Sie sind auf Seite 1von 47

Egypt and Canaan during the Middle Bronze Age

Author(s): Manfred Bietak


Reviewed work(s):
Source: Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, No. 281, Egypt and Canaan in
the Bronze Age (Feb., 1991), pp. 27-72
Published by: The American Schools of Oriental Research
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1357163 .
Accessed: 26/01/2012 03:23
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 of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

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

http://www.jstor.org

Canaan

Egypt

and

the

Middle

Bronze

During
Age

MANFRED BIETAK

OsterreichischeAkademieder Wissenschaften
OsterreichischesArchiologischesInstitut Kairo
Institutftir Agyptologieder UniversitatWien
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

of the Middle
historicalunderstanding
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 SyriaPalestine has no independent chronology but depends 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 ultra27

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 somewhat 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 undergone 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 Mesopotamian chronologies, and a near consensus has
been reached in favor of a low chronology for the

28

BASOR 281

MANFRED BIETAK

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; MacDonald 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 oversimplifications, 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 association 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: 23238; cf. also Bietak 1989a). New results, however,
are received with much more skepticism than "wellestablished" 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 Laboratory (BNL) and the Museum Applied Science Center (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-todate 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 Intermediate 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= the
kleopolitan foundation
.Hwt-R?-wity-Hty
domain "Mouth of the two
ways" of (the Herakleopolitan king) Chety. The location of the Herakleopolitan settlement is not yet clear.
The settlement of the 12th Dynasty with the
name .Hwtm~crw nt RK-wity = DoImn-m-h.t(I.) the
main of Amenemhet
justified, of Ri-wity
(Mouth of the two ways) grew rapidly during the

EGYPT AND CANAAN IN THE MIDDLE BRONZEAGE

1991

29

TELLHANUN
T. EL-HABWE

FARASHA
SROTABA EL-MASKHUTA
.T
BUBASTI
i

"-b

......,

T KUAc

LT.E
SAHABU

.:."INSHAS

TELL EL-YAHUDIYA
HELIOPOLIS
*

SITES OF MIDDLEBRONZEAGE
CULTURE IN EGYPT

UNVERIFIED SITES OF MB

20

40

60

80

10OKM

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 largescale investigation by physical anthropologists has
shown that this population type was of a nonEgyptian 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 dimorphism 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

30

MANFRED BIETAK

BASOR 281

3000

TLABU

SCHAFCA

2500

~2500

EzzATAWA

EL
NIMRYm

Ez. RUSHDIANTIR

'

1200

8P
z.YAERGI

HAWAci
Ez.
EL
EBIRA

ABU F LUS0
:::::::iTELL
Ez.
RUSHOI

Ez.

SzLMY

Didw
ELL
B
3.US T
10
4IIr

_- -Z

EzM
I HE
s.co

. . . . ..Ez

AHGUBI

UMM
FAAQ
Ez.
-_--................
_..--_:.

-1
GEZIRATR

5
- 500
000

500

1000

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

'

I--~\~-----~-50

1500

2000

1991

EGYPT AND CANAAN IN THE MIDDLE BRONZE AGE

31

northeastern Delta between the Pelusiac branch


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

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
STRATIGRAPHY OF TELL EL-DABCA
was changed. Breakthroughs and enlargements
AND THE APPEARANCE OF MIDDLE
were achieved at the expense of the width of the
BRONZE AGE CULTURE
streets. Flints (especially sickle stones) and animal
The Austrian Archaeological Institute in Cairo bones show that the inhabitants were primarily
thus far has explored the development of the set- farmers, who may have been transferred to this
tlement at Tell el-Dabca in several excavation planned settlement as workmen for projects of one
of the early 12th Dynasty kings. They kept cattle,
areas-A/I-V, F/I, and E/I-II (Bietak 1968; 1970;
sheep,
goats, and pigs (according to Boessneck, un1984b; 1986a; Bietak in press; Dorner 1985; 1986The empty space in the eastern part of
published).
1987). Earlier investigations at the site were conthe
walled
settlement
probably was used for animal
ducted by the Egypt Exploration Fund and the
Fish,
catfish, added to the diet.
pens.
especially
Egyptian Antiquities Department (Maspero 1885;
The
ceramic
material
was in the tradition of the
Naville 1888; Griffith 1890; Hamza 1930; Habachi
of
the
First Intermediate pe1954; Adam 1958; 1959). The investigated areas red-polished pottery
riod.
It
is
similar
to
the
very
pottery from the site of
touch very different parts of the settlement, and as
Abu
Ghalib
1936;
(Larsen
1941)' although it lacks
such should be representative. Areas A/I-III are in
the
12th
typical
Dynasty corpus. Few imports from
the eastern part of the settlement, while A/V is in
are
represented in the marl A (our
the northeastern marginal zone; Areas A/IV and Upper Egypt
fabric
II-a) repertoire.8Fragments of some coarse,
F/ I represent a more central quarter. Areas E/ I-II
handmade
cooking pots show that contact probaare at the western part of the site just south of the
existed
with
the local Bedouins, who had settled
partition of the Pelusiac branch, which swings bly
in
the
Delta
during the First Intermediate period.9
afterwards with its eastern channel in a bend to the
Stratum
e/ 1, which probably developed after a
east around the settlement from the north. At
in
hiatus
occupation, can be considered as a loose
cEzbet Rushdi el-saghira a temple of Amenemhet I
to
and Sesostris III was found (Adam 1959: 208-18, attempt reestablish the planned settlement on a
pls. 2-6). The oldest part of the Middle Kingdom/ small basis.
Second Intermediate period settlement may be in
this area. In addition to the royal foundation of the Hiatus
early 12th Dynasty (according to a stela from the
During the interval, the inhabitants of the settemple), a domain of King Khety of the Herakleopolitan 10th Dynasty was near here, probably a tlement probably moved to the newly erected royal
little south (Adam 1959: 216-18; Kees 1962: 3). domain "Hwt-RDwitj-Amenemhet" at cEzbetExcavations in this early part of the settlement are Rushdi el-saghira in the north (Adam 1959: 216,
planned for the future. A simplified version of pl. 9; Kees 1962: 1-3). To this settlement also bethe stratigraphical development at Tell el-Dabca
longs a more isolated installation, a Di)dw (a "hall"
of
unknown function), at the extreme western end
on
based
the
controlled
is
(fig. 3),
excavations, preof the area (Maspero 1885: 11-13; Naville 1888:22,
sented here, in chronological order.
Two stratigraphic systems are used in Tell el- pl. 9A:1-3; Habachi 1954: 448-58, pls. 2-4). This
Dabca. In the excavation areas A/I-V, the strata has a commanding position since it controls the
have capital letter designations. In Area F, small entry into the two branches of the river that split
letters are used. The synchronization of the two north of the town (J. Dorner, personal communication).
systems can be seen in figs. 3, 12, and 13.
Stratum e/1-3 (Area F/I)

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

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

During the late 12th Dynasty the area south of


the original settlement at CEzbet-Rushdi was first
settled by already-Egyptianized newcomers. In

32

MANFRED BIETAK

CORE OF TOWN
(ADAM 1959)

EGYPT
RELATIVE
CHRONOLOGY
HEz,

B.C.

RUSHDY

1500

30

AHMOSE

DENUDED

BASOR 281

NEW CENTRE
MB- POPULATION

EASTERN
TOWN

NORTHEASTERN

A/I-

AY

D/2

D12

D/3

D/3

E/i

E/1

b/1

E/2

E/2

b/2

E/3

b/3

FI

DENUDED

MB PHASES

OUTSKIRTS

MB

1560
HYKSOS

XV

I90

PERIOD
OCCUPATION

1620
MB LIB

50

1680
Xlith DYN.

XI

'i/10

OCCUPATION

MB UA/B

EPIDEMIC

GG/1-3

1740

HIATUS

MB UA

70dG/4
H

d/ 2

1800
_A
30

All

90

s
Al

XII HN

Si

50?
50

AI

2_

HIATUS

UNOCCUPIED

XII DYN.

I
1920

d/Zb

TEMPLE
RENEWED

TOWN

TEMPLEOF

e/1

Ez. RUSHDY
Qdw, Ez. HELMY

el 2-3

1980
2000

XI DYN.
OCCUPATION

71?

