Offprint from/Sonderdruck aus:

Jana Mynářová (ed.),

Egypt and the Near East – the Crossroads.
Proceedings of an International Conference on the Relations of Egypt and the
Near East in the Bronze Age, Prague, September 1-3,
3, 2010
Prague: Charles University in Prague, Czech Institute of Egyptology

−40)
(pg. 21−
A “Hyksos Connection”? Thoughts on the Date of Dispatch
of Some of the Middle Kingdom Objects Found
in the Northern Levant

Alexander Ahrens*

INTRODUCTION
The presence of Middle Kingdom Egyptian statuary and other inscribed
Egyptian objects found in the Levant has been – and still is – the subject of much
controversy. In the early days of Levantine Archaeology as well as Egyptology,
these Egyptian objects were used to synchronise and connect the Egyptian
chronology with the, at that time still largely unknown, regional chronologies of
the Levant. They were therefore perceived to be a secure means of establishing
absolute dates for their find contexts (Schaeffer 1932: 19), primarily based on the
almost axiomatic assumption that they once were part of an existing gift exchange
that took place between the Egyptian kings named on the objects and the Levan-
tine rulers, or even served as archaeological proof of an alleged Egyptian empire
in the Levant during the Middle Kingdom (Albright 1959: 33; Redford 1992: 76).
The seminal studies by Weinstein (1974; id. 1975) and Helck (19712; id. 1976) pre-
sented a completely different approach to the statues’ presence in the Levant and
proposed a revised date for their dispatch from Egypt. According to Weinstein and
Helck, most of the Egyptian statuary found in the Levant arrived there only later,
i.e. during the Second Intermediate Period when statues and other inscribed objects
dating to the Middle Kingdom were looted from temples, cultic installations and
tombs alike.1 Weinstein’s as well as Helck’s argumentation was based on the
inscriptions of these statues – linking the titles, names, toponyms, or gods and their
associated cults mentioned in the inscriptions with the place of their original pres-
ence in Egypt – and the date of the objects’ find contexts in the Levant.
Evidence of a dispatch of Middle Kingdom statuary and other inscribed ob-
jects2 to the Levant during the Second Intermediate Period may now be supported

* I sincerely thank J. Mynářová for organising the interesting and fruitful workshop, and also
for accepting a paper from me that was not actually part of my presentations at Prague.
1
At that time, a similar scenario concerning Egyptian objects found in the Aegean had also been
put forward by Leon Pomerance (Pomerance 1974).
2
The Middle Kingdom is generally believed to comprise the 12th and early 13th Dynasties until
the reign of Merneferre Aya, the late 13th Dynasty thus being considered part of the Second
Intermediate Period. Recent research claims that the Second Intermediate Period did not start
earlier than the very end of the 13th Dynasty, see Marée (2010: XIII–XIV).

21
A “Hyksos Connection”?

by new archaeological evidence from both Egypt and the northern Levant. While
it is out of scope of the present article to cover all objects dating to the Middle
Kingdom that were found at various sites in the Levant, a compilation of some
Egyptian finds from the site of Tell Mishrife (Qatna) may suffice to emphasise the
chronological and historical implications of the present argument.

THE REGION OF THE FAYUM AND MEMPHIS

The region of the Fayum, including the greater region of Memphis to the
north, attracted particular royal attention during the Middle Kingdom. The region
was the main burial ground for the Middle Kingdom rulers, their families and
their related court officials, as well as the prominent place of the rulers’ palaces
and cultic temples. It is also clear from the archaeological record that most of the
royal pyramid precincts and associated tombs in the region dating to the Middle
Kingdom were plundered in antiquity. The same seems to hold true for the cultic
installations and temples located there (Ryholt 1997: 133; id. 1998: 2–3). Difficulties
and questions remain as to when exactly these lootings occurred, although for
some of the burials in question first lootings within the Second Intermediate
Period seem most likely (Arnold 2002: 43; id. 2006: 24–29; Bader 2009: 40–42,
703–706; Ahrens 2010: 21–23). Unknown so far are the mechanisms behind these
lootings and where the objects were then transported.

AVARIS (TELL EL-DABcA AND VICINITY)

As early as the end of the 19th century, fragments of Middle Kingdom statuary
were discovered in the region of what was only later to be historically and archae-
ologically identified as the Hyksos capital Avaris in the eastern Nile Delta. One
of the first excavators to work in this region, Édouard Naville, while excavating
in the vicinity of Tell el-Birka (today known as Tell el-Dabca) in 1885, discovered
a fragmented sphinx of Queen Sobekneferu of the late 12th Dynasty in one of his
sondages (Naville 1887: 21–22, pl. 9c; Habachi 2001: 28, 167–168, cat.-no. 8, Tell
A/Tell el-Birka). Close to Khatac na, Naville also found a statue of the “Royal Con-
sort and King’s Mother” Senet of the 12th Dynasty (Naville 1887: 22, pl. 9b; Habachi
2001: 169–170, Fig. 22, cat.-no. 13). A second statue of this queen (or maybe a dif-
ferent one with the same name?) with a similar inscription is said to have come
from Tell el-Filus (Habachi 2001: 169, Fig. 22, cat.-no. 12). The statues’ inscriptions
both point towards a funerary context.
In 1941–42, Egyptian Egyptologist Labib Habachi published – among other
objects of Middle Kingdom date – three fragmented statues of Queen Sobekneferu
as well as a statue of the early 13th Dynasty ruler Hotepibre3, which were found at
Tell el-Dabca in the region of Khatac na–Qantir in 1942, close to where Naville had

