7/23/2019 Merrillees, R. S. Aegean Bronze Age Relations With Egypt.
1/15
Archaeological Institute of Americais collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to American Journal
of Archaeology.
http://www.jstor.org
Aegean Bronze Age Relations with EgyptAuthor(s): R. S. MerrilleesSource: American Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 76, No. 3 (Jul., 1972), pp. 281-294Published by: Archaeological Institute of AmericaStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/503921Accessed: 24-09-2015 23:01 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of contentin a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Thu, 24 Sep 2015 23:01:16 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aiahttp://www.jstor.org/stable/503921http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/503921http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aiahttp://www.jstor.org/7/23/2019 Merrillees, R. S. Aegean Bronze Age Relations With Egypt.
2/15
1972]
EDITH PORADA
ETAL.
281
ion,
ca.
1595,
and
later,
at
the time when
the
Marduk
statue
was
returned. Brinkman
replied
that
we can
assume
that the Kassites
profited
from
the
Hittite sack
of
Babylon
as
they
were able to
take over
when
the
Hittites withdrew.
He
men-
tioned the Kassite camps outside of Sippar and
thought
that
there
might
have
been an
understand-
ing
between the
Kassites and the
Hittites,
as the
latter
may
have
had to have
come
through
Kassite
territory
on their
way
to
Babylon
from the
west.
He
said
it
was
difficult
to
reconstruct
the
political
situation behind
these
events
and
the return
of the
Marduk statue
twenty-four years
later.
An
in-
scription
of
Agum-kakrime
(ca.
1570
B.c.)
tells
how
the statue
was
brought
back from the
land
of
Hani and how the shrine had to be
restored
and new clothes made for the statue which had lost
its
gold finery.
In a later
text,
the
god
Marduk
tells of his
journey
and
how
he
had set
up
Baby-
lonian caravan routes in Hittite lands.
Brinkman
felt
that
Hatti,
rather
than Hana
(as
sometimes
thought)
was
the
correct
nterpretation
f
Hani.
E. Yar-Shater sked about
the
role of the
Medes
in
addition to the
Babylonians
n
weakening
the
Assyrian
Empire.
Brinkmannoted that
when the
last cities fell-Ashur, Nineveh and Harran-the
Babylonians
id
not
always
arrive
n time
to
sup-
port
the
Medes.
He
also
suggested
hat
the
Medes
had a
greater
ole,
as
they
were in
controlof Har-
ran
and
most of
Assyria
after
the
collapse
of the
Assyrian
Empire.
He
felt, however,
hat
the
Medes
had
not
been
as
much of a
drain on
Assyrian
energy
and
resourcesas the
Babylonians
n
the
preceding
centuries.
Although
the
Medes
were
sometimes
named as the
objects
of
Assyrian
cam-
paigns
in the
eighth
and seventh
centuries
B.c.,
these campaignsseem to have been carriedout
largely
for the
economic
benefit
of
the
Assyrians
and were not
due to
any
particular
hreat from
the
Medes
at that
time.
Aegean
Bronze
Age
Relations with
Egypt
R. S.
MERRILLEES
There are
three
basic dimensions
to our
study
of
ancient civilizations
and
their interconnections.The
first
is
archaeological,
which
is here used in the
restricted
sense of
material
culture or
small
finds,
comprising
essentially
artefacts,
such as
pottery.
The
second,
which
I
have called
for
convenience
art
history,
takes
in
conceptual
creations
such
as
pictorial
representations,
and is confined for the
purposes
of this
study
to
the
portrayal
of
Aegean
peoples
and their works.
The third dimension con-
sists
of the information
supplied
by
written records.
For
analytical purposes
these
aspects
cover the
full
range
of
human achievements
as reflected
in
remains from the past, even though they make no
allowance
for
the
study
of the
natural sciences
insofar
as
they
had
an
impact
on the
average
life
of
the
ancients.
So,
if we wish to draw conclusions
on
the
nature
and
historical
significance
of
Minoan
and
Mycenaean
relations
with
Egypt,
our
assem-
blage
of
the extant
data
should be
comprehensive
and
all-embracing,
as
only
a multidimensional
ap-
proach
will
be
able
to
minimize the
uncertainty
factor
inherent
in all
empirical
deductions.
Having
said
this,
I
would
not
wish it
thought
that
the
following
review
of evidence from
the
Nile
Valley
is
exhaustive,
as that is not
the
essential
aim of
this
paper,
or
that it
will
automatically
lend
itself to a
ready
understanding,
let alone
resolution,
of
the
many
problems
that
emerge
from
correlating
archaeological, graphic
and textual
evidence
for
Aegean
Bronze
Age
connections
with
Egypt.
But
by
revealing
the
gaps
and
inconsistencies
in
our
present
factual
record,
it should
point
the
way
to
a
more constructive
line of research
that
would
seek
to
reconcile the
apparent
omissions
and
contradic-
tions in the
available
data,
and
make
the
history
of
Minoan and
Mycenaean
relations
with
Egypt
more
intelligent
and more
intelligible.
Let me first introduce the subject against its his-
torical and
cultural
background.
At
the
end
of
this
paper
is a
list
of the
Pharaohs
of the
XVIIIth
Dynasty,
with
their
dates,
following
for
conveni-
ence
the
chronology
adopted by
the
revised
CAH.
It
must be
understood that this
choice
is
quite
arbitrary
on
my
part,
as I
lay
no claim
to
expertise
in this field.
With dates
as
widely
divergent
as
about
1580
and
1530
B.c.
for
the
beginning
of
the
XVIIIth
Dynasty,
it becomes
impossible
for
an
external
student of
Egyptian
archaeology
to
do
more than
opt
for
the
chronology
of
greatest
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Thu, 24 Sep 2015 23:01:16 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp7/23/2019 Merrillees, R. S. Aegean Bronze Age Relations With Egypt.
3/15
282
EDITH
PORADA
T AL.
[AJA
76
academic
respectability.
This
is not
necessarily
synonymous
with
accuracy.
Second,
I
have
included
certain
titles,
Dynasty
XVIII
A-D,
which
span
the
reigns
of
a
succession of
Pharaohs,
titles
which
I
have
already
used'
to
designate
cultural
subdivi-
sions in the XVIIIth Dynasty and hence a system
of relative
chronology.
While
carrying
out
the
research for
my
thesis,
it
became
evident that
there
was
need
for a
greater
flexibility
in
dating
Egyptian
deposits
than
was
afforded
by
strict
adherence to
the
sequence
of
Pharaohs'
reigns.
Not
only
did
many
deposits
lack
objects
inscribed
with a
royal
name,
but
it
seemed
likely
that the
contents
of
a
house
or
tomb,
particularly
if
disturbed,
could
cover a
period
em-
bracing
the
reigns
of
more
than
one
ruler.
For
these reasons I set out to identify an assemblage
of
archaeological
artefacts
having
forms,
materials
and
styles
characteristic
of a
period
of
cultural de-
velopment,
which
corresponded
to
a
limited
succes-
sion
of
Pharaonic
reigns.
To
explain
in
detail
how
I
arrived
at
this scheme
would
require
several more
dissertations;
therefore,
to
allow
myself
the
con-
venience
of this
nomenclature
without
straining
the
reader's
credulity
too
much,
I
shall,
wherever
possible
within the
cultural
framework
given,
make
specific
reference
to
the rules
of
individual
Pharaohs.
