On the Amenhotep III Inscribed Faience Fragments from Mycenae

Author(s): Christine Lilyquist

Source: Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 119, No. 2 (Apr. - Jun., 1999), pp. 303308
Published by: American Oriental Society
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/606114 .
Accessed: 21/06/2014 13:35
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
content in 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 support@jstor.org.

American Oriental Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of
the American Oriental Society.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.141 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 13:35:18 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

BRIEF COMMUNICATIONS
On the Amenhotep III Inscribed Faience Fragmentsfrom Mycenae
FaiencefragmentswithEgyptianhieroglyphsfoundat Mycenaebetween1886and 1969 arecurroyalgifts fromthe time of AmenhotepIII (1391-1353 B.c.). Howrentlyseen as Egyptian-made
of objectsfromEgyptdo notofferpreciseparallels,andlimitedscientificanalyses
ever,comparisons
of the Mycenae fragments support non-Egyptian manufacture. With function and manufacturing
place of the fragments questioned, and the accessibility of all items for comparative study difficult,
this article cautions against their casual use in theories of trade and gift exchange.

Cline reported that the signs on some fragments faced

right on each side, but that on others they faced right on
one side and left on the other. He thus postulated that at
least two groups of plaques were represented.
Seven of the fragments Cline discusses are currently
exhibited in front of a mirror in the National Museum,
Athens. It appears to me from this vantage point that at
least four plaques are represented:two where the hieroglyphs face right on both obverse and reverse,4and two
where they face right on one surface but left on the other.5
The preserved inscription on both surfaces appearsto be
identical. Quality of inscribed line, plaque thickness, unglazed partiallyblackenededges, white to pink glaze, and
brown fabric are features that tie all seven fragments
together. Photographsof the Mylonas and Taylourfragments indicate differences of paleography, but general
layout and Cline's measurementsindicate that all eleven
should be considered together.6
The comparison of the Mycenae fragments to Egyptian foundation deposit bricks as put forwardby Hankey
and Cline following Geoffrey Martin (Hankey 1980) is

Faience fragments excavated by Chrestos Tsountas,

George Mylonas, and William Taylour at Mycenae and
mostly inscribed with Egyptian hieroglyphs have elicited
particularinterest during the past twenty years as trade
and economy became major areas of interest. Wolfgang
Helck suggested that the fragments once decorated an
Egyptian room at the site (1979: 96f.). Vronwy Hankey
thought that they were brought by official visitors from
Egypt who returned (to Amarna) with Mycenaean pottery (1980: 45f.). Eric Cline stated that they were surely
foundation deposit bricks, part of a larger royal gift that
had implications for internationaleconomy (1987; 1990;
1994: 38-42, 143 nos. 96-99; 1995: 147). Cline
identified eleven fragments representing six to nine
bricks, up from the four Hankey had proposed. He was
allowed to examine all eleven and postulated that-althoughnow white with touches of green-they were originally blue or green (like Egyptian faience usually is),
inscribedin black.' Cline measuredthe width of two fragments at about 11 cm, and averaged the various thicknesses to 1.5 cm. According to Cline, ten of the eleven
fragments had Egyptian hieroglyphs or framing lines on
both sides, giving the nomen and prenomenof Amenhotep III.2An original length could not be estimated, as no
more than three edges were preserved on any one fragment. However, one fragment ("T") indicated that the
names were continuous in one column, with the epithet
"given life" at its end, making plaques about 20 cm long.3
1 Cline had
good access to the Taylourfragments,but those of
Tsountaswere to be published by Pericles A. Kourachanis,curatorat the National Museum until his untimely death in 1989.
I have no information on the study or publication plans of the
Mylonas fragments.
2 Although no fragment gave both the
prenomen and nomen

of this ruler,I believeit likelythatthe namesreferto him.