22
 A “Hyksos Connection”?

found Queen Sobekneferu’s sphinx (Habachi 1954: 462; Bietak 1968: 81–85;
Habachi 2001: 33–34, pls. 13–15, cat.-nos. 9–11, 17, also 154–155, fig. 15). The
statues’ inscriptions refer to gods and cults located in the region of the Fayum and
Memphis, among them the gods Sobek of Shedet and Ptah of Memphis, i.e. “Ptah-
South-of-his-Wall” (Figs. 1–2).4 Habachi, however, concluded that the inscriptions
that mention the god Sobek refer to a local form of the god, which must have been
centered at Avaris (Habachi 1954: 458–461).5 In the inscriptions, the god Sobek is
referred to as “the Fayumite, the Horus residing in the Fayum, the one of Khen-
teshe-en-pr‘a” (xnty.w-S-n-pr-aA).6 This specific and enigmatic reference is hitherto
only attested once. However, no explicit link between the god Sobek mentioned
in these inscriptions and Avaris has in fact been established. Rather, a more direct
connection to the royal sphere and the god’s cult seems to be indicated. This
would then more likely point towards the palace of the king – and the main tem-
ple of the god Sobek – located in the capital Ity-tawy in the Fayum. Therefore, the
statues are likely to have originally come from the Fayum and Memphis, rather
than Avaris (Kees 1962: 3; Ryholt 1997: 133–135; Habachi 2001: 153–158).7 With
reasonable certainty, they were moved to their findspot only later, most probably
during the Second Intermediate Period when the region became the new capital
of the Hyksos rulers and the older Middle Kingdom capital – located in the
Fayum-Memphite area – was looted (Ryholt 1998: 2–3).8 Additionally, several
sphinxes of middle and late 12th Dynasty kings (spanning kings Amenemhat II –
Amenemhat III) and other statuary from the Middle Kingdom – known today in
Egyptology as the so-called “Hyksos Monuments” (a term coined by Auguste Ma-

3
An enigmatic mace of uncertain origin with the name of this king has been found in the late
Middle Bronze Age “Tomb of the Lord of the Goats” at Tell Mardikh (Ebla), see Scandone
Matthiae (1979); Ryholt (1998).
4
Also a lid made of obsidian mentioning the god Min of Memphis (“Lord of Skrjj.t”) has been
found at Tell el-Dabca, see Czerny (2006: 81–86). The lid may date to the Middle Kingdom and
originally may have come from a tomb.
5
Habachi’s interpretation is still followed by Leitz (2002: 263) who also locates the cult of this
god at Tell el-Dabca.
6
Literally meaning “he who is in front of the pool of the Palace.” Habachi (1954: 467–469) actu-
ally found the statues close to a depression in the ground, and – since the objects were also
found at Tell el-Birka (lit. meaning “Mount of the pool”) –, he therefore concluded that the stat-
ues were still standing in the vicinity of the remains of an ancient pool and thus were found in
situ; see Bietak (1968: 81, fig. 1). Furthermore, a huge building (the palace?) and Hyksos period
tombs were also discovered in the vicinity of these statues, see Habachi (1954: 458; id. 2001:
33–35, 156).
7
Interestingly, a fragmented statue of a certain Princess Sobekneferu (probably to be identified
with the later Queen Sobekneferu) was found at Gezer in southern Palestine. Unfortunately
though, the find context of the statue at Gezer cannot provide definite answers as to when the
statue reached the site, see Weinstein (1973).
8
The fact that also a pyramidion of King Merneferre Aya (13th Dynasty) was found at Faqûs/
c
Ezbet Rushdi may also argue for the lootings (Habachi 1954: 471–475, pl. XVI). It is unlikely
that the pyramid was actually located in the Nile Delta. A much more likely place would be
the Fayum–Memphite region, see also von Beckerath (1964: 73); Habachi (2001: 157, 172–173,
cat.-no. 18, pl. 17).

23
A “Hyksos Connection”?

Fig. 1
Statues of Queen
Sobekneferu from Tell
el-Dabca (after Habachi
2001: pl. 14a)

Fig. 2
Statues of Queen
Sobekneferu from Tell
el-Dabca (after Habachi
2001: pl. 15b)

riette in the 19th century) – were found at other sites in the eastern Nile Delta, i.e.
at Sân el-Hagar (Tanis) and Tell Basta (Bubastis)9. The granite blocks naming
Amenemhat I and Senwosret III, a statue of Amenemhat I and a further block

9
For the sphinx found at Bubastis, see Naville (1891: pl. 12); recently also Arnold (2010: 206–209,
pls. 33–34).

24
 A “Hyksos Connection”?

naming Senwosret II found at cEzbet Helmi were most probably also removed
during the Hyksos period (Habachi 1954: 448–450; id. 2001: 159–167, cat.-nos. 1,
2, 3, 6). A headless sphinx of Senwosret III found at Tell el-Birka probably also
reached the site only later (Habachi 2001: 164–165, cat.-no. 4). Other monuments
from the Middle Kingdom are of unclear origin and find contexts (Habachi 2001:
155, n. 730). For some of these monuments it is clear, for others possible that they
were originally removed by the Hyksos rulers centered at Avaris10, with some of
these objects again clearly originating from the region of Shedet in the Fayum or
the Memphite region (Habachi 1978: 92; Fay 1996: 39–41, 61, 67; Ryholt 1997: 82,
146–147, n. 254; Verbovsek 2002: 336–337; id. 2006: 79–104).11 Later, some of this
statuary was again moved to Tanis during the Ramesside period (Verbovsek 2006:
86–89).
Interesting in this regard is also the fact that several sphinxes with car-
touches of Amenemhat III have been found at various sites in the northern Le-
vant, i.e. at Ras Shamra/Ugarit (Schaeffer 1939: 21, pl. III.2), Aleppo/Halab
(Scandone Matthiae 1989) 12, and Hazor in northern Palestine (Ben-Tor 2006:
3–16). These sphinxes may have been dispatched to the sites during the late
Middle Bronze Age – i.e. the Second Intermediate Period –, although this is dif-
ficult to prove solely on the basis of the archaeological contexts in which they
were found. On the other hand, at none of these sites can a clear Middle Bronze
Age I date (i.e. Middle Bronze Age IIA in the southern Levantine terminology)
for the find contexts of these objects, often ambiguous or unknown, be estab-
lished with certainty. Although this dilemma (i.e. “object vs. find context”) ad-
mittedly cannot corroborate a date of dispatch during the Second Intermediate
Period, it cannot prove that the statues were sent to the sites during the Middle
Kingdom, either (Helck 1976).
Archaeological evidence supporting the scenario of a dispatch during the Se-
cond Intermediate Period has just recently been discovered directly underneath,
and probably in connection with, a palace of the Hyksos rulers at Tell el-Dabca
(indeed close to where Habachi found the statues in 1941–42), where a calcite-ala-
baster lid naming a princess with the name of Sithathorduat (probably of the 12th
Dynasty) was found in the debris of a workshop (Bietak – Forstner-Müller 2009:
111–112, fig. 29; Bietak 2010a). The lid of princess Sithathorduat, which clearly
once belonged to a stone vessel that unfortunately was not found, was with all

