Palestine Exploration Quarterly
ISSN: 0031-0328 (Print) 1743-1301 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ypeq20
Scarabs of Sheshi at Tell El-ajjul, Contra Kempinski
Robert Martin Porter
To cite this article: Robert Martin Porter (2016) Scarabs of Sheshi at Tell El- ajjul, Contra Kempinski, Palestine Exploration Quarterly, 148:2, 133-145, DOI: 10.1080/00310328.2016.1186344 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00310328.2016.1186344
Published online: 07 Jun 2016.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 196
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ypeq20 Palestine Exploration Quarterly, , (), –
SCARABS OF SHESHI AT TELL EL-AJJUL, CONTRA KEMPINSKI R M P
The find spots of eight scarabs of the Hyksos Pharaoh Sheshi from Tell el-Ajjul in southwest Palestine, excavated by Petrie, are re-examined in detail and found not to agree with the levels attributed to them by Aaron Kempinski in 1983. He argued that these scarabs related to the founding of City II, but some of them actually came from the earlier City III. This may have implications for the correct relationship between two transitions, that from Middle Bronze Age II to Late Bronze Age I in Palestine and that from Dynasty fifteen to eighteen in Egypt. An appendix considers scarabs of Pharaoh Apophis at Ajjul.
Keywords: sheshi, Apophis, scarabs, Tell el-Ajjul, Kempinski, Petrie, Middle Bronze Age, Late Bronze Age
. The aim of this article is to show that scarabs of the Hyksos king Sheshi (usually placed in the first half of the th dynasty, see below) came from both City III and the following City II at Tell el-Ajjul (a major ancient town about miles southwest of Gaza City). However, it was claimed by the late Aharon Kempinski in his book Syrien und Palästina (Kanaan) in der letzten Phase der Mittelbronze IIb – Zeit (– v. Chr.), that the earliest Sheshi scarabs came from the foundations of City II1. He deduced that City III was mainly contemporary with the th dynasty, ending just before the reign of Sheshi, and that City II covered the th dynasty (Hyksos period), ending with the conquest by Ahmose of the th dynasty2. Ajjul is not easy to investigate due to the poor quality of the excavation reports (see below) and this has contributed to faults in Kempinski’s analysis of the Sheshi scarab find-spots. The importance of this subject is that Kempinski’s placement of City II contemporary with the Hyksos, may have contributed to a mismatch in the relationship between Egyptian history and Levantine archaeology. By contrast, Albright () dated City II as th dynasty, not th. A related problem is whether the date of the transition from MB II to LB I3 should be placed before or after the transition from th to th dynasty. Both historical and archaeological transitions have tended to be placed c. BC but Kempinski placed the archaeological transition slightly earlier (, –; , ), and others have suggested later. However, these questions will not be considered in detail in this article4 which is mainly concerned to establish the correct find spots of the Sheshi scarabs. Brief sections on Tell el-Ajjul and Sheshi follow, then the detailed consideration of the scarab find spots, results and con- clusions, and an appendix on Apophis scarabs from Ajjul.
. - Petrie’s excavations of the s were published in five volumes with the title Ancient Gaza (hereafter AG plus volume number). Ajjul was probably not ancient Gaza but it may have been Sharuhen, the town to which the Hyksos leadership fled at the fall of Avaris.
Address correspondence to: Robert M. Porter, Havelock Road, CR0 QQ, UK. Email: [email protected]
© Palestine Exploration Fund : ./.. , , , Petrie published very promptly but his Ajjul reports were so confusing that Oren commented that they presented “a major challenge that very few scholars, if any, have managed so far to disentangle satisfactorily” (, ,n.). For multi-period sites such as this one, Sparks comments on Petrie’s “general failure throughout to properly define the floors of his rooms”, and that as a result “levelling fills, constructional fills and occupational fills tend to be severely mixed” (, ). Therefore it is usually not possible to tell whether an item relates to a building’s construction or destruction. See also the scathing comments of Stewart on his problems of trying to decide from the plans, what walls and rooms belonged to City II (, ; Sparks , ,n.)5. One also battles with Petrie’s overstretched dating system for Egyptian dynasties, his back to front th dynasty with Apophis in the middle and Sheshi at the end (see below), his attribution of imports to incorrect regions (his ‘Anatolian Style’ pottery seems to be, or at least to include, Proto White Slip from Cyprus), and uncertain compass orientations — he often approximated the sea as West (AG III, ) although its closest point is actually North-West. Nevertheless, his relation between Egyptian dynasties and the Ajjul city levels was somewhat similar to Kempinski (, ) — Petrie had City III as approximately th dynasty and City II as th. The nearest Petrie came to showing a general plan of the site with the various fields of exca- vation was in AG III, Pl. . This lack was remedied in Tufnell , (replicated in Keel , ). Plans of parts of the excavations can also be found in Kempinski , Plans –; , ; and Sparks , , . The excavations produced two housing levels, City III followed by City II, separated in places by a burnt destruction (‘City I’ was only found as surface traces). There was also a series of ‘Palaces’ numbered in the opposite direction from I, the oldest, to V6. Most authors have linked Palace I to City III and Palace II to City II but some have suggested that Palace I continued into part or all of the City II period and it has also been suggested that City II should be sub-divided into two phases (e.g. Bergoffen , ). Excavations in – near the palaces have confirmed that there were various sub-divisions (Fischer ). Fischer named his strata H to H, of which H-, at least, seem to correspond to City III, and H- might correspond to City II. As an approximate guide, City III can be con- sidered as MB IIC and City II is probably late MB IIC to LB I, possibly extending to LB IIA (Fischer , Table , ). Ajjul produced an enormous quantity of scarabs ( are listed in Keel ) of which were of Maibre Sheshi (listed below).
