War and The Economy The International A

Egyptian Stories
A British Egyptological Tribute to Alan B. Lloyd

on the Occasion of His Retirement.
Edited by
Thomas Schneider and Kasia Szpakowska
Alter Orient und Altes Testament
Veröffentlichungen zur Kultur und Geschichte des Alten Orients
und des Alten Testaments
Band 347
[AOAT EDITORIAL DETAILS HERE]

Egyptian Stories
A British Egyptological Tribute to Alan B. Lloyd
on the Occasion of His Retirement.
Edited by
Thomas Schneider and Kasia Szpakowska
2007
Ugarit-Verlag
Münster
[AOAT RIGHTS/ISBN INFO HERE]
Foreword
“But concerning Egypt, I am going to speak at length, because it has the

most wonders, and everywhere presents works beyond description”
Egyptian Stories as the title for the Festschrift to honour Alan Lloyd’s achieve-
ments is particularly apt because it encapsulates the main strands of his in-
terests and academic tenets, and is equally pertinent to the character of this
gathering of papers. It is an obvious reference to the histories of Herodotus,
and to Alan’s seminal commentary on the Greek historian’s Egyptian logos as a
scholar dedicated to both the Classical Civilizations of the Mediterranean and
Egypt. It also emphasizes Alan’s interest in the past, his insistence on scientific
scrutiny (the basic meaning of history), and his profound love of (hi)stories, of
literature. Following Herodotus’ motto, the present volume of Egyptian Stories
wishes to speak at length about Egypt, and to present modern inquiries into
its wonders and works beyond description. It explores Egypt from the Saqqara
Necropolis to the Red Sea, from Sais in the Western Delta to festive Thebes,
and reaches to the Greek Mainland and the Levant. It offers to the recipient
water, honey, flint, amethyst and gold. It investigates the belief in Amun, in
the jackal god, in the gods of the Western and Eastern deserts, and sacred
animals. It unfolds stories about women, goddesses and queens, about priests
and kings, and reflects about the acquisition of knowledge, the prediction of
dreams, erotic gestures, and the purchase of arms. It also writes in new facets
on the page of how Ancient Egypt was recreated in modern Britain.
Thus, it is fitting that this be a British tribute to Alan, as he has always been a
champion of Egyptology in this country. For years he has dedicated himself as
Chairman of the Egypt Exploration Society, engaged in expanding the scope
of our knowledge of Ancient Egypt through the Society’s excavations and
publications. He has made Ancient Egypt come alive for the British public
as well, through the numerous lectures he generously gives for societies and
universities throughout the UK. The University of Wales Swansea has par-
ticularly benefited from Alan’s expertise for over four decades. As Pro-Vice-
Chancellor he helped shape the profile of the university as a whole, and as
Head of Department of Classics and Ancient History for many years, Alan
cultivated the Egyptological component by teaching undergraduate courses
and supervising research students. As a teacher, Alan has always emphasised
the importance of teaching and the transmission of knowledge, and this is
viii
clearly recognised by his students who flock to his lectures. Building on the
work of J. Gwyn Griffiths and Kate Bosse-Griffiths, he helped to establish a
campus Museum of Egyptian Antiquities: The Egypt Centre. Finally, it was
largely through the foresight and endeavours of Alan Lloyd that the field of
Egyptology was established as an integral component of the department that
now is formally called ‘Classics, Ancient History, and Egyptology’. Through
all his efforts, Wales is now home to a thriving Egyptological community that
is composed of large numbers of local and international students, scholars and
researchers. Alan’s devotion to British Egyptology is reflected by the willing-
ness and alacrity with which his colleagues have contributed here.
This collection of articles would not have been possible without the most
generous financial support of the Egypt Exploration Society (to whom we
are also grateful for permission to use the photograph of Alan as our frontis-
piece), and a contribution by the School of Humanities of The University of
Wales Swansea. We are grateful to the series editors of Alter Orient und Altes
Testament for agreeing to publish the Festschrift, and to Steven Snape and
Rutherford Press Limited for facilitating the production of the volume. A note
concerning style: as Egyptologists approach their subject through a variety
of sub-disciplines, in this volume each contributor’s individual and appropri-
ate transliteration and citation style has been retained. The editors and the
contributors hope that Alan accepts this tome as a sincere token of recogni-
tion and esteem for his achievements as a scholar and a promoter of British
Egyptology.
Contents
Foreword ................................................................................................................................... vii
C. A. R. Andrews, Eponymous Priests Old and New in Unpublished Frag-

mentary Demotic British Museum Papyri (P. BM EA 76271, 76269A,
10992 and 10540) ......................................................................................................... 1
D. A. Aston, A Taste of Honey: mnt- and mDot-Vessels in the Late Eighteenth

Dynasty ............................................................................................................................ 13
M. Collier, Facts, Situations and Knowledge Acquisition: gmi with iw and

r-Dd in Late Egyptian ................................................................................................. 33
A. M. Dodson, Legends of a Sarcophagus .................................................................... 47
T. DuQuesne, Private Devotion and Public Practice: aspects of Egyptian art

and religion as revealed by the Salakhana stelae ................................................ 55
R. Enmarch, What the Ancestors Foretold: Some References to Prediction in

Middle Egyptian Texts ............................................................................................... 75
D. W. J. Gill, Arsinoe in the Peloponnese: the Ptolemaic base on the Methana

peninsula .......................................................................................................................... 87
C. Graves-Brown, Flint and the Northern Sky .......................................................... 111
K. Griffin, An Ax iqr n Ra Stela from the collection of the Egypt Centre,

Swansea ............................................................................................................................ 137
K. A. Kitchen, Festivity in Ramesside Thebes and Devotion to Amun and his

City .................................................................................................................................... 149
I. Mathieson, Recent Results of Geophysical Survey in the Saqqara Necropolis 155
R. G. Morkot, War and the Economy: the International ‘arms trade’ in the
Late Bronze Age and after ........................................................................................ 169
E. F. Morris, Sacred and Obscene Laughter in The Contendings of Horus and

Seth, in Egyptian Inversions of Everyday Life, and in the Context of Cul-
tic Competition ............................................................................................................. 197

G. Mumford, Egypto-Levantine relations during the Iron Age to early Per-

sian periods (Dynasties late 20 to 26) .................................................................... 225
E. J. Owens, The Waters of Alexandria ......................................................................... 289
R. B. Parkinson, ‘Une cantilène de Pentaour’: Marguerite Yourcenar and

Middle Kingdom Literature ...................................................................................... 301
T. Schneider, Contextualising the Tale of the Herdsman ........................................ 309
I. Shaw, Late Roman Amethyst and Gold Mining at Wadi el-Hudi ................ 319
H. S. Smith and S. Davies, The Sacred Animal Necropolis at North Saqqara

yet again! Some Late Period inscribed offering-tables from the site .......... 329
K. Spence, Topography, Architecture and Legitimacy: Hatshepsut’s founda-

tion deposits at Deir el-Bahri ................................................................................... 353
N. Spencer, A Theban Statue Base from the reign of Nekhtnebef ....................... 373
K. Szpakowska, Flesh for Fantasy: Reflections of Women in Two Ancient

Egyptian Dream Manuals .......................................................................................... 393
J. H. Taylor, The earliest Egyptian hippocampus ....................................................... 405
A. P. Thomas, The Barefoot Aristocrats and the Making of an Egyptian Collection 417
P. Wilson, A Cult of Amasis and ‘The Procession of Two Gods’ at Saïs ............ 437
War and the Economy: the International
‘arms trade’ in the Late Bronze Age and after
R. G. Morkot
Abstract
There is evidence from a range of sources for what we might reasonably char-
acterise as an international ‘arms trade’ during the Late Bronze Ages. By the
beginning of the New Kingdom (Late Bronze Age) Egypt had seen the most
significant change in military technology in its history – the introduction of
the chariot. The sources clearly show the change from acquisition of chariots
and horses as booty to manufacture of chariots in Egypt itself; the transfer
of technologies and adaptation to local conditions. The new standing army
required large numbers of chariots and horses as well as other weaponry: this
must have seen an increase in production in state Egyptian workshops, and
the large-scale import of the requisite raw materials. Royal gift-exchange,
documented most extensively by the ‘Amarna Letters’, reveals the sharing
of military technology by the great powers, even though they were potential
rivals. The use of foreign (usually described as ‘mercenary’) soldiers was an-
other means by which innovations in arms, and tactics, moved between states.
Egyptian military technology and, as far as we can determine, battle remained
largely unchanged until the Late Period (Iron Age II). The paper considers the
evidence for a ‘trade’ in arms and the consequent spread of technologies result-
ing in ‘globalization’ of military technology.
***
In the past decade a considerable literature on aspects of weaponry and war-

fare in the ancient world, including Egypt, has appeared. Fragments of battle
scenes recovered in recent excavations show the development in the earlier
18th Dynasty of a genre reflecting the new style of chariot warfare, hitherto
surviving from comparatively late examples (Thutmose IV onwards). There

The existence of which is disputed by Warburton 2001.

E.g. Carman and Harding 1999; Lloyd 1996; Otto, Thrane and Vandkilde eds 2006; specifi-
cally related to Egypt: Gnirs 1996; Morkot 2003; Partridge 2002; Shaw 1996, 2001; Spalinger
2005.

cf Morkot 2003, 45–7; for a reconstruction of the Ahmose scenes from Abydos, and the Thut-
mose II scenes from Thebes see now Spalinger 2005, 19–22, figs 1.4–1.7, 59–62, figs 3.1–3.2.
170 R. G. Morkot
has also been extensive discussion of specific reigns and of the principal ‘texts’,
notably for the ‘arms trade’ the Amarna Letters (EA). There have also been
major studies of the Late Bronze Age ‘collapse’ and the role of the ‘Sea Peoples’
and changes in warfare, and the economy.
There will be, doubtless, critics of the term ‘arms trade’ applied to the LBA.
Nevertheless, the Egyptian sources – notably tomb paintings of foreign ‘trib-
ute’, and the Amarna Letters – show that military equipment was sent to
Egypt by the rulers of Western Asiatic and North-east African states. The
nature of the evidence is such that, with the exception of chariots, there is little
record of similar equipment leaving Egypt. This can probably be explained by
the nature of warfare within Egypt and Nubia; it was the states of Western
Asia – most notably Mitanni – that were the innovators.
One of the main problems in trying to discuss the economy of ancient Egypt
in the New Kingdom is the meaning of the terms inw and b3kw. It is also clear
that interpretations of the ancient economy have been influenced by the range
of very differing attitudes held by the scholars involved, and certainly their
personal political and economic convictions have played a part.
The Egyptian term generally translated as ‘tribute’ (inw), has been extensive-
ly discussed in recent studies. Inw clearly indicates royal ‘gift-exchange’ (and
can equate with the Akkadian šulmanu ‘greetings gift’), with a final destination
in Egyptian royal and state (temple) coffers. Nevertheless, a reciprocal system
was involved, and gift-exchange has thus been viewed as a form of ‘trade’,
some writers arguing that all ‘trade’ was carried out as gift-exchange and that
the palaces controlled trade in the LBA. From the ideological perspective of
the pharaoh, the givers were not his equals, and there are hints that this also
had economic implications (as in EA 35, below). So, for the sending of mili-
tary equipment, which was presumably ‘paid for’ in gold (and other ‘luxuries’),
although it may fail to convey the nuances of the ancient terms, ‘arms trade’ is
our nearest equivalent.
Recent discussions of gift-exchange, particularly in relation to the Amarna
Letters, highlight the complexities of the social and economic elements:10 for
example, delays in reciprocating gifts are argued to be an equivalent of gaining

Moran 1992; Cohen and Westbrook eds 2000.

