Inscribed Limestone Fragment, Egypt

Inscribed Limestone Fragment, Egypt



We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.


File:Fragment of a limestone stela. Inscribed for the accountant of cattle Pahemy and his wife Iniuset. 18th Dynasty. From tomb 34 at Meidum, Egypt. The Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology, London.jpg

Click on a date/time to view the file as it appeared at that time.

Date/TimeThumbnailDimensionsUserComment
current13:40, 24 January 20174,099 × 3,881 (5.52 MB) Neuroforever (talk | contribs) User created page with UploadWizard

You cannot overwrite this file.


Fragments of inscribed limestone architrave from tomb of Nekhebu

Description: Senedjemib Complex: fragments of relief and inscriptions from G 2382 (originally thought to be a tomb, but now known to be a jumbled deposit of limestone blocks from other nearby tombs), originally from G 2381, Nekhebu: left, top: 13-1-557 (= MFA 13.5831.15, inscribed architrave) left, bottom: 13-1-548 (= MFA 13.5969, longer autobiographical inscription of Nekhebu) right: 13-1-551 (= MFA 13.4348.4, door jamb of Nekhebu)

Subjects: Object(s) photograph: Site: Giza view: G 2382, G 2381

Description: Senedjemib Complex: fragments of limestone blocks painted with striding figures of Nekhebu and fragments of relief from G 2382 (originally thought to be a tomb, but now known to be a jumbled deposit of limestone blocks from other nearby tombs), originally from G 2381, Nekhebu: top row: 13-1-557 (= MFA 13.5831.12, inscribed architrave), 13-1-556h (= MFA 13.5938.5) bottom row, both fragments: 13-1-546 (painted)

Subjects: Object(s) photograph: Site: Giza view: G 2382, G 2381

Description: Senedjemib Complex: fragment of relief from G 2382 (originally thought to be a tomb, but now known to be a jumbled deposit of limestone blocks from other nearby tombs), originally from G 2381, Nekhebu: 13-1-557 (= MFA 13.5831.6, inscribed architrave)

Subjects: Object(s) photograph: Site: Giza view: G 2382, G 2381

Description: Senedjemib Complex: fragments of relief and inscriptions from G 2382 (originally thought to be a tomb, but now known to be a jumbled deposit of limestone blocks from other nearby tombs): left, top: [originally from G 2381] 13-1-558i (= MFA 13.5953, possibly related to MFA 13.5834, marsh scene) left, bottom: [originally from G 2381] 13-1-547 (= MFA 13.4331.15, autobiographical inscription of Nekhebu, other face of this corner block has part of spear fishing scene from adjoining wall) right: [originally from G 2381] 13-1-557 (= MFA 13.5831.7, inscribed architrave)

Subjects: Object(s) photograph: Site: Giza view: G 2382, G 2381

Description: Senedjemib Complex: fragments of relief and inscriptions from G 2382 (originally thought to be a tomb, but now known to be a jumbled deposit of limestone blocks from other nearby tombs): left, top: [originally from G 2381] 13-1-548 (= JE 44608, longer autobiographical inscription of Nekhebu) left, bottom: [originally from G 2381] 13-1-557 (inscription, possibly related to architrave MFA 13.5831) middle: [originally from G 2381] 13-1-551 (= MFA 13.4348.5, door jamb of Nekhebu, one of several fragments of this block) right, top: [attributed to G 2381] 13-1-558c (= MFA 13.5833.4) right, bottom: [originally from G 2381] 13-1-558o (= MFA 13.5830.26)

Subjects: Object(s) photograph: Site: Giza view: G 2382, G 2381

Description: Senedjemib Complex: fragments of relief from G 2382 (originally thought to be a tomb, but now known to be a jumbled deposit of limestone blocks from other nearby tombs), originally from G 2381, Nekhebu: left: 13-1-556g (= MFA 13.5938.4) right: 13-1-557 (= MFA 13.5831.4, inscribed architrave)

Subjects: Object(s) photograph: Site: Giza view: G 2382, G 2381

Description: Senedjemib Complex: eleven fragments of relief from G 2382 (originally thought to be a tomb, but now known to be a jumbled deposit of limestone blocks from other nearby tombs): top row: [attributed to G 2381] 13-1-558a (= MFA 13.5975, possibly related to MFA 13.4331, marsh [spear fising] scene), [] __-__-__ middle row: [originally from G 2381] 13-1-551 (= MFA 13.4349.10, door jamb of Nekhebu, displayed upside down), [originally from G 2381] 13-1-558i (= MFA 13.5976, possibly related to MFA 13.5834, marsh scene), [originally from G 2381] 13-1-558o (= MFA 13.5830.5), [originally from G 2381] 13-1-545 (= MFA 13.4335, part of frieze of standing figures of Nekhebu) bottom row: [originally from G ____] 13-1-558aa (= MFA 13.5871, displayed upside down), [attributed to G 2381] 13-1-558f (= MFA 13.5998.4, offering tables and jars), [attributed to G 2381] 13-1-558p (= MFA 13.5921, horizontal inscription), [originally from G 2381] 13-1-557 (= MFA 13.5831.13, inscribed architrave, displayed upside down)

Subjects: Object(s) photograph: Site: Giza view: G 2382, G 2381

Description: Senedjemib Complex: nine fragments of relief from G 2382 (originally thought to be a tomb, but now known to be a jumbled deposit of limestone blocks from other nearby tombs): top row: [originally from G 2381] 13-1-555 (= MFA 13.4346.6) (rephotographed in combination with B1293, B1321, and parts of B1613, B 1618 as A7051), [originally from G ____] 13-1-558gg (= MFA 13.5876) middle row: [originally from G 2381] 13-1-557 (= MFA 13.5831.14, inscribed architrave), [originally from G 2381] 13-1-558o (= MFA 13.5830.4), [originally from G 2381] 13-1-558l (= MFA 13.5936.7), [originally from G 2381] 13-1-545 (= MFA 13.4335, part of frieze of standing figures of Nekhebu) bottom row: [attributed to G 2381] 13-1-558n (= MFA 13.5983), [originally from G 2381] 13-1-557 (= MFA 13.5831.3, inscribed architrave, displayed upside down), [originally from G 2381] 13-1-555 (= MFA 13.4346.5)

