Mesopotamian and Transtigridian Place Names in the Medinet Habu Lists of Ramses III

Abstract

The topographical lists on the front pylon of Ramses III's great temple at Medinet Habu are among the most extensive Egyptian monuments of that kind.1 The southern tower of the pylon is inscribed with 125 place names in a relatively good state of preservation. They are arranged in three groups: I. 1-39; II. 40-69; III. 70-125.2 The groups I and II are both written from left to right, they continue each other and form one entity that can be designed as Group I-IL. Group III is written from right to left and is markedly different from Group I-II as to the geographical area it encompasses, although the localities listed in both groups (to judge by the heads of the captives over the name rings) are Asiatic, with the exception of six names in Group II which are African.8 It has long been established that thirty-one out of the fifty-six entries of Group III (Nos. 76-93 and 98-110) have been copied from a topographical list of Ramses II at Karnak,4 and that they refer to places in Palestine, Coelesyria, and the surroundings of Qades-on-the-Orontes,5 i. e. in territories which Ramses II actually possessed or invaded. The same is true for the six entries of Group III (Nos. 7075) that precede the toponyms copied from Ramses II, and for the eleven (Nos. 111-122) that follow them.6 On the contrary, Group I-II shows no connection with the zone of Egyptian rule in Southern Syria and Palestine. The few among its sixty-nine entries that are immediately recognizable point to areas that have either been under Egyptian occupation for only a short time (like No. 6, Aleppo, and No. 29, Carchemish), or not at all (like No. 28, Mitanni). Related to Group I-II are the Asiatic place names on the northern tower (which will hereinafter be distinguished by numbers with asterisks). The northern tower list, the disposition of which is symmetrical to that of its southern counterpart, originally comprised 124 entries, but many of them are now lost.7 Its Group *I-*II (Nos. *1-*38 and ' The latest edition of the hieroglyphic text is that of W. F. Edgerton and J. A. Wilson, Medinet Habu II: Later Historical Records of Ramses III (Chicago, 1932), pl. 101 (southern tower), 102 (northern tower) ; cf. same authors, Historical Records of Ramses III: The Texts in Medinet Habu, Volume I and II, Translated with Explanatory Notes (Chicago, 1936), pp. 105-110 (southern tower), 111-115 (northern tower) ; the translation and commentary of the relevant plates is by J. A. Wilson. Earlier publications by G. Daressy, Recueil de travaux, 20 (1898), pp. 113-119, and W. Max Muller, Egyptological Researches, I (Washington, 1906), pp. 4850, pl. 64-74), are important for variant readings. J. Simons, Handbook for the Study of Egyptian Topographical Lists Relating to Western Asia (Leiden, 1937), pp. 164-173 (Lists XXVII and XXVIII), follows Edgerton-Wilson in the hieroglyphic transcript but notes variant readings by Daressy and MUller. W. Helck, Die Beziehungen Agyptens zu Vorderasien im S. und 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr. (Wiesbaden, 1962), pp. 249-252, gives a syllabic transliteration only of the southern tower list. The place names from Ramses III's lists are also listed and commented upon in Max Burchardt, Die altkanaandischen Fremdworte und Eigennamen im Agyptischen (2 vols. Leipzig, 1909-10), and H. Gauthier, Dictionnaire des noms gdographiques contenus dans les textes hidroglyphiques (6 vols., Cairo, 1925-29). 2 See diagrams in Wilson, p. 108, and Simons, p. 164. Nos. 95-97 and 123-125 (the numeration followed in this study is that of Edgerton-Wilson). 4But in a different sequence; see concordance in Wilson, p. 108, and Helck, pp. 251-252. No. 94 repeats No. 30 in Group I. 6 See Helek, pp. 220-222, with topographical equation.i proposed by different scholars. 6 70, 71, 75 belong to the area of Qadeg-on-the Orontes, 72-74 bear names of pronounced Palestinian character. By comparison with Amenhotep III's list at Soleb, several items of the 111-112 group can be assigned to the region of Edom and Negeb, but the elaboration of it is beyond the object of the present study. Only five African names are destroyed; the damage to Asiatic names is much heavier.