It
is,
however,
necessary
to
mention the
problems
inherent
in
establishing
the
range
of
dates
to which
a
group
of
objects
from
a closed
deposit
in
Egypt
may
belong. Nearly
all
the
archaeological
material
with
which we
are
concerned
here
has been
re-
coveredfrom
graves,
and
therefore
brings
into
play
special
factors
which
require
equally
special
atten-
tion and
definition.
It
is
an
axiom
of our
methods
of
interpretation
that
the
objects
from
a
circum-
scribed and
undisturbed
deposit
should
be
dated
contextually by
the
age
of
the latest item
found
in the assemblage.This does not, however, imply
that all the
objects
from
the
same
group
must
necessarily
have been
made
at the
same
time.
There
are certain
tomb
groups
which
demonstrate
beyond
doubt that
funerary
objects
could
and
did
cover
a
wide
range
in
time,
even
though
they
were
all
deposited
at the
same
moment in
their
final
resting
place.
One
of
the best
examples
is
supplied
by
the
tomb
of the XVIIIth
Dynasty
architect, Kha,
which
was found
intact
at Thebes
by
the Italian
Archae-
ological
Expedition
led
by
Ernesto
Schiaparelli
in
I906.2
From
inscriptions
in
the tomb
we know
that
Kha,
though
not a nobleman
by
birth,
occupied
the
posts
of Chief
in the Great
Palace
and
Director
of Public
Works
in the
royal
administration.
He
had
evidently
been rewarded
for
his
services,
both
in life and
in
death,
with handsome
presents,
not
only
from other
senior officials
but
even from
the
Pharaohsthemselves.
The earliest
of the
royal gifts
is a
measuring
rod or cubit
52.5
cm.
long,
made
of
gold
leaf
impressed
with cartouches
containing
the
name
of
Amenhotep II.V
Because
of the
richness
of its material
and
the fineness
of the
work,
par-
ticularly the inscriptions, Schiaparelli considered
that
the cubit could
not
have been
an
object
of
private
character
or
use,
but was
evidently
a
com-
memorative
article
of no
practical
value
belonging
to
the Pharaoh
and made
for him. Its
presence
in a
private
tomb can
accordingly
be
explained
in
no
other
way
than as
a
presentation
to Kha
from
Amenhotep
II
himself.
And
since one
of the
in-
scriptions
recordsthe dedication
of a small
temple
of
Amenhotep
II at
Hermopolis,
Schiaparelli
con-
cludes that
Kha in
his
capacity
as Director
of
Pub-
lic Works
was not unassociated
with the
construc-
tion of
this
monument.
Kha's
tomb also contained
a
writing
case
bearing
the name
of Thutmose
IV,
who succeeded
Amen-
hotep
II,
and of
a
senior
official
Amenmose,
whose
most
important
responsibility
was
the
Treasury.4
It must
be
assumed
that this
object
was made
dur-
ing
the
reign
of
Thutmose
IV and
was
given
by
Amenmose
to his
colleague
in
the
civil
service.
Finally
Kha
had also
been
presented
with
an
elec-
trum
cup by
Amenhotep
III,
whose
name
appears
in the cartouche
on the
side.5
Nothing
dating
later
than the
reign
of
Amenhotep
III was encountered
in
the tomb.
These
articles,
the
chronology
of
which is
firmly
established,
showed
that
the
rest of
the
grave-goods
interred
with Kha could
hypothetically
have
been
made
or come
into the
deceased's
possession
any
time
during
the
reigns
of
Amenhotep
II,
Thutmose
IV or
Amenhotep
III,
a
possible
span
of
about
75
1
R.
S.
Merrillees,
The
Cypriote
Bronze
Age
Pottery
Found
in
Egypt
(Studies
in
Mediterranean
Archaeology
XVIII,
Lund
1968)
(thereafter
Merrillees).
2
E.
Schiaparelli,
La
tomba
intatta
dell'architetto
Cha
nella
necropoli di Tebe (Relazioni sui lavori della missione archeolo-
gica
italiana
in
Egitto
anni
1903-1920,
II,
Turin
1927).
3
Ibid.
I69ff,
figs.
154-156.
4Ibid.
81,
fig.
48.
5Ibid.
172,
fig.
157.
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Thu, 24 Sep 2015 23:01:16 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp7/23/2019 Merrillees, R. S. Aegean Bronze Age Relations With Egypt.
4/15
1972]
CHRONOLOGIES
IN
OLD
WORLD
ARCHAEOLOGY
283
years.
Without
inscriptions,
it is not
possible
to
pin
down in
time
any
one
of
the
other
objects,
though
there
can
be
no doubt that
they
were all
finally
placed
in
the
grave
during
the
reign
of
Amenhotep
III.
Archaeologically,however, it is possible to detect
items whose
antiquity
in
relation
to the
goods
with
which
they
were
contextually
associated
is
readily apparent.
A
very good
illustration
of
this
phenomenon
is
provided
by
Sidmant
Tomb
254,
which
was
found
intact.
Among
the
offerings
in
this
grave
was
a
tall narrow
conical
vase
of alabas-
ter.
The other
vases
of stone and
pottery
found
in
the tomb
were
practically
complete,
but the
coni-
cal alabaster
vase
had lost
its
handle
in
antiquity
and
had
been buried
without
it.
This,
however,
is not the only feature which suggests that even
though
it was
deposited
at the same
time as
the
other
offerings,
it was
already
old at
the time
of
its
burial.
In
the
first
place
this
group
can
be con-
clusively
dated to
Dynasty
XVIII
B.7
In this
context
the
conical
vase
is a
typological
and
chronological
misfit:
the
latest
example
of
this
kind
I have
been
able
to find comes from
a
grave
at
Gurob,
which
certainly
belongs
to
Dynasty
XVIII
A and
can
probably
be more
specifically
assigned
to
the time
of
Amenhotep
I. The
best
parallel
occurs
in a tomb
at
Abydos,
the
contents
of
which
probably
date
to the
second
half of
the
Second
Intermediate
Period. This alabaster
vessel,
therefore,
on
grounds
both
of condition
and
type,
is almost
certainly
older
than
most,
if not
all
of
the
other
objects
which
accompanied
it
in
Sidmant
Tomb
254-
This
has
important
chronological
implications
for
the
Cypriote
Base-ring
I
juglets
from the
same
deposit.
In
the
first
place
they,
like
the
remain-
ing objects,
could
have
been
placed
in the
tomb
at
any point
within
Dynasty
XVIII
B,
that
is
over a
5o-year
period.
But at least one of the con-
tents,
the
conical
vase,
was
undoubtedly
made
earlier
than
the
bulk of
the
other
Egyptian
artefacts,
and we
have
no
way
of
establishing
how
much
earlier,
not
to
mention
whether
the
Cypriote
im-
ports
had
been in
the
possession
of
the deceased
before
burial.
Therefore the
hypothetical
time
span
for the
Base-ring
I
juglets
could
be
as much as
75
years,
if
not
more. As a result
it becomes
impos-
sible to insist
dogmatically
on the
chronological
validity
for
archaeological
remains of the
terminal
date
for
the
deposit
in which
they
occur. The
possi-
bility
must
always
remain that one or more of the
contents has a
higher
chronology.
