were explored in this study.
Overall, the Fifteenth Dynasty was observed to be
significant for this transmission, but of additional
pertinence were the cultural encounters that preceded
the Fifteenth Dynasty, as well as the geopolitical and
social shifts that occurred with its fall. The following
presents the overall observations on the impact of
Twelfth to Fifteenth Dynasty Egyptian-Near Eastern
encounters on New Kingdom Egypt, including those
on key aspects of the processes of transformation.
6.2 Contexts of Encounters and Agents of
Change
A precondition for the adoption and adaptation of
foreign elements is access to knowledge. This access
is facilitated by contexts of exchange that helped bring
individuals and concepts of various social groups and
cultures together to form third spaces of encounters.
The period spanning the Twelfth to Nineteenth
Dynasties arguably experienced continuous encounters
between Egyptian and Near Eastern, or Near Eastern
inspired, entities. Particular spatial and temporal
contexts witnessed heightened cultural encounters
and, accordingly, their linked processes. Within the
timeframe of this study, two main periods leading up
to the New Kingdom featured increased interactions
between Egyptian and Near Eastern or Near Eastern
influenced elements: (1) the late Twelfth to the mid-late
Thirteenth (Fourteenth) Dynasty; and (2) the second
half of the Fifteenth to very early Eighteenth Dynasty.
After the early Eighteenth Dynasty kings legitimised
and stabilised their authority across Upper and Lower
Egypt, a return to increased Egyptian-Near Eastern
interactions is observed around the reigns of Hatshepsut
and Thutmose III. This, of course, does not object to the
continuity of intercultural encounters outside of these
temporal contexts, however the majority of surviving
data for increased and intensified interactions is largely
assigned to these periods. The temporal clusters have
349
certainly been identified elsewhere; however, the
main error in previous scholarship is the assumption
that internal socio-cultural transformations should be
solely or even primarily attributed to these periods.
This study has instead proposed that they persisted
across the temporal span, with the rise in cultural
encounters influencing the nature, degree, and rate of
some processes of change.
Initial restriction to specific spatial contexts or
social groups is, however, likely. In the first half of
the Twelfth Dynasty, the region around the newly-
established capital of Itjtawy (including the sites of
el-Lahun, el-Lisht, and Dahshur) as well as nomes in
Middle Egypt (including Beni Hassan) likely acted as
spaces where individuals and concepts of Egyptian
and Near Eastern origin were encountered. The
Twelfth Dynasty activities in the Sinai, particularly
Serabit el-Khadim, also helped generate third
spaces of encounters. By the late Twelfth to the mid-
Thirteenth Dynasty, Tell el-Dab‘a became a significant
hub for cultural encounters and accelerated processes
of cultural change. As discussed in Chapter 3,
commercial interactions had intensified by the later
Middle Kingdom possibly due to the site’s promotion
by the central Egyptian administration likely as a node
of trade along different strategic routes. The resultant
growing wealth and power of Tell el-Dab‘a, including
those administering such trade, are evidenced by an
increase in tangible imports from the Near East, as
well as the clear display of Near Eastern elements and
practices in funerary, administrative, and domestic
contexts. These physical manifestations point to the
site’s role as a shared space that enabled varying degrees
of cultural encounters. Conceivably, individuals of
several social groups encountered foreign tangible and
intangible elements, while those from specific groups
encountered individuals travelling from the Near East,
such as merchants, diplomats, and skilled craftsmen.
As explored here and elsewhere, individuals who
exhibited Near Eastern cultural elements also resided
at the site, themselves interacting with transregional
individuals and locals of multiple origin. The presence
of all such individuals provided a further means to
access intangible foreign elements including those
examined in Chapters 3 to 5, such as concepts related
to status, ideology, religion, religious practices, and
foodways; specialised crafts techniques; as well as
means of exchange and communication.
Thus, as a meeting place, Tell el-Dab‘a offered real
liminal third spaces, or a Middle Ground, where
materialities of multiple origins were encountered.1
1 See Fahlander 2007.
350 Chapter 6
This triggered processes that resulted in the mixture
of cultural elements, their adaptation, and/or their
negotiation. As identified throughout this study,
specific zones where such processes may have ensued
include the administrative complexes of Area F/I in
Phase G/4 and F/II in Phases E/3 to D/2, as well as
the sacred precincts across the site, especially that
of Area A/II from Phases F to D/2. These spaces
were used for activities that enforced social cohesion
and collaboration, such as religious, ritualistic,
cultic, diplomatic, and administrative or political
affairs. They also likely welcomed a variety of social
groups and cultures, offering direct access to and
interaction with contemporaneous cultural elements
and developments from Egypt, the Near East, as
well as the reinterpreted elements that emerged at
the site and the Eastern Delta. The convergence of
concepts, rituals, and practices in shared spaces
enabled the negotiation of distinct cultural elements
and beliefs, leading to the synthesis of adopted, mixed,
reinterpreted, or new elements. Beyond Tell el-Dab‘a,
routes and hubs linked to the site during and after this
pivotal period of intensified encounters would have
facilitated not only the movement of cultural elements,
but also the transmission of knowledge. This included
the reciprocal exchange of knowledge regarding the
foreign elements and/or their reinterpretations, as well
as the means of correspondence and communication
that furthered such exchange.
Several groups were likely instrumental as agents
of transfer and negotiation. The evidence from the
late Twelfth to Fifteenth Dynasty suggests that local
rulers and their entourage of officials, such as those at
Tell el-Dab‘a at the abovementioned administrative
complexes, were mediators of relations with Near
Eastern entities. The complex at Area F/I, for instance,
revealed the possibly locally made cylinder seal
depicting a Near Eastern-type storm deity. Its associated
area with tombs yielded a variety of Levantine imports,
customs with close Near Eastern parallels, and even
fragments of a statue likely of a high status individual
portrayed with mixed Egyptian and Asiatic features.
The later complex at Area F/II contained the cylinder
seal impression of the ruler of RTn w, a fragment of a
cuneiform tablet, a burial of a mare, as well as pits
with severed hands. Albeit from different periods,
these structures and their material remains are among
a host of additional objects from various phases across
the site that reflect the close ties of Tell el-Dab‘a’s
ruling officials with the Near East. The possible
connection of these individuals to trade diasporas,
as explored in Chapter 3, was proposed as one viable
explanation for the continuation of their sustained
links with specific communities in the Levant. They
were involved in commercial exchange, as manifested
in imports. They consumed and likely promoted local
workshops producing objects influenced or inspired
by Near Eastern items, including ceramics, weaponry,
sculpture, scarabs, and possibly cylinder seals. They
feasibly further employed and commissioned visual
expressions influenced by Near Eastern markers of
status, as well as Near Eastern religion. Furthermore,
they likely partook in, if not endorsed and organised,
the rituals surrounding the burials of equids, severed
hands, and other ritualistic or banquet deposits that
were discovered in their complexes. Also conceivably
ordered and organised by these officials were larger-
scale projects including the monumental constructions
and renovations of the sacred precinct of A/II that
followed Near Eastern-type architectural elements, as
well as the maintenance of the site’s harbour facilities.
Therefore, the rulers, the elite, and the officials of Tell
el-Dab‘a played significant roles in the negotiation
of religious, ideological, commercial and diplomatic
concepts, as they yielded access to foreign entities, and
the resources to promote the existence and the results
of third space encounters with Egyptian and Near
Eastern elements.
Tied into relations with these officials were those
who facilitated their activities, and, before the Second
Intermediate Period, those of the central Middle
Kingdom administration. Seafaring merchants and
caravaneers supplied access to both the knowledge
and the means to utilise the most optimal sea-based
and land-based routes to profit from the Mediterranean
and Near Eastern networks. Interpreters and multi- or
bilingual scribes across these routes, at Tell el-Dab‘a
and at other sites in Egypt and the Levant, offered the
capacity to communicate in a number of languages,
including local dialects and sociolects, as well as
scripts, including hieroglyphs, and possibly hieratic
and cuneiform. Their interactions among each other,
with related social groups, as well as with physical
items, expedited the development of the Egyptian
lexicon to incorporate new concepts, words and
loanwords, and likely also promoted the emergence
of the Proto-Alphabetic script. They hypothetically
could have even furthered contact-induced language
change and the negotiation of a common lingual
interface, including the New Kingdom use of the
cuneiform script, although further evidence for these
posited developments is required. Common tools of
exchange, including ingots and weights, were also
likely in the process of systemisation. A different
form of communication may have been performed by
musicians, who could have accelerated the introduction
of Near Eastern-type instruments into Egyptian
musical ensembles, especially those employed in
administrative, palatial, or cultic institutions. Most
concrete evidence for this, however, is assigned to the
New Kingdom. Evidence regarding the roles of other
individuals and groups, such as religious and security
personnel, architects, gardeners, and artists is thus far
also limited, however they too were likely engaged in
cultural encounters.
Certainly, workshops that were promoted by wealthy
groups in the Eastern Delta also acted as nodes of
exchange of ideas and material. Despite the likely
 The Transformation of Egypt
retention and generational, vertical transmission of
specialised skills within particular workshops, some
techniques could have been arguably developed
to cater for the consumption demands of a larger
community, the needs of which were influenced to
a certain degree by shifting stakeholders, as well
as regional and supra-regional expressions of status
and wealth. Knowledge and specialised skills may
have been spatially transposed with the mobility
of a group or individuals between two or more
spaces, or between different groups, the extent of
which was feasibly affected by their commonalities
and differences (e.g. in type of craft, technological
expertise, community, language, culture, etc.),2 as
well as shared regional demands that were possibly
intertwined in an exchange market. In processes of
transfer of innovative ideas and technology, both
seem to have taken place.3
Both were also impacted by the developments of the
second major temporal context of exchange which,
however, was largely influenced by geopolitical
competition. This brings to the fore the pertinence of
competition, confrontation, and conflict for creating
third spaces that can lead to different interpretations
of socio-cultural elements than those described above.
The political developments towards the late Fifteenth
Dynasty, if not earlier, and the early Eighteenth Dynasty
witnessed increased interactions between at least three
powers centred at Tell el-Dab‘a, Thebes, and Kush.
Although largely deduced from textual and artistic
material stemming from the Theban perspective, these
brought Theban allies, as members of heterogeneous
social groups mostly in Upper Egypt, in confrontation
with Hyksos allies, as members of heterogeneous
social groups mostly in the Eastern Delta. Each
collective feasibly expressed different social and
cultural group markers that showed affiliation to their
respective associates, and each was represented, or at
least perceived, to have shared interests.4
The encounters were apparently mostly bellicose
in nature, accelerating the transformation of the
military apparatus and logistics, and the emergence
of innovative rituals and practices tied to security and
conflict. However, they also allowed different paths for
the horizontal and vertical transmission of knowledge,
skills and techniques between formerly Hyksos-
controlled communities and the rest of Egypt, and
from the Second Intermediate Period to the Eighteenth
Dynasty. Texts indeed confirm that tangible entities,
such as captives, prized weaponry, and other booty,
were transposed from the Eastern Delta to the south.
The booty was awarded to military personnel, high
officials, and members of the royal family, its value
2 M aynard, Greenfield and Childs 1999, 386–387;
Hosfeld 2009; R. M ace and Jordan 2011; Cutler 2016,
174–175; Buckley and Boudot 2017.
3 See Roux 2008.
4 See Normark 2007.
351
echoed both in the textual as well as the archaeological
material from Theban tombs and biographies.
Captives, on the other hand, were placed to serve
military personnel and feasibly royal, administrative,
or religious institutions in Thebes and its allied
communities. In mentioning or yielding these entities,
one may surmise that they imbued connotations of
wealth and prestige, either due to their representation
of the collective that formerly opposed the Thebans,
and/or their representation of affiliation with the
Theban collective’s activities. Accordingly, closely
intertwined were the expansion of reward systems to
incorporate northern concepts and goods, as well as
the heightened importance of military personnel and
households.
Developments in ideologies of kingship and
territorial expansion are also observed. The synthesis
of the Hyksos kings and their city as elements of
chaotic and foreign forces justified, at the very least
ideologically, the Theban rulers’ desire for territorial
expansion. It offered a common goal shared by the
Theban elite, their high-ranking officials, as well as
their military personnel, all of whose contribution in
the forays to Hyksos-allied regions, whether symbolic,
logistic, operational or physical, helped strengthen
a shared group identity. This, together with their
eventual domination of Lower Egypt, provided a
strong foundation and incentive for the continuation of
forays to the Near East, as well as for increased loyalty
to the reigning Theban king and high officials.
The pivotal period of territorial acquisition and
power legitimisation further altered the boundaries
of the Theban collective. This accentuated the need
to negotiate different interests and socio-cultural
elements. In concluding the confrontations, the Theban
collective expanded to incorporate those of formerly
Hyksos-controlled communities, and, later, some of
those of the Near East. Accordingly, its leading
representatives, or the Theban royalty, adapted their
own markers of authority, strength, and rulership to
incorporate Near Eastern influenced concepts.
From the perspective of the Fifteenth Dynasty
collective in the Eastern Delta, the fall of its rulers,
whether directly related to Theban efforts or arising
from a combination of influential factors, would have
shifted the power dynamics, economic resources, and
networks of exchange in their immediate region. The
persistence of communities in the Delta highlights
the continuation of social groups, such as specialised
craftsmen or religious personnel, and accordingly the
transmission of knowledge regarding socio-cultural
elements, including previously adopted and adapted
concepts and goods. Certainly, the relevance of routes
to the Near East and the Aegean retained the region’s
significance for the new Egyptian administration,
who very feasibly favoured the support of local
communities despite political shifts. Mediators with
the Thebans perhaps included officials formerly allied
with the Hyksos kings, such as those at Tell Hebwa I
352 Chapter 6
who may have offered agricultural yields and access
to the Levant, merchants who had formerly negotiated
with Hyksos rulers, as well as high-ranking religious
personnel. Considering the agricultural, strategic,
and economic significance of the Eastern Delta, and
possibly the supra-regional cultural memory of Tell
el-Dab‘a’s role as hub of intercultural encounters,
it is not surprising to find the infrastructure and
the network of the Eastern Delta promoted during
New Kingdom periods of heightened interactions
with the Near East, especially around the reigns of
Hatshepsut and Thutmose III as well as those of the
early Ramesside kings.
Thus, overall, these observations on the temporal
and spatial contexts of exchange, and the agents
of change, stress the dynamism and complexity of
socio-cultural transformation in relation to foreign
influence. They were multidirectional, incorporating
the active involvement of several social and cultural
groups as well as numerous processes of negotiation
and transformation. Their nature also varied according
to changing political, commercial, and social relations.
While their impact on various modes of life is
apparent, their extent would perhaps not have been
immediately gleaned in specific periods of time, nor
fully acknowledged as being partly of foreign origin.
6.3 Change and Changing Continuities
Internal and external factors influence the adoption
and adaptation of foreign elements, as well as
their transmission in time and across space. While
the importance of socio-historical, political, and
economic factors were summarised in connection
to temporal and spatial contexts of exchange, the
dynamic interplay of the social with functional needs
of cultural elements, as well as the reactions and
resulting influences on individuals and groups, were
also explored in the study.
A particular quandary revealed across the
literature on culture change was the extent of
social determinism as opposed to the influence of
cultural and material elements on society. This was
noticeable in studies on language change, religious
transformations, and especially technological
developments. Some introduced technologies
clearly left a lasting and widespread impact on New
Kingdom Egypt. They necessitated the development
of specialised workforces to produce them and to
maximise their advantages, and they contributed
to the emergence of significant organisational and
operational transformations. They also accelerated
the incorporation of new cultural elements into Egypt,
including dependent technologies and materials, as
well as religious beliefs and practices.
Linked to their observed impact, the reason
for the adoption and increased utilisation of
introduced technologies has often been primarily
explained in relation to their advanced features in
comparison to a society’s existing technology. In
a few cases, scholars have further extended this
to identify particular ethnic or cultural groups as
technologically superior. As observed across this
study’s Chapters, the deterministic influence of
one cultural or social factor has been repeated in
the literature regarding the impact of the ‘Hyksos’.
Such contentions, however, are erroneous and
edge towards circular argumentation. They are
mostly based on the interpretations of the Hyksos
(including ‘their people’, rather than the people they
ruled) as a group of Near Eastern origin that was
able to violently establish rule in Egypt because
of its well-established use of advanced technology
and military expertise. These include metallurgical
techniques linked to bronze work, specific weapon
types, as well as the horse-drawn chariot. The
Thebans then used this technology to expel them,
and later to invade the Levant and establish their
empire. While the initial invasion of the Hyksos as
a people has since been refuted, their identification
as a technologically superior group that furthered
the introduction of advanced technology remains,
as does the militaristic reason for why they initially
used such technology and why it was then adopted
by the New Kingdom.
This study, however, argues for the importance of
interconnected influential factors that accelerated
the incorporation of foreign elements. Utilising the
example of the adoption of horse-drawn chariots,
Chapter 5.2.2 supports other studies in noting the
direct impact of the technology on the structure,
administration, and operation of the military
apparatus as well as militaristic expeditions.
The vehicle’s development likely promoted the
widespread adoption of linked weaponry, such as
the composite bow, as well as new and transformed
protective measures, such as body armour and
helmets. It also altered representations of power
and authority, correlating with the translation
of concepts and ideologies linked to chariotry,
including the worship of Astarte and Reshef. The
various elements also required the transformation of
facilities, workshops, and stables, and the acquisition
of new skills in crafts technologies as well as animal
husbandry. While these aspects were thereby
affected by the increased use of the horse-drawn
chariot, it would be incorrect to suggest that their
promotion and execution were only determined by
the vehicle’s introduction and militaristic importance
in Egypt. The extent of its influence is not to be
underestimated, yet it relied on an interplay of other,
social, religious, administrative, and economic
factors, as well as continuous multidirectional third
space encounters and negotiations that occurred
within and outside Egypt.
As Chapter 5.2.2 discussed, the introduction of
the horse-drawn chariot into Egypt was likely not
primarily determined by the Hyksos rulers’ use
 The Transformation of Egypt
of the vehicle in battle to secure their rule. Direct
evidence for an invasion dependent on chariotry has
thus far not been discovered. Its tactical advantages
in open-field battle is indeed questionable, especially
considering the terrain of the Nile Valley, particularly
in the Eastern Delta, as well as the absence of
widespread inter-dynastic conflict at least before
the reign of Seqenenra Tao. According to its earliest
mention, the rulers of both Tell el-Dab‘a and Thebes
could have theoretically had access to knowledge
regarding chariot technology and linked weaponry
at any point in time during or before Kamose’s
reign. The evidence from the MBA and LBA Near
East also indicates that the horse-drawn chariot
was employed for a variety of purposes; the vehicle
was connected to elitism, royalty, or perhaps even
divinity as displayed in militaristic, diplomatic,
administrative, and palatial representations, among
others. This is further emphasised by the many
representations depicting the corresponding use of
the composite bow, a weapon of prestige, and the
scimitar, a weapon symbolising power, as wielded by
an elite, royal, or divine charioteer. In view of this,
it is further noteworthy that the horse is arguably
attested in Egypt before the first known evidence of
the horse-drawn chariot, hinting at multiple pathways
of transfer that may not have been directly connected
to the chariot. Some were possibly related to the
importance of the horse itself as a prized creature
of perhaps ritualistic significance. As such, it is
very likely that the factors triggering the adoption
of the horse-drawn chariot were not only tied to its
assumed technological ‘superiority’, but also to its
connection to different, interlinked, domains. Its
association with high status and power, for instance,
would have been particularly appealing for rulers
seeking to legitimise authority on Near Eastern, or
Near Eastern influenced, communities. Regarding
its adoption by the Thebans, its tactical use in
battle, either against Fifteenth Dynasty or Levantine
groups, is possible, but the early Eighteenth Dynasty
foray-type expeditions to the Levant would have
further benefitted from chariotry’s ability to visually
communicate power and authority. This ties well
with artistic and textual representations of horse-
drawn chariots, horses, as well as the weaponry and
armament utilised in connection to the vehicle from
the early Eighteenth Dynasty onwards.
The example additionally highlights and supports
the significance of a receptive attitude, alongside
major historical or political developments, for the
degree and rate of transfer of cultural elements across
boundaries.5 The need for efficient and effective
communication to promote encounters, whether
cooperative or competitive, peaceful or violent,
repeatedly surfaces across the examined processes.
5 See Even-Zohar 1990, 93; Chapter 2.3.14.
353
Tangible elements could be interpreted by wielders
and recipients, either of the same or connected social
or cultural group, to imbue specific meanings. Many
explored here could be generally assigned to different
means of communication that could be employed
separately or correspondingly. The abovementioned
horse-drawn chariotry and linked weaponry, but also
daggers, axes, jewellery and jewellery techniques,
intricately woven or coloured textiles, as well as
the materials from which they were made, enabled
visual communication. Sociolects, dialects, as
well as variant scribal traditions furthered written
and verbal correspondence. The use of musical
instruments for performances, as well as rituals tied
to disparate and connected practices, supported non-
verbal connectivity; whereas metric systems and
ingot shapes promoted commercial exchanges amid
and among traders and other stakeholders. These
various means communicated membership to and
status in particular groups, which were in some cases
initially transregional or involved in transcultural or
transregional activities. Apparently, these entities
adopted or adapted a selected mode of communication
in accordance with its manifested meaning(s), which
itself then dynamically developed in line with further
intra- and inter-group characteristics and interactions.
This corresponds closely with supra-regional
trends linked to the display of status and identity that
could have indirectly played a role in the adoption
and adaptation of particular technologies, ideologies,
and practices. Granulation, glassmaking, large-
scale viticulture and amphora production, as well
as chariot-making and horse-breeding became more
common by the LBA across the Mediterranean,
the Near East, as well as Egypt. All appear closely
connected to expressions of status and, to some
degree, social identity. For instance, in assessing
the social implications of the development of
granulation, Politis writes that it ‘delineates the
boundaries of a specific elite negotiation or “playing”
field in the Bronze Age’.6 Through space and time,
the participation, role and degree of involvement of
some groups on this ‘playing’ field altered. Egypt, as
with other entities, had been playing an essential role
across its history. However, its degree of involvement
had significantly shifted from the Middle Kingdom to
the New Kingdom.7 In view of its relations with the
Near East, Egypt at first was under the administration
of a relatively stable Twelfth Dynasty that was mostly
syphoning the fruits of exchange with the Levant.
From the latter half of the Twelfth Dynasty to the
Thirteenth Dynasty, it was increasingly becoming
integrated into Near Eastern networks. The evidence
supports the growing use of particular items and
6 Politis 2001, 183.
7 See Chapter 3.4.1. For a discussion exploring MBA
technological developments in the Southern Levant in
association with shifting social values, see Uziel 2011.
354 Chapter 6
related techniques in specific contexts and with
noteworthy visual and symbolic associations with the
Near East. The changing social and political landscape
of Egypt across the Second Intermediate Period and
into the very early Eighteenth Dynasty significantly
accelerated this interchange by introducing the
element of competition for territorial acquisition
and/or resources within Egypt, and then in the
Mediterranean and Near Eastern network, wherein
negotiation of specific cultural and social attributes
emerged and persisted to further interaction.
Certain status markers were transforming to
become more in alignment with supra-regional trends,
including those of the Near East, and knowledge
was being adopted and adapted at various paces to
match these developments. Several of the discussed
concepts or objects were tied with ways of visually
or performatively communicating identity, including
those on the body (e.g. the gazelle protome, particular
coloured or decorated textiles, specific types of
daggers, axes, the composite bow, the scimitar, glass
beads, earrings, and, to some extent, the chariot),
additional objects that exuded wealth (e.g. the horse
and the chariot, granulated jewellery, the pomegranate,
and glass items), or those incorporated into events
and/or activities, some ritualistic or cultic in nature,
that helped define and perpetuate status and identity
(e.g. increased wine production and consumption,
specific music instruments and changing ensembles, a
complex system of reward, and chariot processions).
The means of communicating power, strength and
authority transformed to align with regional and
supra-regional trends, retaining ‘traditional’ Middle
Kingdom concepts as well as regionalised Second
Intermediate Period expressions from across Egypt,
including those influenced by the Near East.
This supports overall developments in the Near
Eastern network of interconnections and exchange,
which was increasingly becoming both convoluted
and complex across the MBA to the LBA. Fostering
efficient and effective means of connectivity may
consequently be approached as a form of adaptation
that could occur on various levels and in reaction to
a number of factors. In essence, it sheds light on why
periods of political instability seem to have promoted
a heightened degree of cultural transformation. The
rulers of Tell el-Dab‘a and Thebes, for instance,
employed short-term strategies to legitimise their
reigns and political initiatives. Those in the north
placed the storm god as patron deity of Avaris,
while Ahmose was represented as a unifier of Egypt,
specifically a HqA tA.wy in apposition or opposition
to the HqA xAs.wt. To adapt to such political shifts,
social institutions incorporated long-term strategies to
reinforce group identity and extend shared interests,
such as those at Tell el-Dab‘a who participated in
ritualistic activities that could have persisted with
the local cult of Seth, or the Theban administration
and army that developed ways to reward loyalty
and admirable participation in royal campaigns to
correspond with the ideology of territorial expansion.8
At the household level, groups also feasibly partook
in such long-term strategies, searching and accessing,
for instance, new opportunities to accumulate material
wealth (e.g. ceramic or textile production, rearing wool-
sheep, and/or trade with merchants), social status and
connectivity (e.g. participating in community feasting,
banquets or other ritualistic or religious activities),
or perhaps even medico-magical knowledge and
ritualistic practices (e.g. the liminal aspects of various
deities linked to fertility, healing, and protection).9
These likewise reinforced the long-term strategies
of social institutions, and influenced the short-term
strategies and political initiatives of the ruling elite
in search for legitimacy. For instance, some sacred
precincts of Tell el-Dab‘a and its environs continued
to be utilised for local cults from the late Middle
Kingdom to the Nineteenth Dynasty, their renovations
or reorganisations likely tied to socio-political shifts
and the promotion of local support, as well as a shared
space of worship and exchange between different local
and non-local groups. Such adaptation strategies were
thereby intertwined, and emphasise the resilience of
communities, institutions, as well as social groups.
They were pertinent in facilitating continuity by
contributing to the pace of change and determining the
nature and outcome of cultural encounters.
It is, however, important to note that another form
of resilience is resistance to change. Observing this
in the material record, however, has proven difficult
due to the nature of surviving material. An early case
of possible resistance may have been brought about
at the onset of cultural encounters leading to the
first abovementioned temporal context of exchange
with the rising Near Eastern cultural significance
of particular MBA weapon types. Likely utilised as
markers of status or membership of a specific social
and/or cultural group, the meanings attributed to some
weapons, such as particular Levantine-type axes, may
have affected their limited adoption in Egypt. This,
however, could also be due to a range of other factors,
including those linked to the weapons’ production and
functional necessity.10
Other possible cases of socio-cultural resistance
could also be hypothetically proposed for the second
main temporal context of exchange. One may suggest
that, perhaps in legitimising their control over
Lower Egypt, the Thebans resisted to express some
transformed cultural elements that counteracted those
central to the identity of social and cultural groups in
Thebes, or that were clearly recognisable as identity
8 For more on short and long term adaptation strategies in
connection to resilience, see Faulseit 2016.
9 For more on the household adaptation strategies of
communities, see Hoggarth and Awe 2016.
10 See Chapter 5.2.3.3.2.
 The Transformation of Egypt
markers of other groups. Considering the theory of
cultural interference, one possible example is with
the representation of aspects of the Egyptian storm
god that parallel those of the Near Eastern storm
god.11 The Tempest Stela’s description of the tempest
has, for instance, been interpreted as actions of an
unnamed storm god, paralleling those attributed to
the Near Eastern storm deity. The very absence of his
name may perhaps indicate defiance by the Theban
administration to acknowledge Seth’s increasing
correlation with Near Eastern aspects. Similarly, the
predominant use of the Seth-animal alone to delineate
the deity’s name in official Eighteenth Dynasty texts
that focus on his transculturalised roles may further
be interpreted as an attempt at a more culturally
consumable representation.
Perhaps a further form of resilience is the observed
‘gap’ in the material record between the initial
attestation of an entity, and its later more prevalent
incorporation in the material culture. While the earliest
representation of some elements by only singular cases
cautions against forming conclusions regarding their
lasting impact, the nature of a number of entities
arguably signals already at processes of negotiation
and translation. Artists had to determine the best way
to represent a new element according to Egyptian
artistic standards and decorum while retaining its
unique details; scribes had to incorporate either the
sound, name or concept of an entity using elements
of the Egyptian scripts; while some objects were
collected from archaeological contexts that suggest
their use within Egypt possibly according to previously
unattested practices. Examples are visible across
different functions ranging from, for instance, textile-
making, musical performances (e.g. the use of the lyre),
as well as militaristic, elite or royal representations (e.g.
the use of the scimitar, the composite bow, and perhaps
the horse). Such trends are particularly observable for
several features that (re-)emerged around the reigns of
Thutmose III and Hatshepsut, or later in the Nineteenth
Dynasty. Interestingly, foreign origins are not always
concealed, and perhaps they eventually were not
considered as such, especially for examples linked to
social distinction, wealth, and the display of access
to valuable or prestigious materials. Certainly, this
is not to say that one item attested in the late Middle
Kingdom itself initiated a single process directly
connected to Eighteenth Dynasty customs. There were
feasibly multiple pathways between Egypt and the
Near East, and multiple processes linked to third space
encounters, some of which evolved across time and
space. From an etic perspective, these could appear
as lengthy processes of cultural change that required
‘incubation periods’ before completely manifesting as
part of the Egyptian culture. Accordingly, the period
or point of cultural encounters need not have an
11 See Chapter 4.2.
355
immediate impact on the cultural structure of entities.
This is especially noticeable for elements that
were eventually incorporated into the value
systems of social or cultural groups. Many exhibit a
recontextualisation. Their production and function in
Egyptian contexts signify that they were not an exact
replica of how they may have been utilised in Near
Eastern social and cultural contexts. The translation,
rearrangement or reinterpretation typically melded
with pre-existing Egyptian concepts, technologies,
or textual and artistic traditions. It could certainly
develop along a multidirectional path across social
and cultural groups within Egypt and the Near East,
if not further afield, yet it could continue to retain
original aspects (including earlier reinterpretations)
alongside those shaped by immediate contexts. A
good example is with the incorporation of both the
abstract and physical concepts regarding the scimitar
into Egyptian culture.12 Although the object is first
attested in the Thirteenth Dynasty, its symbolic value
in association with prestige, authority and strength as
the Egyptian x pS manifests more clearly by the reign
of Thutmose III. It was transmitted via Near Eastern
and Near Eastern inspired entities, but essentially
translated for the Egyptian milieu. Despite its symbolic
significance to socio-cultural groups in the Near East,
this reinterpretation in relation to pre-existing cultural
values and concepts in Egypt facilitated the integration
of the scimitar into Egyptian culture. It can thus also be
viewed as a strategy of adaptation that can promote the
‘success’ in transmission of an element across socio-
cultural borders. In comparison, other ‘unsuccessful’
transmissions likely did not suit functional and social
needs, and were not well-matched with or merged
into pre-existing concepts and traditions, perhaps
like some Levantine-type axes. This strategy also
ensured continuity. The ‘old’ was not abandoned,
but the ‘new’ was shaped, translated and negotiated
according to the ‘old’, essentially expanding what
the ‘old’ represented and how it could continue to be
expressed by dynamically changing entities. As such,
it fits well with the concept of a ‘changing continuity’.13
Even deities such as Reshef, Anat, and Astarte, were
embedded into Egyptian Enneads, cults, and practices,
despite retaining many parallels with their Near
Eastern counterparts.
Consequently, a further aspect to reinterpretation
is innovation. Arguably all outcomes of cultural
encounters featured inherent innovative attributes that
distinguished the reconfigured or new meanings from
earlier forebears. Indeed, some difficulties surfaced
in this study in linking new cultural features with
somewhat similar, pre-existing, concepts. The practice
of severing hands, for instance, shared underlying
resemblances to the severing of hands in the Near
12 See Chapter 5.2.3.1.
13 The expression ‘changing continuities’ follows Panich
2013, 109; Lightfoot 2015, 9221.
356 Chapter 6
East, yet it was framed in a new context, with new
associations, and embedded into the reward system
of the Egyptian military likely as an innovation.14
Likewise, the practice of wearing earrings by Egyptian
men and women was compared to that of Near Eastern,
Eastern Deltaic, and Nubian groups, with the late
Second Intermediate Period to New Kingdom custom
exhibiting some divergent associations that identify it
as particularly Egyptian.15 Such examples stress that,
despite parallels in other cultural or social groups,
the continued negotiations of third space encounters
across different groups and contexts can inspire the
formation of new concepts, customs, and creations.
Overall, then, it is clear that socio-cultural
transformations affected and were affected by existing
practices, values, as well as the needs of adopting
entities. They exhibit well the theoretical outcomes of
cultural encounters with elements accepted, resisted,
rejected or recontextualised in response to a variety
of factors. The rate of adoption was inclusive of how
new knowledge and material was accessed, and how
it was reframed in accordance to its new context.
As most theories on culture change indicate and as
also supported in this study, the outcomes of these
processes were usually not immediate, especially if
their incorporation into the socio-cultural or value
systems are taken into account.
6.4 A Transformed Culture
While socio-cultural transformations are garnered
from the surviving material of the Middle to New
Kingdom, the nature of this surviving material itself
transformed. Textual and artistic representations,
as well as archaeological assemblages developed
to incorporate previously unattested concepts and
objects. In art, motifs from across the Near East
were embedded with those earlier attested in Egypt
on different media from the late Middle Kingdom
onwards. These include the details painted, inscribed
or moulded onto/into both new and older types of
weapons (e.g. hilts, blades or sheaths of daggers, axe
heads, and hilts and blades of scimitars), jewellery,
and perhaps decorated textiles. The iconography of
the divine, the royal, the elite, and the martial also
developed to incorporate the new elements and visual
expressions of status, power, and prestige. Royal
funerary and religious monuments, for instance, were
adorned with an expanded set of artistic motifs that
showcased the pharaoh’s power over foreign forces,
most noticeably on a horse-drawn chariot, leading
his army into battle.16 The tombs of high officials
transformed to include the wide range of items which,
by the early Eighteenth Dynasty, were more commonly
attested and encountered, such as chariotry equipment,
14 See Chapter 4.4.2.
15 See Chapter 5.4.2.2.
16 See Chapters 3.4.2, 5.2.2.5.
pomegranate trees, amphorae, musical instruments
and ensembles, as well as women and men wearing
earrings. In a few cases, workshop scenes additionally
incorporated the developed techniques associated
with, for example, making chariots, metal objects,
ceramic vessels, or weaponry. Of course, some scenes
portraying objects and methods only attested from the
Eighteenth Dynasty onwards (e.g. the shaduf, helmets
and body armour, or the vertical loom) may not have
been connected with earlier Egyptian-Near Eastern
encounters, but to contemporaneous developments
associated with Eighteenth Dynasty interactions and
intercultural negotiations. These, however, highlight
the dynamic nature of the continually transforming
transmission and translation of concepts and goods in
Egyptian art.
The flexibility of the Egyptian scripts is also
emphasised by the different means through which
new entities were incorporated. These support
Goldwasser’s approach to chariotry and horses using
linguistic acculturation,17 as various explored objects
were expressed via (a) the creation of a new lexeme
from the Egyptian writing system, categorised
with new or existing classifiers (possibly w rr.y t),
(b) the extension or use of an existing Egyptian
lexeme, categorised with new or existing classifiers
(e.g. Ht r(i) , x pS, d b n , m s s), or (c) the creation of a
new lexeme from a foreign language as a loanword
(e.g. m rk b. t , s s m , Try n , i n h m n , k i n n i w r, Dd w). To
these may be added the identification of entities via
(d) the extension or use of an existing Egyptian
classifier (e.g. ), or (e) the creation of a new classifier
(e.g. ). The representation of some terms and
concepts using existing Egyptian lexemes and
classifiers offers additional insight into their abstract
meanings. The use of x pS for the scimitar, for
example, showcases how an object could manifest an
abstract significance like that in the Near East, but
utilise an already existing Egyptian symbol. On the
other hand, that of , later used for Baal, clearly
associates aspects of the Near Eastern storm deity
with those of Seth.
The date of the earliest textual attestations of an
object does not always correlate with its first
known recorded instance in the material record or
in art. This could either be due to the nature of the
preserved evidence, or perhaps the slower rate of
conceptualising a physical object or concept into
the Egyptian lexicon. On the other hand, it could
also reflect the role of art forms in accelerating the
exchange of knowledge. Indeed, this study explored
several artistic elements related to Near Eastern
parallels that are attested in the examined period.
These included details connected to the divine, the
royal as well as the elite, such as the characteristics
of the storm deity, the divine naked female, the
17 Goldwasser 2017.
 The Transformation of Egypt
gazelle (especially as a protome), or the charioteer.
Their initial occurrence in art strongly supports the
accessibility and translatability of iconography.
A further point to acknowledge is that Egyptian-
Near Eastern encounters contributed to the
transformation of the New Kingdom landscape
and cultural assemblage. The landscape of the
Eastern Delta, its routes, and its settlements, had
altered by the early Eighteenth Dynasty with an
increasing population and transformed strategies of
connectivity. While this cannot be directly linked to
Near Eastern influences, it was associated with the
growing wealth of the region and the rise of Tell el-
Dab‘a as a major hub and centre of an interlinked
regional network that profited from commercial,
social, and perhaps political encounters with the Near
East. This role became part of the cultural memory
of the New Kingdom administration, its leaders
and its officials, likely contributing to the selection
of ‘Ezbet Helmi as a site for a palatial precinct, and
later Qantir for the capital of the Nineteenth Dynasty.
The archaeological material further attests to more
widespread non-native floral and faunal material
deposited in settlements and cemeteries across Egypt
as a result of various pathways of transfer, some of
which were perhaps linked to Egyptian-Near Eastern
interactions in the examined period. If reared or
cultivated in Egypt, such as the horse, the wool-sheep,
and the pomegranate trees, they also were eventually
embedded in the daily life, religious ideologies, and
administration, revealing environmental as well as
socio-cultural influences.
A variety of other previously unattested objects
similarly emerge across archaeological assemblages.
The ceramic repertoire of Eighteenth Dynasty sites
at least in the Delta, for instance, included vessels
that exhibit a continuation of earlier traditions
influenced by the regionalisation of the Eastern Delta
and, in some cases, MBA-type ceramics. Egyptian
amphorae, in particular, became particularly
prominent vessels in the New Kingdom, the
production of which could be traced to the MBA-
inspired local production and consumption habits
of the Twelfth to Fifteenth Dynasty population
in the Eastern Delta. It is not surprising that the
Egyptological focus on cemeteries has additionally
revealed funerary assemblages with evidence for
socio-cultural transformations related to Egyptian-
Near Eastern cultural encounters. The developments
in the funerary culture of the Eastern Delta have been
well-explored and were briefly examined in this study
to showcase the combination of Near Eastern and
Egyptian elements, as well as regional expressions of
funerary customs and practices. These regionalised
transformations persisted into the early Eighteenth
Dynasty at, for instance, the tombs at Tell el-Retaba.
Some reinterpretations attested in funerary contexts
elsewhere in Egypt may perhaps also be connected to
those in the Eastern Delta and the Near East, yet it is
357
important to note that their inspirations could have
stemmed from various sources. These include the
deposition of an axe and dagger together in burials of
individuals of high status at Hu as well as Dra‘ Abu
el-Naga, and the inclusion of double penannular rings
in burials of women at Tell el-Dab‘a as in those of
the mid-Eighteenth Dynasty. To these may be added
the variety of additional materials that emerge in
different contexts of the archaeological record, such
as the more common use of copper-tin, glass, a new
system of weights, the variety of chariotry equipment,
and the composite bow.
6.5 A Final Glance
A primary aim of this study was to explore the
nature of socio-cultural transformations according
to influences of consistent Egyptian-Near Eastern
cultural encounters on Egyptian society and culture.
Certain limitations were encountered. Apart from
those concerning the paucity of surviving and
accessible material, its exploration of larger-scale
relational patterns impacted the degree of specificity
that may be otherwise explored in analyses dedicated
to the micro-scale and to shorter periods in time. As
mentioned in Chapter 2, the study, to a certain extent,
was also limited by the culture-historical approach on
which were built Egyptian and Near Eastern history,
archaeology, and their correlations. Because of this,
the approach’s underlying situation of material in time
and space could not be easily abandoned; indeed, its
disentanglement from reconstructed understandings
of these regions’ cultures will require much further
interdisciplinary engagement than possible in the
confines of this study. Still, this research, from its
onset, completely rebuked perceptions of culture
as bounded and immutable; in moving beyond the
culture-historical approach, it contrarily argues for
the complexity and permeability of dynamically
changing cultures. It revealed that Middle Kingdom
to Second Intermediate Period encounters between
Egyptian and Near Eastern entities influenced a
variety of different cultural elements and inevitably
contributed to the transformation of some cultural
manifestations assigned to the LBA and the New
Kingdom. They facilitated the development of political
ideologies as well as the commercial and foreign
policies of the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Dynasties.
They contributed to the range of tools that could be
utilised to further correspondence (either verbal, non-
verbal, or written) with transregional and Near Eastern
stakeholders, adding knowledge regarding established
routes and networks to the Eastern Mediterranean
and Western Asia, systems of exchange, as well as
transcultural religious beliefs and ritualistic practices.
These expanded elements of social cohesion, or the
ways in which social groups within Egypt could
interact and express their status with others across
North Africa and the Eastern Mediterranean, with
358 Chapter 6
some processes adding to already established customs
such as those linked to body adornments, feasting,
musical performances, and rituals. Some certainly
added to the repertoire of devices linked to warfare
and the military as well as associated ideologies
of power, strength, authority and the subversion of
chaos, including new and altered weaponry, chariotry,
and customs of reward for service. Accordingly, also
transformed was the Egyptian pantheon of deities
with added and reinterpreted associations between the
divine and earthly spheres.
The attribution of such changes solely to the
Fifteenth Dynasty, as the impact of the ‘Hyksos’ on
Egypt, removes significant processes that influenced
the rise and fall of the Fifteenth Dynasty, as well as
the interactions of several social and cultural groups
in and outside Egypt. A number of ‘introductions’, in
fact, could not be directly and clearly linked to the
rulers of the Fifteenth Dynasty due to limitations in
the evidence. Several were, instead, attested in the
Middle Kingdom and early Second Intermediate
Period, such as the association of Seth with the Near
Eastern storm god, the increasing use of copper-tin
alloys, and the local production of amphorae, among
other Near Eastern-type objects that surface in
Twelfth to mid-late Thirteenth (Fourteenth) Dynasty
contexts in Egypt (e.g. the scimitar, the lyre, and
possibly the composite bow). Some occur in the
material culture at around the same time in both
Lower and Upper Egypt in the Fifteenth/Seventeenth
Dynasties (e.g. the chariot and glass items). Others
only occur from the Eighteenth Dynasty onwards
(e.g. pot-bellows, helmets, body armour, the vertical
loom, the tambourine, and the shaduf ).
Nevertheless, this does not underplay the
importance of shifting political and power dynamics,
as well as the short-term strategies adopted, adapted,
and negotiated by the Hyksos rulers. They were
clearly pertinent agents of exchange in the Eastern
Mediterranean and facilitated the transmission of
knowledge from Middle Kingdom and early Second
Intermediate Period communities to those of the
Fifteenth Dynasty, at least in the Eastern Delta.
Accordingly, they were instrumental in the promotion
of cultural encounters with transregional groups and
activities such as diplomacy and commerce, and very
significant in influencing the political ideologies of
the Theban rulers in expanding their territorial claims
and authority.
Of equal pertinence were the communities of
the Eastern Delta who transformed across the
Twelfth to the early Eighteenth Dynasty. Changing
continuities were observed with the rising population
at Tell el-Dab‘a, its increasing interactions with Near
Eastern elements, emergent negotiations, as well as
reinterpretations of markers of status, and cultural
and social group identities. These substantially
helped forge and transmit adopted, adapted, mixed,
reframed, and new concepts and elements across
the Eastern Delta. Their continuation into the New
Kingdom further permitted their transference to other
contexts within Egypt as well as other connected
routes and nodes, triggering further processes of
transformation.
The ‘impact of Tell el-Dab‘a’, however, is not a
substitute for the idea of the ‘impact of the Hyksos’.
The developments at the site, as with those connected
to its rulers in the Fifteenth Dynasty, add to other
third spaces of encounters and negotiations that were
occurring across Egypt and the Near East to manifest
as part of the Egyptian culture of the Eighteenth
Dynasty. Several objects, individuals and groups of
Near Eastern origin were attested in Egypt across
the Twelfth to Fifteenth/Seventeenth Dynasties,
and likewise Egyptian entities were attested in the
Near East. As observed, interactions with objects,
people, and concepts from different communities
within and beyond Egypt increased at two main
periods, the late Middle Kingdom to early Second
Intermediate Period, and the late Seventeenth to early
Eighteenth Dynasty. These, together with political
developments, commercial initiatives, population
movements and dynamics, foreign policies, as well
as production and consumption habits, all facilitated
and contributed to processes of change. Interestingly,
some converged to align with supra-regional trends,
signalling that complexities of transformations at the
local and regional levels could be tied to larger-scale
relational patterns.
This presents intriguing prospects for further study.
The incorporation of material from surrounding
groups and cultures, including those in Nubia,
southwest Asia, the Aegean, Anatolia and Libya, in
view of the trends and transformations in Egypt and
the Near East could reveal further details regarding
agents of exchange and processes of change. To
these may be included Near Eastern influenced
or inspired elements in the New Kingdom that
could not be examined here due to lack of concrete
or even circumstantial evidence for their earlier
incorporation, or due to the paucity of excavated,
published, or well-provenanced material. Examples
include the worship of Hauron in Egypt, the
conceptualisation of Baal as deity of navigation,
developments in science, astronomy, architecture
and mathematics, as well as characterisations and
literary motifs that occur in, for instance, the Tale of
the Shipwrecked Sailor. Researching such material
via theories like those utilised in this study has the
potential to shed light on supra-regional trends and
the long-term influences of continuous connectivity.
The acceleration of the latter into the LBA was
very feasibly linked with aspects of processes of
transregionalisation and globalisation. Perhaps,
then, they could even offer fresh perspectives on the
processes that contributed to the collapse of several
communities and networks towards the end of the
LBA in the last quarter of the Second Millennium BC.
 The Transformation of Egypt
In view of these long-term trends, where does this
leave studies on the Fifteenth Dynasty? The Hyksos
Period should no longer be viewed as an interlude in
Egyptian history. It promoted and contributed to a
variety of mechanisms of change and continuity that
helped shape and metamorphose Egyptian culture
and identity. The populations of the Eastern Delta
were not invaders. The rise of the Thebans did not
lead to their complete expulsion or assimilation to
the point where their culture ceased to exist. Some of
its elements were, as in the beginning of the Second
Intermediate Period, negotiated and recontextualised
to adapt to a changing historical situation. Amid the
many processes of adaptation and change, elements
from the Near East seeped into the dynamic and
359
complex cultural and social framework of Egypt.
Their transmission was hindered, delayed, or
promoted to varying degrees and at different rates
across the Twelfth to Eighteenth Dynasties. They
were translated, produced, and consumed according
to social and functional needs of dynamic groups
as well as local, regional, and/or supra-regional
trends. Essentially, such developments highlight that
the northern dynasties of the Second Intermediate
Period, as well as other Egyptian encounters with
the Near East, were pertinent for the socio-cultural
transformation of Egypt into the New Kingdom.
Even for society today, they can offer significant
insights on resilience and the potential for adaptation,
especially in the wake of social and political change.
360 Chapter 6
 Abbreviations 361

Abbreviations

Museums and Museum Inventory Designations CTH Catalogue des textes hittites

ÄM Ägyptische Museum und Papyrussammlung, EA El-Amarna Tablet

Berlin
KTU Keilalphabetischen Texte aus Ugarit
ÄS Ägyptische Sammlung, Staatliche Museum
Ägyptischer Kunst, Munich KUB Keilschrifturkunden aus Boğazköy

AEIN Object number of the Egyptian collection, OB Old Babylonian tablet

Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, Copenhagen
PT Pyramid Text
AM Ashmolean Museum, Oxford
RS Ras Shamra
AO Antiquités orientales, Musée du Louvre, Paris
BM British Museum, London Bibliographic Abbreviations

BN Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris KRI Kitchen, K.A., Ramesside Inscriptions,

vols. 1–7, Oxford, 1975–1989.
CG Catalogue générale, Cairo Museum
LD Lepsius, K.R., Denkmäler aus Aegypten und
CGT Catalogo generale del Museo Egizio di Torino, Aethiopien, 12 vols., Berlin, 1849–1958,
Turin Leipzig, 1913.

EA Object number, British Museum, London Urk. 4 Sethe, K. Urkunden der 18. Dynastie, 4 vols.,
Leipzig, 1906–1909.
EGA Object number, Fitzwilliam Museum,
Cambridge Wb. Erman, A. and Grapow, H. (eds.), Wörterbuch
der ägyptischen Sprache, vols. 1–6, Berlin,
JE Journal d’entrée, Cairo Museum Leipzig 1926–1963.
MFA The Museum of Fine Arts, Boston
Other Terms
MM Medelhavsmuseet, Stockholm
cm centimetre
MMA The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York
DN Deity Name
OIC Oriental Institute, Chicago
EB/ Early Bronze/
Sb. Object signature, collections of the Antiquités
EBA Early Bronze Age
orientales, Musée du Louvre, Paris
Fig. Figure
UC Petrie Collection, University College, London
g gram
VAT Vorderasiatische Abteilung Thontafelsammlung,
Berlin GN Geographic Name
Inv. Nr. Inventory Number
Site and Cemetery Designations
KV King’s Valley km kilometre

TD Tell el-Dab‘a (Item Number) LB/ Late Bronze/

LBA Late Bronze Age
TT Theban Tomb
m metre

Ancient Text Designations MB/ Middle Bronze/

MBA Middle Bronze Age
ARM Archives royales de Mari
Nr. Number
CT In reference to Egyptian texts: Coffin Text
pl. Plate
CT In reference to Old Babylonian texts:
Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets, vol. Volume
British Museum, London
362 Abbreviations
 Selected Bibliography
Selected Bibliography
A
A bd el-Gelil, M., Suleiman, R., Faris, G. and R aue, D.
2008 The Joint Egyptian-German Excavations in Heliop-
olis in Autumn 2005: Preliminary Report, Mitteilun-
gen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts Kairo
64, 1–9.
A bd el-M aksoud, M.
1983 Un monument du roi ‘Aa-sḥ-R’ Nḥsy à Tell-Haboua
(Sinaï Nord), Annales du service des antiquités de
l’Égypte 69, 3–5.
1989 Excavations on “The Ways of Horus”: Tell Heboua
North Sinai (1986–1987), in: The Archaeology,
Geography and History of the Egyptian Delta
in Pharaonic Times. Proceedings of Colloquium
Wadham College 29–31 August, 1988, Discussions
in Egyptology Special Number 1, Oxford, 173–192.
1998 Tell Heboua (1981–1991). Enquête archéologique
sur la Deuxième Période Intermédiaire et la Nouvel
Empire à l’extrémité orientale du Delta, Paris.
A bd el-M aksoud, M. and Valbelle, D.
2005 Tell Héboua-Tjarou. L’apport de l’épigraphie, Revue
d’égyptologie 56, 1–44.
A bdul-K ader, M.
1959 The Administration of Syro-Palestine during the
New Kingdom, Annales du service des antiquités de
l’Égypte 56, 105–137.
A bernathy, W. and Utterback, J.
1978 Patterns of Industrial Innovation, Technology Re-
view 80/7, 40–47.
A bou Assaf, A.
1966 Der Wettergott auf Drachen in der Akkad-Periode,
Les annales archéologiques arabes syriennes 16,
75–82.
1983 Die Ikonographie des altbabylonischen Wetter-
gottes, Baghdader Mitteilungen 14, 43–66.
A brahams, R.D.
2011 About Face: Rethinking Creolization, in: R. Baron
and A.C. Cara (eds.), Creolization as Cultural Cre-
ativity, Jackson, 285–305.
A dam, N.K.
2007 Political Affinities and Economic Fluctuations:
The Evidence from Textiles, in: C. Gillis and M.-
L. Nosch (eds.), Ancient Textiles. Production, Craft
and Society, Oxford, 201–207.
A dam, S.
1959 Report on the Excavations of the Department of An-
tiquities at ‘Ezbet Rushdi, Annales du service des
antiquités de l’Égypte 56, 207–226.
A dams, J.N.
2003 Bilingualism and the Latin Language, Cambridge.
A dams, J.N., Janse, M. and Swain, S. (eds.)
2002 Bilingualism in Ancient Society: Language Contact
and the Written Text, Oxford.
363
A dler, W.
1994 Kamid el-Loz, vol. 11: Das ‘Schatzhaus’ im Palast-
bereich: Die Befunde des Königsgrabes, Saarbrücker
Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 47, Bonn.
A ḥituv, S.
1978 Economic Factors in the Egyptian Conquest of
Canaan, Israel Exploration Journal 28/1, 93–105.
A hmed, M.H.M., H ashem, S.A.E., Hulková, L. and
Wodzińska, A.
2018 Egyptian Salvage Excavations at Tell el-Mansheya,
Ägypten und Levante 28, 25–54.
A hrens, A.
2015 The Early 18th Dynasty in the Northern Levant:
New Finds and a Reassessment of the Sources, in:
J. Mynářová, P. Onderka and P. Pavúk (eds.), There
and Back Again – The Crossroad, vol. 2: Proceed-
ings of an International Conference Held in Prague,
September 15–18, 2014, Prague, 353–371.
2020 Aegyptiaca in der nördlichen Levante. Eine Studie
zur Kontextualisierung und Rezeption ägyptischer
und ägyptisierender Objekte in der Bronzezeit,
Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 41, Leuven, Paris,
Bristol.
Ajmone-M arsan, P., Fernando Garcia, J. and Lenstra, J.A.
2010 On the Origin of Cattle: How Aurochs became Cat-
tle and Colonized the World, Evolutionary Anthro-
pology 19, 148–157.
A kkermans, P. and Schwartz, G.
2003 The Archaeology of Syria: From Complex Hunter-
Gatherers to Early Urban Societies (c. 16,000–300
BC), Cambridge.
A ksamit, J.
1989 The Gold Handle of a Fishtail Dagger from Gebelein
(Upper Egypt), in: L. K rzyzaniak and M. Kobus-
iewicz (eds.), Late Prehistory of the Nile Basin and
the Sahara, Poznan, 325–332.
A lbaugh, E. and Luna, K. de (eds.)
2018 Tracing Language Movement in Africa, Oxford.
A lberti, M.
2006 Changing in Time: Some Aspects of Aegean
and Cypriot Balance Weights, in: M. A lberti,
E. Ascalone and L. Peyronel (eds.), Weights in
Context: Bronze Age Weighing Systems of the
Eastern Mediterranean. Chronology, Typology,
Material and Archaeological Contexts, Studie e
Materiali 13, Rome, 315–340.
A lbright, W.F.
1922 Palestine in the Earliest Historical Record, Journal
of the Palestine Oriental Society 2, 110–138.
364 Selected Bibliography
1926 Mesopotamian Elements in Canaanite Eschatology,
in: C. A dler and A. Ember (eds.), Oriental Studies
Published in Commemoration of the Fourtieth An-
niversary (1883–1923) of Paul Haupt as Director of
the Oriental Seminary of the John Hopkins Univer-
sity, Baltimore, 143–154.
1934 The Kyle Memorial Excavation of Bethel, Bulletin
of the American Schools of Oriental Research 56,
1–15.
1935 Palestine in the Earliest Historical Period, Journal
of the Palestine Oriental Society 15, 193–234.
1938 The Excavations of Tell Beit Mirsim, vol. 2: The
Bronze Age, Annual of the American Schools of
Oriental Research 17, New Haven.
1939 Astarte Plaques and Figurines from Tell Beit Mir-
sim, in: Mélanges syriens offerts à M. R. Dussaud,
Bibliothèque archéologique et historique 30, Paris,
109–117.
1954a Northwest-Semitic Names in a List of Egyptian
Slaves from the Eighteenth Century B.C., Journal
of the American Oriental Society 74, 222–233.
1954b Some Observations on the New Material for the
History of the Alphabet, Bulletin of the American
Schools of Oriental Research 134, 26.
1964 The Eighteenth-Century Princes of Byblos and
the Chronology of Middle Bronze, Bulletin of the
American Schools of Oriental Research 176, 38–46.
1966 The Proto-Sinaitic Inscriptions and Their
Decipherment, Cambridge.
1978 Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan, reprint, Winona
Lake.
A lcock, J.P.
2006 Food in the Ancient World, Westport, London.
A ldred, C.
1956 An Unusual Fragment of New Kingdom Relief,
Journal of Near Eastern Studies 15/3, 150–152.
1971 Jewels of the Pharaohs, London.
A lexander, R.T.
1998 Afterword: Toward an Archaeological Theory of
Culture Contact, in: J.G. Cusick (ed.), Studies in
Culture Contact: Interaction, Culture Change and
Archaeology, Southern Illinois University Carbon-
dale Occasional Paper 25, Carbondale, 467–495.
A lgaze, G.
1993 The Uruk World System: The Dynamics of
Expansion of Early Mesopotamian Civilization,
Chicago.
1995 Fourth Millennium Trade in Greater Mesopota-
mia and the Question of Wine, in: P. McGovern,
S. Fleming and S. K atz (eds.), The Origins and An-
cient History of Wine, Philadelphia, 89–96.
2001 The Prehistory of Imperialism: The Case of Uruk
Period Mesopotamia, in: M.S. Rothman (ed.), Uruk,
Mesopotamia & Its Neighbours: Cross-Cultural
Interactions in the Era of State Formation, Santa
Fe, 27–83.
A llam, S.
1963 Beiträge zum Hathorkult (bis zum Ende des Mittler-
en Reiches), Münchner Ägyptologische Studien 4,
Berlin.
A llen, B.
2016 Animals in Religion. Devotion, Symbol and Ritual,
London.
A llen, J.P.
2002 The Speos Artemidos Inscription of Hatshepsut,
Bulletin of the Egyptological Seminar 16, 1–17.
2004 Traits dialectaux dans les Textes des Pyramides du
Moyen Empire, in: S. Bickel and B. M athieu (eds.),
D’un monde à l’autre: Textes des Pyramides et
Textes des Sarcophagues, Bibliotheque d’étude 139,
Cairo, 1–14.
2005 The Ancient Pyramid Texts, Society of Biblical
Literature 23, Atlanta.
2008 The Historical Inscription of Khnumhotep at
Dahshur: Preliminary Report, Bulletin of the
American Schools of Oriental Research 352, 29–39.
2010a Language, Scripts, and Literacy, in: A.B. Lloyd
(ed.), A Companion to Ancient Egypt, vol. 2, Malden,
MA, Oxford, West Sussex, 641–662.
2010b The Second Intermediate Period in the Turin King-
List, in: M. Marée (ed.), The Second Intermediate
Period (Thirteenth–Seventeenth Dynasties). Current
Research, Future Prospects, Orientalia Lovaniensia
Analecta 192, Leuven, Paris, Walpole, 1–10.
2013 The Ancient Egyptian Language: An Historical
Study, Cambridge.
A llen, S.J.
1997 Spinning Bowls: Representation and Reality, in: J.
Phillips (ed.), Ancient Egypt, the Aegean, and the
Near East. Studies in Honour of Martha Rhoads
Bell, San Antonio, 17–38.
2009 Funerary Pottery in the Middle Kingdom: Archaism
or Revival?, in: D. Silverman, W. Simpson and J.
Wegner (eds.), Archaism and Innovation: Studies in
the Culture of Middle Kingdom Egypt, New Haven,
Philadelphia, 319–339.
A llen, S.L.
2015 The Splintered Divine: A Study of Ištar, Baal, and
Yahweh Divine Names and Divine Multiplicity in the
Ancient Near East, Boston, Berlin, Munich.
A llon, N.
2007 Seth is Baal – Evidence from the Egyptian Script,
Ägypten und Levante 17, 15–22.
2010 At the Outskirts of a System. Classifiers and Word
Dividers in Foreign Phrases and Texts, Lingua
Aegyptia 18, 1–17.
A lonso, A.M.
2004 Conforming Disconformity: “Mestizaje,” Hybridity,
and the Aesthetics of Mexican Nationalism, Cultur-
al Anthropology 19/4, 459–490.
A lster, B.
1974 On the Interpretation of the Sumerian Myth ‘Inanna
and Enki’, Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vordera-
siatische Archäologie 64, 20–34.
A ltenmüller, H.
1965 Die Apotropaia und die Götter Mittelägyptens.
Eine typologische und religionsgeschichtliche Un-
tersuchung der sogennanten “Zaubermesser” des
 Selected Bibliography
Mittleren Reichs, 2 vols., PhD Dissertation, Lud-
wig-Maximilians-Universität zu München.
1980 Jagd; Jagddarstellungen; Jagdmethoden; Jag-
dritual; Jagdtracht; Jagdzauber, in: W. H elck and
W. Westendorf (eds.), Lexikon der Ägyptologie,
vol. 3, Wiesbaden, 221–236.
1984 Sokar im Alten Reich und der Wind, Göttinger
Miszellen 78, 7–14.
1986 Ein Zaubermesser des Mittleren Reiches, Studien
zur Altägyptischen Kultur 13, 1–27.
2015 Zwei Annalenfragmente aus dem frühen Mittleren
Reich, Hamburg.
A ltenmüller, H. and Moussa, A.
1991 Die Inschrift Amenmhets II. aus dem Ptah-Tempel
von Memphis. Ein Vorbericht, Studien zur Altägyp-
tischen Kultur 18, 1–48.
A miet, P.
1960 Notes sur le répertoire iconographique de Mari a
l’époque du palais, Syria 37/3, 215–232.
1969 Quelques ancêtre du chasseur royal d’Ugarit, Ugari-
tica 6, 1–8.
1980a La glyptique mésopotamienne archaique, Paris.
1980b Art of the Ancient Near East, New York.
1992 Corpus des cylindres de Ras-Shamra-Ougarit, vol.
2: Sceaux cylindres en hématite et pierres diverses,
Ras-Shamra-Ougarit 9, Paris.
A miran, R. and Ilan, O.
1996 Early Arad, vol. 2: The Chalcolithic and Ear-
ly Bronze IB Settlements and the Early Bronze II
City-Architecture and Planning, Sixth to Eighteenth
Seasons of Excavations, 1971–1978, 1980–1984,
Jerusalem.
A miran, R. and Shendav, D.
1984 Experiments with an Ancient Potter’s Wheel, in: P.
R ice (ed.), Pots and Potters. Current Approaches in
Ceramic Archaeology, Los Angeles, 107–112.
A mundsen-Meyer, L.M.
2011 Introduction, in: L.M. A mundsen-Meyer, N. Engel
and S. Pickering (eds.), Identity Crisis: Archaeolog-
ical Perspectives on Social Identity. Proceedings of
the 42nd (2010) Annual Chacmool Archaeology Con-
ference, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta,
Calgary, 1–10.
Andersson Strand, E.
2015 The Basics of Textile Tools and Textile Technology
– From Fibre to Fabric, in: E. Andersson Strand and
M.-L. Nosch (eds.), Tools, Textiles and Contexts:
Textile Production in the Aegean and Eastern Medi-
terranean Bronze Age, Ancient Textile Series 21,
Oxford, 39–60.
Andersson Strand, E. and Nosch, M.-L.
2015 Summary of Results and Conclusions, in:
E. Andersson Strand and M.-L. Nosch (eds.), Tools,
Textiles and Contexts: Textile Production in the Ae-
gean and Eastern Mediterranean Bronze Age, An-
cient Textile Series 21, Oxford, 341–383.
365
Andersson Strand, E. and Nosch, M.-L. (eds.)
2015 Tools, Textiles and Contexts: Textile Production in
the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean Bronze Age,
Ancient Textile Series 21, Oxford.
Andrews, C.
1990 Ancient Egyptian Jewellery, London.
1994 Amulets in Ancient Egypt, London.
Anthony, D.
1990 Migration in Archaeology: The Baby and the Bath-
water, American Anthropologist 92/4, 895–914.
1991 The Domestication of the Horse, in: R. Meadow and
H.-P. Uerpmann (eds.), Equids in the Ancient World,
Wiesbaden, 250–277.
Anthony, F.
2017 Foreigners in Ancient Egypt: Theban Tomb Paintings
from the Early Eighteenth Dynasty (1550–1372 BC),
London, New York.
Antonaccio, C.M.
2007 Colonization: Greece on the Move, 900–480, in:
H.A. Shapiro (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to
Archaic Greece, Cambridge, 201–224.
2009 (Re)defining Ethnicity: Culture, Material Culture,
and Identity, in: T. Hodos and S. H ales (eds.), Visual
Culture and Social Identity in the Ancient Mediter-
ranean, Cambridge, 32–53.
2013 Networking the Middle Ground? The Greek Dias-
pora, Tenth to Fifth Century BC, Archaeological
Review from Cambridge 28/1, 241–255.
Antos, G.
2001 Transferwissenschaft. Chancen und Barrieren des
Zugangs zu Wissen in Zeiten der Informations-
flut und der Wissensexplosion, in: G. Antos and
S. Wichter (eds.), Wissenstransfer zwischen Ex-
perten und Laien. Umriss einer Transferwissen-
schaft, Transferwissenschaften 1, Frankfurt am
Main, 3–33.
A pte, N.
1994 Language in Sociocultural Context, in: R.E. Asher
(ed.), The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguis-
tics, vol. 4, Oxford, 2000–2010.
A pter, A.
2004 Herskovits’s Heritage: Rethinking Syncretism in the
African Diaspora, in: A.M. Leopold and J.S. Jansen
(eds.), Syncretism in Religion: A Reader, London,
New York, 160–184.
A rcher, D.
2010 Chariotry to Cavalry: Developments in the Early First
Millennium, in: G. Fagan and M. Trundle (eds.), New
Perspectives on Ancient Warfare, Leiden, Boston,
57–79.
A rchi, A.
2002 Jewels for the Ladies of Ebla, Zeitschrift für As-
syriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 92/2,
161–199.
366 Selected Bibliography
A rnold, D.E.
2008 Social Change and the Evolution of Ceramic Pro-
duction and Distribution in a Maya Community,
Boulder.
A rnold, Di.
1988 The South Cemeteries of Lisht, vol. 1: The Pyramid
of Senwosret I, Publications of the Metropolitan Mu-
seum of Art 22, New York.
2002 The Pyramic Complex of Senwosret III at Dahshur.
Architectural Studies, Publications of the Metropoli-
tan Museum of Art 26, New York.
A rnold, Do.
1982 Keramikbearbeitung in Dahschur 1976–1981, Mit-
teilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts
Kairo 38, 25–65.
1993 Techniques and Traditions of Manufacture in the
Pottery of Ancient Egypt, in: Do. A rnold and
J. Bourriau (eds.), An Introduction to Ancient Egyp-
tian Pottery, Sonderschrift des Deutschen Archäol-
ogischen Institut, Abteilung Kairo 17, Mainz am
Rhein, 11–83.
2008a Diadem, in: J. Aruz, K. Benzel and J.M. Evans (eds.),
Beyond Babylon. Art, Trade, and Diplomacy in the
Second Millennium B.C., New York, New Haven,
London, 115–116.
2008b Plaque with Sphinx, in: J. A ruz, K. Benzel and J.M.
Evans (eds.), Beyond Babylon. Art, Trade, and Di-
plomacy in the Second Millennium B.C., New York,
New Haven, London, 144–146.
2010a Foreign and Female, in: S.H. D’Auria (ed.), Offer-
ings to the Discerning Eye: An Egyptological Med-
ley in Honour of Jack A. Josephson, Leiden, Boston,
17–31.
2010b 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, Paris, Walpole, 183–221.
A rnold, Do., A rnold, F. and A llen, S.J.
1995 Canaanite Imports at Lisht, the Middle Kingdom
Capital of Egypt, Ägypten und Levante 5, 13–32.
A rnold, M.
1869 Culture and Anarchy, London.
A rnst, C.-B., Finneiser, K., Müller, I., K ischlewitz, H.,
Priese, K.-H. and Poethke, G.
1991 Staatliche Museen zu Berlin: Ägyptisches Museum
und Papyrussamlung, Mainz.
A rrizón, A.
2006 Queering Mestizaje. Transculturation and Perfor-
mance, Ann Arbor.
A ruz, J.
1995 Imagery and Interconnections, Ägypten und Le-
vante 5, 33–48.
2008 The Art of Exchange, in: J. Aruz, K. Benzel and J.M.
Evans (eds.), Beyond Babylon. Art, Trade, and Di-
plomacy in the Second Millennium B.C., New York,
New Haven, London, 387–394.
A ruz, J. and Lacovara, P.
2008 Axe; Dagger, in: J. Aruz, K. Benzel and J.M. Evans
(eds.), Beyond Babylon. Art, Trade and Diplo-
macy in the Second Millennium B.C., New York,
New Haven, London, 119–122.
Ascalone, E.
2006 Tell es-Sultan/Jericho Weight Systems. New
Evidences of Weights from Inner Palestine during
the Early and Middle Bronze Age, in: M. A lberti,
E. Ascalone and L. Peyronel (eds.), Weights in
Context: Bronze Age Weighing Systems of Eastern
Mediterranean. Chronology, Typology, Material
and Archaeological Contexts, Studie e Materiali 13,
Rome, 161–183.
Ascalone, E. and Peyronel, L.
2000 The Eblaite Metrology in Middle Bronze Age.
Archaeological Context and Distributive Analysis of
Weights, in: L. Milano, F. Fales and G. Lanfranchi
(eds.), Landscapes, Territories, Frontiers and
Horizons in the Ancient Near East, Padova, 115–132.
2001 Two Weights from Temple N at Tell Mardikh-
Ebla, Syria: A Link between Metrology and Cultic
Activities in the Second Millennium BC?, Journal
of Cuneiform Studies 53, 1–12.
2006a I pesi da bilancia del Bronzo Antico e del Bronzo
Recente, Materiali e Studi Archeologici di Ebla 7,
Rome.
2006b Early Bronze IVA Weights at Tell Mardikh-Ebla.
Archaeological Associations and Contexts, in:
M. A lberti, E. Ascalone and L. Peyronel (eds.),
Weights in Context: Bronze Age Weighing Systems
of Eastern Mediterranean. Chronology, Typology,
Material and Archaeological Contexts, Studie e
Materiali 13, Rome, 49–70.
Ashcroft, B., Griffiths, G. and Tiffin, H.
1998 Key Concepts in Post-Colonial Studies, London.
Asher-Greve, J.M. and Sweeney, D.
2006 On Nakedness, Nudity, and Gender in Egyptian and
Mesopotamian Art, in: S. Schroer (ed.), Images
and Gender: Contributions to the Hermeneutics of
Reading Ancient Art, Orbus Biblicus et Orientalis
220, Fribourg, Göttingen, 125–176.
Asher-Greve, J.M. and Westenholz, J.G.
2013 Goddesses in Context. On Divine Powers, Roles,
Relationships and Gender in Mesopotamian Textual
and Visual Sources, Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 259,
Fribourg.
Ashmawy A li, A.
2007 Names of Horses in Ancient Egypt, in: J.-C. Goyon
and C. Cardin (eds.), Proceedings of the Ninth In-
ternational Congress of Egyptologists, Orientalia
Lovaniensia Analecta 150, Leuven, Paris, Dudley,
665–676.
2010 Tell el-Yahudiyah: New Information from Unpub-
lished Excavations, Ägypten und Levante 20, 31–42.
2014 The Administration of Horse Stables in Ancient
Egypt, Ägypten und Levante 24, 121–139.
2016a Preliminary Report on the SCA Excavations at
Tell el-Yahudia Season 2010–2011, Ägypten und
Levante 26, 17–31.
 Selected Bibliography
2016b Tell Basta during the Second Intermediate Period,
Ägypten und Levante 26, 145–156.
2019 Donkey Burials at Tell el-Yahudia, in: S. Porcier,
S. Ikram and S. Pasquali (eds.), Creatures of Earth,
Water, and Sky. Essays on Animals in Ancient Egypt
and Nubia, Leiden, 39–46.
Ashmawy A li, A. and R aue, D.
2012 Report on the Work of the Egyptian-German Mis-
sion at Matariya/Heliopolis in Spring 2012, Heliop-
olis Project, http://www.heliopolisproject.org/bibli-
ography (last accessed 25.08.2020).
2015 The Temple of Heliopolis: Excavations 2012–2014,
Egyptian Archaeology 46, 8–16.
Aslanidou, K.
2002 Der minoische Spiralfries aus dem Grabungsareal
H/IV in Tell el-Dab‘a. Malvorgang und Rekonstruk-
tion, Ägypten und Levante 12, 13–27.
2005 The Minoan Wall Paintings from Tell el-Dab‘a/
‘Ezbet Helmi: The Life-Size Male Figures, in: E.A.
Greco and R. Laffineur (eds.), Emporia: Aegeans in
the Central and Eastern Mediterranean: Proceed-
ings of the 10th International Aegean Conference,
Aegeaum 25, Liege, 463–469.
2012 Some Textile Patterns from the Aegean Wall-Paint-
ings of Tell el-Dab‘a (‘Ezbet Helmi): Preliminary
Reconstructions and Comparative Study, in: M.-L.
Nosch and R. Laffineur (eds.), KOSMOS. Jewel-
lery, Adornment and Textiles in the Aegean Bronze
Age. Proceedings of the 13th International Aegean
Conference, University of Copenhagen, Danish
National Research Foundation’s Centre for Textile
Research, 21–26 April 2010, Annales liégeoises et
PASPiennes d’archéologie égéenne 33, Leuven,
Liege, 311–316.
Assmann, J.
1992a Große Texte ohne eine Große Tradition. Ägypten als
vorachsenzeitliche Kultur, in: S. Eisenstadt (ed.),
Kulturen der Achsenzeit. Ihre institutionelle und
kulturelle Dynamik, vol. 3, Frankfurt, 245–280.
1992b Das kulturelle Gedächtnis. Schrift, Erinnerung und
politsche Identität in frühen Hochkulturen, Munich.
1997 Moses the Egyptian. The Memory of Egypt in West-
ern Monotheism, Cambridge.
2006 Religion and Cultural Memory. Ten Studies, trans.
R. Livingstone, Stanford.
2008 Of God and Gods. Egypt, Israel, and the Rise of
Monotheism, Wisconsin.
2014 From Akhenaten to Moses. Ancient Egypt and
Religious Change, Cairo.
Aston, D.A.
1996a Egyptian Pottery of the Late New Kingdom and
Third Intermediate Period (Twelfth – Seventh Cen-
turies BC), Studien zur Archäologie und Geschichte
Altägyptens 13, Heidelberg.