On the LBA ‘collapse’ and the ‘Sea Peoples’ see Drews 1993 but cf Harding in Carman and
Harding 1999; Warburton 2001; Morris 2003, 9. Some significant changes in the economy,
such as the increased availability of metals, are discussed by Sherratt 2000, 2003.

I used it in Morkot 2003, xlix, 24–7, but have not found it elsewhere: indeed, although
implicit in some writers, there seems to be no general discussion of the subject, hence this
contribution.

For the role of Mitanni, argued by Oppenheim and others see Moorey 2001, 3–4.

Notably Bleiberg 1996 (and associated papers), on which cf. the (unnecessarily) scathing
comments of Warburton 2001, 239–40 (and cf 145); cf also Spalinger 2005, 131–3.

Cohen and Westbrook 2000, 25–6 (Liverani); 144–53 (Zaccagnini); 178–9 (Druckman and
Güner); 196–7 ( Jönsson); 226–7.
10
Notably Cohen and Westbrook 2000 with the discussions cited in n.7 above.
War and the Economy 171
interest on capital.11 Similarly, in EA 35 the ruler of Alashiya states that phar-

aoh has ‘not been put (on the same level) with the king of Khatti or Šangar’,
and that whatever greetings-gift is sent from Egypt is doubled in return. This
is open to interpretation: as indicating that reciprocity was fluid according to
the hierarchy of relationship, or as a letter combining elements of diplomatic
and more straightforward economic language.12
The evidence for the international arms trade of the Late Bronze Age comes
largely from Egyptian sources. The evidence – written, visual, and to a lesser
extent archaeological – is largely concerned with gift-exchange. Indeed, one
of the major problems for discussion of ‘trade’ is the almost complete lack of
depictions of anything that can be certainly described as trading activities,13
and the limited textual references to ‘merchants’.14
One notable instance of temple scenes that can be considered as depicting
‘trade’ is Hatsheput’s expedition to Punt. This also includes the earliest depic-
tion of weapons exchange. Amongst the gifts presented to the ruler of Punt are
a dagger and an axe, and amongst the commodities given to the Egyptians are
bows.15 Naville’s commentary reveals the attitudes of his time (and to some ex-
tent, those prevalent until recently) that the Egyptians fobbed off the Puntites
with trinkets and cheap jewellery in exchange for huge quantities of gold and
incense: it seems more likely that the depiction of gifts to the ruler was accept-
able, but decorum prevented the representation of the Egyptian trade goods.
The axe and dagger can be considered ‘prestige’ weapons. Only three bows are
shown, but this need only indicate plurality, and not the quantities received.
Quantifying trade of any sort is actually extremely difficult given the nature
of the surviving evidence. Certainly the amounts of weaponry listed in some of
the Amarna Letters are relatively small, and some of it is prestige goods (such
as ceremonial chariots and elaborately decorated daggers). In, for example, the
dowry sent by Tushratta (EA 22, below), the weapons were perhaps enough to
equip a bodyguard of ten. But the records of gift-exchange in the Amarna Let-
ters account for only a very small part of the international trade of the period.
There are comparatively few references to raw materials in the correspondence,
and the amounts cited are generally rather small: the documentary evidence
for the bulk of the perishable commodities (grain, wine, oil), livestock (hors-
es), raw materials, and manufactures does not survive. Likewise, well-known
Egyptian items that appear in archaeological contexts, such as calcite (‘alabas-
ter’) vessels, are not generally listed in the correspondence.16 Many, but not all,
11
See Liverani in Cohen and Westbrook 2000, 25.
12
Moran 1992, 108, ll.49–53; see Zaccagnini in Cohen and Westbrook 2000.
13
The most notable example of ‘trading’ is the scene of ‘Syrian’ (Phoenician) ships and ‘mer-
chants’ in the tomb of Qenamun (TT 162, Davies 1963, pl.xv).
14
Caminos 1954, 8, 26–7.
15
Naville 1898, pls lxix, lxxx, p.14 for commentary.
16
A notable exception being the enormous number of stone vessels filled with perfume sent to
Babylonia (EA 14, iii 35–45: Moran 1992, 32–3): the initial figures are lost, but total x-thou-
172 R. G. Morkot
of these other items of trade do appear in scenes of presentation of inw.

A significant number of scenes in New Kingdom tombs show the presenta-
tion of the foreign inw and the manufactures of Egyptian temple and palace
workshops to the pharaoh.17 There are comparable inw-scenes in temples of
early 19th Dynasty date, notably at Beit el-Wali and Abu Simbel.18 Obviously
there are problems in interpreting the scenes, such as issues of ‘historicity’,
and of copying from one tomb to another. There is also a geographical bias:
the bulk of surviving (and published) scenes is to be found in the tombs at
Thebes and Amarna. Irrespective of these issues, such scenes can be used in
an empirical way for the issue under discussion, as indicators of the military
paraphernalia that the Egyptians received and produced.
For the internal economy, tombs such as those of Rekhmire (TT 100 ~
Thutmose III) and Qenamun (TT 93 ~ Amenhotep II) show the production
of the temple workshops, and include military equipment, in the latter case
with quantities specified. Aldred doubted whether this represented annual
production.19 The temple of Amun at Thebes was certainly significant in pro-
duction, no doubt due to the royal donations of booty and tribute.20 The tomb
of the Great Herald and nomarch of Tjeny, Antef (TT 155 ~ Thutmose III),
shows quantities of weapons that were presented as part of the district’s ‘tax’:
bows and quivers, axes, axe-heads, daggers, and spears.21 Weapons-production
at Memphis is also documented, notably from the tomb of Ky-iri, where a
scene shows chariots, daggers, shields, helmets, bows, arrows, quivers, coats of
scale-armour, and khepesh-swords being produced in a state workshop which is
also manufacturing jewellery and amulets.22 One figure is weighing three hel-
mets, indicating that the careful recording of metal was applied to all items.
Tomb scenes showing presentation of inw to the pharaoh are first known
from the joint reign of Thutmose III and Hatshepsut, but as an artistic compo-
sition they are a development of a standard Egyptian type showing the presen-
tation of the produce of the estates to the tomb-owner. They also serve to show
the close relationship of the tomb-owner to the pharaoh. The actual ceremony
of presentation of inw is documented textually from much earlier.23
sand and seven.

17
For a general listing of the relevant scenes in tombs at Thebes: PM I2 pt I, 463, 1(b) (also see
465, 11); Aldred 1969, 1970; also (specifically chariots) now Herold 2006, 56–73.
18
Beit el-Wali (probably very beginning of reign of Ramesses II referring back to events in
that of Sety I) Ricke et al., 1967; the Abu Simbel scene (apparently unpublished) is on the face
of the terrace (there is no PM ref.).
19
Aldred 1969, 79, suggesting that it was an accession ‘outfit’.
20
At present I would regard the apparent dominance of the Theban Amun temple workshops
in chariot production, noted by Shaw (2001: 63, following Drenkhahn) as reflecting the current
bias in survival of evidence noted above.
21
Säve-Söderbergh 1957, pls xib, xiia.
22
Grajetzki 2001, 115, szene 2; see also Herold 2006, 72–3; Sauneron 1954.
23
Bleiberg 1996.
Even greater detail about gifts of military equipment, including quantities

and materials, is provided by a few of the Amarna Letters. These also give de-
tail of equipment that is not easily recognised, or shown, in depictions, or does
not survive in the archaeological record (such as ‘arrows to be shot flaming’).
The archaeological record is slightly more difficult. From a small number of
Egyptian tombs there are good examples of chariots and weapons which are
of foreign manufacture or type, or show the use of imported materials, but
these are individual items. The excavated Late Bronze Age shipwrecks, such
as Ulu Burun, include only small quantities of weapons, which have generally
been assumed to be the personal possessions of the crew, rather than part of
the consignment.24 The issue is further complicated by arguments that bronze
axe-heads that might reasonably be considered weapons or tools were actually
being traded as ingots.25
The first ways of acquiring weapons and other military equipment were cap-
tured in battle and as plunder and booty (h3q and kfa) following the defeat of
an enemy or capture of a city. Given the quantities of precious metal involved,
the collection of weapons, usable or damaged, would have been important. In
the earlier part of the 18th Dynasty, when chariots were a new introduction,
capture was certainly a prime factor in their acquisition. The limited records of
military activities also indicate the rapid increase in chariot numbers deployed
by kings.
The ‘autobiographical’ inscription of Ahmose son of Ebana records that he
captured a chariot and horse in one of the campaigns of Thutmose I: Ahmose
tells us that he presented this capture to the king. He probably had little choice
in that, but, in any case, he would have lacked the requisite skills to use the
chariot, and he was recompensed in gold, which was far more useful to him.
Ahmose’s fellow townsman and near contemporary, Ahmose-pen-Nekhbet,
also captured a chariot and horse in the campaign against Naharin (Mitanni).
In both cases the soldiers imply only one horse – presumably the second hav-
ing been killed, disabling the vehicle. Clearly these do not represent the total
captures by the Egyptian army in these battles, but further quantification is
impossible.
Half-a-century or so later, at the battle of Megiddo, Thutmose III captured
924 chariots (including two “of gold”) and 2,041 horses. In the time of Thut-
mose III his contemporary Hittite Great King could muster 1000 chariots,
and one vassal of the king of Mitanni was able to send 300 to his liege lord.
Even though the rulers of western Asia had mustered huge forces at Megiddo
to resist Egyptian expansion, this is a clear demonstration of the rapid increase
in chariot numbers, and the changes in warfare in a short period. This increase
Sherratt 2000, 84–5, challenges this citing the European type spearheads and sword.
24
My thanks to Dr Carol Bell for comments on this and a copy of her paper ‘Metal Trade at
25
the Close of the LBA in the Eastern Mediterranean’ given to a seminar on 4 April 2006, at the
Deutsches Bergbau-Museum, Bochum.
174 R. G. Morkot
in numbers also implies a swift expansion of chariot production, of the spread

