Of Nubians in Avaris? a Case of Mistaken Ethnic Identity and Hidden Archaeological Theory

Journal of Egyptian History 11 (2018) 87–112

brill.com/jeh

“Execration” of Nubians in Avaris? A Case of Mistaken Ethnic Identity and Hidden Archaeological Theory

Uroš Matić* Institut für Ägyptologie und Koptologie, Westfälische Wilhelms Universität Münster [email protected]

Abstract

Two pits (L1016 and L1055) from the early New Kingdom cemetery in areas H/I and H/III at ʿEzbet Helmi, Tell el-Dabʿa (ancient Avaris), have long been identified as remains of execration rituals in which Nubians were killed. In this paper I will argue that nothing in these two pits suggests execration of Nubians. The racial attribution of the individuals found in these pits can be questioned on both a theoretical and methodological basis. The Nubian pottery and supposedly Nubian arrowheads often associated with these “execration” pits do not come from either the burials in the cemetery nor from the pits. These finds are later than the cemetery and the “execration” pits in H/I and H/III. In the case of Nubians and “execration” pits from Tell el-Dabʿa we are dealing with a case of mistaken identity, an erroneous interpretation based on culture-historical and racial anthropological assumptions—a hidden theory.

Keywords

Nubians – Tell el-Dabʿa – Avaris – execration – Ahmose – race – ethnicity – culture- historical archaeology

* This paper is partly resulting from my doctoral dissertation titled “Body and Frames of War in New Kingdom Egypt: Violent treatments of enemies and prisoners” which I wrote at Institut für Ägyptologie und Koptologie, Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster (Germany) from 2012–2016 with the support of a grant by the Delta Foundation (Serbia). I would like to thank a number of scholars working at Tell el-Dabʿa for the discussions on the questions related to my research: Irene Forstner-Müller, Pamela Rose, Karin Kopetzky, Julia Gresky, and Silvia Prell.

1 Introduction

Ethnic identity has been studied by archaeologists since the establishment of archaeology as a discipline during the rise of nation states in Europe.1 Kulturkreislehre (culture circles school), was an anthropological school of the late 19th century in Germany and Austria which searched and argued for closed cultural provinces or circles with a direct correlation between language, material culture and people.2 The basic unit of analysis was archaeological culture defined as a set of vessels, tools, ornaments, graves and houses regularly appearing together and interpreted as material expression of “a people.”3 These supposedly diagnostic traits of different archaeological cultures became its ethnic badges.4 Culture-historical archaeology is a theoretical approach that developed from the Kulturkreislehre in anthropology, and which dominated archaeology until the 1960s. It is still the dominant archaeological paradigm, even after it was criticized already within culture-historical circles, or after it was banned from Soviet archaeology by the late 1920s. It survived the processual critique of the 1960s and post-processual critique of the 1980s.5 However, such a collision of cultural elements is historically contingent and should not be assumed before the analysis. Furthermore, the elements cho- sen by archaeologists to define an archaeological culture do not necessarily have to be those elements the people in the past considered to be the ones which ethnically bind them together. As Hodder pointed out, archaeologists cannot identify all ethnic groups since many will not have used ethnic affiliation in material culture.6 Language can form the basis of ethnic difference, but ethnic groups can also change their language without changing their ethnic identity (e.g., Batavians).7 Ethnoarchaeological research conducted by Hodder in the Baringo area in Kenya showed that distinct material culture boundaries are foci of interaction and not barriers. He argued that marked cultural discontinuities relate to ethnic boundaries in conditions of marked competi- tion over recourses.8 Ethnoarchaeology also showed that there are no direct

1 Díaz-Andreu and Lucy, “Introduction,” 2. 2 Olsen and Kobyliński, “Ethnicity in anthropological and archaeological research,” 9; Lucy, “Ethnic and cultural identities,” 87. 3 Childe, The Danube in Prehistory, v–vi. 4 Olsen and Kobyliński, “Ethnicity in anthropological and archaeological research,” 7; Curta, “Ethnic Identity and Archaeology,” 2509. 5 Lucy, “Ethnic and cultural identities,” 91; Curta, “Ethnic Identity and Archaeology,” 2507–08. 6 Hodder, Symbols in action, 187. 7 Derks and Roymans, “Introduction,” 2. 8 Hodder, Symbols in action, 35.

Journal of EgyptianDownloaded History from 11 Brill.com09/23/2021(2018) 87–112 05:34:17PM via free access “Execration” of Nubians in Avaris? 89 correlations between material culture distributions and population groups, as different groups can share homogenous material culture but still maintain ethnic differences.9 Many archaeologists still operate with the premises of culture-historical archaeology, very often not being aware of this. This is what Sommer and Gramsch called hidden theory, showing itself only through interpretations,10 and is one of the main obstacles for any mature discipline. We have to be explicit in our theoretical and methodological approaches to the past if we are to allow others to evaluate our ideas, assumptions, research, and results. One of the archaeological fields lacking clear statements on the theoretical and methodological background of analysis is the archaeology of Egypt. Being only one constitutive element of the largely philologically oriented and text-based discipline of Egyptology, archaeology of Egypt never went through a serious revision of its background. As an example, I will refer to a statement which illustrates the problem I stressed above: “One of the key elements of Hyksos material culture, the pottery, appears to be a highly sensitive indica- tor of cultural affiliation and development.”11 There are so many questionable assumptions behind this statement that not many Egyptologists would question. The first assumption is that the “pottery style” or an “archaeological culture” defined by Eastern Delta pottery during the Second Intermediate Period reflects cultural affiliation. The second assumption is that this affiliation corresponds with an adjective “Hyksos,” understood as more than what it really was for the Egyptians, namely a designation of a ruling class which could have seen itself differently than the Egyptians represented it in official decorum.12 There are other known examples in which ethnic identity ascribed to the ruling class was transferred to the entire population under its rule without much consideration of the ethnic identity of the governed population. One of these is the application of the ethnonym Blemmyes, who dominated the region of Dodekaschoinos in the first half of the 5th century ACE, to the autochtho- nous population of Dodekaschoinos which included other ethnic groups.13 Similar designations with a single observed ethnic identity of groups who might have seen themselves differently is found in the case of Medjay before the 12th Dynasty, after which some of these pastoral nomads adopt the Egyptian

9 Lucy, “Ethnic and cultural identities,” 91–92. 10 Sommer and Gramsch, “German Archaeology in Context,” 25. 11 Redmount, “Ethnicity, Pottery, and the Hyksos at Tell El-Maskhuta,” 184. 12 Roberts, “Hyksos self-presentation and ‘culture’.” 13 Obłuski, “Dodekaschoinos in Late Antiquity,” 146.

Journal of Egyptian History 11 (2018) 87–112 Downloaded from Brill.com09/23/2021 05:34:17PM via free access 90 Matić stereotypical ethnic construct.14 The construction of ethnic identity is closely related to political systems,15 and archaeologists have much to learn from such examples. Nowadays, most archaeologists would agree with Jones’s assertion:

ethnic identity is based on shifting, situational, subjective identifications of self and others, which are rooted in ongoing daily practice and historical experience, but also subject to transformation and discontinuity.16

This paper does not provide the reader with new evidence for different ethnic groups in ancient Egypt, neither does it follow ancient Egyptians beyond their homeland or provide similar evidence for their presence outside the Egyptian Nile Valley. There are numerous papers which deal with this theme and still more papers dealing with this theme will come.17 What is lacking in the archaeology of Egypt is a serious discussion on how do we recognize foreigners in Egypt in an archaeological context? Which are the most often made assumptions when attributing certain bodies and material culture as foreign? Why are these traits exactly considered to be signs of ethnicity and others not? In order to answer these questions and hopefully inspire others to “rethink their pots,” in this paper I will deal with contexts whose ethnic attribution and interpretation has not been doubted in Egyptology so far. Rather, it was accepted and integrated in further works, thus producing new problematic interpretations. The contexts I will discuss are the two so called “execration” pits from Tell el-Dabʿa, argued to be archaeological evidence for the ritual state execution of Nubians. First, I will present the contexts as they were published, trying to leave the interpretation for later as much as possible, and if possible at all. Then I will present the arguments offered in favor of the attribution of the contexts to remains of execrated Nubians, after which I will offer contra arguments showing how very little here has to do with Nubians at all, and how much with culture-historical archaeology as a hidden theory.

