Excavations At Mendes: Volume 1. The Royal Necropolis (Culture and History of the Ancient Near East)

EXCAVATIONS AT MENDES

CULTURE AND HISTORY OF THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST EDITED BY

B. HALPERN, M. H. E. WEIPPERT TH. P.J. VAN DEN HOUT, I. WINTER VOLUME 20

EXCAVATIONS AT MENDES Volume 1. The Royal Necropolis BY

DONALD B. REDFORD

BRILL LEIDEN • BOSTON 2004

This book is printed on acid-free paper.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Redford, Donald B. Excavations at Mendes / by Donald B. Redford. p. cm. — (Culture and history of the ancient Near East, ISSN 1566-2055; v. 20) Includes bibliographical references and index. Contents: v. 1. The Royal Necropolis — ISBN 90-04-13674-6 (alk. paper) 1. Mendes (Extinct city) 2. Excavations (Archaeology)—Egypt—Mendes (Extinct city) I. Title. II. Series. DT73.M54R44 2004 932—dc22 2004045902

ISSN 1566-2055 ISBN 90 04 13674 6 © Copyright 2004 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive,Suite 910 Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. printed in the netherlands

introduction

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

vii

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1

1. The Temenos Walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D.B. Redford

5

2. The Sarcophagus and its Installation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D.B. Redford

24

3. The Relief-decoration of Nepherites’ Tomb and Related Epigraphy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D.B. Redford

30

4. The Third Intermediate & Saite Periods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D.B. Redford

35

5. The Inscriptions and Cursive Texts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D.B. Redford

36

6. Royal Necropolis: Object Catalogue. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S. Redford

42

7. Ceramic Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 R. Hummel & S.B. Shubert 8. The Human Remains (Third Intermediate Period) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185 C. Lang 9. Charred Plant Remains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197 A.C. D’andrea 10. Faunal Remains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202 D. Brewer 11. Basket-handle Jars: Their Origin and Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211 A.D. de Rodrigo Plates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221 Edited by S. Redford Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261

vi

gary n. knoppers

introduction

vii

PREFACE The present volume of Mendes excavations represents the results of four seasons of work in the Royal Necropolis (1992-1995). In addition to this the information gleaned from sondages in the Sacred Lake (Field BB) is also included (199l)1 I should like to thank the following for their contribution to the editing of the material in this book: S. Redford (plans, text figures and general editing), G. Mumford (text figures, section inking). Thanks are especially due Donald Hansen, director of the NYU expedition to Mendes and Richard Fazzini, curator Brooklyn Museum, for placing at our disposal field notes and photographs from the 1977 season of the NYU expedition. The staff of the Mendes expedition of the University of Toronto was as follows: 199l: S. Anton, G. Mumford, S. Redford, C. Redford, D. B. Redford. 1992: S. Adamson, A. de Rodrigo, C. d’Andrea, A. Hawkins, M. Borst, R. Hummel, M. Jones, J. Leland, G. Mumford, D. Makris, D. Mitchel, L. Pawlish, S. Redford, D.B. Redford, K. Sweet. 1993: S. Adamson, C. d’Andrea, T. Butler, A. de Rodrigo, R. Hummel, G. Mumford, R. Nesbitt, S. Redford, D.B. Redford, L. Pawlish, J. Revez, L. Wilding. 1994: S. Adamson, C. d’Andrea, J. B’naity, T. Butler, A. de Rodrigo, J. Hellum, J. Gray, J. Leland, P. Julig, G. Mumford, R. Nesbitt, L. Pavlish, J. Revez, L. Wilding, S. Redford, D.B. Redford. Photographs were taken by Tracy Butler; field drawings were produced by Rupert Nesbitt and Joy Leland. The funding for the excavations of the University of Toronto at Tell er-Rub’a (Mendes) and its publication comes from a research grant provided by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. From 1998 the Akhenaten Temple Project and the Mendes Excavations have been under the aegis of the Pennsylvania State University, and currently enjoy their sponsorship and support. It is with the help of a subvention from this university that the present work is published.

1

The work in fields AM-AE (the “Harbor”) and the Middle and Old Kingdom sondages (HA and AL-K) will be published in future volumes.

viii

gary n. knoppers

introduction

1

INTRODUCTION The first controlled scientific excavations to be undertaken at the site of Tell er-Rub’a (Mendes) were those of New York University under the direction of the late B.V. Bothmer, D. Hansen and K. Wilson between 1963 and 1980. It is impossible within the narrow parameters of an introduction to express our indebtedness to this expedition for the vast array of archaeological data they provided which has constituted a firm foundation for our own work. At this juncture the fundamental work of R. Stieglitz must be noted, as his survey of the mound and the resultant map forms the basis of our division of the site into “fields.”Beginning in the surviving northwest angle of the site, on the south side of the Mansura road, each 100-metre square of the Stieglitz grid has received a doubleletter designation. This will provide an easy means of identification and location for both survey and excavation units. The work in field AL (0 × N100; 0 × E100), the “necropolis” (fig. 1) was occasioned and given focus by the need to address three problems: l. the physical arrangements of the interment of which the surviving sarcophagus is the centrepiece; 2. the relationship of this mortuary installation with the eastern temenos wall; 3. the stratigraphic relationship of field AL to the main temple of the Ram (fields AJ - AK). A number of adverse circumstances conspired to impede the work. The overburden of sebakh was obvious, but its depth and extent unclear. The temenos wall of the northwest enclosure on the eastern side was weathered to the point that neither face was in evidence. Uncontrolled and unrecorded digging around the sarcophagus had removed important stratification. Finally, the dumps of earlier excavators were unmarked, a common complaint all over Egypt, but especially at Mendes. We were aided in resolving these problems by the work of a magnetometer team from the University of Toronto, under the direction of Larry Pawlish (Department of Physics), which undertook a survey of the northwest enclosure in the summer of 1992. Striking anomalies were detected southeast of the sarcophagus and along the N-50 metre line, to the northwest of the sarcophagus. These discoveries in large part dictated the placement of squares and trenches.

Figure 1. Grid map of site with area of the royal necropolis outlined.

Figure 2. Field AL showing distribution of excavation units.

2 introduction

introduction

3

The distribution of excavation units is as follows (fig. 2). Due east of the sarcophagus at a distance of 10.5 metres a massif of mud-brick had been in evidence for an undetermined length of time. Across this installation, at grid-line 56.50 metres N, F I-II, a gas-pipe trench 3 metres wide was laid out, c. 12 metres long east-west, to span the area between the aforementioned massif and the existing temenos wall (hereinafter T l). This trench was expanded by the addition on the north of trench P I (3 m. wide), P II (3 m. wide) and on the south R and Q (total width 7 metres). We thus achieved a total exposure of over 20.50 metres north-south. On the west side of the massif the same north line provided the baulk for trench I l. Trench I 2 lay to the north of l. The advantage of excavation unit I was that it was sited at a point where the stratification had been undisturbed: no earlier excavation had been undertaken here. By contrast, excavation unit J, which lay immediately south of I, likewise abutting against the brick massif, was co-extensive with an area already partly excavated by New York University. At the point where the brick massif suddenly retreats eastward trench G and square H (6 metres) were laid in to try to detect the reason for this retreat. The anomalies detected by the magnetometer south-east of the sarcophagus were to be investigated by three 8-metre squares on a north-south alignment (C, D and E), and two east-west trenches (A and B) beginning c. 6 metres due south of the sarcophagus. Finally, clearance operations were mounted immediately around the sarcophagus in an effort to uncover the floor and enclosing walls. Towards the close of the 1994 season this S(arcophagus) area came to dominate the logistics of the expedition, as theretofore we had not appreciated that the manifold robbing of the area in time gone by had left anything significant remaining. When it was realized that a meticulous stratigraphic record was possible, then eleven excavation units (in the form of trenches, each being a peel-back of the next) were laid in on the west side of the sarcophagus, five on the south, two on the north and two on the east. In order to link up the necropolis of field AL with the main temple and to establish the stratigraphic relationship between the two, it was decided to lay in a long sequence of units on an east-west alignment roughly between grid lines 80 to 90 N. Beginning from the north side of the long robbers’ pit on the north of the sarcophagus, five 8-metre squares were started. A further seven or eight units will be required to extend the section to the main temple. Of the five begun (K through O) only K was carried down to the Old Kingdom levels, the others reaching only a New Kingdom horizon.

4

introduction

the temenos walls

5

CHAPTER ONE

THE TEMENOS WALLS Donald B. Redford The excavations in Field AL have revealed three walls which clearly define temenoi of varying time and extent. These run roughly on a north-south alignment immediately east of the Nepherites’ burial pit. One, T l, has always been visible, since in fact it constitutes the circumvallation of the present North-west enclosure; but the other two (west of T l) were revealed by excavation. We have numbered them from east to west, but hereinafter they are treated in reverse order. The “Inner” Temenos Wall (T 3) (Fig. 3) Within (i.e. to the west of) T l and T 2 is a much worn wall running on a line 16 degrees east of north.1 This alignment, at variance with that of T 2, results in the convergence of the two a few metres north of excavation unit I(i). That T 3 is earlier than T 2 is obvious from the fact that the massive foundation trench of T 2 has sheered off diagonally much of the massif of T 3 on the east side. On the west side the eastern margin of the burial pit of Nepherites has likewise cut into the brickwork of T 3. The overall result is that nowhere in the excavation units dug to date (except possibly SN, where the north baulk seems to reveal a brick edge) have we been able to uncover either the eastern or western face of T 3. In spite of its poor state of preservation, T 3 reveals a number of facts about its construction. It was at least 12 metres wide,2 and was constructed in undulating sections, the length of each section being something slightly in excess of 6 metres. The brickwork, wherever detected, was in a very poor state of preservation. The courses were not laid evenly, but undulated crudely; and brick sizes vary considerably (32/34 × 18/20 × 14/18 cm.). Of considerable interest is the fact that, in the lower courses laid bare in excavation unit I, courses of black, crumbly alluvial brick alternated with whitish bricks.3 The wall had, at some unknown period been denuded (intentionally?) to c. 12.14 m. A.S.L., where a fire-reddened band shows clearly in the brickwork (pl. 1a). Above this a rebuild of the wall is apparent, but in the same inferior mode of construction. Whether before or as a result of this destruction, the outer face of T 3 had been worn away to the point that the original vertical profile had been replaced by a mud-brick slope of c. 35 degrees in declination. Over the slope was a cascade of detritus made up of fractured mud-brick (see GI section, fig. 5), and a thick band of sherds (see JIV section, fig. 4; pl. 1b). Into this rubble poor burials of post-New Kingdom date had been introduced.4 Similar interments were recovered in SN II along the western edge of T 3, where the wall itself had been cut into to receive the body. On the east side in excavation unit J the wall had similarly been cut away, and an oven inserted for domestic purposes. Although clearly T 3 had enjoyed a long life, the date of construction and final abandonment are 1

Highest preserved point in excavation unit I(i), 12.75 m. A.S.L. Distance from the eastern line of Nepherites’ burial pit to the western face of the inset of T 2 in unit G, where T 3 is cut by the inset. 3 10 YR 6/l to 10 YR 6/2. These bricks have been analysed by Dr. Maury Morgenstein of Geosciences Management Institute (Boulder City, Nevada) in his ongoing study of Egyptian brick types. Our white bricks belong to his type E. Dr. Morgenstein writes ( letter of July 29, 1995): “the light coloration is due to calcium carbonate as very fine silt to medium sand sized debris (up to 35% by volume). This sand sized carbonate is crushed limestone. There is no indication that the carbonate is natural. The sediment appears to be a mixture of reducing grey muds with fine grained carbonate debris. The slight acid values of the reduced muds are probably responsible for the further decomposition of the sand sized carbonate to even finer grained materials such as very fine silts. Optical examination suggests that there is no re-crystalization of the carbonate material as no authigenic micritic (small calcite crystals) grains were observed. The evaporitic salt content of this material is not insignificant, possibly as much as 2% combined sulfates and nitrates. The basic sediment is composed of less than 5% well rounded medium to fine sand sized quartz grains in a Nile silt matrix of very fine grained sand to clay sized clastics (dominated by quartz, clay minerals, amphiboles, minor feldspar and organics).” 4 See below, report on skeletal remains. 2

Figure 3. Plan of excavated areas including temenos walls.

6 chapter one

the temenos walls

7

Figure 4. South section of excavation unit J, trench III

at present difficult to ascertain. Clearly it predates the reign of Nepherites I (399-393 b.c.e.), whose burial pit cut into it; but beyond this any estimate would be hazardous. The ceramic content of the loci within the cascade of detritus falling down the east slope of the denuded wall (G I, 62, 63, 65, 66, 68, 69; J IV, 16) shows a consistent New Kingdom- 3rd Int. Period-Saite profile. Although within the T 2 foundation trench, the presence of Iron II Cypriot (see pl. S:32) may bolster the case for the 3rd Int. Period as the time when T 3 fell into disuse. The extent of the tell encompassed by T 3 is likewise in doubt. One presumes that the Ramesside temple of Banebdjed (now more closely defined by the identification of the first pylon as Ramesside) would have required a temenos wall; but T 3 has been destroyed by T 2 just at the point where it would turn west towards the pylon. The “Middle” Temenos Wall (T 2) (Pl. 2a, 2b & 3a; Fig. 6) The mud-brick massif aforesaid5, (hereinafter T 2) proved not to be a podium, but a thick north-south wall, 13.25 m. wide at grid-line 56.50 N (fig. 3). It runs true north-south. Within a few centimetres of the 50 N line the wall is reduced in thickness by 3.45 m. on the western side and l.0 metre on the eastern side; the inset thus created proceeds south for ll.80 metres before the wall resumes its original thickness. This reduced-thickness of wall is bonded with the section to the north. The latter runs north for 18.60 m. at which point the western face retreats .30 cm. to allow a very shallow inset. Here there is no bonding between the two sections. For a distance of c. 50 metres north of the 56.50 N line T 2 was preserved to a height of 14.52 A.S.L., with an additional c. 75 cm. of pulverized brick at the top; but to the south it had suffered denudation to 12.85 A.S.L. Squares C, D and E were unfortunately sited within the massif of the brickwork, but did prove that the wall is heading in a southerly direction towards the corner of the outer temenos wall (T l). Presumably at this point the two walls met and turned at the same sharp angle towards the WNW, a postulate which would account for the dramatic thickening of the present temenos wall in this sector. Beyond the 80 N line to the north the wall had also been worn down, and its surviving summit declined very rapidly until in Field AC it was at 10.59 A.S.L., i.e.(present) ground level. Its course at this point could no longer be detected. In the course of excavation a stretch of 20.50 m. of the east face of T 2 was laid bare. The wall was strongly built in alternating courses of headers and stretchers, in a style reminiscent of temenos walls elsewhere in Egypt, at Tanis, Buto, Karnak and El Kab.6 Reed matting was in evidence between

5

Variously dubbed by the local inhabitants and earlier excavators a “mastaba,” “podium” or “platform.” On temenos walls and their construction, see H. Chevrier, RdE 16(1964), llff; J.-C. Golvin and others, CRAIBL 1990, 905 ff; for the term sbty, “temenos wall,” see P. Spencer, The Egyptian Temple: a Lexicographical Study (London, 1984), 27078. 6

Figure 5. South section of excavation unit G.

8 chapter one

the temenos walls

9

every second course of bricks.7 In the excavation unit P II a 2.5 cm. thick layer of mortar lay between each course. The bricks throughout are alluvial with very few inclusions and, in the section exposed by trenches F and P show the same size, viz. 40 × 20 × 12 cm. In the inset section to the south, covered by trench R, they averaged 42 × 22 × 15 cm. Both east and west faces of the northern section exposed (F-P and I-J)exhibit pan-bedding, the undulation in the section cleared being approximately 10 - ll metres in length. Deep excavations in unit I revealed the cause to be, as in the case of the Gm-p3-itn temenos wall at Karnak,8 the alternation in the lowest foundation course of bricks laid flat with others laid on end. At a height of 2.45 m. above the then ground level on the exterior face, there is a series of holes placed horizontally and spaced 70 cm. apart. Of the eleven exposed in F/P most are hexagonal, 22 cm. deep and between 23 and 30 cm. broad, and are actually cut into the brick to produce the required shape. As the series approaches the shallow inset of the wall at the 50 N grid-line, the size of the holes reduces to 20 × 17 cm. and 20 × 14 cm., the latter being closest to the corner of the inset. The bricks in the four courses below the holes are smaller in size for the norm for this wall, being only 30 × 22 × 12 cm. Three courses (= c. 40 cm.) below the line of holes and 3.92 m. from the corner of the inset is a T-shaped indentation (found filled with limestone chips), measuring 31 cm. deep and 29 cm. wide across the top.9 A second line of holes, which at the corner of the inset are 42 cm. above the then ground level, descend towards the north (because of the pan-bedding), and 4.50 m. north of the inset they disappear beneath the surface. Seven were laid bare, each separated 40 cm. from its neighbour, and each measuring 20 cm. deep by 29 cm. long. Immediately beneath (i.e. with no intervening course of brick) the second line of holes is a third, the components of which have average dimensions of 21 cm. in width and 18 cm. in depth. Each hole is 64 cm. from its neighbour. As this third line of holes disappears beneath the then ground level at c. 5.50 m. north of the inset, the holes in the wall are matched by semi-circular holes in the surface, 15 cm. out from the face of the wall. All holes yielded evidence of once having contained wooden beams. Those in the ground surface just described suggest that some sort of vertical protuberance was present at ground level.10 At a point 6.80 m. north of the inset there occurred a horizontal series of five shallow indentations in the brickwork, each 20 cm. from its neighbour. These were set l.20 m. above then ground level, i.e. within easy reach of one standing on the contemporary surface. They do not contain any evidence of wood, and their purpose remains unknown. The east face of the section of wall proceeding south of the 50 N metre line is inset l.05 m. from the plane of the northern section just described. A stretch of 6.67 metres of this “inset” was exposed by the excavations, penetrating to just below the surface associated with the wall. The “inset” shows the expected alternation of courses of headers and stretchers, but there is no pan-bedding. Here the wall was denuded to 2.70 m. above the contemporary surface so that the uppermost series of holes for wooden beams is now lost. Eight holes, however, are preserved of the second row, and these are at ground level. Both size and positioning are erratic. The holes range from hexagonal apertures, 27 cm. broad and 21 cm. deep, to small rectangular openings 18 cm. wide and 10 cm. deep. On the average they are 73 cm. apart, but the set of four closest to the inset are only 46 cm. from each other. At l.25 metres south of the inset and l.85 metres above the contemporary ground level, was another T-shaped hole, 44 cm. broad by 40 cm. deep. This had an artificial packing of fragments of mud-brick which essentially plugged the indentation. When removed a hole was revealed which diminished in size within the brickwork, and yielded fragments of limestone. A similar T-shaped hole was in evidence at the top of the surviving height of the wall, but insufficient was preserved to provide accurate dimensions. Wall T 2 had been sited in a N-S alignment on the gentle eastern slope of a mound which must represent the earlier occupation of what is today the north-west enclosure.11 To receive it a massive foundation trench was sunk, deeper on the west than on the east. The sections through excavation unit I, on the west side of the wall (fig.7, wall A) show that the foundation trench had cut through the 7

Cf. the similar matting in the temenos wall at Buto: M.V. Seton-Williams, JEA 53(1967), 148. To the best of my knowledge no sample was submitted for C-14 testing. 8 D.B. Redford, JSSEA ll(1981), 254-55. 9 As Rupert Nesbitt suggested, these T-shaped indentations are probably seep-holes. 10 The fragments of wood retrieved are to be analysed by Dr. C. d’Andrea of Simon Frazer University. 11 Where the mound meets the eastern face of T 2 the height above sea-level is 9.25 metres.

Figure 6. Profile of “middle” temenos wall as exposed in excavation units

10 chapter one

the temenos walls

11 EAST

SQUARE I Trecht II North Section

WEST

WALL A

SQUARE I Trecht I North Section

EAST

WEST

WALL A

Figure 7. North sections of trenches I and II of excavation unit I.

inner temenos wall (T 3, wall C), and had shaved off its outer face. The wall T 2 had not occupied the entire width of the trench, but had left over 3 metres of free space (in the latitude of I[i] and [ii]) which had been back-filled with debris. This could be separated broadly into four stria: (from bottom to top) l. light coloured hard clay with loose rubble; 2. limestone chips and powder; 3. light-coloured packed clay; 4. loose rubble and brick debris. The ceramic content of this foundation trench in square I and J provided good evidence for the date of T 2 (see below, p. 169ff). A total of 5,818 diagnostics was recovered in the units excavated (Units I, J and G). The vast majority ranged from the 3rd Intermediate Period through 4th Century b.c. Except on the present surface Hellenistic pieces were wholly lacking. It is certain, therefore, that the beginning of the Ptolemaic period is to be set as the terminus ante quem for the construction of temenos wall T 2. Equally certain, from the 4th century b.c. ceramics in the foundation trench, is the end of the 29th Dyn. as the terminus post quem. In the light of this ceramic evidence, the known threat of a new Persian invasion (which persisted for half a century after the end of the 29th Dynasty), and the

12

chapter one

Figure 8. Limestone fragments and chips uncovered between T1 and T2.

the temenos walls

13

Figure 9. North section of excavation units Q, trench II and R, trenches I & II.

well-attested programme of wall-building by Nektanebo I, it is virtually certain that the latter was the author and executor of the plan to build T 2.12 The Landfill between T 1 and T 2

(for the ceramics see below, p. 135ff and the diagnostics tables at the end of the volume) The original ground level on the eastern side of T 2 had been at 9.25 m. above sea level, nearly three metres below the ground level on the western (inner) side of the wall, thus making it appear in cross-section something of a retaining wall. Yet in antiquity a massive land-fill had completely covered the wall so that only excavation could reveal its existence. Against the east face of T 2 a series of thick tip-lines had been cast (see fig. 8; pl. 3b, 4, 5 a & b)) . The fact that the uppermost of these had been found on top of the denuded summit of T 2 (cf. Pl. 6a& b) and had thus been cast upon and over the wall (fig. 9), proved conclusively that the debris of the tiplines had originated immediately west of T 2, i.e. in the immediate vicinity of the burial chamber. We should thus envisage the general configuration of the terrain on the morrow of the destruction as comprising a thick swath of debris mounding up out of the burial pit, over the top of T 2, and cascading down the outside to fall on the then slope of the mound.13 The tip-lines comprising this cascade resolve themselves into six “Falls” of limestone fragments and chips, numbered from the top, each usually separated from the one above by a “clean” layer of earth or sand. The distribution of loci per trench is given below. Trench P II (see fig. 10) 1. Decomposed Mud-brick 2. “Trough” 3. Over Fall # l 4. Fall # l 5. Over Fall # 2 6. Fall # 2

Loci l, 2, 4, 9 Loci 3, 5, ll*, 15*, 16*, 17, 18*,19*,24* Loci 8*, 20, 21, 25* Loci 12, 13, 22, 23, 27, 30, 31 Loci 29, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 44 Loci 32, 35, 43, 46, 46a, 47

Under the light decayed brick stria at surface, resulting from the erosion of T l, a more or less horizontal slot had been carved in the overlying detritus which we labelled the “trough”.14 The ubiquity For a block of ]pr-k3-rc found in the debris of the burial pit by NYU, see NYU field notes, July 24, 1977; At the eastern angle of the inset, c. 30 cm. diagonally inside the brickwork, was found a small faience amulet of Shu holding up the sundisc (pl. XXXIV)); for a similar amulet of Saite date, see C. Andrews, Amulets of Ancient Egypt (London, 1994), p. 17(11e). 13 Cf. NYU Field notes for July 24, 1977: “The chips [i.e. from the tip-lines] continued down along the length of the wall [surrounding the sarcophagus] and over the platform [= T 2] edge.” July 25: “Along the west face of [T 2] 25-35 cm. of fill was removed, (and) a layer of sand mixed with limestone chips was reached. This proved to be about 90 cm. thick.” The undisturbed units of excavation undertaken by our expedition proved that the depth of limestone shatter and sebakh was 46 cm. deep above T 2 in trench AL-Q. 14 Sandy gravel with pebbles and a high concentration of ceramics (397 kg.), suggesting the “trough” was used for refuse. 12

Figure 10. North section of excavation unit P, trench II.

14 chapter one

the temenos walls

15

of loci containing Hellenistic markers(*) indicates a terminus post quem of c. 300 b.c. for the “trough.” The “trough” had been cut into a matrix of brown silt layers declining east against T l, and a layer of sandy gravel. The above stria and component loci overlay Fall # l which was mixed with crumbled mud-brick (some adhering to the stone). The stone fragments are smaller than those comprising Falls # 2 and 3, and average c. 20-25 cm. in any dimension. Fall # l shows internally 3 levels interspersed with pebbly gravel. The band separating Falls # l and 2 is made up of 4 stria encompassing a depth at the 7 metre mark of l.75 m. This is thicker than at any point in the excavation units thus far dug between T l and T 2. Falls # 2 and 3 fall together to the point of apparent coalescence, although 4 metres to the south (see below, F I-II, F III) they appear as two distinct stria. Trench P-I & P I Extension (see fig. 11) l. Decomposed Mud-brick 2. Sebakh 3. “Trough” 4. Over Fall # l 5. Fall # l 6. Over Fall # 2 7. Fall #2+3 8. Over Fall # 4 9. Fall # 4 10. Foundation Trench, T l (Strata below this point remain unexcavated)

Loci 2,5,8, Ext. l,2 Loci l*,3 ,4, 6, 13, Ext. 3,4* Loci 14, Ext. 5,6,7,8*,9 Loci 15, 22,25; Ext. 10, 11, 12, 13, 14*, 15, 17*,19, 20, 21, 22, 23a Loci 7, 12, 15, 21, 30 Loci 10, 11, 18, 19, 20, 24, 26, 30, 23, 27, 28; Ext. 27a, 28a Loci 29, 31; Ext. 29a Loci 33a, 34,35 Loci 36 Loci, Ext. 24a, 25a, 26a, 30a, 31a

The same thick stratum of decomposed mud-brick continued southward from P I, but in P II was separated from the “trough” by a band of sherds and gravel (=“sebakh”). The band of detritus above Fall # l was thinner than in P II, indicating that from this trench south the falls reached their greatest thickness. All certain Hellenistic markers are confined to the sebakh, the “trough” and the debris above Fall # l. The latter, was rather slighter than in P II, and the sandy-pebbly debris separating it from Fall # 2 marginally larger. In P I Falls # 2 and 3 coalesce and were excavated largely in the western end of the trench. By and large the same discrepancy in stone size between Fall # l and Falls # 2 and 3 is to be found in P I: those of the former substantially smaller than those of the latter. Because of the demands of time and the logistics of earth removal, Falls # 4 through 6 were left unexcavated. The foundation trench of T l showed particularly clearly in the north baulk. East Greek ware was fairly evenly divided among 62 loci, and includes as certain identification 5 Thasian, 4 Chian and one Koan. Phoenician crisp ware was distributed over 9l loci, and belonged mainly to the Persian period. Trench F I-II (see fig. 12) 1. Decomposed mud-brick 2. Over Fall # l 3. Fall # l 4. Over Fall # 2 5. Fall # 2 6. Over Fall # 3 7. Fall # 3 8. Over Fall # 4 9. Fall # 4 10. Over Fall # 5 11. Fall # 5 12. Over Fall # 6 13. Fall # 6 14. On Surface, T 2 15. Foundation Trench T l

II 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20,23,24,25* I, 6 I, 3,5*; II, 54,55 I, 2,4; II, 48, 52, 53, 56, 57, 58, 6l, 62, I/II 100*, 101 I, l; II, 49, 50, 51, 59,60,66,67 I, 4, 14; II, 63,64,65, I/II, 106, 107 I, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 21, 22,23,24; I/II, 108, 111, 112, 113 II, 8, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19,20, I/II, 114, 126, 127, 135 I/II, 116 I/II, 117 I/II, 118, 122, 125 I/II 119, 132, 138 I/II 119a, 121, 131, 136, 137, 139, 140 I/II 140a II, 53,57,58, I/II, 101, 102, 104, 105, 109, 110, 130, 133

While the expected stratum of decomposed mud-brick was encountered at surface falling westwards from T l, the expected “trough” was not in evidence. The thick layer of sebakh-sherds was present, and now could be traced over the summit of T 2. Only three loci yielded Hellenistic markers, all above Fall # l. Elsewhere, throughout this trench, only East Greek with a 4th century horizon was found. In this trench all six falls of limestone debris were in evidence, each separated from those adjacent by “clean”, gritty stria. Fall # l was higher in this trench than in all others excavated. A thick stratum

Figure 11. North section of excavation unit P, trench I.

16 chapter one

Figure 12. North section of excavation unit F, trenches I and II.

the temenos walls 17

chapter one

18

of loose brown clay separated Fall # l from # 2. Both contained the largest fragments to be found anywhere in the land-fill,, some approaching 60 cm. on a side. Falls # 4 through 6 yielded chips of limestone, very often flat, the product of incessant hammering at drafted blocks. The foundation trench of T l was very prominent, cutting through all falls from the surface of locus 100. East Greek ware was found in 25 loci, five of which are located in the foundation trench; Phoenician crisp ware is found in 38. Trench F III (see fig. 13) 1. Decomposed Mud-brick 2. “Trough” 3. Over Fall # l(upper) 4. Over Fall # l(lower) 5. Fall # l 6. Over Fall # 2 7. Fall # 2 8. Fall # 3 9. Over Fall # 4 10. Fall # 4 11. Fall # 5 12. Over Fall # 6 13. Fall # 6 14. Surface of T 2 15. Foundation trench, T l

Loci 1,2,3 Loci 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 Loci 9, 10a, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17 Loci 20, 21, 22,23 Loci 13, 26, 29, 31 Loci 4, 18, 27,28,32,34,35 Loci 19, 38, 40a Loci 33, 36, 39, 39a Loci 40,42,43,46 Loci 44,49 Loci la, 41, 44a, 51 52 Loci 2a, 3a, 53 Loci 4a, 55 Loci 5a, 47,48,50,54,56 Loci 24,25,30,57,58

The overburden of decomposed brick was greater in this trench, and the upper baulk tended towards more frequent collapse. The “trough” re-appeared, but both here and in R III described an irregular profile. The level of sherds and sebakh fell off markedly in F III, and no Hellenistic markers were discernible anywhere. F III produced clear traces of all six falls, but everywhere the size of the limestone fragments were rather smaller than in F I/II. Scarcely any intervening “clean” stria were interposed between Falls # 2 and # 3, and # 4 and # 5, giving the impression of a single band of debris in each case. The contents of Falls # 3 through # 6 consisted, as in trenches to the north, of small chips. The ceramic content again illustrated the even disposition of foreign wares. East Greek was found in 2l loci, and was absent only from Falls # l and # 4. Definite identifications include three Thasian (390-360 b.c.), two Chian and l Koan. Phoenician crisp ware was recovered from 33 loci. Trench R III - R III Extension (see fig. 14)15 1. Pulverized Mud-brick 2. “Trough” 3. Pebbly fill 4. Gravel 5. Sandy gravel = Fall # l 6. Limestone 7. Over Fall # 2 8. Fall # 2 9. Over Fall # 3 10. Fall # 3 11. Over Fall # 4 12. Fall # 4 13. Over Fall # 5 14. Fall # 5 15. Fall # 6 16. Brick debris under Fall # 6 17. Foundation trench, T l

Loci: Ext. 1,2,3,4* Loci: l; Ext.5, 5a*,7, 7b, 8, 12, 14 Loci: Ext. 13, 20 Loci: Ext. 18, 21, 22 Loci: 2, 2b; Ext. 16, 25,26 Loci: Ext. 27,28 Loci: 3; Ext. 19, 24 Loci: 4,7,8,9; Ext. 31 Loci: 5,6 Loci: Ext. 32,35 Loci: Ext. 15, 33 Loci: 10 Loci: Ext. 34 Loci: 13, 14, 15, 16, 17; Ext. 36 Loci: 19, 20, 21, 22,23 Loci: 24,25,26 Loci: Ext. 9*, 10*, 11, 17, 23*

This, the southernmost trench to be excavated between T l and T 2, showed the expected overburden of fragmentary mud-brick fallen from the inner face of T l and appreciably thicker than in the trenches to the north. The “trough” occupies roughly 3.5 metres running west from the surviving edge of T l; its floor is irregular. The foundation trench of T l is very clear cutting through falls # l through # 3, and contains Hellenistic markers. Other Hellenistic markers are found only in the overburden and 15

R III occupies the four metres immediately abutting the east face of T 2.

Figure 13. South section of excavation unit F, trench III.

the temenos walls 19

Figure 14. South section of excavation unit R, trench III extension.

20 chapter one

the temenos walls

21

the “trough.” The size of the limestone fragments in all falls is substantially smaller than in F I/II and F III. Fall # l in fact has the texture and consistency of gravel. Very little “clean” earth separates Falls # 2 and # 3, or Falls # 5 and # 6, which thus appear to coalesce. East Greek ware is evenly distributed among 27 loci in the land-fill, only Fall # 4 appearing to lack diagnostics. Samian, Chian (6th century b.c.) and Thasian (c. 390 b.c.) have been identified along with 4th century Attic black glaze. Phoenician crisp ware is also evenly distributed, and occurs in 27 loci. The stratigraphic information on the Landfill may be summed up as follows. All six falls of limestone reached their greatest thickness in the F trenches, declining gently to the north in the P trenches. Fall # l is, exceptionally, positioned high in the north baulk of P II, and declines towards the south until in R III it virtually disappears. Fall # 2 contains the largest limestone fragments16 but was not uniformly in evidence throughout the units excavated. It was found from the north side of P II extending through all three trenches of F on the south side of which it had petered out. In P II Fall # 2 comprised three distinct layers of stone fragments, separated by thin stria of gravel. Fall # 3 was prominent throughout all units excavated, petering out only on the south side of R. It contained a larger mass of limestone fragments than Fall # 2, but the average size was marginally smaller. Its angle of declension was steeper than that of fall # 2, and it attained its greatest thickness in F III. The three underlying falls were made up of small chips and limestone gravel, and never did their components attain the dimensions of the chunks in falls # 2 and 3. All three show, in the F trenches, a marked rise from north to south, and they reach their greatest thickness in R. Fall # 4 was made up of a thin layer of pebbles and chips, separated from fall # 3 by a thick layer of earth. Fall # 5 represents a thicker layer of fragments separated from # 4 by a thin stratum of earth which, 7 metres east of T 2, entirely disappears so that at this point falls # 4 and 5 coalesce. Fall # 6 is a very thick layer of small chips which mounds up against the east face of T 2, especially in squares F and R, and rests on a thin layer of clay rubble which in turn covers the original surface of the mound associated with T 2. The clayey earth layers which separate and underlie the five falls come from mud-brick rubble. They range in colour from dark reddish-brown (5 YR 3/3) through dark grayish-brown (5 YR 4/2) to reddish-brown (5 YR 4/3) in the upper levels. The hard-packed mud-brick clay underlying fall # 5 and resting upon the original surface, ranges from dark yellowish-brown (10 YR 4/4) to very dark gray (5 YR 3/l). When recovered more or less intact the mud-bricks, especially in the upper levels, had the same dimensions as those in T 2. Under fall # 3 the clay became particularly thick and greasy and in many cases seemed to adhere to the drafted edges of the limestone fragments. In fact it is clear from the limestone fragments in P II that the debris had come from construction in which a limestone “veneer” had been applied to a mud-brick core. In no case did mud-brick cover a worked or decorated face. As our trenches deepened it became apparent that the tip-lines of the five falls just described were declining roughly at an angle between 35 and 45 degrees, and that the uppermost were being cut by the foundation trench of the outer temenos wall, T 1, thus establishing beyond dispute the sequential relationship between T l and T 2. This being the case, it became vitally important for the relative chronology of Field AL to date the land-fill. Fortunately dating was not difficult, thanks to the ceramic and epigraphic content of the tip-lines. The ceramic content of the limestone falls in the land-fill in the excavation units exposed proved to be unmistakable as to date. A total of 3,438 kg. of pottery was recovered comprising, in addition to body sherds, 7,189 diagnostics. This evidence, combined with the stratification supports the following conclusions. l. The “landfill” represents 5 basic periods of deposition: (a) a very thin layer of clay on the surface associated with T 2 and contemporary with it; (b) the six falls of limestone shatter and associated stria all laid down at one time; (c) the foundation trench of T l, sunk through the lower slopes of Falls # l through 3; (d) the “trough” and associated stria; (e) the slump of decomposed mud-brick off the inner face of T 2. Hellenistic (Ptolemaic) bowls and casseroles, present in R III, F I/II and P I and II occur in the slump (e), the “trough”(d) and in the T l foundation trench ((c). Clearly T l was built and in use during a period when Ptolemaic ware was in use. It should be noted that popular Hellenistic markers are absent (except for the sebakh layers at the top), such as: stamped jar-handles (especially Rhodian), fusiform ungentaria, Hadra vessels, gray/metallic glazed small bowls 16

Average dimension in any direction c. 50-60 cm. Very few fragments, if any, achieved one meter in either length or width.

chapter one

22

(inverting), casseroles and cooking pots.17 The lack of a few selected forms might be explained on other grounds, but such an across-the-board absence of major categories surely has chronological implications. That Ptolemaic is comparatively rare militates in favor of a date early in the 3rd century b.c. for T l. 3. East Greek, found in 164 loci, is fairly evenly distributed throughout. Thasian appears to predominate with a time-range of c. 400 to 360 b.c. Chian (some 6th century b.c.), Samian, Koan and early Rhodian follow in order of frequency. The presence of a horizon of the mid-4th century b.c. provides a terminus a quo for the destruction to which the six falls attest. 4. Phoenician crisp ware occurs in 239 loci, and is fairly evenly distributed (though increasing in F and P I). In date it ranges from Saite through Persian. Basket-handle amphorae of the Persian period were also attested (15 loci). 5. Egyptian pottery of Lower Egyptian origin—only 5 loci contained “Valley marl” and one “oasis” ware—was ubiquitous. All loci displayed 5th and 4th century diagnostics, unmistakable 3.I.P. and Saite (150 loci), and New Kingdom (39 loci). Of the New Kingdom specimens 24 loci contained fragments of beer jars. Eight loci yielded Middle Kingdom forms, and two First Intermediate. No clear Old Kingdom diagnostics were in evidence. The falls of shattered limestone yielded a rich harvest of sculptured relief. Falls # l and 2 containing the largest number of pieces covered the denuded summit of T 2 before cascading over its east side; while falls # 3-5 were found only in the area of the land-fill, and were comprised solely of chips, none exceeding 20 cm. in length. All relief and sculpture fragments were found in falls # 2 and 3;18 falls # 4 through 6 produced occasionally roughly-smoothed surfaces with notations (masons’ marks) in red ochre.19 The largest concentration of block fragments was found in trench AL-F, due east of the emplacement of the sarcophagus. The north baulk of P II shows a thinning out of all five falls, and the south baulk of R falls # l and 2 had virtually disappeared ( although # 4 through 6 were still present). Clearance of the summit of T 2 farther to the south in AL-D and AL-E failed to reveal any limestone detritus at all. It is clear, therefore, that the five “falls” of limestone occur directly opposite the sarcophagus burial, and peter out as one proceeds north or south. That this limestone debris represents the destruction of the burial installation and its superimposed mastaba can scarcely be doubted. Other inclusions in the land-fill were as follows: fragments of alabaster, quartzite, black granite (especially in the debris on the surface abutting T l) and some Aswan granite; small pieces of wood and charcoal; fragments of faience vessels (none complete); a pot with designs incorporating representations of the Mendes fish (see pl. S:18) , terracottas and amulets (see figs. 58- 60, 82-84); a bronze Osiris (pl. XXXIV), and several tiny fragments of gold leaf. Metal objects also included several bronze projectile points, a leaf-shaped spear(?)-head and nondescript blades. The Outer Temenos Wall (T1) (Pl. 7a & b, 8a & b) Unlike T 2, the present outer temenos wall (T l) had never been buried, and still shows clearly in aerial photography.20 The destruction and denudation of T 2 had apparently made it desirable to build a new temenos wall once again aligned, as T 2 had not been, with the orientation of the main temple of Banebdjed. In plan this produced an ever-widening gap between T 2 and T l, as one proceeded north along the east side of the temenos. At least as far north as the eastern gate this gap was filled in by an enormous land-fill which raised the surface from 9.25 m. A.S.L. (in the time when T 2 was a functional wall) to nearly 13 m. A.S.L. At grid-line 50 N, where the east face of T 1 was fully cleared, the wall was positioned 10.40 m. east of the east face of T 2, and was preserved to a height of over 6.25 m. (14.20 m. A.S.L.). The foundation of T l penetrated into the lower slopes of the tip-lines of limestone debris from the destruction of the tomb chamber and mastaba (“falls” # l through 3). Its inner (western) face rose at an angle of 78 degrees to a point 4 metres above the surface associated with the slope of the mound on which 17

I am indebted to Mss. Patricia Paice and Rexine Hummel for fruitful consultation on the ceramics from the land-

fill. 18 The only exception was a battered fragment of relief from # 3 in F (not registered), and two “fish”-stela fragments (P 33= cat. #435 and R 100= not registered), both found on the top of fall # 3. 19 A similar text was found on a large block retrieved from the limestone shatter apparently in the vicinity of our AL-G by the New York expedition: cf. NYU Field notes for July 25, 1977. A complete red ochre “text” was found on the architrave/roofing block in AL-A (FN 0). 20 Cf. E.S. Hall, B.V. Bothmer, Mendes I (Cairo, 1980), pl. 28.

the temenos walls

23

T 2 had been built, at which point the continuing courses of brick were found to be terribly eroded. (Because of this the original height of the wall remains unknown). An artificial fill of pebbly earth had been dumped over the falls of limestone fragments outside T 2 to even up the slope between T l and T 2, and a horizontal surface was thus created (burying T 2 in fact) which ran up against the face of T l at approximately 13.41 m. A.S.L. This horizontal surface abutting on T l begins no further north than P II. Here the east section shows that the fill associated with the construction of T l originally extended much higher on the east face of this wall. From P II south the fill had been excavated out in a long “trough” which had resulted in the horizontal surface aforesaid. Above this surface the ceramic assemblage includes Ptolemaic forms. The four metres of wall below this surface were thus in a sense foundational (certainly never intended to be seen), and when we excavated them we found the face of the wall intact. The four metres in question comprise 32 courses of brick, in the expected alternation of headers and stretchers. The bricks measure 40 × 19 × 15 cm. and are composed of dark gray alluvial clay with occasional small white inclusions (none larger than l.5 cm.) Four rows of holes for wooden beams can be seen beginning at the aforementioned surface. They average 10 cm. in height and 13 cm. in breadth, and are vertically spaced from each other by 14, 8 and 7 courses respectively. We had fully expected in our clearance of the outer face of T l on the 50 N grid-line to come upon a more or less vertical face, but this was not the case. On the east side the construction assumes the slope of a ramp or glacis, sloping outward at an angle of 30 degrees until it achieves an overall thickness of over 16 metres at the bottom. While the eastern part of the base of this mass may be the result of collapse into brick rubble, the upper portions appear to show bricks laid and conforming to the slope. Dare we conclude that in Field AL at least, where the volume of debris from the destruction of the tomb chapel, if not removed, would exert a considerable pressure on any wall, the builders thought more in terms of a retaining wall? The date of T l can be ascertained by recourse to ceramic and stratigraphic evidence which may be summarised as follows. l. Controlled surface survey. Sherding surveys have been undertaken in Fields L, O, AL and AZ.21 In each case the section of T l surveyed was associated solely with Ptolemaic sherds. Thus, in AZ all sherds recovered on top and within one metre of T l were Ptolemaic, while everywhere else in the square 97% of the sample shows Third Intermediate and Saite material! 2. Foundation trench of T l. Limestone falls # l through 3 are cut by a broad foundation trench which descends from a surface above Fall # l and curves gently to the base of T l. The loci within this foundation trench include specimens of early Ptolemaic pottery(see above). 3. Stratigraphy. The only surface associated with T l is high up above all the tip-lines, and runs above them all. Above this surface the western face of T l was exposed to the elements and weathered, and when the upper portion of the wall disintegrated the debris fell on this surface. The make-up of this surface contains Ptolemaic sherds, and this clearly provides a terminus a quo for the construction of T l. 4. Boundaries. T l constitutes a physical, linear boundary between distinct types of occupation. To the east, and abutting against its massif, is the harbor and its buildings. The latter are firmly dated ceramically and numismatically to the 3rd century b.c. (terminus: end of the reign of Ptolemy IV). These harbor buildings do not extend inside (i.e. west of) T l. The combined evidence proves that temenos wall T l is of early Ptolemaic date. Although he does not mention it in his stela,22 it is most tempting to view it as part of the rebuilding program of Ptolemy II. That it enjoyed such a short period of use—the north-west enclosure was in process of abandonment in the first century b.c.—is in no way gainsaid by the massiveness of the construction. 21 Fields L and O were surveyed by walking N-S transects. A similar transect was sherded in AL. Field AZ was surveyed by walking E-W transects, positioned five metres apart, over the entire 100-metre square. 22 Urk. II, 28-54.

chapter two

24

CHAPTER TWO

THE SARCOPHAGUS AND ITS INSTALLATION Donald B. Redford The sarcophagus which, prior to excavation, was the most prominent feature of Field AL, seems to have been noted (if not partly laid bare) sometime in the year 1869 by Daninos Pasha.1 He removed the black granite lid, already broken at one end, and examined the debris inside, in which he recovered a fragment of a shawabti belonging to Nepherites I.2 He did not, however, excavate around the sarcophagus so as to determine the height of its limestone emplacement; and when the expedition of New York University resumed work here in 1977 they found the sarcophagus surrounded almost to the top by a fill of loose sand and limestone chips (pl. 9a). How far north this chip-fill extended and whether it filled the robber cavity (the “corridor”) which extends north to excavation unit AL-O, I have been unable to ascertain; but we have determined that it spilled over the southern wall (B) of the burial pit and clogged a depression to the south (sounded in excavation units AL-A and AL-B). Most certainly it is to be associated with the thick layer of limestone destruction which spread over T 2 and cascaded over the east side of said temenos wall. The sarcophagus is of anthropoid shape (interior), nesting within a large rectangular block of limestone, and conforms to the style expected in the 5th- 4th century b.c.3 It is oriented with its head end to the west and the axis roughly WNW. The sarcophagus measures 2.60 × l.30 m. and is undecorated. It was originally capped by an anepigraphic lid which now lies on the ground, broken, at the foot end. The limestone casing block measures 4.00 × 2.70 m. and is 2.55 m. deep. Its exterior surfaces are only roughly smoothed with a 0.6 cm. chisel, suggesting that the block was intended to be sunk beneath the floor of the burial chamber, or was to be veneered with some other material. The sarcophagus block sat in a pit, c. 14.50 m. east-west by 11.05 m. north-south,4 which had been excavated into the existing slope of the mound to a depth of 8.85 m. A.S.L. ( pl. 9b). The matrix into which it was sunk had earlier been used as a burying ground, and undistinguished interments (both supine under matting, and in jars) were uncovered in AL-SN I, AL-SW VII and VIII (fig. 88-96; pl.10). The section through AL-SW II through VIII shows that the original surface in the time of Nepherites had been at c. 11.90 m. A.S.L. (fig. 15). The pottery content of loci 3 through 21 in AL-SW VIII, when analysed, proved to be exclusively Third Intermediate Period and Saite: no 4th century b.c. material was present at all. This is consonant with three fragments of inscribed material found in the upper “falls” of limestone debris on the east side of T 2 which mention a [wr c3 n] M3 ’[ànq]. One wonders whether the site chosen by Nepherites was earlier occupied by the interment of a Great Chief of the Me.5 The burial pit had been sunk within the SE angle of a walled enclosure (defined by walls A and B). The wall defining this enclosure on the east side (wall A = T 3; see above fig. 3) had an overall thickness exceeding 7.60 m. and has suffered considerably in the construction of Nepherites’ tomb and later in the founding of T 2.6 Even so, it was poorly built. The bricks vary in size, some being mere clumps, others “slabs” as thin as 5-7 cm. The southern wall of this enclosure (wall B) was originally a little less than two metres thick and was better built with bricks 32 × 16 × 12 cm. We have, however, 1

RT 9(1887), 19; reproduced in B.V. Bothmer and others, in Mendes II (Brooklyn, 1976), 92(30). Ibid., pl. 29(97) 3 Cf. G. Maspero, Sarcophages des Epoques persane et ptolemaique (Cairo, 1914); M.-L. Buhl, The Late Egyptian Anthropoid Stone Sarcophagi (Copenhagen, 1959); E. Brovarski, LdÄ V (Wiesbaden, 1984), 471-85; H. Jenni, Das Dekorationsprogramma des Sarcophages Nektanebos’ II (Geneva, 1986). 4 Comparing favorably with the 19 × 12 m. pit of Psusennes I at Tanis: P. Montet, La necropole royale de Tanis I, pl. VIII. 5 Cf. P 19, F 83, 177. The family of great chiefs of the Me at Mendes, seven generations of which are known (see F. Gomaa, Die libyschen Fürstentümer des Deltas [Wiesbaden, 1974], 85-89), does not number a Sheshonq among the attested members. 6 The builders of T 2, when they excavated the foundation trench, destroyed the eastern face of wall A (see fig. 7); and Nepherites’ men drastically cut into its thickness longtitudinally. 2

Figure 15. West section of excavation unit SW, trenches II, III, IV, and VIII.

the sarcophagus and its installation 25

26

chapter two

exposed very little of this wall, so that further comment would be speculative (see pl. 1a). The burial pit itself was lined on all sides by a mud-brick “skin” which varied in width. On the south and east sides, where the pit had cut into and reduced the thickness of walls A and B, the inner skin ran parallel to these pre-existing walls (pl. 11a & b). On these sides it consisted of an irregular kind of packing, laid roughly against the hacked faces of walls A and B. The “skin’ was neither bonded nor laid flush, but an interstice of varying widths separated the “skin” from the walls A and B, and this was filled with a packing of earth. On the west and north sides of the burial pit the mud-brick lining took the form of a better built wall, with a thickness of approximately l.50 m. and a height of l.28 m. (10 courses of alternating headers and stretchers), the top being at 9.85 m. A.S.L. (pl. 12 and 13). This regularity in height was maintained on the eastern and southern sides of the pit also, except for the SE corner. Here for a stretch of approximately three metres in length flanking the corner, the summit of the wall rose 40 cm. on the south and 25 cm. on the east. In the east wall, as it abutted the corner, there was some sort of installation (now removed) requiring a recess in the brickwork, 80 cm. deep by 80 cm. broad. Crude lumps of gypsum plaster had been used in the lining of the recess which achieved an overall height of just under two metres (from the base of the wall) (pl. 14a & b). The walls lining the burial pit on all sides were made up of dark gray alluvial bricks, with average dimensions of 44/42 × 20 × 13/11 cm. The courses were arranged in the expected alternation of headers and stretchers, except for the bottom course in which the bricks were laid on their sides (1820 cm. in height). The flat top had been covered with a 10 cm. layer of clean sand, and it is probable that on this sand stood the limestone walls of the tomb chapel proper (fig. 16). The mud-brick-lined pit thus created had been filled to a depth of 30 cm. with more clean sand, and on this was laid a stone flooring. The latter consisted of rough-hewn limestone blocks, some of which still lie around the sarcophagus (pl. 15a). Generally they appear to be roughly rectilinear with average dimensions of 50 × 42 × 30 cm. (north side) and 54 × 30 × 30 cm. (south side). A question arises as to whether this limestone flooring was not in fact a packing which was continued upwards to the full height of the limestone sarcophagus block. In that case, the rough surface of the latter finds an explanation: it was never intended to be seen (pl. 14b). On the other hand, the inner face of the mud-brick wall lining the burial pit was plastered (as evidenced by a small section on the north side, see pl. 15b), and one might argue that it was intended to be seen. A third possibility might be that a veneer of smooth-faced limestone was originally applied to the exterior face of the limestone sarcophagus block, thus concealing it from sight. The sarcophagus block as found does not occupy the centre of the chamber, but is much closer to the eastern side (only l.90 m.) and slightly closer to the northern side (by 30 cm.). This may not be the original position of the block, as its present, tilted appearance, and the fact that it was found to lie over some of the limestone shatter of the tomb’s destruction, may indicate an attempt by those who violated the burial to dislodge it (pl. 16a). The only access to the burial pit thus far detected is on the north. (Even before excavation an oblong depression over 12 m. long N-S signalled the robbing of some major installation). In the north wall, asymmetrically placed, c. 2.50 m. from the NE angle of the burial pit, the height of the brick lining of the pit was reduced to a mud-brick threshold the width of which was difficult to determine because of the destruction: between two and three metres is an educated guess (pl.16a). Beyond to the north excavation revealed a narrow “corridor, 3 metres wide at 9.33 A.S.L., but tapering to scarcely a metre in width at 7.60 m. A.S.L., running due north between two sloping masses of mud-brick (pl. 16b). The mass on the east is, in fact, the western side of wall T 3, while that on the west is wall E, approximately 3.50 m. wide. The original height of walls T 3 and E cannot now be ascertained because of weathering; but the preserved height of T 3 in this vicinity is 12.15 m. A.S.L., and that of E 11.11 m. A.S.L. The exact purpose and nature of the “corridor” between the two is unknown at present, but the scattered limestone blocks in the bottom may indicate that some sort of dromos or ramp was placed in this position communicating between the burial pit and ground level. The construction of this feature, as well as its later robbing, has resulted in the hacking of the inner faces of the flanking walls, so that they now present a battered aspect. The superstructure of the Nepherites burial is now wholly removed and no traces of walls or foundation trenches remain which could yield clues. The presence of the sand layer, however, on top of the mud-brick lining suggests that the walls were continued up above ground in stone, which would make the superstructure approximately the same dimensions. The architectural fragments in limestone

Figure 16. Plan of the mud-brick lined burial pit.

the sarcophagus and its installation 27

Figure 17. North section of excavation unit SW Extension I and SW I.

28 chapter two

the sarcophagus and its installation

29

which were recovered from the destruction levels are revealing and demonstrate the sometime presence of the expected mastaba.7 These fragments may be listed as follows: l. torus rolls (C. 326, 336, 349, 350, 352, 391, 394,402, 403, 404) 2. door sockets (C. 314a, 327, 335, 353, 356, 383, 393, 395, 396, 400) 3. cavetto cornice (Q/R F. N.3) 4. corner blocks (C. 330, 377, 382, 388, 390, 401) 5. column (C. 31l, 397, 375[base], F I/II [site-book, p. 52a]) 6. internal corner (F III, loc. 37: plastered) 7. lintels (C. 292, 384) The architectural fragments recovered are consonant with the postulated mastaba. Internally the mastaba will have involved columns (and piers?) in its construction, and architraves and roofing blocks. The orientation will have been towards the north. The surviving, but worn T 3 will have provided some sort of exterior walling on the east; but other than this no circumvallation is presently in evidence. It would appear that Nepherites not only incorporated fragments from earlier structures in the masonry of his tomb (see below), but also adorned its exterior with statuary he found already standing within the north-west enclosure: the four statues discovered by the NYU excavators in 1977 (see below, p. 38, no. 23) at the foot end of the sarcophagus, presumably once adorned the tombchapel or the approaches to Nepherites’ tomb. The land-fill between T l and T 2 produced, apart from sculpture, numerous fragments of masonry the worked surfaces of which contained red ochre texts (see figs. 38-43). A total of 71 were registered of which most came from falls # 4 through 6. An equal number was noted which were deemed too faint or scanty to be read. Distribution according to trench is as follows: 8 from P, 16 from F, 40 from R, and 6 from the debris in the vicinity of the sarcophagus. Two intact blocks were recovered, one by the NYU expedition on July 25, 1977, SE of the sarcophagus, the other by the present expedition on June 17, 1994, due south of the sarcophagus in AL-A. Since both appear to be roofing blocks, the conclusion is supported that material with red markings represents the roof, architraves and the upper parts of the destroyed superstructure. That in the land fill between T l and T 2 they occupy the lowest three “falls” is only to be expected, as the roof would have been the first part of the installation to be removed, smashed and discarded. Some of these texts appear to be numerical,8 others may be personal names.9 7 That some kind of mastaba construction topped the intra-temenos tombs of royalty in the Late Period, is a virtual certainty: R. Stadelmann, MDAIK 27, 1 (1971), 117-18. It is not immediately apparent how the flooring of the mastaba accomodated the sarcophagos beneath. Perhaps the latter was protected by a barrel vault, or alternatively protruded above the mastaba floor. Cf. the Saite-Persian tombs at Abusir: L. Bares and others, GM 151 (1996), 7-17; 156 (1997), 9-23. 8 Cf. cat. #410 (“30”?) fig. 41, cat. #409 (“5”?) fig. 42 , cat. #137 (“23”?). 9 Cf. fig. 38, cat.# 340 (\r?), fig. 40, cat.#370 (\r...? cf. fig. 39, cat.# 357, #374; E. Lüddeckens and others, Demotisches Namenbuch I [Wiesbaden,1991], 744ff); one (fig. 42, cat.# 411) may be a diagrametric mock-up. Two complete blocks found by the NYU expedition in 1977 close to the sarcophagus contain complete texts (fig. 43, cat.# 419a-b). One (SM I, 13) may read mh, “north.” The other (SM I, 10), the longest preserved text, is more or less intact, although slot-holes for beams have disfigured the lower of two lines. The initial sign, unless it is a pictorial designation of the block itself, may be a partly-faded Èry. A possible translation might be “upper (part/block of the) chamber, before(?)(i.ir.Èr) the great court(?)(t3 sÈw c3: Wb. IV, 229; D. Meeks, Année lexicographique 2[198l], 343; P. Spencer, The Egyptian Temple. a Lexicographical Study [London, 1984], 76). Another possibility might be to read a PN, thus \r-nb-SÉ(m) “the elder(?)”: cf. Lüddeckens, op.cit., I, 823. One wonders, in the second line, whether we have a writing of \3t-mÈyt.

