ISRAEL IN HIEROGLYPHS Manfred Goerg - Munich With the discovery of the stele CG 34035 (JE 31408) belonging to the

Cairo Museum, and the Victory Inscription of Pharoah Merenptah found on one side of that stele by the British archaeologist WM Flinders Petrie in the spring of 1896, and also with the edition of this inscription published by W Spiegelberg in the same year, was made known the oldest and (up till now) the only occurrence of a hieroglyphic name, which the first editor and the majority of interpreters since have identified as Israel. In what follows the written form of the name will be once more discussed, in order that at the same time the debate concerning the original pronunciation may be advanced somewhat. The hieroglyph has the following form:

Although the number of commentaries on this name are legion, we may make certain observations in connection with recent insights into the writing of foreign names in the Egyptian New Kingdom. As it appears to be written in so-called group writing, it is firstly of note that the first group with the double reed (papyrus?) is fundamentally vocally indifferent, though there would appear to be an above average possibility of a reference to a rendering of the vocable a. The second group of signs, with the horizontal s , the double vertical stroke immediately underneath, and the r following at a little distance under that, does not cohere well with group writing, but has every appearance of representing the sequence s-i-r . This may well be the case, even though the double stroke which certainly mostly represents the vocable i, can also occasionally signify a or u, or even no sound whatever. This is not a group with a syllable-closing r . This is normally characterised by a double stroke (usually diagonal), the r , and a by-stroke, and here the by-stroke of the r is missing. One could suspect a simple omission of the by-stroke, but this is a shaky proposition, especially as the short distance between the vertical double stroke does not clearly imply a connection. So one could maintain the reading s-i-r, or one could consider the double stroke to be vocally indifferent, so that a simple s-r with open vocalisation could be read. We therefore begin with the reading s( )r. The question of the pronunciation of sibillants in Semitic means there are the two possibilities of a rendering of a and a , whereby the equivalence with a sibillant sound prevailed, whereas a reference to a semitic z would at most be an exception. The older rendering of the name of the place in southern Palestine Socho, which we meet in the Old Testament with the pronunciation k, begins in older hieroglyph texts under Tuthmosis III, Anemophis II, Anemophis III with an s group, whereas the place name (ON= OrtName) is written in the Sheshonq list with an initial . The name Assur in the lists associated with the mortuary temple of Amenophis III can be found with a or a . The orthography allows for the possibility that the name Israel may originally have been misspelt with a sibbilant sound.