14 Liszka, “We have come from the well of Ibhet,” 167. 15 Derks and Roymans, “Introduction,” 1. 16 Jones, The Archaeology of Ethnicity, 13. 17 For an overview see Schneider, “Foreigners in Egypt”; Riggs and Baines, “Ethnicity.”

Journal of EgyptianDownloaded History from 11 Brill.com09/23/2021(2018) 87–112 05:34:17PM via free access “Execration” of Nubians in Avaris? 91

2 Early New Kingdom Cemetery in Areas H/I and H/III, ʿEzbet Helmi, Tell el-Dabʿa

During the excavations of the Austrian Archaeological Institute’s Cairo branch in areas H/I and H/III in ʿEzbet Helmi of Tell el-Dabʿa, ancient Avaris, a cemetery was found (Fig. 1) which precedes the building of the later palace complex, now widely known because of the Minoan frescoes which once deco- rated it. This palace was built in the place of the earlier palace of the Second

figure 1 Early New Kingdom cemetery in areas H/I and H/III of ʿEzbet Helmi, Tell el-Dabʿa, plan. After Fuscaldo, Tell el-Dabʿa X/2, Fig. 4.

Journal of Egyptian History 11 (2018) 87–112 Downloaded from Brill.com09/23/2021 05:34:17PM via free access 92 Matić

Intermediate Period. The date of the palace has changed several times since it was found, from Late Second Intermediate Period to Thutmoside period. The latest publications by Mandred Bietak date it into Thutmoside period. How- ever, problems with the dating of Strata D1 to C3 have been recently raised again based on the dating of the Khyan seal impressions from Tell el-Dab’a and Edfu.18 After the Second Intermediate Period this palace was no longer in use and its area was used as a cemetery. According to the preliminary reports published by the excavators the burials belong to the second intermediary phase which is placed between the Second Intermediate Period Hyksos Palace and the later palace. This second intermediary phase is dated to the early Stratum D1 (D/1.1) which is associated with the early New Kingdom in historical chronology.19 The burials of this cemetery are themselves not contemporary as it was noticed that the younger graves cut into the older graves and that there are later offering pits also cutting some of these burials.20 The burials of this cemetery consist of simple pits in which bodies of the deceased were laid in stretched position. There are twenty-eight graves in the cemetery in areas H/I and H/III, mostly of adult individuals, however some of the graves included more than one individual, and some of these individuals are clearly children (e.g. Tomb 3=L1116 and Tomb 6=L1119, both west of the wall M1013, outside of the fortification wall).21 Furthermore, a child burial (L7095) belonging to this cemetery was also found.22 Among the burials of this cemetery several offering pits were found, but also two pits which included human body remains and which particularly attracted the attention of the excavator and other scholars because they were interpreted as “execration” pits.

18 See the papers in Forstner-Müller and Moeller, The Hyksos Ruler Khyan. 19 Bietak, Dorner, and Jánosi, “Ausgrabungen in dem Palastbezirk von Avaris,” 34–35; see the introduction and stratigraphic position of the deposits written by Bietak in Fuscaldo, Tell el-Dabʿa X/2, 10–11. 20 Bietak, Dorner, and Jánosi, “Ausgrabungen in dem Palastbezirk von Avaris,” 35. 21 The number is assesed based on the excavation plan of Stratum D/1.1=e/1.1 as the actual number of the burials found here was not published, see Fuscaldo, Tell el-Dabʿa X/2, Fig. 4. The presence of the children, although undoubtedly clear from the published excavation plan showing children buried with adult individuals in these graves, is never mentioned in the interpretations of this cemetery and the individuals buried there. At the same time, an anthropological analysis of the cemetery was never published and it is not clear if it was ever comprehensively done. 22 Bietak and Forstner-Müller, “Ausgrabung eines Palastbezirkes der Thutmosidenzeit,” 41.

Journal of EgyptianDownloaded History from 11 Brill.com09/23/2021(2018) 87–112 05:34:17PM via free access “Execration” of Nubians in Avaris? 93

figure 2 Small pit L1055, ʿEzbet Helmi, Tell el-Dabʿa, plan. After Fuscaldo, Tell el-Dabʿa X/2, Fig. 6.

The small pit L1055 (Fig. 2), 40–50cm wide and 15–20cm deep, was dug into wall M1028 and pavement M1029 of the late Second Intermediate Period palace and contained human skeletal remains and some pottery shards (fragments of two drop jars and a cooking pot probably used for filling material). It was found under the wall of a storage building of the early 18th Dynasty (Stratum D/1.2). This would indicate that not much time passed between the abandonment of the palace and the founding of the cemetery as no layers accumulated on the site before the burial pits could cut into the architectural remains of the palace. The skeletal remains from the small pit L1055 included three skulls and nine fingers belonging to three right hands. Two skulls belonged to male individuals of adult age (Skull 1 and Skull 3) and one skull belonged to an individual of mature age (Skull 2). Skull 1 lay on its left side looking south-east, Skull 2 was found on its back and Skull 3 on its face. Five fingers were found beside Skull 1, two beside Skull 2 and two beside Skull 3. One skull has a hole on the right side above the ear which according to the publishers indicates a blow which probably damaged his temple.23 The revision of the skeletal material from this pit done by physical-anthropologist Julia Gresky of the German Archaeological Institute during the spring campaign in 2013 confirmed the initial report of nine fingers belonging to three individuals, whereas it could also have been the case that more material was lost during the excavation and that the original context indeed included three hands.24 According to the unpublished report of anthropologists Karl Großschmidt and Josef Tangl, referred to by Bietak

23 Note that in the excavation report it is written that Skull no. 3 was severely damaged through the construction process; Bietak, Dorner, and Jánosi, “Ausgrabungen in dem Palastbezirk von Avaris,” 60; Fuscaldo, “Tell el-Dabʿa,” 186. See also the introduction and stratigraphic position of the deposits written by Bietak in Fuscaldo, Tell el-Dabʿa X/2, 10, 23. 24 Personal communication. I would like to thank Julia Gresky for revising the skeletal remains from the “execration” pits.

Journal of Egyptian History 11 (2018) 87–112 Downloaded from Brill.com09/23/2021 05:34:17PM via free access 94 Matić and Fuscaldo, the skulls belonged to three different males, two of which have “Negroid” features and could be identified as Nubians.25 The revision of the material by Gresky indicated that the skulls could indeed belong to male individuals of adult and mature age, however their state of preservation is so bad that it does not allow any more information to be extracted. The skulls were pressed hard by the fill of the pits and were heavily affected by the conditions in the Delta. Gresky’s assessment also pointed out that the hole, interpreted as evidence of an inflicted blow to the head, is questionable, one of the reasons being the poor preservation state of the material and the high possibility that the hole on the skull is recent.26 The remains of the hands from this pit were interpreted by some authors as archaeological evidence for the hand cutting custom.27 This interpretation is as equally problematic as the one discussed in this paper, however this matter has to be left for now and is to be discussed on another occasion. Another, larger and nearly circular pit, L1016 (Fig. 3), 2.20 × 1.90m wide and 0.45m deep at the edges and 1.10m in the middle, was dug into a layer of ash and humus of the courtyard surface south-west of the late Second Intermedi- ate Period Hyksos palace. The pit contained fragments of c. 300 vessels,28 a small fragment of limestone relief, part of a limestone senet board-game, a silex blade, a large amount of limestone fragments, sandstone chips, two fragments of quartzite, a silex fragment, some river pebbles, a bright dark- brown hard stone, the fragment of a mudbrick, some animal bones, and skeletal remains of two individuals at the bottom. They lay on the stomach and are looking towards south. Skeleton 1 on the west side of the pit was a young adult c. 1.68cm tall with the right arm and hand raised. He was lacking the head and the left arm. Skeleton 2, lying parallel to the first one, was complete with the arms extended along the body and the face looking east. It belonged to a mature male, who was 1.70m tall. No injuries inflicted by an axe, a knife, sword, or spear were observed on either skeleton.29

25 Fuscaldo, Tell el-Dabʿa X/2, 10, 23. 26 Personal communication with Julia Gresky. 27 Janzen, Iconography of Humiliation, 315. The hands from this pit were related to 14 cut-off hands found later in area F/II, Bietak, Math, Müller, and Jurman, “Report on the excavations of a Hyksos Palace,” 32. 28 In the excavation report and the introduction written by Bietak in the final publication of the pits it is stated that there are around 300 fragmented vessels; Bietak, Dorner, and Jánosi, “Ausgrabungen in dem Palastbezirk von Avaris,” 67; Fuscaldo, Tell el-Dabʿa X/2, 10. In another publication of Fuscaldo and her text of the final publication it is stated that there are around 380 fragmented vessels, Fuscaldo, “Tell el-Dabʿa,” 186 and Tell el-Dabʿa X/2, 23. 29 Fuscaldo, Tell el-Dabʿa X/2, 23.

