Doors to the Past. Rediscovering Fragments in the New Blockyard at Medinet Habu

Please download to get full document.

View again

of 5
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Similar Documents
Information Report
Category:

Magazines/Newspapers

Published:

Views: 0 | Pages: 5

Extension: PDF | Download: 0

Share
Description
In the Fall of 2007 the Epigraphic Survey decided to undertake the survey of the several hundred loose fragments scattered about the Medinet Habu temple precinct, some of them inscribed and lying face down on the surface, and already showing advanced
Tags
Transcript
  1ICE XI (2017): 1–5 Doors to the Past. Rediscovering Fragments in the New Blockyard at Medinet Habu  Julia Schmied Epigraphic Survey, Oriental Institute, University of Chicago Abstract In the Fall of 2007 the Epigraphic Survey decided to undertake the survey of the several hundred loose fragments scattered about the Medinet Habu temple precinct, some of them inscribed and lying face down on the surface, and already showing advanced signs of deterioration caused by groundwater and salt. The blocks were moved into a new blockyard built against the inside south enclosure wall of the complex for inventorying and documentation, as well as conservation as necessary. Between 2007–2011, most of the fragmentary material from Medinet Habu, including the fragments kept in the small blockyard south of the main temple and in a storage room in the great mortuary temple of Ramses III, was transferred into the new blockyard. This collection of more than 4000 fragments is quite diverse, comprising pieces from all periods of the precinct’s history, from the early 18th Dynasty, through the abandonment of the Coptic town Djeme in the 9th century AD.The aim of this paper is to introduce a specific corpus within the Medinet Habu fragment collection – a group of doorjambs and lintels from private houses dating primarily to the end of the 20th Dynasty and early Third Intermediate Period. The comparison of the material as currently preserved in the new blockyard with the srcinal documentation of the 1927–1933 Oriental Institute excavations has already led to unexpected and exceptional results, further illuminating our understanding of the early occupational history of the Medinet Habu settlement. Keywords Medinet Habu; Epigraphic Survey; Ramesside; settlement; doorjamb and lintel The Epigraphic Survey of the University of Chicago’s Oriental Institute was organized in 1924 with the aim of documenting the inscriptions and reliefs of the Great Temple of Ramses III and other buildings within the temple enclosure of Medinet Habu. In the winter of 1926–1927 an additional Architectural Survey was established under the direction of Professor Uvo Hölscher with the task of systematically excavating the Medinet Habu compound. As the excavations began in October 1927, Hölscher writes that the Medinet Habu complex ‘was covered for the most part with mounds of rubbish ranging in height from 3 to 6 meters, the remains of houses from the former Coptic town of Habu’ (Nelson and Hoelscher 1929: 39).During the first two seasons in 1927/8 (Nelson and Hoelscher 1929: 37–50) and 1928/9 (Hölscher and Wilson 1930: 1–23) the area to the south and southeast of the Great Temple was cleared, including the palace of Ramses III, the God’s Wives’ Chapels, and a series of private houses between the outer and inner temple walls. The surroundings of the Small Temple, including the well of Nectanebo, were excavated at the same time. The third season in 1929/30 (Nelson and Hölscher 1931: 49–69) saw the clearing of the northern portions of the enclosure, including the extensive remains of the Coptic houses, the storehouses to the north, and the Small Amun Temple in the northeast. During the fourth season in 1930/1 (Hölscher 1932) the work continued in the eastern areas: the Eastern Fortified Gate was cleaned and the ancient quay in front of the east wall was excavated, as was the Roman-Coptic settlement east of the Great Girdle Wall. Also, the Architectural Survey was permitted to study and do some test excavations at the Ramesseum, in order to answer certain questions that had arisen at Medinet Habu. Due to financial constraints, however, the following fifth season turned out to be the last one for the Architectural Survey, although the Epigraphic Mission has continued to work on the site documenting the mortuary complex ever since. In 1931/2 (Nelson and Hölscher 1934: 91–118) the Western Fortified Gate and the small mortuary chapels to the west of Medinet Habu were excavated, as well as the adjacent Eye-Horemheb mortuary complex. The finds from the excavations were registered the following  year by Mrs Keith C. Seele, while Rudolf Anthes was tasked with their research. 