Aegean Bronze Age Relations with Egypt

Author(s): R. S. Merrillees
Source: American Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 76, No. 3 (Jul., 1972), pp. 281-294
Published by: Archaeological Institute of America
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/503921
Accessed: 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 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.

Archaeological Institute of America is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to American Journal
of Archaeology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Thu, 24 Sep 2015 23:01:16 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

1972]

EDITH PORADAET AL.

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 mentioned the Kassite camps outside of Sippar and
thought that there might have been an understanding 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 inscription 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 Babylonian caravan routes in Hittite lands. Brinkman

281

felt that Hatti, rather than Hana (as sometimes

of Hani.
thought) was the correctinterpretation
E. Yar-Shateraskedaboutthe role of the Medes
in additionto the Babyloniansin weakeningthe
AssyrianEmpire.Brinkmannoted that when the
last cities fell-Ashur, Nineveh and Harran-the
Babyloniansdid not alwaysarrivein time to support the Medes.He also suggestedthat the Medes
had a greaterrole, as they were in controlof Harran and most of Assyria after the collapseof the
AssyrianEmpire.He felt, however,that the Medes
had not been as much of a drain on Assyrian
energy and resourcesas the Babyloniansin the
preceding centuries.Although the Medes were
sometimesnamed as the objectsof Assyriancampaigns in the eighth and seventh centuriesB.c.,
these campaignsseem to have been carriedout
largely for the economicbenefit of the Assyrians
and were not due to any particularthreat from
the Medesat that time.

Aegean BronzeAge Relationswith 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 consists 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 assemblage of the extant data should be comprehensive
and all-embracing, as only a multidimensional approach 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 contradictions 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 historical and cultural background. At the end of
this paper is a list of the Pharaohs of the XVIIIth
Dynasty, with their dates, following for convenience the chronology adopted by the revised CAH.
It must be understood that this choice is quite
arbitraryon 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 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

282

EDITH PORADAET

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 subdivisions 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 embracing 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 characteristicof a period of cultural development, which correspondedto a limited succession of Pharaonic reigns. To explain in detail how
I arrived at this scheme would require several more
dissertations; therefore, to allow myself the convenience 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 recovered from graves, and therefore brings into play
special factors which require equally special attention and definition. It is an axiom of our methods
of interpretation that the objects from a circumscribed 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
necessarilyhave 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

1 R. S. Merrillees, The Cypriote Bronze Age Pottery Found

in Egypt (Studies in MediterraneanArchaeology XVIII, Lund
1968) (thereafter Merrillees).
2E. Schiaparelli, La tomba intatta dell'architetto Cha nella
necropoli di Tebe (Relazioni sui lavori della missione archeolo-

AL.

[AJA 76

tomb of the XVIIIth Dynasty architect,Kha, which

was found intact at Thebes by the Italian Archaeological 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
Pharaohs themselves. 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, particularly the inscriptions, Schiaparelli considered
that the cubit could not have been an object of
private character or use, but was evidently a commemorative 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 inscriptions records the dedication of a small temple
of Amenhotep II at Hermopolis, Schiaparelli concludes that Kha in his capacity as Director of Public Works was not unassociated with the construction of this monument.
Kha's tomb also contained a writing case bearing
the name of Thutmose IV, who succeeded Amenhotep II, and of a senior official Amenmose, whose
most important responsibility was the Treasury.4
It must be assumed that this object was made during 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 electrum 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
gica italiana in Egitto anni 1903-1920,
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 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

II, Turin 1927).

1972]

CHRONOLOGIESIN OLD WORLD ARCHAEOLOGY

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 alabaster. The other vases of stone and pottery found in
the tomb were practically complete, but the conical 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 conclusively 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 254This has important chronological implications
for the Cypriote Base-ring I juglets from the same
deposit. In the first place they, like the remaining 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 contents, 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 imports had been in the possession of the deceased
before burial. Therefore the hypothetical time span
8

Merrillees 62ff.
7 For comparative data see Merrillees. Briefly the layout of
the deposit, shape of the coffin and arrangement of the gravegoods 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

283

for the Base-ring I juglets could be as much as 75

years, if not more. As a result it becomes impossible to insist dogmatically on the chronological
validity for archaeologicalremains of the terminal
date for the deposit in which they occur. The possibility 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 indispensablebackground 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 objects 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 scientific 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 sufficiently distinctive to
give any clues as to the date of the original deposit.
Cemetery A, however, was not in use before Dynasty XVIII A and lasted down to the XIXth Dynasty.
Probably the best known of the Cretan pots alleged to be found in Egypt is the Marseilles ewer,
a Late Minoan IB jug now in the Musde d'Arch6its 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 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

284

EDITH PORADA ET AL.