These
findings,
of
course,
apply
without
qualification
to
the
funerary
contexts in
which
Minoan
and
Mycenaean
pottery
has been
found,
and
provide
the
indispensable
back-
ground against
which all
terminal dates must be
seen.
Only
if
allowance
is
made
for
this factor
can
we
proceed
with the
subject
matter of this
paper
in consecutive
chronological
fashion.
If
in
the
course
of
the
following survey
I have
tended to
presume
that
the
Aegean
Bronze
Age
vases date to the same time as the closure of the
deposit
of which
they
are
part,
it is
largely
for
the
sake
of
convenience,
because there
is
no reason to
believe that
they
are
necessarily
older
than
the ob-
jects
with
which
they
are
contextually
associated.
In
any
case,
the relative
chronology by
which
the
deposits
are
dated allows
sufficient
latitude
in time
to
satisfy
the criteria
we
have
just
established.
We
can
nevertheless
derive little comfort
from such
well-based
imprecision.
We
begin
with
Dynasty
XVIII
A,
which
embraces
the
reigns
of
Ahmose
I,
founder of the XVIIIth Dynasty, Amenhotep I,
Thutmose
I
and
II,
a
period
of
about
65 years
in
the
sixteenth
century
B.C.
Starting
with
the
archaeological
evidence,
we
are
confronted
with
a
striking paucity
of
Minoan
ceramic
imports
to the Nile
Valley.
Of
the
seven
late
Minoan
IB
vases
attributed
to an
Egyptian
provenance,
only
one was
recovered
from scien-
tific
excavations,
a
hole-mouthed
pot
from Sidmant
Cemetery
A
Tomb
137.8
This
grave
also
contained
a
throwing
stick,
a corn
winnower
and
a
wooden
ushabti, none of which is sufficientlydistinctive to
give
any
clues
as to
the date of the
original deposit.
Cemetery
A,
however,
was not in use before
Dynas-
ty
XVIII
A and lasted
down to
the XIXth
Dynasty.
Probably
the
best known of the Cretan
pots
al-
leged
to be
found in
Egypt
is the Marseilles
ewer,
a
Late Minoan
IB jug
now in
the
Musde d'Arch6-
8
Merrillees
62ff.
7
For
comparative
data
see
Merrillees.
Briefly
the
layout
of
the
deposit,
shape
of
the
coffin
and
arrangement
of the
grave-
goods
can
be
matched
in a
tomb at
Maidum
dated to
the
time
of Thutmose
III.
The Kohl
pots
should
be no
later
than
Dynasty XVIII B, of which the stemmed handleless vase with
its
shaped
foot
is
typical.
The red
burnished fabric of two
Egyptian
vases in the
deposit
is a distinctive
feature
of
Dynasty
XVIII
B
pottery,
and a
sack-shaped
vase can
be
paralleled
in an
Abydos
tomb
group
dated to Thutmose
III.
8
Merrillees
194f.
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Thu, 24 Sep 2015 23:01:16 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp7/23/2019 Merrillees, R. S. Aegean Bronze Age Relations With Egypt.
5/15
284
EDITH PORADA
ET
AL.
[AJA
76
ologie
in
the
Chateau
Borely,
Marseilles.
Though
often
said
to have
been
found
in
Egypt,
it was
in
fact,
according
to
the
only
firsthand
information
published,
bought
in Alexandria.
These are
not
necessarily
the
same
things.
Furthermore
Perrot
and Chipiez, on whose recollections we must rely,
record
that the
pot
came
originally
from
Tyre
on
the Lebanese
Coast,
from
which
it was
brought
to
Egypt.
In
these
circumstances
it
seems
hardly
pos-
sible
to insist on a
find-spot
in
the Nile
Valley.
No
such
uncertainty
need
any
longer
surround
the
question
of where
the
equally
famous
Abbott
jug,
now
in the
Brooklyn
Museum,
was
originally
found.
Its
attribution
to lower
Egypt
can
be
proved
not
only by
its unmarked
exterior,
which
tends
to
rule out
contact
with
an
acid
soil
of the kind
that
occurs in the lands around the Aegean, but also by
the
ring
of
solid matter around
the inside of the
pot.
This
ridge evidently
represents
he
desiccated
residue
of
the substance the
vase held
at
the time
of
its
disposal.
This in itself is
enough
to confirm
an
Egyptian provenance,
since
it
is
extremely
rare
to
encounter,
outside
the
sterile
soil
bordering
the
Nile
Valley,
vases
which still
preserve
traces
of
their
original
contents.
Furthermore,
an
analysis
of the matter inside
the
jug
has
indicated that
it
must have been
buried
in
a
very
dry
climate
like
that
of
Egypt.9
The
only
other late
Minoan
IB
vases said
to
have occurred in
Egypt
are four
cups
with
vertical
strap
handles.
The
find-spot
of
one,
now
in
the
Na-
tional
Museum,
Copenhagen,
is
given
no
more
specifically
than the
Fayum.
The
remaining
three
are
in
the
Department
of
Archaeology,
University
College,
London,
but
have
no
pedigree
at
all. Of
the
two illustrated
by
Petrie, o
no.
6
has
no
con-
textual
markings
but
no.
7
has
come
out
in a
kind
of
salt fur which
is
characteristic
of
porous
clay
vessels
that have
spent
a
long
time
underground
in Egypt. The third specimen, which is unpub-
lished,
still
has
sand
lodged
in
its
interstices
and
a
patch
of the
dried-out
remains
of
its
contents
in-
side.
These
vases
do
not
make
up
a
very
impressive
total of
imports
in
either
relative
or
absolute
terms.
Yet,
despite
their
paucity
of
numbers
and
the
sketchy
nature of
the
evidence,
it
cannot be
too
misleading
o stress he
very
nsignificance
f
the
quantity
f Minoan
mports
t
this time
and
the
fact
that
hey
do notin themselves
earwitness
o
intensive
ontacts
ith
the Bronze
Age
Aegean.
Before
proceeding
ith
the contextual
nd
pic-
torialevidence,we should irsttryto establish
terminal
date for
the Late Minoan
B
imports
to
Egypt.
Since he
deposit
ontaining
he
Cretan
vase
at
Sidmant
annot
elp
us,
the
chronology
f
the earliest
Mycenaean
ottery
hould
have
some
bearing
on
a
reconstruction
f the
sequence
f
imports.
he
first act
o be noted
s that here
are
no
Mycenaean
vases
recorded
rom
Egypt.
This
in itself
s
significant,
s
Mycenaean
or Late
Hel-
ladic
synchronizes
ith
LateMinoan
in
Crete.
In
LateMinoan
I,
which
s
distinctive
eramically
at Knossos lone,and Late Helladic I, periods
which
coincide
n time
although
ulturally
he
rest
of Crete
preserves
ate
Minoan
characteristics,
the
situation
s
completely
eversed.
here
are
no
Cretan
mports
f this
period
ecorded
rom
Egypt,
whereas
mainland
Greek
pottery
f the
Mycenae-
an II
style
makes
ts initial
appearance.
