270

REviews JEA 96
these ten pounds, with ji treated as the imperative. However, the text should be read: ji ti mhte n
litra, Give ten pounds, with ji for the conjunction je. The same writing is found in document 42.2,
but the transcription, and consequently the translation, is here correct (this is part of the standard
formulae of the document, as set out in I.1).
The material presented in It is Our Father Who Writes provides much opportunity for future study.
From a narrow papyrological perspective this includes: the use, and specifically the multiple use,
of papyrus; the palaeographic variation found between the Coptic scribes; and the use of Greek in
the texts. Beyond this, if the attribution of this large number of texts to the monastery is correct,
this corpus is fundamental to our understanding of the operation and organisation of the monastery,
its economic life, and its relationship with the wider Hermopolite region. In this respect, its utility
extends to those interested in the social realities of monastic life, and the economic situation of such
institutions in early Arabic Egypt.

Jennifer Cromwell

Scarabs, Chronology, and Interconnections: Egypt and Palestine in the Second Intermediate Period.
By Daphna Ben-Tor. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis, Series Archaeologica 27. Pp. xv + 211, pls 109.
Fribourg, Academic Press Fribourg, and Gttingen, Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 2007. ISBN 978 3
7278 1593 5. Price 104.

The author, Daphna Ben-Tor, an authority on Middle Kingdom (MK) and Second Intermediate
Period (SIP) scarabs and seal impressions, has finally published her PhD thesis on her area of expertise.
Her work was printed in the OBO series, where already many substantial volumes about scarabs and
sealings have been published. In her book, Ben-Tor deals with scarabs found in Egypt and Palestine
dated to the period between the late Middle Kingdom and the beginning of the New Kingdom.
The volume consists of 211 pages of text followed by 109 plates. Both sections are divided into four
chapters, each representing a group of scarabs connected with each other based on chronological
terms.
For her scarab description, the author relies on the stylistic typology designed by Tufnell and Ward,1
which has become the standard for scarab typologies. The basic difference between Ben-Tor's work
and earlier ones is the division into two main groups of scarabs: those produced in Egypt, and those
of Palestinian origin, a fact not considered by Tufnell and Ward, whose typology is mainly based on
Palestinian material. It was D. Ben-Tor and C. Mlinar2 who independently discovered the importance
of the two different production areas.
Each of the main chapters is introduced with a short historical background, a presentation of the sites
where the material came from and their stratigraphic and chronological assignment and difficulties,
followed by the listing and discussion of the significant signs, and their grouping according to Tufnells
classification. Throughout the whole volume Ben-Tor sticks to the low Egyptian chronology, in
accordance with the chronology of Tell el-Dabaa in the eastern Nile delta.3
The first chapter deals with seals and scarabs found in late MK contexts in Egypt and Nubia, more
precisely in the period from the late Twelfth to the middle of the Thirteenth Dynasty. Here the reader
learns that the late Twelfth Dynasty saw the beginning of the mass production of scarabs, most likely
in connection with the increase in the foreign trade encouraged by the rulers of the late MK. The seal
impressions used for this study come from the sites of Kahun, South Abydos, Nubt, Elephantine,
1
W. A. Ward, Studies on Scarab Seals, I: Pre-12th Dynasty Scarab Amulets (Warminster, 1978); O. Tufnell,
Studies on Scarab Seals, II: Scarab Seals and their Contribution to History in the Early Second Millennium b.c.
(Warminster, 1984); W. A. Ward and W. G. Dever, Studies on Scarab Seals, III: Scarab Typology and Archaeological
Context. An Essay on Middle Bronze Age Chronology (San Antonio, 1994).
2
C. Mlinar, Die Skaraben von Tell el-Dabaa: Eine chronologische und typologische Untersuchung der Skaraben
von Tell el-Dabaa aus der 13.15. Dynastie (PhD thesis, University of Vienna; Vienna, 2001).