. No texts of Maibre Sheshi have ever been discovered but he has far more scarabs than any other Hyksos king (Ryholt , ). His prenomen is generally accepted as Maibre although this is not quite certain because it never occurs in combination with his nomen (Keel , ). Ryholt gives a table (, ) in which Sheshi scarabs have both early and late features — of thirty-one listed features, Sheshi scarabs have twenty-four7. Sequencing of scarab designs has produced varying results: Ward (, ) and Ben-Tor (, ) put Sheshi in the mid th dynasty between Khyan at the beginning and Apophis near the end, whereas Ryholt (, 8) and Krauss (, ) have Khyan and Apophis coming after Sheshi. Sheshi has often been equated with Manetho’s Salitis/Saites who overran Egypt and was therefore placed early in the th dynasty (e.g. Hayes , ; Kempinski , ). If Sheshi was the founder of his dynasty and/or the one who conquered northern Egypt, then his name would have been famous and may have been popular with later generations. As already noted, Petrie misplaced Sheshi at the end of the th dynasty (AG IV, , ), equating him with Josephus’ final Hyksos king, Assis (AG IV, ). - . Eight9 Sheshi scarabs were found at Tell el-Ajjul and Kempinski (wrongly – see below) attrib- uted their earliest find-spots to the foundations of City II (, ). He illustrates seven of the scarabs (, Fig. B10, Nos. –, , ) and he discusses the find-spots of some of them (, , –, ). There is a further Sheshi scarab that he failed to include, which has been added below and labelled as ‘X’. Kempinski saw in royal name scarabs an ‘extraordinarily valuable help for dating their find-spots’ (, ), a comment which may well apply if the royal name scarabs are plentiful and their earliest find-spots are placed in the correct stratum. Most of these scarabs are now in the Rockefeller Museum, Jerusalem (see Keel for details). They all came from the town area, none from the palaces or from the cemeteries outside the tell. In the subsequent paragraphs, one for each scarab, information is given in the following order: (a) Kempinski’s number from his Fig. B, his page references (if any) and the name on the scarab, either Sheshi or his prenomen, Maibre. (b) Petrie’s details including locus and height if given (heights are above sea level in inches) — this information is written in the AG volumes around the edge of the scarab drawings (see Fig. ). (c) Tufnell’s Studies on Scarab Seals Part () page references and numbers (her system pro- duces multiple numbers for the same scarab according to its various design features). Her Part gives illustrations of the scarabs, approximately in numerical order. (d) Keel’s Corpus der Stempelsiegel-Amulette () numbers for the scarabs (from his section on Ajjul, –). His scarab dating criteria are explained in Keel . (e) Further information and discussion. (f) A conclusion, where possible, as to which City level each scarab should be attributed to.
The scarab paragraphs are summarised in a results section. Note that, due to the difficulty of allocating individual pottery items to MB IIB or IIC, Kempinski (also Keel) combined both as his ‘MB IIB’, but he also refers to ‘late MB IIB’ (explained in , ) which approximates to MB IIC, i.e. the “letzten Phase der Mittelbronze IIb – Zeit (– v. Chr.)” from his book title. Kempinski No. ,p., Sheshi Petrie AG III, Pl. :,p., AT, inches Tufnell pp. , , , Nos. , , , Keel No. It was found at AT in Field A (for location see AG I, Pl. but note that the north pointer on this plan is actually pointing west). It is not immediately obvious whether AT refers to an area AT at one corner of the main housing block, or to pit AT at another corner. However, Tufnell states that the scarab was clearly not from the pit of the first campaign but from the deep sounding at AT on the edge of the block, which was dug in the third campaign (, )11. Apart from this deep sounding, City III does not seem to have been excavated in Field A, but the heights of the City III foundations in nearby Field B/D (AG I, Pl. ) are in the region of inches, not far off the scarab’s height of inches. This is about inches or . metres below the floors and sills of nearby area AS of City II, which are at about – inches, as pointed out by Kempinski although he allocated the scarab to City II’s foundations (, 12). Keel, perhaps reluctant to disagree with Kempinski, allocated this scarab to City III but he queried whether it might have been intrusive or if it was a building deposit from City II (, ). Tufnell confirmed that the scarab was found at a level corresponding to City III: “At a much lower level, compatible with the , , , occupation of City Level III, was a useful collection of scarabs” and she references AG III, and the first thirty-nine scarabs of AG III, Pl. , which includes this one (, ). Therefore, this scarab came from: City III. Kempinski No. , Sheshi Petrie AG IV, Pl. :,p.,J. Tufnell p. , , Nos. , , Keel No. Kempinski offers no comments on this one. The location given by Petrie, “J. ″, is not on the plan of Field J (AG IV, Pl. ; this plan is generally thought to be of Field J but that is not actu- ally stated on the plan), nor does it seem to be on any of the other plans in this volume (AG IV, Pls.