[AJA 76

to stressthe veryinsignificance
of the
ologie in the Chateau Borely, Marseilles. Though misleading
often said to have been found in Egypt, it was in quantityof Minoanimportsat this time and the
fact, according to the only firsthand information factthattheydo not in themselves
bearwitnessto
These
are
in
Alexandria.
not
intensive
contacts
with
the
Bronze
published, bought
Age Aegean.
Beforeproceeding
with the contextual
and picnecessarily the same things. Furthermore Perrot
and Chipiez, on whose recollections we must rely, torialevidence,we shouldfirsttry to establisha
record that the pot came originally from Tyre on terminaldate for the Late MinoanIB imports
the Lebanese Coast, from which it was brought to to Egypt.Sincethe depositcontaining
the Cretan
Egypt. In these circumstances it seems hardly pos- vaseat Sidmantcannothelpus, the chronology
of
sible to insist on a find-spot in the Nile Valley.
the earliestMycenaean
potteryshouldhavesome
No such uncertainty need any longer surround bearingon a reconstruction
of the sequenceof
the question of where the equally famous Abbott imports.
The firstfactto be notedis thatthereare
I vasesrecorded
fromEgypt.This
jug, now in the Brooklyn Museum, was originally no Mycenaean
found. Its attribution to lower Egypt can be proved in itselfis significant,
as Mycenaean
I or LateHelnot only by its unmarked exterior, which tends to ladicI synchronizes
withLateMinoanI in Crete."
rule out contact with an acid soil of the kind that In LateMinoanII, whichis distinctive
ceramically
occurs in the lands around the Aegean, but also by at Knossosalone,and Late HelladicII, periods
the ring of solid matter around the inside of the pot. whichcoincide
in timealthoughculturally
the rest
This ridge evidently representsthe desiccatedresidue of Cretepreserves
Late MinoanI characteristics,
of the substance the vase held at the time of its the situationis completely
reversed.
Thereareno
of thisperiodrecorded
disposal. This in itself is enough to confirm an Cretanimports
fromEgypt,
Egyptian provenance, since it is extremely rare whereasmainlandGreekpotteryof the Mycenaeto encounter, outside the sterile soil bordering the an II stylemakesits initialappearance.
Nile Valley, vases which still preserve traces of
the earliestarrivalsfrom Greece
Typologically
their original contents. Furthermore, an analysis are a few Mycenaean
IIA vessels,of whichonly
of the matter inside the jug has indicated that it three can be adequately
dated.'2Two of them
must have been buried in a very dry climate like camefromSaqqara
TombNE i, whichwasfound
that of Egypt.9
undisturbed.
andcup and
They arean alabastron
The only other late Minoan IB vases said to wererecovered
from
the
complete
deposit.In the
have occurred in Egypt are four cups with vertical samegroupof objectsoccurred
a carinated
Egypstrap handles. The find-spot of one, now in the Na- tianpot with painteddecoration
and an alabaster
tional Museum, Copenhagen, is given no more kohl pot, for whichI have foundparallelsin a
specifically than the Fayum. The remaining three midDynastyXVIIIA tombat Thebes.The coffin
are in the Department of Archaeology, University belongsto theRishior feathered andis
type
practiCollege, London, but have no pedigree at all. Of callyidenticalwith onefromDeir el-Medina,
also
the two illustrated by Petrie,"ono. 6 has no con- at Thebes,whichcanbe datedby a scarab
of Thuttextual markings but no. 7 has come out in a kind moseIII.On the basisof thesecomparisons,
there
of salt fur which is characteristic of porous clay seemslittlechoicebutto optfor a transitional
Dyvessels that have spent a long time underground nastyXVIIIA to B date.The
HA jar
Mycenaean
in Egypt. The third specimen, which is unpub- from the tombof
at Thebes
Mentuherkhepeshef
lished, still has sand lodged in its interstices and canbe securely
assignedto thetimesof Hatshepsut
a patch of the dried-out remains of its contents in- andThutmoseIII, thatis to
DynastyXVIIIB.
side. These vases do not make up a very impressive
A Mycenaean
fromGurobTomb
IIA alabastron
total of imports in either relative or absolute 245has beenassigned Bruntonand
by
Engelbach
terms. Yet, despite their paucity of numbers and to the time of Thutmose III, but I have been unthe sketchy nature of the evidence, it cannot be too able to corroboratethis
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, Philadelphia, 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 Wilbouriana 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.
18Merrillees 195.

