A Glimpse into Ancient Thebes: Excavations at South Karnak (2004-2006) 9781407311562, 9781407341279

Citation preview

BAR S2538 2013 SULLIVAN A GLIMPSE INTO ANCIENT THEBES

B A R

A Glimpse into Ancient Thebes Excavations at South Karnak (2004–2006)

Elaine A. Sullivan

BAR International Series 2538 2013

A Glimpse into Ancient Thebes Excavations at South Karnak (2004–2006)

Elaine A. Sullivan

BAR International Series 2538 2013

Published in 2016 by BAR Publishing, Oxford BAR International Series 2538 A Glimpse into Ancient Thebes © E A Sullivan and the Publisher 2013 The author's moral rights under the 1988 UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act are hereby expressly asserted. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be copied, reproduced, stored, sold, distributed, scanned, saved in any form of digital format or transmitted in any form digitally, without the written permission of the Publisher.

ISBN 9781407311562 paperback ISBN 9781407341279 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781407311562 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library BAR Publishing is the trading name of British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd. British Archaeological Reports was first incorporated in 1974 to publish the BAR Series, International and British. In 1992 Hadrian Books Ltd became part of the BAR group. This volume was originally published by Archaeopress in conjunction with British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd / Hadrian Books Ltd, the Series principal publisher, in 2013. This present volume is published by BAR Publishing, 2016.

BAR PUBLISHING BAR titles are available from:

E MAIL P HONE F AX

BAR Publishing 122 Banbury Rd, Oxford, OX2 7BP, UK [email protected] +44 (0)1865 310431 +44 (0)1865 316916 www.barpublishing.com

CONTENTS Acknowledgements

ii

Chapter 1. Introduction

1

Chapter 2. The Mut Temple Precinct

7

Chapter 3. Report on Excavations

10

Chapter 4. Architectural Analysis of Third Intermediate Period Material

59

Chapter 5. The Pottery

76

Chapter 6. The Mut Temple Precinct and the Temple Economy in Thebes

144

Chapter 7. Late New Kingdom Material

161

Conclusion

166

Figure Credits

167

Appendix 1. Ceramic Drawings and Catalog

169

Appendix 2. Catalog of Small Finds

240

Appendix 3. Additional Excavations and Small Finds by Unit

249

Bibliography

257

Plates

L

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank a number of individuals who aided me during the many months of research involved in this project, both in the U.S. and in Egypt. Those generous with their time and advice included: Richard and Mary Fazzini, Dr. David Aston, Macie Hall, Madame Amira Khattab, and the entire staff at ARCE.

Financial support was provided by an American Research Center in Egypt dissertation grant and a J. Brien Key travel fellowship. Dr. Betsy Bryan originally suggested that I begin an independent project at the Mut temple site, and I would like to thank her for trusting me with such an important task. She was unfailing in her enthusiasm and support of my work at Mut, and I truly appreciate all the energy she spent guiding me through to its completion.

The excavation and study seasons could not have been completed without the invaluable participation of Will Raynolds, Henriette Koeford, Lila Brock, Mahmoud Fouad Ebaid Mohammed Abd el-Hady, Reis Farouk, and the whole Mut temple workcrew. Special thanks to Jay Van Rensselaer who expertly provided site photography for two of the three seasons in the field.

I would also like to credit the anonymous readers who commented on the manuscript and provided incredibly helpful guidance. Additional thanks for reading and editing go to Dr. Elizabeth Waraksa.

Permission for this project was generously granted by the then Supreme Council of Antiquities of Egypt (now MSA) and its then Secretary General Dr. Zahi Hawass, Undersecretary Dr. Sabry Abdel-Aziz, and the Director of Luxor Monuments Dr. Mansour Bourroki. The SCA’s 2005 General Director in Luxor, Dr. Huleil Ghali, and Director of Karnak Monuments, Ibrahim Suleiman, both provided direct encouragement during my stay in Luxor, and I thank them especially for their time and concern. The SCA inspectors assigned to this project facilitated my work in many ways, including Ghada Ibrahim Fouad, Atef Abu el Fadel, Ramadan Ahmed Ali Ahmed, and Ahmed Araby.

Finally, I’d like to give special thanks to Elizabeth Waraksa, Greg O’Malley, and my parents Michael and Carol Sullivan for their emotional support and love during my years at Johns Hopkins.

LL

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION While the modern public’s image of ancient Egypt may be dominated by that culture’s impressive funerary monuments and temples, it was within her cities and villages that the Egyptians lived, worked, prayed, gave birth, and died. Archaeology in ancient urban areas allows us to study the material expression of the day-today tasks and economic interactions of ordinary people who played no small role in centers of Egyptian culture. Houses, workshops, bakeries, offices, and other remains of town or city life offer a unique window on the physical world of the time – a world rarely represented in image and text. While the study of city areas may not offer the rich artistic rewards of the more frequently explored temples and tombs, it gives us the opportunity to document the actual social and economic transactions that made up everyday life for thousands of people.

Amarna, located in Middle Egypt. Sir Flinders Petrie worked in the main town site at Amarna in 1891-92, digging a temple, a royal palace, and a number of large houses. The Deutsche Orient-Gesellschaft sponsored the next major excavation project at the city, clearing huge strips of the town from 1907 until 1914. The British Egypt Exploration Society took the concession in 1920 and began excavating under the directorship of Peet and Wooley (Peet and Wooley 1923:v-vi). The EES continued the German expedition’s work in uncovering the town, publishing results through their 1936 season (Pendlebury 1951:vii). The combined effort revealed hundreds of houses of various sizes, monumental temples, an administrative zone complete with library and offices for conducting international correspondence, royal palaces, roads, and a workmen’s village.

This work examines one small section of the ancient city of Thebes, located near modern Luxor. Excavations at the site uncovered remains from the late New Kingdom, Third Intermediate Period, and Late Period occupation of the area. The project’s goal was to learn how this part of the city was utilized and the nature of its relationship with the neighboring Mut temple. A large-scale mud-brick building dated to the Third Intermediate Period was uncovered during the course of excavations, and the investigation of the function of this building and its role in the city became the primary focus of research. As well as providing answers to the above questions, it is hoped that this examination will contribute to the question of how ancient Egyptian urban areas can be more effectively studied using techniques developed by archaeologists working outside of Egypt.

More modern work in Egypt’s ancient cities has shifted focus from rapid and total site exposure to more deliberate and concentrated efforts. Kemp continued the work of the British at Amarna, with his teams focusing on issues like food and water supply (Kemp 1994:133153, Hulin, Kemp and Kirby 1984:60-80), pottery production (Rose 1989a:82-95), and site formation processes (Kemp 1995:146-168). At the more recently discovered village at Giza, carefully recovered faunal remains have been used to better understand crownsponsored food preparation at the site (Lehner 1997:4-6). Thorough analysis of the small finds at the Kom Rabi’a section of Memphis allowed excavators Jeffreys and Giddy to hypothesize the level and type of production practiced by the area’s inhabitants (Giddy 1999:3, 9-11). These projects and many others have taken advantage of rich artifact assemblages to answer specific questions about the social and economic systems of urban areas.

Urban Archaeology in Egypt

Single-period and artificial settlements4 like those at Amarna or Giza have offered interesting information on town planning, state initiatives, and domestic architecture. But as Spencer explained, long-lasting organic towns and cities like Memphis record the metamorphoses of a city, “revealing something of the settlement pattern and growth of the town and how the settlements related to the major public buildings” (Spencer 1993:49). These sites can show the changing relationship between temple and town, the waxing and waning fortunes of a city, and how town layout and use of space evolves due to fluctuating social and economic needs through time. As one of ancient Egypt’s most important cities, Thebes offers one of the best possibilities to investigate such questions.

Despite the lure of mummies and grave goods from Egypt’s countless tombs, a number of late 19th century and early 20th century Egyptologists recognized the importance of the country’s ancient urban areas and began exploration into city sites. Early investigations included workmen’s towns attached to royal funerary construction projects,1 settlements linked with royal palaces,2 and settlements associated with temples.3 The largest and most revealing of all the cities excavated in this period was the New Kingdom city of Tell el 1

Including the villages or towns at Abydos excavated by Currelly around the turn of the century (Weigall, Currelly and Ayrton 1904:3738), Lahun, excavated by Petrie in 1888-1890 (Petrie 1974:5-15), and Deir el Medina, excavated in the late 1920s and early 1930s by Bruyère (Bruyère 1933:5-18, Bruyère 1934:72-91). 2 This includes the settlement at Deir el Ballas, excavated in 1900-1902 by Reisner but mostly unpublished (Lacovara 1997:6-14) and settlement areas at Malqata, excavated by Tytus in 1901-1903 (Tytus, Robb de Pyster 1994:26) and the Metropolitan Museum of Art in 1910-1920. Materials from those excavations remain mostly unpublished (Lacovara 1997:48-49). 3 Most notably, the series of Ramesside and post-Ramesside domestic levels at Medinet Habu excavated by Hölscher from 1927-1933 (Hölscher 1934:1, Hölscher 1951, Hölscher 1954).

4

Lacovara describes an artificial settlement as “deliberately created by the state for a specialized purpose such as a military outpost or a ceremonial center” (Lacovara 1997:18).



Figure 1.1: Map of Egypt with Important City Sites (See Figure Credits for Attribution) The City of Thebes

Egypt. The city’s cemeteries and a series of mortuary temples lay across the river on the west bank. In the Old Kingdom, Thebes was merely a small town, but by the end of Dynasty 4 it had become the regional nome capital

The city of Thebes, ancient Waset (WAst), was located on the east bank of the Nile in the northern part of Upper



(Polz 2001:384-386). When the nation fissured into northern and southern polities during the First Intermediate Period, Thebes gained power, operating as the base for the powerful Intef family who would eventually politically reunify the country into the Middle Kingdom (Seidlmayer 2000:133-137, 144-145). The city probably expanded during the Middle Kingdom, estimated by Kemp to have spanned at least 500,000 square meters and followed a rigid grid layout, like many other planned Middle Kingdom cities (Kemp 2006a:227, 265). Karnak temple, whose earliest form probably dates to a temple or chapel dedicated by Intef II of Dynasty 11, was expanded and possibly oriented towards the Nile by the Dynasty 12 kings. Additions included a limestone jubilee building, a mud-brick enclosure wall, and the famous “white chapel” of Senwosret I (Barguet 1962; Gabolde 1998, 1999; Ullman 2007). Thebes retained its importance during a second breakdown of central authority, acting as the home base for the Dynasty 17 rulers who governed Upper Egypt during the Second Intermediate Period. Soon after this powerful dynasty gained control of the north of the country, the city lost its position as political capital, but its importance as a cult center would only continue to increase (Bourriau 2000:203-206, Kemp 2006a: 264-265, Vandorpe 1995:204).

New Kingdom pharaohs bolstered the cults of Amun and other deities with lavish building projects at a number of locations within the city. Main centers of activity included the temple of Montu, the temple of Amun at Karnak, the temple of Luxor, the temple of Mut, and the short-lived Gem-pa-Aten temple situated east of the Amun temple enclosure (Gabolde and Rondot 1999:394397, Arnold 2003:17, Fazzini 1999:398-399, Golvin 1999:402-403, Murnane 1999:449-451, Redford 1999:392). Thebes operated not only as a religious center, but also as an administrative center for Upper Egypt and Nubia to the south (O'Connor 1998:154). The city grew extensively in the New Kingdom, with its central zone likely spanning the area from the Amun complex at Karnak to Luxor temple (Polz 2001:384). By the reign of Amenhotep III, O’Connor has suggested that the city accounted for 600 hectares and housed 90,000 Egyptians (O'Connor 1998:155). Rulers from later periods continued to support and enhance the temple cults, and new stone pylons, porches, columned halls, and chapels expanded or replaced the earlier versions (Barguet 1962; Golvin 1999:403). Little is known about the extent of the city during this time, although Redford’s excavations outside the Amun complex at east Karnak suggest that the city in that area

Figure 1.2: The City of Thebes (See Figure Credits for Attribution)



declined after Dynasty 30 and its center shifted south to Luxor (Redford, 1991:75-106). Greco-Roman period texts show that at that time residential areas existed north and southwest of the Amun precinct, as well as further south in the area around Luxor (Vandorpe, 1995:211221).

site. As a result, there is usually little possibility of comparing a structure to hundreds of other examples from within the town or situating it in relation to the overall city layout. Instead, archaeologists working in settlement areas now take a multi-tiered approach to their investigations, utilizing all possible lines of evidence to help identify functional, social, and economic information about the buildings they uncover.

The excellent preservation of the temples in Thebes has resulted in its religious center being one of the most investigated in all of Egypt, with excavation, documentation, or preservation projects currently ongoing at many of the major east bank temple sites. Despite the valuable knowledge gained from these monuments about the political, ideological, and religious world of the time, work in these precincts has only provided a few glimpses into the urban matrix of the city. O’Connor lamented that scholars remain “…ignorant of [the temples’] relationship to the city proper, the assemblages of palatial and administrative buildings, granaries and magazines, and residences and manufactories that in their totality made up the city” (O'Connor 1998:154-155). While Thebes’ monumental religious layout is surely one of the best-understood plans of all Egyptian cities, the integration of administrative and domestic areas into the overall picture remains to be achieved. Only when this task is realized will insights into how the cult spaces fit into the daily lives of the Thebans be possible.

Utilizing Anthropological Theories and Methods The challenges of settlement archaeology all over the globe have inspired scholars working in Old and New World settings to invent new techniques and theoretical models to explore and analyze this information. Some of the most influential of these advances made by anthropologically oriented archaeologists revolve around the concepts of activity areas and household archaeology. Elements from both of these ideas have been incorporated into this work. An activity area can be simply defined as the “locus at which a particular human event occurred” (Kent 1984:1). Because human behavior and culture are patterned, scholars argue that sets of activities leave traces visible in the archaeological record, either at the locus where the activity took place or often in a secondary context that could be linked to the original area of activity. By carefully examining these “activity areas,” archaeologists can discern and explain the patterns of human activities that provide information on how people used a given space during the past (Kent 1987:1-3, 43-47). Investigators attempting this type of analysis have utilized various techniques, but most focused on analyzing the quantity, character, and distribution of artifacts at a site or building (Gnivecki 1987:196-225, Newell 1987:148-155, Nicholas 1990:105-117, Seymour and Schiffer 1987:586-597).

Investigating Urban Thebes The layout and development of the city of Thebes interests scholars studying the monumental temple complexes and processional routes of Pharaonic cities as well as those concerned with the form of ancient Egyptian urbanism. Yet few projects have focused on exposing the non-cultic sections of the ancient city. This project studied a section of south Karnak, an area that originally stood outside the Mut temple’s New Kingdom enclosure wall, although it now lies within the presentday precinct. Measuring approximately 30,000 square meters, this expanse of land could have held houses, workshops, administrative offices, or other components of urban life during the Pharaonic Period. Because the modern city of Luxor and its surrounding villages presently cover much of the ancient city (Bietak 1979:125), the area enclosed by the Mut temenos now exists as one of the largest sections of ancient Thebes available for excavation. This project had the rare opportunity to study one small part of the workings of a city at the core of the Egyptian nation.

Household archaeology is the study of a group of past people, usually co-residential, who shared production, consumption, and reproductive tasks (Wilk and Ashmore 1988:6, Wilk and Rathje 1982:620-621). The study of the household can be viewed as an especially important source for understanding the social and economic world of the past. The household was the most prevalent unit in most communities cross-culturally, and it stood at the point of interaction between individuals and the larger community (Allison 1999:1, Netting, Wilk and Arnould 1984:xxi-xxiii, Wilk and Rathje 1982:618). Ethnographic and archaeological projects investigated how space was used, what social and economic tasks the household performed, the connection between the household and the community or state, and how all these questions could be addressed using archaeologically visible remains. 5 Researchers applied many of the theories and techniques underlying “activity-area” research because both concepts focused on identifying recurring patterns of activities (Wilk and Netting 1984:5).

One major difficulty for Egyptologists attempting archaeology in settlement or urban areas lies in identifying the function of mud-brick buildings. While the ancient Egyptians generally adhered to a set of basic design principles for their monumental stone structures, the cheaper and less permanent brick architecture varied greatly. Unlike the huge city clearances that took place at the site of Tell el Amarna in the early 20th century, the total area fully exposed in modern excavations typically constitutes only a very small percentage of an ancient city

5

See especially the numerous articles in the following volumes: Allison 1999, Wilk and Rathje 1982:611-728.



considered to explore the possible importance of this structure within the larger city of the time. The texts clearly demonstrate that the Theban temples were involved in a sophisticated network of taxation, gifting, and redistribution with a variety of groups - the city, the crown, and landholders or renters in far-flung areas of the country. This manuscript argues that Building A played a role in this temple-dominated system of administration: collecting, temporarily storing, and then reintroducing the wealth of the Mut temple back into the larger economy.

As one scholar explained: “archaeologists who define the household as an activity group recognize the need for methods that link inference of household behavioral organization to archaeological signatures” (Alexander 1999:79). Along with textual and architectural evidence, investigators frequently used artifact assemblages found within and around domestic structures to define and understand the activities of the household (Allison 1999:5-6, 14-15). Both activity-area research and household archaeology have focused on using multiple lines of evidence, often including a close study of artifact assemblages, to better understand how groups used a given space in the past. Household archaeology especially has concentrated on investigating both the economic operations of a single group and its participation in the wider community economy. This project has adopted and adapted these methods to address the problem of interpreting building and area function in an ancient Egyptian city. Because the built environment can offer only limited information on the function of Egyptian structures, evidence for patterns of activities has been gathered from the abundant ceramic remains onsite. The pottery uncovered at the south Karnak excavations was carefully collected and recorded, then assigned to functional categories and quantified. This type of close investigation has allowed differences between chronological levels to be noted and area usage for each level to be hypothesized. Within the levels of the Third Intermediate Period, the ceramic materials were used to document one building’s participation primarily in short-term storage and consumption, tasks that suggest a non-domestic use of this structure.

Outline of Chapters Chapter 2 provides a brief chronology of construction and royal patronage at the Mut temple precinct, based primarily on information gained through excavations by the Brooklyn Museum of Art and the Johns Hopkins University. This section explores the changing nature of Thebes and south Karnak as the neighboring Mut temple expanded over time. Chapter 3 summarizes the excavations at the south Karnak site undertaken for this project, including a description of methodology and a unit-by-unit account of results by chronological stratum. The form and construction of a large-scale mud-brick building dated to the Third Intermediate Period (Building A) are discussed, as well as issues concerning this structure’s abandonment and related processes of deposition. A reconstruction of the building’s ground plan is offered here as well. In Chapter 4, the correlation between form and function in ancient Egyptian urban architecture is addressed and applied to help understand the function of the Third Intermediate Period mud-brick building (Building A). Excavation reports and the scholastic debate evaluating domestic, palace, and administrative architecture are reviewed. Characteristic architecture from each category is compared and contrasted with the reconstruction of Building A, and conclusions are made about that building’s function based on these characteristics.

Utilizing Scholarship from within the Field of Egyptology This work attempts to meld these anthropological concepts with Egyptology’s more traditional emphasis on architectural remains by combining information from both spheres. A long history of interest in building form in the discipline of Egyptology has resulted in a significant body of scholarship dealing with brick and stone architecture. While Egyptian buildings may not show a one-to-one relationship between form and function, architectural patterns can be documented. The Third Intermediate Period structure uncovered during this project’s excavations has therefore been analyzed and compared to examples from other Egyptian city sites. Through comparison to plans and images of palaces, houses, and administrative structures, this building can be best interpreted as built for administration.

Chapter 5 outlines the increasing use of ceramic studies as a tool in social and economic investigations by archaeologists. Those studies inform this work’s utilization of ceramics to document patterns of activities for each excavation stratum and to hypothesize the function of the Third Intermediate Period Building A. The methodology followed by this study, as well as how deposition practices could affect its outcome, is discussed. A description of the ceramics, a vessel typology, and an analysis of vessel function are then presented and compared to ceramic finds from other urban sites in Egypt.

The main focus of this project lies with the identification of the function and significance of the large-scale Third Intermediate Period mud-brick building (Building A). The abovementioned ceramic and architectural analyses have been integrated to show that this structure operated primarily as a locus of short-term dry and liquid goods storage, most likely built for administration by the neighboring temple entities. Textual evidence for the Third Intermediate Period temple economy in Thebes is

Chapter 6 attempts to contextualize Building A by identifying its possible physical and economic relationship with the Mut temple and the greater Karnak temples. First, the size and design of the Mut temple from the New Kingdom through the Greco-Roman period is sketched, showing the precinct wall’s actual or hypothesized location during each period. The position of



Building A during its life, and the significance of this for the interpretation of its function, is then conjectured based on this knowledge. Next, the textual evidence documenting the temple-based economy of Thebes from the late New Kingdom through the Late Period is discussed, and how the mud-brick structure might have been involved with this economy is explored. This chapter endeavors to move beyond mere description to understand how this structure might have been integrated into the greater fabric of the Third Intermediate Period city of Thebes.

Chapter 7 examines the small amount of Late New Kingdom material excavated on site. The architectural features discovered are compared with possible parallels from other contemporary settlements that may offer clues to their original form and purpose. While Thebes holds some of the best examples of New Kingdom tomb and temple architecture, little to no areas of settlement have been recovered. These recent excavations offer a tantalizing glimpse into what may be the domestic zone of one of Egypt’s most important New Kingdom cities.



CHAPTER 2: THE MUT TEMPLE PRECINCT The temple of the goddess Mut and its precinct are located on the east bank of the Nile river, in the ancient city of Thebes, near modern Luxor (N25° 42'42.28" E32° 39'19.69"). The temple is located approximately 325m south of the temple of Amun at Karnak, and the two temples are connected by an ancient processional way (Fazzini 1999:397 and fig. 1). The Mut temple is enclosed by a large mud-brick wall, 250mx350m, entered on its northern side through a monumental stone gateway decorated by Ptolemaic kings (Arnold 2003:156). The greater precinct area consists of 90,000 square meters and

encompasses five additional temples: the contra temple (located at the rear of the Mut temple itself) and temples A, B, C, and D (fig. 2.1 and plate 1) (Fazzini and Peck 1983a:16-23). Major excavations were first started at the temple in the mid 1890s by Benson and Gourley. They cleared, recorded, and excavated areas mostly inside and around the temple proper (Benson and Gourlay 1899:391, [1]). In the 1920s, Pillet excavated at the Mut precinct with an Egyptian Antiquities Organization mission, working on

Figure 2.1: The Mut Temple and Surrounding Precinct (See Figure Credits for Attribution)



the restoration of temple A and temple C. Temple C was additionally recorded by the University of Chicago Epigraphic Survey. In 1975, the French Institute of Archaeology in Cairo began a short project to clear the temple’s entrance of debris and to record its inscriptions (Fazzini 1999:398).

•

• •

In 1976, the Brooklyn Museum of Art, joined by a team from the Detroit Institute of Art, started work at the Mut temple. Their investigations were concerned with the extent of rebuilding and remodeling of the Mut temple during and after the Third Intermediate Period. In the team’s first years of work at the temple, they examined the temple’s second pylon (both the east and west towers), cleared the contra temple, and identified a stone gateway built by king Taharqa (Fazzini and Peck 1982:39-43, 1983b:46, 1981:115). Much of the current knowledge of the site stems from the subsequent work of the Brooklyn Museum/Detroit Institute excavations. In 2001, the Johns Hopkins University began work at the temple, focusing its investigations on a variety of areas of the temple precinct, including the Tuthmosis III gateway, the temple’s interior courts, a large scale wall immediately south of the sacred lake, and a series of workshops and production areas related to a second wall (Bryan 2003:1-4). Both expeditions continue to work at the temple today.

Middle Kingdom through New Kingdom The north section of the current Mut temple precinct appears to have been either mostly or completely covered by settlement during the Middle Kingdom and beginning of the Second Intermediate Period, as excavations in front of temple A encountered domestic materials from this time. Sometime in either the late Second Intermediate Period or early New Kingdom a cult building for the goddess Mut was erected.2 While possible mention of the temple occurs on a Dynasty 17 statue, the earliest dated cult architecture so far uncovered dates to the reigns of Hatshepsut/Tuthmosis III (Fazzini and Peck 1982:44, Fazzini 1999:397-398). Bryan, working inside the Mut temple proper, discovered extensive evidence for the original stone Tuthmoside temple first constructed during the joint reign of Tuthmosis III and Hatshepsut. This material includes a number of inscribed and relief decorated blocks (Bryan 2008b:29). Additionally, a stone gateway inscribed for the co-rulers has been located to the west of the temple. Sections of the related enclosure wall have also been revealed (Bryan 2003:1). At this point in Dynasty 18, the temple precinct likely encompassed only the area spanning the present temple’s first pylon in the north to the sacred lake in the south (Fazzini 1999:398).

Chronology of the Mut Temple Precinct’s Construction A brief chronology of the temple precinct and its construction as currently understood will be presented here. Significant activity in the Late New Kingdom, Third Intermediate Period, and early Late Period in other sections of the precinct will be highlighted, as these directly bear on interpretations of the area excavated for this project.

Excavations to the south of the sacred lake discovered a series of late Second Intermediate Period workrooms directly overlain by Dynasty 18 bakeries, breweries, and granaries. A thick feature identified as a large Dynasty 18 enclosure wall was uncovered running parallel (eastwest) to the rear of the lake. Walls running north off this wall created small work rooms that held circular storage bins and New Kingdom pottery. A second enclosure wall, also of Dynasty 18 but about 5m closer to the sacred lake, was identified as well (Bryan 2004a:2, 6, Bryan 2008b:27).

Outline of Egyptian Chronology:1 • • •

•

Late Period: Dynasty 26: 664-525 Dynasty 27: 525-359 Dynasties 28-30: 404-332 (overlaps with end of Dynasty 27) Ptolemaic Period: 332-30 Roman Period: 30-395 CE

Middle Kingdom: 2055-1650 Second Intermediate Period: 1650-1550 New Kingdom: Dynasty 18: 1550-1295 Dynasty 19: 1295-1069 Dynasty 20: 1186-1069 Third Intermediate Period: (some dynasties are located in different centers and are chronologically contemporary) Dynasty 21: 1069-945 Dynasty 22: 945-715 Dynasty 23: 818-715 Dynasty 24: 727-715 Dynasty 25: 747-656

Later in Dynasty 18, the Tuthmoside Mut temple was restructured, possibly by Amenhotep III (Bryan 2008b:29-30). A sounding made at the first pylon suggests it was not constructed until the Ramesside period, and the excavator suspected the mud-brick pylon replaced an earlier (Thutmoside) gated wall. Temple A may also have been reworked in late Dynasty 18. 2

There may have been a cult building to Mut present in the Middle Kingdom. Van Siclen identified a mud-brick platform in the court of the Amun-Re temple’s ninth pylon as the location for a bark shrine of Senwosret I (Van Siclen 2005). A north-south processional way at this time would parallel the later link between the two temples, suggesting a cult building existed in south Karnak. Bryan recently reported discovering a stone inscription that may reference a Middle Kingdom form of the temple (Bryan 2008a).

1

Chronology is based on the dates given in: Shaw 2000:480-483. All dates are BCE unless noted.



Fazzini’s team discovered what they believed was temple A’s New Kingdom enclosure wall, suggesting this complex did not become part of the Mut precinct until later. Temple A was probably reconstructed by Ramesses II in Dynasty 19, as the structure was partially built of reused blocks belonging to that king. Temple C, built by Ramsses III, may have stood outside the precinct at this time (Bryan 2008b:29-30, Fazzini 2008, Fazzini 1999:398-399, Fazzini and Peck 1983a:21).

function from a “temple of millions of years” to a mammisi (birth house) dedicated to the child god Khonsu. Colossal statues from Ramesses III’s temple (temple C) were also used as building material in temple A’s renovations, which suggested that temple C had fallen into disuse by this point. (Fazzini 1999:399, Fazzini and Peck 1983a:20-21, Fazzini 1980:250-251). The original form of temple B (located east of the temple proper) is also dated by Fazzini to the 25th Dynasty (Fazzini 1999:399).

Third Intermediate Period Behind the sacred lake, excavation confirmed that the workspaces around the outer New Kingdom enclosure wall were reused during Dynasties 21 and 25-26. Reuse of other areas between the two New Kingdom enclosure walls for baking, storage, and dumping ceramics was documented for Dynasties 25-26 as well (Bryan 2004a:12).5

In Dynasty 25, major rebuilding took place at the temple precinct, especially under Taharqa and Mentuemhat.3 The Dynasty 25 porches in front of the first pylon were constructed (later replaced by Ptolemaic ones)4 and temple B may have been built at this time (later rebuilt in Dynasty 30) (Fazzini 1999:399). A pink granite statue of a king with the ram of Amun in granite, dated stylistically to Dynasty 25, was found by Fazzini around the east porch of the temple. Although it clearly did not stand in its original context, it may also have been a Third Intermediate Period addition to the temple. Inside the temple, reused blocks suggested that the core section of the Mut temple had been totally reimagined at this time. Renovations included a restructuring of the central colonnade in Mut’s second court and possibly a rebuilding of most of the temple from that court southward (Fazzini and Peck 1981:116, 118, Fazzini and Peck 1983a:22-23).

Late Period A chapel to the “god’s wife of Amun” Nitrocris was constructed within temple A during the early part of Dynasty 26, and the practice of adding small chapels to the temple continued into the Late Period and Ptolemaic Period (Fazzini 1999:399, Fazzini 2005a:87). Other additions and modifications were made to the rear of temple A in Dynasty 30 and the Ptolemaic Period. Most influential on the structure of the precinct was the construction of the immense new enclosure wall during Dynasty 30. The expanded precinct now included temple C and the large area of land behind Mut’s sacred lake (Fazzini 1999:399, Fazzini 1980:250).

At this point, the precinct enclosure wall was expanded to bring temple A, as well as the area north of the then temple, into the sacred zone. Taharqa built a monumental stone gateway along the precinct’s new western wall, creating a processional entrance running through to temple A. The southern section of the mudbrick enclosure wall pierced by the gateway has been identified in excavations by the Brooklyn team. The northern section of the wall was recently uncovered and runs up to the present day enclosure on the temple’s north side (Fazzini 1999:399, Fazzini 2010).

Ptolemaic and Roman Periods Occupation of the Mut temple precinct continued in Ptolemaic and Roman times. Temple D was constructed and decorated with relief by Ptolemy VI and VIII. The contra-temple, located at the temple’s rear, was either redecorated or rebuilt, and new relief decoration was added within the temple proper. The east tower of Mut’s second pylon was built in sandstone. The first pylon’s columned porch was rebuilt and reinscribed utilizing some of the original Third Intermediate Period column drums. A columned porch was added (or rebuilt) before temple A’s first pylon. The massive stone gateway to the present temple was constructed and decorated by the Ptolemies. Roman emporers record the erection (possibly a renewal) of the huge enclosure wall now surrounding the temple. Small domestic structures, located west of the earlier Taharqa gateway, cropped up in the later Ptolemaic and Roman periods (Fazzini 2005b, Fazzini 1999:399, Fazzini 1984-1985:299-300, Fazzini and Peck 1982:39-43, Fazzini and Peck 1980:41).

Temple A was refashioned out of reused blocks of Ramesses II’s earlier temple. It appeared to the excavators that the entire back section of the temple (from the second pylon back) had been rebuilt in Dynasty 25. Wall decoration added in relief in Dynasty 25 showed the temple had been changed in 3

A relief on a small chamber in Mut depicts Taharqa, the governor of Thebes Mentuemhat, and the latter’s father and son offering to the goddess. The accompanying text describes the building projects headed by Mentuemhat at the Mut temple, including the construction of sandstone columns (Fazzini 1988:16). An inscribed statue of the Mentuemhat claimed he organized the rebuilding of the temple with sandstone blocks. A chapel in the east side of the temple is also assigned to him (Fazzini and Peck 1981:115). 4 Evidence for the addition of a porch in Dynasty 25 includes the pieces of large columns inscribed for King Taharqa which were discovered reused in the Ptolemaic porch (Fazzini and Peck 1981:118, Fazzini and Peck 1983a:22).

5 Bryan’s teams excavated plastered work surfaces dated to Dynasties 25-26 during the 2006 season. The exact function of these remains unknown (Bryan 2008b:27).



CHAPTER 3: REPORT ON EXCAVATIONS This project began in January of 2004 at the precinct of Mut (fig 3.1 and plate 1). An open swath of land behind the sacred lake was chosen as the project’s location. The excavation area was initially termed “IX G West,” the designation it will retain here, which correlates to square VIII F on the Karnak grid (fig. 3.2).1 This area was thought to contain the Pharaonic Period city and settlement site associated with the temple. The temple’s current temenos wall, whose form originated in Dynasty 30 (Fazzini 1999:399), likely incorporated a large section of previously secular space into the sacred precinct. That the precinct’s form was also abbreviated along its southern side prior to Dynasty 30 was confirmed by excavations immediately south of the sacred lake. Here, large-scale brick walls that likely marked the southern extent of the precinct during the New Kingdom were uncovered (Bryan 2004a). The section of land under investigation for this project was therefore hypothesized to include secular areas of urban Thebes dated to the New Kingdom, Third Intermediate Period, and Late Period. This project contributes to our understanding of the chronology and nature of the mud-brick occupation south of the temple’s sacred lake.

the project focused, and most of the pitting and reuse seems to have been ancient. None of the Ptolemaic and Roman period occupation covering the northwest section of the precinct (Fazzini and Jasnow 1988:24) has appeared in any of the areas investigated. Excavations in other sections of the expanse may display different results, but if not, intensive use of this area ended in the early part of the Late Period. There is no record that the author knows of concerning any previous archaeological investigations here, and the publication of Benson and Gourlay, two early excavators of the Mut temple, only describes the temple environs as far south as a broad foot path running south of the Rameses III temple (temple C) (Benson and Gourlay 1899:8). Their documented clearance and excavation was exclusively inside and immediately around the temple itself. In the first season of the project, large areas of vegetation were cleared and two test trenches, Units 1 and 2, were laid out on the slope and summit of a prominent rise located almost directly on the main axis of the temple (fig. 3.3). A third unit, Unit 3, was placed to the west. Two of these units (1 and 3) produced mud-brick walls, so three new units, 4-6, were opened to identify the types of architecture present. A last unit, number 7, was placed further south than the others, as close to the southern enclosure wall as possible before reaching the rise. In all of these units (4-7), mud-brick architecture of varying sizes was identified. The project continued for six weeks in the winter of 2005 with the goal of full horizontal exposure (down to surface level) of one of the mud-brick buildings discovered during the test season (later termed Building A). Because of the substantial and neatly lain brick walls uncovered there, the last excavation unit opened (Unit 7) was selected for continued investigation. Six new trenches, Units 8-13, were opened bordering Unit 7, following the series of mud-brick walls exposed. A third season of excavation, this time for four weeks, took place in 2006. Another 10 excavation squares, Units 14-23, were opened in an attempt to flesh out more of the Building A’s overall architectural plan, focusing on its western edge. These last units especially varied in size and form, as they were arranged to expose the building’s western wall as efficiently as possible.

Continuing interest among Egyptologists in understanding the nature of the ancient city made an investigation of this section of the temple precinct seem timely. Work began here by laying down a series of test trenches far to the south of the core temple area and its production zones, with the goal of uncovering part of the secular city. The terrain south of the sacred lake stands relatively flat, with only a few areas of any significant rise (fig. 3.2). The entire area is heavily covered with tall reeds and small camel-thorn bushes, obscuring any slight surface differences or areas of exposed architecture. The soil is very sandy, and so loose in the upper layers that it can be considered dusty. This flatness changes dramatically as one approaches the south section of the precinct’s outer enclosure wall. Here, the ground level begins to rise sharply, creating a ramp that in some places allows one to easily walk to the top of the wall. This rise appears to be the result of a natural accumulation of wind-blown soil that became trapped and then settled by the wall. The wall’s interior side is now completely obscured. The large precinct wall protected this area from the encroachment of the modern village. Indeed, very little modern activity could be detected in the area on which

All elevations were calculated based on a fixed point located on a concrete manhole cover behind the sacred lake. This spot was measured to be 2.35m above the 0 point of the temple, established at the Mut temple’s main gateway. This 0 point was previously established as approximately 75 meters above sea level. All elevations given in the plans and following sections have therefore been calculated, based on these values, to their approximate location above sea level (asl.).

1

All of the units, with one exception, actually fall into Karnak grid square VIII F. The exception, Unit 5, lies in grid square VII F. The Karnak grid was created by the Centre Franco-Égyptien for all of Karnak (XI-IX running west to east, and E-I running south to north for the Mut temple precinct) (Lauffray, Sauneron and Anus 1969:116-118, fig. I). Unfortunately, the location of the units was not plotted on the Karnak grid until after excavations had begun in 2004, which led to a mislabeling of the units as IX G (West). The IX G W(est) label was maintained for the material from this area, but it should be understood that this does not refer to the correct location on the Karnak grid.



Figure 3.1: The Precinct of the Mut Temple with Location of Excavation Units (See Figure Credits for Attribution)



Figure 3.2: The South Section of the Precinct with Location of Excavation Units (See Figure Credits for Attribution) were adjusted to fit these goals. Soil removal generally proceeded in 10 cm increments with all ceramics, artifacts, and ecofacts collected and labeled according to the unit and level from which they were removed.

Since the main aims of this project focus on the identification of the structures located in this previously unexplored area, as well as the nature of the activity that took place inside and around them, excavation methods



Figure 3.3: The South Section of the Precinct with Numbered Excavation Units (See Figure Credits for Attribution) 1.0-0.5m wide baulks were initially maintained between units, but in a number of instances, units were directly extended or baulks were removed to achieve larger exposure of room spaces or to investigate specific features. Once the surface layer of reeds and vegetation

was removed, an additional 10 cm of top soil was cleared and discarded before each unit was laid out, as this material proved time and again to be of mixed context and highly degraded. Soil color was frequently checked and recorded using the Munsell Soil Color Chart



times. Underneath the layers of the Third Intermediate Period structures, Late New Kingdom pottery and architectural features were discovered. However, the number of units excavated down to these levels was not sufficient to expose any coherent plan.

(Munsell Color 2000). Find-spots of any well-preserved vessels, small finds, or any other features of interest were recorded in the site notebook. Materials were collected by hand from unknown contexts until the areas of excavation were deemed to be some type of enclosed/defined space. Then they were assigned arbitrary “room” numbers, and 100% of material removed was screened through a 3mm screen. Floor or surface deposits, when identified, were divided up, with one section screened as above and a second section processed by flotation. Floatation was attempted in order to recover botanical material and bone that may have escaped dry screening. It also provided a comparison between the quantity and nature of remains recovered when using each method. The material lodged inside intact vessels was screened separately through the 3mm screen, and any faunal or botanical substance was saved for study.

In order to obtain an uninterrupted sequence of the ceramics in this area of south Karnak, a small trench was excavated at 10cm increments without regard to architecture or stratigraphy (fig. 3.3). The ceramic sequence trench reached a total depth of 3.24 m from surface level at the halt of investigations. Although certain levels were richer in ceramic materials than others, the different chronological phases appeared in uninterrupted sequence, and no hiatus between levels was detected. Analysis of the ceramics showed that the lowest 80cm of material dated to the late New Kingdom, suggesting this area had seen heavy use during Dynasties 19-21. Due to the wetness of the soil at this depth, the excavations of the trench could not continue further, so the total extent of the Late New Kingdom material here is unknown.

General to-scale plans were created of each unit to record accurately the size and orientation of all architectural features. More detailed plans were drawn of any special features. Selected profiles of unit baulks were drawn at the close of the season, although the dusty and homogenous nature of the soil in this area limited the number of useful baulks.

Excavated materials representing general periods of use were divided into numbered “strata,” based on distinct datable ceramic phases. These strata give a general date to each building or activity’s phase. A discussion of these ceramic phases and their diagnostic forms is included in Appendix 1. Each stratum can encompass a number of actual stratigraphic levels and different phases of activity. It should be understood that within these strata, not all activities or buildings are necessarily from the same moment in time. Subdivisions of each stratum were attempted to make a chronology of activities more clear (the earliest chronological phase of activity in a stratum is assigned an “a” designation, followed by the next phase, or “b,” etc.), but said subdivisions (ie. Stratum 2 “b” or “a”) could not firmly be correlated with each other across the site. Because no inscriptional materials provided any chronological markers for the site and site-wide soil changes or events like burn layers were absent, ceramics were the only source for dating the excavated layers. Therefore, each stratum could be dated only as specifically as the ceramic sequence allows. At present, fine divisions between ceramics from each Egyptian Dynasty are still problematic. Fortunately, a number of recent publications (Aston 1996a, Aston 1999, Redford 1994, Spencer 1993, Spencer 1996, Spencer 1999b, Spencer 2003) examining material from the time periods of concern to this project have elucidated tremendously this area of study and made a more precise dating of ceramic materials, and hence building and activity phases, possible. However, exact dates (to a specific dynasty or reign) were left out of the following text unless they could be confidently assigned based on current publications. Specific information about each stratum’s ceramic material and dating are included in Chapter 5. The general time periods assigned to each stratum are as follows:

All excavated artifacts and ecofacts were labeled and stored in the JHU excavation house. Drawings of small finds and ceramic profiles were made primarily by the author, Egyptologist Henriette Koeford, and artist Lila Brock. A small number of artifacts were registered by the then SCA (now Ministry of State Antiquities) and are stored in the MSA magazine at the site. Additional digital photographs, drawings, and other information on these objects will be made available online in a digital database for access by scholars. EXCAVATION REPORT SUMMARY Over the three seasons of work, twenty-three excavation and test trenches (of varying size) were laid out for investigation (figs. 3.2 and 3.3). Results yielded cultural material from 600-700 years of occupation. Excavations focused primarily on the horizontal exposure of a largescale mud-brick building (Building A), dated to the late Third Intermediate Period, specifically Dynasty 25. Evidence for earlier structures on the same location suggests that the area was utilized during the first part of the Third Intermediate Period as well. The latest phase identified, composed mostly of refuse dated to the Late Period (primarily Dynasty 26), directly overlay the Third Intermediate Period stratum. The earliest layers reached exposed late New Kingdom ceramics and associated architectural features. The uppermost layer of pits and ceramic dumping, on average about 30-60cm thick, included a large quantity of thick, hand-made Nile silt ceramics. No layers of GrecoRoman or Coptic materials were identified during the excavations, and it is clear that this section of the Mut temple complex was not utilized extensively during these

Stratum 1: Late Period (likely confined here to Dynasty 26, possibly early Dynasty 27)



Stratum 2: Late Third Intermediate Period, Dynasty 25 Stratum 3: Third Intermediate Period, Dynasties 22-24 Stratum 4: Late New Kingdom and early Third Intermediate Period, Late Dynasty 19-21.

types of walls, from large temple enclosures to small house walls (1979:136). The exterior and major crosswalls of Building A were thick, 1.0-1.4m, usually with three to four brick rows. Measurements for the welldefined exterior long wall on the building’s west side averaged around 1.06-1.10m in width, a very close match to the standard Egyptian cubit.3 Interior or room partition walls were primarily thinner, usually .60-.80m, built with two brick rows. Brick size was generally uniform (average size varying from 34-36x15-18cm; some larger bricks averaged 39-40x17-19cm), and the overall impression given by the more substantial walls was of a cohesive, planned structural unit. Excavations of two of the large interior cross walls of Building A demonstrated that one of the walls had been constructed on large mudbrick foundations, at the lowest point wider than the upper wall itself, while another wall ran less deep and lacked these lower supports, suggesting that only certain walls had been built on foundations. Unfortunately, few defined doorways could be identified (the one clear example was filled in by a later wall), which severely limited the understanding of circulation through the building and connection between rooms. Excavations concentrated on the building’s external walls (the western and northern sides) as well as a line of possible storage rooms (along the southern side) that appeared not to have opened onto the building, but rather outward, and this may explain the lack of doorways discovered. It may be that the access-ways to most of the rooms ran through points in the walls not exposed through excavation.

Late New Kingdom Excavations Late New Kingdom materials were identified in only a small number of areas of the site, as excavations rarely reached elevations low enough to encounter pre-Third Intermediate period levels. The most significant architectural materials uncovered (found in Unit 10) included a carved stone feature and a collapse of red painted mud-bricks. Based on comparison with other urban sites, it is possible that these elements originally formed part of a small ritual shrine (see also Chapter 7). The Third Intermediate Period Excavations The main focus of the excavations centered on the complex, multi-roomed mud-brick structure (N25° 42'36.62" E 32° 39'15.86") dated by the associated ceramic finds to Dynasty 25.2 This building, here termed Building A, was composed of a series of substantial and interconnected cross walls, usually about 1m thick and preserved generally to a height of 1m, with slighter walls often used for the partitioning of interior space (fig. 3.4 and plate 2). Exterior long walls on the west and north sides show that the building may have been loosely rectangular in shape, although at least one room in the southwest corner clearly juts out and breaks the general line of the building. A series of long and thin rectangular rooms, probably open on their exterior side, lined the building along its southern exposed edge. These rooms were of approximately equal width (a little more than 2m), and at least two were paved with mud-brick, and a third with a series of mud plaster floors. Interior rooms were square or rectangular in shape, and some included low mud-brick structural features, possibly storage platforms. No clear industrial or domestic remains, such as quern emplacements, ovens, mixing jars, etc., were identified within the rooms, but the large size of the building limited the number of rooms exposed down to surface level, so it is possible this type of material could still be located in an unexcavated part of the structure.

A doorway and walls of an earlier structure (dated to Stratum 3) showed that a building existed previously on this location. However, more walls from that building would need to be identified in order to determine whether it was an earlier version of the Stratum 2 building renovated as the building was expanded in Dynasty 25, or an unassociated structure. Test Trench Excavations A number of features exposed in initial test trench excavations at the site may be contemporary to Building A, and they will briefly be mentioned here. In Units 1 and 4, located on a prominent rise close to the central axis of the Mut temple, 13m of the length of a thick mud-brick wall (measuring at least 6.5m wide) was exposed (figs 3.3 and 3.5). While its size might suggest some type of enclosure wall, the distinct rise of the topography at this spot does not continue to the East or West, and therefore it is not possible to project its extent based on the surrounding surface appearance. Only the uppermost preserved layer of brick and the northern edge of this feature was exposed, so neither its full height nor an exact date can be assigned to it. Late Period ceramics and burn areas were recorded on the preserved upper surface of the wall, providing a terminus ante quem for the feature.

The wall construction method generally utilized a simple pattern of alternating courses of headers and stretchers, and sometimes contained thick joints between rows of brick, something also seen in the Third Intermediate Period site at Ashmunein (Spencer 1993:14). This type of construction corresponds with Spencer’s brick bond “type A2” (Spencer 1979:7), a type of wall construction known from all periods of Dynastic Egypt and used in all 2

South Karnak stratum 2 corresponds to what Aston more generally terms Phase III in his ceramic chronology (Aston 1996a:71-73), which he dates to the Theban 23rd and 25th dynasties. The presence of “white spiral ware” vessels on the building’s floors suggests that this stratum can be more specifically dated to Dynasty 25. Other evidence from the main Mut temple area supports Dynasty 25 date for the structure, as Fazzini has shown this was a period of major building activity at the temple precinct (see Chapter 2).

3

1 cubit=52.5cm in the Egyptian measuring system (Arnold 2003: 61). See for example Units 16 and 17, features [1055]-[1056] on fig. 3.20.



Figure 3.4: Building A Showing Preserved Walls (Solid Lines and Brick Patterning) Uncovered Through Excavations and Possible Wall Connections (Dotted Lines) To the northwest of Building A, a 5x5m exposure in Unit 5 also revealed the upper courses of a series of substantial mud-brick walls. The bricks were similar in size

(averaging some 32-33cm x 16-18cm) to those of Building A. In the NE corner of the trench, part of a circular feature was revealed, potentially either a work



Deposition and Abandonment in Building A

surface or even possibly the edge of a granary. Slightly east of here, in Unit 3, more mud-brick walls appeared (see fig. 3.18 below). This unit was excavated deeper than Unit 5, and the area can be dated to the Third Intermediate Period by ceramics. Unusually, the southern face of the major wall bisecting the unit was lined with stone blocks. A number of large worked stone features originated in this unit, leaning against or in proximity to the walls, clearly out of original context. In the SW corner of Unit 3, a small section of a wall running parallel to the bisecting wall was exposed. This almost certainly formed part of Building A’s north wall.

Well-preserved or whole vessels frequently stood on surfaces within Building A, although they also commonly were situated slightly above the surface as well. In general, the ceramic material was much better preserved close to surface areas, although the percentage of these finds in comparison to the overall quantity of pottery sherds was small. Small finds did not generally rest on surfaces, but instead seemed to have been mixed in with the overlying material. Barry Kemp, in his analysis of site formation processes and especially issues of artifact deposition and house collapse, maintained that this is a familiar pattern at Tell el-Amarna. He explained that even at Amarna, a single-period site, surfaces are not the loci of the majority of materials from the last moment of a building’s use. Instead, all types of artifacts and ecofacts, including bone, ceramics, and small objects, were mixed with material from the building’s collapse (Kemp 1995:146).

In summary, to the northwest, north, and east of Building A, substantial mud-brick features were uncovered during test excavations. While only those features in Unit 3 were revealed extensively enough to be dated to the Third Intermediate Period, the brick size and scale of all the exposed architecture suggests these features may have been contemporary with Building A. This suggests that there are at least three significant mud-brick structures located in the vicinity of Building A: two buildings (exposed in Units 3 and 5) and possibly a monumental wall or gateway (exposed in Units 1 and 4). Only further excavation or large-scale remote sensing will reveal the entire extent of the Third Intermediate Period occupation in south Karnak, but these preliminary findings suggest that a large part of the area was intensively occupied during the “renaissance” attributed to Dynasty 25 in Thebes.

Clearly, the issue of deposition becomes more complicated in a multi-period site like Thebes, where collapse and debris formation could be interrupted by rebuilding, pitting, and building reuse. However, the results of the excavation of Building A suggest that it was not rebuilt or reused continuously, but rather that it was destroyed or collapsed in toto sometime in late Dynasty 25 or early Dynasty 26. A number of scholars have suggested that trash disposal practices limit the amount of primary refuse4 found at the actual loci of past activities, and it may only be at sites where destruction/abandonment happened rapidly or unexpectedly that the archaeological record would accurately reflect the artifacts and activity areas in use there (Kent 1984:170, LaMotta and Schiffer 1999, Schiffer 1987:62). The lack of any remains of furniture, in situ stone architectural elements, and the low quantity of small finds within Building A suggests that little primary refuse remained, and that the abandonment of the building was either planned or progressed slowly enough that these items were claimed before the onset of wall collapse.

The Late Period Excavations Following Building A’s abandonment, huge quantities of ceramic waste were dumped around the highest-preserved levels of the mud-brick building’s walls. Often this material was left in shallow pits, but alternatively it was found as caches of whole pots placed against the exposed courses of the building’s walls. Thin, ephemeral walls running off of the upper remaining sections of the Third Intermediate Period walls suggest that the individuals using this area were forming small workspaces, as well as using this area for disposal. The thick, roughly made Nile silt ceramics abandoned in this layer could indicate the presence of industrial activities in this area. The material may, alternatively, originate inside the Mut precinct of the time, as JHU excavations have shown that production areas were active during Dynasty 26 around the New Kingdom enclosure wall (Bryan 2008b:27-28).

However, it appears that Building A, like the houses investigated at Amarna, did retain some of the items from its last moments of use, providing an insight into some of the structure’s functions.5 After its abandonment and clearance, soil and a substantial amount of mud-brick (likely formed from the collapse of the upper courses of the walls) filled the entire building. The majority of the

Late Period cultural materials encountered during the first season’s exploratory excavations of the area conformed to the abovementioned pattern. In Unit 2, located significantly downslope from the thick walls in Units 1 and 4, small work areas formed by thin mud-plastered surfaces, areas of burning, and pits filled with pottery were exposed. Large pits of ceramic dumps were visible in the profile of Unit 5, further to the west. Burned surfaces emerged just atop the smaller-scale brick walls in Unit 6, suggesting incendiary activities took place above the ruined walls in this location.

4 Primary refuse is described as trash and materials left in the place where it was used. This is opposed to secondary refuse, which is trash collected and moved from its place of use to a second location (Schiffer 1987:58). 5 This type of material is de facto refuse - items left during the abandonment of a structure or occupation area, such as tools, ceramics, and other objects and built features. Often, the material was still usable or reusable (Schiffer 1987:89). One of the major indications of the presence of de facto refuse includes whole or complete vessels on floor surfaces, but not in fill (Schiffer 1987:299, Seymour and Schiffer 1987:557).



Figure 3.5: Units 1, 4 and 4 Extension, Showing the Upper Preserved Surface of a Large Mud-Brick Feature Located in the Eastern Area of Excavations pottery recovered from within Building A was composed of highly fragmented sherds, but the number of whole or partially preserved vessels was not insignificant. The best-preserved vessels were generally found in corners or

next to mud-brick features, as if they were left where they had stood or were pushed up against the walls at the last moment of the building’s use or abandonment. This suggests that the vessels were part of Building A’s



inventory at the end of its use-life. This positioning also seemingly shielded them from collapsing ceilings or falling brickwork, as they would have then been protected from further breakage by the brick rubble around them. It seems highly unlikely that these whole vessels were: 1) secondary deposits carefully placed inside the buildings and sheltered from breakage during a post-destruction filling-in of the site, or 2) trash that migrated into the building between its abandonment/destruction and the collapse of its walls’ upper courses.6 It appears more plausible that the material left on the floors inside the building was de facto refuse considered not valuable enough to remove or unable to be removed without difficulty (ie. the walls or ceiling had already collapsed on it) when the building ceased functioning.7 This material should provide a record of the suite of activities taking place within the building during its last moments of activity. The layers (usually 30-50cm thick) of highly fragmented Third Intermediate Period ceramics and material lying atop the floor surfaces and preserved vessels are more difficult to characterize. It is possible that this material also represents de facto refuse, but its original location in the building (such as on shelves or hanging high up the wall) meant that the phase of destruction was harsher on this material than that originally located on or close to the ground. The quantity of ceramics evaluated and the limited time available meant that little effort was devoted to trying to reconstruct vessels from broken sherds, so the percentage of this material constituted by sherds disassociated from other pieces of the same vessels remains unknown. Archaeologists Seymour and Schiffer argued that random sherds that do not fit together to make vessels were probably brought in after building abandonment by nature or as secondary refuse (Seymour and Schiffer 1987:567). In many cases, this type of trash is comprised of materials originally discarded from in or around the deserted structure (Nicholas 1990:104, Sinopoli 1991:8587). If this was the nature of the material in Building A, these layers may have been composed of trash from immediately outside, which migrated or was dumped into the building. They would still therefore reflect the activities that took place in the area before and at the moment of the building’s abandonment.

(discussed below) suggests that Building A may have collapsed or been purposefully destroyed closely following its major functional period. Regrettably, roofing fragments could not be identified in the upper levels of fill, which might have provided a distinct line between the two strata. Stratum 1 (Dynasty 26) directly overlay Stratum 2 (Dynasty 25) material, with no identifiable break between the horizons of material. Significantly, Stratum 1 materials were typically deposited at the level of the upper-most preserved course of the earlier Stratum 2 walls, which usually stood at least 1m from the building’s surface levels. This gives the impression that during the reoccupation of the area in the Late Period, Building A was completely filled in and only partially still visible. Faunal Materials Despite the sieving of all material from within the areas designated “rooms” in Building A, as well as the floatation of all floor surfaces, only small quantities of faunal remains were recovered. Much of this material was highly fragmentary which therefore hindered analysis, with 34% of the material totally unidentifiable, and 62% identifiable based only on general animal size class. Only 5% of the material could be linked to a specific genus. The faunal material that could be identified to the genus level showed that cow, sheep, goat, dog, fish, and medium-sized bird were present. Trace amounts of gazelle and rodent material were also identified. Faunal identification based on size class showed that small ungulates (sheep, goat and gazelle) outnumbered large ungulates (cow) 2 to 1. The most noteworthy aspect of the material was its dark/brown or black coloration. This discoloration may signify that the materials at one time had been burned. Alternatively, it could have resulted from the chemistry of the soil in the area (which may be affected by the presence of the sacred lake). Team member Will Raynolds processed and identified all of the faunal material from the 2005 season, and some of the material from the 2004 season. The remarks on the faunal materials are based on his observations. Results do not include the small amount of material from the 2006 season.

Both horizons of material can provide a record of the suite of activities taking place within the building during its last moments of activity, and the author has studied this material in depth (see further discussion in following chapters). The small amount of time lapsing between the main moment of Building A’s use (Dynasty 25), its collapse and fill, and the area’s reuse in Dynasty 26

Site Elevations Elevations taken from the base of the walls and surfaces from Building A suggested that the structure was constructed on a slope, running downhill towards the south. Walls without substantial foundations in the northernmost part of the building had initial courses located at around 75.90m asl., while those 10m to the south measured around 75.70m asl. Initial surface levels along the Building A’s south side (Rooms 1, 2 and 7) were elevated at around 75.45m. Seemingly, Building A was constructed following the existing topography of the

6

Kemp asserts that: “[p]ottery vessels, because they are relatively large but fragile, are a particularly sensitive indicator as to the fate of objects” left inside a building (Kemp 1995:164). It may be worth noting that two very large vessels in the south Karnak repertoire, bulged jars Type 11 (vessels 11-2 and 11-3), were found almost entirely complete, resting directly above a mud surface. 7 The types, quantities, and location of artifacts left in or around a building as de facto refuse seems to have varied based on whether the inhabitants expected to return and how much time elapsed between the decision to abandon the building and its actual abandonment. For a discussion of this issue, see: Stevenson 1982:237-265.



area, and the ground was not leveled for its construction. Exposure of a New Kingdom stratum directly under the building (in Room 6 and Unit 10) showed that the structure was set directly atop late New Kingdom horizons, so further excavations may expect to produce New Kingdom materials immediately after moving below the building’s lowest level.

stone pavers that had been fashioned into a type of shrine or box. The architectural element [1042] took the form of a cavetto cornice on its front and had a flat back (figs. 3.6-3.8). White plaster was visible in spots, especially running along the top and projection of the cornice, but no paint could be detected. The sandstone composing the element had degraded significantly, and pieces of the cornice and the torus molding had fallen off. Fortunately, these were recovered on site and could easily be fit back into their original places. Under the cornice structure ran a line of white plaster that served to attach the piece to a stone base the same width as the base of the cornice. This base itself rested on a second stone base, again adhered with white plaster, and cut so its sides ran flush with that of the cavetto piece. The cornice with its fitted bases stood .95m tall, and the main body section measured 1.02m wide. The whole group was tipped up visibly to the west, suggesting that it had slid slightly out of its original position at some point since its final use.

Excavation Record: In order to clearly trace the occupational phases of primary interest at the site, this excavation narrative will focus on the architectural features uncovered in Stratum 4 (the late New Kingdom), Building A in Stratum 2 (the late Third Intermediate Period), and a possible earlier element of that building in Stratum 3 (earlier Third Intermediate Period). In order to create a coherent narrative, some excavation units and strata were not included in this discussion. These will be detailed briefly in Appendix 3. Included in the appendix is description of all the material from Stratum 1, for which only ephemeral architectural features were identified. The discussion of these main occupational phases will proceed chronologically, starting with Stratum 4 (in Unit 10) and followed by Stratum 3 (in Unit 13). The main period of investigation under study here, Stratum 2, will then be explored through multiple excavation units, moving counter-clockwise from the Northwest of Building A, following the structure’s western and southern walls, and finally moving back into the interior of the building. A small image of key excavation units discussed will be repeated throughout the text, in order to assist the reader in orientation. Readers are encouraged to refer to plate 2 for a fuller view. A number of small finds of note from various strata are mentioned within the following text or indicated on individual plans. These do not necessarily constitute all the finds from each unit. Instead, a total list of objects found during excavations, organized by unit, is included as part of Appendix 3. The objects are also listed, organized by type, in Appendix 2. LATE NEW KINGDOM (STRATUM 4): Unit 10: Unit 10 was laid out as a 4x8m trench directly to the east of Unit 8. A 1m baulk was left between the two units (fig. 3.3). Stratum 4a: The earliest horizon of Stratum 4 was only exposed in a small section of Unit 10. A 4x2m trench was laid out 2.5m south of the Unit’s north baulk, and this small area was brought down to fully expose a stone feature [1042] that had been visible in the soil through Strata 2 and 3 (plate 2). The soil here was compact and scattered brick fragments were common. Once excavated, the feature proved to be a stone architectural element and re-used

Figures 3.6 and 3.7: Sandstone feature [1042/1043], Front View (Looking NE) and Side View (Looking S)



Figure 3.8: Sandstone Feature [1042/1043], Front and Side Drawing Running directly behind these elements, on the same orientation and following the slight slope westward of the frontispiece, were stone pavers [1043] (fig. 3.9). The visible portion (part of these features remained lodged in the unit baulk) was composed of six stone pieces, two of which had cracked or been broken off from four original pieces. The stones were placed closely together, and traces of white plaster on their upper surfaces suggested the small spaces between the stones of 1-2cm may have been obscured by a uniform white plaster coating on the pavement’s surface. A square-shaped area of muna, or mud plaster, was preserved a few centimeters above the pavement on the eastern most paving stone. Two of the pavement pieces had construction joints cut into them (used in Egyptian construction for dovetailing stone blocks), suggesting that these pieces originally were designed for another purpose. About 15 cm above the surface of the paving, the bottom half of a female figurine was discovered [22]. Whether she was associated with the stone feature or merely part of the fill covering it after its use is unclear.

one layer, but those along the edge of the pavement appeared to have an additional course. It is possible that this line of bricks was the collapsed interior of the “box,” and the second side of bricks on the west had not been detected during excavation. However, no bricks were visible in the profile of the section where the pavement ran into the higher northern section of the unit. Both the pavement’s full extent, as well as its entire eastern side, remained obscured by the unit baulk and the layers of unexcavated material to the north. The pavement was composed of only one layer of stone, and its base elevation was at 75.09m asl. The pottery from around and over the area of the base pavers dated to Dynasties 19-20 and included a number of blue painted sherds. Strangely, the cornice frontispiece had maintained an almost vertical orientation and stood over a meter tall. Both it and the pavement leaned slightly downward towards the east (fig. 3.8), and one of the two parts must have been slightly disturbed by this movement, as the pavement was a bit out of alignment with the cornice (fig. 3.9). Otherwise, the feature appeared to have remained well intact. Why the standing cornice section was left upright by those who later constructed the mud-brick building in the immediate area around it cannot yet be explained.

A few centimeters under the figurine, a layer of mudbrick [1076] was visible (fig. 3.10). Two clear lines of brick were visible: one line, composed of three bricks, running along the east edge of the pavement, and a second line of three, possibly four bricks, running atop one of the paving stones. Additional bricks may have been located between these lines, but lacked definition. The line of brick above the paving stones only extended



Figure 3.9: Sandstone Feature [1042] and Pavers [1043] in Plan Stratum 4b: On the north side of the unit, partially covered by the later wall [1011] and the later brick feature [1041], a

series of red painted mud-brick pieces was uncovered in a tumble [1040] (figs. 3.11, 3.12). This tumble consisted of



Figure 3.10: Sandstone Feature [1042] with Pavers Covered by Bricks [1076] in Plan at least three longer elements and more than fifteen identifiable smaller chunks. The red paint was powdery

and easily flaked off during the excavation of the pieces. Its color was (10R 5/8) or (10R 4/8) red (Munsell Color



Figure 3.11: Scatter of Painted Mud-Brick [1040] with Later Walls [1011] [1041] 2000). In one small area, white and black paint may have been present, bordering the red. The paint was seemingly applied only to selected sides, as a number of the brick chunks clearly only preserved paint on one or two of their faces. Other brick fragments in the fall seem to have been unpainted. The larger painted elements were more easily exposed, and two of these measured about 25cm across, and the longest extended over 2m long. One of the longer pieces rested directly on top of the third. Two of the long pieces were generally rectangular, although they both had some degree of curve to at least one of their surfaces. The third element was of a slightly different form. It had two clear swaths of red paint along a beveled edge on the east, an unpainted side facing up, and then a thin red painted edge on its western side that turned back

in to the east, creating an interior curve. This interior curve was painted as well, and it seemed to then run back to the west. Whatever structure these painted feature had been a part of, possibly part of a mud-brick doorjamb or painted brick wall,8 it clearly had been destroyed or collapsed fully. The upper-most course of red bricks stood at 75.51m asl. The soil here and in the rest of the unit excavated at this level was brown and compact, with chunks of unpainted mud-brick and pieces of charcoal interspersed in the matrix. A profile of this section, revealed during the 8

I would like to thank Dr. Betsy Bryan and Dr. Charles Van Siclen for these suggestions.



Figure 3.12: Close-up of Scatter of Red Painted Mud-Brick [1040], Looking S excavation of Stratum 4a, showed that 10-20cm under the first exposed area of the red bricks the soil was filled with mud-brick tumble, probably the continuation of this collapse (fig. 3.13). This was then followed by a return to the typical brown homogeneous soil.

EARLY THIRD INTERMEDIATE PERIOD (STRATUM 3): Early Third Intermediate Period materials were encountered in a few excavation units, demonstrating that occupation of the larger excavation area directly preceded the construction of Stratum 2’s Building A.

A small portion of Unit 10 was excavated down further, and within 20cm of the red bricks, two small chunks of brick with yellow paint (10YR 6/6) were recovered. These, like the red bricks, seem to have been painted with a very thin layer of paint directly on to the brick surface with no white plaster coating between. Possibly then, brick painted in four colors (red, yellow, white, and black) originally composed this architectural feature, with red constituting the dominant color.

Unfortunately, the small amount of exposure of this stratum does not allow for a broader understanding of the nature of this occupation at the site. Only the excavation unit (Unit 13, fig. 3.3) that had a clear architectural connection with Building A is described here. Other instances of Stratum 3 at the site are described in Appendix 3. Unit 13:

It is possible the painted mud-brick collapse actually originates in the same time period as this stone “shrine.” Indeed, they may originally have been part of the same feature. If these are not contemporary, it again is difficult to understand why the builders of the red painted feature would leave the stone “shrine” standing, partially covered with soil, in the close vicinity of their building.

Stratum 3a: In the earliest phase uncovered in Unit 13, two walls [1033] and [1034] were encountered forming an open doorway (fig. 3.14-3.15). Feature [1033] had a notch cut from its corner, possibly where a door would have attached. A brick paving, made of long thin bricks laid on their sides, was placed directly in front of this doorway [1035]. Visible along one of its edges was a row of bricks connecting the paving directly with the wall [1033], creating a defined entranceway.



Figure 3.13: E Profile of Unit 10, Including Stratum 4 Features [1076] and [1040]



Figure 3.14: Stratum 3a Doorway and Connected Walls (in Grey), with Later Walls (Dotted)



Figure 3.15: Stratum 3a Doorway, Looking SW, the Brick Paving [1035] in the Foreground, the Walls [1034] and [1033] Forming the Doorway These walls ran in the same general direction as the later Stratum 2 walls [1017] and [1015] (discussed below) which partially obscured them (figs. 3.14-3.15).

Stratum 3b: The doorway of Stratum 3a was filled in with an additional 5-10cm of dirt and fragments of mud-brick. A surface [1079] was laid down extending out from wall [1033] (fig. 3.17). This surface was a layer of hard, brown, packed soil with speckled areas of lighter soil and darker, possibly ashy patches. Presumably, the original doorway remained in use despite the loss of the brick paved entranceway. It is important to note that the walls and features in Strata 3a and 3b belonged to an earlier structure than the Stratum 2 Building A and may have been incorporated during the re-structuring of the area during the Late Third Intermediate Period.

Immediately above the level of this entranceway, a 10 cm layer of typical debris and fill covered over the bricks (fig 3.16). In this level, a fragment of inscribed sandstone [6] was uncovered in the western side of the room close to a clay spool or disc [5 3 ]. A fragment of a stone architectural piece [7], with what appeared to be a carved torus molding on one face, lay just inside the doorway. A small scarab [43], inscribed with two hieroglyphs, was discovered during the sieving of the soil. The ceramics at this level were high in quantity, and it is likely this layer above the brick pavement comprises the refuse/ abandonment of this level before the area’s next use in level 3b.



Figure 3.16: Stratum 3a Doorway with Paving Covered and Location of Small Finds



Figure 3.17: Stratum 3 Wall [1033] and Remains of Surface [1079] in Relationship to Stratum 2 Wall [1016] and [1017] LATE THIRD INTERMEDIATE PERIOD (STRATUM 2):

ending with its own stone facing [120]. The wall [1036] ended at the level of the bottom of these stones, 76.0m asl. Two well-preserved jars, vessels 10-1 and 10-2, were found nearby, slightly above the base of the wall. Wall [1036] appears to be the south exterior wall of a second building (distinct from Building A) whose interior was partly exposed in the north half of the excavation unit.

The primary focus of this project’s excavations, a mudbrick structure labeled Building A, was encountered in Stratum 2. All the following excavation unit descriptions relate to the investigation of this building. The summary of excavations starts near Building A’s NW corner and moves counter clock-wise. Refer to plate 2 for a detailed map of the excavation units. A small map will be repeated throughout the text, in order to help orient the reader (labeled “key”). Note that North is at the top.

Preserved to a height slightly below the tops of the exposed walls, a stepped feature of mud-brick was uncovered [1038] standing adjacent to the north side of wall [1036]. The feature extended to the west in a series of four steps of brick, ending at 75.91m asl.

Unit 3: Stratum 2: A small section of wall exposed in the Unit 3’s southwest corner [1037] clearly forms a part of the north wall of Building A (fig. 3.18). Only a small portion of this wall was visible, but in its construction it clearly used at least two rows of headers. The north face of this wall lined up closely with the north face of wall [1025] of Unit 11, which was constructed using two rows of headers and one row of stretchers. As well, this wall lined up with the wall [1054] in Unit 16 (discussed below), which appears to have been Building A’s northwest corner (plate 2). Ten centimeters under vessels 10-1 and 10-2, a few centimeters above the bottom of wall [1037], a female figurine [25] was recovered. In the course of exploring Stratum 2 in this unit, a large mud-brick wall [1036] was defined to the NE of the Building A wall (fig. 3.18). A meter wide, it was constructed using three lines of stretchers with a line of larger headers between two of the rows. Along its southern side, a series of stone facings [121-125] had been emplaced into the wall, not mirrored by others on the north side (fig. 3.19). One lower course of bricks, possibly added on later, jogged out along the south side,

Key to Excavation Units



The upper layer preserved had an orderly surface of five rows of bricks, all laid as stretchers, emerging out about 75cm from the wall [1036]. The lower steps of the feature, however, did not maintain a uniform brick pattern. Two whole vessels, a small cup (vessel D-8) and a bowl (vessel D-3), were found standing close this stepped feature, on what may have been a packed-mud

floor. Another group of stones was found in the unit to the north of the stepped brick feature about 10cm above the level of the whole vessels. As mentioned above, the large cross-wall [1036] and the stepped feature did not connect to Building A and they seemed to form part of a second structure to the north.

Figure 3.18: Unit 3 Feature [1037] (in SW Corner of the Unit) is an Exterior Wall of Building A, N of this Wall is a Series of Additional Walls [1036] and [1038] Forming Exterior Wall of a Separate Building



Figure 3.19: Unit 3 Feature [1036] with Close-Up of Stone Facing [121-125], Looking NE Units 16, 17, 19, 20 & 22:

Stratum 2:

A 2x3m excavation unit, Unit 16, was laid out to the west of Unit 3 in hopes of finding Building A’s western exterior wall. Indeed, the northwest corner of the building was exposed here. Full exposure of the substantial wall running southwest from this corner was accomplished by opening a series of small excavation units, numbers 17, 19, 20 and 22 (2x4m, 3x3m, 2x3m and 1.4x2.3m respectively). No baulks between units were left in order to trace the entire outer face of this wall.

The northwest corner of Building A was identified in Unit 16 (fig. 3.20 and 3.21). The wall [1054] in line with Unit 3’s wall [1037] made a sharp turn towards the southwest (feature [1055]). At this point, the wall ran approximately .90m wide. This long wall, composed of features [1054, 1055, 1056, 1059 & 1061], was built using alternating courses of two rows of headers, then one row of stretchers. It was preserved to different heights over the course of the wall, which helped to clearly reveal this pattern. The only exception to this brick pattern was along the west edge in Unit 16 and part of Unit 17, where an extra row of brick seems to have been added, creating a wall with four rows of brick instead of three. Perhaps this extra row was added here to give the building’s corner extra reinforcement? Moving south into Unit 17, the wall widened slightly to 1m in thickness [1056]. A second and thinner wall [1057] ran perpendicular off to the east and likely extended towards feature [1024] of Unit 11. The large exterior wall continued south and west into Unit 19 [1059], where again a perpendicular [1060] wall jutted off towards the east (fig. 3.22). This second wall may connect with wall [1016] in Unit 13. In Unit 20, the long wall [1061] extended almost to the south edge of the unit, where it ended in a corner (fig. 3.22). A third eastward running wall [1062] emerged, heading towards the cross-walls [1017], [1012], and [1015] in Units 12 and 13. A small portion of wall exposed in Unit 22 [1063] demonstrated that wall [1061] made a small jog to the northwest, then turned south again as wall [1064]. The alignment of wall [1064] suggests that it connects to feature [1066] in Units 21 and18 (see below and figs. 3.23-3.24).

Key to Excavation Units



Figure 3.20: Units 16 and 17 with Northwest Corner and Western Wall of Building A



Figure 3.21: Units 16, 17, and 19 During Excavation, Showing the NW Corner of Building A, Looking SW



Figure 3.22: Units 19-20 and 22 with the Extension of the Western Wall of Building A the wall’s similar construction method and the orientation of this wall in direct relationship to the Stratum 2 walls exposed in other units, that this wall was conceived as part of the Stratum 2 building complex.

Since these units were only cleared to expose the uppermost preserved courses of the walls, the depth of Stratum 2 was not established here and no floor surfaces were reached. Even without exposing the floor surfaces associated with this wall it can be assumed, based on both



Units 15, 18, 21, 22 and 23:

Stratum 2:

Unit 15, a 3x4m unit, was placed to the immediate west of Unit 7 to try to follow the westward progression of wall [1001] (plate 2). For efficiency, the unit was only excavated in its northern half (3x2m). After the excavation of Unit 15, Unit 18 and Unit 21 were placed slightly to its northwest in order to connect this area with the walls visible in Units 16, 17, 19, 20, and 22. Unit 23 was positioned to the west and slightly south of Unit 15.

The Stratum 2 wall [1066] in Unit 18 and Unit 21 (figs. 3.23 and 3.24) seemed to have connected to the large west wall of Building A via wall [1064] and [1063], mentioned above. A small wall [1065] ran off of the east face of wall [1066] and passed into the southwest corner of Unit 22 (fig. 3.23). The small size of this feature could suggest it came from a Stratum 1 remodeling of this space, but it is also possible that the wall only widens to its original size as one nears its base, a problem of preservation common in this area.

Figure 3.23: Units 21 and 22, with Western Wall of Building A [1064] and [1065]



In Unit 18 (figs. 3.24 and 3.25), wall [1066] unexpectedly met an east/west cross-wall, feature [1069], which suggested that the Building A’s south section extended further west than its main western long-wall. Feature [1067], the eastern extension of this cross-wall, joined to feature [1070] from Unit 15. That wall [1070] showed different preservation levels along its length, and a wider course of brick was exposed at the lowest level excavated four courses down. It seems possible then that this feature [1070], despite its still thinner width than wall [1001] in Unit 7, was the less well-preserved extension of the latter

wall. Feature [1072] ran parallel to walls [1001], [1003], and [1006] in Units 7 and 8 and likely forms a long, thin room between it and feature [1071/1073]. To the west, a small room was created in Units 23, 18, and 15 by walls [1073/1074] and [1075/1068]. In the loose soil slightly above (10cm) the level of the preserved bricks in Unit 23, two fragments of a statue’s false beard made of gold and a blue glasseous material were uncovered. This find-spot would have been just slightly outside the room in Unit 23.

Figure 3.24: Units 15, 18, and 23, Showing Southwestern-most Section of Building A Encountered during Excavations, Including Small Rooms Open to the South



Figure 3.25: Units 23, 15, and 18, Showing the Small Rooms Formed on the South Side of Building A, Looking E Unit 7/7A and Unit 8:

alternating courses of headers and stretchers. Walls [1000], [1001], and [1003] clearly formed an enclosed space, and this area was termed Room 1. Stratum 2 extended 55-65cm here, up from the floor surface [1047] of Room 1. The area exposed to the west of Room 1, enclosed by features [1000] and [1001], was deemed too small of a space to obtain meaningful information, so it was left for future work. The small section in the northwest (lying between [1001] and [1002]) will be discussed as part of Unit 12.

Unit 7 was one of the original 5x5m test trenches set out in 2004. Once it was chosen for further investigation in 2005, the unit was expanded 3m to the south (Unit 7A), creating a 5x8m unit. Unit 8 was laid out as a 3x8m unit, directly east of Unit 7. A 50cm baulk was left between the two units. Stratum 2: Stratum 2 in Unit 7 and 7A was characterized by mudbrick architecture forming a series of cross walls (fig. 3.26). Wall [1001] measured 1.10m wide, consisting of four rows of brick per course, while wall [1000] was wider, 1.40 m, composed of five rows.9 Walls [1002] and [1003] maintained a width of .85m and .70m respectively. All of these were constructed using

The Room 1 surface [1047] (fig. 3.27) was composed of a layer of hard, packed dirt, best preserved in the north section of the room, at an elevation of 75.47-75.50m asl. On and imbedded into the surface were a number of whole vessels and ceramic sherds. These included a small bottle with a pouring spout (vessel 13-1), a small bottle with white spiral stripes on the shoulder (vessel 7-3), a ledged cup, a globular jar (vessel 10-3), and part of a two-handled jar. Partially smashed against wall [1001] were the body sherds from a large handled storage jar

9

Both walls appear to have a brick bond type A12 (Spencer 1979: pl. 6), with a thick line of sand between rows.



maintained its width here, about 1.10-1.20m across.10 The soil in Unit 8 was a homogenous brown and loosely packed. The room formed between walls [1003] (in Unit 7/7A), [1004], and [1006] was designated Room 2 (fig. 3.4 and 3.29). Once this room was discovered, the baulk between Unit 7/7A and Unit 8 was removed to open a larger floor surface for investigation. To the east, another room space was established, formed by features [1006], [1004], [1009], and [1028] (figs. 3.28, 3.29 and 3.35) and obscured by the southern baulks of Unit 8 and Unit 10. This space was termed Room 7 (fig. 3.4). The Stratum 2 horizon was composed of approximately 50-60cm of material covering the Room 2 and Room 7 surfaces. Room 7 will be discussed further as part of Unit 10.

(vessel 5-6), as well possibly part of a thick Nile silt bread tray, with part of a burnt bovid femur and the burnt mandible of a small ungulate cradled between them.

At the lowest level excavated in Room 2, a surface was identified [1050] (fig. 3.30). This surface, most clearly visible in the northwest corner of the room, was comprised of a brick paving. Bricks were laid around the perimeter of the room in one direction and on the interior (where visible) in another.11 A section of white plaster was visible in the center of the room [1077], suggesting the paving may have been white plastered itself, or that the part of the room where the pavement was not clear had instead been plastered. The brick surface’s elevation stood at 75.46m asl., similar to the brick surface in Room 7, as well as the elevation of the surfaces in Room 1. Above the mud-brick surface, a second surface [1049], this time composed of packed dirt, was encountered. On this surface lay a scatter of two bovid mandibles, fragments of a bovid maxilla, three fragments of possibly worked stones, a baked brick fragment, a fragment of a ceramic figurine [18], and a miniature ceramic vessel [94] (figs. 3.31 and 3.32). The sizes and combination of bones present suggested the bovid material likely originated in the same animal. That this material lay significantly above the lower paved surface suggests that the room may have briefly been reused after the abandonment of the building.

Key to Excavation Units Once the ceramics were removed from the surface, it was broken up with a hand pick and run through the sieving and floatation processes. The hand picking removed about 3-5cm of packed material, revealing another flat layer of hard surface underneath [1048]. This second surface also had ceramics embedded into it, but did not retain any whole vessels like the upper surface. It is probable then that surface [1048] at some point was cleared, with any large vessels or objects removed from the floor, “repaved” with clean dirt and possibly plastered, and the room continued in use on the new surface [1047]. This last surface [1047] was used until the abandonment of the building, and whole vessels and larger sherds were left inside.

In the upper layers of Room 2, the soil contained a large quantity of brick fragments, probably the remains of wall collapse. Within this matrix (approximately 15-20cm above the packed dirt surface), a number of interesting finds were exposed. These included a round-based bottle with a creamy-white wash on the exterior, the head of a ceramic animal figurine [26], and the lower half of a ceramic Bes-figurine [2].

10-25cm above the level of surface [1047] the soil was filled with chunks of mud-brick and areas of magloob (hard-packed mud), probably the remains of brick collapse from the upper courses of the walls. Small charcoal bits were also part of the matrix. Among this material, a variety of other well-preserved vessels and small objects had been deposited. These included a bottle (vessel 7-5) found resting against wall [1000] with a pointed base and white spiral stripes painted on its shoulder. Also recovered was the intact base of a beer bottle, a ceramic figurine [14], and a small piece of metal, probably bronze [60].

Wall [1006] on the room’s east side extended only about 2m out from the north wall, and a large stone was found lying against its southern face. It was unclear whether wall [1006] originally extended further south or if this stone originally served as part of an entranceway to Room 2 from Room 7 to its east. 10 A thick line of sand seems to have run between two rows of A2 type (Spencer 1979: pl. 1) brick bonds in this wall. 11 These were regular sized bricks (around 39cmx18cm), and this pattern likely should be considered a variant of the simple “floor of headers” that Spencer suggests is found in all periods of Egyptian construction (Spencer 1979:119).

The major cross wall exposed in Unit 7 [1001] continued as feature [1004] in Unit 8 (fig. 3.28). The wall



Figure 3.26: Room 1 with Surface Finds Formed by Walls [1000], [1001], and [1003], the Western Half of Room 3 Visible Between Walls [1001] and [1002]



Figure 3.27: Room 1 Surface [1047] with Embedded Vessels, Looking NE To the northwest of the central wall [1004] (fig. 3.28) and in the NE corner of Unit 7 (fig. 3.26) excavations uncovered what must have been interior spaces within Building A. A surface [1053] identified here was composed of packed soil. A large neckless jar (vessel 191) rested broken on its side just above the surface, with a baked brick and a round stone lying nearby. An “eye of Horus” stone bead [40] was recovered during soil sieving from slightly above the surface. Wall [1005] (like wall [1006] discussed above), was composed of brick courses of one line of headers and one of stretchers with a thick layer of sand between the rows.12 While wall [1005] was relatively substantial (70-75cm thick), it was not bonded to wall [1004] and therefore may have been a later addition to the interior of the building.

by the baulk between Unit 7 and 8. This was designated Room 3. Standing at the level of surface [1053] and resting against wall [1008] was the base of a large jar possibly that of vessel 19-1. The brick platform [1007] clearly extended down to this point as well. This surface measured 75.49-75.51m asl. To the east of wall [1005], two fragmentary figurines, [1 6 ] and [1 0 8], were uncovered from the fill.