–). Petrie states that “numbers used up to are grave numbers” (AG IV, ), and he listed a Grave in his list of graves (AG IV, Pl. ; but in small print squashed into the pottery column of the list!). An Object List in the Rockefeller Museum confirms that Grave contained this scarab along with two others (AG IV, Pl. :–) and a bowl of shape V (Duncan )13. Tufnell mentioned this scarab as likely to come from the lower city (i.e. City III; , , No. ), although her reasoning is not stated. The scarab find spot is not locatable, therefore: Uncertain city attribution. Kempinski No. ,p., Sheshi Petrie AG IV, Pl. :,p., Grave Tufnell p. , |Nos. , Keel No. It came from Field E, Grave together with two other scarabs and eight items of pottery (all listed in AG IV, Pl. and also in Kempinski , ). Three of these were cylindrical juglets and there were no piriform juglets. As piriform tends to precede cylindrical in the MB sequence14, Kempinski took this to indicate ‘outgoing MB IIB’(, ), i.e. MB IIC. Keel, like Kempinski, uses the term MB IIB to cover MB IIB-C, and he dates this grave to ‘mid MB IIB (c. –)’ (, ) which is his date range for City III (, ). In practice the pottery is hard to date precisely and Kempinski’s comparisons are not always the closest15, but his MB IIC is probably a reasonable estimate. However, MB IIC might indicate City III or II. The grave was located in Field E (AG IV, Pl. , left of middle, close to Room EJ). No height is given but the surrounding rooms are marked in open outline which seems to indicate City III16, although the grave could have been dug down from a part of City II that was eroded away. Stewart does not attempt to specify which city (, ). In view of the unknown height: Uncertain city attribution. Kempinski No. ,p., Sheshi (Fig. here) Petrie AG IV, Pl. :, pp. , , , TDZ, inches Tufnell pp. , , , Nos. , , , Keel No. It came from Field T, from the partly enclosed area TDZ (AG IV, Pl. , lower right) at a height of inches. The walls in black on Pl. have usually been taken to represent City II (e.g. Stewart , ,n.) although it is hard to find a clear statement by Petrie on this point. Immediately around TDZ are walls marked in black, and others in dashed outline by which Petrie normally meant later walls. He associated the scarab with the stone foundations of the black wall which ran down one side of TDZ, “exactly the level of the adjacent stone -
Fig. . Two scarabs enlarged from AG IV Pl. (Kempinski’s Nos. and ). The left one reads ‘Sheshi’ in a cartouche, the right one ‘Maibre’ in the centre without cartouche. Both have royal epithets at top and bottom, and other decorative or favourable hieroglyphs. The letter at top left indicates the museum to which each scarab went (here Jerusalem); the numbers at top right are the scarab numbers in AG IV ( and ); and at bottom right is the locus of the find spot plus the height in inches above sea level. The nomenclature in other AG volumes varies. basing” (AG IV, ), which would seem to relate it to the construction works of City II, as Kem- pinski thought (, &n.). However, Kempinski shows the walls in this area as “Strata II-III” (, Plan ), perhaps correctly if the City III walls were reused or rebuilt in City II. Elsewhere he even states that stone foundations are typical of City III (, ). Petrie said that excavation that year was carried to bedrock (AG IV, ), apparently including Field T, thus further suggesting that the stone foundations related to City III17. Keel says City II for this scarab’s context and dates it as MB IIC (, , “späte MB IIB”). Stewart has “Ajjul II?” (, ; his TOZ is a misprint for TDZ). Tufnell thought that the area was rebuilt about the time of Sheshi (, ; also mentioned on p. ). Petrie apparently analysed the pottery from approximately the level of the stone foundations in this general area and concluded that it “agrees with the period of Shesha, at the end of the xvth dynasty” (AG IV, 18)19.Did Petrie therefore think that this scarab was found on the floor and represented the end of use of City II which he dated to the th dynasty with Sheshi at the end of that dynasty? If it really was found on a floor at the end of City II rather than in the foundations, and if as generally thought, Sheshi was close to the beginning of the th dynasty, then it must have been an heir- loom. On the other hand, if the scarab was in the foundations, it could indicate that Sheshi founded City II (as Kempinski thought; , ) or merely that Sheshi preceded the construc- tion of City II. The majority opinion is that the scarab seems to have come from: City II foundations. Kempinski No. , Sheshi Petrie AG V, Pl. :, [G]JH, inches Tufnell p. , , Nos. , Keel No. Kempinski chose not to comment on this one20. According to its height, it was found