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Thu, 24 Sep 2015 23:01:16 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

1972]

CHRONOLOGIESIN 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 Hatshepsut. 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 Vercoutter"' has convincingly disposed of the other putative names for the Bronze Age Aegeans and their
world. Two texts which mention the Keftiu have
been dated to the beginning of the XVIIIth Dynasty. 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 interpretations of this document. He concludes that
by the first half of the XVIIIth Dynasty a considerable 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 remarkable glazed steatite scarab believed to have been
purchased in Egypt or Paris, and formerly part
of the Spencer Churchill collection.15It 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 general 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'Connor, whose opinion I have consulted, thinks it reasonably certain that the piece was made and engraved 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 exports of certain Cretan origin to Egypt.
It is also a fact of some importance that 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 belonging 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, inconsistent. 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. Indeed the actual sources of information are so meager that one would be forced to deduce that contact can only have been spasmodic and most probably 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 Mycenaean, 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 derivation.

14 L'.gypte et le monde egeen prihellinique (Cairo 1956).

18M. Pope, Aegean Writing and Linear A (Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology VIII, Lund 1964)
3.

15 Kadmos 2 (1963)
52.

Iff; Archaeological Reports for z966-67

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Thu, 24 Sep 2015 23:01:16 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

286

EDITH PORADA ET AL.

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 pottery 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 Mycenaean IIA and B vases which have been assigned
an Egyptian provenance are not much greater
than the total number of Late Minoan IB containers. I have previously argued that the earliest
datable Mycenaean IIA imports should not precede the transition between Dynasty XVIII A and
B, that is about 1525/1475 B.C.Apart from the alabastron 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 occurred 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 excavators in the time of Thutmose III. In addition to
the Mycenaean jug there was an Egyptian imitation 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."8However Stubbings claims on
stylistic grounds that the Mycenaean jug must certainly be later than Dynasty XVIII B. As the grave
was disturbed, it is not impossible that the contents
representmixed 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 Mycenaean 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.
17 Merrillees 43ff.

[AJA 76

This observation has profound implications for

the identification of the Aegeans shown in the
funerary wall paintings of Dynasty XVIII B. The
earliest pictorial representationsof foreigners from
this part of the east Mediterranean have been encountered in the tomb of Senmut, the architect and
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 pigmentation and black hair, lack of beards, elaborate
coiffures with curls and plaits and regular profiles. 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 porters who are given the greatest prominence
-the objectsthey carry are disproportionatelylarge,
and the novelty of the visitors has been subordinated to the importance of these objects. Vercoutter 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 literature a tribute.
He was in fact for the most part called "steward
of Amun's estate," and his functions included supervision of the foreign products entering the god's
estate and treasury. Whether these and other similar paintings are to be interpreted as tribute from
foreign rulers rendering annual dues to Pharaoh
for a precariousindependence 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,since the Asian
campaigns of Thutmose I and II are well attested.
There are nevertheless strong circumstantial reasons for doubting that these scenes depict Aegean
envoys paying homage to the Egyptian king, and
instead for viewing them as commercial missions.
18

Merrillees 59f.

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Thu, 24 Sep 2015 23:01:16 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

19721

CHRONOLOGIESIN OLD WORLD ARCHAEOLOGY

First, the figures in Senmut's tomb are all painted

standing upright, not in obsequious or servile positions, though of course it must be remembered
that the mural is incomplete. But even in the tomb
of Menkheperreseneb, who served under Thutmose III as First Prophet of Amun and Director
of the Houses of Gold and Silver, the only foreigners crouching before him are of Syro-Palestinian 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 reflects 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 deduced that Senmut was not so much concerned
with the personal side of the mission, which would
have been of paramount interest had it been diplomatic, as with the precious articles.
Despite notions to the contrary, trade flourishes
best in conditions of peace, and just such conditions 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 activities commensurate with her rank and duties,'"
Hatshepsut did not see herself as a great soldier
and conqueror. The exploit for which she evidently 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 Somaliland to bring back myrrh trees and other products 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