Journal of EgyptianDownloaded History from 11 Brill.com09/23/2021(2018) 87–112 05:34:17PM via free access “Execration” of Nubians in Avaris? 95

figure 3 Large pit L1016, Situation 2, ʿEzbet Helmi, Tell el-Dabʿa, plan. Individuals are labeled as 1 and 2. After Fuscaldo, Tell el-Dabʿa X/2, Fig. 8.

Judging by the field protocol for these contexts they immediately attracted the attention of the excavators and were soon interpreted in a manner which did not change until their publication years later. In the following passages I will discuss the arguments provided for the interpretation of the contexts as “execration” pits with bodies of Nubians.

3 Execration Ritual and Nubians in Avaris

The small and large pit with human skeletal remains from area H/III of Tell el-Dabʿa were interpreted by several authors as evidence of execration rituals conducted on the site after the city was taken by the Egyptians in order to cele- brate the conquest of Avaris by Ahmose and the construction of new buildings over the previous Hyksos citadel. The publishers state that the only possibility

Journal of Egyptian History 11 (2018) 87–112 Downloaded from Brill.com09/23/2021 05:34:17PM via free access 96 Matić for the sacrifice of actual enemies instead of substitute figurines was that “the Egyptians were particularly angry at them and wanted to express their strong displeasure in this graphic manner.”30 According to the authors who suggested this interpretation, the bodies buried in the necropolis in this area belonged to the Nubian archers either belonging to the Hyksos king or to Ahmose.31 The basic arguments provided for this interpretation are: 1. The skeletal material from the small pit L1055 consists of body parts, namely three skulls and nine fingers belonging to three hands. The skeletal material from the large pit consists of two individuals. Skeleton No. 1 on the west side of the pit had the right arm and hand raised, and he lacked the skull and the left arm. Skeleton No. 2 laid parallel to Skeleton No. 1. It was complete with the arms extended along the body and face looking towards the east. Both skeletons were lying on their stomachs. According to the excavator, the position of the skeletons indicates that Skeleton No. 1 was thrown bound into the pit.32 2. The larger pit contained fragments of c. 300 or 380 vessels, among them some indicating an 18th Dynasty date of the pit. These pottery remains were interpreted as remains of deliberate breaking, parallel to sḏ dšr.wt— “breaking of the red pots.”33 3. Two of the individuals from the small pit L1055 supposedly have “Negroid” features and could be identified as Nubians according to the unpublished anthropological study of Großschmidt and Tangl referred to by Bietak and Fuscaldo.34 4. Nubian pottery was found in the areas H/III and H/VI which was among other finds used to argue that Nubian soldiers were employed by the Thebans.35 Also, Nubian pottery dated to Stratum D/2 of the late Hyksos Period was used to argue that Nubian mercenaries, probably archers,

30 Fuscaldo, Tell el-Dabʿa X/2, 29; cf. Fuscaldo, “Tell el-Dabʿa,” 187. 31 An additional problem, or indeed an inconsistency, is that in the first excavation report the publishers claim the burials cannot be related to Ahmose’s fighting in Avaris; see Bietak, Dorner, and Jánosi, “Ausgrabungen in dem Palastbezirk von Avaris,” 71. 32 Fuscaldo, Tell el-Dabʿa X/2, 10–23; Bietak, “Introduction. Context and Date of the Wall Paintings,” 19. 33 Fuscaldo, Tell el-Dabʿa X/2, 28. 34 See the introduction written on stratigraphic position of the deposits by Bietak in Fus- caldo, Tell el-Dabʿa X/2, 10–11, 23. The report of the anthropologists Karl Großschmidt and Josef Tangl has not been published until now. The same interpretation was given for the so-called soldier burials in this area, Bietak, “Introduction. Context and Date of the Wall Paintings,” 19. 35 Fuscaldo, Tell el-Dabʿa X/2, 10.

Journal of EgyptianDownloaded History from 11 Brill.com09/23/2021(2018) 87–112 05:34:17PM via free access “Execration” of Nubians in Avaris? 97

were used by the Hyksos against the Thebans; however the publisher is not certain if they belonged to the Kerma Culture or the Pan Grave Culture.36 The same interpretation, namely Nubian pottery as evidence for the presence of Nubians themselves as mercenaries, palace guards, or special troops, was proposed for Nubian pottery of the 15th Dynasty date from the palace in area F/II.37 5. Five Nubian arrowheads were found in area H/I and interpreted as Kerma arrowheads.38 6. Ahmose had a campaign in Nubia.39 7. The Mirgissa deposit was provided as an analogy for the small and the large pit.40

The interpretation of the two pits as remains of the execration ritual was proposed from the very beginning, already during the excavation, and was after publication accepted and welcomed by other scholars.41 Interestingly in her overview on evidence for execration rituals in Egypt, Seiler does not mention the evidence from Tell el-Dabʿa, which could indicate the author’s justifiable uncertainty regarding the interpretation of these contexts.42 In the following passages I will critically address some of the problems of the interpretations of the “execration” pits from Tell el-Dabʿa showing that considering them as “execration” pits is very problematic.

4 Deconstructing Nubians and Execration Ritual in Avaris

The following discussion will intend to point out the problems with the previous interpretation of the two so called “execration” pits from area H/III at Tell el-Dabʿa by analyzing the arguments provided for it by previous scholars as listed in the order from above:

36 Bietak, “Introduction. Context and Date of the Wall Paintings,” 19. 37 Bietak, Math, Müller, and Jurman, “Report on the excavations of a Hyksos Palace,” 24. 38 See the introduction written on stratigraphic position of the deposits by Bietak in Fus- caldo, Tell el-Dabʿa X/2, 10, n. 10; Bietak, “Introduction. Context and Date of the Wall Paintings,” 19. 39 Fuscaldo, Tell el-Dabʿa X/2, 29; cf. Bietak, “The Center of Hyksos Rule,” 115–16; Bietak, Dorner, and Jánosi, “Ausgrabungen in dem Palastbezirk von Avaris,” 71. 40 Fuscaldo, Tell el-Dabʿa X/2, 27–28 and “Tell el-Dabʿa: Two Execration Pits and a Founda- tion Deposit,” 187. 41 Janzen, Iconography of Humiliation, 314–15; Muhlestein, Violence in the Service of Order, 48. 42 Seiler, Tradition & Wandel.

Journal of Egyptian History 11 (2018) 87–112 Downloaded from Brill.com09/23/2021 05:34:17PM via free access 98 Matić

1. That both pits contain skeletal material of individuals which are differently placed in their pits in comparison with other burials in this area does not on its own suggest an execration ritual, even if the individuals died from violence. As I previously mentioned, the evidence for trauma is actually not present on the skeletal material from the small pit L1055 and the publishers themselves argue that there is no evidence for trauma in the larger pit L1016. Therefore, there is indeed no unequivocal evidence that these individuals died from violence. 2. The larger pit indeed contained fragments of c. 380 vessels. However, not all of the pots deposited in the pit were smashed, as is indicated by the field drawings. Namely, as usual in Tell el-Dabʿa, the workers first cleaned the surface of the pit, which showed a large concentration of pottery fragments and other above-mentioned material (Situation 1). After Situation 1 was documented the excavation was continued until the bones were found. They were carefully cleaned and left in situ with the surrounding vessels, some of them clearly not entirely broken (Situation 2).43 Also, the pottery assemblage from this pit is not unified but shows a variety of forms.44 3. The skeletal material is argued to have “Negroid” features, however it is nowhere stated which features these might be and which methodology the anthropologists used in identifying the bodies as “Negroid” based on the available sample of skeletons found and analyzed until then in Tell el-Dabʿa. Identifying bodies as “Negroid” based on the skeletal material falls under the methodology of anthropologists working in Tell el-Dabʿa from the 1960s to 1980s.45 Under “Rassendiagnose”—“Racial diagnosis” they understand analysis of combinations of racial specific formal features of the body, e.g. skeleton, but they admit that this does not have to meet the features of the soft tissue in detail.46 This basically means that it is not possible to determine on the basis of osteological material whether an individual was a Nubian or not. Also, anthropologists who studied the largest corpus of skeletons from Tell el-Dabʿa state how differentiation of racial types is based on history of the region and historically attested population movements but also modern differences in

43 Fuscaldo, Tell el-Dabʿa X/2, Fig. 7 and Fig. 8. 44 The same argument was given against the pottery from Tutankhamun’s embalming cache as being the remains of a breaking of the red pots ritual, Allen, “Tutankhamun’s Embalm- ing Cache Reconsidered,” 28. 45 Interestingly the survey of anthropological literature of this period showed that most anthropologists studying human variation did not use the concept of race in gathering and analyzing their data, with only a minority doing so; Cartmill, “The Status of the Race Concept in Physical Anthropology,” 655. 46 Winkler und Wilfing, Tell el-Dabʿa VI, 18.