in the lower level of Field G. The designation JH written with the scarab in AG V, Pl. indicates a locus GJH which occurs in both City II and III. AG V, Pl. shows the upper level, City II, where GJH is a room in a building, and Pl. shows the lower level, City III, where GJH is an unbounded area immediately below the room above (presumably the excavators , , , dug the room to well below its foundations, keeping the same locus designation). Pl. (City III) shows a brick floor in part of this area, placed between heights of and inches, and a pit going down to inches. Directly above, in City II (Pl. ), the foundations of the room’s walls go down to , and inches, and there is no indication of a pit. Keel wrote ‘pit?’ and ‘Stratum III–II’ (, ). Tufnell listed this scarab under a heading “Block G, Lower City” (, ; similarly on p. where it appears to be the one with length mm). Ignoring Keel’s doubts about a pit, and agreeing with Tufnell, the more obvious option according to its height is that it was found in: City III. Kempinski No. ,p., Maibre (Fig. here) Petrie AG IV, Pl. :,p., [Field] G, inches Tufnell pp. , , Nos. , Keel No. Kempinski attributed this scarab to Room G of Field LA, which is not unreasonable as Petrie’s scarab drawing gives the locus and height as “G.″ and there is a Room G in Field LA which is reported in AG IV. However, Tufnell took the location as Field G, not Room G (, ), and similarly Keel (, ). They seem to be correct as otherwise quite a lot of scarabs would have come from Room G of Field LA whereas in AG IV, Pl. , no scarabs at all are listed from the whole of Field LA.21 On the other hand, Field G was not reported until AG V which covers the following season. Perhaps some preliminary work was started in Field G in the fourth season. The scarab’s height at inches could indicate a surface find if it came from the south of Area G (AG V, Pl. ), or it could have come from as low as the foundations of City II if it came from the northern part of Area G where the tell was higher (AG V, Pl. ). Stewart’s table puts the scarab in City II (, ; his “Ra-Maot-Ib”) and Keel thought it was probably from City II (, ). In view of its unknown find-spot, it can hardly be attributed with any certainty to City II, although one might argue that whichever part of Field G it came from, its height is unlikely to indicate anything lower than City II. The City level seems best classified as: Uncertain. Kempinski No. , pp. , , Maibre Petrie AG V, Pl. :, Square /, inches Tufnell pp. , , , , Nos. , , Keel No. According to Kempinski it was found by the foundation of a wall in courtyard GDV (, , ). This is a mistake because he has taken the designation “–″ on the plan (AG V, Pl. , “Lower Level”, i.e. City III) as a precise location whereas it is actually indicating a corner of a large surveying square. The – corner just happens to come in the area marked as GDV on the plan22. Even if Kempinski had been correct about the location, courtyard GDV is City III, not II, so he must have been confused. The scarab’s height of inches is level with the bottom of the City III wall foundations in this general area, but there is also a very large rectangular pit. Keel says “Stratum III-II” and he seems to be aware of Kempinski’s mistake because he gives the square but makes no mention of GDV (, ). Tufnell’s lists attribute the scarab to the lower city, i.e. III (, , ). If the scarab came from the large rectangular pit, it might be possible to argue that it was thrown into the pit between City III and II, perhaps when the pit was filled prior to building partly across it in City II (AG V, Pl. V, cross-section –). However, that seems a less likely scenario and the scarab’s height suggests: - City III. No. X (not in Kempinski 23), Sheshi Petrie AG V, Pl. ., Grave , [G]FJ, inches Tufnell, pp. , , Nos. , , Keel No. It came from Grave in an area GFJ of Field G at inches height, which is shown in the lower level (City III) in this area (AG V, Pl. ). The grave was unlikely to have been dug down from City II as there appears to be a City II wall directly above which goes down to inches (AG V, Pl. ), apparently penetrating well into City III. The nearest City III wall foundation goes down to inches and the grave seems to have been cut into the orig- inal surface of the mound which is shown at height just north of the grave. Keel does not specify a stratum but he says ‘nd half of MB IIB (–)’ (, ), i.e. MB IIC. The Institute of Archaeology records show the scarab as the only object with the burial. Tufnell lists this scarab in a sub-section called “Oval graves between lower and upper city”, and she refers to them as shallow graves (, ). She could be correct that the grave was dug after the City III buildings went out of use although it is surprising that a shallow grave penetrated right through City III and into the marl below. It was below the foundation level of City III, but in view of Tufnell’s opinion, perhaps there is some uncertainty, therefore: Uncertain.
