View
16
Download
0
Category
Tags:
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
Two Scarabs and a Seal
Citation preview
Israel Antiquities Authority / רשות העתיקות is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to'Atiqot / עתיקות.
http://www.jstor.org
Israel Antiquities Authority / רשות העתיקות
65 / A Dagger Pommel, Two Scarabs and A Seal from Tomb 65 at Khirbet Nisyaתפוח של פגיון, שתי חרפושיות וחותם מקבר בח'רבת נסיהAuthor(s): Baruch Brandl and ברוך ברנדלSource:'Atiqot /עתיקות
43 / 2002), pp. 37-48 )התשס"גPublished by: Israel Antiquities Authority / רשות העתיקותStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/23463279Accessed: 06-12-2015 14:53 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/ info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
This content downloaded from 165.123.34.86 on Sun, 06 Dec 2015 14:53:13 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
'AtiqotXLlU, 2002
A Dagger Pommel, Two Scarabs and A Seal
from Tomb 65 at Khirbet Nisya
Baruch Brandl
Introduction
Discussed here are four of the small finds that
were discovered in Tomb 65 at Khirbet Nisya
during the 1985 season. The finds will be
described below in chronological order.1
Description and Discussion2
1. Dagger Pommel (K12834; Reg. No. 86; L4; Basket 6); Figs. 1-3.
Material■. Alabaster gypsum.3
VV^-V
Fig. 1. Dagger pommel.
Fig. 2. Drill marks on the dagger pommel and
reconstruction of the drill-heads.
Dimensions: H 2.3 cm, max. diam. 3.85 cm,
(2.8 cm at the base). Method of Manufacture: Carving, polishing and drilling.4
Workmanship: Excellent.
Technical Details'. Drill marks from two drill
heads are clearly visible on the walls of the
perforations and the socket (Figs. 1, 2). The
Ml
mi
0 2 1 I
sm _ w mm §₪
! W If 1 1 I i,
^ ן
,
Fig. 3. Reconstruction of wooden handle attached to
the dagger pommel and its rivets.
This content downloaded from 165.123.34.86 on Sun, 06 Dec 2015 14:53:13 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
38 Baruch Brandl
Date
It seems, based on the above-cited parallels, that dagger pommels of the oval type were used
throughout the Middle Bronze Age II:
MB IIA.— Gezer Tomb 1; Megiddo Tomb 911
Al; Megiddo Str. XIII-XIIIA (Loud 1948: PI.
178:7, 8); Tell el-Far'ah (N) Tomb AD; Gibeon
Tomb 31; Moza Tomb 2.
MB IIB.— Gibeon Tombs 22, 39, 45; Jericho
Tomb D 22.
MB IIC.— Tell Abu Hawam.11
It may be possible to limit the date of the Kh.
Nisya dagger pommel to the second half of the
seventeenth century BCE on the basis of the
suggested date for the scarab found in the same
locus (see below, No. 2).
Archaeological Context
Tomb 65 yielded a few MB II remains
(Livingston 1989:37-38, 98; this volume). It
seems that these, as well as the object discussed
here, belong to the first period of burial in the
cave.
2. Scarab (K12837; Reg. No. 102; L4; Basket
1); Fig. 4.
Material: Steatite, yellow glaze. Dimensions: L 13 mm, W 7+ (reconstructed 9)
mm, H 5.5+mm.
Method of Manufacture: Carving, drilling and
glazing.
Workmanship: Mediocre.
Technical Details: Perforated, drilled from both
sides. Linear engravings. The hieroglyphic signs and all other incisions have traces of a glaze. Preservation: Broken; the left half of the scarab
is missing.
Scarab Shape12
The head and clypeus, and the elytra and
pronotum are completely damaged. Fortunately,
one of the sides (the right) has survived and
could be identified as Rowe's Side Type 13
diameter of the narrower drill-head was 4.5 mm, while that of the larger, tubular in shape,5 was
15 mm.
Preservation: Broken through the perforations,
only half of it has survived.
Description A horizontal oval object with a flat base.
Hollowed out at the base in order to hold the
dagger's wooden handle (reconstruction, Fig.
3).6 Two antithetic and slightly diagonal
perforations were drilled from the pommel's sides toward the central socket7 (see Fig. 2) for
the fastening rivets.8
Typology This find belongs to the oval type,9 one of the
three most common types of Middle Bronze
Age dagger pommels.10 Dagger pommels of
this type have been found in more than a dozen
Canaanite sites, mainly in burial caves, some
close to their daggers. Examples have been
published from the following sites: Gezer
Tomb 1 (Macalister 1912 1:301, III: PI. 61:23); Tell el-'Ajjul (Petrie 1932:8, PI. 14:71;
1933:10, PI. 27:64; 1934:12, PI. 41:111, 118;
Petrie, Mackay and Murray 1952:18, PI.
20:56); Tell Abu Hawam (Hamilton 1935:57
[No. 349]); Megiddo Tombs 911 Al, 1100 B
and 73 (Guy and Engberg 1938: Fig. 171:4, 9; Pis. 118:2; 146:1,2; 163:5); Megiddo occupation levels (Lamon and Shipton 1939: PI. 107:11; Loud 1948: PI. 178:7, 8); Byblos (Dunand
1954:331, Fig. 369; 332 [No. 9998]); Na'an
Cemetery (Ben-Dor 1957:20-21, PI. Ill:A); Tell el-Far'ah (N) Tomb AD (de Vaux 1962:244,
Fig. 4:1, 248 = Mallet 1973:71, 124-125, Pis.
