MEGIDDO VTHE 2004-2008 SEASONS

VOLUME III

MATTHEw J. ADAMS, ERAN ARIE, ERIC H. CLINE, ISRAEL FINkELSTEIN, NORMA FRANkLIN, MARIO A.S. MARTIN,

DAVID USSISHkIN

EditorsISRAEL FINkELSTEIN, DAVID USSISHkIN, ERIC H. CLINE

Contributions byMatthew J. Adams, Yaniv Agmon, Eran Arie, Carolina Aznar,

David Ben-Shlomo, Julye Bidmead, Noga Blockman, Elisabetta Boaretto, James M. Bos, Baruch Brandl, Eric H. Cline, Margaret E. Cohen, Adi Eliyahu-Behar, Julie Ellis, Lev Eppelbaum,

Israel Finkelstein, Norma Franklin, David Friesem, Yuval Gadot, Mor Gafri, Boaz Gattenio, Ayelet Gilboa, Philippe Guillaume, Christian Herrmann, Sonia Itkis, Othmar keel, Adi keinan,

Inbar ktalav, Nili Liphschitz, Shmuel Marco, Mario A.S. Martin, Assaf Nativ, Alexander Pechuro, Rachel Pelta, Laura A. Peri, Daniel Rosenberg, Galit Sameora, Inbal Samet, Benjamin Sass, Aharon Sasson, Ruth Shahack-Gross, Ilan Sharon, David Ussishkin, Lior weissbrod, Naama Yahalom-Mack,

Assaf Yasur-Landau

Project coordinatorSivan Einhorn

EMERY AND CLAIRE YASS PUBLICATIONS IN ARCHAEOLOGYTEL AVIV 2013

Monograph Series under the auspices of theFriends of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University

Published by the Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology(Bequeathed by the Yass Estate, Sydney, Australia)

of the Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University

ISBN 978-965-266-034-3

©

Copyright 2013

All rights reserved

Printed in Israel

Graphics by Michal Semo-kovetz, TAU Graphic Design Studio

In the 2004-2008 seasons the Megiddo Expedition was carried out under the auspices of Tel Aviv University, with George washington University as the senior American partner.

Consortium Institutions: George washington University, Chapman University, Loyola Marymount University and Vanderbilt University.Supporting Institutions: Israel Nature and National Parks Authority and the Israel Exploration Society.

The excavations of 2004-2008, the processing of the finds and the publication of this report were

Sponsored by

Chaim katzmanVivian and Norman Belmonte

Eugene M. GrantFrederick L. Simmons

Sonia weindling

and

Supported by

The Jacob M. Alkow Chair for the Archaeology of Israel in the Bronze and Iron AgesThe Austria Chair for the Archaeology of the Land of Israel in the Biblical Period

The Fritz Thyssen Foundation (Germany)

Under the patronage of Viscount Allenby of Megiddo

993

CHAPTER 18

CYLINDER SEALS

Baruch Brandl

This chapter deals with two unique cylinder seals, one made of ivory and the other of glass. The two objects were made of fragile materials and hence were found in a bad state of preservation. The ivory object lost part of its carved surface, while the glass object was broken into many small fragments. In the case of the ivory seal, it is only on the basis of the modern impression that the central motif – an elephant standing on a three-peaked-mountain – could be identified. In the case of the glass item, it was impossible to produce a modern impression or to make a continuous-exposure image by putting it on a rotating disc.1 Therefore, the eight separate photographs that were taken by the restorer – without the aid of a tripod – were used as an alternative.2 Consequently, the images differ in their angles and in their distortions.

The dimensions used in this publication are: C = circumference (or length of the impression); D = diameter; H = height. Egyptian hieroglyphic signs are referred to as they appear in Gardiner’s Sign-list (1973: 438–548) with additional identifications given later by Allen (2000: 423–452). In general, only excavated parallels with known provenance are referred to in this work; the few parallels from collections are referred to only when they are essential to the discussion.

At the end of the description and discussion devoted to each of the two cylinder seals an additional discussion is added in order to provide more detailed observations, which in my opinion need to be separated from what was written previously, rather than be incorporated into it.

DESCrIpTION aND DISCuSSION

CyLInDEr SEaL 04/J/95/ar1 (FIg. 18.1; ChaPTEr 15, no. 637)

pieiehu leFhe hplheLevel/Phase: J-6, Phase J-6a. Material: ivory,3 hippopotamus, large lower incisor,4 yellowish colour.5

Dimensions: the seal: H = 13.5 mm, D = 10.25 mm, C = 33.5 mm. The perforation: D (top) = 3.75 mm, D (bottom) = 3.25 mm (Fig. 18.2).

1 This technique was used by B. zuckerman on a haematite Syrian cylinder seal from Moza ‘Illit that was produced in “Workshop A” at Ugarit (Brandl 1996: 11, Fig. 5, n. 1).

2 This solution was used, e.g., with a red-painted Neo-Assyrian cylinder seal from Tell Abu el-kharaz in Jordan, where six separate photographs were taken, most probably before producing the modern impression (Fischer et al. 2009: 143–144, Figs. 6–7; keller and Tuttle 2010: 513, Fig. 5).

3 For the extended usage of the term ‘ivory’ in addition to the dentine of elephant’s tusk, see krzyskowska and Morkot 2000: 320.

4 For the morphology and structure of hippopotamus’ incisors, see krzyszkowska 1990: 38–42, Figs. 14–16, Pls. 9–11.5 Despite the general statement that hippopotamus ivory retains its whiteness over time (Reese 1985: 392; kolska

Horwitz and Tchernov 1990: 67).

