non textual marks and the twelfth dynasty dynamics of centre and periphery a case study of potmarks...

7/30/2019 Non textual marks and the twelfth dynasty dynamics of centre and periphery A case study of potmarks at the Ge…

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/non-textual-marks-and-the-twelfth-dynasty-dynamics-of-centre-and-periphery 1/13

LingAeg

Non-textual marks and the twelfth Dynasty dynamics of centre and periphery: A case-study of potmarks at the Gebel el-Asr gneiss quarties

Ian Shaw, Liverpool

Abstract: This paper deals with a set of potmarks on a group of late 12th Dynasty stor-age vessels excavated in the Gebel el-Asr gneiss-quarrying region in Lower Nubia. A

group of twenty-two intact 12th Dynasty pottery flat-bottomed storage jars and two smaller intact Middle Kingdom vessels were found in a dry-stone structure that appears to have formed the nucleus of the quarrying ‘settlement’ at Quartz Ridge. Twel-ve of the large storage jars bore pre-firing potmarks on the insides of rims and/or

post-firing marks incised on their shoulders. These marks are examined and inter- preted in the light of the social and economic dynamics of centre and periphery in Middle Kingdom Egypt, particularly in relation to the functions and distribution of the large Middle Kingdom storage vessels made from Marl C1 fabric.

IntroductionAlthough potmarks have often proved difficult to understand satisfactorily, one aspectof interpretive method seems to enjoy general agreement, not only in the study of Egyptian examples but also in the analysis of other ancient potmarking practices: thefundamental importance of context. Thus Nicolle Hirschfeld, in her review of Michael

Lindblom’s book concerning Middle and late Helladic ‘manufacturers’ marks’ onAeginetan pottery,1 points out that many publications dealing with Aegean potmarkshave “illustrated how a contextual approach – consideration of a mark’s method of application, where and on what kind(s) of vases it appears, and the functional, chrono-logical, and geographical importance of its findspot(s) – might contribute to under-standing the purpose(s) of marking.”2 Lindblom himself places his study of potmarks

primarily in the context of the scale and organization of ceramic production in Ae-gina, using ethnographic parallels to reinforce his hypotheses.3 As far as ancientEgyptian potmarks are concerned, Carla Gallorini’s study of Middle Kingdom pot-marks from Kahun was intended to “provide a useful, even if partial, general survey

of the types of vessel on which marks occur, and possibly show distinct patterns of distribution for the marks among the different pottery types”, therefore, in other words, technological, functional, and fabric-oriented issues are crucial contexts for thestudy of ancient Egyptian potmarks.4

This paper discusses a group of vessels bearing potmarks from Gebel el-Asr, aremote Middle Kingdom quarrying site in the desert to the west of Lake Nasser, tak-

1 Lindblom (2001).

2 Hirschfeld (2007: 1).3 Lindblom (2001: Chapter 5).4 Gallorini (1998: 12).



Ian Shaw2

ing into account their archaeological, chronological, geographical and socio-economiccontexts.5

Gebel el-Asr

The Gebel el-Asr gneiss quarrying region covers an area of about 12 square kilome-tres to the south of Wadi Tushka and to the west of Lake Nasser (see Fig. 1). It con-sists of a number of individual quarrying areas dating from the Neolithic period to the

5 I am greatly indebted to Carla Gallorini for her comments when the storage jars first came to light,as well as for the rich data and discussion in her doctoral thesis (Gallorini 1998), and I am alsograteful to Deborah Darnell and Ashraf el-Senussi for their work on the Gebel el-Asr pottery, and

to Louise Simson and Richard Lee for their assistance in recording the storage vessels and their marks. Thanks are also due to all those who have worked on the Gebel el-Asr geoarchaeological project since 1997.

Fig. 1: Map of ancient Egypt and Nubia showing the location of the Gebel el-Asr archaeological site (the ‘Chephren diorite quarries’).