16:8, XIX: Photo 2:8 = Gerstenblith 1983: Fig.
40:7); Gibeon Tombs 22, 31, 39, 45 (Pritchard 1963:39, 118-119, Fig. 30:24; 126-127, Fig. 34:3; 48, 132-133, Fig. 46:13; 138-139, Fig.
51:46); Jericho Tomb D22 (Kenyon 1965:237,
Fig. 111:4, 5, 7 and 258); Moza Tomb 2
(Sussman 1966:43, Fig. 3:1 = Gerstenblith 1983: Fig. 39:7); Shechem (Kerkhof 1969:98
99, Fig. 30:13); Nazareth Tomb 1 (Bagatti 1969:264, Fig. 211:13; 314 [No. 13]).
This content downloaded from 165.123.34.86 on Sun, 06 Dec 2015 14:53:13 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
A Dagger Pommel, Two Scarabs and a Seal from Khirbet Nisya 39
0 1 1 I I
Fig. 4. Scarab No. 2 and its modern impression.
(Rowe 1936: PI. 35:13 = Keel 1995a:53, 111.
67:13), or Tufnell's Scarab Side e9 (Tufnell
1984:37, Fig. 14:e9 = Keel 1995a:55, 111.
69 :e9). According to Rowe, Side Type 13 was
used from the Xllth to the Hyksos Dynasty
(Rowe 1936: PI. 35:13), while according to
Tufnell, Scarab Side e9 did not continue after
the Xlllth Dynasty (Tufnell 1984:38, Table 34), a
statement that is not completely accurate.13
Base Design
The vertical oval that serves as a frame has five
hieroglyphic signs arranged in three rows:14
The upper row contains the sign s3 'protection'
[V 16]. The middle row has the sign nfr 'good'
[F 35] flanked by two 'nh 'life' [S 34] signs. The lower row is occupied by the sign nb 'lord'
or'all' [V 30]. The hieroglyphic signs were incised in a
careless manner that is particularly noticeable in
the uppermost si sign and in the complete 'nh.
Typology The scarab fits generally into Tufnell's Design Class 3A3—'Egyptian Signs and Symbols, Varia' (Tufnell 1984: Pis. 8, 8b).15 This class, due to its many components, is not yet
completely sub-classified.16
The inner organization of the Kh. Nisya scarab—of one, three and one signs arranged
horizontally—could be seen among Tufnell's
examples (cf. Tufnell 1984: Pis. 8:1324, 1327,
1337; 8b: 1369, 1379, 1398, 1433), but in most
of her cases either the upper and lower signs, or
all three signs in the central row, are identical.
Only one of her scarabs, found at Jericho and
dated to Group IV, has three different signs, one
above the other, and two have the same on the
edges of the central row (Tufnell 1984: PI.
8:1337). The combination in the central row of the Kh.
Nisya scarab ('nh — nfr — 'nh) is known both on
scarabs of different inner organization (such as
Petrie 1932: PI. 8:153 = Rowe 1936: No. 358 =
Tufnell 1984: PI. 8b: 1435 = Keel 1997:222-223
[Tell el-'Ajjul No. 355]), and on scarabs and
bifacial oval plaques with the same inner
organization (Weill 1917:83, No. 37; Petrie
1930: PI. 31:318; Kertesz 1991:59, Fig.l; 60
[No. 5]). The closest parallel to the Kh. Nisya scarab
was found at Tell Jemmeh (Petrie 1928: PI.
19:1). It differs only in its lower sign, having a
second s3 sign17 instead of the nb sign.
It seems that both the Kh. Nisya and the Tell
Jemmeh scarabs are later derivatives of Xllth
Dynasty scarabs with royal names that were
decorated with the s3 sign above their car
touches and with antithetic signs on their sides:
(1) The closest scarab to that from Kh. Nisya—
from the Egyptian Museum, Cairo—bears the
name of Khakaure/Sesostris III and all the signs that exist on ours (Petrie 1889: PI. 8:248 =
Newberry 1907:3, PI. 1:36009).
(2) Another scarab—now in the Ashmolean
Museum, Oxford—belongs to Nymare/Amme
This content downloaded from 165.123.34.86 on Sun, 06 Dec 2015 14:53:13 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
40 Baruch Brandl
nemes III (Newberry 1906:119, PI. 9:26 =
Matouk 1971:18, 178 [No. 60] = Tufnell 1984:
PI. 53:3080).
Date
The Kh. Nisya scarab should be considered as a
local Canaanite product dated to the earlier part
of the XVth (Hyksos) Dynasty or the second
half of the seventeenth century BCE.18 This
timespan equates with the first half of the
traditional longer MB IIC period19 or alter
natively the later part of the 'extended' MB IIB
period.20
The suggested origin and the date for the
scarab is based on the following considerations:
(1) The negligent standard of the hieroglyphic
signs: The s3 sign is altogether different from
any such sign either on Xllth or on Xlllth
Dynasty scarabs.
The complete 'nh and its triangular 'head'
can be compared with those depicted on a
scarab from Tell el-'Ajjul re-dated to the Xllth
XVth Dynasties (Keel 1997:154-155 [Tell el
'Ajjul No. 147], and see refrences therein).
(2) As shown and discussed above, Rowe's
Side Type 13 or Tufnell's Scarab Side e9
continues clearly into the Hyksos scarabs.
