On the Amenhotep III Inscribed Faience Fragments from MycenaeAuthor(s): Christine LilyquistSource: Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 119, No. 2 (Apr. - Jun., 1999), pp. 303-308Published by: American Oriental SocietyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/606114 .

Accessed: 21/06/2014 13:35

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 ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

American Oriental Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal ofthe American Oriental Society.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.141 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 13:35:18 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

BRIEF COMMUNICATIONS

On the Amenhotep III Inscribed Faience Fragments from Mycenae

Faience fragments with Egyptian hieroglyphs found at Mycenae between 1886 and 1969 are cur- rently seen as Egyptian-made royal gifts from the time of Amenhotep III (1391-1353 B.c.). How- ever, comparisons of objects from Egypt do not offer precise parallels, and limited scientific analyses of the Mycenae fragments support non-Egyptian manufacture. With function and manufacturing place of the fragments questioned, and the accessibility of all items for comparative study difficult, this article cautions against their casual use in theories of trade and gift exchange.

Faience fragments excavated by Chrestos Tsountas, George Mylonas, and William Taylour at Mycenae and mostly inscribed with Egyptian hieroglyphs have elicited particular interest during the past twenty years as trade and economy became major areas of interest. Wolfgang Helck suggested that the fragments once decorated an Egyptian room at the site (1979: 96f.). Vronwy Hankey thought that they were brought by official visitors from Egypt who returned (to Amarna) with Mycenaean pot- tery (1980: 45f.). Eric Cline stated that they were surely foundation deposit bricks, part of a larger royal gift that had implications for international economy (1987; 1990; 1994: 38-42, 143 nos. 96-99; 1995: 147). Cline identified eleven fragments representing six to nine bricks, up from the four Hankey had proposed. He was allowed to examine all eleven and postulated that-al- though now white with touches of green-they were orig- inally blue or green (like Egyptian faience usually is), inscribed in black.' Cline measured the width of two frag- ments at about 11 cm, and averaged the various thick- nesses to 1.5 cm. According to Cline, ten of the eleven fragments had Egyptian hieroglyphs or framing lines on both sides, giving the nomen and prenomen of Amenho- tep III.2 An original length could not be estimated, as no more than three edges were preserved on any one frag- ment. However, one fragment ("T") indicated that the names were continuous in one column, with the epithet "given life" at its end, making plaques about 20 cm long.3

1 Cline had good access to the Taylour fragments, but those of Tsountas were to be published by Pericles A. Kourachanis, cu- rator at the National Museum until his untimely death in 1989. I have no information on the study or publication plans of the

Mylonas fragments. 2 Although no fragment gave both the prenomen and nomen

of this ruler, I believe it likely that the names refer to him. 3 The inscription "good god, (Maat-ka-Ra)" is not complete,

and the reconstruction in Cline 1993: fig. 3, with the inscription

Cline reported that the signs on some fragments faced right on each side, but that on others they faced right on one side and left on the other. He thus postulated that at least two groups of plaques were represented.

Seven of the fragments Cline discusses are currently exhibited in front of a mirror in the National Museum, Athens. It appears to me from this vantage point that at least four plaques are represented: two where the hiero- glyphs face right on both obverse and reverse,4 and two where they face right on one surface but left on the other.5 The preserved inscription on both surfaces appears to be identical. Quality of inscribed line, plaque thickness, un- glazed partially blackened edges, white to pink glaze, and brown fabric are features that tie all seven fragments together. Photographs of the Mylonas and Taylour frag- ments indicate differences of paleography, but general layout and Cline's measurements indicate that all eleven should be considered together.6

The comparison of the Mycenae fragments to Egyp- tian foundation deposit bricks as put forward by Hankey and Cline following Geoffrey Martin (Hankey 1980) is

running over two superimposed 10 x 10 cm plaques, would not satisfy the Egyptian's love of balance and completeness.

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

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

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

303

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.141 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 13:35:18 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Journal of the American Oriental Society 119.2 (1999)

superficially apt, although I have found only one Amen- hotep III brick for comparison (Weinstein 1973: 215 no. 72).7 During the Eighteenth Dynasty, these bricks in Egypt are usually of faience (Weinstein 1973: 126f.), and the example of Amenhotep III from Abydos has similar dimensions (19.7 x 10.5 x 1.2 cm) to Cline's re- construction, the large size being a feature that contin- ued into the Ramesside period (Weinstein 1973: 141). Furthermore, I believe the Athens fragments show good Egyptian paleography.