Non-textual marks and the twelfth Dynasty dynamics of centre and periphery 3

Middle Kingdom (Fig. 2): Quartz Ridge, Khufu Stele Quarry, Chisel Quarry, LoadingRamp Quarry and Stele Ridge. The first four locations are all gneiss quarries, whereasthe fifth, Stele Ridge, was evidently a set of gemstone mines exploited in the MiddleKingdom and, judging from the survival of one amphora, visited at least once duringthe Roman period. The 80-kilometre route linking the quarries with the nearest Nileembarkation point at modern Tushka is the longest surviving Egyptian quarry ‘road’.6

Stone vessels are the earliest objects of gneiss known; these date from the Neolithic period to the 6th Dynasty, and were particularly common in the 3rd Dynasty. Statues of gneiss were produced during the Old Kingdom and 12 th Dynasty, such as the dyad of King Sahura with a figure personifying the Coptos nome (New York, MMA 18.2.4)and the headless torso of a statue of King Senusret I, 12 th Dynasty, c.1971-1926 BC(Berlin, ÄM 1205). The few surviving post-Middle Kingdom gneiss statues, such as a

19th Dynasty block-statue from Heliopolis (Vienna ÄS64), may well have beencarved from earlier sculptures or blocks. Indeed the comparative dearth of gneisssculpture surviving from the New Kingdom onwards suggests that the quarries proba-

bly ceased to be used by the end of the Middle Kingdom. The Gebel el-Asr quarriescan therefore be dated on the basis of two main criteria: first, fluctuations in the extentto which gneiss was used for vessels and/or statuary in different periods, and secondlystudy of the pottery from different sites within the region as a whole. The former indi-cates that the quarries were being exploited primarily for vessels in the Predynasticand Early Dynastic period, and mainly for royal statuary in the Old and Middle King-

6 Engelbach (1933, 1938); Harrell & Brown (1994); Shaw et al. (in press).

Fig. 2: Plan of the Gebel el-Asr region, showing the locations of the various sites mentioned in the text.



Ian Shaw4

doms. The pottery from the region dates almost entirely to the Old and Middle King-doms.

In April 1997, with the permission of the Egyptian Supreme Council of Antiqui-ties, we undertook our first brief season of survey at the Gebel el-Asr quarries. Weexamined all the principal sites in the region, taking GPS readings and making smallEDM surveys, as well as sketch plans. We then undertook several seasons of GPSarchaeological and geological survey and excavation, most recently in 2004. In our second season at the site, in April 1999, we excavated a set of dry-stone huts at QuartzRidge, where we discovered the twenty-two Middle Kingdom storage jars that formthe main focus of this article.

Quartz Ridge at Gebel el-Asr: the archaeological contextAt the eastern edge of the Northern Quarries region of Gebel el-Asr is a long strip of high ground roughly following a southwest-northeast axis, punctuated by four stone

cairns, one of which is composed of fragments of quartz, so that the area as a wholewas named Quartz Ridge by Engelbach and Murray, the first archaeologists to work atthe site (see Fig. 3 for a satellite image of the area). As a result of the flatness of the

general terrain in the Gebel el-Asr region, the prominence of Quartz Ridge itself andthe presence of the cairns (which are assumed to date back to the pharaonic period or earlier), it is a highly visible feature in the landscape. Since there is also a consider-able amount of anorthosite gneiss in the immediate vicinity, it is not surprising that

this ridge seems to have formed a kind of operational focus for both Old and MiddleKingdom quarrying. Three basalt dykes to the northwest of the Quartz Ridge quarry-

Fig. 3: Satellite photograph of Quartz Ridge, Gebel el-Asr.




ing region, were exploited both to provide tools for working the gneiss and also tosupply raw material for basalt vessels.

The main group of dry-stone huts at Quartz Ridge, which was identified byEngelbach and Murray as the site of the main quarry-workers’ settlement,7 is the onearea of the site where significant quantities of surface pottery have survived. It repre-sented an obvious target for excavation, promising to provide information on thechronology of the expeditions as well as crucial details concerning living conditionsand supplies. Compared with other major Old and Middle Kingdom quarries, such asthose at Hatnub and Wadi el-Hudi,8 the settlement remains at Gebel el-Asr are verylimited in extent, suggesting both that the duration of the expeditions might have beenfairly short and that the numbers of workers might not have been very great. The bestinterpretation of the Quartz Ridge huts was that they constituted a headquarters andsupply depot from which the scattered groups of quarries were coordinated.