3
For the low chronology, see M. Bietak, The Middle Bronze Age of the Levant: A New Approach to Relative
and Absolute Chronology, in P. strm (ed.), High, Middle or Low? Acts of an International Colloquium on
Absolute Chronology held at the University of Gothenburg, 2022 August 1987 (Gothenburg, 1989), 78120, and
more recently M. Bietak, Relative and Absolute Chronology of the Middle Bronze Age: Comments on the Present
Stage of Research, in M. Bietak (ed.), The Middle Bronze Age in the Levant: Proceedings of an International
Conference on MB II A Ceramic Materials in Vienna 24th26th of January 2001 (DGAW 26=CChEM 3;
Vienna, 2002), 3042.
2010 reviews 271
Mirgissa, and Uronarti, while the scarabs mainly originate from the cemeteries near the royal town of
ITj-tAwy (modern Lisht) and Harageh. The main focus of the study is based on the decoration of the
seals. Each design is discussed on its own following Tufnells typology. For the features of the heads,
backs, and sides Ben-Tor quotes the typologies of Tufnell and Ward,4 as well as those elaborated by
OConnor5 and Martin.6 She convincingly confirms OConnors theory concerning a late onset in
the production of royal name scarabs, starting in the reign of Senwosret III (p. 37). Furthermore it
becomes evident that the designs of the late MK continue until the middle of the Thirteenth Dynasty,
a fact that is strongly supported by the Egyptian pottery of this period.7 Unfortunately it still seems
impossible, even from recently excavated sites such as Abydos and Elephantine, to make a precise
differentiation between scarabs of the late Twelfth and the early Thirteenth Dynasty.
The second chapter deals with the later part of the Thirteenth Dynasty and the Fifteenth/Seventeenth
Dynasty in Egypt, where she points out the different historical developments between Upper and
Lower Egypt after the abandonment of ITj-tAwy, and consequently also the different cultural spheres
that resulted from this change in the political situation. As a logical consequence the development of
regionality of scarab productions needs to be taken into account, which has already been convincingly
demonstrated for the Hyksos territories by C. Mlinar.8 How far this also concerns Nubia still needs
to be analysed.
Ben-Tor was able to detect changes in the sealing practices indicating an end of the administrative
use of scarabs in Egypt (p. 45), whereas in the kingdom of Kerma this practice continues during the
SIP. She predicts this habit also for the Hyksos period, forgetting that already Manfred Bietak has
suggested sealing practices for the Hyksos administration based on finds from the early Eighteenth
Dynasty.9 His assumption was recently confirmed by the excavations at Tell el-Dabaa, where during
the last 4 years a huge palace of the Hyksos period was unearthed, revealingso farmore than 350
seal impressions.10 This find clearly demonstrates that one has to be very cautious in stating change of
customs as long as the archaeological situation is scarce. Until now Ancient Egyptian culture during
the SIP has mainly been represented by tombs, mostly looted, or ordinary settlement structures. The
inhabitants of profane settlements did not employ sealing practises. After the discovery of an official
palace of the Hyksos period, it has become clear that sealing practices were also employed by the
palace administration at that time.
While, during the MK, Egyptian scarabs were exported to the Levantine region, Ben-Tor identifies
for this second phase an import of scarabs produced in Syria-Palestine into Egypt, and their distribution
as far south as Kerma (p.63). The recent find of Nubian pottery in Hyksos contexts11 supports this
contact between the Hyksos kingdom and the Kerma people as is also stated on one of the Kamose
stelae.
Ben-Tor contradicts J. Weinsteins dating of Tell el-Maskhuta into the late Thirteenth and early
Fifteenth Dynasty on the basis of scarabs, arguing that the evidence for dated late Hyksos scarabs is
scarce. Her statement can be supported by the typology of the pottery found at Tell el-Maskhuta, which
can be dated at least into the latest Hyksos period equal to Ph. D/2 at Tell el-Dabaa in contradiction of
the dating provided by the excavators.12 As another interesting result, Ben-Tor is able to demonstrate

4
Tufnell, Studies on Scarab Seals II, 32 and fig. 12; 35 and fig. 13; 37 and fig. 14.
5
D. OConnor, The Chronology of Scarabs of the Middle Kingdom and the Second Intermediate Period,
JSSEA 15 (1983), 5 and fig. 2; 6 and fig. 3; 11 and fig. 4.
6
G. T. Martin, Egyptian Administrative and Private-name Seals: Principally of the Middle Kingdom and Second
Intermediate Period (Oxford, 1971), 507.
7
A. Seiler and R. Schiestl, Middle Kingdom Pottery Handbook (CChEM; Vienna, forthcoming).
8
C. Mlinar, The Scarab Workshops of Tell el-Dabaa, in M. Bietak and E. Czerny (eds), Scarabs of the Second
Millennuim bc from Egypt, Nubia, Crete and the Levant: Chronological and Historical Implications. Papers of a
symposium, Vienna, 10th13th of January 2002 (CChEM 8; Vienna, 2004), 10740.
9
M. Bietak, Seal Impressions from the Middle till the New Kingdom: A Problem for Chronological Research,
in Bietak and Czerny (eds.), Scarabs of the Second Millennium bc, 54.
10
N. Sartori, Die Siegel aus Areal F/II in Tell el-Dabca, &L 19 (2009).
11
M. Bietak and I. Forstner-Mller, Eine palatiale Anlage der frhen Hyksoszeit (Areal F/II), &L 16
(2006), 76 Abb. 14.
12
J. S. Holladay, The Eastern Nile Delta during the Hyksos and Pre-Hyksos Periods: Towards a Systematic/
Socioeconomic Understanding, in E. Oren (ed.), The Hyksos: New Historical and Archaeological Perspectives
(Philadelphia, 1997), 188. Also C. A. Redmount, On an EgyptianAsiatic Frontier: An Archaeological History of
the Wadi Tumilat (PhD thesis, University of Chicago; Chicago 1989), 265.
272 REviews JEA 96
that what seem to be typical Hyksos designs, such as the anra formula or the deeply cut scenes of
humans and animals, were actually taken over by the Egyptians and were first developed in Canaan.
Rather problematic are her arguments on the succession of the kings of the Fifteenth Dynasty based
on unstratified scarabs alone (pp.10409). New light might be shed on this problem by 6 recently
found sealings of King Khayan uncovered in a palace of the middle of the Fifteenth Dynasty at Tell
el-Dabaa,13 which fixes at least the chronological order for the last four kings of the Hyksos period:
Khayan, thenmost likely only for a short periodIannasi, followed by Apophis and Chamudi.
If Ben-Tor is correct with her placing of Yaqubhar, according to the similarity of scarabs, next to
Khayan, the logical implication makes him the immediate predecessor of Khayan. More problematic
is the position of King Nehesy, whose scarabs with the title sA Ra (son of Ra) mark him as a king of
the Thirteenth/Fourteenth Dynasty, while the scarabs with the titles sA njswt (son of the king) and
sA wr (eldest son) stylistically fit into the second half of the Fifteenth Dynasty. To account for this,
Ben-Tor suggests the existence of at least two Nehesys, and supports her theory with a stela of king
Nehesy found at Tell Hebwa (p. 110). This stela shows a sA Ra Nehesy offering to Banebdjedet, a
ram-headed god wearing the Atef-crown, whom she localises in the eastern delta. This god, however,
is the Ram of Mendes, modern Tell el-Ruba, in the middle delta, where a Hyksos settlement was
uncovered at nearby Kom el-Kilgan.14 Unfortunately, the stela has never been properly published,
so that the scientific community has to wait to see whether Ben-Tors theory is corroborated by this
find or not.
It seems that in this period the main centre of production for scarabs in Egypt was in the eastern
Nile delta. For the time being, archaeological evidence supports the idea that there was hardly any
production in the Theban region during the SIP, and that only late in the Seventeenth Dynasty (p.113)
did the manufacture of these amulets resume, based on designs from the early Twelfth Dynasty.
The third and the fourth chapter refer to Wards and Devers groupings of scarabs based on those
excavated in Palestine. Whereas Chapter 3 deals with the early Palestinian group, which mainly
consists of scarabs of the late MB IIA and early MB IIB, marking the initial occurrence of scarab
production in this region, Chapter 4 comprises material from the second half of the MB IIB and the
MB IIC.