of the technologies involved, and of horse breeding and training.
In his western Asiatic campaigns, Amenhotep II captured 730 and 1,092
chariots. A record at Qasr Ibrim, also of the time of Amenhotep II, includes
chariots. This is specified as inw and was received by the pharaoh at Thebes.
Unusually, the items are accounted by the number of men bringing them: in
the case of the chariots this is fifty. Elsewhere, we see one man wheeling, or
sometimes carrying, a chariot, so fifty chariots is a possible interpretation of
the Qasr Ibrim scene. It has been suggested that they were captured in a mili-
tary skirmish with Kushites, although the inclusion as part of the inw would
suggest otherwise.
In the reign of Thutmose III, chariots, weapons, and other military equip-
ment, appear as part of the inw in the Theban tombs of Antef, Amenmose,
Amenedjeh, Menkheperresonb, and Rekhmire. The king’s Annals in the Kar-
nak temple also include large numbers of chariots and horses. These too are
specified as inw alongside other animals and vehicles listed as captures in bat-
tle. Some chariots are said to be inlaid with gold and/or silver, and others
painted, implying that some are ceremonial or ‘royal’ chariots.26
Year 29: 32 horses as capture in Djahy
Year 30: 1,084 horses as inw, 40 chariots as inw
Year 31: x horses as inw, 26 horses and 13 chariots from Ullaza
Year 33: 260 horses as inw, x chariots as inw
Year 34: 40 horses and 15 chariots as capture, 30 + x horses and 90 (?)
chariots as inw
Year 35: 180 horses and 60 chariots in battle, 226 horses 11 + x chari-
ots as inw
Year 38: x horses and chariots in battle, 328 horses 70 chariots as inw
Year 39: 229 horses, x chariots as inw
Year 42: 48 horses in battle, 68 horses inw, armour and weapons as
inw
The technology of chariot building spread swiftly and, as the raw materials
required could be traded, many centres could make chariots; but maintain-
ing a chariot force was a three-sided problem. Without horses – and without
charioteers – the chariots were of no use. The Knossos tablets suggest that the
palace could call upon at least 700 complete chariots. However, it could deploy
fewer due to a lack of horses and other equipment.27 Equally, charioteers were
redundant without equipment, as the letter from Rib-Hadda to Akhenaten
emphasises: Rib-Hadda sought 30 chariots and their teams from Egypt for
26
We should draw a distinction between ceremonial chariots, with gilt plaster box-sides and
(sometimes) solid floors, and lavishly decorated, but still practical, royal war chariots.
27
The palace had distributed 150 complete chariots, retained 39 in the magazines, and pos-
sessed a further 550 chariot bodies and at least as many pairs of wheels. Uchitel 1988; Drews
1993, 108–109.
his charioteers.28 At Knossos, the tablets record charioteers with horses but no
chariot; chariot and only one horse; chariot and horses, but no armour.29 So the
trade in horses must have developed rapidly, and there must have been a de-
mand for suitably skilled grooms and charioteers: in Egypt this led to changes
in the system of elite education. Although many regions might be able to build
their own chariots and adapt them to local conditions, acquiring and breeding
horses may have been more difficult.
The Amarna Letters show that horses and chariots, along with the appro-
priate fittings, were regularly sent as greetings gifts with the letters as well as
part of the gift exchange documented by the Letters and the inw-scenes. The
documented gifts were from the rulers of Mitanni, Babylon, and Assyria. The
letters describe functional wooden chariots, as well as more elaborate ceremo-
nial ones. The greetings gifts sometimes cite one chariot and team,30 perhaps
special,31 but can be as many as five,32 or even ten.33 Occasionally, both in greet-
ing gifts and exchange, only an unfitted chariot, or just the teams of horses
were sent. 34 Tushratta of Mitanni sent a chariot and team from the booty he
captured in battle with the Hittites.35 This obviously enabled the Egyptians to
see any new developments, or at least what they might confront should they
engage the Hittites in battle.
The letters draw a distinction between ‘wooden chariots’, which were the
practical battle chariot, and the lavishly decorated and outfitted ceremonial
vehicles. The letters listing the dowry sent by Tushratta of Mitanni when his
daughter married Amenhotep III include a detailed description of such a gold
covered ceremonial chariot with all of its trappings, including whip, covers,
bridles, ivory blinkers, necklaces for the horses, and reins. The text specifies the
types and numbers of stones, and weight of gold on each item.36 Other associ-
ated items in this section of the dowry were one leather halter with ornaments
of genuine khulalu stone, lapis lazuli, khiliba stone and gold; one set of snaffles
of silver and a pair of gloves trimmed with red wool. The last immediately re-
28
EA 107: Moran 1992, 180–1.
29
The tablets could indicate what the palace distributed and, by implication, what the chariot-
eer himself possessed/supplied.
30
EA 15: Moran 1992, 37–8; Aššur-uballit to pharaoh; greeting gift beautiful chariot and two
horses.
31
EA 16, 9–12: Moran 1992, 39; Aššur-uballit to pharaoh ‘beautiful royal chariot (narkabta
banīta ša šarrūti) fitted for me and two white horses fitted out for me’.
32
EA 7: Moran 1992, 13, Burra-Buriyaš to Akhenaten; EA 17, 36–8: Moran 1992, 42, Tush-
ratta to Amenhotep III; perhaps also EA 37: Moran 1992, 110, between Alašiya and Egypt,
slightly difficult to interpret see Moran 1992, 110 n.4.
33
EA 3, 32–4: Moran 1992, 7; Kadashman Enlil to Amenhotep III.
34
EA 7, 49–62: Moran 1992, 13, greeting gift of Burra-Buriyaš to Akhenaten, five teams; EA
9, 19–38: Moran 1992, 18, Burra-Buriyaš to Akhenaten or Tutankhamun, five teams for five
wooden chariots; EA 16, 9–12: Moran 1992, 39, Aššur-uballit of Assyria, one chariot not fitted
out.
35
EA 17, 36–8: Moran 1992, 42.
36
EA 22.i. 2–3: Moran 1992, 51.
176 R. G. Morkot
call those given to Ay by Akhenaten, and the pair from Tutankhamun’s tomb.
Chariots are also shown presented by Asiatic representatives in scenes in
the tombs of Rekhmire, 37 Menkheperresonb,38 Amenmose,39 Amenmose, 40
Sobekhotep,41 and Meryra II.42 The chronological range (some 80 years) shows
that, even though they were being manufactured in Egypt, their prestige en-
sured that chariots were amongst the most desirable items of royal gift-ex-
change.
Amarna Letter 22 also details a range of weapons and armour sent, as part
of his daughter’s dowry, by Tushratta to Amenhotep III:
22.i: 31–45 [x] good sharp arrows.
1 dagger with an iron blade; its guard of gold, with designs, its haft of
ebony with calf figurines; overlaid with gold; its pommel of … stone;
its … overlaid with gold, with designs; 6 shekels of gold have been
used on it.
1 bow of the apisamuš- type overlaid with gold. Four shekels of silver
have been used on it.
1 mace of iron overlaid with gold 15 shekels of gold have been used on
it.
1 zallewe knife of bronze its haft overlaid with gold; 3 shekels of gold
1 addu throwstick, of pišaiš, overlaid with gold; 2 shekels of gold have
been used on it.
1 tilpānu bow of zamiri; 4 times overlaid with gold, 6 shekels of gold
1 shield of silver, 10 shekels in weight.
(Also included in this section the halter and snaffles, and gloves re-
ferred to above; and two multicoloured shirts, which by context might
be considered part of the military apparel.)
22.ii: 16–9. 1 dagger with iron blade [details damaged, but with haft
and pommel of different stones, and its matru with variegated trim of
blue-purple wool; 14 shekels of gold have been used on it.
22.ii: 54–66: 2 bows … 10 shekels of gold have been used on them.
1 spear of bronze with double overlay of gold; 6 shekels of gold have
been used on it.
1 makkasu-axe, of bronze, its handle two times overlaid with gold; 3
37
TT 100: Davies 1943, pl. xxii: chariot with four-spoked wheel, and pl. xxiii two horses.
38
Davies 1933, pl. vii, chariot with team; two bodies and wheel carried.
39
Davies 1933, pl. xxxv, two chariots with quivers and other fittings; two teams brought sepa-
rately.
40
TT 89: Davies and Davies 1940, pl. xxiv two chariots being dragged by hand.
41
TT 63; Syrians with horses BM 37987 two horses one brown one white attached to rear of
chariot (just visible) Dziobek 1990: Taf.3 cf Taf.33b.
42
Davies 1905: pl. xxxix, a chariot, horses; lower a chariot, being carried by man head and arms
stuck through one of the wheels, chariots (one six- and one four-spoked).
shekels of silver have been used on it.