The main visible traces of this group of dry-stone huts were located immediatelyto the east of the Quartz Cairn landmark. These were the largest collection of struc-tural remains discovered at Gebel el-Asr in the 1997-2004 seasons, and were built onthe highest ground in the vicinity. Considerable quantities of ceramics, as well aschips and boulders of gneiss, granite and basalt, litter the surface around these fea-tures.

The surface remains suggested a cluster of four interrelated rooms, and this wasconfirmed by excavation of each individual structure.9 In each room there was a de-

posit of fine desert sand approximately 1 m in depth, with no real stratigraphic phasesdiscernible, and with natural desert surface at its base. The desert here is orange-pink in colour, due to the presence of coloured gravel and small pebbles pressed into the

surface.Room 1 (external measurements 2.5 x 2.15 m) contained about 70 potsherds,mostly located directly on (or just above) the floor surface. One complete vessel wasfound in situ (a large Nile silt basin) upright on the floor. Once the floor level wasreached, an entranceway (54 cm wide) was clearly apparent on the east side of theroom, connecting it to the adjacent Room 4. In Room 2 another intact pottery vessel (amedium-sized round-bottomed jar, probably a typical late 12th Dynasty offering ves-sel) was found in situ on the floor surface. Further potsherds were retrieved from thefloor surface (mostly non-diagnostic, but representing a greater variety of vessel typesthan in Room 1) and once again there were desiccated seeds and small pieces of wood

on the floor surface. Room 3 proved to be the largest of the rooms, essentially comprising a form of courtyard. The same aeolian sand fill was present and the same floor surface reached,10 but it soon became apparent that this room contained twenty-twolarge storage vessels, placed upright in two long lines, and all still intact (Fig. 4). Thevessels were virtually identical and were identifiable as Middle Kingdom storage jars,

7 Murray (1939: 108).8 Shaw (1994).9 This section of the article, dealing with the excavation of the dry-stone huts at Quartz Ridge, is

based on field notes provided by Richard Lee, the site supervisor for this part of the site in 1999and 2000.10 The floor surface of this room was, however, 30 cm higher than that in Rooms 1 and 2.



Ian Shaw6

each one approximately60 cm high and with anaverage capacity of 76.5litres. Many of them bore

pre-firing potmarks onthe insides of their rimsand post-firing numbersincised on their shoul-ders. Since we were onlyable to excavate aroundhalf of the large room inwhich the storage jarswere kept, the originaltotal number of vessels isnot clear, but the 22 +vessels represent a sig-nificant amount of stor-age in support of the

quarrying expeditions, and may ultimately prove to be useful evidence in terms of evaluating the numbers of workers involved in the Middle Kingdom work at Gebel el-Asr.

Room 4 was, in its essential criteria, similar to the preceding three, and yieldedsmall quantities of pottery, shell, desiccated seeds and a tiny fragment of rope. A large

piece of charcoal was also discovered, wedged into the south wall. The eastern wall of

this room had a doorway or potential window, most likely the former it would seem.However, if entering the room by this entrance one would be presented with a 60 cmdrop between the base of the entrance and the room’s floor. Adjacent to Room 4, ly-ing on the present day ground surface we found a stele of red stone bearing the Horusname and birth name of the 5th Dynasty ruler, Nyuserra (c. 2445-2421 BC), who hadnot previously been documented at the site.