. Summarising, the above scarabs are best attributed to the following strata at Ajjul: City III uncertain uncertain City II foundations City III uncertain City III X uncertain
. Of the Sheshi scarabs from Ajjul, four are of uncertain stratification, one came from the foun- dation level of City II, and Nos. , & from City III. In claiming that the scarabs came from City II, Kempinski ignored his own comment on the depth of No. ; it is surprising that he made no comment on No. ; and for No. he misunderstood its location and ignored its height. Therefore, in so far as we are able to understand Petrie’s AG volumes, Sheshi dates to City III, and any of his scarabs that related to City II were heirlooms, derived material, or indicate continued popularity of his name. This conclusion may affect how the MB/LB transition in Palestine relates to the Dynasty / transition in Egypt, but it is only one of many factors and the position of Sheshi himself within Egyptian history is uncertain, as outlined above. However, the tendency is that by moving Sheshi earlier in the Tell el-Ajjul stratigraphy (from City II of Kempinski to City III here), the Palestinian MB/LB transition (approximately early in City II) moves later in terms of Egyptian history, probably to some point or time range within the th dynasty, , , , perhaps as shown in the stratigraphic charts that Bietak occasionally publishes for Tell el-Daba. These charts show a gradual MB/LB transition, lasting about years, at some period in the early th dynasty24.
My grateful thanks to Rachael Sparks for making available additional information from the Petrie Pales- tinian Project (Institute of Archaeology, University College London) including copies of record cards from the excavation, as well as for comments on a preliminary draft of this article. The project is gradu- ally making Petrie material available on-line (http://www.ucl.ac.uk/archaeology/research/directory/ petrie_sparks). My thanks also to Stephen Bourke and Othmar Keel for useful correspondence.
1 , . The book is based on his PhD (). How then could he have attributed this scarab from These works range over the archaeology of much of inches to City II? the Near East including many sites in Israel, but the 13 Duncan’s system, which originated with Petrie, only present article is concerned only to correct the gives the shape, scale (usually :; , ) and an findspots of scarabs of Sheshi (also Apophis, see estimate of the Egyptian dynasties during which the appendix) at Ajjul. type was produced. The system was designed to be 2 See e.g. , chart ; , Table ., –; expandable, and Petrie devised fresh alpha-numeric . notations for new shape variations found at Ajjul (AG 3 Assuming that the transition is to be defined I, ). V is perhaps comparable to Amiran , Pl. archaeologically rather than historically, then is it to be : (MB IIB–C). based on changes in foreign imports, perhaps the 14 E.g. Tufnell , , where she comments on this arrival of Cypriot Bichrome or White Slip pottery in shape sequence at Jericho. She also noted that piriform significant quantities (Bichrome was plentiful in City juglets were rare at Ajjul. II), or in terms of local pottery developments, and 15 E.g. the carinated bowl with near vertical upper sides should the transition be considered as a point in time from this grave (Duncan , K; listed in AG IV, Pl. or a period of time? ) which Kempinski compared to his shape S (, 4 Further discussion of Ajjul and its dating can be , Pl. ) is given on his p. as Loud , Pl. : found, for example, in Bergoffen , Ch. ; from Str.XI-X at Megiddo. But, he should have Karageorghis (ed.) , particularly the articles by compared it to Loud , Pl. : which occurs in Oren and Bergoffen; and in Kopetzky . Str.XII-IX at Megiddo, a much longer time period 5 Stewart was present for part of the fourth excavation and therefore of little help for dating. Kempinski’s season (AG IV, ). His work initially supported error was probably caused by “K” in Duncan Albright’s revision which Stewart republished as being printed closer to Duncan’s K which does an appendix, but, in a two page postscript (–)he correspond to Kempinski’sS. redated the strata earlier with a scheme similar to 16 However, there is possible confusion in this area over Kempinski’s. city levels, see scarab No. and n. . 6 In order to make the City and Palace numbers run in 17 Furthermore, Petrie states that the stone foundations the same direction, Stewart () reversed the City were “mostly built on the natural gebel”, i.e. the numbering to correspond to the Palace numbers but sandstone bedrock (AG IV, ). At Room TO further few scholars have followed his system. north, the walls marked in black go down to bedrock 7 Krauss suggests this may indicate a long reign or at inches (Pl. , “ G”, where G = gebel). posthumous production of Sheshi scarabs (, ). Perhaps the confusion which Sparks noted in Field E 8 Ryholt placed Sheshi in his th dynasty (, –, (, ,n.) stems from parts of neighbouring Field –), well before Khyan and Apophis in the th. T belonging to both City III and II. 18 “ ” 9 Tufnell , , refers to nine of Sheshi’s scarabs but In AG IV, he refers to Shesha scarabs but on p. this seems to be a mistake. She only gives eight in , only a single scarab was mentioned. Possibly he was – thinking also of