However, the columnar inscription on the Egyptian bricks is generally on one face.8 It gives the prenomen of the ruler who constructed the monument as well as the name of the god to whom it was dedicated. Such bricks were used in a ceremony before construction (Weinstein 1973: 5-16; Letellier 1977); an example of Tuthmosis III is illustrated as fig. 1 (14.4 x 7.5 x 1.1 cm; Weinstein 1973: 195 no. 52b): "the good god (men-heper-Ra) be- loved of Osiris."

In contrast, the Athens/Nauplion/British fragments show-as far as they are preserved-an inscription on both sides that is identical in content (differing sometimes only in sign orientation), give both prenomen and nomen, and lack mention of a deity. Cline's favored reconstruction would read, "good god, (neb-Maat-Ra) son of Ra (Imen- hetep heka-Waset) given life." It is also notable that the core of these fragments is quite dark. While a brownish matrix is known in Egyptian faience, and even common according to Kaczmarczyk and Hedges (1983: 188-99), this fabric is darker than I would expect during the high- quality production period of Amenhotep III.

I have found one Egyptian exception to the usual in-

scription, i.e., a faience foundation brick of Horemheb (1323-1295 B.c.) where a god is not mentioned: "good god (deser-heperu-Ra setep-en-Ra) given life forever" (Azim 1982: 98; 9.2 x 4.8 x 3.6 cm, no frame lines). An- other exception is a class of large faience bricks of Ram-

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

8 Inscriptions on small scarab-sized plaques are not appropri- ate to cite in this discussion. Such small cartouche-shaped plaques were made for foundation deposits from the reign of Tuthmosis IV into the Ramesside period. Usually of stone, fai-

ence, or glass, they are considered model bricks. With nomen or

prenomen present (rather than the names with an epithet or wish for life), and usually the size of a scarab-often pierced longi- tudinally-they are more like amulets than bricks. Examples are the plaque with Amenhotep III's name from Tell Hariri (cited by Cline as "Mari," 1990: 205 n. 23), and the "Ramesses I" amulet from Beth Shean (not included in Weinstein 1973: lxxi).

esses II (1279-1213 B.c.) where nomen and prenomen face each other on both sides, a band of inscription around the edges (Weinstein 1973: 244-47).9

I have also found several bricks where a part of the inscription faces left:

Six of twelve faience bricks inscribed on one face for Amenhotep II (1427-1400 B.c.), averaging 14.65 x 8.2 x 1.37 cm; from the art market, each brick with a ver- tical framed inscription. The word mry, "beloved [of]," faces left on the six bricks mentioning Hauron but right on the six mentioning Horakhty. I believe the abnormal writing concerns the place of Hauron's veneration in the temple (Lilyquist, in press);

One of seven faience bricks from deposit 5 at the funer- ary temple of Aye (1327-1323 B.c.) where almost all signs face left to read, "good god, lord of the two lands (heper-heperu-Ra iry-Maat) son of Ra (it-neter Aye neter-heka-Waset) beloved of Amun lord of heaven" (Hoelscher 1937: pl. 33; Hoelscher 1939: 85, 91 no. f, pl. 54e; Cairo JdE 60058; 15.5 x 7 x 2.3 cm);

A large limestone brick from the funerary temple of

Sety I (1294-1279 B.c.) naming Sety's father Ram- esses I, wherein the nomen and prenomen are placed side by side but each oriented outward rather than in- ward (Stadelmann 1977);10

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

A small faience plaque naming Ramesses II from Aphek, possibly a model brick, with two columns on each face: a reference to a deity is in the leftmost columns

(facing right), and the nomen and the prenomen are in the rightmost columns (facing left; Weinstein 1981: 19f.; Giveon 1978; Giveon in Kochavi 1990: xiv no.

2, 30 no. 2; [3.8] x 2.3 x 0.4 cm).12

However, I can find no parallel for the global orienta- tion of the Mycenae fragments' inscriptions, nor can I

propose a reason for it. Helck's reconstruction of the frag-

9 An example is MMA 28.9.1, Weinstein 1973: 255 B; 35 x

18 x 7 cm. 10 Note that faience bricks from this deposit with the pre-

nomen of Sety I face right; fig. 81 in Schulz and Sourouzian 1997 has been reversed.

