'r-1fO vV' : D, £" I2.e-d-fu~ 2005 THE EARLY 18TH DYNASTY II ~ l)J ~l \,.~ "V' S'f vi '" <\. "" d Ptl U.&-hVVOt.. (BEFORE YEAR 22 OF THUTMOSE III) ~-\ ~\.-l+ vVl o~ \ 1\ II Bv-il\ (GoS-l-vY\) The extent of Egyptian involvement in the early 18th Dynasty was modest and in many respects "traditional." In terms of hostile incur- sions of a military nature, the Pharaohs of the time rarely indulged themselves, 1 One can point to the reduction of Sharuhen and excursions into the Byblos region by Ahmose,2 a possible clash somewhere in Asia(?) Under Amenophis 1,3 a more formal invasion of the Orontes and north Syria by Thutmose 1,4 and punitive action against transhumants, I For the evidence see D.B. Redford, "A Gate Inscription from Karnak and Egyptian Involvement in Western Asia during the Early 18th Dynasty," ]AOS 99 (1979), 270-87. The Position of Heick (Geschichte des Alten Aegypten, Leiden, 1968), viz. that Ahmose automatically stepped into the Hyksos ruler's role as overlord of Asia, is rightly rejected by H. Goedicke, "The End of the Hyksos in Egypt," in L.H. Lesko (ed), Egyptological Studies in Honor if Richard H. Parker (Providence, 1986), 46-7. I must add, however, that I never espoused this view, pointing only to Egyptian traditional perception. 2 C. Vandersleyan, Les Guerres d'Amosis, Bruxelles, 1971. 3 Cf. The large and beautiful limestone shrine of Amenophis I in the Sheikh Labib storeroom at Karnak (personal observation) with a large scene-king's figure c. 2.5 m. tall-showing the king slaughtering grovelling prisoners. Unfortunately the identity of the latter cannot be determined. 4 Redford, op. cit., 274-76. The gate inscription, which I tentatively assigned to Amenophis I, may in fact belong to Thutmose I: cf. L. Bradbury, "Nefer's Inscription: on the Death Date of Queen Ahmose-Nefertal)' and the Deed found Pleasing to the King," ]ARCE 22 (1985), 78-9. Since I wrote the gate has been published by F. Le Saout, "Un magasin a onguents de Karnak et Ie probIeme du nom de Tyr: Mise au point," Cahiers de Karnak VIII (1987), 325~38, who assigns a 12th Dyn. Date to the piece. I believe that this date can be demonstrated to be in error [or tlle following reasons. I. The range of toponyms conforms to the political configuration of the Late Bronze, not the EB/MB Period. The interest in Qedem (= the hinter- land of Byblos: W.F. Nbright, Archaeology and the Religion if Israel [Baltimore, 1956], 62; Heick, Beziehungen, 168 n. 43; not Nukhashshe, as F..J Schmitz, Amenophis I [Hildesheim, 1978], 185) betrays the political interests of the 18th, not the early 12th, Dynasty when Byblos was not a polity. Tunip, though known from a very early period (H. Klengel, Geschichte .$yriens II [Berlin, 1969], 79~80; M.C. Astour, "History of Ebla," Eblaitica 3 (1992], 9 n. 32), the city does not figure as an adver- sary until the New Kingdom. $i-'u-na (= Hitt. Zi-(w)a-na, "mountain": G.F. del Monte, J. Tischler, Repertoire geographique des Textes Cllneiformes. VI. Die Orts- und Gewdssernamen der hethitischen Texte [Wiesbaden, 1978], 515) brings us into a period perhaps III 1.('\J.lII()ll.~An' argument that there was once significantly rating the expulsion of the Hyksos from the Megiddo campaign those morc ('\'idl'II("l', (\OWlost, is based solely on an argument from silence, few texts bearing on Western Asia show a traditional interest in the alld I()lllilins Oil the complete absence of the expected circumstan- Levant, the chief component of which centers upon access to cedar,7 tial ('vidl'llce (large numbers of POWs, booty, governors assigned, and Asiatic copper.8 This meant simply maintaining the age-old con- tracl'S ill the onomasticon, etc.).6 During the 7 or 8 decades sepa- nexion with Byblos and its environs9 and did not necessitate or entail grandiose schemes of conquest. Allusions to dominion over Asia are few, banal and conventional.1o of Hittite dominance, certainly much later than the 12th Dyn. (Needless to say equating $i-'u-na with Tyre is impossible on phonetic grounds). While occurring ear· liest in Sinuhe, "Upper Retenu" is the common term for inland Syria during the New Kingdom (Helck, Bez:iehungen, 266-68. 2. The phrase m ntJt m wsr m m3c-tJrw corresponds to New Kingdom usage, derived from a shorter Middle Kingdom phrase Picture," in J.H. Hayes, J.M. Miller, IsraeLiteand ]udaean History [Philadelphia, 1977], (Redford, ]AOS 99, 280 n. 8). 