22.iii: 7–9. 1 dagger, the blade of iron; the guard of gold with designs;
haft …; inlays of lapis; pommel of khiliba stone
22.iii: 37–41. 1 cuirass set, of bronze; 1 helmet of bronze for a man;
1 cuirass set of leather. 1 helmet of bronze for the sarku-soldiers. 1
cuirass set, of leather, for horses, set with rings of bronze.43 2 helmets
of bronze for horses.
1 shield, its urukmannu overlaid with silver
9 shields their urukmannu of bronze
100 bows apisamuš-type
1000 arrows, sharp; 2000 arrows …
3000 arrows
10 javelins with iron tips
10 javelins with bronze tips
20 arrows [rest lost]
20 arrows “with thorns,”
20 arrows šukudu-type
20 arrows (to be shot) flaming
10 maces of …
10 zallewe-knives of bronze,
10 spears.
Although some of these could be regarded as ‘prestige’ items rather than
purely practical weapons, there must have been weapons intended for use that
were also lavishly decorated.44 The iron-bladed daggers are clearly prestige
objects, but that surviving from Tutankhamun’s tomb (a close parallel, if not
the actual weapon described in EA 22.iii) is also functional. Whilst the total
quantities of arrows and other weapons listed in this document are not suf-
ficient to equip a large force,45 it is significant in quantity and value, and could
easily have served as models for manufacture of similar weapons in Egypt.
A far smaller amount of equipment was sent by Tagi, the mayor of Gintikir-
mil: harnesses for a team of horses, a bow, quiver, spear and (perhaps) cov-
ers.46 Although the evidence from correspondence for exchange between other
western Asiatic rulers is scanty, one, probably from Hattusili III of Khatti to
a contemporary ruler of Assyria (suggested to be Adad-nirari I) refers to an
exchange of suits of armour for iron blades.47
The evidence from the ‘tribute scenes’ is not as specific as the Amarna Letters,
43
There is evidence for these from Nuzi: see Drews 1993, 111 (citing T. Kendall) and also from
Mycenaean Greece.
44
Sherratt 2000, 84–5 and 2003, 41–2 emphasises the functional aspects of prestige weapons.
45
It is tempting to see equipment for a guard of ten, each supplied with a shield, mace, knife,
spear and two javelins: although the number of bows is obviously too large for that explanation.
Papyrus Koller states that quivers contained 80 arrows.
46
EA 266: Moran 1992, 314–315.
47
Beckman 1999, 147–9 No 24B.
178 R. G. Morkot
but quantities of weapons are depicted. In the tomb of Rekhmire, the Keftiu
bring three ‘daggers’ in red or blue sheaths.48 The ‘Syrian’ tribute (sometimes
more territorially specific) usually includes composite bows and quivers,49 and
sometimes khepesh-swords,50 spears and shields.51 The ‘tribute’ of Kush includes
spears,52 shields (made of cow hide and more exotic skins, such as cheetah),
bows and arrows, and soldiers.53 Quivers, whether part of the tribute, or manu-
facture in the temple/palace workshops, are frequently shown as if made from
exotic skins, such as cheetah (and, perhaps, giraffe) and with tails hanging
from them. The ‘New Year’ gifts in the tomb of Qenamun include 450 quivers
and 680 shields.
Chariots and military equipment are obvious examples of transferable tech-
nologies, however, the date of and circumstances surrounding the introduction
of the chariot into Egypt are still debated. The horse and chariot were possibly
introduced into Egypt in the late Middle Kingdom,54 but the first documented
Egyptian encounter with the chariot was in the Theban campaigns against
the Hyksos. Even then, as Spalinger has observed, there is more emphasis on
the naval conflict, due to the terrain, but also suggesting that Hyksos chariots
were limited in number.55 There was a rapid expansion of chariot warfare in
the early 18th Dynasty, and, presumably, intensive horse-breeding to supply
the new demand.
The Egyptians soon began to manufacture their own chariots, and presum-
ably adapted it to conditions within Egypt. The earliest surviving tomb scene
of chariot manufacture is in the tomb of Hapusonb (TT 67~Hatshepsut),56
and they are quite frequent in succeeding reigns, as are chariots from royal or
palace workshops presented as New Year ‘gifts’ to pharaoh.57 The chariot pre-
sented to Amenhotep II as a ‘New Year’ gift was called ‘The Syrian’ and made
48
Davies 1943, pl. xix.
49
Rekhmire: Davies 1943, pls. xxii–xxiii; Amenmose TT 89 Davies and Davies 1940, pl. xxiv;
TT 78 Horemheb ~ Thutmose IV Brack and Brack 1980, pls. 9, 47, 48 scene 8; Meryra II, Dav-
ies 1905, pl. xxxix.
50
Horemheb TT 78: Brack and Brack 1980, pls. 47–8 scene 8.
51
Meryra II: Davies 1905, pl. xxxix, khepesh, spears, and shields.
52
Sobekhotep TT 63 ~ Thutmose IV: Dziobek 1990; Nubians BM 922 top register, the last
with bundle of spears. Huy ~ Tutankhamun: Davies and Gardiner 1926, pl. xxiv (and colour
pl. xxv) two ceremonial shields, cheetah-skin shield, three cow-hide shields; pl. xxvii, two bows
with arrows; pl. xvii, presentation of tribute to Huy a quiver and a bow case; Beit el-Wali, Ricke
et al. 1967, shields, bows, soldiers.
53
Meryra II: Davies 1905, general pl. xxxvii; Southern tribute, pl. xxxviii;
54
See discussion in Spalinger 2005, 8, and the observations of Shaw 2001, 62–5, 68–9 on the
Hyksos as a barrier to wider Egyptian access to chariotry.
55
Spalinger 2005, 2–6, 15.
56
Davies 1963, p.9 n.6.
57
Manufacture: for scenes see conveniently now, Herold 2006, 56–73; Intef, TT 155; Hepu,
TT 66: Davies 1963, pl. viii; Rekhmire, TT 100; Puyemre, TT 39; Menkheperresonb, TT 86;
Meri TT 95 (~Amenhotep II); Amenhotep Si-ese (~Thutmose IV); Ky-iri (Memphis) Grajetz-
ki 2001; as New Year gifts: TT 73 Amenhotep (?)~ Hatshepsut, Säve-Söderbergh 1957: pl. iii
three chariots; Qenamun, Davies 1930, pl. xxii.
of wood from Mitanni (Naharin).58 The depictions show that the Egyptians
initially used the wheel with four-spokes, as was current elsewhere, but from
the reign of Thutmose IV Egyptian chariots had wheels with six (and occa-
sionally eight59) spokes (as later did Hittite and Assyrian chariots).
Some campaign scenes (relating to the battle of Qadesh) show repairs to
chariots in the Egyptian camp and we can be certain that the army had to take
a good supply of spare axles, poles and chariot wheels in preparation. Papyrus
Anastasi I also refers to repairs carried out in a chariot workshop in Joppa.
The timber used in chariot manufacture was imported from Palestine, Syria
and further north, including Mitanni. In the surviving examples from Tut-
ankhamun’s tomb, ash was used for the axle, elm for the pole, and evergreen
oak for the spokes with birch bark for their lashings.60 Other elements survive
in which native Egyptian and imported materials have been used: a fragmen-
tary wheel from the tomb of Amenhotep III combined native tamarisk with
imported elm.61 A scene in Theban tomb 73 (temp. Hatshepsut) showing a
chariot has the caption “a great wrryt-chariot of šndyt-wood (acacia) of Kush,
decorated with gold”.62 Acacia was also used in elements of the Florence char-
iot: but it could not have supplied the appropriate size and quality of timber
for axles and poles.
The increasing importance of the elite chariot corps in the New Kingdom
army has been extensively discussed. Papyrus Anastasi III tells of a young
chariot officer who acquires his horses from the ‘military camp’ in the pres-
ence of pharaoh, and buys the chariot and chariot pole, at a cost of five and
three deben respectively.63 Presumably the chariots were manufactured within
a state workshop as they required at least some imported materials. The use of
the chariot, and the creation of a chariot corps, both reflected and enhanced
the role of the elite in New Kingdom Egypt. Elite education now began with
schooling in writing, but was then transferred to ‘the stables’ where the skills
of horsemanship and chariotry were also learnt. The chariot was open to abuse,
and variants on the Satire of the Trades suggest that it was the ancient equiva-
lent of the sports car, subjected to the careless driving of upper-class louts.
Despite their distant origins, the arts of horse-training and chariotry were
soon learnt by the Egyptians. There is no surviving Egyptian equivalent of the
Hurrian horse-training manual (the ‘Kikkuli text’) known from Hittite and
Middle Assyrian versions.64 Other documents – from Nippur, Nuzi, Alalakh
and Ugarit – relate to the conditioning of horses, their suitability for cold
58
Davies 1930, pl. xxii; and comments of Aldred 1969, 79.
59
The chariots of Thutmose II (see n. 2 above) and Thutmose IV have eight-spoked wheels.
60
Littauer and Crouwel 1985.
61
Western 1973.
62
Säve-Söderbergh 1957, pl. iii.
63
Anastasi III, Caminos 1954, 95–6. The genre of the text need not negate its value as evi-
dence. For ini ‘buy’ see Caminos 1954, 98 (6, 7).
64
Kammenhuber 1961; Littauer and Crouwel 1979, 83–4.
180 R. G. Morkot
climate, their veterinary care, and list animals by sire, indicating breeding pro-
grammes. Such essential information on training and care would have been
spread by specialists,65 and probably also by text, and it is not surprising that
there are significant loanwords relating to horses and chariotry in Egyptian.66
One of the most controversial has been maryannu, for too long considered to
indicate a warrior, specifically horse-owning, caste of Indo-European (‘Aryan’)
origin.67 It is now clear that the maryannu were chariot-warriors, wholly or
partly equipped by the state, but without racial connotations.
The evidence indicates that the Egyptians continued to import horses from
north Syria, and elsewhere, just as, later, the Assyrians acquired different types
of horses from all over their empire and its peripheries. Indeed, a change in
the type of horse –from ‘long-lined’ to ‘short-lined’ – is clear from depictions
from the end of the reign of Thutmose III and that of Amenhotep II.68 As
already noted, the Amarna Letters record that teams of horses were sent as
greetings gifts and royal exchange from Mitanni, Babylon, and Assyria, some-
times with chariots, and sometimes without. The tribute scenes regularly show
horses as part of the ‘Syrian’ inw from the time of Thutmose III (Rekhmire) to
Tutankhamun (Huy69). They often appear as a pair (team), although in some
tombs they can appear in larger numbers, as in the tombs of Tjanuni (TT
74) and Horemheb (TT 78), which are closely related in content, and both
belonging to officials connected with the army.70 A scene (now in Leiden)
from the tomb of Horemheb at Saqqara shows six Hittite grooms bringing
12 horses: this is doubtless six chariot teams.71 Importation continued into the
Ramesside period, as indicated by Papyrus Anastasi IV: ‘Khorian steeds are
yoked’, and ‘horse-teams and fine young steeds of Shangar (Babylonia), top
stallions of Khatti,’ are brought to the palace.72 In order to supply the chariotry
and the elite for personal use, horses must have been imported (or bred in
Egypt) in their hundreds, if not thousands.
Although importation of horses is well-documented, the issue of horse-
breeding in Egypt is less so. Although some Egyptologists have noted the
suitability of the Delta pastures, others have assumed that the Egyptians did
65
In a wider discussion, Moorey 2001.
66
Moorey 2001, 6, 8. The words for horse, ssmt, ibr are Semitic, and those for chariot are Se-
mitic (mrkbt) and perhaps Hurrian (wrrt); quiver (ispt) is also Semitic.
67
Kuhrt 1995, 297–8; Morkot 2003, 136–7. The word is Hurrian.
68
Rommelaere 1991, 1995; Spalinger 2005, 8–9. Long-lined horses appear in the Asiatic trib-
ute in the tomb of Menkheperresonb (~ Thutmose III), and short-lined ones in the tomb of
Amenmose (~ Thutmose III-Amenhotep II).
69
Davies and Gardiner 1926, pl. xix.
70
Brack and Brack 1977, 1980.
71
Leiden H.III.QQQQ, Martin 1989, pls. 114–5, no 76. Contrary to the rather convoluted
interpretation of Martin 1989, 94–7, it is simpler to read this straightforwardly as six chariot
teams.
72
Caminos 1954, 138, with n. 139–40 (3, 5), 201.
not breed horses.73 So Moran, discussing Amarna Letter 37, from the king
of Alašiya to Egypt, comments that the (slightly uncertain) reading of the
greeting-gift as ‘five teams of horses’ argues against it being sent from Egypt
to Alašiya, and should be the gift to Egypt.74 However, in EA 34 the king of
Alašiya writes to Egypt about his ‘gift’ of 100 talents of copper, and seeks in
return, amongst other things, one chariot and two horses. Whether the chariot
was made in Egypt, or the horses bred there, cannot, of course, be determined:
but it does show that both might be expected as gifts from Egypt, and that it
was not all one-way exchange.
The scene from the tomb of Nebamun (BM EA 37982) shows that mules
or hinnies could be used for drawing chariots, perhaps suggesting that horses
were not easily acquired – or that they were not appropriate for Nebamun’s
subordinates.75 There are also indications that the horses were given by the
central palace administration, even if chariots could be ‘bought’. The prefer-
ence for stallions as chariot horses may have ensured a royal control of breed-
ing programmes.
The evidence, both archaeological and textual, relating to the Ramesside pal-
ace complex at Qantir indicates large-scale stabling of chariot horses.76 This
again raises the question of horse-breeding. Epstein observed that in more
recent times horse-breeding, even from good Arab stock, in the lower Nile
valley has been such a failure that horses have had to be imported.77 Even if
the Egyptians were constantly importing horses, it seems likely that they also
bred them.
Elsewhere in the Near East there was also a conscious programme to breed
animals suitable to the climatic conditions, and different functions required
(as indicated by the Kikkuli text and others cited above). This is particularly
evident from Assyrian times, when cavalry increased, and is clear from the As-
syrian depictions (which show extremely large heavily-built horses), and from
the texts which indicate that they were imported from all over the empire and
its peripheries. A letter from the Hittite king Hattusili III to Kadashman-En-
lil II of Babylon asks for young stallions which can be acclimatized to the cold
of the country noting that horses already sent (by both Kadashman-Enlil and
his father, Kadashman-Turgu) were “good but too short”, and that older horses
did not survive the winter.78 Hattusili also received horses from Ramesses II.
Chariots and horses were the significant introduction early in the Late
Bronze Age, and further implications will be considered below. The develop-
73
For use of the Delta pastures, e.g. Butzer in LÄ I, 1048; Ikeda 1982, 227 n.68; and comments
of Kitchen 2003, 115–6.
74
Moran 1992, 110 n.4; he also observes that the gift of five talents should be understood as of
copper (from Alašiya) rather than of gold from Egypt.
75
Chariots drawn by mules are also shown in TT 57 and TT 297.
76
Caminos 1954: 11; Herold 2006; Pusch 1996.
77
Epstein 1971.
78
Beckman 1996, 132–7, no.23; KBo I, 10 rev. 62–5; Ikeda 1982, 228.
182 R. G. Morkot
ment of chariot warfare itself radically changed some aspects of battle. But
other weapons were also more widely circulated, and, as Shaw has commented,
military technology was an integrated system.79
One important item of weaponry that used imported materials and manufac-
turing techniques was the composite (compound) bow.80 It was once supposed,
assuming that birch-bark needed to be used fresh, that all such weapons were
imported; but tomb scenes show that bows were manufactured in state work-
shops in Egypt, and birch bark can be dried and transported long distances
and still used.81 Tomb scenes show horns being brought as part of the inw of
Asia and Keftiu, and being sawn in scenes of the manufacture of bows.82
Also of western Asiatic origin, but rapidly adopted as part of the stand-
ard Egyptian equipment was the slashing/crushing sword, the khepesh.83 It is
shown being brought as part of the ‘Syrian’ tribute in scenes in the tombs of
Menkheperresonb (TT 86~Thutmose III), Horemheb (TT 78~Thutmose IV)
and Meryre ii (~Akhenaten),84 but it had been manufactured in Egypt from
the reign of Thutmose III at latest.85 A scene in the tomb of Qenamun show-
ing products of the royal workshops presented to pharaoh includes khepesh-
swords, and the caption gives the quantity, 360.86 Unlike the chariot or com-
posite bow, the khepesh required no new complex technology in its production.
Military scenes show that the khepesh was used by foot soldiers, but it is also
brandished – arm raised over his head – by the colossal figure of the pharaoh in
his chariot. As a slashing and crushing weapon the khepesh may have been used
when the chariot was caught in the melée, but it also serves as a striking image,
and has the added hieroglyphic implication of ‘strength’. Other weapons, such
as straight short swords or daggers, are depicted in inw-scenes, albeit in rela-
tively small quantities, although the Qenamun scene records 140 of bronze.87
Body armour for both soldiers and horses is well attested in New Kingdom
Egypt. The scenes of battle, which retain so much that is traditional, frequently
show soldiers without armour or helmets, and this has led many writers to
assume that armour was rare. Scale armour for man and horse no-doubt de-
veloped in response to the new forms of weapon and warfare practised in the
Late Bronze Age.88 Again, these would have been developed largely in the
79
Shaw 2001, 66–8.
80
McLeod 1970; Spalinger 2005, 15.
81
McLeod 1970, 36; Moorey 2001, 8.
82
As inw (they are a different shape from the elephant tusk) e.g: Menkheperresonb: Davies
1933, pl. v; being sawn Menkheperresonb: Davies 1933, pls. xi, xii.
83
Morkot 2003, 120.
84
Davies 1933; Brack and Brack, 1980; Davies 1905.
85
Tomb of Rekhmire: TT 100, Davies 1943.
86
Davies 1930.
87
Davies 1930, pls. xxii, xxiv.
88
Morkot 2003, 24; Partridge 2002, 55–6; for manufacture in Egypt see Qenamun, Davies
1930, pl. xvi.
regions of northern Syria. The Amarna Letters document gifts of armour for
the king and his chariot horses. These include ‘helmets’ for horses. Also in-
cluded are coloured garments, including shaggy wool leggings: the placing of
some these in the lists suggests that they may have formed part of the Hurrian
military costume, although most were probably non-military.89 If Amenhotep
III ever wore these garments he would have presented an image strikingly
different to that we usually associate with him! Both Ramesses II and III and
contemporary soldiers are shown wearing long coats of scale-armour.90
Helmets, slightly pointed with a (horse-tail?) plume, are shown as part of the
inw in scenes in the tombs of Menkheperresonb and Amenmose, and listed
in the Amarna Letters (EA 22 above). Although it has been assumed that
chariot warriors did not wear helmets (and that the small shields were used as
protection), the scenes at Medinet Habu do show charioteers with helmets.91
Helmets are also shown amongst the military equipment manufactured in a
state workshop in the Memphite tomb of Ky-iry.92
The Amarna Letters, and tomb scenes cited above, show that shields of vari-
ous forms were also received as part of the ‘arms trade’. The mould from Qantir
also suggests the production of shields of ‘Hittite type’.
The spread of new technologies, and types of weapon and armour, occurred
through capture, official exchange (‘trade’) and the numerous groups of ‘mer-
cenary’ soldiers, who became such a significant feature of the Late Bronze Age
Mediterranean. In the latest phase of the LBA weapons from the ‘circum-Al-
pine’ or ‘Urnfield’ bronze industries appear throughout the Aegean and eastern
Mediterranean, some reaching Egypt. These then appear in ‘naturalized’ forms,
acting as the stimulus for new fashions in fighting style and defensive armour.
They may be the products of sea-borne metal-workers.93
Whether using foreign ‘mercenaries’94 or their own troops, the great powers
and their vassals had offensive and defensive obligations. Although no Egyp-
tian treaties survive, there is evidence from the Amarna Letters for troops sent
by the pharaohs to foreign rulers. These were sometimes specified as Kushites
– and in some instances were sought as much for their exoticism, and as a dis-
play of the local ruler’s standing with the pharaoh, as for their military exper-
tise. The offensive and defensive alliance clauses in Hittite treaties show that
vassals were obliged to supply chariots and soldiers, but that the Hittite king
would also come to his vassals’ aid.95 Specifically, Sunashshura of Kizzuwatna
89
Discussed by Feldman 2006, 107–8.
90
Soldiers: siege of Dapur (Ramesseum); The Epigraphic Survey 1932, pl.88.
91
The Epigraphic Survey 1932, pls. 72, 94
92
Grajetzki 2001; Herold 2006, 72–3.
93
Sherratt 2000, distribution shown in fig.5.1; 2003, 41–2.
94
Spalinger 2005, 7–8 rightly contests the use of the word for non-Egyptians serving in the
army.
95
Beckman 1996, 16–21 (Tudhaliya II and Sunashshura of Kizzuwatna); 29 (Suppiluliuma I
and Huqqana of Hayasa); 33–4 (Suppiluliuma I and Aziru of Amurru); 56–7 (Mursili II and
184 R. G. Morkot
is required to supply 100 teams of chariotry and 1000 infantry against Hurri
or Arzawa, if required, whereas Tudhaliya IV remitted any chariotry obligation
from Tarhuntassa, and required it to send only 100 or 200 infantry.96
The evidence for foreign troops in the Egyptian army is large and well-
known, if sometimes overemphasised. Troops from the south had always
been an important element in the Egyptian army, and in the New Kingdom
they were joined by Libyans, Aegeans, and many different groups of Asiatics.
Amongst the most notable are the Shardana who are found as allies of the
Libyans in the reign of Merneptah, but as Egyptian troops from the time of
Ramesses II onwards. They also appear as mercenaries at Byblos97 and Ugarit.
In the year 8 land battle of Ramesses III the Shardana are shown on the Egyp-
tian side, but in the sea battle as one of the enemy groups. Such troops had
their own weapons, skills, and would have aided the dissemination of weapons
and tactics. Altogether the Late Bronze Age saw a ‘globalization’ of warfare,
with the same weapons, and at times the same ‘mercenary’ groups, on oppos-
ing sides.
There were networks, even in North-east Africa, that did not involve Egypt,
or only indirectly. The Egyptian records of the Libyan wars of Merneptah
show that the Libyans employed, or were accompanied by, troops such as the
Shardana. In battle scenes of the reign of Ramesses III, the Libyans are shown
using chariots and horses, and with weapons that were of Aegean origin (or
perhaps Levantine copies of Aegean types). In the earlier scenes there are no
horses, but the later conflict shows four- and eight-spoke chariots being used
by the Libyan chiefs, and carried in the subsequent victory scene.98
Even if the Libyans were breeding horses of their own, and manufacturing
chariots and weapons, they needed the initial technologies and raw materials.
It is possible that weapons, horses and chariots were acquired through Egypt,
or directly from western Asia. The trade networks of Late Bronze Age Libya
are still little known. Diplomatic contacts with western Asiatic powers could
have been made through the Egyptian court, where ambassadors from all na-
tions are depicted, and, if the Amarna Letters are to be believed, where they
were kept years for long periods, an ideal opportunity to ‘network’ to their
host’s disadvantage. It is also likely that Libya had direct contacts with Cypri-
otes and Minoan Cretans. This is documented for Marmarica, at Bates’s Island,
but probably extended further west into Cyrenaica. The evidence from centres
such as Pylos, Mycenae, and Knossos shows that Greece and the Aegean were
part of the same networks. Western Anatolia and Cyprus probably provided
the main link between Egypt, Crete, and Greece, although there is evidence of
Tuppi-Teshup of Amurru); 60–1 (Mursili II and Niqmepa of Ugarit);