1 MMA 17.194.2333. 12 Weinstein understood the object as a model brick but

doubted that it commemorated a building in Palestine on the basis of context (assigned to the upper floor of a Ramesside

304

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.141 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 13:35:18 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

LILYQUIST: On the Amenhotep III Inscribed Faience Fragments from Mycenae

ments around a doorway or window would have allowed all signs to be directed towards one opening (1979: 96f.), but the thinness of the fragments-averaging 1.5 cm- obviates this usage. The orientation of hieroglyphs in Egyptian inscriptions is generally to the right; if to the left, a reason can often be discovered (Fischer 1977). I see no apparent reason for the orientation of these inscrip- tions. And, in fact, none of the deviations on foundation bricks cited above combines to parallel the inscriptions on the Mycenae fragments. Nor do other types of faience plaques from Egypt offer clues to the meaning of the Mycenae fragments. Several Egyptian plaques have fig- ural drawings on one side, the back glazed or unglazed (Hayes 1959; Sowada 1996); and some are appliques with floral and geometric motifs or hieroglyphs on one side, used to decorate surfaces (Verner 1995; Borchardt 1909: 56-67). But they are not comparable.

Could the Mycenae fragments have been part of labels for gifts, as Weinstein (1990) suggested? I doubt this possibility on the basis of their quantity, their thinness as related to their projected size, and the lack of evidence for such objects within Egyptian culture. Certainly they could not have been tied to objects, as in the modern con- cept of gift tags. Of course, one could postulate that they were made only for export and therefore have no paral- lels from Egypt. By and large, there is no internal evi- dence of an export industry in Egypt, and one would expect the Egyptians simply to use fine versions of ob- jects known within their own culture for gifts.

Other possible explanations could be raised, such as that the evidence from Egypt is incomplete. Amenho- tep III had a mammoth building program (Bryan 1992) but foundation deposits have not been recovered. How- ever, the fifteenth century and first third of the four- teenth yielded more foundation deposits than any other period (Weinstein 1973: 92), and one must accept that the Mycenae fragments are an anomaly among them.

One could also ask whether second- or third-rate items could not have been exported from Egypt. This too is pos- sible, and we know that royal workshops produced poor or poorly inscribed items (Lilyquist 1988: 29). After re- studying the Katsamba Tuthmosis III-inscribed amphora recently (Cline 1994: no. 742), I feel this vessel fits into

governor's residence but found in a later context), the deity mentioned (Isis?), and location cited (Dendera?).According to information kindly supplied by Katie Demakopoulou, the boo- merang is "from Egypt" and the remainder of objects selected by Kourachanis is from collections gathered in Egypt and given in 1880 and 1904. On the Egyptian collection in Athens, see National Archaeological Museum 1995.

such a category. But the issue here is not quality so much as iconography and technology. In other words, without being able to find parallels for the faience objects in Egyptian society, it is imprudent to theorize about their importance to Egyptians. If Egyptian-made, they may have had little more importance than the scarabs and other minor objects found at Mycenae.

Just as archaeological comparisons do not connect the Mycenae fragments neatly to Egypt, neither do current scientific analyses. The core of one fragment was in- cluded in a study of Mycenae- and Egypt-sourced faience items in the National Museum, Athens (Andreopoulou- Mangou 1988).13 Only major constituent elements were reported, but four of the six Egyptian objects had ele- vated iron levels and the Mycenaean fragment did not. The significance of this finding is unclear, as the iron lev- els far outdistance those reported by Kaczmarczyk and Hedges for Egyptian faience (1983: 185-220). More re- vealing was a sample of glaze from the largest Taylour fragment analyzed by R. H. Brill. Brill linked the lead to his Laurion rather than Egyptian field (Lilyquist and Brill 1993: 61 n. 10). In the face of this analysis, Cline postu- lated, as the most reasonable explanation, that the plaques had been made in Egypt with lead imported from Laurion (Cline 1990: 209f.). And indeed, Z. Stos-Gale and col- leagues have linked lead in metal objects excavated at Tell el-Amarna with Laurion-field lead (Stos-Gale et al. 1995). There is current discussion of "fields," "overlap," and "mixing" in the interpretation of isotope data from metals (JMA 1995) as well as from glass (El-Goresy et al., in press), a chief limitation being the paucity of Egyptian ore data available. But Tite is surely right in saying that the tool is useful (1996). In my view, it is not impossible that the Stos-Gale Amarna-found objects (silver bracelet; lead bar, net sinker, and weight fill) were imported into Egypt.14 Likewise, it is not impossible that the Mycenae fragments were locally made, considering their unusual inscriptions, the Brill data, the possibility that the white-colored glaze-a characteristic more of Aegean than of Egyptian faience (Andreopoulou-Mangou 1988)-reflects their original color as much as being the

13 According to information kindly supplied by Katie Dema- kopoulou, the boomerang is "from Egypt" and the remainder of objects selected by Kourachanis is from collections gathered in Egypt and given in 1880 and 1904. On the Egyptian collection in Athens, see National Archaeological Museum 1995.