Journal of EgyptianDownloaded History from 11 Brill.com09/23/2021(2018) 87–112 05:34:17PM via free access “Execration” of Nubians in Avaris? 99 populations of different regions in Egypt.47 This is expected because population in northern Africa, like that of modern North America, shows highs level of phenotypic variability maintained by migration and gene flow. Therefore applying racial typologies here is futile. It would make no sense to classify the people of North Africa into racial categories based on epidermal pigmentation, hair texture, or nose, lip, and eyelid shape.48 The anthropologists who studied the largest corpus of Tell el-Dabʿa skeletons so far give the following features as typically Negroid in comparison to Europeid populations: dolichocranic, orthocranic, acrocranic, in top view mostly ovoid, crypto-zygous skull with a narrow, sharp, rounded forehead and weak to moderately developed glabella and the same supraorbital ridge; moderately foreign occipital, middle sized mastoid; leptoprosopic face with high eye-sockets and moderate sized interoribital bright, wide anterior nasal aperture, stronger U-shaped arch in upper and lower jaw. The lower jaw is characterized by a bright low boughs, lower body, and weak developed chin. Mesognathy to pronounced prognathy. Postcranial skeleton is of middle body height, slim extremities, a strong torsion of the humerus, long forearms and lower-legs, platyknemic tibiae, a short torso, weak shoulders, a weak and flat thorax, a weak pelvis, and large hands and feet.49 These authors themselves stress that some male Europeid individuals in Tell el-Dabʿa show especially Negroid facial features and that there was a constant mixture of Europeids and Negroids in Egyptian history.50 Indeed, the level of intergeographic variation in human craniofacial form is low relative to intrageographic variation. However, contemporary physical anthropology does not tend to classify crania into any one particular “race” but to delineate first and foremost the intra-sample variation and then to compare this with a global cranial data set in order to establish the degree of similarity to other cranial samples. Such an approach does not consider cranial forms to be fixed racial morphs but assumes that variation occurs in a mostly clinical morphological manner. As a result, it is argued that anthroposcopic “race” estimation methods utilized in forensic anthropology are completely inappropriate.51 Additionally, when determining ancestry one concentrates on the variety of the morphological traits and not solely on cranial morphology.

47 Winkler und Wilfing, Tell el-Dabʿa VI, 18. 48 Cartmill, “The Status of the Race Concept in Physical Anthropology,” 653. 49 The authors emphasize how these characteristics are found only in “extreme” variants of Negroids (Sudaniden, Paleonegriden of West Africa) and can be used only as help for identifying Negroids of north-east Africa, Winkler und Wilfing, Tell el-Dabʿa VI, 19. 50 Winkler und Wilfing, Tell el-Dabʿa VI, 19. 51 Zakrzewski, “Population Migration, Variation, and Identity,” 195–96.

Journal of Egyptian History 11 (2018) 87–112 Downloaded from Brill.com09/23/2021 05:34:17PM via free access 100 Matić

Even the contemporary bioarchaeology of Egypt distances itself from the concept of race and early anthropological research presuming the existence of fixed “racial types”; instead fluidity in morphology is acknowledged.52 None of the above-mentioned characteristics are however published related to the individuals from the “execration” pits in Tell el-Dabʿa. Therefore, it is not clear on the basis of which evidence were the individuals interpreted as Nubians by Großschmidt and Tangl.53 It is of paramount importance that these data are published so that other scholars can critically asses it. Otherwise, it turns into a fact which is then used in the building up of other arguments and interpretations. Such definite statements on ethnicity of the buried individuals are often based on assumptions and “experience” with little scientific arguments behind them.54 One should always be careful when anthropologists assign ethnicity on the basis of craniometry as the same method was used by early anthropologists producing racist classifications.55 “Races” are socially assigned and not biologically given and that is why the anthropometric assignment of a skeleton to a certain “race” is not independent from the social assignment of “race.” This is because the crania measured in order to calculate values which can be used in forensic archaeology and more broadly physical anthropology were first and foremost socially assigned to a specific race when the bodies were still with flesh. That is why the “racial types” based on these values are always historically contingent and not universal.56

52 Zakrzewski, “Behind Every Mask there is a Face, and Behind that a Story,” 159–60. 53 The first information was published only recently. It is stated that according to the anthropological study of Großschmidt at least one of the skulls from small pit L1055 shows strong prognatious macrodont features which supposedly points to Upper Nubian origin, Aston and Bietak, “Nubians in the Nile Delta,” 503; Bietak, “The Many Ethnicities of Avaris,” 84. 54 Similarly, the interpretation of the skull from the Mirgissa deposit as Nubian is widely accepted by Egyptologists. Yet the skull is described as Nubian based on the “experience” of the publisher who claimed to have worked on a few 100s of skulls on Nubian excavations. However, except for that single statement he does not provide any other scientific arguments for his claim that the individual ritually killed in Mirgissa was indeed a Nubian, Vila, “Un rituel d’envoûtement au Moyen Empire égyptien,” 637. 55 Martin, Harrod, and Pérez, Bioarchaeology, 29. 56 Hunter and Cox, Forensic Archaeology, 163–64. There is also no evidence that Egyptians made “racial” discriminations, and whether or not they themselves were “black” is an issue of social judgment and as such it varies from society to society; see Roth, “Ancient Egypt in America. Claiming the riches,” 223.

Journal of EgyptianDownloaded History from 11 Brill.com09/23/2021(2018) 87–112 05:34:17PM via free access “Execration” of Nubians in Avaris? 101

4. Nubian pottery found in areas of ʿEzbet Helmi (H/I–H/VI), F/II, and ʿEzbet Rushdi (R/III) counts all together less than 200 published fragments57 and dates from the beginning of the 15th Dynasty (Stratum E/1, settlement context in R/III; Stratum D/2, 15th Dynasty contexts from H/VI) supposedly to the Thutmosid Period (Stratum C/3 to Stratum C/1 in H/III and H/VI). Fuscaldo published 47 Nubian shards from areas H/III and H/VI and 1 shard supposed to be an Egyptian imitation of a Kerma cooking pot. These shards are mostly found in area H/VI where they were found within the remains of the large palace G and its annex building J, workshop W2 and the workshop area, artificial deposits of pottery, mud fill of a pit, a rubbish deposit, and an artificial deposition of mud-brick debris. There are all together 13 shards of black topped beakers, 14 shards of black topped bowls, 4 shards of black topped cooking pots, 1 shard of a cooking pot with impressed decoration, 5 shards of cooking pots with incised decoration and 1 shard of a cooking pot with combed decoration, 1 shard of an undecorated cooking pot, and 8 body shards belonging to general house- hold ware.58 Hein published 19 fragments of Nubian shards from areas H/I, H/II, and H/IV. All of these shards are from Stratum C and most of them date to the early 18th Dynasty with some coming from disturbed contexts. There are 10 shards of beakers, 5 shards of bowls, and 2 shards of vases from areas H/I, H/II, and H/IV. The shards come from either disturbed contexts, fillings, walls, etc. but none comes from its original context.59 Aston published 31 Nubian shards from pit complex L81 situated within a courtyard associated with a Hyksos Period palace, more precisely building B of the palatial complex. The shards belonged to vessels already broken before their shards found their way in the pit. He dates the pit complex into Stratum E/1-D/3 and although he rec- ognizes Pan Grave culture traits, Aston refers more cautiously to the shards as more broadly Nubian.60 Forstner-Müller and Rose published 5 shards from area R/III, 82 shards from area F/II (L81 pit complex), 3 shards from area H/III, and 3 shards from area H/VI. Some of the material published by Forstner-Müller and Rose was already published by other authors, however Forstner-Müller and Rose concentrated on a more nuanced fabric division and therefore included both unpublished and published material. The R/III sherds date to the earlier

57 There are also still unpublished shards from contexts other than pit complex L81 in palace complex F/II and unpublished shards from R/III currently being worked on by Irene Forstner-Müller, Pam Rose, and Vera Michel. 58 Fuscaldo, “The Nubian Pottery, Part I,” “The Nubian Pottery, Part II,” and “The Nubian Pottery, Part III.” 59 Hein, “Kerma in Auaris.” 60 Aston, “From the Deep South to the Far North,” 159–66.