3

The inscription "good god, (Maat-ka-Ra)"is not complete,

andthereconstruction
in Cline1993:fig. 3, withtheinscription

10 x 10 cm plaques,wouldnot
runningovertwo superimposed
satisfythe Egyptian'slove of balanceandcompleteness.
4 2566.2and2566.5.Onthe lowersurfaceof 2566.5(as displayedtodayin Athens),the sign below the cartoucheshould
be a di. ClinestatesthattheMylonasfragmentsfacerighton all
surfaces.
5 2566.1and2718.Thebottomsurfaceof 2718
(asdisplayed)
shouldhavethebeginningof Maat'sankh-signbelowtheRabut
the traceis uncertain.Thepaleographic
handhereis morespiderythanon the otherfragments;this fragmentis also noticeably less thick thanthe othersdisplayed.Signs on the larger
Taylourfragmentalso face oppositedirectionson eachside.
6 No lineswereapparent
on 2566.3.A frameline andthebottomof a cartoucheringappearto be on bothsidesof 2566.4;the
samemaybe on onesideof 12582,withonlya framelineon the
otherside.

303

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.141 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 13:35:18 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

304

Journal of the American Oriental Society 119.2 (1999)

superficially apt, although I have found only one Amenhotep III brick for comparison (Weinstein 1973: 215
no. 72).7 During the Eighteenth Dynasty, these bricks in
Egypt are usually of faience (Weinstein 1973: 126f.),
and the example of Amenhotep III from Abydos has
similar dimensions (19.7 x 10.5 x 1.2 cm) to Cline's reconstruction, the large size being a feature that continued into the Ramesside period (Weinstein 1973: 141).
Furthermore,I believe the Athens fragments show good
Egyptian paleography.
However, the columnar inscription on the Egyptian
bricks is generally on one face.8 It gives the prenomenof
the ruler who constructed the monument as well as the
name of the god to whom it was dedicated. Such bricks
were used in a ceremony before construction (Weinstein
1973: 5-16; Letellier 1977); an example of Tuthmosis
III is illustrated as fig. 1 (14.4 x 7.5 x 1.1 cm; Weinstein
1973: 195 no. 52b): "the good god (men-heper-Ra) beloved of Osiris."
In contrast, the Athens/Nauplion/British fragments
show-as far as they are preserved-an inscription on
both sides that is identical in content (differingsometimes
only in sign orientation),give both prenomenand nomen,
and lack mentionof a deity. Cline'sfavoredreconstruction
would read, "good god, (neb-Maat-Ra)son of Ra (Imenhetep heka-Waset)given life." It is also notable that the
core of these fragments is quite dark. While a brownish
matrix is known in Egyptian faience, and even common
according to Kaczmarczykand Hedges (1983: 188-99),
this fabric is darkerthan I would expect during the highquality productionperiod of Amenhotep III.
I have found one Egyptian exception to the usual inscription, i.e., a faience foundation brick of Horemheb
(1323-1295 B.c.) where a god is not mentioned: "good
god (deser-heperu-Ra setep-en-Ra) given life forever"
(Azim 1982: 98; 9.2 x 4.8 x 3.6 cm, no frame lines). Another exception is a class of large faience bricks of Ram-

esses II (1279-1213 B.c.) where nomen and prenomen

face each other on both sides, a band of inscription
aroundthe edges (Weinstein 1973: 244-47).9
I have also found several bricks where a part of the
inscription faces left:
Six of twelve faience bricks inscribed on one face for
AmenhotepII (1427-1400 B.c.), averaging 14.65 x 8.2
x 1.37 cm; from the art market,each brick with a vertical framedinscription.The word mry, "beloved [of],"
faces left on the six bricks mentioning Hauronbut right
on the six mentioningHorakhty.I believe the abnormal
writing concerns the place of Hauron'sveneration in
the temple (Lilyquist, in press);
One of seven faience bricks from deposit 5 at the funerary temple of Aye (1327-1323 B.c.) where almost all
signs face left to read, "good god, lord of the two lands
(heper-heperu-Ra iry-Maat) son of Ra (it-neter Aye
neter-heka-Waset)beloved of Amun lord of heaven"
(Hoelscher 1937: pl. 33; Hoelscher 1939: 85, 91 no. f,
pl. 54e; Cairo JdE 60058; 15.5 x 7 x 2.3 cm);
A large limestone brick from the funerary temple of

Sety I (1294-1279 B.c.) naming Sety's father Ramesses I, wherein the nomen and prenomen are placed
side by side but each oriented outward ratherthan inward (Stadelmann 1977);10