As the remaining constellation: Reed, Vulture, r with stroke, taken together must undoubtedly stand for a pronunciation j3r (= jr/l), whereby the vulture sign (3) need not necessarily be written in the 18th dynasty, further commentary is unnecessary. Much could be said about the position of the determinative, that it would suggest the name referred to a people, but that this sign never excludes a possible reference to a land with geographical borders, as contemporary references to the Shashu (3s w), whose name is sometimes given with the determinative for a foreign land, and sometimes with that for a people. The critical evaluation of the script shows, as previously, that a significant vote in favour of the traditional identification with Israel, even though doubts may arise concerning the originality of the implied Hebrew for of the word. In the documentary script of the Merenptah stele the transliteration jj-s( )r-3r (=ys( ) rl) seems to have the best claim to acceptance, so as to suggest yas`(i)r-il or ya(i)r-il>yas`rail>yis`rael as a plausible development within the Hebrew language. Now we are amply prepared to confront other positions, we can review that proposed by O Margalit, that would render the name on the Merenptah stele Jezreel. Margalit simply cites GR Driver who was of the opinion that the Egyptian horizontal s could represent a Hebrew z, so that nothing could stand in the way of an indentification with Jezreel which might be an inexperienced scribes way of rendering the place-name Jezreel, the valley in the north of the country. Without much legitimacy, he seeks to find a defender of the thesis that this name is not identical with Israel in JA Wilson, who has drawn attention to errors in the orthography of this stele, and also in W Helck who is not sure whether it refers to a tribe or any other ethnic body of that name. The spelling of the names is not however to be seen as faulty, because good evidence for their compatibility exists. As to the assessment of the script, no specialist in the subject would any longer deny a possible identity with Israel. The question as to whether it was Israel or Jezreel which was intended, is one Flinders Petrie addressed in his own position regarding his find. He came to the conclusion that we cannot, for two reasons, take the city of Jezreel as being the reference intended by Merenptah, first because the name is written with an s not a z, and secondly because it is not a city which was destroyed but a people that were left without seed. But he thought it not impossible (that) in Jezreel we have the capital of a northern branch of Israel that did not go into Egypt, this name having been adopted as a play on the race-name of Israel. But one must not resort to arguments such as these, because the traditional spelling of Israel YiZRaeL contains not just a Hebrew Zayin, but also a Hebrew Ayin, which is something Margalit did not take sufficiently into account. To suggest an allusion to the Hebrew ZR in the choice of a name in such a context, is to expect far too much of the Egyptian author, even though he does show evidence of good phraseological ability. This argument gives no compelling grounds for an alternative to the usual identification with Israel. Margalit has also missed the fact that the lettering on the Merenptah stele inscription can be further used to demonstrate his thesis based on research into cuneiform documents that Israel was always pronounced Israel, because the horizontal (or even the vertical) s in the New Kingdom was more often represented by the semitic sibillant. At the very least this can do his thesis no harm. In this matter he is behind Sachsse, who on the grounds of its inclusion in the Merenptah document has argued for the adding of the sibillant. This constitutes a further support for the thesis that the name was originally pronounced with the sibillant, which can help us with the matter we move on to now. In the storerooms of the Berlin Egyptian Museum can be found a long-neglected fragment of a plinth (no. 21687) with a somewhat fragmentary list of place-names. It has long been published in the

form of the drawing below, but has only recently been published with a photograph and commentary. The writing used for the names in this copy is a matter for continuing debate among scholars, as it has not been possible to carry out a more accurate inspection of the original. In my own position expressed in my dissertation (M Goerg, Untersuchungen zur hieroglyphischen Wiedergabe palaestinscher Ortsnamen, Bonner Orientalistische Studien NS 29 (1974) pp.47ff) I have described the two incontrovertible, and most readily recognisable and identifiable Place-names, j-s-q-rw-n (= jsqr/lwn) Ashkelon (x+1) and k-i-n-3-n-nw (=knnw) Canaan as completely consonantal and not examples of group writing, and on account of their closeness to the writing of place-names under Amenophis II, I have dated them to the early 18th dynasty (Amenophis II, maybe Tuthmosis III). At the same time I have, as an experiment, brought the writing of the third name, now only partly preserved (x+3), which the drawing misrepresents as a double reed at the beginning, the lake hieroglyph 3 underneath and the group j+r`, into relationship with the name jj-3-p-j-r` from the Palestine list of Tuthmosis III. This identification has been accepted by Giveon, and he has also suggested a reference to the list of Amenophis III, although the name in the entry in the mortuary temple list is in a different form. Before we can draw out the consequences for the lists, the writing of the third name on the fragment deserves more particular attention. A closer examination, with the help among other considerations of the photos (Abb2) published by Giveon brings to light some cause to doubt the correctness of an identification with the name 1.78a. Two observations speak against such a reconstruction: 1. It is impossible to ascertain any trace of the allegedly certain second reed symbol. Instead of that there appears above a slightly bent incision, which in my opinion must belong to the beak of a 3 bird symbol which has not been preserved, so that taken together the group would be composed of j+3. The 3- hieroglyph is in the drawing has undoubtedly turned out too large. Therefore, with its typical succession of lotus flowers it allows no space for the addition of a p sign, so that the 3 sign must take up the whole breadth. A comparison with the form and ordering of the hieroglyphs in the entry in the Tuthmosis list 1a, 78, confirms this view. I would like to reconstruct the reading as follows:

The reading suggested here is pronounced j3-3-j-r (=js`r/l), which naturally does not allow us to make an identification on the basis of this pronunciation. More interesting is the fact that one could see 3 as an archaising way of rendering -r, a practice which by analogy can be shown to be highly probable with reference to a number of place-names of the New Kingdom in keeping with Middle Egyptian custom. It is only necessary here to refer to instances such as b3-d3-n3 (=bd(r/l)n), List 1a, 23 for Busrana, J-k3-ti (=Jk(r/l)t) (Stele Amenophis II ) for Ugarit, Q-n-tj-k3-m-r (=Kntk(r/l)mr/l) for

Ginti-Kirmil. On this basis a reading j(r/l)`l, could be supposed, which is compatible with the phonetic writing of the possible older form of the name Israel. The writing with an initial j (rather than jj=y) and a following aleph could be understood as a rendering of an initial `I or `e, so that we could with good conscience substitute a reading `i/e-( )r-il. This reading is, by all appearances, compatible with Israel, even when one consults the well-known cuneiform version, as Margalit has recently done. As to the original meaning of the word Israel, this approach involving the acceptance of this possible new document in older script may help us towards greater certainty. We may well fins ourselves going down a road Sachsse has gone down before, namely a combination of the elements jr (cf Akkadian eeru) meaning (to be) in order (among other things) with the divine name `l to posit El is in order or in order is El. To posit such an original meaning would not prevent historical Israel adopting another version of their name and also an alternative and genuine explanation of that name in its modified form, as it appears in the Old Testament and is still in use today. The preserved constellation of the name with the apparently archaising orthography alongside Ashkelon and Canaan, causes Israel to appear in a row along with the very same names which also appear at the beginning of a row in the inscription on the Merenptah stele, although the sequence is not quite the same. There Ashkelon follows Canaan and Israel follows two places further on. However, the constellation Ashkelon-Canaan cannot otherwise be found in any list. The two names can only be found elsewhere in the Soleb list of Amenophis III (and in the list from Amarah-West which is dependent on it), but there they are in very different positions (Soleb: Ashkelon certainly under VIIa 5, Canaan certainly under VIa 3). Unfortunately no name reminiscent of Israel, or even a fragment of such a name, can be found there. It would be natural to compare the Berlin series of names on the Merenptah stele with the list from the 19th dynasty. Because the name of Israel is written differently, one would hardly consider the two documents to be contemporary. However, the time of Rameses II could come into consideration, not least because under his rule lists with archaising script were taken over, as in Amarah-West. This suggestion would find support from the iconography in the Temple at Karnak where a constellation of scenes can be found which appear to depict events similar to those described by the Merenptah inscription, which are probably the work of Rameses II. And just as Merenptah took over certain scenic elements from Rameses II, so perhaps Rameses II took over an older series of names perhaps from the 18th dynasty in just the same way that in Amarah-West he made use of Amenophis IIIs list from the temple of Soleb. The reading `i-( )r-il would go well with a find published and commented on by M Krebernik from the collection of personal names from Ebla of cuneiform names written I-ar-il or even I-ra-il. Should we then posit a personal name no longer restricted to a specific locality as a preliminary stage to the name of the nation Israel, or would it be better to suggest that the similar-sounding form of a regional or people-name from older times came to light in a heiroglyph version, and that then the name Israel was made first a personal name, a clan name, and then a toponym. I cannot unfortunately go into the more precise historical, geographical, and political consequences of accepting that Israel can already be found in a list of the 18th dynasty as a name (without determinative) in the proximity of Ashkelon and Canaan (see E Meyer, Die Israeliten und ihr Nachbarstmme Halle 1906 p. 224f, H Rsel, Israel in Kanaan. Zum Problem der Ersteheung Israels Frankfurt/Main 1992 p.52). Unfortunately my only purpose here is to draw attention to another Ramesside document of Israel