(3) Since this scarab is considered as a later
derivative of Xllth Dynasty scarabs with royal
names and the negligent standard of its signs is
unknown among the Xlllth Dynasty scarabs,
an earlier date during the Hyksos period is
preferable.
Archaeological Context
As No. 1.
3. Scarab (K12825; Reg. No. 24; L2; Basket 3);
Fig. 5.
Material: Bone.
Dimensions: L 14 mm, W 11 mm, H 8 mm.
Method of Manufacture: Carving and drilling.
0 1 1_
Fig. 5. Scarab No. 3.
This content downloaded from 165.123.34.86 on Sun, 06 Dec 2015 14:53:13 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
A Dagger Pommel, Two Scarabs and a Seal from Khirbet Nisya 41
Workmanship: Mediocre.
Technical Details: Perforated, drilled from both
sides. Hollowed-out with linear engravings.
Preservation: Complete.
Scarab Shape21
The representation of the natural features is
very schematic.
Head and Clypeus: Shown as a square structure
divided into three strips: the head (or the lower)
strip is divided vertically into four, while the
clypeus consists of two horizontal strips one
above the other.
Elytra and Pronotum: The pronotum is
separated from the elytra by a double concave
line with an additional groove between them on
the left side. The suture dividing the elytra is
made of three parallel lines that sag to the left
side.
Side: The side is a strip with the same thickness
as that of the base.
This scarab shape is actually absent from
Rowe's typology (Rowe 1936: Pis. 32-35 =
Keel 1995a:41^13, 111. 44; 44-45, 111. 46;
52-53, 111. 67).
Unfortunately, scarabs with this shape are
known till now only from problematic contexts:
(1) Two scarabs were found in Tomb 86 in the
Iron Age Cemetery at Palaeopaphos-Skales,
Cyprus (Karageorghis 1983:303 [Nos. 2 and
5], 308-309, PI. 182:2,5; Clerc 1983:384-387,
Figs. 4, 5). The tomb was dated by its excavator to the
Cypro-Geometric III period (850-700 BCE) on
the basis of its pottery (Karageorghis 1983:
309). The scarabs were published as dating to
the seventh-sixth centuries BCE on the basis of
the erroneous dating of a scarab found at Kition
(Clerc 1983:385-386; Clerc et al. 1976:91-92
[Kit. 1004]). It is clear that such a situation, in which the
scarabs are later than the pottery, is strange.
Moreover, according to their motifs, it seems
that these scarabs are actually earlier than the
pottery in the tomb,22 and were imported to the
site from the Phoenician coast together with
Phoenician pottery in the eleventh century BCE
(Maynor-Bikai 1983:405).
(2) One scarab is from the former Fouad S.
Matouk Collection, now in the collection of the
Biblical Institute of the University of Freiburg, Switzerland (Wiese 1990:92, 94 [572], 171
[5704], PI. 20:5704).
(3) Three scarabs from private collections in
Israel are included in the first volume of O.
Keel's corpus (Keel 1997:92-93 [Afek No.
41]; 546-548,604-605 ['AkkoNos. 49,213]).
Base Design In a vertical oval that serves as a frame, a floral
motif is depicted—a four-leafed rosette with a
curl between every pair of leaves emerging
from the rosette's central disc. Each pair of
curls, the upper as well as the lower, is twisted
toward its common leaf.
Typology The scarab's decoration belongs in general to
Petrie's 'Cross Spirals' group (Petrie 1925:16, PI. 8:270-280, the closest parallel there being seal No. 275). The 'Cross Patterns' are known
on scarabs since the early second millennium
(Tufnell 1984:125, PI. 23—Class 5), and
continue into the first (Keel 1995a: 183-184,
§494). However, the pattern depicted on the
Kh. Nisya scarab—with open curls that
resemble the hieroglyphic sign for the rwt
scepter [S39]—has a shorter timespan, between
the mid-thirteenth and the end of the eleventh
century BCE.
Scarabs and seals with such a motif are rare:
(1) One scarab (Petrie 1930: PI. 31:323) was
found in Tomb 227 at Tell el-Far'ah (S), dated by Petrie to the XXth Dynasty (Petrie 1930: PI. 68).23
(2) A round seal from Tomb 218 at Lachish was
dated by its publisher to Iron Age I—II (Murray
1953:372, Pis. 44A-45-.126). However, its
context precedes that timespan and is actually
LB II-Iron I.24
This content downloaded from 165.123.34.86 on Sun, 06 Dec 2015 14:53:13 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
42 Baruch Brandl
(3) A parallel of the seal from Lachish comes
from Tomb 201 at Amathus, Cyprus (Smith 1900:99-100, Fig. 147:27).
(4) One such scarab was discovered in the
Western Cemetery at Meroe, in Tomb W846
(Dunham 1963:52, Fig. 37a-b:47, 53 23-M
716), which contained inter alia several earlier
Ramesside scarabs (for example Nos. 59, 63, 65 and 173).
Date
The scarab should be dated to LB II/Iron I, or
from the mid-thirteenth to the end of the
eleventh century BCE, on the basis of the
scarab's shape and its motif:
Scarab Shape: The two scarabs from Tomb 86
at Palaeopaphos-Skales should be dated to the
eleventh century BCE as discussed above. All
other parallels of the same shape belong to
Keel's 'Ramesside Mass Production Group' that is generally dated to the thirteenth
eleventh centuries BCE.25
The Motif: The above-mentioned scarabs with
the parallel motif are dated to Iron 1 and LB
IIB/Iron I respectively.