A low, stepped brick platform [1007] made of three rows of brick laid end-to-end and on their sides was set against the corner of walls [1004] and [1005]. The feature may be the remains of a staircase leading to the roof or a second floor. A similarly constructed stair appears at a house in Ashmunein (Spencer 1993: pl. 10 feature 1090 and pl. 13). A slim wall of mud-brick [1052] lining the brick platform and a thin wall [1008] of haphazardly laid bricks emerging from the northwest corner of the unit created a small space whose interior was partly obscured

Excavations revealed that wall [1002] was preserved for 12 courses and was constructed on two wider courses of foundation bricks (fig. 3.33). The base of the foundation was laid at 74.86m asl. on a layer of fine sand. The ceramic material recovered during the removal around the foundations included a mix of types dated to the New Kingdom and Third Intermediate Period. These included blue-painted sherds, body sherds with burnished red washes, and a white spiral washed silt jar (vessel UN-24).

12

Test Trench in Room 3 Wall [1002] (forming Room 3’s western corner) (fig. 3.26) acted as one of the major cross walls of Building A, and it was therefore chosen for probing the building’s foundations.

An A12 type brick bond (Spencer 1979: pl. 6).



Figure 3.28: Room 2, to the Left of Wall [1006] and Room 7, to the Right of Wall [1006], the Eastern Section of Room 3 Lies to the West of Wall [1005]



Figure 3.29: View of Room 1, Room 2, and Room 7, N is to the Lower Left Corner

Figure 3.30: Room 2 with Brick Paving [1050] and Remains of Plaster [1077]



Figure 3.31: Room 2 Surface [1049] with Scatter of Animal Bones and Objects, Mud-Brick Walls are Designated by Grey Shading

Figure 3.32: Room 2 Surface [1049] with Close-Up of Bovid Bones, Wall [1006] is Visible on the Right, Looking North



Figure 3.33: Profile of Building A Wall [1002] with Foundations Presumably, this mingling of chronologically distinct ceramic forms occurred when Building A’s foundations were originally excavated into the underlying New Kingdom levels. The presence of Stratum 2 or 3 types around the foundation levels confirms that the building post-dates the late New Kingdom. Unit 10: Unit 10, placed to trace Building A’s southeastern extension, was one of the few excavation units excavated down through both Stratum 3 and 4 (see above and Appendix 3 for a discussion of this material). Stratum 2: Only twenty to thirty cm of soil with small charcoal inclusions constituted Stratum 2 in Unit 10, making this layer shallower than most of the other Stratum 2 layers associated with Building A. Unit 10 was situated directly east of Unit 8, and contained the eastern extension of the large cross-wall [1001] and [1004] running through Units 7 and 8. Here though, only the southern portion of that larger wall seemed preserved [1009]. Key to Excavation Units



The southern portion of the baulk between Units 8 and 10 was partially removed in order to investigate the loss of brick courses in wall [1004]. However, only a short additional section of wall [1004] could be identified in the baulk before the wall ended. It is possible that this portion of the wall collapsed at an early stage of antiquity, while wall [1009], the southern section of the wall, maintained both the alignment and brick pattern of the original (wider) wall.

The upper layers of Room 7 contained fragments of fallen brick probably associated with the wall’s collapse. Among this material, an animal figurine [26] and a complete small bottle with a red wash on its shoulder and neck were recovered. At about the same elevation as the dirt surface [1049] in Room 2 with the intact bovid mandibles, a white lens was visible in the southern baulk profile. This may have constituted the remains of a plastered surface not detected during excavation. This finding suggests both of these rooms had a second distinct (and possibly contemporary) phase of activity following that of their original surfaces.

While wall [1009] ran parallel to the brick platform [1010] from Stratum 3, it did not seem to have used this lower feature in its construction. Wall [1009] quickly encountered the southern baulk of Unit 10, but a short south-westerly projection off of that wall, feature [1028], suggested that another room was formed by these features and the short wall [1006] in Unit 8. This space was designated Room 7, and a section of baulk was removed between Units 8 and 10 to expose more of this area.

In the NE corner of Unit 10, wall [1011] was preserved .76m high, with additional courses visible in the unit profile (fig. 3.13). An oasis clay bottle (vessel 7-8), a type dated consistently to Dynasty 25, was found resting against the southern face of this wall (fig. 3.35). Common in the soil in this area were brick fragments probably from the wall’s collapse. Wall [1011] aligned with the Stratum 2 wall [1015] running NW to SE in Unit 12, and may have connected with that wall. Both had a width of approximately .95m and were laid with two lines of headers bordered by one row of stretchers (plate 2).

Surface elevation (fig. 3.34) ranged from 75.47-75.42m asl., paralleling the elevation of surfaces of Room 1 and Room 2 (in Units 7 and 8). A number of medium to large sized stones were found near the end point of wall [1006], and these may have originally been part of a doorway to Room 2 located here.

Figure 3.34: Room 7 Surface [1051] of Mud-Brick, looking N



Figure 3.35: Unit 10 with Stratum 2 Walls, the Corner of Room 7 in the Unit’s SE corner, and the Top of the Stratum 4 Stone Feature [1042]



with small bits of charcoal and possible lime plaster floor remnants. This surface stood at 75.58-75.60m asl.

Strangely, the upper section of the Stratum 4 stone feature [1042] was visible in the Stratum 2 matrix (fig. 3.35). No Stratum 2 floor surface was identified in the large area between walls [1009] and [1011], so how (or why) this object was incorporated into the Stratum 2 occupation of the area is difficult to establish. Further excavations east of Unit 10 may better define the stone feature, clarifying its function and relationship with the later structures of south Karnak. Unit 12: Unit 12 was placed directly north of Units 7 and 8, separated by a 1-meter baulk. The unit measured 8.5x3m, designed to span the entire area north of Units 7 and 8. Based on the reconstruction of Building A, this area occupied interior space. Three spaces excavated as part of Unit 12 were given the designation of rooms, Room 4, Room 5, and Room 6 (fig. 3.4). The small section exposed northeast of wall [1015] that composed part of Room 4 will be discussed with Unit 13. Stratum 2: A series of walls belonging to Building A were uncovered in Stratum 2 (fig. 3.36). Walls [1012] and [1015] appear to have functioned as major building crosswalls, connecting to walls running into Unit 13 to the north, Unit 7 to the south, and possibly Unit 10 to the southeast. Feature [1012], on line with feature [1002] from Unit 7, stood .90m wide and was built with alternating headers and stretchers. Wall [1015] was preserved .97m high, laid with two lines of headers and bordered by one row of stretchers.

Key to Excavation Units An insubstantial partition wall [1032], built of a single line of brick stretchers, bisected the small space remaining east of the brick bench/shelf. A smoothed black stone [71], possibly a tool, and a number of pottery sherds were laid upon or embedded in the floor. This appears to have been the original or lowest layer of the floor surface preserved. The plaster, bits of charcoal, and abandoned objects suggest this functioned as an activity surface.

In the western section of the unit, a series of smaller walls created a number of small spaces or platforms. Wall [1014], forming the west side of Room 5, measured .55m wide. A second wall [1078] (fig. 3.36), running perpendicular to [1014], also ran at its maximum .55m wide, and was composed of two lines of stretchers laid on their sides along the wall’s north edge, bordered by three rows of stretchers on its south. It is possible that this feature originally formed part of the mud-brick platform or low shelf [1030] which it directly abutted and whose function and original form was unclear. A less substantial wall on the north [1013] contained only a single row of headers.

Room 5 Stratum 2b: Directly above the Stratum 2a surface, a second phase of use could be identified (fig. 3.37). The partition wall [1032] seems to have been rebuilt, as ceramic sherds from between this and the earliest phase were embedded partially under the bricks. It was reconstructed slightly more substantially, this time with large bricks (33-36x1521cm) placed as headers. A fourth wall [1029] also appeared, more neatly partitioning off the space into small rooms or bins. A small number of well-preserved vessels were uncovered, including a medium sized plate (vessel E-2), a small round-bottomed bottle (vessel 7-14), and a number of fragments of a large jar. The soil included bits of charcoal inclusions.

A fragment of a stone column base, here clearly out of context, was found between this unit and the unit’s southern baulk. Room 5 Stratum 2a: Walls [1012], [1013], and [1014] formed Room 5 (fig. 3.36). A large mud-brick bench or shelf, 1.55x1.40 meters [1030], was built into the west side of the room. It was constructed using a series of bricks laid on their sides, bordered on its east side by two rows of regularly laid bricks. Multiple activity levels were identified in the room, with the earliest composed of a compact surface

On the north exterior of the room, to the north of feature [1013] and [1031], no evidence for a surface was encountered, only scattered brick collapse and two medium-sized stones.



Fig. 3.36: Unit 12 with Room 5 to the West, Room 6 to the East



Fig. 3.37: Unit 12 with Room 5 Stratum 2b Feature



Fig. 3.38: Room 5 Stratum 2c



Fig. 3.39: Room 5 Stratum 2c, looking E



Figure 3.40: Close-Up of Part of Room 5 with Stratum 2c Vessels, Looking SE Room 5 Stratum 2c:

section of Unit 7, so it was partially removed. This excavation showed that the small wall [1029] did not continue east past its join with the feature [1032] partition wall. Wall [1002] from Unit 7, however, did continue to run northwest through the baulk and connected with the main cross-wall [1012] in Unit 12 (see Unit 8, Room 3 for more discussion of this wall). The small triangular space in the northwest of Unit 7, therefore, seems to have been part of Room 5 (plate 2).

In a third layer of activity (fig. 3.38), a number of whole or well-preserved vessels were abandoned next to the low bench [1030] and against the small partition wall [1032] (fig. 3.39 and 3.40). Two of the vessels, (11-3) and (112), large bulged storage jars, gave the impression of having once stood propped up in the corners in which they now laid tipped over. Vessel 10-21 was a medium sized jar with white stripes painted with a wash on its shoulder, and vessel E-10 was a bowl or cup with a pointed or button base. A large jar (not included in catalog) was crushed by and lay slightly under vessel 112. Two additional vessels, the rim and base of two jars (not shown on plate), were found under and around these larger ones. At this level a new wall appeared [1031] built outside the north wall [1013] of the room. It was composed of a single line of headers, and it partially subsumed the earlier wall [1013], suggesting the earlier wall had either been brought down to a uniform level for reconstruction, or it was only originally a short partition wall. This feature may have been built to reinforce the north interior wall [1013], which at this level seems to have been repaired with a reused stone door pivot [115].

Room 6 Strata 2 and 3: The space designated as Room 6, situated on the east half of Unit 12, was defined on its west by wall [1012] and to the north by wall [1015]. The unit baulk limited the room to its south and east (figs. 3.4 and 3.36). Wall [1012] had partially collapsed, leaving only one line of headers standing, but the original width of the wall, seen clearly in the unit profile and preserved in the wall’s lowest courses, matched that of wall [1002] in Unit 7, confirming that the two features represented one continuous wall. Wall [1015]’s lowest course sat at 75.72m asl., while the large cross wall [1012] began much lower at 75.34m asl. Wall [1015] may have been constructed later than [1012], or more probably, wall [1012] had foundation trenches cut for it while [1015] did not.

The baulk running between Unit 12 and Unit 7 obscured the relationship between wall [1029] and the northwest



Fig 3.41: Unit 12 (bottom) and Unit 13 (top) Stratum 2a with Stratum 2 Walls in Dark Grey, Earlier Stratum 3 Walls (Subsumed by Stratum 2 Walls) in Light Grey



Ceramic materials typical of Strata 2 and 3 were common here, but since no surface could be identified in this room, a clear break between the different strata could not be defined.

an entire row of brick farther to the west than wall [1012]. While the joining of both walls with the cross wall [1015] created a large, continuous line of wall, the difference in orientation suggests they were not built as a single, coherent wall.

Unit 13: Stratum 2a: A 4x4 meter trench was placed between Unit 12 and 11 in order to determine if the Stratum 2 walls [1012] and [1024] were connected (plate 2).

In its earliest Stratum 2 phase (figs. 3.17 and 3.41), about 10cm above the Stratum 3b material, walls [1015], [1016], and [1017] were constructed to partially subsume wall [1033] and fully block the entranceway that had run between features [1033] and [1034]. The exposed top of wall [1033] was kept as an interior feature of the new room. A short partition wall [1046] composed of a single line of stretchers was added to the still visible feature [1033]. This created a small rectangular space within the room. A chert nodule [87], possibly used as a tool, was uncovered in the room’s northeast corner, close to the feature [1046] partition wall. Stratum 2b: The next layer of deposits, consisting of about 10-15 centimeters of loose material, held two small finds (fig. 3.42). Slightly above these finds lay the body of a large silt jar (sherds not included in catalog), a vessel stand (vessel C-2), and a ribbed marl jar with handles. In the northwest side of the unit, the 20cm of the horizon excavated on the other side of wall [1017] held a cache of vessels in a variety of stages of completeness (figs. 3.423.43). These included a number of medium to large sized bowls (including vessels D-21, D-23, and D-7), a jar, a bottle (vessel 7-2), and miscellaneous unidentifiable body sherds. Vessel 7-2 was decorated with the white spiral design typical of Dynasty 25.

Key to Excavation Units Stratum 2:

Unit 11:

Excavations of Stratum 2 in Unit 13 exposed two major mud-brick cross-walls [1016-1017] (plate 2). Feature [1016], about .80m wide, utilized three rows of alternating headers and stretchers in its construction. Wall [1017] may have followed a similar pattern, but only the two outermost rows of headers could be defined by scraping. Instead of a third interior line of bricks, the wall may have possessed a soil core. Within Unit 13, a bounded space on the east side of the unit termed Room 4 was created by walls [1016], [1017], and [1015] (see fig. 3.4). These walls were built directly over the earlier walls of Stratum 3 [1033] and [1034], obscuring the original plan of the earlier walls.

Unit 11, a 5x5m trench, was established to determine the building’s northern extent as well as its relationship with the Stratum 2 walls in Unit 13 and Unit 3 (described previously). Stratum 2: Excavations in Unit 11 (fig. 3.44) focused on establishing a general outline of the walls [1024-1027], and did not continue past the exposure of these features. Therefore, the total extent of Stratum 2 here was not determined. Within the approximate 40 cm of material encountered, the context remained that of the late Third Intermediate Period. The position of walls in Unit 3 and 13 suggest that the Unit 11 walls [1024-1026] were indeed part of Building A, and that wall [1025] in fact served as part of the northern side of the structure.

The excavation of Stratum 2 demonstrated that wall [1017] connected with wall [1015] and wall [1012] in Unit 12. However, [1017] and [1012] did not run along a single axis, and they were not constructed as a single entity. The eastern edge of wall [1017] joined with wall [1015] at a point 25cm further west than the join of wall [1012] with [1015]. Wall [1017], which widened as it moved south from .90m to 1.10m, also extended almost

Wall [1024] in Unit 11, about .90m wide, was composed of two rows of headers bordered by one row of stretchers.



Fig 3.42: Unit 12 (bottom) and Unit 13 (top) Stratum 2b with Location of Small Finds and Vessels



Fig 3.43: Unit 12 Cache of Vessels Deposited around Upper-Sections of Building A Walls In the southeast of the excavation trench, it connected to wall [1044] of Unit 13, suggesting this area was contemporary with wall [1016] (plate 2). In the north of the unit, [1024] joined cross-wall [1025], constructed with the same brick patterning. Another wall of the same construction and also about .90m wide [1026] ran parallel to [1024], forming a long and narrow enclosed space. To the east, a thin wall [1027] followed this same axis and hit the east baulk of Unit 11, although its small size could suggest this was a later, insubstantial wall built against the top of the Stratum 2 wall during Stratum 1.

COMMENTS ON OBJECTS A listing of all objects included in this excavation report, organized by type, is available in Appendix 2. This includes photographs of selected objects. The typology follows one defined for the “Amarna small finds database” (Stevens 2006). A listing of the small finds grouped by excavation unit is available in Appendix 3. The number of objects from Stratum 2 materials associated with Building A was quite small.13 In total, these included: 6 manufacturing tools or byproducts (including slag and weaving tools), 5 stone tools, 5 additional pieces of stonework, 8 fragments of animal and human figurines, 2 amulets, 2 possible gaming pieces, 2 pieces of jewelry, 2 shells, 1 piece of metalwork, 2 non-standard vessels, 2 architectural elements, 1 decorative element, and 1 fragment of statuary.

A number of large stones, usually fragments of worked pieces, were found scattered throughout the unit. All of these features had clearly been moved from their original contexts. One of the stones [9], located to the west of wall [1024], was a sandstone fragment with an edging or torus molding on one side, which possibly originally served as part of a stone doorway.

13

This does not include small finds from Unit 3 (which lay outside Building A), or any of the materials from Units 1-6.



Fig 3.44: Unit 11 Stratum 2 Unfortunately, the small quantity and varied nature of these materials provides little information on activity sets taking place within Building A. A greater concentration of small finds of related types would be necessary to make further conclusions about patterns of activity within and around the building.

Since inscriptional evidence is also absent from the site, the following chapters will investigate how architectural and ceramic evidence provide the best resource for hypothesizing building function for Building A and this section of south Karnak.



CHAPTER 4: ARCHITECTURAL ANALYSIS OF THIRD INTERMEDIATE PERIOD MATERIAL rooms along the south of Building A, as well as the entrance along the western side, remains hypothetical. The projected form is based on the layout of parallel types seen at other city sites. An alternate reconstruction could include an enclosed hall along the south instead of a second line of rooms.

Reconstruction A reconstruction of Building A has been attempted based on the plan of the walls excavated in this project in Figure 4.1. Solid lines and brick patterns indicate the walls and features whose positions have been clearly determined. Dotted lines show the projected continuance of walls only partly exposed, as well as the possible form of areas of Building A not uncovered. The entire eastern corner of the building is projected based on the fact that many Egyptian buildings (especially larger scale or official buildings) include symmetrical aspects to their plans. The location of the building’s eastern wall is also hypothetical, as neither the NE or NW corner was exposed during excavations. However, based on the typical plans of other Egyptian buildings, the eastern wall could be expected to stand far enough eastward so as to create a square or slightly rectangular structure.

The main entrance to Building A was not identified during excavations. Both the western and southern long walls contained no obvious breaks, and for this reason the entrance may be presumed to either lay along the northern or the eastern building wall. A number of stone fragments, one of them (object [9]) perhaps originally serving as a stone door frame, came from Unit 11 along the northern side of the building. It is possible that the original door stood nearby. As discussed previously, accessways within the building could not be determined. A hypothetical ground plan of Building A was then designed based on the reconstruction in Figure. 4.2. The seven areas isolated into separate rooms and excavated down to surface levels are labeled. The projected eastern corner of the building, the series of cellular storage rooms, and any other areas not based on actual architectural remains are indicated with lighter grey shading. The building’s total projected size would be approximately 420 m2, with sides measuring 20mx21m.

Excavations south of Unit 7/7A during the 2006 season suggested that the long thin rooms along Building A’s south wall were open along their south side. The similarity in spacing of the exposed walls (exposed in Units 7/7A, 8 and 10) suggest the rooms were similar in form, and the extent of their long walls in the reconstruction was based on the most completely exposed example (in Unit 7/7A). Architectural parallels for repeated lines of rooms of this type can be seen in both domestic architecture1 and official buildings.2

ANALYSIS OF BUILDING FUNCTION The function of Building A is of obvious interest to those interested in urban operations or the city of Thebes in general. Because no textual material was discovered associated with any of the structures found in the area, functional conclusions can only be based on other forms of material evidence. The following discussion will focus on how built architectural form, as well as the quantity and character of the building’s features and small finds, can help address this issue.4

A number of smaller, cellular rooms were cleared on the western side of the south wall of Building A. These resembled small storage spaces opening onto a central hall seen in a variety of types of official and private buildings.3 The reconstruction of a second line of these 1

At Amarna, similar rooms are found attached to or standing separate from a number of the houses. For example, House Q.46.1 has a series of long and thin storage magazines attached to one side of the building (Borchardt and Ricke 1980: Plan I, Plan 2). A number of other houses have these lines of rooms located in a separate area of the greater house compound, such as P47.1, O49.1, O49.6, M50.1, and M47.1 (Borchardt and Ricke 1980: Plan III, Plan V, Plan VI, Plan 15). One of the larger villas, M47.1, has a series of long narrow storage units (about 7mx3m) across the courtyard from the house. These have either partially open or completely open fourth sides and were paved with mud-brick (as was the interior of the house) (Borchardt and Ricke 1980:54-55 and Plan 15). 2 Building Q.42.1, an administrative office near the “Records Office” at Amarna, has a line of five such rooms open on their short side (Pendlebury 1951: pl. XIX). The “South Palace” at Malqata, which may have actually served as a storage facility (see Chapter 4), also has a series of five of this type of room (Watanabe 1993: Fig. 2-2-1.3). In both cases, these rooms open onto a larger enclosed space or courtyard. 3 Building Q.42.8 in the “Central City” at Amarna has a room composed only of a series of small, square divided spaces (Pendlebury 1951: pl. XIX). The storage magazines of the “Great Palace “at Amarna have a number of square rooms with entrances facing a long central hall (Pendlebury 1951: pl. XIV). Two sets of rooms on the north east side of the “Main Palace” at Malqata (between Anterooms C, D and E) are divided into four small sections along each wall. Here, the outer walls are much thicker than the divider walls (Watanabe 1993: Fig. 2-2-1.3). In all cases, there is only a single entrance leading into the series of

Architectural comparison For the purpose of this investigation, the architectural plan of Building A will be compared to examples from other Egyptian urban sites in order to identify similarities between it and building types with known or hypothesized functions. It is hoped that this review of the archaeological material will highlight both the problems rooms. At Amarna, a number of houses had similar storage units. House O.49.6 had a group of 4 such spaces open onto a long hall with a single entrance point to the west of the residential area. Variations on this type appear to the south and northwest of the house as well (Borchardt and Ricke 1980: Streifenplan V and Plan 76). House P.47.19 had at least 3 such units along its east side. These also appear to have opened onto a long hallway (Borchardt and Ricke 1980: Plan 23). 4 In fact, a number of archaeologists have utilized this information as their primary source for understanding the function of ancient structures (Nicholas 1990; Leventhal and Baxter 1988:51-71; Rapoport 1990:13, 18).



Figure 4.1 Building A, Excavated Walls and Reconstruction and potentials for using this type of material as excavations expand to urban sites from lesser-known time periods.

of this type of material. Architectural evidence has advantages not offered by ceramic materials due to its “fixed” nature:

Linking Architecture with Function

“[An] interest in the built environment is influenced in part by the enduring nature of architecture and its resistance to a variety of formation processes. On only rare occasions are elements of the

Before beginning a discussion of patterns in form and layout documented for Egyptian buildings, a few comments must be made on the strengths and weaknesses



Figure 4.2: Hypothetical Reconstruction of Building A built environment subjected to the randomizing effects of discard behavior; thus archeologically observed spatial relationships are more likely to reflect their systemic relationships than do many classes of portable artifacts. As such, architectural data may be the best suited for the archaeological analysis of the use of space” (Klucas 1997:44).

social structure of groups, as well as the climate, building materials available, or the topography of the region (Sanders 1990:44-46, Wilk and Ashmore 1988:11). One major cause of confusion for archaeologists lies in the fact that multiple types of activities could take place in one building. Labels such as palace, house, or temple can be interpreted as too narrow, as such terms do not allow for “multi-functionality” (Leventhal and Baxter 1988:51-53, McClellan 1997:29). In Egypt, the overlap between such categories has been documented at a variety of sites through time. At an Old Kingdom pyramid town at Giza, residential units with bed niches and other domestic accoutrements were interspersed among similarly shaped structures with industrial-style ovens. The excavator could not be sure whether these production areas were used for family, group, or industrial activities, or all of the above (Saleh 1996:185187). In the “South Suburb” of New Kingdom Amarna, houses and estates contained evidence for on-site production such as tools for weaving and sculpting.

While this benefit is considerable, the use of architectural information has its own challenges. Archaeologists working all over the globe have problematized the often assumed one-to-one relationship between the built environment and function.5 Variation in building styles from culture to culture or even within one society can reflect differences in the economy, ethnicity, ideology, or 5

See: McClellan 1997:29-59, Nicholas 1990, Rapoport 1990:9-20, and various articles in: Kent 1990 and Wilk and Ashmore 1988.



Kemp suggested that the residents of Amarna used their houses as workshops - conducting “business” within their own homes (Kemp 1981:83-86).

terms. They are assigned to structures to identify a building’s primary function. That other sets of activities could and would take place within these areas is not denied here. It is clear from the Egyptian evidence that a degree of multi-functionality was possible in many types of buildings.

While scholars have put into question the direct congruence between architecture and activity (especially for domestic structures), as each seems to impact the other, they concede that a building’s form will generally reflect some aspects of its function (Kent 1990:3, Rapoport 1990:11). Certain trends have been documented for differences between houses and public/nonresidential buildings cross-culturally, with size, building techniques and quality, decoration, regularity of plan, and frequency of occurrence usually noticeably different for the two categories (McClellan 1997:30). Within individual cultures, these differences can be identified and variation can be accounted for due to regional or cultural circumstances.

Building Analysis To begin, a few issues of construction and how these relate to the identification of the function of Building A will be discussed. The structure will then be compared with mud-brick buildings from a variety of other ancient Egyptian urban sites, many of whose functions are well established. Domestic, palace, and administrative forms will be considered, as these are all possible roles of Building A. The goal of this section is to present the architectural patterns documented for each of these categories of building in order to demonstrate which type of structure’s typical ground plan, size, and location are most analogous to that of Building A. The results of this analysis will show that the structure does not parallel the typical architectural forms of the domestic house or the royal palace. Instead, it most closely matches the elements of administrative structures.

Egyptologists explored the connection between built form and building function early in the discipline’s history, and thus while discussions of activity areas and the distribution of ceramics are uncommon in the literature, scholarship is filled with sophisticated analyses of architectural patterning. This includes both discussions of monumental stone architecture (temples and tombs) as well as smaller scale domestic and production-focused buildings made of mud-brick. Textual information, such as carved inscriptions or stamped bricks, has significantly aided the process of building identification, since some building plans could be definitively linked with the original intended function. A certain amount of homogeneity in Egyptian culture, religion, economy, climate, ethnicity, and settlement location during the Pharaonic period resulted in elements of traditionalism in architecture that have facilitated our understanding of how the Egyptians tied form to function.6 In many cases Egyptologists have successfully traced the development of building types through time, identifying precursors and architectural influences from both within and outside of Egypt. This analysis will utilize this rich source of material, based on the supposition that ancient Egyptian buildings often can be linked directly to their intended function by architectural form.

Cult buildings are not included in this examination, as large scale temples were regularly constructed in stone in ancient Egypt and utilized brick usually only for wall interiors or enclosure walls during the New Kingdom through Third Intermediate Period (Spencer 1979:66-75). Chapels and small temples were typically the only cult buildings made of mud-brick, and these were designed with a recognizable central-axis ground plan.7 Ideally, comparative material would primarily be composed of buildings dated to the Third Intermediate Period, contemporary with Building A. Unfortunately, there are only a few sites of this period with published plans of urban spaces. To provide a wider pool of comparative sources, buildings dating to the New Kingdom and Late Period have therefore been included. As will be discussed further below, the typical ground plans and repeated elements of Egyptian buildings changed through time, so the use of earlier forms for comparison must be done cautiously. However, enduring architectural traditions do emerge. By using information based on building ground plans from the closest periods in time to the south Karnak structure, this work attempts to identify the most diagnostic elements of the architecture and link the building complex to its most likely architectural tradition – the administrative structure.

The labels given here to different categories of buildings, including house, palace, temple, and administrative building should not be viewed as rigid and exclusionary 6

Of course, there are notable exceptions to this homogeneity that have found architectural expression. Deir el Medina did not use traditional materials for houses and it was not situated in a traditional spot. This New Kingdom village of the royal tomb builders was located in the desert along the Theban cliffs, as opposed to the typical location for settlement along the Nile floodplain. Houses here were constructed partially of stone instead of the customary mud-brick. The unusual location resulted from the need for access to the valleys for tomb construction and elevated security/secrecy. The construction material came from the hills it bordered (Bierbrier 1984:65-68). A second example, the Second Intermediate Period city of Tell el Dab’a, was the home for an Asiatic ethnic group called the Hyksos. Cult buildings and houses from that period at the city reflect Syro-Palestinian and not Egyptian architectural styles (Bietak 1996a:10, 36-41, Bourriau 2000:186-189).

Building A had a number of notable components that can assist in the architectural comparison. First among these was wall construction. The general uniformity of brick 7

An example of a contemporary cult building in mud-brick comes from sanctuary Y at Elephantine. It had a main hall, pronaos with two side rooms, and a main alter, all aligned on a central access (Kaiser, et. al. 1990:210-211 and abb. 7).



Comparison with Domestic Buildings

size, brick patterning, and wall size presented a single, cohesive structure. Floors in some rooms were especially well defined, with Room 1’s surface composed of hard packed mud plaster, and Rooms 2 and 7 possessing laid brick surfaces. Low brick platforms were uncovered within the interior rooms, with the best-preserved example in Room 5. Long and thin rooms (Room 1, 2, 7 and likely another to the east) lined the southern edge of the building. These appeared to have been open along their fourth side. Smaller, cellular rooms, also without access to the interior of the building, lay to the west. These had very thin partition walls (sometimes only 1 or 2 bricks thick).

Unfortunately, very few settlements of the Third Intermediate Period have been excavated or published, and therefore only a few examples of contemporary houses exist with which one can compare Building A. However, inferences about the ground plan and appearance of urban homes in Thebes during the Third Intermediate Period can be contextualized within the larger discussion of the evolution of domestic architecture in Egypt. Intense scholarly attention to this topic has resulted in the identification of major architectural trends through time, as well as certain characteristics of different types of communities. These trends can be used to help identify common elements of domestic floor plans, which can then be contrasted with the projected plan of Building A to show that it does not resemble typical housing styles.

While a large extent of Building A was uncovered through excavation, it is important to reiterate that the area surrounding it was not fully cleared (see figs. 3.1 and 3.2). The southern wall of what appeared to be a second building (in Unit 3, see fig. 3.33) was visible to the north, but how this structure related to Building A remains to be investigated. The areas west and south of Building A were not exposed. Further work is needed to the east as well, to ascertain if the occupation uncovered here was contemporary. Whether Building A had an enclosure wall or was connected with ancillary structures therefore remains unknown. The result is that it must be compared and contrasted with other forms of architecture without knowing its larger context.

The New Kingdom For the late Second Intermediate Period and early New Kingdom, Lacovara recognized a continuation of the typical Middle Kingdom style of house, citing the examples from the Ahmose pyramid at Abydos and the priests’ houses at Dahshur (Lacovara 1997:56). This style traditionally had a large, rectangular, columned central hall, flanked by two smaller (also rectangular) side rooms (Bietak 1996c:37 and fig. 1). It is not until later in Dynasty 18, around the time of the Amarna period, that he identified a transition to a new style of house, the central-hall house (Lacovara 1997:22-23).

Materials and Construction Issues Spencer, in his study of Egyptian mud-brick architecture, linked the size of walls to building type, assigning a 1-2m thickness (with somewhat thinner interior walls) to buildings of an administrative or official nature (1979:116). He noted that these thicker walls also appear in large elite houses, like the Amarna villas, while in general, regular houses have much thinner brickwork, somewhere between 45-65cm. Royal palaces, like those found at Medinat Habu and the Ramesseum, possess the thicker walls of the administrative or official building (Spencer 1979:117). The thick mud-brick walls in Building A therefore correspond with Spencer’s conclusions for the administrative/official type building, the royal building, or the largest domestic structures.

Typifying this new house form was a square, central hall, fronted by a rectangular pillared hall, with smaller rooms radiating off (fig. 4.3). Countless plans following this type can be seen at Amarna.8 The site’s current excavator, Kemp, has explained the pattern as varying slightly from home to home, but generally possessing the same attributes. 8

In Borchardt and Ricke’s publication of the southern section of the city, excavated between 1911 and 1914, this house plan is found in both small and medium houses (Borchardt and Ricke 1980: Plan I, building numbers: Q46.26, Q46.22, Q46.21, Q.46.4, Q.47.7, Q.46.8, Q.46.6, Q47.21) and larger estate style houses (Borchardt and Ricke 1980: Streifenplan I, building numbers: Q.46.1, Q46.2, Q47.9) (These are only a few of many more examples). One of the main traits of this architectural style is its three-room wide core section; the central room was bordered by one room to its left and right, which keeps the plan of the building simple (for example: Borchardt and Ricke 1980: Plan 3 building Q46.2, Plan 4 building Q46.4, Plan 10 buildings Q46.22, Q46.25, Plan 11 buildings Q46.27, Q 46.13). Sometimes the side rooms are split into two parts and other times larger exterior rooms are added, making the house itself wider, but essentially the main, three-roomed rectangle of the house was maintained. The additional rooms added do not alter the structure of the core house. Other areas of the city also repeat this plan. In the British excavations at the main city, both large houses (like the House of Nakht, see: Peet and Wooley 1923: pl. III, or other large houses, see: Frankfort and Pendlebury 1933: pls. XII-XV) and medium sized houses (Peet and Wooley 1923: pl. II) follow a similar Amarna “core” house plan. Small houses (about 9x5m), like those of the Eastern Village, had a slightly compressed version of the plan with a rectangular entrance, a larger, squarish central room (sometimes with a pillar), and two small rear rooms (Peet and Wooley 1923: COA I pl. XVI).

A second factor for consideration is the presence of stone elements found in the area adjacent to Building A, including column bases, door sockets, and possibly door jambs or lintels. None of these were found in their primary context or could be linked to their original location. While stone architecture is reserved for cultic buildings in Egypt, stone elements were commonly found as accents to non-religious buildings. These served as doorways in houses (sometimes found inscribed with the name of the owner), column bases in royal palaces, elite houses and administrative buildings, and wall and floor linings in palace bathrooms, etc. The stone features in the area excavated may have originally adorned Building A. If so, one must acknowledge that without knowing their original context, a key factor in interpreting overall building design is missing.



These attributes include the square, columned and windowed central living space with a brick dais against one wall. Other rooms were grouped around this main one, including places for storage, sleeping, and bathing. A rectangular reception room or antechamber usually stood between the central room and the entrance. Internal stairs led to a roof area, as Kemp tentatively concluded the Amarna houses were only single-storied.9 Enclosure walls as high as 3 meters separated the larger houses from one another (Kemp 2006a:294-296).

columned main room are similar to those at Amarna. He explained that in the larger houses at the workmen’s village, the main room was also surrounded with side rooms, creating a very Amarna-like house (Kemp 1977a:127). EES excavations of the New Kingdom and Third Intermediate domestic areas at Memphis show that small Ramesside period houses there (their level IIb) followed a similar house plan. The overlying layer of Third Intermediate Period houses (their level I) apparently mimicked the earlier plans as well. However, the orientation and ground plan of both level I and II houses seem to have been influenced by the earlier mid Dynasty 18 houses directly underneath, and the excavators believed the area showed a great amount of continuity over time (Giddy 1999:2-3, Jeffreys 2006b:10 and plan 4, Jeffreys, Málek and Smith 1986:5 and Fig. 3, Jeffreys, Málek and Smith 1987:15-16 and Fig. 2). It is possible that the later houses were then reproducing an earlier tradition and should not be interpreted as representative of prevailing Third Intermediate Period styles.

Amarna provides the best source of comparative material for estimating typical house size, as the excavations have uncovered hundreds of houses covering the entire range of possible sizes in one community. Very small residences, like those at the Workmen’s Village, averaged about 70m2 (Kemp 1984:4-5).10 The majority of the city’s houses could be considered small, with a size-range of 100-149m2. Of the remaining houses, most had ground plans measuring 150-299m2. A very small, and likely highly elite group, had houses measuring 300-450 m2 (Crocker 1985:54-55, Kemp 1991:300, Fig. 101). Building A at the Mut temple has a projected size of 420 m2. If it functioned as a house, it would be comparable only to the most elite residences at Amarna.

Remote sensing conducted at the site of Piramesse has mapped sections of the Dynasty 19 city there. The excavator reported that the domestic areas had tripartite “Amarna type” houses and villas (Pusch 1999:15, Pusch, Becker and Fassbinder 1999: 160-161, figs 1-2). Hölscher interpreted the group of small Dynasty 19 houses situated behind the “temple palace” at Medinat Habu as based on the Amarna plan due to their rectangular vestibule, antechamber, and the square central room surrounded by small rooms (Hölscher 1941:fig. 53). Two Dynasty 21 houses located in the southeast enclosure area of that temple had what appears to be an antechamber and square main room, although these buildings are only partially preserved (Hölscher 1934: pl. 7 and 8, see house in F5-F6 and F4-F5, Hölscher 1954:5). Excavations at Abu el Gud (Luxor) by the Egyptian Antiquities Organization in the 1980s uncovered mud brick domestic structures dated to Dynasty 19, followed by those of Dynasty 21 and later (but no plans of the houses were ever published). The excavator, el-Saghir, described the earlier houses as “a neatly planned series of mud-brick buildings.” He reported that the Third Intermediate Period houses were structured around a main room, each supplied with a pair of pillars to support the ceiling (El-Saghir 1988:79-81). This description certainly suggests an Amarna-style house.

The Late New Kingdom, Third Intermediate Period and After Still unclear is how the aftermath of the Amarna period affected domestic architecture. Post-Amarna, Lacovara posited typical house design returned to previous traditional styles. He cited the later priests’ houses at Karnak, which he said were “based on a divided court plan with one example (Maison II) harkening back to the typical Middle Kingdom ‘three-room’ plan” (Lacovara 1997:61). The houses at Medinat Habu he interpreted as also returning to the conventional style.11 Ramesside houses uncovered at El-Ahaiwah also do not follow a standard middle-court Amarna plan (Lacovara 1997:6162 and fig. 64). On the other hand, Felix Arnold saw continuity from the New Kingdom through the Late Period, and he concluded that the (albeit slim) evidence available suggests the architectural tradition went “unchanged” (Arnold 2001:126). The existing material from urban sites seems to support Arnold’s conclusions, at least for the Ramesside period (Dynasties 19-20) and possibly the early Third Intermediate Period (Dynasty 21). Kemp argued that the Ramesside Deir el Medina houses, with their square,

As one moves chronologically farther from the New Kingdom, knowledge of household architecture rapidly fades. The few published examples of mid to late Third Intermediate Period and Late Period houses may suggest, as Lacovara argued, a move away from the Amarna style house, although the square pillared main room seems to have endured for some time (Lacovara 1997:61).

9

Whether Amarna houses were single or multiple stories continues to be a matter of contention. Most recently, Roik argued for the traditional single story residence (1988:55-56), while Spence used evidence from EES excavations to reconstruct the Amarna villas with two stories (Spence 2004:123-152). 10 This may have been a “typical” size for a worker’s house, as Bruyére estimated that the size of the Ramesside Deir el Medina houses were also 70m2 (Kemp 1977a:130). 11 With the exception of the Dynasty 21 house of Butehamun, an overseer of the royal treasury. Lacovara suggests this man’s house served a dual role as an office and therefore followed a non-residential ground plan (Lacovara 1997:61).

Houses dated to Dynasties 22-24 at Medinat Habu were built without regard to the layout of earlier buildings and seem not to have valued overall planning (Hölscher 1934: pl. 4 and pl. 10). Two houses show that the square main



Figure 4.3: New Kingdom Square, Central-Hall House (See Figure Credits for Attribution) two or three additional rooms. A long hallway gave access to a rear area outside the house, which spanned the length of some of the buildings (Anus and Sa'ad 1971:219-220, 237-238 and fig. 1, 2, and 5). As Lacovara observed, these differ greatly from the Amarna style house.12 Later houses, dated to the Ptolemaic Period, were found along the same wall at Karnak temple and again differ significantly in layout from the Amarna house (Lauffray 1995: fig. 2).

room (usually with two columns) remained a prominent house feature, although the other elements of the Amarna plan seem to have disappeared (Hölscher 1934: pl. 10, house in H6, two houses in G7, house in F6, Hölscher 1954:6-7, fig. 4-5). Hölscher suggested that Medinat Habu went through a “revival” in Dynasty 25, and the domestic buildings inside the outer enclosure walls became more “citified” (Hölscher1954:14). These included houses whose layouts resemble the long, narrow houses of Deir el Medina, with a front room and a main room, followed by two rear rooms (or a staircase), all along the same line (Hölscher 1954: fig. 19). Another group of larger houses, dated to Dynasties 25-26 and located inside the temple’s inner enclosure wall, retained elements of the Amarna plan. Houses no. 1-2 and 5-6 had two square, central rooms (A) surrounded by smaller or rectangular rooms in a variety of layouts. However, another style of building (no. 3-4) diverged from the square central hall pattern, and instead had a large rectangular main room (B) surrounded by a series of three small rooms (C), and two long, rectangular rooms (D and E), making an L-shape around the first grouping (Hölscher 1934: pl. 14 and 15, Hölscher 1954: fig. 20). Hölscher noted that these two buildings did not resemble the plans of the other four (Hölscher 1954:16). It seems most probable that these were houses designed on a unique, newly invented plan. However, it should be noted that the houses at Medinat Habu were all built within the narrow band of space between the core temple walls and enclosure. Such limitations must have impacted building design, and perhaps more unusual plans needed to be adopted to conform to space restrictions.

Evidence from the long-lived settlement site at Elephantine is more difficult to interpret, because of the continual rebuilding and reuse of walls in this compact town. One Late Period house isolated by the excavators (dated to Dynasty 27 or later) shows no resemblance to the Amarna plan. It was a three-room house with a large, rectangular open hall, which led off to two smaller rear rooms (Kaiser, et. al. 1988:172, fig. 12). The houses from Dynasties 28-30 (houses P, Q, F and e) are unlike the Amarna style house as well, missing any semblance of a central room (Kaiser, et. al.1990: abb. 7). Summary The significance of this debate for the Third Intermediate Period dated Building A at the south Karnak site is obvious. A clear, identifiable ground plan designating what constitutes a “house” at this time would help clarify the function of Building A. While excavations seem to have isolated special architectural forms for Middle Kingdom and New Kingdom houses (especially larger houses and those linked with state buildings or projects – the types of settlements most frequently excavated to date), no newly conceived layout appears to have developed as representative of the Third Intermediate Period or Late Period. Instead, aspects of the “central hall” style building continued in some places, while other examples demonstrate a willingness to create unique plans.13

Most of the houses found at the Third Intermediate Period site of el-Ashmunein clearly did not follow the Amarna style plan (fig. 4.4). A house uncovered by Spencer in their earliest level excavated (in level 3, units J.10 and K.10) had eight rooms designed without a central hall. Two other well-preserved houses (in levels 2b-3, units J.11-K.11 and J.12-K.12) appear similarly random in their layout (Spencer 1993: pl. 10 and pl. 20).

12 House II is the only example that could be seen as relating to earlier New Kingdom forms. To this author, the house appears to resemble the long, narrow houses at Ramesside Deir el Medina, or Bietak’s Gruppe B “Typ IIIa” house. The “T” on Bietak’s plan signifies “Treppe,” or steps. Lacovara views House II instead as an example of a return to the Middle Kingdom style tri-partite house (1997:61). 13 It is possible of course that new housing archetypes developed for the Third Intermediate Period and Late Period, but the limited number of settlements that have been excavated or published have not produced enough comparative material for us to identify these patterns.

The Third Intermediate Period priests’ houses inside Karnak temple’s New Kingdom enclosure wall were long, narrow buildings, each of which shared at least one sidewall with an abutting house. The buildings had entrances onto a thin street that ran perpendicular to them. House entrances led into a front room, followed by



Figure 4.4: House from Third Intermediate Period el-Ashmunein (See Figure Credits for Attribution) Although Building A’s layout was not completely exposed by this project’s excavations, a central-hall style plan can be eliminated as a possibility. The series of rooms running along the building’s south side (see reconstructed plan, fig. 4.1) follow a well-documented pattern for magazines or storage rooms. These are always located either outside or along the outer edge of Egyptian buildings, and the Building A therefore can be understood as having a defined western, southern and northern wall. Egyptian houses were regularly designed in a square or rectangular shape, so if the structure was designed as a house, the eastern wall could not stand far from the projected location. The layout of the walls would therefore make a centrally placed hall impossible.

building furnishings and decorations, as well as heating, cooking, or storage facilities. When these are found in situ, they act even more effectively than building layout in signaling what activities took place in a given area (Rapoport 1990:18). The Egyptians often equipped domestic and production sites with permanent or semipermanent features, such as ovens, kilns, animal corrals, storage bins, quern emplacements, bed niches, and jar emplacements. In many cases, it was these elements (as well as small finds and ceramics) and not merely ground plan that led the excavators to identify the structures at archaeological sites as domestic. For example, the large house of the vizier Nakht at Amarna contained a brick “divan” in the central room, space for a hearth, stone lustration slabs and bed niches in the private apartments (Peet and Wooley 1923: pl. III). At Thebes, the Dynasty 21 houses excavated by the Egyptian Antiquities Organization included ovens and water basins (El-Saghir 1988:80). The Third Intermediate Period houses at elAshmunein had ovens, hearths, and storage bins at the corners of rooms (Spencer 1993:18). Houses from Medinat Habu included “divans” in their columned central rooms, small grain bins, grain cellars, and occasionally bed niches (Hölscher 1954:5-16).

Additionally, the size of the mud-brick building makes it less probable it served as a domestic building. Only the very largest of the Amarna structures14 measured above 400 m2. With a projected size for the building of 420 m2, Building A stands outside the typical size range for all but the largest mansions. Other Types of Evidence for Residential Buildings While the size and un-“Amarna style” plan of Building A reduces the likelihood it operated as a house, the previous discussion demonstrates that enough architectural variation is seen in houses after the New Kingdom to hinder any definitive conclusion based on ground plan. However, other pertinent evidence can be added to this debate. This evidence comes from the small finds and features excavated within and around the building.

None of these household or production type features were discovered in south Karnak’s Building A, despite the preservation of wall height usually half a meter or more. The Johns Hopkins teams working in and around the production area bordering the Mut temple’s New Kingdom enclosure wall, on the other hand, found ovens, mixing jars, storage bins, plastered work surfaces and granary foundations from contexts including the late Second Intermediate Period, the entirety of Dynasty 18, Dynasty 21, and Dynasty 25-26 (Bryan 2004a, Bryan 2008b). That Building A completely lacked such installations when they were well-preserved at other areas of the site is notable. The lack of this type of material

While ground plan is an important factor in recognizing a structure’s function, the built environment also often includes “semi-fixed” and “non-fixed” features, including

14

Fifteen houses total in Crocker’s study (Crocker 1985:55-56).



inside the structure therefore may more likely be a consequence of one of two circumstances: 1. the building did not possess domestic or production features at the last moments of use,15 or 2. domestic or production features in the building are located in a part not yet excavated. However, if the size of Building A has been reconstructed correctly (see reconstructed plan, fig. 4.1), only the northeastern corner was completely untouched by excavation. All the domestic material would need to have been limited to this area for it to have evaded detection.16

common, they differ greatly in their size, location, and importance. While the largest and most elaborate examples are documented in major regional cities (like Thebes and Memphis), palaces could also be built in more remote locations on a more modest scale. Indeed, it seems that New Kingdom pharaohs had a number of palaces operating at the same time (O'Connor 1989:74), and each of these would likely have had its own unique form and special duties. Major palace types included ceremonial, governmental, and residential palaces. In many cases the boundaries between the types were indistinct (O'Connor 1991:171-172).

As mentioned previously, most of the deposits removed during excavation of the Third Intermediate Period stratum was sieved in order to collect all materials present in the archaeological record, especially small finds that might hint at a room’s original function. Despite the care taken, the rooms in Building A retained only a small number of finds, often numbering 5 or less per room. This can be contrasted with the rooms in houses at the site of el-Ashmunein, which regularly contained 10-20 items (Spencer 1993:23). At Amarna, houses also regularly contained a high number of objects, especially when compared to the number of finds in the government offices of the city.

Non-Residential Palaces: Ceremonial and Governmental Palaces Non-residential palace buildings acted as a stage for the display of royal pageantry and ritual. Occasions with special significance, such as the naming of the king’s successor or the granting of rewards or promotions to a favored official would take place there. In addition, these palaces operated as the seat of governance, where the king received foreign visitors and bureaucrats, addressed the court, issued orders, and took part in other administrative business. The structure did not function as a permanent home for the royal family, but it often held private apartments for short-term use (O'Connor 1989:78, O'Connor 1995:270-271, 281-282). Unfortunately, no examples of ceremonial or governmental palaces from the Third Intermediate Period have been identified and published. There are a few examples from the New Kingdom,18 as well as one from the Late Period, and these can provide a basic model that one would expect Third Intermediate ceremonial palaces would generally follow.

The quantity of objects found in houses likely stems from the practices of the domestic sphere – including trash accumulation due to use by multiple individuals, item curation,17 the repeated repaving and raising of floors (which can result in small objects being trapped between pavings), and a relaxation in the standards of cleanliness at the time of house abandonment, leaving inside the house what normally would have been thrown away (Seymour and Schiffer 1987:552-553). The limited amount of non-ceramic items found in the south Karnak site building suggest either a high level of cleanliness maintained inside, a thorough cleaning of the building prior to abandonment, or a lack of typical household materials, possibly due to its non-domestic nature.

The “Great Palace” at Amarna can be understood as a showcase for ritual, with large columned halls, vast central courtyards and a window of appearance for royal gift-giving (Kemp 2006f, Kemp 2006a:286-287, Pendlebury 1951: pl. XIV). The palace was composed of a group of state apartments built of stone (much of which is now lost) and a private quarter and magazines that may have served as royal apartments. On the south of the structure stood a huge coronation hall (130x135 m) with 544 plastered brick piers. Palace decoration included faience tiles, painted wall reliefs, inlaid and gilded columns, and painted pavements (Kemp 2006b, Kemp 2006a:286-287).

Summary When evidence from the size and ground plan of Building A is considered with the lack of other types of indicators of household space (such as household or production type features in the built environment or a large quantity of small finds), there seems little to suggest the south Karnak mud-brick building was designed for or functioned as habitation.

Merenptah’s palace at Memphis provides another example of the ceremonial palace. Its most distinguishing features were a large columned and stone-paved courtyard, a columned vestibule and throne room with

Comparison with Palace Buildings Although palaces buildings had certain core features in 15

Other excavators have used the absence or type of domestic materials to make conclusions about the function of buildings uncovered (Jeffreys 1996:287, Jeffreys 2006b:29). 16 Unless Building A had multiple stories and domestic material was limited to the upper floors. However the lack of interior columns for support suggest that the building was single storied. 17 Seymour and Schiffer found that in household interiors in the American South West, items were commonly left inside, or “curated,” for possible future use (Seymour and Schiffer 1987:551).

18 Unfortunately, a Theban governmental palace has not yet been identified archaeologically. A number of New Kingdom texts mention the palace. Scholars place it somewhere northwest of the temple of Karnak during both Dynasties 18 and 19. Most probably, a series of these buildings were built or rebuilt over time, possibly moving as Karnak temple expanded (O'Connor 1995:271-279, Stadelman 1996:226-227).



palace22 excavated by Petrie in the early 1900s at Memphis (fig. 4.5) shows that many of the elements indicative of the non-residential palace architecture survived (Petrie 1909:1). The main palace measured at least 65x80m, and if later reconstructions are correct, probably spanned a much larger area. The palace had two large square and rectangular columned courts, groups of small rooms radiating out from the courts, and an off-axis entryway. A second entrance appears also to have been pillared (Kaiser 1986:135 Abb. 2). Walls were built on a platform of casemate foundations, each of which stood more than 5m thick. Kemp, who performed a survey of the palace ruins during the 1970s, reconstructed a “great formal entrance ramp” leading up to the palace along on its south (Kemp 1977b:101-102).

stone dais, all aligned on a central axis. The excavated portion of the building measured 110x30 m (3300 m2). Decoration included columns and doorjambs with painted, inlaid, and gilded scenes. Floors, ceilings, and walls were painted with elaborate frescoes. The palace had a small suite of rooms in the rear that included a bedroom and bathroom for the king’s actual or ritual use (Fisher 1917:211-237, O'Connor 1991:175-178 and Fig. 1). The layout was modeled on typical temple plans, here again emphasizing the ritual aspects of this type of palace (O'Connor 1996:89). Various scholars have noticed the difference in size and splendor between the ceremonial palaces of Amarna and Memphis and a number of palaces of similar general design, but directly appended to a temple. Stadelman calls the later “temple palaces,” and convincingly argues that these served as a ritual model of the palace for their king to use in his eternal life (Stadelmann 1996:227-229). O’Connor suggested that these palaces actually mimic the form of the governmental palace, a structure not yet identified archaeologically.19 The palaces appended to the temples would then be acting as ritual copies of the offices of government for the king to inhabit and rule from in the next world (O'Connor 1989:73-78, 81). In either case, the “temple” palaces were smaller, ritualized versions of the formal, non-residential palace. Two late New Kingdom versions of the “temple palace” type are found at the Ramesseum (Ramesses II) and Medinat Habu (Ramesses III). While these buildings are much more modest in size than the huge palace at Amarna, they are still quite large, hovering between 2250-2700 m2. The Ramesseum palace opened onto the temple’s first court. Once inside, one would have walked through a large, pillared square hall leading on a central axis to another square pillared room, the throne room (Hölscher 1941: fig. 53). The structure was symmetrical, with a dominant central axis.20 The palace at Medinat Habu was quite similar, also accessed by the temple’s first court (Hölscher 1934: pl. 13-14, Hölscher 1941:4458). The original version of the building21 had two side vestibules leading to large multi-columned reception hall, and had a straight axis to a square columned throne room. Like the Ramesseum, the plan was symmetrical with a central axis (Hölscher 1941:58 and fig. 23).

Figure 4.5: Reconstruction of the Palace of Apries (See Figure Credits for Attribution) That a Late Period example shows such continuity in design and decoration with the earlier New Kingdom ceremonial palaces suggests that the conception of palace architecture did not change substantially between these periods. One can therefore expect palaces of the Third Intermediate Period to have maintained the same general elements.

Although no Third Intermediate Period palaces have been excavated, the plan of a Late Period (Dynasty 26)

Residential Palaces

19

O’Connor, however, has identified the King’s House at Amarna as a governmental palace. He suggests that its placement in relation to the small Aten Temple parallels that of the governmental palace at Thebes to Karnak’s Amun Temple (O'Connor 1991:287-288). 20 The earlier Dynasty 18 palace of King Ay at Medinat Habu is similar in concept. It was almost square and measured 21.6x22m. It was placed between entrance pylons to the temple. For details and a plan, see: Badawy 1954:36-37, 139. 21 Stadelman and Kemp both agree that the second version of this palace was built later, likely in Dynasty 21 by the ruling priests/administrators of that time (Kemp, et. al. 2004:273, Stadelmann 1996:228, 230).

Residential palaces differ from ceremonial and governmental palaces in that they would have served as more permanent housing for members of the royal family. 22 The palace can firmly be dated to the reign of the Pharaoh Apries, as his name was inscribed on the stone columns found within the building (Kemp 1977b:108).



In his book on “royal” cities,23 Lacovara explained that the standard form for the royal residence palace included the same elements (with the addition of a throne room) seen in the large houses at Amarna. This was no doubt due to their similar domestic functions. They were also usually decorated, with plastered and painted walls and floors. (Lacovara 1997:35). One of the main differences between these buildings and private houses would have been their greater size.24

palace design.26 The complete lack of evidence for decoration or of pillared courts in the structure also supports this conclusion. The location of Building A does not match the anticipated position for the residential or the non-residential palace. In the New Kingdom, these were typically found at one of two possible locations: standing directly adjacent to the temple, oriented at a right angle (O'Connor 1989:7981, O'Connor 1995:270-279, fig. 7.3), or outside of the main city area, functioning as a type of royal retreat (Kemp 2006a:288). While there are no palace buildings from the Third Intermediate Period for comparison,27 the rebuilt and reused New Kingdom palace at Medinat Habu suggests the ceremonial or governmental palace’s traditional placement next to the temple continued. The later structure, redesigned in Dynasty 21 on the same spot (Kemp, et. al. 2004:259-288, Stadelmann 1996:228, 230), clearly shows that the early Third Intermediate Period rulers were aware of the New Kingdom precedent for palace location. The south Karnak structure, situated behind the temple and oriented with no clear regard for the axis line of the temple proper, breaks with that tradition. Its location among the major active temples of the time also rules out a use as a residential “retreat palace” as well. The full weight of the evidence suggests that a residential, ceremonial, or governmental palace function can be eliminated for Building A.

The “Main” or “King’s Palace” of Amenhotep III at Malqata was more than 50mx125m (6250 m2) and lavishly decorated (Lacovara 1997:25-27). The highly symmetrical building had a long, columned central hall with rooms running off of it along both long sides and a series of large courts on the north (Watanabe 1993: fig. 22-1.3). Examples of residential palaces are also known from Amarna, including the “North Riverside Palace,” likely the royal family’s main residence (but whose plan is unknown, as it was almost completely eroded away in modern times), and the North Palace, a private palace for one of the queens. The Riverside Palace probably contained separate palaces for Akhenaten, Tiye and Nefertiti, and estimates suggest it may have covered 10 hectares. All that remains is the huge gateway, monumental double enclosure wall, and a group of storerooms. The “North Palace” was an elaborate structure, holding a series of large courts, an area with altars for worship, magazines, a deep well and possibly a window of appearance.25 (Kemp 2006e, Kemp 2006f, Kemp 2006a:284-288, O'Connor 1995:284-285). Both of these palaces were located far north of the urban areas of the city, isolated from the inhabitants of Amarna.

Comparison with Administrative Buildings The final category for consideration consists of buildings erected by state, temple, or local authorities for the purpose of administration. These buildings were no doubt vital for the smooth operation of the economy and government: collecting and redistributing resources, regulating and taxing goods and communicating with higher and lower levels of authority. Regrettably, very few of these buildings have been identified archaeologically. The small number of extant examples demonstrates that although they often differ from houses and palaces, there are very few physical traits that reveal their specific operation. Lacovara explains that:

Summary Based on ground plan alone, the possibility that the south Karnak building was constructed as a ceremonial, governmental, or residential palace can be dismissed. In the New Kingdom, these were large in size, designed around a series of large, columned courtyards or halls, and were elaborately decorated. Many of them had formal and ceremonial elements such as windows of appearance, ramped entrances or throne rooms. None of these elements were present in Building A. While the building’s much smaller size of the could be accounted for by the declining wealth of the Third Intermediate Period rulers, there would have been no need to deviate so sharply from the central court-oriented plan (often incorporating a central axis) that was an integral part of

“As a rule, such administrative buildings are more regularized than private houses and lack domestic features such as cooking installations, unless they are bakeries or kitchens. It is rare, however to have a direct connection between an architectural 26 The central axis and symmetrical ground plan of many of the New Kingdom palaces may be designed to echo temple plans (O'Connor 1995:291). 27 One recently discovered possible example of the Third Intermediate Period palace comes from Mendes. Redford, the excavator, reported that he had found a large and “well-appointed building” with 2m thick mudbrick walls, that he suggests was a palace. Pottery dated the building to the Third Intermediate Period, probably Dynasty 22. The building was located directly off the side of the Banebdjed Temple (Redford 2005:1011). This would fit with the expected orientation for the palace in relation to the temple, and would demonstrate that the northern Third Intermediate Period kings continued the traditional placement.

23

“Royal cities,” like Amarna and Malqata, were designed and sponsored by the king, specifically to serve as the residence of the royal family (Lacovara 1997:24). 24 Although there are residential palaces of smaller proportion, such as the “Royal Resthouse” (Kemp 2006a: fig. 102 and p. 282-3). Examples may include the “King’s House” at Amarna (Kemp 2006a:287, Pendlebury 1951: XVI) and a structure neighboring the sphinx at Giza (Kemp 2006a:282-3 and fig. 102). 25 O’Connor disagrees with Kemp about this palace, and assigns it a ceremonial as opposed to residential function because of the many ritual-related spaces present in the building (O'Connor 1989:286).



type and a particular function” (Lacovara 1997:42).

(the so-called “Records Office”) was also the find-spot of the Amarna tablets (Pendlebury 1951:114, pl. XIX, Q.42.21). Two other buildings, neither of whose plan was fully recovered, were labeled the “House of Rejoicing of the Aten” (Pr-hay-n-pA-Itn) (Pendlebury 1951: and 117 pl. XIX: R42.6, Q42.25). The excavator believed these buildings must have been involved in administrative tasks associated with the “Great Palace,” whose name their bricks bore (Pendlebury 1951:150, 181). While these buildings were deemed important enough to warrant stamped bricks, apparently their function did not necessitate any highly specialized forms of architecture.

Even at Amarna, where the numerous administrative buildings of the “Central City” have been systematically excavated and documented, the function of the buildings must be inferred from texts, tomb paintings, and ceramic data, not building form. Despite textual information describing the administrative systems working at that city, as well as the titles of some of the administrators, little direct correlation between occupation and built place can be made. As Kemp laments, “[t]he study of ancient administration begins with texts and very nearly ends with them. Systems which are distinctive in their operation are frequently not matched on the ground by equally distinctive physical settings” (Kemp 1986a:120).

Administrative Buildings with Specialized Architecture and Location A few types of administrative offices do appear to have specialized architectural forms and placement within the city, and these will be reviewed briefly here. Perhaps most easily spotted are the storage facilities, with their long central corridors lined by narrow storage rooms. Some were originally roofed with brick vaulting (Spencer 1979:84-89). Sometimes these are independent buildings, creating thin rectangular blocks, while other examples are attached to additional facilities. Very large versions of this type of structure are found at Amarna, bordering the King’s House and the Aten temple (Pendlebury 1951: pl. 1, in square P 43, Q41 and overlapping squares P42). At the temple magazines of the Aten temple, long rows of rooms opened onto a single, continuous hallway, backed by further similar rows and halls (Pendlebury 1951: pl. XII). Other versions of magazines included rows of two storage rooms opening onto a single, central hallway (Pendlebury 1951: pl. XVI), or lines of rooms opening onto a large, open courtyard (Pendlebury 1951: pl. XVIII). Inside the temple enclosures at the Ramesseum and Medinat Habu, similar large storage magazines were found. In both cases, these were long, rectangular rooms with a single entrance onto a long hall or central corridor (Hölscher 1941: pl. 10 and fig. 34).

One such complex, composed of a main building following a slightly modified Amarna central hall style house plan (Pendlebury 1951: pl. XIX, Q42.22) and a number of buildings whose form did not distinguish them greatly from other administrative structures, had stamped bricks that proved they played unique and important roles in the capital (fig. 4.6).

Variants on this type were fronted by what may have functioned as an office or control point for the goods. Around the temple of Seti I at Abydos, excavations conducted by the Egyptian Antiquities Service found a free-standing administration building with magazines during clearance around the first pylon. The structure was square, with a “reception room” with plastered and painted walls and a stone dais giving access to the building. Attached to a central hall were storerooms in long, rectangular units running perpendicularly off of the main hall (Ghazouli 1964:111 and fig. 3). The reception room was called a “palace” by the excavator, but it functioned to control goods in and out of storage area, and the building should be considered as part of a temple magazine (Spencer 1979:85). Due to its similarity to the Seti I magazine, Lacovara proposed that the so-called “Palace of Queen Tiye” (the “South Palace”) at Malqata was actually a similarly structured administrative office attached to a series of magazines. In the published drawings, this structure appears to have a columned hall

Figure 4.6: The Records Office and House of Life at Amarna (See Figure Credits for Attribution) All of these were located within the “Main City,” labeled a government administration zone by Kemp (2006c). One of these, composed of a main building following a slightly modified Amarna central hall style house plan (Pendlebury 1951: pl. XIX, Q42.22) and a number of bordering structures (Pendlebury 1951: pl. XIX, Q42.19, -.20,-.31,-.30), was the Per-Ankh (Pr-anx), or “House of Life” (Pendlebury 1951:115), a repository for sacred manuscripts. A second building, with bricks stamped for the “Bureau for the Correspondence of Pharaoh, L.P.H.”



with dais, a series of support rooms surrounding the hall, and a thin passage leading to a large square block to the south. This area had a central corridor with long thin storerooms running off it to the west, and a large room or court to the east. Access, like in the other examples of magazines, was limited to one point of entry (Lacovara 1997:44-45, fig. 21; Watanabe 1993: fig. 2-1-1-2 and 2-21-3).

focused on their possible role as platforms for peripteral temples or shrines, or for the shena wab, “pure storehouses” associated with the temple (Traunecker 1987, Leclère 2008). Although some examples, including those at Tell el-Balamun, Defenna, and Naukratis, are still interpreted by scholars as built for administrative or military control (Spencer, 1999c:299-300). Another administrative building type identified is the customs house, an office serving as a guard post for security and taxation at Amarna (Pendlebury 1935:45). It was situated at the northern most edge of the city along the “Royal Road” (Frankfort and Pendlebury 1933: pl. I). Lacovara assigned an identical function to the New Kingdom “South Palace” at Deir el Ballas, and the Kom el ‘Abd structure at Malqata. Although their plans are not totally clear, in both cases they were large rectangular buildings with two distinct sections (with the larger of the two sections alone more than 4000 sq. meters).28 These structures were both located on the edge of their respective cities, like the Amarna example, along main access roads to the site (Lacovara 1997:46 and fig. 43).

An interesting example from south of the sacred lake at the Amun-Re temple at Karnak is a storehouse for the sacred geese of Amun (fig. 4.7). This structure, despite its live contents, followed a similar plan to other storage facilities, composed of three long corridors with small rooms running off them perpendicularly. The whole structure was raised on a platform. In front of the rooms for the geese, a series of large courtyards and a sloping passage allowed the birds access to the lake. The building may originally have been constructed in Dynasty 19 and restored in Dynasty 29 (Porter and Moss 1964: 222, pl. XX [1]). Inscriptions from the building describe it as a shena wab (Sna wAb), where the ritual meals of Amun would have been prepared (Traunecker 1987).

In summary, a few distinct types of administrative buildings, including storage facilities, administrative offices, “pure magazines,” and customs offices, have been identified at a number of sites. Other buildings echoing these plans or placement likely had a similar function. The south Karnak Building A, however, does not resemble any of these structures. While the south side of the building has a row of long and thin magazine-like rooms, these do not have obvious access to the interior of the building, and appear to actually open outwards. There is no semblance of a central corridor, or “office” area through which goods would pass for security, as is seen in the abovementioned types. Use as a highly specialized storage facility holding temple or palace goods, like those at the Ramesseum or Amarna, therefore seems unlikely. The position of Building A in the very heart of the ceremonial city of Thebes makes it an unlikely candidate for a “customs house” as well. The size and layout of the known structures of this type do not match that of the south Karnak example.

Figure 4.7: Storehouse for Geese of Amun (See Figure Credits for Attribution)

Building A also differs greatly from the casemate platforms of the shena wab storage facilities known from a variety of sites. Those structures have a number of characteristic features missing from the south Karnak building, including an entrance ramp, wall thickness over 3m, long central corridors bordered by small cellular rooms, and wall construction in concave layers. The placement of Building A, in a low area far behind the temple, also breaks with the expected placement for a “pure magazine.”

A number of casemate brick structures dated to Dynasty 26 and later offer another example of official buildings, although their function remains enigmatic. These structures, with square or rectangular ground plans, consisted of a series of cellular interior chambers around central corridors. The buildings were larger than most houses, varying between 20m and 60m a side. Exterior walls were extremely thick, averaging 3-5m in width. They were traditionally placed at “high areas” of a site, oriented perpendicularly to the temple proper. Some of the structures, which seemed to have functioned as foundation platforms for now-lost buildings, were fronted by a long access ramp. Early excavators frequently interpreted them as defensive structures, forming a platform for a fortified structure or military garrison. More recent commentaries on these structures have

28

The Deir el Ballas example appears to extend at least 100mx40m (including both sections), while the building from Kom el ‘Abd measures about 80mx50m (only one section was fully uncovered). An earlier possible example, from Second Intermediate Period Ezbet Helmi, covers at least 70mx45m.



Additionally, excavations of the casemate structures suggest the base or foundation level was filled-in intentionally for support of the upper levels, and these areas were not in use (Spencer, 1996: 51-58). The in-situ vessels, interior brick floors, and surfaces laid in multiple layers suggests Building A was a locus for activity – not the foundation platform for a large superstructure. Administrative Buildings Architecture and Location:

Without

Building Q.42.21, the previously mentioned “Records Office,” was indisputably established as an administrative office by its contents (the “Amarna tablets” were found here) and its stamped bricks. The office was divided into two equal sections, the first composed of a series of four long rooms, and possibly a similar layout for the second. Its size, about 20mx19m, was similar to the other neighboring structures. The building had multiple access points (Pendlebury 1951: 114 and pl. XIX).

Specialized

The buildings from Amarna offer a number of parallels to the south Karnak Building A (refer back to fig. 4.2). Q.42.5 matches the expected size of the mud-brick building, had a complex ground plan with room access not centered around a central courtyard space, and was lined with brick or plastered floors. Building Q.42.7, with its series of regular rooms, appears to have offered storage facilities immediately adjacent to Q.42.5. This could be seen as analogous to the storage areas attached to the south of Building A. That the Amarna buildings all lacked the typical features or emplacements of domestic spaces also corresponds with the findings within Building A at south Karnak.

Other excavated types of administrative buildings from the New Kingdom and Third Intermediate Period offer additional comparative examples. These buildings have less easily identifiable ground plans and have not been linked to specific places in the city. An interpretation of their function must often be made based on other factors. Early New Kingdom In the South Wadi area of Deir el Ballas, Lacovara identified a number of administration buildings. These rectangular buildings measured approximately 40x60m, and were bordered by long thin structures (70+x10m), probably magazines. Unfortunately, here preservation was poor, and only general outlines of the greater structures could be made (Lacovara 1997:13 and fig. 18).

At Malqata, Lacovara suggested the “West Villas” operated as records offices, based on their location and standardized plans. These “Villas” bordered the building identified as the king’s house, off of the main palace itself (Lacovara 1997:43-44), a similar arrangement to the “Records Office’s” position at Amarna. Lacovara described this section as including: “...three large Amarna style villas (A, B and C), as well as a series of smaller tripartite dwellings and an area of magazines all enclosed in rectangular blocks” (Lacovara 1997:44).

Within the main administrative section of the “Central City” at Amarna excavators found a series of large rectangular mud-brick buildings (fig. 4.8). Building Q.42.5, for example, measures about 25x20m, and had a series of square and rectangular rooms of large size (those around 3x7m look common) not organized around the central-hall style house layout. The neighboring building Q.42.7 had a series of long rooms opening onto a central corridor that Pendlebury assumed were used as offices, but could also be interpreted as magazines or storage rooms attached to Q.42.5. (Pendlebury 1951:113 and pl. XIX). Q.42.7 and Q.42.5 both included rooms with mud brick and/or plastered floors. Pendlebury specifically described the latter as missing any sign of domestic emplacements like ovens, bins, etc. (1951:113-114). These two structures, as well as the neighboring Q.42.21, had walls thicker than those of the similar sized buildings to their east.

Although the ground plans of these buildings are organized around a central hall, and therefore do not match the layout of the “Records Office” at Amarna, structures A, B, and C appear to be of a similar size (about 19x19m). The “Records Office” at Amarna was set next to a long straight block of offices and storage areas, perhaps replicating aspects of the more formal design of the buildings at Malqata. If the Malqata buildings also acted as administrative offices, the fact that their size and organization (composed of large main office structures with smaller, exterior storage facilities) were similar to that of Building A could suggest a similarity in function.

Figure 4.8: Buildings from the Central City at Amarna (See Figure Credits for Attribution)



building C and F, fig. 38). One example (building C) measured approximately 21x21m (441 m2).

The Malqata examples highlight a more general problem in distinguishing between “official” and “domestic” buildings in urban areas. At the site of Amarna, a number of structures in the “Central City” have plans that approximate that of the “core” Amarna house, with a rectangular antechamber leading to a square central room, including Q.42.2, Q42.22, Q.42.10 and Q.42.18B (Pendlebury 1951: pl. XIX). The identification of a building as “official” rather than “domestic” is often based on context (its location in the non-domestic zone of the city) or the presence of stamped bricks that clearly label the unit’s administrative purpose. It is possible that the “central-hall” layout fit a number of administrative purposes closely enough that it was used for certain types of offices. The design therefore may have been multipurpose. Alternatively, it is also feasible that some of the more “domestic” style structures were built to function in a partially domestic way when necessary – as the area of meeting, cooking, eating. or sleeping for the head officials working in the adjoining buildings.

Another group of buildings, located between the inner enclosure wall and the “Great Girdle wall” of Medinat Habu, likely served some type of official function as well. Placed between rows of domestic structures, two of these buildings were symmetrical in plan and had thicker walls than the surrounding houses. They had a series of central main rooms, with side rooms leading off in both directions. Hölscher suggested many of the rooms were barrel vaulted, as they were long and thin. The buildings were approximately 15x18m (270 m2) (Hölscher 1951:13- 16, figs. 17 and 18). South of these buildings stood two larger structures, only one of whose ground plan was preserved. This building, about 25x16m (400 m2), had larger sized rooms arranged in an irregular plan. Both this building and its possible twin structure on the opposite side of the temple possessed thicker walls than the nearby houses. All of these buildings occupied an important position within the temple city, reinforcing the excavator’s belief that they were official in some capacity (Hölscher 1951:16).

Quite a few buildings in Amarna’s “Central City” did not follow the ubiquitous “central-hall” pattern, however (fig. 4.9). Some structures, including a number of those previously discussed in the “Record Office” block, possessed original layouts, possibly designed especially to suit their specific (but still unknown) functions. Buildings Q.42.33 and Q.42.11 were long thin structures unparalleled by others in the “Central City.” Q.42.8 and Q.42.4 both had a series of front halls opening onto three long rear rooms, perhaps suggesting these areas operated as storage for the neighboring offices. R.42.13 was composed of a series of main and rear chambers entered off a middle hall, fronted by a large court. Building Q.42.27 had a series of large rooms arranged without regard for symmetry, and was bordered on its south by a large courtyard (Pendlebury 1951: pl. XIX).

While some of the abovementioned structures from Medinat Habu had highly symmetrical plans, there are still some similarities to south Karnak Building A. Both groups had thick exterior walls that differed from the typical thickness of house walls. The Karnak and Medinat Habu buildings were constructed in a similar size (400450m2, with the exception of the slightly smaller twinned buildings on both sides of the temple), larger than the surrounding houses in the case of the Medinat Habu examples, larger than the expected size of typical Theban houses for the Karnak example (if the Amarna house size can be interpreted as representative of typical city dwellings).

If these structures, like those in the “Records Office” block nearby, operated as offices for temple, palace, or city administration, it is clear that such buildings need not have a symmetrical or highly standardized ground plan. Unlike the storage and administration buildings with specialized architecture (discussed above), these buildings seem to have been designed to meet individualized needs. That south Karnak’s Building A, although large-scale and substantially built, was not designed on a regular or rigidly symmetrical plan links it conceptually with these irregular buildings in Amarna’s administrative zone.

Not far from the Mut temple precinct, along the eastern side of the Amun temple at Karnak, Redford’s team discovered a columned mud-brick building whose original size they hypothesized was some 1600 m2. They found the fallen remains of a sandstone gateway inside, including lintel and jamb blocks with white plaster. The room in excavation unit HJ had two large column bases within, and the floor appeared to be composed of packed dirt. While only a small part of the building was excavated, its thick walls (between 1.10-2.87 m thick) and interior features led the excavator to believe it was an official structure. The latest phase of the building was dated to late Dynasty 22. The building appeared to have been destroyed by fire, with the walls and gateways purposefully demolished. Redford suggested that the building operated as the workplace of the scribes and bureaucrats involved in Theban administration (Redford 1994:11-14, 28). While the east Karnak structure was clearly much more elaborate than any architecture discovered at south Karnak, its location outside of the Amun-Re temple enclosure wall, yet linked to temple or

Late New Kingdom and Third Intermediate Period A few examples of administration buildings appear in the Theban area from this time. Around the mortuary temple proper and inside the inner enclosure wall of Medinat Habu were a group of buildings that the excavator interpreted as operating for administration (Hölscher 1941:60-66). The plans of these buildings were often symmetrical or very regular (Hölscher 1941: fig. 37,



Figure 4.9: Buildings from the Central City at Amarna (See Figure Credits for Attribution) plans. While some of these structures seem to have been modeled on regular plans (the “central-hall” style) or highly symmetrical plans, others instead possessed more individualized layouts, possibly designed directly for their special functions. No single architectural feature characterized them all. Traits they frequently shared included their large size (usually substantially larger than the houses around them), thick walls, association with magazines or storage facilities, and a location near (and often in direct relation to) temples or palaces.

city administration, supports the idea that such structures could have existed outside the temple precincts. The larger size and stone architectural features at the east Karnak structure may reflect the high status of the individuals working within that structure, or the perceived importance of their tasks. Nevertheless, the presence of administrative structures of any type in other parts of Thebes shows that these buildings would have played a role in town or temple management, despite our limited knowledge of their form or frequency.

South Karnak’s Building A matches the given description well, and this analogy supports its interpretation as an administrative building. The building’s estimated size, around 420 m2, corresponds roughly with the size of the administrative buildings at Amarna, Medinat Habu and Malqata. The thickness of its walls, already discussed in

Summary In summary, possible buildings of temple and city/state administration have been identified at New Kingdom and Third Intermediate Period sites with a variety of ground



decoration.29 Building A lacked any of these features. However, these other elements are not universal, and many of the identified administrative buildings lacked some or all of them.

the beginning of this chapter, parallels that of the expected size for administrative buildings, and the large exterior walls closely match the measurement for a standard cubit system, suggesting an official source behind construction. The long narrow rooms along the building’s south edge (Rooms 1, 2 and 7) resemble the well-known form for storage rooms, and it seems likely this was their intended function. Finally, its general location near the Third Intermediate Period Mut temple orients it near other important and active state apparatuses.

Indeed, it seems probable that a number of these features would be present in certain types of administrative structures, while others would have no need for them. One should not expect to find a total uniformity in design for buildings that managed different types of tasks. The sheer variation in house ground plans in the New Kingdom suggests that architecture was modified to meet the needs of individual users, and one should not expect that this would differ for non-domestic buildings.

Admittedly, some of the excavated administrative structures discussed above had additional formalized elements, such as halls with multiple columns, a platform for the main administrative functionary, and wall

29 Lacovara includes the “office” with a dais and columns among the rooms he feels are commonly found in administrative buildings of the New Kingdom. He notes that this is usually the only room that would have been decorated (Lacovara 1997:42).



CHAPTER 5: THE POTTERY use of pottery in Egyptology likely will always focus significantly, as it has in the past, on its role in dating and its value as artwork, archaeologists in outside fields have turned to its possibilities for other forms of inquiry. These scholars first exploited the value of ceramics in providing evidence for production and consumption, for physically recording activities that took place on a site, and for leaving tangible traces of the relationships between social groups or individual actors who once lived and worked there. This more anthropological use of pottery has been adopted by a variety of archaeologists across continents and time periods of study.

The study of ceramics is an integral part of the archaeological examination of many ancient cultures. Pottery supplies chronological markers, documents patterns of trade and exchange, carries art and ideology on its surfaces, and points to where sites might be located. Egyptologists have recognized pottery’s significance along these lines from the first era of scientific excavations in the late nineteenth century. 1 Since that time, field archaeologists working on the Pharaonic period have recorded ceramic finds from their sites, increasingly including undecorated and fragmentary vessels in their publications. This has allowed more nuanced chronologies to be constructed, including concepts of regional variation.2 Within the last forty years, Egyptology has embraced the study of the ceramic fabrics and wares as an integral part of the field, and ceramicists have worked to chemically analyze fabric composition,3 to determine the origin of specific clays,4 and to trace the path of production and distribution of vessels.5

Beyond Chronology and Trade: Using Ceramics to Answer New Questions More recent scholars have added information from ceramic evidence to their research in a number of creative ways, often using pottery as a primary factor in their investigations.8 For example, some archaeologists have drawn on pottery assemblages as significant evidence for social and political change.9 Ceramic finds on sites have also been considered with other groups of excavated materials to theorize production organization and the social consequences of that organization.10

No modern archaeological field project could be complete without considering the significance of the ceramic material, but how the ceramics are integrated with other data - and used for more sophisticated analyses - varies drastically by site and excavation project. Within the discipline of Egyptology, ceramics are commonly drawn, described, and listed by find location or chronological date in the field report. The project ceramicist will often discuss how the forms and fabrics compare to those at other sites and any interesting or unusual vessels. Few excavators working on Pharaonic period sites move beyond this descriptive and chronological analysis to discuss the social or economic implications of the material for their site.6 7 While the

Other archaeologists have made use of the find-spot of pottery to aid in interpreting how space was utilized across a site or within and around one structure. This method of analysis has the added benefit of helping the researcher to tease out specific social or functional Period/early Dynasty 18 pottery at Ballas and Qurna (Bourriau 1986/7:53-54). She posited that certain types of pottery were made for funerary use (1986/7:55). With all these factors working against them, it is understandable that many Egyptologists have been unwilling to broach the problem of interpreting vessel function. 7 However, the work done at the city of Tell el-Amarna under the direction of Kemp stands as an example of how this can be achieved successfully. Kemp’s own work (Kemp 1994:133-153) integrates ceramic data with faunal material and evidence for storage facilities at Amarna to hypothesize how food was supplied to the city. Rose has done a number of studies that use ceramics to add to the understanding of activities on that site, including one that used evidence from a pottery production area to discuss who was serviced by the installation and the level of production taking place there (Rose 1989a:94-95). Hulin’s examination of the “Zir-Area” at Amarna used the distribution of pottery and built emplacements to make conclusions about water and food deliveries to the site (Hulin, Kemp and Kirby 1984:60-80). Other major exceptions to this criticism include: Köhler’s study of the Naqada and early Dynastic pottery at Tell el-Fara’in/Buto (Köhler 1996:133140); Falting’s work on Old Kingdom food and beverage production, which integrates pictorial, archaeological, and textual evidence concerning pottery’s role in this production (Faltings 1998); and Arnold’s research at Dahshur, where the ceramics excavated in different parts of the pyramid complex were used to determine the different types of activities taking place in each separate space (Arnold 1982:48-56, 5860). 8 Skibo and Feinman (1999) contains a number of conference papers on the topic of using ceramics in archaeological enquiry; papers in Costin and Wright (1998) show how a variety of forms of craft production can be included as the focus of research questions. 9 Sinopoli 1991:143-160; Blitz 1993:80-96); Mills 1999:113-114. 10 Costin 2001:273-328, Sinopoli 1991:98-117; Wattenmaker 1998:125149; Feinman 1999:87-93.