1  At the end of March, 1933, the finds were divided: some pieces were shipped to Cairo, some to Chicago, while many items, especially the architectural fragments from buildings at Medinet Habu, were left on the spot. However, the on-site museum that was envisioned to house this material was never completed (Nelson and Hölscher 1934: 92). Some pieces remaining at Medinet Habu were stored in the temple treasury and in the small Amun temple, but hundreds of inscribed fragments were left lying about the temple precinct where they had been found. Some of the loose material, such as private stelae and Coptic door lintels, were built into the inner enclosure wall south of the palace – in hindsight a rather unfortunate decision on the part of the Architectural Survey. Especially in the case of the Coptic lintels, the reason for their installation must have been decorative as well as for storage considerations. However, the rising ground water-table level had not been taken into account, and the salty water has been gradually destroying the sandstone pieces built into the lower courses of the wall. Sadly, this material is all but lost to us at present, since it is impossible to properly document or conserve the blocks without dismantling the entire wall first. Beside the material already stored at the Medinet Habu precinct, from time to time over the following decades additional groups of artifacts were brought to Medinet Habu for safekeeping. For example, blocks from a Sobek temple built by Amenhotep III 15km south of Armant and later reused by Ramses II were deposited here at the end of the 1960s (Johnson 2001: 78 n. 86).In the early 1990s, the Supreme Council of Antiquities (SCA) decided to clear out the temple treasury, probably in order to 1 An Oriental Institute Publications  volume prepared by Anthes on the small finds from the excavations was planned, but first got delayed by World War II, and then abandoned due to the presumed loss of the field notes (Teeter 2003: xiii).  2  Jl Schm International Congress of Egyptologists XI make the rooms accessible for visitors. A small blockyard was built against the east wall of Ramses III’s palace, where most of the objects were moved. However, the fragments scattered around the temple precinct remained where they were. In 2007, as many of these loose fragments (some of them inscribed and lying face down on the surface) were already showing advanced signs of deterioration caused by groundwater and salt, the Epigraphic Survey, directed by W. Raymond Johnson, decided to undertake a survey thereof, with the aim of recording and documenting the blocks. This coincided with the decision by the SCA that the small blockyard south of the main temple should be dismantled and relocated to a drier and less obtrusive area (Johnson 2007: 52). The new, larger, and more secure lapidarium was to be built against the inside south enclosure wall of the complex, with the capacity to hold the fragmentary material currently at Medinet Habu. The inventorying and documentation of the miscellaneous fragments around the precinct began in November 2007. The position of each fragment was noted using the srcinal Hölscher grid system (see below), basic historical and architectural identifications were recorded, and digital photographs were taken before the objects were moved into the new blockyard for further analysis, photography, and conservation if necessary. All information was entered into a custom-designed digital database, which was created as a basic registration system to record all the fragments in the Medinet Habu precinct, including the fragments stored in the old SCA blockyard. The construction of the new blockyard with damp-coursed cinderblock storage platforms was completed in the winter of 2007/8. Firstly, the most threatened loose fragments were moved therein (during the 2008/9 season), under the supervision of the present author, with the assistance of Egyptologist/epigrapher Christian Greco and the Epigraphic Survey’s senior conservator Lotfi Khaled Hassan. The clearing of the old blockyard began in the spring of 2009. The moving of the approximately 2000 pieces from there into the new blockyard took roughly two seasons. By the end of the 2010/1 season, over 4000 blocks from all parts of the complex were transferred to the new lapidarium (Figure 1). Also included in the move were the fragments kept on cement platforms behind the God’s Wives Chapels, as well as the approximately 500 artifacts stored within the last remaining storage room in the great mortuary temple of Ramses III (Room 16). The corpus of the Medinet Habu blockyard is quite diverse. 2  It is comprised mostly of pieces from all periods of the precinct’s history, from the early 18th Dynasty through the abandonment of the Coptic town Djeme in the 9th century AD, while the majority of the material, of course, comes from the different structures of Ramses III’s mortuary complex. 