merrillees, r. s. aegean bronze age relations with egypt

7/23/2019 Merrillees, R. S. Aegean Bronze Age Relations With Egypt.

1/15

Archaeological Institute of Americais collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to American Journal

of Archaeology.

http://www.jstor.org

Aegean Bronze Age Relations with EgyptAuthor(s): R. S. MerrilleesSource: American Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 76, No. 3 (Jul., 1972), pp. 281-294Published by: Archaeological Institute of AmericaStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/503921Accessed: 24-09-2015 23:01 UTC

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 contentin 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 [email protected].

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Thu, 24 Sep 2015 23:01:16 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aiahttp://www.jstor.org/stable/503921http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/503921http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aiahttp://www.jstor.org/


2/15

1972]

EDITH PORADA

ETAL.

281

ion,

ca.

1595,

and

later,

at

the time when

the

Marduk

statue

was

returned. Brinkman

replied

that

we can

assume

that the Kassites

profited

from

the

Hittite sack

of

Babylon

as

they

were able to

take over

when

the

Hittites withdrew.

He

men-

tioned the Kassite camps outside of Sippar and

thought

that

there

might

have

been an

understand-

ing

between the

Kassites and the

Hittites,

as the

latter

may

have

had to have

come

through

Kassite

territory

on their

way

to

Babylon

from the

west.

He

said

it

was

difficult

to

reconstruct

the

political

situation behind

these

events

and

the return

of the

Marduk statue

twenty-four years

later.

An

in-

scription

of

Agum-kakrime

(ca.

1570

B.c.)

tells

how

the statue

was

brought

back from the

land

of

Hani and how the shrine had to be

restored

and new clothes made for the statue which had lost

its

gold finery.

In a later

text,

the

god

Marduk

tells of his

journey

and

how

he

had set

up

Baby-

lonian caravan routes in Hittite lands.

Brinkman

felt

that

Hatti,

rather

than Hana

(as

sometimes

thought)

was

the

correct

nterpretation

f

Hani.

E. Yar-Shater sked about

the

role of the

Medes

in

addition to the

Babylonians

n

weakening

the

Assyrian

Empire.

Brinkmannoted that

when the

last cities fell-Ashur, Nineveh and Harran-the

Babylonians

id

not

always

arrive

n time

to

sup-

port

the

Medes.

He

also

suggested

hat

the

Medes

had a

greater

ole,

as

they

were in

controlof Har-

ran

and

most of

Assyria

after

the

collapse

of the

Assyrian

Empire.

He

felt, however,

hat

the

Medes

had

not

been

as

much of a

drain on

Assyrian

energy

and

resourcesas the

Babylonians

n

the

preceding

centuries.

Although

the

Medes

were

sometimes

named as the

objects

of

Assyrian

cam-

paigns

in the

eighth

and seventh

centuries

B.c.,

these campaignsseem to have been carriedout

largely

for the

economic

benefit

of

the

Assyrians

and were not

due to

any

particular

hreat from

the

Medes

at that

time.

Aegean

Bronze

Age

Relations with

Egypt

R. S.

MERRILLEES

There are

three

basic dimensions

to our

study

of

ancient civilizations

and

their interconnections.The

first

is

archaeological,

which

is here used in the

restricted

sense of

material

culture or

small

finds,

comprising

essentially

artefacts,

such as

pottery.

The

second,

which

I

have called

for

convenience

art

history,

takes

in

conceptual

creations

such

as

pictorial

representations,

and is confined for the

purposes

of this

study

to

the

portrayal

of

Aegean

peoples

and their works.

The third dimension con-

sists

of the information

supplied

by

written records.

For

analytical purposes

these

aspects

cover the

full

range

of

human achievements

as reflected

in

remains from the past, even though they make no

allowance

for

the

study

of the

natural sciences

insofar

as

they

had

an

impact

on the

average

life

of

the

ancients.

So,

if we wish to draw conclusions

on

the

nature

and

historical

significance

of

Minoan

and

Mycenaean

relations

with

Egypt,

our

assem-

blage

of

the extant

data

should be

comprehensive

and

all-embracing,

as

only

a multidimensional

ap-

proach

will

be

able

to

minimize the

uncertainty

factor

inherent

in all

empirical

deductions.

Having

said

this,

I

would

not

wish it

thought

that

the

following

review

of evidence from

the

Nile

Valley

is

exhaustive,

as that is not

the

essential

aim of

this

paper,

or

that it

will

automatically

lend

itself to a

ready

understanding,

let alone

resolution,

of

the

many

problems

that

emerge

from

correlating

archaeological, graphic

and textual

evidence

for

Aegean

Bronze

Age

connections

with

Egypt.

But

by

revealing

the

gaps

and

inconsistencies

in

our

present

factual

record,

it should

point

the

way

to

a

more constructive

line of research

that

would

seek

to

reconcile the

apparent

omissions

and

contradic-

tions in the

available

data,

and

make

the

history

of

Minoan and

Mycenaean

relations

with

Egypt

more

intelligent

and more

intelligible.

Let me first introduce the subject against its his-

torical and

cultural

background.

At

the

end

of

this

paper

is a

list

of the

Pharaohs

of the

XVIIIth

Dynasty,

with

their

dates,

following

for

conveni-

ence

the

chronology

adopted by

the

revised

CAH.

It

must be

understood that this

choice

is

quite

arbitrary

on

my

part,

as I

lay

no claim

to

expertise

in this field.

With dates

as

widely

divergent

as

about

1580

and

1530

B.c.

for

the

beginning

of

the

XVIIIth

Dynasty,

it becomes

impossible

for

an

external

student of

Egyptian

archaeology

to

do

more than

opt

for

the

chronology

of

greatest

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


3/15

282

EDITH

PORADA

T AL.

[AJA

76

academic

respectability.

This

is not

necessarily

synonymous

with

accuracy.

Second,

I

have

included

certain

titles,

Dynasty

XVIII

A-D,

which

span

the

reigns

of

a

succession of

Pharaohs,

titles

which

I

have

already

used'

to

designate

cultural

subdivi-

sions in the XVIIIth Dynasty and hence a system

of relative

chronology.

While

carrying

out

the

research for

my

thesis,

it

became

evident that

there

was

need

for a

greater

flexibility

in

dating

Egyptian

deposits

than

was

afforded

by

strict

adherence to

the

sequence

of

Pharaohs'

reigns.

Not

only

did

many

deposits

lack

objects

inscribed

with a

royal

name,

but

it

seemed

likely

that the

contents

of

a

house

or

tomb,

particularly

if

disturbed,

could

cover a

period

em-

bracing

the

reigns

of

more

than

one

ruler.

For

these reasons I set out to identify an assemblage

of

archaeological

artefacts

having

forms,

materials

and

styles

characteristic

of a

period

of

cultural de-

velopment,

which

corresponded

to

a

limited

succes-

sion

of

Pharaonic

reigns.

To

explain

in

detail

how

I

arrived

at

this scheme

would

require

several more

dissertations;

therefore,

to

allow

myself

the

con-

venience

of this

nomenclature

without

straining

the

reader's

credulity

too

much,

I

shall,

wherever

possible

within the

cultural

framework

given,

make

specific

reference

to

the rules

of

individual

Pharaohs.

It

is,

however,

necessary

to

mention the

problems

inherent

in

establishing

the

range

of

dates

to which

a

group

of

objects

from

a closed

deposit

in

Egypt

may

belong. Nearly

all

the

archaeological

material

with

which we

are

concerned

here

has been

re-

coveredfrom

graves,

and

therefore

brings

into

play

special

factors

which

require

equally

special

atten-

tion and

definition.

It

is

an

axiom

of our

methods

of

interpretation

that

the

objects

from

a

circum-

scribed and

undisturbed

deposit

should

be

dated

contextually by

the

age

of

the latest item

found

in the assemblage.This does not, however, imply

that all the

objects

from

the

same

group

must

necessarily

have been

made

at the

same

time.

There

are certain

tomb

groups

which

demonstrate

beyond

doubt that

funerary

objects

could

and

did

cover

a

wide

range

in

time,

even

though

they

were

all

deposited

at the

same

moment in

their

final

resting

place.

One

of

the best

examples

is

supplied

by

the

tomb

of the XVIIIth

Dynasty

architect, Kha,

which

was found

intact

at Thebes

by

the Italian

Archae-

ological

Expedition

led

by

Ernesto

Schiaparelli

in

I906.2

From

inscriptions

in

the tomb

we know

that

Kha,

though

not a nobleman

by

birth,

occupied

the

posts

of Chief

in the Great

Palace

and

Director

of Public

Works

in the

royal

administration.

He

had

evidently

been rewarded

for

his

services,

both

in life and

in

death,

with handsome

presents,

not

only

from other

senior officials

but

even from

the

Pharaohsthemselves.

The earliest

of the

royal gifts

is a

measuring

rod or cubit

52.5

cm.

long,

made

of

gold

leaf

impressed

with cartouches

containing

the

name

of

Amenhotep II.V

Because

of the

richness

of its material

and

the fineness

of the

work,

par-

ticularly the inscriptions, Schiaparelli considered

that

the cubit could

not

have been

an

object

of

private

character

or

use,

but was

evidently

a

com-

memorative

article

of no

practical

value

belonging

to

the Pharaoh

and made

for him. Its

presence

in a

private

tomb can

accordingly

be

explained

in

no

other

way

than as

a

presentation

to Kha

from

Amenhotep

II

himself.

And

since one

of the

in-

scriptions

recordsthe dedication

of a small

temple

of

Amenhotep

II at

Hermopolis,

Schiaparelli

con-

cludes that

Kha in

his

capacity

as Director

of

Pub-

lic Works

was not unassociated

with the

construc-

tion of

this

monument.

Kha's

tomb also contained

a

writing

case

bearing

the name

of Thutmose

IV,

who succeeded

Amen-

hotep

II,

and of

a

senior

official

Amenmose,

whose

most

important

responsibility

was

the

Treasury.4

It must

be

assumed

that this

object

was made

dur-

ing

the

reign

of

Thutmose

IV and

was

given

by

Amenmose

to his

colleague

in

the

civil

service.

Finally

Kha

had also

been

presented

with

an

elec-

trum

cup by

Amenhotep

III,

whose

name

appears

in the cartouche

on the

side.5

Nothing

dating

later

than the

reign

of

Amenhotep

III was encountered

in

the tomb.

These

articles,

the

chronology

of

which is

firmly

established,

showed

that

the

rest of

the

grave-goods

interred

with Kha could

hypothetically

have

been

made

or come

into the

deceased's

possession

any

time

during

the

reigns

of

Amenhotep

II,

Thutmose

IV or

Amenhotep

III,

a

possible

span

of

about

75

1

R.

S.

Merrillees,

The

Cypriote

Bronze

Age

Pottery

Found

in

Egypt

(Studies

in

Mediterranean

Archaeology

XVIII,

Lund

1968)

(thereafter

Merrillees).

2

E.

Schiaparelli,

La

tomba

intatta

dell'architetto

Cha

nella

necropoli di Tebe (Relazioni sui lavori della missione archeolo-

gica

italiana

in

Egitto

anni

1903-1920,

II,

Turin

1927).

3

Ibid.

I69ff,

figs.

154-156.

4Ibid.

81,

fig.

48.

5Ibid.

172,

fig.

157.



4/15

1972]

CHRONOLOGIES

IN

OLD

WORLD

ARCHAEOLOGY

283

years.

Without

inscriptions,

it is not

possible

to

pin

down in

time

any

one

of

the

other

objects,

though

there

can

be

no doubt that

they

were all

finally

placed

in

the

grave

during

the

reign

of

Amenhotep

III.

Archaeologically,however, it is possible to detect

items whose

antiquity

in

relation

to the

goods

with

which

they

were

contextually

associated

is

readily apparent.

A

very good

illustration

of

this

phenomenon

is

provided

by

Sidmant

Tomb

254,

which

was

found

intact.

Among

the

offerings

in

this

grave

was

a

tall narrow

conical

vase

of alabas-

ter.

The other

vases

of stone and

pottery

found

in

the tomb

were

practically

complete,

but the

coni-

cal alabaster

vase

had lost

its

handle

in

antiquity

and

had

been buried

without

it.

This,

however,

is not the only feature which suggests that even

though

it was

deposited

at the same

time as

the

other

offerings,

it was

already

old at

the time

of

its

burial.

In

the

first

place

this

group

can

be con-

clusively

dated to

Dynasty

XVIII

B.7

In this

context

the

conical

vase

is a

typological

and

chronological

misfit:

the

latest

example

of

this

kind

I have

been

able

to find comes from

a

grave

at

Gurob,

which

certainly

belongs

to

Dynasty

XVIII

A and

can

probably

be more

specifically

assigned

to

the time

of

Amenhotep

I. The

best

parallel

occurs

in a tomb

at

Abydos,

the

contents

of

which

probably

date

to the

second

half of

the

Second

Intermediate

Period. This alabaster

vessel,

therefore,

on

grounds

both

of condition

and

type,

is almost

certainly

older

than

most,

if not

all

of

the

other

objects

which

accompanied

it

in

Sidmant

Tomb

254-

This

has

important

chronological

implications

for

the

Cypriote

Base-ring

I

juglets

from the

same

deposit.

In

the

first

place

they,

like

the

remain-

ing objects,

could

have

been

placed

in the

tomb

at

any point

within

Dynasty

XVIII

B,

that

is

over a

5o-year

period.

But at least one of the con-

tents,

the

conical

vase,

was

undoubtedly

made

earlier

than

the

bulk of

the

other

Egyptian

artefacts,

and we

have

no

way

of

establishing

how

much

earlier,

not

to

mention

whether

the

Cypriote

im-

ports

had

been in

the

possession

of

the deceased

before

burial.

Therefore the

hypothetical

time

span

for the

Base-ring

I

juglets

could

be

as much as

75

years,

if

not

more. As a result

it becomes

impos-

sible to insist

dogmatically

on the

chronological

validity

for

archaeological

remains of the

terminal

date

for

the

deposit

in which

they

occur. The

possi-

bility

must

always

remain that one or more of the

contents has a

higher

chronology.

These

findings,

of

course,

apply

without

qualification

to

the

funerary

contexts in

which

Minoan

and

Mycenaean

pottery

has been

found,

and

provide

the

indispensable

back-

ground against

which all

terminal dates must be

seen.

Only

if

allowance

is

made

for

this factor

can

we

proceed

with the

subject

matter of this

paper

in consecutive

chronological

fashion.

If

in

the

course

of

the

following survey

I have

tended to

presume

that

the

Aegean

Bronze

Age

vases date to the same time as the closure of the

deposit

of which

they

are

part,

it is

largely

for

the

sake

of

convenience,

because there

is

no reason to

believe that

they

are

necessarily

older

than

the ob-

jects

with

which

they

are

contextually

associated.

In

any

case,

the relative

chronology by

which

the

deposits

are

dated allows

sufficient

latitude

in time

to

satisfy

the criteria

we

have

just

established.

We

can

nevertheless

derive little comfort

from such

well-based

imprecision.

We

begin

with

Dynasty

XVIII

A,

which

embraces

the

reigns

of

Ahmose

I,

founder of the XVIIIth Dynasty, Amenhotep I,

Thutmose

I

and

II,

a

period

of

about

65 years

in

the

sixteenth

century

B.C.

Starting

with

the

archaeological

evidence,

we

are

confronted

with

a

striking paucity

of

Minoan

ceramic

imports

to the Nile

Valley.

Of

the

seven

late

Minoan

IB

vases

attributed

to an

Egyptian

provenance,

only

one was

recovered

from scien-

tific

excavations,

a

hole-mouthed

pot

from Sidmant

Cemetery

A

Tomb

137.8

This

grave

also

contained

a

throwing

stick,

a corn

winnower

and

a

wooden

ushabti, none of which is sufficientlydistinctive to

give

any

clues

as to

the date of the

original deposit.

Cemetery

A,

however,

was not in use before

Dynas-

ty

XVIII

A and lasted

down to

the XIXth

Dynasty.

Probably

the

best known of the Cretan

pots

al-

leged

to be

found in

Egypt

is the Marseilles

ewer,

a

Late Minoan

IB jug

now in

the

Musde d'Arch6-

8

Merrillees

62ff.

7

For

comparative

data

see

Merrillees.

Briefly

the

layout

of

the

deposit,

shape

of

the

coffin

and

arrangement

of the

grave-

goods

can

be

matched

in a

tomb at

Maidum

dated to

the

time

of Thutmose

III.

The Kohl

pots

should

be no

later

than

Dynasty XVIII B, of which the stemmed handleless vase with

its

shaped

foot

is

typical.

The red

burnished fabric of two

Egyptian

vases in the

deposit

is a distinctive

feature

of

Dynasty

XVIII

B

pottery,

and a

sack-shaped

vase can

be

paralleled

in an

Abydos

tomb

group

dated to Thutmose

III.

8

Merrillees

194f.



5/15

284

EDITH PORADA

ET

AL.

[AJA

76

ologie

in

the

Chateau

Borely,

Marseilles.

Though

often

said

to have

been

found

in

Egypt,

it was

in

fact,

according

to

the

only

firsthand

information

published,

bought

in Alexandria.

These are

not

necessarily

the

same

things.

Furthermore

Perrot

and Chipiez, on whose recollections we must rely,

record

that the

pot

came

originally

from

Tyre

on

the Lebanese

Coast,

from

which

it was

brought

to

Egypt.

In

these

circumstances

it

seems

hardly

pos-

sible

to insist on a

find-spot

in

the Nile

Valley.

No

such

uncertainty

need

any

longer

surround

the

question

of where

the

equally

famous

Abbott

jug,

now

in the

Brooklyn

Museum,

was

originally

found.

Its

attribution

to lower

Egypt

can

be

proved

not

only by

its unmarked

exterior,

which

tends

to

rule out

contact

with

an

acid

soil

of the kind

that

occurs in the lands around the Aegean, but also by

the

ring

of

solid matter around

the inside of the

pot.

This

ridge evidently

represents

he

desiccated

residue

of

the substance the

vase held

at

the time

of

its

disposal.

This in itself is

enough

to confirm

an

Egyptian provenance,

since

it

is

extremely

rare

to

encounter,

outside

the

sterile

soil

bordering

the

Nile

Valley,

vases

which still

preserve

traces

of

their

original

contents.

Furthermore,

an

analysis

of the matter inside

the

jug

has

indicated that

it

must have been

buried

in

a

very

dry

climate

like

that

of

Egypt.9

The

only

other late

Minoan

IB

vases said

to

have occurred in

Egypt

are four

cups

with

vertical

strap

handles.

The

find-spot

of

one,

now

in

the

Na-

tional

Museum,

Copenhagen,

is

given

no

more

specifically

than the

Fayum.

The

remaining

three

are

in

the

Department

of

Archaeology,

University

College,

London,

but

have

no

pedigree

at

all. Of

the

two illustrated

by

Petrie, o

no.

6

has

no

con-

textual

markings

but

no.

7

has

come

out

in a

kind

of

salt fur which

is

characteristic

of

porous

clay

vessels

that have

spent

a

long

time

underground

in Egypt. The third specimen, which is unpub-

lished,

still

has

sand

lodged

in

its

interstices

and

a

patch

of the

dried-out

remains

of

its

contents

in-

side.

These

vases

do

not

make

up

a

very

impressive

total of

imports

in

either

relative

or

absolute

terms.

Yet,

despite

their

paucity

of

numbers

and

the

sketchy

nature of

the

evidence,

it

cannot be

too

misleading

o stress he

very

nsignificance

f

the

quantity

f Minoan

mports

t

this time

and

the

fact

that

hey

do notin themselves

earwitness

o

intensive

ontacts

ith

the Bronze

Age

Aegean.

Before

proceeding

ith

the contextual

nd

pic-

torialevidence,we should irsttryto establish

terminal

date for

the Late Minoan

B

imports

to

Egypt.

Since he

deposit

ontaining

he

Cretan

vase

at

Sidmant

annot

elp

us,

the

chronology

f

the earliest

Mycenaean

ottery

hould

have

some

bearing

on

a

reconstruction

f the

sequence

f

imports.

he

first act

o be noted

s that here

are

no

Mycenaean

vases

recorded

rom

Egypt.

This

in itself

s

significant,

s

Mycenaean

or Late

Hel-

ladic

synchronizes

ith

LateMinoan

in

Crete.

In

LateMinoan

I,

which

s

distinctive

eramically

at Knossos lone,and Late Helladic I, periods

which

coincide

n time

although

ulturally

he

rest

of Crete

preserves

ate

Minoan

characteristics,

the

situation

s

completely

eversed.

here

are

no

Cretan

mports

f this

period

ecorded

rom

Egypt,

whereas

mainland

Greek

pottery

f the

Mycenae-

an II

style

makes

ts initial

appearance.

Typologically

he earliest rrivals

rom

Greece

are

a few

Mycenaean

IA

vessels,

f which

only

three

can be

adequately

ated.'2

Two

of

them

came

rom

Saqqara

omb

NE

i,

which

was

found

undisturbed.

hey

are an alabastron

nd

cupand

wererecovered

omplete

rom

the

deposit.

n

the

same

group

of

objects

ccurred

carinated

Egyp-

tian

pot

with

painted

ecoration

nd

an

alabaster

kohl

pot,

for which

I

have

found

parallels

n

a

mid

Dynasty

XVIII

A

tomb

at

Thebes.

The

coffin

belongs

o theRishi

or

feathered

ype

and

s

practi-

cally

dentical

with one

from

Deir

el-Medina,

lso

at

Thebes,

which

anbe dated

y

a

scarab

f

Thut-

mose

II. On

the basis

of these

comparisons,

here

seems

ittlechoice

ut

to

opt

for a

transitional

y-

nasty

XVIII

A to B date.

The

Mycenaean

A

jar

fromthe tombof Mentuherkhepesheft Thebes

can

be

securely

ssigned

o

the

times

of

Hatshepsut

and Thutmose

II,

that

s to

Dynasty

XVIII

B.

A

Mycenaean

IA

alabastron

rom

Gurob

Tomb

245

has been

assigned

y

Brunton

nd

Engelbach

to

the time

of

Thutmose

III,

but I

have

been

un-

able to

corroborate

this

dating.3 Nevertheless,

on

9

I

am

republishing

this

vase,

together

with

an

analysis

of

its

contents

by

Dr.

J.

Winter

of

the

University

Museum,

Phila-

delphia,

in

an

article

entitled

Bronze

Age

Trade

Between

the

Aegean

and

Egypt:

Minoan

and

Mycenaean

Pottery

from

Egypt

in

the

Brooklyn

Museum,

to

appear

in

Miscellanea

Wilbouri-

ana

I

(1972),

edited

by

the

Brooklyn

Museum.

1o

W.

M.

Flinders

Petrie,

The

Making

of

Egypt

(London

1929),

pl.

LXXX.

11

F. H.

Stubbings,

in

CAH

(2nd

ed.

1962)

Fasc.

4,

74;

Lord William

Taylour,

The

Mycenaeans

(London

1964)

48.

12

Merrillees,

Index.

18

Merrillees195.



6/15

1972]

CHRONOLOGIES

IN OLD WORLD

ARCHAEOLOGY

285

the

basis

of

all

this evidence

we can

be

reasonably

certain

that

Mycenaean

IIA

pottery

did

not enter

Egypt

much,

if

at

all,

before the

reign

of

Hatshep-

sut. As

there

are no

recorded

contexts,

disturbed

or

intact,

in

which Minoan

and

Mycenaean

pots

have been found

together,

it would seem that vases

of

the

Late

Minoan

IB

period

did not

occur

in

Egypt

after the

end

of

Dynasty

XVIII A.

Turning

now

to

the

inscriptional

data,

we

need

concern

ourselves

only

with reference

to

the Keftiu

and to

the

Isles

in

the Midst of the

Sea,

as

Vercout-

ter '

has

convincingly

disposed

of

the

other

puta-

tive

names

for

the Bronze

Age

Aegeans

and their

world.

Two texts

which mention

the Keftiu have

been

dated to

the

beginning

of

the XVIIIth

Dynas-

ty.

One

is the

Papyrus

Ebers,

which

compares

an

Egyptian organic substance possessing medicinal

properties

with

the bean from

Keftiu land.

This

tells us

little

about contacts

between

Egypt

and the

Keftiu. It

may

not even

imply

the

existence

of

trade

relations,

since

I

have

argued

elsewhere that

the

determinative

could have had

generic

rather

than

geographical

or

commercial connotations. A

school exercise

board

is

more

informative about

the

Keftiu,

as it

gives

a

list

of

allegedly

Keftiu

names,

including

some that are

purely Egyptian.

Vercoutter has

carefully

examined all

possible

in-

terpretations

of

this

document. He

concludes that

by

the first half

of

the

XVIIIth

Dynasty

a con-

siderable number

of Keftiu

people

were

living

in

the Nile

Valley;

they

had

been

settled

there

long

enough

for an

Egyptian

scribe

to have

considered

it

useful

to

familiarize himself

with their

names and

for some of

the

Keftiu to have taken on

Egyptian

identities.

There is

only

one other deduction to

be

made from

this

text,

and it

is that the Keftiu

were

evidently

not

Greek-speaking,

for,

as

W.

Stevenson

Smith

points

out,

their names

bear

no

philological

resemblance

to

those

employed

in

Linear B.

Though these are the only literary remains of

Dynasty

XVIII A which contain

references

to

the

Keftiu,

we

should also take into

account

a remark-

able

glazed

steatite scarab believed

to

have been

purchased

in

Egypt

or

Paris,

and

formerly

part

of the

Spencer

Churchill

collection.15

t is

now in

the British Museum.

On

its underside is

engraved

a

border of

interlocking S-spirals,

which

originally

enclosed seven

characters.

According

to Grumach

this

row

of

signs

represents

a

Cretan

or at

least

Cretanizing

inscription

which,

to

judge

by

the

gen-

eral

appearance

of

the

characters,

may

border

on

the

transition from the

hieroglyphic

class to

Linear

A.

Though

he

finds

it

impossible

to

say

whether

the

piece

was made in Crete or

Egypt,

Dr. O'Con-

nor,

whose

opinion

I have

consulted,

thinks it

rea-

sonably

certain that

the

piece

was

made

and

en-

graved

in

Egypt.

Dr. Kenna claims that the

scarab

can

be dated

to

the

earlier

part

of the

XVIIIth

Dynasty,

though

he

adduces

comparisons

with

scarabsof

the

late Middle

Kingdom period.

It

may

also be of

significance

that

the

latest

(cultural)

date for

Linear

A

in

Crete is Late Minoan

IB,'6

which is

also

the

latest

date for

Minoan

pottery

ex-

ports

of

certain

Cretan

origin

to

Egypt.

It is also a fact of some importancethat there are

no

known

pictorial

representations

of the

Keftiu

or

any

other

foreigners

from

the

Aegean

dating

from

Dynasty

XVIII

A.

It should not be

forgotten,

however,

that

the

only paintings showing

these

visitors have

been

encountered at

Thebes,

and

at

this

site,

there are

only

seven

private

tombs

known

to

cover the

reigns

of Ahmose

I,

Amenhotep

I

and

Thutmose I

and

II. The number of tombs

belong-

ing

to the

times

of

Hatshepsut

and

Thutmose

III

shows

a

marked

and

sizable

increase,

but account

must be taken

of the

fact

that

more

than

50

XVIIIth

Dynasty

tombs

cannot

be

assigned

to the

reigns

of

any

individual

Pharaohs.

The

picture

that

emerges

from

a correlation

of

all these

elements

is,

on

the

surface at

least,

incon-

sistent.

The

only

archaeological

data

to match the

presence

in

Egypt

of

a

significant

community

of

resident

Aegeans

are a

maximum

of

seven Late

Minoan

IB

vases,

which

presumably

belong

to

Dynasty

XVIII

A,

if

not

conceivably

earlier.

In-

deed the

actual

sources of information are

so mea-

ger

that

one

would

be

forced to deduce

that con-

tact can

only

have been

spasmodic

and most

proba-

bly

indirect.

Yet,

if

nothing

else,

the

evidence

at

our

disposal

leaves little doubt

that

the

Aegeans

of

whom the texts

speak

in

Dynasty

XVIII

A were

Cretan rather than

Greek.

Only

Minoan,

not

My-

cenaean,

pottery

has

been

dated

to

this

period,

and in

any

case the

names of the

Keftiu

people

do

not

appear

to

have

been

of

Mycenaean

Greek

deri-

vation.

14

L'.gypte

et

le monde

egeen

prihellinique (Cairo

1956).

15

Kadmos

2

(1963)

Iff;

Archaeological Reports

for

z966-67

52.

18

M.

Pope, Aegean Writing

and

Linear A

(Studies

in Medi-

terranean

Archaeology

VIII,

Lund

1964)

3.



7/15

286 EDITH

PORADA

ET

AL.

[AJA

76

The

archaeological

and

pictorial

situation,

and

presumably

the

history

of connections

with

the

Bronze

Age Aegean,

is

completely

reversed

in

Dynasty

XVIII

B.

Not

only

does

Mycenaean

pot-

tery

entirely replace

Minoan in

Egyptian

deposits

of the period, but the first graphic depictions of

foreigners

from

the

Aegean

make

their

appearance

at Thebes. Yet the

respective quantities

of

Myce-

naean

IIA

and

B vases

which

have

been

assigned

an

Egyptian

provenance

are

not much

greater

than

the

total number of Late

Minoan IB con-

tainers.

I

have

previously

argued

that the earliest

datable

Mycenaean

IIA

imports

should

not

pre-

cede the transition between

Dynasty

XVIII

A and

B,

that is

about

1525/1475

B.C.

Apart

from

the

ala-

bastron and

cup

of

this

phase

from

Saqqara

Tomb

NE I and the amphora from Thebes, to which I

have

already

referred,

the

only

other

Mycenaean

II

pot

from a datable

context

is

a

squat

jug

found

in

the

tomb of Maket

at Kahun

in

lower

Egypt.'7

It

belongs

to

the

Mycenaean

IIB

period

and oc-

curred in a coffin

containing

a

scarab of Thutmose

III,

which

provides

a

terminus

ante

quem

for

the

deposit.

The

tomb, however,

also contained scarabs

of Thutmose I and

II, which,

in

the

light

of

our

discussion of the internal

chronology

of

Egyptian

contexts,

must

give

the

Mycenaean pot

a

possible

time

span

of some

75

years.

The

only

other

Mycenaean

pot

which

can be

assigned

to

Dynasty

XVIII B is not of

the

IIA

or B

phase.

It is a

Mycenaean

IIIA

jug

and

comes from

Sidmant Tomb

53,

which was

placed

by

the excava-

tors

in

the

time

of Thutmose

III.

In

addition to

the

Mycenaean

jug

there

was an

Egyptian

imita-

tion

in

red

polished

ware of a

Cypriote

Base-ring

I

juglet

and a red

polished

leather

bag-shaped

vase

of the

same

kind

as the

one

from

Sidmant Tomb

254.

This is

enough

to

confirm

the

date

proposed

by

the

excavators. 8

However

Stubbings

claims

on

stylistic grounds that the Mycenaean jug must cer-

tainly

be

later

than

Dynasty

XVIII

B. As

the

grave

was

disturbed,

it is

not

impossible

that the contents

represent

mixed

groups deposited

at

different

times,

even

though

the

remaining objects

make

up

a

typologically homogeneous

assemblage.

In

any

case

there is sufficient evidence

to show that

only Myce-

naean

pottery

occurred in

Egypt during

the

reigns

of

Hatshepsut

and

Thutmose

III,

and

that these

vases

belonged

almost

entirely

to the Late Helladic

II

period.

This

observation

has

profound

implications

for

the identification of the

Aegeans

shown in

the

funerary

wall

paintings

of

Dynasty

XVIII

B.

The

earliest

pictorial

representations

of

foreigners

from

this

part

of

the

east

Mediterranean

have

been en-

countered in the tomb of Senmut, the architectand

favourite of

Queen

Hatshepsut.

The tomb

once

contained a

painted

procession

of

so-called

foreign

tributaries,

of

which

only

three

survive

to-day.

These

figures

are

distinguished

by

red-brown

pig-

mentation

and black

hair,

lack

of

beards,

elaborate

coiffures

with

curls

and

plaits

and

regular pro-

files.

The

porters

wore

loin cloths

suspended

in

front of the

body,

with what

Vercoutter

is

tempted

to

identify

not as

cod-pieces

but

as

folds

of the

same material

as the loin cloth.

It

is

not,

however,

the porterswho are given the greatest prominence

-the

objects

they carry

are

disproportionately

arge,

and the

novelty

of the visitors

has been subordi-

nated

to

the

importance

of

these

objects.

Vercout-

ter

attributes this

particular

emphasis

to the

fact

that Senmut was neither

vizir

nor

grand

priest

of

Amun,

who

as

such

might

have

been

expected

to

take

part

in the ceremonies

for

receiving

what

is

loosely

called

in

archaeological

iterature

a tribute.

He

was in fact for the

most

part

called steward

of Amun's

estate,

and his

functions included su-

pervision

of the

foreign products

entering

the

god's

estate

and

treasury.

Whether these and other simi-

lar

paintings

are

to

be

interpreted

as tribute from

foreign

rulers

rendering

annual

dues to

Pharaoh

for a

precarious ndependence

and

autonomy

or as

goods

acquired

through

commercial

exchange

is

still an

open question.

Vercoutter,

proceeding

on

the

assumption

that all

these scenes

represent

the

dues

being

rendered

Pharaoh

by foreign

subjects,

is

led to conclude that the event in

the

mural in

the

tomb

of Senmut cannot

be

contemporary

with

Queen

Hatsheput.

He

argues

that

during

her

reign

Egypt seems to have turned in on itself, at least so

far as Asia was

concerned,

and that it would be

paradoxical

for

foreign

tribute to

have

arrived in

Egypt

just

at this

time.

He claims

that it would be

normal for

such

tribute to have

reached

Egypt

in

the

reign

of one of her

predecessors,

ince the Asian

campaigns

of Thutmose I and II

are

well attested.

There are nevertheless

strong

circumstantial

rea-

sons for

doubting

that these scenes

depict Aegean

envoys paying homage

to the

Egyptian king,

and

instead for

viewing

them

as

commercial missions.

17

Merrillees43ff.

18

Merrillees 59f.



8/15

19721

CHRONOLOGIES

IN

OLD

WORLD ARCHAEOLOGY

287

First,

the

figures

in

Senmut's

tomb are

all

painted

standing upright,

not

in

obsequious

or

servile

posi-

tions,

though

of course

it

must

be

remembered

that

the mural

is

incomplete.

But

even

in the

tomb

of

Menkheperreseneb,

who served

under Thut-

mose III as First

Prophet

of Amun and Director

of

the

Houses

of

Gold and

Silver,

the

only

for-

eigners crouching

before him

are

of

Syro-Pales-

tinian

type.

In

fact

one

of these

Semitic

individuals

is most

curiously

called

King

of Keftiu land.

To

confirm this

impression,

it should

be noted that

there

is not one

Aegean foreigner

in the

Theban

tomb

paintings

who

is

depicted

in

any

but

a normal

upright

position.

Second,

the

very

fact

that

the

objects

of

Aegean

manufacture

in

Senmut's

tomb

have

been

singled

out for attention suggests that it could have been

done

to reflect the

nature

of

the contact

rather

than

the duties

of

Senmut.

By

way

of

contrast,

in

the

tombs

of the

vizirs,

which,

like

that of

Rekhmire,

date

to

the time of

Thutmose

III,

the

emphasis

is

placed

equally

on the

human

figures representing

the

Aegeans

and

on the articles

they bring.

As

I

have

pointed

out

in

my

dissertation,

it

may

be

argued

that

if the

degree

of artistic

influence re-

flects the

proportionate

importance

attached

by

the

owner

to

the

different

aspects

of

the

mission,

then

since

in Senmut's

case the

novelty

of the

objects

is

given precedence

over their

bearers,

it

may

be de-

duced that

Senmut

was

not so much

concerned

with the

personal

side

of

the

mission,

which

would

have

been of

paramount

interest

had it

been

diplo-

matic,

as

with

the

precious

articles.

Despite

notions to

the

contrary,

trade

flourishes

best

in conditions

of

peace,

and

just

such condi-

tions

are

generally

thought

to

have

prevailed

under

Hatshepsut,

to

whose

reign

date

the

paintings

of

Aegeans

in

the

Tomb of Senmut.

Though

Redford

has

attempted

to accredit

her with

warlike activi-

ties commensurate with her rank and duties,'

Hatshepsut

did

not see

herself

as

a

great

soldier

and

conqueror.

The

exploit

for which

she

evident-

ly

wished

to be remembered

most

by posterity

is

recorded

in

eyewitness

detail

on the

walls

of

her

temple

at Deir

el-Bahari

in

Thebes-the

ambitious

commercial

expedition

to the

land of

Punt

in So-

maliland

to

bring

back

myrrh

trees

and

other

prod-

ucts

of

the

region.

Even

if

other

rulers

before and

after

her

sent

trading

ventures to

Punt,

the

very

fact

that

she

chose to

commemorate

this

event

with

such

fanfare,

and

others

did

not,

must

reflect

the

peaceable

orientation

of

her overseas

interests.

Such

a

policy

seems

hardly

calculated

to

have

brought

Asian,

let

alone

Aegean,

emissaries

cringing

to

the

Nile

Valley

with

gifts

and

tribute.

On the

other

hand it could well have had the effect of stimu-

lating

commercial

exchanges

with

areas

outside

Egypt's

traditional

battlegrounds.

It

therefore

be-

comes

easy

to

understand

why

Aegeans

should

first

have

appeared

in

Egypt

during

the

reign

of

Hatshepsut,

bearing goods

for

sale

or

exchange

in

the same

way

that

Egyptians

took

their

own

prod-

ucts to

Punt.

There

are

several

other

tombs

at

Thebes

which

were

built

and

occupied

during

the

reigns

of

Hatshepsut,

Thutmose

III

and

Amenhotep

II,

and

contained murals depicting Aegeans. Probably the

most

famous

and

important

of

these

is

the

tomb

of

Rekhmire,

vizir

under

Thutmose

III

in

the

second

half

of

his

reign,

who

died

soon

after

Amen-

hotep

II

came

to

the

throne.

The

most

interesting

feature

about

the

second

register

of

foreigners

in

the

mural

in

Rekhmire's

tomb

is

that

two

scenes

have

been

executed

one

over

the

other,

both

representing

Aegeans

but

Aegeans

in different

costumes.

The

original

painting

appears

to

have

had

foreigners

wearing

loin

cloths

like

the

figures

in the

tomb

of

Senmut,

but

the

superimposed

scene

depicts

Aege-

ans

dressed

in

different

garments

of

the

kilted

type.

Vercoutter

attaches

particular

significance

to

the

time

gap

between

these

representations.

He

believes

that

the

changes

in detail

during

the

decoration

of

the

tomb

can

only

derive

from

firsthand

observa-

tion,

and

therefore

confirm

beyond

any

reasonable

doubt

the

authenticity

of

the

reproductions.

It

is

possible

that

Vercoutter

has

been

betrayed,

in

this

as

in other

instances,

by

his

faultless

logic

and

in-

genuity;

tempting

though

it is

to

endorse

this

con-

clusion

without

second

thought,

there

is

one

in-

tangible factor which cannot be overlooked.

The fact

is

that we

know

next to

nothing

about

the

technical

or administrative

side

of

tomb

deco-

ration.

It

may

be

that

painters,

like

scribes,

learned

the

stock

scenes

which

appear

in

most

of

the

The-

ban tombs

through apprenticeship.

These

scenes in-

clude

banquets,

harvesting,

fishing

and

other

sub-

jects,

and

do not

seem

to

have relied

on

copybooks

or

actual events

for

their

inspiration.

Nevertheless

we

still

cannot

even

hazard

a

guess

about

the

way

in

which

painters

set about

representing

something

19History and Chronology of the Eighteenth Dynasty of Egypt (Toronto 1967) 57ff.



9/15

288

EDITH

PORADA ET

AL.

[AJA

76

novel,

such

as

foreign people

and

objects.

It

is

also

known

that,

quite

apart

from

the

artist's own

con-

ception,

other

influences

could

have

shaped

the

final

appearance

of

the

paintings.

One such

element

was

without

doubt

the owner's

own

tastes,

for

the

con-

struction of tombs

began

long

before the death of

their

occupants,

who

directed,

or

at

least

controlled

the

execution

of

the

work. How

is

it

possible

at

this

remote

point

in time to deduce

logically

the

reasons

which

may

have

inspired

an

alteration in the

por-

trayal

of

Aegeans

in

the

tomb

of Rekhmire?

Was

the

painter

or his

employer

recording

historical

events

involving

the

consecutive

arrival

of

different

Aegean peoples

or

simply

a different

fashion

worn

by

the

same

people?

But

Vercoutter has

gone

even

further

by

at-

tempting to associate the inscriptions mentioning

the

Keftiu

with

the

earlier and

later wall

paintings.

Part of the

column of

text

painted

in

front

of

the

vizir

reads as

follows:

Receiving

the tribute

of

the

countries of

the

south,

just

as

the

tribute

of

Punt,

the

tribute of

Retenu,

the

tribute of

Keftiu

as

well

as

the

booty

of

all

foreign

countries,

which

has

been

brought

back

thanks

to

the

might

of

His

Majesty

[Thutmose

III].

There

is

also

a

caption

above

Register

2 which

depicts

the

Aegeans

and

has been

translated

by

Gardiner:

Coming

in

peace by

the

chieftains

of

Keftiu

[Crete]

and of

the

islands

in the

midst

be-

longing

to the

sea,

in

bowing

down,

in

bending

...

the

head,

through

the

might

of His

Majesty,

the

King

of

Upper

and

Lower

Egypt,

Menkheperre,

granted

life

eternally,

when

they

hear

of his

vic-

tories

over

all

countries;

their

tribute on

their

backs,

seeking

that

may

be

given

to

them

. . .

the

breath

of

life,

through

desire of

being loyal

subjects

... of

His

Majesty,

so that

...

his

might may

protect

them.

Vercoutter

argues

that

because the

inscription

in

front of the vizir shows no sign of

retouching,

it

must

be

contemporary

with

the

earliest

mural.

But

do

we

know the

order

in

which

the

various

ele-

ments

comprising

this

scene,

not

to

mention

the

others

in

the

tomb,

were

painted?

Vercoutter

has

not

analyzed

the

remaining

scenes to

see if

any

of

them

were

worked

over or

replaced

at a

later

stage,

and if

there

is

any

sequence

or

possible

explanation

for

this

phenomenon.

Without

a

comprehensive

study

of

all

the

paintings

it

seems

hardly

possible

to

assess

the

significance

of

the

changes

made

in

the depictionof the Aegeans. Even then there is no

guarantee

that

we

would

be

any

the

wiser,

because

of

our

ignorance

of the

procedures

followed

in

decorating

the tombs

at

Thebes,

and

particularly

that of

Rekhmire.

More

importantly,

there

is no evidence

that

the

caption

above

the

register

of

Aegeans

was

at

any

stage

revised.

However,

Vercoutter

does not

main-

tain

that this

text must

belong

to the

original

rep-

resentations,

or

he

argues

in the

following

manner.

The

linear

text,

which

so to

speak

is

part

and

parcel

of the

designs,

could

have been

effaced

and

redone

with

them,

or,

if the scribes

left the

former

text,

it was because

the text was

equally

valid

for

the new

representation.

In

fact,

if

they

had

no

hesitation

in

effacing

an entire

register

to

replace

it with new

paintings,

it is difficult

to see

why they

would have left the former text if it no longer cor-

responded

with

the

representations.

n other

terms,

whether

this

text was

composed

to

accompany

the

first

or second

stage

of the

paintings,

it must

be

ad-

mitted

that

the text describes

exactly

what

is

repre-

sented,

without

which

it

would

have

been

changed.

From

this he

deduces that

the

tomb of

Rekhmire is

the

only

trustworthy

source

for what

the

ancient

Egyptians

knew

of the

Aegean

peoples,

and

that

inhabitantsof

both the

Keftiu

and

the Isles

in

the

Midst

of

the Sea came

together

to render

homage

to Pharaoh in Egypt. In the light of all the un-

known

and uncertain

factors

which

could

affect

our

interpretation

of the

inscriptions

and

paint-

ings,

these

propositions

are,

to

say

the

least,

of

questionable

validity.

I

have

already

argued

that there

are

no

good

grounds

for

disputing

the

historical

veracity

of

the

scenes

of

Aegeans

in the tomb

of

Senmut.

Fur-

thermore,

though

Vercoutter

is led

on

philological

grounds

to

give

credence

to the

caption's

claim

that

the Keftiu

and

Isles

in the Midst

of the

Sea

came

to submit

themselves

to

Pharaoh

because

they

had

heard of his

conquests,

there is no reason to

be-

lieve

that the

figures

in the

painting

were

political

or

diplomatic

representatives,

rather

than

mer-

chants

who

were

seeking

to

protect

their

sea

routes

and markets

through

appropriate

gestures

and

gifts.

It should

not

be

forgotten

that

the

apparent

pur-

pose

of

including

these

Aegeans

was

to

add

the

western

point

to a racial

and

cultural

compass

showing

the

alleged

geographical

extent

of

Egypt's

authority

under

Thutmose

III.

The

east

was

rep-

resented

by

the

land of

Punt in

Register

I,

the

south

by the Nubians in Register 3, the north by the Syri-



10/15

1972]

CHRONOLOGIES

IN OLD WORLD ARCHAEOLOGY

289

ans

in

Register

4,

and the

west

by

the

Aegeans

in

Register

2.

The

transparent

desire

to

make

Pharaoh's

power

seem

universal

can

hardly

have

contributed

to the

historical

veracity

of the

scene,

though

the

accuracy

of the

individual

elements

is

probably

less

open to doubt.

Nevertheless,

by

analyzing

the

caption

above

the

register

in its

full

philological

context,

Vercoutter

has

been

able

convincingly

to demonstrate that the

Keftiu and Isles

in the Midst of the

Sea

belong

to

the

same

geographical entity

and

that if one is

Aegean,

the other must

be

also.

This

deduction

accords

with

the

racial

uniformity

of

the

Aegean

porters

depicted

in the

mural

and

is

quiie

unex-

ceptionable.

By

the same

token it reduces

the his-

torical

significance

of

the difference in

wearing

apparel detected on the superimposed figures.

Apart

from these

inscriptions,

there are

several

other

references to

Keftiu in texts

datable

to the

time

of

Thutmose

III.

In fact these

mentions

are

much

more numerous

in

Dynasty

XVIII

B than

in

XVIII

A,

but

tell

us

less.

They

occur

in the

cam-

paign

Annals of

Thutmose

III,

in

contexts

where

their

precise

relevance is

difficult

to

establish,

and

in

stereotyped

lists of

subject

countries

and

peoples,

the

authenticity

of which is

particularly suspect.

It

is,

however,

only

from the

reign

of

Thutmose

III that

the

expression

Isles

in

the

Midst

of the

Sea is attested with

any

certainty.

I have

already

referred

to

the text in

the tomb

of

Rekhmire.

In

the tomb

of

Ouseramon,

vizir of

Thutmose III in

the

first half of

his

reign,

is

a

painting

of

foreign

tribute

accompanied

by

an

inscription

which

reads:

Receiving

the

tribute which

the

might

of

His

Majesty

brought

back

from the

foreign

countries

in

the north

of the

confines

of

Asia and the Isles

in

the

Midst

of the

Sea,

by

the

prince,

Count,

Ousera-

mon. The

mural

also

contains

a

register

of

Aege-

ans,

who

closely

resemble

the

figures

in

the tomb

of Senmut. They are beardless, have long hair

and

regular

profiles,

and

wear

folded

loin cloths of

similar

type.

Vercoutter

justly

concludes

that

they

represent

the

same

peoples,

who

came

from

the

Isles

in the

Midst

of the

Sea.

Another

mention

of

this

locality

occurs on the

gold

bowl of

the

general

Djehouty,

who was

given

this

object

in

reward for

his

servicesto

Thutmose III.

Djehouty

was

viceroy

in

Syria

and

evidently

had

responsibility

for mat-

ters

concerning

the

Isles in the

Midst of the

Sea.

If we

correlate the

indications

furnished

by

the

paintings

and

inscriptions

with the

pottery

evi-

dence,

it

emerges

that the occurrence

f the

first

Mycenaean

ases

in

Egypt

synchronizes

with

the

initial

appearance

f

Aegean

foreigners

n the

tomb

paintings

at Thebes. This coincidence

an

surely

not be fortuitous.

The facts

that the

Aegeans

in

tomb of Senmutwere probably rom the Isles in

the Midst

of the

Sea,

and that the Isles

themselves

are not

unequivocally

mentioned

until the time

of

Thutmose

III,

can

leave little doubt

that we

are

dealing

here

with the Bronze

Age

inhabitants

f

Greece,

not of the island

of

Crete-unless,

of

course,

the

Mycenaeans

were

settled in

and came

from

Knossos.Yet

we are confronted

by

the first

puta-

tive

representations

f the Keftiu and

a

continua-

tion of the use

of the name

during

Dynasty

XVIII

B. There can

surely

be

only

one

explanation.

Be-

cause the tomb paintingswere intendednot so

much

to recordactualhistorical

vents

as to

sym-

bolize the

omnipotence

of the Pharaoh

and

his

entourage,

here

s no reason or the

ownersnot

to

have continued

o include

the Keftiu in their

lists

of

tributaries,

ven

if

there

werein

Dynasty

XVIII

B no director indirect

contactswith

the

Minoans.

The name itself

was of considerable

ntiquity,

and

objects

of Cretan

origin

or

inspiration

had

found

their

way

to

Egypt

as

early

as the

Middle

Minoan

I

period.

Reasons

of tradition

alone would

have

guaranteed

t an

honored mention

in

any

noble

Egyptian's

erritorial laimsfor the

benefit

of

pos-

terity.

Andfor this reason

we can

imagine

hat

they

would have

had no hesitation

in

attaching

the

Keftiu label

to

paintings

which

in fact

represented

Mycenaeans.

This

presupposes

hat the

mainland

Greeks

were the first

Aegeans

personally

o

have

set foot on

Egyptian

soil and to

have

provided

models

for

the

tomb

paintings

of

Thebes.

As

we

have

already

een,

there

is

nothing

politically

m-

probable

n this

conclusion.

From the

Aegean point

of

view,

Dynasty

XVIII

C is an archaeologicalictorial ndlinguisticblank.

Admittedly

he

period

s

short

n

comparison

o

the

other

phases

of the

XVIIIth

Dynasty,

having

asted

only

some

33 years.

It

is

also

culturally

ll-defined.

Yet,

despite

these

limiting

factors,

he

scarcity

of

evidence

for

Aegean

relations with

Egypt

during

the

reigns

of

Amenhotep

II

and

Thutmose IV

is

undoubtedly,

like the

lack

of

Cypriote

exports

to

Egypt,

as

real

as

it is

apparent.

In

the

first

place

there are no

Mycenaean

pots

which

can

be

assigned

to

Dynasty

XVIII

C. The

number of

Mycenaean

II and earlyIIIA vases from the Nile Valley which



11/15

290

EDITH PORADA

T AL.

[AJA

76

cannot

be

dated

is

sufficiently

small

to

confirm

the

impression

that

few

if

any

ceramic

imports

from

the

Greek

mainland entered

Egypt

during

this

period.

Apart

from

the

tombs

of

Rekhmire and

Menkheperreseneb,

both of

whom

served

under

Thutmose III but died in the

reign

of Amenhotep

II,

the

only

other

tombs

containing representations

of

Aegeans,

which were

closed

in

the

time

of

Amenhotep

II,

belong

to

Amenemheb,

Amenemi-

pet

and

Kemamun.

The

value of these

paintings

for

historical

pur-

poses

may

be

gauged

from

the fact that

all

the so-

called

Aegeans

are either

composite

or derivative

creations. In

the tomb

of Amenemheb

they

have

Syro-Palestinian

raits

of at least

two

different

types,

and

Vercoutter

justly

concludes that

the inclusion

of the Keftiu in the accompanying inscription,

which

follows

a

geographical

list

reproduced

in the

tomb of

Kenamun

of the same

period,

tells

us

nothing

new.

The

individual

purporting

to be a

typical

inhabitant of Keftiu

in the

tomb

of

Kema-

mun

is

a man from

Punt,

and the

context

of this

reference

to Keftiu is

geographically vague

and of

little

historical

usefulness.

The

figures

in

the

tomb

of

Amenemipet appear

to have been

copied

from

the

types portrayed

in

the tomb of

Menkheperre-

seneb

and add

nothing

to

our

knowledge

of con-

tacts

between

Egypt

and the

Aegean.

The

only

other

possible

reference

to the

Keftiu in

Dynasty

XVIII

C

occurs

on an

alabastervase

from the tomb

of

Thutmose

IV

and

concerns a

product

or

paste

of

Keftiu. The

exact

meaning

of this

inscription

is

sufficiently

elusive to make

it

unwise to

build

any

hypotheses

upon

it.

There

are

no

inscriptions

known which

mention the Isles

in

the

Midst

of

the

Sea,

which seems

to

confirm the

indications

from

all other sources

that there

was

a

hiatus

in

Aegean

contacts

with

Egypt during

Dynasty

XVIII

C.

Dynasty XVIII D opens with the reign of Amen-

hotep

III and

the most

intriguing

conflict

of evi-

dence in the

whole

of

the

New

Kingdom.

Let us

start

with the

epigraphic

data.

The

Isles in the

Midst

of

the Sea rate

not a

single

mention

dating

from

the time

of this

Pharaoh. The name

of Keftiu

occurs

twice

in

mixed

geographical

lists of

dubious

historical

value. It was also

inscribed on the

right

side

in

front of a statue

base from the

funerary

or

mortuary

temple

of

Amenhotep

III

at Thebes. The

series

of names

of

which it forms

part

makes

up

one of the most interesting texts to have survived

from

the

XVIIIth

Dynasty.

Two

scholars,

Kitchen

and

Edel,

have succeeded in

identifying

with

rea-

sonable

certainty

the names of

Amnisos,

Phaistos,

Kydonia, Mycenae,

Messenia,

Nauplia,

Kythera,

Ilios

(Troy),

Knossos,

Amnisos and

Lyktos.

The

list is erased at this point and so is incomplete.

These

localities

are all well-known centers

of

Bronze

Age

civilization

around the

Aegean

Sea.

Edel

thinks

it

unlikely

that the names were

copied

from

earlier

geographical

lists,

but there seems

to

me to be

every good

reason to doubt the

real

contemporaneity

of this

series.

The

very

use of the word Keftiu is

enough

to

arouse

suspicion,

since the

only

other

epigraphic

contexts of this time in which it occurs

lack histori-

cal

credibility.

Furthermore the

place

names

are

strung togetherin no apparentlyrationalgeographi-

cal

order,

moving

from Crete to

Greece,

off to

Troy

and

back

again

to

Crete,

with

Amnisos

occurring

twice.

This

enumeration

of

sites

cannot

therefore

have been intended to

serve

as

a

topographical

guide

or

as

an illustration

of

historical

realities. This

is

merrillees, r. s. aegean bronze age relations with egypt

Documents