1

Petrie’s invention of pottery “seriation” techniques at the turn of the century (1899) is well known. He used the occurrence patterns of types of vessels to date them sequentially and to give a chronology to the predynastic cemeteries he excavated (Trigger 1989:200). Brunton also used pottery to date pre-dynastic cemetery material during his work in the 1920s (French 1998:28-29). 2 For instance, the break suggested by Aston for right after the Third Intermediate Period, his “Phase IV North and South” (Aston 1996a:8891); or the earlier regional break in pottery styles identified by Bourriau in the Second Intermediate Period (Bourriau 1997:159-182, Bourriau 1997:138). 3 Bourriau, Smith and Nicholson 2000, Hummel and Shubert 1994:3334. 4 Redmount and Morgenstein 1996:741-762, Bourriau 1995:189-199, Hamroush 1992:39-51, Eccleston 2000. 5 Hope 1982:39-41, Bourriau 1981:41-43. 6 This is partly due, no doubt, to the fact that many excavators are working with ceramics from tomb contexts, where little interpretation other than the vessel’s last use (which is not necessarily its original use) as “offering vessel” or “burial good” can be assigned. While intact sealed vessels from tombs would likely serve as better specimens for residue analysis than pottery from settlement sites, and could therefore provide much information on vessel use, settlement materials alternatively have the benefit of association with ovens, kilns, houses, palaces, production areas, etc., that allow conclusions to be made about vessel function in daily life. As well, Egyptologists working with ceramics from tombs may not be working with a fully representative corpus of material. Bourriau has shown that certain settlement types are not found in tomb groups in her study of late Second Intermediate



materials were recovered from chronological periods both before and after the building’s existence, an analysis of this material can also aid in our understanding of the continued use of the site. By comparing the types of ceramics present in the four strata of use defined during excavations, changes in function through time can be investigated, offering the first picture of the evolution of this part of the city.11 Within the Third Intermediate Period strata, percentages of vessel types present in each room have also been researched in an attempt to comment upon specific room functions and the general purpose of Building A.

information from buildings or parts of sites when architectural form alone does not provide sufficient evidence. For example, Leventhal and Baxter, working in Copán, attempted to link structures with specific ceramic assemblages (elite ceremonial, elite domestic, and nonelite domestic) using statistical analysis. They believed that building function could then be ascertained through pottery remains (Leventhal and Baxter 1988:51-71). Sinopoli conducted investigations into activity patterns at the site of Vijayanagara in south-central India using ceramics deposited within an excavated building complex (ie. oil lamps, cooking vessels, water storage vessels, etc.). She made conclusions about the activities taking place in each building or room and from this analysis identified areas that served as dumps, kitchens, shrines, and storage facilities (Sinopoli 1991:93-94).

The goal of the ceramic analysis therefore was to extend beyond the typical methods of ceramic studies in Egyptology, usually focused on chronology, artistic value, or fabric/ware types, to glean social or economic information about the area where the ceramics were found. Because Egyptology has largely ignored the question of vessel function,12 there was little information available to suggest how different types of vessels would have operated in systems of production, consumption, and transport. Therefore, to analyze how the south Karnak pottery was used, this project employs theory based primarily on vessel morphology developed by archaeologists working outside Egyptology. Once the ceramics had been placed into functional categories and quantified, this information was used to look at the evidence for activities taking place within Building A and during the periods before and after it within the city of Thebes.

While this last anthropological approach has the advantage of integrating the ceramic material more fully into the total archaeological project, many factors complicate the adaptation of ceramic evidence to this type of “activity area” based research. Undisturbed deposits can provide exceptional information on how activities were spread across the site, but often archaeologists work with disturbed contexts. Additionally, the multiple stages and types of deposition/discard can interfere with the way a deposit represents the habitual activities that took place there (LaMotta and Schiffer 1999:19-29, Sinopoli 1991:85-87). The percentage of different pottery types recovered only offers a picture of what was present in the ground prior to excavations, and this may not be an accurate reflection of the most frequently used ceramic types during the life of the site or building (Bourriau 1991:266). An additional potential problem for analysis lies directly with the nature of the material itself. Certain types of vessels may appear more frequently in the record merely because they are larger or more fragile than others, or because they were used in a way that was harsher on the vessel (ie. cooking or transport) (Sinopoli 1991:85-87). Despite these problems, in those cases where discard behavior has led to the removal of ceramics from their primary point of use, they often are deposited as trash associated with that space. This factor has encouraged scholars to attempt advanced research with pottery refuse, using it to make conclusions about the social, economic, and political structures and relationships of the peoples studied (Sinopoli 1991:86).

This type of analysis necessitated a series of research steps: 1. creating a typology of the most common ceramic vessel forms found during excavations, based on morphological characteristics; 2. calculating the number of types present in each stratum, showing what types were most frequently deposited in each stratum; 3. comparing and contrasting the types and their quantities for each stratum with the other strata; 4. hypothesizing a possible function(s) for each type; 5. making conclusions about changes and/or similarities in activities taking place from one time period/stratum to another, based on the quantity of types of ceramics present and their assumed function; and finally, 6. combining ceramic evidence with the architectural, art historical, and other data to build a more comprehensive picture of what activities were centered in and around the Third Intermediate Period building.

While the previously mentioned scholars each had different research questions and interests, they all capitalized on the wealth of ceramic evidence at their site. This project attempts to follow their model and to use the pottery to understand the production and consumption activities documented in the area excavated at south Karnak. An in-depth study of the ceramics can contribute greatly to our understanding of the Third Intermediate Period mud-brick building complex (Building A) by providing a means to identify the activities taking place within and around the building. With no inscriptional material recovered, the ceramics are the best evidence available for building and area function. Because ceramic

Issues of Deposition As discussed in Chapter 3, the nature of the ceramic material deposited in Stratum 1 suggested it was formed 11

Future comparison with ceramics types from around the Mut temple’s New Kingdom enclosure wall should also illuminate important differences and similarities between the functions of the two areas. The presence of a variety of ceramics exclusive to the temple or the urban areas would show a distinct break between the occupations conducted inside and outside the temple walls. 12 A recently published volume (Bader and Ownby 2013), however, makes a promising start in addressing some key issues on this topic.



mostly through the deposit of trash and was secondary refuse. Interpretations of the material have therefore been based on this conclusion. Building A in Stratum 2 contained a layer of de facto refuse at and slightly above floor level. This material may have been left behind at the time of the building’s abandonment. Changes in building maintenance and trash disposal practices prior to the planned abandonment of a structure have been documented ethnographically (Stevenson 1982:237-265). If Building A was abandoned without haste, 13 it is possible that the objects of little value (such as empty, broken, or low-value ceramic vessels) were left inside not removed as had been standard practice. Although primary refuse would be a better source of information on the totality of daily activities taking place in the structure, materials from de facto refuse allow conclusions to be made at least about some of the activities located there. 14 The layers of highly fragmented pottery and materials above this, however, may have been formed from secondary refuse. If part of the ceramic material analyzed came not from within the building, but from refuse areas outside, the results of the pottery analysis would be less accurate, as it would include material whose original place of use was unknown.

1989:39). Piles of garbage surrounded many of the larger houses (Kemp 1991:300). In another such example, the area around a line of long narrow rooms (Magazine 15) next to the Great Aten temple in the Central City proved to be filled with a large quantity of bread molds during a pottery collection done at the site (Rose 1987b:118-112). Subsequent excavation of the area showed that the long rooms were actually a series of vaulted industrial spaces, each of which had an oven in its rear for the baking of bread for the Aten temple. The bread molds had literally been “thrown outside” the area where they were used (Kemp 2006d: Fig. 28). At north Karnak, in the area south of the “treasury,” an artisanal area for the baking of bread functioned from Dynasty 18-21. Here as well, bread molds were found abandoned in and around the area of production from each level (Jacquet 1994:85103). Therefore, in both domestic and temple/state associated buildings, trash disposal immediately bordering the area of its creation has been documented. It is possible then that the ceramic material lying above the de facto refuse in Building A at south Karnak came from trash areas directly outside and associated with the building. In this case, the Third Intermediate Period ceramics would still reflect uses of Building A immediately before its abandonment.

However, some circumstances may limit the effects of refuse migration on the results of the pottery analysis. In her book on using ceramics in archaeological investigations, Sinopoli argued that fill and abandoned objects at least provided a quantity of ceramic materials originating in the area around that being excavated, offering up a picture of the activities being carried out in the general space (Sinopoli 1991:85-87). Nicholas agreed, noting that because trash is most often deposited near the place of its creation, it often ends up associated with its original location. She used the character of the secondary deposition found associated with each structure at a settlement site in Iran to suggest what type of activities were taking place in each unit (Nicholas 1990:105-117).

Methodology and Typology The use of ceramics for these types of micro-scale studies necessitates not only careful recovery but also the systematic recording of whole vessels and sherds. This must be done in a way that provides as much information as possible about vessel size, shape, quantity, and fabric, while not ignoring material where all of these factors cannot be determined. Because of the small size of this project, a goal was set to record 100% of the vessels and sherds excavated from within the rooms of Building A. Approximately 50% of the additional ceramic material from the 2005 season was similarly examined and recorded. In general, every second stratigraphic layer was examined, although additional layers were added when of special interest. This second group of material came from loci deemed “outside” Building A. This extensive recording was done to create a corpus of material as large as possible and to obtain accurate data for quantity and types present without bias towards whole vessels or decorated vessels. The earliest excavations of city sites, like those done in the early 20th century at Tell el-Amarna, lost great quantities of information because of their recording of only whole or well-preserved vessels.15 Kemp, Amarna’s current excavator, suggests that consequently we now see

The specific deposition practices of the ancient Egyptians, documented at some of the urban sites excavated in more recent years, suggests that trash produced during daily tasks was not always removed to an alternative location, but sometimes thrown out immediately around the place of its primary use. During a surface survey at Amarna, Kemp and his team came to the conclusion that domestic households normally threw their waste “in the nearest available open space,” which could be immediately next to the building (Kirby 13

The dearth of small finds, furniture, and stone elements left inside certainly suggests that Building A was not destroyed extremely rapidly or unexpectedly (the so-called Pompeii premise), but rather cleaned of a number of its contents before abandonment. 14 For example, in the case of an administration building (the hypothesized use of Building A), one would expect that the furniture, writing equipment, stamp seals, and papyri or other documentary equipment used on a daily basis could all have been removed quite easily by the last officials working there. Other items of lesser value, like empty, damaged, or unused pottery jars, may have been left behind as objects holding little value, but recording one aspect of the administration that took place within.

15 Ceramicist French explains that the selective publication of mostly whole vessels has skewed our understanding of Egyptian pottery in very specific ways. At settlement sites, the best-represented vessel types in publications were either really large or really small types, as these survived intact most often. This has resulted in a corpus of material from settlement sites that only partially represents the types actually present in the past (French 1998:29).



“only a small part of the complete original picture” (Kemp 1981:85).

Recurring forms were then classified into even more specific groups, or vessel types, based primarily on morphological attributes. Any specialized Egyptological designations for vessel forms, such as “pilgrim flasks,” are noted for each vessel type group, but these were avoided as primary form of designation because of the (possibly misleading) link to vessel function that some of these nicknames imply. A full discussion of vessel function is included in this work, based on morphological, mechanical, comparative, and art historical evidence, so the use of these names was limited to avoid bias from resemblances with modern vessels. Any surface treatments or special conditions, such as painting, burnishing, or pot marks, were noted.19

In order to approach the goal of total pottery retrieval from room spaces, a 3mm screen was used to sieve all excavated material. Pottery was transported to the dig house after each day of excavation, washed with water, and allowed to dry. It was then divided into main types of fabric groupings, Nile silt, marl clay, oasis clay, imported wares, and unidentified wares, and weighed to compare percentages of each fabric used across time. 16 The total weight of recorded pottery from the excavation season 2005 was over 1,170kg. The diagnostic sherds were then separated out from the non-diagnostics, and the diagnostics (including vessel rims, bases, handles, and decorated sherds) became the focus of analysis.

Fabrics, Surface Treatments, and Decoration In order to help Egyptologists correlate pottery fabrics 20 from different excavations, a group of scholars created a preliminary grouping of common fabrics found at ancient sites. This grouping, called the Vienna system, breaks down the marl clay and Nile silt fabric groups into lettered and numbered categories based on the size and number of non-plastic inclusions (straw and sand in most cases) present.21 This system was utilized to categorize the pottery from the south Karnak excavations. Occasionally, certain similar fabric types were difficult to differentiate visually (the difference between “Nile B1” and “Nile B2” for example), and those sherds were therefore labeled by the broader category type (ie. “Nile B”).22 A number of imported fabrics and fabrics not included in the Vienna system were identified, and these will be discussed further below.

In order to glean as much information as possible from each sherd, a recording system was developed that labeled each individual piece with a number of increasingly specific categories. The flexibility of this system allowed conclusions to be made based on both highly recognizable sherds and only moderately recognizable sherds. This system was based on one used at Amarna by Rose for her pottery surveys of the city (Rose 1984:133-153). First, basic information for each sherd was recorded: its shape, such as base, rim, handle, etc.; its fabric type; the rim or base diameter if known and the percentage of that diameter. Diameter percentage was recorded so that “vessel equivalents” could later be calculated by adding up the percentages of each type of rim found.17 From this point, all diagnostic sherds were attributed to different categories, starting first with the division into open forms and closed forms.

The Vienna system was designed particularly to describe pottery fabrics appearing in the Old Kingdom through the New Kingdom, and thus it does not include certain fabrics appearing in later historical moments (Arnold and Bourriau 1993:168). Some excavators of post-New Kingdom sites therefore utilize alternative fabric

Next, these sherds were assigned into broad vessel classes –vessel shape– when possible, such as bottle, jar, or bowl. Scholars frequently utilize mathematical formulae to differentiate open and closed forms, subsequently assigning terminology based on these formulae. 18 Such classification is accomplished using whole vessels, which were, unfortunately, uncommon at the site. The south Karnak ceramics classification system was therefore instead based on comparative published materials when possible. Because the majority of the material was highly fragmented, very specific classifications (such as distinguishing between bowls, dishes, and plates) was not attempted. Instead, these classifications were conflated into broader groups when necessary.

19 See Arnold and Bourriau 1993:85-102 for a definition and description of surface treatments. 20 “Fabric” here is defined as: “the raw clay, plus any inclusions naturally occurring in it or added by the potter, plus characteristics acquired during firing: color, hardness and porosity” (Bourriau, Smith and Nicholson 2000:1). 21 In this system, Nile silts and marl clays were each divided into five main categories (Nile A, B, C, D and E; marl A, B, C, D and E) based on the size and number of non-plastic inclusions (straw and sand in most cases). Many of the categories are then further refined (ie. Nile B1 and Nile B2) based on the percentage or size of the inclusions within the range for that category. A detailed description of the system is available in: Arnold and Bourriau 1993:168-182. 22 The designers of the Vienna system themselves note that distinguishing between a number of their fabric categories is problematic (Arnold and Bourriau 1993:168-170), but the south Karnak ceramics seemed to fit well within their larger fabric groupings (ie. Nile A, Nile B, marl A, marl B, etc.). More difficult at south Karnak was identifying the finer breakdowns within groupings (especially Nile B1 vs. Nile B2 fabrics). The Vienna system creators explained that their fabric groupings “form a continuum rather than possessing sharply defined boundaries” (Bourriau, Smith, and Nicholson 2000:2), and these fuzzy boundaries could sometimes not be defined clearly at south Karnak.

16

Weighing was chosen over counting in order to save time. Both methods have the limitation that each fabric weighed or counted can only be compared with that same fabric across time or space, and not with another fabric, due to the different weights of individual fabrics and the different size and breaking patterns of every vessel (Bourriau 1991:266). It should be noted however, that the information gained from comparing percentages of ware types is only very general, and it is only useful for distinguishing wide chronological time periods, usually a century or more (French 1998:32). 17 This technique provides a figure for the minimum number of vessels of that type present (Egloff 1973:351-353). 18 Aston 1996a:11-12, Holthoer 1977:52-54, 71. This work follows primarily Aston’s terminology for vessel types, which he based on these formulae.



classifications.23 However, Aston’s monograph on late New Kingdom and Third Intermediate Period ceramics from a variety of Egyptian sites demonstrated that the Vienna system categories are still relevant through these historic periods.24 As the south Karnak corpus dates almost wholly to the late New Kingdom, Third Intermediate Period, and early Late Period, few of the fabric types fell outside the Vienna system’s categories. If a fabric not included in the Vienna system was encountered, it was labeled and set aside for later investigation. However, this was uncommon, and the Nile silts and marl clays of the Vienna system made up the overwhelming majority of the ceramic corpus.

Karnak’s Nile C fabric description.27 Lab experiments on the Nile silt fabrics from east Karnak concluded that ancient potters fired silt vessels at 800-850 degrees centigrade (Hummel and Shubert 1994:32), and likely the south Karnak corpus was similarly produced. Marl Clays The main identified types of marl clay vessels in south Karnak were marl A4 (variants 1 and 2), marl A3, marl C, and marl D.28 Marl A4 was the overwhelming favorite, making up 8-22% of the total fabrics used in each stratum, with its popularity peaking in Stratum 1 and decreasing in use through Stratum 4.

Nile Silt Fabrics Marl A4 v.1 was found in its highest percentage in this project’s Stratum 4, and Aston suggested that this variant fabric was typically a New Kingdom fabric, which although still used in the twelfth to tenth centuries (late Dynasty 19 through Dynasty 21), during the tenth to mideighth centuries (corresponding approximately with the Libyan Dynasty 22) began to be phased out.29 It would have been finally supplanted by marl A4 variant 2 in the eighth to seventh centuries30 (Aston 1996a:8). Aston described the later form of this fabric as thin walled and very hard. He described it as the most common in Thebes and possibly manufactured there (Aston 1996c:30). Marl A4 v.2 was found in this project’s excavations in only Strata 1 and 2.31

Nile silt clays, found in all four strata, were the predominant fabrics used at south Karnak, representing 60-80% of the total number of each layer’s sherds. The most frequently found types present in the ceramic corpus were Nile B and Nile C.25 Nile B was most regularly used for bowls/plates, jars, cups, and bottles. Nile C was usually only used for hand-made bread platters/trays and oven lids. Not surprisingly, Donald Redford’s thorough publication of east Karnak’s pottery showed numerous similarities to the corpus at south Karnak. Hummel and Shubert, the ceramicists for Redford’s excavations, gave descriptions of their silt wares that had much in common with the south Karnak types: their “medium” silt ware was described as having a muddy brown to clear red/brown surface color, usually with a core in grey black or red. The “fine” silts had no core, were very hard, and were a clear red/brown color (Hummel and Shubert 1994:32-33). These are good descriptions of this project’s common types of silt clay, and both of these groupings would be contained in south Karnak’s Nile B silt category.26 East Karnak’s “coarse” silt was described as having a thick black core and soft surface, and this fabric was usually used for large bowls, platters, and ring stands (Hummel and Shubert 1994:32-33). This corresponds with south

At east Karnak, common marls included a grey/green, a buff/cream, and a pale pink/orange colored version. 32 All three types were marl A4 variants also identified at south Karnak, with the grey/green predominating Strata 1 and 2. Hummel and Shubert described these types as bicolored, with the surface of the vessel wall differing in 27 Nile C was included in Aston’s list of fabric types continuing after the New Kingdom (Aston 1996a:6-7). 28 According to the Vienna system, marl A has a “dense, homogeneous groundmass containing fine mineral inclusions and very little organic matter.” Marl A type 4 has “the coarsest texture and the greatest quantity of fine to coarse sand inclusions. Scattered micaceous inclusions are also present and, conspicuously in some examples, particles of straw.” Type 3 fabric is “exceptionally fine and homogeneous…[with] occasional straw particles…as accidental inclusions in the clay (Arnold and Bourriau 1993:176-177). Marl C is described as having “abundant, more or less decomposed limestone particles of medium to coarse size embedded in the ground mass…[which] itself is fine and dense. Fine and medium sand particles, added as temper, are always present” (Arnold and Bourriau 1993:179). Marl D is characterized by its “fine and homogeneous” groundmass, with limestone particles composing “up to 25% of the mass of the fabric.” These particles are “smaller in size than those in Marl C, varying from fine to coarse and sub-rounded to sub-angular.” Sand, micaceous particles and dark rock may also be present, but there are little to no organic inclusions (Arnold and Bourriau 1993:181). 29 These dates correspond to his Phases I and II, respectively. 30 This is his Phase III. 31 At Elephantine, marl A4 variant 2 appears in the eighth to seventh centuries, and continued in use throughout the Persian Period (Aston 1996c:30). 32 East Karnak’s marls correspond with French’s “Marl 1a” at Amarna (Hummel and Shubert 1994:31, note 67), which was used for almost all marl vessels found at the “south tombs” there (Kemp 1986b:154). Aston correlates his marl A4 v.2 with French’s marl 1a at Amarna as well (Aston 1996a:8), so there is no doubt east Karnak’s types are the same as the south Karnak marl A4 types.

23

For example, the east Karnak pottery ceramicists labeled each type of marl or silt fabric instead as “coarse,” “medium,” and “fine,” and did away with the Vienna system’s grouping by letters and numbers (Hummel and Shubert 1994:31-33). 24 However, certain fabrics in use through the New Kingdom seem to have disappeared at or during the Third Intermediate Period. Aston gave a description of those fabrics he personally could attest continued. He noted, however, that since many of the older publications he worked with do not discuss fabric in detail, his list is not likely totally complete (Aston 1996a:6). 25 The Vienna system describes Nile B fabric as possessing “varying amounts of fine to coarse sand, and find to medium straw particles in sufficient number (B2 only) to suggest they were deliberately added to the paste by the potter.” Nile C fabric “contains large quantities of fine to coarse sand and of fine to coarse straw. The coarse straw particles appear to dominate over other inclusions” (Arnold and Bourriau 1993:170). 26 Aston’s monograph on Third Intermediate Period ceramics suggested that Nile B1 fabrics were completely replaced by Nile B2 fabrics during this time (Aston 1996a:6). If further ceramic studies prove this to be the case, all of the Nile B ceramics from Strata 1, 2, and 3 of this project would actually correspond to Nile B2.



color from the interior fabric, despite no evidence for a wash or slip. Using neutron activation analysis (NAA), they concluded that the color variation was not caused by any additional surface treatment, but rather by the “…migration of the finer clay particles to the surface when the vessel is wet-smoothed” (Hummel and Shubert 1994:33). Re-firing experiments showed that east Karnak’s marls were originally fired to 850-900 degrees centigrade (Hummel and Shubert 1994: 33), and the similarity between their types and those at south Karnak suggest the latter’s pottery was produced similarly.

termed “Marl ware 3” (Kemp 1986b:155), which Hummel and Shubert identify as being the same as east Karnak’s oasis clay (Hummel and Shubert 1994:73). The pottery at Amarna originates from the late dynastic period “south tombs,” and at that site it was used mainly for kegs. French personally observed similar vessels from north Karnak, Hermopolis, and Memphis (Kemp 1986b:147-188). Aston’s “Oases 1” fabric, used for Late Period kegs at the site of Elephantine, is likely identical to French’s “Marl ware 3.” Elephantine also had a second oasis clay, called “Oasis 2” (Aston 1999:7). At Ramesside Qantir, Aston identified two forms of clay that he suggested came from Dakhleh oasis, his types V.01 and V.02. There, this fabric was used exclusively for amphorae (Aston 1989b:73). Indeed, a production site for oasis-clay kegs and flasks discovered in the Dakhleh Oasis showed that this clay type was in use there by at least the Late Period. Hope, who worked at the site in ‘Ein el-Azizi, suggested that oasis projection in Dakhleh likely began even earlier, in the late New Kingdom (2000:193). South Karnak’s oasis clay pieces originate almost exclusively in Strata 1 and 2 (with Stratum 1 containing the highest percentage), dated to the late Third Intermediate Period (Dynasty 25) and the early Late Period (Dynasty 26).

Marl A3 fabric was relatively rare at south Karnak, but it appeared most frequently in Stratum 4 contexts. It is possible that this fabric type did not continue to be used past the New Kingdom (Aston 1996a:8). Marl C fabrics originated only in Stratum 4 as well. These are very hard clays, fired to a temperature of 7501000 degrees Celsius (Aston 1996c:6). This clay’s origin is thought to lie near Lisht in Lower Egypt, and it occurred most commonly in the Delta region around Memphis and Fayyum. Vessels of this clay found in Upper Egypt and Nubia show that they were traded into the south of the country (Arnold and Bourriau 1993).

Oasis clays differed distinctly from Nile silt and marl clays at the south Karnak site, due to the hardness of the fabric and their unique coloring. Chemical studies performed on oasis clays from east Karnak showed that the fabric contained high levels of aluminum, similar to cement,34 explaining its hardness. Re-firing experiments demonstrated that the fabric originally would have fired at some 900-1000 degrees centigrade (Hummel and Shubert 1994:73). Versions of the fabric at that site came in two types: the first with a “mustard yellow” surface and a grey core, the second with a uniform dark grey core. Both types were identified at south Karnak. However, a “thick plum red slip” that some of the east Karnak examples carried (Hummel and Shubert 1994:73) was not present in south Karnak. Instead, an oasis fabric with a tri-colored core, transitioning from yellow to pink and then light blue was identified. French noted that Amarna’s Marl ware 3 also includes versions with pink and/or blue/grey in the break (Kemp 1986b:155), possibly similar to the south Karnak corpus’s “rainbow” type. Aston also described a version of oasis clay (his oasis clay 1) seemingly identical to this project’s, with: “…the surface firing black whilst the section is yellow with pink and blue-grey zones” (Aston 1996a:9). Hope’s Fabric A11, a basal clay (Hope 2000:194), and the south Karnak fabric likely correspond to Darnell’s fabric O3, appearing in handled flasks from western desert sites (Darnell 2000:229-230, fig. 1, 2, 4). This type has also been identified at central Karnak in the Third Intermediate and early Late Period levels, disappearing in late Dynasty 26 and 27 (Masson 2010). It is also possible that the “rainbow” clay at south Karnak is merely a variant of another type present at the site, with a yellow

Marl D fabrics appeared in this project’s excavations in Stratum 4. Aston suggested that this fabric type generally lasted only through his Phase I (Dynasties 19-21), and was most commonly found in the Delta region near Memphis or the Fayyum in Dynasty 18 and after (Aston 1996a:8). Oasis clays Oasis clay, likely originating at Egypt’s southern oases of Dakhleh and Kharga, is not included in the Vienna system (Hope 2000:189). The clays from the two oases resemble each other so closely that their fabrics cannot be differentiated, but Hope believed the ancient material may come primarily from Dakhleh, based on the quantity of finds of Late Period/Ptolemaic kegs and flasks there (2000:190). In addition, oasis vessels from within the Nile valley parallel the types found in excavations at Dakhleh. The vessels from Karnak north, for example, are exceedingly similar to the types found in the Late Period-Early Ptolemaic settlement at ‘Ein el-Azizi (Hope 2000:190-193). Petrographic analysis of oasis fabrics from north Karnak and Dakhleh supports the hypothesis of a common origin. Some fabrics from Karnak have been confirmed to be from Dakhleh, while others were only provenanced to the southern oases in general (Eccleston 2000:211-218). The south Karnak excavations uncovered a small, but noticeable amount of vessel sherds of oasis fabrics. The ceramicists at east Karnak identified this type of clay in Third Intermediate Period and Late Period levels at that site.33 French found a similar fabric at Amarna, which he 33

34 See Hummel and Shubert 1994:73 for chemical analysis of East Karnak’s oasis clay material.

Although only one example comes from the Late Period levels (Hummel and Shubert 1994: pl. LXXXII:5).



surface and dark grey core. The different coloring may be due to firing technique.

Surface Treatments Because ceramic material in the project spanned three separate ceramic phases, surface treatments varied largely from one phase to another. Possible functional reasons for the use of these treatments will be discussed later in the section on vessel function. Here, only the chronological occurrence of specific surface treatment will be listed.

Oasis clay fabric was not included in the Vienna system, probably because it did not become important in the Egyptian ceramic corpus until after the New Kingdom. 35 Apparently, this fabric was utilized only for a restricted corpus of vessels in the Pharaonic period. Hummel and Shubert noted that only one type of vessel could be tied to this fabric type at east Karnak, the large keg. They described its typical form as: “…an elongated elliptical shape with a spherical cross-section (like a watermelon)” (Hummel and Shubert 1994:73). They uncovered one complete version of this type (Hummel and Shubert: pl. LXXXII:3), and the other oasis sherds found were consistent with this shape. Jacquet-Gordon identified large flasks with handles at Karnak north (Hope 2000:193, pl. 2 #a and pl. 3 #b-d). South Karnak examples resemble most closely those from Karnak north, with two handles attached to a tall, conical neck (see ceramic catalog in Appendix 1, vessel 2-4), likely a type of “flask.”36 Other examples include a small, handleless flask (Appendix 1, vessel 2-3) and sherds from vessels similar to “pilgrim flasks” identified across the Nile Valley. A different type discovered at south Karnak (Appendix 1, bottle 7-8),37 a long narrow bottle, was identical to one published from Elephantine (Aston 1999: pl. 56, #1702). Aston identified the fabric at that site as a variant on his oases clay 2. This variant type, also found at Karnak north, Abydos, and Thebes, was identified by its “… hard, greyish, almost metallic look,” and Aston suggested this was produced intentionally by the potters (Aston 1999:188). All known examples can be dated to the Third Intermediate Period or Late Period.

In the small amount of Late New Kingdom material uncovered in Stratum 4, painted pottery uncovered included “blue painted ware,” which was characterized by blue and black (sometimes with red) painted stripes.39 A small number of sherds with black paint were uncovered, as well as a few examples of black burnished sherds. Nile silt bowls, usually with simple rims and red burnished slips on one or both sides of the vessel were present. Red rims on silt bowls were also extremely common. Red-rimmed Nile silt bowls, as well as sherds with red washes and frequently also burnished, appeared quite frequently in Stratum 3. Present, but less frequently identified in Stratum 2 were uncoated Nile silt bowls with red rims and red washes. New here were Nile silt jars with a creamy-peach/pink colored wash applied to the exterior and sometimes interior rim,40 as well as a tan/white wash found on vessel exteriors. Seemingly exclusive to Stratum 2 was the appearance of Nile silt bottles with white stripes painted in a coil pattern on their shoulders. 41 Body sherds with this “white spiral” design were most common in this layer, although a few sporadic examples survived into Stratum 1.

Other Fabrics In Stratum 1, very few surface treatments were found on the ceramic material. The most frequently seen type had haphazardly painted thick white stripes on the upper body or the necks of Nile silt vessels, usually large jars.

Any sherds whose fabrics did not fit into one of the three preceding categories were noted during sorting. These included sherds seemingly from “mixed clay” types 38 and any possibly imported fabrics. The latter group were unfortunately usually body sherds, so in most cases little more than their identification as “not Egyptian” could be made. Those drawn sherds that are possible imports or mixed clay types are identified within the individual piece’s entry in Appendix 1, the ceramic catalog.

Infrequently, sherds were found painted with bi-chrome red and black decoration, usually horizontal striped. This type of treatment was most common in Dynasty 18, and therefore these examples could therefore be earlier intrusive sherds. However, this treatment was seen

35

This type is included in Aston’s listing for fabrics encountered in the Third Intermediate Period, and it was documented in all of his three phases. See this entry also for a description of the inclusions in Oasis fabrics (Aston 1996a:9). East Karnak’s oasis examples typically came from Redford’s Phases I, H and G, dated to Dynasty 21, 22, and until the ninth century BCE (Hummel and Shubert 1994:73). 36 Flasks and kegs differ based on the location and presence of handles on the vessels. Hope stated: “…no definite examples of kegs with handles attached from the base of the neck to the upper body are known to me. Thus all fragments which preserve such handles have been identified as coming from flasks” (2000:196). Indeed, he argued that vessel body shape also differs between the two types, with elliptical or spherical bodies typifying flasks, and elongated, non-symmetrical bodies typical of the keg (Hope 2000:196). 37 I would like to thank David Aston for kindly identifying the fabric of this bottle for me. 38 For a discussion of the use of mixed clays in ancient Egypt see: Arnold and Bourriau 1993:166-167.

39 The floral designs associated with blue painted ware of Dynasty 18 apparently gave way to a more simple, linear style in Dynasty 19. This more geometric style continued until the use of blue paint was completely discontinued, after the reign of Ramesses IV (Aston 1989b:57). 40 This slip is also seen on similar globular jars dated to Dynasties 20/21 at Qantir (Aston 1989b:59). 41 This so-called “white spiral ware” was a new invention in Dynasty 25 (Aston 1989b:59) and may have been an attempt to replicate the appearance of marl clay vessels in silt fabrics. The use of this decorative style halted within a few decades (French 1992:85-86). Silt jars from the south tombs of Amarna have this type of decoration (Kemp 1986b:164), and it also appears at east Karnak, where “better preserved pieces...show them to be a continuous spiral line, no doubt applied on a rotating wheel” (Kemp 1986b:154). A number of whole examples from the south Karnak excavations also seem to be applied in one long stripe, probably during turning on a wheel.



occasionally later in the Ramesside period,42 and could be contemporary with the Stratum 4 material as well. Information on surface treatment is provided within the individual entry for each sherd drawn in the ceramic catalog (Appendix 1), if applicable.

2. Vessel Shape This category consisted of ten general types: bowl/plate, jar, tray, bottle, cup, basin, hob, lid, vessel stand, and pithos. Bowls and plates were lumped into one category, since often sherds from these two types of vessels could not be distinguished from one another. From a functional standpoint, the difference between the two has little significance. This joint category should allow conclusions to be made about function of a large number of sherds when the more specific data (see category 3 below) is not available due to level of preservation. Vessel shape terminology was taken from the forms described in Aston’s work on the ceramics from Elephantine. Shape distinctions in that work were made between beakers, bowls, dishes, plates, and jars based on the ratio between the vessel height and the maximum diameter of the vessel (Aston 1999:9-12).44 Because the distinction between bowls, dishes, and plates was too difficult to make at south Karnak without whole vessels, these three categories were lumped into bowl/plate for the purpose of this work. The distinctive “bread trays” or “bread plates” were termed trays in this work in order to distinguish them from other types of plates, from which they appear to differ functionally. Aston’s beaker category was labeled cup in this project. Basins were large bowls. Hobs, lids, stands, and pithoi were not included in Aston’s groupings (although they were present in the pottery he analyzed), presumably because their forms are distinct enough to not necessitate the use of such a system. These types were included as distinct shape categories in this project because they have functional significance. Aston grouped all closed shapes into a series of categories of jars, but this did not allow for any distinction between closed forms. Jars with a narrow neck, clearly distinct from the rim, and an Aperture Index of greater than 250 were termed bottles.45

Analysis Categories Once all ceramics were recorded in the field, the information was entered into computer database programs (Microsoft Excel and the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences - SPSS). In total, more than 3,800 diagnostic sherds were recorded and coded in these systems. The number of sherds in the following categories was totaled for each stratum, producing data on the frequency of each type for the periods included in the study. Categories of analysis were broken down into the following increasingly specific groupings: open vs. closed forms, vessel shapes, and vessel types. Each sherd was coded to the most specific category possible. 1. Open vs. Closed Forms Ceramicists divide ceramic forms into these two groupings, generally calculated based on the “Aperture Index” or AI.43 If the AI is equal to or smaller than 140, the form is considered “open;” greater than 140, “closed.” In general, these categories are easily discernible to the naked eye and are quite standardized by type of vessel (ie. bottles are “closed,” bowls are “open”), so any sherds of vessels belonging to these groups were automatically assigned into the appropriate open/closed category. Not all sherds could be inserted into a general vessel category, however, and these sherds, most often rims, were designated based on their original angle of positioning on the vessel (i.e. whether the sherd came from a jar or bottle, it could be assigned to “closed” form). Sometimes these pieces were too fragmentary and hence could not be assigned at all. Fortunately, these uncategorized types were not the majority. In general, ceramic types were repeated often throughout each stratum’s assemblage, and familiarity with the common vessels made assigning less substantial sherds easier. However, a number of sherds defied categorization because of similarity between parts of different types of vessels. For example, many Nile silt bases could have belonged to either open bowls or closed jars. As well, some jar rims, especially those marl clay jars with flared necks, were too similar to rims of marl bowls to differentiate the two types. These too were left as unassigned. In order to quickly and easily distinguish between “open” and “closed” types, open forms were assigned a letter designation (A) and closed types were assigned a numeric designation (1). A description of each type is listed in Table 5.1.

3. Vessel Types: Type numbers and letters were assigned to thirty-nine frequently occurring vessel types. A few of the categories overlap, but each vessel was included in only one numbered category, whichever category was felt to fit it best. Vessel types were based on those established by Aston in his recent publications of Late New Kingdom and Third Intermediate Period pottery (Aston 1996a, Aston 1999) as well as Holthoer’s frequently referenced publication of New Kingdom pottery (Holthoer 1977).46 44 In Aston’s method, a jar is any closed shape, while closed shapes are divided into a number of groups. Those with a vessel index (maximum body diameter divided by vessel height) of less than 125 are beakers; 125-275 are bowls; 275-500 are dishes; and greater than 500 are plates (Aston 1999:11). 45 Most often, whole vessels were not preserved, so the Aperture Index distinguishing jars from bottles was based on measurements from published examples of vessels of that type, not on individual measurements made on the south Karnak pottery corpus. 46 There are a number of cases where Aston and Holthoer differ over terminology, and in general this work followed Aston. In both cases, the authors were dealing with a much larger corpus of material (which also included a higher quantity of whole or reconstructable vessels) than this project. They therefore used a number of even more specific categories

42

Aston 1989b:76 AI is calculated by dividing the vessel’s diameter at its maximum body diameter by its diameter at its aperture, and then multiplying by 100 (Aperture Index=Maximum body diameter/Aperture diameter x 100) (Aston 1999:10-11). 43



Well-established Egyptology vessel terms (e.g. “pilgrim flasks”) were included with the morphological description of some vessels, as these are considered distinct and recognizable forms and are part of the common literature.47 These names have not all been proved to correlate with actual ancient vessel function, so these are used only for convenience here.

The fragmented nature of the majority of the sherd material from this project meant that often bowls could only be partially matched to a specific category (Types D, E, F, and G), so a number of sherds are identified with two possible types (e.g. “D/F,” a bowl with a simple rim and unknown base type). As well, the similarity between sherd material of Types A1, A2, and A3 sometimes would not allow a piece to be placed in one of the three specific categories, so it was assigned a general “A” Type.

Each numbered/lettered type is listed in Table 5.1 and corresponds with an example of its “typical” form in Figure 5.1. The drawings included with Figure 5.1 are characteristic of each vessel type, and they are given to provide the reader with the general form of a whole vessel of that “type.” Whole vessels recovered from the site are used when possible, but in many cases no complete examples were found. In these cases, sherd material is used with dotted lines added to show the expected form of the complete vessel. These reconstructions are done to provide a general approximation of the expected form based on more complete vessel examples from other published sites. 48

By analyzing the south Karnak ceramics in the abovementioned increasingly specific categories, this project has gathered information on both specific and broad levels. All diagnostic sherds from each stratum were recorded and included in the analysis, whether they could be identified to only the most general category of open/closed vessels, or to the more specific vessel shape and vessel type groups. Vessels that did not fit within the thirty-nine specific vessel type groups established, usually due to their incomplete or ambiguous profiles, could still often be assigned to the broader vessel shape groups. This approach to ceramic analysis was taken to include as much of the ceramic material as possible in the study, not just those sherds identifiable to the level of vessel type. The following calculations therefore include the widestranging information available on the ceramic assemblage through which the more specific data can be viewed.

Variation within the vessel type groups is not represented here, and instead can be seen in the catalog of drawn vessels and sherds in Appendix 1. Only a selection of vessels and sherds of each type were drawn and included in this catalog. During the ceramic coding process, sherds that closely resembled a previously drawn piece were merely coded and photographed. When a new variation on a vessel type was identified, the piece was drawn and added to that group’s repertoire. The ceramic catalog in Appendix 1 therefore documents the general range of forms included in each vessel type category and does not show every sherd or vessel coded for each group.49

to further refine their typologies, often based on relative size or slight variation in vessel wall contours. This project’s categories are broad because of the very fragmented nature of the majority of the material, which generally did not allow for a confident reconstruction of vessel size or total wall profile. 47 See Aston 1989b:44-45 for a brief description of these types. 48 See the ceramic catalog in Appendix 1 for published comparative materials for each vessel type. 49 More than 1200 diagnostic sherds were coded to the vessel type level, and it was beyond the capability of this project to draw all of these examples. In most cases the forms within each stratum were highly repetitive.



Table 5.1: Vessel Types A: Large flat lids, trays, or platters A1: Flat trays or platters with modeled rim/edge (“bread trays”) A2: Large flat lids or trays with straight or thickened rim/edge (“oven lid”) A3: Large flat platters or trays with tall vertical or flared rim/edge B: Vessel lids C: Vessel stands D: Bowls/plates/cups with simple rims and round bases E: Bowls/plates/cups with modeled rims and round bases F: Bowls/plates/cups with simple rims and flat or ring bases G: Bowls/plates/cups with modeled rims and flat or ring bases H: Carinated bowls I: Footed bowls J: Ledged cups K: Large flat edged tubs (“pithoi”) L: Cups with tall foot (“goblet”) M: Conical molds (“bread molds”) N: Basin/large bowls without flattened rims N2: Basin/large bowls with flat, large rim O: Bowls with series of pierced holes in body, base (“strainers”) P: Vessels with two legs attached to open bowl form (“hobs”) 1: Jars with simple, incurving rim or slightly flared rim, finger-print base (“beer jars”) 2: Lentoid or round-bodied bottles with two handles attached on neck and shoulder (“pilgrim bottles”) 3: Type eliminated 4: Large jars with rolled rims (“meat jars”) 5: Tall jars with handles, rim not tooled 6: Bottles with flat bases 7: Bottles with round or pointed bases 8: Bottles with thick rim 9: Funnel-necked jars 10: Globular jars 11: Bulged jars (large, neckless jars with high point of maximum diameter) 12: Foreign Vessel Types 13: Spouted Vessels 14: Jars with wide mouths 15: Jars with two handles extending from rim to shoulder 16: Large bottles with two handles on shoulder/body (“amphorae”) 17: Jars with extremely outward flaring/angled rims 18: Jars with long, vertical neck and rounded rim with interior ledge, globular body 19: Neckless jars with sloping shoulder 20: Jars with nearly vertical sides and thick, flat rims 21: Jars with short rim and almost vertical continuation to neck and/or body 22: Tall jars with tooled or shaped rims in marl clay, with or without handles



Figure 5.1: Drawings of Vessel Types

A1:

A2:

A3:

B:

C:

D:

E:

F:

G:

H:

I:

J:



K:

L:

M:

N:

N2:



O:

P:

1:

2:

4:

5:

6:

7:



8:

9:

10:

11:

12:



13:

14:

16:

15:

17:



19:

18:

20:

22:

21:

5.16).51 All category percentages are based on the total number of sherds/vessels recorded within each individual stratum, not the total number recorded for the site. 52 Following the stratum-by-stratum examples are a number

The following charts show the results of the analysis. These include the proportion of open vs. closed vessels, vessel shapes, and vessel types for each of the four major chronologically distinct strata established during excavations (Charts 5.1-5.4; 5.6-5.9; 5.12-5.15). An additional chart, combining the ceramics from Strata 2&3, is included for each group as well, to consider together the horizons active during the totality of the Third Intermediate Period50 (Charts 5.5, 5.10 and

51

These charts, labeled “Strata 2 and 3,” contain a combination of the ceramic material securely dated to each of those strata, as well as a small amount of additional material that could only be more generally dated to “either Stratum 2 or 3.” The later material (because it was deemed as being of “mixed date”) was omitted from the individual stratum analyses, but was added to these charts since a mixed date for this purpose was acceptable. 52 All of the pottery recorded originated in the 2005 season, which saw the complete exposure of most excavation units from Strata 1 through 3. Selected items from the 2006 season (which, because of the excavation goals that season recovered almost exclusively Stratum 1 pottery) were drawn and photographed to confirm chronology, but because of time constraints, this pottery was not subject to the statistical study of the previous season.

50

Building A’s main period of use and construction documented through excavations was Stratum 2, the late Third Intermediate Period. The architecture uncovered in Stratum 3 may or may not have had a direct relationship with the Stratum 2 building. If the Stratum 3 architecture was part of an earlier version of the Stratum 2 building, the inclusion of information combining Strata 2&3 would document the ceramics from the building’s entire archaeologically represented lifecycle.



of charts that consider vessel shape and vessel type for Building A’s Rooms 1 through 7 in isolation (Charts 5.11 and 5.17-5.23). As was stated earlier in the chapter, not all ceramic materials could be matched to the above categories. As the categories moved toward increasing specificity, a smaller percentage of the sherds could be assigned to them. The percentage of the total ceramics for each stratum that were not distinctive enough to be included within the category were included in the charts documenting open and closed vessels (Charts 5.1-5.5), but not vessel shape or type.

complicated, due to the fragmentary nature of the south Karnak material (for certain vessel types there were no complete examples linking specific rim types with base types). Pottery lots that had a great deal of mixed materials from two strata were not included in the analysis, since their date could not be defined. Those that had a small amount of easily identifiable intrusive sherds were included, as the date of the whole lot was not in question. Those few lots with mixed materials from Strata 2 and 3 that were disregarded for analysis in the individual Stratum charts were included in the analysis for charts with Strata 2&3 combined, since these charts combine the material from both strata, and the presence of mixed material would have no effect on the outcome. While the chart for Stratum 4 faithfully records the ceramics from that horizon, conclusions from this information can only be considered tentative, as only a small area was exposed. Results should be considered alongside future research into the New Kingdom levels in that area of the site.

All charts have been adjusted to reflect the “minimum number of vessels” (MNV) possible in each stratum or room by calculating the percentage of diameter (of base or rim) for each sherd.53 Sherds from the same vessel type or shape, with identical diameters, surface treatment, and fabrics, were combined and the MNV from this group was calculated.54 This was done to reduce the effect on the data of varying break patterns for different types/shapes of vessels, which can dramatically skew results.55 This method was performed level-by-level for each excavation unit and not applied to the entire stratum as one group, since a single stratum could include sherd materials located 60 vertical cm apart. Additionally, no attempt was made to further refine the MNV by matching and combining bases and rims of the same types/shapes of vessels. Such a calculation would have been quite 53 This method of quantification is explained in Egloff (1973:351-353) and compared to other methods of estimating numbers of vessels in Orton, Tyers, and Vince (1993). The calculation of minimum number of vessels is a technique used at Amarna for the “Workmen’s Village” and Zir area (Rose 1984:139, Rose 1986:99) and at Memphis (Bourriau 1991:266). Rose succinctly explained the point of this method, saying: “Simple quantification of the field data is not entirely satisfactory without some modification: differential breakage rates, caused by either the relative hardness of the various fabrics, or by use, would produce a distorted picture of the pottery assemblage. To compensate for this, the number of complete rims of each vessel type is calculated from the addition of the ‘percentage preserved’ of rim sherds agreeing in fabric, surface treatment, diameter, and shape, and this figure is taken as an indication of the number of vessels present in each excavation area” (Rose 1984:139). Rose noted that even with this adjustment, the minimum number of vessels calculated will still usually be higher than the actual number of that type of vessel originally deposited in the area. This is caused by the variation in rim or base shape within a single vessel, a variation that would cause the analyst to overestimate the number of sherds from distinct vessels (Rose 1984:139). 54 For example, if five rim sherds from similarly sized, undecorated Nile B Type D bowls are recorded, each preserving only 25% of a full bowl rim diameter, these five sherds total diameter = 125%, or at minimum, 2 bowls. Surface treatments can complicate this system further however. If two of the rim sherds have surface decoration, one with a red rim and the second with a red burnish on the exterior, the minimum number of bowls would be 3, since the undecorated sherds (3 rims) would form 75% of a bowl, the red rim sherd (1 rim) must signify another completely different bowl, and the red burnished sherd (1 rim) an additional bowl. 55 Orton, Tyers, and Vince discuss how varying patterns of breakage can bias the results of pottery analysis (Orton, Tyers and Vince 1993:169173). At south Karnak, very fragmented bowl rims that only constituted between 5-15% of the total vessel diameter were common. Many of these sherds likely came from the same bowl, although they could not be directly joined. Other vessels, like jar Type 22, regularly preserved 25-50% of the total rim diameter. To negate the effect of the more brittle vessels (such as the aforementioned bowls, which would be overrepresented) on the overall statistics, the data was adjusted for minimum number of vessels and these results were used for the overall statistical analysis of each stratum.

Chart 5.1: Percent Open vs. Closed Vessels, Stratum 1



Chart 5.2: Percent Open vs. Closed Vessels, Stratum 2

Chart 5.3: Percent Open vs. Closed Vessels, Stratum 3

Chart 5.4: Percent Open vs. Closed Vessels, Stratum 4

Chart 5.5: Percent Open vs. Closed Vessels, Stratum 2& 3 Combined

Comments on Charts 5.1-5.5 The percentage of diagnostic ceramics documented that could not be assigned either to the open or closed categories was included in this analysis. This group is listed here as “unknown.”



Chart 5.6: Vessel Shapes, Stratum 1



Chart 5.7: Vessel Shapes, Stratum 2



Chart 5.8: Vessel Shapes, Stratum 3



Chart 5.9: Vessel Shapes, Stratum 4



Chart 5.10: Strata 2&3 Combined Comments on Charts 5.6-5.10 above charts, the total percent of the original ceramic material that could not be used for the analysis is as follows: Chart 5.6: 28.7%; Chart 5.7: 29.2%; Chart 5.8: 34.1%; Chart 5.9: 43.2%; Chart 5.10: 29.6%.

Only diagnostic ceramics that could be assigned to one of the vessel shape categories were included in the statistical analysis. In each case, some percentage of the ceramics from that stratum could not be identified, and this material is not represented in the charts. For each of the



90

Total Number of Vessels of Each Shape

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0 Room 1

Room 2 jar

Room 3 bottle

bowl

Room 4 cup

basin

Room 5 pithoi

Room 6 tray

lid

Chart 5.11: Most Common Vessel Shapes, Room by Room, Strata 2 and 3 Comments on Chart 5.11 Chart 5.11 includes ceramics from the designated room spaces. See Figure 4.2 for the location of each room within Building A.



Room 7

Chart 5.12: Vessel Types, Stratum 1



Chart 5.13: Vessel Types, Stratum 2



Chart 5.14: Vessel Types, Stratum 3



Chart 5.15: Vessel Types, Stratum 4



Chart 5.16: Vessel Types, Strata 2&3 Combined: Comments on Charts 5.12-5.16 Only diagnostic ceramics that could be assigned to one of the vessel type categories were included in the statistical analysis. In each case, some percentage of the ceramics from that stratum could not be identified, and this material is not represented in the charts. For each of the

above charts, the total percent of the original ceramic material that could not be used for the analysis is as follows: Chart 5.12: 43.3%; Chart 5.13: 41.6%; Chart 5.14: 47%; Chart 5.15: 58.4%; Chart 5.16: 41.9%.



Chart 5.17: Room 1, Most Common Vessel Types Comments on Charts 5.17-5.23 Charts 5.17-5.23 include ceramics from the designated room spaces. See Figure 4.2 for the location of each room within Building A



Chart 5.18: Room 2, Most Common Vessel Types

Chart 5.19: Room 3, Most Common Vessel Types



Chart 5.20: Room 4, Most Common Vessel Types

Chart 5.21: Room 5, Most Common Vessel Types



Chart 5.22: Room 6, Most Common Vessel Types

Chart 5.23: Room 7, Most Common Vessel Types



Chart 5.24: Whole or Mostly Complete Vessels Associated with Surfaces

Chart 5.25: Proportion of Type of Clays by Stratum



Chart 5.26: Percentage of Nile Silt and Marl Clay Ceramics by Stratum, by Weight Comments on Charts 5.25-5.26

Meaning Behind the Numbers: Vessel Form, Use and Function

Chart 5.25 compares the proportion of the total ceramic sherds and vessels collected and recorded in each of the major fabric groups by stratum. In total, over 3,000 sherds were recorded with fabric information.

While the statistical information above provides raw data on the presence and quantity of certain types of vessels, fabrics, and surface treatments through time, these numbers supply little more than chronological or regional information without further interpretation. For any conclusions to be drawn about the activities taking place in the section of ancient Thebes under investigation at south Karnak, researchers must be able to glean functional information from the ceramic material. The large-scale, specialized, and generally uniform nature56 of ancient Egyptian ceramic production should facilitate the relating of vessel form to function, based on the multiple possible lines of evidence and thousands of opportunities to document context. Egyptologists, however, have hesitated to equate vessel form to function because of the multiplicity of uses suggested for many vessel types. 57

Chart 5.26 shows the total percentage of each fabric type, based on weight, excavated in each stratum. 95% of the ceramics excavated during the 2005 season were weighed, including those body sherds and levels that were not recorded in detail. Levels that were considered to have a large percentage of mixed material (sherds combining material from two or more strata), or those levels whose date could not securely be established, were not included in the analysis. The final analysis therefore included about 950 kg of pottery. Imported, oasis, and other fabrics were uncommon (see previous chart), hence their weight was negligible, and they were not included.

56 Kelley noted the uniformity of Egyptian pottery styles suggests a “widespread tradition” that generally inhibited breakdown into regional styles (Kelley 1983:30). 57 Even “meat jars,” which received their name because a group of these Dynasty 18 vessels from Amarna carried hieratic inscriptions describing their contents, are not universally acknowledged as originally being designed to hold meat (Aston 1996a:66). The also



Often this means that functional interpretations are left out of site reports58 and only attempted by museum curators during the publishing of single or small groups of vessels (usually fine or painted wears) outside of their greater context in a corpus. Only recently has the first volume broaching major issues in understanding the function of Egyptian ceramics been published (Bader and Ownby 2013). Admittedly, this is a topic fraught with difficulties, since a number of vessel types are no doubt used in multiple ways, vessels were clearly reused, and other aspects of a vessel, such as decoration or fabric type, could affect its use. However, the haphazard approach to the topic leaves a major void in the field of ceramic studies in Egyptology. Without existing theory on how pottery was used, archaeologists working in Egypt have no tools to help them assign greater meaning to the ceramics at their sites. Many excavators systematically record and publish their pottery, listing percentages of vessel types found, but offer no analysis of what these numbers mean for their site as a whole. In order to utilize the potential of ceramic finds on a site, Egyptologists must begin to deal with the question of how they can interpret this material, teasing out information on how the ceramics functioned, and what the implications of those functions are for site activity.

with vessel efficiency. Use would be studied by residue analysis, identifying patterns of wear and establishing find contexts from a variety of different types of sites. The two could then be compared/contrasted to show how the expectation for a vessel’s purpose (function) could differ from its actual role (use) in any given household, tomb, etc. Because the study of ancient Egyptian pottery is not yet that sophisticated, in many cases even determining one of the two options is difficult. For the purposes of this work, the terms will be used interchangeably, as evidence from both sides are needed to gain a basic understanding of what role the ceramics played in this area of Thebes. Surprisingly, Egyptologists have generally failed to take advantage of the large body of research (from outside Egyptology) theorizing the correlation between vessel form and function, work that could help the field shed light on the meaning of Egyptian ceramics. In the 1970s and 1980s, archaeologists realized the potential of pottery as a form of social and cultural study. Early on, these scholars posited that pottery’s role in society was as a utensil or tool, and that as something created by humans to fulfill a specific role, it should correspond physically with the role for which it was produced (Ericson, Reed and Burke 1972:84-95, Ericson and Stickel 1973:357). Braun, in his influential article “Pots as Tools,” argued for a level of intentionality in pottery production that had consequences on how scholars viewed the link between what was produced and why it was produced. He asserted:

Before discussing how this project proposes to attempt to deal with the issue of vessel function, a few terms must be defined. The ideas of vessel function and vessel use have been applied in slightly varying ways throughout literature on ceramics. This work will follow the definition of function as correlating with the specific intention for which the vessel was created. Use is interpreted as how the vessel was used in actual practice.59 These of course can differ, due to practices of vessel re-use or recycling. In the ideal case, vessel function could best be studied via testing of vessel mechanical properties, art historical representation of vessels, and equating morphological characteristics

“Most pots are implements; they are made to be used as containers. Many of the attributes of pottery routinely recorded from sherds...are, in fact, evidence of the techniques used by potters to achieve particular characteristics of utility in the finished vessels...[P]ots are tools. Their morphology and composition, and to a certain extent, their decoration...are in fact constrained by their intended contexts and conditions of use. Conversely, what may be termed the mechanical performance characteristics of a completed vessel, affecting its effectiveness for performing particular tasks, are conditioned by the attributes of manufacturing technique, vessel morphology, and paste composition” (Braun 1983:107-108).

well-known “beer jars” were interpreted by Holthoer as representing beer because of “…their usual finding conditions together with “flower pots,” which are tentatively proposed to stand for the bread mentioned in the votive Htp di nsw formula” (Holthoer 1977:86). Aston pointed out that at many other sites the beer jars were not associated with flower pots, and he doubted their interpretation as beer vessels at all (Aston 1999:16). 58 D. Arnold is one exception, as she assigned function based on form and comparative material to a group of vessels found at the funerary complex of Amenemhat III. She then looked at the percentages of each type found in the distinct parts of the complex to suggest the activities taking place there: consumption, provision, storage, or food preparation (Arnold 1982:50-56). 59 Most scholars dealing with this issue implicitly assign function a similar definition, relating to how a vessel was intended to be used, or its use in practice (Ericson, Reed and Burke 1972:84-95, Björk 1995, Hally 1986:267-295, Henrickson and McDonald 1983:630643, Skibo 1992:35, Smith 1988:912-923). This is contra to Rice, (1990:1-10, 1996:133-163), who defines function as the role ceramics play in society. She defines use as “a specific incidence of performance for a pot, with a distinction between intended use (of the potter) and actual use (by the ancient user)” (Rice 1996:139-140). This author finds such a division rather unhelpful, and has chosen to follow the majority of other scholars who see function as relating to design and utility of a vessel.

Scholars recognized the implications of these ideas60 and attacked the problem of how to equate vessel morphology with vessel function in myriad ways. Some researchers turned to ethno-archaeology and studied the uses of pottery among modern traditional groups, looking for cross-cultural patterns.61 Others practiced experimental archaeology, testing how varying attributes of vessels would affect their suitability for 60 Rice succinctly phrased it: “Each category of vessel use requires a different combination of attributes of form and composition to achieve a product that meets its special needs” (Rice 1987:209). 61 Smith 1988:912-923, Henrickson and McDonald 1983:630-643.



different purposes, including effective heat absorption, evaporative cooling, and thermal shock resistance. 62 A third method used evidence for modification and wear patterns on vessels in ethnographic collections to attempt to show how documented uses of a vessel leave traces that would be recognizable in the archaeological record.63

analyze whole vessel properties when archaeologists are almost always using sherd material. As well, vessel recycling, deposition practices, and the existence of vessels with multiple uses could limit the accuracy of using vessel size and shape to interpret function (Henrickson 1990:86-87). Henrickson suggested taking a more holistic approach, and incorporating all lines of available evidence, including epigraphic and art historical information about vessel use (1990:88). Fortunately for this study the majority of the pottery from south Karnak can be matched to better-preserved or whole vessels with similar or identical forms from excavations at greater Karnak and other Egyptian sites. As well, some vessels are depicted in tomb scenes in the act of use or with their contents labeled. This, and evidence from stamped or labeled sherds and vessels, can help to confirm the uses of some vessel forms.

The result was the creation of a number of functional categories linked with vessel shape that archaeologists thought could act as predictors of use. 64 Henrickson and McDonald divided these up into cooking vessels, serving and eating vessels, dry storage vessels, liquid storage vessels, and water transport vessels. They refined the storage and transport definitions further by suggesting differences between long-term and shortterm storage types, as well as long vs. short distance transport types (Henrickson and McDonald 1983:630643). Smith designed a fourteen point system that included all those mentioned by Henrickson and McDonald, but refined the categories further by dividing vessel types for potable and non-potable liquid storage (i.e. honey or oil) and adding vessels used for the mechanical processing of food stuffs (i.e. to mix, wash, or grate food). Smith also separated eating, drinking, food serving, and liquid pouring into distinct vessel categories (1988:912-923). Rice’s system was based around three main categories of use: storage, processing, and transfer. These groupings were then divided up further based on term of storage period, length of journey for transfer, and type of processing (Rice 1987:209). Hally approached the classification slightly differently and created a system for analyzing vessels via twelve measurable mechanical and morphological points. These elements of vessel form and composition were then linked to optimal functions. Relevant points included vessel stability, effective capacity, space utilization, ease of manipulation of vessel contents, type and size of orifice, as well as efficiency in heating, cooling, and resisting thermal shock (Hally 1986:267-295).

Another more recent challenge to the linking of vessel form and function came from Rice, who warned that potters may not have always created the most efficient vessel for a specific use. She conjectured that ancient potters made “complex decisions about allocating time and resources and minimizing risk” and those choices may have given primacy to ease of vessel production, economy of time of production, or tradition, rather than creating the best functioning product (Rice 1990:5, Rice 1996:140). The linking of form to function should be most successful when scholars know both how aware potters were of the effect of design on a vessel’s operation and if potters were skilled enough to manipulate this design without wasting time or resources (Smith 1983:32). In the workshop-scale style of production hypothesized for the mature Egyptian state of the New Kingdom through the Late Period, wheel-thrown pottery was made by craft specialists with a tradition of more than a thousand years behind them. 65 The large variety of pots produced, in different forms and made of different fabrics, shows that potters possessed the sophistication to understand the impact of size, shape, and fabric on the utility of a vessel, as well as to purposefully produce specialized vessels linked by form to their expected function.66 While there may not be a rigid relationship between vessel form and function, Smith argued that “[m]orphological properties...are more likely to be under strong, direct control during manufacture. Their relationship to function efficiency is often more obvious, and they may be more easily controlled than physical properties” (Smith 1985:257). In the Egyptian repertoire especially, one should expect design to be directly linked with intended performance.

By the early 1990s, archaeologists approached the conclusions of these studies with increasing caution, realizing the difficulty of using categories designed to 62

Schiffer 1990:119-136, Schiffer, et. at. 1994:197-217, Skibo, Schiffer and Reid 1989:122-146. 63 Skibo 1992. 64 A number of these categories were based on findings originating in ethnographic research. While some may question the relevance of these categories cross-culturally, Smith argued that using observable processes to explain how unobservable processes worked is a practice accepted in other fields, such as Geology and Paleontology. He asserted that Anthropology or Archaeology should not be excluded from using this material. In discussing the use of ethno-archaeology to research vessel function, he explains: “[m]orphological correlates of use behavior should be deducible from fundamental processes or laws that have always conditioned the behavior of people with simple artifacts. Underlying processes are likely to included unchanging aspects of anatomy and physiology, such as the size of the human hand; laws of physics and chemistry, such as those governing heat transfer; universal characteristics of fired clay, such as its brittleness; and the assumption that humans always tend to minimize the effort required to reach a given end...” (Smith 1985:256).

65 For a discussion of workshop production, see: Holthoer 1977:2728. For images of workshop pottery production, see: Arnold and Bourriau 1993. 66 Ceramicist Hope, who works intensively with ancient Egyptian materials has remarked: “The potter was conscious of the function his products were to serve and this determined his selection of raw materials, his treatment of them, the surface finish applied and the details of the shapes made” (Hope 1987:47).



The issue of vessel reuse is another stumbling block complicating the interpretation of vessel function based on morphology. While this practice surely did commonly occur, its existence does not invalidate the research on the correlation between function and shape. In fact, within the broad categories of vessel function (see south Karnak types I-V, Table 5.2), one would expect that reuse would not significantly change a vessel’s type of use. As is clear from the thousands of sherds found on any settlement excavation, pottery was plentiful in Pharaonic Egypt, and the acquisition and disposal of vessels was a common occurrence. 67 While one cannot assume vessels would simply be refilled with their original type of contents, in this pottery-rich culture ceramics would more often be used for something similar to their original function. If pottery reuse was as rampant as assumed, then the number of forms available must have been plentiful enough to allow individuals or groups to choose from a large pool of vessels for a task, and it seems probable that they would choose vessels physically suited to said task.68

Significant here is that during the reuse documented at Amarna, two of the three original intended uses 69 (short-term liquid storage and transport) continued to act as the vessel’s primary function, even if the exact contents (water instead of wine or oil) differed from the original. This is not surprising, since the vessels had a number of morphological features that make them efficient at these tasks (see discussion of Vessel Type 16 below). The archaeologically documented use of these vessels for the transport and holding of water shows that while vessel reuse may alter the types of food or drink the vessel contains, it does not necessarily involve a radically changed use of the vessel. The reuse of this vessel form included two of the original three functional categories, suggesting that the Egyptians were purposefully taking advantage of the vessel’s liquid storage qualities. Additionally, most ethnographic studies that document vessel reuse have been based on household research. Whether vessels would have been reused with such frequency at non-household places of production, distribution, or storage remains unclear. With no evidence for domestic activities in Building A, it is more likely that it functioned instead as an administrative or storage facility linked to the state or temple (discussed further in Chapters 4 and 6). No doubt larger, state or temple sponsored and funded units would have found it less desirable than households to substitute inappropriate vessels. They would have maintained better access to new or reused replacement vessels of the original type. For example, two large amphorae found in the tomb of Tutankhamun were dated and labeled as containing wine on two separate inscriptions – one from the reign of Amenhotep III (year 31) and the other from the reign of Akhenaten (year 10). These vessels therefore were reused at least once by the state (during the reign of Akhenaten) in urban contexts to hold identical contents before being reused for a similar purpose in a funerary context (the grave of Tutankhamun) (Holthoer 1993:43). Other vessels from the tomb have multiple stamps or dockets on them, some of which differ with regard to the contents they describe, usually concerning the type of wine or its quality. Again, this appears to be a clear example of vessel reuse - where the empty vessel was refilled and relabeled without bothering to eliminate the earlier marking (Hope 1993:132).

An example from the New Kingdom can illustrate this point. A number of uses for the large, two-handled amphorae have been documented through art historical and archaeological sources. This type of vessel is well known to have been imported along with its contents (often wine or oil) from other parts of the Near East and Mediterranean. The production of this type within Egypt is thought by ceramicist Bourriau to have developed directly alongside and linked with a burgeoning national wine industry at the start of Dynasty 18 (Bourriau 2004). On a number of daily life scenes from New Kingdom tombs, these vessels were labeled as containing wine, different types of oils, honey, resins, incense, water, and preserved fowl (Holthoer 1977:97, Paice 1989:62). Because tomb scenes only depict the ideal situation, one can expect these vessels to reflect the types of uses for which these vessels would have been imported or originally produced, and not vessel reuse. While hieratic labels, sealings and tomb scenes showed that wine was the most common content, research at Amarna also demonstrated that the vessels were reused “extensively in water supply and distribution” after their original liquid had been consumed (Hope 1989a:98).

Hypothesizing Pottery Function: Using Multiple Sources

67 No information on the value of ancient Egyptian pottery has been published to this author’s knowledge, but ceramicist Hope concluded: “Domestic pottery does not seem to have had much value, being easily obtainable, and its cost would have been very low” (Hope 1987:48). 68 While pottery vessels are commonly deposited in tombs, funerary offering chapels, and as foundation deposits for temples, this work will only consider pottery’s use in urban/settlement archaeology. Vessel forms used originally in the urban context, then reused as part of a funerary or ritual offering, may dramatically be changing use. This is especially because the morphological and mechanical attributes that make a vessel appropriate to its use in “daily life” may not be an influence on its use in funerary or ritual contexts. A vessel would no longer need to withstand heating and cooling, continual movement, filling of its contents, etc. once being placed in a tomb or offering space.

Building on the work of Braun, Schiffer, Rice, Hally, and Henrickson and McDonald, scholars have 69 In the case of amphorae, a defined, original intended use of the vessels can be confirmed, since the vessels were actually produced both within and outside Egypt specifically for the storage and shipment of wine. Because the exact uses of the amphora are so well known, they are used as an example here to illustrate how vessels were reused. It is not implied here that most other vessels were produced for such product-specific uses, rather that they were produced for specific functions.



continued to investigate issues relating to the production and use of vessels in past societies. Recent studies have focused on analyzing residue and evidence for use-alteration on vessels to document actual use practices (Tite 1999:207-210, Gibson 1998, Regert et al. 2003), technological choices made by potters during production (Tite, Kilikoglou and Vekinis 2001, Schiffer and Skibo 2001, Tite 1999:213-222), and how ethnoarchaeology can contribute to our understanding of vessel production and consumption practices (David and Kramer 2001: 146-150, Arnold 2000, Arnold 1999, Deal 1998).

I. dry-goods storage

Ia. longterm

Ib. shortterm70

II. liquid storage

IIa. longterm

IIb. shortterm71

III. food cooking/ preparation

IIIb. preparing liquid and solid foods IVb. serving72

Those scholars primarily interested in issues of vessel form and function have shifted to a more broad-based analysis of pottery and approached functional studies using a wider variety of sources. For example, Björk combined technological analysis of fabrics, evidence for use, the find context, and morphology of vessels to try to identify which pots were used for cooking in Greek Neolithic Achilleion (Björk 1995:136-137). Chilton used paste composition, firing conditions, technique of construction, surface treatment and vessel color, as well as the traditional morphological characteristics of size and shape to hypothesize function and cultural significance of vessels used by the Iroquois in in the northeastern US (1999). Lesure combined characteristics including morphology, surface attrition, sooting patterns, and type frequency to posit vessel function at Early Formative sites in coastal Mexico (1998). Reber considered residue remains and color symbology on sherds from the Lower Mississippi Valley in the US to test the link between vessel form, color, and contents (2007).

V. transportation

IIIa. cooking over heat IVa. eating and drinking Va. longdistance

IV. consumption

Vb. shortdistance

Table 5.2: Functional Categories for Vessels Types will be assigned initially based on vessel morphology. Vessel form and shape will be linked to function based on use-related properties theorized by Rice (1987:224-243), Smith (1988:913-914), Hally (1986:278-281), and Henrickson and McDonald (1983:361-364). These include shape, fabric, vessel capacity, stability, accessibility of contents, weight, type and size of orifice, transportability, and space utilization. Since the ceramic material from this project is mostly fragmentary, overall vessel size and shape will be inferred based on published examples of similar pottery,73 as well as the rim or base measurements. Fortunately, excavations and publications of Third Intermediate Period settlement sites in the past twenty years have provided a large corpus of similar material

This project also attempts to make links between vessel form with general functional categories, based on both research into morphology, fabrics, and multiple sources of evidence for vessel use, probably better documented in Thebes than in any other part of Egypt. With the amount of information available on Egyptian ceramics, including depictions and labeling of vessels in tomb paintings and stamped or inscribed jars and vessels found in primary use contexts, an analysis using multiple lines of evidence should allow at least basic conclusions to be made regarding the most likely function of south Karnak’s pottery.

70 Expected morphological differences between vessels suited for dry-goods long-term storage vs. dry-goods short-term storage include the following: short-term vessels would usually be short and squat, while long-term types would be taller and thinner; short-term types would not likely have handles, while long-term types might have them, although they would often only be used for maneuvering and tilting the vessel, not pouring contents out (Henrickson and McDonald 1983:632); short-term vessels would generally have a smaller capacity than long-term vessels, since long-term vessels would need to be accessed less and therefore ease of movement of the vessel would be less crucial (Bietak 1996a:237). 71 Expected morphological differences between vessels suited for liquid long-term storage vs. liquid short-term storage include the following: long-term storage types would be a larger/have a greater capacity than short-term types, since they would be accessed less and ease of movement of the vessel would be less crucial (Bietak 1996a:236); long-term storage types would have a shape that minimized “horizontal space utilization” to make storage more efficient, which is accomplished by making a vessel taller and thinner (Hally 1986:279); long-term types would be expected to have smaller orifices than short-term types, because ease of access to goods would be less important than securing the contents/protecting contents from contamination (Bietak 1996a:241). 72 One of the major differences expected between vessels for eating/drinking vs. serving would be size of the vessel. Those designed for eating and drinking would be sized for individual consumption (i.e. one portion of food or drink), while serving vessels would hold multiple portions (Smith 1988:914). 73 See individual drawn sherd entries in Appendix 1 for a bibliography of similar or identical vessel types.

Each lettered or numbered “vessel type” established from south Karnak (see Table. 5.1) will be assigned to one of the following functional categories:



for this phase.74 Comparative forms for the Late New Kingdom materials will be found in the numerous publications of New Kingdom pottery. 75 Early Late period pottery (Dynasties 26 to 27) is less thoroughly documented, but a few notable sites have very similar, and thus useful, ceramic corpora.76

Linking Vessel Form to Function (see Fig. 5.1 and Appendix 1 for drawings of each type) A: Flat trays or platters This category includes all trays or platters that could not be identified more specifically. See Types A1, A2, and A3 below for a description and predicted functions.

Each type will then be checked against other lines of evidence (when available) and conclusions modified based on the weight of the evidence. This includes consideration of technical properties of form and fabric and use of surface treatments. Direct evidence for use from published examples of vessels (from other sites or in museum collections) will also be taken into account.77 Contemporaneous evidence will be the primary focus when possible, but in limited cases earlier or later material will be brought to bear as well. Any artistic representations, inscriptions or stamps listing vessel contents, direct physical evidence for contents, and use-wear patterns or residue analysis on similar vessels will also be incorporated into the analysis.78

A1: Flat trays or platters with modeled rim/edge (“bread trays/plates”) Description: These are usually medium to large-sized round vessels with a flat base with a pinched edge that forms a raised lip around the upper face. The lower face of the base was left very rough, imprinted by the ground on which it was formed. The upper face (the interior of the vessel) was usually smoothed. These were handmade and are invariably composed of a coarse, porous Nile C fabric. All except one of the south Karnak examples were left plain with no surface treatment. Diameters ranged from 9-49 cm, with the average size around 28cm.

A detailed explanation for each type’s assignment follows. Each vessel type is assigned as specifically as possible to one or more of the above five functional categories or their sub-categories (Table 5.2). All assigned categories are considered possible uses at south Karnak. This approach has a number of advantages. It takes into account the fact that many vessels are used in a variety of ways, but within the same general form of use (e.g. to store wine, beer, and oil for long periods of time) and that some vessels are used across categories (e.g. a vessel is used to transport goods over short distances and then used to store them for short periods of time). Vessel function conclusions will then be combined with information on vessel quantity (see Charts 5.1-5.23 above) in order to hypothesize the most common activities taking place in this area of the site.

Predicted function: The shallow, open shape eliminates any practical use for liquid or dry-goods storage or transport. Consumption would be a possible function, since food could be easily displayed on these platters, and the raised lip would keep dry food items from rolling off the platter. However, the thickness of these vessels seems unnecessary if it merely functioned as a serving tray, since a large plate would be equally as effective and much lighter. Liquids would not be feasible to serve from this vessel, due to its low lip and the porosity of the fabric. The large size and weight of the complete vessel would not make this a practical vessel for individual consumption. These features, along with its shallowness and short lip, would make food preparation a good fit for this vessel, although again, not for liquids. Dry items could be mixed or rolled out on its large surface. How exactly these trays would function for cooking is unclear. They are both handmade and composed of Nile C fabric, both features found in many conical molds, well documented as serving for baking bread. However, the open shape of these types would mean that baking would need to be done with the tray completely horizontal (so the dough would not fall out), and this would take up a large portion of the oven. Alternatively, a second tray could be placed (upside-down) atop the first tray, completely enclosing the bread. Presumably, a number of these pairs could be stacked in an oven, so that multiple loaves could be baked at one time.

74 These include: Aston 1996a, Aston 1999, Hummel and Shubert 1994, Spencer 1993, Spencer 1996, Spencer 1999b. 75 Especially Holthoer’s comprehensive breakdown of settlement vessel types by form (Holthoer 1977). 76 The publications of this material include: the temple of Seti I, Marchand and Laisney 2000:261-298; the temple of Hathor at Dendera, Mysliwiec 1987:199. 77 Emphasis will be placed on types found in settlement sites. Funerary vessels are problematic to use for understanding vessel function at non-funerary sites for a number of reasons. It is possible that many ceramics were produced especially for funerary use, and potters may have made choices about form that reflect that specific use. Further, vessels of daily life reused in tombs may be used in ways that would not have been typical in a village/city environment, since funerary vessels would not need to survive the stresses of daily life, i.e. repeated heating, cooling, evaporation, opening and closing, or moving. 78 While Thebes may have one of the best documented and most plentiful corpuses of this type of material, most of the material is from the New Kingdom, including Dynasty 18 Malqata, Dynasty 1920 Deir el Medina, and Dynasty 18 tombs at Gurna. While the Third Intermediate Period and Late New Kingdom are not so far off in time, there are enough changes in the pottery corpus that the earlier material can only be used as a guideline in assigning vessel form.

Other information: These vessels have been linked to bread making due to their resemblance to modern Egyptian bread plates, called dokkas. These plates hold bread dough while it is allowed to rise in the sun and then baked in an oven (Allen 1982:22, quoting Helen Jacquet-Gordon). Faltings, whose study focuses on food production in the Old Kingdom, suggests that similarly shaped trays from that period (Faltings



1998:85, #9-13) found at ‘Ain Asil can be identified as bread plates (1998: 87). She traces their development from the ‘prt plates, which, based on their representations in tomb scenes, were likely oval shaped Nile silt plates (Faltings 1998:88). The trays are shown with pieces of bread placed atop them (Faltings 1998:69, fig. 20a and 70, fig. 20b). Because images of this type of tray never appear in funerary scenes, Faltings believes they were not used in ritual presentations and only for the actual baking of bread (1998: 83).

which were also large and coarsely made (Allen 1982: pl. XX #7). Excavators there suggested the large lids covered the bread ovens found on site (Allen 1982:21). At Ashmunein, a large example of this type (Spencer 1993: pl. 74, M.1.40) was found next to a circular oven in a room with two other contemporary ovens. The room was blackened from burning (Spencer 1993:2324).

At Third Intermediate Period Ashmunein, similarly shaped Nile silt vessels (Spencer 1993: pl. 74 types M.1.68, M.1.70) were found in a room blackened by burning and housing two large ovens. While present in other areas of the site, these trays/platters were found in the greatest concentration in this room. Spencer suggested therefore that they were involved in bread making, either as plates upon which to place freshly baked bread or as flat surfaces for preparation of the unbaked dough (Spencer 1993:24). Trays were also found at the New Kingdom city of Amarna, and the excavator noted that these may have been used for baking flat, round bread loaves (Kemp 1979:11). One example at the necropolis of Heracleopolis Magna has a handle attached to the underside (López Grande, Quesada Sanz, and Molinero Polo 1995:186, #c, Type IE.2), suggesting that this type may also have served as an oven lid for bread ovens or large cooking ovens (López Grande, Quesada Sanz, and Molinero Polo 1995:96).

A3: Large flat platters with tall vertical or flared rim/edge

Conclusion: group IIIa. cooking over heat and/or group I. dry-goods storage

Description: These vessels were similar to the type A1 trays/platters, but instead of short pinched edges, these had taller, vertical or slightly flaring edges. These vessels were also made of Nile C fabric. The most complete example had a diameter of 40cm. A few examples were impressed with rope on the exterior, probably from wrapping of the vessel to help retain its shape during drying due to its large size. Predicted function: Because the fabric, manufacturing method, and basic form is very similar to the south Karnak corpus Type A1, one would expect the function of these vessels to have some parallels. Again, the shallow, open shape eliminates liquid or dry-goods storage and transport. Consumption is a possible function, since food could be easily displayed on these platters, and the tall, straight or flared lip would do a better job than group A1 at keeping dry food items from rolling off the platter. Liquids would still be impractical to serve from this vessel, due to its low lip, the flared sides of some of the vessels, and the porosity of the fabric. The large size and weight of some of the examples suggests these would not have served as individual vessels for consumption, but rather as serving vessels. These features, along with its shallowness and short lip, would also make food preparation a good fit for this vessel, although again, not for liquids. Dry items could be mixed or rolled out on its large surface. How (or if) these trays would have functioned for cooking is unclear. Nile C fabric, seen in bread molds (Type M), the rimmed trays that have been hypothesized as bread trays (Type A1), and lids, possibly for ovens (Type A2), seems to have been a fabric deemed suitable for use with heat. Therefore, a possible involvement with cooking cannot be dismissed.

Conclusion: group III. food cooking/preparation A2: Large flat lids or trays with straight or thickened rim/edge (“oven lid”) Description: A number of examples from south Karnak have been found with thick, large, central handles. The body sherds are flat on their bottom face and have imprints of the surface on which they were formed. The upper face is smoother and thickens along the edge. The general shape is round. Without exception, these were made of a thick, coarse, porous Nile C fabric. All appear to be hand-made. Size was generally larger than type A1, with diameters averaging around 40 cm, and the largest example measuring 52 cm. Predicted function: The large handles and large diameters of these pieces suggest they were used as lids for large, circular vessels or features. The nature and type of fabric would oppose a use for liquid storage, and the size of the pieces (as well as the size of the feature it must have closed) would eliminate use in transportation or in eating/serving. Suggested use would then be for either dry-goods storage (ie. covering large bins) or food cooking/preparation (covering cooking ovens).

Other information: A similar but smaller sized type with almost vertical rim/edge was found at Gurna (Mysliwiec 1987:53 #346). It was also made of thick Nile silt clay with organic inclusions. At that site, it is grouped with types similar to south Karnak Types A1 and A2, which Mysliwiec terms “flat bread molds of various sizes” (1987:53, author’s translation from the German). Aston published a similar vessel at Elephantine, a large version with flaring sides made out of Nile C uncoated fabric (Aston 1999: pl. 7 #156). He

Other information: The excavations at the city of Mendes uncovered similarly shaped vessel types,



storage, and V. transportation

called it a “large platter,” and differentiated it from the smaller “bread plates” found in the same building (Aston 1999:36-37). At Ashmunein, smaller sized platters of Nile silt clay of this type (Spencer 1993: type A1.32, vol. 1, pl. 61) were found with vessels similar to south Karnak Types A1 and A2 (Spencer 1993: A1.18 and A.1.19, pl. 61, 88).

C: Vessel stands Description: Vessel stands came in two types: 1. tall, biconical shaped stands with a tapering neck leading to a widening base, and 2. cylindrical or tubular stands, which were shorter and had open rims and bases of approximately the same diameter (the type shown in Figure 5.1).79 Both types were made of Nile B fabric and possessed everted rims, presumably to help support a vessel. The well-preserved examples had diameters ranging from 23-26cm.

Conclusion: groups III. food cooking/preparation and/or IVb. serving B: Vessel lids Description: A small number of vessels clearly formed to function distinctly as covers/stoppers for vessels were identified. These are easy to distinguish as lids, unlike the small, simple bowls that may also have been used to cover vessels. The lids were made of a medium to thin walled Nile B fabric, and included a projecting lip that would fit snugly into the vessel rim or neck.

Predicted function: Obviously, vessel stands would be quite impractical for vessel transportation. Liquid and dry-goods storage would also gain little from the use of vessel stands, as these take up valuable space in storage areas and would increase the likelihood of vessel breakage from falling. Food cooking/preparation would also seem unlikely, especially for the tall stands, as mixing food creates enough motion that the vessel atop the stand could fall and break. Eating/serving seems the most probable function, since the stand would allow consumers to place food stuffs nearby, allowing them to serve out individual portions onto smaller vessels without having to hold the vessels while serving or eating.