2040

Fig. 3. Stratigraphyof Tell elDabca.

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 Egyptian 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

1991

EGYPT AND CANAAN IN THE MIDDLE BRONZE AGE

33

--------

.
1:

Fig. 4. Levantine Painted Warejug.

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 Dynasty. 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.

MANFRED BIETAK

34

--

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

BASOR 281

~Zj&
"-7

--

....0 .. . ..

2'.

.
Fig. 5. Bronze belt and duckbill axe from Tomb F/I-o/19, no. 8, Stratumd/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 rectangles, 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 19861987: figs. 2, 3). Some distance east of the entrance
of each of the main tombs in the western row was a

;,,~

I??o

. ..

.....

. .

tree, planted when the old gardens had fallen into


disrepair. Each of the main tombs had a rectangular brick superstructure that looked like a platform; 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 superstructurehad 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 Stratum 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, inhabited 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

EGYPT AND CANAAN IN THE MIDDLE BRONZE AGE

1991
18

19

20

21
/
i 1/

i,Ma,

35

22

/Ll

23

-....~E

.
II
A,

,;'~/

'"

,tV

.,,

,.,.

EV

,, )-Y

lf+o0

GR

GR2

22O
C)

Ri

R1

GR

:"

zl

"
?5
"

I
..

/"A%

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

1.

. .

36

BASOR 281

MANFRED BIETAK

>//t

LAT
1thDY.

A
ARY

9,
3thDY

I
LTE13h

YN

Fig. 7. Beer jar typology.

Stratum G/ 1-3 on). The chaff-tempered ware (fabric I-c) is still about 40 percent, less than the dungtempered 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 elYahudiya 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 elLoz (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/Im/ 18, no. 3. From the same tomb were a chiselshaped notched battle-axe with square section
and a pair of socketed javelin heads made of
silver.1

StratumG/1-3 = c (AreasA/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 "snailhouse," consisting of two rooms. The second,

1991

EGYPT AND CANAAN IN THE MIDDLE BRONZE AGE

LATE12th DYN.

37

EARLY HYKSOSPERIOD

13th DYN.

Fig. 8. Marl-Cjars typology (Il-c fabric).

1
EARLY12th DYN.

MIDDLE TO LATE12th DYN.

3
TRANSITION
12th/13thDYN.

2B

2A

13th DYN.
AND EARLYHYKSOS

5
SECOND PARTOF
HYKSOSPERIOD

6
END OF HYKSOSPERIOD
EARLY18th 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. Undulated 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.

38

MANFRED BIETAK

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 shallow 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, dungtempered 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 survives. 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

BASOR 281

component was locally produced-at least in partan 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 redpolished 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 Egyptianized 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

1991

EGYPT AND CANAAN IN THE MIDDLE BRONZE AGE

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-northwestsouth-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. Fragments 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
the
A/ II-north-northwest-south-southeast-with
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.

39

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 dungtempered 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

40

MANFRED BIETAK

(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, redpolished 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 battleaxe 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 Egyptianized 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.

BASOR 281

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 Complex 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 roundbottomed 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-temperedNile clay
(fabric I-c) are popular for the last time. Among
the marl C (fabric II-c) vessels, the small bagshaped 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 Piriform 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

1991

EGYPT AND CANAAN IN THE MIDDLE BRONZE AGE

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 outward. 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, brownpolished 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 Egyptian. 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 offeringtable 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

41

typical of the Hyksos period, such as ring-base


bowls, large carinated bowls, andjars 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; Boessneck 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 Stratum 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 traditions 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

42

MANFRED BIETAK

BASOR 281

28
26

29

22

21

031 3323

232/2

30

c-1-2

I-

I-b-2\(

S...

VOI

95

P2OTTERY

)
THE INTERMEDIATE
PERIOD
STRATAE/1- D/3)
IInd

EGYPTIANTYPE GROUPS OF
(

210

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

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-northwestsouth-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

1991

EGYPT AND CANAAN IN THE MIDDLE BRONZE AGE

43

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 destroyed 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 offering 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 multipleburial 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 chafftempered 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 beerjars have disappeared
the market. Among the dung-tempered ware,
from
Stratum D/3 = a/2 (Areas A/I, A/IV, A/ V, and
the
round-bottomed
cups become deeper (medium
F/I)
index 96.5) and are present for the last time. They
In the center (Area F/I) of the settlement, the are replaced by cups with flat bases. The new types
mudbrick temple and the offering pits date mainly that appeared in Stratum E/1 continue (fig. 10).

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 triangles. 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.

44

MANFRED BIETAK

BASOR 281

I-b-2

I-b

-21

I- b

KI

13

11

I-e

17

1416

y2

19

I-a,I-b-2,I- d

II-e

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

N-2-c

20

22

Fig.11. MBIIB, C typegroupsduringthe Hyksosperiod(StrataE/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. Amphorae continue to be imported from southern
Palestine (fabric IV-2-c), but they also are made of

EGYPT AND CANAAN IN THE MIDDLE BRONZE AGE

1991

45

c. 1500 - TELLEL-DAB'A
STRATIGRAPHY

HANDMADE
GLOBULAR

OVOID

PIRIFORM 1

BICONICAL

PIRIFORM 2

COMBED

D/3

c. 1600

a /2

E/1
i,.

b/1
.

"

E/2-3

HIATUS
d / 1

G/L

c. 1800.H

d/2

Fig. 12. Occurrences of Tell el-Yahudiyaware 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

46

MANFRED BIETAK

BASOR 281

EG MB EGYPTIAN
MB
[
InLn
ULn
m L MB-SHAPES
n
z uj
v
0
?3 1 (D
(D3
: 10 Eli - 2:-x
Mt .4 AQ31
3::r
V Y 3
L
I(<
.
m
3x
(L
0
L)
<ocn
:a.t
a <:5
'nC3
Z0?4
<
11
o
1J1 o
t CO
/
I
1
S..
.. ..
M LL
zc0
S0
t
.

B.C STRATI-LATE EGYPTIANI


M EGYPTIAN

OTE~
CYPRI
LnL'
GRAAPH
0 0
SITE
SiTE1

LJ

/<ic

160

D/3

a1/2

E/l1I

a/2

E/2

b/l

E/3

b/2

E/3
b/2

c:

o,-

:ni

CL

Ir
S ..................
....
.......
.
........Uca.:..M""
.. . ......
.

:-
'::

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 bowlsandthejars withcomplexlipsboth continue.
cemeteries.The extreme northeasternend of the Chronologicallyimportant are the whitewashed
town (Area A/V) is less compactlysettled, with jars with flat lips and nipple bases. Though not
semidetachedhouses.Typicalamongthe mudbrick frequent,they are sensitiveindicatorsfor this strahousesis an arrangementof two roomsin the back tum and the end of D/ 3. Amongthe marlC (fabric
and one large room in front, probably with a II-c) vesselsthe Zir 5 continues,but the Zir 6 with
column to supportthe roof. Thereare indications narrowerneck and flaringrim is popular. There
that some houses have upper stories. The huge are also imitationsof the Zir 5, made of Nile clay
sacred precinctnear the center, in Area A/IV-- (fabric I-b) and big jars with flaringrim made of
most probably the temple of Sutekh-seems to marl C. Marl A (fabric II-a) jars still occur in
continue with perhapsa minor interruptionuntil limitedquantity(fig. 13).
the time of the 18thDynasty.
The Middle Bronze Age types still comprise
Since only little spaceis now availablefor tombs about30 percentof the total output.Exceptfor the
within the settlement,single or double chambers amphoraeandthe marlII-f carinatedbowls,almost
for multipleburialsarein use. Some arebondedto everythingis locally made. Some of the amphorae
the house. The large tombs are of Egyptiantype, are also madeof Nile clay mixed with sand(fabric
often with a separately-builtentranceshaft. The I-e). Among the Tell el-Yahudiyaware, the most
vault with a paraboloidsection is also Egyptian. common are largejugs with combed ornamentaHowever, there also are single graves under the tion. Biconicaland Piriform2a juglets occur also,
floors. Infants under one year of age are buried but the latteronly rarely(fig. 12).
in Middle Bronze Age amphorae.As in Stratum
Of specialsignificancein this stratumis evidence
D/ 3, there are no tombs with weaponsor donkey of the furtherexpansion in Cypriot relations. In
sacrifices.
additionto the MiddleCypriottypes, LateCypriot
The ceramiccorpusdifferslittlefromthe pottery potteryis presentfor the firsttime. Thereis White
in Stratum D/3. Among the Egyptiantypes the Painted(WP) V ware,but also true Bichrome(BI),
ratio of dung-temperedware to chaff-tempered Proto White Slip (PWS) and White Slip (WS)
ware varies between 96:4 and 99:1. The round- Ware, Black/Red Slip Ware, and Red-polished
bottomed cups no longer appear;now the cups Ware(Maguire1986).
have only flat bases. A stout jar with flat base is
Stratum D/2, a highly Egyptianizedlocal MB
distinctive for this period. The typical ring-base IIC culture, representsthe last occupationof the

1991

EGYPT AND CANAAN IN THE MIDDLE BRONZE AGE

site by Asiatic elements who, for convenience, may


be called Canaanites. In archaeological terms they
are carriersof a highly Egyptianized Middle Bronze
Age culture. Previous reports (Bietak 1968: 1023)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 statements (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.