10
As some of the monuments carry cartouches and inscriptions of the Hyksos rulers Khayan
and Apophis.
11
The statues from the memorial temple of Amenemhat I at cEzbet Rushdi es-Saghira built by
Senwosret III are to be seen in a different light, since the temple dates back to before the Second
Intermediate Period. The objects clearly come from this temple, as is evidenced by their in-
scriptions, see Adam (1959); Bietak – Dorner (1998); Arnold (2010: 189–190).
12
The sphinx is often believed to come from Neirab, but was found in Aleppo, see Scandone
Matthiae (1989: 125–126).

25
A “Hyksos Connection”?

Fig. 3
Calcite-alabaster lid
of the Middle Kingdom
princess Sithathorduat
from the Hyksos palace
at Tell el-Dabca (after
Bietak – Forstner-Müller
2009: fig. 29)

probability originally a part of the funeral equipment of the princess’ tomb, al-
though the location of this tomb is unknown (Fig. 3). Precise identification of the
princess is further hampered by the fact that a number of princesses with that
name seem to be attested to have lived during the 12th Dynasty. Burials of con-
temporary Middle Kingdom princesses are known, however. Among others,
a burial of a princess with the name Sithathoryunet is attested within the pyramid
precinct of Senwosret II (“Tomb 8”). The tomb of this princess was plundered dur-
ing antiquity, and only a small recess of the tomb’s interior was overlooked by
the tomb robbers, i.e. the so-called “Lahun treasure” discovered by Petrie and
Brunton in 1914 (Brunton 1920; Winlock 1973). A second burial of a princess
named Sithathor was found inside the subterranean galleries below the northern
subsidiary burials located in the pyramid precinct of Senwosret III. De Morgan,
while excavating the galleries, found a container with a set of jewellery belonging
to this princess Sithathor (called “premier trésor”); but since all of these burials dis-
covered in the galleries seem to have been heavily looted in antiquity, little of its
original inventory remained in situ (De Morgan 1895: 56–64; Arnold 2002: 65–66;
Ben-Tor 2004: 23–26).
While establishing the exact date of the looting of these tombs is a moot point,
a date within the Second Intermediate Period seems most likely. The fact that the
pyramid of Senwosret III was apparently entered by tomb robbers – graffiti de-

26
 A “Hyksos Connection”?

picting “Asiatic looking” intruders and a dagger dating to the Second Intermediate
Period were found inside the burial chamber of the king – strongly argues in favour
of this date (Arnold 2010: 200–206). Without doubt, also the subsidiary burials lo-
cated within this pyramid precinct (and certainly others) would have been robbed
at that time. The lid naming Sithathorduat found in the Hyksos palace at Tell el-
Dabca also supports this date for the lootings. The find seems to prove that the
plundering of at least some of the Middle Kingdom burials must have occurred
during the Second Intermediate Period, probably during the 15 th Dynasty. The lid
also exemplifies the partaking of the Hyksos rulers in the looting and robbing of
the Middle Kingdom tombs in the region of the Fayum and Memphis.13
Even more revealing with regard to the far-flung intercultural relations of the
Hyksos with the Near East are clay sealings with seal impressions of the so-called
“Green Jasper Workshop” from the northern Levant (Bietak – Forstner-Müller
2009: 111–112, fig. 30) and a fragment of a cuneiform tablet discovered in the same
palace at Tell el-Dabca (albeit in a different stratum of the building) which – ac-
cording to its palaeography, apparently of southern Mesopotamian origin, – surely
highlights the strong political connections between the court of the Hyksos rulers
at Avaris and the eastern Mediterranean and ultimately also Mesopotamia (van
Koppen – Radner apud Bietak – Forstner-Müller 2009: 115–118, figs. 21–22). Most
probably, this diplomatic correspondence was mediated via the Levantine city-
states in the northern Levant. In this light, the dispatch of Middle Kingdom
Egyptian statuary and other objects to the Levant during the Hyksos Period –
as envisioned by Weinstein and Helck – gains additional support. Proof sup-
porting this scenario may now also be found in the northern Levant.

QATNA (TELL MISHRIFE)

The site of Tell Mishrife, ancient Qatna, is located on the eastern side of the
Wadi Zora in the upper Orontes Valley, approximately 17 km north-east of the
modern city of Homs. The site occupies the strategic crossing point of the impor-
tant trade routes passing south–north, from the southern Levant via the Beqaca
Valley, and east–west along the southern route, from Mesopotamia via Mari and
Tadmor towards the Mediterranean coast via the “Gap of Homs” and the Akkar
plain (Klengel 2000).
The site emerges as one of inland Syria’s and the northern Levant’s major
urban centres during the Middle Bronze Age. During the Late Bronze Age, due
to the alternating domination of the region by the empires of the Mittani, Egyp-

13
Other Middle Kingdom objects from stratified “Hyksos” contexts at Tell el-Dabca include two
vessel lids (bronze) naming Neferhotep I from level D/2, and the head of a Middle Kingdom
statue re-used as a grinding slab from level E/2; the objects may indeed actually come from
the temples nearby (Bietak 1968: pl. XXX: a; id. 1970: 33–34, 111, pls. XVIII: c–d).

