Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
2 (2009) 211234
ISSN (Print) 0952-7648
ISSN (Online) 1743-1700
Caitln E. Barrett
Department of History, Columbia University, 611 Fayerweather Hall, Mail Code 2527, New York, NY
10027, USA. Email: ceb2165@columbia.edu
Abstract
This paper investigates the Egyptian valuation of imported Minoan and locally produced Minoanizing
pottery: that is, why Egyptians found this pottery desirable, which Egyptians wanted it, and which were
able to acquire it. In order to address these questions, this study first reviews the archaeological contexts
of all Minoan and Minoanizing pottery in Egypt, and then compares this archaeological evidence to the
textual and iconographic data on Egyptian attitudes towards Minoan goods. The results suggest that while
ownership of this pottery may have carried some cultural cachet as a mark of cosmopolitan sensibilities, it
was not restricted to the highest officials. Instead, the more widespread availability of Minoan and Mi-
noanizing pottery may have enabled Egyptians from various socioeconomic backgrounds to participate in
an internationalizing cultural milieu.
Keywords: New Kingdom Egypt, Minoans, trade/exchange, concepts of value, prestige, status, pottery
styles
Introduction
desirable and extremely hard to acquire. Archae-
Amongst many goods traded between Bronze ologists may examine accessibility by observ-
Age Egypt and Crete (e.g., Warren 2000; on ing the restrictions on the distribution of
Bronze Age trade generally, see Sherratt and objects, but without texts it is harder to measure
Sherratt 1991; Bevan 2007: 30-38), pottery these objects desirability. In Egypt, however, a
attracts particular attention as a chronological variety of iconographic and textual references to
indicator. Many scholars use Minoan pottery Minoans and Minoan imports provides just such
in Egypt to link the Aegeans relative chronol- data. Most of these documents originate in a pa-
ogy to the more secure Egyptian absolute chro- latial or otherwise elite setting and seldom refer
nology (see, e.g., Clines 2008 overview of the to pottery per se. Nonetheless they do shed light
resulting debate). Comparatively little discus- on the broader question of Egyptian attitudes
sion, however, has focused on the meanings and toward Minoan society and culture, and the very
values Egyptians attached to imported Minoan absence of pottery from elite representations of
pottery and its locally-produced imitations. desirable Minoan imports is itself a clue to the
Building on the work of Simmel (1930: 3-29), potterys perceived value (or lack thereof ) relative
van Wijngaarden (1999: 3) defines value as an to other goods. Additionally, the archaeological
interaction between the desirability of an object contexts of Minoan and Minoanizing pottery
and the difficulty of accessing it (cf. Bevan 2007: in Egypt provide essential information on these
8-18): high-value objects are both extremely objects use and valuation. In order to determine
The Fund for Mediterranean Archaeology/Equinox Publishing Ltd., 2009 doi: 10.1558/jmea.v22i2.211
212 Barrett
who owned these vessels and how they used material disappeared from Crete after LM IIIB
them, this paper first reviews the archaeological (Phillips 2005). No pre-MM Aegean pottery is
contexts of all currently-published imported or attested in Egypt, although Egyptian and Egyp-
imitated vessels of the Middle Minoan (MM) IB tianizing artifacts appear in Crete as early as the
through Late Minoan (LM) IB periods in Egypt, Prepalatial period (Phillips 1991; 1996; 2008;
and then compares this archaeological evidence Carinci 2000: 31-33; Pini 2000; Bevan 2007:
to textual and iconographic data on Egyptian 94-96; Colburn 2008).
attitudes towards Minoan goods. As the focus of the present investigation is not
This study excludes all sherds of possible Myc- primarily chronological, the ongoing debate on
enaean origin (e.g., Kemp and Merrillees 1980: high versus low Aegean chronologies is beyond
232, 242; Hankey and Leonard 1998: 32-33). this studys scope. Table 1 summarizes the two
After the reign of Tuthmosis II (ca. 1492-1479 major arguments for correlating the Aegean chro-
BC), Aegean vessels in Egypt were mostly Myc- nology to the Egyptian sequence; but instead of
enaean, very different in form and function assigning absolute dates to Minoan periods, this
from their Minoan predecessors; and Egyptian study merely offers the current Egyptological
Table 1. Concordance of Egyptian chronology with the high and low Aegean chronologies.
Figure 1. Vessel BM A 562 from Kahun (Table 2, row 1): an Egyptian-made vessel with Minoanizing form and decora-
tion. (After Kemp and Merrillees 1980: 69, fig. 28.)