However, on the basis of its archaeological context, the timespan of the Kh. Nisya scarab
could be shortened to Iron I.
Archaeological Context
Most of the finds in Tomb 65, except for the few MB II objects, belong to Iron I. The object described here seems to belong to the latter
assemblage.
4. Seal (K12847; Reg. No. 168; L6; Basket 13);
Fig. 6.
Material: Bone.
Dimensions: L 20 mm, W 17 mm (base) 9 mm
(top), H 18 mm.
Method of Manufacture: Carving and drilling.
Workmanship: Mediocre.
Technical Details: Perforated, drilled from all
four sides.
Preservation: Almost complete. Four scars,
two of them on the decorated base.
Seal Shape A rounded pyramid with a rectangular base
(compare, e.g., with Buchanan and Moorey 1988:20, PI. 4 [No. 112]). Each two of its
opposite faces form a pair, one triangular with a
rounded top (with the longer base-line) and the
other trapezoidal (with the shorter base-line). This seal is perforated both lengthwise and
breadthwise—a very uncommon feature. Since
the drilling into each of the faces was more-or
less perpendicular (Fig. 6) the seal could have
been simultaneously strung on a necklace and
to an additional component.
Base Design
The base contains several groups of deep and
connected depressions. It seems that the larger
and central group presents a human figure with
outstretched legs and arms of which the head is
now lost. Below that figure is a chain of six
connected depressions that may serve as a
plain. The other groups on both sides of the
figure are unidentifiable. The method of
creating motifs by a series of connected
drillings is known from the fourth millennium
BCE where it was a quite common technique (Buchanan and Moorey 1984:22, PI. 11 [Nos. 165, 166]); sporadic appearances continued
into the second millennium BCE as well
(Pittman and Aruz 1987:63 [Nos. 42, 43]).
Usually this technique was used on stone seals.
Typology The seal on the one hand fits into Keel's Iron I
group of truncated pyramids with rectangular
or square bases coined as 'Anchor Seals' (Keel
1994). On the other hand, it is compatible with
the small group of Iron I bone seals (Grant
1932:21, 82-83, PI. 48:1108 = Keel 1990:386
[No. 26], 388, 111. 94; Grant 1934:43, Fig. 3:19,
51; Brandl 1993a: 217-218 [No. 16]; Kühne
and Salje 1996:120, PI. 16, Fig. 19, Plan 13
[No. 66]).
This content downloaded from 165.123.34.86 on Sun, 06 Dec 2015 14:53:13 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
A Dagger Pommel, Two Scarabs and a Seal from Khirbet Nisya 43
0 1 1 I I
Date
The seal should be dated to Iron I on the basis
of both its typological groups—that of its
shape, as well as that of its raw material.
Archaeological Context
As No. 3.
Conclusions
The conclusions can be summarized as follow:
(1) The four objects fit well chronologically with the other finds in Tomb 65.
Fig. 6. Seal No. 4 with its perforations and modern impression.
(2) All the objects seem to be locally
produced—in Canaan.
(3) The four small finds from Kh. Nisya have
not only contributed to the reconstruction of
the local history of the site, but also to technical
methods (the dagger pommel) and to the
diversity of the corpus of glyptic finds in both
MB II and Iron I.
Acknowledgements
I would like to express my gratitude to Dr
David Livingston, the director of the
This content downloaded from 165.123.34.86 on Sun, 06 Dec 2015 14:53:13 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
44 Baruch Brandl
excavations, for his invitation to publish these
finds that were briefly mentioned in Livingston 1989:37-38. I would also like to thank Gary
Lipton for making the first contact between us.
Special thanks are due to the editors and the
readers of this article for their contributions.
Notes
1 The objects were photographed by Ilan Sztulman.
No. 3 (scarab—K12825) was drawn by Sarah
Halbreich, while the drawings and reconstructions of
all other objects were by Carmen Hersch, under the
author's guidance. All author's material identifications were
confirmed by Ella Altmark, head of the metal
conservation laboratory of the IAA. 2 An attempt has been made to list most of the
excavated parallels from Canaanite and Early Israelite sites as a basis for future studies. Parallels
from collections have been used only when they are
essential to the discussion.
Hieroglyphic signs are referred to in square
brackets as they appear in Gardiner's Sign-list
(Gardiner 1973). 3 Material identified erroneously by some of the
earlier publishers of dagger pommels as quartzite
(Macalister 1912 1:301; III: PI. 61:23, 24) or marble
(Guy and Engberg 1938: PI. 118:2; Dunand 1939:191
Fig. 177, 192 [No. 3024]; 1954:331 Fig. 369, 332
[No. 9998]). 4 For an unfinished dagger pommel without the
polishing and the drilling of the side perforations found at Gezer, see Deverand Lance 1986: PI. 51:13. 5 For a good photograph showing the mark of the
edge of such a tubular drill-head, see Guy and
Engberg 1938: PI. 118:2. For section drawings
showing the same, see Petrie 1934: PI. 41:113; de
Vaux 1962:244, Fig. 4:1 = Mallet 1973:124-125, PI.
16:8; Deverand Lance 1986: PI. 51:13.