Journal of Egyptian History 11 (2018) 87–112 Downloaded from Brill.com09/23/2021 05:34:17PM via free access 102 Matić half of the 15th Dynasty (end of Stratum E/1) and come from a settlement context. Forstner-Müller and Rose add that Nubian pottery is found in other contexts also within the palace complex in F/II rather than only in pit complex L81.61 Newly discovered Nubian shards after the work Michel conducted on the pottery from R/III will be published by Michel and Rose. The number of the shards is not large.62 None of these fragments is, according to the published reports, found in association with any of the burials in areas H/I and H/III nor with the so called “execration” pits. So far Nubian pottery in Tell el-Dabʿa comes only from settlement contexts. More recent studies of the Nubian pottery from Tell el-Dabʿa suggested various other interpretations including trade and/or gift-giving,63 the role of local production, and importation and repair of Nubian ware, all emphasizing the fact that Nubian pottery was not found in funerary contexts in Tell el-Dabʿa.64 If one takes into account that 82 shards come from a single context dated to 15th Dynasty (early or late depending on the dating of the pit complex L81) and the remaining 120 mostly date from early 18th Dynasty to supposedly the Thutmosid Period, it is clear that most of the published pottery dates to 15th Dynasty and the rest of the shards are distributed chronologically over a long time period. Also, the pottery is found in different areas of Tell el-Dabʿa and thus the percent of occurrence is rather small. Therefore, Nubian pottery from the site does not indicate the presence of Nubian soldiers. Even if this pottery was found in the burials from the cemetery in areas H/I and H/ III, which is not the case, this would still not mean that the buried individuals are Nubians. 5. Flint arrowheads found in area H/I count all together 5 pieces and are interpreted as Nubian on the basis of an analogy with the flint arrowheads from the New Kingdom cemetery at Soleb II in the Sudan.65 However, the ones from Soleb come from Tomb 17 which has the reign of Thutmose III as a termi- nus post quem since three scarabs were found in the tomb inscribed with the prenomen of this king.66 The arrowheads from Soleb are of a different type

61 Forstner-Müller and Rose, “Nubian Pottery at Avaris in the Second Intermediate Period,” 181–84, 201–10. 62 I would like to thank Irene Fostner-Müller, Pamela Rose, and Vera Michel for this information. Preliminary information on the presence of Nubian pottery in area R/III can be found in one of the site reports, Forstner-Müller, Jeuthe, Michel, und Prell “Grabungen, Zweiter Vorbericht,” 28–29. 63 Aston, “From the Deep South to the Far North” 163–64. 64 Forstner-Müller and Rose, “Nubian Pottery at Avaris in the Second Intermediate Period,” 200; cf. Matić, “Nubian archers in Avaris.” 65 Tillmann, “Die Steinartefakte,” 108. 66 Giorgini, Soleb II, 199.

Journal of EgyptianDownloaded History from 11 Brill.com09/23/2021(2018) 87–112 05:34:17PM via free access “Execration” of Nubians in Avaris? 103 than the ones from Tell el-Dabʿa.67 Bifacial arrowheads are known from Soleb II but they are, unlike Delta arrowheads, without tang (only one exception out of 11 known from the cemetery). Indeed, the flint arrowheads from H/I are identi- cal to the ones from Qantir dated to the New Kingdom and studied by Tillmann. He postulated that the arrowheads from Qantir could have belonged to Nubian soldiers stationed there, because chalcedony, as the raw material of which the arrowheads are made, is not found in the Delta.68 Chalcedony is in the form of raw material present at least in Qantir69 and thus the arrowheads could have been produced locally. The presence of the raw material does not however exclude that it was imported. These arrowheads are identified by Hikade as “el-Kurru” arrowheads because of the analogy from the royal necropolis at el-Kurru (850–650 BC). Hikade stressed that, although Tillmann’s connection of the finds from Qantir to Nubian soldiers is well based on the typological analogy and the raw material, the problem is with the lack of contemporary analogies.70 Therefore, the idea that the arrowheads from H/I belonged to “Nubian” archers is based on the same interpretation of typologically same arrowheads from Qantir. The typological identification was thus immediately taken as a hint for the same scenario. It was later published that the arrowheads were found in a higher stratum dated to supposedly the Thutmoside Period.71 Therefore, they cannot be related to the coming of king Ahmose to Avaris, as originally proposed by several authors,72 even from the stratigraphic point of view. It is also not clear why Bietak refers to these arrowheads as Kerma arrowheads. Most probably this classification of the arrowheads is based on his connection of these finds with the Nubian pottery in Tell el-Dabʿa which he interprets as either Kerma or Pan Grave culture pottery. When the date of the finds was changed the reference to Ahmose was changed to a reference to the campaigns of Thutmose III73 and Amenhotep I.74 This indicates that the same culture- historical interpretative background was kept behind the ethnic attribution of archaeological material with historical settings for the unchanged interpretation shifting together with changes in the date. A careful reader will notice

67 Giorgini, Soleb II, 194. 68 Tillmann, Die Steinartefakte des dynastichen Ägypten, 87–91; cf. Tillmann, “Die Steinarte- fakte,” 108. 69 Personal communication with Silvia Prell, to whom I would like to express my gratitude for sharing this information rarely taken into account. 70 Hikade, “Silex-Pfeilspitzen in Ägypten,” 123. 71 Bietak, “From where came the Hyksos and where did they go?,” 165. 72 Bietak, “The Center of Hyksos Rule,” 115–16; Bietak, Dorner, and Jánosi, “Ausgrabungen in dem Palastbezirk von Avaris,” 71. 73 Fuscaldo, “The Nubian Pottery, Part III,” 110. 74 Bietak, “From where came the Hyksos and where did they go?,” 165.

Journal of Egyptian History 11 (2018) 87–112 Downloaded from Brill.com09/23/2021 05:34:17PM via free access 104 Matić a similarity to other more heatedly debated finds from Tell el-Dabʿa, namely the Minoan frescoes.75 It is interesting that by the time Fuscaldo published the pottery from the “execration” pits, the dating of the palaces in ʿEzbet Helmi had been revised several times with the latest date being Thutmoside.76 It is therefore not at all clear why Fuscaldo interprets the “execration” pits as related to the later building activities of Ahmose if the palaces originally attributed to the late Hyksos kings or Ahmose were re-dated. 6. The reference to the campaign of Ahmose in Nubia also cannot be used as an argument for the presence of Nubian soldiers in Tell el-Dabʿa for several reasons. First and foremost the authors argue that the burials, pottery, and arrowheads previously discussed, can be related to silos in area H/III, seen as evidence of a military camp for Ahmose’s campaign in Palestine in which the king supposedly took Nubian soldiers.77 However, this is an interpretation, not a fact, it is not based on any epigraphic evidence and can therefore not be used as a secure datum-line78 or a historical background for interpretation of different contexts. The authors who suggested that Ahmose was behind the Nubians refer to the Biography of Ahmose son of Ebana as a textual attestation for this.79 The problem is that the text they actually refer to dates the Nubian campaign after the campaign in Syria-Palestine was over.80 Therefore, at least on the basis of the text the authors refer to, the king could not have taken Nubians from Nubia with him to Avaris as he went to Nubia after he went to Avaris. There is always the possibility that there were already Nubians in the troops of Ahmose, however this is not epigraphically confirmed and can only be argued on the basis of the presence of Nubian pottery at Deir el-Ballas and Kerma burials in Upper Egypt.81 However, even if we accept this as evidence for Nubians living in Upper Egypt we cannot be sure they were employed as soldiers, let alone as mercenaries. That other authors dealing with the archaeology of Egypt work within the same culture-historical paradigm does not mean their interpretations are of the same value as explicit epigraphic data. The camp argued to be represented with ash-pits in the same place where the burials are found is