Subjects: Object(s) photograph: Site: Giza view: G 2382, G 2381

Description: Senedjemib Complex: twelve fragments of relief and inscriptions from G 2382 (originally thought to be a tomb, but now known to be a jumbled deposit of limestone blocks from other nearby tombs): top row: [attributed to G 2381] 13-1-558m (= MFA 13.5938.6), [originally from G 2381] 13-1-555 (= MFA 13.5992.3, offering bearers, incorrectly rephotographed in combination with B1293, B1321, and fragments from B1613, B1617 as A7051), [originally from G 2381] 13-1-548 (= JE 44608, longer autobiographical inscription of Nekhebu) middle row: [] __-__-__, [originally from G ____] 13-1-558aa (= MFA 13.5986, displayed upside down), [originally from G ____] 13-1-558aa (= MFA 13.5968), [originally from G ____] 13-1-558aa (= MFA 13.5918) bottom row: [originally from G ____] 13-1-558bb (= MFA 13.5949), [originally from G 2381] 13-1-557 (= MFA 13.5831.8, inscribed architrave), [originally from G 2381] 13-1-549 (= MFA 13.4331.19, one of two fragments of this block, marsh [spear fishing] scene), [attributed to G 2381] 13-1-558n (= MFA 13.5982), [originally from G 2381] 13-1-554 (= MFA 13.4349.1, Nile boats, one of two fragments of this block)

Subjects: Object(s) photograph: Site: Giza view: G 2362, G 2381, G 2382

Description: Fragments of relief and inscription: left, top row: [G 2382, originally from G 2381] 13-1-545 (= MFA 13.4335, part of frieze of standing figures of Nekhebu), [G 2382, attributed to G 2381] 13-1-558f (= MFA 13.5998.5, offering tables and jars) left, bottom row: [originally from G 2381] 13-1-558h (= MFA 13.4348.1), [originally from G ____] 13-1-558gg.2, [originally from G 2381] 13-1-558l (= MFA 13.5936.1), [originally from G 2381] 13-1-557 (= MFA 13.5831.11, inscribed architrave) right: [originally from G 2362] 12-10-37 (narrow end of block from fragmentary architrave inscribed for Rudj, from face "b" = MFA 13.4334c, forming part of face "a")

Subjects: Drawings: G 2381: fragments of architrave, reconstruction

Description: Drawing: reconstruction of fragments of inscribed limestone architrave from G 2381, Nekhebu: 13-1-557 (= MFA 13.5831.1-13.5831.21)

Subjects: Drawings: G 2381: relief fragments from architrave

Description: Mounted photo montage: fragments of inscribed limestone architrave from G 2381, Nekhebu: 13-1-557 (= MFA 13.5831.1-13.5831.21)

Digital Giza has been made possible in part by the National Endowment for the Humanities: Exploring the human endeavor

© 2017 Giza Project at Harvard University.
All rights reserved.


File:Limestone fragment inscribed with the birth-name of King Seti II within a cartouche. 19th Dynasty. From Egypt. The Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology, London.jpg

Click on a date/time to view the file as it appeared at that time.

Date/TimeThumbnailDimensionsUserComment
current03:42, 26 January 20173,838 × 5,506 (6.15 MB) Neuroforever (talk | contribs) User created page with UploadWizard

You cannot overwrite this file.


Could this villa have been Joseph's house? [4]

The villa was 10 x 12 meters in size, situated on one side of an enclosure measuring 12 x 19 meters. It consisted of six rooms laid out in horseshoe fashion around an open courtyard. The most striking aspect of the house is that the floor plan is identical to the Israelite “four-room house” of the later Iron Age in Palestine (Holladay 1992a). In this type of house two side rooms and a back room were arranged around a central space, or courtyard. [5]

Nearby, arranged in a semi-circle around the villa, were poorer two-roomed homes, approximately 6 x 8 meters in size. If the villa was the home of Joseph, then the surrounding huts might have been those of Joseph's father and brothers. Approximately 20% of the pottery found in the settlement debris was of Palestinian Middle Bronze Age type (Bietak 1996: 10). In the open spaces southwest of the villa was the cemetery of the settlement. Here, some of the most startling evidence was found.


File:Inscribed limestone fragment showing early Aten cartouches, "the Living Ra Horakhty". Reign of Akhenaten. From Amarna, Egypt. The Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology, London.jpg

Click on a date/time to view the file as it appeared at that time.

Date/TimeThumbnailDimensionsUserComment
current07:29, 15 January 20173,708 × 4,526 (5.99 MB) Neuroforever (talk | contribs) User created page with UploadWizard

You cannot overwrite this file.


Fragments of limestone seated statue of Nekhebu

Two fitting fragments of limestone seated statuette, figure of [GLYPHS] Nekhebu [inscribed on base], covered with layer of black broken off at waist, 12-__-__ fits on waist. Illustration: Yes with hieroglyphs

Details

Tombs and Monuments 2

Published Documents 1

Unpublished Documents 4

Full Bibliography

Reisner, George A., and Clarence S. Fisher. "Preliminary Report on the Work of the Harvard-Boston Expedition in 1911-13." Annales du Service des Antiquités de l'Egypte 13 (1914), pl. 10b.