A cartouche-shapedplaque of Sety I from the art market

where the ruler's prenomen is on one face (oriented
right) and the name of his funerarytemple at Gourna
is on the other face (in two columns facing left; Egyptian Blue; 8 cm long);"'
A small faience plaque naming Ramesses II from Aphek,
possibly a model brick, with two columns on each

face: a reference to a deity is in the leftmost columns

(facing right), and the nomen and the prenomen are in

the rightmost columns (facing left; Weinstein 1981:

19f.; Giveon 1978; Giveon in Kochavi 1990: xiv no.
2, 30 no. 2; [3.8] x 2.3 x 0.4 cm).12

However, I can find no parallel for the global orienta7A

simple cartouche with the king's prenomenis centered toward the top of the brick; a second brick was probably similar.
8
Inscriptionson small scarab-sizedplaques are not appropriate to cite in this discussion. Such small cartouche-shaped
plaques were made for foundation deposits from the reign of
Tuthmosis IV into the Ramesside period. Usually of stone, faience, or glass, they are considered model bricks. With nomen or
prenomenpresent (ratherthan the names with an epithet or wish
for life), and usually the size of a scarab-often pierced longitudinally-they are more like amulets than bricks. Examples are
the plaque with Amenhotep III'sname from Tell Hariri(cited by
Cline as "Mari,"1990: 205 n. 23), and the "Ramesses I" amulet
from Beth Shean (not included in Weinstein 1973: lxxi).

tion of the Mycenae fragments' inscriptions, nor can I

propose a reason for it. Helck's reconstructionof the frag-

9 An example is MMA 28.9.1, Weinstein 1973: 255 B; 35 x

18 x 7 cm.
10 Note that faience bricks from this
deposit with the prenomen of Sety I face right; fig. 81 in Schulz and Sourouzian
1997 has been reversed.

1 MMA17.194.2333.

12 Weinstein understood the object as a model brick but

doubted that it commemorated a building in Palestine on the
basis of context (assigned to the upper floor of a Ramesside

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.141 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 13:35:18 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

LILYQUIST:On the Amenhotep III Inscribed Faience Fragmentsfrom Mycenae

ments arounda doorway or window would have allowed

all signs to be directed towards one opening (1979: 96f.),
but the thinness of the fragments-averaging 1.5 cmobviates this usage. The orientation of hieroglyphs in
Egyptian inscriptions is generally to the right; if to the
left, a reason can often be discovered (Fischer 1977). I
see no apparentreason for the orientationof these inscriptions. And, in fact, none of the deviations on foundation
bricks cited above combines to parallel the inscriptions
on the Mycenae fragments.Nor do other types of faience
plaques from Egypt offer clues to the meaning of the
Mycenae fragments. Several Egyptian plaques have figural drawings on one side, the back glazed or unglazed
(Hayes 1959; Sowada 1996); and some are appliqueswith
floral and geometric motifs or hieroglyphs on one side,
used to decorate surfaces (Verner 1995; Borchardt 1909:
56-67). But they are not comparable.
Could the Mycenae fragmentshave been partof labels
for gifts, as Weinstein (1990) suggested? I doubt this
possibility on the basis of their quantity,their thinness as
related to their projected size, and the lack of evidence
for such objects within Egyptian culture. Certainly they
could not have been tied to objects, as in the modernconcept of gift tags. Of course, one could postulate that they
were made only for export and therefore have no parallels from Egypt. By and large, there is no internal evidence of an export industry in Egypt, and one would
expect the Egyptians simply to use fine versions of objects known within their own culture for gifts.
Other possible explanations could be raised, such as
that the evidence from Egypt is incomplete. Amenhotep III had a mammoth building program (Bryan 1992)
but foundation deposits have not been recovered. However, the fifteenth century and first third of the fourteenth yielded more foundation deposits than any other
period (Weinstein 1973: 92), and one must accept that
the Mycenae fragments are an anomaly among them.
One could also ask whether second- or third-rateitems
could not have been exportedfrom Egypt. This too is possible, and we know that royal workshops produced poor
or poorly inscribed items (Lilyquist 1988: 29). After restudying the KatsambaTuthmosis III-inscribedamphora
recently (Cline 1994: no. 742), I feel this vessel fits into