Typologically
he earliest rrivals
rom
Greece
are
a few
Mycenaean
IA
vessels,
f which
only
three
can be
adequately
ated.'2
Two
of
them
came
rom
Saqqara
omb
NE
i,
which
was
found
undisturbed.
hey
are an alabastron
nd
cupand
wererecovered
omplete
rom
the
deposit.
n
the
same
group
of
objects
ccurred
carinated
Egyp-
tian
pot
with
painted
ecoration
nd
an
alabaster
kohl
pot,
for which
I
have
found
parallels
n
a
mid
Dynasty
XVIII
A
tomb
at
Thebes.
The
coffin
belongs
o theRishi
or
feathered
ype
and
s
practi-
cally
dentical
with one
from
Deir
el-Medina,
lso
at
Thebes,
which
anbe dated
y
a
scarab
f
Thut-
mose
II. On
the basis
of these
comparisons,
here
seems
ittlechoice
ut
to
opt
for a
transitional
y-
nasty
XVIII
A to B date.
The
Mycenaean
A
jar
fromthe tombof Mentuherkhepesheft Thebes
can
be
securely
ssigned
o
the
times
of
Hatshepsut
and Thutmose
II,
that
s to
Dynasty
XVIII
B.
A
Mycenaean
IA
alabastron
rom
Gurob
Tomb
245
has been
assigned
y
Brunton
nd
Engelbach
to
the time
of
Thutmose
III,
but I
have
been
un-
able to
corroborate
this
dating.3 Nevertheless,
on
9
I
am
republishing
this
vase,
together
with
an
analysis
of
its
contents
by
Dr.
J.
Winter
of
the
University
Museum,
Phila-
delphia,
in
an
article
entitled
Bronze
Age
Trade
Between
the
Aegean
and
Egypt:
Minoan
and
Mycenaean
Pottery
from
Egypt
in
the
Brooklyn
Museum,
to
appear
in
Miscellanea
Wilbouri-
ana
I
(1972),
edited
by
the
Brooklyn
Museum.
1o
W.
M.
Flinders
Petrie,
The
Making
of
Egypt
(London
1929),
pl.
LXXX.
11
F. H.
Stubbings,
in
CAH
(2nd
ed.
1962)
Fasc.
4,
74;
Lord William
Taylour,
The
Mycenaeans
(London
1964)
48.
12
Merrillees,
Index.
18
Merrillees195.
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Thu, 24 Sep 2015 23:01:16 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp7/23/2019 Merrillees, R. S. Aegean Bronze Age Relations With Egypt.
6/15
1972]
CHRONOLOGIES
IN OLD WORLD
ARCHAEOLOGY
285
the
basis
of
all
this evidence
we can
be
reasonably
certain
that
Mycenaean
IIA
pottery
did
not enter
Egypt
much,
if
at
all,
before the
reign
of
Hatshep-
sut. As
there
are no
recorded
contexts,
disturbed
or
intact,
in
which Minoan
and
Mycenaean
pots
have been found
together,
it would seem that vases
of
the
Late
Minoan
IB
period
did not
occur
in
Egypt
after the
end
of
Dynasty
XVIII A.
Turning
now
to
the
inscriptional
data,
we
need
concern
ourselves
only
with reference
to
the Keftiu
and to
the
Isles
in
the Midst of the
Sea,
as
Vercout-
ter '
has
convincingly
disposed
of
the
other
puta-
tive
names
for
the Bronze
Age
Aegeans
and their
world.
Two texts
which mention
the Keftiu have
been
dated to
the
beginning
of
the XVIIIth
Dynas-
ty.
One
is the
Papyrus
Ebers,
which
compares
an
Egyptian organic substance possessing medicinal
properties
with
the bean from
Keftiu land.
This
tells us
little
about contacts
between
Egypt
and the
Keftiu. It
may
not even
imply
the
existence
of
trade
relations,
since
I
have
argued
elsewhere that
the
determinative
could have had
generic
rather
than
geographical
or
commercial connotations. A
school exercise
board
is
more
informative about
the
Keftiu,
as it
gives
a
list
of
allegedly
Keftiu
names,
including
some that are
purely Egyptian.
Vercoutter has
carefully
examined all
possible
in-
terpretations
of
this
document. He
concludes that
by
the first half
of
the
XVIIIth
Dynasty
a con-
siderable number
of Keftiu
people
were
living
in
the Nile
Valley;
they
had
been
settled
there
long
enough
for an
Egyptian
scribe
to have
considered
it
useful
to
familiarize himself
with their
names and
for some of
the
Keftiu to have taken on
Egyptian
identities.
There is
only
one other deduction to
be
made from
this
text,
and it
is that the Keftiu
were
evidently
not
Greek-speaking,
for,
as
W.
Stevenson
Smith
points
out,
their names
bear
no
philological
resemblance
to
those
employed
in
Linear B.
Though these are the only literary remains of
Dynasty
XVIII A which contain
references
to
the
Keftiu,
we
should also take into
account
a remark-
able
glazed
steatite scarab believed
to
have been
purchased
in
Egypt
or
Paris,
and
formerly
part
of the
Spencer
Churchill
collection.15
t is
now in
the British Museum.
On
its underside is
engraved
a
border of
interlocking S-spirals,
which
originally
enclosed seven
characters.
According
to Grumach
this
row
of
signs
represents
a
Cretan
or at
least
Cretanizing
inscription
which,
to
judge
by
the
gen-
eral
appearance
of
the
characters,
may
border
on
the
transition from the
hieroglyphic
class to
Linear
A.
Though
he
finds
it
impossible
to
say
whether
the
piece
was made in Crete or
Egypt,
Dr. O'Con-
nor,
whose
opinion
I have
consulted,
thinks it
rea-
sonably
certain that
the
piece
was
made
and
en-
graved
in
Egypt.
Dr. Kenna claims that the
scarab
can
be dated
to
the
earlier
part
of the
XVIIIth
Dynasty,
though
he
adduces
comparisons
with
scarabsof
the
late Middle
Kingdom period.
It
may
also be of
significance
that
the
latest
(cultural)
date for
Linear
A
in
Crete is Late Minoan
IB,'6
which is
also
the
latest
date for
Minoan
pottery
ex-
ports
of
certain
Cretan
origin
to
Egypt.
It is also a fact of some importancethat there are
no
known
pictorial
representations
of the
Keftiu
or
any
other
foreigners
from
the
Aegean
dating
from
Dynasty
XVIII
A.
It should not be
forgotten,
however,
that
the
only paintings showing
these
visitors have
been
encountered at
Thebes,
and
at
this
site,
there are
only
seven
private
tombs
known
to
cover the
reigns
of Ahmose
I,
Amenhotep
I
and
Thutmose I
and
II. The number of tombs
belong-
ing
to the
times
of
Hatshepsut
and
Thutmose
III
shows
a
marked
and
sizable
increase,
but account
must be taken
of the
fact
that
more
than
50
XVIIIth
Dynasty
tombs
cannot
be
assigned
to the
reigns
of
any
individual
Pharaohs.
The
picture
that
emerges
from
a correlation
of
all these
elements
is,
on
the
surface at
least,
incon-
sistent.
The
only
archaeological
data
to match the
presence
in
Egypt
of
a
significant
community
of
resident
Aegeans
are a
maximum
of
seven Late
Minoan
IB
vases,
which
presumably
belong
to
Dynasty
XVIII
A,
if
not
conceivably
earlier.