Surveying of the Quartz Ridge location revealed approximately ten other dry-stone structures along the east-west axis of the ridge, two of which were excavated inthe 2003 season. These dwellings are more scattered than the cluster of buildings atthe excavated Quartz Ridge settlement; they form a rough line of buildings, with en-

trances facing south, built on the western aspect of the ridge, against what would have been a prevailing northern wind. Beyond these ten structures, to the west, is a dried upwadi-bed which seems to have been of quite a shallow depth, with further dry-stonestructures located at its edges, two of which (SP85 and SP90) were excavated in the2000 season. SP90 proved to contain the remains of at least one donkey. The nature of all the excavated structures at Quartz Ridge is essentially ephemeral, and these build-ings were probably only created for occasional, seasonal/short-term use. The walls areall built out of the local quartzite rocks, none of which were dressed or worked, andwithout any bonding material between them.

Fig. 4: The 12th Dynasty storage jars, as excavated at Quartz Ridge,

Gebel el-Asr. Each jar is shown with its assigned number (note that jar 22, which had no potmarks, was not yet visible, being unexcavated

beneath the sand to the left).




The storage jars: the ceramic contextThe twenty-two storage jars from Room 3 of the main dry-stone structure at QuartzRidge are made from Marl C1 fabric. According to Carla Gallorini,11 vessels of thistype, probably produced in the Memphis-Faiyum region,12 were particularly suited tothe transportation and long-term storage of dry substances such as grain, but DorotheaArnold13 has argued that they were most likely used for the storage of beer.

The clay employed for these storage jars is defined by Gallorini as follows: “MarlC, variant 1; the section is usually zoned, red with a black/dark grey core. The surfaceis always uncoated and it shows a white/grey colour due to the efflorescence of saltsduring the firing process.”14 Although Dorothea Arnold has suggested that the MarlC1 fabric might have originated among the potters in the region of el-Lisht, 15 BettinaBader argues that there may have been a Middle Egyptian source of this clay, provid-ing a more convenient source for Upper Egypt or Nubia.16 It has also been suggestedthat the many examples excavated at Tell el-Maskhuta might have been locally made.17

As far as manufacturing techniques are concerned, the main bodies of the Marl C1storage vessels are all hand-made using the coiling method, while the flat base is pos-sibly made over a mould. The rim and upper shoulder, judging from clear survivingrilling marks, were usually hand-turned and added to the vessel after the first dryingstage. The rim-type varies greatly, but Arnold has suggested, primarily on the basis of examples from Dahshur, el-Lisht and Tell el-Daba a that a temporal sequence, basedon four distinctive rim-types can be discerned.18 On the basis of Arnold’s rim se-quence, Ashraf el-Senussi argues that the Gebel el-Asr jars should be assigned to thelate 12th or early 13th Dynasty.19 This fits well with the dates of other Middle King-dom pottery forming part of the same assemblage at our Quartz Ridge structure, e.g. a

large Nile C basin that was very similar to examples dating from the reign of SenusretIII at Abydos20 and Amenemhat III at Hawara.21 The peak period of use of the MarlC1 storage jars was in the mid- to late12th Dynasty, although examples at Tell el-Daba a were found in strata dating to the late 12th to mid-13th dynasties,22 and there arealso examples at Kom Rabia a and Tell el-Daba a dating to the 13th Dynasty,23 as wellas sherds at Karnak North dating as late as the Second Intermediate Period.24

Much of the surface pottery scattered around the Quartz Ridge settlement also de-rived from large Middle Kingdom storage vessels of this type (see Fig. 5 for drawingsof two examples recorded in the 2003 season). Similar jars have been found not only

11 Gallorini (1998: 43).12 Nordström & Bourriau (1993: 180).13 Arnold (1988: 114).14 Gallorini (1998: 43).15 Arnold (1988: 146).16 Bader (2001: 32-36).17 Redmount (1989: IV, 775).18 Arnold (1988: Fig. 74, no. 51).19 See catalogue nos 1/03 and 18/03, discussed in el-Senussi (2003).20 Wegner (2001: Fig. 8, No. 20).21 el-Senussi (1999).