287

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 stimulating commercial exchanges with areas outside
Egypt's traditional battlegrounds. It therefore becomes 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 products 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 Amenhotep 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 Aegeans 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 observation, 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 ingenuity; tempting though it is to endorse this conclusion without second thought, there is one intangible factor which cannot be overlooked.
The fact is that we know next to nothing about
the technical or administrative side of tomb decoration. It may be that painters, like scribes, learned
the stock scenes which appear in most of the Theban tombs through apprenticeship.These scenes include banquets, harvesting, fishing and other subjects, 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

19 History 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 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

288

EDITH PORADA ET

novel, such as foreign people and objects. It is also

known that, quite apart from the artist's own conception, other influences could have shaped the final
appearanceof the paintings. One such element was
without doubt the owner's own tastes, for the construction 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 portrayal 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 attempting 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 belonging 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 victories 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 elements 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 depiction of the Aegeans. Even then there is no

AL.

[AJA 76

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 maintain that this text must belong to the original representations,for 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 corresponded with the representations.In other terms,
whether this text was composed to accompany the
first or second stage of the paintings, it must be admitted that the text describes exactly what is represented, 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
inhabitants of 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 unknown and uncertain factors which could affect
our interpretation of the inscriptions and paintings, 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. Furthermore, 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 believe that the figures in the painting were political
or diplomatic representatives, rather than merchants who were seeking to protect their sea routes
and markets through appropriategestures and gifts.
It should not be forgotten that the apparent purpose 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 represented 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 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

1972]

CHRONOLOGIESIN OLD WORLD ARCHAEOLOGY

ans in Register 4, and the west by the Aegeans in

Register 2. The transparentdesire to make Pharaoh's
power seem universal can hardly have contributed
to the historical veracity of the scene, though the
accuracyof 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 unexceptionable. By the same token it reduces the historical 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 campaign 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, Ouseramon." The mural also contains a register of Aegeans, 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 services to Thutmose III. Djehouty was viceroy
in Syria and evidently had responsibility for matters concerning the Isles in the Midst of the Sea.
If we correlate the indications furnished by the
paintings and inscriptions with the pottery evi-

289

dence, it emergesthat the occurrenceof the first

Mycenaeanvases in Egypt synchronizeswith the
initialappearance
of Aegeanforeignersin the tomb
at
Thebes.
This coincidencecan surely
paintings
not be fortuitous.The facts that the Aegeans in
tomb of Senmut were probablyfrom the Isles in
the Midstof the Sea, and that the Isles themselves
are not unequivocallymentioneduntil the time of
Thutmose III, can leave little doubt that we are
dealing here with the Bronze Age inhabitantsof
Greece,not of the islandof Crete-unless,of course,
the Mycenaeanswere settled in and came from
Knossos.Yet we are confrontedby the first putative representations
of the Keftiu and a continuation of the use of the name duringDynastyXVIII
B. There can surelybe only one explanation.Because the tomb paintings were intended not so
much to recordactualhistoricalevents as to symbolize the omnipotenceof the Pharaoh and his
entourage,thereis no reasonfor the ownersnot to
have continuedto include the Keftiu in their lists
of tributaries,even if therewere in DynastyXVIII
B no director indirectcontactswith the Minoans.
The name itself was of considerableantiquity,and
objectsof Cretanorigin or inspirationhad found
theirway to Egypt as earlyas the Middle Minoan
I period. Reasonsof traditionalone would have
guaranteedit an honoredmention in any noble
Egyptian'sterritorialclaimsfor the benefitof posterity.And for thisreasonwe can imaginethatthey
would have had no hesitation in attaching the
Keftiu label to paintingswhich in fact represented
Mycenaeans.This presupposesthat the mainland
Greekswere the first Aegeans personallyto have
set foot on Egyptian soil and to have provided
models for the tomb paintingsof Thebes.As we
have alreadyseen, there is nothing politicallyimprobablein this conclusion.
From the Aegean point of view, DynastyXVIII
C is an archaeological
pictorialand linguisticblank.
the
Admittedly periodis shortin comparisonto the
otherphasesof the XVIIIthDynasty,havinglasted
only some 33 years.It is also culturallyill-defined.
Yet, despitethese limiting factors,the scarcityof
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 early IIIA vases from the Nile Valley which

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Thu, 24 Sep 2015 23:01:16 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

290

EDITH PORADAET

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, Amenemipet and Kemamun.
The value of these paintings for historical purposes may be gauged from the fact that all the socalled Aegeans are either composite or derivative
creations. In the tomb of Amenemheb they have
Syro-Palestiniantraits 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 Kemamun 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 Menkheperreseneb and add nothing to our knowledge of contacts 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 Amenhotep III and the most intriguing conflict of evidence 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

AL.