In-
deed the
actual
sources of information are
so mea-
ger
that
one
would
be
forced to deduce
that con-
tact can
only
have been
spasmodic
and most
proba-
bly
indirect.
Yet,
if
nothing
else,
the
evidence
at
our
disposal
leaves little doubt
that
the
Aegeans
of
whom the texts
speak
in
Dynasty
XVIII
A were
Cretan rather than
Greek.
Only
Minoan,
not
My-
cenaean,
pottery
has
been
dated
to
this
period,
and in
any
case the
names of the
Keftiu
people
do
not
appear
to
have
been
of
Mycenaean
Greek
deri-
vation.
14
L'.gypte
et
le monde
egeen
prihellinique (Cairo
1956).
15
Kadmos
2
(1963)
Iff;
Archaeological Reports
for
z966-67
52.
18
M.
Pope, Aegean Writing
and
Linear A
(Studies
in Medi-
terranean
Archaeology
VIII,
Lund
1964)
3.
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Thu, 24 Sep 2015 23:01:16 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp7/23/2019 Merrillees, R. S. Aegean Bronze Age Relations With Egypt.
7/15
286 EDITH
PORADA
ET
AL.
[AJA
76
The
archaeological
and
pictorial
situation,
and
presumably
the
history
of connections
with
the
Bronze
Age Aegean,
is
completely
reversed
in
Dynasty
XVIII
B.
Not
only
does
Mycenaean
pot-
tery
entirely replace
Minoan in
Egyptian
deposits
of the period, but the first graphic depictions of
foreigners
from
the
Aegean
make
their
appearance
at Thebes. Yet the
respective quantities
of
Myce-
naean
IIA
and
B vases
which
have
been
assigned
an
Egyptian
provenance
are
not much
greater
than
the
total number of Late
Minoan IB con-
tainers.
I
have
previously
argued
that the earliest
datable
Mycenaean
IIA
imports
should
not
pre-
cede the transition between
Dynasty
XVIII
A and
B,
that is
about
1525/1475
B.C.
Apart
from
the
ala-
bastron and
cup
of
this
phase
from
Saqqara
Tomb
NE I and the amphora from Thebes, to which I
have
already
referred,
the
only
other
Mycenaean
II
pot
from a datable
context
is
a
squat
jug
found
in
the
tomb of Maket
at Kahun
in
lower
Egypt.'7
It
belongs
to
the
Mycenaean
IIB
period
and oc-
curred in a coffin
containing
a
scarab of Thutmose
III,
which
provides
a
terminus
ante
quem
for
the
deposit.
The
tomb, however,
also contained scarabs
of Thutmose I and
II, which,
in
the
light
of
our
discussion of the internal
chronology
of
Egyptian
contexts,
must
give
the
Mycenaean pot
a
possible
time
span
of some
75
years.
The
only
other
Mycenaean
pot
which
can be
assigned
to
Dynasty
XVIII B is not of
the
IIA
or B
phase.
It is a
Mycenaean
IIIA
jug
and
comes from
Sidmant Tomb
53,
which was
placed
by
the excava-
tors
in
the
time
of Thutmose
III.
In
addition to
the
Mycenaean
jug
there
was an
Egyptian
imita-
tion
in
red
polished
ware of a
Cypriote
Base-ring
I
juglet
and a red
polished
leather
bag-shaped
vase
of the
same
kind
as the
one
from
Sidmant Tomb
254.
This is
enough
to
confirm
the
date
proposed
by
the
excavators. 8
However
Stubbings
claims
on
stylistic grounds that the Mycenaean jug must cer-
tainly
be
later
than
Dynasty
XVIII
B. As
the
grave
was
disturbed,
it is
not
impossible
that the contents
represent
mixed
groups deposited
at
different
times,
even
though
the
remaining objects
make
up
a
typologically homogeneous
assemblage.
In
any
case
there is sufficient evidence
to show that
only Myce-
naean
pottery
occurred in
Egypt during
the
reigns
of
Hatshepsut
and
Thutmose
III,
and
that these
vases
belonged
almost
entirely
to the Late Helladic
II
period.
This
observation
has
profound
implications
for
the identification of the
Aegeans
shown in
the
funerary
wall
paintings
of
Dynasty
XVIII
B.
The
earliest
pictorial
representations
of
foreigners
from
this
part
of
the
east
Mediterranean
have
been en-
countered in the tomb of Senmut, the architectand
favourite of
Queen
Hatshepsut.
The tomb
once
contained a
painted
procession
of
so-called
foreign
tributaries,
of
which
only
three
survive
to-day.
These
figures
are
distinguished
by
red-brown
pig-
mentation
and black
hair,
lack
of
beards,
elaborate
coiffures
with
curls
and
plaits
and
regular pro-
files.
The
porters
wore
loin cloths
suspended
in
front of the
body,
with what
Vercoutter
is
tempted
to
identify
not as
cod-pieces
but
as
folds
of the
same material
as the loin cloth.
It
is
not,
however,
the porterswho are given the greatest prominence
-the
objects
they carry
are
disproportionately
arge,
and the
novelty
of the visitors
has been subordi-
nated
to
the
importance
of
these
objects.
Vercout-
ter
attributes this
particular
emphasis
to the
fact
that Senmut was neither
vizir
nor
grand
priest
of
Amun,
who
as
such
might
have
been
expected
to
take
part
in the ceremonies
for
receiving
what
is
loosely
called
in
archaeological
iterature
a tribute.
He
was in fact for the
most
part
called steward
of Amun's
estate,
and his
functions included su-
pervision
of the
foreign products
entering
the
god's
estate
and
treasury.
Whether these and other simi-
lar
paintings
are
to
be
interpreted
as tribute from
foreign
rulers
rendering
annual
dues to
Pharaoh
for a
precarious ndependence
and
autonomy
or as
goods
acquired
through
commercial
exchange
is
still an
open question.
Vercoutter,
proceeding
on
the
assumption
that all
these scenes
represent
the
dues
being
rendered
Pharaoh
by foreign
subjects,
is
led to conclude that the event in
the
mural in
the
tomb
of Senmut cannot
be
contemporary
with
Queen
Hatsheput.
He
argues
that
during
her
reign
Egypt seems to have turned in on itself, at least so
far as Asia was
concerned,
and that it would be
paradoxical
for
foreign
tribute to
have
arrived in
Egypt
just
at this
time.
He claims
that it would be
normal for
such
tribute to have
reached
Egypt
in
the
reign
of one of her
predecessors,
ince the Asian
campaigns
of Thutmose I and II
are
well attested.
There are nevertheless
strong
circumstantial
rea-
sons for
doubting
that these scenes
depict Aegean
envoys paying homage
to the
Egyptian king,
and
instead for
viewing
them
as
commercial missions.
17
Merrillees43ff.
18
Merrillees 59f.
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Thu, 24 Sep 2015 23:01:16 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp7/23/2019 Merrillees, R. S. Aegean Bronze Age Relations With Egypt.
8/15
19721
CHRONOLOGIES
IN
OLD
WORLD ARCHAEOLOGY
287
First,
the
figures
in
Senmut's
tomb are
all
painted
standing upright,
not
in
obsequious
or
servile
posi-
tions,
though
of course
it
must
be
remembered
that
the mural
is
incomplete.
