More rarely, this type of artefact is found elsewhere in the Near East, where its significance may be somewhat different from its appearances in Egypt (see figure 1). Stone vessels naming private individuals are extremely scarce, and were probably exported as a by-product of tomb robbing (e.g.: Edel 1983, cat. no. 98; Jacobsson 1994, cat. 80; an exception being the alabaster offering plate of Nefer-Seshem-Ra found in the temple of Baalat-Gebal at Byblos, see Dunand 1939, cat. 5366). Examples with royal-name inscriptions are unlikely to have been derived from such sources, as they do not bear the types of funerary formulae that one would expect of objects taken from burial contexts. Rather, they would appear to have been either taken from workshop or palace stock, or on rare occasions, commissioned especially for particular individuals (e.g.: Schaeffer 1956, 40-42, fig. 118, 126; Desroches-Noblecourt 1956, 179-220; Bordreuil & Pardee, RSO V, 1989, 97, fig. 26; Caubet 1991, 213). In the Middle and Late Bronze Age Levant, this kind of material appears in archaeological contexts associated with state activities, such as palaces, and in elite or royal burials.

If it is valid to associate such objects with Egyptian royal workshops, then it seems likely that their distribution abroad is somehow related to Egyptian foreign policy and diplomatic activities. This raises a number of questions, not the least being how does one determine the intent behind sending such an object to a foreign court, let alone the manner in which it was received? If the gift was valued, can we determine if that was because of its Egyptian origin or character, because of the status of the sender, or because it was inherently expensive? There is also the issue of what happened to the object in the period between arriving in the Levant and entering the archaeological record there, and whether there was any shift in the manner in which these vessels were used. Archaeology is quite capable of quantifying the physical attributes of an object; arriving at an understanding of the significance of that object in its contemporary context is a more difficult task to achieve.

It is evident from a variety of textual sources that stone vessels could be accorded a comparatively high status in Bronze Age society. The raw material often had its own intrinsic value. Unworked blocks of stones such as calcite, malachite and lapis lazuli were often singled out in tribute and offering scenes (e.g.: Breasted 1906a, section 446; Breasted 1906b, sections 30, 231, 234, 245), while finished vessels from these and other materials such as marhallu-stone, hiliba-stone and hulalu-stone appear in booty lists and amongst the various precious objects provided as dowries accompanying diplomatic marriages of the 18th dynasty (e.g.: Moran 1992, EA 22 section II.67-68, III.10). Not only do they appear in these lists as containers for a variety of precious oils and perfumes, but also without contents, indicating that the vessels were considered desirable in their own right (e.g.: Moran 1992, EA 14, section III.47-73). This is also indicated by the evidence that stone vessels frequently remained in circulation for long periods of time, sometimes necessitating repairs and modifications of damaged areas to allow the object to remain functional (e.g.: el-Khouli 1993, cat. 19, 53, 55, from KV 62, the Tomb of Tutankhamen, all with mended rims, bearing inscriptions dating to the reigns of Tuthmosis III and Amenhotep III).

The materials involved may have had some role in determining the value of individual items, and considerations such as the rarity of the stone, how difficult it was to obtain, as well as its physical appearance and the amount of time and skill invested in crafting it may have contributed to the inherent desirability of a particular object. These aspects are often subjective, and yet existing texts such as the Amarna letters suggest that in the Late Bronze Age the values placed on stone vessels were shared across different cultural boundaries, as they are involved in exchanges both to, and from the Egyptian court (Moran 1992, EA 22, EA 25, EA 14).