3 Among the fragments from the Ramesside structures is a collection of doorjambs and lintels, presumably from private houses that were built within the Medinet Habu precinct, dating mostly to the end of the 20th Dynasty and early Third Intermediate Period. This collection consists of about 50–100 such pieces, mostly inscribed with dedicatory formulae, and, in fortunate cases, with the names and titles of officials of said period. The identification and analysis of this material, especially in the context of the occupation history of Medinet Habu, makes up the core of our research. The question is, how does the history of the settlement of Medinet Habu, as suggested by the records, concatenate with the material remains, and vice versa, how does the collection of doorjambs and lintels found there fit within the historical framework of the Medinet Habu settlement? Is it possible to establish such a link at all?The history of the Ramesside settlement at Medinet Habu is rather complex (and certainly out of the scope of the present paper 4 ), however, in order to interpret the collection, it is essential to give a brief outline thereof. The mortuary temple of Ramses III served not only as a cult establishment, but also as a center of administrative and economic activities (Haring 1997). It also functioned as a residence: initially, when the complex was built, two rows of mudbrick private houses stood on the north and south sides of the main temple, in the area between the Inner Enclosure Wall and the Great Girdle Wall. 5  Some of these houses were quite spacious with several rooms, and were undoubtedly built for the administrative staff (priests, officials) of the temple. The dwellings in the back row were much smaller in scale; they probably housed the servants or served as barracks for the soldiers. An ‘administration building’ closed the rows of houses to the east on both sides of the Inner Temple. To the southern building two structures were attached one behind the other: one of the same type and size as the front row houses, the other similar to the rear row houses, but considerably larger. The area in front of the Inner Temple was divided into four rectangular sections: a garden, stables and barracks to the south, a cattle yard and the Small Amun Temple to the north. Roads ran between the Eastern High Gate and the First Pylon, as well as around the inner enclosure wall and beneath the outer enclosure wall. A narrow alley separated the rows of houses. This was more or less how 2 See an overview of the Medinet Habu fragment project and the collection in Egyptian Archaeology No. 46 (McClain 2015: 14–16). 3 Additional fragments in the blockyard srcinate from other nearby monumental structures, including the mortuary complex of Amenhotep III, the adjacent Ay-Horemheb temple, and the Ramesseum, as well as the Theban necropolis, Deir el-Medina, and the above-mentioned Sobek-temple at the modern town of Al-Mahamid Qibly. 4 For a brief outline of the history of settlement at Medinet Habu, see Teeter 2010: 6–14. A more detailed study of the the Ramesside town will be included in the present author’s forthcoming PhD thesis. 5 Today, only the foundations of some of the houses are preserved at most (Hölscher 1934: pls. 11–14 and 1955: 13–21). g 1: h w locky  m h (hoo: w. ymo ohso).  3  Doos o h Ps. Rscovg Fgms  h Nw Blocky  M H International Congress of Egyptologists XI the precinct looked during the first stage in the occupation history of the settlement in Medinet Habu. During the second stage the area in front of the main temple was built up by a town of narrow winding streets and a cluster of small dwellings (Hölscher 1934: pls. 3–7). Hölscher dated this later settlement to the 21st Dynasty, built after the violent destruction of the previous residential quarters at some point at the end of the 20th Dynasty (Hölscher 1951: 17 and 20; also 1954: 1 ff.). However, it has been suggested that the new houses were rather the result of a gradual and peaceful alteration of the srcinal town, fairly soon after the latter was first completed (Kemp 1972: 666, n. 28; also 1989: 306 ff.; Troy 2002). The 155 houses mentioned on the verso  of Pap. BM. 10068 (Peet 1930: 93–8, pls. XIV–XVI) from Year 12 of Ramses XI could be connected with this second stage of town. 6  The necropolis workmen were still living elsewhere, presumably in Deir el-Medina, at that point (Valbelle 1985: 124; Barwick 2011: 5), but their service-staff ( smdt  ) was housed at Medinet Habu (Pap. Turin 2018) (Černý 1973: 108 and 189–90). The next stage of the Ramesside settlement at Medinet Habu must have been when the necropolis crew was already living within the temple complex at the very end of the 20th Dynasty. 7  The Western Fortified Gate and parts of the Great Girdle Wall were damaged at some point at the end of the 20th Dynasty, and most of the mudbrick buildings between the inner and outer enclosure walls were destroyed (Hölscher 1954: 1 ff.). 