Predicted function: The diameter of the lids, ranging from 8-14 cm, but typically measuring around 10cm, suggests they were used to cover or stopper vessels with a medium sized orifice. Vessel types with a complimentary rim size, which may have been closed by these lids, would include Types 8, 10, 18, 19, 21, 22 and the smaller versions of Type 5. The snug fit created by the projecting lip would make its use in food cooking/preparation unlikely, as no steam would be able to escape during cooking. The type of lid found at south Karnak would have been removed by its side “wings,” a design element not well suited for cooking, since this would expose the hands directly to hot steam trapped in the vessel. The lids are also inappropriate for eating/serving usage, since vessels for this purpose would be made for ease of access, not for tight control. They would, however, provide good security for liquid storage or transportation. The lids could also function for dry-goods storage, although the orifice opening of the vessel it stoppered would be small enough that only dry-goods able to be poured or scooped out would fit in the container.

Other information: At Ashmunein, stands made of coarse Nile silt clays were uncovered among the settlement material (Spencer 1993: pl. 73 type L1). The excavator suggested that the larger versions would have supported storage jars or water containers in the corners of houses (Spencer 1993:47). At New Kingdom Amarna, stands were found in the Workmen’s Village in small-scale chapels, areas with cultic functions. The stands have been interpreted as being used to hold small bowls which would have functioned as lamps or possibly incense burners (Rose 1984:140). Conclusion: group IVb. serving D: Bowls/plates/cups with simple rims and round bases

Other information: Nile silt lids with projecting lips were found in New Kingdom to Third Intermediate Period levels at Gurna (Mysliwiec 1987:50 #295-296). Their examples had a knob on the lid’s “base” side, probably allowing for easier removal of the lid from a vessel. Mysliwiec notes that a number of his examples were severely burnt (1987: 51), which could suggest their use in cooking. The knob feature of his types (not present in this project’s corpus) could have indeed been used to remove a lid without risking burning one’s hand by steam. However, he also explains that these vessels came from a variety of areas around the palace, always found under a burn layer (Mysliwiec 1987:51). Whether the burning was attributed to the use of the vessel or to a destructive fire is therefore not clear, so this use cannot be confirmed.

Description: These bowls were consistently made of a Nile B fabric, and most commonly held no decoration. Average diameter size measured 20 cm, making these medium-sized bowls in the south Karnak corpus. Predicted function: The open form of the bowls would eliminate use as liquid storage, dry-goods storage, or transportation. However, the fact that simple bowls have been interpreted as possible covers for vessels must be taken into account. While this would still eliminate transportation functions (since these covers could not be securely fastened to the vessel), liquid or 79 These would be Holthoer’s types TB, biconical stands, and TU, tubular stands, respectively (Holthoer 1977:73-77 and pl. 15). Both are common types found in the New Kingdom, and the south Karnak material shows these forms continue on in time.

Conclusion: group II. liquid storage, I. dry-goods



are pouring liquids into the bowls from jars and cups (Davies, Norman de Garis 1943: pl. LXIV).

dry-goods storage (where the security of the cover was not paramount) would be possible functions. Food cooking/preparation seems unlikely, since the vessels are too small to be used as mixing bowls, and the shallowness of the bowls would complicate keeping contents inside during cooking. The size of the vessels would instead support a use in eating/drinking, as they would be appropriate for the consumption of one individual.

Conclusions: group IVa. eating and drinking or groups I. dry-goods storage and II. liquid storage. G: Bowls/plates/cups with modeled rims and flat or ring bases Description: The few well-preserved examples of this type had larger rim diameters, ranging from 24-34 cm. Examples occurred in marl A4 and Nile B fabrics. Rims were flared/bent slightly outward instead of the simple rims of type F.

Other information: Banqueting scenes from the Dynasty 18 tomb of Rekhmire show individuals holding round based simple bowls, immediately before the act of consumption. Servants are pouring liquids into the bowls from jars and cups (Davies, Norman de Garis 1943: pl. LXIV and pl. CXI bottom right).

Predicted function: Like Type F above, these open bowls would be unsuited for liquid storage, dry-goods storage, or transportation (unless used as covers for vessels with wide orifices). Cooking remains unlikely as well, since a round base would instead be more appropriate for a bowl used over heat. The larger size of these bowls and their flat/ring bases would make group serving or eating and drinking ideal functions. Unlike the smaller sized Type F bowls, these vessels could also practically be used as mixing bowls for food preparation.

Conclusions: group IVa. eating and drinking, or groups I. dry-goods storage and II. liquid storage. E: Bowls/plates/cups with modeled rims and round bases Description: Same as type D above, except that diameter size was usually slightly larger, averaging around 25cm. Rims were flared/bent slightly outward instead of the simple rims of type D.

Conclusion: group IV consumption, IIIb. preparing liquid and solid foods, or less likely groups I. drygoods storage and II. liquid storage

Predicted function: Same as type D above. Conclusions: Same as type D above.

D/F; E/G; D/E; F/G: Bowls with only base or rim preserved

F: Bowls/plates/cups with simple rims and flat or ring bases

Description: A large percentage of the sherds from bowls preserved either the rim or base area, but not both. This material was assigned to a “double group,” signifying that it originally belonged to one of two types. The corpus of fabrics used to produce bowls expanded by including this material, and the fabric types represented in each group are described below. As well, the increased amount of material meant that surface treatments not in evidence on the more complete material could be recorded. These, along with each “double-type’s” basic shape description, are added below:

Description: Rim diameters for this type of vessel were smaller, running from 12-14.8 cm. Base diameters ranged between 4.5-9 cm, with an average size of 6.5 cm. These bowls only appeared in Nile silt B fabrics. Predicted function: The open form of the bowls would eliminate their use as a container for liquid storage, dry-goods storage, or transportation. Like the roundbased bowls above, however, these bowls could have easily been flipped over to loosely cover a jar’s mouth for liquid and dry-good storage. Food cooking/preparation seems unlikely, since the south Karnak vessels are too small to be used as mixing bowls, and the shallowness of the bowls would complicate keeping contents inside during cooking. The size of the vessels and the flat or ring bases would instead support an original function as eating/drinking dishes. The vessels would be able to stand independently, keeping their contents from spilling out during consumption, and their small size would suggest consumption by one individual.

D/F: Bowls/plates/cups with simple rims, either rounded, flat or ring bases Simple rimmed bowl types occurred in a wider group of fabrics than type D or F individually, including marl A3, marl A4, Nile C, and Nile B fabrics. A large number of examples (about 10%) had a decorative red painted stripe along the rim. Others had a red wash/slip on one or both sides, frequently also burnished. E/G: Bowls/plates/cups with modeled rims, either rounded, flat or ring base:

Other information: Banqueting scenes from the Dynasty 18 tomb of Rekhmire also show individuals holding simple bowls with flat bases, again immediately before the act of consumption. Servants

The modeled rim bowl came in marl A3, marl A4, and Nile B fabrics. This group also included examples with



painted red rims (about 5%) and a number with red washes and red burnishing on one or both sides.

size and had rim diameters usually ranging from 8-12 cm.

D/E: Bowls/plates/cups with round bases, either modeled rims or simple rims

Predicted function: The small size and open form of these vessels makes a function of liquid storage, drygoods storage, or transportation not viable. They would be highly impractical for cooking/food preparation, due to their small size and projecting bases. The bases appear to bring the vessel more stability, providing it with either a larger base or lowering its center of gravity. This would suggest these pieces were meant to stand independently while filled, a function that would be compatible with eating or drinking. Their small size makes serving a less likely use.

Round-based bowls appeared only in marl A4 and Nile B fabrics. These bowls were often left with a roughed, unsmoothed exterior base. F/G: Bowls/plates/cups with flat or ring bases, either modeled rims or simple rims Flat or ring-based bowls occurred in marl A3, marl A4, and Nile B fabrics. A few examples were found with a red wash and burnishing on one side.

Conclusion: IVa. eating and drinking

Predicted functions: See both individual letter entries above.

J: Ledged cups Description: These are narrow cups with flat-bottomed “spool”-like bases. These were made of a medium or fine Nile B fabric and were small in size.

H: Carinated bowls Description: Carinated bowls were most often made of hard, dense marl A4 fabric. Whole bowls were never preserved, but the number of ring bases of the same fabric suggests this type possessed a ring base. Most of the bowls had diameters measuring between 16–20 cm (with some slightly smaller, around 10-12 cm; and a few much larger, between 22-30 cm) suggesting the majority of the bowls would have been medium sized.

Predicted function: The small size and open form of the vessels make transportation and storage unlikely uses. Cooking would also be unlikely based on the size and shape of the vessel. Food preparation would not be easy in these vessels, as their interior profile was not smooth/rounded like a traditional simple bowl or cup, which would have at least allowed easy mixing or crushing. Instead, interiors had divots pushed into the center or steeply sloping walls, creating a funnel-like interior space. Neither of these shapes would have made for easy manipulation with a mixing or crushing tool. Serving and eating would then be the remaining category. The small size/interior capacity suggests these vessels would have been used for individual eating/drinking. The flat bases would also have allowed consumers to place the vessel down during consumption with little risk of spillage.

Predicted function: Like the other bowls mentioned, the open form and shallowness of the container would have made liquid storage, dry-goods storage, or transportation impractical. While these bowls could also have been used as coverings for storage vessels, simple bowls would have been provided the same function and would have taken less effort to create. Food cooking/preparation also seems unlikely, since vessels are too small to be used as mixing bowls, and their shallowness would cause difficulties in keeping contents inside during cooking. The size of the vessels and their flat or ring bases would instead support an original function as eating or serving dishes. The vessels would be able to stand independently, keeping their contents from spilling out during consumption. Their size would suggest consumption by one individual.

Conclusion: IVa. eating and drinking K: Large flat edged tubs (“pithoi”) Description: These vessels are defined as “deep, generally handmade, straight sided storage jars of very large dimensions” (Aston 1999:14). The fragments of vessels found at south Karnak had flat, rectangular lips, often left rough. The vessel body sherds, also left quite rough, possessed only the slightest visible curve, showing the walls of the vessel must have been almost vertical. Diameters were so large they could not be measured on the pottery diameter chart. Only fragments were uncovered, so whole shape is based on examples found at other sites. The vessels were made of a porous Nile C fabric and never showed any signs of surface treatment.

Conclusion: group IV. consumption I: Footed bowls80 Description: These vessels had slightly incurving walls that flared up and outward. Usually, the base was flat and had a projection either at or slightly above its lowest point. They were made of a Nile B fabric with thin to medium-thin walls. The vessels were small in

Predicted function: The large diameter of these vessels and the openness of their shape would make transportation an impractical choice. Its size makes

80

This type corresponds with Aston’s “Beakers with Flaring Side and Projecting Base” (Aston 1996a:68, 73).



at Elephantine (including one example from Dynasty 25), which could suggest that this type outlasted the New Kingdom (Aston 1999:194), and therefore the south Karnak examples are not necessarily earlier, intrusive sherds. Jacquet-Gordon describes this type as “generally tall, thin and tube-like with very little protuberance, a kind of button-base” (1981:19). They vary in size from around 10-30cm tall (1981:19).

consumption also unlikely. Food cooking or preparation would only be practical for large-scale production. Its size would make placing the vessel over an open flame much too challenging, so only a purpose of mixing large quantities of materials could be imagined for this category. Liquid storage seems unlikely because of the permeability of the fabric of the vessel; left without a surface coating, it would eventually leak or evaporate out its contents. Shortterm dry storage would be a much better choice, since dry-goods could effectively be contained inside without suffering because of fabric porosity. Frequent access to materials would be aided by the large size of the orifice. Long-term dry storage would also be possible, as the large orifice could alternatively originate in the need to store larger-sized items that could not be easily moved in or out of a constricted orifice. The flat rims could serve to help a lid achieve a smooth fit atop the vessel, something that would make long-term storage more efficient.

Predicted function: In general, the corpus of vessels hand-made of Nile C fabric seem to be limited to specific utilitarian vessels during the New Kingdom and Third Intermediate Period. At Elephantine, this consists of bread plates, bowls, and dishes. (Aston 1999:3). The pottery at south Karnak seems to follow the same pattern. It appears that the Egyptians considered this fabric most suitable for food production, cooking, and heating, and the range of vessels created in this fabric was limited to these purposes. Therefore, one would expect this vessel mold to be involved in cooking. Other information is so conclusive, that further speculation on morphology seems unnecessary.

Other information: A number of fragmentary examples were found at Elephantine, including two wellpreserved versions with a diameter of 54cm (Aston 1999: pl. 7 #159 and pl. 52 #1630). Aston reports that these were handmade and possibly constructed through the coil method. One of them came from a granary (Aston 1999:38 #160), which would support a use for dry-goods storage.

Other information: Type D molds were found in abundance in and around bread ovens found at the Dynasty 18 treasury of Tuthmosis I at Karnak north. When the temple precinct was expanded in the Ramesside period, new rooms with multiple ovens were built on the same spot, and “hundreds” of these types of molds “littered the whole area” (JacquetGordon 1981:20-21). Vessels corresponding with the Type D shape of Jacquet-Gordon have been found at Amarna, and these have been assigned a bread baking function as well. The excavator at Amarna based this conclusion on both art historical and archaeological evidence from the site (Kemp 1979:10-11). JacquetGordon observed that while molds have been found at a number of temple sites from the New Kingdom, they generally do not appear to be common items from settlements (Jacquet-Gordon 1981:19). Kemp noticed that at the city of Amarna, bread molds were conspicuously absent from the domestic parts of the city, and he therefore concluded that baking with molds was a specialized, large scale, state-sponsored form of production (Kemp 1979:11).

Conclusion: group I. dry-goods storage or group IIIb. preparing liquid and solid foods L: Cups with a tall foot (“Goblets”) Description: These cups have a tall foot attached to their base. Examples came in Nile B fabrics. Rims were never preserved, but base size, averaging around 6cm, suggests that all examples were small to medium in size. Predicted function: The small size/capacity and open shape of the vessels make them impractical for transportation and liquid and dry storage. Cooking and food preparation also seem unlikely. The size would be more appropriate for single individual serving and consumption. Nile B clay is much less porous that Nile C and could easily hold liquids for drinking.

Conclusion: group IIIa. cooking over heat

Conclusion: IVa. eating and drinking

N: Basin/large bowls without flattened rims

M: Conical molds (“bread molds”)

Description: These were large, often round based bowls or basins with simple or slightly modeled rims. Many Nile silt examples were impressed with marks on their exterior, probably from ropes tied around the vessels during production to help them keep their shape until the leather-hard stage. Vessel walls were usually thick. Diameters generally ranged from 26-38 cm. Examples came usually in Nile B and C fabrics and rarely marl A4 fabrics.

Description: The most diagnostic example found in the south Karnak material was a fragment of an asymmetrical round base with a protruding bump. Fortunately, bases differ greatly between the molds of each period, and this project’s type would correspond with Jacquet-Gordon’s “Type D,” which has been documented from Dynasty 18 to 21 (Jacquet-Gordon 1981: fig. 5 #10). Examples of “Type D” bread molds have been found in Third Intermediate Period contexts



Predicted function: Functional conclusions would be generally similar to those of Type N (above). The ledged/lipped rim could have been used to aid in holding the heated vessel (suggesting cooking) or to make the vessel easier to grip generally (suggesting a serving function). The slight interior lip would have helped to prevent liquid or small-grained dry-goods from sloshing over the rim and spilling. Manipulation of contents would have been somewhat limited by this lip, but probably not substantially enough to eliminate its use as a food preparation vessel.

Predicted function: The open bowl shape would not be optimal for transport of goods or for long-term or shortterm liquid storage. Dry-goods storage would also not be secure from contamination in this vessel, so their use in storage also seems unlikely. Cooking could be accomplished in this vessel, although liquids would be difficult to heat, as content spillage would be an issue with the size of the rim/orifice in relation to the total volume of the vessel. A cooking vessel would be more efficient with a narrower orifice, one wide enough to allow manipulation with a tool, but also keep contents securely inside during heating (Rice 1987:239-240). If this vessel was tipped, liquids could easily spill out. Solids would be more easily cooked in these large basins. However, research suggests that vessels with thinner walls are better at conducting heat, as well as reducing the possibility of breakage due to the thermal stress of being placed over a fire (Rice 1987:237). But fabrics with a high quantity of temper included in their matrix also help reduce thermal stresses (Vitelli 1999:179), so the Nile C versions could capitalize on their fabric type to negate the disadvantage of their thick walls.

Other information: At Elephantine, thick walled, handmade Nile C vessels (Nile C variant 2 fabric) were found in Third Intermediate Period levels as bread plates, bowls, and dishes, and in later levels “…for a much wider variety of wheel made pots – in particular, heavy duty vessels for cooking or storage, platters, torches, lids and potstands” (Aston 1999:3). Conclusion: III. food cooking/ preparation or IVb. serving O: Bowls with series of pierced holes in body, base (“strainers”)

Food preparation would be a more appropriate use, since the large size and open form would easily allow manipulation of contents, including mixing, beating, etc. The thick walls would help prevent breakage during vigorous manipulation of the contents. Liquid food preparation could be limited to the Nile B and marl A4 versions of this vessel, since Nile C vessels would be less appropriate because of the vessel wall’s porosity. Consumption is another possible function for these vessels. Serving would be more suitable to its large size/capacity, which suggests more than an individual portion.

Description: The best-preserved example of this type was a sherd of Nile silt, probably a Nile B. It had a series of at least four small holes, each a few mm in diameter, and spaced a little more than a cm apart. The holes were punched out before the vessel was fired. The piece had a slightly curved shape, suggesting it had been part of the curved section of a bowl. Predicted function: Hole size would be more than adequate to strain liquid. This would suggest a function of cooking/food preparation. The number of holes would make any vessel so punctured impractical for transportation, food serving and eating, or dry-goods storage.

Other information: At Amarna, similar large, coarse Nile silt bowls (Rose 1984: fig. 10.1 and 136, #11) were found emplaced in a floor, surrounded by ashy material. This suggested to the investigator that the vessels were used as hearths (Rose 1987a:133). Other examples of this type were recovered from east Karnak (Hummel and Shubert 1994: pl. LXXIX), but the ceramicists reported that they found no evidence for burning on the vessels (Hummel and Shubert 1994:69). Conclusion: groups III. food cooking/ preparation or IVb. serving

Other information: Examples of strainers have been found at the settlement site of Elephantine (Aston 1999: pl. 18, #548, pl. 38 #1195, pl. 42 #1330). In all cases, the strainers were in the form of simple, round-based Nile silt bowls with holes pushed through the walls of the base before firing. One of the examples (#548) was also burnt, suggesting direct contact with a cooking fire.

N2: Basin/large bowls with flat, large rim

Conclusion: III. food cooking/ preparation

Description: These bowls are similar in general shape to Type N, but instead of simple or slightly modeled rims, they have large, flat rims that often create an interior lip and exterior ledge. Examples occurred in Nile B2 and Nile C fabrics. Rim diameters ranged between 28-42 cm, with the exception of one very large and well-preserved example, which measured approximately 65 cm.

P: Vessels with two legs attached to open bowl form (“hobs”) Description: These vessels, composed of Nile B and C fabrics, have a number wing-shaped “legs” and a small peg or handle attached to an open bowl-shape with rolled rim. They were often punctured by finger-sized openings on their lower body or base. The south Karnak examples were fragmentary, but the individual



parts are easy to identify. The only example preserving its rim had a diameter of 8.6 cm.

Predicted function: Based on form, these vessels could have a variety of functions. The tall, narrow closed jars could be stoppered or tied with cloth and mud seals and would make adequate jars for transporting liquids. The medium size versions would be less efficient for transporting dry-goods, since the orifice is small enough that only small-grained dry-goods would be easy to access, and these types of goods would be simpler to move in light fabric sacks. Storage of smaller sized dry-goods would be a possible use, but probably only for short-term storage, as long-term storage would be more practical in much larger containers.

Predicted function: Function is difficult to ascertain from shape alone, since the holes in some examples suggest contents would not have been placed inside the bowl-like part of the vessel, and the “legs” do not seem to work like a tripod to keep the “bowl” area upright. Other information: These strangely shaped vessels appear at settlement sites in the Middle Kingdom and continue to materialize, usually at settlements, with the same shape through the Ptolemaic Period (Aston 1989a:28).81 A number of Egyptologists have hypothesized how these vessels functioned. Early interpretations suggested they were used as crucibles or bellows for metal production (Spencer 1993:48). Emery, Smith, and Millard, identifying these forms at New Kingdom Buhen, suggested that they served instead as supports. The “mouth” of the bowl half would have been placed downward over coals or a fire, and the “legs” would have held a pot. The excavators posited that the “hobs” would have supported cooking vessels, since they were located in the fortress’s domestic areas, although they thought the vessels could have supported crucibles as well (Emery, Smith and Millard 1979:97). Aston turned the vessels over, standing them on their legs, and used three of them as a sort of tripod to hold cooking vessels over a fire. He noted that the numerous examples excavated commonly have no fire burning marks, and they therefore must not have come into direct contact with the fire (Aston 1989a:29-31). At Third Intermediate Period Ashmunein, Spencer found a number of vessels in the vicinity of, or occasionally inside, clay ovens. He posited that they were involved in bread-baking there (Spencer 1993:48).

Long-term liquid storage would be an anticipated use as well, since the jar size would clearly hold more than a single serving of liquid, but the vessel size is small enough that its entire contents could be consumed by a small number of people if freshness of the beverage was an issue. Practical also is short-term liquid storage, since the orifice size would make pouring liquid into and out of the jar quick and easy. Its medium size could hold enough oil, honey, etc. for a few weeks or enough beverage for a meal or two. Consumption would be a possible use, but the size of the vessel suggests serving would be more appropriate than eating/drinking. The type with a flared rim would make pouring neater than the type with an incurving rim. Cooking and food processing is the only use that seems quite unlikely, since the small base would be unsuited for placement over a flame and the tall body and insloping shoulder of the vessel would make manipulating the contents difficult. Other information: At the Mut temple, similarly shaped vessel types were found in the late Second Intermediate Period and Dynasty 18 production and storage areas around the temple enclosure wall. The jars were associated in one area with a production site, including an oven enclosed by bricks, large mixing jars, and conical molds, well documented to have served as containers for baking bread. These finds, as well as textual and ceramic information from within the temple itself (including a cache of these jars found deposited within the temple’s second court), led the excavator to conclude this area was a bread and beer production area involved in supplying temple rituals (Bryan 2004b). In this earlier case then, the jars appear to have functioned as containers for beer.

Conclusion: group IIIa. cooking over heat 1: Jars with simple, incurving rim or slightly flared rim, finger-marked base (“beer jars”) Description: These jars were invariably made of Nile B fabric and had orifice diameters typically ranging between 8-10cm, suggesting they were medium in size. The rim either curved in from the shoulder to create a simple “hole” opening,82 or it flared back out slightly.83 When bases were identified, these often had marks showing they had been string cut, and the lower bodies were often left quite rough with the typical finger impressions around the base.

Similar forms were found at east Karnak, dated to the New Kingdom layers. Ceramicists there suggest that the plain, coarse Nile silt fabrics of these vessels would have made them optimum for holding water, since the vessel would “sweat” water through the wall, keeping the contents cool (Hummel and Shubert 1994:39). Their resemblance to libation jars would also suggest a use for holding water or beverages (Hummel and Shubert 1994:37-38). In studies of similar jars from the Old Kingdom at Abusir, the excavator suggested the

81 Aston has suggested that these vessels exclusively appear at settlement sites (Aston 1989a:31), which would confirm their wholly utilitarian and domestic nature. However, in one documented exception, excavations by a Spanish team at the late New Kingdom/Third Intermediate Period necropolis at Heracleopolis Magna have uncovered the hobs as well (López Grande, Quesada Sanz, and Molinero Polo 1995:85). 82 These would be most similar to Holthoer’s “beer bottle” type BB2, transitional (Holthoer 1977: pl. 18). 83 This type is most similar to Holthoer’s “beer bottle” type BB4, ordinary (Holthoer 1977: pl. 18).



production was present in the New Kingdom and Third Intermediate Period as well. Hope hypothesized that the kegs and larger sized flasks were used for water and wine, the latter produced in the southern oases in Pharaonic periods (Hope 2000:190).

earlier versions held beer, wine, liquids, and possibly grain (Bárta 1996:129). Conclusion: groups IIa. long-term liquid storage, IIb. short-term liquid storage, Ib. short-term dry-goods storage, and IVb. serving

Conclusion: groups IIb. short-term liquid storage and Va. long-distance transportation

2: Lentoid or round-bodied bottles with two handles attached on neck and shoulder (“pilgrim bottles/flasks”)

4: Large jars with rolled rims (“meat jars”) Description: These were large, wide mouth jars with everted, rolled rims leading directly to a high shoulder with no neck. In the south Karnak corpus, they were rare and occured in marl A4 variant 1 fabric. Average rim size was 20cm. None of the examples were whole, but a similar example from Elephantine (Aston 1999:20 and pl. 2) showed the body had an egg-shaped form with the narrow end at the base. This group is a subset of Type 14, widemouth jars, and some rims with a similar shape were placed in that category instead. Only rims that conformed extremely closely to the published shapes of the so-called “meat jars” were placed in Type group 4.

Description: These small sized bottles possessed a lentoid or round-shaped body, a narrow neck, a slightly flared rim area, and small handles leading from the neck to the upper body. Examples came in oasis clay as well as marl A4, marl B, and marl A3. Predicted function: The constricted nature of the neck would make transportation a practical function for this vessel, as spillage could easily be avoided. Rope could be threaded through the small handles to secure the vessels during movement. The liquid transported would need to be valuable enough to be sold in small quantities, or the size of the vessels would be inefficient. Liquid storage would work well, since the fine nature of the fabric, as well as the surface treatments seen on some examples, would make the vessel wall impermeable. The vessels could easily be closed with a stopper or mud seal, keeping their contents safe inside. Again, a rope threaded through the handles could be used to hang the vessel from the roof or wall, using storage space resourcefully. The small size of the south Karnak versions would suggest shortterm storage, since not a great quantity of liquid could be placed in the vessels. This fact would make longterm storage inefficient, unless the liquid stored was valuable enough that it would only be utilized in small amounts and infrequently. Consumption and serving seem like a less probable function, as the vessel would be very cumbersome to hold during a meal because it does not stand by itself. One could pour liquid from the vessel to serve others, but the constricted neck would suggest that filling the vessel would need to be done slowly and carefully, which would not be practical for everyday use. Dry-goods would be too difficult to get in or out of the vessel, and this function can be eliminated. Cooking and food preparation also is impractical, as one could not manipulate the contents through the narrow neck.

Predicted function: The size and height of the vessels would be beneficial for storage purposes. Their rolled rims could have been used to secure tied coverings, making long and short-term dry-goods storage a good choice. The width of the openings would be convenient for access to larger dry-goods, ones that could not be removed merely with a scoop. This feature would alternatively eliminate long-term liquid storage, since spillage would be a large risk, but short-term liquid storage could be appropriate when the vessel was placed somewhere stable. The dense marl fabrics would contain liquid efficiently. Transport of dry-goods could be done in this vessel, although likely this would be only for larger-sized goods. Small-grained dry-goods, like wheat or barley, would be better moved in lightweight sacks. Transport of liquids would be impractical because of the weight of the vessel as well as the large size of the orifice opening. The vessels are much too large and unwieldy to function for cooking or food preparation, as heating or mixing items in one would require assistance in holding the vessel, and the vessel’s height would make manipulating the contents difficult. Food consumption and serving would also be inappropriate for similar reasons. Other information: These jars are very common in New Kingdom settings, usually made of marl D or marl A4 v.1 fabrics (Aston 1999:20). At Amarna, these came in a mixed marl/silt clay and were covered with a cream slip (Rose 1984:136). Examples at that site were found labeled “meat” (iw.f dr) in inked hieratic. Aston cautioned, however, that the marks could have been added to the vessel to describe the contents re-use, as opposed to being from its original moment (Aston 1999:20). Ikram’s study on the use and processing of meat reviewed the finds of these jars, and that author suggested that meat stored within would have been first

Other information: Darnell and Darnell found examples of post-New Kingdom types along the desert routes examined during their surveys (Darnell 2000:211, Darnell and Darnell 1996:38). Their versions were made alternatively of oasis clays, and D. Darnell suggested these and the larger kegs found with them were used for water transport (Darnell 2000:228-229). Hope discovered oasis ware flasks and kegs in Dakhleh Oasis, dating to the Late Period and afterwards. Although he did not find evidence there for production in earlier periods, a number of finds of oasis ware vessels from outside of the oases suggested that



removed from the bone and preserved, probably by salting or brining, based on the size and shape of the vessel (Ikram 1995:187). She noted that animal fat was another product stored in the “meat jars,” and the fat seems to have been used quickly (within 6 months maximum) and the jars then frequently reused (Ikram 1995:187, note 2). Ikram also recognized a parallel between the shape of the meat jars and storage containers used by modern Egyptians for holding meat and animal products, including Egyptian faseekh and lahma mahfooz (1995:187).

the vessels with larger orifices. The narrower rims (between 8-12 cm wide) would make manual removal of goods difficult to impossible, so larger dry-goods storage would not be suitable for these examples. Cooking and food preparation would be impractical in all these vessels, as the depth of the jar would make manipulating and viewing contents difficult. Serving and eating would also be inappropriate due to the jar’s size/capacity and depth. Other information: Similar wide-mouthed marl jars are found at Ashmunein (Spencer 1993: pl. 66 # E.1.8292), Amarna (Kemp 1986b:183, fig. 9.17, MJ 3.2.3), and Qurna (Mysliwiec 1987:65, #481). Jars with the more constricted openings were found at Elephantine (Aston 1999: pl. 72 #2039-2041) where they were interpreted as storage jars (Aston 1999:231).

Conclusions: group Ia. long-term dry-goods storage, group Ib. short-term dry-goods storage, and group IIb. short-term liquid storage. 5: Tall jars with handles, rim not tooled Description: These vessels had two vertical handles at or near the maximum diameter of a globular or ovoid shaped body. They invariably came in either a thinwalled marl A4 fabric (some with shallow body ribbing) or a Nile B fabric. One Nile C example was recorded as well. Rims could be formed quite elaborately, sometimes folded or bent multiple times. Necks were either non-existent or short. The south Karnak corpus was composed of two general types: those with constricted apertures, between 8-12cm in diameter, and those with wider-mouths, with diameters usually measuring between 14-22cm. Better-preserved examples from other sites show that most jars were medium to large in size. Versions from Elephantine (Aston 1999: pl. 60 #1785-1786) had round bottoms (Aston 1999:196).

Conclusion: groups V. transportation, IIa. long-term liquid storage, IIb. short-term liquid storage, and I. dry-goods storage 6: Bottles with flat bases Description: This type was rare at south Karnak. The most complete example was small in size with a body shaped like two straight-sided cones joined at their widest point. The neck and rim were lost, but must have created either a medium or tight constriction. Examples came in both marl and Nile silt. Predicted function: A flat-based bottle would have functioned better as a liquid serving vessel than similar round or pointed base bottles, as it could have stood independently while food was consumed. It would have been less practical for direct, individual consumption, since one could not view or refill its contents as easily as with a cup. Cooking and food preparation, as well as dry-goods storage, would not be appropriate because of its small size and restricted orifice. Liquid storage would be an appropriate function, since the restricted orifice would prevent spillage and the vessel could probably be sealed or stoppered to keep contents secure. The small size of the vessel would only make this practical if the liquid stored was quite valuable and only used in small quantities. Transportation is a less probable function due to the small capacity of the bottles, which would make them an inefficient way of moving liquids.

Predicted function: Multiple functions are possible for these jars. A use as transport vessels could be suggested by the presence of handles, the vessel size, and the elaborate rims that would have facilitated tying or sealing the vessels closed. Although the largest versions may have become too heavy to easily lift if filled with liquid. The handles could assist in tilting the vessel to remove liquid contents with a ladle or to pour out liquid when the vessel was full and possibly too heavy to be easily lifted. The imperviousness of the dense marl A4 fabric of many of the examples would make use as a long-term liquid storage container suitable.84 The smaller versions of the vessels would also be optimum for shorter-term liquid storage. Again, the possibility to easily secure a cloth over the rim would help protect contents from contamination for both types of liquid storage and would also aid in drygoods storage. Rim diameters ranged from small-sized to rather wide, and the wider rims (14-22 cm) would likely allow one to remove contents manually. This would suggest that dry-goods storage, including that of larger, non-grained items, would be a probable use of

Conclusion: groups IVb. serving and II. liquid storage 7: Bottles with round or pointed bases Description: The south Karnak site produced a number of different types of round and pointed based bottles. Examples came in primarily Nile B fabric, although there were also a few marl A4 and oasis versions. Necks were infrequently preserved, but those remaining usually were highly constricted at the join

84 Marl vessels are better suited to hinder liquid evaporation than Nile silt vessels because of the imperviousness of the vessel wall. This is due to the higher temperature to which marl vessels are fired (Aston 1989b:37-38).



Conclusion: groups II. liquid storage and Va. longdistance transportation

with the shoulder and then flared open towards the rim. The size of these vessels ranged from very small to medium, with rim diameters ranging from 5-8cm. A small number of the Nile B bottles with globular/ovoid bodies had a spiral design painted on their upper shoulder and neck. A few very small bottles with pointed bases were highly burnished, and a fully preserved example was painted red on its rim and neck.

8: Bottles with thick rim Description: These bottles have almost vertical, short, cylindrical necks topped by a thick, fattened rim. Not infrequently red or white paint (or a wash) was carelessly applied to the rim, imprecisely covering the rim and sometimes dripping down onto the neck. The south Karnak versions were made of Nile B fabric. Preserved types at other sites show that these were medium-large vessels with egg-shaped bodies, with the point of maximum diameter at the shoulder. Rims almost invariably had a diameter between 8-10cm.

Predicted function: The small size and constricted necks of most of these vessels would make cooking/food preparation and dry-goods storage highly impractical. The constriction, as well as the bottles’ potential to be easily stoppered or sealed at the rim, would make liquid storage and transportation possible functions, as security of contents from spillage and contamination could be assured. However, the very small size of most of the vessels would make transportation of liquids inefficient, with the exception of valuable substances sold in small quantities only. The Nile silt bottles with painted white spiral designs can be regarded similarly. The spiral surface treatment was only applied to the shoulder of the vessel, so it was decorative, not a mechanical aid. While it is possible that this marking acted as a label, signaling the vessel’s contents, it seems more probable that the decoration added to the vessel’s aesthetic value. The small burnished bottles may have benefited mechanically from their surface treatment, as burnishing or polishing is thought to have directly affected permeability of the vessel wall, especially in high air temperature environments (Schiffer 1990:133) like Upper Egypt. The very small size and the red rim and shoulder decoration of these bottles hint that these types, like the white-spiral decorated bottles, would be used where they could be displayed, such as in short-term liquid storage or serving roles. However, round or pointed bases would make these bottles less practical for serving, since they would need to be placed on a stand or held continually during consumption. As well, the constricted neck and small size would necessitate frequent refilling to merely serve a few individuals. Direct consumption seems unlikely, as it would function poorly compared to a freestanding cup or bowl, where one could easily view the vessel’s contents. Liquid storage would make the most functional sense, as the bottles could be filled with more common contents for daily or weekly use, or reserved and securely closed for holding of infrequently used substances.

Predicted function: The medium body size and restricted orifices of these vessels would make them useful for a number of purposes. The presence of a constricted neck and fattened rim would allow the vessel to be covered or stoppered easily, protecting its contents from spillage and contamination. These factors would be beneficial for transport, long-term liquid and dry-goods storage, as well as short-term storage. The small-sized opening would make all types of liquid storage possible. Dry-goods storage would be practical for small-grained items that could be removed with a scoop or by pouring. Large-sized dry-goods, however, would be difficult to remove, and an adult human hand would have difficulty fitting inside the small opening to aid in item extraction. The vessel was too large for individual consumption and for serving, except possibly for food or drink served in large quantities, like water. Food preparation would not be ideal because the orifice was medium sized, not large, and therefore limits manipulation and viewing of the contents. Cooking (likely only of liquids, which could be easily poured in or out) would be a possible function, since the narrower neck could limit liquid spillage and decrease boiling time by limiting release of steam. Other information: At Elephantine, these bottles occur in a number of levels, including those of the Late New Kingdom through the Third Intermediate Period. A few examples from the New Kingdom at that site have evidence of burning around the lower and middle parts of the vessel, suggesting they were used for cooking. Other examples from the site were found in contexts suggesting household storage and storage of funeral goods (Aston 1999:31-32). Types at Elephantine came in Nile B and Nile D fabrics.

Other information: The largest sized example from the corpus, a long narrow bottle made of highly fired oasis clay (Appendix 1, vessel 7-8), is paralleled by an example found in a house at Elephantine and two other similar vessels from Abydos and north Karnak (Aston 1999:188). The fact that this type was found in a number of sites far from the proposed origin of the bottle in the oases could suggest this specific vessel, with its hard and impermeable clay, was used to ship some type of liquid oasis product to Middle and Upper Egyptian cities.

Conclusion: multiple groups, including: IIa. long-term liquid storage, IIb. short-term liquid storage, IIIa. cooking over heat, Ia. long-term dry-goods storage, Ib. short-term dry-goods storage, and V. transportation



9: Funnel-necked jars85

size around 11 cm (see also Type 18, which is a globular jar, but has been placed in a separate category because of its distinctive neck and rim).

Description: Complete examples from other sites show that these jars had egg-shaped or ovoid bodies topped by a tall, flaring, funnel-like neck with simple rim. The point of greatest restriction at the join between the neck and the body had a medium-sized opening. Rim diameter at the top of the “funnel” averaged 12 cm. Examples occurred in Nile B and marl A3 clays.

Predicted function: This class of jars was probably multi-functional. Their rounded base and body shape would make them resistant to thermal shock and therefore appropriate for cooking. 86 The lack of rim on some versions would facilitate manipulation of contents for food preparation. The larger relative width/ roundness of the vessels would make them less appropriate for either liquid or dry-goods long-term storage or long-distance transportation. A taller, thinner vessel would be much more efficient at maximizing storage or shipping space. However, they would be appropriate for short-term liquid storage and smallgrained dry-goods storage, where space maximization plays a lesser role. Transportation over short distances would also be possible. Smaller versions of these jars could be used for serving liquids, but very few seem appropriate for individual consumption because of size.

Predicted function: The funnel-shape of the neck would make these jars especially suited for pouring and filling with liquids. This feature would suggest the jars were morphologically specialized for use with liquids. The serving of liquids for consumption seems the most likely function. Liquid storage could be another function, but this would be most appropriate for shortterm storage, where the vessels were continually emptied and re-filled, balancing the loss of security of the medium-sized orifice with the added efficiency of easy pouring and filling of the vessel. Dry-goods storage, which would derive no benefit from this shape, seems an unlikely function. Cooking and food preparation would be inhibited by the constriction of the neck so far from the rim of the vessel, making the viewing and manipulation of contents difficult. Transport over long distances also seems impractical, because of the medium sized orifice opening, which would not inhibit spillage as well as a bottle or jar with a small orifice. However, if vessels were filled only below the level of the neck, the height of the neck itself would prevent contents from escaping, and a use for short-distance transport could therefore be relatively efficient.

Other information: These vessels likely served multiple functions, due to the variety of sizes and surface treatments documented for this type at other sites. Holthoer’s excavations in New Kingdom Nubia uncovered jars sized from small to large in both uncoated and painted types. These came in both Nile silt and marl clay fabrics (Holthoer 1977:150-151, pl. 35 and 63). Globular jars in Nile B clay at Elephantine dated to the early Third Intermediate Period carried burn marks, suggesting they were used as cooking pots (Aston 1999:72). Types similar to those in the south Karnak corpus in marl A4 variant 2 clay were uncovered from Third Intermediate Period domestic contexts at Elephantine (Aston 1999:188-197). At south Karnak, however, no cooking installations (ovens, hearths, etc.) were identified, and almost no pottery showed traces of burning. This suggested that cooking was not taking place in the area, and probably this was not the use of these vessels here. At Amarna, excavators have suggested that in fact metal vessels were the primary vessel type used for open-flame boiling and cooking, since despite the thousands of sherds recorded at that site, very few were found to have visible burn marks (Kemp 1987:42). One example of a vessel similar to the south Karnak type at Elephantine possessed vertical handles on the shoulder (Aston 1999: pl. 60 #1785), a possible feature for south Karnak’s vessels as well, since most examples from the excavations were only preserved at the rim and its join with the body.

Other information: Vessels of this type at New Kingdom sites are often painted with elaborate polychrome floral designs, which could suggest a ceremonial and not domestic use. The presence of painted designs would also reduce the possibility these would be used in any type of cooking or food processing and instead would support a use as a display vessel. Conclusion: groups IVb. serving and IIb. short-term liquid storage 10: Globular jars Description: Globular jars are characterized by the broad shape of their bodies, a medium to medium-high point of maximum diameter, and a short neck (Holthoer 1977:150). In the south Karnak corpus, these jars often had thick, modeled rims with little to no neck. A second type had short, vertical necks with simple rims (both types are shown in Figure 5.1). Examples came in marl A4, marl A3, Nile B, and mixed clay fabrics. The range of sizes of vessels in this group was quite varied. Rim diameters ranged from 4-40 cm, with the average

Conclusion: multiple groups, including: IIb. shortterm liquid storage, Ib. short-term dry-goods storage, IIIb. preparing liquid and solid foods, IVb. serving, Vb. short-distance transportation, and 86 Globular and circular shaped vessels are understood as well designed for cooking: “Curved surfaces have greater structural integrity and thus can better withstand the strains imposed by both thermal shock and physical impact” (Skibo and Blinman 1999:178).

85 See Holthoer for a short, but detailed discussion of shape, chronology, and a list of sites for these vessels (1977:148-150).



a flaring rim. They have a single long handle extended from the join of the rim and neck down to the body.

IIIa. cooking over heat 11: Bulged jars (large, neckless jars with high point of maximum diameter)

Predicted function: By nature of the fact that these vessels originated in other countries, Syria-Palestine and Cyprus respectively, we can presume they acted at one time as transport vessels. Both of the types identified at south Karnak are known from a number of other Egyptian sites,89 and must have been moving valuable commodities. There is little doubt that these vessels were reused once the contents were consumed, so a secondary function must be considered. In both cases, the most likely reuse is for liquid storage. The Canaanite jar’s size, depth, and restricted orifice would make it impractical for consumption/serving and cooking/food preparation, but well suited for long-term liquid storage. Presumably, some small dry-goods storage could have been possible, but it would be difficult to access this material, so only long-term storage could be posited for this function. The small size and highly restricted orifice of the bilbil would only make it most suitable for contents whose security was paramount. Value may have been placed on the jar’s value as a foreign, exotic good, and in that case, short-term storage, where the item could be placed or hung from its handle on display, would be most appropriate.

Description: These are tall, large vessels with a slender to medium-broad shape and rounded base. The maximum diameter of these vessels was placed high, at the vessel shoulder. Examples were made of Nile B fabric. Exterior vessel walls were left very rough, and impressions of rope were embedded in the upper part of the wall. Similarly shaped examples from the New Kingdom have no neck, simply a “lip-rim” orifice (Holthoer 1977:170, type SJ2). Preserved rims at south Karnak had a diameter averaging 8.6 cm. This shape is a version of Type 19 (neckless jars), but has a higher point of maximum diameter and a large size. Predicted function: The size and height of the best preserved vessels, at least 38 cm tall and around 23 cm wide, would make them only appropriate for transport and storage. Because they were tall and relatively thin, when standing they would maximize the amount of space occupied in a storage facility or on a transport ship. The orifice is small compared to the overall size of the vessel, and it could have been stoppered to secure the contents. When full, they would have been rather heavy, and the lack of any handles may have made them difficult to maneuver. Therefore, long-term storage would be more practical than short-term, since accessing the contents would necessitate care and possibly multiple persons. The vessels were so deep that removing the contents could be done only with a very long-handled scooper, or by pouring the contents out by means of lifting the jar and tipping it. This suggests that typical contents would have been liquid or small-grained dry-goods.

Other information: Scholars suggest Canaanite jars held oil, olive oil, wine, or other high-demand international products (Amiran 1969:139-140, Bourriau 1990:*18). The jars were likely transported by sea, as depicted in Theban Tomb 162, dating to Dynasty 18 (Amiran 1969:139-140). Investigations of these jars found with contents intact on the Greek mainland and the Ulu Burun shipwreck show the vessels were used to trade wine, oils, orpiment, resins, glass beads, and grain in the Mediterranean world (Cline 1994:95). Labeled examples of these jars were uncovered at Deir el Medina, where they were marked as being used (although here possibly re-used, since the writing was in Egyptian) to hold oil and incense. The labels give measurements for contents, which varied between 3036 hin, about 15-18 litres of liquid (Bavay, Marchand and Tallet 2000:79-80).

Conclusion: groups Ia. long-term dry-goods storage, IIa. long-term liquid storage, and Va. long-distance transportation 12: Foreign Vessel Types Description: Two foreign vessel types were identified at the site.87 These included the neck and rim of a Cypriot bilbil and the base of a large Canaanite jar88 (both shown in Figure 5.1). Canaanite jars from other publications show the form to change through time, but basically they are large jars with two vertical handles on the upper body with a high shoulder narrowing to a constricted neck. Cypriot bilbils are small juglets with a circular or oval body, a long, thin and conical neck, and

The contents of the Cypriot bilbils remain unconfirmed, but some scholars have accepted Merrillees’ hypothesis that the body of the vessel represents the opium poppy capsule (Papaver somniferum), and that the vessel form therefore “advertised” its own contents (Merrillees 1962:288). Bourriau suggested that the opium could have been mixed with honey during its international transport (Bourriau 1981:126), and this corresponds with Merrillees’ argument that the vessels were “clearly designed to be used as containers, for liquids originally, as their narrow necks would have permitted

87 Both types of vessels are dated to an earlier period than the materials at south Karnak. Whether this is an example of vessel curation, long-term reuse, or the introduction of residual trash material at the site is unknown. It was not uncommon to find isolated sherds of New Kingdom material in the Third Intermediate Period levels. See the individual sherd entries in Appendix 1 for publications that deal with the specific dates of these ceramics. 88 I would like to thank David Aston for kindly identifying this vessel for me.

89 For Canaanite jars and their find spots, see: Amiran 1969, Aston 1996a:84-85, Bourriau 1990:*18-*26. For examples of bilbils in Egypt, see: Holthoer 1977:176, Merrillees 1962:120-125.



storage a good option. The large width of the openings would be convenient for access to larger dry-goods, especially items that could not be removed merely with a scoop. Its width would allow someone to easily view the contents and use their hands to access materials. This feature would alternatively eliminate long-term liquid storage, since spillage would be a severe risk. Short-term liquid storage could be appropriate if the vessel was placed somewhere stable. The dense, marl A4 fabrics would contain liquid well, possibly better than the Nile B versions, due to their higher firing temperature and therefore less permeable vessel wall.

the passage only of fluid substances when emptied” (Merrillees 1962:288). Bourriau also reported that four vessels tested by another scholar were said to contain residue of opium, but that this research was not fully published, and the conclusions remain unsubstantiated (1981:126). Conclusion: groups Va. long-distance transportation and IIa. long-term liquid storage 13: Spouted Vessels Description: Only one clear example of a vessel with attached spout was recovered. It was a small, ovoid bottle with a very constricted neck. Its upper neck and rim were missing. A small spout had been attached to the middle of the body on one side. The bottle was made of Nile B fabric.

Transport of dry-goods is a possible use, although probably for larger-sized goods. Small-grained drygoods, like wheat or barley, would be better moved in lightweight sacks.90 Transport of liquids would be impractical because of the weight of the vessel and the large size of the orifice opening. While the wide orifice would make viewing contents easy, the size of the jars and their verticality would make them inappropriate for cooking or food preparation, as heating or mixing items within would require assistance in holding the vessel, and the vessel’s height would make manipulating the contents difficult. Food consumption and serving would also be inappropriate for similar reasons.

Predicted function: The jar was most likely used for the serving and consumption of liquids. The small size would be suited for liquids used in small quantities, such as oil or milk, and the narrow spout would make pouring simple and neat. Since spouted vessels were not common, one should expect that the use of the jar would revolve around the capabilities of the pouring spout. Transport and liquid storage can be eliminated as possible functions because of the danger of spillage or spoilage due to the presence of an open spout. Drygoods storage can also be eliminated due to the vessel’s small size and its very constricted neck and spout, which would not allow even small-grained dry-goods to be accessed or poured. Cooking and food processing would also be unlikely uses, since the vessel orifice is too constricted to manipulate its contents, making stirring or mixing nearly impossible.

Other information: Bourriau labeled a medium-sized, globular bodied example (height: 25.2cm, diameter: 17.3cm) dated to the Amarna period a “water jar.” Her conclusion was based on a tomb representation of a similar example, which shows a women drinking out of one at banquet (Bourriau 1981:79). At the late Ramesside and Third Intermediate Period settlement at Medinet Habu, Hölscher found a number of large, wide-mouthed jars (his Type A) half-buried in the floors of houses and streets. He made the conclusion that these vessels functioned for storage in all these locations (Hölscher 1954:72).

Other information: A similar type was found at Medinet Habu. It was identified as a “feeding bottle” (Aston 1996a:64 and p.269 fig. 167, #V1), also a function related to consumption and serving. However, reserving this type of spouted bottle to use by only children would need to be supported by other evidence.

Conclusion: groups Ia. long-term dry-goods storage, Ib. short-term dry-goods storage, and IIb. shortterm liquid storage

Conclusion: group IV. consumption

15: Jars with two handles extending from rim to shoulder

14: Jars with wide mouths Description: This was a rare type at the south Karnak site, limited to only a few examples. The jars had a medium sized orifice and a neck modeled or curved to differentiate it from the body. Average rim diameter was 14.5 cm. A handle was attached at the rim, and it extended down past the join between the neck and the body, adhering to the vessel on its upper shoulder. Other similar examples show that there were two handles on these types of vessels, symmetrically placed. The most complete example showed that these

Description: These jars, which in comparative material had globular or ovoid shaped bodies with rounded bases, possessed wide orifices. The jars were usually large or medium-large in size with thickened, modeled rims attached directly to the body (with no neck). Rim diameters usually averaged 22-26 cm, with a few larger examples running 30-32 cm. These jars came in marl A4 and Nile B fabrics. Predicted function: The size and height of the vessels would be beneficial for storage purposes. Their thick, modeled rims could have been used to secure tied coverings, making long and short-term dry-goods

90 Tomb scenes from Dynasty 18 show workers carrying goods in large sacks (Davies, Norman de Garis 1933: pl. XLVI top and middle registers), clearly depicting the Egyptians using an alternative to pottery vessels for transport of certain goods.



jars were short and stout with very rounded/globular bodies. They occurred in Nile B and marl A4 fabrics.

in size, have handles to help with maneuverability, and constricted necks that make closing/sealing easy (to prevent content loss). They are most appropriate (or most specialized) for long-term liquid storage because of their large size and tall body for efficient storage space maximization, their handles to help maneuver filled vessels, defined lips for attaching mud sealings to prevent contamination (Holthoer 1977:98), and constricted necks to prevent spillage when pouring contents. Other appropriate features for long-term liquid storage include the vessel’s dense fabric92 and the increased impermeability of the vessel walls (due to the applied wash/slip and burnishing, which prevents liquid evaporation).93 Long-term storage of dry-goods (only those small-grained, however, because of the restricted neck) would also be an appropriate use. Cooking and food preparation would be highly impractical due to the size, height, and constricted orifice of the vessel. Consumption and serving would also be unexpected due to the vessel size, although smaller examples, such as the “small tall amphora” at Elephantine (Aston 1999: pl. 2, #39), or Hope’s category 1C vessels (Hope 1989a:92, fig. 5 #5-15), do exist.94 These would be easier to handle and could be used by one individual to pour liquid, so serving functions in some cases could also be imagined. The size is still much too large to support a use for individual consumption.

Predicted function: The size of the orifice would eliminate use as a transport, liquid storage, or drygoods storage vessel due to the lack of security for the contents and the difficulty in covering the vessel because of the placement of the handles. The two handles would make serving food from these jars quite convenient, since the server could be assured of a good grip while either pouring out contents or allowing the intended consumer to scoop out the contents herself. Cooking or food preparation could also be a function of this type, again because of the ease in holding the vessel due to the handles. These were placed on the uppermost part of the vessel, which would position them as far from a flame/source of heat as possible. The width of the aperture would allow one to stir and see the vessel contents easily. Other information: An example of a similarly shaped vessel with a globular body and two handles was identified at Elephantine. Remains of burning on the vessel led the ceramicist to suggest these were used in cooking (Aston 1999:219, pl. 67, #1958). The excavator of the settlement at Medinet Habu uncovered a similar type dated to Dynasty 22 (Hölscher 1954: plate 47, Type R1) that was also called a cooking pot (1954: 73).

Other information: Jacquet-Gordon studied inscribed sherds from Ramesside Deir el Medina and found that a certain shaped amphora was used for wine, while a slightly different shaped version was used to store oil, fats, and nHH-oil (Hope 1989a:98). Daily life scenes from New Kingdom tombs labeled these vessels as containing wine, oils, resins, honey, incense, water, and preserved fowl (Holthoer 1977:97, Paice 1989:62).95 Incense pellets would be small enough to pour or scoop out of a tall vessel with a restricted orifice and would be prevented by this container from spillage, something

Conclusion: groups IVb. serving and III. food cooking/ preparation 16: Large bottles with two handles on shoulder/body (“amphorae”) Description: These large containers, known from a number of well-preserved New Kingdom examples, commonly have tall bodies, two vertical handles located on the shoulder, and a constricted neck and rim (Holthoer 1977:97-98).91 They come in two general forms: those with slender bodies and pointed bases and those with ovoid bodies and round bases (Aston 1999:40). They are usually made of marl D, marl A4 variant 1, and mixed clays (Aston 1999:22, 40) and are often covered with a cream colored slip and then burnished (Aston 1999:22, 40, Hope 1989a:99, Rose 1984:137). In the south Karnak corpus, only handles and rims were preserved well enough for identification. These appear in marl A4, Nile B, and a small number of examples possibly in mixed clay and marl C fabrics. At least four examples had a cream or white colored wash/slip on the exterior. Rim diameters averaged 13.5 cm wide.

92

Hope explained that: “The potters were, quite clearly, aware of the functional requirements of the amphora, primarily the need for impermeability and, therefore, selected a clay type (or group of closely related clay types) which was suitable…” (Hope 1989a:99). 93 The use of surface washes/slips and burnishing has been shown through experimental archaeology to limit vessel wall permeability and to prevent evaporation (Schiffer 1990:119-136). Their use for this purpose on Egyptian amphorae has been recognized by Hope (1989a:98-99). 94 The restored Elephantine vessel, for example, has a height of 32.9cm. A regular “large” sized amphora from the site was missing its rim, but had a height of 57.6cm (Aston 1999: pl. 9 #184), and when complete, likely would have been almost twice the size of the “small” version. 95 See, for example, the vessels shown in winemaking scenes (Davies, Norman de Garis 1943: pl. XLV, bottom register), brick making scenes (Davies, Norman de Garis 1943: pl. LVIII, top register), and storing duck meat (Davies, Norman de Garis 1943: pl. XLVI, top register). Another example of this vessel is labeled with the nHt (tree) hieroglyph (Davies, Norman de Garis 1943: pl. XLVIII), which Gardiner terms a “sycamore-fig” tree (Gardiner 1957:478, sign list #M1). This glyph is also used in Dynasty 18 in the word imA, a type of fruit tree, possibly a date-palm tree (Erman and Grapow 1982: vol. 1: 79, definition 3). Possibly then, we are supposed to understand the contents of this large handled jar as either figs or dates, or alternatively, wine or beer made from these fruits.

Predicted function: The vessel’s characteristics combine to make it useful for transport. They are large 91

This is Holthoer’s type AO (Ordinary Amphorae) which appeared in early Dynasty 18 in Egypt and Nubia and was depicted in a number of tombs. Holthoer believed they became slenderer with the onset of Dynasty 19 (1977:97).



that would be less important for other dry-goods, like wheat or barley. Preserved fowl, likely plucked, then brined or salted,96 would be small enough to fit through the constricted neck of the vessel, but difficult to remove. Ikram, whose book deals comprehensively with the issue of meat consumption, suggested that the whole necks of the amphorae would need to be broken off to remove the meat (1995:157). A jar from the tomb of Kha confirmed this use (at least in funerary contexts), as it held birds apparently brined in salt (Ikram 1995:157). The inconvenience of removal would suggest these were only used for long-term storage of this good. Both items would need to be kept in a completely sealed environment to prevent spoilage by intrusive water, a characteristic possessed by vessels originally designed for transporting wine. Although these dry-goods do not need some of the more liquidspecialized features of the vessel, such as impermeable walls, they do benefit from a number of the other features. Holthoer suggested the narrower versions with pointed bases were developed to aid in storage, as the vessel could be more easily leaned against a wall or other vessels, something shown in New Kingdom tomb scenes97 and seen at the tomb of Tutankhamun (Holthoer 1977:98, Holthoer 1993:43). At Malqata, in addition to the usual use for beverages and oil, an alternative duty for the decorated versions seems to have been ceremonial - for serving beverages during religious festivals and private banquets (Hope 1989a:98-99). Images from the tomb of Rekhmire depict workmen carrying the vessels on their shoulders, using the handles to balance and secure them. A larger version, apparently without handles, hangs wrapped in a rope net and is transported by two men (Davies, Norman de Garis 1943: pl. L, bottom register).

Predicted function: Presumably the unusual neck of this vessel determined its function. The vessel could be hung from the wall by a rope looped around the point of greatest constriction at the neck. This could either function to keep the vessel out of the way (storage) or in a convenient place for regular use. The funnel-like quality to the flared neck would have made filling the jar easy and efficient, despite its constriction at the base of the neck. The vessel would also have been easy to hold during pouring, as one could grasp it firmly between the neck and the body, which would offer a good deal of control over the flow of liquid out of the vessel. Serving therefore seems like the most likely function. The size of the vessel and its rim configuration would make direct consumption (e.g. drinking) rather awkward, and one would not expect this to be an intended use. Short-term storage could also be possible, since frequent use of the vessel would have capitalized on its unique shape. Any liquids requiring more security from spillage than water (during both filling and pouring), but which could also be stored in an open container for frequent use (i.e. cooking oil), would be well suited for this jar. Recurrent pouring and filling are not necessary for functions of transport and long-term storage. The severe flare of the neck also would make stoppering or closing the vessel much more difficult than a straight necked or neckless vessel. Cooking and food preparation would not gain any apparent advantage from the flared neck, so these can be eliminated as possibilities. Conclusion: group IVb. serving and IIb. short-term liquid storage 18: Jars with vertical neck and rounded rim with interior ledge, globular body

Conclusions: groups V. transportation, IIa long-term liquid storage, IIb. short-term liquid storage, Ia. long-term dry-good storage, and IVb. serving

Description: These jars have globular bodies (see Type 10 for description) attached to either cylindrical or flaring short necks with simple rims. Commonly, the rim interiors have a convex ridge or bump. The average rim diameter was 9cm. The vessels almost always came in Nile B fabric and regularly had a light pinkishorange wash or slip sloppily applied to the rim (sometimes both interior and exterior) and exterior neck. Sporadic examples in marl A4 also occurred.

17: Jars with extremely outward flaring/angled rims Description: Unfortunately, most examples of this type at the site were fragmentary. Those rims that did preserve a portion of the body suggest the jars were medium-sized with a rounded shoulder and possibly rounded body. The distinguishing feature of this type was its extremely angled neck, which flared out so severely from the constriction at its join with the body that it often created an acute or right angle with the shoulder. Rims were simple, and average diameter measured about 20 cm. Examples came predominantly in marl A4 fabric, but a few Nile B types were also identified.

Predicted function: Like the general globular jar (Type 10), these jars served multiple functions. Their rounded base and body shape would make them resistant to thermal shock and therefore appropriate for cooking. 98 The use of primarily Nile B fabrics for this type seems to support this conclusion, as Nile silt vessels seem to be used more commonly by the Egyptians for cooking functions.99 However, as mentioned for Type 10,

96 As Ikram suggests fowl was treated for food storage (Ikram 1995:156-157). 97 Two Dynasty 18 tomb scenes clearly depict this type of vessel standing in storage in the temple magazines (Davies, Norman de Garis 1943: pl. XLIX, bottom register; Davies, Norman de Garis 1933: pl. XLV, right side).

98

See Type 10 for explanation. Aston explained that Nile silt clays are more porous and less hard than marl clays, due to their lower firing temperatures. He maintained that Nile silt vessels would therefore act as better cooking pots than marl silt vessels, as more porous clays are less likely to fail because 99



excavators at Amarna have suggested that in fact metal vessels were the primary vessel type used for openflame boiling and cooking, since despite the thousands of sherds recorded at that site, very little of the ceramics were found to have visible burn marks (Kemp 1987:42). At the south Karnak site as well, little to no burnt sherd material was identified, and cooking therefore seems a less likely use. The vertical or flared necks of these vessels would make manipulation of food difficult, and a function of food preparation would not be expected. The width and roundness of the vessels would make them also less appropriate for both liquid or dry-goods long-term storage and long-distance transportation. As is the case with the regular globular jars, a taller, thinner vessel would be much more efficient at maximizing storage or shipping space. However, they would be appropriate for short-term liquid storage and small-grained dry-goods storage, where space maximization was not a key factor. Transportation over short distances would also be a possible use. Short-term storage and transportation uses would benefit from the added strength of the globular body.100 Due to the medium-large size of the vessels, consumption would not be a likely use.

sizes (Aston 1999: pl. 9, #198, pl. 17 #521, pl. 37 #1161) with heights between 43 and 55cm and low points of maximum diameter (“drop-shaped”). Other examples from Ashmunein are smaller and have a more pointed base (Spencer 1993:45). In the south Karnak versions, rims averaged about 9.5cm in diameter. Predicted function: Long-term storage would be an expected function of these vessels. Due to their height, this would be limited to liquids and small-grained drygoods, which could be either poured out by tilting the vessel or scooped out with a tool. Access to larger drygoods would be highly limited by the depth, narrowness, and constricted orifice of these types. Short-term storage would be a possible function for the smaller versions, since a smaller size would make them easier to move and to fill or empty. Both types of storage would be aided by the band or modeled rim, which would allow a piece of fabric or cloth to be tied over it and secured at its join with the body. This would protect its contents and prevent spillage. The height and narrowness of the vessel body would maximize storage space. Transportation could be a possible use as well, although the larger examples might be restrictively heavy when filled. The same qualities that make these good storage vessels would protect their contents if used as transport vessels. The weight and height of the larger vessels would make cooking/food preparation, as well as consumption, improbable functions.

Other information: Examples of this form found at a number of sites throughout Egypt have burn marks on their lower bodies, suggesting the vessels were used for cooking food (Aston 1999:170-172). This includes an example from Medinet Habu, dated to Dynasty 22, and examples from Dynasty 20-21 Qantir, both found “smoke-blackened” (Aston 1989b:604-605, #2482, Hölscher 1954:73, type Q4). At the south Karnak site, however, no cooking installations (ovens, hearths, etc.) were identified, and almost no pottery showed traces of burning. This suggests that cooking was not taking place in the area, and possibly this was not the use of these vessels here.

Conclusion: groups IIa. long-term liquid storage, Ia. long-term dry-goods storage, IIb. short-term liquid storage, Ib. short-term dry-goods storage, and V. transportation 20: Jars with nearly vertical sides and thick, flat rims Description: This type was based on fragmentary rim sherds only. These sherds all had thick, vertically situated vessel walls with little to no curve apparent. The vessel body led straight to the rim with no neck. Rims were usually thicker than the body wall and flattened, as if the still plastic jar had been placed on its simple rim and pushed down. Examples usually came in Nile B fabrics. Without a better-preserved example, few conclusions can be made about the whole vessel form to which these rims would have belonged. Similar rims come from large jars at Ashmunein (Spencer 1993:pl. 60 #8 and #15), silt jars at Amarna (Kemp 1986b: fig. 9.10 SJ3.4.1), as well as large zir jars (Aston 1999: pl. 24 #689, pl. 29 #870) and neckless jars from Elephantine (Aston 1999: pl. 59, #1776).

Conclusion: groups IIb. short-term liquid storage, Ib. short-term dry-goods storage, Vb. short-distance transportation, and IIIa. cooking over heat 19: Neckless jars with sloping shoulder Description: A variety of different rim types have been placed into this category. All included types possessed rims leading directly to the vessel shoulder without a neck. The shoulder curved gently downward, creating a slenderer body than globular jars. Versions came in marl A4, marl A3, marl B, and Nile B fabrics. Betterpreserved examples of neckless jars from Elephantine show versions of these vessels commonly came in large

Predicted function: Without more information on whole vessel form, functional conclusions are limited. The flattened rim of these jars may have been designed for tight closure with a lid or to keep a fabric cover tightly tied on. This would suggest a use for storage.

of thermal stress (Aston 1989b:37). Experimental archaeology supports this conclusion (Schiffer, et. al. 1994:209). 100 Experimental archaeology suggests the circular or globular body shape was the shape most resistant to breakage from impact, and that “spherical shapes are better able to distribute the weight of their contents, reducing the risk of breakage from internal loading” (Skibo and Blinman 1999:178). These qualities would be ideal in frequently used storage or transport vessels.

Conclusion: possibly groups I. dry-goods storage and II. liquid storage



body would maximize storage space. Larger dry-goods would be difficult to access due to the depth and restricted opening, so this would not be an ideal use of this vessel form.

21: Jars with slightly modeled rim, almost vertical continuation to body Description: A variety of different rim types were included in this category. In general, this type was very similar to Type 19, with a slightly modeled rim and no neck. Type 21, however, lacks the outwardly curved shoulder. Instead, the vessel wall runs almost vertically downward from the rim. Shoulders were practically non-existent. Average rim diameter was 10cm. Fabrics in the corpus included marl A4, marl D, and Nile B. Rims were similar to those of an ovoid jar (Aston 1999, pl. 5 #116), a number of amphorae (Aston 1999, pl. 10 #217-218, pl. 26 #744, pl. 27 #801), an ovoid bottle (Aston 1999, pl. 54 #1667), and a jar (Aston 1999, pl. 14 #441) from Elephantine. As well, a number of silt jars from Amarna resembled the south Karnak examples (Kemp 1986b: fig. 9.12 SJ5.4.1, SJ5.8.1, fig. 9.13 SJ5.10.1, SJ5.10.2). It is possible that this category includes a number of different vessel types, including ovoid jars/bottles and amphorae rims not preserved well enough to identify positively.

Transportation could be a possible use as well, although the larger examples might be restrictively heavy when filled. The same qualities that make these good storage vessels would protect their contents if used as transport vessels. The weight and height of the vessels would make cooking/food preparation, as well as consumption, improbable functions. Other information: Examples from Elephantine are called “storage jars” at that site (Aston 1999: pl. 56 #1698, pl. 60, #1789-1790, 1796-1797). Examples of the single notched rim type appear at east Karnak, where the ceramicists suggest the jar’s handles and rim notch were used to help suspend the vessel by a cord (Hummel and Shubert 1994:44). Conclusion: groups IIa. long-term liquid storage, Ia. long-term dry-goods storage, and V. transportation

Conclusion: Without more information on whole vessel shape, functional conclusions are unable to be made.

Combining Functional and Statistical Information about Ceramics

22: Tall jars with tooled or elaborately shaped rims in marl clay, with or without handles

Armed with a better understanding of likely uses for each type of ceramic vessel at the south Karnak excavation site, the charts above (5.1-5.23) can now be used to produce a function-based analysis of the site.

Description: These jars were large in size and sometimes possessed handles on the upper body. Their tooled rims stood as the defining characteristic. These came in two general types: the first had a cylindrical, short neck with one tooled line indented along the exterior of the rim; the second was more ornate, with elaborately modeled rims “bent into a series of ridges and furrows” (Aston 1999:230) and often no neck (the second type shown in Figure 5.1). The rims of this type sometimes stood close to vertical and other times angled in sharply towards the vessel opening. All types were made of thin, fine marl A4 variant 2 clay. Orifice size was narrow and generally averaged 9.5 cm in diameter. When vessel bodies were preserved, some showed signs of exterior ribbing. Handles were applied, small, and not neatly made. Better-preserved examples from Elephantine (Aston 1999: pl. 56 #1698, pl. 71 #2037) show that the both types had a round base with a low point of maximum diameter (“drop-shaped”).

Vessel Types: Charts 5.12-5.16, which list vessel types for each stratum, will be considered first. The following tables list the functional conclusions made for each Type: Stratum 1 The most common ceramics uncovered in Stratum 1 included Types D/F, E/G, 22, A1, N, F/G, 18, 10, 19, H, and 5. Each of these types composed between 412% of the total ceramics found in this stratum. This group of pottery had the largest diversity of common vessel types, with a mix of vessels used for all of the five functional groups. This diversity suggests that the materials uncovered at the site from this time period originated from a variety of types of activities. No clear functional pattern emerges from the ceramics, which could suggest this area may have served a variety of purposes or that it served as a refuse dump site for the area of the temple and/or settlement around it.

Predicted function: Long-term storage would be the expected function of these vessels. Due to their height and restricted orifices, this would be limited to liquids and small-grained dry-goods, which could be either poured out by tilting the vessel or scooped out with a tool. The small handles (not present on all types) are too small and placed too high up on the vessel shoulder to use to lift the vessels, but they would function to help maneuver or tip the vessel to access its contents. The contents could be protected by mud sealings or by tying a piece of fabric or cloth around the rim, and the tools or furrows could function as grooves to secure the string or to anchor the mud. The height of the vessel

The physical nature of this stratum, with little architecture and very high quantities of loose ceramic



material, would support the idea that this area was used to deposit ceramic trash.101

Stratum 3 The most common types found here were D/F, E/G, 18, 19, D/E, 10, 16, and A1, with each group representing between 4-27% of the total pottery identified.

Stratum 2 In this period, the most frequently encountered vessels were Types D/F, E/G, D/E, 18, 10, 5, and A1, each composing some 4 to 20% of that stratum’s total assemblage.

Stratum 3’s materials proved similar to those of Stratum 2 with the addition of types 16 and 19, both storage or transportation vessels. While the same basic conclusions can be made as with Stratum 2, it is possible that the addition of vessel types 16 and 19 would place less of an emphasis here on short-term storage, as both groups also include types IIa. and Ia., long-term liquid and dry-goods storage. As well, the addition of two additional type groups with possible transportation functions could mean that Stratum 3 saw a heavier use of transport vessels than the subsequent Stratum 2.

Stratum 2’s ceramics have more focus and less variety than Stratum 1. All but one of the major type groups has a possible liquid and dry-goods storage function. It should be noted that the two major jar types, Types 10 and 18, are most suited for short-term storage. The most common types found, bowls D/F, E/G, and D/E, could either have functioned as lids for the jars (and therefore served a storage function),102 or may be signaling that consumption was a primary activity as well.

Stratum 4 Types D/F, E/G, 19, 1, 18, and H were the most prevalent in this Stratum, with each composing about 4-25% of the ceramics.

Transportation appears as a possibility in only three cases, and two of these come from the multipurpose vessels Types 10 and 18, suggesting that transportation (group V) was not a prominent function of the vessels from this level. The results of this analysis suggest that the major activities of the site during Stratum 2 were the short-term storage of goods and possibly consumption.

While the new addition (Type 1) corresponds with the liquid and dry-goods storage functions of Types 18 and 19, the presence of Type H could suggest a heavier consumption focus for Stratum 4 than the previous strata. Four of the six major vessel types had a possible consumption (group IV) use. Unfortunately, with the only small area of this Stratum exposed, it is not yet possible to make conclusions on whether the material found here was in primary or secondary context.

Especially remarkable is that while cooking over heat (group IIIa) does appear in the table as a possible function for some of the most frequent types, it is in all but one case (type A1) a secondary possible use for a highly multi-functional vessel type. If the Stratum 2 Building A operated as a large domestic unit, one would expect to recover a higher percentage of vessels used unequivocally in the feeding of the inhabitants.

Strata 2&3 combined During the Third Intermediate Period levels overall, the most commonly found ceramics were Types D/F, E/G, 18, D/E, 10, A1 and 19, each between 4-23% of the total uncovered.

While Stratum 1 was clearly formed by secondary deposits, it is worth noting again that Stratum 2 may be formed partially by de facto refuse. The majority of the whole vessels uncovered in Stratum 2 were located directly on or above floor surfaces in Building A and often close to or against interior room walls. These vessels, and the artifacts found associated with them near floor surfaces, may come from the original moment of abandonment of the mud-brick building. The presence in Building A of primary deposit material is important, as this type of material can be more firmly tied to the activities that occurred directly in or around the building itself.

When the materials from Strata 2&3 are combined, we find a concentration on consumption (D/F, E/G, and D/E, if these are interpreted as consumption vessels and not lids to storage jars) and on short-term storage of liquid and dry-goods, similar to the overall results from Stratum 2 in general.

101

In urban material, “middens are generally characterized by a high packing index (quantity) as well as a high variety index (number of types)” (Gnivecki 1987:198). 102 This possibility is discussed at further length below, in the section on vessel shapes.



TYPE D/F E/G

POSSIBLE FUNCTIONS IVa. eating and drinking IV. consumption

I. dry-goods storage IIIb. preparing liquid and solid foods Ia. long-term drygoods storage

II. liquid storage I. dry-goods storage

II. liquid storage

22

IIa. long-term liquid storage

A1

III. food cooking/ preparation

N

III. food cooking/ preparation

IVb. serving

F/G

IV. consumption

IIIb. preparing liquid and solid foods

I. dry-goods storage

II. liquid storage

18

IIb. short-term liquid storage

Ib. short-term drygoods storage

Vb. short-distance transportation

IIIa. cooking over heat

10

IIb. short-term liquid storage

IIIb. preparing liquid and solid foods

IVb. serving

Ib. short-term drygoods storage IIa. long-term liquid storage

IIIa. cooking over heat IIb. short-term liquid storage

Vb. short-distance transportation V. transportation

Ib. short-term drygoods storage

H

Ia. long-term drygoods storage IV. consumption

5

V. transportation

IIa. long-term liquid storage

19

V. transportation

IIb. short-term liquid storage

I. dry-goods storage

Table 5.3: Vessel Types, Stratum 1 POSSIBLE FUNCTIONS D/F

IVa. eating and drinking

I. dry-goods storage

II. liquid storage

E/G

IV. consumption

I. dry-goods storage

D/E

IVa. eating and drinking

IIIb. preparing liquid and solid foods I. dry-goods storage

18

IIb. short-term liquid storage

Ib. short-term drygoods storage

Vb. short-distance transportation



II. liquid storage

II. liquid storage

IIIa. cooking over heat

10

IIb. short-term liquid storage

IIIb. preparing liquid and solid foods

IVb. serving

Ib. short-term drygoods storage

IIIa. cooking over heat

Vb. short-distance transportation

5

V. transportation

Ia. long-term liquid storage

IIb. short-term liquid storage

A1

III. food cooking/preparation

I. dry-goods storage

Table 5.4: Vessel Types, Stratum 2

TYPE

POSSIBLE FUNCTIONS

D/F

IVa. eating and drinking

I. dry-goods storage

II. liquid storage

E/G

IV. consumption

I. dry-goods storage

II. liquid storage

18

IIb. short-term liquid storage

IIIb. preparing liquid and solid foods Ib. short-term drygoods storage

Vb. short-distance transportation

IIIa. cooking over heat

19

IIa. long-term liquid storage

IIb. short-term liquid storage

V. transportation

Ia. long-term dry goods storage IVa. eating and drinking

Ib. short-term drygoods storage I. dry-goods storage

IIb. short-term liquid storage

IIIb. preparing liquid and solid foods

IVb. serving

Ib. short-term drygoods storage

IIIa. cooking over heat

Vb. short-distance transportation

V. transportation

IIa long-term liquid storage

IIb. short-term liquid storage

D/E 10

16

II. liquid storage

IVb. serving A1

III. food cooking/ preparation Table 5.5: Vessel Types, Stratum 3



Ia. long-term drygood storage

TYPE

POSSIBLE FUNCTIONS

D/F

IVa. eating and drinking

I. dry-goods storage

II. liquid storage

E/G

IV. consumption

I. dry-goods storage

II. liquid storage

19

IIa. long-term liquid storage

IIIb. preparing liquid and solid foods Ia. long-term drygoods storage

IIb. short-term liquid storage

Ib. short-term drygoods storage

V. transportation 1

IIa. long-term liquid storage

IIb. short-term liquid storage

Ib. short-term drygoods storage

IVb. serving

18

IIb. short-term liquid storage

Ib. short-term drygoods storage

Vb. short-distance transportation

IIIa. cooking over heat

H

IV. consumption

Table 5.6: Vessel Types, Stratum 4 TYPE

POSSIBLE FUNCTIONS

D/F

IVa. eating and drinking

I. dry-goods storage

II. liquid storage

E/G

IV. consumption

I. dry-goods storage

II. liquid storage

18

IIb. short-term liquid storage

IIIb. preparing liquid and solid foods Ib. short-term drygoods storage

Vb. short-distance transportation

IIIa. cooking over heat

D/E

IVa. eating and drinking

I. dry-goods storage

II. liquid storage

10

IIb. short-term liquid storage

IIIb. preparing liquid and solid foods

IVb. serving

Ib. short-term drygoods storage

IIIa. cooking over heat

Vb. short-distance transportation

V. transportation

A1

III. food cooking/preparation

19

IIa. long-term liquid storage

IIb. short-term liquid storage

Ia. long-term dry-goods storage

Ib. short-term drygoods storage

Table 5.7: Vessel Types, Strata 2&3 Combined



Conclusions on Vessel Types

Comparison with New Kingdom City of Tell el-Amarna

The general pattern at the south Karnak site shows a great deal of consistency of vessel types over time. Instead of drastic variation among the most common types from one stratum to the next, we see the same vessel types repeatedly in Strata 2-4. Even Stratum 1, which may have been produced through refuse dumping, contains mostly forms seen in high percentages in other strata. One major difference is that Stratum 1 shows a higher percentage than Strata 2-4 of types likely used for cooking over heat (group III), including the frequently occurring types A1 and N. This suggests that the ceramics dumped in Stratum 1 came from an area where cooking was a more prevalent activity than in the areas covered by Strata 2-4.

One of the only settlement sites with detailed, quantified information on types of pottery excavated from a variety of contexts is the New Kingdom city of Amarna. While Amarna’s material is of an earlier chronological date than the south Karnak pottery, it is close enough in time that it offers useful comparative material. The ceramics from that site were classified into a grouping of thirty-nine vessel types (Rose 1984:135), many of whose types overlap with the groupings created for this project. A major benefit of using this material is that many of the areas of ceramic collection at Amarna were located in or near buildings of known function. The following section will compare vessel types from the south Karnak corpus with analogous groupings of vessels from Amarna. Any similarities in the assemblages could aid in our understanding of the activities taking place at south Karnak.

Notable is the fact that almost all of the types in Stratum 2 have a possible storage function. While many of the vessels have multiple possible uses, the repeated appearance of groups Ib. (short-term drygoods storage) and IIb. (short-term liquid storage) suggests that Building A was holding a large number of ceramics used for this purpose.

In one study, the percentages of each vessel type excavated or collected at Amarna were calculated for a small-scale religious chapel (Chapel 571), a rubbish pit (Square M10), and a water and goods distribution area (the Zir-area) located around the Workmen’s Village. The analysis included adjusting data to reflect the minimum number of vessels present (Rose 1984:140152).

Charts 5.17-5.23 give breakdowns of the minimum number of vessels found in each of the seven rooms of Building A according to their division into vessel types. While the charts covering Stratum 2 in general deal with much of the same material, it was important to test the rooms individually to prevent the larger, stratumwide analysis from suppressing any smaller patterns visible only at the room level. As mentioned previously, the levels at or slightly above room floors held the majority of the whole vessels, evidence of primary or de facto refuse. The results indicate that in addition to the small/medium sized bowls (usually D/E, D/F, or E/G) that were some of the most common ceramics found in each room, most of the other high percentage types were seen consistently from room to room. Types 8, 10, and 18, all with multi-purpose functions, were found with great frequency, as was Type 1, whose uses are limited to storage and serving. Vessel Type K was recovered from Rooms 4-7, but not Rooms 1-3, suggesting the former were areas with possibly more dry-goods storage. Room 1 and Room 6 had larger numbers of Type 5 and Type 19 vessels, both specialized for liquid and dry-goods storage or transport. In general, each room had a variety of vessel types appropriate for different types of storage, and it seems most likely that all of the rooms acted at least in part as a short-term storage area, as was concluded for Stratum 2 in general. Apart from the open form bowls (which could have functioned as lids), no room had a large quantity of food production/ preparation or consumption type vessels, which would suggest that apart from whatever function the bowls served, little other direct production and consumption activities took place in the rooms themselves. Also noteworthy is that the most frequently occurring vessel types were distributed relatively evenly across rooms, implying that none of the rooms differed drastically in purpose.

Vessels found in high quantities at the small-scale chapel included: stands (Karnak Type C) seemingly associated with a number of bowls with burnt interiors and likely used as lamps or incense burners; biconical jars (Karnak Type 9); hearths (Karnak Type N); bowls with simple rims (Karnak Type D or F); and carinated bowls (Karnak Type H) (Rose 1984:140-143). Rose noted that stands were common among the chapels recorded during the excavations by Peet and Wooley. In an uncompleted excavation of a neighboring chapel (Chapel 570), the most commonly found ceramics were biconical jars (Karnak Type 9). A similar clearance was done to Chapel 561/450 (the “Main Chapel” in the “Workmen’s Village”) a few years later, and results there show a clear similarity of frequently found types (Rose 1986: figs. 7.5-7.9). A trash pit at the city had by far the largest range of vessel types of the areas investigated. In almost every level of the pit excavated, between 21-26 of their 39 vessel types were found. The vessel type found in the largest quantity was a simple rimmed bowl with either round or flat base (Karnak Types D or F), followed by hearths (Karnak Type N) and jars with either a plain, funnel neck or flaring rim (Karnak Types 9 and 21) (Rose 1984:143-146). At the water and goods distribution area, the most commonly recorded vessels were large Nile silt biconical jars with thickened rims (not in the south Karnak corpus) and again the simple rimmed silt bowl with either round or flat base (Karnak Types D or F).



and around Magazine 15, south of the “Great Temple,” was distinguished by the large proportion of bread molds (Karnak Type M) that composed about 95% of the total pottery recorded in the area. Later research appears to have distinguished this area as not only temple magazines, but also functioning as an actual industrial scale bakery, where each room contained a bread oven (Kemp 2006d: Fig. 28)

Also seen frequently were amphorae (Karnak Type 16), jars with an upright thickened rim (not in the Karnak corpus), and biconical jars and jars with a flaring rim (Karnak Types 9 and 21) (Rose 1984:146-150). Rose explained that each of the differently functioning areas had a “distinctive pottery assemblage,” characterized for the chapels by the presence of stands (Rose 1984:152) and for the distribution area by the large quantity of liquid storage jars.