But
even
in the
tomb
of
Menkheperreseneb,
who served
under Thut-
mose III as First
Prophet
of Amun and Director
of
the
Houses
of
Gold and
Silver,
the
only
for-
eigners crouching
before him
are
of
Syro-Pales-
tinian
type.
In
fact
one
of these
Semitic
individuals
is most
curiously
called
King
of Keftiu land.
To
confirm this
impression,
it should
be noted that
there
is not one
Aegean foreigner
in the
Theban
tomb
paintings
who
is
depicted
in
any
but
a normal
upright
position.
Second,
the
very
fact
that
the
objects
of
Aegean
manufacture
in
Senmut's
tomb
have
been
singled
out for attention suggests that it could have been
done
to reflect the
nature
of
the contact
rather
than
the duties
of
Senmut.
By
way
of
contrast,
in
the
tombs
of the
vizirs,
which,
like
that of
Rekhmire,
date
to
the time of
Thutmose
III,
the
emphasis
is
placed
equally
on the
human
figures representing
the
Aegeans
and
on the articles
they bring.
As
I
have
pointed
out
in
my
dissertation,
it
may
be
argued
that
if the
degree
of artistic
influence re-
flects the
proportionate
importance
attached
by
the
owner
to
the
different
aspects
of
the
mission,
then
since
in Senmut's
case the
novelty
of the
objects
is
given precedence
over their
bearers,
it
may
be de-
duced that
Senmut
was
not so much
concerned
with the
personal
side
of
the
mission,
which
would
have
been of
paramount
interest
had it
been
diplo-
matic,
as
with
the
precious
articles.
Despite
notions to
the
contrary,
trade
flourishes
best
in conditions
of
peace,
and
just
such condi-
tions
are
generally
thought
to
have
prevailed
under
Hatshepsut,
to
whose
reign
date
the
paintings
of
Aegeans
in
the
Tomb of Senmut.
Though
Redford
has
attempted
to accredit
her with
warlike activi-
ties commensurate with her rank and duties,'
Hatshepsut
did
not see
herself
as
a
great
soldier
and
conqueror.
The
exploit
for which
she
evident-
ly
wished
to be remembered
most
by posterity
is
recorded
in
eyewitness
detail
on the
walls
of
her
temple
at Deir
el-Bahari
in
Thebes-the
ambitious
commercial
expedition
to the
land of
Punt
in So-
maliland
to
bring
back
myrrh
trees
and
other
prod-
ucts
of
the
region.
Even
if
other
rulers
before and
after
her
sent
trading
ventures to
Punt,
the
very
fact
that
she
chose to
commemorate
this
event
with
such
fanfare,
and
others
did
not,
must
reflect
the
peaceable
orientation
of
her overseas
interests.
Such
a
policy
seems
hardly
calculated
to
have
brought
Asian,
let
alone
Aegean,
emissaries
cringing
to
the
Nile
Valley
with
gifts
and
tribute.
On the
other
hand it could well have had the effect of stimu-
lating
commercial
exchanges
with
areas
outside
Egypt's
traditional
battlegrounds.
It
therefore
be-
comes
easy
to
understand
why
Aegeans
should
first
have
appeared
in
Egypt
during
the
reign
of
Hatshepsut,
bearing goods
for
sale
or
exchange
in
the same
way
that
Egyptians
took
their
own
prod-
ucts to
Punt.
There
are
several
other
tombs
at
Thebes
which
were
built
and
occupied
during
the
reigns
of
Hatshepsut,
Thutmose
III
and
Amenhotep
II,
and
contained murals depicting Aegeans. Probably the
most
famous
and
important
of
these
is
the
tomb
of
Rekhmire,
vizir
under
Thutmose
III
in
the
second
half
of
his
reign,
who
died
soon
after
Amen-
hotep
II
came
to
the
throne.
The
most
interesting
feature
about
the
second
register
of
foreigners
in
the
mural
in
Rekhmire's
tomb
is
that
two
scenes
have
been
executed
one
over
the
other,
both
representing
Aegeans
but
Aegeans
in different
costumes.
The
original
painting
appears
to
have
had
foreigners
wearing
loin
cloths
like
the
figures
in the
tomb
of
Senmut,
but
the
superimposed
scene
depicts
Aege-
ans
dressed
in
different
garments
of
the
kilted
type.
Vercoutter
attaches
particular
significance
to
the
time
gap
between
these
representations.
He
believes
that
the
changes
in detail
during
the
decoration
of
the
tomb
can
only
derive
from
firsthand
observa-
tion,
and
therefore
confirm
beyond
any
reasonable
doubt
the
authenticity
of
the
reproductions.
It
is
possible
that
Vercoutter
has
been
betrayed,
in
this
as
in other
instances,
by
his
faultless
logic
and
in-
genuity;
tempting
though
it is
to
endorse
this
con-
clusion
without
second
thought,
there
is
one
in-
tangible factor which cannot be overlooked.
The fact
is
that we
know
next to
nothing
about
the
technical
or administrative
side
of
tomb
deco-
ration.
It
may
be
that
painters,
like
scribes,
learned
the
stock
scenes
which
appear
in
most
of
the
The-
ban tombs
through apprenticeship.
These
scenes in-
clude
banquets,
harvesting,
fishing
and
other
sub-
jects,
and
do not
seem
to
have relied
on
copybooks
or
actual events
for
their
inspiration.
Nevertheless
we
still
cannot
even
hazard
a
guess
about
the
way
in
which
painters
set about
representing
something
19History and Chronology of the Eighteenth Dynasty of Egypt (Toronto 1967) 57ff.
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Thu, 24 Sep 2015 23:01:16 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp7/23/2019 Merrillees, R. S. Aegean Bronze Age Relations With Egypt.
9/15
288
EDITH
PORADA ET
AL.
[AJA
76
novel,
such
as
foreign people
and
objects.
It
is
also
known
that,
quite
apart
from
the
artist's own
con-
ception,
other
influences
could
have
shaped
the
final
appearance
of
the
paintings.
One such
element
was
without
doubt
the owner's
own
tastes,
for
the
con-
struction of tombs
began
long
before the death of
their
occupants,
who
directed,
or
at
least
controlled
the
execution
of
the
work. How
is
it
possible
at
this
remote
point
in time to deduce
logically
the
reasons
which
may
have
inspired
an
alteration in the
por-
trayal
of
Aegeans
in
the
tomb
of Rekhmire?
Was
the
painter
or his
employer
recording
historical
events
involving
the
consecutive
arrival
of
different
Aegean peoples
or
simply
a different
fashion
worn
by
the
same
people?
But
Vercoutter has
gone
even
further
by
at-
tempting to associate the inscriptions mentioning
the
Keftiu
with
the
earlier and
later wall
paintings.
Part of the
column of
text
painted
in
front
of
the
vizir
reads as
follows:
Receiving
the tribute
of
the
countries of
the
south,
just
as
the
tribute
of
Punt,
the
tribute of
Retenu,
the
tribute of
Keftiu
as
well
as
the
booty
of
all
foreign
countries,
which
has
been
brought
back
thanks
to
the
might
of
His
Majesty
[Thutmose
III].