75 For the same issue with Minoan frescoes and their interpretation see, Cline, “Rich beyond the Dreams of Avaris”; Matić, “Was there ever a ‘Minoan’ princess on the Egyptian court?” 76 But see the papers in Forstner-Müller and Moeller, The Hyksos Ruler Khyan. 77 Bietak, “Introduction. Context and Date of the Wall Paintings,” 39. 78 Hoflmayer, “Carbone-14 Comparé,” 285. 79 Bietak, “The Center of Hyksos Rule,” 115–16; Bietak, Dorner, and Jánosi, “Ausgrabungen in dem Palastbezirk von Avaris,” 71. 80 ẖr m-ẖt sm3 n ḥm=f Mntyw-Sṯt “after His Majesty had slain the Asiatics” (Urk. IV, 5:4). 81 Bourriau, “Relations between Egypt and Kerma during the Middle and New Kingdoms,” 131.

Journal of EgyptianDownloaded History from 11 Brill.com09/23/2021(2018) 87–112 05:34:17PM via free access “Execration” of Nubians in Avaris? 105 said to be of the same date as the burials. Both intermediary phases together (D /1.2 and D/1.1) are according to the publishers to be understood as at least twenty years long or even more.82 This means that the cemetery and the “execration” pits, strictly stratigraphically speaking do not have to be the result of Ahmose’s taking of Avaris. Magazines with silos often associated to Ahmose and his presence in Avaris are in fact older than the cemetery and the “execration” pits.83 There is also no epigraphic evidence in situ which could relate any of these contexts to Ahmose, and in fact a scarab, a stela fragment, and a sculp- tor’s work piece come from layers of the later palace.84 One more additional problem in regard to the “execration” pits is that if the Nubians were indeed brought by Ahmose why would he then later kill them in a ritual act aimed at the Hyksos as Fuscaldo suggests? Additionally, it was recently pointed out that breaking of the red pots related to a burial ritual results from the activities of private individuals, whereas the ritual destruction of enemies (including breaking of the red pots) was of state’s interest, although these two aspects can be compatible.85 If we follow the interpretation that the “execration” pits at Tell el-Dabʿa are related to Ahmose himself and his taking of Avaris, then we are dealing with the state’s interest. If we would expect this to be conducted in this particular place, namely a minor cemetery without any peculiarities, is another question. If, however, in the case of Tell el-Dabʿa pits we are dealing with a burial or re-deposition, then the potential activity interpreted as breaking of the red pots has to be seen as private activity which would also fit better the context of the pits in a minor cemetery. 7. The Mirgissa deposit was given as an analogy for Tell el-Dabʿa because of the presence of skeletal remains, interpreted as belonging to a Nubian (based on skull morphology), and broken pottery. However, although predating the Tell el-Dabʿa evidence for at least around 430 years if not even more, the Mirgissa deposit is a problematic analogy because it is not located in a cemetery as are the pits in Tell el-Dabʿa. It was already suggested that one of the crucial elements of the Mirgissa deposit is its location in the liminal space between the cemetery and the settlement.86 This is not the case in Tell el-Dabʿa as the so called “execration” pits are found in the context of a minor cemetery, like in the case of Old and Middle Kingdom execration deposits. The pits in

82 Bietak, Dorner, und Jánosi, “Ausgrabungen in dem Palastbezirk von Avaris,” 35–36. 83 Bietak und Forstner-Müller, “Ausgrabung eines Palastbezirkes der Thutmosidenzeit,” 41; Bietak, Czerny, and Prell, “Ahmose in Avaris?,” 84. 84 Bietak, Czerny, and Prell, “Ahmose in Avaris?,” 81. 85 Theis, Magie und Raum, 66. 86 Seiler, Tradition & Wandel, 179.

Journal of Egyptian History 11 (2018) 87–112 Downloaded from Brill.com09/23/2021 05:34:17PM via free access 106 Matić

Tell el-Dabʿa also lack several crucial elements which the Mirgissa deposit has. These are evidence of trauma, as the individual in the Mirgissa deposit was decapitated, but also finds such as traces of wax colored with red ochre, probably belonging to a figurine used in the ritual, and a collection of clay figurines and pottery inscribed with execration texts. Therefore, the only connection between the Tell el-Dabʿa “execration” pits and the Mirgissa deposit is the possibility of decapitation. Traces of trauma have been argued to be present on a skull from the small pit L1055, however as I have argued above these traces are of questionable certainty. Additionally, one should add that difference must be made between breaking of the red pots following a ritual and breaking of the red pots as a component of the ritual. In the case of Tell el-Dabʿa it is not easy to argue archaeologically if the breaking of the pots occurred after or during the deposition of the bodies. For what it’s worth, it is questionable if the pots were deliberately broken at all.

5 Conclusion

It is quite clear that behind the interpretation of the bodies in “execration” pits as Nubian and behind the whole narrative on the presence of Nubian archers in Avaris lurks the same culture-historical paradigm as a hidden theory.87 The bodies are interpreted as Nubian on the basis of the anthropological identification of bodies as Negroid. The pottery which was not found in the burials and the “execration” pits from H/I and H/III was related to them because it was interpreted as originally produced by Nubians in Avaris or in Nubia and then imported to the site where it was found in other contexts. This pottery was interpreted as actual evidence for Nubian presence on the basis of culture- historical archaeology’s “pottery equals people” premise and was strengthened with the racial attribution of certain bodies as Negroid. The same can be said for 5 silex arrowheads which were not found in the burials and the “execration” pits from H/I and HIII, and are themselves actually later than the pits. Such a methodology is the hallmark of the 19th century approaches to ethnicity in which race, culture, and language seem to be put in an equation.88 Clearly, such a methodology has been proven to be erroneous, as was indeed done in the analysis in this paper.

87 Cf. Matić, “Nubian archers in Avaris,” 707–08. 88 Jones, The Archaeology of Ethnicity, 43.

Journal of EgyptianDownloaded History from 11 Brill.com09/23/2021(2018) 87–112 05:34:17PM via free access “Execration” of Nubians in Avaris? 107

The main arguments behind the interpretation of the skeletal remains from the two supposed “execration” pits are based on a complex set of erroneous assumptions on the relation between body, material culture, and ethnicity. The foreignness of these skeletal remains was for Fuscaldo crucial for the interpretation of the pits as “execration” pits, but one also has to consider the fact that execration texts can also target the internal enemies of Egypt.89 Finally, one can conclude that there are not a lot of elements, if any, which can be interpreted as evidence for an execration ritual at Tell el-Dabʿa. First and foremost the individuals placed in the large pit do not show traces of trauma and their ethnic identification as foreigners (Nubians) is not founded. That there are traces of ritual breaking of pottery can also not be argued con- clusively as the fragmented pots are found on the surface of the pit as is the usual archaeological situation. The rest of the material in the pit also does not indicate any ritual character. The Mirgissa deposit analogy is quite weak if one considers that there is no substantial evidence for trauma on the skeletons from both pits in Tell el-Dabʿa, but also that the elements which helped in the proper interpretation of the Mirgissa deposit (melted wax, clay figurines, crucibles, broken pottery inscribed with execration texts) are not present in Tell el-Dabʿa. One should bear in mind that two pits are entirely different. Larger pit L1016 contains two bodies and a fill rich in archaeological material and the smaller pit L1055 only body parts and few shards in the fill. No ritual objects are found in either of them. The two men in the large pit seem to have been deposited in the pit with the lack of particular care one would expect in a burial context. This is however not enough to interpret the deposition as ritual in character. Considering the well-known practice of tomb robbery in Tell el-Dabʿa one is tempted to think of a secondary deposition of both skeletal and archaeological material from robbed tombs. Re-deposition of skeletal material is a well-known phenomenon in Tell el-Dabʿa as tombs and burials are quite often looted with already decomposed bodies being fragmented and re- deposited. Such a situation is known from area R/IV for example.90 However, this practice in Tell el-Dabʿa was until now not thoroughly investigated. Both pits therefore have to be interpreted in the context of the cemetery in which they were found together with the pit burials containing remains of

89 Cf. Theis, Magie und Raum, 69. 90 The burials from area R/IV of Tell el-Dabʿa are currently being studied. There are clear cases of tomb robberies where the remains from the looted tombs were re-deposited. For preliminary reports on the burials and robberies see Forstner-Müller, Hassler, Matić, and Rose, “Grabungen, Erster Vorbericht,” 83; Matić, “Hafengebiet von Avaris,” 144–45.