994

CheJCC Cehehu

Method of Manufacture: sawing, abrading, drilling, incising and carving.Workmanship: good to excellent (see Additional Discussion below).Technical Details: perforated off centre and drilled from top to bottom. Linear engraving or incising and carving in low relief.Preservation: the seal is almost complete, but lost part of its decoration, as evident by several scars on the carved surface. Sometime between its exposure and study, it split into three pieces which were then glued together.

hiilpeThe seal, shown in Fig. 18.1 in four views, comprises a single scene in one horizontal register, with border lines on the top and bottom. The scene (Fig. 18.2) includes pictorial or rather ‘written’ elements that can be divided into three parts:

On the right are two men dressed only in girdles,6 apparently wearing daggers on their distant side, of which only the tips are visible.7 Both men have short beards. The first figure has a pigtail and seems

6 Compare with the figures drawn on the mural in the Naqada IIC Tomb 100 at Hierakonpolis (Quibell and Green 1902: Pls. 75, 76, 79).

7 Compare with: 1) two men incised on the upper side of an ivory object (kept in the Egyptian Museum, Cairo) quibell

Fig. 18.1: Four views of Cylinder Seal 04/J/95/AR1 (Chapter 15, No. 637).

995

CChapie h8: Cyulehie iihui

to be holding something that is now lost in the right hand, while the left hand hangs down, with an open palm and four fingers.

The second figure has an eye indicated, and raises the right hand towards his mouth, while the left hand hangs down. Both hands of this figure are shown in side view, with their thumbs separated.

In the centre – and facing the two figures on the right – an elephant with its trunk hanging down is depicted in low relief; it is standing on three triangles that were elsewhere identified as a three-peaked-mountain.8

1904–1905: 310 [14708], Pl. 64 [14708]) that is carved in the shape of an elephant’s trunk (Quibell 1900: 7, Pl. 13: 2); 2) two men on a limestone cylinder seal (in the same museum; Quibell 1904–1905: 279 [14518], Pl. 59 [14518]); 3) a man on a steatite cylinder seal found near Tomb 40 at Helwan (Saad 1947: 165–166, Fig. 14; williams 1988: 39, Figs. 3b, 44; köhler 1999; 2004: 307–310, Fig. 7: A – lower right corner).

8 Elephants and three-peaked-mountains appear separately on ‘standards of ships’ drawn on Egyptian ‘D-ware’ Predynastic vessels dated to Naqada IID1 (Petrie and Quibell 1896: 48–49, Pl. 67: 13–14; Petrie 1901: Pl. 4 [standards of ships]; Baumgartel 1947: 81–82, Pl. 11; Crowfoot Payne 1993: Nos. 865–866). Recently they were found together (but with four-peaked-mountains) – once even on a ‘standard of ship’ – on a rock carving in wadi Magar in the Theban western Desert (Darnell 2009: 96–97, Fig. 18). This carving was dated stylistically to the Naqada IID period. Together they appear in four contexts that are related to Narmer or the Naqada IIIA2 period: 1) on the Cairo Museum’s Coptos colossal statue of Min (Petrie 1896: 7–9, Pl. 3: 3, 4; williams 1988: 43, Fig. 2d; kemp 1991: 79–82, Fig. 28: c;

Fig. 18.2: One view and the modern impression of Cylinder Seal 04/J/95/AR1. Additional drawings and photos of the top and bottom of the cylinder seal show its inside morphology (Chapter 15, No. 637).

996

CheJCC Cehehu

On the left is a third human male figure, resembling the other two, facing the elephant’s back, with an unidentified element located under his raised arm. His other hand is missing. A narrow vertical strip of the seal between that figure and the elephant has been completely erased (Fig. 18.2).

On the basis of the references given above it seems that the three elements seen on the Megiddo cylinder seal – bearded men dressed in girdles and wearing daggers, an elephant and a three-peaked- mountain – appear on Egyptian art that dates to the period between Naqada IIC to Naqada IIIA2. This time span can be shortened thanks to the re-excavation of Cemetery U at Umm el-qaab (Abydos). There, in Tomb U-j of the Naqada IIIA1 period, ivory and bone labels (or tags) were discovered that contain parallels to all the elements incised on the Megiddo item:

* Labels 45–47 show bearded male figures with pigtails wearing daggers (Dreyer 1998: 118–119, Nos. 45–47, Pl. 29: 45–47).9

* Label 51 shows a bearded man dressed in a girdle (ibid.: 118–119, No. 51, Pl. 29: 51). * Labels 52 and 58 show standing elephants, each with a square space between its front and hind legs

(ibid.: 118–120 Nos. 52, 58, Pl. 29: 52, 58), as seen on the Megiddo cylinder seal.* Labels 54–56 and 59–60 show elephants standing on three-peaked-mountains (ibid.: 119–120, Nos.

54–56, 59–60, Pl. 29: 54–56, 59–6).

lChehpehaCy The parallels of the Megiddo pictorial elements from Tomb U-j and other labels as well were interpreted as representing various stages in the development of the early Egyptian writing system:

* The bearded men – especially the one with the pigtail – were interpreted as sti = “Nubians” (Kahl 2003: 125, Fig. 7), “Lower Nubia” or “The first Upper Egypt nome” (Jiménez-Serrano 2008: 1129–1130, Fig. 6 [middle]).

* The combination of an elephant and a three-peaked-mountain was interpreted as a toponym due to its appearance in the later traditional hieroglyphic writing.

The elephant image is known as determinative in the word Abw = elephant, or as an ideogram for Abw = Elephantine [Gardiner E 26]. The three triangles are known as an ideogram for xAst = ‘desert cliffs’ and ‘foreign land’, or a determinative in ‘desert’ and ‘foreign land’ [Gardiner N 25]. The appearance of both together is identified as a short way of writing the toponym Abw “Elephantine”.