the scarab from Field J (No. above) (Nos. ). “ 10 ’ as he had previously described the area at the Sometimes misprinted as Fig. A in Kempinski s text. western edge of the tell” (–; generally thought to be 11 She references AG III, which merely says that this “ his Field J). and other scarabs are from deeper work in the 19 Petrie did not specify what the pottery was, but it south-east town”, which actually seems to mean ’ must be some of the types listed in AG IV, Pl. ,at south-west town, perhaps explainable by Petrie s heights close to the scarab height. In Pl. , Room assumption that the sea was west (mentioned above). TDZ is listed at a height of inches with the Sheshi 12 Kempinski actually estimated (or misprinted?) the scarab misprinted as S instead of . even greater depth of . metres. Also, on ( )he 20 But see n. . had noted that the burnt layer between Cities III and 21 Even if Kempinski had been correct about the II, i.e. the destruction layer of City III, was c. cm – location, his reasoning was still doubtful. The Field LA thick in this area and at a height of inches. rooms seem to be City II (th dynasty in AG IV, –). - Petrie gives the heights of the bottom of the foundations had followed Tufnell and correctly attributed No. to around Room G as , and inches, so the Field G, but he actually attributed that one to Field scarab at would have been about one metre lower. LA (see above). Kempinski’s reference in ,n. to Therefore it would have been more likely to have come his section .. is irrelevant because that section only from the preceding City III rather than have been gives any details for No. from a different Field. associated with the building works of City II. Kempinski 24 The charts have been published, with slight date would have been correct that the height of the scarab variations, in Bietak and and many times in was below the wall foundations (, ) but that would between. not have made it a foundation deposit. Bietak objected 25 This scarab is wrongly numbered as on . to Kempinski’s identification of this scarab and the next 26 Keel wrongly references Tufnell , , for this one below as foundation deposits (, ,n.; scarab. Possibly he meant , . “There is no proof for such an assumption”). 27 Petrie mentioned this scarab in AG IV because he 22 An end of season object list at the Institute of was trying to date City III in Field E by linking across Archaeology in London gives a subdivision C to the to the previously excavated Field A of AG I, but in Square –, indicating the lower left quadrant of the doing so he seems to have reclassified the Field larger square (the quadrants are indicated on the AG A buildings as City III. There is some doubt about the V plans by dashed lines, as explained on Pl. ). date of one part of Field A (Rooms AC, AD, AJ and 23 This is surprising because it is in the top row of AG V, AQ) which adjoins Field E; if these Pl. , next to Kempinski’s No. . A possible explanation rooms were actually City III (discussed in Tufnell , might be that, like No. , it came from Field G and the ), it might relate to Petrie’s apparent confusion. letter G was not prefixed to the location on the scarab 28 Keel dates these scarabs to the th dynasty with two drawings. If Kempinski was not aware of this of them possibly as late as the beginning of the th. shortened nomenclature, he might have failed to find 29 Kempinski , ,n.; ,n.. the locus, but he refers to three Sheshi scarabs found 30 “:” in Kempinski , Fig. B is a misprint. in Field G (, , “drei im Gebäudekomplex G 31 Misprinted as in Keel . gefundenen Skarabäen, die den Namen ŠŠj tragen”). 32 No. is the scarab’s number in AG I, Pl. and One of these three is No. (actually reading Maibre) Kempinski retained this number in his Pl. (), which he mentions without giving its number, only its and the same number has been used in this article. By height, and he said that the other two were not in chance, Kempinski’s page number is also — there is stratigraphic contexts. However, the three scarabs no misprint. found in Field G were Nos. , and X, but 33 The type P juglet is illustrated in AG II, Pl. Kempinski did not know about X and he chose not to where we learn that it was found in Graves and comment on although it was in a stratified context. (Pl. lists these graves and their contents). It is Alternatively, it may be possible that the three scarabs probably equivalent to the juglet in Amiran , Pl. which Kempinski meant were Nos. , and if he : where it is in the LB I group.
Robert Martin Porter http://orcid.org/---
AG = Ancient Gaza – see Petrie below. Albright, W., . ‘The Chronology of a South Palestinian City, Tell el-Ajjul’, American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literature (), –; reprinted in Stewart , –. Amiran, R., . Ancient Pottery of the Holy Land, Jerusalem: Massada. Ben-Tor, D., . ‘Seals and Kings’(review article on Ryholt ), Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research , –. Ben-Tor, D., . Scarabs, Chronology and Interconnections, Fribourg: Academic Press. Bergoffen, C., . A Comparative Study of the Regional Distribution of Cypriote Pottery in Canaan and Egypt in the Late Bronze Age, PhD Thesis: New York University, published by University Microfilms International, Ann Arbor. Bietak, M., . ‘Problems of Middle Bronze Age Chronology’, American Journal of Archaeology , –. Bietak, M., . ‘Egypt and Canaan During the Middle Bronze Age’, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research , –. Bietak, M., . ‘Recent Discussions about the Chronology of the Middle and Late Bronze Ages in the Eastern Mediterranean: Part I’, Bibliotheca Orientalis , cols. –. Duncan, J., . Corpus of Dated Palestine Pottery, London: British School of Archaeology in Egypt. Fischer, P., . ‘The preliminary Chronology of Tell el-Ajjul’, in M. Bietak (ed.), The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C.; II, Vienna: Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, –. Hayes, W., . ‘Egypt: From the Death of Ammenemes III to Seqenenre II’, in I. Edwards et al. (eds.), Cambridge Ancient History, Vol. , Part , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, –. Karageorghis, V. (ed.), . The White Slip Ware of Late Bronze Age Cyprus, Vienna: Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. , , , Keel, O., . Corpus der Stempelsiegel-Amulette aus Palästina/Israel: Einleitung, Freiburg: Universitätsverlag. Keel, O., . Corpus der Stempelsiegel-Amulette aus Palästina/Israel, Vol. , Freiburg: Universitätsverlag. Kempinski, A., . Canaan (Syria-Palestine) During the Last Stage of the MB IIb (– BC, PhD Thesis: Hebrew University, Jerusalem (Hebrew with English summary). Kempinski, A., . Syrien und Palästina (Kanaan) in der letzten Phase der Mittelbronze IIb – Zeit (– v. Chr.), Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Kempinski, A., . ‘The Middle Bronze Age’, Ch. in A. Ben-Tor (ed.), The Archaeology of Ancient Israel, New Haven: Yale University Press. Kempinski, A., . ‘Supplement to Tufnell’s Ajjul Section’, in E. Stern (ed.), New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, Vol. , New York: Carta, –. Kopetzky, K., . ‘The Southern Coastal Plain: Tell el-Ajjul’, in M. Martin (ed.), Egyptian-Type Pottery in the Late Bronze Age Southern Levant, Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften , –. Krauss, R., . ‘An Examination of Khyan’s place in W. A. Ward’s seriation of Hyksos Royal Scarabs’, Ägypten und Levante , –. Loud, G., . Megiddo II, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Oren, E., . ‘Early White Slip Pottery in Canaan’, in Karageorghis (ed.), –. Petrie, W. F., . Ancient Gaza, Vol. I, London: British School of Archaeology in Egypt. Petrie, W. F., . Ancient Gaza, Vol. II, London: British School of Archaeology in Egypt. Petrie, W. F., . Ancient Gaza, Vol. III, London: British School of Archaeology in Egypt. Petrie, W. F., . Ancient Gaza, Vol. IV, London: British School of Archaeology in Egypt. Petrie, W. F., . The Making of Egypt, London: Sheldon Press. Petrie, W. F., et al., . City of Shepherd Kings and Ancient Gaza, Vol. V, London: British School of Archaeology in Egypt. Ryholt, K., . The Political Situation in Egypt during the Second Intermediate Period, c. – B.C., Copenhagen: K.S.B. Ryholt and Museum Tusculanum Press. Sparks, R., . ‘The Lost Loci of Tell el-Ajjul: Petrie’s Area C’, Palestine Exploration Quarterly , –. Sparks, R., . ‘Flinders Petrie and the Archaeology of Palestine’, in R. Sparks (ed.), A Future for the Past: Petrie’s Palestinian Collection, London: University College London, –. Stewart, J., . Tell el-Ajjul: The Middle Bronze Age Remains, Göteborg: P. Åström S.vägen. Tufnell, O., . Studies on Scarab Seals, Vol. (in two parts), Warminster : Aris & Phillips. Tufnell, O., . in E. Stern (ed.), New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, Vol. , New York: Carta, –. Ward, W., . ‘Royal Name Scarabs’, in O. Tufnell (ed.), Ch. , –.
: It will be shown that scarabs attributed to Apophis and found at Tell el-Ajjul support Kempins- ki’s conclusion that Apophis relates to City II but, due to the problem of heirlooms, not necess- arily to the end of City II as he claimed (, , ; , ). Kempinski illustrates four scarabs inscribed ‘Auserre’, the prenomen of Apophis. Three of them were discovered in the first season of excavation on the tell and are shown in Kempinski , Fig. B (Nos. – ), and one came from a cemetery off the tell and is shown in his Pl. (No. ). He comments on them in his pp. –, . Apophis was the last major king of the th dynasty but Petrie thought there were two kings Apophis and that Auserre Apophis was Apophis I in the middle of the th dynasty (, ). Ryholt questioned whether such scarabs as these do actually relate to Apophis (see final paragraph below). The same pattern of information and discussion will be followed as for the Sheshi scarabs. Kempinski No. , pp. –, ,n. (Fig. here) Petrie AG I, Pl. :, pp. 25, ; AG IV, p. Tufnell pp. , , , – (Fig. ), , , , Nos. , Keel No. 26 It came from Room Q of Field A, City II (for location see AG I, Pl. ; Kempinski , plan ). Kempinski says that it was found at a height of inches, the floor level of Room Q (, ) and elsewhere he assumes that it was under the destruction debris of City II (, ), but none of that is necessarily correct. What Petrie wrote was that Room Q was “of base” (AG IV, 27), meaning the base of the wall foundations (height confirmed in AG I, Pl. ). The scarab was from somewhere between inches -
Fig. . Scarab of Apophis enlarged from AG I, Pl. : (Kempinski’s No. ). The group of four hieroglyphs at the middle right read Auserre, the prenomen of Apophis.