305

such a category. But the issue here is not quality so much

as iconography and technology. In other words, without
being able to find parallels for the faience objects in
Egyptian society, it is imprudentto theorize about their
importance to Egyptians. If Egyptian-made, they may
have had little more importancethanthe scarabsand other
minor objects found at Mycenae.
Just as archaeological comparisons do not connect the
Mycenae fragments neatly to Egypt, neither do current
scientific analyses. The core of one fragment was included in a study of Mycenae- and Egypt-sourcedfaience
items in the National Museum, Athens (AndreopoulouMangou 1988).13Only major constituent elements were
reported, but four of the six Egyptian objects had elevated iron levels and the Mycenaean fragment did not.
The significance of this finding is unclear, as the iron levels far outdistance those reported by Kaczmarczyk and
Hedges for Egyptian faience (1983: 185-220). More revealing was a sample of glaze from the largest Taylour
fragment analyzed by R. H. Brill. Brill linked the lead to
his Laurionratherthan Egyptian field (Lilyquist and Brill
1993: 61 n. 10). In the face of this analysis, Cline postulated, as the most reasonableexplanation,thatthe plaques
had been made in Egypt with lead importedfrom Laurion
(Cline 1990: 209f.). And indeed, Z. Stos-Gale and colleagues have linked lead in metal objects excavated at
Tell el-Amarna with Laurion-fieldlead (Stos-Gale et al.
1995). There is currentdiscussion of "fields,""overlap,"
and "mixing" in the interpretationof isotope data from
metals (JMA 1995) as well as from glass (El-Goresy
et al., in press), a chief limitation being the paucity of
Egyptian ore data available. But Tite is surely right in
saying that the tool is useful (1996). In my view, it is
not impossible that the Stos-Gale Amarna-foundobjects
(silver bracelet;lead bar, net sinker, and weight fill) were
importedinto Egypt.14Likewise, it is not impossible that
the Mycenae fragments were locally made, considering
their unusual inscriptions, the Brill data, the possibility
that the white-colored glaze-a characteristic more of
Aegean than of Egyptianfaience (Andreopoulou-Mangou
1988)-reflects their original color as much as being the

13

governor's residence but found in a later context), the deity

mentioned (Isis?), and location cited (Dendera?).According to
information kindly supplied by Katie Demakopoulou, the boomerang is "from Egypt" and the remainderof objects selected
by Kourachanisis from collections gatheredin Egypt and given
in 1880 and 1904. On the Egyptian collection in Athens, see
National Archaeological Museum 1995.

Accordingto information
kindlysuppliedby KatieDemaof
kopoulou,theboomerangis "fromEgypt"andtheremainder
objects selected by Kourachanisis from collections gathered in
Egypt and given in 1880 and 1904. On the Egyptian collection
in Athens, see National Archaeological Museum 1995.
14 The net sinker is the only item one would think must be
domestic, but the Abydos tomb D 199 from where it came has
other foreign-type objects: Randall-MacIver and Mace 1902:
102; Patch 1990: nos. 25b, 27f, 33b-c.

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.141 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 13:35:18 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

306

Journal of the American Oriental Society 119.2 (1999)

result of fire, and their core-as perceived in unblackened Athens fragments-is more brown than expected.
On present evidence then, the Mycenae fragments do
not parallel Eighteenth Dynasty Egyptian models except
in respect to the paleography of the Athens fragments,
and this could be explained by the presence of an Egyptian scribe on the Greek mainland. In my opinion, the
question must therefore be raised as to whether the
items are local products, a postulation to be considered
along with the theory that they are Egyptian.
Could they not be comparableto the frescos at Tell elDabca and Kabrithat use the iconography of the Minoan
elite? In discussing the DabCa/Kabrifrescoes, S. Manning has referred to an eastern Mediterraneanand Aegean koine operating to express an ideology (Manning
1996). I would suggest that Egypt was of interest to
Crete and Mycenae-either directly or through the Levant-to the extent that manufacturedgoods were desirable, even if not original. Such interest could lie behind
the many stone vessels whose shape, proportions, and
manufacturingtechniques do not match Egyptian examples (Lilyquist 1996), the star-inscribedscarabfrom Sellopoulo tomb 4 (Manning 1995: 227; Lilyquist 1996:
146 n. 120) and even the faience plaque from Aphek.'5In
other words, the identity of makerand the place of manufacture are blurred.
Interrelationsbetween Egypt and the Levant (Helck
1971) are better documented than those between Egypt
and the Aegean (Helck 1975, 1979). But even in the eastern Mediterraneanarenait is sometimes difficult to know
where a featureoriginates, the interchangebeing so fluid.
Numerous West Semitic words entered the Egyptian
language at this period (Hoch 1994), and the Egyptian
material culture shows so much eastern influence that
Eliezer Orenhas used the term "Canaanizationof Egypt"
(personalcommunication,February1989). Granted,there
15 There was a
flourishing local faience industry in northern
Palestine at the time (McGovern et al. 1993).

is less varied and extensive archaeological evidence of

Egyptian style in the Aegean than in the Levant (Weinstein 1995) and very little linguistic evidence of interrelation;'6but, no matter how directly influenced, there
are now Minoan-type frescoes at Dabca and Mycenaeanderived iconography in a papyrus from Amarna (Schofield and Parkinson 1994).
These comments and impressions do not claim to solve
the provenanceor function of the Mycenae faience fragments. I believe that Egyptian goods did reach the Aegean, among which I would put the Khian lid and User
statuettefound on Crete, and the Prosymna scarabfound
on the mainland (Cline 1994: nos. 121, 680). These are
comparable,I would think, to the Near Eastern glass female and disk pendants, metal Reshef figures, and stone
cylinder seals that were found on the mainland (Cline
1994: nos. 16-17, 69, 100, 180). Also, Amenhotep III's
name was present on objects found on the mainland.But
the objects found do not appear to have had great value
in Egypt, Aegean-Levantine trade did occur, and workshops outside Egypt making "Egyptian"objects did exist, as OthmarKeel convinced William Ward as regards
scarabs found in Palestine (Ward 1997). Let us be cautious in assuming the Egyptian origin of the Mycenae
fragments and in promoting a meaning for them until
Egyptian parallels are found, the Mycenae fragments
are analyzed, or a comprehensive first-handstudy brings
substantial clarification.
CHRISTINELILYQUIST
THE METROPOLITAN MUSEUM OF ART

16 For

Egyptianlinguisticevidencein the Aegean,see Duhoux 1988:78; Palaima1991:280;Cline 1994:35. ForAegean

evidencein Egypt,see Helck1975:72f. JamesHochstatesthat
there are a number of words that could be investigated for linguistic interconnectionbut, to date, little attentionhas been paid
to the possibility (personal communication, 4 May 1995).

REFERENCES

Andreopoulou-Mangou,E. 1988. Chemical Analysis of Faience

Objects in the National Archaeological Museum. In New Aspects of Archaeological Science in Greece, ed. R. E. Jones
and H. W. Catling. Pp. 215-18. Occasional Paper of the
Fitch Laboratory,no. 3. Athens: British School at Athens.
Azim, Michel. 1982. D6couverte de d6p6ts de fondation d'Horemhebau IXe pyl6ne de Karnak.In Cahiers de Karnak VII
1978-1981. Pp. 93-120. Paris: tditions Recherche sur les

Civilisations (for the Centre franco-6gyptien d'6tude des

temples de Karnak).
Borchardt,Ludwig. 1909. Das Grabdenkmaldes Konigs Neferir-ke,-rc. Ausgrabungender Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft
in Abusir 1902-1908, vol. 5. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs.
Bryan, Betsy M. 1992. Designing the Cosmos: Temples and
Temple Decoration. In Egypt'sDazzling Sun: AmenhotepIII
and His World,eds. Arielle P. Kozloff and Betsy M. Bryan,

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.141 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 13:35:18 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