14 The net sinker is the only item one would think must be domestic, but the Abydos tomb D 199 from where it came has other foreign-type objects: Randall-MacIver and Mace 1902: 102; Patch 1990: nos. 25b, 27f, 33b-c.

305

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.141 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 13:35:18 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Journal of the American Oriental Society 119.2 (1999)

result of fire, and their core-as perceived in unblack- ened Athens fragments-is more brown than expected.

On present evidence then, the Mycenae fragments do not parallel Eighteenth Dynasty Egyptian models except in respect to the paleography of the Athens fragments, and this could be explained by the presence of an Egyp- tian scribe on the Greek mainland. In my opinion, the question must therefore be raised as to whether the items are local products, a postulation to be considered along with the theory that they are Egyptian.

Could they not be comparable to the frescos at Tell el- Dabca and Kabri that use the iconography of the Minoan elite? In discussing the DabCa/Kabri frescoes, S. Man- ning has referred to an eastern Mediterranean and Ae- gean koine operating to express an ideology (Manning 1996). I would suggest that Egypt was of interest to Crete and Mycenae-either directly or through the Le- vant-to the extent that manufactured goods were desir- able, even if not original. Such interest could lie behind the many stone vessels whose shape, proportions, and manufacturing techniques do not match Egyptian exam- ples (Lilyquist 1996), the star-inscribed scarab from Sel- lopoulo tomb 4 (Manning 1995: 227; Lilyquist 1996: 146 n. 120) and even the faience plaque from Aphek.'5 In other words, the identity of maker and the place of manu- facture are blurred.

Interrelations between Egypt and the Levant (Helck 1971) are better documented than those between Egypt and the Aegean (Helck 1975, 1979). But even in the east- ern Mediterranean arena it is sometimes difficult to know where a feature originates, the interchange being so fluid. Numerous West Semitic words entered the Egyptian language at this period (Hoch 1994), and the Egyptian material culture shows so much eastern influence that Eliezer Oren has used the term "Canaanization of Egypt" (personal communication, February 1989). Granted, there

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

is less varied and extensive archaeological evidence of Egyptian style in the Aegean than in the Levant (Wein- stein 1995) and very little linguistic evidence of inter- relation;'6 but, no matter how directly influenced, there are now Minoan-type frescoes at Dabca and Mycenaean- derived iconography in a papyrus from Amarna (Scho- field and Parkinson 1994).

These comments and impressions do not claim to solve the provenance or function of the Mycenae faience frag- ments. I believe that Egyptian goods did reach the Ae- gean, among which I would put the Khian lid and User statuette found on Crete, and the Prosymna scarab found on the mainland (Cline 1994: nos. 121, 680). These are comparable, I would think, to the Near Eastern glass fe- male and disk pendants, metal Reshef figures, and stone cylinder seals that were found on the mainland (Cline 1994: nos. 16-17, 69, 100, 180). Also, Amenhotep III's name was present on objects found on the mainland. But the objects found do not appear to have had great value in Egypt, Aegean-Levantine trade did occur, and work- shops outside Egypt making "Egyptian" objects did ex- ist, as Othmar Keel convinced William Ward as regards scarabs found in Palestine (Ward 1997). Let us be cau- tious in assuming the Egyptian origin of the Mycenae fragments and in promoting a meaning for them until

Egyptian parallels are found, the Mycenae fragments are analyzed, or a comprehensive first-hand study brings substantial clarification.

CHRISTINE LILYQUIST THE METROPOLITAN MUSEUM OF ART

16 For Egyptian linguistic evidence in the Aegean, see Du- houx 1988: 78; Palaima 1991: 280; Cline 1994: 35. For Aegean evidence in Egypt, see Helck 1975: 72f. James Hoch states that there are a number of words that could be investigated for lin-

guistic interconnection but, to date, little attention has been paid to the possibility (personal communication, 4 May 1995).

REFERENCES

Andreopoulou-Mangou, E. 1988. Chemical Analysis of Faience

Objects in the National Archaeological Museum. In New As-

pects of Archaeological Science in Greece, ed. R. E. Jones and H. W. Catling. Pp. 215-18. Occasional Paper of the Fitch Laboratory, no. 3. Athens: British School at Athens.