Dreyer, the publisher of those labels (Dreyer 1998: 178; Kahl 2003: 116–118) identified the image of the isolated elephant as reference to ‘king Elephant’ – an early ruler (for a rejection of this suggestion, see Regulski 2008: 990 with bibliography). The three-peaked-mountain has been identified by Dreyer (1998: 143) as the ideogram Dw = mountain, or the phonogram Dw [Gardiner N 26].

The connection of these icons was proposed by Dreyer (1998: 140–141; Anselin 2004: 554–562) in accordance with phonetic writing. He combined Ab and Dw into AbDw, that is, the toponym Abydos. This

Dreyer 1998: 175–178, ill. 104, Pl. 44: c; Kemp 2000: 215–218, Fig. 7; Jiménez-Serrano 2004: Fig. 1; Wengrow 2006: 195–198, Fig. 9.10); 2) on an ivory panel from the ‘Main Deposit’ at Hierakonpolis (quibell 1900: 6, Pls. 6: 6, 16: 4; Quibell and Green 1902: 36, Pl. 6: 6; Adams 1974: 69–70 [No. 359], Pls. 44–45 [No. 359]; Jiménez-Serrano 2004: Fig. 2; Wengrow 2006: 179, 182–187, 200, Fig. 9.2 left); 3–4) on two graffiti from Gebel Tjauti (Darnell 2002: 19–24 [Inscription 2], Pls. 12–13; 72 [Inscription 28], Pl. 17: a, c; Jiménez-Serrano 2008: 1130–1132, Figs. 7–8).

9 In his description of Label 45, Dreyer questioned the possibility that the man is wearing a penis sheath, while Piquette (2004: 939–942, Figs. 20–21) added the possibility that this may be the phallus.

997

CChapie h8: Cyulehie iihui

suggestion – if correct – should be considered the earliest manifestation of phonetic writing in Egypt (for a rejection of this theory see Baines 2004: 163–164. For alternative reading as “Abydos” see Wegner 2007).

However, most of the scholars dealing with that issue identify this combination as the toponym Abw = Elephantine. (Breyer 2002: 56–57, Fig. 4; Jiménez-Serrano 2008: 1130, Fig. 6 left). In spite of the wide consensus (in which the author is included) that this pair of icons should be interpreted as a toponym, and therefore as hieroglyphs, some doubts have been expressed.10

The Megiddo cylinder seal – which combines Nubians with the toponym of Elephantine – perhaps commemorates their first conquest by the Naqada IIIA1 period Abydene ruler who was buried in Tomb U-j (see also Goedicke 2002: 253 and n. 42; Jiménez-Serrano 2004: 854, 856). It was only later that Elephantine was annexed to Egypt and became the administrative capital of the first Upper Egypt nome.11

pyahuhpyThe Megiddo cylinder seal belongs to the relatively rare group of Egyptian Predynastic cylinder seals. It follows the separation of the Egyptian cylinder seals from the Middle Uruk repertoire that started already during Naqada IID (Honoré 2007: 43), and should be considered an excellent example of the independent local Egyptian school of the Naqada IIIA1 period.12

helpleThis cylinder seal should be interpreted as an Egyptian export to Canaan. It seems that the ivory workshop that started functioning at Abydos during the Naqada IID period – earlier than the period of Tomb U-j – (Honoré 2007: 36) is the ‘natural’ candidate for the production centre of the U-j labels as well as the Megiddo cylinder seal.

hhpiOn the basis of the above-mentioned finds from Tomb U-j at Umm el-Qaab (Abydos), the Megiddo ivory cylinder seal should be dated to the Naqada IIIA1 period (ca. 3380–3330 BCE13 or shortly thereafter14), which is contemporary with the earlier part of the EB IB in Canaan.

heCChihuhplChu ChepixpLocus 04/J/95 belongs to Phase J-6a of the EB III. Therefore, the cylinder seal discussed here could be considered to have been found in secondary context.

There are at least two options concerning the period during which the cylinder seal arrived at Megiddo:

10 See whithouse 2004: 1125–1127; Friedman 2004: 162. The author suggests, however, that the hills on the ivory plaque from the ‘Main Deposit’ at Hierakonpolis (whithouse 2004: 1119–1121, Figs. 4–5) that are the reason for those doubts, are actually separated from the bovid on top and are connected with the register below.

11 For the rich corpus of more than 1,600 Egyptian Old kingdom sealings excavated at Elephantine that point to its administrative importance during the Dynatic period, see Pätznick 2005.

12 Another Egyptian ivory cylinder seal dated to Naqada IIIA1 period was found in Tomb 1035 at Abusir el-Meleq; see Boehmer 1974: 499–500, No. 9.

13 See Görsdorf, Dreyer and Hartung 1998: 171 (sample Hd-12954), 174, Fig. 2 (kaiser’s Naqada stufe IIIa2 = Hendrickx’ Naqada IIIA1).

14 For a later date, ca. 3200 BCE, see Baines 2004: 153, and for ca. 3300 BCE see wengrow 2006: 276.

998

CheJCC Cehehu

1) It was imported to the site close to the period of its manufacture, during the EB I, and should therefore be considered residual in the EB III context.

2) It was exported by the Egyptians to Megiddo as an antique during the EB III,15 after having been robbed from its original funerary context in Egypt.16

The author has already suggested the same explanation for the appearance of Predynastic simple cosmetic palettes in EB III Canaanite contexts – see in Sowada 2000: 1527, in contrast with the view expressed in Jacobs 1996: 127–131.

Two additional finds support the latter option:1) The incised ivory dagger (or knife) handle from the Phase VIII (EB IIIB) Room 116 in Sanctuary A at

Ai (et-Tell) (Marquet-krause 1949: 196, No. 1533, Pls. 54: 1533, 66: 1533; kantor 1956: 157; Hennessy 1967: 71 [10], Pl. 57: 4; Callaway 1972: 313, 315, Fig. 72: 1; Sowada 2009: 116–117 [144], Fig. 24 [144]), has a new Naqada III parallel at Tell el-Farkha in the Eastern Delta (Cialowicz 2008: 505–507, Fig. 3; 2012: 241–242, Fig. 55). This parallel is clearly earlier than the date kantor (1956: 157, n. 14; see comment by Sowada 2009: 117) attributes to the Ai handle.

2) A fragment of a carved Predynastic (Dynasty 0) cosmetic palette was found in an EB IIIA context during the recent excavations at Tel Bet Yerah (Greenberg, wengrow and Paz 2010; wengrow 2010: 32–33, Fig. 3).

The author prefers the second option, since no such ‘objects of art’ were found in Canaanite contexts contemporary to their production period

Moreover, the earliest temple at Megiddo, from Level J-3 of the EB IB (Finkelstein, Ussishkin and Peersmann 2006: 52), yielded Egyptian graffiti on its courtyard pavement slabs, which have recently been related to the period of Narmer (Yekutieli 2008). As such, they clearly postdate the period of Tomb U-j at Umm el-qaab.

hhhlplhehu hliCJiilheThe following observations demonstrate that the engraver of the Megiddo cylinder seal was a highly skilled and sophisticated artisan: 1) Selection of the appropriate raw material: the engraver was clearly acquainted with the morphology of

hippopotamus dentition. The thick outer strip of the discontinuous lamellae in the large lower incisor was preferred over the thin outer strip in the lower canine (Fig. 18.3, lower).17

2) Strategy in the cutting of the blank: the way the elongated square blank was cut from the lower incisor (an exact quarter) increased the part of the discontinuous outer lamellae strip on the seal’s surface into a full half (Fig. 18.3, middle).18 This method of cutting also avoided the appearance of the ‘heartline’ on the seal’s surface, as seen on some early Cretan seals (krzyszkowska 1990: 41–42, Fig. 16).

15 For a map with suggested Egyptian routes in Canaan during the EB III, see Sowada 2009: Fig. 48.16 The plundering of Predynastic tombs in Egypt in later periods is attested, for example, by a carving added during

the 18th Dynasty on the back of a Naqada III commemorative slate palette (see Bothmer 1969–1970; Needler 1984: 332–334, No. 266; Hartwig 2008).

17 Compare the transverse sections of the hippopotamus’ incisor and lower canine in krzyszkowska 1990: Pls. 9b, 13a.18 Compare with the way inlay strips were cut in Crete (see krzyszkowska 1988: 216–221, Figs. 1: a, 2.

999

CChapie h8: Cyulehie iihui

Fig. 18.3: The segment of a hippopotamus incisor from which Cylinder Seal 04/J/95/AR1 was cut out (after krzyszkowska 1990: Fig. 14), with location of the seal blank.

1000

CheJCC Cehehu

3) Different engraving techniques on the same seal: the engraver reserved the discontinuous outer lamellae strip for the carving of the elephant and the three-peaked-mountain in low relief technique (Fig. 18.3, upper), while the three men depicted on the surface with the dense vertical lamellae lines were only incised (Fig. 18.2).

CyLInDEr SEaL 02/K/52/ar8 (FIg. 18.4; ChaPTEr 15, no. 638)

pieiehu leFhe hplheMaterial: glass, light blue core, off white crust or patina (see more in Additional Discussion below).Dimensions: the seal: H = 13+ (restored 26) mm, D = 12–12.5 mm, C = 38.5 mm. The perforation: D = 4.5–5.5 mm. (Fig. 18.6).Method of Manufacture: rod forming (see Stern 1994: 128–129), incising (of the border-lines [Fig. 18.5, the arrows]) and impressing (of the fish motifs).Workmanship: good.Technical Details: perforated off centre, incised by a metallic stylus19 and impressed by at least two different tools.Preservation: broken twice, once in antiquity (Fig. 18.6 – patina) and a second time while being excavated. It was only partially restored.

hiilpeFour horizontal lines, the uppermost of which has been restored (Fig. 18.6), create three parallel registers. A continuous chain of five fish, all swimming in the same direction, is depicted in each register. The fish are not arranged directly above one another, but rather in a diagonal, step-like order (Fig. 18.4, upper row).20 The fish on the Megiddo cylinder seal also feature the pectoral fin below (Brewer and Friedman 1989: 47, Fig. 3.1), which is not depicted on most other Mitannian Common Style seals. One of the previously excavated cylinder seals from Megiddo and another seal from Gezer show fish with pectoral fins, but these fish are more schematic (Parker 1949: Nos. 97 and 187 respectively). The Megiddo item is the only known seal with three rows of fish separated by a border-line. It is unlikely that the Megiddo seal originally contained a fourth register of fish, although cylinder seals from Beth-Shean (Parker 1949: No. 144 = Dabney 1993: 234, No. 42, Pl. 62: c) and kamid el-Loz (kühne H. and Salje B. 1996: 60–61, No. 20, ill. 6: 20, Pl. 5: 20, plan 9) feature a column of four fish, and a seal from Ugarit features a column of four fish integrated with three lines of fish (Schaeffer-Forrer 1983: 152 [R.S. 25.257]).

pyahuhpyDue to its motif – three registers of five swimming fish in each, arranged in a diagonal order – the seal is attributed to the Mitannian ‘Common Style’ (Porada 1947: 11–13), which corresponds to the simpler part of Frankfort’s ‘Popular Style’ (1939: 279–280), or to a Syro-Palestinian or Levantine subgroup of the Mitannian Common Style (Salje 1990: 11–12, 14, 237–336). More specifically, the Megiddo cylinder seal and its parallels are related to a subdivision of Group II of Porada’s Mitannian Common Style, which presents rows of animals depicted in plain outlines (Porada 1947: 15–16, Pl. 5: 78–84), and to Salje’s

19 This could be deduced from the border lines on a cylinder seal from Alalakh (Collon 1982: 61–62, No. 29).20 Such an arrangement for three rows of fish can be seen on a cylinder seal from the Chiha Collection that was assembled

in Lebanon (Doumet 1992: No. 41) and on the cylinder seal from Alalakh mentioned in the previous footnote.

1001

CChapie h8: Cyulehie iihui

2.2.1 (F) Rein zoomorphe Darstellungen (Fische) (1990: 66, Pl. 7: 136–138). A general discussion on the fish motif in the Mitannian Common Style group of cylinder seals could be found in several publications (Beck 1967: 105–107, Figs. 184–186; Salje 1990: 66–68; kinston 1994: 12–14). This new glass Mitanni Common Style cylinder seal joins the 19 already found at Megiddo (Salje 1990: 182–183; kinston 1994: 90, 140–146). It also joins the (at least) 16 Canaanite cylinder seals decorated with fish (Kinston 1994: 12–14), two of which were unearthed at Megiddo.

helple This seal should be interpreted as a local product of a Megiddo jewellery workshop (see Additional Discussion below).1) According to both the typology and the raw material of the item, it is safe to assume that this object

was produced in a Canaanite workshop.2) The three concave scars found coated with patina (Fig. 18.6, a, b, c), were most probably created during

the decoration process of the cylinder seal. It would be hard to accept that a cylinder seal with such damage was brought to Megiddo from elsewhere.

3) This observation is supported by Lilyquist (1993: 52–53, Figs. 17, 26, 28), who notes the exceptional concentration of glass products at Megiddo. Some of the plain glass cylinders described by her were cut and incorporated into various types of jewellery as beads (ibid.: Figs. 17: b, 28: a [lower left]), while the large cylinders (ibid.: Fig. 17: a [most on the left]) may have served as blanks for the manufacture of decorated cylinder seals (see Stern 1994: 128–129).

hhpiThe Megiddo workshop to which the cylinder seal is attributed was active in the LB I, during the 16th–15th centuries BCE. The cylinder seal discussed here, which due to its rarity can be understood to have preceded the mass production of the 14th–13th century BCE Mitannian Common Style faience and composition cylinder seals, fits well this chronological scheme.

heCChihuhplChu ChepixpLocus 02/K/52 is an unstratified mixed locus with LB III/Iron I pottery. Therefore, the cylinder seal discussed here can be considered to have been found in a secondary context. If our suggestion above – that the cylinder was damaged during its decoration process – is correct, it would be logical to assume that it was kept in the workshop in which is was manufactured so that it could be recycled, and later found its way to the horizon where it was retrieved.

hhhlplhehu hliCJiilheThe attribution of this cylinder seal, which was certainly made of glass, to the Mitannian Common Style group, deserves special consideration.

Material: Salje identified 916 cylinder seals and 67 seal impressions from 118 sites (and 57 cylinder seals and two seal impressions from collections) as Mitannian, and 1,402 cylinder seals from 62 sites as Levantine (Salje 1990: 23 and 143 respectively). Among the Mitannian group no glass cylinder seals were described, while among the Levantine group, which includes 99 examples from Canaan, only 11 glass cylinder seals were described (ibid.: 137, 140, 142). However, the actual number of glass Mitannian and Levantine Common Style cylinder seals is probably larger than what is reflected in Salje’s catalogue. This

1002

CheJCC Cehehu

Fig. 18.4: Eight views of Cylinder Seal 02/k/52/AR8 (Chapter 15, No. 638).

ff

1 2 3 4

1003

CChapie h8: Cyulehie iihui

5 6 7 8

1004

CheJCC Cehehu

is because their patinas are very similar to those of faience items and therefore they could easily have been miscategorized.

origin: nine out of the 11 glass items mentioned above were found in excavations: Tell Rimah, Iraq – 2 (Salje 1990: 254, 293); Aghia Paraskevi and Ankastina (Vounus), Cyprus – 2 (ibid.: 280, 331, and 281, 325 respectively); and 5 from 5 Canaanite sites – Tell Abu Hawam, Tell el->Ajjul, Beth-Shean, Gezer and Lachish (ibid.: 255, 301 [Tell Abu Hawam], 255, 335 [Tell el->Ajjul], 256, 310 [Beth-Shean], 256, 318 [Gezer] and 257, 304 [Lachish]). There is a high probability that the latter five were produced in a Canaanite workshop (see already, with some caution, Spaer 2001: 215).

Date of production of the glass items: none of the Canaanite cylinder seals has a clear archaeological context. Only one item from Iraq and one from Cyprus were dated between the 16th and 14th century BCE. The cylinder seal made in Tell Rimah, although related to the Levantine rather than to the Mitannian Common Style group, raises the possibility that the early Megiddo workshop (Lilyquist 1993: 52–53, Figs. 17, 26, 28) was inspired by artisans who came from Mitanni.

CONCluSIONS

The two new Megiddo cylinder seals – although of different origins, date of manufacture and raw material – share some common qualities:

1) Both are unique and the first of their type to be found in Canaan. 2) Both are related to workshops of known sites: the ivory item to Abydos and the glass item to Megiddo.3) Both were produced by skilled artisans who did not hesitate to experiment and to exploit the precious

raw materials during the decoration process.

5 8

Fig. 18.5: Two points where the register lines on Cylinder Seal 02/k/52/AR8 have been started (Chapter 15, No. 638. See Fig. 18.4).

1005

CChapie h8: Cyulehie iihui

The ivory cylinder seal joins the growing group of Predynastic objects of art that was plundered from their funerary contexts and sent to Canaan during the EB III.

The glass cylinder seal is the ‘smoking gun’ that was needed to confirm the existence of a glass workshop at Megiddo during the LB I.

The ivory cylinder seal – if it indeed commemorates a historical event connected to the Egyptian conquest of Elephantine during the Naqada IIIA1 period – may be considered a historical document.

aCKNOwlEDGMENTS

I wish to thank Dr. Liora kolska Horowitz for discussing with me the hippopotamus’ dentine and the identification of the Megiddo cylinder seal raw material as a large lower incisor. Special thanks go to Osnat Misch-Brandl for her assistance in this research. The modern impression of the ivory cylinder seal was made by Andre weiner, Head of the Israel Museum Laboratory for Restoration of Antiquities. The superb restoration of the glass cylinder seal was carried out by Olga Negnevitsky (in the early stages) and Yoav Bezaleli (in the final stages), both from the Israel Museum Laboratories for Restoration of Antiquities. The ivory cylinder seal was photographed by Peter Lanyi, Head of the Israel Museum Photography Laboratory, supplemented by a view of the elephant by Carmen Hersch, while the glass cylinder seal was photographed

a

b

c

1

a

b

c

8

Fig. 18.6: Two views indicating the three old scars on Cylinder Seal 02/k/52/AR8 that received a patina (Chapter 15, No. 638. See Fig. 18.4).

1006

CheJCC Cehehu

by its restorer, Yoav Bezaleli. Drawings and restoration drawings were done by Carmen Hersch under the author’s guidance.

REFERENCES

Adams, B. 1974. ancient hierakonpolis. warminster.Allen, J.P. 2000. Middle Egyptian: an Introduction to the Language and Culture of hieroglyphs. Cambridge.Anselin, A. 2004. Problèmes de lecture et d’écriture. Les noms des polities nagadéennes. In: Hendrickx,

S., Friedman, R.F., Ciałowicz, K.M. and Chłodnicki, M., eds. Egypt at Its origin: Studies in Memory of Barbara adams. Proceedings of the International Conference “origin of the State. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt”, Kraków, 28th august–1st September 2002 (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 138). Leuven: 547–573.

Baines, J. 2004. The Earliest Egyptian writing: Development, Context, Purpose. In: Houston S.D., ed. The First Writing: Script Invention as history and Process. Cambridge, England: 150–189.

Baumgartel, E.L. 1947. The Cultures of Prehistoric Egypt. Oxford.Beck, P. 1967. Problems in the glyptic art of Palestine (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan). Ann Arbor.Boehmer, R.M. 1974. Das Rollsiegel im prädynastischen Ägypten. archäologischer anzeiger. 89, no. 4:

495–514.Bothmer, B.V. 1969–1970. A New Fragment of an Old Palette. Journal of the american research Centre in

Egypt 8: 5–8.Brandl, B. 1996. A “Hyksos” Scarab and a Syrian Cylinder Seal from a Burial Cave at Moza ‘Illit. ‘atiqot 29:

7–14.Brewer, D.J. and Friedman, R.F. 1989. Fish and Fishing in ancient Egypt. warminster.Breyer, F.A.k. 2002. Die Schriftzeugnisse des Prädynastischen königsgrabes U-j in Umm el-qaab: Versuch

einer Neuinterpretation. The Journal of Egyptian archaeology 88: 53–65. Callaway, J.A. 1972. The Early Bronze age Sanctuary at ai (et-Tell) I: a report of the Joint archaeological

Expedition to ai (et-Tell) (Colt Archaeological Institute Publications). London.Cialowicz, k.M. 2008. The Nature of the Relation between Lower and Upper Egypt in the Protodynastic

Period. A View from Tell el-Farkha. In: Midant-Reynes, B. and Tristant, Y., eds. Egypt at Its origin 2. Proceedings of the International Conference “origin of the State. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt”, Toulouse (France), 5th–8th September 2005 (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 172). Leuven: 501–513.

Cialowicz, K.M. 2012. Early Egyptian Objects of Art. In: Chłodnicki, M., Ciałowicz, K.M. and Mączyńska, A., eds. Tell el-Farkha I: Excavations 1998–2011. Poznań-Kraków: 201-243.

Collon, D. 1982. The alalakh Cylinder Seals: a new Catalogue of the actual Seals Excavated by Sir Leonard Woolley at Tell atchana, and from neighbouring Sites on the Syrian-Turkish Border (British Archaeological Reports International Series 132). Oxford.

Crowfoot Payne, J. 1993. Catalogue of the Predynastic Egyptian Collection in the ashmolean Museum. Oxford.

Dabney, M.k. 1993. Chapter 10: The Cylinder Seals. In: James, F.w. and McGovern, P.E., eds. The Late Bronze Egyptian garrison at Beth Shan: a Study of Levels VII and VIII (University of Pennsylvania, University Museum Monograph 85). Philadelphia: 227–234.

1007

CChapie h8: Cyulehie iihui

Darnell, J.C. 2009. Iconographic Attraction, Iconographic Syntax, and Tableaux of Royal Ritual Power in Pre- and Proto-Dynastic Rock Inscriptions of the Theban western Desert. Archéo-nil 19: 83–107.

Darnell, J.C., Darnell, D., Friedman, R. and Hendrickx, S. 2002. Theban Desert road Survey in the Egyptian Western Desert 1: gebel Tjauti rock Inscriptions 1–45 and Wadi el-hôl rock Inscriptions 1–45 (Oriental Institute Publications 119). Chicago.

Doumet, C. 1992. Sceaux et cylinders orientaux: la collection Chiha (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis, Series Archaeologica 9). Fribourg.

Dreyer, G. 1998. Umm el-Qaab I: Das prädynastische Königsgrab U-j und seine frühen Schriftzeugnisse. Mainz.

Finkelstein, I., Ussishkin, D. and Peersmann, J. 2006. Area J (The 1998–2000 Seasons). In: Finkelstein, I., Ussishkin, D. and Halpern, B., eds. Megiddo IV: The 1998–2002 Seasons (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology Tel Aviv University 24). Tel Aviv: 29–53.

Fischer, P.M. and Feldbacher, R. 2009. Swedish Jordan Expedition: Preliminary Report on the Eleventh Season of Excavation at Tall Abu Al-kharaz, 2008. annual of the Department of antiquities of Jordan 53: 139–151.

Frankfort, H. 1939. Cylinder Seals: a Documentary Essay on the art and religion of the ancient near East. London.

Friedman, R.F. 2004. Elephants at Hierakonpolis. In: Hendrickx, S., Friedman, R.F., Ciałowicz, K.M. and Chłodnicki, M., eds. Egypt at Its origin: Studies in Memory of Barbara adams. Proceedings of the International Conference “origin of the State. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt”, Kraków, 28th

august–1st September 2002 (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 138). Leuven: 131–168.Gardiner, A. 1973. Egyptian grammar (3rd rev. ed.). London.Görsdorf, J., Dreyer, G. and Hartung, U. 1998. 14C Dating Results of the Archaic Royal Necropolis Umm el-

qaab at Abydos. Mitteilungen des Deutschen archäologischen Instituts abteilung Kairo 54: 169–175.Greenberg, R., wengrow, D. and Paz, S. 2010. Cosmetic Connections? An Egyptian Relief Carving from

Early Bronze Age Tel Bet Yerah (Israel). antiquity: 84, Issue 324, June 2010 (Project Gallery). http://antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/greenberg324/

Goedicke, H. 2002. Min. Mitteilungen des Deutschen archäologischen Instituts abteilung Kairo 58: 247–255.Hartwig, M. 2008. Between Predynastic Palettes and Dynastic Relief: The Case of Cairo JE 46148 & BMA

66.175. In: Engel, E.-M.; Müller, V. and Hartung, U. eds. Zeichen aus dem Sand: Streiflichter aus Ägyptens geschichte zu Ehren von günter Dreyer (Menes 5). wiesbaden: 195-209.

Hennessy, J.B. 1967. The Foreign relations of Palestine during the Early Bronze age (Colt Archaeological Institute Publications). London.

Honoré, E. 2007. Earliest Cylinder-seal Glyptic in Egypt. In: Hanna, H., ed. Proceedings of the International Conference in naqada ans Qus region’s heritage. Alexandria: 31–45.

Jacobs, P.F. 1996. A Cosmetic Palette from Early Bronze III at Tell Halif. In: Seger, J.D. ed. retrieving the Past: Essays on archaeological research and Methodology in honor of gus W. van Beek. winona Lake: 123–134.

Jiménez-Serrano, A. 2004. Elephants Standing on Hills or the Oldest Name of Elephantine. In: Hendrickx, S., Friedman, R.F., Ciałowicz, K.M. and Chłodnicki, M., eds. Egypt at Its origin: Studies in Memory of Barbara adams. Proceedings of the International Conference “origin of the State. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt”, Kraków, 28th august–1st September 2002 (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 138). Leuven: 847–858.

1008

CheJCC Cehehu

Jiménez-Serrano, A. 2008. The Origin of the State and the Unification: Two Different Concepts in the Same Context. In: Midant-Reynes, B. and Tristant, Y., eds. Egypt at Its origin 2. Proceedings of the International Conference “origin of the State. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt”, Toulouse (France), 5th–8th September 2005 (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 172). Leuven: 1119–1137.

kahl, J. 2003. Die frühen Schriftzeugnisse aus dem Grab U-j in Umm el-qaab. Chronique d’ Égypte 78: 112–135.

kantor, H.J. 1956. Syro-Palestinian Ivories. Journal of near Eastern Studies 15: 153–174.keller, D.R. and Tuttle, C.A. 2010. Archaeology in Jordan, 2008 and 2009 Seasons. american Journal of

archaeology 114: 505–545.kemp, B.J. 1991. ancient Egypt: anatomy of a Civilization. London and New York.kemp, B.J. 2000. The Colossi from the Early Shrine at Coptos in Egypt. Cambridge archaeological Journal

10, Issue 2: 211–242.kinston, M. 1994. Palestinian Mitannian Cylinder Seals (M.A. thesis, Melbourne University). Melbourne.köhler, E.C. 1999. Re-assessment of a Cylinder Seal from Helwan. göttinger Miszellen 168: 49–56.köhler, E.C. 2004. On the Origins of Memphis – The New Excavations in the Early Dynastic Necropolis at

Helwan. In: Hendrickx, S., Friedman, R.F., Ciałowicz, K.M. and Chłodnicki, M., eds. Egypt at Its origin: Studies in Memory of Barbara adams. Proceedings of the International Conference “origin of the State. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt”, Kraków, 28th august–1st September 2002 (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 138). Leuven: 295–315.

kolska Horwitz, L. and Tchernov, E. 1990. Cultural and Environmental Implications of Hippopotamus Bone Remains in Archaeological Contexts in the Levant. Bulletin of the american Schools of oriental research 280: 67–76.

krzyszkowska, O.H. 1988. Ivory in the Aegean Bronze Age: Elephant Tusk or Hippopotamus Ivory? The annual of the British School at athens 83: 209–234.

krzyszkowska, O.H. 1990. Ivory and related Materials: an Illustrated guide (Institute of Classical Studies Bulletin Supplement 59). London.

krzyszkowska, O.H. and Morkot, R. 2000. Chapter 13: Ivory and Related Materials. In: Nicholson, P.T. and Shaw, I., eds. ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology. Cambridge, England: 320–331.

kühne, H. and Salje, B. 1996. Kamid el-Loz 15: Die glyptik (Saarbrüker Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 56). Bonn.

Lilyquist, C. 1993. Granulation and Glass: Chronological and Stylistic Investigations at Selected Sites, ca. 2500–1400 B.C.E. Bulletin of the american Schools of oriental research 290-291: 29–94.

Marquet-krause, J. 1949. Les Fouilles de ‘ay (Et-Tell) 1933–1935. Paris.Needler, w. 1984. Predynastic and archaic Egypt in the Brooklyn Museum (wilbour Monographs 9). New

York.Parker, B. 1949. Cylinder Seals from Palestine. Iraq 11: 1–43.Pätznick, J.-P. 2005. Die Siegelabrollungen und rollsiegel der Stadt Elephantine im 3. Jahrtausend v. Chr.:

Spurensicherung eines archäologischen artefaktes (British Archaeological Reports, International Series 1339). Oxford.

Petrie, w.M.F. 1896. Koptos. London.Petrie, w.M.F. 1901. Diospolis Parva. The Cemeteries of abadiyeh and hu 1898–9. London.Petrie, w.M.F. and quibell, J.E. 1896. naqada and Ballas (BSAE 1). London.

1009

CChapie h8: Cyulehie iihui

Piquette, k.E. 2004. Representing the Human Body on Late Predynastic and Early Dynastic Labels. In: Hendrickx, S., Friedman, R.F., Ciałowicz, K.M. and Chłodnicki, M., eds. Egypt at Its origin: Studies in Memory of Barbara adams. Proceedings of the International Conference “origin of the State. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt”, Kraków, 28th august–1st September 2002 (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 138). Leuven: 923–947.

Porada, E. 1947. Seal Impressions of Nuzi. The annual of the american Schools of oriental research 24: 1–138.

quibell, J.E. 1900. hierakonpolis. Part I. London.quibell, J.E. 1904–1905. archaic objects (Catalogue Général des Antiquités Égyptiennes du Musée du Caire.

Nos. 11001–12000 et 14001–14754). Cairo.quibell, J.E. and Green, F.w. 1902. hierakonpolis. Part II. London.Reese, D.S. 1985. Appendix VIII (D): Hippopotamus and Elephant Teeth from kition. In: karageorghis, V., ed.

Excavations at Kition V: ii. Nicosia: 391–409.Regulski, I. 2008. The Origin of writing in Relation to the Emergence of the Egyptian State. In: Midant-Reynes,

B. and Tristant, Y., eds. Egypt at Its origin 2. Proceedings of the International Conference “origin of the State. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt”, Toulouse (France), 5th–8th September 2005 (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 172). Leuven: 985–1009.

Saad, z.Y. 1947. Preliminary Report on the Royal Excavations at Helwan 1944–1945. In: Saad, z.Y., ed. royal Excavations at Saqqara and helwan (1941–1945) (Annales du Service des Antiquités de L’Égypte, Supplément 3). Cairo.

Salje, B. 1990. Der ‘Common Style’ der Mitanni-glyptik und die glyptik der Levante und zyperns in der Späten Bronzezeit (Deutches Archäologisches Institut, Abteilung Baghdad, Baghdader Forschungen 11). Mainz am Rhein.

Schaeffer-Forrer, C.F.-A. 1983. Corpus des cylindres-sceaux de ras Shamra-Ugarit et d’Enkomi-alasia. Tome I (Recherches sur les civilisations, “synthèse” 13). Paris.

Sowada, k. 2000. Egyptian Palettes in EB II and EB III Canaan. In: Matthiae, P., Enea, A., Peyronel, L. and Pinnock, F., eds. Proceedings of the First International Congress on the archaeology of the ancient near East. rome, May 18th–23rd 1998. Rome: 1527–1539.

Sowada, k.N. 2009. Egypt in the Eastern Mediterranean during the old Kingdom: an archaeological Perspective With a contribution by Peter grave (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 237). Fribourg.

Spaer, M. 2001. ancient glass in the Israel Museum: Beads and other Small objects (Israel Museum Jerusalem Catalogue 447). Jerusalem.

Stern, E.M. 1994. Catalogue Entries 3–4. In: Stern, E.M. and Schlick-Nolte, B., eds. Early glass of the ancient World 1600 B.C –a.D. 50. Ernesto Wolf Collection. Ostfildern: 126–129.

wegner, J. 2007. From Elephant-Mountain to Anubis-Mountain? Theory on the Origins and Development of the Name Abdju. In: The archaeology and art of ancient Egypt. Essays in honor of David B. o’Connor (Annales du Service des Antiquités de l’Egypte) Cairo 36: 459–476.

wengrow, D. 2006. The archaeology of Early Egypt: Social Transformations in north-East africa, 10,000 to 2,650 BC. Cambridge, England.

Wengrow, D. 2010. Exploring connections: a new fieldwork collaboration at Tel Bet Yerah (Khirbet el-Kerak). archaeology International 12, 2008/2009: 31-35.

1010

CheJCC Cehehu

whitehouse, H. 2004. Further Excavation Amongst the Hierakonpolis Ivories. In: Hendrickx, S., Friedman, R.F., Ciałowicz, K.M. and Chłodnicki, M., eds. Egypt at Its origin: Studies in Memory of Barbara adams. Proceedings of the International Conference “origin of the State. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt”, Kraków, 28th august–1st September 2002 (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 138). Leuven: 1115–1128.

williams, B.B. 1988. Narmer and the Coptos Colossi. Journal of the american research Centre in Egypt 25: 35–59.

Yekutieli, Y. 2008. Symbols in Action – the Megiddo Graffiti Reassessed. In: Midant-Reynes, B. and Tristant, Y., eds. Egypt at Its origin 2. Proceedings of the International Conference “origin of the State. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt”, Toulouse (France), 5th–8th September 2005 (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 172). Leuven: 807–837.