A Dagger Pommel, Two Scarabs and a Seal From Tomb 65 at Khirbet Nisya

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 [email protected].

This content downloaded from 165.123.34.86 on Sun, 06 Dec 2015 14:53:13 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=iaa

http://www.jstor.org/stable/23463279

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp



'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.



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]).



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



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.


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.





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



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.


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.


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]).




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.


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



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:




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.



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).




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


Petrie W.M.F., Mackay E.J.H. and Murray M.A.

1952. City of Shepherd Kings and Ancient Gaza V


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.



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.



Documents

A Dagger Pommel, Two Scarabs and a Seal From Tomb 65 at Khirbet Nisya