22 Gallorini (1998: 52); Bader (2001: 155-160).23 Gallorini (1998: 46).24 Jacquet-Gordon (1990: 14-17).



Ian Shaw8

at the sites already mentioned above, but also atQasr el-Sagha,25 Haraga,26 Tell el-Maskhuta,27 Abu Ghalib,28 Askut,29 Ayn Sukhna,30 MersaGawasis31 and Abu Ziyar.32 The main el-Lishtgroup of Marl C storage vessels of this type is theset of 22 jars (also with pre-firing marks insidetheir rims) that was found in the so-called ‘Southwall deposit 1’.33 These have been securely datedto the middle of the reign of Senusret I. The ex-cavations at el-Lisht have, however, also yieldedfragments of vessels of this type in a refuse dumpassociated with settlement in the southeasterncorner of the cemetery.34

The site of Abu Ziyar, excavated by John Darnell,35 is highly comparable with QuartzRidge; it is thought to be a kind of Middle Kingdom supply depot about one third of the way along the northern Girga route between the Nile valley and Kharga oasis,comprising a rectangular dry-stone structure associated with sherds deriving fromhundreds of Marl C storage vessels. Darnell argues that the Abu Ziyar examples maywell date to around the same time as those in the South wall deposit 1 at el-Lisht: “the

jars, from their fabric seemingly products of the area of Lisht, appear to have beendispatched from the Nile Valley as provisions for a large expedition – perhaps the of-ficial ‘opening’ of Kharga to Middle Kingdom activity.”

Before we consider the potmarks on the Quartz Ridge vessels, it is important tonote that the best parallels for the Gebel el-Asr group of marked storage vessels come

both from the Middle Kingdom political and economic centres (Lisht/Itj-tawy,Dahshur, Hawara and Karnak) and also from its peripheries (Abu Ziyar, Ayn Sukhna,Mersa/Wadi Gawasis, Askut, Qasr el-Sagha). Whatever the significance of the delib-erate marking of large storage jars may be, they clearly played an important role in12th Dynasty governmental distribution of supplies across steadily expanding territory,facilitating a diversification of economic interests.

The potmarksTwelve of the twenty-two Quartz Ridge jars (1, 4-6, 9, 12-14, 16, 17, 20, 21) bear either one or two potmarks on their interior or exterior surfaces, sometimes both; alto-

gether there are six pre-firing marks and eleven post-firing marks (see Tables 1 and 2).The other ten jars (2, 3, 7, 8, 10, 11, 15, 18, 19, 22) have neither pre- nor post-firing

25 Sliwa (1992: Fig. 10, 1).26 Engelbach (1923: Pl. XXXIX, 67E).27 Redmount (1989: 775).28 Larsen (1936: Pl. 72).29 Smith (1993: Fig. 9).30 V. Perunka (pers. comm.).31 Bard & Fattovitch (2007: 104-105).32 Darnell (2008).

33 Arnold (1988: 113).34 Arnold (1988: 124, Fig. 74).35 Darnell (2008).

Fig. 5: Drawings of Marl C storage vessels1/03 and 18/03, on the basis of rim-sherdscollected from the surface at Quartz Ridgein the 2003 season (original drawings byAshraf el-Senussi).




potmarks. Eight of the marks seem to indicate rough versions of hieroglyphic repre-sentations of numerals, with two examples being rough crosses (see Fig. 6 for a bar-chart showing proportions of pre- and post-fired marks that appear to be numerical, aswell as a breakdown of the combinations of signs in each of the presumed numericalmarks).

The vast majority of the 580 sherds bearing incised marks that were brought back tothe UK by Petrie from his excavations at Kahun were of Marl C fabric, and of these258 derived from large storage jars of the type under discussion here. This clearlydemonstrates the high tendency for large 12th Dynasty Marl C1 storage jars to bear

potmarks.36 Bard and Fattovitch also note, in their report on the 2001-5 excavations atMersa Gawasis that “most of the pot marks … are associated with Marl C zir s”, withthe few others appearing characteristically on drinking bowls.37 Most of the marks aresaid to be pre-firing, primarily consisting of vertical or horizontal ‘commas’, usually

positioned either on the rim or upper shoulder, as with the Gebel el-Asr examples (seeFigs. 6-8 and 10). However, they also note the presence of ‘graffiti marks’ located inthe middle and upper parts of the vessel exterior, and often in association with the pre-firing potmarks; it appears that the ‘graffiti marks’ correspond to those which we de-fine at Gebel el-Asr as post-firing potmarks (see Fig. 9 for the exterior mark on jar 12at Quartz Ridge).