For a dagger pommel bored by a different type of
drill-head, refer to the find from Tomb 1025 at Tel
Dan (Biran 1992:53, 111. 32, PI. 1; 1994:57, 111. 31,
PI. l;Ilan 1996:235, Figs. 4.66 [bottom], 4.106.2). 6 Several theoretical reconstructions have been
published, see Garstang 1932:46, PI. 37:1, 2; Petrie
1933: Pis. 18:7,19:10 [=Tufnell 1980:43, Fig. 5:16]; Guy and Engberg 1938: Fig. 171:9. Petrie's
reconstruction of a handle whose crushed sheet
bronze plating has survived seems to be the best
(Petrie 1932:8, PI. 14:71). 7 The impression given by some schematic
drawings that the dagger pommels' perforations were made by one horizontal drilling (Petrie 1934:
PI. 41:110-119; de Vaux 1962:244, Fig. 4:1 = Mallet
1973:124-125, PI. 16:8; Bagatti 1969:264, Fig.
211:13) and by Albright and Pritchard's suggestions that only one cross-pin fastened them to the wooden
handle (Albright 1938:57; Pritchard 1963:32, 110
111: Nos. 99-100; 48, 132-133: No. 13) are
misleading. The following points can indicate bidirectional
drilling: 1. One of the perforations narrows toward the central
socket (cf. Petrie, Mackay and Murray 1952: PI.
20:54). 2. Each of the two perforations has a small deviation
in the direction of the other (Dunand 1939:191, Fig.
177 [No. 3024]). 3. One of the perforations is not completely drilled
(Petrie, Mackay and Murray 1952: PI. 20:53).
4. Both perforations are drilled diagonally toward the
upper part of the central socket (Brandl 1993b:248,
Fig. 9.14:2—published upside down) or alter
natively toward its lower part (Fitzgerald 1931: PI.
40:11). 8 These rivets were most probably of wood or of
other perishable material (and see our reconstruction,
Fig. 3). Albrighfs suggestion that the dagger
pommel was fastened to the dagger-handle by a
copper cross-pin (Albright 1938:57) should be
rejected, since there were no traces of any metal rivet
or pin in any one of the dozens of dagger pommels found in excavations to date. 9 Several of the objects belonging to this type were
identified differently by their publishers, mainly when the daggers were not found with them: heads of
staves (Petrie 1933:10, PI. 27:63, 64), heads of
walking staffs (Petrie 1934:12, PI. 41:110-119), knobs (Hamilton 1935:57 [No. 349]; Bagatti
1969:314, Fig. 211 [No. 13]), a stick-head (Lamon and Shipton 1939: PI. 107:11), a petite cupule
(Dunand 1939:191, Fig. 177; 192 [No. 3024]; 1954:331, Fig. 369; 332 [No. 9998]) or a macehead
(Kerkhof 1969:98-99, Fig. 30:5). 10The other two types are the domed and the
bevelled (or biconical) tops. G. Philip consolidated
these three types into his globular type (Philip
1989:113, 117, 120, 121, 126, 139, 169, 435-441, 445^49,472,493,499).
All three types have been found in sites such as
Tell el-'Ajjul (Petrie 1933: PI. 27:63, 64, 66; 1934: PI. 41:110-119; Petrie, Mackay and Murray 1952:
This content downloaded from 165.123.34.86 on Sun, 06 Dec 2015 14:53:13 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
A Dagger Pommel, Two Scarabs and a Seal from Khirbet Nisya 45
PI. 20:52-56), Megiddo (Loud 1948: Pis. 178:3,7, 8; 180:40), Gibeon (Pritchard 1963: Figs. 24:99, 100; 26:17, 18; 30:24; 34:3; 43:13; 51:46) and Jericho
(Kenyon 1965: Fig. 111:1-7). 11 In regard to Tell Abu Hawam, Balensi identified
among the Stratum V finds in Hamilton's excavation
few that belong to MB II. These include a fragment of a piriform juglet with a button base, a red
burnished dipper juglet, a Red-on-Black Cypriot bowl and a 'Hyksos' scarab (Balensi 1985:66-67, n.
5 and Fig. 1 = Keel 1997:10-11 [Tell Abu Hawam
No. 16]). She suggested with due caution that they
were all from a single period, and then a date around
1600 BCE should be considered. In a later
publication she related these finds to Stratum VI
(Balensi, Herrera and Artzy 1993:9). If Balensi's
suggestion is correct, the dagger pommel should also
be assigned to the MB IIC stratum. 12 See diagrams showing the parts of the scarab
beetle in Rowe 1936: PL 23; Ward 1978:
Frontispiece; Uehlinger 1990:62, Fig. 78 and Keel
19953:20, Fig. 1. 13 Tufnell reached this conclusion by using two
selective approaches: (a) not mentioning its
continuation in later scarabs, and (b) referring in her
table only to appearances that were observed in more
than 100/o of the scarabs.
Actually, she presents some later (Hyksos) scarabs
with the same Side e9 (Tufnell 1984: Pis. 38:2576;
42:2691,2692 and 2712; 43:2729; 44:2763; 56:3212
[Khyan]; 57:3261, 3262 [Mayebre/Sheshi]; 60:3366, 3369,3372A [YKB (MW)] and 60:3392 [Sekhaenre]).