3. The orthography betrays an origin for two words 89; idem, "The Chronology of Syria-Palestine 111the Second M111enl1lumB.C.E. A within a New Kingdom system, rather than a Middle Kingdom one. Tw-n-pi sug· Review of Current Issues," BASOR 288 (1992), 13-17). Even the debate over the gests a Hittite form (del Monte-TiscWer, op. cit., 441) which would have been impos- agent of the destruction is, for me, a red herring, as I think pinning the blame on sible in a text of 12th Dyn. date. The group-writing in D3-'u-rry approximates Late the Hurrian (N. Na'aman, "The Hurrians and the End of the Middle Bronze Age Egyptian syllabic orthography, not the earlier system represented by the E(xecra- in Palestine" Levant 26 [1994], 175-87) is evoking a deus ex machma Now Dever has tion) T(exts): d3 for sl z:i is common in the New Kingdom, not found in the ET; set forth cl~arly and succinctly his position which now he maintains "even more iw for ill is regular in the New Kingdom, virtually non-existent in ET: J. Hoch, strongly in the light of steadily accumulating evidence": "the Egyptian Pharaohs of Semitic Words in Egyptian Texts qf the New Kingdom and 171irdIntermediate Period [Princeton, the early 18th Dynasty after the expulsion of the 'Hyksos' from the Delta at the 1994], 487-512. 4. The iconographic details point to the early 18th Dyn. to the End of the 17th Dyna;ty, pursued the Asiatics back to their original homeland. 111 exclusion of the 12th. While the two-handled jars-the exact size cannot be pre- Palestine. There, in successive campaigns ... reasonably well attested 111EgyptIan cisely estimated "in life"-shown on the trays of the offering bringers have a long texts, 18th Dynasty Pharaohs from Amenophis I to Thutmosis III .... systematically, life in the ceramic repertoire of the Levant, extending from late MB I to LB II destroyed the heavily-defended Middle Bron~e II-In Palestll1lan City-states (P. Gerstenblith, The Levant at the Beginning qf the Middle Bronze Age [Winona Lake, 1983], (Studies ... Ward, 91-2). Almost every aspect of thiS statement may be quened. What p. 167, fig. 14 no. 16; 1. Finkelstein and others reds], Megiddo III The 1992 to 1996 "steadily accumulating evidence" is the author refernng to? Has there been arry 111 Seasons [Tel Aviv, 2000], p. 229, fig. 10.4 no. 13; p. 241, fig. 10.13 no. 10), the the last decade or so? (Archaeological results cannot be counted, as It IS their jars in the Karnak scene most closely approximate forms in vogue at the end of significance that is at issue). The roster of e~dence from Ahmose to ;rhutmose III the Middle Bronze and the beginning of the Late Bronze (J. Bourriau, "Relations year 22 is the same as listed above, and proVides. no support for Dever s contentlon. between Egypt and Kerma during the Middle and New Kingdoms," in V. Davies The acquisition of various commodIties (on which see below) provides poor s~p- led], Egypt and Africa. Nubia .from Prehistory to Islam [London, 1993], fig. 6:14; P.E. port for anything beyond trade, and in no way necessitates the postulate of City- McGovern, G. Harbottle, '''Hyksos' Trade Connections between Tell el-Daba (Avaris) destruction! And in the records of which kings IS there any mentIOn of systematic and the Levant," in E. Oren (ed), The Hyksos: New HistoricaL and ArchaeoLogicaLPerspectives destruction? Even in the Karnak door-jambs Qedem, Tunip, Zi'ana and the rest [Philadelphia, 1997], 142-43). Finally: the queen's figure determinative most closely are not symbolically depicted as "destroyed," although it was in the repertoire of resembles that of Tety-shery in Ahmose's Abydos stela (Cairo 34.002; C. Aldred, the Egyptian artist to depict them so: they are ahve and robust as they pro;'er th~lr New Kingdom Art in Ancient Egypt [London, 1951], pI. 4): the modius (not circlet, as gifts. And what evidence suggests the MB III towns of Palest1l1e were heaVlly in H.E. Winlock, The Treasure qf EL Lahun [New York, 1934], pI. II-IV) appears defended"? If they had been, the POWs and booty of all sorts would have bee~ first in the 13th Dyn: M.F. Laming MacAdam, "A Royal Family of the 13th visible in the records. But where are they? Down to the morrow of Thutmose III s Dynasty," ]EA 37 (1951), 20-28; L. Sabbahi, The Development qf the TituLary and campaigns they are conspiuCllous by their absence .. Iconography qf the Ancient Egyptian Q¥een .from Dynasty One to EarlY Dynasty Eighteen 7 Mainly for the manufacture of culuc paraphernaha for runun (Urk. IV, 23: 10-12 (University of Toronto PhD Dissertation, 1982), 330ff. [the river barque], 56:3 4 [flag-staves], 423:2 [doors]), OSlrlS (Urk. IV, 98:13-14· S On this localization of the Shasu, see above p. 92. [barque]) and stores in general (Urk.