96
Beckman 1996, 20, 114–5.
97
EA 81: Moran 1992, 150–1; EA 122, 123: Moran 1992, 201–2; although Moran (1992, 393)
doubts identification of the Širdanu with the Shardana.
98
The Epigraphic Survey 1932, pls. 70, 72, 75.
direct contacts in the reign of Amenhotep III.

The Nile valley south of Egypt was not excluded from these exchange net-
works.99 The apparent planning of rebellion in Nubia to coincide with the
Libyan invasion in the reign of Merneptah may well have been plotted at the
Egyptian court.100 The New Kingdom scenes depicting conflict in Nubia do
not show chariots being used by the Kushite enemy, but these are a deeply
conservative genre, and do not necessarily reflect historical realities. The Kus-
hites may have continued to use predominantly traditional weapons, and those
are shown being imported into Egypt, but they certainly acquired horses and
chariots. A range of weapons has been excavated in new Kingdom sites, in-
cluding the khepesh sword, daggers, and axes.
On the evidence of the Buhen stele of Akhenaten, Störk assumed that hors-
es were being bred in Nubia in the New Kingdom, but in his re-publication
of the text, Smith understood the word to indicate cattle.101 As noted above,
chariots (perhaps 50) were presented as part of the inw of Kush to Amen-
hotep II. Later, two chariots appear in the tribute of Kush in the tomb of the
viceroy Huy, one, drawn by cattle, carrying an elite woman.102 Admittedly few
specific attestations, but it is hard to believe that the Kushite rulers would have
been omitted from the royal gift of chariots and horses. Egyptian officials
certainly took their horses and chariots to Kush. The graffito of Merymose
(~Amenhotep III) at Umm Ashira is flanked by figures of horses, presumably
contemporary with the text, and presumably the Viceroy’s.103 In Huy’s tomb
(~Tutankhamun), his teams are shown aboard the Viceregal ship.104 There are
no good grounds for assuming that these are horses being imported into Egypt
from Kush.105
There is no evidence that horses were widely known in Nubia before they
were introduced into Egypt.106 Neither is there any indication that the par-
ticular breed known as Dongolawi (Equus caballus africanus) was indigenous
to Nubia.107 The Buhen horse might have had an Egyptian or Kushite owner.108
Rather more significant is the sub-scene from the north part of the east wall
of the Viceroy Huy’s tomb, preserved in a copy by Nestor L’Hôte.109 This is a
pendant to the scene of the Viceroy’s installation, but more logically relates to
99
A general account of the economy of Nubia in the New Kingdom: Morkot 2005a.
100
Kitchen 1990, 19–20
101
Störk LÄ IV, 1009–1013, at 1010 and n 16; he cites MacIver and Woolley, 1911, 92 for the
reading ‘361 foals’; for republication see Smith 1976, 129.
102
Davies and Gardiner 1926, pl. xxiv and pls. xxvii–xxviii.
103
Piotrovsky 1967, pl. xxviii–xxix.
104
Davies and Gardiner 1926, pl. xii also pl. xxxi three teams, one on each ship.
105
As Störk LÄ IV, 1009–1013 suggested.
106
As Judith Forbis suggested, see Rommelaere 1991, 28–9.
107
As C.A. Piètrement proposed see Rommelaere 1991, 32.
108
This, rather elderly, animal appears to have been killed during the sack of Buhen.
109
Davies and Gardiner 1926, pl. viii, cf. pl. v for the original indicating its position in relation
to the whole scene.
186 R. G. Morkot
the decoration of the south part of the wall, which shows Huy’s arrival in Kush
and the collection of gold. The sub-scene shows Huy and his scribes receiving
laden donkeys, geese, goats, cattle and, heading the groups, horses. The horses
are brought in pairs, a total of 12 animals. This is hardly firm evidence for horse
breeding, but is suggestive. The horses are ‘short-lined’ which is typical of the
later 18th Dynasty, whereas a horse skeleton excavated at Saï is of the ‘long-
lined’ type of the earlier 18th Dynasty, again suggesting that Egypt was the
original source, even if the animals were being bred in Kush.110
Both textual and archaeological sources show the enormous importance
placed upon horses by the Kushites of the early-‘Napatan’ period (eighth cen-
tury BC). It could be argued that horses were important because they were rare
in Kush, but Assyriologists such as Nicholas Postgate and Stephanie Dalley
were struck by references in the Assyrian texts which seem to indicate a Kush-
ite connection, if not source, for horses in the mid-eighth century.
The Assyrian evidence includes a number of texts that designate horses, spe-
cifically chariot horses, as ‘Kushite’ (kur ku-sa-aa). Postgate considered the
term and, although noting the ‘natural reluctance’ of Assyriologists to connect
it with Nubia, concluded that this was the only possible association. He was
more circumspect as to whether the horses actually came from Kush.111 Dal-
ley discussed the issue further, and also drew attention to a particular method
‘Kushite’ harnessing, either imported with the horses, or named through as-
sociation with them. Kushites also appear to have been at the Assyrian court,
the earliest reference coming from the reign of Tiglath-Pileser III.112
The Assyrian evidence is inconclusive: it is certain the Assyrians were ac-
quiring a particularly fine breed of chariot horse from Egypt during the Kus-
hite period, and that they clearly associated these horses with Kush. The pres-
ence of Kushites in Assyria does not necessarily indicate strong, or even direct,
contacts between the emergent Kushite state and Assyria: it is quite possible
that there were, as there had been at all periods, individual Kushites employed
in Egypt, and from there in western Asia. Nevertheless, the Assyrian evidence
does provide an intriguing background to the emphasis placed upon horses in
Piye’s ‘Victory Stele’ and the military capabilities of the Kushites in the years
of the expansion.
Stimulated by Dalley’s discussion, the Kushite evidence was considered in-
dependently by the present writer and by Lisa Heidorn, who both concluded
that the evidence pointed strongly to the breeding of horses in Upper Nubia
by the early Kushite period.113 Therefore horse breeding must have begun in
110
Chaix and Gratien 2002; as reproduced in Davies and Gardiner 1926, the L’Hôte drawing
shows the horses slightly long in the body, but the overall shape is more typical of short-lined
than long-lined animals.
111
Postgate 1974, 11 (6.4), 13 (6.7), 117–8 (49–58).
112
Dalley 1985; Morkot 1994, 263–4.
113
The following is based on Morkot 1994, 256–65, cf. Morkot 1995b, 237–8; 1999, 144.
Morkot’s paper was presented at the BANEA Conference, Cambridge 1991 and Heidorn’s at
Nubia in the New Kingdom, unless an extensive trade in horses continued to

the south during the Libyan period.
The evidence for horses in Egypt during the Libyan period is rather scanty.
There are no surviving battle reliefs of the New Kingdom type, and changes in
burial practice limit the range of goods interred. It is certain that the Libyans
were equipped with horses and chariots prior to their rise to supreme power,
and there are no reasons why they would have abandoned their use.
By the tenth century, Israel under Solomon had come to dominate the trade
in horses.114 Solomon is said (1 Kings 10: 26–9 and 2 Chronicles 1: 14–7) to
have had 1400 chariots and 12,000 horses.115 These were stabled in the ‘chariot
towns’ and in Jerusalem. Solomon is said to have supplied all of “the kings of
the Hittites” and the kings of Syria with horses imported from Que, and with
horses and chariots from Egypt.116 The chariots were imported from Egypt
by the royal merchants at a cost of 600 silver shekels each, and the horses for
150 silver shekels each (the Septuagint gives 100 shekels for the chariot and
50 for the horse). As Ikeda noted, most earlier commentators have found it
difficult to believe that the Egyptians exported horses, and therefore emended
the reading to understand a (non-existent) land of Musri in Anatolia.117 The
older translations rendered ummiqqoweh as “and linen”:118 which, as a royal
monopoly, and major Egyptian export, would make more sense.
Although there is no direct evidence regarding breeding and use of horses in
Libyan period Egypt, the animals are frequently depicted in the Egyptianiz-
ing decoration of the ‘Phoenician’ bronze and silver bowls, many of which date
to the Late Bronze-Early Iron Ages.119 The motif of horses in a marshland
setting was discussed by Markoe, who related it to the browsing or grazing
cervid, and the suckling cow and calf. Although the bowls are not Egyptian,
the decoration, deriving from Egyptian models, can be understood as imply-
ing pasturing or breeding of horses, perhaps in the Delta. In Libya itself, the
emergence of the Garamantian ‘kingdom’, and the numerous depictions of
chariots and cavalry perhaps began at the time of Libyan rule in Egypt.120
ARCE 1991 and again at the Nubian Conference, Lille 1994, published as Heidorn 1997. My
thanks to Lisa Heidorn and Stephanie Dalley for discussions on the subject. Cf. Kitchen 2003,
528, n.89 citing Ikeda but none of the literature here.
114
Ikeda 1982. See Table p.226 and comments 229–31.
115
In 1 Kings 4:26 the figures (surely incorrectly transmitted) are 40,000 chariot horses and
12,000 cavalry horses.
116
2 Chronicles 1: 16–17; Dalley 1985, 43. My thanks to Peter James for his pertinent observa-
tions on this text and the differences between the Septuagint and the Massoretic versions.
117
Ikeda 1982, 215 and n 2. For the Musri debate see principally Tadmor 1961, with Ikeda
1982, 215–6 nn.4–5; Kitchen 2003, 125 n.38.
118
My thanks again to Peter James for this.
119
Markoe 1985, 149–56 for their chronology.
120
My thanks to Dorian Fuller and Tertia Barnett for their comments on the dating. In a valu-
able overview of the issues, Liverani 2000, 23, dates the ‘horse period’ somewhat later, to the
7th–6th centuries.
188 R. G. Morkot
Despite the difficulties of rationalising the material for equestrianism during

this period, horses figure prominently in the narrative of the Piye stele.121 Yet,
in discussing these references, most writers have made subjective comments.
In contrast to the ‘humane qualities’ of Piye (demonstrated by his concern for
the horses in the episode of the siege of Khemenu), which some scholars had
emphasized, Spalinger understood the references to indicate the dependence
of the Kushites on horses – their economic and military value.122
In his exhortation to his army (line 11) Piye tells them to harness the best
steeds of the stable. Later (l.21) it is noted that many horses of the enemy were
killed at the battle of Per-peg. Peftjauwaybast brought the best horses of his
stable (l. 71) as did Pediese (l.110) and the other dynasts (l.113), including,
ultimately, Tefnakht himself (l.138). The most celebrated incident, and subject
of the lunette scene of the stele, is that of Nimlot of Khemenu. In chastising
Nimlot for neglect of the horses and stables during the siege, Piye several
times refers to ‘my horses’, but it is impossible to know whether this should be
interpreted as an indicator of Piye’s having given the horses to Nimlot origi-
nally, or simply as their possessor now that Nimlot has capitulated. Since Piye
and Nimlot had formerly been allies, it is conceivable that Piye had supplied
him with horses.
The text of the stele had its visual counterpart in the decoration of the tem-
ple B500. Here, a large scene shows horses brought from the stables of Nim-
lot.123 Elsewhere, fragmentary military scenes survive. One of these includes
a figure on horseback, interpreted, following the narrative of the stele, as an
image of Tefnakht fleeing.124 The figure is, however, part of a battle scene, and
therefore suggestive – to some writers – of the use of cavalry.125 The era of As-
syrian imperial expansion was certainly one of changes in military tactics, with
an increase in the ratio of cavalry to chariots, as Stephanie Dalley clearly dem-
onstrated.126 One horseman is not evidence for the widespread use of cavalry
in Libyan Egypt or in Kush; indeed, the Kushite evidence refers only to the
use of chariots, rather than cavalry.
The burials of 24 horses at el-Kurru also indicates the importance of the
animals to the early Kushite monarchs.127 Two groups were identified through
inscribed material as horses belonging to Shabaqo and Shebitqo, the others
are presumed to have belonged to Piye and Tanwetamani. Groups of four (Ku
121
Grimal 1981. Although, as has been extensively discussed, this record is a literary creation
with considerable resonances, it is also set at a precise historical moment, and hence can be used
to understand the military activities of Piye’s army.
122
Spalinger 1976, 144–5 n.24; Török 1991, 195.
123
Dunham 1970, pl. L, A-C; Kendall 1986, fig 8.
124
Kendall 1986, fig 10; cf Spalinger 1981, fig after Wilkinson MSS, fig 4 after Bankes MSS.
125
Török 1991, 196, 197; on Egyptian cavalry, Zivie 1985.
126
Dalley 1985, changing from 1:1 at the battle of Qarqar (853 BC) to 1(chariot):3 or 4 (cav-
alry) in the reign of Sargon II and 1:10 in his campaign against Babylon.
127
Dunham 1950, 110–7; Kendall 1982, 32–3.
221–4), eight (Ku 201–8), eight (Ku 209–216) and four (Ku 217–20) horses
suggest burial by chariot-team: Kendall proposed that there were one or two
teams for a four-horse chariot.128 Although there is evidence for use of the
four-horse chariot in Assyria and Cyprus, there is none from Egypt or Kush.129
Unlike the much later burials at Ballana and Qustul, there were no traces of
bits, bridles, or other practical harness, only faience amulets and remains of
bead nets, which were perhaps purely funerary. Remains of silver collars, and
a silver-gilt plume-holder, were parts of the trappings that are paralleled in
the Barkal reliefs.130 The examination of the skeletal material suggests that the
horses were of a breed similar to the Arab, but slightly smaller.131
The evidence from the medieval and early modern periods, suggests that the
Dongola Reach of the river would have provided the right sort of environ-
ment for horse-breeding. The origin of the ‘Dongolawi’ breed is unknown, but
it was widespread in Upper Egypt and the Sudan in the early centuries of the
Christian era and the Middle Ages. It was introduced into West Africa from
Sudan by the Fulani in the 13th century AD. At the time of James Bruce’s
visit to the Funj sultanate, in 1772, the mek of Sennar maintained 1,800 horse
troops. Many of these came from his vassal, the mek of Dongola whose tribute
was paid largely in horses. Slightly later, Burckhardt commented on that Don-
gola was noted for the breed of its horses, and that the breed came originally
from Arabia, although the Dongola horses were of greater size.132 Finati was
more specific, stating that the horses did “not abound [in Dongola], but more
properly come from Shageiah” – the region of Korti and Merawi.133 He de-
scribes the horses as “rather serviceable than handsome”. All writers say that
these horses were black with long white legs.134 Both Burckhardt and St John
observe that the horses were not suited to more northerly climates – even
Cairo – and lost condition. Finati adds that there was another species, “rarer,
and much more costly” that was extremely tall – citing examples that were 18
hands high.135
Even if the orientation of power had moved south, the situation in 1772
reflects a political situation similar to that of the New Kingdom, in which
the Dongola Reach had become subject to a greater power, but retained some
of its independence.136 Whether the Dongola Reach sent horses to Egypt in
128
Kendall 1982, 32.
129
Littauer and Crouwel 1979, 104; three- (~Aššur-nasirpal II) and four-horse teams may
have been a result of the larger chariot-box to carry three men. Those prone to idle speculation
based on scanty evidence might suggest that use of the four-horse chariot was introduced into
Assyria by the Kushite horse trainers.
130
Dunham 1950, 113 pl lxxi.e (19-4-78), 114 (19-4-107); Kendall 1982, 32–3 cat. 30.
131
Dunham 1950, 111; Bökönyi 1993.
132
Burckhardt 1819, 66.
133
Finati 1830, ii, 234.
134
Burckhardt 1819, 66; Finati 1830, ii, 370; St John 1845, 244.
135
Finati 1830, ii, 370, his authority is George Bethune English.
136
Cf. Morkot 1994; 1995b; 2000; 2001.
190 R. G. Morkot
the 18th Dynasty is far more difficult to assess. The evidence – slender as it is
– suggests that the developments in horse-breeding that began in north Syria
and beyond, extended during the Late Bronze Age to the southern peripheries
of the global network – Nubia and Libya – and with major repercussions in
the aftermath.
Conclusion
The economic aspects of gift exchange are clear from the careful accounting
of the amounts of gold and other metals, and numbers of precious stones, gar-
ments, and other items. This shows an appreciation of the values of commodi-
ties. The evidence for gift-exchange and ‘tribute’ reveals only part of the inter-
national exchange of the LBA which was far wider in its range of commodities
than the prestige items and materials usually documented.137 One significant
element of this New Kingdom/Late Bronze Age exchange was weaponry and
military equipment (chariots and horses) and technology. It led to a globaliza-
tion of warfare technologies over the whole of the region extending from Kush
through the Nile Valley, Libya, the Aegean, Anatolia, Syria-Palestine to Meso-
potamia and perhaps into further peripheries. It initiated horse-breeding and
selection programmes in many regions, something further developed in the
succeeding periods, notably by the Assyrians. The spread of technologies also
affected the internal economy of Egypt: large quantities of raw materials for
the production of chariots and weaponry must have been imported and pro-
duction centres established in already-existing temple and palace workshops
throughout the country – and perhaps also in Egyptian garrisons throughout
the ‘empire’. The deployment of large armies (whether standing or conscript-
ed) by the empires would also have necessitated state production or acquisition
of large quantities of weaponry. This may have contributed to increase in metal
in circulation in the ‘crisis years’ of the later phases of the Late Bronze that has
been discussed by Susan Sherratt.
137
For the wide range of imports from Kush see Morkot 1995a: 178–80.
Bibliography
Aldred, Cyril, 1969, ‘The ‘New Year’ Gifts to the Pharaoh’ JEA 55: 73–81.
Aldred, Cyril, 1970, ‘The Foreign Gifts Offered to Pharaoh’ JEA 56: 105–116.
Beckman, G., 1999, Hittite Diplomatic Texts. Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press, 2nd
edn.
Bleiberg, E., 1996, The Official Gift in Ancient Egypt. Norman, Oklahoma: University
of Oklahoma Press.
Bökönyi, S., 1993, ‘Two Horse Skeletons from the Cemetery of Kurru, Northern Su-
dan. Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, Budapest, 45: 301–16.
Brack, Annelies, and Artur Brack, 1977, Das Grab des Tjanuni: Theben Nr. 74. Deut-
sches Archäologisches Institut. Abteilung Kairo. Archäologische Veröffentlichungen
19. Mainz am Rhein, Germany: Philipp von Zabern.
Brack, Annelies, and Artur Brack, 1980, Das Grab des Haremhab: Theben Nr. 78. Deut-
sches Archäologisches Institut. Abteilung Kairo. Archäologische Veröffentlichungen
35. Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern.
Caminos, Ricardo, 1954, Late Egyptian Miscellanies. Brown Egyptological Studies I.
London: Oxford University Press.
Carman, J. and A. Harding eds, 1999, Ancient Warfare. Archaeological Perspectives.
Stroud: Sutton Publishing.
Chaix, L. and Brigitte Gratien, 2002, ‘Un cheval du Nouvel-Empire à Saï’ Archéologie
du Nil Moyen 9: 53–64.
Cohen, R. and R. Westbrook, eds, 2000, Amarna Diplomacy. The Beginnings of Interna-
tional Relations. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Dalley, Stephanie, 1985, ‘Foreign chariotry and cavalry in the armies of Tiglath-pileser
III and Sargon II’ Iraq 47: 31–48.
Davies, Nina, 1933, The Tombs of Menkheperrasonb, Amenmose, and Another (Nos. 86, 42,
226). London: Egypt Exploration Society.
Davies, Nina, 1963, Private Tombs at Thebes. Volume IV: Scenes from some Theban Tombs
(nos 38, 66, 162, with excerpts from 81). Oxford: Griffith Institute.
Davies, Nina M. and Norman de G. Davies, 1940, ‘The Tomb of Amenmose (No. 89)
at Thebes.’ JEA 26: 131–6.
Davies, Nina and Alan H. Gardiner, 1926, The Tomb of Huy, Viceroy of Nubia in the
Reign of Tut‘ankhamun (No.40). London: Egypt Exploration Society.
Davies, Norman de Garis, 1905, The Rock-cut Tombs of el Amarna. Part III: The Tombs
of Panehesy and Meryra II. London: Egypt Exploration Society.
Davies, Norman de G., 1930, The Tomb of Ken-amun at Thebes. New York: Metropoli-
tan Museum of Art.
Davies, Norman de Garis, 1943, The Tomb of Rekh-mi-re at Thebes. New York: Metro-
192 R. G. Morkot
politan Museum of Art.

Dever, William G., and Seymour Gitin eds, 2003, Symbiosis, Symbolism, and the Power
of the Past. Canaan, Ancient Israel, and Their Neighbors from the Late Bronze Age through
Roman Palaestina. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns.
Drews, Robert, 1993, The End of the Bronze Age. Changes in Warfare and the Catastro-
phe ca. 1200 B.C. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
Dunham, Dows, 1950, Royal cemeteries of Kush. I. El Kurru. Cambridge, Mass.
Dunham, Dows, 1970, The Barkal Temples. Boston.
Dziobek, Eberhard, and Mahmud Abdel Rasziq, 1990, Das Grab des Sobkehotep. The-
ben Nr.63. Deutsches Archäologisches Institut. Abteilung Kairo. Archäologische
Veröffentlichungen 71, Mainz: Philipp von Zabern.
The Epigraphic Survey, 1930, Medinet Habu Volume I. Earlier Historical Records of
Ramses III. Chicago: Oriental Institute of Chicago, Vol VIII.
The Epigraphic Survey, 1932, Medinet Habu Volume II. Later Historical Records of Ram-
ses III. Chicago: Oriental Institute of Chicago, Vol IX.
Epstein, H., 1971, The Origin of the Domestic Animals of Africa. II. New York: Africana
Publishing Corporation.
Feldman, Marian H., 2006, Diplomacy by Design. Luxury Arts and an “Internation-
al Style” in the Ancient Near East, 1400–1200 BCE. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Finati, Giovanni, 1830, Narrative of the Life and Adventures of Giovanni Finati; Na-
tive of Ferrara; who, under the assumed name of Mahomet, made the campaigns against the
Wahabees for the recovery of Mecca and Medina; and since acted as interpreter to European
Travellers in some parts of least visited of Asia and Africa. Translated from the Italian, as
dictated by himself, and edited by William John Bankes. 2 vols, London: John Murray.
Gnirs, A., 1996, Militär und Gesellschaft. Ein Beitrag zur Sozialgeschichte des Neuen Re-
iches. Heidelberg: Heidelberger Orient Verlag.
Grajetzki, W., 2001, ‘Das Grab des Kii-iri in Saqqara’ JEOL 37 (2001–2): 111–25.
Grimal, Nicholas-C., 1981, Le stèle triomphale de Pi(ankh)y. Mémoires de l’ Institut
français d’archéologie orientale 105, Cairo: Institut français d’archéologie orientale.
Heidorn, Lisa, 1997, ‘The Horses of Kush’ JNES 56: 105–114.
Herold, Anja, 2006, Streitwagentechnologie in der Ramses-Stadt. Knäue, Knöpfe und
Scheiben aus Stein. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern. Die Grabungen des Pelizaeus-Muse-
ums Hildesheim in Qantir-Piramesse 3.
Ikeda, Yotuka, 1982, ‘Solomon’s Trade in Horses and Chariots in its International Set-
ting’ in Tomoo Ishida, ed., International Symposium forBiblical Studies (1979, Tokyo).
Studies in the period of David and Solomon and other essays. Tokyo: 215–38.
Kammenhuber, A., 1961, Hippologia Hethitica. Wiesbaden.
Kendall, T., 1982, Kush; Lost Kingdom of the Nile. Brockton, Massachusetts.
Kendall, T., 1986, Gebel Barkal Epigraphic Survey: 1986. Preliminary Report of First
Season’s Activity: Observing the Cliff Inscription and Bridge Emplacements, and Recover-
ing the Piye Reliefs in the Great Amun Temple. Report to the Visiting Committee of the
Department of Egyptian Art, Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, May 23, 1986.
Kitchen, K.A., 1990, ‘The arrival of the Libyans in Late New Kingdom Egypt’ in
Anthony Leahy, ed., Libya and Egypt c1300–750 B.C. London: School of Oriental
and African Studies, Centre of Near and Middle Eastern Studies and The Society for
Libyan Studies: 15–27.
Kitchen, K.A., 2003 On the Reliability of the Old Testament, Grand Rapids, Michigan:
William B. Eerdmans.
Kuhrt, A., 1995, The Ancient Near East, c.3000–330 BC. London: Routledge.
Littauer, M.A. and J.H. Crouwel, 1979, Wheeled Vehicles and Ridden Animals in the
Ancient Near East. Leiden: E.J. Brill.
Littauer, M.A. and J.H. Crouwel, Chariots and Related Equipment from the Tomb of
Tutankhamun. Oxford: Griffith Institute, 1985.
Liverani, Mario, Prestige and Interest. International Relations in the Near East ca 1600–
1100 B.C. Padua, Italy: Sargon, 1990.
Liverani, Mario, 2000, ‘The Garamantes: a fresh approach’ Libyan Studies 31: 17–28.
Lloyd, Alan B., ed., 1996, Battle in Antiquity. London: Duckworth.
Markoe, G., 1985, Phoenician Bronze and Silver Bowls from Cyprus and the Mediter-
ranean. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Martin, G.T., 1989, The Memphite Tomb of Horemheb, Commander-in-Chief of Tut-
ankhamun. I. London: Egypt Exploration Society.
McIver, R. and C.L. Woolley 1911, Buhen. University of Pennsylvania Press.
McLeod, W.E., 1970, Composite Bows from the Tomb of Tutankhamun. Oxford: Griffith
Institute, 1970.
McLeod, W.E., 1982, Self Bows and Other Archery Tackle from the Tomb of Tutankha-
mun. Oxford: Griffith Institute.
Moorey, R., 2001, ‘The mobility of artisans and opportunities for technological trans-
fer between Western Asia and Egypt in the Late Bronze Age’ in Shortland ed., 2001:
1–14.
Moran, W., 1992, The Amarna Letters. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Morkot Robert G., 1994, Economic and Cultural Exchange between Kush and Egypt.
PhD Diss London University.
Morkot, Robert G., 1995a, ‘The economy of Nubia in the New Kingdom’ in Actes de
la VIIIe conférence internationale des études nubiennes 1 – Communications Principales.
CRIPEL 17: 175–87.
Morkot, Robert G., 1995b, ‘The foundations of the Kushite state. A response to the
paper of László Török’ in Actes de la VIIIe conférence internationale des études nubiennes
194 R. G. Morkot
1 – Communications Principales. CRIPEL 17: 229–42.

Morkot, Robert G., 1999, ‘The origin of the ‘Napatan’ state. A contribution to T. Ken-
dall’s main paper’ Studien zum Antiken Sudan. Akten der 7.Internationalen Tagung für
meroitistische Forschungen vom 14. bis 19. September 1992 in Gosen/bei Berlin. (=Meroit-
ica 15): 139–48.
Morkot, Robert G., 2000, The Black Pharaohs: Egypt’s Nubian Rulers. London: Rubicon
Press.
Morkot, Robert G., 2001, ‘Egypt and Nubia’ In Susan E. Alcock, Terence N. D’Altroy,
Kathleen D. Morrison, and Carla M. Sinopoli, eds, Empires. Perspectives from Archaeol-
ogy and History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 227–51.
Morkot, Robert G., 2003, Historical Dictionary of Ancient Egyptian Warfare. Lanham,
Maryland: The Scarecrow Press.
Morris, Sarah P., 2003, ‘Islands in the sea: Aegean polities as Levantine neighbors’ in
Dever and Gitin, 2003: 3–15.
Naville, Eduard, 1898, The Temple of Deir el-Bahari. III. London: Egypt Exploration
Fund.
O’Connor, David, 1990, ‘The Nature of Tjemhu (Libyan) Society in the Later New
Kingdom. in Anthony Leahy, ed., Libya and Egypt c1300–750 B.C. London: School
of Oriental and African Studies, Centre of Near and Middle Eastern Studies and The
Society for Libyan Studies: 29–113.
Partridge, Robert, 2002, Fighting Pharaohs. Weapons and Warfare in Ancient Egypt.
Manchester: Peartree Publishing.
Piotrovsky, B., 1967, ‘The early dynasty settlement of Khor-Daoud and Wadi el-Allaki
the ancient route of the gold mines’ Fouilles en Nubie 1961–1963: 127–40.
Postgate, J.N., 1974, Taxation and Conscription in the Assyrian Empire. Rome: Studia
Pohl: Series Maior 3.
Pusch, Edgar, 1996, ‘“Pi-Ramesses-Beloved-of-Amun. Headquarters of the
chariotry.”Egyptians and Hittites in the Delta residence of the Ramessides’ In A. Egg-
ebrecht ed., Pelizaeus-Museum Hildesheim, Guidebook. The Egyptian Collection. Mainz-
am-Rhein: Philipp von Zabern: 126–44.
Ricke, Herbert, George R. Hughes and E.F. Wente, 1967, The Beit el-Wali Temple of
Ramesses II. University of Chicago Oriental Institute Nubian Expedition vol. 1. Chi-
cago: University of Chicago Press.
Rommelaere, C., 1991, Les chevaux du nouvel empire égyptien. Origines, races, harnache-
ment. Brussels.
Säve-Söderbergh, Torgny, 1957, Four Eighteenth Dynasty Tombs. Private Tombs at
Thebes. Volume I. Oxford: Griffith Institute.
St. John, James Augustus, 1845, Egypt and Nubia, Their Scenery and Their People. Being
Incidents of History and Travel, From the Best and Most Recent Authorities, Including J.L.
Burckhardt and Lord Lindsay. London: Chapman and Hall.
Sauneron, Serge, 1954, ‘La manufacture d’armes de Memphis’ BIFAO 54: 7–12.
Shaw, Ian, 1996, ‘Battle in Ancient Egypt: the Triumph of Horus or the Cutting Edge
of the Temple Economy?’ In Lloyd, 1996.: 239–69.
Shaw, Ian, 2001, ‘Egyptians, Hyksos and military hardware: causes, effects or cata-
lysts?’ in Shortland., 2001: 59–71.
Sherratt, Susan, 2000, ‘Circulation of metals at the end of the Bronze Age in the East-
ern Mediterranean.’ In C.F.E. Pare, ed., Metals Make the World Go Round: the Supply
and Circulation of Metals in Bronze Age Europe: Proceedings of a Conference Held at the
University of Birmingham in June 2007. Oxford: Oxbow: 82–98.
Sherratt, Susan, 2003, ‘The Mediterranean economy: “globalization” at the end of the
Second Millennium B.C.E.’ in Dever and Gitin, 2003: 37–62.
Shortland, Andrew J. ed., 2001, The Social Context of Technological Change. Egypt and
the Near East, 1650–1550 BC. Oxford: Oxbow Books.
Smith, H.S., 1976, The Fortress of Buhen. II. The Inscriptions. London: Egypt Explora-
tion Society.
Spalinger, Anthony J., 1976, ‘Psammetichus, King of Egypt’ JARCE 13: 133–47.
Spalinger, Anthony J., 2005. War in Ancient Egypt. Oxford: Blackwell.
Tadmor, H., 1961, ‘Que and Musri.’ IEJ 11: 143–50.
Török, László, 1991, ‘Iconography and mentality: three remarks on the Kushite way of
thinking’ in W.V. Davies ed., Egypt and Africa. Nubia from Prehistory to Islam. London:
British Museum Press: 195–204.
Uchitel, Alexander, ‘Charioteers of Knossos’ Minos 23: [48–58].
Warburton, David, 2001, Egypt and the Near East. Politics in the Bronze Age. Recherches
et Publications. Neuchâtel-Paris: Civilisations du Prôche Orient série IV.
Western, A.C., 1973, ‘A Wheel Hub from the Tomb of Amenophis III’ Journal of
Egyptian Archaeology 59: 91–4.
Western, A.C. and W. McLeod, 1995, ‘Woods Used in Egyptian Bows and Arrows’
Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 81: 77–94.
Zivie, A., 1985, ‘Cavaliers et cavalerie au Nouvel Empire: à propos d’un vieux prob-
lème’ Mélanges Gamal eddin Mokhtar II: 379–88. Le Caire.
196

War and The Economy The International A

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

War and The Economy The International A

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Egyptian Stories

A British Egyptological Tribute to Alan B. Lloyd

[AOAT EDITORIAL DETAILS HERE]

“But concerning Egypt, I am going to speak at length, because it has the

Foreword ................................................................................................................................... vii

C. A. R. Andrews, Eponymous Priests Old and New in Unpublished Frag-

D. A. Aston, A Taste of Honey: mnt- and mDot-Vessels in the Late Eighteenth

M. Collier, Facts, Situations and Knowledge Acquisition: gmi with iw and

A. M. Dodson, Legends of a Sarcophagus .................................................................... 47

T. DuQuesne, Private Devotion and Public Practice: aspects of Egyptian art

R. Enmarch, What the Ancestors Foretold: Some References to Prediction in

D. W. J. Gill, Arsinoe in the Peloponnese: the Ptolemaic base on the Methana

C. Graves-Brown, Flint and the Northern Sky .......................................................... 111

K. Griffin, An Ax iqr n Ra Stela from the collection of the Egypt Centre,

K. A. Kitchen, Festivity in Ramesside Thebes and Devotion to Amun and his

I. Mathieson, Recent Results of Geophysical Survey in the Saqqara Necropolis 155

E. F. Morris, Sacred and Obscene Laughter in The Contendings of Horus and

G. Mumford, Egypto-Levantine relations during the Iron Age to early Per-

E. J. Owens, The Waters of Alexandria ......................................................................... 289

R. B. Parkinson, ‘Une cantilène de Pentaour’: Marguerite Yourcenar and

T. Schneider, Contextualising the Tale of the Herdsman ........................................ 309

H. S. Smith and S. Davies, The Sacred Animal Necropolis at North Saqqara

K. Spence, Topography, Architecture and Legitimacy: Hatshepsut’s founda-

K. Szpakowska, Flesh for Fantasy: Reflections of Women in Two Ancient

J. H. Taylor, The earliest Egyptian hippocampus ....................................................... 405

In the past decade a considerable literature on aspects of weaponry and war-

interest on capital.11 Similarly, in EA 35 the ruler of Alashiya states that phar-

of these other items of trade do appear in scenes of presentation of inw.

sand and seven.

Even greater detail about gifts of military equipment, including quantities

in numbers also implies a swift expansion of chariot production, of the spread

shekels of silver have been used on it.

Tuppi-Teshup of Amurru); 60–1 (Mursili II and Niqmepa of Ugarit);

direct contacts in the reign of Amenhotep III.

Nubia in the New Kingdom, unless an extensive trade in horses continued to

Despite the difficulties of rationalising the material for equestrianism during

politan Museum of Art.

1 – Communications Principales. CRIPEL 17: 229–42.

You might also like