There
is
also
a
caption
above
Register
2 which
depicts
the
Aegeans
and
has been
translated
by
Gardiner:
Coming
in
peace by
the
chieftains
of
Keftiu
[Crete]
and of
the
islands
in the
midst
be-
longing
to the
sea,
in
bowing
down,
in
bending
...
the
head,
through
the
might
of His
Majesty,
the
King
of
Upper
and
Lower
Egypt,
Menkheperre,
granted
life
eternally,
when
they
hear
of his
vic-
tories
over
all
countries;
their
tribute on
their
backs,
seeking
that
may
be
given
to
them
. . .
the
breath
of
life,
through
desire of
being loyal
subjects
... of
His
Majesty,
so that
...
his
might may
protect
them.
Vercoutter
argues
that
because the
inscription
in
front of the vizir shows no sign of
retouching,
it
must
be
contemporary
with
the
earliest
mural.
But
do
we
know the
order
in
which
the
various
ele-
ments
comprising
this
scene,
not
to
mention
the
others
in
the
tomb,
were
painted?
Vercoutter
has
not
analyzed
the
remaining
scenes to
see if
any
of
them
were
worked
over or
replaced
at a
later
stage,
and if
there
is
any
sequence
or
possible
explanation
for
this
phenomenon.
Without
a
comprehensive
study
of
all
the
paintings
it
seems
hardly
possible
to
assess
the
significance
of
the
changes
made
in
the depictionof the Aegeans. Even then there is no
guarantee
that
we
would
be
any
the
wiser,
because
of
our
ignorance
of the
procedures
followed
in
decorating
the tombs
at
Thebes,
and
particularly
that of
Rekhmire.
More
importantly,
there
is no evidence
that
the
caption
above
the
register
of
Aegeans
was
at
any
stage
revised.
However,
Vercoutter
does not
main-
tain
that this
text must
belong
to the
original
rep-
resentations,
or
he
argues
in the
following
manner.
The
linear
text,
which
so to
speak
is
part
and
parcel
of the
designs,
could
have been
effaced
and
redone
with
them,
or,
if the scribes
left the
former
text,
it was because
the text was
equally
valid
for
the new
representation.
In
fact,
if
they
had
no
hesitation
in
effacing
an entire
register
to
replace
it with new
paintings,
it is difficult
to see
why they
would have left the former text if it no longer cor-
responded
with
the
representations.
n other
terms,
whether
this
text was
composed
to
accompany
the
first
or second
stage
of the
paintings,
it must
be
ad-
mitted
that
the text describes
exactly
what
is
repre-
sented,
without
which
it
would
have
been
changed.
From
this he
deduces that
the
tomb of
Rekhmire is
the
only
trustworthy
source
for what
the
ancient
Egyptians
knew
of the
Aegean
peoples,
and
that
inhabitantsof
both the
Keftiu
and
the Isles
in
the
Midst
of
the Sea came
together
to render
homage
to Pharaoh in Egypt. In the light of all the un-
known
and uncertain
factors
which
could
affect
our
interpretation
of the
inscriptions
and
paint-
ings,
these
propositions
are,
to
say
the
least,
of
questionable
validity.
I
have
already
argued
that there
are
no
good
grounds
for
disputing
the
historical
veracity
of
the
scenes
of
Aegeans
in the tomb
of
Senmut.
Fur-
thermore,
though
Vercoutter
is led
on
philological
grounds
to
give
credence
to the
caption's
claim
that
the Keftiu
and
Isles
in the Midst
of the
Sea
came
to submit
themselves
to
Pharaoh
because
they
had
heard of his
conquests,
there is no reason to
be-
lieve
that the
figures
in the
painting
were
political
or
diplomatic
representatives,
rather
than
mer-
chants
who
were
seeking
to
protect
their
sea
routes
and markets
through
appropriate
gestures
and
gifts.
It should
not
be
forgotten
that
the
apparent
pur-
pose
of
including
these
Aegeans
was
to
add
the
western
point
to a racial
and
cultural
compass
showing
the
alleged
geographical
extent
of
Egypt's
authority
under
Thutmose
III.
The
east
was
rep-
resented
by
the
land of
Punt in
Register
I,
the
south
by the Nubians in Register 3, the north by the Syri-
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Thu, 24 Sep 2015 23:01:16 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp7/23/2019 Merrillees, R. S. Aegean Bronze Age Relations With Egypt.
10/15
1972]
CHRONOLOGIES
IN OLD WORLD ARCHAEOLOGY
289
ans
in
Register
4,
and the
west
by
the
Aegeans
in
Register
2.
The
transparent
desire
to
make
Pharaoh's
power
seem
universal
can
hardly
have
contributed
to the
historical
veracity
of the
scene,
though
the
accuracy
of the
individual
elements
is
probably
less
open to doubt.
Nevertheless,
by
analyzing
the
caption
above
the
register
in its
full
philological
context,
Vercoutter
has
been
able
convincingly
to demonstrate that the
Keftiu and Isles
in the Midst of the
Sea
belong
to
the
same
geographical entity
and
that if one is
Aegean,
the other must
be
also.
This
deduction
accords
with
the
racial
uniformity
of
the
Aegean
porters
depicted
in the
mural
and
is
quiie
unex-
ceptionable.
By
the same
token it reduces
the his-
torical
significance
of
the difference in
wearing
apparel detected on the superimposed figures.
Apart
from these
inscriptions,
there are
several
other
references to
Keftiu in texts
datable
to the
time
of
Thutmose
III.
In fact these
mentions
are
much
more numerous
in
Dynasty
XVIII
B than
in
XVIII
A,
but
tell
us
less.
They
occur
in the
cam-
paign
Annals of
Thutmose
III,
in
contexts
where
their
precise
relevance is
difficult
to
establish,
and
in
stereotyped
lists of
subject
countries
and
peoples,
the
authenticity
of which is
particularly suspect.
It
is,
however,
only
from the
reign
of
Thutmose
III that
the
expression
Isles
in
the
Midst
of the
Sea is attested with
any
certainty.
I have
already
referred
to
the text in
the tomb
of
Rekhmire.
In
the tomb
of
Ouseramon,
vizir of
Thutmose III in
the
first half of
his
reign,
is
a
painting
of
foreign
tribute
accompanied
by
an
inscription
which
reads:
Receiving
the
tribute which
the
might
of
His
Majesty
brought
back
from the
foreign
countries
in
the north
of the
confines
of
Asia and the Isles
in
the
Midst
of the
Sea,
by
the
prince,
Count,
Ousera-
mon. The
mural
also
contains
a
register
of
Aege-
ans,
who
closely
resemble
the
figures
in
the tomb
of Senmut. They are beardless, have long hair
and
regular
profiles,
and
wear
folded
loin cloths of
similar
type.
Vercoutter
justly
concludes
that
they
represent
the
same
peoples,
who
came
from
the
Isles
in the
Midst
of the
Sea.
Another
mention
of
this
locality
occurs on the
gold
bowl of
the
general
Djehouty,
who was
given
this
object
in
reward for
his
servicesto
Thutmose III.
Djehouty
was
viceroy
in
Syria
and
evidently
had
responsibility
for mat-
ters
concerning
the
Isles in the
Midst of the
Sea.
If we
correlate the
indications
furnished
by
the
paintings
and
inscriptions
with the
pottery
evi-
dence,
it
emerges
that the occurrence
f the
first
Mycenaean
ases
in
Egypt
synchronizes
with
the
initial
appearance
f
Aegean
foreigners
n the
tomb
paintings
at Thebes. This coincidence
an
surely
not be fortuitous.
The facts
that the
Aegeans
in
tomb of Senmutwere probably rom the Isles in
the Midst
of the
Sea,
and that the Isles
themselves
are not
unequivocally
mentioned
until the time
of
Thutmose
III,
can
leave little doubt
that we
are
dealing
here
with the Bronze
Age
inhabitants
f
Greece,
not of the island
of
Crete-unless,
of
course,
the
Mycenaeans
were
settled in
and came
from
Knossos.Yet
we are confronted
by
the first
puta-
tive
representations
f the Keftiu and
a
continua-
tion of the use
of the name
during
Dynasty
XVIII
B. There can
surely
be
only
one
explanation.
Be-
cause the tomb paintingswere intendednot so
much
to recordactualhistorical
vents
as to
sym-
bolize the
omnipotence
of the Pharaoh
and
his
entourage,
here
s no reason or the
ownersnot
to
have continued
o include
the Keftiu in their
lists
of
tributaries,
ven
if
there
werein
Dynasty
XVIII
B no director indirect
contactswith
the
Minoans.
The name itself
was of considerable
ntiquity,
and
objects
of Cretan
origin
or
inspiration
had
found
their
way
to
Egypt
as
early
as the
Middle
Minoan
I
period.
Reasons
of tradition
alone would
have
guaranteed
t an
honored mention
in
any
noble
Egyptian's
erritorial laimsfor the
benefit
of
pos-
terity.
Andfor this reason
we can
imagine
hat
they
would have
had no hesitation
in
attaching
the
Keftiu label
to
paintings
which
in fact
represented
Mycenaeans.
This
presupposes
hat the
mainland
Greeks
were the first
Aegeans
personally
o
have
set foot on
Egyptian
soil and to
have
provided
models
for
the
tomb
paintings
of
Thebes.
As
we
have
already
een,
there
is
nothing
politically
m-
probable
n this
conclusion.
From the
Aegean point
of
view,
Dynasty
XVIII
C is an archaeologicalictorial ndlinguisticblank.
Admittedly
he
period
s
short
n
comparison
o
the
other
phases
of the
XVIIIth
Dynasty,
having
asted
only
some
33 years.
It
is
also
culturally
ll-defined.
Yet,
despite
these
limiting
factors,
he
scarcity
of
evidence
for
Aegean
relations with
Egypt
during
the
reigns
of
Amenhotep
II
and
Thutmose IV
is
undoubtedly,
like the
lack
of
Cypriote
exports
to
Egypt,
as
real
as
it is
apparent.
In
the
first
place
there are no
Mycenaean
pots
which
can
be
assigned
to
Dynasty
XVIII
C. The
number of
Mycenaean
II and earlyIIIA vases from the Nile Valley which
This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Thu, 24 Sep 2015 23:01:16 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp7/23/2019 Merrillees, R. S. Aegean Bronze Age Relations With Egypt.
11/15
290
EDITH PORADA
T AL.
[AJA
76
cannot
be
dated
is
sufficiently
small
to
confirm
the
impression
that
few
if
any
ceramic
imports
from
the
Greek
mainland entered
Egypt
during
this
period.
Apart
from
the
tombs
of
Rekhmire and
Menkheperreseneb,
both of
whom
served
under
Thutmose III but died in the
reign
of Amenhotep
II,
the
only
other
tombs
containing representations
of
Aegeans,
which were
closed
in
the
time
of
Amenhotep
II,
belong
to
Amenemheb,
Amenemi-
pet
and
Kemamun.
The
value of these
paintings
for
historical
pur-
poses
may
be
gauged
from
the fact that
all
the so-
called
Aegeans
are either
composite
or derivative
creations. In
the tomb
of Amenemheb
they
have
Syro-Palestinian
raits
of at least
two
different
types,
and
Vercoutter
justly
concludes that
the inclusion
of the Keftiu in the accompanying inscription,
which
follows
a
geographical
list
reproduced
in the
tomb of
Kenamun
of the same
period,
tells
us
nothing
new.
The
individual
purporting
to be a
typical
inhabitant of Keftiu
in the
tomb
of
Kema-
mun
is
a man from
Punt,
and the
context
of this
reference
to Keftiu is
geographically vague
and of
little
historical
usefulness.
The
figures
in
the
tomb
of
Amenemipet appear
to have been
copied
from
the
types portrayed
in
the tomb of
Menkheperre-
seneb
and add
nothing
to
our
knowledge
of con-
tacts
between
Egypt
and the
Aegean.
The
only
other
possible
reference
to the
Keftiu in
Dynasty
XVIII
C
occurs
on an
alabastervase
from the tomb
of
Thutmose
IV
and
concerns a
product
or
paste
of
Keftiu. The
exact
meaning
of this
inscription
is
sufficiently
elusive to make
it
unwise to
build
any
hypotheses
upon
it.
There
are
no
inscriptions
known which
mention the Isles
in
the
Midst
of
the
Sea,
which seems
to
confirm the
indications
from
all other sources
that there
was
a
hiatus
in
Aegean
contacts
with
Egypt during
Dynasty
XVIII
C.
Dynasty XVIII D opens with the reign of Amen-
hotep
III and
the most
intriguing
conflict
of evi-
dence in the
whole
of
the
New
Kingdom.
Let us
start
with the
epigraphic
data.
The
Isles in the
Midst
of
the Sea rate
not a
single
mention
dating
from
the time
of this
Pharaoh. The name
of Keftiu
occurs
twice
in
mixed
geographical
lists of
dubious
historical
value. It was also
inscribed on the
right
side
in
front of a statue
base from the
funerary
or
mortuary
temple
of
Amenhotep
III
at Thebes. The
series
of names
of
which it forms
part
makes
up
one of the most interesting texts to have survived
from
the
XVIIIth
Dynasty.
Two
scholars,
Kitchen
and
Edel,
have succeeded in
identifying
with
rea-
sonable
certainty
the names of
Amnisos,
Phaistos,
Kydonia, Mycenae,
Messenia,
Nauplia,
Kythera,
Ilios
(Troy),
Knossos,
Amnisos and
Lyktos.
The
list is erased at this point and so is incomplete.
These
localities
are all well-known centers
of
Bronze
Age
civilization
around the
Aegean
Sea.
Edel
thinks
it
unlikely
that the names were
copied
from
earlier
geographical
lists,
but there seems
to
me to be
every good
reason to doubt the
real
contemporaneity
of this
series.
The
very
use of the word Keftiu is
enough
to
arouse
suspicion,
since the
only
other
epigraphic
contexts of this time in which it occurs
lack histori-
cal
credibility.
Furthermore the
place
names
are
strung togetherin no apparentlyrationalgeographi-
cal
order,
moving
from Crete to
Greece,
off to
Troy
and
back
again
to
Crete,
with
Amnisos
occurring
twice.
This
enumeration
of
sites
cannot
therefore
have been intended to
serve
as
a
topographical
guide
or
as
an illustration
of
historical
realities. This
is
Top Related