27
A “Hyksos Connection”?

Fig. 4
Sphinx of Ita from the
royal palace at Tell
Mishrife/Qatna (photo:
F. Raux, Musée du Lou-
vre, Département
des Antiquités Orien-
tales, Paris)

tians, and Hittites, Qatna’s political power diminished, but the city remained one
of the important city-states in Syria until its final destruction around 1340 B.C.E.
(Pfälzner 2007).14
Egyptian imports found at the site are numerous. Not surprisingly, among
these a very dense clustering of Egyptian artefacts is found within the palace area.15
The most prominent Egyptian object found at Qatna is the so-called “Sphinx
of Ita,” dating to the 12th Dynasty (Fig. 4).16 Fragmented into more than 400 pieces,
the sphinx, made of schist, was found within the debris of the Late Bronze Age
palace and thus must have still been displayed at the time of its destruction. In
the vicinity of the sphinx, several fragments of another statue made of calcite-ala-
baster were found, belonging to a royal statue,17 most probably that of a king of
the Middle Kingdom (12th–13th Dynasty) depicted in a kneeling position, presum-
ably offering nw-pots.18 An inscription is positioned between the forelegs of the
sphinx, indicating that the sphinx was once used in a funerary context. It consists
of a single column and reads:

14
For the Amarna letters EA 52–56, sent to the Egyptian Pharaoh Amenhotep IV by Akizzi of
Qatna at the time of the Hittite conquest of the northern Levant, see Moran (1992).
15
Other Egyptian imports were discovered within the vast area of the city. A fragment of a Mid-
dle Kingdom statue (with Htp-di-nsw-Formula on the statue’s back pillar) was found in the
area north of the palace, see Du Mesnil du Buisson (1935a: 45, pl. VI.1–4).
16
Du Mesnil du Buisson (1928: 10–11, pl. XII); id. (1935b).
17
A fragment of what seems to have been a stone bowl bearing the cartouches of Senwosret I
was found in the eastern part of the royal palace, see Roccati (2002).
18
Du Mesnil du Buisson (1928: 10; designated here as ‘Pierre 6’, pls. VI: 6, VII, XIV: 1); id. (1935,
17). The statue’s present location is unknown, therefore a secure dating cannot be given.

28
 A “Hyksos Connection”?

iry.t-pa.t sA.t niswt mr<w>.t=f n.t-X.t=f itA nb.t imAx.w

“The hereditary princess, the king’s beloved daughter, of his body, Ita, pos-
sessor of honour”

In Egypt, the tomb of Princess Ita was discovered in 1895 (February 12,
1895) by the French archaeologist and then Director of Egyptian Antiquities,
Jacques de Morgan, within the precinct of the burial complex of Amenemhat
II at Dahshur (De Morgan 1903: 45–55). Ita’s tomb was a part of a double tomb
complex which also contained the tomb of another princess named Chnumit
(De Morgan 1903: 55–67). It has been argued that the tombs of Ita and Chnu-
mit, although located within the precinct of the burial complex of King Amen-
emhat II, cannot date to the reign of this king, but instead to a later, probably
late 12th Dynasty date (i.e. the reign of Amenemhat III).19 Accepting that the
sphinx of Ita found at Qatna may have originated from a funerary context –
possibly the princess’ tomb complex and associated mortuary chapel –, such
a late date for these tombs would also be of great importance for establishing
a possible date of the dispatch of the sphinx from Egypt to Qatna. Princess
Ita may not have been a daughter of Amenemhat II after all.20 Apart from the
uncertainties concerning the historical chronology and the exact position of
this specific Princess Ita within the 12th Dynasty, her sphinx, in any case, most
probably arrived at Qatna only at a later date. 21 A scenario involving the loot-
ing of the princess’ tomb or cultic installations also seems likely to have been
the case here.
A drop-shaped alabastron made of serpentinite from the royal tomb at Qatna,
discovered in 2002, carries a hieroglyphic inscription naming Amenemhat III of
the late 12th Dynasty (Fig. 5), consisting of three columns and one horizontal line
(Ahrens 2006; id. 2007; id. 2009). The inscription reads (Fig. 6):

19
Williams (1976: 43); Fay (1996: 43−47); Sabbahy (1996: 350); id. (2003); Arnold (2006: 47, n. 3);
Arnold (1982: 29−31).
20
Sabbahy (1996: 350); id. (2003), who is of the opinion that Chnumit and Ita must be of
a later date and are not daughters of Amenemhat II, see also Williams (1976: 43); Arnold
(1982); id. (2006). Nothing in Princess Ita’s tomb at Dahshur indeed specifies a filial rela-
tionship with Amenemhat II. Fay (1996: 43–47), however, is of the opinion that the sphinx
found at Qatna stylistically dates to the interval Senwosret I/Amenemhat II. Therefore,
Fay concludes that the Sphinx of Ita found at Qatna must belong to a princess who lived
during the reign of Amenemhat II (Fay 1996: 44.2), while the tomb of Ita at Dahshur, in
accordance with Williams (Williams 1976), Sabbahy (Sabbahy 1996); id. (2003) and Arnold
(Arnold 1982; id. 2006: n. 3), is to be dated to the late Middle Kingdom, probably to the
reign of Amenemhat III, and thus must belong to a different princess of the same name
(Fay 1996: 44.1). The present paper, however, maintains that the Sphinx of Ita found at
Qatna and the tomb at Dahshur actually belong to a single princess of that name, leaving
aside the chronological problems pertaining to the date of the princess and her burial at
Dahshur for the time being.

29
A “Hyksos Connection”?

Fig. 5
Drop-shaped alabastron
made of serpentinite
with cartouches of
Amenemhat III from the
royal tomb at Tell
Mishrife/Qatna (photo:
G. Mirsch; drawing:
G. Elsen-Novák, © Qatna
excavation project,
University of Tübingen)

30
 A “Hyksos Connection”?

Fig. 6
Inscription on
a drop-shaped alabastron
mentioning Sobek
Shedety (photo: K. Wita;
drawing: G. Elsen-
Novák, © Qatna excava-
tion project, University
of Tübingen)

31
A “Hyksos Connection”?

1
sA ra imn-m-HAt
“Son of Re: Amenemhat,
2
niswt biti ni-mAa.t-ra
King of Upper- and Lower Egypt: Ni-maat-Re,
3
mry sbk Sd.ti
beloved of Sobek Shedety,
4
Di.w anx mi ra D.t
given life like Re eternally”

The inscription makes it likely that the vessel was originally a part of the main
temple of Sobek Shedety at Shedet (Crocodilopolis, Kīmân Faris). When and how
the vessel finally reached Qatna and its royal tomb remains an open question, but
given the old and new finds at Tell el-Dabca (Avaris), it does not seem impossible
to propose that it reached the site during the Second Intermediate Period and via
Tell el-Dabca.
In 2009, a second undisturbed tomb (referred to as “Tomb VII”) was discov-
ered underneath the royal palace (Pfälzner et al. in press). The tomb contained nu-
merous precious objects, among them more than a hundred Egyptian and
Egyptianising stone vessels of various types and materials22, including a stone
vessel with an inscription of another Middle Kingdom princess (Ahrens 2010).
The inscription reads (Figs. 7–8):

iry.t-pa.t sA.t niswt n.t-X.t=f itAkA<y>t nb.t imAx.w

“The hereditary princess, the king’s daughter, of his body, Itakayet, possessor
of honour”

Again, the inscription points towards the vessel’s funerary use. Apart from
the implications of the inscription, which also strikingly resembles the inscription
on Ita’s sphinx, the period of use of Tomb VII (Middle Bronze IIB–Late Bronze
Age IA) suggests that the vessel must have been deposited within the tomb during
the later part of the Middle Bronze Age or the very beginning of the Late Bronze
Age, i.e. the Second Intermediate Period or the early 18th Dynasty23 (Ahrens 2010:

22
The stone vessels are currently studied by the author. The repertoire of stone vessels from
Tomb VII includes a small cylindrical jar made of obsidian, capped with gold sheet, dating
to the 12th Dynasty and clearly coming from a royal workshop, see Ahrens apud Pfälzner et al.
(in press). In the northern Levant, this specific type has hitherto been attested only at the royal
tombs at Byblos (Tomb I), see Montet (1928: pl. LXXXVIII). In Egypt, identical jars are also
known from the tomb of the aforementioned princess Sithathoryunet at el-Lahun, see Winlock
(1973: 1–2, pl. XVI). Thus, this vessel may actually also come from a tomb in Egypt.
23
A scarab made of lapis lazuli with the name of Queen Ahmes-Nefertari of the early 18th Dy-
nasty has been discovered among the objects deposited inside the tomb, see Ahrens apud
Pfälzner et al. (in press).

32
 A “Hyksos Connection”?

Fig. 7
Tall-shouldered jar with
an inscription of the
Middle Kingdom
princess Itakayet from
Tomb VII at Tell
Mishrife/Qatna (photo:
M. Steinmetz; drawing:
A. Gubisch, © Qatna
excavation project,
University of Tübingen)

21–24; Pfälzner et al. in press). Given this time frame, a dispatch of the vessel during
the Hyksos period seems likely.
Fortunately, a tomb of princess Itakayet is attested archaeologically. Unfortu-
nately though, two tombs (pyramids) are known to have existed for a princess of
that name, one within the pyramid precinct of Senwosret I (“Pyramid 2”; Arnold
1992: 23–26), the other within the pyramid precinct of Senwosret III (“Pyramid
3”; Arnold 2002: 63–67). Thus far, due to the scanty archaeological and inscrip-
tional evidence found at these two pyramids, it cannot be determined with cer-
tainty which of the two princesses must be linked with the stone vessel from Tomb
VII.24 Both of the princess’ tombs, were plundered during the Second Intermediate
Period (late 13th–15th Dynasty), leaving little doubt that the vessel from Tomb VII
was part of the loot from one of these pyramids (Ahrens 2010).

SUMMARY
Of course, not all objects found in the Levant can be commented upon in the
present article. Moreover, not all Egyptian imports found in the northern Levant
may actually fall into the category of objects that were looted from tombs during

24
See the summary in Ahrens (2010: 17–20).

33
A “Hyksos Connection”?

Fig. 8
Inscription on a stone
vessel mentioning
princess Itakayet (photo:
M. Steinmetz; drawing:
A. Gubisch, © Qatna
excavation project,
University of Tübingen)

34
 A “Hyksos Connection”?

the Second Intermediate Period. However, those that do may in fact have reached
the Levant via Avaris (the greater region of Tell el-Dabca).25 The find of the calcite-
alabaster lid of princess Sithathorduat in a Hyksos palace at Avaris is one of the
very few secure archaeological attestations of Middle Kingdom objects in Second
Intermediate Period layers – not including the Middle Kingdom Egyptian objects
found in the tumuli at Kerma in Nubia, which also date to the Second Intermedi-
ate Period.26 Additionally, the fragment of a cuneiform tablet discovered at the
site may also hint towards the “connections” of the Hyksos rulers to the Levant.
Unfortunately, apart from these archaeological “scraps”, virtually nothing is
known about the Hyksos’ relations with the Levant and the specific ways in which
these objects reached the Levant. What is even more abstruse, no definite material
dating to the Hyksos period has so far been found at Byblos, the most important
site with direct and long-lasting connections to Egypt. This has been explained as
a shift in the relations with the southern Levant during that period (Ben-Tor 2009).
Further investigations may, however, alter this picture in the future (Bietak 2010b).
Interestingly, Durand (1999) has postulated that Egyptian objects were referred to
as “gublayu”, i.e. “Byblite” (“from Byblos”) in the cuneiform documents of the Old
Babylonian Mari archives, since Byblos certainly always was the main focus of
the Egyptian contacts with the northern Levant. As such, the city probably served
as an active “intermediary” between Egypt and the other northern Levantine
kingdoms (Flammini 2010; Ahrens 2011).27
The “trade of antiquities” postulated by Helck may, however, seem exagge-
rated now, since the objects certainly were not conceived as “objects of art” but
rather as “exotic foreign objects”, carrying emblematic hieroglyphic inscriptions
not necessarily understood, and made of precious rare materials not locally at-
tested in the Levant. Stemming from the fact that not only royal, but also private
statuary seems to have been among the objects that were sent to the Levant during
the Second Intermediate Period, it is clear that – from the perspective of the re-

25
In this regard, also the statues of a Middle Kingdom princess with the name or title
“Khemenet-nefer-hedjet” and the “mayor of the pyramid town” Senwosret-Ankh dating to
the 13th Dynasty found at Ras Shamra (Ugarit) both seem to have come from funerary contexts
and may well have reached Ugarit only during the Second Intermediate Period, see Ahrens
(2010: 20, n. 33). Likewise, the fragmentary faience vessel found in the temple precinct at Tell
c
Atchana (Alalakh) (level V) mentioning the Memphite “Ptah-South-of-his-Wall, the lord of
Ankhtawy (i.e. Memphis)” may also come from funerary context, although it is unclear when
the object reached the site, see Woolley (1955: 71, 297, pl. LXXXIII: h).
26
For the historical implications of the inscription of Sobeknakht at Elkab, see Davies (2003a);
id. (2003b).
27
Also the statues of the governor of Asyut, Djefaihapi (12th Dynasty) and Sobekhotep IV (13th
Dynasty) found at Tell Hizzin in the Beqaca Valley may have reached the site via Byblos. Stat-
ues of Djefaihapi and his wife have been found within Tumulus III at Kerma in Nubia, dating
to the Second Intermediate Period. Several colossi and statues of Sobekhotep IV have been
found at Tanis (Quirke 2010: 64, VI.27.1–4); these statues of Sobekhotep IV may also belong to
the corpus of Middle Kingdom statuary that was first removed from its original locations by
the Hyksos?, see Helck (1976); Ahrens (forthcoming).

35
A “Hyksos Connection”?

cipient, i.e. the Levantine courts and its rulers – the actual content of the Egyptian
inscriptions was not considered important; they were probably not understood
in their original conception (Ahrens 2011).

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adam, Shehata
1959 “Report on the Excavations of the Department of Antiquities at Ezbet Rushdi.”
ASAE 56, 207–226.
Ahrens, Alexander
2006 “A Journey’s End: Two Egyptian Stone Vessels with Hieroglyphic Inscriptions
from the Royal Tomb at Tell Mišrife/Qatna.” ÄuL 16, 15–36.
2007 “Saxa loquntuur” – Speaking Stones: The Stone Vessels with Hieroglyphic In-
scriptions from the Royal Tomb at Tell Mišrife/Qatna (Syria).” In Proceedings of the
Fourth Central European Conference of Young Egyptologists, 31 August–2 September 2006,
Budapest (Studia Aegyptiaca XVIII), edited by K. Endreffy and A. Gulyás, 13–30.
Budapest: Chaire d’Égyptologie.
2009 “Alabastren und Amphoren: Die Steingefäße.” In Schätze des Alten Syrien: Die
Entdeckung des Königreichs Qatna, Catalogue of the Exhibition at the Landesmuseum
Baden-Württemberg (October 26, 2009–February 28, 2010, Stuttgart), edited by the
Landesmuseum Württemberg in collaboration with M. al-Maqdissi, P. Pfälzner and
D. Morandi Bonacossi, 236–239. Stuttgart: Theiss.
2010 “A Stone Vessel of Princess Itakayet of the 12th Dynasty from Tomb VII at Tell
Mišrife/Qatna (Syria).” ÄuL 20, 15–30.
2011 “Strangers in a Strange Land? The Function and Social Significance of Egyptian
Imports in the Northern Levant during the 2nd Millennium BC.” In Proceedings of the
International Conference “Intercultural Contacts in the Ancient Mediterranean,” held in Cairo,
26-29 October 2008, Netherlands-Flemish Institute in Cairo (Orientalia Lovaniensia
Analecta 202), edited by K. Duistermaat and I. Regulski, 289–311. Leuven: Peeters.
forthcoming “The Egyptian Objects from Tell Hizzin (Lebanon): A Historical and Ar-
chaeological Reassessment.” In Tell Hizzin in the Beqaca Valley (Bulletin d’Archéologie
et d’Architecture Libanaises, Hors-Série), edited by H. Sader and H. Genz. Beirut:
Direction Générale des Antiquités.
Albright, William Foxwell
1959 “Dunand’s New Byblos Volume: A Lycian at the Byblian Court.” BASOR 155, 31–34.
Arnold, Dieter
1992 The Pyramid Complex of Senwosret I. New York: The Metropolitan Museum.
2002 The Pyramid Complex of Senwosret III at Dahshur: Architectural Studies. New York:
The Metropolitan Museum.
Arnold, Dorothea
1982 “Keramikbearbeitung in Dahschur 1976–1981.” MDAIK 38, 25–65.
2006 “The Fragmented Head of a Queen Wearing the Vulture Headdress.” In Timelines:
Studies in Honour of Manfred Bietak (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 149), edited by
E. Czerny et al., 47–54. Leuven: Peeters.
2010 “Image and Identity: Egypt’s Eastern Neighbours, East Delta People and the Hyk-
sos.” In The Second Intermediate Period (Thirteenth–Seventeenth Dynasties): Current
Research, Future Prospects (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 192), edited by M. Marée,
183–221. Leuven: Peeters.

36
 A “Hyksos Connection”?

Bader, Bettina
2009 Avaris und Memphis im Mittleren Reich und in der Hyksoszeit. Vergleichsanalyse der
materiellen Kultur (Untersuchungen der Zweigstelle Kairo des Österreichischen Ar-
chäologischen Insituts 31). Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wis-
senschaften.
von Beckerath, Jürgen
1964 Untersuchungen zur politischen Geschichte der zweiten Zwischenzeit in Ägypten
(Ägyptologische Forschungen 23). Glückstadt: Augustin.
Ben-Tor, Amnon
2006 “The Sad Fate of Statues and the Mutilated Statues of Hazor.” In Confronting the
Past: Archaeological and Historical Essays on Ancient Israel in Honor of William G. Dever,
edited by S. Gitin et al., 3–16. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Ben-Tor, Daphna
2004 “Two Royal-Name Scarabs of King Amenemhat II from Dahshur.” MMJ 39, 17–33.
2009 “Can Scarabs Argue for the Origin of the Hyksos?” JAEI I/1,1–7.
Bietak, Manfred
1968 “Vorläufiger Bericht über die erste und zweite Kampagne der österreichischen Aus-
grabungen auf Tell el Dabca im Ostdelta Ägyptens (1966, 1967).” MDAIK 23, 79–114.
1970 “Vorläufiger Bericht über die dritte Kampagne der österreichischen Ausgrabun-
gen auf Tell el Dabca im Ostdelta Ägyptens (1968).” MDAIK 26, 15–42.
2010a “A Palace of the Hyksos Khayan at Avaris.” In Proceedings of the 6th International
Congress of the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, Vol. 2. Excavations, Surveys and
Restorations: Reports on Recent Field Archaeology in the Near East, edited by P. Matthiae
et al., 99–109. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.
2010b “From where came the Hyksos and where did they go?” In The Second Interme-
diate Period (Thirteenth–Seventeenth Dynasties): Current Research, Future Prospects (Ori-
entalia Lovaniensia Analecta 192), edited by M. Marée, 139–181. Leuven: Peeters.
Bietak, Manfred – Forstner-Müller, Irene (mit einem Beitrag von Frans van Koppen
und Karen Radner)
2009 “Der Hyksospalast bei Tell el-Dabca. Zweite und Dritte Grabungskampagne
(Frühling 2008 und Frühling 2009).” ÄuL 19, 91–120.
Bietak, Manfred – Dorner, Josef
1998 “Der Tempel und die Siedlung des Mittleren Reiches bei cEzbet Rushdi.” ÄuL 8,
9–40.
Brunton, Guy
1920 Lahun I: The Treasure. London: The Egypt Exploration Society.

Czerny, Ernst
2006 “Die Erwähnung eines Memphitischen Minkults aus Tell el-Dabca.” In Timelines:
Studies in Honour of Manfred Bietak, Vol. 1 (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 149),
edited by E. Czerny et al., 81–85. Leuven: Peeters.

Davies, Vivian
2003a “Kush in Egypt: A New Historical Inscription.” Sudan & Nubia 34, 52–54.
2003b “Sobeknakht of Elkab and the Coming of Kush.” EA 23, 3–6.
De Morgan, Jacques
1885 Fouilles à Dahchour, Mars–juin 1894. Vienna: Adolf Holzhausen.
1903 Fouilles à Dahchour II. Vienna: Adolf Holzhausen.

37
A “Hyksos Connection”?

Du Mesnil du Buisson, Robert Comte

1928 “L’ancienne Qatna ou les ruines d’el Mishrifé. Deuxième campagne de fouilles
(2e et 3e article).” Syria 9, 6–24, 81–89.
1935a Le site archéologique de Mishrifé – Qatna. Paris: Geuthner.
1935b “Le sphinx de Qatna.” Bulletin de la Societé National des Antiquités 12, 126–131.
Durand, Jean-Marie
1999 “La façade occidentale du Proche-Orient d’après les textes de Mari.” In L’acrobate
au taureau: Les découvertes de Tell el-Dabca et l’archéologie de la Mediterranée orientale,
edited by A. Caubet, 149–164. Paris: Musée du Louvre.
Fay, Biri
1996 The Louvre Sphinx and Royal Sculpture from the Reign of Amenemhat II. Mainz am
Rhein: Verlag Philipp von Zabern.
Flammini, Roxana
2010 “Elite Emulation and Patronage Relationships in the Middle Bronze: The Egyp-
tianized Dynasty of Byblos.” Tel Aviv 37/2, 154–168.
Habachi, Labib
1954 “Khatacna-Qantir: Importance.” ASAE 52, 442–559.
1978 “The So-called Hyksos Monuments Reconsidered: Apropos of the Discovery of
a Dyad of Sphinxes.” SAK 6, 79–92.
2001 Tell el-Dabca I: Tell el-Dabca and Qantir. The Site and its Connection with Avaris and
Piramesse (Aus dem Nachlass herausgegeben von Eva-Maria Engel unter der Mitarbeit
von Peter Jánosi und Christa Mlinar) (Untersuchungen der Zweigstelle Kairo des
Österreichischen Archäologischen Insituts 2). Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen
Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Hayes, William C.
1953 The Scepter of Egypt. A Background for the Study of the Egyptian Antiquities in the
Metropolitan Museum of Art, Part I: From the Earliest Times to the End of the Middle
Kingdom. New York: The Metropolitan Museum.
Helck, Wolfgang
19712 Die Beziehungen Ägyptens zu Vorderasien im 3. und 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr. (Ägypto-
logische Abhandlungen 5). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.
1976 “Ägyptische Statuen im Ausland – ein chronologisches Problem.” UF 8, 101–115.
Kees, Hermann
1962 “Ein Handelsplatz des MR im Nordostdelta.” MDAIK 18, 1–13.
Klengel, Horst
2000 “Qatna – eine historische Zusammenfassung.” MDOG 132, 239–252.
Leitz, Christian (ed.)
2002 Lexikon der ägyptischen Götter und Götterbezeichnungen VI (Orientalia Lovaniensia
Analecta 114). Leuven – Paris – Dudley: Peeters.
Marée, Marcel
2010 “Foreword.” In The Second Intermediate Period (Thirteenth–Seventeenth Dynasties):
Current Research, Future Prospects (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 192), edited by
M. Marée, XI–XV. Leuven: Peeters.
Montet, Pierre
1928 Byblos et l’Égypte. Quatre campagnes de fouilles à Gebeil, 1921–1922–1923–1924 (Bib-
liothèque archéologique et historique 11). Paris: Paul Geuthner.

38
 A “Hyksos Connection”?

Naville, Édouard
1887 The Shrine of Saft el-Henneh and the Land of Goshen (1885) (Egyptological Memoirs
5). London: Kegan Paul, Trench and Trübner.
1891 Bubastis (1887–1889) (Egyptological Memoirs 8). London: Kegan Paul, Trench and
Trübner.

Pfälzner, Peter
2007 “Archaeological Investigations in the Royal Palace of Qatna.” In Urban and
Natural Landscapes of an Ancient Syrian Capital: Settlement and Environment at Tell
Mishrifeh/Qatna and in Central-Western Syria (Studi Archeologici su Qatna 1), edited
by D. Morandi Bonacossi, 29–63. Udine: Forum.

Pfälzner, Peter – Dohmann-Pfälzner, Heike (mit Beiträgen von Carsten Witzel, Stefan
Flohr, Susanne Degenhardt und Alexander Ahrens, sowie unter Mitarbeit von Giulia
Baccelli, Alice Bianchi und Sarah Lange).
in press “Die Gruft VII: Eine neu endeckte Grabanlage unter dem Königspalast von
Qatna.” MDOG 142.
Pomerance, Leon
1974 “The Possible Role of Tomb Robbers and Viziers of the 18th Dynasty in Confusing
Minoan Chronology.” Antichità Cretesi. Studi in onore di Doro Levi, I, edited by G. Car-
ratelli and G. Razzi 21–30. Catania: Università di Catania, Istituto di Archeologia.

Quirke, Stephen
2010 “Ways to Measure Thirteenth Dynasty Royal Power from Inscribed Monu-
ments (with a contribution by Daniela Picchi and Claudio D’Amico).” In The Se-
cond Intermediate Period (Thirteenth–Seventeenth Dynasties): Current Research, Future
Prospects (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 192), edited by M. Marée, 55–68. Leu-
ven: Peeters.

Redford, Donald B.
1992 Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Ryholt, Kim S. B.
1997 The Political Situation in Egypt During the Second Intermediate Period, c. 1800–1500
B.C. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press.
1998 “Hotepibre, a Supposed Asiatic King in Egypt with Relations to Ebla.” BASOR
311, 1–6.
Roccati, Alessandro
2002 “A Stone Fragment Inscribed with Names of Sesostris I Discovered at Qatna.” In
Excavating Qatna, Vol. 1 (Documents d’Archéologie Syrienne IV), edited by M.
al-Maqdissi et al., 173–174. Damascus: Salhani.

Sabbahy, Lisa K.
1996 “Comments on the title Xnm.t-nfr-HD.t.” SAK 23, 348–352.
2003 “The Female Family of Amenemhat II: A Review of the Evidence.” In Hommages
à Fayza Haykal, edited by N. Grimal et al., 236–244. Cairo: Institut français d’archéo-
logie orientale.
Scandone Matthiae, Gabriella
1979 “Un ogetto faraonico della XIII dinastia dalla ‘Tomba del Signore dei Capridi’.”
Studi Eblaiti 1, 119–128.
1989 “Un sphinx d’Amenemhat III au Musée d’Alep.” RdÉ 40, 125–129.

39
A “Hyksos Connection”?

Schaeffer, Claude F.-A.

1932 “Les fouilles de Minet-el-Beida et de Ras-Shamra: Troisième campagne (prin-
temps 1931). Rapport sommaire.” Syria 13, 1–27.
1939 “Aperçu de l’histoire d’Ugarit.” In Ugaritica III: Études relatives aux découvertes de
Ras Shamra, première serie, edited by Cl. F.-A. Schaeffer, 2–57. Paris: Paul Geuthner.

Verbovsek, Alexandra
2002 “Motiv und Typus der sogenannten Hyksosmonumente: Ein neuer methodischer
Ansatz zur Untersuchung altägyptischer Rundbilder.” SAK 30, 305–350.
2006 Die sogenannten Hyksosmonumente: Eine archäologische Standortbestimmung (Göt-
tinger Orientforschungen 46). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.

Weinstein, James M.
1974 “A Statuette of the Princess Sobeknefru at Tell Gezer.” BASOR 213: 49–57.
1975 “Egyptian Relations with Palestine in the Middle Kingdom.” BASOR 217: 1–16.
Williams, Bruce
1976 “The Date of Senebtisi at Lisht.” Serapis 3, 41–55.
Winlock, Herbert E.
1973 The Treasure of el Lahun. New York: The Metropolitan Museum.
Woolley, C. Leonard
1955 Alalakh: An Account of the Excavations at Tell Atchana in the Hatay, 1937–1949 (Re-
ports of the Research Committee of the Society of Antiquaries of London XVIII).
London: The Society of Antiquaries.

40