Based on the Ashkelon sealings dated to the late MB IIA, Ben-Tor dates the beginning of the
cultural interactions between Palestine and Egypt to this period, and observes an increase in the
following MB IIB and C, while simultaneously she postulates an end of the contacts between Egypt
and Byblos (p. 119). This assumption, however, cannot be supported by the evidence of the pottery
found at Byblos,15 and lately at Sidon.16 Due to the lack of excavated settlements of this period, all
scarabs belonging to the early Palestinian group come from tombs. They show designs which later
were taken over by the Egyptian scarab production of the late SIP. Although the prototypes for these
early Palestinian scarabs were examples of the late MK, it is the combination of signs in an unusual
way on the base (i.e. p. 125, combination of smA-tAwy with the njswt bjtj), as well as the decoration of
the backs with branches, different kinds of spirals, and lotus flowers, that reveal their non-Egyptian
origin. Scarabs belonging to this group, showing misrendered signs and pseudo-hieroglyphs, are
nearly completely absent in Egypt (i.e. Horus hawk with nTr).
While the early group referred to in Chapter 3 is more linked, if not even restricted, to Palestine,
the Late Palestinian Series is much more extensive. Although their main occurrence can be attested in
Palestine, they were also imported into Egypt and Nubia in the late SIP and early Eighteenth Dynasty.
Again, the bulk of the material comes from burials (Megiddo, Jericho, Lachish, Tell el-Farah South),
and only a minority from well excavated settlements (Gezer).
A special case in this study is the site of Tell el-Ajjul, which yielded the largest amount of scarabs
and sealings, not only of the Late Palestinian Series, but also of SIP Egyptian scarabs. On this site the
material comes from tombs as well as the settlement. While most of the tombs were located outside
the mound, the settlement material is known to be very problematic as regards its dating. Thus far, no

13
I. Forstner-Mller, Providing a Map of Avaris, EA 34 (2009), 10.
14
IFAO has been excavating there under the directorship of Beatrix Midant-Reynes.
15
See K. Kopetzky, The MB IIB Corpus of the Hyksos Period at Tell el-Dabaa, in M. Bietak and E. Czerny
(eds.), The Bronze Age in the Lebanon: Studies on the Archaeology and Chronology of Lebanon, Syria and Egypt
(DGAW 50=CChEM 17; Vienna, 2008), 225.
16
The author is studying the Egyptian imports found at the British Museum excavation in Sidon.
2010 reviews 273
typical Hyksos pottery (neither early nor late) can be identified from the excavated areas of the city.
For this reason, the connection between the Fifteenth Dynasty and the city of Ajjul remains unclear,
if not doubtful.
It seems that the typical scarab of this period shows a plain back, a trapezoid head (type D according
to Tufnell), with its legs only depicted as grooves without markings (side e11 after Tufnell). It is often
of minor quality workmanship with crude hieroglyphs. Very specific for this late phase are hollowed-
out figural motifs, occasionally filled with cross-hatching.
Ben-Tors conclusion that the MK as a political unity ended in the middle of the Thirteenth Dynasty
can be corroborated by other assemblages of the material culture (i.e. pottery). Her interpretation,
however, that the Canaanite settlers in Tell el-Dabaa came from the south of Palestine, which she bases
on the evidence of scarabs, is hardly tenable. In opposition to a disputed NAA study,17 petrographic
analysis shows clearly that most of the imported ware in Tell el-Dabaa originated from the northern
Levantine coast, as is also indicated by their parallels.18 The earliest settlers of Tell el-Dabaa (in
PhaseH) brought with them surprisingly few imported wares. There were dipper juglets, Levantine
Painted Ware (LPW), and hand-made flat-bottomed cooking pots, all produced of Levantine clays.
The bulk of the Canaanite storage jars came also from this region during this period, with some few
exceptions originating in inland Syria and Palestine. This picture does not change much until the
late MB IIA, when more shapes appear at the site. But even then imports seem to come mainly from
the northern part of Palestine and the south of Lebanon, and not from southern Palestine.19 This
evidence would rule out a possible Palestinian origin for the initial settlers of Tell el-Dabaa at the end
of the Twelfth Dynasty. There is no doubt that there is a considerable change in the middle of the
Thirteenth Dynasty (Phase F) in terms of the material culture at the site. For the settlement pottery,
locally produced MB II shapes were generated, which no longer had any identical parallels in the Near
Eastneither in Lebanon nor in Palestine. These vessels develop with the beginning of the Fifteenth
Dynasty, the actual Hyksos period, into what should be called Hyksos pottery, whose distribution
does not extend over the eastern Nile Delta (until now the easternmost point is Tell Hebwa, the
westernmost one Kom el-Kilgan and the southernmost Tell el-Yahudiyah). However, it is most likely
that the port of Ashkelon was a stop over for Egyptian ships on their way to the north,20 but it was not
their port of final destination, neither was this the case for ships coming from Byblos.
One has to consider that even Tell el-Dabaa, at least during the late Twelfth and early Thirteenth
Dynasties, was not the final destination for the traded goods; this was rather the court at ITj-tAwy and
the great temples in Memphis, Heliopolis, el-Tod, and even Thebes. Unfortunately, the capital of this
periodITj-tAwyhas not thus far been excavated (beside the cemeteries and some later houses above
them), nor do we have any other important settlements of the Twelfth and Thirteenth Dynasties.21
The potential is demonstrated by the site of Kahun, first a workmens settlement and later a rather
unimportant place at the fringes of the desert, which has provided a lot of imported material (Kamares
ware, LPW). How much more can one expect by dealing with the actual capital, or other prominent
cities? We know from texts of the late Twelfth Dynasty that the political contact between Egypt and
Byblos was intense.22 Furthermore, it is known from the excavation of the British Museum at Sidon23
that LPW was a common commodity in this area, and that the sealings of Ashkelon were dumped into
the moat when the residence in Egypt was still ITj-tAwy. As for the coastal archaeology of the Levant,
there has been a lack of excavations in general for a long period, and even now there is no settlement
excavation of the MB II in existence. Ben-Tor argues for an active land route via the Sinai (p.191)

17
P. McGovern, The Foreign Relations of the Hyksos (BAR IS 888; Oxford, 2000), very critically reviewed by
Y. Goren in BiOr 60 (2003), 1059, and by D. A. Aston in JEA 90 (2004), 2337.
18
A. Cohen-Weinberger and Y. Goren, LevantineEgyptian Interactions during the 12th to the 15th Dynasties
based on the Petrography of the Canaanite Pottery from Tell el-Dabaa, &L 14 (2004), 69100.
19
The reviewer visited various excavations along the Levantine coast during her studies in the frame of the
project stratigraphy compare of the SCIEM 2000, where she had the chance to check first hand the pottery
material at those sites.
20
Just like Tel Ifshar during the Twelfth Dynasty.
21
Like Tell el-Dabaa in the north with its Canaanite population, Elephantine in the south with its high
percentage of Nubian pottery is not to be called a typical Middle Kingdom town.
22
J. P. Allen, The Historical Inscription of Khnumhotep at Dahshur: Preliminary Report, BASOR 352
(2008), 2939.
23
See the reports in each Archaeology and History of Lebanon (AHL) journal since 1998.
274 REviews JEA 96
during her later phase. Unfortunately, this hypothesis is not supported by the survey material, which
shows that precisely during this period there is a lack of collected Egyptian pottery material.24
Ben-Tor also postulates close commercial contacts between Egypt and Palestine during the Hyksos
period. However, it seems that besides the large amount of scarabs, mainly found at the site of Tell
el-Ajjul, there is hardly any archaeological evidence for it. Neither was Egyptian pottery found in large
quantities in Palestine (even Ashkelonbeing a port powerhas hardly any Egyptian imports during
this period), nor was Palestinian pottery found in Egypt during this period in significant amounts. In
Tell el-Dabaa, the total amount of imports of Canaanite wares declined from 11% at the beginning
of the Fifteenth Dynasty to 2% at its end. The question that arises for the large fortified cities in the
south of Palestine is rather whether they were pro or contra the Hyksos. Was it possible that Tell
Hebwa was built as the Hyksos answer to a well fortified Palestine? As for Tell el-Ajjul, from which
most of the scarabs of this period come, their stratigraphical position within the settlement will always
be problematic, especially when they appear together with Late Cypriot Wares.25 Ben-Tor herself
states that there is a different development between the material culture of the Fifteenth Dynasty in
the Eastern Nile Delta and the one in southern Palestine (p.192), yet she still insists on a Palestinian
origin for the Hyksos.
We know, from the recent finds at Sidon, that the scarabs found there in MB IIA burials are all
Egyptian imports, while the bulk of the scarabs from the later tombs are of Canaanite origin. Therefore
one could also suggest that it was exerted Egyptian influence on Levantine burial practices which may
have spread from there (?) southwards and initiated the Canaanite production of scarabs.
Although the opinion of the reviewer on the origin of the Canaanite population settling at Tell
el-Dabaa during the late Twelfth Dynasty differs strongly from the one Ben-Tor suggests in her book,
this volume is up to date with the latest information on chronology. She has thoroughly assembled
the existing material of this period and, where possible, checked its stratigraphical contexts with
the help of the most renowned specialists in their fields,26 thus using well-dated material for her
chronological assessment. Furthermore, it should be emphasized that the separation into these four
groups according to their origin and chronology helps us to get a much clearer structure and picture
in the field of scarab research. It opens up some interesting questions concerning the succession of
the kings of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth dynasties. There are only a few things the archaeologist
using this book in the field might miss, like information on the material of the scarabs, whether they
were all made of steatite or of amethyst, and an indication of the chronological point at which faience
scarabs appear. Further, one could wish to have Tufnell and Wards, Martins, and OConnors head,
back, and side typologies depicted, which would have made research much easier. Nevertheless, all
in all this volume is a highly valuable work for specialists in the field of scarab research, and a most
welcome contribution to the chronology and interaction of Egypt and the Near East in the late Middle
Kingdom and the Second Intermediate Period.

Karin Kopetzky

Le temple de Dendara, XII. By Sylvie Cauville (with photographs by A. Lecler, and drawings by
Y.Hamed). Pp. xxiv + 347, pls 219. Cairo, Institut franais darchologie orientale, 2007. ISBN 978
2 7247 0460 0. Price 130.

Mit der hier zu besprechenden Publikation sind die Inschriften und Darstellungen der Naos-
Auenwnde des Hathortempels in Dendara zugnglich gemacht. Der unter Ptolemaios XII.
errichtete Bau befindet sich in einem ausgezeichneten Zustand: Die beiden 60 m langen und 12 m
24
See the pottery depicted in E. Oren, The Kingdom of Sharuhen and the Hyksos Kingdom, in Oren
(ed.), The Hyksos, 276, fig. 8.23. Though selected, the pottery clearly shows the lack of material of the second
half of the Thirteenth and the main part of the Fifteenth Dynasty.
25
For Late Cypriot Wares in Palace I and City III, see R. S. Merrillees, Tell el-aAjjl Fine and Imported
Wares, in J. R. Stewart (ed.), Tell el-aAjjl: The Middle Bronze Age Remains (Studies in Mediterranean
Archaeology 38; Gteborg, 1974), 86111; see also C. Bergoffen, The Proto White Slip and White Slip I Pottery
from Tell el-Ajjul, in V. Karageorghis (ed.), The White Slip Ware of Late Bronze Age Cyprus: Proceedings of an
International Conference organized by the Anastasios G. Leventis Foundation, Nicosia in honour of Malcolm Wiener,
Nicosia 29th30th October 1997 (DGAW 20=CChEM 2; Vienna, 2001), 14555.
26
For example, she quotes J. Bourriau, Do. Arnold, and S. Allen, who are among the most prominent specialists
for Egyptian pottery of the MK and SIP.