Outside of the so-called “Clerk’s Houses,” Rose’s surveyors worked in two areas, finding a wide variety of vessel types, including simple rimmed bowls (Karnak Type D or F), round based bowls with modeled rims (Karnak Type E), hearths (Karnak Type N), jars with upright thickened rims (not in south Karnak corpus, most similar to Type 10), zir jars (not in the Karnak corpus), biconical jars (Karnak Type 9), flaring rim jars (Karnak Types 21 and 19), carinated bowls (Karnak Type H), meat jars (Karnak Type 4, also similar to Type 14), and amphorae (Karnak Type 16). Bread molds, completely missing from one of the sections near these buildings, made up about 10% of the pottery in the second section (Rose 1987b:118). Deposits sampled near buildings Q41.5 and R41.5, behind an area that looked like it contained a large number of magazines, also had high proportions of bread molds (40-75% of each area's pottery). Frequent there were simple rimmed bowls (Karnak Type D or F), hearths (Karnak Type N), flaring rim jars (similar to Karnak Types 21 and 19), meat jars (Karnak Type 4, also similar to Type 14), carinated bowls (Karnak Type H), and jars with upright thickened rims (not in the south Karnak corpus, most similar to Type 10). Rose suggested that the types of pottery present here indicated material from both the bakeries and magazines was mixed with that of other nearby buildings (Rose 1987b:118-119). Within building R42.9A (labeled by earlier excavators a “military quarter”), bread molds (Karnak Type M) were common in one section located close to the building’s east magazine. The other section held few bread molds and instead contained mostly hole mouth jars (Karnak Type 1), jars with upright thickened rims (not in the south Karnak corpus, most similar to Type 10), biconical jars (Karnak Type 9), stands (Karnak Type C), zir jars (nothing similar in south Karnak corpus), round-based modeled rim bowls (Karnak Types E and G) with traces of burning and incense, hearths (Karnak Type N), simple rim bowls (Karnak Types D and F), and carinated bowls (Karnak Type H) (Rose 1987b:112123). All these buildings fell within the section of the Central City considered areas of government administration by the excavators, which they believed contained storage and offices related to the palace (Kemp 2006c).

In a later publication, Rose added a domestic space to her pottery investigations, this time a well-preserved house inside the “Workmen’s Village” itself (Rose 1987a:132-143). She looked at both complete and sherd material within the house and found that frequently occurring types included bread platters (Karnak Type A1), meat jars (Karnak Type 4, also similar to Type 14), biconical jars, (Karnak Type 9), simple rim bowls (Karnak Types D and F), amphorae (Karnak Type 16), hearths (Karnak Type N), and jars with outward flaring rims (similar to Karnak Types 21 and 19). She described this household’s pottery assemblage as mostly “utilitarian,” interpreting the most common types, the bread platters, hearths and outward flaring rim jars, as involved in cooking and food preparation (Rose 1987a:137). She also noted amongst the plainer household types there were a small number of “exotic” and more decorative pieces, including a burnished, onehandled cup, a red-polished vase, and a wavy-rimmed “cobra bowl” (Rose 1987a:136-137). In another study, Renfrew examined sherd material scattered at a site on the approach to the “Workmen’s Village” (site X2) (Renfrew 1987:87-102). Other evidence from survey results helped to interpret this area as running along a trail where water would be delivered by donkey to the “Workmen’s Village” from the “Central City” well (Rose 1987b:124-125). Examination of the collected ceramic material showed that 65-70% of the fabrics recovered were fabrics specialized at Amarna for amphorae jars (Karnak Type 16). Silts that formed the large Amarna water jars (zirs) were only found in small percentages (about 5%) and none of the silts for the otherwise commonly found redslipped bowls were in evidence (Renfrew 1987:94). Site X2, part of a water-delivery system utilizing pack animals, had a highly specialized ceramic assemblage (primarily amphorae) different even from the water and goods distribution area that served as a secondary step in the movement of goods (Renfrew 1987:97-98). A large-scale pottery survey led by Rose attempted to test the association of ceramic types with a greater variety of areas of the city of Amarna. Sherds were collected from the surface in four meter sections, and all pieces over 2cm were recorded (Rose 1987b:115). Results showed a number of interesting correlations between place and ceramics. In the court of the small Aten temple, for example, very few sherds were uncovered. Rose suggested this demonstrated the lack of pottery use in temple courts. The area sampled in

At a domestic/workshop area surveyed, the “House of the King’s Statue,” the pottery consisted mostly of open forms with red slips, such as silt round based bowls with modeled rims (Karnak Types E and G), hearths (Karnak Type N), zir jars (nothing similar in Karnak corpus), biconical jars (Karnak Type 9), hole



samples may not actually be linked to this area (Rose 1989b:104-105).

mouth jars (Karnak Type 1), flaring rim jars (similar to Karnak Types 21 and 19), and blue painted sherds. Very few bread molds (Karnak Type M) or marl amphorae types (Karnak Type 16) were found in this area (Kemp 2006c, Rose 1987b:122-123).

A review of this citywide data provides some interesting comparative material for the area of south Karnak, specifically Strata 1-3. Most noticeable is the almost total lack in all of the Karnak strata of bread molds (Type M), seen in such abundance in the areas at Amarna associated with the temple, its magazines, or its production areas. If buildings directly linked to production and supplying of the temples can be identified by the large quantity of bread molds found in and around them, as hypothesized for Amarna, then Building A played no such role. Bread clearly was baked near the temple, at least around the time of the Second Intermediate Period/ early Dynasty 18, as the bread molds discovered by excavations outside the New Kingdom temple enclosure wall have demonstrated (Bryan 2003:3).103 So while molds are found in and around the immediate temple complex, they do not appear common to the area excavated for this project, and this suggests Building A was not closely involved with the direct supply or consumption of temple provisions. “Meat jars” (Karnak Type 4, but also similar to Type 14) also commonly appeared at Amarna in magazines associated with the temples but were not found in samples from the palace, “Clerk’s Houses,” or “Offices.” They were found only in small numbers in the South Suburb amongst the residences and workshops there. Although these vessels occurred occasionally in south Karnak collections, they were not found commonly in any stratum, and this fact could support the conclusion that Building A was not closely aligned with equipping the neighboring Mut temple.

For these investigations, and information gained from the earlier EES excavations, Rose concluded that some patterns could be observed across the surveyed city site: “Meat jars are found in the Great Temple magazines and the adjacent magazine block, the Smaller Aten Temple and its magazines, and also in a few of the larger buildings; but they do not occur in the palace, Clerks’ Houses, or on the whole in the Offices. The amphorae are more widely distributed, but are not found in either temple or their magazines. Breadcone distribution….can be seen to occur in ten areas…[some] directly associated with the baking carried out on an industrial scale for the Great Temple…[or] with the baking taking place in the magazine block between the Temple and the Royal estate…Given the overwhelming numbers of breadcone sherds associated with the temples and their magazines…it seems probable that the association between the moulds and structure of a religious nature was maintained in the Amarna period” (Rose 1987b:127-128). The survey continued in 1987, with Rose focusing primarily on the “South Suburb,” an area of residences and workshops (sampled areas 27-37) (Rose 1989b:102-114). In all of the areas surveyed, the bread molds (Karnak Type M) seen in abundance around the temple bakeries and magazines were completely absent (Rose 1989b:107). Only low-quantities of blue-painted wares were found in the areas around the houses despite good sherd preservation (Rose 1989b:105). The marl wares were mostly of the fabric type forming amphorae (Karnak Type 16), and these usually composed between 10-20% of the collected pottery (Rose 1989b:105-106). Very few meat jars (Karnak Type 4) were identified. Open forms were much more common in this area (usually between 10-15% of the total collected) than they had been in almost all the aforementioned areas of the Central City (usually between 0-10%), with the exception of the “House of the King’s Statue,” which was considered part of the South Suburb and possibly had some domestic/ workshop function as well (Rose 1989b: figs. 5.3-5.4).

Areas created for highly specialized use at Amarna seem to have distinctive ceramic corpora. Clear at that site was the link between amphorae (Karnak Type 16) and zirs (not in the south Karnak corpus) with areas involved with the supply and delivery of water (Site X2, the well, and the water/goods distribution “zir area”). Neither of these types was common in the south Karnak corpus, and we can eliminate any similarity of activity set. The cultic buildings included in the pottery analysis at Amarna (the small Aten temple court, the “Main Chapel,” and a smaller scale chapel at the “Workmen’s Village”) were characterized by either a lack of pottery or the presence of vessel stands (Karnak Type C) presumably used for cultic rituals. Again, this project’s pottery contrasts strongly with these areas. If the results from Amarna could be interpreted as typical, a cultic function for the Building A can be dismissed. Within the only house surveyed at Amarna (a house from the “Workmen’s Village”), the types of ceramics found were dissimilar in proportion to those of south Karnak’s Building A. In the village house, food preparation or cooking trays were most common

One of the few samples taken in the Central City was located on a street within the group of “Clerk’s Houses” where bread molds were again absent, but blue-painted wares were found in abundance. The percentages of pottery types found here differed substantially from the two earlier samples taken outside this area in 1986, and Rose suggested that the earlier

103 Large quantities of bread molds were also found at Karnak North in the New Kingdom production areas surrounding the “treasury” of Tuthmosis I (Jacquet 1994:85-101).



(Karnak Type A1), along with “meat jars,” possibly reused for household water or goods storage (Karnak Types 4 or 14). This type of tray only composed about 4% of the pottery found within and around Building A, and neither Types 4 nor 14 even reached 4%. Building A’s pottery, therefore, does not resemble the corpus from a small household at Amarna. However, it must be noted that the difference in size between the two buildings compared would likely signal a difference in status amongst the dwellers104 which could affect the types of household activities (and hence types of pottery used) taking place within the structures. A better comparison would be with one of the larger Amarna “villa” style houses, but unfortunately, none were included in the pottery surveys. Stratum 1 material at south Karnak seems to have more similarities to the types of ceramics found in the small Amarna house, whose material overlapped with Karnak Types A1, D/F, N and 19. This could suggest that domestic trash was part of the ceramic material dumped in the south Karnak excavation area in the Late Period, possibly from a nearby section of the city (since there is no sign of any domestic architecture here in Stratum 1).

and offices (i.e. state administration) or the houses and workshops of the South Suburb at Akhetaten. This information can then be added to the data on percentages of vessel types found in each stratum at south Karnak, where Building A was shown to hold primarily short-term storage and consumption vessels. Clearly, a use of this space for the holding and distributing of goods for state administration or private use therefore seems the most plausible. The pottery of Stratum 1, of mixed function, had types in common with both the administration and domestic/workshop spaces mentioned above, as well as with a household in the “Workmen’s Village.” When combined with the fact that Building A seems to have fallen out of use by this phase, it is possible to interpret the ceramic dumps here as originating then in a household or workshop area. Since very little of the large section of land behind the Mut temple’s sacred lake has been excavated, it is possible that domestic or workshop areas lay nearby, and materials were carried and deposited here. Stratum 4’s ceramics, while also composed of types most similar to those of Amarna’s Central City administrative zone and the South Suburb, are more difficult to interpret. The small area of this stratum excavated gives us little architectural or spatial context for the material. Further excavation into the New Kingdom strata in the area is needed to make more substantive conclusions.

A closer match for south Karnak’s pottery corpus appears to be ceramics from the “Central City’s” areas of government administration and the “South Suburb” at Amarna. These included samples from in and around the “Clerk’s Houses,” building R42.9A, and the “House of King’s Statue.” These areas were characterized by a number of the following: open bowls (Karnak types D, E, F, or G), globular jars (Karnak Type 10), neckless jars (Karnak Type 19), hole mouthed jars (Karnak Type 1), an absence of bread molds (Karnak Type M), painted wares, and occasionally (but not frequently) occurring amphorae (Karnak Type 16) and carinated bowls (Karnak Type H). These vessel occurrences resemble those in south Karnak Strata 1-4 excavations. Unfortunately, the biconical jar form (Karnak Type 9), very popular in both the “Central City” administration and South Suburb sections of Amarna, did not continue past the New Kingdom in Egypt (Holthoer 1977:148). Functionally, this jar would be most useful for shortterm storage (category IIb.) and serving (category IVb.). Both of these functions were deemed probable uses for the Karnak Type 10 jar, and short-term storage likely was one of the major functions of the Karnak Type 18 jar. If the Amarna biconcial jars were functionally replaced by jars Type 10 or 18 after the New Kingdom, the similarities between the pottery from south Karnak and the Central City government section and South Suburbs of Amarna are even closer.

Vessel Shape Charts 5.6-5.10 deal with the percentages of vessel shapes found in each stratum, Chart 5.11 shows the shapes that occurred room-by-room within Building A, and Chart 5.24 details the shape of the whole or nearly complete vessels found on or directly above the identified surface levels of each room. These charts offer a different perspective on the ceramic material, providing less specialized information, but offering a broader view of the popularity of larger vessel categories. Using the functional information acquired during the analysis of vessel types, the following conclusions about the relationship between vessel shape and function can be posited: Shape

Possible Functions

jar

Ia. long-term dry-goods storage Ib. short-term dry-goods storage

A comparison of the ceramics studied for this project with those from the surveys and excavations at the city of Amarna provides another source of insight into the workings of the south Karnak site. This exercise suggests that the Third Intermediate Period Building A was involved in tasks similar to the palace storehouses

IIa. long-term liquid storage IIb. short-term liquid storage IIIa. cooking over heat IIIb. preparing liquid and solid food IVb. serving

104

A positive correlation between house size and social status at Amarna is argued for in: Crocker 1985:52-65.



then, there is a clear decrease in vessels likely used for consumption, while vessels with primarily storage uses stay mostly stable, with a peak in Stratum 1.

Va. long-distance transportation Vb. short-distance transportation bottle

Ia. long-term dry-goods storage

Hobs were found occasionally in Stratum 1, suggesting that cooking or firing was taking place sporadically somewhere in south Karnak at this time. This type was uncovered less frequently in the three earlier strata.

Ib. short-term dry-goods storage IIa. long-term liquid storage IIb. short-term liquid storage

Molds were rare in all strata, suggesting that bread baking was not a major locus of activity near the excavation site in any period investigated.

IIIa. cooking over heat IVb. serving Va. long-distance transportation

The percentage of specialized lids increased slightly in Stratum 1, in tandem with the increase in storage vessels in the later periods. However, for all strata, the large quantity of bowls/plates may not necessarily signify consumption. The fact that small to medium sized bowls could also be used to cover jars must be considered, since the total number of vessels actually used as lids could have been much higher at all moments than the number of specialized lid forms would suggest. For example, in Stratum 2, the Type D bowl was a popular shape. This round-based bowl with simple rim often possessed a diameter around 20cm and could therefore cover the larger openings of widemouth jars (such as vessel Type 5, the larger versions of which had an average rim size of 14-22cm). Alternatively, they could have functioned as looser covers (with the bowl rim resting on the shoulder or hanging down the neck of the vessel instead of directly enclosing the rim) on jars with narrower openings (such as the recurring Type 10, with rims ranging from 4-40 cm, averaging around 11 cm; Type 18, with a 9cm average rim size; and the smaller versions of Type 5, with rim diameters between 8-12cm). From one stratum to another, the primary use of bowls at the south Karnak site may have alternated between storage tasks and consumption activities, but this variation is unfortunately invisible in the archaeological record.

V. transportation bowl

I. dry-goods storage II. liquid storage

IV. consumption

cup

IVa. eating and drinking

basin

III. food cooking/ preparation IVb. serving

pithoi

I. dry-goods storage IIIb. preparing liquid and solid foods

tray

I. dry-goods storage

IIIa. cooking over heat

IVb. serving hob

IIIa. cooking over heat

lid

II. liquid storage I. dry-goods storage V. transportation

stand

IVb. serving

mold

IIIa. cooking over heat

Table 5.8: Possible Vessel Functions by Shape

The large and usually roughly made vessels in the tray and basin categories were found in larger percentages in Strata 1 and 2 than in the earlier Strata 3 and 4. This would suggest an increase in activities related to either group III. (food cooking/ preparation) or group IVb. (serving). If these vessels were used for cooking or serving, their presence in larger numbers in Stratum 1, hypothesized to contain some domestic or workshop material, would be logical. Serving functions were represented in other forms among the pottery of Building A and their presence could signal that the use of bowls as consumption vessels (as opposed to lids for storage) should be considered seriously.

Vessel Shape Conclusions Not surprisingly, all the south Karnak strata had a high concentration of jars, bowls, and bottles - all vessel shapes that are highly multifunctional and come in a variety of forms. Unfortunately, the numerous possible functions of many of the vessel shapes means this category is less useful for analyses of activities taking place on site. The most remarkable difference between each context comes from the difference in percentage of jars and bottles (who share a major use of liquid and dry-goods storage) versus bowls and cups (who share a consumption use). In Stratum 1 (Chart 5.6), the first group totals 48.5% of the pottery identified, while the second totals 36.5%. In Stratum 2 (Chart 5.7), jars/bottles equal 43.9% and bowls/cups equal 42.3%. Stratum 3 (Chart 5.8) has jars/bottles at 43.6% and bowls/cups at 46.5%. Stratum 4 (Chart 5.9) percentages are respectively 44.7% and 49.6%. As time goes on

Chart 5.11 shows that most of the common vessel shapes (jar, bottle, bowl, cup, basin, pithoi, and lid) were found in all seven rooms of Building A. Lids were the main exception, located only in Room 2 and Room 5. Paralleling the results of the strata analyses, bowls, jars, and bottles were the most common shapes in each room. The relatively similar proportion of each shape



of vessel found from one room to the next could suggest that the rooms all saw similar activities. It is also possible that abandonment processes have obscured the original functional differentiation between rooms.

activities, and a better understanding of the multiple functions of those vessel types could be achieved. One would expect to find the entire spectrum of vessel types used across the city, and indeed identifying the functions of specific types would be significantly easier when the total possible types were known. With a larger source of information, it may also be possible to show if different groupings of types are frequently found in different activity areas. This kind of deep analysis could only be achieved at a site with a diverse ceramic assemblage and a range of buildings representing all aspects of the social world.

The large quantity of pottery found in Room 4 suggests that this area either saw greater use of ceramic material than the other rooms excavated, or due to abandonment practices, the room was left with more of its pottery inside. Chart 5.24 deals with only the whole or nearly complete vessels found at or directly associated with Stratum 2 surface levels inside Building A. 105 The amount of this material was extremely limited in comparison to the amount of total pottery recovered from these levels,106 and therefore the presence or absence of certain shapes may be more an accident of preservation than a reliable marker for what activities were taking place.107 It is important to note that only in very rare cases were attempts to match body sherds with bases and rims made during the ceramic analysis, and therefore the possibility that relatively complete but smashed vessels would be reunited was small. The results of quantifying this material show that among the well-preserved vessels, jars and bottles were the most frequently occurring types, composing 67% of the overall total. This reinforces the conclusions based on the sherd material that Building A was primarily used for storage purposes. Bowls, which were the most popular vessels in the sherd material, constituted only 22% of this corpus.

The second limitation is the lack of detailed information on pottery assemblages from urban sites in general in ancient Egypt. Without quantified information on ceramic assemblages associated with different activity areas or types of buildings from a variety of other sites, it is impossible to know what “typical” percentages of types would be for different kinds of buildings associated with production/ consumption/storage/etc.108 As well, there is little discussion in the few publications of ancient Egyptian urban areas as to how the ceramics relate to the building or area in which they are found other than chronologically. A much greater attempt to integrate the ceramics with other elements of material culture excavated needs to be made in site reports before the combination of this data can help answer questions about vessel use and disposal.109 This includes a discussion of the deposition record at a site (when possible) and specifically how, when, and by whom (or what) the whole vessels and the fragmented sherd material were deposited where found.

Limitations of the Pottery Analysis Despite these limitations, this author would argue that theorizing vessel function is vital for investigating the activities taking place at town and temple sites in ancient Egypt. As this manuscript has attempted to show, even small excavations with a limited corpus of ceramics can benefit greatly from a study of the material that goes beyond chronological and artistic issues. Such an examination can provide evidence for production, consumption, storage, and transportation activities in areas where architectural remains are lacking or have unclear significance. As well, this information can be used to nuance our understanding of activities in structures whose primary function is clear due to inscriptional materials. In general, Egyptology has failed to engage with anthropological discussions of vessel function, and it is to the field’s detriment. Ceramic remains are one of the most common artifacts recovered from occupation areas in Egypt, but little effort has been applied to how this material can shed light on daily life at town sites. While individual

While the statistical and functional analysis of this project’s ceramic material has provided valuable information on the activities taking place before, during, and after the life of Building A, a number of factors limit the extent of the conclusions that can be made. The first factor must be the small scale of the project, which cannot hope to recover a representative percentage of the ceramics used in this area of urban Thebes during the major chronological periods under study. A functional analysis of pottery would be more effectively conducted over the whole of ancient Thebes, where the entire repertoire of domestic, state, and temple ceramics could be compiled. In this way, vessel types could be more concretely linked to specific 105

To be identified as a “vessel,” and not sherd material, each individual piece had to be either: 1. completely whole, 2. maintain 75% of its body with either a rim or base preserved, 3. have a complete or almost complete rim and shoulder, or 4. have a complete or almost complete base and body. 106 The chart is based on 27 total vessels. 107 For example, a number of small round-based bottles (Type 7) were found whole or almost whole. Their small size and compact shape may protect them from breakage more than other types of vessels, and they may therefore be overrepresented in the corpus of wellpreserved vessels.

108

Bader also remarks on this problem in her cogent discussion of the issues/potentials for using archaeological context in the evaluation of Egyptian ceramics (Bader and Ownby 2013:16-17). 109 Research directed by Kemp at Tell el-Amarna is an example of how pottery information can be integrated successfully and meaningfully with other archaeological material. See especially the contributions to: Kemp 1984.



morphology across and among sites and regions. The sophisticated nature of the Egyptian ceramic industry demonstrates clearly that vessels were produced with specific attributes for functional reasons, and by categorizing this material and closely studying its distribution across sites, archaeologists and ceramicists could begin to tease out the patterns of activity that reflect the daily interactions of ancient peoples.

studies of vessel contents (through trace analysis, etc.) can provide important information on how specific vessels were used, these studies are difficult to do in Egypt and cannot begin to cover the large quantity of ceramic materials found at most sites. This data, along with evidence from archaeological context and inscriptional information, should be used in complement to larger investigations of vessel



CHAPTER 6: THE MUT TEMPLE PRECINCT AND THE TEMPLE ECONOMY IN THEBES University. Bryan’s work dismantling and recording the temple platforms has recovered over 80 blocks from the original Tuthmoside temple.1 Several phases of temple restructuring during the reigns of Hatshepsut/Tuthmosis III and possibly Amenhotep III have recently been documented (Bryan 2006b:29-30). The reconstructed plan of the temple at the death of Tuthmosis IV suggests that the processional way of that time linked central Karnak (primarily the temple of Amun-Re) to Mut via a path skirting a Tuthmoside boat shrine (fig. 6.1). The Mut precinct’s west entrance may have been through a stone gateway built by Hatshepsut and Tuthmosis III along the temple’s western temenos wall (Kozloff, Bryan and Berman 1992:96 and fig. IV.17). The temple’s north entrance remains unknown.

The previous chapters of this work have focused on the buildings, features, and ceramics excavated in south Karnak. For the purpose of this close study, the material has been considered in relative isolation. However, greater understanding of how this area participated in the cultic and urban development of the city of Thebes is necessary to place the finds (especially those of the Third Intermediate Period) in context. This chapter will therefore attempt to locate Building A within its physical and historical framework. To do this, two main issues will be considered. First, the spatial relationship of the site to the contemporary Mut temple complex will be investigated. The inclusion or exclusion of Building A within the temple complex’s enclosure wall at any given moment affects the interpretation of the structure. Conclusions will be based on evidence excavated by the Brooklyn Museum of Art and the Johns Hopkins University. Second, textual evidence relating to the economy and administration of Third Intermediate Period Thebes will be considered to better understand how Building A may have functioned as part of the civic or cultic administration of that period.

The precinct likely enclosed only the section of the land immediately around the temple proper and the sacred lake, with its border in the north at the temple’s first pylon (fig. 6.3).2 Although no excavation had been done in the area, rises directly behind the sacred lake led the Brooklyn excavators to believe that the southern line of the enclosure originally stood there (Fazzini 1999:398, Fazzini and Jasnow 1988:24, tafel 4 items 3 and 5). Fazzini also believed that the wall leading south off the Hatshepsut/Tuthmosis III gateway (the precinct’s western wall) would have continued south towards the rear wall of the precinct. Later, this wall may have been eroded away by the sacred lake (Fazzini 2002:68 and fig. 1 feature 3b). The eastern precinct enclosure wall no doubt would have mirrored the position of this western wall (Fazzini 2002:69).

The Mut Temple Precinct and Building A An important issue for the interpretation of the area behind the Mut temple’s sacred lake is the size and location of the precinct enclosure wall during various historical periods. When temple enclosures expand, new areas are brought into the sacred space, changing the function or significance of those areas. While the site excavated for this project is included within the Mut precinct’s present-day enclosure wall, the course of the enclosure from earlier periods did not follow the same line. Egyptian temples are well known for their everincreasing size, due to the royal practice of adding on to existing architecture (Hornung 1992:84-87, Shafer 1997:6-7). Recent excavations suggest that the Mut precinct during the New Kingdom, Third Intermediate Period, and Late Period encompassed a smaller area than the present-day temple complex, and therefore the site under investigation here would have stood outside the temple enclosure during those periods. This conclusion bears directly on any suppositions about the function of Building A and the possible Third Intermediate Period buildings within this area. Because the size and shape of the temple’s enclosure appears to have changed a number of times, the following section will trace the chronology of the temenos as far as possible based on current research, documenting the pattern of its growth. Conclusions will then be made regarding the most likely position for Building A during its life in the Third Intermediate Period.

Fortunately, continued excavations have uncovered sections of the temple’s New Kingdom enclosure walls that expand the knowledge of the precinct’s original form. Along the south side of the sacred lake, large walls running parallel to the water were shown to have functioned as enclosure walls for the Dynasty 18 temple (see fig. 6.3, labeled “inner” and “outer” enclosures). The outer-most wall, preserved to 3m in height in one section, was used as the south wall for open-air workshops where New Kingdom ceramics were uncovered (Bryan 2004a:1).3 South of this wall and connected to it by a limestone threshold stood a series of enclosed granary buildings. These were securely dated to Dynasty 1

1

Work done by the Brooklyn team had previously cleaned part of the original platform of the temple, dated to the reign of Hatshepsut (Fazzini 2002:72-75). 2 The Brooklyn team found what appeared to be the northern section of this wall running from the gateway directly towards the first pylon through a magnetometer survey. They confirmed its presence by excavating a small portion of its length (Fazzini 2002:68 and Fig. 1, feature #6). This is clearly the same wall as on Mariette’s map of the precinct. A second northern wall, on the other side of the temple, is also included on his map (Fazzini 1984-1985: Fig. 3). 3 The outer enclosure wall measured about 6.5m in width (Bryan 2003:2).

The New Kingdom The earliest form of the New Kingdom temple of Mut has been the focus of excavations by Johns Hopkins



Figure 6.1: The Tuthmoside Mut Temple Processional (See Figure Credits for Attribution)

Figure 6.2: The Post-Tuthmoside Dynasty 18 Mut Temple Processional (See Figure Credits for Attribution) by pottery and a stamped jar handle found in context (Bryan 2004a:3-4). To the north of the outer wall, the foundations of an inner mud-brick wall were discovered. This wall, buttressed along its outer edge, could also be dated to the New Kingdom due to the Dynasty 18 pottery and refuse around its base (Bryan 2004a:7).

and Berman 1992: fig. IV.17). Karnak’s Amun-Re temple itself stood significantly smaller at this time as well. Between and around the New Kingdom enclosure walls south of Mut’s sacred lake, excavations found a series of rooms used for the production of bread and beer (Bryan 2006b:27-28). The presence of these installations, in concert with the large granaries nearby and finds inside the temple, suggested to the excavator that this area was the locus of production for temple offerings (Bryan

The original New Kingdom size of the precinct then was substantially smaller than the form of the temple complex in the Late and Greco-Roman Periods (Kozloff, Bryan



2004b). Ceramic information provided evidence that this area was in use through the late 18th Dynasty or early 19th Dynasty (Bryan 2008b:27).

pylon in the north, along the Hatshepsut gateway to the west, directly behind the sacred lake in the south, and likely between the Mut temple proper and temple A on the east. (fig. 6.3) At some point, possibly during the reign of Ramesses III, the western wall was cut down along its southern line and extended westward, in order to encompass the newly built temple C. The northern section of this wall remained in place.

During the reign of Amenhotep III (fig. 6.2), the processional way was moved slightly to the east in order to follow a new orientation created at central Karnak by the addition of the 10th pylon (Kozloff, Bryan and Berman 1992:98-99 and fig. IV.18).

Third Intermediate Period The Mut temple proper was modified and expanded in late Dynasty 18, and this may have been accomplished during the reign of Amenhotep III as well.4 The effect of this work on the form of the overall precinct wall remains unclear, but pottery from the stone gateway of Hatshepsut/Tuthmosis III showed that the gate was still in use through the entire Third Intermediate Period.5 The mud-brick enclosure wall running immediately north and south off the gateway measured 6.5m thick, and this likely included both the early New Kingdom wall and additions from the later New Kingdom and Third Intermediate Period (Bryan 2003:1). The temple’s western enclosure therefore may have remained static along its northern side despite the expansion of the temple proper. Further to the south along the enclosure, the wall appeared to have been cut down at some point to redirect its course westward (fig. 6.3).6 The change was possibly made by Ramesses III in order to incorporate his temple (temple C) into the complex (Fazzini 2002:68 and Fig. 1 feature 3a).

In Dynasty 25, the Mut precinct experienced a series of major changes (fig. 6.4). The pharaoh Taharqa built an inscribed stone gateway along the temple’s western side, replacing the accessway through the Hatshepsut/ Tuthmosis III gateway.7 Its position placed it on a direct axis with temple A, and it opened onto a new sphinxlined processional way to that temple. Porches were added to the north of the Mut temple itself, and temple A was substantially rebuilt at this point (Bryan 2003:1, Fazzini 1980:251, Fazzini and Jasnow 1988:24, tafel 4 item #6). Fazzini saw these works as “...an early expansion of what might be termed the domain of Mut north from the Mut temple’s First Pylon” (Fazzini 19841985:306). The new gateway required new brick walls, and this reorganization of temple space expanded the size of the precinct (Fazzini 1984-1985:302). The new walls appear to have connected up with the first pylon to the south. Fazzini hypothesized that the wall leading north off the Taharqa gateway turned east and proceeded along the same lines as the Dynasty 30/Greco-Roman Period northern wall of the temple precinct. The Taharqa gateway may have actually been the main entrance at this period (Fazzini and Peck 1980:42, Fazzini and Peck 1981:119 and fig. 1 features 9-12, Fazzini and Peck 1983a:20).

During their first seasons of survey at the Mut temple, the Brooklyn team noticed walls running parallel to temple C along its southern and western sides. They posited that these walls represented an early enclosure for the structure or part of the larger precinct enclosure of that time (Fazzini and Peck 1980:42, Fazzini and Peck 1981:119 and Fig. 3 features 1-2). How these walls will relate to the enclosure walls of Hatshepsut/Tuthmosis III and the “inner” New Kingdom enclosure wall still waits to be determined.

To the southwest, temple C appears to have been abandoned. Colossal statues from that structure were used as building material in temple A’s renovations. Fazzini questioned whether at this point temple C would have still stood within the precinct wall (Fazzini and Peck 1983a:21).

Temple A may have existed in an earlier form during the reigns of Amenhotep III and Ramesses II, but it possibly still stood outside the precinct at that time (Fazzini 1999:399). The Mut precinct’s eastern enclosure wall may therefore have run much closer to the sacred lake than the later Dynasty 30/Roman Period enclosure wall (compare fig. 6.3 with fig. 6.5).

South of the sacred lake, use of the production zones around the New Kingdom enclosure walls continued. Stamped bricks and ceramics found in this area have documented activities there for Dynasty 21 and Dynasties 25-26 (Bryan 2004a:2, Bryan 2008b:27). Some time in Dynasty 25 or 26, the “outer” enclosure wall was cut into along its northern face in order to create additional workshop spaces lining the wall. Bryan suggested that

To summarize, the early New Kingdom form of the Mut precinct seems to have extended from the present first 4

Bryan reconstructs this expansion as involving the Tuthmoside temple being “enclosed by outer walls and new porch columns in the second half of the 18th Dynasty” (Bryan 2008b:30). 5 Other evidence supporting the continued use of this gateway comes from the re-carved divine names on its faces. It appears that the names of gods who were removed during the Amarna Period (mid Dynasty 18) were restored under Seti I (Dynasty 19). His restorations seemed to have been focused on “conspicuous” monuments, and this would suggest that the gateway was still a major fixture at the temple (Fazzini 2002:63-66). 6 Johns Hopkins excavations around the same area later confirmed these results (Bryan 2004a:8).

7

Bryan’s excavations of the Hatshepsut/Tuthmosis III gateway support this conclusion, as ceramics from this area show that the gateway stopped being used around the time of the transition to the Late Period (Bryan 2003:1).



Figure 6.3: Reconstruction of the Late New Kingdom Mut Temple Precinct, Lines Represent Possible Form of Temple Enclosures (See Figure Credits for Attribution)



Figure 6.4: Hypothetical Reconstruction of the Precinct at the End of Dynasty 25 (See Figure Credits for Attribution)



this point the New Kingdom enclosure wall had been reduced to a “stump” (Bryan 2004a:6).

and inscribed by Ptolemy II and Ptolemy III (Arnold 2003:156). Continued interest in the temple during this period is attested by the decoration added to the chapels to Mut and Sekhmet by Ptolemy VI and VIII and the additions made to temple A (Vandorpe 1995:213).

On the east side of the precinct, temple B was constructed (Fazzini 1999:399). The eastern temenos wall could have been moved east to include this structure within the precinct.

The huge enclosure walls still standing today are recorded as having been constructed by the Roman emperors Augustus and Tiberius. As stated previously, these appear to have followed the Dynasty 30 form of the precinct and possibly would have been constructed directly over the earlier walls (Fazzini 1999:399, Traunecker 1975:147).

Therefore, by the end of Dynasty 25, the Mut temple precinct had undergone a series of significant changes in size and shape (fig. 6.4). In the northwest, a new entrance gateway and appended enclosure walls were added shifting the axis of the processional way, modifying the position of the western temenos wall and increasing the prominence of temple A. Sometime during the completion of the renovations of the latter temple, the enclosure’s eastern side must have been rebuilt in order to bring temple A within the precinct. The northern border of the enclosure moved outward, positioned somewhere near (or directly under) the later Dynasty 30/Roman Period northern wall. Temple C was abandoned, which could suggest that it had been excluded from the precinct. Excavations in the narrow strip between the lake and temple C have not recovered remains of a wall dating to this period.8 However, it is possible that any walls in this area have since been eroded away by the sacred lake, as apparently happened to the early New Kingdom wall here. To the south, only the lowest section of the New Kingdom “outer” enclosure wall was still standing. One would expect a new wall (likely outside the earlier one) would have been built to secure the temple precinct’s southern edge. Where this later wall was located can only be conjectured (see further discussion below).

Discussion of the Dynasty 25 Form of Precinct The abrupt cease in use of the IX G West area in south Karnak and the area near the New Kingdom precinct walls behind the sacred lake could suggest that these areas were already enclosed within the temple precinct by the end of Dynasty 27. The most likely period for an expansion of the precinct would be during the Dynasty 25 renovation of the temple complex. As was mentioned previously, the position of the southern side of the temple’s enclosure during late Third Intermediate Period and early Late Period remains unknown. The New Kingdom southern enclosure wall (the “outer” enclosure), which was cut into and re-used as the southern wall of a series of production areas, may no longer have been functioning as the rear wall of the temple (labeled as “degraded New Kingdom wall” on fig. 6.4). If a new wall was built, it could have expanded the total area of the precinct in the south, paralleling the expansion in the north of the temple. It is therefore possible that the southern line of the Dynasty 30 precinct wall was already established at the temple’s rear border during Dynasty 25, which would mean that the area of IX G West stood within the greater temple walls during its use in the Third Intermediate Period.

Late, Ptolemaic, and Roman Periods No Late Period occupation past Dynasty 27 has been recorded for the south Karnak area under investigation here or for the area around the sacred lake excavated by Johns Hopkins (Bryan 2008b:27). During Dynasty 30, though, the precinct was again enlarged (fig. 6.5). A new, massive enclosure was constructed, probably by Nectanebo I.9 This expansion appears to have encompassed all the area included in the present temple precinct walls (Fazzini 1999:399), which include temples A, B, C, D, and the Mut temple proper, as well as the large area behind the lake. The precinct would then include over 90,000 square meters of area (Fazzini and Peck 1983a:16).

However, a number of pieces of evidence suggest that this was not the case. The site of Abu el-Gud, located outside and a short distance to the south of the temple’s rear enclosure, seems to parallel the chronology of the south Karnak excavations. Sporadic excavations at two different sections of Abu el-Gud in the 1960s and 1980s uncovered primarily late New Kingdom and Third Intermediate Period materials. No material dated to the Late Period was mentioned by either of the excavators (Abder-Raziq 1984-1985b:9, ElSaghir 1988:79-81). This section of ancient Thebes, which would have always stood outside the Mut temple precinct, may also have been abandoned during the Late

During the reign of the Ptolemies, a large stone precinct gateway was added (Golvin 1995:34). It was decorated 8 Excavations here recovered only a mud-brick ramp or staircase leading up to the production zone, as well as what Bryan describes as “thick late New Kingdom occupation” (Bryan 2003:2). 9 Golvin and Hegazy suggested that the Ptolemies may have built the southern line of the present enclosure wall (Golvin and Hegazy 1993:148-149). Golvin, who studied the construction methods and general plans of the cult precinct enclosure walls in Thebes, dated Mut’s enclosure wall to either Dynasty 30 or the Ptolemaic Period, but admits that the intensive period of construction at greater Karnak during the reign of Nectanebo I (Dynasty 30) was most likely the period when Mut’s wall was built (Golvin 1995:34, 40).



Figure 6.5: The Precinct in Dynasty 30 through the Roman Period (See Figure Credits for Attribution) Period. 10 The chronology of the area in IX G West could

therefore reflect the evolution of the city of which it was a part. The lack of Late Period material at the south Karnak site may be a part of wider shifting patterns of occupation in Thebes. When the Mut temple enclosure was then expanded in Dynasty 30, areas that had previously been part of the secular New Kingdom and Third Intermediate Period city, now abandoned, could have been included in the precinct.

10

Abder-Raziq specifically stated that no Roman material was uncovered and he never mentioned the presence of Late Period or Ptolemaic Period materials (Abder-Raziq 1984-1985b:9). El-Saghir reported finding Third Intermediate Period houses only 50cm under the surface in an area to the north and east of the Abder-Raziq excavations. He called the material covering this “domestic debris,” suggesting it was associated with the houses themselves (El-Saghir 1988:80). Even if this material contained fill from later periods, it does not appear to have been associated with any architecture and the remains could not have been substantial. It is important to note that Aston’s seminal work on Third Intermediate Period pottery (Aston 1996a) was only published in 1996, and the excavators of Abu el-Gud therefore did not have this resource available to them. The dating of ceramics of the late New Kingdom, Third Intermediate Period, and early Late Period before this publication was often very vague. Great progress has since been made, but to this author’s knowledge, the material from Abu el-Gud has not been reevaluated since its excavation. Because none of the ceramics from these excavations were published, it is impossible to establish the total range of dates this area was occupied. The inscribed material does

In a possible parallel case, urban areas at the site of elAshmunein were swallowed up by the expansion of the temple’s sacred space in Dynasty 30. At that site, the New Kingdom temple complex was greatly enlarged by

provide some benchmarks for the late New Kingdom and early Third Intermediate Period, but whether the area was occupied in Dynasties 2526 remains unknown.



the addition of a new mud-brick enclosure measuring over 2,000 meters. The excavator reported that the land incorporated into the Dynasty 30 temple precinct had until then been utilized as settlement, ringing the area around the earlier temenos wall (Spencer 1999a:149).

functioning buildings would have warranted the extension of the southern wall in such an unusual manner. However, while much of the area south of the sacred lake may have fallen out of use by the start of the Late Period, it is possible that a structure with religious significance may have remained to the southeast. The inclusion of such an area into the expanding cult zone would explain the routing of the enclosure wall along such an unexpected orientation. Survey and investigations have not yet been conducted in the southeast section of the precinct, so it is unknown what stood there at that time. Future work in this area may answer this question.

A second piece of evidence suggesting the IX G West area of south Karnak stood outside the temple wall in the Third Intermediate Period relates to the orientation of Building A. As is clear on Figure 6.4, the structure was not aligned along the axis of the main New Kingdom temples or with the precinct enclosures of that time (see also fig. 6.3). The most logical explanation for Building A’s deviation from that axis is that it was built outside of the precinct, following the orientation of the contemporary city around it. Before excavations in this area had ever taken place, scholars had suggested that the unusual orientation of the precinct wall’s south side (see fig. 6.5) most likely originated out of an attempt to respect the alignment of preexisting buildings (Golvin and Hegazy 1993:149).11 That Building A seems to follow that alignment suggests that it was one of the structures existing before the area’s enclosure by the wall. Since the structure was built or significantly rebuilt in Dynasty 25, it appears most likely that the precinct wall was expanded after that period, which would make the Dynasty 30, the next moment of substantial building activity at the temple, a better chronological choice.

Based on the available evidence, it appears that the area of south Karnak under investigation would have been situated outside the Mut temple complex during its main periods of use so far documented: the Late New Kingdom, Third Intermediate Period, and early Late Period. The abrupt break in the use of this area during or after Dynasty 27 may correspond with the wider developments in the city (matching those at nearby Abu el-Gud) and not merely with the chronology of the production area behind the sacred lake. In Dynasty 30, IX G West and the large swath of south Karnak surrounding it were finally incorporated into the precinct. The results of this analysis have an impact on the interpretation of the role of the Building A in the Third Intermediate Period. Facilities (such as the pr HD) that held a temple’s most precious commodities, including gold, silver, and precious stones, would be expected to lie within the security of the temple’s enclosure wall. Images of these facilities in New Kingdom tombs support this conclusion.12 The storage of this type of material within Building A can therefore likely be ruled out.13 Most items needed for the daily maintenance of the cult and the cult personnel would also have been placed within the precinct, in order to facilitate access to them by temple staff and to restrict access by non-cult personnel. The use of Building A to support the daily cult tasks can therefore also be eliminated.

If Building A stood outside the temple enclosure of the Third Intermediate Period, where then should one expect to find the southern edge of the precinct at that time? One possibility would be that a new enclosure was built outside of the New Kingdom wall’s southern edge (which was cut into and used as a rear wall for the workshops and production zones of Dynasties 21, 25, and 26). This new wall could be located somewhere between the degraded New Kingdom wall south of the Mut temple’s sacred lake and the excavations in IX G West. There is a large area between these two projects that remains completely unexplored (fig. 6.4). However, no signs of a rise indicating a possible wall have ever been noticed by the author. It is possible that this wall was dismantled or completely destroyed during the construction of the later Dynasty 30 wall. A second option would be that the outer New Kingdom enclosure wall remained in use, despite the infringements made along its interior edge.

The “Central City” of Amarna, with its concentrated administrative district, provides examples of the types of 12

For example, the treasury in the tomb of Meryre at Amarna is shown enclosed by a thick rectangular wall. The presence of the king and queen, standing in front of the buildings in order to reward Meryre, suggests the structures were located within a ritual/temple context (Davies, Norman de Garis 1903: 33-38, pls. XXV). In the example of the tomb of Neferrenpet, the presence of the temple workshop, depicted as next to or close to the temple storehouses, supports a location for both buildings inside the temple temenos (Hofmann, Abd El-Raziq and Seyfried 1995: tafel XL). In the tomb of Neferhotep, the scene of the temple storehouse is coupled with a representation of Karnak temple and its environs. The association between the two places is strong, and one might interpret the storehouse as located therefore on one side of the stone temple building and within the temple enclosure (Davies 1933: vol 2, pl. III). 13 The possibility exists that some items of high value were placed here at least for a short period of time. Within the small storage rooms along the building’s southwest side, two fragments of a statue’s beard was uncovered near the expected floor level. The pieces were made of gold with blue colored glass(?) inlay (see Chapter 3, Unit 23). No other fragments of the statue were uncovered.

If the IX G West excavation area did remain outside the Mut temenos wall until Dynasty 30, questions remain regarding why these structures were encompassed within the precinct when excavations in this area have failed to recover any signs of activity after Dynasty 27. One would expect that only the presence of important and actively 11

Notably, the shape of the temenos wall of the Amun-Re temple at Karnak was seemingly a result of the attempt by Nectanebo I to respect the shape and orientation of previously existing buildings there. Its north wall runs parallel to the temple of Ptah (constructed in Dynasty 18), its eastern wall is situated along the original door to the temple of Amun-who-hears-prayers, the southern wall is laid to meet the tenth pylon, and the western wall juts out to include the temple of Opet (Golvin 1995:34-35).



pertaining to the Mut temple highlighted, provides a picture of the types of goods that could have passed through the doors of the Building A.

buildings that would have operated for state and city business and would have stood outside the temple or palace walls (see Chapter 4, figs. 4.6, 4.8 and 4.9). These structures, including the “House of Life” (Pr-anx), the “Record’s Office” and its attached offices/storerooms, the modular “Clerk’s Houses,” and a number of buildings whose purposes could not be identified, all stood independent from the larger cultic or royal entities nearby.

Royal Donations Papyrus Harris I, written in Dynasty 20, records the lifetime donations of Pharaoh Ramesses III to the temples of Egypt. The temples of Thebes, including Medinat Habu, Ramesses III’s own mortuary temple, received a large share of this bounty. The royal gifts can be broken down into five major types: donations of land and personnel, offerings given yearly (Htr rnpt), general onetime donations, grain given to the temples for the daily cult of the gods and for cultic holidays, and products given to different temples for the celebration of specific religious festivals. A sixth category, objects given for creation of divine statuary, was only recorded as being donated to Theban temples (Grandet 1994:63-75, 85-87).

Building A, positioned outside the Mut precinct’s enclosure wall of the time, may then have functioned like one of the Amarna administrative examples - managing important resources but not requiring the security of the temple enclosure. It could have operated as part of a wider system of administration, either for the city of Thebes in general or for the Mut temple specifically. Without more explicit evidence (such as sealings, stamped bricks, inscribed lintels, or stamped pottery), it is impossible to identify what exact role the building would have held in the economic and religious world of the time. However, extensive literary information from this period (as well as slightly before and afterwards) allows a reconstruction of the complex and interconnected temple/state economy in Thebes during the Third Intermediate Period. By considering this evidence, it is possible to place Building A firmly within the economic milieu of that period and to speculate about the temple/state/town/hinterland relationships in which it could have played a role.

In the first category, the personnel gifts and land grants Ramesses III gave to the gods Amun, Mut, and Khonsu of Thebes are vast. They total about 2,382.07 square km. of land and 86,486 workers and temple personnel (with 62,626 of these allocated for Medinat Habu) (Grandet 1994:90-93). The yearly items donated include many riches under the monopoly of the crown, such as precious metals. Annual gifts of gold objects on one list totaled 569 deben, silver amounted to 11,546 deben, and copper to 26,320 deben. More prosaic items appear in sometimes remarkable quantities: 3,722 articles of cloth of varying qualities; thread/yarn worth 3,795 deben; 1,047 vases of incense, honey and oil; 24,650 bottles of o f wADt beans; 25,405 jars of SdH beverages and wine; 309, 950 sacks of grain; 741 live geese; and various types of wood (Grandet 1994:238-239).

Temple and State Administration in Third Intermediate Period Thebes Historians concerned with reconstructing the ancient Egyptian economy have a wide variety of sources at their disposal from the late New Kingdom and after. These sources include lease agreements, royal endowments of property and land, tax records, and land registries. Documents were written in hieratic, abnormal hieratic, and demotic. While Dynasty 25 is not a rich period for this type of material, the Late New Kingdom (Dynasties 20-21) and the Saite Period (Dynasty 26) are, and the continuity between these periods suggests that the late Third Intermediate Period would have functioned similarly. For the purpose of this study, documents relating to the area of Thebes from these eras will be used to describe the role of the temple in the city’s economy. This information can shed light upon the types of administrative activities that Building A could have performed. Some later material, including Persian Period (Dynasty 27) and Ptolemaic sources, will be discussed as well, as these texts often contain information supporting conclusions made based on earlier material.

One-time donations recorded include precious metals as well as stones like lapis, turquoise, carnelian, and faience. Again, cloth is a major donation, this time with 8,586 items of different quality. Liquid goods, composed of 9,125 jars of sweet incense, honey, olive oil, and beer, as well as 22,556 jars of SdH beverages and wine, appeared in this list as well. 44,000 bricks of natron and an equal quantity of salt, hundreds of baskets of fruits, thousands of live geese and birds, and hundreds of amulets made of carnelian, lapis-lazuli, turquoise, and other semi-precious stones rounded out the list (Grandet 1994:239-244). The fourth group of donations, grain for the temples, amounted to 2,981,674 sacks (Grandet 1994:245-246). The next group lists products given for offering ceremonies of the gods and the offerings for the festival of the southern Ipet. These include hundreds of thousands of loaves of bread, thousands of jars of beer, wine and other beverages, thousands of baskets of fruits and hundreds of jars of oil, incense, honey, and olives (Grandet 1994:246-252).

Wealth of the Karnak Temples Documentation of varied types, including royal donations, land registers, and harvest taxes, recorded the Theban temples’ involvement in the economy. A discussion of these documents, with information



The final group is composed mainly of precious metals and woods (Grandet 1994:252), and one can expect this material would have gone directly into the treasury (prHD) inside the temple enclosure wall.

continued, as the inscription also included lists of his donations both during the last years of the reign of his father and into the reign of Shonshenq III. Listed items included myrrh, incense, honey, corn, fruit, oil, lapis lazuli, gold, silver, copper, and precious stones. He specifically mentioned that some of the items were allotted to Mut of Thebes (Caminos 1959:125-126). Daily deliveries assigned to her temple also included 6.5 hekat of corn (Caminos 1959:135-136) and 1 oxen (amounting to 365 oxen a year) (Caminos 1959:144).

The donations recorded in Papyrus Harris were granted during the late New Kingdom, the period prior to the operation of the Building A at the end of an era of national wealth unparalleled in later times. However, they still provide a concrete example of the types of goods that would have traveled through the Theban temples’ coffers. No doubt the quantities of these goods would have been reduced in leaner moments, but one can reasonably expect that the same kinds of items would have been deemed appropriate gifts by the later kings as well.14

The Triumphal Stela of Piye, originally set up in the temple of Amun at Napata, shows that the Dynasty 25 kings continued to supply the Karnak temples with donations (Eide, et. al. 1994:62). The document describes the movement of the king’s troops from the Thebaid and Kush northward in order to counter the advance of some of the Delta dynasts (Eide, et. al. 1994:114-115). When Piye arrived at the palace and court of the local ruler Nimlot, the king “entered every room in the palace, his [i.e. Nimlot’s] treasury, and his magazines,” and Piye became disgusted by the state of the horses in Nimlot’s stables. He explained that the god ordered him to act because of this disgrace, and he seized the property of Nimlot, sending it to the royal treasury. The grain, however, he explicitly apportions as “divine income” (Htp nTr) for the god Amun in Karnak (Eide, et. al. 1994:8485). Revenue from other conquered cities, like Mr-tm, was also sent to the domain of Amun in Karnak. In this case, the temple received both the contents of the granaries and the treasury (Eide, et. al. 1994:89).

The Chronicle of Prince Osorkon, inscribed on the “Bubastite Portal” at Karnak Temple, demonstrates that royal gifts to the Theban temples continued during the Third Intermediate Period. The prince, who held offices of First Prophet of Amun and Overseer of Upper Egypt during Dynasty 22, recorded a number of his activities during the turbulent years of the reign of his father Takeloth II and his successor Shoshenq III. After the prince and his factions defeated a group of rebellious Egyptians and restored order in the country, he traveled to Thebes to be embraced by the gods there (Caminos 1959:26-40). Osorkon made offerings to Amun-Re of Thebes, “his hands bearing a million of things and offerings consisting of all good things in order to make an exceedingly great present of divine offerings consisting of everything good and pure, pleasant and sweet supplied with ten thousands and thousands without end as a daily offering in excess of what existed before” (Caminos 1959:33-34). In two decrees issued to enrich and protect the holdings of the Theban temples, he listed the royal gifts he presented to Amun, Mut, Montu, Khonsu, and the other Theban gods as including incense, honey, silver, and daily offerings of birds (Caminos 1959:54-67).15

The event of the adoption of princess Nitocris, daughter of Dynasty 26 king Psamtek I of Sais, as the heiress to the priesthood of the “god’s wife of Amun”17 spurred the production of another donation document from an only slightly later moment (Caminos 1964:71). The commemoration of the occasion, recorded on a granite stela, described how her father maneuvered her into the line of priestesses previously held by the sisters and daughters of the Dynasty 25 kings. Because the priestly position was attached to significant financial holdings, this text provides another record of the types of supplies funneled into cult holdings through donations (Caminos 1964:97-99). The property included recurrent (daily or monthly) contributions of liquids (bread, milk, and other drinks), food (cakes, herbs, and emmer), and animals (oxen and geese) by a number of temples and by the priesthood of Amun (Caminos 1964:101). Nitocris would additionally gain revenue from 1900 arouras of land in Upper Egypt (519 hectares/1284 acres) and 1400 arouras of land (383 hectares/946 acres) in Lower Egypt (Caminos 1964:100). The transfer back-and-forth of

Takeloth II’s relationship with the south appears to have subsequently disintegrated, and civil war broke out in his year 15. Once the war ended, Prince Osorkon returned to Thebes in what seemed to be part of the peace process (Caminos 1959:177-178). Again, he doled out expansive gifts, this time during a ceremonial offering to Amun of Karnak and the Ennead.16 Apparently this beneficence 14 While the huge quantity of items listed in royal donations may astound the modern reader, Egyptologists take these numbers seriously. Haring believes the lists were compiled from existing administrative documents (Haring 1997). For the purpose of this study, the quantity of items listed (exaggerated or not) is irrelevant, as the concern here is with what was collected and redistributed, and not the magnitude of the donation. 15 Mut, the “Lady of Isheru,” is specifically mentioned in both decrees as receiving gifts. In the second decree, the temple’s boon is listed as including 30 deben of silver, which should go directly to “the prophet of Mut who is under the authority of the dispatch[-writer] of the [prophetess] of Mut (Caminos 1959:57-60). The goddess is also specifically mentioned as receiving the daily offering of birds (Caminos 1959:66-67). 16 Osorkon described the presentation as including: “short-horned cattle, gazelles, ibexes, oryxes, fattened ro-geese in tens of thousands and thousands, and birds…bread and beer…wine and milk…fruits and

vegetables, honey and shedeH wine…and heaps of myrrh and incense. Thereupon he offered up these things with a contented heart…[to] the great god who is in Thebes” (Caminos 1959:102-104). 17 The “god’s wife of Amun,” a richly endowed priesthood for royal women known from Dynasty 18, reemerged under the Dynasty 25 kings. The Kushite pharaohs placed their own daughters or sisters in the role, and it appears that these women usurped the political power of the high priest of Amun who had wielded significant power in the south during Dynasties 21-22 (Trigger, et.al. 1983:236-239, 243).



beverages, food-stuffs, as well as animals and grain from one Theban temple to another is clearly documented here. Donations paralleling those awarded by the crown at the very start of Dynasty 26 may easily have been given during Dynasty 25, to both the “god’s wives” and the Theban temples themselves.18 In either case, the diversion of the stocks of the other Theban temples and the Amun priesthood to the “god’s wives” shows that these temples had accrued large wealth in late Dynasty 25 and early Dynasty 26, and that this wealth came in a form (if not a quantity) similar to that described in Papyrus Harris.

cult centers.21 The Theban temples were landholders, including the temples of Amun, Mut, and Ramesses II, III, IV, and V (Janssen 1979:510-511, Katary 1989:13).22 Also listed in each section are the administrators in charge of the land, and these include chief administrative officers and state and temple officials, including priests (Katary 1989:4-5). Katary, whose research focused on land tenure in the Ramesside Period, suggested that at that time the Theban temples “were evidently separate administrative entities which undoubtedly functioned under the aegis of the Karnak temple of Amun” (1989:2).

Land Registers

Papyrus Louvre AF 6345 and its fragments “Griffiths” also include a survey of Theban temple land holdings in the 10th Upper Egyptian nome that mentions the temple of Mut (Gasse 1988:169). It and the temple of Khonsu the Child, also in Karnak, are listed as possessing a series of different field plots in Dynasty 20 (Gasse 1988:23, 27 note 21).23 The Grundbuch/Berlin Papyrus and Papyrus Prachov, dated to around the same time, also document landholding and cultivators connected to the Theban temples (Gasse 1988:169).

A number of documents have been discovered that describe the land holdings of the Theban temples. An important early Third Intermediate Period example is Papyrus Reinhardt. Dated to late Dynasty 21 or 22, the text is concerned with the Theban temples’ holdings in the 10th Upper Egyptian nome, located in modern Middle Egypt (Vleeming 1993:8-9). Most remarkable is the geographic extent of the holdings of these temples. This document clearly shows that the Theban cults controlled land far from the temples themselves (Manning 2003). The papyrus includes detailed data on the size of each field, its location, the names of the individuals responsible for its farming or direct oversight, the number of sacks of grain produced or taxed from each plot, and the plot’s owner institution (Vleeming 1993:9-11). While most of the text speaks about “cultivated land of the Domain of Amun,”19 there are also references to the possessions of the temple of Mut: a piece of land known as “Mut-attacking-her-attacker” that appeared to have been recently “founded” by king Psusennes.20

The exact significance of the aforementioned land registers remains unclear. Why certain fields owned by the temples were included while other fields were not mentioned has been a point of debate (Katary 1989:xxi, 23-24). Their import for the purpose of this work, however, lies in demonstrating how actively the Theban temples, led by the Karnak temple of Amun, involved themselves in the economy of the entire southern region of Egypt. Harvest and Yield Taxes

Many other examples are tied to the Amun precinct, and the total amounts of land run from as small as 1/2 or 1 aroura up to holdings of approximately 30 arouras of land (Vleeming 1993:13-44). Not only then were the temples administering wealth generated around the Theban area or gifted by the king, they were collecting revenues gained from an extensive hinterland. The temples’ administrative branches must have been large and well organized to manage such a complex and wide-ranging system of ownership.

Further evidence of the Theban temples’ relationship with their hinterland comes from a number of texts dealing with taxation on lands rented out by the temples. These are similar in many ways to the land registers, but they focus more on the mechanics of leasing temple fields to groups or individuals who would then have them farmed. The cultivator owed a harvest tax, or a tax based on the final production of the land, to the temple after the harvest. A number of examples from one archive were preserved from Dynasty 25, showing that the Karnak temples continued to actively participate in the collection of taxes from land leases into the late Third Intermediate Period. These are dated to the reign of Taharqa, and they deal with the rental of a piece of property by Theban choachyte priests to an unknown individual (Donker van

A few additional texts, dated slightly earlier to midDynasty 20, document a similar pattern. The Wilbour Papyrus’s Text A recorded 2800 plots of land and land tenures in Middle Egypt connected to the main national 18

Donations given by Taharqa to the temple of Amun at Kawa are recorded on a stela set up in the 1st court of that temple. These donations include precious metals, rolls of cloth, linen, thread, wood, and other items (Eide, et. al. 1994:164-173). It seems quite probable that similar items would have been donated to Amun at Karnak. 19 For example, column V line 10 in: Vleeming 1993. 20 This land is explicitly mentioned as: “Cultivated land of the Domain of Mut (iH.t pr Mwt) in the hand of (m-Dr.t) agent PA-wAH...” (Vleeming 1993: column V lines 29-31). Vleeming believes that the agents listed would have managed the cultivation of the land and been responsible to the higher-level temple administrators. In the case of the Amun temple, the latter would ultimately have been the High Priest of Amun and the Steward of Amun (Vleeming 1993:55).

21 The properties run between the areas of modern Atfih and el-Minya, and are distributed over some 95 miles (Gardiner 1948a:9, Goelet 2001:501). 22 At least one reference in the text mentions the Mut temple. It refers to a number of measurements made of land, and one of these was done “under the authority” (r-xt) of the overseer of the treasury, Kha’(em)tir, who is later also called a temple scribe (Gardiner 1948a:151, Gardiner 1948b:80, §213). 23 The Mut temple is mentioned as holding various quantities of arouras in column III lines 5-10 and column VII lines 4 and 11; the temple of Khonsu the Child is mentioned in column V (Gasse 1988).



Heel 1997:81-81). In the verso of Papyrus Louvre E 7856, one of the choachytes writes to the others about the piece of land, mentioning that: “The scribes of the domain of Amun will measure the field in my name” (Donker van Heel 1998:93). The recto text has a similar subject, and mentions the harvest tax to be paid. Donker van Heel explains that scribes from the Amun temple are known to have been the collectors of this tax, and therefore they may have been involved in the assessment (Donker van Heel 1998:98-100).

8). Apparently the temple provided the goose-herders of Hou with a supply of fowl and the use of land upon which to raise them. For the husbandry of twenty geese, a receipt shows that the herder paid three geese back to the temple (Vleeming 1991:8-9, 21). An earlier example of the same practice occurs in Papyrus Rylands 9, dated to the early Late Period. This text shows that the temple of Amun collected similar taxes of fowl and cattle in kind from Oxyrhynchos in Middle Egypt (Vleeming 1991:21).26

A less explicit example, dated to late Dynasty 25 or possibly early Dynasty 26, is written in abnormal hieratic and preserved on a wooden tablet (Cerny 1932:46-56). The tablet appears to be a letter from a Theban administrator to another administrator (located somewhere else), regarding grain taxes from Dendera and Elephantine. The taxes, which seem to be overdue, are to be sent to “the City,” i.e. Thebes (Cerny 1932:48-49). The grain owed to Thebes possibly came from temple lands rented out in these regions, although the letter is not explicit. A prayer recited by the administrator at the beginning of the document mentions the major Theban gods, including Amun, Mut, and Khonsu (Cerny 1932:48), so he may have been linked with one of the Karnak temples.

Documents from the Ptolemaic Period demonstrate that the harvest tax on grain continued into later times, and that other forms of production were also taxed, including orchards and vineyards (Vandorpe 2000:170-171). Taxes were even levied at this time on funerary services, including a type of income tax on the choachytes who prepared bodies for burial. The collected funds went to what sound like civic offices, such as the “commissioner of Thebes” and the “overseer of the necropolis,” but it appears that the latter at least was part of the greater Amun temple administration (Vleeming 1995b:251-255). It seems possible that the temples taxed these types of holdings and services in the earlier periods as well, but records of such activities do not survive. All of these texts demonstrate that the far-reaching tax collection systems well documented for the Karnak temples in the late New Kingdom and early Third Intermediate Period land registers continued in some form into the later Third Intermediate Period and beyond. That Karnak’s administration was still playing an active role in the distribution and collection of goods in southern Egypt during the period of the Building A’s use can thus be confirmed.

Examples of land-leasing documents from Dynasty 26 show the practice continued in a manner similar to that of the 25th, with priests leasing out lands from the temple of Amun. They appear to lease the land out for cultivation to individuals of lower titles than themselves (although some of the lessees are also priests). A percentage of the crop’s return was then paid to the lessor as well as to the temple itself (Hughes 1952:3-6). In one case, text Louvre E. 7844, it appears the land was leased out directly for the temple’s benefit, as none of the harvest tax was paid to the lessor.24 Other leases included payment between 1/4 and 1/2 of the harvest to the lessor, and he (or in one case, the lessee as well) then paid whatever tax was owed back to the temple (Hughes 1952:4, 18, 29, 45).25

The Karnak Temples and the Greater Egyptian Economy One way of viewing this material is within the structure provided by Warburton, who interpreted the New Kingdom Egyptian economic system as working as a “pre-capitalist market economy” with a low level of activity (Warburton 1997:128-129, 300).27 Warburton reconstructed the economy as operating on a “taxation” or “rent” system, and not through redistribution:

A variant form of this system of taxation was documented in a group of twelve texts from the Late Period, dated to the reigns of Darius I and Psammtek IV. The texts recount taxes owed to the temple of Amun of Karnak by a group of goose-herders living in a small town called Hou, located between Thebes and Dendera (Vleeming 1991:2,

“The evidence confirms that as far back as the inscriptions go, land could be bought and sold, and that there was wage labour. The evidence for redistribution on a massive scale –

24

The lease stated: “When harvest has occurred in year 17, you are to give the third of all grain which you will bring from them [ie. the fields] into the divine offerings of Amon into my hand in the name of the land, and you are to take for yourselves the two-thirds in the name of oxen, seed-grain and men” (Hughes 1952:18). Hughes suggests that the priest who has leased out the land wants the lessee to give the Amun temple’s rightful tax directly to him, so that he himself can pay the temple what is owed. As the lessor of the land, he would be responsible for the temple’s tax and he would want to make sure that the temple tax collectors did not collect it without his knowledge (Hughes 1952:21). 25 For example, in text Louvre E. 7845, the lessor instructs the person leasing his land: “When harvest has occurred…you are to give to me the fourth of all grain (and) all flax which you will bring from them, and I am to cause that the scribes of the domain of Amon be far from you in regard to their harvest-tax of the domain of Amon” (Hughes 1952:29).

26 The priest sent in this case appears to have been an “overseer of the treasury of Amun” sent by the Karnak temple priesthood to collect the taxes due them (Griffith 1909:82 lines 4-6 and notes 7-10, Vittmann 1998:139 lines 4-6). 27 This runs contrary to the more traditional view which structures the Egyptian economy into a two-tiered system with a low-level group of producers and consumers (relying on local networks of production and exchange to meet their daily requirements) and high-level “redistributive” group composed of the crown and temples acting as collectors and allocators of the products of laborers from all over the country (Janssen 1979:508, Janssen 1986:354, 358-362, Naguib 1990:11).



demonstrating the greater part of the economy depended upon collective production – remains to be produced” (Warburton 1997:93).

collection of harvest or yield taxes discussed above can be viewed as part of this system. The taxes on production would have resulted in a large surplus of wealth managed and owned by the Theban temples themselves. This wealth would have been centrally organized, with some of the profits flowing directly back to Thebes to be used, stored, or redistributed by the temples as necessary.

Within his model, the Egyptian temples and government monopolized much of the nation’s surplus, and it was this that created their wealth (Warburton 1997:120).28 The temple domains and government administrations conducted themselves as separate financial entities, with temple land rents and industrial production supporting the temples alone.29 Crown taxes would have gone directly to the national government, with the proceeds from some of these allocated voluntarily by the king to the temples, essentially for their continued ideological support of his position (Warburton 1997:301-302). The temple and the crown had “clearly defined areas of responsibility,” with each acting in separate spheres (Warburton 1997:312).

While the temples clearly generated much of their wealth through their own holdings, certain resources, like incense, precious metals, and other trade items, were the prerogative of the king, and the temples counted on him as their sole supplier (Warburton 1997:306-309). The royal donation texts like Papyrus Harris I showed that these contributions could be substantial, greatly increasing the disposable wealth of the temple. Again, this material would have needed a centralized location for collection, storage, and subsequent reintroduction back into the economy.

Temple land rented out to individuals or groups produced profit in the form of a percentage of the harvest’s yield, which would have been turned back over to the temple. This income, as well as income from other sources of taxation, would have supported the temple. When temples were given grants of land and workers by the king, they would have capitalized on both the final products and the work of these people in the form of weaving and finished cloth, baking and food products, animal husbandry and live animals, etc. Although not acting as directors of a true redistributive economy, Warburton still envisions the temple estates playing a central role in the economic system, with their gathered resources (collected by taxation or rents) dispersed in many cases through market channels (Warburton 1997:320, 323-325).30 The temple exchanged and traded the collected goods to acquire the other goods and services it needed (Warburton 1997:336337).31 The land registers and documents recording the

At the end of the New Kingdom, social and political developments led to a decrease in the total wealth of the nation in comparison to the New Kingdom, which resulted in an economic crisis (Warburton 1997:332). However, as the documents from the Third Intermediate Period and Late Period discussed above demonstrate, this did not permanently impede the role of the Theban temples in the economy. On the contrary, the harvest and yield taxation documents from Dynasty 25 and after show that the temples continued to collect revenues from land and property holdings scattered throughout southern Egypt. Texts recording royal donations, such as the Chronicles of Prince Osorkon or the Triumphal Stela of Piye, confirm that temples continued to benefit from royal gifts as well. Following Warburton’s model for the Egyptian economy, the major temples of Third Intermediate Period Thebes would have collected surplus wealth and dispersed it through a number of different channels. This wealth needed to be stored, counted, managed, and reallocated, which would have necessitated a large bureaucracy and the facilities to hold both the administrators and the resources being managed. Building A can be positioned within this landscape. It lay directly outside one of the major Karnak temple complex cult spaces, had a size and plan characteristic of an administrative building, and most likely was involved with liquid and dry goods storage. An involvement in the temple-run economy of the Third Intermediate Period can reasonably be concluded.

28

Warburton argues that in a true “redistributive” economy, the majority of what is produced is collected, stored, and then reallocated to social groups, including the groups who produced it in the first place. In Egypt, he believes instead that the producers held onto the majority of their own produce, giving only their surplus to the state (Warburton 1997:92-93, 327). When farmers worked temple-owned lands, for example, they would keep a percentage of the yield, turning over only part of their surplus to the temple. This would have “effectively relieved[ed] the state of the necessity of looking after them – and thus deliberately circumvent[ed] the necessity of redistribution” (Warburton 1997:324). 29 Again, this is a departure from the traditional understanding of the Egyptian economy, which proposes that the temples acted as a “specialized state organization,” part of a larger national system of collection and redistribution (Janssen 1979:508, Janssen 1986:354). 30 One possible example of this practice comes from the New Kingdom Papyrus Boulaq XI. Janssen argues that this document records a temple selling off excess meat, wine, and cakes to outside wholesale dealers. He notes that “the possibility that the products were partly intended for lay institutions, hence to their managers, is not to be excluded” (Janssen 1975:162). 31 Two ships’ logs dated to the Ramesside period document this trade. P. Leiden 350 verso and P. Turin 2008 and 2016 both record the transport and distribution of goods by boat (Janssen 1961:98). The ship in P. Turin originated in Thebes and traveled to Memphis carrying oils, various cloth garments, wine, olives, emmer, papyrus, salt, fish, and fowl for trade (Janssen 1961:67-93). The items clearly belonged to the temple of Amun, as the text notes that the goods are “freight which is in the ship of the first prophet of Amun under the authority of the scribe of the treasury…” (Janssen 1961:82). Janssen noted that not only did the temples have their own cargo-boats for this purpose, but they also

Summary The preceding discussion has attempted to trace the main forms of evidence available for reconstructing the temple economy of Third Intermediate Period Thebes. The sources show that the temples of Karnak, led by the employed professional traders (Swty) who were linked to the temple. These traders would disburse the products belonging to the temple estates throughout the country (Janssen 1961:101).



temple of Amun, played primary roles in the organization of cultivation, the taxation of production, the allocation of land and animal resources, the networks of exchange with other religious or civic entities, and the storage and redistribution of wealth from all these and royal sources. The picture that emerges portrays a complex web of interaction between the crown, the temple, and the populace. It is clear that the Karnak temples were deeply embedded in the administration of almost all aspects of life in Thebes, as well as in many of the surrounding areas. The extent of their reach, and the vast quantities of wealth therefore managed by them, would necessitate a large and sophisticated bureaucracy. This bureaucracy would need a cadre of scribes and administrators with offices, storerooms, and collection and redistribution centers, all of which could have been functions of Building A.

The Saite Oracle Papyrus, dated to the reign of Psamtek I, includes a number of examples of individuals who were tied to both temples. Included among the signers of the document is one Neskhonsuwennekh, “scribe of the sacred books of the house/temple of Mut” (sS mDAt nTr pr-Mwt) who also has titles relating to Montu and Amun Re, including “scribe of the royal documents of the presence” (sS an nsw n xft-Hr) and “overseer of the school of the house of Amun for the first phyle” (mr sbA n prImn Hr sA tpy) (Parker 1962:14). Hor, the 3rd prophet of Amun in Ipet-Swt (Karnak), acted additionally as a “scribe of Mut, the great, lady of Isheru” (Parker 1962:22). A number of other individuals living during Dynasties 25-26 possessed overlapping titles. ‘Ankhefenkhonsu served as “overseer of the shenu of Mut, the great one, the mistress of Isheru” and held a number of priestly titles related to Amun of Karnak and Khonsu the Child (Vittmann 1978:44). Djedkhonsu-iwef’ankh, another Theban, had the title of “Hm-nTr priest of Montu, lord of Thebes,” “scribe of the TA of the Temple of Amun” (sS TA p r - I m n ), and “lesonis priest of Mut, lady of the sky/Isheru” (Hpt-wDAt Mwt nbt pt/nbt iSrw) (Vittmann 1978:58). The “overseer of the seal of Mut, the great one, lady of Isheru” Ankhefenkhons IV also acted as “prophet of Amun in Karnak” (Bierbrier 1975:106).

The Mut Temple and its Role within the Karnak Temple Administration Due to its position directly outside of the Mut precinct, it seems most plausible that Building A was directly connected with the Mut temple. An important issue for understanding this structure’s role in the temple economy described above therefore relates to how active a part the Mut temple played within that system. Although the preserved sources do not mention Mut with the frequency of the Amun-Re temple, its occasional appearance in the documents demonstrates that its administration was involved with the city and its hinterland at that time as well. Most importantly, the Mut temple can be viewed as one of the groups of temples closely related to the temple of Amun at Karnak, and it may have operated as a part of that wider administration. So while the activities ascribed solely to the Mut temple in the sources mentioned above are only few, this could be because Mut’s staff was heavily involved with the Amun precinct. It is possible that the Mut temple played a larger role in the Theban economy than the remaining sources would suggest, its role subsumed under the umbrella category of “the temple of Amun.” The clearest evidence for the overlap between the Mut temple administration and the Amun temple administration of the time lies in the titles of those connected with both cults.

Examples dated to the slightly earlier Dynasties 22-23 in Thebes could also be used to tie the two administrations together. Both Nespaneferhor I and his son Hor II performed the duties of “scribe of the temple of Mut the great one, lady of Isheru,” and “chief scribe of the altar of the estate of Amun” (Bierbrier 1975:69). Neseramun, a “first prophet of Amun in Karnak,” held a number of scribal offices, including: “headmost of the temple scribes of the Amun precinct,” “overseer of the scribes of the temple of the gods of upper and lower Egypt,” “overseer of the temple scribes of Mut, the great, the lady of Isheru,” “leader of the instructors of the Amun precinct,” and “leader of the scribes of the temple treasury” of the Amun precinct, of the Mut temple, and of the Khonsu temple32 (Jansen-Winkeln 1985:185, 537). Administrative and priestly titles that link individuals acting in the Mut temple with roles in the Amun temple at Karnak suggest that the former institution was involved with the seemingly quite extensive management tasks of the latter. Third Intermediate Period Thebes could then be envisioned as composed of a series of intersecting temple groups. The Karnak temples, including the temples of Amun, Mut, Khonsu, and Montu, would have been a major force in the city’s economy. Although each of these temples maintained its own possessions and holdings, they may have shared staff or financial

The most direct form of evidence for the participation of the Mut temple administration in the larger Karnak/Amun temple administration would come from individuals holding non-cultic titles in both circles. Unfortunately, many of the titles recorded are vague as to their function, and they do not provide enough information to establish whether their responsibilities were strictly administrative in nature. It is also possible that many cult titles included a number of administrative components to their duties. Individuals from the Third Intermediate Period or early Late Period (Dynasty 26) with titles from each temple, one of which seems administrative in nature, may be the best existing source for documenting any interaction between temple administrations.

32 The temple of Khonsu was located immediately southwest of the Amun temple proper and is enclosed within the Amun precinct’s Dynasty 30 and Roman period temenos walls.



resources, with the smaller temples contributing to the wide-ranging tasks of the larger temple of Amun.33

concentrated disposal areas. At the site of Elephantine, for example, 85% of all the sealings found were located in one of six disposal areas – each area holding between 100-1500 sealings (von Pilgrim 2002: 162). Von Pilgrim, who studied the distribution of the sealings, suggested that the sealings were systematically collected after use, and “at regular intervals the collected fragments were finally discarded at a separate place, in most cases outside the actual building” (2002:164).

If these suppositions are correct, Building A could have operated in a variety of ways. It may have held administrative and storage facilities for the collection and distribution of goods due solely to the Mut precinct. Alternatively, it may have functioned in a similar way for the supervision of revenue and offerings sent to the larger Amun administration, with its oversight placed under the aegis of the Mut temple. The types of goods involved in this administration, including food, beverages, cloth, wood, metals, and grain, are well documented and have been discussed above.

These findings could help explain the lack of seal or stamp impressions recovered from Building A, despite its hypothesized function as a locus of administration. As was discussed in Chapters 3 and 4, the building appeared to have been regularly cleaned, and if broken sealings were continually removed from the building and deposited outside or at another location, one would not expect to find them within the building itself. Because the area around the structure has only been exposed in a few small sections, trash deposits outside and around the building could still be waiting excavation. It is possible, therefore, that the practice of gathering up and collectively disposing of this type of material, seen in other administrative contexts, could explain the lack of sealings in Building A.

Lack of Inscriptional Evidence for Administrative Activities Unfortunately, one major source of evidence for understanding the function of Building A was not recovered during excavations: the seals, stamps, sealings, and other types of inscribed material that document the transfer of goods and daily administrative tasks. Seals and stamps were used in Egypt to label and secure papyri, vessels, baskets, and other portable goods, as well as to control and record access to administrative facilities (Tyson Smith 1998:219). The lack of this material in Building A may be explained by looking at the distribution of these types of finds at other urban sites.

While the clay seal or stamp impressions might expect to be found near the area of their final use, the actual stamps and seals themselves seem to be less closely linked to the place of administration. Only thirteen seals total were recovered during Hölscher’s excavations of the Third Intermediate Period city that grew up within the walls of the temple of Medinat Habu. Most of these were found in debris and not associated with any building.34 Teeter, who published this material, commented: “considering the important administrative and economic function of Medinat Habu in the late New Kingdom and Third Intermediate Period, it is surprising that only a modest number of stamp seals and seal impressions were recovered from the site” (Teeter 2003:145). At New Kingdom Amarna, scarabs, stamps, seals, and their impressions were found just as frequently in the “Main City,” a primarily residential area, as in the administrative “Central City.”35 At the Third Intermediate Period city of

In the excavations of a number of ancient towns, especially those dated to the Middle Kingdom, clay seal or stamp impressions have been found in the hundreds or thousands and used to reconstruct administrative activities at those sites (Tyson Smith 1998, Tyson Smith 2002, Wegner 2002, von Pilgrim 2002). Various methods of discard have been documented, including the sealings deposited as trash on floors, piled up in rubbish heaps, dumped in abandoned buildings near their area of use, and discarded in midden piles in secondary locations (Wegner 2002:98, von Pilgrim 2002:162, Tyson Smith 1998:222). In one case, a group of broken sealings were collected and stored in a ceramic container, a possible example of archiving (Tyson Smith 1998:220). The result of many of these practices is that materials were removed from their original location of use and deposited in

34

Included in this tally are any seals or stamps said to date to Dynasties 21-26. Seals were listed as recovered from areas of debris, below threshold of a well, near the first pylon, in later contexts, etc. (Teeter 2003: 145-153). 35 According to the Amarna small finds database, which includes all the registered objects excavated by the EES from 1921-1936 and contains data on over seven and a half thousand pieces: 25 seal impressions, sealed objects, or seals were discovered in the “Main City,” as well as 9 stamps, stamped jars, or stamped objects and 51 scarabs. In the “Central City,” the number was smaller, with 4 seals or seal impressions, 1 limestone stamp, 6 jar labels, 17 vessel stoppers with inscriptions, 1 stamped jar handle, and 20 scarabs found. This material included objects excavated from the large Aten temple, the small Aten temple, the palace, the “Great Palace,” the “Foreign Office,” the “Government Offices,” and magazines lining the large Aten temple. From the areas of administration in Q.42, R.42, Q.43 and R.43, which include the “House of Life,” the “Government Offices,” the “Foreign Office,” and the surrounding buildings that have been discussed extensively in this work, 1 seal, 1 stamp, and 8 scarabs were recovered (Stevens 2006b).

33

A decree issued by Prince Osorkon in Dynasty 22 offers support for the idea that a number of Theban temples were financially linked with the larger Amun of Karnak precinct. The inscription states: “A decree is (herewith) issued in my name… in order to provide for the estate of Amen-Re’, king of the gods, [the estate of Mut the great, mistress of] Asheru, the estate of Khons-in-Thebes Neferhotep, the estate of Mont, lord of Thebes, and the harim(?) of Ma’et, and the temples and subsidiary temples of its foundation; in order to cause them to be in accordance with their (proper) standing; in order to add to what has been done (in the matter of) sustenance and offerings to them throughout eternity forever” (Caminos 1959:54). Caminos believed the temples referred to as being of “its” (Karnak Temple’s) “foundation” (endowment) were those reliant on the larger Amun temple of Karnak’s supplies. He concluded that these were “temples belonging to the same endowment or benefaction as that of the main divine estate at Karnak” (Caminos 1959:56). This would suggest that the temples listed, as well as other smaller cult units not specifically mentioned, received part of the larger endowment given to the temple of Amun at Karnak.



el-Ashmunein, inscribed scarabs and seal impressions were recovered from the domestic buildings at site W, but none of this material was uncovered around the temple area (Spencer 1989, Spencer 1993:11, pls. 35-36).

front of the temple, and much of the temple south of the second court was rebuilt at some time in Dynasty 25. Temple A seems to have been restructured, and temple B may date originally to this time as well.

While broken mud sealings, stamps, and seals may all have been part of the Egyptian administrative apparatus, preserved documents demonstrate that institutional accounting was done primarily via papyrus. Scribes kept detailed written records on the daily delivery and distribution of commodities, many of which would not have utilized seals, stamps, sealings, or other durable markings (Wegner 2002:98-99). It is possible, therefore, that the administrative or accounting activities taking place in Building A would have been documented mainly through papyrus records. Presumably, these records would have been removed from the building along with the furniture and other valuable items at the time of the building’s abandonment.

That the construction or major restructuring of Building A in south Karnak would coincide with this surge of building activity in Thebes is not surprising. If the building functioned as part of the administration of the temple or city, it could have been erected to help manage new revenues during the city’s resurgence – revenues allocated to the Mut temple, the Karnak temples, or to the greater city of Thebes by the Kushite kings. Conclusion This chapter has attempted to place Building A within the greater framework of temple economy and administration in Third Intermediate Period Thebes. Based on the available evidence, the structure appears to have remained outside the Mut precinct enclosure wall until far after its last period of use. This conclusion suggests that the building would not have been built to provide protected storage for precious metals, cult equipment, or any of the possessions of the temple requiring tight security. These types of items one should expect to find within the safety of the precinct walls. As well, Building A would probably not have acted as a locus for the collection, storage, or allocation of items directly related to the daily cult service of the Mut temple. At both the Mut temple and north Karnak,37 artisan’s workshops and food production areas were located directly along the temple enclosure walls. These were probably situated not only to maintain control and security over production, but also to provide easy access to the raw materials kept inside the temple precinct.