Table 2. Middle Minoan imports and imitations from Middle Kingdom contexts in Egypt and Nubia.
The Fund for Mediterranean Archaeology/Equinox Publishing Ltd., 2009
The Perceived Value of Minoan and Minoanizing Pottery in Egypt 215
Figure 2. Fragment of the base of a Kamares vessel, inner side, from the 13th-dynasty palace gardens at Tell el-Dabaa
(Table 2, row 9). Base diameter 5.5 cm; wall thickness 2 mm. (After Hein 1994: no. 234.)
Figure 3. Fragment of the base of an imported Kamares vessel, outer side, from the 13th-dynasty palace gardens at Tell
el-Dabaa (Table 2, row 9). Base diameter 5.5 cm; wall thickness 2 mm. (After Hein 1994: no. 234.)
Figure 4. The Qubbet el-Hawa vase (Table 2, row 7). Height: 10 cm. (After Edel 1980: 199, Abb. 60.)
for non-palatial MM pottery). Many Kamares 1998: 35-36). Egyptian potters at Tell el-Dabaa
forms are designed for eating and drinking (Day also imitated one vessel typethe rhyton, typi-
and Wilson 1998: 350-57), perhaps suggest- cally associated with Minoan cult activities such
ing conspicuous consumption at feasts (Wright as ritual processions, libation, and communal
2004). The definitive catalog of MM pottery in drinking (Walberg 1987b: 171; Koehl 2000:
Egypt remains Kemp and Merrillees (1980), al- 99-100; on Type III CV Conical rhyta, see
though one must now add the more recent finds Koehl 2006: 65, 343, 353). Egyptian craftsmen
from Tell el-Dabaa and Ezbet Rushdi. Table 2 also produced faience rhyta (Koehl 2000; 2006:
summarizes current knowledge on MM pottery 238-20), although non-pottery vessels are out-
in Egypt (see also Figures 1-4). side this studys scope.
Post-Kamares Minoan imports in the Second It is still debatable whether Minoan palaces
Intermediate Period (1650-1550 BC) and early controlled long-distance trade or whether Crete
New Kingdom (1550, through at least the reign produced independent/semi-independent mer-
of Tuthmosis II, 1492-1479 BC) were primarily chants; even in Mycenaean times, the absence of
Late Minoan fine wares (Table 3; Figure 5). LM long-distance trade from the Linear B texts ob-
pottery in Egypt was also typically high qual- scures the palaces role in exchange (see the over-
ity, and its frequently ornate painting and fine view of these problems in Koehl 2008a: 270). In
fabrics testify to its status as a prestige item on Egypt, traders (wty) were typically commissioned
Crete (Warren 1995: 8; Hankey and Leonard by temples or officials, but may also have car-
Sidmant LM IB hole-mouthed pot (Figure 5) Tomb. This pot is the only LM Merrillees (1972: 283); Kemp and
(Cemetery A, IB vessel found through scientific Merrillees (1980: 228-31, fig. 70);
Tomb 137) excavation in Egypt (Merrillees and Warren (1985: 150)
Winter 1972: 108).
Sidmant? LM IB bridge-spouted jug handle Seemingly from the excavations of Kemp and Merrillees (1980: 226-28,
the British School of Archaeology in 230, fig. 71)
Egypt, 1919-1921; possibly from a
tomb at Sidmant
Abydos (Tomb Rim of a LM IB spouted bowl Tomb, late MK/2nd Intermediate Kemp and Merrillees (1980: 232-42,
328) Period; disturbed fig. 72); Warren (1985: 149)
Abydos Probable LM sherds, possibly from a Possibly from a tomb; context unclear Kemp and Merrillees (1980: 240-42,
bridge-spouted jug fig. 75)
Aniba Imitation LM I alabastron Tomb, possibly that of an Woolley (1910: 47-48); Kemp and
Egyptianized Nubian; New Kingdom Merrillees (1980: 242-43); Warren
(1985: 150)
Kerma W. Stevenson Smith (1965: 39-40; Room in the fortified Lower Deffufa W. Stevenson Smith (1865: 39-40);
cf. Warren 1985: 150) identified one Kemp and Merrillees (1980: 244);
spiral-decorated sherd as Aegean, but Warren (1985: 150); Hankey and
this was probably a misidentification; Leonard (1998: 31)
the fabric is local, and the decoration
is not sufficiently distinctive to prove
an Aegean link (Kemp and Merrillees
1980: 244; Hankey and Leonard
1998: 31).
Arminna Imitation LM rhyton Tomb, 18th dynasty Simpson (1963: 31, fig. 24, pl. XV):
Koehl (2000: 96)
Tell el-Dabaa Several imitation LM IA rhyta Fragmentary rhyta: Tuthmoside Hein (1994: 245, 261, nos. 314, 359);
and a fragmentary amphoriskos, waste deposit. Complete rhyton: Bietak (1996: 70-72); Hankey and
perhaps Levantine in origin, whose 18th-dynasty palace magazine. Leonard (1998: 35); Manning (1999:
decoration shows LM IA affinities Amphoriskos: Tuthmoside waste 114-15); Bietak (2000: 192; 2004:
(Hein 1994: 261, no. 359; Bietak deposit associated with palace. 209-210); Karetsou (2000: no. 126);
1996: 70-72; Manning 1999: Bietak et al. (2001: 37, 41, fig. 6, no. 7)
114-15; Bietak 2004: 209-210)
Kom Rabiaa LM sherd, probably from a bridge- Stratum of mud and mud-brick Warren and Hankey (1989: 139);
spouted vase, but possibly a conical debris within a settlement Bourriau and Eriksson (1997); Hankey
rhyton or baggy alabastron (Warren and Leonard (1998: 31)
and Hankey 1989: 139-40)
Deir el- Imitation LM IA rhyton Unclear; possibly from Deir el- Koehl (2006: 239, no. E5)
Medina? Medina
Egypt; The LM IB Abbott Jug and two Old museum records, publications, Kemp and Merrillees (1980: 226);
provenance LM IB cups. (Extant records are and residues on the vessels testify to Merrillees (1972); Merrillees and
unknown unclear on the origins of other LM Egyptian origins, although specific Winter (1972); Karetsou (2000: nos.
IB vessels potentially from Egypt, sites are unknown. The excellent 120a-121)
such as the Marseilles ewer and preservation of the Abbott Jug
two other cups; see Merrillees 1972: implies a funerary findspot (Merrillees
284.) and Winter 1972: 106).
Gurob LM IIIA:2 conical rhyton Tomb, late 18th dynasty Koehl (2006: 65, 170, 345-364, with
bibliography)
Nubia; Imitation LM IA rhyton with red- Said to come from a New Kingdom Holthoer (1977: 91-92, pls. 20, 53);
provenance painted rim context; no further information Koehl (2006: 239)
unknown available (Holthoer 1977: 91).
Figure 5. Late Minoan IB pot from Tomb 137, Cemetery A, Sidmant (Table 3, row 1). (After Kemp and Merrillees
1980: 229, fig. 70.)
ried out informal transactions on the side (Kemp 1991: 149; OConnor 1997). Many papyri, in-
1991: 257; Warburton 1997: 308, 323-24). cluding private letters (Collier and Quirke 2002),
testify to a literate, educated population at Kahun,
Archaeological Contexts of Minoan/Minoan- and the Minoan sherds need not only have come
izing Pottery in Egypt from smaller houses (Fitton et al. 1998: 131; Wal-
As Tables 2 and 3 suggest, the findspots of Minoan berg 2001: 17). Rather, these sherds came from
and imitation-Minoan pottery in Egypt suggest a various places in the town, including dumps, and
diverse range of social contexts. Many vessels come specific find sites were only recorded minimally
from settlement contexts, especially at Kahun, el- (Kemp and Merrillees 1980: 80; Gallorini 1998).
Haraga, and el-Lisht, and probably saw domestic use The pottery collected by the excavators may well
(Table 2, rows 1-5; Figure 1). Kemp and Merrillees have stressed unusual pieces such as the Minoan
(1980: 285; cf. Merrillees 2003: 139) somewhat material, biasing their representation in the cor-
misleadingly characterize these sites inhabitants pus as a whole. Nonetheless, the high amount of
as people of humble means; but the urban com- Minoan pottery at these sites probably relates to
plex that included Kahun and el-Haraga was not their advantageous placement for trade within the
just any community. The site was devoted to the newly prosperous Fayum (Kemp and Merrillees
administration of the mortuary cult of Sesostris II 1980: 87-88). At Lisht, the presence of foreign ves-
(reigned 1877-70 BC), housing not only workmen sels recalls the proximity of Itjtawy, the 12th- and
on royal tombs, but also the dead kings priests and 13th-dynasty royal capital, but the vessels contexts
cult officiants (Kemp 1983: 92, 103, 149; Kemp (Table 2, rows 4, 5) suggest private ownership.