Berlin Pedestal Relief - Biblical Archaeology Encyclopedia

Overview

A slab of grey granite, probably from the base of a royal statue. It shows three bound Western Asiatic captives, each with an oval 'name ring' on his body naming a conquered place, and above them a band of hieroglyphs reading '[...] one who is falling on his feet'. Ludwig Borchardt bought it for Berlin in 1913 from the dealer M. Nachman, together with a companion slab (ÄM 21688) of about the same size, which shows two Asiatic captives and one Nubian captive.

The left name ring reads ʿ-s-q-l-n, Ashkelon. The middle reads k-y-n-ʿ-nw, Canaan. The right ring is damaged, apparently by modern hacking. It reads i-[?]-šȝ-i-r, and the second sign is almost entirely lost. In 2001 Manfred Görg restored the missing sign as a vulture (ȝ). He read the whole as an archaic writing of 'Israel' and argued that the three names mirror Merenptah's stele (Canaan, Ashkelon, ... Israel). In 2010 P. van der Veen, C. Theis and Görg published photographs taken under raking light and an aluminium-foil impression. They say these show the vulture's leg and claw.

The reading matters because if the third ring does name Israel in the 18th Dynasty (or in a list copied from one), it would put an entity called Israel in Canaan before Merenptah's Year 5 (c. 1208 BCE). J. K. Hoffmeier rejected the reading on the grounds of its sibilant and its orthography. The stone itself cannot settle the question, because its key sign is damaged.

What the text says (summary)

Left ring: ʿ-s-q-l-n (Ashkelon). Middle ring: k-y-n-ʿ-nw (Canaan). Right ring: i-[ȝ?]-šȝ-i-r, damaged, restored by Görg as 'Israel'. Band above the captives: '[...] ḫtb.w ḥr rd.wi=f', 'one who is falling on his feet...'.Transliterations and the band translation from P. van der Veen, C. Theis & M. Görg, JAEI 2:4 (2010), pp. 15-17. No public-domain translation exists.

What the evidence shows

Grey granite slab, 46 × 39.5 cm, sawn to 7.5 cm thick, bearing three bound Asiatic captives with name rings (van der Veen et al. 2010, p. 15).
Bought in 1913 by Borchardt from M. Nachman, with no findspot (museum archival notes as reported in van der Veen et al. 2010). The companion slab ÄM 21688 (50 × 38 cm, also grey granite) shows two Asiatic captives and one Nubian captive and names Retenu.
Ring 1, Ashkelon, is written consonantally without group-writing. The closest parallel is pLeningrad 1116A from the reign of Amenhotep II.
Ring 2, Canaan (k-y-n-ʿ-nw), has close parallels in Amenhotep II's Memphis and Karnak stelae. It differs from the usual Ramesside form pȝ-Knʿn.
Ring 3 is damaged along its right edge, probably by modern hacking. The first sign is the reed-leaf (i). The second is almost lost; van der Veen and Theis report traces of a vulture's leg and claw from raking-light photography and a foil impression. The remaining signs are the pool-sign šȝ, the reed-leaf i, and r.
Van der Veen et al. report that measuring the ring shows no room for any further sign after šȝ, i and r.
No king's name survives on the fragment.

Open questions

Does ring 3 read 'Israel'? M. Görg (Biblische Notizen 106, 2001, 21-27) restored the second sign as a vulture (ȝ). He read the name as iȝ-šr-il / yȝ-šr-il, taking the ȝ of šȝ as r, as in Middle Kingdom spellings such as Rw-šȝ-mm for Jerusalem in the Execration Texts. Van der Veen, Theis & Görg (JAEI 2:4, 2010) say that raking-light photographs and a foil impression show the vulture's leg and claw. J. K. Hoffmeier (JETS 50/2, 2007, 241-242) answers that the name is 'plagued by serious linguistic and orthographic problems'. His points: Israel needs ś, not š (Merenptah's stele writes it with s); šȝ is a group-writing for šā, as in Sharuhen; a restored ȝ would stand for Semitic lamed; and the final r is not the l-sign used in 'Ashkelon' on the same block. Van der Veen et al. reply that Egyptian scribes varied their signs for foreign names, for example in the Egyptian spelling of Kurigalzu. The dispute turns on one damaged sign and on the rules for rendering sibilants.
Date. Hoffmeier (2007, p. 241) reports that Görg dated the block on style to Thutmose III or Amenhotep II. Van der Veen et al. (2010, p. 15) report Görg's tentative 19th-Dynasty date (Ramesses II), based on the resemblance to Merenptah's stele, while granting that the spellings copy an earlier 18th-Dynasty source. R. Giveon (Eretz-Israel 15, 1981, as cited by van der Veen et al.) dated it to the 18th Dynasty. With no provenance or royal name, the date floats with the spellings.
Unknown: whether ÄM 21687 and ÄM 21688 came from the same monument, where the statue stood, and which king it portrayed. The sources are silent.

Sources

P. van der Veen, C. Theis & M. Görg, 'Israel in Canaan (Long) Before Pharaoh Merenptah? A Fresh Look at Berlin Statue Pedestal Relief 21687', Journal of Ancient Egyptian Interconnections 2:4 (2010): 15-25. doi:10.2458/azu_jaei_v02i4_van_der_veen link editio princeps
J. K. Hoffmeier, 'What Is the Biblical Date for the Exodus? A Response to Bryant Wood', Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 50/2 (June 2007): 225-247, esp. 241-242 link study
P. van der Veen, 'Berlin Statue Pedestal Reliefs 21687 and 21688: Ongoing Research', Journal of Ancient Egyptian Interconnections 4:4 (2012). doi:10.2458/azu_jaei_v04i4_van_der_veen link study
M. Görg, 'Israel in Hieroglyphen', Biblische Notizen 106 (2001): 21-27 link study

Corrected from the earlier edition of this page

The old entry said it was 'discovered within the museum's archives, where it had been stored since the late 19th century'. It was bought in 1913 by Ludwig Borchardt from the dealer M. Nachman (van der Veen et al. 2010, p. 15).
The old entry described it as 'approximately 30 cm tall'. It measures 46 × 39.5 cm.
The old entry gave 'Material: Stone relief fragment'. It is grey granite, from a statue pedestal.
The old entry said the scene is only interpreted as 'potentially referencing the land of Israel' and called the imagery 'too ambiguous'. The claim is specific: one damaged name ring, read i-[ȝ]-šȝ-i-r and restored as Israel, beside legible name rings for Ashkelon and Canaan. The dispute is over one sign and the sibilant, not over the imagery.
The old entry gave the date as 'c. 13th century BCE'. The proposed dates run from the 18th Dynasty (15th-14th century BCE) to Ramesses II. The spellings point to an 18th-Dynasty source even on the late view.
The old entry said it could be 'one of the earliest known artistic depictions' of Israelites. The captives are generic bound Asiatics with name rings, a standard Egyptian convention, and no figure is individually identified as an Israelite.
The old entry listed Exodus 1, Genesis 47 and Numbers 1. The relief concerns places in Canaan, not Israelites in Egypt, so those ties do not correspond to anything on the object.

Checked against new publications through 2026-09.