47

vations can close the gap back to the early 12th Dynasty 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 Egyptian 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 Tuthmosis 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 reconstructions. 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:
DATING MIDDLE BRONZE AGE STRATA
25), the differences, other than in minor details,
AT TELL EL-DAB CA
resting only in the length of the reign of Horemheb,
The fine stratigraphy (fig. 3) of Tell el-Dabca which was either 13 or 27 years.
offers an insight into a continuous cultural developImportant for the chronology of the Second Inment of about 300 years, from the late 12th to the termediate period is the date of the end of Avaris,
early 18th Dynasty (Strata H to D/2). When exca- which most probably coincides with the official end

48

MANFRED BIETAK

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 1Ith 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 1Ith 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 possibilities 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

BASOR 281

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 Period 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 Kingdom 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 determining 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 1Ith
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 currentNew 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-

1991

EGYPT AND CANAAN IN THE MIDDLE BRONZE AGE

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 chronometric 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.21It 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

49

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 representedin 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),22known 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. Typicalfora late12thDynastydatearechaff-

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

BASOR 281

MANFRED BIETAK

50

w3a.z
INDEX

12.

.*
INDEX

DYNASTY

d/2

dI1

ID
Ln '7
F

b12

El3

E/2

bil

012

DI3

90
soo

00
90

1 10

17

1 "IA
"

80 *

140
..0,13_0

150

150

ARNOLD (19

203,5
240_

202
(1981)

1183.5 177

IT

1970

21

I
F

IADED

200

22ADAPTED FROM

150

*19

140

...

00

16

*'
24(

100

170

**0

.1

160
180

140
.130.

2)

10

=D/3

"

120

150

1800

=El1

... /. ..

0-

12<0

El3

a.

*
19013

=F

90

P.

a:

.2t:

17B0-.

El1

FG 7ERAGE

INDEX

166

(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 variabilityof 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 Asiatics such as cAmusahornedjheryotef (see above),
Amenicamu,27 Khendjer (Von Beckerath 1964: 49-

51, 238-39), and probably others rose to high positions and even to the kingship.
4. Among the pottery, 12th Dynasty shapes are
rare and have given way to types of the 13th Dynasty 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).

1991

EGYPT AND CANAAN IN THE MIDDLE BRONZE AGE

51

pits of Strata A/2 and B, but the only monumental


architecture in the area was Temple III. The coni
~e
\
clusion that the jamb fragments came from this
7\?`!
?e ~ i~
'"'
f
building is not definitive, but since both pieces
i~lec~zs~za~
E;lr~
belong to Nehesy it is unlikely that they had been
brought from another place. It is very possible that
~" '~~p
i'
Temple III was constructed under Nehesy, who is
!I
i
dated to the end of the 18th century B.C. (Von
/
blW?~
Beckerath 1964).
I,.
2. A scarab with the title of an idnw n imy-r?
:i:
I
I ,
iI
I
I. I I
sdiwt, "deputy treasurer" with the name ?m (=
r
If(?1
'/;
"the Asiatic") was found in Tomb A/II-1/ 12 no. 5
.I ~II
ihi
'?;
(Martin 1971: 29, no. 311a, pl. 42:A20; Bietak in
""
i ;II
i :II
(?
press: fig. 24). The burial belonged to an Asiatic
i.
~r
' i, ?
i-ii
I?
II!
and had MB IIA weapons as well as five or six
iiii:
I:
I
(
;I
donkey sacrifices at the entrance-the largest numi
i
ber of donkeys ever found in connection with a
I
1:; ?;?~II,
'I
\\
~l??~t'
Middle Bronze Age burial. The burial also had a
Y:
\\.~~rhrsh'?
?r ?-~ T
,
wooden coffin covered with stucco. It is therefore
1 '?&
tempting to identify the deceased with the owner of
the title. Under normal circumstances that would
the
13th
from
of
15.
Statuette
Dynasty seem unlikely, since the deputy treasurer would
serpentinite
Fig.
from a palace tomb, Stratumd/1 = G/4.
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 elStratum G/1-3 = c
Dabca). The seal is to be dated to the time of the
The seriation of round-bottomed cups, beer jars 13th or 14th Dynasty (Martin 1971: 29, no. 311a;
with kettle-shaped mouth, bag-shaped jars of marl see fig. 17:809 here).
C, and Piriform 1a Tell el-Yahudiya jugs link this
stratum with Complex 7 at Dahshur (the Valley Stratum E/3
Temple of Amenemhet III), which is dated to the
A scarab with a corrupt writing of the name of
middle of the 13th Dynasty (Arnold 1977; 1982:
1977:
and
Stadelmann
15-20, pl. Sebekhotep was found here (Bietak 1970: pl. 19:b;
39-42; Arnold
that
the
ceramic Bietak in press: fig. 48:1). The second part of the
for
besides
The
reason
date,
46).
of
Amenemthe
cult
name is written in reverse. This detail, along with
is
that
material,
mortuary
the
of
the
III
before
the
het
did not end
beginning
nwb-sign at the bottom, indicates a date in the
cult
was
After
the
13th Dynasty.
discontinued, second part of the 13th Dynasty (see fig. 17).
there were settlement installations that again fell
into disrepair before the dumps of Complex 7 Stratum E/2 = b/1
accumulated (fig. 14).
1. In this stratum are the first occurrencesof scarabs with the motif rdy-Rc, typical for the Hyksos
Stratum F = b/3
period (O'Connor 1974: fig. 13, Q). This type of
1. The main temple (Temple III) was erected in seal is restricted to the first half of the Hyksos
this stratum, to be followed by Temple V and the period and shortly before (C. Mlinar unpublished).
small mortuary temples I and II in Strata E/2 and
2. From Temple I comes a double conical juglet
E/ 3. From the area of this complex two fragments of type 1, with standing and pendant triangles as
of different limestone jambs with the names of ornamentation.28 This type develops from the PiriKing S-zh r' Nehesy (Bietak 1984c) were found in form Ic juglets and is especially popular in Stratum
!~\

52

MANFRED BIETAK
STRATIGRAPHIE
TELLEL OAB'A

HB IIB

IeA
HB

1
A/II

12
cC

F/I_

/2
a/2

Eil

a/2

GRABERN

TEMPELN

d/1l

c -510

o
_

b/3

oo

'

E/3 b2
G/I-31

ESELVOR ESELVORI

c5

00000

SE!2-1 b/l

SG/

0/3

BASOR 281

.
1700

1
_

c laco

* *

dt2

*o

ki

? ?

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 CnrCmotifs 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.

809

1840

Stratum D/3 = a/2


1. A scarab of an unknown Hyksos ruler named
zD-RcSnik 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 Dynasty are missing, while the later succession should
be Khayan, Yanassy, Apopy, and Khamudy (Bietak 1980: 95; 1981; Goirg 1981). The name on our
scarab should probably be identified with the popular name 99y, which is perhaps a diminutive.

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.

1991

EGYPT AND CANAAN IN THE MIDDLE BRONZE AGE

\\

53

'1'

6666

6160

6161

Fig. 18. Scarabs with the names of the Hyksos Sngk and the chancellor, H3rfrom Strata D/3 and D/2.