Photos 8

People 1

Ancient People

  • Type Owner
  • Remarks Owner of G 2381, buried in sloping-passage shaft G 2382 A. Son of Khnumenti (?) (owner of G 2374). Father of Merptahankh-meryre Ptahshepses Impy, Sabuptah Ibebi, and Tjemat Nekhebu identified variously as [jmj-r kAt jmj-r kAt nbt nt nswt jmj-r wpwt nswt mnnfr-mrjra ppj jmj-r xntjw-S mnnfr-mrjra ppj jmj-r qdw aA dwAw mtj n sA mDH nswt mDH nswt qdw mDH nswt qdw m prwj Hrj-sStA n wabtj xrp SnDt nbt Xrj-Hb Xrj-Hb Hrj-tp Xrj-tp nswt sm smr watj smsw snwt sHD qdw Sps nswt qdw n aSAt qdw m prwj kAwtj] overseer of works, overseer of all royal works, overseer of royal commissions of the pyramid of Pepi I, overseer of palace attendants of the pyramid of Pepi I, overseer of builders, assistant of (the god) Duau, regulator of a phyle, royal carpenter, royal architect, royal architect in the two houses, secretary of the two wabets, director of every kilt, lector-priest, chief lector-priest, royal chamberlain, sem-priest, sole companion, elder of the snwt-house, inspector of builders, noble of the king, ordinary builder, builder in the two houses, workman. Appears in chapel relief and wall paintings: 1) relief scene (13-3-545 = MFA 13.4335) probably from lintel depicting six standing figures (three facing right, three facing left) of Nekhebu holding staff and scepter with columns of hieroglyphic text between figures identifying Nekhebu with his names, titles, and honorific epithets 2) painted scene (13-1-546 = MFA 13.4339) of at least three registers depicting Nekhebu striding to right with name and titles in black in front of each figure 3) autobiographical inscription of Nekhebu (13-1-547 = MFA 13.4331) with eight vertical columns and one horizontal line of text above seated figure of Nekhebu (facing left) 4) autobiographical inscription of Nekhebu (13-1-548 = MFA 13.5969 + Cairo JE 44608) with ten vertical columns and one horizontal line of text above seated figure of Nekhebu (facing right) 5) relief scene (13-1-549 = MFA 13.4331 + possibly one fragment from 13-1-558a = MFA 13.5975) from wall adjoining autobiographical inscription (13-1-547) depicting Nekhebu spear fishing in marsh 6) relief scene (13-1-550 = MFA 13.4351) depicting figure of Nekhebu (facing right, only top of head preserved) with five vertical columns of inscription (above) and offering list (in front) 7) two door jambs (13-1-551: left jamb = MFA 13.4348 right jamb = MFA 13.4349) depicting standing figures of Nekhebu with accompanying inscription 8) relief scene (13-1-553 + 13-1-556j + 13-1-558i = MFA 13.5834) depicting aging Nekhebu kneeling in boat in marsh 9) relief scene (13-1-554 = MFA 13.4349) from section of facade adjoining right door jamb (13-1-551) depicting registers of Nile boats, on one boat in middle register (MFA 13.4349.2) seated figure of Nekhebu faced by his wife Hatkau playing harp 10) relief scene (13-1-555 = MFA 13.4346 + possibly 13-1-558d = MFA 13.5974) depicting seated figure of Nekhebu (facing right) and three registers of offering bearers (facing left) leading cattle and gazelle 11) relief scene (13-1-555 + 13-1-556 + 13-1-558o = MFA 13.5830) depicting Nekhebu seated in carrying chair 12) relief scene (13-1-556d + 13-1-558j = MFA 13.5934) depicting seated figure of Nekhebu (facing right) and two registers of family members and offering bearers (facing left) 13) relief scene (13-1-556l + 13-1-558k = MFA 13.5935) depicting seated figure of Nekhebu (facing left) with vertical columns of inscription above 14) relief scene (13-1-558l = MFA 13.5936) depicting seated figure of Nekhebu (facing right) with vertical columns of inscription above (original position to left of section of facade with ceremonial dancers and offering bearers MFA 13.4348). Chapel almost completely destroyed with most blocks and fragments of relief and inscription found scattered in Senedjemib Complex court (G 2382). Fragmentary limestone seated statue (12-12-14 + 12-12-22 = MFA 13.3161a-b) inscribed for Nekhebu, identified as [smr watj mDH qd nswt m prwj] sole companion, royal architect in the two houses fragments found scattered in Senedjemib Complex court (G 2382). Fragmentary limestone seated statue (12-11-26) inscribed for Nekhebu, identified as [smr watj mDH qd nswt m prwj] sole companion, royal architect in the two houses fragments found scattered in G 2370 and Senedjemib Complex court (G 2382). Fragment of limestone seated statue (12-12-595 = MFA 13.3159) inscribed for Nekhebu, identified as [smr watj mDH qd nswt m prwj] sole companion, royal architect in the two houses found in debris west of G 2381 A. Fragmentary incomplete limestone seated statue (12-11-58 + 12-12-176a = MFA 13.3149a-c), preserved fragments uninscribed, attributed to Nekhebu fragments found scattered in G 2381. Fragment of limestone seated statue (12-12-9 = MFA 13.3156), preserved fragment uninscribed, attributed to Nekhebu found in Senedjemib Complex court (G 2382). Fragment of limestone seated statue (12-12-16 = MFA 13.3154), preserved fragment uninscribed, attributed to Nekhebu found in G 2381. Limestone obelisk (12-12-23 = MFA 13.4353 deaccessioned = Memphis 1981.1.5) inscribed for Nekhebu, identified as [jmj-r kAt nbt nt nswt smr watj] overseer of all royal works, sole companion found in Senedjemib Complex court (G 2382). Fragments of diorite offering table (12-12-20 = MFA 13.3143a-b) inscribed for Nekhebu found in Senedjemib Complex court (G 2382).

Institutions 1

Subjects: Object register page:

Subjects: Western Cemetery: Site: Giza View: G 2370, G 2381

Description: Senedjemib Complex: G 2370, Senedjemib Inti, chapel, room b (= room III on published plan, second antechamber), legs of limestone seated statue of Nekhebu (12-11-26 = Cairo, originally from G 2381) in situ, looking __

Subjects: Object(s) photograph: Site: Giza view: G 2370, G 2382, G 2381

Description: Senedjemib Complex: fragmentary limestone seated statue of Nekhebu from G 2370 (lower fragments) and G 2382 (originally thought to be a tomb, but now known to be a jumbled deposit of limestone blocks from other nearby tombs) (upper fragment), originally from G G 2381 (front): 12-11-26 (= Egyptian Museum, Cairo)

Subjects: Object(s) photograph: Site: Giza view: G 2370, G 2382, G 2381

Description: Senedjemib Complex: fragmentary limestone seated statue of Nekhebu from G 2370 (lower fragments) and G 2382 (originally thought to be a tomb, but now known to be a jumbled deposit of limestone blocks from other nearby tombs) (upper fragment), originally from G 2381 (front): 12-11-26 (= Egyptian Museum, Cairo)

Subjects: Object(s) photograph: Site: Giza view: G 2370, G 2382, G 2381

Description: Senedjemib Complex: fragmentary limestone seated statue of Nekhebu from G 2370 (lower fragments) and G 2382 (originally thought to be a tomb, but now known to be a jumbled deposit of limestone blocks from other nearby tombs) (upper fragment), originally from G 2381 (front): 12-11-26 (= Egyptian Museum, Cairo)

Subjects: Object(s) photograph: Site: Giza view: G 2370, G 2382, G 2381

Description: Senedjemib Complex: fragmentary limestone seated statue of Nekhebu from G 2370 (lower fragments) and G 2382 (originally thought to be a tomb, but now known to be a jumbled deposit of limestone blocks from other nearby tombs) (upper fragment), originally from G 2381 (quarter view proper left): 12-11-26 (= Egyptian Museum, Cairo)


BRIEF COMMUNICATIONS: On the Amenhotep III Inscribed Faience Fragments from Mycenae.