Dynasty 25 Building Activity in Thebes That facilities related to the administration of the Dynasty 25 Karnak temples should be built at this time correlates well with what is known about the political history of Thebes. While the city may have lost part of the independence it boasted during the regionally splintered earlier Third Intermediate Period,36 it gained the patronage of a powerful and wealthy line of kings under Kushite rule. Although they chose to center their rule on the traditional city of Memphis, these pharaohs linked themselves closely with the god Amun and therefore generously patronized his temple complex at Karnak (Taylor 2000:355). Temple gateways, porches, chapels, and commemorative texts were added to cult precincts at Karnak, Luxor, and on the west bank (Kitchen 1995:379387). Taharqa was especially prolific, adding a new temple and crypt bordering the sacred lake of Amun, a monumental kiosk in the court of the second pylon, a jubilee porch for the temple to Ptah at Karnak, as well as additional porches at Karnak and north Karnak (Leclant 1965, Lauffray 1970, Parker 1979, Kitchen 1995:389390).

If Building A was not involved with supplying the daily temple cult or with the storage of high-value cult objects, with what other types of administration might it have been occupied? A survey of the textual material of the time showed that the Theban temples participated in a sophisticated and far-reaching system of land-holding, taxation, and royal endowments that would have required a large and highly organized bureaucracy. It is within this system that Building A probably played a role. For example, the structure may have acted as a collection and distribution point for liquid and dry goods paid by landrenters as part of their tax to the Mut temple bureaucracy. Documentation of harvest or yield taxes in Papyrus Rylands 9 and a text dealing with goose-herders from Hou demonstrated that taxes could be paid directly out of one’s produce – whether it was birds, cattle, or other goods. Building A could have held both the delivered taxes as well as offices for scribes who counted and

Evidence from within the Mut temple shows that the Dynasty 25 kings actively promoted and refurbished the goddess’s cult. As was discussed in Chapter 2, Mentuemhat reportedly made major renovations here under the command of Pharaoh Taharqa. A new stone gateway was added, changing the entrance to the precinct and the processional routes and requiring the construction of a new enclosure wall. A new porch was erected in the 36 Some scholars have interpreted the images of the early Third Intermediate Period high priests of Amun in kingly poses as evidence that the temple achieved economic or political independence from the crown at this time (Naguib 1990:15, Trigger, et. al. 1983:233-235). Kitchen construed these unusual images however as merely a “ritual fiction,” and views Dynasty 21 as a period of unified rule, headed in the north (Kitchen 1995:xiv, 256, 262). It is clear at least that the high priest of Amun in Dynasty 21 became an army general and effectively ruled the southern region of the country. Dynasties 21-22 then witnessed fluctuating power struggles between the high priests in the south and the Kings in the north (Kitchen 1995:256-268).

37

The workshops at north Karnak stood between the “treasury” and the enclosure walls. Bread ovens and remains of burning showed that bread and/or beer were being produced. As well, discarded tools and fragments of faience, colored pigments, alabaster, and ivory suggested to the excavators that this area also participated in the production or repair of cult objects. Only a single door provided access to the area, and this led from within the treasury itself (Jacquet 1983:80-92).



administered what was paid to the Mut temple. Alternatively, it could have stored and reallocated the royal gifts given to the goddess. Papyrus Harris I and the Chronicles of Prince Osorkon clearly showed that these gifts included not just precious metals, rare stones, or land-grants, but also large quantities of perishable goods like honey, oil, beer, wine, fruits, vegetables, and meat. The structure could have held these types of items briefly until they were ready to be dispersed back into the economy. While these goods would have collectively been worth a substantial amount, their individual values may have been low enough to make inclusion within the temple precinct unnecessary.

Unfortunately, without inscribed evidence like seals, stamps, or sealings, we cannot know how Building A participated more specifically in the economy of Third Intermediate Period Thebes. Patterns of deposition for this type of material at other sites were therefore discussed. As was shown, this type of material is not invariably found within places of administration, and its absence at the south Karnak site, while disappointing, should not be considered surprising. It is possible that refuse piles or middens associated with Building A still wait to be discovered, as the area around the structure was not fully exposed during excavation. However, the nature of institutional recordkeeping in ancient Egypt, with its reliance on papyrus records, could mean that the inscriptional or textual evidence for administration in Building A is irretrievably lost.

Because only a few texts directly mentioned the Mut temple’s involvement in the economy of the time,38 the possibility that the temple played a part in the larger economy documented for the temple of Amun at Karnak was then investigated. Titles of the high-ranking priests of Karnak implied that temple staff operated within more than one temple, and overlap between the administrative personnel of the Mut and Amun temples could be seen as an example of how the management of temple revenues was interrelated. Building A could also have operated as part of the larger system of city administration, shown to be closely intertwined with the temples of Karnak by the many important civic titles held by Karnak’s temple staff.

Finally, architectural evidence from the Mut temple and the other Karnak Temples was briefly discussed to show that the period of the building’s major moment of use coincided with a dramatic increase in construction in both those centers under the Dynasty 25 kings. That Thebes would have possessed both the resources and the need for new administrative buildings at this period seems evident.

38

Texts discussed in this work that specifically mention the Mut temple of Thebes as a landowner, receiving royal gifts, or collecting income from taxation were: Papyrus Harris I, the Chronicles of Prince Osorkon, Papyrus Reinhardt, the Wilbour Papyrus Text A, and Papyrus Louvre AF 6345 and its fragments “Griffiths.”



CHAPTER 7: LATE NEW KINGDOM MATERIAL topped with cavetto cornices.1 Remains of additional cavetto cornices were found in the shrine’s pronaos (Bomann 1991:9-10). Another chapel (no. 522) used a cavetto cornice decoration along its western wall (Bomann 1991:18).

Four strata dating from the late New Kingdom through the early Late Period were identified during the course of excavations for this project. Only a small area of the south Karnak excavation site was exposed down to the level of Stratum 4 material, dated by ceramics to the late New Kingdom. Within this limited exposure, however, significant architectural remains were uncovered, including a carved stone feature and a collapse of painted mud-brick. Possible parallels for this material have been identified from other New Kingdom urban sites. The results of this analysis suggest that the Stratum 4 material originally composed part of a painted mud-brick and stone shrine. The Stone Shrine The earliest structural feature found during the south Karnak excavations was a sandstone cavetto cornice with a line of torus molding [1042] and a series of stone pavers [1043] originally covered in a white plaster and joined together via two stone bases (see figures 7.1 and 7.2 below and Chapter 3, figures 3.6-3.8). Typically in Egyptian architecture, a torus molding forms a raised line around the edges of buildings and the cavetto cornice springs up and outward from above the horizontal forms of the border. This decorative combination is well represented in a variety of buildings, including those of the earlier Old and Middle Kingdoms. It is found on temple and tomb pylons, gateways, screen walls, and other architectural elements. The pieces possibly echoed elements originally seen on the seh-netjer chapel (a “divine booth”) (Arnold 2003:46). Comparative Material from Settlement Sites in Egypt In the New Kingdom, cavetto cornice and torus molding features similar in size to the south Karnak examples appeared most commonly as decorative features within private votive chapels. These chapels, excavated primarily by Peet and Wooley (1923) and Bruyère (1924, 1930, 1933, 1934, 1948), were found at workmen’s villages at Amarna and Deir el Medina in the earlier half of the last century. More recent excavations at Amarna by the British Egypt Exploration Society uncovered additional examples in the 1980s (Bomann 1991:1-2). The chapels at the workmen’s village of Amarna usually contained a forecourt, an entrance (fronted by a small pylon) leading into an outer hall often lined with benches, a small inner hall, a set of steps leading to the sanctuary, and small shrines (usually single or triple) in the rear, all arranged along a central axis (Bomann 1991:23 and fig. 7a). Those at Deir el Medina had a similar basic plan, especially the examples located within the town enclosure wall (Bomann 1991:52-53).

Figures 7.1 and 7.2: Sandstone Feature [1042/1043], Front and Side Views Bomann reassessed the votive chapels excavated by Peet and Wooley, and a number of these (chapels no. 551, 1

Bomann noted that screen walls in the chapels ranged in height from 14 to 90 cm., and her drawing of Chapel 561 shows that in this example the width of the cavetto would have run about 1m wide (Bomann 1991:9 and figure 6). The cornice in south Karnak stood .95m tall, and the main body section was 1.02m wide.

At the Amarna votive chapels studied by the EES, one example’s (no. 561) inner hall possessed screen walls



552, 553, 521, 524, and 525) used cavetto cornice decorative elements. The features served as architectural embellishments for doorways to the shrine, in the shrines, in niches, and on benches in the shrine (Bomann 1991:27-34). Examples also came from the Deir el Medina chapels, where one chapel (not numbered) had cavetto cornice-topped screen walls2 and another (no. 4) seemed to have a cavetto cornice along the doors to the shrine (Bomann 1991:45-46). These chapels have been interpreted as providing the setting for a number of private cultic practices, including ancestor worship (royal and private persons), the tomb cult, and for the cult of a specific god or gods. Those at Deir el Medina also have been tied to oracular practices, and Bomann posited that those at Amarna operated similarly (1991:57). Both village sites’ chapels followed a single, straight axis leading through forecourts and halls to sanctuary spaces. This layout parallels the design of state temples (Bomann 1991:81). These elements, in addition to other architectural and decorative features, clearly show that the structures had a religious purpose.

the floor. The entrance to the shrine echoed the form of a pylon, topped with cavetto cornices and outlined with a torus molding, while a “broken lintel” defined the doorway. The two parallel sidewalls with cavetto cornices joined the front of the shrine directly to the wall of the room. Reconstructed in modern day in the Cairo Museum, its total height measured about 1.5m (Stevens 2006: 219-221, Pendlebury 1951:26, pl. XXX 1 and XXXI). Analysis Based on an analysis of comparative material, it seems most probable that the standing stone cavetto cornice, base, and pavers originally composed part of a small cult shrine. While the south Karnak site feature does not exactly match any of the abovementioned examples, variation in the form of these small-scale structures is documented in the examples cited, and further variation should be expected. The close association between the cavetto cornice and torus molding with religious buildings (village and household shrines, domestic altars, temple pylons, and the original “divine booth”) also supports this conclusion. In fact, thirteen of the forty mud-brick domestic altars identified by Stevens had remains of some type of white plaster, further linking the white plastered south Karnak feature to the existing traditions of sacred architecture (Stevens 2006:226-232).

Another set of chapels, also from Amarna, was found inside the enclosure walls of private houses in the “North City,” “Main City,” and “North Suburb” (fig. 7.3). Situated outside the house proper, these have been termed “garden shrines.” Ikram identified forty-six of these based on plans and unpublished material from EES excavations (Ikram 1989:89). She reconstructed (on paper) a series of small chapels, each with four walls, a roof, and a short set of stairs leading up to an entrance door (1989: Fig. 3, Type Ia).

While its size matches that of the cornices seen at the votive shrines in the workmen’s village at Amarna, the box-like form of the Karnak example seems to correlate best with the garden chapels found in the “North City” and the private chapel of Panehesy.

In this reconstruction (as well as in a number of variations), Ikram envisioned the shrines possessing straight or slightly in-leaning walls topped with a cavetto cornice (1989: Fig. 3, Type Ic and Type IId). Fragments of cavetto cornice architectural elements were found near the shrines, and hence included in her reconstruction (Ikram 1989:99). These types of shrines came from medium or large houses at Amarna, and she suggested they were therefore limited to the wealthy (Ikram 1989:100). Startlingly similar to the south Karnak feature is a broken limestone cavetto cornice and torus molding, carved on four sides, from Gate Street house 8 at Amarna’s workmen’s village (fig. 7.4). Stevens, who studied the small finds and architectural emplacements from the site, suggested that the piece functioned as a domestic altar, possibly on the upper floor or roof of the house. It was found in the collapsed mud-brick fill of the central room during EES excavations at the site in the 1980s. While forty of the possible domestic altars she identified at the site are of mud-brick, an elaborate example from house T41.1 (the house of the “high priest of Aten,” Panehesy) was constructed of stone (fig. 7.5). Excavation photos from the EES archives show the standing shrine sat on a platform with stone foundations embedded directly into

Fig. 7.3: Reconstructed Chapel from Amarna (See Figure Credits for Attribution)

2

The screen walls for this example were 75cm high and 1.25m wide (Bomann 1991:45).



Fig. 7.4: Limestone Cavetto Cornice from Amarna (See Figure Credits for Attribution)

Fig. 7.5 Reconstruction Drawing of Panehesy Shrine (See Figure Credits for Attribution)



the stone doorsills of other houses also utilized red paint as a decorative feature (Frankfort and Pendlebury 1933:22, 25, 64). In the “Northern Quarter” of the city, typified by more modest homes, a number of domestic structures held niches embellished with red and sometimes yellow paint (Frankfort and Pendlebury 1933:32-33, V.35.2-5, U. 35. 2, U.35.13 and pl. VI).

It is possible that the standing cornice served as one of the shrine’s walls, with the pavement acting as the floor. If the excavated piece was the rear side of one such shrine, it may have been paired with mud-brick and plastered sidewalls, with the front of the shrine decorated with additional stone elements. As the area around the feature itself was not fully excavated, more of the original elements may be collapsed nearby.

Additionally, paint was applied to some of the small shrines discussed earlier in this chapter. Traces of red paint were preserved on the brick entrance pylons to shrine no. 561 from Amarna, and a brick cavetto cornice topping that structure may have been painted red. The interior walls of the building utilized red, yellow, and black paint (Bomann 1991:8-10). The inner hall and a bench in the sanctuary of chapel no. 571 were painted with what appeared to be a decorative border (Bomann 1991:16). A number of the chapels at Deir el Medina similarly employed painted decoration. This included colorful figurative paintings with figural and banded motifs in red, white, yellow, black, and turquoise (Bomann 1991:40-51).

Additional evidence supporting this conclusion comes from the objects found in close vicinity to the stone feature. These included a clay figurine with a painted red stripe (21) and a broken female figurine (22). While anthropoid and animal figurines were commonly found in non-stratified or trash-related contexts at the Mut temple precinct,3 these pieces may be examples of objects originally deposited either inside the stone shrine or associated with it. Waraksa suggested that the female figurines found in the Mut temple precinct were used for magical and medical rituals in concert with written spells. A large number of her examples were painted red and broken, and she proposed the symbolic coloring and ritual breakage of these pieces should be viewed as part of healing and apotropaic ceremonies (Waraksa 2009). Possibly then, these are examples of ritually imbued figures placed at a small shrine either as an offering or to guarantee their efficacy.

Finally, there is at least one example documented from Amarna where a mud-brick altar was placed abutting a niche painted with red and yellow panels (Stevens 2006: 232).

Painted Brick Feature

Analysis

A second architectural feature uncovered during excavation consisted of a tumble of painted mud-bricks [1040] (see Chapter 3, figures 3.11-3.12). This included three longer elements still partially intact and a surrounding scatter of broken bricks. Red was the predominant color, but one spot each of white and black paint was identified and a small number of chunks of brick with yellow paint were found nearby. Mud-brick scatter continued below the exposed area of red bricks for 10-20cm. The form of the larger elements suggested that they may originally have constituted part of a mud-brick doorjamb or painted brick wall.

The preserved architecture from Amarna and Deir el Medina demonstrates that both domestic and cult buildings within the city accented their structural elements and interior features with polychrome paint. The painted bricks found at the Mut temple site cannot therefore be easily assigned to one type of building exclusively. However, the presence of the stone “shrine” next to the painted bricks could suggest that both features were originally part of the same structure. While the stone feature stood within a lower stratigraphic layer than the upper course of painted bricks, it was surrounded by (unpainted) brick scatter, and it is not untenable that all this material derives from the collapse of a single mudbrick structure. If so, the painted bricks may have decorated the doorway or interior walls of a building containing the stone “shrine.”

Comparative Material from Settlement Sites in Egypt The well-preserved urban areas of Amarna offer a number of possible parallel forms. The central room of House U.33.9 (Frankfort and Pendlebury 1933: pl. XI) held red-painted and plastered doorjambs that the excavator said “imitat[ed] the painted limestone jambs of wealthier houses” (Frankfort and Pendlebury 1933:74 and pl. XXV. 3). House U.36.22 (Frankfort and Pendlebury 1933:20 and pl. IV), part of one of the large estates at that city, contained a doorframe the excavators described as “perhaps half a brick deep, or perhaps of wood,” and painted red along with a number of other niches in the building (Frankfort and Pendlebury 1933:21). House V.36.5 possessed red-painted interior doorjambs (Frankfort and Pendlebury 1933: pl. V), and a number of

This small exposure of Stratum 4 material may therefore have provided a glimpse into the Late New Kingdom domestic areas of Thebes, here accented with a small stone and painted mud-brick household or neighborhood shrine. Since settlement has been uncovered in only a handful of areas of ancient Thebes, these finds will be of special interest to those researchers concerned with the location of the city during the assumed expansion of the temples out over the preexisting town during the New Kingdom. In addition, much scholarly debate has raged over the nature of the city of Amarna and the workmen’s village at Deir el Medina, regarding whether elements of these royal towns were in any sense “typical” of longer-lived

3

Waraksa (2009) documented this trend for the female figurines at the larger Mut temple precinct.



Egyptian settlements. In the small excavation at south Karnak, at least, the similarity of the material to those better-known sites suggests that indeed there were important parallels. Of course, further excavation at south Karnak into the New Kingdom levels is needed to make

any conclusions, but the little information uncovered here suggests the shrines seen at the more temporary settlements of Amarna and Deir el Medina have direct analogues at Thebes.



CONCLUSION offer countless new insights into the functioning of urban Thebes. A clearer picture of the administrative and domestic quarters of the city, as well as the opportunity to study individual buildings intensively, could significantly increase our understanding of the daily tasks and realities of a large Egyptian city’s operation. Since so many of the ancient town sites excavated in Egypt were short-lived, crown-sponsored emplacements, the preserved existence of a relatively large section of a long-lived, vitally important regional capital presents a rare chance to examine a city at the other end of the spectrum. Indeed, since the important northern political and religious capitals of Memphis and Heliopolis border and have been partially subsumed by the growing modern city of Cairo, the area of Thebes may provide the best chance to recover such an urban space. Contrasting settlement remains from Thebes with those of the better-known emplacement towns would provide a fuller image of the variation and complexity of Egyptian urbanism.

Like at many ancient town sites, the areas of occupation investigated at south Karnak for this project did not include textual information establishing the function of structures and features uncovered. This work has thus attempted to demonstrate that methods and theories developed by archaeologists working on settlement remains in other parts of the world can be applied successfully and instructively to primarily anepigraphic ancient Egyptian urban excavations, aiding in interpretation of the built environment. These intense “activity area” analyses, which focus on recognizing patterns in material culture remains, can especially inform our understanding of activities taking place within buildings and areas within cities and towns. In this work specifically, a function-driven analysis of the ceramic materials collected during excavation demonstrated that such techniques can provide new lines of evidence upon which to draw. This and other techniques developed by anthropologically-oriented archaeologists can be combined with types of analysis more traditional in the field of Egyptology to offer insight into patterns of life in the Egyptian urban sphere.

While recent technological advances, such as satellite imaging, three-dimensional modeling, and remote sensing seem to offer unprecedented opportunities for the advancement of the archaeology of ancient Egyptian cities and towns, this optimism must be tempered by the ever-changing present-day landscape. The position of most ancient settlements within the Nile valley means that the growing modern population of Egypt threatens to destroy or cover the remaining sites (O'Connor 2002:6). In recent years, Egypt has witnessed “an unprecedented growth in floodplain development for agriculture, housing, industrial and military development,” and “the idea of incorporating archaeological concerns into planning programs is still relatively under-developed” (Jeffreys 2006a:164-165). The problems for ancient settlements located in alluvial areas are exacerbated by air pollution and the rising water table. At many sites, ground water levels are so high that constant pumping is required to excavate even the uppermost layers of material (Jeffreys 2006a:165-166).

This project integrated multiple sets of data from ceramic, architectural, and textual information in order to perform a close study of the purpose and operation of a mud-brick building excavated near the temple of Mut in modern Luxor, Egypt. The structure, Building A, which originally would have been part of the Third Intermediate Period city of Thebes, was argued to have operated as a locus for short-term dry-goods and liquid storage, built for administration by the neighboring temple entities. Its participation in the sophisticated and far-reaching Theban temple economy has been hypothesized, suggesting its possible importance within the larger city of the time. Included also in these investigations has been the architectural and ceramic analysis of excavated materials pre- and post-dating Building A. Stone and painted mudbrick features dating to the Late New Kingdom have been tentatively identified as part of a small shrine that would have stood within the then domestic area of Thebes. The use of the larger area during the early Late Period appears to have changed significantly from the prior periods of occupation, with ceramic materials demonstrating this part of south Karnak was used primarily as a dumping ground for refuse and possibly low-level production.

As land belonging to the Ministry of State for Antiquities (MSA), the area of the Mut temple site excavated for this project is fortunate enough to be protected from human encroachment. While the water table here may hinder explorations into levels of the city at or below the early New Kingdom, a great deal of information is available from the Pharaonic Period levels currently above the rising water. In addition, ongoing de-watering projects at Karnak and Luxor may control or even abate the rising water level. This section of Thebes therefore possesses advantages not enjoyed by many other urban sites, advantages that could offer maximum results from careful excavation and non-invasive mapping and survey techniques. It is greatly hoped that this project will encourage further work in this important area.

While this project has only uncovered a very small section of what once existed as part of the ancient city of Thebes, even this limited exposure has allowed questions relating to the evolution of the city and the connection between town and temple to be broached. More important than the results of this individual study are the findings that the area of land south of the Mut temple itself, which originally stood outside the temple enclosure walls (but now lies protected within the Ptolemaic/Roman Period temenos), holds significant remains from various phases of the city’s life. Continued exploration of this area could



FIGURE CREDITS 1.1: Map of Egypt with important city sites. Image courtesy of the Digital Karnak Project: http://dlib.etc.ucla.edu/projects/Karnak/, copyright UC Regents. 1.2: The city of Thebes. Image courtesy of the Digital Karnak Project: http://dlib.etc.ucla.edu/projects/Karnak/, copyright UC Regents. 2.1: The Mut temple and surrounding precinct. Basemap courtesy of the Digital Karnak Project: http://dlib.etc.ucla.edu/projects/Karnak/, copyright UC Regents. 3.1: The precinct of the Mut temple with location of excavation units. Basemap courtesy of the Digital Karnak Project: http://dlib.etc.ucla.edu/projects/Karnak/, copyright UC Regents. 3.2: The south section of the precinct with location of excavation units. Basemap courtesy Dr. Betsy Bryan. 3.3: The south section of the precinct with numbered excavation units. Basemap courtesy Dr. Betsy Bryan. 4.3: New kingdom square, central-hall house. Illustration from: Bietak, M. "Zum Raumprogramm ägyptischer Wohnhäuser des Mittleren und des Neuen Reiches," in Haus und Palast im alten Ägypten. Edited by M. Bietak, 23-43. Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie 14. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. P. 24. Image courtesy of the Austrian Academy of Sciences. 4.4: House from Third Intermediate Period el-Ashmunein. Illustration from: Spencer, A.J. 1993. Excavations at elAshmunein: The Town. Vol. 3. London: British Museum Publications. Pl. 10. Image courtesy British Museum Publications and the Trustees of the British Museum. 4.5: Reconstruction of the palace of Apries. Illustration from: Kaiser, W. 1986. Die dekorierte Torfassade des spätzeitlichen Palastbezirkes von Memphis. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 43:123-155. P. 135, Abb. 2. Image courtesy of the Deutsches Archäologisches Institut (DAI) Cairo. 4.6: The records office and “house of life” at Amarna. Illustration from: Pendlebury, J.D.S. 1951. The City of Akhenaten: Part III, The Central City and the Official Headquarters. Egypt Exploration Society Memoir 44. London: Egypt Exploration Society. Vol. 2, pl. XIX. Image courtesy of the Egypt Exploration Society. 4.7: Storehouse for geese of Amun. Image courtesy of the Digital Karnak Project: http://dlib.etc.ucla.edu/projects/Karnak/, copyright UC Regents. 4.8: Buildings from the central city at Amarna. Illustration from: Pendlebury, J.D.S. 1951. The City of Akhenaten: Part III, The Central City and the Official Headquarters. Egypt Exploration Society Memoir 44. London: Egypt Exploration Society. Vol. 2, pl. XIX. Image courtesy of the Egypt Exploration Society. 4.9: Buildings from the central city at Amarna. Illustration from: Pendlebury, J.D.S. 1951. The City of Akhenaten: Part III, The Central City and the Official Headquarters. Egypt Exploration Society Memoir 44. London: Egypt Exploration Society. Vol. 2, pl. XIX. Image courtesy of the Egypt Exploration Society. 5.1: Drawings of vessel types. Selected vessels were also published in: Sullivan, E. 2011. A Report on the Third Intermediate Period and Late Period Pottery from the Mut Temple, Luxor. Cahiers de la Céramique Égyptienne 9. Reprint of images courtesy L’Institut français d’archéologie orientale du Caire (IFAO). 6.1: The Tuthmoside Mut temple processional. Basemap courtesy of the Digital Karnak Project: http://dlib.etc.ucla.edu/projects/Karnak/, copyright UC Regents. Map compiled by the author including information in a plan published in: Kozloff, A., Bryan, B., and Berman, L. 1992. Egypt's Dazzling Sun: Amenhotep III and His World. Cleveland: Cleveland Museum of Art. Fig. IV.17. 6.2: The Post-Tuthmoside Mut temple processional. Basemap courtesy of the Digital Karnak Project: http://dlib.etc.ucla.edu/projects/Karnak/, copyright UC Regents. Map compiled by the author including information in a plan published in: Kozloff, A., Bryan, B., and Berman, L. 1992. Egypt's Dazzling Sun: Amenhotep III and His World. Cleveland: Cleveland Museum of Art. Fig. IV.18.



6.3: Reconstruction of the late New Kingdom Mut temple precinct. Contour map courtesy Dr. Betsy Bryan. Plan created by the author using additional information from: Fazzini, R. 2002. "Some aspects of the precinct of the goddess Mut in the New Kingdom," in Leaving No Stones Unturned: Essays on the Ancient Near East and Egypt in Honor of Donald P. Hansen. Edited by E. Ehrenberg, 63-76. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. Fig. 1; Fazzini, R., & Peck, W. 1981. The precinct of Mut during Dynasty XXV and early Dynasty XXVI: a growing picture. Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities, 11, 115-126. Fig. 3. 6.4: Hypothetical reconstruction of the Mut precinct at the end of Dynasty 25. Contour map courtesy Dr. Betsy Bryan. Plan created by the author using additional information from: Fazzini, R. 2002. "Some Aspects of the Precinct of the Goddess Mut in the New Kingdom," in Leaving No Stones Unturned: Essays on the Ancient Near East and Egypt in Honor of Donald P. Hansen. Edited by E. Ehrenberg, 63-76. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. Fig. 1; Fazzini, R., & Peck, W. 1981. The precinct of Mut during Dynasty XXV and early Dynasty XXVI: a growing picture. Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities, 11, 115-126. Fig. 3. 6.5: The Mut precinct in Dynasty 30 through the Roman Period. Basemap courtesy of the Digital Karnak Project: http://dlib.etc.ucla.edu/projects/Karnak/, copyright UC Regents. Plan created by the author using additional information from: Fazzini, R. 2002. "Some Aspects of the Precinct of the Goddess Mut in the New Kingdom," in Leaving No Stones Unturned: Essays on the Ancient Near East and Egypt in Honor of Donald P. Hansen. Edited by E. Ehrenberg, 63-76. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. Fig. 1; Fazzini, R., & Peck, W. 1981. The precinct of Mut during Dynasty XXV and early Dynasty XXVI: a growing picture. Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities, 11, 115-126. Fig. 3.; Kozloff, A., Bryan, B., & Berman, L. 1992. Egypt's Dazzling Sun: Amenhotep III and His World. Cleveland: Cleveland Museum of Art. Fig. IV.18. 7.3: Reconstructed chapel from Amarna. Illustation from: Ikram, S. 1989. Domestic Shrines and the Cult of the Royal Family at El-‘Amarna. The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 75:89-101. Fig. 3a. Image courtesy of the Egypt Exploration Society. 7.4: Limestone Cavetto Cornice from Amarna, Illustration from: Stevens, A. 2006. Private religion at Amarna: the material evidence. BAR international series 1587. Oxford: BAR Publishing. Fig. II.13.3. Image courtesy of BAR Publishing. 7.5 Reconstruction drawing of Panehesy shrine. Illustration from: Pendlebury, J.D.S. 1951. The City of Akhenaten: Part III, The Central City and the Official Headquarters. Egypt Exploration Society Memoir 44. London: Egypt Exploration Society. Fig. 6. Image courtesy of the Egypt Exploration Society. Appendix: Selected vessels from the vessel catalog were also published in: Sullivan, E. 2011. A Report on the Third Intermediate Period and Late Period Pottery from the Mut Temple, Luxor. Cahiers de la Céramique Égyptienne 9. Images courtesy L’Institut français d’archéologie orientale du Caire (IFAO). Plate 1: Satellite imagery of the Mut temple. Imagery courtesy of DigitalGlobe. ©2010.

APPENDIX 1: CERAMIC CATALOG information to and help refine the ceramic chronology for these periods. This project can only hope to provide a starting point for continued work on the ceramic corpus of Third Intermediate Period and Late Period south Karnak.

The four defined strata identified during excavations in south Karnak were based on the presence in each layer of an overwhelming proportion of ceramics dated to one of four distinct, datable ceramic phases. These phases, defined by Aston in his numerous works on Late New Kingdom and Third Intermediate Period Pottery, correspond with the south Karnak strata as follows:

South Karnak’s Stratum 1 ceramics were most closely matched with early Late Period forms found at the temple of Seti I at Gurna (Mysliwiec 1987), the Kom el-Ahmar in east Karnak (Hummel and Shubert 1994), and Dendara (Marchand and Laisney 2000), and Late Period forms from Tell el-Balamun (Spencer 1996). At south Karnak, this stratum was characterized by the large percentage of ceramics made from marl A4 variant 2 clay, the absence of marl A4 variant 1 fabrics, and a slight increase in use of oases clays. Frequently occurring forms included typical Dynasty 26 types such as large marl A4 jars with elaborately folded rims (such as vessel 22-11), very hard and thin walled marl A4 carinated bowls (such as vessels H-1, H-2, and H-3), thin walled marl A4 bowls with exterior ribbing and rolled rims (such as vessels G-8 and G-9), and two-handled marl A4 jars with modeled rims (such as vessels 5-8, 5-9, and 5-14).

South Karnak Stratum 1: seventh to mid-sixth centuries1 South Karnak Stratum 2: mid-eighth to seventh centuries2 South Karnak Stratum 3: tenth to mid-eighth centuries3 South Karnak Stratum 4: twelfth to tenth centuries4 (Aston 1996a). The catalog that follows provides examples from the ceramic data on which stratum assignments for this project were based. The stratum from which each drawn piece was excavated, as well as the date of similar forms at other sites, is listed in the piece’s individual entry. In most cases, these forms were well situated within the expected date range for that type established by Aston or found at other sites. In some cases, however, forms appeared one phase before or after their expected date. These may be examples of ceramic forms that appear earlier or endure longer in urban contexts at Thebes than in other contexts,5 or alternatively, these may be intrusive. It is important to note that the ceramics at south Karnak were not from sealed contexts, and few were found in what could be considered primary context, and therefore a mixture of materials from both preceding and following periods should be expected. It is hoped that further excavations at south Karnak will add new

Stratum 2 ceramics were most closely paralleled by the Late Period ceramics from the priests’ houses at central Karnak (Masson 2010, 2011) and the Dynasties 25-26 (their Phase III) pottery from the town site at Elephantine (Aston 1999). Numerous other sites had similar corpora, including Third Intermediate Period el-Ashmunein (Spencer 1993), the south tombs at Amarna (dated to Dynasty 25) (Aston 1996a), mid-eighth to mid-seventh century Abu ‘Id (Aston 1996c), and the Third Intermediate Period levels at Heracleopolis Magna (López Grande, Quesada Sanz, and Molinero Polo 1995). While marl fabrics were slightly less prevalent in this stratum than in Stratum 1, this level also utilized the A4 variant 2 clay.6 Forms identified by Aston (1996a and 1999:168-169) as appearing for the first time or initially becoming common in the mid-eighth to seventh enturies were represented in the pottery of south Karnak in Stratum 2. These included bowls/beakers with flaring bases (such as vessels I-3 and I-4) and footed cups or goblets (such as vessels L-2, L-3, and L-5). Typical Dynasty 25 forms found frequently in the south Karnak corpus included marl A4 jars with a single rim tool (such as vessels 22-1 and 22-2), marl A4 bowls with a ring base (such as vessels G-1 and G-3), small Nile silt bowls/plates with flat, string-cut bases (such as vessels F6 and F-7), and round-based Nile silt bottles with a thin white spiral design on the shoulder (such as vessels 7-2, 7-3, and 7-5).7 A red washed stripe around the rim of simple Nile silt bowls (vessel Type D) continued into this

1

Aston did not deal with ceramics from the Late Period in his 1996 book, but mentioned the existence of a Phase IV South, which he contended is roughly the same as Jacquet-Gordon’s Phase IIA at Karnak North, which he dated to 650/625-575/550 BC. He posited this was followed by a Phase V South, which he attributed to later Dynasty 26 and Dynasty 27, or the late Saite/Persian periods, with a northern origin, and assigns its development a mid- to late-sixth century BC date (Aston 1996a:91). Comparison with ceramics from central Karnak in welldated stratigraphic sequence (Masson 2010) suggest that the south Karnak material does not extend into the late Saite/Persian period, but is limited to Dynasty 26. 2 Stratum 2 corresponds to what Aston more generally termed Phase III (South) in his ceramic chronology (Aston 1996a:71-73), which he dates to the Theban Dynasties 23 and 25. However, specific ceramic forms excavated suggest this stratum is here dated to Dynasty 25. Data from central Karnak supports this dating (Masson 2010, 2011). 3 This stratum matches Aston’s Phase II, dated to Dynasty 22 (Aston 1996a:59, 92). In Aston’s Elephantine sequence, this stratum corresponds with his Phase IIb, attributed to Dynasties 22-24 (Aston 1999:68). 4 This includes Aston’s Phase I, late-Dynasty 19 to 21, which he says begins with the reigns of Seti II and Ramesses III/IV (Aston 1996a:20). The phase lasts through Dynasty 21, which Aston calls “indistinguishable” from the ceramics of the late New Kingdom (1996a:15). This ceramic period runs to about 1000/950BC (Aston 1996a:92). The Mut temple pottery corresponds closely with Aston’s Phases IIA and I at Elephantine, dated to Dynasties 20/21 and Dynasty 19 respectively (1999:24 and 15). 5 Much of the Theban pottery used by Aston in his seminal volume on ceramics of the Late New Kingdom and Third Intermediate Period comes from tomb contexts (1996a).

6

Marl A4 variant 2 appears for the first time in the mid- to late-eighth century and dominates the marl vessel industry in southern Egypt during Dynasty 25 and onward though the Persian Period (Aston 1999:68.82,154). 7 The popularity of these forms for the late Third Intermediate Period and their chronological significance is discussed in Aston 1996a, Aston 1999, and Spencer 1993.



stratum from Strata 3 and 4, but it became much less common. Interior or exterior washes in red, seen frequently in Strata 3 and 4 as well, became very rare. The red washed and burnished pieces disappeared completely from the south Karnak repertoire by Stratum 2.8

clay used to produce the vessel according to the Vienna System. The stratum category lists the stratum (1-4, discussed above) from which the pottery was excavated. When the ceramics came from a level with a mix of two strata or from a level whose date was uncertain, both possible strata are listed: 2/3 (ie. stratum 2 or stratum 3). Sherds or vessels considered intrusive have been labeled with an asterisk “*”. When possible, a suggested date for those pieces based on comparative materials is listed in parentheses, i.e. (Dynasty 18?).

Stratum 3 material was only identified in a small portion of the area exposed at the IX G West site. This level was identified by the use of marl A4 variant 1 and the complete lack of variant 2 fabrics. This pottery had a number of affinities with the older Stratum 4 ceramics, including the presence of a high percentage of red washed and burnished sherds, sherds with red washes on the either interior or exterior side (sometimes with a red stripe at the rim on the uncoated side), and vessels with red coated rims. Vessel forms from Stratum 3 most closely paralleled the pottery from Dynasties 22-24 at Elephantine (their Level IIb) (Aston 1999), the early Third Intermediate Period material at Medinat Habu (Aston 1996a) and Tell el-Balamun (Spencer 2003), and Third Intermediate Period material from el-Ashmunein (Spencer 1993).

Vessels of similar form from other sites are listed in the comparative category along with their chronological date and publication information. A number of sherds that could not be assigned to a “vessel type” group were drawn and included in the catalog (labeled as #UN- or “unassigned”). In many cases, these were unique or uncommon pieces, and they were included to document diagnostic pieces that could not be identified confidently with the more specific “vessel type” or sometimes “vessel shape” groups.

The Late New Kingdom material in south Karnak’s Stratum 4 had a number of distinguishing characteristics. This level included the easily recognized blue, black, and red painted sherds that are signifiers of the New Kingdom.9 Unique to this level were a small number of body sherds with black wash and burnish on one or both sides. Black painted rims on simple bowls (Type D) also occurred. Vessels with red washed rims, red washed walls, and red washed and burnished walls were very frequent. While marl A4 variant 1 was the most regularly utilized marl clay, this stratum also included a significant number of marl A3 and marl C sherds not seen in other strata. No oases clays were identified. Ceramics from this stratum were most similar to the New Kingdom and early Third Intermediate Period material from Kom el-Ahmar (their phases L-H, dated to Dynasty 18 through early Dynasty 22) (Hummel and Shubert 1994) and the late New Kingdom ceramics from Elephantine (their Phase IIa) (Aston 1999).

Drawings of each sherd or vessel listed follow the catalog listing. Type A1: # A1-1 Fabric: Nile C Provenance: Unit 7 Room 1 Surface 1 #18 Stratum: 2 Comparative: similar to a Nile silt platter from Ashmunein, Third Intermediate Period (Spencer 1993: pl. 74 #68); similar to a Nile C bread tray from Elephantine, Late New Kingdom (Aston 1999: pl. 7 #155) # A1-2 Fabric: Nile C Provenance: Unit 13 Room 4 Level 4 #33 Stratum: 3 Comparative: similar to a Nile silt platter from Ashmunein, Third Intermediate Period (Spencer 1993: pl. 74 #68)

Catalog Organization Each ceramic sherd or vessel is assigned a number (i.e. D-10) in this catalog with which it is referred to in the text of the document. Surface treatments or comments on the appearance of the sherd are listed with that number.

# A1-3: blue and white painted stripes on interior Fabric: Nile B2 Provenance: Unit 12 Room 5 Surface 1 Scrape #2 Stratum: 2/3 * (Dynasty 18 or 19 sherd?) Comparative: similar to a Nile C bread plate from Elephantine, Late New Kingdom (Aston 1999: pl. 7 #165)

The provenance given for each ceramic includes its location (unit #) and the excavation level from which it was excavated. Fabric descriptions provide the type of 8

Aston documented this change in decorative trend at Elephantine between his phases IIa/IIb and phase III, which correspond to the Late New Kingdom, early Third Intermediate Period and late Third Intermediate Period respectively (1999). 9 Pottery with blue painted decoration is typical of mid- to late-Dynasty 18 and Dynasty 19 and this style appears to have completely disappeared by the start of the Third Intermediate Period (Aston 1999:146).

# A1-4 Fabric: Nile B2 Provenance: Unit 10 Level 10A #52 Stratum: 4 Comparative: -



Comparative: very similar to a large Nile silt lid (?) from the temple of Seti I at Gurna, undated (Mysliwiec 1987:52 and 53 #351)

# A1-5 Fabric: Nile B2 Provenance: Unit 12 Room 5 Level 3 #3A Stratum: 1 Comparative: Type A3:

# A2-4 Fabric: Nile C Provenance: Unit 7A Level 8A #9B Stratum: 2 Comparative: -

# A3-1: rope marks on exterior; finger push on base Fabric: Nile C Provenance: Unit 7 Level 6A #16 Stratum: 2 Comparative: very similar to a large Nile C platter from Elephantine, Late New Kingdom (Aston 1999: pl. 7, #156)

# A2-5: two finger marks running across interior surface Fabric: Nile C Provenance: Unit 13 Room 4 Level 5 #25 Stratum: 3 Comparative: similar to a large Nile silt lid from Ashmunein, Third Intermediate Period (Spencer 1993: pl.74 #M.1.40)

# A3-2 Fabric: Nile C Provenance: Unit 20 Level 2B #1 Stratum: 1 Comparative: -

# A2-6 Fabric: Nile B2 Provenance: Unit 7A Level 2 #12 Stratum: 1 Comparative: similar to a large Nile silt lid from Ashmunein, Third Intermediate Period (Spencer 1993: pl. 74 #M.1.64); similar to a Nile silt lid(?) from Heracleopolis Magna, Third Intermediate Period (López Grande, Quesada Sanz, and Molinero Polo 1995:72 and 163 lám. XXIX #g)

# A3-3 Fabric: NA Provenance: Unit 8 Level 5C #9 Stratum: 2 Comparative: similar to a large handmade Nile C tray one from Elephantine, mid-eighth to seventh centuries (Aston 1999: pl. 52 #1631)

# A2-7: slightly smoothed interior, base left rough on exterior Fabric: Nile B2 Provenance: Unit 7 Level 2 #15 Stratum: 1 Comparative: -

Type A2: # A2-1 Fabric: Nile C Provenance: Unit 16 Level 1 #3 Stratum: 1 Comparative: similar to Nile silt handled lids from Ashmunein, Third Intermediate Period (Spencer 1993: pl. 74 type M.1.30, .63, .40); similar to Nile C lids from Elephantine, mid-eighth to seventh centuries (Aston 1999: pl. 53 #1633); similar to Nile silt lid handles from Heracleopolis Magna, mid-eighth to mid-seventh centuries (López Grande, Quesada Sanz, and Molinero Polo 1995:96 and 186 lám. LII #b)

# A2-8 Fabric: Nile C Provenance: Unit 13 Room 4 Level 3 #12 Stratum: 3 Comparative: similar to a large Nile silt lid from Ashmunein, Third Intermediate Period (Spencer 1993: pl. 74 #M.1.61); similar to a lid(?) from Heracleopolis Magna, Third Intermediate Period (López Grande, Quesada Sanz, and Molinero Polo 1995:72 and 163 lám. XXIX #g)

# A2-2 Fabric: Nile C Provenance: Unit 8 Room 2 Level 3 #13 Stratum: 2 Comparative: similar to Nile silt handled lids from Ashmunein, Third Intermediate Period (Spencer 1993: pl. 74 type M.1.30, .63, .40); similar to Nile C lids from Elephantine, mid-eighth to seventh centuries (Aston 1999: pl. 53 #1633); similar to Nile silt lid handles from Heracleopolis Magna, mid-eighth to mid-seventh centuries (López Grande, Quesada Sanz, and Molinero Polo 1995:96 and 186 lám. LII #b)

# A2-9: interior smoothed, exterior left rough Fabric: Nile C Provenance: Unit 7A Level 4A #15 Stratum: 1/2 Comparative: # A2-10: interior and exterior left rough Fabric: Nile C Provenance: Unit 12 Room 5 Level 5B #15 Stratum: 2/3 Comparative: -

# A2-3: smoothed interior, exterior left very rough Fabric: Nile C Provenance: Unit 13 Level 4A #7 Stratum: 1

# A2-11 Fabric: Nile C Provenance: Unit 10 Level 10A #55



Stratum: 4 Comparative: -

# D-2 Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 13 Level 5B #6 Stratum: 2 Comparative: very similar to Nile B2 bowls from Elephantine, mid-eighth to seventh centuries (Aston 1999: pl. 49 #1543, #1546-1547); possibly similar to a Nile silt bowl from East Karnak, ninth century/Phase G (Hummel and Shubert 1994: pl. LI #7)

Type B: # B-1 Fabric: Nile B2 Provenance: Unit 3 Level 6A #19 Stratum: 2 Comparative: -

# D-3 Fabric: Nile B2 Provenance: Unit 3 Level 5A #2 Stratum: 2 Comparative: very similar to Nile B2 bowls from Elephantine, mid-eighth to seventh centuries (Aston 1999: pl. 49 #1542-1544); possibly similar to a Nile silt bowl from East Karnak, ninth century/Phase G (Hummel and Shubert 1994: pl. LI #7)

# B-2 Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 12 Room 5 Level 3 #5-6A Stratum: 1 Comparative: # B-3 Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 13 Level 4A #10 Stratum: 1 Comparative: possibly similar to a lid from Mendes, Late Period (Allen 1982: pl. XX #4)

# D-4 Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 3 Level 6B #3 Stratum: 2 Comparative: very similar to Nile B2 bowls from Elephantine, mid-eighth to seventh centuries (Aston 1999: pl. 49 #1542-1544); possibly similar to a Nile silt bowl from East Karnak, ninth century/Phase G (Hummel and Shubert 1994: pl. LI #7)

Type C: # C-1 Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 13 Level 2 #1 Stratum: 1 Comparative: similar to a vessel stand from Amarna, Dynasty 25-26 (Aston 1996a:212, fig. 110 #I); similar to a Nile silt vessel stand from Ashmunein, Third Intermediate Period (Spencer 1993: pl. 73 #15); similar to a pot stand found at Sais/Sa el-Hagar, Third Intermediate Period to Dynasty 18 (Wilson 2002:4-5 and pl.2 #2)

# D-5 Fabric: Nile B2 Provenance: Unit 17 Level 1 #3 Stratum: 1 Comparative: similar to a deep bowl from Amara West, Third Intermediate Period (Spencer 2002: pl. 24 # C45) # D-6: tooled spiral on lower portion of vessel Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 7 Room 1 Level 1 #33 Stratum: 2 Comparative: very similar to a Nile B2 bowl with direct rim, rounded base, and “external grooves… made with a tool,” mid-eighth to seventh centuries (Aston 1999:199 and pl. 61 #1812)

# C-2 Fabric: Nile B2 Provenance: Unit 13 Level 5A #1 Stratum: 2 Comparative: possibly similar to a Nile B2 red and white slipped vessel stand from Elephantine, Late New Kingdom (Aston 1999: pl.10 #243); possibly similar to a tall Nile B2 vessel stand from Elephantine, Late New Kingdom (Aston 1999: pl. 11 #265); possibly similar to a Nile silt vessel stand from Ashmunein, Third Intermediate Period (Spencer 1993: pl. 73 #10)

# D-7 Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 13 Level 5B #4 Stratum: 2 Comparative: very similar to Nile silt bowls from Elephantine, mid-eighth to seventh centuries (Aston 1999: pl. 49 #1550-1555); very similar to a Nile B2 bowl from Elephantine, Dynasty 25 (Aston 1996a:126, fig. 24, top right column)

Type D: # D-1 Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 13 Level 5B #1 Stratum: 2 Comparative: very similar to Nile B2 bowls from Elephantine, mid-eighth to seventh centuries (Aston 1999: pl. 49 #1543, #1546-1547) possibly similar to a Nile silt bowl from east Karnak, ninth century/Phase G (Hummel and Shubert 1994: pl. LI #7)

# D-8 Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 3 Level 5A #1 Stratum: 2 Comparative: very similar to Nile silt bowls from Elephantine, mid-eighth to seventh centuries (Aston



# D-14: ledges on interior Fabric: Nile B2 Provenance: Unit 13 Room 4 Level 3 #42a Stratum: 3 Comparative: very similar to a Nile silt cup with slightly pointed base from Ashmunein, Third Intermediate Period (Spencer 1993: pl. 55 #13)

1999: pl. 49 #1550-1555); very similar to a Nile B2 bowl from Elephantine, Dynasty 25 (Aston 1996a:126, fig. 24, top right column) # D-9 Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 10 Level 14A #13 Stratum: 4 Comparative: -

# D-15: rope marks on vessel exterior Fabric: Nile B2 Provenance: Unit 13 Room 4 Level 1 #34 Stratum: 2 Comparative: similar to a large bowl from Elephantine, mid-eighth to seventh centuries (Aston 1999: pl. 48 #1502)

# D-10 Fabric: Nile B2 Provenance: Unit 7 Room 1 Surface 1 #5 Stratum: 2 Comparative: very similar to Nile silt bowls from Elephantine, mid-eighth to seventh centuries (Aston 1999: pl. 49 #1548-1550 and pl. 52 #1609-1610); very similar to Nile silt cups with slightly pointed bases from Ashmunein, Third Intermediate Period (Spencer 1993: pl. 55 #11, #18, #25); very similar to a Nile silt bowl from east Karnak, 21st Dynasty (Hummel and Shubert 1994: pl. LXXV #4); very similar to a Nile silt cup from Tell el Balamun, early Third Intermediate Period (Spencer 2003: pl. 15 #3)

# D-16: rope marks on vessel exterior Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 7 Room 1 Surface 1 #23 Stratum: 2 Comparative: similar to a large bowl from Elephantine, mid-eighth to seventh centuries (Aston 1999: pl. 48 #1502); similar to a large, thick walled Nile silt bowl from east Karnak, Dynasty 21 (Hummel and Shubert 1994: pl. LXXV #6)

# D-11 Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 7 Room 1 Surface 1 #3 Stratum: 2 Comparative: very similar to Nile silt bowls from Elephantine, mid-eighth to seventh centuries (Aston 1999: pl. 49 #1548-1550 and pl. 52 #1609-1610); very similar to Nile silt cups with slightly pointed bases from Ashmunein, Third Intermediate Period (Spencer 1993: pl. 55 #11, #18, #25); very similar to a Nile silt bowl from sast Karnak, Dynasty 21 (Hummel and Shubert 1994: pl. LXXV #4); very similar to a Nile silt cup from Tell el Balamun, early Third Intermediate Period (Spencer 2003: pl. 15 #3)

# D-17: base left unsmoothed Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 17 Level 1 #2 Stratum: 1 Comparative: # D-18 Fabric: Nile B2 Provenance: Unit 12 Room 5 Surface 1 Scrape #3 Stratum: 2/3 Comparative: very similar to shallow Nile B2 bowls from Elephantine, mid-eighth to seventh centuries (Aston 1999: pl. 48 #1506-1508); similar to Nile B2 shallow bowls from Elephantine, Dynasty 22 (although these have red slipped rims) (Aston 1999: pls. 16-17 #526-529)

# D-12 Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 12 Room 5 Level 3 #10A Stratum: 1 Comparative: very similar to Nile silt bowls from Elephantine, mid-eighth to seventh centuries (Aston 1999: pl. 49 #1548-1550); very similar to Nile silt cups with slightly pointed bases from Ashmunein, Third Intermediate Period (Spencer 1993: pl. 55 #11, #18, #25)

# D-19 Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 12 Room 5 Level 5B #3 Stratum: 2/3 Comparative: very similar to shallow Nile B2 bowls from Elephantine, mid-eighth to seventh centuries (Aston 1999: pl.51 #1600-1603); very similar to a shallow Nile D bowl from Elephantine, mid-eighth to seventh centuries (Aston 1999: pl. 53 #1648); similar to Nile B2 shallow bowls from Elephantine, Dynasty 22 (although these have red slipped rims) (Aston 1999: pls. 16-17 #526-529)

# D-13 Fabric: Nile B2 Provenance: Unit 12 Room 5 Level 5B #4 Stratum: 2/3 Comparative: very similar to Nile silt cups with slightly pointed bases from Ashmunein, Third Intermediate Period (Spencer 1993: pl. 55 #11, #18); very similar to a Nile silt bowl from east Karnak, Dynasty 21 (Hummel and Shubert 1994: pl. LXXV #4); very similar to a Nile silt cup from Tell el Balamun, early Third Intermediate Period (Spencer 2003: pl. 15 #3)

# D-20 Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 13 Level 5B #8 Stratum: 2 Comparative: very similar to shallow Nile B2 bowls from Elephantine, mid-eighth to seventh centuries (Aston 1999: pl. 48 #1506-1508); similar to Nile B2 shallow



Comparative: very similar to shallow Nile silt bowls with modeled rims from Ashmunein, Third Intermediate Period (Spencer 1993: pl. 45 #17, #25)

bowls from Elephantine, Dynasty 22 (although these have red slipped rims) (Aston 1999: pls. 16-17 #526-529) # D-21 Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 13 Level 5B #3 Stratum: 2 Comparative: similar to Nile B2 shallow bowls from Elephantine, Dynasty 22 (although these have red slipped rims) (Aston 1999: pl. 17 #531-532)

# E-3 Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 12 Room 5 Surface Float #1 Stratum: 2/3 Comparative: very similar to shallow Nile silt bowls with modeled rims from Ashmunein, Third Intermediate Period (Spencer 1993: pl. 45 #15-17); very similar to Nile B2 bowls from Elephantine, mid-eighth to seventh centuries (Aston 1999: pl. 48 #1509-1513)

# D-22: base left unsmoothed Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 12 Room 5 Level 6 #8 Stratum: 2/3 Comparative: similar to Nile B2 shallow bowls from Elephantine, Dynasty 22 (although these have red slipped rims) (Aston 1999: pls. 16-17 #526-529); similar to a Nile B2 bowl from Elephantine, mid-eighth to seventh centuries (Aston 1999: pl. 57 #1717); very similar to a shallow Nile silt bowl from Tell el Balamun, early Third Intermediate Period (Spencer 2003: pl. 15, #1)

# E-4 Fabric: Provenance: Unit 13 Level 2 #19 Stratum: 1 Comparative: very similar to a bowl with round base from the temple of Seti I at Gurna, Late Period (Mysliwiec 1987:59 #383) # E-5 Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 7 Level 6A #6 Stratum: 2 Comparative: similar to a Nile B2 and a Nile D bowl from Elephantine, mid-eighth to seventh centuries (Aston 1999: pl. 48 #1513 and pl. 53 #1646)

# D-23 Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 13 Level 5B #7 Stratum: 2 Comparative: possibly similar to a Nile B2 bowl from Elephantine, mid-eighth to seventh centuries (Aston 1999: pl. 60 #1809)

# E-6: red painted rim Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 10 Level 8A #43 Stratum: 3 Comparative: similar to a Nile silt bowl from a Memphite tomb, Dynasty 19 (Aston 1991: pl. 47 #7); possibly similar to bowls from Riqqeh, Dynasties 18 to 19, and from Tell el Yahudiyeh, Dynasty 20 (Kelley 1976a: pl 70.1 #29 and pl.76.2 #2)

# D-24: red wash on interior and exterior of vessel; black painted rim Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 13 Room 4 Level 3 Surface #31 Stratum: 3 Comparative: very similar to a simple rimmed bowl from Elephantine with a (black or red?) painted rim, thicker paint on interior than exterior, 12th to 11th centuries (Aston 1996a:281 fig. 179)

# E-7 Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 7 Level 6A #29 Stratum: 2 Comparative: -

# D-25: vessel has hole in base Fabric: marl A3 or A4? Provenance: Unit 7 Room 3 Level 2 #12 Stratum: mix of Stratum 2-4 materials Comparative: -

# E-8 Fabric: marl A4 variant 2 Provenance: Unit 7 Level 6A #2-3 Stratum: 2 Comparative: similar to marl A4 variant 2 bowls with incurving rim from Elephantine, mid-eighth to seventh centuries (Aston 1999: pl. 58 #1731 and pl. 63 #18541855); similar to marl bowls from Ashmunein, Third Intermediate Period/Late Period (Spencer 1993: pl. 52 #23-24 and pl. 53 #28.2-28.3)

Type E: # E-1 Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 3 Level 6B #3b Stratum: 2 Comparative: very similar to shallow Nile silt bowls with modeled rims from Ashmunein, Third Intermediate Period (Spencer 1993: pl. 45 #15-19)

# E-9: red wash on interior, exterior and rim Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 12 Room 6 Level 2 #3 Stratum: 3/4 Comparative: -

# E-2 Fabric: Nile B2 Provenance: Unit 12 Room 5 Level 5B #2 Stratum: 2/3



Stratum: 2 Comparative: see # F-1 above

# E-10 Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 12 Room 5 Level 4B #4 Stratum: 2 Comparative: very similar to silt bowls and cups with slightly pointed bases from Tell el Balamun, Dynasty 25 (Spencer 1999b: pl. 11, group 5) similar to slightly pointed base bowl from Amara West, Third Intermediate Period (Spencer 2002: pl. 22 #C20)

# F-3 Fabric: Nile Silt Provenance: Unit 19 Level 1 #5 Stratum: 1 Comparative: # F-4 Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 13 Room 4 Level 3 Surface #13 Stratum: 3 Comparative: see # F-1 above

# E-11: traces of red wash on exterior Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 10 Level 13A #12 Stratum: 4 Comparative: very similar to a Nile silt bowl from the temple of Seti I at Gurna, late New Kingdom to Third Intermediate Period (Mysliwiec 1987:48 #246); similar to Nile silt bowls from east Karnak, New Kingdom (Hummel and Shubert 1994: pl. LIV #4 and #6)

# F-5 Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 13 Level 4A #8 Stratum: 1 Comparative: -

# E-12 Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 12 Room 5 Surface Float #4-5 Stratum: 2/3 Comparative: very similar to a round based bowl from Elephantine, although that example has a painted rim and possibly painted or burnished interior, 10th to mid-8th centuries (Aston 1996a:283 fig. 181 #19807b:2); similar to a Nile B2 bowl from Elephantine, late New Kingdom (Aston 1999: pl. 3 #52)

# F-6 Fabric: NA Provenance: Unit 13 Room 4 Level 1 #75 Stratum: 2 Comparative: see # F-1 above # F-7 Fabric: Nile B2 Provenance: Unit 7 Room 1 Surface 1 #7 Stratum: 2 Comparative: see # F-1 above

# E-13 Fabric: NA Provenance: Unit 10 Level 9 #13 Stratum: 4 Comparative: similar to a Nile silt bowl from east Karnak, New Kingdom (Hummel and Shubert 1994: pl. LIV, #2); possibly similar to a Nile silt bowl from Karnak north, late New Kingdom to Dynasty 25 (Aston 1996a:278 fig. 465 #61); very similar to a large Nile silt bowl with red wash, Ramesside (Hope 1989b: fig. 7 #e)

# F-8 Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 7 Room 1 Level 1 #36 Stratum: 2 Comparative: see # F-1 above # F-9 Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 13 Room 4 Level 1 #67 Stratum: 2 Comparative: similar to a Nile silt bowl from Heracleopolis Magna, 730-650 BCE/Dynasties 25 to 26 (López Grande, Quesada Sanz, and Molinero Polo 1995:189 lám. LV #e and #j) Type G:

Type F: # F-1 Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 12 Level 1 #33 Stratum: 1 Comparative: this and the following bowls are very similar to small, flat based, string-cut Nile B2 bowls from Elephantine, mid-eighth to seventh centuries (Aston 1999: pl. 48 #151-1537); similar to Nile silt dishes with flat bases from Ashmunein, Third Intermediate Period (Spencer 1993: pl. 44 Type A1); similar to a small, string-cut dish from Tell el Balamun, mid 7th century (Spencer 1999b: pl. 76a #7); these types appear earlier in at Elephantine in the Libyan Period (Dynasty 22) in Nile B2 clay (Aston 1999: pl. 15 #495-496, #502)

# G-1 Fabric: Nile B2 Provenance: Unit 7 Level 6A #7 Stratum: 2 Comparative: similar to a Nile silt ring base bowl from Tell el Balamun, Late New Kingdom and after (Spencer 1999b: pl. 72 #10) # G-2 Fabric: marl A4 variant 2 Provenance: Unit 16 Level 1 #5 Stratum: 1

# F-2: rough base Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 13 Room 4 Level 1 #9



very similar to a marl bowl with exterior ribbing, ninth century/Phase G (Hummel and Shubert 1994: pl. L #8)

Comparative: similar to a marl A4 bowl from Heracleopolis Magna, Saite Period or after (López Grande, Quesada Sanz, and Molinero Polo 1995:192 lám. LVIII #e); similar to a marl A2 ring base of bowl with curved rim from Elephantine, Dynasties 25 to 26 (Aston 1996a: fig. 186, #17805A:13); similar to marl bowls from Ashmunein, Third Intermediate Period/Late Period (Spencer 1993: pl. 52 #21.1-21.3)

# G-9 Fabric: marl A4 Provenance: Unit 12 Level 3 Pit #3 Stratum: 1 Comparative: very similar to a marl A4 variant 2 bowl from Elephantine, mid-eighth to seventh centuries (Aston 1999: pl. 60 #1856); similar to a bowl from Karnak north, Dynasty 26 or after (Aston 1996a:280 fig. 178 #75); similar to a marl A2 bowl from Elephantine, mid-eighth to seventh centuries (Aston 1996a:288 fig. 186 #17805A:13)

# G-3 Fabric: marl A4 Provenance: Unit 13 Room 4 Level 1 #23 Stratum: 2 Comparative: possibly similar to a marl bowl from Ashmunein, Third Intermediate Period/Late Period (Spencer 1993: pl. 54 #44)

# G-10 Fabric: marl A4 variant 1 Provenance: Unit 12 Room 5 Surface 1 #1 Stratum: 2/3 Comparative: similar to ring base bowls from Tanis, no date possible (Brissaud, et. al 1987:76 and 83 fig. 5 #5657); possibly similar to a ring based bowl with incurving rim from, mid-tenth to mid-eighth century (Aston 1996a:309 fig. 207 #d); possibly similar to a similar to a ring based bowl with incurving rim from Memphis, eleventh to tenth century (Aston 1996a:170 fig. 68 #6)

# G-4 Fabric: marl A4 Provenance: Unit 3 Level 7A #4 Stratum: 2 Comparative: possibly similar to a marl bowl from Ashmunein, Third Intermediate Period/Late Period (Spencer 1993: pl. 54 #44) # G-5 Fabric: marl A4 Provenance: Unit 7A Level 3 #1 Stratum: 1/2 Comparative: similar to bases from marl bowls from Ashmunein, Third Intermediate Period/Late Period (Spencer 1993: pl. 5 #27.2, pl. 53 #27.5); similar to bases of marl bowls from Elephantine, mid-eighth to seventh centuries (Aston 1999: pl. 54 #1678, #1681)

Type H: # H-1 Fabric: marl A4 Provenance: Unit 7A Level 4A #4 Stratum: 1/2 Comparative: very similar to marl carinated bowls from Dendara, Dynasty 26 (Marchand and Laisney 2000: vessel #54-#57); very similar to a marl bowl from east Karnak, Late Period (Hummel and Shubert 1994: pl. LXXVI #1); similar to a marl A4 variant 2 carinated bowl from Elephantine, possibly late-Dynasty 26 to 27 (Aston 1999: pl. 71 #2028)

# G-6 Fabric: marl A4 Provenance: Unit 12 Room 5 Level 3 #7 Stratum: 1 Comparative: similar to a marl bowl with ring base from Karnak North, Dynasty 26 or after (Aston 1996a:280 fig. 178 #487)

# H-2 Fabric: marl A4 variant 2 Provenance: Unit 14 Level 3A #5 Stratum: 1 Comparative: -

# G-7 Fabric: marl A4 Provenance: Unit 12 Level 2 #65 Stratum: 1 Comparative: very similar to a marl bowl from central Karnak, Dynasty 26-27 (Béout et al. 1993: 164-166, fig. 7 #10); similar to a marl bowl from Ashmunein, Third Intermediate Period/Late Period (Spencer 1993: pl. 54 #40)

# H-3 Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 14 Level 3A #4 Stratum: 1 Comparative: very similar to a Nile silt carinated bowl from Heracleopolis Magna, Dynasties 25-26 (López Grande, Quesada Sanz, and Molinero Polo 1995:193 lám. LIX #i); very similar to a marl bowl from Ashmunein, Third Intermediate Period (Spencer 1993: pl. 51 #18); very similar to marl carinated bowls from Dendara, Dynasty 26 (Marchand and Laisney 2000: vessel #54#57)

# G-8: ribbed exterior Fabric: marl A4 variant 2 Provenance: Unit 7A Level 2 #2 Stratum: 1 Comparative: very similar to a marl bowl from central Karnak, Dynasty 26-27 (Béout et al. 1993: 164-166, fig. 7 #11); very similar to a marl bowl from Dendara, Dynasty 26 (Marchand and Laisney 2000: vessel #61);



# H-4 Fabric: marl clay Provenance: Unit 7 Room 3 Level 1 #17 Stratum: mix of Stratum 2-4 materials Comparative: possibly similar to Nile B2 carinated bowls with round bases and red slipped rims, late New Kingdom (Aston 1999: pl. 10, #226-227); similar to marl A4 carinated bowls from Heracleopolis Magna, Dynasties 25-26 (López Grande, Quesada Sanz, and Molinero Polo 1995:193 lám. LIX #d-e)

# H-11 Fabric: marl A4 Provenance: Unit 13 Room 4 Level 5 #1 Stratum: 3 Comparative: # H-12 Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 7 Room 3 Level 2 #22 Stratum: mix of Stratum 2-4 materials Comparative: -

# H-5 Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 12 Room 5 Level 5A #22 Stratum: 2/3 Comparative: -

# H-13 Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 13 Level 4A #12 Stratum: 1 Comparative: -

# H-6: vessel possibly burnished Fabric: marl A4 variant 1 Provenance: Unit 3 Level 9B #5 Stratum: 3 Comparative: -

Type I: # I-1 Fabric: Nile B2 Provenance: Unit 7 Room 1 Surface 1 #20 Stratum: 2 Comparative: very similar to a Nile D beaker with ledged base from Elephantine, mid-eighth to seventh centuries (Aston 1999: pl. 64 #1881); very similar to a beaker with flat flaring base, eighth to seventh centuries(Aston 1996a:319 fig. 217 #c))

# H-7 Fabric: marl A4 variant 2 Provenance: Unit 14 Level 3A #3 Stratum: 1 Comparative: similar to marl A4 variant 2 carinated bowls from Elephantine, mid-eighth to seventh centuries (Aston 1999: pl. 54 #1679 and 1682)

# I-2 Fabric: Nile B2 Provenance: Unit 7 Room 1 Surface 1 #4 Stratum: 2 Comparative: very similar to Nile silt cults from Abydos, dated to the Dynasty 25(Budka 2010); very similar to a Nile B2 uncoated beaker from Elephantine, early Third Intermediate Period (Aston 1999: pl. 40 #1255); very similar to a beaker with raised rim along base, tenth to mid-eighth centuries (Aston 1996a:309 fig. 207 #e); very similar to beakers/cups from Amara west, Third Intermediate Period (Spencer 2002: pl. 27 #F7, F10, F11, F12)

# H-8: white wash on exterior and rim Fabric: marl A4 variant 1 Provenance: Unit 10 Level 13A #2 Stratum: 4 Comparative: similar to a marl bowl from East Karnak, New Kingdom (Hummel and Shubert 1994: pl. LII, #6a) # H-9: two black/brown painted stripes above carination Fabric: marl A4 variant 1 Provenance: Unit 12 Room 6 Level 6 #4 Stratum: 4 Comparative: similar to a marl bowl from east Karnak with two 2 painted stripes on a plum slipped background, New Kingdom (Hummel and Shubert 1994: pl. LII #8) vessel is similar to a marl bowl from east Karnak, ninth century/Phase G (Hummel and Shubert 1994: pl. L #5); similar to carinated bowls with two to four purple/brown, dark brown or black painted stripes above the carination from the temple of Seti I at Gurna, early to mid-New Kingdom (Mysliwiec 1987:40-42)

# I-3 Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 13 Room 4 Level 1 #66 Stratum: 2 Comparative: very similar to flat based beakers made of Nile B2 or Nile D with projecting bases, dated to 10 th to 7th centuries (Aston 1996a:73 and 319 fig. 217, group 8); very similar to a beaker/cup from Amara west, Third Intermediate Period (Spencer 2002: pl. 27 #F3)

# H-10 Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 7A Level 8A #10 Stratum: 2 Comparative: possibly similar to a biconvex bowl from Tell el Balamun, late New Kingdom (Spencer 1999b: pl. 71a #2); possibly similar to a bowl from the mortuary temple of Seti I, dated by Aston to the Saite Period/6 th c. (Aston 1996a:245 fig. 143 #767)

# I-4 Fabric: NA: vessel completely burnt and fabric blackened and unidentifiable Provenance: Unit 8 Level 5C #10 Stratum: 2 Comparative: very similar to flat based beakers made of Nile B2 or Nile D with projecting bases, dated to tenth to seventh centuries (Aston 1996a:73 and 319 fig. 217,



(Mission française des fouilles de Tanis, Brissaud and Zivie-Coche 2000:212 Groupe 20, right #20A’); similar to a Nile C basin/pithos with a white wash from Elephantine, mid-eighth to seventh centuries (Aston 1999: pl. 52 #1630)

group 8, esp. #b); very similar to a beaker with a flat base, tenth to mid-eighth centuries (Aston 1996a:309 fig. 207 #f); similar to a Nile silt vase with an open mouth from Ashmunein, Third Intermediate Period (Spencer 1993: pl. 57 #6); very similar to a beaker/cup from Amara west, Third Intermediate Period (Spencer 2002: pl. 27 #F2, #F3)

# K-2: vessel has area for handle attachment (now broken off); traces of wash on exterior (?) Fabric: Nile C Provenance: Unit 10 Room 7 Level 1 #3 Stratum: 2 Comparative: similar to a Nile C basin/pithos with a white wash (although without handles) from Elephantine, mid-eighth to seventh centuries (Aston 1999: pl. 52 #1630); similar to a Nile C handled basin from Tanis, end of the Third Intermediate Period (Mission française des fouilles de Tanis, Brissaud and Zivie-Coche 2000:212 Groupe 20, left #20A)

# I-5 Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 8 Level 4A #38 Stratum: 1 Comparative: similar to Nile silt cups with flat bases from Ashmunein, Third Intermediate Period (Spencer 2002: pl. 56 #26) Type J: # J-1 Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 8 Level 4A #31 Stratum: 1 Comparative: similar to small Nile silt “chalices or footed goblets with disk or spool bases…” from Mendes, Late Period (Allen 1982:19 and pl. XV #3-4)

# K-3 Fabric: Nile C Provenance: Unit 12 Room 5 Level 6 #1 Stratum: 2/3 Comparative: # K-4 Fabric: Nile C Provenance: Unit 7 Room 1 Surface 1 #22 Stratum: 2 Comparative: -

Type M: # M-1 Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 14 Level 3A #8 Stratum: 1 * Comparative: similar to the Type D breadmold identified by Gordon, Dynasties 18-21 (Jacquet-Gordon 1981: Fig. 5 #14)

Type L: # L-1: base left unsmoothed Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 20 Level 2A #10 Stratum: 1 Comparative: very similar to footed Nile silt cups from Ashmunein, Third Intermediate Period (Spencer 1993: pl. 57 #18, #27)

# M-2: smoothed in interior and exterior Fabric: Nile silt Provenance: Unit 10 Level 14A #6 Stratum: 4 Comparative: possibly similar to the Type D breadmold identified by Gordon, Dynasties 18-21 (Jacquet-Gordon 1981: Fig. 5)

# L-2 Fabric: Nile B2 Provenance: Unit 3 Level 7B #2 Stratum: 2 Comparative: very similar to footed Nile silt cups from Ashmunein, Third Intermediate Period (Spencer 1993: pl. 57 #22 and 27)

# M-3: vessel completely burnt and blackened Fabric: Nile C Provenance: Unit 7 Room 3 Level 1 #12 Stratum: mix of Stratum 2-4 materials Comparative: similar to the base of a breadmold from Elephantine, late New Kingdom (Aston 1999: pl. 13, #342); possibly similar to the Type D breadmold identified by Gordon, Dynasties 18-21 (Jacquet-Gordon 1981: Fig. 5 #2 and #6)

# L-3 Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 12 Level 3 Pit #17 Stratum: 1 Comparative: similar to footed Nile silt cups from Ashmunein, Third Intermediate Period (Spencer 1993: pl. 57 #5 and #8)

Type K: # K-1 Fabric: Nile C Provenance: Unit 20 Level 2A #12 Stratum: 1 Comparative: similar to a large Nile C handled basin from Tanis, end of the Third Intermediate Period

# L-4: red wash on exterior Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 13 Room 4 Level 5 #2 Stratum: 3



Comparative: possibly similar to a small Nile B cup from Heracleopolis Magna, mid-eighth to mid-seventh centuries (López Grande, Quesada Sanz, and Molinero Polo 1995:160 lám. XXVI #h)

Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 7 Level 4 #25 Stratum: 2 Comparative: -

# L-5 Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 7 Level 4 #11 Stratum: 2 Comparative: very similar to a Nile B2 red slipped goblet from Elephantine, dating is uncertain – either late New Kingdom or mid-eighth to seventh centuries (Aston 1999:76 and pl. 19 #556)

# N1-5: rope marks on exterior; white/tan wash on interior and exterior Fabric: Nile C Provenance: Unit 10 Room 7 Level 2 #9 Stratum: 2 Comparative: similar to large Nile silt bowls from Ashmunein, Third Intermediate Period (Spencer 1993: pls. 48-50); similar to a large Nile B bowl from Tanis, eighth to fifth centuries (Mission française des fouilles de Tanis, Brissaud and Zivie-Coche 2000:214 pl. XVI 24C’)

Type O:

# N1-6: rope marks on exterior body and rim Fabric: Nile B2 Provenance: Unit 7A Level 4A #25 Stratum: 1/2 Comparative: very similar to large Nile silt bowls from Ashmunein, Third Intermediate Period (Spencer 1993: pls. 48-50); very similar to large Nile silt bowls from Heracleoplis Magna, Third Intermediate Period (López Grande, Quesada Sanz, and Molinero Polo 1995:187 lám. LIII #a and 169 lám. XXXV #g); very similar to a large Nile C bowl with rope marks on exterior from Elephantine, early Third Intermediate Period (Aston 1999: pl. 31 #950); very similar to a large Nile C bowl with rope marks on exterior from Elephantine, late New Kingdom (Aston 1999: pl. 11 #270); very similar to large Nile silt bowls with rope marks on exterior from central Karnak, Dynasties 25-26 (Leclére and Marchand 1995: pl. XI form #18)

# O-1 Fabric: Nile silt Provenance: Unit 12 Room 5 Level 1 #7 Stratum: 1 Comparative: similar to Nile B2 strainers with a red slipped rims from Elephantine, possibly Dynasty 22 (Aston 1999: pl. 18, #548 and pl. 38 #1195) Type P: # P-1 Fabric: Nile C Provenance: Unit 12 Room 6 Level 1 #21 Stratum: 3 Comparative: very similar to the rounded legs of hobs from Ashmunein, Third Intermediate Period (Spencer 1993: pls. 75-78 “Fire-Dogs”) Type N1:

# N1-7 Fabric: Nile B2 Provenance: Unit 20 Level 2B #2 Stratum: 1 Comparative: similar to large Nile silt bowls from Ashmunein, Third Intermediate Period (Spencer 1993: pls. 48-50); very similar to large Nile silt bowls from Heracleoplis Magna, Third Intermediate Period (López Grande, Quesada Sanz, and Molinero Polo 1995:187 lám. LIII #a and 169 lám. XXXV #g); very similar to large Nile silt bowls with rope marks on exterior from central Karnak, Dynasties 25-26 (Leclére and Marchand 1995: pl. XI form #18)

# N1-1: rope marks on exterior Fabric: Nile C Provenance: Unit 10 Level 12 A #4 Stratum: 4 Comparative: very similar to the large bowls or “hearths” found at the workmen’s village of Amarna, Dynasty 18 (Rose 1987a: fig. 10.2 # 60413); similar to a large Nile silt bowl from Amara west, Third Intermediate Period (Spencer 2002: pl. 25 #E2) # N1-2: interior smoothed, exterior left rough Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 12 Room 5 Feature 7 #1 Stratum: 3/4? Comparative: -

Type N2:

# N1-3: interior smoothed, exterior left rough Fabric: Nile C Provenance: Unit 12 Room 5 Surface Float #3 Stratum: 2/3 Comparative: similar to the large bowls or “hearths” found at the workmen’s village of Amarna, Dynasty 18 (Rose 1987a: fig. 10.2 # 60413)

# N2-1: rope marks on exterior Fabric: Nile C Provenance: Unit 10 Room 7 Level 2 #6 Stratum: 2 Comparative: possibly similar to a large Nile B2 bowl/basin with rope marks on exterior and slightly flattened rim, early Third Intermediate Period (Aston 1999: pl. 17 #535)

# N1-4: traces of red wash and burnish on rim and vessel exterior

# N2-2 Fabric: Nile C



Provenance: Unit 10 Level 10A #46 Stratum: 4 Comparative: very similar to beer jars from Nubia, New Kingdom (Holthoer 1977: pl. 18 type BB2); very similar to Nile silt hole-mouth jar, phases L-H, Dynasties 18-22 (Hummel and Shubert 1994: pl. LXIV #1)

Provenance: Unit 3 Level 6B #11 Stratum: 2 Comparative: possibly similar to a bowl with flat rim from Amara west, Third Intermediate Period (Spencer 2002: pl. 47 #Q5) # N2-3: rope marks on exterior Fabric: Nile C Provenance: Unit 10 Room 7 Level 3 #12 Stratum: 2 Comparative: similar to a large bowl of red/orange paste (Nile silt?) and a flattened rim, pre-Dynasty 21? (Brissaud, et. al 1987:96 fig. 18 #246); possibly similar to a large Nile C bowl/basin with rope marks on exterior and slightly flattened rim, early Third Intermediate Period (Aston 1999)

# 1-5 Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 13 Room 4 Surface Float #2 Stratum: 3 Comparative: very similar to beer jars from Nubia, New Kingdom (Holthoer 1977: pl. 18 type BB2) # 1-6 Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 10 Level 13A #16 Stratum: 4 Comparative: very similar to beer jars from Nubia, New Kingdom (Holthoer 1977: pl. 18 type BB2)

# N2-4: possible traces of red wash on exterior Fabric: Nile B2 Provenance: Unit 7A Level 4A #28 Stratum: 1/2 Comparative: -

# 1-7 Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 10 Level 13A #15 Stratum: 4 Comparative: very similar to beer jars from Nubia, New Kingdom (Holthoer 1977: pl. 18 type BB2)

# N2-5: rope marks on exterior Fabric: Nile B2 Provenance: Unit 7 Level 6A #1 Stratum: 2 Comparative: similar to a Nile B2 deep basin with modeled rim, rope marks on exterior and flat base, Dynasty 22 (Aston 1999: pl.15, #503)

# 1-8 Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 7 Room 3 Level 2 #15 Stratum: mix of Stratum 2-4 materials Comparative: very similar to beer jars from Nubia, New Kingdom (Holthoer 1977: pl. 18 type BB2); very similar to beer jars from Memphis, 11th-10th century (Jeffreys and Aston 2007: #518)

Type 1: # 1-1 Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 10 Level 10A #44 Stratum: 4 Comparative: very similar to beer jars from Nubia, New Kingdom (Holthoer 1977: pl. 18 type BB2); very similar to Nile silt hole-mouth jar, phases L-H, Dynasties 18-22 (Hummel and Shubert 1994: pl. LXIV #1)

# 1-9 Fabric: Nile B (?) Provenance: Unit 13 Room 4 Level 3 #14 Stratum: 3 Comparative: very similar to beer jars from Nubia, New Kingdom (Holthoer 1977: pl. 18 type BB2); very similar to beer jars from Memphis, 11th-10th century (Jeffreys and Aston 2007: #518)

# 1-2: red paint and burnish on rim and exterior Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 10 Level 14A #20 Stratum: 4 Comparative: very similar to beer jars from Nubia, New Kingdom (Holthoer 1977: pl. 18 type BB2); very similar to Nile silt hole-mouth jar, phases L-H, Dynasties 18-22 (Hummel and Shubert 1994: pl. LXIV #1)

# 1-10 Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 10 Feature 14 #1 Stratum: 4 Comparative: very similar to beer jars from Nubia, New Kingdom (Holthoer 1977: pl. 18 type BB2)

# 1-3 Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 12 Room 6 Level 7 #4 Stratum: 4 Comparative: very similar to beer jars from Nubia, New Kingdom (Holthoer 1977: pl. 18 type BB2); very similar to Nile silt hole-mouth jar, phases L-H, Dynasties 18-22 (Hummel and Shubert 1994: pl. LXIV #1)

# 1-11 Fabric: Nile B2 Provenance: Unit 7 Level 4 #8 Stratum: 2 Comparative: possibly similar to Nile B2 uncoated beer jar from temple sanctuary, Dynasties 20-21 (Aston 1999: pl. 11, #260)

# 1-4 Fabric: Nile B



171 U6); similar to Nile B2 pilgrim flask from Elephantine, Dynasties 22-24 (Aston 1999: pl.16 #514)

# 1-12: ridged interior wall Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 8 Level 8A #19 Stratum: 2 Comparative: similar to a Nile silt base (listed as possibly cup?) from central Karnak, Dynasties 26-27 (Béout et al. 1993: 164-166, fig. 7 #18)

# 2-2: red painted rim Fabric: marl Provenance: Unit 3 Level 6B #4-5 Stratum: 2 Comparative: -

# 1-13 Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 10 Level 5A #23 Stratum: 3 Comparative: similar to Nile silt beer jar from Elephantine, tenth to mid-eighth centuries, early Third Intermediate Period (Aston 1996a:284 fig. 182, #19806a:1); very similar to silt jars from the south tombs at Amarna, Dynasty 25 (Aston 1996a:221 fig. 119 #SJ6.3.3 (L) and 220 fig. 118 #SJ6.2.2 (F1), #SJ6.3.3 (L)); very similar to an uncoated Nile B2 beer jar, Dynasty 19 (Aston 1999: pl.1 #10)

# 2-3 Fabric: oasis clay Provenance: Unit 7 Level 4 #1 Stratum: 2 Comparative: # 2-4 Fabric: oasis clay Provenance: Unit 13 Level 2 #2 Stratum: 1 Comparative: possibly similar to large oasis clay flasks from Karnak north and Dakhleh oasis with two handles attached at the lower neck and body, Late Period and after (Hope 2000: fig. 2, #i, l and fig. 3 b-c); possibly similar to large pilgrim flasks from Ashmunein made of clay with a cross section described as “pale blue in the core and pink towards the edges,” which is likely an oasis clay, dated to the Third Intermediate Period (Spencer 1993: pl. 71 # 5, 7, 9 and p. 47); possibly similar to an oasis clay gourd from Elephantine, mid-eighth to seventh centuries (Aston 1999: pl. 56 #1701); similar to a large pilgrim flask from the river-temple at Amarna, Dynasty 26? (Peet and Wooley 1923:136 and pl. LI #XXXVIII)

# 1-14: orange colored wash on exterior Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 3 Level 9B #6 Stratum: 3 Comparative: very similar to Nile silt jar from Elephantine, mid-eighth to seventh centuries (Aston 1996a:286 fig. 184 #18235j:7); very similar to an uncoated Nile B2 beer jars, Dynasty 19 to late New Kingdom (Aston 1999: pl. 1 #8-11 and pl. 3 #58) # 1-15: finger mark on exterior Fabric: Nile B2 Provenance: Unit 12 Room 5 Level 3 #9 Stratum: 1 * Comparative: similar to shape of a beer jar base from tenth to eighth centuries (Aston 1996a:310 fig. 208, #d); similar to shape of a beer jar base from Elephantine, late New Kingdom (Aston 1999: pl. 3, #58); very similar to beer jars from Nubia, New Kingdom (Holthoer 1977: pl. 18 type BB2)

# 2-5: dark red wash on exterior and rim Fabric: marl A4 Provenance: Unit 12 Room 6 Level 1 #2 Stratum: 3 Comparative: very similar to the marl A4 variant 1 rim of a pilgrim flask (?) from Elephantine, early Third Intermediate Period (Aston 1999: pl. 38 #1180) # 2-6: orange colored wash on surface Fabric: marl B Provenance: Unit 12 Room 6 Level 2 #4 Stratum: 3/4 Comparative: similar to globular bodied, marl A4 variant 1 pilgrim flask from Elephantine, early Third Intermediate Period (Aston 1999: pl. 21 #612)

# 1-16: bottom left unsmoothed Fabric: NA Provenance: Unit 12 Room 6 Level 5 #18 Stratum: 4 Comparative: possibly similar to beer jars from Nubia, New Kingdom (Holthoer 1977: pl. 18 type BB3)

# 2-7 Fabric: NA Provenance: Unit 3 Level 9B #1 Stratum: 3 Comparative: similar to a Nile silt pilgrim flask with red painted bands from Medinat Habu, Dynasties 22-24 (Aston 1996a:273 fig. 171 #U6); similar to globular bodied, marl A4 variant 1 pilgrim flask from Elephantine, Dynasties 22-24 (Aston 1999: pl. 21 #612)

Type 2: # 2-1: creamy-peach colored self-slip Fabric: marl A4 variant 2 Provenance: Unit 10 Level 7A #1 Stratum: 3 Comparative: similar to a pilgrim flask from Medinat Habu, Dynasties 22-24. Aston notes that at this time, “handles stem from the middle of the neck in contrast to the New Kingdom … types where the handle descends from the rim area, and later types where the handles rises from the base of the neck” (Aston 1996a:68 and 273 fig.



from Abu ‘Id, eighth to seventh centuries(Aston 1996c: pl. V #83)

Type 4: # 4-1 Fabric: marl A4 Provenance: Unit 12 Room 6 Level 1 #1 Stratum: 3 Comparative: similar to a wide-mouth marl jar from east Karnak, seen in phases L-G/Dynasty 18-mid Third Intermediate Period (Hummel and Shubert 1994: pl. LXIII #4); similar to a marl A4 variant 1 meat jar from Elephantine that was found out of context, but probably dated to the Dynasties 19-21 (Aston 1999: pl. 2 #33)

# 5-5 Fabric: marl A4 variant 2 Provenance: Unit 8 Room 2 Surface 1 Scrape #2 Stratum: 2 Comparative: possibly similar to a marl A4 variant 2 twohandled jar from Elephantine, mid-eighth- seventh centuries (Aston 1999: pl. 63 #1868) # 5-6 Fabric: marl A4 variant 2 Provenance: Unit 7 Room 1 Level 1 #1-2 Stratum: 2 Comparative: similar to a two-handled marl A4 variant 2 storage jar from Abu ‘Id, eighth to seventh centuries(Aston 1996c: pl. V #78) # 5-7 Fabric: marl A4 variant 1 Provenance: Unit 7 Room 1 Surface 1 #37 Stratum: 2 Comparative: very similar to a Nile silt two-handled jar from Elephantine, tenth to mid-eighth centuries (Aston 1996a:284 fig. 182 #19805a:10); similar to two-handled marl A4 variant 2 jars from Abu ‘Id, eighth to seventh centuries (Aston 1996c: pl. IV #61-63)

# 4-2 Fabric: NA: possibly fabric FO2 from Delta region, has large round sand grains Provenance: Unit 10 Level 10A #3 Stratum: 4 Comparative: similar to large marl D ovoid “meat” jars from Qantir/Pi-Ramesse, Dynasties 19-21 (Aston 1998:478-485 #1821, #1823, #1833) # 4-3 Fabric: marl A4 variant 1 Provenance: Unit 12 Level 1 #42 Stratum: 1 * Comparative: -

# 5-8 Fabric: marl A4 variant 2 Provenance: Unit 12 Level 2 #23 Stratum: 1 Comparative: very similar to a marl A4 variant 2, twohandled globular jar with modeled rim and round base from Elephantine, mid-eighth to seventh centuries (Aston 1999: pl. 55 #1689); very similar to a marl A4 variant 2, squat jar with modeled rim from Elephantine, mid-eighth to seventh centuries (Aston 1999: pl. 58 #1733); very similar to two-handled marl A4 variant 2 storage jars from Abu ‘Id, eighth to seventh centuries (Aston 1996c: pl. IV #65-67)

Type 5: # 5-1 Fabric: Provenance: Unit 13 Room 4 Level 1 #1B Stratum: 2 Comparative: similar to a two- handled marl A4 variant 2 storage jar from Abu ‘Id, eighth to seventh centuries (Aston 1996c: pl. V #75) # 5-2: white wash on exterior and rim Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 13 Room 4 Level 3 #7 Stratum: 3 Comparative: similar to a two- handled marl A4 variant 2 storage jar from Abu ‘Id, eighth to seventh centuries (Aston 1996c: pl. V #75)

# 5-9 Fabric: marl A4 variant 2 Provenance: Unit 12 Level 2 #24 Stratum: 1 Comparative: very similar to two-handled marl A4 variant 2 storage jars from Abu ‘Id, eighth to seventh centuries (Aston 1996c: pl. IV #61-66)

# 5-3: white/tan wash on exterior Fabric: marl C Provenance: Unit 10 Level 8A #6 Stratum: 3 Comparative: possibly similar to a large two-handled jar, brownish-red clay with yellow wash/marl fabric, from Medinat Habu, Dynasties 20-21 (Aston 1996a:267 fig.165, #C6 2)

# 5-10 Fabric: marl A4 variant 2 Provenance: Unit 8 Room 2 Level 3 #1 Stratum: 2 Comparative: very similar to a two-handled marl A4 variant 2 storage jar from Abu ‘Id, eighth to seventh centuries(Aston 1996c: pl. IV #67); similar to a marl A4 variant 2 jar from Hermopolis, Third Intermediate Period (Aston 1996a:206 fig. 104 #74); very similar to a marl A4 variant 2, two-handled globular jar with modeled rim and round base from Elephantine, mid-eighth to seventh centuries (Aston 1999: pl. 55 #1690)

# 5-4 Fabric: marl A4 variant 2 Provenance: Unit 12 Room 5 Level 5B #8 Stratum: 2/3 Comparative: very similar to a marl A4 variant 2 jar from Elephantine, Dynasties 22-24 (Aston 1999: pl. 22 #626); similar to a two-handled marl A4 variant 2 storage jar



# 5-17: white wash on exterior and rim Fabric: Nile B2 Provenance: Unit 10 Level 4A #1 Stratum: 2 Comparative: very similar to a Nile B2 jar (likely with two handles) from Abu ‘Id, eighth to seventh centuriesm(Aston 1996c: pl. II #30)

# 5-11: interior tooling or ridge Fabric: marl A4 variant 2 Provenance: Unit 10 Level 2 #9 Stratum: 1 Comparative: very similar to a two-handled jar from the Ramesseum at Thebes, late Third Intermediate Period/early Saite period (Aston 1996a:264 fig. 162 bottom center)

# 5-18 Fabric: marl A4 variant 1 Provenance: Unit 10 Room 7 Level 3 #2 Stratum: 2 Comparative: very similar to a Nile B2 jar (likely with two handles) from Abu ‘Id, eighth to seventh centuries (Aston 1996c: pl. II #31); similar to Nile silt jars from the south tombs at Amarna, Dynasty 25 (Aston 1996a:216 fig. 114 #SJ2.3.1(N) and #SJ2.4.2(D))

# 5-12 Fabric: Nile B2 Provenance: Unit 12 Level 1 #41 Stratum: 1 Comparative: very similar to a large Nile silt two-handled storage jar from Medinat Habu, reign of Amenirdis I (Aston 1996a:277 fig. 175); possibly similar to late period marl jar from the temple of Seti I at Gurna, although that jar has finger print decoration on exterior (Mysliwiec 1987:65 #457); a similar type of jar rim was found at the Late Period excavations around the Tuthmosis III enclosure wall at Karnak by the French team working there (personal communication, Aurélia Masson, May 2005); similar to a large Nile silt twohandled storage jar that occurred with red wash and white spiral wash, eighth to seventh centuries (Aston 1996a:76 and fig. 222 #a and #b)

# 5-19: white/tan wash on exterior Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 12 Room 5 Level 5B #6 Stratum: 2/3 Comparative: very similar to a Nile silt jar with cream slip from the south tombs at Amarna, Dynasty 25 (Aston 1996a:216 fig. 114 #SJ2.6.1(X)); similar to a Nile B2 jar (likely with two handles) from Abu ‘Id, eighth to seventh centuries (Aston 1996c: pl. II #31)

# 5-13 Fabric: marl A4 variant 2 Provenance: Unit 13 Level 4A #1 Stratum: 1 Comparative: very similar to marl jar from Amarna south tombs, eighth to seventh centuries. Example preserved only included rim, so handles are not shown (Aston 1996a:224 fig. 122 #MJ4.1.3(K))

Type 6: # 6-1: red wash on exterior Fabric: marl A3 (?) Provenance: Unit 13 Level 5B #5 Stratum: 2 Comparative: possibly similar to a jar with orange-red fabric, a flat base and diamond shaped body from Amara west, late Third Intermediate Period (Spencer 2002: pl. 31 #J17)

# 5-14: slightly ribbed body below carination Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 11 Level 2 #72 Stratum: 1 Comparative: very similar a to a two-handled marl vessel with ribbed exterior on body from the temple of Seti I at Gurna, Late Period (Mysliwiec 1987:64 #440)

Type 7: # 7-1 Fabric: Nile B2 Provenance: Unit 7 Level 6C #3 Stratum: 2 Comparative: possibly similar to a small Nile silt bottle from Karnak north, late New Kingdom-Dynasty 25 (Aston 1996a:279 fig. 406)

# 5-15 Fabric: marl A4 Provenance: Unit 7A Level 4A #7 Stratum: 1/2 Comparative: very similar to a two-handled marl vessel with ribbed exterior on body from the temple of Seti I at Gurna, Late Period (Mysliwiec 1987:64 #440)

# 7-2: white wash in spiral pattern on neck and shoulder Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 13 Level 5B #2 Stratum: 2 Comparative: Aston notes that in Dynasty 25, white spiral painted decoration appears on closed vessels as a new type of decoration (Aston 1998:59)

# 5-16 Fabric: marl A4 variant 2 Provenance: Unit 12 Level 2 #2 Stratum: 1 Comparative: similar to a small marl A4 variant 2 twohandled storage jar with ribbing at mid-body, and slightly pointed, nipple base, Dynasties 25-26 (Aston 1999: pl. 55 #1694)

# 7-3: white wash in spiral pattern on exterior Fabric: Nile B2 Provenance: Unit 7 Room 1 Surface 1 #2 Stratum: 2



it, and this seems to have been deliberately produced” (Aston 1999:188 and pl. 56 # 1702); very similar to a hard, grey oases clay bottle from Abydos, Dynasty 25 (Aston 1996b:5 fig. 3 #e)

Comparative: very similar to a Nile silt bottle with spiral painted decoration from Karnak north, late New Kingdom-Dynasty 25 (Aston 1996a:279 fig. 466 #412); very similar to a Nile silt vase with spiral painted decoration on the shoulder from Ashmunein, Third Intermediate Period (Spencer 1993: pl. 69 #6.1); Aston notes that in Dynasty 25, white spiral painted decoration appears on closed vessels as a new type of decoration (Aston 1998:59)

# 7-9: red paint on exterior rim, neck and shoulder; vessel is burnished Fabric: Nile silt Provenance: Unit 8 Level 6B #21 Stratum: 2 Comparative: very similar to a slender light red clay bottle from Medinat Habu, Dynasties 21-24 (Hölscher 1954:12-13 and pl. 7 box d #4)

# 7-4 Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 10 Room 7 Level 3 #38 Stratum: 2 Comparative: similar to the base of a marl clay bottle from the temple of Seti I at Gurna, Late Period (Mysliwiec 1987:68 #554)

# 7-10: vessel is burnished Fabric: marl A4 variant 1 Provenance: Unit 10 Room 7 Level 3 #1 Stratum: 2 Comparative: very similar to a slender light red clay bottle from Medinat Habu, Dynasties 21-24 (Hölscher 1954:12-13 and pl. 7 box d #4)

# 7-5: white spiral wash in stripes on shoulder, wash over all lower part of vessel Fabric: Nile B2 Provenance: Unit 7A Level 6A #1 Stratum: 2 Comparative: very similar to a Nile silt vase with white spiral decoration on the shoulder from Ashmunein, Third Intermediate Period (Spencer 1993: pl.69 #7); Aston notes that in Dynasty 25, white spiral painted decoration appears on closed vessels as a new type of decoration (Aston 1998:59)

# 7-11 Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 7 Level 4 #12 Stratum: 2 Comparative: probably similar to a slender light red clay bottle from Medinat Habu, Dynasties 21-24 (Hölscher 1954:12-13 and pl. 7 box d #4)

# 7-6: unsmoothed at base area Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 19 Level 1 #7 Stratum: 1 Comparative: similar to a Nile B2 narrow-necked bottle from Elephantine, eighth-seventh centuries (Aston 1999: pl. 61 #1831)

# 7-12 Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 7 Room 1 Level 1 #47 Stratum: 2 Comparative: very similar to Nile silt bottle from Tell el Balamun, Third Intermediate Period/Dynasty 22(?) (Spencer 1999b: pl. 76 a #2); similar to a Nile silt bottle from Karnak North, late New Kingdom-Dynasty 25 (Aston 1996a:279 fig. 466 #420); similar to a tall Nile silt vase with a narrow neck from Ashmunein, Third Intermediate Period (Spencer 1993:46 and pl. 68 type H1.18)

# 7-7: series of tooled lines on shoulder, one at base Fabric: NA Provenance: Unit 3 Level 2/3 #1 Stratum: 1 Comparative: very similar to a marl clay bottle with ridged or tooled shoulder from central Karnak, Dynasty 26 (Béout et al. 1993: fig. 21 form type 38); similar to a bottle with grooved lines on the shoulder from Medinat Habu, dated to Dynasty 26 or earlier by excavator (Aston 1996a:53-56 and fig. 174 #T2); similar to a slightly wider and stouter marl clay bottle with two distinct groups of grooved lines on the shoulder and a pointed base, from Heracleopolis Magna, dated to 730-650 BCE (López Grande, Quesada Sanz, and Molinero Polo 1995:92 and 183 lám. XLIX #n)

# 7-13: white wash on exterior Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 8 Room 2 Level 2 #1 Stratum: 2 Comparative: very similar to a tall Nile silt vase with a narrow neck from Ashmunein, Third Intermediate Period (Spencer 1993:46 and pl. 68 type H1.18); similar to a Nile B2 ovoid vessel from Elephantine, date uncertain (Aston 1999: pl. 5 #117) # 7-14 Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 12 Room 5 Level 5B #1 Stratum: 2/3 Comparative: similar to an Nile silt example from Heracleopolis Magna, Third Intermediate Period (López Grande, Quesada Sanz, and Molinero Polo 1995:158 lám. XXIV #J Typo XXD.1); similar to a Nile silt bottle from Amarna, probably Dynasty 25 (Aston 1996a:212 fig. 110

# 7-8: surface is blackened, highly or over-fired and pitted Fabric: oasis clay Provenance: Unit 10 Level 3 #1 Stratum: 2 Comparative: very similar to an oases clay 2 bottle from Elephantine, eighth to seventh centuries. Aston notes it is “high fired” with “a hard, greyish, almost metallic look to



#XXV); possibly similar to a Nile silt bottle from Karnak North, late New Kingdom to Dynasty 25 (Aston 1996a: fig. 177 #420); similar to a Nile silt vessel from Tell el Balamun, Dynasties 21-22 (Spencer 2003: pl. 15 #11)

# 7-20 Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 12 Room 5 Level 3 #12 Stratum: 1 * (Dynasties 18-19?) Comparative: very similar to the rim of a jar from Malqata, 18th Dynasty (Hope 1989c: fig. 3 #e)

# 7-15 Fabric: Nile B2 Provenance: Unit 13 Room 4 Level 4 #39-41 Stratum: 3 Comparative: very similar to the neck of a tall Nile silt vase from Ashmunein, Third Intermediate Period (Spencer 1993: pl. 68 #6 and 10); possibly similar to a vessel found at Tanis, pre-Dynasty 21? (Brissaud, et. al 1987:97 fig. 19 #248)

# 7-21 Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 14 Level 3A #7 Stratum: 1 Comparative: similar to marl clay bottles with flaring necks from the temple of Seti I at Gurna, Late Period (Mysliwiec 1987:68 #547-548)

# 7-16: ridged on interior Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 7 Room 1 Level 1 #29 Stratum: 2 Comparative: similar to a marl clay bottle with ribbed interior from the mortuary temple of Seti I at Thebes, dated to second half of seventh century (Aston 1996a:256 fig. 154 #407); similar in shape to an uncoated Nile silt vessel from the mortuary temple of Seti I at Thebes, dated to second half of seventh century (Aston 1996a:251 fig. 149 #363); possibly similar to series of tall Nile silt vases with narrow neck and slightly pointed base from Ashmunein, Third Intermediate Period (Spencer 1993: pl. 68-69 type H1)

# 7-22 Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 7 Level 4 #7 Stratum: 2 Comparative: very similar to a Marl B uncoated bottle rim from Elephantine, Dynasty 19 (Aston 1999: pl. 2, #36); similar to the rim of a Nile B2 bottle at Elephantine, Dynasties 22-24 (Aston 1999: pl. 16, #522); similar to an uncoated Nile silt bottle from Gurob, twelfth to tenth centuries (Aston 1996a:297 fig. 195 #g); similar to a marl A4 uncoated bottle from Abydos, Dynasty 25 (Aston 1996b:5 fig. 3 #d) # 7-23 Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 8 Room 2 Level 2 #20 Stratum: 2 Comparative: -

# 7-17: possibly a cream wash on exterior Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 16 Level 1 #4 Stratum: 1 Comparative: very similar to Nile silt bottles with a flared neck and painted spiral stripes on the shoulder from Karnak north, Late New Kingdom to Dynasty 25 (Aston 1996a: fig. 177 #406 and 412); similar to a Nile silt vase with a flared neck and pointed base from Ashmunein, Third Intermediate Period (Spencer 1993: pl. 69 Type I1 #6.2)

Type 8: # 8-1: thick stripes of white wash on neck below rim Fabric: Nile silt Provenance: Unit 3 Level 6B #10 Stratum: 2 Comparative: this and the following entries are similar to bottles with an ovoid or globular body, usually in Nile silt. Similar examples include: Nile silt versions from east Karnak, some of which had white slips, phases JG/Dynasty twelfth to ninth centuries (Hummel and Shubert 1994:46-47 and pl. LXVII #2); Nile B2 uncoated bottle from Elephantine, Dynasties 22-24 (Aston 1999: pl. 37 #1158)

# 7-18 Fabric: Nile B2 Provenance: Unit 7 level 6A #21 Stratum: 2 Comparative: similar to a small vessel from the “river temple” at Amarna, probably Third Intermediate Period/Dynasty 25 (Aston 1996a:212 fig. 110 XXV); possibly similar to tall vase with narrow neck from Ashmunein, Third Intermediate Period or possibly earlier (Spencer 1993:46 and pl. 68 type H1.18)

# 8-2: orange wash on exterior neck Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 13 Room 4 Level 4 #63 Stratum: 3 Comparative: see # 8-1 above

# 7-19 Fabric: marl A4 Provenance: Unit 10 Level 9 #11 Stratum: 4 Comparative: very similar to the rim of a bottle from Amarna, early New Kingdom (Frankfort and Pendlebury 1933: pl. LI #XIII); very similar to an uncoated Nile silt bottle (although vessel profile is not drawn), probably Ramesside (Hope 1989b: fig. 6 #b)

# 8-3: white wash on exterior Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 7 Room 1 Surface 1 #14 Stratum: 2 Comparative: see # 8-1 above



# 8-4 Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 3 Level 7B #3 Stratum: 2 Comparative: see # 8-1 above

Dynasty 18. This is not a rim sherd, and it appears to be from a different vessel type (Mysliwiec 1987:32 and 33 #19)

# 8-5 Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 12 Room 6 Level 3 #9 Stratum: 3/4 Comparative: see # 8-1 above

# 10-1: base left unsmoothed Fabric: Nile B2 Provenance: Unit 3 Level 6B #1 Stratum: 2 Comparative: very similar to a Nile silt jar from the Amarna south tombs, Dynasty 25 (Aston 1996a:228 fig. 126 #3); very similar to a Nile silt jar from Karnak North, late New Kingdom-Dynasty 25 (Aston 1996a:279 fig. 177 #466); similar to Nile silt vases from Ashmunein, Third Intermediate Period (Spencer 1993: pl. 70 I1.19, I1.34, I1.44); very similar to Nile silt jars from Heracleopolis Magna, Third Intermediate Period (López Grande, Quesada Sanz, and Molinero Polo 1995:70 and 167 lám. XXIII #h and #i)

Type 10:

# 8-6 Fabric: Nile B2 Provenance: Unit 12 Room 6 Level 5 #7 Stratum: 4 Comparative: see # 8-1 above # 8-7: tan wash on interior and exterior; Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 7 Room 3 Level 1 #8 Stratum: mix of Stratum 2-4 materials Comparative: -

# 10-2: white/orange wash on exterior Fabric: Nile B2 Provenance: Unit 3 Level 6B #2 Stratum: 2 Comparative: very similar to a Nile silt jar from Karnak north, late New Kingdom-Dynasty 25 (Aston 1996a:279 fig. 177 #466); similar to Nile silt vases from Ashmunein, Third Intermediate Period (Spencer 1993: pl. 70 I1.19, I1.34, I1.44); very similar to Nile silt jars from Heracleopolis Magna, Third Intermediate Period (López Grande, Quesada Sanz, and Molinero Polo 1995:70 and 159 lám. XXV #e and #b)

# 8-8: tan wash on exterior below rim Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 7 Room 3 Level 1 #6-7 Stratum: mix of Stratum 2-4 materials Comparative: see # 8-1 above # 8-9: red painted rim on exterior only Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 8 Room 2 Level 1 #15 Stratum: 2 Comparative: very similar to a Nile B2 bottle with red rim from Elephantine, late New Kingdom (Aston 1999: pl. 5 #103); very similar to a Nile D bottle with red rim from Elephantine, Dynasty 22 (Aston 1999: pl. 21 #611)

# 10-3 Fabric: Nile B2 Provenance: Unit 7 Level 7 #1 Stratum: 2 Comparative: very similar to a Nile silt jar from Karnak North, late New Kingdom-Dynasty 25 (Aston 1996a:279 fig. 177 #466); similar to Nile silt vases from Ashmunein, Third Intermediate Period (Spencer 1993: pl. 70 I1.19, I1.34, I1.44); very similar to Nile silt jars from Heracleopolis Magna, Third Intermediate Period (López Grande, Quesada Sanz, and Molinero Polo 1995:70 and 167 lám. XXXIII #e and #i)

# 8-10: red and black painted stripes on exterior neck Fabric: marl clay Provenance: Unit 7 Room 3 Level 1 #2 Stratum: mix of Stratum 2-4 materials * (18th to 19th Dynasty?) Comparative: possibly similar to tall vases with two or three vertical stripes on their necks from Riqqeh, Dynasties 18-19 (Kelley 1976a: pl. 70.4, both columns of vessels)

# 10-4 Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 3 Level 7B #5 Stratum: 2 Comparative: very similar to rims of Nile silt jars from Heracleopolis Magna, Third Intermediate Period (López Grande, Quesada Sanz, and Molinero Polo 1995:70 and 159, lám. XXV #d and 167, lám. XXXIII #d and #i)

Type 9: # 9-1: bright green marl rim sherd with brown paint Fabric: marl clay Provenance: Unit 14 Level 1 #1 Stratum: 1 * Comparative: similar to tall-necked funnel-necked jars from Nubia, New Kingdom (Holthoer 1977: pl. #33 type FU1 IR); similar to funnel-necked jars made of a local Nile E silt from Qantir/Pi-ramesse, Ramesside (Aston 1998:286-293 #920, #922, #923, #925); the painted design of the sherd is very similar to a sherd with dots and hanging triangles from the temple of Seti I at Gurna,

# 10-5 Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 13 Room 4 Level 3 #39 Stratum: 3 Comparative: very similar to rim from a Nile silt jar from Heracleopolis Magna, Third Intermediate Period (López



similar to the decorated Nile silt body sherds from the temple of Seti I at Gurna with stripe/hanging triangle/leaf designs, Dynasty 18 (Mysliwiec 1987:33 #26-27)

Grande, Quesada Sanz, and Molinero Polo 1995:70 and 159 lám. XXV #a) # 10-6: white/orange wash on interior, exterior and rim Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 12 Room 6 Level 2 #6-7 Stratum: 3/4 Comparative: very similar to a Nile silt globular jar dated to the twelfth to tenth centuries (Aston 1996a:298 fig. 196 #d); very similar to Nile B2 globular jars from Elephantine, some with cream/pink slips, late New Kingdom (Aston 1999: pl. 4 #63 and pl. 7 #149); very similar to a globular jar from Qantir/Piramesse North, Dynasties 20-21 (Aston 1989b: fig. 7, #4); very similar to a cream/pink slipped Nile B2 jar from Abu ‘Id, eighth to seventh centuries(Aston 1996c: pl. III #49)

# 10-13 Fabric: marl A4 Provenance: Unit 3 Level 6A #3 Stratum: 2 Comparative: # 10-14 Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 3 Level 6A #16 Stratum: 2 Comparative: # 10-15: white wash on exterior and rim Fabric: Nile B2 Provenance: Unit 13 Level 2 #17 Stratum: 1 Comparative: similar to marl vase from Ashmunein, Third Intermediate Period to early Late Period (Spencer 1986:74 fig.22 #88)

# 10-7 Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 12 Room 5 Feature 7 #4 Stratum: 3/4 Comparative: similar to the neck of a Nile B2 globular jar from Elephantine, Dynasty 22 (Aston 1999: pl. 42 #1325) # 10-8: white wash on exterior rim Fabric: Nile B2 Provenance: Unit 12 Room 6 Level 5 #9 Stratum: 4 Comparative: very similar to Nile B2 globular jar from Elephantine with white slip, late New Kingdom (Aston 1999: pl.7 #149)

# 10-16 Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 12 Room 6 Level 2 #11 Stratum: 3/4 Comparative: # 10-17: white wash on exterior and rim Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 13 Room 4 Level 3 #31 Stratum: 3 Comparative: -

# 10-9: white/orange wash on exterior and rim Fabric: Nile B2 Provenance: Unit 13 Room 4 Level 3 #28a Stratum: 3 Comparative: -

# 10-18 Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 12 Room 5 Level 3 #9A Stratum: 1 Comparative: -

# 10-10 Fabric: Nile B2 Provenance: Unit 13 Room 4 Level 3 #60a Stratum: 3 Comparative: -

# 10-19: white wash Fabric: Nile B2 Provenance: Unit 10 Room 7 Level 3 #22 Stratum: 2 Comparative: -

# 10-11: white wash on interior and exterior Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 12 Room 5 Level 5A #20 Stratum: 2/3 Comparative: similar to rims of Nile B2 globular jars from Elephantine, Dynasty 22 (Aston 1999: pl. 32 #972, #982, pl. 33 #1035)

# 10-20 Fabric: marl A4 Provenance: Unit 14 Level 3A #2 Stratum: 1 Comparative: very similar to a small handled marl jar from Karnak north, Complex IIA, Dynasty 26 and after (Aston 1996a: fig. 178 #403); very similar to marl jars from central Karnak, Dynasty 26, (Béout et al. 1993: fig. 17 #13-14); very similar to a small jar from the mortuary temple of Seti I at Thebes, undated, but suggested by Aston to date to mid-8th to second half of the seventh century (Aston 1996a:48 and fig. 149 #367); similar to a marl A4 variant 2 jar from Elephantine, mid-eighth to seventh centuries (Aston 1999: pl. 55 #1688); similar to a

# 10-12: white wash; red painted floral design and stripes on shoulder and body Fabric: marl A4 variant 1 Provenance: Unit 10 Level 6A #1-3 Stratum: 3 * (early to mid New Kingdom?) Comparative: similar to the outflaring neck/rim of a globular jar from Malqata with painted stripes on neck, Dynasty 18 (Hope 1989c: fig. 8 #i); similar to unpainted globular jars from Malqata with slightly flaring necks/rims, Dynasty 18 (Hope 1989c: fig. 3 #d and #e);



small Nile silt jar found at the temple of Seti I at Gurna, Third Intermediate Period-Late Period (Mysliwiec 1987:49 and 50 #270); similar to marl A4 jars from Heracleopolis Magna, mid-eighth to mid-seventh centuries (López Grande, Quesada Sanz, and Molinero Polo 1995:92 and 180 lám. XLVI #j, #k)

# 10-28 Fabric: Nile B2 Provenance: Unit 13 Room 4 Level 3 #8 Stratum: 3 Comparative: # 10-29 Fabric: Nile B2 Provenance: Unit 13 Room 4 Level 3 #9 Stratum: 3 Comparative: similar to Nile B2 jars from Elephantine, Dynasties 19-20 (Aston 1999: pl. 1 #1 and #25); similar to a jar from el Hibeh, Third Intermediate Period (?) (Aston 1996a:41 and 191 fig. 89 #201)

# 10-21: white wash in stripes on shoulder Fabric: Nile B2 Provenance: Unit 12 Room 5 Level 4B #3 Stratum: 2 Comparative: similar to a Nile silt globular jar from Ashmunein, Third Intermediate Period (Spencer 1993: pl. 70 #40)

# 10-30: white wash on exterior and rim Fabric: Nile B2 Provenance: Unit 7 Level 6A #3 Stratum: 2 Comparative: similar to a marl A4 variant 2 storage jar with direct rim from Elephantine, mid-eighth to seventh centuries (Aston 1999: pl. 60 #1787); similar to Nile B2 unslipped globular jar from Abu ‘Id, eighth to seventh centuries(Aston 1996c: pl. II #21)

# 10-22 Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 12 Room 6 Surface Float #3 Stratum: 4 Comparative: # 10-23 Fabric: marl A4 Provenance: Unit 10 Level 4A #17 Stratum: 2 Comparative: very similar to a marl jar from the south tombs at Amarna, Dynasty 25 (Aston 1996a:224 fig. 122 #MJ3.1.1(P), SJ2.7.2 (P)); very similar to a large marl jar from the temple of Seti I at Gurna, Late Period (Mysliwiec 1987:65 #477); similar to a marl A4 variant 2 two-handled jar from Abu ‘Id, eighth to seventh centuries (Aston 1996c: pl. IV #61)

# 10-31 Fabric: mixed clay (?) Provenance: Unit 12 Room 5 Level 1 #1 Stratum: 1 Comparative: similar to a Nile silt jar from the south tombs at Amarna, Dynasty 25 (Aston 1996a:219. fig 117 # SJ5.7.1(A)) Type 11:

# 10-24 Fabric: marl A4 variant 2 Provenance: Unit 10 Level 4A #16 Stratum: 2 Comparative: very similar to a marl jar from the temple of Seti I at Gurna, Late Period (Mysliwiec 1987:65 #478)

# 11-1: white/orange wash in thick layer on rim and possibly exterior Fabric: mixed clay (?) Provenance: Unit 8 Room 2 Surface 1 scrape #4 Stratum: 2 Comparative: very similar to a Nile C tall storage jar from Abydos, Dynasty 25 (Aston 1996b:4 fig. 2 #d); possibly similar to a Nile silt jar from east Karnak, phase G/ninth century (Hummel and Shubert 1994: pl. XLIX #4)

# 10-25 Fabric: marl A4 variant 1 Provenance: Unit 13 Room 4 Level 3 #3a Stratum: 3 Comparative: -

# 11-2: rope marks on vessel exterior Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 12 Room 5 Level 5B #7 Stratum: 2/3 Comparative: very similar to a Nile C tall storage jar from Abydos, Dynasty 25 (Aston 1996b:4 fig. 2 #d); very similar to bulged jars from Nubia, New Kingdom (Holthoer 1977: pl. 40 type SJ2); similar to large jars from the Intef cemetery at Thebes, dated by Aston to the seventh century (Aston 1996a:244 fig. 142 #8); this shape is found in the New Kingdom, but also continues into the Third Intermediate Period (David Aston, personal communication)

# 10-26 Fabric: marl A4 Provenance: Unit 12 Level 3 Pit #6 Stratum: 1 Comparative: similar to a marl jar from the temple of Seti I at Gurna (Mysliwiec 1987:65 #490); similar jars from the Late Period excavations near the Tuthmosis III enclosure wall at Karnak have been found by the French team working there (personal communication, Aurélia Masson) # 10-27 Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 12 Room 5 Level 5B #22 Stratum: 2/3 Comparative: -

# 11-3: rope marks on vessel shoulder Fabric: Nile B2



Provenance: Unit 12 Room 5 Level 4B #1 Stratum: 2 Comparative: very similar to bulged jars from Nubia, New Kingdom (Holthoer 1977: pl. 40 type SJ2); similar to large jars from the Intef cemetery at Thebes, dated by Aston to the 7th century (Aston 1996a:244 fig. 142 #8); this shape is found in the New Kingdom, but also continues into the Third Intermediate Period (David Aston, personal communication)

# 14-2 Fabric: marl A4 variant 1 Provenance: Unit 12 Room 6 Level 5 #2 Stratum: 4 Comparative: # 14-3 Fabric: marl A4 Provenance: Unit 14 Level 3A #6 Stratum: 1 Comparative: very similar to marl storage jars with wide mouths, Late Period (Hummel and Shubert 1994: pl. LVI)

Type 12: # 12-1: smoothed or burnished, black colored surface Fabric: foreign fabric type? Provenance: Unit 12 Room 6 Level 2 #2 Stratum: 3/4 * (Dynasty 18) Comparative: similar to a Cypriot base-ring juglet from Medinat Habu, Dynasty 18 although found in a Dynasty 20-21 context (Aston 1996a:268 fig. 167); similar to Cypriot flasks from Nubia, New Kingdom (Holthoer 1977: pl. 41 type BR 1); very similar to small Cypriot bottles now in the Florence Museum, Second Intermediate Period to Dynasty 18 (Guidotti 1991:201205 and 322-323 #300, #303, #305, #308)

# 14-4 Fabric: marl A4 Provenance: Unit 8 Level 4A #10 Stratum: 1 Comparative: very similar to a marl jar from the temple of Seti I at Gurna, Late Period (Mysliwiec 1987:64 #433 and #435); very similar to marl jar from Dendara, Dynasties 26-27 (Marchand and Laisney 2000: vessel #70) # 14-5: white wash on exterior Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 7 Room 1 Surface 1 #6 Stratum: 2 Comparative: -

# 12-2 Fabric: foreign fabric type? Provenance: Unit 12 Room 6 Level 1 #26 Stratum: 3 * (18th Dynasty) Comparative: This example is an early version of this type of jar dated to Dynasty 18, and the fabric type suggests it was an actual import from Palestine (David Aston, personal communication); very similar to the base of a Canaanite jar from Elephantine, made of a fabric not included in the Vienna System – Aston’s PII. Aston calls these “large two handled jars, with a somewhat restricted shape range imported from the Levant during the Late Bronze Age” and dates them to late Dynaty 18 and early Dynasty 19 (Aston 1999:23 and pl. 3 #44)

# 14-6 Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 3 Level 7B #4 Stratum: 2 Comparative: # 14-7 Fabric: marl A4 Provenance: Unit 13 Room 4 Level 3 Surface 1 #1 Stratum: 3 Comparative: very similar to marl clay jars from east Karnak, ninth century/Phase G (Hummel and Shubert 1994: pl. XLIX #16 and #18); very similar to a marl clay jars from east Karnak, Third Intermediate Period/Phase IG (Hummel and Shubert 1994: pl. LXVI #3a)

Type 13: # 13-1 Fabric: Nile B2 Provenance: Unit 7 Room 1 Surface 1 #1 Stratum: 2 Comparative: very similar to a small spouted jar from Medinat Habu, early Third Intermediate Period (Aston 1996a:269 fig. 167 #V1); similar in concept to a Nile B2 small jar with a spout from Tell Hebua, although that example is hand-made and slightly more globular (Seiler 1997:22 and fig. 3 #ZN 94)

# 14-8 Fabric: marl A4 variant 2 Provenance: Unit 7A Level 2 #4 Stratum: 1 Comparative: very similar to a marl jar from east Karnak, ninth century/Phase G (Hummel and Shubert 1994: pl. XLIX #16); very similar to a marl A4 variant 1 jar from Elephantine, tenth to eighth centuries (Aston 1996a:284 fig. 182 #19810e:1); very similar to a marl jar from Dendara, Dynasties 26-27 (Marchand and Laisney 2000: vessel #67)

Type 14: # 14-1: white wash on exterior Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 10 Level 8A #13 Stratum: 3 Comparative: similar to a large handle-less Nile silt jar from Medinat Habu, Dynasties 20-21 (Aston 1996a:267 fig.165 #A1)

# 14-9 Fabric: marl A4 variant 2 Provenance: Unit 11 Level 4C #4 Stratum: 2



Comparative: very similar to marl A4 variant 2 jars from Elephantine, mid-eighth to seventh centuries (Aston 1999: pl. 60 #1785-1786)

# 16-2 Fabric: marl A4 Provenance: Unit 12 Room 6 Level 3 #1 Stratum: 3/4 Comparative: very similar to a mixed clay large amphora rim from Qantir, Dynasties 20 to 21 (Aston 1996a:141 #1 and 306 fig. 204 #a); similar to a large marl A4 amphora rim from Elephantine, late New Kingdom (Aston 1999: pl. 8 #178); similar to a marl A4 variant 1 amphora from Elephantine, Dynasty 22 (Aston 1999: pl. 21 #619)

# 14-10 Fabric: marl A4 variant 2 Provenance: Unit 12 Level 1 #3 Stratum: 1 Comparative: similar to marl storage jars from the temple of Seti I at Gurna, Late Period (Mysliwiec 1987:64-65 #419 and #463)

# 16-3: bright white wash on interior and exterior Fabric: marl A4 Provenance: Unit 12 Room 6 Level 3 #2 Stratum: 3/4 Comparative: similar to Nile B2 amphora (?) rim from Elephantine, Late New Kingdom (Aston 1999: pl. 10 #217)

# 14-11 Fabric: marl A4 variant 2 Provenance: Unit 16 Level 1 #2 Stratum: 1 Comparative: similar to marl storage jars from the temple of Seti I at Gurna, Late Period (Mysliwiec 1987:65 #463 and #464)

# 16-4 Fabric: marl A4 variant 1 Provenance: Unit 3 Level 9A #4 Stratum: 3 Comparative: possibly similar to the wavy neck of a round shouldered amphora, dated possibly to Dynasty 20 (Hope 1989a:92 and fig. 3 #5); possibly similar to a twohandled, rounded shouldered amphora with a wavy neck from tomb no. 359 at Deir el Medina, New Kingdom (Nagel 1938: fig. 17 #44)

Type 15: # 15-1 Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 7 Level 2 #13 Stratum: 1 Comparative: very similar to handled rim jars of medium silt from East Karnak, usually decorated with a white slip, Late Period (Hummel and Shubert 1994: pl. LXIX#4)

# 16-5 Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 13 Room 4 Level 4 #4 Stratum: 3 Comparative: possibly similar to rim and neck of a (marl?) amphora from the foundation deposit or mortuary temple of Siptah, late New Kingdom (Aston 1996a:16 and 105 fig. 3a #23); possibly similar to the neck and rim of an amphora from Tell el Yahudieh, Dynasty 20 (Aston 1996a:107 fig. 5 #8)

# 15-2: white/tan wash on exterior and handle Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 12 Room 5 Level 3 #8 Stratum: 1 Comparative: similar to a two-handled marl vase from Ashmunein, Third Intermediate Period (Spencer 1993: pl. 67 #117); similar to two handled marl vessel from the temple of Seti I at Gurna, Late Period (Mysliwiec 1987:60 #400)

# 16-6 Fabric: marl A4 variant 1 Provenance: Unit 13 Room 4 Level 4 #22 Stratum: 3 Comparative: very similar to the rim of a large marl A4 amphora from Elephantine, Late New Kingdom (Aston 1999: pl. 13 #359); similar to a marl A4 variant 1 uncoated amphorae from Elephantine, Dynasty 22 (Aston 1999: pl.30 #908-909); possibly similar to an amphora with a convex neck from the Ramesside period (Hope 1989b:55 and fig. 9L)

# 15-3 Fabric: marl A4 Provenance: Unit 3 Level 9A #1 Stratum: 3 Comparative: Type 16: # 16-1: white wash on exterior and rim Fabric: mixed clay or marl? Provenance: Unit 10 Level 5A #24 Stratum: 3 Comparative: very similar to jar from Tanis, Dynasties 21 to 22 (Aston 1996a:133 fig. 31 #308); similar to amphorae from Tell el Yahudieh, Dynasty 20 (Aston 1996a:107 fig. 5 #4 and #3); very similar to a Nile silt “zir” jar from the workmen’s village at Amarna, Dynasty 18 (Rose 1986:105 and fig.7.3 #54029); also similar to an amphorae from Deir el Medina, Dynasty 19 (Nagel 1938: fig. 2 #15)

# 16-7 Fabric: marl A4 Provenance: Unit 10 Level 8A #9 Stratum: 3 Comparative: similar to a wavy necked amphora from Deir el Medina, grey-brown clay, late Ramesside Period (Nagel 1938: fig. 14 #33)



# 17-6 Fabric: marl A4 variant 2 Provenance: Unit 13 Room 4 Level 1 #64 Stratum: 2 Comparative: possibly similar to a marl A4 variant 2 jar with flaring rim and ring base, mid-eighth to seventh centuries (Aston 1999: pl. 55 #1683)

# 16-8 Fabric: Nile B2 Provenance: Unit 12 Room 6 Level 7 #6 Stratum: 4 Comparative: possibly similar to the base of a tall, slim (marl?) amphora from the foundation deposit or mortuary temple of Siptah, late New Kingdom (Aston 1996a:16 and 105 fig. 3a #23); similar to amphorae bases from the New Kingdom (Hope 1989a:92 and fig. 2 #2-8); similar to the base of a tall, slim amphora from Deir el Medina, Dynasty 19 (Nagel 1938: fig. 2 #33)

# 17-7 Fabric: marl A4 Provenance: Unit 13 Room 4 Level 4 #30 Stratum: 3 Comparative: similar to a marl A4 jar with flared rim from Elephantine, Dynasty 22 (Aston 1999: pl. 46 #1441); similar to a Nile silt flared rim jar from Elephantine, tenth to mid-eighth centuries (Aston 1996a:284 fig. 182 #19633c:4); similar to jars with flared rims from Tell el Balamun, Dynasty 26 and after (Spencer 1996: pl. 64 # C.1.6-.7)

# 16-9: white wash on exterior Fabric: NA Provenance: Unit 7 Room 3 Level 2 #9 Stratum: mix of Stratum 2-4 materials Comparative: possibly similar to category 1b amphora, Dynasties 19-20 (Hope 1989a: fig. 4 #5 and #7) Type 17:

Type 18: # 17-1 Fabric: marl A4 variant 2 Provenance: Unit 3 Level 7B #14 Stratum: 2 Comparative: -

# 18-1 Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 12 Room 6 Level 2 #8-9 Stratum: 3/4 Comparative: -

# 17-2 Fabric: marl A4 Provenance: Unit 3 Level 7B #18 Stratum: 2 Comparative: -

# 18-2 Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 17 Level 1 #1 Stratum: 1 Comparative: -

# 17-3 Fabric: marl A4 Provenance: Unit 8 Level 4A #6 Stratum: 2 Comparative: similar to a jar with flared rim from Tell el Balamun, Dynasty 26 and after (Spencer 1996: pl. 64 # C.1.5); similar to a marl A4 jar with flared rim from Elephantine, Dynasty 22 (Aston 1999: pl. 46 #1441)

# 18-3: white wash on interior and exterior Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 12 Room 6 Level 1 #27 Stratum: 3 Comparative: -

# 17-4 Fabric: marl A4 Provenance: Unit 10 Level 9 #1 Stratum: 4 Comparative: possibly similar to a flared mouth jar from Armant, New Kingdom (Kelley 1983: pl. 78.3, #B3); possibly similar to a flared mouth jar from Tanis, Dynasty 22 (Brissaud, et. al. 1987:94 fig. 16 #208)

# 18-4 Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 12 Room 5 Surface Float #10 Stratum: 2/3 Comparative: very similar to a Nile B2 globular jar from Elephantine, Dynasty 22 (Aston 1999: pl. 44 #1377); very similar to Nile silt globular jars from a Memphite tomb, Dynasties 20-22 (Aston 1991: pl. 53 #68-69); similar a Nile silt jar from Amarna’s south tombs, Dynasty 25 (Aston 1996a:215 fig SJ1.1.4(H1))

# 17-5 Fabric: marl A4 Provenance: Unit 13 Level 4A #6 Stratum: 1 Comparative: possibly similar to a marl A4 variant 2 jar with flaring rim and ring base, mid-eighth to seventh centuries(Aston 1999: pl. 55 #1683); possibly similar to a wide mouthed jar with flaring rim and bulb base from Memphis, sixth century (French 1992:88 #13); similar to jars with flaring rim from the end of Dynasty 25 to Dynasty 26 in central Karnak (Masson 2010)

# 18-5 Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 7A Level 4A #1 Stratum: 1/2 Comparative: very similar to a slipped marl F globular jar from Elephantine, Dynasty 22 (Aston 1999: pl. 26 #746); very similar to a Nile B2 white slipped globular jar from Elephantine, late New Kingdom (Aston 1999: pl.7 #149); very similar to a Nile B2 cream/pink slipped jar from Abu ‘Id, eighth to seventh centuries (Aston 1996c: pl. V #73)



# 18-6: white/tan wash on interior and exterior Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 8 Room 2 Level 1 #8 Stratum: 2 Comparative: very similar to a Nile B2 cream/pink slipped globular jar, Dynasties 22-24 (Aston 1999: pl. 20, #584)

# 18-13 Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 7 Room 3 Level 1 #11 Stratum: mix of Stratum 2-4 materials Comparative: very similar to Nile B2 globular jars from Elephantine, late New Kingdom (Aston 1999: pl. 7 #146149); similar to a mixed clay and creamed slip globular jar from Elephantine, Dynasty 22 (Aston 1999: pl. 26 #746)

# 18-7: white/orange wash on exterior and rim Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 13 Room 4 Level 1 #42 Stratum: 2 Comparative: very similar to a Nile b2 jar from Abu ‘Id, eighth to seventh centuries(Aston 1996c: pl. II #20); very similar to a Nile B2 white slipped globular jar, Dynasties 22-24 (Aston 1999: pl. 19 #578); very similar to a jar from Tell el Dab’a, Dynasties 20-21 (Aston 1996a:142 fig. 40 #7)

# 18-14 Fabric: NA Provenance: Unit 10 Room 7 Level 2 #28 Stratum: 2 Comparative: very similar to Nile B2 globular jars from Elephantine, late New Kingdom (Aston 1999: pl. 7 #146149) # 18-15: white/orange wash on exterior and rim Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 13 Room 4 Level 3 Surface 1 #18 Stratum: 3 Comparative: very similar to Nile B2 globular jars from Elephantine, late New Kingdom (Aston 1999: pl. 7 #146149); similar to a mixed clay and creamed slip globular jar from Elephantine, Dynasty 22 (Aston 1999: pl. 26 #746); very similar to a Nile B2 globular jar from Elephantine, Dynasty 22 (Aston 1999: pl. 44 #1377)

# 18-8: white/orange wash on interior and exterior Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 3 Level 9A #13 Stratum: 3 Comparative: very similar to a Nile b2 jar from Abu ‘Id, eighth to seventh centuries(Aston 1996c: pl. II #20); very similar to a Nile B2 white slipped globular jar, Dynasties 22-24 (Aston 1999: pl.19 #578); very similar to a jar from Tell el Dab’a, Dynasties 20-21 (Aston 1996a:142 fig. 40 #7)

# 18-16: white/orange wash interior and exterior Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 13 Room 4 Level 3 #44 Stratum: 3 Comparative: possibly similar to a Nile silt globular jar from Elephantine, twelfth to eleventh centuries (Aston 1996a:282 fig. 180 #18853A:1)

# 18-9: white wash on exterior Fabric: Nile B2 Provenance: Unit 12 Room 5 Level 4B #5 Stratum: 2 Comparative: similar to a Nile B2 globular jar from Elephantine, Dynasty 22 (Aston 1999: pl. 19 #578); similar to globular jar from Memphis, tenth-ninth centuries (Jeffreys and Aston 2007: #239)

Type 19: # 19-1 Fabric: Nile B2 Provenance: Unit 8 Level 7A #1 Stratum: 2 Comparative: similar to a handle-less storage jar from Elephantine, tenth to mid-eighth centuries (Aston 1996a:285 fig. 183 #19884A:9); similar to a handle-less storage jar from the Ramesseum, late Third Intermediate Period or early Late Period (Aston 1996a:263 fig. 161 left); possibly similar to Nile silt jar from the casemate chambers of the Kom structure at east Karnak, mix of material from Dynasties 22-30 (Hummel and Shubert 1994:7-8 and pl. XLVI #3)

# 18-10: white/tan wash on exterior Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 12 Level 2 #22 Stratum: 1 Comparative: similar to a Nile B2 globular jar from Elephantine, mid-eighth to seventh centuries (Aston 1999: pl. 61 #1821) # 18-11: white/orange wash on exterior and rim Fabric: NA Provenance: Unit 3 Level 6B #13-14 Stratum: 2 Comparative: very similar to a Nile B2 globular jar from Elephantine, Dynasty 22 (Aston 1999: pl. 42 #1324); very similar to a Nile B2 globular jar from Elephantine, mid-eighth to seventh centuries (Aston 1999: pl. 51 #1593)

# 19-2 Fabric: marl A4 Provenance: Unit 7A Level 3 #2 Stratum: 1/2 Comparative: similar to the rim of a marl clay neckless jar from the temple of Seti I at Gurna, Late Period (Mysliwiec 1987:65 #492)

# 18-12: white wash on exterior and interior Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 12 Room 5 Level 1 #12 Stratum: 1 Comparative: -



# 19-9 Fabric: marl A4 variant 2 Provenance: Unit 13 Room 4 Level 1 #1A Stratum: 2 Comparative: similar to a marl A4 variant 2 jar from Abu ‘Id, eighth to seventh centuries (Aston 1996c: pl. IV #65)

# 19-3 Fabric: marl A4 Provenance: Unit 13 Level 2 #10 Stratum: 1 Comparative: very similar to a small marl A4 v. 2 vessel from Elephantine, possibly Late Period (Aston 1999: pl. 71 #2036); very similar to marl clay jars from the temple of Seti I at Gurna, Late Period (Mysliwiec 1987:65 #471 and #475); very similar to a marl jar from Ashmunein, Third Intermediate Period to early Late Period (Spencer 1986:74 fig. 22 #80)

# 19-10 Fabric: Nile B2 Provenance: Unit 7 Room 1 Surface 1 #8 Stratum: 2 Comparative: similar to a marl A4 variant 1 neckless jar from Elephantine, Dynasty 22 (Aston 1999: pl. 25 #721); similar to a Nile B2 neckless jar from Elephantine, Dynasty 22 (Aston 1999: pl. 45 #1407)

# 19-4 Fabric: marl A4 Provenance: Unit 12 Level 2 #25 Stratum: 1 Comparative: very similar to a marl jar from Ashmunein, Third Intermediate Period to early Late Period (Spencer 1986:74 fig. 22 #80); very similar to a small marl A4 v. 2 vessel from Elephantine, possibly Late Period (Aston 1999: pl. 71 #2036); very similar as to marl jars from the temple of Seti I at Gurna, Late Period (Mysliwiec 1987:64 #471 and 475); similar to ovoid jars with two handles from central Karnak, Dynasty 26 (Béout et al. 1993: fig. 19 form type 33)

# 19-11 Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 13 Level 4A #20 Stratum: 1 Comparative: similar to a Nile silt jar from east Karnak, Late Period (Hummel and Shubert 1994: pl. LXIX #1) # 19-12 Fabric: Nile B2 Provenance: Unit 12 Room 5 Level 3 #8A Stratum: 1 Comparative: similar to a Nile silt vase from Ashmunein, Third Intermediate Period (Spencer 1993: pl. 62 #59); similar to a Nile silt neckless jar from east Karnak, Third Intermediate Period (Hummel and Shubert 1994: pl. LXVII #1)

# 19-5 Fabric: marl A4 variant 2 Provenance: Unit 14 Level 3A #6 Stratum: 1 Comparative: very similar to a marl vase from Ashmunein, Third Intermediate Period-early Late Period (Spencer 1993: pl. 65 type E.1.50); similar to a marl jar from the temple of Seti I at Gurna, Late Period (Mysliwiec 1987:64 #475); similar to ovoid jars with two handles from central Karnak, Dynasty 26 (Béout et al. 1993: fig. 19 form type 33)

# 19-13 Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 13 Room 4 Level 4 #56 Stratum: 3 Comparative: similar to a Nile silt jar from east Karnak, ninth century (Hummel and Shubert 1994: p. XLIX #4); similar to a Nile silt neckless jar from east Karnak, Third Intermediate Period (Hummel and Shubert 1994: pl. LXVII #3a)

# 19-6 Fabric: Nile B2 Provenance: Unit 10 Level 9 #25 Stratum: 4 Comparative: -

# 19-14 Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 13 Room 4 Level 4 #32 Stratum: 3 Comparative: -

# 19-7 Fabric: marl A4 Provenance: Unit 7A Level 6A #6-7 Stratum: 2 Comparative: similar to Nile B2 neckless jars from Elephantine, Dynasty 22 (Aston 1999: pl. 39 #12431244); similar to a marl A4 neckless jar from Elephantine, Dynasty 22 (Aston 1999: pl. 40 #1284); similar to a marl A4 neckless jar from east Karnak, Phase G/ninth century (Hummel and Shubert 1994: pl. XLIX #18)

# 19-15 Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 10 Level 8A #46 Stratum: 3 Comparative: similar to a Nile silt jar from east Karnak, ninth century (Hummel and Shubert 1994: pl. XLIX #2)

# 19-8 Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 7A Level 6A #9 Stratum: 2 Comparative: -

# 19-16: red paint and burnish on exterior, rim and possibly interior Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 13 Room 4 Level 3 Surface 1 #27 Stratum: 3



Comparative: similar to a Nile D jar from Elephantine, Late New Kingdom (Aston 1999: pl. 12 #330); similar to a Nile B jar from Elephantine, Late New Kingdom (Aston 1999: pl. 13 #347)

# 19-23 Fabric: marl A3 Provenance: Unit 10 Level 9 #9 Stratum: 4 Comparative: -

# 19-17: white/orange wash on exterior and rim Fabric: marl B Provenance: Unit 13 Room 4 Level 4 #46 Stratum: 3 Comparative: -

# 19-24: white wash on exterior Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 12 Room 6 Level 7 #1 Stratum: 4 Comparative: -

# 19-18: white/orange wash on exterior and rim Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 10 Level 13A #7 Stratum: 4 Comparative: very similar to a tall neckless jar from Elephantine, Dynasty 22 (Aston 1999: pl. 25 #731); similar to tall uncoated Nile silt jars from Malqata, Dynasty 18 (Hope 1989c: fig. 2 #h and #i)

# 19-25 Fabric: marl A4 Provenance: Unit 7 Room 3 Level 2 #4 Stratum: mix of Stratum 2-4 materials Comparative: # 19-26 Fabric: NA Provenance: Unit 12 Room 6 Level 1 #18 Stratum: 3 Comparative: possibly similar to a Nile B2 neckless jar from Elephantine, Late New Kingdom/Dynasties 20-21 (Aston 1999: pl. 4 #65)

# 19-19 Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 10 Room 7 Level 2 #27 Stratum: 2 Comparative: -

# 19-27: white wash on interior and exterior Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 13 Room 4 Level 3 #7 Stratum: 3 Comparative: -

# 19-20 Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 12 Room 6 Level 2 #26 Stratum: 3/4 Comparative: possibly similar to the rim of a neckless storage jar in Nile B or Nile D, late New Kingdom (Aston 1996a:60 and 300 fig. 198b); similar to a Nile B2 vessel with red slipped rim from Elephantine, Late New Kingdom (Aston 1999: pl. 12 #311)

Type 20: # 20-1 Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 13 Room 4 Level 3 #59 Stratum: 3 Comparative: -

# 19-21: three black/brown stripes painted on neck; neck may have red wash on exterior and rim Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 7 Room 1 Level 1 #45 Stratum: 2 * Comparative: possibly similar to a large jar of “brown clay” with with three black horizontal stripes on the vessel neck painted on a red ground, from Deir el Medina tomb no. 356, Dynasty 19 (Nagel 1938: fig. 2 #20); possibly similar to a Nile silt “large vessel with inward sloping rim” from the Amarna workmen’s village, found with blue painted decoration or uncoated, Dynasty 18 (Rose 1984:138 and fig. 10.1 #29); Aston notes that in Dynasties 20 and 21, black bands were commonly used as decoration on the rim and shoulders of vessels (Aston 1998:58)

# 20-2 Fabric: marl A4 Provenance: Unit 12 Room 6 Level 3 #4 Stratum: 3/4 Comparative: # 20-3 Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 7 Room 1 Surface 1 #16 Stratum: 2 Comparative: # 20-4 Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 10 Level 8A #45 Stratum: 3 Comparative: -

# 19-22: two red painted stripes on neck; white wash on exterior and rim Fabric: marl A4 variant 1 Provenance: Unit 10 Level 12A #2 Stratum: 4 Comparative: Aston notes that in Dynasties 20 and 21, red bands were commonly used as decoration, and examples of red bands on the shoulder and bodies of vessels are known from Dynasty 22 (Aston 1998:58)

Type 21: # 21-1: red painted rim Fabric: Nile B



Stratum: 2 Comparative: similar to a marl A4 variant 2 two-handled jar from Abu ‘Id, eighth to seventh centuries(Aston 1996c: pl. V #83)

Provenance: Unit 3 Level 9A #16 Stratum: 3 Comparative: # 21-2: red wash on exterior and rim, possibly on interior Fabric: Nile B Provenance: 8 Room 2 Level 1 #18 Stratum: 2 Comparative: -

# 22-5 Fabric: marl A4 variant 2 Provenance: Unit 3 Level 7B #15 Stratum: 2 Comparative: very similar to a jar from Dendara, Dynasty 26 (Marchand and Laisney 2000: vessel #69)

# 21-2: white/orange wash on exterior and interior Fabric: Nile B Provenance: 8 Room 2 Level 1 #20 Stratum: 2 Comparative: -

# 22-6 Fabric: marl A4 variant 2 Provenance: Unit 7 Level 6A #2 Stratum: 2 Comparative: similar to a marl A4 variant 2 marl twohandled storage jar from Elephantine, mid-eighth to seventh centuries (Aston 1999: pl. 64 #1872); similar to marl jar from east Karnak, Dynasties 22-30 (Hummel and Shubert 1994:7 and pl. XLVI #3); similar to a marl A4 variant 2 two-handled jar from Abu ‘Id, eighth to seventh centuries (Aston 1996c: pl. V #79)

# 21-3 Fabric: marl A4 variant 1 Provenance: 12 Room 6 Level 5 #11 Stratum: 4 Comparative: # 21-4 Fabric: marl A4 Provenance: 12 Room 6 Level 4 #1 Stratum: 3/4 Comparative: Type 22:

# 22-7 Fabric: marl A4 variant 2 Provenance: Unit 7A Level 8A #1-2 Stratum: 2 Comparative: similar to a marl A4 variant 2 two-handled jar from Abu ‘Id, eighth to seventh centuries(Aston 1996c: pl. V #78)

# 22-1 Fabric: marl A4 variant 2 Provenance: Unit 3 Level 6B #6 Stratum: 2 Comparative: very similar to a finely-ribbed marl twohandled jar from east Karnak, Third Intermediate Period (Hummel and Shubert 1994: pl. LXVI #1); very similar to a marl storage jar from Amarna’s south tombs, Dynasty 25 (Aston 1996a:224 fig. 122 #MJ2.1.2(D)); very similar to a marl A4 variant 2 two-handled jar from Abu ‘Id, eighth to seventh centuries(Aston 1996c: pl. V #82)

# 22-8 Fabric: marl A4 Provenance: Unit 12 Room 6 Level 1 #3 Stratum: 3 * Comparative: possibly similar to a two-handled marl A4 variant 2 marl jar from Elephantine, mid-eighth to seventh centuries (Aston 1999: pl. 64 #1885) # 22-9 Fabric: marl A4 Provenance: Unit 12 Room 5 Surface Float #15-16 Stratum: 2/3 Comparative: -

# 22-2 Fabric: marl A4 variant 2 Provenance: Unit 10 Room 7 Level 2 #3 Stratum: 2 Comparative: very similar to marl A4 v.2 storage jars from Elephantine, mid-eighth to seventh centuries (Aston 1999: pl. 60 #1796); very similar to a marl A4 variant 2 two-handled jar from Abu ‘Id, eighth to seventh centuries(Aston 1996c: pl. V #84)

# 22-10 Fabric: marl A4 variant 2 Provenance: Unit 7 Room 1 Surface Float #8 Stratum: 2 Comparative: # 22-11 Fabric: marl A4 Provenance: Unit 8 Level 4A #9 Stratum: 1 Comparative: identical to a marl jar from central Karnak, Dynasty 26-27 (Béout et al. 1993: 164-166, fig. 7 #3); similar to marl jar from Dendara, Dynasties 26-27 (Marchand and Laisney 2000: vessel #71)

# 22-3 Fabric: marl A4 Provenance: Unit 8 Room 2 Surface 1 Scrape #1 Stratum: 2 Comparative: similar to a jar from central Karnak, Dynasty 26 (Béout et al. 1993: fig. 16 #9) # 22-4 Fabric: marl A4 variant 1 Provenance: Unit 10 Room 7 Level 3 #7



Comparative: possibly similar to the rim of a “thick coarse buff clay without slip” crucible from Amarna, Dynasty 18 (Peet and Wooley 1923: pl. L type XXIX)

# 22-12 Fabric: marl A4 variant 2 Provenance: Unit 12 Level 2 #18 Stratum: 1 Comparative: very similar to a marl jar from central Karnak, Dynasties 26-27 (Béout et al. 1993: 164-166, fig. 7 #4); very similar to a marl jar from the temple of Seti I at Gurna, Late Period (Mysliwiec 1987:64 #416); similar to marl jar from Dendara, Dynasties 26-27 (Marchand and Laisney 2000: vessel #69)

# UN-9 Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 7A Level 6A #22 Stratum: 2 Comparative: # UN-10: red painted rim on exterior Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 10 Level 11B/12B #3 Stratum: 4 Comparative: -

Bottles Unassigned to Vessel Type Groupings: # UN-1: divet on one side to create pouring spout Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 13 Level 4A #9 Stratum: 1 Comparative: -

# UN-11 Fabric: Nile B2 Provenance: Unit 10 Level 13A #17 Stratum: 4 Comparative: -

# UN-2: red wash on exterior and rim Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 13 Room 4 Level 1 #15 Stratum: 2 Comparative: -

# UN-12: red and black painted stripes Fabric: marl A4 variant 1 Provenance: Unit 10 Level 13B/14B #1 Stratum: 4 Comparative: -

# UN-3 Fabric: marl Provenance: Unit 12 Room 6 Surface Float #1 Stratum: 4 Comparative: -

Bases Unassigned to Vessel Type Groupings: # UN-13: red wash and burnish on exterior and interior Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 7 Room 3 Level 2 #14 Stratum: mix of Stratum 2-4 materials Comparative: possibly similar to the base of an uncoated Nile silt ring-base bowl, Ramesside (Hope 1989b: fig. 2 #k)

# UN-4 Fabric: marl Provenance: Unit 7 Room 1 Surface Float #9 Stratum: 2 Comparative: # UN-5: traces of white/tan wash on exterior and interior Fabric: marl C Provenance: Unit 13 Room 4 Level 3 #43a Stratum: 3 Comparative: possibly similar to a marl A4 variant 1 amphora rim, early Third Intermediate Period (Aston 1999: pl. 38 #1181)

# UN-14 Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 13 Room 4 Level 3 Surface 1 #15 Stratum: 3 Comparative: # UN-15 Fabric: marl A3 or A4 variant 1 (?) Provenance: Unit 12 Room 6 Level 5 #19 Stratum: 4 Comparative: -

# UN-6 Fabric: marl A3 Provenance: Unit 12 Level 2 #12 Stratum: 1 Comparative: -

# UN-16 Fabric: marl A4 Provenance: Unit 7 Level 6A #16 Stratum: 2 Comparative: -

# UN-7 Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 7 Room 1 Level 1 #44A/B Stratum: 2 Comparative: -

# UN-17 Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 13 Room 4 Level 3 #6 Stratum: 3 Comparative: -

# UN-8 Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 12 Room 6 Level 5 #8 Stratum: 4



# UN-18 Fabric: marl A4 variant 2 Provenance: Unit 10 Level 2 #5 Stratum: 1 Comparative: -

# UN-27 Fabric: marl A4 Provenance: Unit 8 Level 4A #8 Stratum: 1 Comparative: -

Jars Unassigned to Vessel Type Groupings:

# UN-28 Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 3 Feature 2 #1 Stratum: 2 Comparative: -

# UN-19: tooled/incised lines on shoulder; white wash on exterior; hole pierced through body Fabric: Nile B2 Provenance: Unit 8 Room 2 Level 1 #7 Stratum: 2 Comparative: -

# UN-29 Fabric: marl A4 variant 2 Provenance: Unit 12 Room 5 Level 5B #5 Stratum: 2/3 Comparative: -

# UN-20 Fabric: marl 3 or possibly imported fabric? Provenance: Unit 10 Level 10A #4 Stratum: 4 Comparative: -

# UN-30 Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 8 Room 2 Level 2 #43 Stratum: 2 Comparative: possibly similar to a nipple-based jar found at Medinat Habu in the chapels of the gods wives of Amun, mid- to late-Third Intermediate Period (Aston 1996a:55 and 277 fig. 175 #A4); possibly similar to Persian period/Late period vessels from the Karnak excavations around the Tuthmosis III enclosure wall (personal communication from Aurélia Masson, May 2005)

# UN-21 Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 3 Level 9A #18 Stratum: 3 Comparative: # UN-22: red wash on exterior and rim Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 8 Room 2 Level 2 #44 Stratum: 2 Comparative: -

# UN-31 Fabric: marl A4 Provenance: Unit 10 Level 9 #3 Stratum: 4 Comparative: -

# UN-23: white wash on exterior Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 8 Room 2 Level 1 #16 Stratum: 2 Comparative: -

# UN-32 Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 8 Room 2 Level 2 #45 Stratum: 2 Comparative: -

# UN-24: white spiral wash on shoulder; white wash on exterior Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 7 Room 3 Under Surface 1 #1 Stratum: mix of Stratum 2-4 materials Comparative: Aston notes that in Dynasty 25, white spiral painted decoration appears on closed vessels as a new type of decoration (Aston 1998:59)

# UN-33 Fabric: Nile B2 Provenance: Unit 7 Level 4 #23 Stratum: 2 Comparative: similar to a Nile C bowl from Elephantine, late Saite/Persian Periods (Aston 1999: pl. 66 #1932); similar to Nile silt hole-mouth jar with thin red slip from Mendes, Late Period (Allen 1982: pl. XVII #1)

# UN-25 Fabric: marl A3 or A4 variant 1 (?) Provenance: Unit 7 Room 3 Surface Float #1 Stratum: mix of Stratum 2-4 materials Comparative: -

# UN-34 Fabric: marl A4 Provenance: Unit 7A Level 4A #10 Stratum: 1/2 Comparative: -

Bowls/Jars Unassigned to Vessel Type Groupings: # UN-26 Fabric: marl A4 Provenance: Unit 13 Level 4A #3 Stratum: 1 Comparative: -



# UN-40: black and red painted stripes and design Fabric: marl A3 Provenance: Unit 10 Level 14A #A Stratum: 4 Comparative: similar to a painted cross-hatch design on a marl amphorae with rounded base, Dynasty 20 (Aston 1996a:306 fig. 204 #b); Aston says that the cross-hatch painting style “is confined exclusively to the shoulders of flasks and amphorae where a series of thin bands have been painted around the shoulder with hatched, broader lines running vertically through them.” Usually the design utilizes only black paint, but he knows of at least one example with red, blue, and black paint, he dates the style to primarily Dynasty 20 (Aston 1992:71-72)

Painted Body Sherds (Unassigned to Vessel Type Groupings): # UN-35: blue, red, and black painted stripes Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 10 Level 14A #C Stratum: 4 Comparative: # UN-36: white/orange wash with blue and black painted stripes over wash Fabric: Nile B2 Provenance: Unit 10 Level 14A #E Stratum: 4 Comparative: -

# UN-41: combed wave design Fabric: marl A4 variant 1 Provenance: Unit 10 Level 14A #B Stratum: 4 * (Second Intermediate Period or early 18th Dynasty?) Comparative: very similar to wavy combed designs on vessels from Qau and Badari, Second Intermediate Period (Kelley 1976b: pl. 47.8 #40M and #42K); similar to incised wave patterns on vessels from Abydos, early Dynasty 18 (Kelley 1976b: pl. 58.1, top row, third from left)

# UN-37: blue and black painted stripes and design Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 10 Level 14A #D Stratum: 4 Comparative: # UN-38: red, blue, and black painted stripes Fabric: Nile B Provenance: Unit 10 Level 9 #A Stratum: 4 Comparative: # UN-39 Fabric: marl A4 Provenance: Unit 10 Level 8A #A Stratum: 3 * Comparative: -





















































































APPENDIX 2: CATALOG OF OBJECTS Small finds have been organized into a catalog by object type. The typology categories are based on those defined for the “Amarna small finds database” (Stevens 2006). Each object has been assigned a number (1) with which it is referred to in the text of the document. A short description of each piece is listed, followed by the excavation location in parentheses. Measurements for selected pieces are provided (L=length, W=width, T=thickness, D=diameter). For stratum and find-location information for each object, see its entry in Chapter 3.

120 - small/medium sized worked stone used as wall border (Unit 3 level 7A) 121-125 - five medium sized worked stones used to line wall, feature [1036] (Unit 3)

Much of the material uncovered during excavations was highly fragmented or not easily identified. Digital photos of a small number of the better-preserved finds have been included at the end of this catalog. Those entries with images are labeled in the catalog.

Figurines:

Decorative elements: 11- stone peg - decorative element or fastening (?) (Unit 12 Room 6 Level 2 #24) L: 1.2cm, D: 1.2cm

12- broken figurine, possibly female? (Unit 7A Level 2 #5) 13- broken ceramic animal figurine (Unit 7A Level 4A #2) L: 6.1cm, W: 3.3cm, T: 2cm 14- broken ceramic animal or human figurine (Unit 7A Level 8A #3) [Figure 3] L: 6.8, W: 5.8, T: 2.9 15- broken ceramic human figurine? (Unit 8 Level 2 #33B) L: 5.4cm, W: 5.2cm, T: 2.5cm 16- ceramic animal figurine (Unit 8 Level 4C #8) [Figure 4] L: 4.4cm, W: 3.9cm, T: 2.9cm 17- ceramic figurine piece (Unit 8 Level 5C #32) L: 4.2cm, W: 1.3cm, T: 1.3cm 18- ceramic coil, likely fragment of figurine (Unit 8 Room 2 Level 2 #13) L: 2.8cm, W: 2.4cm, T: 1cm 19- fragment of a ceramic animal figurine (Unit 12 Level 2 #5) L: 4.3cm, W: 2.5cm 20- broken ceramic animal figurine with blue paint spots (Unit 10 Level 9 #36) L: 3.8 cm, W: 2.9 cm, T: 1.5 cm 21- clay figurine (?) with painted red stripe (Unit 10 Level 12A #19) L: 7.1 cm, W: 7.2 cm, T: 2.1 cm 22- broken female figurine (Unit 10 Level 12A #20) [Figure 5] L: 5.2 cm, W: 1.2 cm, T: 2.1cm 23- ceramic female figurine (Unit 3 Level 5A) L: 9.3cm, W: 7.4cm, T: 2.7cm 24- ceramic figurine, painted with red and yellow (Unit 3 Level 6A) 25- ceramic figurine, possibly female (Unit 3 Level 8B #6) L: 6.3cm, W: 6.8cm, T: 1.5cm 109- broken ceramic female figurine (Unit 3 Level 3 #2) L: 10.7cm, W: 5.4cm, T: 1.5cm 126- figurine (IX G West surface find) L: 9.6cm, W: 7.4cm, T: 1.7cm 26- head of a ceramic animal figurine (Unit 8 Level 6B #11) [Figure 6] L: 3.8cm, W: 3.8cm, T: 2.3

Amulets: 1- broken figurine or amulet (Unit 7 Room 1 Level 1 #7) L: 2cm, W: 2cm, T: 1.1cm 2- broken ceramic Bes amulet (Unit 8 Room 2 Level 2 #11) [Figure 1] L: 6.9cm, W: 4.3cm, T: 1.6cm Architectural elements (pieces of wall relief, door posts, lintels): 3- stone door socket (Unit 12 Level 1) 4- fragment of worked stone, a possible door jamb (Unit 12 Level 1) 5- half of stone column base (baulk removal between Unit 12 and Unit 7) 6- inscribed fragment of sandstone (Unit 13 Room 4 Level 4 #27) [Figure 2] L: 5.9cm, W: 4.7cm, T: 3.4cm 7- fragment of stone architectural piece with torus molding (Unit 13 Room 4 Level 4) 8- stone column base (Unit 11 Level 1) D: 37cm 9- stone architectural piece with remains of blue paint, approx. (Unit 11 Level 5C) L: 32cm, W: 28cm 1 0 A and 1 0 B - worked stone fragments, possibly originally used as door sockets? (Unit 10 Level 1 #2) A: L: 17cm, W: 14cm, T: 7.5cm B: L: 14cm, W: 13cm 110-medium/large stone fragment clearly originally worked for use as architectural elements (Unit 3 Level 2 Feature1) L: 50.5cm, W: 24.5cm, T: 11cm 111- medium/large stone fragment, clearly originally worked for use as architectural elements (Unit 3 Level 2 Features 2) L: 93cm, W: 30cm, T: 15cm 115 - architectural stone piece, probably pivot from doorway (Unit 12 room 5 level 2C) L: 25cm, W: 18cm, T: 12cm



27- clenched hand of human figurine (Unit 7 Room 3 Level 2 #21) L:1.7cm, W: 2.9cm, T: 1.3cm 28- head of an animal figurine with hollow interior and snout, so possibly vessel? (IX G West Ceramic Trench Level 6 #6) 29- broken animal figurine, clay (Unit 14 Feature 1 #1) 30- female figurine, clay (Unit 17 surface removal #2) [Figure 13] L: 9.5cm, W: 9.3cm, T: 2.4cm 3 1 - broken animal figurine, clay (Unit 19 surface collection #5)

47- fragment of a vessel with dark brown glass glaze on interior (Unit 12 Level 3C #10) 48- ceramic whorl (Unit 12 Level 3A #8) L: 2cm, D: 3.7cm 49- piece of production byproduct (slag) (Unit 12 Room 6 Level 1) 50- ceramic whorl (Unit 12 Room 6 Level 3 #31) [Figure 9] L: 2cm, D: 4.1cm 51- 1 piece of production byproduct attached to a piece of mud brick or ceramic piece (Unit 13 Level 1) 52- ceramic disc (Unit 13 Room 4 Level 1 #16) L: 1.4cm, D: 4.8cm 53- ceramic whorl with black burnished surface (Unit 13 Room 4 Level 4 #26) [Figure 10] L: 2.7cm, D: 4.4cm 54- piece of production byproduct (slag) (Unit 13 Room 4 Level 5) 55- piece of production byproduct (slag) (Unit 11 Level 3C) 56- baked mud brick with production byproduct coating on one side (Unit 10 Level 1) 57- misc. pieces of production byproduct (slag) (Unit 10 Level 1) 58- glasseous material, possibly manufacturing piece (Unit 10 Level 4A #14) 59- ceramic sherd with manufacturing/glasseous material on side (Unit 10 Level 5A #16)

Food production pieces (grindstones, etc.): 32- fragment of a granite grinding stone (Unit 12 Level 2) 33- second fragment of a granite granding stone (joined to 32 above) (Unit 12 Level 3 Pit) 34- worked stone, possibly a grinding stone, with central depression (Unit 13 Level 2) L: 17cm, W: 15cm, T: 8cm (preserved) Gaming pieces: 35- worked ceramic sherd, marker/gaming piece (?) (Unit 12 Room 5 Level 4A #25) L: 0.9cm, D: 2.9cm 36- smoothed circular stone piece, marker? (Unit 7 Room 1 Surface 1 #28) L: 0.9cm, D: 2.7cm 37- gaming piece (?), clay (Unit 14 Level 3A #3)

Metalwork: 60- fragment of metal object, possibly bronze (Unit 7A Level 8A #4) [Figure 11] L: 2.9cm, W: 0.7cm, T: 0.4cm 61- broken metal fastening, copper (?) (Unit 13 Room 4 Level 4 #29) L: 2.1cm, W: 1.4cm, T:1cm 62- thin piece of metal, possibly bronze (Unit 9 Level 4D #4) L: 3.2cm, W: 3.4cm, T: 0.4cm

Jewelry: 38- green bead, six sided (Unit 3 Level 1 #1) L: 09cm, D: 0.4cm 39- blue bead (Unit 7A Level 1 #1) L: 0.7cm, D: 0.8cm, central hole D: 0.1cm 40- stone “eye of Horus” bead (Unit 8 Level 6A #10) [Figure 7] L: 2cm, W: 1.5cm, T: 0.5cm 41- jewelry inlay in shape of poppy (Unit 10 Level 8A) L: 2.2, W: 1.1cm, T: 0.5 42- bead (Unit 12 Level 2 #7) D: 1.3cm 43- small stone bead in form of scarab, inscribed with “ra iw” (?) (Unit 13 Room 4 Level 4 #28) [Figure 8] L: 1.8cm, W: 1.1cm, T: 0.9cm, hole D: 0.2cm 44A and 44B- small columnar beads (Unit 13 Room 4 surface float #38 & #39) A: L: 0.4cm, D: 0.3cm / B: L:0.3cm, D: 0.2cm 45- thin disc bead (Unit 12 Room 6 surface float) L: 0.1cm, D: 0.3cm

Natural objects (shells, pebbles, etc.): 63- shell (Unit 7 Room 1 Surface 1) 64- fragments of shell (Unit 10 Room 7 Level 3) Plaques (flat pieces finished on all faces and edges, most often of faience): 65- faience plaque: fragment of a circular (?) faience plaque, with one pre-firing hole pierced through, possibly for hanging. Flat back, convex front with rosette decoration. (Munsell Glay 1 6/2 “pale green”) (Unit 7 Level 3 #7) L: 3.2cm, W: 3.4cm, T: 0.4cm Statuary:

Manufacturing pieces (by-productions of industrial process/craft, not including tools):

66- 2 broken bits of gold and blue glass (?) beard (Unit 23 Level 3 #7)

46- piece of production byproduct (slag) (Unit 7A Level 5A)



Stone Tools: (blades, pounders, etc.)

91- stone tool/blade (?) (Unit 13 Level 3 #34) L: 2.2cm, W: 1.3cm, T: 3cm 92- stone object, in green feldspar, possibly tool (?) (Unit 8 Level 2 #33A) L: 6.7cm, W: 6.3cm, T: 1.5cm 112-114 - three medium/large worked stone fragments (Unit 3 Level 2: features 3, 4, 5) 116-118 –medium stone fragments (Unit 3 Level 4A: features 7, 8, 9) 119- large stone, worked (Unit 3 Level 5: feature 12)

67A and 67B- chipped stone tools (Unit 7A Level 7A #35&36) A: L: 4.3cm, W: 2.6cm, T: 0.5cm B: L: 6.5cm, W: 5.2cm, T: 0.6cm 68- stone tool (Unit 7 Room 1 Surface 1 #27) L: 3cm, W: 1.7cm, T: 1.5cm 69- worked stone blade, possibly flint (?) (Unit 10 Level 2 #12) L: 4.5cm, W: 3cm, T: 0.9cm 70- stone tool (Unit 12 Room 5 Level 2 #21) 71- smoothing/polishing stone tool (?) (Unit 12 Room 5 Surface 1 #26) L: 10.4cm, W: 3.3cm, T: 2.8cm 72- stone blade (Unit 13 Room 4 Level 5 #31) [Figure 12] L: 5.1cm, W: 2cm, T: 0.6cm 73- stone (chert?) blade (Unit 10 Level 8A #15) L: 4.3cm, W: 2.5cm, T: 1.1cm 74- worked stone blade, tool (?) (Unit 13 Room 4 Level 1 #17) L: 8.2cm, W: 6.9cm, T: 1.9cm 75- stone tool (Unit 22 Level 1 #6)

Trial Pieces: 93- stone fragment with incised grid lines (Unit 14 Level 3A #11) L: 8cm, W: 7.5cm Vessels: 94- miniature ceramic vessel (Unit 8 Room 2 Level 3 #14) L: 4cm, W: 3.4cm, vessel wall T: 0.5cm 95- fragment of a stone vessel (?) (Unit 12 Level 2 #6) L: 6.4cm, vessel wall T: 1.4cm 96- fragment of a stone vessel (?) (Unit 12 Level 4A #9) 97- body sherd or base of a stone vessel (?) (Unit 13 Room 4 Level 1 #32) L: 5cm, vessel wall T: 1.9cm 99- handle of a stone (alabaster?) cup or jar (Unit 10 Level 6A #13) L: 3.4cm, vessel wall T: 1.3cm 100- ceramic animal (duck?) container (?) (Unit 10 baulk removal #18) L: 10.3cm, W: 7.1cm, T: 4cm

Stonework: (pieces of worked stone that cannot be identified further at present): 76- worked/rounded stone, possible tool (Unit 8 Level 8A) 77- stone object (Unit 8 Level 4B #9) L: 4.3cm, profile T: 1.2 78- stone object (Unit 8 Room 2 Level 2 #12) 79- piece of granite with worked/smoothed edged (Unit 8 Room 2 Surface) 80- two fragments of worked stone, one a possible door jamb (Unit 12 Level 1) 81- chert nodule, used as a rounded polishing/grinding stone (?) (Unit 12 Room 5 Level 3 #22) 82- chert nodule, used as a rounded polishing/grinding stone (?) (Unit 12 Room 5 Level 3 #23) 83- chert nodule, used as a rounded polishing/grinding stone (?) (Unit 12 Room 5 Level 3 #24) 84- chert nodule, possibly used as tool (Unit 13 Room 4 Level 1 #15) 85- fragments of granite (Unit 13 Room 4 Level 4 #30) 86- chert nodule, possibly used as tool (Unit 13 Room 4 Level 3 # 22) 87- chert nodule (Unit 13 Room 4 Level 2 #19) 88- smoothed chert stone and smoothed basalt/dark grey stone, may have been smoothing tools (?) (Unit 3 Level 2 #3&4) 89- smoothed stone, possibly tool (?) (Unit 3 Level 7A #5) 90- worked stone piece, possibly inlay (?) (Unit 10 inside Feature 16 #20) L: 1.8cm, W: 1.6cm, T: 0.6cm

Weapons: (arrow and spear heads) 101- metal point (broken in two joining pieces) (IX G West Ceramic Trench Level 14 #1) L: 4.9cm, W: 1.5cm, T: 1.6cm Weighing Equipment: (scales and weights) 102- stone weight (Unit 9 Level 3 #3) L: 13.4cm, W: 6.9cm, base D: 7.2cm 103- ceramic object with hole pushed half way through, possibly weight (?) (Unit 10 Level 7A #30) L: 6.7cm, base D: 5.3cm, pierced hole D: 1.6cm Miscellaneous unidentified: 104- glazed ceramic piece (Unit 7 Level 3 #7) 105- ceramic object, possibly architectural/decorative (Unit 8 Level 2 #29) 106- polished stone (Unit 12 Room 6 Level 2 #25) 107- small ceramic sphere (Unit 13 Room 4 Level 1 #18) D: 2.1cm 108- broken ceramic object with paint (Unit 8 Level 5C #31) L: 7.6cm, W:3.7cm, T: 3.2cm



Fig. 1: Object 2

Fig. 2: Object 6



Fig. 3: Object 14

Fig. 4: Object 16



Fig. 5: Object 22

Fig. 6: Object 26



Fig. 7: Object 40

Fig. 8: Object 43

Fig. 9: Object 50



Fig. 10: Object 53

Fig. 11: Object 60



Fig. 12: Object 72

Fig. 13: Object 30



APPENDIX 3: ADDITIONAL EXCAVATIONS AND SMALL FINDS BY UNIT Unit 10:

This appendix includes discussion of a number of excavation units or strata that were not covered in Chapter 3.