In Keel's corpus (where Tufnell's side types are
used) among the scarabs from Tell el-'Ajjul with e9
sides, only 18 (or 400/o) are dated to the XHIth
Dynasty while 28 have either a longer timespan or
are dated to the XVth Dynasty. 14
Although only one sign has completely survived,
the reconstructions of the others are obvious due to
their small number and their symmetric shapes and
arrangements. 15 On the history and development of Tufnell's
design classification see Brandl 1986:247, n. 4. For
some elaboration of that classification see Keel
1995a:158-246. 16 As a result of this, Keel described the different
signs in alphabetical order (Keel 1995a: 159 [3A3];
169, §447), without any attempt to provide new
groupings. 17 The only other seal with two s3 signs—a bifacial
oval plaque—was found by the same excavator at
Koptos, Egypt (Petrie 1896: PI. 25:127; 1925: PI.
16:1202). 18 It is generally accepted that the Hyksos period or
the XVth Dynasty started at the earliest c. 1650 BCE
(Tufnell 1978:87; 1984:196-201, Table 34; Bietak
1984:473) or a few years later, during the timespan ofTell el-Dab'a Stratum E2 (Bietak 1991:55). 19 For the view that the XVth Dynasty equals the
whole MB IIC (or MB III) period see for example Dever 1992:41^17; Mazar 1990:191-196. 20 For the view that MB IIC equals only the later part of the Hyksos period, with the appearance of
Bichrome Ware from 1600 BCE on, see Bietak
!984:477,479,482^183; Oren 1997:271. 21 Seen. 12. 22 This is also the situation with the Cypriot seals of
the Late Cypriot periods found in that cemetery in
tombs of the Cypro-Geometric periods (See Porada
1983). 23 For its date see Brandl 1982:384, n. 65a. 24 It was found in a repository, east of Room A, that
contained Middle and Late Bronze Age sherds and a
scarab (Tuftiell, Murray andDiringer 1953:203-204,
209) dated to the XlXth Dynasty or later (Murray
1953:363,368, Pis. 43^I3A:27). 25 Scarabs of that group were dated by Wiese to
between 1250 and 1150 BCE (Wiese 1990:89-94,
Variants b and g). Keel first suggested that they continued to Iron I (1150-1000 BCE) and possibly even to Iron IIA (1000-900 BCE) (Keel 1990:338
340). He later dated the group to the thirteenth
eleventh centuries BCE (Keel 1995b: 128-129). In
his corpus, Keel dated the parallels mentioned above
to the second half of the XXth Dynasty and the
XXIst Dynasty (1130-945 BCE).
References
Albright W.F. 1938. The Excavations of Tell Beit
Mirsim II: The Bronze Age (AASOR 17). New
Haven.
Bagatti B. 1969. Excavations in Nazareth I: From the
Beginning till the XII Century. Jerusalem.
Balensi J. 1985. Revising Tell Abu Hawam. BASOR
257:65-74. Balensi J., Herrera M.D. and Artzy M. 1993. Abu
Hawam, Tell. NEAEHL 1. Pp. 7-14.
Ben-Dor I. 1957. A Cemetery from the Period of the
Patriarchs at Na'an. 'AIon (Bulletin of the
Department of Antiquities of the State of Israel) 5
6:20-21 (Hebrew). Bietak M. 1984. Problems of Middle Bronze Age
Chronology: New Evidence from Egypt. AJA 88:
471-485. Bietak M. 1991. Egypt and Canaan during the
Middle Bronze Age. BASOR 281:27-72.
This content downloaded from 165.123.34.86 on Sun, 06 Dec 2015 14:53:13 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
46 Baruch Brandl
Biran A. 1992. Dan: 25 Years of Excavations at Tell
Dan. Tel Aviv (Hebrew).
Biran A. 1994. Biblical Dan. Jerusalem.
Brandl B. 1982. The Tel Masos Scarab: A Suggestion for a New Method for the Interpretation of Royal Scarabs. In S. Israelit-Groll ed. Egyptological
Studies (Scripta Hierosolymitana 28). Jerusalem.
Pp. 371-405.
Brandl B. 1986. Appendix B: The Scarabs from Field
VI at Gezer. In W.G. Dever and D.H. Lance. Gezer
IV: The 1969-71 Seasons in Field VI, the
"Acropolis Jerusalem. Pp. 247-257.
Brandl B. 1993a. Chap. 8: Scarabs and Other Glyptic Finds. In I. Finkelstein ed. Shiloh: The
Archaeology of a Biblical Site (Monograph Series
of the Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv
University 10). Tel Aviv. Pp. 203-222.
Brandl B. 1993b. Chap. 9: Clay, Bone, Metal and
Stone Objects. In I. Finkelstein ed. Shiloh: The
Archaeology of a Biblical Site (Monograph Series
of the Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv
University 10). Tel Aviv. Pp. 223-262.
Buchanan B. and Moorey P.R.S. 1984. Catalogue of Ancient Near Eastern Seals in the Ashmolean
Museum II: The Prehistoric Stamp Seals. Oxford.
Buchanan B. and Moorey P.R.S. 1988. Catalogue of Ancient Near Eastern Seals in the Ashmolean
Museum III: The Iron Age Stamp Seals (c. 1200
350 BC). Oxford.
Clerc G. 1983. Appendix 1: Aegyptiaca de
Palaeopaphos-Skales. In V. Karageorghis. Palaeo
paphos-Skales: An Iron Age Cemetery in Cyprus
(Ausgrabungen in Alt-Paphos auf Cypern 3). Konstanz. Pp. 375-395.
Clerc G., Karageorghis V., Lagarce E. and Leclant J.
1976. Fouilles de Kition II: Objets egyptiens et
egyptisants. Nicosia.
Dever W.G. and Lance D.H. 1986. Gezer IV: The
1969-71 Seasons in Field VI. The "Acropolis". Jerusalem.