1996b Tell Hebwa IV – Preliminary Report on the Pottery,
Ägypten und Levante 6, 179–197.
1998 Die Keramik des Grabungsplatzes Q1, vol. 1: Cor-
pus of Fabrics, Wares and Shapes, Forschungen in
der Ramses-Stadt 1, Mainz am Rhein.
2001 The Pottery from H/VI Süd Strata a and b: Prelimi-
nary Report, Ägypten und Levante 11, 167–196.
367
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, ÖAW: Denkschriften der
Gesamtakademie 26, Contributions to the Chronol-
ogy of the Eastern Mediterranean 3, Vienna, 43–87.
2003 New Kingdom Pottery Phases as revealed through
Well-Dated Tomb Contexts, in: M. Bietak (ed.),
The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern
Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C.,
vol. 2: Proceedings of the SCIEM 2000 – Euro-
Conference Haindorf, 2nd of May – 7th of May 2001,
ÖAW: Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie 29, Con-
tributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediter-
ranean 4, Vienna, 135–162.
2004a Tell el-Dab‘a, vol. 12: A Corpus of the Late Middle King-
dom and Second Intermediate Period Pottery, part I:
Introduction and Pottery of the Late Middle King-
dom, part II: Pottery of the Hyksos Period and Con-
clusions, ÖAW: Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie
28, Untersuchungen der Zweigstelle Kairo des Öster-
reichischen Archäologischen Instituts 23, Vienna.
2004b Review of McGovern, P.E., The Foreign Relations
of the ‘Hyksos’. A Neutron-Activation Study of
Middle Bronze Age Pottery from the Eastern Medi-
terranean (Oxford, 2000), The Journal of Egyptian
Archaeology 90, 233–237.
2004c Amphorae in New Kingdom Egypt, Ägypten und
Levante 14, 175–213.
2007 Kom Rabi‘a, Ezbet Helmi, and Saqqara NK 3507. A
Study in Cross-Dating, in: M. Bietak and E. Czerny
(eds.), The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the
Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium
BC, vol. 3: Proceedings of the SCIEM 2000 – 2nd
EuroConference Vienna, 28th of May – 1st of June
2003, ÖAW: Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie
37, Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern
Mediterranean 9, Vienna, 207–248.
2012a From the Deep South to the Far North: Nubian Sherds
from Khatan‘a and ‘Ezbet Helmi (Tell el-Dab‘a), in:
I. Forstner-Müller and P. Rose (eds.), Nubian Pot-
tery from Egyptian Cultural Contexts of the Middle
Kingdom and Early New Kingdom: Proceedings of
a Workshop held at the Austrian Archaeological In-
stitute at Cairo, 1–12 December 2010, Ergänzungs-
hefte zu den Jahresheften des Österreichischen
Archäologischen Instituts 13, Vienna, 159–179.
2012b Cypriot Pottery and its Imitations from Hebwa IV,
in: M. Gruber, S. A ḥituv, G. Lehmann and Z.
Talshir (eds.), All the Wisdom of the East. Studies
in Near Eastern Archaeology and History in Honor
of Eliezer D. Oren, Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 255,
Göttingen, 13–56.
2015 The Faces of the Hyksos: Ceramic Sculpture in the
Fifteenth Dynasty, Bulletin of the Egyptological
Seminar 19, 103–116.
Aston, D.A. and Bader, B.
2009 Fishes, Ringstands, Nudes and Hippos – A Prelimi-
nary Report on the Hyksos Palace Pit Complex L81,
Ägypten und Levante 19, 19–89.
Aston, D.A. and Bietak, M.
2012 Tell el-Dab‘a, vol. 8: The Classification and Chro-
nology of Tell el-Yahudiya Ware, ÖAW: Denkschrif-
368 Selected Bibliography
ten der Gesamtakademie 66, Untersuchungen der
Zweigstelle Kairo des Österreichischen Archäolo-
gischen Instituts 12, Vienna.
2017 Nubians in the Delta: À Propos Avaris and Pe-
ru-Nefer, in: N. Spencer, A. Stevens and M. Binder
(eds.), Nubia in the New Kingdom. Lived Experi-
ence, Pharaonic Control and Indigenous Traditions,
British Museum Publications on Egypt and Sudan 3,
Leuven, Paris, Bristol, 491–524.
Aston, D.A. and Pusch, E.B.
1999 The Pottery from the Royal Horse Stud and its
Stratigraphy: The Pelizaeus Museum Excavation at
Qantir/Piramesse, Section Q IV, Ägypten und
Levante 9, 39–75.
Atzler, M.
1972 Einige Bemerkungen zu <ḥwt> und <niwt> im Alten
Ägypten, Chronique d’Égypte 47, 17–44.
Aveling, H.
2008 Culture Research in the Recent Work of Itamar
Even-Zohar, Celt 8/2, 154–169.
D’Avennes, É.P.
1878 Histoire de l’art égyptien: d’après les monuments;
depuis les temps les plus reculés jusqu’à la domina-
tion romaine, vol. 2, Paris.
Avruch, K.
1998 Culture and Conflict Resolution, Washington.
Ayali-Darshan, N.
2015a The Other Version of the Story of the Storm-God’s
Combat with the Sea in the Light of Egyptian, Ug-
aritic, and Hurro-Hittite Texts, Journal of Ancient
Near Eastern Religions 15, 20–51.
2015b The Identification of Ḥmrq in Leiden Magical Pa-
pyrus I 343 + I 345 in Light of the Eblaite Texts,
Journal of Near Eastern Studies 74/1, 87–89.
2016 Treading on the Back of Sea. The Combat between
the Storm-God and the Sea in Ancient Near Eastern
Literature, Jerusalem.
2017 Egyptian and Levantine Belles-Lettres – Links and
Influences during the Bronze Age, in: P.P. Creasman
and R.H. Wilkinson (eds.), Pharaoh’s Land and
Beyond. Ancient Egypt and its Neighbours, Oxford,
195–205.
al-Ayedi,A.R.
2000 Tharu: The Starting Point on the “Ways of Horus”,
PhD Dissertation, University of Toronto.
2006 Index of Egyptian Administrative, Religious and
Military Titles of the New Kingdom, Ismailia.
Ayrton, E.R. and Loat, W.L.S.
1911 Pre-Dynastic Cemetery at El-Mahasna, London.
B 1998 ‘Ezbet Rushdi and the 12th Dyn. Levantine
Babones, S.
2015 What is World-Systems Analysis? Distinguishing
Theory from Perspective, Thesis Eleven 127/1, 3–20.
Badawi, A.M.
1943 Die neue historische Stele Amenophis II., Annales
du service des antiquités de l’Égypte 42, 1–23.
Bader, B.
2001 Tell el-Dab‘a, vol. 13: Typologie und Chronologie
der Mergel C-Ton Keramik, ÖAW: Denkschrif-
ten der Gesamtakademie 22, Untersuchungen der
Zweigstelle Kairo des Österreichischen Archäolo-
gischen Instituts 19, Vienna.
2002 A Concise Guide to Marl C-Pottery, Ägypten und
Levante 12, 29–54.
2006 Von Palmen und Vögeln – Vorschau auf die Kera-
mik aus dem Areal H/VI östlich des Palastes G in
‘Ezbet Helmi, Ägypten und Levante 16, 37–60.
2009 Tell el-Dab‘a, vol. 19: Auaris und Memphis im Mit-
tleren Reich und in der Hyksoszeit. Vergleichsan-
alyse der Materiellen Kultur, ÖAW: Denkschrif-
ten der Gesamtakademie 53, Untersuchungen der
Zweigstelle Kairo des Österreichischen Archäolo-
gischen Instituts 31, Vienna.
2011a Traces of Foreign Settlers in the Archaeological
Record of Tell el-Dab‘a, in: K. Duistermaat and I.
R egulski (eds.), Intercultural Contacts in the An-
cient Mediterranean. Proceedings of the Interna-
tional Conference at the Netherlands-Flemish Insti-
tute in Cairo, 25th to 29th October 2008, Orientalia
Lovaniensia Analecta 202, Leuven, Paris, Walpole,
137–158.
2011b Contacts between Egypt and Syria-Palestine as seen
in a Grown Settlement of the Late Middle Kingdom
at Tell el-Dab‘a/Egypt, in: J. Mynářová (ed.), The
Crossroads: Proceedings of an International Con-
ference on the Relations of Egypt and the Near East
in the Bronze Age, Prague, September 1–3, 2010,
Prague, 41–72.
2012 Migration in Archaeology: An Overview with a Fo-
cus on Ancient Egypt, in: M. Messer, R. Schroeder
and R. Wodak (eds.), Migrations: Interdisciplinary
Perspectives, Vienna, 213–226.
2013 Cultural Mixing in Egyptian Archaeology: The
‘Hyksos’ as a Case Study, Archaeological Review
from Cambridge 28/1, 257–286.
2017 Children of Other Gods: Social Interactions, in: P.P.
Creasman and R.H. Wilkinson (eds.), Pharaoh’s
Land and Beyond: Ancient Egypt and its Neigh-
bours, Oxford, 61–77.
2020 Tell el-Dab‘a, vol. 24: The Late Middle Kingdom
Settlement of Area A/II. A Holistic Study of Non-
Elite Inhabitants of Tell el-Dab‘a, vol.1, ÖAW:
Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie 85, Untersuch-
ungen der Zweigstelle Kairo des Österreichischen
Archäologischen Instituts 39, Vienna.
Bagg, A.M.
2001 Wasserhebevorrichtungen im Alten Mesopotamien,
Wasser & Boden 53/6, 40–47.
2012 Irrigation, in: D.T. Potts (ed.), A Companion to
the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, vol. 1,
West Sussex, 261–278.
Bagh, T.
Connection, Ägypten und Levante 8, 47–49.
2002a Abu Ghâlib, an Early Midde Kingdom Town in the
Western Nile Delta: Renewed Work on Material Ex-
cavated in the 1930s, Mitteilungen des Deutschen
Archäologischen Instituts Kairo 58, 29–60.
2002b Painted Pottery at the Beginning of the Middle
Bronze Age: Levantine Painted Ware, in: M. Bietak
 Selected Bibliography
(ed.), The Middle Bronze Age in the Levant – Pro-
ceedings of an International Conference on MB IIA
Ceramic Material, Vienna, 24th–26th of January
2001, ÖAW: Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie 26,
Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern
Mediterranean 3, Vienna, 89–101.
2013 Tell el-Dab‘a, vol. 23: Levantine Painted Ware from
Egypt and the Levant, ÖAW: Denkschriften der Ge
samtakademie 71, Untersuchungen der Zweigstelle
Kairo des Österreichischen Archäologischen In-
stituts 37, Vienna.
Baines, J.
1986 The Stela of Emhab: Innovation, Tradition and Hi-
erarchy, The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 72,
41–53.
1987 The Stela of Khusobek: Private and Royal Military
Narrative and Values, in: J. Osing and G. Dreyer
(eds.), Form und Mass: Beiträge zur Literatur,
Sprache und Kunst des alten Ägypten. Festschrift
für Gerhard Fecht zum 65. Geburtstag am 6. Febru-
ar 1987, Wiesbaden, 43–61.
1990 Restricted Knowledge, Hierarchy, and Decorum:
Modern Perceptions and Ancient Institutions, Jour-
nal of the American Research Center in Egypt 27,
1–23.
1996a Classicism and Modernism in the Literature of
the New Kingdom, in: A. Loprieno (ed.), Ancient
Egyptian Literature: History and Forms, Prob-
leme der Ägyptologie 10, Leiden, New York, Köln,
157–174.
1996b Myth and literature, in: A. Loprieno (ed.), Ancient
Egyptian Literature: History and Forms, Prob-
leme der Ägyptologie 10, Leiden, New York, Köln,
361–377.
1997 Temples as Symbols, Guarantors, and Participants
in Egyptian Civilization, in: S. Quirke (ed.), The
Temple in Ancient Egypt. New Discoveries and Re-
cent Research, London, 216–241.
2000 Egyptian Deities in Context: Multiplicity, Unity and
the Problem of Change, in: B. Porter (ed.), One God
or Many? Concepts of Divinity in the Ancient World,
Transactions of the Casco Bay Assyriological Insti-
tute 1, Chebeague, 9–78.
2007 Visual and Written Culture in Ancient Egypt,
Oxford.
Baines, J. and Eyre, C.J.
1983 Four Notes on Literacy, Göttinger Miszellen 61,
65–96.
Baines, J. and Lacovara, P.
2002 Burial and the Dead in Ancient Egyptian Society:
Respect, Formalism, Neglect, Journal of Social
Archaeology 2, 5–36.
Baker, D.D.
2008 The Encyclopaedia of the Pharaohs, vol. 1, London.
Baker, J.L.
2012 The Funeral Kit: Mortuary Practices in the Archaeo-
logical Record, London, New York.
Bakhtin, M.
1968 Rabelais and his World, Cambridge.
369
Bakr, M.
1977 Der Ohrschmuck in den antiken Kulturen des Nil-
tals, in: E. Endesfelder, K-H. Priese, W-F. R einke
and S. Wenig (eds.), Ägypten und Kusch, Schriften
zur Geschichte und Kultur des Alten Orients 13,
Berlin, 57–62.
1992 Tell Basta, vol. 1: Tombs and Burial Customs at
Bubastis, Cairo.
Bangsgaard, P.
2014 Nubian Faunal Practices – Exploring the C-Group
“Pastoral Ideal” at Nine Cemeteries, in: J. Anderson
and D.A. Welsby (eds.), The Fourth Cataract and
Beyond. Proceedings of the 12th International Con-
ference for Nubian Studies, Publications on Egypt
and Nubia 1, London, 347–356.
Bar-Oz, G., Nashoni, P., Motro, H. and Oren, E.D.
2013 Symbolic Metal Bit and Saddlebag Fastenings in a
Middle Bronze Age Donkey Burial, PlosOne 8/3,
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0058648 (last
accessed 11.05.2017).
Barag, D.
1970 Mesopotamian Core-Formed Glass Vessels, in: A.L.
Oppenheim, R.H. Brill, D. Barag and A. von Sal-
dern (eds.), Glass and Glassmaking in Ancient Mes-
opotamia. An Edition of the Cuneiform Texts which
Contain Instructions for Glassmakers with a Cata-
logue of Surviving Objects, Corning, 129–199.
Barber, E.J.W.
1991 Prehistoric Textiles. The Development of Cloth in
the Neolithic and Bronze Ages with Special Refer-
ence to the Aegean, Princeton.
2007 Weaving the Social Fabric, in: C. Gillis and
M.-L. Nosch (eds.), Ancient Textiles. Production, Craft
and Society, Ancient Textile Series 1, Oxford, 173–178.
Barbotin, C.
2008 Ahmosis et le début de la XVIIIe dynastie, Paris.
Bard, K.A. and Fattovich, R.
2010 Spatial Use of the Twelfth Dynasty Harbor at Mersa/
Wadi Gawasis for the Seafaring Expeditions to Punt,
Journal of Ancient Egyptian Interconnections 2/3,
1–13.
Bardinet, T.
2008 Relations économiques et pressions militaires en
Méditerranée orientale et en Libye au temps des
pharaons: Histoire des importations égyptiennes
des résines et des conifères du Liban et de la Lib-
ye depuis la période archaïque jusqu’a l’époque
Ptolémaïque, Études et Mémoires d’Égyptologie 7,
Paris.
Barjamovic, G. and Fairbairn, A.
2018 Anatolian Wine in the Middle Bronze Age, Die Welt
des Orients 48/2, 249–284.
Barnett, H.G., Broom L., Siegel, B.J., Vogt, E.Z. and
Watson, J.B.
1954 Acculturation: An Explanatory Formulation, Ameri-
can Anthropologist 56/6, 973–1000.
370 Selected Bibliography
Baron, R. and Cara, A.C.
2011 Introduction: Creolization as Cultural Creativity, in:
R. Baron and A.C. Cara (eds.), Creolization as Cul-
tural Creativity, Jackson, 3–19.
Barrett, C.E.
2007 Was Dust their Food and Clay their Bread? Grave
Goods, the Mesopotamian Afterlife, and the Lim-
inal Role of Inana/Ishtar, Journal of Ancient Near
Eastern Religions 7/1, 7–65.
Barsanti, A.
1908 Stèle inédite au nom du roi Radadouhotep Dou-
doumes, Annales du service des antiquités de
l’Égypte 9, 1–2.
Bárta, M.
2003 Sinuhe, the Bible, and the Patriarchs, Prague.
Barth, F.
1969 Introduction, in: F. Barth (ed.), Ethnic Groups and
Boundaries. The Social Organization of Culture
Difference, Boston, 9–38.
Bass, G.
1967 Cape Gelidonya: A Bronze Age Shipwreck, Trans-
actions of the American Philosophical Society 57/8,
Philadelphia.
Battle, I. and Tous, J.
1997 Carob Tree. Ceratonia siliqua L., Promoting the Con-
servation and Use of Underutilized and Neglected
Crops 17, Rome.
Bauchspies, W., Croissant, J. and R estivo, S.
2006 Science, Technology and Society: A Sociological
Approach, Oxford.
Baumgartel, E.J.
1955 The Cultures of Prehistoric Egypt, vol. 1, London.
Baumgarntner, F.R. and Jones, B.D.
2009 Agendas and Instability in American Politics, 2nd
edition, Chicago.
Bavay, L.
2015 Canaanite Jars and Jar Sealings from Deir el-Medina:
Scattered Evidence of Egypt’s Economic Relations
with the Levant during the New Kingdom, in: B.
Eder and R. Pruzsinsky (eds.), Policies of Exchange:
Political Systems and Modes of Interaction in the Ae-
gean and the Near East in the 2nd Millennium B.C.E.
Proceedings of the International Symposium at the
University of Freiburg Institute for Archaeological
Studies, 30th May – 2nd June 2012, Oriental and Euro-
pean Archaeology 2, Vienna, 127–138.
Beattie, J.
1964 Other Cultures, London.
Beck, S.
2018 Exorcism, Illness and Demons in an Ancient Near
Eastern Context. The Egyptian Magical Papyrus
Leiden I 343 + 345, Papers on Archaeology of the
Leiden Museum of Antiquities 18, Leiden.
2019 The Transfer of Knowledge from Mesopotamia to
Egypt, in: J. A lthoff, D. Berrens and T. Pommerening
(eds.), Finding, Inheriting or Borrowing? The Con-
struction and Transfer of Knowledge in Antiquity
and the Middle Ages, Mainz Historical Cultural Sci-
ences 39, 71–98.
Becker, C., Benecke, N., Grabundžija, A., Küchelmann, H.-C.,
Pollock, S., Schier, W., Schoch, C., Schrakamp, I., Schütt, B.
and Schumacher, M.
2016 The Textile Revolution. Research into the Origin
and Spread of Wool Production between the Near
East and Central Europe, eTopoi Journal for Ancient
Studies 6, 102–151.
Becker, J., Jungfleisch, J. and Rüden, C. von
2012/ From Small Fragments to Large Animals. A Large-
2013 Scale Animal Fight in ‘Palace F’ at Tell el-Dab‘a,
Ägypten und Levante 22–23, 149–166.
Beckerath, J. von
1951 Tanis und Theben. Historische Grundlagen der Ra-
messidenzeit in Ägypten, Ägyptologische Forschungen
16, Glückstadt, Hamburg, New York.
1964 Untersuchungen zur politischen Geschichte der
Zweiten Zwischenzeit in Ägypten, Glückstadt.
1984 Handbuch der ägyptischen Königsnamen, Müncher
Ägyptologische Studien 20, Munich, Berlin.
1997 Chronologie des pharaonischen Ägyptens. Die Zeit-
bestimmung der ägyptischen Geschichte von der
Vorzeit bis 332 v. Chr., Münchner Ägyptologische
Studien 46, Mainz.
Beckman, G.M.
1982 The Anatolian Myth of Illuyanka, Journal of
Ancient Near Eastern Studies 14, 11–25.
1996 Hittite Diplomatic Texts, Atlanta.
1998 Ištar of Nineveh Reconsidered, Journal of Cunei-
form Studies 50, 1–10.
Behrens, P.
1986 Widder, in: C. Meyer (ed.), Lexikon der Ägyptologie,
vol. 6, Wiesbaden, 1243–1245.
Beit-A rieh, I.
1985 Serâbît el-Khâdim: New Metallurgical and Chrono-
logical Aspects, Levant 17, 89–116.
Bellwood, P.
2013 First Migrants: Ancient Migration in Global Per-
spective, Malden, MA.
Ben-A rieh, S.
1978 A Tomb of the Late Bronze Age at Tel Gedor,
Qadmoniot 11, 60–61.
1981 Tell Jedur, Eretz Israel 15, 115–128.
Ben-Dov, R.
2002 The Late Bronze “Mycenaean” Tomb, in: A. Biran
and R. Ben-Dov (eds.), Dan, vol. 2: A Chronicle of
the Excavations and the Late Bronze Age “Myce-
naean” Tomb, Jerusalem, 33–248.
Ben-Tor, A.
1996 Notes and News. Tel Hazor, 1996, Israel Explora-
tion Journal 46, 262–268.
 Selected Bibliography
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 W. 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 Millen-
nium B.C., vol. 2: Proceedings of the SCIEM 2000
– EuroConference Haindorf, 2nd of May – 7th of May
2001, ÖAW: Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie
29, Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern
Mediterranean 4, Vienna, 239–248.
2004 Second Intermediate Period Scarabs from Egypt
and Palestine: Historical and Chronological Impli-
cations, in: M. Bietak and E. Czerny (eds.), Scarabs
of the Second Millennium BC from Egypt, Nubia,
Crete and the Levant: Chronological and Histori-
cal Implications. Papers of a Symposium, Vienna,
10th–13th January 2002, ÖAW: Denkschriften
der Gesamtakademie 35, Contributions to the
Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 8, Vienna,
27–41.
2007a Scarabs, Chronology, and Interconnections. Egypt
and Palestine in the Second Intermediate Period,
Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 27, Fribourg.
2007b Scarabs of Middle Bronze Age Rulers of Byblos,
in: S. Bickel, S. Schroer, R. Schurte and C. Ueh-
linger (eds.), Bilder als Quellen. Images as Sources.
Studies on Ancient Near Eastern Artefacts and
the Bible inspired by the Work of Othmar Keel,
Fribourg, 177–188.
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, Paris, Walpole, 91–108.
2015 Scarabs from Hatshepsut’s Foundation Deposits at
Deir el-Bahri: Insight into the Early 18th Dynasty and
Hatshepsut’s Reign, Bulletin of the Egyptological
Seminar 19, 139–146.
2017a Evidence for Middle Bronze Age Chronology
and Synchronisms in the Levant: A Response to
Höflmayer et al. 2016, Bulletin of the American
Schools of Oriental Research 379, 43–54.
2017b Ramesside Scarabs Simulating Middle Bronze Age
Canaanite Prototypes: Canaanite or Egyptian?,
Ägypten und Levante 27, 195–217.
Ben-Tor, D., A llen, S.J. and A llen, J.P.
1999 Review Article: Seals and Kings, Bulletin of the
American Schools of Oriental Research 315, 47–74.
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, vol. 6:
The Middle Bronze Age Ramparts and Gates of the
North Slope and Later Fortifications, Pennsylvania,
2018, 337–382.
371
Ben-Tor, D. and K eel, O.
2012 The Beth-Shean Level IX Group. A Local Scarab
Workshop of the Late Bronze I, in: M. Gruber ,
S. A ḥituv, G. Lehmann and Z. Talshir (eds.), All
the Wisdom of the East. Studies in Near Eastern
Archaeology and History in Honor of Eliezer D.
Oren, Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 255, Göttingen,
87–104.
Benecke, N.
1999 The Domestication of the Horse, in: J. Schäffer
(ed.), Domestication of Animals: Interactions be-
tween Veterinary and Medical Sciences, Giessen,
9–22.
Benzel, K.
2013 Ornaments of Interaction: Jewelry in the Late
Bronze Age, in: J. A ruz, S.B. Graff and Y. R akic
(eds.), Cultures in Contact. From Mesopotamia to
the Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C.,
New York, 258–267.
Berdan, F.F.
2000 Trade and Markets in Precapitalist States, in: S.K.
Sanderson (ed.), Sociological Worlds. Compara-
tive and Historical Readings on Society, London,
New York, 36–47.
Berge, R.L. ten and Goot, F.R.W. van de
2002 Seqenenre Taa II, the Violent Death of a Pharaoh,
Journal of Clinical Pathology 55/3, 232.
Bergman, C., McEwen, E. and Miller, R.
1988 Experimental Archery: Projectile Velocities and
Comparison of Bow Performances, Antiquity 62,
658–670.
Bergmann, E. von
1886 Inschriftliche Denkmäler der Sammlung Ägyp-
tischer Alterthümer des Österr. Kaiserhauses, Re-
cueil de travaux relatifs à la philologie et à l’archéo-
logie égyptiennes et assyriennes 7, 177–196.
Berman, T.
2004 Cultural Appropriation, in: T. Biolsi (ed.), A Com-
panion to the Anthropology of American Indians,
Malden, MA, 383–397.
Bernardini, W.
2005 Reconsidering Spatial and Temporal Aspects of Pre-
historic Cultural Identity, American Antiquity 70,
31–54.
Berruto, G.
2010 Identifying Dimensions of Linguistic Variation in a
Language Space, in: P. Auer and J.E. Schmidt (eds.),
Language and Space. An International Handbook of
Linguistic Variation, vol. 1: Theories and Methods,
Berlin, New York, 226–240.
Berry, J.W.
1980 Acculturation and Adaptation in a New Society, In-
ternational Migration 30, 69–85.
2005 Acculturation: Living Successfully in Two Cultures,
International Journal of Intercultural Relations 29,
697–712.
372 Selected Bibliography
Berry, J.W., K im, U., Minde, T. and Mok, D.
1987 Comparative Studies of Acculturative Stress, Inter-
national Migration Review 21, 491–511.
Berthelot, M.
1895 Études sur les métaux, in: J. de Morgan, Fouilles à
Dahchour, Vienna, 131–146.
Betteridge, D.
1995 On the Origins of the Angular Bow, Journal of the
Society of Archer-Antiquaries 38, 33–35.
Bettinger, R.L. and Baumhoff, M.A.
1982 The Numic Spread: Great Basin Cultures in Compe-
tition, American Antiquity 47, 485–503.
Beylage, P.
2002 Aufbau der königlichen Stelentexte: vom Beginn der
18. Dynastie bis zur Amarnazeit, Ägypten und Altes
Testament 54, Wiesbaden.
Bhabha, H.
1994 Frontlines/Borderposts, Diplacements, in:
A. Bammer (ed.), Cultural Identities in Question,
Bloomington, Indianapolis, 269–272.
2004 The Location of Culture, revised edition, London.
Bianchi, R.
2004 Daily Life of the Nubians, Westport.
Bianucci, R., H abicht, M.E., Buckley, S., Fletcher, J.,
Seiler, R., Öhrström, L.M., Vassilika, E., Böni, T. and
Rühli, F.J.
2015 Shedding New Light on the 18th Dynasty Mummies
of the Royal Architect Kha and his Spouse Merit,
PLoS ONE 10/7, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.
pone.0131916 (last accessed 08.05.19).
Biase-Dyson, C. di
2013 Foreigners and Egyptians in the Late Egyptian
Stories. Linguistic, Literary and Historical Perspec-
tives, Leiden, Boston.
Bibby, M.
2003 The Arrival of the Horse in Egypt: New Approaches
and a Hypothesis, in: R. Ives, D. Lines, C. Naunton
and N. Wahlberg (eds.), Current Research in Egyp-
tology III, December 2001, Third Symposium for
Current Research in Egyptology, British Archaeo-
logical Reports International Series 1192, Oxford,
13–18.
Bienkowski, P. and Tooley, A.M.J.
1995 Gifts of the Nile: Ancient Egyptian Arts and Crafts
in the Liverpool Museum, Liverpool.
Bier, C.
2004 Patterns in Time and Space: Technologies of Trans-
fer and the Cultural Transmission of Mathematical
Knowledge across the Indian Ocean, Ars Orientalis
34, 172–194.
Bietak, M.
1975 Tell el-Dab‘a, vol. 2: Der Fundort im Rahmen einer
archäologischen-geographischen Untersuchung über
das ägyptische Ostdelta, ÖAW: Denkschriften der
Gesamtakademie 4, Untersuchungen der Zweigstelle
Kairo des Österreichischen Archäologischen Instituts 1,
Vienna.
1981 Avaris and Piramesse: Archaeological Exploration
in the Eastern Nile Delta, Oxford.
1984 Problems of Middle Bronze Age Chronology: New
Evidence from Egypt, American Journal of Archaeo-
logy 88/4, 471–485.
1985a Ein altägyptischer Weingarten in einem Tempelbe-
zirk (Tell el-Dab‘a 1. März bis 10. Juni 1985), Anzei-
ger der Philosophisch-Historischen Klasse der Ös-
terreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 122,
267–278.
1985b Zu den nubischen Bogenschützen aus Assiut: Ein
Beitrag zur Geschichte der Ersten Zwischenzeit, in:
P. Posener-K riéger (ed.), Mélanges Gamal Eddin
Mokhtar, Bibliothèque d’étude 97, Cairo, 87–97.
1985c Eine “Rhythmusgruppe” aus der Zeit des späten Mit-
tleren Reiches: ein Beitrag zur Instrumentenkunde
des Alten Ägypten, Die Jahreshefte des Öster-
reichischen Archäologischen Instituts in Wien 56,
3–18.
1987 The C-Group and Pan-Grave Culture in Nubia, in:
T. H agg (ed.), Nubian Culture Past and Present:
Main Papers Presented at the Sixth International
Conference for Nubian Studies in Uppsala 11–16
August, 1986, Stockholm, 113–128.
1989a Servant Burials in the Middle Bronze Age Culture
of the Eastern Nile Delta, Eretz Israel 20, 30–43.
1989b The Middle Bronze Age of the Levant – A New
Approach to Relative and Absolute Chronology, in:
P. Åström (ed.), High, Middle or Low? Acts of an
International Colloquium on Absolute Chronology
held at the University of Gothenburg, 20–22 August
1987, vol. 3, Gothenburg, 78–120.
1990 Zur Herkunft des Seth von Avaris, Ägypten und
Levante 1, 9–16.
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 und Levante 2,
47–75.
1991b Egypt and Canaan during the Middle Bronze Age,
Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Re-
search 281, 27–72.
1991c Tell el-Dab‘a, vol. 5/1: Ein Friedshofbezirk der
Mittleren Bronzezeitkultur mit Totentempel und Sied-
lungsschichten, ÖAW: Denkschriften der Gesamt-
akademie 9, Untersuchungen der Zweigstelle Kairo
des Österreichischen Archäologischen Instituts 8,
Vienna.
1994a Historische und archäologische Einführung, in: M.
Bietak and I. Hein (eds.), Pharaonen und Fremde.
Dynastien im Dunkel. Katalog der 194. Sonderaus-
stellung des Historischen Museums der Stadt Wien,
Rathaus Wien, Volkshalle, 8. Sept. – 23. Oktober
1994, Vienna, 17–57.
1994b Die Wandmalerein aus Tell el-Dab‘a/‘Ezbet Helmi.
Erste Eindrücke, Ägypten und Levante 4, 44–81.
1996a Avaris. The Capital of the Hyksos. Recent Excava-
tions at Tell el-Dab‘a, London.
1996b The Toreador Scenes in Avaris/Tell el-Dab‘a, Cretan
Studies 5, 123–125.
1996c Le debut de la XVIIIe dynastie et les Minoens à
Avaris, Bulletin de la société française d’égyptolo-
gie 135, 11–44.
 Selected Bibliography
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.
1999 Une citadelle royale à Avaris de la première moitié
de la XVIIIe dynastie et ses liens avec le monde mi-
noen, in: A. Caubet (ed.), L’acrobate au taureau. Les
découvertes de Tell el-Dab‘a (Égypte) et l’archéo-
logie de la Méditerranée orientale (1800–1400 av.
J.-C.), Paris, 29–81.
2000a Minoan Paintings in Avaris, Egypt, in: S. Sherratt
(ed.), The Wall Paintings of Thera. Proceedings of
the First International Symposium, Thera, Hellas,
30 August – 4 September 1997, vol. 1, Athens, 33–42.
2000b Rich Beyond the Dreams of Avaris: Tell el-Dab‘a
and the Aegean World – A Guide for the Perplexed.
A Response to Eric H. Cline, Annual of the British
School at Athens 95, 185–205.
2003a Science versus Archaeology: Problems and Conse-
quences in High Aegean Chronology, in: M. Bietak
(ed.), The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the
Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium
B.C., vol. 2: Proceedings of the SCIEM 2000 – Euro-
Conference Haindorf, 2nd of May – 7th of May 2001,
ÖAW: Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie 29, Con-
tributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediter-
ranean 4, Vienna, 23–34.
2003b Two Ancient Near Eastern Temples with Bent Axis
in the Eastern Nile Delta, Ägypten und Levante 13,
13–38.
2004 Seal Impressions from the Middle till the New King-
dom: 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 Im-
plications. Papers of a Symposium, Vienna, 10th–13th
of January 2002, ÖAW: Denkschriften der Gesamt-
akademie 35, Contributions to the Chronology of the
Eastern Mediterranean 8, Vienna, 43–55.
2005a The King and the Syrian Weather God on Egyptian
Seals of the Thirteenth Dynasty, in: K. Daoud, S.
Bedier and S. A bd El-Fattah (eds.), Studies in Hon-
or of Ali Radwan, vol. 1, Supplément aux annales du
service des antiquités de l’Égypte 34, Cairo, 201–212.
2005b The Tuthmoside Stronghold of Perunefer, Egyptian
Archaeology 26, 13–17.
2005c The Setting of the Minoan Wall Paintings at Avaris,
British School at Athens Studies 13, 83–90.
2007 Bronze Age Paintings in the Levant: Chronological
and Cultural Considerations, in: M. Bietak and E.
Czerny (eds.), The Synchronisation of Civilisations
in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millen-
nium BC, vol. 3: Proceedings of the SCIEM 2000
– 2nd Euro­Conference Vienna, 28th of May – 1st of
June 2003, ÖAW: Denkschriften der Gesamtaka-
demie 37, Con­t ributions to the Chronology of the
Eastern Mediterranean 9, Vienna, 269–300.
2009a Perunefer: The Principal New Kingdom Naval Base,
Egyptian Archaeology 34, 15–17.
2009b Perunefer: An Update, Egyptian Archaeology 35,
16–17.
2009c Near Eastern Sanctuaries in the Eastern Nile Delta,
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
373
d’architecture Libanaises Hors-Série 6, Beirut, 209–
228.
2010a Houses, Palaces and Development of Social Struc-
ture in Avaris, in: M. Bietak, E. Czerny and
I. Forstner-Müller (eds.), Cities and Urbanism in
Ancient Egypt. Papers from a Workshop in Novem-
ber 2006 at the Austrian Academy of Sciences, ÖAW:
Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie 60, Untersuch-
ungen der Zweigstelle Kairo des Österreichischen
Archäologischen Instituts 35, Vienna, 11–68.
2010b From Where Came the Hyksos and Where Did They
Go?, in: M. M arée (ed.), The Second Intermedi-
ate Period (Thirteenth–Seventeenth Dynasties).
Current Research, Future Prospects, Orientalia
Lovaniensia Analecta 192, Leuven, Paris, Walpole,
139–181.
2010c A Palace of the Hyksos Khayan at Avaris, 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 (5 May
– 10 May 2008 –Sapienza– Università di Roma),
vol. 2, Wiesbaden, 99–110.
2010d Minoan Presence in the Pharaonic Naval Base of
“Peru-nefer”, British School at Athens Studies 18,
11–24.
2010e Le Hyksôs Khayan, son palais, et une lettre cunéi-
forme, Comptes rendus de l’académie des inscrip-
tions et belles-lettres 10, 973–990.
2011 The Aftermath of the Hyksos in Avaris, in:
R. Sela-Sheffy and G. Tury (eds.), Culture Contacts
and the Making of Cultures. Papers in Homage to
Itamar Even-Zohar, Tel Aviv, 19–65.
2012 The Archaeology of the ‘Gold of Valour’, Egyptian
Archaeology 40, 42–43.
2013a Antagonisms in Historical and Radiocarbon
Chronology, in: A. Shortland and C. Bronk R amsey
(eds.), Radiocarbon and the Chronologies of Ancient
Egypt, Oxford, 76–109.
2013b The Impact of Minoan Art on Egypt and the Levant:
A Glimpse of Palatial Art from the Naval Base of
Peru-nefer at Avaris, in: J. A ruz, S.B. Graff and
Y. R akic (eds.), Cultures in Contact. From Mesopo-
tamia to the Mediterranean in the Second Millen-
nium B.C., New York, 188–199.
2016a The Egyptian Community in Avaris during the Hyk-
sos Period, Ägypten und Levante 26, 263–274.
2016b Review of Sturt Manning, A Test of Time and A
Test of Time Revisited: The Volcano of Thera and
the Chronology and History of the Aegean and
East Mediterranean in the Mid-Second Millennium
BC, ISBN: 9781782972198, Oxford: Oxbow
Books 2014, Pp. 672, H242 x W170 (mm), Bryn
Mawr Classical Review 2016.04.06, http://bmcr.
brynmawr.edu/2016/2016-04-06.html (last accessed
15.06.2017).
2016c Les sanctuaires cananéens dans le delta oriental du
Nil, in: P. M atthiae and M. d’Andrea (eds.), L’ar-
cheologia del sacro e l’archeologia del culto. Sa-
bratha, Ebla, Ardea, Lanuvio. Ebla e la Siriadall’età
del bronzo all’età del ferro, Atti dei Convegni Lin-
cei 304, Rome, 223–256.
2017 Harbours and Coastal Military Bases in Egypt in
the Second Millennium B.C. Avaris, Peru-Nefer,
Pi-Ramesse, in: H. Willems and J.-M. Dahms (eds.),
The Nile: Natural and Cultural Landscape in Egypt,
Bielefeld, 53–70.
374 Selected Bibliography
2018 A Thutmosid Palace Precinct at Peru-Nefer (Tell el-
Dab‘a), in: M. Bietak and S. Prell (eds.), Ancient
Egyptian and Ancient Near Eastern Palaces, vol. 1:
Egypt, Contributions to the Archaeology of Egypt,
Nubia and the Levant 5, Vienna, 223–250.
2019a Bubastis: A Palace for a King or a Provincial
Administrative Centre?, in: M. Bietak, P. Matthiae
and S. Prell (eds.), Ancient Egyptian and Ancient
Near Eastern Palaces, vol. 2: Proceedings of a
Workshop held at the 10th ICAANE in Vienna, 25–26
April 2016, Contributions to the Archaeology of
Egypt, Nubia and the Levant 8, Wiesbaden, 205–238.
2019b The Spiritual Roots of the Hyksos Elite: An Analy-
sis 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, 47–68.
2019c The Obelisk Temple in Byblos and its Predecessors,
in: A. Pieńkowska, D. Szeląg and I. Zych (eds.),
Stories told around the Fountain. Papers offered to
Piotr Bieliński on his 70th Birthday, Warsaw, 165–186.
2020 Why Radiocarbon Dates from Egyptian Funerary
Contexts are Approximately Accurate while those
from Stratified Settlements are Precisely Wrong, 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. 1, Prague, 235–245.
2021a The End of High Chronology in the Aegean and the
Levant? Recent Discussions about the Chronology of
the Middle and the Late Bronze Ages in the Eastern
Mediterranean: Part II, Bibliotheca Orientalis 78,
forthcoming.
2021b L’architecture sacrée, clef des origines de l’élite
Hyksôs, in: R. Rollinger (ed.), The Intellectual
Heritage of the Ancient Near East, Proceedings
of the 64th Rencontre Assyrologique, Innsbruck
16-20 July 2018, Denkschriften der Philosophisch-
historischen Klasse der Österreichischen Akademie
der Wissenschaften, forthcoming.
Bietak, M. (ed.)
2003 The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern
Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C., vol. 2:
Proceedings of the SCIEM 2000 – EuroConfer-
ence Haindorf, 2nd of May – 7th of May 2001, ÖAW:
Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie 29, Contribu-
tions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterra-
nean 4, Vienna.
Bietak, M. and Czerny, E. (eds.)
2007 The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the East-
ern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium BC,
vol. 3: Proceedings of the SCIEM 2000 – 2nd Euro
Conference Vienna, 28th of May – 1st of June 2003,
ÖAW: Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie 37,
Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern
Mediterranean 9, Vienna.
Bietak, M., Czerny, E. and Prell, S.
2016 Ahmose in Avaris?, in: H. Franzmeier, T. Rehren
and R. Schulz (eds.), Mit archäologischen Schichten
Geschichte schreiben. Festschrift für Edgar B. Pusch
zum 70. Geburstag, Forschungen in der Ramses-Stadt
10, Hildesheim, 81–93.
Bietak, M. and Dorner, J.
1998a Ausgrabungen Tell el-Dab‘a-‘Ezbet Helmi, 8. Sept.–
30. Nov. 1998, Österreichisches Archäologisches In-
stitut, Jahresbericht 1998, 5–11.
1998b Der Tempel und die Siedlung des Mitteleren Reiches
bei ‘Ezbet Ruschdi, Ägypten und Levante 8, 9–49.
Bietak, M., Dorner, J. and Jánosi, P.
2001 Ausgrabungen in dem Palastbezirk von Avaris. Vor-
bericht Tell el-Dab‘a/‘Ezbet Helmi Frühjahr 1993–
2000, Ägypten und Levante 11, 27–119.
Bietak, M. and Forstner-Müller, I.
2007 Ausgrabung eines Palastbezirkes der Tuthmosiden-
zeit bei ‘Ezbet Helmi/Tell el-Dab‘a, Vorbericht für
das Frühjahr 2007, Ägypten und Levante 17, 33–58.
2009 Der Hyksos-Palast bei Tell el-Dab‘a. Zweite und
Dritte Grabungskampagne (Frühling 2008 und
Frühling 2009), Ägypten und Levante 19, 91–119.
2011 The Topography of New Kingdom Avaris and Per-
Ramesses, in: M. Collier and S. Snape (eds.), Ra-
messide Studies in Honour of K. A. Kitchen, Bolton,
Lancashire, 23–50.
Bietak, M., Forstner-Müller, I. and Herbich, T.
2007 Discovery of a New Palatial Complex in Tell el-
Dab‘a in the Delta: Geophysical Survey and Prelim-
inary Archaeological Verification, in: Z. H awass and
J. R ichards (eds.), The Archaeology and Art of An-
cient Egypt. Essays in Honor of David B. O’Connor,
vol. 1, Cahiers supplément aux annales du service
des antiquités de l’Égypte 36, Cairo, 119–125.
Bietak, M., Forstner-Müller, I. and Mlinar, C.
2001 The Beginning of the Hyksos Period at Tell el-Dab‘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 Mediter-
ranean. Studies in Honour of Paul Åström, Öster-
reichisches Archäologisches Institut in Wien Sonder-
schriften 39, Vienna, 171–181.
Bietak, M. and Hein, I.
2001 The Context of White Slip Wares in the Stratigraphy
of Tell el-Dab‘a and Some Conclusions on Aegean
Chronology, in: V. K arageorghis (ed.), The White
Slip Ware of Late Bronze Age Cyprus. Proceedings
of an International Conference Organized by the
Anastasios G. Leventis Foundation, Nicosia, in Hon-
our of Malcolm Wiener, Nicosia, 29th–30th October
1998, ÖAW: Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie 20,
Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Medi-
terranean 2, Vienna, 171–194.
Bietak, M. and Jung, R.
2007/ Pharaohs, Swords and Sea Peoples, Archaeology
2008 and History in the Lebanon 26–27, 212–233.
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 ḥituv, G. Lehmann
and Z. Talshir (eds.), All the Wisdom of the East.
Studies in Near Eastern Archaeology and History in
Honor of Eliezer D. Oren, Orbis Biblicus et Orienta-
lis 255, Göttingen, 105–127.
 Selected Bibliography
Bietak, M., Kopetzky, K., Stager, L. and Voss, R.
2008 Synchronisation of Stratigraphies: Ashkelon and
Tell el-Dab‘a, Ägypten und Levante 18, 49–60.
Bietak, M. and M arinatos, N.
1995 The Minoan Wall Paintings from Avaris, Ägypten
und Levante 5, 49–62.
2003 The Minoan Paintings of Avaris, in: B. M anley
(ed.), The Seventy Great Mysteries of Ancient
Egypt, London, 166–169.
Bietak, M., M arinatos, N. and Palivou, C.
2007 Taureador Scenes in Tell el-Dab‘a (Avaris) and
Knossos, ÖAW: Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie
43, Untersuchungen der Zweigstelle Kairo des Öster-
reichischen Archäologischen Instituts 27, Vienna.
Bietak, M., M ath, N., Müller, V. and Jurman, C.
2012/ Report on the Excavations of a Hyksos Palace at Tell
2013 el-Dab‘a/Avaris (23rd August–15th November 2011),
Ägypten und Levante 22–23, 17–53.
Bietak, M. and Rüden, C. von
2018 Contact Points: Avaris and Piramesse, in: J. Spier,
T. Potts and S.E. Cole (eds.), Beyond the Nile,
Egypt and the Classical World, Los Angeles, 18–23.
Bietak, M., Rüden, C. von, Becker, J., Jungfleisch, J.,
Morgan, L. and Peintner, E.
2012/ Preliminary Report of the Tell el-Dab‘a Wall
2013 Painting Project – Season 2011/2012, Ägypten und
Levante 22–23, 131–147.
Bietak, M. and Strouhal, E.
1974 Die Todesumstände des Pharaos Seqenenre
(17. Dynastie), Annalen des Naturhistorischen Mu-
seums in Wien 78, 29–52.
Biga, M.
2010 Textiles in the Administrative Texts of the Royal
Archives from Ebla (Syria, 24th Century BC) with
Particular Emphasis on Coloured Textiles, in: C.
Michel and M.-L. Nosch (eds.), Textile Terminol-
ogies in the Ancient Near East and Mediterranean
from the Third to the First Millennia BC, Oxford,
Oakville, 146–172.
Biggs, R.D.
1974 Inscriptions from Abu Salabikh, Oriental Institute
Publications 99, Chicago.
Bijker, W., Hughes, T. and Pinch, T. (eds.)
1993 The Social Construction of Technological Systems:
New Directions in the Sociology and History of
Technology, Cambridge, London.
Binder, S.
2008 Gold of Honour in New Kingdom Egypt, Australian
Centre for Egyptology: Studies 8, Oxford.
Binford, L.R.
1965 Archaeological Systematics and the Study of
Culture Process, American Antiquity 31, 203–210.
375
Binger, T.
1997 Asherah: Goddesses in Ugarit, Israel and the Old
Testament, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament
Supplement Series 232, Sheffield.
Bissing, F. von
1900 Ein thebanischer Grabfund aus dem Anfang des
Neuen Reichs, Berlin.
1901 Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennes du
Musée du Caire. Nos. 3426–3587: Metallgefässe,
Vienna.
1936/ Das angebliche Weltreich der Hyksos, Archiv für
1937 Orientforschung 11, 325–335.
Bisson de la Roque, F.
1930 Rapport sur les fouilles de Médamoud. Année 1929,
Cairo.
Bisson de la Roque, F., Contenau, G. and Chapouthier, F.
1953 Le trésor de Tôd, Documents de fouilles de l’institut
français d’archéologie orientale du Caire 11, Cairo.
Black, J.A.
2018 Inana’s Descent to the Nether World, The Electronic
Corpus of Sumerian Literature, http://etcsl.orinst.
ox.ac.uk/section1/tr141.htm (last accessed 20.04.18).
Blackman, A.M.
1914 The Rock Tombs of Meir, vol. 1, London.
1915 The Rock Tombs of Meir, vol. 3, London.
1924 The Rock Tombs of Meir, vol. 4, London.
1953 The Rock Tombs of Meir, vol. 6, London.
Bleeker, C.J.
1973 Hathor and Thoth. Two Key Figures of the Ancient
Egyptian Religion, Leiden.
Bloxam, E.
2006 Miners and Mistresses. Middle Kingdom Mining
on the Margins, Journal of Social Archaeology 6/2,
277–303.
Blumenthal, E.
1972 Die Erzählung des Papyrus d’Orbiney als Literatur-
werk, Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache und Alter-
tumskunde 99, 1–17.
Boas, F.
1920 Methods of Ethnology, American Anthropologist 22,
311–321.
1937 The Diffusion of Cultural Traits, Social Research
4/3, 286–295.
1938 Invention, in: F. Boas (ed.), General Anthropology,
New York, 238–281.
1966 The Aims of Anthropological Research, in: F. Boas
(ed.), Race, Language and Culture, reprint, New
York, 243–259.
1989 A Franz Boas Reader: The Shaping of American
Anthropology, 1883–1911, G.W. Stocking Jr. (ed.),
Chicago.
Boehmer, R.
1972 Die Kleinfunde von Bŏgazköy, Wissenschaftliche
Veröffentlichung der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft
87, Berlin.
376 Selected Bibliography
Boessneck, J.
1970 Ein altägyptisches Pferdeskelett, Mitteilungen des
Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts Kairo 26,
43–47.
1976 Tell el-Dab‘a, vol. 3: Die Tierknochenfunde 1966–
1969, ÖAW: Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie 5,
Untersuchungen der Zweigstelle Kairo des Öster-
reichischen Archäologischen Instituts 3, Vienna.
Boessneck, J. and Driesch, A. von den
1982 Elefanten-Löwen und andere Tierknochen aus der
Palastenlage der Ramessidenzeit bei Qantir im östli-
chen Nildelta, in: J. Boessneck (ed.), Studien an sub-
fossilen Tierknochen aus Ägypten, Münchner Ägyp-
tologische Studien 40, Munich, Berlin, 136–143.
1992 Tell el-Dab‘a, vol. 7: Tiere und historische Umwelt
im Nordost-Delta im 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr. anhand
der Knochenfunde der Ausgrabungen 1975–1986,
ÖAW: Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie 11,
Untersuchungen der Zweigstelle Kairo des Öster-
reichischen Archäologischen Instituts 10, Vienna.
Boessneck, J., Driesch, A. von den and Eissa, A.
1992 Eine Eselsbestattung der 1. Dynastie in Abusir, Mit-
teilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts
Kairo 48, 1–10.
Böhl, F.
1909 Die Sprache der Amarnabriefe mit besonderer
Berücksichtigung der Kanaanismen, Leipzig.
Boivin, N.
2017 Proto-Globalisation and Biotic Exchange in the Old
World, in: N. Boivin, R. Crassard and M. Petraglia
(eds.), Human Dispersal and Species Movement. From
Prehistory to the Present, Cambridge, 349–408.
Boivin, N., Blench, R. and Fuller, D.
2009 Archaeological, Linguisitic and Historical Sources
of Ancient Seafaring: A Multidisciplinary Approach
to the Study of Early Maritime Contact and Ex-
change in the Arabian Peninsula, in: M. Petraglia
and J. Rose (eds.), The Evolution of Human Popu-
lations in Arabia, Dodrecht, Heidelberg, London,
New York, 251–278.
Boivin, N. and Fuller, D.
2009 Shell Middens, Ships and Seeds: Exploring Coastal
Subsistence, Maritime Trade and the Dispersal of
Domesticates in and Around the Ancient Arabian
Peninsula, Journal of World Prehistory 22, 113–180.
Bökönyi, S.
1997 Zebus and Indian Wild Cattle, Anthropozoologica
25–26, 647–654.
Bonani, G., H aas, H., H awass, Z., Lehner, M., Nakhla, S.,
Nolan, J., Wenke, R. and Wilfli, W.
2001 Radiocarbon Dates of Old and Middle Kingdom
Monuments in Egypt, Radiocarbon 43/3, 1297–1320.
Bonnet, C.
2000 Edifices et rites funéraires à Kerma, Paris.
2013 The Religious Life in Hellenistic Phoenicia: ‘Middle
Ground’ and New Agencies, in: J. Rüpke (ed.), The
Individual in the Religions of the Ancient Mediterra-
nean, Corby, 41–57.
Bonnet, H.
1926 Die Waffen der Völker des alten Orients, Leipzig.
Bontty, M.
1995 The Haunebu, Göttinger Miszellen 145, 45–58.
Boonstra, S.L.
2019 Scarab and Seal Amulet Production in the Early
Eighteenth Dynasty: An Analysis of the Materials,
Technology, and Surface Characteristics to Deter-
mine Seal Amulet Workshops, PhD Dissertation,
University of Birmingham.
Borchardt, L.
1907 Das Grabdenkmal des Königs Ne-user-Re‘, Aus-
grabungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft in
Abusir 1902–1904 1, Leipzig.
1913 Das Grabdenkmal des Königs S‘a3ḥu-Re‘, vol. 2:
Die Wandbilder, Ausgrabungen der Deutschen
Orient-Gesellschaft in Abusir 1902–1908, Leipzig.
1925 Statuen und Statuetten von Königen und Privatleu-
ten im Museum von Kairo. Nr. 1–1294, vol. 2: Text
und Tafeln zu Nr. 381–653, Berlin.
Bordreuil, P.
1998 Astarté, la dame de Byblos, Comptes-rendus des
séances de l’académie des inscriptions et belles-
lettres 142/4, 1153–1164.
Boschloos, V.
2012a Egyptian and Egyptianising Scarab-Shaped Seals in
Syria and Lebanon, Bibliotheca Orientalis 69/3–4,
175–181.
2012b Late Bronze Age Cornelian and Red Jasper Scarabs
with Cross Designs. Egyptian, Levantine or Mino-
an?, Journal of Ancient Egyptian Interconnections
4/2, 5–16.
2014 The Middle Bronze Age “Green Jasper Seal Work-
shop”: New Evidence from the Levant and Egypt,
Journal of Ancient Egyptian Interconnections 6/4,
36–37.
2015 From Egypt to Byblos… and Back Again. The Pro-
duction and Distribution of Green Jasper Seals in
Egypt and the Levant during the Early 2nd Millenni-
um BCE, in: J. Mynářová, P. Onderka and P. Pavúk
(eds.), There and Back Again – The Crossroad, vol. 2:
Proceedings of an International Conference Held in
Prague, September 15–18, 2014, Prague, 297–314.
Bosticco, S.
1965 Le stele egiziane del Nuovo Regno, Rome.
Bou-Assaf, Y.
2008 Organisation architectural à Byblos (Liban) au
Bronze Ancien, in: M. Bietak and E. Czerny (eds.),
The Bronze Age in the Lebanon: Studies on the Ar-
chaeology and Chronology of Lebanon, Syria and
Egypt, ÖAW: Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie 50,
Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern
Mediterranean 17, Vienna, 52–60.
Bouillon, H.
2014 A New Perspective on So-Called ‘Hathoric Curls’,
Ägypten und Levante 24, 209–226.
Bourne, R.
1916 Trans-National America, Atlantic Monthly 18, 86–97.
 Selected Bibliography
Bourriau, J.
1981 Nubians in Egypt during the Second Intermediate
Period. An Interpretation based upon the Egyptian
Ceramic Evidence, in: Do. A rnold (ed.), Studien zur
Altägyptischen Keramik, Mainz, 25–41.
1986/ Cemetery and Settlement Pottery of the Second
1987 Intermediate Period to Early New Kingdom, Bulletin
of the Egyptological Seminar 8, 47–59.
1987 Pottery Figure Vases of the New Kingdom, Cahiers
de la céramique égyptienne 1, 81–96.
1990 Canaanite Jars from New Kingdom Deposits at
Memphis, Kom Rabi‘a, Eretz Israel 21, 18*–26*.
1991 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.
1997a Second Intermediate Period. New Kingdom in
North Sinai, Cahiers de la céramique égyptienne 5,
137–139.
1997b Beyond Avaris: The Second Intermediate Period in
Egypt Outside the Eastern Delta, in: E.D. Oren (ed.),
The Hyksos: New Historical and Archaeological
Perspectives, University Museum Monograph 96,
Philadelphia, 159–182.
2004 The Beginnings of Amphora Production in Egypt,
in: J. Bourriau and J. Phillips (eds.), Invention and
Innovation: The Social Context of Technological
Change, vol. 2: Egypt, the Aegean and the Near
East, 1650–1150 B.C., Oxford, 78–95.
2010a Survey of Memphis, vol. 4: Kom Rabia. The New
Kingdom Pottery, Excavation Memoir 93, London.
2010b 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,
Leuven, Paris, Walpole, 11–37.
Bourriau, J. and Eriksson, K.
1997 A Late Minoan Sherd from an Early 18th Dynasty
Context at Kom Rabia, Memphis, in: J. Phillips (ed.),
Ancient Egypt, the Aegean, and the Near East:
Studies in Honour of Martha Rhoads Bell,
San Antonio, 95–120.
Bourriau, J., Nicholson, P.T. and Rose, P.
2000 Pottery, in: P.T. Nicholson and I. Shaw (eds.),
Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology,
Cambridge, 121–147.
Bourriau, J. and Phillips, J. (eds.)
2004 Invention and Innovation. The Social Context of
Technological Change, vol. 2: Egypt, the Aegean
and the Near East, 1650–1150 B.C., Oxford.
Bourriau, J., Smith, L. and Serpico, M.
2001 The Provenance of Canaanite Amphorae found at
Memphis and Amarna in the New Kingdom, in:
A. Shortland (ed.), The Social Context of Techno-
logical Change. Egypt and the Near East, 1650–
1550 BC, Oxford, 113–146.
Brack, An. and Brack, A r.
1980 Das Grab des Haremheb: Theben Nr. 78, Archäolo-
gische Veröffentlichungen des Deutschen Archäolo-
gischen Instituts Abteilung Kairo 35, Mainz.
377
Bradbury, L.
1986 Nefer’s Inscription: On the Death of Queen Ah-
mose-Nefertary and the Deed found Pleasing to the
King, Journal of the American Research Center in
Egypt 22, 73–95.
Bradley, P.
2014 The Ancient World Transformed. Societies, Person-
alities and Historical Periods from Egypt, Greece
and Rome, Cambridge.
Brand, P.J.
2000 The Monuments of Seti I: Epigraphic, Historical,
and Art Historical Analysis, Leiden, Boston, Köln,
2000.
Brandl, B.
2003 The Cape Gelidonya Shipwreck Scarabs Reconsid-
ered, in: M. Bietak (ed.), The Synchronisation of
Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the
Second Millennium B.C., vol. 2: Proceedings of the
SCIEM 2000 – EuroConference Haindorf, 2nd of
May – 7th of May 2001, ÖAW: Denkschriften der
Gesamtakademie 29, Contributions to the Chronol-
ogy of the Eastern Mediterranean 4, Vienna,
249–262.
2018 Morphology and Function of the Sealings from the
Moat Deposit, in: L.E. Stager, J.D. Schloen and R.J.
Voss (eds.), Ashkelon, vol. 6: The Middle Bronze Age
Ramparts and Gates of the North Slope and Later
Fortifications, Pennsylvania, 383–426.
Braun, J.
2002 Music in Ancient Israel/Palestine: Archaeological,
Written, and Comparative Sources, trans. D. Scott,
Michigan, Cambridge.
Bray, T. (ed.)
2003 The Archaeology and Politics of Food and Feasting
in Early States and Empires, New York.
Breasted, J.H.
1906 Ancient Records of Egypt: Historical Documents
from the Earliest Times to the Persian Conquest,
vol. 2, Chicago.
Breniquet, C.
2013 Functions and Uses of Textiles in the Ancient Near
East. Summary and Perspectives, in: M.-L. Nosch,
H. Koefoed and E. Andersson Strand (eds.), Textile
Production and Consumption in the Ancient Near
East. Archaeology, Epigraphy, Iconography, Ancient
Textile Series 12, Oxford, Oakville, 1–25.
Breniquet, C. and Michel, C. (eds.)
2014 Wool Economy in the Ancient Near East and the
Aegean: From the Beginnings of Sheep Husbandry
to Institutional Textile Industry, Ancient Textile Se-
ries 17, Oxford, Philadelphia.
Brentjes, B.
1971 Onager und Esel im alten Orient, in: M. Lurker
(ed.), Beiträge zu Geschichte, Kultur und Religion
des alten Orients. In memoriam Eckhard Unger,
Baden-Baden, 131−145.
1983 Alte Siegelkunst des Vorderen Orients, Leipzig.
378 Selected Bibliography
Brewer, D.
2002 Hunting, Animal Husbandry and Diet in Ancient
Egypt, in: B.J. Collins (ed.), A History of the Animal
World in the Ancient Near East, Leiden, 427–456.
Brill, R.
1990 Chemical Analyses of Early Glasses, 2 vols., Corning.
Brink, E. van den
1982 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, Vienna.
Brody, A.J.
1998 “Each Man Cried Out to his God”. The Specialized
Religion of Canaanite and Phoenician Seafarers,
Harvard Semitic Monographs 58, Atlanta.
Brooklyn Museum
Figure of a Pregnant Female with a Child on her
Back, Brooklyn Museum Online, https://www.brook-
lynmuseum.org/opencollection/objects/127303 (last
accessed 21.06.18).
Broschat, K., Ströbele, F., Koeberl, C., Eckmann, C. and
Mertah, E.
2018 Himmlisch! Die Eisenobjekte aus dem Grab des
Tutanchamun, Mosaiksteine–Forschungen am
Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseum 15, Mainz.
Brovarski, E.
2010 The Hare and Oryx Nomes in the First Intermediate
Period and Early Middle Kingdom, in: A. Woods, A.
McFarlane and S. Binder (eds.), Egyptian Culture
and Society: Studies in Honour of Naguib Kanawati,
Cahiers supplément aux annales du service des an-
tiquités de l’Égypte 38, Cairo, 31–85.
Brovarski, E., Doll, S. and Freed, E.
1982 Egypt’s Golden Age: The Art of Living in the New
Kingdom 1558–1085, Boston.
Brown, C.H.
1994 Lexical Acculturation in Native American Languages,
Current Anthropology 35, 95–117.
1999 Lexical Acculturation in Native American Languages,
New York.
Brown, J.P.
1971 Peace Symbolism in Ancient Military Vocabulary,
Vetus Testamentum 21/1, 1–23.
Brown, M.F.
2008 Cultural Relativism 2.0, Current Anthropology 49/3,
363–383.
Brubaker, R. and Cooper, F.
2000 Beyond ‘Identity’, Theory and Society 29, 1–47.
Brumann, C.
1998 The Anthropological Study of Globalization: To-
wards an Agenda for the Second Phase, Anthropos
93/4, 495–506.
2002 On Culture and Symbols, Current Anthropology
43/3, 509–510.
Brun, J.P.
2003 Le vin et l’huile dans la Méditerranée antique. Vi-
ticulture, oléiculture et procédés de transformation,
Paris.
Brunton, G.
1920 Lahun, vol. 1: The Treasure, London.
1930 Qau and Badari, vol. 3, London.
1937 Mostagedda and the Tasian Culture, London.
1948 Matmar, London.
Bruyère, B.
1952 Deir el Médineh année 1926. Sondage au temple fu-
néraire de Thotmès II, Fouilles de l’institut français
d’archéologie orientale du Caire IV/4, Cairo.
Bryan, B.M.
1996 Art, Empire, and the End of the Late Bronze Age,
in: J.S. Cooper and G.M. Schwartz (eds.), The
Study of the Ancient Near East in the Twenty-First
Century. The William Foxwell Albright Centennial
Conference, Winona Lake, 33–79.
2007 A ‘New’ Statue of Amenhotep III and the Meaning of
the Khepresh Crown, in: Z. H awass and J. R ichards
(eds.), The Archaeology and Art of Ancient Egypt:
Essays in Honor of David B. O’Connor, Cahiers
supplément aux annales du service des antiquités de
l’Égypte 36, Cairo, 173–189.
2019 The Ancient Near East and Egypt, in: A.C. Gunter
(ed.), A Companion to Ancient Near Eastern Art,
Hoboken, 531–564.
Bryce, T.
2005 Letters of the Great Kings of the Ancient Near East.
The Royal Correspondence of the Late Bronze Age,
London, New York.
2006 The ‘Eternal Treaty’ from the Hittite Perspective,
British Museum Studies in Ancient Egypt and
Sudan 6, 1–11.
Buck, A. de
1935 The Egyptian Coffin Texts, vol. 1: Texts of Spells
1–75, Oriental Institute Publications 34, Chicago.
1956 The Egyptian Coffin Texts, vol. 6: Texts of Spells
472–787, Oriental Institute Publications 81, Chicago.
Buckley, C.D. and Boudot, E.
2017 The Evolution of an Ancient Technology, Royal
Society Open Science 4, http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/
rsos.170208 (last accessed 12.07.2018).
Budge, E.A.W.
1898 Fascimiles of the Rhind Mathematical Papyrus,
London.
Budin, S.L.
2011 Images of Woman and Child from the Bronze Age:
Reconsidering Fertility, Maternity, and Gender in
the Ancient World, Cambridge.
2015a The Nude Female in the Southern Levant: A Mixing
of Syro-Mesopotamian and Egyptian Iconographies,
in: A.M. M aila-A feiche (ed.), Cult and Ritual on
the Levantine Coast and its Impact on the Eastern
Mediterranean Realism. Proceedings of the Interna-
tional Symposium Beirut 2012, Bulletin d’archéol-
ogie et d’architecture Libanaises Hors-Série 10,
Beirut, 315–336.
 Selected Bibliography
2015b Qedešet: A Syro-Anatolian Goddess in Egypt, Journal
of Ancient Egyptian Interconnections 7/4, 1–20.
Bumann, E.
2009 The Hyksos and Acculturation. Processes of
Acculturation of the Asiatic Population at Tell el-
Dab‛a (Avaris) during the Late Middle Kingdom and
the Second Intermediate Period, PhD Dissertation,
University of Jerusalem.
Bunnens, G.
2006 Tell Ahmar, vol. 2: A New Luwian Stele and the Cult
of the Storm-God at Til Barsib-Masuwari, Leuven,
London, Dudley.
Buren, E.D. van
1930 Clay Figurines of Babylonia and Assyria,
New Haven.
Burgh, T.W.
2006 Listening to the Artifacts. Music Culture in Ancient
Palestine, New York, London.
Burkard, G.
1977 Textkritische Untersuchungen zu ägyptischen Weis-
heitslehren des Alten und Mittleren Reiches, Ägyp-
tologische Abhandlungen 34, Wiesbaden.
Burke, A.
2009 More Light on Old Reliefs: New Kingdom Egyp-
tian Siege Tactics and Asiatic Resistance, in:
J.D. Schloen (ed.), Exploring the Longue Durée. Es-
says in Honor of Lawrence E. Stager, Winona Lake,
57–68.
2010 Canaan Under Siege. The History and Archaeology
of Egypt’s War in Canaan during the Early Eigh-
teenth Dynasty, in: J. Vidal (ed.), Studies on War
in the Ancient Near East. Collected Essays on Mili-
tary History, Alter Orient und Altes Testament 372,
Münster, 43–66.
Burke, A. and Lords, K.
2010 Egyptians at Jaffa: A Portrait of Egyptian Presence
in Jaffa during the Late Bronze Age, Near Eastern
Archaeology 73/1, 2–30.
Burleigh, R.
1986 Chronology of Some Early Domestic Equids in
Egypt and Western Asia, in: R. Meadow and
H. Uerpmann (eds.), Equids in the Ancient World,
Wiesbaden, 230–236.
Burmeister, S.
2000 Archaeology and Migration. Approaches to an Ar-
chaeological Proof of Migration, Current Anthro-
pology 41/4, 539–567.
2017 Innovation as a Possibility. Technological and So-
cial Determinism in their Dialectical Resolution, in:
S. Burmeister and R. Bernbeck (eds.), The Inter-
play of People and Technologies. Archaeological
Case Studies on Innovations, Berlin Studies of the
Ancient World 43, Berlin.
Bursche, A.
1996 Archaeological Sources as Ethnical Evidence – The
Case of the Eastern Vistula Mouth, in: P. Graves-
379
Brown, S. Jones and C. Gamble (eds.), Cultural
Identity and Archaeology: The Construction of Eu-
ropean Communities, London, 228–237.
Burton-Brown, T.
1959 Early Mediterranean Migrations. An Essay in
Archaeological Interpretation, Manchester.
Busch, A.
2006 Über Herkunft und Handel vom Elfenbein im Neuen
Reich, Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur 34, 79–96.
Busink, T.A.
1970 Der Tempel von Jerusalem, von Salomo bis
Herodes, Eine archäologisch-historische Studie un-
ter Berücksichtigung des westsemitischen Tempel-
bau, Leiden.
Butin, R.F.
1932 The Protosinaitic Inscriptions, Harvard Theological
Review 25/2, 130–203.
Butzer, K.
1976 Early Hydraulic Civlisation in Egypt: A Study in
Cultural Ecology, Chicago.
1984 Long Term Nile Flood Variation and Political Dis-
continuities in Pharaonic Egypt, in: J. Clark and
S. Brandt (eds.), From Hunters to Farmers: The
Causes and Consequences of Food Production in
Africa, Berkeley, Los Angeles, 102–112.
2001 Irrigation, in: D.B. R edford (ed.), The Oxford Ency-
clopedia of Ancient Egypt, vol. 2, Oxford, 183–188.
Buzon, M.R., Smith, S.T and Simonetti, A.
2016 Entanglement and the Formation of the Ancient Nu-
bian Napatan State, American Anthropologist 118/2,
284–300.
C
Cadena, M. de la
2005 Are Mestizos Hybrids? The Conceptual Politics of
Andean Identities, Journal of Latin American Studies
37, 259–284.
Cairney, P.
2012 Understanding Public Policy: Theories and Issues,
Hampshire.
Çakirlar, C. and Ikram, S.
2016 ‘When Elephants Battle, the Grass Suffers.’ Power,
Ivory and the Syrian Elephant, Levant 48/2, 167–183.
Callataÿ, F.
2008 Dagger of Kamose, 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, New Haven, London, 118.
Callender, G.
2000 The Middle Kingdom Renaissance (c. 2055–1650 BC),
in: I. Shaw (ed.), The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt,
Oxford, 137–171.
Cameron, C.M.
1995 Migration and the Movement of Southwestern
Peoples, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology
14, 104–124.
380 Selected Bibliography
Caminos, R.A.
1954 Late-Egyptian Miscellanies, Brown Egyptological
Studies 1, London.
Candelora, D.
2017 Defining the Hyksos: A Reevaluation of the Title
HqA xAsw t and its Implications for Hyksos Identity,
Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt
53, 203–221.
2018 Entangled in Orientalism: How the Hyksos became
a Race, Journal of Egyptian History 11, 45–72.
2019a Trophy or Punishment: Reinterpreting the Tell el-
Dab‘a Hand Cache within Middle Bronze Age Le-
gal 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, Contributions to the Archaeology
of Egypt, Nubia and the Levant 9, Wiesbaden, 95–106.
2019b Hybrid Military Communities of Practice: The Inte-
gration of Immigrants as the Catalyst for Egyptian
Social Transformation in the 2nd Millennium BC, in:
J. Mynářová (ed.), The Crossroads, vol. 3: A Stranger
in the House: Foreigners in Ancient Egyptian and
Near Eastern Societies of the Bronze Age, Proceed-
ings of an International Conference held in Prague,
September 10–13, 2018, Prague, 24–47.
Carnarvon, earl of and Carter, H.
1912 Five Years’ Explorations at Thebes. A Record of
Work Done 1907–1911, London, New York, Toronto,
Melbourne.
Carter, H.
1933 The Tomb of Tut Ankh Amen, vol. 3, London.
Carter, H. and Newberry, P.E.
1904 The Tomb of Thoutmôsis IV, Westminster.
Cartwright, C. and Taylor, J.
2008 Wooden Egyptian Archery Bows in the Collections of
the British Museum, The British Museum Technical
Research Bulletin 2, 77–83.
Cartwright, C., Granger-Taylor, H. and Quirke, S.
1998 Lahun Textile Evidence in London, in: S. Quirke
(ed.), Lahun Studies, Reigate, 92–111.
Cartwright, C., Ward, C., Tuff, J. and Delaunay, H.
2009 The Middle Bronze Age Furniture from Tomb
P19 at Jericho: Wood Identification and Conser-
vation Challenges, The British Museum Technical
Research Bulletin 3, 111–120.
Casinader, N.
2017 Transnationalism, Education and Empowerment.
The Latent Legacies of Empire, New York.
Cateloy, C.
2019 Imported Levantine Amphorae at Tell el-Dab‘a: A
Volumetric Approach to Reconsidering the Mar-
itime Trade in the Eastern Mediterranean, 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, 277–304.
Caubet, A.
2016 Terracotta Figurines of Musicians from Mesopota-
mia and Elam, in: A. Bellia and C. M arconi (eds.),
Musicians in Ancient Coroplastic Art. Iconography,
Ritual Contexts, and Functions, Pisa, Rome, 35–43.
Černy, J.
1929 Papyrus Salt 124 (Brit. Mus. 10055), The Journal of
Egyptian Archaeology 15/3, 243–258.
1935 Semites in Egyptian Mining Expeditions to Sinai,
Archiv orientálni 7, 384–389.
1955 The Inscriptions of Sinai, vol. 2: Translations and
Commentary, London.
1969 Stela of Emhab from Tell Edfu, Mitteilungen des
Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts Kairo 24, 87–92.
Černy, J. and Israelit-Groll, S.
1993 A Late Egyptian Grammar, 4th edition, Studia Pohl:
Series Maior 4, Rome.
Certeau, M. de
1984 The Practice of Everyday Life, trans. S. R endall,
Berkeley.
Chaix, L.
2000 An Hyksos Horse from Tell Heboua (Sinaï, Egypt),
in: H. Buitenhuis, M. M ashkour and A.M. Choyke
(eds.), Archaeozoology of the Near East, vol. 4: B.
Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium
in Archaeozoology of Southwestern Asia and Adja-
cent Area, ARC-Publicatie 20, Groningen, 177–186.
2017 Cattle, A Major Component of the Kerma Culture
(Sudan), in: U. A lbarella (ed.), The Oxford Hand-
book of Zooarchaeology, Oxford, 414–426.
Chaix, L. and Grant, B.
1987 A Study of a Prehistoric Population of Sheep (Ovis aries
L.) from Kerma (Sudan) – Archaeozoological and Ar-
chaeological Implications, Archaeozoologia 1, 77–92.
Chaix, L. and Gratin, B.
2002 Un cheval du Nouvel Empire à Saï (Soudan),
Archéologie du Nil Moyen 9, 53–61.
Chamoreau, C. and Léglise, I. (eds.)
2012 Dynamics of Contact-Induced Language, Language
Contact and Bilingualism 2, Berlin, Boston.
Champollion, J.-F.
1835 Monuments de l’Égypte et de la Nubie, Paris.
Chapman, R.
1986/ Executions or Atrocities?: A Note on Tomb P19 at
1987 Jericho, Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological
Society 6, 29–33.
Chappaz, J.-L.
1992 Recherches au Spéos Artemidos: Fonction et pro-
gramme ‘décoratif’ d’un temple rupestre, in:
R. Gundlach and M. Rochholz (eds.), Ägyptische
Tempel: Struktur, Funktion und Programm (Akten
der Ägyptologischen Tempeltagungen in Gosen 1990
und in Mainz 1992), Hildesheimer Ägyptologische
Beiträge 37, Hildesheim, 23–31.
Chard, T.
1937 An Early Horse Skeleton, Journal of Heredity 28,
317–319.
 Selected Bibliography
Charpin, D.
1990 Une alliance contre l’Elam et le ritual du lipit napis-
tim, in: F. Vallat (ed.), Contribution à l’histoire de
l’Iran. Mélanges offerts à Jean Perrot, Paris, 109–118.
1994 Une campagne de Yahdun-Lîm en Haut-Mésopo-
tamie, in: D. Charpin and J.-M. Durand (eds.),
Florilegium Marianum, vol. 2: Recuiels d’études
à la mémoire de Maurice Birot, Mémoires de nou-
velles assyriologiques brèves et utilitaires 3, Paris,
177–200.
2014 The Historian and the Old Babylonian Archives,
in: H. Baker and M. Jursa (eds.), Documentary
Sources in Ancient Near Eastern and Greco-Roman
Economic History, Oxford, 24–58.
Charpin, D. and Ziegler, N.
2003 Florilegium Marianum, vol. 5: Mari et le Proche-
Orient à l’époque amorrite. Essai d’histoire po-
litique, Mèmoires de nouvelles assyriologiques
brèves et utilitaires 6, Paris.
Chase-Dunn, C. and Grimes, P.
1995 World-Systems Analysis, Annual Review
Sociology 21, 387–417.
Chase-Dunn, C. and H all, T.D.
1991 Conceptualising Core/Periphery Relations for Com-
parative Study, in: C. Chase-Dunn and T.D. H all
(eds.), Core/Periphery Relations in Precapitalist
Worlds, Boulder, 5–44.
1993 Comparing World Systems: Concepts and Working
Hypotheses, Social Forces 71, 851–866.
Chassinat, É. and Palanque, Ch.
1911 Une campagne de fouilles dans la nécropole
d’Assiout, Mémoires publiés par les membres de
l’institut français d’archéologie orientale du Caire 24,
Cairo.
Chazan, M.
2018 World Prehistory and Archaeology: Pathways
through Time, 4th edition, New York.
Chen, S., Lin, B.Z, Baig, M., Mitra, B., Lopes, R.J., Santos, A.M.,
M agee, D.A., A zevedo, M., Tarroso, P., Sasazaki, S.,
Ostrowski, S., M ahgoub, O., Chaudhuri, T.K., Zhang,
Y.P., Costa, V., Royo, L.J., Goyache, F., Luikart, G.,
Boivin, N., Fuller, D.Q., Mannen, H., Bradley, D.G and
Beja-Pereira, A.
2010 Zebu Cattle are an Exclusive Legacy of the South
Asia Neolithic, Molecular Biology and Evolution
27/1, 1–6.
Chenoweth, J.M.
2009 Social Identity, Material Culture, and the Archae-
ology of Religion, Journal of Social Archaeology 9,
319–340.
Chevrier, H.
1956 Rapport sur les travaux de Karnak 1952–1953,
Annales du service des antiquités de l’Égypte 53,
17–19.
Childe, V.G.
1925 The Dawn of European Civilization, London.
381
1935 Changing Methods and Aims in Prehistory,
Presidential Address for 1935, Proceedings of the
Prehistorical Society 1, 1–15.
1936 Man Makes Himself, London.
1950a The Urban Revolution, The Town Planning Review
21/1, 3–17.
1950b Prehistoric Migrations in Europe, Serie A:
Forelesninger 20, Oslo.
Chirkov, V.
2009 Critical Psychology of Acculturation: What do we
Study and How do we Study it, When we Investigate
Acculturation?, International Journal of Intercul-
tural Relations 33/2, 94–105.
Clack, T.
2012 Syncretism and Religious Fusion, in: T. Insoll
(ed.), The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of
Ritual and Religion, Oxford Handbooks Online,
http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/
ox fo r d hb/9 78 019 9 232 4 4 4.0 01.0 0 01/ox fo r d -
hb-9780199232444-e-17 (last accessed 06.04.17).
of
Clark, J.D., Phillips, J. and Staley, P.
1974 Interpretations of Prehistoric Technology from
Ancient Egyptian and Other Sources. Part 1. Ancient
Egyptian Bows and Arrows and their Relevance for
African Prehistory, Paléorient 2, 323–388.
Cline, E.H.
1998 Rich Beyond the Dreams of Avaris: Tell el-Dab‘a and
the Aegean World – A Guide for the Perplexed, The
Annual of the British School at Athens 93, 199–219.
Cline, E.H. and O’Connor, D. (eds.)
2009 Thutmose III: A New Biography, Michigan.
Clutton-Brock, J.
1992 Horse Power: A History of the Horse and the Don-
key in Human Societies, Cambridge.
2012 Animals as Domesticates: A World View through
History, East Lansing.
Cohen, A.
1969 Custom and Politics in Urban Africa. A Study
of Hausa Migrants in Yoruba Towns, Berkeley,
Los Angeles.
1971 Cultural Strategies in the Organization of Trading
Diasporas, in: C. Meillassoux (ed.), The Devel-
opment of Indigenous Trade and Markets in West
Africa, London, 266–281.
1974 Introduction: The Lesson of Ethnicity, in: A. Cohen
(ed.), Urban Ethnicity, London, ix–xxiv.
Cohen, R.
2008 Global Diasporas. An Introduction, 2nd edition,
London, New York.
Cohen, R. and Toninato, P.
2010 The Creolization Debate: Analysing Mixed Iden-
tities and Cultures, in: R. Cohen and P. Toninato
(eds.), The Creolization Reader: Studies in Mixed
Identities and Cultures, London, New York, 1–21.
382 Selected Bibliography
Cohen, S.
2002 Canaanites, Chronologies, and Connections:
The Relationship of Middle Bronze IIA Canaan to
Middle Kingdom Egypt, Studies in the History and
Archaeology of the Levant 3, Winona Lake.
2009 Cores, Peripheries, and Ports of Power: Theories
of Canaanite Development in the Early Second
Millennium B.C.E., in: J.D. Schloen (ed.), Exploring
the Longue Durée. Essays in Honor of Lawrence E.
Stager, Winona Lake, 69–75.
2012 Synchronisms and Significance: Reevaluating
Interconnections between Middle Kingdom Egypt
and the Southern Levant, Journal of Ancient Egyp-
tian Interconnections 4, 1–8.
2015 Periphery and Core: The Relationship between the
Southern Levant and Egypt in the Early Middle
Bronze Age (MB I), in: J. Mynářová, P. Onderka
and P. Pavúk (eds.), There and Back Again – the
Crossroads, vol. 2: Proceedings of an International
Conference Held in Prague September 15–18, 2014,
Prague, 245–264.
2016 Peripheral Concerns. Urban Development in the
Bronze Age Southern Levant, Sheffield, Bristol.
2017 Reevaluation of Connections between Egypt and the
Southern Levant in the Middle Bronze Age in Light
of the New Higher Chronology, Journal of Ancient
Egyptian Interconnections 13, 34–42.
Cohen, Y.
2019 Cuneiform Writing in Bronze Age Canaan, in: A.
Yasur-Landau, E. Cline and Y. Rowan (eds.), The
Social Archaeology of the Levant: From Prehistory
to Present, Cambridge, 245–264.
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 und
Levante 14, 69–100.
Colin, F.
2005 Kamose et les Hyksos dans l’oasis de Djesdjes,
Bulletin de l’institut français d’archéologie orien-
tale du Caire 105, 35–47.
Collier, M. and Quirke, S.
2004 UCL Lahun Papyri: Religious, Literary, Legal,
Mathematical and Medical, British Archaeological
Reports International Series 1209, Oxford.
2006 UCL Lahun Papyri: Accounts, British Archaeologi-
cal Reports International Series 1471, Oxford.
Collier, S.
1993 The Khepresh Crown of Pharaoh, Ufahamu. A Jour-
nal of African Studies 21/1–2, 137–155.
Collingwood, R.G.
1932 Roman Britain, Oxford.
Collins, P.
2003a Helmet on a Crushed Skull, in: J. A ruz (ed.), Art of
the First Cities. The Third Millennium B.C. from the
Mediterranean to the Indus, New York, New Haven,
London, 103.
2003b Inlays of Warriors, A Lion-Headed Bird, and Human-
Headed Bulls or Bisons, in: J. A ruz (ed.), Art of the
First Cities. The Third Millennium B.C. from the
Mediterranean to the Indus, New York, New Haven,
London, 175–177.
Collombert, P. and Coulon, L.
2000 Les dieux contre la mer. Le debut du ‘papyrus d’As-
tarte’ (pBN 202), Bulletin de l’institut français
d’archéologie orientale du Caire 100, 193–242.
Collon, D.
1975 The Seal Impressions from Tell Atchana/Alalakh,
Alter Orient und Altes Testament 27, Neukirchen-
Vluyn.
1982 The Alalakh Cylinder Seals, British Archaeological
Reports International Series 132, Oxford.
1986 The Green Jasper Cylinder Seal Workshop, in:
M. K elly-Buccellati, P. M atthiae and M. van Loon
(eds.), Insight Through Images. Studies in Honour
of Edith Porada, Bibliotheca Mesopotamica 21,
Malibu, 57–70.
1987 First Impressions. Cylinder Seals in the Ancient
Near East, Avon.
2001 The Green Jasper Seal Workshop Revisited,
Archaeology and History in the Lebanon 13,
16–24.
2006 New Seal Impressions from Tell el-Dabca, in:
E. Czerny, I. Hein, H. Hunger, D. Melman and
A. Schwab (eds.), Timelines. Studies in Honour of
Manfred Bietak, vol. 2, Orientalia Lovaniensia Ana-
lecta 149, Leuven, Paris, Dudley, 97–101.
Collon, D. and K ilmer, A.
1980 The Lute in Ancient Mesopotamia, in: T. Mitchell
(ed.), Music and Civilisation, The British Museum
Yearbooks 4, London, 13–28.
Colonna, A.
2018 Gods in Translation. Dynamics of Transculturality
between Egypt and Byblos in the III Millennium
BC, Studi de Materiali di Storia delle Religioni 84/1,
65–90.
Comelli, D., D’Orazio, M., Folco, L., el-Halwagy, M.,
Frizzi, T., Alberti, R., Capogrosso, V., Elnaggar, A.,
Hassan, H., Nevin, A., Porcelli, F., R ashed, M.G. and
Valentini, G.
2016 The Meteoritic Origin of Tutankhamun’s Iron Dagger
Blade, Meteoritics & Planetary Science 51/7, 1–9.
Conrad, D.
1971 Der Gott Reschef, Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche
Wissenschaft 83, 157–183.
Contenau, G.
1947 Manuel d’archéologie orientale depuis les origines
jusqu’à Alexandre: les découvertes archéologiques
de 1930 à 1939, vol. 4, Paris.
Cooke, W.D.
1993 W. F. Petrie and the Weavers Waste, Archaeological
Textiles Newsletter 17, 13–14.
Cooper, A. and Pope, M.H.
1981 Divine Names and Epithets in the Ugaritic Texts, in:
S. Rummel (ed.), Ras Shamra Parallels, vol. 3: The
Texts from Ugarit and the Hebrew Bible, Analecta
Orientalia 51, Rome, 333–469.
 Selected Bibliography
Cooper, J. and Mourad, A.-L.
2019 Further Observations on Ugarit and Egypt in the
Early New Kingdom, Göttinger Miszellen 258,
63–74.
Cornelius, I.
1989 The Lion in the Art of the Ancient Near East: A
Study of Selected Motifs, Journal of Northwest
Semitic Languages 16, 25–43.
1994 The Iconography of the Canaanite Reshef and Ba’al.
Late Bronze and Iron Age I Periods (c 1500–1000
BCE), Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 140, Fribourg.
1999 The Goddess Qedeshet in Syro-Palestinian Icono-
graphy, Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages
25/2, 241–255.
2008 The Many Faces of the Goddess. The Iconography
of the Syro-Palestinian Goddesses Anat, Astarte,
Qedeshet, and Asherah c. 1500–1000 BCE, 2nd edi-
tion, Orbus Biblicus et Orientalis 204, Fribourg.
2009 Aspects of the Iconography of the Warrior God-
dess Ištar and Ancient Near Eastern Prophecies,
in: M. Nissinen and C. Carter (eds.), Images and
Prophecy in the Ancient Eastern Mediterranean,
Göttingen, 15–40.
2014 “Revisiting” Astarte in the Iconography of the
Bronze Age Levant, in: D.T. Sugimoto (ed.), Trans-
formation of a Goddess: Ishtar – Astarte – Aph-
rodite, Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 263, Fribourg,
87–101.
Corteggiani, J.-P.
1998 Les aegyptiaca de la fouille sous-marine de Qaït-Bay,
Bulletin de la société française d’égyptologie 142,
25–40.
Corti, C.
2017 Wine and Vineyards in the Hittite Kingdom: A
Case Study of Northern Anatolia and the South-
ern Black Sea Coast, in: L. Thys-Senocak (ed.), Of
Vines and Wines: The Production and Consump-
tion of Wine in Anatolian Civilizations through the
Ages, Ancient Near Eastern Studies Supplement 51,
Leuven, 41–60.
Costin, C.L.
1991 Craft Specialization: Issues in Defining, Document-
ing, and Explaining the Organization of Production,
Archaeological Method and Theory 3, 1–56.
Cour-M arty, M.-A.
1985 Informations et documents: La collection de poids
du Musée du Caire revisitée, Revue d’égyptologie
36, 189–200.
1990 Les poids égyptiens, de précieux jalons archéolo-
giques, Cahiers de recherches de l’institut de papy-
rologie et d’égyptologie de Lille 12, 17–55.
1997 Les poid inscrits de l’Ancien Empire, in: C. Berger
and B. M athieu (eds.), Études sur l’Ancien Empire
et la nécropole de Saqqâra, dédiées à Jean-Phillipe
Lauer, Orientalia Monspeliensia 9, Montpellier,
129–145.
Courtois, J.-C.
1990 Poids, prix, taxes et salaires, à Ougarit (Syrie) au IIe
millénaire, in: R. Gyselen (ed.), Prix, salaires, poids
et mesures, Res Orientales 2, Paris, 119–128.
383
Cowell, R.
1986 The Composition of Egyptian Copper-Based Metal-
work, in: R.A. David (ed.), Science in Egyptology,
Manchester, 463–468.
1987 Scientific Appendix I: Chemical Analysis, in:
W.V. Davies, Catalogue of Egyptian Antiquities in the
British Museum, vol. 7: Tools and Weapons, part I:
Axes, London, 96–118.
Cox, M.J.
2013 Ba’al and Seth. An Investigation into the Relation-
ship of Two Gods with Reference to their Icono-
graphy (ca. 1500–1000 BCE), PhD Dissertation,
Stellenbosch University.
Credland, A.G.
1994 The Origins and Development of the Composite Bow,
Journal of the Society of Archer-Antiquaries 37,
48–56.
Creswell, R.
1976 Techniques et culture, les bases d’un programme de
travail, Techniques et culture 1, 7–59.
Cros, G.
1910 Nouvelles fouilles de Tello, Paris.
Cross, F.M.
1954 The Evolution of the Proto-Canaanite Alphabet,
Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental
Research 134, 15–24.
Cruz-Uribe, E.
1978 The Father of Ramses I: OI 11456, Journal of Near
Eastern Studies 37/3, 237–244.
2009 %t x aA pHty “Seth, God of Power and Might”,
Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt
45, 201–226.
Culican, W.
1970 Problems of Phoenicio-Punic Iconography – A Con-
tribution, Australian Journal of Biblical Archaeology
1/3, 28–57.
Curtin, P.D.
1984 Cross-Cultural Trade in World History, Cambridge.
Cusick, J.G.
1998 Historiography of Acculturation: An Evaluation of
Concepts and their Application in Archaeology, in:
J.G. Cusick (ed.), Studies in Culture Contact: Inter-
action, Culture Change and Archaeology, South-
ern Illinois University Carbondale Occasional Pa-
per 25, Carbondale, 126–145.
Cutler, J.
2016 Fashioning Identity: Weaving Technology, Dress
and Cultural Change in the Middle and Bronze Age
Southern Aegean, in: E. Gorogianni, P. Pavúk and
L. Girella (eds.), Beyond Thalassocracies: Under-
standing Processes of Minoanisation and Myce-
naeanisation in the Aegean, Oxford, Philadelphia,
172–185.
Czerny, E.
1999 Tell el-Dab‘a, vol. 9: Eine Plansiedlung des frühen
Mittleren Reiches, ÖAW: Denkschriften der Gesamt-
384 Selected Bibliography
akademie 16, Untersuchungen der Zweigstelle Kairo
des Österreichischen Archäologischen Instituts 15,
Vienna.
2001 Ein früher Beleg für Hw t - w art auf einem Siegelab-
druck aus Tell el-Dab‘a, Ägypten und Levante 11,
13–26.
2002 Egyptian Pottery from Tell el-Dab‘a as a Context
for Early MBIIA Painted Ware, 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, ÖAW:
Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie 26, Contri-
butions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterra-
nean 3, Vienna, 133–142.
2015 Tell el-Dab‘a, vol. 22: “Der Mund der beiden
Wege” – Die Siedlung und der Tempelbezirk des
Mittleren Reiches von Ezbet Ruschdi, 2 vols., ÖAW:
Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie 77, Untersuch-
ungen der Zweigstelle Kairo des Österreichischen
Archäologischen Instituts 38, Vienna.
D 2010 Peripheral Akkadian Dialects, or Akkadography
Dąbrowski, B.
1992 The Winged Seth Standing between Two Uraei,
Prace Archeologiczne 51, 35–39.
Dafoe, A.
2015 On Technological Determinism: A Typology, Scope
Conditions, and a Mechanism, Science, Technology,
& Human Values 40/6, 1047–1076.
Dalley, S.
1984 Mari and Karana: Two Old Babylonian Cities,
London, New York.
2000 The Descent of Ishtar to the Underworld, Myths from
Mesopotamia, revised edition, Oxford, 154–162.
Dardeniz, G.
2017 Sharing Technologies and Workspaces for Ceramic
and Vitrified Material Production at Tell Atcha-
na-Alalakh, in: Ç. M aner, M.T. Horowitz and
A.S. Gilbert (eds.), Overturning Certainties in
Near Eastern Archaeology. A Festschrift in Hon-
or of K. Aslihan Yener, Culture and History of the
Near East 90, Leiden, 139–156.
Daressy, G.
1902 Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennes du
Musée du Caire. Nos. 24001–24990: Fouilles de la
vallée des rois (1898–1899), Cairo.
1905 Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennes du
Musée du Caire. Nos. 38001–39384: Statues de di-
vinités, Cairo.
1906 Un poignard du temps des rois pasteurs, Annales du
service des antiquités de l’Égypte 7, 115–120.
1911 Inscriptions des carrières de Tourah et Màsarah,
Annales du service des antiquités de l’Égypte 11,
257–268.
1928/ Les branches du Nil sous la XVIIIe dynastie,
1929 Bulletin de la société royale de géographie
d’Égypte 16, 225–254, 293–329.
Darnell, J.C.
2002 Theban Desert Road Survey in the Egyptian Western
Desert, vol. 1: Gebel Tjauti Rock Inscriptions 1–45
and Wadi el-Ḥôl Rock Inscriptions 1–45, Oriental
Institute Publications 119, Chicago.
2011 A Stela of Seti I from the Region of Kurkur Oasis, in:
S. Snape and M. Collier (eds.), Ramesside Studies in
Honour of K.A. Kitchen, Liverpool, 127–144.
2013 The Girga Road: Abu Ziyâr, Tundaba, and the In-
tegration of the Southern Oases into the Pharaonic
State, in: F. Förster and H. R iemer (eds.), Desert
Road Archaeology in Ancient Egypt and Beyond,
Köln, 221–263.
Darnell, J.C., Dobbs-Allsopp, F.W., Lundberg, M.J., McCar-
ter, P.K., Zuckerman, B. and Manassa, C.
2005 Two Early Alphabetic Inscriptions from the Wadi
el-Ḥôl: New Evidence for the Origin of the Alphabet
from the Western Desert of Egypt, Annual of the
American Schools of Oriental Research 59, 64–124.
Darnell, J.C. and M anassa, C.
2007 Tutankhamun’s Armies: Battle and Conquest during
Ancient Egypt‘s Late 18th Dynasty, Hoboken.
Dassow, E. von
of Local Languages, in: L.E. Kogan, N. Koslova,
S. Loesov and S. Tishchenko (eds.), Language in the
Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the 53e Rencontre
Assyriologique Internationale, vol. 1/2, Babel und
Bibel 4/2, Orientalia et Classica 30/2, Winona Lake,
895–924.
Davey, C.J.
1979 Some Ancient Near Eastern Pot Bellows, Levant 11,
101–111.
1985 Crucibles in the Petrie Collection and Hieroglyph-
ic Ideograms for Metal, The Journal of Egyptian
Archaeology 71, 142–148.
1988 Tell edh-Dhiba‘i and the Southern Near Eastern
Metalworking Tradition, in: R. M addin (ed.), The
Beginning of the Use of Metals and Alloys: Papers
from the Second International Conference, Zheng-
zhou, China, Cambridge, 63–68.
Davey, C.J. and Edwards, W.I.
2007 Crucibles from the Bronze Age of Egypt and Meso-
potamia, Proceedings of the Royal Society of Victo-
ria 120/1, 148–156.
David, A.R.
1996 The Pyramid Builders of Ancient Egypt. A Mod-
ern Investigation of Pharaoh’s Workforce, London,
New York.
1999 Lahun, town, in: K. Bard (ed.), Encyclopedia of
Ancient Egypt, London, New York, 430–432.
Davies, N. de G.
1903 The Rock Tombs of El Amarna, vol. 1: The Tomb of
Meryra, London.
1905a The Rock Tombs of El Amarna, vol. 2: The Tombs of
Panehsy and Meryra II, London.
1905b The Rock Tombs of El Amarna, vol. 3: The Tombs of
Huya and Ahmes, London.
1908 The Rock Tombs of El Amarna, vol. 6: Tombs of
Parennefer, Tutu and Aÿ, London.
1915 The Tomb of Amenemhēt (No. 82), London.
1922 The Tomb of Puyemrê at Thebes, New York.
1923 The Tombs of Two Officials of Thutmosis IV,
London.
 Selected Bibliography
1925 The Tomb of Tetaky at Thebes (No. 15), The Journal
of Egyptian Archaeology 11, 10–18.
1926 The Egyptian Expedition: The Graphic Work of the
Expedition, Bulletin of the Metropolitan Museum of
Art 21, 41–51.
1927 Two Ramesside Tombs at Thebes, New York.
1928 The Graphic Work of the Expedition at Thebes, Bul-
letin of the Metropolitan Museum of Art 23/12.2,
37–49.
1929a The Town House in Ancient Egypt, Metropolitan
Museum Studies 1/2, 233–255.
1929b The Egyptian Expedition: The Graphic Work of the
Expedition, Bulletin of the Metropolitan Museum of
Art 24/2, 35–49.
1930 The Tomb of Ķen-Amūn, New York.
1933a The Tombs of Menkheperresonb, Amenmosě, and
Another (Nos. 86, 112, 42, 226), London.
1933b The Tomb of Nefer-Hotep at Thebes, New York.
1935 The King as Sportsman, Bulletin of the Metropolitan
Museum of Art 30/11, 49–53.
1943 The Tomb of Rekh-Mi-Rē‘ at Thebes, vol. 2,
New York.
1948 Seven Private Tombs at Ķurnah, London.
1963 Scenes from Some Theban Tombs (Nos. 38, 66, 162,
with Excerpts from 81), Oxford.
Davies, N. de G. and Faulkner, R.O.
1947 A Syrian Trading Venture to Egypt, The Journal of
Egyptian Archaeology 33, 40–46.
Davies, N.M.
1936 Ancient Egyptian Paintings, vol. 1, Chicago.
Davies, N.M. and Davies, N. de G.
1941a The Tomb of Amenmosē (No. 89) at Thebes, The
Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 26, 131–136.
1941b Syrians in the Tomb of Amunedjeḥ, The Journal of
Egyptian Archaeology 27, 96–98.
Davies, W.V.
1982 The Origin of the Blue Crown, The Journal of
Egyptian Archaeology 68, 69–76.
1987 Catalogue of Egyptian Antiquities in the British Mu-
seum, vol. 7: Tools and Weapons, part I: Axes, Lodon.
2003a Kush in Egypt: A New Historical Inscription, Sudan
& Nubia 7, 51–54.
2003b Kouch en Égypte: Une nouvelle inscription his-
torique à el-Kab, Bulletin de la société française
d’égyptologie 157, 38–44.
2003c Sobeknakht of Elkab and the Coming of Kush, Egyp-
tian Archaeology 23, 3–6.
2004 Scimitar, in: D. Welsby and J. Anderson (eds.), Su-
dan. Ancient Treasures. An Exhibition of Recent
Discoveries from the Sudan National Museum,
London, 108.
2010 Renseneb and Sobeknakht of Elkab: The Genealog-
ical Data, in: M. M arée (ed.), The Second Interme-
diate Period (Thirteenth–Seventeenth Dynasties).
Current Research, Future Prospects, Orientalia
Lovaniensia Analecta 192, Leuven, Paris, Walpole,
223–240.
2014 A View from Elkab: The Tomb and Statues of Ah-
mose-Pennekhbet, in: J.M. Galán, B.M. Bryan and
P.F. Dorman (eds.), Creativity and Innovation in the
Reign of Hatshepsut, Studies in Ancient Oriental
Civilization 69, Chicago, 381–409.
385
2016 The Tomb of a Governor of Elkab of the Sec-
ond Intermediate Period, in: G. M inia­ci and W.
Grajetzki (eds.), The World of Middle King-
dom Egypt (2000–1550 BC). Contributions
on Archaeology, Art, Religion, and Written
Sources, vol. 2, Middle Kingdom Studies 2,
London, 71–84.
2017 Nubia in the New Kingdom: The Egyptians at
Kurgus, in: N. Spencer , A. Stevens and M. Binder
(eds.), Nubia in the New Kingdom: Lived Experi-
ence, Pharaonic Control and Indigenous Tradi-
tions, British Museum Publications on Egypt and
Sudan 3, Leuven, Paris, Bristol, 65–105.
Davis, D.D.
1983 Investigating the Diffusion of Stylistic Innovations,
Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 6,
53–89.
Davis, E.N.
1990 A Storm in Egypt during the Reign of Ahmose, in:
D.A. H ardy and A.C. R enfrew (eds.), Thera and
the Aegean World III, vol. 3: Chronology, London,
232–235.
Davis, T.M.
1912 The Tombs of Harmhabi and Touatânkhamou, London.
Dawson, W.R.
1925 A Bronze Dagger of the Hyksos Period, The Journal
of Egyptian Archaeology 11/3, 216–217.
Dawson, W.R. and Peet, T.E.
1933 The So-Called Poem on the King’s Chariot, The
Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 19/3, 167–174.
Day, J.
2002 Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan,
Journal for Study of the Old Testament Supplemen-
tary Series 265, London, New York.
Day, P.
1992 Anat: Ugarit’s “Mistress of Animals”, Journal of
Near Eastern Studies 51/3, 181–190.
Deagan, K.
2013 Hybridity, Identity, and Archaeological Practice, in:
J. Card (ed.), The Archaeology of Hybrid Material
Culture, Southern Illinois University Occasional
Paper 39, Carbondale, 260–276.
Decker, W. de G.
1994 Pferd und Wagen im Alten Ägypten, in: B. Hänsel
and S. Zimmer (eds.), Die Indogermanen und das
Pferd. Akten des Internationalen Interdisziplinären
Kolloquiums Freie Universität Berlin 1.–3. Juli 1992,
Archaeolingua Main Series 4, Budapest, 259–270.
Deetz, J.
1996 In Small Things Forgotten: An Archaeology of Early
American Life, revised edition, New York.
Degryse, P., Boyce, N., Erb-Satullo, N., Eremin, K., K irk,
S., Scott, R., Shortland, A., Schneider, J. and Walton, M.
2010 Isotopic Discriminants between Late Bronze Age
Glasses from Egypt and the Near East, Archaeometry
52/3, 380–388.
386 Selected Bibliography
Degryse, P., Lobo, L., Shortland, A., Vanhaecke, F.,
Blomme, A., Painter, J., Gimeno, D., Eremin, K., Greene, J.,
K irk, S. and Walton, M.
2015 Isotopic Investigation into the Raw Materials of Late
Bronze Age Glass Making, Journal of Archaeologi-
cal Science 62, 153–160.
Deines, H. von, Grapow, H. and Westendorf, W.
1958 Übersetzung der Medizinischen Texte, Grundriss der
Medizin der Alten Ägypter IV.1, Berlin.
Deloria, P.J.
2006 What is the Middle Ground, Anyway?, The William
and Mary Quarterly 63/1, 15–22.
Delougaz, P.
1952 Pottery from the Diyala Region, Oriental Institute
Publications 63, Chicago.
Delougaz, P., Hill, H. and Lloyd, S.
1967 Private Houses and Graves in the Diyala Region,
Oriental Institute Publications 88, Chicago.
Demortier, G.
1988 The Soldering of Gold in Antiquity, Material Re-
search Society Symposium Proceedings 123, 193–198.
Demsky, A.
1990 The Education of Canaanite Scribes in the
Mesopotamian Cuneiform Tradition, in: J. K lein
and A. Skaist (eds.), Bar-Ilan Studies in Assyriology
Dedicated to Pinḥas Artzi, Bar-Ilan, 157–170.
Desroches-Noblecourt, Ch.
1949 Fouilles en Égypte 1948–1949, Bulletin de la société
française d’égyptologie 1, 12–13.
1950 Un petit monument commémoratif du Roi Athlète,
Revue d’égyptologie 7, 37–46.
1953 “Concubines du mort” et mères de famille au Moyen
Empire. À propos d’une supplique pour une nais-
sance, Bulletin de l’institut français d’archéologie
orientale 53, 7–47.
1963 Leben und Tod eines Pharao. Tut ench Amun, Paris.
Devecchi, E.
2015 Missing Treaties of the Hittites, Kaskal 12, 155–182.
Dever, W.G.
1976 The Beginning of the Middle Bronze Age in
Palestine, in: F.M. Cross, W.E. Lemke and P.D. Miller
(eds.), Magnolia Dei. The Mighty Acts of God. Es-
says on the Bible and Archaeology in Memory of
G. Ernest Wright, Garden City, 1–38.
1985 Relations between Syria-Palestine and Egypt in
the ‘Hyksos’ Period, in: J.N. Tubb, Palestine in the
Bronze and Iron Ages. Papers in Honour of Olga
Tufnell, London, 69–87.
1990 ‘Hyksos’, Egyptian Destructions, and the End of the
Palestinian Middle Bronze Age, Levant 22, 75–81.
1992 The Chronology of Syria-Palestine in the Sec-
ond Millennium B.C.E.: A Review of Current Is-
sues, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental
Research 288, 1–25.
1998 Hurrian Incursions and the End of the Middle
Bronze Age in Syria-Palestine: A Rejoinder to Na-
dav Na‘aman, in: L.H. Lesko (ed.), Ancient Egyp-
tian and Mediterranean Studies. In Memory of
William A. Ward, Providence, 91–110.
2007 Ethnicity and the Archaeological Record: The Case
of Early Israel, in: D.R. Edwards and C.T. McCol-
lough (eds.), The Archaeology of Difference. Gen-
der, Ethnicity, Class and the ‘Other’ in Antiquity.
Studies in Honor of Eric M. Meyers, American
Schools of Oriental Research 60/61, Boston, 49–66.
Dezsö, T.
2002 Scale Armour of the 2nd Millennium BC, in:
T. Bács (ed.), A Tribute to Excellence. Studies
Offered in Honor of Erlő Gaál, Ulrich Luft and
László Török, Budapest, 195–216.
Diaz Hernández, R.A.
2014 The Role of the War Chariot in the Formation of the
Egyptian Empire in the Early 18th Dynasty, Studien
zur Altägyptischen Kultur 43, 109–122.
Dietler, M.
1998 Consumption, Agency, and Cultural Entangle-
ment: Theoretical Implications of a Mediterranean
Colonial Encounter, in: J. Cusick (ed.), Studies in
Culture Contact: Interaction, Culture Change,
and Archaeology, Southern Illinois University
Carbondale Occasional Paper 25, Carbondale,
288–315.
2001 Theorizing the Feast: Rituals of Consumption,
Commensal Politics, and Power in African Con-
texts, in: M. Dietler and B. H ayden (eds.), Feasts:
Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspectives
on Food, Politics, and Power, Washington, Lon-
don, 65–114.
2011 Feasting and Fasting, in: T. Insoll (ed.), The Oxford
Handbook of the Archaeology of Ritual and Reli-
gion, Oxford, 179–194.
Dijk, J. van
1986 Anat, Seth and the Seed of Pre, in: H.L.J. Vantis-
phout, K. Jongeling, F. Leemhuis and G.J. R einink
(eds.), Scripta Signa Vocis: Studies about Scripts,
Scriptures, Scribes and Languages in the Near
East, Presented to J. H. Hospers by his Pupils,
Colleagues, and Friends, Groningen, 31–51.
Dijkstra, M.
1990 The So-Called ‘Ăḥiṭūb-Inscription from Kahun
(Egypt), Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins
106, 51–56.
1991 The Weather-God on Two Mountains, Ugarit-For-
schungen 23, 127–140.
1994 The Myth of Astarte, the Huntress (KTU 1.92),
Ugarit-Forschungen 26, 113–126.
2005 The Myth of Apši “The (Sea)dragon” in the Hurrian
Tradition. A New Join (KBO 27, 180), Ugarit-For-
schungen 37, 315–328.
Dirbas, H.
2014 The Sacrifice of Riding Animals in Amorite and
Arabic Traditions, Subartu 8, 3–12.
Dobres, M.-A.
2000 Technology and Social Agency: Outlining a Prac-
tice Framework for Archaeology, Oxford.
 Selected Bibliography
Dodson, A.
2000 Review: Ryholt, K.S.B. – The Political Situation
in Egypt during the Second Intermediate Period,
c. 1800–1550 B.C., Bibliotheca Orientalis 57/1–2,
48–52.
Dodson, A. and Hilton, D.
2004 The Complete Royal Families of Ancient Egypt,
London.
Dolce, R.
2014 Equids as Luxury Gifts at the Centre of Interregion-
al Economic Dynamics in the Archaic Urban Cul-
tures of the Ancient Near East, Syria 91, 55–75.
Dommelen, P. van
2005 Colonial Interactions and Hybrid Practices, in:
G.J. Stein (ed.), The Archaeology of Colonial En-
counters: Comparative Perspectives, Santa Fe,
109–141.
Donato, F.D.
1994 The Egyptian Double-Curved Bow, Journal of the
Society of Archer-Antiquaries 37, 42–44.
Donner, H.
1955 Die Herkunft des ägyptischen Wortes
= Pferd, Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache und
Altertumskunde 80, 97–103.
Dorman, P.F.
1991 The Tombs of Senenmut. The Architecture and
Decoration of Tombs 71 and 353, New York.
Dorner, J.
1994 Ergebnis der Geländeruntersuchungen zur Rekon-
struktion der historischen Topographie von Auaris
und Piramesse – ein Vorbericht, in: M. Bietak,
J. Dorner, I. Hein and P. Jánosi, Neue Grabungs-
ergebnisse aus Tell el-Dab‘a und ‘Ezbet Helmi im
östlichen Nildelta 1989–1991, Ägypten und Levante
4, 11–15.
1999 Die Topographie von Piramesse – Vorbericht,
Ägypten und Levante 9, 77–83.
Dorner, J. and Aston, D.A.
1997 Pottery from Hebua IV/South. Preliminary Report,
Cahiers de la céramique égyptienne 5, 41–43.
Dossin, G.
1938 Les archives épistolaires du palais de Mari, Syria 19,
105–126.
1939 Benjamites dans les textes de Mari, in: Melanges
Syriens offerts à M. Rene Dussaud, vol. 2, Paris,
981–996.
Dothan, T.
1963 Spinning Bowls, Israel Exploration Journal 13,
97–112.
1979 Excavations at the Cemetery of Deir el-Balah,
Qedem 10, Jerusalem.
Doumas, C.
1992 The Wall-Paintings of Thera, Athens.
387
Doumet-Serhal, C.
2004 Sidon (Lebanon): Twenty Middle Bronze Age
Burials from the 2001 Season of Excavation,
Levant 36, 89–154.
2013 Tracing Sidon’s Mediterranean Networks in the
Second Millennium B.C.: 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 B.C.,
New York, 132–141.
Dreyer, G.
1992 Recent Discoveries at Abydos Cemetery U, in:
E. van den Brink (ed.), The Nile Delta in Transition:
4th–3rd Millennium BC, Tel Aviv, 293–299.
1993 Umm el-Qaab: Nachuntersuchungen im frühzeitli-
chen Königsfriedhof, 5./6. Bericht, Mitteilungen
des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts Kairo 49,
23–62.
1998 Umm el-Qaab, vol. 1: Das prädynastische Königs-
grab U-j und seine frühen Schriftzeugnisse, Ar-
chäologische Veröffentlichungen des Deutschen
Archäologischen Instituts Abteilung Kairo 86,
Mainz.
Dreyfus, R.
2005 Axe with an Equestrian Figure on the Blade, in: C.H.
Roehrig (ed.), Hatshepsut: From Queen to Pharaoh,
New York, New Haven, London, 250.
Driaux, D.
2010 Les aménagements hydrauliques en contexte urbain
dans l’Égypte ancienne, PhD Dissertation, Univer-
sité Paris-Sorbonne (Paris IV).
Driesch, A. von den
2015 Faunenreste aus dem Tempel und der Siedlung
des Mittleren Reiches bei ‘Ezbet Ruschdi, in: E.
Czerny, Tell el-Dab‘a, vol. 22: “Der Mund der bei-
den Wege” –Die Siedlung und der Tempelbezirk des
Mittleren Reiches von Ezbet Ruschdi, 2 vols., ÖAW:
Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie 77, Untersu­
chungen der Zweigstelle Kairo des Österreichischen
Archäologischen Instituts 38, Vienna, 449–456.
Driesch, A. von den and Peters, J.
2001 Frühe Pferde- und Maultierskelette aus Auaris
(Tell el-Dab‘a), Östliches Nildelta, Ägypten und
Levante 11, 301–311.
Duchesne-Guillemin, M.
1981 Music in Ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt, World
Archaeology 12/3, 287–297.
Ducos, P.
1972 Le cheval de Soleb, in: M. Giorgini (ed.), Soleb,
vol. 2: Les nécropoles, Florence, 261–265.
Duhaux, Y.
2003 Des Minoens en Égypte? “Keftiou” et “les îles au
milieu du Grand Vert” , Publications de l’institut ori-
entaliste de Louvain 52, Louvain.
Dumbrill, R.
2005 The Archaeomusicology of the Ancient Near East,
Victoria.
388 Selected Bibliography
2015 Musical Scenes and Instruments on Seals, Sealings
and Impressions from the Ancient Near East in the
Collections of the British Museum, London.
Dunand, M.
1937– Fouilles de Byblos, vol. 1: 1926–1932, Paris.
1939
1954 Fouilles de Byblos, 1933–1938, vol. 2, Paris.
Dunbar, R.I.M.
2012 On the Evolutionary Function of Song and Dance,
in: N. Bannan (ed.), Music, Language, and Human
Evolution, Oxford, 201–214.
Dunham, D.
1982 Excavations at Kerma, part VI, Boston.
Dunham, D. and Simpson, W.K.
1974 The Mastaba of Queen Mersyankh III. G 7530–7540,
Giza Mastabas 1, Boston.
Dunham, S.
1994 An Early Percussion Instrument from Tell al-Raqā‘i,
North Syria, Source. Notes in the History of Art 13/4,
36–43.
Durand, J.-M.
1983 Archives royales de Mari, vol. 21: Textes adminis-
tratifs des salles 134 et 160 du palais de Mari, Paris.
1993 Le mythologeme du combat entre le dieu de l’orage
et la mer en Mésopotamie, Mari: Annales recherches
interdisciplinaires 7, 41–61.
1998 Les documents épistolaires du palais de Mari,
vol. 2, Littératures anciennes du Proche-Orient 17,
Paris.
2002 Florilegium Marianum, vol. 7: Le culte d’Addu
d’Alep et l’affaire d’Alahtum, Mémoires de nouvelles
assyriologiques brèves et utilitaires 8, Paris.
Dussaud, R.
1947 Astarté, Pontos et Baal, Comptes-rendus des séances
de l’académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres 91/1,
201–224.
Dziobek, E.
1992 Das Grab des Ineni: Theben Nr. 81, Archäologische
Veröffentlichungen des Deutschen Archäologischen
Instituts Abteilung Kairo 68, Mainz am Rhein.
1998 Denkmäler des Vezirs User-Amun, Studien zur
Archäologie und Geschichte Altägyptens 18,
Heidelberg.
Dziobek, E. and A bdel-R aziq, M.
1990 Das Grab des Sobekhotep: Theben Nr. 63, Archäo-
logische Veröffentlichungen des Deutschen
Archäologischen Instituts Abteilung Kairo 71,
Mainz am Rhein.
E talische Speißlauten: Von den Anfängen bis in die
Eaton-K rauss, M.
1982 Earrings, in: Museum of Fine A rts, Egypt’s Gold-
en Age: The Art of Living in the New Kingdom
1558–1085 B.C., Boston, 227.
1990 The Coffins of Queen Ahhotep, Consort of
Seqeni-en-Re and Mother of Ahmose, Chronique
d’Égypte 65, 195–205.
1998 Four Notes on the Early Eighteenth Dynasty, The
Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 84, 205–210.
Eccleston, M.
2012 Crucibles, in: B. K emp and A. Stevens, Busy Lives at
Amarna: Excavations in the Main City (Grid 12 and
the House of Ranefer, N49.18), vol. 2: The Objects,
London, 361–399.
Echeverría R ey, F.
2010 Weapons, Technological Determinism, and Ancient
Warfare, in: G. Fagan and M. Trundle (eds.), New
Perspectives on Ancient Warfare, Leiden, Boston,
21–56.
Edel, E.
1953 Die Stelen Amenophis II. aus Karnak und Memphis
mit dem Bericht über die asiatischen Feldzüge des
Königs, Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins
69/2, 97–176.
1955- Altägyptische Grammatik, Analecta Orientalia
1964 34/39, Rome.
1977 Der Vertrag zwischen Ramses II. von Ägypten und
Ḫattušili III. von Ḥatti, Wissenschaftliche Veröffent-
lichungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 95,
Berlin.
1983 Der ägyptisch-hethitische Friedensvertrag zwis-
chen Ramses II. und Ḫattušili III, in: O. K aiser
(ed.), Texte aus der Umwelt des Alten Testament,
vol. 1/1: Rechts- und Wirtschafts-Urkunden –
Historisch-chronologische Texte, Gütersloh, 135–153.
1994 Die Ägyptische-hethitische Korrespondenz aus
Boghazköi, vol. 1, Opladen.
Eder, C.
1995 Die ägyptischen Motive in der Glyptik des östlichen
Mittelmeerraumes zu Anfang des 2. Jts. v. Chr., Ori-
entalia Lovaniensia Analecta 71, Leuven.
Edgerton, W.
1951 Early Egyptian Dialect Interrelationships, Bulletin
of the American Schools of Oriental Research 122,
9–12.
Eggler, J.
2006 Mekal, in: J. Eggler and C. Uehlinger (eds.),
Iconography of Deities and Demons in the An-
cient Near East, 1–3, http://www.religionswissen-
schaft.uzh.ch/idd/prepublications/e_idd_mekal.pdf
(last accessed 02.08.17).
2007 Baal, in: J. Eggler and C. Uehlinger (eds.), Icono-
graphy of Deities and Demons in the Ancient Near
East, 1–8, http://www.religionswissenschaft.uzh.ch/
idd/prepublications/e_idd_baal.pdf (last accessed
23.05.2017).
Eichmann, R.
1988 Zur Konstruktion und Spielhaltung der altorien-
seleukidisch-parthische Zeit, Baghdader Mitteilungen
19, 583–625.
2001 Musik und Migration, in: R. Eichmann and
H. Parzinger (eds.), Migration und Kulturtransfer:
Der Wandel vorder- und zentralasiatischer Kulturen
im Umbruch vom 2. zum 1. vorchristlichen Jahr-
tausend, Bonn, 473–483.
 Selected Bibliography
Eichmann, R., K halil, L. and Schmidt, K.
2009 Excavations at Tall Hujayrat al-Ghuzlan (‘Aqaba/
Jordan). Excavations 1998–2005 and Stratigraphy,
in: L. K halil and K. Schmidt (eds.), Prehistoric
‘Aqaba, vol. 1, Rahden, 17–78.
Eidem, J.
2011 The Royal Archives from Tell Leilan. Old Babylonian
Letters and Treaties from the Lower Town Palace
East, PIHANS 117, Leiden.
Eigner, D.
1985 Der ägyptische Palast eines asiatischen Königs, Die
Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäologischen
Instituts in Wien 56, 19–25.
Eisenberg, C.
2003 Kulturtransfer als historischer Prozess. Ein Beitrag
zur Komparatistik, in: H. K aeble and J. Schriewer
(eds.), Vergleich und Transfer. Komparatistik in den
Sozial-, Geschichts- und Kulturwissenschaften,
Frankfurt am Main, New York, 399–417.
Eliason, L.C. and Goldman, E.O.
2003 Introduction. Theoretical and Comparative Perspec-
tives in Innovation and Diffusion, in: E.O. Goldman
and L.C. Eliason (eds.), The Diffusion of Military
Technology and Ideas, Stanford, 1–30.
Eller, J.D. and Coughlan, R.M.
1993 The Poverty of Primordialism: The Demystification
of Ethnic Attachments, Ethnic and Racial Studies
16/2, 183–202.
Ellis, R.S.
1976 Mesopotamian Crafts in Modern and Ancient
Times: Ancient Near Eastern Weaving, American
Journal of Archaeology 80, 76–77.
Emberling, G.
1997 Ethnicity in Complex Societies: Archaeological Per-
spectives, Journal of Archaeological Research 5,
295–344.
Emerit, S.
2013 Music and Musicians, in: W. Wendrich (ed.), UCLA
Encyclopedia of Egyptology, http://escholarship.
org/uc/item/6x587846 (last accessed 23.05.2019).
Emery, W.
1961 Archaic Egypt, Harmondsworth.
Emery, W., Smith, H.S. and Millard A. (eds.)
1979 Excavations at Buhen, vol. 1: The Fortress of Buhen:
The Archaeological Report, Excavation Memoir 49,
London.
Engberg, R.M.
1939 The Hyksos Reconsidered, Studies in Ancient
Oriental Civilization 18, Chicago.
Engelbach, R.
1923 Harageh, London.
Enmarch, R.
2013 Some Literary Aspects of the Kamose Inscriptions,
The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 99, 253–263.
389
Epstein, H.
1971 The Origins of the Domestic Animals of Africa,
New York.
Eran, A.
1985 The Old-Egyptian Weight-Unit “Deben” – Its
Reality, its Dispersion and its Late Echo, Acta
Metrologiae Historicae 14, 94–116.
Erickson, P.A. and Murphy, L.D.
2013 A History of Anthropological Theory, Toronto.
Eriksen, T.H.
2007 Creolization in Anthropological Theory and in Mau-
ritius, in: C. Stewart (ed.), Creolization: History,
Ethnography, Theory, Walnut Creek, 153–177.
2015 Cultural Complexity, in: S. Vertovec (ed.), Rout-
ledge International Handbook of Diversity Studies,
London, 371–378.
Erikson, E.
1950 Childhood and Society, New York.
Erman, A. and Grapow, H. (eds.)
1926– Wörterbuch der ägyptischen Sprache, vols. 1–6,
1963 Berlin, Leipzig.
Espinel, A.D.
2002 The Role of the Temple of Ba‘alat Gebal as Inter-
mediary between Egypt and Byblos during the Old
Kingdom, Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur 30,
103–119.
Evans, B.
2006 Where was Boas during the Renaissance in Har-
lem? Diffusion, Race, and the Culture Paradigm in
the History of Anthropology, in: R. H andler (ed.),
Central Sites, Peripheral Visions: Cultural and In-
stitutional Crossings in the History of Anthropology,
History of Anthropology 11, Madison, 69–98.
Evely, R.D.G.
2000 Minoan Crafts: Tools and Techniques, vol. 2,
Jonsered.
Even-Zohar, I.
1990 System, Dynamics, and Interference in Culture: A
Synoptic View, Poetics Today: Polysystem Studies
11/1, 85–94.
2000 Culture-Repertoire and the Wealth of Collective
Entities, in: D. de Geest, O. de Graef, D. Delabastita,
K. Geldof, R. Ghesquière and J. Lambert (eds.),
Under Construction: Links for the Site of Literary
Theory. Essays in Honour of Hendrik Van Gorp,
Leuven, 389–403.
2010 Papers in Cultural Research, Tel Aviv.
Ewen, C.R.
2000 From Colonist to Creole: Archaeological Patterns of
Spanish Colonization in the New World, Historical
Archaeology 34/3, 36–45.
Eyre, C.J.
1994 The Water Regime for Orchards and Plantations
in Pharaonic Egypt, The Journal of Egyptian
Archaeology 80, 57–80.
390 Selected Bibliography
1995 The Agricultural Cycle, Farming and Water
Management in the Ancient Near East, in: J. Sas-
son (ed.), Civilizations of the Ancient Near East,
vol. 1, New York, 175–189.
2002 The Cannibal Hymn. A Cultural and Literary Study,
Liverpool.
F
Fagan, G. and Trundle, M. (eds.)
2010 New Perspectives on Ancient Warfare, Leiden,
Boston.
Fahlander, F.
2007 Third Space Encounters: Hybridity, Mimicry and
Interstitial Practice, in: P. Cornell and F. Fahlander
(eds.), Encounters, Materialites, Confrontations.
Archaeologies of Social Space and Interaction,
Cambridge, 15–41.
Fakhry, A.
1943 Tomb of Paser (No 367 at Thebes), Annales du
service des antiquités de l’Égypte 43, 389–414.
Farid, S.
1964 Preliminary Report on the Excavations of the
Antiquities Department at Tell Basta (Season 1961),
Annales du service des antiquités de l’Égypte 58,
85–98.
Farid, S. and H amada, A.
1950 Excavations at Kom el-Ḥisn: Fourth Season 1947,
Annales du service des antiquités de l’Égypte 50,
367–369.
Faulkner, R.O.
1962 A Concise Dictionary of Middle Egyptian, Oxford.
1977 The Ancient Egyptian Coffin Texts, vol. 2: Spells
355–787, Warminster.
2004 The Ancient Egyptian Coffin Texts, reprint,
Warminster.
Faulseit, R.
2016 Collapse, Resilience, and Transformation in Com-
plex Societies: Modeling Trends and Understand-
ing Diversity, in: R. Faulseit (ed.), Beyond Col-
lapse. Archaeological Perspectives on Resilience,
Revitalization, and Transformation in Complex
Societies, Center for Archaeological Investigations.
Occasional Paper 42, Carbondale, 3–26.
Faulseit, R. (ed.)
2016 Beyond Collapse. Archaeological Perspectives
on Resilience, Revitalization, and Transformation
in Complex Societies, Center for Archaeological
Investigations. Occasional Paper 42, Carbondale.
Faust, A.
2016 The Emergence of Israel and Theories of Ethno-
genesis, in: S. Niditch (ed.), The Wiley Black-
well Companion to Ancient Israel, Malden, MA,
155–173.
Fazio, N.
2015 Across Central Asia: Cultural Crossroads, Religious
Interactions? The Monastery, H.2153 fol. 131v,
Topkapi Srayi Müzesi, Istanbul, in: A. Flüchter
and J. Schöttli (eds.), The Dynamics of Transcul-
turality. Concepts and Institutions in Motion, Cham,
219–253.
Fearon, J.D.
2003 Ethnic and Cultural Diversity by Country, Journal
of Economic Growth 8/2, 195–222.
Feinman, P.
2015 The Quarrel Story: Egypt, the Hyksos, and Canaan,
Conversations with the Biblical World 35, 94–127.
Feldman, M.H. and Sauvage, C.
2010 Objects of Prestige? Chariot in the Late Bronze Age
Eastern Mediterranean and Near East, Ägypten und
Levante 20, 67–181.
Fenkel, R.
2011 Local Transnationalisms: Ishtiyaq Shukri’s The
Silent Minaret and South Africa in the Global Imagi-
nary, in: P.P. Frassinelli, R. Frenkel and D. Watson
(eds.), Traversing Transnationalism. The Hori-
zons of Literary and Cultural Studies, Amsterdam,
New York, 119–135.
Ferguson, L.
1992 Uncommon Ground: Archaeology and Early Afri-
can America 1650–1800, Washington.
Ferraro, G.P.
2002 The Cultural Dimension of International Business,
4th edition, New Jersey.
Feucht, E.
2006 Die Gräber des Nedjemger (TT 138) und des Hori
(TT 259), Theben 15, Mainz am Rhein.
Finet, A.
1993 Le sacrifice de l’àne en Mésopotamie, in:
J. Quaegebeur (ed.), Ritual and Sacrifice in the
Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the Internation-
al Conference Organized by the Katholieke Uni-
versiteit Leuven from the 17th to the 20th of April
1991, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 55, Leuven,
135–142.
Finley, T.
1979 Word Order in the Clause Structure of Syrian
Akkadian, PhD Dissertation, University of
California, Los Angeles.
Firth, R. and Nosch, M.-L.
2012 Spinning and Weaving Wool in Ur III Administra-
tive Text, Journal of Cuneiform Studies 64, 67–84.
Fischer, E.
2007 Ägyptische und ägyptisierende Elfenbeine aus
Megiddo und Lachisch: Inschriftenfunde, Flaschen,
Löffel, Alter Orient and Altes Testament 47,
Münster.
Fischer, H.G.
1962 The Cult and Nome of the Goddess Bat, Journal of
the American Research Center in Egypt 1, 7–23.
1969 Egyptian Art, Bulletin of the Metropolitan Museum
of Art 28/2, 69–70.
 Selected Bibliography
1976 Some Early Monuments from Busiris, in the
Egyptian Delta, Metropolitan Museum Journal
11, 5–24.
Fischer, P.M.
2009 Textile Production at Tell ‘Abū al-Kharāz, Jordan
Valley, in: E. K aptijn and L.C. Petit (eds.), A Time-
less Vale: Archaeological and Related Essays on
the Jordan Valley in Honour of Gerrit van der Koo-
ij on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday, Ar-
chaeological Studies Leiden University 19, Leiden,
109–117.
Fisher, M.
2013 A Diplomatic Marriage in the Ramesside Period:
Maathorneferure, Daughter of the Great Ruler of
Hatti, in: B.J. Collins and P. Michalowski (eds.),
Beyond Hatti. A Tribute to Gary Beckman, Atlanta,
75–119.
Fitzgerald, G.M.
1956 Hyksos Fortifications and Chariot Warfare, in:
D. Sinor (ed.), Proceedings of the 23rd International
Congress of Orientalists Cambridge 21st–28th Au-
gust 1954, Cambridge, 95–96.
Flammini, R.
2008 Ancient Core-Periphery Interactions: Lower Nubia
during Middle Kingdom Egypt (ca. 2050–1640 B.C.),
Journal of World-Systems Research 14/1, 50–74.
2010 Elite Emulation and Patronage Relationships in the
Middle Bronze: The Egyptianized Dynasty of By-
blos, Tel Aviv 37, 154–168.
2011 Northeast Africa and the Levant in Connection: A
World-Systems Perspective on Interregional Rela-
tionships in the Early Second Millennium BC, in:
T.C. Wilkinson, S. Sherratt and J. Bennet (eds.),
Interweaving Worlds. Systemic Interactions in Eur-
asia, 7th to 1st Millennia BC, Oxford, 205–217.
2011/ Disputed Rulership in Upper Egypt: Reconsidering
2012 the Second Stela of Kamose (K2), Journal of the
Society of the Studies of Egyptian Antiquities 38,
61–64.
2013 Elites emergentes en el sistema-mundo nilótico-le-
vantino: prácticas de legitimación de la dinastía de
los Hicsos (c. 1640–1530 a.C.), in: C. Di Bennardis,
I. Milevski and E. R avenna (eds.), Diversidad de
formaciones politicas en Mesopotamia y el Cercano
Oriente. Organización interna y relaciones inter-
regionales en la Edad del Bronce, Barcino Mono-
graphica Orientalia 1, Barcelona, 163–189.
2015 Building the Hyksos’ Vassals: Some Thoughts on
the Definition of the Hyksos Subordination Practices,
Ägypten und Levante 25, 233–245.
2020a World-Systems from ‘the Theory’ to ‘a Perspec-
tive’: On Social Interconnections in Bronze Age Af-
ro-Eurasia, in: D.A. Warburton (ed.), Political and
Economic Interaction on the Edge of Early Empires,
eTopoi Journal for Ancient Studies, Special Volume 7,
Berlin, 56–73.
2020b Economics, Political Practices and Identities on the
Nile: Convergence and Conflicts ca. 1800 to 1530 BC,
in: D.A. Warburton (ed.), Political and Economic In-
teraction on the Edge of Early Empires, eTopoi Jour-
nal for Ancient Studies, Special Volume 7, Berlin,
116–154.
391
Fleming, D.E.
2000 Time at Emar. The Cultic Calendar and the Rituals
from the Diviner’s Archive, Winona Lake.
2004 Prophets and Temple Personnel in the Mari Ar-
chives, in: L.L. Grabbe and A.O. Bellis (eds.), The
Priests in the Prophets. The Portrayal of Priests,
Prophets and Other Religious Specialists in the
Latter Prophets, London, New York, 44–64.
Flüchter, A. and Schöttli, J.
2015 Introduction, in: A. Flüchter and J. Schöttli (eds.),
The Dynamics of Transculturality. Concepts and
Institutions in Motion, Cham, 1–23.
Forstner-Müller, I.
2001 Vorbericht der Grabung im Areal A/II in Tell el-
Dab‘a, Ägypten und Levante 11, 197–220.
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 Confer-
ence on MB IIA Ceramic Material, Vienna, 24th–26th
of January 2001, ÖAW: Denkschriften der Gesamt-
akademie 26, Contributions to the Chronology of the
Eastern Mediterranean 3, Vienna, 163–184.
2007 The Colonization/Urbanization of the Tell Area A/II
at Tell el-Dab‘a and its Chronological Implications,
Ägypten und Levante 17, 83–95.
2007/ A New Scimitar from Tell el-Dab‘a, Archaeology
2008 and History in the Lebanon 26–27, 207–211.
2008 Tell el-Dab‘a, vol. 16: Die Gräber des Areals A/II
von Tell el-Dab‘a, ÖAW: Denkschriften der Gesamt-
akademie 44, Untersuchungen der Zweigstelle Kairo
des Österreichischen Archäologischen Instituts 28,
Vienna.
2010 Settlement Patterns at Avaris: A Study on Two Cases,
in: M. Bietak, E. Czerny and I. Forstner-Müller
(eds.), Cities and Urbanism in Ancient Egypt. Pa-
pers from a Workshop in November 2006 at the Aus-
trian Academy of Sciences, ÖAW: Denkschriften der
Gesamtakademie 60, Untersuchungen der Zweig-
stelle Kairo des Österreichischen Archäologischen
Instituts 35, Vienna, 103–123.
2014 Avaris, its Harbours and the Perunefer Problem,
Egyptian Archaeology 45, 32–35.
Forstner-Müller, I., H assler, A., M atić, U. and Rose, P.
2015 Der Hafen von Avaris – Das Areal R/IV, Erster Vor-
bericht, Ägypten und Levante 25, 73–88.
Forstner-Müller, I., Herbich, T., Müller, W., Schweitzer, C.
and Weissl, M.
2007 Geophysical Survey 2007 at Tell el-Dab‘a, Ägypten
und Levante 17, 97–106.
Forstner-Müller, I. and Kopetzky, K.
2009 Egypt and Lebanon: New Evidence for Cultural Ex-
changes in the First Half of the 2nd Millennium B.C.,
in: A.M. Maila-Afeiche (ed.), Interconnections in the
Eastern Mediterranean. Lebanon in the Bronze and
Iron Ages. Proceedings of the International Sympo-
sium Beirut 2008, Bulletin d’archéologie et d’archi-
tecture Libanaises Hors-Série 6, Beirut, 143–157.
Forstner-Müller, I. and R eali, C.
2018 King Khyan and Avaris. Some Considerations
Concerning Khyan Seal Impressions from Area
392 Selected Bibliography
R/III at Tell el-Dab‘a, 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 Ar-
chaeological Institute and the Oriental Institute of
the University of Chicago, Vienna, July 4–5, 2014,
Ergänzungshefte zu den Jahresheften des Öster-
reichischen Archäologischen Instituts in Wien 17,
Vienna, 91–123.
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 Pot-
tery from Egyptian Cultural Contexts of the Middle
Kingdom and Early New Kingdom: Proceedings of
a Workshop held at the Austrian Archaeological In-
stitute at Cairo, 1–12 December 2010, Ergänzungs-
hefte zu den Jahresheften des Österreichischen
Archäologischen Instituts 13, Vienna, 181–212.
Fortes, M.
1969 Kinship and Social Order: The Legacy of Lewis
Henry Morgan, Chicago.
Foster, B.R.
1996 Before the Muses. An Anthology of Akkadian
Literature, 2nd edition, Maryland.
2010 Clothing in Sargonic Mesopotamia: Visual and
Written Evidence, in: C. Michel and M.-L. Nosch
(eds.), Textile Terminologies in the Ancient Near
East and Mediterranean from the Third to the First
Millennia BC, Oxford, Oakville, 110–145.
Foster, G.M.
1960 Culture and Conquest, Chicago.
Foster, K.P. and R itner, R.K.
1996 Texts, Storms, and the Thera Eruption, Journal of
Near Eastern Studies 55, 1–14.
Franke, D.
1988 Zur Chronologie des Mittleren Reiches. Teil II: Die
sogenannte ‘Zweite Zwischenzeit’ Altägyptens,
Orientalia 57, 245–274.
2008 The Late Middle Kingdom (Thirteenth to
Seventeenth Dynasties): The Chronological
Framework, Journal of Egyptian History 1/2,
267–287.
Frankel, R.
1999 Wine and Olive Production in Antiquity in Israel
and Other Mediterranean Countries, Sheffield.
Frankfort, H.
1939 Cylinder Seals, London.
Frankfurter, D.
1998 Religion in Roman Egypt: Assimilation and Re-
sistance, Princeton.
Franzmeier, H.
2010 Ein Brunnen in der Ramses-Stadt. Zur Typol-
ogie und Funktion von Brunnen und Zisternen
im Pharaonischen Ägypten, Forschungen in der
Ramses-Stadt 7, Hildesheim.
Fraser, G.W.
1909 A Catalogue of the Scarabs, London.
Frassinelli, P.P., Frenkel, R. and Watson, D.
2011 Traversing Transnationalism, in: P.P. Frassinelli,
R. Frenkel and D. Watson (eds.), Traversing Trans-
nationalism. The Horizons of Literary and Cultural
Studies, Amsterdam, New York, 1–11.
Freeman, W.
2000 A Neurobiological Role of Music in Social Bonding,
in: N. Wallin, B. Merker and S. Brown (eds.), The
Origins of Music, Cambridge, 411–424.
Friedman, J.
1995 Global System, Globalization and the Parameters of
Modernization, in: M. Featherstone, L. Lash and
R. Robertson (eds.), Global Modernities, London,
69–90.
Friedman, R.
2009 Hierakonpolis Locality HK29A: The Predynastic
Ceremonial Center Revisited, Journal of the Ameri-
can Research Center in Egypt 45, 79–103.
Fugmann, E.
1958 Hama. L’architecture des périodes pré-hellénistique,
vol. 2/1, Copenhagen.
Fulco, W.J.
1976 The Canaanite God Rešep, American Oriental
Series 8, New Haven.
Fuller, D. and Boivin, N.
2009 Crops, Cattle and Commensals across the
Indian Ocean. Current and Potential Archaeo-
biological Evidence, Plantes et Sociétés 42–43,
https://doi.org/10.4000/oceanindien.698 (last ac-
cessed 11.06.2019).
Fuscaldo, P.
2000 Tell el-Dab‘a, vol. 10/1: The Palace District of Ava-
ris. The Pottery of the Hyksos Period and the New
Kingdom (Areas H/III and H/VI). Locus 66, ÖAW:
Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie 17, Untersu-
chungen der Zweigstelle Kairo des Österreichischen
Archäologischen Instituts 16, Vienna.
2001 Preliminary Reports on the 18th Dynasty Pottery
from ‘Ezbet Helmi, Area H/III-t-u/17 (The Bath-
room), Ägypten und Levante 11, 149–166.
2003 Tell el-Dab‘a: Two Execration Pits and a Founda-
tion Deposit, in: Z. H awass and L.P. Brock (eds.),
Egyptology at the Dawn of the Twenty-First Cen-
tury. Proceedings of the Eighth International Con-
gress of Egyptologists, Cairo, 2000, vol. 1, Cairo,
185–188.
2007 Tell el-Dab‘a: Some Remarks on the Pottery from
‘Ezbet Helmi (Areas H/III and H/VI, Strata e/1
and d), in: M. Bietak and E. Czerny (eds.), The
Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern
Mediterranean in the Second Millennium BC, vol.
3: Proceedings of the SCIEM 2000 – 2nd Euro-
Conference Vienna, 28th of May – 1st of June 2003,
ÖAW: Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie 37, Con-
 Selected Bibliography
tributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Medi-
terranean 9, Vienna, 301–316.
2008 The Nubian Pottery from the Palace District of
Avaris at ‘Ezbet Helmi, Areas H/III and H/VI,
Part III: The “Classic” Kerma Pottery from the
Second Intermediate Period and the 18th Dynasty,
Ägypten und Levante 18, 107–127.
2010 Tell el-Dab‘a, vol. 10/2: The Palace District of Ava-
ris. The Pottery of the Hyksos Period and the New
Kingdom (Areas H/III and H/VI). Two Execration
Pits and a Foundation Deposit, ÖAW: Denkschrif-
ten der Gesamtakademie 61, Untersuchungen der
Zweigstelle Kairo des Österreichischen Archäo-
logischen Instituts 36, Vienna.
G narvon Tablet, No. I, The Journal of Egyptian Ar-
Gabolde, M.
1990 Catalogue des antiquités égyptiennes du musée
Joseph Déchelette, Roanne.
Gabriel, R.A.
2009 Thutmose III: A Military Biography of Egypt’s
Greatest Warrior King, Washington.
al-Gailani, L.
1965 Tell edh-Dhiba‘i, Sumer 21, 33–40.
Galán, J.M.
1995 Victory and Border. Terminology Related to
Egyptian Imperialism in the XVIIIth Dynasty,
Hildesheim.
2002 Mutilation of Pharaoh’s Enemies, in: M. Eldamaty
and M. Trad (eds.), Egyptian Museum Collections
around the World. Studies for the Centennial of the
Egyptian Museum, Cairo, vol. 1, Cairo, 441–551.
2014 The Inscribed Burial Chamber of Djehuty (TT 11),
in: J.M. Galán, B.M. Bryan and P.F. Dorman (eds.),
Creativity and Innovation in the Reign of Hatshep-
sut, Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 69, Chi-
cago, 247–272.
2015 11th Dynasty Burials below Djehuty’s Courtyard
(TT 11) in Dra Abu el-Naga, Bulletin of the Egypto-
logical Seminar 19, 331–346.
Gale, N. and Stos-Gale, Z.
1999 Copper Oxhide Ingots and the Aegean Met-
als Trade. New Perspectives, in: P. Betancourt,
V. K arageorghis, R. Laffineur and W.D. Niemeier
(eds.), Meletemata: Studies in Aegean Archaeology
presented to Malcolm H. Wiener as he enters his 65th
Year, Liege, Austin, 267–277.
Gallagher, M.
2007 The Créolité Movement: Paradoxes of a French Ca-
ribbean Orthodoxy, in: C. Stewart (ed.), Creoliza-
tion: History, Ethnography, Theory, Walnut Creek,
220–236.
Gallorini, C.
1998 Incised Marks on Pottery and Other Objects from
Kahun: Systems of Communication in Egypt during
the Late Middle Kingdom, PhD Dissertation,
University College London.
Gans, C.
1987 Punctuated Equilibria and Political Science: A
Neontological View, Politics and Life Sciences 5/2,
220–244.
393
Gansell, A.
2007 Identity and Adornment in the Third-Millenni-
um BC Mesopotamian ‘Royal Cemetery’ at Ur,
Cambridge Archaeological Journal 17, 29–46.
García, D. and Galán, J.M.
2016 An Archery Set from Dra Abu el-Naga, Egyptian
Archaeology 49, 24–28.
Gardiner, A.
1906 The Goddess Ningal in an Egyptian Text, Zeitschrift
für Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 43, 97.
1916a The Egyptian Origin of the Semitic Alphabet, The
Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 3, 1–16.
1916b The Defeat of the Hyksos by Kamōse: The Car-
chaeology 3, 95–110.
1932a The Astarte Papyrus, in: S.R.K. Glanville
and N.M. Griffith (eds.), Studies Presented to
F. Ll. Griffith, London, 74–85.
1932b Late-Egyptian Stories, Bibliotheca Aegyptiaca 1,
Brussels.
1937 Late-Egyptian Miscellanies, Bibliotheca Aegyptiaca
7, Brussels.
1946 Davies’s Copy of the Great Speos Artemidos
Inscription, The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology
32, 43–56.
1947 Ancient Egyptian Onomastica, vol. 1, Oxford.
1950 The Baptism of Pharaoh, The Journal of Egyptian
Archaeology 36, 3–12.
1953 The Coronation of King Ḥaremḥab, The Journal of
Egyptian Archaeology 39, 13–31.
1955 The Ramesseum Papyri, Oxford.
1957 Egyptian Grammar: Being an Introduction to the
Study of Hieroglyphs, 3rd edition, Oxford.
Gardiner, A. and Peet, T.E.
1917 The Inscriptions of Sinai, vol. 1: Introduction and
Plates, London.
Garènne-M arot, L.
1984 Le cuivre en Égypte pharaonique: Sources et métal-
lurgie, Paléorient 10/1, 97–126.
1985 Le travail du cuivre dans l’Égypte pharaonique
d’après les peintures et les bas-reliefs, Paléorient
11/1, 85–100.
Garstang, J.
1901 El-Arábah: A Cemetery of the Middle Kingdom
Survey of the Old Kingdom Temenos Graffiti from
the Temple of Sety, London.
1907 The Burial Customs of Ancient Egypt as Illustrated
by Tombs of the Middle Kingdom, London.
1934 Jericho: City and Necropolis, Liverpool Annals of
Archaeology and Anthropology 21, 99–136.
Gasche, H., A rmstrong, J., Cole, S. and Gurzadyan, V.
1998 Dating the Fall of Babylon: A Reappraisal of
Second-Millennium Chronology, Mesopotamian
History and Environmental Studies 2, Memoirs 4,
Chicago.
Gasperini, V.
2018 Tomb Robberies at the End of the New Kingdom.
The Gurob Burnt Groups Reinterpreted, Oxford
Studies in Egyptian Archaeology, Oxford.
394 Selected Bibliography
Gasse, A.
1987 Une expédition au Ouādi Hammāmāt sous le règne
de Sebekemsaf Ier, Bulletin de l’institut français
d’archéologie orientale du Caire 87, 207–218.
Gates, M.-H.
1984 The Palace of Zimri-Lim at Mari, Biblical Arch-
aeologist 47/2, 70–87.
Gee, J.
2004 Overlooked Evidence for Sesostris III’s Foreign
Policy, Journal of the American Research Center in
Egypt 41, 23–31.
Geertz, C.
1963 The Integrative Revolution: Primordial Senti-
ments and Civil Politics in the New States, in: C.
Geertz (ed.), Old Societies and New States: The
Quest for Modernity in Asia and Africa, New York,
105–157.
Gell, A.
1998 Art and Agency. An Anthropological Theory,
Oxford.
Genz, H.
2000 The Organisation of Early Bronze Age Metalwork-
ing in the Southern Levant, Paléorient 26, 55–65.
2010/ Middle Bronze Age Pottery from Tell Fadous-Kfa-
2011 rabida, Lebanon, Berytus 53–54, 115–132.
2013 The Introduction of the Light, Horse-Drawn Chariot
and the Role of Archery in the Near East at the Tran-
sition from the Middle to the Late Bronze Ages: Is
there a Connection?, in: A. Veldmeijer and S. Ikram
(eds.), Chasing Chariots: Proceedings of the First
International Chariot Conference (Cairo, 2012),
Leiden, 95–105.
Genz, H., Daniel, R., Damick, A., Ahrens, A., el-Zaatari, S.,
Höflmayer, F., Kutschera, W. and Wild, E.M.
2010 Excavations at Tell Fadous-Kfarabida. Prelimi-
nary Report on the 2010 Season of Excavations,
Bulletin d’archéologie et d’architecture Libanaises
14, 241–274.
Georganas, I.
2010 Weapons and Warfare, in: E.H. Cline (ed.), The
Oxford Handbook of the Bronze Age Aegean
(ca. 3000–1000 BC), New York, 305–314.
George, A.R.
2003 The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic. Introduction, Crit-
ical Edition and Cuneiform Texts, Oxford.
Gerisch, R., Wetterstrom, W. and Murray, M.A.
2009 Egypt’s Oldest Olive, Aerogram 9/2, 3.
Germer, R.
1985 Flora des pharaonischen Ägypten, Mainz am Rhein.
1992 Die Textilfärberei und die Verwendung gefärbter
Textilien im Alten Ägypten, Ägyptologische Ab-
handlungen 53, Wiesbaden.
1998 The Plant Material found by Petrie at Lahun and
Some Remarks on the Problems of Identifying
Egyptian Plant Names, in: S. Quirke (ed.), Lahun
Studies, Reigate, 84–91.
Gernez, G.
2007 L’armament en metal au Proche et Moyen-Orient
des origines à 1750 av. J.-C., vol. 1: Texte, PhD Dis-
sertation, Université Paris-Sorbonne (Paris I).
2008a Metal Weapons and Cultural Transformations, in:
H. Kühne, R. Czichon and F. K reppner (eds.), Pro-
ceedings of the 4th International Congress of the Ar-
chaeology of the Ancient Near East, 29 March – 3
April, 2004, Freie Universität Berlin, vol. 2: Social
and Cultural Transformation: The Archaeology of
Transitional Periods and Dark Ages Excavation Re-
ports, Wiesbaden, 125–146.
2008b Le métal de Tell Arqa à l’âge du Bronze, Bulletin
d’archéologie et d’architecture Libanaises 12,
221–264.
Gersick, C.
1991 Revolutionary Change Theories: A Multilevel Ex-
ploration of the Punctuated Equilibrium Paradigm,
Academy of Management Review 16/1, 10–36.
Gerstenblith, P.
1983 The Levant at the Beginning of the Middle Bronze
Age, American Schools of Oriental Research
Dissertation Series 5, Winona Lake.
Gese, H., Höfner, M. and Rudolph, K.
1970 Die Religionen Altsyriens, Altarabiens und der Man-
däer, Die Religionen der Menschheit 10/2, Stuttgart.
Gestoso Singer, G.N.
2009 Queen Ahhotep and the “Golden Fly”, Cahiers Car-
ibéens d’égyptologie 12, 75–88.
2016 Shaushka, the Traveling Goddess, Trabajos de Egip-
tologia 7, 43–58.
Giddy, L.
1999 Survey of Memphis, vol. 2: Kom Rabi‘a. The New
Kingdom and Post-New Kingdom Objects, London.
Giffard, H.
2016 Transculturalism and Translation. New Approaches
to Cultural Contact Zones, International Journal for
History, Culture and Modernity 4/1, 29–41.
Gifford -Gonzalez, D. and H anotte, O.
2011 Domesticating Animals in Africa: Implications of
Genetic and Archaeological Findings, Journal of
World Prehistory 24, 1–23.
Gilbert, G.
2004 Weapons, Warriors and Warfare in Early Egypt,
British Archaeological Reports International Series
1208, Oxford.
Gillam, R.A.
1995 Priestesses of Hathor: Their Function, Decline and
Disappearance, Journal of the American Research
Center in Egypt 32, 211–237.
Gilli, B.
2010 Under the Protection of the Gods: The Divine
Role for the Good Outcome of Trade and Mining
Expeditions, in: A. Hudecz and M. Petrik (eds.),
Commerce and Economy in Ancient Egypt. Pro-
ceedings of the Third International Congress for
Young Egyptologists 25–27 September 2009, Buda-
 Selected Bibliography
pest, British Archaeological Reports International
Series 2131, Oxford, 55–62.
Gillis, C. and Nosch, M.-L. (eds.)
2007 Ancient Textiles. Production, Craft and Society,
Oxford.
Giménez Izquierdo, F.J.
2015 “Asiatic” Copper in New Kingdom Egypt, Damqa-
tum 11, 11–17.
2017 Integration of Foreigners in Egypt. The Relief of
Amenhotep II Shooting Arrows at a Copper Ingot
and Related Scenes, Journal of Egyptian History
10/2, 109–123.
Giveon, R.
1978 The Impact of Egypt on Canaan. Iconographical
and Related Studies, Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 20,
Fribourg.
1980 Review Article: Resheph in Egypt, The Journal of
Egyptian Archaeology 66, 144–150.
Glanville, S.R.K.
1931 Records of a Royal Dockyard of the Time of Tuth-
mosis III. Papyrus British Museum 10056. Part I,
Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache und Altertums-
kunde 66, 105–121.
1932 Records of a Royal Dockyard of the Time of Tuth-
mosis III. Papyrus British Museum 10056. Part II,
Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache und Altertums-
kunde 68, 7–41.
Gleba, M.
2014 Cloth Worth a King’s Ransom: Textile Circulation
and Transmission of Textile Craft in the Ancient
Mediterranean, in: K. R ebay-Salisbury, A. Brys-
baert and L. Foxhall (eds.), Knowledge Networks
and Craft Traditions in the Ancient World, New
York, London, 83–103.
Glissant, É.
1989 Carribean Discourse: Selected Essays, Charlottesville.
Gnirs, A. and Loprieno, A.
2009 Krieg und Literatur, in: R. Gundlach and C. Vogel (eds.),
Militärgeschichte des pharaonischen Ägypten,
Krieg in der Geschichte 34, Paderborn, 243–308.
Goedicke, H.
1966 Some Remarks on the 400 Year Stela, Chronique
d’Égypte 41, 23–39.
1968 The Capture of Joppa, Chronique d’Égypte 43,
219–233.
1971 Re-Used Blocks from the Pyramid of Amenemhet I at
Lisht, New York.
1981 The 400–Year Stela Reconsidered, Bulletin of the
Egyptological Seminar 3, 25–42.
1986a The Quarrel of Apophis and Seqenenrea, San Antonio.
1986b The End of the Hyksos in Egypt, in: L.H. Lesko (ed.),
Egyptological Studies in Honor of Richard A. Parker.
Presented on the Occasion of his 78th Birthday
December 10, 1983, Hanover, London, 37–47.
1992a The Chronology of the Thera/Santorini Explosion,
Ägypten und Levante 3, 57–62.
1992b Amenophis II in Samaria, Studien zur Altägyp-
tischen Kultur 19, 133–150.
395
1995 Studies about Kamose and Ahmose, Baltimore.
1998 Khu-u-Sobek’s Fight in ‘Asia’, Ägypten und Levante 7,
33–37.
2002 The Perimeter of Geographical Awareness in the
Fourth Dynasty and the Significance of HAw - n b w t
in the Pyramid Texts, Studien zur Altägyptischen
Kultur 30, 121–136.
2004 The Speos Artemidos Inscription of Hatshepsut and
Related Discussions, Oakville, CT.
Goelet, O. Jr. and Levine, B.A.
1998 Making Peace in Heaven and on Earth: Religious and
Legal Aspects of the Treaty between Ramesses II
and Hattušili III, in: M. Lubetski, C. Gottlieb and
S. K eller (eds.), Boundaries of the Ancient Near
Eastern World, Journal for the Study of the Old
Testament Supplement Series 273, Sheffield,
252–299.
Goetze, A.
1963 Warfare in Asia Minor, Iraq 25/2, 124–130.
1969 Hittite Treaties, in: J.B. Pritchard (ed.), Ancient
Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament,
3rd edition, Princeton, New Jersey, 201–206.
Goldwasser, O.
1992a Literary Late Egyptian as a Polysystem, Poetics
Today 13/3, 447–462.
1992b On the Date of Seth from Qubeibeh, Israel Explora-
tion Journal 42, 47–51.
1995 From Icon to Metaphor: Studies in the Semiotics of
the Hieroglyphs, Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 142,
Fribourg.
1999 “Low” and “High” Dialects in Ramesside Egyp-
tian, in: S. Grunert and I. H afemann (eds.), Text-
corpus und Wörterbuch: Aspekte zur ägyptischen
Lexikographie, Probleme der Ägyptologie 14,
Leiden, 311–328.
2002 Prophets, Lovers and Giraffes: Wor(l)d
Classification in Ancient Egypt, Göttinger Orient-
forschungen IV. Reihe, Ägypten 38, Wiesbaden.
2005 Where is Metaphor? Conceptual Metaphor and Al-
ternative Classification in the Hieroglyphic Script,
Metaphor and Symbol 20/2, 95–113.
2006a Canaanites Reading Hieroglyphs. Horus is Hathor?
– The Invention of the Alphabet in Sinai, Ägypten
und Levante 16, 121–160.
2006b King Apophis of Avaris and the Emergence of
Monotheism, in: E. Czerny, I. Hein, H. Hunger,
D. Melman and A. Schwab (eds.), Timelines. Stud-
ies in Honour of Manfred Bietak, vol. 2, Orientalia
Lovaniensia Analecta 149, Leuven, Paris, Dudley,
129–133.
2011 The Advantage of Cultural Periphery: The Inven-
tion of the Alphabet in Sinai (circa 1840 B.C.E.), in:
R. Sela-Sheffy and G. Tury (eds.), Culture Contacts
and the Making of Cultures. Papers in Homage to
Itamar Even-Zohar, Tel Aviv, 255–321.
2012/ Out of the Mists of the Alphabet – Redrawing
2013 the “Brother of the Ruler of Retjenu”, Ägypten und
Levante 22–23, 353–374.
2017 What is a Horse? Lexical Acculturation and Clas-
sification in Egyptian, Sumerian, and Nahuatl, in:
T. Pommerening and W. Bisang (eds.), Classification
from Antiquity to Modern Times, Berlin, Boston,
45–65.
396 Selected Bibliography
Golénischeff, V.S.
1913 Les papyrus hiératiques nos. 1115, 1116A et 1116B de
l’Ermitage imperial à St.-Péterbourg, St. Petersburg.
Gómez, J.M.A.
2015 Some Oils in Ancient Egypt: Debate between Mor-
inga, Olive and Sesame Oils, in: A. Diler, K. Şenol
and Ű. Aydinoğlu (eds.), Olive Oil and Wine Produc-
tion in Eastern Mediterranean during Antiquity. In-
ternational Symposium Proceedings 17–19 Novem-
ber 2011 Urla – Turkey, Izmir, 209–220.
2020 Oil Press Installations and Oil Production in Ancient
Egypt, in: J.M. Chyla, J. Dębowska-Ludwin, K. Ros-
ińska-Balik and C. Walsh (eds.), Current Research
in Egyptology 2016. Proceedings of the Seventeenth
Annual Symposium, Oxford, Philadelphia, 186–208.
Gonen, R.
1975 Weapons of the Ancient World, London.
González-Ruibal, A.
2011 The Politics of Identity: Ethnicity and the Economy of
Power in Iron Age Northwest Iberia, in: S. Stoddart
and G. Cifani (eds.), Landscape, Ethnicity, Identity in
the Archaic Mediterranean Area, Oxford, 245–266.
Good, I.
2006 Textiles as a Medium of Exchange in Third Millen-
nium BCE Western Asia, in: V. M air (ed.), Con-
tact and Exchange in the Ancient World, Honolulu,
191–214.
Goodison, L. and Morris, C.
1999 Introduction. Exploring Female Divinity: From
Modern Myths to Ancient Evidence, in: L. Goodison
and C. Morris (eds.), Ancient Goddesses: The Myths
and the Evidence, Madison, 6–21.
Gordon, C.H.
1953 Near East Seals in Princeton and Philadelphia,
Orientalia 22/3, 242–250.
1965 Ugaritic Textbook. Grammar, Texts in Translitera-
tion, Cuneiform Selections, Glossary, Indices, Ana-
lecta Orientalia 38, Rome.
Goren, Y.
2003 Review of McGovern P.E., The Foreign Relations
of the “Hyksos”, British Archaeological Reports
International Series 888, Oxford, 2000, Bibliotheca
Orientalis 60/1–2, 105–109.
Görg, M.
1978 Eine Variante von Mitanni, Göttinger Miszellen 29,
25–26.
1979 Mitanni in Gruppenschreibung, Göttinger Miszellen
32, 17–19.
2013 Seth-Baal im Bild. Weitere Aspekte zur komparatis-
tischen Betrachtung, in: M.C. Flossmann Schütze,
M. Goecke-Bauer, F. Hoffmann, A. Hutterer,
K. Schlüter, A. Schütze and M. Ullmann (eds.),
Kleine Götter – Grosse Götter. Festschrift für Dieter
Kessler zum 65. Geburtstag, Tuna el-Gebel 4, Vater-
stetten, 229–234.
Gosden, C.
2004 Archaeology and Colonialism. Cultural Contact
from 5000 BC to the Present, Cambridge.
Goshen, N., Yassur-Landau, A. and Cline, E.H.
2013 Textile Production in Palatial and Non-Palatial
Contexts: The Case of Tel Kabri, in: M.-L. Nosch,
H. Koefoed and E. Andersson-Strand (eds.), Tex-
tile Production and Consumption in the Ancient
Near East. Archaeology, Epigraphy, Iconography,
Ancient Textile Series 12, Oxford, Oakville, 45–53.
Gould, S.
2009 Punctuated Equilibrium, Cambridge.
Goyon, G.
1938 Deux stèles de Ramses II au Gebel Chalouf, Kêmi 7,
115–122.
Graebner, F.
1903 Kulturkreise und Kulturschichten in Ozeanien,
Zeitschrift für Ethnologie 37, 28–53.
1911 Die Methode der Ethnologie, Heidelberg.
Grajetzki, W.
2000 Die höchsten Beamten der ägyptischen Zen-
tralverwaltung zur Zeit des Mittleren Reiches,
Achet-Schriften zur Ägyptologie 2, Berlin.
2001 Two Treasurers of the Late Middle Kingdom, British
Archaeological Reports International Series 1007,
Oxford.
2006 The Middle Kingdom of Ancient Egypt: History, Ar-
chaeology and Society, London.
Grant, F.C.
1953 Hellenistic Religions: The Age of Syncretism,
New York.
Grapow, H.
1949 Studien zu den Annalen Thutmosis des Dritten
und zu ihnen verwandten historischen Berichten
des neuen Reiches, Abhandlungen der Deutschen
Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, Philoso-
phisch-Historische Klasse 1947, Nr. 2, Berlin.
1958 Die medizinischen Texte in hieroglyphischer Um-
schreibung Autographiert, Grundriss der Medizin
der Alten Ägypter V, Berlin.
Gratien, B.
1978 Les cultures Kerma. Essai de classification, Lille.
2000 Les pots de cuisson nubiens et les bols décorés de
la première moitié de IIe millénaire avant J.-C. Pro-
blèmes d’identification, Cahiers de la céramique
égyptienne 6, 113–148.
2001 Scellements et contrescellements au Moyen Em-
pire en Nubie l’apport de Mirgissa, Cahiers de re-
cherches de l’institut de papyrologie et d’égyptolo-
gie de Lille 22, 47–69.
Gratzer, W. and Grosch, N. (eds.)
2018 Musik und Migration, Münster, New York.
Graves, T.
1967 Psychological Acculturation in a Tri-Ethnic Com-
munity, South-Western Journal of Anthropology 23,
337–350.
Graves-Brown, C.
2015 Flint and Forts: The Role of Flint in Late Mid-
dle-New Kingdom Egyptian Weaponry, in: T. H ar-
 Selected Bibliography
rison, E. Banning and S. K lassen (eds.), Walls of the
Prince: Egyptian Interactions with Southwest Asia
in Antiquity, Leiden, Boston, 37–59.
Graziadio, G.
2014 The Oxhide Ingots Production in the Eastern Medi-
terranean, Egitto e Vicino Oriente 37, 5–25.
Grdseloff, B.
1942 Les débuts du culte de Rechef en Égypte, Cairo.
1944 Notes d’épigraphie archaïque. 5. La fin de la IIe dy-
nastie ou la ‘période séthienne’, Annales du service
des antiquités de l’Égypte 44, 292–302.
Green, A.
2003 The Storm-God in the Ancient Near East,
Winona Lake.
Greenblatt, S.
2009 Cultural Mobility. A Manifesto, Cambridge.
Gregory, J.
2007 Donkeys and the Equine Hierarchy in Archaic Greek
Literature, The Classical Journal 102/3, 193–212.
Gregory, M.
1967 Aspects of Varieties Differentiation, Journal of
Linguistics 3, 177–198.
Griffith, F.L.
1893/ The God Set of Ramessu II and an Egypto-
1894 Syrian Deity, Proceedings of the Society of Biblical
Archaeology 16, 87–91.
1898 Hieratic Papyri from Kahun and Gurob, Principally
of the Middle Kingdom, London.
1926 A Drinking Siphon from Tell el-‘Amarnah, The
Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 12, 22–23.
Griffith, F.L. and Naville, E.
1890 The Antiquities of Tell el Yahudiyeh and Miscella-
neous Work in Lower Egypt during the Years 1887–
1888, Memoir of the Egypt Exploration Fund 7,
London.
Griffiths, J.G.
1930 The Conflict of Horus and Seth. From Egyptian and
Classical Sources, Liverpool.
Grigson, C.
1991 An African Origin for African Cattle? Some Ar-
chaeological Evidence, The African Archaeological
Review 9, 119–144.
1993 The Earliest Domestic Horses in the Levant? New
Finds from the Fourth Millennium of the Negev,
Journal of Archaeological Science 20, 645–655.
2012 Size Matters – Donkeys and Horses in the Prehis-
tory of the Southernmost Levant, Paléorient 38/1,
185–201.
Grimal, N.
1988 Histoire de l’Égypte ancienne, Paris.
Grimm, A.
1989 Calembour, Trommelwettstreit oder Kampf auf
Leben und Tod in der autobiographischen Stelenin-
schrift des Emhab?, The Journal of Egyptian Ar-
chaeology 75, 220–224.
397
Groddek, D.
2000 Ist das Etymon von wrr.yt „Wagen“ gefunden?, Göt-
tinger Miszellen 175, 109–111.
2008 “Ägypten sei dem hethitischen Lande Bundesgenos-
sen!” – Zur Textherstellung zweier Paragraphen
des Kuruštama-Vertrages, Göttinger Miszellen 218,
37–43.
Gromadzka, S. and R zepka, S.
2011 Two Flails in the King’s Hands: Unsual Royal Ico-
nography on a Scarab from Tell el-Retaba, Studien
zur Altägyptischen Kultur 40, 103–112.
Guarnaccia, P.J. and H ausmann-Stabile, C.
2016 Acculturation and Its Discontents: A Case for
Bringing Anthropology Back into the Conversation,
Sociology and Anthropology 4/2, 114–124.
Guasch, M.
2010 On Egyptian Wine Marketing, in: A. Hudecz and
M. Petrik (eds.), Commerce and Economy in An-
cient Egypt. Proceedings of the Third International
Congress for Young Egyptologists 25–27 September
2009, Budapest, British Archaeological Reports
International Series 2131, Oxford, 63–69.
Gubel, E.
1998 E. pluribus unum: Nubian, Libyan and Phoenician
“Bastet”-sphinxes, in: W. Clarysse, A. Schoors
and H. Willems (eds.), Egyptian Religion the Last
Thousand Years, part I: Studies dedicated to the
memory of Jan Quaegebeur, Orientalia Lovaniensia
Analecta 84, Leuven, 629–646.
Gubel, E. and Loffet, H.
2011/ Sidon, Qedem and the Land of Iay, Archaeology and
2012 History in the Lebanon 34–35, 79–92.
Gundacker, R.
2010 Eine besondere Form des Substantivalsatzes: mit
besonderer Rücksicht auf ihre dialektale und dia-
chrone Bedeutung, Lingua Aegyptia 18, 47–117.
2017 Papyrus British Museum 10056: Ergebnisse einer
Neukollationierung und Anmerkungen zur inhalt-
lichen Auswertung im Rahmen der militärischen
Ausbildung Amenophis’ II., Ägypten und Levante
17, 281–334.
Gursch, H.
1995 Die Gräber des Nacht-Min und des Men-cheper-
Ra-seneb Theben Nr. 87 und 79, Archäologische
Veröffentlichungen des Deutschen Archäologischen
Instituts Abteilung Kairo 34, Mainz.
Güterbock, H.G.
1961 Hittite Mythology, in: S.N. K ramer (ed.), Mytholo-
gies of the Ancient World, New York, 155–172.
Guy, P.L.O.
1938 Megiddo Tombs, Oriental Institute Publications 33,
Chicago.
H
H aas, V.
1979 Remarks on the Hurrian Ištar-Šawuška of Nineveh
in the Second Millennium B.C., Sumer 35, 397–401.
398 Selected Bibliography
H abachi, L.
1957 Tell Basta, Cahiers supplément aux annales du ser-
vice des antiquités de l’Égypte 22, Cairo.
1972 The Second Stela of Kamose and his Struggle
against the Hyksos Ruler and his Capital, Ägyptol-
ogische Reihe 8, Glückstadt.
1977 The Four Hundred Year Stela Originally Standing
in Khatâ‘na-Qantîr or Avaris-Piramesse, Actes
du XXIXe congrès international des Orientalistes:
Égyptologie, vol. 1, Paris, 41–44.
1978 The So-Called Hyksos Monuments Reconsidered:
Apropos of the Discovery of a Dyad of Sphinxes,
Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur 6, 79–92.
2001 Tell el-Dab‘a, vol. 1: Tell el-Dab‘a and Qantir: The
Site and its Connection with Avaris and Piramesse,
E.-M. Engel (ed.), ÖAW: Denkschriften der Gesamt-
akademie 23, Untersuchungen der Zweigstelle Kairo
des Österreichischen Archäologischen Instituts 2,
Vienna.
H achmann, R.
1983 Frühe Phöniker im Libanon: 20 Jahre deutsche Aus-
grabungen in Kamid el-Loz, Mainz am Rhein.
1996 Das Königsgrab von Kamid el-Loz und die Königs-
gräber der mittleren und späten Bronze- und frühen
Eisenzeit im Küstengebiet östlich des Mittelmeeres
und in Mesopotamien, in: R. H achmann (ed.),
Kamid el-Loz, vol. 16: ‚Schatzhaus‘-Studien, Bonn,
203–288.
H ackenbeck, S.
2008 Migration in Archaeology: Are We Nearly There
Yet, Archaeological Review from Cambridge 23/2,
9–26.
H ackett, J.A.
1989 Can a Sexist Model Liberate Us? Ancient Near East-
ern ‘Fertility’ Goddesses, Journal of Feminist Stud-
ies in Religion 5, 65–76.
H adley, J.M.
2000 The Cult of Asherah in Ancient Israel and Judah:
Evidence for a Hebrew Goddess, Cambridge.
H afford, W.
2002 Tools of Ancient Trade: Balance Pan Weights in the
Egyptian Museum, in: M. Eldamaty and M. Trad
(eds.), Egyptian Museum Collections around the
World. Studies for the Centennial of the Egyptian
Museum, Cairo, vol. 1, Cairo, 503–512.
2012 Weighing in Mesopotamia: The Balance Pan
Weights from Ur, Akkadica 133/1, 21–65.
H agens, G.
2014 Radiocarbon Chronology for Dynastic Egypt and
the Tell el-Dab‘a Debate: A Regional Hypothesis,
Ägypten und Levante 24, 171–188.
H ahn, H.P.
2008 Diffusionism, Appropriation, and Globalization.
Some Remarks on Current Debates in Anthropolo-
gy, Anthropos 103/1, 191–202.
2012 Cultural Appropriation: Power, Transformation,
and Tradition, in: C. Huck and S. Bauernschmidt
(eds.), Travelling Goods, Travelling Moods. Va-
rieties of Cultural Appropriation (1850–1950),
Frankfurt, New York, 15–35.
H akiman, S. and Lapérouse, J.F. de
2008 Sickle Sword, in: J. A ruz , K. Benzel and J.M. Ev-
ans (eds.), Beyond Babylon. Art, Trade, and Diplo-
macy in the Second Millennium B.C., New York,
New Haven, London, 58.
H akulin, L.
2004 Bronzeworking on Late Minoan Crete: A Dia-
chronic Study, British Archaeological Reports
International Series 1245, Oxford.
H aldane, C.
1993 Direct Evidence for Organic Cargoes in the Late
Bronze Age, World Archaeology 24/3, 348–360.
H alevi, L.
2014 Religion and Cross-Cultural Trade: A Framework
for Interdisciplinary Inquiry, in: F. Trivellato,
L. H alevi and C. Antunes (eds.), Religion and
Trade. Cross-Cultural Exchanges in World History,
1000–1900, Oxford, 24–61.
H all, E.S.
1986 The Pharaoh smites his Enemies: A Comparative
Study, Münchner Ägyptologische Studien 44,
Munich.
H all, H.R.
1913 Catalogue of Egyptian Scarabs, etc., in the British
Museum, vol. 1, London.
1914 Hieroglyphic Texts from Egyptian Stelae, & c., in
the British Museum, vol. 5, London.
H all, R.
1986 Egyptian Textiles, Aylesbury.
H all, S.
2010 Créolité and the Process of Creolization, in:
R. Cohen and P. Toninato (eds.), The Creolization
Reader: Studies in Mixed Identities and Cultures,
London, New York, 26–38.
H all, T.D. and Chase-Dunn, C.
2006 Global Social Change in the Long Run, in:
C. Chase-Dunn and S.J. Babones (eds.), Global So-
cial Change: Historical and Comparative Perspec-
tives, Baltimore, 33–58.
H allo, W.W.
1992 Trade and Traders in the Ancient Near East: Some
New Perspectives, in: D. Charpin and F. Joannès
(eds.), Las circulation des biens, des personnes et
des idées dans le Proche-Orient ancien. Actes de la
XXXVIII Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale
(Paris, 8–10 juillet 1991), Paris, 351–356.
H allo, W.W. and Dijk, J. van
1968 The Exultation of Inanna, Yale.
H amada, A. and el-A mir, M.
1947 Excavations at Kom el-Hisn, Season 1943, Annales
du service des antiquités de l’Égypte 46, 101–141.
 Selected Bibliography
H amada, A. and Farid, S.
1947 Excavations at Kom el-Hisn, Third Season 1945,
Annales du service des antiquités de l’Égypte 46,
195–235.
1948 Excavations at Kom el-Hisn 1946, Annales du ser-
vice des antiquités de l’Égypte 48, 299–325.
H amblin, W.
2006 Warfare in the Ancient Near East to 1600 BC. Holy
Warriors at the Dawn of History, London, New York.
H amilton, G.
2006 The Origins of the West Semitic Alphabet in Egyptian
Scripts, The Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph
Series 40, Washington.
2009 A Proposal to Read the Legend of a Seal-Amulet
from Deir Rifa, Egypt as an Early West Semitic
Alphabetic Inscription, Journal of Semitic Studies
54, 51–79.
H ammam, E.
2018 Echnaton, seine Leute und die Sprache, in: P. Mumm
(ed.), Sprachen, Völker und Phantome. Sprach- und
kulturwissenschaftliche Studien zur Ethnizität,
Münchner Vorlesungen zu Antiken Welten 3,
Berlin, 147–200.
H an, H.
2017 Trade Migration and Language, in: S. Canagarajah
(ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Migration and
Language, Oxon, New York, 258–274.
H ančar, F.
1955 Das Pferd in prähistorischer und früher histor-
ischer Zeit, Wiener Beiträge zur Kulturgeschichte
und Linguistik 11, Vienna.
H anckey, V.
1995 A Late Bronze Age Temple at Amman Airport: Small
Finds and Pottery Discovered in 1955, in: S. Bourke
and J.-P. Descoeudres (eds.), Trade, Contact, and the
Movement of Peoples in the Eastern Mediterranean.
Studies in Honour of J. Basil Hennessy, Mediterra-
nean Archaeology Supplement 3, Sydney, 169–186.
H andler, R.
1994 Is ‘Identity’ a Useful Cross-Cultural Concept?, in:
J.R. Gillis (ed.), Commemorations: The Politics of
National Identity, Princeton, 27–40.
H annerz, U.
1987 The World in Creolisation, Africa 57, 546–559.
H annig, R.
1995 Grosses Handwörterbuch Ägyptisch-Deutsch: die
Sprache der Pharaonen (2800–950 v.Chr.), Mainz.
H anotte, O., Bradley, D., Ochieng, J., Verjee, Y., Hill, E.
and R ege, J.E.
2002 African Pastoralism: Genetic Imprints of Origins
and Migrations, Science 296, 336–339.
H ansen, D.
1969 Some Remarks on the Chronology and Style of Ob-
jects from Byblos, American Journal of Archaeo-
logy 73/3, 281–284.
399
2003 Standard of Ur, in: J. A ruz (ed.), Art of the First
Cities. The Third Millennium B.C. from the Medi-
terranean to the Indus, New York, New Haven,
London, 97–100.
H ansen, S., R enn, J., K limscha, F., Büttner, J., Helwing, B.
and K ruse, S.
2016 The Digital Atlas of Innovations: A Research Pro-
gram on Innovations in Prehistory and Antiquity,
eTopoi Journal for Ancient Studies 6, 777–818.
H ardwick, T.
2003 The Iconography of the Blue Crown in the New
Kingdom, The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology
89, 117–141.
H arris, M.
1997 The Abominable Pig, in: C. Counihan and P.
van Esterik (eds.), Food and Culture: A Reader,
New York, 59–71.
H arris, R.
1991 Inanna-Ishtar as Paradox and a Coincidence of Op-
posites, History of Religions 30, 261–278.
H artung, U.
2002 Imported Jars from Cemetery U at Abydos and the
Relations between Egypt and Canaan in Predynas-
tic Times, in: E. van den Brink and T. Levy (eds.),
Egypt and the Levant. Interrelations from the 4th
through the Early 3rd Millennium B.C.E., London,
New York, 437–449.
H artung, U., Köhler, E.C., Müller, V. and Ownby, M.
2015 Imported Pottery from Abydos: A New Petrographic
Perspective, Ägypten und Levante 25, 295–333.
H artwig, M.
2013 Scenes and Texts in the Tomb Chapel of Menna,
in: M. H artwig (ed.), The Tomb Chapel of Menna
(TT 69). The Art, Culture, and Science of Painting
in an Egyptian Tomb, Cairo, New York, 21–90.
H arvey, S.P.
1998 The Cults of King Ahmose at Abydos, PhD Disser-
tation, University of Pennsylvania.
2002/ Abydos, The Oriental Institute 2002–2003 Annual
2003 Report, 15–25.
2007 King Heqatawy: Notes on a Forgotten Eighteenth
Dynasty Royal Name, in: Z. H awass and J. R ichards
(eds.), The Archaeology and Art of Ancient Egypt:
Essays in Honor of David B. O’Connor, vol. 1,
Cahiers supplément aux annales du service des an-
tiquités de l’Égypte 36, Cairo, 343–356.
2008 Report on Abydos, Ahmose and Tetisheri Project,
2006–2007 Season, Annales du service des anti-
quités de l’Égypte 82, 143–155.
H arwood, J.
2017 Music and Intergroup Relations: Exacerbating
Conflict and building Harmony through Music,
Review of Communication Research 5, https://doi.
org/10.12840/issn.2255-4165.2017.05.01.012 (last
accessed 28.05.2019).
400 Selected Bibliography
H arwood, J., Qadar, F. and Chen, C.-Y.
2016 Harmonious Contact: Stories about Intergroup Mu-
sical Collaboration Improve Intergroup Attitudes,
Journal of Communication 66/6, 937–959.
H asan, R.
1971 Code, Register and Social Dialect, in: B. Bernstein
(ed.), Class, Codes and Control, London, Boston,
253–292.
H aspelmath, M.
2009 Lexical Borrowings: Concepts and Issues, in:
M. H aspelmath and U. Tadmor (eds.), Loanwords in
the World’s Languages, Berlin, 35–54.
H assan, A.
1976 Stöcke und Stäbe im Pharaonischen Ägypten bis zum
Ende des Neuen Reiches, Münchner Ägyptologische
Studien 33, Munich, Berlin.
H assan, S.
1938 Excavations at Saqqara 1937–1938, Annales du ser-
vice des antiquités de l‘Égypte 38, 503–521.
1953 Excavaions at Giza, vol. 7: The Mastabas of the
Seventh Season and their Descriptions, Cairo.
H atch, E.
1973 Theories of Man and Culture, New York.
H auptmann, A. and Weisgerber, G.
1981 Third Millenium BC Copper Production in Oman,
Revue d’Archéométrie 1, 131–138.
H auptmann, A., Schmitt-Strecker, S., Levy, T. 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 aury, E.
1958 Evidence at Point of Pines for a Prehistoric Migration
from Northern Arizona, in: R. Thompson (ed.), Mi-
grations in New World Culture History, University of
Arizona Bulletin 29, Tuscon, 1–6.
H averfield, F.
1923 The Romanization of Roman Britain, Oxford.
H awass, Z.
2003 The Treasures of the Pyramids, Cairo.
H ayes, W.C.
1949 Career of the Great Steward Ḥenenu under
Nebḥepetrē‘ Mentuḥotpe, The Journal of Egyptian
Archaeology 35, 43–49.
1953 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.
1957 Varia from the Time of Hatshepsut, Mitteilungen
des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts Kairo 15,
78–90.
1959 The Scepter of Egypt. A Background for the Study of
the Egyptian Antiquities in The Metropolitan Muse-
um of Art, part II: The Hyksos Period and the New
Kingdom (1675–1080 B.C.), New York.
1972 A Papyrus of the Late Middle Kingdom in the
Brooklyn Museum (Papyrus Brooklyn 35.1446), 2nd
reprint, Brooklyn.
Heagren, B.
2010 The Art of War in Pharaonic Egypt: An Analysis of
the Tactical, Logistic, and Operational Capabili-
ties of the Egyptian Army, PhD Dissertation, The
University of Auckland.
Healey, J.F.
1985 The Akkadian “Pantheon” List from Ugarit,
Studi epigrafici e linguistici 2, 115–125.
Heimpel, W.
1994 Towards an Understanding of the Term SiKKum,
Revue d’Assyriologie 88, 5–31.
2003 Letters to the King of Mari. A New Translation,
with Historical Introduction, Notes, and Commen-
tary, Winona Lake.
Hein, I.
1994a Erste Beobachtungen zur Keramik aus ‘Ezbet Hel-
mi, Ägypten und Levante 4, 39–43.
1994b Glasfragment, in: M. Bietak and I. Hein (eds.),
Pharaonen und Fremde. Dynastien im Dunkel.
Katalogue der 194. Sonderausstellung des Histor-
ischen Museums der Stadt Wien, Rathaus Wien,
Volkshalle, 8. Sept. – 23. Oktober 1994, Vienna,
248.
1998 ‘Ezbet Helmi – Tell el-Dab‘a: Chronological As-
pects of Pottery, in: C.J. Eyre (ed.), Proceedings
of the Seventh International Congress of Egyptolo-
gists, Leuven, 547–554.
2001a On Bichrome and Base Ring Ware from Several
Excavation Areas at ‘Ezbet Helmi, in: P. Åström
(ed.), The Chronology of Base-Ring Ware and Bi-
chrome Wheel-Made Ware. Proceedings of a Col-
loquium held in the Royal Academy of Letters, His-
tory and Antiquities, Stockholm, May 18–19, 2000,
Stockholm, 231–247.
2001b Untersuchungen und vorläufige Bilanz zur Kera-
mik aus ‘Ezbet Helmi, speziell Areal H/V, Ägypten
und Levante 11, 121–147.
2001c Kerma in Auaris, in: C.-B. A rnst, I. H afemann and
A. Lohwasser (eds.), Begegungen, Festgabe für
E. Endesfelder, K.-H. Priese, W.F. Reineke u.
S. Wenig, Leipzig, 199–212.
2006 Die Fundpositionen zweier syrischer Siegelabfor-
mungen aus 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. 2, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 149, Leu-
ven, Paris, Dudley, 135–148.
2007 The Significance of the Lustrous Ware Finds from
‘Ezbet Helmi/Tell el-Dab‘a (Egypt), in: I. Hein
(ed.), The Lustrous Wares of Late Bronze Age Cy-
prus and the Eastern Mediterranean. Papers of a
Conference. Vienna 5th–6th November 2004, ÖAW:
Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie 41, Contribu-
tions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterra-
nean 13, Vienna, 79–106.
2018 Second Thoughts on Cypriot Pottery and First Ap-
pearances, in: I. Forstner-Müller and N. Moeller
(eds.), The Hyksos Ruler Khyan and the Early Sec-
 Selected Bibliography
ond 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 Chica-
go, Vienna, July 4–5, 2014, Ergänzungshefte zu den
Jahresheften des Österreichischen Archäologischen
Instituts in Wien 17, Vienna, 125–142.
Hein, I. and Jánosi, P.
2004 Tell el-Dab‘a, vol. 11: Areal A/V. Siedlungsrelikte
der späten 2. Zwischenzeit, ÖAW: Denkschriften der
Gesamtakademie 25, Untersuchungen der Zweig-
stelle Kairo des Österreichischen Archäologischen
Instituts 21, Vienna.
Hein, I. and Mlinar, C.
1994 Kat Nr. 22, in: M. Bietak and I. Hein (eds.), Pharao-
nen und Fremde. Dynastien im Dunkel. Katalogue
der 194. Sonderausstellung des Historischen Muse-
ums der Stadt Wien, Rathaus Wien, Volkshalle, 8.
Sept. – 23. Oktober 1994, Vienna, 97.
Hein, I. and Satzinger, H.
1989– Stelen des Mittleren Reiches, 2 vols., Corpus An-
1993 tiquitatum Aegyptiacum Kunsthistorisches Muse-
um Wien Lieferung 4 and 7, Mainz am Rhein.
Heine-Geldern, R.
1964 One Hundred Years of Ethnological Theory in the
German-Speaking Countries: Some Milestones,
Current Anthropology 5/5, 407–418.
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, S.
2001 Die Feldzugsdarstellungen des Neuen Reiches: Eine
Bildanalyse, ÖAW: Denkschriften der Gesamt-
akademie 18, Untersuchungen der Zweigstelle Kairo
des Österreichischen Archäologischen Instituts 17,
Vienna.
Helck, H.W.
1939 Der Einfluss der Militärführer in der 18. ägyp-
tischen Dynastie, Leipzig.
1966a Zum Auftreten fremder Götter in Ägypten, Oriens
Antiquus 5, 1–14.
1966b Noch einmal zur 400–Jahr-Stele, Chronique
d’Égypte 41, 234–241.
1970 Die Prophezeiung des Nfr.tj, Wiesbaden.
1971a Betrachtungen zur grossen Göttin und den ihr ver-
bundenen Gottheiten, Religion und Kultur der Alten
Mittelmeerwelt in Parallelforschungen 2, Munich.
1971b Die Beziehungen Ägyptens zu Vorderasien im 3. und
2. Jahrtausend v. Chr. (2. Anlage), Wiesbaden.
1975 Abgeschlagene Hände als Siegeszeichen, Göttinger
Miszellen 18, 23–24.
1976 Zum Datum der Eroberung von Auaris, Göttinger
Miszellen 19, 33–34.
1983a Historische-biographische Texte der 2. Zwischen-
zeit und neue Texte der 18. Dynastie, revised edition,
Wiesbaden.
401
1983b Zur Herkunft der Erzählung des sog. “Astarte-
papyrus”, in: M. Görg (ed.), Fontes afque Pontes.
Fs. H. Brunner, Ägypten und Altes Testament 5,
Wiesbaden, 215–223.
Hemmy, A.
1937 An Analysis of the Petrie Collection of Egyptian
Weights, The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology
23/1, 39–56.
Hendel, R.
2020 Gods in Translation and Location, in: S.C. Russel
and E.J. H amori (eds.), Mighty Baal. Essays in Hon-
or of Mark S. Smith, Leiden, Boston, 119–137.
Henderson, J., Evans, J. and Nikita, K.
2010 Isotopic Evidence for the Primary Production, Prov-
enance and Trade of Late Bronze Age Glass in the
Mediterannean, Mediterranean Archaeology and
Archaeometry 10, 1–24.
Hepper, F.N.
2009 Pharaoh’s Flowers. The Botanical Treasures of
Tutankhamun, 2nd edition, Chicago.
Herbich, T. and Forstner-Müller, I.
2013 Small Harbours in the Nile Delta. The Case of Tell
el-Dab‘a, Études et Travaux 26, 258–272.
Hermann, A.
1938 Die ägyptische Königsnovelle, Leipziger Ägyptolo-
gische Studien 10, Glückstadt.
Herold, A.
1998 Piramesses – The Northern Capital: Chariots,
Horses, and Foreign Gods, in: J. Goodnick (ed.),
Capital Cities: Urban Planning and Spiritual Di-
mensions. Proceedings of the Symposium held on
May 27–29, 1996, Jerusalem, Israel, Jerusalem,
129–146.
1999 Streitwagentechnologie in der Ramses-Stadt.
Bronze an Pferd und Wagen, Forschungen in der
Ramses-Stadt 2, Hildesheim.
2003 Ein Puzzle mit zehn Teilen. Waffenkammer und
Werkstatt aus dem Grab des Ky - j rj in Saqqara,
in: N. K loth, H. A ltenmüller, K. M artin and
E. Pardey (eds.), Es werde niedergelegt als Schrift-
stück. Festschrift für Hartwig Altenmüller zum 65.
Geburtstag, Hamburg, 193–202.
2004 Funde und Funktionen. Streitwagentechnologie im
Alten Ägypten, in: M. Fansa and S. Burmeister
(eds.), Rad und Wagen. Der Ursprung einer Innova-
tion. Wagen im Vorderen Asien und Europa, Mainz,
123–142.
2006 Streitwagentechnologie in der Ramses-Stadt.
Knäufe, Knöpfe und Scheiben aus Stein, Forschun-
gen in der Ramses-Stadt 3, Hildesheim.
2009 Aspekte ägyptischer Waffentechnologie – von
der Frühzeit bis zum Ende des Neuen Reiches, in:
R. Gundlach and C. Vogel (eds.), Militärgeschichte
des pharaonischen Ägypten: Altägypten und seine
Nachbarkulturen im Spiegel aktueller Forschung,
Krieg in der Geschichte 34, Paderborn, 187–216.
Herrmann, W.
1969 Aštart, Mitteilungen des Instituts für Orient-
forschung 15, 6–55.
402 Selected Bibliography
1999 Baal, in: K. van der Toorn, B. Becking and
P.W. van der Horst (eds.), Dictionary of Deities and
Demons in the Bible, 2nd revised edition, Leiden,
Boston, Köln, 132–139.
Herskovits, M.J.
1937 African Gods and Catholic Saints in New World Ne-
gro Belief, American Anthropologist 39/4, 635–643.
1948 Man and his Works: The Science of Cultural Anthro-
pology, New York.
Herslund, O.
2013 Chariots in the Daily Life of New Kingdom Egypt:
A Survey of Production, Distribution and Use in
Texts, in: A. Veldmeijer and S. Ikram (eds.), Chasing
Chariots: Proceedings of the First International
Chariot Conference (Cairo, 2012), Leiden, 123–129.
2015 On the Pictorial Meaning of the Drop-Shaped Hiero-
glyph for ‘Copper’ from the Archaic Period to the
Middle Kingdom, in: R. Nyord and K. Ryholt (eds.), Lo-
tus and Laurel. Studies on Egyptian Language and Reli-
gion in Honour of Paul John Frandsen, Carsten Niebuhr
Institute Publications 39, Copenhagen, 103–120.
2018 Chronicling Chariots: Texts, Writing and Language
of New Kingdom Egypt, in: A. Veldmeijer and
S. Ikram (eds.), Chariots in Ancient Egypt. The Tano
Chariot, A Case Study, Leiden, 150–198.
Hesse, K.
2008 Contacts and Trade at Late Bronze Age Hazor:
Aspects of Intercultural Relationships and Identi-
ty in the Eastern Mediterranean, Archaeology and
Environment 24, Umea.
Hickmann, E. and Eichmann, R. (eds.)
2000– Studien zur Musikarchäologie, vols. 1–7, Rahden.
2011
Hill, M.
2015 Later Life of Middle Kingdom Monuments:
Interrogating Tanis, in: A. Oppenheim, Do. A rnold,
Di. A rnold and K. Yamomoto (eds.), Ancient Egypt
Transformed: The Middle Kingdom, New York, 294–
299.
Hitchcock, L.A.
2011 ‘Transculturalism’ as a Model for Examining Migra-
tion to Cyprus and Philistia at the End of the Bronze
Age, Ancient West and East 10, 267–280.
Hoch, J.
1994 Semitic Words in Egyptian Texts of the New Kingdom
and Third Intermediate Period, Princeton.
Höckmann, U.
2001 “Bilinguen”: Zu Ikonographie und Stil der
karisch-ägyptischen Grabstelen des 6. Jhs.v.Chr.:
Methodische Überlegungen zur griechischen
Kunst der archaischen Zeit in Ägypten, in:
U. Höckmann and D. K reikenbom (eds.), Naukratis:
Die Beziehungen zu Ostgriechenland, Ägypten
und Zypern in archaischer Zeit: Akten der Table
Ronde in Mainz, 25.–27. November 1999, Möhnesee,
217–232.
Hodder, I.
1978 The Spatial Structure of Material “Cultures”: A
Review of Some of the Evidence, in: I. Hodder (ed.),
The Spatial Organisation of Culture, London,
93–111.
2012 Entangled: An Archaeology of the Relationships
between Humans and Things, London.
Hodgkinson, A.K.
2018 Technology and Urbanism in Late Bronze Age
Egypt, Oxford.
2020 Using Spatial Analysis for Understanding the Manu-
facture and Manipulation of Late Bronze Age
Egyptian and Ancient Near Eastern Glass, in:
A.K. Hodgkinson and C. Lelek Tvetmarken (eds.),
Approaches to the Analysis of Production Activity
at Archaeological Sites, Oxford, 84–106.
Hodgkinson, A.K. and Frick, D.A.
2020 Identification of Co-Coloured Egyptian Glass
Objects by LA-ICP-MS: A Case Study from the
18th Dynasty Workshops at Amarna, Egypt, Med-
iterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry 20/1,
45–57.
Hodgkinson, A.K., Röhrs, S., Müller, K. and R eiche, I.
2019 The Use of Cobalt in 18th Dynasty Blue Glass
from Amarna: The Results from an On-Site
Analysis using Portable XRF Technology, STAR:
Science & Technology of Archaeological Re-
search 5, 36–52, https://www.tandfonline.com/
doi/full/10.1080/20548923.2019.1649083 (last
accessed 27.08.2020).
Hodjache, S. and Berlev, O.
1997 Objets royaux du Musée des Beaux-Arts Pouchkine
à Moscou, Chronique d’Égypte 52, 22–39.
Hodjash, S. and Berlev, O.
1982 The Egyptian Reliefs and Stelae in the Pushkin
Museum of Fine Arts, Moscow, Leningrad.
Hoffmeier, J.K.
1973 Observations on the Evolving Chariot Wheel in the
18th Dynasty, Journal of the American Research
Center in Egypt 13, 43–45.
1989 Reconsidering Egypt’s Part in the Termination of
the Middle Bronze Age in Palestine, Levant 21,
181–193.
1990 Some Thoughts on William G. Dever’s ‘Hyksos’,
Egyptian Destructions, and the End of the Palestin-
ian Middle Bronze Age, Levant 22, 83–89.
1991 James Weinstein’s ‘Egypt and the Middle Bronze
IIC/Late Bronze IA Transition’: A Rejoinder, Le-
vant 23, 117–124.
1996 Israel in Egypt: The Evidence for the Authenticity
of the Exodus Tradition, New York, Oxford.
2004 Aspects of Egyptian Foreign Policy in the 18th Dy-
nasty in Western Asia and Nubia, in: G. K noppers
and A. H irsch (eds.), Egypt, Israel, and the An-
cient Mediterranean World. Studies in Honor of
Donald B. Redford, Probleme der Ägyptologie 20,
Leiden, Boston.
Hoffmeier, J.K. and K itchen, K.A.
2007 Reshep and Astarte in North Sinai: A Recently
Discovered Stela from Tell el-Borg, Ägypten und
Levante 17, 127–136.
 Selected Bibliography
Höflmayer, F.
2015a Egypt’s “Empire” in the Southern Levant during the
Early 18th Dynasty, in: B. Eder and R. Pruzsinszky
(eds.), Policies of Exchange. Political Systems and
Modes of Interaction in the Aegean and the Near
East in the 2nd Millennium B.C.E. Proceedings
of the International Symposium at the University
of Freiburg Institute for Archaeological Studies,
30th May–2nd June 2012, Oriental and European
Archaeology 2, Vienna, 191–206.
2015b Carbone-14 comparé: Middle Bronze Age I (IIA) Chronol-
ogy, Tell el-Dab‘a and Radiocarbon Data, in: J. Mynářová,
P. Onderka and P. Pavúk (eds.), There and Back Again –
The Crossroads, vol. 2: Proceedings of an International
Congress Held in Prague, September 15–18, 2014, Prague,
265–295.
2017 A Radiocarbon Chronology for the Middle Bronze
Age Southern Levant, Journal of Ancient Egyptian
Interconnections 13, 20–33.
2018 An Early Date for Khyan and its Implications for
Eastern Mediterranean Chronologies, in: I. Forst-
ner-Müller and N. Moeller (eds.), The Hyksos Rul-
er Khyan and the Early Second Intermediate Period
in Egypt. Problems and Priorities of Current Re-
search. 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 Öster-
reichischen Archäologischen Instituts in Wien 17,
Vienna, 143–171.
2019 The Expulsion of the Hyksos and the End of the
Middle Bronze Age: A Reassessment in Light of
Recent Chronological Research, Journal of Ancient
Egyptian Interconnections 21, 20–30.
Höflmayer, F. and Cohen, S.
2017 Chronological Conundrums: Egypt and the Middle
Bronze Age Southern Levant, Journal of Ancient
Egyptian Interconnections 13, 1–6.
Höflmayer, F., K amlah, J., Sader, H., Dee, M., Kutschera, W.,
Wild, E.M. and R iehl, S.
2016 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.
Hofmann, U.
1989 Fuhrwesen und Pferdehaltung im alten Ägypten,
PhD Dissertation, University of Bonn.
Hofstede, G.
1994 Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind,
London.
Hoggarth, J.A. and Awe, J.J.
2016 Household Adaptation and Reorganization in the
Aftermath of the Classic Maya Collapse at Baking
Pot, Belize, in: R. Faulseit (ed.), Beyond Collapse.
Archaeological Perspectives on Resilience, Revital-
ization, and Transformation in Complex Societies,
Center for Archaeological Investigations. Occasion-
al Paper 42, Carbondale, 504–527.
Holladay Jr., J.S.
1982 Cities of the Delta, vol. 3: Tell El-Maskhuṭa.
403
Preliminary Report on the Wadi Tumilat Project
1978–1979, American Research Centre in Egypt
Reports 6, Malibu.
1997 The Eastern Nile Delta during the Hyksos and
Pre-Hyksos Periods: Towards a Systemic/Socioeco-
nomic Understanding, in: E.D. Oren (ed.), The Hyk-
sos. New Historical and Archaeological Perspectives,
University Museum Monograph 96, University Muse-
um Symposium Series 8, Philadelphia, 183–247.
2001 Toward a New Paradigmatic Understanding of
Long-Distance Trade in the Ancient Near East: From
the Middle Bronze II to Early Iron II – A Sketch,
in: P.M. Michèle Daviau, J.W. Wevers and M. Weigl
(eds.), The World of the Aramaeans. Studies in Histo-
ry and Archaeology in Honour of Paul-Eugène Dion,
vol. 2, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Sup-
plement Series 325, Sheffield, 136–198.
Hollis, S.T.
1990 The Ancient Egyptian ‘Tale of Two Brothers’. The
Oldest Fairy Tale in the World, Norman.
2009 Hathor and Isis in Byblos in the Second and First
Millennia BCE, Journal of Ancient Egyptian Inter-
connections 1/2, 1–8.
Holm, J.
2003 Languages in Contact. The Partial Restructuring of
Vernaculars, Cambridge.
Holthoer, R.
1977 New Kingdom Pharaonic Sites. The Pottery, The
Scandinavian Joint Expedition to Sudanese Nubia
5/1, Copenhagen.
Hölzl, C.
1992 The Rock-tombs of Beni Hasan: Architecture and
Sequence, in: Sesto Congresso Internazionale di
Egittologia Atti, vol. 1, Turin, 279–283.
Hope, C.
1981 Two Ancient Egyptian Potter’s Wheels, Journal of
the Society of the Studies of Egyptian Antiquities 11,
127–133.
1989 Pottery of the Egyptian New Kingdom. Three Studies,
Burwood.
2002 Oases Amphorae of the New Kingdom, in:
R. Friedman (ed.), Egypt and Nubia. Gifts of the
Desert, London, 95–131.
Hope, C. and K aper, O.
2010 Egyptian Interest in the Oases in the New Kingdom
and a New Stela for Seth from Mut el-Kharab, in:
M. Collier and S. Snape (eds.), Ramesside Studies in
Honour of K.A. Kitchen, Bolton, 219–236.
Hopkins, T. and Wallerstein, I. (eds.)
1982 World Systems Analysis. Theory and Methodology,
Beverly Hills.
Horn, S.H.
1969 Foreign Gods in Ancient Egypt, in: Studies in Honor
of John A. Wilson, Studies in Ancient Oriental Civi-
lization 35, Chicago, 37–42.
Hornblower, G.D.
1927 An Humped Bull of Ivory, The Journal of Egyptian
Archaeology 13/1, 222–225.
404 Selected Bibliography
Hornung, E.
1982 Conceptions of God in Ancient Egypt: The One and
the Many, trans. J. Baines, Ithaca, NY.
Hornung, E. and A bt, T.
2007 The Egyptian Amduat. The Book of the Hidden
Chamber, trans. D.A. Warburton, Zurich.
Hornung, E., K rauss, R. and Warburton, D.A.
2006 Ancient Egyptian Chronology, Leiden, Boston.
Hornung, E. and Staehelin, E.
1976 Skarabäen und andere Siegelamulette aus Basler
Sammlungen, Basel.
Horowitz, W., Oshima, T. and Sanders, S.
2002 A Bibliographical List of Cuneiform Inscriptions
from Canaan, Palestine/Philistia, and the Land of
Israel, Journal of the American Oriental Society
122/4, 753–766.
2006 Cuneiform in Canaan: Cuneiform Sources from the
Land of Israel in Ancient Times, Jerusalem.
Horváth, Z.
2015 Hathor and her Festivals at Lahun, in: G. Minia-
ci and W. Grajetzki (eds.), The World of Middle
Kingdom Egypt (2000–1550 BC), Middle Kingdom
Studies 1, London, 125–144.
Hosfeld, R.
2009 Modes of Transmission and Material Culture Pat-
terns in Craft Skills, in: S. Shennan (ed.), Pattern
and Process in Cultural Evolution, Berkeley, 45–60.
Houlihan, P.F.
2002 Some Instances of Humor associated with Animal
Riding in Ancient Egypt, Göttinger Miszellen 190,
35–46.
Howard, M.C.
2011 Transnationalism and Society. An Introduction,
Jefferson.
2012 Transnationalism in Ancient and Medieval
Societies. The Role of Cross-Border Trade and
Travel, Jefferson.
Hudec, J., Jarmużek, Ł., Hulková, L., Fulajtár, E.,
Dubcová, V., R zepka, S. and Ryś, A.
2018 Tell el-Retaba. Season 2017, Polish Archaeology in
the Mediterranean 27/1, 93–122.
Hulin, L.C.
1982 The Worshippers of Asiatic Gods in Egypt, in: S.
Israelit-Groll and H.E. Stein (eds.), Papers for
Discussion: Presented by the Department of Egyp-
tology, the Hebrew University, Jerusalem, vol. 1:
1981–1982, Jerusalem, 270–277.
Hulit, T.
2002 Late Bronze Age Scale Armour in the Near East.
An Experimental Investigation of Material, Con-
struction, and Effectiveness, with a Consideration
of Socio-Economic Implications, PhD Dissertation,
University of Durham.
Hulit, T. and R ichardson, T.
2007 The Warriors of Pharaoh: Experiments with New
Kingdom Scale Armour, Archery and Chariots, in:
B. Molloy (ed.), The Cutting Edge. Studies in An-
cient and Medieval Combat, Stroud, Gloucestershire,
52–63.
Huret, T.
1990 Les pointes de flèches métalliques en Egypte an-
cienne. Essai de typologie, Cahiers de recherches
de l’institut de papyrologie et d’égyptologie de
Lille 12, 57–66.
Hutchinson, J. and Smith, A.D.
1996 Introduction, in: Hutchinson, J. and Smith, A.D.
(eds.), Ethnicity, Oxford, New York, 3–14.
I
Ialango, N., Vacca, A. and Peyronel, L.
2018 Breaking down the Bullion. The Compliance of
Bullion-Currencies with Official Weight-Systems in
a Case-Study from the Ancient Near East, Journal of
Archaeological Science 91, 20–32.
Iamoni, M.
2012 Toggle Pins of the Bronze Age: A Matter of Style,
Function and Fashion?, in: G.B. Lanfranchi,
D.M. Bonacossi, C. Pappi and S. Ponchia (eds.), Leg-
go! Studies presented to Frederick Mario Fales on the
Occasion of his 65th Birthday, Wiesbaden, 349–363.
Iancu, A.
2018 Weaving in a Foreign Land: Transmission of Textile
Skills through Enslaved Women and through Inter-
marriages in the Ancient Near Eastern Mediterra-
nean and Pontus, Fasciculi Archaeologiae Histori-
cae 31, 69–80.
Ikram, S.
1995 Choice Cuts: Meat Production in Ancient Egypt, Ori-
entalia Lovaniensia Analecta 69, Leuven.
2000 Preliminary Zooarchaeological Report, 2000, Polish
Archaeology in the Mediterranean 12, 127–132.
2004 Typhonic Bones: A Ritual Deposit from Saqqara?, in:
S.J. O’Day, W. van Neer and A. Ervynck (eds.), Be-
haviour Behind Bones. The Zooarchaeology of Ritual,
Religion, Status and Identity. Proceedings of the 9th
Conference of the International Council of Archaeo-
zoology, Durham, August 2002, Oxford, 41–46.
Ilan, D.
2016 The Crescent-Lunate Motif in the Jewelery of the
Bronze and Iron Ages in the Ancient Near East, in:
O. K aelin, R. Stucky and A. Jamieson (eds.), Pro-
ceedings of the 9th International Congress on the
Archaeology of the Ancient Near East: June 9–13,
2014, University of Basel, vol. 1: Travelling Imag-
es – Transfer and Transformation of Visual Ideas;
Dealing with the Past: Finds, Booty, Gifts, Spoils,
Heirlooms; Collections at Risk: Sustainable Strat-
egies for Managing Near Eastern Archaeology,
Wiesbaden, 137–150.
Iles, L.
2018 Forging Networks and Mixing Ores: Rethinking the
Social Landscapes of Iron Metallurgy, Journal of An-
thropological Archaeology 49, 88–99.
 Selected Bibliography
Ilin-Tomich, A.
2018 Mögliche Dialektmerkmale in den Personennamen
des Mittleren Reiches, Zeitschrift für Ägyptische
Sprache und Altertumskunde 145/2, 136–148.
Israelit-Groll, S.
1975/ The Literary and Non-Literary Verbal Systems in
1976 Late Egyptian, Orientalia Lovanensia Periodica
6–7, 237–246.
Izre‘el, S.
2012 Canaano-Akkadian: Linguistics and Socio-
linguistics, in: R. H asselbach and N. Pat-El
(eds.), Language and Nature: Papers presented to
John Huehnergard on the Occasion of his 60th
Birthday, Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization
67, Chicago, 171–218.
J Jeffreys, D.G. and Smith, H.S.
Jackson, C. and Nicholson, P.T.
2010 The Provenance of Some Glass Ingots from the
Uluburun Shipwreck, Journal of Archaeological
Science 37/2, 295–301.
Jackson, C., Nicholson, P.T. and Gneisinger, W.
1998 Glassmaking at Tell el-Amarna: An Integrated
Approach, Journal of Glass Studies 40, 11–23.
Jacquet-Gordon, H.
2012 Karnak-Nord, vol. 10: Le trésor de Thoutmosis Ier.
La céramique, Fouilles de l’institut français
d’archéologie orientale du Caire 65/1, Cairo.
Jaeger, B.
1982 Essai de classification et datation des scarabées
Menkhéperrê: Prix de la confederation internatio-
nal des négociants en œvres d’art 1979, Orbus Bibli-
cus et Orientalis 2, Fribourg.
James, S.L. and Dillon, S. (eds.)
2012 A Companion to Women in the Ancient World,
Malden, MA.
James, T.G.H.
1972 Gold Technology in Ancient Egypt. Mastery of
Metal Working Methods, Gold Bulletin 2/5, 38–42.
1995 The Earliest History of Wine and Its Importance in
Ancient Egypt, in: P. McGovern, S. Fleming and
S. K atz (eds.), The Origins and Ancient History of
Wine, Philadelphia, 197–213.
Jankovich, K.
2008 ‘Ezbet Helmi, Palastbezirk der Hyksoszeit und des
Neuen Reichs: Nichtkeramische Funde (Helmi I, III
und IV), MA Dissertation, University of Vienna.
Jánosi, P.
1994 Dolch des Nehemen, in: M. Bietak and I. Hein (eds.),
Pharaonen und Fremde. Dynastien im Dunkel. Kat-
alogue der 194. Sonderausstellung des Historischen
Museums der Stadt Wien, Rathaus Wien, Volkshalle,
8. Sept. – 23. Oktober 1994, Vienna, 155.
Jansen-Winkeln, K.
1993 Die ägyptische “Königsnovelle” als Texttyp, Wie-
ner Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlands 83,
101–116.
405
Janssen, J. and Janssen, R.
2000 mk. An Obscure Designation of Cloth, Lingua
Aegyptia 7, 177–182.
Jaroš-Deckert, B.
1984 Grabung im Asasif 1963–1970, vol. 5: Das Grab
des Jnj-jtj.f: Die Wandmalereien der XI. Dynastie,
Archäologische Veröffentlichungen des Deutschen
Archäologischen Instituts Abteilung Kairo 12,
Mainz am Rhein.
Jean, C.-F.
1950 Lettres diverses, Archives royales de Mari 2, Paris.
Jean-M arie, M.
1999 Tombes et nécropoles de Mari, Mission archéologi-
que de Mari 5, Beirut.
1988 Memphis and the Nile in the New Kingdom: A Pre-
liminary Attempt at a Historical Perspective, in: A.-
P. Zivie (ed.), Memphis et ses nécropoles au Nouvel
Empire: Nouvelles données, nouvelles questions.
Actes du colloque international CNRS, Paris, 9 au
11 Octobre 1986, Paris, 55–66.
Jenkins, R.
2008 Rethinking Ethnicity. Arguments and Explorations,
2nd edition, London.
Jéquier, G.
1938 Le monument funéraire de Pepi II, vol. 2: Le temple,
Fouilles à Saqqarah, Cairo.
Jiménez-Serrano, A. and Forstner-Müller, I.
2020 A Late Middle Kingdom Dagger from Qubbet el-
Hawa, 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. 2, Prague,
745–758.
Joffe, A.
1998 Alcohol and Social Complexity in Ancient Western
Asia, Current Anthropology 39, 297–322.
Jones, J.
2002a The Textiles from Abydos: New Evidence, Mit-
teilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts
Kairo 58, 323–340.
2002b Predynastic Textiles from Egypt: A Reassessment,
Archaeological Textiles Newsletter 34, 2–5.
Jones, M.R.
2007 Oxhide Ingots, Copper Production, and the Medi-
terranean Trade in Copper and Other Metals in the
Bronze Age, MA Dissertation, University of Texas.
Jones, S.
1997 The Archaeology of Ethnicity: Constructing
Identities in the Past and Present, London.
Juneja, M.
2011 Global Art History and the “Burden of Representa-
tion”, in: H. Belting, J. Birken and A. Buddensieg
(eds.), Global Studies: Mapping Contemporary Art
and Culture, Stuttgart, 274–297.
406 Selected Bibliography
Junge, F.
2001a Die Eroberung von Joppe, in: O. K aiser (ed.), Texte
aus der Umwelt des Alten Testaments, Ergänzungs-
lieferung, Gütersloh, 143–146.
2001b Late Egyptian Grammar. An Introduction, trans.
D.A. Warburton, Oxford.
K 2020
K ahl, J.
2001 Die ältesten schriftlichen Belege für den Gott Seth,
Göttinger Miszellen 181, 51–57.
K amal, A.
1909 Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennes
du Musée du Caire. Nos. 23001–23256: Tables
d’offrandes, vol. 1, Cairo.
K amish, M.
1986 Problems of Toponymy with Special Reference to
Memphis and Prw-nfr, Wepwawet 2, 32–36.
K amlah, J. (ed.)
2012 Temple Building and Temple Cult: Architecture
and Cultic Paraphernalia of Temples in the Levant
(2.–1. Mill. B.C.E.). Proceedings of a Conference
on the Occasion of the 50th Anniversary of the
Institute of Biblical Archaeology at the University
of Tübingen (28–30 May 2010), Abhandlungen des
Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 41, Wiesbaden.
K ammenhuber, A.
1988 On Hittites, Mitanni-Hurrians, Indo-Aryans and
Horse Tablets in the IInd Millennium B.C., in:
H.I.H. Prince and T. Mikasa (ed.), Bulletin of the
Middle Eastern Culture Center in Japan, vol. 3: Es-
says on Anatolian Studies in the Second Millennium
B.C., Wiesbaden, 35–51.
K ammerzell, F.
1993 Studien zu Sprache und Geschichte der Karer in
Ägypten, Göttinger Orientforschungen IV. Reihe,
Ägypten 27, Wiesbaden.
2005 Old Egyptian and Pre-Old Egyptian. Tracing
Linguistic Variety in Archaic Egypt and the Creation
of the Egyptian Language, in: S. Seidlmayer (ed.),
Texte und Denkmäler des ägyptischen Alten Reiches,
Berlin, 165–248.
K amp, K. and Yoffee, N.
1980 Ethnicity in Ancient Western Asia during the
Early Second Millennium B.C.: Archaeological
Assessments and Ethnoarchaeological Prospectives,
Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental
Research 237, 85–104.
K amrin, J.
2009 The Aamu of Shu in the Tomb of Khnumhotep II at
Beni Hassan, Journal of Ancient Egyptian Intercon-
nections 1/3, 22–36.
K anawati, N.
1980 The Rock Tombs of El-Hawawish: The Cemetery of
Akhmim, vol. 1, Sydney.
K anawati, N. and Evans, L.
2014 Beni Hassan, vol. 1: The Tomb of Khnumhotep II,
Australian Centre for Egyptology: Reports 36,
Oxford.
2016 Beni Hassan, vol. 3: The Tomb of Amenemhat, Aus-
tralian Centre for Egyptology: Reports 40, Oxford.
2017 The Cemetery of Meir, vol. 4: The Tombs of Senbi I
and Wekhhotep I, Australian Centre for Egyptolo-
gy: Reports 41, Oxford.
2018 Beni Hassan, vol. 4: The Tomb of Baqet III, Aus­
tralian Centre for Egyptology: Reports 42, Oxford.
Beni Hassan, vol. 6: The Tomb of Khety, Aus­t ralian
Centre for Egyptology: Reports 44, Wallasey.
K anawati, N., Evans, L., Lashien, M., Mourad, A.-L. and
Senussi, A.
2015 The Cemetery of Meir, vol. 3: The Tomb of Niankh-
pepy the Black, Australian Centre for Egyptology:
Reports 38, Oxford.
K anawati, N. and McFarlane, A.
1993 Deshasha: The Tombs of Inti, Shedu and Others,
Australian Centre for Egyptology: Reports 5,
Sydney.
K anawati, N. and Woods, A.
2009 Artists of the Old Kingdom. Techniques and
Achievements, Cairo.
2010 Beni Hassan: Art and Daily Life in an Egyptian
Province, Cairo.
K anawati, N., Woods, A., Shafik, S. and A lexakis, E.
2010 Mereruka and his Family, part III:1: The Tomb
of Mereruka, Australian Centre for Egyptology:
Reports 29, Oxford.
K antor, H.
1945 Plant Ornament: Its Development in the Ancient
Near East, PhD Dissertation, University of Chica-
go.
1992 The Relative Chronology of Egypt and its Foreign
Correlations before the First Intermediate Period,
in: R. Ehrich (ed.), Chronologies on Old World
Archaeology, Chicago, 3–21.
K apelrud, A.S.
1969 The Violent Goddess. Anat in the Ras Shamra
Texts, Oslo.
K aplony, P.
1963 Die Inschriften der Ägyptischen Frühzeit, vol. 2:
Anmerkungen, Nachträge, Verzeichnisse, Ägypto-
logische Abhandlungen 8/2, Wiesbaden.
1968 Steingefässe mit Inschriften der Frühzeit und des
Altes Reichs, Monumenta Aegyptiaca 1, Brussels.
2016 Siegel und Skarabäen in der Sammlung
Georges Michaelides, Berlin.
K aplony-Heckel, U.
1971 Ägyptische Handschriften, vol. 1, Wiesbaden.
1983 Die Kriegszug des Ka-mose gegen die Hyksos, in:
O. K aiser (ed.), Texte aus der Umwelt des Alten Tes-
tament, vol. 1/1: Rechts- und Wirtschafts-Urkunden
– Historisch-chronologische Texte III, Gütersloh,
525–534.
K atary, S.L.
1997 The Two Brothers as Folktale: Constructing the
Social Context, Journal of the Society of the Stud-
ies of Egyptian Antiquities 24, 39–70.
 Selected Bibliography
K awai, N.
2012 Waseda University Excavations at Northwest Saqqa-
ra, Friends of Saqqara Foundation Newsletter 10,
38–46.
K earney, M.
1995 The Local and the Global. The Anthropology of Glo-
balization and Transnationalism, The Annual Review
of Anthropology 24, 547–565.
K eel, O.
1974 Wirkmächtige Siegeszeichen im Alten Testament:
Ikonographische Studien zu Jos 8, 18–26; Ex 17,
8–13; 2 Kön 13, 14–19 und 1 Kön 22, 11, Orbis
Biblicus et Orientalis 5, Fribourg.
1975 Kanaanäische Sühneriten auf ägyptischen Tempelre-
liefs, Vetus Testamentum 25/2, 413–466.
1977 Jahwe-Visionen und Siegelkunst. Eine Neue
Deutung der Majestätsschilderungen in Jes 6,
Ex 1 und 10 Sach 4, Stuttgarter Bibelstudien 84–85,
Stuttgart.
1980 Monotheismus im alten Israel und seiner Umwelt,
Fribourg.
1989a Die Ω-Gruppe. Ein mittelbronzezeitlicher Stem-
pelsiegel-Typ mit erhabenem Relief aus Ana-
tolien-Nordsyrien und Palästina, in: O. K eel,
H. K eel-Leu and S. Schroer (eds.), Studien zu den
Stempelsiegeln aus Palästina/Israel, vol. 2, Orbis
Biblicus et Orientalis 88, Göttingen, 39–87.
1989b Zur Identifikation des Falkenköpfigen, in: O. K eel,
H. K eel-Leu and S. Schroer (eds.), Studien zu den
Stempelsiegeln aus Palästina/Israel, vol. 2, Orbis
Biblicus et Orientalis 88, Göttingen, 243–280.
1989c Der ägyptische Gott Ptah auf Siegelamuletten
aus Palästina/Israel, in: O. K eel, H. K eel-Leu and
S. Schroer (eds.), Studien zu den Stempelsiegeln
aus Palästina/Israel, vol. 2, Orbis Biblicus et
Orientalis 88, Göttingen, 281–323.
1990 Berichtigungen und Nachträge zu den Beiträgen II–
IV, in: O. K eel, M. Shuval and C. Uehlinger (eds.),
Studien zu den Stempelsiegeln aus Palästina/Israel,
vol. 3: Die Frühe Eisenzeit ein Workshop, Orbis Bibl-
icus et Orientalis 100, Fribourg, Göttingen, 261–330.
1992 Das Recht der Bilder gesehen zu werden, Orbis
Biblicus et Orientalis 122, Fribourg, Göttingen.
1993 Königliche Nilpferdjagd: Eine ungewöhnliche
Darstellung auf einem Skarabäus des Mittleren
Reiches, Göttinger Miszellen 134, 63–68.
1994 Studien zu den Stempelsiegeln aus Palästina/Israel,
vol. 4, Orbus Biblicus et Orientalis 135, Fribourg.
1995a Corpus der Stempelsiegel-Amulette aus Palästi-
na/Israel, vol. 4, Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 33,
Fribourg.
1995b Stamp Seals – The Problem of Palestinian Work-
shops in the Second Millennium and Some Re-
marks on the Preceding and Succeeding Periods, in:
J.G. Westenholz (ed.), Seals and Sealings in the
Ancient Near East. Proceedings of the Symposium
held on September 2, 1993, Jerusalem, 93–142.
1996a Die Welt der altorientalischen Bildsymbolik und das
Alte Testament am Beispiel der Psalmen, 5th edition,
Göttingen.
1996b Ein weiterer Skarabäus mit einer Nilpferdjagd, die
Ikonographie der sogennanten Beamtenskarabäen
und der ägyptische König auf Skarabäen vor dem
Neuen Reich, Ägypten und Levante 6, 119–136.
407
2009 Seth-Baal und Seth-Baal-Jahwe – interkulturelle
Ligaturen, in: G. Theissen, H.U. Steymans,
S. Ostermann, K.M. Schmidt and A. Moresino-Zipper
(eds.), Jerusalem und die Länder. Ikonographie
– Topographie – Theologie. Festschrift für Max
Kichler zum 65. Geburtstag, Novum Testamentum
et Orbis Antiquus, Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen
Testaments 70, Göttingen, 87–107.
K eel, O., K eel-Leu, H. and Schroer, S. (eds.)
1989 Studien zu den Stempelsiegeln aus Palästine/Israel,
vol. 2, Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 88, Göttingen.
K eel, O. and Uehlinger, C.
2001 Göttinen, Götter und Gottessymbole: Neue Erk-
enntnisse zur Religionsgeschichte Kanaans und
Israels aufgrund bislang unerschlossener ikono-
graphischer Quellen, Quaestiones Disputatae 134,
5th edition, Fribourg.
K ees, H.
1962 Ein Handelsplatz des Mittleren Reiches, Mitteilun-
gen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts Kairo
18, 1–18.
K eimer, L.
1932 Pendeloques en forme d’insectes, Annales du ser-
vice des antiquités de l’Égypte 32, 129–150.
1933 Pendeloques en forme d’insectes, Annales du ser-
vice des antiquités de l’Égypte 33, 97–130, 193–
200.
1937 Pendeloques en forme d’insectes, Annales du ser-
vice des antiquités de l’Égypte 37, 143–172.
1967 Die Gartenpflanzen im Alten Ägypten, Hildesheim.
K elder, J.
2009 Royal Gift Exchange between Mycenae and Egypt:
Olives as “Greeting Gifts” in the Late Bronze Age
Eastern Mediterranean, American Journal of Ar-
chaeology 113/3, 339–352.
2010 The Egyptian Interest in Mycenaean Greece, Jaar-
bericht “Ex Oriente Lux” 42, 125–140.
K eller, C.A.
1983 Problems in Dating Glass Industries of the Egyp-
tian New Kingdom: Examples from Malkata and
Lisht, Journal of Glass Studies 25, 19–28.
K elley, D.H.
1971 Diffusion: Evidence and Process, in: C.L. R iley,
J.C. K elley, C.W. Pennington and R.L. R ands
(eds.), Man across the Sea: Problems of Pre-Co-
lombian Contacts, Austin, 60–65.
K emp, B.J.
2006 Ancient Egypt: Anatomy of a Civilization, 2nd edition,
London, New York.
K emp, B.J. and Merrillees, R.S.
1980 Minoan Pottery in Second Millennium Egypt,
Mainz am Rhein.
K emp, B.J. and Vogelsang-Eastwood, G.
2001 The Ancient Textile Industry at Amarna, Egypt
Exploration Society 68, London.
408 Selected Bibliography
K empinski, A.
1974 Tell el-‘Ajjul – Beth-Aglayim or Sharuḥen?, Israel
Exploration Journal 24, 145–152.
1989 Megiddo: A City-State and Royal Centre in North
Israel, Materialien zur Allgemeinen und Ver-
gleichenden Archäologie 40, Munich.
K endall, T.
1974 Warfare and Military Matters in Nuzi Tablets,
Ann Arbor.
1981 Gurpišu ša awēli: The Helmets of the Warriors at
Nuzi, in: M. Morrison and D. Owen (eds.), Stud-
ies on the Civilization of Nuzi and the Hurrians,
Indiana, 210–231.
K enyon, K.M.
1965 Excavations at Jericho, vol. 2: The Tombs Excavated
in 1955–8, London.
1966 Amorites and Canaanites, London.
el-K hadragy,M.
2006 The Northern Soldiers-Tomb at Asyut, Studien zur
Altägyptischen Kultur 35, 147–164.
K hagram, S. and Levitt, P.
2008 The Transnational Studies Reader: Intersections
and Innovations, New York.
K han, A.
2001 Journey to the Center of the Earth: The Caribbean as
a Master Symbol, Cultural Anthropology 16, 271–
302.
K irby, C., Orel, S. and Smith, S.T.
1998 Preliminary Report on the Survey of Kom el-Hisn,
1996, The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 84,
23–43.
K iriakidis, E.
2002 Indications on the Nature of the Language of
the Keftiw from Egyptian Sources, Ägypten und
Levante 12, 211–219.
K iriatzi, E. and K nappett, C. (eds.)
2016 Human Mobility and Technological Transfer in the
Prehistoric Mediterranean, Cambridge.
K isch, B.
1965 Scales and Weights: A Historical Outline, New Haven.
K itchen, K.A.
1964 Some New Light on the Asiatic Wars of
Ramesses II, The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology
50, 47–70.
1967 Byblos, Egypt, and Mari in the Early Second Millen-
nium B.C., Orientalia 36, 39–54.
1975– Ramesside Inscriptions, vols. 1–7, Oxford.
1989
2000 Regnal and Genealogical Data of Ancient Egypt
(Absolute Chronology I.), in: M. Bietak (ed.), The
Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern
Mediterranean in the Second Millennium BC, vol.
1: Proceedings of an International Symposium at
Schloß Haindorf, 15th–17th of November 1996, and
at the Austrian Academy, Vienna, 11th–12th of May
1998, ÖAW: Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie
19, Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern
Mediterranean 1, Vienna, 39–52.
2007 Egyptian and Related Chronologies: Look, No Sci-
ences, No Pots!, in: M. Bietak and E. Czerny (eds.),
The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern
Mediterranean in the Second Millennium BC, vol. 3:
Proceedings of the SCIEM 2000 – 2nd EuroConfer-
ence Vienna, 28th of May – 1st of June 2003, ÖAW:
Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie 37, Contribu-
tions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean
9, Vienna, 163–171.
K lein, H.
1992 Untersuchungen zur Typologie bronzeitlicher Na-
deln in Mesopotamien und Syrien, Saarbrücken.
K limscha, F.
2013 Innovations in Chalcolithic Metallurgy in the
Southern Levant during the 5th and 4th Millenni-
um BC. Copper-Production at Tall Hujayrāt al-Ghu-
zlān and Tall al-Magaṣṣ, ‘Aqaba Area, Jordan, in:
S. Burmeister, S. H ansen, M. Kunst and
N. Müller-Scheessel (eds.), Metal Matters. Innova-
tive Technologies and Social Change in Prehistory
and Antiquity, Leidorf, 31–63.
K linkenberg, J.-M.
1994 Des langues romanes: introduction aux études de
linguistique romane, Louvain-la-Neuve.
K lotz, D.
2010 Emhab versus the tmrhtn: Monomachy and the Ex-
pulsion of the Hyksos, Studien zur Altägyptischen
Kultur 39, 211–241.
K lug, A.
2002 Königliche Stelen in der Zeit von Ahmose bis
Amenophis III, Monumenta Aegyptiaca 8, Turnhout.
K napp, A.B.
1983 An Alashiyan Merchant at Ugarit, Tel Aviv 10,
38–45.
1998 Mediterranean Bronze Age Trade: Distance, Power
and Place, in: E.H. Cline and D.H. Cline (eds.), The
Aegean and the Orient in the Second Millennium,
Aegium 18, Liège, Austin, 193–205.
2008 Prehistoric and Protohistoric Cyprus. Identity,
Insularity, and Connectivity, Oxford, New York.
Koch, I.
2019 Southwestern Canaan and Egypt during the Late
Bronze Age I–IIA, in: A.M. M aeir, I. Shai and
C. McK inny (eds.), The Late Bronze and Early Iron
Ages of Southern Canaan, Archaeology of the Bibli-
cal Worlds 2, Berlin, Boston, 262–282.
Koch, K.
1990 Die Erzählung des Sinuhe, Bibliotheca Aegyptiaca
17, Brussels.
1993 Ḫazzi-Ṣafôn-Kasion. Die Geschichte eines
Berges und seiner Gottheiten, in: B. Janowski, K.
Koch and G. Wilhelm (eds.), Religionsgeschichtliche
Beziehungen zwischen Kleinasien, Nordsyrien und
dem Alten Testment, Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 129,
Fribourg, Göttingen, 171–224.
 Selected Bibliography
Koenig, Y.
1979 Catalogue des étiquettes de jarres hiératiques de
Deir el-Médineh, vol. 1, Cairo.
1990 Les textes d’envoûtement de Mirgissa, Revue
d’égyptologie 41, 101–125.
Kohl, P.
1987a The Ancient Economy, Transferable Technologies
and the Bronze Age World-System: A View from
the Northeastern Frontier of the Ancient Near East,
in: M.J. Rowlands, M. Larsen and K. K ristiansen
(eds.), Centre and Periphery in the Ancient World,
Cambridge, 13–24.
1987b The Use and Abuse of World Systems Theory: The
Case of the Pristine West Asian State, Advances in
Archaeological Method and Theory 11, 1–35.
Kopetzky, K.
2002 The Dipper Juglets of Tell el-Dab‘a. A Typological
and Chronological Approach, 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, ÖAW:
Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie 26, Contribu-
tions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterra-
nean 3, Vienna, 227–244.
2004 Typologische Bemerkungen zur Siedlungskera-
mik von A/V-p/19, in: I. Hein and P. Jánosi, Tell
el-Dab‘a, vol. 11: Areal A/V. Siedlungsrelikte der
späten 2. Zwischenzeit, ÖAW: Denkschriften der
Gesamtakademie 25, Untersuchungen der Zweig-
stelle Kairo des Österreichischen Archäologischen
Instituts 21, Vienna, 237–335.
2008 The MB IIB-Corpus of the Hyksos Period at Tell
el-Dab‘a, in: M. Bietak and E. Czerny (eds.), The
Bronze Age in the Lebanon: Studies on the Ar-
chaeology and Chronology of Lebanon, Syria and
Egypt, ÖAW: Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie
50, Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern
Mediterranean 17, Vienna, 195–241.
2010 Tell el-Dab‘a, vol. 20: Die Chronologie der Sied-
lungskeramik der 2. Zwischenzeit aus Tell el-Dab‘a,
ÖAW: Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie 62,
Untersuchungen der Zweigstelle Kairo des Öster-
reichischen Archäologischen Instituts 32, Vienna.
2011 The Southern Coastal Plain: Tell el-‘Ajjul, in: M.
M artin, Egyptian-Type Pottery in the Late Bronze
Age Southern Levant, ÖAW: Denkschriften der Ge-
samtakademie 69, Contributions to the Chronology
of the Eastern Mediterranean 29, Vienna, 201–209.
2015 Imports and Local Pottery Production in Egypt and
the Levant during the Middle Bronze Age, Bulletin
de la céramique égyptienne 23, 309–321.
2018 Tell el-Dab‘a and Byblos: New Chronological Evi-
dence, Ägypten und Levante 28, 309–358.
Kopetzky, K. and Bietak, M.
2016 A Seal Impression of the Green Jasper Work-
shop from Tell el-Dab‘a, Ägypten und Levante 26,
357–375.
Köpp-Junk, H.
2013 Desert Travel and Transport in Ancient Egypt.
An Overview Based on Epigraphic, Pictorial and
Archaeological Evidence, in: F. Förster and H.
R iemer (eds.), Desert Road Archaeology in Ancient
409
Egypt and Beyond, Africa Praehistorica 27, Köln,
107–132.
2015 Reisen im Alten Ägypten. Reisekultur, Fortbewe-
gungs- und Transportmittel in pharaonischer Zeit,
Göttinger Orientforschungen IV. Reihe, Ägypten 55,
Wiesbaden.
2018 Textual, Iconographical, and Archaeological
Evidence for the Performance of Ancient Egyptian
Music, in: A. Garcia-Ventura, C. Tavolieri and
L. Verderame (eds.), The Study of Musical Perfor-
mance in Antiquity. Archaeology and Written Sourc-
es, Newcastle, 93–120.
Koppen, F. van
2011 The Scribe of the Flood Story and his Circle, in:
K. R adner and E. Robson (eds.), The Oxford
Handbook of Cuneiform, Oxford, 140–166.
Koppen, F. van and Lehmann, M.
2012/ A Cuneiform Sealing from Tell el-Dab‘a and its
2013 Historical Context, Ägypten und Levante 22–23,
91–94.
Koppen, F. van and R adner, K.
2009 Ein Tontafelfragment aus der diplomatischen Korre-
spondenz der Hyksosherrscher mit Babylonien, in:
M. Bietak and I. Forstner-Müller, Der Hyksos-Pa-
last bei Tell el-Dab‘a. Zweite und Dritte Grabung-
skampagne (Frühling 2008 und Frühling 2009),
Ägypten und Levante 19, 115–118.
K raeling, C.H.
1927 Anthropos and Son of Man: A Study in the Religious
Syncretism of the Hellenistic Orient, New York.
K roeber, A.L. and K luckhohn, C.
1952 Culture: A Critical Review of Concepts and
Definitions, Papers of the Peabody Museum of
American Archaeology and Ethnology 47/1,
Cambridge.
K roeber, B.
1970 Die Neuägyptizismen vor der Amarnazeit: Studien
zur Entwicklung der ägyptischen Sprache vom
Mittleren zum Neuen Reich, PhD Dissertation,
University of Tübingen.
K ruchten, J.-M.
1999 From Middle Egyptian to Late Egyptian, Lingua
Aegyptia 6, 1–97.
K rzyszkowska, O. and Morkot, R.
2000 Ivory and Related Materials, in: P.T. Nicholson
and I. Shaw (eds.), Ancient Egyptian Materials and
Technology, Cambridge, 320–331.
Ksiezak, A.E.
2019 Tell el-Yahudiyeh Ware in the Eastern Nile Delta:
Production, Distribution and Fabric Use Speci-
alization at the Site of Tell el-Maskhuta during the
Second Intermediate Period, in: M. Bietak and
S. P rell (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, 239–275.
410 Selected Bibliography
Kubisch, S.
2008 Lebensbilder der 2. Zwischenzeit. Biographische
Inschriften der 13.–17. Dynastie, Sonderschrift des
Deutschen Archäologischen Institut, Abteilung
Kairo 34, Berlin, New York.
Kuentz, C.
1925a La “Stèle du mariage” de Ramsès II, Annales du
service des antiquités de l’Égypte 25, 181–238.
1925b Deux stèles d’Amenophis II, Cairo.
1928 La bataille der Qadech. Les textes et les bas-reliefs,
Mémoires publiés par les membres de l’institut
français d’archéologie orientale du Caire 55, Cairo.
Kühnert-Eggebrecht, E.
1969 Die Axt als Waffe und Werkzeug im alten Ägypten,
Münchner Ägyptologische Studien 15, Berlin.
Kulakoğlu, F.
2017 Balance Stone Weights and Scale-Pans from
Kültepe-Kanesh: On One of the Basic Elements of
the Old Assyrian Trading System, in: Ç. M aner,
M. Horowitz and A. Gilbert (eds.), Overturning
Certainties in Near Eastern Archaeology. A
Festschrift in Honor of K. Aslıhan Yener, Leiden,
341–402.
Kumar, P., Freeman, A., Loftus, R., Gaillard, C., Fuller, D.
and Bradley, D.
2003 Admixture Analysis of South Asian Cattle, Heredi-
ty 91, 43–50.
Kunst, J.
1950 Musicologica: A Study of the Nature of Ethno-Mu-
sicology, its Problems, Methods and Representative
Personalities, Amsterdam.
Kutschera, W., Bietak, M., Wild, E.M., Bronk R amsey, C.,
Dee, M., Golser, R., Kopetzky, K., Stadler, P., Steier, P.,
Thanheiser, U. and Weninger, E.
2012 The Chronology of Tell el-Dab‘a: A Crucial Meet-
ing Point of 14C Dating, Archaeology, and Egyp-
tology in the 2nd Millennium BC, Radiocarbon 54,
407–422.
Kutterer, J. and Jasim, S.A.
2009 First Report on the Copper-Smelting Site HLO-1 in
Wādī al-Ḥilo, UAE, Proceedings of the Seminar for
Arabian Studies 39, 245–253.
Kutterer, J., Neureiter, C. and Jasim, S.A.
2013 Second Report on the Copper Smelting Site HLO-1
in Wādī al-Ḥilo (Sharjah, UAE), Proceedings of the
Seminar for Arabian Studies 43, 185–196.
L
Labib, P.
1936 Die Herrschaft der Hyksos in Ägypten und ihr
Sturz, Glückstadt.
Lacau, P.
1926 Stèles du Nouvel Empire, vol. 1, Cairo.
Laemmel, S.
2008 Preliminary Report on the Pottery from Area Q IV at
Qantir/Piramesse, Ägypten und Levante 18, 173–202.
Laffineur, R.
1988 Réflections sur le trésor de Tôd, Aegeum 2, 17–30.
Lafont, B.
1984 Le roi de Mari et les prophètes du dieu Adad, Re-
vue d’assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale 78,
7–18.
1993 La mythologème du combat entre le dieu de l’orage
et la Mer en Mésopotamie, Mari: Annales re-
cherches interdisciplinaires 7, 41–61.
2000 Le Proche-Orient à l’époque des rois de Mari: Un
monde sans frontiers?, in: L. Milano (eds.), Lands-
capes: Territories, Frontiers and Horizons in the
Ancient Near East, vol. 2: Geography and Cultural
Landscapes, Padova, 49–55.
2001 Relations internationals, alliances et diplomatie
au temps des Royaumes Amorrites, Amurru 2,
213–322.
Lagenbach, O.
2009 Exkurs: Aufbau und Organisation der ägyptischen
Streitwagentruppe, in: R. Gundlach and C. Vogel
(eds.), Militärgeschichte des pharaonischen Ägyp-
ten, Altägypten und seine Nachbarkulturen im Spie-
gel aktueller Forschung, Krieg in der Geschichte 34,
Paderborn, 345–358.
Lahn, K.
2005 Qedeschet. Genese einer Transfergottheit im ägyp-
tisch-vorderasiatischen Raum, Studien zur Al-
tägyptischen Kultur 33, 201–237.
Lahn Dumke, K.
2015 Some Reflections on the Function of a Particular
Triad Constellation in New Kingdom Religious
Iconography, in: P. Kousoulis and N. Lazardis
(eds.), Proceedings of the Tenth International Con-
gress of Egyptologists, University of the Aegean,
Rhodes, 22–29 May 2008, Louvain, 1041–1052.
Lambert, W.G.
1985 Trees, Snakes, and Gods in Ancient Syria and Ana-
tolia, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African
Studies 48/3, 435–451.
2004 Ištar of Nineveh, Iraq 66, 35–39.
Lancaster-H arding, G.
1958 Recent Discoveries in Jordan, Palestine Explora-
tion Quarterly 90, 10–12.
Lane, F.
1976 Economic Growth in Wallerstein’s Social Systems:
A Review Article, Comparative Studies in Society
and History 18, 517–532.
Laneri, N.
2011 The Life-History of the Potter’s Wheel in the An-
cient Near East, in: S. Scarcella (ed.), Archaeo-
logical Ceramics: A Review of Current Research,
British Archaeological Reports International Se-
ries 2193, Oxford, 64–72.
2018 The Impact of Wine Production in the Social
Transformation of Northern Mesopotamian Soci-
eties during the Third and Second Millennia BCE,
Die Welt des Orients 48/2, 225–237.
 Selected Bibliography
Laneri, N., Schwartz, M., Ur, J., Berthon, R., D’Agostino, A.,
H ald, M.M. and M arsh, A.
2015 Ritual and Identity in Rural Mesopotamia: Hirbe-
merdon and the Upper Tigris River Valley during
the Middle Bronze Age, American Journal of Ar-
chaeology 119/4, 533–564.
Lange, E.
2016 The Lioness Goddess in the Old Kingdom Nile
Delta: A Study in Local Cult Topography, in:
S.L. Lippert, M. Schentuleit and M.A. Stadler
(eds.), Sapientia Felicitas. Festschrift für Günter
Vittmann zum 29. Februar 2016, Cahiers de l’Égypte
nilotique et méditerranéene 14, Montpellier, 301–323.
Lange, K. and Schäfer, H.
1902a Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennes du
Musée du Caire. No. 20001–20780: Grab und Denk-
steine des Mittleren Reichs im Museum von Kairo,
vol. 1: Text zu No. 20001–20399, Cairo.
1902b Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennes du
Musée du Caire. No. 20001–20780: Grab und Denk-
steine des Mittleren Reichs im Museum von Kairo,
vol. 2: Text zu No. 20400–20780, Cairo.
1908 Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennes du
Musée du Caire. No. 20001–20780: Grab und Denk-
steine des Mittleren Reichs im Museum von Kairo,
vol. 4: Tafeln, Cairo.
Lansing, A.
1917 The Egyptian Expedition 1915–16, in: The Egyptian
Expedition 1915–16, Supplement to the Bulletin of
the Metropolitan Museum of Art 12/5, New York,
7–26.
Lansing, A. and H ayes, W.C.
1934 The Egyptian Expedition: Excavations at Lisht,
Bulletin of the Metropolitan Museum of Art 29/11.2,
4–41.
Laroche, E.
1971 Catalogue des textes hittites, Paris.
Larsen, H.
1936 Vorbericht über die schwedischen Grabungen in Abu
Ghâlib, Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen
Instituts Kairo 6, 41–87.
1941 Vorbericht über die schwedischen Grabungen in Abu
Ghâlib, Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen
Instituts Kairo 10, 1–59.
Lashien, M. and Mourad, A.-L.
2019 Beni Hassan, vol. 5: The Tomb of Khnumhotep I,
Australian Centre for Egyptology: Reports 43,
Oxford.
Lassen, A.W.
2010 Tools, Procedures and Professions, in: C. Michel
and M.-L. Nosch (eds.), Textile Terminologies in
the Ancient Near East and Mediterranean from the
Third to the First Millennia BC, Ancient Textiles Se-
ries 8, Oxford, Oakville, 272–282.
2013 Technology and Palace Economy in Middle Bronze
Age Anatolia: The Case of the Crescent-Shaped
Loom Weight, in: M.-L. Nosch, H. Koefoed and
E. Andersson Strand (eds.), Textile Production and
411
Consumption in the Ancient Near East. Archaeolo-
gy, Epigraphy, Iconography, Ancient Textile Series
12, Oxford, Oakville, 78–92.
Lassen, H.
2000 Introduction to Weight Systems in the Bronze Age
East Mediterranean: the Case of Kalavasos-Ayious
Dhimitrios, in: C.F.E. Pare (ed.), Metals Make the
World go Round. The Supply and Circulation of
Metals in Bronze Age Europe, Birmingham, 233–246.
Lauffray, J.
2008 Fouilles de Byblos, vol. 6: L’urbanisme et l’archi-
tecture. De l’époque proto-urbaine à l’occupation
amorite (de l’Énéolithique à l’age du Bronze II),
Bibliothèque archéologique et historique 182,
Beirut.
Lawergren, B.
1997 Mesopotamien, in: L. Finscher (ed.), Die Musik in
Geschichte und Gegenwart, vol. 6, Kassel, 143–174.
1998 Distinctions among Canaanite, Philistine, and
Israelite-Lyres, and their Global Lyrical Contexts,
Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental
Research 309, 41–68.
2001 Music, in: D.B. Redford (ed.), The Oxford Encyclo-
pedia of Ancient Egypt, vol. 2, New York, 450–454.
Layton, B.
2003 Art and Agency: A Reassessment, The Journal of
the Royal Anthropological Institute 9, 447–464.
Leal, J.
2011 “The Past is a Foreign Country”? Acculturation
Theory and the Anthropology of Globalization,
Etnográfica 15/2, 313–336.
Leclant, J.
1960 Astarté à cheval d’après les representations égyp-
tiennes, Syria 37, 1–67.
1975 Fouilles et travaux en Égypte et au Soudan, 1973–1974,
Orientalia 44, 200–244.
Leclant, J. and Clerc, G.
1995 Fouilles et travaux en Égypte et au Soudan, 1993–1994,
Orientalia 64, 225–355.
Leeuw, S. van der
1993 Giving the Potter a Choice: Conceptual Aspects
of Pottery Techniques, in: P. Lemonnier (ed.),
Technological Choices: Transformation in Material
Cultures since the Neolithic, New York, 238–288.
Lefèbvre, G.
1949 Romans et contes égyptiens de l’époque pharao-
nique, Paris.
Legrain, G.
1929 Les temples de Karnak. Fragment du dernier
ouvrage de Georges Legrain, Brussels.
Lehner, J.W.
2014 Metal Technology, Organization, and the Evolution
of Long-Distance Trade at Kültepe, in: L. Atici,
F. Kulakoğlu, G. Barjamovic and A. Fairbairn
(eds.), Current Research at Kültepe/Kanesh: An In-
412 Selected Bibliography
terdisciplinary and Integrative Approach to Trade
Networks, Internationalism, and Identity, Boston,
135–155.
Lehner, M.
2016 The Name and Nature of the Heit el-Ghurab Old
Kingdom Site: Worker’s Town, Pyramid Town,
and the Port Hypothesis, in: I. Hein, N. Billig and
E. Meyer-Dietrich (eds.), The Pyramids between
Life and Death. Proceedings of the Workshop held
at Uppsala University, May 31st to June 1st, 2012,
Uppsala, 99–160.
Leibovitch, J.
1939 Quelques nouvelles représentations du dieu Rechef,
Annales du service des antiquités de l’Égypte 39,
145–160.
1953 Le problème des Hyksos et celui de l’exode, Israel
Exploration Journal 3, 99–112.
1957 An Egyptian Stele from Qubeiba, Yediot. Bulletin of
the Israel Exploration Society 21, 208–210.
Lemonnier, P.
1992 Elements for an Anthropology of Technology,
Ann Arbor.
1993 Introduction, in: P. Lemonnier (ed.), Technological
Choices: Transformation in Material Cultures since
the Neolithic, New York, 1–35.
Leonard, A. Jr.
1995 Canaanite Jars and the Late Bronze Age Aegeo-Le-
vantine Wine Trade, in: P. McGovern, S. Fleming
and S. K atz (eds.), The Origins and Ancient History
of Wine, Amsterdam, 233–254.
Leopold, A.M. and Jensen, J.S.
2004 General Introduction, in: A.M. Leopold and
J.S. Jansen (eds.), Syncretism in Religion: A Reader,
London, New York, 1–8.
Leprohon, R.
2010 The Royal Titulary in the 18th Dynasty: Change and
Continuity, Journal of Egyptian History 3, 7–45.
2013 The Great Name. Ancient Egyptian Royal Titulary,
Atlanta.
Lepsius, K.R.
1849– Denkmäler aus Aegypten und Aethiopien, 12 vols.,
1958 Berlin, Leipzig.
Leroi-Gourhan, A.
1964 Le geste et la parole. Technique et langage, Paris.
Lerstrup, A.
1992 The Making of Wine in Egypt, Göttinger Miszellen
129, 61–82.
Lesko, L.H.
1995 Egyptian Wine Production during the New King-
dom, in: P. McGovern, S. Fleming and S. K atz
(eds.), The Origins and Ancient History of Wine,
Amsterdam, 215–230.
Lev-Tov, J. and McGeough, K.
2007 Examining Feasting in Late Bronze Age Syro-Pales-
tine through Ancient Texts and Bones, in: K. Twiss
(ed.), The Archaeology of Food and Identity, Center
for Archaeological Investigations Occasional Paper
34, Illinois, 85–111.
Lévai, J.
2008 Anat for Nephthys: A Possible Substitution in the Docu-
ments of the Ramesside Period, in: M. Ross (ed.),
From the Banks of the Euphrates. Studies in
Honor of Alice Louise Slotsky, Winona Lake,
135–143.
Levi Della Vida, G. and A lbright, W.F.
1943 Some Notes on the Stele of Ben-Hadad, Bulletin
of the American Schools of Oriental Research 90,
30–34.
Levine, M.A.
2005 Domestication and Early History of the Horse, in:
D. Mills and S. McDonnell (eds.), The Domestic
Horse: The Origins, Development, and Manage-
ment of its Behaviour, Cambridge, 5–22.
Levy, E.
2014 A Fresh Look at the Baal-Zaphon Stele, The Journal
of Egyptian Archaeology 100, 293–309.
2016 The Mekal Stela, in: D. Ben-Tor (ed.), Pharaoh in
Canaan. The Untold Story, Jerusalem, 111.
2018 A Fresh Look at the Mekal Stele, Ägypten und
Levante 28, 359–378.
Levy, T. and Brink, E. van den
2002 Interaction Models, Egypt and the Levantine
Periphery, in: E. van den Brink and T. Levy (eds.),
Egypt and the Levant: Interrelations from the
4th through the Early 3rd Millennium BCE: New
Approaches to Anthropological Archaeology,
London, 3–38.
Lewis, H.S.
1998 The Misrepresentation of Anthropology and its
Consequences, American Anthropologist 100/3,
716–731.
Lichtheim, M.
1973 Ancient Egyptian Literature. A Book of Readings,
vol. 1: The Old and Middle Kingdoms, Berkeley,
Los Angeles, London.
1976 Ancient Egyptian Literature. A Book of Readings,
vol. 2: The New Kingdom, Berkeley, Los Angeles,
London.
Liebmann, M. and Murphy, M.S.
2010 Rethinking the Archaeology of “Rebels, Backsliders,
and Idolaters”, in: M. Liebmann and M.S. Murphy
(eds.), Enduring Conquests: Rethinking the Archaeo-
logy of Resistance to Spanish Colonialism in the
Americas, Santa Fe, 3–18.
Liebowitz, H.
1987 Late Bronze II Ivory Work in Palestine: Evidence
of a Cultural Highpoint, Bulletin of the American
Schools of Oriental Research 265, 3–24.
Lieven, A. von
2008 Native and Foreign Elements in the Musical Life
of Ancient Egypt, in: A. Both, R. Eichmann,
E. Hickmann and L.-C. Koch (eds.), Herausforderun-
 Selected Bibliography
gen und Ziele der Musikarchäologie, Vorträge
des 5. Symposiums der internationalen Studi-
engruppe Musikarchäologie im Ethnologischen
Museum der Staatlichen Museen zu Berlin 19.–
23. September 2006, Studien zur Musikarchäol-
ogie 6, Orient-Archäologie 22, Leidorf,
Rahden, 155–160.
Lightfoot, K.G.
2015 Dynamics of Change in Multiethnic Societies: An
Archaeological Perspective from Colonial North
America, Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences 112/30, 9216–9223.
Lilyquist, C.
1993 Granulation and Glass: Chronological and Stylistic
Investigation at Selected Sites, ca. 2500–1400 B.C.E.,
Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Re-
search 290–291, 29–94.
2003 The Tombs of Three Foreign Wives of Tuthmosis
III, New York.
2005 Egypt and the Near East. Evidence for Contact in
the Material Record, in: C.H. Roehrig (ed.), Hat-
shepsut. From Queen to Pharaoh, New York, New
Haven, London, 60–67.
2019 Twelve Carnarvon Writing Boards and their Prov-
enances, The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology
105/2, 157–175.
Lilyquist, C. and Brill, R.
1993 Studies in Early Egyptian Glass, New York.
Lincoln, B.
2001 Retiring Syncretism, Historical Reflections 27/3,
453–459.
Linton, R.
1936 The Study of Man, New York.
Lionnet, F. and Shih, S.
2005 Introduction: Thinking through the Minor, Trans-
nationally, in: F. Lionnet and S. Shih (eds.), Minor
Transnationalism, Durham, 1–23.
Lipiński, E.
1965 Les conceptions et couches merveilleuses de
‘Anath, Syria 42/1, 45–73.
1986 The Syro-Palestinian Iconography of Woman and
Goddess (Review Article), Israel Exploration
Journal 36/1, 87–96.
1987 Reshef Amyklos, in: E. Lipiński (ed.), Phoenicia
and the East Mediterranean in the First Millen-
nium BC, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 22,
Studia Phoenicia 5, Leuven, 87–99.
2005 Syro-Canaanite Goddesses in Egypt, Chronique
d’Égypte 80, 122–133.
2009 Resheph. A Syro-Canaanite Deity, Orientalia
Lovaniensia Analecta 181, Studia Phoenicia 19,
Leuven.
Liszka, K.
2012 “We have come to serve Pharaoh:” A Study of the
Medjay and Pangrave as an Ethnic Group and as
Mercenaries from c. 2300 BCE until c. 1050 BCE,
PhD Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.
413
Littauer, M. and Crowel, J.
1979 Wheeled Vehicles and Ridden Animals in the
Ancient Near East, Leiden, Köln.
Liverani, M.
2001 International Relations in the Ancient Near East,
1600–1100 BC, New York.
Livingston Smith, A.
2001 Chaine opératoire de la poterie: Références ethno-
graphiques, analyses et reconstitution, PhD Disser-
tation, Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
Lloyd, J.B.
1994 The Goddess Anat. An Examination of the Textu-
al and Iconographic Evidence from the Second
Millennium B.C., PhD Dissertation, University of
Edinburgh.
Loch, C. and Huberman, B.
1999 A Punctuated-Equilibrium Model of Technology
Diffusion, Management Science 45/2, 160–177.
Loersch, C. and A rbuckle, N.
2013 Unraveling the Mystery of Music: Music as an
Evolved Group Process, Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology 105/5, 777–798.
Loffet, H.C.
2006 The Sidon Scaraboid S/3487, Archaeology and
History in the Lebanon 24, 78–84.
2011/ The Sidon Scarabs, Archaeology and History in
2012 the Lebanon 34–35, 104–138.
Longman, C.J.
1895 The Bows of the Ancient Assyrians and Egyptians,
Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great
Britain and Ireland 24, 49–57.
Loprieno, A.
1995 Ancient Egyptian, Cambridge.
1996 The ‘King’s Novel’, in: A. Loprieno (ed.), Ancient
Egyptian Literature: History and Forms, Prob-
leme der Ägyptologie 10, Leiden, New York, Köln,
277–296.
2006 As a Conclusion: Towards a Detailed Perspective
on Deir el-Medina, in: A. Dorn and T. Hofmann
(eds.), Living and Writing in Deir el-Medine. Socio-
Historical Embodiment of Deir el-Medine Texts,
Aegyptiaca Helvetica 19, Basel, 165–170.
Loprieno, A. (ed.)
1996 Ancient Egyptian Literature: History and Forms, Prob-
leme der Ägyptologie 10, Leiden, New York, Köln.
Lorand, D.
2009 Le papyrus dramatique du Ramesseum. Étude des
structures de la composition, Lettres orientales 13,
Louvain.
2011 Arts et politique sous Sésostris Ier: Littérature, sculp-
ture et architecture dans leur contexts historique, Mo-
numenta Aegyptiaca 13, Turnhout.
Lorton, D.
1974 Terminology Related to the Laws of Warfare in
Dyn. XVIII, Journal of the American Research
Center in Egypt 11, 53–68.
414 Selected Bibliography
Loud, G.
1948 Megiddo, vol. 2: Seasons of 1935–1939, Oriental
Institute Publications 62, Chicago.
Loukianoff, G.
1924 Stèle du pharaon Séti Ier trouvée a Tell-Nebi-Mendou
en Syrie, Ancient Egypt 9, 101–108.
Lucas, A.
1962 Ancient Egyptian Materials and Industries, 4th edition,
London.
Lucas, C.
2015 Contact-Induced Language Change, in: C. Bowern
and B. Evans (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of
Historical Linguistics, London, 519–536.
Lucy, S.
2005 Ethnic and Cultural Identities, in: M. Díaz-Andreu,
S. Lucy, S. Babić and D.N. Edwards (eds.), The Ar-
chaeology of Identity. Approaches to Gender, Age,
Status, Ethnicity and Religion, London, 86–109.
Luft, U.
1993 Asiatics in Illahun: A Preliminary Report, in: Sesto
Congresso Internazionale di Egittologia Atti, vol. 2,
Turin, 291–297.
2001 Religion, in: D.B. R edford (ed.), The Oxford Ency-
clopedia of Ancient Egypt, Oxford, 139–145.
Lumb, D.R.A.
2013 Textiles, Value, and the Early Economies of North
Syria and Anatolia, in: M.-L. Nosch, H. Koefoed
and E. Andersson Strand (eds.), Textile Production
and Consumption in the Ancient Near East. Archae-
ology, Epigraphy, Iconography, Ancient Textile Se-
ries 12, Oxford, Oakville, 54–77.
Lundh, P.
2002 Actor and Event. Military Activity in Ancient Egyp-
tian Narrative Texts from Tuthmosis II to Merenptah,
Uppsala.
Lüsebrink, H.-J.
2012 Interkulturelle Kommunikation: Interaktion, Fremd-
wahrnehmung, Kulturtransfer, Stuttgart, Weimar.
Lustig, M.W. and Koester, J.
1999 Intercultural Competence. Interpersonal Communi-
cation across Cultures, 3rd edition, New York.
M
M acalister, R.A.S.
1912 The Excavation of Gezer, 1902–1905 and 1907–
1909, London.
M acDonald, B.
1980 Excavations at Tell el-Maskhuṭa, The Biblical Ar-
chaeologist 43/1, 49–58.
M ace, A.
1922 Loom-Weights in Egypt, Ancient Egypt 23, 75–76.
1927 The Tomb of Tut-ankh-amun, vol. 3, London.
M ace, R. and Jordan, F.M.
2011 Macro-Evolutionary Studies of Cultural Diversity:
A Review of Empirical Studies of Cultural Trans-
mission and Cultural Adaptation, Philosophical
Transactions of The Royal Society 366, 402–411.
M aciejewski, F.
2009 Der Streit zwischen Apophis und Sekenenre. Ein
gedächtnisgeschichtlicher und ethnopsychoana-
lytischer Zugang zu einer Erzählung aus rames-
sidischer Zeit, in: W. Fink (ed.), Das Erzählen in
frühen Hochkulturen, vol. 1: Der Fall Ägypten,
Ägyptologie und Kulturwissenschaft 1, Munich,
159–172.
M ackenzie, D. and Wajcman, J. (eds.)
1985 The Social Shaping of Technology. How the Refrig-
erator got its Hum, Philadelphia.
M aeir, A.M.
1989 Hyksos Miscellanea, Discussions in Egyptology 14,
61–68.
M agen, U.
2001 Der Wettergott als Eselsreiter? Gedanken zur Volks-
frömmigkeit am mittleren Euphrat (Gebiet des As-
sad-Stauses) am Ende des 3. und zu Beginn des 2.
Jts. v. Chr., in: J.-W. Meyer, M. Novák and A. Pruss
(eds.), Beiträge zur vorderasiatischen Archäologie,
Frankfurt, 246–259.
M agnavita, C.
2006 Ancient Humped Cattle in Africa: A View from the
Chad Basin, The African Archaeological Review 23,
55–84.
M aguire, L.C.
1995 Tell el-Dab‘a: The Cypriot Connection, in:
W.V. Davies and L. Schofield (eds.), Egypt, the Ae-
gean and the Levant. Interconnections in the Second
Millennium BC, London, 54–65.
2009 Tell el-Dab‘a, vol. 21: The Cypriot Pottery and its
Circulation in the Levant, ÖAW: Denkschriften der
Gesamtakademie 45, Untersuchungen der Zweig-
stelle Kairo des Österreichischen Archäologischen
Instituts 33, Vienna.
M ahmud, N.A., Faris, G., Schiestl, R. and R aue, D.
2008 Pottery of the Middle Kingdom and the Second In-
termediate Period from Heliopolis, Mitteilungen
des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts Kairo 64,
189–205.
M aier, E.
2015 Studying Creolisation in Household Archaeology:
Comparing Approaches of Archaeological Analy-
sis in Spanish and Russian Settlements in the New
World, University of Saskatchewan Undergraduate
Research Journal 1/2, 82–91.
M airs, R.
2011 The Places in Between: Model and Metaphor in
the Archaeology of Hellenistic Arachosia, in:
A. Kouremenos, S. Chandrasekaran and R. Rossi
(eds.), From Pella to Gandhara. Hybridisation and
Identity in the Art and Architecture of the Helle-
nistic East, British Archaeological Reports Inter-
national Series 2221, Oxford, 177–189.
 Selected Bibliography
M alamat, A.
1998 Mari and the Bible, Leiden.
M álek, J.
1989 An Early Eighteenth Dynasty Monument of Sipair
from Saqqara, The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology
75, 61–76.
1996 The Egyptian Text on the Seal Impression from
Alalakh (Tell Atchana), Levant 28, 173–176.
M alešević, S.
2010 The Sociology of War and Violence, Cambridge.
M alkin, I.
2004 Postcolonial Concepts and Ancient Greek Coloniza-
tion, Modern Language Quarterly 65/3, 341–364.
2005 Herakles and Melqart: Greeks and Phoenicians in
the Middle Ground, in: E. Gruen (ed.), Cultural
Borrowings and Ethnic Appropriations in Antiquity,
Oriens et Occidens 8, Stuttgart, 238–257.
2011 A Small Greek World. Networks in the Ancient Medi-
terranean, Oxford.
M alleson, C.
2013 Egypt’s Earliest Olive Pit Reconsidered: A Case of
Mistaken Identity?, Aeragram 14/2, 24.
Manassa, C.
2013 Imagining the Past. Historical Fiction in New King-
dom Egypt, New York.
M andell, A.
2015 Scribalism and Diplomacy at the Crossroads
of Cuneiform Culture: The Sociolinguistics of
Canaano-Akkadian, PhD Dissertation, University
of California, Los Angeles.
M anniche, L.
1975 Ancient Egyptian Musical Instruments, Münchener
Ägyptologische Studien 34, Munich, Berlin.
1988 The Lost Tombs, London.
1989 An Ancient Egyptian Herbal, London.
1991 Music and Musicians in Ancient Egypt, London.
M anning, S.W.
1995 The Absolute Chronology of the Aegean Early
Bronze Age, Sheffield.
2014 A Test of Time and A Test of Time Revisited. The
Volcano of Thera and the Chronology and History
of the Aegean and East Mediterranean in the Mid-
Second Millennium BC, Oxford, Philadelphia.
M anuelian, P. der
1987 Studies in the Reign of Amenophis II, Hildesheimer
Ägyptologische Beiträge 26, Hildesheim.
M aran, J.
1987 Die Silbergefäße von et-Tôd und Schachtgräberzeit
auf dem griechischen Festland, Praehistorische
Zeitschrift 62/2, 221–227.
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.
415
1999 The Favissa F.5238 in the Sacred Area of
Ishtar and the Transition from the Middle
Bronze I to the Middle Bronze II at Ebla, in:
K. van Lerberghe and G. Voet (eds.), Languag-
es and Cultures in Contact. At the Crossroads of
Civilizations in the Syro-Mesopotamian Realm,
Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 96, Leuven,
245–287.
M arcus, E.S.
2006 Venice on the Nile? On the Maritime Character
of Tell el-Dab‘a/Avaris, in: E. Czerny, I. Hein,
H. Hunger, D. Melman and A. Schwab (eds.), Time-
lines. Studies in Honour of Manfred Bietak, vol. 2,
Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 149, Leuven, Paris,
Dudley, 187–190.
2007 Amenemhet II and the Sea: Maritime Aspects of the
Mit Rahina (Memphis) Inscription, Ägypten und Le-
vante 17, 137–190.
2013 Correlating and Combining Egyptian Historical
and Southern Levantine Radiocarbon Chronolo-
gies at Middle Bronze Age IIa Tel Ifshar, Israel, in:
A. Shortland and C. Bronk R amsey (eds.), Ra-
diocarbon and the Chronologies of Ancient Egypt,
Oxford, 182–208.
M aret, P. de
2005 L’oryctérope, un animal “bon à penser” pour les
Africains, est-il à l’origine du dieu égyptien Seth?,
Bulletin de l’institut français d’archéologie orien-
tale du Caire 105, 107–128.
M ariette, A.
1865 Tanis, Revue d’égyptologie 11, 169–190.
1872 Monuments divers recueillis en Égypte et en Nubie,
Paris.
M arinatos, N.
1998 The Tell el-Dab‘a Paintings: A Study in Pictorial
Tradition, Ägypten und Levante 8, 83–99.
2000 The Goddess and the Warrior. The Naked Goddess
and Mistress of Animals in Early Greek Religion,
London.
2010 Lions from Tell el-Dab‘a, Ägypten und Levante 20,
325–355.
M arinatos, N. and Morgan, L.
2005 The Dog Pursuit Scenes from Tell el-Dab‘a and
Kea, in: L. Morgan (ed.), Aegean Wall Paintings. A
Tribute to Mark Cameron, British School at Athens
Studies 13, London, 119–122.
M arkowitz, V.
2001 Jewelry, in: D.B. R edford (ed.), The Oxford Ency-
clopedia of Ancient Egypt, vol. 2, Oxford, 201–207.
M arshall, F.
1989 Rethinking the Role of Bos indicus in Sub-Saharan
Africa, Current Anthropology 30/2, 235–240.
M arshall, F. and Weissbrod, L.
2011 Domestication Processes and Morphological
Change. Through the Lens of the Donkey and
African Pastoralism, Current Anthropology 52/4,
S397–S413.
416 Selected Bibliography
M arshall, N.
2012 The Desert and the Hunt, in: A. McFarlane and
A.-L. Mourad (eds.), Behind the Scenes: Daily Life
in Old Kingdom Egypt, Australian Centre for Egyp-
tology: Studies 10, Oxford, 125–146.
M artin, G.T.
1968 A New Prince of Byblos, Journal of Near Eastern
Studies 27/2, 141–142.
1971 Egyptian Administrative and Private-Name Seals
Principally of the Middle Kingdom and Second In-
termediate Period, Oxford.
1989 The Memphite Tomb of Ḥoremheb, Command-
er-in-Chief of Tut‘ankhamūn, vol. 1, Egypt Explora-
tion Society Excavation Memoir 55, London.
1996 A Late Middle Kingdom Prince of Byblos, in: P.
der M anuelian and R.E. Freed (eds.), Studies in
Honor of William Kelly Simpson, vol. 2, Boston,
595–599.
1998 The Toponym Retjenu on a Scarab from Tell el-
Dab‘a, Ägypten und Levante 8, 109–112.
1999 Alalakh 194: An Ancient Seal-Impression Re-
Interpreted, in: A. Leahy and J. Tait (eds.), Studies
on Ancient Egypt in Honour of H.S. Smith, London,
201–207.
M artin, M.A.S., Finkelstein, I. and Piasetzky, E.
2020 Radiocarbon-Dating the Late Bronze Age: Cultu-
ral and Historical Considerations on Megiddo and
Beyond, Bulletin of the American Schools of Orien-
tal Research 384, 211–240.
M artinez Babón, J.
1995 Historia de la espada curva durante el Imperio
Neuvo egipcio, Barcelona.
M aspero, G.
1903/ History of Egypt, Chaldea, Syria, Babylonia, and
1904 Assyria, vol. 4, London.
M assafra, A.
2011 Some Curved Ceremonial Weapons of the II nd Mil-
lennium B.C. in the National Museum of Beirut,
Bulletin d’archéologie et d’architecture Libanaises
15, 339–350.
2012 Le harpai nel vicino Oriente Antico. Cronologia e
distribuzione, Rome La Sapienza Studies on the Ar-
chaeology of Palestine and Transjordan 9, Rome.
M assart, A.
1954 The Leiden Magical Papyrus I343 + I345, Oudheid-
kundige mededelingen uit het Rijksmuseum van
Oudheden te Leiden Supplement 34, Leiden.
M athieu, B.
2011 Seth polymorphe: le rival, le vaincu, l’auxiliaire,
Égypte nilotique et méditerranéenne 4, 137–158.
M atić, U.
2014 “Minoans”, k f tj w and the “Islands in the Middle of
wAD wr” beyond Ethnicity, Ägypten und Levante 24,
275–292.
2017a Der dritte Raum, Hybridität und das Niltal: Das
epistemologische Potenzial der postkolonialen The-
orie in der Ägyptologie, in: S. Beck, B. Backes, and
A. Verbovsek (eds.), Interkulturalität: Kontakt –
Konflikt – Konzeptualisierung. Beiträge des sechsten
Berliner Arbeitskreises Junge Aegytologie 6 (BAJA
6) 13.11.–15.11.2015, Göttinger Orientforschungen
IV. Reihe, Ägypten 63, Wiesbaden, 93–111.
2017b Scorched Earth: Violence and Landscape in New
Kingdom Egyptian Representations of War,
Istraživanja. Journal of Historical Researches 28,
7–28.
2018 “Execration” of Nubians in Avaris? A Case of Mis-
taken Ethnic Identity and Hidden Archaeological
Theory, Journal of Egyptian History 11, 87–112.
M atoïan, V. and Vita, J.-P.
2009 Les textiles à Ougarit. Perspectives de la recherche,
Ugarit-Forschungen 41, 469–504.
M atsumoto, D.
1996 Culture and Psychology, Pacific Grove.
M atsushima, E.
2014 Ištar and Other Goddesses of the So-Called
“Sacred Marriage” in Ancient Mesopotamia, in:
D.T. Sugimoto (ed.), Transformation of a Goddess:
Ishtar – Astarte – Aphrodite, Orbis Biblicus et
Orientalis 263, Fribourg, 1–14.
M atthäus, H.
1980 Die Bronzegefässe der kretisch mykenischen Kultur,
Prähistorische Bronzefunde II/1, Munich.
1995 Representations of Keftiu in Egyptian Tombs and
the Absolute Chronology of the Aegean Late Bronze
Age, Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies 40,
177–194.
M atthews, R.
2002 Zebu: Harbingers of Doom in Bronze Age Western
Asia?, Antiquity 76, 438–446.
M atthiae, P.
1969 Empreintes d’un cylindre paléosyrien de Tell Mardikh,
Syria 46, 1–43.
1979 Princely Cemetery and Ancestor Cult at Ebla during
Middle Bronze II: A Proposal of Interpretation,
Ugarit-Forschungen 11, 563–569.
M axwell-Hyslop, R.
1946 Daggers and Swords in Western Asia: A Study from
Prehistoric Times to 600 B.C., Iraq 8, 1–65.
1949 Western Asiatic Shaft-Hole Axes, Iraq 11, 90–129.
1971 Western Asiatic Jewellery, c. 3000–612 B.C., London.
M aynard, A., Greenfield, P. and Childs, C.
1999 Culture, History, Biology and Body: Native and
Non-Native Acquisition of Technological Skill, Ethnos
27/3, 379–402.
M ays, L.
2010 Water Technology in Ancient Egypt, in: L. M ays
(ed.), Ancient Water Technologies, Dordrecht, Hei-
delberg, London, New York, 53–65.
M azar, A.
2003 Beth Shean in the Second Millennium B.C.E.:
From Canaanite Town to Egyptian Stronghold, in:
M. Bietak (ed.), The Synchronisation of Civilisa-
tions in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Mil-
 Selected Bibliography
lennium B.C., vol. 2: Proceedings of the SCIEM 2000
– EuroConference Haindorf, 2nd of May – 7th of May
2001, ÖAW: Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie 29,
Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Medi-
terranean 4, Vienna, 323–339.
2011 The Egyptian Garrison Town at Beth-Shean, in:
S. Bar, D. K ahn and J.J. Shirley (eds.), Egypt, Ca-
naan and Israel: History, Imperialism, Ideology
and Literature. Proceedings of a Conference at the
University of Haifa, 3–7 May 2009, Leiden, Boston,
155–189.
M azar, B.
1968 The Middle Bronze Age in Palestine, Israel Explora-
tion Journal 18, 65–97.
McAnany, P. and Yoffee, N.
2010 Why we Question Collapse and Study Human Re-
silience, Ecological Vulnerability, and the After-
math of Empire, in: P. McA nany and N. Yoffee
(eds.), Questioning Collapse: Human Resilience,
Ecological Vulnerability, and the Aftermath of Em-
pire, Cambridge, 1–20.
McCorriston, J.
1997 The Fiber Revolution: Textile Extensification,
Alienation, and Social Stratification in Ancient Mes-
opotamia, Current Anthropology 38/4, 517–535.
McDonald, A.,
2000 Tall Tails. The Seth Animal Reconsidered, in:
A. McDonald and C. R iggs (eds.), Current Research
in Egyptology, 2000, British Archaeological Reports
International Series 909, Oxford, 75–81.
2002 Seth’s Role as a Determinative, Particularly in Letters
to the Dead, Lingua Aegyptia 10, 283–291.
2007 Metaphor for Troubled Times, Zeitschrift für Ägyp-
tische Sprache und Altertumskunde 134, 26–39.
McEwan, C., Braidwood, L.S., Frankfort, H., Güterbock, H.G.,
Haines, R.C., K antor, H.J. and Kraeling, C.H.
1958 Soundings at Tell Fakhariyah, Oriental Institute
Publications 79, Chicago.
McFarlane, A.
2003 Mastabas at Saqqara: Kaiemheset, Kaipunesut,
Kaiemsenu, Sehetepu and Others, Australian Centre
for Egyptology: Reports 20, Oxford.
McGovern, P.
1985 Late Bronze Palestinian Pendants. Innovation in
a Cosmopolitan Age, Journal for Study of the Old
Testament/American Schools of Oriental Research
Monograph Series 1, Sheffield.
1986 The Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Ages of Central
Transjordan: The Baq‘ah Valley Project, 1977–1981,
University Museum Monograph 65, Philadelphia.
2000 The Foreign Relations of the “Hyksos”. A Neutron
Activation Study of Middle Bronze Age Pottery from
the Eastern Mediterranean, British Archaeological
Reports International Series 888, Oxford.
2003 Ancient Wine: The Search for the Origins of Vini-
culture, Princeton, Oxford.
McGovern, P., H artung, U., Badler, V.R., Glusker, D.L.
and Exner, L.J.
1997 The Beginnings of Winemaking and Viniculture in the
Ancient Near East and Egypt, Expedition 39/1, 3–21.
417
McGuire, R.H.
1982 The Study of Ethnicity in Historical Archaeology,
Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 1, 159–178.
2000 Core and Periphery Systems, in: L. Ellis (ed.),
Archaeological Method and Theory: An Encyclope-
dia, New York, 132–137.
McInerney, J. (ed.)
2014 A Companion to Ethnicity in the Ancient Mediterra-
nean, Malden, MA.
McLeod, W.
1958 An Unpublished Egyptian Composite Bow in the
Brooklyn Museum, American Journal of Archaeolo-
gy 62/4, 397–401.
1962 Egyptian Composite Bows in New York, American
Journal of Archaeology 66/1, 13–19.
1970 Composite Bows from the Tomb of Tutankhamun,
Oxford.
1982 Self Bows and Other Archery Tackle from the Tomb
of Tutankhamun, Oxford.
Meadow, R.H.
1984 Notes on the Faunal Remains from Mehrgarh, with
Focus on Cattle (Bos), in: B. A llchin (ed.), South
Asia Archaeology 1981. Proceedings of the Sixth
International Conference of the Association of
South Asian Archaeologists in Western Europe,
Cambridge, 34–40.
Mecquenem, R. de
1943 Fouilles de Suse 1933–1939, Mémoires de la mission
archéologique de Perse 29, 3–161.
Meeks, D.
1993 Oléiculture et viticulture dans l’Égypte pharao-
nique, in: M.-C. A mouretti and J.-P. Brun (eds.), Oil
and Wine Production in the Mediterranean Area,
Athens, 3–38.
Meggers, B.J.
1975 The Transpacific Origin of MesoAmerican Civiliza-
tion: A Preliminary Review of the Evidence and its
Theoretical Implications, American Anthropologist
77, 1–27.
Meiri, M., Stockhammer, P., M arom, N., Bar-Oz, G.,
Sapir-Hen, L., Morgenstern, P., M acheridis, S., Rosen, B.,
Huchon, D., M aran, J. and Finkelstein, I.
2017 Eastern Mediterranean Mobility in the Bronze and
Early Iron Ages: Inferences from Ancient DNA
of Pigs and Cattle, Nature. Scientific Reports 7/1,
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-00701-y (last ac-
cessed 11.06.2019).
Meltzer, E.
1980 Dialect Features in Middle Kingdom Inscriptions,
Newsletter of the American Research Centre in
Egypt 112, 34–36.
Mendenhall, G.E.
1954 Puppy and Lettuce in Northwest-Semitic Cove-
nant Making, Bulletin of the American Schools of
Oriental Research 133, 26–30.
Mensil du Buisson, C.R. du
1929 Compte rendu sommaire d’une mission à Tell
el-Yahoudiyé, Bulletin de l’institut français d’ar-
chéologie orientale du Caire 29, 155–178.
418 Selected Bibliography
Menu, B.
2012 Le papyrus du Brooklyn Museum no 35.1446 et l’im-
migration syro-palestinienne sous le Moyen Empire,
Égypte nilotique et méditerranéenne 5, 19–30.
Merrillees, P.H.
2003 Klavdhia Glyptic, in: K. M almgren, Klavdhia-
Tremithos. A Middle and Late Bronze Age Site,
Jonsered, 138–155.
Merrillees, R.S.
1968 The Cypriote Bronze Age Pottery found in Egypt,
Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 18, Lund.
1970 Evidence for the Bichrome Wheel-Made Ware in
Egypt, Australian Journal of Biblical Archaeology
1/3, 3–27.
2001 The Cypriote Base Ring I Jug from a Secondary
Burial in Saqqara Mastaba 3507, Kungliga Vitter-
hets Historie Antikvitets Akademien Konferenser 54,
23–30.
Meskell, L.
2002 The Intersections of Identity and Politics in
Archaeology, Annual Review of Anthropology 31,
279–301.
Meskell, L. and Preucel, R.W.
2004 Identities, in: L. Meskell and R.W. Preucel (eds.),
A Companion to Social Archaeology, Malden, MA,
121–141.
The Metropolitan Museum of A rt
1999/ Departmental Accessions: Ancient Near East, Annual
2000 Report of the Trustees of the Metropolitan Museum
of Art 130, 9.
Headband with Heads of Gazelles and a Stag be-
tween Stars or Flowers, The Metropolitan Museum of
Art Online, https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collec-
tion/search/544073?sortBy=Relevance&amp;ft=ga-
zelle+diadem&amp;offset=0&amp;rpp=20&amp;-
pos=1 (last accessed 03.07.2018).
Stela of Itubaal and Masutu, The Metropolitan
Museum of Art Online, http://www.metmuseum.
org /ar t/collection /search /554792?sor tBy = Rel-
eva nce&amp;f t = 679&amp;of fset = 0&amp;r p -
p=20&amp;pos=10 (last accessed 10.07.2017).
Meulenaere, H. de
1985 Les monuments d’un haut dignitaire de la 13e dynastie,
Chronique d’Égypte 60, 75–84.
Meurer, G.
1997 Nubier in Ägypten bis zum Beginn des Neuen Reich-
es: Zur Bedeutung der Stele Berlin 14753, Ägyptolo-
gische Reihe 13, Berlin.
2001 Das Motiv der ‘Verwüstung ausländischen Terri-
toriums’, in Texten des Alten, Mittleren und Neu-
en Reiches, in: C.-B. A rnst, I. H afemann and
A. Lohwasser (eds.), Begegnungen: Antike Kulturen
im Niltal. Festgabe für Erika Endesfelder, Karl-
Heinz Priese, Walter Friedrich Reineke und Steff-
en Wenig von Schülern und Mitarbeitern, Leipzig,
325–347.
Meyer, M. de
2016 An Isolated Middle Kingdom Tomb at Dayr
al-Barsha, in: G. Miniaci and W. Grajetzki (eds.),
The World of Middle Kingdom Egypt (2000–1550 BC).
Contributions on Archaeology, Art, Religion, and
Written Sources, vol. 2, Middle Kingdom Studies 2,
London, 85–115.
Meyrat, P.
2016 Copie Conforme. Traduction et diplomatie dans
l’Égypte ancienne, in: S. Monjean-Decaudin (ed.),
La Traductologie et bien au-delà. Mélanges offerts à
Claude Bocquet, Arras, 319–344.
Michaels, G.
1996 Culture Historical Theory, in: B.M. Fagan (ed.), The
Oxford Companion to Archaeology, Oxford, 162.
Michailidou, A.
2004 On the Minoan Economy: A Tribute to ‘Minoan
Weights and Mediums of Currency’ by Arthur Evans,
British School at Athens Studies 12, 311–321.
Michel, C. and Nosch, M.-L. (eds.)
2010 Textile Terminologies in the Ancient Near East and
Mediterranean from the Third to the First Millennia
BC, Ancient Textiles Series 8, Oxford, Oakville.
Michel, C. and Veenhof, K.R.
2010 The Textiles Traded by the Assyrians in Anato-
lia (19 th–18th Centuries BC), in: C. M ichel and
M.-L. Nosch (eds.), Textile Terminologies in the An-
cient Near East and Mediterranean from the Third
to the First Millennia BC, Ancient Textiles Series 8,
Oxford, Oakville, 210–271.
Midant-R eynes, B.
2000 The Prehistory of Egypt. From the First Egyptians to
the First Pharaohs, trans. I. Shaw, Oxford.
Miell, D., M acdonald, R. and H argreaves, D.J. (eds.)
2005 Musical Communication, Oxford.
Militello, P.
2007 Textile Industry and Minoan Palaces, in: C. Gillis
and M.-L. Nosch (eds.), Ancient Textiles. Production,
Craft and Society, Oxford, 36–45.
Miller, N.F.
2008 Sweeter than Wine? The Use of the Grape in Early
Western Asia, Antiquity 82/318, 937–946.
Miller, R., McEwan, E. and Bergman, C.
1986 Experimental Approaches to Ancient Near Eastern
Archery, World Archaeology 18, 178–195.
Miniaci, G.
2019 The Material Entanglement in the ‘Egyptian Ceme-
tery’ in Kerma (Sudan, 1750–1500 BC): Appropri-
ation, Incroporation, Tinkering, and Hybridisation,
Egitto e Vicino Oriente 42, 13–32.
2020 The Middle Kingdom Ramesseum Papyri Tomb and
its Archaeological Context, Kitab: Egyptology in Fo-
cus – Material Culture of Ancient Egypt and Nubia 1,
London.
Mirelman, S.
2009 New Developments in the Social History of Music
and Musicians in Ancient Iraq, Syria, and Turkey,
Yearbook for Traditional Music 41, 12–22.
 Selected Bibliography
Miron, E.
1992 Axes and Adzes from Canaan, Prähistorische
Bronzefunde 19, Frankfurt.
Miron, R.
1990 Kamid el-Loz, vol. 10: Das ‘Schatzhaus’ im Palast-
bereich. Die Funde, Bonn.
Mitchell, P.
2018 The Donkey in Human History. An Archaeological
Perspective, Oxford.
Mittmann, S.
1997 Das Symbol der Hand in der altorientalischen Iko-
nographie, in: R. K ieffer and J. Bergman (eds.),
La Main de Dieu. Die Hand Gottes, Tübingen,
19–48.
Mlinar, C.
2001 Die Skarabäen von Tell el-Dab‘a. Eine chronologis-
che und typologische Untersuchung der Skarabäen
von Tell el-Dab‘a aus der 13.–15. Dynastie, 4 vols.,
PhD Dissertation, University of Vienna.
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,
10 th–13th of January 2002, ÖAW: Denkschrif-
ten der Gesamtakademie 35, Contributions to
the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 8,
Vienna, 107–139.
Moeller, N. and M arouard, G.
2011 Discussion of Late Middle Kingdom and Early Sec-
ond Intermediate History and Chronology in Rela-
tion to the Khayan Sealings from Tell Edfu, Ägypten
und Levante 11, 87–121.
2018 The Context of the Khyan Sealings from Tell Edfu
and Further Implications for the Second Intermedi-
ate Period in Upper Egypt, 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 Ar-
chaeological Institute and the Oriental Institute of
the University of Chicago, Vienna, July 4–5, 2014,
Ergänzungshefte zu den Jahresheften des Öster-
reichischen Archäologischen Instituts in Wien 17,
Vienna, 173–197.
Moers, G.
2013 Vom Verschwinden der Gewissheiten, Lingua
Aegyptia Studia Monographica 11, Hamburg.
Mokyr, J.
1990 The Lever of Riches; Technological Creativity and
Economic Progress, New York, Oxford.
Molenaar, A.
1956 Water Lifting Devices for Irrigation, Rome.
Mollat, H.
2007 Zur Metrologie der Gewichtsstücke Alt-Ägyptens,
Maß und Gewicht 84, 2045–2077.
419
Möller, G.
1920 Zur Datierung literarischer Handschriften, Zeit-
schrift für Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde
56, 34–43.
Monnet-Saleh, J.
1970 Les antiquités égyptiennes de Zagreb. Catalogue
raisonné des antiquités égyptiennes conserves au
Musée Archéologique de Zagreb en Yougoslavie,
Paris.
Montet, P.
1928 Byblos et l’Égypte, Paris.
1931 La stèle de l’an 400 retrouvée, Kêmi 4, 191–215.
1933 Les nouvelles fouilles de Tanis (1929–1932), Paris.
1962 Notes et documents pour servir à l’histoire des rela-
tions entré l’Égypte et la Syria XII, depot d’offrandes
à Byblos et à Tod, Kêmi 16, 76–96.
1966 Le lac sacré de Tanis, Paris.
Moor, J.C. de
1970 The Semitic Pantheon of Ugarit, Ugarit-Forschun-
gen 2, 187–228.
1986 Athtartu the Huntress (KTU 1.92), Ugarit-For-
schungen 17, 225–230.
1987 An Anthology of Religious Texts, Nisaba 16, Leiden.
1990 The Rise of Yahwism: The Roots of Israelite Mono-
theism, Leuven.
Moore, J.D.
2004 Visions of Culture. An Introduction to
Anthropological Theories and Theorists, 2nd edition,
Oxford.
Moorey, P.
1986 The Emergence of the Light, Horse-Drawn Char-
iot in the Near East c. 2000–1500 B.C., World Ar-
chaeology 18/2, 196–215.
1994 Ancient Mesopotamian Materials and Industries,
Oxford.
Moorey, P., Curtis, J.E., Hook, D.R. and Hughes, M.J.
1988 New Analyses of Old Babylonian Metalwork from
Tell Sifr, Iraq 50, 39–48.
Moortgat, A. and Moortgat-Correns, U.
1978 Tell Chuera in Nordost Syrien: Vorläufiger Bericht
über die achte Grabungskampagne 1976, Schriften
der Max Freiherr von Oppenheim-Stiftung Heft 11,
Berlin.
Moortgat-Correns, U.
1994 Die Rosette – ein Schriftzeichen? Die Geburt des
Sterns aus dem Geiste der Rosette, Altorientalische
Forschungen 21, 359–371.
Moran, W.L.
1969 Akkadian Letters, in: J.B. Pritchard (ed.), Ancient
Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament,
3rd edition, Princeton, New Jersey, 623–632.
1992 The Amarna Letters, Baltimore, London.
Moreno García, J.C.
2014 Recent Developments in the Social and Economic
History of Ancient Egypt, Journal of Ancient Near
Eastern History 1/2, 231–261.
420 Selected Bibliography
2016 Trade and Power in Ancient Egypt: Middle Egypt
in the Late Third/Early Second Millennium BC,
Journal of Archaeological Research 25/2,
87–132.
2017 Métaux, textiles et réseaux d’échanges à longue dis-
tance entre la fin du IIIe et le début du IIe millénaire:
les ‘Paddle dolls’, un indice négligé?, in: N. Favry,
C. R agazzoli, C. Somaglino and P. Tallet (eds.),
Du Sinaï au Soudan. Itinéraires d’une égyptologue.
Mélanges offerts au Professeur Dominique Val-
belle, Paris, 173–194.
2018 Elusive “Libyans”: Identities, Lifestyles and Mo-
bile Populations in NE Africa (Late 4th–Early 2nd
Millennium BCE), Journal of Egyptian History 11,
147–184.
Morenz, L.D.
2004 Apophis: On the Origin, Name, and Nature of an
Ancient Egyptian Anti-God, Journal of Near East-
ern Studies 63/3, 201–205.
2019 Sinai und Alphabetschrift. Die frühesten alpha-
betischen Inschriften und ihr kanaanäisch-ägyp-
tischer Entstehungshorizont, Studia Sinaitica 3,
Berlin.
Morgan, J. de
1895 Fouilles à Dahchour Mars–Juin 1894, Vienna
1903 Fouilles à Dahchour en 1894–1895, Vienna.
Morgan, L.
1995 Minoan Paintings and Egypt, The Case of Tell
el-Dab‘a, in: W.V. Davies and L. Schofield (eds.),
Egypt, the Aegean and the Levant, London, 29–53.
1997 The Power of the Beast: Human-Animal Symbol-
ism in Egyptian and Aegean Art, Ägypten und Le-
vante 7, 17–31.
2004 Feline Hunters in the Tell el-Dab‘a Paintings:
Iconography and Dating, Ägypten und Levante 14,
285–298.
2006 Art and International Relations: The Hunt Frieze
at Tell el-Dab‘a, in: E. Czerny, I. Hein, H. Hunger,
D. Melman and A. Schwab (eds.), Timelines. Stud-
ies in Honour of Manfred Bi­etak, vol. 2, Orientalia
Lovaniensia Analecta 149, Leuven, Paris, Dudley,
249–258.
2010a A Pride of Leopards. A Unique Aspect of the Hunt
Frieze from Tell el-Dab‘a, Ägypten und Levante 20,
263–301.
2010b An Aegean Griffin in Egypt. The Hunt Frieze at Tell
el-Dab‘a, Ägypten und Levante 20, 303–323.
Morkot, R.
2007 War and the Economy: The International ‘Arms
Trade’ in the Late Bronze Age and After, in:
T. Schneider and K. Szpakowska (eds.), Egyptian
Stories: A British Egyptological Tribute to Alan B.
Lloyd on the Occasion of his Retirement, Alter Ori-
ent Und Altes Testament 347, Münster, 169–195.
2010 The A to Z of Ancient Egyptian Warfare, Lanham,
Toronto, Plymouth.
el-Morr, Z. and Mödlinger, M.
2014 Middle Bronze Age Metal Artefacts and Metallur-
gical Practices at the Sites of Tell Arqa, Mougharet
el-Hourryieh, Yanouh and Khariji in Lebanon,
Levant 46/1, 27–42.
Morris, E.F.
2005 The Architecture of Imperialism: Military Bases and
the Evolution of Foreign Policy in Egypt’s New King-
dom, Probleme der Ägyptologie 22, Leiden.
2011 Paddle Dolls and Performance, Journal of the Amer-
ican Research Center in Egypt 47, 71–103.
2014 Mitanni Enslaved: Prisoners of War, Pride, and Pro-
ductivity in a New Imperial Regime, in: J.M. Galán,
B.M. Bryan and P.F. Dorman (eds.), Creativity
and Innovation in the Reign of Hatshepsut, Stud-
ies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 69, Chicago,
361–379.
Morschauser, S.
1997 Approbation or Disapproval? The Conclusion of the
Letter of Amenophis II to User-Satet, Viceroy of
Kush (Urk. IV, 1344.10–20), Studien zur Altägyp-
tischen Kultur 24, 203–222.
Mosko, M.
2001 Syncretistic Persons: Sociality, Agency and Person-
hood in Recent Charismatic Ritual Practices among
the North Mekeo (PNG), The Australian Journal of
Anthropology 12/3, 259–274.
Mountjoy, P.A. and Mommsen, H.
2001 Mycenaean Pottery from Qantir-Piramesse, Egypt,
The Annual of the British School at Athens 96,
123–155.
Mourad, A.-L.
2011 Siege Scenes of the Old Kingdom, Bulletin of the
Australian Centre for Egyptology 22, 135–158.
2013 Remarks on Sinuhe’s Qedem and Yaa, Göttinger
Miszellen 238, 69–84.
2014 The Procession of Asiatics, in: N. K anawati and
L. Evans, Beni Hassan, vol. 1, The Tomb of Khnum-
hotep II, Australian Centre for Egyptology: Reports
36, Oxford, 72–78.
2015 Rise of the Hyksos. Egypt and the Levant from the
Middle Kingdom to the Second Intermediate Period,
Archaeopress Egyptology 11, Oxford.
2017a The Asiatic %T. t and %T. ty w from the Early
Dynastic Period to the Middle Kingdom, in:
C. Di Biase-Dyson and L. Donovan (eds.), The
Cultural Manifestations of Religious Experience,
Ägypten und Altes Testament 85, Münster, 297–310.
2017b Asiatic and Levantine(-influenced) Products in
Nubia: Evidence from the Middle Kingdom to the
Early Second Intermediate Period, Ägypten und
Levante 27, 381–402.
2019 On Cultural Interference and the Egyptian Storm
God, 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, 225–237.
2020 Foreigners at Beni Hassan: Evidence from the Tomb
of Khnumhotep I (No. 14), Bulletin of the American
Schools of Oriental Research 384, 105–132.
Moyer, I.S.
2011 Egypt and the Limits of Hellenism, Cambridge.
2016 Isidorus at the Gates of the Temple, in: I. Ruther-
ford (ed.), Greco-Egyptian Interactions: Literature,
Translation, and Culture, 500 BC–AD 300, Oxford,
209–244.
 Selected Bibliography
Mueller, M.
2003 Die Göttin im Boot – Eine Ikonographische Unter-
suchung, in: T. Hofmann and A. Strum (eds.), Men-
schen – Bildermenschen: Kunst und Kultur im alten
Ägypten, Norderstadt, 57–126.
Müller, C.
2016 Globalization, Transnationalism, and the Local
in Ancient Greece, Oxford Handbooks Online,
http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/
oxford hb/9780199935390.001.0001/oxford hb-
9780199935390-e-42 (last accessed 18.04.2017).
Müller, H.W.
1987 Der Waffenfund von Balata-Sichem und die
Sichelschwerter, Bayerische Akademie der Wissen-
schaften: Philosophische-Historische Klasse Neue
Folge Heft 97, Munich.
1989 Der “Armreif” des Königs Ahmose und der Handge-
lenkschutz des Bogenschützen in Alten Ägypten
und Vorderasien, Sonderschrift des Deutschen
Archäologischen Institut, Abteilung Kairo 25,
Mainz am Rhein.
Müller, M a.
2008 Levantinische Beschwörungen in ägyptischer Über­
setzung, in: B. Janowski and G. Wilhelm (eds.),
Texte aus der Umwelt des Alten Testaments, vol.
4: Omina, Orakel, Rituale und Beschwörungen,
Güter­sloh, 275–293.
2010 Akkadisch in Keilschrifttexten aus Ägypten:
Deskriptive Grammatik einer Interlanguage des
späten zweiten vorchristlichen Jahrtausends an-
hand der Ramses-Briefe, Alter Orient und Altes
Testament 373, Münster.
Müller, Mi.
2012 Das Stadtviertel F/I in Tell el-Dab‘a/Auaris Multi-
kulturelles Leben in einer Stadt des späten Mittleren
Reichs und der Zweiten Zwischenzeit, PhD Disserta-
tion, University of Vienna.
2015 Late Middle Kingdom Society in a Neighborhood of
Tell el-Dab‘a/Avaris, in: Mi. Müller (ed.), House-
hold Studies in Complex Societies, Oriental Institute
Studies 10, Chicago, 339–370.
2018 Foundation Deposits and Strategies of Place-Mak-
ing at Tell el-Dab‘a/Avaris, Near Eastern Archaeo-
logy 81/3, 182–190.
Müller, V.
2002 Offering Practices in the Temple Courts of Tell
el-Dab‘a and the Levant, 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, ÖAW:
Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie 26, Contribu-
tions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean
3, Vienna, 269–295.
2008 Tell el-Dab‘a, vol. 17: Opferdeponierungen in der
Hyksoshauptstadt Auaris (Tell el-Dab‘a) vom späten
Mittleren Reich bis zum frühen Neuen Reich, ÖAW:
Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie 45, Untersu-
chungen der Zweigstelle Kairo des Österreichischen
Archäologischen Instituts 29, Vienna.
2018 Chronological Concepts for the Second Intermedi-
ate Period and their Implications for the Evaluation
421
of its Material Culture, in: I. Forstner-Müller and
N. Moeller (eds.), The Hyksos Ruler Khyan and the
Early Second Intermediate Period in Egypt. Prob-
lems and Priorities of Current Research. Proceed-
ings 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 Archäolo-
gischen Instituts in Wien 17, Vienna, 199–216.
Müller, W.M.
1906 Egyptological Researches. Results on a Journey in
1904, Washington.
Müller-Wollermann, R.
2004 Wandel durch Handel: Levantinischer Einfluss auf
Ägypten, in: M. Novák, F. Prayon and A.-M. Wittke
(eds.), Die Aussenwirkung des späthethitischen Kul-
turraumes. Güteraustausch – Kulturkontakt – Kul-
turtransfer. Akten der zweiten Forschungstagung
des Graduiertenkollegs “Anatolien und seine Nach-
barn” der Eberhard-Karls-Universität Tübingen
(20. bis 22. November 2003), Alter Orient und Altes
Testament 323, Münster, 443–451.
Münnich, M.M.
2013 The God Resheph in the Ancient Near East, Oriental
Religions in Antiquity 11, Tübingen.
Muhlestein, K.
2008 Royal Executions: Evidence bearing on the Subject
of Sanctioned Killing in the Middle Kingdom,
Journal of the Economic and Social History of the
Orient 51, 181–208.
2011 Violence in the Service of Order. The Religious
Framework for Sanctioned Killing in Ancient Egypt,
British Archaeological Reports International Series
2299, Oxford.
Muhly, J.
1999 Metallurgy, in: K.A. Bard (ed.), Encyclopedia of the
Archaeology of Ancient Egypt, London, New York,
522–527.
2009 Oxhide Ingots in the Aegean and in Egypt, in:
F. Lo Schiavo, J. Muhly, R. M addin and A. Gium-
lia-M air (eds.), Oxhide Ingots in the Central Medi-
terranean, Rome, 17–39.
Muhly, J., Stech-Wheeler, T. and M addin, R.
1977 The Cape Gelidonya Shipwreck and the Bronze Age
Metals Trade in the Eastern Mediterranean, Journal
of Field Archaeology 4/3, 353–362.
Muigai, A. and H anotte, O.
2013 The Origin of African Sheep: Archaeological and
Genetic Perspectives, The African Archaeological
Review 30/1, 39–50.
Mullen, A.
2012 Introduction: Multiple Languages, Multiple Identi-
ties, in: A. Mullen and P. James (eds.), Multilingual-
ism in the Graeco-Roman Worlds, New York, 1–35.
Munro, P.
1971 Untersuchungen zur altägyptischen Bildmetrik,
Städel-Jahrbuch N.F. 3, 7–42.
422
Murnane, W.J., Brand, P.J., K arkowski, J. and Jaeschke, R.J.
2004 The Karnak Hypostyle Hall Project: (1992–2002),
Annales du service des antiquités de l’Égypte 78,
79–127.
Murray, M.A.
1991 Archaeobotany, in: Giddy, L. and Jeffreys, D., Mem-
phis, 1990, The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 77, 5.
2000 Cereal Production and Processing, in: P.T. Nicholson
and I. Shaw (eds.), Ancient Egyptian Materials and
Technology, Cambridge, 505–536.
Murray, M.A., Boulton, N. and Heron, C.
2000 Viticulture and Wine Production, in: P.T. Nicholson
and I. Shaw (eds.), Ancient Egyptian Materials and
Technology, Cambridge, 577–608.
Musche, B.
1992 Vorderasiatischer Schmuck von den Anfängen bis
zur Zeit der Achaemeniden (ca. 10,000–330 v. Chr.),
Handbuch der Orientalistik 7, Leiden.
Musées Royaux d’A rt et d’Histoire
E.06190, KMKG-MRAH, Carmentis, https://www.
carmentis.be:443/eMP/eMuseumPlus?service=Ex-
t e r n a l I nt e r fa c e & mo d u le = c ol le c t ion& obje c -
tId=82786&viewType=detailView (last accessed
17.07.2017).
Musner, L.
2005 Kultur als Transfer. Ein regulationstheoretischer Zu-
gang am Beispiel der Architektur, in: H. Mitterbauer
and K. Scherke (eds.), Entgrenzte Räume. Kulturelle
Transfers um 1900 und in der Gegenwart, Vienna, 173–
194.
Myers-Scotton, C.
2002 Contact Linguistics: Bilingual Encounters and
Grammatical Outcomes, Oxford.
2006 Multiple Voices: An Introduction to Bilingualism,
Malden, MA.
Mynářová, J.
2015 Egyptians and the Cuneiform Tradition. On the
Palaeography of the Amarna Documents, in:
E. Devecchi, G. Müller and J. Mynářová (eds.),
Current Research in Cuneiform Palaeography.
Proceedings of the Workshop organised at the 60th
Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Warsaw
2014, Gladbeck, 89–102.
N
Na‘aman, N.
1981 Economic Aspects of the Egyptian Occupation of
Canaan, Israel Exploration Journal 31, 172–185.
1994 The Hurrians and the End of the Middle Bronze Age
in Palestine, Levant 26, 175–187.
Na‘aman, N. and Lissovksy, N.
2008 Kuntillet ‘Ajrud, Sacred Trees and the Asherah,
Tel Aviv 35, 186–208.
Nagai, M.
2006 Language Variety in the 19th Dynasty, Lingua
Aegyptia 14, 223–232.
Nagel, S.
2015 The Goddess’s New Clothes. Conceptualising an
‘Eastern’ Goddess for a ‘Western’ Audience, in:
Selected Bibliography
A. Flüchter and J. Schöttli (eds.), The Dynamics
of Transculturality. Concepts and Institutions in
Motion, Cham, 187–217.
Nakata, I.
1971 Mesopotamian Merchants and their Ethos, Journal
of Ancient Near Eastern Studies 3/2, 90–101.
Naster, P.
1975/ Le poignard de Kamosis au cabinet des médailles à
1976 Bruxelles, in: P. Naster, H. De Meulenaere and
J. Quaegebeur (eds.), Miscellanea in Honorem
Josephi Vergote, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta
6–7, Leuven, 419–426.
Naville, E.
1889 The Shrine of Saft el-Henneh and the Land of
Goshen, London.
1891 Bubastis (1887–1889), London.
1894 Ahnas el Medineh (Heracleopolis Magna), London.
1901 The Temple of Deir el Bahari, vol. 4: Plates 87–118.
The Shrine of Hathor and the Southern Hall of
Offerings, London.
1907 The XIth Dynasty Temple at Deir el-Bahari, vol. 1,
London.
1910 The XIth Dynasty Temple at Deir el-Bahari, vol. 2,
London.
1914 The Cemeteries of Abydos, vol. 1: 1909–1910. The
Mixed Cemetery and Umm El-Ga‘ab, London.
Naville, E. and Griffith, F.L.
1890 Mound of the Jew and the City of Onias, London.
Neer, W. van, Linseele, V. and Friedman, R.
2004 Animal Burials and Food Offerings at the Elite
Cemetery HK6 of Hierakonpolis, in: S. Hendrickx,
R. Friedman, K.M. Ciałowicz and M. Chłodnicki
(eds.), Egypt at its Origins. Studies in Memory of
Barbara Adams, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta
138, Leuven, Paris, Dudley, 67–130.
Negbi, O.
1970 The Hoards of Goldwork from Tell el-‘Ajjul, Studies
in Mediterranean Archaeology 25, Gothenburg.
Nelson, H.H.
1980 The Great Hypostyle Hall at Karnak, vol. 1: The
Wall Reliefs, Oriental Institute Publications 106,
Chicago.
Nelson, N.C.
1938 Prehistoric Archaeology, in: F. Boas (ed.), General
Anthropology, New York, 146–237.
Newberry, P.E.
1893a Beni Hasan, vol. 1, London.
1893b Beni Hasan, vol. 2, London.
1895 El-Bersheh, vol. 1: The Tomb of Tehutihetep, London.
1896 Beni Hasan, vol. 3, London.
1899 The Amherst Papyri in the Collection of the Right
Hon. Lord Amherst of Hackney, London.
1900 Beni Hasan, vol. 4, London.
1908 Scarabs. An Introduction to the Study of Egyptian
Seals and Signet Rings, London.
1928 The Pig and the Cult-Animal of Set, The Journal of
Egyptian Archaeology 14, 211–225.
 Selected Bibliography
1930 Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennes
du Musée du Caire. Nos. 46530–48575: Funerary
Statuettes and Model Sarcophagi, Cairo.
1932 Miscellanea. I: A Middle Kingdom Official of Pe-
lusium; 7: A Scarab of a Mayor of Heliopolis, The
Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 18, 141–142.
Nibbi, A.
1986 Lapwings and Libyans in Ancient Egypt, Oxford.
1987 Ancient Egyptian Pot Bellows and Oxhide Ingot
Shape, Oxford.
2003 Some Remarks on the Ancient Egyptian Shield,
Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache und Altertums-
kunde 130/2, 170–181.
2006 The Four Ceremonial Shields from the Tomb of
Tutankhamun, Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache
und Altertumskunde 133/1, 66–71.
Nicholson, P.T.
1993 Ancient Egyptian Faience and Glass, Aylesbury.
1995 Glassmaking and Glassworking at Amarna: Some
New Work, Journal of Glass Studies 37, 11–19.
2006 Glass Vessels from the Reign of Thutmose III and a
Hitherto Unknown Glass Chalice, Journal of Glass
Studies 48, 11–21.
2007 Brilliant Things for Akhenaten: The Production of
Glass, Vitreous Materials and Pottery at Amarna
Site O45.1, London.
2012 “Stone… That Flows”: Faience and Glass as Man-
Made Stones in Egypt, Journal of Glass Studies 54,
11–23.
Nicholson, P.T. and Henderson, J.
2000 Glass, in: P.T. Nicholson and I. Shaw (eds.), Ancient
Egyptian Materials and Technology, Cambridge,
195–226.
Nicholson, P.T. and Jackson, C.
2012 The Harrow Chalice: Early Glass or Early Fake?,
Annales du congrès de l’association internationale
pour l’histoire du verre 18, 38–43.
2013 Glass of Amenhotep II from Tomb KV55 in the
Valley of the Kings, The Journal of Egyptian Ar-
chaeology 99, 85–99.
Nicholson, P.T. and Shaw, I. (eds.)
2000 Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology,
Cambridge.
Nicolakaki-K entrou, M.
2007 Affinites between the Aegeanizing Mural Motifs
from Malkata’s Site K and Contemporary Textile
Iconography, in: J.C. Goyon and C. Cardin (eds.),
Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of
Egyptologists, vol. 2, Orientalia Lovaniensia Ana-
lecta 150, Leuven, Paris, Dudley, 1381–1390.
Niehr, H.
2014 Religion, in: H. Niehr (ed.), The Aramaeans in
Ancient Syria, Leiden, Boston, 127–204.
Nigro, L.
1998 A Human Sacrifice Associated with a Sheep
Slaughter in the Sacred Area of Ishtar at MBI Ebla?,
Journal of Prehistoric Religion 11–12, 22–36.
2009 The Eighteenth Century BC Princes of Byblos and
Ebla and the Chronology of the Middle Bronze Age,
423
in: A.M. Maila-Afeiche (ed.), Interconnections in
the Eastern Mediterranean. Lebanon in the Bronze
and Iron Ages. Proceedings of the International Sym-
posium Beirut 2008, Bulletin d’archéologie et d’archi-
tecture Libanaises Hors-Série 6, Beirut, 159–175.
Nigro, L. and Spagnoli, F.
2018 Pomegranate (Punica Granatum L.) from Motya
and its Deepest Oriental Roots, Vicino Oriente 22,
49–90.
Nissinen, M.
2003 Das kritische Potential in der altorientalischen
Prophetie, in: M. Nissinen and M. Köckert (eds.),
Propheten in Mari, Assyrien und Israel, Göttingen,
1–32.
Nolte, B.
1968 Die Glassgefässe im alten Ägypten, Berlin.
Nordström,H.-Å. and Bourriau, J.
1993 Ceramic Technology: Clays and Fabrics, Mainz.
Normark, J.
2007 Lethal Encounters. Warfare and Virtual Ideologies
in the Maya Area, in: P. Cornell and F. Fahlander
(eds.), Encounters, Materialites, Confrontations.
Archaeologies of Social Space and Interaction,
Cambridge, 165–197.
Nosch, M.-L., Koefoed, H. and Andersson Strand, E. (eds.)
2013 Textile Production and Consumption in the Ancient
Near East. Archaeology, Epigraphy, Iconography,
Ancient Textile Series 12, Oxford, Oakville.
Nour el-Din, M., Hulková, L., Sefcáková, A., Hudec, J. and
Wodzińska, A.
2016 Egyptian Mission Rescue Excavations in Tell
el-Retaba. Part 2: The Second Intermediate Period
Cemetery, Ägypten und Levante 26, 75–114.
O
O’Connor, D.
1985 The Chronology of Scarabs of the Middle Kingdom
and the Second Intermediate Period, Journal of the
Society of the Studies of Egyptian Antiquities 15,
1–41.
1997 The Hyksos Period in Egypt, in: E.D. Oren (ed.),
The Hyksos: New Historical and Archaeological
Perspectives, Philadelphia, 45–67.
Oates, D., Oates, J. and McDonald, H.
2001 Excavations at Tell Brak, vol. 2: Nagar in the Third
Millennium BC, Cambridge.
Odler, M., Uhlir, K., Jentsch, M., Griesser, M., Hölzl, R.
and Engelhardt, I.
2018 Between Centre and Periphery: Early Egyptian and
Nubian Copper Alloy Artefacts in the Collection
of the Kunsthistorisches Museum Vienna (KHM),
Ägypten und Levante 28, 419–456.
Ogden, J.
1983 Jewellery of the Ancient World, London.
1992 Interpreting the Past: Ancient Jewellery, London.
2000 Metals, in: P.T. Nicholson and I. Shaw (eds.),
Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology,
Cambridge, 148–176.
424 Selected Bibliography
Oldenburg, U.
1969 The Conflict between El and Ba’al in Canaanite
Religion, Leiden.
Oleson, J.
2000 Water-lifting, in: Ö. Wikander (ed.), Handbook of
Ancient Water Technology, Technology and Change
in History 2, Leiden, 207–302.
Olmo Lete, G. del
1999 Canaanite Religion: According to the Liturgical
Texts of Ugarit, trans. W.G.E. Watson, 2nd revised
edition, Bethesda.
2004 From Baal to Yahweh, in: The Bull in the
Mediterranean World. Myths and Cults: Barcelona,
14 November 2002–6 March 2003, Athens, Benaki
Museum, 19 March – 7 June 2003, Athens, 108–111.
Olsen, E. and Engen, O.
2007 Technological Change as a Trade-Off between So-
cial Construction and Technological Paradigms,
Technology in Society 29/4, 456–468.
Oppenheim, A.L.
1967 Letters from Mesopotamia, Chicago, London.
1973 Towards a History of Glass in the Ancient Near
East, Journal of the American Oriental Society 93/3,
259–266.
Oppenheim, A.L., Arnold, Do., Arnold, Di. and Yamamoto, K.
(eds.)
2015 Ancient Egypt Transformed: The Middle Kingdom,
New York.
Oppenheim, A.L., Brill, R.H., Barag, D. and Saldern, A. von
(eds.)
1970 Glass and Glassmaking in Ancient Mesopotamia.
An Edition of the Cuneiform Texts which Contain
Instructions for Glassmakers with a Catalogue of
Surviving Objects, Corning.
Orel, S.E.
2000 A Reexamination of the 1943–1952 Excavations at
Kom el-Hisn, Egypt, Göttinger Miszellen 179, 39–49.
Oren, E.D.
1997 The “Kingdom of Sharuhen” and the Hyksos King-
dom, in: E.D. Oren (ed.), The Hyksos: New Histor-
ical and Archaeological Perspectives, Philadelphia,
253–283.
2019 Middle Bronze Age II – Late Bronze Age II Egyp-
tian and Egyptian-Type Pottery, 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.
Oriental Institute, University of Chicago
1930 Medinet Habu, vol. 1: Earlier Historical Records of
Ramses III, Oriental Institute Publications 8, Chicago.
1986 Reliefs and Inscriptions at Karnak, vol. 4: The Battle
Reliefs of King Sety I, Oriental Institute Publications
107, Chicago.
Ortiz, F.
1947 Cuban Counterpoint. Tobacco and Sugar, trans.
H. de Onís, New York.
Osborn, D.
1998 The Mammals of Ancient Egypt, Warminster.
Osing, J.
1975 Dialekte, in: W. Helck and E. Otto (eds.), Lexikon
der Ägyptologie, vol. 1, Wiesbaden, 1074–1075.
1992 Das Grab des Nefersecheru in Zawyet Sultan,
Archäologische Veröffentlichungen des Deutschen
Archäologischen Instituts Abteilung Kairo 88,
Mainz.
Osten, H. von der
1937 The Alishar Hüyük Seasons of 1930–32, part II,
Oriental Institute Publications 29, Chicago.
Otto, A.
2016 Much More than Just a Decorative Element: The
Guilloche as Symbol of Fertility, in: J. Patrier,
P. Quenet and P. Butterlin (eds.), Mille et une em-
preintes un Alsacien en Orient. Mélanges en l’hon-
neur du 65e anniversaire de Dominique Beyer, Su-
bartu 36, Turnhout, 379–393.
Ownby, M.
2010 Canaanite Jars from Memphis as Evidence for Trade
and Political Relationships in the Middle Bronze Age,
PhD Dissertation, University of Cambridge.
2012a Les relations économiques entre l’Égypte et le Levant
durant l’âge du Bronze Moyen, Égypte, Afrique et
Orient 65, 33–38.
2012b The Importance of Imports: Petrographic Analysis of
Levantine Pottery Jars in Egypt, Journal of Ancient
Egyptian Interconnections 4/3, 23–29.
Ownby, M., Franzmeier, H., Laemmel, S. and Pusch, E.B.
2014 Late Bronze Age Imports at Qantir: Petrographic
and Contextual Analysis of Fabric Groups, Journal
of Ancient Egyptian Interconnections 6/2, 11–21.
P
Padilla, A.M. and Perez, W.
2003 Acculturation, Social Identity, and Social Cognition:
A New Perspective, Hispanic Journal of Behavioral
Sciences 25/1, 35–55.
Paice, P., Holladay Jr., J.S. and Brock E.C.
1996 The Middle Bronze Age/Second Intermediate Peri-
od Houses at Tell El-Maskhuta, in: M. Bietak (ed.),
Haus und Palast im Alten Ägypten, Internationales
Symposium 8. bis 11. April 1992 in Kairo, ÖAW:
Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie 14, Untersuch-
ungen der Zweigstelle Kairo des Österreichischen
Archäologischen Instituts 14, Vienna, 159–173.
Pamminger, P.
1992 Amun und Luxor – Der Widder und das Kultbild,
Beiträge zur Sudanforschung 5, 93–140.
Panagiotopoulos, D.
2001 Keftiu in Context: Theban Tomb Paintings as a His-
torical Source, Oxford Journal of Archaeology 20/3,
268–283.
2006 Foreigners in Egypt in the Time of Hatshepsut and
Thutmose III, in: E.H. Cline and D. O’Connor
(eds.), Thutmose III. A New Biography, Ann Arbor,
370–412.
 Selected Bibliography
Panich, L.M.
2013 Archaeologies of Persistence: Reconsidering the
Legacies of Colonialism in Native North America,
American Antiquity 78/1, 105–122.
Papadopoulos, T.J.
1998 The Late Bronze Age Daggers of the Aegean, vol. 1:
The Greek Mainland, Prähistorische Bronzefunde
6/11, Stuttgart.
Pappa, E.
2013 Postcolonial Baggage at the End of the Road: How
to Put the Genie Back into its Bottle and Where to
Go From There, Archaeological Review from Cam-
bridge 28/1, 29–50.
Pardee, D.
1987 Epigraphic and Philological Notes, Ugarit-For-
schungen 19, 204–209.
1997 The Ba‘lu Myth, in: W.W. H allo (ed.), Canoni-
cal Compositions from the Biblical World, vol. 1:
Context of Scripture, 241–274.
2002 Ritual and Cult at Ugarit, Society of Biblical Litera-
ture 10, Atlanta.
2008 Deux tablettes ougaritiques de la main d’un meme
scribe, trouvées sur deux sites distinct: RS 19.039 et
RIH 98/02, Semitica et Classica 1, 9–38.
Paris, F.
2000 African Livestock Remains from Saharan Mortuary
Contexts, in: R.M. Blench and K.C. MacDonald
(eds.), The Origins and Development of African Live-
stock: Archaeology, Genetics, Linguistics and Eth-
nography, London, 111–126.
Parker, S.B. (ed.)
1997 Ugaritic Narrative Poetry, Atlanta.
Parrot, A.
1956 Mission archéologique de Mari, vol. 1: Le temple
d’Ishtar, Bibliothèque archéologique et historique 65,
Paris.
1959 Mission archéologique de Mari, vol. 2: Le palais, do-
cuments et monuments, Bibliothèque archéologique et
historique 70, Paris.
Partridge, R.
2002 Fighting Pharaohs: Weapons and Warfare in An-
cient Egypt, Manchester.
Patch, D.C.
2005 Earrings, in: C.H. Roehrig (ed.), Hatshepsut.
From Queen to Pharaoh, New York, New Haven,
London, 201.
2015 74. Pectoral with an Opposing Seth Animal and
Hieracosphinx, in: A. Oppenheim, Do. A rnold,
Di. A rnold and K. Yamomoto (eds.), Ancient Egypt
Transformed: The Middle Kingdom, New York, 141.
Paul, A.
1990 Chemistry of Glasses, London.
Paz, S.
2007 Drums, Women, and Goddesses: Drumming and
Gender in Iron Age II Israel, Orbis Biblicus et
Orientalis 232, Fribourg.
425
Pearson, C.L., Brewer, P.W., Brown, D., Heaton, T.J.,
Hodgins, G.W.L., Jull, T., Lange, T. and Salzer, M.W.
2018 Annual Radiocarbon Record Indicates 16th Century
BCE Date for the Thera Eruption, Science Advances
4/8, https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aar8241 (last ac-
cessed 09.09.2020).
Pearson, C.L., Salzer, M.W., Wacker, L., Brewer, P.W.,
Sookdeo, A. and Kuniholm, P.
2020 Securing Timelines in the Ancient Mediterranean
using Multiproxy Annual Tree-Ring Data, Proceed-
ings of the National Academy of Sciences 117/15,
8410–8415.
Peet, T.E.
1914a The Stela of Sebek-Khu. The Earliest Record of an
Egyptian Campaign in Asia, Manchester.
1914b The Cemetries of Abydos, vol. 2: 1911–1912, London.
1923 The Rhind Mathematical Papyrus. British Museum
10057 and 10058, London.
1927 The Egyptian Writing Board B.M. 5647, bearing
Keftiw Names, in: S. Casson (ed.), Essays in Aegean
Archaeology, Presented to Sir Arthur Evans in Hon-
our of his 75th Birthday, Oxford.
1930 The Great Tomb Robberies of the 20th Egyptian
Dynasty, 2 vols., Oxford, 90–99.
Pehal, M.
2014 Interpreting Ancient Egyptian Narratives: A Struc-
tural Analysis of the Tale of Two Brothers, the Anat
Myth, the Osirian Cycle, and the Astarte Papyrus,
Brussels.
Peirce, L.
2015 The Legacy of the Hyksos: A Study in Cultural
Memory and Identity, MA Dissertation, Macquarie
University.
Pellegrini, A.
1898 Glanures, Recueil de traveaux relatifs à la philolo-
gie et à l’archéologie ègyptiennes et assyriennes 20,
86–99.
Pelt, W.P. van
2013 Revising Egypto-Nubian Relations in New King-
dom Lower Nubia: From Egyptianization to Cultur-
al Entanglement, Cambridge Archaeological Jour-
nal 23/3, 523–550.
Peltenburg, E.
1987 Early Faience: Recent Studies, Origins and Rela-
tions with Glass, in: M. Bimson and I. Freestone
(eds.), Early Vitreous Materials, British Museum
Occasional Paper 56, London, 5–29.
Penn Museum
2015 New Forensic Evidence Confirms Violent Death
of Pharaoh Senebkay, Penn Museum Press Releas-
es, https://www.penn.museum/about/press-room/
press-releases/377-senebkay-forensic-evidence
(last accessed 12.03.2020).
Perlès, C.
2013 Tempi of Change: When Soloists Don’t Play Together.
Arrythmia in ‘Continuous’ Change, Journal of Ar-
chaeological Method and Theory 20/2, 281–299.
426 Selected Bibliography
Perry, W.J.
1923 The Children of the Sun: A Study in the Early History
of Civilization, London.
1924 The Growth of Civilization, London.
Petrie, W.M.F.
1885 Tanis, vol. 1, London.
1890 Kahun, Gurob and Hawara, London.
1891 Illahun, Kahun and Gurob 1889–90, London.
1894 Tell el-Amarna, London.
1897 Six Temples at Thebes, 1896, London.
1901a The Races of Early Egypt, The Journal of the
Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and
Ireland 31, 248–255.
1901b Diospolis Parva. The Cemeteries of Abadiyeh and
Hu 1898–9, London.
1901c The Royal Tombs of the Earliest Dynasties, vol. 2,
London.
1906 Hyksos and Israelite Cities, London.
1907 Gizeh and Rifeh, London.
1909 Qurneh, London.
1914 Tarkhan, vol. 2, London.
1915 Heliopolis, Kafr Ammar and Shurafa, London.
1917a Scarabs and Cylinders with Names, London.
1917b Tools and Weapons, London.
1924 Sedment, vol. 1, London.
1924/ Glass Found in Egypt, Transactions of the British
1925 Newcomen Society 5, 72–76.
1925 Tombs of the Courtiers and Oxyrhynkhos,
London.
1926a Ancient Weights and Measures, London.
1926b Glass in the Early Ages, Journal of the Society of
Glass Technology 10, 229–234.
1930 Beth-Pelet. Tell Fara, vol. 1, London.
1931 Ancient Gaza, vol. 1, London.
1932 Ancient Gaza, vol. 2, London.
1933 Ancient Gaza, vol. 3, London.
1934 Ancient Gaza, vol. 4, London.
Petrie, W.M.F. and Brunton, G.
1924 Sedment, vol. 1, London.
Petrie, W.M.F., Griffith, F.L. and Murray, A.S.
1888 Tanis, vol. 2: Nebesheh (Am) and Defneh (Tahphes),
London.
Petrie, W.M.F. and Quibell, J.E.
1896 Naqada and Ballas 1895, London.
Petrik, M.
2011 Foreign Groups at Lahun during the Late Mid-
dle Kingdom, in: E. Bechtold, A. Gulyàs and
A. H asznos (eds.), From Illahun to Djeme: Papers
Presented in Honour of Ulrich Luft, British Archae-
ological Reports International Series 2311, 211–226.
Petruso, K.
1978 Systems of Weight in the Bronze Age Aegean,
Ann Arbor.
1981 Early Weights and Weighing in Egypt and the Indus
Valley, Museum of Fine Arts Bulletin 79, 44–51.
Petschel, S.
2004 Ehrendolch des Djehuty, in: S. Petschel and
M. von Falck (eds.), Pharao siegt immer: Krieg und
Frieden im alten Ägypten, Bönen, 87.
2011 Den Dolch betreffend. Typologie der Stichwaffen
in Ägypten von der prädynastischen Zeit bis zur
3. Zwischenzeit, Philippika Marburger Altertums-
kundliche Abhandlungen 36, Wiesbaden.
Pettinato, G.
1980 Pre-Ugaritic Documentation of Ba‘al, in:
G. R endsburg, R. A dler, M. A rfa and N.H. Win-
ter (eds.), The Bible World: Essays in Honour of
Cyrus H. Gordon, New York, 203–209.
1981 The Archives of Ebla: An Empire Inscribed with
Clay, New York.
Peust, C.
1999 Egyptian Phonology. An Introduction to the
Phonology of a Dead Language, Göttingen.
Peyronel, L.
2004 Gli strumenti di tessitura dall’Età del Bronzo all’ep-
oca persiana, Rome.
2007 Spinning and Weaving at Tell Mardikh-Ebla (Syr-
ia): Some Observations on Spindle-Whorls and
Loom-Weights from the Bronze and Iron Ages, in:
C. Gillis and M.-L. Nosch (eds.), Ancient Textiles:
Production, Craft and Society, Oxford, 26–35.
Pézard, M.
1922 Mission archéologique à Tell Nebi Mend (1921),
Syria 3, 89–115.
Pfaffenberger, B.
1988 Fetishized Objects and Humanized Nature:
Towards Towards an Anthropology of Technology,
Man 23, 236–252.
1992 Social Anthropology of Technology, Annual Review
of Anthropology 21, 491–516.
Pfälzner, P.
2013 The Elephant Hunters of Bronze Age Syria, in:
J. A ruz, S.B. Graff and Y. R akic (eds.), Cultures in
Contact. From Mesopotamia to the Mediterranean
in the Second Millennium B.C., New York, 112–131.
2016 The Elephants of the Orontes, Syria 94, 159–182.
Pfeiffer, K.
2009 The Technical Ceramic for Metallurgical Activities
in Tall Hujayrat al-Ghuzlan and Comparable Sites in
the Southern Levant, in: L. K halil and K. Schmidt
(eds.), Prehistoric ‘Aqaba, vol. 1, Rahden, 305–338.
Philip, G.
1989 Metal Weapons of the Early and Middle Bronze Ages
in Syria-Palestine, British Archaeological Reports
International Series 526, Oxford.
1995a Tell el-Dab‘a Metalwork: Patterns and Purpose,
in: W.V. Davies and L. Schofield (eds.), Egypt, the
Aegean and the Levant, London, 66–83.
1995b The Same but Different: A Comparison of the Mid-
dle Bronze Age Metalwork from Jericho and Tell
el-Dab‘a, Studies in the History and Archaeology of
Jordan 5, 523–530.
1995c Warrior Burials in the Ancient Near-Eastern Bronze
Age: The Evidence from Mesopotamia, West-
ern Iran and Syria-Palestine, in: S. Campbell and
A. Green (eds.), The Archaeology of Death in the
 Selected Bibliography
Ancient Near East, Oxbow Monograph 51, Oxford,
140–154.
2003 Weapons and Warfare in Ancient Syria-Palestine, in:
S. R ichard (ed.), Near Eastern Archaeology. A Read-
er, Winona Lake, 184–192.
2006 Tell el-Dab‘a, vol. 15: Metal and Metalworking
Evidence of the Late Middle Kingdom and Sec-
ond Intermediate Period, ÖAW: Denkschriften der
Gesamtakademie 36, Untersuchungen der Zweig-
stelle Kairo des Österreichischen Archäologischen
Instituts 26, Vienna.
Phillips, J.
2008 Aegyptiaca on the Island of Crete in their Chrono-
logical Context: A Critical Review, 2 vols., ÖAW:
Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie 49, Contribu-
tions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterra-
nean 18, Vienna.
Pierrat, G.
1994 Á propos de la date et de l’origine du trésor de Tôd, Bul-
letin de la société française d’égyptologie 130, 18–28.
Pierret, P.
1874 Recueil d’inscriptions inédites du Musée Egyptien
du Louvre, Paris.
Piggott, S.
1978 Chinese Chariotry: An Outsider’s View, in:
P. Denwood (ed.), Arts of the Eurasian Steppelands:
A Colloquy held 27–29 June 1977, London, 32–51.
1979 The First Wagons and Carts, University of London
Institute of Archaeology Bulletin 16, 3–17.
1983 The Earliest Wheeled Transport: From the Atlantic
Coast to the Caspian Sea, London.
Piggott, V.
1999 The Development of Metal Production on the Iranian
Plateau: An Archaeometallurgical Perspective, in:
V. Piggott (ed.), The Archaeometallurgy of the Asian
Old World, University Museum Monograph 89, Uni-
versity Museum Symposium Series 7, Pennsylvania,
73–106.
Pilgrim, C. von
1996 Elephantine, vol. 18: Untersuchungen in der Stadt
des Mittleren Reiches und der Zweiten Zwischen-
zeit, Archäologische Veröffentlichungen des
Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts Abteilung
Kairo 91, Cairo.
2001 The Practice of Sealing in the Administration of the
First Intermediate Period and the Middle Kingdom,
Cahiers de recherches de l’institut de papyrologie et
d’égyptologie de Lille 22, 161–172.
Pinch, G.
1983 Childbirth and Female Figurines at Deir el-Medina
and el-‘Amarna, Orientalia 52, 405–414.
1993 Votive Offerings to Hathor, Oxford.
Pitard, W.T.
2007 Just How Many Monsters Did Anat Fight (KTU 1.3
III.38–47)?, in: K.L. Younger Jr. (ed.), Ugarit at Sev-
enty-Five, Winona Lake, 75–88.
Plicht, J. van der, Romsey, C.B., Heaton, T.J., Scott, E.M.
and Talamo, S.
2020 Recent Developments in Calibration for Archaeolog-
ical and Environmental Samples, Radiocarbon 62/4,
1095–1117.
427
Podvin, J.-L.
2000 Position du mobilier funéraire dans les tombes égyp-
tiennes privies du Moyen Empire, Mitteilungen des
Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts Kairo 56, 277–334.
Polanyi, K.
1963 Ports of Trade in Early Societies, The Journal of Eco-
nomic History 23/1, 30–45.
1975 Traders and Trade, in: J.A. Sabloff and C.C. Lam-
berg -K arlovsky (eds.), Ancient Civilization and
Trade, Albuquerque, 133–154.
Polin, C.
1954 Music of the Ancient Near East, New York.
Polis, S.
2018 Linguistic Variation in Ancient Egyptian: An In-
troduction to the State of the Art (With Special At-
tention to the Community of Deir el-Medina), in:
J. Cromwell and E. Grossman (eds.), Scribal Reper-
toires in Egypt from the New Kingdom to the Early
Islamic Period, Oxford, 60–88.
Politis, T.
2001 Gold and Granulation: Exploring the Social Impli-
cations of a Prestige Technology in the Bronze Age
Mediterranean, in: A. Shortland (ed.), The Social
Context of Technological Change: Egypt and the
Near East, 1650–1550 BC, Oxford, 161–194.
Pollastrini, A.
2017 Some Remarks of the Egyptian Reception of For-
eign Military Technology during the 18th Dynasty:
A Brief Survey of the Armour, in: G. Rosati and
M.C. Guidotti (eds.), Proceedings of the XI Interna-
tional Congress of Egyptologists. Florence Egyptian
Museum Florence, 23–30 August 2015, Archaeo-
press Egyptology 19, 513–518.
Polz, D.
2007 Der Beginn des Neuen Reiches. Zur Vorgeschichte ein-
er Zeitenwende, Sonderschrift des Deutschen Archäol-
ogischen Institut, Abteilung Kairo 31, Berlin.
Poo, M.
1995 Wine and Wine Offering in the Religion of Ancient
Egypt, London.
Pope, M.H.
1955 El in the Ugaritic Texts, Vetus Testamentum Supple-
ments 2, Leiden.
1968 The Goddesses Anat and Kali, in: R. Bhavan (ed.),
Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth International Con-
gress of Orientalists. New Delhi 4–10th January,
1964, vol. 2, New Delhi, 51.
Popko, L.
2013 Late Second Intermediate Period to Early New
Kingdom, in: W. Grajetzki and W. Wendrich (eds.),
UCLA Encylcopedia of Egyptology, http://digital2.
library.ucla.edu/viewItem.do?ark=21198/zz002hgq2r
(last accessed 08.07.2019).
Porada, E.
1948 Corpus of Ancient Near Eastern Seals. The Collection
of the Pierpont-Morgan Library, vol. 1, New York.
428 Selected Bibliography
1950 Critical Reviews: Corpus of Ancient Near
Eastern Seals in North American Collections,
Journal of Cuneiform Studies 4, 155–162.
1982 Remarks on the Tôd Treasure in Egypt, in:
M. Dandamayev, I. Gershevitch, H. K lengel,
G. Komoróczy, M. Larsen and J.N. Postgate (eds.),
Societies and Languages of the Ancient Near East:
Studies in Honor of I.M. Diakonoff, Warminster,
285–303.
1984 The Cylinder Seal from Tell el-Dab‘a, American
Journal of Archaeology 88, 485–488.
Porter, B.
2004 Ishtar of Nineveh and her Collaborator, Ishtar of
Arbela, in the Reign of Assurbanipal, Iraq 66, 41–44.
Porter, B. and Moss, R.
1934 Topographical Bibliography of Ancient Egyptian
Hieroglyphic Texts, Reliefs, and Paintings, vol. 4:
Lower and Middle Egypt, Oxford.
1972 Topographical Bibliography of Ancient Egyptian
Hieroglyphic Texts, Reliefs, and Paintings, vol. 2:
Theban Temples, 2nd edition, Oxford.
Portes, A.
2003 Conclusion: Theoretical Convergencies and
Empirical Evidence in the Study of Immigrant
Transnationalism, The International Migration
Review 37/3, 874–892.
Portes, A. and Zhou, M.
1993 The New Second Generation: Segmented Assimila-
tion and its Variants, The Annals 530, 74–96.
Posener, G.
1953/ La légende égyptienne de la mer insatiable, An-
1955 nuaire de l’institut de philologie et d’histoire orien-
tales et slaves 13, 461–478.
1957 Les Asiatiques en Égypte sous les XIIe et XIIIe
dynasties (À propos d’un livre récent), Syria 34/1,
145–163.
Postgate, J.N.
1994 Early Mespotamia: Society and Economy at the
Dawn of History, London.
Potts, D.
2018 Archaeology and the Art of the Ancient Near East,
in: A. Gunter (ed.), A Companion to Ancient Near
Eastern Art, Oxford, New York, 615–636.
Pouwer, J.
1968 Translation at Sight: The Job of a Social
Anthropologist, Inaugural Address, Victoria.
Powell, M.
1995 Wine and the Vine in Ancient Mesopotamia: The
Cuneiform Evidence, in: P. McGovern, S. Fleming
and S. K atz (eds.), The Origins and Ancient History
of Wine, Philadelphia, 97–122.
Prag, K.
1978 Silver in the Levant in the Fourth Millennium B.C.,
in: R. Moorey and P. Parr (eds.), Archaeology in the
Levant: Essays for Kathleen Kenyon, Warminster,
36–45.
Prakash, R.S. and Sinha, D.K.
2008 Technological Change: Random Shock or Conscious
Choice?, Journal of High Technology Management
Research 19/1, 1–10.
Pratt, C.E.
2009 Minor Transnationalism in the Prehistoric Aegean?:
The Case of Phoenicians on Crete in the Early Iron
Age, Diaspora: A Journal of Transnational Studies
18/3, 305–335.
Prell, S.
2011 Einblicke in die Werkstätten der Residenz. Die Stein-
und Metallwerkzeuge des Grabungsplatzes Q1,
Forschungen in der Ramses-Stadt 8, Hildesheim.
2015 Die Kleinfunde des Areals R/III, Die Makrolithik
des Grabungsplatzes R/III, in Forstner-Müller, I.,
Jeuthe, C., Michel, V. and Prell, S., Grabungen des
Österreichischen Archäologischen Instituts Kairo in
Tell el-Dab‘a/Avaris, Ägypten und Levante 25, 29–48.
2019a A Ride to the Netherworld: Bronze Age Equid
Burials in the Fertile Crescent, in: M. Bietak
and S. P rell (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, 107–124.
2019b Burial Customs as Cultural Marker: A ‘Global’
Approach, 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,
125–147.
2020 Hard to Pin Down – Clothing Pins in the Eastern
Delta of Egypt and their Diffusion in the Middle
Bronze Age, Ägypten und Levante 30, 495–533.
Prell, S. and K itagawa, C.
2020 The Bone Workshop of the Armoury from the Char-
iotry of Ramesses II in Qantir-Piramesse – A Case
Study, in: A.K. Hodgkinson and C.L. Tvetmarken
(eds.), Approaches to the Analysis of Production Ac-
tivity at Archaeological Sites, Oxford, 39–49.
Prell, S. and R ahmstorf, L.
2019 Im Jenseits Handel betreiben. Area A/I in Tell el-
Dab‘a/Avaris – 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,
Contributions to the Archaeology of Egypt, Nubia and
the Levant 9, Wiesbaden, 165–197.
2021 Implications for Trade – Weights from Tell el-Dab‘a
as Indicators of Eastern Mediterranean Influence
on Egypt, in: A. K ilian and M. Zöller-Engelhardt
(eds.), Excavating the Extra-Ordinary. Challenges
& Merits of Working with Small Finds. Proceed-
ings of the International Egyptological Workshop
at Johannes Gutenberg-University Mainz, 8–9 April
2019, 133–153.
Prévalet, R.
2006/ La granulation en Méditterannée orientale à l’âge
2007 du Bronze, Les annales archéologiques arabes
syriennes 49–50, 31–44.
 Selected Bibliography
Priglinger, E.
2019 Different Aspects of Mobility and Migration during
the Middle Kingdom, Ägypten und Levante 29,
331–353.
Pritchard, J.B.
1943 Palestinian Figurines in Relation to Certain God-
desses known through Literature, American Oriental
Series 24, New Haven.
1951 Syrians as Pictured in the Paintings of the Theban
Tombs, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental
Research 122, 36–41.
Pulak, C.
2000 The Balance Weights from the Late Bronze Age
Shipwreck at Uluburun, in: C.F.E. Pare (ed.),
Metals Make the World go Round. The Supply
and Circulation of Metals in Bronze Age Europe,
Birmingham, 247–266.
2005 Das Schiffswrack von Uluburun, in: Ü. Yalçin,
C. Pulak and R. Slotta (eds.), Das Schiff von Ulubu-
run. Welthandel vor 3000 Jahren, Bochum, 55–102.
Pumpenmeier, F.
1998 Eine Gunstgabe von Seiten des Königs: ein
extrasepulkrales Schabtidepot Qen-Amuns in
Abydos, Studien zur Archäologie und Geschichte Al-
tägyptens 19, Heidelberg.
Pusch, E.B.
1990 Metallverarbeitende Werkstätten der Frühen Rames-
sidenzeit in Qantir-Piramesse/Nord, Ägypten und
Levante 1, 75–113.
1993 Pi-Ramesse-Geliebt-von-Amun. Hauptquartier Dei-
ner Streitwagen. Ägypter und Hethiter in der Del-
ta-Residenz der Ramessiden, in: A. Eggebrecht
(ed.), Pelizaeus-Museum Hildesheim. Die Ägyptische
Sammlung, Zaberns Bildbände zur Archäologie 12,
Mainz am Rhein, 126–143.
1994 Divergierende Verfahren der Metallverarbeitung in
Theben und Qantir? Bemerkungen zur Konstruktion
und Technik, Ägypten und Levante 4, 145–170.
1995 High Temperature Industries in the Late Bronze Age
Capital of Piramesse (Qantir): II. A Quasi-Industrial
Bronze Factory Installation, Tools, and Artifacts, in:
F. Esmael (ed.), Proceedings of the First International
Conference on Egyptian Mining and Metallurgy and
Conservation of Metallic Artefacts, Cairo, 121–132.
1999 Glasproduktion in Qantir, Ägypten und Levante 9,
111–120.
2004 Piramesse-Qantir. Residenz, Waffenschmied und
Drehscheibe internationaler Beziehungen, in:
S. Petschel and M. von Falck (eds.), Pharao siegt
immer. Krieg und Frieden im Alten Ägypten, Bönen,
240–263.
Pusch, E.B. and Becker, H.
2017 Fenster in die Vergangenheit. Einblicke in die Struk-
tur der Ramses-Stadt durch magnetische Prospek-
tion und Grabung, Forschungen in der Ramses-Stadt
9, Hildesheim.
Pusch, E.B. and Eggebrecht, A.
2006 Zweimal Baal aus der Ramses Stadt, in: E. Czerny,
I. Hein, H. Hunger, D. Melman and A. Schwab (eds.),
Timelines. Studies in Honour of Manfred Bietak,
429
vol. 1, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 149, Leuven,
Paris, Dudley, 249–261.
Pusch, E.B. and Jakob, S.
2003 Der Zipfel des diplomatischen Archivs Ramses‘ II.,
Ägypten und Levante 13, 143–153.
Pusch, E.B. and R ehren, T.
1999 Glass and Glass-Making at Qantir-Piramesse and
Beyond, Ägypten und Levante 9, 171–179.
2007 Hochtemperatur-Technologie in der Ramses-Stadt.
Rubinglas für den Pharao, Forschungen in der
Ramses-Stadt 6, Hildesheim.
Pym, A.
1998 Method in Translation History, Manchester.
Q
Quack, J.F.
1992 Studien zur Lehre für Merikare, Göttinger Orient-
forschungen IV. Reihe, Ägypten 23, Wiesbaden.
2007 Das Problem der HAw - n b w t, in: R. Rollinger,
A. Luther and J. Wieshöfer (eds.), Getrennte Wege?
Kommunikation, Raum und Wahrnehmung in der
Alten Welt, Frankfurt am Main, 331–362.
2010 From Group-Writing to Word Association: Represen-
tation and Integration of Foreign Words in Egyptian
Script, in: A. de Voogt and I. Finkel (eds.), The Idea
of Writing: Play and Complexity, Leiden, 71–92.
2015 Importing and Exporting Gods? On the Flow of
Deities between Egypt and its Neighboring Coun-
tries, in: A. Flüchter and J. Schöttli (eds.), The
Dynamics of Transculturality, Heidelberg, 255–277.
Quaegebeur, J.
1999 La naine et le bouquetin ou l’énigme de la barque en
albâtre de Toutankhamon, Leuven.
Quibell, J.E.
1898 The Ramesseum, London.
Quirke, S.
1986 The Regular Titles of the Late Middle Kingdom,
Revue d’égyptologie 37, 107–130.
1988 A Reconsideration of the Term x n rt, Revue d’égyp-
tologie 39, 83–106.
1994 Steinvasenfragment, in: M. Bietak and I. Hein (eds.),
Pharaonen und Fremde. Dynastien im Dunkel. Kat-
alogue der 194. Sonderausstellung des Historischen
Museums der Stadt Wien, Rathaus Wien, Volkshalle,
8. Sept. – 23. Oktober 1994, Vienna, 149.
2004 Titles and Bureaux of Egypt 1850–1700 BC, London.
2005 Lahun. A Town in Egypt 1800 BC, and the History of
its Landscape, London.
2016 Who Writes the Literary in Late Middle Kingdom
Lahun?, in: K. Ryholt and G. Barjamovic (eds.),
Problems of Canonicity and Identity Formation
in Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia, Copenhagen,
127–152.
R
R ademakers, F., R ehren, T. and Pernicka, E.
2017 Copper for the Pharaoh: Identifying Multiple Met-
al Sources for Ramesses’ Workshops from Bronze
and Crucible Remains, Journal of Archaeological
Science 80, 50–73.
430 Selected Bibliography
R ademakers, F., R ehren, T. and Pusch, E.B.
2018 Bronze Production in Pi-Ramesse: Alloying Tech-
nology and Material Use, in: E. Ben-Yosef (ed.), Min-
ing for Ancient Copper. Essays in Memory of Beno
Rothenberg, Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Ar-
chaeology Monograph Series 37, Tel Aviv, 503–525.
R aedler, C., Ditze, B., Aston, D.A., Mommsen, H., Mountjoy,
P., Pusch, E.B. and Rehren, T.
2007 Die Keramik des Grabungsplatzes Q1, vol. 2:
Schaber – Marken – Scherben, Forschungen in der
Ramses-Stadt 5, Hildesheim.
R ahmouni, A.
2008 Divine Epithets in the Ugaritic Alphabetic Texts,
trans. J.N. Ford, Handbuch der Orientalistik 1/93,
Leiden, Boston.
R ahmstorf, L.
2006 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, Studie e Materiali 13, Rome, 9–45.
R ainey, A.
1973 Amenhotep II’s Campaign to Takhsi, Journal of the
American Research Center in Egypt 19, 71–75.
1987 Egyptian Military Inscriptions and Some Histori-
cal Implications, Journal of the American Oriental
Society 107, 89–92.
2010 The Hybrid Language Written by Canaanite Scribes
in the 14th Century BCE, in: L. Kogan, S. Koslova,
S. Loesov and S. Tishchenko (eds.), Language in the
Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the 53e Rencontre
Assyriologique Internationale, vol. 1:2, Babel und
Bibel 4/2, Orientalia et Classica 30/2, Winona Lake,
851–861.
2015 The El-Amarna Correspondance. A New Edition
of the Cuneiform Letters from the Site of El-Amar-
na based on Collations of all Extant Tablets, trans.
W. Schniedewind, Handbuch der Orientalistik 1/110,
Leiden, Boston.
R ainey, A. and Cochavi-R ainey, Z.
1990 Comparative Grammatical Notes on the Trea-
ty between Ramses II and Hattusili III, in:
S. Israelit-Groll (ed.), Studies in Egyptology Pre-
sented to Miriam Lichtheim, vol. 1, Jerusalem,
796–823.
R andall IV, K.C.
2016 Origins and Comparative Performance of the Com-
posite Bow, PhD Dissertation, University of South
Africa.
R andall-M acIver, D. and Woolley, C.L.
1911 Buhen, 2 vols., Philadelphia.
R anke, H.
1932 Ištar als Heilgöttin in Ägypten, in: N.M. Griffith
and S.R.K. Glanville (eds.), Studies Presented to
F. Ll. Griffith, London, 412–418.
1935– Die ägyptischen Personennamen, 3 vols.,
1977 Glückstadt.
R ashed, M.G.
2009 Goddess Bat and the Confusion with Hathor, in: B.S.
el-Sharkawy (ed.), The Horizon. Studies in Egyptolo-
gy in Honour of M.A. Nur El-Din (10–12 April 2007),
vol. 3, Cairo, 335–348.
R atnager, S.
2003 Theorizing Bronze-Age Intercultural Trade: The
Evidence of the Weights, Paléorient 29/1, 79–92.
R aue, D.
2016/ Religion et politique au au cœur de l’ancienne Égypte:
2017 le temple d’Héliopolis, Annuaire de l’École pra-
tique des hautes études (EPHE), Section des
sciences religieuses 125, http://journals.openedi-
tion.org/asr/1834 (last accessed 25.08.2020).
R aue, D., Pilgrim, C. von, Roumelis, N., Schultz, M.,
Seidlmayer, S.J., Veldmeijer, A., A rnold, F., Cortopassi, R.,
Endenburg, E., Engel, E.-M., Gresky, J., Jones, J., Kopp, P.
and Kozak, A.
2006 Report on the 35th Season of Excavation and Resto-
ration on the Island of Elephantine, Annales du ser-
vice des antiquités de l’Égypte 82, 205–230.
R aulwing, P.
1998 Pferd, Wagen und Indogermanen – Grundlagen,
Probleme und Methoden der Streitwagenforschung,
in: W. Meid (ed.), Sprache und Kultur der Indoger-
manen. Akten der X. Fachtagung der Indogerman-
ischen Gesellschaft Innsbruck, 22.–28. September
1996, Innsbruck, 523–546.
2000 Horses, Chariots, and Indo-Europeans. Founda-
tions and Methods of Chariotry-Research from the
View of Comparative Indo-European Linguistics,
Archaeolingua Series Minor 13, Budapest.
R aulwing, P. and Clutton-Brock, J.
2009 The Buhen Horse: Fifty Years after Its Discovery,
Journal of Egyptian History 2/1, 1–106.
al-R awi, A.
2011 Die Bronzewaffen aus der Königsgruft von
Tall Mišrife/Qatna: Räumliche Verteilung und
funktionales Spektrum, in: P. Pfälzner (ed.), Qa-
tna Studien, vol. 1: Interdisziplinäre Studien zur
Königsgruft von Qatna, Qatna Studien 1, Wiesbaden,
311–327.
2015 The Special Role of the Royal Tomb of Qatna in Re-
gard to the Bronze Weapons in Syria and the Levant
during the Second Millennium BC, in: P. Pfälzner
and M. al-M aqdissi (eds.), Qaṭna and the Net-
works of Bronze Age Globalism. Proceedings of an
International Conference in Stuttgart and Tübingen
in October 2009, Qatna Studien Supplementa 2,
Wiesbaden, 345–356.
R eade, J.
2003 Problems of Third-Millennium-B.C. Chronology,
in: J. A ruz (ed.), Art of the First Cities. The Third
Millennium B.C. from the Mediterranean to the
Indus, New York, New Haven, London, 496–498.
R eali, C.
2017 Egyptian-Levantine Cultural Contacts: Consider-
ations about the Iconography of Female Deities on
 Selected Bibliography
the Sealings from Avaris and Cultural Diversities,
Claroscuro 16, 1–51.
R edding, R.
1991 The Role of the Pig in the Subsistence System of
Ancient Egypt: A Parable on the Potential of Faunal
Data, in: P.J. Crabtree and K. Ryan (eds.), Animal
Use and Culture Change, Philadelphia, 20–30.
2015 The Pig and the Chicken in the Middle East:
Modeling Human Subsistence Behavior in the Ar-
chaeological Record Using Historical and Animal
Husbandry Data, Journal of Archaeological Re-
search 23, 325–368.
R edfield, R., Linton, R. and Herskovits, M.J.
1936 Memorandum for the Study of Acculturation,
American Anthropologist 38/1, 149–152.
R edford, D.B.
1965 The Coregency of Tuthmosis III and Amenophis II,
The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 51, 107–122.
1970 The Hyksos Invasion in History and Tradition,
Orientalia 39/1, 1–51.
1979 A Gate Inscription from Karnak and Egyptian
Involvement in Western Asia during the Early
18th Dynasty, Journal of the American Oriental So-
ciety 99/2, 270–287.
1984 Akhenaten the Heretic King, Princeton.
1986a Egypt and Western Asia in the Old Kingdom, Jour-
nal of the American Research Center in Egypt 23,
125–143.
1986b Pharaonic King-lists, Annals and Day-books. A
Contribution to the Study of the Egyptian Sense of
History, Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiqui-
ties 4, Mississauga.
1990 The Sea and the Goddess, in: S. Israelit-Groll (ed.),
Studies in Egyptology Presented to M. Lichtheim,
Jerusalem, 824–835.
1992 Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times,
Princeton.
1997 Textual Sources for the Hyksos Period, in:
E.D. Oren (ed.), The Hyksos: New Historical and
Archaeological Perspectives, Philadelphia, 1–44.
2003 The Wars in Syria and Palestine of Thutmose III, Cul-
ture and History of the Ancient Near East 16, Leiden.
R edmount, C.
1989 On an Egyptian/Asiatic Frontier: An Archaeologi-
cal History of the Wadi Tumilat, PhD Dissertation,
The University of Chicago.
1995a Ethnicity, Pottery, and the Hyksos at Tell El-
Maskhuta in the Egyptian Delta, The Biblical
Archaeologist 58/4, 182–190.
1995b Pots and Peoples in the Egyptian Delta: Tell
El-Maskhuta and the Hyksos, Journal of Mediterra-
nean Archaeology 8/2, 61–89.
R eese, D.
2002 On the Incised Cattle Scapulae from the East Med-
iterranean and Near East, Bonner Zoologische Bei-
träge 50/3, 183–198.
R eeves, C.
1986 Two Name-Beads of Hatshepsut and Senenmut from
the Mortuary Temple of Queen Hatshepsut at Deir
el-Bahri, Antiquaries Journal 66, 387–388.
431
R eeves, N. and Taylor, J.
1992 Howard Carter. Before Tutankhamun, London.
R égen, I. and Soukiassian, G.
2008 Gebel el-Zeit, vol. 2: Le Matériel inscrit, Moyen
Empire–Nouvel Empire, Fouilles de l’institut fran-
çais d’archéologie orientale du Caire 57, Cairo.
R egev, J., Gadot, Y., Roth, H., Uziel, J., Chalaf, O.,
Ben-A mi, D., Mintz, E., R egev, L. and Boaretto, E.
Forth. Middle Bronze Age Jerusalem: Recalculat-
ing its Character and Chronology, Radiocarbon,
forthcoming.
R ehren, T.
1997 Ramesside Glass Colouring Crucibles, Archaeo-
metry 39, 355–368.
2014 Glass Production and Consumption between Egypt,
Mesopotamia and the Aegean, in: P. Pfälzner,
H. Niehr, E. Pernicka, S. Lange and T. Köster (eds.),
Contextualising Grave Inventories in the Ancient
Near East, Qatna Studien Supplementa 3, Wiesbaden,
217–223.
2016 Another Order for Glass – or: How Much Glass does
Pharaoh Need?, in: H. Franzmeier, T. Rehren and
R. Schulz (eds.), Mit archäologischen Schichten
Geschichte schreiben. Festschrift für Edgar B. Pusch
zum 70. Geburstag, Forschungen in der Ramses-Stadt
10, Hildesheim, 257–267.
R ehren, T. and Pusch, E.B.
1997 New Kingdom Glass Melting Crucibles from Qan-
tir-Piramesses, The Journal of Egyptian Archaeo-
logy 83, 127–141.
2005 Late Bronze Age Glass Production at Qantir-Pi-
ramesse, Egypt, Science 308/5729, 1756–1758.
2007 Glas für den Pharao – Glasherstellung in der
Spätbronzezeit des Nahen Ostens, in: G. Wagner
(ed.), Einführung in die Archäometrie, Berlin,
215–235.
R eimer, P.J., Austin, W.E.N., Bard, E., Bayliss, A.,
Blackwell, P.G., Bronk R amsey, C., Butzin, M., Cheng,
H., Edwards, R.L., Friedrich, M., et al.
2020 The IntCal20 Northern Hemisphere Radiocarbon
Age Calibration Curve (0–55 Cal kBP), Radiocar-
bon 62/4, 725–757.
R eisner, G.A.
1905 The Hearst Medical Papyrus. Hieratic Text in
17 Fascimile Plates in Collotype with Introduction
and Vocabulary, Leipzig.
1923 Excavations at Kerma, parts IV–V, Cambridge.
1942 A History of the Giza Necropolis, vol. 1, Cambridge,
Oxford, London.
R enfrew, C.
1986a Introduction: Peer-Polity Interaction and Socio-Po-
litical Change, in: C. R enfrew and J.F. Cherry
(eds.), Peer Polity Interaction and Socio-Political
Change, Cambridge, 1–18.
1986b Varna and the Emergence of Wealth in Prehistor-
ic Europe, in: A. Appadurai (ed.), The Social Life
of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective,
Cambridge, 141–168.
432 Selected Bibliography
R enger, J.
1970 Zur Lokalisierung von Karkar, Archiv für Orientfor-
schung 23, 73–78.
R ey, F.E.
2010 Weapons, Technological Determinism, and Ancient
Warfare, in: G. Fagan and M. Trundle (eds.), New
Perspectives on Ancient Warfare, Leiden, Boston,
21–56.
R ich, S.A.
2017 Cedar Forests, Cedar Ships: Allure, Lore, and Meta-
phor in the Mediterranean Near East, Oxford.
R ichards, F.
2001 The Anra Scarab: An Archaeological and Historical
Approach, British Archaeological Reports Interna-
tional Series 919, Oxford.
R ichards, J.
2005 Society and Death in Ancient Egypt: Mortuary Land-
scapes of the Middle Kingdom, Cambridge.
R ichter, D.K.
1992 Review: The Middle Ground: Indians, Empires, and
Republics in the Great Lakes Region, 1650–1815 by
Richard White, The William and Mary Quarterly
49/4, 715–717.
R icke, H.
1935 Der ‘Hohe Sand’ in Heliopolis, Zeitschrift für Ägyp-
tische Sprache und Altertumskunde 71, 107–111.
R iederer, J.
1982 Die naturwissenschaftliche Untersuchung der
Bronzen der Staatlichen Sammlung Ägyptischer
Kunst in München, Berliner Beiträge zur Archäo-
metrie 7, 5–34.
R iefstahl, E.
1944 Patterned Textiles in Pharaonic Egypt, Brooklyn.
R ikala, M.
2007 Once More with Feeling: Seth the Divine Trickster,
Studia Orientalia Electronica 101, 219–240.
R istvet, L.
2015 Ritual, Performance, and Politics in the Ancient
Near East, New York.
R itner, R.K.
1993 The Mechanics of Ancient Egyptian Magical Prac-
tice, Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 54,
Chicago.
2006 ‘And Each Staff Transformed into a Snake’: The
Serpent Wand in Ancient Egypt, in: K. Szpakowska
(ed.), Through a Glass Darkly. Magic, Dreams and
Prophecy in Ancient Egypt, Swansea, 205–225.
R itner, R.K. and Moeller, N.
2014a The Ahmose Tempest Stela: An Ancient Egyptian
Account of a Natural Catastrophe, Rome La Sapienza
Studies on the Archaeology of Palestine and Trans-
jordan 11, 61–82.
2014b The Ahmose Tempest Stela, Thera and Comparative
Chronology, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 73/1,
1–19.
R izkana, I. and Seeher, J.
1989 Maadi, vol. 3: The Non-Lithic Finds and the Struc-
tural Remains of the Predynastic Settlement,
Archäologische Veröffentlichungen des Deutschen
Archäologischen Instituts Abteilung Kairo 80,
Mainz.
Roberts, A.
1997 Hathor Rising: The Power of the Goddess in Ancient
Egypt, Rochester.
Roberts, B., Thornton, C. and Pigott, V.
2009 Development of Metallurgy in Eurasia, Antiquity 83,
1012–1022.
Roberts, C.M.
2011 Practical Identities: On the Relationship be-
tween Iconography and Group Identity, in:
L. A mundsen-Meyer, N. Engel and S. Pickering
(eds.), Identity Crisis: Archaeological Perspectives
on Social Identity. Proceedings of the 42nd (2010)
Annual Chacmool Archaeology Conference, Univer-
sity of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Calgary, 86–95.
Robins, G.
1996 Dress, Undress and the Representation of Fertility
and Potency in New Kingdom Egyptian Art,
in: N.B. K ampen (ed.), Sexuality in Ancient Art:
Near East, Egypt, Greece, and Italy, Cambridge,
New York, 27–40.
1997 The Art of Ancient Egypt, Cambridge.
2015 Gender and Sexuality, in: M.K. H artwig (ed.), A
Companion to Ancient Egyptian Art, Chichester,
120–140.
Robins, G. and Shute, C.
1987 The Rhind Mathematical Papyrus, London.
Rocha, J., Chen, S. and Beja-Pereira, A.
2011 Molecular Evidence for Fat-Tailed Sheep Domesti-
cation, Tropical Animal Health and Production 43,
1237–1243.
Roeder, G.
1912 Der Name und das Tier des Gottes Set, Zeitschrift
für Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 50,
84–86.
1913– Ägyptische Inschriften aus den Staatlichen Museen
1924 zu Berlin, vols. 1–2, Berlin.
Roehrig, C.H.
1990 The Eighteenth Dynasty Titles Royal Nurse (mn‘t
nswt), Royal Tutor (mn‘t nswt), and Foster Brother/
Sister of the Lord of the Two Lands (sn/sn‘t mn‘ n nb
t3wy), PhD Dissertation, University of California,
Berkeley.
2005a Vase in the Form of a Female Lute Player, in:
C.H. Roehrig (ed.), Hatshepsut: From Queen to
Pharaoh, New York, New Haven, London, 238–239.
2005b Leaf from the Hearst Medical Papyrus, in:
C.H. Roehrig (ed.), Hatshepsut. From Queen to
Pharaoh, New York, New Haven, London, 265.
2005c Foundation Deposits for the Temple of Hatshepsut
at Deir el-Bahri, in: C.H. Roehrig (ed.), Hatshepsut.
From Queen to Pharaoh, New York, New Haven,
London, 141–146.
 Selected Bibliography
Rogers, E.M.
2003 Diffusion of Innovations, 5th edition, New York.
Rogers, J.D.
1993 The Social and Material Implications of Culture
Contact on the Northern Plains, in: J.D. Rogers and
S.M. Wilson (eds.), Ethnohistory and Archaeology.
Approaches to Postcontact Change in the Americas,
New York, 73–88.
Röllig, W.
1974 Politische Heiraten im alten Orient, Saeculum 25,
11–23.
Romano, J.
1989 The Bes-Image in Pharaonic Egypt, PhD Disserta-
tion, New York University.
Rommelaere, C.
1991 Les chevaux du Nouvel Empire égyptien. Origines,
races, harnachement, Brussels.
Rosenfeld, A., Ilani, S. and Dvorachek, M.
1997 Bronze Alloys from Canaan during the Middle
Bronze Age, Journal of Archaeological Science 24,
857–864.
Rossel, S., M arshall, F., Peters, J., Pilgrim, T., A dams,
M.D. and O’Connor, C.
2008 Domestication of the Donkey: Timing, Processes,
and Indicators, Proceedings of the National Acad-
emy of Sciences of the United States of America
105/10, 3715–3720.
Rossini, M. and Toggweiler, M.
2014 Cultural Transfer: An Introduction, Word and Text. A
Journal of Literary Studies and Linguistics 4/2, 5–9.
Rössler, O.
1966 Das ältere ägyptische Umschreibungssytem für
Fremdnamen und seine sprachwissenschaftlichen
Lehren, in: J. Lukas (ed.), Neue Afrikanistische
Studien, Hamburger Beiträge zur Afrika-Kunde 5,
Hamburg, 218–229.
Roth, A.
2005 Grips from a Dagger Handle of Thutmose I, in:
C.H. Roehrig (ed.), Hatshepsut: From Queen to
Pharaoh, New York, New Haven, London, 15.
Rothman, M.
2001 The Local and the Regional, in: M.S. Rothman
(ed.), Uruk, Mesopotamia & Its Neighbours: Cross-
Cultural Interactions in the Era of State Formation,
Santa Fe, 3–26.
Rouse, I.
1958 The Inference of Migrations from Anthropological
Evidence, in: R. Thompson (ed.), Migrations in New
World Culture History, University of Arizona Bulle-
tin 29, Tuscon, 63–68.
Rouse, R.
2002 Mexican Migration and the Social Space of Post-
modernism, in: J. Inda and R. Rosaldo (eds.), The
Anthropology of Globalization: A Reader, Malden,
MA, Oxford, 157–171.
433
Routledge, B.
2000 Seeing Through Walls: Interpreting Iron Age I
Architecture at Khirbat al-Mudayna al-‘Aliya, Bul-
letin of the American Schools of Oriental Research
319, 37–70.
Roux, V.
2003 A Dynamic Systems Framework for Studying
Technological Change: Application to the Emer-
gence of the Potter’s Wheel in the Southern Le-
vant, Journal of Archaeological Method and The-
ory 10/1, 1–30.
2008 Evolutionary Trajectories of Technological Traits
and Cultural Transmission. A Qualitative Ap-
proach to the Emergence and Disappearance of
the Ceramic Wheel-Fashioning Technique in the
Southern Levant, in: M. Stark, B. Browser and L.
Horne (eds.), Cultural Transmission and Materi-
al Culture. Breaking Down Boundaries, Tucson,
82–104.
2009 Le tour au Bronze Moyen II dans le Levant sud:
Étude technologique des céramique de Beth
Shean, The Arkeotek Journal 3, http://www.
t hea rkeotekjou r nal.org /td m /A rkeotek /f r/a r-
chives/2009/4Roux.xml (last accessed 15.04.2019).
2013 Spreading of Innovative Technical Traits and Cu-
mulative Technical Evolution: Continuity or Dis-
continuity?, Journal of Archaeological Method and
Theory 20/2, 312–330.
2016 Ceramic Manufacture: The Chaîne Opératoire Ap-
proach, in: A. Hunt (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of
Archaeological Ceramic Analysis, Oxford, 101–113.
Roux, V. and Corbetta, D.
1989 The Potter’s Wheel. Craft Specialization and Tech-
nical Competence, New Delhi, Bombay, Calcutta.
Roux, V. and Miroschedji, P. de
2009 Revisiting the History of the Potter’s Wheel in the
Southern Levant, Levant 41, 155–173.
Rowe, A.
1929 Palestine Expedition of the Museum of the Univer-
sity of Pennsylvania. Third Report – 1928 Season,
Quarterly Statement of the Palestine Exploration
Fund 61, 78–94.
1930 The Topography and History of Beth-Shean,
Philadelphia.
1940 The Four Canaanite Temples of Beth-Shan, vol. 1:
The Temples and Cult Objects, Publications of the
Palestine Section of the Museum of the University
of Pennsylvania 2, Philadelphia.
Rowlands, M.J.
1982 Processual Archaeology as Historical Social
Science, in: C. R enfrew, M.J. Rowlands and
B. Seagraves (eds.), Theory and Explanation in
Archaeology, New York, 155–174.
1987 Centre and Periphery: A Review of a Concept, in:
M.J. Rowlands, M. Larsen and K. K ristiansen
(eds.), Centre and Periphery in the Ancient World,
Cambridge, 1–11.
Royce, A.P.
1982 Ethnic Identity: Strategies of Diversity,
Bloomington.
434 Selected Bibliography
Rutherford, I.
2001 The Song of the Sea (ša a.ab.ba sìr): Thoughts on
KUB 45.63, in: G. Wilhelm (ed.), Akten des IV. In-
ternationalen Kongresses für Hethitologie Würz-
burg, 4.–8. Oktober 1999, Studien zu den Boğazköy-
Texten 45, Wiesbaden, 598–609.
Ryder, M.L.
1984 Skin, Hair and Cloth Remains from the Ancient
Kerma Civilizations of Northern Sudan, Journal of
Archaeological Science 11, 477–482.
1987 Sheepskin from Ancient Kerma, Northern Sudan,
Oxford Journal of Archaeology 6/3, 369–380.
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.
2018 Seals and History of the 14th and 15th Dynasties, in:
I. Forstner-Müller and N. Moeller (eds.), The
Hyksos Ruler Khyan and the Early Second Interme-
diate Period in Egypt. Problems and Priorities of
Current Research. Proceedings of the Workshop of
the Austrian Archaeological Institute and the Ori-
ental Institute of the University of Chicago, Vienna,
July 4–5, 2014, Ergänzungshefte zu den Jahresheft-
en des Österreichischen Archäologischen Instituts
in Wien 17, Vienna, 235–276.
R zepka, S., Hudec, J., Jarmużek, Ł., Dubcová, V., Hulková, L.,
Odler, M., Wodzińska, A., Trzciński, J., Šefčáková, A.,
Sójka, P., Fulajtár, E., Černý, M. and Tirpák, J.
2015 From Hyksos Settlers to Ottoman Pipe Smokers. Tell
el-Retaba 2014, Ägypten und Levante 25, 97–166.
R zepka, S., Hudec, J., Jarmużek, Ł., Dubcová, V., Hulková, L.,
Wodzińska, A. and Šefčáková, A.
2017 From Hyksos Tombs to Late Period Tower Houses.
Tell el-Retaba – Seasons 2015–2016, Ägypten und
Levante 27, 19–85.
R zepka, S., Hudec, J., Wodzińska, A., Jarmużek, Ł.,
Hulková, L., Dubcová, V., Piorun, M. and Šefčáková, A.
2014 Tell el-Retaba from the Second Intermediate Period
till the Late Period. Results of the Polish-Slovak Ar-
chaeological Mission, Seasons 2011–2012, Ägypten
und Levante 24, 41–122.
R zepka, S., Wodzińska, A., M alleson, C., Hudec, J., Jar-
mużek, Ł., M isiewicz , K., M ałkowski, W. and Bogacki, M.
2011 New Kingdom and the Third Intermediate Peri-
od in Tell el-Retaba: Results of the Polish-Slovak
Archaeological Mission, Seasons 2009–2010,
Ägypten und Levante 21, 129–184.
R zeuska, T.I.
2006 The Case of Beer Jars with Ashes, in: E. Czerny,
I. Hein, H. Hunger, D. Melman and A. Schwab
(eds.), Timelines. Studies in Honour of Manfred Bietak,
vol. 3, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 149, Leuven,
Paris, Dudley, 291–298.
S Engineering Materials and Structures 27, 637–646.
Saad, Z.
1947 Royal Excavations at Saqqara and Helwan, 1941–45,
Supplément aux annales du service des antiquités de
l’Égypte 3, Cairo.
1951 Royal Excavations at Helwan (1945–1947),
Supplément aux annales du service des antiquités de
l’Égypte 14, Cairo.
1969 The Excavations at Helwan. Art and Civilization in
the First and Second Egyptian Dynasties, Oklahoma.
Sabbahy, F.M.
1986 Prelude to Empire. Ancient Egyptian Military Poli-
cy and Activity in the Early New Kingdom, PhD Dis-
sertation, University of California, Berkeley.
Sabbahy, L.
2013 Depictional Study of Chariot Use in New Kingdom
Egypt, in: A. Veldmeijer and S. Ikram (eds.), Chas-
ing Chariots: Proceedings of the First International
Chariot Conference (Cairo, 2012), Leiden, 191–202.
2018 Moving Pictures: Context of Use and Iconography
of Chariots in the New Kingdom, in: A. Veldmeijer
and S. Ikram (eds.), Chariots in Ancient Egypt. The
Tano Chariot, A Case Study, Leiden, 120–149.
Sadek, A.I.
1988 Popular Religion in Egypt during the New King-
dom, Hildesheimer Ägyptologische Beiträge 27,
Hildesheim.
Saghieh, M.
1983 Byblos in the Third Millennium B.C.: A Reconstruc-
tion of the Stratigraphy and a Study of the Cultural
Connections, Warminster.
Saidah, R.
1993/ Beirut in the Bronze Age: The Kharji Tombs,
1994 Berytus 41, 137–270.
Sala, M.
2015 Early and Middle Bronze Age Temples at Byblos:
Specificity and Levantine Interconnections, in: A.M.
Maila-Afeiche (ed.), Cult and Ritual on the Levantine
Coast and its Impact on the Eastern Mediterranean
Realms. Proceedings of the International Syposium
Beirut 2012, Bulletin d’archéologie et d’architecture
Libanaises Hors-Série 10, Beirut, 31–58.
Saleh, M. and Sourouzian, H.
1987 Catalogue officiel. Musée égyptien du Caire, Mainz.
Samkange, S.
1971 African Saga: A Brief Introduction to African His-
tory, Nashville, New York.
Sandman, M.
1938 Texts from the Time of Akhenaten, Bibliotheca
Aegyptiaca 8, Brussels.
Sandor, B.I.
2004a The Rise and Decline of the Tutankhamun-Class
Chariot, Oxford Journal of Archaeology 23,
153–175.
2004b Tutankhamun’s Chariots: Secret Treasures of
Engineering Mechanics, Fatigue and Friction of
Santley, R., Yarborough, C. and H all, B.
1987 Enclaves, Ethnicity, and the Archaeological Record
at Matacapan, in: R. Auger, M. Glass, S. M acEach-
 Selected Bibliography
ern and P.H. McCartney (eds.), Ethnicity and
Culture. Proceedings of the 18th Annual Chacmool
Conference of the Archaeological Association of the
University of Calgary, Calgary, 85–100.
Saout, F. le
1987 Un magasin à onguents de Karnak et le problème du
nom du Tyr: mise au point, Karnak 8, 325–338.
Şare, T.
2017 Women and Music in Ancient Anatolia: The
Iconographic Evidence, in: E. Kozal, M. A kar ,
Y. H effron, Ç. Çilingiroğlu, T.E. Şerifoğlu,
C. Çakirlar, S. Ünlüsoy and E. Jean (eds.), Ques-
tions, Approaches, and Dialogues in Eastern
Mediterranean Archaeology. Studies in Honor
of Marie-Henriette and Charles Gates, Münster,
555–580.
Saretta, P.
2016 Asiatics in Middle Kingdom Egypt. Perceptions and
Reality, London, New York.
Sartori, N.
2009 Die Siegel aus Areal F/II in Tell el-Dab‘a erster
Vorbericht, Ägypten und Levante 19, 281–292.
Sass, B.
1988 The Genesis of the Alphabet and its Development
in the Second Millennium B.C., Ägypten und Altes
Testament 13, Wiesbaden.
2000 The Small Finds, in: I. Finkelstein, D. Ussishkin and
B. H alpern (eds.), Megiddo, the 1992–1996 Seasons,
Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeo-
logy 3, Tel Aviv.
Sasson, J.M.
1969 The Military Establishments at Mari, Rome.
1994 The Posting of Letters with Divine Messages, Flori-
legium Marianum 2, 299–316.
Satzinger, H.
1994 Das ägyptische “Aleph”-Phonem, in: M. Bietak,
J. Holaubek, H. Mukarovsky and H. Satzinger
(eds.), Zwischen den beiden Ewigkeiten. Festschrift
Gertrud Thausing, Vienna, 191–205.
Säve-Soderbergh, T.
1951 The Hyksos Rule in Egypt, The Journal of Egyptian
Archaeology 37, 53–71.
1952 The ap rw as Vintners in Egypt, Orientalia Sue-
cana 1, 5–6.
1953 On Egyptian Representations of Hippopotamus
Hunting as a Religious Motive, Horae Söderblomi-
anae 3, Lund.
1957 Four Eighteenth Dynasty Tombs, vol. 1, Oxford.
1989 Middle Nubian Sites, The Scandinavian Joint Ex-
pedition to Sudanese Nubia Publications 4/1–2,
Uddevalla.
Säve-Soderbergh, T. and Troy, L.
1991 New Kingdom Pharaonic Sites. The Finds and the
Sites, The Scandinavian Joint Expedition to Suda-
nese Nubia 5/2, Uppsala.
el-Sawi, A.
1979 Excavations at Tell Basta. Report of Seasons
1967–1971 and Catalogue of Finds, Prague.
435
Sayce, A.H.
1933 The Astarte Papyrus and the Legend of the Sea,
The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 19/1, 56–59.
el-Sayed, R.
1979 Quelques precisions sur l’histoire de la province
d’Edfou à la IIe Période Intermédiaire (étude des
stèles JE 38917 et 46988 du Musée du Caire, Bulle-
tin de l’institut français d’archéologie orientale du
Caire 79, 167–207.
Scandone-M atthiae, G.
1991 Hathor Signora di Biblo e la Baalat Gebal, in:
E. Acquaro (ed.), Atti del II Congresso internazio-
nale di studi fenci e punici, Roma, 9–14 novembre
1987, vol. 1., Collezione di Studi fenici 30, Roma,
401–409.
Schaeffer, C.F.A.
1929 Les fouilles de Minet-El-Beida et de Ras Shamra
(campagnes du printemps 1929), Syria 10/4, 285–297.
1931 Les fouilles de Minet-El-Beida et de Ras Shamra.
Deuxième campagne (printemps 1930), Syria 12/1,
1–14.
1934 Les fouilles de Ras-Shamra. Cinquième campagne
(printemps 1933): Rapport sommaire, Syria 15/2,
105–136.
1936 Les fouilles de Ras Shamra-Ugarit. Septième cam-
pagne (printemps 1935), Syria 17/2, 105–149.
1939 Ugaritica, vol. 1: Études relatives aux decouvertes
de Ras Shamra, Mission de Ras Shamra 3, Paris.
1949 Ugaritica, vol. 2: Nouvelles études relatives aux de-
couvertes de Ras Shamra, Mission de Ras Shamra 5,
Paris.
1956 Ugaritica, vol. 3: Sceaux et cylindres hittites, épée
gravée du cartouche Mineptah, tablettes chypro-mi-
noennes et autres découvertes nouvelles de Ras
Shamra, Mission de Ras Shamra 8, Paris.
1962 Ugaritica, vol. 4: Découvertes des XVIIIe et XIXe
campagnes, 1954–1955, fondements préhistorique
d’Ugarit et nouveaux sondages, Mission de Ras
Shamra 15, Paris.
Schaeffer-Forrer, C.F.A.
1983 Corpus des cylinders-sceaux de Ras Shamra-Ugarit
et d’Enkomi-Alasia, Paris.
Schäfer, H.
1929 König Amenophis II als Meisterschütze, Orienta-
lische Literaturzeitung 32, 233–244.
1931 Weiteres zum Bogenschießen im alten Ägypten,
Orientalische Literaturzeitung 34, 89–96.
Scharff, A.
1926 Vorgeschichtliches zur Libyerfrage, Zeitschrift für
Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 61, 16–30.
1936 Der historische Abschnitt der Lehre für König
Merikarê, Sitzungsberichte der Bayerischen Akade-
mie der Wissenschaften 8, Munich.
Scharff, A. and Moortgat, A.
1950 Ägypten und Vorderasien im Altertum, Munich.
Scheel, B.
1986 Studien zum Metallhandwerk im Alten Ägypten II.
Handlungen und Beischriften in den Bildpro-
436 Selected Bibliography
grammen der Gräber des Mittleren Reiches, Studien
zur Altägyptischen Kultur 13, 181–205.
1988a Metallverarbeitung in Theben: Der Fund ein-
er Werkstätte aus der Ptolemäerzeit am Tempel
Sethos I, Archäologie in Deutschland 2, 18–23.
1988b Fundobjekte einer ptolemäerzeitlichen Metallver-
arbeitungsstätte in Theben und Vergleichsfunde
anderer vorderorientalischer Ausgrabungsplätze,
Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur 15, 243–254.
1989 Egyptian Metalworking and Tools, Princes
Risborough.
Schein, E.
1984 Coming to a New Awareness of Organizational
Culture, Sloan Management Review 25/2, 3–16.
1990 Organizational Culture, American Psychologist
45/2, 109–119.
Schenkel, W.
1962 Frühmittelägyptische Studien, Bonn.
1990 Einführung in die altägyptische Sprachwissenschaft,
Darmstadt.
Schiaparelli, E.
1927 La tomba intatta dell’architetto Kha nella necropoli
di Tebe, Turin.
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 Confer-
ence on MB IIA Ceramic Material in Vienna, 24th–
26th of January 2001, ÖAW: Denkschriften der
Gesamtakademie 26, Contributions to the Chrono-
logy of the Eastern Mediterranean 3, Vienna,
329–352.
2006 The Statue of an Asiatic Man from Tell el-Dab‘a,
Egypt, Ägypten und Levante 16, 173–185.
2008 Tomb Types and Layout of a Middle Bronze IIA
Cemetery at Tell el-Dab‘a, Area F/1. 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, ÖAW: Denkschriften
der Gesamtakademie 50, Contributions to the
Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 17, Vi-
enna, 243–256.
2009 Tell el-Dab‘a, vol. 18: Die Palastnekropole von Tell
el-Dab‘a. Die Gräber des Areals F/I der Straten d/2
und d/1, ÖAW: Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie
47, Untersuchungen der Zweigstelle Kairo des Öster-
reichischen Archäologischen Instituts 30, Vienna.
Schiestl, R. and Seiler, A.
2012 Handbook of the Pottery of the Egyptian Mid-
dle Kingdom, vol. 1: The Corpus Volume, ÖAW:
Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie 57, Contribu-
tions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterra-
nean, Vienna.
Schlanger, N.
2005 The chaîne opératoire, in: C. R enfrew and P. Bahn
(eds.), Archaeology. The Key Concepts, London,
New York, 25–31.
Schlick-Nolte, B. and Lierke, R.
2002 From Silica to Glass: On the Track of the Ancient
Glass Artisans, in: R. Bianchi (ed.), Reflections on
Ancient Glass from the Borowski Collection: Bible
Lands Museum Jerusalem, Mainz, 11–40.
Schmidt, W.
1939 The Culture Historical Method of Ethnology, trans.
S.A. Sieber, New York.
Schmitt, R.
2013 Astarte, Mistress of Horses, Lady of the Chariot:
The Warrior Aspect of Astarte, Die Welt des
Orients 43/2, 213–225.
Schmitz, B.
1976 Untersuchungen zum Titel %A- njswt “Königssohn”,
Bonn.
Schneider, A.
2003 On ‘Appropriation’. A Critical Reappraisal of the
Concept and its Application in Global Art Practic-
es, Social Anthropology 11/2, 215–229.
Schneider, T.
1987 Die semitischen und ägyptischen Namen der
syrischen Sklaven des Papyrus Brooklyn 35.1446
Verso, Ugarit-Forschungen 19, 255–282.
1992 Asiatische Personennamen in ägyptischen Quellen
des Neuen Reiches, Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 114,
Göttingen.
1998 Ausländer in Ägypten während des Mittleren Reiches
und der Hyksoszeit, vol. 1: Die ausländischen Könige,
Ägypten und Altes Testament 42, Wiesbaden.
1999 Zur Herkunft der ägyptischen Bezeichnung wrr.yt
„Wagen“. Ein Indiz für den Lautwert von <r> vor
Beginn des Neuen Reiches, Göttinger Miszellen 173,
155–158.
2002 Sinuhes Notiz über die Könige: Syrisch-Anatolis-
che Herrschertitel in ägyptischer Überlieferung,
Ägypten und Levante 12, 257–272.
2003a Ausländer in Ägypten während des Mittleren Reich-
es und der Hyksoszeit, vol. 2: Die ausländische Be-
völkerung, Ägypten und Altes Testament 42,
Wiesbaden
2003b Foreign Egypt: Egyptology and the Concept of Cultur-
al Appropriation, Ägypten und Levante 13, 155–161.
2003c Texte über den syrischen Wettergott aus Ägypten,
Ugarit-Forschungen 35, 605–627.
2004 Nichtsemitische Lehnwörter im Ägyptischen. Um-
riß eines Forschungsgebietes, in: T. Schneider (ed.),
Das Ägyptische und die Sprachen Vorderasiens,
Nordafrikas und der Ägäis. Akten des Basler Kollo-
quiums zum ägyptisch-nichtsemitischen Sprachkon-
takt, Basel 9.–11. Juli 2003, Münster, 11–31.
2008a Das Ende der kurzen Chronologie: Eine kritische
Bilanz der Debatte zur absoluten Datierung des
Mittleren Reiches und der Zweiten Zwischenzeit,
Ägypten und Levante 18, 275–313.
2008b Innovation in Literature on Behalf of Politics: The
Tale of the Two Brothers, Ugarit, and 19th Dynasty
History, Ägypten und Levante 18, 315–326.
2008c Fremdwörter in der ägyptischen Militärsprache des
Neuen Reiches und ein Bravourstück des Elitesoldat-
en (Pap. Anastasi I 23, 2–7), Journal of the Society of
the Studies of Egyptian Antiquities 35, 181–205.
 Selected Bibliography
2010a A Theophany of Seth-Baal in the Tempest Stele,
Ägypten und Levante 20, 405–409.
2010b Foreigners in Egypt. Archaeological Evidence and
Cultural Context, in: W. Wendrich (ed.), Egyptian
Archaeology, Oxford, 143–163.
2011/ Wie der Wettergott Ägypten aus der grossen Flut
2012 errettete: Ein “inkulturierter” ägyptischer Sintflut-
Mythos und die Gründung der Ramsesstadt,
Journal of the Society of the Studies of Egyptian
Antiquities 38, 173–193.
2020 Language Contact of Ancient Egyptian with
Semitic and Other Near Eastern Languages, in:
R. H asselbach-Andee (ed.), A Companion to An-
cient Near Eastern Languages, Hoboken, 421–437.
Schoop, U.-D.
2014 Weaving Society in Late Chalcolithic Anatolia: Tex-
tile Production and Social Strategies in the 4th Mil-
lennium BC, in: B. Horejs and M. Mehofer (eds.),
Western Anatolia before Troy: Proto-Urbanisation
in the 4th Millennium BC?, Vienna, 421–446.
Schorsch, D.
1995 The Gold and Silver Necklaces of Wah: A Technical
Study of an Unusual Metallurgical Joining Method,
in: C. Brown, F. M acalister and M. Wright (eds.),
Conservation in Ancient Egyptian Collections, Lon-
don, 127–135.
Schorsch, D. and Wypyski, M.T.
2009 Seth, “Figure of Mystery”, Journal of the American
Research Center in Egypt 45, 177–200.
Schortman, E.M. and Urban, P.A.
1987 Modeling Interregional Interaction in Prehistory,
Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 11,
37–95.
Schoske, S.
1994 Das Erschlagen der Feinde. Ikonographie und
Stilistik der Feindvernichtung im alten Ägypten,
Ann Arbor.
Schroer, S.
1989 Die Göttin auf den Stempelsiegeln aus Palästina/Is-
rael, in: O. K eel, H. K eel-Leu and S. Schroer (eds.),
Studien zu den Stempelsiegeln aus Palästina/Israel,
vol. 2, Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 88, Göttingen,
89–207.
2008 Die Ikonographie Palästinas/Israels und der Alte
Orient. Eine Religionsgeschichte in Bildern, vol. 2:
Die Mittelbronzezeit, Fribourg.
Schulman, A.R.
1957 Egyptian Representation of Horsemen and Riding in
the New Kingdom, Journal of Near Eastern Studies
16, 263–271.
1963 The Egyptian Chariotry: A Reexamination, Journal
of the American Research Center in Egypt 2, 75–98.
1977 Reshep on Horseback?, The Newsletter of the So-
ciety for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities (Toronto)
7/4, 13–17.
1979 Diplomatic Marriage in the Egyptian New King-
dom, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 38, 177–193.
1980 Chariots, Chariotry and the Hyksos, Journal of the
Society of the Studies of Egyptian Antiquities 10,
105–153.
437
1987 Hittites, Helmets and Amarna: Akhenaten’s First
Hittite War, in: D.B. R edford (ed.), The Akhenaten
Temple Project, vol. 2, Toronto, 53–79.
Schwab, A.
1994 Axt, in: M. Bietak and I. Hein (eds.), Pharaonen und
Fremde. Dynastien im Dunkel. Katalogue der 194.
Sonderausstellung des Historischen Museums der
Stadt Wien, Rathaus Wien, Volkshalle, 8. Sept. – 23.
Oktober 1994, Vienna, 255.
Schwartz, G.
2008 Problems of Chronology: Mesopotamia, Anato-
lia, and the Syro-Levantine Region, 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, Haven, London, 450–452.
Schwartz, S. and Green, W.
2013 Middle Ground or Native Ground? Material Culture
at Iowaville, Ethnohistory 60/4, 537–565.
Schweizer, A.
2010 The Sungod’s Journey through the Netherworld. Read-
ing the Ancient Egyptian Amduat, Ithaca, NY, London.
Schwemer, D.
2001 Die Wettergottgestalten Mesopotamiens und
Nordsyriens im Zeitalter der Keilschriftkulturen,
Wiesbaden.
2007 The Storm-Gods of the Ancient Near East:
Summary, Synthesis, Recent Studies. Part I, Journal
of Ancient Near Eastern Religions 7/2, 121–168.
2008 The Storm-Gods of the Ancient Near East: Sum-
mary, Synthesis, Recent Studies. Part II, Journal of
Ancient Near Eastern Religions 8/1, 1–44.
Sebelien, J.
1924 Early Copper and its Alloys, Ancient Egypt, 6–15.
Seeden, H.
1980 The Standing Armed Figurines in the Levant,
Prähistorische Bronzefunde 1, Munich.
Seibert, P.
1967 Die Charakteristik: Untersuchungen zu einer alt-
ägyptischen Sprechsitte und ihren Ausprägungen in
Folklore und Literatur, part I: Philologische Bear-
beitung der Bezeugungen, Ägyptologische Abhand-
lungen 17, Wiesbaden.
Seidl, U.
1976 Inanna/Ishtar (Mesopotamien). B: In der Bildkunst,
in: D.O. Edzard (ed.), Reallexikon der Assyriologie 5,
Berlin, 87–89.
Seidlmayer, S.
1990 Gräberfelder aus dem Übergang vom Alten zum
Mittleren Reich, Studien zur Archäologie und
Geschichte Altägyptens 1, Heidelberg.
Seiler, A.
1997 Heboua I. Second Intermediate Period and Early
New Kingdom Pottery, Cahiers de la céramique
égyptienne 5, 23–30.
438 Selected Bibliography
2005 Tradition & Wandel. Die Keramik als Spiegel der
Kulturentwicklung Thebens in der Zweiten Zwischen-
zeit, Sonderschrift des Deutschen Archäologischen
Institut, Abteilung Kairo 32, Mainz am Rhein.
2010 The Second Intermediate Period in Thebes: Re-
gionalism in Pottery Development and its Cultur-
al Implications, in: M. M arée (ed.), The Second
Intermediate Period (Thirteenth–Seventeenth
Dynasties). Current Research, Future Prospects,
Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 192, Leuven,
Paris, Walpole, 39–53.
Seland, E.H.
2016 Trade Diasporas and Merchant Social Cohesion
in Early Trade in the Western Indian Ocean, in:
A. Chowdhury and D.H. A kenson (eds.), Between
Dispersion and Belonging: Global Approaches to
Diaspora in Practice, Montreal, 125–137.
Sellin, E.
1914 Die Ausgrabungen von Sichem, Anzeiger der Kai-
serlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philoso-
phisch-Historische Klasse 51, 35–40.
Selz, G.J.
2000 Five Divine Ladies: Thoughts on Inana(k), Ištar,
In(n)in(a), Annunītum, and Anat, and the Origin of
the Title “Queen of Heaven”, NiN: Journal of Gen-
der Studies in Antiquity 1, 29–62.
Serpico, M. and White, R.
2000a The Botanical Identity and Transport of Incense
during the Egyptian New Kingdom, Antiqui-
ty 74/286, 884–897.
2000b Oil, Fat and Wax, in: P.T. Nicholson and I. Shaw
(eds.), Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology,
Cambridge, 390–429.
Serpico, M., Bourriau, J., Smith, L., Goren, Y., Stern, B.
and Heron, C.
2003 Commodities and Containers: A Project to Study
Canaanite Amphorae Imported into Egypt during
the New Kingdom, in: M. Bietak (ed.), The Syn-
chronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Medi-
terranean in the Second Millennium B.C., vol. 2:
Proceedings of the SCIEM 2000 – EuroConfer-
ence Haindorf, 2nd of May – 7th of May 2001, ÖAW:
Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie 29, Contribu-
tions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterra-
nean 4, Vienna, 365–375.
Seters, J. van
1966 The Hyksos. A New Investigation, New Haven, London.
1983 In Search of History. Historiography in the
Ancient World and the Origins of Biblical History,
Winona Lake.
Sethe, K.
1906– 1909 Urkunden der 18. Dynastie, 4 vols., Leipzig.
1924 Ägyptische Lesestücke, Leipzig.
1928 Dramatische Texte zu den Altägyptischen Myster-
ienspielen, Untersuchungen zur Geschichte und Al-
tertumskunde Ägyptens 10, Leipzig.
1930 Der Denkstein mit dem Datum des Jahres 400 der
Ära von Tanis, Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache
und Altertumskunde 65, 85–89.
Seyfried, K.J.
1981 Beiträge zu den Expeditionen des Mittleren Reiches
in die Ost-Wüste, Hildesheimer Ägyptologische
Beiträge 15, Hildesheim.
Seyrig, H.
1963 Antiquités syriennes, Syria 40/3, 253–260.
Shalev, S.
2004 Swords and Daggers in Late Bronze Age Canaan,
Prähistorische Bronzefunde 4.13, Stuttgart.
2009 Metals and Society: Production and Distribution
of Metal Weapons in the Levant during the Middle
Bronze Age II, in: S. Rosen and V. Roux (eds.), Tech-
niques and People. Anthropological Perspectives on
Technology in the Archaeology of the Proto-His-
toric and Early Historic Periods in the Southern
Levant, Paris, 69–80.
Shalomi-Hen, R.
2006 The Writing of Gods: The Evolution of Divine
Classifiers in the Old Kingdom, Göttinger
Orientforschungen IV. Reihe, Ägypten 38,
Wiesbaden.
Shamir, O.
2014 Textiles, Basketry, and Other Organic Artifacts of
the Chalcolithic Period in the Southern Levant, in:
M. Sebbane, O. Misch-Brandl and D.M. M aster
(eds.), Masters of Fire: Copper Age Art from Israel,
Princeton, 138–152.
2015 Textiles from the Chalcolithic Period, Early and
Middle Bronze Age in the Southern Levant – The
Continuation of Splicing, Archaeological Textiles
Review 57, 12–25.
Shaw, I.
2001 Egyptians, Hyksos, and Military Technology:
Causes, Effects or Catalysts?, in: A. Shortland (ed.),
The Social Context of Technological Change: Egypt
and the Near East 1650–1550 BC, Oxford, 59–71.
2012 Ancient Egyptian Technology and Innovation.
Transformations in Pharaonic Material Culture,
London, New York.
Shaw, M.C.
1970 Ceiling Patterns from the Tomb of Hepzefa, Ameri-
can Journal of Archaeology 74, 25–30.
Shaw, R. and Stewart, C.
1994 Introduction: Problematizing Syncretism, in:
C. Stewart and R. Shaw (eds.), Syncretism/
Anti-Syncretism. The Politics of Religious Synthe-
sis, London, New York, 1–26.
Shea, W.H.
1979 The Conquest of Sharuhen and Megiddo Reconsid-
ered, Israel Exploration Journal 29, 1–5.
1981 Artistic Balance among the Beni Hasan Asiatics,
The Biblical Archaeologist 44/4, 219–228.
Shehata, D.
2018 Singing and Singers in 2nd Millennium Babylo-
nia: A New Look at Selected Texts and Images, in:
A. Garcia-Ventura, C. Tavolieri and L. Verderame
(eds.), The Study of Musical Performance in
 Selected Bibliography
Antiquity. Archaeology and Written Sources, New-
castle, 59–92.
Shelby, J.
2005 Introduction to Glass Science and Glass Techno-
logy, 2nd edition, Cambridge.
Shennan, S.
1989 Introduction, in: S. Shennan (ed.), Archaeological
Approaches to Cultural Identity, One World Ar-
chaeology 10, London, 1–32.
2000 Population, Culture History, and the Dynamics of
Culture Change, Current Anthropology 41/5, 811–835.
Sherratt, A. and Sherratt, S.
1991 From Luxuries to Commodities: The Nature of
Mediterranean Bronze Age Trading Systems,
in: N.H. Gale (ed.), Bronze Age Trade in the
Mediterranean, Gothenburg, 351–386.
Shev, E.
2016 The Introduction of the Domesticated Horse in
Southwest Asia, Archaeology, Ethnology and An-
thropology of Eurasia 44/1, 123–136.
Shils, E.
1957 Primordial, Personal, Sacred, and Civil Ties: Some
Particular Observations on the Relationship of So-
ciological Research and Theory, British Journal of
Sociology 8/2, 130–145.
Shimada, I.
2007 Introduction, in: I. Shimada (ed.), Craft Production
in Complex Societies. Multicraft and Producer Per-
spectives, Salt Lake City, 1–21.
Shirley, J.
2007 The Life and Career of Nebamun, the Physician of
the King in Thebes, in: Z.A. H awass and J. R ichards
(eds.), The Archaeology and Art of Ancient Egypt.
Essays in Honor of David B. O’Connor, vol. 2, Ca-
hiers supplément aux annales du service des antiqui-
tés de l’Égypte 36, Cairo, 381–401.
2010 Viceroys, Viziers, and the Amun Precinct: The Power
of Heredity and Strategic Marriage in the Early 18th
Dynasty, Journal of Egyptian History 3/1, 73–113.
2013 Crisis and Restructuring of the State: From the Sec-
ond Intermediate Period to the Advent of the Ra-
messes, in: J.C. Moreno García (ed.), Ancient Egyp-
tian Administration, Leiden, Boston, 521–606.
Shoemaker, J.S.
2001 The Nature of the Goddess Qudshu in Conjunction
with Min and Reshep, Bulletin of the Egyptological
Seminar 15, 1–11.
Shortland, A.
2000 Depictions of Glass Vessels in Two Theban Tombs
and Their Role in the Dating of Early Glass, The
Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 86, 159–161.
2001 Social Influences on the Development and Spread
of Glass Technology, in: A. Shortland (ed.), The
Social Context of Technological Change. Egypt and
the Near East, 1650–1550 BC, Oxford, 211–222.
2012 Lapis Lazuli from the Kiln. Glass and Glassmaking
in the Late Bronze Age, Studies in Archaeological
Sciences 2, Leuven.
439
Shortland, A. (ed.)
2001 The Social Context of Technological Change: Egypt
and the Near East, 1650–1550 BC, Oxford.
Shortland, A. and Bronk R amsey, C. (eds.)
2013 Radiocarbon and the Chronologies of Ancient Egypt,
Oxford.
Shortland, A. and Eremin, K.
2006 The Analysis of Second Millennium Glass from
Egypt and Mesopotamia, Part 1: New WDS Analy-
ses, Archaeometry 48/4, 581–603.
Shortland, A., K irk, S., Eremin, K., Degryse, P. and
Walton, M.
2017 The Analysis of Late Bronze Age Glass from Nuzi
and the Question of the Origin of Glass-Making,
Archaeometry 60/4, 764–783.
Shortland, A. and Tite, M.
2000 Raw Materials of Glass from Amarna and Implica-
tions for the Origins of Egyptian Glass, Archaeome-
try 42/1, 141–151.
Siclen III, C.C. van
1988 The Mayors of Basta in the Middle Kingdom, in:
S. Schoske (ed.), Akten des vierten Internationalen
Ägyptologen Kongresses München 1985, vol. 4,
Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur Beihefte 4,
Hamburg, 187–194.
1996 Remarks on the Middle Kingdom Palace at Tell Bas-
ta, in: M. Bietak (ed.), Haus und Palast im Alten
Ägypten, Internationales Symposium 8. bis 11. April
1992 in Kairo, ÖAW: Denkschriften der Gesamt-
akademie 14, Untersuchungen der Zweigstelle Kairo
des Österreichischen Archäologischen Instituts 14,
Vienna, 239–246.
Siddall, L.R.
2010 The Amarna Letters from Tyre as a Source for Under-
standing Atenism and Imperial Administration, Jour-
nal of Ancient Egyptian Interconnections 2/1, 24–35.
Sillar, B. and Tite, M.
2000 The Challenge of “Technological Choices” for
Materials Science Approaches in Archaeology,
Archaeometry 42/1, 2–20.
Silliman, S.W.
2015 A Requiem for Hybridity? The Problem with
Frankensteins, Purées, and Mules, Journal of Social
Archaeology 15/3, 277–298.
2016 Disentangling the Archaeology of Colonialism and
Indigeneity, in: L. Der and F. Fernandini (eds.),
Archaeology of Entanglement, London, New York,
31–48.
Silver, M.
1995 Economic Structures of Antiquity, Westport.
2014 Equid Burials in Archaeological Contexts in the
Amorite, Hurrian and Hyksos Cultural Intercourse,
ARAM 26, 335–355.
Silverstein, M.
2004 “Cultural” Concepts and the Language-Culture
Nexus, Current Anthropology 45/5, 621–652.
440 Selected Bibliography
Silverstone, R., Hirsch, E. and Morley, D.
1992 Information and Communication Technologies
and the Moral Economy of the Household, in:
R. Silverstone and E. Hirsch (eds.), Consuming
Technologies: Media and Information in Domestic
Spaces, London, New York, 15–31.
Simon, C.
1992 Râpes, siphons ou filtres pour pailles: développe-
ment égyptien d’un art de boire, in: Sesto Congres-
so Internazionale di Egittologia Atti, vol. 1, Turin,
555–561.
Simon, Z.
2007 Zur Datierung des Kuruštama-Vertrages, in:
K. Endreffy and A. Gulyás (eds.), Proceedings of
the Fourth Central European Conference of Young
Egyptologists: 31. August – 2. September 2006, Bu-
dapest, Studia Aegyptiaca 18, Budapest, 373–385.
2010 Hethitisch-luwische Fremdwörter im Ägyptischen?,
Göttinger Miszellen 227, 77–92.
Simpson, W.K.
1960 Reshep in Egypt, Orientalia 29/1, 63–74.
1974 The Terrace of the Great God at Abydos: The Of-
fering Chapels of Dynasties 12 and 13, New Haven,
Philadelphia.
1976 A Statuette of a Devotee of Seth, The Journal of
Egyptian Archaeology 62, 41–44.
Singer, I.
1994 “The Thousand Gods of Hatti”: The Limits of an
Expanding Pantheon, in: I. A lon, I. Gruenwald and
I. Singer (eds.), Concepts of the Other in Near East-
ern Religions, Israel Oriental Studies 14, Leiden,
New York, Köln, 81–102.
2004 The Kurustama Treaty Revisited, in: D. Groddek
and S. Rössle (eds.), Sarnikzel, Hethitologische
Studien zum Gedenken an Emil Orgetorix Forrer,
Dresden, 591–607.
2006 The Hittites and the Bible Revisited, in: A.M. M aeir
and P. de Miroschedji (eds.), “I Will Speak the
Riddles of Ancient Times”. Archaeological and His-
torical Studies in Honor of Amihai Mazar on the
Occasion of his Sixtieth Birthday, vol. 1,
Winona Lake, 723–756.
Skals, I., Möller-Wiering, S. and Nosch, M.-L.
2015 Survey of Archaeological Textile Remains from
the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean Area, in:
E. A ndersson Strand and M.-L. Nosch (eds.),
Tools, Textiles and Contexts: Textile Production
in the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean Bronze
Age, Ancient Textile Series 21, Oxford, 61–74.
Sleeper-Smith, S.
2006 The Middle Ground Revisited. Introduction, The
William and Mary Quarterly 63/1, 3–8.
Smith, A.D.
1981 The Ethnic Revival. Themes in the Social Sciences,
Cambridge.
Smith, G.E.
1923 The Ancient Egyptians and the Origin of Civiliza-
tion, London.
Smith, H.S. (ed.)
1976 Excavations at Buhen, vol. 2: The Fortress of Buhen:
The Inscriptions, Excavation Memoir 48, London.
Smith, H.S. and Smith, A.
1976 A Reconsideration of the Kamose Texts, Zeitschrift
für Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 103,
48–76.
Smith, J.S.
2013 Tapestries in the Bronze and Early Iron Ages of the
Ancient Near East, in: M.-L. Nosch, H. Koefed and
E. Andersson Strand (eds.), Textile Production and
Consumption in the Ancient Near East. Archaeolo-
gy, Epigraphy, Iconography, Ancient Textile Series
12, Oxford, Oakville, 161–188.
Smith, L., Bourriau, J., Goren, Y., Hughes, M. and Serpico, M.
2004 The Provenance of Canaanite Amphorae found at
Memphis and Amarna in the New Kingdom: Results
2000–2002, in: J. Bourriau and J. Phillips (eds.), In-
vention and Innovation: The Social Context of Tech-
nological Change, vol. 2: Egypt, the Aegean and the
Near East, 1650–1150 BC, Oxford, 55–77.
Smith, M.E.
2009 V. Gordon Childe and the Urban Revolution: A
Historical Perspective on a Revolution in Urban
Studies, The Town Planning Review 80/1, 3–29.
Smith, M.R. and M arx, L. (eds.)
1994 Does Technology Drive History? The Dilemma of
Technological Determinism, Cambridge, London.
Smith, M.S.
1994 The Ugaritic Ba‘al Cycle, vol. 1: Introduction with
Text, Translation and Commentary of KTU 1.1–1.2,
Leiden.
1995 Myth and Mythology in Canaan and Ancient Isra-
el, in: J.M. Sasson (ed.), Civilisations of the Ancient
Near East, vol. 3, Peabody, 2031–2041.
1997 The Baal Cycle, in: S.B. Parker (ed.), Ugaritic
Narrative Poetry, Society of Biblical Literature 9,
Atlanta, 81–180.
2008 God in Translation. Deities in Cross-Cultural Dis-
course in the Biblical World, Tübingen.
2014 Athtart in Late Bronze Age Syrian Texts, in:
D.T. Sugimoto (ed.), Transformation of a Goddess:
Ishtar – Astarte – Aphrodite, Orbis Biblicus et
Orientalis 263, Fribourg, 33–86.
Smith, M.S. and Pitard, W.T.
2009 The Ugaritic Baal Cycle, vol. 2: Introduction with
Text, Translation and Commentary of KTU/CAT
1.3–1.4, Leiden, Boston.
Smith, R.W.
1976 The Akhenaten Temple Project, vol. 1: Initial
Discoveries, Warminster.
Smith, S.T.
1992 Intact Tombs of the Seventeenth and Eighteenth
Dynasties from Thebes and the New Kingdom
Burial System, Mitteilungen des Deutschen
Archäologischen Instituts Kairo 48, 193–231.
 Selected Bibliography
1995 Askut in Nubia: The Economics and Ideology of
Egyptian Imperialism in the Second Millennium
B.C., New York.
1998 Nubia and Egypt: Interaction, Acculturation and
Secondary State Formation from the Third to First
Millennium BC, in: J. Cuisick (ed.), Studies in
Culture Contact: Interaction, Culture Change, and
Archaeology, Carbondale, 256–287.
2001 Sealing Practice, Literacy and Administration in
the Middle Kingdom, Cahiers de recherches de
l’institut de papyrologie et d’égyptologie de Lille
22, 173–194.
2003a Wretched Kush: Ethnic Identities and Boundaries in
Egypt’s Nubian Empire, London, New York.
2003b Pharaohs, Feasts, and Foreigners. Cooking, Food-
ways, and Agency on Ancient Egypt’s Southern
Frontier, in: T. Bray (ed.), The Archaeology and
Politics of Food and Feasting in Early States and
Empires, New York, 39–64.
Smith, W.S.
1965 Interconnections in the Ancient Near East: A Study
of the Relationships between the Arts of Egypt, the
Aegean, and Western Asia, New Haven.
Snooks, G.
1996 The Dynamic Society. Exploring the Sources of
Global Change, London, New York.
Soden, W. von
1949 Das altbabylonische Briefarchiv von Mari. Ein
Überblick, Die Welt des Orients 1, 187–204.
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. Stud-
ies in Honour of Manfred Bietak, vol. 2, Orientalia
Lovaniensia Analecta 149, Leuven, Paris, Dudley,
331–354.
Souza, A. de
2020 Melting Pots: Entanglement, Appropriation, Hybrid-
ity, and Assertive Objects between the Pan-Grave
and Egyptian Ceramic Traditions, Journal of An-
cient Egyptian Interconnections 27, 1–23.
Sowada, K.
2009 Egypt in the Eastern Mediterranean during the Old
Kingdom: An Archaeological Perspective, Orbis
Biblicus et Orientalis 237, Göttingen.
Spaey, J.
1993 Emblems in Rituals in the Old Babylonian Period,
in: J. Quaegbeur (ed.), Ritual and Sacrifice in the
Ancient Near East. Proceedings of the International
Conference Organized by the Katholicke Universiteit
Leuven from the 17th to the 20th of April 1991, Orien-
talia Lovaniensia Analecta 55, Leuven, 411–420.
Spalinger, A.
1978 A New Reference to an Egyptian Campaign of
Thutmose III in Asia, Journal of Near Eastern
Studies 37/1, 35–41.
1990 The Rhind Mathematical Papyrus as a Historical
Document, Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur 17,
295–337.
441
2000 The Destruction of Mankind: A Transitional Lit-
erary Text, Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur 28,
257–282.
2001 Review: The Political Situation in Egypt during
the Second Intermediate Period, c. 1800–1550 B.C.
By K.S.B. Ryholt, Journal of Near Eastern Studies
60/4, 296–300.
2002 The Transformation of an Ancient Egyptian Nar-
rative: P. Sallier III and the Battle of Kadesh,
Wiesbaden.
2005 War in Ancient Egypt: The New Kingdom, Malden,
MA, Oxford.
2007 Some Notes on the Chariot Arm of Egypt in the Early
New Kingdom, in: P. Kousoulis and K. M agliveras
(eds.), Moving Across Borders: Foreign Relations,
Religion, and Cultural Interactions in the Ancient
Mediterranean, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta
159, Leuven, Paris, Dudley, 119–137.
2010 Two Screen Plays: “Kamose” and “Apophis and
Seqenenre”, Journal of Egyptian History 3/1, 115–135.
2020 Leadership under Fire: The Pressures of Warfare in
Ancient Egypt, Saint-Pourçain-sur-Sioule.
Sparks, R.
2004 Canaan in Egypt: Archaeological Evidence for a
Social Phenomenon, in: J. Bourriau and J. P hillips
(eds.), Invention and Innovation. The Social Con-
text of Technological Change, vol. 2: Egypt, the Ae-
gean and the Near East, 1650–1150 B.C., Oxford,
25–54.
Speiser, E.
1933 Ethnic Movements in the Near East in the Second
Millennium B.C. The Hurrians and their Connec-
tions with the Ḫabiru and the Hyksos, Annual of the
American Schools of Oriental Research 13, 13–54.
1950 On Some Articles of Armour and Their Names,
Journal of the American Oriental Society 70, 47–49.
Spencer-Oatey, H.
2008 Culturally Speaking. Culture, Communication and
Politeness Theory, 2nd edition, London.
Spiegelberg, W.
1902 The Fragments of the ‘Astarte’ Papyrus of the
Amherst Collection, Proceedings of the Society of
Biblical Archaeology 24, 41–50.
1908 Demotische Miscellen, Recueil de travaux relatifs à
la philologie et à l’archéologie égyptiennes et assy-
riennes 30, 144–159.
1923 Bemerkungen zu den hieratischen Amphoren-
inschriften des Ramesseums, Zeitschrift für Ägyp-
tische Sprache und Altertumskunde 58, 25–36.
1927 La ville de Prw-nfr dans le Delta, Revue L’Égypte
ancienne 1, 215–217.
Spielmann, K., Peeples, M., Glowacki, D. and Dugmore, A.
2016 Early Warning Signals of Social Transformation: A
Case Study from the US Southwest, PlosONE 11/10,
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0163685 (last
accessed 09.07.2018).
Spinazzi-Lucchesi, C.
2018 The Unwound Yarn. Birth and Development of
Textile Tools between Levant and Egypt, Studi
orientali 8, Venice.
442 Selected Bibliography
Spycket, A.
1954 La coiffure féminine en Mésopotamie. Des ori-
gines à la Ire dynastie de Babylone, Revue archéo-
logique 48/4, 113–129.
Stadelmann, R.
1965 Die 400–Jahre Stele, Chronique d’Égypte 40, 46–
60.
1967 Syrisch-palästinensische Gottheiten in Ägypten,
Probleme der Ägyptologie 5, Leiden.
1985 Votivbetten mit Darstellungen der Qadesch aus
Theben, Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologis-
chen Instituts Kairo 41, 265–268.
2006 Riding the Donkey: A Means of Transportation for
Foreign Rulers, in: E. Czerny, I. Hein, H. Hunger,
D. Melman and A. Schwab (eds.), Timelines. Stud-
ies in Honour of Manfred Bietak, vol. 2, Orientalia
Lovaniensia Analecta 149, Leuven, Paris, Dudley,
301–304.
Stager, L.E.
2001 Port Power in the Early and the Middle Bronze
Age: The Organization of Maritime Trade and Hin-
terland Production, in: S.R. Wolff (ed.), Studies in
the Archaeology of Israel and Neighboring Lands
in Memory of Douglas L. Esse, Studies in Ancient
Oriental Civilization 59, Chicago, 625–638.
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, ÖAW: Denkschriften
der Gesamtakademie 26, Contributions to the
Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 3,
Vienna, 353–362.
Stager, L.E. and Voss, R.J.
2011 Egyptian Pottery in Middle Bronze Age Ashkelon,
Eretz-Israel 30, 119*–126*.
2018 Stratigraphic Synchronisms between Ashkelon and
Tell el-Dab‘a, in: L.E. Stager, J.D. Schloen and
R.J. Voss (eds.), Ashkelon, vol. 6: The Middle
Bronze Age Ramparts and Gates of the North Slope
and Later Fortifications, Pennsylvania, 103–113.
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 26.08.2020).
Starkey, J.L. and H arding, L.
1932 Beth Pelet, vol. 2, London.
Starr, R.
1939 Nuzi, vol. 1, Cambridge.
Staubli, T.
2016 Cultural and Religious Impacts of Long-Term
Cross-Cultural Migration between Egypt
and the Levant, Journal of Ancient Egyptian
Interconnections 12, 51–88.
Stauder, A.
2013 Linguistic Dating of Middle Egyptian Literary
Texts, Lingua Aegyptia Studia Monographica 12,
Hamburg.
Steele, L.
2004 A Goodly Feast… A Cup of Mellow Wine. Feasting
in Bronze Age Cyprus, Hesperia 73, 281–300.
Stefanović, D.
2003 The Counting of the Dead Enemy’s Hands, Journal
of the Serbian Archaeological Society 19, 149–165.
Stein, G.J.
1999 Rethinking World-Systems: Diasporas, Colonies,
and Interaction in Uruk Mesopotamia, Tuscon.
2002 From Passive Periphery to Active Agents: Emerg-
ing Perspectives in the Archaeology of Interre-
gional Interaction. Archaeology Division Distin-
guished Lecture AAA Meeting, Philadelphia, De-
cember 5, 1998, American Anthropologist 104/3,
903–916.
Steindorff, G.
1900 Eine ägyptische Liste syrischer Sklaven, Zeitschrift
für Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 38,
15–18.
1937 Aniba, vol. 2, Mission Archéologique de Nubia
1929–1934, Glückstadt, Hamburg, New York, 1937.
Steinkeller, P.
1998 Inanna’s Archaic Symbol, in: J. Braun,
K. Lyczkowska, M. Popko and P. Steinkeller
(eds.), Written on Clay and Stone: Ancient Near
Eastern Studies presented to Krystyna Szarzynska on
the Occasion of her 80 th Birthday, Warsaw, 87–100.
2002 Stars and Stripes in Ancient Mesopotamia: A Note
on Two Decorative Elements of Babylonian Doors,
Iranica Antiqua 37, 359–371.
Steinmann, F.
1980 Untersuchungen zu den in der handwerklich-
künstlerischen Produktion beschäftigen Personen
und Berufsgruppen des Neuen Reichs, Zeitschrift
für Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 107,
137–157.
Stephenson, M.
2000 Development and Validation of the Stephenson Mul-
tigroup Acculturation Scale (SMAS), Psychological
Assessment 12/1, 77–88.
Stern, B., Heron, C., Corr, L., Serpico, M. and Bourriau, J.
2003 Compositional Variations in Aged and Heated
Pistacia Resin found in Late Bronze Age Canaan-
ite Amphorae and Bowls from Amarna, Egypt,
Archaeometry 45/3, 457–469.
Stern, S.
1988 Feudalism, Capitalism, and the World System in the
Perspective of Latin America and the Caribbean,
American Historical Review 93, 829–872.
Stevens, A. and Eccleston, M.
2007 Craft Production and Technology, in: T. Wilkinson
(ed.), The Egyptian World, London, 146–159.
 Selected Bibliography
Stewart, C.
1999 Syncretism and its Synonyms: Reflections on
Cultural Mixture, Diacritics 29/3, 40–62.
2007 Creolization: History, Ethnography, Theory, in:
C. Stewart (ed.), Creolization: History, Ethnogra-
phy, Theory, Walnut Creek, 1–25.
2015 From Creolization to Syncretism: Climbing the
Ritual Ladder, in: S. Vertovec (ed.), Routledge
International Handbook of Diversity Studies, Lon-
don, New York, 355–362.
Stewart, J.R.
1974 Tell el ‘Ajjūl: The Middle Bronze Age Remains,
Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 38,
Gothenburg.
Stiebing, W.H.
1971 Hyksos Burials in Palestine: A Review of the Evi-
dence, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 30, 110–117.
Stock, H.
1942 Studien zur Geschichte und Archäologie der 13. bis
17. Dynastie Ägyptens unter besonderer Berück-
sichtigung der Skarabäen dieser Zwischenzeit,
Ägyptologische Forschungen 12, Glückstadt.
Stockfisch, D.
2006 Mitanni in den Fremdvölkerlisten, in: D. Bröckel-
mann and A. K lug (eds.), In Pharaos Staat: Fest-
schrift für Rolf Gundlach zum 75. Geburtstag, Wies-
baden, 259–270.
Stockhammer, P.W.
2012 Conceptualizing Cultural Hybridization in Archae-
ology, in: P.W. Stockhammer (ed.), Conceptualiz-
ing Cultural Hybridization: A Transdisciplinary
Approach, New York, 43–58.
2013 From Hybridity to Entanglement, from Essen-
tialism to Practice, Archaeological Review from
Cambridge 28/1, 11–28.
Stockhammer, P.W. (ed.)
2012 Conceptualizing Cultural Hybridization: A Trans-
disciplinary Approach, New York.
Stocking Jr., G.W.
1963 Matthew Arnold, E. B. Tylor and the Uses of
Invention, American Anthropologist 65, 783–799.
1968a Tylor, Edward Burnett, in: D.L. Sills (ed.),
International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences,
vol. 16, 170–177.
1968b Franz Boas and the Culture Concept in Historical
Perspective, in: G.W. Stocking Jr. (ed.), Race,
Culture, and Evolution: Essays in the History of
Anthropology, New York, 195–233.
1987 Victorian Anthropology, New York.
1992 The Ethnographer’s Magic and Other Essays in the
History of Anthropology, Madison.
1995 After Tylor: British Social Anthropology 1888–
1951, Madison.
Stökl, J.
2014 Divination as Warfare: The Use of Divination across
Borders, in: A. Lenzi and J. Stökl (eds.), Divina-
tion, Politics, and Ancient Near Eastern Empires,
Atlanta, 49–63.
443
Storey, A.A. and Jones, T.L.
2011 Diffusionism in Archaeological Theory. The Good,
the Bad, and the Ugly, in: T.L. Jones, A.A. Storey,
E.A. M atisoo -Smith and J.M. R amírez-A liaga,
Polynesians in America. Pre-Columbian Contacts
with the New World, Lanham, 7–24.
Stos-Gale, Z.A.
2011 “Biscuits with Ears”: A Search for the Origin of
the Earliest Oxhide Ingots, in: P. Betancourt and
S. Ferrence (eds.), Metallurgy: Understanding
How, Learning Why. Studies in Honor of James D.
Muhly, Philadelphia, 221–229.
Strandberg, Å.
2009 The Gazelle in Ancient Egyptian Art. Image and
Meaning, PhD Dissertation, Uppsala University.
Strouhal, E., Vachala, B. and Vymazalová, H.
2014 The Medicine of the Ancient Egyptians, vol. 1:
Surgery, Gynecology, Obstetrics, and Pediatrics,
Prague.
Strudwick, N.C.
2005 Texts from the Pyramid Age, Leiden, Boston.
Stuckey, J.H.
2003 The Great Goddesses of the Levant, Journal of the
Society of the Studies of Egyptian Antiquities 30,
127–157.
Sugimoto, D.T. (ed.)
2014 Transformation of a Goddess: Ishtar – Astarte
– Aphrodite, Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 263,
Fribourg.
Sürenhagen, D.
2006 Forerunners of the Hattusili-Ramesses Treaty,
British Museum Studies in Ancient Egypt and
Sudan 6, 59–67.
Swabe, J.
1999 Animals, Disease and Human Society. Human-Ani-
mal Relations and the Rise of Veterinary Medicine,
London, New York.
Sweeney, D.
2001 Correspondence and Dialogue: Pragmatic Factors
in Late Ramesside Letter Writing, Wiesbaden.
Sweeney, D. and Yasur-Landau, A.
1999 Following the Path of the Sea Persons: The Wom-
en in the Medinet Habu Reliefs, Journal of the In-
stitute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 26/1,
116–145.
Swidler, A.
1986 Culture in Action: Symbols and Strategies,
American Sociological Review 51/2, 273–286.
Swinton, J.
2012 Workshops, in: A. McFarlane and A.-L. Mourad
(eds.), Behind the Scenes. Daily Life in Old
Kingdom Egypt, Australian Centre for Egyptology:
Studies 10, Oxford, 167–183.
444 Selected Bibliography
Szafrański, Z.
1998 Seriation and Aperture Index 2 of the Beer Bottles
from Tell el-Dab‘a, Ägypten und Levante 7, 95–119.
Szpakowska, K.
1999 A Sign of the Times, Lingua Aegyptia 6, 163–166.
T Teppo, S.
Tallet, P.
1998a Les étiquettes de jarres à vin de Nouvel Empire, in:
C.J. Eyre (ed.), Proceedings of the Seventh Inter-
national Congress of Egyptologists, Orientalia Lo-
vaniensia Analecta 82, Leuven, 1125–1134.
1998b Quelques aspects de l’économie du vin en Égypte
ancienne au Nouvel Empire, in: N. Grimal and
B. Menu (eds.), Le commerce en Égypte ancienne,
Bibliothèque d’Étude 121, Cairo, 239–267.
1998c Le vin en Égypte ancienne à l’époque pharaonique,
PhD Dissertation, Université Paris-Sorbonne (Paris IV).
2003 Les circuits économiques selon les étiquettes de
jarres de Deir el-Médineh, in: G. Andreu (ed.), Deir
el-Médineh et la vallée des rois. Actes du colloque
organisé par le musée du Louvre les 3 et 4 Mai 2002,
Paris, 253–280.
2012 La zone minière pharaonique du Sud-Sinaï, part I:
Catalogue complémentaire des inscriptions du Si-
naï, Mémoires publiés par les membres de l’institut
français d’archéologie orientale du Caire 130, Cairo.
2018 La zone minière pharaonique du Sud-Sinaï, part
III: Les expéditions égyptiennes dans la zone mi-
nière du Sud-Sinaï du prédynastique à la fin de la
XXe dynastie, Mémoires publiés par les membres
de l’institut français d’archéologie orientale du
Caire 138, Cairo.
Tallon, F.
1987 Métallurgie Susienne, vol. 1: De la fondation de
Suse au XVIIIe avant J.-C., Paris.
Tata, G.
1986 The Development of the Egyptian Textile Industry,
PhD Dissertation, The University of Utah.
Tazawa, K.
2009 Syro-Palestinian Deities in New Kingdom Egypt.
The Hermeneutics of their Existence, British Archaeo-
logical Reports International Series 1965, Oxford.
Te Velde, H.
1967 Seth, God of Confusion, Leiden.
Teeter, E.
2003 Scarabs, Scaraboids, Seals, and Seal Impressions
from Medinet Habu, Oriental Institute Publications
118, Chicago.
2010 Baked Clay Figurines and Votive Beds from Medinet
Habu, Oriental Institute Publications 133, Chicago.
Tehrani, J. and R iede, F.
2008 Towards an Archaeology of Pedagogy: Learning,
Teaching and the Generation of Material Culture
Traditions, World Archaeology 40, 316–331.
Teissier, B.
1984 Ancient Near Eastern Cylinder Seals from the Mar-
copoli Collection, Berkeley, Los Angeles, London.
1990 The Seal Impression Alalakh 194: A New Aspect
of Egypto-Levantine Relations in the Middle King-
dom, Levant 22, 65–73.
1996 Egyptian Iconography on Syro-Palestinian Cylin-
der Seals of the Middle Bronze Age, Orbis Biblicus
et Orientalis 11, Fribourg.
2008 Sacred Marriage and the Devotees of Ištar, in:
M. Nissinen and R. Uro (eds.), Sacred Marriages.
The Divine-Human Sexual Metaphor from Sumer to
Early Christianity, Winona Lake, 75–92.
Teske, R.H.C. Jr. and Nelson, B.H.
1974 Acculturation and Assimilation: A Clarification,
American Ethnologist 1, 351–367.
Thalmann, J.-P.
2006 Tell Arqa, vol. 1: Les niveaux de l’âge du Bronze,
Bibliothèque archéologique et historique 177, Beirut.
Thanheiser, U.
1987 Untersuchungen zur ägyptischen Landwirtschaft in
dynastischer Zeit an Hand von Pflanzenresten aus
Tell el-Dab‘a, Dissertation, University of Vienna.
2004 Die Pflanzenreste, in: I. Hein and P. Jánosi, Tell
el-Dab‘a, vol. 11: Areal A/V. Siedlungsrelikte der
späten 2. Zwischenzeit, ÖAW: Denkschriften der
Gesamtakademie 25, Untersuchungen der Zweig-
stelle Kairo des Österreichischen Archäologischen
Instituts 21, Vienna, 378–383.
2006 Tell el-Dab‘a: The Provision of an Expanding
Settlement with Plant Food, in: E. Czerny, I. Hein,
H. Hunger, D. Melman and A. Schwab (eds.), Time-
lines. Studies in Honour of Manfred Bietak, Orienta-
lia Lovaniensia Analecta 149, vol. 3, Leuven, Paris,
Dudley, 303–307.
Thomas, N.
1991 Entangled Objects, Cambridge, London.
2005 Niello or Not? Laboratory Analyses of the Black-In-
laid Weapons of the Aegean, Egypt, and the Levant,
in: R. Laffineur and E. Greco (eds.), Emporia: Ae-
geans in the Central and Eastern Mediterranean.
Proceedings of the 10th International Aegean Con-
ference, Athens, Italian School of Archaeology, 14–
18 April 2004, Aegeum 25, Liege, Austin, 717–730.
2011 Recognizing Niello: Three Aegean Daggers, in:
A. Vianello (ed.), Exotica in the Prehistoric Medi-
terranean, Oxford, 146–161.
Thomason, S. and K aufman, T.
1988 Language Contact, Creolization, and Genetic
Linguistics, Berkeley, Los Angeles, Oxford.
Thompson, H.O.
1970 Mekal. The God of Beth-Shan, Leiden.
Thomson, W.G.
1904 Tapestry-Woven Fabrics, in: H. Carter and
P.E. Newberry, The Tomb of Thoutmôsis IV,
Westminster, 143–144.
Tietze, C. and A bd el-M aksoud, M.
2004 Tell Basta. Ein Führer über das Grabungsgelände,
Potsdam.
 Selected Bibliography
Tillmann, A.
1994 Die Steinartefakte, in: M. Bietak and I. H ein (eds.),
Pharaonen und Fremde. Dynastien im Dunkel.
Katalogue der 194. Sonderausstellung des Histor-
ischen Museums der Stadt Wien, Rathaus Wien,
Volkshalle, 8. Sept.–23. Oktober 1994, Vienna,
105–109, 257.
2007 Neolithikum in der Späten Bronzezeit. Steingeräte
des 2. Jahrtausend aus Auaris-Piramesse, Forschun-
gen in der Ramses-Stadt 4, Hildesheim.
Tinker, H.
1977 The Banyan Tree: Overseas Emigrants from India,
Pakistan and Bangladesh, Oxford.
Tonietti, M.
2018 The First Ancient Near Eastern Written Sources on
Musicians’ Activity and Performance: The Ebla Ar-
chives – A Glance at the 3rd Millennium BCE Syrian
Evidence, in: A. Garcia-Ventura, C. Tavolieri and
L. Verderame (eds.), The Study of Musical Perfor-
mance in Antiquity. Archaeology and Written Sources,
Newcastle, 9–38.
Tooley, A.
1989 Middle Kingdom Burial Customs. A Study of Wood-
en Models and Related Materials, PhD Dissertation,
University of Liverpool.
Török, L.
2009 Between Two Worlds. The Frontier Region between
Ancient Nubia and Egypt 3700 BC – 500 AD, Leiden,
Boston.
Toye, N.
2009 A Particular Form of Amun at Deir el-Medina:
Amun-Re n Ab. t j m n or Amun-Re n Ab. (w) t Jm n?,
The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 95, 257–263.
Töyräänvuori, J.
2012 Weapons of the Storm God in Ancient Near East-
ern and Biblical Traditions, Studia Orientalia 112,
147–180.
2016 “I Will Set His Hand on the Sea and His Right Hand
on the River”. North West Semitic Kingship and the
Sea of Combat Myth: A Survey of Hebrew Poetry in
Light of Ancient Near Eastern Evidence, PhD Dis-
sertation, University of Helsinki.
Trehub, S., Becker, J. and Morley, I.
2015 Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Music and Musicality,
The Royal Society Publishing. Philosophical Trans-
actions B 370, http://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2014.0096
(last accessed 28.05.2019).
Trigger, B.G.
2006 A History of Archaeological Thought, 2nd edition,
Cambridge.
Trimm, C.
2017 Fighting for the King and the Gods. A Survey of
Warfare in the Ancient Near East, Atlanta.
Tringham, R.
1983 V. Gordon Childe 25 Years After, Journal of Field
Archaeology 10, 85–100.
445
Tripolitis, A.
2002 Religions of the Hellenistic-Roman Age,
Cambridge.
Troalen, L.G., Guerra, M.F., Tate, J. and M anley, B.
2009 Technological Study of Gold Jewellery Pieces
Dating from the Middle Kingdom to the New
Kingdom in Egypt, ArcheoSciences 33, 111–119.
Trokay, M.
1968 Les origines du décor à granulations dans l’orfèvre-
rie égyptienne, Chronique d’Égypte 43, 271–280.
Troy, L.
1986 Patterns of Queenship in Ancient Egyptian Myth
and History, Boreas 14, Uppsala.
2009 Religion and Cult during the Time of Thutmose III,
in: E.H. Cline and D. O’Connor (eds.), Thutmose III:
A New Biography, Michigan, 123–182.
True, J., Jones, B. and Baumgartner, F.
2007 Punctuated Equilibrium Theory. Explaining
Stability and Change in Public Policymaking, in:
P. Sabatier (ed.), Theories of the Policy Process,
Boulder, 155–187.
Tsukimoto, A.
2010 Peace for the Dead, or kispu(m) Again, Orient 45,
101–109.
2014 “In the Shadow of Thy Wings”: A Review of the
Winged Goddess in Ancient Near Eastern Icono-
graphy, in: D.T. Sugimoto (ed.), Transformation
of a Goddess: Ishtar – Astarte – Aphrodite, Orbis
Biblicus et Orientalis 263, Fribourg, 15–31.
Tubb, J.N.
2000 Two Examples of Disability in the Levant, in:
J. Hubert (ed.), Madness, Disability and Social
Exclusion. The Archaeology and Anthropology of
‘Difference’, London, New York, 81–86.
Tufnell, O.
1969 The Pottery from Royal Tombs I–III at Byblos,
Berytus 18, 5–33.
1977 Graves at Tell el-Yehudiyeh: Reviewed after a Life-
Time, in: R. Moorey and P. Parr (eds.), Archaeo-
logy in the Levant. Essays for Kathleen Kenyon,
Warminster, 76–101.
1984 Scarabs and their Contribution to History in the
Early Second Millennium B.C., 2 vols., Studies on
Scarab Seals 2, Warminster.
Tufnell, O. and Ward, W.A.
1966 Relations between Byblos, Egypt and Mesopota-
mia at the End of the Third Millennium B.C.: A
Study of the Montet Jar, Syria 43, 165–241.
Tugendhaft, A.
2012 Unsettling Sovereignty: Politics and Poetics in
the Baal Cycle, Journal of the American Oriental
Society 132/3, 367–384.
Turnbull, H.
1972 On the Origin of the Long-Necked Lute, The
Galpin Society Journal 25, 58–66.
446 Selected Bibliography
Turner, P.J.
2013 Seth – A Misrepresented God in the Ancient
Egyptian Pantheon?, British Archaeological Reports
International Series 2473, Oxford.
Turner, S.
2015 The Horse in New Kingdom Egypt: Its Introduc-
tion, Nature, Role and Impact, PhD Dissertation,
Macquarie University.
Tylecote, R.
1962 Metallurgy in Archaeology, London.
Tylor, E.B.
1871 Primitive Culture. Researches into the Development
of Mythology, Philosophy, Religion, Art, and
Custom, vol. 1, London.
Tylor, J.
1900 Wall Drawings and Monuments of El-Kab. The
Tomb of Renni, London.
U 1986 Der Schuppenpanzer von Kāmid el-Lōz, in:
Uehlinger, C.
1999 Leviathan, in: K. van der Toom, B. Becking and
P.W. van der Horst (eds.), Dictionary of Deities and
Demons in the Bible, Leiden, Boston, Köln, 511–515.
Uerpmann, M.
2001 Remarks on the Animal Economy of Tell Abraq
(Emirates of Sharjah and Umm al-Qaywayn, UAE),
Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 31,
227–233.
Uljas, S.
2010 Archaeology of Language: A Case Study from
Middle Kingdom/Second Intermedaite Period
Egypt and Nubia, Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur
39, 373–382.
Uziel, J.
2011 Technology and Ideology in Middle Bronze Age
Canaan, Rosetta 10, 49–75.
V JE 59635), Annales du service des antiquités de
Vandenbeusch, M.
2020 Sur les pas de l’âne dans la religion égyptienne,
Leiden.
Vandersleyen, C.
1967 Une tempête sous le règne d’Amosis, Revue
d’égyptologie 19, 123–159.
1968 Deux nouveaux fragments de la stèle d’Amosis rela-
tant une tempête, Revue d’égyptologie 20, 127–134.
1971 Les guerres d’Amosis. Fondateur de la XVIIIe Dy-
nastie, Monographies Reine Élisabeth 1, Brussels.
2002 Les étrangers dans le Delta égyptien, Acta Orienta-
lia Belgica 16, 23–29.
Vandier, J.
1969 Le dieu Seth au Nouvel Empire a propos d’une récente
acquisition du Louvre, Mitteilungen des Deutschen
Archäologischen Instituts Kairo 25, 188–197.
Vandiver, P.
1983 Glass Technology at the Mid-Second-Millennium
BC Hurrian Site of Nuzi, Journal of Glass Studies
25, 239–247.
Vanel, A.
1965 L’iconographie du dieu de l’orage dans le Proche-
Orient ancien jusqu’au VIIe siècle avant J.-C.,
Cahiers de la revue biblique 3, Paris.
Vartavan, C.T. de
2007 Pistacia Species in Relation to their Use as Varnish
and “Incense” (sntr) in Pharaonic Egypt, Bulletin of
Parthian and Mixed Oriental Studies 2, 63–92.
Veenhof, K.R.
2010 Ancient Assur: The City, its Traders and its
Commercial Network, Journal of the Economic and
Social History of the Orient 53, 39–82.
Veldmeijer, A. and Ikram, S.
2018 Introduction, in: A. Veldmeijer and S. Ikram (eds.),
Chariots in Ancient Egypt. The Tano Chariot, A
Case Study, Leiden, 12–21.
Ventzke, W.
R. H achmann (ed.), Bericht über die Ergebnisse der
Ausgrabungen in Kāmid el-Lōz in den Jahren 1977
bis 1981, Saarbrücker Beiträge zur Altertumskunde
36, Bonn, 161–182.
Vercoutter, J.
1956 L’Égypte et le monde égéen préhellénique, Biblio-
thèque d’Étude 22, Cairo.
1959 The Gold of Kush, Kush 7, 120–153.
1962 Preliminary Report of the Excavation at Aksha by
the F.A.A.E. 1961, Kush 10, 101–116.
1974 Excavations at Mirgissa I (October–December 1962),
Kush 12, 57–62.
Vernier, É.
1927 Bijoux et orfèvreries, Cairo.
Vernus, P.
1982 La stèle du roi Sekhemsankhtaouyrê Neferhotep
Iykhernofert et la domination Hyksôs (Stèle Cairo
l’Égypte 68, 129–135.
1989 La stèle du pharaon Mntw-htpi, Revue d’égyptolo-
gie 40, 145–161.
2010 Réception linguistique et idéologique d’une nouvelle
technologie: Le cheval dans la civilisation pharao-
nique, in: M. Wissa (ed.), The Knowledge, Economy
and Technological Capabilities: Egypt, the Near
East and the Mediterranean 2nd Millennium BC–
1st Millennium AD. Proceedings of a Conference
held at the Maison de la Chimie Paris, France 9–10
December 2005, Barcelona, 1–46.
2016 Traditional Egyptian I (Dynamics), in:
J. Stauder-Porcher, A. Stauder and W. Wendrich
(eds.), UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology, http://
digital2.library.ucla.edu/viewItem.do?ark=21198/
zz002k6th5 (last accessed 08.07.2019).
Vernus, P. and Yoyotte, J.
2005 Le bestiaire des pharaons, Paris.
Vertovec, S.
2009 Transnationalism, London, New York.
 Selected Bibliography
Vila, A.
1963 Un depot de textes d’envoûtement au Moyen Empire,
Journal des Savants 3/1, 135–160.
1973 Un ritual d’envoûtement au Moyen Empire, in: M.
Sauter (ed.), L’Homme, hier et aujourd’hui. Recueil
d’études en homage à André Leroi-Gourhan, Paris,
625–639.
Vila, E. and Helmer, D.
2014 The Expansion of Sheep Herding and the Devel-
opment of Wool Production in the Ancient Near
East: An Archaeozoological and Iconographical
Approach, in: C. Breniquet and C. Michel (eds.),
Wool Economy in the Ancient Near East and the
Aegean: From the Beginnings of Sheep Husband-
ry to Institutional Textile Industry, Ancient Textile
Series 17, Oxford, Philadelphia, 22–40.
Vilain, S.
2018 Imitations et productions locales influencées par
la céramique Chypriote White Painted Pendent
Line Style à Tell el-Dab‘a, Ägypten und Levante 28,
487–505.
2019a 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.), The
Crossroads, vol. 3: A Stranger in the House: Foreign-
ers in Ancient Egyptian and Near Eastern Societies
of the Bronze Age, Proceedings of an International
Conference held in Prague, September 10–13, 2018,
Prague, 387–404.
2019b Shifting Connections: Trade and Crisis at Tell el-
Dab‘a during the Second Intermediate Period,
Workshop of the ERC Advanced Grant Project, The
Enigma of the Hyksos: Changing Clusters and Mi-
gration in the Near Eastern Bronze Age, 6 December,
Vienna.
Forth. A Crisis? What Crisis? Challenging Times at Tell
el-Dab‘a during the Second Intermediate Period,
in: M. Bietak and S. Prell (eds.), 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 December 2019,
Contributions to the Archaeology of Egypt, Nubia
and the Levant, Wiesbaden.
Vincent, H.
1928 Le Ba’al Cananéen de Beisan et sa parèdre, Revue
Biblique 37/4, 512–543.
Vink, F.
2016 Boundaries of Protection. Function and Significance
of the Framing (Lines) on Middle Kingdom
Apotropaia, in Particular Magic Wands, in:
G. Miniaci and W. Grajetzki (eds.), The World
of Middle Kingdom Egypt (2000–1550 BC).
Contributions on Archaeology, Art, Religion, and
Written Sources, vol. 2, Middle Kingdom Studies 2,
London, 257–284.
2016/ The Principles of Apotropaic Magic on Middle
2017 Kingdom Wands, Ancient Egypt 99, 12–17.
Virey, P.
1899 La tombe de vignes a Thèbes, Recueil de tra-
veaux relatifs à la philologie et à l’archéologie
ègyptiennes et assyriennes 21, 127–133.
447
Vita, J.-P.
2015 Canaanite Scribes in the Amarna Letters, Alter
Orient und Altes Testament 406, Münster.
Vittmann, G.
1977 Zum Verständis der Weihformel, Wiener Zeitschrift
für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 69, 21–32.
2003 Ägypten und die Fremden im ersten vorchristlichen
Jahrtausend, Kulturgeschichte der Alten Welt 97,
Mainz.
Vogel, C.
2003 Fallen Heroes?: Winlock’s ‘Slain Soldiers’ Recon-
sidered, The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 89,
239–245.
2006 Hieb- und stichfest? Überlegungen zur Typol-
ogie des Sichelschwertes im Neuen Reich, in:
D. Bröckelmann and A. K lug (eds.), In Pharaos
Staat: Festschrift für Rolf Gundlach zum 75. Ge-
burtstag, Wiesbaden, 271–286.
2013 Icon of Propaganda and Lethal Weapon: Further
Remarks on the Late Bronze Age Sickle Sword, in:
S. O’Brien and D. Boatright (eds.), Warfare and
Society in the Ancient Eastern Mediterranean. Pa-
pers arising from a Colloquium held at the Univer-
sity of Liverpool, 13th June 2008, British Archaeo-
logical Reports International Series 2583, Oxford,
71–87.
Vogelsang-Eastwood, G.
1987/ A Note on the So-Called Spinning Bowls, Jaar
1988 bericht van het vooraziat-egyptisch Genootschap,
Ex Oriente Lux 30, 78–88.
1992 The Production of Linen in Pharaonic Egypt,
Leiden.
1993 Pharaonic Egyptian Clothing, Leiden.
1999 Tut‘ankhamun’s Wardrobe: Garments from the
Tomb of Tutankhamun, Boreas.
2000 Textiles, in: P.T. Nicholson and I. Shaw (eds.),
Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology,
Cambridge, 268–298.
Voicu, C.-G.
2014 Caribbean Cultural Creolization, Social and Be-
havioral Sciences 149, 997–1002.
Voskos, I. and K napp, A.B.
2008 Cyprus at the End of the Late Bronze Age: Crisis
and Colonization or Continuity and Hybridization?,
American Journal of Archaeology 112/4, 659–684.
Voss, B.L.
2008 The Archaeology of Ethnogenesis. Race and Sexual-
ity in Colonial San Francisco, Berkeley.
Vreeze, M. de
2017 Pottery Ancestories: Comparing Ceramic Evolution
in the Eastern Mediterranean and South-East Ara-
bia during the Middle Bronze Age (ca. 2000–1550
BC) with the Use of Phylogenetic Methods, PhD Dis-
sertation, Durham University.
Vycichl, W.
1958 A Late Egyptian Dialect of Elephantine, Kush 6,
176–178.
448 Selected Bibliography
W Warburton, D.A.
Wachsmann, S.
1987 Aegeans in the Theban Tombs, Orientalia Lovanien-
sia Analecta 20, Leuven.
2009 On Drawing the Bow, Eretz-Israel 29, 238*–257*.
Waddell, W.G.
1971 Manetho, 2nd edition, London.
Wade, P.
2005 Rethinking Mestizaje: Ideology and Lived Experi-
ence, Journal of Latin American Studies 37, 239–257.
Wadley, L.
2016 Technological Transformations Imply Cultural
Transformations and Complex Cognition, in: M.
H aidle, N. Conrad and M. Bolus (eds.), The Nature
of Culture: Based on an Interdisciplinary Sympo-
sium ‘The Nature of Culture’, Tübingen, Germany,
New York, London, 57–63.
Waetzoldt, H.
2010 The Colours and Variety of Fabrics from Meso-
potamia during the Ur III Period (2050 BC), in:
C. Michel and M.-L. Nosch (eds.), Textile Termino-
logies in the Ancient Near East and Mediterranean
from the Third to the First Millennia BC, Ancient
Textiles Series 8, Oxford, Oakville, 201–209.
Wainwright, G.A.
1920 Balabish, The Egypt Exploration Society 37, London.
1963 The Origin of Storm-Gods in Egypt, The Journal of
Egyptian Archaeology 49, 13–20.
Wallace-H adrill, A.
2008 Rome’s Cultural Revolution, Cambridge.
Wallerstein, I.
1974a The Modern World-System: Capitalist Agriculture
and the Origins of the European World-Economy in
the Sixteenth Century, New York.
1974b The Rise and Future Demise of the World Capitalist
System: Concepts for Comparative Analysis,
Comparative Studies in Society and History 16,
387–415.
1979 The Capitalist World-Economy, Cambridge.
Walls, N.H.
1992 The Goddess Anat in Ugaritic Myth, Atlanta.
Wapnish, P.
1997 Middle Bronze Equid Burials at Tell Jemmeh and
a Reexamination of a Purportedly “Hyksos” Prac-
tice, in: E.D. Oren (ed.), The Hyksos: New Histori-
cal and Archaeological Perspectives, Philadelphia,
335–367.
Waraksa, E.A.
2008 Female Figurines (Pharaonic Period), in:
W. Wendrich (ed.), UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyp-
tology, http://digital2.library.ucla.edu/viewItem.
do?ark=21198/zz000s3mm6 (last accessed 26.04.18).
2009 Female Figurines from the Mut Precinct: Context
and Ritual Function, Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis
240, Fribourg.
2012 Economic Aspects of Textiles from the Egyptian
Standpoint, in the Context of the Ancient Near East,
in: M.-L. Nosch and R. Laffineur (eds.), KOSMOS.
Jewellery, Adornment and Textiles in the Aegean
Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 13th Internation-
al Aegean Conference, University of Copenhagen,
Danish National Research Foundation’s Centre
for Textile Research, 21–26 April 2010, Annales
liégeoises et PASPiennes d’archéologie égéenne 33,
Leuven, Liege, 305–310.
Ward, C.
2003 Pomegranates in Eastern Mediterranean Contexts
during the Late Bronze Age, World Archaeology
34/3, 529–541.
Ward, J.
1902 The Sacred Beetle. Egyptian Scarabs in Art and
History, London.
Ward, W.A.
1960 Some Effects of Varying Phonetic Conditions on
Semitic Loan Words in Egyptian, Journal of the
American Oriental Society 80/4, 322–327.
1961 Egypt and the East Mediterranean in the Early
Second Millennium B. C., Orientalia 30, 129–155.
1964 Relations between Egypt and Mesopotamia from
Prehistoric Times to the End of the Middle King-
dom, Journal of the Economic and Social History of
the Orient 7/1, 121–135.
1975/ A New Chancellor of the Fifteenth Dynasty, in:
1976 P. Naster, H. de M eulenaere and J. Quaegebeur
(eds.), Miscellanea in Honorem Josephi Vergote,
Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 6–7, 589–594.
1978a The Hiw-Ass, the Hiw-Serpent, and the God Seth,
Journal of Near Eastern Studies 37/1, 23–34.
1978b Studies on Scarab Seals, Warminster.
1982 Index of Egyptian Administrative and Religious
Titles of the Middle Kingdom, Beirut.
1987 Scarab Typology and Archaeological Context,
American Journal of Archaeology 91/4, 507–532.
1994 Foreigners Living in the Village, in: L.H. Lesko
(ed.), Pharaoh’s Workers: The Villagers of Deir el
Medina, Ithaca, NY, London, 61–86.
Ward, W.A. and Dever, W.G.
1994 Scarab Typology and Archaeological Context: An
Essay on Middle Bronze Age Chronology, Studies
on Scarab Seals 3, San Antonio.
Warner, D.
2008 The Archaeology of Canaanite Cult. An Analysis
of Canaanite Temples from the Middle and Late
Bronze Age in Palestine, Lexington.
Warren, P.
1995 Minoan Crete and Pharaonic Egypt, in: W.V. Da-
vies and L. Schofield (eds.), Egypt, the Aegean
and the Levant: Interconnections in the Second
Millennium B.C., London, 1–18.
Warren, P. and H ankey, V.
1989 Aegean Bronze Age Chronology, Bristol.
Wassell, B.A.
1991 Ancient Egyptian Fauna: A Lexicographical Study,
PhD Dissertation, Durham University.
 Selected Bibliography
Wassink, A.B.
1999 Historic Low Prestige and Seeds of Change: At-
titudes toward Jamaican Creole, Language and
Society 28/1, 57–92.
Watson, W.G.E.
1999 Ugaritic Poetry, in: W.G.E. Watson and N. Wy-
att (eds.), Handbook of Ugaritic Studies, Leiden,
Boston, Köln, 165–192.
Way, K.C.
2010 Assessing Sacred Asses: Bronze Age Donkey
Burials in the Near East, Levant 42/2, 210–225.
2011 Donkeys in the Biblical World: Ceremony and
Symbol, History, Archaeology, and Culture of the
Levant 2, Winona Lake.
Weber, J.
2008 Elite Equids: Redefining Equid Burials of the Mid-
to Late 3rd Millennium B.C. from Umm el-Mar-
ra, Syria, in: E. Vila, L. Gourichon, A. Choyke
and H. Buitenhuis (eds.), Archaeozoology of the
Near East, vol. 8: Actes des huitièmes rencontres
internationales d’archéozoologie de l’Asie du Sud-
Ouest et des régions adjacentes, Lyon, 499–519.
Webster, J.
2001 Creolizing the Roman Provinces, American Journal
of Archaeology 105/2, 209–225.
Weeks, L.R.
2003 Early Metallurgy of the Persian Gulf, Boston.
Weeks, N.
2004 Admonition and Curse. The Ancient Near Eastern
Treaty/Covenant Form as a Problem in Inter-
Cultural Relationships, London, New York.
Wegner, J.
1995 Regional Control in Middle Kingdom Lower Nu-
bia: The Function and History of the Site of Areika,
Journal of the American Research Centre in Egypt
32, 127–160.
1998 Excavations at the Town of Enduring-are-the-Plac-
es-of-Khakaure-Maa-Kheru-in-Abydos. A Prelimi-
nary Report on the 1994 and 1997 Seasons, Journal
of the American Research Center in Egypt 35, 1–44.