(or possibly even lower) and the tops of the walls at inches, but the height of the scarab is not given. It was found together with six other scarabs or, at least, they were also from Room Q (AG I, ; Tufnell , –; Keel Nos. –28). If they were found together, it may have been as a foundation deposit or as a group of scarabs on the floor at the destruction of the building. Petrie thought that this scarab dated the building but he did not specify whether it dated the construction or destruction (AG I, ). Tufnell listed it as from City II (, ). In her concluding summary Tufnell states that it was “found on the floor in room Q” and that it “confirms that the Block A building was not abandoned until his [Apophis’] reign or later” (, ), but she gives no evidence of its position relative to the floor. Earlier in her book she had already stated that the scarab established the date of the building (, ) and that it came from the floor of Room Q (, again without evidence). Tufnell was on the exca- vation team in the first season when this scarab was found (AG I, ) but we cannot tell if she was present at the discovery. In view of Sparks’ comment that Petrie did not observe floor levels (see above in the section ‘Tell el-Ajjul’), it is difficult to know how Tufnell could have been so confident that it came from the floor. Tufnell and Kempinski exchanged information29, so it is possible that he followed Tufnell in this matter. In view of Tufnell’s presence on the excavation and her statement that it was on the floor, it seems best to accept her opinion, so: End of City II. Kempinski No. , pp. , ,n. Petrie AG I, Pl. :30, pp. , Tufnell p. , No. Keel No. In AG I, Pl. this scarab is in a section headed “Level II General”, and Petrie also refers to it as “picked up during the work” (AG I, ), but elsewhere he implies that it came from one of the rooms in Field A —“In three of the chambers thus opened there were scarabs of Apepa I … These give a date for the latest buildings” (AG I, ). Petrie was apparently refering to Nos. , & but he classified No. as of “Unknown position” (see below) and No. as “Level II General” (as already noted just above). Kempinski stated that both and were from floors of City II from under the destruction debris (, ) but, whereas this seems correct for No. , there is no such evidence for No. . Elsewhere, Kempinski admits that its find spot within City II was unknown but he still thought that it indicated a date for the destruction , , , of City II (, ). According to Petrie, it seems to have been in some way associated with City II, therefore: City II. Kempinski No. , pp. , ,n. Petrie AG I, Pl. :, pp. , Tufnell p. , Nos. 31, Keel No. In AG I, Pl. this scarab comes under a heading “Unknown positions”. Petrie also refers to it as “brought up by workers as casually found” (AG I, ). Kempinski assumed it was a ‘surface find’ (, ,n.). Its stratification is: Unknown. Kempinski No. ,p., Pl. Petrie AG II, Pls.:32, pp. , , Grave Tufnell pp. , , – (Fig. ), , , Nos. , Keel No. It came from Grave which is off the tell in an “LB. cemetery” (Stewart , ; for location see AG II, Pl. , lower middle), but the grave is “curiously placed and isolated” (Tufnell , ) and so not definitely linked to the Late Bronze period. Five other scarabs were found in the grave with date ranges from th to mid th dynasties but none exclusively th dynasty (Keel Nos. –, –). Kempinski noted that the burial also included a juglet of type P which he dated as typical of early LB I, and he then linked Apophis to that period (, ). One poorly drawn juglet cannot count as strong evidence but Kempinski seems correct that the juglet was LB I33. However, Keel gave the grave an MB IIC date (, : “späte MB IIB”). The grave appears to date within MB IIC-LB I and so probably con- temporary with: City II. This results in the following probable scarab contexts: No. end of City II No. City II No. unknown No. grave contemporary with City II Kempinski assumed that continued use of Hyksos royal name scarabs after the conquests of Ahmose was ‘extremely unlikely’ (, –). However, if the Hyksos fled to southwest Pales- tine, and assuming that Ahmose did not completely exterminate them, the continued existence of their scarabs as heirlooms is to be expected. One might accept that fresh production of such scarabs was unlikely. Thus, although the results do suggest an association between at least one Auserre scarab and late City II, in view of the possibility of heirlooms, this should not ‘lead to far reaching conclusions for the placement of Apophis in the contemporary material culture of Palestine’ (Kempinski , ). A completely different question concerns these four scarabs and might render them irre- levant. Ryholt claims that many Auserre scarabs do not represent a royal name but merely indicate worship of Re (, ; he gives the literal meaning of Auserre as “the strength of Re is mighty”). He is particularly suspicious of scarabs that do not include a proper cartouche and/or lack royal titles or epithets (by contrast, those in Fig. do contain epithets such as ‘son of Re’ and one of them also has a cartouche). He points out that there are other scarabs with - statements concerning Re, written within simple ovals, that are definitely not royal names (, , ,n.). Nos. , and contain only ‘Auserre’. In No. , Auserre is not in a cartouche and the additional hieroglyphs are not a normal royal epithet (Fig. : winged sun, uraeus and neb). Therefore, none of the four appear to meet Ryholt’s criteria for a royal name. However, it is not clear if his theory is correct — Keel accepted these four scarabs as giving the prenomen of Apophis (, ), and Ben-Tor disagreed with Ryholt (, –).