Dever W.G. 1992. The Chronology of Syria Palestine in the Second Millennium B.C. Ägypten und Levante 3:39-51.
Dunand M. 1939. Fouilles de Byblos I: Texte. Paris.
Dunand M. 1954. Fouilles de Byblos 11,1: Texte.
Paris.
Dunham D. 1963. The West and South Cemeteries at
Meroe (The Royal Cemeteries ofKush V). Boston.
Fitzgerald G.M. 1931. Beth-Shan Excavations 1921
1923: The Arab and Byzantine Levels
(Publications of the Palestine Section of the
Museum of the University of Pennsylvania 3).
Philadelphia. Gardiner A. 1973. Egyptian Grammar (3rd rev. ed.).
London.
Garstang J. 1932. Jericho: City and Necropolis. AAA
19:35-54. Gerstenblith P. 1983. The Levant at the Beginning of
the Middle Bronze Age (ASOR Dissertation Series
5). Winona Lake.
Grant E. 1932. A in Shems Excavations (Palestine)
1928-1929-1930-1931II. Haverford.
Grant E. 1934. Rumeileh Being Ain Shems Excavations
(Palestine) III. Haverford.
Guy P.L.O. and Engberg R.M. 1938. Megiddo Tombs
(Oriental Institute Publications 33). Chicago. Hamilton R.W. 1935. Excavations at Tell Abu
Hawam. QDAP 4:1-69.
Ilan D. 1996. Part IV: The Middle Bronze Age Tombs. In A. Biran, D. Ilan and R. Greenberg. Dan
I: A Chronicle of the Excavations, the Pottery
Neolithic, the Early Bronze Age and the Middle
Bronze Age Tombs. Jerusalem. Pp. 161-329.
Karageorghis V. 1983. Palaeopaphos-Skales: An
Iron Age Cemetery in Cyprus (Ausgrabungen in
Alt-Paphos aufCypern 3). Konstanz.
Keel 0.1990. Früheisenzeitliche Glyptik in Palästina/
Israel. In O. Keel, M. Shuval and Ch. Uehlinger. 1990. Studien zu den Stempelsiegeln aus
Palästina/Israel III: Die Frühe Eisenzeit Ein
Workshop (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 100).
Freiburg-Göttingen. Pp. 331—421.
Keel 0.1994. Philistine 'AnchoC Seals. IEJ44:21-35.
Keel O. 1995a. Corpus der Stempelsiegel-Amulette aus Palästina/Israel. Von den Anfängen bis zur
Perserzeit, Einleitung (Orbis Biblicus et
Orientalis, Series Archaeologica 10). Freiburg
Göttingen. Keel O. 1995b. Stamp Seals—The Problem of
Palestinian Workshops in the Second Millennium
and Some Remarks on the Preceding and
Succeeding Periods. In J. Goodnick Westenholz
ed. Seals and Sealing in the Ancient Near East.
Jerusalem. Pp. 93-142.
Keel O. 1997. Corpus der Stempelsiegel-Amulette aus Palästina/Israel. Von den Anfängen bis zur
Perserzeit, Katalog I: Von Teil Abu Farag bis
'Atlit. With Three Contributions by Baruch Brandl
(Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis, Series Archaeologica
13). Freiburg-Göttingen.
Kenyon K.M. 1965. Excavations at Jericho II: The
Tombs Excavated in 1955-8. London.
Kerkhof V.l. 1969. Catalogue of the Shechem
Collection in the Rijksmuseum van Oudheden
in Leiden. Oudheid Kundige mede delingen 50:28-109.
Kertesz T. 1991. The Archaeological Finds in the
Aharon Sadeh Collection—The Small Finds. In
M. Fischer ed. Yavneh-Yam and Its Surroundings. Jerusalem. Pp. 59-63 (Hebrew).
This content downloaded from 165.123.34.86 on Sun, 06 Dec 2015 14:53:13 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
A Dagger Pommel, Two Scarabs and a Seal from Khirbet Nisya 47
Kühne H. and Salje B. 1996. Kamid el-Loz 15: Die
Glyptik (Saarbrücker Beiträge zur Altertumskunde
56). Bonn.
Lamon R.S. and Shipton G.M. 1939. Megiddo I:
Seasons of 1925-34 Strata I-V (Oriental Institute
Publications 42). Chicago.
Livingston D.P. 1989. Khirbet Nisya, 1979-1986: A
Report on Six Seasons of Excavation. Ph.D. diss.,
Andrews University. Berrien Springs.
Livingston D.P. This volume. A Middle Bronze Age II and Iron Age I Tomb (No. 65) at Khirbet Nisya.
Loud G. 1948. Megiddo II: Seasons of 1935-39
(Oriental Institute Publications 62). Chicago. Macalister R.A.S. 1912. The Excavation of Gezer
1902-1905 and 1907-19091-III. London.
Mallet J. 1973. Tell el-Far'ah (Region de Naplouse): L'installation du Moyen Bronze anterieure au
rempart (Cahiers de la Revue Biblique 14). Paris.
Matouk F.S. 1971. Corpus du scarabee Egyptien I:
Les scarabees royaux. Beirut.
Maynor-Bikai P. 1983. Appendix II: The Imports from the East. In V. Karageorghis. Palaepaphos Skales: An Iron Age Cemetery in Cyprus
(Ausgrabungen in Alt-Paphos auf Cypern 3). Konstanz. Pp. 396-405.
Mazar A. 1990. Archaeology of the Land of the Bible
10,000-586B.C.E. New York.
Murray M.A. 1953. Chapter 11: Hieroglyphic and
Ornamental Seals. In O. Tufhell, M.A. Murray and
D. Diringer .Lachish (Tell ed-Duweir) III: The Iron
Age. London. Pp. 360-373.
Newberry P.E. 1906. Scarabs: An Introduction to the
Study of Egyptian Seals and Signet Rings. London.
Newberry P.E. 1907. Scarab-Shaped Seals (Catalogue
General des Antiquites Egyptiennes du Musee du
Caire, Nos. 36001-37521). London.
Oren E.D. 1997. The "Kingdom of Sharuhen" and
the Hyksos Kingdom. In E.D. Oren ed. The
Hyksos: New Historical and Archaeological
Perspectives. Philadelphia. Pp. 253-283.
Petrie W.M.F. 1889. Historical Scarabs. A Series of
Drawings from the Principal Collections,
Arranged Chronologically. London.
Petrie W.M.F. 1896. Koptos. London.
Petrie W.M.F. 1925. Buttons and Design Scarabs.
Illustrated by the Egyptian Collection in University
College (British School of Archaeology in Egypt
38). London.
Petrie W.M.F. 1928. Gerar (British School of
Archaeology in Egypt 43). London.
Petrie W.M.F. 1930. Beth Pelet I: Tell Fara (British
School of Archaeology in Egypt 48). London.
Petrie W.M.F. 1932. Acient Gaza II: Tell el Ajjul
(British School of Archaeology in Egypt 54).
London.
Petrie W.M.F. 1933. Ancient Gaza III: Tell el Ajjul
(British School of Archaeology in Egypt 55). London.
Petrie W.M.F. 1934. Ancient Gaza IV: Tell el Ajjul
(British School of Archaeology in Egypt 56). London.
Petrie W.M.F., Mackay E.J.H. and Murray M.A.
1952. City of Shepherd Kings and Ancient Gaza V
(British School of Archaeology in Egypt 64). London.
Philip G. 1989. Metal Weapon of the Early and
Middle Bronze Ages in Syria-Palestine (BAR Int.
S. 526). Oxford. Pittman H. and Aruz J. 1987. Ancient Art in
Miniature: Near Eastern Seals from the
Collection of Martin and Sarah Cherkasky (The
Metropolitan Museum of Art). New York. [Second
printing 1988], Porada E. 1983. Appendix III: Cylinder and Stamp
Seals from Palaepaphos-Skales. In V. Karageorghis.
Palaepaphos-Skales: An Iron Age Cemetery in
Cyprus (Ausgrabungen in Alt-Paphos auf Cypem
3). Konstanz. Pp. 407-410.
Pritchard J.B. 1963. The Bronze Age Cemetery at
Gibeon. Philadelphia. Rowe A. 1936. A Catalogue of Egyptian Scarabs,
Scaraboids, Seals and Amulets in the Palestine
Archaeological Museum. Cairo.
Smith A.H. 1900. Excavations at Amathus. In A.S.
Murray, A.Fl. Smith and H.B. Walters.
Excavations in Cyprus. London. Pp. 87-126.
Sussman V. 1966. Middle Bronze Age Burial Caves
at Moza. 'Atiqot (HS) 3:40-43 (English summary,
p. 5*). Tufhell O. 1953. Chapter 7: Areas 100, 200. In O.
Tufhell, M.A. Murray and D. Diringer. Lachish
(Tell ed-Duweir) III: The Iron Age. London. Pp.
178-218. Tufhell O. 1978. Graves at Tell El-Yahudiyeh:
Reviewed after a Life-Time. In P.R.S. Moorey and
P. Parr eds. Archaeology in the Levant: Essays for
Kathleen Ke«vo«. Warminster. Pp. 76-101.
Tufnell O. 1980. A Review of the Contents of Cave
303 at Tell el-'Ajjul. 'Atiqot(ES) 14:37-48.
Tufhell O. 1984. Studies on Scarab Seals II: Scarab
Seals and their Contribution to History in the
Early Second Millennium B. C. Warminster.
Uehlinger Ch. 1990. Chap. III: Die Sammlung
ägyptischer Siegelamulette (Skarabäensammlung
Fouad S. Matouk). In O. Keel and Ch. Uehlinger.
Altorientalische Miniaturkunst. Die ältesten
visuellen Massenkommunikationsmittel. Ein Blick
in die Sammlungen des Biblischen Instituts der
Universität Freiburg Schweiz. Mainz. Pp. 58-86.
This content downloaded from 165.123.34.86 on Sun, 06 Dec 2015 14:53:13 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
48 Baruch Brandl
de Vaux R. 1962. Les fouilles de Teil el-Far'ah:
Rapport preliminaire sur les 7e, 8e, 9e campagnes, 1958-1960. RB 69:212-253.
Ward W.A. 1978. Studies on Scarab Seals I: Pre-12th
Dynasty Scarab Amulets. Warminster.
Weill R. 1917. La fin du Moyen Empire Egyptien
(periode comprise entre la XIIe et la XVIIIe
dynastie). Complements. Journal Asiatique lle
ser. 9:59-143.
Wiese A. 1990. Zum Bild des Königs auf ägyptischen
Siegelamuletten (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 96).
Freiburg-Göttingen.
This content downloaded from 165.123.34.86 on Sun, 06 Dec 2015 14:53:13 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Recommended