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 regionally into the full 18th Dynasty, probably until
Tuthmosis III. Concerning that last phase, Tell elDabca can only supply some limited evidence, since
MB IIC in the Delta is different than in Palestine.
Stratum D/2
However, some interrelationship existed.
The new scheme proposed in this article needs
1. A scarab of the chancellor Hir from Area
A/V was found in settlement waste (fig. 18). Scarabs further explanation because the evidence for it does
of
are numerous and distributed everywhere not come from Egypt alone. It should be evaluated
that.H3r
the 15th Dynasty had influence-from Kerma in terms of the local assemblages in Syria-Palestine
(Reisner 1923: 76, pl. 40) to southern Palestine (see to see its consequences and determine how it fits in
this geographical and cultural environment. In this
fig. 20).
2. The scarabs of this stratum include not a article it is only possible to discuss in survey fashion
single one that can be dated to the time of the 18th some of the most important points.
The evidence from Tell el-Dabca cannot be
Dynasty. Typical for the end of the Hyksos period
are scarabs with simple patterns such as the twisted seen as only a local chronological phenomenon. It
rope design. Scarabs with tripartite pattern, CnrC is connected with the Levant. For example, Levantine Painted Ware (LPW) was found in Stratum
signs, and deeply cut figures continue.
H = d/2 (very late 12th Dynasty). Neutron activation analysis shows that this pottery was produced
CHRONOLOGICAL CONCLUSIONS
not only in Syria but also in southern Palestine (see
As noted, the absolute dates are less important above), where it occurs early in MB IIA. At Aphek
than the relative chronological relationship between (Ras el-'Ain) it is typical of Phases I and 2 and is
Egypt and Syria-Palestine. The schematization already rare in Phase 3 (Beck 1975: 45-47; 1985:
MB IIA = 12th Dynasty (2000-1800/1750 B.C.), 186-87, 194). The same conclusion comes from
MB IIB = 13th Dynasty (1800/1750-1650 B.C.), Tell el-Ifshar (S. M. Paley, J. Porath, personal
MB IIC = 15th Dynasty (1650-1550 B.C.) has been communications; see also Paley, Porath, and Stiegmore or less accepted, but that does not mean that litz 1983; 1984; Paley and Porath 1985; Braunstein
it is "well established" or even near the historical and Paley 1986) and elsewhere. Because in Tell
truth. This scheme is so oversimplified that it can- el-Dabca only isolated Levantine Painted Ware
not be accepted without question. The evidence at examples have been found in Strata d/ 1 and c, one
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. Mlinar, 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.

54

MANFRED BIETAK

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 postulate 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 nomads 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 nomadism of the MB I (EB IV) world. In recent years,
however, new excavations have challenged earlier
views concerning MB I. At Refacim, excavations
under Eisenberg32have 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 19281929:pls. 60-71; Tufnell and Ward 1966) also correlates 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

BASOR 281

the present inadequate standing of Mesopotamian


chronology. Porada's dating has recently received,
to some extent, an independent Egyptological backing from a statistical analysis of the scarabs of the
hoard by David O'Connor. According to O'Connor, 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 contents of the Byblos tombs were not recorded properly 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

1991

EGYPT AND CANAAN IN THE MIDDLE BRONZE AGE

end of the 19th century B.C.).36 This evidence corroborates 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 Weinstein (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. Inasmuch 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,37it 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 elIn Tomb 637 in Jericho, which
Yahudiya ware."38
Kenyon attributed to tomb group II, there is a
Piriform 1c 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 Piriform 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

55

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. Unfortunately, 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?ygroup) 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 Nwbzpr-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 measuring 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

56

MANFRED BIETAK

BASOR 281

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 NbmDct-Rc because the ib- sign looks like a triangle.
However, this is a well-known corruption among
FEL'A
Lrso0JERICHO
F:
EL
the Mic-ib-RC scarabs (Petrie 1917: pl. 21:16.B.79;
Newberry 1907: pl. 21:2; Tufnell 1984: pl.
r ELYAHUDIVA
57:3235, 3253). There are scarabs with a clear ibAOLISIR
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
0UKMA
king must have been nearly a contemporary of
SAI
That conclusion is even accepted by
Mic-ib-Rc.41
Ward and Tufnell, who considered Nb-m3't-Rc a
..KERMA
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
Fig. 19. Distribution of scarabs of the Hyksos M3c-jb-Rc should be placed in the Hyksos period. Indeed,
von Beckerath (1964: 280) lists a king Nb-m3't-Rc
according to Christa Mlinar(unpublished).
within the 16th Dynasty.
In short, even if Ward is correct in identifying
that this sign group occurs together on the same
seal with cnr"- signs, which are typical of the the name on this scarab as that of King Nb-m3ctHyksos period (Stock 1942: 23-24; O'Connor 1974: Rc, it would not change the chronological position.
fig. 13:type N; 1985: 22-28).40 The combination of The Jericho tomb groups would stay in the same
the name and the CnrQ-signs bolsters each feature relationship to the proposed stratigraphy of Tell
individually in its chronological meaning. Since el-Dabca (Bietak 1984a: 483, ill. 6). However, this
Ward knows that CnrQsigns have not been found in scarab alone is not the main peg for the synchroniEgypt in any context before the Hyksos period, he zation here. Support comes from a combination of
proposed that they appeared first in Palestine and scarab features of the Hyksos period such as cnr?already before the Hyksos period (Ward 1987: signs, deeply cut human and animal figures, semi524-26). By this chronology one could prevent the circles at all four ends, twisted rope designs, Hathor
concept of group II reaching down to the begin- heads, and the use of tripartite groups of signs
ning of the Hyksos period. But Ward has failed (Bietak 1984a: 483, ill. 6). Such features do not
to present a proof for his thesis. On the contrary, occur anywhere together before the beginning of
the combination of the name Nwb-Epr-Rcwith the the 15th Dynasty.
O'Connor (1983; 1985) conducted a systematic
cnrQ- signs makes a date at the beginning of the
15th/ 17th Dynasty more likely than any other sug- evaluation of the scarabs from Middle Kingdom
gestion, because the two features belonging to the and Second Intermediate Period cemeteries and
same expected time zone occur together.
concluded that Jericho tomb groups I-IV should
~~*

SCARABS OF
HYKSOS
M-C-jb-Rc

AMMAN

KOMELAHMAR,

DEIREL AHRI

1991

EGYPT AND CANAAN IN THE MIDDLE BRONZE AGE

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 differentlocal conditions and developments. Substantial research in Egypt and in Palestine is needed
to improve our understanding of the relationship
between those regions during this period (Kempinski 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
cylindricaljuglets (Kenyon 1960a: 173-75; Kempinski 1983: 189). These appear in Tell el-Dabca only
sporadically, while the polished piriform and bagshaped juglets continue until the very end of Stratum 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 boundary 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

57

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 Cypriot 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. Individually, 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.

MANFRED BIETAK

58

* SCARABS OF
CHANCELLORH.ir

C17

YAMEN YA o

TEL
APJJULo
00
tYAHUDIYA\
EL
DASAL
TEL

00CAU
KESI
Ek
RIIFEH

*DEBEIRA

KERMA

Fig. 20. Distributionof scarabs with the name of chancellor H-?raccording 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 (Dothan 1956: 21-22, fig. 7). Oren has made a very

BASOR 281

strong case that Base Ring ware appears only from


Tuthmosis III on (Oren 1969: 143-49, contra Merrillees 1968: 147-68; 1975: 88). If his conclusion is
correct, it would indicate an undisturbed MB IICLB 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 (Redford 1979: 286, n. 146; Shea 1979; Hoffmeier 1989),
or the Israelites (Bimson 1981; Bimson and Livingston 1987.45 A compatible site seriation and reinvestigation 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; Redford 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 Diwny. 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 inconclusive. That action against the Shosu Bedouins could

EGYPT AND CANAAN IN THE MIDDLE BRONZE AGE

1991

YAVNEHYAM

59

00JERICHO
AIN KEREM

AJJU
PTEL

TELLEL

SH

YHUD/l YK

DABA
EL
E

EL L EL MASKHUTA

KAHUN0

0
RIFEH
0QUFT

ANIBA
' -BUHENW0

ALS
S MEHn
9STOCK
(10- 19)
MEHRALS
100

STOCK

have occurred in Palestine or in the Syria/ Lebanon area (Sethe 1927-1930: 36).48 Under Hatshepsut 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 Tuthmosis 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.

Fig. 21. Distribution of piriform 2 Tell el-Yahudiyajugs.

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

60

MANFRED BIETAK

PNERA

BASOR 281

ZYPEILIA
u

RAS HAMRA

ENKOMI

ASKALON
STELL EL
DAB-A

ABYDOS
HU?@

ANIBA
BUHEN
i

Fig. 22. Distributionof Biconical 3 and 4 Tell el-Yahudiya


jugs.

0
M

ALLGEMEINE
PROVENIENZ
MEHflALS

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

19STUCK(20

-29)

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 culturally 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

EGYPT AND CANAAN IN THE MIDDLE BRONZE AGE

1991

61

HAZOR

BETH
SHEMESHdU

T.EELLHUWElA

MEGIDDOJ

*
MEH

ALS SSTUCK (10-

9)

(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 federations. 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

Fig. 23. Distribution of the


late Palestinian type of the
Tell el-Yahudiyaware.

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 probablyin the interest of Mitannito join a coalition against Egypt5Sthat 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

MANFRED BIETAK

62

BASOR 281

large extent, abandonment of similar states in


Syria. The vacuum invited differentpressuregroups
LAULB
8,
to become active, e.g., the kingdom of Yamkhad
HA"
BR
.
and other groups dispersed by the Hittite actions in
northern Syria and Mesopotamia under Hattusili I
i;., wa,
A""
and Mursili I. The growing infiltration by Hurrians
must
have caused pressures and could have stimu/
WP
E//I
1600 XVlated defense preparationsand finally led to a politiMB RB
E/2
cal rapprochement with the Hurrian power in the
north and to the battle of Megiddo (?+1457/56
1700-F
B.C.). Shosu bedouins also should be considered in
on
IiAMANES5
constructing a scenario for the late MB IIC period
( T.DABLA)
0
"'
L
M
A
and the transition to the Late Bronze Age.
LPW
u
A
All of the above components might be responsisia
ble for the different destruction levels. The extent
Am
of Egyptian responsibility also is a matter of de900 XII
bate. While it seems highly unrealistic that the
=
pharaohs were responsible for all destructions during the transition from the Middle to Late Bronze
Fig. 24. Correlation graph of the Tell el-Dabca stratig- Age, we cannot rely on the texts alone, which
raphywith Egyptianand Syro-Palestinian chronology and should be considered as thinly scattered and to
occurrences of imports.
some extent coincidental for this period.51 The
archaeological material on the other hand, yields
good information after a sound chronology and
assume that the heavy defense systems in central tell-to-tell seriation have been established. TherePalestine were not made against the Hyksos and fore detailed analyses of excavation material are
then finally against the Egyptians alone. The necessary before we can see which combination
flourishing MB IIB-C culture in central Palestine of hypotheses offered during the last years can
stands out against an extreme decline and, to a be forged into a feasible historical presentation.
S

EGYPTIAN DYNASTIC
CHRONOLOGY

SYRO-PALESTINIAN
CHRONOLOGY

1400

T]-E"

'

CERAMICAL
IMPORTSIN
EGYPTAND PALESTINE,
FIRST OCCURENCE

COMMON

E/3

,7a

Wi

ix1

co
I

e00o

0IH

AT

BR = BASE RING-, 81 BICHROMEPWS


PROTO-WHITE
SLIP-,
WP =WHITE
WARE
LPW= LEVANTINE PAINTED
PAINTED-,

WSI

=WHITE

SLIPI-,

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I thankthe AustrianAcademyof Sciencesfor making
possible my participationin the AmericanSchools of
Oriental Researchsymposiumin Chicago. I am very
muchindebtedto J. M. Weinsteinfor editingthis manu-

script, to F. Richardsfor correctingthe Englishof the


firstversion,and to M. Zellerfor typingthis paper.For
drawings,I am obliged to L. Holeil, C. Mlinar, and
M. Negrette-Martinez.

NOTES
'This paperuses the W. F. Albrightterminologyfor
the threephasesof the MiddleBronzeAge(MB IIA, MB
IIB, MB IIC), althoughrecentlythere has been a tendencyto use anotherterminology(MB I, MB II, MB III)
which is probablymore accurate(see also Dever 1980;
Gerstenblith1983:2-3).
2Gerstenblith(1983:28-30, 45-46, 101-8) providesa
summaryof Hama,Aphek,and othersitesin the coastal
plain. See also Dever (1976);Tubb (1983);and for details, Beck(1985);Beckand Kochavi(in press);Kochavi,
Beck, and Gophna(1979). There is also new evidence

from Tell el-Ifshar(Paley, Porath, and Stieglitz 1983;


1984;Paleyand Porath 1985),Tell el-Hayyat(Falconer
and Magness-Gardiner1984), and Tell el-Qadi/Laish
(Dan) (also P. Beck, A. Biran,D. Illan, S. Paley, and
Y. Porath,personalcommunications).
31am indebtedto M. CAbdel-Maksoud,J. S. Holladay, Jr., and E. van denBrinkfor showingme theresults
of theirrecentexcavationsand surveys.
41 wish to thank G. Harbottleof the ChemistryDepartmentof the BrookhavenNationalLaboratory,and
P. McGovernof the MuseumApplied Science Center

1991

EGYPT AND CANAAN IN THE MIDDLE BRONZE AGE

for Archaeology at the University Museum of the University 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).
for the date of this site is the
7A terminus ad quem
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); Nordstr6m (1986); Bietak (in press: Appendix).
9The vessels resemble MB I (EB IV) or MB IIA handmade 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 thinsectioning by N. Porat, Jerusalem. It is locally made.
'OThe metals are being investigated by G. Philip, University 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.
12Seeabove. 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 fuirAnalytische
Chemie, Freie Universitait, Berlin (Pape 1987). According to thin-section examination by Naomi Porat, Jerusalem, 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) estimates 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,

63

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.
21Othersites 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. 11901175 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, BerlinCharlottenburg, independently dated this statuette to
the 13th Dynasty. It belongs to a style that starts with
Sesostris III and continues into the 13th Dynasty. According 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.
28Thislarge 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.

64

MANFRED BIETAK

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 Piriform 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 elDabca stratigraphic sequence. It must have been an
heirloom, because of the Hyksos scarabs (e.g., of the
in the sacrifice corridors of Tumulus X;
chancellor
H.-r) 479).
see Bietak (1984a:
30Most of the scarabs with royal names such as Sesostris I were probably produced later. According to O'Connor (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 indicative 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 importance 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.
to IIC is
37Inasmuchas the development from MB IIBR
continuous, Kempinski (1983) prefers to speak about an
early and late phase of MB IIB.

BASOR 281

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 Palestinian 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).
48TheShosu 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).
49TheAnnals 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.
5oForthe political background of the conflict, see, e.g.,
Helck (1971: 107-67).
510Onehas to imagine the status of our information if
the tombs of Ahmose, son of Ibana, and Ahmose Pennekhbet had not been preserved. It is also possible that
these two autobiographies omitted important happenings
where the narrators were not present.