Journal of Egyptian History 11 (2018) 87–112 Downloaded from Brill.com09/23/2021 05:34:17PM via free access 108 Matić adult individuals and children. Being that the anthropological analysis and thorough publication of all the graves is still not finished not a lot can be said about them. One thing is for sure, there is no conclusive evidence presented that these are burials of soldiers, let alone Nubian soldiers.91 Also, the assertion of Janzen, that dismissing the data from Tell el-Dabʿa as anything other than a human execration ritual, is disingenuous,92 as indeed is anything else but a careful reading of relatively badly published and problematically interpreted archaeological context.

Abbreviations

Urk. IV Sethe, K. Urkunden der 18. Dynastie. Historisch-Biographische Urkunden IV. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung, 1906.

Bibliography

Aston, D. “From the Deep South to the Far North: Nubian Sherds from Khatanʿa and ʿEzbet Helmi (Tell el-Dabʿa).” In Nubian Pottery from Egyptian Cultural Contexts of the Middle and Early New Kingdom. Proceedings of a Workshop held at the Austrian Archaeological Institute at Cairo, 1–12 December 2010, I. Forstner-Müller and P. Rose, eds., 159–179. Wien: Österreichische Archäologische Institut, 2012. Aston, D. and M. Bietak. “Nubians in the Nile Delta: À Propos Avaris and Peru-nefer.” In The New Kingdom in Nubia: Lived experience, pharaonic control and indigenous traditions, N. Spencer and A. Stevens, eds., 489–522. British Museum Publications on Egypt and Sudan 3. Leuven: Peeters, 2017. Allen, S.J. “Tutankhamun’s Embalming Cache Reconsidered.” In Egyptology at the Dawn of the Twenty-first Century. Proceedings of the Eighth International Congress of Egyptologists Cairo, 2000. Volume I: Archaeology, Z.A. Hawass, ed., 23–29. Cairo/New York: The American University in Cairo Press, 2003. Bietak, M. “The Center of Hyksos Rule: Avaris (Tell el-Dabʿa).” In The Hyksos: New Historical and Archaeological Perspectives, E.D. Oren, ed., 87–139. Philadelphia: The University Museum – University of Pennsylvania, 1997.

91 Cf. Matić, “Nubian archers in Avaris,” 707–08; contra Bietak, Czerny, and Prell, “Ahmose in Avaris?,” 83–84. 92 Janzen, Iconography of Humiliation, 315.

Journal of EgyptianDownloaded History from 11 Brill.com09/23/2021(2018) 87–112 05:34:17PM via free access “Execration” of Nubians in Avaris? 109

Bietak, M. “From where came the Hyksos and where did they go?” In The Second Intermediate Period (Thirteenth–Seventeenth Dynasties). Current Research, Future Prospects, M. Marée, ed., 139–181. OLA 192. Leuven: Uigeverij Peeters – Departement Oosterse Studies, 2010. Bietak, M. “Introduction. Context and Date of the Wall Paintings” In Taureador Scenes in Tell el-Dabʿa (Avaris) and Knossos, M. Bietak, N. Marinatos, and C. Palivou, eds., 13–43. UZKÖAI XXVII. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2007. Bietak, M. “The Many Ethnicities of Avaris: Evidence from the northern borderland of Egypt.” In From Microcosm to Macrocosm: Individual Households and Cities in Ancient Egypt and Nubia, J. Budka and J. Auenmüller, eds., 73–92. Leiden: Sidestone Press, 2018. Bietak, M., E. Czerny, and S. Prell. “Ahmose in Avaris?” In Mit archäologischen Schichten Geschichte schreiben. Festschrift für Edgar B. Pusch zum 70. Geburtstag, H. Franzmeier, T. Rehren, and R. Schulz, eds., 79–94. Hildesheim: Verlag Gebrüder Gerstenberg, 2016. Bietak, M., J. Dorner, and P. Jánosi. “Ausgrabungen in dem Palastbezirk von Avaris. Vorbericht Tell el-Dabʿa/ʿEzbet Helmi 1993–2000.” Ägypten und Levante 11 (2001): 27–119. Bietak, M. and I. Forstner-Müller, “Ausgrabung eines Palastbezirkes der Thutmosidenzeit bei ʿEzbet Helmi/Tell el-Dabʿa, Vorbericht für das Frühjahr 2007.” Ägypten und Levante 17 (2007): 33–58. Bietak, M., N. Math., V. Müller, and C. Jurman. “Report on the excavations of a Hyksos Palace at Tell el-Dabʿa/Avaris (23rd August–15th November 2011).” Ägypten und Levante 22/23 (2012/2013): 17–53. Bourriau, J. “Relations between Egypt and Kerma during the Middle and New Kingdoms” In Egypt and Africa. Nubia from Prehistory to Islam, W.V. Davies, ed., 129–144. London: The British Museum, 1991. Cartmill, M. “The Status of the Race Concept in Physical Anthropology.” American Anthropologist 100/3 (1999): 651–660. Childe, V.G. The Danube in Prehistory. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1929. Cline, E.H. “Rich beyond the Dreams of Avaris: Tell El-Dabʿa and the Aegean World: A Guide for the Perplexed.” The Annual of British School at Athens 93 (1998): 199–219. Curta, F. “Ethnic Identity and Archaeology.” In Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology, C. Smith, ed., 2507–2514. New York: Spinger, 2014. Derks, T. and N. Roymans. “Introduction.” In Ethnic Constructs in Antiquity. The Role of Power and Tradition, T. Derks and N. Roymans, eds., 1–10. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2009. Forstner-Müller, I., A. Hassler., U. Matić and P. Rose. “Grabungen des Österreichischen Archäologischen Instituts Kairo in Tell el-Dabʿa/Avaris Der Hafen von Avaris—das Areal R/IV, Erster Vorbericht.” Ägypten und Levante 25 (2015): 73–88.

Journal of Egyptian History 11 (2018) 87–112 Downloaded from Brill.com09/23/2021 05:34:17PM via free access 110 Matić

Forstner-Müller, I., C. Jeuthe., V. Michel., and S. Prell. “Grabungen des Österreichischen Archäologischen Instituts Kairo in Tell el-Dabʿa/Avaris. Das Areal R/III, Zweiter Vorbericht.” Ägypten und Levante 25 (2015): 17−72. Forstner-Müller, I. and N. Moeller, eds. The Hyksos Ruler Khyan and the Early Second Intermediate Period in Egypt: Problems and Priorities of Current Research. Proceedings of the Workshop of the Austrian Archaeological Institute and the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, Vienna, July 4–5, 2014. Ergänzungshefte zu den Jahresheften des Österreichischen Archäologischen Institutes 17. Wien: Holzhausen, 2018. Forstner-Müller, I. and P. Rose. “Nubian Pottery at Avaris in the Second Intermediate Period and the New Kingdom: Some Remarks.” In Nubian Pottery from Egyptian Cultural Contexts of the Middle and Early New Kingdom. Proceedings of a Workshop held at the Austrian Archaeological Institute at Cairo, 1–12 December 2010, I. Forstner- Müller and P. Rose, eds., 181–212. Wien: Österreichische Archäologische Institut, 2012. Fuscaldo, P. “The Nubian Pottery from the Palace District of Avaris at ʿEzbet Helmi, Areas H/III and H/VI. Part I: The ‘Classic’ Kerma Pottery from the 18th Dynasty.” Ägypten und Levante 12 (2002): 167–186. Fuscaldo, P. “The Nubian Pottery from the Palace District of Avaris at ʿEzbet Helmi, Areas H/III and H/VI. Part II: The ‘Classic’ Kerma Pottery from the Second Intermediate Period and the 18th Dynasty.” Ägypten und Levante 14 (2004): 111–119. Fuscaldo, P. “The Nubian Pottery from the Palace District of Avaris at ʿEzbet Helmi, Areas H/III and H/VI. Part III: The ‘Classic’ Kerma Pottery from the Second Intermediate Period and the 18th Dynasty.” Ägypten und Levante 18 (2008): 107–127. Fuscaldo, P. Tell el-Dabʿa X/2. The Palace District of Avaris. The Pottery of the Hyksos Period and the New Kingdom (Areas H/III and H/VI). Part II: Two execration pits and a foundation deposit. UZKÖAI XXXVI. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2010. Fuscaldo, P. “Tell el-Dabʿa: Two Execration Pits and a Foundation Deposit.” In Egyptology at the Dawn of the Twenty-first Century. Proceedings of the Eighth International Congress of Egyptologists Cairo, 2000. Volume 1. Archaeology, Z.A. Hawass, ed., 185– 188. Cairo and New York: The American University in Cairo Press, 2003. Giorgini, M.S. Soleb II. Les Nécropoles. Firenze: Sansoni, 1971. Hein, I. “Kerma in Auaris,” In Begegnungen. Antike Kulturen im Niltal. Festgabe für Erika Endesfelder, Karl-Heinz Priese, Walter Friedrich Reineke, Steffen Wenig von Schülern und Mitarbeitern, C-B. Arnst, I. Hafemann, and A. Lohwasser, eds., 202–208. Leipzig: Verlag Helmar Wodtke und Katharina Stegnauer, 2001. Hodder, I. Symbols in action. Ethnoarchaeological studies of material culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982.

Journal of EgyptianDownloaded History from 11 Brill.com09/23/2021(2018) 87–112 05:34:17PM via free access “Execration” of Nubians in Avaris? 111

Hoflmayer, F. “Carbone-14 Comparé: Middle Bronze Age I (IIA) Chronology, Tell el-Dabʿa and Radiocarbon Data.” In There and Back Again—the Crossroads II. Proceedings of an International Conference Held in Prague, September 15–18, 2014, J. Mynářová, P. Onderka, and P. Pavúk, eds., 265–295. Prague: Charles University in Prague, Faculty of Arts, 2015. Hikade, T. “Silex-Pfeilspitzen in Ägypten.” Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 57 (2001): 109–125. Hunter, J. and M. Cox. Forensic Archaeology: Advances in Theory and Practice. London/ New York: Routledge, 2005. Janzen, M.D. Iconography of Humiliation: The Depiction and Treatment of Bound Foreigners in New Kingdom Egypt. Ph.D dissertation. The University of Memphis, 2013. Jones, S. The Archaeology of Ethnicity. Constructing identities in the past and present. London/New York: Routledge, 1997. Liszka, K. “We have come from the well of Ibhet: Ethnogenesis of the Medjay.” Journal of Egyptian History 4.2 (2011): 149–171. Martin, D.L., R.P. Harrod., V.R. Pérez. Bioarchaeology. An Integrated Approach to Working with Human Remains. New York: Springer, 2013. Matić, U. “Hafengebiet von Avaris und Bestattungen der Zweiten Zwischenzeit des Areals R/IV, Tell el-Dabʿa.” In Gebauter Raum: Architektur—Landschaft—Mensch. Beiträge des fünften Münchner Arbeitskreises Junge Aegyptologie (MAJA 5), 12.12. bis 14.12.2014, S. Becl, B. Backes, I-T. Liao, H. Simon, and A. Verbovsek, eds., 139–150. GOF 62. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2016. Matić, U. “Nubian archers in Avaris: A study of culture-historical reasoning in archaeology of Egypt.” Etnoantropološki problemi (Issues in Ethnology and Anthropology) 9.3 (2014): 697–721. Matić, U. “Was there ever a ‘Minoan’ princess on the Egyptian court?” In A History of Research into Ancient Egyptian Culture Conducted in Southeast Europe, M. Tomorad, ed., 145–156. Archaeopress Egyptology 8. Oxford: Archaeopress, 2015. Muhlestein, K. Violence in the Service of Order: The Religious Framework for Sanctioned Killing in Ancient Egypt. BAR International Series 2299. Oxford: Archaeopress, 2011. Obłuski, A. “Dodekaschoinos in Late Antiquity. Ethnic Blemmyes vs. Political Blemmyes and the Arrival of Nobades.” Mitteilungen der Sudanarchäologischen Gesellschaft zu Berlin 24 (2013): 141–147. Olsen, B. and Z. Kobyliński. “Ethnicity in anthropological and archaeological research.” Archaeologia Polona 29 (1991): 5–27. Redmount, C.A. “Ethnicity, Pottery, and the Hyksos at Tell El-Maskhuta in the Egyptian Delta.” The Biblical Archaeologist 58.4 (1995): 182–190. Riggs, C. and J. Baines. “Ethnicity.” In UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology, E. Frood and W. Wendrich, eds., 1–16. Los Angeles: University of California Los Angeles.

Journal of Egyptian History 11 (2018) 87–112 Downloaded from Brill.com09/23/2021 05:34:17PM via free access 112 Matić

Roberts, R.G. “Hyksos self-presentation and ‘culture’.” In Decorum and experience. Essays in ancient culture for John Baines, E. Frood and A. McDonald, eds., 285–290. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 2013. Roth, A.M. “Ancient Egypt in America. Claiming the riches.” In Archaeology Under Fire Nationalism, politics and heritage in the Eastern Mediterranean and Middle East, L. Meskell, ed., 217–229. London/New York: Routledge, 1998. Schneider, T. “Foreigners in Egypt. Archaeological Evidence and Cultural Context.” In Egyptian Archaeology, W. Wendrich, ed., 143–163. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010. Seiler, A. Tradition & Wandel. Die Keramik als Spiegel der Kulturentwicklung Thebens in der Zweiten Zwischenzeit. Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern, 2005. Sommer, U. and A. Gramsch. “German Archaeology in Context: An Introduction to History and Present of Central European Archaeology.” In A History of Central European Archaeology. Theory, Methods, and Politics, U. Sommer and A. Gramsch, eds., 7–39. Budapest: Archaeolingua, 2011. Theis, C. Magie und Raum. Der magische Schutz ausgewählter Räume im alten Ägypten nebst einem Vergleich zu angrenzenden Kulturbereichen. Orientalische Religionen in der Antike 13. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014. Tillmann, A. “Die Steinartefakte.” In Pharaonen und Fremde: Dynastien im Dunkel, 194 Sonderausstellung des Historischen Museums der Stadt Wien in Zusammenarbeit mit dem Ägyptologischen Institut der Universität Wien und dem Österreichischen Archäologischen Institut Kairo, Rathaus Wien, Volkshalle, I. Hein and M. Bietak, eds., 105–109. Wien: Eigenverlag der Museen der Stadt Wien, 1994. Tillmann, A. Die Steinartefakte des dynastichen Ägypten, dargestellt am Bespiel der Inventare aus Tell el-Dabʿa und Qantir. Zugleich ein Beitrag zur Bedeutung steinzeitli- cher Gerätschaften in metallverarbeitenden Kulturen im Alten Orient. Dissertation. Tübingen: Eberhard-Karls-Universität Tübingen, 1992. Vila, A. “Un rituel d’envoûtement au Moyen Empire égyptien.” In L’Homme hier et aujourd’hui. Recueil d’ètudes en Hommage à André Leroi-Gourhan, M. Sauter, ed., 625–639. Paris: Éditions Cujas, 1973. Winkler, E-M. and H. Wilfing. Tell el-Dabʿa VI. Anthropologische Untersuchungen an den Skelettresten der Kampagnen 1966–69, 1975–80, 1985. UZKÖAI XI. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Weissenschaften, 1991. Zakrzewski, S. “Behind Every Mask there is a Face, and Behind that a Story. Egyptian Bioarchaeology and Ancient Identities.” In Egyptian Bioarchaeology. Humans, Animals and the Environment, S. Ikram, J. Kaiser, and R. Walker, eds., 157–168. Leiden: Sidestone Press, 2015. Zakrzewski, S. “Population Migration, Variation, and Identity: An Islamic Population in Iberia.” In Social Bioarchaeology, S.C. Agarwal and B.A. Glencross, eds., 183–211. Oxford: Willey-Blackwell, 2011.

Journal of EgyptianDownloaded History from 11 Brill.com09/23/2021(2018) 87–112 05:34:17PM via free access