8  When rebuilding took place at the very beginning of the Third Intermediate Period, the eastern part of the enclosure was filled with small, crowded dwellings, while larger houses, including one belonging to the necropolis scribe Butehamun, as well as gardens and stables were located to the west of the main temple (Hölscher 1954: 4).In the successive periods, the town inside the Medinet Habu precinct continued to grow. From the 22nd to 24th Dynasties the entire outer temple area was filled with a crowded village with narrow and irregular streets (Hölscher called it the first  fellahin village :   Hölscher, U. and Wilson J. A. 1930: 2; Hölscher 1932: 31–2). From the arrowheads found during excavations of Medinet Habu it seems that the temple was again attacked at some point during this period. Then, at the end of the 24th Dynasty some sort of ‘violent destruction’ led to the abandonment of this village. During the re-habitation in the 25th–26th Dynasties, the entire temple area became more densely occupied, and larger, multi-story houses were erected for ‘wealthy families and high officials’ along the south and west walls of the main temple (Hölscher’s second  fellahin village ) (Hölscher 1954: 6–7 and 14; Hölscher 1932: 37–38). Between the 26th Dynasty and the Roman period there is practically no trace of settlement at Medinet Habu, ‘except in the vicinity of the Small Temple’ (Hölscher 1954: 34). Subsequently the precinct was reoccupied. During the Roman and Late Antique periods the town of Djeme covered most of the precinct with houses spilling over the north and west sides of the Great Girdle Wall. 6 The srcinal housing no doubt could not have held the population of pap. BM. 10068, which Kemp estimated to have been around 1000 persons (Kemp 1989: 307). 7 See, for example, LRL no. 12. (Pap. Berlin 10494), Černý 1939:   23–4; Wente 1967: 44. 8 However, the Inner Enclosure Wall and the buildings within it seemed to have remained undamaged. However, as Hölscher concedes, it was not always possible to distinguish between the layers of earlier and later villages during the excavation (Hölscher 1954: 7).Unfortunately, by the time the Epigraphic Survey began its work at Medinet Habu in 1926, half a century of systematic and unsystematic diggings had left the stratigraphy of the site severely disturbed (Hölscher 1934: 1–2). The only area that Hölscher found relatively intact was the southeastern portion of the precinct (the former ‘garden’ with the ‘pool’, and the later site of the so-called  fellahin villages ), which the Survey excavated during the 1928/9 season, ‘where it had preserved the records of the most diverse cultures in a more or less complete sequence’ (Hölscher 1930: 1). Hölscher differentiated 12 chronological strata, and dated the finds according to the strata where they had been unearthed (Teeter 2003: 2–3). The exact provenance of the objects, when known and noted, was recorded in the field registers and later in Hölscher’s personal card files, the so-called Teilungsliste  he complied in the 1950s, by means of a grid of 20 meter squares that covered all structures within the Medinet Habu precinct. 9  A significant number of the doorframe fragments that make up the core of our present research came from the  fellahin villages , according to the field registers and personal notes, most notably from squares F5/6, that is the pool area, and G9, south of the Small Amun Temple – layers that Hölscher connected with the settlement of the 21st/22nd Dynasty. 10  For instance, in the case of a doorframe belonging to the uab  priest and scribe of the temple Khonsu-mes (Figure 2), on the photograph of one of its doorjambs Hölscher mentions that one part was found re-used in the foundations of the house in the pool, which house was of 21st-Dynasty workmanship (Brundage 1939: 27). Remarkably, during the OI excavations the complete doorframe was found, mostly in the 21st/22nd-Dynasty layer (‘in den Siedlungen der 21.-22. Dyn. gefunden’ 11 ), although broken into ten pieces. At present, however, the right corner of the lintel is missing. Not surprisingly, since some of the pieces were later kept in the Old Blockyard, while others were stored in Room 16 of the Main Temple, and a lintel fragment even turned up in the Small Amun Temple. Under these circumstances, the srcinal excavation documentation was essential in piecing the gate back together.Originally the gate was c. 180cm high and 120cm wide, with an opening c. 150cm high and 70cm wide. It is made of sandstone. The central register shows a standing man on the right offering flowers to a seated couple, presumably his parents. According to the text the seated man was the uab  priest and scribe of the temple Khonsu-mes. His wife, perhaps Tay-ahet 9 Unfortunately, Hölscher ‘seems to have paid little attention to stratigraphy outside of building levels’ (O’Connor 1996: 92); therefore significant information may have been lost as to the exact provenance of the objects. On the whole, in the field notes Hölscher was not too particular about providing specific information about the place of discovery and date of the finds, so, in many cases their archaeological context is unknown (e.g. Teilungsliste  nos. 605, 614, 628, etc.). In some instances, only the find spot correlating to the grid system is known (e.g. Teilungsliste  nos. 452, 602, 621, 625, etc.), while a significant number of artifacts are said to come simply from ‘the debris’ (‘im Schutt’) (e.g. Teilungsliste  nos. 607, 616, 623, etc.). Here, I would like to take the opportunity to thank the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago and Mr John Larson for granting me access to some of the srcinal field notes and card files pertaining to my research. 10 E.g. Teillungsliste  nos. 450, 603, 604, 606, 610, 611, etc. 11 See Teilungsliste  nos. 603 and 604.  4  Jl Schm International Congress of Egyptologists XI (the reading is uncertain), was mistress of the house and chantress of Amun, and their son was the uab -priest of Amun (in) United-with-Eternity of User-maat-Re, Pa-di-aset. Other than their name and titles, we know very little of the family occupying the house behind this gate. 12  Neither father nor son is mentioned in the Houselist of pap. BM 10068 as living in Medinet Habu, nor in any of the Tomb Robbery Papyri of the period, yet it is quite certain that the family lived in Medinet Habu at one time or another, and, considering the provenance of the doorframe fragments, either at the very end of the 20th or early 21st   Dynasty, before the devastation of the precinct.The OI excavation records are also instrumental in the identification of several fragments that were initially thought to be unconnected. Previously, three doorjambs from Medinet Habu were known to have been dedicated to the High Priest of Amun, Ramses-nakht by one of his subordinates, the scribe of the treasury of the temple of Amun Sethmes (Kitchen 1983: 89–90). However, the Field Notes and the Teilungsliste  mention two more blocks, making a total of five such doorjambs. Of 12 A scribe Khonsu-mes is mentioned in the Srmt  -document on the verso of pap. BM 10068 (Peet 1930: pl. XIII, 1), and a scribe of this name also appears three times in documents connected with Deir el-Medina ( Černý 1973:  219). However, Khonsu-mes is a common enough name in the late New Kingdom to make a positive identification possible. the five jambs two were srcinally found in the layer of the 21st/22nd Dynasty, 13  one in the H4 quadrant southwest of the pool area, 14  and another in the K-L 11/12 area, in the rubbish of Coptic houses. 15  The provenance of the fifth is unknown. 16  Of the two doorjambs found in the 21st/22nd-Dynasty layer, one is still missing and the other is broken before the owner’s titles and name, so without the srcinal documentation the connection of this jamb to the above corpus would not have been obvious. Of the block identified as coming from H4 only a small fragment has been preserved (Figure 3), fortunately bearing the name and title of the High Priest of Amun Ramses-nakht. Of the remaining two pieces one was stored in the open-air magazine behind the God’s Wives’ Chapels, and the other in Room 16 of the Great Temple, both more or less in the same condition as in the old photographs. Originally all five doorjambs had a main vertical inscription with the name and titles of Ramses-nakht, and below it a square register with the depiction of the kneeling Sethmes, his hands raised in adoration. The High Priest of Amun Ramses-nakht is, of course, a well-known figure in late Ramesside Egypt. However, his assistant Sethmes is more difficult to identify, as he is absent from the known records of the era.Unfortunately, several fragments are currently only known to us through the srcinal excavation documentation, meaning that only the old photographs and/or the connected Hölscher card files exist at the moment. That is the case, for example, with one particular lintel fragment from a private house showing the royal butler and great steward Ramses-nakht kneeling in adoration in front of the cartouche of Ramses III (Figure 4). According to Hölscher’s notes, it was left at Medinet Habu following the conclusion of the excavations (‘in dem 13 Teilungsliste  606. 14 Teilungsliste  452. 15 Identified in the field notes as MH 29.112. 16 Teilungsliste  605. g 2: cosc g o h hos o khos-ms. g 3: h TeilunglisTe  c o  oom o h hgh s o m mss-kh  h gm o  h hs  sv (mh l. 1397; hoo: yko koylczky).  5  Doos o h Ps. Rscovg Fgms  h Nw Blocky  M H International Congress of Egyptologists XI Grabungs gälende’); 17  however it has not yet been found. It is also unfortunate that many such examples of doorjambs and lintels that have not yet been re-located, or only fragments of which have been found, could be cited here. However, as the ongoing survey of the Western Fortified Gate and its environs began in the 2013/4 season, new material is inevitably turning up: fragments that correlate to the existing records, and also yet unknown pieces, hopefully furthering our knowledge of the Ramesside/early Third Intermediate Period settlement and its inhabitants in the Medinet Habu precinct. Bibliography Barwick, M. 2011. The Twilight of Ramesside Egypt. Studies on the History of Egypt at the End of the Ramesside Period . Warsaw, Agade.Brundage, B. C. 1939. Notes on Some Blocks from the Excavation of Medinet Habu .   Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Chicago. Černý, J. 1939. Late Ramesside Letters .   Bibliotheca Aegyptiaca 9. Brussels, Fondation égyptologique Reine Élisabeth. Černý, J. 1973.  A Community of Workmen at Thebes in the Ramesside Period. BdÉ 50. Le Caire, L’Institut française d’archéologie orientale.Haring, B. J. J. 1997. Divine Households: Administrative and Economic Aspects of the New Kingdom Royal Memorial Temples in Western Thebes. Egyptologische Uitgaven 12. Leiden, Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten.   Hölscher, U. 1932. Excavations at Ancient Thebes 1930/31. Oriental Institute Communications 15. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.   Hölscher, U. 1934. The Excavation of Medinet Habu , Volume 1: General Plans and Views . Oriental Institute Publications 21. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.   Hölscher, U. 1951. The Excavation of Medinet Habu , Volume 4: The Mortuary Temple of Ramses III  , Part 2. Oriental Institute 17 Teilungsliste  601. Photograph number: P. 44674 A. Publications 55. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.Hölscher, U. 1954. The Excavation of Medinet Habu , Volume 5: Post-Ramessid Remains . Oriental Institute Publications 66. Chicago, University of Chicago Press. Hölscher, U. and Wilson J. A. 1930. Medinet Habu Studies 1928/29. Oriental Institute Communications 7. Chicago, University of Chicago Press. Johnson, W. R. 2001. Monuments and Monumental Art under Amenhotep III: Evolution and Meaning. In D. O’Connor and E. H. Cline (eds),  Amenhotep III, Perspectives on his reign : 63–94. Ann Arbor, The University of Michigan Press. Johnson, W. R. 2007. The Epigraphic Survey. The Oriental Institute 2006–2007 Annual Report  : 49–59.Kemp, B. J. 1972. Temple and town in ancient Egypt. In: P. J. Ucko, R. Tringham and G. W. Dimbleby (eds), Man, Settlement and Urbanism : 657–80. London, Duckworth.Kemp, B. J. 1989.  Ancient Egypt. Anatomy of Civilization . London, Routledge.Kitchen, K. 1983. Ramesside Inscriptions Historical and Biographical, Vol. 6. Ramesses IV to XI and Contemporaries.  Oxford, Blackwell. McClain, J. B. 2015. Continuing the Medinet Habu Fragment Project. Egyptian Archaeology  46: 14–6.Nelson, H. H. and Hölscher, U. 1931. Medinet Habu Reports: I. The Epigraphic Survey 1928–31; II. The Architectural Survey 1929/30. Oriental Institute Communications 10. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.   Nelson, H. H. and Hölscher, U. 1934. Work in Western Thebes 1931–33. Oriental Institute Communications 18. Chicago, University of Chicago Press. Nelson, H. H. and Hoelscher, U. 1929. Medinet Habu 1924–28. Oriental Institute Communications 5. Chicago, University of Chicago Press. O’Connor, D. 1996. The American Archaeological Focus on Ancient Palaces and Temples of the New Kingdom. In N. Thomas (ed.), The American Discovery of Ancient Egypt: Essays : 79–95. Los Angeles, Los Angeles County Museum of Art. Peet, T. E. 1930. The Great Tomb-Robberies of the Twentieth Egyptian Dynasty   I–II  . Oxford, Oxford University Press.Teeter, E. 2003. S carabs, Scaraboids, Seals, and Seal Impressions  from Medinet Habu. Oriental Institute Publications 118. Chicago, The Oriental Institute. Teeter, E. 2010. Baked Clay Figurines and Votive Beds from Medinet Habu . Oriental Institute Publications 133. Chicago, The Oriental Institute.Troy, L. 2002. Resource management and ideological manifestation: The towns and cities of Ancient Egypt. In Development of Urbanism from a Global Perspective . Uppsala, Uppsala Universiteit. Retrieved from http://www.uu.se/digitalAssets/9/9590_TroyAll.pdf  Valbelle, D. 1985. Les ouvriers de la tombe: Deir el-Médineh à l’époque ramesside.  BdÉ 96. Le Caire, L’Institut français d’archéologie orientale.Wente, E. F. 1967. Late Ramesside Letters , SAOC 33. Chicago, University of Chicago Press. g 4: ll gm o h oyl l  g sw mss-kh (. 44674 , h ol s).
Recommended
View more...
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks
SAVE OUR EARTH

We need your sign to support Project to invent "SMART AND CONTROLLABLE REFLECTIVE BALLOONS" to cover the Sun and Save Our Earth.

More details...

Sign Now!

We are very appreciated for your Prompt Action!

x