1991

EGYPT AND CANAAN IN THE MIDDLE BRONZE AGE

65

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abd el-Maksoud, M.
Keramik, ed. Do. Arnold. Mainz am Rhein:
1987
Une nouvelle forteresse sur la Route d'Horus:
Philipp von Zabern.
Tell Heboua 1986 (Nord-Sinai). Cahier de
1982
Keramikbearbeitungin Dahschur 1976-1981.
Recherches de l'Institut de Papyrologie et
Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archiiologischen
Instituts Abteilung Kairo 38: 25-65.
d'tFgyptologie de Lille 9: 13-16.
1988
Adam, S.
Chapter XII. The Pottery. Pp. 106-46 in
1958
Recent Discoveries in the Eastern Delta (Dec.
D. Arnold, The Pyramid of Senwosret L The
South Cemeteries of Lisht I. Publications of
1950-May 1955). Annales du Service des
the Metropolitan Museum of Art Egyptian
Antiquites de l'Egypte 55: 301-24.
1959
Report in the Excavations of the Department
Expedition 22. New York: Metropolitan
of Antiquities at Ezbet Rushdi. Annales du
Museum of Art.
Service des Antiquites de l'gypte 56: 207-26. Astour, M.
1979
Yahweh in Egyptian Topographical Lists.
Albright, W. F.
1942
A Third Revision of the Early Chronology
Pp. 17-34 in Festschrift Elmar Edel, 12. Miirz
of Western Asia. Bulletin of the American
1979, eds. M. Girg and E. Pusch. Agypten
Schools of Oriental Research 88: 28-36.
und Altes Testament 1. Bamberg: Manfred
1964
The Eighteenth-Century Princes of Byblos
Girg.
and the Chronology of Middle Bronze Age. Bagh, T.
Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental
1988
Bemalet MB IIA keramik & bemalet Tell elResearch 176: 38-46.
Yahudiyeh ware fundet i Aegypten. Unpub1965a Further Light on the History of Middlelished Diploma thesis, Copenhagen.
Bronze Byblos. Bulletin of the American Barta, W.
Schools of Oriental Research 179: 38-43.
1979
Die Chronologie der 12. Dynastie nach den
1965b Some Remarks on the Archaeological ChroAngaben des Turiner Ktinigspapyrus. Studien
zur altdgyptischen Kultur 7: 1-9.
nology of Palestine before about 1500 B.C.
1979- Die agyptischen Sothisdaten und ihre BezugsPp. 47-60 in Chronologies in Old World Ar1980
orte. Jaarbericht van het Vooraziatisch-Egypchaeology, ed. R. W. Ehrich. Chicago: Unitisch Genootschap Ex Oriente Lux 26: 26-34.
versity of Chicago.
1966
Remarks on the Chronology of Early Bronze
1981
Der Dekankalender des Nutbildes und das
IV-Middle Bronze IIA in Phoenicia and
Sothisdatum aus dem 7. Regierungsjahr Sesostris' III. Studien zur altiigyptischen Kultur
Syria-Palestine. Bulletin of the American
Schools of Oriental Research 184: 26-35.
9: 85-103.
1973
The Historical Framework of Palestinian Beck, P.
1975
The Pottery of the Middle Bronze Age IIA at
Archaeology between 2100 and 1600 B.C.
Tel Aphek. Tel Aviv 2: 45-85.
(E.B. IV, M.B. I, M.B. IIA-B). Bulletin of
the American Schools of Oriental Research
1985
The Middle Bronze Age IIA Pottery from
209: 12-18.
Aphek, 1972-1984: First Summary. Tel Aviv
12: 181-203.
Arnold, D.
1962
Wandreliefund Raumfunktion in iigyptischen Beck, P., and Kochavi, M.
In press Aphek-Antipatris I. Tel Aviv: Publications
Tempelndes Neuen Reiches. MtinchnerAgypof the Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv
tologische Studien 2. Munich: Bruno Hessling.
Arnold, D., and Stadelmann, R.
University.
1977
Dahschur, Zweiter Grabungsbericht. Mitteil- Bierbrier, M. L.
1975
The Late New Kingdom in Egypt (c. 1300ungen des Deutschen Archiiologischen Instituts Abteilung Kairo 33: 15-20.
664 B.C.). Liverpool Monographs in ArchaeArnold, Do.
ology and Oriental Studies. Warminster:
1977
Zur Keramik aus dem Taltempelbereich der
Aris & Phillips.
Pyramide Amenemhets III. in Dahschur. Mit- Bietak, M.
1968
teilungen des Deutschen Archiiologischen InVorlaiufigerBericht iiber die erste und zweite
stituts Abteilung Kairo 33: 21-26.
Kampagne der tisterreichischen Ausgrabun1981
Mergeltone ("Wilstentone") und
gen auf Tell Ed-Dabca im Ostdelta
,gyptische
,gyptens
die
Herkunft einer Mergeltonware des Mitt(1966, 1967). Mitteilungen des Deutschen
leren Reiches aus der Gegend von Memphis.
Kairo 23:
Instituts
Abteilung
Archiiologischen
79-114.
Pp. 167-91 in Studien zur altiigyptischen

66

1975

1976

1980

1981

1984a

1984b

1984c
1985a

1985b

1986a

1986b

1988
1989a

MANFRED BIETAK
teilungen des Deutschen Archdologischen
Instituts Abteilung Kairo 26: 15-41.
Tell el-Dabca II. Der Fundort im Rahmen
einer archiiologisch- geographischen Untersuchung iiber das dgyptische Ostdelta. Untersuchungen der Zweigstelle Kairo des Osterreichischen Archdologischen Institutes 1.
Vienna: Verlag der Osterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Stratigraphische Probleme bei Tellgrabungen im VorderenOrient. Archaeologia Austriaca, Beiheft 14 (Richard Pittioni Festschrift):
471-93.
Hyksos. Cols. 93-103 in Lexikon der Agyptologie III, eds. W. Helck and W. Westendorf.
Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.
Eine Stele des altesten Kinigssohnes des Hyksos Chajan. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archiiologischen Instituts Abteilung Kairo 37:
63-71.
Problems of Middle Bronze Age Chronology:
New Evidence from Egypt. American Journal
of Archaeology 88: 471-85.
Eine Palastanlageaus der Zeit des spiten Mittleren Reichs und andere Forschungsergebnisse aus dem istlichen Nildelta (Tell el-Dabca
1979-1984). Anzeiger der philosophischhistorischen Klasse der Osterreichischen
Akademie der Wissenschaften 121: 312-49.
Zum Ktinigreichdes ~ -zh-R' Nehesi. Studien
zur altiigyptischen Kultur 11: 59-75.
Stratigraphie und Seriation. Arbeiten zur
Erschliessung der relativen Chronologie in
Agypten. Pp. 5-9 in Lebendige Altertumswissenschaft: Festgabe zur Vollendung des 70.
Lebensjahres von Hermann Vetters. Vienna:
Adolf Holzhausen.
Ein altagyptscher Weingarten in einem Tempelbezirk (Tell el-Dabca 1. Marz bis. 10. Juni
1985).Anzeiger derphilosophisch-historischen
Klasse der Osterreichischen Akademie der
Wissenschaften 122: 267-78.
Avaris and Piramesse: Archaeological Exploration in the Eastern Nile Delta. Revised
Reprint from the Proceedings of the British
Academy 65 (1979): 225-96.
Tell el-Jahudija-Keramik. Cols. 335-48 in
Lexikon der Agyptologie VI, eds. W. Helck
and W. Westendorf. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.
A Letter to the Editor. Biblical Archaeology
Review 15, no. 4 (should be 14, no. 4): 54-55.
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

BASOR 281

VorlaufigerBericht tiber die dritte Kampagne


der 6sterreichischen Ausgrabungen auf Tell
ed Dabca im Ostdelta Agyptens (1968). Mitat the University of Gothenburg 20th-22nd
August 1987, ed. P. Astrim. Gothenburg:

Paul Astr6m.

1989b

Archiologischer Befund und historischeInterpretation am Beispiel der Tell elYahudiya-Ware.Pp. 7-34 in Akten des vierten
internationalen Agyptologenkongresses Miinchen 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 Tellel-Dabca V:Ein Friedhofsbezirkder Mittleren Bronzezeitkultur mit Totentempel und
Siedlungsschichten.Untersuchungender Zweigstelle Kairo des OsterreichischenArchaologischen Institutes 8. Vienna: Verlag der Osterreichischen 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? Journal 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
Tellel-Dabca III: Die Tierknochenfunde19661969. Untersuchungen der Zweigstelle Kairo
des Osterreichischen Archiologischen Institutes 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 Grabungskampagnen 1975-1986. Untersuchungen der
ZweigstelleKairo des OsterreichischenArchaologischen Institutes. Vienna: Verlagder Osterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Bourriau, J.
Umm el-Gacab: Pottery from the Nile Valley
1981
before the Arab Conquest. Cambridge: Cambridge University.
Three Monuments from Memphis in the Fitz1982
william Museum. Journal of EgyptianArchaeology 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.
Kom Rabica, Mit Rahina (The Egypt Ex1988
ploration Society). Bulletin de Liaison du

1991

EGYPT AND CANAAN IN THE MIDDLE BRONZE AGE

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.
Shechem I: The Middle Bronze IIB Pottery.
1984
American Schools of Oriental Research Excavation Reports. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
E.
Czerny,
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.
G.
W.
Dever,
Tel Gezer. Israel Exploration Journal 22:
1972
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: Doubleday.
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 Honour 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 College Biblical and Archaeological School in
Jerusalem 1. Jerusalem: Hebrew Union College 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.

67

Dorner, J.
Tell el-Dabca. Jahreshefte des Osterreichi1985
schen Archdologischen Institutes in Wien 56,
Beiblatt, Grabungen 1984: 1-5.
1986- Tell el-Dabca. Jahreshefte des Osterreichischen Archiiologischen Institutes in Wien 57,
1987
Beiblatt, Grabungen 1985/86: 1-6.
Dothan, M.
The Excavations at Nahariya: Preliminary
1956
Report (Seasons 1954/55). Israel Exploration
Journal 6: 14-25.
Eigner, D.
1985
Der agyptische Palast eines asiatischen K6nigs. Jahreshefte des OsterreichischenArchiiologischen 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 American 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 Religion 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. Orientalia n.s. 57: 113-38.

1988b Zur Chronologiedes MittlerenReiches,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 Museum.
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 egyptiens. Documenta et Monumenta Orientis
Antiqui 18. Leiden: E. J. Brill.
Goedicke, H.
1984
"The Canaanite Illness." Studien zur altiigyptischen Kultur 11:91-105.
1986a Seuche. Cols. 918-19 in Lexikon der Agyptologie 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.

68

MANFRED BIETAK
Parker, ed. L. H. Lesko. Hanover, NH: University Press of New England.

BASOR 281

Holladay, J. S., Jr.


1981
Wadi Tumilat Project Report 1981. Privately
circulated.
G6rg, M.
Jahwe-ein Toponym? Biblische Notizen 1:
1982
Cities of the Delta, Part III: Tell el-Maskhuta,
1976
7-14.
Preliminary Report on the Wadi TumilatPro1981
Nachtrag. Zur Erkldirungdes Namens des
ject 1978-1979. American Research Center in
Hyksosprinzen. Mitteilungen des Deutschen
Egypt Reports 6. Malibu, Calif.: Undena.
1984
Wadi Tumilat Project Report 1983. Privately
Archiiologischen Instituts Abteilung Kairo
37: 71-73.
circulated.
1987
The Wadi Tumilat Project-Tell el-MasGriffith, F. L1.
1890
The Antiquities of Tell el Yahuidfyeh.Egypt
khuta. Bulletin of the Canadian Mediterranean Institute 7, no. 2: 1-7.
Exploration Fund, 7th Memoir. London:
Kegan Paul, Trench, Triibner.
Holladay, J. S., Jr., ed.
In press The Wadi Tumilat Project Reports II: The
Habachi, L.
1954
Second Intermediate Period/Middle Bronze
Khatiana-Qantir: Importance. Annales du
Service des Antiquitis de l'tgypte 52: 443II Period at Tell el-Maskhuta: Final Field
559.
Report.
Halpern, B.
Hornung, E.
1987
RadicalExodus RedatingFatallyFlawed.Bibli1964
Untersuchungen zur Chronologie und Gecal Archaeology Review 13, no. 6: 56-61.
schichte des Neuen Reiches. Agyptologische
Hamza, M.
Abhandlungen 11. Wiesbaden: Otto Harras1930
Excavations of the Department of Antiquities
sowitz.
at Qantir (Faqfis District) (Season May 21st1979
Chronologie in Bewegung. Pp. 247-52 in FestJuly 7th, 1928). Annales du Service des Antischrift Elmar Edel, 12. Miirz 1979, eds.
M. G6rg and E. Pusch. Agypten und Altes
quites de l'gypte 30: 31-68.
E.
Testament 1. Bamberg: Manfred Gorg.
Heinrich,
1957- Gewilbe. Pp. 323-40 in Reallexikon der As1987
"Lang oder kurz?"-das Mittlere und Neue
1971
Reich Agyptens als Priifstein. Pp. 27-36 in
syrologie und VorderasiatischenArchdologie
vol. I of High, Middle or Low? Acts of an
3, eds. E. Weidner and W. von Soden. Berlin
and New York: Walter de Gruyter.
International Colloquium on Absolute Chro1972- Haus. Pp. 176-220 in Reallexikon der Asnology Held at the University of Gothenburg
1975 syrologie und VorderasiatischenArchiiologie
20th-22nd August 1987, ed. P. Astr6m. Goth4, ed. D. O. Edzard. Berlin and New York:
enburg: Paul Astr6m.
Walter de Gruyter.
Kantor, H.
1965
The Relative Chronology of Egypt and Its
Helck, W.
1971
Die Beziehungen Agyptens zu Vorderasienim
Foreign Correlations before the Late Bronze
3. und 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr., 2d ed. AgypAge. Pp. 1-46 in Chronologies in Old World
tologische Abhandlungen 5. Wiesbaden: Otto
Archaeology, ed. R. W. Ehrich. Chicago:
Harrassowitz.
University of Chicago.
1983
Schwachstellen der Chronologie-Diskussion. Kaplan, J.
1975
Further Aspects of the Middle Bronze Age II
Gottingen Miszellen 67: 43-49.
1984
Fortifications in Palestine. Zeitschrift des
Chronologische Schwachstellen III. G6ttinger
Miszellen 70: 31-32.
Deutschen Paliistina- Vereins91: 1-17.
1987
Was kann die Agyptologie wirklich zum Prob- Kaplan, M. F.
lem der absoluten Chronologie in der Bronze1980
The Originand Distribution of Tell el Yahudizeit beitragen?Chronologische Anniherungsyeh Ware.Studies in MediterraneanArchaeowerte in der 18. Dynastie. Pp. 18-26 in vol. 1
logy 62. Gothenburg: P. Astr6m.
of High, Middle or Low? Acts of an Interna- Kees, H.
tional Colloquium on Absolute Chronology
1962
Ein Handelsplatz des MR im Nordostdelta.
Held at the University of Gothenburg 20thMitteilungen des Deutschen Archiiologischen
22nd August 1987, ed. P. Astrim. GothenInstituts Abteilung Kairo 18: 1-13.
burg: Paul Astr6m.
Kempinski, A.
Hoffmeier, J. K.
1972
Review of Gezer I: Preliminary Report of the
1989
Reconsidering Egypt's Part in the Termina1964-66 Seasons, by W. G. Dever, H. D.
tion of the Middle Bronze Age in Palestine.
Lance, and G. E. Wright. Israel Exploration
Levant 21: 181-93.
Journal 22: 183-86.

1991
1974

EGYPT AND CANAAN IN THE MIDDLE BRONZE AGE

or Sharuhen?
Tell el-cAjjill-Beth-Aglayim
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 Excavated in 1952-54. London: British School
of Archaeology in Jerusalem.
Excavations at Jericho, vol. 2: The Tombs Ex1965
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 Relation to the Bronze Age. Pp. 37-55 in vol. 1 of
High, Middle or Low? Acts of an International Colloquium on Absolute Chronology
Held at the University of Gothenburg 20th22nd August 1987, ed. P. Astr6m. Gothenburg: 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. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Paliistina- Vereins 95:
121-65.
Krauss, R.
1978
Das Ende der Amarnazeit. Hildesheimer
Agyptologische Beitrage 7. Hildesheim:
Gerstenberg.
1985
Sothis- und Monddaten,Studienzur astronomischen und technischen Chronologie Altiigyptens. HildesheimerAgyptologische Beitrige
20. Hildesheim: Gerstenberg.
Kunter, M.
1977
Kamid el-Loz 4. Anthropologische Untersuchung der menschlichen Skelettreste aus dem
eisenzeitlichen Friedhof SaarbrtickerBeitrige
zur Altertumskunde 19, eds. R. Hachmann
and W. Schmitthenner. Bonn: Rudolf Habelt.

69

Larsen, H.
1936
Vorbericht Oiberdie schwedischen Grabungen
in Abu Ghalib 1932-1934. Mitteilungen des
Deutschen Institutsfiir iigyptische Altertumskunde in Kairo 6: 41-82.
1941
Vorbericht uiberdie schwedischen Grabungen
in Abu Ghalib 1936/1937. Mitteilungen des
Deutschen Institutsfiir diigyptischeAltertumskunde in Kairo 10: 1-59.
Loud, G.
1948
Megiddo II: Seasons of 1935-39. Oriental Institute Publications 62. Chicago: University
of Chicago.
Luft, U.
Noch einmal zum Ebers-Kalender. GBttinger
1986
Miszellen 92: 69-77.
In press Illahunstudien IV. Oikumene 6.
Lugn, P.
1932
Svenska grivningar i Egypten vintern 19311932. En preliminarredog6relse. 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 elDabca, 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. Zeitschriftfiir Agyptische Sprache
und Altertumskunde 23: 3-13.
P.
Matthiae,
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 Mediterranean 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 Archaeology 39, ed. P. Astrom. Gothenburg: Studies
in Mediterranean Archaeology.
The Cypriote Bronze Age Pottery Found in
1975
Egypt: A Reply. Report of the Department of
Antiquities Cyprus, 1975: 81-90.

70
1978

MANFRED BIETAK

El-Lisht and Tell el-Yahudiya Ware in the


Archaeological Museum of the American University of Beirut. Levant 10: 75-98.
Montet, P.
1928- Byblos et l'Egypte. 2 vols. Bibliothbque ar1929
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. Wiesbaden: 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 Period. 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 WarriorTomb at Beth
Shan. Zeitschrift des Deutschen PaliistinaVereins87: 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
Archaeological Research
Israel Exploration Journal 33:
Project, 1983..Hefer
265-66.
1984
The cEmeq 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 Liaison du Groupe international d'dtude de la
ciramique igyptienne 12: 5-9.

BASOR 281

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. Medelhavsmuseet 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 Weaponsof the Earlyand 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. American Journal of Archaeology 88: 485-88.
Porada, E. et al.
1990
The Chronology of Mesopotamia, ca. 70001600 B.C. In Chronologies in Old World Archaeology, 3d ed., ed. R. W. Ehrich. Chicago: 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 Mortals. 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 Inscriptionfrom Karnak and Egyptian
Involvement in WesternAsia During the Early
18th Dynasty. Journal of the American Oriental Society 99: 270-87.
Redmount, C. A.
1983
Tell el-Maskhouta. Bulletin de Liaison du
Groupe internationaled'dtudede la ciramique
igyptienne 8: 8-9.
Forth- The WadiTumilatProject 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: Peabody Museum of Harvard University.

1991

EGYPT AND CANAAN IN THE MIDDLE BRONZE AGE

71

Clay Sealings of Dynasty XIII from Uronarti Tufnell, O.


The Pottery from Royal Tombs I-III at
1969
Fort. Kush 3: 26-69.
Byblos. Berytus 18: 5-33.
Rowton, M. B.
1984
Studies on Scarab Seals, Vol. II. Scarab Seals
1970
[Chronology] II. Ancient Western Asia.
and
their Contribution to History in the Early
Vol.
I
in
Part
of
193-239
The
Cam1,
Pp.
Second
Millennium B.C. Warminster: Aris &
Ancient
3d
eds.
E.
S.
I.
ed.,
bridge
History,
Phillips.
Edwards, C. J. Gadd, and N. G. L. HamTufnell, 0., and Ward, W. A.
mond. Cambridge: Cambridge University.
1966
Relations between Byblos, Egypt and MesoScandone Matthiae, G.
at the End of the Third Millennium
potamia
1979
Un oggetto faraonico della XIII dinastia dalla
A Study of the Montet Jar. Syria 43:
B.c.
"Tomba del Signore dei capridi."Studi Eblaiti
165-241.
1: 119-28.
van den Brink, E. C. M.
1982
Ebla und Agypten im Alten und Mittleren
1982
Tombs and Burial Customs at Tell el-Dabca.
Reich. Antike Welt 13, no. 1: 14-17.
zur Agyptologie 4. Vienna: AfroBeitrige
Seger, J. D.
Pub.
1965
The Pottery of Palestine at the Close of the
1987
A Geo-Archaeological Survey in the NorthMiddle Bronze Age. Unpublished Ph.D. DisEastern Nile Delta, Egypt; the First Two Seasertation, Harvard University.
sons, a Preliminary Report. Mitteilungen des
1974
The Middle Bronze IIC Date of the East Gate
Deutschen Archaiologischen Instituts Abteiat Shechem. Levant 6: 117-30.
lung Kairo 43: 7-31.
1975
The MB II Fortifications at Shechem and Vandersleyen, C.
Gezer: A Hyksos Retrospective. Eretz-Israel
1971
Les guerres d'Amosis, fondateur de la XVIIIe
12: 34*-45*.
dynastie. Monographies Reine 1Elisabeth I.
Brussels: Fondation Egyptologique Reine
Seidlmeier, S. J.
1986
Graberfelder aus dem tbergang vom Alten
Elisabeth.
zum Mittleren Reich: Studien zur Archiologie Van Seters, J.
der Ersten Zwischenzeit. Dissertation Heidel1966
The Hyksos: A New Investigation. New Haven, CT: Yale University.
berg 1986.
Von Beckerath, J.
Sethe, K.
1927- Urkunden der 18. Dynastie. 4 vols. 2d ed.
1964
Untersuchungen zur politischen Geschichte
1930
Urkunden des agyptischen Altertums IV, ed.
der zweiten Zwischenzeit in Agypten. gypG. Steindorff. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs.
tologische Forschungen 23. Gliickstadt: J. J.
Shea, W.
Augustin.
1979
The Conquests of Sharuhen and Megiddo
1987
Das Kalendarium des Papyrus Ebers und das
Reconsidered. Israel Exploration Journal
Sothisdatum vom 9. Jahr Amenophis' I.
29: 1-5.
Studien zur altiigyptischen Kultur 14: 27-33.
Stewart, J. R., et al.
Ward, W. A.
1974
Tellel CAjjfl:The Middle Bronze Age Remains,
1976
Some Personal Names of the Hyksos Period
ed. H. E. Kassis. Studies in Mediterranean
Rulers and Notes on the Epigraphy of their
Scarabs. Ugarit-Forschungen 8: 353-69.
Archaeology 38, ed. P. Astrim. Gothenburg:
1978a Scarabs from the Montet Jar. A Late Eleventh
Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology.
Stiebing, W. H.
Dynasty Collection at Byblos. Berytus 26:
1970
Burial Practices in Palestine During the
37-53.
1978b Studies on Scarab Seals, Vol. I. Pre-12th
Bronze Age. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation,
Dynasty Scarab Amulets. Warminster:Aris &
University of Pennsylvania.
1971
Hyksos Burials in Palestine: A Review of the
Phillips.
1987
Scarab Typology and Archaeological ConEvidence. Journal of Near Eastern Studies
30: 110-17.
text. American Journal of Archaeology 91:
507-32.
Stock, H.
Studien zur Geschichte und Archiiologie der Weinstein, J. M.
1942
1975
13. bis 17. Dynastie Agyptens. Agyptologische
Egyptian Relations with Palestine in the
Middle Kingdom. Bulletin of the American
Forschungen 12. New York: J. J. Augustin.
Schools of Oriental Research 217: 1-16.
Tubb, J. N.
The MB IIA Period in Palestine: Its Rela1983
1982
The Egyptian Empire in Palestine: A Reassessment. Bulletin of the American Schools of
tionship with Syria and its Origin. Levant
Oriental Research 241: 1-28.
15: 49-62.
1955

72

MANFRED BIETAK

Wente, E. F., and Van Siclen, C. C., III


1976
A Chronology of the New Kingdom. Pp. 21761 in Studies in Honor of George R. Hughes,
January 12, 1977, eds. J. H. Johnson and
E. F. Wente. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 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 Untersuchungen an den Skelettresten der Kampagnen
1966-1969, 1975-80, 1985 (Grabungsfeld A).
Untersuchungen der Zweigstelle Kairo des
OsterreichischenArchiologischen Institutes 9.
Vienna: Verlag der Osterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
L.
Woolley,
Alalakh: An Account of the Excavations at
1955
Tell Atchana in the Hatay, 1937-1949. London: Society of Antiquaries.

1991

AMERICAN

ANNUAL

SCHOOLS

BASOR 281

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 Recovered from the Shechem Excavations 1964.
Opuscula Atheniensia 7: 47-75.
Yacoub, F.
1983
Excavations at Tell Farasha. Annales du Service 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. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Paliistina- Vereins 94:
1-23.

MEETING

OF

ORIENTAL

RESEARCH

November21-25, 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

Verwandte Interessen