If one accepts that stone vessels were highly valued by Bronze Age society, what is the significance of marking out some of these with an Egyptian royal inscription? Examples of this practice are decidedly rare throughout the Bronze Age, limited to a handful of sites in the Levant, including Byblos, Beirut, Ebla, Ras Shamra and Gezer (figure 3). At Ras Shamra, Only 19 out of the 427 stone vessel fragments published in Caubet’s extensive catalogue bore royal inscriptions - around 4% of the total assemblage - and this was one of the sites where such objects was most common (Caubet 1991). In cases where the size of the vessels can be determined, it would appear that these inscriptions tend to be placed on large or monumental jars that represent a considerable investment of resources. This suggests that they were reserved for the highest grade of export, rather than being a common element in stone vessel production. Both these factors point to the addition of royal cartouches as a deliberate, rather than random occurrence.

It seems probable that the message being conveyed by hieroglyphic inscriptions would be intelligible only to Near Eastern scribes trained in foreign languages, and yet it seems unlikely that they would have been intended as the main audience for this kind of artefact. More likely, the function of marking an object with an inscription, particularly one naming the Egyptian pharaoh, would be twofold. The visual appearance of the script, intelligible or not, would surely have conjured forth the necessary associations with the culture and power behind it. It would be recognisable as Egyptian from its style alone. At the same time, it would serve as a kind of validation, for the object being a gift direct from one ruler to another.

Another important aspect of inscribed stone vessels which needs to be addressed is their possible contribution to chronological studies. Artefacts bearing royal names have been especially popular in Near Eastern research as a possible link between the chronological sequences of Levantine sites and Egypt’s absolute chronology, as in the case of the calcite lid of Khian at Knossos (Warren 1995, 3). This can be problematic, as the validity of this kind of deduction depends on whether the object, inscription and archaeological context are of the same date.

The first point to be established is whether the inscription was contemporary with the object on which it appears, or whether it was added at a subsequent date. A study of inscribed vessels from royal burials in Egypt suggests that it was common practice for this kind of material to remain within the royal household for several generations (e.g.: el-Khouli 1993, cat. 49; Lilyquist 1995, 3, cats 81, 94, all from the tomb of Tutankhamen). In these circumstances, is seems quite probable that royal name inscriptions may sometimes have been added to previously undecorated vessels from earlier periods. Lilyquist has suggested a similar reworking for a mottled stone vessel from Kamid el-Loz (e.g.: Lilyquist 1993, 44; Lilyquist 1994, 217). It may be difficult to detect this kind of modification, unless both shape and inscription can be dated independently of one another, and with reasonable precision.

The second point to determine is whether the archaeological context and inscription are contemporary with one another. Not only may objects of high value be kept in circulation for considerable periods of time, but they may also be brought back into circulation after their initial deposition, through processes such as tomb robbing, and looting of temple storerooms. To settle this question, it will be necessary to have some means of establishing an independent date for associated material. This question is particularly relevant when studying the chronological distribution of royal-name stone vessels outside of Egypt. The problem is illustrated by the contents of room 30 in the royal palace at Ras Shamra, which featured a mix of inscribed material including objects from the periods of Amenhotep II, Nefertiti and Ramesses II (Caubet 1991, RS 15.201-203).

When an inscribed stone vessel antedates its archaeological context by any considerable period, this raises the issue of when and how it first reached the site in question. This has serious implications for the type of historical or political conclusions that can be drawn from the presence of this kind of artefact. It is important to find some means of distinguishing between objects sent directly to a site, and material acquired through secondary channels, such as via looting. The failure to make this kind of distinction has led to errors in the past, such as the use of Egyptian statues of private officials found in Palestine as proof of some kind of Middle Kingdom Egyptian empire in Syro-Palestine (Wilson 1941; Weinstein 1975; Ben-Tor 1997). The Egyptian stone vessels found at Palace G at Ebla are also a case in point (see below). It makes considerable difference to our understanding of Early Bronze Age international relations between Egypt and the Eblaite state as to whether these objects were traded directly to Ebla, or whether Ebla obtained them from a third party. In such cases where there is no additional textual evidence to fall back upon, and where no known local rulers are implicated in the inscriptions themselves, it may not be possible to discover the true state of affairs.

Stone vessels with royal-name inscriptions first appear in the Levant during the Early Bronze Age at Byblos, probably as a phenomenon resulting from the special relationship between Byblos and the Egyptian court. This had developed out of Egypt’s interest in a range of Lebanese products, including cedar wood, which was of sufficient size and strength to be used in architecture and for building seagoing vessels, and various associated resins and oils which were required for mummification and other ritual purposes (Prag 1986, 59; Wright 1988, 146). The majority of these stone vessels were recovered from around the temple complex of Baalat-Gebal; additional material purchased on the open market may also come from Byblos, but has not been included here because of its lack of archaeologically derived provenance (Nelson 1934). The most notable characteristic of this group of material is its quantity, and the concentration of examples dating to the reigns of Pepi I and/or II. This period represents a definite peak in terms of the distribution of stone vessels from Egyptian royal workshops abroad, unmatched in subsequent periods (figure 1). The true number of actual examples is probably higher than represented here, as many inscriptions are incomplete and the cartouches have not survived.

Several theories have been offered to explain how, and indeed why, these inscribed stone vessels came to Byblos (see Wright 1988, 150-151). The concentration of material within the temple area suggests that most of these had been intended as votive offerings. If this was indeed the case, it is difficult to determine whether the offerings were being made by Egyptians, who had brought the items with them, or by Byblite rulers or officials who had obtained them from the Egyptian pharaoh or his representatives. The implications of these two scenarios are quite different. In the first instance, the actual gift of the stone vessel would have been to an Egyptian, and the circumstances behind the presentation need not have concerned the role of that individual in an international setting. The act of offering therefore would indicate only an Egyptian presence at Byblos, and their use of cult facilities there. In the second instance, the gift would have been made from one ruler to a foreign court, and the transaction may well have had implications for international politics.

An additional, smaller group of stone vessels with royal name inscriptions was excavated at Ebla, in the Syrian interior. These bore inscriptions of the pharaoh Khafre, of the fourth dynasty, and Pepi I, of the 6th dynasty. They were discovered on the floor of royal palace G, in a destruction level that marked the end of this phase at the site, indicating that the objects were not contemporary with their archaeological setting (Wright 1988, 152). It has been suggested that these vessels may have been obtained from Byblos rather than directly from Egypt, in which case they cannot be used to draw conclusions regarding Egyptian diplomatic involvement beyond the Lebanese coast (Scandone Matthiae 1982, 128; Scandone Matthiae 1988). Two further inscribed vessels of archaic form were also found at Kamid el-Loz in Late Bronze Age contexts (Lilyquist 1996, pl. 28-29); however these are more likely to represent looted material than Early Bronze Age links with Egypt. In any case, neither features a royal inscription, and the date of the inscriptions themselves have also been called into doubt (Lilyquist 1993, 44; Lilyquist 1994, 217; Lilyquist 1996, 154-5).

The special relationship between Byblos and Egypt may have continued or been re-established during the Middle Kingdom, as some inscribed stone vessels and objects dating to pharaohs of the Twelfth and Thirteenth Dynasties also appear at the site (Naville 1922; Montet 1928, cat. 610-11, 614; see also Albright 1964; Tufnell 1969; Lilyquist 1993, 41-44). This peculiar relationship is attested in other areas, such as the adoption of hieroglyphic characters for Byblite inscriptions, use of the Egyptian title of ‘mayor’ (h3ty-’) by Byblite leaders (Redford 1993, 97), and even adaptation of Egyptian formulae for their own purposes (Kitchen 1969, 86). One calcite vessel fragment from tomb IV names a Byblite ruler, ‘h3ty-’ Yantin’, raising the question of whether this particular example was produced or inscribed locally, rather than back in Egypt (Montet 1928, pl. CXVII.787; Lilyquist 1993, 42). The degree of Egyptianisation evident in the ruling elite at Byblos is hardly surprising considering their long history of contact with Egypt. It has been suggested that some of the Egyptian objects with royal name inscriptions may have been sent as gifts to Byblite Princes to celebrate their accession (Helck 1971, 63-64). There are no further stone vessels naming later kings of the Second Intermediate Period in the region, although examples bearing inscriptions of the Hyksos ruler Khian were excavated at Knossos and Bogazköy (Warren 1969, 113; Lilyquist 1995, cats 1, A). If contemporary with their findspots, these may point to sporadic diplomatic activity abroad.

The earliest confirmed royal-name stone vessels found in the Levant date to the reign of Amenhotep II, with sporadic occurrences continuing down to the time of Ramesses II (see figure 2). This material was mostly recovered from Syria, focusing on large coastal entrepôts such as Ras Shamra and Byblos. At the former, finds were largely confined to the royal palace (courts II, IV, V, rooms 30, 31, 37, 68 and the archives; Caubet 1991, 214). Other examples were found in the ‘South Palace’, a building interpreted as a private residence attached to the court (Caubet 1991, 214), and in the ‘maison aux albâtres’, interpreted as the possible residence of an Egyptian, although Caubet suggests that this example may have found its way there through a secondary deposit (Caubet 1991, 214). The presence of inscribed stone vessels is therefore seen very much as a ‘royal’ phenomenon within Ras Shamra. This contrasts with the more general distribution of non-inscribed Egyptian stone vessels at the site (Sparks 1998, fig. 71, table 20). A similar pattern is seen at Byblos, where royal-name vessels appeared primarily in the Royal Tombs (Tombs I, II, IV and V). At Beirut the situation is more ambiguous, with an inscribed stone vessel of Ramesses II appearing in a tomb whose owners were clearly wealthy, but not necessarily royal. Overall, the distribution of examples is suggestive, focusing on sites of both commercial and strategic importance, perhaps pointing to Egyptian concerns with maintaining maritime access to the northern Levant for Egyptian troops and supplies, as well as for exploiting the rich trade potential of the region.

Royal-name stone vessels bearing cartouches of Amenhotep III and Ramesses II are particularly common in this group (figure 2). One possible explanation could lie in the relative length of both reigns, 38 and 66 years respectively. It is possible that contact over a longer period resulted in a larger number of such objects being exchanged over time, and hence their greater survival in the archaeological record. However if reign length were the sole criterion, one might expect to find a greater representation of inscriptions belonging to other pharaohs who were in office for considerable periods, such as Amenhotep II (27 years), Akhenaten (16 years) or Horemheb (28 years). Yet this is not the case. An alternative explanation is that these peaks reflect periods of genuine intensification in diplomatic contacts. Conversely, the limited amount of royal inscriptions from the time of Akhenaten down to the early Nineteenth Dynasty may bear some relationship to the political climate of the period, particularly regarding the role of Ras Shamra in Egyptian foreign relations after becoming a vassal of the Hittite empire.

A comparison of these stone vessels with other objects bearing Egyptian pharaonic inscriptions also reveals some interesting patterns (see figure 2). Although royal-name stone vessels would appear to cease after Ramesses II, this was not the case with other inscribed classes of material such as faience vessels, plaques, sculpture, stelae and architectural elements (for examples, see Weinstein 1981; Weinstein 1992). This might suggest that the stone vessels represent a different type of activity to that indicated by these other classes of inscribed object. If these were involved in diplomatic contact, as suggested above, their absence may reflect a diminution in diplomatic traffic between the regions, particularly in the northern Levant. It has been suggested that Egyptian influence in this area was much reduced by the end of the Nineteenth Dynasty (Weinstein 1992, 143). This is supported by our knowledge of Egyptian military campaigning during the reign of Merneptah which seems to have focused on Palestine (Singer 1988). This in turn may relate to a change in the nature of empire, and Egypt’s growing focus on Syro-Palestine at the expense of her military aspirations in the north. However the importance of Ras Shamra to these figures should not be forgotten, and the destruction of the site in circa 1190/1180 B.C. may explain the apparent absence of later inscribed material in the region.

In contrast to the evidence from coastal Syria and Lebanon, stone vessels with royal-name inscriptions were almost unheard of in Palestine. The only provenanced example bearing an Egyptian cartouche was a fragment dating to Ramesses II, found amongst cistern debris dug into an earlier cave tomb at Gezer (Macalister 1912, 94). While it is difficult to generalise on a single piece, this seems to lack the association with the local ruling class found in the material from further north, perhaps suggesting that this vessel reached Palestine by different means, or was accorded different status. This might be the case if it had arrived there as the result of commercial or secondary trade rather than as a royal gift. The paucity of inscribed stone vessels in Palestine may also reflect the different relationship between Egypt and her Canaanite vassals. In this instance, Egypt was very much the superior partner in any exchange, and probably did not see the necessity of sealing communiqués with diplomatic gifts or bribes.

The discussion above has tended to concentrate on the use of stone vessels as a diplomatic tool, either as parts of larger consignments designed to accompany diplomatic marriages, or as individual greeting gifts that were often directed at specific individuals within the royal court, such as the royal wife, chief sons, or high officials. The intent of this kind of exchange was to impress the recipient with the resources at the command of the sender, and in this context, marking the exchange with a royal cartouche can be seen as particularly appropriate, as it would serve as a reminder of the origin of both gift and obligation. Other mechanisms by which such goods may be transferred include military activity and the taking of booty, a practice illustrated by a series of stone vessels in Mesopotamia which were inscribed ‘booty of Elam’ and ‘booty of Magan’ (T. Potts, 1989; D. Potts, 1986).

This survey demonstrates how the distribution of royal name stone vessels can be used to illuminate aspects of Levantine foreign relations during the Second Millennium B.C. It has been argued that such objects had a specific role to play in the various gift exchanges which often accompanied Egyptian diplomatic missions to foreign courts. Egyptian artefacts with royal inscriptions have been linked to these kind of missions elsewhere in the Mediterranean (Cline 1987; Cline 1995; Warren 1995, 3). The distribution of such finds indicates that contact was especially focused on the sites of Byblos during the Egyptian Old and Middle Kingdoms, and at Ras Shamra from the time of Amenhotep II down to Ramesses II, although with some discontinuities. This may reflect Egypt’s interest in maintaining a presence at these two sites. Ensuring open trade links to the Syrian interior and cross-Mediterranean routes was economically advantageous. At the same time, there was probably a strong strategic element involved, with the desire to maintain a foothold in this contested area, both as a point of entry for military expeditions arriving by sea, and as a supply centre. The loss of Ugarit to the Hittite empire must have come as a particular blow to Egyptian military aspirations in the region, and it is possible that in objects such as these inscribed vessels, we see traces of diplomatic efforts to maintain contact and win local support. In contrast, the scarcity of this kind of material in the Southern Levant probably reflects the different relationship between Egypt and her Canaanite vassals, where the language of diplomacy was that of master to vassal, rather than to a potential ally. The chronology of these objects also supports this dichotomy, with inscribed stone vessels appearing to largely cease after the time of Ramesses II. Once a political and military status quo had been reached between Egypt and the Hittites, it is possible that these kind of diplomatic manoeuvrings took on a less vital aspect, and that diplomatic gifts of stone vessels were no longer deemed necessary. Thus while other classes of inscribed material continue, often reflecting the activity of Egyptian masons and architects in their Canaanite holdings, inscribed stone vessels become scarce outside of Egypt itself.

Adams, B., 1975, Petrie's Manuscript Notes on the Koptos Foundation Deposits of Tuthmosis III, Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 61, 102-113.

Albright, W.F. 1964, The Eighteenth Century Princes of Byblos and the Chronology of Middle Bronze, BASOR 176, 38-46.

Ben-Tor, D., 1997, The Relations Between Egypt and Palestine in the Middle Kingdom as Reflected by Contemporary Canaanite Scarabs, IEJ 47.3-4, 162-189.

Bordreuil, P., Pardee, D., 1989, Ras Shamra-Ougarit V. La trouvaille épigraphique de l’Ougarit. Vol. 1: concordance, Paris.

Breasted, J.H., 1906a, Ancient records of Egypt volume 2, Chicago, University of Chicago Press.

Breasted, J.H., 1906b, Ancient records of Egypt volume 4, Chicago, University of Chicago Press.

Caubet, A., 1991, Répertoire de la vaisselle de pierre, Ougarit 1929-1988, in Yon, M., Arts et Industries de la pierre, Paris, 205-264.

Cline, E., 1987, Amenhotep III and the Aegean: A Reassessment of Egypto-Aegean Relations in the 14th Century B.C., Orientalia 56.1, 1-36.

Cline, E.H., 1994, Sailing the Wine Dark Sea: International Trade and the Late Bronze Age Aegean, BAR International Series S591.

Cline, E.H., 1995, Egyptian and Near Eastern Imports at Late Bronze Age Mycenae, in Davies, W.V. & Schofield, L., Egypt, The Aegean and the Levant. Interconnections in the Second Millennium B.C., London, 91-115

Desroches-Noblecourt, C., 1956, Interprétation et datation d’une scène gravée sur deux fragments de récipient en albatre provenant des fouilles du plais d’Ugarit, in Schaeffer, C.F.A, Ugaritica III, Paris, 179-220.

Dunand, M., 1939, Fouilles de Byblos tome I. 1926-32, Paris.

Dunand, M., 1958, Fouilles de Byblos tome II. 1933-1938, Paris.

Edel, E., 1983, Zwei Steinschalem mit ägyptischen Inschriften aus dem Palast von Kamid el-Loz, in Hachmann, R., Frühe Phöniker im Libanon - 20 Jahre Deutsche Ausgragungen in Kamid el-Loz, Mainz am Rhein, 38-39.

Hayes, W.C., 1959, The Sceptre of Egypt II - The Hyksos Period and the New Kingdom, Cambridge Mass.

Helck, W., 1971, Die Beziehungen Ägyptens zu Vorderasien, Wiesbaden.

Jacobsson, I., 1994, Aegyptiaca from Late Bronze Age Cyprus, SIMA CXII.

Kitchen, K.A., 1969, Interrelations of Egypt and Syria, in Liverani, M., La Siria nel Tardo Bronzo, Rome, 70-95.

Leeds, 1922, Alabaster Vases of the New Kingdom from Sinai, Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 8, 1-4.

Lilyquist, C., 1993, Objects Attributable to Kamid el-Loz and Comments on the Date of Some Objects in the 'Schatzhaus', in Hachmann, R., Kamid el-Loz 11: Das ‘scatzhaus’ im Palastbereich. Die Befunde und ihre Deutung, Bonn, 207-220.

Lilyquist, C., 1994, Granulation and Glass: Chronological and Stylistic Investigations at Selected Sites, ca. 2500-1400 B.C.E., BASOR 290-291, 29-82.

Lilyquist, C., 1995, Egyptian Stone Vessels: Khian Through Tuthmosis IV, New York.

Lilyquist, C., 1996, Stone vessels at Kamid el-Loz, Lebanon: Egyptian, Egyptianizing, or non-Egyptian? A question at sites from the Sudan to Iraq to the Greek Mainland, in Hachmann, R., Kamid el-Loz 16: ‘Schatzhaus’ - Studien, Bonn, 133-173.

Macalister, R.A.S., 1912, The Excavation of Gezer volume I, London.

Mond, R. & Meyers, O.H., 1940, Temples of Armant, London.

Montet, P., 1928, Byblos et l’Egypte: Quatre campaignes de fouilles a Gebeil, 1921, 1922, 1923, 1924, Paris.

Moran, W., 1992, The Amarna Letters, Baltimore.

Naville, E., 1922, Le Vase a Parfum de Byblos, Syria III, 291-295.

Nelson, H., 1934, Fragments of Old Egyptian Stone Vases from Byblos, Berytus I, 19-22.

Petrie, W.M.F., Brunton, G., 1924, Sedment I, London.

Pinch, G., 1993, Votive Offerings to Hathor, Oxford.

Potts, D.T., 1986, The Booty of Magan, Oriens Antiquus XXV, 271-285.

Potts, T.F., 1989, Foreign Stone Vessels of the Late Third Millennium BC from Southern Mesopotamia: Their origins and mechanisms of exchange, Iraq LI, 123-164.

Prag, K., 1986, Byblos and Egypt in the Fourth Millennim B.C., Levant 18, 59-74.

Redford, D.B., 1993, Egypt, Canaan and Israel in Ancient Times, Princeton.

Saidah, R., 1993-4, Beirut in the Bronze Age: The Kharji Tombs, Berytus XLI, 137-210.

Scandone-Matthiae, G., 1982, Inscriptions Royales egyptiennes de l’ancien empire a Ebla, in Nissen, H.J., Renger, J., Mesopotamien und seine Nachbarn, vol. 1 part 1, Berlin, 125-130.

Scandone-Matthiae, G., 1988, Les Relations entre Ébla et l'Égypte au IIIème et au IIème Millénaire av. J.-Chr., in Waetzoldt, H. & Hauptmann, H., Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft von Ebla, Heidelberg, 67-73.

Schaeffer, C.F.A., 1954, Les Fouilles de Ras Shamra-Ugarit Qunzieme, Seizieme et Dix-Septieme Campagnes (1951, 1952 and 1953), Syria XXXI, 14-67.

Schaeffer, C.F.A., 1956, Ugaritica III, Paris.

Singer, I., 1988, Merneptah's Campaign to Canaan and the Egyptian Occupation of the Southern Coastal Plain of Palestine in the Ramesside Period, BASOR 269, 1-10.

Sparks, R.T., 1998, Stone Vessels in the Levant During the Second Millennium B.C., unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Sydney.

Tufnell, O., 1969, The Pottery from Royal Tombs I-III at Byblos, Berytus 18, 5-33.

Ward, W.A., 1993-4, Egyptian Objects From the Beirut Tombs, Berytus XLI, 211-222.

Warren, P., 1969, Minoan Stone Vases, Cambridge.

Warren, P. 1995, Minoan Crete and Pharaonic Egypt, in Davies, W.V. & Schofield, L., Egypt, The Aegean and the Levant. Interconnections in the Second Millennium B.C., London, 1-18.

Weinstein, J.M., 1975, Egyptian Relations with Palestine in the Middle Kingdom, BASOR 217, 1-16.

Weinstein, J.M., 1981, The Egyptian Empire in Palestine: A Reassessment, BASOR 241, 1-28.

Weinstein, J.M., 1992, The Collapse of the Egyptian Empire in the Southern Levant, in Ward, W.A. & Joukowsky, M.S., The Crisis Years: The 12th Century B.C. From Beyond the Danube to the Tigris, Dubuque, Iowa, 142-150.

Wilson, J.A., 1941, The Egyptian Middle Kingdom at Megiddo, AJSLL LVIII, 225-236.

Wright, M., 1988, Contacts between Egypt and Syro-Palestine during the Old Kingdom, Biblical Archaeologist 51, 143-161.

Figure 1: The chronological distribution of stone vessels with Egyptian royal name inscriptions in the Levant

Figure 2: Objects inscribed with royal cartouches in the Levant dating to the New Kingdom, excepting scarabs

Figure 3: Catalogue of stone vessels with Egyptian royal cartouches found in the Levant