Tenth International Congress of Egyptologists Abstracts of Papers

XICE – Abstract of Papers
turning to the Ugarit's Amarna letters, it will argue that they by no means constitute
conclusive evidence for the subordination of the addresser to the addressee. This is so,
since the same traits might as well have been employed as a courteous form of
address indicating differences in age, office, rank, power, prestige or within marital
relations; and, on the other hand, these letters contain some features that do not accord
with the accepted manners of dependent courts in their letters to the suzerain.
These results would be further reinforced by a series of arguments to the effect
that not only is there no evidence to an Egyptian claim over Ugarit, nor any hint to it
in either Egyptian, Mittanian or Hittite texts, but Egypt does not seem to have ever
been in any position during the reign of the Eiteenth Dynasty to cause Ugarit through
force or voluntarily to submit to the Pharaohs. Now, while most of the above
arguments are of negative nature, based mainly on evidence ex silentio, there is a
positive piece of evidence which precludes the possibility of Ugarit's dependency on
Egypt in the Amarna period, testimony that to the best of my knowledge was never
submitted in the discussion of this issue. It appears in a letter of Suppiluliuma I to
Niqmaddu II of Ugarit (RS 17.132), which includes a clear Hittite claim to suzerainty
over Ugarit, being based on previous such subordination. The discussion of this
testimony, together with some further considerations regarding the weight that may be
ascribed to the total ignorance of the alleged dependence of Ugarit on Egypt in Hittite
records, will ended the paper.
The vignette of chapter 110 as a means of understanding the Book of Going
Forth by Day during the Twenty-first Dynasty
Maria Milagros Álvarez Sosa
More than 150 papyri of the Book of Going Forth by Day containing the vignette 110
(known as Field of Reeds, Field of Offerings or Field of Hotep) are preserved; 25 of
them belong to the Twenty-first Dynasty. The singularity of this period, with its high
productivity of funerary texts and new iconographic repertoires, has motivated us to
do a particular analysis of the copies of this chronology and to present them in this
congress. We have devised a methodological strategy that allow us to make a
typological classification of the vignettes of Chapter 110 of this period and to identify
the origin of its model and the process of its transmission. We have established six
different groups of vignette type:
1. Seven papyri that repeat a single model whose origins go back to the 18th
Dynasty.
2. Four papyri are a subgroup of the previous model, and only change in one of
their registers. No antecedents are known since it appears to be a
transformation of the model made during the Twenty-first Dynasty.
3. Two groups of several papyri, each one of them with no known antecedents in
their vignettes; their origin is probably the Twenty-first Dynasty.
4. Three papyri with independent vignettes among themselves, whose respective
models were based on the ones of the Twenty-first Dynasty, but modified at
the same time; on these grounds we can consider them to be an original
creation of the Twenty-first Dynasty.
In addition, we have been able to identify the relationship among two typevignette
of the Twenty-first Dynasty with two representations on tombs: one of the
Eighteenth Dynasty and another of the Twenty-second Dynasty. The repetition of
7