30

chapter three

CHAPTER THREE

THE RELIEF-DECORATION OF NEPHERITES’ TOMB AND RELATED EPIGRAPHY Donald B. Redford

The destruction level of shattered limestone which sweeps up out of the burial pit, over T 2 and cascades on the latter’s eastern side in the form of “falls” # l through 3, yielded 298 fragments of sculpture from excavation units P, F, Q and R. An additional half dozen pieces came from units AL-A, AL-B, and AL-S.1 Arguments have been advanced above in support of the hypothesis that this limestone detritus originated in the destruction of the burial chamber and superstructure associated with the sarcophagus interment. While numerically impressive, the total amount of inscribed material taken from the eastern side of T 2 represents only 5-10% of the mass of limestone removed. The latter in P alone amounted to c. l.5 tonnes, and this figure should probably be tripled in units F and R. Whether our conclusion should be that Nepherites’ tomb was not lavishly decorated must remain moot. The Reliefs Of wall relief fragments which could be identified and were registered, 298 pieces are catalogued. These were fairly evenly distributed between raised and sunk relief with the latter showing a slight preponderance (161 to 137). The themes represented in the decoration are listed below. Both incised and raised reliefs share most motifs, but the following imbalances are to be noted: star-borders are found exclusively in raised relief (10 examples); the “floral” design is almost exclusively confined to raised relief (15-0), the three fragments in sunk relief being dubious; fragments with hieroglyphic texts are more frequent in the incised corpus (52-28); the motif of the cartouche (often the vertical cartouche surmounting the nb.ty sign) is equal in both types of relief (8-8). Text references to Banebdjed(5), the lion(l), the night-barque(l), king of Upper and Lower Egypt(2), crowns(3), and Edjo(l) are found only in sunk relief. Spatial distribution may not be significant, but the following facts should be noted: in the category of borders in raised relief, 73% come from F; all but one of the 8 fragments showing cartouches-over-nb.ty signs in raised relief come from P or F. In deciding on the placement, interior or exterior, of the incised relief, the decision must go to the former on the basis of F 138. We may thus conclude that, apart from the exterior face of the door, raised relief was used on the exterior face of the tomb chapel. A plausible reconstruction, therefore, of the external wall decoration would take the following form: l. Door: lintel – Behdety-falcon with wings outspread (cat.# 61; 317) 2. Jambs – an avatar of Banebdjed, facing out, greeting [the king on entry?] (cat.# 76, “Re”form, facing left, and therefore on the eastern outer jamb).2 3. Ceiling: a series of vultures with wings outspread, spanning the width (AL-S 13 = cat. #292). 4. Top of wall beneath cornice: kheker-frieze, lightly incised (cat.#32; 149; 223). 5. A dado(?) at the base of the wall: vertical cartouches on the nb.ty sign (estimated width 20-25 cm., feathers on top c. 25-30 cm. tall); cat.# 70, 137 6. Vertical and horizontal bands of text (est. width 25 cm.), with royal epithets: mry ntrw (F137 = cat.#83), grg t wy (F76-77 = cat.#40), and smn[É ...(?)] (F 76 cat.#40). These were probably

1 This total represents the fragments assigned F[ield] N[umbers]. An additional 20% of the aggregate was too small and nondescript to warrant an “FN” identification. The figure can thus be taken as an accurate reflection of identifiable pieces which remain. 2 On the four aspects of Banebdjed in the Late Period, see JSSEA 18(1988), 73-74 nn. 52-54.

the relief-decoration of nepherites’ tomb and related epigraphy

31

at the top of the wall, and on the sides adjacent to corners. Colour of the borders: red+ blue; colour of glyphs red and yellow, on a yellow ground.3 7. Scenes. Few fragments recovered gave any indication of what scenes involving human figures were placed on the exterior face of the tomb chapel. (Cat.#128 does, indeed, indicate two figures, one royal, standing back to back). 60 fragments attest the presence of borders, ten of these being horizontal star-borders in raised relief. (Beneath the border in F21(= cat.#1) one can discern [s3] Rc ntr nfr], so that at least here a royal figure seems to have been present, but the star-borders were probably included in internal scenes). 8. Floral panels. Seventeen registered fragments, and perhaps twice that number too small or nondescript to be included in the registry, showed curving lines and V-shaped “fillers” in red, blue and yellow. Two in particular (F46 = cat.#18; and 77 = cat.#36) showed evidence of lotus umbels slanting sideways. It is tempting to see in these pieces evidence of the motif of the pair of lotus plants, bound vertically in balance, each declining outward at the top.4 The corpus of incised fragments, which as argued above probably come from interior walls, may be summarised as to themes as follows: 1. Borders and metopes. Twenty-two fragments of simple, lined borders are in evidence, and one piece of a kheker-friese was also recovered. Eight vertical cartouches—no name preserved—on nb.ty signs were recovered . 2. Heraldic protective devices. Seven fragments from upper portions of wall show Behdety-feathers, one with the accompanying ntr c3 (F104 = cat.#61);. One fragment has the claw holding the Éw-fan of a protecting vulture (cat.# 230). 3. Scenes of the king facing the Ram(?). The king’s figure is represented by small and somewhat dubious fragments: a leg (Q12 = cat.#283), a toe(?:F131 = cat.#75) ; forehead with skull(?)-cap: (P20 = cat.#145). A fine nsw-bity is in evidence (F45 = cat.#17), and apparently the bottom of a serekh (R78 = cat. # 244). No fragments of the god’s figure are preserved, but cf. 268; one piece may contain the epithet [nb D]dt] (F177 = cat.#109; cf. also cat.#205, SW × 1). 4. God’s statements. Of the 52 fragments containing hieroglyphs (apart from those mentioned above) those identifiable seem to convey the standard retort by the deity to a royal celebrant making offering: Dd-mdw in [...](R83 = cat.#247), di.[i n.k] (R80) [t3] nb É3st [nbt] (F63 = cat.#29): “Utterance by [...: ‘I] grant [thee ...every] land and [every] foreign land [...]’”; “[I grant thee ...] all [health] from me”(R40 = cat.#227); Dd-mdw in Iw.s-c3.s [ ... ], “Utterance by Ius-aas [ ... ] (P31 = cat.#202). 5. Scenes from the Am-Duat. One fragment showing the heads and caption texts of the occupants of the Night-barque suggests the presence of scenes taken from the Am-Duat5 (F150 = cat.#93). The practice recalls the excerpts from underworld books on the walls of Osorkon II and Sheshonk III.6 In sum the decoration of the burial installation of Nepherites I appears traditional and unexceptional. To be noted especially are the dado of cartouches (unfortunately none preserved intact), the floral panels, and the inclusion of scene(s) from the Am-Duat, the latter inviting comparison with the Tanite royal tombs. Indeed, the phenomenon of royal tomb within god’s precinct, the favored arrangement of the Late Period in Tanis, Sais and possibly Sebennytos, stands to be further illumined as excavations at Mendes continue.

3

Cf. the known epithets of Nepherites I: H. Gauthier, Livre des rois, IV (Cairo, 1916), 162-63. For the most famous example of the employment of this motif, see J. Leclant, Montouemhât, 4eme prophète d’Amon, Prince de la ville (Cairo, 1961), pl. LIX; W.S. Smith, W.K. Simpson, The Art and Architecture of Ancient Egypt (Harmondsworth, 1983), 411; cf. the floral device used behind the deceased in the tomb of Tjanufer: Fr. W. von Bissing, Denkmaeler Aegyptischer Skulptur. Text und Tafeln (Munich, 1914), taf. 101. See now E.R. Russmann, JARCE 32(1995), 117-26. 5 Cf. E. Hornung, Das Amduat. Die Schrift des verborgenen Raumes (Wiesbaden, 1963-67), IX, C; A.-A. F. Sadek, Contribution à l’Étude de l’Amdouat (Goettingen, 1985), 6, 150, 239 (Sia appears to be missing in the piece under discussion). 6 Cf. P. Montet, Les constructions et le tombeau d’Osorkon II à Tanis (Paris, 1947), pl. 33-34; idem, Les constructions et le tombeau de Chechanq III à Tanis (Paris, 1960), pl. 29-32. 4

32

chapter three Cursive Texts in Red Ochre

Fifty-eight flakes or chunks of limestone bearing masons’ marks in red were registered, and an equal number deemed too faint or scanty were noted. Of the 58, eight came from trench AL-P, 13 from AL-F, and 37 from AL-R. Only two intact blocks were recovered bearing such markings: one was found by the NYU expedition on July 25, 1977, SE of the sarcophagus, and the second was found by the present expedition on June 17, 1994, due south of the sarcophagus in the robber pit of AL-A.7 Since both appear to be roofing blocks, the conclusion is supported that material with red markings represents the roof, architraves and the upper parts of the destroyed burial chamber. That in the land-fill between T l and T 2 they occupy the lowest three “falls,” is only to be expected, as the roof would have been the first part of the installation to be removed, smashed and discarded. The “Fish”-Stelae Fragments of 29 stelae were recovered, incised with figures of the Hat-mehyet fish. Two fragments came from the SW corner of the burial pit in the destruction debris, 17 came from trenches AL-F III, Q and R, while 4 were found in F I, 5 in P I, and one in C II. There was an even distribution of provenience between “falls” # l and 2: only one came, anomalously, from “fall” # 3. All appear to have been round-topped, and the best preserved (FIII 142 =cat.# 424; 169 =cat.#425) show that the dimensions approximated 30-35 cm. in height and 23-25 cm. in breadth. Most examples, if not all, were two-sided, suggesting the stelae were intended to be free-standing rather than in niches. All examples show the same arrangement of fishes in two or three columns, swimming in the same direction, with the occasional elongated wadj-sign as the vertical divider. Above, spanning the width of the stela, is a large “mother”-fish of the same species. Sometimes (e.g.FIII 149 =cat.#426, FIII 145 =cat.#427) a ram takes precedence above the “mother”-fish. It is difficult to understand what function these stelae would have fulfilled in the environs of the royal burial. Were they ex voto offerings set up by worshippers focusing directly on Nepherites’ tomb? Were they ex votos dedicated to a shrine of Hat-mehyet which may have stood in the neighbourhood? And were they of earlier origin, re-used by Nepherites as construction components in his tomb? Supporting this hypothesis is the fact that one specimen (cat.# 424) was found coated with plaster, as the content of the original carved surface was no longer of importance. The phenomenon of a stela, usually without text, on which multiples of the same icon are carved, is well known in the corpus of ex voto stelae of the lower classes. In the case of “Ear”-stelae8 the intent will have been somehow to assist in communication between the god and the suppliant. But when animals of the same species are depicted9 it is not always clear what they meant to the devotee. The concept of the single animal as the incarnation of the deity, specially marked and designated by supernatural intervention, is well known and reasonably well understood.10 But when an attempt is made to honour a group of the same species, reproduced in varying sizes, one is reminded of the attempts (especially in the First Millennium b.c.) to accord the dignity of mortuary rites to all members of a particular species, rendered sacred by the fact that the deity had from time immemorial chosen that species to produce his earthly avatar. Now, however, an aura of divinity seems to adhere to the very species itself. How did the ancients rationalize this? An interesting light is cast on this by a papyrus of 46 A.D.11 in which certain fishermen declare as part of their tax-return “we have never been nor will be privy to fishing or dragging a net or casting a net to catch the images (idw;la) of the divine oxxyrhynchos or lepidoti...”. In Celsus they are ainigmata, mysterious, recondite signs of the presence 7 The two intact specimens are marks, not “readable” texts; the other fragments have insufficient preserved to decide what the mark looked like. 8 R. Schlichting, LdÄ IV (1982), 562-66. 9 Cf. H.S.K. Bakry, MDAIK 27(1971), pl. 27(b); R.A. Fazzini, in Miscellanea Wilbouriana (Brooklyn, 1972), pp. 56-59, figs. 22-25; Neferut net Kemit: Egyptian Art from the Brooklyn Museum (Tokyo, 1983), no. 53; B. V. Bothmer, Musée d’art égyptien ancien de Louxor (Cairo, 1985), fig. 116, p. 73 no. 218; S. Bosticco, Museo archeologico di Firenze. Le Stele egiziane III (Roma, 1972), no. 56(367). 10 Cf. A.B. Lloyd, Herodotus Book II. A Commentary vol. II (Leiden, 1976), 291-96. 11 P.S.I. 901, 13 (= A.S. Hunt, C.C. Edgar, Select Papyri II. Non-literary Papyri, Public Documents [Cambridge, 1977], 272).

the relief-decoration of nepherites’ tomb and related epigraphy

33

of deity.12 Are we to understand, then, that the species as a whole partakes of divinity by being the mirror images of the great divine archetype into which the god has transformed himself?13 Stelae & Statuary Inscriptions In the land-fill between T l and T 2 were discovered, all in fragmentary condition, a royal stela, a private stela, and an inscribed cornice. At the foot end of the sarcophagus three inscribed statues were retrieved by the NYU expedition in 1977. With the exception of two of the statues and the New Kingdom stela,14 these inscriptions are treated below. Interpretation of the Evidence An interpretation of the history of Field AL from the 29th Dynasty until its final abandonment may now be attempted on the basis of the evidence described above. l. Into the sloping edge of the tell now comprising the NW enclosure, already occupied during the Third Intermediate and Saite period by burials (see below), Nepherites I founder of the 29th Dynasty excavated his burial chamber, capping it with a limestone mastaba. The identity of the occupant as Nepherites is made virtually certain by the celebrated shawabti15 and by the epithets preserved in columns and registers recovered by us in excavation unit AL-F (cat.# 40;83; see above). The burial was sited within the SE angle of an enclosure bounded on the east by a wall (T 3) at least 7 metres thick. Nepherites may have incorporated in the structure of his tomb stelae and blocks re-used from older structures. In particular, it is tempting to speculate that, at this point in the terrain, relatively close to the eastern harbour, a shrine to Hat-mehyet may have stood. 2. At some time subsequent to the death and interment of Nepherites I in 393 b.c., but well before the end of the 4th century b.c., a major temenos wall (T 2) was built on a N-S alignment (local) close to the eastern side of the royal tomb. The fact that its foundation trench sliced through wall T 3 on the east side of the Nepherites burial proves it to have been constructed later than the burial. This is confirmed by the back-fill of the foundation trench of T 2 which yields pottery with a terminus ad quem of the mid-4th century b.c. That the builder of T 2 was Nektanebo I is probable in the light of (a) the ceramic evidence cited above, (b) the practice of city-wall building associated with his reign, and (c) the presence of a block of his in the debris of the destruction level.16 3. At some time after Nektanebo I—his block referred to above was found in the destruction—and before the appearance of Ptolemaic pottery, the tomb of Nepherites I was destroyed and T 2 denuded and rendered useless. Installations lying immediately south of the burial chamber were systematically uprooted, thus creating a pit. The roofing blocks and architraves of the tomb were taken off and smashed into small pieces which were strewn (a) into the pit aforesaid, south of wall B, and (b) east across the denuded summit of T 2. South of wall B the shatter of fragments mounded up in the pit over l.5 metres, until it surpassed ll metres A.S.L. East of T 2 they created “falls” 4-6 on the outer side, and mounded up and out of the burial pit and over T 2 in a swath over l metre thick. They lie thickest in AL-R. The walls of the tomb chapel were then dismantled and either consigned to the limeburners, or smashed up and cast over T 2 to create “falls” # l, 2 and 3 on its east side. In the process the brick walls of the burial pit were largely left intact, except for the stretch of wall on the north where presumably the door/gate had stood, and the stretch on the south which was partly denuded and “shaved” on its inner face. In particular the inner SE corner was shaved to the extent that it can no longer be seen. The door/gate was removed, the architrave cast on a slope of debris to the west, and the blocks of the dromos uprooted. Some of the larger architectural pieces were left to lie in the vicinity of the sarcophagus block, on the rubble of the now-denuded mud-brick wall lining the burial pit. The limestone flooring/packing blocks were removed only in part. An attempt was made to shift 12

Origen Contra Celsum iii.19. Note how the divine ibises buried in their cemetaries are called “gods” in the texts: J.D. Ray, The Archive of Hor (London, 1976), 74; cf. also L. Kakosy, Studia Aegyptiaca VII (Budapest, 1981), 44-45. 14 These will appear in a forthcoming article on “New Kingdom and Late Period Remains from the Northwest Enclosure at Mendes,” in JARCE. 15 Mendes II (Warminster, 1976), p. 203 no. 97. 16 NYU Field notes, June, 1977. 13

chapter three

34

the sarcophagus block for purposes unknown, but was never brought to fruition. 4. The date and agent of the destruction is clearly indicated by the ceramic content of the levels of limestone debris. The pottery was consistently of Third Intermediate Period through 4th century: no Hellenistic at all was present. The only conclusion possible is that the destruction must have taken place between the end of Nektanebo I’s reign (363 b.c.) and the beginning of the Ptolemaic period in the last quarter of the 4th Cent.; and the only agent during this period inimical to Egypt and the tomb of one of its “freedom-fighters,” was the conquering Persian host of 343 b.c. The statement in classical sources regarding the slaughter of the sacred ram of Mendes by Ochus17 now finds eloquent testimony in the violation of Nepherites’ tomb, the uprooting of the ram sarcophagi, and the firing of the adjacent kom el-adhem. Even as late as the beginning of Ptolemy II’s reign parts of the site were still in dilapidation and the blame can be inferred from Ptolemy’s words to fall on the Persian invaders of 343: “H.M. found the temple of the Ram (still) being worked on, as H.M. had authorized the removal of the devastation wrought against it by the refractory foreigners.”18 5. For over 70 years the site of Nepherites’ burial lay in ruins. At the head end of the sarcophagus block the robbing of the burial pit had left a deep depression c. 10 m. square. We sectioned this both east-west and north-south, and obtained revealing profiles (see SW sections, fig. 15 & 17; pl. 17a). The pit had filled up over an extended period with c. 19 water-laid stria. Each of these was between 12 and 20 cm. in depth and ranged from light fine clay at the top through gray coarser in the middle to small gravel at the bottom. It is interesting to speculate as to whether the depression had been turned into a catchment basin: had it been filled artificially, or only as the result of especially high inundations? If the latter, do the 19 stria represent as many inundations? That the Nile waters could gain unimpeded access to Field AL argues, as we know to be the case, the temenos wall T2 to have been in ruins and denuded at the time. The ceramic content of the stria shows, besides the expected 4th century material a little Ptolemaic. A coin recovered near the top of the aforementioned stria (AL-SWIII/IV, 7) is of Ptolemaic date with a terminus post quem of the reign of Ptolemy II.19 The impact of all this evidence is that the burial pit was filled up during the century or so immediately following the Persian destruction. 6. When Ptolemy II set about to refurbish the site, T2 was either torn down or (in the vicinity of the tomb) buried in destruction debris. The rebuilding program involved laying down an earthen fill to even up and extend the surface east of T2. The new temenos wall (T1) was built on a slightly different alignment, with an eastern slope that, in this sector at least, sloped outward like a ramp. East of this new wall in the 3rd century b.c. a new settlement took shape, associated with the harbor.20 It was probably at this time that the curious limestone structure discovered by the NYU expedition in 1977 was erected on top of the highest point of T2, due east of the sarcophagus block. This building, which no longer exists, we presume was constructed out of the re-used limestone fragments taken from the debris of the destruction of the tomb. 17

H. de Meulenaere, Mendes II, p. 3. Urk. II, 38:5-8. 19 See fig. 69, cat.# 669a. 20 See forthcoming volume. 18

the relief-decoration of nepherites’ tomb and related epigraphy

35

CHAPTER FOUR

THE THIRD INTERMEDIATE & SAITE PERIODS Donald B. Redford The prominence of Mendes during the Third Intermediate and Saite periods is attested by memorials left by the family of Hornakht, great chief of the Me, numerous statues, and especially the naos-chamber of Amasis. The domestic occupation of the site, however, during these periods has heretofore resisted discovery; and it was only in the 1994 season that evidence began coming to light. The surface survey alluded to above discovered a considerable amount of Third Intermediate Period sherds in the long triangular space due south of the Banebdjed temple. To the immediate north and west of the temple it appears to be lacking, but to the east in Field AL Third Intermediate and Saite levels are now in evidence. Excavations in AL-N, AL-O and AL-SW × revealed a walling system which seems to have run along the west side of Nepherites’ tomb; but the precise relationship of this complex to the burial is somewhat doubtful. The system comprised a 4-metre thick mud-brick wall on the same alignment as the sarcophagus burial and the outer temenos wall, T 1. East of this wall, G, was constructed a cellular, “casemate,” construction which filled AL-O and is still in evidence in AL-SW X (pl. 17b). Six burials were in evidence in AL-N immediately behind, i.e. east of, wall G, one adult and five children (jar burials). (see fig. 3) The date of the complex seems fairly certain from ceramic evidence. Except for the present surface, where Ptolemaic sherds are found, the contents of the cellular chambers is Third Intermediate-Saite period. It would seem, therefore, that this complex pre-dates the Nepherites burial and belonged to some earlier tomb(?) largely swept away in the 29th Dynasty. Within ten metres to the west of wall G and the wall complex just described, the surface of the ground had been reduced by over a metre, and the sherd content of the back-fill proved that this had been done in the late Third Intermediate or Saite periods. Protruding from the back-fill at the start of excavations in 1992 was a very worn sarcophagus lid in Aswan granite of a common New Kingdom type. Excavation in AL-L revealed the broken box which was the mate to the lid. Although the sarcophagus had clearly been pulled out of its resting place, and was no longer in situ, and in spite of the fact that it was without inscription, we opined that it had been re-used in the Late Period. Running in a westerly swath from the sarcophagus box through square AL-K were about one dozen fragments of faience shawabtis of a certain Nes-su-banebdjed, son of Pasher-bast and Iryes.1 We had hoped in succeeding seasons to track down and excavate what remained of Nes-su-banebdjed’s interment, but the tomb was probably completely robbed out and committed to destruction. In the surface of the Third Intermediate Period in AL-L and AL-M (i.e. the surface to which the ground level had been reduced by intentional digging in the Third Intermediate Period) we discovered a rectangular depression, and a second much deeper one turned up on the north side of AL-K. Whether these might be emplacements for sarcophagi, surrounded originally by mud-brick tomb-chambers, must remain moot; but the idea is very tempting. The Third Intermediate Period surface in the area had been strewn with masses of disarticulated mud-brick and mud-brick rubble, as though walls had not only been overthrown, but smashed and trampled as well. 1

For discussion of the prosopography and the titles of this person, see the writer’s report in JSSEA XXI/ XXII (1991-92), 8, 12.

36

chapter five

CHAPTER FIVE

THE INSCRIPTIONS AND CURSIVE TEXTS Donald B. Redford The texts dealt with hereinafter exclude most single glyph fragments, formulae and masons marks (for the latter see above). For dimensions and specific locus, see the Object Catalogue, below. 1. Limestone fragment, F, f.n. 21 (Object Catalogue no. 1). [S3] Rc ntr nfr. “[Son] of Re, the perfect god [ .. ].” 2. Limestone fragment, F, f.n. 50 (Object Catalogue no. 21). [ ... ] ... n s3-Mwt(?), “... of SiMut(?).” 3. Limestone fragment, F, f.n. 77 (Object Catalogue no. 41). [mry] ntrw grg t3wy, “beloved of the gods, who founds the Two Lands.” For these epithets of Nepherites I, see above p.30. 4. Limestone fragment, F, f.n. 76 (Object Catalogue no. 40. [ ... ] smn[É] [ ... ], “[ ... ] refurbish[ing ... ].” There remains the possibility, perhaps, of restoring smn, in some such phrase as smn hpw, or smn t3wy or the like. 5. Limestone fragments, F, f.n. 137 (Object Catalogue no. 83). [ ... ] mry ntrw [ ... ], “[ ... ] beloved of the gods [ ... ].” See above, no. 3. 6. Fine limestone fragment, F, f.n. 164 (Object Catalogue no. 99). [I3]btt Èq3 cnd, “Heliopolitan nome, East.” For discussion, see H. Stock, Welt des Orient 1948, 135-36; H.G. Fischer, JNES 18 (1959), 129-42; W. Helck, Die altaegyptische Gaue (Wiesbaden, 1974), 182-84; F. Gomaa, Die Besiedlung Aegyptens waehrend des Mittleren Reiches II. (Wiesbaden, 1987), 173-74. Presumably these glyphs surmount and identify a figured personification of a plantation belonging to a mortuary endowment. It is tempting to conclude that this is a block re-used from some pillaged Old Kingdom mastaba in the vicinity. 7. Fine limestone fragments; F, f.n. 188-189 (Object Catalogue nos. 117-118). cÈcw q3, “a long lifetime.” Presumably this comes from some statement of well-wishing, perhaps by the god to the king. Despite the apparent complementarity of the two pieces, they do not appear to join. 8. Limestone fragment; F f.n. 180 (Object Catalogue no. 137). [ ... ] stp.n [ ... ] (cartouche). The surface within the cartouche appears to have been plastered over at some time subsequent to the cutting. 9. Limestone fragment; P f.n. 93/19 (Object Catalogue no. 144). Wr [c3 ... ]-à3-[ ... ]. Two restorations seem to be possible: wr [c3 n M3] ’3[à3nq ... ], “[Great] chief [of the Me] She[shonq ... ],” or wr [c3 n M]à3[w3à3 ... ], “[great] chief [of the Me]she[wesh ... ].”1 While a dating to the 22nd or 23rd Dynasties appears inevitable, the identity of the individual remains in doubt. Of the Sheshonqs who suggest themselves as candidates, the following may be listed: 1. Sheshonq grandfather of the future Sheshonq I (A.M. Blackman, JEA 27 (1941), pl. X-XII, 1, 5, 24), 2. Sheshonq I prior to his accession (J.-M. Kruchten, Les annales des prêtres de Karnak (XXI-XXIIImes Dynasties)... [Leuven, 1989], pl. 3 frag. 4), 3. Sheshonq (E) of Busiris (P.-M. Chevereux, Prosopographie des cadres militaires égyptiens de la Basse Epoque [Paris, 1985], 64, Doc. 70), 4. Sheshonq (F) of Busiris (ibid., 64 doc. 71).2 It is unlikely, however, that any of them qualify; as the prima facie probability is that during the parochial times of Dyn. 22 a name found at a site points to a local worthy. Of

1 Less likely, it seems to me, is that we should restore ms instead of wr: cf. J. Yoyotte, Mélanges Maspero I, 4 (Cairo, 1961), 123, 3. 2 Sheshonq prince of Memphis seems not to have born the title: F. Gomaa, Die libyschen Fürstentumer des Deltas (Wiesbaden, 1974), 7.

the inscriptions and cursive texts

37

the seven generations of the Es-kheby family that ruled Mendes in the 22nd Dynasty, none are called “Sheshonq.”(Gomaa, op.cit., 85-89). Do we have a new member of that family? 10. Limestone appliqué(?); P, f.n. 95/3 (Object catalogue no. 179). [ ... ] in. Reading and restoration doubtful. 11. Limestone fragment; P(ext.), f.n. 31 (Object catalogue no. 202). Dd-mdw in Iw.s-c3.[s] ...; “Utterance by Ius-aa[s] ...” Though Isis is attested at Mendes (Mendes II, pl. 24[60]), and Bast (this volume, fig. 86), Ius-aas appears here for the first time. (See E. Hornung, Conceptions of God in Ancient Egypt [Ithaca,1982], 71, 74 and the literature there cited. 12. Fine limestone fragment; P(ext.), f.n. 38 (Object Catalogue no. 206). Painted cartouches separated by the painted text s3 Rc nb Écw, “son of Re, possessed of diadems.” The cartouches seem never to have been filled in. 13. Plaster fragment; R(ext.), f.n. 30 (Object Catalogue no. 259). The ms-sign is clear, but the remaining marks are uncertain. The three verticals at right might be construed as plural strokes, but this is unlikely. 14. Limestone fragment; R(ext.), f.n. 36 (Object catalogue no. 264). Imn-Ètp, “Amenophis.” 15. Limestone fragment; R(ext), f.n. 40 (Object catalogue no. 268). [dd-mdw i]n B3-nb-dd, “[Uttera]nce by Ba-neb-djed [ ... ].” 16. Black granite fragment; SW, f.n. 29 (Object catalogue no. 299). [ ... ] c.wy.[i(?) ... ]w.i nb [ ... ], “[ ... my(?)] hands [ ... ] all my [ ... ]s ...” 17. Limestone fragment; SW, f.n. 95/14 (Object Catalogue no. 305). 18. Fine Limestone fragment; SW, f.n. 95/17 (Object catalogue no. 308). [ ... ] s3 Rc [ ... ], “[ ... (cartouche)] son of Re [ ... ].” 19. Fine round-topped limestone stela fragment; F, f.n. 92 (Object Catalogue no. 421). Two male figures face to the right across a [libation stand], while on the lost right-hand side a [god] would have faced left. The figures are bald and wear kilts and stoles. The first wears a stylized side-lock attached to an open-work filet. Where the declining Behdety-wing would have been seen, the stone shows a depression (for an original inlay?). Six columns of text of an original eight(?) are preserved (in whole or in part) above the heads of the figures, while at least two lines of text now nearly all gone, were once carved beneath the scene. The original width would have been 45 cm., the original height 60+[x] cm. Translation Col. Col. Col. Col. Col. Col. Col. Col.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

“[Making censing and libation(A) to A]mun “[by the prophet(B) of] Amunrasonther(C) “[of Djedet(D), the prophet of] Ba-neb“[djed, Ny-su-]ba-neb-djed, “the son of the rpct(E) Amenemope; “his mother T-h-r-w3-s(F), justified.” “[Amunrasonther] “[of Djedet, the Great God]”(?)

Notes (A) Presumably an abbreviated form of this formula (Wb. V, 29:3), the putative length of the column not permitting a fuller form. It is conceivable that we should restore “Amun-re,” since the surviving strokes might accommodate sun-disc and stroke. (B) I have opted for this, most common title with respect to the cults at Mendes; but a variety of other restorations are certainly possible: Èm-ntr tpy, “first prophet” (G. Daressy, RT 35, 125; J. Vandier, JEA 54 [1968], 93); wcb, “flamen minor” (H. Wild, BIFAO 60 [1960], pl. I; HTBM X [1982], pl. 98 no. 312; Mendes II, pl. 25[63]); imy-r màc, “commander of the host” (Redford, JSSEA 21/22 [1994], 8, 12 n. 33); s3 mr.f, “son-whom-he-loves” (Daressy, ASAE 17 [1917], 21; RT 35, 126). In view of the sidelock, the last may be a distinct possibility. On this title see Wb. III, 410:4-6; for its use to designate

chapter five

38

(C) (D) (E)

(F)

the high-priest of another ram-god, viz. Arsaphes, see P. Vernus, Athribis (Cairo, 1978), 77; D. Meeks, Année lexicographique I (1980), 300; M.G. Mokhtar, Ihnasya el-Medina (Cairo, 1983), 196-97; for the connexion of the title with “stolist” see J. van Dijk, GM 36 (1979), 8-9. For Amunrasonther at Mendes in the Late Period, see Redford, JSSEA 21/22 (1994), 12 n. 30; N. de G. Davies, The Temple of Hibis in El Khargeh Oasis III. The Decoration (New York, 1953), pl. 33, col. 28-29. There seems sufficient space: for the epithet, see below, p. 41, no. 26. The use of the title alone suggests a function. This is less likely to be municipal/political role (cf. G. Posener, La première domination Perse en Égypte [Cairo, 1936], 27; M. Romer, Gottes- und Priesterherrschaft in Aegypten am Ende des Neuen Reiches [Wiesbaden 1994], p. 40) than a sacerdotal one; and we should perhaps opt for the priestly function in the mortuary cult and (especially) at the Opening of the mouth ceremony: E. Otto, Mundoffnungsritual II (1952), 12. 15; J. Osing, LdÄ III (Wiesbaden, 1980), 177. Cf. J. Quaegebeur, Le Dieu Égyptien Shai (Louvain, 1975), 117-18 (iry-pct m ntry, which may in fact point to mortuary ritual). For the name cf. H. Ranke, Die altaegyptische Personennamen (Leipzig, 1939), 393:4 (T-r-w3-s3); perhaps variants are to be seen in T-r-w3 and T-w3-hr (Cairo 41025, 41046; G. Daressy, RT 23 [1901], 131 (n); G. Vittmann, Priester und Beamte im Theben der Spaetzeit [Wien, 1978], 7, 11); Dem. T3-lws, E. Luddeckens, H.-J. Thissen, Demotisches Namenbuch I, 14 (Wiesbaden, 1996), 1075. Of possible Hurrian or Hittite dervation: T. Schneider, Asiatische Personennamen in Aegyptischen Quellen des Neuen Reiches (Goettingen, 1992), 255. The date of the piece is probably 5th - 4th century B.C.

20. Limestone slab with incised scene. F, f.n. 71 (Object Catalogue no. 432). Kneeling king on right in blue crown, pleated stole and shendyet-kilt, offers an image of ma’at across a stylized offering stand to a theriomorphic form of Ba-neb-djed. A lighted brazier is placed above the stand. The uraeus on the crown has been abbraded, perhaps not intentionally. The stole recalls examples from the Late Period (cf. P-M I [2nd ed], 206:20; S. Quirke, Ancient Egyptian Religion [London, 1992], 74 fig. 41). The shape of the crown accomodates other examples of the 4th century b.c. (see K. Mysliwiec, Royal Portraiture of the Dynasties XXI to XXX [Mainz am Rhein, 1988], pl. LXXIII, LXXVIII; E. Naville, The Shrine of Saft el Henneh and the Land of Goshen [London, 1888], pl. 4; idem, Bubastis [London, 1891], pl. XLVII), and with the evidence of the cartouches, the piece may be safely dated in the first half of the 4th century b.c. For earlier discussion of the present piece, see D.B. Redford, JSSEA 21/22 (1994), 5-7, pl. II. Re-examination of the inscription since the preliminary report would seem to confirm the following: 1. the praenomen seems to read Nb-m3ct- Hnm stp.n Hnm(?), which approximates very closely the praenomen of Akoris (Gauthier, Livre des rois, IV,165-66). 2. the first part of the nomen is definitely Msi: there is no crescent (Gard. N 11-12) above. 3. the second part of the nomen is almost certainly Ns-b3/Hnm (Ranke, op.cit., 179:1). For a discussion of the possible identity of this individual, see Redford, JSSEA 21/22 loc.cit. Besides the ephemeral kings at the end of the 29th Dynasty, there remains a possible candidate not considered in the JSSEA article aforesaid. This is the “Mendesian pretender” who contested the rule with Nektanebo II in 360 b.c. Since, according to Plutarch (Agesilaus xxxviii.1), this unnamed claimant to royal power had undergone a coronation and been acclaimed as king, there is no reason why during his short floruit he could not have left depictions of himself in royal accoutrements. 21. Fragment of a limestone false door. Q, f.n. 10 (Object Catalogue no. 448). Beneath the cavetto cornice is a band of text, duplicated originally by another on the left, reading Ètp-di-nsw \3t-mÈyt ... (?); Old Kingdom in date? 22. Limestone fragment of a seated statue. R, f.n. 4 (Object Catalogue no. 479). Text at base reads: [ ... ] n k3 n Snb [nb] im3h [ ... ]; [ ... ] mrt.n.f(?) [ ... ]; “[ ... ] for the ku of Sonbu, the venerable [ .... ] that which he loves(?) [ ... ].” Probably of M.K. date. 23. Leg and back-pillar fragment of diorite statue of a striding male figure. SM I, 3 (Object Catalogue no. 483a). Five columns of incised text, two on the back pillar, three behind the extended leg. Translation I.

“[...9 groups(?) ... Ahmose son of] Nes-atum. He says: ‘I am a royal servant(A) who does good, a righteous man(B), one who adhered to(C) the texts of ... (D) See!(E) I was not inattentive(F), See! there was

the inscriptions and cursive texts

II. III. IV. V.

39

none whom I expelled from his land(G), there was none whom I deprived of his paternal property(H), I committed no evil against [anybody ...2 or 3 groups ... ] “[ ... (?) ... the ...]s(J) which I have done, thou knowest, O b3 of Re!(K) Thou it is that wilt support(L) any who {will} turn from doing evil.(M) For ‘Thou art wise!’ and the Blessed Ones(N) shall tell my saying to millions of people. Then [I(?)] functioned as(O) [ ... 3 groups ...] “of(?) the Cultus-master Whem-ib-re. I adhered to the documents of the Palace(P) and I never neglected anything that had happened earlier(Q). Now [His Majesty] sent me [to] “smite Asia, being commanding officer(R) of his army. When he saw how able(?)(S) [I was, then] “he [ ... ] it on account of my statement(T) [ ... c. 10 groups ... ].” (On belt) “Hereditary prince and count, general of infantry(U), Ahmose son of Nes-atum.”

Commentary

A. Èm-nsw, Wb. III, 87:18; K. Jansen-Winkeln, Aegyptische Biographien der 22. und 23. Dynastie (Wiesbaden 1985), p. 539, line 1 (parallel to b3k m pr- dt); D. Meeks, Année lexicographique I (Paris, 1980), 246. For its earlier use, see W. Ward, Index of Egyptian Administrative and Religious Titles of the Middle Kingdom (Beirut, 1982), 108 n. 896; W. C. Hayes, A Papyrus of the Late Middle Kingdom in the Brooklyn Museum (New York, 1956), 90-91. B. m3cty: Wb. II, 21:4-13 (often with overtones of justification beyond the grave). In a juridical context (late New Kingdom): C.J. Eyre, in J. Ruffle(ed), Glimpses of Ancient Egypt (Warminster, 1979), 84 n. z. “Righteous man”: J. Malek, GM 31(1979), 75; similarly, R.A. Caminos, A Tale of Woe. Papyrus Pushkin 127 (Oxford, 1977), 23 (“blessed”); Cairo 42231 d, 7-8 (qualified as “one who turns his back on him who transgresses”). C. ndr: our use Wb. II, 383:22-24; P. Lacau, H. Chevrier, Une Chapelle d’Hatshepsout à Karnak (Cairo, 1977), 107 line 13: ndr.sn (the people) Éft tp-rd.t. Cf. Ptahhotpe 24: P 151 ndr m3ct m sny sy, “hold fast to ma’at, do not omit it!” Urk. IV, 351:4 ndr.tn spw.i, “pay close attention to my deeds”; RdE VI (1951), 138: sb3 nsw ndr sb3yt.f, “one taught by the king and who holds fast to his teaching”; Urk. VII, 65:20, ndr n sb3 nb.f, “holding fast to his master’s teaching”; Admonitions 11, 4: sÉ3 ndr tp-rd, “remember to adhere to the instruction”; Ham. 199:3, ndr-ib Èr ddt n.f àwy m sp n mhi, “paying close attention to what was said to him, free of deed(s) of negligeance”; cf. also Urk. II, 59:16; IV, 489:4, 1892:13; J. Leclant, Montouemhât, quatrième prophete d’Amon et prince de la ville (Cairo, 1961), 200, line 21. The dominant meaning is “to adhere strictly to” an instruction, precept or precedent. But in our passage one might sense an added nuance of “taking over, being responsible for” or the like. D. Drfw n(?) zp(?). Both reading and meaning of the group S-3 over 0-48 are in doubt. Drf usually refers to the script itself: Urk. II, 62:10, IV, 165:14-15, 776:10; 969:14; 1796:9; 1884, 1885; A. Kamal, ASAE 16 (1916), 88; KRI I, 353:10-11; Ebers 1, 1ff; a creation of Thoth: Wb. V, 477:10-16 (and Belegstellen thereto); Urk. II, 38:16; see S. Schott, Bücher und Bibliotheken im Alten Aegypten (Wiesbaden, 1990), 412-14, no. 1780. (For t3y-drf or t3y, book collection,” “treatise,” see H. Goedicke, JARCE 9[1971-72], 69ff; E. Iversen, JEA 65[1979], 78 n. 1). Zp has been here taken as “misdeed, crime”: Wb. III, 435:11, 13, 15; D. Meeks, Année lexicographique 2 (1981), 318; 3 (1982), 248; Cairo 42211 j.6; K. Jansen-Winckeln, Aegyptische Biographien der 22. und 23. Dynastien (Wiesbaden, 1985), 98, n. 58. Cf. also the Penitential Psalms (where it is parallel to bt3): Turin 102, 3(zp n thi[sic]); BM 589, vs. 5 (zp n rmt nb). The result would be a high-flown neologism for the old àfdw n Ébnty, the “criminal register” : G.P.F. van den Boorn, The Duties of the Vizier (London, 1988), 125-26. Another possibility would be to construe it as a writing of sipt, “register, inventory” (Wb. IV, 35; cf. F. Daumas, RdE 25 (1973), 18). There remains a possibility that it is a revival of older zp(t), “threshing floor” (Wb. III, 434:12-18): R.A. Caminos, The Chronicle of Prince Osorkon (Rome, 1964), 100-1). It might then be the equivalent of New Kingdom àsw (n) ànwty. The concern with land and ownership which the text reveals would fit nicely, and make of Ahmose a precursor of the comptroller (Rylands IX 7/1; G.R. Davies, Aramaic Documents of the 5th Century B.C. [Oxford, 1957], letters III, IV, V; J.D. Ray, in CAH IV [1988], 267). Other possibilities to consider might include construing the group as a writing for red crown over niwt, as a designation of Mhw, “Lower Egypt”: Wb. II, 123-24; Edfu I, 47 etc.; or as some sort of play upon Hn-nÉn (Cf. Piankhy, 6; J.-J. Clère, BIFAO 83 [1983], 91[C]; for hn, “interior” as opposed to “exterior”[i.e. foreign], see Urk. IV, 1543:4). E. P. derManuelian, Living in the Past (London, 1994), 458; E. Edel, Altaegyptische Grammatik (Rome, 1964), 429. F. Nw.(i) (Wb. II, 217:13); cf. the more common nni, II, 275. G. Nn idr.i Èr t3à.f; see Wb. V, 595 for the writing. For t(3)à in the sense of “township (nome), district, region, demarcated parcel of land,” see W. Erichsen Demotisches Glossar (Copenhagen, 1954), 657; W.E. Crum, A Coptic Dictionary (Oxford, 1939), 451-52; W. Westendorf, Koptisches Handwoerterbuch (Heidelberg, 1977), 255. For an individual’s income tied to a particular township, see Rylands IX, xvi.2-4. H. Cf. Urk. IV, 1799, 10-12. J. It is uncertain how extensive was the object of the last verb in the preceding column. The present

chapter five

40

K.

L.

M. N. O.

P.

Q.

R.

restoration is predicated on the assumption that a feminine plural noun + relative form is fronted in the following clause. Reading iw.k rÉ.t(i) B3 n Rc. For the interchange of alif and yod, see Wb. I, 42; 170:10; 117:10-11; 119:2-3; 120:16-17; 124; K.-T. Zauzich, ZDMG Suppl. III (1980), 76-80; idem, GM 85 (1985), 89-90; J.E. Hoch, Semitic Words in Egyptian Texts of the New Kingdom and Third Intermediate Period (Princeton, 1994), 419, 490; W. Spiegelberg, Demotische Grammatik (Heidelberg, 1925), 24. The “(living )bai of Re,” or simply the “living one of Re,” is the most ubiquitous form of the Ram of Mendes: A. Piankoff, The Litany of Re (New York, 1964), 105:13; H. Wild, BIFAO 60 (1960), 59-65; Edfu I, 334; P. Bremner-Rhind 25, 23; Esna II, 45. The association of the bai with Mendes through homophony with b3, “buck,” is of long standing. Already in the Coffin Texts the city is deemed appropriate as a dwelling for the bai: cf. CT I, 249; VI, 74 (cf. BD 17a S4); 75. The primordial union of latent fertility energy (Osiris) and active creation-power (Re), so central to Underworld theology in the New Kingdom, is already located at Mendes in the First Intermediate Period: cf. CT IV, 278, “as for his bai in his .., that’s Osiris when he entered Mendes and found the bai of Re there, and they both embraced each other” (cf. BD 17a, 14). For the bai of Re, a ram figure within a disc, see Piankoff, Litany of Re, 15, fig. B, no. 40. See also H. Kees, Goetterglaube im alten Aegypten (Berlin, 1956), 165, 438; J. Spiegel, in W. Westendorf(ed), Goettinger Totenbuch Studien: Beitrage zum 17. Kapitel (Wiesbaden, 1975), 163-66; J. Assmann, Egyptian Solar Religion in the New Kingdom (London-New York, 1995), 20 and n. 18. Ntk cÈc.k: for the nuances of cÈc with various combinations of prepositions, see P. Vernus, RdE 30(1978), 124-25. We may be dealing with the same semantic range as cÈc Èr, “to minsiter, tend to, sustain” (there is no need to assume an elision of Èr): cf. J. Janssen-Winkeln, Biographien, 202 n. 29; cf. Demot. cÈc wb3: Erichsen, Glossar, 69. Read rw..fy. The form had already become obsolete by Saite times: Manuelian, Living in the Past, 392; Hommages à Serge Sauneron (Cairo, 1979), pl. XXI. The sense seems to be that of Wb. II, 406:5-6; P. Vernus, Athribis (Cairo, 1978), 51 n. e; D. Meeks, Année lexicographique III (1982), 167. 3Éw. On the close association of the Blessed Dead with Re, see E. Hornung, Das Buch der Anbetung des Re im Westen ... (Geneva, 1977), I, 10, 58f; 154, 208, 252; II, 114 n. 139; Vernus Athribis, 202. Presumably a function was the object of the verb: cf. Urk. I, 98:14; B. Gunn, Studies in Egyptian Syntax (Paris, 1924), 73 n. 1. In this case the cartouche in the next column would presumably be in a bound construction or object of a dative. We might also restore iw ir.n.[i wdt.n nb], and render “[I] performed [everything] the cultus-master Wehem-ib-re [commanded].” On ndr see above, n. C. On stp-s3, see O. Goelet, JARCE 23 (1986), 85ff; esp. 95-98 (where the author rightly stresses the “palatial” aspects of the term in its later uses). Stp-s3 is the common word for “palace” in the Third Intermediate Period: Jansen-Winkeln, Aegyptische Biographien der 22. und 23. Dynastie (Wiesbaden, 1985), 608; (cf. a more archaic usage in Montuemhat’ pillared forehall, west wall north of door, col. 11[unpublished]: r rd.wy ntr nfr stp-z3 m pr-nsw, “[following] at the heels of the perfect god, performing attendance duty in the king’s-house”). Ahmose’s duties seem to encompass what, in earlier times, would have been called “the archive” (É3 n sàw). Diligence shown in culling precedent from documents of antiquity is well known: cf. hpw nw iswt, Urk. VII, 2:12; hpw nw tpyw-c, BM 174; Schott, Bücher und Bibliotheken, 431 (s.v. iswt). The present passage recalls the sense of part of the biography of the High-priest Osorkon (Texts and Reliefs at Karnak, III.The Bubastite Portal [Chicago, 1954], pl. 21 col. 4): “(his career) began when judicial decisions entered into his ears, and official business (nt-c) in the palace was transacted; he proved knowledgable about all [the policy decisions (read sÉrw)] (even if) they had come about under generations of former kings.” Read iw h3b.n [wi Èm.f r]. On wd sÉrw, see Wb. I, 394:13. Texts and prosopographical evidence from Egypt regarding Egypt’s involvement with Western Asia from c. 627 to 586 B.C. are relatively scarce. For the passage in Rylands IX (xiv.16-19) regarding Psammetichus II’s trip to Kharu, see D.B. Redford, Egypt, Canaan and Israel in Ancient Times (Princeton, 1992), 464; for the Chronicle material, see now J. Quaegebeur, in K. van Leberghe and A. Schoors (eds), Immigration and Emmigration within the Ancient Near East (Louvain, 1995), 345-70. There are several generals of the period assigned to the eastern frontier (or beyond): the nomarch at Tel Tebilla, Nakht: A. Chaban, ASAE 10 (1910), 29; the “governor (Érp) of foreign countries (or foreigners), general of elite troops (mnf3t), commander of Greeks, the ‘GreatFighter-Lord-of-Justification’ (priestly function at Mesen, mod. Kantara), Padisamtowy (good name Neferibre-neb-ken)”: W. Freiherr von Bissing, Steingefaesse, no. 18736; M.-L. Buhl, The Late Egyptian Stone Anthropoid Sarcophagi (Copenhagen, 1959), pl. II(C, a 1); Peftjaukhonsu, “general of the eastern desert march”: P-M. Chevereau, Prosopographie des cadres militaires Égyptiens de la Basse Époque (Paris, 1985), no. 274; “messenger to Pakana’an of Philistia, Padiese,”: G. Steindorf, JEA 25 (1939), 30-33 pl. VII; “general of elite troops, prophet of Sopdu, Lord of the East, Ramose (good name Neferibrenakht),”: Cairo 895; “general of elite troops ... commandant of foreign (troops) ... His Majesty’s spokesman among the Asiatic auxiliaries”: Chevereau, op.cit., no. 109; “commander of the king’s warships in the Mediterranean ... Hor”: ibid., no. 117; “cavalry general ... governor of Asiatic territories ... Samtowytefnakht (good name, Wahibre-Men),” ibid., no. 124. None of these refer specifically in narrative form to military activity in Asia, although many undoubtedly took part in campaigns from Carchemish to Jerusalem. The present text of Ahmose is the only

the inscriptions and cursive texts

41

one to allude, however laconically, to military action beyond the frontier. Of the texts left behind by Ahmose (Chevereau, op.cit., no. 115 and p. 328), the statue from Saft el-Henne (Apries), the graffito at Abu Simbel (Psammetichus II) and the Mendes statue fragment, the latter is the earliest. S. Restoration doubtful. Read rwd [cwy.i]? Wb. II, 411:7. T. or “speech” in general, perhaps referring to special oratorical skill: WB. IV, 4:8-9. U. On mnf3t see H.-W. Fischer-Elfert, Die satirische Streitschrift des Papyrus Anastasi (Wiesbaden, 1986), 11920; P-M. Chevereau, RdE 42(1991), 56-7. All occurrences fit “infantry” better than “elite troops” or the like: A.R. Schulman,Military Rank, Title and Organization (Berlin, 1964), 13-4; idem, JARCE 15 (1978), 46.

25. Shawabti; AL-S 38 (Object catalogue, no. 750). “[O you shawabty! If N is designated to] any [work] which is done there, (viz.) to cu[ltivate the fields], to water the banks, to convey sand from west to east or vice versa, ‘Here I am!’ you shall say.” On the shawabty-formula (BD 151 i), see T.G. Allen, The Book of the Dead or Going Forth By Day (Chicago, 1974), 150; H. D. Schneider, Shabtis: an Introduction to the History of the Ancient Egyptian Funerary statuettes I, 2 (Leiden, 1977), passim; W. Wessetsky, MDAIK 39 (1981), 493-96. 26. Twenty-five shawabti fragments; AL-K I, 2; II, 3, 11, 13, 15 (Object Catalogue, no. 755). For a preliminary assessment, see Redford JSSEA XXI/XXII (1994), 8, 12. These belong to a Nysubanebdjed, son of the prophet of the Ram lord of Djedet Pasherbastet and the lady of the house Iry-es. His titles include:

A. it-ntr Èm-ntr Imn-rc Ddt, “god’s-father, prophet of Amunre of Djedet.” For the cult of Amun at Mendes see ibid., 12 n. 30; N. de G. Davies, The Temple of Hibis in El-Khargeh Oasis III. The Decoration (New York, 1953), pl. 33, col. 26-27; H. Kees, Die Goetterglaube im Alten Aegypten (Berlin, 1956), 394. B. wp-ntr.wy, “he who separates the two gods.” For this priestly title, shared by Mendes and Baqlieh, see JSSEA XXI/XXII, 12 n. 31; for a family of such-named priests, see D. Devauchelle, BSFE 106 (1986), 36 (early Persian period). C. mÈ-ib n nb-t3wy (var. tit ntrw), “trusted of the Lord of the Two Lands (var. image of the gods.”) Emend JSSEA XXI/XXII, 12, n. 32; on the variant see B. Ockinga, Die Gottebendbildlichkeit im Alten Aegypten und Alten Testament (Wiesbaden, 1984), 111. At this period the title has military overtones. D. mr màc, “general.” JSSEA XXI/XXII, 12 n. 33, where it is suggested that the title is sacerdotal. It may, however, be a genuine military designation: see P-M Chevereaux, Prosopographie des cadres militaires de la basse Époque (Paris, 1985), 260-63. This individual, however, is absent from the prosopography collected by M. Chevereaux. The date of Ny-subanebdjed, whose tomb is yet to be recovered, may belong to the end of the 6th century b.c. His relationship within local families at Mendes remains conjectural: see JSSEA XXI/XXII, 8.

27. Stamp seal of a \r-s3-Ist; R I, 3; catalogue number 760. It is difficult to determine whether the present object designates the god (for \r-s3-Ist at Mendes, see Mendes II, pl. 23 no. 55) or (more likely) an individual. The name is borne by the ruler of neighbouring Sebennytos in the early 7th century b.c. (F. Goma Die libyschen Fürstentümer des Deltas (Wiesbaden, 1974), 72), two high-ranking dignitaries at Mendes under the 26th Dynasty (Mendes II, 185), a general of Saite date with no provenience, though probably of Delta origin (Chevereaux, op.cit., no. 130). 28. Stamp seal of a T3-B3-n (?) ; Q II 4; catalogue no. 761. Unless to be read Ny-t3-B3, which seems unlikely, the name corresponds to a form well known in the 4th century (H. Ranke, Die aegyptischen Personennamen I [Glueckstadt, 1935], 387-88) and attested at Mendes (Mendes II, pl. 19, 47-48). The cartouche format with plumes suggests the bearer entertained royal pretensions; but his identity must remain conjectural.

42

chapter six

CHAPTER SIX

ROYAL NECROPOLIS: OBJECT CATALOGUE Susan Redford I. Fragments of Relief (Nos. 1 - 325), Figs.18-37, Pls. XVIII -XXVI, XXVIII 1.

Limestone. D. 18.8 x 12.4 x 4cm. Provenience: FI 3. Field No. F 21. Description: Executed in low raised relief, a border of stars above a band of hieroglyphs: ntr nfr... Unpainted.

12.

Limestone. D. 12.1 x 6.8 x 2.1cm. Provenience: FI 11. Field No. F 37. Description: non-descript with gold, reddish brown and blue paint.

2.

Limestone. D. 7.1 x 4.7 x 1.7cm. Provenience: FI 7. Field No. F 22. Description: Executed in sunken relief, a vertical band of hieroglyphs, non-descript, painted in blue, red and gold.

13.

Limestone. D. 12.8 x 7.2 x 3.2cm. Provenience: FI 8. Field No. F 38. Description: Executed in low raised relief, star with blue painted background.

14. 3.

Limestone. D. 14.5 x 12.4 x 3cm. Provenience: FI 7. Field No. F 27. Description: Executed in sunken relief, vertical band(?) of hieroglyphs: ...w... Black, blue and reddish brown paint.

Limestone. D. 7.5 x 7.7 x 1.9cm. Provenience: FI 11. Field No. F 40. Description: niwt.

15.

Limestone. D. 25 x 36 x 3.7cm. Provenience: FI 7. Field No. F 29. Description: Executed in low raised relief, a human leg? Traces of blue paint.

Limestone. D. 5.6 x 5.2 x 2.6cm. Provenience: FI 11. Field No. F 41. Description: Executed in low raised relief, nondescript with reddish brown and blue painted surfaces.

16.

Limestone. D. 17.4 x 12 x 4cm. Provenience: FI 8. Field No. F 30. Description: Executed in raised relief, non-descript with blue paint.

Limestone. D. 12.5 x 9.7 x 1.6cm. Provenience: FI 8. Field No. F 43. Description: Executed in low raised relief, blue painted stripes and red painted band.

17.

Limestone. D. 5.4 x 5.4 x 0.8cm. Provenience: FI 8. Field No. F 31. Description: Executed in sunken relief, non-descript with blue and reddish brown paint.

Limestone. D. 29.4 x 23 x 9.8cm. Provenience: FI 8. Field No. F 45. Description: Executed in sunken relief, border with band of hieroglyphs: nsw bity....

18.

Limestone. D. 43 x 15 x 36cm. Provenience: FI 9. Field No. F 46. Description: Incised design, umbel of lotus with blue and reddish brown paint.

19.

Limestone. D. 6.3 x 6.5 x 2.5cm. Provenience: FI 15. Field No. F 47. Description: Executed in raised relief, d- hieroglyph with traces of reddish brown paint.

20.

Limestone. D. 16.1 x 5 x 4.3cm. Provenience: FII 38. Field No. F 49. Description: Incised non-descript pattern.

21.

Limestone. D. 15 x 9.1 x 16.3cm. Provenience: FII 43. Field No. F 50. Description: Executed in sunken relief, hieroglyphic text: ..n s3 mwt..... Traces of blue paint.

22.

Limestone. D. 8.6 x 9.2 x 2.7cm. Provenience: FI 15. Field No. F 51. Description: Executed in sunken relief, striding human legs painted reddish brown.

4.

5.

6.

7.

Limestone. D. 12.3 x 8 x 4cm. Provenience: FI 8. Field No. F 32. Description: Executed in raised relief, non-descript.

8.

Limestone. D. 15.1 x 15.3 x 4.5cm. Provenience: FI 8. Field No. F 33. Description: Executed in sunken relief, sun-disc with uraeus.

9.

Limestone. D. 10 x 8.4 x 3.5cm. Provenience: FI 5. Field No. F 34. Description: Executed in sunken relief?, non-descript.

10.

Plaster. D. 12.5 x 12cm. Provenience: F III 18. Field No. F 109. Description: Border in raised relief painted red with border painted blue.

11.

Limestone. D. 40 x 13 x 40cm. Provenience: F 1. Field No. F 5b. Description: Register line and portion of glyph (perhaps bottom of nfr-sign).

royal necropolis: object catalogue 37.

Limestone. D. 9.8 x 29 x 9.5cm. Provenience: FI 23. Field No. F 75. Description: large ts hieroglyph.

38.

Limestone. D. 10 x 11 x 6.5cm. Provenience: F 108. Field No. F 93/74. Description: Executed in low raised relief, a papyrus plant outlined in red paint.

39.

Limestone. D. 11.8 x 11 x 21.8cm. Provenience: FI 9. Field No. F 57. Description: Executed in raised relief, non-descript “arc” in gold paint; possibly a cartouche.

Limestone. D. 12 x 9.8cm. Provenience: F 108. Field No. F 93/75. Description: Executed in low raised relief, a series of parallel lines.

40.

Limestone. D. 3.5 x 6.6 x 1cm. Provenience: FII 45. Field No. F 59. Description: Executed in raised relief, non-descript “arc”.

Limestone. D. 24 x 21.5cm. Provenience: F 108. Field No. F 76. Description: Executed in raised relief, smn[h] painted in red, blue and yellow.

41.

Limestone. D. 13.2 x 12.3 x 4cm. Provenience: FI 21. Field No. F 61. Description: Executed in low raised relief, feathers of bird’s outstretched wing.

Limestone. D. 27 x 25 x 13cm. Provenience: F 108. Field No. F 77. Description: Executed in low raised relief, hieroglyphic text: [mry] ntrw grg t3wy .

42.

Limestone. D. 24.1 x 10.8 x 8.4cm. Provenience: FI 15. Field No. F 62. Description: Executed in low raised relief, star with blue painted background.

Limestone. D. 8.4 x 5 x 3cm. Provenience: F 112. Field No. F 79. Description: Border design in raised relief painted red.

43.

Limestone. D. 11.1 x 6.8 x 2.8cm. Provenience: F I 22. Field No. F 63. Description: Executed in raised relief, Nb with traces of blue and reddish brown paint.

Limestone. D. 25 x 10 x 12cm. Provenience: F 108. Field No. F 80. Description: Executed in low raised relief, feathers on outstretched wing of BÈdty painted red and blue.

44.

Limestone. D. 17.6 x 16 x 6.5cm. Provenience: FII 42. Field No. F 64. Description: Executed in sunken relief, non-descript with trace of gold paint.

Limestone. D. 28 x 12cm. Provenience: F 108. Field No. F 81. Description: Border design painted red, blue and yellow.

45.

Limestone. D. 19 x 6.5cm. Provenience: F 108. Field No. F 82. Description: Rosette design executed in low relief.

46.

Limestone. D. 9 x 7.5cm. Provenience: F 108. Field No. F 83. Description: Hieroglyph à executed in sunken relief.

47.

Limestone. D. 11 x 7 x 12cm. Provenience: F 108. Field No. F 85. Description: Executed in sunken relief, non-descript.

48.

Limestone. D. 12 x 12.5cm. Provenience: F 108. Field No. F 86. Description: Blue painted band in sunken relief.

49.

Limestone. D. 3 x 10cm. Provenience: F 108. Field No. F 87. Description: Non-descript raised relief painted red.

50.

Limestone. D. 14.5 x 11.5cm. Provenience: F 108. Field No. F 88. Description: Executed in raised relief, pattern outlined in red paint.

51.

Limestone. D. 15 x 10cm. Provenience: F 107. Field No. F 89. Description: Kheker-frieze executed in low raised relief painted red & blue.

23.

Limestone. D. 7.1 x 7.4x 1.2cm. Provenience: FI 13. Field No. F 54. Description: Executed in sunken relief, hieroglyph ...nb.... Plastered surface.

24.

Limestone. D. 9.2 x 4 x 4.3cm. Provenience: FI 20. Field No. F 56. Description: Executed in sunken relief, profile of man’s face sporting short beard, painted reddish brown with traces of gold.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

43

Limestone. D. 18 x 18.5 x 6.5cm. Provenience: FI 22. Field No. F 66. Description: Executed in raised relief, non-descript with traces of reddish brown paint. Limestone. D. 7 x 6.8 x 1.8cm. Provenience: FI/II baulk. Field No. F 68. Description: Incised in kheker-frieze pattern with traces of blue paint.

33.

Limestone. D. 19.7 x 17.2 x 10cm. Provenience: FII 49. Field No. F 69. Description: Executed in sunken relief, non-descript with reddish brown paint.

34.

Limestone. D. 8.5 x 3 x 2cm. Provenience: FI 3. Field No. F 21b Description: Edge of arched area in raised relief.

35.

Limestone. D. 7.9 x 5.7 x 4.5cm. Provenience: FI 23. Field No. F 73. Description: Executed in raised relief, non-descript with blue paint.

36.

Limestone. D. 15.7 x 14.8 x 5.1cm. Provenience: FII 67. Field No. F 74. Description: Non-descript pattern with traces of blue and red paint.

chapter six

44 52.

Limestone. D. 18 x 12cm. Provenience: FI/II 13. Field No. F 93. Description: Executed in sunken relief, leg of male figure.

53.

Limestone. D. 17 x 13cm. Provenience: FI/II 13. Field No. F 94. Description: Uraeus with traces of red paint executed in low relief.

68.

Limestone. D. 20 x 10cm. Provenience: F 128. Field No. F 118. Description: Sun-disc (?) in sunken relief.

69.

Limestone. D. 16 x 11cm. Provenience: FIII 25. Field No. F 122. Description: Executed in raised relief, non-descript with red and blue paint.

70.

Limestone. D. 40 x 22cm. Provenience: FI/II 129. Field No. F 123. Description: Raised relief showing double plumes atop cartouche in pristine colors of blue, red and yellow.

71.

Limestone. D. 10 x 13cm. Provenience: FIII 28. Field No. F 124. Description: Hieroglyphic text in raised relief, ...t r m (?)..., with traces of yellow and red paint.

72.

Limestone. D. 6 x 5cm. Provenience: FIII 27. Field No. F 126. Description: Two lines executed in sunken relief.

73.

Limestone. D. 8 x 6cm. Provenience: FI/II 128. Field No. F 127. Description: Non-descript border design in red and yellow paint.

74.

Limestone. D. 8 x 6cm. Provenience: FIII 3. Field No. F 103. Description: Sunken relief with blue and red paint.

Limestone. D. 7.5 x 6cm. Provenience: FIII 33. Field No. F 130. Description: Portions of two glyphs, i c#à3(?), executed in sunken relief with blue paint.

75.

Limestone. D. 19 x 14cm. Provenience: F III 13. Field No. F 104. Description: Executed in sunken relief, the BÈdty wing with ntr-c3 .

Limestone. D. 10 x 18cm. Provenience: FIII33. Field No. F 131. Description: Sunken relief of front portion of human foot. Articulates with block #283.

76.

Limestone. D. 13 x 13cm. Provenience: FIII 33; FIII 39a; RII 7. Field No. F 132. Description: Band of hieroglypic text showing seated sun-god and a horn of a ram, executed in sunken relief with traces of blue paint. (Joined to fragments found elsewhere and registered as F 163 and R 5).

77.

Limestone. D. 25 x 12cm. Provenience: FIII 33. Field No. F 133. Description: Incised falcon with beginning of Horusname.

78.

Limestone. D. 7 x 5.5cm. Provenience: FI/II 132. Field No. F 134. Description: Incised striations.

79.

Limestone. D. 9 x 4cm. Provenience: FIII 33. Field No. F 135a. Description: Non-descript pattern painted red and blue.

80.

Limestone. D. 4.5 x 3cm. Provenience: FIII 33. Field No. F 135b. Description: Non-descript pattern painted blue.

81.

Limestone. D . 10 x 7cm.

54.

Limestone. D. 19 x 10cm. Provenience: FI/II 13. Field No. F 95. Description: Executed in low relief, wing of bird.

55.

Limestone. D. 18 x 6cm. Provenience: FI/II 13. Field No. F 96. Description: Border in sunken relief with traces of yellow paint.

56.

Limestone. D. 16 x 21cm. Provenience: FI/II 13. Field No. F 99. Description: Sunken relief badly damaged.

57.

Limestone. D. 13 x 14cm. Provenience: FI/II 13. Field No. F 100. Description: Line in sunken relief.

58.

59.

60.

61.

Limestone. D. 23 x 12cm. Provenience: FI/II 13. Field No. F 101. Description: Non-descript relief with traces of red and blue paint. Limestone. D. 33 x 29cm. Provenience: FI/II 13. Field No. F 102. Description: Two lines in sunken relief.

62.

Limestone. D. 15 x 11cm. Provenience: FIII 17. Field No. F 106. Description: Hieroglyphic text ...Épr...executed in raised relief painted red and blue.

63.

Limestone. D. 12 x 24cm. Provenience: FIII 18. Field No. F 107. Description: Executed in raised relief, nbw sign painted red and blue.

64.

65.

66.

67.

Provenience: FIII 21. Field No. F 112. Description: Hieroglyphic text à (or perhaps bookrole) nfr, executed in sunken relief.

Limestone. D. 8.5 x 7cm. Provenience: FIII 18. Field No. F 108. Description: Non-descript sunken relief. Limestone. D. 12.5 x 9cm. Provenience: FIII 18. Field No. F 110. Description: Executed in low raised relief, bottom of two unidenifiable glyphs. Limestone. D. 15 x 5cm. Provenience: FIII 20. Field No. F 111. Description: Executed in low raised relief, hieroglyphic text pn. Limestone. D. 12 x 12.5cm.

royal necropolis: object catalogue Provenience: FIII 33. Field No. F 135c. Descrption: Alternating bands painted red and blue. 82.

83.

Limestone. D. 6 x 8cm. Provenience: FIII 33. Field No. F 135d. Description: Border executed in raised relief, painted red and blue. Limestone. D. 49 x 23cm. Provenience: FIII 39. Field No. F 137. Description: Broken in two pieces. Band of large hieroglyphs, mry ntrw, executed in low raised relief and painted red, blue and yellow.

84.

Limestone. D. 48 x 15cm. Provenience: FIII 39. Field No. F 138. Description: Border executed in raised relief.

85.

Limestone. D. 13 x 15cm. Provenience: FIII 39. Field No. F 139. Description: Non-descript raised relief.

86.

87.

Limestone. D. 9 x 9cm. Provenience: FIII 39. Field No. F 140. Description: Executed in low raised relief, arc with radiating lines. Limestone. D. 6 x 11cm. Provenience: FIII 39. Field No. F 141. Description: Register line(?) executed in low raised relief and painted yellow surface.

88.

Limestone. D. 4 x 3cm. Provenience: FIII 39. Field No. F 143a. Description: Hieroglyph w executed in sunken relief.

89.

Limestone. D. 5 x 4cm. Provenience: FIII 39. Field No. F 143b. Description: Edge with trace of a glyph executed in sunken relief.

90.

91.

92.

93.

94.

95.

Limestone. D 28 x 12cm. Provenience: FIII 39. Field No. 146. Description: Mn hieroglyph in raised relief painted red and blue. Limestone. D. 15 x 17cm. Provenience: FIII 39. Field No. F 147. Description: Lines in sunken rellief painted yellow. Limestone. D. 10.5 x 9cm. Provenience: FI/II 136. Field No. F 148. Description: Sunken relief showing knees of kneeling figure and three strokes. Limestone. D. 21 x 9cm. Provenience: FI/II 134. Field No. F 150. Description: Occupants of the Night barque executed in sunken relief with features painted blue. Limestone. D. 11 x 2.5cm. Provenience: FIII 39a. Field No. F 152. Description: Portion of à plant executed in sunken relief with traces of red paint. Limestone. D. 12.5 x 14cm. Provenience: FIII 39a. Field No. F 153. Description: Portion of t hieroglyph executed in sunken relief.

45

96.

Limestone. D. 15 x 22cm. Provenience: FIII 39a. Field No. F 155. Description: Star in raised relief with blue painted background.

97.

Limestone. D. 32 x 21cm. Provenience: FIII 39a. Field No. F 160. Description: Bands of raised(?) relief.

98.

Limestone. D. 14 x 19cm. Provenience: FIII 39a. Field No. F 161. Description: Sun atop lotus executed in sunken relief.

99.

Limestone. D. 17 x 9cm. Provenience: FIII 39a. Field No. F 164. Description: Resused block. Original text in delicate low relief inscribed Énty i3btt. (Old Kingdom nomelist?). See above chapter 5, no. 6.

100. Limestone. D. 13 x 11cm. Provenience: FIII 39. Field No. F 167. Description: Portion of cartouche ring(?) in sunken relief. 101. Limestone. D. 11 x 4cm. Provenience: FIII 37. Field No. F 168. Description: Large t hieroglyph in sunken relief. 102. Limestone. D. 11 x 7cm. Provenience: FIII 39a. Field No. F 170. Description: Non-descript sunken relief. 103. Limestone. D. 5 x 6cm. Provenience: FIII 39a. Field No. F 171. Description: Border design (?) of arcs and lines executed in low relief and outlined in black and blue paint. 104. Limestone. D. 3.5 x 6cm. Provenience: FIII 39a. Field No. F 172. Description: Non-descript lines executed in low relief painted blue. 105. Limestone. D. 14 x 19cm. Provenience: FIII 39a. Field No. F 173. Description: Red painted stripes on a yellow background. 106. Limestone. D. 4 x 7cm. Provenience: FIII 39a. Field No. F 174. Description: Traces of hieroglyphs in sunken relief painted red and blue. 107. Limestone. D. 5 x 16cm. Provenience: FIII 39a. Field No. F 175. Description: Non-descript lines painted red and blue. 108. Limestone. D. 9 x 12cm. Provenience: FIII 39a. Field No. 176. Description: Border line in raised relief showing traces of blue paint. 109. Limestone. D. 23 x 10cm. Provenience: FIII 39a. Field No. F 177. Description: Executed in sunken relief, a band of text showing Ddt, beneath is border design, painted in red and yellow and outlined in black. 110. Limestone. D. 12 x 12cm. Provenience: FIII 39a. Field No. F 178.

chapter six

46

Description: Non-descript relief with yellow and blue paint. 111. Limestone. D. 16 x 16cm. Provenience: FIII 39a. Field No. F 179. Description: Badly battered surface showing traces of raised relief with blue and red paint. 112. Limestone. D. 6 x 10cm. Provenience: FIII 39a. Field No. F 181. Description: Hathor horns and disc crown executed in raised relief. 113. Limestone. D. 10 x 16cm. Provenience: FIII 39a. Field No. F 182. Description: Non-descript pattern in raised relief painted red. 114. Limestone. D. 18 x 8cm. Provenience: FIII 39a. Field No. F 183. Description: Feathers of bird’s wing in low raised relief. 115. Limestone. D. 10 x 5cm. Provenience: FIII 39a. Field No. F 185. Description: Border lines painted blue. 116. Limestone. D. 15 x 14cm. Provenience: FIII 39a. Field No. F 186. Description: Border lines unpainted. 117. Limestone. D. 23 x 8cm. Provenience: FIII 39a. Field No. 187. Description: Executed in sunken relief, hieroglyphic text: #È#. 118. Limestone. D. 11 x 11cm. Provenience: FIII 39a. Field No. F 188. Description: Traces of hieroglyphic text executed in sunken relief: #È# k3......

125. Limestone. D. 27 x 20 x 5cm. Provenience: FIII 40. Field No. F 205. Description: Border design executed in raised relief with traces of blue, red and yellow paint. 126. Limestone. D. 30 x 14cm. Provenience: FI/III Ext.7. Field No. F 95/2 Description: Portion of a cartouche in sunken relief with only traces of glyphs within. 127. Limestone. D. 14.6 x 8.9cm. Provenience: FI/III Ext.7. Field No. F 95/3 Description: Non-descript relief painted red. 128. Limestone. D. 56.5 x 22.9cm. Provenience: FI/III Ext.8. Field No.F 95/5 Description: Executed in low raised relief, two human feet facing out in opposite directions painted in reddish brown. 129. Limestone. D. 36 x 9cm. Provenience: FI/II 1002. Field No. F 95/7. Description: Traces of hieroglyphic text executed in raised relief: head of f-snake visible. 130. Plaster. D 9 x 5.5cm. Provenience: FI/II 13. Field No. F 97. Description: Painted bands of red and blue. 131. Plaster. D. 6 x 2.5cm. Provenience: FI/II 13. Field No. F 98. Description: Painted bands of red and blue. 132. Plaster. D. 5 x 4cm. Provenience: FIII 23. Field No. F 113. Description: Painted detailing of feathers in red and blue. 133. Plaster. D. 2.1 x 3cm. Provenience: FIII 27. Field No. F 128. Description: Blue painted surface.

119. Limestone. D. 17 x 8cm. Provenience: FIII 39a. Field No. F 189. Description: Badly battered surface with wd-sign and blue painted border.

134. Plaster. D. 13.5 x 5.5cm. Provenience: FIII 39a. Field No. 154. Description: Blue painted surface.

120. Limestone. D. 9 x 7cm. Provenience: FIII 39a. Field No. F 190. Description: Fragment incrusted with plaster surface and traces of paint.

135. Plaster. D. 7 x 7cm. Provenience: FIII 39a. Field No. F 162. Description: Impression of alternating bands painted red and blue.

121. Limestone. D. 14.5 x 17cm. Provenience: FIII 39a. Field No. F 192. Description: Executed in sunken relief, an almost complete depiction of a recumbent lion.

136. Limestone. D. 15 x 12cm. Provenience: FI/II 124. Field No. F 121. Description: Traces of fluting on two adjacent planes.

122. Limestone. D. 7 x 14.5cm. Provenience: FIII 39a. Field No. F 193. Description: Traces of hieroglyphs in raised relief: É(?)#...

137. Plaster. D. 25 x 15cm. Provenience: FIII 39a. Field No. F 180. Description: Impression of a large cartouche ring with traces of stp.n within. Also, hieratic number in red ochre on back of block.

123. Limestone. D. 11 x 15cm. Provenience: FIII 39a. Field No. F 195. Description: Two hieroglyphic r’s in low raised relief with yellow and blue paint.

138. Plaster. D. 13 x 11cm. Provenience: FIII 39a. Field No. F 194. Description: Impression of non-descript pattern with red pigment.

124. Limestone. D 20 x 11cm. Provenience: FIII 39a. Field No. F 197. Description: Border (?) in raised relief.

139. Plaster. D. 10.1 x 8cm. Provenience: FI/II Ext.8. Field No. F95/4. Description: Impression of register line and edge of glyph painted blue and red.

royal necropolis: object catalogue 140. Limestone. D. 4.3 x 6cm. Provenience: PI 16. Field No. P 93/11. Description: Raised relief of stars. 141. Limestone. D. 8 x 3cm. Provenience: PI 16. Field No. P 93/12. Description: Raised relief of a hieroglyph(?) with traces of blue paint. 142. Limestone. D 5 x 3cm. Provenience: PI 22. Field No. P 93/14. Description: Border design in raised relief with traces of red paint. 143. Limestone. D. 9 x 4cm. Provenience: PI 29 Field No. P 93/18. Description: Blue painted line in raised relief. 144. Limestone. D. 16 x 15cm. Provenience: P 31. Field No. P 93/19. Description: Hieroglyphic text in raised relief: wr [#3] à3 [ànk]? 145. Limestone. D. 11 x 24cm. Provenience: PI 28. Field No. P 93/20. Description: Vulture headdress executed in raised relief. 146. Limestone. D. 28 x 26cm. Provenience: PI 28. Field No. P 93/21. Description: Kheker-frieze in raised relief with traces of blue paint. 147. Limestone. D. 15 x 14cm. Provenience: PI 31. Field No. P 93/22. Description: Portion of djed-pillar(?)or falcon feathers in raised relief. 148. Plaster. D. 9 x 8cm. Provenience: PI 31. Field No. P 93/23. Description: Red painted lines on buff and blue border. 149. Limestone. D. 34 x 12cm. Provenience: PI 31. Field No. P 93/24. Description: Bottom portion of kheker frieze executed in raised relief. 150. Plaster. D 32 x 16cm. Provenience: PI 31. Field No. P 93/25. Description: Non-descript impressed design.

47

155. Plaster. D. 11 x 11 x 3.75cm. Provenience: PI(fall). Field No. P 94/26. Description: Raised impression of Hathor head with traces of red ochre on face. 156. Limestone. D. 9.5 x 5.75 x 2.5cm. Provenience: PI 29 Field No. P 94/27. Description: Atef plume in sunken relief with traces of red and blue paint. 157. Limestone. D. 31 x 12 x 8cm. Provenience: P I 29 Field No. P94/28. Description: Delicate scale pattern with edge in raised relief. 158. Limestone. D. 37 x 19.5 x 49cm. Provenience: P I 29 Field No. P 94/30. Description: Executed in sunken relief, large scale hieroglyph, #nÉ in pristine colors of red and blue. 159. Limestone. D. 11 x 6 x 2.3cm. Provenience: P I 29 Field No. P 94/31. Description: Corner block with single line in sunken relief. 160. Limestone. D. 17 x 15 x 3.32cm. Provenience: P I 29 Field No. P 94/32. Description: Nbw-sign in low relief. 161. Limestone. D. 14 x 12 x 4cm. Provenience: P I 29 Field No. P 94/35. Description: Executed in delicate low relief, portion of an arm painted reddish brown with a yellow painted hieroglyph. 162. Limestone. D. 23 x 20 x 52cm. Provenience: P/F baulk 16. Field No. P 94/36. Description: Outstretched wing with w3s-scepter and m3#t feather above executed in sunken relief. 163. Limestone. D.40 x 15 x 9.5cm. Provenience: P I 29 Field No. P 93/37. Description: Coarse plastered surface modelled in raised relief depicting a nbw sign decorated with red and blue painted stripes. 164. Limestone. D. 7.5 x 5 x 2.5cm. Provenience: P/F baulk 16. Field No. P 94/38. Description: Portion of large n executed in raised relief.

151. Limestone. D. 29 x 15cm. Provenience: PI 31. Field No. P 93/27. Description: Head of nome personification?

165. Limestone. D. 10 x 10 x 4cm. Provenience: P/F baulk 17. Field No. P 94/39. Description: Portion of hieroglyphic text in raised relief: ...rk..., and painted red and blue.

152. Limestone. D. 9 x 4cm. Provenience: PI 31. Field No. P 93/28. Description: Nw jars in raised relief with traces of yellow paint.

166. Limestone. D. 20 x 18 x 7cm. Provenience: P/F baulk 18. Field No. P 94/41. Description: Traces of hieroglyphic text executed in sunken relief: “Edjo, Lady of [Heaven]”.

153. Limestone. D. 7 x 11 x 18cm. Provenience: PI 32. Field No. P 93/29. Description: Hieroglyphic text executed in raised relief: ...Èty.t...

167. Limestone. D. 14.5 x 7.5 x 3cm. Provenience: P/F baulk 18. Field No. P 94/42. Description: Tip of outstretched wing executed in sunken relief.

154. Limestone. D. 20 x 15cm. Provenience: PI 32. Field No.P 93/30. Description: Non-descript pattern in sunken relief.

168. Limestone. D. 12.5 x 8.5 x 3cm. Provenience: P/F baulk 23. Field No. P 94/43. Description: Three parallel bands painted red, black and yellow.

48

chapter six

169. Limestone. D. 7.5 x 6 x 5cm. Provenience: P/F baulk 23. Field No. P 94/45. Description: Non-descript pattern in raised relief. 170. Limestone. D. 16 x 6.5 x 4cm. Provenience: P/F baulk 24. Field No. P 94/46. Description: Non-descript lines in raised relief painted blue. 171. Plaster. D. 11 x 8cm. Provenience: P/F baulk 25. Field No. P 94/47. Description: Painted stripes of red and blue. 172. Limestone. D. 12 x 7 x 4cm. Provenience: P/F baulk 26. Field No. P 94/50. Description: Bands in raised relief. 173. Limestone. D. 10 x 6 x 4.5cm. Provenience: P/F baulk 26. Field No. P 94/51. Description: Non-descript. 174. Limestone. D. 9 x 4 x 2cm. Provenience: P I 51. Field No. P 94/ 52. Description: Hieroglyphic text executed in sunken relief: ...nt... 175. Limestone. D. 24 x 11 x 11.5cm. Provenience: PI 62. Field No. P 94/59. Description: Sunken relief showing portion of nbwsign. 176. Plaster. D. 7 x 5 x 5cm. Provenience: PI 66. Field No. P 94/61. Description: Non-descript raised relief painted blue and red. 177. Limestone. D. 17 x 14 x 10cm. Provenience: PI 80. Field No. P 94/65. Description: Vulture wing(?) executed in raised relief. 178. Limestone. D. 14 x 6 x 7cm. Provenience: PI 82. Field No. P 94/66. Description: Surface is partially plastered. Ankle and foot visible executed in sunken relief, with traces of reddish brown pigment. 179. Limestone. D. 5.5 x 4.4cm. Provenience: PII 11. Field No. P 95/3. Description: Hieroglyphic text. 180. Limestone. D. 15.4 x 8.1cm. Provenience: PII 21. Field No. P 95/8. Description: Badly battered surface with traces of red paint. 181. Limestone. D. 22.5 x 7.4cm. Provenience: PII 30. Field No. P 95/12. Description: No noticeable decoration but with traces of red paint. 182. Limestone. D. 10 x 7cm. Provenience: PII 25. Field No. P 95/18. Description: Non-descript pattern in sunken relief. 183. Limestone. D. 20.7 x 20cm. Provenience: PII 42. Field No. P 95/21. Description: Corner portion of a border in low relief with traces of blue, black and red paint, the surface of which had been plastered over.

184. Limestone. D. 7.5 x 10cm. Provenience: PII 42. Field No. P 95/22. Description: Portion of hieroglyphs (?) and register line in raised relief. 185. Limestone. D. 19.8 x 9.9cm. Provenience: P II 42. Field No. P 95/23. Description: Hieroglyph È3 executed in sunken relief with red, blue and yellow paint. 186. Limestone. D. 20 x 15cm. Provenience: PII42. Field No.P95/24. Description: Remains of hieroglyphic text, mi R#, executed in low raised relief. 187. Limestone. D. 10.6 x 6.5cm. Provenience: PII 42. Field No. P 95/25. Description: Non-descript pattern in raised relief with traces of blue paint. 188. Limestone. D. 9.2 x 6cm. Provenience: PII 44. Field No. P 95/26. Description: Non-descript pattern painted red and blue. 189. Limestone. D. 10 x 12cm. Provenience: PII 46. Field No. P 95/29. Description: Border design (?) in sunken relief painted blue and red. 190. Limestone. D. 7.1 x 2.8cm. Provenience: PII 46. Field No.95/30a. Description: Tail of snake (?) and n-sign executed in sunken relief. 191. Limestone. D. 3.6 x 3cm. Provenience: PII 46. Field No. P 95/30b. Description: s-sign executed in sunken relief. 192. Limestone. D. 4.8 x 4cm. Provenience: PII 46. Field No. P 95/30c. Description: Non-descript lines in raised relief. 193. Limestone. D. 5.5 x 3cm. Provenience: PII 46. Field No. P 95/30d. Description: Line in raised relief. 194. Limestone. D. 14.7 x 12cm. Provenience: PII 46. Field No. P 95/31. Description: Delicate carving of an owl’s face in low relief. 195. Limestone. D. 23 x 7.2cm. Provenience: PII 47. Field No. P 95/32. Description: Traces of hieroglyphs , n t and Èr, executed in sunken relief with coating of yellow plaster on the surface. 196. Limestone. D. 10 x 10cm. Provenience: PI ext. 20. Field No. P ext.16. Description: Incised striated lines on surface. 197. Limestone. D. 8 x 9cm. Provenience: PI ext. 25. Field No. P ext.19. Description: Portions of two hieroglyphs executed in sunken relief: n s. 198. Limestone. D. 3.5 x 4cm. Provenience: PI ext. 27. Field No. P ext.23. Description: Raised bar and painted red, blue and white.

royal necropolis: object catalogue 199. Limestone. D. 10.9 x 6cm. Provenience: PI ext. 27. Field No. P ext.24. Description: Non-descript pattern in raised relief with traces of yellow paint. 200. Limestone. D. 4.8 x 3.5cm. Provenience: PI ext. 28. Field No. P ext.25. Description: Red painted outline of a falcon’s head with other traces of blue, red and white paint on surface. 201. Limestone. D. 8.8 x 4.5cm. Provenience: PI ext. 28. Field No. P ext.26. Description: A king’s head wearing the blue crown, with arm extended in offering pose, executed in delicate low raised relief. 202. Limestone. D. 12.4 x 8cm. Provenience: PI ext. 30. Field No. P ext.31. Description: Remnant of a register of a hieroglyphic text executed in sunken relief: ...Dd-mdw in Iw.s#3[s]...., painted in blue. 203. Plaster. D. 7 x 4cm. Provenience: PI ext. 30a. Field No. P ext. 35. Description: Incised line with painted surface.

49

Description: The head of a p3-bird outlined in blue paint. 213. Limestone. D. 6 x 5cm. Provenience: RII 7. Field No. R 11. Description: Traces of a hieroglyphic text. 214. Limestone. D. 9 x 15cm. Provenience: RIII 3. Field No. R 17. Description: Non-descript raised relief with red paint. 215. Limestone. D. 14 x 8cm. Provenience: R III 3. Field No. R 18. Description: Incised hieroglyphs: a r# with a ms beneath. 216. Limestone. D. 6 x 6cm. Provenience: RIII 3. Field No. R 20. Description: Badly battered surface; non-descript reused as fish stela (see #417). 217. Limestone. D. 18 x 11cm. Provenience: RIII 8. Field No. R 28. Description: Ankh and w3s-scepter superimposed, from a Pta relief carved in delicate low relief.

204. Limestone. D. 15 x 11cm. Provenience: PI ext. 31. Field No. P ext. 36. Description: Remains of a deeply carved n.

218. Plaster. D. 6.5 x 6cm. Provenience: RIII 8. Field No. R 30. Description: Non-descript impression painted dark red and bright blue.

205. Limestone. D. 10 x 4cm. Provenience: PI ext. 31. Field No. P ext. 37. Description: Part of a niwt sign executed in sunken relief.

219. Limestone. D. 11 x 6cm. Provenience: RIII 8. Field No. R 31. Description: Border lines in sunken relief painted red, blue and yellow.

206. Limestone. D. 22 x 22cm. Provenience: PI ext. 31. Field No. P ext.38. Description: Border lines in raised relief, with band of painted vertical cartouches, blank.

220. Limestone. D. 5 x 4cm. Provenience: RIII 8. Field No. R 32. Description: Niwt-sign with plural strokes beneath executed in sunken relief.

207. Plaster. D. 11.5 x 6.5cm. Provenience: PI ext. 30a. Field No. P ext.40. Description: The top portion of a papyrus plant in raised relief.

221. Limestone. D. 7 x 6cm. Provenience: RIII 8. Field No. R 33. Description: t hieroglyph executed in sunken relief.

208. Limestone. D. 44 x 14cm. Provenience: PI ext. 31. Field No. P ext. 44. Description: Bird’s plummage in raised relief. 209. Limestone. D. 20 x 10cm. Provenience: RI 5. Field No. R 3. Description: Executed in raised relief, an ankh and stroke painted blue. 210. Limestone. D. 9.5 x 6cm. Provenience: RII 7. Field No. R 6. Description: Beautifully painted panel depicting a frieze of standing lotus and papyrus separated by a sm3-plant in colors of red and blue. A border of black, red and buff stripes is executed in low raised relief. 211. Limestone. D. 11 x 19cm. Provenience: RII 7. Field No. R 8. Description: Part of a nbw-sign executed in sunken relief with traces of black and yellow paint. 212. Limestone. D. 5 x 4cm. Provenience: RII 7. Field No. R 10.

222. Limestone. D. 14 x 4cm. Provenience: RIII 8. Field No. R 34. Description: kheker-frieze painted blue, red, black and yellow. 223. Limestone. D. 6 x 7cm. Provenience: RIII 8. Field No. R 35. Description: Kheker(?) executed in sunken relief. 224. Limestone. D. 19 x 17cm. Provenience: RIII 8. Field No. R 36. Description: Large format hieroglyphs, ir .n executed in sunken relief. 225. Limestone. D. 9 x 12 x 15cm. Provenience: RIII 8. Field No. R 37. Description: Non-descript pattern in high raised relief. 226. Limestone. D. 4 x 3.6cm. Provenience: RIII 10. Field No. R 39. Description: Top of a w3s-scepter executed in raised relief.

50

chapter six Description: Non-descript design lightly incised.

227. Limestone. D. 13 x 9cm. Provenience: RIII 10. Field No. R 40. Description: Beginning portion of text [#nÉ(?)] nb Ér .i, [...]nb É[r...] brightly painted in colors of blue, white and black with fine detailing.

242. Plaster. D. 9 x 7.5 x 2cm. Provenience: R III baulk 2. Field No. R 76. Description: Impression of joint between two blocks.

228. Limestone. D. 20 x 9cm. Provenience: RIII 10. Field No. R 41. Description: Hieroglypic register showing ....n.... and register line executed in sunken relief.

243. Limestone. D. 24 x 11 x 6.5cm. Provenience: R III baulk 2. Field No. R 77. Description: Portion of nbw sign visible in sunken relief.

229. Limestone. D. 10 x 4cm. Provenience: RIII 10. Field No. R 42. Description: Non-descript pattern executed in sunken relief with plaster still adhering to surface.

244. Limestone. D. 11 x 5.5 x 3cm. Provenience: R III baulk 2. Field No. R 78. Description: Ram’s horn executed in sunken relief.

230. Limestone. D. 34 x 25cm. Provenience: RIII 10. Field No. R 43. Description: An outstretched wing of vulture holding a fan beautifully carved in sunken relief with pristine colors of blue, red and white. 231. Limestone. D. 15 x 15 x 15cm. Provenience: R III fall #2. Field No. R 48. Description: Non-descript sunken relief with traces of red and blue paint. 232. Limestone. D. 25 x 14 x 16cm. Provenience: RIII fall #2. Field No. R 51. Description: Three raised lines c. 1 cm. thick. 233. Limestone. D. 23 x 8.5 x 18cm. Provenience: RIII fall #2. Field No. R 53. Description: Non-descript pattern in sunken relief. 234. Limestone. D. 12.5 x 8.5 x 7cm. Provenience: R II/III 5. Field No. R 54. Description: Register line in sunken relief. 235. Limestone. D. 11.5 x 3 x 13cm. Provenience: R II/III 5. Field No. R 55. Description: Shallow relief of non-descript pattern. Traces of red ochre visible. 236. Limestone. D. 5 x 3.5 x 6cm. Provenience: R III 2 baulk. Field No. R 68.Description: Two incised parallel lines. 237. Plaster. D. 14 x 12 x 3cm. Provenience: R III baulk 2. Field No. R 69. Description: Non-descript impression with a trace of blue paint. 238. Limestone. D. 13 x 8 x 1cm. Provenience: R III baulk 2. Field No. R 71.Description: Remains of hieroglyphic text executed in sunken relief: r and f signs visible with red, yellow, and blue paint. 239. Limestone. D. 6 x 3 x 1.5cm. Provenience: RIII baulk 2. Field No. R 72. Description: Quail chick executed in sunken relief with traces of blue paint.

245. Plaster. D. 10 x 8.5 x 3cm. Provenience: R III baulk 3. Field No. R 81. Description: Impression of joint between two blocks. 246. Limestone. D. 13 x 9 x 3.5cm. Provenience: R III baulk 4. Field No. R 82. Description: Non-descript pattern in sunken relief with traces of blue and black paint. 247. Limestone. D. 10 x 9.5 x 4cm. Provenience: R III baulk 4. Field No. R 83. Description: Portion of hieroglyphic text reading: dd mdw i[n] in sunken relief with red and blue paint. 248. Limestone. D. 16.5 x 11 x 4.5cm. Provenience: R III baulk 5. Field No. R 104. Description: Non-descript raised relief. 249. Limestone. D. 12 x 8cm. Provenience: R III ext. 7. Field No. R ext.7. Description: Remains of hieroglyphic text (....#nÉ) executed in low, raised relief. 250. Limestone. D. 8.9 x 6.2cm. Provenience: R III ext. 8. Field No. R ext.8. Description: Two bands in raised relief. 251. Limestone. D. 6.9 x 4.2cm. Provenience: R III ext. 12. Field No. R ext.10. Description: Completely smooth surface painted orange. 252. Limestone. D. 23.1 x 14.2cm. Provenience: R III ext. 12. Field No. R ext.11. Description: Non-descript design plus remains of hieroglyphic text...ht nb ir(?)..., executed in low, raised relief. 253. Limestone. D. 14.7 x 12.8cm. Provenience: R III ext. 14. Field No. R ext.17. Description: Carved border design. 254. Limestone. D. 10.3 x 7.2cm. Provenience: R III ext. 16. Field No. R ext.19. Description: A portion of a hand (the d hieroglyph) in raised relief.

240. Limestone. D. 9 x 5 x 1.5cm. Provenience: RIII baulk 2. Field No. R 74. Description: Yellow painted band in raised relief.

255. Limestone. D. 8.3 x 5.8cm. Provenience: R III ext. 19. Field No. R ext.21. Description: Two arms with closed fist shown in opposite view and executed in low, raised relief.

241. Limestone. D. 27 x 14.5 x 4cm. Provenience: R III baulk 2. Field No. R 75.

256. Limestone. D. 8.8 x 8.8cm. Provenience: R III ext. 19. Field No. R ext.22.

royal necropolis: object catalogue Description: Band in raised relief with traces of blue paint. 257. Limestone. D. 13 x 14cm. Provenience: R III ext. 24. Field No. R ext.26. Description: Incised and painted with red and blue stripes of a headdress. 258. Limestone. D. 16.2 x 7.1cm. Provenience: R III ext. 30. Field No. R ext.29. Description: Incised with portion of nsw-plant, possibly within a cartouche. 259. Plaster. D. 17 x 5cm. Provenience: R III ext. 31. Field No. R ext.30. Description: Impression of ms hieroglyph and bottom of reed leaf. 260. Limestone. D. 16.9 x 5cm. Provenience: R III ext. 31. Field No. R ext.31. Description: Non-descript design in raised relief with traces of red paint. 261. Limestone. D. 7.7 x 6cm. Provenience: R III ext. 31. Field No. R ext.32. Description: Non-descript pattern painted red. 262. Limestone. D 13.5 x 12cm. Provenience: R III ext. 31. Field No. R ext.33/34. Description: Non-descript design painted bright blue.

51

271. Limestone. D. 16.5 x 8.5cm. Provenience: R III ext. 32. Field No. R ext.43. Description: Non-descript patter in raised relief with traces of paint. 272. Limestone. D. 28.1 x 7.7cm. Provenience: R III ext. 33. Field No. R ext.44. Description: Portion of hieroglyphic text executed in low, raised relief. 273. Limestone. D. 6.9 x 6.4cm. Provenience: R III ext. 33. Field No. R ext.45. Description: niwt-sign in sunken relief. 274. Limestone. D. 8 x 4.5cm. Provenience: R III ext. 33. Field No. R ext.46. Description: Head of vulture in low, raised relief. 275. Limestone. D. 18.2 x 11cm. Provenience: R III ext. 33. Field No. R ext.47. Description: Non-descript pattern in raised relief. 276. Limestone. D. 22.8 x 21cm. Provenience: R III ext. 33. Field No. R ext.48. Description: Remains of nbw sign(?) with an arm beneath executed in sunken relief. 277. Limestone. D. 10 x 10cm. Provenience: R III ext. 33. Field No. R ext.49. Description: Non-descript image.

263. Limestone. D. 13.3 x 7cm. Provenience: R III ext. 31. Field No. R ext.35. Description: Portion of 3Ét hieroglyph?

278. Limestone. D. 6.4 x 4.4cm. Provenience: R III ext. 33. Field No. R ext.50. Description: Carved raised band with some blue paint adhering.

264. Limestone. D. 12.1 x 8.3cm. Provenience: R III ext. 31. Field No. R ext.36. Description: Imn-Ètp executed in low, raised relief with yellow painted background and traces of red and blue in hieroglyphs.

279. Limestone. D. 7 x 8cm. Provenience: R I/II... Field No. R ext. 52. Description: Incised curl from red crownpainted red with #3 sign to the left, also painted red.

265. Limestone. D. 21.7 x 10cm. Provenience: R III ext. 32. Field No. R ext.37. Description: Carved pattern indicating feathers on a wing.

280. Plaster. D. 5 x 4cm. Provenience: Q I 8. Field No. Q 2. Description: Impression is of decorative border.

266. Limestone. D. 16.4 x 11.3cm. Provenience: R III ext. 32. Field No. R ext.38. Description: Uraeus on left with register line and remains of hieroglyphs executed in sunken relief.

281. Plaster. D. 6 x 4cm. Provenience: Q II 4. Field No. Q 4. Description: Impression is of portion of cartouche ring with a part of a hieroglyphic sign within. Traces if blue and red paint adhering.

267. Limestone. D. 31.3 x 14cm. Provenience: R III ext. 32. Field No. R ext.39. Description: Corner fragment with tail of f snake in sunken relief.

282. Limestone. D. 12 x 11cm. Provenience: Q II 8. Field No. Q 11. Description: Blue painted border with thin red-paint line.

268. Limestone. D. 16.7 x 8cm. Provenience: R III ext. 32. Field No. R ext.40. Description: Name of b3 nb dd executed in sunken relief.

283. Limestone. D. 30 x 23cm. Provenience: Q II 8. Field No. Q 12. Description: Sunken relief showing god’s/king’s leg with ceremonial tail. Articulates with block #75.

269. Limestone. D. 17 x 10cm. Provenience: R III ext. 32. Field No. R ext.41. Description: di hieroglph with traces(?) of 3 sign carved in sunken relief.

284. Limestone. D. 15 x 16cm. Provenience: Q II 8. Field No. Q 13. Description: Incised relief showing a sash.

270. Limestone. D. 24.5 x 10cm. Provenience: R III ext. 32. Field No. R ext.42. Description: Broad band in raised relief.

285. Limestone. D. 27 x 14cm. Provenience: Q II 8. Field No. Q 14. Description: Non-descript raised relief with lines of yellow and blues stripes.

52

chapter six

286. Limestone. D. 26 x 26cm. Provenience: Q/R baulk 1. Field No. Q 15. Description: Low relief showing edge of reed mat with yellow painted bindings.

301. Plaster. D. 10 x 6cm. Provenience: Sw X 13. Field No. S 72. Description: Soft plaster with trace of non-descript impression.

287. Limestone. D. 10 x 8 x 1.5cm. Provenience: Sw surface. Field No. S x1. Description: Inscription reading “ddt” executed in low, raised relief.

302. Limestone. D. 6 x 2.5 x 1.5cm. Provenience: Sw X 11b. Field No. S 74. Description: Raised relief, possibly a portion of an arm.

288. Limestone. D 2.5 x 2.2 x 1.5cm. Provenience: Ss II 4. Field No. S 1. Description: Sunken relief showing tip of a wing.

303. Plaster. D. 12 x 7 x 5cm. Provenience: Sw VII 6/7. Field No. S 75. Description: Rounded indentations.

289. Limestone. D. 7.5 x 3.5 x 1.25cm. Provenience: Ss III 2. Field No. S 4. Description: Portion of a plume executed in low, raised relief.

304. Limestone. D. 9 x 4cm. Provenience: Sw III/IV 1. Field No. S 95/13. Description: Non-descript lines.

290. Limestone. D. 9.25 x 8 x 7cm. Provenience: Sn I 4. Field No. S 9. Description: Several incised circles.

305. Limestone. D. 9 x 14cm. Provenience: Sw III/IV 2. Field No. S 95/14. Description: Remains of text, nsw-bity executed in fine low relief.

291. Limestone. D. 19.5 x 9.5 x 8cm. Provenience: Sw IV 3. Field No. S 12. Description: Sunken relief showing remains of an ankh sign.

306. Limestone. D. 8 x 7cm. Provenience: Sw III/IV 2. Field No. S 95/15. Description: Traces of plumes with sun-disc executed in fine low relief.

292. Limestone. D. 79 x 49 x 39cm.Provenience: Sw IV 1. Field No. S 13. Description: Large ceiling block with finely incised vulture’s wing.

307. Limestone. D. 10 x 4cm. Provenience: Sw III/IV 2. Field No. S 95/16. Description: Remains of star pattern executed in fine low relief.

293. Limestone. D. 8 x 6 x 2.5cm. Provenience: Sw III 1. Field No. S 18. Description: Register lines executed in low, raised relief.

308. Limestone. D. 20 x 13cm. Provenience: Sw III/IV 2. Field No. S 95/17. Description: Inscription s3 r# and bottom edge of cartouche ring executed in fine low relief.

294. Grey granite. D. 8.5 x 2.8 x 1cm.Provenience: Sw III 3. Field No. S 19. Description: Low, raised relief showing curved bands.

309. Limestone. D. 11.8 x 8.7 x 9.4cm. Provenience: H III 1. Field No. H2. Description: Corner fragment with Ètp-sign in sunken relief.

295. Limestone. D. 8 x 8x 6cm. Provenience: Sw II 1c. Field No. S 21. Description: Remains of star pattern executed in low, raised relief.

310. Limestone. D. 5.9 x 3.6 x 5.1cm. Provenience: H III 1. Field No. H3. Description: Wide border in sunken relief.

296. Limestone. D. 13 x 9 x 3.5cm. Provenience: Sn I 31. Field No. S 22. Description: Fine grooves executed in low, raised relief with traces of red paint.

311. Limestone. D. 10.9 x 4.6 x 1.7cm. Provenience: I II 13. Field No. I 14. Description: Remains of text in sunken relief with traces of blue paint.

297. Limestone. 15 x 14 x 3cm. Provenience: Sn I 34. Field No. S 23. Description: Fine grooves executed in low, raised relief. (Red ochre marking on back).

312. Plaster. D. 8 x 5cm. Provenience: G I fill. Field No. G 95/2. Description: Impression of four squares in center.

298. Limestone. D. 9 x 8 x 2.25cm. Provenience: Sn I 35. Field No. S 24. Description: Fine grooves executed in low, raised relief. Red ochre markings on back. 299. Black Granite. D. 10 x 9.5 x 1.5cm.Provenience: Sw II/III 7. Field No. S 29. Description: Inscription in sunken relief. 300. Plastered limestone. D. 11 x 12 x 3cm. Provenience: Sw VII-A2. Field No. S 47. Description: Plaster is impressed with non-descript lines.

313. Plaster. D. 6.5 x 5.3cm. Provenience: G I fill. Field No. G 95/3. Description: Impression of five to six horizontal lines. 314. Limestone. D. 2.3 x 7.2 x 6.3cm. Provenience: A I 9. Field No. A1. Description: non-descript. 315. Plaster. D. 14.3 x 11.3 x 9.3cm. Provenience: A I 12. Field No. A 4. Description: Border impression. 316. Limestone. D. 17 x 5 x 7cm. Provenience: A I 2. Field No. A 32.

royal necropolis: object catalogue Description: Star pattern in raised relief. 317. Limestone. D. 27 x 22 x 16cm. Provenience: A II 3. Field No. A 34. Description: Vulture wing pattern in fine low relief.

53

322. Limestone. D. 19.5 x 12 x 5.4cm. Provenience: C II 5. Field No. C 27. Description: Non-descript pattern in low relief with traces of brownish-red paint. 323. Limestone. d 15.8 x 20.4 x 8cm. Provenience: C I 3. Field No. C 23. Description: Leg of figure in raised relief with traces of brownish-red paint.

318. Limestone. D. 31 x 34 x 15cm. Provenience: C I 4. Field No. C 39. Description: Wing of bird in low relief. 319. Limestone. D. 40 x 43 x 16cm. Provenience: C I 4. Field No. C 38. Description: non-descript.

324. Limestone. D. 13.5 x 7 x 2cm. Provenience: C I 2. Field No. C 16. Description: Shoulder(?) of figure in sunken relief painted brownish-red.

320. Limestone. D. 14 x 17.3 x 26.7cm. Provenience: C I 4. Field No. C 37. Description: Non-descript relief.

325. Limestone. D. 3.9 x 7.6 x 3.1cm. Provenience: C III 2. Field No. C 6. Description: Feather pattern in low relief.

321. Limestone. 7.9 x 7.2 x 2.7cm. Provenience: C I 3. Field No. C 29. Description: Bands in raised relief.

II. Architectural Blocks (Nos. 326 - 420) Figs. 38-43 326. Limestone. D. 14.5 x 20 x 12.8cm. Provenience: C II 4. Field No. C 24. Description: Torus roll fragment.

334b. Limestone. 10 x 6cm. Provenience: BI 51. Field No. B 15 Description: Red ochre mason’s mark.

327. Plaster. D. 11.1 x 11.9 x 7.4cm. Provenience: C I 3. Field No. C 22. Description: Impression of door pivot?

334c. Limestone. 19 x 8cm. Provenience: BI 56. Field No. B 16 Description: Red ochre mason’s mark.

328. Limestone. D. 3.4 x 4.6 x 1.7cm. Provenience: C III 2. Field No. C 4. Description: Fragment with carved out “channel”.

334d. Limestone. 9 x 10cm. Provenience: BI 57. Field No. B 17 Description: Red ochre mason’s mark.

329. Limestone. D. 2.5 x 3.1cm. Provenience: C IV 4. Field No. C 1. Description: Cylinder fragment.

335. Limestone. D. 16 x 16 x 12cm. Provenience: A II 9a. Field No. A 27. Description: door pivot.

330. Limestone. D. 14 x 15 x 9.2cm. Provenience: C I 4. Field No. C 36. Description: Corner fragment with raised border.

336. Limestone. Diam. 15cm. H. 10.5cm. Provenience: A II 13b. Field No. A 29. Description: torus roll fragment.

331. Limestone. D. 38 x 30 x19cm. Provenience: C I 2. Field No. C 31. Description: Non-descript fragment.

337. Limestone. D. 6.2 x 2.8 x 4.1cm. Provenience: F trench. Field No. F 6. Description: Edge piece with raised ledge.

332. Limestone. D. 3.4 x 4.4 x 3.3cm. Provenience: B I 6. Field No. B 4. Description: Cylinder shaped fragment.

338. Limestone. D. 10.5 x 6 x 7.5cm. Provenience: F III 58. Field No. F 209 Description: Red ochre mason’s mark.

333. Limestone. D. 6.6 x 6.8 x 2.9cm. Provenience: B I 6. Field No. B 6. Description: Raised border fragment.

339. Limestone. D. 11.5 x 8 x 6cm. Provenience: P/F baulk 23. Field No. P 94/44. Description: Edge piece with raised ledge.

333a. Limestone. 18 x 10 x 16cm. Provenience: BI 12. Field No. B 13. Description: Red ochre mason’s mark.

340. Limestone. D. 14 x 9 x 2cm. Provenience: P I 78. Field No. P 94/53. Description: Red ochre mason’s mark.

334. Limestone. D. 21.8 x 12.4 x 4.3cm. Provenience: B I 15. Field No. B 10. Description: Raised border fragment.

341. Limestone. D. 12 x 9 x 2cm. Provenience: P I 53. Field No. P 94/56. Description: Red ochre mason’s mark.

334a. Limestone. 18 x 12.5cm. Provenience: BI 51. Field No. B 14 Description: Red ochre mason’s mark.

342. Limestone. D. 9.3 x 7.5 x 2.5cm. Provenience: P I 56. Field No. P 94/57. Description: Red ochre mason’s mark.

54 343. Limestone. D. 12 x 4.5 x 5cm. Provenience: P I 56. Field No. P 94/58. Description: Red ochre mason’s mark. 344. Limestone. D. 14.5 x 9 x 1.5cm. Provenience: P I 64. Field No. P 94/60. Description: Red ochre mason’s mark. 345. Limestone. D. 14 x 14 x 12.5cm. Provenience: P I 78. Field No. P 94/63. Description: Carved ledge. 346. Limestone. D. 16 x 11.5 x 3.5cm. Provenience: P I 80. Field No. P 94/64. Description: Red ochre mason’s mark. 347. Limestone. D. 11 x 11 x 3cm. Provenience: P I 84. Field No. P 94/67. Description: Red ochre mason’s mark. 348. Limestone. D. 23 x 13 x 7cm. Provenience: P I 87. Field No. P 94/68. Description: Red ochre mason’s mark. 349. Limestone. D. 17.5 x 16.6cm. Provenience: P II 21. Field No. P 95/9. Description: torus roll fragment. 350. Limestone. D. 8.6 x 5.9cm. Provenience: P II 21. Field No. P 95/11. Description: torus roll fragment.

chapter six Description: Red ochre mason’s mark. 361. Limestone. D. 15.5 x 10 x 2.5cm. Provenience: R III 15. Field No. R 62. Description: Red ochre mason’s mark. 362. Limestone. D. 9 x 5.5 x 1cm. Provenience: R I/II 6. Field No. R 64. Description: Red ochre mason’s mark. 363. Limestone. D. 6 x 5 x 2cm. Provenience: R Ib/IIb. Field No. R 65. Description: Red ochre mason’s mark. 364. Limestone. D. 15.5 x 13.5 x 4cm. Provenience: R Ib/IIb. Field No. R 66. Description: Red ochre mason’s mark. 365. Limestone. D. 7.5 x 6 x 1.5cm. Provenience: R Ib/IIb 2. Field No. R 67. Description: Red ochre mason’s mark. 366. Limestone. D. 8 x 4.5 x 2.3cm. Provenience: R I/II--. Field No. R 59. Description: Red ochre mason’s mark. 367. Limestone. D. 6.5 x 5.5 x 3.4cm. Provenience: FIII/RIII baulk 2. Field No. R 70. Description: Red ochre mason’s mark.

351. Limestone. D. 60 x 12 x 28cm. Provenience: P II 44. Field No. P 95/28. Description: column fragment.

368. Limestone. D. 14 x 7 x 1.75cm. Provenience: FIII/RIII baulk 2. Field No. R 73. Description: Red ochre mason’s mark.

352. Limestone. D. 18 x 8cm. Provenience: P ext. 22. Field No. P ext.18. Description: torus roll fragment.

369. Limestone. D. 18 x 11 x 3.5cm. Provenience: R Ib/IIb 5. Field No. R 79. Description: Red ochre mason’s mark.

353. Limestone. D. 30 x 22cm. Provenience: P ext. 21. Field No. P ext.21. Description: Door socle showing pivot hole.

370. Limestone. D. 20 x 18 x 2.3cm. Provenience: R Ib/IIb 3. Field No. R 87. Description: Red ochre mason’s mark.

354. Limestone. D. 9 x 12cm. Provenience: R I/II 2. Field No. R 23. Description: Red ochre mason’s marks.

371. Limestone. D. 16 x 13 x 4.5cm. Provenience: R Ib/IIb 4. Field No. R 88. Description: Red ochre mason’s mark.

355. Limestone. D. 12 x 5cm. Provenience: R I/II 2.. Field No. R 24. Description: Red ochre mason’s marks.

372. Limestone. D. 18 x 5.5 x 4.5cm. Provenience: R Ib/IIb 4. Field No. R 89. Description: Red ochre mason’s mark.

356. Limestone. D. 12 x 7 x 8cm. Provenience: R III 6. Field No. R 25. Description: Door socle showing pivot hole.

373. Limestone. D. 8 x 8 x 3cm. Provenience: R I/II 8. Field No. R 90. Description: Red ochre mason’s mark.

357. Limestone. D. 33 x 25cm. Provenience: R I/II 2. Field No. R 26. Description: Red ochre mason’s marks.

374. Limestone. D. 13 x 4.5 x 9cm. Provenience: R Ib/IIb 6. Field No. R 91. Description: Red ochre mason’s mark.

358. Limestone. D. 12 x 6.5 x 2cm. Provenience: R III 13. Field No. R 56. Description: Red ochre mason’s mark.

375. Limestone. D. 7 x 5.5cm. Provenience: R Ib/IIb 6. Field No. R 93. Description: Flat, circular base fragment.

359. Limestone. D. 16.5 x 9.5 x 2.75cm. Provenience: R II 5. Field No. R 58. Description: Red ochre mason’s marks.

376. Limestone. D. 12 x 7.5 x 3cm. Provenience: R I/II 9. Field No. R 94. Description: Red ochre mason’s mark.

360. Limestone. D. 5 x 4cm. Provenience: R I/II 6. Field No. R 61.

377. Limestone. D. 18 x 12 x 4cm. Provenience: R III 21. Field No. R 95.

royal necropolis: object catalogue Description: corner block with red ochre mason’s mark. 378. Limestone. D. 8 x 6.5 x 2.9cm. Provenience: FIII/RIII baulk 5. Field No. R 105. Description: Red ochre mason’s mark. 379. Limestone. D. 22 x 16 x 2cm. Provenience: FIII/RIII baulk 7. Field No. R 108. Description: Red ochre mason’s mark. 380. Limestone. D. 8 x 6.5 x 1cm. Provenience: FIII/RIII baulk 7. Field No. R 109. Description: Red ochre mason’s mark. 381. Limestone. D. 23 x 14 x 12cm. Provenience: R I/II 11. Field No. R 110. Description: Red ochre mason’s mark on block which had been reworked into crude basin. 382. Limestone. D. 27 x 16 x 14cm. Provenience: R Ib/IIb 9. Field No. R 117. Description: corner fragment (?) 383. Limestone. D. 10 x 10cm. Provenience: R III ext. 34. Field No. R 51. Description: Door socle showing pivot hole. 384. Limestone. D. 10.5 x 7.5 x 5.25cm. Provenience: Sw I 6. Field No. S 6. Description: Fluted door lintel fragment. 385. Limestone. D. 18 x 9 x 4cm. Provenience: Sw III 3. Field No. S 20. Description: Red ochre mason’s marks. 386. Limestone. D. 13 x 8.5 x 2cm. Provenience: Sw II/III 7. Field No. S 30. Description: Red ochre mason’s mark. 387. Limestone. D. 10 x 9 x 2.2cm. Provenience: Sw IV 7. Field No. S 31. Description: Red ochre mason’s mark. 388. Limestone. D. 26 x 34 x 17cm. Provenience: Sw II 10. Field No. S 40. Description: Finished cornerstone. 389. Limestone. D. 22 x 47 x 11cm.Provenience: Sw III 9. Field No. S 41. Description: Red ochre mason’s marks. 390. Limestone. D. 17 x 12 x 14cm. Provenience: Ss II 12. Field No. S 48. Description: Fragment of corner block with carved raised edge.

55

393. Limestone. D. 13 x 12 x 8cm. Provenience: Se I 2. Field No. S 64. Description: door socle fragment showing pivot hole. 394. Limestone. D. 10 x 11 x 4.5cm. Provenience: Se I 2. Field No. S 65. Description: Well-carved torus roll with thin film of plaster still adhering. 395. Limestone. D. 27 x 17cm. Provenience: Sw VII A14. Field No. S 66. Description: Door socle showing pivot hole. 396. Limestone. D. 10 x 10.5 x 5.5cm. Provenience: Sw X 26. Field No. S 78. Description: Door socle showing pivot hole. 397. Limestone. D. 8.5 x 5.8cm. Provenience: Sw IX 2. Field No. S 95/5. Description: Fragment of a polygonal column. 398. Limestone. D. 3.4 x 2.5cm. Provenience: Sw II 2. Field No. S 95/3. Description: Non-descript three sided carved edge. 399. Limestone. D. 9.2 x 5cm. Provenience: Sw II 2. Field No. S 95/1. Description: Fragment with a rounded edge and a small groove on one face. 400. Limestone. D. 17 x 15cm. Provenience: J I 7. Field No. J8. Description: Door socle showing pivot hole. 401. Limestone. D. 9.5 x 7.5cm. Provenience: G I 2. Field No. G 11. Description: Corner piece with chisel marks. 402. Limestone. D. 16 x 13cm. Provenience: F 108. Field No. F 84. Description: Torus roll fragment with lined incising. 403. Limestone. Diam. 17cm. Provenience: F 108. Field No. F 90. Description: Torus roll fragment. 404. Limestone. D. 12.5 x 7cm. Provenience: F 107. Field No. F 91. Description: Torus roll fragment. 405. Limestone. D. 11 x 10cm. Provenience: F III 14. Field No. F 105. Description: Fragment with regular chisel marks. 406. Limestone. D. 12 x 9cm. Provenience: F I/II 23. Field No. F 114. Description: Red ochre mason’s mark. 407. Limestone. D. 18 x 9cm. Provenience: F I/II 123. Field No. F 115. Description: Red ochre mason’s mark.

391. Plaster. D. 13 x 5cm. Provenience: Sw VII A4. Field No. S 50. Description: Decorative torus roll with fluting cast from a mould and fibers added for strength.

408. Limestone. D. 15 x 13cm. Provenience: F I/II 124. Field No. F 116. Description: Red ochre mason’s mark.

392. Limestone. D. 22 x 10 x 7cm. Provenience: Sw VII A6. Field No. S 60. Description: Curved architectural fragment.

409. Limestone. D. 16 x 13cm. Provenience: F I/II 124. Field No. F 117. Description: Red ochre mason’s mark.

chapter six

56 410. Limestone. D. 12 x 10cm. Provenience: F 128. Field No. F 119. Description: Red ochre mason’s mark.

416. Limestone. D. 17 x 13cm. Provenience: F III 39a. Field No. F 196. Description: Red ochre mason’s mark.

410a. Limestone. D. 7.5 x 5.5cm. Provenience: F I/II 132. Field No. F 134. Description: non-descript fragment.

417. Limestone. D. 9 x 7cm. Provenience: F I/III 136. Field No. F 201. Description: Red ochre mason’s mark.

411. Limestone. D. 23 x 12cm. Provenience: F I/II 136. Field No. F 151. Description: Red ochre mason’s mark.

418. Limestone. D. 11 x 7.5cm. Provenience: F I/II 40a. Field No. F 203. Description: Red ochre mason’s mark.

412. Limestone. D. 12 x 12cm. Provenience: F I/II 137. Field No. F 157. Description: Red ochre mason’s mark.

419. Limestone. D.14 x 7cm. Provenience: F I/II 136. Field No. F 211. Description: Red ochre mason’s mark.

413. Limestone. D. 6 x 10.5cm. Provenience: F I/II 136. Field No. F 165. Description: Red ochre mason’s mark.

419a. Limestone. D. 57 x 45 x 38cm. Provenience: Area B. Field No. SMI 13. Description: Complete quarried block with hieratic sign m (“north”).

414. Limestone. D. 9 x 3.5cm. Provenience: F I/II 136. Field No. F 166. Description: Red ochre mason’s mark. 415. Limestone. D. 10 x 12 x 21cm. Provenience: F III 39a. Field No. F 191. Description: Corner block fragment.

420. Limestone. d. 52 x 49 x 28cm. Provenience: Area B. Field No. SMI 10. Description: Complete quarried block with demotic text.

III. Stelae (Nos. 421 - 454), Figs. 44-52, Pls. XXVII-XXXI 421. Limestone. D. 15 x 28cm. Provenience: F I 13. Field No. F 92. Description: Stela with hieroglyphic text depicting two lector priests. 422. Limestone. Overall d. 35 x 30cm. Provenience: F III 39a. Field No. F 144/156/159. Description: Two-sided fish stela in three fragments. 423. Limestone. D. 14.5 x 10cm. Provenience: F III 39a. Field No. F 158. Description: Two-sided fish stela; rounded top fragment. 424. Limestone. D. 35 x 22cm. Provenience: F III 39/39a. Field No. F 142. Description: Almost complete fish stela broken in two. 425. Limestone. D. 30 x 25cm. Provenience: F III 39a. Field No. F 169. Description: Almost complete fish stela broken in two. 426. Limestone. D. 12 x 12cm. Provenience: F III 38. Field No. F 149. Description: Two-sided fish stela; rounded top fragment which depicts a striding ram on one side.

429. Limestone. D. 17.7 x 8.4 x 10cm. Provenience: FI 8. Field No. F 36. Description: Incised fish stela fragment. 430. Limestone. D. 14.7 x 7.5 x 3.2cm.Provenience: C II 2. Field No. C 12. Description: Incised fish stela fragment. 431. Limestone. D. 21.5 x 14.1 x 5.2cm. Provenience: F I 21. Field No. F 65. Description: Incised fish stela fragment. 432. Limestone. D 33 x 41 x 11.5cm. Provenience: F II 59. Field No. F 71. Description: Incised scene depicting kneeling king before offering stand and ram of Mendes. Two cartouches inscribed at upper right. 433. Limestone. D. 17 x 14cm. Provenience: F I/II 1002. Field No. F 95/6. Description: Incised fish stela fragment. 434. Limestone. D. 29 x 31cm. Provenience: PI 28. Field No. P 93/26. Description: Crudely incised kilted figure. 435. Limestone. D. 10 x 6 x 3.5cm. Provenience: P-baulk 8 Field No. P 94/33. Description: Incised fish stela fragment.

427. Limestone. D 17 x 29cm. Provenience: F III 39. Field No. F 145. Description: Two-sided fish stela; rounded top fragment which depicts a striding ram on one side.

436. Limestone. D. 24.3 x 18cm. Provenience: P II 25. Field No. P 95/19. Description: Incised fish stela fragment.

428. Limestone. D. 12.6 x 17 x 4.7cm. Provenience: FI 8. Field No. F 35. Description: Incised fish stela fragment.

437. Limestone. D. 29 x 17.5cm. Provenience: P I ext. 28a. Field No. P ext. 29.

royal necropolis: object catalogue Description: Incised fish stela fragment. 438. Limestone. D. 50 x 33cm. Provenience: P I ext. 31a. Field No. P ext. 42. Description: Nearly complete, incised fish stela. 439. Limestone. D. 10.5 x 6.5cm. Provenience: P I ext. 31a. Field No. P ext. 43. Description: Incised fish stela fragment with rows of fish carved on one side and one large detailed fish carved on the other. 440. Limestone. D. 20.2 x 17cm. (3 fragments). Provenience: R II 7; R II 7a; F III 39a. Field No. R 7 & 13. Description: Incised fish stela broken in three fragments with traces of red paint outlining fish.

446. Limestone. D. 17 x 16.5 x 8cm. Provenience: R III 18. Field No. R 96. Description: Incised fish stela fragment. 447. Limestone. D. 6 x 4cm. Provenience: Q II 8. Field No. Q 16. Description: Corner of a cornice. 448. Limestone. D. 16 x 12cm. Provenience: Q II 8. Field No. Q 10. Description: A cornice fragment of a false door with an inscribed band (Èp-di-nsw) and traces of yellow paint on flourish. 449. Limestone. D. 21 x 15cm. Provenience: Q II 8. Field No. Q 9. Description: Two-sided incised fish stela fragment.

441. Limestone. D. 19 x 11cm. Provenience: R II 7. Field No. R 9. Description: Fish stela fragment incised on both sides.

450. Limestone. D. 22 x 17cm. Provenience: Q II 8. Field No. Q 8. Description: Incised fish stela fragment.

442. Limestone. D. 14 x 9cm. Provenience: R III 4. Field No. R 16. Description: Well-carved fish stela; top rounded fragment.

451. Limestone. D. 17 x 20cm. Provenience: Q II 8. Field No. Q 7. Description: Incised fish stela fragment.

443. Limestone. D. 6 x 6cm. Provenience: R III 3. Field No. R 20. Description: Carved fragment of relief (see #216) reused as fish stela (incised on reverse). 444. Limestone. D. 40 x 27cm. Provenience: R III 8. Field No. R 27. Description: Nearly complete fish stela broken in three fragments incised with rows of fish. 445. Limestone. D. 15 x 13cm. Provenience: R III 8. Field No. R 29. , Description: Fragment depicting rows of rams carved is shallow, sunken relief.

57

452. Limestone. D. 14 x 6cm. Provenience: Q II 6. Field No. Q 5. Description: Fish stela fragment in sunken relief showing aquatic scene consisting of two fishes and a portion of a lotus. 453. Limestone. D. 20 x 16 x 4xm. Provenience: Sw VII B21. Field No. S 46. Description: Double-sided fish stela. 454. Limestone. D. 29 x 10 x 8cm. Provenience: Sw I ext.34. Field No. S 37. Description: Fish stela fragment.

IV. Palettes & Trial Pieces (Nos. 455 - 470),Figs. 53-55, Pls. XXXII-XXXIII 455. Limestone. D. 6.2 x 7.4 x 1.5cm. Provenience: C II 2. Field No. C 10. Description: Artist’s slate with incised grid lines.

461. Limestone. D. 5.8 x 5.8cm. Provenience: P I ext. 30a. Field No. P ext. 33. Description: Artist’s slate with incised line grid.

456. Limestone. D. 6.6 x 5.1 x 3.2cm.Provenience: C I 2. Field No. C 15. Description: Unfinished statuette of male figure.

462. Limestone. D. 7.8 x 6.2cm. Provenience: P I ext. 10. Field No. P ext.10. Description: Artist’s slate with carved border and trace of raised relief.

457. Alabaster. D. 5.4 x 5.2 x 1.2cm. Provenience: C III 4. Field No. C 9. Description: Palette fragment with incised border. 458. Limestone. D. 5.4 x 7.4 x 1.8cm.Provenience: F 2. Field No. F 8. Description: Artist’s slate with incised grid lines. 459. Limestone. D. 6 x 9.5 x 4cm. Provenience: P I 22. Field No. P 93/15. Description: Beautifully detailed head in the round. Back is flat with incised artist’s grid. 460. Limestone. D. 28 x 20.7cm. Provenience: P II 44. Field No. P 95/27. Description: Artist’s slate with incised grid lines.

463. Limestone. D. 10 x 9 x 1cm. Provenience: PI ext. 18. Field No. P ext.15. Description: Head wearing skull cap, executed in delicate low raised relief. Reverse surface is finished with portion of a glyph(?) 464. Limestone. D. 17 x 7.8cm. Provenience: R III ext. 15. Field No. R ext.18. Description: Incised with an eye of horus and a falcon. 465. Limestone. D. 13.75 x 9 x 3cm. Provenience: FIII/RIII baulk 6. Field No. R 107. Description: Roughly smoothed palette with visible chisel marks and scored border.

chapter six

58 466. Limestone. D. 10 x 8 x 1.9cm. Provenience: R II/III 5. Field No. R 52. Description: Owl’s head in raised relief.

467. Limestone. D. 8.5 x 7 x 2.1cm. Provenience: FIII/RIII baulk 2. Field No. R 80. Description: Incised depiction of b3-nb-dd ram outlined in black paint. 468. Limestone. D. 8.25 x 5 x 1.5cm. Provenience: Sn I 35. Field No. S 25. Description: Corner fragment of artist’s slate with

incised with grid on both sides and small suspension hole at edge. 469. Limestone. D. 3 x 4cm. Provenience: Sw III/IV 2. Field No. S 95/21. Description: Fragment with unidentifiable sketch. 470. Limestone. D. 6.2 x 4.2cm. Provenience: PI ext. 4. Field No. P ext. 4. Description: Crude ink well with remains of red paint.

V. Statuary (Nos. 471- 483a) Figs. 56-57, Pls. XXXIII-XXXIV 471. Limestone. D. 6.7 x 5.8 x 3.9cm. Provenience: E I 1. Field No. E 12. Description: Cube-shape fragment with striations on three sides. 472. Basalt. D. 10.5 x 8.5 x 1.5cm. Provenience: B I 13. Field No. B 12. Description: Possibly beard fragment(?)

Description: Badly battered head, undistinguishable whether human or animal. 479. Limestone. D. 12.2 x 6 x 4cm. Provenience: R I 3. Field No. R 4. Description: Inscribed base with remains of human foot and hieroglyphic text.

473. Limestone. D. 6.9 x 4.5 x 1.9cm. Provenience: B I 4. Field No. B 3. Description: Two edges with tightly-spaced parallel lines.

480. Pink granite. D. 9 x 11.5 x8cm. Provenience: Sn I 37. Field No. S 27. Description: Non-descript curved fragment with polished surface.

474. Limestone. D. 5.2 x 4cm. Provenience: P I 22. Field No. P 93/16. Description: non-descript fragment.

481. Limestone. D. 6.7 x 9.9 x 3.9cm. Provenience: H III 2. Field No. H7. Description: Non-descript shape with red painted plaster adhering to one surface.

475. Bronze. D. 5 x 8cm. Provenience: P I 34. Field No. P 93/31. Description: Statue insert in shape of Hathor crown. 476. Limestone. D. 10 x 7cm. Provenience: P I ext. 18. Field No. P ext.20. Description: Non-descript fragment of statue base. 477. Limestone. D. 18.8 x 11.1cm. Provenience: P II 31. Field No. PII 95/14. Description: Well-carved fragment of god, Ptah. Midsection of figure only with hands holding staff. 478. Limestone. D. 7 x 5cm. Provenience: R I 4. Field No. R 2.

482. Basalt. D. 3.8 x 3.7 x 1.3cm. Provenience: I IV 4. Field No. I 30. Description: Statuette fragment of king’s head. 483. Limestone. D. 8.5 x 5.4cm. Provenience: G I 45. Field No. G 95/11. Description: Non-descript fragment.. 483a. Basalt. D. 63 x 25cm. (Inscribed surface) Provenience: Sarcophagus. Field No. SMI3a. Description: Fragment of statue of striding man with text on back pillar and behind leg.

VI. Amulets (Nos. 484 - 548) Figs. 58-62, Pl. XXXIV 484. Faience. D. 2.5 x 2cm. Provenience: F III 40a. Field No. F 199. Description: Complete; tyt-shape. 485. Faience. D. 1.7 x 1cm. Provenience: F 104. Field No. F 73. Description: Pta figure; incomplete. 486. Faience. D. 3.2 x 3cm. Provenience: F I/II surface. Field No. F ext. 72. Description: Double-sided wadjet-eye. 487. Faience. D. 2.5 x 1.5 x .8cm. Provenience: F surface. Field No. F 70. Description: Isis with child; incomplete.

488. Faience. D. 1.1 x 2.6 x .9cm. Provenience: C I 4. Field No. C 33. Description: Torso of deity with suspension hole through back pillar. 489. Faience. D. 2.2 x 3.1 x 1.3cm. Provenience: E I/IV 1. Field No. E 1. Description: Base with leg of deity preserved. 490. Faience. D. 1 x 1.2 x .6cm. Provenience: E I/IV 1. Field No. E 2. Description: Fragment of djed-pillar. 491. Faience. D. 2.1 x .7cm. diam. Provenience: E II 2. Field No. E 19.

royal necropolis: object catalogue Description: Non-descript fragment. 492. Faience. D. 1.7 x 2.9 x .5cm. Provenience: A I 15. Field No. A 2. Description: base only; may join with A 3. 493. Faience. D. 2.5 x 2.3 x 1.3cm. Provenience: A I 15. Field No. A 3. Description: Lower portion of Bes figure. 494. Faience. D. 1.4 x .8 x .5cm. Provenience: A II 13a. Field No. A 28. Description: base only. 495. Faience. D. 4.3 x 5.9 x 2.2cm. Provenience: F 3. Field No. F 10. Description: Infant-sized figure poised on shoulders and holding on head of larger figure. Upper torso of large figure preserved only. 496. Faience. D. 3.9 x 1.8 x 1.7cm. Provenience: F II 67. Field No. F 72. Description: Head with lotus and plume crown. 497. Faience. D. 2.6 x 1.1cm. Provenience: F I/III ext. 7. Field No. F 1. Description: Figure of Taweret with head missing. 498. Faience. D. 4 x 1.5 x .7cm. Provenience: F I clean-up. Field No. F 206. Description: Figure of Thoth, complete with suspension hole at back. 499. Faience. D. 2.3cm. l. Provenience: P I 2. Field No. P 93/5. Description: Selket goddess, head and upper torso only. 500. Faience. D. 2.4cm. l. Provenience: P I ext. 13. Field No. P ext.11. Description: Wadjet-eye, complete. 501. Faience. D. 3.1cm. l. Provenience: P I ext. 13. Field No. P ext.12. Description: White crown, complete with suspension hole at rear. 502. Faience. D. 1.2cm. l. Provenience: P I ext. 16. Field No. P ext. 14. Description: Fragment of two feet on a base. 503. Faience. D. 1.9cm. l. Provenience: P I ext. 27a. Field No. P ext. 27. Description: Bottom half of striding man in kilt. 504. Faience. D. 10.9 x 5.6cm. Provenience: P I ext. 30. Field No. P ext. 30. Description: A w3s-sceptre with a djed-pillar and ankh beneath. 505. Faience. D. 3.2 cm. l. Provenience: P I ext. 30a. Field No. P ext.41. Description: Complete wd . 506. Faience. D. 4.1 x 1.5cm. Provenience: P II 11. Field No. P 95/1. Description: Small, stick-shape object with stylized plamette design.

59

507. Bronze. D. 7 x 2 x 1.5cm. Provenience: P baulk 8. Field No. P 94/29. Description: Figure of Osiris with suspension loop at back. 508. Faience. D. 2.5 x .6cm. Provenience: P I 75. Field No. P 94/62. Description: Wd-shape; top portion missing. 509. Faience. D. 1.1cm. Provenience: R II 9. Field No. R 15. Description: top portion (capital) of papyrus column with suspension hole at top. 510. Faience. D. 1.7cm. l. Provenience: R III ext. 20. Field No. R ext.23. Description: Eye of horus; complete with some detailing. 511. Faience. D. 1.9 cm. l. Provenience: R III ext. 23. Field No. R ext. 24. Description: Figure of a dwarf with suspension hole through back of head. 512. Faience. D. 0.8cm l. Provenience: R III ext. 23. Field No. R ext. 25. Description: White crown with suspension hole at back. 513. Faience. D. 5 x 2 x 1cm. Provenience: R I/II 6. Field No. R 60. Description: Badly worn; unidentifiable. 514. Faience. D. 1.3 x 0.6 x 0.6cm. Provenience: R I/II 12. Field No. R 100. Description: Figurine base. 515. Faience. D. 1.9 x 1.5 x 0.3cm. Provenience: R I/b/IIb Field No. R 102. Description: Well-detailed eye of Horus carved on both sides. 516. Faience. D. 1 x 0.5 x 1.6cm. Provenience: R I/II 13. Field No. R 112. Description: Human figure; head missing. 517. Faience. D. 2.2 x 1.5 x 0.5cm. Provenience: FIII/RIII baulk 13. Field No. R 111. Description: Non-descript “grill”-like fragment. 518. Faience. D. 1.3 x 0.7 x 0.3cm. Provenience: Sw IV 2. Field No. S 10. Description: Eye of Horus. Complete. 519. Faience. D. 2.6 x 1.2 x 0.7cm. Provenience: Sw Iv 2. Field No. S 11. Description: Eye of Horus fragment. 520. Faience. H. 3.6cm. Provenience: Sw VIII 18. Field No. S 63b. Description: Isis seated on detailed throne with Horus on lap. 521. Faience. H. 3.5cm. Provenience: Sw VIII 2. Field No. S 56. Description: Seated goddess with plumed headdress holding child. 522. Faience. H. 3cm. Provenience: Sw VIII 2. Field No. S 55.

chapter six

60

Description: Seated goddess with child. Suspension hole at back is broken. 523. Faience. H. 1.75cm. Provenience: Sw VII A6. Field No. S 54. Description: Standing figure with only lower portion (feet and long kilt) preserved. 524. Faience. D. 4.5 x 0.8cm. Provenience: Sn II 7. Field No. S 35. Description: Broken s3 design. 525. Faience. D. 1 x 0.7 x 0.3cm. Provenience: Sn II 5. Field No. S 34. Description: Eye of Horus with suspension hole through center. 526. Faience. D. 1.1 x 0.7 x 0.3cm. Provenience: Sn II 5. Field No. S 33. Description: Eye of Horus with suspension hole through center. 527. Faience. D. 2.7 x 1.8cm. Provenience: Sw II 5. Field No. S 95/8. Description: Base portion of sitting figure. 528. Faience. D. 3.7 x 1.6cm. Provenience: Sw II 5. Field No. S 95/7. Description: Complete figure of Thoth with suspension hole through back pillar. 528a. Faience. D. 3.4 x 1.7cm. Provenience: T2 east face. Field No. T2 1. Description: Complete figure of kneeling Shu holding up sun-disc. 529. Faience. D. 5.3 x 4.8cm. Provenience: J IV 7. Field No. J 95/1. Description: Eye of Horus fragment. 530. Faience. H. 1.8cm. Provenience: J II 8. Field No. J9. Description: Lower portion of striding female figure with back pillar. 531. Faience. L. 2cm. Provenience: J III 11. Field No. J7. Description: Papyrus column with suspension hole at top; broken in half. 532. Faience. H. 1.3cm. Provenience: J III 8. Field No. J4. Description: Upper torso only of deity. 533. Ivory. D. 1.9 x 4.4 x 0.4cm. Provenience: I I17. Field No. I 4. Description: A seated figure with head missing. 534. Faience. D. 2.5 x 1.5 x 0.5cm. Provenience: I II 5. Field No. I 9. Description: Eye of Horus.

535. Faience. D. 1 x 0.5 x 0.4cm. Provenience: I II 3. Field No. I 11. Description: Non-descript fragment with incised design. 536. Faience. D. 2.1 x 4.7 x 1.6cm. Provenience: I II 10. Field No. I 13. Description: Well-detailed face and upper portion of deity figure. 537. Faience. D. 0.7 x 1.3 x 0.6cm. Provenience: I II 62. Field No. I 19. Description: Feet and base of figure. 538. Faience. D. 1.2 x 2.7 x 0.8cm. Provenience: I II 61. Field No. I 20. Description: Striding figure; head and base missing. 539. Faience. D. 3 x 1.7 x 1cm. Provenience: I IV 35. Field No. I 29. Description: Thoeris figure; head missing. 540. Faience. D. 1.5 x 2.5 x 0.8cm. Provenience: I IV 4. Field No. I 31. Description: Scarab pendant impressed with striding deity figure; suspension hole through center. 541. Faience. D. 4.4 x 1.8 x 2.9cm. Provenience: I II 53. Field No. I 23. Description: Fragment showing human arm holding an ankh at side. 542. Faience. D. 1.8 x 2 x 0.8cm. Provenience: G I 5. Field No. G 7. Description: Non-descript fragment with suspension groove. 543. Faience. D. 1.8 x 1.9 x 2cm. Provenience: G I 2. Field No. G 4. Description: Feet and base of figure. 544. Faience. D. 1.1 x 1.6 x 0.6cm. Provenience: G I 3. Field No. G 5. Description: Torso (?) fragment of figurine. 545. Faience. D. 2.4 x 2.4 x 0.4cm. Provenience: G I 4. Field No. G 6. Description: Eye of Horus with suspension hole. 546. Faience. D. 3.1 x 2.7cm. Provenience: G I 61. Field No. G 95/17. Description: Eye of Horus fragment. 547. Faience. D. 3 x 2 x 1cm. Provenience: G I 46. Field No. G 95/13. Description: Non-descript fragment. 548. Faience. D. 0.9 x 0.5cm. Provenience: G I 43. Field No. G 95/7. Description: Non-descript fragment.

royal necropolis: object catalogue

61

VII. Vessel Fragments (Nos. 549 - 640) Figs. 63-68 549. Limestone. D. 21 x 13 x 5.5cm. Provenience: F I/II 124. Field No. F 120. Description: Crudely-carved trough (approx. onequarter missing). 550. Limestone. D. 13 x 10cm. Provenience: F III 128. Field No. F 125. Description: Corner fragment of trough. 551. Granite. H. 9cm. Diam. 7cm. Provenience: F III 37. Field No. F 136. Description: Rim to base fragment of bowl. 552. Alabaster. Rim diam. 8cm. Provenience: F III 40. Field No. F 200. Description: Rim and neck fragment of vase. 553. Limestone. D. 4.7 x 6.5 x .9cm. Provenience: E I/IV 1. Field No. E 3. Description: Plate fragment. (Fits with # C2). 554. Limestone. 2.5 x 2.5 x .4cm. Provenience: E I/IV 1. Field No. E 4. Description: Rim sherd of bowl. 555. Limestone. D. 3.1 x 3.7 x 2.5cm. Provenience: E dump. Field No. E 7. Description: Fragment with lug handle. 556. Bronze. D. 4 x 1.5 x .3cm. Provenience: E I 5. Field No. E 10. Description: Rim fragment of cup or bowl. 557. Alabaster. Diam. 2.7cm. Provenience: E I/IV 1. Field No. E 13. Description: Rim and scored neck of jar. 558. Limestone. D. 2.4 x 2.1 x .5cm. Provenience: E II 2. Field No. E 16. Description: Ring base fragment. 559. Faience. D. 6.4 x 6.5 x 1cm. Provenience: E II 4. Field No. E 18. Description: Base fragment. 560. Limestone. D. 4.8 x 5.4 x .3cm. Provenience: C IV 3. Field No. C 2. Description: Plate fragment (fits with #553) 561. Faience. D. 3.5 x 2.7 x 1cm. Provenience: C I 4. Field No. C 35. Description: Vessel fragment with perforated hole at side. 562. Alabaster. D. 6.5 x 3.9 x 1cm. Provenience: C I 4. Field No. C 34. Description: Rim fragment. 563. Faience. D. 4 x 3.1 x .4cm. Provenience: C II 5. Field No. C 32. Description: Rim fragment of carinated bowl with gold speckles adhering. 564. Faience. D. 4.7 x 5.9 x .9cm. Provenience: C II 5. Field No. C 28. Description: Rim fragment of jar.

565. Faience. D. 4.3 x 3.4 x .8cm. Provenience: C II 4. Field No. C 14. Description: Rim fragment of bowl. 566. Faience. D. 4 x 2.9 x .8cm. Provenience: C III 4. Field No. C 8. Description: Base fragment. 567. Alabaster. D. 3.2 x 4 x 1cm. Provenience: C III 1. Field No. C 7. Description: Ring base fragment. 568. Faience. D. 3.2 x 3.4 x .4cm. Provenience: B I-IV. Field No. B 1. Description: rim of bowl. 569. Faience. D. 3.1 x 1.2 x 3.6cm. Provenience: B I 12. Field No. B 13. Description: Lipped rim of bowl. 570. Faience. D. 1.8 x 2.9 x .6cm. Provenience: B I 7. Field No. B 8. Description: standing base fragment. 571. Faience. D. 3.5 x 2 x .4cm. Provenience: A I 1. Field No. A 30. Description: rim of cup. 572. Alabaster. Rim diam.: 13cm. Provenience: F I 1. Field No. F 4. Description: Rim sherd. 573. Faience. D. 3.6 x 3.5x 0.7cm. Provenience: F 2. Field No. F 7. Description: Body sherd with band of ribbing. 574. Faience. Rim diam.: 13cm. Provenience: F 2. Field No. F 12. Description: Rim sherd with slight lip. 575. Alabaster. Base diam.: 7cm. Provenience: F 17. Field No. F 18. Description: Ring base fragment. 576. Limestone. D. 7 x 5.6 x 2.6cm. Provenience: F 19. Field No. F 19. Description: Trough fragment. 577. Limestone. D. 1.3 x 3.4cm. Provenience: F I 7. Field No. F 25. Description: Body sherd with red painted “grid” pattern on blue painted exterior. 578. Glass. D. 1.5 x 1.9cm. Provenience: P II 11. Field No. P95/4. Description: Green tinged conical base of small jar. 579. Faience. D. 7.4 x 6cm. Provenience: P II 16. Field No. P95/5. Description: Body sherd with lug handle. 580. Faience. Rim diam. 6cm. Provenience: P II 17. Field No. P 95/7. Description: Half of small, green flat based dish with straight-sided standing rim.

62

chapter six

581. Limestone. D. 10.8 x 10.8cm. Provenience: PII 30. Field No. P95/13. Description: Ring stand fragment (joins with #583).

598. Limestone? Rim diam.: 26cm. Provenience: RIII ext. 11. Field No. R ext. 9. Description: Large rim fragment.

582. Alabaster. Base diam. 7cm. Provenience: PII 33. Field No. P95/16. Description: Flat base fragment.

599. Alabaster. Rim diam.: 15cm. Provenience: RIII ext. 17. Field No. R ext. 20. Description: Rim sherd of shallow bowl.

583. Limestone. D. 17.3 x 10.8cm. Provenience: PII 25. Field No. P95/20. Description: Ring stand fragment. (Joins with 581).

600. Faience. Rim diam.: 8cm. Provenience: R III winter fall. Field No.: R 57. Description: Cup fragment with lipped rim.

584. Alabaster. D. 7.5 x 2.75cm. Provenience: P I surface. Field No. P 93/1. Description: Ring base fragment. 585. Alabaster. Diam. 4cm. Provenience: P I 1. Field No. P 93/4. Description: Disc shaped fragment. 586. Serpentine. Rim diam.: 30cm. Provenience: P I 3. Field No. P 93/7. Description: Rim sherd of shallow bowl. 587. Serpentine. Rim diam.: 21cm. Provenience: P I 2. Field No. P 93/8. Description: Rim sherd of shallow bowl with splaying flat rim. 588. Alabaster. Rim diam.: 11cm. Provenience: PI 26. Field No. P 93/13. Description: Rim sherd of carinated bowl. 589. Black granite. Rim diam.: 8cm. Provenience: PI 28. Field No. P 93/17. Description: Rim sherd. 590. Faience. D. 10 x 5cm. Provenience: PI ext. 6. Field No. P ext. 5. Description: Two body fragments of a bowl. 591. Faience. Base diam.: 8.4cm. Provenience: PI ext. 9. Field No. P ext.9. Description: Flat base fragment. 592. Faience. Rim diam.: 7cm. Provenience: P I 16. Field No. P ext. 13. Description: Rim sherd of a bowl. 593. Limestone. D. 7.5 x 5 x 3.5cm. Provenience: PI 89. Field No. P 94/70. Description: Handle broken into three fragments. 594. Faience. D. 4.5 x 3.5 x 1cm. Provenience: P/F baulk. Field No. P 94/54. Description: Body fragment with lug handle. 595. Faience. D. 2.4 x 1.1cm. Provenience: RIII ext. 1. Field No. R ext.1. Description: Non-descript fragment. 596. Faience. D. 5.4 x 3.8cm. Provenience: RIII ext. 2. Field No. R ext. 3. Description: Body sherd of dish. 597. Alabaster. D. 5.9 x 4.4cm. Provenience: RIII ext. 1. Field No. R ext. 2. Description: Body sherd of shallow dish.

601. Faience. Base diam.: 8cm. Provenience: R I/II . Field No. R 63. Description: Flat, circular base fragment. 602. Faience. Rim diam.: 7cm. Provenience: FIII/RIII baulk 1. Field No. R 85. Description: Fragment with lipped rim. 603. Faience. Rim diam.: undetermined. Provenience: FIII/RIII baulk 1. Field No. R 86. Description: Small rolled rim fragment. 604. Granite. D. 2 x 2.2 x 3.5cm. Provenience: R III 25. Field No. R 113. Description: Small rim fragment. 605. Alabaster. Rim diam.: 11cm. Provenience: R III 25. Field No. R 114. Description: Rim fragment of carinated bowl. 606. Alabaster. Rim diam.: 2cm. Provenience: R III 26. Field No. R 115. Description: Small rolled rim fragment. 607. Alabaster. Diam. 4 cm. Provenience: Q II 8. Field No. Q 17. Description: Radiating flat rim of vase. 608. Faience. D. 3.9 x 4.2cm. Provenience: Sw VII B32. Field No. S 71. Description: Rim sherd from a small bowl. Decorated on interior with vine motif; and on exterior with triangles and circles. 609. Faience. D. 3 x 2.8cm. Provenience: Sw VII A4. Field No. S 49. Description: Sherd with remains of text on exterior showing register line and p3-bird. 610. Faience. D. 7.5 x 6.7 x 1cm. Diam. 7cm. Provenience: Sw II 2. Field No. S 26. Description: Rim sherd broken into two pieces. 611. Limestone. D. 28 x 18 x 11cm. Provenience: Sw II 10. Field No. S 36. Description: Crude basin fragment. 612. Terracotta. Diam. 3cm. Provenience: Ss II 14. Field No. S 62. Description: Circular stopper. 613. Unbaked clay. Diam. 9cm. Provenience: Sw VIII 2. Field No. S 59. Description: jar stopper.

royal necropolis: object catalogue 614. Limestone. Diam. 5cm. Provenience: Q I 2. Field No. Q 1. Description: Crudely fashioned jar stopper(?) 615. Terracotta. D. 5.5 x 4.7 x .5cm. Provenience: F I. Field No. F 1. Description: Sherd incised with Bes face. 616. Alabaster. D. 4.8 x 4.5cm. Provenience: Sw III/IV 16. Field No. S 95/24. Description: Body sherd of a shallow dish with carved lines encircling it. 617. Faience. D. 2.5 x 2cm. Provenience: Sw III/IV 26. Field No. S 95/23. Description: Body sherd with remains of incised flower design. 618. Alabaster. D. 7 x 4cm. Provenience: Sw III/IV 2. Field No. S 95/19. Description: Rim sherds (2) of dish. 619. Alabaster. D. 3.2 x 3.1cm. Provenience: Sw III/IV 1. Field No. S 95/12. Description: Rim sherd of a bowl.

63

Description: Body sherd. 628. Basalt. D. 5.2 x 6.7cm. Diam. 10cm. Provenience: I IV 1. Field No. I 32. Description: Jar fragment with a standing rolled rim. 629. Terracotta. Diam. 2.3cm. Provenience: I II 1. Field No. I 7. Description: Minute cup? nothing more than an indented disc. 630. Faience. Diam. 18cm. Provenience: GI 43 & 52. Field Nos. G 95/4 & G 95/16. Description: Nineteen fragments of small bowl with brown painted designs on exterior. 631. Faience. D. 2.8 x 1.7cm. Provenience: G I 46. Field No. G 95/12. Description: Small jar handle. 632. Limestone. D. 7.5 x 5.4cm. Provenience: G I 44. Field No. G 95/10. Description: Base of crude basin. 633. Quartz. D. 4.3 x 3cm. Diam. 16cm. Provenience: G I 43. Field No. G 95/6. Description: Rim sherd of small, carinated bowl.

620. Limestone. Diam. 4cm. Provenience: Sw II 2. Field No. 95/2. Description: Flat base of vessel. 621. Glass. D. 1 x 4cm. Provenience: F 2. Field No. F 9. Description: Slightly convex piece cobalt blue in color with diamond pattern. 622. Terracotta. D. 6.6 x 7.8 x 4cm. Provenience: H III 1. Field No. H 4. Description: Bes face on sherd. 623. Alabaster. H. 4.2cm. Provenience: I surface. Field No. I 93/1. Description: Miniature squat vase with lug handle. 624. Faience. D. 2.3 x 2.9 x 0.4cm. Provenience: I I 10. Field No. I 1. Description: Rim sherd of small vessel with incised hieroglyphic inscription. 625. Calcite. D. 4.2 x 3.5 x 0.6cm. Provenience: I I 9. Field No. I 2. Description: Rim sherd.

634. Limestone. D. 25 x 8.8 x 2.3cm. Diam. 38cm. Provenience: G I/II 38. Field No. G 25.Description: Rim fragment of large, basin. 635. Limestone. D. 10.2 x 9 x 1.8cm. Diam. 22cm. Provenience: G I 31. Field No. G 20. Description: Rim fragment of shallow basin. 636. Limestone. D. 14 x 7.8 x 3cm. Diam. 38cm. Provenience: G I/II 15. Field No. G 18. Description: Rim fragment of large. crude, shallow basin. 637. Alabaster. D. 3.9 x 3cm. Provenience: G I/II 13. Field No. G 16. Description: Conical jar stopper. 638. Alabaster. Diam. 13cm. Provenience: G I/II 10. Field No. G 13. Description: Rim fragment of bowl or cup. 639. Alabaster. D. 4.6 x 5.1 x 1cm. Provenience: G I/II 1. Field No. G 10. Description: Non-descript body fragment.

626. Faience. D. 4.2 x 2.9 x 0.8cm. Provenience: I II 61. Field No. I 24. Description: Rim sherd.

640. Faience. Diam. 2.1cm. Provenience: G I 1. Field No. G 1. Description: Pedestal base fragment.

627. Alabaster. D. 3.8 x 5 x 0.7cm. Provenience: I IV 1. Field No. I 28.

VIII. Bronze & Metal Items (Nos. 650 - 687a) Fig.69 650. Bronze. L. 3cm. Provenience: F III 39a. Field No. F 198. Description: Nail. 651. Bronze. D. 3.9 x 2 x .2cm. Provenience: E dump. Field No. E 5. Description: Non-descript piece with external lines.

652. Bronze. Diam. 1 cm. Provenience: Ss III 1. Field No. S 3. Description: A coin with a stamp of Mendes city icon on one side.

64

chapter six

653. Bronze. L. 2.1cm. Provenience: P/F baulk 22. Field No. P 94/ 40a. Description: Nail. 654. Bronze. L. 1.9cm. Provenience: P/F baulk 22. Field No. P 94/40b. Description: Nail. 655. Bronze. L. 2.2cm. Provenience: P/F baulk 22. Field No. P 94/40c. Description: Nail. 656. Bronze. D. 1.1 x 2.3 x .8cm. Provenience: F I 5. Field No. F 23. Description: Nail. 657. Bronze. L. 2.9cm. Provenience: F I 13. Field No. F 52. Description: Nail. 658. Bronze. L. 2cm. Provenience: F I 17. Field No. F 53. Description: Nail. 659. Bronze. D. 3.4 x .7 x .3cm. Provenience: F I 17. Field No. F 55. Description: Nail. 660. Bronze. D. 3.4 x 2.5 x .7cm. Provenience: F trench. Field No. F 3. Description: Small spatual shaped implement. 661. Bronze. L. 7cm. Provenience: F III 49. Field No. F 207. Description: Slightly bulbous-tipped pin; thin end bent at an angle (medical implement?) 662. Bronze. L. 2.2cm.(average) Provenience: PI ext. 30a. Field No. P ext. 39. Description: Three points. 663. Bronze. L. 2cm. Provenience: RII 7. Field No. R 12. Description: Nail. 664. Bronze. L. 2.8cm. Provenience: RIII 5. Field No. R 21. Description: Nail. 665. Bronze. D 2.4 x .5cm. Provenience: FIII/RIII 1. Field No. R 84. Description: Nail. 666. Metal. Diam. 2cm. Provenience: PI ext.28a. Field No. P ext. 28. Description: Plain ring. 667. Metal. L. 7cm. Provenience: PI ext. 30a. Field No. P ext. 32. Description: toggle pin with folded loop at top. 668. Iron. D. 5.75 x 1.5cm. Provenience: RI/II 12. Field No. R 101. Description: Projectile point. 669. Bronze. L. 2.4cm. (broken) Provenience: Q II 7. Field No. Q 6. Description: Top portion of a chisel.

669a. Bronze. Diam. 1 cm. Provenience: SS III 1. Field No. S 3. Description: small coin (?) with stamped impression; obverse—Mendesian fish. 670. Bronze. D. 1.75 x 2cm.(approx. each link). Provenience: Sw VII B 61. Field No. S 77. Description: Seven folded flanges (perhaps body armour). 671. Bronze. L. 4cm. Provenience: Sw VII B 38. Field No. S 69. Description: Pointed pin with slightly bulbous opposite end. 672. Bronze. L. 4cm. Provenience: Ss II 14. Field No. S 61. Description: Nail. 673. Bronze. L. 2.8cm. Provenience: Ss III 12. Field No. S 58. Description: Nail. 674. Bronze. L. 1.75cm. Provenience: Sw VII B20. Field No. S 44. Description: Nail. 675. Bronze. L. 8cm. Provenience: Sw VII A5. Field No. S 51. Description: Delicate long prong broken into three pieces. 676. Bronze. D. 3 x 2 x 0.25cm. Provenience: Sn I 41. Field No. S 28. Description: Non-descript curved fragment. 677. Iron. L. 9cm. Provenience: S ? Field No. S 95/25. Description: Plumb bob. 678. Bronze. D. 2.2 x 1.75cm. Provenience: Sw III/IV 3. Field No. S 95/20. Description: Non-descript flat piece with scored lines. 679. Bronze. L. 4cm. Provenience: Sw IX 7. Field No. S 95/9. Description: Long, thin curved piece. 680. Copper? D. 1.5 x 0.7cm. Provenience: Sw VII A21. Field No. S 95/6. Description: A small peg. 681. Bronze. D. 1.5 x 3.3 x 0.3cm. Provenience: J I 1. Field No. J 92/1. Description: Small spatula-shaped fragment. 682. Bronze. D. 4.9 x 2.4 x 0.8cm. Provenience: I I 18. Field No. I 33. Description: Non-descript fragment. 683. Bronze. D. 1.6 x 3.1 x 0.3cm. Provenience: I II 80. Field No. I 21. Description: Fish hook. 684. Bronze. L. 1.4cm. Provenience: G I 43. Field No. G 95/8. Description: Small, cylindrical piece with hole through center. 685. Bronze. L. 3.5cm. Provenience: G I 36. Field No. G 23.

royal necropolis: object catalogue

65

687a. Bronze. D. 1.5 x 1.5cm. Provenience: F 112. Field No. F 90b. Description: miniature axe blade.

Description: Bent nail? 686. Bronze. L. 7.3cm. Provenience: C I 1. Field No. C 18. Description: nail. 687. Bronze. L. 3.4cm. Provenience: C I 3. Field No. C 21. Description: nail.

IX. Weights & Stone Tools (Nos. 688 - 704) Figs. 70-71 688. Red Granite. D. 11 x 6 x 4.5cm. Provenience: A II 3. Field No. A 33. Description: “fist”-shaped polishing stone. 689. Limestone. Base diam. 3.7cm. Provenience: F 2. Field No. F 11. Description: Conical shaped weight?

696. Limestone. L. 6.5cm. Provenience: RIII 8. Field No. R 38. Description: Cylinder-shaped plumb-bob with string grooves circling one end. 697. Sandstone. D. 4 x 1.3 x 1.3cm. Provenience: RIb/IIb 10. Field No. R 103. Description: Whetstone, long, rectangular cube.

690. Limestone. Diam. 6cm. Provenience: F East Baulk. Field No. F 210. Description: Stout cylinder shaped weight. 690a. Limestone. D. 6 x 4cm. Provenience: P ext. 4. Field No. P ext. 4. Description: drill base.

698. Quartzite. Base diam. 9cm. Provenience: F 2. Field No. F 14. Description: Pounder. 699. Limestone. D. 8 x 8.5 x 5cm. Provenience: PI 1. Field No. P 93/2 Description: drill base.

691. Limestone. Diam. 6.5cm. Provenience: PI ext. 22. Field No. P ext. 17. Description: Weight rounded with flat bottom. 692. Limestone. Diam. 4.5cm. Provenience: PII 23. Field No. P 95/15. Description: Round weight with flattened bottom. 693. Limestone. H. 4.5cm. Provenience: RIII 6. Field No. R 22. Description: Conical-shaped weight.

700. Limestone. D. 15.2 x 11.3cm. Provenience: PII 21. Field No. P 95/10. Description: grinding stone. 701. Quartzite. Diam. 4cm. Provenience: J I 1. Field No. J2. Description: Cube-shaped weight. 702. Granite. Diam. 5 cm. Provenience: T level III 3. Field No. T 1. Description: Round weight with flattened bottom.

694. Limestone. D. 4 x 4.5cm. Provenience: RIb/IIb 6. Field No. R 92. Description: Cylinder-shaped weight.

703. Granite. D. 6.8 x 5.9cm. Provenience: G I 46. Field No. G 95/14. Description: Cube-shaped weight.

695. Limestone. D. 7 x 5.5cm. Provenience: RIb/IIb 6. Field No. R 93. Description: Uneven circular-shaped weight.

704. Limestone. Diam. 7.7cm. Provenience: G I 1. Field No. G 2. Description: Slightly rounded disc; perhaps grinding stone?

X. Beads (Nos. 705 - 733a) Fig.72 705. Faience. Diam. 1.5cm. Provenience: F 110. Field No. F 78. Description: Disc bead with suspension hole through center. 706. Faience. D. 1.7 x .8cm. Provenience: C I 2. Field No. C 17. Description: barrel bead. 707. Lapis Lazuli. D. 1.2 x 0.3cm. Provenience: Sw II 5b. Field No. S 32. Description: barrel bead.

708. Faience. Diam. 0.3cm. Provenience: Sw VII B8. Field No. S 43. Description: circular bead. 709. Faience. Diam. 1.25cm. Provenience: Sw VII A1. Field No. S 45. Description: disc bead with suspension hole at back. 710. Glass. Diam. 1.75cm. Provenience: S VII A9. Field No. S 52. Description: Red tear-drop shape bead with suspension hole at top.

chapter six

66 711. Carnelian. Diam. 1.5cm. Provenience: S VII B27. Field No. S 53. Description: Round bead with suspension hole through center.

712. Carnelian. Diam. 4mm. Provenience: Sw VIII 30. Field No. S 68. Description: Four miniscule circular beads found with an infant’s remains in pot burial. 713. Carnelian. Diam. 1.5cm. Provenience: Sw VII B29. Field No. S70. Description: barrel bead.

Provenience: J III 11. Field No. J6. Description: Cylindrical. 723. Faience. Diam. 0.5cm. Provenience: G I/II 41. Field No. G 51. Description: Circular. 724. Faience. Diam. .45cm. Provenience: G I/II 42. Field No. G 52. Description: Circular. 725. White faience. L. 1.1cm. Diam. 0.5cm. Provenience: I II 7. Field No. I 12. Description: Oblong shape.

714. Faience. D. 1 x .75cm. Provenience: Sw VII B29. Field No. S 73. Description: Scarab shape bead, incised on underside with Épr-à. 715. Faience. D. 1.3 x 1.1cm. Provenience: PI ext. 30. Field No. P ext. 34. Description: Square bead with impression of eye of horus and suspension hole through middle. 716. Faience. D. .8 x .2cm. Provenience: RI/II 11. Field No. R 97. Description: Bead, cylindrical-shape. 717. Faience. L. 1.2cm. Provenience: RIII ext. 4. Field No. R 5. Description: Cylindrical barrel bead. 718. Faience. Diam. 0.5cm. Provenience: H II 2. Field No. H6. Description: Circular. 719. Faience. Diam. 0.2cm. L. 0.7cm. Provenience: H II 1. Field No. H 1. Description: Cylindrical. 720. Faience. Diam. 0.5cm. Provenience: J III 32. Field No. J10. Description: Circular. 721. Carnelian. Diam. 0.8cm. Provenience: J III 6. Field No. J5. Description: Circular. 722. Faience. L. 1.5cm.

726. Alabaster. L. 1.8cm. Diam. 0.8cm. Provenience: I II 11. Field No. I 15. Description: Oblong shape. 727. White faience. Diam. 0.9cm. Provenience: I II 11. Field No. I 16. Description: Disc shape. 728. Faience. Diam. 1cm. Provenience: G II 2. Field No. G 17. Description: Cylindrical. 729. Faience. Diam. 0.7cm. Provenience: G I 30. Field No. G 27. Description: Cylindrical. 730. Faience. L. 0.8cm. Provenience: G I 11a. Field No. G 95/1. Description: Cylindrical. 731. Faience. L. 1.6cm. Provenience: G I 48. Field No. G 95/15. Description: Barrel. 732. Faience. L. 1.9cm. Provenience: G I 61. Field No. G 95/18. Description: Cylindrical. 733. Faience. Diam. 0.3cm. Provenience: G I 56. Field No. G 95/21. Description: Circular. 733a. Faience. Diam. 1.2cm. Provenience: P I ext. 1. Field No. P ext. 1. Description: Round with suspension hole through center.

XI. Weaving Implements & Net Sinkers Description: Net sinker. (Nos. 734 -747) Figs. 73-74 734. Terracotta. D. 2 x 1.5 x 1.1cm. Provenience: D III 3. Field No. D 1. Description: loom weight.

738. Limestone. Diam. 4.1cm. Provenience: PI ext. 7. Field No. P ext. 7. Description: Spindle whorl.

735. Terracotta. D. 6.8 x 4.1 x 1.6cm. Provenience: F II 24. Field No. F 26. Description: spindle whorl.

739. Terracotta. D. 3.7 x 2.3cm. Provenience: PII 11. Field No. P 95/2. Description: loom weight.

736. Terracotta. Diam. 1.4cm. Provenience: F 17. Field No. F 16. Description: Loom weight.

740. Terracotta. D. 3 x 2cm. Provenience: Sw X 23. Field No. S 76. Description: loom weight.

737. Terracotta. Diam. 8.5cm. Provenience: F III 50. Field No. F 208.

741. Terracotta. Diam. 2.5cm. Provenience: Sw VIII 6. Field No. S 63. Description: loom weight.

royal necropolis: object catalogue 742. Terracotta. Diam. 4 cm. H. 2cm. Provenience: Sw VII B 45. Field No. S 79. Description: Black burnished spool.

745. Unbaked clay. Diam. 8.4cm. Thick. 3.7cm. Provenience: G I 34. Field No. G 22. Description: Net sinker.

743. Unbaked clay. Diam. 10.4cm. Provenience: J I 5. Field No. J 92/3. Description: Net sinker.

746. Unbaked clay. Diam. 8.6cm. Thick. 1.4cm. Provenience: G I 9. Field No. G 12. Description: Net sinker.

744. Unbaked clay. Diam. 9.7cm. Thick. 4.8cm. Provenience: I III 11. Field No. I 34. Description: Net sinker.

747. Unbaked clay. Diam. 8.8cm. Provenience: G I 43. Field No. G 95/5. Description: Net sinker.

67

XII. Funerary Items (Nos. 748 - 755x) Figs. 75-80, Pls. XXXIV-XXXV 748. Alabaster. D. 14 x 5 x 2.5cm. Provenience: Sw IV 5. Field No. S 17. Description: Canopic jar fragment.

755e. Faience. D. 3 x 2.8 x 3.9 cm. Provenience: K II 3. Field No. K 14. Description: Base of inscribed shawabti.

749. Terracotta. D. 10.5 x 7 x 2cm. Provenience: Sw I ext. 4. Field No. S 14. Description: Soul house fragment.

755f. Faience. D. 4.1 x 3.6 x 1.4 cm. Provenience: K II 7. Field No. K 16. Description: Base of shawabti.

750. Faience. D. 4.25 x 2.75 x 2cm. Provenience: Sw III-IV 16. Field No. S 38. Description: Shawabti fragment (lower legs) with horizontal bands of incised hieroglyphs.

755g. Faience. D. 2.2 x 2.5 x .8 cm. Provenience: K III 3. Field No. K 21. Description: Base of shawabti.

751. Terracotta. D. 2.3 x 2.2cm. Provenience: RIII ext. 3. Field No. R 4. Description: Shawabti; head only. 752. Faience. H.6.8cm. (broken). Provenience: S surface. Field No. S x1. Description: Well crafted shawabti with nemis and beard, hands crossed holding hoes. (Upper portion only; legs missing). 753. Faience. W. 2.8cm. Provenience: Sw II 24. Field No. S 95/11. Description: Feet of a shawabti. 754. Wood. D. 5.6 x 1.3 x 0.2cm. Provenience: G I 32. Field No. G 19. Description: Strip with two perforated holes; perhaps funerary furniture? 755. Faience. D. 3.2 x 5.5 x 1.9cm. Provenience: K I 2. Field No. K 2. Description: Body fragment of inscribed shawabti. 755a. Faience. D. 6.5 x 2.7 x 3.1cm. Provenience: K I 15. Field No. K 5. Description: Lower portion of inscribed shawabti. 755b. Faience. D. 1.4 x 2.9 x .7 cm. Provenience: K I 18. Field No. K 7. Description: Body fragment of shawabti. 755c. Faience. D. 2.7 x 2.9 x .6 cm. Provenience: K I 18. Field No. K 8. Description: Body fragment of inscribed shawabti. 755d. Faience. D. 3.9 x 11.1 x 3 cm. Provenience: K I 21. Field No. K 11. Description: Body fragment of inscribed shawabti.

755h. Faience. D. 2 x 1.9 x .5 cm. Provenience: K II 11. Field No. K 25. Description: Face fragment of shawabti. 755i. Faience. D. 2.5 x 3.2 x 1.2 cm. Provenience: K II 11. Field No. K 27. Description: Base of shawabti. 755j. Faience. D. 2.4 x 2.8 x 2.1 cm. Provenience: K II 13. Field No. K 29. Description: Shoulder fragment with flail of shawabti. 755k. Faience. D. 3.8 x 6.1 x 2.7 cm. Provenience: K II 11. Field No. K 34. Description: Lower portion of inscribed shawabti. 755l. Faience. D. 2.6 x 2.8 x .9 cm. Provenience: K II 13. Field No. K 33. Description: Base of inscribed shawabti. 755m. Faience. D. 2.9 x 3.8 x 2.3 cm. Provenience: K II 11. Field No. K 35. Description: Lower legs of inscribed shawabti. 755n. Faience. D. 3.1 x 4.5 x 2 cm. Provenience: K II 13. Field No. K 36. Description: Body fragment of inscribed shawabti. 755o. Faience. D. 3.8 x 6.2 x 2.5 cm. Provenience: K II 13. Field No. K 37. Description: Body fragment of inscribed shawabti. 755p Faience. D. 3.4 x 1.5 x 2.1cm Provenience: K II 13. Field No. K 38. Description: Body fragment of inscribed shawabti. 755q Faience. D. 5.4 x 3.7 x 1.9cm Provenience: K II 13. Field No. K 39. Description: Body fragment of inscribed shawabti..

chapter six

68 755r Faience. D.5.9 x 4.9 x 2.8cm. Provenience: K II 13. Field No. K 40. Description: Body fragment of inscribed shawabti.

755u Faience. D. 1.3 x 1.9 x 2.3cm. Provenience: K II 15. Field No. K 45. Description: Body fragment of inscribed shawabti. 755v Faience. D. 2.3 x 2.6 x 4.3cm. Provenience: K II 14. Field No. K 46. Description: Head fragment of shawabti.

755s Faience. D. 1.4 x 1.5 x 1.2cm. Provenience: K II 13. Field No. K 43. Description: Body fragment of inscribed shawabti.

755w Faience. D. 3 x 6.2 x 4.6cm. Provenience: K II 15. Field No. K 47. Description: Body fragment of inscribed shawabti.

755t Faience. D. 8.1 x 5.3 x 4.1cm. Provenience: K II 15. Field No. K 44. Description: Head and shoulder fragment of inscribed shawabti.

755x Faience. D. 2.5 x 1.2 x 2.3cm. Provenience: K II 15. Field No. K 48. Description: Body fragment of inscribed shawabti.

XIII. Moulds, Stamps & Seals (Nos. 756 - 763) Fig. 81, Pl. XXXVI 756. Terracotta. D. .7 x .2cm. Provenience: B I 6. Field No. B 7. Description: Circular with no discernible shape. 757. Limestone. D. 3.5 x 4.1 x 5.3cm. Provenience: F 1. Field No. F 2. Description: Non-descript mould.

761. Limestone. D. 3.4 x 1.6 x 2cm. Provenience: Q II 4. Field No. Q 3. Description: Stamp with impression of cartouche topped with sun-disc and double plumes and inscribed. 762. Mud-Brick. D. 25.3 x 16.6cm. Provenience: PI ext. 9. Field No. P ext. 9. Description: Stamped brick. Stamp was later filled with plaster and is now undistinguishable.

758. Limestone. D. 4 x 4.5 x 2.1cm. Provenience: F trench. Field No. F 5. Description: Non-descript mould. 759. Terracotta. D. 1.9cm. Provenience: PI ext. 2. Field No. P ext. 2. Description: Mould with seal impression of eye of horus fronted by human figure.

763. Terracotta. L. 8cm. Provenience: I surface. Field No. I 93/1a. Description: Stamped jar handle; Greek letters.

760. Terracotta. D. 5 x 3x 2.5cm. Provenience: RI 3. Field No. R 1. Description: Seal of Harsiese; rectangular shape with small lug handle.

XIV. Plaques and Figurines (Nos. 764 - 790) Figs. 82-85 764. Terracotta. D. 7 x 5.5cm. Provenience: F III 30. Field No. F 129. Description: Badly worn plaque fragment with female’s head in portico.

769. Terracotta. D. 7.5 x 6.1 x 3.4cm. Provenience: C I 2. Field No. C 19. Description: Plaque fragment with impression. (May be base of above item).

765. Terracotta. D. 4.6 x 10.4 x 4.7cm. Provenience: C III 3. Field No. C 3. Description: Non-descript fragment.

770. Terracotta. D. 2 x 3.1 x 1.6cm.Provenience: E dump. Field No. E 8. Description: Head depicting perhaps an owl or “afrit” figure.

766. Terracotta. D. 4.4 x 7.3 x 2.1cm. Provenience: C III 3. Field No. C 5. Description: Plaque depicting female with child.

771. Terracotta. D. 3 x 6.1 x 2.5cm. Provenience: E II 2. Field No. E 17. Description: Hind quarter(?) of quadraped.

767. Terracotta. D. 4.5 x 6.4 x 2.2cm.Provenience: C II 4. Field No. C 13. Description: Plaque fragment with female legs preserved.

772. Terracotta. D. 5.2 x 6 x 4.1cm. Provenience: F I 1. Field No. F 20. Description: Hind quarter of quadraped.

768. Terracotta. D. 8.8 x 5.1 x 5cm. Provenience: C II 5. Field No. C 26. Description: Plaque fragment with impression of male figure.

773. Terracotta. D. 7 x 5cm. Provenience: PI 4. Field No. P 93/9. Description: Plaque. Top portion showing head with wig.

royal necropolis: object catalogue 774. Terracotta. D 6.6 x 8cm. Provenience: PI 4. Field No. P 93/10. Description: Plaque. Lower portion showing lower limbs and feet of figure. 775. Terracotta. D. 4 x 3cm. Provenience: PI 83. Field No. P 94/69. Description: Animal figurine. Goose head. 776. Terracotta. D. 2.7 x 2 x 5cm. Provenience: RI/II 13. Field No. R 116. Description: Non-descript head and neck of animal figurine. 777. Terracotta. D. 4 x 4 x 2cm. Provenience: Sw III W13. Field No. S 42. Description: Crude “afrit” figure. 778. Terracotta. D. 4.2 x 2.8 x 1.4cm. Provenience: Sn 21. Field No. S 16. Description: Crude “afrit” figure. 779. Terracotta. H. 9cm. Provenience: Sw IX 8. Field No. S 95/10. Description: Head and curved neck of a bird. 779a. Terracotta. D. 8 x 6 x 2.5cm. Provenience: Sw I ext. 4. Field No. S 7. Description: Bottom portion of fertility figurine. 780. Terracotta. D. 5 x 3cm. Provenience: Sw III/IV 2. Field No. S 95/18. Description: Back end of a quadraped. 781. Terracotta. L. 6.5cm. Provenience: Sw VIII 1. Field No. S 95/22. Description: Back end of a quadraped.

69

782. Terracotta. D. 6 x 6.1 x 2.4cm. Provenience: I II 10. Field No. I 17. Description: Well-detailed Bes plaque. 783. Terracotta. D. 2.9 x 5.2 x 3.1cm. Provenience: I II 47. Field No. I 18. Description: Fragment of an animal figurine. 784. Terracotta. D. 6.4 x 3.9 x 3.7cm. Provenience: I IV 1. Field No. I 25. Description: Hoopoe bird’s head. 785. Terracotta. D. 4.7 x 7 x 3.8cm. Provenience: I IV 1. Field No. I 26. Description: Back legs of quadraped figurine. 786. Terracotta. D. 2.5 x 4.5 x 1.3cm. Provenience: I II 83. Field No. I 27. Description: Crudely executed ram figurine. 787. Terracotta. 1.7 x 2.5 x 1.1cm. Provenience: I II 53. Field No. I 22. Description: Non-descript figurine fragment. 788. Terracotta. D. 8.4 x 6cm. Provenience: G I 69. Field No. G 95/20. Description: Crudely made fertility figurine with minimal detailing. 789. Terracotta. D. 2.8 x 6.4 x 1.9cm. Provenience: G I/II 15. Field No. G 15. Description: Goose neck and head. 790. Limestone. D. 10.4 x 11.4 x 2.2cm. Provenience: G I 1. Field No. G 3. Description: Non-descript carved piece.

XV. Inlays & Decorative Items (Nos. 791 - 803) Fig. 86, Pl. XXXVI 791. Faience. L. 2.2cm. Provenience: FII/III surface. Field No. F 71. Description: Fragment of open-work design. 792. Terracotta. D. 3.8 x 2.4 x 1.5cm. Provenience: C II 2. Field No. C 11. Description: dowel. 793. Blue glass. D. 3.1 x 1.8 x.2cm. Provenience: C II 5. Field No. C 30. Description: inlay piece. 794. Blue glass. D. 2.4 x 2.1 x .4cm. Provenience: C I 2. Field No. C 20. Description: inlay piece. 795. Terracotta. D. 4 x 1.5cm. Provenience: Sw I ext. 28. Field No. S 8. Description: dowel. 796. Faience. D. 4.1 x 1.5 x .5cm. Provenience: Ss II 8a. Field No. S 2. Description: Inlay used possibly in scale pattern. 797. Faience. D. 1.8 x .8 x .5cm. Provenience: Sw I 4. Field No. S 5. Description: Inlay in shape of di sign.

798. Faience. L. 5.5cm Provenience: PI 1. Field No. P 93/3. Description: Unidentifiable decorative piece(?) with lateral groove and two holes for fastening. 799. Glass. D. 3 x .6cm. Provenience: RIII ext. 25. Field No. R 27. Description: Long, rectangular inlay piece; blue with yellow dots. 800. Faience. Diam. 1.7cm. Provenience: H III 1. Field No. H5. Description: Finial. 801. Yellow stone. D. 0.8 x 1.1 x 0.3cm. Provenience: I I 13. Field No. I 3. Description: Small, polished, oblong inlay. 802. Alabaster. L. 2.5cm. Diam. 0.6cm. Provenience: G I/II 35. Field No. G 21. Description: Small cylinder. 803. Faience. D. 5.7 x 6.8 x 3.2cm. Provenience: G I 8. Field No. G 8. Description: Beautifully detailed and well-preserved aegis of Bast.

chapter six

70

XVII. Game Pieces (Nos. 804 - 809) Fig. 87 804. Faience. D. 2.3 x 1.8 x .3cm. Provenience: P baulk 8. Field No. P 94/34. Description: Game piece, flat with one rounded end.

807. Stone? Diam. 1.5cm. Provenience: J I 14. Field No. J3. Description: Mushroom-shaped senet game piece.

804a Faience. Diam. 2.1cm. Provenience: G I 8. Field No. G 9. Description: Small disc

808. Terracotta. H. 4.1cm. Diam. 3cm. Provenience: J I 1. Field No. J 92/2. Description: Crude conical piece.

805. Terracotta. Diam. 1cm. Provenience: Sw X 10. Field No. S 67. Description: Disc-shape game counter.

809. Faience. Diam. 2.3cm. Provenience: G I 8. Field No. G 9. Description: Disc-shape game counter.

806. Terracotta. Diam. 2.5cm. Provenience: Sn 16. Field No. S 15. Description: Disc-shape game counter.

XVIII. Jewellry & Toilet Items (Nos. 810 - 814) Fig. 87 810. Bronze. Diam. 1.9cm. Provenience: Sw VIII 2. Field No. S 57. Description: An earring in the shape of an overlapping loop.

813. Alabaster. L. 4.8cm. Provenience: P/F baulk 25. Field No. P 94/48. Description: Kohl stick.

811. Faience. Diam. 2 cm. Provenience: Sn II 24. Field No. S 39. Description: Ring fragment.

814. Faience. D. 1.6 x 1.8cm. Provenience: J I 4. Field No. J 1. Description: Ring fragment(?) with traces of incised hieroglyphs.

812. Limestone. Diam. 3.7cm. Provenience: F II 44. Field No. F 60. Description: Cosmetic jar lid?

XIX. Gold (Nos. 815 - 818) 815. Gold leaf. D. 1.8 x 1cm. Provenience: PI ext. 27. Field No. P ext. 22.

817. Gold leaf. D. 1 x .8cm. Provenience: RI/IIb 9. Field No. R 98.

816. Gold leaf. Numerous small bits. Provenience: RII 7a. Field No. R 14.

818. Gold leaf. D. 2 x 1.8cm. Provenience: RIII ext. 12. Field No. R 12.

royal necropolis: object catalogue

Figure 18.

71

72

chapter six

Figure 19.

royal necropolis: object catalogue

Figure 20.

73

74

chapter six

Figure 21.

royal necropolis: object catalogue

Figure 22.

75

76

chapter six

Figure 23.

royal necropolis: object catalogue

Figure 24.

77

78

chapter six

Figure 25.

royal necropolis: object catalogue

Figure 26.

79

Figure 27.

Figure 28.

80 chapter six

royal necropolis: object catalogue

Figure 29.

81

82

chapter six

Figure 30.

royal necropolis: object catalogue

Figure 31.

83

84

chapter six

Figure 32.

royal necropolis: object catalogue

Figure 33.

85

86

chapter six

Figure 34.

royal necropolis: object catalogue

Figure 35.

87

88

chapter six

Figure 36.

royal necropolis: object catalogue

Figure 37.

89

90

chapter six

Figure 38.

royal necropolis: object catalogue

Figure 39.

91

92

chapter six

Figure 40.

royal necropolis: object catalogue

Figure 41.

93

Figure 42.

Figure 43.

94 chapter six

royal necropolis: object catalogue

Figure 44.

95

96

chapter six

Figure 45.

Figure 47.

97

Figure 46.

royal necropolis: object catalogue

Figure 48.

432

444

445

Figure 49.

439

438

98 chapter six

royal necropolis: object catalogue

Figure 50.

Figure 51.

Figure 52.

99

100

chapter six

Figure 53.

royal necropolis: object catalogue

Figure 54.

101

102

chapter six

Figure 55.

royal necropolis: object catalogue

Figure 56.

103

104

chapter six

Figure 57.

royal necropolis: object catalogue

Figure 58.

105

106

chapter six

Figure 59.

royal necropolis: object catalogue

Figure 60.

107

108

chapter six

Figure 61.

royal necropolis: object catalogue

Figure 62.

109

110

chapter six

Figure 63.

royal necropolis: object catalogue

Figure 64.

111

112

chapter six

Figure 65.

royal necropolis: object catalogue

Figure 66.

113

114

chapter six

Figure 67.

royal necropolis: object catalogue

Figure 68.

115

116

chapter six

Figure 69.

royal necropolis: object catalogue

Figure 70.

117

118

chapter six

Figure 71.

royal necropolis: object catalogue

Figure 72.

119

120

chapter six

Figure 73.

royal necropolis: object catalogue

Figure 74.

121

122

chapter six

Figure 75.

royal necropolis: object catalogue

Figure 76.

123

124

chapter six

Figure 77.

royal necropolis: object catalogue

Figure 78.

125

126

chapter six

Figure 79.

royal necropolis: object catalogue

Figure 80.

127

128

chapter six

Figure 81.

royal necropolis: object catalogue

Figure 82.

129

130

chapter six

Figure 83.

royal necropolis: object catalogue

Figure 84.

131

132

chapter six

Figure 85.

royal necropolis: object catalogue

Figure 86.

133

134

chapter six

Figure 87.

ceramic analysis

135

CHAPTER SEVEN

CERAMIC ANALYSIS Rexine Hummel and Steven Blake Shubert The ceramic material covered in this study was excavated from three landfills located within the southwestern quadrant of the main temenos wall (T1) at Mendes. Specifically they are: 1) the landfill between the inner (T2) and outer (T1) temenos walls containing limestone tip-lines (squares P, R, Q and F); 2) the landfill of the foundation of the inner temenos wall (T2), east of the large limestone sarcophagus (squares I, J & G; and 3) the landfill around the limestone sarcophagus itself (S squares). In each case, a basic description is provided of the types of wares and pottery vessel shapes recovered during the excavations. The following is organized into five units, one covering each of the three separate landfills, another covering miscellaneous areas of the site and a final section concerning the common Egyptian pottery forms from all areas of the site. Attention is paid to the composition and range of each group of pottery by date and the evidence for foreign contacts provided by Levantine store-jars and Greek amphorae. Quantitative analysis according to percentages of diagnostic forms is provided for selected trenches within each of the different areas. The implications of NAA are discussed for pottery from these areas. Diagnostic pottery pieces are illustrated and individually described in the plate section that follows. A. Landfill between T1 and T2: Area of Limestone Tip-Lines The ceramics from the area of the limestone tip-lines between the inner (T2) and outer (T1) temenos walls were recovered from squares C, F, P, Q and R and include material found on top of the inner temenos wall (T2). The ceramics found within the limestone tip-lines are a broad mix ranging from New Kingdom (beer jar bases) up to the beginning of the Hellenistic era (casseroles and incurving bowls). Imported pottery vessels are present in some quantity, including both Canaanite storejars and East Greek amphorae. Both of these foreign wares also appear in local (or Egyptian) imitations or copies. Also found in great abundance are small cups, many of which may have functioned as lamps or lids. The pottery in this fill is basically a homogeneous mix from top to bottom with two exceptions—the surface layers and a foundation trench for the outer temenos wall (T1). Evidence for this comes from several diagnostic pottery forms. For instance, in square F many rim sherds from a type of Late Period silt small-mouth jar (pl. K:35,36) appear in loci at both the top (e.g. F 1 & 15) and bottom (e.g. F II 46, 50 & 56) of the fill. Examples of a silt wide-mouth jar (pl. M:8) are also found at both the top (e.g. F 2) and bottom (e.g. F II 41 & 59) of the fill. Likewise, diagnostics of a Third Intermediate Period silt wide-mouth jar (pl. O:5-12) are found at both the top (F 5 & 7) and bottom of the fill (F II 43, 55 & 56). In fact, loci at the top of Square C (I 1-3, II 1-4) are remarkably similar in ceramic content to those found at the bottom of Square F (F II 38-43 & 54-58). The existence of the tip-lines, indicating simultaneous deposition, is presumably the explanation for this phenomenon. Evidence for the ceramic composition of the fill is provided by typological analyses undertaken in Squares F I & II as follows:

chapter seven

136 Pottery forms

Small mouth jars Wide mouth jars Bowls Cups Finger cups Bottles Bread trays & 1 mould Basins/large open vessels Miscellaneous total Bes vessel Perforated vessel Spout Ring stand Checkerboard decoration Greek amphorae Levantine ware Egyptian copies

Square F/I & II Nos. Percentages 89 23.3% 73 19.1% 82 21.5% 44 11.5% 9 2.0% 10 2.5% 23 7.0% 9 2.0% 4 1.0% 1 1 1 1 6 1.6% 15 4.0% 16 4.0% 2 .5%

Total

382

100%

These numbers are based on diagnostic sherds only and give one an idea of relative proportions of the different forms. As might be expected in a fill, they include small numbers of a wide variety of forms. The number of Egyptian copies is likely higher as it was almost impossible to identify these without NAA. Considered by ware, 89% (341) are of Nile silt, 8% (31) are foreign wares and 3% (12) are Egyptian marl wares. The location of Mendes in the Delta explains the preponderance of silt wares and the small amount of marl. The foreign wares indicate important trading ties between Mendes and the eastern Mediterranean. A stratigraphic division was noted between upper and lower sections of the fill; in square F the division comes at loci F II 25, 26 & 30. Ceramic differences between the upper and lower divisions were sought, but little evidence was found. The distinctive lid with a knob handle (pl.T:25-26) never appears in the lower section below F II 25-26. Most, but not all, of the Greek marl amphora stumps were also found in the upper section. Thus, although there may have been two or more stages of deposition in the fill, they are not chronologically distinctive. Foundation Trench At the bottom of the outer temenos wall (T1), a foundation trench was recognized. From this foundation trench, 369 diagnostic ceramics were recovered in the following amounts and proportions: Pottery form Smallmouth jars Wide-mouth jars Cups Simple bowls (Many carinated) Juglets/flasks Bases Thick bowls Platters Levantine diagnostics East Greek diagnostics Egyptian copies Total

No. 57 45 26 50

% 15% 12% 7% 13.5%

3 83 53 9 33 10 3

.8% 22.5% 14% 2.4% 9% 2.7% .8%

268

100%

The latest ceramics from this foundation trench date to the early Hellenistic period and include four cups, including one burnished cup with a ring base, a small mouth jar, and a marl wide mouth jar with everting rim. In addition, a silt sherd with red-painted decoration of dots and lines may be indicative of a late date. The most frequently appearing foreign wares in the foundation trench are from the Levant and include a mortarium.

ceramic analysis

137

Hellenistic Pottery The Hellenistic material in the landfill between T1 and T2 is not overabundant; moreover, it may be associated with the construction of the outer temenos wall (T1), being confined to the uppermost levels and the foundation trench. The latest material from this landfill may be placed in the earlier part of the Ptolemaic period (late 4th century-early 3rd century b.c.). Two double-coiled Koan amphora handles of a fine cream fabric were recovered from loci F I 4 & C I 2 (pl. B:10). Although this is a good Hellenistic form, these loci are in the upper levels of the fill above the earlier temenos wall. Diagnostic sherds from seven Hellenistic-type casseroles or cooking pots were recovered from loci C II 4 (pl. D.1), C III 4, P I 1, P I 7, P/F baulk 1 (pl. D.2), Q II 8 (pl. D.4) and R II 16. A large number of incurving small bowls of medium silt appear grouped in small clusters in the upper layers of the fill (for example C I 1-3 & C II 1-2) and in the foundation trench for the outer temenos wall (T1), for example F II 55-58. These bowls come in a variety of forms, some of which may, in fact, have been used as lids or lamps (pl. K:1-4, 6-7, 9-11). This type of incurving bowl is popular in the 4th century b.c. according to evidence from Athenian Agora.1 The Mendes examples appear to be local copies of the black glazed Attic bowls; on testing one of the shallow incurving bowls (pl. K:1) by NAA, the result suggested marl clay probably from Egypt. This ceramic style continues in popularity throughout the Ptolemaic Period, but there is evidence that even in the Near East they started earlier.2 The base of a common Hellenistic form, a fusiform unguentarium, was found in locus P I 30 (pl. T:19). Foreign Wares One of the notable features of the landfill in the area of the limestone tip-lines between the inner (T2) and outer (T1) temenos walls is the frequency of foreign wares, both Greek and Levantine (Phoenician or Canaanite). In addition to truly foreign wares, there are local(?) Egyptian imitations of foreign pottery. Neutron activation analysis (NAA) is able to distinguish between Egyptian and foreign clays. Unfortunately, this distinction is not consistently apparent from visual examination of the fabric, either before the neutron activation results or afterwards; visual examination was only sometimes able to differentiate between imports and good Egyptian marl copies. Any of the untested sherds could, therefore, belong to Egyptian copies rather than imports. The extent of Egyptian copies of foreign vessels and the reasons for this are unclear; we suspect that there was a considerable amount of this ceramic “counterfeiting” going on in 4th century b.c. Mendes. Greek Amphorae In identifying the origin and dates of foreign wares from Mendes, a fair degree of success has been achieved in the study of Greek amphorae. The most frequent type of Greek amphora recovered from the landfill between the inner (T2) and outer (T1) temenos walls has a thick collar with a the mushroom-shaped rim. Ten of these rims from this landfill are illustrated on plate A (nos. 1-4, 6-11). This style dates to the 4th century b.c.3 and has been found at other sites in Egypt in addition to Mendes.4 According to the neutron activation tests the clay from these vessels is definitely East Greek and matches most closely with other analyses from Samos.5 The rim form also matches Samian amphorae rims from the 4th century b.c.6 The sharp change in rim shape from 5th to 4th 1

Athenian Agora v. 12, p. 131. Herzog Excavations at Tel Michal, Israel (1989) pp. 134-6 & 150. 3 Rexine Hummel and Steven B. Shubert “Preliminary Report on the Ceramics from the 1992 Season at Mendes” JSSEA XXI/XXII p. 13; Martine Sciallano and Patricia Sibella Amphores: Comment les identifier? (Aix-en-Provence: Edisud, 1991) p. 88 entitled “Amphore rhodienne ancienne.” 4 Peter French and Holeil Ghaly “Pottery Chiefly of the Late Dynastic Period, from Excavations by the Egyptian Antiquities Organization at Saqqara, 1987” Cahiers de la Céramique Égyptienne (Cairo: Institut français d’archéologie orientale du Caire, 1991) p. 102 (nos. 4 & 6). Grace in Hesperia 40 (1971) also reports that amphorae with mushroom rims and stamps were found by Emery at Saqqara, dating to the 2nd half of the 4th century B.C. 5 See M.J. Hughes, M.N. Leese and R.J. Smith. “The Analysis of Pottery Lamps mainly from Western Anatolia, including Ephesus, by Neutron Activation Analysis.” In D.M. Bailey, A Catalogue of the lamps in the British Museum III: Roman Provincial Lamps (London: British Museum, 1988), pp. 461-485. 6 Grace “Samian Amphoras” Hesperia 40 (1971) p. 67 notes “it is clear that amphoras with mushroom rim, broad-topped handles and necks tapering to a well-defined shoulder-articulation were made in Samos latish in the 4th century B.C.” 2

138

chapter seven

century b.c. in Samos may be a reflection of the political situation; in 365 b.c. the greater part of the Samian population was expelled and Athenian cleruchs settled on the island. The 4th century b.c. mushroom rim on Samian amphorae seems to have been influenced by this Athenian settlement since its development can be traced in the 5th century Athenian series rather than in the Samian sequence.7 Olive oil was the main East Greek export sent to Egypt. In the 4th century b.c. a special quality was attributed to the oil produced on Samos, which may have been used in the perfume industry at Mendes.8 No whole Greek amphorae have been preserved from the landfills at Mendes. A number of short, knob-like, bevelled amphora feet with slight depressions in the base have been recovered from Mendes (pl. A:15-22). Both the neutron activation results and the ware connect these bases with the mushroom-shaped rims. This style of amphora foot is popular in the 4th century b.c., and is noted elsewhere in East Greece as well.9 A short bevelled amphora foot with a very deep depression in the base is reminiscent of the 5th century Samian style (pl. A:27). One short, knob-like bevelled amphora foot with a depression in the base (pl. A:17) was determined through neutron activation to be made of Egyptian marl clay; this example is therefore an Egyptian copy of the amphorae being imported from East Greece. Neither the form nor ware of this piece distinguish it from the truly foreign examples. Likewise, only through neutron activation studies has the rim illustrated on pl. A:32 been identified as an Egyptian marl copy of a Greek amphora of the 4th or 3rd centuries b.c. Other anomalies also appear among the amphorae. For example, a taller, more elongated knoblike bevelled amphora foot with a slight depression on the base (pl. A:23) is difficult to place. The hard, dense, reddish tan ware resembles that of the Chian amphorae, but the form is closer to that of the Samian and Thasian amphorae. Thus, we cannot definitely place this piece, although the 4th century b.c. East Greek amphora style is unmistakable. Closely related to the Samian amphorae from the landfill is another type with a thickened outward everting rim, sometimes folded over to produce a collar (pl. B:1-2,4-5). Fortunately, from this type of amphorae, examples of handles and handle stumps just below the rim have been preserved.10 These may be identified as fragments of Thasian amphorae.11 An example of the foot of a Thasian amphora is illustrated on pl. B:6. This long heavy amphora toe is typical of Thasian wine jars from the 4th century b.c. The Thasians were famous for their wine (Xenophon Symposium IV, 41) and it is most likely that these amphorae were used to export such wine to Mendes.12 Another East Greek amphora type well represented in the landfill between the inner (T2) and outer (T1) temenos walls, may be identified as coming from the island of Chios (pl. C:1-3, 6-7).13 Both rims and bases that date from the late 5th to early 4th century b.c. were recovered from the landfill. Traces of red paint on the neck and tops of handles were found on several of our examples and probably are stains from ancient sealings. The double-coiled amphora handles of a fine cream fabric (pl. B:10) recovered from squares F from on top of the earlier temenos (T2) have been mentioned above; they may be identified as coming from Koan amphorae from the early 3rd century b.c.14 Although we are comfortable in treating the amphorae from this landfill as a group as coming from East Greece, neutron activation studies suggest that we may have a slightly wider range of material than East Greece proper. Neutron activation studies have made attributions of clays to the Greek mainland (pl. B:9), Crete (pl. A:28) and western Anatolia (pl. A:29). The ware of the amphora neck and handle illustrated on pl. B.9 is rather unique. It is a medium coarse, orange ware, which has been

Compare pl. 15.9 (4th century Samos, text on p. 78) with pl. 15.13 (early Rhodian, text p. 94 n.13). 7 Grace “Samian Amphoras” Hesperia 40 (1971) pp. 63-74. 8 Pliny Nat. Hist. XIII.1 notes that Mendes was famous for its perfume (unguentum mendesium). 9 For example in Thasos, see Garlan, Yvon. 1988. Vin et amphores de Thasos (École française d’Athènes) p. 13, figs. 1213. 10 It is strange that with the Samian amphorae we have not been able to identify any evidence for the handles from the Mendes landfills. 11 See Virginia Grace “Stamped Amphora Handles found in 1931-1932” Hesperia 3 (1934) p. 201 for ware of Thasian amphorae which varies in colour from buff to russet. Its most obvious characteristic, however, is the presence of mica. 12 Virginia Grace “Early Thasian Stamped Amphoras” American Journal of Archaeology 50 (1946) p. 13. 13 J. Boardman Excavations in Chios 1952-1955: Greek Emporio (1967) p. 179 nos. 950 & 954. Avshalom Zemer Storage Jars in Ancient Sea Trade National Maritime Museum, Israel, jar no. 30. 14 Grace, Virginia. 1961. Amphoras and the Ancient Wine Trade (American School of Classical Studies Picture Book no. 6) nos. 56-59.

ceramic analysis

139

fired in a reducing atmosphere, producing a dark gray surface. Until we learn more about clay sources and their uses in the eastern Mediterranean, these attributions must remain very tentative. Other Greek Imports Common Greek ceramic imports into Egypt are small squat lekythoi which are characteristic of the 4th century b.c.15 Two examples were recovered from the landfill between the inner (T2) and outer (T1) temenos walls, one from locus ALF I-II 117 (pl. T:10) and locus ALF I/II 108 (pl. T:11). The pale beige ware and the black glaze is of high quality and they look like imports rather than copies, although they have not been tested by neutron activation. On the preserved base fragment (pl. T: 10) there is no paint on the shallow ring base with a small exterior ridge. A tongue pattern frieze demarcates the bottom of the lekythos’s belly.16 Ceramics from the landfill between the inner (T2) and outer (T1) temenos walls also suggest contact between Mendes and Cyprus.17 A body sherd from locus ALP II 6 (pl. S:31) from the neck of a vessel (amphora?) is decorated with concentric circles in black paint. The circle ornaments indicate that this piece is probably a Geometric period piece from Cyprus.18 Another body sherd (pl. T:7) with black concentric circle decoration was recovered from locus ALF/R III 14 Baulk. Canaanite Store-Jars Levantine ware sherds appear in the landfill in significant numbers, suggesting a strong and steady trade between Mendes and the Phoenician coast. Rim sherds from store-jars (pl. H) typically have neckless everting rims and short shoulders, indicative of a date in the Persian Period (4th century b.c.).19 Analysis is hampered due to the fragmentary nature of the material; in no case do we have a complete set of diagnostic indicators including rim, shoulder, body shape, handles and base. When tested by means of neutron activation, the store-jars from the landfill between the inner (T2) and outer (T1) temenos walls were almost all identified as originating in the coastal area of northern Israel in the vicinity of Acco. This group includes store-jars illustrated on pl. H:1-4, 7, and 13. Levantine ware sherds from other parts of the Mendes site most frequently have other provenances according to the neutron activation results. Store-jars illustrated on pl. H:14-16 (from ALK and ALM) have been identified as originating in the hill country of Israel. Another group of Levantine ware store-jars, illustrated on pl. H:19-21, have been identified through the neutron activation results as originating from southern Palestine in the region of Gaza and Ashdod. Stylistically, all three of these store-jars exhibit an everting rolled rim and narrow shoulder which is a marker for the Persian Period. The implication of the neutron activation results, therefore, is that Mendes was trading with a number of different areas of the Levant. Another type of store-jar is represented by a rim (pl. J:28) and a base (pl. J:29) that come from this landfill. The ware resembles that of the Canaanite store-jars, and may be identified as fragments from basket-handled jars of a type known from around the eastern Mediterranean in the 6th-4th centuries b.c. The basket-handled jars seem to have first appeared on the island of Rhodes and then spread south to Cyprus, Palestine and Egypt. With several examples having been discovered underwater, it is evident that these vessels were used in the coastal shipping trade.20 Mortaria A number of fragments of mortaria, or large heavy bowls with thick rims, were recovered from the landfill between the inner (T2) and outer (T1) temenos walls. Six examples from this area are illustrated 15 Marjorie Venit “The Greek Pottery” in Cities of the Delta II: Mendes p. 29; H.A. Thompson “Two centuries of Hellenistic Pottery” Hesperia 3 (1934) p. 436. 16 See The Athenian Agora v. XXVII (1995) photo #45. 17 Note that neutron activation studies have identified Cyprus as the source for the body sherd illustrated on pl. T:8. 18 Gjerstad Swedish Cyprus Expedition IV.2 figs. XXIV.2 and XXVI and Gjerstad “Pottery Types Cypro-Geometric to Cypro-Classical” Opuscula Atheniensia III fig. 13. 19 Pat Paice. “A Preliminary Analysis of Some Elements of the Saite and Persian Pottery at Tell el-Maskhuta” Bulletin of the Egyptological Seminar 8 (1986/87) p. 98, figure 2 shows Persian period storejar. 20 E. Stern Material Culture of the Land of the Bible in the Persian Period (Warminster: Aris & Phillips, 1982) pp. 110-112. See also the article by Alicia de Rodrigo in this volume.

140

chapter seven

on pl. J:2-3, 6, 8-10. The ware of these mortaria is fairly dense and has considerable mineral inclusions. The mortaria pieces are hard and well-fired and their surfaces tend to feel very gritty. Their rim diameters vary between 15 and 25 centimetres. This pottery form is well known from Palestine where it is usually dated to the Persian Period (538-332 b.c.). The form with the high pedestal base (pl. J.13) may definitely be placed in the 5th-4th centuries b.c.21 Bowls with a flat or concave disc base may date back to the seventh-six centuries b.c. The mortaria seem to have originated in East Greece at this time and then spread south and east around the eastern Mediterranean. From Egypt they are known from the sites of Naukratis22 and Tell el-Maskuta.23 Because of the context within a fill, the Mendes examples cannot be given a date more precise than 6th-4th centuries b.c., although a Persian Period date is likely. With other evidence indicating strong contacts between Mendes and East Greece, Cyprus and the Levantine coast, the Mendes mortaria cannot be given a more precise origin (but see below). Nevertheless, the mortaria support a general interpretation of close trade links between Mendes in the eastern Nile Delta and the eastern Mediterranean from the Levant north to East Greece. Other West Asian Imports Three Palestinian-type juglets were recovered from the landfill between the inner (T2) and outer (T1) temenos walls (pl. T:13-15).24 The juglet from locus ALP I 23 (pl. T:13) was tested through neutron activation and its origin placed in northern Israel (inland). Traces of red slip remain on the surface along with black paint on the rim. All three juglets were probably imported to Egypt in the first millennium b.c. A body sherd (pl. T:43) with a pale orange burnished background has a large black star decoration situated between concentric bands of red and black paint. The sherd is about the right shape for a small jug (diameter ca. 12 cm).25 Neutron activation tests place this sherd on the southern coast of Israel, which accords well with the bichrome decoration. B. Landfill West of Inner Temenos Wall (T2) (Nectanebo) The ceramics from the area east of the sarcophagus, but within the inner temenos wall were recovered from squares G, H, I and J. This pottery is a mixture with many pieces datable to the New Kingdom (Ramesside?) and Third Intermediate Periods. A number of pieces may be comfortably placed in the 4th Century b.c., giving the date for the fill as a whole. Most distinctive of this area are large quantities of pottery with a rather unique “checkerboard” decoration. The ceramics of squares G, I and J are very homogenous; a join was even found between bowl pieces from G/I/1 and I/I/18 (pl. K:33). The bottom of the inner temenos wall (T2) was reached in Square J; the pottery at this point is all datable to the Third Intermediate Period. Square H produced a great deal of the “checkerboard” decorated pottery, but also a number of Levantine and East Greek pieces. The ceramics from this square, located beside square C, therefore, have some of the characteristics of the pottery from the limestone tip-lines in Area A as well as Area B. The fact that Square H was not dug as deep as squares, G, I & J may have influenced this result. Evidence for the ceramic composition of the fill west of the inner temenos wall (T2) is provided by the following typological analysis of trench I in Square G:

21

E. Stern Material Culture of the Land of the Bible in the Persian Period (Warminster: Aris & Phillips, 1982) p. 98. We would like to thank Pat Paice of the Wadi Tumilat Project, University of Toronto for fruitful discussions concerning these mortaria. 22 W.M.F. Petrie Naukratis I, EEF Memoir 3 (London: Trübner, 1886) pl. 4.2. 23 Holladay, J. 1982. Cities of the Delta III: Tell el-Maskhuta (ARCE Reports v.6) pl. 16. 24 See Ruth Amiran Ancient Pottery of the Holy Land (1970) pl. 52; Gus van Beek “Total Retrieval and Maximum Reconstruction of Artifacts: An Experimentation in Archaeological Methodology” Eretz-Israel 20 (1989) p. 21 (ill. 8 no. 359). 25 For parallel see Claire Epstein Palestinian Bichrome Ware (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1966) pl. XIII.6.

ceramic analysis Pottery Forms Small mouth jars Wide mouth jars Bowls Cups Finger cups Bottles Bread trays Basins/large open vessels Decorated sherds Decorated imported sherds Greek amphoras Levantine ware

Square AL-G I No. % 177 27.6% 115 17.9% 249 38.8% 22 3.4% 1 .2% 6 .9% 4 .6% 9 1.4% 51 8% 2 .3% 0 – 6 .9%

Total

642

141

Total checkerboard Egyptian marl Foreign wares

41 8 8

100%

A number of ceramic forms may be dated to the Persian/Saite Period; these include basket handle jars, Greek amphora handles (one from G), mortaria, and a handle with bichrome decoration. From the Egyptian Late Period in general come such forms as single and double notched rim jars (Kom el-Ahmar pls. LXVI & LXVIII.1) and Bes pots (pl. T:38).26 Hellenistic Pottery The latest pottery from this area consists of two casserole rim fragments (pl. D:9) and four amphora spikes, which could be early Ptolemaic, likely at the end of the 4th Century b.c. A few incurving bowl forms are also likely Hellenistic or 4th Century b.c. An amphora spike (pl.C:13) with ridging was found close to the surface and could be early Roman! Foreign Wares Although not particularly frequent, the same types of imported wares found in the landfill between the two temenos walls are found to the east of the limestone sarcophagus and within the inner temenos (T2) wall. An amphora foot with a knob-like base with a depression in the bottom (pl. A:22) and an amphora rim (pl. A:24) from this fill both come from Samian amphorae. The rim fragment is decorated with a black stripe along the rim. The rim shape fits the 5th century b.c. Samian style, but the black stripe suggests that this piece could be even earlier.27 Four rims of Phoenician pale orange ware storejars were found in this fill (pl. H:10, 17, 31 & J.21). All these foreign pieces support a date of 5th-4th centuries b.c., i.e Persian Period. Three body sherds from small jars(?) have bichrome decoration of black and red parallel stripes on a pale beige/orange burnished background (pl. S: 27-29). The bottom of black vertical stripes28 can be seen along the top black horizontal stripes. The sherds have a hard, well-fired ware of a fine dense pale orange colour and were burnished vertically. Two of these sherds (pl. S: 28-29) come from the landfill west of the inner temenos (T2), while the third (pl. S:27) comes from elsewhere on the site. Neutron activation tests from two of these sherds (pl. S:27 & 29) situate them both in northern Israel, although they are different enough so they cannot come from the same vessel. As with the landfill between the inner (T2) and outer (T1) temenos walls, ceramics from the landfill west of the inner temenos (T2) indicate contact between Mendes and Cyprus. A handle painted black on the sides with horizontal black stripes (pl. S:32) seems stylistically to be from a Cypriot vessel29; neutron activation tests were not done on this piece. Another body sherd (pl. T:8) is covered with a thick cream background slip on which are painted black concentric circles; it is undoubtedly from a 26

Lisa K. Sabbahy “Observations on Bes-pots of the Late Period” ZÄS 109 (1982) p. 147. Painted decoration seems to be more common in the Saite Period, cf. Eliezer D. Oren “Migdol: A new Fortress on the edge of the Nile Delta” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, No. 256, 1984 p.19, fig. 22. 28 These could be criss-cross patterns, vertical stripes or even the feet of birds, see Claire Epstein Palestinian Bichrome Ware (Leiden, E.J. Brill, 1966) pl. XIX. 29 Gjerstad, E. “Pottery Types: Cypro-Geometric to Cypro-Classical” Opuscula Atheniensia III fig. 7, nos. 11, 12 & 14. 27

142

chapter seven

flask.30 Neutron activation tests point to Cyprus as the place of origin and specifically to Milea/Enkomi as the most likely source for this sherd. An imported piece from a much earlier period is a fragment of a Mycenaean stirrup jar (pl. T:42). The surface has been painted with reddish brown stripes and traces of burnishing remain. Neutron activation results place the origin of the sherd on the island of Crete. In addition Aegean specialists have concurred that the sherd is indeed Mycenaean.31 Decoration The most striking characteristic of the pottery from this area (squares G, H and I) is the large number of sherds which have survived from decorated jars, and possibly bowls as well. A unique decorative style predominates throughout the corpus of painted sherds and is illustrated on Pl. S nos. 3-7, and nos. 9-14. This decorative style consists of a multicolour checkerboard design applied after the vessel had been fired. The checkerboard design is delineated in black paint and is usually accompanied with vegetal motifs (flowers, petals or grape vines). White and cream slips most often form the background, although pink, red, and blue slips also occur. In addition to the multicoloured checkerboard patterns, the decorative elements consist of (1) stripes or bands in black, red, white or blue paint, (2) black and red dots, (3) triangles of blue and other colours, (4) petal friezes coloured white, blue, red or black, (5) blue or red flowers, and (6) black coloured grape clusters on orange or red stems. As well as these decorative elements, figures also appear, including human figures with raised hands (pl. R:4; pl. S: 13-14). These appear to be parts of offering scenes before the ram (pl. S:18) or fish gods of Mendes. In addition, a Bes figure with a red painted face (pl. S:6) appears on one fragment.32 Typical New Kingdom designs are found on forms made both of Nile silt (Pl. S:2, S:24 and T: 34) and of Egyptian marl (Pl. S:22-23 and T:32). Plate S no. 1 illustrates a jar with an incised pattern with a thick red slip burnished to a high gloss. The Egyptian potter appears to be copying the style of a popular Persian metal vessel.33 C. Area around the Sarcophagus The chief feature of the area in the southeastern quadrant of the Mendes temenos wall is the bottom half of a large limestone sarcophagus, attributed to Nepherites I (399-393 b.c.) of the 29th Egyptian Dynasty. The area of the sarcophagus and its walled enclosure were excavated from squares Sn, Ss and Sw to the north, south and west of the sarcophagus respectively. The ceramics recovered from the area of the sarcophagus contain a great deal of Third Intermediate Period material, evidence for occupation at the site of Mendes at this time. The area around the sarcophagus was already being used as a burial place in the Third Intermediate Period. In Sw VIII an adult burial was uncovered within a rectangular mud-brick chamber, with an infant pot-burial in its northeastern corner. The pottery in this chamber dates to the Third Intermediate Period. Two more burials were discovered further to the north in Sn II. One of these was in a clay “slipper” or “cigar” shaped coffin (pl. U: 17).34 In addition, a series of infant pot burials was discovered further north in Squares N and O. The pottery associated with these burials and a series of mud brick walls is also datable to the Third Intermediate Period (see above, chp. 4). Early in the 4th century b.c., a large square pit was dug through the Third Intermediate Period layers in preparation for the burial in the limestone sarcophagus and its attendant shrine. The pot30

Gjerstad, E. Swedish Cyprus Expedition IV.2 fig. III nos. 11-15 Many thanks to Joseph W. Shaw (University of Toronto) and Jeremy Rupp (Brock University) who visually examined the sherd and confirmed our identification. 32 Rexine Hummel and Steven B. Shubert “Preliminary Report on the Ceramics from the 1992 Season at Mendes” JSSEA XXI/XXII p. 18, fig. 5. 33 Stern Material Culture of the Land of the Bible in the Persian Period 538-332 B.C. p. 145. It is also possible that a Greek prototype, such as the Phidias mug (420 B.C.) may have inspired the Egyptian piece, cf. Rhys F. Townsend The Athenian Agora XXVII (1995) pl. 37 nos. 49-50, p. 172.) 34 Clay anthropoid coffins appear in Egypt from New Kingdom times onward, cf. Lisa Kuchman “Egyptian Clay Anthropoid Coffins” Serapis 4 (1977-78) pp. 11-22 and Trude Dothan The Philistines and Their Material Culture (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1983) pp. 279-288. 31

ceramic analysis

143

tery from this pit contains numerous pieces datable to the Late Period in general, and in particular to its later phases (i.e. Persian basket strap handled jars and mortaria). There are also pieces which show Hellenistic influence, such as amphora spikes and casseroles. The ceramics concur with the archaeological evidence of a series of disturbances: 1) building the 30th Dynasty temenos wall (T2); 2) destruction of the sarcophagus during the Persian invasion of 343 b.c.; and 3) the building of the outer temenos wall (T1) under Ptolemy II. The decoration (pl.S:33-34) and form (e.g. high ring bases) of the latest diagnostics indicate an early Hellenistic date for the final disturbance of the largely Third Intermediate Period material from the 29th Dynasty burial. Evidence for the ceramic composition of the fill around the sarcophagus is provided by the following typological analysis of trench I in Square AL-Sw: Typological analyses: AL-Sw I and extension No. % Small mouth jars 85 39% Wide mouth jars 37 17% Bowls 45 20.5% Cups 22 10.1% Juglets/flasks 3 1.4% Bread moulds 1 .4% Cooking pots/casseroles 7 3.2% Lids 9 4.1% Decorated sherds (1 Bes) 5 2.3% Large open vessels 2 1% Tokens 2 1% Total Egyptian

218

Foreign total: Greek amphoras + imitations Hellenistic pcs Phoenician crisp + imitations Mortaria

21 3 5 8 3 1 1

100%

The overall distribution is not very different from that found in the other fills. The preponderance of small mouth jars may be a result of offerings left in association with the various burials found in this area. Hellenistic Pottery There is a greater frequency of Hellenistic pottery in the disturbed loci of the area around the sarcophagus than in the other two landfills. A number of amphora spikes were found in this area (pl. C:9-12). These are made of Nile silt (either red-brown or hard orange) with black cores. Thus, they are Egyptian imitations of the bases of the popular Rhodian amphorae. The ridge at the top of one of these spikes (pl. C:12) could even indicate an early Roman date.35 Hellenistic-type cooking pots are also found frequently in this landfill. Wide-mouthed shallow casseroles with interior ledges to support lids are the most frequently found vessels that may be placed in or close to the Hellenistic period. From the area of the limestone sarcophagus come at least 19 examples of this form (pl. D:3, 5-8, 10-23). As well, there are smaller mouthed deep pots for boiling or heating liquids (pl. E:2-3, 512, 14-18). They are all made of a hard well-fired Nile silt with a colour that ranges from orange to dark brown. There is no indication of the popular Roman ridging in our sample, which is consistent with an early Hellenistic date. There is a large variety of casserole rim shapes. Shallow bowls or cups are frequently found, many being small enough to survive substantially complete or at least with a fully restorable profile. Shallow bowls with incurving rims were popular all over the eastern Mediterranean region in the Hellenistic Period.36 A number from the area of the limestone sarcophagus are illustrated on pl. K:4, 8, 12. The form originated in the 4th century b.c. in fine Attic black glazed ware.37 The shape probably had many functions including offering bowls, drinking cups, lids and even lamps. Soot smudges on some of the rims are evidence for the usage as lamps. The shallow saucers pl. K:15-17 were popular lamp types in the Hellenistic period. Other Hellenistic forms include the cups on pl. K:21-27 and K:45; a fine gray ware bowl with a black burnished 35

John S. Holladay Cities of the Delta III: Tell el-Maskhuta p. 143, pl. 33 no. 8. Antioch on the Orontes IV, edited by Frederick Waagé (Princeton, 1948) pp. 13-15, pls. II-III nos. 70-79. H. Goldman Excavations at Gözlü Kule: Tarsus I (Princeton, 1950) pp. 126-7, pl. 180 nos. 50-80. 37 H.A. Thompson “Two Centuries of Hellenistic Pottery” Hesperia 3 (1943) p. 435 notes that the series goes from incurving in the 4th century to vertical in the 2nd century B.C. Quoted by J.A. Riley Excavations at Sidi Khrebish Benghazi (Berenice) (Tripoli: Libyan Dept. of Antiquities, 1978) p. 283. 36

chapter seven

144

surface pl. N:4; two jar fragments with black painted floral design pl. S:33-34; two bases of fusiform unguent jars pl. T:17, 18; 3 conical jars pl. T:35-37, and a high ring base pl. U:8. Foreign Wares The same types of foreign wares found in the other landfills in the southwestern quadrant within the temenos at Mendes were found in the area around the sarcophagus. Mushroom-shaped rim sherds from Samian amphorae38 from this area are illustrated on pl. A:5, 13 & 14. Amphora feet that can be connected with this type of rim are illustrated on pl. A:19-21. In addition to these late 4th century pieces, a fragment of a late 5th/early 4th century b.c. Samian amphora was uncovered (pl. A:26). Other diagnostics look generally like East Greek amphorae, but we are unable to be more precise about their place of origin (pl. A:30 & 33, B:3, 7-8). The rim style of one piece (pl. A:31) resembles 3rd century b.c. Cypriot amphorae.39 The ware is pale orange with fine black and white grits and a cream coloured surface. Egyptian copies of these East Greek amphorae also appear (pl. B:11). Two Egyptian copies replicate Chian amphorae of the mid-5th (pl. C:4) and early 4th century b.c. (pl. C: 5). One squat black glazed 4th century lekythos was recovered from the area around the sarcophagus (pl. T:9). The surface is glazed black with a palmette design left unglazed. Six rims of Phoenician crisp ware store-jars were found in the area around the sarcophagus (pl. H:8-9, 23-24 & 33-34). The rims vary in shape. Two (pl. H:8-9) have wide shoulders indicating an earlier date (seventh/sixth century b.c.?). The others all have narrow shoulders indicating a Persian Period date. Further evidence of contact with the Levant is provided by mortaria; four examples from the area around the sarcophagus are illustrated on pl. J:4-5, 7 & 12. None of these have been tested, so it is possible that one or more is an Egyptian marl copy. One rim and two bases are from basket-handled jars (pl. J:27, 30 & 31) D. Miscellaneous Areas In addition to the pottery from the three landfills, pieces from four other areas of excavation have been included in the Mendes neutron activation analysis (NAA). The ceramics from these areas have not been fully analyzed and await future publication. Preliminary explanations are included here in order to provide an explanation for the pottery sampled for neutron activation tests. Pottery from the following non-landfill areas of Mendes is illustrated in the plates: 1) the harbour area; 2) sondage between the temple and royal necropolis area (A-K to A-O); 3) the vicinity of the dig house (HC & DC); and 4) a test trench south of the main temple area (HF). The illustrated pottery from these disparate areas will be discussed together according to the same categories as used above. Hellenistic Pottery Graeco-Roman pottery from the Harbour area that underwent neutron activation testing is illustrated on pl. V:13-32. This pottery tends to be of a hard well-fired ware, often with thin walls. Typical Hellenistic forms include the casserole (pl.V:20), beaker with red horizontal stripes (pl.V:24) and fusiform unguentarium (pl.V:16 & 18). High ring bases (pl.V:25-26) are also characteristic of Hellenistic pottery. Some pieces may be of Roman date, for example the unguentarium base illustrated in plate V:17. Plate V:13 is the top of a pitcher with a strainer between the body of the vessel and the neck; these pieces are not easily datable, being found in both Hellenistic and Roman contexts. Foreign Wares and Egyptian Copies As in the landfills, foreign wares from the eastern Mediterranean are found in the miscellaneous areas of Mendes. These examples underline the wide variety of foreign connections already seen among the Mendes ceramics. From the harbour area come amphorae from Samos (pl. V:4-5), Crete (pl. V:2-3), Kos (pl. V:6), and Chios (pl. C:8). Amphorae from the harbour of similar style (pl. V:8-9) are connected by NAA 38 39

Pl. B.3 is a fine pale orange ware with white specks. It may possibly be Thasian rather than Samian. Avshalom Zemer Storage jars in Ancient Sea Trade pl. 11 no. 32.

ceramic analysis

145

with Israel (around Sepphoris). A bottle rim (pl. V:7) with a thick black slip smoothed to a matte finish from the harbour is connected by NAA with East Greece, especially Ephesos. A small jar base (pl. V:10) of dense orange ware from the harbour is connected by NAA with the north inland region of Israel (i.e. the Shikhin area). Another harbour sherd connected by NAA with the north inland region of Israel (pl. V:12) looks like the rim of a Roman period cooking pot.40 From the HC area, the neck and handles of an amphora (pl. B:9) are made of a very gritty ware that NAA connects with the Greek mainland (Argolid/Corinth area). From the broad “earth-cutting” that began in the east in A-M and extended beyond the west baulk of A-K come a number of imports from West Asia. Canaanite (“Phoenician”) store-jar rims from the hill country (pl. V:14-16) and from the south coastal area (pl. V:19-21) have been distinguished by NAA. The south coast store-jars from the area of Ashdod and Gaza all have the everting rolled rim which is an indication of a Persian Period date. NAA has shown that a juglet from locus ALL IV.16 (pl. T:12), which looks like a Greek import, is in fact made of Nile silt that has been fired in a reducing atmosphere to a dark gray. It may have been brought to Mendes from a Greek settlement in Egypt, such as Alexandria or Naukratis. Also from the “broad earth-cutting” of square A-M, comes the base of a large thick bowl or mortarium (pl. J:13). This base is confidently connected by NAA with the island of Cyprus, more specifically the Limissol/Lanarka area. The high pedestal base places this bowl in the Persian Period.41 E. Dray and J. du Plat-Taylor Tsambres and Aphendrika (1951) p. 89 fig. 42.11-12. Traces remain of wet-smoothing on the exterior, but the sand is very visible on the surface of the interior which accounts for the very gritty feel. NAA suggests that some of these mortaria may be Egyptian marl copies of foreign vessels. Although inconclusive, the neutron activation results for the mortarium illustrated on pl. J.1 from Square A-K show characteristics similar to those of Egyptian marl clays. The surface has been wet-smoothed, but feels gritty. Once again it has proven difficult for us to visually distinguish between the foreign ware and its Egyptian imitation. Common Egyptian Pottery Forms Egyptian pottery forms and wares comprise the vast majority of the pottery recovered from the three landfills (ca. 80-90%). This proportion is not represented on the plates which are heavily weighted toward the foreign, Hellenistic and other dateable pieces. This discussion covers all of the native Egyptian plain wares together and is not divided according to the different landfill areas since little difference could be ascertained between the Egyptian pottery in different landfills. The pottery presented here indicates a presence of these forms or vessel types at Mendes and provides evidence of occupation at the site from the New Kingdom through the Third Intermediate and Late Periods and into the 4th century b.c. Because of the context of this pottery in mixes of landfills, no independent evidence for dating or use of pottery forms is provided by this analysis. Discussion is presented below in the following sections: 1) wares; 2) small mouth jars; 3) wide mouth jars; 4) bowls; 5) cups; and 6) miscellaneous forms. Wares The majority of the native Egyptian pottery from Mendes is made from two types of clay: (i) clay that fires to a cinnamon brown colour, with a pink core, which is fairly soft; and (ii) clay that fires to a rust colour with a black or banded red/black/red core, which is much harder. In the Old Kingdom the ratio of the two types is about equal; by the Late Period, however, the hard rust-coloured wares predominate. The clays from the remaining sherds are not easily categorized and fire to various shades of orange or brown with red or black cores and medium hardness. The Hellenistic wares from Mendes are almost all hard and well-fired with various hues of brown and rust colours. There is some Egyptian marl ware, which was probably imported from the Nile Valley. Silt wares have been categorized as either coarse, medium or fine according to the following definitions. Coarse ware indicates poorly levigated silt that fires either brown or rust with a thick core, with much chaff temper, and a coarse surface. The cinnamon brown coarse ware is very soft and crumbly; the rust 40 41

We would like to thank Professor John S. Holladay for this observation. For parallels from Cyprus see E. Gjerstad Swedish Expedition to Cyprus IV (1948) pl. 56.5

146

chapter seven

coarse ware is a little harder. Medium ware indicates a silt that fires either brown or rust with a pink or black core and a small amount of fine chaff as temper. The surface is commonly slipped red and sometimes burnished. Fine ware indicates a pure silt, well-levigated, often with no visible core, and no visible inclusions. Surfaces are carefully finished with red and brown slips that are usually finely burnished. Some bowls have been fired in a reducing atmosphere that has produced a black surface. Small-Mouth Jars (pls. G & L) Cooking vessels form an easily recognizable group of silt small mouth jars. The earliest types found in the Mendes landfill are illustrated on pl. L:8-10. These are either late New Kingdom or Third Intermediate Period vessels (Dynasties 20-21).42 The holes in the neck and shoulder of the vessel illustrated on pl. L.10 may have been used to suspend the vessel from a rope. Later Saite/Persian period cooking pots often have horizontal grooves on the rim and usually have a red slip on the exterior surface (see pl. L:1-6).43 Other small mouth jars of brickey medium silt, often found with soot on the exterior are also Egyptian Late Period cooking vessels (pl. G:18-22, 26).44 Painted decoration on the exterior of small mouthed jars is an indication of a Ramesside date (perhaps Dynasties 19-21). The jar illustrated on pl. F:10 has an overall cream slip with three bands of red paint and one of yellowish green. Jars decorated with designs painted in black alone (pl. L: 11) or black with yellow, blue and red paint after firing (pl. L:12) are also thought to be of late New Kingdom date because of this decoration. Other small mouth jars have characteristic New Kingdom shapes (pl. L:7-8).45 Still other small mouth jars have characteristic Third Intermediate Period shapes with parallels at other Delta sites, such as Tanis.46 The outward curving “ball”-shaped rims of the small necked store-jars illustrated on pls. L:14-18 and pl. F:7 indicate a Third Intermediate Period date.47 These vessels would have had a pair of opposing handles on the shoulder and a rounded base.48 Vessels with the characteristic convex curve in the neck are popular in the Ramesside Period as well, but have longer necks and everting rims.49 Another characteristic Third Intermediate Period type is the small mouth jar with a vertical neck and a globular body with the widest width at the shoulders (pl. L:9, 19 & 20). The rims are slightly thickened to the interior of these vessels.50 Small mouth jars with thick walls made of medium coarse silt, sometimes covered by a white slip (pl. G:13-17, 26) are later in date, i.e. Late Period to 4th century b.c.51 Marl small mouth jars (pl. G:1-7) come in a variety of different rim shapes which are very well known in the Theban area.52 Some of the Mendes small mouth jars have a more characteristic Third 42 For parallels see David Aston “Qantir/Piramesse-Nord - Pottery Report 1988” Göttinger Miszellen, Heft 113, 1989, fig. 7.4 and María José López Grande et al. Excavationes en Ehnasya el Medina (Heracleópolis Magna) Volumen 2, Madrid, 1995, p. 159, Lám. XXV:b,e. 43 For parallels, see John S. Holladay Jr. “Tell El-Maskhuta, Preliminary Report on the Wadi Tumilat Project 19781979” Cities of the Delta III (1982) pl. 7.2-3 and pl. 25.14; Susan Allen. “The Pottery” in K. Wilson, Mendes, Cities of the Delta II (1982) pl. 16.4-6; Dominique Roussel and Sylvie Marchand “Tanis. La Céramique d’un bâtiment de la XXXe dynastie.” Bulletin de Liaison XVIII (1994) pl. II.21. We would also like to acknowledge Pat Paice of the Wadi Tumilat for confirmation concerning these cooking pots. 44 For parallels see Susan Allen “The Pottery” in K.Wilson Cities of the Delta II: Mendes (1982) pl. 18.3. 45 The jar illustrated on pl. L.7 is from the New Kingdom deposit at Mendes in squares M and N. It is probably a dipper pot, cf. Colin Hope “Pottery of the Ramesside Period” Pottery of the Egyptian New Kingdom, Three Studies. Victoria College , Archaeology Research Unit, Occasional Paper 2, Burwood, Australia, (1989) p. 68 fig. 8j & l. 46 See, for example, Dominique Roussel and Sylvie Marchande “Tanis. La Céramique d’un bâtiment de la XXXe dynastie.” Bulletin de Liaison XVIII (1994) pl. 3.27 for a parallel to our pl. G:26. 47 For parallels see U. Hölscher Medinet Habu V: The Post Ramessid Remains (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1934) pl. 47, esp. C-6 & O-2; R. Anthes Mit Rahineh 1956 (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1965) pl. 56 nos. 397-8; and D. Aston “Qantir/Piramess-Nord—Pottery Report 1988” GM 113 (1989) figs. 7.3 & 8.1. 48 See fig. 4.2 in Hummel and Shubert “Preliminary Report on the Ceramics from the 1992 Season at Mendes” JSSEA 21/22 (1991/92) p. 17. 49 Greg Mumford ‘Tale from a “Wine Jar”’ Akhenaten Temple Project Newsletter (May 1993) pp. 2-4. 50 For parallels see Peter French “Buto. Tell a-Fara’in. A Pottery Assemblage of the 8th century B.C.” Bulletin de Liaison XIX (1996) p. 11, type 3; David Aston “Qantir/Piramesse-Nord - Pottery Report 1988” Göttinger Miszellen 113 (1989) fig. 7.4. See also Hummel and Shubert “Kom el-Ahmar: Ceramic Typology” In The Akhenaten Temple Project 3: The Excavations of Kom el-Ahmar and Environs p. 47 (pl. LXVII:4). 51 For parallels see Phillipe Brissaud “Répertoire Préliminaire de la poterie trouvée à San el-Hagar (1re Partie)” Cahiers de la Céramique Égyptienne 1 (1987) pl. XV:240-242. 52 Hummel and Shubert “Kom el-Ahmar: Ceramic Typology” In The Akhenaten Temple Project 3: The Excavations of Kom el-Ahmar and Environs pp. 43-51 and Peter French “A Preliminary Study of Pottery in Lower Egypt in the Late Dynastic and Ptolemaic Periods.” Cahiers de la Céramique Égyptienne 3 (1992) p. 85, fig. 3.

ceramic analysis

147

Intermediate Period form (pl. G:1-4), while others are more characteristic of the Late Period (pl. G: 5-7). Although wide-mouth jars are popular in Upper Egypt, if the Mendes sample is anything to go by, the small-mouth jars seem to have been sent north more, the vertical notched jar being the most popular of these imports to Mendes. Wide-Mouth Jars (pls. F, O, Q & R) Fragments of large Third Intermediate Period store-jars are ubiquitous in the Mendes landfills (pls. O, Q:6-8 & R:1-6 ). There are enough examples of the hole-mouth jars (pl. O) found with attached handles to suggest that this is a form that comes with handles. The handles appear too tiny for the size of these vessels. Ropes or poles were probably placed through these handles to assist in carrying or pouring. The ware is a very hard, heavy, dull orange brown silt with a surface that is often decorated with a red, or more often cream slip, applied with little care. These neckless vessels have folded over rims and restricted openings. The hole-mouth jars are very common at Mendes and elsewhere in the north of Egypt,53 but are rare in the south.54 Large numbers of pieces from thick walled wide-mouth storage jars (pls. Q & R) are also found in the Mendes landfills. Their ware is the typical hard Third Intermediate Period silt ware. Vessels with thick everting rims which originally had two opposing handles under the rim (pl. Q:1-5), although rim sherds often break above the handles. Common at Mendes,55 these store-jars with everting rims do not seem to occur at other Delta sites.56 Even more common are large neckless store-jars with thickened rims and two opposing handles (pls. Q:6-8 & R:1-6). These vessels, some of which are huge, tend to have a streaky cream, pink or red slip on the exterior surface. They are found elsewhere in the region of Memphis, the eastern delta57 and in the Sinai.58 One unique example (pl. R:4) is decorated with the painted figures of two men raising their arms in a gesture of prayer. The top figure seems to be wearing a feather in his hair. Smaller and thinner silt wide-mouth jars without any evidence of handles (pl. F:2-5) also date to the Third Intermediate Period.59 They have thickened rims and their sides slope inwards towards the mouth of the vessel. Some have decoration on the exterior, such as horizontally incised grooves (pl. F: 3) or red slip (pl. F:4). A similarly shaped small, thin-walled jar with an everting rim (pl. F:9) may be placed in the Late Period.60 A wide-mouthed vessel with a large horizontal ridge below the rim may be either a jar (pl. F:8) or a bowl (pl. M:8).61(called bowl-jars). They date to the Late Period.62 53 For parallels to the narrow jar of pl. O:1, see Peter French “Buto. Tell a-Fara’in. A Pottery Assemblage of the 8th century B.C.” Bulletin de Liaison XIX (1996) p. 11 type 2; Peter French “Late Dynastic Pottery from the Berlin/Hanover Excavations at Saqqara, 1986” MDAIK 44 (1988) p. 82, fig.1; John S. Holladay Jr. “Tell El-Maskhuta, Preliminary Report on the Wadi Tumilat Project 1978-1979” Cities of the Delta III (1982) pl. 22: 1-6. For parallels to the hole-mouth jars with incurving rims (pl. O.2-4) see Peter French “Buto. Tell a-Fara’in. A Pottery Assemblage of the 8th century B.C.” Bulletin de Liaison XIX (1996) p. 11 type 1; and David Aston “Qantir/ Piramesse-Nord —Pottery Report 1988” Göttinger Miszellen 113 (1989) fig. 8:2. For parallels to the hole-mouth jars with thickened rims see Peter French “Buto. Tell a-Fara’in. A Pottery Assemblage of the 8th century B.C.” Bulletin de Liaison XIX (1996) p. 11 type 1; David Aston “Qantir/Piramesse-Nord—Pottery Report 1988” Göttinger Miszellen 113 (1989) fig. 8:2; Susan Allen “The Pottery” in K.Wilson Mendes, Cities of the Delta II (1982) pl. XVIII:1; Rudoplh Anthes Mit Rahineh 1956 (1965) pl. 56:394. 54 We have seen some examples at East Karnak and there are parallels from Herakleopolis Magna, cf. María José López Grande et al. Excavationes en Ehnasya el Medina (Heracleópolis Magna) 2 (1995) p. 157, Lám. XXIII:a,c,e and p. 166, Lám. XXXII:a,b,c. 55 See Susan Allen “The Pottery” in K. Wilson Mendes, Cities of the Delta II (1982) pl. XVIII:2. 56 But see María José López Grande et al. Excavationes en Ehnasya el Medina (Heracleópolis Magna) 2 (1995) p. 178, Lám. XLIV:a. 57 See Peter French “Late Dynastic Pottery from the Berlin/Hanover Excavations at Saqqara, 1986” MDAIK 44 (1988) p. 82, fig. 1; Phillippe Brissaud “Répertoire préliminaire de la poterie trouvée à San el-Hagar (1re Partie)” Cahiers de la Céramique Égyptienne I (1987) pl. XXI:362; Rudolph Anthes Mit Rahineh 1956 Museum Monographs, (1965) pl. 56.395. 58 Eliezer D. Oren “Migdol: A New Fortress on the edge of the Nile Delta” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 256 (1984) p. 21, fig. 24:2. 59 David A. Aston “Pottery” in Maarten J. Raven The Tomb of Iurudef: A Memphite Official in the Reign of Ramesses II pl.53: 70. 60 John S. Holladay Jr. Tell El-Maskhuta, Cities of the Delta III, (1982) pl. 25:4 (486 B.C.). 61 See John S. Holladay Jr. “Tell El-Maskhuta, Preliminary Report on the Wadi Tumilat Project 1978-1979” Cities of the Delta III (1982) pp. 122-3 62 See Albert Leonard Jr. and William D. E. Coulson Naukratis (Cities of the Delta I, 1981) p. 41, fig. 10:13-16 and Peter French and Holeil Ghaly “Pottery chiefly of the Late Dynastic Period, from Excavations by the Egyptian Antiquities Organisation at Saqqara, 1987.” Cahiers de la Céramique Égyptienne 2 (1991) fig. 55.

148

chapter seven

Bowls (pls. M, N & P) As with jars, the bowls from the landfill include a few late New Kingdom forms, a large number of Third Intermediate Period forms and a smaller number of forms from the Late Period. Two bowls may be placed in the late New Kingdom on account of their decoration. One is a deep silt bowl painted with a black design and black ticks on the rim (pl. M:3). The other is a shallower silt bowl decorated on the exterior with a brick red slip and on the interior with two black stripes painted inside the ledge rim (pl. N:7). From the Third Intermediate Period, a common bowl form has a smooth or nearly so concave exterior with a wide interior lip.63 Traces of pink slip are often found on the bowl exterior. The illustrated examples (pl. P:4-9) all come from the area around the limestone sarcophagus. Another deep bowl form from the Third Intermediate Period has a rolled exterior rim (pl. M:6-7).64 A shallower bowl with an exterior horizontal groove under the rim (pl. P:10-11) has its origin in the New Kingdom but continues in the Third Intermediate Period.65 Quite a simple bowl with a cone-shaped base and an overhanging lip (pl. N:8-10) is also characteristic of the Third Intermediate Period.66 There is quite a variety in the rim form (pl. N:8-10, 16-17) and similar bowls with a more concave profile (pl. N:18-20) also exist from the same period. The triangular leaf-like decoration on the base of one of these bowls (pl. N:9), although eminently suited to this ceramic form, appears to be unique. A small carinated bowl with a ledge rim, frequently found at Mendes (pl. N:1-3, 5-6, 12-15) is characteristic of the Saite/Persian period.67 Another bowl characteristic of the Late Period is a deep vase of medium orange silt with a wide ledge rim (pl. M:1-2).68 Just as with jars, marl bowls are rare but not unknown at Mendes (pl. P:1-2). A deep bowl of a medium soft pale orange marl with a cream surface (pl. P:1) was found in the landfill west of the temenos wall. From the area around the sarcophagus comes a carinated bowl of a light yellow fine marl. These may be considered as imports from the Nile Valley; both types are known at East Karnak in the 4th century b.c. Cups (pl. K) As illustrated on plate K, the Mendes landfill was rich in small bowls or cups of many different types. These small vessels are often preserved either intact or with reconstructible profiles. The examples with incurving rims and ring bases may be placed in the Late Period/4th century b.c. horizon and have been mentioned above. String-cut bases are still frequently met with. Numerous cups with rims bevelled to the interior (pl. K:21-27 ) appear to be an indigenous Egyptian form. A Late Period date for many of these vessels is supported by the similar “mass” of little bowls or cups found at Tanis.69 Individual examples, of course, may date back to the Third Intermediate Period.70 With the lack of context in the Mendes landfills, nothing further is to be gained from the study of these examples.

63

For parallels see Peter French “Buto. Tell a-Fara’in. A Pottery Assemblage of the 8th century B.C.” Bulletin de Liaison XIX, Cairo, 1996, p. 12, Type 5; Phillippe Brissaud “Répertoire préliminaire de la poterie trouvée à san el-Hagar (1re Partie)” Cahiers de la Céramique Égyptienne I (1987) pl. XI:151; María José López Grande et al. Excavationes en Ehnasya el Medina (Heracleópolis Magna) 2 (1995) p. 156, Lám. XXII:c. 64 See María José López Grande et al. Excavationes en Ehnasya el Medina (Heracleópolis Magna) 2 (1995)p. 161, Lám. XXVII:c 65 See María José López Grande et al. Excavationes en Ehnasya el Medina (Heracleópolis Magna) 2 (1995) p. 156, Lám. XXII: b; Albert Leonard Jr. and William D. E. Coulson “Naukratis Preliminary Report on the 1977-8 and 1980 Seasons”, Cities of the Delta, I, American Research Center in Egypt, Reports. 1981, p. 42, fig. 11: 9, 10. 66 See Peter French “Buto. Tell a-Fara’in. A Pottery Assemblage of the 8th century B.C.” Bulletin de Liaison XIX, Cairo, 1996 p. 12, Type 7. 67 See John S. Holladay Jr. “Tell El-Maskhuta, Preliminary Report on the Wadi Tumilat Project 1978-1979” Cities of the Delta III (1982) pl. 17:1-3 & pl. 18:5; Patricia Paice “A Preliminary Analysis of Saite Pottery at Tell el-Maskhuta” Bulletin of the Egyptological Seminar 8 (1986/7) p. 105, fig. 3:9; Susan Allen “The Pottery” in K.Wilson Mendes (Cities of the Delta II) 1982, pl. XIV:8 & pl. XIV:7. 68 See Hummel and Shubert “Preliminary Report on the Ceramics from the 1992 Season at Mendes JSSEA XXI/XXII p. 14 n.8. Additional parallels include Peter French “A Preliminary Study of Pottery in Lower Egypt in the Late Dynastic and Ptolemaic Periods.” Cahiers de la Céramique Égyptienne. Vol. 3, 1992, p. 88, figs. 12 and 13; Philippe Brissaud “Répertoire préliminaire de la poterie trouvée à Sân El-Hagar (2e partie)” Cahiers de Tanis I, Memoire 75. Paris 1987, p. 94, fig. 208; and María José López Grande et al. Excavationes en Ehnasya el Medina (Heracleópolis Magna) 2 (1995)p. 177, Lám. XLIII:a,b,c. 69 Phillippe Brissaud “Répertoire préliminaire de la poterie trouvée à San el-Hagar (1re Partie)” Cahiers de la Céramique Égyptienne I (1987), pls. VII-IX. 70 See, for example, the cup with outward flaring sides and a string-cut base illustrated on pl. K 32. A Third Intermediate Period date is suggested by Philippe Brissaud “Répertoire préliminaire de la poterie trouvée à Sân El-Hagar (2e partie)”

ceramic analysis

149

Miscellaneous Forms (pls. M, T, & U) Other Egyptian vessel forms recovered from the Mendes landfills include platters, flasks, Bes pots and juglets. The platters from the landfills (pl. M:9-12) were probably used as bread trays and shallow basins. Typical of the Third Intermediate are smaller trays with projecting rims with a deep groove about the width of a thumb between the rim and the base (pl. M:9).71 A deeper type of basin with a bevelled rim (pl. M:12) may be dated to the Late Period.72 A number of diagnostics from lentoid flasks were recovered from the area around the limestone sarcophagus (pl. T:1-2, 4-6). In our preliminary study,73 we had indicated that the flask was of “buff ware.” After neutron activation studies, we have determined that these flasks are made of Nile silt with a thick creamy orange slip. The use of concentric red circles to decorate flasks is characteristic of the late New Kingdom and early Third Intermediate Period.74 A number of miniature vessels and lids were recovered from the Mendes landfills. The functions of the hand-made miniature vessels are unknown; the vessel illustrated in pl. T:20 has a pinched base and would not have been able to stand up. The other two (pl. T:21-22) look as if they were literally made by a finger being impressed in the clay. The ware of these vessels is a medium coarse red brown Nile silt. A number of similarly pinched forms were probably used as lids for small jars (pls. T:2930).75 Better formed lids with knob tops (pl. T:24-25) are characteristic of the Late Period.76 The flat mushroom-shaped lid illustrated on pl. T:23 is of a type known from the Saite period.77 Several vessel pieces with plastic decoration have been recovered from the Mendes landfills. Those illustrated on pl. T:30-41 are Bes vessels, being decorated with small lumps of clay applied to the exterior of the vessel to form eyes and nose of the protective dwarf god Bes. Bes vessels with this schematic type of decoration are attested from the 18th Dynasty onwards, but are most characteristic of the Late Period.78 Plate T: 39-40 are small fragmentary pieces, but a largely intact vessel was recovered during the excavation of a drainage pipe (locus DC, pl. T:41). This vessel is not the typical juglet or drop-shaped jar,79 but a rather full-sized jar with a full belly and a ring base. The ears of the Bes have been applied at the carination at the shoulder of the vessel, which may be a special feature at Mendes. The neck of the jar was not preserved. A ceramic fragment (pl. T:38) with two small lumps of applied decoration must be from a femino-form milk jar.80 Below the “breasts” are two small holes that would have allowed liquid to pour out of the vessel. Specialized pottery forms for which evidence was found in the Mendes landfills include spinning bowls and bread moulds. The spinning bowls (pl. U:1-3) are characterized by handle-like loops in the interior of the vessel; these projections would keep a ball of thread in place as it was pulled by a spinner. Such spinning bowls are frequently found in New Kingdom contexts.81 Two types of bread moulds were found, both of the long thin cylindrical type associated with the New Kingdom.82 The Cahiers de Tanis I, Memoire 75. Paris 1987, p. 96, fig. 240 and Rudolph Anthes Mit Rahineh 1956 (Philadephia: University Museum, 1965) pl. 62:550 (22nd Dynasty). However, Peter French “Late Dynastic Pottery from the Berlin/Hanover Excavations at Saqqara, 1986” MDAIK 44 (1988) p. 85, fig. 15 suggests a later date (5th/4th century B.C.). 71 Susan Allen “The Pottery” in K.Wilson Mendes (Cities of the Delta II) 1982, pl. XV:10 and María José López Grande et al. Excavationes en Ehnasya el Medina (Heracleópolis Magna) 2 (1995) p. 163, Lám. XXIX:c. 72 Phillippe Brissaud “Répertoire préliminaire de la poterie trouvée à san el-Hagar (1re Partie)” Cahiers de la Céramique Égyptienne I (1987) pl. XI:148 and Susan Allen “The Pottery” in K. Wilson Mendes (Cities of the Delta II) 1982, pl. XV:7. 73 Hummel and Shubert “Preliminary Report on the Ceramics from The 1992 Season at Mendes’ JSSEA XXI/XXII p. 15, fig. 4.3. 74 David Aston “Two Decorative Styles of the Twentieth Dynasty” Cahiers de la Céramique Égyptienne (1992) p. 73 “In addition to overall red slips, a red band at the rim on both open and closed forms became very popular, and the use of concentric red circles on lentoid pilgrim flasks is more usual than not.” 75 Susan Allen “The Pottery” in K.Wilson Mendes (Cities of the Delta II) 1982, pl. XX:1. 76 Peter French and Holeil Ghaly “Pottery chiefly of the Late Dynastic Period, from Excavations by the Egyptian Antiquities Organisation at Saqqara, 1987.” Cahiers de la Céramique Égyptienne. Vol. 2, 1991. 77 Patricia Paice “A Preliminary Analysis of Some Elements of the Saite and Persian Period Pottery at Tell el-Maskhuta” BES 8 (1986/87) p. 107, fig. 8, nos. 2-5. 78 Peter Charvat “The Bes Jug” ZÄS 107 (1980) pp. 46-52. See also María José López Grande et al. Excavationes en Ehnasya el Medina (Heracleópolis Magna) 2 (1995) pl. LX (p. 194). 79 Lisa K. Sabbahy “Observations on Bes-pots of the Late Period” ZÄS 109 (1982) p. 147. 80 Hummel and Shubert “Kom el-Ahmar: Ceramic Typology” In The Akhenaten Temple Project 3: The Excavations of Kom el-Ahmar and Environs pp. 76-77; Janine Bourriau Umm El-Gaab, Pottery from the Nile Valley Before the Arab Conquest. pp. 36-38. 81 R. Hummel and S.B. Shubert “Kom el-Ahmar: Ceramic Typology” In The Akhenaten Temple Project 3: The Excavations of Kom el-Ahmar and Environs p. 76, notes 241-3. 82 See fig. 5 in Helen Jacquet-Gordon “A Tentative Typology of Egyptian Bread Moulds” Studien zur altägyptischen Keramik

150

chapter seven

first type (pl. U:4) has a small knob or nipple on the base. The second type (pl. U:5) has a small outward flare around a relatively flat base. On the interior of this latter example, a clear, fine, brown, well-levigated sand lining is visible. This lining would have served to prevent the bread dough from sticking to the mould.83 Miscellaneous pottery forms include a perforated body sherd, a potstand and jar sherds with vertically scraped exterior surfaces. The perforated form (pl. U:10) may be from a colander or a brazier. The hollow cylindrical pot stand (pl. U:14) was used to support a vessel with a rounded bottom. These vessel forms are purely functional and cannot be precisely dated. The sherds with scraped exteriors (pl. U:11-13) are typical of beer jars from the Old Kingdom and First Intermediate Period.84 The ware is very coarse and the jars would have been made by hand rather than wheel-made; they were the basic functional everyday use jars of their time. Conclusion Although the pottery presented here has come from mixed contexts, the nature and date of these mixes is important for the understanding of the archaeology of Mendes. The landfills between the two temenos walls with the limestone tip lines and to the west of the inner temenos wall (T1) both date to the 4th century b.c. The landfill in the area of the sarcophagus appears to be a bit later, its final disturbance dating to the early 3rd century b.c. Both Canaanite and Greek amphorae have been well studied and can be dated with some confidence, although the fragmentary nature of the Mendes ceramics still causes some problems in this regard. Having evidence from both sources strengthens our confidence in the 4th century b.c. dating of the two Mendes landfills by the temenos walls. The large sample of Egyptian pottery forms illustrated on the plates provides evidence for the existence of these wares and shapes in the eastern delta region and at Mendes in particular. In general there are a small number of New Kingdom forms, a large number of Third Intermediate Period forms and a small number of Late Period forms. This gives some idea of the occupation of this part of Mendes; it was likely settled during the New Kingdom and flourished during the Third Intermediate Period. During the Late Period the area was refurbished as a royal burial ground and by the building of the two temenos walls; this activity did leave traces in the ceramic record, but not as many as the previous domestic occupation. Introduction to Plates The diagnostic pottery pieces recovered from Mendes in 1992-1995 that are useful for dating and for evidence of foreign contact are all presented on the following plates. Each piece is identified according to form and origin (if outside of Egypt). A period is assigned to each piece; these ceramic periods include FIP/MK (First Intermediate Period/Middle Kingdom, New Kingdom, 3IP (Third Intermediate Period), Late Period, Saite/Persian, 4th century b.c., Hellenistic and Roman and several combinations. An indication is given as to where each pieces was found, both in terms of the different landfills described above and the particular locus from the excavation. For those pieces included in E.P. Kremer’s neutron activation study, we supply the appropriate sample number along with an indication as to its source location. Finally, a description of ware is provided for each pieces, including a Munsell number.

(1981) pp. 11-24. Pl. U:4 is her Type D with a “small knobby protuberance, a kind of button-base.” Pl. U:5 is her Type C which is typical of the Middle Kingdom, but extends into the 18th Dynasty (p. 19). 83 Dorothea Arnold An Introduction to Ancient Egyptian Pottery (Mainz am Rhein: Verlag Philipp von Zabern, 1993) p. 20 84 Jeffrey Spencer “A Cemetery of the First Intermediate Period at el-Ashmunein” Congresso internationale di Egittologia Atti (Turin, 1992) p. 575; Dina Faltings “Die Keramik aus den Grabungen an der nördlichen Pyramide des Snofru in Dahshur” MDAIK 45 (1989) p. 138 fig. b; Janine Bourriau Umm el-Ga’ab (Cambridge: Fitzwilliam Museum, 1981) p. 17, no. 1.

ceramic analysis

151

East Greek Amphorae (Plates A, B, C) Plate A:1 A:2 A:3 A:4 A:5 A:6 A:7 A:8 A:9 A:10 A:11 A:12 A:13 A:14 A:15 A:16 A:17 A:18 A:19 A:20 A:21 A:22 A:23 A:24 A:25 A:26 A:27 A:28 A:29 A:30 A:31 A:32 A:33 B:1 B:2 B:3 B:4 B:5

East Greek amphora, 4th century B.C.; Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALF II 4; Neutron Activation #79 (Samos). The ware is dark tan colour (Munsell 5YR 6/6) very dense and heavy with a few fine white grits. The surface has a buff slip (Munsell 7.5YR 7/4). East Greek amphora, 4th century B.C.; Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALF II 25, Neutron Activation #92 (Samos). The ware is the same as A:1. East Greek amphora, 4th century B.C.; Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALQ I 8; Neutron Activation #95 (Samos). The ware is the same as A:1. East Greek amphora, 4th century B.C.; Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALQ II 8; The ware is the same as A: 1. East Greek amphora, 4th century B.C.; Sarcophagus area locus: ALSN I 44 ; The ware is the same as A:1. East Greek amphora, 4th century B.C.; Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALC II 3. The ware is the same as A: 1. East Greek amphora, 4th century B.C.; Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALR I 6. The ware is the same as A:1. East Greek amphora, 4th century B.C.; Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALQ I 8. The ware is the same as A:1. East Greek amphora, 4th century B.C.; Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALP/F baulk 1; The ware is the same as A:1. East Greek amphora, 4th century B.C.; Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALP I 8. The ware is the same as A:1. East Greek amphora, 4th century B.C.; Landfill between T1 and T2: locus ALR III ext 5; The ware is the same as A:1 East Greek amphora, 4th century B.C.; Landfil between T1 and T2 locus: ALF II 58; The ware is the same as A: 1. East Greek amphora, 4th century B.C.; Sarcophagus area locus: ALSw IV 2b. The ware is the same as A:1. East Greek amphora, 4th century B.C.; Sarcophagus area locus: ALSs V 6. The ware is the same as A:1. East Greek amphora toe, 4th century B.C.; Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALR I 4; Neutron Activation #96 (Samos) The ware is the same as A:1 East Greek amphora toe, 4th century B.C.; Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALP I 4; Neutron Activation #63 (Samos). The ware is the same as A:1 Copy of Samian Amphora, 4th century B.C.; Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALQ II 8; Neutron Activation #76. The ware appears similar to A:1. East Greek amphora toe, 4th century B.C.; Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALQ II 8; The ware is the same as A:1. East Greek amphora toe, 4th century B.C.; Sarcophagus area locus: ALSn I 32; The ware is same as A:1. East Greek amphora toe, 4th century B.C.; Sarcophagus area locus: ALSw III/IV 3; The ware is the same as A:1. East Greek amphora toe, 4th century B.C.; Sarcophagus area locus: ALSw I ext 3. The ware is the same as A:1. East Greek amphora toe, 4th century B.C. Landfill west of T2 locus: ALH II 2. The ware is the same as A:1. East Greek amphora toe, 4th century B.C.; Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: A P I ext 28; The ware is a hard dense reddish tan (Munsell 2.5YR 6/8) with a few tiny red and black inclusions. East Greek amphora, 5th century B.C.; Landfill west of T2 locus: ALH II 2. The ware is yellow/red with cream slip and a black stripe on the rim. East Greek amphora, late 5th century B.C.; Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALQ II 4; The ware is dense, pale orange. East Greek amphora, late 5th century B.C,; Sarcophagus area locus ALSW II/III 4; The ware is the same as A: 25. East Greek amphora toe, 4th century B.C.; Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALC II 4; The ware is dense, pale orange with cream slip. East Greek amphora; Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALF I/II 1; Neutron Activation #88 (Crete?). The ware is a very heavy dense pale orange (Munsell 5YR 6/6) with a grayish brown surface and a very thick steel grey hard core. East Greek amphora; Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALPI7; Neutron Activation #65 (Western Anatolia). The ware is medium, dense, red orange (Munsell 2.5YR 6/8) with frequent tiny and occasional large white inclusions. The surface is wet-smoothed. East Greek amphora; Sarcophagus area locus: ALSW II 8; Pale orange ware with tiny white inclusions. Cypriot (?) amphora, 3rd century B.C.; Sarcophagus area locus: ALSw III/IV 2. Pale orange ware with fine white and black grits and a cream slipped surface. Copy of Imported amphora, 4th/3rd century B.C.; landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALP I 1; Neutron Activation #51; The ware is pale orange dense Egyptian marl (Munsell 2.5YR 6/6). Imported amphora; Sarcophagus area locus: ALSw III 1. The ware is pale orange with fine white inclusions. East Greek amphora, 4th century B.C.; Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALC II 3; The ware is fine, pale orange with tiny black and white inclusions. Mica is visible on the surface. East Greek amphora, 4th century B.C.; Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALP I ext 9. The ware is the same as B: 1. East Greek amphora, 4th century B.C,; Sarcophagus area locus: ALSW III 3; The ware is similar to B:1. Thasian amphora, 4th century B.C.; Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALF III 30; The ware is pale orange (Munsell 10R 6/6), fine, dense, with tiny white inclusions and considerable mica. A red painted stripe decorates the neck and shoulder. East Greek amphora neck; Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALP II 23; The ware is pale orange (Munsell 5YR 7/6) fine dense ware with a red painted “A” on the neck.

chapter seven

152 B:6 B:7 B:8 B:9

B:10 B:11 C:1 C:2 C:3 C:4 C:5 C:6 C:7 C:8 C:9 C:10 C:11 C:12 C:13

Thasian amphora toe, 4th century B.C.; Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALF III 24; The ware is pale orange (Munsell 2.5YR 5/6) fine, dense, heavy with fine white and black inclusions. Imported amphora, Sarcophagus area locus: ALSs III 5; The ware is fine, pale orange, (Munsell 5 YR 7/6) with frequent tiny white inclusions. Imported amphora; Sarcophagus area locus ALSw III/IV 6; The ware is fine, pale orange with a cream surface. Imported amphora; Locus HC 11 (Area of dighouse); Neutron activation #62 (Greek mainland ?). The ware of this sherd is very unique. Rusty orange (Munsell 2.5YR 5/8), medium coarse, the exterior and interior are dark grey (Munsell 7.5YR 5/2) because of a reducing atmosphere, fine to large sand inclusions, hard, steel grey core, wetsmoothed exterior. Koan amphora handle, early 3rd century B. C.; Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALC I 2; The ware is a fine, red orange with cream slip Copy of imported amphora; Sarcophagus area locus: ALSw II 25; The ware is brick- red, medium Nile silt, with many white inclusions and a thick black porous core. Chian amphora, late 5th/early 4th century B.C.; Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALP I ext 29a; The ware is reddish orange (Munsell 2.5YR 6/8) dense, well levigated, hard with a smooth surface. Traces of red paint remain on the neck and tops of handles. Chian amphora toe, late 5th/early 4th century B.C.; Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALP I ext 23; The ware is the same as C:1. Chian amphora, early/mid 5th century B.C.; Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALF II 2; The ware is a dense pink. Copy of Chian amphora, mid 5th century B.C.; Sarcophagus area locus: ALSw III 10; The ware is medium, orange Nile silt, core pink, thick cream slip on exterior. Copy of Chian amphora, 4th century B.C.; Sarcophagus area locus: ALSw I ext 5; The ware is orange Nile silt, core black, banded by red, cream slip on exterior. Chian amphora toe, mid 4th century B.C.; Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALP I ext 24; The ware is the same as C:1. Chian amphora toe; mid 4th century B.C.; Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALC II 4. The ware is the same as C:1. East Greek amphora toe, ALK-O area locus: ALL I 3; Neutron Activation #83 (Samos?). The ware is a very dense reddish yellow (Munsell 5YR 6/6), grey brown core in thickest part of the toe, with some fine sand inclusions. The surface is wet-smoothed. Copy of Rhodian amphora toe, 3rd century B.C.; Sarcophagus area locus: ALSn 16. The ware is a red-brown Nile silt, with a black core. Amphora spike, 3rd-1st centuries B.C.; Sarcophagus area locus: ALSw II 2. The ware is a hard, orange Nile silt, with a thick black core, and large frequent inclusions. Amphora spike, 3rd-1st centuries B.C.; Sarcophagus area locus: ALSs IV 7. The ware is the same as C:10. Amphora spike, Roman; Sarcophagus area locus: ALSw I ext 4. The ware is a brown Nile silt, with a thick black core. Amphora spike, Roman; Landfill west of T2 locus: ALG I-II 1. The ware is the same as C:12.

Canaanite Store-Jars (Plates H:1-36, J:14-31) Plate H:1 H:2 H:3 H:4 H:5 H:6 H:7 H:8 H:9 H:10 H:11 H:12 H:13 H:14

Canaanite store-jar, Late Period; Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALR III 9; Neutron Activation #81 (Israel, north coast). The ware is a pale brown orange (Munsell 5YR 6/6), fairly dense matrix with many medium sized red, black and white inclusions, well-fired and no visible core. Surface is wet-smoothed. Canaanite store-jar, Late Period; Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALQ II 8; Neutron Activation #56 (Israel, north coast). The ware is the same as H:1. Canaanite store-jar, Late Period; Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALF III 12; Neutron Activation #98 (Israel, north coast). The ware is similar to H:1 but slightly lighter in colour (Munsell 5YR 8/4). Canaanite store-jar, Late Period; Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALR III 7; Neutron Activation #69 (Israel, north coast). The ware is the same as H:1. Canaanite store-jar, Late Period; ALK-O area locus: ALK III 26; Neutron Activation #47 (Israel, north coast). The ware is the same as H:1. Canaanite store-jar, Late Period; ALK-O area locus: ALK III 23; Neutron Activation #49 (Israel). The ware is pale brown orange (Munsell 5YR 6/8), dense, heavy with fewer and finer inclusions than H:1. Canaanite store-jar, Late Period; Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALR I 4; Neutron Activation #54 (Israel). The ware is pale brown orange, (Munsell 5YR 6/8), dense with few fine and large inclusions. Canaanite store-jar, Late Period; Sarcophagus area locus: ALSw VIII 46; The ware is a pale orange, dense fabric with fine mineral inclusions. Canaanite store-jar, Late Period; Sarcophagus area locus: ALSs III 2. The ware is the same as H:8. Canaanite store-jar, Late Period; Landfill west of T2 locus: ALG I 1.The ware is the same as H:8. Canaanite store-jar, Late Period; Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALQ II 8. The ware is the same as H:8. Canaanite store-jar, Late Period; Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALP 1 ext 25. The ware is the same as H:8. Canaanite store-jar, Late Period; Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALR I 4; Neutron Activation #59 (Israel, north coast). The ware is very unusual. It is a dense matrix, pale gray-brown (Munsell 10YR 8/1), with many fine to large mineral inclusions. The surface has a very gritty feel. Canaanite store-jar, Late Period; ALK-O area locus: ALK II 20; Neutron Activation #44 (Israel, hill country). The ware is very dense, pale orange (Munsell 7.5YR 7/6) with very fine sand inclusions, thick buff core. Surface is wetsmoothed.

ceramic analysis H:15 H:16 H:17 H:18 H:19 H:20 H:21 H:22 H:23 H:24 H:25 H:26 H:27 H:28 H:29 H:30 H:31 H:32 H:33 H:34 H:35 H:36

153

Canaanite store-jar, Late Period; ALK-O area locus: ALK III 26; Neutron Activation #24 (Israel, hill country). The ware is the same as H:14. Canaanite store-jar, Late Period; ALK-O area locus: ALM I 14; Neutron Activation #20 (Israel, Hill country). The ware is the same as H:14. Canaanite store-jar, Late Period; Landfill west of T2 locus: ALG I-II 39. The ware is the same as H:14. Canaanite store-jar, Late Period; Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALP I ext 25. The ware is the same as H:14. Canaanite store-jar, Late Period; ALK-O area locus: ALLS 8; Neutron Activation #55 (Israel, south coast). The ware is medium dense, pale orange (Munsell 5YR 7/6) with many sand inclusions. The core where visible is grey green. The surface is wet-smoothed but the larger sand grains are visible in the worn areas. Canaanite store-jar, Late Period; ALK-O area locus: ALL II 9; Neutron Activation #31 (Israel, south coast). The ware is the same as H:19. Canaanite store-jar, Late Period; ALK-O area locus: ALM I 10; Neutron Activation #89 (Israel, south coast). The ware description is the same as H:19. Canaanite store-jar, Late Period; Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALQ II 7. The ware is pale orange (Munsell 5YR 6/6) with sand inclusions. Canaanite store-jar, Late Period; Sarcophagus area locus: ALSw VIIB 18. The ware is the same as H:22. Canaanite store-jar, Late Period; Sarcophagus area locus: ALSw III 10. The ware is the same as H:22. Canaanite store-jar, Late Period; Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALR III 4. The ware is the same as H:22. Canaanite store-jar, Late Period; Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALP I 7; Neutron Activation #68 (Israel, north inland). The ware is very pale orange (Munsell 7.5YR7/4), dense, with fine and small mineral inclusions.The surface is wet-smoothed. Canaanite store-jar, Late Period; Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALF III 3; Neutron Activation #70 (Israel, north inland). The ware is the same as H:26. Canaanite store-jar, Late Period; Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALP I ext 9. The ware is pale orange with mineral inclusions. Canaanite store-jar, Late Period; Landfill between T1 and T2; locus: ALP I 8. The ware is the same as H:28. Canaanite store-jar, Late Period; Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALP I ext 28. The ware is the same as H:28. Canaanite store-jar, Late Period; Landfill west of T2 locus: ALG I-II 10. The ware is the same as H:28. Canaanite store-jar, Late Period; Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALR I 3. The ware is the same as H:28. Canaanite store-jar, Late Period; Sarcophagus area locus: ALSw I ext 4. The ware is the same as H:28. Canaanite store-jar, Late Period; Sarcophagus area locus: ALSw VIII 14. The ware is the same as H:28. Canaanite store-jar, Late Period; Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALF II 2. The ware is the same as H:28. Canaanite store-jar, Late Period; Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALR I 6. The ware is the same as H:28.

The following store-jars 14 to 25 are placed here according to style first by shoulder width and then by rim. The ware ranges in colour from a pale orange pink to a slightly darker orange buff. The fabric varies in density with medium fine predominating. Small amounts of fine sand are used as temper. The surface is wet-smoothed. J:14 J:15 J:16 J:17 J:18 J:19 J:20 J:21 J:22 J:23 J:24 J:25 J:26 J:27 J:28 J:29 J:30 J:31

Canaanite store-jar, Late Period; Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALR III ext 20. Canaanite store-jar, Late Period; Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALR III 9. Canaanite store-jar, Late Period; Sarcophagus area locus: ALSS II 10. Canaanite store-jar, Late Period; Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALP I ext 25. Canaanite store-jar, Late Period; Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALP I ext 25. Canaanite store-jar, Late Period; Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALC III 4. Canaanite store-jar, Late Period; Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALC I 1. Canaanite store-jar, Late Period; Landfill west of T2 locus: ALG I 19. Canaanite store-jar, Late Period; Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALR Ib-IIb 9. Canaanite store-jar, Late Period; Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALR I 5. Canaanite store-jar, Late Period; Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALR III ext 28. Canaanite store-jar, Late Period; Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALR I 3. Basket-handle jar, Late Period; Landfill west of T2 locus: ALG I 4. Rim from a basket- handle jar. The ware is a medium, dense, brown orange silt fabric, (Munsell 5YR 5/6), very hard and heavy, with fine mineral inclusions. Basket-handle jar, Late Period; sarcophagus area locus: ALSW II 33. The ware is the same as J:26. Basket-handle jar, late Period; Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALR III 2. The ware resembles the Phoenician examples, a fine pale orange fabric, slightly porous, hard, with a cream slip. Basket-handle jar base, Late Period; Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALF I 1. The ware is pale orange, very dense and hard. Basket-handle jar base, Late Period; Sarcophagus area locus: ALSn 19. The ware is similar to J:26. Basket-handle jar base, Late Period; Sarcophagus area locus: ALSw III-IV 6. The ware is the same as J:26.

Mortaria (Plate J:1-13) Plate J:1

Imported(?) mortarium, Late Period; Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALF II 11. Neutron Activation #73; The ware is a dense green gray (Munsell 5Y 7/3) matrix with fine sand and a few large mineral inclusions. The surface has been wet-smoothed but feels gritty. NA tests are inconclusive but the sherd shares characteristics with native Egyptian marl and is possibly a copy of the Phoenician form.

chapter seven

154

The following imported mortaria (plate U:2-12) exhibit a similar ware. They range from creamy yellow to brown orange, are fairly dense and have considerable mineral inclusions. They are hard and well-fired and their surfaces tend to feel very gritty. J:2 J:3 J:4 J:5 J:6 J:7 J:8 J:9 J:10 J:12 J:13

Imported mortarium, Late Period; Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALC III 4. Imported mortarium, Late Period; Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALP I ext 23. Imported mortarium, Late Period; Sarcophagus area locus: ALSw VIII 16. Imported mortarium, Late Period; Sarcophagus area locus: ALSw I ext 23. Imported mortarium, Late Period; Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALR I-II 12. Imported mortarium, Late Period; Sarcophagus area locus: ALSw III-IV. Imported mortarium, Late Period; Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALQ I 8. Imported mortarium, Late Period; Landfill between T1 and T2 locus ALR I-II 13. Imported mortarium, Late Period; Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALR III 23. Imported mortarium, Late Period; Sarcophagus area locus: ALSw IV 3. Imported mortarium base, Persian Period; ALK-O area locus: ALM I 20. Neutron

Activation # 35 (Cyprus). The ware is medium dense, pale yellow brown (Munsell 7.5YR 7/6) fabric with a large amount of sand (fine to large) inclusions. Traces remain of wet-smoothing on the exterior but the sand is very visible on the surface of the interior which accounts for the very gritty feel. Hellenistic Cooking Pots (Plates D, E) These cooking vessels are made of a hard well-fired Nile silt with a colour that ranges from orange to dark brown. The core is usually red or black and inclusions when visible consist of fine sand. The surface is sometimes slipped red. Casseroles Plate D:1 D:2 D:3 D:4 D:5 D:6 D:7 D:8 D:9 D:10 D:11 D:12 D:13 D:14 D:15 D:16 D:17 D:18 D:19 D:20 D:21 D:22 D:23 E:1 E:2 E:3 E:4 E:5 E:6 E:7 E:8 E:9 E:10 E:11 E:12 E:13 E:14 E:15

Casserole, Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALC II 4 Casserole, Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALP/F baulk 1. Casserole, Sarcophagus area locus: ALSs II 14. Red slip. Casserole, Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALQ II 8. Exterior blackened. Casserole, Sarcophagus area locus: ALSw II 3. Red slip. Casserole, Sarcophagus area locus: ALSs III 2. Casserole, Sarcophagus area locus: ALSw II 20. Casserole, Sarcophagus area locus: ALSw II-III 4. Casserole, Landfill west of T2 locus: ALG I-II 13. Casserole, Sarcophagus area locus: ALSw I ext 23. Cooking pot, Sarcophagus area locus: ALSw II 8. Cooking pot, Sarcophagus area locus: ALSw II 2. Cooking pot, Sarcophagus area locus: ALSw II 2. Cooking pot, Sarcophagus area locus: ALSw VIIB 18. Cooking pot, Sarcophagus area locus: ALSw III-IV 17. Red Slip. Cooking pot, Sarcophagus area locus: ALSw II-III 4. Cooking pot, Sarcophagus area locus: ALSw VIIB 2. Cooking pot, Sarcophagus area locus ALSw I ext 36. Red slip. Cooking pot, Sarcophagus area locus: ALSw VIIB 19. Cooking pot, Sarcophagus area locus: ALSw I ext 38. Cooking pot, Sarcophagus area locus: ALSn 19. Cooking pot, Sarcophagus area locus: ALSn 19. Cooking pot, Sarcophagus area locus: ALSw III-IV 2.Red slip. Casserole, Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALP I 1; Neutron Activation #67; The ware is a fine orange brown (Munsell 5YR 5/6) Nile silt, well fired red core. and thick rust coloured slip (Munsell.5YR 5/8). Cooking pot, Sarcophagus area locus: ALSII 8. Cooking pot, Sarcophagus area locus: ALSw III-IV 12. Cooking pot, Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALP I 7. Cooking pot, Sarcophagus area locus: ALSn I 32; Red slip. Cooking pot, Sarcophagus area locus: ALSw IV 1a. Red slip. Cooking pot, Sarcophagus area locus: ALSn 16. Cooking pot, Sarcophagus area locus: ALSw II 2. Cooking pot, Sarcophagus area locus: ALSw III-IV 2. Red slip. Cooking pot, Sarcophagus area locus: ALSw III-IV 6; Red slip. Cooking pot, Sarcophagus area locus: ALSw VII 22. Cooking pot, Sarcophagus area locus: ALSw VIII 43. Casserole, Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALC III 4; Neutron Activation #72. The ware is a fine, brown Nile silt with dark brown slip. Cooking pot, Sarcophagus area locus: ALSw III-IV 5. Cooking pot, Sarcophagus area locus: ALSw II-III 4.

ceramic analysis E:16 E:17 E:18

155

Cooking pot, Sarcophagus area locus: ALSw VIII 22. Cooking pot, Sarcophagus area locus: ALSn 19. Cooking pot, Sarcophagus area locus: ALSw IX 1.

Small and Shallow Bowls (Plate K) Plate K:I K:2 K:3 K:4 K:5 K:6 K:7 K:8 K:9 K:10 K:11 K:12 K:13 K:14 K:15 K:16 K:17

Shallow incurving bowl, Late Period-Hellenistic; Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALF II 39; Neutron Activation #10. The ware is a dense, pale yellow green Egyptian marl (Munsell 5Y 8/3), well-fired, with some fine mineral inclusions. The surface is wet-smoothed. Shallow incurving bowl, Late Period-Hellenistic; Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALP I ext 21. The ware is the same as K:1. Shallow bowl, Late Period-Hellenistic; Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALF II 55. The ware is the same as K: 1. Shallow bowl, Late Period-Hellenistic; Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALP I ext 23. The ware is the same as K: 1. Shallow incurving bowl, Late Period-Hellenistic; Sarcophagus area locus: ALSw IV 4. The ware is a dark brown, hard silt, red core, well fired. Shallow bowl, Late Period-Hellenistic; Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALQ II 7. The ware is the same as K:5. Shallow incurving bowl, Late Period-Hellenistic; Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALQ II 8. The ware is the same as K:5. Shallow incurving bowl, Late Period-Hellenistic; Sarcophagus area locus: ALSw VIII 22. The ware is the same as K:5. Shallow incurving bowl, Late Period-Hellenistic; Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALF II 57. The ware is the same as K:5. Shallow incurving bowl, Late Period-Hellenistic; Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALF II 41. The ware is the same as K:5. Shallow incurving bowl, Late Period; Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALF II 39. The ware is the same as K:5. Shallow incurving bowl, Late Period; Sarcophagus area locus: ALSw I ext 8. The ware is the same as K:5. Lamp, Late Period-Hellenistic; Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALC II 3. The ware is a medium hard, brown orange silt with smoke blackened rim. Lamp, Late Period-Hellenistic; Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALP/R 9. The ware is a rusty orange medium silt (2.5YR 4/8). Interior is red-slipped and burnished. Traces of black soot appear on the exterior rim. Lamp, Late Period-Hellenistic; Sarcophagus area; locus: ALSw VIIB 20. The ware is the same as K:13. Lamp, Late Period-Hellenistic; Sarcophagus area locus: ALSw III 4. The ware is the same as K:13 but no soot is visible. Lamp, Late Period-Hellenistic; Sarcophagus area locus: ALSs IV 7. The ware is the same as K:13.

Small Bowls/Cups (Plate K:18-34) are ubiquitous and their true function is unknown. They could be offering bowls, drinking cups, lamps or lids. The ware is a medium, brown orange silt with black or red core and small to medium-sized mineral inclusions as temper. The surface is usually only wet-smoothed. String-cut bases predominate. K:I8 K:I9 K:20 K:21 K:22 K:23 K:24 K:25 K:26 K:27 K: 28 K: 29 K:30 K:31 K:32 K:33 K:34 K:35 K:36 K:37 K:38 K:39 K:40 K:41

Small bowl, Late Period; Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALF I 5. Small bowl, Late Period; Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALR I 3. Small bowl, Late Period; Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALC IV 1. Small bowl, Late Period-Hellenistic; Sarcophagus area locus: ALSw II-III 4. Small bowl, Hellenistic; Sarcophagus area locus: ALSw IV 1a. Small bowl, Hellenistic; Sarcophagus area locus: ALSw III-IV 11. Small bowl, Hellenistic; Sarcophagus area locus: ALSw III 4. Small bowl, Hellenistic; Sarcophagus area locus: ALSw II 31. Small bowl, Hellenistic; Sarcophagus area locus: ALSw II-III 4. Small bowl, Hellenistic; Sarcophagus area locus: ALSw II 5b. Small bowl, New Kingdom; Sarcophagus area locus: ALSw II 20. Black painted stripe on the interior rim. Small bowl, Late Period; Sarcophagus area locus: ALSw IV 8. Small bowl, Late Period; Sarcophagus area locus: ALSw I ext 10. Small bowl, Late Period; Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALP I ext 25. Small bowl, 3IP(?); Sarcophagus area locus: ALSw VIII 37. Small bowl, 3IP; Landfill west of T2 locus: ALG I 1/ I 18. Red painted stripes on the exterior emanate outward from the base like spokes on a wheel. Small bowl, Late Period; Sarcophagus area locus: ALSw I ext 10. Deep bowl, Late Period; Sarcophagus area locus: ALSn I 51. The ware is orange, medium silt. Deep bowl, Late Period; Sarcophagus area locus: ALSw IV 3. The ware is the same as K:35. Deep bowl, Hellenistic; Sarcophagus area locus: ALSs IV 13; The ware is a hard, dense silt. Small bowl, Late Period; Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALP I ext 25a. The ware is an orange, medium silt with traces of soot on the rim. Small bowl, 3IP context; Sarcophagus area locus: ALSw VIII 12. The ware is an orange, medium silt. Small bowl; Late Period; Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALP I ext 25. The ware is the same as K:39 Small bowl, Late Period; Sarcophagus area locus: ALSw II 3. The ware is the same as K:39.

chapter seven

156 K:42 K:43 K:44 K:45 K:46

Small bowl, Late Period; Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALF II 105; The ware is the same as K:39. Small bowl, Late Period; Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALP I ext 25. The ware is the same as K:39. Small bowl, Hellenistic; ALK-O area locus: ALK II 11. Neutron Activation #21. The ware is a rust orange, hard Nile silt with thin gray core and traces of burnished rust slip. Small bowl, Late Period-Hellenistic; Sarcophagus area locus: ALSw IV 3. The ware is a hard brown silt with black core and a red slip on the exterior. Shallow dish or bread tray, New Kingdom-3IP; Landfill west of T2 locus: ALI I 26. The ware is medium-coarse silt.

Jars (Plates G,L) Plate G:1 G:2 G:3 G:4 G:5 G:6 G:7 G:8 G:9 G:10 G:11 G:12 G:13 G:14 G:15 G:16 G:17 G:18 G:19 G:20 G:21 G:22 G:23 G:24 G:25 G:26 L:1 L:2 L:3 L:4 L:5 L:6 L:7 L:8 L:9 L:10 L:11 L:12

Jar, Late Period; Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALF III 6; The ware is pale orange marl, cream surface, well fired. This ware is very common in the Nile valley near Thebes from the 3IP to the Late Period. Jar, Late Period; Landfill west of T2 locus: ALH I 3. The ware is the same as G:1. Jar, Late Period; Landfill west of T2 locus: ALG I 17. The ware is the same as G:1. Jar, Late Period; Sarcophagus area locus: ALSw VII B 7. The ware is the same as G:1. Jar, Late Period; Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALP I 82. The ware is the same as G:1. Jar, Late Period; Sarcophagus area locus: ALSw IX 6. The ware is the same as G:1. Jar, Late Period; Sarcophagus area locus: ALSw III 1. The ware is the same as G:1.above. Jar, 3IP (?); Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALC IV 2. The ware is a medium coarse Nile silt. Jar, 3IP (?); Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALF III 41. The ware is medium orange silt. Jar, 3IP (?); Sarcophagus area locus: ALSw III 2. The ware is medium red silt. The surface is blackened by soot. Jar, Late Period; Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALR III 9. The ware is brickey, medium silt. Jar, Late Period; Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALF II 2. The ware is a medium coarse, orange silt. Jar, 4th century B.C.; Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALP/F baulk 1. The ware is a medium coarse, orange silt. The exterior has traces of white slip. Jar, 4th century B.C.; Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALP I 6. The ware is a brickey silt. Jar, 4th century B.C.; Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALR I 2. The ware is an orange brown, medium silt. Jar, 4th century B.C.; Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALP I 4. The ware is a dark red silt with cream slip on the exterior. Jar, 4th century B.C.; Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALR I 6; The ware is an orange medium coarse silt. Jar, Late Period; Sarcophagus area locus: ALSw III-IV 11. The ware is a medium, brickey silt. Many examples are found with soot on the exterior and so are likely cooking pots. Jar, Late Period; Sarcophagus area locus: ALSs V 3. The ware is a medium brickey silt. Jar, Late Period; Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALR II 4. The ware is the same as G:19. Jar, Late Period; Landfill west of T2 locus: ALG I 45. The ware is a medium brown silt. Exterior blackened. Jar, Late Period; Landfill west of T2 locus: ALG I 34. The ware a is medium brown silt. Jar, Late Period; Landfill west of T2 locus: ALI I II 23. Neutron Activation, #17. The ware is a medium, brickey Nile silt, with a thick steel grey core, wet-smoothed surface. Jar, Late Period; ALK-O area locus: ALK III 27; Neutron Activation #82. The ware is a brickey, medium Nile silt. Jar, Late Period; Landfill west of T2 locus: ALI II 2. The ware is a medium, orange silt. Jar, Late Period, ALK-O area locus: ALM I 20; Neutron Activation #43. The ware is a medium orange silt with a red slip on the surface. Jar, Saite/Persian; Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALF III 31. The ware is brick red, medium silt with a red slipped surface. Jar, Saite/Persian; Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALF III 44. The ware is brick red medium silt. Jar, Saite/Persian; Sarcophagus area locus: ALSw III-IV 23; The ware is brown medium silt with red core. Jar, Saite/Persian; Sarcophagus area locus: ALSW IV 1b. The ware is orange, medium silt, black core, exterior streaked with dark red slip. Jar, Saite/Persian; Sarcophagus area locus: ALSw I ext 21. The ware is brick red, medium silt , thick pink core, exterior red slip. Jar, Saite/Persian; Sarcophagus area locus: ALSs II 13. The ware is an orange, medium silt , black core, exterior red slip. Jar, New Kingdom; ALK-O area locus: ALN IV 35. Neutron Activation #46. The ware is a brown, medium silt (Munsell 5YR 6/4) with fine chaff and medium-sized mineral inclusions. The core is thick grey banded with red, exterior is red-slipped. Jar, New Kingdom; Landfill west of T2 locus: ALG I-II 13. The ware is an orange brown, medium silt. Cooking jar, 3IP; Sarcophagus area locus: ALSw IX 13. The ware is a brown, medium silt (Munsell 5YR 5/8), core pink, surface wet-smoothed and covered with soot. Cooking jar, 3IP; Sarcophagus area locus: ALSs III 16. The ware is a rust brown, medium silt (Munsell 2.5YR 5/6). The body is covered in soot. Holes in the neck and shoulder on opposing sides provide hanging capabilities. Jar, New Kingdom; Landfill west of T2 locus: ALG I 6; The ware is rust orange, medium silt with fine chaff and medium-sized mineral inclusions; thick black core, surface is wet-smoothed and painted with a black design applied after firing. Jar, New Kingdom; Landfill between t1 and T2 locus: ALP I ext 1/2/3/6. This sherd was one that matched many others in surrounding loci all near the surface.The ware is orange medium silt (Munsell 10R 5/8) with a thick black core. Surface is painted with yellow, blue, red and black paint applied after firing.

ceramic analysis L:13 L:14 L:15 L:16 L:17 L:18 L:19 L:20 L:21

157

Jar, New Kingdom-3IP; Landfill west of T2 locus: ALG I 27. The ware is an orange, medium silt with a pink core. Jar, 3IP; Sarcophagus area locus: ALSw X 28; The ware is a hard, brown orange silt with fine mineral inclusions, pink core and thick cream slip on rim and exterior. Jar, 3IP; Sarcophagus area locus: ALSW X 15; The ware is the same as L:14. Jar, 3IP; locus: HF II 9. Neutron Activation #85. The ware is a rusty orange, hard, dense silt (Munsell 10R 5/8), core is thick grey and includes fine mineral inclusions, creamy orange slip is smeared over rim and exterior. Jar, 3IP; Sarcophagus area locus: ALSs II 13; The ware is a hard, dark red, medium silt, a thick pink/grey core, exterior thick cream slip. Jar, 3IP; Sarcophagus area locus: ALSs IV 8; The ware is a hard, brown orange silt, a pink/grey core, exterior thick cream slip. Jar, 3IP; Sarcophagus area locus: ALSw II 32. The ware is a hard, orange brown silt with fine mineral inclusions, zoned, red and black core, streaky red slip on exterior. Jar, 3IP; Sarcophagus area locus: ALSw VIII 15. The ware is a hard, orange brown silt with a grey core. Jar, Hellenistic (?); Sarcophagus area locus: ALSW III 4. The ware is a hard, brown, medium silt with a pink core.

Wide-Mouth Jars (Plates F,O,Q,R) Plate F:1 F:2 F:3 F:4 F:5 F:6 F:7 F:8 F:9 F:10

Wide-mouth jar, New Kingdom/3IP; Landfill west of T2 locus: ALG I 45. The ware is a red medium silt. Wide-mouth jar, 3IP; Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALF III 2. The ware is a medium fine silt. Wide-mouth jar, 3IP; Landfill west of T2 locus: ALG I 71. The ware is orange brown medium silt. Surface wetsmoothed with wheel-made horizontally incised grooves. Wide-mouth jar, 3IP; Landfill west of T2 locus: ALI I 16. The ware is a medium orange silt with traces of red slip on the exterior. Wide-mouth jar, 3IP; Landfill west of T2 locus: ALG I 31. The ware is a medium, orange silt. Wide-mouth jar, Late Period; Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALF II 2. The ware is a medium coarse silt. The rim is blackened by soot. Wide-mouth jar, 3IP; Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALF III 6. The ware is a medium, orange silt. Wide-mouth jar, Late Period; Sarcophagus area locus: ALSs I 1. The ware is a medium, coarse orange silt. Wide-mouth jar, Late Period; ALK-O area locus: ALI II 38. The ware is a medium, orange silt. Wide-mouth jar, New Kingdom; Landfill west of T2 locus: ALG I 22. The ware is a medium, orange silt. The surface has an overall cream slip with three bands of red paint and one of yellowish green.

Wide-Mouthed Storage Jars (Plates O,Q,R) Fragments of these 3IP large vessels are ubiquitous in the land fill. There are enough examples found with attached handles to suggest that this is a form that comes with handles. The handles appear too tiny for the size of these vessels but ropes or poles were probably placed through these handles to assist in carrying or pouring. The ware is a very hard, heavy, silt, the colour of which ranges from dull brown to brick red. The core is red or grey and the temper includes fine chaff and medium-sized mineral inclusions. The larger vessels have large mineral inclusions. The surface is often decorated with a red or more often cream, streaky slip applied with little care. O:1 O:2 O:3 O:4 O:5 O:6 O:7 O:8 O:9 O:10 O:11 O:12 O:13 Q:1 Q:2 Q:3 Q:4 Q:5 Q:6 Q:7 Q:8 R:1 R:2 R:3 R:4

Wide-mouth store-jar, 3IP; Landfill west of T2 locus: ALG I-II 38. Wide-mouth store-jar, 3IP; Sarcophagus area locus: ALSw VIII 5. Wide-mouth store-jar, 3IP; Sarcophagus area locus: ALSn II 15. Wide-mouth store-jar, 3IP; Sarcophagus area locus: ALSw VIII 1. Wide-mouth store-jar, 3IP; Landfill west or T2 locus: ALG I 31. Wide-mouth store-jar, 3IP; Landfill west of T2 locus: ALG I 28. Wide-mouth store-jar, 3IP; Sarcophagus area locus: ALSw X 13. Wide-mouth store-jar, 3IP; Sarcophagus area locus: ALSw VIII 12. Wide-mouth store-jar, 3IP; Sarcophagus area locus: ALSn II 31. Wide-mouth store-jar, 3IP; Sarcophagus area locus: ALSw X 2. Wide-mouth store-jar, 3IP; Sarcophagus area locus: ALSw X 13. Wide-mouth store-jar, 3IP; Sarcophagus area locus: ALSw VIII 10. Wide-mouth store-jar, 3IP; Landfill west of T2 locus: ALG I 18. Wide-mouth store-jar, 3IP; Landfill west of T2 locus: ALG I-II 39. Wide-mouth store-jar, 3IP; landfill west of T2 locus: ALG II 2. Wide-mouth store-jar, 3IP; Landfill west of T2 locus: ALI I 21. Wide-mouth store-jar, 3IP; Landfill west of T2 locus: ALI II 17. Wide-mouth store-jar, 3IP; Landfill west of T2 locus: ALI II 58. Wide-mouth store--jar, 3IP; Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALP I ext 1. Wide-mouth store-jar, 3IP; Landfill west of T2 locus: ALI II 29. Wide-mouth store-jar, 3IP; Landfill west of T2 locus: ALG I 25. Wide-mouth store-jar, 3IP; Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALF II 5. Wide-mouth store-jar, 3IP; Landfill west of T2 locus: ALI II 29. Wide-mouth store-jar, 3IP; Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALF I-II 1. Wide-mouth store-jar, 3IP; Landfill west of T2 locus: ALG I 22. White slip has been applied to the pot after firing and two figures drawn in black paint.

chapter seven

158 R:5 R:6

Wide-mouth store-jar, 3IP; Sarcophagus area locus: ALSn II 4. Wide-mouth store-jar, 3IP; Landfill west of T2 locus: ALG I 43.

Bowls (Plates N,P,M:1-7) Plate N:1 N:2 N:3 N:4 N:5 N:6 N:7 N:8 N:9 N:10 N:11 N:12 N:13 N:14 N:15 N:16 N:17 N:18 N:19 N:20 P:1 P:2 P:3 P:4 P:5 P:6 P:7 P:8 P:9 P:10 P:11 M:1 M:2 M:3 M:4 M:5 M:6 M:7

Bowl, Saite/Persian; Sarcophagus area locus: ALSs IV 5. The ware is a brick red, medium silt with a pink core. Surface is wet-smoothed. Bowl, Saite/Persian; Sarcophagus area locus: ALSs II 10. The ware is the same as N:1. Bowl, Saite/Persian; Sarcophagus area locus: ALSw III-IV 13. The ware is an orange brown medium silt with wetsmoothed surface. Fine bowl, Hellenistic; Sarcophagus area locus: ALSw IV 1a. The ware is a grey, very fine silt (?) with a black burnished surface. Bowl, Saite/Persian; Sarcophagus area locus: ALSw II 25. The ware is an orange, medium silt with a pink core, and a wet-smoothed surface. Bowl, Saite/Persian; Sarcophagus area locus: ALSs IV 10. The ware is an orange, medium silt with a thick gray core, wet-smoothed. Bowl, New Kingdom; Landfill west of T2 locus: ALG II 2. The ware is an orange, medium silt, pink and gray banded core, brick red slip on interior with two black painted stripes on inside rim. Bowl, 3IP; Landfill west of T2 locus: ALG I 9. The ware is a hard, orange, medium silt, wet-smoothed. Bowl, 3IP; Landfill west of T2 locus: ALG I 1. The ware is a dull orange silt (Munsell 5YR 6/6) with a red core and wet-smoothed surface. A black painted triangular leaf design decorates the exterior. Bowl, 3IP; Landfill west of T2 locus: ALG I 30. The ware is a hard, orange, medium silt, wet-smoothed. Bowl, Hellenistic; Sarcophagus area locus: ALSs II 2. The ware is a bricky red, medium fine silt with a pink core. The interior is burnished. Bowl, Saite/Persian; Sarcophagus area locus: ALSw VIII 15. The ware is a brown orange silt with a pink core. Bowl, Saite/Persian; Sarcophagus area locus: ALSs III 11. The ware is the same as N:12 Bowl, Saite/Persian; Landfill west of T2 locus: ALG I 32. The ware is a dull orange, medium silt (Munsell 5YR 5/6) with a thick pink core. The surface is self-slipped. Bowl, 3IP; Landfill west of T2 locus: ALG I 30. The ware is a brown orange, medium silt. Bowl, 3IP; Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALF III 2. The ware is a hard, orange, medium silt. Bowl, 3IP; Landfill west of T2 locus: ALG I 30. The ware is a brown orange, medium silt. Bowl, 3IP; Sarcophagus area locus: ALSw IX. The ware is a brown, medium silt with no visible core. Double finely incised lines in a spiral decorate the interior of the bowl. Bowl, 3IP; Sarcophagus area locus: ALSn I 42. The ware is a dark brown, medium silt with a thick pink core and a wet-smoothed surface. Bowl, 3IP; Sarcophagus area locus: ALSn I 44. The ware is a brown orange silt with a thick gray core. Surface is wet-smoothed. Bowl, Late Period; Landfill west of T2 locus: ALG I 9. The ware is a medium soft, pale orange Egyptian marl with cream surface. Bowl, 4th century B.C.; Sarcophagus area locus: ALSw III 4. The ware is a light yellow fine Egyptian marl. Shallow Bowl, Late Period; Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALC III 4. The ware is an orange, medium silt (Munsell 2.5YR 5/8) with a thick grey core. The surface is wet-smoothed. Bowl, 3IP; Sarcophagus area locus: ALSw VIII 5. The ware is a brick red silt, with a red core and a wet-smoothed surface. Bowl, 3IP; Sarcophagus area locus: ALSs IV 7. The ware is a brown, medium silt with pink core. Bowl, 3IP; Sarcophagus area locus: ALSw X 32. The ware is a brown, medium silt with banded red and grey core. Bowl, 3IP; Sarcophagus area locus: ALSs IV 15. The ware is a brick red silt with a thick grey core, the surface shows traces of thick pink slip. Bowl, 3IP; Sarcophagus area locus: ALSn II 7. The ware is a orange brown silt with a thick grey core. Pink slipped surface. Bowl, 3IP; Sarcophagus area locus: ALSw VIII 15. The ware is a brown orange medium silt with a pink core. Bowl, New Kingdom/3IP; Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALP I 20. The ware is a hard, orange brown silt with a grey core. Bowl, New Kingdom/3IP; Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALP I 13. The ware is a hard, orange silt with grey core. The surface is slipped red. Deep bowl, Saite; Landfill west of T2 locus: ALI II 19. The ware is a medium orange silt (Munsell 2.5YR 5/8) with a thick pink core and a wet-smoothed surface. Deep bowl, Saite; Landfill west of T2 locus: ALG I 9. The ware is the same as M:1. Deep bowl, New Kingdom; Sarcophagus area locus: ALSW VIIb 54. The ware is an orange medium silt. The exterior is wet-smoothed and painted with a black design. Black tic marks decorate the top of the rim. Deep bowl, Late Period; Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALF III 4. The ware is a brick red, medium silt. Deep bowl, Hellenistic; Sarcophagus area locus: ALSw III 1. The ware is a brick red, medium silt with a thick pink core. Deep bowl, 3IP; ALK-O area locus: ALK II 20. Neutron Activation #52. The ware is a medium Nile silt. Deep bowl, 3IP; Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALP I 30. Neutron Activation #45. The ware is a medium Nile silt.

ceramic analysis M:8

159

Deep bowl, Late Period; Sarcophagus area locus: ALSn I 17. The ware is a brown orange, medium silt with a thick black core.

Platters, Basins (Plate M:9-12) Plate M:9 M:10 M:11 M:12

Platter, 3IP; land fill between T1 and T2 locus: ALF I 16. The ware is a brick red, medium coarse silt with thick black core and wet-smoothed surface. Basin, Late Period; Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALF I-II 129. The ware is a brown orange, medium coarse silt with thick black core. Surface wet-smoothed. Basin, Late Period; Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALC I 2. The ware is the same as M:10. Basin, Late Period; Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALR III ext 34. The ware is the same as M:10.

Decorated Sherds (Plate S) Plate S:1 S:2

Sherd, Late Period; Landfill west of T2 locus: ALG I 38; Neutron Activation #42. The ware is a rust brown (Munsell 5YR 5/6), very dense Nile silt, very hard and well fired. The surface is decorated with an incised pattern and covered with a thick red slip (Munsell 10R 4/8) burnished to a high gloss. Sherd, New Kingdom; Landfill west of T2 locus: ALG I 1. Neutron Activation #15. The ware is a rust brown Nile silt (Munsell 2.5YR 5/8) with a thick black core and fine organic and mineral inclusions. The surface is decorated with a thick cream slip background and black painted stripes.

S:3-21 illustrate a variety of painted sherds. The paint has been applied to the surface before firing. The ware of these sherds is typically a brown orange, (Munsell 5YR 5/6) medium Nile silt with a thick grey core banded by red, medium soft and containing many fine organic and mineral inclusions. The colours of the paint depicted are red, black, blue, white and yellow often on a white slipped background. On some of the larger fragments figures and interesting scenes are depicted. S:3 S:4 S:5 S:6 S:7 S:8 S:9 S:10 S:11 S:12 S:13 S:14 S:15 S:16 S:17 S:18 S:19 S:20 S:21 S:22 S:23 S:24 S:25 S:26

S:27

S:28 S:29 S:30

Jar, New Kingdom; Landfill west of T2 locus: ALG I-II 38. Sherd, New Kingdom; Landfill west of T2 locus: ALH I 2. Sherd, New Kingdom; Landfill west of T2 locus: ALI II 21. Sherd, New Kingdom; Landfill west of T2 locus: ALG I 27. Jar, New Kingdom; Landfill west of T2 locus: ALI I 9. Sherd, New Kingdom; Landfill west of T2 locus: ALF II 41. Neutron Activation #22. (Nile silt.) Sherd, New Kingdom; Landfill west of T2 locus: ALH I 3. Neutron Activation #26. (Nile silt). Sherd, New Kingdom; Landfill west of T2 locus: ALI I 4. Sherd, New Kingdom; Landfill west of T2 locus: ALG I 7. Sherd, New Kingdom; Landfill west of T2 locus: ALI II 66. Sherd, New Kingdom; Landfill west of T2 locus: ALI I 6. Sherd, New Kingdom; Landfill west of T2 locus: ALG I 2I. Sherd, New Kingdom; Landfill west of T2 locus: ALG I 22. Sherd, New Kingdom; Landfill west of T2 locus ALG I 20. Sherd, New Kingdom; Landfill west of T2 locus: ALI II 32. Sherd, New Kingdom; Landfill west of T2 locus: ALG I 22. Sherd, New Kingdom; Landfill west of T2 locus: ALI IV 16. Sherd, New Kingdom; Landfill west of T2 locus: ALI II 68. Sherd, New Kingdom; Landfill west of T2 locus: ALI II 26. Sherd, New Kingdom; Landfill west of T2 locus: ALG I 22. The ware is an Egyptian marl. Sherd, New Kingdom; Landfill west of T2 locus: ALG I-II 14. The ware is an Egyptian marl. Sherd, New Kingdom; Landfill west or T2 locus: ALG I 22. The ware is a medium Nile silt. Sherd, Late Period-Hellenistic; Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALR II 4; Neutron Activation #40. The ware is a brick red (Munsell 2.5YR 5/8) medium fine Nile silt with many large mineral inclusions, no visible core, medium hard, surface covered with thick cream slip painted with dark red brown stripes. Sherd, 3IP; ALK-O area locus: ALN III 1; Neutron Activation #37. The ware is a very dense, brown Nile silt (Munsell 5YR 5/8) with some very fine mineral inclusions, thick black core that extends to the interior (reduced atmosphere). The surface is covered with a thick orange slip and painted with black stripes. The ware and decoration resemble a large 3IP flask in which case the stripes would be part of concentric circles. Palestinian Sherd, Late Period; ALK-O area locus: ALK I 28; Neutron Activation #6 (Israel, north inland). The ware is a fine, dense, pale orange fabric (Munsell 5YR 7/6) with a few very fine mineral inclusions, hard and wellfired. The core where visible is a pale yellow orange. The surface has been painted with grey and red stripes and then vertically burnished. Palestinian Sherd, (Israel, north inland ?), Late Period; Landfill west of T2 locus: ALG I 21. The ware is the same as S:27. Palestinian Sherd, Late Period; Landfill west of T2 locus: ALG I 31; Neutron Activation #7.(Israel, north inland), The ware is the same as S:27. Sherd, Locus: HF III 4; Neutron Activation #28; The ware is a brown, medium dense Nile silt (Munsell 7.5YR 4/4) with thick black core, fine chaff and large mineral inclusions. The surface has a row of impressed rope design and

160 S:31 S:32 S:33 S:34

chapter seven an incised groove. Traces of a thick red slip cover the exterior. Cypriot (?) jar, Late Period; Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALP II 6; The ware is a pale yellow fabric, medium dense and hard with fine mineral inclusions, a core pale pink where visible. The surface is decorated with concentric circles of black paint. Cypriot (?) handle fragment, Late Period; Landfill west of T2 locus: ALG I 26; The ware is similar to S:31. Sherd, Hellenistic; Sarcophagus area locus: ALSw III-IV 4. The ware is a hard, dense, rust silt (Munsell 2.5YR 5/8). The surface is decorated with a red slip background and black painted floral design. Sherd, Hellenistic; Sarcophagus area locus: ALSw X 14. The ware is the same as S:33.

Flasks, Unguent Jars, Lids, Miscellaneous (Plate T) Plate T:1

Flask, 3IP; Sarcophagus area locus: ALSw VIIA 15. The ware is a medium dense, yellow orange silt (Munsell 7.5YR 6/6) with red painted concentric circles on the surface. T:2 Flask, 3IP; Sarcophagus area locus: ALSw VIII 37. The ware is a medium dense, yellow brown silt with black core and pinky orange slip. T:3 Flask, 3IP; Locus: HF II 9; Neutron Activation #91. The ware is a hard, dense, yellow brown silt (Munsell 7.5YR 6/4) with a thick black core extending to the interior surface, fine sand inclusions and a thick creamy orange slip (Munsell 7.5YR 7/6) covering the surface. T:4 Flask, 3IP; Sarcophagus area locus: ALSw VIII 16. The ware is a bricky red Nile silt with a thick black core and considerable multi-sized sand inclusions. T:5 Flask, 3IP; Sarcophagus area locus: ALSs III 12. The ware is a pale orange silt with grey core and fine sand inclusions. T:6 Flask, 3IP; Sarcophagus area locus: ALSw VIII 20. The ware is a brown orange silt with many sand inclusions. T:7 Cypriot(?) jar or flask, 3IP; Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALF/R III 14 Baulk. The ware is a very fine, dense, beige fabric (Munsell 10YR 8/3) with very fine mineral inclusions. Black painted concentric circles are painted on the surface, a design which is often on flasks. T:8 Cypriot flask, 3IP; Landfill west of T2 locus: ALI I 16; Neutron activation #9. The ware is a very dense, pale orange (Munsell 5YR 7/6) fabric with no visible core and with fine mineral inclusions. The surface is covered with a thick cream background slip on which is painted black concentric circles. T:9 Greek(?) lekythos, 4th century B.C.; Sarcophagus area locus: ALSw VIII 32; The ware is a very dense, pale beige fabric (Munsell 7.5YR 7/6), with no visible inclusions. The surface is glazed black with a palmette design left unglazed. T:10 Greek(?) lekythos, 4th century B.C.; Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALF I-II 117. The ware is the same as T:9. The surface is glazed black with the design left unglazed. T:11 Greek(?) lekythos(?), 4th century B.C. Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALF I/II 108. The ware is the same as T: 9. T:12 Unguent Jar, 4th/3rd century B.C. Area of squares ALK-M locus: ALL IV 16; Neutron Activation #1. Although this sherd looks like a Greek import, NA analysis has proved it to be Nile silt. The fine dense silt ware has been fired in a reducing atmosphere to a dark gray (Munsell 5YR 4/1) with no visible core, no inclusions. The surface was well burnished horizontally to a shiny black and thin vertical incisions were made on the body below the shoulder. T:13 Palestinian Juglet, Late Period; Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALP I 23. Neutron Activation #34 (Israel, north inland). The ware is a medium dense brick red fabric (Munsell 2.5YR 6/8) with fine and medium sized mineral black and white inclusions. Traces of red slip remain on the surface along with black paint on the rim. T:14 Palestinian(?) Juglet, Late Period; Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALR III ext 34; The ware is a pale orange fabric with a cream slip surface. T:15 Palestinian(?) Juglet, Late Period; Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALP II 25. The ware is a very fine dense, pale pink (Munsell 7.5YR 8/2). The surface is wet-smoothed. T:16 Palestinian(?) Juglet, Late Period; Sarcophagus area locus: ALSs II 2. The ware is a brick red fabric with red slip on the exterior. T:17 Base of Unguent vessel, Hellenistic; Sarcophagus area locus: ALSs IV 8. The ware is a hard, dense brick red silt with a thick steel grey core. T:18 Base of Unguent vessel, Hellenistic; Sarcophagus area locus: ALSw II 32. The ware is very hard, dense orange brown silt with a pink/black core and a red-slipped exterior. T:19 Base of Unguent vessel, Hellenistic; Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALP I 30. The ware is a hard, dense brick red silt with a steel grey core. T:20 Mini pot, Late Period-Hellenistic; ALK-O area locus: ALL I 2; Neutron Activation #74. The ware is a medium coarse red brown Nile silt (Munsell 2.5YR 5/8) with much organic and mineral inclusions. The surface is finished sloppily. The function of this vessel is unknown but the pinched base renders it unable to stand. T:21 Mini pot, Late Period; Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALF I 2. The ware of this vessel is the same as T:20. T:22 Mini pot, Late Period; Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALF I 2. The ware is the same as T:20. T:23 Lid, Late Period; Landfill between T1 and T2 Locus: ALF III 19. The ware is a medium dense, yellow brown silt (Munsell 5YR 7/6). The top of the lid is slipped red and burnished. T:24-30 Lids that are made from a medium-coarse, brownish orange silt (Munsell 7.5YR 5/6) with a poorly wet-smoothed surface. T:24 Lid, Late Period; Sarcophagus area locus: ALSs II 15. T:25 Lid, Late Period; Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALP II 19. T:26 Lid, Late Period; Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALP II 1. T:27 Lid, Late Period; Sarcophagus area locus: ALSw VIIB 41. T:28 Lid, Late Period; Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALP II 43.

ceramic analysis T:29 T:30 T:31 T:32 T:33

T:34

161

Lid, Late Period; Sarcophagus area locus: ALSw VIII 1. Lid, Late Period; Sarcophagus area locus: ALSw VIII 1. Body sherd, Late Period-Hellenistic; Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALF III 6. Neutron Activation #48. The ware is hard, medium dense brick red Nile silt (Munsell 2.5YR 4/8) with no visible core and with fine chaff and small to medium sized inclusions. The surface is decorated with a rust coloured slip that is horizontally burnished. Small jar, New Kingdom; Landfill west of T2 locus ALI II 9. The ware is a fine dense, hard, pale orange marl fabric with no visible core. The surface is covered with a thick cream slip and a black painted design and then polished. Small jar, ALK-O area locus: ALO II 10. Neutron Activation #50. The ware is a medium fine dense, orange fabric (Munsell 2.5YR 6/8) with many small white inclusions. The sherd shares characteristic elements with both silt and marl and yet does not match either well. Perhaps this is a genuine example of a mixed marl and silt or a silt with a handful of lime thrown in for temper. The surface is covered with a thick cream slip. Small jar, New Kingdom; Landfill west of T2 locus: ALG I 32. The ware is an orange silt with a stripe of black paint.

Small conical pots (T:35-37) are crudely made of Nile silt. They all have a thick red core, have many medium sized inclusions and an untreated surface. They are popular in the Hellenistic period and their function is unknown. Many examples were found in the Hellenistic harbour at Mendes. T:35 T:36 T:37 T:38

Small pot, Hellenistic; Sarcophagus area locus: ALSw I EXT 7. Small pot, Hellenistic; Sarcophagus area locus: ALSw II 2. Small pot, Hellenistic; Sarcophagus area locus: ALSs IV 1. Femniform jar, New kingdom; Landfill west of T2 locus: ALG I-II 38. The ware is a medium Nile silt. Two breastlike lumps of clay are affixed to the exterior of the vessel with two perforations immediately below.

The Bes Jars (pl. T:39-41) are made of a a hard, medium dense, rust Nile silt (Munsell 2.5YR 5/8) with a thick black core and fine mineral inclusions. Traces of a self slip remain on the surface. The facial elements are lumps of clay pressed onto the vessel surface. T:39 T:40 T:41 T:42 T:43

Bes Jar, Late Period; Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALF I 1. Bes Jar, Late Period; ALK - O area locus: ALM I 12. Neutron Activation #30. Nile silt. Bes Jar, Late Period; Locus DC. Excavation of drainage pipe. Imported Stirrup jar, New Kingdom; Landfill west of T2 locus: ALI II 28. Neutron Activation #4 (Crete). The ware is a very dense, pale yellow orange fabric (Munsell 7.5YR 7/6) with no visible core. The surface has been painted with reddish brown stripes and then burnished. Palestinian sherd, Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALQ II 5. Neutron Activation # 41 (Israel, south coast). The ware is a dense, gritty, bricky fabric (Munsell 2.5YR 5/8) with fine white inclusions. The surface has a pale orange background with a stripes and star decoration in red and black paint.

Ring-stands, Bases, Miscellaneous (Plate U:1-10) Plate U:I U:2 U:3 U:4 U:5 U:6 U: 7 U:8 U:9 U:10

Base of Spinning bowl, FIP (?); ALK-O area locus: ALK II 40. Neutron Activation #80. The ware is a medium, dense rust orange Nile silt (Munsell 2.5YR 5/8) with a thick grey core, and medium sized chaff and mineral inclusions. Traces of red slip appear on the interior surface. Base of Spinning bowl, New Kingdom; Sarcophagus area locus: ALSw IX 8. The ware is a medium dense brown silt with a red/grey core and mineral inclusions. The interior and exterior are slipped red. Base of Spinning bowl, FIP (?); ALK-O area locus: ALK III 66. Neutron Activation #60. The ware is the same as as U:1. Bread Mould, Late Period; Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALP II 27. The ware is a medium coarse, brown silt with a thick black core extending to the interior and many large organic and mineral inclusions. Bread Mould, New Kingdom; ALK-O area locus: ALM IV 5b. Neutron Activation # 71. The ware is a medium coarse, rust orange Nile silt (Munsell 2.5YR 5/8) with a red core and many organic and mineral inclusions. The interior has an obvious brown, fine sand lining (Munsell 7.5YR 7/4) to keep the dough from sticking. Base of bowl, FIP/Middle Kingdom; Locus: HF III 4. Neutron Activation #97. The ware is well levigated, medium, brown silt (Munsell 5YR 6/4) with pink core and very fine organic inclusions. A thick red slip covers the interior and exterior. Base, Late Period; Sarcophagus area locus: ALF I/II 104; Neutron Activation #64. The ware is a coarse rust silt (Munsell 2.5YR 5/8) with a thick, porous black core extending to the interior. Large chaff inclusions are added as temper. High ring-base, Hellenistic; Sarcophagus area locus: ALSw I ext 22. The ware is a brown orange, medium silt with a black core. Handle, Late Period; ALK-O area locus: ALK III 26c. Neutron Activation #58. The ware is a very hard, rust brown (Munsell 2.5YR 5/8) with a thick black core and fine mineral inclusions. The surface is covered with a thick red burnished slip. Sherd with perforations, Late Period; Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALF I 1. The ware is a medium, dense orange silt.

chapter seven

162 Bases of Jars (Plate U:11-13)

The ware of these vessels is a very coarse, poorly levigated, rust Nile silt (Munsell 2.5YR 5/8) with a thick porous black core and numerous large organic inclusions. The vessel is handmade perhaps around a central core and the surface is finished by vertical scraping of the excess clay. U:11 U:12 U:13 U:14 U:15 U:16 U:17

Base of jar, FIP/Middle Kingdom; ALK-O area locus: ALK I 44. Neutron Activation #86. Base of jar, FIP/Middle Kingdom; ALK-O area locus: ALK I 42. Neutron Activation #32. Base of jar, FIP/MK; ALK-O area locus: ALK I 52. Neutron Activation #66. Ring-stand, Late Period/Hellenistic; Sarcophagus area locus: ALSW VIII 31. The ware is a medium coarse, brick red silt (Munsell 10R 5/8) with many organic and mineral inclusions. The stand has three perforations placed equidistantly around the waist. Ring-stand, Late Period; Landfill between T1 and T2 locus: ALQ I 8. The ware is medium orange silt. Lamp or zoomorphic vessel, Landfill west of T2 Locus: ALG I 26. The ware is a hard, dense, rust brown silt (Munsell 2.5YR 4/8) with a pale gray slip. Appears as a saucer folded over and closed at the top leaving an opening at both ends with broken edges. Coffin, Sarcophagus area locus: ALSn II 26. The ware is a coarse, red brown silt with many organic and mineral inclusions. The coffin is very fragmentary and only the head end could be reconstructed.

Neutron Activation Examples from Mendes Harbour (HAR) Plate V:1 V:2 V:3 V:4 V:5 V:6 V:7 V:8 V:9 V:10 V:11 V:12 V:1 V:14 V:15 V:16 V:17 V:18 V:19 V:20 V:21

Greek bowl, Hellenistic; Locus: HAR surface; Neutron Activation #2 (Mainland Greece or Crete). The ware is a very dense, fine, red orange fabric (Munsell 2.5YR 6/8), no visible core or inclusions. Thick black painted surface polished. Imported amphora, Hellenistic; Locus HAR A IV 7. Neutron Activation #100 (Aegean, possibly Crete). The ware is a very fine, dense orange fabric (Munsell 2.5YR 6/8) with fine mineral inclusions, including some mica. Imported amphora toe, Hellenistic; Locus: HAR D I 7. Neutron Activation #75 (Crete). The ware is a very fine dense, creamy buff fabric (Munsell 5YR 8/2) with few fine mineral inclusions. Imported amphora, Hellenistic; Locus HAR C area. Neutron Activation #93 (Samos). The ware is a very fine, dense orange fabric (Munsell 2.5YR 6/8). Imported amphora, Hellenistic; Locus HAR C I1 3. Neutron Activation #57 (Samos?). The ware is very similar to V:4 but with fine white mineral inclusions. Imported amphora, Hellenistic; Locus HAR C IV 5. Neutron Activation #87 (East Aegean). The ware is a fine, dense, pale orange fabric (Munsell 5YR 6/6) with mineral inclusions, and covered with a thick creamy slip. Imported bottle, Hellenistic; Locus 1. HAR C V 1. Neutron Activation #5 (West Anatolia, possibly Ephesus). The ware is a fine, dense brown orange fabric (Munsell 2.5YR 5/6) with no visible core or inclusions. The surface is covered with a thick black slip, smoothed but a matte finish. Imported amphora, Hellenistic; Locus HAR A IV 5. Neutron Activation #102 (Israel, north inland). The ware is a fine, dense orange fabric (Munsell 5YR 6/8) with some fine mineral inclusions and a self slip that is flaking. Imported amphora, Hellenistic; Locus HAR A IV 3. Neutron Activation #84 (Israel, north inland). The ware is a hard, dense, orange brown fabric (Munsell 2.5YR 5/8) with a darker core and some fine mineral inclusions. The surface is covered with a thick cream slip (Munsell 10YR 8/2). Imported small jar base, Hellenistic; Locus HAR A V 4. Neutron Activation #19 (Israel, north inland). The ware is a dense, orange (Munsell 2.5YR 6/8) with very fine mineral inclusions and no visible core. Imported amphora, Late Period; Locus East Karnak, NB IV 20. Neutron Activation # 104 (Israel, north coast). The ware is a medium dense orange fabric (Munsell 5YR 7/6) with many sand inclusions and no visible core. Palestinian cooking vessel, Roman; Locus: HAR Surface. Neutron Activation # 102 (North Israel, inland). The ware is medium dense, brick red fabric (Munsell 2.5YR 5/8) with many mineral inclusions, a dark core, and a thin cream slip on the surface. Pitcher with strainer, Hellenistic/Roman; Locus: HAR C IV 4. Neutron Activation # 77. The ware is a medium dense rust Nile silt with some mineral and fine organic inclusions, a banded red and black core and a thick red slip on the surface. Cooking vessel, Hellenistic/Roman; Locus: HAR C. Neutron Activation #25. The ware is a hard, dense, brown Nile silt (Munsell 5YR 6/4) with some mineral inclusions and a pink core. Body sherd (possibly shoulder), Hellenistic; Locus: HAR A III 6. Neutron Activation #53. The ware is a very dense, hard, brick red, Nile silt (Munsell 10R 5/8) with a thick red core and only a few mineral inclusions. The exterior is decorated with a thick red slip and two incised grooves. Base of unguentarium, Hellenistic; Locus: HAR A V 4. Neutron Activation #8. The ware is a dense rust Nile silt (Munsell 2.5YR 5/8) with no visible core and no obvious inclusions. The exterior is covered with a thick red slip. Base of unguentarium. Roman; Locus: HAR E II 14. Neutron Activation #61. The ware is a hard, dense, rust Nile silt (Munsell 2.5YR 5/8) with a few mineral inclusions and a dark core extending to the interior. The surface is wetsmoothed. Base of unguentarium, Hellenistic; Locus: HAR D I 8. Neutron Activation #14. The ware is a very hard, dense, rust Nile silt (Munsell 2.5YR 5/8) with no visible inclusions and a thin grey core. The surface is wet-smoothed. Amphora spike, Hellenistic; Locus: HAR A IV 3. Neutron Activation #78. The ware is a hard, heavy, dense brick red Nile silt (Munsell 2.5YR 5/6) with many mineral inclusions and a thick grey core. Casserole, Hellenistic; Locus: HAR A VI 5. Neutron Activation #90. The ware is a dense, brown Nile silt (Munsell 5YR 5/6) with a red core and some very fine mineral inclusions. The surface is covered with a thick red slip. Pitcher, Hellenistic; Locus: HAR A V 9. Neutron Activation #13. The ware is a dense brown Nile silt (Munsell

ceramic analysis

V:22 V:23 V:24 V:25 V:26 V:27 V:28 V:29 V:30 V:31 V:32

163

2.5YR 6/6) with a narrow grey core and a few fine mineral inclusions. The surface is covered with a thick creamy orange slip. Bottle, Hellenistic; Locus: HAR C I 16. Neutron Activation #11. The ware is a hard, very dense, brown Nile silt (Munsell 7.5YR 5/6) with no visible inclusions and no core. The surface is covered with a thick red slip on which traces of horizontal burnishing remains. Juglet with at least one handle. Hellenistic; Locus: HAR A IV 3. Neutron Activation #101. The ware is a medium dense orange Nile silt (Munsell 2.5YR 6/8) with fine organic and mineral inclusions and a grey core. The surface is self-slipped. Deep bowl, Hellenistic; Locus: HAR A IV 5. Neutron Activation #99. The ware is a medium dense, hard, orange Nile silt (Munsell 2.5YR 6/8) with a black core and some organic and mineral inclusions. The surface is covered with a dark brown wash on which is painted three red horizontal stripes. Base of bowl or globular jar, Hellenistic; Locus: HAR A V 4. Neutron Activation #29. The ware is a hard, very dense, brown Nile silt (Munsell 5YR 5/4) with a thin gray core and no obvious inclusions. The exterior surface is covered with a thick red slip with horizontal burnishing. Base of beaker, Hellenistic; Locus: HAR C. Neutron Activation #38. The ware is a hard, very dense brown Nile silt (Munsell 7.5YR 4/4) with a thin black core and no obvious inclusions. The surface both inside and out is black, perhaps the result of a reduced atmosphere. Traces of a burnished red brown slip are visible. Bowl base, Hellenistic; Locus: HAR A V 4. Neutron Activation #36. The ware is a hard, dense, dark brown Nile silt (Munsell 7.5YR 3/2) with a red core and black surface. Bowl, Hellenistic; Locus: HAR A IV 5. Neutron Activation #23. The ware is a hard, very dense, rust Nile silt (Munsell 2.5YR 5/8) with no visible core, some very fine inclusions and covered with a thick red slip. Bowl, Hellenistic; Locus: HAR A IV 4. Neutron Activation #39. The ware is a hard dense rust Nile silt with a gray core and some fine mineral inclusions. Bowl/Lid, Hellenistic; Locus: HAR C I 4. Neutron Activation #16. The ware is a medium dense rust Nile silt (Munsell 2.5YR 5/8) with a black core and many small to medium sized organic and mineral inclusions. Bowl, Hellenistic; Locus: HAR A I 4. Neutron Activation #94. The ware is a medium, dense, brown Nile silt (Munsell 7.5YR 5/4) with a pink core and a few fine mineral inclusions. Bowl, Hellenistic; Locus: HAR A IV 5. Neutron Activation #5. The ware is a very dense, dark gray Nile silt (Munsell 7.5YR 3/2) with a brown core, and very fine mineral inclusions. The black surface (with traces of burnishing) is probably the result of a reduced atmosphere.

164

chapter seven Plate A

ceramic analysis Plate B

165

166

chapter seven Plate C

ceramic analysis Plate D

167

168

chapter seven Plate E

ceramic analysis Plate F

169

170

chapter seven Plate G

ceramic analysis Plate H

171

172

chapter seven Plate J

ceramic analysis Plate K

173

174

chapter seven Plate L

ceramic analysis Plate M

175

176

chapter seven Plate N

ceramic analysis Plate O

177

178

chapter seven Plate P

ceramic analysis Plate Q

179

180

chapter seven Plate R

ceramic analysis Plate S

181

182

chapter seven Plate T

ceramic analysis Plate U

183

184

chapter seven Plate V

the human remains

185

CHAPTER EIGHT

THE HUMAN REMAINS (THIRD INTERMEDIATE PERIOD) Carol Lang This report will focus on the composition of skeletal material excavated during the 1994 and 1995 field seasons at Mendes. Age, sex, genetic traits and pathologies will be reported in this overview. During the 1993 and 1994 field season at Mendes, human skeletal remains were retrieved from various areas of the site. The burials and surrounding matrix were stabilized in plaster, labelled, removed and stored in the lab at the site. The remains were removed from the casts and matrix during 1995 field season by the author and analysed. Any artifacts found in the matrix were noted, bagged for identification and delivered to the technicians on site for analysis. The excavation of human remains during the1995 season and the subsequent examination and analysis were conducted by the author. C14 samples were also collected, packaged and labelled. Preliminary analysis was carried out at the lab on site. Methods A register of all burials stored in the lab at Mendes was created. Burials from the main area of the site which were removed in the 1994 field season were given first priority. Burials encountered during the 1995 season were examined and excavated upon discovery, and any observations and measurements which were possible to perform in situ were recorded. Upon completion of analysis, and recording, all skeletal material was labelled, packaged separately and placed in storage cartons in the lab on site. The Sample 1993 1. MD 93 AL-N IV 14. Remains from Burial Pot # 2. Condition: This is a primary burial in poor condition containing the fragmented remains of most of the skeleton. The individual is a child, 3.5 to 4 yrs old. Age determined by dental eruption. Dentition: All permanent dentition unerupted and the 2nd left deciduous molar is present. Permanent teeth present include 2 upper incisors, 4 lower incisors, 2 upper premolars, one 1st upper molar, one lower 1st molar. Genetic Traits: Mild shovelling (grade 2) on upper incisors. 1 large carabelli cusp on deciduous molar 6th cusp on lower 1st permanent molar. Pathologies: Dental: severe hypoplasia (deep horizontal lines) on unerupted upper incisors and on lower unerupted canine. 2. MN 93 AL-G I 5. Skull Condition: This is a skull from a primary burial in poor condition. No other material from the burial was salvaged. The individual is probably a subadult, at least 14 yrs old. Age determined by full erup-

186

chapter eight

tion of 2nd molars, and moderate wear, but 3rd molars appear to be absent. Dentition: All dentition is permanent and erupted. Permanent teeth survived include 1 lower lateral incisor, 3 upper premolars, 1st and 2nd upper molars (left and right), one lower lateral incisor with moderate occlusal wear. Genetic Traits: 1 large parastyle on upper left 1st permanent molar. 3rd molar agenesis (absence). Pathologies: Dental: moderate hypoplasia (horizontal lines) on the lower incisor. 1994 3. MN 94 AL-SW VII A14. Burial #3. (figs. 92 & 95) Condition: This is a primary burial in extended position, lying on back with the skull lying on right side. The remains are in poor condition containing the fragmented remains of most of the skeleton. The individual is an adult, 45+ yrs old. Age determined by dental condition. Artifacts: Pot sherds (body sherds) were found under the body and 1 whole small pot, lying upside down was found in the area between the tibiae. Dentition: All permanent dentition is present and fully erupted. Extreme wear on all occlusal surfaces. 2 molars show uneven wear; the distal surfaces being more worn than are the proximal areas. Genetic Traits: 3rd molar agenesis. Pathologies: Skull: Left and right parietals show extreme hyperostosis (9.96 mm in thickness), indicating an iron deficient diet. Dentition: Uneven wear on the 2 molars (see above). Caries present (lateral neck caries and interproximal). Slight to mild calculus present. Moderate bone resorption around the tooth crypts. 4. MD 94 AL-SW VII 16. Burial # 4. (fig. 93) Condition: This is a primary burial in poor condition containing the partial fragmented remains of the skeleton. A few bones from the left hand, fragments of the L & R parietals, portions of the Right scapula, humerus, ulna, radius, hip and shaft of the femur. The individual is a female adult 25 to 35 yrs old. Age determined by dentition. Sex was determined by greater sciatic notch shape. Artifacts: Anterior portion of 1 right mandible (sheep/goat). Assorted fragmented bird bones, including the distal end of an avian humerus. Intentional disposition of these is unknown. Dentition: Permanent dentition is fully erupted. 1st, 2nd and 3rd right upper and lower molars are present. The 2nd upper left molar and the 1st and 2nd lower left molars are present. Genetic Traits: The lower right 3rd molar shows a DY5 dental pattern. The lower right 2nd molar has an enamel extension on the lingual surface. Pathologies: There is increasing wear from extensive to moderate on the 1st to 3rd upper molars. This wear pattern is repeated on the lower 1st, 2nd and 3rd right lower molars.

the human remains

187

5. MD 94 AL-SW VII 14. Burial # 2. (fig. 94) Condition: This was a primary burial in poor condition. The partial fragmented remains of the skeleton included only one identifiable bone, part of a diaphysis (shaft), possibly femoral. 6. MD 94 AL-SW VII A 6. Burial # 1, Individual located at north end of burial #1. This is probably the main individual of burial #1 or the collection (6+9). Artifacts: Large sherds from a large pot. Condition: This is a primary burial in extremely poor condition containing the fragmented remains of the skeleton. The burial was over and under sherds. Age was determined by the detached epiphyses at the proximal ends of the right femur (femoral head) and a left ulna. The individual is a subadult less than 13 yrs old. Pathologies: Severe porotic hyperostosis (10.01 mm thick) was noted on parietal fragments. 7. MD 94 AL-SW VII A 6+9. Pot Burial # 1, Individual A—South end of pot burial #1 (see next entry). The South end burial was under N. end burial and slightly south. Condition: This was a primary burial in extremely poor condition. Only skull fragments, mandible and dentition analysed. The individual is a male adult 45+ yrs. Age determined by dentition; sex determined by anterior mandibular morphology and large mastoid process. Dentition: Permanent teeth present include UPPER: right 1st premolar and right 3rd molar. LOWER: right 1st & 2nd incisors, right canine, right 1st & 2nd molars; left 1st & 2nd incisors, 1st & 2nd premolars and 1st molar. Genetic Traits: The lower right 1st molar has an enamel extension on the lingual surface. Pathologies: Dental: All dentition shows extreme wear, with exposed dentin, including the 3rd molar. The wear pattern on the first molars follows the 5++ pattern (Bothwell, 1981). The wear on the upper premolar, the upper left 1st molar, the lower premolars and lower L & R 1st molars exhibit a hollowed-out cup-shaped form. Mandibular: The anterior tooth crypts (incisal area) show considerable bone resorption. Slight bone resorption is present along the left side of the mandible, from the 1st premolar to the 1st molar. 8. MD 94 AL-SW VII A 6+9. Pot Burial # 1, Individual B. Condition: This is an unexpected individual which is part of the primary burial listed in 7 above. This is probably the “pot” burial, as it is the only child of the 3 individuals marked with this provenience. Only dentition was available for analysis. The individual is a child 8 yrs old. Age determined by dental eruption. Erupted and unerupted teeth (tooth caps or crowns) were examined. Many genetic dental traits were recorded, because the unerupted permanent teeth had not had a chance to wear off the traits. Dentition: No deciduous dentition was present. Most of upper set were present with the exception of 3rd molars and the left 2nd premolar. Lower dentition included the right canine and right 1st molar; the left canine and left 1st and 2nd molar. Genetic Traits: Mild shovelling (grade 2 or 3) on upper right incisors.

188

chapter eight

1 large carabelli cusp (grade 4) on upper 1st molar. Small carabelli cusp on 1st and 2nd right molars. 1 enamel extension on the buccal surface of the upper right 1st molar. Protostylid pit on 1st & 2nd lower left molar and 1st right molar (Note: the protostylid trait is ever present on lower molars only. It is like the carabelli trait on upper molars.) 1 enamel extension on buccal surface of right 1st molar. DY5 pattern is present on the occlusal surface of the 3 lower molars. Pathologies: Dental: severe hypoplasic lines and pitting are present on all of the upper dentition. A Carious pit is present on the distal buccal surface of the R & L lower 1st molars. Moderate wear was present on the left lower 1st molar and slight “polishing” was present on the left lower 2nd molar. 9. MD 94 SW VIII 30. Child Burial. Condition: These are the remains of a primary burial in poor condition containing the partial fragmented remains the skeleton. The individual is a child 3 to 3.5 yrs old. Age determined by deciduous present and permanent dental eruption. Dentition: Deciduous Dentition present included R & L upper canines, 1st upper R molar and 2nd upper L molar; All 4 lower incisors, 1st lower left molar and 2nd R lower molar. There was no wear on the deciduous dentition. Permanent dentition: The upper central incisors were erupted about half way. No other permanent dentition was erupted. Permanent teeth present include the 4 upper incisors, 2 upper canines, right upper 1st premolar and the 1st and 2nd left upper molar. Lower permanent dentition included 2 left incisors, right lateral incisor, R & L canines and the lower R 1st molar. Genetic Traits: Mild shovelling (grade 1) on the 4 upper incisors. Mild shovelling (G1) on lower permanent incisors. 1 carabelli cusp (Grade 3) on left deciduous 2nd molar large carabelli cusp (G4) on left permanent 1st & 2nd molars DY5 pattern on lower 1st right permanent molar. 10. MD 94 SN II 32. Burial # 2. (fig. 90) Condition: This is a primary burial in poor condition containing the partial fragmented remains of the skeleton. The individual is a adult 17 to 25 yrs old. Sex indeterminate. Identified remains included a femoral shaft and a fragment of right mandible. Dentition: All permanent dentition erupted. Permanent teeth present include left upper lateral incisor, 1st L premolar, 2nd and 3rd R upper molars. Lower right dentition included R canine, 1st and 2nd premolars and 1st and 2nd molars. Genetic Traits: DY5 occlusal pattern and enamel extension (medium size) on 1st lower molar. Protostylid curve on R 1st lower molar; Protostylid pit on lower 2nd molar. Pathologies: Dental: hypoplasic bands on upper L lateral incisor and on lower R canine. 3 Carious pits present on occlusal surface of lower R 1st molar. Moderate wear (dentin not exposed) on R 2nd lower molar. 11. MN 94 SN II 3. Burial Pit. Cranium bones. Condition: This is a primary burial in poor condition containing a few fragmented remains of the crania.

the human remains

189

Age and Sex indeterminate. 1995 12. MDS 95 AL-GI 56. Burial # 1. Condition: These are the remains of a primary burial in poor condition containing the partial fragmented remains of 2 skeletons. The burial was oriented in a NW position and the 2 individuals were probably in fully extended position. One individual (Individual A) is a child 3 to 3.5 yrs old. Age determined by deciduous present and unerupted permanent dentition. The remains from Individual A included fragments of most of the skull, including dentition, the shaft of the right humerus, R & L ribs, R & L hip bones, R & L femora, Left tibia, fibula, and a few bones from the left foot. The second child (Individual B) is a 6 year old (also from dental eruption). The remains from Individual B included a few cranial fragments and dentition. Artifacts: Individual. A: a tiny white (faience?) bead located in the chest area; beside the right humerus. This was bagged and labelled and turned into the pottery lab for analysis. A few pot sherds were uncovered, and these were similarly bagged and labelled. Individual A: Dentition: Deciduous Dentition present included L upper incisors, canine, 1st and 2nd upper L molars lower R canine, remaining roots from the 1st and 2nd lower left molars. Unerupted permanent teeth included R upper incisors and canine; L 2nd upper incisor, 1st and 2nd L premolars, 1st upper L molar. Lower permanent dentition: L lower incisors, canine, 1st premolar, 1st molar. Genetic Traits: Mild shovelling (grade 1) on the permanent 3 upper incisors. 1 large carabelli cusp (Grade 4) on left deciduous 2nd molar 1 large carabelli cusp (G4) on left permanent 1st molar L perm. lower 1st molar has 6 cusps. Pathologies: Dental: mild hypoplasic lines and pitting are present on the anterior upper dentition. 3 deep, severe lines present on upper and lower permanent molars. A Carious pit is present on the distal buccal surface of the R & L lower 1st molars. Slight “polishing” was present on the left lower 2nd deciduous molar. Individual B: Dentition: Deciduous dentition present included 1st and 2nd upper left molars and 1st and 2nd lower right molars. Upper permanent teeth included L upper 2nd incisor, 1st upper R premolar 2nd upper L premolar, 1st and 2nd R & L upper molars. Lower permanent dentition: lower R 2nd incisor, 1st & 2nd L premolars, 2nd R premolar, 1st & 2nd R & L molars. The four 1st permanent molars show polishing on the tips of the cusps, indicating newly, partial eruption. The other permanent dentition was not erupted. Genetic Traits: Mild shovelling (grade 1) on the permanent upper lateral incisor. 1 odontome present on the upper R 1st premolar Presence of a 6th cusp on lower R permanent 1st molar Pathologies: Of the 4 deciduous molars, only the 2nd L molar shows evidence of mild hypoplasia. Permanent Dentition: mild hypoplasic lines are present on all of the upper L dentition. Mild lines also appear on the upper and lower premolars.

190

chapter eight

A Carious pit is present on the distal buccal surface of the R & L lower 1st molars. Slight “polishing” was present on the tips of cusps of the permanent 1st molars, the remaining permanent teeth were unerupted. 13. MN 95 AL-SW VIII 21. Burial # 1. (fig. 96) Condition: This is a primary burial in extended position with the skull lying on the left side. The body had been positioned with the head at the west end of the grave. The right arm was straight and positioned at the side of the body, as was the upper left arm. The lower left arm (ulna, radius & hand) lay across the pelvic area. The lower limbs were in a position similar to that of the arms. The right leg was straight and in natural anatomical position, as was the upper left leg. The lower left leg (tibia, fibula and the foot) was positioned diagonally, such that the right and left feet were side by side and touching one another. The burial was in poor condition and contained the fragmented remains of most of the skeleton. The individual is an adult female, 25 to 35 yrs old. The age was determined by dental condition; sex was determined by the morphological features of the hip bones (greater sciatic notch, Phenice traits (1969). Artifacts: Isolated pot sherds were scattered in the burial fill. More sherds were found at the west end, around the top of the head. One pot sherd was found under the right elbow, at the distal end of the humerus. The pottery found around and at the head of the skull was labelled and bagged separately. Dentition: All permanent dentition was present with the exception of 5 anterior lower teeth: (the lower lateral incisors, the right central incisor and the left canine and 1st premolar were missing). Caries and Wear Patterns: Extreme wear (dentin exposed) was present (upper and lower) on the occlusal surfaces of the teeth, from the canines to the 2nd molars. The anterior dentition showed a slightly more moderate wear pattern, where less dentin was exposed and a slight calculus build up was present. All four 3rd molars show very slight wear or polishing. Occlusal caries were present only on the upper molars. Evidence of Dental Mutilation: The upper left central incisor has an evenly etched notch running from the occlusal surface towards the root apex. The notch is approximately 1mm wide and 1 mm long and cuts through the full thickness of the incisor. It is suspected that the notch was abraded into the tooth as a result of continually running fibres across the occlusal surface of the tooth in the process of spinning thread. Dental pathology: An extra tooth root was present behind the upper right canine. The upper L 1st molar, and the 1st and 2nd left molars were broken antemortem. Genetic Traits: Left and right upper 2nd and 3rd molars have a C3 cusp pattern. Lower L 2nd molar has a small, but present 5th cusp, and displays the common DY5 pattern. Pathologies: Dentition: Extreme wear (see above). Caries present Slight to mild calculus present anteriorly. No hypoplasia present on any teeth.

the human remains

BURIAL LOCATION MAP

191

Figure 88. AL-SN II 25 Terracotta sarcophagus

Figure 89. AL-SN II 5 Skeletal remains

192 chapter eight

Figure 90. AL-SN II 32 Skeletal remains with sarcophagus fragments

Figure 91. AL-SW VIII 15 Terracotta sarcophagus

the human remains 193

Figure 92. AL-SW VII A6 Skeletal remains with sarcophagus fragments

Figure 93. AL-SW VII A16 Skeletal remains

194 chapter eight

Figure 94. AL-SW VII A14

Figure 95. AL-SW VII A14

the human remains 195

196

chapter eight

Figure 96. AL-SW VIII 21

charred plant remains

197

CHAPTER NINE

CHARRED PLANT REMAINS A. Catherine D’Andrea This report summarizes results of ongoing palaeoethnobotanical research in the northeastern Nile Delta at the site of Tel el-Rub’a or Mendes. The excavations present an excellent opportunity to undertake sampling for macroscopic botanical remains of contexts dating from the earliest periods to the eventual abandonment of Tel el-Rub’a in late Ptolemaic times. Results from palaeoethnobotanical investigations may provide a long-term chronological view of the changes in agricultural economy and trade in plant products in this region. Background Delta archaeological sites are often subject to high water tables and are buried under deep alluvial deposits (Butzer 1976; Trigger et al. 1983). These geomorphic complications have helped to obscure major social and political developments that are known to have taken place in the Delta during various periods in antiquity. By the late third millennium b.c., the Delta flourished both culturally and economically (Redford 1988; Wenke et. al., 1988). Several large Old Kingdom towns are known to have existed in addition to Mendes, such as Tel el-Dab’a, Tel Basta, and Kom el-Hisn (Habachi 1957; Bietak 1975; Trigger et al. 1983; Wenke et al., 1988). The Delta also was significant as a channel of commerce between Egypt and Syria-Palestine and Mesopotamia via the Sinai peninsula. These trade connections are evident in the artefact record from 3500 b.c. onwards with the presence in northern Egypt of items imported from the Levant and Mesopotamia including ceramics, metals, and timber at sites such as Buto and Maadi (Kantor 1965; Caneva et al. 1987). Archaeobotanical research in the Delta has been plagued by the same obstacles faced by archaeological investigations. In addition to Kom el-Hisn (Moens and Wetterstrom 1989; D’Andrea n.d.), only a few habitation sites have been systematically sampled for plant remains (cf. van Zeist 1988; de Roller 1989; Von der Way 1997). However, Mendes has the advantage that many of the earliest deposits are found above the water table, so that normal excavation difficulties faced in Delta archaeology are not as severe at this site. As such, archaeobotanical samples from Mendes may provide a much needed start to a palaeoeconomic reconstruction for this region of Egypt. Charred Macroscopic Plant Remains Three seasons of palaeoethnobotanical fieldwork have been completed at Mendes during which 327 samples were taken, amounting to 1089.5 litres of sediment. This report summarizes preliminary results of flotation undertaken on a number of Mendes samples excavated in the summer of 1992 (Table 1) Sampling for palaeoethnobotanical remains was initiated on a small scale in the summer of 1992. The main purpose of this fieldwork was to collect a range of samples from as many contexts as possible in order to assess further sampling strategies in upcoming seasons. This report will outline field procedures and summarize charred plant remains recovered from a kiln recovered in excavation unit K (figs. 2 and 97), and samples taken from the House Construction area (HC). Field Sampling Flotation samples processed in 1992 amount to 293 litres of sediment from 89 contexts. Unfortunately, flotation processing was limited by the absence of a reliable water source, a problem that was alleviated in following field seasons. Except for the kiln and the occasional sediment sample

198

chapter nine

obtained from the inside of ceramic vessels, the majority of samples collected in 1992 consist of fill and rubble collapse. Sediments excavated from Mendes were processed using the bucket method of flotation (cf. Pearsall 1989). In this technique, sediment is placed into a bucket filled with water. After gentle agitation, the water containing suspended materials is slowly poured through two nested sieves (1.41 mm and 0.425 mm mesh). The bucket is then slowly re-filled with water, and the procedure repeated until charred plant remains are no longer observed floating near the surface. The materials captured in the nested sieves form the light fraction float. Sediments remaining at the bottom of the bucket are then washed through another sieve (1.0 mm mesh), and the materials captured form the heavy fraction. This report will summarize the results of light fraction analyzes only. Results Lime Kiln Feature, Unit K The kiln located in unit K (figs. 2 and 97) was identified during a magnetometer survey of the Royal Necropolis (Farquhar and Pavlish 1993), and is thought to have been used to process limestone. This feature dates to an undetermined period following the Ptolemaic era when tel deposits were used by local inhabitants as sources of raw material. Samples for flotation were taken inside the kiln from upper, middle, and lower layers, and identified charred plant remains are listed in Table 1. Sediments from each layer were similar in appearance, consisting of greyish-white ashy sediments with limestone fragments. Because of potentially high temperatures produced in kilns, it was not expected that this feature would yield large quantities of macrobotanical remains. In order for plant remains to be preserved by charring, they must not be directly exposed to flames or intense heat over 500 degrees C. If exposure to such high temperatures takes place, the materials are converted to ash and are unidentifiable. Many of the seeds recovered in the kiln sediments are fragmentary, but those that are identifiable indicate that a component of the fuel was made up of chaff derived from the threshing and winnowing of cereals. There is only one grain of free-threshing wheat (Triticum durum/aestivum) preserved, and remaining specimens consist of cereal chaff, seeds of forage plants, weeds, and unknown and unidentifiable seed fragments (Table 1). This spectrum of remains is consistent with archaeological deposits of chaff waste that was commonly used as a component of fuel in the ancient Near East and Europe (cf. Hillman 1984). The density of charred remains varies with depth in the kiln deposits. The lowest level has 37.5 seed/chaff fragments per litre of sediment, while the middle and top layers have densities of 1.3 and 4.7 respectively (Table 1). Preservation of plant materials in the lowest level may have been enhanced because fragments that fell into this layer were protected from direct contact with high temperatures by accumulating ash. House Construction Area Archaeobotanical remains recovered from the area associated with the Mendes dig house construction are listed in Table 1. The sampled contexts include unit HC, and the excavation of the storehouse and sewer. In all cases, sediments were taken from inside Late Hellenistic or Early Ptolemaic period ceramic vessels. When macrobotanical remains are sampled from the inside of pots, it is normally assumed that these materials are derived from background fill surrounding the vessels. Unfortunately in this particular case, the sediments surrounding the vessels were not sampled, and it is not possible to compare plant remains from vessel contents to those of the surrounding fill. The vessel containing the largest quantity of macrobotanical remains is the basket jar collected in HC 9 (Flotation sample #49). It produced the grains and chaff of emmer (Triticum dicoccum), bread wheat and barley (Hordeum vulgare) with no weed seeds. The absence of weeds and low incidence of chaff may suggest that these cultigens were derived from a primary deposit, perhaps an area of grain storage (cf. Hillman 1984), however, the quantities of sediment processed and seeds recovered are insufficient to arrive at a firm conclusion. Of the remaining three containers that produced cultigens, the two that yielded emmer chaff (Flotation samples # 47 & 54) did not produce bread wheat or barley. In contrast, bread wheat and barley were recovered from the third vessel (Flotation sample #18), but emmer was absent. In contrast to the basket jar, these last three vessels did produce varying numbers

charred plant remains

199

of weed seeds and chaff, suggesting that the macrobotanical remains were derived from chaff waste during grain processing (cf. Hillman 1984). Again, the quantities of seeds and chaff in these samples are insufficient to confirm this hypothesis. References Bietak, M. 1975. Tell el-Dab’a II. Vienna: Osterreich Akad. Wiss. Denkschr. Gesamtakad. 4:1-236. Butzer, K.W. 1976. Early Hydraulic Civilisation in Egypt. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Caneva, I., M. Frangipane and A. Palmieri. 1987. Predynastic Egypt: New Data from Maadi. The African Archaeological Review 5:105-114. D’Andrea, A.C. n.d. Charred Plant Remains from Kom el-Hisn 1988 Excavations. de Roller, G.J. 1989. The Botanical Remains. In E.C.M. van den Brink, K. Schmidt, J. Boessneck, A. von den Driesch and G.J. de Roller. A Transitional Late Predynastic - Early Dynastic Settlement Site in the Northeastern Nile Delta, Egypt. Mitt Dtsch Archaol Inst Kairo 45:102-108. Farquhar, R.M. and L.A. Pavlish. 1993. Geophysical Survey at Tel el-Rub’a [Mendes], Egypt. Report on file at the Egyptian Antiquities Organisation, Cairo and the National Geographic Society, Washington, DC. Habachi, L. 1957. Tell Basta. Cairo: Annales du Service des Antiquites de l’Egypte. Hillman, G.C. 1984. Interpretation of Archaeological Plant Remains: The Application of Ethnographic Models from Turkey. Pp. 1-42 in W. van Zeist and W.A. Casparie (eds.) Plants and Ancient Man. Rotterdam: Balkema. Kantor, H.J. 1965. The Relative Chronology of Egypt and its Foreign Correlations before the Late Bronze Age. In R.W. Ehrich (ed.) Chronologies in Old World Archaeology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Moens, M. and W. Wetterstrom. 1989. The Agricultural Economy of an Old Kingdom Town in Egypt’s West Delta: Insights from Plant Remains. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 47(3):159-174. Pearsall, D. 1989. Palaeoethnobotany. New York: Academic Press. Redford, D. 1988. Three Seasons in Egypt: The First Season of Excavations at Mendes (1991). Journal of the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities 18:49 ff. Renfrew, J.M. 1973. Palaeoethnobotany. London: Methuen. Trigger, B.G., B.J. Kemp, D. O’Connor and A.B. Lloyd. 1983. Ancient Egypt: A Social History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. van Zeist, W. 1988. Plant Remains from a First Dynasty Burial at Tel Ibrahim Awad. Pp. 111-114 in E.C.M van den Brink (ed.). 1988. The Archaeology of the Nile Delta. Netherlands Foundation for Archaeological Research in Egypt. Amsterdam. Von der Way, TH. 1997. Tell el-Fara’in Buto I. Archaologische Veroffentlichungen 83, Deutsches Archaologisches Institute, Abteilung Kairo. Mainz: Verlag Philipp von Zabern. Wenke, R.J., P. Buck, H.A. Hamroush, M. Kobusiewicz and K. Kroeper. 1988. Kom el-Hisn: Excavations of an Old Kingdom West Delta Community. Journal of the American Research Centre in Egypt 25:5-34. Wendorf, F. and R. Schild. 1976. Prehistory of the Nile Valley. New York: Academic Press.

200 Table 1

chapter nine

201

Figure 97.

charred plant remains

chapter ten

202

CHAPTER TEN

FAUNAL REMAINS Douglas Brewer Faunal remains recovered from Mendes were identified through direct comparison to modern skeletal material. Unfortunately, the Mendes assemblage was highly fragmented, and only a few elements possessed the landmarks needed to assign metrical dimensions (see von den Driesch 1976). Comparative material from the Museum of Natural History, University of Illinois and a personal collection were used in assigning identifications. Although molluscan and avian remains have yet to be identified to species/genus because of lack of appropriate on-site comparative specimens, the assemblage, overall, resembles that of other Delta sites, with the predominant forms being cattle, ovicarpids (sheep/goat) and pig (Table 1). The ratio of fish and bird remains, much of the latter (NISP=124) awaiting identification, to domestic species suggest a broad collection strategy in terms of obtaining animal protein. Hunting and fishing obviously remained a means of obtaining alternate or supplemental foods well into the Dynastic Period. Mollusca Class: Gastropoda material: 3 unidentified fragments. NISP=3. Taxon: Etheria elliptica (Nile Oyster) material: 1 valve. NISP=1. Family: Unionidae (freshwater clams) material: 4 valve fragments. NISP=4. Approximately 300 identifiable specimens remain to be identified. Identification will be possible when an appropriate comparative collection from the Museum of Natural History, University of Illinois can be transported to Egypt. Pisces Family: Clariidae Taxon: Clarias spp. (Nile Catfish) material: 1 palatine; 17 cranial roof elements; 1 right articular; 1 left articular; 1 right pectoral spine; 1 trunk vertebra. NISP=22. Family: Mochokidae Taxon: Synodontis spp. (Schall catfish) material: 1 proximal dorsal spine; 3 right pectoral spines; 1 left pectoral spine; 1 unsided pectoral spine; 1 right cleithrum; 3 left cleithra; 2 right post humeral process; 1 trunk vertebra. NISP=13. Family: Tetraodontidae Taxon: Tetraodon fahaka (Fahaka puffer fish) material: 1 right premaxilla. NISP=1. Taxon: Pisces material: 1 spine; 1 vertebra. NISP=2.

faunal remains

203

Aves Class: Aves material: 3 unsided medial humeri; 3 unsided medial ulnae; 1 left medial femur; 1 unsided tarsometatarsus; 1 unsided medial metapodial; 1 sternum; 2 ribs; 1 synsacrum; 27 unidentifiable avian elements. NISP=40. Avian material appears to represent several species, but their condition precluded identification to a less inclusive taxon. Approximately 120 elements remain to be identified due to a lack of appropriate comparative material. A full analysis of the avian remains will be conducted during a future season. Mammalia Family: Canidae Taxon: Canis cf. familiaris (domestic dog) material: 2 right distal humeri; 1 left distal humerus; 1 left medial calcaneum; 1 atlas; 1 axis. NISP=6. The canid material recovered from Mendes was compared to that of Canis aureus, the jackal, and Vulpes vulpes, the fox. In all cases the archaeological elements were significantly smaller than the jackal and larger than the fox. Although this does not preclude the possible existence of markedly smaller individuals of the species C. aureus, or a fox exceptionally larger than those observed in museum collections or reported from other excavations, the size of the recovered elements seem more consistent with that of a medium-size domestic dog and, in fact, compare favorably to a skeleton of a feral dog collected near Edfu in 1988. Family: Bovidae Taxon: Ovis spp. (sheep) material: 1 right p3; 2 molariform teeth; 1 right mandible; 1 right scapula; 1 right distal humerus; 2 left medial humeri; 3 left distal humeri; 1 right distal ulna; 1 left proximal ulna; 1 right medial radius; 1 left proximal radius; 1 left medial radius; 1 right acetabulum; 1 unsided acetabulum; 1 right proximal femur; 1 right distal femur; 1 right medial tibia;1 right proximal metatarsal; 1 unsided tarsal; 2 atlas; 1 left medial rib. NISP=26. Although the material was highly fragmented, the majority of ovicaprids appear to be sheep. Knowledge concerning the morphology of early domestic sheep and goats is still limited, but growing. Elements identified as sheep resemble known domestic varieties, although somewhat smaller in size. Taxon: Capra spp. (goat) material: 1 right medial scapula; 1 unsided distal humerus; 1 left ischium; 1 right astragalus. NISP=4. Goat elements from Mendes appear to be similar to modern breeds, in size and morphology. Taxon: Ovis/Capra (sheep or goat) material: 28 molariform teeth; 1 right mandible; 1 left medial humerus; 1 left distal humerus; 3 unsided proximal humeri; 1 unsided distal humeri; 1 proximal left ulna; 1 unsided medial ulna; 1 unsided medial radius; 1 right ilium; 1 right proximal femur; 1 left proximal femur; 1 left distal femur; 1 unsided proximal femur; 1 unsided distal femur; 2 left medial tibiae; 1 unsided proximal metapodial; 2 unsided medial metapodials; 1 unsided distal metapodial; 2 right phalanx I; 1 unsided proximal phalanx I; 1 unsided medial phalanx I; 3 right phalanx II; 2 left phalanx II; 1 unsided distal phalanx; 1 cervical vertebra; 1 thoracic vertebra; 1 right medial rib; 1 unsided medial rib. NISP=64. Taxon: Bos cf. taurus (domestic cattle) Material: 1 frontal; 1 auditory bulla; 2 unsided I; 1 left P1; 1 unsided P; 1 right M2; 1 left M2; 2 unsided I2; 1 unsided p2; 3 left m3; 1 unsided m3; 39 unsided molariform fragments; 1 right mandible; 1 left mandible; 2 unsided mandible fragments; 6 right scapulae; 2 left scapulae; 2 unsided scapulae fragments; 3 right proximal humeri; 1 medial right humerus; 1 distal right humerus; 1 left proximal humerus; 3 left medial humeri; 3 distal left humeri; 1 unsided proximal humerus; 5 unsided medial humeri; 4 unsided distal humeri; 1 right proximal ulna; 1 right medial ulna; 1 left medial ulna; 1 unsided medial ulna; 1 right medial radius; 1 unsided medial fused radius/ulna; 1 left proximal metacarpal; 1 unsided medial

204

chapter ten

metacarpal; 14 carpals; 1 right acetabulum; 1 right ilium; 2 left ilium; 1 unsided ischium; 12 proximal right femora; 1 right distal femur; 14 proximal left femora; 2 distal left femora; 11 proximal unsided femora; 2 medial unsided femora; 5 distal unsided femora; 1 proximal right tibia; 2 medial right tibiae; 3 distal right tibiae; 1 proximal left tibia; 3 medial left tibiae; 3 distal left tibiae; 1 unsided proximal tibia; 1 unsided medial tibia; 1 sesamoid; 2 right astragali; 9 left astragali; 4 unsided astragali; 2 right calcanea; 3 left calcanea; 1 unsided calcaneum; 2 left navicular; 1 unsided navicular; 2 right proximal metatarsals; 1 right distal metatarsal; 2 left proximal metatarsals; 1 unsided metatarsal; 7 unsided medial metapodials; 31 unsided distal metapodials; 2 right phalanx I; 1 right distal phalanx I; 2 left phalanx I; 2 unsided proximal phalanx I; 1 unsided medial phalanx I; 6 right phalanx II; 1 right proximal phalanx II; 2 right distal phalanx II; 4 left phalanx II; 2 left distal phalanx II; 4 unsided proximal phalanx II; 2 unsided medial phalanx II; 1 right phalanx III; 1 unsided proximal phalanx III; 4 unsided medial phalanx III; 1 atlas; 3 axis; 1 cervical vertebra; 5 thoracic vertebrae; 2 lumbar vertebrae; 12 vertebral fragments; 1 right proximal rib; 1 right medial rib; 1 left proximal rib; 3 unsided proximal ribs; 1 unsided distal rib. NISP= 314. Criteria provided by Gautier (1968, 1976, 1984) as well as measurements from museum specimens of wild aurochsen were used to assess the material recovered from Mendes. Like most of the recovered artiodactyl remains, cattle bones were highly fragmented, and few elements offered the landmarks needed for measurements (see von den Driesch 1976). Determination of size and therefore taxon were made based on available element and the overall impression that it fell below the size of published B. primegenius elements and measured museum specimens. Taxon: Bovidae material: 5 unsided molariform; 1 unsided medial humerus; 1 unsided distal humerus; 1 unsided proximal ulna; 3 unsided carpals; 1 unsided distal radius; 1 right distal tibia; 1 unsided medial metapodial; 1 unsided distal metapodial; 1 unsided proximal phalanx II; 1 unsided medial phalanx; 2 unsided distal phalanx; 1 caudal vertebra; 1 thoracic vertebra; 1 vertebra fragment. NISP=22. Family: Suidae Taxon: Sus scrofa (pig) material: 1 right frontal; 2 unsided frontals; 1 right maxilla; 1 right malar; 1 left malar; 2 unsided I1; 1 right M2; 1 right M3; 1 left M3; 1 left i1; 1 unsided i1; 2 unsided i2; 1 left p4; 1 right m3; 1 left m3; 12 unsided molariform; 1 right mandibular angle; 2 left mandibular angles; 3 unsided mandibular angles; ; 1 right mandibular condyle; 1 right proximal scapula; 2 left scapulae; 1 right distal humerus; 3 left proximal humeri; 1 left medial ulna; 1 unsided distal metacarpal; 2 left carpals; 1 right ischium; 1 unsided ischium; 2 right distal femora; 1 left distal femora; 1 right astragalus; 1 left astragalus; 2 right medial metatarsals; 3 proximal metapodials; 1 medial metapodial; 1 distal metapodial; 1 unsided distal phalanx I; 1 left phalanx II; 3 unsided medial phalanx II; 2 axes; 1 cervical vertebra; 1 lumbar vertebra; 1 vertebral spine. NISP=72. Taxon: artiodactyla material: 1 unsided acetabulum; 1 unsided femur; 1 proximal phalanx I; 1 unsided phalanx I. NISP=4. Family: Equidae Taxon: Equus cf. asinus (donkey) material: 1 right I1; 1 unsided M3; 1 unsided i1; 1 right molariform; 2 unsided molariform; 1 unsided medial radius; 1 right phalanx I; 1 left phalanx I; 1 unsided phalanx I; 1 right phalanx II; 1 unsided phalanx III. NISP=12 Class: Mammalia Unidentified fragments. NSIP= 3776 Discussion Textual evidence from Old Kingdom and later periods suggests that cattle and other products were raised at some sites in the Delta for use elsewhere. Archaeological evidence from at least some sites (e.g., Kom el-Hisn) appears to corroborate the textual evidence, and a number of authors (e.g., Wenke

faunal remains

205

et al. 1988) have suggested that some Delta sites served as production areas for both provincial and national capitals. Similar questions have been posed for Mendes. Although a large provincial capital during much of its history, it was required to collect and pay taxes to the central government. One form of taxation was livestock: most desirable was cattle (ie., Bos taurus), which also fetched the highest price (see Brewer et al. 1994 and references cited there). Assessing skeletal completeness and bone survivorship is one means of answering questions regarding the transport and local use of animal products at archaeological sites. Analyses of skeletal completeness and bone survivorship (Lyman 1984, 1985) can address questions such as how many of the bones of an animal’s skeleton are represented in the collections, and whether the same skeletal elements are present or absent across individuals. The patterns of bone “survival” that emerge from such analyses can offer insights into animal use. In other words, analyses of skeletal completeness and survivorship may reveal patterns of butchering and utilization on site versus preparation and shipment to other areas. Skeletal completeness and survivorship requires counting skeletal units, deriving minimum number of individuals (MNI) from those counts, calculating the expected frequency of each skeletal unit on the basis of MNI and then calculating percent survivorship of each unit by dividing its observed by its expected value. Decisions concerning precisely how to count skeletal units and how to aggregate faunal material in order to derive minimum numbers may strongly affect the resulting analysis (Grayson 1984, Brewer 1992). As a result, such decisions must be appropriate to the analytical goals. Although the cattle bones identified from Mendes do not represent a single depositional episode, the entire assemblage viewed as a single aggregate can offer inferences for further evaluation. Certainly, Mendes’ role changed through time, but dividing the assemblage into smaller study units would make most analyses statistically unreliable. In addition, there is some validity in treating this material as a single assemblage for exploratory purposes. Obviously divergent uses, if they existed through time, would likely be masked by the single aggregate approach; the overall trend, however, could be used in future comparisons as a hypothesis to be tested. The need for empirical evidence in the creation of a hypothesis relating to animal use at Mendes is thus the primary goal of this preliminary analysis. To assess the relative skeletal completeness within this aggregate, the minimum number of each skeletal element (MNE) for 14 (MNI) adult cattle was derived (see Brewer 1992 for complete discussion of terms). Table 2 shows that the average survivorship per element is rather low (11.7%), and no obvious pattern exists among those elements with survivorship less than 11 percent. That is, small elements as well as large are represented. Low frequencies of recovery for small elements might suggest that some of the variability in survivorship was due to collection bias, the smallest bones having escaped detection (Watson 1972). To check for this, back dirt from an archaeological unit particularly rich in fauna was systematically screened, and samples from each stratigraphic level within that unit were floated and screened through 1 mm mesh. Both retrieval methods failed to produce significant additions to the assemblage: only three unidentifiable avian bone fragments were recovered. To determine whether differential destruction of Bos skeletal elements had occurred in the assemblage, the minimum number of proximal and distal ends of long bones were counted and correlated with their survival percentages and bulk density (Lyman 1984, 1985, 1988). If destruction followed a pattern consistent with natural processes then skeletal elements would be present in a pattern that could be predicted from their bone density: the more dense the bone, the greater its chance of survival. The results suggest (Kendal T with ties= -0.16) some factor in addition to or other than bone density was involved in creating the observed pattern of bone survivorship (Table 3). There is little agreement between the rank scores based on bone density and the rank score based on element survival at Mendes. In other words, the bone assemblage was characterized by differential bone destruction. As a further test, the ratio of proximal to distal femora, radii, humeri and tibae were plotted on a “destruction detection graph (Binford 1981), and the results again indicate that differential bone destruction had occurred (fig. 98). An independent check of the statistical procedure was conducted using “Binfordian” utility curves. Although such curves cannot separate cultural factors such as removal of elements from a site versus local destruction, they are beneficial in pictorially presenting information. In the absence of MGUI (Meat/Grease Utility Index) values for cow, MGUI values for the closest taxonomic relative available, (sheep), were employed. As demonstrated by Lyman (1988) there were no significant differences in

206

chapter ten

“relative” MGUI values among the taxa he analyzed (sheep, caribou, deer). Thus sheep MGUI values could be used to represent Bos values on a relative scale of measurment. In an attempt to elucidate which of the two possible explanations, transport (i.e., export) or local destruction, might be most strongly supported by the evidence, a utility curve based on humeri, tibiae and femora was created using MGUI values (fig. 99). Clearly the over representation of proximal femora to distal femora and the presence of metapodials and phalanges in proportions equal to distal femora (Table 4; fig. 99) suggest that the entire limb was locally present after disarticulation from the body, but differential treatment/destruction resulted in the recovered archaeological pattern. The statistical analysis suggesting differential bone survivorship (the over-abundance of proximal femora), the large number of unidentified fragments belonging to medium and large mammals (NISP=3776) and the lack of carnivore gnawing (only 2 elements observed) strongly suggest local destruction of skeletal elements was part of the preparatory and or disposal behavior at the site. One of the more interesting discoveries was that of a “cache” of proximal femora. It is clear that several complete hind limbs (Binford’s MAU) were deposited as units. The recovery of only proximal femora, tibiae and hind-foot bones from several distinct excavation units bear this point out. The presence of femora in such large numbers in relation to other skeletal elements suggest a local offering not unlike those depicted in numerous temple and tomb scenes where fore and hind limbs of cattle are presented to the gods or tomb owner. Also present in these units were a number of unidentifiable large mammal bone fragments consistent in robusticity with that of Bos, further illustrating the point that local destruction of bone might account for the unidentifiable mammal bone fragments present in this unit as well as throughout the other excavated units. As to the final disposition of Mendes cattle, one could still argue that “prime” cattle were sent to cult centers and other areas for use, and only the older, non-productive breeding stock and spent oxen were butchered at Mendes. However, because a high percentage (86%) of the femoral epiphases were unfused, the bulk of the animals represented in the Mendes assemblage were in fact in their “prime.” That is, the cattle recovered from Mendes were butchered just as they had reached adult size. This strategy is a common culling process for stock meant for offerings as well as human consumption because: 1) pasture is not wasted on maintaining adult cattle; and 2) the meat has not unnecessarily toughened due to work, breeding or extensive exposure to the elements. This is not to say that Mendes cattle were not exported to other areas-they very likely were-but rather, unlike some delta sites where cattle raising was strictly an export business, Mendes cattle were utilized as much locally as they were exported and perhaps more so than in the smaller surrounding populations centers. Conclusion A guiding hypothesis for future testing, based on the available aggregated sample, is that cattle were raised for both ceremonial and regular consumption at Mendes. Many of the animals were processed as they reached adulthood, thereby maximizing cost efficiency. Whether these practices were maintained throughout Mendes’ long history still needs to be demonstrated, and future excavations will ultimately shed further light on the applicability of these preliminary results. References Binford, L. R. 1981 Bones: Ancient Men and Modern Myths. New York: Academic Press. Brewer, D. J. 1992 Zooarchaeology: method, theory and goals. Archaeological Method and Theory, ed. M. B. Schiffer, vol. 4:195244. Brewer, D. J, D. B. Redford and S. Redford 1994 Domestic Plants and Animals: The Egyptian Origins. Aris and Phillips: Warminster. Gautier, A. 1968 Mammalian remains of the northern Sudan and southern Egypt. In The Prehistory of Nubia I, ed. F. Wendorf, pp. 80-99. Dallas: SMU Press. 1976 Animal remains from archaeological sites of Terminal Paleolithic to Old Kingdom age in the Fayum. In Prehistory of the Nile Valley, ed. F. Wendorf and R. Schild, pp. 369-382. New York: Academic Press. 1984 Archaeozoology of the Bir Kiseiba region, Eastern Sahara. In Cattle Keepers of the Eastern Sahara, ed. F. Wendorf, R. Schild and A. Close, pp. 49-72. Dallas:SMU Press.

faunal remains

207

Grayson, D. K. 1984 Quantitative Zooarchaeology. New York: Academic Press. Lyman, R. L. 1984 Bone density and differential survivorship of fossil classes. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 3:259-299. 1985 Bone frequencies: differential transport, in situ destruction and the MGUI. Journal of Archaeological Science 12:221-236. 1988 Was there a last supper at Last Supper Cave? In Danger Cave, Last Supper Cave, and Hanging Rock Shelter: The Faunas, ed. D.K. Grayson. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History 66(1):81-104 von den Driesch, Angela 1976 A Guide to the Measurement of Animals Bones from Archaeological Sites. Peabody Museum Bulletin 1. Watson, J.P 1972 Fragmentation analysis of animal bone samples from archaeological sites. Archaeometry 14:221-228. Wenke, R. J., R. Redding, P. Buck, M. Kobusiewicz and K. Kroeper 1988 Kom el-Hisn: Excavations of an Old Kingdom West Delta Community. Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 25: 5-34.

Table 1. Number of identifed specimens (NISP) per taxon. Taxon Gastropoda Table Etheria elliptica Unionidae

NISP 3 1 4

Clarias spp. Synodontis spp. Tetraodon fahaka Pisces

22 13 1 2

Aves

40

Canis cf. familiaris Ovis spp. Capra spp. Ovis/Capra Bos cf. taurus Bovidae Sus scrofa Artiodactyl Equus cf. Asinus

6 26 4 64 314 22 72 4 12

Total

566

Mammalia Unidentifiable Total

3776 121 4463

chapter ten

208 Table 2. Skeletal Completeness of Bos. Element

MNE (obs)

Skull mandible Atlas Axis Cervicle Vert. Thoracic Vert. Lumbar Vert Sacrum Rib Sternebra Scapula Humerus Radius Ulna Carpal Metacarpal Inominate Femur Patella Tibia Calcaneus Astragalus Navic/Cuboid Metatarsal Phalanx 1 Phalanx 2 Phalanx 3

MNE (exp)

1 2 1 3 1 5 2 0 0 0 8 6 2 2 14 1 3 26 0 6 5 11 2 6 4 4 1

% Survivorship

14 28 14 14 70 168 98 14 14 98 28 28 28 28 168 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 112 112 112

7 7 7 21 1 3 2 2 0 0 3 21 7 7 8 4 11 93 0 21 18 39 7 21 4 4 1

Table 3. Differential Bone Destruction of Bos. Element Humerus Prox. Humerus Dist Radius Prox Radius Dist. Femur Prox. Femur Dist. Tibia Prox. Tibia Dist.

#Observed

% Survived

Rank

Bulk Density

Density Rank

4 4 1 0 26 3 4 4

14 14 4 0 93 11 14 14

5.5 5.5 2 1 8 3 5.5 5.5

.24 .39 .42 .43 .41 .28 .30 .50

1 4 6 7 5 2 3 8

Kendals’ Tau = -0.16

faunal remains

209

Table 4. Utility Index for Mendes Bos Remains Element Mandible Atlas Axis Cervicle Vert. Thoracic Vert. Lumbar Vert Inominate Sacrum Rib Sternebra Scapula Humerus Prox Humerus Dist. Radius Prox Radius Dis Metacarpal Prox. Metacarpal Dist. Inominate Femur Prox. Femur Dist. Tibia Prox. Tibia Dist. Calcaneus Astragalus Tarsals Metatarsal Prox. Metatarsal Dist. Phalanx 1 Phalanx 2 Phalanx 3

MGUI (sheep) 30 19 19 55 46 39 82 60 100 91 45 37 33 24 2 10 8 82 80 80 52 38 23 23 23 16 12 8 8 8

MNE 2 1 3 1 5 2 3 0 0 0 8 4 4 1 28 1 0 3 26 3 4 4 11 5 0 4 1 4 4 4

MAU 1 1 3 1 1 1 1.5 0 0 0 4 2 4 1 7 1 0 1.5 13 1.5 2 2 5.5 2.5 0 2 1 1 1 1

%MAU 8 8 23 8 8 8 11 0 0 0 31 15 15 8 8 0 11 100 11 15 15 42 19 0 15 8 8 8 8

210

chapter ten

Figure 98. Relative frequencies (%) for proximal and distal humeri, tibiae, radii and femora

Figure 99. “Binfordian” graph (curve) illustrating the over representation of proximal femora

basket-handle jars: their origin and function

211

CHAPTER ELEVEN

BASKET-HANDLE JARS: THEIR ORIGIN AND FUNCTION Alicia D. de Rodrigo A large number of basket-handle jar fragments were found at Mendes in 1992 during the excavation of unit HC, in the northwestern area of the site and in 1993 and 1994 during the excavation of the necropolis area (AL) and the harbour (areas AM, AN, AD). Jars of this type have seldom been recorded in Egypt, although many examples have been found in other sites on the Eastern Mediterranean. It is generally agreed that basket-handle jars originated in Cyprus at the end of the VIII century b.c.1 From the second half of the VII century b.c. their areas of distribution are Rhodes, Cyprus and the Eastern Mediterranean coastal regions from al-Mina (Tell Sheikh Yusuf), in northern Phoenicia2 to Naukratis in Egypt. They are usually found on the coast, in sites close to the coast and in places accessible by river3 Their large size—80 liters and a weight of 100 kg for the older types—made them suitable for transport by sea and river.4 When on land they were stored half-buried in the sand or in the mud floor of the rooms.5 The explanation for this coastal concentration could be attributed to the trade mechanisms of imported commodities, such as wine, grain and oil, using large vessels unsuitable for overland transportation. There were exchange centers along the coasts where the contents of the large vessels were poured into containers more suitable for land transportation.6 Stern7 recognizes two datable types for Palestine: 1) Biconical body with sloping shoulders, relatively narrow body widening towards the center and tapering towards the base (end of VII to middle of VI century b.c.); 2) Wide shoulders, cylindrical body narrowing towards the bottom and ending in a pointed or truncated base (V-IV centuries b.c.). A later type is represented by the jars found at Tell Kazel on the Syrian coast and described as having a “hole mouth, surrounded by concentric mouldings and a rounded, ribbed shoulder-part on which two basket handles are attached. The spindle-like body terminates in a pointed base”8 Similar jars were found at nearby Tell ‘Arqa9 dating from the end of the third to the first half of the first

1

E. Gjerstad, The Swedish Cyprus Expedition, IV,2 (Stockholm, 1948); J.F. Salles, Du blé, de l’huile et du vin..., in A. Sancisi Weerdenburg-A. Kuhrt (eds.), Achaemenid History, VI (Proceedings on the Groeningen 1988 Achaemenid Workshop, Leiden, 1991), 225, n.43; J. Briend-J.B Humbert (eds.), Tell Keisan (Paris, 1980), 141. E. Stern had suggested a Rhodian origin for these jars in the VII century B.C., Material culture from the land of the Bible in the Persian period (Warminster, 1982), 111. Salles (op. cit., 140) turns down the Rhodian origin considering that they are found in Rhodes from the end of the VII century B.C. onwards. 2 Tell Sheikh Yusuf is located at the mouth of the Orontes river, close to the modern port of al-Mina, and on the route that led inland to Aleppo, the point where the Mesopotamian trade routes joined. The buildings excavated there proved to be warehouses belonging to importing merchants. Level 8 produced a majority of Cypriot pottery typical of the early CyproArchaic I Period a fact which led Gjerstad to conclude that there existed an Archaic Cypriot trading factory in Syria starting early in the VIII century B.C., Gjerstad, op. cit, 254-256, 255, n.2 ; W.M. Davies, Ancient Naukratis and the Cypriots in Egypt, GM 35 (1979), 17. 3 Salles, op. cit., 231, Fig. I: with a few exceptions in Palestine like Megiddo, Arad and Qadesh Barnea. Their presence in Arad and Qadesh Barnea can be explained by the existence of garrisons of mercenaries in these places. See also Stern, op. cit., 111. 4 Salles, op. cit., 226. For jars found in wrecks, A. Zemer, Storage Jars and Ancient Sea Trade (Haifa, 1977). Zemer, 114, gives an explanation, which holds good for the basket-handle jars, for the evolution in the body shape of the storage jars: “The storage jar was adapted to sea transport. The body of the jar, in its elaboration, tends towards straight sides, i.e, cylindrical body, in order to maximize the contact between jars and prevent weak spots at isolated points of contact, which would mean breakage during storms at sea”. 5 At Defenneh and al- Mina, M.L. Buhl, Sukas VII. The Near Eastern Pottery and Objects of other Materials from the upper Strata (Kobenhavn, 1983), 16-17. W.M.F. Petrie, Tanis II. Nebesheh and Defenneh (London, 1888), 64. 6 Y. Garlan, Greek amphorae and trade, in P. Garnsey et alii (eds), Trade in the Ancient Economy (Berkeley-Los Angeles, 1983), 30. 7 Op. cit., 111. 8 Tell Kazel, Syria. AUB Museum Excavations 1985-87. Preliminary Report, Berytus XXXVIII (1990), 36, fig. 9 a-i. 9 9. J.P. Thalmann, Tell ‘Arqa (Lelan Nord) Campagnes I-III, 1972-74. Chantier I, rapport préliminaire, Syria 55 (1978), 60, fig. 44, 7-9. See note 8.

212

chapter eleven

century b.c. Some of the jars found at Sukas may belong also to this type.10 For a period of time in the past, there was an ongoing debate as to whether the basket-handle jar was produced locally in places other than Cyprus. In his 1948 classical publication of Cypriot pottery,11 Gjerstad stated that, although Cypriot in origin, this type of jar was also manufactured locally in Rhodes and that those found in Egypt and Palestine were produced in Cyprus or Rhodes. According to M.L. Buhl, in her 1983 study of the pottery found at Tell Sukas, imitations of the original Cypriot jars were produced in northern Phoenicia, between Tel Arka and al Mina, in the V century b.c.12 The paste of these copies is described as a “reddish mainland type”, but, at that time, no petrographic analysis was made of the Tell Sukas jars. J.F. Salles considered these likely Phoenician imitations but suggested they could also be a late Cypriot production of the V-IV centuries b.c.13 According to Salles, who has studied the jars found at Tell Keisan extensively, they were imported, possibly from Cyprus and are not Palestinian or Phoenician products.14 Petrographic and chemical (NAA) analyses performed on samples found at Tell el Hesi, in Palestine, have indicated a different origin for the Hesi jars: the majority are Palestinian, but there are jars identified as “Syrian” and also of clay sources from the region of Dura Europos.15 The conclusion based on the Tell el Hesi samples is that, apparently from the VI century b.c. onwards, basket-handle jars were manufactured at more than one location on the Eastern Mediterranean. Basket-Handle Jars Found in Egypt In Egypt, basket-handle jars were found, during the last century, in Petrie’s excavations of the Delta, in Tell Defenneh16 and Naukratis,17 and in Memphis18 Their dates range from the VI to the IV century b.c. The type of jar found at Defenneh has a biconical body, is neckless, with a truncated base. The handles are high and rise straight up from very low shoulders. The rim is everted. It dates back to the VI century b.c.19 Only handle fragments were found at Naukratis but these seem to belong to jars of different types.20 They were dated back by Petrie to the VII-VI centuries b.c.21 The jar found at Memphis22 has a rounded body that tapers to a pointed base. The handles were missing but the body shape is characteristic of the later type. It was dated back by Petrie to the end of the IV century b.c. Jars of the biconical type have also been found in Sinai, in the recent excavations of Tell el Herr and Kedwa, dated back to the VII-IV centuries b.c.23

10 Buhl, op. cit. Basket-handle jars N1 65-78 (type VIII 2 E) were found in deposits from periods F (neo-Phoenician 380140 B.C.) and E (Late Hellenistic I-II, 140-69 B.C.), p. 110; but they are finally dated in p. 113 to the “very end of the V to the beginning of the IV century B.C.”. N1 69-78 seem to me to be later types. 11 Op. cit., 241, n.4: “The specimens found in Egypt and Palestine may therefore to some extent have been exported from Rhodes, but the majority must be considered as Cypriot, so much the more as the clay and the technique of most specimens I have been able to examine are entirely Cypriot”. 12 Op. cit., Types VIII 2 C, D and E, 23, 113. 13 Salles, op. cit., 226. 14 Op. cit., 141. 15 W.J. Bennett, Jr.-J.A. Blakely, Tell el-Hesi. The Persian Period (Stratum V), (Winona Lake, Indiana, 1989), 210-213. Appendix IV, 444 lists two Syrian, one Dura Europos and three “like Dura Europos”. 16 Petrie, Tanis II, op. cit. 17 Petrie, Naukratis I, 1884-5 (Egypt Exploration Fund, 3rd Memoir, London, 1888). 18 Petrie, Memphis I, 1900. 19 Op. cit., 64 , Pl. 33:6. Corresponds to Gjerstad Plain White V, fig. LVII, and to Stern’s type 1. 20 Petrie, op.cit., Pl. XVII, N1 17-20, 21. 21 Ibidem, 20: “The large loop handles are found from 230 to as late as 320 level”. For the date of the levels (c. 630-530 B.C.), 19. 22 Op. cit., Pl. 46:3. Corresponds to Stern’s type 2. 23 B. Gratien-D. Soulie, La Céramique de Tell el-Herr. Campagnes 1986 et 1987. Etude préliminaire, Societés Urbaines en Égypte et au Soudan, CRIPEL 10 (1988), 47, fig. 14, d-e. The jars were found in the levels D/3 (fort) and E (sondage) and are described as with conical body, cylindrical solid base and neckless, with everted rim. Also E. Oren, Migdol: A New Fortress on the Edge of the eastern Delta, BASOR 256 (1984), p. 17, fig. 21: 1, 3, 5, 11; 28. These jars are of the biconical type, neckless (21: 1) or with a short neck (21. 3), everted rim and truncated base (21: 11).

basket-handle jars: their origin and function

213

Basket-Handle Jars Found in the Mendes Excavations Unit HC (Plates W-X; Figures 1-4) The excavation unit, 2.80 by 3 meters., on the NW corner of the area occupied now by the house, uncovered a small surface, at a depth of 1.20 m., limited by three mud brick walls along the S, E and W baulks where pottery, figurines, amulets and objects of different kind were deposited in antiquity. The basket-handle jars of unit HC -more than 30 basketfuls of fragments were obtained, of which 80% were of basket-handle jars- are an homogeneous group. The reconstruction of one jar was possible as well as the recovery of large fragments of others, thus allowing a description of the general characteristics of their type (see pl. XXXVII). The shoulders of the single reconstructed jar (Plate W) are wide, the body is cylindrical, narrowing towards the bottom and ending in a tubular base. The rim is ring-shaped. Height is 1,16 m. Wheel ridging is visible on the external central and lower sections of the body. MMP 93196 (Plate X) is a large fragment of the upper part of a jar, neckless, with an everted rim, wide shoulder and a whole handle. All the rim fragments found in unit HC show that these jars were of the neckless type. Rims are everted or ring-shaped and have a single groove at the base. Standard size of the rims is 10 cm. The surface of the majority of the pieces was self slipped, but a good number of samples show a whitish finish.24 The paste of the HC samples is a red (5 YR 5/6; 5 YR 6/4) or brown sandy mixture (7.5 YR 4/6; 7.5 YR 5/4). The Date of the Basket-Handle Jars of Unit HC The only reconstructed jar of unit HC corresponds, in general, to the Tell Sukas Class VIII 2 E,25 described as having “no neck but a ring-shaped rim, torpedo-shaped body with very narrow base”. Class VIII 2 E, of local manufacture, is dated back by Buhl to the “very end of the V to the beginning of IV century b.c.”.26 It is also represented by jars found at Salamis,27 and al-Mina.28 The layer in which the al-Mina jars were found has been dated between 430-375 b.c.29 As for the numerous jar fragments found in the areas of the necropolis (AL) and the harbour (AM, AN, AD) (Plates Y-Z) they are mainly handles and bases, the shape of the bodies remains unknown. The few rim fragments (MDS 9354, 9419, 9438) are all ring-shaped or everted. From the samples collected in these areas there is no indication of type earlier than the V-IV centuries b.c. From the associated pottery and findings of square HC there is also indication of a V-IV century b.c. dating: – Red figure squat lekythoi with palmettes. The squat lekythos appears in the early V century b.c. and is popular in the later part of that century and the early part of the IV.30 – The wine amphora fragments (IV century b.c.). East Greek type of wine amphora (MMP 9316): neck with ring rim and strap handles and upper part of shoulders (Gjerstad’s class Plain White VII).31 Gjerstad, in a detailed typological study of these vessels, distinguished three variants. In type VII, dated 400-325 a.C., “the body is narrower, losing the fine round contour of type VI. The shoulders are mostly carinated and the sides straight and carinated at the top”.32 – Large jar (MMP92 108), height 56,5 cm., with burnished red slip (horizontally burnished). No exact parallels, but jars of a similar type are dated back to the V-IV centuries b.c.33 24

Possibly an effect of firing, Bennett-Blakely, op. cit., 210. Buhl, op. cit., 21, fig. VI, N1 65-78. 26 Buhl, op. cit., 113. Ut supra, n.10 27 Salamis II, 17, Pl. 207.3; Salamis III, 186, Pl. 287.110, quoted by Buhl, op. cit., 21. 28 C.L. Woolley, Excavations at Al Mina, Sueidia, I, JHS 58 (1938), 18, 24, Pl. 4.1. 29 Buhl, op. cit., 21. 30 Ch. Clairmont, Greek pottery from the Near East, Berytus XI (1954-55), 127, Pl. XXIX; R.M. Cook, Greek painted pottery (London, 1960), 232-233. The usual range of height is 3 to 6 inches 31 Op. cit., Fig. LXIX, 5b. 32 Gjerstad, Opuscula Atheniensia 3 (1960), 21, fig. 16, quoted by Stern, op. cit., 113, n. 32. 33 P. French, Late Dynastic Pottery from the Berlin/Hannover Excavations at Saqqara, 1986, MDAIK 44 (1988), 82, 2. dated V-IV centuries B.C.; P. French-H. Ghaly, Pottery chiefly of the Late Dynastic Period from Excavations by the EAO at Saqqara, 1987, CCE 2 (1991), 119-120, N191, N193, both red slipped and burnished, IV century B.C.; P. French, A Preliminary Study of Pottery in 25

214

chapter eleven

– The bronze dippers (VI-IV cc. b.c.). Two deep-bowled bronze dippers with long handles terminating in the form of a duck’s head are the finest pieces from this square. Stern34 states that dippers and other metal vessels “in both Palestine and other lands, were found in tombs of the Persian period in which they form only part of a larger assemblage of metalware and cosmetic utensils” and that they are “the standard equipment of tombs from the VI-IV centuries b.c.”. An identical piece to the Mendes dippers is illustrated by Stern.35 Very fine alabaster vessels -perfume containers—and fragments of alabaster vessels for cosmetic use, small limestone mortaria and also bowls—used for crushing small quantities of some product- were also found in this square. Terminus ad quem for the HC assemblage is the IV century b.c. The assemblage of pottery and other findings in unit HC was deposited possibly as a result of plundering or destruction of adjacent buildings during the IV century b.c. The theory of plundering or destruction, rather than simple abandonment, would better explain the presence of the lekythoi, the dippers and the other findings. The Origin of the Basket-Handle Jars From Mendes Chemical analysis was carried out on over 200 samples of basket-handle jars from Mendes by L. Pavlish of the University of Toronto Isotrace Laboratory. I quote the results:36 “The chemical concentration profile of the basket-handle jars shows a positive correlation with Nile alluvium ceramics and western Delta clays. Comparison with control groups from Rhodes, Cyprus and Syro-Palestine gave negative results”. Therefore, the basket-handle jars found at Mendes are not imports but “jars manufactured from clay sources originating in the vicinity of present-day Alexandria”. A petrographic analysis was also carried out on seven samples from unit HC by E. Maisterrena of the National Research Council CIRGEO Laboratory,37 Argentina. The samples analyzed show a matrix/inclusions relation of 75/25 % to 60/40 %. Main inclusions are quartz and plagioclase. In three of the samples the presence of calcite indicates firing temperatures not higher than 6001. Added antiplastic is grog in five out of the seven samples. The Function of the Basket-Handle Jars: The Production of Oils and the Ointment Industry in Egypt No inscriptions identifying the contents have been found on the Mendes jars. To relate their use to the known classical function of these containers in the Eastern Mediterranean poses a number of questions that must be considered. The Commercial Function of the Basket-Handle Jars in the Eastern Mediterranean In the Eastern Mediterranean, basket-handle jars were containers for transporting olive oil. This fact is attested by Cypriot and Phoenician inscriptions from the VII and VI centuries b.c.38 No other primary use, other than as oil containers, is indicated for these jars. Olive oil was produced extensively in the Eastern Mediterranean: in Cyprus, Greece, Asia Minor and in Palestine. The Ras Shamra area was also a producer during the Late Bronze and RomanByzantine periods.39

Lower Egypt in the Late Dynastic and Ptolemaic Periods, CCE 3 (1992), 89, N1 25-26, third phase of the Late Dynastic Period (V-IV centuries B.C.). Also R.Anthes, Mit Rahineh, 1955, 22-23, fig. 3 N1 33; D. Roussel-S. Marchand, La céramique d’un bâtiment de la XXXe dynastie, Bulletin de Liaison du groupe International d’Étude de la ceramique Égyptienne, XVIII (1994), Pl. I, 1-8. 34 Op. cit., 147, fig. 244. 35 Op. cit, 146, fig. 244,3. 36 L. Pavlish. Personal communication, 3/28/95. 37 E. Maisterrena, Estudio de cortes delgados de fragmentos de cerámica procedentes de la excavación de Tell er Rub’a, en la ciudad faraónica de Mendes en el delta oriental de Egipto (Buenos Aires, 1994), In Spanish, unpublished. 38 Salles, op. cit., 226-227. M. Dothan, The fortress at Kadesh Barnea, IEJ 15, 3 (1965), 141, fig. 7, N1 12-13, Pl. 31D. The settlement where the jar was found is dated to the V-IV centuries B.C. 39 Salles, op. cit., 215, 227.

basket-handle jars: their origin and function

215

The Production and Use of Oils in Egypt From earliest times, oil being a basic commodity, used extensively in food preparation, as fuel, in medicine and as an ingredient for cosmetics, was both produced locally, from a number of indigenous plants, as well as imported. Oils like moringa (b3Î), castor (tgm, k3k3), sesame (nÈÈ, 3ki) were employed commonly during the Pharaonic period.40 Moringa and sesame were quality oils used for cooking, medicine and for cosmetics;41 castor, of lesser quality, was used for lighting and in medicine. Other oils such as safflower (k3t3), colocynth, lettuce (`bw) and linseed (mhy) were also employed.42 Olive oil: Egypt was not a producer of olive oil. During the Pharaonic period, it was an imported commodity43 Though olive- growing was introduced during the New Kingdom as a result of the contact with Syria-Palestine, it did not thrive44 The word for olive (ddt) does not occur in Egyptian texts before the XIX dynasty.45 There is, however, some evidence in tombs of the XVIII dynasty that olive trees already existed at that time. Cultivating them remained limited to certain areas: to Heliopolis in the XX dynasty46 and in Ptolemaic-Roman times, to the Theban nome47 the Fayum and the vicinity of Alexandria48 as attested by classical writers. In the IV century b.c., Theophrastus mentions,49 however, that olives and oil were abundant to the West, in the Cyrenaica. Olive oil had multiple uses in food preparation, as fuel, in medicine, in the cult, and in the elaboration of unguents, an industry for which Mendes was reputed and that was well- established in the Ptolemaic period. Apart from olive oil, Egypt imported a variety of oils at all times. More than to fulfil a local need, the requirement of higher quality was the motivation. References of the New Kingdom’s introduction of moringa oil are found in the Tuthmosis III Annals, and of fine oils in the Amarna letters.50 In Pap. Anastasi IV 15, 1-5, a text from the Ramesside Period, a variety of imported oils are mentioned in a list of products destined for the army.51

40 A. Lucas, Ancient Egyptian Materials and Industries (London, 1962) 4th ed. revised, 333-335; D. Brent Sandy, The production and use of vegetable oils in Ptolemaic Egypt (Atlanta, Georgia, 1989) (Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists, Suppl. N16); L. Manniche, An Ancient Egyptian Herbal (London, 1993); L. Keimer, Die Gartenpflanzen im Alten Ägypten, I (Hamburg-Berlin, 1924). 41 Manniche, op. cit., 122-123, 147 42 Ibidem, 83-84, 91, 112-114, 116. 43 On oil export from Palestine, S. Ahituv, The Mni measure, JEA 58 (1972), 302; Salles, op. cit., 228; R. Amiran, Ancient Pottery from the Holy Land (1970),141, photo 131. Egypt also imported Attic oil, Johnston-Jones, The SOS amphora, BSA 73 (1978),103-141. 44 Keimer, op. cit., 29-31; A. Lucas, op.cit., 333-335; Salles, op. cit., 214-215; S. Ahituv, Economic Factors in the Egyptian Conquest of Canaan, IEJ 28 (1978), 98. 45 Wb. V, 618, 4-5; L.H. Lesko, A Dictionary of Late Egyptian, IV, 169; J.E. Hoch, Semitic words in Egyptian Texts of the New Kingdom and the Third Intermediate Period (Princeton, 1994), 395; Keimer, op. cit., 143. 46 Pap. Harris I. 27, 10; I, 34. W. Erichsen, Papyrus Harris I, (Bruxelles, 1933) (Bibliotheca Aegyptiaca V). 47 Theophrastus, Enquiry into plants and minor works on odours and weather signs, I, Loeb Classical Library, 1916, IV.2.8-9; Pliny l’Ancien, Histoire Naturelle, XIII (Paris, 1956) XIII.19 (63). 48 Strabo, The Geography, (Loeb Classical Library, 1959) XVII, I,35. 49 Op. cit., I, IV.3.1. 50 For references in the Annals of Thuthmose III and the EA letters, W. Helck, Die Beziehungen Ägyptens zu Vorderasien im 3. und 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr. (Ägyptische Abhandlungen, 5, Wiesbaden, 1962) 51 “...sweet moringa oil (b3k), dft-oil of Alasia, kdwr oil of Khatti, inb-oil of Alasia, nkftr oil of Sangar, knni oil of Amor, gt oil of Takhsy, and moringa oil from Naharin”. Interesting is the mention of the districts from which oil was imported at that time, all to the north and northeast of Egypt: Alasia, i.e. Cyprus (dft, inb), Khatti i.e. Anatolia (kdwr), Sangar, i.e. Babylon (nkftr), Takhsy and Amor, i.e. Syria (knni,gt); Naharin, i.e. the land east of the Euphrates (b3k). Two of the oils mentioned in this list can be identified with certainty: b3k, moringa oil and nkftr, “nikiptu” oil, from a plant attested in Akkadian, Assyrian and Babylonian texts (Hoch, op. cit., N1 260, 261). inb is mentioned only in Pap. Salt and knni may be related to a known plant, Caminos, op. cit, p. 209. M. Görg identifies gt as “an Olivenöl”. Therefore, according to this text, in Ramesside times a variety of oils came from abroad and olive oil might have been imported from Syria. A. Gardiner, Late Egyptian Miscellanies, 51; R. Caminos, Late Egyptian Miscellanies, (London, 1954) (Brown Egyptological Studies, I), 200; M. Görg, Öle aus dem Ausland. Beobachtugen zum Text und Vocabular von pAnast. IV 15, 2-4, SAK 11 (1984), 219-226.

chapter eleven

216 The Ointment Industry in Egypt

Egypt was famous throughout the ancient world for its scents and ointments.52 Classical writers, mainly Theophrastus, Pliny and Dioscorides53 refer to the Egyptian scented unguents and their composition. They involved the mixture of many costly ingredients and were highly valued54 Particularly sought after was the Mendesium, the ointment produced at Mendes. Pliny55 lists the basic elements used in the elaboration of aromatic ointments. The first was a liquid, almost always oil, to which was added the scent or odour (spices),56 a dye to give colour and a resin or gum to fix the scent to the liquid. Theophrastus57 states that the most suitable oils for scented ointments were balanos and a kind of olive oil obtained from coarse olives. These oils were considered to be more receptive to scents and the ointments made with them lasted longer. Viscous oils like almond, sesame and regular olive oil were not so suitable: The oil most used is that derived from the Egyptian or Syrian balanos, since this is the least viscous; the olive oil which is most used is that which is pressed from coarse olives in the raw state, since this is thought to be the least greasy and the least coarse.

Pliny lists three scented ointments produced in Egypt that were particularly sought after: the Mendesian, the metopion and the cypros.58 The Mendesian was made of balanos oil, resin and myrrh. The metopion and the cypros were composed of omphacium, spices (cinnamon), myrrh and several other ingredients.59 The Use of the Basket-Handle Jars Produced in Egypt It is likely that the jars manufactured in the vicinity of Alexandria were containers for the transport of oil. The main reasons for this assumption are: 1) the classical use, attested in the Eastern Mediterranean; 2) the absence of any caulking material on them, a fact that proves they were not wine amphoras. “In oil amphoras no black lining is to be seen; it was unnecesary to coat them with any type of caulking material as oil does not evaporate or leak from jars as does wine”.60 The production of basket-handle jars in Egypt, imitating a traditional Cypriot type, could have responded to: 1) the needs of a local oil production, i.e. the olive oils of relatively poor quality from the Alexandrian area and regions to the West may have been brought in basket-handle jars to Mendes for use in the ointment industry, or 2) the requirement of suitable containers to import oil. Conclusions There is extensive evidence at Mendes, more than from other sites in Egypt, of the presence of baskethandle jars. According to the current typology of these jars, the Mendes samples of square HC can be dated back to the V-IV centuries b.c. They were manufactured from local Egyptian clays from the vicinity of present-day Alexandria. The presence of large numbers of this kind of jar, known in the Eastern Mediterranean as oil containers, might be related to an industry that existed in Mendes, a fact attested to by classical writers. This industry was traditional in the city and employed oil as one of the basic ingredients in the production of scented ointments. 52 Pliny, op. cit., XIII, 4; Manniche, op. cit., 48; M. Dayagi-Mendels, Perfume and cosmetics in the Ancient World (Jerusalem, 1989). 53 Theophrastus., op. cit; Pliny, op. cit.; Pedanii Dioscuridis, De Materia Medica, I, edited by M. Wellmann; 1958, I, 59. 54 Theophrastus, op. cit., II, Concerning odours VI, 30-31; Pliny, op. cit., XIII, 4; Athenaeus, The Deipnosophists , Loeb Classical Library, 1955-57, III, 124; V, 553. 55 Op. cit., XIII, 7. 56 Theophrastus, II, op. cit., IV, 17. 57 Ibidem, IV, 15-16. The Egyptian was one of the longer lasting scented ointments that could be stored up to eight years, VII, 38. 58 Op. cit., XIII, 5. 59 Ibidem, XIII, 8, 12. The omphacium was oil extracted from olive and vine, XII, LX (27); Theophrastus, II, op. cit., VI, 28. 60 Quoted by Zemer, op. cit., 110, n. 298.

basket-handle jars: their origin and function Plate W

217

218

chapter eleven Plate X

basket-handle jars: their origin and function Plate Y

219

220

chapter eleven Plate Z

appendix

PLATES

221

222

appendix

appendix Plate I.

A.

B.

223

224

appendix Plate II.

A.

B.

A.

B.

Plate III.

appendix 225

226

appendix Plate IV.

appendix Plate V.

A.

B.

227

228

appendix Plate VI.

A.

B.

appendix Plate VII.

A.

B.

229

230

appendix Plate VIII.

A.

B.

appendix Plate IX.

A.

B.

231

Plate X.

232

appendix

A.

B.

Plate XI.

appendix 233

Plate XII.

234

appendix

appendix Plate XIII.

235

236

appendix Plate XIV.

A.

B.

appendix Plate XV.

A.

B.

237

238

appendix Plate XVI.

A.

B.

appendix Plate XVII.

A.

B.

239

240

appendix Plate XVIII.

Cat. #17 Cat. #1

Cat. #21

Cat. #41

Cat. #43

appendix

241

Plate XIX.

Cat. #40

Cat. #70

Cat. #63

242

appendix Plate XX.

Cat. #76

Cat. #109

Cat. #83

Cat. #93

appendix

243

Plate XXI.

Cat. #99

Cat. #118

Cat. #121

Cat. #126

244

appendix Plate XXII.

Cat. #128

Cat. #137

Cat. #144

Cat. #155

Cat. #151

appendix

245

Plate XXIII.

Cat. #158 Cat. #162

Cat. #166 Cat. #175

Cat. #1202

Cat. #202

appendix

246

Plate XXIV.

Cat. #206 Cat. #201

Cat. #210 Cat. #227

Cat. #215

appendix

247

Plate XXV.

Cat. #230

Cat. #247

Cat. #264

Cat. #268

248

appendix Plate XXVI.

Cat. #274

Cat. #287

Cat. #308

Cat. #210

Cat. #305

Cat. #317

appendix

249

Plate XXVII.

Cat. #421

appendix

250

Plate XXVIII.

Cat. #421 detail

Cat. #292

appendix

251

Plate XXIX.

Cat. #287

Cat. #425 Cat. #424

Cat. #445

Cat. #427

Cat. #450

252

appendix Plate XXX.

Cat. #432

appendix

253

Plate XXXI.

Cat. #432 detail

254

appendix Plate XXXII.

Cat. #459

Cat. #463

appendix

255

Plate XXXIII.

Cat. #464

Cat. #477

Cat. #475

Cat. #479

appendix

256

Plate XXXIV.

Cat. #482

Cat. #507

Cat. #572

Cat. #528a

Cat. #755t

appendix

257

Plate XXXV.

Cat. #755k (front)

Cat. #755k (back)

appendix

258

Plate XXXVI.

Cat. #760

Cat. #803

Cat. #751

appendix Plate XXXVII.

Restored basket-handle jar

Rim & handle fragments from single jar.

259

260

appendix

index

261

INDEX access, to burial pit 26 Ahmose 40-41 alabaster vessels 214 Alexandria, basket-handle jars found at 216 Am-Duat, scenes from, on relief fragments 31 Amasis, naos-chamber at 35 amphorae Greek 137-139, 141, 144-145, 151-152, 213 oil 216 amulets 13 n12, 58-60 Amunrasonther 37-38 analysis of ceramics 135-150 of Egyptian bricks 5 n3 of plant remains 198-200 of skeletal completeness and bone survivorship 205206, 208 see also NAA (Neutron Activation Analysis) d’Andrea, C. 9 n10 animals, as incarnations of deity 32-33 Arad 211 n3 archaeobotanical research, in Nile Delta 197 architectural fragments 26-29, 53-56 Asia, West, Egyptian involvement with 40-41 Aston, David 149 n74 avian remains 202, 203 balanos oil 216 Banebdjed 38 Ramesside temple of 7, 35 barley (Hordeum vulgare) 198, 200 bases of jars 162 basket-handle jars 211-212, 216 found at Mendes 213-214, 216 beads 65-66 beer jars 150 Bes vessels 149 ‘Binfordian’ utility curves 205-206, 210 bird remains 202, 203 bone density 205 bone destruction 205-206 bone survivorship, analysis of 205-206, 208 borders, on relief fragments 31 Bos values 205, 206, 208 Bothmer, B.V. 1 bowls Egyptian 148, 158 spinning 149 bread moulds 149-150 bread wheat 198 bricks, Egyptian, analysis of 5 n3 brickwork of burial pit 26 of inner temenos wall (T 3) 5 of middle temenos wall (T 2) 9 of outer temenos wall (T 1) 23 bronze items 63-65 btt Èq3 cnd 36 Buhl, M.L. 212, 213 burial installation, of Nepherites I, decoration of 31 burial pits of Nepherites I 7, 25-29, 34 of Psusennes I 25 n4 burials at Mendes 185

at inner temenos wall (T 3) 5 infant pot 142 near tomb of Nepherites I 35, 142 butchering, of cattle 206 Canaanite store-jars 139, 145, 152-153 canary grass (Phalaris) 200 canid material 203 castor oil 215 cattle 203-204, 205-206 raised at Nile Delta 204-205 ceramics analysis of 135-150 from landfill between outer and middle temenos walls (T 1 and T 2) 135-140 from landfill around sarcophagus 142-144 from landfill west of middle temenos wall (T 2) 140142 basket-handle jars 211-216 plant remains inside 198-199 chaff, used as fuel component 198, 200 chcw q3 [1e zin nr.7, pag. 36] 36 chemical analysis see NAA (Neutron Activation Analysis) Chian amphorae 138, 144 CIRGEO Laboratory (Argentina) 214 clover (Trifolium) 200 coastal areas, basket-handle jars found in 211 coffins, used in Egypt 142 n34 construction, of middle temenos wall (T 2) 7-9 counting, of skeletal units 205 cups, Egyptian 148 Cypriot pottery 211, 212 found at Mendes 141-142, 145 cypros 216 Cyprus links with Mendes 139 origins of basket-handle jars 211 darnel (Lolium cf. temulentum) 200 dating of basket-handle jars 211, 212, 213-214 of burial chambers near tomb of Nepherites I 35 of destruction of the tomb of Nepherites I 34 of landfills between middle and outer temenos walls (T 1 and T 2) 21-22, 150 west of middle temenos wall (T 2) 140, 150 of sarcophagus 25 of temenos walls inner temenos wall (T 3) 7 middle temenos wall (T 2) 11-13 outer temenos wall (T 1) 23 Dd-mdw in Iw.s-c3.[s] 37 ddt [1e zin van 4e paragraaf, pag. 215] 215 debris, in landfill between middle and outer temenos walls (T 1 and T 2) 13-22 decoration of burial installation of Nepherites I 31 of pottery at Mendes 141, 142, 146, 147, 148, 159-160 decorative items 69 Delta, Nile archaeological sites at 197 cattle raised at 204-205 trade links with Levant 139, 144, 197

262 destruction of bones 205-206 of the tomb of Nepherites I 33-34 dippers 214 distribution, of basket-handle jars 211 dock (Rumex) 200 domestic occupation, of Mendes 35, 150 donkeys 204 Dray, E. 145 Drfw n(?) zp(?) 39 Dura Europos, pottery from 212 ‘Ear’-stelae 32 Egypt basket-handle jars found in 212 coffins used in 142 n34 invaded by Persians 34 involvement with Western Asia 40-41 oils produced and used in 138, 215-216 perfume and ointments industry in 138, 215, 216 pottery from 142, 143, 144, 145-150, 216 Egyptian bricks, analysis of 5 n3 Emery, 137 n4 emmer wheat (Triticum dicoccum) 198, 200 epithets, of Nepherites I 31 n3, 33 Es-kheby family 37 excavation units, distribution of 3 excavations at Mendes 1-3 of human remains 185-190 of sarcophagus 3, 25-29 of temenos walls 5-23 faunal remains 202-210 femora 206 field AL see necropolis figurines 68-69 fish, Hat-mehyet figures 32 fish remains 202 fishing 202 flasks 149, 160-161 floral panels, on relief fragments 31 foreign wares, found at Mendes 137-139, 141-142, 144145 foundation trenches, of middle temenos wall (T 2) 9-11 funerary items 67-68 game pieces 70 generals 40, 41 Geosciences Management Institute (Nevada) 5 n3 Gjerstad, E. 211 n2, 212, 213 goats 203 gold 70 Grace, Virginia 137 n4, 138 n11 grain 198 grass family (Poaceae) 200 Greece, exporting olive oil to Egypt 138 Greek amphorae 137-139, 141, 144-145, 151-152, 213 grid map, of Mendes excavation site 1 Hansen, D. 1 harbour area, pottery found at 144-145 Hat-mehyet fish figures 32 shrine to 33 Hellenistic markers, in landfill debris 15-22 Hellenistic pottery 137-139, 141, 143-144, 154-155 heraldic devices, on relief fragments 31 Hesi jars 212 hole-mouth jars 147 holes in the middle temenos wall (T 2) 9

index in outer temenos wall (T 1) 23 Holladay, John S. 145 n40 Hornakht family 35 house construction area, plant remains from 198-199, 200 hpw nw iswt 40 \r-s3-Ist 41 human remains 185-190 Hummel, Rexine 22 n17 hunting 202 incised relief fragments 31 indentations, in middle temenos wall (T 2) 9 infant pot burials 142 inlays 69 inner temenos wall (T 3) 5-7, 33 inscriptions on basket-handle jars 214 found at Mendes 36-41 Isis 37 Isotrace Laboratory (University of Toronto) 214 Israel, pottery originating from 139, 140, 141, 145, 211, 212 iw h3b.n [wi Èm.f r] 40 iw.k rÉ.t(i) 40 jars found at Mendes 156-157 bases of 162 basket-handle 211-216 beer 150 hole-mouth 147 small-mouth 146-147, 155-156 storeCanaanite 139, 145, 152-153 Egyptian 147 Phoenician 144 wide-mouth 147, 157-158 wine 213, 216 Thasian 138 see also vessels jewellery 70 Karnak, temenos walls at 9 Kedwa 212 kiln in unit K, analysis of plant remains from 198, 200 Koan amphorae 138 Kom el-Hisn 197 Kremer, E.P. 150 landfills between middle and outer temenos walls (T 1 and T 2) 13-22, 135-140 around sarcophagus 142-144 west of middle temenos wall (T 2) 140-142 lekythoi 139, 144 Levant, trade links with Nile Delta 139, 144, 197 Levantine ware 139, 144 light fraction analysis 198 limestone fragments at burial pit 26-29 in landfill between middle and outer temenos walls (T 1 and T 2) 15-21, 22 limestone structure, discovered by New York University expedition 34 livestock as form of taxation 205 see also cattle Lyman, R.L. 205-206 Maisterrena, E. 214 mammalia remains 203-204 manufacturing, of basket-handle jars 212, 216

index mason’s marks 22, 29, 32 mastaba 29 Me, great chiefs of 25 n5, 35 Memphis 212 Mendes domestic occupation of 35, 150 excavations at 1-3, 5-23, 25-29, 185-190 perfume industry at 138, 215, 216 prominence of 35 Stieglitz grid of 1 trade links with the Levant and Cyprus 139, 144 Mendesium 216 Mesopotamia, trade links Nile Delta 197 metal items 63-65, 214 metopes, on relief fragments 31 metopion 216 MGUI (Meat/Grease Utility Index) values 205-206, 209, 210 middle temenos wall (T 2) 7-13, 25, 33, 34 al-Mina jars 213 miniature vessels, Egyptian 149 MNI (Minimum Number of Individuals), derived from counting skeletal units 205 mollusca 202 Morgenstein, Maury 5 n3 moringa oil 215 mortaria 139-140, 144, 153-154 mortuary cults 38 moulds 68 mr msc [1e zin van D., pag. 41] 41 mud-brick rubble, in landfill between middle and outer temenos walls (T 1 and T 2) 21 Mycenaean pottery 142 NAA (Neutron Activation Analysis) 137 of pottery found at Mendes 144, 150, 162-163, 214 of pottery found at Tell el Hesi 212 naos-chamber, at Amasis 35 Naukratis 140, 212 Nb-m3ct- Hnm stp.n Hnm 38 ndr [eerste zin van C., pag. 39] 39 necropolis (field AL) excavations at 1, 5 history of 33-34 Nektanebo I 13, 33 Nektanebo II 38 Nepherites I 25 burial pit of 7, 25-29, 34 epithets of 31 n3, 33 tomb of 30, 33 destruction of 33-34 walling system near 35 Nes-su-banabdjed/Ny-subanebdjed 35, 41 Nesbitt, Rupert 9 n9 net sinkers 67-68 Neutron Activation Analysis (NAA) 137 of pottery found at Mendes 144, 150, 162-163, 214 of pottery found at Tell el Hesi 212 New York University, excavations at Mendes 1, 3, 13 n12, n13, 25, 29, 34 Nile Delta cattle raised at 204-205 palaeoethnobotanical research in 197 offerings 206 oil, production and use of, in Egypt 138, 215-216 oil amphorae 216 ointment industry see perfume industry olive oil production and use in Egypt 138, 215, 216

263 transported in basket-handle jars 214, 216 omphacium oil 216 n59 origins, of basket-handle jars 211 Osorkon (high priest) 40 Osorkon II 31 outer temenos wall (T1) 5, 22-23, 34 Paice, Patricia 22 n17, 140 n21, 146 n43 palaeoethnobotanical fieldwork, at Mendes 197-198 palaeoethnobotanical research, in Nile Delta 197 Palestinian pottery 139, 140, 141, 145, 211, 212 palettes 57-58 Pasha, Daninos 25 Paw/vlish, Larry 1, 214 perfume containers 214 perfume industry at Mendes 138, 215, 216 in Egypt 138, 215, 216 Persians, invading Egypt 34 Petrie 212 petrographic analysis see NAA (Neutron Activation Analysis) Phoenician store-jars 144, 212 pigs 204 plant remains 197-200 plaques 68-69 Plat-Taylor, J. du 145 platters, Egyptian 149, 159 Pliny, Gaius Plinius 216 Plutarch 38 pot burials, infant 142 pottery see ceramics production, of oils in Egypt 215, 216 Psusennes I, burial pit of 25 n4 Ptolemaic ware 21-22 Ptolemy II 23, 34 Qadesh Barnea 211 n3 r rd.wy ntr nfr stp-z3 m pr-nsw 40 raised relief fragments 30-31 Ram, scenes of the king facing, on relief fragments 31 Ram of Mendes 40 Ramesside Period, use of oils in 215 reed mattings, use in walls 7-9 relief fragments 30-32, 42-53 Rhodes, basket-handle jars from 211 n1, 212 ring stands 161-162 Rupp, Jeremy 142 n31 Salles, J.F. 212 Samian amphorae 137-138, 141, 144 Saqqara 137 n4 sarcophagus excavations of 3, 25-29 landfill around 142-144 sarcophagus box 35 scenes, on relief fragments 31 sea transport, of store-jars 211 n4 seals 68 Sebennytos 41 seep holes 9 n9 sesame oil 215 Shaw, Joseph W. 142 n31 shawabti fragments 41 of Nepherites I 33 sheep 203 sherds, decorated 159-160 Sheshonk family 36-37 Sheshonk III 31

264 Sinai, basket-handle jars found in 212 single aggregate approach, used in counting of skeletal units 205 skeletal completeness, analysis of 205, 208 skeletal material, excavated at Mendes 185-190 skeletal units, counting of 205 small-mouth jars, Egyptian 146-147, 155-156 spinning bowls 149 stamps 68 statuary 58 stela fragments 32-34, 37-38, 56-57 Stern 211, 214 Stieglitz grid, of Mendes 1 Stieglitz, R. 1 stone tools 65 store-jars Canaanite 139, 145, 152-153 Egyptian 147 Phoenician 144, 212 sea transport of 211 n4 stp-s3 40 superstructure, of burial pit 26-29 Syria 211 n2 pottery from 212 T3-B3-n (?) 41 Tanis 146, 148 taxation, livestock as form of 205 Tell ‘Arqa 211-212 Tell Defenneh 212 Tell el Herr 212 Tell el Hesi 212 Tell Kazel 211 Tell Keisan 212 Tell el-Maskuta 140 Tell er-Rub’a see Mendes Tell Sheikh Yusuf 211 n2 Tell Sukas 212 temenos walls at Karnak 9 at Mendes inner temenos wall (T 3) 5-7, 33 middle temenos wall (T 2) 7-13, 25, 33, 34 outer temenos wall (T 1) 5, 22-23, 34 Thasian amphorae 138 Theophrastus 215, 216 Thompson, H.A. 143 n37 toilet items 70 tomb of Nepherites I 30, 33 destruction of 33-34 walling system near 35 tomb of Nes-su-banabdjed 35

index Toronto University Isotrace Laboratory 214 magnetometer team 1 trade links, between Nile Delta and Levant and Mesopotamia 139, 144, 197 treshing 198 trial pieces 57-58 Tsambres and Aphendrika (Dray & du Plat Taylor) 145 unguent industry see perfume industry universities New York, excavations at Mendes 1, 3, 13 n12, n13, 25, 29, 34 of Toronto Isotrace Laboratory 214 magnetometer team 1 utility curves, Binfordian 205-206, 210 vessels alabaster 214 Bes 149 fragments of 61-63 miniature 149 see also jars wadj-sign 32 wall relief fragments 30-32 walling system, near Nepherites’ tomb 35 walls temenos at Karnak 9 at Mendes inner temenos wall (T 3) 5-7, 33 middle temenos wall (T 2) 7-13, 25, 33, 34 outer temenos wall (T 1) 5, 22-23, 34 wares Egyptian 145-146 foreign 137-139, 141-142, 144-145 Levantine 139, 144 Ptolemaic 21-22 weaving implements 66-67 weights 65 Western Asia, Egyptian involvement with 40-41 wheat (Triticum) 198, 200 wide-mouth jars 147, 157-158 Wilson, K. 1 wine jars 213, 216 Thasian 138 wr [c3 n M]à3[w3à3 ... ] 36 wr [c3 n M3] ’3[à3nq ... ] 36 Zemer, A. 211 n4