Azim, Michel. 1982. D6couverte de d6p6ts de fondation d'Ho- remheb au IXe pyl6ne de Karnak. In Cahiers de Karnak VII

1978-1981. Pp. 93-120. Paris: tditions Recherche sur les

Civilisations (for the Centre franco-6gyptien d'6tude des

temples de Karnak). Borchardt, Ludwig. 1909. Das Grabdenkmal des Konigs Nefer-

ir-ke,-rc. Ausgrabungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft in Abusir 1902-1908, vol. 5. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs.

Bryan, Betsy M. 1992. Designing the Cosmos: Temples and

Temple Decoration. In Egypt's Dazzling Sun: Amenhotep III

and His World, eds. Arielle P. Kozloff and Betsy M. Bryan,

306

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.141 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 13:35:18 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

LILYQUIST: On the Amenhotep III Inscribed Faience Fragments from Mycenae

with Lawrence M. Berman. Pp. 73-124. Cleveland: The

Museum, in cooperation with Indiana University. Cline, Eric. 1987. Amenhotep III and the Aegean: A Reassess-

ment of Egypto-Aegean Relations in the 14th Century B.C. Orientalia 56: 1-37.

.1990. An Unpublished Amenhotep III Faience Plaque from Mycenae. JAOS 110: 200-212.

.1994. Sailing the Wine-Dark Sea: International Trade and the Late Bronze Age Aegean. BAR International, vol. 591. Oxford: Tempus Repartum.

.1995. "My Brother, My Son": Rulership and Trade between the LBA Aegean, Egypt and the Near East. In The Role of the Ruler in the Prehistoric Aegean, ed. Paul Rehak.

Pp. 143-50. Aegaeum 11. Proceedings of a Panel Discus- sion Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Archaeological Institute of America, New Orleans, Louisiana, 29 Decem- ber 1992, with Additions. Liege: Univ. de Liege.

Day, P. M. 1996. Review of A. Bernard Knapp and John F

Cherry, Provenience Studies and Bronze Age Cyprus: Pro- duction, Exchange and Politico-Economic Change (Madi- son, Wisc.: Prehistoric Press, 1994). In Antiquity 60: 269

(September): 718f.

Duhoux, Yves. 1988. Les contacts entre Myc6niens et barbares

d'apres le vocabulaire du Lin6aire B. Minos, n.s., 23: 75-83.

El-Goresy, A.; F Tera; B. Schlick-Nolte; and E. Pernicka. In

press. Chemistry and Lead Isotopic Compositions of Glass from a Ramesside Workshop at Lisht and Egyptian Lead Ores: A Test for a Genetic Link and for the Source of Glass.

Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress of Egyp- tologists.

Fischer, Henry G. 1977. The Orientation of Hieroglyphs, part I: Reversals. Egyptian Studies, no. 2. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art.

Giveon, Raphael. 1978. Two Unique Egyptian Inscriptions from Tel Aphek. Tel Aviv 5: 188-91.

Hankey, Vronwy. 1980. The Aegean Interest in El Amarna. Journal of Mediterranean Anthropology and Archaeology 1: 38-49.

Hayes, William C. 1959. The Scepter of Egypt: A Background for the Study of the Egyptian Antiquities in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, part II: The Hyksos Period and the New

Kingdom (1675-1080 B.C.). Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press.

Helck, Wolfgang, 1971. Die Beziehungen Agyptens zu Vor- derasien im 3. und 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr., rev. ed. Agypto- logische Abhandlungen, vol. 5. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

. 1975. Agais und Agypten. In Lexikon derAgyptologie, I, ed. Wolfgang Helck and Wolfhart Westendorff. Pp. 72f. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

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

Hoch, James. 1994. Semitic Words in Egyptian Texts of the New

Kingdom and Third Intermediate Period. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press.

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

Chicago: Oriental Institute. .1939. The Temples of the Eighteenth Dynasty. Exca-

vation of Medinet Habu, vol. 2; Oriental Institute Publica- tions, vol. 41. Chicago: Oriental Institute.

Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology. 1995. Special Section, Lead Isotope Analysis and the Mediterranean Metals Trade. JMA 8.1 (June): 1-75.

Kaczmarczyk, A., and R. E. M. Hedges. 1983. Ancient Egyptian Faience: An Analytical Survey of Egyptian Faience from Predynastic to Roman Times. Warminster: Aris and Phillips.

Kochavi, Moshe. 1990. Aphek in Canaan: The Egyptian Gov- ernor's Residence and its Finds. Exhibition catalog. Jerusa- lem: Israel Museum.

Letellier, Bernadette. 1977. Grindungsbeigabe. Lexikon der

Agyptologie, II, ed. Wolfgang Helck and Wolfhart Westen- dorf. Pp. 906-12. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Lilyquist, C. 1988. The gold bowl naming General Djehuty: A

study of objects and early Egyptology. Metropolitan Mu- seum Journal 23: 5-68.

.1995. Egyptian Stone Vessels: Khian through Tuth- mosis IV New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art.

.1996. Stone Vessels at Kamid el Loz: Egyptian, Egyptianizing, or non-Egyptian? A Question at Sites from the Sudan to Iraq to the Greek Mainland. In Kamid el-Loz 16: Schatzhaus Studien, ed. Rolf Hachmann. Saarbriicker

Beitrage zur Altertumskunde, 59. Pp. 133-73. Bonn: Ru- dolf Habelt.

.In press. On the Appearance of Hauron in Egypt. Journal of the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiqui- ties 24.

Lilyquist, C., and R. H. Brill. 1993. Studies in Early Egyptian Glass. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art.

Manning, S. W. 1995. The Absolute Chronology of the Aegean Early Bronze Age: Archaeology, Radiocarbon, and History. Monographs in Mediterranean Archaeology, vol. 1. Sheffield: Sheffield; Academic Press.

.1996. Dating the Aegean Bronze Age: Without, With, and Beyond? Radiocarbon. Acta Archaeologica 67: 15-37.

McGovern, P E.; S. J. Fleming; and C. P. Swann. 1993. The Late Bronze Egyptian Garrison at Beth Shan: Glass and Faience Production in the Late New Kingdom. BASOR 290-91: 1-27.

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

Palaima, Thomas G. 1991. Maritime Matters in the Linear B Tablets. In Thalassa: L'tge'e prehistorique et la mer,

307

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.141 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 13:35:18 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Journal of the American Oriental Society 119.2 (1999)

ed. Robert Laffineur and Lucien Basch. Pp. 273-310.

Aegaeum 7. Actes de la troisieme Rencontre 6egenne inter- nationale de l'Universit6 de Liege, Station de recherches sous-marines et oc6anographiques, Calvi, Corse (23-25 avril 1990). Liege: Univ. de Liege.

Patch, Diana Craig. 1990. Reflections of Greatness: Ancient

Egypt at the Carnegie Museum of Natural History. Pitts-

burgh: The Museum.

Randall-MacIver, D., and A. C. Mace. 1902. El Amrah and Aby- dos 1899-1901. London: Egypt Exploration Fund.

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

Schulz, Regine, and Hourig Sourouzian. 1997. Die Tempel. Konigliche Gotter und g6ttliche Konige. In Agypten, Die Welt der Pharaonen, ed. Regine Schulz and Matthias Seidel.

Pp. 152-215. Cologne: Konemann.

Sowada, Karin. 1996. Egyptian Treasures in the Nicholson

Museum, Sydney. Egyptian Archaeology 8: 19-22.

Stadelmann, Rainer. 1977. Der Tempel Sethos I in Gurna: Drit- ter Grabungsbericht. Mitteilungen des Deutschen archiiolo-

gischen Institut Kairo 33: 125-31.

Stos-Gale; Zophia; Noel Gale; and Judy Houghton. 1995. The

Origin of Egyptian Copper: Lead-Isotope Analysis of Metals

from el-Amama. In Egypt, the Aegean and the Levant: Inter- connections in the Second Millennium B.C., ed. W. Vivian Davies and Louise Schofield. Pp. 127-35. London: British Museum.

Tite, Michael. 1996. In Defense of Lead Isotope Analysis. An-

tiquity 70: 959-62.

Verner, Miroslav. 1995. Forgotten Pyramids, Temples and Tombs of Abusir. Egyptian Archaeology 7: 19-22.

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

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

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

.1990. Trade and Empire: Egypt and the Eastern Med- iterranean World in the 14th Century B.C.E. Charles and Elizabeth Holman Symposium on Ancient Egypt, 2 March

1990, Fordham University, New York City. .1995. Review of Eric Cline, Sailing the Wine-Dark Sea

(Oxford: Tempus Repartum, 1994), BASOR 297: 89-91.

308

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.141 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 13:35:18 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions