ABSTRACT
Two obstacles seriously hamper the search for primary sources in the reconstruction of the history of the first kings of Israel and Judah (for the necessity in differentiating the value of historical sources in biblical historiography, cf., e.g., Knauf 1991; Uehlinger 2001: esp. 28-39). The first hindrance is the lack of any substantial information about the regnal years of the first Israelite and Judahite kings (cf. Dietrich and Münger 2003: 48-49 with further literature). The second obstruction is the fact that to date modern archaeology has not been able to find generally accepted, nonbiblically related evidence in order to date the material remains of the era in question. The following is intended to offer a possible solution for the latter problem based on a group of Egyptian stamp-seal amulets. These tiny finds are promising candidates for becoming interregional chronological pegs within the material culture of the late Iron Age I in Israel/Palestine, as they are independent of both information retrieved from the biblical texts as well as correlation of inscriptional and archaeological data (as, e.g., in the case of Arad). However, this can only happen under the premise that the accepted chronology of the Egyptian 21st and 22nd dynasties is viewed
as a valid chronological reference system (Gilboa, Sharon and Zorn 2004: 49-51; Kitchen 1996, 2000; Shortland [Chapter 4, this volume]). 2. Introduction
Among the known stamp-seal groups of the Early Iron Age, the so-called ‘(Post-Ramesside) massproduced stamp-seal amulets’ form the largest coherent glyptic class known to date. It was Sir W.M. Flinders Petrie who was the first to recognize it as a distinct group typical of the Eastern Delta in Egypt. He described such seals in the wake of the 19th century CE with the following words (Petrie 1888: 27-28, but see also Petrie 1925: 29 for an alternative dating of the stamp-seals in question):
Yet, another excavator of Tanis provided a more detailed description of the glyptics in question. The Frenchman P. Montet noted (1942: 219):
The last motif mentioned by Montet-the enthroned pharaoh with an adorant (cf. No. 30)—was analyzed much later by A. Wiese, who attributed this iconeme to the Ramesside period. Wiese also realized the great homogeneity of the group in question and concluded that such seals were presumably crafted in a mass-production process (Wiese 1990: 89-95). In a response to Wiese, O. Keel, who already previously recognized the typical iconography (Keel 1977: 153-54 with note 56 = idem, in Keel, Shuval and Uehlinger 1990: 41-42 with note 56 and an addendum on p. 272; Keel 1982: 458 with notes 179-81, updated in idem 1994: 106 with notes 179-81) questioned Wiese’s high dating of the group on the basis of the find contexts of the items from Israel/Palestine. Keel further enlarged the set of motifs substantially and elaborated on the religio-historical importance of the mass-produced stamp-seals as a primary source for the history of religions of Early Israel (Keel, in Keel, Shuval and Uehlinger 1990: 337-67 and 396-421; Keel 1994a: 1-52; see also idem 1995b: 128-29; Keel and Uehlinger 1998: §61-79 passim). Yet, by that time, the question of the group’s dating and its provenance was still unsolved. 3. Mass-produced Seals-An Overview
Mass-produced amulets can easily be isolated in the glyptic material of the Southern Levant and Egypt (in addition to the references above, the group was recognized, e.g., by Hornung and Staehelin 1976: 192 note 3; A. Mazar 1985: 18-20; Shuval, in Keel, Shuval and Uehlinger 1990: 67-161 did not separate the specific items as a distinct group). They are characterized by their coarse work, deep schematic engraving, and a clearly defined, rather poor, but highly standardized
iconographic repertoire. Such seals are often grouped with other amulet types sharing some common iconographic features. Examples are (1) ‘oval pieces with sheaf shaped handles’ made of composition-a form most typical of the 21st dynasty (1075-945 BCE) in Egypt (Keel, in Keel, Shuval and Uehlinger 1990: 355-60) as well as (2) ‘truncated pyramids’ decorated on all five sides, possibly related to the Philistine culture (Keel 1994b; A. Mazar 2000: 227-28). According to the find contexts such types, as well as exceptionally large ‘rectangular pieces’ (e.g. Timnah [South]: Schulmann in Rothenberg 1988: 137-38, Eg. cat. no. 184, 310, fig. 46.10, pl. 123.5; see also Gilboa, Sharon and Zorn 2004: fig. 1.2) and individual scarabs made of composition/faience showing similar motifs, may slightly forerun the mass-produced amulets (cf., e.g., the scarab from Tell Qasile, stratum XII, mentioned in Münger 2003: 73 note 7; it should be noted, however, that the otherwise strict distinction between items made of Enstatite and those made of composition/faience cannot be upheld regarding the lion-shaped and possibly human face scaraboids). a. Typology The shape of the seals in question is usually the scarab-in accordance with the base engraving cut on a low artistic level (the following is based on the corpus from Israel/Palestine-a representative selection is given on Plates 23.1-9-for which the necessary data are normally available; but see, e.g., Nos. 10.44-45). However, other forms like (a) rectangular or (b) round pieces with a geometrically decorated domed top are common. Fifteen rectangular pieces from Israel/Palestine are known to date. They all are comprised in Keel’s sub-type b (cf. Nos. 3, 12, 34, 37; see also Fig. 23.1:7, 8, 11, 12; cf. Keel 1995a: §229-32). Of the 8 round pieces with a domed back 6 belong to Keel’s subtype II-a simple form with a star-shaped decoration (No. 25; see also Fig. 23.1:26). A slightly more sophisticated variant-Keel’s subtype IV-with an additional barred strand pattern is represented by 2 items (cf. Keel 1995a: §196-201; note that the base engraving of those two seals are not very typical for the group; see, e.g., Fig. 23.1:29). Rarely, mass-produced amulets were used to seal bullae (e.g. Tell Keisan: Keel, in Briend and Humbert [eds.] 1980: pl. 90:26, 31; Ekron: Ben-Shlomo, forthcoming) or handles of vessels (e.g. Bethany: Saller 1953: 23-24, fig. 10; Jericho: Sellin and Watzinger 1913: 157 with pl. 42-43). Amulets in the shape of (c) a recumbent lion (Nos. 18, 19, 22, 26, 31; cf. Keel 1995a: §159-61; note that Brandl, in Keel 1997 [Achsib no. 125 = No. 18] assumes a non-Egyptian production, dating to the 9th century BCE, for some of these seals; however, the iconography is indistinguishable from the mass-produced glyptic) or (d) a striding ibex (No. 14; cf. Keel 1995a: §147) are attested rather rarely: 13 and 1, respectively. (e) Human face scaraboids (Keel 1995a: §170) bearing motifs typical of the mass-produced items are missing completely from the material found in legal excavations in Israel/Palestine (but cf. Keel in Briend and Humbert [eds.] 1980: 265 fig. 72 for an item allegedly coming from Ta‘anach; a specimen which is said to come from the area of Zagazig in the Egyptian delta is No. 17; human headed scarabs are typical elements in the Egyptian iconography of the 21st dynasty encountered on coffins and papyri, cf. Niwiski 2000: fig. 11a; note that a human face scaraboid from Tell Qasile found in an ambiguous context does not have a base engraving characteristic for the group discussed here, cf. B. Mazar 1951: pl. 35D; A. Mazar 1986: 12 note 14). (f) Regarding the scarabs it has to be stated that no clear-cut typology can be offered (see also Wiese 1990: 92 types b-d and f-h; a similar situation can be found, e.g., in the group of the ‘rectangular stylized enthroned figure’ [cf. Keel 1995a: §68]). Generally, the scarab amulets are very clumsily carved without paying attention to a naturalistic rendering of the dung beetle itself. Nevertheless, a few typological outlines can be traced. Vis-à-vis the shaping of the head and the back, three main groups can be discerned (note that information on the scarab shape is available only for 140 out of more than 180 mass-produced scarabs found in Israel/Palestine). See note on catalogue at the end of this chapter.