36 Gallorini (1998: 72), however, makes the important point that potmarks may perhaps be dispropor-tionately represented on Marl fabrics because of better preservation: ‘on sherds in Nile clays the

marks are extremely difficult to detect; their surface is often eroded, and the marks may becomeconfused with unintentional signs left on the surface during manufacture’.37 Bard & Fattovitch (2007: 105-106).

Fig. 6: The presumed numerical types of potmarks on the Quartz Ridge storage vessels

(in the list on the left, v=vertical sign and h=horizontal sign).



Ian Shaw10

Gallorini argues that pre-firing marks were inevitably created at an earlier stage in the production of pottery than post-firing ones: “we can trace the origin of the pre-firingmarks as far back as the pottery workshop (although this does not necessarily meanthat the instruction to apply the marks came from the potters), reducing considerablythe range of possible interpretations.”38 A similar observation is made by Bard andFattovitch,39 who comment that “pre-fired incised rim-marks and graffiti representtwo different acts made at two different times”, but they also point out that the rimmarks might no longer have been visible once the vessel had actual been filled with itsintended contents. Bard and Fattovitch note that pre-firing marks on vessels’ rimshave traditionally been linked with vessels’ capacities, but this seems unlikely in thecase of the twenty-two Gebel el-Asr jars, which all had virtually the same capacity of 76.5 litres.

DiscussionGallorini suggests, with regard to pre-firing potmarks, that “The last hypothesis … isthe possibility that someone extraneous to the workshop could have asked the potters

38 Gallorini (1998: 13).39 Bard & Fattovitch (2007: 106).

Fig. 7: The potmarks on storage jar no. 1 atQuartz Ridge.







to apply the marks for reasons related not to the pottery manufacture, but to the logis-tic/administrative aspects of the vessels’ final distribution. I am thinking especially of the pottery produced by the ateliers directly controlled by the central administration,and working mainly, if not exclusively, to supply vessels for royal buildings and royaldomains … many of the sites in which pre-firing marks are well attested are either newly founded settlements in relation to royal domains (Ezbet Rushdi, Lisht, Qasr el-Sagha, Kahun, the Nubian forts) or royal funerary complexes (Lahun, Dahshur, Lishtsouth).”40

To this list of course can now be added the Red Sea coastal sites of Ayn Sukhnaand Mersa Gawasis, and the two western desert sites of Abu Ziyar and Gebel el-Asr,all four of which are clearly both geographically peripheral and also closely connectedwith Middle Kingdom forays into outlying reasons, either for commercial reasons(Mersa Gawasis and Abu Ziyar) or the exploitation of mineral resources (Ayn Sukhnaand Gebel el-Asr).

In view of the possibility that the post-firing marks on the vessels’ exteriors (i.e.Bard and Fattovitch’s ‘graffiti marks’) might refer more to contents, functions, trans-

portation and destinations, it is interesting to note that the Mersa Gawasis ‘graffiti’include representations of boats, suggesting a direct reference to the use of these ves-sels in connection with maritime expe-ditions, thus corresponding to the role of the site as a harbour for expeditions to andfrom Punt. Figure 11 shows the five exter-nal post-firing marks on Quartz Ridgestorage jars that appear to be non-numer-

ical; none of these have any obviousconnection with the purpose of the expedi-tion at Quartz Ridge, i.e. the quarrying of gneiss and/or chalcedony. Two of them dohowever resemble some in the catalogueof Kahun potmarks, thus the mark on jar 5is close to Gallorini’s catalogue no. 256,41 and that on jar 13 is similar to cataloguenos. 226-7.42

In order to understand more clearly the

relationships between places, supply routesand potmarks (assuming that all three mayactually be linked), it will be necessary tohave published catalogues not only of the

potmarks from Kahun and Gebel el-Asr but all those from both central and periph-eral sites mentioned above, so that the ty-

pology can be subjected to full spatialanalysis.

40 Gallorini (1998: 260-261).41 Gallorini (1998: 85).42 Gallorini (1998: 70-71).

Fig. 11: A selection of five non-numerical markson storage jars at Quartz Ridge.

Fig. 12: Diagram of central and peripheral siteswith Middle Kingdom Marl C1 storage vessels.



Ian Shaw12

BibliographyArnold, Dieter. 1988. The South Cemeteries of Lisht I: The Pyramid of Senusret I , Publications of the

Metropolitan Museum of Art Egyptian Expedition 22, New York.Bader, Bettina. 2001. Tell el-Daba a XIII. Typologie und Chronologie der Mergel C-Ton Keramik ,

Denkschriften der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 22, Untersuchungen der Zweig-stelle Kairo des Österreichischen Archäologischen Institutes 19, Vienna.

Bard, Kathryn & Rodolfo Fattovitch (eds.). 2007. Harbor of the Pharaohs to the Land of Punt: Ar-chaeological Investigations at Mersa/Wadi Gawasis, Egypt, 2001-2005, Naples.

Darnell, John. 2008. Abu Ziyar and Tundaba, Yale Egyptological Institute in Egypt,http://www.yale.edu/egyptology/ae_tundaba_remains.htm [last accessed 2009-02-06].

Engelbach, Reginald. 1923. Harageh, British School of Archaeology in Egypt and Egyptian ResearchAccount 1914, 28, London.

--- 1933. The Quarries of the Western Nubian Desert: A Preliminary Report, in: Annales du Servicedes Antiquités de l’Egypte 33, 65-74.

--- 1938. The Quarries of the Western Nubian Desert and the Ancient Road to Tushka, in: Annales duService des Antiquités de l’Egypte 38, 369-390.

Gallorini, Carla. 1998. Incised Marks on Pottery and Other Objects from Kahun: Systems of Communi-cation in Egypt during the Late Middle Kingdom , unpublished PhD thesis, University College

London.Harrell, James A. & V. Max Brown. 1994. Chephren’s Quarry in the Nubian Desert of Egypt, in: Nu-

bica 3/1, 43-57.Hirschfeld, Nicolle. 2007. Review of Lindblom 2001, in: American Journal of Archaeology 111.1,

Online Publications: Book Reviews, http://www.ajaonline.org/index.php?ptype=breview&riss=29[last accessed 2009-02-06].

Jacquet-Gordon, Helen. 1990. Karnak-Nord (IFAO. 1987-1989), in: Bulletin de Liaison du Groupe International d’Étude de la Céramique Égyptienne 14, 14-17.

Larsen, Hjalmar. 1936. Vorbericht über die schwedischen Grabungen in Abu Ghalib 1932-1934, in: Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 6, 41-87.

Lindblom, Michael. 2001. Marks and Makers: Appearance, Distribution and Function of Middle and Late Helladic Manufacturers’ Marks on Aeginetan Pottery, Jonsered.

Nordström, Hans Ake & Janine Bourriau. 1993. Ceramic Technology: Clays and Fabrics, in: An Intro-duction to Ancient Egyptian Pottery, ed. by Do. Arnold & J. Bourriau, Sonderschrift des Deut-schen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 17, Mainz am Rhein, 143-190.

Redmount, Carol A. 1989. On an Egyptian/Asiatic Frontier: An Archaeological History of the WadiTumilat , unpublished PhD thesis, Chicago.

el-Senussi, Ashraf. 1999. Unpublished SCA Report on the Pottery from the 1999 Survey and Excava-tions at Gebel el-Asr .

--- 2003. Unpublished SCA Report on the Pottery from the 2003 Survey and Excavations at Gebel el- Asr .

Shaw, Ian. 1994. Pharaonic Quarrying and Mining: Settlement and Procurement in Egypt’s MarginalAreas, in: Antiquity 68, 108-119.