LILYQUIST:On the Amenhotep III Inscribed Faience Fragments from Mycenae

with Lawrence M. Berman. Pp. 73-124. Cleveland: The

Museum, in cooperation with Indiana University.
Cline, Eric. 1987. Amenhotep III and the Aegean: A Reassessment of Egypto-Aegean Relations in the 14th Century B.C.
Orientalia 56: 1-37.
.1990. An UnpublishedAmenhotep III Faience Plaque
from Mycenae. JAOS 110: 200-212.
.1994. Sailing the Wine-DarkSea: InternationalTrade
and the Late BronzeAge Aegean. BAR International,vol. 591.
Oxford:Tempus Repartum.
.1995. "My Brother, My Son": Rulership and Trade
between the LBA Aegean, Egypt and the Near East. In The
Role of the Ruler in the Prehistoric Aegean, ed. Paul Rehak.
Pp. 143-50. Aegaeum 11. Proceedings of a Panel Discussion Presentedat the Annual Meeting of the Archaeological
Institute of America, New Orleans, Louisiana, 29 December 1992, with Additions. Liege: Univ. de Liege.
Day, P. M. 1996. Review of A. Bernard Knapp and John F
Cherry,Provenience Studies and Bronze Age Cyprus: Production, Exchange and Politico-Economic Change (Madison, Wisc.: Prehistoric Press, 1994). In Antiquity 60: 269
(September): 718f.
Duhoux, Yves. 1988. Les contacts entre Myc6niens et barbares
d'apresle vocabulairedu Lin6aireB. Minos, n.s., 23: 75-83.
El-Goresy, A.; F Tera; B. Schlick-Nolte; and E. Pernicka. In
press. Chemistry and Lead Isotopic Compositions of Glass
from a Ramesside Workshop at Lisht and Egyptian Lead
Ores: A Test for a Genetic Link and for the Source of Glass.
Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress of Egyptologists.
Fischer, Henry G. 1977. The Orientation of Hieroglyphs, part I:
Reversals. Egyptian Studies, no. 2. New York:Metropolitan
Museum of Art.
Giveon, Raphael. 1978. Two Unique Egyptian Inscriptionsfrom
Tel Aphek. TelAviv 5: 188-91.
Hankey, Vronwy. 1980. The Aegean Interest in El Amarna.
Journal of Mediterranean Anthropology and Archaeology
1: 38-49.
Hayes, William C. 1959. The Scepter of Egypt: A Background
for the Study of the EgyptianAntiquities in the Metropolitan
Museum of Art, part II: The Hyksos Period and the New
Kingdom (1675-1080 B.C.). Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
Univ. Press.
Helck, Wolfgang, 1971. Die Beziehungen Agyptens zu Vorderasien im 3. und 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr., rev. ed. Agyptologische Abhandlungen,vol. 5. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
. 1975. Agais und Agypten. In LexikonderAgyptologie,
I, ed. Wolfgang Helck and Wolfhart Westendorff. Pp. 72f.
Wiesbaden:Harrassowitz.
.1979. Die BeziehungenAgyptensund Vorderasienszur
Agais, bis ins 7. Jahrhundertv. Chr. Ertrageder Forschung,
vol. 120. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.

307

Hoch, James. 1994. Semitic Wordsin Egyptian Textsof the New

Kingdomand ThirdIntermediatePeriod. Princeton:Princeton
Univ. Press.
Hoelscher, Uvo. 1937. General Plans and Views. Excavation of
Medinet Habu,vol. 1; OrientalInstitutePublications,vol. 21.
Chicago: Oriental Institute.
.1939. The Templesof the Eighteenth Dynasty. Excavation of Medinet Habu, vol. 2; Oriental Institute Publications, vol. 41. Chicago: Oriental Institute.
Journal of MediterraneanArchaeology. 1995. Special Section,
Lead Isotope Analysis and the MediterraneanMetals Trade.
JMA 8.1 (June): 1-75.
Kaczmarczyk,A., and R. E. M. Hedges. 1983. Ancient Egyptian
Faience: An Analytical Survey of Egyptian Faience from
Predynastic to Roman Times. Warminster:Aris and Phillips.
Kochavi, Moshe. 1990. Aphek in Canaan: The Egyptian Governor's Residence and its Finds. Exhibition catalog. Jerusalem: Israel Museum.
Letellier, Bernadette. 1977. Grindungsbeigabe. Lexikon der
Agyptologie, II, ed. Wolfgang Helck and Wolfhart Westendorf. Pp. 906-12. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Lilyquist, C. 1988. The gold bowl naming General Djehuty: A
study of objects and early Egyptology. Metropolitan Museum Journal 23: 5-68.
.1995. Egyptian Stone Vessels: Khian through Tuthmosis IV New York:MetropolitanMuseum of Art.
.1996. Stone Vessels at Kamid el Loz: Egyptian,
Egyptianizing, or non-Egyptian? A Question at Sites from
the Sudan to Iraq to the Greek Mainland. In Kamid el-Loz
16: Schatzhaus Studien, ed. Rolf Hachmann. Saarbriicker
Beitrage zur Altertumskunde, 59. Pp. 133-73. Bonn: Rudolf Habelt.
.In press. On the Appearance of Hauron in Egypt.
Journal of the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities 24.
Lilyquist, C., and R. H. Brill. 1993. Studies in Early Egyptian
Glass. New York:MetropolitanMuseum of Art.
Manning, S. W. 1995. The Absolute Chronology of the Aegean
Early Bronze Age: Archaeology, Radiocarbon, and History.
Monographsin MediterraneanArchaeology, vol. 1. Sheffield:
Sheffield; Academic Press.
.1996. Dating the Aegean Bronze Age: Without,With,
and Beyond? Radiocarbon.Acta Archaeologica 67: 15-37.
McGovern,P E.; S. J. Fleming; and C. P. Swann. 1993. The Late
Bronze Egyptian Garrisonat Beth Shan: Glass and Faience
Productionin the Late New Kingdom.BASOR290-91: 1-27.
National Archaeological Museum. 1995. The Worldof Egypt in
the National Archaeological Museum, ed. Olga TzachouAlexandri. Athens: Greek Ministry of Culture, ICOM, Hellenic National Committee.
Palaima, Thomas G. 1991. Maritime Matters in the Linear
B Tablets. In Thalassa: L'tge'e prehistorique et la mer,

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.141 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 13:35:18 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

308

Journal of the American Oriental Society 119.2 (1999)

ed. Robert Laffineur and Lucien Basch. Pp. 273-310.

Aegaeum 7. Actes de la troisieme Rencontre 6egenne internationale de l'Universit6 de Liege, Station de recherches
sous-marines et oc6anographiques, Calvi, Corse (23-25
avril 1990). Liege: Univ. de Liege.
Patch, Diana Craig. 1990. Reflections of Greatness: Ancient
Egypt at the Carnegie Museum of Natural History. Pittsburgh: The Museum.
Randall-MacIver,D., and A. C. Mace. 1902. El Amrahand Abydos 1899-1901. London: Egypt Exploration Fund.
Schofield, L., and R. B. Parkinson. 1994. Of Helmets and Heretics: A Possible Egyptian Representation of Mycenaean
Warriorson a Papyrusfrom el-Amarna. BSA 89: 157-70.
Schulz, Regine, and Hourig Sourouzian. 1997. Die Tempel.
Konigliche Gotter und g6ttliche Konige. In Agypten, Die
Weltder Pharaonen, ed. Regine Schulz and MatthiasSeidel.
Pp. 152-215. Cologne: Konemann.
Sowada, Karin. 1996. Egyptian Treasures in the Nicholson
Museum, Sydney. Egyptian Archaeology 8: 19-22.
Stadelmann,Rainer. 1977. Der Tempel Sethos I in Gurna:Dritter Grabungsbericht.Mitteilungen des Deutschen archiiologischen Institut Kairo 33: 125-31.
Stos-Gale; Zophia; Noel Gale; and Judy Houghton. 1995. The
Originof EgyptianCopper:Lead-IsotopeAnalysis of Metals

from el-Amama. In Egypt, the Aegean and the Levant:Interconnections in the Second Millennium B.C., ed. W. Vivian
Davies and Louise Schofield. Pp. 127-35. London: British
Museum.
Tite, Michael. 1996. In Defense of Lead Isotope Analysis. Antiquity 70: 959-62.
Verner,Miroslav. 1995. ForgottenPyramids,Templesand Tombs
of Abusir. Egyptian Archaeology 7: 19-22.
Ward, William A. 1997. A New Reference Work on SealAmulets. JAOS 117: 673-79.
Weinstein, James. 1973. FoundationDeposits in Ancient Egypt.
Ph.D. diss., Univ. of Pennsylvania. Ann Arbor: University
Microfilms.
.1981. The Egyptian Empire in Palestine: A Reassessment. BASOR241: 1-28.
.1990. Tradeand Empire:Egypt and the EasternMediterranean World in the 14th Century B.C.E. Charles and
Elizabeth Holman Symposium on Ancient Egypt, 2 March
1990, FordhamUniversity, New York City.
.1995. Review of EricCline, Sailing the Wine-DarkSea
(Oxford: Tempus Repartum, 1994), BASOR297: 89-91.

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.141 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 13:35:18 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions