Pottery recovered near the tombs of Seti I (KV 17) and Siptah (KV 47) in the Valley of the Kings

A E G Y P T I A C A H E LV E T I C A

David Aston Pottery from the Valley of the Kings

AH 24

Schwabe Verlag Basel www.schwabeverlag.ch

I S B N 978-3-7965-3351-8

9

783796 533518

Band 24

David Aston

Pottery recovered near the tombs of Seti I (KV 17) and Siptah (KV 47) in the Valley of the Kings

AEGYPTIACA HELVETICA Herausgegeben im Namen des Ägyptologischen Seminars der Universität Basel und der Unité d’Égyptologie, Université de Genève, von Antonio Loprieno und Michel Valloggia

Band 24

David Aston

Pottery recovered near the tombs of Seti I (KV 17) and Siptah (KV 47) in the Valley of the Kings

Schwabe Verlag Basel

This volume was printed with the generous support of the Gertrud-Mayer-Stiftung and the Ceramica Stiftung, Basel.

Copyright © 2014 Schwabe AG, Verlag, Basel, Schweiz Dieses Werk ist urheberrechtlich geschützt. Das Werk einschliesslich seiner Teile darf ohne schriftliche Genehmigung des Verlages in keiner Form reproduziert oder elektronisch verarbeitet, vervielfältigt, zugänglich gemacht oder verbreitet werden.

Abbildung Umschlag: Ägyptologie Universität Basel und David Aston Satz: Ricarda Berthold, Basel Gesamtherstellung: Schwabe AG, Druckerei, Basel/Muttenz, Schweiz Printed in Switzerland ISBN 978-3-7965-3351-8 rights@schwabe.ch www.schwabeverlag.ch

Contents

I.

II.

III.

IV.

V.

VI.

VII.

Foreword

7

Introduction

8

Fabrics

9

Nile Clay Fabrics

9

Nile Clay Outside the Vienna System

10

Marl Clay Fabrics

11

Marl Clay Fabrics Outside the Vienna System

12

Oasis Clays

13

Levantine Clays

13

Shape Classes

15

Pottery Embedded in the Dakka

17

Nile Clay Vessels

18

Marl Clay Vessels

20

Eighteenth Dynasty Pottery from near KV 17

22

Nile Clay Vessels

22

Marl Clay Vessels

23

Eighteenth Dynasty Pottery in front of KV 47

24

Nile Clay Vessels

24

Marl Clay Vessels

27

Haruba Clay Vessels

29

Imported Canaanite Jars

29

Pottery from KV 17

30

Nile Clay Vessels

30

Marl Clay Vessels

38

Oasis Clay Vessels

43

Imported Canaanite Jars

44

Pottery Found in front of KV 47

46

Nile Clay Vessels

48

Marl Clay Vessels

63

Marl Clays

72

Twentieth Dynasty Pottery Found near KV 17

73

Nile Clay Vessels

73

VIII. Late Period Pottery

75

Marl Clay Vessels

75

Oasis Clay Vessels

75

Aegyptiaca Helvetica 24, 2014

5

IX.

X.

Coptic Pottery

77

Nile Clay Vessels

77

Aswan Clay Vessels

77

Conclusions

78

Appendix: The Earliest Pottery from the Valley of the Kings

85

Bibliography

87

Abbreviations

98

Image Credits

98

Plates

99

6

Contents

Foreword This monograph presents a selected corpus of the ceramic sherds found by the Mission Siptah – Ramesses X from the areas around the tombs of Seti I, KV 17, and Siptah, KV 47. That this book actually exists owes much to Elina Paulin-Grote, who invited me to examine this pottery, in the first instance, and to Hanna Jenni for being persuaded to accept such a project. For leave of absence in order to actively study this material during the campaigns of 2003 and 2005–2006, I am beholden to Manfred Bietak, who also generously allowed me time in which to write this study. On the ground I would also like to thank Elina for her constant support, including having to work in the Valley outside of her normal seasons in order to accommodate my available free weeks, and to Andreas and Miriam Dorn for their support and companionship during the 2003 and 2005 campaigns.

I am also grateful to Nicolas Sartori for sharing his research on the jar dockets found near KV 17. During the course of this study I have had frequent recourse to unpublished manuscripts referring to pottery from the Valley of the Kings, and for copies of such I am beholden to Lyla Brock (KV 55), Pamela Rose (KV 42), Otto

Aegyptiaca Helvetica 24, 2014

Schaden (KV 10, KV 63) and Ute Rummel who was able to provide me with a copy of the Magisterarbeit of Gabriele di Grandi (KV 13). I would also like to thank Geoffrey Martin for his consent to refer to material from KV 57, and Nicholas Reeves for permission to refer to material excavated by the Amarna Royal Tombs Project, in advance of their forthcoming publications.

All the drawings in this book were drawn and inked by the author with the exception of the two figural vases, catalogue nos. 426–427, for which I am indebted to Marian Negrete. This volume was printed with the generous support of the Gertrud-Mayer-Stiftung and the Ceramica Stiftung, Basel. Finally, but by no means least, I would like to thank Bettina Bader for reading through the entire manuscript and suggesting a number of improvements.

It only remains to express my gratitude to Natasha and the staff of the Marsam Hotel for making my stays in Luxor such pleasant ones.

Vienna, December 2014.

7

I. Introduction Despite the widespread excavation and clearance of the royal tombs in the Valley of the Kings that culminated with the discovery of the tomb of Tutankhamun in 1922, renewed excavations during the past thirty years have shown that a surprisingly large amount of pottery was not only ignored by the discoverers of these tombs, but that it still remained, either within the tombs, or dumped just outside, presumably by ancient plunderers or the early excavators themselves. In this respect it is not surprising that the MISR: Mission Siptah – Ramses X. (University of Basel) expedition to the Valley of the Kings during the years 1998 – 2006 recovered a surprisingly large amount of potsherds. Essentially this comprises the material located on the slope between KV 17 (Seti I) and KV 18 (Ramesses X); that recovered from inside KV 32; that found in front of KV 47 (Siptah); and that discovered in a number of huts situated to the south-east of KV 18, which can be dated to the reigns of Ramesses IV–VII. The huts and their entire contents, including the ceramic finds have been studied, and published, by Andreas Dorn. Inscribed amphorae found near KV 17 have been studied by Nicolas Sartori, and ostraca found near KV 47 by Debora Cilli. This monograph thus deals with the remainder. Owing to both time restraints and the nature of the material found, the pottery was studied in the following manner. All the sherds found between KV 17 and KV 18 were studied in their entirety with all rims, bases, handles etc. being recorded, though not all were drawn. The large number of amphorae sherds found in this deposit with dockets referring to Year 8 of Seti I, makes it very likely that much of this material may have originally derived from Seti’s tomb, hence the resolution to record all diagnostic sherds. The material found in front of KV 47 vastly outnumbered that found previously, and the decision was taken to look through all the pottery recovered, but only to record the complete profiles, the largest pieces, and the most interesting, since it is not certain from whence most of this material derived, see below pages 46–48. Of necessity the material presented in this monograph is only a subjective selection, merely a fraction of what was actually drawn and recorded, since to have included everything would have led not only to a great repetition of similar shapes, but would have increased the size of this book to unusable proportions. Nevertheless, all complete profiles, most decorated sherds, and all ‘types’ are included.

As it transpired the earliest material found, which dates to the reigns of Hatshepsut–Tuthmosis III, comes from a ‘dakka’ to the east of KV 18 (below section I), to which can be added two amphora shoulder sherds

bearing the cartouches of Hatshepsut found in front of KV 47, whilst a small number of sherds found between KV 17 and KV 18, together with a few pieces from in front of KV 47, must also date to the mid-Eighteenth Dynasty. Most of the pottery found between KV 17 and KV 18, however, dates to the early Nineteenth Dynasty and, because of the large number of wine dockets found in this deposit, there can be little doubt that it is somehow associated with the tomb of Seti I. The majority of the pottery found in front of KV 47 clearly dates to the late Nineteenth Dynasty, and this is confirmed by a number of ostraca found among them which date to the reigns of Siptah, Seti II, Tauseret and Bay, but, as will be argued below, this ceramic material probably derives from the activity of late Nineteenth Dynasty workmen rather than from the tomb of Siptah. Finally a handful of Persian Period and Coptic sherds was also found.

However, intermingled with both deposits, that between KV 17 and 18, and that from in front of KV 47, were a number of earlier and later pieces. Where these are obvious, they have been assigned to their rightful date. For a small number of sherds, however, it is not certain as to what date they should be attributed, and this should be borne in mind when using this book.

During the course of this monograph reference is made to various New Kingdom pottery phases. Ceramicists conventionally divide New Kingdom pottery into four major phases, 1–4, with the middle two being divided into sub-phases, hence 1, 2A, 2B, 3A, 3B, and 4.1 Whilst the boundaries may differ slightly from one expert to the next, all are agreed that, in general, Phase 1 covers the reigns of Ahmose through Tuthmosis II; Phase 2A, the reigns of Hatshepsut and Tuthmosis III; Phase 2B, the reigns of Amenophis II and Tuthmosis IV; 3A, the reigns of Amenophis III to Horemheb; 3B, Seti I through Merenptah; and 4 from the reign of Amenmesse to the end of Dynasty Twenty. Following a study of the material found in the funerary temple of Merenptah, I would also make a division into a Phase 4A and a Phase 4B, the change taking place probably in the reign of Sethnakht or Ramesses III,2 and, as we shall see, the pottery found by the MISR mission helps strengthen this belief.

1

2

8

Merrillees, Cypriote Bronze Age Pottery, 4; Bourriau, Umm el Ga‘ab, 72; Hope, review of the latter, JEA 71, 1985; Bourriau, Eretz Israel 21, 1990, 19, slightly revised in Bourriau et al., Horemheb III, 8; Aston, in: Bietak (ed.), Synchronisation of Civilisations II, 140.

Aston, Totentempel Merenptah IV, 375–389.

Introduction

Dakka

Fig. 1. Map of the valley of the Kings showing location of sherd areas

Fabrics As usual all the fabrics utilised for the pottery presented in this report are gathered here for ease of reference.

Nile Clay Fabrics Nile B2 Nile B23 is a silt clay with a quantity of mineral and organic inclusions particularly chaff. The porosity of this fabric varies from open and loose in lower fired pieces to moderate and hard in higher fired ones. The section 3

These designations follow the Vienna System: Nordström/Bourriau, in: Arnold/Bourriau (eds.), Pottery, 168–172.

Aegyptiaca Helvetica 24, 2014

is usually zoned with a range of colour lying between strong brown 7.5 YR 5/6 to yellowish red 5 YR 4/6 at the surface with, in thin walled and better fired pieces, a red 10 R 5/8 core. Most examples, however, are not completely oxidized and have a grey/black core. Inclusions within the clay consist of chaff, which is conspicuous, along with mineral particles such as mica or quartz.

Nile B2 is an extremely common fabric found throughout the whole of Egypt in New Kingdom times and may be readily compared with Nordström’s fabrics IIC,4 and W1,5 Bourriau’s fabric G1,6 Rose’s fabric I.1,7 and

4 5 6 7

Nordström, Neolithic and A-Group Sites, 52.

Nordström, in: Holthoer, Pharaonic Sites, 60–67.

Bourriau/Aston, in: Martin (ed.), Paser and Ra’ia, 33–34; Bourriau et al., Pottery Fabrics, 6.

Nicholson/Rose, in: Kemp (ed.), Amarna Reports II, 134. Bourriau

9

in Hope Blauer and Riederer’s analysis of certain New Kingdom clays, siliceous group type II.8 As elsewhere in Egypt the Nile B2 fabric found by the MISR mission occurs primarily with an uncoated or red slipped surface.

Additional secondary surface decoration can occur; in particular red slipped rim bands, whilst blue painted forms are also found. It should be noted that, as is typical for Thebes, much of the Nile B2 found contains some limestone, but in contrast to the limestone-tempered Nile D, the Nile B2 fabric is softer and contains considerably less limestone.

Nile B2 Sandy Variant A few sherds were noticeably finer and sandier than the normal Nile B2 fabric. This is perhaps equivalent to Bourriau’s G2 fabric which she identifies with Nile B1,9 and, as at Memphis, the two diagnostic sherds, below cat. nos. 281 and 370, thought to be made of this clay both bore blue-painted decoration. It is not clear whether this noticeably finer clay was produced as the result of an accident, in that the potter levigated his material better than usual, or whether he deliberately set out to produce a finer version of the clay. Since, at least in the material presented in this book, the same vessel types were made in both the normal Nile B2 and this sandy variant, it is probable that, in our material at least, the fabric was created accidentally.

Nile D The diagnostic property of Nile D clays is the inclusion of conspicuous amounts of limestone, in addition to particles of chaff and silica formations. The limestone particles tend to dominate the clay and are easily visible to the naked eye. In all respects the Theban Nile D fabric is similar to highly fired examples of fabric Nile B2 but with the conspicuous addition of limestone temper.10 The porosity varies from loose and open to moderately dense but is characteristically hard and fine. The fracture usually shows zones of red and even violet with a black core, though sometimes it is completely red in colour.

Interestingly, dishes made of Nile D generally fired a deeper colour than those made of Nile B2.

8 9 10

10

et al., Pottery Fabrics, 8; Rose, Pottery Corpus from Amarna, 12.

Hope et al., in: Arnold (ed.), Keramik, 160.

Bourriau et al., Pottery Fabrics, 5–6; Bourriau et al., Horemheb III, 55–56.

Cf. Hope’s amphora group A1, Hope, Malkata and the Birket Habu, 66; Bourriau/Aston, in: Martin (ed.), Paser and Ra'ia, 37, fabric G3.

Nile Clay Outside the Vienna System11 Fabric ‘G6a’ This fabric is characterised as a dense clay which fires either a uniform red 2.5 YR 4/6–8 in section, or, in thicker walled vessels, light red 2.5 YR 6/8 at the inner and outer surface with a wide grey N 5/0 or 5 Y 5/1 core. The clay is very micaceous, but quartz and the occasional limestone particle are all present within the clay matrix. Small amounts of chaff are sometimes found but this is rare. This fabric, which may be compared with Bourriau’s fabrics G6a/H512 and with fabric III.A at Qantir,13 occurs with three surface treatments, viz. cream slipped, cream slipped and burnished, and painted, cream slipped and burnished.

In terms of shape and surface treatment, this fabric is clearly related to the Marl D group, but recent petrographic analysis indicates that this is a Nile B fabric, covered with a marl-based slip. Since vessels made in this fabric closely imitate vessels made of Marl D, they may also have been imported from the Memphis/Gurob region. It is noticeable that this fabric becomes distinctly more common as the New Kingdom progresses, and I would suspect that it gradually replaces Marl D as the Marl D sources became exhausted. Although rarely used for the pottery found by the current mission, it is well known at Thebes among material recovered from the ‘funerary temple’ of Merenptah.14

11

12 13 14

Note that in order to avoid the use of multiple labels for the same fabric, the fabric terminology utilised for fabrics outside of the Vienna System, follow wherever possible, with the exception of ‘Marl F’, which has since found widespread acceptance, the alpha-numerical system established by Janine Bourriau for the Egypt Exploration Society during her work at Saqqara and Memphis. Thus, in general, G fabrics are New Kingdom silts, H fabrics are New Kingdom marls, M clays are Coptic silts, N clays are Coptic marls and P fabrics are imports. Naturally as new knowledge has come to light some of the designations have been shown to be falsely applied; for example H5 has been shown to be, in reality, a Nile clay, whilst N1 is an import. Nevertheless the underlying system still seems to be the best since it was designed to cope with pottery of all periods and can thus be readily adopted on all sites. Indeed it has already been previously utilised at Thebes – Polz, Hui und Kel, 105.

Bourriau et al., Pottery Fabrics, 17–18; Bourriau, Survey of Memphis IV, 24.

Aston, Qantir I, 68.

Aston, Totentempel Merenptah IV, 35.

Introduction

Marl Clay Fabrics Marl A2 Marl A2 is a fine marl clay in which fine sand, limestone particles and some fine particles of unmixed marl are all present though no single inclusion dominates.15 The fabric is very hard and dense without conspicuous pores.

The surface tends to fire from pale red to a deep orange.

Although not common the fabric can be compared with fabrics II.A.02 at Qantir,16 H9–10 at Memphis/Saqqara,17 III.4 at Amarna,18 and Hope’s type Ba.II ‘Pink Compact,’19 and is often found at Thebes.20 Marl A3 Marl A3 is a dense, homogeneous pale grey to greenish grey clay with irregular voids due to decomposing limestone or pockets of air. It can be readily compared to Hope’s fabrics Bb.I from Malkata21 and Type VI from Amarna.22 The Marl A4 Group Of all the marl clays described in the Vienna System, Marl A4 is the most confusing and probably contains several fabric groupings.23 This is well exemplified by the fact that Marl A4 is supposedly the coarsest variant of the Marl A clays which reputedly have a conspicuous amount of fine and coarse sand inclusions and show a considerable range of colour, porosity and hardness due to variation in firing conditions. Since both coarse and fine marls have been equated with type A4,24 it has, as is customary,25 been necessary to divide variant 4 into two subtypes: Marl A4 Variant 1 This variant is the common New Kingdom version of this clay and comprises a finely textured Marl A4 ‘Bal-

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

25

Nordström/Bourriau, in: Arnold/Bourriau (eds.), Pottery, 176.

Aston, Qantir I, 64.

Bourriau/Nicholson, JEA 78, 1992, 45–49.

Nicholson/Rose, in: Kemp (ed.), Amarna Reports II, 136; Rose, Pottery Corpus from Amarna, 14.

Hope, Malkata and the Birket Habu, 68–69.

As well as Malkata, vessels made of Marl A2 also occur elsewhere in the Valley of the Kings, and at the ‘funerary temple’ of Merenptah. – Aston, Totentempel Merenptah IV, 35.

Hope, Malkata and the Birket Habu, 68.

Hope et al., in: Arnold (ed.), Keramik, 161, 163.

Nordström/Bourriau, in: Arnold/Bourriau (eds.), Pottery, 178.

For example, Bourriau’s Marl H2 (Bourriau/Aston, in: Martin [ed.], Paser and Ra'ia, 39) which has a coarse texture, and Hope’s fine textured marl type V (= Memphis/Saqqara fabric H4) have both been equated with Vienna Marl A4. Cf. Bourriau/Nicholson, JEA 78, 1992, 41–44, fabrics H2 and H4.

Aston, Elephantine XIX, 4; Aston, Totentempel Merenptah IV, 35.

Aegyptiaca Helvetica 24, 2014

las’ type clay which fires, usually, from a uniform pink 7.5 YR 7/4 to a uniform light red 2.5 YR 6/6 with the outer surface turning a light grey 2.5 Y 7/2 as a result of naturally occurring salts migrating to the surface during firing.26 Some examples – fired at a higher temperature – however, fire a uniform greenish colour akin to 2.5 GY 8/4 or 5 GY 8/4. Examples fired at intermediate temperatures show a mixture of pink and green in the break.

Inclusions within the clay consist of a medium quantity of very fine quartz, mica and the occasional red particle (grog?). Characteristic of this fabric are the numerous fine pores from burnt out limestone, accounting for the fine, porous texture and the minimal reaction to hydrochloric acid. This fabric may be readily compared with Hope’s type V,27 Amarna fabric III.1,28 Bourriau’s fabric H429 and fabric II.A.04 at Qantir.30 Marl A4 variant 1 tends to exist in its natural colour, decorated with red and black paint, or covered with a thick red slip, usually burnished, though this latter form is generally restricted to fine tableware – plates, bowls, jugs, mugs and small amphorae.

Marl A4 Variant 2 In many respects this clay is similar to the preceding one, but the surface frequently exhibits areas of a beigegrey-green colour. The clay sometimes also contains the occasional red inclusion, perhaps pieces of grog. The surface tends to fire grey, usually a deeper shade than that of variant 1, or a creamy white. It is also slightly harder than variant 1, having more of a metallic ‘clang’ to it, and is often used for a series of jars with ribbed bodies.

This fabric is the same as French’s fabric 1a at Amarna.31 Marl B Marl B is characterised by the fact that the paste contains abundant quantities of mineral inclusions added as temper. These particles, which give the surface a gritty texture, are angular to subangular and fine to coarse in their composition. The break is usually greyish white to green, sometimes with a pink core. It is normally hard and firm and most often found in Southern Egypt, in deposits datable to the Second Intermediate Period and the Eighteenth Dynasty,32 but clearly continued to be produced during the Nineteenth Dynasty as examples 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

On the whole question of white surfaces occurring as the result of naturally occurring salts migrating to the surface during firing see, Ownby/Griffiths, ÄuL 19, 2009, 229–239.

Hope et al., in: Arnold (ed.), Keramik, 161, 163.

Nicholson/Rose, in: Kemp (ed.), Amarna Reports II, 135; Rose, Pottery Corpus from Amarna, 13.

Bourriau et al., Horemheb III, 67–68.

Aston, Qantir I, 64–65.

French, in: Kemp, Amarna Reports III, 154.

Nordström/Bourriau, in: Arnold/Bourriau (eds.), Pottery, 178–179.

11

found here and at Elephantine33 and Qantir34 indicate.

It can be equated with Rose’s fabric III.8 at Amarna.35 Marl D Marl D is an extremely hard and dense fabric in which the colour of the section ranges from red 2.5 YR 4/8 to greyish brown 2.5 Y 5/2 to pale olive 5 Y 5/3, but is more often than not dark brown with sometimes bands of red on either side at the inner and outer surfaces.36 In some examples the entire section is red. The surface colour also seems to vary through the same range of colours and all examples are covered in a thick cream 10 YR 8/3 slip. The most distinctive characteristic of this fabric is the large number of irregular limestone particles scattered throughout the matrix. These give the surface a gritty texture and show up most clearly within the red/ reddish brown bands of the section. Other inclusions comprise fine mineral particles and sometimes a little fine chaff. There are few air holes and the texture varies from medium to coarse. The outer surface is always covered in a thick cream to pale olive slip which is sometimes burnished. Marl D is very common in the Eastern Delta and Memphis/Fayoum regions from the mid Eighteenth Dynasty until the end of the New Kingdom.

It may be equated with Hope’s fabrics Ba.I from Malkata37 and Type IV from Amarna,38 Rose’s fabrics III.3 and III.6,39 Bourriau’s fabric H140 and fabrics II.D.01–02 at Qantir.41 Marl D is not so common at Thebes which strengthens the belief that, contra McGovern,42 such vessels were produced in the north.

Marl Clay Fabrics Outside the Vienna System The ‘Marl F’ Group ‘Marl F’ does not exist in the Vienna System, but I have used the term elsewhere to denote a distinctive fabric group most common in the Eastern Delta43 where it is found in abundance at Tell el-Dab‘a and Qantir.44

33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44

12

Aston, Elephantine XIX, 22 nos. 36–37.

Aston, Qantir I, 450–455.

Rose, Pottery Corpus from Amarna, 14.

Nordström/Bourriau, in: Arnold/Bourriau (eds.), Pottery, 181–182.

Hope, Malkata and the Birket Habu, 67–68.

Hope et al., in: Arnold (ed.), Keramik, 161.

Nicholson/Rose, in: Kemp (ed.), Amarna Reports II, 136–137; Rose, Pottery Corpus from Amarna, 14.

Bourriau/Aston, in: Martin (ed.), Paser and Ra'ia, 38–39.

Aston, Qantir I, 65–66.

McGovern, JEA 83, 1997, 91–93.

At first sight a Delta marl clay may appear a contradiction in terms, but cf. Arnold, in: Arnold (ed.), Keramik, 179, 182–183.

Bietak, Tell el-Dab‘a V, 328; Aston, Qantir I, 66–67.

Fabric II.F.02 Two variants of Marl F fabric are found in the Valley of the Kings, of which the more common is the fabric termed II.F.02 at Qantir. This is by far the most frequently found fabric within the Marl F group during the New Kingdom, and the only one found by the MISR mission. All pots in this fabric tend to be thin walled and somewhat brittle, with the result that vessels made of this fabric rarely survive intact. Fabric II.F.02 ranges in quality from good to poor with lumps of unmixed marl sometimes found in the break. The section fires a uniform very pale brown 10 YR 7/3–4 with a surface colour of white 5 Y 8/2 to pale yellow 5 Y 8/3.

Inclusions within the paste comprise abundant sand, limestone grits, the occasional small pebble and, rarely, ochre or grog. South of the Delta, the fabric, which can be compared to fabric III.9 of the Amarna corpus,45 and the H14 group at Saqqara/Memphis,46 is generally confined to slender amphorae with pointed bases evidently used to transport wine. The impression given, therefore, is that this fabric group originates in the Delta region.47 Amongst the material from KV 17, and indeed in that associated with the tomb of Horemheb, KV 57, it sometimes proved difficult to distinguish between a poorly-fired Marl D and Marl F, and it is probably for this reason that Bourriau and Nicholson, have allocated II.F.02 to the Marl D group,48 although I prefer to retain the designation II.F.02 since the fabric is clearly different to the typical Marl D described above. In view of this all debatable pieces have, for the purposes of this report, been subsumed into the Marl D group, whilst Marl F is retained only for indisputable II.F.02 examples.

Haruba Clay It was somewhat of a surprise to find a vessel made of Haruba clay (cat. no. 59). As such it must have been brought here from the Sinai, since such vessels were evidently made in kilns at the Haruba site A-345.49 The fabric is characterised by the use of a very calcareous silty marl, rich in iron oxide, and tempered with coastal sand grains.50 Aswan Clay A characteristic, fine, pink clay, used for the production of Coptic Egyptian Red Slip A comes from the Aswan

45 46 47 48 49 50

Nicholson/Rose, in: Kemp (ed.), Amarna Reports II, 1985, 137– 138; Rose, Pottery Corpus from Amarna, 14.

Bourriau/Nicholson, JEA 78, 1992, 51–54.

See the remarks in footnote 43.

Bourriau/Nicholson, JEA 78, 1992, 51.

Oren, in: Rainey (ed.), Egypt, Israel, Sinai, 100–107.

Goren et al., in: Lindahl et al. (eds.), Aim of Laboratory Analyses, 110.

Introduction

region,51 as is proved by the discovery of kiln sites there.52 The kaolinite clay53 is generally a pinkish red in colour containing fine ferruginous particles, limestone, magnesium, aluminium, quartz and mica, and sometimes larger red particles (grog?). In well-fired examples, the clay is hard and dense, but often the surface tends to flake.

The clay is well known for the Roman and Coptic periods, and can be compared with Rodziewicz’s Group O,54 Jacquet-Gordon’s fabrics II – IIa,55 and Gempeler’s IA.56 Only one eroded vessel made of this fabric was found during the curent excavations.

Oasis Clays Fabric ‘P25’ (‘B23’) Fabric P25 is easily recognised by the rainbow effect of the section. It is a dense bodied medium textured fabric, of which the exterior and interior surface colours include light brown, orange/pink, orange brown, yellow and grey in various combinations though not all colours are present in any given sherd. The groundmass generally has a central light blue/grey core with orange-brown margins. Within the paste are found a number of limestone inclusions, some of which have burnt out leaving characteristic reaction rims. This fabric may be equated with Bourriau’s fabrics P25, P45 and P92,57 Rose’s fabric IV.258 and my fabric V.01.59 The surface was usually slipped a light red 10 YR 6/6 or a grey 10 YR 6/1 or black colour. It has previously been recognised at Thebes,60 and has also been found in limited quantities at Saqqara-Memphis, where it does not occur before the Nineteenth Dynasty,61 and at Qantir.62 This fabric is

51 52

53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62

Hayes, Late Roman Pottery, 387–397, quoting Adams; Hayes, Supplement, 530–532; Rodziewiecz, Céramique romaine, 55, Fabric O. Ballet et al., CCÉ 2, 1991, 140–143; Ballet/Vichy, CCÉ 3, 1992, 113–116. Earlier the finding of some potters stamps at Elephantine had strongly suggested Aswan as a production centre, Ulbert, MDAIK 27, 1971.

For an analysis of this clay see Ballet/Picon, CCE 1, 1987, 43.

Rodziewiecz, Céramique romaine, 54–60.

Jacquet-Gordon, Ermitages chrétiennes III, 11–12.

Gempeler, Elephantine X, 20.

Aston, in: Raven, Iurudef, 48; Hope, in: Friedman (ed.), Egypt and Nubia, 114–115.

Nicholson/Rose, in: Kemp (ed.), Amarna Reports II, 139; Hope, in: Friedman (ed.), Egypt and Nubia, 109.

Aston, Qantir I, 73.

Rose, in: Strudwick, Amenhotep, Khnummose, and Ahmose, 171, 175 nos. 124–125; Aston et al., ÄuL 8, 1998, 141–2; Aston, Totentempel Merenptah IV, 39.

Fabric P25, Aston, in: Raven, Iurudef, 48; Hope, in: Friedman (ed.), Egypt and Nubia, 114; Bourriau, Survey of Memphis IV, 29–30.

Aston, Qantir I, 73, fabric V.01

Aegyptiaca Helvetica 24, 2014

the most common New Kingdom oasis fabric found in Dakhleh where it is equivalent to Hope’s fabric B23.63 Fabric ‘V.02’ This fabric is characterised by the fact that in thin sherds the section fires into two distinct zones of roughly equal width. The outer is light red, 2.5 YR 6/6, and the inner light brownish grey 10 YR 6/2. The outer surface is usually slipped white, 5 Y 8/2, or pinkish grey 7.5 YR 8/2. In thicker sherds the inner zone is wider than the outer one, and sometimes the inner edge exhibits the same colour as the outer one. Some of the white slipped examples bear horizontal painted bands at the shoulder.

None of the sherds found are burnished. Within the clay many limestone particles up to 4 mm. across are especially conspicuous, but red particles (grog?) and reaction rims where smaller limestone particles have burnt out are also frequently encountered. Among the material found at the Merenptah temple, this fabric was most often used for a number of amphoriskoi. A presumed Dakhla origin for these vessels is confirmed by the discovery of several fragments of such in Dakhleh itself.64 This fabric, which has also already been noted at Thebes,65 is clearly the same as pâte F1G at Ayn Asil,66 Oasis clay 2 at Elephantine,67 P44 at Memphis,68 and V.02 at Qantir.69 Fabric ‘B3’ Fabric B3 is the name given by Hope to a coarse-textured, orange fired fabric which contains numerous inclusions of quartz and plate-like fragments of shale or mudstone.70 It was often used in the Late Period for the production of tall-necked kegs and flasks, several of which have now been found in Late Period Theban contexts.

Levantine Clays Fabric ‘P11’ This fabric is well known throughout Egypt in New Kingdom deposits, particularly those dating to the late Eighteenth and Nineteenth Dynasties, with examples

63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70

Hope, in: Friedman (ed.), Egypt and Nubia, 96–100, 106–107.

Marchand/Tallet, BIFAO 99, 1999, 341–342 figs. 11a–b and 14a–o.

Aston et al., ÄuL 8, 1998, 142; Aston, Totentempel Merenptah IV, 39.

Marchand/Tallet, BIFAO 99, 1999, 335–336.

Aston, Elephantine XIX, 7.

Hope, in: Friedman (ed.), Egypt and Nubia, 114.

Aston, Qantir I, 73.

Hope, CCÉ 6, 2000, 195.

13

already recorded at Thebes,71 and elsewhere at Elephantine,72 Amarna,73 Saqqara,74 and Qantir.75 Generally used for Canaanite jars, it is also used for a number of pilgrim flasks, and, at Memphis, for the occasional small amphora or cup.76 The fabric tends to fire a uniform reddish yellow 5 YR 6/6, even in the thickest parts of the vessel wall, and the surface is slipped the same colour. Dominant among the inclusions are quartz, fine translucent pebbles and many black grits which fill the section.

Fabric P11 was assigned, by Bourriau, Smith and Serpico, to their Group 1, which, they propose, probably comes from the seaward portion of the Jezreel Valley to the north-east of the Carmel Ridge, where the Kishion river reaches the coastal sands.77 Canaanite jars made in both these fabrics seem principally to have been used for the transport of pistachio resin.78 Fabric ‘P16’ This is a Canaanite jar fabric characterised by numerous black particles filling the section. It often shows distinct zones in section, even in thin parts of the vessel wall. The extreme outer edge of the section may fire yellowish red 5 YR 5/6 though this outer zone is often absent. Otherwise the outer and inner surface are yellow 10 YR 7/6 with a wide grey core 10 YR 5/1. Occasionally the whole section may fire a uniform yellowish brown 10 YR 6/4– 6. Added temper comprises ochre, pebble and abundant black grits. The surface of all examples is uncoated and fires reddish yellow 7.5 YR 7/6 to very pale brown 10 YR 7/4 and the many inclusions are readily visible in both the outer and inner surface of the vessel. This fabric has already been recognised at Thebes,79 and has also been found at Elephantine,80 Amarna,81 Saqqara82 and Qantir.83 Fabric P16 is assigned, by Bourriau, Smith and Serpico, to their Group 3, which, according to them, probably comes from the Akkar plain (Lebanon).84

71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84

14

Hope, Malkata and the Birket Habu, 75; Seiler, MDAIK 52, 1996, 227 fabric IV.07.11; Aston et al., ÄuL 8, 1998, 142.

Aston, Elephantine XIX, 7–8.

Unpublished, P. Rose, personal communication.

Bourriau/Aston, in: Martin (ed.), Paser and Ra'ia, 40, fabric P11; Bourriau, Eretz Israel 21, 1990, 21–22.

Aston, Qantir I, fabric IV.07.11.

Bourriau, Eretz Israel 21, 1990, 21.

Bourriau et al., in: Shortland, Technological Change, 140; Smith et al., in: Bourriau/Phillips (eds.), Invention and Innovation, 56–58.

Serpico/White, in: Eyre (ed.), Proceedings, 1037–1048; Serpico/ White, in: Nicholson/Shaw (eds.), Ancient Egyptian Materials, 430–474.

Aston et al., ÄuL 8, 1998, 142; Aston, Totentempel Merenptah IV, 40; Aston, in: Martin, Horemheb, forthcoming.

Aston, Elephantine XIX, 8.

Fabric IV.5. Unpublished, P. Rose, personal communication.

Fabric P16, Bourriau, Eretz Israel 21, 1990, 22*.

Aston, Qantir I, 70, fabric IV.07.04.

Smith et al., in: Bourriau/Phillips (eds.), Invention and Innova-

Fabric ‘P30’ P3085 is a hard Canaanite jar fabric which shows distinct zones in section comprising an outer band of red 2.5 YR 5/8 and an inner zone of very pale brown 10 YR 7/6, though in thicker parts of the pot the inner section fires grey 10 YR 6/1. Inclusions within the paste comprise quartz, mica, small translucent pebbles, and numerous fine limestone particles. The outer surface is generally whitish but it is not certain whether this is the result of a slip, or a bloom created by soluble salts coming to the surface during firing. The fabric has also previously been found at Thebes, in both the Valley of the Kings,86 and at the Mansions of Millions of Years of both Amenophis III,87 and Merenptah,88 where it was the most common of the Canaanite jar fabrics, and may be compared with fabric III.10 at Amarna,89 and IV.07.05 at Qantir.90 Fabric P30, like P11, is assigned, by Bourriau, Smith and Serpico to their Group 1, which, they propose, probably comes from the seaward portion of the Jezreel Valley to the north-east of the Carmel Ridge, where the Kishon river reaches the coastal sands.91 Canaanite jars made in this fabric seem principally to have been used for the transport of pistachio resin.92 Fabric ‘P31’ Fabric P31 is a coarse, medium hard and dense amphora fabric characterised by a zoned section: light red 2.5 YR 6/8 near the outer surface, yellow brown 10 YR 6/4 in the middle and gray 5 Y 5/1 in the innermost zone. Most conspicuous among the abundant temper are scattered large chunks of limestone and large black pebbles up to 4 mm. in diameter. Abundant medium to coarse mineral inclusions (quartz, feldspar and dark rock particles), and some medium limestone comprise the bulk of the inclusions. The uncoated surface has been well smoothed, in marked contrast to the coarseness of the paste, and fires to a light red 2.5 YR 6/6. Sherds of this fabric have been found in Eighteenth Dynasty contexts at Qantir,93

85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93

tion, 65, 73.

Aston, in: Raven, Iurudef, 49.

Aston et al., ÄuL 8, 1998, 142–3; Aston, in: Martin, Horemheb, forthcoming.

Unpublished, German Institute Excavations, led by Hourig Sourouzian.

Seiler, MDAIK 52, 1996, 227, fabric IV.07.05; Aston, Totentempel Merenptah IV, 41.

Nicholson/Rose, in: Kemp (ed.), Amarna Reports II, 138; Rose, Pottery Corpus from Amarna, 16.

Aston, Qantir I, 70.

Bourriau et al., in: Shortland, Technological Change, 140; Smith et al., in: Bourriau/Phillips (eds.), Invention and Innovation, 73.

Serpico/White, in: Eyre (ed.), Proceedings, 1037–1048; Serpico/ White, in: Nicholson/Shaw (eds.), Ancient Egyptian Materials, 430–474.

Aston, Qantir I, 69, fabric IV.07.02.

Introduction

Memphis94 and Thebes.95 Fabric P31 is assigned, by Bourriau, Smith and Serpico, to their Group 2, which, they suggest, probably comes from the Coastal plain of Israel, between Ashdod and Akko.96 Fabric ‘P39’ This is a Canaanite jar fabric characterised by its uniform orange-red, 2.5YR 5/6 red, section, with elongated pores, containing sub-angular clear, grey sub-angular sand, and a few large red particles. The surface of all examples is unslipped and fires reddish yellow 7.5 YR 7/6 to very pale brown 10 YR 7/4. This fabric has been previously noted at Thebes,97 as well as Amarna,98 Saqqara99 and Qantir.100 Fabric P39 is assigned, by Bourriau, Smith and Serpico, to their Group 1, which, they propose, like P11 and P30, probably comes from the seaward portion of the Jezreel Valley to the north-east of the Carmel Ridge, where the Kishion river reaches the coastal sands.101 Cannanite jars made in these fabrics seem principally to have been used for the transport of pistachio resin.102 Fabric ‘P40’ Fabric P40 is extremely hard and dense, and fires in section from grey black through 7.5 YR 5/6 strong brown to 2.5 YR 5/6 red. The surface tends to fire 7.5 YR 7/4 pink owing to the application of a self slip. Inclusions within the fabric include masses of coarse particles, though not so many as in fabric P16, which are especially noticeable on the inner surface where they are not obscured by any surface treatment. These inclusions comprise black and white particles, coarse straw, fine chaff and a little quartz.

On all the sherds found, the self slip has been applied with a brush, and this then seems to have been burnished.

Canaanite jars in this fabric are well known in Thebes having already been found in the Valley of the Kings,103 and the Mansion of Millions of Years of Merenptah,104 and elsewhere at Memphis, where it was the most common of the Canaanite Jar fabrics encountered in late Eighteenth

94 Bourriau, Eretz Israel 21, 1990, 23–24.

95 Seiler, Grab und Kult, 61.

96 Bourriau et al., in: Shortland, Technological Change, 140; Smith et al., in: Bourriau/Phillips (eds.), Invention and Innovation, 60.

97 Seiler, MDAIK 52, 1996, 229; Aston et al., ÄuL 8, 1998, 143.

98 Fabric IV.5, unpublished. P. Rose, personal communication.

99 Fabric P16, Bourriau, Eretz Israel 21, 1990, 22.

100 Aston, Qantir I, 69, fabric IV.07.03.

101 Bourriau et al., in: Shortland, Technological Change, 140; Smith et al., in: Bourriau/Phillips (eds.), Invention and Innovation, 73.

102 Serpico/White, in: Eyre (ed.), Proceedings, 1037–1048; Serpico/ White, in: Nicholson/Shaw (eds.), Ancient Egyptian Materials, 430–474.

103 Aston et al., ÄuL 8, 1998, 143; Aston, in: Martin, Horemheb, forthcoming.

104 Aston, Totentempel Merenptah IV, 42.

Aegyptiaca Helvetica 24, 2014

Dynasty levels,105 and at Qantir.106 It is assigned, by Bourriau, Smith and Serpico, to their Group 4, which, they propose, probably comes from the an area between present day Iskenderum Bay, Turkey, southwards along the Syrian coat as far as Latheqieh, and most likely the Baer-Bassit region.107 Jars made of this fabric were generally used for the transport of oil.108

Shape Classes It has now become commonplace, at least in English publications of Egyptian pottery to define the difference in definition between, for example, open shapes and closed forms, and, for instance, between plates and dishes using mathematical terms.109 The difference between open and closed forms is based on the aperture index (AI), that is the maximum diameter of the pot (MBD) divided by the aperture – the diameter of the pot measured across the top of the body (excluding any neck), – multiplied by 100. For New Kingdom vessels, which comprises most of the pottery in this book, a figure of 140 works well for dividing open forms from closed shapes. When the AI is 140 or less then the vessel is an open one, and when over 140, then it is a closed one. Within these two major groupings sub-classes can be differentiated by the vessel index (VI), that is the maximum diameter divided by the height and multiplied by 100. For open forms this is relatively easy since the maximum body diameter is usually at the top of the vessel. For closed forms one tends to use the VI of the body from the base of the neck (if there is one), and the foot (if there is one). When dealing with the material from Qantir I used the following divisions: for open forms then a VI of over 500 would indicate a plate, a VI of 400–500 would be a shallow dish, over 275 but under 400 would be a medium dish, a VI of over 125 to 275 would be a bowl, and a VI of 125 or less would be a beaker. Whilst these divisions seem to work relatively well for Ramesside material,110 they are not so valid for material of the Eighteenth Dynasty.111 Interestingly Barbara Aston in dealing with later Eighteenth Dynasty material from Saqqara (reigns of Tutankhamun–Horemheb), retained

105 Bourriau, Eretz Israel, 21, 1990, 25.

106 Aston, Qantir I, 70, Fabric IV.07.09.

107 Smith et al., in: Bourriau/Phillips (eds.), Invention and Innovation, 65, 73.

108 Serpico/White, in: Eyre (ed.), Proceedings, 1037–1048; Serpico/ White, in: Nicholson/Shaw (eds.), Ancient Egyptian Materials, 430–474.

109 Aston, Qantir I, 41–47; Rose, Pottery Corpus from Amarna, 7–10; Bourriau, Survey of Memphis IV, 11–13.

110 Cf. Aston, Qantir I, 42–43; Aston, Elephantine XIX, 9–14; Aston, Totentempel Merenptah IV, 42–43.

111 Aston, in: Raven, Pay and Raia, 101–102; Rose, Pottery Corpus from Amarna, 8; Bourriau, Survey of Memphis IV, 11.

15

the Ramesside bowl/dish division but was forced to move the beaker/dish border to 150; Pamela Rose studying material principally of the reigns of Akhenaten, Smenkhare and Ankhetkheperure at Amarna was able to ‘use’ the Ramesside parameters but with the dish/bowl boundary being moved from 275 to 250 so that everything over 250 would be a dish; whilst Janine Bourriau, who was working on material covering the entire Eighteenth Dynasty at Memphis was forced to redraw the dish/bowl boundary at 350. This tends to imply that the open shapes became more shallow over time. The closed shapes tend to be more consistent thus closed vessels with a VI of less than 50 are slender jars, with a VI of 50–90, tall jars, a VI of over 90 to 115 are globular jars, and over 115 are squat jars. Only at Amarna was the boundary between the slender and tall jars revised to 55, whilst, at Memphis a series of restricted vessels were added if the VI was 200 or more.

Since the majority of the pottery in this volume dates to the reign of Seti I or later, I have again adopted the Qantir parameters for the shape descriptions, although for the Tuthmosid material the Memphis dish/bowl boundary at 350 is used. This tends to work very well for all the pottery found, except for the two ‘bowls’ cat. nos. 292–293, which, by definition, ought to be termed dishes, but they are clearly larger versions of the bowls cat. nos. 282–291, and typologically belong with the bowl, cat. no. 294.

The amount of preservation of each rim and base is expressed as a percentage of the whole. Where two figures are given as 6.25%*6.25% this implies that the two rim pieces are physically joined to the same vessel but the rim sherds themselves do not touch one another. The expression 6.25% + 6.25% indicates two separate non-joining sherds which most probably derived from the same vessel, although there is no physical link between the two.

The recording of the rim sherd preservation in terms of percentages allows one, if one so wished, to quantitively assess how much pottery of a given type was present in a context, by utilising estimated vessel equivalents, eves, but as we only use rims, rim-eves.112 Put simply the rim eves produce a minimum number of whole vessels, as opposed to a minimum/maximum number of vessels which can be derived from a simple sherd count. For example if we have twenty dish rims of the same type and diameter, then clearly the maximum number of dishes is twenty, each sherd deriving from a different vessel, and, in terms of sherd counts, a minimum of one should all sherds belong to the same vessel. However by adding up the rim percentages, let us say for argument’s sake, that each of these twenty rim sherds preserved 16% of the diameter then the total percentage amount is 20 × 16 or 320%, hence the minimum number of vessels present

112 Orton et al., Pottery, 172–173.

16

is four.113 However, an estimate of the total number of vessels and the percentage of individual wares and types within the total is perhaps more useful as a source of statistics, especially if estimated in relationship to the whole context. With this in mind, Orton and Tyers devised a method for turning the rim-eves into a set of numbers, which have the same statistical properties as counts of objects, christening these pies, or pottery information equivalents.114 Since all the material found between KV 17 and KV 18 was recorded in this manner it would be possible to undertake such statistical analyses on this group of material. However, since it is highly unlikely that the pottery found in the present excavations is all that was originally present in tomb KV 17 and, moreover, since there is also the danger that certain rim types could derive from more than one type of vessel; this being true of the ‘ordinary beer jars’, below cat. nos.

104–117, and the beer jars with round to flattened bases, cat. nos. 118–121,115 this was not done.

113 For the application of this method in Egyptology, see Bader, Tell el-Dab‘a XIX, 518–601.

114 Orton/Tyers, ACalc 1, 1990, 81–110; Orton/Tyers, in: Pollard (ed.), New Developments, 163–184. Note the caveat, however, that under controlled experiments, the rim-eves, did not always relate to the total number of vessels, Chase, JFA 12, 1985, 213–218.

115 On this problem see Bader, in: Horejs et al. (eds.), Analysing Pottery, 214–215.

Introduction

II. Pottery Embedded in the Dakka The earliest material found by the current mission is that impressed into the Dakka, situated on the slopes of the hill just to the south-east of KV 18 and KV 54.

With the notable exception of the sherd, cat. no. 8, the sherds found were very small; however, this material probably dates to the reigns of Hatshepsut–Tuthmosis III since sherds cat. nos. 4 and 5 are from open shapes with so-called splash decoration, whilst cat. nos. 2 and 3 have black rim bands on a red slip. Splash decoration comprises red spots, splodges or splashes which generally occur on the interior of open forms; such red spots, splodges or splashes probably being made by spattering with a stiff brush, often in association with a red rim band.116 Several examples are known ranging in area from Beth Shan in the north to Qustul and Fadrus in the south. On current knowledge, this style of decoration was most popular during the reign of Tuthmosis III, and to all intents and purposes, did not survive much past the end of his reign. The examples from Fadrus tomb 195 and Ezbet Helmi L4926, may point to a slightly earlier appearance of the ware, whilst the stratified examples from Haruba probably extend the ware into the reign of Amenophis II, assuming that the vessels found there in Phase II were not old pieces at their time of deposition.117 The date of the introduction of black rims on Eighteenth Dynasty pottery is disputed, but is traditionally, although almost certainly incorrectly, assumed to have developed at the end of the Second Intermediate Period,118 though there is no real evidence for such a belief. It can be traced back to a bowl, found with the intact burial discovered by Petrie at Qurneh, which on the basis of a rishi coffin, was dated by him to the Seventeenth Dynasty since Seventeenth Dynasty royal coffins are of similar style.119 This Seventeenth Dynasty date has been defended in the most recent discussion of this group,120 on the grounds that the style of mummification is consistent with Seventeenth Dynasty mummification techniques. However, the factors quoted by Eremin, Goring, Manley and Cartwright, viz the poor tissue preservation, the presence of some brain material and the unbroken 116 Aston, in: Czerny et al. (eds.), Timelines I, 65–74.

117 For two more examples which may predate the reign of Tuthmosis III see now Budka, ÄuL 16, 2006, 93, fig. 5.5–6.

118 Bourriau, Umm el Ga‘ab, 74; Bourriau et al., ÄuL 15, 2005, 111; at first I also subscribed to this view – Aston, in: Bietak (ed.), Synchronisation of Civilisations II, 142, – but I now believe that black rims did not come into fashion until the reign of Amenophis I. – Aston, in: Bietak (ed.), Synchronisation of Civilisations III, 218–219.

119 Petrie, Qurneh, 6–10.

120 Eremin et al., KMT 11/3, 2000, 32–40.

Aegyptiaca Helvetica 24, 2014

nasal bones, indicative of little emphasis being placed on the actual preservation of the body, and the non-removal of the brain is also still current during the early Eighteenth Dynasty.121 Secondly, they suggest that this burial is that of a Seventeenth Dynasty queen simply on the location of the burial, in roughly the same general area as other known Seventeenth Dynasty royal burials. They also point out, however, that the gold earrings associated with this burial would appear to be the earliest noted example of an open-ended form which subsequently became popular in the New Kingdom, thus they, themselves, also leave the way open for a dating into the early New Kingdom. Later excavations at the Nécropole de l’Est at Deir el-Medineh,122 brought to light more rishi coffins in combination with amphorae, stamped with the cartouches of Hatshepsut and Tuthmosis III, and it is now known that such coffins extend from the Seventeenth Dynasty well into the reign of Tuthmosis III.123 In her examination of Petrie’s Qurneh burial, Bourriau has drawn attention to another rishi coffin, that of Rennefer, wife of Neferkhewet, keeper of palace documents under Hatshepsut. Providing Rennefer did not long predecease her husband then that coffin can thus be dated to the reign of Hatshepsut. In its style of decoration it bears two transversal bands as part of the design. These transversal bands are also found on the coffin of Rai, wet nurse to Ahmose-Nofretari, but do not occur on any of the Seventeenth Dynasty royal coffins. Since these bands are not found on the Qurneh burial coffin, Bourriau concludes, with Petrie, that the Qurneh burial should also be dated to the Seventeenth Dynasty. However, the rishi coffin found in tomb 1389 at Deir el-Medineh, is also of the type without transversal bands.124 The man buried in this coffin was accompanied by various grave goods including a double kohl tube (not pot) of wood and a mechak razor, both of which are indicative of a date no earlier than the reign of Tuthmosis III,125 and, 121 122 123 124

Cf. Dawson/Smith, Egyptian Mummies, 89–90.

Bruyère, Deir el-Médineh (1934–1935).

Taylor, Egyptian Coffins, 30.

For the coffin, Bruyère, Deir el-Médineh (1934–1935), 26 fig. 10; for the tomb group as a whole, Bruyère, Deir el-Médineh (1934–1935), 197–201.

125 Note that kohl pots tended to be replaced by kohl tubes sometime during the reign of Tuthmosis III – Bourriau, in: Arnold (ed.), Keramik, 40–41; Bourriau, in: Davies (ed.), Egypt and Africa, 139; B. Aston, Ancient Egyptian Stone Vessels, 146–149 – which is about the same time that mechak razors were first introduced – Eriksson, in: Fischer (ed.), Archaeology and History of the Bronze and Iron Ages, 183–199. Note if the razor shown in Bruyère, Deir el-Médineh (1934–1935), 81 fig. 40 is from tomb 1389, then the razor is of Eriksson’s type 2. Eriksson had noted

17

what is more telling, some of his accompanying boxes were closed with seals of Tuthmosis III, hence Bourriau’s argument for the date of the rishi coffin found by Petrie falls, a point already mentioned by Eriksson.126 That the Qurneh burial could be later than Petrie supposed, however, is also indicated by the bronze cutter (linen cutting knife) found with it, which finds ready parallels within, inter alia, Abydos Garstang tombs E.10, E.176, E.268 and E.294.127 That from tomb E.10 was found with a scarab of Tuthmosis III. The pottery from tombs E.10 and E.176 is so similar that E.176 must also be of the same date,128 whilst E.258 and E.294, the latter an intact burial in which the cutting knife was found in association with a mechak razor, a double kohl tube, Base Ring and Red Lustrous Wheel Made Ware, both contain pottery traditionally dated to the reign of Tuthmosis III. Although Petrie originally dated the cutting knife found in the Qurneh burial to the Seventeenth Dynasty, he seems to have subsequently changed his mind since in a later publication he dated such knives to the reign of Tuthmosis III, pointing out that they differ to one found in a context dated to the reign of Tuthmosis I.129 Moreover it should be noted that the pottery found with Petrie’s Qurneh burial is indisputably later in style than that associated with the Seventeenth Dynasty tomb of Nubkeperre Intef located in Dra Abu el-Naga.130 At this point it is probably significant to recall that among the relatively intact Theban tomb groups collected by Tyson Smith, none of those dated before the reign of Tuthmosis III, with the exception of Petrie’s Qurneh burial, which he accepted as of Seventeenth Dynasty date, contained black rimmed pottery.131 With the removal of the Qurneh burial, it is hard to pin down the earliest undoubted evidence for bowls with black rims. Many of them can be found in tomb contexts which clearly belong to, or were last used in, the reign of Tuthmosis III, but anything which is unequivocally earlier is hard to find. A bowl with a black rim was found in Gurob tomb 26 together with a scarab of Amenophis I, which thus acts as a terminus post quem. Black rimmed bowls are found in the filling material associated with tomb

126 127 128

129 130 131

18

that the type from tomb 1389 is unknown. Bruyère, Deir elMédineh (1934–1935), 81 fig. 40 shows a double kohl tube, the razor and an ointment spoon, but the accompanying text refers only to the double kohl tube which is stated to come definitely from tomb 1389.

Bourriau/Eriksson, in: Phillips (ed.), Ancient Egypt, 100.

Garstang, El Arabeh, 12, pl. xvi.

I fail to understand why Garstang dates E.176 to the reign of Amenophis III – Garstang, El Arabeh, pls. xvi, xxvii. The tomb group has been extensively discussed by Merrillees, Cypriote Bronze Age Pottery, 100, and Eriksson, Wheel-Made Ware, 89–91.

Petrie, Tools and Weapons, 50–51, pl. lxii:17–20.

Cf. Polz/Seiler, Nub-Cheper-Re Intef, 49–72.

Smith, MDAIK 48, 1992, 193–231.

K93.11 at Dra Abu el-Naga,132 which along with tomb K93.12, is thought by Polz to be the original burial site of Amenophis I and Ahmose-Nofretari.133 Thus, if the ceramic material can be associated with the first use of this double tomb, this would be a further indication that black rims developed during the reign of Amenophis I. At best, therefore, it would seem that black rims developed sometime between the reigns of Amenophis I and Tuthmosis III, and this is in keeping with the stratified pottery found at Ezbet Helmi.134 Similarly the ‘dot-line’ decoration found on the marl clay bowl, cat. no. 10, – defined as type C4 by Holthoer – horizontal (finger-)painted dots with frame lines above and below, and with a line running through the dots, – is also typical for the reign of Tuthmosis III.135 To date, the most comprehensive published corpus for pottery dating to the reigns of Hatshepsut and Tuthmosis III is that of Holthoer relating to the pottery from the Scandinavian concession in Nubia in general, and Fadrus Cemetrey 185 in particular.136 As a result during discussions of the sherd material found by the current mission, frequent recourse will be made to Holthoer’s typology, which was based on a comprehensive survey of complete shapes.

Nile Clay Vessels Miniature Dishes Miniature vessels137 were a common component of funeral assemblages and are fairly frequent in Eighteenth Dynasty tomb groups. Like the other examples found by the current mission, not enough is preserved to know which type of vessel is intended, but presumably it corresponds to Holthoer’s MI4 type – deep (and very deep) miniature dishes with unmodelled rims and flattened bases.138 All examples found by the MISR mission, both here and elsewhere within the Valley of the Kings were wheelmade, cut from the wheel with string and clumsily finished. Previously such vessels have been found in other Eighteenth Dynasty contexts within the Valley in

132 Seiler, MDAIK 59, 2003, 338–343.

133 Polz, MDAIK 51, 1995, 217; Polz, Der Beginn des Neuen Reiches, 172–192.

134 Aston, in: Bietak (ed.), Synchronisation of Civilisations III, 218–219.

135 Cf. Holthoer, Pharaonic Sites, 56, pl. 13; Bourriau et al., ÄuL 15, 2005, 120.

136 Holthoer, Pharaonic Sites; Troy, in: Säve-Söderbergh/Troy, Pharaonic Sites, 212–293.

137 For the difference between miniature and model vessels see Allen, in: Bárta (ed.), Old Kingdom, 21–24.

138 Holthoer, Pharaonic Sites, 89, pl. 19.

Pottery Embedded in the Dakka

KV 32,139 KV 36,140 KV 42,141 KV 54,142 KV 57,143 KV 62,144 and KV 63.145 These miniature dishes may well be votive in character, the more so since some of the vessels found in KV 54 and KV 63 were inscribed with dockets mentioning offerings, and various foods and drink, which may reflect either their erstwhile contents, or the belief that such contents were to appear by magical means.146 Similar carelessly made vessels were found in the Memphite tomb of Horemheb,147 where one was also inscribed with a docket referring to four pieces of roast meat.148 In view of the suggested date of this material it is of note that similar miniature vessels were also found in Wadi D, Tomb 1, the tomb of the three foreign wives of Tuthmosis III.149 1. 18/37 plate 1 Nile B2 uncoated ware, base diam. 3.5 cms.

Base preservation 50% preserved height 1.2 cms. KV 18 Dakka.

Shallow Dishes with direct rims Small shallow dishes, which are carefully made, redslipped, and given a band of black paint on the rim, are somewhat frequent in mid-Eighteenth Dynasty contexts. However, from the preserved sherds it is not possible to decide whether these vessels would have had a simple rounded base, similar to one found at Memphis,150 or a ring base, which is probably the more common.

Examples of the latter type are well known throughout Egypt with examples known from Ezbet Helmi,151 Saqqara,152 Memphis,153 Gurob,154 Riqqeh,155 and Qau tomb 7601,156 whilst similar rim forms are also known at Deir el-Bersha,157 Abydos158 and Thebes.159

139 Excavated by the current mission, and will appear in their publication of this tomb.

140 Daressy, Fouilles de la Vallée des Rois, 19–20, pl. v, CG 24030– 24036.

141 Rose, Pottery from KV 42, unpublished nos. 44–46.

142 Winlock, Materials, 14, plate x.

143 Aston, in: Martin, Horemheb, forthcoming.

144 Holthoer, in: el-Khouly et al., Stone Vessels, 70–76, fig. Q, pl. 36.

145 Schaden, ASAE 82, 2008, 254–255, figs. 23–24.

146 KV 54 – Winlock, Materials, 14. KV 63 – Schaden, ASAE 82, 2008, 236, 254, fig. 24.

147 Bourriau et al., Horemheb III, 15 fig. 6 nos. 22–29.

148 Schneider, Horemheb II, 11–12 [18], pls. 2, 4.

149 Lilyquist, Three Foreign Wives, 76, 99 nos. p76–p78.

150 Cf. Bourriau/Eriksson, in: Phillips (ed.), Ancient Egypt, 116 no. 5; Bourriau, Survey of Memphis IV, 61, type 1.1.1.

151 Aston, in: Bietak (ed.), Synchronisation of Civilisations III, 223, fig. 4d.

152 Firth/Gunn, Teti Pyramid Cemeteries, 66 fig. 74.9.

153 Bourriau, in: Davies (ed.), Egypt and Africa, 135 no. 6.

154 Brunton/Engelbach, Gurob, pl. xxxiii.9e.

155 Engelbach, Riqqeh and Memphis VI, pl. xxxiv.9d–e.

156 Brunton, Qau and Badari III, pl. xxx.

157 Bourriau et al., ÄuL 15, 2005, 111, fig. 11.1–2.

158 Budka, ÄuL 16, 2006, 98, fig. 10.2–4.

159 Seiler, MDAIK 59, 2003, 339 no. 6, 340 no. 3.

Aegyptiaca Helvetica 24, 2014

2. 18/25 plate 1 Nile B2 black rim on red slipped ware, rim diam. 14.4 cms. Rim preservation 1.56% Height 1.2 cms.

KV 18 Dakka.

3. 18/36 plate 1 Nile B2 black rim on red slipped ware, rim diam. 16.2 cms. Rim preservation 3.13% preserved height 0.9 cms. KV 18 Dakka.

Dishes with Splash Decoration.

Dishes with splash decoration are relatively common in the Theban area,160 and at least four examples were found in the current excavations (cat. nos. 4, 5, 14 and 25). Both sherds found in the dakka, cat. nos. 4 and 5 probably derive from dishes with direct rims and flat bases such as that illustrated as cat. no. 25.

4. 18/35 plate 1 Nile B2 red splash decoration on uncoated ware, preserved height 1.8 cms. KV 18 Dakka.

5. 18/19 plate 1 Nile B2 red splash decoration on uncoated ware, base diam. 6.0 cms. Base preservation 12.5% KV 18 Dakka.

Base of Open Form This base is undoubtedly from a small bowl with a rounded body and direct rim, of which several examples are known in contexts dated to the reign of Tuthmosis III at Ezbet Helmi.161 6. 18/40 plate 1 Nile B2 uncoated ware, base diam. 4.0 cms.

Base preservation 31.25% preserved height 1.5 cms. KV 18 Dakka.

Carinated Bowl The carinated bowl, cat. no. 7, is reminiscent of a bowl, type CB–7b, found at Qustul in tomb R25, which is dated to between the reigns of Amenophis III to post-Amarna, but there was nothing in the tomb to give a fixed date.162 In my opinion there is nothing in that tomb to preclude a dating into the reign of Tuthmosis III.163 In any case since the base of our example is not preserved the parallel should perhaps not be so rigidly enforced.

A somewhat similar vessel in terms of shape, but with additional incised decoration comes from Tomb 79 at Gurna.164

160 Guksch, Nacht-Min und Men-cheper-Ra-seneb, 85, Abb. 39c–e; Seiler, in: Assmann et al. (eds.), Thebanische Beamtennekroplen, 199, Abb 1 top right; Loyrette, Memnonia 8, 1997, 186, fig. 6f, 6i; Szafranski, in: Warsaw University and National Museum in Warsaw (eds.), Warsaw Egyptological Studies I, 64 nos. 5, 7, 10–12; Lilyquist, Three Foreign Wives, 94, figs. 59e–g, 60d, 97 fig. 64i; Aston, in: Czerny et al. (eds.), Timelines I, 66–67.

161 Eg. Aston, in: Bietak (ed.), Synchronisation of Civilisations III, 231 fig. 12a.

162 Williams, Qustul and Adindan, 80, fig. 2g; 172–173, fig. 28d.

163 Not many pots remained in this tomb, but the types of shallow bowls discovered in it were found neither at Malkata nor at Amarna.

164 Guidotti, EVO 8, 1985, 57 no. 61.

19

7. 18/41 plate 1 Nile B2 uncoated ware, rim diam. 16.6 cms.

Rim preservation 9.38% preserved height 4.8 cms. KV 18 Dakka.

Bowl with rolled rim and simple contour The bowl, cat. no. 8, is similar to an example found at Elephantine, where such a type is confined to Bauschicht 10,165 which is dated to the reign of Tuthmosis III.166 The complete examples indicate that this vessel would have had a ring base. Other rim sherds of undoubtedly similar bowls have been found at Ezbet Helmi, in levels also dated to the reign of Tuthmosis III,167 and at Memphis, Kom Rabi‘a.168 At Thebes an example was also found in the cult chapel erected by Wedjmes, just south of the Ramesseum.169 The chapel, however, underwent a long history from its founding at the beginning of the Eighteenth Dynasty, presumably under Tuthmosis I, since Wadjmes was his son, through apparent enlargements under Tuthmosis III,170 and IV,171 with subsequent renewals under Amenophis III,172 Ramesses II,173 and again in the late Nineteenth or Twentieth Dynasties.174 It was then reused as a mortuary chapel during the Third Intermediate Period when a number of tomb pits were dug through it, with the result that the dating of the pottery found here is somewhat problematic. Whilst most of it is clearly attributable to the mid-Eighteenth Dynasty, that material could, in theory, date anywhere between the reigns of Tuthmosis I, when the chapel was presumably first built, and Amenophis III, when the chapel was first renewed.

8. 18/26 plate 1 Nile B2 uncoated ware, rim diam. 35.6 cms.

Rim preservation 9.38% preserved height 8.0 cms. KV 18 Dakka.

Storage Jars The rim, cat. no. 9, obviously derives from a common type of storage jar which very rarely survives intact. Nevertheless good parallels for this rim form come from Deir

165 Seiler, MDAIK, 55, 1999, 212, Abb. 48.4.

166 Budka, MDAIK 61, 2005, 112.

167 Aston, in: Bietak (ed.), Synchronisation of Civilisations III, 227, fig. 8f.

168 Bourriau/Eriksson, in: Philipps (ed.), Ancient Egypt, 119 no. 7.

169 Lecuyot/Loyrette, Memnonia 6, 1995, 88, fig. 2d.

170 Georges Daressy records finding slabs here bearing the cartouches of Tuthmosis III, though these have since disappeared – ASAE 1, 1900, 106.

171 Stamped bricks bearing the cartouche of Tuthmosis IV were also found – Lecuyot/Loyrette, Memnonia 7, 1996, 119.

172 That the chapel was restored no earlier than the reign of Amenophis III is proved by the discovery of a ring bearing the latter’s name, found under the limestone sill at the entrance pylon. – Lecuyot/Loyrette, Memnonia 7, 1996, 119.

173 Daressy, ASAE 1, 1900, 101.

174 Snape/Wilson, Zawiyet Umm el-Rakham I, 86–87.

20

el-Bersheh,175 and Elephantine, Bauschicht 10.176 They are probably to be identified with the Nile silt versions of Holthoer’s JO1 round-based ovoid jars,177 although not enough is preserved to differentiate between any of Holthoer’s sub-types.

9. 18-39 plate 1 Nile B2 uncoated ware, rim diam. 12.5 cms.

Rim preservation 17.19% preserved height 4.4 cms. KV 18 Dakka. KV 18 Dakka.

Marl Clay Vessels Carinated Bowls This type of carinated bowl is fairly frequent in deposits of the early Eighteenth Dynasty. The type C4 ‘dot-line’ decoration on this example from the ‘Dakka’ and on others from Deir el-Bersheh is in a monochrome black, whereas similar pottery found at the ‘mortuary temple’ of Tuthmosis IV has bichrome decoration.178 This may have chronological significance, in that the monochrome vessels may be earlier than the bichrome ones. Another Theban example was found in the chapel of Wedjmes,179 whilst similar decoration is found on a round based bowl from TT 87, dated to the reign of Tuthmosis III.180 10. 18/34 plate 1 Marl A3 black painted on uncoated ware, rim diam. 17.2 cms. Rim preservation 25% preserved height 2.5 cms. KV 18 Dakka.

Jars Small jars with rolled rims are common in early to mid Eighteeenth Dynasty contexts, and close shape parallels were found with an intact burial discovered by Petrie at Thebes.181 11. 18/39 plate 1 Marl A3 uncoated ware, rim diam. 9.4 cms.

Rim preservation 17.19% preserved height 1.7 cms. KV 18 Dakka.

Amphorae This amphora sherd shows the characteristic indented rim and concave neck of a typical Marl D amphora of the type which I have characterised as class B1, particularly those dated to the reigns of Hatshepsut and Tuthmosis III.182 Amphorae of type B1 have rolled rims, short necks, rounded shoulders and slender bodies tapering 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182

Bourriau et al., ÄuL 15, 2005, 112, fig. 12.1.

Budka, MDAIK 61, 2005, 95, Abb. 29.3.

Holthoer, Pharaonic Sites, 157–161, pls. 36–37.

Guidotti/Silvano, Ceramica, fig. 11 nos. D104–107, fig. 16A, 133 no. 155 bis, 135 no. 181.

Lecuyot/Loyrette, Memnonia 7, 1996, 116, fig. 3 no. 5.

Guksch, Nacht-Min und Men-cheper-Ra-seneb, 1995, 85 Abb. 39a.

Petrie, Qurneh, pl. xxii.4, 15, 18, 22.

Aston, ÄuL 14, 2004, 187–188.

Pottery Embedded in the Dakka