BRIEF COMMUNICATIONS: On the Amenhotep III Inscribed Faience Fragments from Mycenae.

• Author: Lilyquist, Christine

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 pottery (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 - although now white with touches of green - they were originally blue or green (like Egyptian faience usually is), inscribed in black.(1) Cline measured the width of two fragments at about 11 cm, and averaged the various thicknesses 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 Amenhotep III.(2) An original length could not be estimated, as no more than three edges were preserved on any one fragment. 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) 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 hieroglyphs 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, unglazed partially blackened edges, white to pink glaze, and brown fabric are features that tie all seven fragments together. Photographs of the Mylonas and Taylour fragments 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 Egyptian foundation deposit bricks as put forward by Hankey and Cline following Geoffrey Martin (Hankey 1980) is superficially apt, although I have found only one Amenhotep 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 reconstruction, the large size being a feature that continued 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) beloved 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 (Imenhetep 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 inscription, 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). Another exception is a class of large faience bricks of Ramesses 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 vertical 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 funerary 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 Ramesses I, wherein the nomen and prenomen are...