A new reference work on seal-amulets.

• Author: Ward, William A.

Othmar Keel's Einleitung to his forthcoming corpus of all seal-amulets discovered in Palestine is far more comprehensive than the title indicates. The book is almost breathtaking in its scope and, while it is not oriented toward evidence from Egypt itself, Keel's research is a detailed examination of just about everything one needs to know about these objects: their typology, historical development, how they were used, and what they may have meant in their own and in a foreign context. The breadth of this volume can be stated in a few statistics: Keel examines seal-amulets from Neolithic times to the Persian period, material has been gathered from over a hundred public and private collections (pp. 3-6), and the bibliography (pp. 292-360) supporting the text contains over 2,300 entries. While one may question a particular detail or theory, this is a major archaeological volume, a genuine watershed between what has appeared previously and what will appear in the future.

Establishing a corpus of seal-amulets discovered in Palestine has been the ultimate goal of Keel and his colleagues for over two decades. This is a competent and knowledgeable group of scholars, well versed in a subject the mastery of which really requires a group effort. They have collectively produced a steady stream of books and monographs, most notably the four volumes of essays dealing specifically with the seal-amulets of Palestine (Keel et al. 1985-95) and several concerned with specialized topics on both the Palestinian and Egyptian side (among others: Weise 1990 and Herrmann 1994). The structure of this volume follows the headings of the individual corpus entries: object, style of engraving, base designs, date, and so on. Within each of these categories, whole chapters are devoted to the presentation of a wealth of information. Keel's examination of the base designs, for example, takes up almost one hundred pages and his analysis of the typology of the various forms of seal-amulets almost a hundred more. We thus have at hand a genuine textbook on these objects, with the usual thorough examination we have come to expect from Keel's previous works.

One of the major themes Keel develops throughout this book is that of local production in Palestine versus the importing of Egyptian pieces. While this problem has long been noted in the literature, some truly convincing research has been done by Keel and his colleagues. Certainly, those scarabs he identifies as the Omega- and Jasper groups ([sections]54-58) were locally made, amply shown by their engraving techniques and the subject matter of their designs, at least partially drawn from the repertoire of west Asiatic cylinder seals. Local design motifs also include the "toga-wearer" ([sections]569-70), the "naked goddess" ([sections]574-76), and the figures of Baal-Hadad and Reshef ([sections]571-73). It is very difficult, in my opinion, to go much beyond such groups which, collectively, show un-Egyptian motifs or manufacturing techniques.

Keel does propose a secondary category of designs that indicate local manufacture, the mixing of Egyptian and Asiatic motifs. For example, the combination of the Horus falcon and branch or a branch or flower held by a falcon-headed figure is "totally un-Egyptian," the branch being a symbol for the Canaanite "branch-goddess" or the weather deity who renewed vegetation ([sections]62, 64, 433). Similarly, the branch is used with the Canaanite "naked goddess" motif ([section]574) and the Canaanite adaptation of the Hathor-head ([section]579). This is an interesting argument. The branch motif is not one used on Egyptian scarabs; scarabs with this symbol seem to appear only at Egyptian sites, such as Tell el-Yahudiyah and Tell Maskhuta with their obvious Asiatic connections.

The "toga-wearer" and "naked goddess" designs just noted illustrate the basic problem of "local production" that no one has as yet really solved. There is no doubt that both motifs have clear analogies in the contemporary Syrian cylinder-seal tradition and should be considered Canaanite. But these motifs are engraved on scarabs that, in all other respects - material (steatite) and the typological features of backs and sides - are precisely what one finds on scarabs made in Egypt and discovered at Egyptian sites. Keel suggests ([section]54) as a working hypothesis that the Asiatics who settled in the Delta, primarily at Tell ed-Dab a, may have brought the craft of making scarabs to Palestine where these objects have been found in such large quantities in MB IIB deposits.

The emphasis on Middle Bronze Age Tell ed-Dab a, certainly the most productive site in the Delta as far as evidence of Asiatic influence is concerned, obscures the fact that there were other contemporary sites where Asiatic influence can be seen, such as Tell el-Yahudiyah and Tell Maskhuta. While the final report on the latter has not yet appeared, Redmount's doctoral dissertation (1989) is a thorough description of the intrusive settlement. Such sites are generally considered to date to the Hyksos age, but Dever (Ward and Dever 1994: 61) has judged much of the Maskhuta pottery to be of MB IIA-IIA/B (his MB I-I/II) date. This ought to have some impact on when scarabs appeared in Palestine and whether or not they were locally manufactured there. The emphasis on Tell ed-Dab a is understandable in light of the outstanding discoveries made there, but the published chronology of the site may not be as reliable as most scholars assume (Ward and Dever 1994:74-87 and ch. 6).

There are other solutions, of course. Since there are no steatite deposits in Palestine - the overwhelming majority of scarabs found there are of this material - one must consider the importing of the raw material from Egypt where it is found in abundance. Blank scarabs, manufactured in Egypt specifically for export, could have been decorated with local motifs in Palestine, or even finished in Egypt for the export trade. One thinks also of itinerant Egyptian engravers plying their trade abroad or of Palestinian craftsmen who learned this craft. It may be that all these factors are involved. As Keel suggests, beyond the obvious evidence of local manufacture typified by his Omega- and Jasper groups, we must look at individual objects and un-Egyptian details of design to find hints that any given piece was made in Palestine.

There is another approach not generally emphasized in discussions of connections between Egypt and Palestine in this and later periods: the probability of Egyptians resident in Palestine, part of the mobile middle class. This is the stratum of society that was not tied down to a particular place and which could perform its function anywhere it chose: the professional people who were free to go where they wished, to wander about or settle temporarily or permanently in foreign places. Assyrian merchants established branch offices in Anatolia. Hittite and Mycenaean merchants lived at Ugarit. Canaanites and Hurrians went to Deir el-Medineh in Egypt to settle and work on the construction of the tombs in the Valley of the Kings. Canaanite weavers and musicians plied their professions in Egyptian households and temples. The list is long and varied. It is also a very old phenomenon, as witness the Canaanite metallurgists living at Maadi and the Egyptians at Canaanite sites at the beginning of...