Shaw, Ian, Tom Heldal, Per Storemyr & Elizabeth G. Bloxam. In press. Quarrying and Landscape atGebel el-Asr in the Old and Middle Kingdoms, in: Proceedings of the First Neapolitan Congress

of Egyptology, ed. by F. Raffaele, I. Incordino & M. Nuzzollo,Wiesbaden.Sliwa, Joachim. 1992. The Middle Kingdom Settlement at Qasr el-Sagha 1979-1988, Cracow.Smith, Stuart Tyson. 1993. The House of Meryka at Askut and the Beginning of the New Kingdom in

Nubia, in: Atti del VI Congresso Internazionale di Egittologia II, Turin, 497-509.

Tables

Table 1: The potmarks on the 12th Dynasty storage jars at Quartz RidgeJars numbered 1-22 (see Fig. 4). Ten have neither pre- nor post-firing potmarks (2, 3, 7, 8, 10, 11, 15,18, 19, 22). The other twelve each have either one or two (and, in one case, even three) potmarks. Al-together there are six pre-firing marks and eleven post-firing marks.

Jar 1: (a) post-firing incised mark on exterior, on the shoulder (b) pre-firing mark on the interior of the rim, consisting of two roughly vertical strokes fol-lowed by one horizontal




Jar 4: post-firing painted black mark on exterior, on the shoulder Jar 5: post-firing lightly incised mark on exterior, on the shoulder Jar 6: post-firing incised mark on exterior, on the shoulder Jar 9: (a) post-firing incised mark on exterior, on the shoulder

(b) pre-firing mark on the interior of the rim, consisting of three vertical lines and possibly ahorizontal line below them

Jar 12: (a) post-firing incised mark on exterior, on the shoulder (b) pre-firing mark on the interior of the rim, consisting of two vertical lines with a horizontalline above them

Jar 13: post-firing incised mark on exterior, on the shoulder, forming a faint cross shapeJar 14: post-firing painted mark on exterior, on the shoulder, taking the form of a serpentine lineJar 16: pre-firing mark on the interior of the rim, forming shape of capital letter IJar 17: (a) post-firing incised mark on exterior, on the shoulder: nine vertical strokes preceded by a V

on its side(b) second post-firing mark on exterior, consisting of an inverted V with six vertical strokes be-low it(c) pre-firing mark on the interior of the rim, consisting of a rough cross shape

Jar 20: pre-firing mark on the interior of the rim, consisting of a V-shape on its side

Jar 21: post-firing incised mark on exterior, on the shoulder: twelve vertical strokes

Table 2: Gebel el-Asr potmarks: the statistics22 storage jars

12 with potmarks6 with pre-firing marks11 with post-firing marks

Pre-firing marksJar 1b: [Incised/Rim/Interior] 2 verticals and one horizontalJar 9b: [Incised/Rim/Interior] 3 verticals and one possible horizontalJar 12b: [Incised/Rim/Interior] 2 verticals and one horizontalJar 16: [Incised/Rim/Interior] T sign

Jar 17c: [Incised/Rim/Interior] + signJar 20: [Incised/Rim/Interior] V sign on its side

Post-firing marksJar 1a: [Incised/Shoulder/Exterior] Diagonal followed by horizontalJar 4: [Painted/Shoulder/Exterior] serpentine signJar 5: [Lightly incised/Shoulder/Exterior] X sign with horizontal line above and belowJar 6: [Incised/Shoulder/Exterior] four verticals?Jar 9: [Incised/Shoulder/Exterior] three verticals with horizontal belowJar 12a: [Incised/Shoulder/Exterior] 7 signJar 13: [Incised/Shoulder/Exterior] + signJar 14: [Painted/Shoulder/Exterior] serpentine sign

Jar 17a: [Incised/Shoulder/Exterior] V sign on side followed by nine verticalsJar 17b: [Incised/Shoulder/Exterior] inverted V sign with six verticals belowJar 21: [Incised/Shoulder/Exterior] twelve verticals

non textual marks and the twelfth dynasty dynamics of centre and periphery a case study of potmarks...

Documents