2009 A Decorated Birth-Brick from South Abydos: New
Evidence on Childbirth and Birth Magic in the Mid-
dle Kingdom, in: D.P. Silverman, W.K. Simpson
and J. Wegner (eds.), Archaism and Innovation.
Studies in the Culture of Middle Kingdom Egypt,
New Haven, Philadelphia, 447–496.
2010 Tradition and Innovation: The Middle Kingdom, in:
W. Wendrich (ed.), Egyptian Archaeology, Oxford,
119–142.
Weigall, M.A.E.P.
1908 Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennes du
Musée du Caire. Nos 31271–31670: Weights and
Balances, Leipzig.
Weingarten, J.
2013 The Arrival of Egyptian Taweret and Bes[et]
on Minoan Crete: Contact and Choice, in:
L. Bombardieri, A. D’Agostino, G. Guarducci,
449
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 Reports
International Series 2581, Oxford, 371–378.
Weinstein, J.
1981 The Egyptian Empire in Palestine: A Reassessment,
Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental
Research 241, 1–28.
1991 Egypt and the Middle Bronze IIC/Late Bronze IA
Transition in Palestine, Levant 23, 105–115.
1992 The Chronology of Palestine in the Early
Second Millennium B.C.E., Bulletin of the Ameri-
can Schools of Oriental Research 288, 27–46.
1995 Reflections on the Chronology of Tell el-Dab‘a,
in: W.V. Davies and L. Schofield (eds.), Egypt, the
Aegean and the Levant, London, 84–90.
Weisberger, G.
1983 Copper Production during the Third Millennium
BC in Oman and the Question of Makan, Journal of
Oman Studies 6, 269–276.
Wendland, A.V.
2012 Cultural Transfer, in: B. Neumann and A. Nünning
(eds.), Travelling Concepts for the Study of Culture,
Berlin, Boston, 45–66.
Wenig, S.
1978 Africa in Antiquity, vol. 2: The Catalogue,
New York.
Wenke, R.
1997 Anthropology, Egyptology, and the Concept of
Cultural Change, in: J. Lustig (ed.), Anthropology
and Egyptology: A Developing Dialogue, Sheffield,
117–136.
2009 The Ancient Egyptian State. The Origins of Egyptian
Culture (c. 8000–2000 B.C.), Cambridge.
2016 Methods and Objectives of the Kom el-Hisn
Archaeological Project, in: R. Wenke, R. R edding
and A.J. Cagle, Kom el-Hisn (ca. 2500–1900 BC).
An Ancient Settlement in the Nile Delta of Egypt,
Atlanta, 1–52.
Wenke, R., R edding, R. and Cagle, A.
2016 Kom el-Hisn (ca. 2500–1900 BC). An Ancient
Settlement in the Nile Delta of Egypt, Atlanta.
Wente, E.F.
1990 Letters from Ancient Egypt, Society of Biblical
Literature Writings from the Ancient World 1,
Atlanta.
2003a The Quarrel of Apophis and Seknenre (trans.), in:
W.K. Simpson (ed.), The Literature of Ancient Egypt,
New Haven, London, 72–74.
2003b The Tale of the Two Brothers, in: W.K. Simpson
(ed.), The Literature of Ancient Egypt, New Haven,
London, 80–90.
Werner, P.
1994 Die Entwicklung der Sakralarchitektur in Nord-
syrien und Südostkleinasien vom Neolithikum bis
in das 1. Jt. v. Ch., Münchner Vorderasiatische
Studien 15, Munich.
450 Selected Bibliography
Wernick, N.E.
2004 A Khepesh Sword in the University of Liverpool
Museum, Journal of the Society of the Studies of
Egyptian Antiquities 31, 151–155.
2014/ Ancient Egyptian Shields and their Handles: A
2015 Functional Explanation of New Kingdom Develop-
ments, Journal of the Society of the Studies of Egyp-
tian Antiquities 41, 47–83.
Westenholz, A.
1999 The Old Akkadian Period: History and Culture,
in: P. Attinger and M. Wäfler (eds.), Mesopota-
mien: Akkade-Zeit und Ur III-Zeit, Orbis Biblicus et
Orientalis 160/3, Göttingen, 17–117.
Westenholz, J.G.
2007 Inanna and Ishtar in the Babylonian World, in: G.
Leick (ed.), The Babylonian World, London, 328–343.
Western, A. and McLeod, W.
1995 Woods used in Egyptian Bows and Arrows, The
Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 18, 77–94.
Wettengal, W.
2003 Die Erzählung von den beiden Brüdern. Der Papy-
rus d’Orbiney und die Königsideologie der Rames-
siden, Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 195, Fribourg,
Göttingen.
White, R.
1991 The Middle Ground: Indians, Empires, and Repub-
lics in the Great Lakes, 1650–1815, New York.
Whitehouse, H.
2009 Ancient Egypt and Nubia in the Ashmolean Museum,
Oxford.
Wiedemann, A.
1891 Observations sur quelques stèles funéraires égyp-
tiennes, Muséon 10, 42–55, 199–205.
Wiener, M.H. and A llen, J.P.
1998 Separate Lives: The Ahmose Tempest Stela and the
Theran Eruption, Journal of Near Eastern Studies
57/1, 1–28.
Wilde, H.
2003 Technologische Innovationen im zweiten Jahrtau-
send vor Christus, Göttinger Orientforschungen
IV. Reihe, Ägypten 44, Wiesbaden.
2011 Innovation und Tradition. Zur Herstellung und
Verwendung von Prestigegütern im pharaonischen
Ägypten, Göttinger Orientforschungen IV. Reihe,
Ägypten 49, Wiesbaden.
Wildung, D.
1984 L’Âge d’Or de l’Égypte: Le Moyen Empire, Fribourg.
Wilhelm, G.
1997 Die Könige von Ebla nach der hurritisch-
hethitischen Serie ‘Freilassung’, Altorientalische
Forschungen 24, 277–293.
2001 Das hurritisch-hethitische ‘Lied der Freilassung’,
in: O. K aiser (ed.), Texte aus der Umwelt des
Alten Testaments, Ergänzungslieferung, Gütersloh,
82–91.
Wilkinson, A.
1971 Ancient Egyptian Jewellery, London.
Wilkinson, R.H.
1991 The Representation of the Bow in the Art of Egypt
and the Ancient Near East, Journal of Ancient Near
Eastern Studies 20, 83–99.
1994 Symbol and Magic in Egyptian Art, London.
2015 Turned Weapons in Egyptian Iconography – The
Decorum of Dominance, Journal of Ancient Egyp-
tian Interconnections 7/3, 95–100.
Wilkinson, T.A.H.
1999 Early Dynastic Egypt, London.
Wilkinson, T.C.
2014 Tying the Threads of Eurasia: Trans-Region-
al Routes and Material Flows in Transcaucasia,
Eastern Anatolia and Western Central Asia,
c. 3000–1500 BC, Leiden.
Willcocks, W. and Craig, J.
1913 Egyptian Irrigation, London.
Willems, H.
1983/ The Nomarchs of the Hare Nome and Early
1984 Middle Kingdom History, Jaarbericht van het
voor- aziat-egyptisch Genootschap, Ex Oriente
Lux 28, 80–102.
1984 A Second Look at the Reconstruction of Two Fes-
tival Gates from the Middle Kingdom, Journal of
the Society of the Studies of Egyptian Antiquities 14,
103–104.
Willey, G.R.
1953 A Pattern of Diffusion-Acculturation, Southwestern
Journal of Anthropology 9/4, 369–384.
Williams, B.
1975/ The Date of Senebtisi at Lisht and the Chronology of
1976 Major Groups and Deposits of the Middle Kingdom,
Serapis 3, 41–55.
1977 Aspects of Sealing and Glyptic in Egypt before the
New Kingdom, in: M. Gibson and R.D. Biggs (eds.),
Seals and Sealing in the Ancient Near East, Biblio-
theca Mesopotamica 6, Malibu, 135–140.
Williams, R. and Edge, D.
1996 The Social Shaping of Technology, Research Policy
25/6, 865–899.
Williams-Forte, E.
1983 The Snake and the Tree in the Iconography
and Texts of Syria during the Bronze Age, in:
L. Gorelick and E. Williams-Forte (eds.), Ancient
Seals and the Bible, Malibu, 18–43.
1993 Symbols of Rain, Lightning, and Thunder in the Art
of Anatolia and Syria, in: M.J. Mellink, E. Porada
and T. Özgüç (eds.), Aspects of Art and Iconogra-
phy: Anatolia and its Neighbours. Studies in Honor
of Nimet Özgüç, Ankara, 185–190.
Wilson, J.A.
1927 The Texts of the Battle of Kadesh, The American
Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures 43/4,
266–287.
 Selected Bibliography
1951 The Burden of Egypt: An Interpretation of Ancient
Egyptian Culture, Chicago.
1969 Egyptian Historical Texts, in: J.B. Pritchard (ed.),
Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old
Testament, 3rd edition, Princeton, New Jersey,
227–264.
Wilson-Wright, A.M.
2016 Athtart. The Transmission and Transformation of a
Goddess in the Late Bronze Age, Forschungen zum
Alten Testament 2, Reihe 90, Tübingen.
Wimmer, A.
2013 Ethnic Boundary Making: Institutions, Power,
Networks, Oxford.
Wimmer, S.J.
2005 Byblos vs. Ugarit: The Alalakh Seal Impression 194
Once Again, Levant 37, 127–132.
Winand, J.
1992 Études de néo-égyptien, vol. 1: La morphologie
verbale, Aegyptiaca Leodiensia 2, Liege.
2015 Dialects in Pre-Coptic Egyptian, with a Special
Attention to Late Egyptian, Lingua Aegyptia 23,
229–269.
2017 Identifying Semitic Loanwords in Late Egyptian, in:
E. Grossman, P. Dils, T.S. R ichter and W. Schenkel
(eds.), Greek Influence on Egyptian-Coptic: Contact-
Induced Change in an Ancient African Language,
Lingua Aegyptia Studia Monographica 17, Berlin,
Hamburg, Vienna, 481–511.
2018 Late Egyptian, in: J. Stauder-Porcher, A. Stauder
and W. Wendrich (eds.), UCLA Encyclopedia of
Egyptology, http://digital2.library.ucla.edu/viewItem.
do?ark=21198/zz002kdgjj (last accessed 08.07.2019).
Winlock, H.
1924 The Tombs of the Kings of the Seventeenth Dynasty
at Thebes, The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 10/3,
217–277.
1942 Excavations at Deir el Baḥri 1911–1931, New York.
1945 The Slain Soldiers of Neb-hepet-Re‘-Mentu-Hotpe,
New York.
1947 The Rise and Fall of the Middle Kingdom in Thebes,
New York.
1948 The Treasure of Three Egyptian Princesses, New York.
Winner, L.
1986 The Whale and the Reactor. A Search for Limits in an
Age of High Technology, Chicago, London.
Winter, I.
1999 Reading Ritual in the Archaeological Record:
Deposition Pattern and Function of Two Artifact
Types from the Royal Cemetery of Ur, in: H. Kühne,
R. Bernbeck and K. Bartl (eds.), Fluchtpunk Uruk:
Archäologische Einheit aus methodischer Vielfalt.
Schriften für Hans Jörg Nissen, Rahden, 229–256.
Winter, U.
2012 Frau und Göttin. Exegitsche und ikonographische
Studien zum weiblichen Gottesbild im Alten Israel
und in dessen Umwelt, Veröffentlichungen der Ideag-
ora für Religionsgeschichte Altertumwissenschaften
& Theologie, Tübingen.
451
Winthrop, R.H.
1991 Dictionary of Concepts in Cultural Anthropology,
New York, Westport, London.
Winthrop-Young, G.
2005 Memories of the Nile: Egyptian Traumas and Com-
munication Technologies in Jan Assmann’s Theo-
ry of Cultural Memory, New German Critique 96,
103–133.
Wissa, M. (ed.)
2010 The Knowledge, Economy and Technological
Capabilities: Egypt, the Near East and the Medi-
terranean 2nd Millennium BC–1st Millennium AD.
Proceedings of a Conference held at the Maison
de la Chimie Paris, France 9–10 December 2005,
Barcelona.
Wodzińska, A.
2009 Tell el-Retaba 2009: The Pottery, Polish Archaeolo-
gy in the Mediterranean 21, 124–133.
2011 Pottery and Chronology: Preliminary Remarks on Ce-
ramic Material from Tell el-Retaba, in: D.A. Aston,
B. Bader, C. Gallorini, P.T. Nicholson and S. Buck-
ingham (eds.), Under the Potter’s Tree. Studies on
Ancient Egypt presented to Janine Bourriau on
the Occasion of her 70th Birthday, Orientalia Lo-
vaniensia Analecta 204, Leuven, Paris, Walpole,
1015–1036.
2012 Imported Vessels found in Tell el-Retaba – Signs of
Egypt’s International Contacts, Journal of Ancient
Egyptian Interconnections 4/4, 45–46.
2013 Tell el-Retaba, Season 2010: Pottery Report, Polish
Archaeology in the Mediterranean 22, 96–103.
2014 Tell el-Retaba 2011: The Pottery, Polish Archaeolo-
gy in the Mediterranean 23/1, 109–116.
2018 Tell el-Retaba during Second Intermediate Period.
Pottery and People, 11th International Congress on
the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, Munich,
6 April 2018.
Wolf, W.
1926 Die Bewaffnung des altägyptischen Heeres, Leipzig.
1929 Der Stand der Hyksosfrage, Zeitschrift der Deutschen
Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 83, 67–79.
Wolters, J.
1981 The Ancient Craft of Granulation. A Re-Assess-
ment of Established Concepts, Gold Bulletin 14/3,
119–129.
Wood, B.
1987 Egyptian Amphorae of the New Kingdom and
Ramesside Periods, The Biblical Archaeologist 50,
75–83.
Woodcock, T.
2019 Kush, in: L. Sabbahy (ed.), All Things Ancient
Egypt. An Encyclopedia of the Ancient Egyptian
World, Santa Barbara, 290–293.
Woods, A.
2016– Drawing the Bow: A Re-Examination of the Desert
2018 Hunt Scene in the Tomb of Khnumhotep II at Beni
Hassan, Bulletin of the Australian Centre for
Egyptology 26, 103–125.
452 Selected Bibliography
Woolf, G.
1998 Becoming Roman: The Origins of Provincial Roman
Civilization in Gaul, Cambridge.
Woolley, L.
1934 Ur Excavations, vol. 2: The Royal Cemetery, London,
Philadelphia.
1955 Alalakh. An Account of the Excavations at Tell
Atchana in the Hatay, 1937–1949, Oxford.
Wreszinski, W.
1912 Der Londoner medizinische Papyrus (Brit. Museum
Nr. 10059) und der Papyrus Hearst in Transkription,
Übersetzung und Kommentar, Leipzig.
1935 Atlas zur altägyptischen Kulturgeschichte, vol. 2,
Leipzig.
Wright, G.R.H.
1968 Tell el-Yehūdīyah and the Glacis, Zeitschrift des
Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 84, 1–17.
1985 Ancient Building in South Syria and Palestine,
Leiden.
Wyatt, N.
1984 The ‘Anat Stela from Ugarit and its Ramifications,
Ugarit-Forschungen 16, 327–337.
1992 The Titles of the Ugaritic Storm-God, Ugarit-For-
schungen 24, 403–424.
1996 Myths of Power. A Study of Royal Power and
Ideology in Ugaritic and Biblical Tradition,
Ugaritisch-Biblische Literatur 13, Münster.
1997 Ilumilku’s Ideological Programme: Ugaritic Royal
Propaganda, and a Biblical Postscript, Ugarit-For-
schungen 29, 775–796.
1999a The Religion of Ugarit: An Overview, in:
W.G.E. Watson and N. Wyatt (eds.), Handbook of
Ugaritic Studies, Leiden, Boston, Köln, 529–585.
1999b Astarte, in: K. van der Toom, B. Becking and
P.W. van der Horst (eds.), Dictionary of Deities and
Demons in the Bible, 2nd revised edition, Leiden,
Boston, 109–114.
2002 Religious Texts from Ugarit, Sheffield.
2005 The Religious Role of the King in Ugarit,
Ugarit-Forschungen 37, 695–728.
Wyatt, S.
2008 Technological Determinism is Dead: Long
Live Technological Determinism, in: E. Hackett,
O. A msterdamska, M. Lynch and J. Wajcman
(eds.), The Handbook of Science and Technological
Studies, Cambridge, 165–180.
Wygnańska, Z.
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, 605–618.
Wyk, K. van
2014 Pig Taboos in the Ancient Near East, Internation-
al Journal of Humanities and Social Science 4/13,
111–134.
Y Z
Yacoub, F.
1983 Excavations at Tell Farasha, Annales du service des
antiquités de l’Égypte 65, 175–176.
Yadin, Y.
1955 Hyksos Fortifications and the Battering-Ram,
Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Re-
search 137, 23–32.
1963 The Art of Warfare in Biblical Lands in the Light of
Archaeological Discovery, New York.
1972a Hazor. The Head of all those Kingdoms, London.
1972b The Earliest Representation of a Siege Scene from
Mari and the ‘Scythian Bow from Mari’, Israel Ex-
ploration Journal 22, 89–94.
Yadin, Y., Aharoni, Y., Dunayevski, E., Dothan, T., Amiran, R.
and Perrot, J. (eds.)
1958 Hazor, vol. 1: An Account of the First Season of Ex-
cavations, 1955, Jerusalem.
1960 Hazor, vol. 2: An Account of the Second Season of
Excavations, 1956, Jerusalem.
1961 Hazor, vol. 3–4: An Account of the Third and
Fourth Seasons of Excavation, 1957-1958. Plates,
Jerusalem.
Yasur-Landau, A., Cline, E.H., Koh, A.J., R atzlaff, A.,
Goshen, N., Susnow, M., Waiman-Barak, P. and Crandall, A.
2018 The Wine Storage Complexes at the Middle
Bronze II Palace of the 2013 and 2015 Seasons,
American Journal of Archaeology 122/2, 309–338.
Yasur-Landau, A., Cline, E. and Samet, I.
2011 Our Cups Overfloweth: “Kabri Goblets” and Ca-
naanite Feasts in the Middle Bronze Age Levant,
in: W. Gauss, M. Lindbolm, R. Smith and J. 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, British
Archaeological Reports International Series 2227,
Oxford, 382–392.
Yoffee, N.
2010 Collapse in Ancient Mesopotamia: What Happened,
What Didn’t?, in: P. McAnany and N. Yoffee (eds.),
Questioning Collapse: Human Resilience, Ecolo-
gical Vulnerability, and the Aftermath of Empire,
Cambridge, 176–206.
Yoshimura, S. and K awai, N.
2008 An Intact Burial in North-West Saqqara, Egyptian
Archaeology 30, 3–5.
Young, J.O. and Brunk, C.G. (eds.)
2009 The Ethics of Cultural Appropriation, Malden,
MA, Oxford, Chichester.
Yoyotte, J.
1950 Les stèles de Ramsès II à Tanis, Kêmi 11, 47–62.
1952a Les stèles de Ramsès II à Tanis, Kêmi 12, 81–84.
1952b Sur Bata, maître de Sako, Revue d’égyptologie 9,
157–159.
1989 Les souvenirs Tanites du roi Ãasehre Nehesy, Bulle-
tin de la societé des fouilles française de Tanis 2/3,
119–137.
2005 Le bélier, in: P. Vernus and J. Yoyotte (eds.),
Le bestiare des pharaons, Paris, 484.
Zaccagnini, C.
1979 Notes on the Weight System at Alalah VII, Orientalia
48, 472–475.
 Selected Bibliography
1986 Aspects of Copper Trade in the Eastern
Mediterranean during the Late Bronze Age, in:
M. M arazzi (ed.), Traffici miceni nel Mediterraneo,
Taranto, 413–424.
2000 A Note on Old Assyrian Weight Stones and Weight
System, in: S. Graziani (ed.), Studi sul Vicino
Oriente Antico, dedicati alla memoria di Luigi
Cagni, Naples, 1203–1213.
Zandee, J.
1963 Seth als Sturmgott, Zeitschrift für Ägyptische
Sprache und Altertumskunde 90, 144–156.
Zane, N. and M ak, W.
2003 Major Approaches to the Measurement of Accultur-
ation among Ethnic Minority Populations: A Con-
tent Analysis and an Alternative Empirical Strategy,
in: K.M. Chun, P.B. Organista and G. M arin (eds.),
Acculturation: Advances in Theory, Measurement,
and Applied Research, Washington, 39–60.
Zeger, U.
2009 Siegel und Siegelabdrücke aus Magazinen des
thutmosidischen Palastbereiches von Ezbet Helmi,
Mag. Phil. Dissertation, University of Vienna.
Zeidler, J.
2000 Zur Etymologie von wrr.yt ‘Wagen’‚ Göttinger
Miszellen 178, 97–111.
Zernecke, A.E.
2013 The Lady of the Titles: The Lady of Byblos and the
Search for her “True Name”, Die Welt des Orients
42/3, 226–242.
Zettler, R. and Horne, L. (eds.)
1998 Treasures from the Royal Tombs of Ur, Philadelphia.
Zibelius, K.
1978 Ägyptische Siedlungen nach Texten des Altes Reiches,
Wiesbaden.
Ziffer, I.
1990 At the Time the Canaanites were in the Land.
Daily Life in Canaan in the Middle Bronze Age 2,
2000–1550 B.C.E., Tel Aviv.
2005 From Acemhöyük to Megiddo. The Banquet Scene
in the Art of the Levant in the Second Millennium
BCE, Tel Aviv 32, 133–167.
2010 Western Asiatic Tree-Goddesses, Ägypten und Le-
vante 20, 411–430.
Zijl, P.J. van
1972 Baal. A Study of Texts in Connexion with Baal in the
Ugaritic Epics, Alter Orient und Altes Testament 10,
Kevelaer.
453
Zivie, A.-P.
1997 Seth, échanson royal, et sa tombe de Saqqara, in:
J. van Dijk (ed.), Essays on Ancient Egypt in Hon-
our of Herman Te Velde, Egyptological Memoirs 1,
Groningen, 373–382.
2003 Les tombeaux retrouvés de Saqqara, Monaco.
2007 The Lost Tombs of Saqqara, Toulouse.
Zivie-Coche, C.
1994 Dieux autres, dieux des autres: Identité culturelle
et alterité dans l’Égypte ancienne, in: I. A lon,
I. Gruenwald and I. Singer (eds.), Concepts of the
Other in Near Eastern Religions, Israel Oriental
Studies 14, Leiden, New York, Köln, 56–78.
2011 Foreign Deities in Egypt, in: J. Dieleman and
W. Wendrich (eds.), UCLA Encyclopedia of Egypto-
logy, https://escholarship.org/uc/item/7tr1814c (last
accessed 23.05.2019).
Zohary, D.
1995 The Domestication of the Grapevine Vitis Vinifera
L. in the Near East, in: P. McGovern, S. Fleming and
S. K atz (eds.), The Origins and Ancient History of
Wine, Philadelphia, 23–30.
2002 Domestication of the Carob (Ceratonia siliqua L.),
Israel Journal of Plant Sciences 50/1, 141–145.
Zohary, D. and Hopf, M.
1994 Domestication of Plants in the Old World: The Or-
igin and Spread of Cultivated Plants in West Asia,
Europe and the Nile Valley, Oxford.
Zöller-Engelhardt, M.
2016 Sprachwandelprozesse im Ägyptischen. Eine funk-
tional-typologische Analyse vom Alt- zum Neu-
ägyptischen, Ägyptologische Abhandlungen 72,
Wiesbaden.
Zuckerman, S.
2007 ‘..Slaying Oxen and Killing Sheep, Eating Flesh
and Drinking Wine ..’: Feasting in Late Bronze Age
Hazor, Palestine Exploration Quarterly 139/3,
186–204.
Zurawski, B.
2002 Survey and Excavations between Old Dongola and
ez-Zuma, Sudan and Nubia 6, 73–85.
Zurins, J.
1986 Equids Associated with Human Burials in Third
Millennium B. C. Mesopotamia: Two Complemen-
tary Facets, in: R.H. Meadow and H.-P. Uerpmann
(eds.), Equids in the Ancient World, Wiesbaden,
164–193.
454 Selected Bibliography
 List of Figures
List of Figures
Chapter 1: Introduction
Fig. 1.1. Map of Egypt and parts of Nubia
with pertinent sites mentioned in the text.
Map by Patrick Aprent.
Fig. 1.2. Map of the Near East with pertinent sites
mentioned in the text. Map by Patrick
Aprent.
Fig. 1.3. General chronological correlations between
Egypt and the Levant, from the Predynastic
Period to the New Kingdom. Following
Sowada 2009, tables 2–3; Bietak 2010a.
Fig. 1.4. Kings of the Middle Kingdom to the New
Kingdom, with selected rulers of Dynasties
13–17 (*sequence not fixed). Collated after
Hornung, K rauss and Warburton 2006;
Ryholt 1997.
Fig. 1.5. Chronological correlations between Egypt,
Tell el-Dab‘a and the Levant. After Bietak
2010a.
Chapter 3: Socio-Political Transformations and
Foreign Relations
Fig. 3.1. Map of the Eastern Delta with pertinent
sites mentioned in the text. Map by Patrick
Aprent.
Fig. 3.2. Map of Tell el-Dab‘a. After Bietak 2013b,
fig. 1.
Fig. 3.3. Stratigraphy of Tell el-Dab‘a. After Bietak
2010a, fig. 7.
Fig. 3.4. Percentage of Levantine imports and
locally made MBA-type pottery at Tell el-
Dab‘a from domestic contexts (Areas A/II,
F/I, A/IV and A/V), according to Kopetzky
2010, fig. 52.
Fig. 3.5. Percentage of Marl C and Marl F pottery
at Tell el-Dab‘a from domestic contexts
(Areas A/II, F/I, A/IV and A/V), according
to Kopetzky 2010, fig. 44.
Fig. 3.6. Number of published Nubian-type pottery
at Tell el-Dab‘a and ‘Ezbet Helmi,
according to Aston and Bietak 2017, 507.
Fig. 3.7. Number of Cypriot-type pottery at Tell el-
Dab‘a and ‘Ezbet Helmi, according to
M aguire 2009, table 3; H ein 2018, fig. 4.
Fig. 3.8. Geographical designates of petrographic
Groups A–K of imported vessels found at
Tell el-Dab‘a. After Cohen-Weinberger
and Goren 2004, fig. 1.
Fig. 3.9. Plan of houses identified as of Mittelsaal
(‘Middle-room’) and Breitraum (‘Broad-
room’) architecture. Area F/I, Stratum d/2
(Phase H), Tell el-Dab‘a. After Bietak
2010a, fig. 12.
455
Fig. 3.10. Plan of complex with associated tombs.
Area F/I, Stratum d/1 (Phase G/4), Tell
el-Dab‘a. After Bietak 1991b, fig. 6.
Fig. 3.11. Plan of Tomb F/I-m/18-Nr. 3 and its
associated grave goods. Area F/I, Stratum
d/1 (Phase G/4), Tell el-Dab‘a. After
Schiestl 2009, figs. 332, 335, 337–338.
Fig. 3.12. Plan of the ‘sacred precinct’. Area A/II,
Tell el-Dab‘a. After Bietak 2010a, fig. 34.
Fig. 3.13. Plan of large palatial complex. Area F/II,
Strata c/2–c/1 (Phases E/2–D/3), Tell el-
Dab‘a. Bietak et al. 2012/2013, fig. 3.
Fig. 3.14. Findspot of seal impression in earlier level
of palatial complex. Area F/II, Stratum d
(Phase E/3), Tell el-Dab‘a. Bietak et al.
2012/2013, fig. 16a.
Fig. 3.15. Seal impression TD 9402H, with
reconstruction. Kopetzky and Bietak
2016, fig. 3.
Fig. 3.16. Plan of ‘Ezbet Helmi with structures
assigned to Stratum e/2 (Phase D/2).
Bietak 2010a, fig. 25.
Fig. 3.17. Plan of storage facilities and small
complex. Areas H/III and H/VI, Stratum
e/1.2 (Phase D/1), ‘Ezbet Helmi. Bietak
2010a, fig. 27.
Fig. 3.18. Plan of offering pits and burials. Area
H/III, Stratum e/1 (Phase D/1), ‘Ezbet
Helmi. After Bietak, Dorner and Jánosi
2001, fig. 24.
Fig. 3.19. Detail of plan of Area H/III. Bietak,
Dorner and Jánosi 2001, fig. 25.
Fig. 3.20. Plan of L1016 in Area H/III. After Bietak,
Dorner and Jánosi 2001, fig. 31a–b.
Fig. 3.21. Plan of palatial precinct at ‘Ezbet Helmi.
Bietak 2010a, fig. 28.
Fig. 3.22. Geomagnetic survey map of walls in Strata
b/3–b/2 (Phases C/1–B/3). Bietak 2017,
fig. 7.
Fig. 3.23. (a) Plan of landscape of Tell el-Dab‘a
and Qantir (Bietak 2010a, fig. 4);
(b) Location of excavated areas at Qantir
(after Dorner 2009, plan 2, fig. 5; P usch
and Becker 2017, fig. 33).
Fig. 3.24. Plan of Area B, Tell Hebwa I. After
A bd el-M aksoud 1998, fig. 19.
Fig. 3.25. Levantine imports (Group VI) and locally
made MBA-type pottery (Groups VII–X)
assigned to the late Second Intermediate
Period from Tell Hebwa I. Not to scale.
Drawing by Patrick Aprent, after
A bd el- M aksoud 1998, figs. 14–17.
Fig. 3.26. Cypriot-type pottery (Group XI) and
Bichrome Ware (Group XII) assigned to
the late Second Intermediate Period and
456 List of Figures
Eighteenth Dynasty from Tell Hebwa I.
Not to scale. Drawing by Patrick Aprent,
after A bd el-M aksoud 1998, figs. 18–20.
Fig. 3.27. Development of occupation at Tell el-
Maskhuta, Phases 1–6. K siezak 2019,
fig. 3. Courtesy of A. Ksiezak.
Fig. 3.28. Plan of Second Intermediate Period
cemetery at Tell el-Retaba. Drawing by
Patrick Aprent, after Nour el-Din et al.
2016, plan 1.
Fig. 3.29. Plan of Second Intermediate Period
occupation at Area 4, Tell el-Retaba.
Drawing by Patrick Aprent, after Hudec
et al. 2018, fig. 2.
Fig. 3.30. Plan of New Kingdom occupation at Area 4,
Tell el-Retaba. Drawing by Patrick Aprent,
after Hudec et al. 2018, fig. 4.
Fig. 3.31. Imported vessels at Tell el-Retaba.
Drawing by Patrick Aprent, after
Wodzińska 2012, figs. 1, 4.
Fig. 3.32. Fragment TD 9420 with cuneiform text.
L1045, palatial complex, Area F/II,
Stratum c/2–c/1 (Phase D/3–D/2). After
Bietak 2010e, fig. 14.
Fig. 3.33. TD 9421. Collected from surface, Area A/II.
Van Koppen and Lehmann 2012/2013,
fig. 1a–b. © Manfred Bietak: ÖAI/ÖAW
archive.
Fig. 3.34. TD 9373. Offering Pit Assemblage L81,
palatial complex, Area F/II, Strata d–c/2
(E/1–D/3). After Sartori 2009, fig. 12.
Fig. 3.35. Detail of a scene depicting the weighing
of metal. West wall, tomb of Amenemhat
(Nr. 2), Beni Hassan, reign of Senwosret I,
Dynasty 12. Courtesy of the Australian
Centre for Egyptology.
Fig. 3.36. Weights from Tomb A/I-g/3.4-Nr. 1-
Burial 4, Stratum D/3 (Phase D/3), Tell el-
Dab‘a. Prell and R ahmstorf 2019, fig. 32.
Fig. 3.37. Fragments depicting representations of
Asiatics, horses and related texts. Funerary
Temple of Ahmose, Abydos, Dynasty 18.
After H arvey 1998, figs. 76–77, 80.
Fig. 3.38. Detail of stela of Neferperet, near Tura, reign of
Ahmose, Dynasty 18. After Daressy 1911,
263.
Fig. 3.39. Overview of interactions with Hyksos-
controlled areas and the Near East as
attested in texts assigned to the reigns of
Kamose to Thutmose II.
Fig. 3.40. Detail of a scene depicting marshland
activities. East wall, tomb of Puyemra
(TT 39), el-Khokha, reign of Thutmose III,
Dynasty 18. After N. de G. Davies 1922,
pl. 15.
Fig. 3.41. Selected titles and epithets of rulers from
the reign of Seqenenra Tao to Hatshepsut.
Collated after Ryholt 1997, 400; Leprohon
2013, 91–98.
Chapter 4: Religious Transformations
Fig. 4.1. A stela depicting the LBA storm god from
Ugarit. © RMN-Grand Palais (Musée du
Louvre) / Hervé Lewandowski.
Fig. 4.2. Depictions of the smiting Near Eastern
storm god. (a) Seal impression, MBIIA–B,
Ugarit (after Teissier 1996, 51 [9]); (b) Seal
impression, MBIIA–B, Ebla (after Teissier
1996, 103 [199]); (c) Seal impression,
Akkadian Period, unknown provenance
(after Green 2003, fig. 7 [b]); (d) Seal
impression, MBIIA–B, Kanesh, Level Ib
(after Green 2003, fig. 18); (e) Seal
impression, MBA, Samiya, Mari (after
A miet 1960, fig. 7); (f) Seal impression,
Akkadian Period, Mari (after U. Winter
2012, fig. 459); (g) Seal impression, MBA,
unknown provenance (after Vanel 1965,
fig. 17); (h) Seal impression, MBII–LBA,
Jerusalem (after U. Winter 2012, fig. 214).
Fig. 4.3. Seth Nb.ty. Causeway of the pyramid
complex of Sahura, Abusir, Dynasty 5.
After Borchardt 1913, pl. 5.
Fig. 4.4. The Seth-animal among other fantastical
creatures. East wall, tomb of Baqet III,
Dynasty 11 (?). Courtesy of the Australian
Centre for Egyptology.
Fig. 4.5. Seth and Horus binding the s mA- tA. wy
symbol. Temple of Amun, Karnak, reign
of Senwosret I, Dynasty 12. After
Te Velde 1967, pl. 5 [1].
Fig. 4.6. The Seth-animal personified. Lintel
commemorating Senwosret III’s heb-sed
festival, Medamud, reign of Senwosret III,
Dynasty 12. After Cruz-Uribe 2009, fig. 3.
Fig. 4.7. MBA-type seal impression Alalakh 194,
on Alalakh Tablet 93. Room 22, Level IV
Palace, LBA, Alalakh. After Teissier 1996,
30 [77].
Fig. 4.8. Scarab from Level 6, MBIIB, Sidon. After
Loffet 2006.
Fig. 4.9. Depiction of haematite cylinder seal TD
2995. Northern wing of complex, Area F/I,
Stratum d/1–c (Phase G/1–4), Tell el-Dab‘a.
After Bietak 1990, fig. 5.
Fig. 4.10. Cylinder seal impression TD 7669. Area
A/IV, Tell el-Dab‘a. After H ein 2006, fig. 3.
Fig. 4.11. Scarab seals showing a smiting figure
from Tell el-Dab‘a. M linar 2004, figs. 4
[5], 5 [3], 8 [9]. (a) TD 110, Tomb F/I-
o/20-Nr. 2, Stratum c (Phase G/1–3);
(b) TD 1077, surface find; (c) TD 1036,
surface find.
Fig. 4.12. Scarab seals and an amulet showing a
smiting figure alongside marsh elements
After K eel 1995a, figs. 492–493; 1996b,
pls. 4 [17a], 5 [20–21]; Vink 2016, fig. 9.
Fig. 4.13. Cylinder seal impression TD 8995.
 List of Figures
Workshop, Area H/VI, Stratum c (Phase C/2),
Tell el-Dab‘a. After Bietak 2004, fig. 11.
Fig. 4.14. Lintel, Temple of Seth Nb.ty. Reign of
Thutmose I, Dynasty 18. After Petrie and
Quibell 1896, pl. 77. Fig. 4.28.
Fig. 4.15. Relief, Temple of Amun at Karnak. Reign
of Thutmose III, Dynasty 18. After LD 3,
pl. 36 [b]. Fig. 4.29.
Fig. 4.16. Relief, temple at Gebel Addah. Reign of
Horemheb, Dynasty 18. After LD 3,
pl. 122 [a].
Fig. 4.17. Plan of trapezoidal complex. Bietak 2011,
fig. 3.
Fig. 4.18. Fragmentary lintel. Reign of Horemheb,
Dynasty 18. Bietak 2011, fig. 5.
Fig. 4.19. Relief, Temple of Amun at Karnak. Reign
of Sety I, Dynasty 19. After Cruz-Uribe
2009, fig. 12.
Fig. 4.20. Fragmentary stela Aleppo National
Museum 384. Tell Nebi Mend, reign of
Sety I, Dynasty 19. After Pézard 1922, Fig. 4.30.
pl. 22.
Fig. 4.21. The upper section of the so-called 400
Year Stela (JE 60539). Tanis, reign of
Ramesses II, Dynasty 19. After Bietak
1990, fig. 1.
Fig. 4.22. Musées Royaux d’Art et d’Histoire Fig. 4.31.
E.06190. Unknown provenance, reign of
Ramesses II, Dynasty 19 (?) Drawn
from photograph after Musées Royaux Fig. 4.32.
d’A rt et d’H istoire E.06190.
Fig. 4.23. Fragmentary relief, temple at Matmar,
reign of Ramesses II, Dynasty 19. After
Cornelius 1994, pl. 43 [BR17].
Fig. 4.24. Detail of usurped statue’s throne (ÄM Fig. 4.33.
Berlin 7265). Unknown provenance, reign
of Merneptah, Dynasty 19. Drawn from
photograph, after Cornelius 1994, pl. 38
[BR10].
Fig. 4.25. Reconstruction of Stela FZN 87/0890
and 0891. Area Q/I-a/3, Stratum B/2b,
Qantir. After P usch and Eggebrecht 2006,
figs. 2, 4, 6. Fig. 4.34.
Fig. 4.26. Details of stelae showing the storm
god, Dynasty 19 (?). (a) Stela of
Djehutynefer (ÄM Berlin 8440), Thebes
(drawn from photograph, after Cornelius
1994, pl. 37 [BR9]); (b) Stela of
Montutauinakht (Ashmolean E.714), Fig. 4.35.
Serabit el-Khadim (after Gardiner and
Peet 1917, pl. 79 [308]); (c) Stela of Mami
(Louvre AO 13176), Temple of Baal, Ugarit
(drawn from photograph, after Cornelius
1994, pl. 39 [BR11]). Fig. 4.36.
Fig. 4.27. Depictions of the Near Eastern warrior
goddess. After U. Winter 2012, figs. 111,
184, 188, 487. (a) Seal impression,
Akkadian Period, unknown provenance;
(b) Seal impression, Akkadian Period,
457
unknown provenance; (c) Seal impression,
Old Babylonian Period, unknown
provenance; (d) Seal impression, Old
Babylonian Period, Mari.
Depictions of nude females of the LBA,
from (a) Akko; and (b) Minet el-Beida.
After U. Winter 2012, figs. 40, 42.
Depictions of the Near Eastern nude female.
After U. Winter 2012, figs. 77, 101,
116, 139, 301, 303. (a) Seal impression,
Old Syrian Period, Megiddo;
(b) Seal impression, Old Syrian
Period, unknown provenance; (c) Seal
impression, Old Syrian Period, unknown
provenance; (d) Seal impression, Kassite
Period, unknown provenance; (e) Seal
impression, Old Babylonian Period,
unknown provenance; (f) Seal impression,
Old Babylonian Period, Larsa; (g) Seal
impression, MBIIA–B, Kanesh, Level Ib.
MBA scarab seals showing the nude
female, from (a) MBIIB, Beth Shemesh;
(b) MBIIA–B, Jericho; (c) Late MBIIB,
Gezer; (d) Late MBA, Tell el-Far‘ah South;
(e) MBIIB, Lachish. After Schroer 1989,
97 [Nrs. 1, 6, 11], 98 [Nr. 19], 99 [Nr. 41]).
A terracotta plaque. Tell Asmar, Isin-Larsa
Period, late Third to early Second
Millennium BC. After U. Winter 2012, fig. 68.
Depictions of the so-called omega-shaped
symbol. (a) Cylinder seal impression, Third
Dynasty of Ur (after Bouillon 2014, fig. 8);
(b) Scarab base, MBIIA–B, Kanesh, Level Ib
(after K eel 1989a, fig. 9).
The so-called Hathor curls on Middle
Kingdom figurine MMA 08.200.18. Pit 252,
el-Lisht North, late Dynasty 12 to early
Dynasty 13. The Metropolitan Museum
of Art, CC0 1.0 Universal License:
ht t p s: //i m a ge s . m e t mu s e u m .o r g /
CRDImages/eg/original/08.200.18_front.
jpg.
Middle Kingdom scarab seals showing the
so-called Hathor-headed symbol, from
(a) El-Lahun (after Schroer 1989, fig. 81);
(b) Uronarti (after Schroer 1989, fig. 84);
(c) El-Lisht (after D. Ben-Tor 2007a, pl. 19
[27]). Drawing by Patrick Aprent.
A pectoral showing a frontal female figure
flanked by a falcon-headed sphinx (Horus)
and the Seth-animal. Probably from
Dahshur, Dynasty 12 (?). After Schroer
1989, fig. 140.
Late MBA scarab seals showing the so-
called Hathor-headed symbol, from
(a) Jericho; (b) Jericho; (c) Jericho; (d) Tell
el-‘Ajjul; (e) Tell el-‘Ajjul; (f) Tell Nagila.
After Schroer 1989, 141 [Nr. 59], 142
[Nrs. 74, 84], 143 [Nrs. 90–92].
458 List of Figures
Fig. 4.37. Scarab seals from Egyptian contexts of
likely Second Intermediate Period date
showing the so-called Hathor-headed
symbol. (a) MMA 22.1.408, el-Lisht
North (drawn from photograph, after
h t t p s: // i m a g e s . m e t m u s e u m .o r g /
C R D I m a g e s /e g /o r i g i n a l / 2 2 .1. 4 0 8 _
EGDP020340.jpg); (b) MMA 15.3.325,
el-Lisht North (drawn from photograph,
after https://images.metmuseum.org/
CR DImages/eg/original/15.3.325_bot.
jpg); (c) MAN_29, Tell el-Mansheya
(after A hmed et al. 2018, pl. 1);
(d) MAN_24, Tell el-Mansheya (after
A hmed et al. 2018, pl. 4);
(e) Tell el-Yahudiyah (after Naville
and Griffith 1890, pl. 10 [34]).
Fig. 4.38. Scarab seals from Tell el-Dab‘a showing
the so-called Hathor-headed symbol.
(a) TD 304, Area A/II (after Mlinar
2004, fig. 6b [14]); (b) TD 9455N, Area R/III
(drawn from photograph, after Reali 2017,
fig. 1); (c) TD 9458S, Area R/III (drawn from
photograph, after Reali 2017, fig. 3).
Fig. 4.39. Fragments of a sistrum collected from
Storeroom L1421, palatial complex, Area
F/II, Stratum d (Phase E/3). Bietak et al.
2012/2013, fig. 17. © Manfred Bietak: ÖAI/
ÖAW archive.
Fig. 4.40. Middle Kingdom representations of frontal
figures ascribing to the feminine form of
Romano’s ‘Bes-image’. Drawing by
Patrick Aprent, after Wegner 2009, fig. 10.
Fig. 4.41. Seal impression TD 9662L, Area R/IV,
street layer assigned to Dynasty 15.
Forstner-Müller et al. 2015, 81, fig. 71.
© ÖAI/ÖAW archive.
Fig. 4.42. Scarab seals from the Eastern Delta
showing the nude female. Drawing by
Patrick Aprent. (a) TD 1073, surface find
(M linar 2001, fig. 13b [15]); (b) TD 9453J,
Area R/III (drawn from photograph, after
R eali 2017, fig. 9); (c) TD 9452H, Area R/III
(drawn from photograph, after R eali 2017,
fig. 11); (d) Nr. 676, Tell el-Retaba (after
Nour el-Din et al. 2016, pl. 2 [676]);
(e) MAN_19, Tell el-Mansheya (after
A hmed et al. 2018, pl. 3); (f) Tell el-
Yahudiyah (after Petrie 1906, pl. 9 [137]);
(g) Tell el-Yahudiyah (after Petrie 1906,
pl. 9 [138]).
Fig. 4.43. Fragments of ceramic figurines collected
from Tell el-Dab‘a. © Manfred Bietak:
ÖAI/ÖAW archive. (a) TD 9027T, Area F/II,
Pit Assemblage L81; (b) TD 9400W, Area
F/II-n/24, Pit L153.
Fig. 4.44. Details of scenes from the tomb of
Wekhhotep (C1), Meir, Dynasty 12.
Courtesy of the Australian Centre for
Egyptology. (a) North wall; (b) South wall;
(c) East wall, north of entrance.
Fig. 4.45. Detail of Stela Musée Joseph Déchelette,
Roanne Nr. 163, Dynasty 13. After
De M eulenaere 1985, fig. 1.
Fig. 4.46. Stela of Betu (TBO 760) showing the
deities Reshef and Astarte. Tell el-Borg,
Dynasty 18. After Hoffmeier and K itchen
2007, fig. 1b.
Fig. 4.47. Stela of Neferhotep (Winchester 830).
Presumably from Deir el-Medina, reign of
Ramesses III, Dynasty 20. After U. Winter
2012, fig. 37.
Fig. 4.48. Details from stelae showing the deity
Reshef. Drawn from photographs, after
Cornelius 1994, pls. 5 [RR7], 15 [RR21],
16 [RR23], 22 [RR30]. (a) Stela of
Amenemopet (JE 70222), Deir el-Medina,
reign of Tutankhamun; (b) Stela of Sul
(OIC 10569), bought in Memphis,
Dynasty 19–20; (c) Stela of Pashed
(Cambridge EGA 3002.1943), Deir
el-Medina, early Dynasty 19; (d) Stela EA
191, presumably from Deir el-Medina,
Dynasty 19.
Fig. 4.49. Detail of a scene showing men identified as
Asiatics. Tomb of Khnumhotep I, reign
of Amenemhat I, Beni Hassan. Courtesy
of the Australian Centre for Egyptology.
Fig. 4.50. Diadem MMA 68.136.1 from the so-called
‘el-Salhiyah Treasure’. Presumably from
the Eastern Delta. The Metropolitan
Museum of Art, CC0 1.0 Universal License:
ht t p s: //i m a ge s . m e t mu s e u m .o r g /
CRDImages/eg/original/DP140433.jpg.
Fig. 4.51. Remains of severed right hands uncovered
in Pit L1543. Palatial complex, Area F/II,
Stratum c/2–c/1 (Phase E/1–D/3), Tell el-
Dab‘a. Bietak 2012, 43.
Fig. 4.52. Pit L1055. Area H/III, Stratum e/1.2
(Phase D/1.2), ‘Ezbet Helmi. After
Bietak, Dorner and Jánosi 2001, fig. 21.
Fig. 4.53. A fragment showing a pile of hands (?).
Pyramid Temple of Ahmose, Abydos,
Dynasty 18. After Harvey 2002/2003, fig. 8.
Fig. 4.54. Detail of a scene showing a pile of hands.
in association with the battle of Qadesh.
Temple of Sety I at Abydos, reign of
Ramesses II, Dynasty 19. Wreszinski
1935, pl. 70.
Fig. 4.55. Detail of a fragment showing an Egyptian
soldier aiming his weapon at the right hand
of a fallen enemy. Pylon II, Temple of
Karnak, reign of Tutankhamun,
Dynasty 18. After Galán 2002, fig. 1.
Fig. 4.56. A fragment showing soldiers carrying
spears with severed hands. Reign of
Tutankhamun (?), Dynasty 18. After
S. H einz 2001, 239 [III.6].
 List of Figures
Fig. 4.57. Depictions possibly showing elements
related to the process of severing hands.
(a) Seal impression, Old Babylonian
Period, Mari (after U. Winter 2012, fig.
188); (b) Seal impression, MBIIA–B,
unknown provenance (after Teissier 1984,
234–235 [Nr. 455]); (c) Seal impression,
MBIIA–B, unknown provenance (after
Teissier 1996, 117 [248]).
Chapter 5: Technological and Militaristic
Transformations
Fig. 5.1. Bun-shaped ingots from Tell el-Dab‘a.
Philip 2006, fig. 61 [1–2].
Fig. 5.2. Moulds with circular concave matrices
from Tell el-Dab‘a. Philip 2006, figs. 64,
68 [1], 74.
Fig. 5.3. Bun-shaped ingots from the Near East.
Drawing by Patrick Aprent. (a) Ingot from
Tell Sifr (Iraq), Old Babylonian Period
(after Moorey et al. 1988, fig. 3); (b) Ingot
from el-Maysar (Oman), Third Millennium
BC (after H auptmann and Weisgerber
1981, fig. 3).
Fig. 5.4. Moulds with circular concave matrices
from Serabit el-Khadim. Drawing by
Patrick Aprent, after Beit-A rieh 1985,
figs. 9 [6], 12 [3].
Fig. 5.5. Two-piece mould with three matrices, two
for socketed axes, and one for a harpoon.
Philip 2006, fig. 77.
Fig. 5.6. Long shallow pits, possibly batteries for
melting copper. Area H/VI-v/22, Stratum
e/1.1 (Phase D/1.1) or early Stratum d
(Phase C/3). Bietak and Forstner-Müller
2007, figs. 26–27.
Fig. 5.7. Crucibles from Tell el-Dab‘a. Philip 2006,
figs. 79 [4]–83.
Fig. 5.8. A scene showing metallurgical activity.
South wall of passage, tomb of Rekhmira
(TT 100), Sheikh ‘abd el-Qurna, reign of
Thutmose III to Amenhotep II, Dynasty
18. After N. de G. Davies 1943, pls. 52–53.
Fig. 5.9. Depictions of the horse-drawn chariot.
(a) Seal impression, Old Babylonian
Period (reign of Hammurabi), unknown
provenance (after Littauer and Crouwel
1979, fig. 31); (b) Seal impression,
MBIIA–B, purchased in Beirut (after
Littauer and Crouwel 1979, fig. 36);
(c) Seal impression, MBIIA–B, purchased
in Aleppo (drawn from photograph,
after https://collections.ashmolean.org/
object/486027).
Fig. 5.10. Burial of a mare. Palatial complex, Area
F/II-k/26-L1418, Stratum c/2 (Phase E/1).
Bietak 2010e, fig. 5.
459
Fig. 5.11. Plan of Area H/III pinpointing findspots of
equid remains. After von den Driesch and
Peters 2001, fig. 1.
Fig. 5.12. Scarab seal EA 17774 of Thutmose I.
Unknown provenance, Dynasty 18. Drawn
from photograph, after https://www.
br itish museu m.org /collection /object /
Y_EA17774.
Fig. 5.13. Scarab seal Basel Cat. Nr. 213 of
Amenhotep I. Unknown provenance,
Dynasty 18. After Hornung and Staehelin
1976, 233 [213].
Fig. 5.14. Fragments showing a battle scene.
Funerary Temple of Thutmose II, Western
Thebes. After Bruyère 1952, pls. 3–4.
Fig. 5.15. Depiction of Thutmose IV tied by waist
to a horse-drawn chariot. Right exterior
of chariot body, tomb of Thutmose
IV, Valley of the Kings, Dynasty 18.
Wreszinski 1935, pl. 1.
Fig. 5.16. MBA scimitars from the royal tombs
of Byblos (not to scale). Drawn after
H.W. Müller 1987, fig. 37; from
photographs, after Montet 1928, pls.
99–100 [Nrs. 653–654], 101 [Nr. 652].
(a) Nr. 652, Royal Tomb I; (b) Nr. 653, Royal
Tomb II; (c) Nr. 654, Royal Tomb III.
Fig. 5.17. TD 8909. Tomb A/II-p/14-Nr. 18, Stratum F
(Phase F), Tell el-Dab‘a. Forstner-Müller
2008, fig. 103a [3]. © ÖAI/ÖAW archive.
Fig. 5.18. Examples of scimitars (not to scale),
from (a) Susa, Iran (Louvre Sb. 15512);
(b) Tello (Girsu), Mesopotamia (Louvre
AO 4354); (c) Shechem (Munich ÄS 2907);
(d) Abydos, Egypt; (e) Eastern Delta
(Munich ÄS 5557). Drawing by Patrick
Aprent, after H.W. Müller 1987, figs. 35
[3, 5], 37 [9–10], 39 [12].
Fig. 5.19. Scarab seals of Thutmose III carrying a
scimitar, of unknown provenance. After
K eel 1974, fig. 21 [a–b]. (a) EA 39125;
(b) EA 40799.
Fig. 5.20. Detail of a scene showing armed Egyptian
soldiers. Mortuary Temple of Hatshepsut,
Deir el-Bahari, Dynasty 18. After Naville
1901, pl. 90.
Fig. 5.21. A scene showing the arrival of foreigners
bearing gifts. West wall, tomb of
Menkheperraseneb (TT 86), Sheikh
‘abd el-Qurna, reign of Thutmose III
to Amenhotep II, Dynasty 18. After
N. de G. Davies 1933a, pl. 5.
Fig. 5.22. List of daggers published by Philip
from Tell el-Dab‘a, together with other
attestations of daggers assigned to the
Second Intermediate Period from the
Eastern Delta.
Fig. 5.23. Dagger types found at Tell el-Dab‘a,
following Philip’s typology. Philip 2006,
460 List of Figures
figs. 10, 13, 16 [2], 17 [3], 18, 19 [3]).
(a) Type 12. TD 6141, Tomb F/I-o/20-
Nr. 17, Stratum d/2 (Phase H); (b) Type 13.
TD 7323, Tomb F/I-m/18-Nr. 3, Stratum
d/1 (Phase G/4); (c) Type 17. TD 3059,
Tomb A/II-p/21-Nr. 7, Stratum E/2–E/1
(Phase E/2–E/1); (d) Type 18. TD 2194,
Tomb A/II-n/15-Nr. 1-Burial 3, Stratum
E/1–D/3 (Phase E/1–D/3); (e) Type 31.
TD 4041, Tomb F/I-i/21-Nr. 34, Stratum
b/1–a/2 (Phase E/1–D/3); (f) Type 34. TD
7974, A/IV-j/5-Pl. 4, Stratum G (Phase G).
Fig. 5.24. Detail from Stela Louvre E.6141/C.201.
Unknown provenance, reign of Kamose,
Dynasty 17. After Petschel 2011, fig. 39.
Fig. 5.25. A dagger inscribed with the cartouche
of Nebiryaw I (JE 33702). Grave 237,
Cemetery Y, Hu, Dynasty 16 (?). Drawing
by Patrick Aprent, after Petrie 1901b,
pl. 32 [17].
Fig. 5.26. Dagger type with flanged hilt and fanned,
T-shaped or cylindrical pommel. (a) Dagger
from Tomb LVI, Ugarit, MBIIB–C (after
Schaeffer 1939, fig. 63); (b) Dagger from
Loc. AT 722, Tell el-‘Ajjul, MBIIC–LBI (after
Petrie 1933, pl. 18 [4]); (c) Dagger of Nehmen,
coffin of Abdu, Saqqara, reign of Apophis,
Dynasty 15 (drawn from photograph,
after Petschel 2011, 461 [Nr. 183]);
(d) Dagger of Apophis, unknown provenance,
Dynasty 15 (drawn from photograph, after
Petschel 2011, 463 [Nr. 186]); (e) Dagger
of Djehuty, unknown provenance, Dynasty
18 (drawn from photograph, after Petschel
2011, 463 [Nr. 187]).
Fig. 5.27. Detail of the decoration on the hilt of
Nehmen’s dagger (JE 32735/CG 52768).
Drawn from photograph, after Petschel
2011, 461 [Nr. 183].
Fig. 5.28. The dagger of Ahmose (JE 4666/CG 52658).
Burial of Ahhotep, Dra‘ Abu el-Naga,
Dynasty 18. Drawn from photograph, after
Maspero 1903/1904; Aruz and Lacovara
2008, 121–122 [Nr. 68].
Fig. 5.29. Axe types of the Middle to New Kingdom
found in Egypt, following the typology
by W.V. Davies (not to scale). After W.V.
Davies 1987, pls. 5 [Nr. 27], 6 [Nr. 35], 9
[Nr. 63], 16 [Nr. 93], 18 [Nr. 102], 20 [Nr.
117], 26 [Nr. 151]). (a) Round form with
lugs. EA 67617, el-Lahun, Dynasty 12 (?);
(b) Lugged, perforated, round form.
EA 32581, unknown provenance,
First Intermediate Period to Middle
Kingdom; (c) Segmental form. BM
30083, unknown provenance, Middle
Kingdom; (d) Tanged form. EA 51035,
unknown provenance, Middle Kingdom;
(e) Lugged form with splayed or incurved
side. EA 63224, Mostagedda, Dynasty 16
(?); (f) Lugged form with splayed or
incurved side. EA 6058, Deir el-Bahari,
Dynasty 18; (g) Lugged, asymmetrical,
form. EA 36772, uncertain provenance,
Dynasty 17.
Fig. 5.30. Anchor and duckbill axes found in Egypt
(not to scale). Drawing by Patrick Aprent.
(a) Anchor axe. Tomb 304, Helwan (drawn
from photograph, after Saad 1947, pl. 88);
(b) Anchor axe. Tomb 51, Abydos (drawn
from photograph, after Petrie 1925, pl.
5 [28]); (c) Duckbill axe. TD 6139, Tomb
F/I-o/9-Nr. 8, Stratum d/2 (Phase H) (after
Philip 2006, fig. 4 [2]).
Fig. 5.31. Socketed axe types found at Tell el-
Dab‘a according to Philip’s typology.
Philip 2006, figs. 5 [2], 6 [2], 9 [1].
(a) Type 1. TD 3082, Tomb F/I-d/23-
Nr. 1, Stratum c–b/3 (Phase G–F);
(b) Type 2. TD 339, Tomb A/I-g/4-
Nr. 3, Stratum D/3 (Phase D/3);
(c) Type 3. TD 1377, Tomb A/II-l/14-
Nr. 5, Stratum E/1 (Phase E/1).
Fig. 5.32. Moulds found at Tell el-Dab‘a and
‘Ezbet Helmi with matrices for axes.
(a) Limestone mould TD 3108 with
matrices for a symmetrical lugged axe,
a flat axe/adze and a rod. F/I-i/21-Pl. 1,
Stratum b/3–b/2 (Phase F–E/3) (Philip
2006, fig. 62); (b) Clay mould with a
matrix for a symmetrical lugged axe.
H/III-u/17, Stratum e/1.1 (Phase D/1.1)
(Bietak, Dorner and Jánosi 2001, fig. 32).
Fig. 5.33. The axe of Ahmose (JE 4673/CG 52648).
Burial of Ahhotep, Dra‘ Abu el-Naga,
Dynasty 18. Drawn from photographs,
after M aspero 1903/1904; A ruz and
Lacovara 2008, 120 [Nr. 67].
Fig. 5.34. Scenes showing bows known in Egypt.
(a) Simple bows. East wall, tomb of
Khnumhotep I (Nr. 14), Beni Hassan, reign
of Amenemhat I, Dynasty 12 (courtesy of
the Australian Centre for Egyptology);
(b) Composite (?) bows. North wall,
tomb of Khnumhotep II (Nr. 3), Beni
Hassan, reign of Senwosret II, Dynasty 12
(courtesy of the Australian Centre for
Egyptology); (c) Drawn and angular
composite bows. Left exterior of chariot
body, tomb of Thutmose IV, Valley of the
Kings, Dynasty 18 (Wreszinski 1935, pl. 2).
Fig. 5.35. Detail from Stela J. 129 showing
Amenhotep II aiming at a copper target.
Temple of Karnak, Dynasty 18. After
Giménez I zquierdo 2017, fig. 2.
Fig. 5.36. A scene showing craftsmen at work.
East wall, tomb of Menkheperraseneb
(TT 86), Sheikh ‘abd el-Qurna, reign of
 List of Figures
Thutmose III to Amenhotep II,
Dynasty 18. After N. de G. Davies 1933a,
pl. 12.
Fig. 5.37. A scene showing craftsmen at work.
East wall, tomb of Puyemra (TT 39), el- Fig. 5.45.
Khokha, reign of Thutmose III, Dynasty
18. After N. de G. Davies 1922, pl. 23.
Fig. 5.38. Details showing shields and handles.
(a) Siege scene, Mari, Third
Millennium BC (after Yadin 1972b,
fig. 1); (b) Siege scene, pillar IIb,
tomb of Intef (TT 386), Asasif, reign of
Montuhotep II, Dynasty 11 (after H amblin
2006, fig. 11); (c) South wall pillar, tomb of Fig. 5.46.
Khnumhotep I (Nr. 14), Beni Hassan, reign
of Amenemhat I, Dynasty 12 (courtesy of
the Australian Centre for Egyptology);
(d) Fragment, Temple of Karnak, reign of
Tutankhamun (after Chevrier 1956, fig. 1);
(e) Battle of Kadesh, Karnak, reign of Sety I Fig. 5.47.
(after Wernick 2014/2015, fig. 14 [A]);
(f) Battle of Kadesh, Abu Simbel, reign
of Ramesses II (after Wernick 2014/2015,
fig. 12 [A]).
Fig. 5.39. (a–b) Selected ceramics assigned to the Fig. 5.48.
Second Intermediate Period to early New
Kingdom at Tell el-Dab‘a and ‘Ezbet
Helmi. Drawing by Patrick Aprent.
Fig. 5.40. (a–b) Selected ceramics assigned to the
Second Intermediate Period to early New
Kingdom at Tell el-Dab‘a, ‘Ezbet Helmi
and Tell Hebwa I. Drawing by Patrick
Aprent.
Fig. 5.41. Marl D amphorae of the New Kingdom.
Drawing by Patrick Aprent, after Aston
2004c, fig. 6 [a, c–d]. (a) Naga el-Tawil
(Karnak); (b) ‘Ezbet Helmi (TD 8945K,
Phase C/2); (c) Tomb of Nakhtmin
(TT 87).
Fig. 5.42. Gold toggle pin with a glass inlay. MMA
68.136.2, possibly from the Eastern Delta,
Dynasty 15. The Metropolitan Museum of
Art, CC0 1.0 Universal License: https://
images.metmuseum.org/CRDImages/eg/ Fig. 5.49.
original/68.136.2_EGDP019550.jpg.
Fig. 5.43. Gold shell pendant with the name of
Senwosret II, Dynasty 12. MMA
26.7.1353, possibly from Dahshur,
Dynasty 12. The Metropolitan Museum
of Art, CC0 1.0 Universal License: https://
images.metmuseum.org/CRDImages/eg/
original/26.7.1353_front.jpg.
Fig. 5.44. Rings, likely earrings, collected from Tell el-
Dab‘a. Philip 2006, fig. 51 [1, 5–6, 13–14]).
(a) TD 2099, gold, found below the skull
and left mandible of an infant, A/II-n/10-
Nr. 4, Stratum E/3–E/2 (Phase E/3–E/2);
(b) TD 4749 and 4757, silver, found by the
left shoulder of an infant, F/I-k/23-Nr. 33,
461
Stratum b/2 (Phase E/3); (c) TD 2303 and
2325, silver, found below the right shoulder
of Burial 2, A/II-m/15-Nr. 3, Stratum E/1
(Phase E/1).
Details of scenes from the tomb of Tetiky
(TT 15), Dra‘ Abu el-Naga, reign of
Ahmose and Amenhotep I, Dynasty 18.
After N. de G. Davies 1925, pls. 2–4. (a) The
king’s daughter, sister and wife, Nefertari,
censing before the cow of Hathor. East
wall; (b) The ‘king’s son’ Tetiky censing
before a statue of Osiris. West wall;
(c) Men at a banquet. North wall.
Clothing associated with Asiatics,
according to representations from
tombs at Beni Hassan, Dynasty 12.
Courtesy of the Australian Centre for
Egyptology. (a–b) Men’s clothing;
(c) Women’s and a child’s clothing.
Clothing associated with Asiatics, according
to representations from Theban tombs,
Dynasty 18. (a–d) Men’s clothing (after
Pritchard 1951, 39); (e) Women’s clothing
(after N. de G. Davies 1943, pl. 23).
Toggle pins collected from sites in Egypt.
(a) Silver pin TD 375, Tomb A/I-g/3-
Nr. 1-Burial 1, Stratum D/3 (Phase D/3),
Tell el-Dab‘a (Philip 2006, fig. 44 [4]);
(b) Copper pin TD 4966, Tomb F/I-k/21S-
Nr. 24, Stratum b/3 (Phase F), Tell el-
Dab‘a (Philip 2006, fig. 46 [4]); (c) Copper
pin TD 340, Tomb A/I-g/4-Nr. 3, Stratum
D/3 (Phase D/3), Tell el-Dab‘a (Philip
2006, fig. 45 [1]); (d) Bronze pin, Tomb
L12.12736, Dynasty 15, Tell el-Maskhuta
(after Holladay 1997, fig. 7.9 [19]);
(e) Bronze pin 476, Tomb 117, late Second
Intermediate Period to early Dynasty 18,
Tell Hebwa I (after A bd el-M aksoud
1998, fig. 46 [476]); (f) Bronze pin, New
Kingdom, Gurob (after Petrie 1891,
pl. 22 [1]); (g) Gold pin, New Kingdom,
Gurob (after Petrie 1891, pl. 22 [3]).
Textiles associated with equids.
(a) Detail from the north wall, tomb of
Khnumhotep II (Nr. 3), Beni Hassan,
reign of Senwosret II, Dynasty 12
(courtesy of the Australian Centre for
Egyptology); (b) Detail from the north
wall, tomb of Khnumhotep II (Nr. 3),
Beni Hassan, reign of Senwosret II,
Dynasty 12 (courtesy of the Australian
Centre for Egyptology); (c) Detail from
the scene of the New Year festival’s
gifts, outer hall, west wall, tomb of
Kenamun (TT 93), Sheikh ‘abd el-
Qurna, reign of Amenhotep II,
Dynasty 18 (after N. de G. Davies 1930,
pl. 22).
462 List of Figures
Fig. 5.50. A heddle-jack of Pinacaea hard wood and
its inscription. El-Lahun. After Quirke
2005, 95.
Fig. 5.51. Spinning bowls from the Eastern Delta.
Drawing by Patrick Aprent. (a) TD 4756C.
Offering pit F/I-k/23, uncertain Stratum,
Tell el-Dab‘a (after Aston 2004a, pl. 177
[646]); (b) TD 6807E. A/V-p/19-Pl. 2,
Stratum D/2 (Phase D/2), Tell el-Dab‘a
(after Aston 2004a, pl. 293 [1084]);
(c) XVb, 212. Zone B/2, GR.IV,
Tell Hebwa I (not to scale) (after
A bd el-M aksoud 1998, fig. 23).
Fig. 5.52. A scene showing female textile weavers.
South wall of passage, tomb of Rekhmira
(TT 100), Sheikh ‘abd el-Qurna, reign of
Thutmose III to Amenhotep II, Dynasty 18.
After N. de G. Davies 1943, pl. 57.
Fig. 5.53. Spindle whorls. (a) Inv. Nr. 9469 D+E,
Area R/III, Tell el-Dab‘a (Prell 2015, fig.
28); (b) Inv. Nr. 9653C, Area R/III, Tell
el-Dab‘a (Prell 2015, fig. 28); (c) Whorl
from Room 690 (2302-2), palace, Tell
Kabri, MBIIB (drawn from photograph
by Patrick Aprent, after Goshen, Yasur-
Landau and Cline 2013, fig. 3.5);
(d) Nr. 441, Zone B/2, House I/E.3, Tell
Hebwa I (not to scale, drawing by Patrick
Aprent, after Abd el-Maksoud 1998, fig. 43);
(e) Nr. 445, Zone D, House 1, Tell Hebwa I
(not to scale, drawing by Patrick Aprent, after
Abd el-Maksoud 1998, fig. 44).
Fig. 5.54. A scene showing women at the horizontal
loom. West wall, tomb of Khnumhotep II
(Nr. 3), Beni Hassan, reign of Senwosret II,
Dynasty 12. Courtesy of the Australian
Centre for Egyptology.
Fig. 5.55. A scene showing men at the vertical
loom. Tomb of Djehutynefer (TT 104),
Sheikh ‘abd el-Qurna, reign of
Thutmose III to Amenhotep II, Dynasty 18.
After N. de G. Davies 1929a, fig. 1a.
Fig. 5.56. Detail of a scene showing Wekhhotep
wearing a heavy, one-shouldered,
garment. West wall of approach to
statue recess, tomb of Wekhhotep (B4),
reign of Amenemhat II, Dynasty 12.
Courtesy of the Australian Centre for
Egyptology.
Fig. 5.57. Reconstruction of a limestone statue of
an official. Fragments from Tombs F/I-
p/19-Nr. 1, F/I-p/21-Nr. 1, and F/I-o/20-
Nr. 11. Area F/I, Strata d/2, d/1 and
possibly Stratum c (Phases H–G/1–3), Tell
el-Dab‘a. After Schiestl 2006, fig. 2.
Fig. 5.58. Detail of a scene showing a male lyrist
among aAm . w. North wall, tomb of
Khnumhotep II (Nr. 3), Beni Hassan, reign
of Senwosret II, Dynasty 12. Courtesy of
the Australian Centre for Egyptology.
Fig. 5.59. A partially restored lyre (MMA 16.10.504).
Chamber E, Pit 3, Courtyard CC 41,
Asasif, early Dynasty 18. The Metropolitan
Museum of Art, CC0 1.0 Universal License:
ht t ps://collectionapi.met museu m.org /
api/collection /v1/iiif/546960/1206390/
main-image.
Fig. 5.60. Detail of a scene showing a female lyrist in
a banquet. Tomb of Wah (TT 22), Sheikh
‘abd el-Qurna, reign of Thutmose III (?),
Dynasty 18. After N.M. Davies 1936, pl. 26.
Fig. 5.61. Detail of a scene showing a large
symmetrical lyre at a banquet. South
wall, tomb of Huya (Nr. 1), Amarna, reign
of Akhenaten, Dynasty 18. After
N. de G. Davies 1905b, pl. 5.
Fig. 5.62. Detail of a scene showing a male lutenist in
a banquet. North wall, tomb of Amenemhat
(Nr. 82), Sheikh ‘abd el-Qurna, reign
of Thutmose III, Dynasty 18. After
N. de G. Davies 1915, pl. 15.
Fig. 5.63. Bow-legged male lutenists among nude
females and monkeys. Terracotta relief,
Old Babylonian Period. After U. Winter
2012, fig. 256.
Fig. 5.64. Female frame drummer and male lutenist.
Terracotta relief, Old Babylonian Period.
After U. Winter 2012, fig. 261.
Fig. 5.65. Female lutenist. Drawing on a piece of
wood from the tomb of Djeserkaraseneb
(TT 38), Sheikh ‘abd el-Qurna, Dynasty 18.
After M anniche 1991, fig. 66.
Fig. 5.66. Female musicians in a banquet scene. Tomb
of Djeserkaraseneb (TT 38), Sheikh ‘abd
el-Qurna, Dynasty 18. The Metropolitan
Museum of Art, CC0 1.0 Universal
License: https://images.metmuseum.org/
CR DI mages/eg /or ig i nal / LC-30_4_9_
EGDP030084.jpg.
Fig. 5.67. Detail of a scene showing an oboist. East
wall, tomb of Baka, Sheikh ‘abd el-Qurna,
reign of Thutmose I (?), Dynasty 18. After
Petrie 1909, pl. 34.
Fig. 5.68. Detail of a scene showing female
musicians. West wall, tomb of Neferhotep I
(TT 49), el-Khokha, reign of Tutankhamun
to Horemheb, Dynasty 18. After
N. de G. Davies 1933b, pl. 18.
Fig. 5.69. Detail of a scene showing the drum.
Northwest wall, tomb of Amenhotep
(TT 73), Sheikh ‘abd el-Qurna, reign of
Hatshepsut to Thutmose III, Dynasty 18.
After Säve-Söderbergh 1957, pl. 4.
Fig. 5.70. Items identified as musical instruments.
Area F/I-j/20–21, Stratum c (Phase G/1–3),
Tell el-Dab‘a. After Bietak 1985c, fig. 4
[1–4]. (a) TD 3405F; (b) TD 3188;
(c) TD 3406A; (d) TD 3187.
Fig. 5.71. Detail of a scene showing a herd of cattle.
North wall, tomb of Khnumhotep II
 List of Figures
(Nr. 3), Beni Hassan, reign of Senwosret II,
Dynasty 12. Courtesy of the Australian
Centre for Egyptology.
Fig. 5.72. Detail of a scene showing a herd of cattle.
East wall, tomb of Menkheperraseneb
(TT 86), Sheikh ‘abd el-Qurna, reign of
Thutmose III to Amenhotep II, Dynasty 18.
After N. de G. Davies 1933a, pl. 14.
Fig. 5.73. Detail of a scene showing two varieties
of sheep. North wall, tomb of
Khnumhotep II (Nr. 3), Beni Hassan, reign
of Senwosret II, Dynasty 12. Courtesy of the
Australian Centre for Egyptology.
Fig. 5.74. A fragment showing the divine barque
of Amun. Funerary Temple of Ahmose,
Abydos, Dynasty 18. After H arvey 1998,
fig. 89.
Fig. 5.75. A cylinder seal impression (Louvre A.156)
showing the use of a shaduf. Akkadian
Period. After Bagg 2012, fig. 14.1.
Fig. 5.76. Scenes showing the use of the shaduf.
(a) Scene from the tomb of Neferhotep
(TT 49), el-Khokha, reign of
Tutankhamun to Horemheb, Dynasty 18
463
(after N. de G. Davies 1933b, pl. 47);
(b) Scene from the tomb of Meryra,
Amarna, Amarna Period, Dynasty 18 (after
N. de G. Davies 1903, pl. 32); (c) Scene
from the tomb of Ipy (TT 217),
Deir el-Medina, reign of Ramesses II,
Dynasty 19 (after N. de G. Davies 1927,
pl. 28); (d) Scene from the tomb of
Nedjemger (TT 138), Sheikh ‘abd el-
Qurna, reign of Ramesses II, Dynasty 19
(after Feucht 2006, folding pl. 1).
Fig. 5.77. Strainer or sieve TD 8070. Chamber of
substructure beneath the platform of Area
H/II, ‘Ezbet Helmi, Dynasty 18. After
Bietak 2011, fig. 18.
Fig. 5.78. A scene showing wine-making activities.
Right wall of hall, tomb of Intef (TT 155),
Dra‘ Abu el-Naga, reign of Hatshepsut
to Thutmose III, Dynasty 18. After
Save-Söderbergh 1957, pls. 14c–15.
Fig. 5.79. Old Syrian cylinder seal impressions
showing drinking customs (after
U. Winter 2012, figs. 245, 247).
(a) Louvre II.A.907; (b) Berlin VA 00522.