[AJA 76

from the XVIIIth Dynasty. Two scholars, Kitchen

and Edel, have succeeded in identifying with reasonable 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 historical credibility. Furthermore the place names are
strung together in no apparentlyrational geographical 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 topographicalguide
or as an illustration of historical realities. This is
confirmed by the narrative inscription around the
top of the statue base above the cartouches, which
reads: "All rebelliousflat countriesof northern Asia,
and all lands of the Fenkhu and of Hnt-hn-nfr are
at the feet of this good God. The princes of all south
and north foreign countries, who since the time of
the God were not accustomed to come to Egypt,
come together on their knees, that may be given
to them the breath of life, their tribute being on
their backs." The purpose of this text, which follows closely the inscription I have already quoted
from the tomb of Rekhmire, and which is clearly
ritualistic in intent, becomes even less ambiguous
when account is taken of the fact that this statue
base is only one of five on the north side of the temple. The other four are inscribed with comparable
topographical lists for Mesopotamia, Anatolia, Syria and Palestine, in fact the extent of the world
known to the ancient Egyptians at this time. Even
then there is a fair measure of overlapping of regions and duplication of names, which is just what
one would expect from a compilation that aimed
more at conveying an impression of the ubiquity
and universalism of Egyptian authority than at objectively stating political facts. The legendary quality of these inscriptions is further enhanced by the
only pictorial representationsof the Keftiu which
belong to this reign. The figures on the statue base
associated with the Aegean place names are of Se-

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Thu, 24 Sep 2015 23:01:16 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

1972]

CHRONOLOGIESIN OLD WORLD ARCHAEOLOGY

mitic type, while the foreignerfrom Keftiu land

in the tomb of Ineni at Thebes,which belongsto
the time of AmenhotepIII, is a Hittite.
Thereremainsone factwhichwouldseemto give
the game away.On the west bank of the Nile, 1?
miles south of the mortuarytempleof Amenhotep
II and of the tombsof the noblesat Thebes,is the
city of AmenhotepIII at Malkata.The oldest and
most importantbuildingin this complexis the Palace of the King which occupiesthe southeastquarter. It was partiallyexcavatedby Daressyin i8881889,reexcavated
by Robbde PeysterTytus in i902,
and clearedin 910-191iiby Winlock of the Egyptian Expeditionfrom the MetropolitanMuseumof
Art. The rest of the settlementwas largelyuncoveredby the MetropolitanMuseumduringthe years
1910 to 192o, and included the south palace,perhaps at one time the dwelling of the King's wife,
QueenTiy, and the middlepalacewhich was probably built for the Pharaoh'seldest son Amenhotep
IV or Akhenaten.The earliestinscriptionfrom the
site dates to the eighth regnalyear of Amenhotep
III, but the city complexappearsto have been occupiedafterthe King's deathin the year38 or 39,
as objectsinscribedwith the namesof Akhenaten,
Smenkhkare,Tutankhamun,Akhenespaatenand
Horemhebhave alsoturnedup amongthe remains.
A seriesof what must be regardedas only preliminary reportshave been publishedon the excavations at this site.20 In the Royal Palace of
AmenhotepIII, which is situatedin the samelocality as his funerary temple containing the topographicallist of the Aegean world, there appears
to have been a total absenceof Mycenaean,not to
mention Minoan, pottery.Against this, however,
must be set the fact that von Bissing, writing in
1899,claimedthat Mycenaeansherds,mostly from
stirrupjars,had turnedup in the Palaceof Amenhotep III at Thebes.Yet to the best of my knowledge none has ever been publishedor identified,
and no furtherdetails were given by the author.
This referencecan hardlythereforebe said to constitute firm proof that Aegean pottery occurred
at the site.