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,(4) and two where they face right on one surface but left on the other.(5) The preserved inscription on both surfaces appears to be identical. Quality of inscribed line, plaque thickness, unglazed partially blackened edges, white to pink glaze, and brown fabric are features that tie all seven fragments together. Photographs of the Mylonas and Taylour fragments indicate differences of paleography, but general layout and Cline's measurements indicate that all eleven should be considered together.(6)

The comparison of the Mycenae fragments to Egyptian foundation deposit bricks as put forward by Hankey and Cline following Geoffrey Martin (Hankey 1980) is 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 prenomen of 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 (differing sometimes only in sign orientation), give both prenomen and nomen, and lack mention of a deity. Cline's favored reconstruction 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 Kaczmarczyk and Hedges (1983: 188-99), this fabric is darker than I would expect during the high-quality production period 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 Ramesses II (1279-1213 B.C.) where nomen and prenomen face each other on both sides, a band of inscription around the 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 Amenhotep II (1427-1400 B.C.), averaging 14.65 x 8.2 x 1.37 cm from the art market, each brick with a vertical framed inscription. The word mry, "beloved [of]," faces left on the six bricks mentioning Hauron but right on the six mentioning Horakhty. I believe the abnormal writing concerns the place of Hauron's veneration 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 rather than inward (Stadelmann 1977)(10)

A cartouche-shaped plaque of Sety I from the art market where the ruler's prenomen is on one face (oriented right) and the name of his funerary temple at Gourna is on the other face (in two columns facing left Egyptian Blue 8 cm long)(11)

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 orientation of the Mycenae fragments' inscriptions, nor can I propose a reason for it. Helck's reconstruction of the fragments around a 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 cm - obviates 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 apparent reason for the orientation of 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 appliques with 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 fragments have been part of 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 modern concept 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-rate items could not have been exported from Egypt. This too is possible, and we know that royal workshops produced poor or poorly inscribed items (Lilyquist 1988: 29). After restudying the Katsamba Tuthmosis III-inscribed amphora recently (Cline 1994: no. 742), I feel this vessel fits into 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 imprudent to theorize about their importance to Egyptians. If Egyptian-made, they may have had little more importance than the scarabs and 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-sourced faience items in the National Museum, Athens (Andreopoulou-Mangou 1988).(13) Only 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 Laurion rather than Egyptian field (Lilyquist and Brill 1993: 61 n. 10). In the face of this analysis, Cline postulated, as the most reasonable explanation, that the plaques had been made in Egypt with lead imported from Laurion (Cline 1990: 209f.). And indeed, Z. Stos-Gale and colleagues have linked lead in metal objects excavated at Tell el-Amarna with Laurion-field lead (Stos-Gale et al. 1995). There is current discussion of "fields," "overlap," and "mixing" in the interpretation of 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-found objects (silver bracelet lead bar, net sinker, and weight fill) were imported into Egypt.(14) Likewise, 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 Egyptian faience (Andreopoulou-Mangou 1988) - reflects their original color as much as being the 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 comparable to the frescos at Tell el-Dab a and Kabri that use the iconography of the Minoan elite? In discussing the Dab a/Kabri frescoes, S. Manning has referred to an eastern Mediterranean and 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 manufactured goods were desirable, even if not original. Such interest could lie behind the many stone vessels whose shape, proportions, and manufacturing techniques do not match Egyptian examples (Lilyquist 1996), the star-inscribed scarab from Sellopoulo tomb 4 (Manning 1995: 227 Lilyquist 1996: 146 n. 120) and even the faience plaque from Aphek.(15) In other words, the identity of maker and the place of manufacture are blurred.

Interrelations between Egypt and the Levant (Helck 1971) are better documented than those between Egypt and the Aegean (Helck 1975, 1979). But even in the eastern Mediterranean arena it is sometimes difficult to know where a feature originates, the interchange being 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 Oren has used the term "Canaanization of Egypt" (personal communication, February 1989). Granted, there 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(16) but, no matter how directly influenced, there are now Minoan-type frescoes at Dab a and Mycenaean-derived iconography in a papyrus from Amarna (Schofield and Parkinson 1994).

These comments and impressions do not claim to solve the provenance or 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 statuette found on Crete, and the Prosymna scarab found 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 Othmar Keel 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-hand study brings substantial clarification.

THE METROPOLITAN MUSEUM OF ART

1 Cline had good access to the Taylour fragments, but those of Tsountas were to be published by Pericles A. Kourachanis, curator at 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 believe it likely that the names refer to him.

3 The inscription "good god, (Maat-ka-Ra)" is not complete, and the reconstruction in Cline 1993: fig. 3, with the inscription running over two superimposed 10 x 10 cm plaques, would not satisfy the Egyptian's love of balance and completeness.

4 2566.2 and 2566.5. On the lower surface of 2566.5 (as displayed today in Athens), the sign below the cartouche should be a di. Cline states that the Mylonas fragments face right on all surfaces.

5 2566.1 and 2718. The bottom surface of 2718 (as displayed) should have the beginning of Maat's ankh-sign below the Ra but the trace is uncertain. The paleographic hand here is more spidery than on the other fragments this fragment is also noticeably less thick than the others displayed. Signs on the larger Taylour fragment also face opposite directions on each side.

6 No lines were apparent on 2566.3. A frame line and the bottom of a cartouche ring appear to be on both sides of 2566.4 the same may be on one side of 12582, with only a frame line on the other side.

7 A simple cartouche with the king's prenomen is centered toward the top of the brick a second brick was probably similar.

8 Inscriptions on small scarab-sized plaques 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 prenomen present (rather than 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's name 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).

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.

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 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 remainder of objects selected by Kourachanis is from collections gathered in Egypt and given in 1880 and 1904. On the Egyptian collection in Athens, see National Archaeological Museum 1995.

13 According to information kindly supplied by Katie Demakopoulou, the boomerang is "from Egypt" and the remainder of objects selected by Kourachanis is 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.

15 There was a flourishing local faience industry in northern Palestine at the time (McGovern et al. 1993).

16 For Egyptian linguistic evidence in the Aegean, see Duhoux 1988: 78 Palaima 1991: 280 Cline 1994: 35. For Aegean evidence in Egypt, see Helck 1975: 72f. James Hoch states that there are a number of words that could be investigated for linguistic interconnection but, to date, little attention has been paid to the possibility (personal communication, 4 May 1995).

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. Decouverte de depots de fondation d'Horemheb au [IX.sup.e] pylone de Karnak. In Cahiers de Karnak VII 1978-1981. Pp. 93-120. Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations (for the Centre franco-egyptien d'etude des temples de Karnak).

Borchardt, Ludwig. 1909. Das Grabdenkmal des Konigs Neferir-ke -r. Ausgrabungen der 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's Dazzling Sun: Amenhotep III and His World, eds. Arielle P. Kozloff and Betsy M. Bryan, 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 Unpublished Amenhotep III Faience Plaque from Mycenae. JAOS 110: 200-212.

-----. 1994. Sailing the Wine-Dark Sea: International Trade and the Late Bronze Age 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 Presented at 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 E 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 Myceniens et barbares d'apres le vocabulaire du Lineaire B. 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 Inscriptions from Tel Aphek. Tel Aviv 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 Egyptian Antiquities 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 Lexikon der Agyptologie, I, ed. Wolfgang Helck and Wolfhart Westendorff. Pp. 72f. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

-----. 1979. Die Beziehungen Agyptens und Vorderasiens zur Agais, bis ins 7. Jahrhundert v. Chr. Ertrage der Forschung, vol. 120. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.

Hoch, James. 1994. Semitic Words in Egyptian Texts of the New Kingdom and Third Intermediate Period. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press.

Hoelscher, Uvo. 1937. General Plans and Views. Excavation of Medinet Habu, vol. 1 Oriental Institute Publications, vol. 21. Chicago: Oriental Institute.

-----. 1939. The Temples of the Eighteenth Dynasty. Excavation of Medinet Habu, vol. 2 Oriental Institute Publications, vol. 41. Chicago: Oriental Institute.

Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology. 1995. Special Section, Lead Isotope Analysis and the Mediterranean Metals 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. Grundungsbeigabe. Lexikon der Ayptologie, 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: Metropolitan Museum 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. Saarbrucker 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: Metropolitan Museum of Art.

Manning, S. W. 1995. The Absolute Chronology of the Aegean Early Bronze Age: Archaeology, Radiocarbon, and History. Monographs in Mediterranean Archaeology, 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 Garrison at Beth Shan: Glass and Faience Production in the Late New Kingdom. BASOR 290-91: 1-27.

National Archaeological Museum. 1995. The World of Egypt in the National Archaeological Museum, ed. Olga Tzachou-Alexandri. Athens: Greek Ministry of Culture, ICOM, Hellenic National Committee.

Palaima, Thomas G. 1991. Maritime Matters in the Linear B Tablets. In Thalassa: L'Egee prehistorique et la mer, ed. Robert Laffineur and Lucien Basch. Pp. 273-310. Aegaeum 7. Actes de la troisieme Rencontre egeenne internationale de l'Universite de Liege, Station de recherches sous-marines et oceanographiques, 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 Amrah and Abydos 1899-1901. London: Egypt Exploration Fund.

Schofield, L., and R. B. Parkinson. 1994. Of Helmets and Heretics: A Possible Egyptian Representation of Mycenaean Warriors on a Papyrus from el-Amarna. BSA 89: 157-70.

Schulz, Regine, and Hourig Sourouzian. 1997. Die Tempel. Konigliche Gotter und gottliche Konige. In Agypten, Die Welt der Pharaonen, ed. Regine Schulz and Matthias Seidel. 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 archaologischen Institut Kairo 33: 125-31.

Stos-Gale Zophia Noel Gale and Judy Houghton. 1995. The Origin of Egyptian Copper: Lead-Isotope Analysis of Metals from el-Amarna. 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. Forgotten Pyramids, Temples and Tombs of Abusir. Egyptian Archaeology 7: 19-22.

Ward, William A. 1997. A New Reference Work on Seal-Amulets. JAOS 117: 673-79.

Weinstein, James. 1973. Foundation Deposits in Ancient Egypt. Ph.D. diss., Univ. of Pennsylvania. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms.

-----. 1981. The Egyptian Empire in Palestine: A Reassessment. BASOR 241: 1-28.

-----. 1990. Trade and Empire: Egypt and the Eastern Mediterranean World in the 14th Century B.C.E. Charles and Elizabeth Holman Symposium on Ancient Egypt, 2 March 1990, Fordham University, New York City.

-----. 1995. Review of Eric Cline, Sailing the Wine-Dark Sea (Oxford: Tempus Repartum, 1994), BASOR 297: 89-91.


More Evidence for Joseph from Egypt

As archaeologists continue to dig deeper they have repeatedly dug up evidence that confirms the Bible. In a previous article we had documented “Evidence for Joseph in Egypt” 1) see Heath Henning, “Evidence for Joseph in Egypt,” September 2, 2016 http://truthwatchers.com/evidence-joseph-egypt/ and since then there has been more evidence piling up from Egypt further substantiating the biblical account.

Many secular archaeologists have overlooked this evidence as they have focused on an erroneous interpretation of history, placing the events of the Joseph account at the wrong time. Charles Aling explained, “If the Biblical numbers are taken literally and at face value, the probable kings during the enslavement and subsequent rise to power of Joseph would have been Sesostris II (1897-1878 BC) and Sesostris III (1878-1843 BC). This argument than rests on how one interprets 1 Kings 6:1, a verse which dates the Exodus 480 years before the fourth [year] of Solomon, ca. 966.” 2) Charles F. Aling, “The Historicity of the Joseph Story,” Bible and Spade, Vol 9:1 (winter 1996), p. 18 Though we will leave the argument for the dating problem for a later post, here are a few reasons the later date for Joseph cannot be accurate.

  • Egyptologist attempt to date the events of Joseph in the Hyksos period which they date (ca. 1664-1555 BC), but this is wrong for the following reasons:
  • “Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh, captain of the guard, an Egyptian” (Genesis 39:1) Hyksos retained the term Pharaoh when they ruled in Egypt, but it is unlikely they would have had an Egyptian such as Potiphar as their “captain of the guard.”
  • Joseph was first brought before the Pharaoh, he was shaved (Genesis 41:14) which was an Egyptian custom the Hyksos were Syro-Palestinian.
  • When Joseph rose to prominence in Egypt, he ruled “over all the land of Egypt” (Genesis 41:41) but the Hyksos only ruled of the northern part

Archaeology also supports this earlier date. “Egyptian tomb painting depicting a caravan of Asiatics, very much like Jacob and his family, entering Egypt in the sixth year of Sesostris II.” 3) Charles F. Aling, “The Historicity of the Joseph Story,” Bible and Spade, Vol 9:1 (winter 1996), p. 20-21

/>Timothy Berry chronographs, “When seventeen-years-old Joseph entered Egypt in 1899, Egypt was still in its Twelfth Dynasty and Pharaoh Amenemhat II (1929-1895 BC) was in his final years. We do not know how many years Joseph spent in Potiphar’s house, but we know that he was in prison for over two years (Gen. 41:1) and that when he finally stood before Pharaoh (perhaps Sesostris II) as an interpreter of dreams he was thirty years of age ([Gen.] 41:46).” 4) Timothy W. Berry, From Eden to Patmos: An Overview of Biblical History, Livewithamission.com (2015), p. 27

Part of the debate over the date of this account revolves around what the name of the city Joseph lived in was during the time he lived there. The Bible records, “And Pharaoh spake unto Joseph, saying, Thy father and thy brethren are come unto thee: the land of Egypt is before thee in the best of the land make thy father and brethren to dwell in the land of Goshen let them dwell…And Joseph placed his father and his brethren, and gave them a possession in the land of Egypt, in the best of the land, in the land of Rameses, as Pharaoh had commanded.” (Genesis 47:5-6,11) Timothy Mahoney explained in an interview with Drew Zahn:

Mainstream archaeologists would say that if the Exodus ever happened, it happened at the time of Rameses, because of the biblical text that said the Israelites were building the city of Rameses. Yet when people understood Rameses lived around 1250 B.C., they didn’t find evidence for this type of story in that time period.

But other archaeologists said to look deeper… Beneath the city of Rameses, was another city, much older, called Avaris. And that city was filled with Semitic people. It started very small, just as the Bible says, and over time it grew into one of the largest cities of that time. And that is where we find, I think, the early Israelites. That’s the pattern that matches the story of the Bible. It’s not at the time of Rameses, but it’s at the location of Rameses. 5) Interview with Timothy Mahoney by Drew Zahn, “Statue of Bible’s Joseph discovered? New film challenges archaeology’s claim there’s ‘no evidence’ of Exodus,” WND, 1/17/2015 http://www.wnd.com/2015/01/statue-of-bibles-joseph-discovered/#uV3UFPMMYrlGHkZw.99

Exodus 1:7 tells how the Israelite multiplied greatly so they obviously would need a large city to dwell in. Josephus, the first century Jewish historian, quoting an Egyptian priest named Manetho who comments about Avaris, “a place that contained ten thousand acres…” 6) Josephus, Against Apion, Book 1, para. 14 in The Complete Works of Josephus, (Tran. William Whiston) Kregel Publications (Grand Rapids, MI: 1981), p. 611 Ancient Egyptians are well known for perverting history, as is seen in Manethos account of the exodus. Josephus later quoting Manetho relates his account of a man he calls Osarsiph who led a revolt against Egypt, “but that when he was gone over to these people, his name was changed, and he was called Moses.” 7) Josephus, Against Apion, Book 1, para. 26 in The Complete Works of Josephus, (Tran. William Whiston) Kregel Publications (Grand Rapids, MI: 1981), p. 618 This revolt was waged, according to Manethos twisted view, by shepherds from Jerusalem that joined with Moses at Avaris. Josephus expanding on Manethos report, records:

Manetho adds also, that “this priest sent to Jerusalem to invite that people to come to his assistance, and promised to give them Avaris for that it had belonged to the forefathers of those that were coming from Jerusalem, and that when they were come, they made a war immediately against the king, and got possession of all Egypt.” 8) Josephus, Against Apion, Book 1, para. 28 in The Complete Works of Josephus, (Tran. William Whiston) Kregel Publications (Grand Rapids, MI: 1981), p. 619

As the archaeologists have dug beyond the city of Ramses they have discovered this city Avaris. Manfred Bietak leading this excavation denies that it is the city of the Bible even though the name Avaris is connected to the Jewish settlement by the ancient historians as quoted above. Simcha Jacobovici discussed what the meaning of the name may be:

Prof Manfred Bietak has been digging at Tell el-Dab’a in Egypt for over 40 years. He has identified it as “Avaris”, the ancient Hyksos capital. Avaris is smack dab in the middle of the area the Bible calls “Goshen” i.e., the area that the Israelites lived in prior to the Exodus. The word “Avaris” means nothing in Egyptian. But, in the Torah, Joseph is repeatedly called a “Hebrew” “Ivri” in the Hebrew language. He is also repeatedly and curiously called “Ha Ish” “The Man”. In other words, the word “Avaris” may very well be related to Joseph, the “Ish Ivri”, or the “Hebrew Man” (Genesis 39:14). All this is lost in translation when Joseph is simply called a “Hebrew”. Put differently, the so-called Hyksos capital seems to be named after Joseph the “Ish Ivri” i.e., Avar-Ish. 9) Simcha Jacobovici, “Statue of Biblical Joseph Found: Story Covered Up!,” Torah Archeology, February 18, 2014 http://www.simchajtv.com/statue-of-biblical-joseph-found-story-covered-up/

Manethos is recorded as having said, “but with regard to a certain theologic notion was called Avaris…” 10) Josephus, Against Apion, Book 1, para. 14 in The Complete Works of Josephus, (Tran. William Whiston) Kregel Publications (Grand Rapids, MI: 1981), p. 611 and later, “Now this city, according to the ancient theology, was Typho’s city.” 11) Josephus, Against Apion, Book 1, para. 26 in The Complete Works of Josephus, (Tran. William Whiston) Kregel Publications (Grand Rapids, MI: 1981), p. 618 Typho seems to be connected through ancient pagan myths as recorded from Aristotle , who briefly states, “in the Tyro the discovery by means of the boat.” 12) Aristotle, Poetics, 1454b, Aristotle in 23 Volumes, Vol. 23, translated by W.H. Fyfe. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press London, William Heinemann Ltd. 1932 accessed at http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0056:section=1454b&highlight=tyro#note10 This statement of Aristotle’s is footnoted by the editor’s comment, “A play by Sophocles. Tyro’s twins by Poseidon, who appeared to her in the guise of the river Enipeus, were exposed in a little boat or ark, like Moses in the bulrushes, and this led to their identification.” 13) footnote 10, Aristotle, Poetics, 1454b, Aristotle in 23 Volumes, Vol. 23, translated by W.H. Fyfe. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press London, William Heinemann Ltd. 1932 accessed at http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0056:section=1454b&highlight=tyro#note10 Apparently the theological meaning of Avaris has some sort of connection with Moses being pulled out of the river by Pharaoh’s daughter (Exodus 2:1-6). Both these ancient names are connected to Hebrew men from this city.

Gary Byers relates the excavations of Avaris. “Recent excavations in the eastern Nile delta may have actually identified the location of Joseph’s residence in retirement and even his tomb. At a site known as Tell el-Daba today, The Rameses of the Old Testament, extensive excavations have been carried out under the director of Manfred Bietak of the Austrian Archaeological Institute, Cairo, since 1966… The site has evidence for Asiatic as early as the mid-12 Dynasty (mid-19th century BC), the general period when Jacob enter Egypt. It was an unfortified rural settlement, although numerous enclosure walls probably kept animals.” 14) Gary A. Byers, “Israel in Egypt,” Bible and Spade, Vol. 18:1 (winter 2005), p. 4 Interestingly, it was because Jacob and his family were shepherds, that when they was introduced to the Pharaoh, they were given the land of Goshen to stay (Genesis 46:33-34 47:1-4). “And it shall come to pass, when Pharaoh shall call you, and shall say, What is your occupation? that ye shall say, Thy servants’ trade hath been about cattle from our youth even until now, both we, and also our fathers: that ye may dwell in the land of Goshen for every shepherd is an abomination unto the Egyptians.” Manethos also repeatedly mentions walls but made the suggestion that they were fortified walls for the rebellious army led by Moses.

“But what is most interesting about this find is the cemetery located in the palace garden, and particularly one of the tombs in it. All of the other graves (there are approximately 12 altogether) seem to date to a slightly later period, perhaps the early years of Dynasty 13, and were on the basis of their orientation, definitely not part of the original palace-garden complex. But the largest and most impressive tomb of the lot, consisting of a single brick chamber with a small chapel in front of it, was oriented to the structures of stratum E (early-to-middle 12th Dynasty) (Bietak 1990: 61).” 15) Charles F. Aling, “The Historicity of the Joseph Story,” Bible and Spade, Vol 9:1 (winter 1996), p. 20-21

The largest tomb shaped as a pyramid has drawn significant attention.

“Between 1986 and 1988, Prof. Bietak found the remains of a monumental statue that seems to have belonged to a non-Egyptian ruler of Avaris. Although only fragments remain, the archeologists estimate the original size of the seated figure to be 2 meters high and 1.5 meters in depth i.e., about one and a half times life size. Over the statue’s right shoulder you can still see his “throw stick” i.e., the symbol of his rule. On the back – remarkably, as with the Biblical Joseph – you can still see evidence that this ruler was wearing a striped garment, made up of at least three colors: black, red and white. He was found in a tomb.” 16) Simcha Jacobovici, “Statue of Biblical Joseph Found: Story Covered Up!,” Torah Archeology, February 18, 2014 http://www.simchajtv.com/statue-of-biblical-joseph-found-story-covered-up/

The Babylonian Talmud records the debates of rabbis over where Joseph was buried. “Rabbi Natan says: Joseph was buried in the crypt [kabbarnit] of kings.” 17) (Babylonian Talmud, Sotah 13a https://www.sefaria.org/Sotah.13a.16?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en The Bible mentions Joseph had a special coat of many colors. “Now Israel loved Joseph more than all his children, because he was the son of his old age: and he made him a coat of many colours” (Genesis 37:3). This statue discovered in the pyramid shaped tomb has been reconstructed with computer graphics to reveal what it once looked like.

A cemetery with artifacts that connected it to the houses was also excavated in the open space to the southwest. One of the tombs was monumental in construction and totally unique in finds. Inside were found stone fragments of a colossal statute of a man who was clearly Asiatic, based on the yellow painted skin, the red-painted mushroom-shaped hairstyle and throwstick on his right shoulder (the hieroglyph for foreigner)…

While the other tombs nearby had intact skeletons, the only finds in the monumental tomb were fragments of an inscribed limestone sarcophagus and a few bone fragments. The body was gone! 18) Gary A. Byers, “Israel in Egypt,” Bible and Spade, Vol. 18:1 (winter 2005), p. 4

This also concurs with the Bible’s account. “And Joseph said unto his brethren, I die: and God will surely visit you, and bring you out of this land unto the land which he sware to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob. And Joseph took an oath of the children of Israel, saying, God will surely visit you, and ye shall carry up my bones from hence. So Joseph died, being an hundred and ten years old: and they embalmed him, and he was put in a coffin in Egypt” (Genesis 50:24-26). This explains why the most important tomb in the yard of the palace is the only one missing a skeleton. The Babylonian Talmud states, “ It states further in the mishna: Who, to us, had a greater burial than Joseph, as it was none other than Moses who involved himself in transporting his coffin.” 19) Babylonian Talmud, Sotah 13a https://www.sefaria.org/Sotah.13a.13?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en Scripture tells us that Moses took the bones of Joseph (Exodus 13:11) but he never entered the promise land so he could not have reburied the bones of Joseph. John Elder identifies where the missing skeleton is. “In the last verses of Genesis it is told how Joseph adjured his relatives to take his bones back to Canaan whenever God should restore them to their original home, and in Joshua 24:32 it is told how his body was indeed brought to Palestine and buried at Shechem. For centuries there was a tomb at Shechem reverenced as the tomb of Joseph. A few years ago the tomb was opened. It was found to contain a body mummified according to the Egyptian custom, and in the tomb, among other things, was a sword of the kind worn by Egyptian officials.” 20) John Elder, Prophets, Idols and Diggers, New York, Bob Merrill Co., 1960, p. 54

For more on this evidence see Timothy Mahoney excellent documentary “Patterns of Evidence” (2014).


Fragment of limestone statue of Meresankh III

Lower part of limestone statue of Meresankh III, belongs with 27-5-7 and 27-5-18 pilaster inscribed feet and part of base broken off and missing. Illustration: Yes with hieroglyphs. Illustration scale: 1:2

Details

Tombs and Monuments 1

Published Documents 3

Unpublished Documents 6

Full Bibliography

Dunham, Dows, and William Kelly Simpson. The Mastaba of Queen Mersyankh III (G 7530-7540). Giza Mastabas 1. Boston, Museum of Fine Arts, 1974, pp. 8, 23, pl. 17c-e.

Fay, Biri. "Royal Women as Represented in Sculpture during the Old Kingdom. Part II: Uninscribed Sculptures." In Christiane Ziegler, ed. L'art de l'ancien empire égyptien. Paris: Musée du Louvre, 1999, pp. 105, 110, 114, 128, fig. 6.

Fay, Biri. "Royal Women as Represented in Sculpture dunring the Old Kingdom." In Nicolas Grimal, ed. Les Critères de Datation Stylistiques à l'Ancien Empire. Cairo: Institut français d'archéologie orientale, 1998, pp. 163, 169, 177-178, figs. 8a-d, 9a-b.

Porter, Bertha, and Rosalind L.B. Moss. Topographical Bibliography of Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphic Texts, Reliefs, and Paintings 3: Memphis (Abû Rawâsh to Dahshûr). Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1931. 2nd edition. 3: Memphis, Part 1 (Abû Rawâsh to Abûsîr), revised and augmented by Jaromír Málek. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1974, p. 199.

Photos 11

People 1

Ancient People

  • Type Owner
  • Remarks Owner of G 7530-7540.Granddaughter of King Khufu, builder of the Great Pyramid, and wife of either Khafre or Menkaure. Her unique underground chapel (labeled G 7530-7540) preserves beautifully carved and painted scenes of the queen and her royal family, as well as servants, artisans, and funerary priests. The scenes also depict the sort of rich burial goods that would have been placed in Meresankh’s tomb: statues and fine furniture boxes containing food, clothing, and jewelry even a representation of the black granite sarcophagus that was actually found in situ in her burial chamber. Chapel entrance architrave, jambs, reveals and drum inscribed for Meresankh, idenitifed as [mAAt Hr stX wrt Hts nbwj xt Hr wrt Hst DHwtj smrt Hr mrt=f sAt nswt n Xt=f Hmt nswt mrt] seer of Horus and Seth, great one of the hetes-scepter of the Two Lords, khet-priestess of Horus, great of praises of Thoth, companion of Horus, his beloved, king's daughter of his body, beloved king's wife in situ in G 7530-7540. Appears in chapel relief of main room: seated holding lotus (south wall) standing with her mother (east wall), idenitifed as [wrt Hts] great one of the hetes-scepter on pillars (north wall), idenitifed as [tjst Hr] intimate(?) of Horus seated at offering table, standing north of false door and on central pillar, and with her mother and son (west wall), idenitifed as [Hm-nTr DHwtj wrt Hts nbtj Hm-nTr bApf Hm-nTr HwtHr nbt jwnt smAwt mrjj nbtj] priestess of Thoth, great one of the hetes-scepter of the Two Ladies, priestess of Bapef, priestess of Hathor Mistress-of-Dendera, consort of him who is beloved of the Two Ladies in situ in G 7530-7540. Also appears on all walls of offering (west) room in situ in G 7530-7540. Architrave on north wall of north room inscribed for Meresankh uninscribed statues may also represent Meresankh (along with other female family members) in situ in G 7530-7540. Black granite sarcophagus (Cairo JE 54935) inscribed for Meresankh, idenitifed as [xrp sSmtjw SnDt] director of butchers of the 'Acacia House' in situ in burial chamber of G 7530-7540. Incomplete limestone statue of Meresankh (MFA 30.1457) and pair statue of Meresankh and Hetepheres II (MFA 30.1456) found displaced in debris of main room. Mother ([mwt=f] his mother) of Nebemakhet (owner of G 8172 = Lepsius 86). Appears in relief of inner chapel (above doorway in eastern wall), identified as [mAAt Hr stX wrt Hts wrt Hst Hmt nswt] seer of Horus and Seth, great one of the hetes-scepter, great of praises, king's wife in situ in G 8172. Also mentioned in the tomb of her steward Khemetnu (owner of G 5210).

Subjects: Object register page:

Subjects: Object(s) photograph: Site: Giza view: G 7530-7540

Description: G 7530-7540, Meresankh III (= Mersyankh): fragmentary limestone statue of Meresankh (quarter view proper left): [G 7530 A] 27-5-18 (base with feet) + [G 7530, chapel, room a (= main room)] 27-5-3 (lower legs) + 27-5-7 (head) (all = MFA 30.1457)

Subjects: Object(s) photograph: Site: Giza view: G 7530-7540

Description: G 7530-7540, Meresankh III (= Mersyankh): fragmentary limestone statue of Meresankh (back): [G 7530 A] 27-5-18 (base with feet) + [G 7530, chapel, room a (= main room)] 27-5-3 (lower legs) + 27-5-7 (head) (all = MFA 30.1457)

Subjects: Object(s) photograph: Site: Giza view: G 7530-7540

Description: G 7530-7540, Meresankh III (= Mersyankh): fragmentary limestone statue of Meresankh (profile proper left): [G 7530 A] 27-5-18 (base with feet) + [G 7530, chapel, room a (= main room)] 27-5-3 (lower legs) + 27-5-7 (head) (all = MFA 30.1457)

Subjects: Object(s) photograph: Site: Giza view: G 7530-7540

Description: G 7530-7540, Meresankh III (= Mersyankh): fragmentary limestone statue of Meresankh (front): [G 7530 A] 27-5-18 (base with feet) + [G 7530, chapel, room a (= main room)] 27-5-3 (lower legs) + 27-5-7 (head) (all = MFA 30.1457)

Subjects: Object(s) photograph: Site: Giza view: G 7530-7540

Description: Lower part of limestone statue of Meresankh III from G 7530-7540: G 7530 (front): [G 7530, chapel, room a] 27-5-3 + [G 7530 A] 27-5-18 (= MFA 30.1457a)

Subjects: Object(s) photograph: Site: Giza view: G 7530-7540

Description: Lower part of limestone statue of Meresankh III from G 7530-7540: G 7530 (profile proper left): [G 7530, chapel, room a] 27-5-3 + [G 7530 A] 27-5-18 (= MFA 30.1457a)

Subjects: Object(s) photograph: Site: Giza view: G 7530-7540

Description: Lower part of limestone statue of Meresankh III from G 7530-7540: G 7530 (back): [G 7530, chapel, room a] 27-5-3 + [G 7530 A] 27-5-18 (= MFA 30.1457a)

Subjects: Object(s) photograph: Site: Giza view: G 7530-7540

Description: Lower part of limestone statue of Meresankh III from G 7530-7540: G 7530 (quarter view proper right): [G 7530, chapel, room a] 27-5-3 = [G 7530 A] 27-5-18 (= MFA 30.1457a)

Subjects: Object(s) photograph: Site: Giza view: G 7530-7540

Description: Lower part of limestone statue of Meresankh III from G 7530-7540: G 7530 (back): [G 7530, chapel, room a] 27-5-3 + [G 7530 A] 27-5-18 (= MFA 30.1457a)

Subjects: Object(s) photograph: Site: Giza view: G 7530-7540

Description: Lower part of limestone statue of Meresankh III from G 7530-7540: G 7530 (front): [G 7530, chapel, room a] 27-5-3 + [G 7530 A] 27-5-18 (= MFA 30.1457a)

Digital Giza has been made possible in part by the National Endowment for the Humanities: Exploring the human endeavor

© 2017 Giza Project at Harvard University.
All rights reserved.


Watch the video: Knapping an Agatized Coral Hillsburough Dart point from a preform