Stratum 3 layers from this unit were encountered while trying to expose Stratum 4 feature [1042], the top of an (upright) stone cornice. The relationship between the Stratum 3 materials and the Stratum 2 mud-brick building (Building A) remained unclear.

STRATUM 4 (LATE NEW KINGDOM) While the Stratum 4 material in Unit 10 was discussed in detail in the excavation report, the project identified one additional location where Stratum 4 material was encountered within the main area of excavation.

Stratum 3a: A mud-brick feature [1010] was encountered in the central western part of the unit (fig. 10.2). It was composed of a series of eight bricks laid on their sides and one line of regularly laid stretchers for a total width of 1.15m. At least four or five east-west rows of those placed end to end could be identified, but the feature did not appear to extend fully to the east baulk. The feature was investigated down to its lowest courses, which disappeared around 75.63m asl. The entire preserved height of the feature therefore only stood 32cm. Scattered mud-brick fragments were common near the feature, possibly from bricks associated with its own collapse.

Unit 12, Room 6 Stratum 4: Excavations continued under the Stratum 2 building in this area, and ceramic forms more similar to Stratum 4 types were identified in the lowest levels reached. Since no surfaces could be isolated during the excavation of Room 6 (Stratum 2), the team probably excavated through the lowest extent of Building A here, uncovering material from the period before building construction. The foundations of the large cross-wall [1012] (see Stratum 2, Room 6) continued down to this level, probably having originally been dug down into earlier Late New Kingdom material.

Slightly above the level of the exposure of feature [1010], a line of bricks [1041] emerged along the eastern baulk with its top course preserved to about 76.01m asl. (fig. 10.2). The edge visible within the unit was not uniform, and a number of spaces between well-defined bricks remained totally unclear. The section of brick near the stone feature [1042] (see above) seemed to pass over the far eastern edge of said feature, but this area was especially hard to define and may have been a mass of magloob (hard-packed mud). These bricks were partially removed to expose the stone feature [1042]. The removal showed that the course of bricks was only about 50cm deep and underneath was merely a layer of scattered fallen bricks. The line of bricks did not have the character of a substantial wall, but possibly whatever structure it was a part of lay to the east of this unit in an area still yet unexcavated. Whether the brick platform discussed above and wall [1041] were contemporary will only be understood with further investigation to the east of this unit.

STRATUM 3 (EARLY THIRD INTERMEDIATE PERIOD) Unit 3: This 5x5m area was one of the first season’s test trenches. The sections of this excavation unit north of the (later) Stratum 2 walls were not pertinent to the excavation of Building A, so a brief summary of the results are included here instead of in the excavation report in Chapter 3. Stratum 3: Excavation continued in this unit only 10-20cm under the last courses of Stratum 2 walls [1037] and [1036] (discussed below). Pottery from both sides of the wall [1036] in this cut appeared to be slightly earlier than what was found in Stratum 2, with a mix of forms typical for Stratum 2 and 3. There appeared to be a transition to Stratum 3 occupation at or under the bottom of the Stratum 2 walls.

Stratum 3b:

To the north of (and possibly partially obscured by) a later stepped brick feature, a series of mud-bricks forming a low platform [1039] and a series of enclosed spaces or bins [1045] were identified (fig. 10.1). The bins were sloppily constructed using bricks of differing sizes and created only amorphous shapes. These extended down at least to 75.77-75.88m asl., showing that these crude structures existed prior to the construction of Stratum 2 walls [1036] and [1037] and were part of Stratum 3 activity here.

In the next horizon of Unit 10 (fig. 10.2), the soil became less loose and dusty, with a more clay-like texture. A wall in the northeast of the unit, whose alignment and brick patterning suggest it was constructed contemporary with the other Stratum 2 building walls, seemed to have been dug slightly down into the Stratum 3b layer, as pottery from the area around the level of the base of that wall (around 75.70m asl.)
was dated to Aston’s Phase I or II (Aston 1996a). These ceramics included a wellpreserved pilgrim flask (vessel 2-1) abandoned in the northern half of the unit, a type typically dated to Dynasties 22-24.



Figure 10.1: Mud-Brick Bins or Enclosures in Stratum 3 STRATUM 2 (LATE THIRD INTERMEDIATE PERIOD)

Unit 3

This material was discussed in full in Chapter 3.

A shallow layer consisting of 25-35cm of loose and sandy light brown soil composed Stratum 1 in Unit 3. Within this horizon, six medium/large stone fragments were discovered [110-114, 119], some of which may have served previously as architectural elements [110111, 119], but now stood abandoned loose in the soil. The highest preserved courses of the Stratum 2 mud-brick wall [1036] were encountered during the excavation of Stratum 1 materials, and three of the stone fragments

STRATUM 1 (EARLY LATE PERIOD) In the area covered by the project’s excavations, little substantial architecture was identified in Stratum 1. In general, this stratum was represented by thick layers of ceramic dumping, as well as ephemeral architectural features.



Figure 10.2: Mud-Brick Feature [1010] in Unit 10 [110, 111 and 112] were found pushed up against the south side of this wall. One of these [111] was embedded in the southern baulk of the unit. Another [119] was found in more or less vertical position, standing between features [1037] and [1036] (see Chapter

3, fig. 3.18). It was partially embedded in the unit baulk and could not be removed. No architecture dated to Stratum 1 was identified. A number of small objects were found loose in the matrix during collection of the ceramics.



Units 16, 17, 19, 20 & 22

Unit 10:

Ceramic dumps, at least 30-40cm thick, characterized the Stratum 1 material in these units. Large quantities of pottery, both sherd material and whole or partially whole pieces, were clearly abandoned here after use or brought here for disposal. The deposits were usually located bordering or covering the upper-most preserved courses of Building A’s walls. In Unit 17 (fig. 10.3) a group of relatively well-preserved pots (including vessels 18-2, D5 and D-17) were pushed up against the upper part of feature [1057] (from Stratum 2) and feature [1058], a thin wall made of only two lines of bricks. When investigated, wall [1058] proved to be only one course of brick deep, suggesting that this insubstantial wall had been added against the top of the Stratum 2 wall [1056] to create a small space that was then abandoned along with the related ceramics. Chunks of charcoal were intermixed with the soil around the ceramics. This is a clear example of reuse of the tops of Stratum 2 walls at a later time for more than just trash disposal, but whether this small space was designed to function as a “workspace” is unknown. Units 19 and 20 (fig. 10.4) also held a number of well-preserved ceramics around the tops of the Stratum 2 walls, including an almost whole cup or goblet (vessel L-1), a large tray, the handle to a large lid, and a variety of other types of vessels. Similar to the placement in Unit 17, these were left near or against the side of the walls [1059] and [1061].

Stratum 1 was composed here of approximately 20cm of brown soil. No mud-brick architecture was visible within this horizon. A small number of items were found loose in the matrix during excavations, including a baked mudbrick with one side vitrified by heat. 1 As well, loose pieces of slag [57] were identified from within the pottery collection. A thick (8-9cm) ash lens visible in the east and north unit profiles, about 10-15cm from the surface, suggested that this unit’s north east corner was close to an area of burning. Two square-shaped worked stones [10A and 10B] were uncovered during clearance, the first with one flat side and a square notch cut out of its interior, the second with a notch cut from its corner. Unit 12: The first 20cm of this stratum consisted of a loose, homogenous brown soil. Three broken stone fragments [3, 4A, 4B], one previously designed for use as a door socket and the others clearly shaped or worked, were found in this layer without any associated features. On the west half of the unit, Stratum 1 continued 40cm further down within and around the upper-most preserved courses of the walls of Room 5 (fig. 4.2). This horizon stood immediately above the abandonment/destruction phase of the Stratum 2 room. In the upper layers of Stratum 1, two vessels were identified including the body of a large Nile silt storage jar and a two-handled marl jar. Here the soil was a loose yellowish-brown and it contained a number of small objects. A trash pit, filled with mainly broken ceramics, as well as part of a grinding stone [33], was located on the south side of Room 5. On the east half of the unit, Stratum 1 extended only a short distance beyond the upper-most preserved courses of the walls [1012] and [1015], 35-40 cm total. Part of the baulk between Units 12 and 7 was removed, and it contained what was clearly a stone column base [5], here obviously not its original context.

Units 15, 18, 21, 22 and 23 A thick layer (30-50cm) of dumped ceramics composed Stratum 1 in this area as well. In both Units 15 and 18, ashy spots and rings of ash could be seen on top of and around the upper-most preserved courses of walls from Stratum 2. The Stratum 1 reuse of this area therefore involved burning and may have been industrial in nature. Unit 7/7A and Unit 8 Stratum 1 in Unit 7 and 7A consisted of about 20 cm of loose, dusty brownish-grey soil, with no sign of architectural features. The stratum extended about 30cm in Unit 8, with material beginning around the upper courses of the Stratum 2 mud-brick walls. A number of small finds were unearthed during the clearance, but all with no associated context. Along the east side of Unit 7, a shallow pit filled with pottery could be seen in the trench profile. This was not visible during excavation, and hence material from the pit was not isolated. The pottery dump was not visible in the western profile of neighboring Unit 8, thus, it was clearly limited to the area within Unit 7 and the baulk between the two units. Since the pottery from this stratum all appears to be dated to the same time period, this dump was presumably more or less contemporary with the other materials around it.

A few broken vessels were uncovered along the eastern side of wall [1017]. A large vessel stand (vessel C-1) and the neck and rim of a large oasis clay keg or pilgrim flask (vessel 2-4) came from this area. Unit 11: Stratum 1 was only thinly represented here, extending only about 25cm from the surface. However, the quantity of ceramics in this layer was unusually high, suggesting this area was the site of more intense human activities or possibly a dumping area. A medium sized stone column base [8], slightly battered but otherwise whole, was found lying upside- down slightly under the surface.

1

I would like to thank conservator Kent Severson for confirming this conclusion.



Figure 10.3: IX GW 16 and 17 with Stratum 2 Walls (Dark Grey) and Stratum 1 Wall (Light Grey) and Vessel Deposits



Figure 10.4: IX GW 19, 20 and 22 with Stratum 2 Walls (Dark Grey) and Stratum 1 Vessel Deposits



SMALL FINDS BY UNIT

Stratum 2

Stratum 4

Unit 3, Stratum 2

Unit 10, Stratum 4a

No objects recovered from this stratum


22: ceramic female figurine 24: ceramic figurine, painted with red and yellow 25: ceramic figurine, possibly female 89: smoothed stone, possibly tool? 116-118: medium size stones 120: small/medium sized worked stone used as wall border 121-125: five medium sized worked stones used to line feature [1036] wall.

Unit 12, Room 6 Stratum 4

Units 16, 17, 19, 20 & 22, Stratum 2

45: thin disc bead

No objects recovered from this stratum

Stratum 3

Units 15, 18, 21, 22 and 23, Stratum 2

Unit 13, Stratum 3a

66: two fragments of the false beard of a statue, gold metal and blue glass (?)

21: clay figurine with painted red stripe 22: broken female figurine 90: worked stone piece, possibly inlay? Unit 10, Stratum 4b

6: inscribed fragment of sandstone 7: fragment of stone architectural piece with torus molding 43: small stone bead in form of scarab, inscribed with “r’ iw” (?) 44A and 44B: small columnar beads 53: ceramic whorl with black burnished surface 54: piece of production byproduct (slag) 61: broken metal fastening, copper (?) 72: stone blade 85: fragments of granite

Unit 7/7A, Stratum 2 1: broken figurine or amulet 13: broken ceramic animal figurine 14: broken ceramic animal or human figurine 27: clenched hand of human figurine 36: smoothed circular stone piece, marker? 46: piece of production byproduct (slag) 60: fragment of metal object, possibly bronze 63: shell 67A and 67B: chipped stone tools 68: stone tool

Unit 13, Stratum 3b
Unit 8, Stratum 2 86: chert nodule, possibly used as tool 2: broken ceramic Bes figurine 16: ceramic animal figurine 17: broken ceramic figurine piece 18: ceramic coil, likely fragment of figurine 26: head of a ceramic animal figurine 40: stone “eye of Horus” bead 76: worked/rounded stone, possible tool 78: stone object (?) 79: piece of granite with worked/smoothed edged 94: miniature ceramic vessel 108: broken ceramic object with paint

Unit 3, Stratum 3: No objects recovered from this stratum Unit 10, Stratum 3a 20: broken ceramic animal figurine with blue paint spots Unit 10, Stratum 3b:

Unit 10, Room 7, Stratum 2

59: ceramic sherd with manufacturing/glasseous material on side 99: handle of a stone (alabaster?) cup or jar 103: ceramic object with hole pushed half way through, possibly weight? 41: jewelry inlay in shape of poppy 73: stone (chert?) blade

26: head of a ceramic animal figurine 58: glasseous material, possibly manufacturing piece 64: fragments of shell Unit 12, Room 5, Stratum 2a&2b No objects recovered from this stratum



Unit 12, Room 5, Stratum 2c

Unit 10, Stratum 1

35: worked ceramic sherd, marker/gaming piece (?) 71: smoothing/polishing stone tool (?) 115: reused stone door pivot

10A and 10B: 2 worked stone fragments, possibly originally used as door sockets? 57: misc. pieces of production byproduct (slag) 69: worked stone blade, possibly flint? NA: vitrified mud-brick

Unit 12, Room 6, Strata 2 and 3 11: stone decorative element or fastening (?) 49: piece of production byproduct (slag) 50: ceramic whorl 106: polished stone

Unit 12, Stratum 1 3: stone door socket 4A and 4B: two fragments of worked stone, one a possible fragment of a door-jamb 5: half of stone column base 12: fragment of a ceramic animal figurine 32: fragment of a granite grinding stone 33: second fragment of a granite grinding stone (joined to above) 42: bead 47: fragment of a vessel with dark brown glass glaze on interior 48: ceramic whorl 70: stone tool 81: chert nodule, used as a rounded polishing/grinding stone (?) 82: chert nodule, used as a rounded polishing/grinding stone (?) 83: chert nodule, used as a rounded polishing/grinding stone (?) 95: fragment of a stone (?) vessel 96: fragment of a stone (?) vessel NA: baked mud-brick

Unit 13, Stratum 2a 87: chert nodule Unit 13, Stratum 2b 52: ceramic disc 74: worked stone, tool (?) 84: chert nodule, possibly used as tool 97: body sherd or base of a stone vessel 107: small sphere made of ceramic Unit 11, Stratum 2 9: stone architectural piece, fragment of stone doorway? 55: piece of production byproduct (slag) Stratum 1 Unit 3, Stratum 1:

Unit 13, Stratum 1 38: stone bead, green color 88A: smoothed chert stone 88B: smoothed basalt/dark grey stone 109: broken ceramic female figurine 110-111, 119: medium/large stone fragments, clearly originally worked for use as architectural elements 112-114: 2 medium/large worked stone fragments

51: piece of production byproduct attached to a piece of mud-brick or ceramic 34: worked stone, possibly a grinding stone, 17x15x8cm (preserved) with central depression 91: stone tool/blade Unit 11, Stratum 1

Units 16, 17, 19, 20 & 22, Stratum 1 8: stone column base, 37cm diameter 30: female figurine of clay 31: animal figurine of clay 75: stone tool Units 15, 18, 21, 22 and 23, Stratum 1 No objects recovered from these strata Unit 7/7A and Unit 8, Stratum 1 12: broken figurine, possibly female? 39: blue bead 65: faience plaque 77: stone object 92: stone object 105: ceramic object



REFERENCES ABDER-RAZIQ, MAHMUD. 1984-1985a. Die Granitstatue des Ramsesnacht aus Hod Abu el-Gud. Annales du Service des Antiquités de l'Egypte 70:13-17. ABDER-RAZIQ, MAHMUD. 1984-1985b. Funde aus Abu el-Gud (Karnak). Annales du Service des Antiquités de l'Egypte 70:9-11. ALEXANDER, RANI. 1999. "Mesoamerican House Lots and Archaeological Site Structure: Problems of Inference in Yaxcaba, Yucatan, Mexico, 1750-1847," in The Archaeology of Household Activities. Edited by P. Allison, 79-100. London: Routledge. ALLEN, SUSAN. 1982. "The Pottery," in Cities of the Delta II: Mendes. Edited by K. Wilson, 13-26. American Research Center in Egypt Reports 5. Malibu: Undena Publications. ALLISON, PENELOPE. 1999. The Archaeology of Household Activities. London: Routledge. AMIRAN, RUTH. 1969. Ancient Pottery of the Holy Land: From its Beginnings in the Neolithic period to the End of the Iron Age. Jerusalem: Massada Press. ANUS, PIERRE and SA'AD, RAMADAN. 1971. Habitations de Prêtres dans le Temple D'Amon de Karnak. Kêmi: revue de philologie et d'archéologie égyptiennes et coptes 21:217-238. ARNOLD, DIETER. 2003. The Encyclopedia of Ancient Egyptian Architecture. London: I.B. Tauris. ARNOLD, DOROTHEA. 1982. Keramikbearbeitung in Dahschur 1976-1981. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 38:25-65. ARNOLD, DOROTHEA and BOURRIAU, JANINE. 1993. An Introduction to Ancient Egyptian Pottery. Mainz am Rhein: Verlag Philipp von Zabern. ARNOLD, FELIX. 2001. "Houses," in The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt. Vol. 2. Edited by D. Redford, 122127. New York: Oxford University Press. ARNOLD, FELIX. 1989. A Study of Egyptian Domestic Buildings. Varia Aegyptiaca 5:75-93. ARNOLD, PHILLIP. 2000. Working Without a Net: Recent Trends in Ceramic Ethnoarchaeology. Journal of Archaeological Research 8:105-133. ARNOLD, PHILLIP. 1999. "Typologies, Selection, and Ethnoarchaeology," in Material Meanings: Critical Approaches to the Interpretation of Material Culture. Edited by E. Chilton, 107-117. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press. ASSAAD, HANY. 1983. “The House of Thutnefer and Egyptian Architectural Drawings,” in Egyptological Miscellanies: A Tribute to Professor Ronald J. Williams. Edited by J. Hoffmeier and E. Meltzer, 3-20. Chicago: Ares Publishers. ASTON, DAVID. 1999. Elephantine XIX: Pottery from the Late New Kingdom to the Early Ptolemaic Period. Mainz: Verlag Philipp von Zabern. ASTON, DAVID. 1998. Die Keramik des Grabungsplatzes Q I. Mainz: Pelizaeus-Museum. ASTON, DAVID. 1996a. Egyptian Pottery of the Late New Kingdom and Third Intermediate Period (Twelfth - Seventh Centuries BC): Tentative Footsteps in a Forbidding Terrain. Heidelberg: Heidelberger Orientverlag. ASTON, DAVID. 1996b. A Group of Twenty-Fifth Dynasty Pots from Abydos. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 52:1-10. ASTON, DAVID. 1996c. Sherds from a Fortified Townsite Near Abu ‘Id. Cahiers de la céramique égyptienne 4:19-46.



ASTON, DAVID. 1992. Two Decorative Styles of the Twentieth Dynasty. Cahiers de la céramique égyptienne 3:7180. ASTON, DAVID. 1991. "Pottery," in The Tomb of Iurudef: A Memphite Official in the Reign of Ramesses II. Edited by M. Raven, 47-54. Leiden: National Museum of Antiquities Leiden. ASTON, DAVID. 1989a. Ancient Egyptian Fire Dogs. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 45:27-32. ASTON, DAVID. 1989b. Qantir/Piramesse Nord - Pottery Report. Göttinger Miszellen: Beiträge zur äegyptologischen Diskussion 113:7-32. ASTON, DAVID and TAYLOR, JOHN. 1990. "The Family of Takeloth III and the 'Theban' Twenty-Third Dynasty," in Libya and Egypt, c. 1300-750 BC. Edited by A. Leahy, 131-155. London: SOAS Centre of Near and Middle Eastern Studies and the Society for Libyan Studies. BADAWY, ALEXANDER. 1954. A History of Egyptian Architecture. Berkeley: University of California Press. BADER, BETTINA. 2013. “Introduction: Functional aspects of Egyptian ceramics within their archaeological context,” in Functional aspects of Egyptian ceramics in their archaeological context: proceedings of a conference held at the McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge, July 24th - July 25th, 2009. Edited by B. Bader and M. Ownby, 1-27. Walpole: Leuven. BADER, BETTINA AND OWNBY, MARY, eds. 2013. Functional aspects of Egyptian ceramics in their archaeological context: proceedings of a conference held at the McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge, July 24th - July 25th, 2009. Walpole: Leuven. BAINES, JOHN and MÁLEK, JAROMÍR. 1980. Atlas of Ancient Egypt. New York: Facts on File Publications. BARGUET, PAUL. 1962. Le temple d'Amon-Rê à Karnak; essai d'exégèse. Cairo: Impr. de l'Institut français d'archéologie orientale. BÁRTA, MIROSLAV. 1996. Several Remarks on Beer Jars Found at Abusir. Cahiers de la céramique égyptienne 4:127-131. BAVAY, LAURENT, MARCHAND, SYLVIE and TALLET, PIERRE. 2000. Les jarres inscrites du Nouvel Empire provenant de Deir al-Médina. Cahiers de la céramique égyptienne 6:77-90. BENSON, MARGARET and GOURLAY, JANET. 1899. The Temple of Mut in Asher; an Account of the Excavation of the Temple and of the Religious Representations and Objects Found Therein. London: J. Murray. BÉOUT, PIERRE, GABOLDE, MARC, GRATALOUP, CATHERINE and JAUBERT, OLIVIER. 1993. Fouilles Dans Le Secteur Nord-Ouest Du Temple D'amon-Rê. Sondage Contre Le Massif 16 De L'enceinte De Nectanébo, Carré Vi.R. Fouille D'une Structure De Briques Rubéfiées, Carré Vi.Q/R. Cahiers de Karnak 9: 161-204. BIERBRIER, MORRIS. 1984. The Tomb-Builders of the Pharaohs. New York: Scribner. BIERBRIER, MORRIS. 1975. The Late New Kingdom in Egypt: a Genealogical and Chronological Investigation. Warminster: Aris & Phillips. BIETAK, MANFRED. 1996a. Avaris, the Capital of the Hyksos: Recent Excavations at Tell el-Dab'a. London: British Museum Press. BIETAK, MANFRED. 1996b. Haus und Palast im alten Ägypten. Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie 14. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. BIETAK, MANFRED. 1996c. "Zum Raumprogramm ägyptischer Wohnhäuser des Mittleren und des Neuen Reiches," in Haus und Palast im alten Ägypten. Edited by M. Bietak, 23-43. Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie 14. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.



BIETAK, MANFRED. 1979. "Urban Archaeology and the Town Problem," in Egyptology and the Social Sciences. Edited by K. Weeks, 23-43. Cairo: American University in Cairo. BJÖRK, CLAUDE. 1995. Early Pottery in Greece: a Technological and Functional Analysis of the Evidence from Neolithic Achilleion, Thessaly. Jonsered: P. Åströms. BLITZ, JOHN. 1993. Big Pots for Big Shots: Feasting and Storage in a Mississippian Community. American Antiquity 58:80-96. BOMANN, ANN H. 1991. The Private Chapel in Ancient Egypt. London: Kegan Paul International. BORCHARDT, LUDWIG. 1907-1908. Das Dienstgebäude des Auswärtigen Amtes unter den Ramessiden. Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 44:59-61. BORCHARDT, LUDWIG and RICKE, HERBERT. 1980. Die Wohnhäuser in Tell el-Amarna. Berlin: Mann. BOURRIAU, JANINE. 2004. “The Beginnings of Amphora Production in Egypt,” in Invention and Innovation: The Social Context of Technological Change 2. Edited by J. Bourriau and J. Phillips, 78-95. Egypt, the Aegean and the Near East. Oxford: Oxbow Books. BOURRIAU, JANINE. 2000. "The Second Intermediate Period," in The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt. Edited by I. Shaw, 185-217. Oxford: Oxford University Press. BOURRIAU, JANINE. 1997. "Beyond Avaris: The Second Intermediate Period in Egypt Outside the Eastern Delta," in The Hyksos: New Historical and Archaeological Perspectives. Edited by E.D. Oren, 159-182. University Museum Monograph 96. Philadelphia: University Museum, University of Pennsylvania. BOURRIAU, JANINE. 1997. Second Intermediate Period: New Kingdom in North Sinai. Cahiers de la céramique égyptienne 5:137-139. BOURRIAU, JANINE. 1995. "The Role of Chemical Analysis in the Study of Egyptian Pottery," in Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress of Egyptologists, Cambridge, 3-9 September 1995. Edited by C. Eyre, 189-199. Leuven: Peeters. BOURRIAU, JANINE. 1991. The Memphis Pottery Project. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 1: 263-268. BOURRIAU, JANINE. 1990. Canaanite Jars from New Kingdom Deposits at Memphis, Kom Rabi'a. Eretz-Israel 21:*18-*26. BOURRIAU, JANINE. 1986/7. Cemetery and Settlement Pottery of the Second Intermediate Period to Early New Kingdom. Bulletin of the Egyptological Seminar 8:47-59. BOURRIAU, JANINE. 1981. Umm El-Ga'ab: Pottery from the Nile Valley Before the Arab Conquest. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. BOURRIAU, JANINE, SMITH, L. M. V. and NICHOLSON, P. T. 2000. New Kingdom Pottery Fabrics: Nile Clay and Mixed Nile/Marl Clay Fabrics from Memphis and Amarna. Occasional Publications of the Egypt Exploration Society 14. London: Egypt Exploration Society. BRAUN, DAVID. 1983. "Pots as Tools," in Archaeological Hammers and Theories. Edited by J.A. Moore and A.S. Keene, 107-134. New York: Academic Press. BRISSAUD, PHILIPPE, et. al. 1987. "Répertoire Préliminaire de la Poterie Trouvée à Sân el-Hagar," in Cahiers de Tanis I. Edited by P. Brissaud, 75-100. Paris: Editions Recherche sur les civilisations. BRUYÈRE, BERNARD. 1948. “Rapport sur les Fouilles de Deir el Médineh (1935-40). Fouilles de l'Institut français d'archéologie orientale du Caire. Vol. 20. Part 1. Cairo: Institut français d'archéologie orientale. BRUYÈRE, BERNARD. 1934. “Rapport sur les Fouilles de Deir el Médineh (1931-32). Fouilles de l'Institut français d'archéologie orientale du Caire. Vol. 10. Part 1. Cairo: Institut français d'archéologie orientale.



BRUYÈRE, BERNARD. 1933. Rapport sur les Fouilles de Deir el Médineh (1930). Fouilles de l'Institut français d'archéologie orientale du Caire. Vol. 8. Part 3. Cairo: Institut français d'archéologie orientale. BRUYÈRE, BERNARD. 1930. Rapport sur les Fouilles de Deir el Médineh (1929). Fouilles de l'Institut français d'archéologie orientale du Caire. Vol. 7. Part 2. L Cairo: Institut français d'archéologie orientale. BRUYÈRE, BERNARD. 1924. Rapport sur les Fouilles de Deir el Médineh (1922-1923). Fouilles de l'Institut français d'archéologie orientale du Caire. Vol. 1:Part 1. Cairo: Institut français d'archéologie orientale. BRYAN, BETSY. 2008a. The origins of the Temple of Mut: New discoveries in and beneath the temple: 2004 - 2007. Paper given at American Research Center in Egypt Annual Meeting: April 25 - 27, 2008. Seattle, WA. BRYAN, BETSY. 2008b. 2006 Report on the Johns Hopkins University Excavations at the Mut Temple. Annales du service des antiquités de l’Égypte 82: 27-38. BRYAN, BETSY. 2004a. Final Report on 2001-2004 Seasons at the Temple of Mut. Unpublished report submitted to the Supreme Council of Antiquities. BRYAN, BETSY. 2004b. Lecture: Paper given at Johns Hopkins University, April 9. BRYAN, BETSY. 2003. Report on 2003 Season at the Temple of Mut. Unpublished report submitted to the Supreme Council of Antiquities. BUNSON, MARGARET. 2002. Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt. New York: Facts on File. CABROL, AGNES. 1995. Une Représentation de la tombe de Khâbekhenet et les dromos de Karnak-Sud: Nouvelles Hypothèses. Cahiers de Karnak 10:33-64. CAMERON, CATHERINE. 1993. "Abandonment and Archaeological Interpretation," in Abandonment of Settlements and Regions: Ethnoarchaeological and Archaeological Approaches. Edited by C. Cameron and S. Tomka, 3-7. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CAMINOS, RICARDO. 1964. The Nitocris Adoption Stela. The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 50:71-101. CAMINOS, RICARDO. 1959. The Chronicle of Prince Osorkon. Analecta Orientalia 37. Roma: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum. CERNY, JAROSLAV. 1932. "The Abnormal-Hieratic Tablet Leiden I 431," in Studies Presented to F. Ll. Griffith. Edited by S. Glanville, 46-56. London: Oxford University Press. CHILTON, ELIZABETH. 1999. "One Size Fits All: Typology and Alternatives for Ceramic Research," in Material Meanings: Critical Approaches to the Interpretation of Material Culture. Edited by E. Chilton, 44-60. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press. CLINE, ERIC 1994. Sailing the Wine-Dark Sea: International Trade and the Late Bronze Age Aegean. BAR International Series 591. Oxford: BAR Publishing. COSTIN, CATHY. 2001. "Craft Production Systems," in Archaeology at the Millennium: A Sourcebook. Edited by G.M. Feinman and T.D. Price, 273-328. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. COSTIN, CATHY and WRIGHT, RITA, eds. 1998. Craft and Social Identity. Archeological papers of the American Anthropological Association 8. Arlington: American Anthropological Association. CROCKER, P. T. 1985. Status Symbols in the Architecture of El-’Amarna. The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 71:52-65. DARNELL, DEBORAH. 2000. Appendix 4: Oasis Ware Flasks and Kegs from the Theban Desert. Cahiers de la céramique égyptienne 6:227-234. DARNELL, JOHN and DARNELL, DEBORAH. 1996. The Luxor-Farshut Desert Road Survey. Bulletin de liaison du Groupe international d'étude de la céramique égyptienne 19:36-50.



DAVID, NICHOLAS and KRAMER, CAROL. 2001. Ethnoarchaeology in Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DAVIES, NINA M. and DAVIES, NORMAN DE GARIS. 1933. The Tombs of Menkheperrasonb, Amenmose, and Another. London: The Egypt Exploration Society. DAVIES, NORMAN DE GARIS. 1943. The Tomb of Rekh-mi-Re at Thebes. New York: The Plantin Press. DAVIES, NORMAN DE GARIS. 1941. The Tomb of the Vizier Ramose. London: Egypt Exploration Society. DAVIES, NORMAN DE GARIS. 1933. The Tomb of Nefer-hotep at Thebes. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art. DAVIES, NORMAN DE GARIS. 1929. The Town House in Ancient Egypt. Metropolitan Museum Studies 1:233-255. DAVIES, NORMAN DE GARIS. 1906. The Rock Tombs of El Amarna: Part IV - The Tombs of Penthu, Mahu and Others. Archaeological Survey of Egypt Memoirs 16. London: Egypt Exploration Fund. DAVIES, NORMAN DE GARIS. 1905a. The Rock Tombs of El Amarna: Part II - The Tombs of Panehesy and Meryra II. Archaeological Survey of Egypt Memoirs 14. London: Egypt Exploration Fund. DAVIES, NORMAN DE GARIS. 1905b. The Rock Tombs of El Amarna: Part III – The Tombs of Huya and Ahmes. Archaeological Survey of Egypt Memoirs 15. London: Egypt Exploration Fund. DAVIES, NORMAN DE GARIS. 1903. The Rock Tombs of El Amarna: Part I – The Tomb of Meryra. Archaeological Survey of Egypt Memoirs 13. London: Egypt Exploration Fund. DEAL, MICHAEL. 1998. Pottery Ethnoarchaeology in the Central Maya Highlands. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press. DONKER VAN HEEL, KOEN. 1998. Papyrus Louvre E 7856 Verso and Recto: Leasing Land in the Reign of Taharka. Revue d'égyptologie 49:91-105. DONKER VAN HEEL, KOEN. 1997. Papyrus Louvre E 7852: A Land Lease from the Reign of Taharka. Revue d'égyptologie 48:81-93. ECCLESTON, MARK A. 2000. Appendix 1: Macroscopic and Petrographic Descriptions of Late Period Keg and Flask Fabrics. Cahiers de la céramique égyptienne 6:211-218. EGLOFF, B. J. 1973. A Method for Counting Ceramic Rim Sherds. American Antiquity 38:351-353. EIDE, TORMOD, et. al. 1994. Fontes Historiae Nubiorum: Textual Sources for the History of the Middle Nile Region Between the Eighth Century BC and the Sixth Century AD. Bergen: University of Bergen. EIGNER, DIETER. 1999. "Domestic Architecture," in Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt. Edited by K. Bard, 255-259. London: Routledge. EL-SAGHIR, MOHAMMED. 1988. The E.A.O. Excavations at Abou el-Gud, Luxor. Journal of the Ancient Chronology Forum 2:79-81. EMERY, WALTER BRYAN, SMITH, H. S. and MILLARD, ANNE. 1979. The Fortress of Buhen: the Archaeological Report. Excavations at Buhen 1. London: Egypt Exploration Society. ENDRUWEIT, ALBRECHT. 1994. Städtischer Wohnbau in Ägypten: Klimagerechte Lehmarchitektur in Amarnu. Berlin: Mann. ERICSON, JONATHON, REED, DWIGHT and BURKE, CHERYL. 1972. Research Design: The Relationships Between the Primary Functions and the Physical Properties of Ceramic Vessels and their Implications for Ceramic Distributions on an Archaeological Site. Anthropology UCLA 3:84-95. ERICSON, JONATHON and STICKEL, GARY. 1973. A Proposed Classification System for Ceramics. World Archaeology 4:357-367.



ERMAN, ADOLF and GRAPOW, HERMANN. 1971. Wörterbuch der Aegyptischen Sprache. Berlin: Akademie. FALTINGS, DINA. 1998. Die Keramik der Lebensmittelproduktion im Alten Reich: Ikonographie und Archäologie eines Gebrauchsartikels. Heidelberg: Heidelberger Orientverlag. FAZZINI, RICHARD. 2010. "Dig Diary 2010." Brooklyn Museum Features: Mut Precinct, 2010, from http://www.brooklynmuseum.org/features/mut/index.php FAZZINI, RICHARD. 2008. Report on the Brooklyn Museum’s 2008 Season of Fieldwork at the Precinct of the Goddess Mut at South Karnak. Unpublished report submitted to the Supreme Council of Antiquities. http://www.brooklynmuseum.org/features/mut/uploads/Preliminary_Report_2008.pdf FAZZINI, RICHARD. 2005a. The Precinct of the Goddess Mut at South Karnak 1996-2001. Annales du Service des antiquités de l'Egypte 79:85-94. FAZZINI, RICHARD. 2005b. Report on the Brooklyn Museum’s 2005 Season of Fieldwork at the Precinct of the Goddess Mut at South Karnak. Unpublished report submitted to the Supreme Council of Antiquities. http://www.brooklynmuseum.org/features/mut/uploads/Preliminary_Report_2005.pdf FAZZINI, RICHARD. 2002. "Some Aspects of the Precinct of the Goddess Mut in the New Kingdom," in Leaving No Stones Unturned: Essays on the Ancient Near East and Egypt in Honor of Donald P. Hansen. Edited by E. Ehrenberg, 63-76. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. FAZZINI, RICHARD. 1999. "Karnak, Precinct of Mut," in Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt. Edited by K. Bard and S. Shubert, 397-400. London: Routledge. FAZZINI, RICHARD. 1988. Egypt Dynasty XXII-XXV. Iconography of Religions Section XVI. Leiden: Brill. FAZZINI, RICHARD. 1984-1985. Report on the 1983 Season of Excavation at the Precinct of the Goddess Mut. Annales du Service des antiquités de l'Egypte 70:287-307. FAZZINI, RICHARD. 1980. "Mut-Tempel, Karnak (Mut Precinct)," in Lexikon der Ägyptologie. Edited by E. Otto, W. Helck and W. Westendorf, Vol. 4, cols. 248-251. Wiesbaden: O. Harrassowitz. FAZZINI, RICHARD and JASNOW, RICHARD. 1988. Demotic Ostraca from the Mut Precinct in Karnak. Enchoria 16:23-48. FAZZINI, RICHARD and PECK, WILLIAM. 1983a. Excavating the Temple of Mut. Archaeology 36:16-23. FAZZINI, RICHARD and PECK, WILLIAM. 1983b. Introduction. Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 20:47-63. FAZZINI, RICHARD and PECK, WILLIAM. 1982. The 1982 Season at Mut. American Research Center in Egypt Newsletter 120:37-58. FAZZINI, RICHARD and PECK, WILLIAM. 1981. The Precinct of Mut During Dynasty XXV and Early Dynasty XXVI: A Growing Picture. Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities 11:115-126. FAZZINI, RICHARD and PECK, WILLIAM. 1980. Archaeology in Egypt: 1980. American Research Center in Egypt Newsletter 112:39-44. FEINMAN, GARY M. 1999. "Rethinking Our Assumptions: Economic Specialization at the Household Scale in Ancient Ejutla, Oaxaca, Mexico," in Pottery and People: A Dynamic Interaction. Edited by J.M. Skibo and G.M. Feinman, 81-98. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press. FISHER, CLARENCE. 1917. The Eckley B. Coxe Jr. Egyptian Expedition. Pennsylvania University Museums Journal 8:211-237. FRANKFORT, HENRI and PENDLEBURY, J. D. S. 1933. The City of Akhenaten: Part II, The North Suburb and the Desert Altars. Egypt Exploration Society Memoir 40. London: Egypt Exploration Society.



FRENCH, PETER. 1998. Ancient Egyptian Pottery: A Bane or a Blessing? The Bulletin of the Australian Centre for Egyptology 9:27-33. FRENCH, PETER. 1992. A Preliminary Study of Pottery in Lower Egypt in the Late Dynastic and Ptolemaic Periods. Cahiers de la céramique égyptienne 3:83-93. GABOLDE, LUC. 1998. Le "Grand Château D'amon" De Sésostris 1er À Karnak: La Décoration Du Temple D'amonRé Au Moyen Empire. Mémoires De L'académie Des Inscriptions Et Belles-Lettres. Paris: Diff. de Boccard. GABOLDE, LUC. 1999. Aux Origines De Karnak: Les Recherches Récentes Dans La "Cour Du Moyen Empire.” Bulletin de la société d'égyptologie 23: 31-49. GABOLDE, LUC and RONDOT, VINCENT. 1999. "Karnak, Precinct of Montu," in Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt. Edited by K.A. Bard and S.B. Shubert, 394-397. London; New York: Routledge. GARDINER, ALAN HENDERSON. 1957. Egyptian Grammar. 3rd Edition. London: Oxford University Press. GARDINER, ALAN HENDERSON. 1948a. The Wilbour Papyrus: Commentary. London: Oxford University Press. GARDINER, ALAN HENDERSON. 1948b. The Wilbour Papyrus: The Translation. London: Oxford University Press. GASSE, ANNIE. 1988. Données Nouvelles Administratives et Sacerdotales sur l'Organisation du Domaine d'Amon, XXe-XXIe dynasties: à la Lumière des Papyrus Prachov, Reinhardt et Grundbuch (avec édition princeps des papyrus Louvre AF 6345 et 6346-7). Cairo: Institut français d'archéologie orientale du Caire. GHAZOULI, EDOUARD. 1964. The Palace and Magazines Attached to the Temple of Sety I at Abydos and the Façade of this Temple. Annales du Service des antiquités de l'Egypte 58:99-184. GIBSON, TERRANCE. 1998. Site Structure and Ceramic Behaviour of a Protohistoric Cree Aggregation Campsite. University of Alberta, Edmonton. GIDDY, LISA. 1999. Kom Rabi’a: The New Kingdom and Post-New Kingdom Objects. Survey of Memphis II. London: Egypt Exploration Society. GNIVECKI, PERRY. 1987. "On the Quantitative Derivation of Household Spatial Organization from Archaeological Residues in Ancient Mesopotamia," in Method and Theory for Activity Area Research: An Ethnoarchaeological Approach. Edited by S. Kent, 176-235. New York: Columbia University Press. GOELET, ODGEN. 2001. "Wilbour Papyrus," in The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt. Edited by D. Redford, Vol. 3, 501. New York: Oxford University Press. GOLVIN, JEAN-CLAUDE. 1999. "Karnak, Temple of Amun-Re," in Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt. Edited by K.A. Bard and S.B. Shubert, 400-404. London: Routledge. GOLVIN, JEAN-CLAUDE. 1995. "Enceintes et Portes Monumentales des Temples de Thébes à L’Époque Ptolémaïque et Romaine," in Hundred-Gated Thebes: Acts of a Colloquium on Thebes and the Theban area in the Graeco-Roman Period. Edited by S. Vleeming, 31-41. Papyrologica Lugduno-Batava 27. Leiden: E.J. Brill. GOLVIN, JEAN-CLAUDE and HEGAZY, EL-SAYED. 1993. Essai d'explication de la forme et des caractéristiques générales des grandes enceintes de Karnak. Cahiers de Karnak IX:145-156. GRANDET, PIERRE. 1994. Le Papyrus Harris I: (BM 9999). Cairo: Institut français d'archéologie orientale du Caire. GRIFFITH, F. LL. 1909. Catalogue of the Demotic papyri in the John Rylands library, Manchester. Manchester: University Press. GUIDOTTI, MARIA CRISTINA. 1991. Vasi dall'Epoca Protodinastica al Nuovo Regno, Museo Egizio di Firenze. Roma: Libreria dello Stato.



HÄGG, ROBIN. 1996. "The Palaces of Minoan Crete/ Architecture and Function in a Comparative Perspective," in Haus und Palast im alten Ägypten. Edited by M. Bietak, 81-84. Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie 14. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. HALLY, DAVID J. 1986. The Identification of Vessel Function: A Case Study from Northwest Georgia. American Antiquity 51:267-295. HAMROUSH, RANY. 1992. Pottery Analysis and Problems in the Identification of the Geological Origins of Ancient Egyptian Ceramics. Cahiers de la céramique égyptienne 3:39-51. HARING, B. J. 1997. Divine Households: Administrative and Economic Aspects of the New Kingdom Royal Memorial Temples in Western Thebes. Egyptologische uitgaven 12. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten. HENRICKSON, ELIZABETH. 1990. "Investigating Ancient Ceramic Form and Use: Progress Report and Case Study," in The Changing Roles of Ceramics in Society: 26,000 B.P. to the Present. Edited by W.D. Kingery, 83-118. Ceramics and Civilization 5. Westerville: American Ceramic Society. HENRICKSON, ELIZABETH and MCDONALD, MARY M. 1983. Ceramic Form and Function: An Ethnographic Search and an Archeological Application. American Anthropologist 85:630-643. HOFMANN, EVA, ABD EL-RAZIQ, MAHMUD and SEYFRIED, KARL-JOACHIM. 1995. Das Grab des Neferrenpet Gen. Kenro (TT 178). Mainz: Philippe von Zabern. HÖLSCHER, UVO. 1954. The Excavation of Medinet Habu: The Post Ramessid Remains. Vol. 5. Oriental Institute publications 66. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. HÖLSCHER, UVO. 1951. The Excavation of Medinet Habu: The Mortuary Temple of Ramses III, Part II. Vol. 4. Oriental Institute publications 55. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. HÖLSCHER, UVO. 1941. The Excavation of Medinet Habu: The Mortuary Temple of Ramses III, Part I. Vol. 3 Oriental Institute publications 54. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. HÖLSCHER, UVO. 1939. The Excavation of Medinet Habu: The Temples of the Eighteenth Dynasty. Vol. 2. Oriental Institute publications 41. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. HÖLSCHER, UVO. 1934. The Excavation of Medinet Habu: General Plans and Views. Vol. 1. Oriental Institute publications 21. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. HOLTHOER, ROSTISLAV. 1993. “The Pottery,” in Stone Vessels, Pottery and Sealings from the Tomb of Tutankhamun. Edited by J. Baines and A. Khouli, 37-85. Oxford: Griffith Institute, Ashmolean Museum. HOLTHOER, ROSTISLAV. 1977. New Kingdom Pharaonic Sites: The Pottery. Lund: Berlings. HOPE, COLIN. 2000. Kegs and Flasks from the Dakhleh Oasis. Cahiers de la céramique égyptienne 6:189-210. HOPE, COLIN. 1993. "The Jar Sealings," in Stone Vessels, Pottery and Sealings from the Tomb of Tutankhamun. Edited by J. Baines and A. Khouli, 81-138. Oxford: Griffith Institute, Ashmolean Museum. HOPE, COLIN. 1989a. "Amphorae of the New Kingdom," in Pottery of the Egyptian New Kingdom: Three Studies. Edited by C. Hope, 87-126. Burwood: Victoria College Press. HOPE, COLIN. 1989b. "Pottery of the Ramesside Period," in Pottery of the Egyptian New Kingdom: Three Studies. Edited by C. Hope, 47-84. Burwood: Victoria College Press. HOPE, COLIN. 1989c. "The XVIIIth Dynasty Pottery from Malkata," in Pottery of the Egyptian New Kingdom: Three Studies. Edited by C. Hope, 3-44. Burwood: Victoria College Press. HOPE, COLIN. 1987. Egyptian Pottery. Aylesbury: Shire Publications. HOPE, COLIN. 1982. Aspects of Ceramic Specialization and Standardization in the New Kingdom. Bulletin de liaison du Groupe international d'étude de la céramique égyptienne 7:39-41.



HORNUNG, ERIK. 1992. Idea into Image: Essays on Ancient Egyptian Thought. New York: Timken. HUGHES, GEORGE. 1952. Saite Demotic Land Leases. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 28. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. HULIN, LINDA, KEMP, BARRY and KIRBY, C. 1984. "Report on the 1983 Excavations Commodity Delivery Area (Zir-Area)," in Amarna Reports I. Edited by B. Kemp, 60-80. London: Egypt Exploration Society. HUMMEL, REXINE and SHUBERT, STEVEN. 1994. "Kom el-Ahmar: Ceramic Typology," in The Akhenaten Temple Project III: The Excavation of Kom el-Ahmar and Environs. Edited by D. Redford, 30-82. Aegypti Texta Propositaque 2. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. IKRAM, SALIMA. 1995. Choice Cuts: Meat Production in Ancient Egypt. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 69. Leuven: Peeters. IKRAM, SALIMA. 1989. Domestic Shrines and the Cult of the Royal Family at El-‘Amarna. The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 75:89-101. JACQUET, JEAN. 1994. Karnak-Nord VII: Le Trésor de Thoutmosis Ier, Installations Antérieures ou Postérieures au Monument. Cairo: Institut français d'archéologie orientale du Caire. JACQUET, JEAN. 1983. Karnak-Nord V: Le Trésor de Thoutmosis Ier, Étude Architecturale. Cairo: Institut français d'archéologie orientale du Caire. JACQUET-GORDON, HELEN. 1981. "A Tentative Typology of Egyptian Bread Moulds," in Studien zur altägyptischen Keramik. Edited by D. Arnold, 11-24. Mainz am Rhein: von Zabern. JANSEN-WINKELN, KARL. 1985. Ägyptische Biographien der 22. und 23. Dynastie. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. JANSSEN, JAC. 1986. Agrarian Administration in Egypt during the Twentieth Dynasty. Bibliotheca Orientalis 43:351366. JANSSEN, JAC. 1979. "The Role of the Temple in the Egyptian Economy in the New Kingdom," in State and Temple Economy in the Ancient Near East. Edited by E. Lipinski, 505-515. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 6. Leuven: Departement Oriëntalistiek. JANSSEN, JAC. 1975. Prelegomena to the Study of Egypt’s Economic History During the New Kingdom. Studien zur altägyptischen Kultur 3:127-185. JANSSEN, JAC. 1961. Two Ancient Egyptian Ship's Logs: Papyrus Leiden 1 350 verso and Papyrus Turin 2008 plus 2016. Leiden: E.J. Brill. JEFFREYS, DAVID. 2006a. "The Future of Egypt’s Urban Past? Aspects of the 21st Century ‘Town Problem’ at Avaris, Piramesse and Memphis," in Timelines: Studies in Honour of Manfred Bietak. Vol. 1. Edited by E. Czerny, I. Hein, H. Hunger, D. Melman and A. Schwab, 163-170. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 149. Leuven: Peeters. JEFFREYS, DAVID. 2006b. Kom Rabia: The New Kingdom Settlement (Levels II-V). Survey of Memphis V. London: Egypt Exploration Society. JEFFREYS, DAVID. 1996. "House, Palace and Islands at Memphis," in Haus und Palast im alten Ägypten. Edited by M. Bietak, 287-294. Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie 14. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. JEFFREYS, DAVID and ASTON, DAVID. 2007. Kom Rabia: Third Intermediate Period Levels and Pottery. Survey of Memphis III. London: Egypt Exploration Society. JEFFREYS, DAVID, MALEK, J. and SMITH, H. S. 1987. Memphis 1985. The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 73:11-20. JEFFREYS, DAVID, MALEK, J. and SMITH, H. S. 1986. Memphis 1984. The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 72:114.



JOYCE, ARTHUR and JOHANNESSEN, SISSEL. 1993. "Abandonment and the Production of Archaeological Variability at Domestic Sites," in Abandonment of Settlements and Regions: Ethnoarchaeological and Archaeological Approaches. Edited by C. Cameron and S. Tomka, 138-153. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. KADISH, GERALD. 2001. "Karnak," in The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt. Vol. 2. Edited by D. Redford, 222-226. New York: Oxford University Press. KAISER, WERNER. 1986. Die dekorierte Torfassade des spätzeitlichen Palastbezirkes von Memphis. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 43:123-155. KAISER, WERNER, et. al. 1990. Stadt und Tempel von Elephantine 17/18. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 46:185-249. KAISER, WERNER, et. al. 1988. Stadt und Tempel von Elephantine 15/16. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 44:135-182. KATARY, SALLY. 1989. Land Tenure in the Ramesside period. London: Kegan Paul International. KELLEY, ALLYN. 1983. "Some Reflections on Pottery and Society in Ancient Egypt," in Papers of the Pottery Workshop: Third International Congress of Egyptology, Toronto, September 1982. Edited by A. Kelley, 27-32. Toronto: BenBen Publications. KELLEY, ALLYN. 1976a. The Pottery of Ancient Egypt: Dynasty 1 to Roman Times. Toronto: Royal Ontario Museum. KELLEY, ALLYN. 1976b. The Pottery of Ancient Egypt: Dynasty 1 to Roman Times. Toronto: Royal Ontario Museum. KEMP, BARRY. 2006a. Ancient Egypt: Anatomy of a Civilization. 2nd Edition. London: Routledge. KEMP, BARRY. 2006b. “Central City,” in The Amarna Project. http://www.amarnaproject.com/pages/amarna_the_place/central_city/index.shtml (accessed June 2007). KEMP, BARRY. 2006c. “Interactive Map,” in The Amarna Project. http://www.amarnaproject.com/pages/model_of_the_city/interactive_map.shtml (accessed June 2007). KEMP, BARRY. 2006d. “Model of the City,” in The Amarna Project. http://www.amarnaproject.com/pages/model_of_the_city/ (accessed June 2007). KEMP, BARRY. 2006e. “North City,” in The Amarna Project. http://www.amarnaproject.com/pages/amarna_the_place/north_city/index.shtml (accessed June 2007). KEMP, BARRY. 2006f. “North Palace,” in The Amarna Project. http://www.amarnaproject.com/pages/amarna_the_place/north_palace/index.shtml (accessed June 2007). KEMP, BARRY. 1995. Amarna Reports VI. London: Egypt Exploration Society. KEMP, BARRY. 1995. "Site Formation Processes and the Reconstruction of House P46.33," in Amarna Reports VI. Edited by B. Kemp, 146-168. London: Egypt Exploration Society. KEMP, BARRY. 1994. "Food for an Egyptian City," in Whither Environmental Archaeology? Edited by R. Luff and P. Rowley-Conwy, 133-153. Oxford: Oxbow Books. KEMP, BARRY. 1991. Ancient Egypt: Anatomy of a Civilization. London: Routledge. KEMP, BARRY. 1987. Amarna Reports IV. London: Egypt Exploration Society. KEMP, BARRY. 1986a. Large Middle Kingdom Granary Buildings (and the Archaeology of Administration). Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 113:120-136. KEMP, BARRY. 1986b. "Late Dynastic Pottery form the Vicinity of the South Tombs," in Amarna Reports III. Edited by B. Kemp, 147-188. London: Egypt Exploration Society.



KEMP, BARRY. 1984. Amarna Reports I. London: Egypt Exploration Society. KEMP, BARRY. 1981. The Character of the South Suburb at Tell el-’Amarna. Mitteilungen der Deutschen OrientGesellschaft zu Berlin 113:81-97. KEMP, BARRY. 1979. Preliminary Report on the el-'Amarna Survey, 1978. The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 65:5-12. KEMP, BARRY. 1977a. The City of el-Amarna as a Source for the Study of Urban Society in Ancient Egypt. World Archaeology 9:124-139. KEMP, BARRY. 1977b. The Palace of Apries at Memphis. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 33:101-108. KEMP, BARRY, et. al. 2004. Egypt’s Invisible Walls. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 14:259-288. KENT, SUSAN, ed. 1990. Domestic Architecture and the Use of Space: An Interdisciplinary Cross-Cultural Study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. KENT, SUSAN, ed. 1987. Method and Theory for Activity Area Research: An Ethnoarchaeological Approach. New York: Columbia University Press. KENT, SUSAN. 1984. Analyzing Activity Areas: an Ethnoarchaeological Study of the Use of Space. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. KIRBY, CHRISTOPHER. 1989. "Report on the 1987 Excavation of Q48.4," in Amarna Reports V. Edited by B. Kemp, 15-63. London: Egypt Exploration Society. KITCHEN, KENNETH. 1995. The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt, 1100-650 B.C. 3rd Edition with Suppliment. Warminster: Aris & Phillips. KLUCAS, ERIC E. 1997. The Village Larder: Village Level Production and Exchange in an Early State. Ph.D. diss., University of Arizona, Tucson. KÖHLER, CHRISTIANA. 1996. Archäologie und Ethnographie: Eine Fallstudie der prädynastischen und frühzeitlichen Töpfereiproduktion von Tell el-Fara'in - Buto. Cahiers de la céramique égyptienne 4:133-140. KOZLOFF, ARIELLE, BRYAN, BETSY and BERMAN, LAWRENCE. 1992. Egypt's Dazzling Sun: Amenhotep III and His World. Cleveland: Cleveland Museum of Art. LACOVARA, PETER. 1997. The New Kingdom Royal City. New York: Kegan Paul International. LAMOTTA, VINCENT and SCHIFFER, MICHAEL. 1999. "Formation Processes of House Floor Assemblages," in The Archaeology of Household Activities. Edited by P. Allison, 19-29. London: Routledge. LANSING, AMBROSE. 1918. Excavations at the Palace of Amenhotep III at Thebes. The Bulletin of the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Vol. 13 Suppliment:8-14. LAUFFRAY, JEAN. 1995. Maisons et Ostraca Ptolémaïques à L’Est Du Lac Sacré. Karnak 10:301-348. LAUFFRAY, JEAN. 1970. La colonnade-propylée occidentale de Karnak dite et ses abords. Kêmi: revue de philologie et d'archéologie égyptiennes et coptes 20: 111-164. LAUFFRAY, JEAN, SAUNERON, SERGE and ANUS, PIERRE. 1969. Rapport sur les Travaux de Karnak. Kêmi: revue de philologie et d'archéologie égyptiennes et coptes 19:111-135. LEAHY, ANTHONY. 1990. "Abydos in the Libyan Period (with appendix: The Twenty-Third Dynasty)," in Libya and Egypt, c. 1300-750 BC. Edited by A. Leahy, 155-200. London: SOAS Centre of Near and Middle Eastern Studies and the Society for Libyan Studies.



LECLANT, JEAN. 1965. Recherches sur les monuments thébains de la XXVe dynastie dite éthiopienne. Cairo: Le Institut français d'archéologie orientale. LECLÈRE, FRANÇOIS. 2008. Les villes de Basse Egypte au Ier millénaire av. J.- C.: analyse archéologique et historique de la topographie urbaine. Bibliothèque d'étude 144, 1-2. Le Cairo: Institut français d'archéologie orientale. LEHNER, MARK. 1997. The Giza Plateau Mapping Project: 1995-1996 Annual Report. Chicago: University of Chicago. LESURE, RICHARD. 1998. Vessel form and function in an early formative ceramic assemblage from coastal Mexico. Journal of field archaeology 25:19-36. LEVENTHAL, RICHARD and BAXTER, KEVIN. 1988. "The Use of Ceramics to Identify the Function of Copan Structures," in Household and Community in the Mesoamerican Past. Edited by R. Wilk and W. Ashmore, 51-71. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. LÓPEZ GRANDE, MARÍA JOSÉ, QUESADA SANZ, FERNANDO and MOLINERO POLO, MIGUEL ANGEL. 1995. Excavaciones en Ehnasya el Medina: Heracleópolis Magna. Madrid: Ministerio de Cultura, Dirección General de Bellas Artes y Archivos, Instituto de Conservación y Restauración de Bienes Culturales. MANNING, JOSEPH. 2003. Land and Power in Ptolemaic Egypt: the Structure of Land Tenure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. MARCHAND, SYLVIE and LAISNEY, DAMIEN. 2000. Le Survey de Dendara (1996-1997). Cahiers de la céramique égyptienne 6:261-298. MASSON, AURÉLIA. 2010. Pottery from Karnak: dating and analysing ceramics of the Third Intermediate Period and Late Period in a temple context. Ritual Deposits in Sanctuaries and Tombs at Abydos and Thebes, Evidence from the First Millennium BC. Luxor, Egypt. Conference presentation. MASSON, AURÉLIA. 2011. Persian and Ptolemaic ceramics from Karnak: change and continuity. Cahiers de la céramique égyptienne 9: 269-310. MCCLELLAN, THOMAS. 1997. "Houses and Households in Northern Syria During the Late Bronze Age," in Les Maisons dans la Syrie Antique du IIIe Millénaire aux Débuts de l’Islam. Edited by C. Castel, M. Maqdisi and F. Villeneuve, 29-59. Beirut: IFAPO. MERRILLEES, ROBERT. 1962. Opium Trade in the Bronze Age Levant. Antiquity 36:287-292. MILLS, BARBARA J. 1999. "Ceramics and Social Contexts of Food Consumption in the Northern Southwest," in Pottery and People: A Dynamic Interaction. Edited by J.M. Skibo and G.M. Feinman, 99-114. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press. MISSION FRANÇAISE DES FOUILLES DE TANIS, BRISSAUD, PHILIPPE and ZIVIE-COCHE, CHRISTIANE. 2000. Tanis: Travaux Récents sur le Tell Sân el-Hagar Paris: Noêsis. MUNSELL COLOR. 2000. Munsell Soil Color Charts. New Windsor, NY: Munsell Color. MURNANE, WILLIAM. 1999. "Luxor, Temple of," in Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt. Edited by K.A. Bard and S.B. Shubert, 449-453. London: Routledge. MYSLIWIEC, KAROL. 1987. Keramik und Kleinfunde aus der Grabung im Tempel Sethos' I. in Gurna. Mainz am Rhein: Verlag Phillip von Zabern. NAGEL, GEORGES. 1938. La Céramique du Nouvel Empire à Deir el Médineh. Cairo: Imprimerie de l'Institut français d'archéologie orientale. NAGUIB, SAPHINAZ-AMAL. 1990. Le Clergé Féminin d'Amon Thébain à la 21e Dynastie. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 38. Leuven: Uigeverij Peeters.



NETTING, ROBERT MCC, WILK, RICHARD and ARNOULD, ERIC. 1984. Households: Comparative and Historical Studies of the Domestic Group. Berkeley: University of California Press. NEWELL, RAYMOND. 1987. "Reconstruction of the Partitioning and Utilization of Outside Space in a Late Prehistoric/Early Historic Inupiat Village," in Method and Theory for Activity Area Research: An Ethnoarchaeological Approach. Edited by S. Kent, 107-175. New York: Columbia University Press. NICHOLAS, ILENE. 1990. The Proto-Elamite Settlement at TUV. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania University Museum. O'CONNOR, DAVID. 2002. "Egyptian Archaeology in the Twentieth Century," in Egyptology at the Dawn of the Twenty-First century: Proceedings of the Eighth International Congress of Egyptologists, Cairo, 2000. Vol. 1. Edited by Z. Hawass and L.P. Brock, 1-9. Cairo: American University in Cairo Press. O'CONNOR, DAVID. 1998. "The City and the World: Worldview and Built Forms in the Reign of Amenhotep III," in Amenhotep III: Perspectives on His Reign. Edited by D. O'Connor and E. Cline, 125-172. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. O'CONNOR, DAVID. 1997. "The Elite Houses of Kahun," in Ancient Egypt, the Aegean, and the Near East: Studies in Honour of Martha Rhoads Bell. Vol. 2. Edited by J.S. Phillips and L. Bell, 389-400. San Antonio: Van Siclen Books. O'CONNOR, DAVID. 1996. "The American Archaeological Focus on Ancient Palaces and Temples of the New Kingdom," in The American Discovery of Ancient Egypt. Edited by N. Thomas, 78-95. Los Angeles: American Research Center in Egypt. O'CONNOR, DAVID. 1995. "Beloved of Maat, The Horizon of Re: The Royal Palace in New Kingdom Egypt," in Ancient Egyptian Kingship. Edited by D. O'Connor and D.P. Silverman, 263-300. Leiden: E.J. Brill. O'CONNOR, DAVID. 1991. "Mirror of the Cosmos: The Palace of Merenptah," in Fragments of a Shattered Visage: the Proceedings of the International Symposium of Ramesses the Great. Edited by E. Bleiberg and R. Freed, 167-198. Memphis: Memphis State University. O'CONNOR, DAVID. 1989. City and Palace in New Kingdom Egypt. Cahier de recherches de L’Institut de papyrologie et d’égyptologie de Lille 11:73-87. ORTON, CLIVE, TYERS, PAUL and VINCE, ALAN. 1993. Pottery in Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. PAICE, PATRICIA. 1989. Pottery of Daily Life in Ancient Egypt. The Journal of the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities 19:50-88. PARKER, RICHARD. 1962. A Saite Oracle Papyrus from Thebes in the Brooklyn Museum. Brown Egyptological Studies 4. Providence: Brown University Press. PARKER, RICHARD, LECLANT, JEAN AND GOYON, JEAN CLAUDE. 1979. The edifice of Taharqa by the Sacred Lake of Karnak. Providence: Brown University Press. PEET, ERIC and WOOLEY, LEONARD. 1923. The City of Akhenaten: Part I, Excavations of 1921 and 1922 at El'Amarneh. Egypt Exploration Society Memoir 38. London: Egypt Exploration Society. PENDLEBURY, JOHN D. S. 1951. The City of Akhenaten: Part III, The Central City and the Official Headquarters. Egypt Exploration Society Memoir 44. London: Egypt Exploration Society. PENDLEBURY, JOHN D. S. 1935. Tell el-Amarna. London: L. Dickson & Thompson Ltd. PETRIE, WILLIAM FLINDERS. 1974. Illahun, Kahun and Gurob. Warminster: Aris & Phillips. PETRIE, WILLIAM FLINDERS. 1888. Tanis: Part II, 1886. London: Trübner & co. PETRIE, WILLIAM FLINDERS. 1909. The Palace of Apries (Memphis II). London: School of Archaeology in Egypt, University College.



POLZ, DANIEL. 2001. "Thebes," in The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt. Vol. 3. Edited by D. Redford, 384388. New York: Oxford University Press. PORTER, BERTHA and MOSS, ROSALIND L. B. 1972. Topographical Bibliography of Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphic Texts, Reliefs, and Paintings. Vol. II (2): The Theban Temples. Oxford: Clarendon Press. PUSCH, EDGAR. 1999. Towards a Map of Piramesse. Egyptian Archaeology: Bulletin of the Egypt Exploration Society 14:13-15. PUSCH, EDGAR, BECKER, HELMUT, AND FASSBINDER, JÖRG. 1999. “Wohnen und Leben, oder: Weitere schritte zu einem stadtplan der Ramses-stadt.” Ägypten und Levante, IX, 155-170. RAPOPORT, AMOS. 1990. "Systems of Activities and Systems of Settings," in Domestic Architecture and the Use of Space: An Interdisciplinary Cross-Cultural Study. Edited by S. Kent, 9-20. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. REBER, ELENORA. 2007. “The Well-Tempered Pottery Analysis: Residue and Typological Analysis of Potsherds from the Lower Mississippi Valley,” in Theory and practice of archaeological residue analysis. Edited by H. Barnard and Jelmer W. Eerkens, 148-160. BAR international series 1650. Oxford: BAR Publishing. REDFORD, DONALD. 2005. Mendes: City of the Ram God. Egyptian Archaeology: Bulletin of the Egypt Exploration Society 26:8-12. REDFORD, DONALD. 1999. "Karnak, Akhenaten Temples," in Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt. Edited by K.A. Bard and S.B. Shubert, 391-394. London: Routledge. REDFORD, DONALD. 1994. The Akhenaten Temple Project III: The Excavation of Kom el-Ahmar and Environs. Aegypti Texta Propositaque 2. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. REDFORD, DONALD, et. al. 1991. East Karnak Excavations 1987-1989. Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 28:75-106. REDMOUNT, CAROL and MORGENSTEIN, MAURY. 1996. Major and Trace Element Analysis of Modern Egyptian Pottery. Journal of Archaeological Science 23:741-762. REGERT, MICHAEL, VACHER, S., MOULHERAT, CHRISTOPHE, AND DECAVALLAS, ORESTE. 2003. Adhesive Production and Pottery Function During the Iron Age at the Site of Grand Aunay (Sarthe, France). Archaeometry 45(1): 101–120. RENFREW, COLIN. 1987. "Report on the 1986 Excavations and Survey: The Survey of Site X2," in Amarna Reports IV. Edited by B. Kemp, 87-102. London: Egypt Exploration Society. RICE, PRUDENCE. 1996. Recent Ceramic Analysis: 1. Function, Style, and Origins. Journal of Archaeological Research 4:133-163. RICE, PRUDENCE. 1990. "Functions and Uses of Archaeological Ceramics," in The Changing Roles of Ceramics in Society: 26,000 B.P. to the Present. Edited by W.D. Kingery, 1-10. Ceramics and Civilization 5. Westerville: American Ceramic Society. RICE, PRUDENCE M. 1987. Pottery Analysis: A Sourcebook. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. RICKE, HERBERT. 1932. Der Grundriss des Amarna-Wohnhauses. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs. ROIK, ELKE. 1988. Das altägyptische Wohnhaus und seine Darstellung im Flachbild. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. ROSE, PAMELA. 1989a. "Report on the 1987 Excavations: The Evidence for Pottery Making at Q48.4," in Amarna Reports V. Edited by B. Kemp, 82-95. London: Egypt Exploration Society. ROSE, PAMELA. 1989b. "Report on the 1987 Pottery Survey," in Amarna Reports V. Edited by B. Kemp, 102-114. London: Egypt Exploration Society.



ROSE, PAMELA. 1987a. "The Pottery from Gate Street 8," in Amarna Reports IV. Edited by B. Kemp, 132-143. London: Egypt Exploration Society. ROSE, PAMELA. 1987b. "Report on the 1986 Amarna Pottery Survey," in Amarna Reports IV. Edited by B. Kemp, 115-129. London: Egypt Exploration Society. ROSE, PAMELA. 1986. "Pottery from the Main Chapel," in Amarna Reports III. Edited by B. Kemp, 99-117. London: Egypt Exploration Society. ROSE, PAMELA. 1984. "The Pottery Distribution Analysis," in Amarna Reports I. Edited by B. Kemp, 133-153. London: Egypt Exploration Society. SALEH, ABDEL-AZIZ. 1996. "Ancient Egyptian House and Palace at Giza and Heliopolis," in Haus und Palast im alten Ägypten. Edited by M. Bietak, 185-193. Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie 14. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. SANDERS, DONALD. 1990. "Behavioral Conventions and Archaeology: Methods for the Analysis of Ancient Architecture," in Domestic Architecture and the Use of Space: An Interdisciplinary Cross-Cultural Study. Edited by S. Kent, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. SCHIFFER, MICHAEL. 1990. "Technological Change in Water-Storage and Cooking Pots: Some Predictions from Experiment," in The Changing Roles of Ceramics in Society: 26,000 B.P. to the Present. Edited by W.D. Kingery, 119136. Ceramics and Civilization 5. Westerville: American Ceramic Society. SCHIFFER, MICHAEL. 1987. Formation Processes of the Archaeological Record. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. SCHIFFER, MICHAEL and SKIBO, JAMES. 2001. "Understanding Artifact Variability and Change: A Behavioral Framework" in Anthropological Perspectives on Technology. Edited by M. Schiffer, 139-150. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. SCHIFFER, MICHAEL, et. al. 1994. New Perspectives on Experimental Archaeology: Surface Treatments and Thermal Response of the Clay Cooking Pot. American Antiquity 59:197-217. SEIDLMAYER, STEVEN. 2000. "The First Intermediate Period," in The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt. Edited by I. Shaw, 118-147. Oxford: Oxford University Press. SEILER, ANNE. 1997. Hebua I - Second Intermediate Period and Early New Kingdom. Cahiers de la céramique égyptienne 5:23-34. SEYMOUR, DENI and SCHIFFER, MICHAEL. 1987. "A Preliminary Analysis of Pithouse Assemblages from Snaketown, Arizona," in Method and Theory for Activity Area Research: An Ethnoarchaeological Approach. Edited by S. Kent, 549-603. New York: Columbia University Press. SHAFER, BYRON. 1997. "Temples, Priests, and Rituals: An Overview," in Temples of Ancient Egypt. Edited by B. Shafer, 1-30. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. SHAW, IAN. 2000. The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt. Oxford: Oxford University Press. SINOPOLI, CARLA. 1991. Approaches to Archaeological Ceramics. New York: Plenum Press. SKIBO, JAMES. 1992. Pottery Function: A Use-Alteration Perspective. New York: Plenum Press. SKIBO, JAMES, and BLINMAN, ERIC. 1999. "Exploring the Origins of Pottery on the Colorado Plateau," in Pottery and People: A Dynamic Interaction. Edited by J.M. Skibo and G.M. Feinman, 171-183. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press. SKIBO, JAMES, and FEINMAN, GARY. 1999. Pottery and People: A Dynamic Interaction. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.



SKIBO, JAMES, SCHIFFER, MICHAEL and REID, KENNETH. 1989. Organic-Tempered Pottery: An Experimental Study. American Antiquity 54:122-146. SMITH, MARION. 1988. Function from Whole Vessel Shape: A Method and an Application to Anasazi Black Mesa, Arizona. American Anthropologist 90:912-923. SMITH, MARION. 1985. "Toward an Economic Interpretation of Ceramics: Relating Vessel Size and Shape to Use," in Decoding Prehistoric Ceramics. Edited by B.A. Nelson, 254-309. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. SMITH, MARION. 1983. The Study of Ceramic Function from Artifact Size and Shape. Ph.D. diss., University of Oregon, Eugene. SMITH, VANESSA. 2006. Food Fit for the Soul of a Pharoah: The Mortuary Temple's Bakeries and Breweries. Expedition 48:27-30. SPENCE, KATE. 2004. The Three-Dimensional Form of the Amarna House. The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 90:123-152. SPENCER, ALAN JEFFREY. 2003. Excavations at Tell el-Balamun, 1999-2001. Vol. 3. London: British Museum Press. SPENCER, ALAN JEFFREY. 1999a. "El-Ashmunein," in Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt. Edited by K.A. Bard and S.B. Shubert, 147-150. London: Routledge. SPENCER, ALAN JEFFREY. 1999b. Excavations at Tell el-Balamun, 1995-1998. Vol. 2. London: British Museum Press. SPENCER, ALAN JEFFREY. 1999c. “Casemate foundations once again,” in Studies on Ancient Egypt in honour of H.S. Smith. Edited by A. Leahy and J. Tait, 295-300. London: Egypt Exploration Society. SPENCER, ALAN JEFFREY. 1996. Excavations at Tell el-Balamun, 1991-1994. Vol. 1. London: British Museum Press. SPENCER, ALAN JEFFREY. 1993. Excavations at el-Ashmunein: The Town. Vol. 3. London: British Museum Publications. SPENCER, ALAN JEFFREY. 1989. Excavations at el-Ashmunein: The Temple Area. Vol. 2. London: British Museum Publications. SPENCER, ALAN JEFFREY. 1986. British Museum Expedition to Middle Egypt: Ashmunein (1985). London: British Museum. SPENCER, ALAN JEFFREY. 1979. Brick Architecture in Ancient Egypt. Warminster: Aris & Phillips. SPENCER, PATRICIA. 2002. Amara West: The Cemetery and the Pottery Corpus. London: Egypt Exploration Society. STADELMANN, RAINER. 1996. "Temple Palace and Residential Palace," in Haus und Palast im alten Ägypten. Edited by M. Bietak, 225-230. Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie 14. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. STEVENS, ANNA. 2006a. Private religion at Amarna: the material evidence. BAR international series1587. Oxford: BAR Publishing. STEVENS, ANNA. 2006b. “Small Finds Database,” in The Amarna Project. http://www.amarnaproject.com/pages/recent_projects/material_culture/small_finds/database.shtml (accessed June 2007). STEVENSON, MARC. 1982. Toward an Understanding of Site Abandonment Behavior: Evidence from Historic Mining Camps in the Southwest Yukon. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 1:237-265.



SULLIVAN, ELAINE. 2010. Karnak: Development of the Temple of Amun-Ra. In UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology. http://escholarship.org/uc/item/1f28q08h (accessed July 2010) TAYLOR, JOHN. 2000. "The Late Period (664-332 BC)," in The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt. Edited by I. Shaw, 512. Oxford: Oxford University Press. TEETER, EMILY. 2003. Scarabs, Scaraboids, Seals, and Seal Impressions from Medinet Habu. The University of Chicago Oriental Institute Publications 118. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. TITE, MICHAEL. 1999. Pottery Production, Distribution, and Consumption - The Contribution of the Physical Sciences. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 6:181-233. TITE, MICHAEL, KILIKOGLOU, VASSILIS, and VEKINIS, GEORGE. 2001. Strength, Toughness and Thermal Shock Resistance of Ancient Ceramics, and their Influence on Technological Choice. Archaeometry 43:301-324. TRAUNECKER, CLAUDE. 1987. Les de basse époque: un aspect du fonctionnement économique des temples. Revue d'égyptologie 38:147-162. TRAUNECKER, CLAUDE. 1975. Une stèle commémorant la construction de l'enceinte d'un temple de Montou. Karnak 5:141-158. TRIGGER, BRUCE. 1989. A History of Archaeological Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. TRIGGER, BRUCE, et. al. 1983. Ancient Egypt: A Social History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. TYSON SMITH, STUART. 2002. Sealing Practice, Literacy and Administration in the Middle Kingdom. Cahier de recherches de L’Institut de papyrologie et d’egyptologie de Lille 22:173-194. TYSON SMITH, STUART. 1998. The Transmission of an Administrative Sealing System from Lower Nubia to Kerma. Cahier de recherches de L’Institut de papyrologie et d’egyptologie de Lille 17/3:219-239. TYTUS, ROBB DE PYSTER. 1903. A Preliminary Report on the Re-Excavation of the Palace of Amenhetep III. Postscript and additional notes Charles Van Siclen. 1994. San Antonio: Van Siclen Books. UCLA. (2008). "Digital Karnak Project." http://dlib.etc.ucla.edu/. (accessed July 2010) ULLMANN, MARTINA. 2007. "Thebes: Origins of a Ritual Landscape." in Sacred Space and Sacred Function in Ancient Thebes. Edited by. Peter Dorman and Betsy Bryan, 3-25. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization. Chicago: Oriental Institue of the University of Chicago. VAN SICLEN, CHARLES. 2005. La cour du IXe pylône à Karnak. Bulletin de la Société française d'égyptologie 163: 27 - 46. VAN SICLEN, CHARLES. 1982. Two Theban monuments from the Reign of Amenhotep II. San Antonio: C.C. Van Siclen. VANDORPE, KATELIJN. 2000. The Ptolemaic Epigraphe or Harvest Tax (shemu). Archiv für Papyrusforschung und verwandte Gebiete 42:169-232. VANDORPE, KATELIJN. 1995. "City of Many a Gate, Harbour for Many a Rebel," in Hundred-Gated Thebes: Acts of a Colloquium on Thebes and the Theban area in the Graeco-Roman Period. Edited by S. Vleeming, 203-239. Papyrologica Lugduno-Batava 27. Leiden: E.J. Brill. VON PILGRIM, CORNELIUS. 2002. The Practice of Sealing in the Administration of the First Intermediate Period and the Middle Kingdom. Cahier de recherches de L’Institut de papyrologie et d’egyptologie de Lille 22:161-172. VITELLI, KAREN D. 1999. "Looking Up at Early Ceramics in Greece," in Pottery and People: A Dynamic Interaction. Edited by J.M. Skibo and G.M. Feinman. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press. VITTMANN, GÜNTHER. 1998. Der Demotische Papyrus Rylands 9. Ägypten und Altes Testament 38. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.



VITTMANN, GÜNTHER. 1978. Priester und Beamte im Theben der Spätzeit. Beiträge zur Ägyptologie 1. Vienna: Afro-Pub. VLEEMING, SVEN. 1995a. Hundred-Gated Thebes: Acts of a Colloquium on Thebes and the Theban area in the Graeco-Roman Period. Papyrologica Lugduno-Batava 27. Leiden: E.J. Brill. VLEEMING, SVEN. 1995b. "The Office of a Choachyte in the Theban Area," in Hundred-Gated Thebes: Acts of a Colloquium on Thebes and the Theban area in the Graeco-Roman Period. Edited by S. Vleeming, 241-255. Papyrologica Lugduno-Batava 27. Leiden: E.J. Brill. VLEEMING, SVEN. 1993. Papyrus Reinhardt: An Egyptian Land List from the Tenth Century B.C. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. VLEEMING, SVEN. 1991. The Gooseherds of Hou: (Pap. Hou): A Dossier Relating to Various Agricultural Affairs from Provincial Egypt of the Early Fifth Century B.C. Leuven: Peeters. WARAKSA, ELIZABETH. 2009. Female figurines from the Mut Precinct: context and ritual function. Orbis biblicus et orientalis 240. Fribourg: Academic Press. WARBURTON, DAVID. 1997. State and Economy in Ancient Egypt: Fiscal Vocabulary of the New Kingdom. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 151. Fribourg: University Press. WATANABE, YASUTADA. 1993. Studies on the Palace of Malqata: Investigations at the Palace of Malqata. Tokyo: Chuo Koron Bijutsu Shuppan. WATTENMAKER, PATRICIA. 1998. Household and State in Upper Mesopotamia: Specialized Economy and the Social Uses of Goods in an Early Complex Society. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. WEGNER, JOSEF. 2002. Institutions and Officials at South Abydos: An Overview of the Sigillographic Evidence. Cahier de recherches de L’Institut de papyrologie et d’egyptologie de Lille 22:77-106. WEGNER, JOSEF. 2000. A Middle Kingdom Town at South Abydos. Egyptian Archaeology: Bulletin of the Egypt Exploration Society 17:8-10. WEGNER, JOSEF. 1998. Excavations at the Town of Enduring-are-the-places-of-Khakaure-Maa-Kheru-in-Abydos: A Preliminary Report on the 1994 and 1997 Seasons. Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 35:1-44. WEGNER, JOSEF, SMITH, VANESSA and ROSSEL, STINE. 2000. The Organization of the Temple NFR-KA of Senwosret III at Abydos. Ägypten und Levante 10:83-125. WEIGALL, ARTHUR EDWARD, CURRELLY, C. T. and AYRTON, EDWARD. 1904. Abydos: Part III. 25th Memoir of the Egypt Exploration Fund. London: Egypt Exploration Fund. WILK, RICHARD and ASHMORE, WENDY, eds. 1988. Household and Community in the Mesoamerican Past. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. WILK, RICHARD and NETTING, ROBERT MCC. 1984. "Households: Changing Forms and Functions," in Households: Comparative and Historical Studies of the Domestic Group. Edited by R.M. Netting, R. Wilk and E. Arnould, 1-28. Berkeley: University of California Press. WILK, RICHARD and RATHJE, WILLIAM. 1982. Household Archaeology. The American Behavioral Scientist 25: 6:617-639. WILK, RICHARD, RATHJE, WILLIAM, eds. 1982. Archaeology of the Household: Building a Prehistory of Domestic Life. American Behavioral Scientist 25:611-728. WILSON, PENELOPE. 2002. Fieldwork 2001-2002: Sais. The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 88:2-6. WRESZINSKI, WALTER. 1988. Atlas zur altaegyptischen Kulturgeschichte. Geneva: Slatkine Reprints.



Sacred Lake

Area of Excavations

0M

50 M

100 M

200 M

Imagery courtesy of DigitalGlobe. ©2010.