291

contrastcould not be greater.In excavationsat the

end of the lastcentury,Petriefound 1329 Mycenaean IIIA fragmentsin the rubbishheaps, nine in
the Palace and three fragmentsof one vase elsewhere.Germanand Britishexcavationsof the same
settlementduring the presentcenturyhave turned
up even moreMycenaeansherds.They have come
from all over the town, including even humble
private dwellings.There is no other New Kingdom site in the whole of Egypt whereforeignpottery of any kind is so plentifullyrepresented.This
makes the apparentabsence,or at the very most
scarcity,of Mycenaeanpotteryat Malkataall the
more extraordinary,especiallyif Amenhotep III
is to be creditedwith detailedgeographicalknowledge of the Aegean world-leaving asidethe question of the extentof his politicaldominationor influence.Therecanbe no otherconclusionthanthat
the list on the statuebase was borrowedfrom earlier compilations.
It goes withoutsayingthatthe evidencefrom the
reign of Akhenatenis as erraticas that belonging
to the time of AmenhotepIII. The abundantceramicmaterialis matchedby the lackof any murals
depictingAegeans, though the tomb of Huya at
el-Amarnacontainsthe painting of an amphora
as part of the tributefrom the north.It seemsinevitablethat the amphoratype shouldbe completely unrepresentedamongstthe sherdsfrom the site,
and that no exampleswhateverof this form are
known from Egypt. The texts maintaincomplete
silence about Keftiu, but one documentdated to
year 12 of Akhenaten'sreign declares that the
Isles in the Midst of the Sea broughtgifts to the
King. The Isles are alsogiven specialmentionin a
descriptionof the worldgovernedby the god Aten.
If this term is used to designatethe Mycenaeans,
nothing could be more appropriate,but it would
requirea considerablestretchof the imagination
to acceptVercoutter'sobservationthat the number
of Mycenaeanobjectsfound on the site of el-Amarna provesthatAkhenatendid receivethem as gifts
from the Aegeansinsteadof as the resultof commercialactivity.

When we turn to the royal city at el-Amarna,

The brief reign of Tutankhamun reverses the
which was built and occupied by Akhenaten, son situation once more. His tomb, which was found
and successor of Amenhotep III, the archaeological intact at Thebes, contained no foreign pottery what20 These I have
closely consulted, and thanks to the kindness
of Dr. Fischer and Miss Scott, I have also gone through the
card accessionregister in the Egyptian Department of the Metropolitan Museum, as well as the unpublished excavation records

concerning Malkata. Finally, I asked Mr. Kemp of Cambridge

University, who conducted a survey of the site last year on
behalf of Dr. O'Connor of the University Museum, Philadelphia,
to keep an eye out for material of interest to this study.

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Thu, 24 Sep 2015 23:01:16 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

292

EDITH PORADAET AL.

[AJA 76

soever.21 Nor are there any painted representations historical outline traced by the vases must give a

of peoples or goods from the Aegean. Yet to his

time belongs a copy of a document which gives a
spell in the language of Keftiu to be uttered against
a certain kind of Asian disease. As in the case of
the school board with Keftiu names dated to early
Dynasty XVIII A, the language of these Aegeans
is evidently not Mycenaean Greek. On this point
it is tempting to follow W. Stevenson Smith, who
suggests that the language of both texts is that of
the Linear A tablets from Crete, which still defies
translation. We do not, however, have to postulate
close connections between Crete and Egypt in
Tutankhamun's time, as the document probably
goes back to the reign of Amenhotep III. Furthermore the spell in which we are interested was only
one of a collection of such remedies and might have
been even older. According to Vercoutter it could
have been written between the end of the Second
Intermediate Period and the reign of Amenhotep
III, which leaves open the possibility that the text
was contemporaneous with the Late Minoan IB
pottery found in Egypt.
This largely completes our survey of the most
significant evidence from Egypt for contacts with
the Bronze Age Aegean in the XVIIIth Dynasty.
One major problem which remains is the terminal
date for Mycenaean ceramic exports to the Nile
Valley, a question which lies outside the scope of
this paper. But before concluding, we should look
briefly back over this survey, using the same criteria but a different approach.
We have so far considered all aspects of the data
together, in broad chronological bands or horizontally. Let us now look at each of the elements
separately, in perspective or vertically, so as to
try to establish which points of coincidence are
valid for the purposes of historical reconstruction,
and to determine where apparent inconsistencies
are owing to the incompleteness of our record or
to the very nature of the evidence itself.
The pottery speaks for itself. It must have all
come from abroad, even if we cannot precisely
work out the route that it followed, the identity of
the people who brought it, or even the processes
of its distribution in Egypt. We cannot exclude the
possibility that the vases so far encountered do not
reveal the full picture of Aegean ceramic imports,
and that there still remain gaps in our data, but the

