egypt and cannan mba

Egypt and Canaan during the Middle Bronze AgeAuthor(s): Manfred BietakReviewed work(s):Source: Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, No. 281, Egypt and Canaan inthe Bronze Age (Feb., 1991), pp. 27-72Published by: The American Schools of Oriental ResearchStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1357163 .Accessed: 07/02/2012 09:45

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

The American Schools of Oriental Research is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extendaccess to Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=asor

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1357163?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

Egypt and Canaan During the Middle Bronze Age

MANFRED BIETAK Osterreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften

Osterreichisches Archiologisches Institut Kairo Institut ftir Agyptologie der Universitat Wien

The existence of Middle Bronze Age remains within the fine stratification of Tell el-Dabca brings about the possibility of a new direct link to Egyptian cultural sequence and absolute chronology. Recent seriation studies of Egyptian pottery also add to the precision of dating by allowing cross links with other well-dated assemblages in Egypt. The evaluation shows that hitherto popular schemes for Palestinian chronology have to be lowered in relative and absolute terms. The result offers a very promising tool for reinterpretation of the historical context of the Middle Bronze Age world in connection with reconstruction of trade and cultural clusters.

INTRODUCTION

historical understanding of the Middle Bronze Age' in Syria and Palestine requires that the archaeological sequence of the

region be brought into a proper chronological relationship with that of its neighbors. Only then can the commercial and historical interactions be recognized according to their original dimensions. Some recent attempts to evaluate this interrelationship have failed because they tried to correlate the phases of the Middle Bronze Age culture with Egypt on the basis of one of the three chronological schemes used in Palestinian archaeology (Dever 1985; Ward 1987). That procedure makes grave methodological mistakes since the region of Syria- Palestine has no independent chronology but de- pends on the astronomically based, independent chronologies of Egypt or Mesopotamia. Indeed the high, middle, and low chronologies of Syria and Palestine were established four to five decades ago on the basis of synchronizations with the high, middle, or low chronology of the Old Babylonian empire (Albright 1973: 12-18; Yadin 1972: 107-8; 1978: 20-22; Mazar 1968: 70-80; Dever 1976; Oren 1971: 135-39; for a summary, see Gerstenblith 1983: 101-8). Mesopotamian chronology should, however, be considered with much skepticism because opinions are too divided between the ultra-

high, high, middle, low, and ultralow chronologies, which differ altogether by more than 200 years (Rowton 1970: 202-18, 231-33; Porada et al. 1990). Therefore, to date the Middle Bronze Age assemblages in Egypt using the chronological schemes of Palestine is to date Egyptian chronology indirectly with an inadequate Mesopotamian chronology.

The only logical alternative is to date Middle Bronze Age remains according to the Egyptian chronology. Older attempts to do so always led to low Middle Bronze Age chronologies (Albright 1942; 1964; 1965a; 1965b; 1966; Williams 1975). It is unfortunate that those attempts have been some- what ignored in more recent years. In the meantime much new evidence has been collected that compels us to prolong the duration of the MB IIA phase.2 A new attempt to bring the Middle Bronze Age sequence into the context of Egyptian chronology is justified because we now have in Egypt several sites with Middle Bronze Age remains associated with Egyptian culture (fig. 1).

Egyptian chronology, however, has also under- gone some changes from high and middle (beginning of the New Kingdom ? 1575 or 1552 B.c.) to low (beginning of the New Kingdom ?+1542 or 1530 B.c.). The maximum differences here, however, are much smaller (?45 years) than the Meso- potamian chronologies, and a near consensus has been reached in favor of a low chronology for the

27

28 MANFRED BIETAK BASOR 281

New Kingdom. A dense network of regnal dates and genealogical data allows us to calculate from safe fixed points of the first millennium B.C. backwards within acceptable margins of error (Bierbrier 1975; Krauss 1978; 1985; Helck 1987; Hornung 1979; 1987; Kitchen 1986; 1987).

In the meantime, new material has accumulated in Egypt. Middle Bronze Age remains, which previously appeared in connection with Egyptian material at Tell el-Yahudiya and Inshas, have been found at Tell el-Dabca, Tell el-Maskhuta, and other sites (Desroches-Noblecourt 1949: 12, pl. 1:A; Van Seters 1966; Bietak 1975: 167, fig. 35; Mac- Donald 1980; Yacoub 1983; Holladay 1981; 1982; 1984; 1987; Holladay in press; Redmount 1983; Redmount in press; Abd el-Maksoud 1987; van den Brink 1987: 14, 23-24, fig. 2).3 On the basis of those sites, we have the unique chance to correlate the archaeological sequences of Syria-Palestine and Egypt. It is important at the start to straighten out the relative chronologies and correct oversim- plifications, while recognizing that the absolute chronology may change slightly.

There is now a good chance to more accurately redefine the chronological phases of Palestine according to Egyptian dynasties. Besides the asso- ciation of Middle Bronze Age culture with the Egyptian culture in the finely differentiated stratigraphy of Tell el-Dabca, intensive studies of the ceramic remains of the First Intermediate period, the Middle Kingdom, and the Second Intermediate period in the last decade have produced a ceramic seriation much finer than the pottery series in Syria-Palestine (Arnold 1982; 1988; Bietak 1984a; 1985a; Bourriau 1987; 1988; Bourriau unpublished; Seidlmeier 1986). Some of the new evidence has already been discussed (Bietak 1984a; 1986a: 232- 38; cf. also Bietak 1989a). New results, however, are received with much more skepticism than "well- established" old schemes, the more so if the evidence comes from another region. But sites in Egypt have the enormous advantage of direct chronological links within the framework of Egyptian culture and chronology. The data presented here are the most detailed and direct ones produced for the Middle Bronze Age chronology.

It is also not possible to isolate the Middle Bronze Age development in the Delta from that in Syria-Palestine. A large-scale neutron activation analysis project at Brookhaven National Labora- tory (BNL) and the Museum Applied Science Cen- ter (MASCA) of the University of Pennsylvania

has shown that trade from southern Palestine and Syria was so intensive, especially during the time of the early strata in Tell el-Dabca, that the link with the general development of the Middle Bronze Age world cannot be denied for the time between the late 12th and early 15th Dynasties.4

The focus of this article is the key site of Tell el-Dabca in the eastern Nile Delta (see Bietak 1986a: 28-90; 1989a; 1989c; Bietak in press; Dorner 1985; 1986-1987). More material can be expected from the site of Tell el-Maskhuta, as well as from sites in Israel and Jordan. After giving an up-to- date survey of the results of excavation and research on Tell el-Dabca, the article will discuss chronological and historical consequences in more general terms.

THE SITE (fig. 1)

The site of Tell el-Dabca has been identified for some time with the Hyksos capital of Avaris (Habachi 1954: 555-59; Van Seters 1966: 127-51; Bietak 1975: 179-220; 1986a: 271-83). J. Dorner (unpublished) places it east of the easternmost branch of the Delta, commonly called the Pelusiac

branch.5 Analyses of more than 850 drillings have disclosed that Avaris was at a split of the Pelusiac into two channels that surrounded Qantir (Dorner, unpublished), the core of the later Pi-Ramesse (the Ramesses town) from both sides. The eastern channel separated the area of Avaris from the center of Pi-Ramesse. An older Nile branch meandered southeast of Tell el-Dabca/ Avaris but seems not to have been an active river during the Second Inter- mediate period. It carried water, however, only seasonally, and offered Avaris some protection to the east. Internally, Avaris was divided by lakes and channels between the sandy "turtlebacks" that were the best areas for housing. The situation of the waters provided ideal harbor facilities in antiquity.

Dorner's survey revealed that a settlement of modest size started in the early 12th Dynasty along the southern bank of the eastern branch on a large turtleback. The settlement was north of the Hera- kleopolitan foundation

.Hwt-R?-wity-Hty = the

domain "Mouth of the two ways" of (the Herakleo- politan king) Chety. The location of the Herakleo- politan settlement is not yet clear.

The settlement of the 12th Dynasty with the name .Hwt-

Imn-m-h.t m~crw nt RK-wity = Do-

main of Amenemhet (I.) the justified, of Ri-wity (Mouth of the two ways) grew rapidly during the

1991 EGYPT AND CANAAN IN THE MIDDLE BRONZE AGE 29

TELL HANUN

T. EL-HABWE

FARASHA SROTABA

.T EL-MASKHUTA

BUBASTI T KUAc T.E

L-

SAHABU

...... , .:."INSHAS TELL EL-YAHUDIYA

HELIOPOLIS

* SITES OF MIDDLE BRONZE AGE CULTURE IN EGYPT

o UNVERIFIED SITES OF MB

0 20 40 60 80 10OKM

i i I i i "-b

Fig. 1. Middle Bronze Age sites in the Delta.

13th Dynasty, reaching an area of I km2 or more. The reason for this enormous growth was an influx of Canaanite settlers, carriers of an Egyptianized MB IIA culture. They appeared in Tell el-Dabca from the late 12th Dynasty (see fig. 2). A large- scale investigation by physical anthropologists has shown that this population type was of a non- Egyptian origin (Winkler and Wilfing, in press). According to a multivariate computer analysis, the nearest match for the settlers is the Iron Age series at Kamid el-Loz (Kunter 1977). The study indicates that primarily the male population at Tell el-Dabca is related to the Levant. A sexual dimor- phism in the Tell el-Dabca population suggests that the females probably came from somewhere else.

With the beginning of the Hyksos period the settlement of Tell el-Dabca expanded again to double its previous size, i.e., to about 2.5 km2. During

the 13th Dynasty the site became a local center and, with the beginning of the Hyksos period, something like a capital.

The evidence indicates that Tell el-Dabca is by far the largest Middle Bronze Age site in the Delta, and the oldest. All of these Middle Bronze Age sites are east of the Pelusiac branch, either on the eastern bank of that river or along the two eastern entrances into the Delta: the Horus road (Tell Habwe) and the Wadi Tumilat (Tell el-Sahaba, Tell el-Maskhuta, Tell KuaC). The sites with MB IIA remains cluster in the northern half of the eastern Delta,6 while MB IIB sites can also be found further south (Tell el-Yahudiya, Inshas). Tell el-Dabca, at the splitting of two branches of the easternmost river, had easy maritime access to the Mediterranean Sea as well as to Upper Egypt. The site also commanded the entrance into the


z t 3000

~2500 TLABU

SCHAFCA 2500

N

Ezz ATAWA ' Ez. RUSHDIANTIR EL NIMRYm

8P 12000

:::::::iTELL ABU F LUS0

z. YAERGI Ez. HAWAci

Ez. RUSHOI Ez.

SzLMY

EL EBIRA 7 9

. . . . ..Ez

Z '

EzM HE I s.co

_..--_:. -_--................

- 000 500 0 500 1000 1500 2000

V Didw T ELL B 3.US 10

4IIr _- --

Ez. UMM FAAQ AHGUBI

-1 I --~ \~-----~-5000 5 GEZIRATR

Fig. 2. Reconstruction of the historical landscape of Tell el-Dabca and Qantir (by J. Dorner).


northeastern Delta between the Pelusiac branch and the huge overflow lakes of the natural Bahr el-Baqar drainage system (Bietak 1975: 113-16).

STRATIGRAPHY OF TELL EL-DABCA AND THE APPEARANCE OF MIDDLE

BRONZE AGE CULTURE

The Austrian Archaeological Institute in Cairo thus far has explored the development of the settlement at Tell el-Dabca in several excavation areas-A/I-V, F/I, and E/I-II (Bietak 1968; 1970; 1984b; 1986a; Bietak in press; Dorner 1985; 1986- 1987). Earlier investigations at the site were conducted by the Egypt Exploration Fund and the Egyptian Antiquities Department (Maspero 1885; Naville 1888; Griffith 1890; Hamza 1930; Habachi 1954; Adam 1958; 1959). The investigated areas touch very different parts of the settlement, and as such should be representative. Areas A/I-III are in the eastern part of the settlement, while A/V is in the northeastern marginal zone; Areas A/IV and F/ I represent a more central quarter. Areas E/ I-II are at the western part of the site just south of the partition of the Pelusiac branch, which swings afterwards with its eastern channel in a bend to the east around the settlement from the north. At cEzbet Rushdi el-saghira a temple of Amenemhet I and Sesostris III was found (Adam 1959: 208-18, pls. 2-6). The oldest part of the Middle Kingdom/ Second Intermediate period settlement may be in this area. In addition to the royal foundation of the early 12th Dynasty (according to a stela from the temple), a domain of King Khety of the Herakleo- politan 10th Dynasty was near here, probably a little south (Adam 1959: 216-18; Kees 1962: 3). Excavations in this early part of the settlement are planned for the future. A simplified version of the stratigraphical development at Tell el-Dabca

(fig. 3), based on the controlled excavations, is presented here, in chronological order.

Two stratigraphic systems are used in Tell el- Dabca. In the excavation areas A/I-V, the strata have capital letter designations. In Area F, small letters are used. The synchronization of the two systems can be seen in figs. 3, 12, and 13.

Stratum e/1-3 (Area F/I)

This was a planned settlement of a purely Egyp- tian culture dating to the early 12th Dynasty (Bie- tak 1984b; Bietak and Eigner unpublished; Czerny

1991). Originally, there were uniform building units in double rows of 12 houses, 10 x 10 cubits each (1 cubit = 52.3 cm), separated by streets 5 cubits wide. The layout of the houses was uniform. Soon afterwards the internal pattern of many buildings was changed. Breakthroughs and enlargements were achieved at the expense of the width of the streets. Flints (especially sickle stones) and animal bones show that the inhabitants were primarily farmers, who may have been transferred to this planned settlement as workmen for projects of one of the early 12th Dynasty kings. They kept cattle, sheep, goats, and pigs (according to Boessneck, unpublished). The empty space in the eastern part of the walled settlement probably was used for animal pens. Fish, especially catfish, added to the diet.

The ceramic material was in the tradition of the red-polished pottery of the First Intermediate period. It is very similar to the pottery from the site of Abu Ghalib (Larsen 1936; 1941)' although it lacks the typical 12th Dynasty corpus. Few imports from Upper Egypt are represented in the marl A (our fabric II-a) repertoire.8 Fragments of some coarse, handmade cooking pots show that contact probably existed with the local Bedouins, who had settled in the Delta during the First Intermediate period.9 Stratum e/ 1, which probably developed after a hiatus in occupation, can be considered as a loose attempt to reestablish the planned settlement on a small basis.

Hiatus

During the interval, the inhabitants of the settlement probably moved to the newly erected royal domain "Hwt-RDwitj-Amenemhet" at cEzbet- Rushdi el-saghira in the north (Adam 1959: 216, pl. 9; Kees 1962: 1-3). To this settlement also belongs a more isolated installation, a Di)dw (a "hall" of unknown function), at the extreme western end of the area (Maspero 1885: 11-13; Naville 1888: 22, pl. 9A:1-3; Habachi 1954: 448-58, pls. 2-4). This has a commanding position since it controls the entry into the two branches of the river that split north of the town (J. Dorner, personal communication).

Stratum H = d/2 (Areas A/II, F/I)

During the late 12th Dynasty the area south of the original settlement at C Ezbet-Rushdi was first settled by already-Egyptianized newcomers. In


Fig. 3. Stratigraphy of Tell el- Dabca.

EGYPT CORE OF TOWN NEW CENTRE EASTERN NORTHEASTERN MB PHASES

B.C. RELATIVE (ADAM 1959) MB - POPULATION TOWN OUTSKIRTS

CHRONOLOGY 1500 HEz, RUSHDY FI A/I- AY

30 AHMOSE DENUDED DENUDED D/2 D12 MB C

1560

HYKSOS D/3 D/3 I90 XV PERIOD

OCCUPATION E/i E/1 1620

b/1 E/2 E/2 MB LIB

50

b/2 E/3 1680

b/3 F MB UA/B

'i/10 XI Xlith DYN. OCCUPATION EPIDEMIC

1740 GG/1-3 HIATUS

70dG/4 MB UA

d/Zb

H

1800

_A

d / 2

2_ TEMPLE

30 All RENEWED

s XII HN HIATUS UNOCCUPIED

90 Al I

XII DYN.

1920 -

Si TOWN

50? I TEMPLE OF e/1

50 AI Ez. RUSHDY el 2-3 Qdw, Ez. HELMY

1980

_ 2000 XI DYN. OCCUPATION 71?

2040 HERAKLEO - EXPANSION OF SETTLEMENT POLITAN

FOUNDATION

Area F/I rectangular houses of sandy mudbrick were built within enclosed areas. Among the buildings, a Syrian "Mittelsaal" house (cf. Heinrich 1972-1975: 206-7; Eigner 1985) and a "Breitraum" house (Eigner 1985) give an indication of the origin of the inhabitants. South of the "Mittelsaal" house is a small cemetery, and still further south is a larger cemetery. Nearly all the tombs, with their brick chambers and vaulting techniques, are Egyp- tian types known from the time of the Middle Kingdom. Within that stratum, and contrary to the later custom of amphora burial, small children were buried in small chambers of sandy mudbrick, generally in amphorae. Burial customs such as the contracted position of bodies, donkey sacrifices, and the bronzes (especially weaponry) found in the tombs again betray the Asiatic origin of the inhabitants.

The eastern part of this fast-growing settlement consisted largely of open compounds enclosed within walls of light yellow, sandy bricks. It is very likely that the compounds were used for keeping animals. Some more substantial foundations have also been found. However, no tombs were dug in this marginal zone of the settlement.

The material culture of the settlement was largely Egyptian. Only 18 to 20 percent of the pottery belongs to MB IIA types. The Egyptian ceramic materials evince late 12th Dynasty types. Very characteristic are the round-bottomed drinking cups which, with an average index of 150, vary only slightly from those of the later Stratum d/1 (see fig. 14; compare Arnold 1988: figs. 65, 75, table 8; Bietak 1984a: 480-82, ill. 2; 1985a; 1989a: fig. 3). The shapes, however, are still open and their size is often larger. Typical for the period is the high


--------

... 1:

Fig. 4. Levantine Painted Ware jug.

percentage (? 45 percent) of chaff-tempered ware (fabric I-c) compared to the dung-tempered ware (fabric I-b-1, I-b-2). The beer jars are significant. They still have a funnel-shaped neck and a lip; the 13th Dynasty beer jar with its kettle-shaped mouth is not yet present. The same is true for the marl C jars (fabric II-c); the fabric is redder and has a more distinctive white surface than those of the 13th Dy- nasty. The small jars show the more globular shape of the 12th Dynasty (Arnold 1982: fig. 19). The larger jars with ribbed neck are smaller and finer than their 13th Dynasty successors. The big water containers have a broad base and a wide-mounded mouth (Zir type 2) (Arnold 1982: fig. 14:34), a type not present in the succeeding Stratum G/4 = d/ 1 (see fig. 9). Marl A (fabric II-a) is extremely rare (fig. 13).

The most distinctive MB IIA pottery in this stratum is the Levantine Painted Ware (LPW) (cf. Tubb 1983: 50-56; Bagh 1988), which appears primarily in the form of jugs of Syrian type (fig. 4.) According to neutron activation analysis, the best example (JH 831) is of questionable provenience (P. McGovern, personal communication; cf. Bagh 1988: fig. 8, 8a).14 Other pieces are in the shape of

dipper juglets, amphora-juglets, and amphorae, of southern Palestinian origin. Tell el-Yahudiya or Lisht ware (see Kaplan 1980; Merrillees 1974a; 1974b: 59-74; 1978; Bietak 1986b; 1989b) is represented in this stratum by only a single sherd of an Ovoid 1 juglet (Bietak 1986b; 1989b). It is an import, although neutron activation analysis has found no match for it so far among Egyptian or Levantine clays (BNL no. MB 024, reg. no. 5971E). Red-burnished vessels such as juglets are still extremely rare in this stratum; they become popular later on. The handmade and wheelmade cooking pots are local.

Bronzes occur in the tombs. Despite intensive plundering, 50 percent of the male burials yielded weapons, which indicates that warriors played an important part in the society. Egyptian types such as a dagger with ivory pommel are an exception. Nearly all the bronzes are of MB IIA types, e.g., the duckbill axe, pairs of socketed javelin heads (one normally slightly larger than the other), and a belt with embossed ornament (fig. 5).

In cultural terms this phase can be characterized as highly Egyptianized MB IIA2, with strong ties to Syrian architecture.


-- ~Zj& "-7

------------- -1----- --

. - . - . .

_ I??o K ;,,~ o ....0 .. . .. 2'. . ..

.....

Fig. 5. Bronze belt and duckbill axe from Tomb F/I-o/19, no. 8, Stratum d/2.

Stratum G/4 = d/l (Areas A/II, F/I)

A palace was built in the central quarter (Area F/I; fig. 6). The building has two phases, and its architecture is Egyptian. The building material consists of carefully produced, large, olive-gray and reddish-yellow sandy bricks. The building developed from a large mansion by the addition of courtyards with columned galleries, entrance buildings with a portico, magazines, and gardens (Bietak 1984b: 325-33; Eigner 1985; Bietak and Eigner unpublished). A second palace unit was added later, to the east.

The gardens were laid out in tree-lined rectan- gles, between zones with densely arranged flower beds. In the gardens south of the palace was a cemetery whose tombs continued the tradition of the earlier tombs of Stratum d/2. Some of the older tombs got new superstructures, aligned to the orientation of the new palace. In a later phase of this stratum, rows of new tombs were sunk into the gardens. Each had subterranean chambers and was covered by a vault consisting of two layers of brick. The entrances of the tombs were oriented toward the east.

The architecture of the tombs is purely Egyptian. The custom of placing pairs of donkey sacrifices in front of the entrances to all main tombs shows, however, that Asiatic burial customs were present (Stiebing 1970: 115-38; 1971: 114-16; van den Brink 1982: 74-82). In some of the tombs, four

sheep or goats were deposited in addition to the two donkeys (cf. Bietak 1984b: pl. 6b; Dorner 1986- 1987: figs. 2, 3). Some distance east of the entrance of each of the main tombs in the western row was a

tree, planted when the old gardens had fallen into disrepair. Each of the main tombs had a rectangular brick superstructure that looked like a plat- form; it probably supported a chapel. The biggest tomb between the two series of main tombs was of a different construction. It had a cupola-like vault of irregular construction that covered the nearly square chamber. The superstructure had a separate offering chamber added to the east. Fragments of a monumental limestone statue of a sitting Asiatic dignitary were found within a robbers' tunnel sunk into the chapel. The red headdress is mushroom shaped. The face was deliberately smashed. A throwstick (Dm.t) held in the man's right hand against his shoulder was a status symbol. Although this tomb might be attributable to the older Stra- tum d/2, it is very likely that the statue was a representation of one of the principal inhabitants of the palace (see below).

In Area A/II, and probably from the same period, are small rectangular huts of sandy brick reinforced with pilasters. They occupy the open compounds and animal pens of Stratum H at the eastern edge of the late 12th-Dynasty settlement. Sometimes another room was added to those simple buildings. The buildings were surrounded by enclosure walls, leaving considerable space around each. There were round silos in the courts. The installation probably was a kind of suburb, in- habited by herdsmen while their families resided in more central quarters. No tombs belonging to this stratum have been found so far in Area A/II.

The Egyptian pottery is still predominant. The Middle Bronze Age ceramic component is less than 20 percent (compare this with the pottery from


18 19 20 21 22 23 /

-....~E i 1/ /Ll

II

,;'~/ ,tV '"

i . ,Ma,

A,

,.,. .,,

,, )-Y lf+o0

R1 :"

/"A%

Ri - ~ ~ r

?5

"

" I 1. . .

.. ,

EV

GR

22O

GR2 C) GR

zl i

Fig. 6. Palace, early 13th Dynasty, Stratum d/1 = G/4.


Fig. 7. Beer jar typology.

>/ ~ A /t 9, I LAT 1thDY. ARY 3thDY LTE13h YN

Stratum G/ 1-3 on). The chaff-tempered ware (fabric I-c) is still about 40 percent, less than the dung- tempered ware (fabric I-b). The latter normally is of fine quality. The round-bottomed drinking cups differ little from those of the previous stratum. In the chaff-tempered ware the beer jars show, in addition to the older type of the 12th Dynasty (which had a funnel-shaped neck with lip), the typical 13th-Dynasty shape with the kettle-shaped mouth (Arnold 1982: 60-65). Beer jars of intermediate types, which occur only in this stratum, are also known (fig. 7).

The marl C (fabric II-c) pottery also shows changes from shapes of the 12th Dynasty to those of the 13th. Among the small jars, the bag-shaped ones become more popular than the globular ones. The large jars with ribbed neck are the same as in the previous stratum. A change is evident among the large water storage jars. The Zir 2 type with wide, rounded rim is no longer present, replaced by the Zir 3 types with trimmed neck and rounded mouth, often with a short-socketed spout. Already, however, the Zir 4 type with trimmed neck, straight rim, narrower mouth, bag-shaped body, and small base becomes frequent (fig. 9).

Among the Middle Bronze Age pottery the late MB IIA types such as red-burnished carinated bowls, polished jars with straight bottom and lip, and spouted brown polished jugs are absent (see Stratum G/ 1-3 = c, below). There is, however, a rare occurrence of the imported Ovoid I Tell el- Yahudiya jug of Red Field clay (BNL no. H690;

cf. Bietak 1989b: fig. 3/4211). Among the amphorae there is a distinctive hard-baked gray fabric (IV-5-c) in addition to others of white clay (fabric IV-3-c). Some of those, sampled by neutron activation analysis, match examples from Lebanon and Syria, specifically Ras "Ibn Hani (BNL nos. JH 124, and from the inland Beqac Valley of Lebanon, viz., Tell cArqa (BNL no. JH 120) and Kamid el- Loz (BNL no. JH 122). Of great importance are sherds of classical Kamares ware, which were discovered in the gardens of the early palace phase. In addition, a Middle Minoan golden pendant was found in one of the palace tombs.

The bronzes from the severely plundered tombs are primarily MB IIA weapons. A particularly fine piece was a midrib dagger with side ribs entering into spirals, a cast segmented handle, and a pommel of ivory encased in bronze ribs and a lotus-design golden ring. It came from Tomb F/I- m/ 18, no. 3. From the same tomb were a chisel- shaped notched battle-axe with square section and a pair of socketed javelin heads made of silver. 1

Stratum G/1-3 = c (Areas A/I, F/I, and E/I)

In contrast to evidence from the previous stratum, a settlement of egalitarian pattern can be recognized in both major excavation areas of this stratum. The standard building was the "snail- house," consisting of two rooms. The second,


LATE 12th DYN. 13th DYN. EARLY HYKSOS PERIOD

Fig. 8. Marl-C jars typology (Il-c fabric).

1 2A 2B

EARLY 12th DYN. MIDDLE TO LATE 12th DYN.

3 4 5 6

TRANSITION 12th/13th DYN. 13th DYN. SECOND PART OF END OF HYKSOS PERIOD

AND EARLY HYKSOS HYKSOS PERIOD EARLY 18th DYN.

Fig. 9. Development of the water jar ("zir").

smaller room was accessible from a door in the rear of the dividing wall (Gardiner 1973: 481, Type 0/4). Sometimes we found that smaller rooms *(with a separate entrance) were attached to this type of building and used for storage or additional living space. Such buildings normally were sur-

rounded with a thin enclosure wall of brick. Undu- lated enclosure walls were in use, just as in Stratum d/2. Such enclosures were more spacious in Area F/I than in A/II. The "villa" type of house, which became popular in the succeeding strata (F-E/2 = b/3-1), probably made its first appearance here.


Graves were sunk either within houses or within courtyards near the entrance of a house. There were also small cemeteries outside courtyards, or tomb groups within small rectangular structures attached to the house. Such burial places anticipate the "houses of the dead" of Stratum F = b/3. The walls of the tomb chambers were generally only half a brick wide (the brick size was 33 x 16 x 8 cm, or 35 x 17 x 8-10 cm). The orientation of tombs and burials was either east-west, with the heads toward the east, or north-south, with the heads to the south.

The end of this stratum seems to have been connected with a tragedy. In both major excavation areas unprotected burials were found in some shal- low pits 20-40 cm deep, and their orientation follows no pattern. In contrast to the often-seen burials in the ordinary chamber tombs, the bodies in most of the pit burials were in a casual, extended position; it is apparent that the bodies were sometimes thrown into the pit. Occasionally several burials were interred at the same time in one pit. Offerings are the exception in the tombs. It is very likely that the burials resulted from an epidemic (see Goedicke 1984; 1986a; 1986b).

The Egyptian ceramic corpus shows a significant decrease in chaff-tempered ware (fabric I-c) in relationship to the dung-tempered ware (fabric I-b). The round-bottomed drinking cups, many still of very fine manufacture (fabric I-b-1), become more closed and deep. The indexes center between 140 and 120. Typical for this stratum are beaker-cups, sometimes with carination and red-painted vertical stripes. They are generally of very fine, dung- tempered fabric (fabric I-b-1). Red-washed flasks with flaring rims of the same fine fabric are significant for this stratum, although not frequent. Among the chaff-tempered ware, the flasks with multiple spouts must also be mentioned. Beer jars now have only the kettle-shaped mouth typical of the 13th Dynasty. Marl C pottery is significant only in comparison to the earlier strata. The small, bag-shaped jars occur alone, no longer with globular ones. The large jars with ribbed neck become larger and cruder. Among the water storage jars only the Zir 4 type with straight, trimmed rim sur- vives. Henceforth there is a tendency for this kind of vessel to become smaller. Marl A pottery from Upper Egypt is not represented (see figs. 8-9, 13).

The Middle Bronze Age ceramic corpus shows a significant increase, from +20 percent in the two previous strata to about 40 percent now. Since this

component was locally produced-at least in part- an influx of Middle Bronze Age ethnic elements, i.e., of Canaanites, is likely.

A large number of new Middle Bronze Age pottery types appear for the first time in Stratum G/1-3. Tell el-Yahudiya ware is represented in Piriform la types (see Bietak 1989b). Some were produced locally (fabric I-d), while others were imported (fabric IV-2-b; fig. 12 here). Ovoid 2 jugs (fabric IV-2-b), rare imports from Palestine, appear for the first time during this period (Kaplan 1980: 232; Bietak 1986a: fig. 7: no. 2518). Absolutely new to our knowledge of Tell el-Yahudiya ware are tiny handmade globular juglets with the handle stuck through the wall and with simple incised decoration. They are of local clay (fabric I-d) and reflect Cypriot influence. Piriform and double conical juglets with cutoff spouts become popular; they are imports from southern Palestine (Red Field clay, fabric IV-2-b)." Red-polished jugs and juglets (most with bipartite handles), red-polished MB IIA carinated bowls, bowls with internal lip and red- polished cross on the inside, small red-polished pots, and polished jars with lip and straight base come into use. All the amphorae are imported and most are made of the Red Field clay of southern Palestine. Amphora-jugs are infrequent but significant for the period.

The bronzes, which come from graves, are nearly all MB IIA types such as triangular daggers with midrib; notched, chisel-shaped axes with square section; socketed javelin heads; and embossed bronze belts. Steatite molds for bronze daggers have also been found in this stratum. Open molds for carpenters' tools such as adzes, axes with lugs, and chisels, have been found; they seem to be of Egyptian typology.

Stratum G/ 1-3 has more refuse (animal bones, ash, sherds) than any of the other strata. The storage capacity of the silos was also larger than in most of the other strata.

We consider this phase as representing an Egyp- tianized MB IIA3 culture.

Stratum F = b/3 (Areas A/II, F/I, andE/I)

The central part of the settlement (Area F/I) shows continuity of occupation. A new house type, the "villa," is introduced, the first prototype of which probably already appears late in Stratum G = c. This Egyptian architectural type, which has


in its basic structure parallels in the settlement at Kahun, includes tripartite central quarters with a bedroom on the west. Some of the buildings have a vestibule and attached storerooms. The plot around each building is enclosed by a brick wall.

In contrast to Stratum c, social differentiation can now be recognized. Minor quarters, probably occupied by the serfs of the villa inhabitants, begin to be found, clustered around the villas. The courtyards are used both for domestic purposes (as grain silos and stores) and for burials, and there is evidence for single graves and family cemeteries in the courtyards. The social differentiation can also be recognized in the burial customs. A girl was interred as a servant burial in front of the entrance to the burial chamber of some of the tombs (van den Brink 1982: 48-50; Bietak 1989c).

In the eastern suburb (Area A/II), which was deserted at the end of Stratum G (see above), is a completely new building phase, which includes a large temple (Temple III) of Middle Bronze Age type. It has a large niche in the shrine and two procellas (Bietak 1986a: fig. 9, pls. 15b, 16). In front of the temple is a rectangular mudbrick altar in an open court, access to which is from a special building that may have been the priest's house. The orientation of this temple is north-northwest- south-southeast; it opens to the north-northwest. Remains of blue paint were found on the outside of Temple 3. The structure probably can be dated to the brief reign of king '

-zh-Rc Nehesy. Frag- ments of two jambs with his name have been found within the area, though unfortunately in later pits (Bietak 1984c: 62-64, 75, pl. 1).

Cemeteries were located on the leveled Stratum G remains around the complex. The tombs there were much less plundered than those in Area F/I. Some tombs are rich in offerings and jewelry (Bietak 1986a: pls. 11-13). Warrior burials are frequent, and some tombs continued to have donkey sacrifices in front of their entrance. Such sacrifices seem connected to the warrior burials, although not every warrior had donkey sacrifices. Tomb A/II-1/ 12 no. 5 had five or six donkey sacrifices in front of the chamber. Some tombs also had a servant burial. The orientation of the tombs and bodies is more uniform in the eastern cemeteries of A/ II-north-northwest-south-southeast-with the head to the south, facing east. In Area F/I most burials have a west-northwest-east-southeast orientation, with heads toward the east-southeast, but here the orientation is less uniform.

In Area A/ II, west of the sacred precinct and its

adjoining cemeteries, there are rather humble houses of mudbrick and tombs in the courtyards. The houses are inferior in quality to the villas in the central Area F/I. This can be seen as a sign of social stratification within the settlement.

The building material of Stratum F = b/3 is generally a sandy olive gray to yellow brown brick, 37.5-38 x 17.5-18 x 10 cm; there also are smaller bricks, 33 x 16 and 35 x 17 cm, perhaps reused from the previous stratum. Some of the tombs as well as the humble buildings in Area A/II were constructed of mudbrick.

As in Stratum G = c, the Egyptian ceramic material is characteristic of the 13th Dynasty. The

chaff-tempered ware (fabric I-c) becomes less frequent than the finer, dung-tempered ware (fabric I-b). Round-bottomed large bowls, footed bowls, and beer jars with kettle-shaped mouth (now with a long neck) are still common. Among the dung- tempered ware, the round-bottomed drinking cups become deeper and decrease to an average index of 122.5. Open and closed shapes coexist. Otherwise the pottery shows few differences from the previous stratum, even in the marl C (fabric II-c) types. Only the small, bag-shaped jars become more rare.

As in the previous stratum, a high percentage (+40 percent) of the ceramic repertoire is of MB IIA types. MB IIB types mingle with MB IIA types. The Piriform lb Tell el-Yahudiya jugs continue, and the Piriform Ic jugs become popular (for the terminology, see Kaplan 1980; Bietak 1989b). Both types are of either Red Field clay or Nile clay. Isolated examples of Ovoid 2 jugs probably still occur.12 The handmade, globular Tell el-Yahudiya juglets continue. Black-polished and red-polished jugs and juglets with candlestick rim are typical. Some are imported from southern Palestine (fabric IV-2-b to IV-2-c) and others are of local production (fabric I-d). Some have a swollen neck, while others have a vertically drawn rim or an internal lip. The rim with exterior folding lip starts to be more common among the bigger jugs. Most of the jugs have bipartite handles. Some, though, have tripartite handles and even five-part handles. There are brown-polished jugs with cutoff spouts that are either ovoid or biconical, and still are imported from the region of Palestine. There are also juglets with spouts that are not cut off. Those are probably of local production. Some black-polished jugs of a bluish gray clay (fabric IV-6) may have been produced in northern Syria


(cf. Kaplan 1980: 55-56, 64). The rare imports from northern Syria end in the succeeding stratum.

The red-polished pottery often has a metallic gloss (Munsell color 10 R 5/4-5). The small, red- polished pots continue from Stratum G. The MB IIA carinated bowl becomes rare. Jars with natural burnishing and straight base and lip, though not frequent, are characteristic of the period. Dipper juglets still occasionally have a blunted base. Among the few imported examples, some were closed on a wheel at the base, while the locally produced specimens (fabric I-b) were cut off on the wheel and trimmed and smoothed manually. Among the amphorae, a thin-walled type of light red clay (fabric IV-1-c) becomes frequent. The handmade cooking pot makes its last, rare appearance in the waste collections. These examples probably derive from older, disturbed deposits.

The bronzes also show the transition from MB IIA (to which the majority of types belong) to MB IIB. Finds still include the triangular midrib dagger with long tang; the chisel-shaped, notched battle- axe with a square section; the socketed javelin heads; and the embossed belts. The chisel-shaped MB IIB axe with rounded hexagonal section makes the first of its rare appearances in this stratum, in Tomb A/II-m/ 10 no. 8 (see Bietak 1986a: pl. 40; Bietak in press; fig. 16 here).

In summary, Stratum F = b/ 3, dating only 50 years before the Hyksos period, represents a boom in Middle Bronze Age influence. It has one of the largest Middle Bronze Age temples in the eastern Mediterranean; foreign vaulting techniques, probably of Mesopotamian origin and used for tomb constructions (van den Brink 1982: 93); and an increase in contracted burials. As in the previous stratum, there is a distinct increase in contracted burials and there is a distinct increase in Middle Bronze Age ceramic types.

This phase can be defined as transitional Egyp- tianized MB IIA-B.

Stratum E/3 = b/2 (Areas A/II and F/I)

In the central quarters (Area F/I) the villas are enlarged. The latest rooms with sunken burial chambers are either attached to the outer wall of the sleeping room or constructed separately, detached from the main building along the enclosure wall. Kitchens and simple living quarters are found at some distance from the villas along the enclosure wall, an indication that the social hierarchy at the site was becoming consolidated.

In the eastern quarter, a second temple (V) is added to the east of the main temple. The new temple covers an older enclosure wall of the sacred precinct. In contrast to Temple III, it is constructed in Egyptian tradition, with three sanctuaries and an "offering table room" in front (Bietak 1986a: fig. 8; for the function of temple rooms, see Arnold 1962: 45-56). A staircase is built along the western flank, as in Temple III. The altar, however, is in the best Canaanite tradition, placed in an open court in front and north of the temple. A second court is added to the north of this court. Both are enclosed by a sandy brick wall. At the western flank of the sacred precinct a "Breithaus" temple (II) is added. The tombs within the forecourt indicate that this is probably a mortuary temple. In Cemetery Com- plex I, west of the main precinct, is a small mortuary temple with two sanctuaries and an "offering table room" in front. The Stratum F cemeteries continue to be used. The building material is the same as in the previous stratum, although the tombs tend to be smaller.

Little change can be observed in the Egyptian ceramic material. The general development of the pottery can be defined best by the types that are no longer present, those that appear for the last time, and those that have not yet appeared. The round- bottomed drinking cups become even deeper and more closed, with an average index of 110. The beaker-cups make their last appearance, and the carinated beaker-cups have disappeared. Stratum E/3 is the last stratum with the distinctive fine dung-tempered ware (fabric I-b-1); that type of ware becomes more crude (fabric I-b-2). The big, round-bottomed bowls of chaff-tempered Nile clay (fabric I-c) are popular for the last time. Among the marl C (fabric II-c) vessels, the small bag- shaped jars are no longer present, while the Zir 4 water jars and the large jars with segmented neck continue (figs. 8, 9).

The Middle Bronze Age component, which still comprises about 40 percent of the total ceramic collection, is complex. Tell el-Yahudiya ware continues to appear in tombs in the form of Piriform lb and Ic juglets with bipartite handles, but these vessels are smaller than in earlier strata (fig. 12). A very sensitive indicator for the period is the Piri- form lb juglet with zigzag pattern between standing and pendant triangles and with inner lip. That type makes its only appearance in this stratum. Among the black-polished, brown-polished, and red-polished jugs with piriform shapes, the candlestick rim and button base persist. The shaping of


the button base on the wheel becomes more frequent. Folded-over rims also increase. Also typical for the period are brown-polished juglets of rounded, biconical shape with rims drawn out- ward. The base of the neck is accentuated by two or three incised rings. While Tell el-Yahudiya ware and undecorated juglets are now largely of local production (fabric I-d), small biconical, brown- polished juglets are mainly imports from southern Palestine (fabric IV-2-b). Brown-polished juglets with cutoff spouts no longer appear. Gone, too, are nearly all of the MB IIA types.

Few bronzes have been recovered from this stratum. The only link with MB IIA is an isolated socketed javelin head from Tomb A/ II-1 / 14 no. 7.

This phase can be defined as Egyptianized MB IIB1.

Stratum E/2 = b/1 (Areas A/II, A/ V, and F/I)

In the central quarters (Area F/I) the large houses (villas) are still in use. There are also new constructions with very thick walls and brick floors. The simple one- or two-room buildings also continue. The domestic architecture is primarily Egyp- tian. Tombs are dug in courtyards. As a rule, infants are interred in amphorae (Canaanite storage jars) within houses, along walls, or in courtyards. In the eastern part of the settlement, cemeteries continue to develop around the sacred precinct that has the large Canaanite temple (III) in the center. In Cemetery Complex I, Temple I is rebuilt, again with two sanctuaries, and with the offering- table hall in the center (Bietak 1970: 24-29, figs. 3-4; Bietak in press: fig. 62). The layout of this building is generally Egyptian, although it has some Middle Bronze Age features, such as the tripartite arrangement of the procella "hall of appearance," which has parallels in the temple in Area H at Hazor, and the benches inside and in front of the temple.

Tombs are of mudbrick or sandy bricks. Pairs of donkey sacrifices continue to appear in front of the entrances to important burials. At the northeastern edge of Tell el-Dabca, drilling samples (collected by J. Dorner) have established the beginning of the settlement in Area A/V and show that the settlement was growing rapidly.

Little change can be observed in the Egyptian pottery except that chaff-tempered ware decreases to less than 10 percent and the dung-tempered ware becomes more crude. Fabric I-b-1 ware is no longer on the market. On the other hand, forms

typical of the Hyksos period, such as ring-base bowls, large carinated bowls, and jars with a variety of lips have appeared only occasionally.

Among the Middle Bronze Age types there is a sharp change in the Tell el-Yahudiya ware (fig. 12). Besides the last occurrences of Piriform Ic juglets, Piriform 2 juglets with three or four lozenge-shaped decoration zones appear toward the end of this stratum. Biconical juglets with two horizontal pattern zones also start to gain popularity. The candlestick rim gives way to the folded rim, and the bipartite handles change to strap handles. This change does not occur in the Levant. Bag-shaped and cylindrical jugs with decoration are still not observed. Bowls with polished cross and rim continue. An osteological study indicates the first presence of the horse (Boessneck 1976: 25; Boess- neck and von den Driesch, in press).

This phase represents a transition from MB IIBI to MB IIB2.

Stratum E/1 = b/1-a/2 (Areas A/II, A/ V, and F/I)

The central quarter of the settlement is largely denuded by modern plowing but parts of the deep foundations of a mudbrick temple, which probably had a tripartite sanctuary, are still preserved. In front of it were large, round offering pits with charred cattle bones (Boessneck and von den Driesch, in press) and broken pottery vessels (V. Miller unpublished). Seriation analysis shows that most of the vessels date from the time of the transition between Strata E/ 1 and D/ 3, probably the time when the temple was used. That would mean that Stratum a/2 in Area F/I probably would start toward the end of Stratum E/ 1 at Areas A/II and A/V.

In the eastern part of the settlement (Area A/ II) the large Middle Bronze Age temple (III) and the attached tripartite temple (V) were renewed in sandbrick during this phase or the previous Stra- tum E/2. Small mortuary temples are still in use and Temple I was partly repaired using mudbrick. The cemetery compounds are first used for a settlement consisting of light construction, normally one-room houses with thin walls reinforced with pilasters. Stables and storerooms are attached to those structures. Infants are buried either in the houses or in the courtyards. Earlier burial tradi- tions continue in a single rectangular structure that has a thick brick wall; the building is attached to a house and can be considered a "house for the dead." Inside are tombs for two adults (male and


28

26 29

22 K 21 232/2 30 031 3323

•• •I-

c-1-2

S... I-b-2\(

VOI P2OTTERY

• •I

7

ii

EGYPTIAN TYPE GROUPS OF

95 I ) THE

IInd INTERMEDIATE PERIOD

8 9 ( STRATA E/1- D/3)

210

Fig. 10. Egyptian pottery type groups of the Second Intermediate period (Strata E/1-D/3).

female) and several children (Bietak in press: Plan 6, Square m/ 13, Tombs 4, 14). There are also tombs of adults within courtyards; at the same time the cemeteries continue to be used.

The tombs are either of mudbrick or sandy brick. Vaulting continues a tradition that probably comes from Mesopotamia. The deceased in general are placed with legs semicontracted and the upper body on its back; there are also two burials in extended position. Orientation is either north-northwest- south-southeast with the head to the south, or west-southwest-east-northeast with the head to the east. Warrior graves with MB IIB battle-axes and MB IIB daggers make their last appearance. The discontinuation of warrior tombs with the end of MB IIB can also be noted in the Levant (Philip

1989; fig. 16 here). The same is true for donkey sacrifices in front of tomb entrances. There is again rare osteological evidence for the horse within this stratum.

The building material in this stratum is mixed, but mudbrick, 37.5-39 x 17.5-18 x 10 cm, replaces sandbrick of the same size. Both kinds of bricks are used side by side for the same walls. The extreme northeast (Area A/V) shows a consolidation of settlement, with light, semidetached houses and round silos.

The Egyptian pottery shows some significant changes (figs. 10, 13). The dung-tempered ware represents 92 percent of this pottery, while the chaff-tempered ware is only 8 percent. Ring-base bowls, large bowls with carination and lip, and


round-bottomed jars with round lip, sharp lip, complex lip, and inner lip make their first appearance. Round-bottomed drinking cups have a rougher texture now and become deeper (average index = 104). Among the marl C (fabric II-c) pottery, the large jars with ribbed necks are still

present; they virtually disappear in Stratum D/3 (cf. fig. 8).

Middle Bronze Age pottery is still numerous

(+40 percent), and all of it except the amphorae is

produced locally. The Tell el-Yahudiya ware becomes especially popular among the grave goods. Clusters of Piriform 2 and double conical juglets as well as cylindrical, bag-shaped, and quadrilobal juglets appear. The latter seem to be confined to this stratum. The double conical 1 juglets show a

typological development from the Piriform Ic pattern, as they also have standing and pendant tri-

angles. The rim is generally folded over, except for one kind of narrow plain red- or black-polished juglet with round handle which still has the candlestick rim. Button bases usually are shaped on the wheel. The strap handle is most typical for this

period. Besides the decorated Tell el-Yahudiya ware, plain red- and black-polished juglets also are popular. There is no longer any metallic gloss. The juglets in the tombs are small (8 to 12 cm in height), while in the settlement there are sherds of the same types but of larger size, ca. 20-25 cm in height (fig. 11). Red-washed bowls with inner lip and polished cross design continue up to this stratum. Red-polished carinated bowls of MB IIB type occur both in tombs and in the settlement. Similar bowls and pots, red or black polished, carry a

polished zigzag design on the neck. There is a noticeable increase in Middle Cypriot pottery, especially White Painted Pendant Line (WPPL) and White Painted Cross Line (WPCL) styles.

Generally, the seriation of short-lived types shows a significant change in the ceramic repertoire with late Stratum E/2 and E/ 1. The change is connected with an enormous expansion of the settlement (fig. 3), which in turn probably relates to political changes associated with the creation of the Hyksos kingdom.

This phase can be defined as Egyptianized MB IIB2.

Stratum D/3 = a/2 (Areas A/I, A/IV, A/ V, and F/I)

In the center (Area F/I) of the settlement, the mudbrick temple and the offering pits date mainly

to Stratum D/3. There is also a round pit with a

pair of donkey sacrifices in front of the temple of Area F/I, together with offerings of pairs of jugs. Further remains in this area have been largely de-

stroyed by plowing. In the eastern part of the town

(Area A/II) the settlement became more compact. The large Temples III and V are still in use. In front of both are huge offering pits filled with charred cattle bones and broken pottery (flat-based cups, bag-shaped jars, and so forth). As in Area

F/I, there is also evidence of a round pit with a

pair of sacrificed donkeys and jugs or cups as offer-

ing relics. The cemeteries west of the temple precincts are

completely covered by the settlement. Most of the

compounds are already completely occupied by houses and workshops. Of special interest is an installation for brick production(?) with a pit for

mixing and treading the paste. For building material mudbrick has completely replaced the sandy brick of the previous strata. Some tombs are dug inside houses or courtyards, but no large multiple- burial chamber tombs appear (they do later on in Stratum D/2). The scarcity of adult burials in this

phase is puzzling; adults probably are buried in still-undiscovered cemeteries.

Occupation is less compact in the northeastern suburb (Area A/V). Detached and semidetached houses are still common, with a large room in front and a double room in back, and situated within an enclosure.

Between the eastern town and the center (Area A/IV), beneath a sacred precinct of a temple of Sutekh constructed by Horemheb (Bietak 1985b), are the remains of an older temple precinct (excavated by J. Dorner, unpublished). The pottery shows that this precinct was contemporary with Stratum D/3-2 in Area A/II; it is probably the

temple area of Sutekh from the Hyksos period. West of an enclosure wall of the older complex is a series of pits containing plants, and an offering pit with broken pottery, typical for Stratum D/ 3-2. The temple proper has not yet been found.

The ceramic corpus shows changes. The chaff-

tempered ware becomes practically insignificant relative to the dung-tempered ware (about 96 percent versus 4 percent). It is confined to large, footed bowls and pedestals. The beer jars have disappeared from the market. Among the dung-tempered ware, the round-bottomed cups become deeper (medium index 96.5) and are present for the last time. They are replaced by cups with flat bases. The new types that appeared in Stratum E/1 continue (fig. 10).


I-b-2

I-b -21

6 I- b y2

K II b 17 8 i

3

I-e 11 13 1416 19 I-a,I-b-2,I- d

II-e

I -f

MB TI-B -C TYPE GROUPS OF THE Jnd INTERMEDIATE N-2-c PERIOD (STRATA E/1- D/2)

20 22

Fig. 11. MB II B, C type groups during the Hyksos period (Strata E/1-D/2).

White-washed jars of dung-tempered ware with nipple bases start to be used, but are still rare. The texture of the marl C (fabric II-c) pottery becomes rougher (for the origin of this material, see Arnold 1981). The large water jar has a narrower neck and a flaring rim (Zir 6). The Zir 4 type continues but becomes smaller and the rim is only carelessly trimmed (Zir 5). Marl A (fabric II-a) jars from Upper Egypt start to appear but are rare (fig. 13).

Changes can also be observed in the Middle Bronze Age material (fig. 11). Carinated bowls are

rare except at the beginning of Stratum D/3; bowls with polished cross design are also no longer found. Among the Tell el-Yahudiya ware, the Piriform 2a, bag-shaped, and biconical juglets continue. Juglets with combed pattern are a new type now (figs. 12, 13). New also are huge red-washed, partly polished pots and large, carinated bowls of sandy marl clay (fabric II-f);"3 they normally have a wheelmade ring base and an internal and external lip. Am- phorae continue to be imported from southern Palestine (fabric IV-2-c), but they also are made of


c. 1500 - TELL EL- DAB'A STRATIGRAPHY

HANDMADE A F OVOID GLOBULAR PIRIFORM 1 BICONICAL PIRIFORM 2 COMBED

D/3

c. 1600 , a , /2

E/1 i,.

b/1 . .

[ .

" .

E/2-3

HIATUS

G/L d / 1

c. 1800.- H d/2

Fig. 12. Occurrences of Tell el-Yahudiya ware in Tell el-Dabca, by type groups.

marl II-f and local Nile clay (fabric I-b). The Canaanite wheelmade cooking pot is still produced locally (fabric I-e); little change can be observed from earlier strata. Among the bronzes, Middle Bronze Age shapes no longer appear.

This phase can be classified as transitional from a highly Egyptianized MB IIB2 to a local MB IIC.

Stratum D/2 (Areas A/II, A/IV, and A V)

As noted, modern plowing removed whatever evidence existed from the center of the site (Area F/I). The temple of Stratum A/2 probably continues. Settlement in the eastern town becomes very compact. The plots are now completely covered by


B.C STRATI- LATE EGYPTIANI M EGYPTIAN MB-SHAPES EG MB EGYPTIAN MB GRA••APH CYPRI OTE~ [ ULn LnL' z uj m L n In SiTE1 0 . SITE 0 0

o,-• : -

Ln :ni 2: ?3 (D3 v

S..

. 1J1 o /•

- o 1•1

4 :

: r T 0 3::r 1 (D Mt D /<ic I 1

. . . .

10 Eli -x I(< V Y 3 3x - m L . 4 AQ31

E/3 b/2 Ir t

LLJ c: CL M n 'n < o Z ?4 : 0 L) (L a <:5 t CO C3 cn < 0 a.t

S0 U•••ca.: .................. M""

z c 0 M LL

'::• :• - • S . . ......

.... . ...... . .. .. . . . .... . .

D/3 a1/2

1600 E/l1I a/2

E/2 b/l

E/3 b/2

1700 F b/3

G c

G/4 d/i

1800 H d/2

Fig. 13. Simplified occurrence seriation of ceramic type groups with short time spans in Tell el-Dabca.

houses, and there is very little space for courts or cemeteries. The extreme northeastern end of the town (Area A/V) is less compactly settled, with semidetached houses. Typical among the mudbrick houses is an arrangement of two rooms in the back and one large room in front, probably with a column to support the roof. There are indications that some houses have upper stories. The huge sacred precinct near the center, in Area A/IV-- most probably the temple of Sutekh-seems to continue with perhaps a minor interruption until the time of the 18th Dynasty.

Since only little space is now available for tombs within the settlement, single or double chambers for multiple burials are in use. Some are bonded to the house. The large tombs are of Egyptian type, often with a separately-built entrance shaft. The vault with a paraboloid section is also Egyptian. However, there also are single graves under the floors. Infants under one year of age are buried in Middle Bronze Age amphorae. As in Stratum D/ 3, there are no tombs with weapons or donkey sacrifices.

The ceramic corpus differs little from the pottery in Stratum D/3. Among the Egyptian types the ratio of dung-tempered ware to chaff-tempered ware varies between 96:4 and 99:1. The round- bottomed cups no longer appear; now the cups have only flat bases. A stout jar with flat base is distinctive for this period. The typical ring-base

bowls and the jars with complex lips both continue. Chronologically important are the whitewashed jars with flat lips and nipple bases. Though not frequent, they are sensitive indicators for this stratum and the end of D/ 3. Among the marl C (fabric II-c) vessels the Zir 5 continues, but the Zir 6 with narrower neck and flaring rim is popular. There are also imitations of the Zir 5, made of Nile clay (fabric I-b) and big jars with flaring rim made of marl C. Marl A (fabric II-a) jars still occur in limited quantity (fig. 13).

The Middle Bronze Age types still comprise about 30 percent of the total output. Except for the amphorae and the marl II-f carinated bowls, almost everything is locally made. Some of the amphorae are also made of Nile clay mixed with sand (fabric I-e). Among the Tell el-Yahudiya ware, the most common are large jugs with combed ornamentation. Biconical and Piriform 2a juglets occur also, but the latter only rarely (fig. 12).

Of special significance in this stratum is evidence of the further expansion in Cypriot relations. In addition to the Middle Cypriot types, Late Cypriot pottery is present for the first time. There is White Painted (WP) V ware, but also true Bichrome (BI), Proto White Slip (PWS) and White Slip (WS) Ware, Black/ Red Slip Ware, and Red-polished Ware (Maguire 1986).

Stratum D/2, a highly Egyptianized local MB IIC culture, represents the last occupation of the


site by Asiatic elements who, for convenience, may be called Canaanites. In archaeological terms they are carriers of a highly Egyptianized Middle Bronze Age culture. Previous reports (Bietak 1968: 102- 3)14 left uncertain whether Stratum D/2 was destroyed by warfare, abandoned, or only partly abandoned (Bimson 1981; Bimson and Livingston 1987; Bietak 1988). The evidence for the kind of development that terminated this stratum is largely destroyed by deep Ramesside (Stratum B) and Late Period (Stratum A/2-3) foundations and by sebakh digging. Despite our previous cautious state- ments (see above, n. 14), Tell el-Dabca is sometimes described as showing evidence for a destruction (see Dever 1985). Further excavations in Area A/II and especially in Area A/ V, though, have not produced evidence of violent destruction. Only the tombs show signs of thorough plundering. The large chambers were easily recognizable from entrance shafts in the houses. Occasionally, small single burials remained unnoticed.

There is also no evidence that settlement continued. The archaeological material stops abruptly with the early 18th Dynasty. There are no scarabs of 18th Dynasty type in Stratum D/2. The most likely interpretation is that Avaris was abandoned. No conflagration layer or corpses of slain soldiers have been found so far in the large and widely separated excavation areas A/II and A/V (Bietak 1988). The end of Avaris may have involved a surrender, or as Josephus has stated, an arranged retreat to Palestine (Contra Apionem 1.14.88). We cannot exclude the possibility that a small number of former carriers of the Hyksos rule stayed behind. There are some limited assemblages in the temple precinct of Sutekh (Stratum D/ 1) with ceramic material of the early-to-mid 18th Dynasty (Bietak 1985b: fig. 4:21). The cultic area of Sutekh alone was probably allowed to continue on a very restricted scale. Even that does not exclude a hiatus of a few decades. Outside the temple walls, however, no evidence of a continuation of the settlement has been found. The later stratigraphy of the site is therefore irrelevant for our discussion of Middle Bronze Age problems.

DATING MIDDLE BRONZE AGE STRATA AT TELL EL-DAB CA

The fine stratigraphy (fig. 3) of Tell el-Dabca offers an insight into a continuous cultural development of about 300 years, from the late 12th to the early 18th Dynasty (Strata H to D/2). When exca-

vations can close the gap back to the early 12th Dy- nasty occupation at Site F/ I, our knowledge of the occupation of the site will cover some 500 years.

Of utmost importance is the coexistence of Egyp- tian and Middle Bronze Age cultures within Strata H to D/2. This provides a unique chance to link the framework of Palestinian chronology to that of Egypt. More important than the absolute chronology is the relative chronology, i.e., the relationship of the Middle Bronze Age phases to Egyptian dynasties. The absolute dates may change, but absolute chronology is necessary to provide a feeling for the time involved and a parameter for comparison. That chronology must be up to date with current research.

The absolute chronology used in this article is based on two constructions: a calculation from the New Kingdom backward and a calculation from the Middle Kingdom forward (Bietak 1989a; see also Bietak 1984a: 472-74). For the New Kingdom, a near consensus favors a low chronology (Bierbrier 1975; Helck 1983; 1984; 1987; Hornung 1979; 1987; Kitchen 1987; Krauss 1978; 1985). It is based on a dense network of regnal and private genealogical data that allow us to construct from it safe fixed points in the first millennium backwards within calculable uncertainties (Bierbrier 1975; Helck 1983; 1987; Hornung 1987; Kitchen 1986; 1987). The high regnal dates for Amenhotep II and Tuth- mosis IV proposed by Wente and Van Siclen, which lead to a high beginning (between 1577 and 1570 B.C.) for the New Kingdom (Wente and Van Siclen 1976: 127-29), rest on dubious records and leave large undocumented gaps. This high position has not received support by experts on chronology (see above; Kitchen 1977-1978). It is, however, still popular in America, especially among scholars outside Egyptology.

The Sothic date of year 9 of Amenhotep I has become a matter of serious controversy (Helck 1983; Luft 1986).15 It would therefore be safer not to use it any longer for chronological reconstruc- tions. Helck (1987: 18) considers a lunar date from the 52nd year of Ramesses II as an astronomical fixed point. Beginning dates for the 18th Dynasty now range between 1542/1539 B.c. (Hornung 1987; Krauss 1985: 207) and ?1530 B.c. (Helck 1987: 25), the differences, other than in minor details, resting only in the length of the reign of Horemheb, which was either 13 or 27 years.

Important for the chronology of the Second In- termediate period is the date of the end of Avaris, which most probably coincides with the official end


of the Hyksos rule in Egypt. From the Rhind papyrus we may conclude that the end of Avaris occurred in the Ilth year of the last Hyksos ruler (Helck 1987: 25; contra Vandersleyen 1971: 37; see also Franke 1988b: 263-64) who, according to the Turin papyrus, must have been Khamudy. Avaris was probably besieged for some time,16 a year or more, before it was taken over by the Egyptians. As Kamoses' records end with his third year, when he led an expedition into the neighborhood of Avaris against 'C-wsr-Rc Apopy (the most likely predecessor of Khamudy),'7 Ahmose very likely started his reign still under Apopy or, at the latest, nearly contemporaneously with Khamudy. That would mean that the final assault on Avaris and the end of the Hyksos rule did not happen before the 1 Ith year of Ahmose and may have been some years later.

The Masara stela of the 22nd year of Ahmose mentions the employment of Fenekhu cattle in the quarry (Sethe 1927-1930: 25, line 12). The animals obviously came from a raid to Syria or northern Palestine or as tribute from there, after the siege of Sharuhen-which took three years-and after a campaign to Nubia. Calculating backward from the 22nd year of the Masara stela, the fall of Avaris must have happened between the 1 Ith and the 18th year of Ahmose, with some probability in the middle, i.e., about the 15th year.'8

Using this time-span between the 1lth and the 18th year of Ahmose as the end of the Hyksos rule in Egypt, in combination with the current possi- bilities of the New Kingdom chronology (ascent of Ahmose ?1542/1539 or 1530 B.C.), the end of Avaris should have happened sometime between 1532 and 1512 B.C. (Bietak 1989a). Adding to those extremes the 108 years of the Turin papyrus for the Hyksos rule yields a starting date for the 15th Dynasty between 1640 and 1620 B.C.

The duration of the 13th Dynasty is debatable. The 153 years of the Barbarus version of Manetho are the most probable. Kitchen (1987) feels that this total may be approximately correct. Adding 153 years to the beginning of the Hyksos rule would give the years 1793-1773 B.C. as a range for the end of the 12th Dynasty.

The 12th Dynasty has, however, an independent astronomical chronology based on the Illahun Sothic date. After the Ebers date from year nine of Amenhotep I became dubious, there was no longer any necessity to insist on Assuan for the observation of the heliacal rising of the Sothis (see Krauss

1978; 1985). That southerly observation point would result in extremely low dates for the end of the 12th Dynasty (1757/1756 B.C.). It would also shorten the Second Intermediate period to about 216 years, which seems too short to accommodate the eight strata (G/4-D/2) of that period at Tell el-Dabca. On the contrary, the stratigraphic evidence indicates that the Second Intermediate Pe- riod should be very long.

Leaving the Ebers date out of consideration in connection with a low New Kingdom chronology, there is no cogent reason to doubt Memphis as the point of observation for the rising of the Sothis star, especially for the time of the Middle King- dom when the residence lay in the Memphite area. A Middle Kingdom stela from Memphis specifically mentions the observation of the rising of the Sothis among the duties of the high priest of Memphis (Bourriau 1982: 53-54).19 Much later, in Roman times, Olympiodorus states that (even) the Alexandrians used Memphis as the place for de- termining the rising of the Sothis (Neugebauer 1929: 161). That practice can only be explained by long tradition.

Corrections to Parker's (1950) Illahun date of 1872 B.C. with the Memphitic observation point have been attempted by Barta (1979; 1979-1980; 1981; Sothis date 1875 B.C.), Krauss (1985: 77, 98),20 Quirke (1988), and Luft (in press). Luft especially considers the relevant details of the phenomenon of a heliacal rising of the Sothis star. His Sothic date of 1866 B.C. is used here for the calculation of the end of the 12th Dynasty, which would fall with minor uncertainties at ? 1792 B.C. That coincides remarkably well with the higher estimate calculated from the New Kingdom backward and would date the fall of the Hyksos rule to the 1 Ith or 12th year of Ahmose. However, the Barbarus sum of 153 years for the 13th Dynasty is probably not a correct figure; it could also have lasted longer (see Barta 1978-1980). Quirke calculated a slightly lower end for the Middle Kingdom (?1787 B.C.) on the basis of the Memphitic Sothic date of Krauss (Quirke 1988). That would fit more comfortably with our calculations from the New Kingdom backward based on current New Kingdom chronologies, provided that the 13th Dynasty lasted about 153 years. Barta's date of 1802/1801 B.c. for the end of the Middle Kingdom (see also Bietak 1984a: 473) requires a higher New Kingdom chronology, with either a beginning of the 18th Dynasty at 1552 B.C. or a longer period for the 13th Dynasty. The varia-


tions of the debate are, however, very small (for the end of the Middle Kingdom, Barta gives 1802, Luft 1792, and Quirke 1787) and have little effect on archaeological chronology.

A certain amount of schematization is necessary to allow us to use these results for establishing an absolute chronology for the Tell el-Dab'a stratigraphy. For the period from the late 12th Dynasty (post-Amenemhet III) until the end of the Hyksos era we use the median dates of ?1800 to ? 1530 B.C. (i.e., ca. 270 years). Within that time span the pegs of the finely datable material are unevenly distributed. To achieve an approach to a chrono- metric time scale we have to divide the 270 years equally among the nine main strata with Middle Bronze Age remains, which would result in ?30 years for each stratum. Some strata, of course, may have lasted more or less than the proposed time span.

Dever (1985: 76) has questioned whether 30 years would be too short for a stratum since in Palestine strata are normally defined according to destruction layers of the fortifications or abandonments. In Tell el-Dabca, however, strata are evaluated very finely from successions of continuous settlement and otherwise would be considered as phases (Bietak 1976; see Kempinski 1983: 148). The time span for a stratum comes from application of absolute chronology and can therefore be considered as a very realistic one.21 It would represent a generation. Buildings were either renewed after that period or merely changed, and some remained essentially intact over two or even three strata. Of course there is overlap in time between the stratigraphy of adjoining building compounds. Therefore the strata of major excavation areas were defined according to major buildings. Even within large areas of investigation, however, waves of renewal within the settlement can be observed.

The datable objects from Tell el-Dabca are listed below according to the strata in which they were found. These include individual objects related to other contexts that can be better dated by inscribed material. There also are combinations of specific types and typological series that show a continuous development and can again show relationships to other well-dated contexts.

Stratum H = d/2

1. Statistics on round-bottomed drinking cups (fig. 14) show a continuous development that can

be fitted in after the reign of Amenemhet III, based on comparisons to well-dated assemblages from the 12th Dynasty (Arnold 1982: 60-65, figs. 17-19; Bietak 1984a: 481, fig. 2; 1985: fig. 2; Arnold 1988: fig. 75).

2. A duckbill axe from Tomb F/I-o/19 no. 8 (see fig. 5) is no stray find. It is represented in design in the next stratum on a cylinder seal (Porada 1984: 486, fig. 1; also, see below), but already in that stratum a palace tomb contains a chisel-shaped MB IIA axe with square section. The stratigraphic position is logical. The best-dated assemblage is the "tomba del signore dei capridi" at Ebla, where such an axe was found together with a scepter of the king IHtp-ib-Rc (Matthiae 1980: 50-62; Scandone-Matthiae 1979; 1982),22 known with the nomen cAmusahornedjheryotef from the early 13th Dynasty.23 That would be already slightly later than Stratum d/2 and would correspond to the palace Stratum d/ 1 in Area F/I. As the king has left monuments at Tell el-Dabca (Habachi 1954: 458-70), he may have been one of the occupants of the palace (Bietak 1984b; Eigner 1985). For the dating of the duckbill axe, a wall painting in Beni Hassan from year 6 of Sesostris II (?1875 B.c. according to Luft) is used (Yadin 1963: 167; Oren 1971: 113, 136; Gerstenblith 1983: 90-91).24 That is not altogether impossible and could signal the early range of the type. However, this representation is uncertain. It could well be an Egyptian axe, if it is an axe at all (Yadin 1963: 169).25

3. Typical for a late 12th Dynasty date are chaff- tempered beer jars with funnel-shaped neck and lip (Arnold 1982: 60-65), small marl C jars with globular body (Arnold 1982: 29, fig. 5), and large storage jars of the same material with broad base and round lip (Arnold 1982: fig. 14:34; figs. 7, 9 here).

Stratum G/4 = d/l

1. A serpentine statuette of an official was found in the palace garden, Tomb F/I-1/ 19 no. 1 (fig. 15). This statuette is dated stylistically to the 13th Dynasty.26

2. A hematite cylinder seal has a representation of the northern Syrian weather god (Porada 1984: 486, ill. 1, fig. 1). He holds a "duckbill" axe in his hand. Porada dates the cylinder into the 18th century B.C. using the middle chronology of the Old Babylonian empire.

3. From the chapel of Tomb F/I-p/19 no. 1 came fragments of a colossal seated statue (about


INDEX 12.

DYNASTY INDEX d/2 dI1 G c F b12 El3 bil E/2

El1 DI3 012 G =F El3

=El1 =D/3

a:

"

a.

/.. ... .2t: P.

..

19013 0- * 90

150 1 " " I .1

.* w 3 a. z Ln '7 ID

12<0 120 17 0

00

90 soo 1 90 A

1800 10 0 A A 100

.130. ... ..0,13_0 140 140 140

**0

150 - 150 150

1 80 * 10 180 160

17 1 A O B0-. 170 IT 1970

2) 1 I 00 200 1 2 16

24( *' *19

I I IADED F B

A A A A

22ADAPTED FROM ARNOLD (19 FG 7ERAGE INDEX

c 203,5 202 1183.5 177 166

240_ (1981) (164) 1 ADAPTED FROM M. BIETAK 0984A) IU..2

A:ADAPTED FROM DO. ARNOLD (1988) FIG. 75

Fig. 14. Seriation of drinking cups according to Bietak 1984a and Arnold 1988. There is a tendency of battleship formation within the different strata. The indexes of the drinking cups in Tell el-Dabca show clearly later values than 12th Dynasty occurrences. In general, the development trend of drinking cups runs from flat and open to deep and closed forms. Closed contexts (to the right) show a more restricted variability of the indexes and are even better for dating.

twice life size) of an Asiatic dignitary with a red mushroom-shaped coiffure, holding a throwstick (considered here a sign of dignity) at his shoulder. The figure was deliberately smashed. Such a statue is unthinkable for the time of the 12th Dynasty. It was in the time of the 13th Dynasty that Asia- tics such as cAmusahornedjheryotef (see above), Amenicamu,27 Khendjer (Von Beckerath 1964: 49-

51, 238-39), and probably others rose to high posi- tions and even to the kingship.

4. Among the pottery, 12th Dynasty shapes are rare and have given way to types of the 13th Dy- nasty such as beer jars with cylindrical neck and kettle-shaped mouth, and Zirs of type no. 3 or 4, with a trimmed rim (Arnold 1982: 35, fig. 11:3-4; figs. 7, 9 here).


!~\ i ~e

\ 7\?`!

?e ~ i~ '"' f

i~lec~zs~za~ E;lr~

~" '~~p i'

!I i

/ blW?~

I,.

:i : I I , i I

I

~II

r I . I I If(? 1 '/;

.I ihi '?; i ;II ""

:I i I (? i , ? i. ~r ' i-i i I? II! i : iii I:

I ( ; I i i I

?~ \\ ~l??~t' 1:; , 'I ?; II Y: \\.~~rhrsh'? ?r ?-~ T ,

1 '?&

Fig. 15. Statuette of serpentinite from the 13th Dynasty from a palace tomb, Stratum d/1 = G/4.

Stratum G/1-3 = c

The seriation of round-bottomed cups, beer jars with kettle-shaped mouth, bag-shaped jars of marl C, and Piriform 1 a Tell el-Yahudiya jugs link this stratum with Complex 7 at Dahshur (the Valley Temple of Amenemhet III), which is dated to the middle of the 13th Dynasty (Arnold 1977; 1982: 39-42; Arnold and Stadelmann 1977: 15-20, pl. 46). The reason for that date, besides the ceramic material, is that the mortuary cult of Amenem- het III did not end before the beginning of the 13th Dynasty. After the cult was discontinued, there were settlement installations that again fell into disrepair before the dumps of Complex 7 accumulated (fig. 14).

Stratum F = b/3

1. The main temple (Temple III) was erected in this stratum, to be followed by Temple V and the small mortuary temples I and II in Strata E/2 and E/ 3. From the area of this complex two fragments of different limestone jambs with the names of King S-zh r' Nehesy (Bietak 1984c) were found in

pits of Strata A/2 and B, but the only monumental architecture in the area was Temple III. The conclusion that the jamb fragments came from this

building is not definitive, but since both pieces belong to Nehesy it is unlikely that they had been

brought from another place. It is very possible that

Temple III was constructed under Nehesy, who is dated to the end of the 18th century B.C. (Von Beckerath 1964).

2. A scarab with the title of an idnw n imy-r? sdiwt, "deputy treasurer" with the name ?m (= "the Asiatic") was found in Tomb A/II-1/ 12 no. 5 (Martin 1971: 29, no. 311a, pl. 42:A20; Bietak in

press: fig. 24). The burial belonged to an Asiatic and had MB IIA weapons as well as five or six donkey sacrifices at the entrance-the largest number of donkeys ever found in connection with a Middle Bronze Age burial. The burial also had a wooden coffin covered with stucco. It is therefore

tempting to identify the deceased with the owner of the title. Under normal circumstances that would seem unlikely, since the deputy treasurer would have his office at the residence. In the small kingdom of Nehesy or his successors centered at the capital of Avaris, however, the carrier of that rank would have only provincial importance and of course would have resided in Avaris (Tell el- Dabca). The seal is to be dated to the time of the 13th or 14th Dynasty (Martin 1971: 29, no. 311a; see fig. 17:809 here).

Stratum E/3

A scarab with a corrupt writing of the name of Sebekhotep was found here (Bietak 1970: pl. 19:b; Bietak in press: fig. 48:1). The second part of the name is written in reverse. This detail, along with the nwb-sign at the bottom, indicates a date in the second part of the 13th Dynasty (see fig. 17).

Stratum E/2 = b/1

1. In this stratum are the first occurrences of scarabs with the motif rdy-Rc, typical for the Hyksos period (O'Connor 1974: fig. 13, Q). This type of seal is restricted to the first half of the Hyksos period and shortly before (C. Mlinar unpublished).

2. From Temple I comes a double conical juglet of type 1, with standing and pendant triangles as ornamentation.28 This type develops from the Piri- form Ic juglets and is especially popular in Stratum


STRATIGRAPHIE HB IeA HB IIB TELL EL OAB'A

1 12 3 1 5 7 8 ESEL VOR ESEL VOR I A/II F/I_ cC

c5 GRABERN TEMPELN

/2 1

0/3 a/2 / ' oo

Eil a/2 00000 c -510

SE!2-1 b/l I 0

E/3 b2 * _

o * F b/3

I

I . 1700 *

G/I-31 _ . SG/ d/1l I 1 *o

I H dt2 * * * c laco ? ?

_ / i k t •

Fig. 16. Occurrence seriation of bronzes and donkey sacrifices in Tell el-Dabca.

E/ 1, after which it disappears. A parallel has been found in Kerma in Tumulus X which, according to the scarab evidence, dates to the Hyksos period (Reisner 1923: fig. 264:23; Kaplan 1980: fig. 43:9).29

Stratum El/ = b/1-a/2

1. Scarabs with rdy-Rc and CnrC motifs and tripartite patterns-all typical for the Hyksos period (O'Connor 1974: fig. 13, N, O, Q; 1985: 21-23, type F)-were found.

2. Scarabs with the name of Sesostris I came from Tomb A/II-n/15 no. 1.30 Since the upper part of the pit was removed by sebakh diggers, the tomb may also be of Stratum D/ 3. Large jars with ribbed neck and weapons in the tomb otherwise occur not later than Stratum E/ 1.

Stratum D/3 = a/2

1. A scarab of an unknown Hyksos ruler named zD-Rc Snik whm *nb, was found in the new excavation area A/V between two walls of Strata D/3 and D/2 (fig. 18). The situation in Avaris indicates that this is a major rather than a minor Hyksos ruler. Names for the rulers early in the 15th Dy- nasty are missing, while the later succession should be Khayan, Yanassy, Apopy, and Khamudy (Bie- tak 1980: 95; 1981; Goirg 1981). The name on our scarab should probably be identified with the popular name 99y, which is perhaps a diminutive.

809

1840

2191

Fig. 17. Scarabs with the names of deputy chancellor, cm, (king?) Sebekhotep, and Sesostris I from tombs of Strata E/3 and E/1.


d ( \\ '1'

6666

6160 6161

Fig. 18. Scarabs with the names of the Hyksos Sngk and the chancellor, H3r from Strata D/3 and D/2.

2. Scarabs were discovered with the seal motifs rdy-Rc and Cnrf, deeply cut figures, tripartite patterns, Hathor heads, and concentric circles at all four ends of the seal motif (O'Connor 1985; C. Mli- nar, unpublished).

3. Two bronze plates of King Neferhotep (Bietak 1986a: pl. 18c-d; Bietak in press: fig. 223) were intentionally destroyed by hammer blows and imprints of nails; this surely suggests that the stratum is later than those objects.

Stratum D/2

1. A scarab of the chancellor Hir from Area A/V was found in settlement waste (fig. 18). Scarabs of

.H3r are numerous and distributed everywhere

that the 15th Dynasty had influence-from Kerma (Reisner 1923: 76, pl. 40) to southern Palestine (see fig. 20).

2. The scarabs of this stratum include not a single one that can be dated to the time of the 18th Dynasty. Typical for the end of the Hyksos period are scarabs with simple patterns such as the twisted rope design. Scarabs with tripartite pattern, CnrC

signs, and deeply cut figures continue.

CHRONOLOGICAL CONCLUSIONS

As noted, the absolute dates are less important than the relative chronological relationship between Egypt and Syria-Palestine. The schematization MB IIA = 12th Dynasty (2000-1800/1750 B.C.), MB IIB = 13th Dynasty (1800/1750-1650 B.C.), MB IIC = 15th Dynasty (1650-1550 B.C.) has been more or less accepted, but that does not mean that it is "well established" or even near the historical truth. This scheme is so oversimplified that it cannot be accepted without question. The evidence at

Tell el-Dabca shows that MB IIA probably covered only the second part of the 12th Dynasty and up to the middle of the 13th Dynasty, as corroborated by the evidence from Complex 7 at Dahshur (Arnold 1977; 1982: 39-40). MB IIB covered only the later 13th Dynasty and probably half of the Hyksos period. MB IIC according to Tell el-Dabca covered the late Hyksos period and must have continued re- gionally into the full 18th Dynasty, probably until Tuthmosis III. Concerning that last phase, Tell el- Dabca can only supply some limited evidence, since MB IIC in the Delta is different than in Palestine. However, some interrelationship existed.

The new scheme proposed in this article needs further explanation because the evidence for it does not come from Egypt alone. It should be evaluated in terms of the local assemblages in Syria-Palestine to see its consequences and determine how it fits in this geographical and cultural environment. In this article it is only possible to discuss in survey fashion some of the most important points.

The evidence from Tell el-Dabca cannot be seen as only a local chronological phenomenon. It is connected with the Levant. For example, Levan- tine Painted Ware (LPW) was found in Stratum H = d/2 (very late 12th Dynasty). Neutron activation analysis shows that this pottery was produced not only in Syria but also in southern Palestine (see above), where it occurs early in MB IIA. At Aphek (Ras el-'Ain) it is typical of Phases I and 2 and is already rare in Phase 3 (Beck 1975: 45-47; 1985: 186-87, 194). The same conclusion comes from Tell el-Ifshar (S. M. Paley, J. Porath, personal communications; see also Paley, Porath, and Stieg- litz 1983; 1984; Paley and Porath 1985; Braunstein and Paley 1986) and elsewhere. Because in Tell el-Dabca only isolated Levantine Painted Ware examples have been found in Strata d/ 1 and c, one


can conclude that Stratum H = d/2 is close to or even contemporary with Phase 2 (Palace 1) at Aphek. At least in Palestine, the beginning of MB IIA cannot be much earlier. We could hardly postu- late a beginning in the early 12th Dynasty (i.e., before 1900 B.C.). Indeed, at Tell el-Ifshar in a very early MB IIA phase preceding Palace II at Aphek an Egyptian jar of marl A (fabric II-a) has been found (see Braunstein and Paley 1986: 7), dating from the 19th century B.C. (Dorothea Arnold, personal communication).31

Thus, operating with the old scheme (beginning of MB IIA, 12000 B.C.) can lead to an incorrect historical and even literary framework. Rainey (1972), for example, places the Sinuhe story (time of Sesostris I) into the background of the early MB IIA. He attacks Posener, who saw in the subjects of the prince of Lower Retenu semisedentary no- mads still having a tribal structure (Posener 1957). Rainey supports his view by the elaborate listing of horticultural and agricultural goods in the Sinuhe story that would not fit into the concept of nomad- ism of the MB I (EB IV) world. In recent years, however, new excavations have challenged earlier views concerning MB I. At Refacim, excavations under Eisenberg32 have revealed extensive MB I settlements with solid architecture and evidence of agriculture and horticulture. The settlement spread out in a valley (Wadi Malha) rather than on the traditional tell. Other new evidence of MB I (EB IV) also changes the picture.33

The often-debated Montet Jar (Montet 1928- 1929: pls. 60-71; Tufnell and Ward 1966) also corre- lates better with the evidence from Egypt than with the "well-established" old schemes. This hoard comprises objects of MB I (EB IV) and MB IIA (MB I). Even if part of the hoard consists of heirlooms, it nonetheless comprises a closed context dating to or not far from the transition from MB I (EB IV) to MB IIA (MB I) (see also Gerstenblith 1983: 103). Porada in 1966 dated the cylinder seals from the jar into the 19th century B.C. using the middle chronology in Mesopotamia; she still holds to that dating (personal communication). It is a grave methodological mistake by the adherents of a high chronology to neglect her findings. Gerstenblith (1983: 103) at least notes the resulting difference, but still ignores the consequences.34

It is, however, Porada's dating that fits perfectly with the recent chronological conclusions from Egypt. One should not dismiss her date because of

the present inadequate standing of Mesopotamian chronology. Porada's dating has recently received, to some extent, an independent Egyptological back- ing from a statistical analysis of the scarabs of the hoard by David O'Connor. According to O'Con- nor, the scarabs could be from the 12th Dynasty, but not before. He prefers, however, to date them into the late 13th Dynasty (O'Connor 1983; 1985: 28-41, contra Tufnell and Ward 1966; Ward 1978a: 1978b: 8-9; see also Ward 1987). The style continues into the early 15th Dynasty. His date is even more than a century later than the chronological position by Edith Porada and by this article.

The importance of the royal tombs of Byblos for MB IIA chronology was already recognized by Albright (1964; 1965a; 1965b; 1966; 1973; see also Williams 1975: 872-74). Albright did not yet know, however, that this phase lasted a long time and can be differentiated internally. Before the thorough investigations at Aphek, Tell el-Ifshar, and other MB IIA sites with early occupation, some aspects of this phase of the Middle Bronze Age were not yet recognized. Therefore-and because the con- tents of the Byblos tombs were not recorded prop- erly and many objects, especially the pottery, were mixed together-the material from the royal tombs was dismissed as insignificant or even compared with later phases of the MB II period (Tufnell 1969; Gerstenblith 1983: 39; Dever 1976: 11, 27, n. 69; 1985: 76). However, hemispherical bowls (Tufnell 1969: 10-11, 18-19, 28, fig. 2) are frequent during Phases 1 and 2 in Aphek and are only rarely represented in Phase 3 (Beck 1975: fig. 1:11 [cf. Tufnell 1969: fig. 2:10-11], 2:1-5 [cf. Tufnell 1969: figs. 2:6, 7-9, 3:19-23]; Beck 1985: fig. 2:1-4. For the chronology of this pottery, see Beck 1985: 194). They are typical for the first part of MB IIA. The same applies to the "krater" cooking pots (Tufnell 1969: 16, 26:58, fig. 7:58), which also appear in the early sequence of Aphek (Beck 1975: figs. 2:11, 13, 4:20-21, 6:17; Beck 1985: figs. 2:11, 4:8, 5:10; for chronology, see Beck 1985: 194).

The highest possible absolute dating in Byblos would be for Tomb I, which contained inscribed objects of Amenemhet III (1854-1806 B.C.).35 It is likely that those objects were interred only late in the reign of the king, or even afterwards. That would mean that the early MB IIA (Aphek Phases 1 and 2) was still in full swing during the reign of Amenemhet III or even toward the end of his reign and probably later (i.e., the second half until the


end of the 19th century B.C.).36 This evidence cor- roborates the chronology determined for the Tell el-Dabca sequence.

The fact that the MB IIA phase lasted well into the 13th Dynasty was already recognized by Wein- stein (1975: 11). He found scarabs typical of the 13th Dynasty within tombs of the MB IIA or MB IIA/B transitional period at Tell el-Ajjul. Inas- much as his findings were against the accepted chronology, he unfortunately minimized the consequences (Weinstein 1975: 10).

Due to the different developments of the Middle Bronze Age culture in different regions of Palestine and in the Nile Delta from Phase IIB on,37 it is not easy to correlate Strata D/3-D/2 at Tell el-Dabca in their Egyptian chronological setting with the MB IIC developments in Palestine. The problem is that tomb seriation in Palestine is hampered by the long time spans in which the individual chambers were used for generations of burials. Kenyon's tomb groups at Jericho therefore have only an approximate value (Kenyon 1958; 1960a: 167-77; 1960b; 1965). A possible attempt at synchronization is the occurrence of specific types of Tell el- Yahudiya ware."38 In Tomb 637 in Jericho, which Kenyon attributed to tomb group II, there is a Piriform 1 c juglet decorated with five standing and pendant triangles (Kenyon 1960b: 322, fig. 122-15). This type occurs in Tell el-Dabca from Stratum F till early in Stratum E/2. The same tomb also contained a small Piriform 2b juglet with four lozenge-shaped decoration zones (Kenyon 1960b: fig. 122:14). The Egyptian equivalent,39 the Piri- form 2ajuglet with four lozenge zones, was popular in late Stratum E/2 and especially in E/1, becoming rare in D/ 3, indicating that the tomb covered a long period. The median equivalent would be in Tell el-Dabca from Stratum E/3 until E/1 (roughly the 17th century B.C.). The center of relative dating would be Stratum E/2 (?1650-1620 B.C.), i.e., shortly before and at the beginning of the Hyksos rule. That dating is also corroborated by the evaluation of scarab chronology (see below). This position is also logical, since it would leave a parallelism between Jericho tomb group I and the later part of Stratum F and Stratum E/3. The former stratum as a whole covered the transitional period of MB IIA/B.

In Jericho tomb group III, a Piriform 2b juglet with three lozenge-shaped ornamentation zones was found (Kenyon 1960a: 362, fig. 142:5). Its

equivalent in Egypt, the Piriform 2a juglet with three lozenge-shaped zones, had a life-span from late Stratum E/2 to D/2, although in Stratum D/2 its occurrence is rare. In Tell el-Dabca there is, however, also a Piriform 2b juglet with three lozenge zones and a bipartite handle in a burial of Stratum D/3 (Bietak, in press: fig. 217). That would make the middle of tomb group III equal to D/ 3, probably including the major part of Stratum E/ 1. Tomb group IV would thus comprise Stratum D/2, and tomb group V would date to the period after Tell el-Dabca was abandoned. Part of group IV may even fall into the post-Avaris era. Unfortu- nately, however, the end of our synchronization is vague. There seems to be some space in the Middle Bronze Age for the time after Stratum D/2, i.e., after the end of Avaris, but the length of that space is illusive.

Using royal-name scarabs presents the problem of larger time spans. Recognizing the early occurrences of such scarabs is of special importance, but it is a difficult task. For example, the scarabs of SSy and H -nfr-Rc in tomb group V and HI-jpr-Rc in tomb group IV of Jericho have to be late occurrences, postdating the carriers of the names, because we already have a scarab of MDc-ib-Rc (considered to be contemporary with the 9?y- group) in tomb group III and another one with the name of Nwb-hpr-Rc in tomb group II (Kirkbride, in Kenyon 1965: 618, fig. 291:7 and 606, fig. 286:3). Nwb-hpr-Rc is a king at the beginning of the 17th Dynasty (Von Beckerath 1964: 169-71, 280-83). Even assuming that tomb group II overlaps with tomb group III, it also coincides at least partly with the beginning of the Hyksos period, a chronological position in keeping with the dating of the Tell el-Yahudiya ware (above).

William Ward, an adherent of the high chronology, has criticized the identification of the Nwb- zpr-Rc scarab (Ward 1987: 522). For him the sign

group is accidental and the position of the scarab in this early context is highly uncomfortable. Ward (1987) has argued that the Rc- sign has not been cut but is a tang of the metal mounting. However, the drawings are accurate enough to verify (by measur- ing and studying the section) that the Rc- sign is genuine and cannot be a part of the metal mounting. There is also no reason why a metal mounting should have a disc-shaped extension. The combination of three signs is less likely to be accidental (see Bietak 1984a: 483). It is, however, highly significant


~~* SCARABS OF HYKSOS

M-C-jb-Rc

.

AMMAN

FEL'A L so0JERICHO r EL F:

r EL YAHUDIVA

AOLISIR

KOM EL AHMAR,

DEIR EL AHRI

0 UKMA SAI ..KERMA

Fig. 19. Distribution of scarabs of the Hyksos M3c-jb-Rc according to Christa Mlinar (unpublished).

that this sign group occurs together on the same seal with cnr"- signs, which are typical of the Hyksos period (Stock 1942: 23-24; O'Connor 1974: fig. 13:type N; 1985: 22-28).40 The combination of the name and the CnrQ- signs bolsters each feature individually in its chronological meaning. Since Ward knows that CnrQ- signs have not been found in Egypt in any context before the Hyksos period, he proposed that they appeared first in Palestine and already before the Hyksos period (Ward 1987: 524-26). By this chronology one could prevent the concept of group II reaching down to the beginning of the Hyksos period. But Ward has failed to present a proof for his thesis. On the contrary, the combination of the name Nwb-Epr-Rcwith the cnrQ- signs makes a date at the beginning of the 15th/ 17th Dynasty more likely than any other suggestion, because the two features belonging to the same expected time zone occur together.

Similarly Ward (1987: 521-23) attacks the identification of another inconvenient scarab (from tomb group III) with the name M3`-ib-Rc. Mi- ib-RC is considered to be the throne name of 9Sy at the beginning of the 15th Dynasty (Ward 1976: 361). Ward claims that the name should be read as Nb- mDct-Rc because the ib- sign looks like a triangle. However, this is a well-known corruption among the Mic-ib-RC scarabs (Petrie 1917: pl. 21:16.B.7- 9; Newberry 1907: pl. 21:2; Tufnell 1984: pl. 57:3235, 3253). There are scarabs with a clear ib- sign and others where the ib becomes triangular, but is still identifiable. Other scarabs show a triangle or nb- sign instead of the ib. The variability of the other attributes is within the range of the first-mentioned Mc-ib-RC scarabs (C. Mlinar, unpublished). Thus there exists a typological series of scarabs with the Mji-ib-R' motif. The scarabs with the recognizable nb- sign can be considered as the corrupted end of the series.

The scarab under discussion is a special piece in the series since the cartouche is inverted. If the name should indeed be read as Nb-m3't-R~, the king must have been nearly a contemporary of

Mic-ib-Rc.41 That conclusion is even accepted by

Ward and Tufnell, who considered Nb-m3't-Rc a king of the late 13th or the early 15th Dynasty (Ward 1987: 522; Tufnell 1984: 161). Ward (1987: 523) states that royal scarabs of the 13th Dynasty rarely have plain backs. If that is so, our scarab should be placed in the Hyksos period. Indeed, von Beckerath (1964: 280) lists a king Nb-m3't-Rc within the 16th Dynasty.

In short, even if Ward is correct in identifying the name on this scarab as that of King Nb-m3ct- Rc, it would not change the chronological position. The Jericho tomb groups would stay in the same relationship to the proposed stratigraphy of Tell el-Dabca (Bietak 1984a: 483, ill. 6). However, this scarab alone is not the main peg for the synchronization here. Support comes from a combination of scarab features of the Hyksos period such as cnr?- signs, deeply cut human and animal figures, semi- circles at all four ends, twisted rope designs, Hathor heads, and the use of tripartite groups of signs (Bietak 1984a: 483, ill. 6). Such features do not occur anywhere together before the beginning of the 15th Dynasty.

O'Connor (1983; 1985) conducted a systematic evaluation of the scarabs from Middle Kingdom and Second Intermediate Period cemeteries and concluded that Jericho tomb groups I-IV should


be dated to the late 13th and 15th Dynasties. This agrees with dating reported in Bietak 1984a.

An important question is the chronology of MB IIC (MB III). As mentioned, that phase at Tell el-Dabca (second half of Stratum D/ 3 and Stratum D/2) differs from the MB IIC in Palestine because of different local conditions and developments. Sub- stantial research in Egypt and in Palestine is needed to improve our understanding of the relationship between those regions during this period (Kempin- ski 1983). Also, cultural subgroups should be more elaborately identified.

The connection of late Stratum D/3 and D/2 at Tell el-Dabca with the MB IIC phase in Palestine can be established from the presence of Middle Bronze Age shapes such as large carinated bowls, ring-base bowls, and certain bowls with a small foot; but there are also imported pedestal bowls (Cole 1984: 58-59, 94)42 and fragments of huge jugs with plastic ledges with fingernail imprints as ornamentation. Important too is the presence in ample quantities of Late Cypriot ware in Stratum D/2 (Bichrome, Proto White Slip, White Slip I) as in other sites during the MB IIC in coastal areas (Kempinski 1983: 190-91). Among the imports, Base Ring ware is still absent (Oren 1969). Also absent at Tell el-Dabca is evidence of the later phase of MB IIC (Jericho tomb group V), which can be characterized by the absence of piriform juglets, especially Tell el-Yahudiya ware, and the dominant presence of unpolished or badly polished cylindrical juglets (Kenyon 1960a: 173-75; Kempin- ski 1983: 189). These appear in Tell el-Dabca only sporadically, while the polished piriform and bag- shaped juglets continue until the very end of Stra- tum D/2. That is a strong indication that MB IIC cannot have ended with the beginning of the New Kingdom, or more precisely, with the fall of Avaris.

Prolonging MB IIC into the early part of the 18th Dynasty would help to accommodate the many fortification phases claimed for MB IIC (Kaplan 1975; Seger 1974; 1975). Kempinski (1983: 166-68) warns, however, that some of the fortifications would date earlier.

One has to reconsider seriously the cultural differentiation between MB IIC and LB I. The bound- ary between the two is an artificial one, produced under the impression of massive destructions in Palestine at the beginning of the New Kingdom (e.g., Kenyon 1960a: 194-98). More recent studies have revealed that the destructions used to separate the Middle from the Late Bronze Age happened at

different places at different times over about a century (Seger 1975; Redford 1979; Weinstein 1982). Consequently, the change to the Late Bronze Age was seen as a long process that continued from the 16th until probably the middle of the 15th century B.C. (Seger 1975; Bimson 1988: 35-36; Bimson and Livingston 1987: 46-53; see also below).43 While one could accept that explanation, there is still a serious lack of precision in defining what is MB IIC and what is LB IA.

The presence of Late Cypriot pottery, especially Bichrome ware, often indicates the Late Bronze Age (Kantor 1965: 23; Kempinski 1983: 4, 223-24; see also Dever 1985: 74, fig. 2; Bimson 1988: 35). Using that criterion, Stratum D/2 at Tell el-Dabca would already be Late Bronze Age, which would start before the fall of Avaris and before Kenyon's MB II tomb group V. Late Cypriot imports have a much stronger representation in coastal areas and along the deviations of the via maris than inland, which would result in different dates for sites that belong to the same time level. Therefore, Late Cyp- riot pottery alone should not be used as an indicator of Late Bronze Age.

Some authors have started to solve the problem by assuming an overlap of late MB IIC and LB IA or by speaking about an MB IIC/LB IA horizon (E. Oren, personal communication; see also Dever et al. 1971: 126-27, 132; 1974: fig. 1). Perhaps these two concepts are the same, which would solve the dilemma of pushing Late Bronze Age chronology even lower (Halpern 1987: 58). It would also accommodate the destruction levels used as the separation between Middle Bronze Age and Late Bronze Age within this common MB IIC/LB IA period. Indi- vidually, such destructions may have happened earlier (at Malhata, Gibeon, and Beth Shan; see Weinstein 1982: 2-5).

If a common MB IIC/ LB IA level is postulated, one must ask when it started and ended. To answer that question requires a thorough study of the material from the relevant sites. For the time being, however, the following suggestion should suffice: Since some authorities use the presence of Late Cypriot ware (above) as a feature of the Late Bronze Age, the beginning of the pottery should be considered also as the beginning of the common MB IIC/ LB IA phase. Tell el-Dabca can contribute to the dating of the beginning with Stratum D/ 2 to about +1560 B.C. (above). That would, however, not coincide with the beginning of MB IIC in Tell el-Dabca (during Stratum D/3) or in Palestine.


* SCARABS OF

C17 CHANCELLOR H.ir

YAMEN YA o

T EL APJJULo 00 t EL DASAL T EL YAHUDIYA\

RIIFEH 0 0 CAU Ek KESI

* DEBEIRA

KERMA

Fig. 20. Distribution of scarabs with the name of chancellor H-?r according to Christa Mlinar (unpublished).

The end of this common phase can be roughly equated with the destruction of Stratum XVIII at

Gezer, originally dated to Tuthmosis IV (Dever, Lance, and Wright 1970: 55). The date has since been raised to Tuthmosis III (Dever et al. 1971:

103, 127; 1974: 32; Dever 1985: 84, n. 22; 1987: 175) and by some to the beginning of the 18th Dynasty (Kempinski 1971: 185, note; Seger 1975: 39-42).44 In the Stratum XVIII destruction level at Gezer and at some other sites there is evidence of Base

Ring ware within late MB IIC ceramic collections

(Dever 1972: 159; 1985: 80, 84, n. 22; 1987: 162; Loud 1948: pl. 51:1; Woolley 1955: 357, no.

APT/39/220; Wright 1961: 91; Stewart et al. 1974:

16). Also, at the temple site of Nahariya an undisturbed MB II development with Bichrome ware and finally Base Ring ware can be identified (Do- than 1956: 21-22, fig. 7). Oren has made a very

strong case that Base Ring ware appears only from Tuthmosis III on (Oren 1969: 143-49, contra Mer- rillees 1968: 147-68; 1975: 88). If his conclusion is

correct, it would indicate an undisturbed MB IIC- LB IA development until about the reign of that

king (second quarter of the 15th century B.C.). It would be useful to determine at a series of sites

whether the destructions or abandonments happened at approximately the same time. There is the

suspicion that at Tacanach and some other sites the destruction happened approximately during the time of Thutmosis III (Weinstein 1982: 2-5), while at other sites the destructions happened without doubt at an earlier date (Weinstein 1982: 2-5; cf. Hoffmeier 1989). In recent years, heated discussions

concerning who was responsible for those destructions have taken place (Redford 1979; Shea 1979; Weinstein 1982; Dever 1985; 1987; Hoffmeier 1989; Bimson 1981: 78; Bimson and Livingston 1987): the Egyptians (Weinstein 1982: 1-12; Dever 1985:

80; 1987), the city-states in internal warfare (Red- ford 1979: 286, n. 146; Shea 1979; Hoffmeier 1989), or the Israelites (Bimson 1981; Bimson and Living- ston 1987.45 A compatible site seriation and re-

investigation of available evidence, as well as a

regional distribution analysis, would be necessary to determine which option is correct.

Redford has shown from the Egyptian records that Ahmoses' activities were restricted to southern Palestine (Redford 1979: 274), probably only to Sharuhen46 and its immediate neighborhood. Scanty traces of his later activity point towards the northern Levant (Vandersleyen 1971: 102-19; Red- ford 1979: 274-75, 278; Hoffmeier 1989: 184-85,

188). According to Redford and Weinstein, the

activity of Ahmose was directed in the beginning towards expelling the Hyksos and punishing them in their main strongholds in southern Palestine

(Redford 1979: 273; Weinstein 1982: 10). Later,

Egypt became interested in obtaining the richer resources of Syria and Lebanon, but not necessarily by warfare. Blocks from the third pylon at Karnak

are, according to Redford, probably from the time of Amenophis I; they mention Syrian toponyms such as Qedem, Tunip, and D•iwny. That king probably paved the way for the northern activity of Tuthmosis I, who reached the Euphrates (Sethe 1927-1930: 85). No toponyms of Palestine are mentioned except a general reference to Retenu (Sethe 1927-1930: 9, lines 8-17),47 a place name that also included the northern area. A reference to a raid from the short reign of Tuthmosis II is inconclu- sive. That action against the Shosu Bedouins could


YAVNEH YAM 00JERICHO

AIN KEREM

AJJU

PTELL EL DABA TELL EL SH E YHUD/l YK EL L EL MASKHUTA

KAHUN 0

RIFEH 0 0 QUFT

ANIBA ' -BUHENW0

S MEHn ALS 9STOCK (10 - 19)

MEHRALS 100

STOCK

Fig. 21. Distribution of piriform 2 Tell el-Yahudiya jugs.

have occurred in Palestine or in the Syria/ Leba- non area (Sethe 1927-1930: 36).48 Under Hatshep- sut there is some doubtful indication of activity in the very south of Palestine, at Gaza, but that assumption is by no means cogent (Redford 1967: 60-64).

Taking this scattered evidence together-and there are surely gaps in the information-it seems significant that the first and substantial Egyptian campaign directed inland in Palestine by Egyptian kings of the 18th Dynasty is recorded from Tuth- mosis III (Sethe 1927-1930: 647-67). This can be explained by reconstructing the political landscape of the Second Intermediate period, which has a direct continuation in the early New Kingdom.

Weinstein already has tried to show the influence of the Hyksos by plotting the distribution of Hyksos scarabs in Palestine (Weinstein 1982: 8-12, fig. 3; cf. figs. 19-20 here). Of course not every scarab means a Hyksos stronghold; stray finds probably should be left out of consideration, but the concentration in southern Palestine (Tell el-cAjjul, Tell Jemmeh, Tell Farach [S], Tell Halif, Tell Beit Mirsim, eventually Tell el-Safi and Tell el-Duweir/ Lachish) is meaningful. There is also some coastal concentration in the north.

The same patterns appear again when the different types of Tell el-Yahudiya ware are plotted (fig. 21; Kaplan 1980: maps 5-7; Bietak 1989b). The Piciform 2a juglets, which are typical for Egypt


Fig. 22. Distribution of Bicon- ical 3 and 4 Tell el-Yahudiya jugs.

PNERA 0 S

RAS HAMRA

u ZYPE ILIA

ENKOMI

ASKALON STELL EL

DAB-A

ABYDOS HU?@

ANIBA BUHEN i

0 0 ALLGEMEINE PROVENIENZ

M MEHflALS 19STUCK(20 -29)

and their Palestinian variation with bipartite handle (Piriform 2b) (Kaplan 1980: 21-23, map 6, figs. 46-62; Bietak 1989b), cluster in southern Palestine and are represented in scattered coastal areas. The same is true for the biconical juglets (fig. 22). In contrast to the distribution of Hyksos scarabs and Tell el-Yahudiya ware typical for Egypt and southern Palestine, the cluster of the Piriform 3 Tell el-Yahudiya juglets (Kaplan 1980: 23-24, map 6, figs. 63-72, 80, 81, 82; Bietak 1989b), is typical for inland Palestine. That ware seems to be a sensitive indicator for cultural provinces in Palestine; some other groups of pottery also seem to show the same

distribution patterns (see, e.g., Kempinski 1983: 191-96; Cole 1984: 95-97).

Cultural patterns are often indicators of political differentiations. During the Middle Bronze Age there seem to have been two groups that are cul- turally related to each other, but which show distinct individual features. The southern group has strong affinities to the Middle Bronze Age in the Nile Delta and can be connected during the Second Intermediate period with the Hyksos, who obviously dominated only the south of Palestine and some coastal centers. The major part of Palestine, outlined by the distribution of Piriform 3 juglets


G HAZOR

BETH SHEMESHdU U T.EELLHUWElA f

*

MEH ALS SSTUCK (10- 9)

MEGIDDOJ

Fig. 23. Distribution of the late Palestinian type of the Tell el-Yahudiya ware.

(fig. 23) and the central inland regions, seems to have consisted of a cluster of powerful city-states, perhaps aligned in some kind of changing federa- tions. There is no indication that they had close ties with the Hyksos. Most probably, as the scatter of Hyksos scarabs and other features seems to indicate, they were independent of the 15th Dynasty. That would probably explain to some extent the tremendous fortification systems of MB IIC in central Palestine. Later on, those fortified cities were not considered enemies of the early 18th Dynasty. It is even likely that they had a common interest with the newly emerging Theban power arising

against the Hyksos.49 Therefore, in keeping with Redford's and Weinstein's concept that the war against the Hyksos was a case of liberation and revanchism, there was no reason for the Egyptians to attack central Palestine. It was only after that group of city-states was persuaded by the prince of Qadesh-most probably in the interest of Mitanni- to join a coalition against Egypt5S that the conflict with central and inland Palestine broke out in 1457/56 B.C. (cf. cluster on fig. 23).

This is of course a simplified view, but it could provide the basis for an understanding of the historic events of the period. It is reasonable to


S c EGYPTIAN DYNASTIC SYRO-PALESTINIAN CERAMICAL IMPORTS IN

CHRONOLOGY CHRONOLOGY EGYPT AND PALESTINE, 1400 ' FIRST OCCURENCE

L AULB 8,

HA" . BR

i;., wa, A" " T]-E" COMMON

1600 XV- X

/ WP E//I

E/2 MB RB

E/3 ,7a

i ix1

Wi 1700-F

co on I IiAMANES5 0 ( T. DABLA)

e00o L

0IH

M "' A

A u LPW

sia

Am 900 - XII

AT

BR = BASE RING-, 81 = BICHROME- PWS PROTO-WHITE SLIP-, WSI =WHITE SLIPI-, WP =WHITE PAINTED-, LPW= LEVANTINE PAINTED WARE

Fig. 24. Correlation graph of the Tell el-Dabca stratigraphy with Egyptian and Syro-Palestinian chronology and occurrences of imports.

assume that the heavy defense systems in central Palestine were not made against the Hyksos and then finally against the Egyptians alone. The

flourishing MB IIB-C culture in central Palestine stands out against an extreme decline and, to a

large extent, abandonment of similar states in Syria. The vacuum invited different pressure groups to become active, e.g., the kingdom of Yamkhad and other groups dispersed by the Hittite actions in northern Syria and Mesopotamia under Hattusili I and Mursili I. The growing infiltration by Hurrians must have caused pressures and could have stimu- lated defense preparations and finally led to a political rapprochement with the Hurrian power in the north and to the battle of Megiddo (?+1457/56 B.C.). Shosu bedouins also should be considered in constructing a scenario for the late MB IIC period and the transition to the Late Bronze Age.

All of the above components might be responsible for the different destruction levels. The extent of Egyptian responsibility also is a matter of debate. While it seems highly unrealistic that the pharaohs were responsible for all destructions during the transition from the Middle to Late Bronze Age, we cannot rely on the texts alone, which should be considered as thinly scattered and to some extent coincidental for this period.51 The archaeological material on the other hand, yields good information after a sound chronology and tell-to-tell seriation have been established. There- fore detailed analyses of excavation material are necessary before we can see which combination of hypotheses offered during the last years can be forged into a feasible historical presentation.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I thank the Austrian Academy of Sciences for making possible my participation in the American Schools of Oriental Research symposium in Chicago. I am very much indebted to J. M. Weinstein for editing this manu-

script, to F. Richards for correcting the English of the first version, and to M. Zeller for typing this paper. For drawings, I am obliged to L. Holeil, C. Mlinar, and M. Negrette-Martinez.

NOTES

'This paper uses the W. F. Albright terminology for the three phases of the Middle Bronze Age (MB IIA, MB IIB, MB IIC), although recently there has been a tendency to use another terminology (MB I, MB II, MB III) which is probably more accurate (see also Dever 1980; Gerstenblith 1983: 2-3).

2Gerstenblith (1983: 28-30, 45-46, 101-8) provides a summary of Hama, Aphek, and other sites in the coastal plain. See also Dever (1976); Tubb (1983); and for details, Beck (1985); Beck and Kochavi (in press); Kochavi, Beck, and Gophna (1979). There is also new evidence

from Tell el-Ifshar (Paley, Porath, and Stieglitz 1983; 1984; Paley and Porath 1985), Tell el-Hayyat (Falconer and Magness-Gardiner 1984), and Tell el-Qadi/ Laish (Dan) (also P. Beck, A. Biran, D. Illan, S. Paley, and Y. Porath, personal communications).

31 am indebted to M. CAbd el-Maksoud, J. S. Holla- day, Jr., and E. van den Brink for showing me the results of their recent excavations and surveys.

41 wish to thank G. Harbottle of the Chemistry De- partment of the Brookhaven National Laboratory, and P. McGovern of the Museum Applied Science Center


for Archaeology at the University Museum of the Uni- versity of Pennsylvania, for providing me with the results of a large neutron activation analysis project, which included 1,200 samples from Tell el-Dabca as well as sites in the Levant. McGovern is preparing a monograph on the results of this project.

5Dorner (unpublished) has found a whole system of natural channels by drilling and has dated them by sherd material.

6MB IIA remains without context have, however, been collected at Lisht, which is most probably the site of the Middle Kingdom capital 'Itj-t3wj (J. Bourriau, unpublished).

7A terminus ad quem for the date of this site is the reign of Sesostris II; cf. Peterson (1983).

8Two pottery classification systems in close relationship to each other are used in this article. One is the "Vienna System"; the other is the typology used on the Tell el-Dabca excavations; the latter generally appears in parentheses. In present examples, "marl A" is from the Vienna System, while "fabric II-a" identifies the pottery in the Tell el-Dabca terminology. For this classification system, see Arnold (1982: 44-47); Bourriau (1981); Nord-

str6m (1986); Bietak (in press: Appendix). 9The vessels resemble MB I (EB IV) or MB IIA hand-

made cooking pots in shape, but they are without any decoration. I thank W. G. Dever for discussing this pottery with me. The material was examined by thin- sectioning by N. Porat, Jerusalem. It is locally made.

'OThe metals are being investigated by G. Philip, Uni- versity of Edinburgh, who is currently at the British School in Amman (see, for now, Philip 1989).

"The cutoff spout is of Anatolian origin and is typical for coastal and northern Palestine. It appears in a late phase of MB IIA at Aphek (Phase 3, Palace II); cf. Beck 1975: fig. 10:3; 1985: 198; Gerstenblith 1983: 28.

12See above. The two Ovoid 2 jugs from the floor level of Tomb A II-m/ 15 no. 8, Stratum F, were incomplete. They could come therefore from the Stratum G-Tombs 9-10 below, which were disturbed by no. 8.

'3This clay is probably an import according to X-ray flourescence analyses by A. Pape, Institut fuir Analytische Chemie, Freie Universitait, Berlin (Pape 1987). Accord- ing to thin-section examination by Naomi Porat, Jeru- salem, it could be a local marl from the Eastern desert.

14Stratum D/ 1 was later added to D/2 and redefined as an 18th Dynasty stratum (Bietak 1986a: 268).

'15Von Beckerath (1987) still defends the Ebers date; contrary to Krauss (1985: 105-9), he favors a Memphitic observation of the heliacal rise of the Sothis.

16According to Josephus, Contra Apionem 1.14.88, the siege took many years. Vandersleyen (1971: 40) esti- mates that the campaign that ended with the fall of Avaris lasted four years.

'7As Yannas in the Manethonian list can be identified now with high probability with prince 'Inss-idn, who is a son of Khayan, the succession Khayan, Yannas, Apopy,

and Khamudy is the most feasible (Bietak 1980: 95; 1981: 70-71; G6rg 1981: 71-73).

'8An attempt by Vandersleyen (1971: 209, 228) and Franke (1988b: 264) to date the fall of Avaris by the epigraphy of an inscription on a lancehead from booty taken in Avaris after year 18 is not cogent, since we have no proof how long after the fall of Avaris the inscription was made, and since the assumption was made not on a statistically reliable number of examples but on only a few inscriptions. An overlap cannot be excluded.

91 cannot understand the objections of Franke (1988: 270, n. 63), an adherent of a low Middle Kingdom chronology, to this conclusion.

20Krauss, however, strongly suggests Elephantine as the observation point with a Sothis date of 1839 B.c.

21Other sites excavated with similar techniques have yielded similar results in the Eastern Mediterranean. For example, at Hala Sultan Teke the Late Cypriot III phase is even shorter and lasted only ? 15 years, ca. 1190- 1175 B.C. (P. Astrdm, personal communication).

22Kempinski (personal communication) had insisted that the prenomen should be amended to (s)htp-ib-Rc (= Amenemhet I) and that the missing s was lost during a repair on the scepter. G. Scandone-Matthiae stated, when confronted with this objection, that she herself had considered this possibility, but dismissed it because there would be no space on the scepter to accommodate an s.

23Von Beckerath (1964: 39-40, 231-32) follows Posener (1957) in reading qmiw, "the winnower," instead of Cmw, "the Asiatic," because of the final ending w which could be, however, a corrupt writing (which would be very usual at this time!) or a rare acknowledgment of an occasionally spoken ending.

24Dever (1987: 163) erroneously dates the tomb one century too early, placing it into the reign of Amenemhet I.

25Williams (1975: 860) cautiously avoids using this representation to identify and date the duckbill axe.

26B. V. Bothmer, Institute of Fine Arts, New York University, and Biri Fay, Agyptisches Museum, Berlin- Charlottenburg, independently dated this statuette to the 13th Dynasty. It belongs to a style that starts with Sesostris III and continues into the 13th Dynasty. Ac- cording to Fay (unpublished), the features according to which the statuette should be dated into the 13th Dynasty are as follows: 1. The high waisted wrap skirt with flap folded over the front (MMA 66.99.6). 2. The use of a back slab. 3. The arms positioned at the sides with both hands clenched holding objects. 4. The straight mouth and large eyes with sharply rendered upper and lower eye rim characteristic of Dynasty 13 royal and private sculptures (Louvre A 16, A 17). A good parallel: Cairo CG 462.

27Von Beckerath (1964: 41, 233) again reads with Posener qmiw instead of ?mw.

28This large jug belongs to the temple inventory (Bietak in press: fig. 65:1). Since Temple I continued until early Stratum E/ 1, the jug may also date from E/ 1.


29Originally I classified the jug as late Piriform Ic

(whose range in Tell el-Dabca is E/3-2; see Bietak 1984a: 440, ill. 1). In this case the vessel should be an heirloom.

According to the shape alone it should be identified as the biconical type no. 1, which developed from the Piri- form Ic jug and is later (Stratum E/2-1). Its shape is wider and the standing and pendant triangles are less

(normally four in the upper zone and three in the lower). The execution is also more careless. The drawings in Reisner and Kaplan are unfortunately not sufficiently accurate to make identification easy. In the same tumulus there is, however, a Piriform Ic juglet (Reisner 1923: fig. 264:25) with such archaic features as inward drawn lip, narrow triangles, and lower limit of the ornamentation zone with two lines as well as a broad base. All of this

places the jug in Stratum F or E/3 within the Tell el- Dabca stratigraphic sequence. It must have been an heirloom, because of the Hyksos scarabs (e.g., of the chancellor

H.-r) in the sacrifice corridors of Tumulus X;

see Bietak (1984a: 479). 30Most of the scarabs with royal names such as Sesos-

tris I were probably produced later. According to O'Con- nor (1985: 38), they may date from the 15th Dynasty or even later. Indeed, according to a thesis by C. Mlinar

(unpublished), the specific features of the k3-sign rarely appear before the Hyksos period. The same is true for the lateral areas set off from the wings; these are indica- tive for the advanced Hyksos period.

31Joseph Porath, field director of the cEmeq Hefer

Archaeological Research Project, kindly informed me about the chronological relationship of the stratigraphy of Tell el-Ifshar to Aphek. Personal information was

again provided by S. M. Paley and J. Porath, who

kindly showed me the original. 321 am indebted to E. Eisenberg for showing me his

excavations. I am also grateful to Professor Biran and D. Illan for making it possible for me to see Refacim in 1988.

33William Dever kindly provided me with further information about current research on MB I (EB IV) sites.

34Gerstenblith (1983: 103) correctly recognized the im-

portance of the Montet Jar for the transition of MB I to MB IIA (her EB IV to MB I) but chose the higher dating by Tufnell and Ward (1966:227), without discussing critically the implications of the two different results. At that time the Mesopotamian middle chronology received wide support and was used for the chronological framework of the Middle Bronze Age.

35Corrected data using the Illahun date 1866 B.c. according to Luft (unpublished).

36We cannot be sure if some of the pottery came even from later tombs.

37Inasmuch as the development from MB IIBR to IIC is continuous, Kempinski (1983) prefers to speak about an early and late phase of MB IIB.

38See Bietak (1984a: 484-85). Our typological and chronological knowledge of Tell el-Yahudiya ware has improved since that time (Bietak 1989b).

39The differentiation between Egyptian Piriform 2a juglets and their Palestinian imitations (the Piriform 2b juglets) was made by M. F. Kaplan (1980). See my mistake in Bietak (1984a: 484), where I lumped the two together as the "Delta Type." The latter view is not totally wrong, since Piriform 2b were also produced in the Delta (but only rarely). It is also important in this connection to observe that the Piriform 2b type occurs only in the southern and coastal areas in Palestine and is influenced by the Egyptian Piriform 2a type. The Pales- tinian Tell el-Yahudiya ware is the Piriform 3 type.

40No cnr`-signs are known from any seal context prior to the Hyksos period. See, e.g., one of the largest seal assemblages of the 13th Dynasty in Reisner (1955).

41Tufnell (1984: 161) and Ward (1987: 522) first considered a later misspelling of the prenomen Ny-mDct-Rc of Amenemhet III, but such an identification has no orthographic or empirical basis.

42Pedestal bowls appear along the coastal area of Palestine only during MB IIC. Tell el-Dabca is primarily related to the coast.

43See also Dever (1985: 73-74; 1987: 174-75). Dever, however, throughout his publications on this subject does not take a firm position, and even changes his opinion within the same publication between 1500 and the campaign in the year 22 of Tuthmosis III (his date 1480 B.c., our date 1457/56 B.C.).

44Seger (1975), however, sees the connection with the first campaign of Tuthmoses III.

45I prefer to use the more general term "Shosu" in connection with this suggestion.

46Tell el-'Ajjul, the largest and richest site, has to be seen as the main center of the 15th Dynasty in Palestine. Kempinski (1974) is right in identifying this site as Sharuhen.

47For a more recent and thorough treatment of this toponym, see Fecht (1984: 473-77).

48The Shosu were not necessarily situated in the Negev and Edom during that time; see Giveon (1971). They probably first appeared in Syria/Lebanon; cf. Girg (1976); Astour (1979: 28-30).

49The Annals of Tuthmosis III (Sethe 1927-1930: 649, lines 5-8) reveal that "The wretch of Qadesh has come entering Megiddo in this moment. He has assembled to his side the princes of [all] foreign countries (which) were (previously) loyal to Egypt .. " This can be taken as evidence of a previous treaty of these princes with Egypt, going back probably until the time of Ahmose.

5oFor the political background of the conflict, see, e.g., Helck (1971: 107-67).

510One has to imagine the status of our information if the tombs of Ahmose, son of Ibana, and Ahmose Pen- nekhbet had not been preserved. It is also possible that these two autobiographies omitted important happenings where the narrators were not present.


BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abd el-Maksoud, M. 1987 Une nouvelle forteresse sur la Route d'Horus:

Tell Heboua 1986 (Nord-Sinai). Cahier de Recherches de l'Institut de Papyrologie et

d'tFgyptologie de Lille 9: 13-16. Adam, S.

1958 Recent Discoveries in the Eastern Delta (Dec. 1950-May 1955). Annales du Service des Antiquites de

l'Egypte 55: 301-24.

1959 Report in the Excavations of the Department of Antiquities at Ezbet Rushdi. Annales du Service des Antiquites de l'gypte 56: 207-26.

Albright, W. F. 1942 A Third Revision of the Early Chronology

of Western Asia. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 88: 28-36.

1964 The Eighteenth-Century Princes of Byblos and the Chronology of Middle Bronze Age. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 176: 38-46.

1965a Further Light on the History of Middle- Bronze Byblos. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 179: 38-43.

1965b Some Remarks on the Archaeological Chro- nology of Palestine before about 1500 B.C. Pp. 47-60 in Chronologies in Old World Ar- chaeology, ed. R. W. Ehrich. Chicago: Uni- versity of Chicago.

1966 Remarks on the Chronology of Early Bronze IV-Middle Bronze IIA in Phoenicia and Syria-Palestine. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 184: 26-35.

1973 The Historical Framework of Palestinian Archaeology between 2100 and 1600 B.C. (E.B. IV, M.B. I, M.B. IIA-B). Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 209: 12-18.

Arnold, D. 1962 Wandrelief und Raumfunktion in iigyptischen

Tempeln des Neuen Reiches. Mtinchner Agyp- tologische Studien 2. Munich: Bruno Hessling.

Arnold, D., and Stadelmann, R. 1977 Dahschur, Zweiter Grabungsbericht. Mitteil-

ungen des Deutschen Archiiologischen Insti- tuts Abteilung Kairo 33: 15-20.

Arnold, Do. 1977 Zur Keramik aus dem Taltempelbereich der

Pyramide Amenemhets III. in Dahschur. Mit- teilungen des Deutschen Archiiologischen In- stituts Abteilung Kairo 33: 21-26.

1981 ,gyptische

Mergeltone ("Wilstentone") und die Herkunft einer Mergeltonware des Mitt- leren Reiches aus der Gegend von Memphis. Pp. 167-91 in Studien zur altiigyptischen

Keramik, ed. Do. Arnold. Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern.

1982 Keramikbearbeitung in Dahschur 1976-1981. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archiiologischen Instituts Abteilung Kairo 38: 25-65.

1988 Chapter XII. The Pottery. Pp. 106-46 in D. Arnold, The Pyramid of Senwosret L The South Cemeteries of Lisht I. Publications of the Metropolitan Museum of Art Egyptian Expedition 22. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art.

Astour, M. 1979 Yahweh in Egyptian Topographical Lists.

Pp. 17-34 in Festschrift Elmar Edel, 12. Miirz 1979, eds. M. Girg and E. Pusch. Agypten und Altes Testament 1. Bamberg: Manfred

Girg. Bagh, T.

1988 Bemalet MB IIA keramik & bemalet Tell el- Yahudiyeh ware fundet i Aegypten. Unpub- lished Diploma thesis, Copenhagen.

Barta, W. 1979 Die Chronologie der 12. Dynastie nach den

Angaben des Turiner Ktinigspapyrus. Studien zur altdgyptischen Kultur 7: 1-9.

1979- Die agyptischen Sothisdaten und ihre Bezugs- 1980 orte. Jaarbericht van het Vooraziatisch-Egyp-

tisch Genootschap Ex Oriente Lux 26: 26-34. 1981 Der Dekankalender des Nutbildes und das

Sothisdatum aus dem 7. Regierungsjahr Se- sostris' III. Studien zur altiigyptischen Kultur 9: 85-103.

Beck, P. 1975 The Pottery of the Middle Bronze Age IIA at

Tel Aphek. Tel Aviv 2: 45-85. 1985 The Middle Bronze Age IIA Pottery from

Aphek, 1972-1984: First Summary. Tel Aviv 12: 181-203.

Beck, P., and Kochavi, M. In press Aphek-Antipatris I. Tel Aviv: Publications

of the Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University.

Bierbrier, M. L. 1975 The Late New Kingdom in Egypt (c. 1300-

664 B.C.). Liverpool Monographs in Archae- ology and Oriental Studies. Warminster: Aris & Phillips.

Bietak, M. 1968 Vorlaiufiger Bericht iiber die erste und zweite

Kampagne der tisterreichischen Ausgrabun- gen auf Tell Ed-Dabca im Ostdelta

,gyptens (1966, 1967). Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archiiologischen Instituts Abteilung Kairo 23: 79-114.


teilungen des Deutschen Archdologischen Instituts Abteilung Kairo 26: 15-41.

1975 Tell el-Dabca II. Der Fundort im Rahmen einer archiiologisch- geographischen Unter- suchung iiber das dgyptische Ostdelta. Unter- suchungen der Zweigstelle Kairo des Oster- reichischen Archdologischen Institutes 1. Vienna: Verlag der Osterreichischen Akade- mie der Wissenschaften.

1976 Stratigraphische Probleme bei Tellgrabun- gen im Vorderen Orient. Archaeologia Austri- aca, Beiheft 14 (Richard Pittioni Festschrift): 471-93.

1980 Hyksos. Cols. 93-103 in Lexikon der Agyp- tologie III, eds. W. Helck and W. Westendorf. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.

1981 Eine Stele des altesten Kinigssohnes des Hyk- sos Chajan. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Ar-

chiiologischen Instituts Abteilung Kairo 37: 63-71.

1984a Problems of Middle Bronze Age Chronology: New Evidence from Egypt. American Journal of Archaeology 88: 471-85.

1984b Eine Palastanlage aus der Zeit des spiten Mitt- leren Reichs und andere Forschungsergeb- nisse aus dem istlichen Nildelta (Tell el-Dabca 1979-1984). Anzeiger der philosophisch- historischen Klasse der Osterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 121: 312-49.

1984c Zum Ktinigreich des ~ -zh-R' Nehesi. Studien zur altiigyptischen Kultur 11: 59-75.

1985a Stratigraphie und Seriation. Arbeiten zur

Erschliessung der relativen Chronologie in

Agypten. Pp. 5-9 in Lebendige Altertumswis- senschaft: Festgabe zur Vollendung des 70. Lebensjahres von Hermann Vetters. Vienna: Adolf Holzhausen.

1985b Ein altagyptscher Weingarten in einem Tem- pelbezirk (Tell el-Dabca 1. Marz bis. 10. Juni 1985). Anzeiger der philosophisch-historischen Klasse der Osterreichischen Akademie der

Wissenschaften 122: 267-78. 1986a Avaris and Piramesse: Archaeological Ex-

ploration in the Eastern Nile Delta. Revised

Reprint from the Proceedings of the British Academy 65 (1979): 225-96.

1986b Tell el-Jahudija-Keramik. Cols. 335-48 in Lexikon der Agyptologie VI, eds. W. Helck and W. Westendorf. Wiesbaden: Otto Har- rassowitz.

1988 A Letter to the Editor. Biblical Archaeology Review 15, no. 4 (should be 14, no. 4): 54-55.

1989a The Middle Bronze Age of the Levant-A New Approach to Relative and Absolute Chronology. Pp. 78-120 in vol. 3 of High, Middle or Low? Acts of an International Colloquium on Absolute Chronology Held

1970 Vorlaufiger Bericht tiber die dritte Kampagne der 6sterreichischen Ausgrabungen auf Tell ed Dabca im Ostdelta Agyptens (1968). Mit- at the University of Gothenburg 20th-22nd August 1987, ed. P. Astrim. Gothenburg: Paul Astr6m.

1989b Archiologischer Befund und historische- Interpretation am Beispiel der Tell el- Yahudiya-Ware. Pp. 7-34 in Akten des vierten internationalen Agyptologenkongresses Miin- chen 1985 vol. 2, ed. S. Schoske. Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag.

1989c Servant Burials in the Middle Bronze Age Culture of the Eastern Nile Delta. Eretz-Israel 20: 30-43.

In press Tell el-Dabca V: Ein Friedhofsbezirk der Mitt- leren Bronzezeitkultur mit Totentempel und Siedlungsschichten. Untersuchungen der Zweig- stelle Kairo des Osterreichischen Archaologi- schen Institutes 8. Vienna: Verlag der Oster- reichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.

Bimson, J. J. 1981 Redating the Exodus and Conquest. Sheffield:

Almond. 1988 Exodus and Conquest-Myth or Reality?

Can Archaeology provide the Answer? Jour- nal of the Ancient Chronology Forum 2: 27-40.

Bimson, J. J., and Livingston, D. 1987 Redating the Exodus. Biblical Archaeology

Review 13, no. 5: 40-53, 66-68. Boessneck, J.

1976 Tell el-Dabca III: Die Tierknochenfunde 1966- 1969. Untersuchungen der Zweigstelle Kairo des Osterreichischen Archiologischen Insti- tutes 3. Vienna: Verlag der Osterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.

Boessneck, J., and von den Driesch, A. In press Tell el-Dabca VII: Tierkundliches Fundgut

von Tell el-Dabca aus den Grabungskam- pagnen 1975-1986. Untersuchungen der

Zweigstelle Kairo des Osterreichischen Archao-

logischen Institutes. Vienna: Verlag der Oster- reichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.

Bourriau, J. 1981 Umm el-Gacab: Pottery from the Nile Valley

before the Arab Conquest. Cambridge: Cam- bridge University.

1982 Three Monuments from Memphis in the Fitz- william Museum. Journal of Egyptian Archae- ology 68: 51-59.

1987 Kom Rabica, Memphis (Egypt Exploration Society). Bulletin de Liaison du Groupe internationale d'tude de la cdramique igyptienne 12: 10-11.

1988 Kom Rabica, Mit Rahina (The Egypt Ex- ploration Society). Bulletin de Liaison du


Groupe internationale d'tude de la ceramique egyptienne 13: 29-31.

Braunstein, S. I., and Paley, S. M. 1986 Among Ancient Empires: Recent Excavations

in Emeq Hefer, Israel. New York: The Jewish Museum, NY.

Cole, D. P. 1984 Shechem I: The Middle Bronze IIB Pottery.

American Schools of Oriental Research Exca- vation Reports. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

Czerny, E. 1991 Eine Siedlung des Mittleren Reiches in Tell

el-Dabca. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Vienna.

Desroches-Noblecourt, C. 1949 Compte rendu de l'assembl6e g6n6rale du

Mercredi 20 Octobre 1948. Bulletin de la Societe frangaise d'Egyptologie 1: 5-8.

Dever, W. G. 1972 Tel Gezer. Israel Exploration Journal 22:

158-60. 1976 The Beginning of the Middle Bronze Age in

Syria-Palestine. Pp. 3-38 in Magnalia Dei: The Mighty Acts of God. Essays on the Bible and Archaeology in Memory of G. Ernest Wright, ed. F. M. Cross, W. E. Lemke, and P. D. Miller, Jr. Garden City, NY: Double- day.

1980 New Vistas on the EB IV ("MB I") Horizon in Syria-Palestine. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 237: 35-64.

1985 Relations between Syria-Palestine and Egypt in the 'Hyksos' Period. Pp. 69-87 in Palestine in the Bronze and Iron Ages: Papers in Hon- our of Olga Tufnell, ed. J. N. Tubb. Institute of Archaeology, Occasional Publication 11. London: Institute of Archaeology.

1987 The Middle Bronze Age: The Zenith of the Urban Canaanite Era. Biblical Archaeologist 50: 149-77.

Dever, W. G.; Lance, H. D.; and Wright, G. E. 1970 Gezer I: Preliminary Report of the 1964-66

Seasons. Annual of the Hebrew Union Col- lege Biblical and Archaeological School in Jerusalem 1. Jerusalem: Hebrew Union Col- lege Biblical and Archaeological School.

Dever, W. G. et al. (eight authors) 1971 Further Excavations at Gezer, 1967-1971. The

Biblical Archaeologist 34: 94-132. Dever, W. G. et al. (five authors)

1974 Gezer II: Report of the 1967-70 Seasons in Fields I and II. Annual of the Hebrew Union College/Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology 2. Jerusalem: Hebrew Union College/Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology.

Dorner, J. 1985 Tell el-Dabca. Jahreshefte des Osterreichi-

schen Archdologischen Institutes in Wien 56, Beiblatt, Grabungen 1984: 1-5.

1986- Tell el-Dabca. Jahreshefte des Osterreichi- 1987 schen Archiiologischen Institutes in Wien 57,

Beiblatt, Grabungen 1985/86: 1-6. Dothan, M.

1956 The Excavations at Nahariya: Preliminary Report (Seasons 1954/55). Israel Exploration Journal 6: 14-25.

Eigner, D. 1985 Der agyptische Palast eines asiatischen K6-

nigs. Jahreshefte des Osterreichischen Archiio- logischen Institutes in Wien 56: 19-25.

Falconer, S. E., and Magness-Gardiner, B. 1984 Preliminary Report of the First Season of the

Tell el-Hayyat Project. Bulletin of the Ameri- can Schools of Oriental Research 255: 49-74.

Fecht, G. 1984 Sinuhes Zweikampf als Handlungskern des

dritten Kapitels des Sinuhe-"Romans." Pp. 465-84 in Studien zu Sprache und Reli- gion Agyptens 1: Sprache (W. Westendorf Festschrift). Gdttingen: F. Junge.

Franke, D. 1988a Zur Chronologie des Mittleren Reiches (12.-

18. Dynastie). Teil I: Die 12. Dynastie. Ori- entalia n.s. 57: 113-38.

1988b Zur Chronologie des Mittleren Reiches, Teil II: Die sogenannte "Zweite Zwischenzeit" Altagyptens. Orientalia n.s. 57: 245-74.

Fugmann, E. 1958 Hama: Fouilles et recherches 1931-1938. II.1:

L'architecture des periodes prdhellknistiques. Copenhagen: National Museum.

Gardiner, A. H. 1973 Egyptian Grammar. Reprint of 3d ed. (1957).

Oxford: Griffith Institute, Ashmolean Mu- seum.

Gerstenblith, P. 1983 The Levant at the Beginning of the Middle

Bronze Age. American Schools of Oriental Research Dissertation Series 5. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

Giveon, R. 1971 Les bidouins Shosou des documents egyp-

tiens. Documenta et Monumenta Orientis Antiqui 18. Leiden: E. J. Brill.

Goedicke, H. 1984 "The Canaanite Illness." Studien zur altiigypti-

schen Kultur 11:91-105. 1986a Seuche. Cols. 918-19 in Lexikon der Agyptolo-

gie VI, eds. W. Helck and W. Westendorf. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.

1986b The End of the Hyksos in Egypt. Pp. 37-47 in Egyptological Studies in Honor of R. A.


Parker, ed. L. H. Lesko. Hanover, NH: Uni- versity Press of New England.

G6rg, M. 1976 Jahwe-ein Toponym? Biblische Notizen 1:

7-14. 1981 Nachtrag. Zur Erkldirung des Namens des

Hyksosprinzen. Mitteilungen des Deutschen

Archiiologischen Instituts Abteilung Kairo 37: 71-73.

Griffith, F. L1. 1890 The Antiquities of Tell el Yahuidfyeh. Egypt

Exploration Fund, 7th Memoir. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Triibner.

Habachi, L. 1954 Khatiana-Qantir: Importance. Annales du

Service des Antiquitis de l'tgypte 52: 443- 559.

Halpern, B. 1987 Radical Exodus Redating Fatally Flawed. Bibli-

cal Archaeology Review 13, no. 6: 56-61. Hamza, M.

1930 Excavations of the Department of Antiquities at Qantir (Faqfis District) (Season May 21st- July 7th, 1928). Annales du Service des Anti- quites de l'gypte 30: 31-68.

Heinrich, E. 1957- Gewilbe. Pp. 323-40 in Reallexikon der As- 1971 syrologie und Vorderasiatischen Archdologie

3, eds. E. Weidner and W. von Soden. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter.

1972- Haus. Pp. 176-220 in Reallexikon der As- 1975 syrologie und Vorderasiatischen Archiiologie

4, ed. D. O. Edzard. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter.

Helck, W. 1971 Die Beziehungen Agyptens zu Vorderasien im

3. und 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr., 2d ed. Agyp- tologische Abhandlungen 5. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.

1983 Schwachstellen der Chronologie-Diskussion. Gottingen Miszellen 67: 43-49.

1984 Chronologische Schwachstellen III. G6ttinger Miszellen 70: 31-32.

1987 Was kann die Agyptologie wirklich zum Prob- lem der absoluten Chronologie in der Bronze- zeit beitragen? Chronologische Anniherungs- werte in der 18. Dynastie. Pp. 18-26 in vol. 1 of High, Middle or Low? Acts of an Interna- tional Colloquium on Absolute Chronology Held at the University of Gothenburg 20th- 22nd August 1987, ed. P. Astrim. Gothen- burg: Paul Astr6m.

Hoffmeier, J. K. 1989 Reconsidering Egypt's Part in the Termina-

tion of the Middle Bronze Age in Palestine. Levant 21: 181-93.

Holladay, J. S., Jr. 1981 Wadi Tumilat Project Report 1981. Privately

circulated. 1982 Cities of the Delta, Part III: Tell el-Maskhuta,

Preliminary Report on the Wadi Tumilat Pro- ject 1978-1979. American Research Center in Egypt Reports 6. Malibu, Calif.: Undena.

1984 Wadi Tumilat Project Report 1983. Privately circulated.

1987 The Wadi Tumilat Project-Tell el-Mas- khuta. Bulletin of the Canadian Mediterra- nean Institute 7, no. 2: 1-7.

Holladay, J. S., Jr., ed. In press The Wadi Tumilat Project Reports II: The

Second Intermediate Period/Middle Bronze II Period at Tell el-Maskhuta: Final Field Report.

Hornung, E. 1964 Untersuchungen zur Chronologie und Ge-

schichte des Neuen Reiches. Agyptologische Abhandlungen 11. Wiesbaden: Otto Harras- sowitz.

1979 Chronologie in Bewegung. Pp. 247-52 in Fest- schrift Elmar Edel, 12. Miirz 1979, eds. M. G6rg and E. Pusch. Agypten und Altes Testament 1. Bamberg: Manfred Gorg.

1987 "Lang oder kurz?"-das Mittlere und Neue Reich Agyptens als Priifstein. Pp. 27-36 in vol. I of High, Middle or Low? Acts of an International Colloquium on Absolute Chro- nology Held at the University of Gothenburg 20th-22nd August 1987, ed. P. Astr6m. Goth- enburg: Paul Astr6m.

Kantor, H. 1965 The Relative Chronology of Egypt and Its

Foreign Correlations before the Late Bronze Age. Pp. 1-46 in Chronologies in Old World Archaeology, ed. R. W. Ehrich. Chicago: University of Chicago.

Kaplan, J. 1975 Further Aspects of the Middle Bronze Age II

Fortifications in Palestine. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Paliistina- Vereins 91: 1-17.

Kaplan, M. F. 1980 The Origin and Distribution of Tell el Yahudi-

yeh Ware. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeo- logy 62. Gothenburg: P. Astr6m.

Kees, H. 1962 Ein Handelsplatz des MR im Nordostdelta.

Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archiiologischen Instituts Abteilung Kairo 18: 1-13.

Kempinski, A. 1972 Review of Gezer I: Preliminary Report of the

1964-66 Seasons, by W. G. Dever, H. D. Lance, and G. E. Wright. Israel Exploration Journal 22: 183-86.


1974 Tell el-cAjjill-Beth-Aglayim or Sharuhen? Israel Exploration Journal 24: 145-52.

1983 Syrien und Paliistina (Kanaan) in der letzten Phase der Mittelbronze IIB-Zeit (1650-1570 v. Chr.). Agypten und Altes Testament 4, ed. M. G6rg. Wiesbaden: In Kommission bei Otto Harrassowitz.

Kenyon, K. M. 1958 Some Notes on the Early and Middle Bronze

Age Strata of Megiddo. Eretz-Israel 5: 51"- 60*.

1960a Archaeology in the Holy Land. London: Ernest Benn.

1960b Excavations at Jericho, vol. 1: The Tombs Ex- cavated in 1952-54. London: British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem.

1965 Excavations at Jericho, vol. 2: The Tombs Ex- cavated in 1955-58. London: British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem.

Kitchen, K. A. 1967 Byblos, Egypt, and Mari in the Early Second

Millennium B.C. Orientalia n.s. 36: 39-54. 1977- Review of Studies in Honor of George R. 1978 Hughes, January 12, 1977, eds. J. H. Johnson

and E. F. Wente. Serapis 4: 65-80. 1986 The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt

(1100-650 B.C.), 2d ed. Warminster: Aris & Phillips.

1987 The Basics of Egyptian Chronology in Rela- tion to the Bronze Age. Pp. 37-55 in vol. 1 of High, Middle or Low? Acts of an Interna- tional Colloquium on Absolute Chronology Held at the University of Gothenburg 20th- 22nd August 1987, ed. P. Astr6m. Gothen- burg: Paul Astr6m.

Kochavi, M.; Beck, P.; and Gophna, R. 1979 Aphek-Antipatris, Tel Poleg, Tel Zeror and

Tel Burga: Four Fortified Sites of the Middle Bronze Age IIA in the Sharon Plain. Zeit- schrift des Deutschen Paliistina- Vereins 95: 121-65.

Krauss, R. 1978 Das Ende der Amarnazeit. Hildesheimer

Agyptologische Beitrage 7. Hildesheim: Gerstenberg.

1985 Sothis- und Monddaten, Studien zur astronomi- schen und technischen Chronologie Altii- gyptens. Hildesheimer Agyptologische Beitrige 20. Hildesheim: Gerstenberg.

Kunter, M. 1977 Kamid el-Loz 4. Anthropologische Untersu-

chung der menschlichen Skelettreste aus dem eisenzeitlichen Friedhof Saarbrticker Beitrige zur Altertumskunde 19, eds. R. Hachmann and W. Schmitthenner. Bonn: Rudolf Habelt.

Larsen, H. 1936 Vorbericht Oiber die schwedischen Grabungen

in Abu Ghalib 1932-1934. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Instituts fiir iigyptische Altertums- kunde in Kairo 6: 41-82.

1941 Vorbericht uiber die schwedischen Grabungen in Abu Ghalib 1936/1937. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Instituts fiir diigyptische Altertums- kunde in Kairo 10: 1-59.

Loud, G. 1948 Megiddo II: Seasons of 1935-39. Oriental In-

stitute Publications 62. Chicago: University of Chicago.

Luft, U. 1986 Noch einmal zum Ebers-Kalender. GBttinger

Miszellen 92: 69-77. In press Illahunstudien IV. Oikumene 6.

Lugn, P. 1932 Svenska grivningar i Egypten vintern 1931-

1932. En preliminar redog6relse. Arkeologiska studier tilliignade H. K. H. Kronprins Gustav Adolf Stockholm: 329-35.

MacDonald, B. 1980 Excavations at Tell el-Maskhuta. Biblical

Archaeologist 43: 49-58. Maguire, L. C.

1986 The Middle Cypriot Pottery from Tell el- Dabca, Egypt. M.A. Thesis, University of Edinburgh.

Martin, G. T. 1971 Egyptian Administrative and Private-Name

Seals. Oxford: Griffith Institute.

Maspero, G. 1885 Notes sur quelques points de grammaire et

d'histoire. Zeitschrift fiir Agyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 23: 3-13.

Matthiae, P. 1980 Sulle asce fenestrate del "Signore dei capridi."

Studi Eblaiti 3: 53-62. Mazar, B.

1968 The Middle Bronze Age in Palestine. Israel Exploration Journal 18: 65-97.

Merrillees, R. S. 1968 The Cypriote Bronze Age Pottery Found in

Egypt. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 18, ed. P. Astr6m. Lund: Studies in Mediter- ranean Archaeology.

1974a Some Notes on Tell el-Yahudiya Ware. Levant 6: 193-95.

1974b Trade and Transcendence in the Bronze Age Levant. Studies in Mediterranean Archae- ology 39, ed. P. Astrom. Gothenburg: Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology.

1975 The Cypriote Bronze Age Pottery Found in Egypt: A Reply. Report of the Department of Antiquities Cyprus, 1975: 81-90.


1978 El-Lisht and Tell el-Yahudiya Ware in the Archaeological Museum of the American Uni- versity of Beirut. Levant 10: 75-98.

Montet, P. 1928- Byblos et l'Egypte. 2 vols. Bibliothbque ar- 1929 cheologique et historique 11. Paris: Paul

Geuthner. Naville, E.

1888 The Shrine of Saft el Henneh and the Land of Goshen. Egypt Exploration Fund, 5th Memoir. London: Triibner.

Neugebauer, P. V. 1929 Astronomische Chronologie. 2 vols. Berlin:

de Gruyter. Newberry, P. E.

1907 Scarab-Shaped Seals. Catalogue g6n6ral des

antiquit6s 6gyptiennes du Mus6e du Caire Nos. 36001-37521. London: Constable.

Nordstr6m, H. A. 1986 Ton. Cols. 629-34 in Lexikon der Agyptologie

VI, eds. W. Helck and W. Westendorf. Wies- baden: Otto Harrassowitz.

O'Connor, D. 1974 Political Systems and Archaeological Data in

Egypt: 2600-1780 B.C. World Archaeology 6: 15-38.

1983 Review of Studies in Scarab Seals, Vol. I: Pre-12th Dynasty Scarab Amulets, by W. A. Ward. Chronique d'Egypte 58: 163-72.

1985 The Chronology of Scarabs of the Middle Kingdom and the Second Intermediate Pe- riod. The Journal of the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities 15: 1-41.

Oren, E. D. 1969 Cypriot Imports in the Palestinian Late

Bronze I Context. Opuscula Atheniensia 9: 127-50.

1971 A Middle Bronze Age I Warrior Tomb at Beth Shan. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Paliistina- Vereins 87: 109-39.

Paley, S. M., and Porath, Y. 1985 The cEmeq Hefer Archaeological Research

Project, 1985. Israel Exploration Journal 35: 299-301.

Paley, S. M.; Porath, Y.; and Stieglitz, R. R. 1983 The cEmeq

.Hefer Archaeological Research

Project, 1983. Israel Exploration Journal 33: 265-66.

1984 The c Emeq Hefer Archaeological Research Project, 1984. Israel Exploration Journal 34: 276-78.

Pape, A. 1987 Naturwissenschaftliche Untersuchungen an

Keramik aus Tell el-Dab a. Bulletin de Liai- son du Groupe international d'dtude de la ciramique igyptienne 12: 5-9.

Parker, R. A. 1950 The Calendars of Ancient Egypt. Studies in

Ancient Oriental Civilization 26. Chicago: University of Chicago.

Peterson, B. 1983 Zur Datierung von Abu Ghalib. Medelhavs-

museet Bulletin 18: 20-21. Petrie, W. M. F.

1917 Scarabs and Cylinders with Names. British School of Archaeology in Egypt and Egyptian Research Account, 29th year. London: School of Archaeology in Egypt.

Philip, G. 1989 Metal Weapons of the Early and Middle Bronze

Ages in Syria-Palestine, BAR International Series 526. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.

Porada, E. 1966 Les Cylindres de la Jarre Montet. Syria 43:

243-58. 1984 The Cylinder Seal from Tell el-Dabca. Ameri-

can Journal of Archaeology 88: 485-88. Porada, E. et al.

1990 The Chronology of Mesopotamia, ca. 7000- 1600 B.C. In Chronologies in Old World Ar- chaeology, 3d ed., ed. R. W. Ehrich. Chi- cago: University of Chicago.

Posener, G. 1957 Les asiatiques en Egypte sous les XIIe et XIIIe

dynasties. Syria 34: 145-63. Quirke, S.

1988 Chronology. Pp. 4-5 in Pharaohs and Mor- tals. Egyptian Art in the Middle Kingdom, by J. Bourriau. Cambridge: Cambridge University.

Rainey, A. F. 1972 The World of Sinuhe. Israel Oriental Studies

2: 369-408. Redford, D. B.

1967 History and Chronology of the Eighteenth Dynasty of Egypt: Seven Studies. Near and Middle East Series 3. Toronto: University of Toronto.

1979 A Gate Inscription from Karnak and Egyptian Involvement in Western Asia During the Early 18th Dynasty. Journal of the American Orien- tal Society 99: 270-87.

Redmount, C. A. 1983 Tell el-Maskhouta. Bulletin de Liaison du

Groupe internationale d'dtude de la ciramique igyptienne 8: 8-9.

Forth- The Wadi Tumilat Project Reports I: The 1983 coming Wadi Tumilat Survey, ed. J. S. Holladay, Jr.

Reisner, G. A. 1923 Excavations at Kerma I-V. 2 vols. Harvard

African Studies 5-6. Cambridge, MA: Pea- body Museum of Harvard University.


1955 Clay Sealings of Dynasty XIII from Uronarti Fort. Kush 3: 26-69.

Rowton, M. B. 1970 [Chronology] II. Ancient Western Asia.

Pp. 193-239 in Vol. 1, Part I of The Cam-

bridge Ancient History, 3d ed., eds. I. E. S. Edwards, C. J. Gadd, and N. G. L. Ham- mond. Cambridge: Cambridge University.

Scandone Matthiae, G. 1979 Un oggetto faraonico della XIII dinastia dalla

"Tomba del Signore dei capridi." Studi Eblaiti 1: 119-28.

1982 Ebla und Agypten im Alten und Mittleren Reich. Antike Welt 13, no. 1: 14-17.

Seger, J. D. 1965 The Pottery of Palestine at the Close of the

Middle Bronze Age. Unpublished Ph.D. Dis- sertation, Harvard University.

1974 The Middle Bronze IIC Date of the East Gate at Shechem. Levant 6: 117-30.

1975 The MB II Fortifications at Shechem and Gezer: A Hyksos Retrospective. Eretz-Israel 12: 34*-45*.

Seidlmeier, S. J. 1986 Graberfelder aus dem tbergang vom Alten

zum Mittleren Reich: Studien zur Archiologie der Ersten Zwischenzeit. Dissertation Heidel- berg 1986.

Sethe, K. 1927- Urkunden der 18. Dynastie. 4 vols. 2d ed. 1930 Urkunden des agyptischen Altertums IV, ed.

G. Steindorff. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs. Shea, W.

1979 The Conquests of Sharuhen and Megiddo Reconsidered. Israel Exploration Journal 29: 1-5.

Stewart, J. R., et al. 1974 Tellel CAjjfl: The Middle Bronze Age Remains,

ed. H. E. Kassis. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 38, ed. P. Astrim. Gothenburg: Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology.

Stiebing, W. H. 1970 Burial Practices in Palestine During the

Bronze Age. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.

1971 Hyksos Burials in Palestine: A Review of the Evidence. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 30: 110-17.

Stock, H. 1942 Studien zur Geschichte und Archiiologie der

13. bis 17. Dynastie Agyptens. Agyptologische Forschungen 12. New York: J. J. Augustin.

Tubb, J. N. 1983 The MB IIA Period in Palestine: Its Rela-

tionship with Syria and its Origin. Levant 15: 49-62.

Tufnell, O. 1969 The Pottery from Royal Tombs I-III at

Byblos. Berytus 18: 5-33. 1984 Studies on Scarab Seals, Vol. II. Scarab Seals

and their Contribution to History in the Early Second Millennium B.C. Warminster: Aris & Phillips.

Tufnell, 0., and Ward, W. A. 1966 Relations between Byblos, Egypt and Meso-

potamia at the End of the Third Millennium

B.c. A Study of the Montet Jar. Syria 43: 165-241.

van den Brink, E. C. M. 1982 Tombs and Burial Customs at Tell el-Dabca.

Beitrige zur Agyptologie 4. Vienna: Afro- Pub.

1987 A Geo-Archaeological Survey in the North- Eastern Nile Delta, Egypt; the First Two Sea- sons, a Preliminary Report. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archaiologischen Instituts Abtei- lung Kairo 43: 7-31.

Vandersleyen, C. 1971 Les guerres d'Amosis, fondateur de la XVIIIe

dynastie. Monographies Reine 1Elisabeth I. Brussels: Fondation Egyptologique Reine Elisabeth.

Van Seters, J. 1966 The Hyksos: A New Investigation. New Ha-

ven, CT: Yale University. Von Beckerath, J.

1964 Untersuchungen zur politischen Geschichte der zweiten Zwischenzeit in Agypten. gyp- tologische Forschungen 23. Gliickstadt: J. J. Augustin.

1987 Das Kalendarium des Papyrus Ebers und das Sothisdatum vom 9. Jahr Amenophis' I. Studien zur altiigyptischen Kultur 14: 27-33.

Ward, W. A. 1976 Some Personal Names of the Hyksos Period

Rulers and Notes on the Epigraphy of their Scarabs. Ugarit-Forschungen 8: 353-69.

1978a Scarabs from the Montet Jar. A Late Eleventh Dynasty Collection at Byblos. Berytus 26: 37-53.

1978b Studies on Scarab Seals, Vol. I. Pre-12th Dynasty Scarab Amulets. Warminster: Aris & Phillips.

1987 Scarab Typology and Archaeological Con- text. American Journal of Archaeology 91: 507-32.

Weinstein, J. M. 1975 Egyptian Relations with Palestine in the

Middle Kingdom. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 217: 1-16.

1982 The Egyptian Empire in Palestine: A Reas- sessment. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 241: 1-28.


Wente, E. F., and Van Siclen, C. C., III 1976 A Chronology of the New Kingdom. Pp. 217-

61 in Studies in Honor of George R. Hughes, January 12, 1977, eds. J. H. Johnson and E. F. Wente. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civ- ilization 39. Chicago: University of Chicago.

Williams, B. 1975 Archaeological and Historical Problems of

the Second Intermediate Period. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Chicago.

Wilson, J. A. 1969 Historical Texts. Pp. 227-64 in Ancient Near

Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, 3d ed., ed. J. B. Pritchard. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University.

Winkler, E. M., and Wilfing, H. 1991 Tell el- Dabca VI: Anthropologische Untersu-

chungen an den Skelettresten der Kampagnen 1966-1969, 1975-80, 1985 (Grabungsfeld A). Untersuchungen der Zweigstelle Kairo des Osterreichischen Archiologischen Institutes 9. Vienna: Verlag der Osterreichischen Akade- mie der Wissenschaften.

Woolley, L. 1955 Alalakh: An Account of the Excavations at

Tell Atchana in the Hatay, 1937-1949. Lon- don: Society of Antiquaries.

Wright, G. E. 1961 The Archaeology of Palestine. Pp. 73-112 in

The Bible and the Ancient Near East: Essays in Honor of William Foxwell Albright, ed. G. E. Wright. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

Wright, G. R. H. 1967 Some Cypriote and Aegean Pottery Recov-

ered from the Shechem Excavations 1964. Opuscula Atheniensia 7: 47-75.

Yacoub, F. 1983 Excavations at Tell Farasha. Annales du Ser-

vice des Antiquites de l'gypte 65: 175-76. Yadin, Y.

1963 The Art of Warfare in Biblical Lands in the Light of Archaeological Study. New York: McGraw-Hill.

1972 Hazor. The Schweich Lectures of the British Academy. London: Oxford University.

1978 The Nature of the Settlements During the Middle Bronze IIA Period in Israel and the Problem of the Aphek Fortifications. Zeit- schrift des Deutschen Paliistina- Vereins 94: 1-23.

1991 ANNUAL MEETING

AMERICAN SCHOOLS OF ORIENTAL RESEARCH

November 21-25, 1991 / Kansas City, Missouri

Registration and information packets will be mailed to all ASOR members. For additional information contact:

ASOR Administrative Office 711 W. 40th Street, Suite 354

Baltimore, MD 21211 301 / 889-1383

egypt and cannan mba

Documents