reasonably coherent account of the development

in commercial relations. It seems clear that Late
Minoan IB vases were entering Egypt up to the
end of Dynasty XVIII A, but that by the time of
Hatshepsut, Mycenaean containers had taken their
place on the market. Mainland Greek trade, like
Cypriote, seems to have dwindled to the point of
extinction during Dynasty XVIII C, but was revived during Dynasty XVIII D, when it reached
its apogee in the reign of Akhenaten. While these
facts leave little scope for dispute, their relevance
to interpreting the pictorial and epigraphic data
from Egypt cannot be taken for granted and must
be narrowly defined.
In the first place not a single representationof a
Minoan or Mycenaean pottery type has been found
in an XVIIIth Dynasty tomb painting. In fact the
only ones known are in the tomb of Ramesses III,
at Thebes, over i50 years after they had reached
Akhenaten's city at el-Amarna. By way of contrast
the Aegean objects portrayed in funerary scenes of
the XVIIIth Dynasty are made of metal, not clay.
Second, their respective social affiliations are clearly distinct. The Cretan and Greek vases all occur
in essentially middle-class contexts: the tombs in
which Aegean foreigners and their goods are depicted belong entirely to the upper or noble classes.
This dichotomy could have historical implications
extending beyond a simple difference in the spending power between the middle and upper strata of
Egyptian society. The pottery undoubtedly found
its way to the Nile Valley in no other way than
by trade, whereas the Aegeans depicted in the
funerary scenes at Thebes could have been official
delegations of a commercial or political nature.
There is no reason to assume that one kind of
venture would necessarily have depended on the
other or that they could not have taken place concurrently. And finally the relatively small quantities of Minoan and Mycenaean pottery which entered Egypt during Dynasty XVIII A, B and C,
give no grounds for asserting that commercial relations, at least, between the Aegean and Egypt
were intensive, regular or sustained, until the end
of the fifteenth century B.c. The very concentration of Mycenaean pottery at el-Amarna seems to
be the exception that proves the general rule.
But whether or not the circumstances in which
the Mycenaean and Minoan pottery arrived in

21 was able to verify this through the

photographs which

I was kindly allowed to consult in the Metropolitan Museum.

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Thu, 24 Sep 2015 23:01:16 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

1972]

CHRONOLOGIESIN OLD WORLD ARCHAEOLOGY

Egypt should affect our interpretation of the role

of the Aegeans shown in the paintings, the source
of the vases should have an important bearing on
the most probable nationality of the visitors. The
reason for this lies in the fact that clay vessels are
less susceptible and hence less likely to have been
exploited for internal political, religious or other
purposes by the ancient Egyptians, in the way
that tomb paintings or literary allusions could have
been and almost certainly were. It is not particularly easy, nor for that matter particularly convincing to manipulate or falsify for conceptual or
intellectual objectives the intrinsic, tangible features
of a pot. Therefore, if Minoan vases were the only
Aegean products of clay to have come to Egypt
in Dynasty XVIII A, it follows that the Aegeans
depicted or referred to in this period should properly be interpreted as Cretans. As no Aegean pottery
except Mycenaean has been found in Egypt during
Dynasty XVIII B, C and D, it must be concluded
that the paintings and texts concerning Aegeans,
where they can be shown to have any novelty or
originality, were intended to refer to Mycenaean
Greeks from the mainland. If these deductions appear not to conform to or even to contradict the
pictorial and textual data, some rational explanations must be found to account for the apparent
inconsistency.
The earliest known depiction of the Aegeans, in
the tomb of Senmut, should be as close to the original models as was possible for ancient Egyptian
artists. This, however, presupposes that the paintings from the time of Hatshepsut were the first of
the kind to have been made in the Theban necropolis. This hypothesis would seem to be favoured
circumstantially by the prevailing political situation, but the small number of tombs that can be
dated to Dynasty XVIII A makes it unwise to
exclude the possibility that previous depictions had
been attempted. It is also clear that the figures in
the tomb of Senmut have already undergone a certain measure of Egyptian conceptualization. Apart
from this scene, we are not in a position to determine accurately to what extent subsequent representations were copied from earlier paintings
or to what extent they were based on direct acquaintance with the subjects.
The only exception to this may be the mural in
the tomb of Rekhmire, though here too it is impossible to tell whether the changes in the Aegeans'
costume reflect differences personally observed by

293

the decorators or a change in artistic conventions.

For the rest there is sufficientconfusion of detail to
make literal reliance on their superficialimpression
a prerogative of only the most ardent Philhellene.
The fundamental reason is, as I have alreadypointed out, that the Egyptians were less interested in
describing objectively for historical purposes the
visits to Egypt by foreigners than in leaving posterity with the unmistakable and indelible belief
that Egyptian power extended at all times to the
furthermost limits of the known world, whether
or not these claims coincided with reality.
The use of the written language, particularly
where names are concerned, must be seen against
the same social, religious and political background
as is the depiction of foreigners and their products
in the Theban tombs. Because of an inclination
to subordinate geographical accuracy to purposes
not wholly consonant with scientific principles,
nearly all ancient Egyptian geographical terms vary
in accordancewith the date and place of composition, and the nature and purpose of the documents
in which they occur. These terms come in and out
of fashion, change meaning according to the region in which they were written, and differ in
sense from a political or administrative contextthrough religious-to a purely literary one. They
may be used concretely in a historical narrative or
vaguely in a ritualistic context. Their degree of
geographical precision can never be firmly established.
To summarize: the first point I wish to make is
that the only way in which an ancient historical
problem may be tackled is to review all the relevant
archaeological,graphic and textual data. The validity of one's conclusions are automatically compromised if one or another major dimension is
overlooked or underrated. We should have difficulty in making acceptablesense out of the ancient
name of Keftiu, for example, if we limited our
analysis to the epigraphic and philological evidence
without taking into account the related pictorial
and archaeological information. Second, I have
tried to trace the course of Aegean Bronze Age
relations with Egypt as reflected in the remains
from the XVIIIth Dynasty. I have come to the
tentative conclusion that the Minoans were in indirect contact with Egypt during Dynasty XVIII
A and were supplanted by the Mycenaeans during
the reign of Queen Hatshepsut. These mainlanders
evidently came in person to the Nile Valley, and

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Thu, 24 Sep 2015 23:01:16 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

EDITH PORADA ET AL.

294

possibly on more than one occasion, during Dynasty XVIII B. In what capacity they arrived it is still
not easy to say. It seems more likely that they came
as traders than as tribute bearers, and that if they
did bring gifts, these offerings, though they may
have been construed by the Egyptians as tokens of
submission, were probably nothing more than the
standard oriental concomitants of any goodwill
mission. The reasons for the decline in Mycenaean
pottery exports to the Nile Valley in Dynasty XVIII
C and their resumption in Dynasty XVIII D are
still obscure, but the explanations I have advanced
22

[AJA 76

for the fluctuations in Cypriote trade" may have

some relevance to this point also. We still cannot
say for certain when or why Mycenaean pottery
imports came to an end in Egypt, and this remains
one of the most outstanding questions to be studied
and clarified. Is it possible that Mycenaean vases
ceased arriving in Egypt at the same time as the
last of the Cypriote exports, after the death of
Akhenaten?
AUSTRALIAN MISSION TO THE UNITED NATIONS
NEW YORK

Merrillees.
EGYPT, NEw

KINGDOM, XVIIITH

DYNASTY

(CAH, 2nd edition)

Nebpehtire Ahmose
Djeserkare Amenhotep I
Akheperkare Thutmose I
Akheperenre Thutmose II

1570-i546 B.C.
1546-1526 B.C.
i525-c.i512 B.C.
C.I512-I504

B.C.

Makare Hatshepsut
Menkheperre Thutmose III

1504-1450B.C.

Akheprure Amenhotep II
Menkheprure Thutmose IV

1450-i425 B.C.
1425-1417B.C.

Nebmare Amenhotep III

Neferkheprure Amenhotep IV
(Akhenaten)
Ankhkheprure Smenkhkare
Nebkheprure Tutankhamun
KheperkheprureAy
Djeserkheprure Horemheb

1417-1379B.C.
1379-i326 B.C.

1503-1482

XVIII A

B.C.

1364-1361B.C.

XVIII B
XVIII C

XVIII D

i361-1352 B.C.

1352-1348B.C.
1348-1320B.C.

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Thu, 24 Sep 2015 23:01:16 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions