/
PAMATKY ARCHEOLOGICKE /
FOUNDED 1854
VOLUME LXXXVII 1996 - NUMBER 2 INSTITUTE OP ARCHAEOLOGY - PRAGUE
EDITOR Jan Fridrich
EDlTORIAL BOARD Jan Bouzek, Miloš Čižmář, Petr Charvát, Pavel Kouřil, Jan Rul/, Natalie Venclová, Zdeněk Smetánka
ASSISTANT EDITOR Ivana Sýkorová
EDlTORIAL CLERK Ivana Herglová
TYPE-SETTING AND TECHNICAL EDITOR Mahulena Jarkovská
© Institute of Archaeology, Prague 1996
PAMÁTKY ARCHEOLOGICKÉ VOLUME LXXXVII 1996 - NUMBER 2
CONTENTS - OBSAH
Milan Zápotocký - Dagmar Dreslerová: Jenštejn. Eine neuentdeckte frtíhaneolíthísche Gruppe in Mittelbi:ihmen - Jenštejn. Nová raně eneolitická skupina ve středních Čechách ..
5-58
Zdeněk
Smrž: Das frííhlatenezeitliche Gehi:ift bei Droužkovice (Kr. Chomutov, NW-Bi:ihmen) - Časně laténský dvorec u Droužkovic (okr. Chomutov, SZ Čechy) ..
59-94
Exkurs 1 - Antonin Majer: Ergebnisse der Phosphatenanalyse
..
89-91
Exkurs 2 - Josef Kyncl: Bestimmung der Holzkohlen
.
91
Exkurs 3 - Zdeněk Smrž: Der Menhir bei Droužkovice
.
91-93
Slavomil Vencl: Acorns as food: again - A znovu: žaludy jako potravina
.
95-111
Evžen Neustupný: Polygons in Archaeology
.
112-136
Miroslav Bárta: Class- Type Interpretation of the Pottery - Pottery Finds from the Pyramid Temple of the King Raneferef and their Significance - Abusir, Egypt - Druhotypová interpretace nálezů keramiky. Keramika z chrámu panovníka Raneferefa aj ejí význam. Abúsír, Egypt .
137-160
Clive Harfield: The Archaeology of the Bayeux Tapestry - Tapisérie z Bayeux pod zorným úhlem archeologie .
161-174
Martin Gojda: A few Comments on the archaeologists' Approach to the Bayeux Iconography - Několik poznámek k ikonografii tapisérie z Bayeux z pohledu archeologie .
174-175
ReDections - Úvahy
Reviews - Recenze Whither Archaeology? Papers in Honour ofEvžen Neustupný. Edited by Martin Kuna and Natalie Venclová (Jan Bouzek) . Jan
Klápště: Paměť krajiny středověkého Mostecka Zeuge des Mittelalters (Zdeněk Smetánka)
Zdeněk Vašíček:
L'archéologie, 1'histoire, le passé. - Z.
Das Landschaftsgebiet Most als .. Vašíček:
176 176-178
Obrazy (minulosti) (Jan .
178-179
..
179
Grith Lerche: Ploughing Implements and Tillage Practices in Denmark from the Viking Period to about 1800. Experimentally Substantianed (Magdalena Beranová) .
179-180
Bouzek) Ivan Karayotov:
Monetosečeneto
na Mesambrija (Milan Jančo)
137-160
Památky archeologické LXXXVII, Praha 1996
CLASS-TYPE INTERPRETATION OF THE POTTERY POTTERY FINDS PROM THE PYRAMID TEMPLE OF THE KING R~NEFEREF AND THEIR SIGNIFICANCE DRUHOTYPOVÁ INTERPRETACE NÁLEZU KERAMIKY. KERAMIKA Z CHRÁMU PANOVNÍKA RANEFEREFA A JEJÍ VÝZNAM ABUSIR. EGYPT
Miroslav Bárta
Trus paper sumrnarizes the basic methods used in 1993-1994 for the analysis of the 01d Kingdom pottery from the pyramid temple of King Raneferef (5th dynasty, 2475-2325 B.C.), Abusir, and also presents their results. Trus temple, which is part of the mortuary complex of the pharaoh (Edwards 1991, 170-171; Stadelmann 1991, 174-175), is located within the Czech archaeological concession in Abusir which, except for short intervals, has been under continuous investigation up to the present day (Verner 1982; 1984; 1985a-d; 1986a-d; 1988; 1990; 1992). Trus paper is concemed with such seerningly unrelated toplcs as the classification of pottery based on the distinction between the class and type categories; the interior of the temple which was divided into functional parts and their characteristics were studied; or the degree of recognizability of human activities in various parts of the temp1e based on the pottery remains. In the fol1owing sections the various viewpoints, interpretations and methods are discussed that were adopted (some having 1 been revised or modífied) in the summer of 1994 for the purpose of the dissertation dealing with this subject. Although the pottery materiál on which the methods were tested and demonstrated is derived exclusively frorn the Old Kingdom of Egypt, the paper also tries to find answers to questions of a more general archaeological nature. The study is structured as fol1ows: 1.0. Prerequisites 1.1. Stratigraphy 1.2. Classification of the pottery 2.0. Interpretation of the pottery 2.1. Activity areas within the temple 2.2. Chronological classification of the pottery 3.0. Conclusion The opening section (1.0) deals with the facts which are of Importance for the ínterpretatíon of the pottery both in terms of íts quantity and presence within various parts of the temple. It is also concemed with the stratigraphy within the temple, the conditions of stratification at the site and its significance in reIatíon to the artifacts. The second part of the fírst section describes the criteria used for the classification of the pottery recovered from the temple. The following section (2.0), which ís the core of the paper, reviews the qualitative and quantitative evidence of pottery in different parts of the temple, with reference to the various functions of the roorns and areas. The section which deals with human activities within various parts of the temple (2.1) attempts to divide the pottery into classes, while the section dealíng with dating (2.2) makes distinctions between the pottery types.
1.0. PREREQUlSITES 1.1. Stratigraphy Trus section is only concemed with the essential characteristics of local stratigraphy which are of relevance to the nature of deposition of the artifacts (or their gradual burial throughout various parts of the temple); the artifacts recovered from the ternple will be employed to shed light upon the main stratlgraphíc tendencies observed on the site, The pottery was recovered from 47 rooms/areas recorded within the temple of King Raneferef (see Pian 1). By the term "roorn" a three-dimensional structure is meant (of certain length, width and height) having their own walls on at 1east three sides and typícally also ceilings, although these are hardly ever found in situ but are visible in the stratigraphy. Magazínes (CO - CZ) in the north-western part of the temple are typical examples of "rooms", as are the secondary priest rooms (F - Z), while such features as the yard DW are less typícal, Under the term "area" fall those structures that are not defined by their own walls and contain no evidence of ceilings, typical examples being refuse areas (AC*) or communications withín the temple (includlng e.g. the main approach Bto the temple). The main difference between a room and an area is essentially in that the former appears to be an actíve structure (defíned by its own walls), while the latter can be called a passive structure (defined by the surrounding active structures). That is the major architectural distinction. Archaeologically there Js also a quantítative difference between the two categories, since a far greater number of artífacts were contained within rooms as compared to areas (with the exception of the refuse areas). A further difference Js in that the rooms are the smallest identifiable unlts where human activities are attested to by the artifacts recovered there (Flannery - Winter 1976,34). Trus Is possible to detect thanks to the almost complete survival of the originál main walls (always restíng on the fIoor or the ground and enclosing the ínteríor of the temple or dívlding it into the main functional sections; they are far more substantíal than the inner walls and partitions); inner walls (which were also built on the ground or fIoor but were of a thinner structure; they enclose the rooms within the temple); and partitions (additional structures altering the orígínal ground plan, generally reducing the size of rooms or areas or divídíng them; they are no more than one brick thick and often rest upon layers which accumulated after the temple was built). Once they were discarded, artifacts were buried wíthín the temple, where both dispersal and cumulative tendencies are visíble. The cumulative tendency can be seen for example in the accumulation of secondary rubbish in refuse areas. Dispersal tendencies on the other hand are more characteristic of some of the secondary disturbances on the site, leading to the separation of
Trus study was supervised by Prof. PhDr. M. Verner, Dr.Sc. and opposed by Doc. PhDr. L. Bareš and PhDr. E. Neustupný. I would like to thank aU of them for the patience they showed during the numerous consultations before tlůs paper was completed, and Prof. Verner in particular for enab1ing me to study the material presented in this work as well as the documentation from the excavations carried out at the temple of Raneferef which is kept on the files of the Czech Institute ofEgyptology, Charles University, Prague.
137
artifacts that were previously part of one assemb1age. The dispersal tendency (apart from cumu1ative tendency) was stronger in the roorns, a typical examp1e being the fragments of one cp rt mouId found within two different rooms (CX and CYl. The pottery which was se1ected for analysis was that recovered from the floor deposíts (overlying the ground 1evels of the rooms), I.e. constituting primary refuse. This material was supp1emented by the pottery from some of the areas, particu1ar1y from refuse areas, i.e. secondary refuse, the 1ayers of which were much deeper. The terms primary and secondary refuse were first used by M. B. Schiffer in 1976, butas ear1y as 1906 G. A. Reisnerfocused on stratigraphy as the maill source of data during the excavation of the pyramid temp1e of pharaoh Menkaure, thus having anticipated future archaeo1ogical trends 70 years in advance (Reisner 1931, 6-54). He was concerned not on1y with post-depositional processes but also with the primary refuse. His studíes, however, have remained virtually unknown to present-day egyptologísts, not to mention archaeo1ogists. Whilst describing the 1ayers in the northem magazines of the temp1e, he noted that: "The floor deposit contained the objects enumerated below, which represented the original contents of the room, and was produced by the early plundering, the destruction of the wooden loft, and the roof, and the first period of decay of the mud-brick walls. The middle stratum of chips and sand was produced by decay after the fall of the roof; and the top stratum was produced by the gradual decay of the mud-brick walls above its top, accompanied by falls of chips from the stone walls." (Reisner 1931, 17; also Wright 1969,121123). Primary and secondary refuse is formed as a resu1t of artifacts being transferred from a systemic context (where they were usedl to the archaeo1ogica1 context (where, having ceased to be of use, they become objects of archaeo1ogical study) (Schiffer 1972,157). There ls one important difference between the two types of refuse: whereas artifacts from the primary refuse were generally deposited at the p1ace where they were used, secondary refuse was deposited at a p1ace away from the p1ace where it had been used (Schiffer 1972, 161; 1976, 30). Trus premise is of practica1 consequence, as primary refuse better reflects human activities performed at the p1aces where it was found, in this particu1ar case within individual rooms. The prirnary 1ayer or floor deposit is that overlying the floor 1eve1 of the rooms and areas, and it was contained within the initial section of each of the stratlgraphíc sequences found at the site. With the exception of refuse 1ayers, this is probab1y the on1y type of 1ayer from the 01d Kingdom found in the temp1e which may be described as anthropogenic - resu1ting from purposefu1 human activities which are in tum reflected through the artifacts. The manner and intensity in which human activities can be reflected in this way are among the major topics discussed in this work. Judging from the section p1ans and descriptions of the pottery flnds, the primary 1ayers were considerab1y deep (between 10-15 and 30-40 cm) and almost without any 1ater intrusions. However, the other artifacts do not a1ways reflect the intensity of human activity for which they were used. Trus is typica1 of beer jars the evidence of whích suggests that not all parts of the vesse1 were discarded in the same way or at the same time. When broken, the sherds served as tempering for bricks and pots or were filled into floors, the rest being discarded as waste. Their pro1ongated pointed bases, conica1 in shape, were used by masons for mixing or carrying mortar or other materia1 to be put on the wa1ls. That is why these vesse1 bases are often found some distance from the sites where the other parts of the same vesse1s were found. The transformation processes which affect the p1acement of artifacts after their deposition are amongst other factors discussed in detail by M. B. Schiffer (Schiffer 1983, 675-706). Primary 1ayers have the following main characteristics:
138
1) The origin. They were formed as a resu1t of human activíties. 2) The position, which was visib1e in the vertical stratigraphy. The lowest 1ayer of the sequence is at floor 1eve1and the top 1ayer is described as "ashy" or "fine destruction" level. Their interfaces are a1ways horizontál, unlike those of the other layers, 3) The content. They contain primarily pottery, as well as sea1 impressions, in1ays, anima1 bones, fragments of mats, charcoal, stone tools and other artifacts wruch are datab1e to the 01d Kingdom Period. The total number of 47 rooms and areas recorded also includes some refuse areas of the AC* type. Their signiflcance is in that they attest to the existence of several refuse dumps in the temp1e, which were used for refuse accumu1ation. Trus refuse would, by no means qualify as primary refuse. Next to these areas, there were deposits of secondary refuse found in the secondary priest roorns, where everyday refuse was dumped behind mudbrick partitions, which were added at the expense of the actualliving area (rooms M, N, A with a stripe; B with a stripe, Z and H). A1though the refuse behind these partitions would be of secondary origin, it reflects activities taking p1ace in imrnediate1y adjacent rooms. The secondary refuse here is therefore of equa1 importance to the primary refuse in attesting to activities at trus part of the temp1e. The quantity of artifacts found there was smaller (which is not normally typical of refuse areas) than that recovered from area ACd for examp1e, where a huge conic-shaped refuse was located. Obvious1y, Schiffer's definition of primary and secondary refuse cannot be applied to the priest roorns, There ís, however, another difference between the two types of refuse, name1y chrono1ogical. Artifacts found beyond the partitions were remains of earlier activities performed in the adjoíning rooms, while those found in the 1ayers overlying the floor 1eve1date from the time when the rooms were abandoned, whether trus happened at a time or over a longer period. The pottery contained in those layers in all probability does not date from the time when the rooms were still in use (as it wou1d mean that the "residents" lived amongst the rubbish) but from the time when activities in these rooms were on the decline (Adams 1986187, 23). Pottery was the most abundant evidence recovered from the cultura11ayers and dates from the 2nd half of the 5th dynasty and the 1st ha1f of the 6th dynasty, I.e, from the period spanning the rule of Raneferef and Pepi 1. Iso1ated bottles and semi-g1obu1ar bowls are datab1e to the end of the II th and beginning of the 12th dynasty. There are another two assernb1ages, one datab1e to the New Kingdom and the other to the Late Period (name1y the 26th dynasty was identified), which is the time when the ternp1e and the pyramid in particu1ar were under destruction. These assemb1ages are much smaller, comprising more or 1ess chance finds which do not constitute a cu1tura11ayer. The artifacts, particu1arly those of the New Kingdom Period (1550-1070 B.C.), tended to concentrate outside the eastem side of the pyramid close to the p1atforms which were used for the destruction of the stone blocks of the pyramid. In conclusion on the subject of stratigraphy, severa1 observations are worth mentioning which concern the stratification of the remaining 1ayers (i.e. excluding the floor deposits). There are several characteristics: 1) These 1ayers are the deepest near the walls and their depth decreases towards the centre of the rooms and areas. Trus concave effect is the most visible in the 1arger rooms and areas, (such as those marked B, E, AG, CV, DC, DJ and DU). A similar effect can be seen in Reisner' s pu blication of rus work on the pyramid temp1e of pharaoh Menkaure, specifically within the area of the open courtyard (Reisner 1931, 13, Fig. 1). 2) The destruction of most of the rooms and areas took p1ace, as far as it can be determined along their longer axes, as in
cz Cy
cx
cw
CJ
o
CI
O
'';
O
c·
.O
OW
Co'
. )
i
~
\
Xli
i
O ox
OU
!
! i
OZ
~ i !
DY
I'
._.~.J!
o
10m
"'.---,
r
XJ
i
I
i !í
_ _o
xr
XK
)CE
XL
Xli'
I
Pian I. Groundplan ofthe pyramid temple ofKing Raneferef with locations of individual rooms and areas (after M. Verner 1994,134). room DI where a 4 m long wall had collapsed. This could be due to the greater stability of the shorter walls, which are more resistant than longer structures to static pressure. This ís also the case with brick vaults. Where the concave effect (see point 1 above) is present, the destruction layer tends to forrn along the longer axis. The resulting shape is not therefore syrnrnetrically curved on all the four sides, but the two longer sides are steeper, sloping towards the centre at approximately the sarne gradient along the longer axis. The comers are consequently the most stable parts of the walls, being supported in two perpendicular directions. 3) The stratigraphic sequence within the temple of Raneferef is unilinear, and therefore the succession of the layers can only be based on the law of superpositíon (Harris 1989, 129).
4) The levels wIthin the temple can also be described in terrns of the arnount of tirne they took to be deposited. There are layers of coarse material resulting from sudden destruction, or deposits of sand and finer material forrned over long periods of time.
1.2. Classification oj the pottery A total of 3,400 pottery vessels or their fragrnents (or 2,069 if rniniature vessels are excluded) were recovered from all the roorns and areas of the ternple. The figures below will therefore refer to both the numbers of complete vessels and fragrnents ("iterns") One of the airns of this work is to devise a sirnple, quick and effi-
139
cíent method of the division of pottery, which could be exploited for further analysis. There is certainly a long tradition of the classifying of pottery, and artifacts in general, although the correct way to achieve the best division of artifacts into categories have frequently been discussed and disputed. Pottery is usually divided into too many categories often on the basis of the smallest visible details, so that the classification itself tends to be an end in itself, rather than providing a better understanding of a society or a period. The core of the problem is that each assemblage displays a number of specific traits in tenns of shape, size, manufacturing technology and function (or the main purpose the artifact is made to serve), which are characteristic of the whole assemblage. This leads to a detailed description of each artefact, which is then assigned to a group displaying sirnilar or identical traits. This practice was strongly encouraged after the publication of D. L. Clarke's Analytical Archaeology, where absolute polytethic models were presented (Clarke 1968, 38), which had lead many archaeologists astray for some time, inspiring them to much too detailed descriptions of each of the categories to allow them to use the large quantity of data for meaningful analysis. In 1954 a thought provoking study appeared written by J. A. Ford who had anticipated the linguistic theory of prototypes by at least 20 years (Ford 1954). The author was inspired by Krieger's concept of the "type" as a set of artifacts based on a meaningful common denorninator : "...the purpose oj a type in archaeology must be to provide an organizational tool which will enable the investigator to group speeimens into bodies which have demonstrable meaning in terms oj behavior patterns. Any group which may be labelled a type must embrace material which can be shown to consist ofindividual variations in the execution ofa definite constructional idea;..." iKrieger 1944, 272; Ford 1954, 43). He also pointed out the necessity for a "type" to be bound by time and space in order to acquire historical validity (Spaulding 1953, 305; Ford 1954, 43). The main impact of this work is in its theory of prototypes: "...actual artifact tends to cluster about a mean, which he can then visualize as the central theme of the type." (Ford 1954, 45). This means, in other words, that each artifact classifled under a certain group (category) can be characterized by an "ideal representative" of the group where the others show traits more or less sirnilar to this ideal. In 1972 R. Whallon published a study concerned with the typology of Owasco pottery in the State of New York (Whallon 1972), which was a response to Krieger's concept of type. The work is important for highlighting two principles implicit in any typology: 1) the hierarchy of attributes alters as classification proceeds (i.e. when defining a class or a type, different artifact traits will be considered, see below) 2) the criteria for defining a type will alter (each class or type of pottery is defined by different significant "descriptors" (Whallon 1972, 32). This means that in the case of pottery from the Raneferef temple different attributes will be studied, for example in the bowls category than those in that of storage jars. In the latter category, volume is characteristic of the storage vessels of this period (of beer jars in this particular case), whereas it is of litt1e ímportance in bowls. What is somewhat misleading in this study is the fact that the author uses the tenn "type" to refer to a typological category at every level of his classification scale. The brief summary above outlining the work of A. D. Krieger, J. A. Ford and R. Whallon will serve as a starting point for distinguishing the terms class and type as are used in this paper. An explicit class-type classification first appeared in 1972 in a work by Hill and Evans: "The term "class" is a generic term referring to any division oJmaterials or events into groupings based on similarities and di.fferences. Any such group is called a "class".
140
The term "type", however, has a more speeial meaning. lt refers to the divlsion ofan assemblage ofmaterials or events into groupings based on the conseious recognition of dimensions offormal variation possessed by these phenomena." (Hill - Evans 1972, 233). It needs to be pointed out that the "class" category constitutes a tenn that ímplíes the first, or most generallevel, which is the highest on the scale, while the "type" is a subordinate category and defines a more specific level. The highest level implies the division of pottery into classes, while the more detailed division within these classes into types is subordinate to it. To define a class, only one index is needed (consisting of two parameters referring to the principal shape and function) which will characterize the whole category and create a prototype. In other words, the class category is very close to the theory of prototyp es already implicit in the study by Krieger and clearly fonnulated by Ford (both authors use the teren "type" where class is referred to in this paper). The presence or absence of the one characteristic/index decides whether a vessel can be classified under a particular class or not. In terms of shape, it is possible to say that each class ís defined by a multitude of shapes which are not found in other class categories, This can be applied to each pottery sampIe under exarnination. At the same time the prirnary function distinguishing each class is considered, only sometirnes two classes of pottery share the same function (rniniature bowls and cups, cprt and brl} moulds). The primary function is the purpose that the vessel was made for. The purpose of ancient Egyptian pottery is often visible in the representations depicted on the walls of tombs, where the usage can be traced for each pottery class (for the review of these sources see Bárta 1994a, 46-48). The secondary function of a vessel, or its fragment, is that which the vessel acquires the moment it has lost its primary function, or its original raison ďetre. Evidently, the principal division into the two categories is fairly straightforward, quick and reliable. The classes need to be defined in a clear and simple way, that means the higher units must be more general than their subdivisions. The following quotation best characterizes the class category even though it is referred to as the "type": "...an archaeological type should represent a unit of cultural practice equivalent to the "culture trait" of ethnography" (Krieger 1944, 272). The division into types is more cornplex. Two quotations from A. Spaulding seem to illustrate best the main difference between a type and a class: "...the artifact type...(is) a group of artifacts exhibiting a consistent assemblage of attributes whose combined properties give a characteristic pattern". And "...a properly established type is the result of sound inferences concerning the customary behaviour of the makers of the artifacts and cannot fail to have historical meanning" (Spaulding 1953, 305). Next to the vessel shape, the rim profile needs to be considered as well as the thickness of the wall, fabric, firing, the colour and type of slip, surface treatrnent, find context, traces of wear and the like. A type requires far more infonnation to be defined. This is where exact scientific analyses, mathematics and computer systems can be brought into play; these structures can be terened polythetic (Neustupný 1993, 116-117). Nevertheless, a vessel needs not necessari1y display al1 the properties characteristic of the type in question. This brings in the theory of probability to deal with such conclusions as "this bowl is 60 % type XVII rather that type XVIII". Only within the types is it possible to arrive at what Spaulding describes as historical relevance (temporal restriction) of the type. This study uses the tenns "class" and "type" either of which fit in with different kinds of analysis. The class category is well suited to the analysis of the remains of human activities that have survived within the temple and thus evaluate both their common and specific traits in relation to tirne and space (i.e. al1 of their
four dirnensions). The type category on the other hand enables one to focus on the transfonnation of individual types through the passage of time, i.e. on their chronological sensitivity, which becomes more apparent when the essential traits of a particular type have been ísolated. II should also be pointed out that a pottery class must be defined in such a way as to prevent any type(s) from being placed into another class category as a result of the transformation it may undergo over a period of time. This is ensured by the specific function of each pottery class which does not change with time; what is subject to change is the functional or aesthetic requirements evident from the style. II may even lead to a change in manufacturing technology, but this is of no consequence in this particular case. II is possible to say that while the boundaries between classes are rigid, those between types (within a class) are not. The difference between the class and the type can therefore be víewed on the basis of two main features: 1) The class is a monothetic defmition (with one index only) - devised naturally only for the purpose of this work (in fact it is, like the type, a polythetic entity). The type is a polythetic definition (involvíng more índexes). 2) The bounds of a class are fixed, while those between types of one class are not. As in the defining of" type" and "class" for the purpose of this work, the classification of pottery too Is based on Whallou's two basic principles which are stated above; a third point needs to be added to them: 3) The scope of classification and consequently the selection of the attributes ("descriptors") depend on the questions the investigator airns to resolve (see above). To conclude the explanation of the class-type division of pottery, it might be useful to add one fuether point, namely on the theory of prototypes, which is of special irnportance for the classification of this kind. E. Neustupný was the first (to my knowledge) to point out the fact that the sarne types of vessels keep appearing throughout Europe in prehistoric societies where patriarchal organization was finnly established (Neustupný 1991, 794). There must have been a principle at work sustaining this
phenornenon. A similar patteru can also be traced in the pottery from the historical period ofthe Old Kingdom ofEgypt whose society is known to have been highly stratified with a fixed system of state administration and specia1ization in all wa1ks of life, including pottery manufacture and other crafts (Drenkhahn 1976, 133-161). Moreover, most of the crafts were perfonned exclusively by men, which reflected the deeply rooted ideas about the different socíal status ofmen and women (Drenkhahn 1976, 133). The established organization of production in the Old Kingdom of Egypt entailed inevitably the control of production input (the craftsmen were never in possession of the raw rnaterials they needed for production, but received controlled supplies) (Drenkhahn 1976, 134) as well as output which was also under control. To make this "output control" work, production was based on the manufacture of standardized goods, which in the case of pottery involved the resultant types or categories that had to meet required standards. That was probably how the old Egyptians became aware of production prototypes; these had fuether affected the small manufacturers producing for their own everyday needs, subconsciously imitating these "prototypes". II was probably in this way that pottery types had evolved within societies which had a highly diversified class structure and division of labour, which at the same time seem to be the main requirements for this system to function. Classification of the pottery from the temple of Raneferef was based on the system worked out by W. Kaiser when he analysed the finds from the sun temple of Veserkaf in Abu Ghurab (Kaiser 1969, 49-82). Kaiser divided the pottery into four main groups: 1) jars, bowls and cups (I-XII) (Kaiser 1969,49-56); 2) large and small bowls (XIII-XLVIII) (Kaiser 1969, 56-75); 3) bowls on legs, cups and stands (lL-LI) (Kaiser 1969, 75-76); 4) offering trays and bread moulds (LII-LIV) (Kaiser 1969, 76-77). This resulted in a detailed separation of the pottery into sorne 54 types, each quantifying the pottery recovered from the
35,00%
30,00%
25,00%
20,00%
15,00%
10,00%
5,00%
2
3
4
5
6
7
Fig. 1. Distribution of the pottery classes 1-7.
141
60,00%
50,00%
40,00%
30,00%
20,00%
10,00%
0,00% 1
3
5
6
7
Fig. 2. Distribution of the pottery classes without mlniatures. "Upper" and the "Lower" temple, the causeway and the graves around it, This way of classífylng pottery had to be modified for two reasons: 1) Kaiser based his classification primarily on typological criteria, not takíng into account other factors which should also be considered - the function of the artefact in the first place. As a resuIt miniature cups (type XII) were included in the group containing beer jars, and the same happened to miniature plates (XLVIII), which were classified among bowls; also bread bli} moulds and "prt moulds were put together, which disregards even the typological division, 2) His analysis did not consider the stratification context and ab,pve all the distinction between the prirnary and secondary refuse (which could have lead to deeper functional analysis of the rooms and areas). In contrast, what has proved useful is the identification and quantiflcation of pottery in relation to the part of the temple where it was found. The division of pottery for the purpose of this study differs therefore from Kaiser's in certain aspects, in the first place in that the pottery has been divided into 7 class categories (see Appendix): 1) storagejars (I-XI), 2) míníature cups (XII), 3) small and large bowls (XIII-XLVII), 4) míniature plates (XLVIII), 5) stands (LIa* - LIc* ), 6) cp rt moulds (LIl - LIlI), 7) b!i.3 moulds (LIVa* - LIVb* ). Small and large bowls (excluding miniature cups and plates) were most frequently represented, making up 55.39 % of all pottery fínds (33.63 % including míniature cups and plates); storage jars were the second with 25.57 % (15.52 %), and stands were third (10.25 %); the smallest representation was that of "prt and b!i.3 moulds (4.74 %12.88 % or 4.06 %12.46 %). Miniature plates made up 29.08 % and miniature cups 10.18 % of the finds (Figs. 1 and 2). The seven class categoríes from the temple of Raneferef comprise 44 types plus 9 variations. Kaiser's system of number-
142
ing the types has been preserved, excluding those denoted IV, VII, IX-XI, XXV, XXVI, XXXVII, lL and L, which could not be identified. Other types have been added, marked by an additional smallletter and an asterisk, which include the folowing numbers XVa*, XlXa*, XXa*, XXXIIIa*, LIa*, LIb*, LIc*, LIVa* and LIVb*. The asterisk indicates a basically identical pottery type displaying only a slight difference in one of the índícators, which therefore does not qualify as a new type. The pottery marked by asterisk is a variation of the type denoted by the Roman numeral. Compared to the XV type, the XVa* variation has rounded shoulders; variation XlXa* has a rolled rirn, variation XXa* has a slendered low rim, variation XXXIIIa* has a rib on inside below the rirn; the origínally undivided type LI displays 3 variations (LIa* , LIb*, and LIc*) differing in size and (the last variatíon) also in the base; similarly, two variations were separated in the LIV type by the shape of the base (LIVa* and LIVb*). Miniature cups were divided into 6 (1-6) groups, míniature plates into 8 (18) groups. A two-level system based on class-type distinction was thus adopted (with a few exceptions), with an additional variation level introduced in 6 cases (excludíng the miniatures) to make the system more efficient. While the resulting divisíon is based on small distlnctions (the advantage of this type of classífícatíon ls described in the section on dating, 2.2), the broader class category has proved very helpful in studying human activities wlthín the rooms and areas of the temple (Section, 2.1). Since typology ís prirnarily concemed with the evolution of rims of vessels (when miniatures are excluded from thís assemblage, the bulk is made up of storage jars and bowls) and can observe a change in style, it should not be regarded as an indicator of an evolutionary progress from a less perfect type to a more sophisticated one. What can be called the fluctuating evolution of the rim ís a continuous and never ending proces s (E. Neustupný 1958, 6). The pottery assemblage from the temple of Raneferef has an advantage of being derived from a single manufacturing centre, that which was based in and around Memphis, the capital
of the Old Kingdom. Trus makes it fairly homogeneous and unaffected by extemal and regional influences. Such assemblages have been terrned by J. Neustupný actual typological series (J. Neustupný 1958,9-10).
2.0. INTERPRETATION OF THE POTTERY
2.1. Activity areas within the temple Trus section ls intended to present the different classes and types of pottery found in individual parts of the temple and show how their quantitative representation varies from place to place. The distinction between "room" and "area" was explained in Section 1.1 which dealt with stratigraphy. The fact that rooms were the smallest units contaínlng relatively closed assemblages turned out to be of practical use. The work was based on the hypothesis that activities perforrned within various parts of the temple resulted in assemblages differing both qualitatively (pottery types and classes) and quantitatively. This proposition has been supported by inscriptional evidence from what can be called the temple archives, where activities were described that had taken place in different parts of the temple (Posener-Kriěger1976). The pottery used for analysis comes primarily from the fIoor deposits of the rooms, i.e. from the prímary refuse, and includes also finds from the refuse areas, where large groups of artifacts accumulated as they were discarded, havíng been brought there from the place of their use in other parts of the temple. A tentative classification of the rooms and areas was worked out to allow at least a provisional assessment of their respective functions. It was possible to base this assessment on several independent sources: published archaeologícal excavations, contemporary literary sources, and the unpublished documentation from the excavations in the Raneferef temple. The archaeological sources which were drawn on include reports from the investigation of the pyramid town of Queen Khentkaus in Giza (Hassan 1943,35-40, Fíg. 1), the val1ey temple of King Menkaure in Giza (Reisner 1931, Plans VlIl and IX), the valley ternple of King Snofru in Dahshur (Fakhry 1961, Fig, 4) and the pyramid temple of King Neferirkare in
Abusir (Borchardt 1909, 56, Abb. 3, Blatt. 10). Written records referred to were from the papyrus archives of King Neferirkare (Posener-Kriéger 1976), of Queen Khentkaus (Verner 1995, forthcoming) and King Raneferef (which are now processed by Posener-Kriéger and Verner). The documentation about the Raneferef temple includes the 1982 and 1984/85 excavation diaries and the report on the Archaeological survey of the building stages of the temple, which led to the division of the lnterior into rooms and areas given below. The activities which took place wlthin the rooms are implicit in the terrns, but only these rooms and areas have been included in the classification from which the pottery under discussion was obtained. Five major categories have been defined on the basis of function: 1) Communications: B, CAb, DL, XM; 2) Refuse areas: ACd, ACb-north, ACc, ACc with a stripe, ACb-south, AA-west, AC- southwest; 3) Priest rooms: J, J-north, K, M-north, M-south, Na, Nb, O, P, T, Y, Z, A with a stripe; 4) Magazines: CO, CP, CQ, CR, CF and CV, CW-east, CX, CY, CZ, E, E-basin, E-southeast, CE, DX, DZ, XC, XG, XR and XI andXJ; 5) Others: AA-Ea, AA·Eb, AA-Ec, DW, ABb-north, The frequency of each type of pottery was calculated from its arithmetical mean Jnvolvíng whole vessels or only a fragment of a vessel as a single item representing one unit. The word "item" therefore stands either for a fragment or a whole survíving vessel. To assess the frequency of a pottery type, only those types were considered where the arithmetical mean was equal to or greater than 1 for a single room or area. To assess the function of a room or area, the role of the pottery class contained wíthín it was also consid ered. By the terrn "cornmunications" are meant those construction units that are defined by active structures, and were used to connect different sections of the temple, having no other specific fuuctíou apart from enabling access from one section to another. From this point of view the east-west axis was the most important, as it involved the A-B-A with a stripe communications enabling access to the temple through the eastem entrance. Because these
6
5 4 3
2 1
o I
Vln
XII
XLI
XLVIII
Llb*
Fig. 3. Distribution of the pottery types within the cornmunications.
143
12
10
8
6
4
2
o
Fig. 4. Distríbutíon ofthe pottery types in the refuse areas (without miniatures). passages were essentially the main "thoroughfare", they yielded a1rnost no finds in contrast with other parts of the temple. This Is equally typical of other passages in the temple, which provided only a minimum amount of finds and only a small number of types (no more than 6, Fig. 3). Type I was the most cornrnon one (5.7 items), followed by type VIII (4.5), and types XLVIII (2.6), Llb* (1.7), XII (1.5) and XLI (1.25). Most frequently represented were jars with low uncarinated neck, then beer jars (i.e, storage vessels in general), high stands and flat-based bowls with projecting rirns, and finally there were miniature vessels. These artifacts probably accumulated over a period of time when the temple was lnhabited and the cornmunications were used as passages. The pottery recovered was for the most part utilitarian, generally consístíng of vessels used for storage or kitchen purposes. As in other parts of the temple, míniature pottery was also found, although only a small quantity. As miniature vessels were far more plentiful in other parts of the temple, ít indicates, along with the stratigraphy, that the communications were regularly maintaíned. Refuse areas in contrast built up in places that served no other purpose and thus could be used for the disposal of a large amount of waste of diverse character including a large variety of pottery. Two maill refuse areas have been identified within the ternple, namely one within the areas of the AC* type and the other one located at the entrance to the ritual slaughterhouse, AA-west. The refuse areas contained some 14 pottery types whose arithmetica! mean of frequency in either of the refuse areas was equal to or larger than 1 (Fig. 4). Most frequently represented were míniature vessels (which have not been included in the diagram to avoid distortion in the frequency of the other types) - míniature plates (type XLVIII) with 70.4 ítems per area, and miniature cups with 17.6 items. Storage vessels, í.e. beer jars (VIII), were much less frequent with only 11.9 items, as were the jars with the low uncarinated necks (I) - 5.4 items. Cprt forrns (LIII) were next with 5.3 items, then large and small bowls (type XIV) with 4.0 items,
144
type XLV with 2.4 and type XLII - 2.3. Refuse areas have yíelded a1rnost all of the pottery cIasses which were present in the temple, except for the stands, which ís rather striking feature, but can be accounted for by the fact that stands are a pottery cIass that is seldom carried about and therefore less prone to being broken than other types. Apart from the absence of stands amongst the refuse, bread moulds found in these areas consisted only of the "prt moulds, which characterizes the refuse areas in the temple and may suggest increased popularity of these bread moulds during the 5th dynasty as compared to the preceding period. The abundance of miniature vessels was unparalleled and suggests that these pottery classes were discarded there after being used in the ritual services within the temple. Both of the main refuse areas (AC* and AA-west) were probably in use until the secondary living quarters for priests had been built within the open courtyard. These were buílt during the rule of Djedkare towards the end of the 5th dynasty (Verner - persona! communication), as is a!so suggested by comparing the width/height index for the Meidum bowls (see Section 2.2), which indicates that the AC* area is amongst the oldest in the temple. The abundance of miniature vessels leads to the assumption that the two refuse areas were possibly used in the same way as those that were uncovered on other sites where miniature vessels abound. In the pyramid temple of Menkaure in Giza, for example, a large conical-shaped refuse was located to the north of the entrance to the temple which was accessible from the causeway (Reisner 1931, 13, Taf. 20f). In the valley temple of Snofru in Dahshur the míniature vessels were found in a similar location, near the eastem entrance to the temple (Fakhry 1959, 33), and in the north-eastem comer of the most northerly pyramid of Snofru at Dahshur miniatures were the dominant vessels amongst the rcfuse (Faltings 1989, 142-143 - Abb. 7). These few examples well demonstrate that large-sca!e disposal of waste includíng discarded pottery and other unwanted artifacts by dumping them at places designated for that purpose
was a practice not unknown to the old Egyptians; these places were located outside the rnain area of the temple. The priest rooms, built under King Djedkare within the open courtyard (wsht) are comparable to similar buildings uncovered elsewhere: the ' secondary priest rooms constructed in an open courtyard of the valley temple of Menkaure at Giza, for example (Reisner 1931,49-52, PIan VIII), the "pyramid town" east of the tomb of Queen Khentkaus (I.) in Giza (Hassan 1943, 35-40, Fig. 1), the houses built south of the Snofru valley temple in Dahshur (Fakhry 1959, 28) and those located within the Neferirkare pyramid temple in Abusir (Borchardt 1909, ll, 16,25, Abb. 24) are al1 structures similar to those found in the Raneferef temple. These dwellings served as shelters for the priests who conducted the daily ritual service within the temple. In size they are the smallest structures in the temple, and also the latest ones to be built on the site during the Old K.ingdom Period. It was these buíldings that made modify M. Schiffer's proposition concerning the primary and secondary refuse deposits. According to his argumentation, the priest rooms should be interpreted as rooms containing primary refuse. The rooms M-north and Nb, however, are the result of partitioning off areas where excessive refuse had accumulated. As this refuse came directly from activities performed in adjoining rooms, it cannot be called primary (it is not deposited in the original location where the artifacts constituting the refuse were used), nor can it be tenned secondary refuse. Since the finds from the refuse reflect activities taking place in rooms which were imrnediately adjacent, they can in fact be regarded de facto as primary refuse. No principal difference, either qualitative or quantitative, existed in the composition of the finds within the two rooms and the rest of the priest rooms. A tota! of twenty two pottery types were found within this area with the arithmetical mean equal to or bigger than 1 (Fig. 5). This was the greatest variety of types found within the temple. Miniature plates again were the most frequently represented class with 10.4 items, next were tall stands (LIb*) with 5.6 items, miniature cups with 4.0 ítems, large and smal1 bowls (XVIII) with 3.7 items, XL - 2.8, XX - 2.6, XVII - 2.5, and storage vessels represented by beer jars. If míniature vessels are excluded, it becomes evident that bowls dominate here, particu-
lady the Meidum ware; along with tal1 stands. The two pottery types were probably used together as one functional unit as it is unlikely that the bowls were placed straigt onto the floor, The height of the stands makes them suitable for holding bowls. A similar collection of pottery was found in the "workroom" in Dahshur (Faltings 1989, 142). It is interesting to note that stands along with b1} bread moulds were the most frequent pottery types found within the dwellings (dated to the 1st - 3rd dynasty) of Híerakonpolis (Quibell - Green 1902, 16, Pl. LXIX, 22). It is difficult to find comparable published evidence from other similar sites. L. Borchardt, for example, mentiones flint tools and pottery as evidence recovered in the priest rooms in the Neferirkare temple but does not elaborate (Borchardt 1909, ll). G. Reisner gives considerably more infonnation about similar houses from the end of the 5th and 6th dynasties found in the valley temple of Menkaure. He also uses the tenn "floor refuse deposit" and gíves percentual representation of the different pottery types (Reisner 1931, 202-206). Storage vessels made up 37.4 %, stands 5.75 %, "prt and brl} moulds 35 % and bowls 22 % (Reisner 1931, 206), and there were around twice as many tall stands as the low ones. Some 20 pottery types with the arithmetical mean equal to or greater than 1 (Fig. 6) were identified in the north-western magazines. Miniature vessels agaín were the most frequent classes with miniature plates being the most common (XLVIII) with 30 items per roorn, followed by rniniature cups (XII) - 14.2 items. These were followed by storage vessels, namely beer jars (VIII) - 7.4 items, and the jars with low uncarinated neck (I) - 3.7 items, and three types of bowls: flat-base bowls on three knob legs (XLII) 2.9, low-rim bowls (XVII) - 2.6, bowls with pouring rims (XXI) 2.3, and low stands - 2.2 as the least common. The dominating miniature vessels were most probably stored here to be used later in the ritual service conducted within the temple. Their increased frequency (throughout the whole area of the temple - along with the beer jars) was also recorded by D. Faltings in the northem pyramid of Snofru (Faltings 1989, 13). These were followed in frequency by storage vessels, including the beer jars, which reflect the economic aspect of the temple, as they were used to hold and carry the monthly supplies sent from the royal residence
6
5 4 3
2 1
o
Fig. 5. Distribution of the pottery types in the "priest rooms" (without miniatures).
145
8 7
6
5 4
3 2 1
o
-:>
-:> >< ~
....l
><
-* - -Ol
.*.c
....l
....l
....l
Fig. 6. Distribution ofthe pottery types in the north-westem magazínes (without miniatures). (Bárta 1994b). The average number of beer-jar fragments per room in the north-west magazines was the second highest in the temple; it was the highest in the refuse areas (11.9). Although this finding does not seem to make much sense, it confirms the role of these storage vessels in the transportation of some foodstuffs (cereals) and beverages (beer) wíthin the temple, and the high concentration of beer jars in the refuse areas suggests that they were amongst the most frequently used pottery type within these areas. lt is also interesting to note that beer jars, next to miniature vessels, abounded throughout the temple with the exception of the priest rooms, where foodstuffs were not stored. Low stands (LIa*) with 2.2 items per room were next in frequency of occurrence throughout the temple; they were obviously put as stands under storage vessels, namely the beer jars. G. Reisner had already noted the difference between the tall (see the priest rooms above) and low stands, classifying these pottery types as "jar- stands" and "bowl-stands" (Reisner 1931,219). The rooms in another large group of magazines (those outside the north-west section) can be organized lnto 3 sections according to their location in the temple. The flrst comprises rooms DX and DZ in the south-west part of the temple, which differ in the pottery they yielded: apart from 2 storage vessels, DZ contained exclusively large and small bowls, 14 items in all. The most frequent types were XVII, XXI, XXXV - 2 items of each were found. By contrast, the pottery in room DX was diverse and included circa 21 storage vessels (19 of which were beer jars), 18 large and small bowls, 3 tall stands and 3 miniature plates. The most frequent bowl types were XLII - 5 Items, XVII - 4 items, XXI - 3 items; other types (XV, XX, XXIII, XXXIII, XXXV and XL V) were represented by 1 item each. The second section comprises room CE located in the central part of the temple. It yielded an unusually large number of bowls - circa 51 ítems, 19 miniatnre plates and 6 tall stands. The most frequent bowls were of the following types: XXa* - 8 ítems, XXXIV - 7 items, XVa*, XVIII, XXXV - 6 items each, XVII - 5 iterns, XL- 3 items, XXXI and XXXII - 2 ítems each, XVI, XIX, XXIV, XXIX, XXXVI and XLIII - 1 item each. The third section has been defined as consisting of E-basin and E-southeast. The most frequent were miniature
146
plates (circa 14.3 items) and type XVII (7 items), Storage vessels were represented by beer jars VIII (5 ltems), 1(3 items), miniature cups (2.6 items). Other bowl types: XXI and XXXI (2.7 Items), XLII (2.3), XXX (1.7) and XIV (1.3). It is interesting to note the relatively high number of tall stands (2 items) and LIII, LlVb* types (1 item each). Quite distinct was the composition of pottery recovered in rooms AA-Ea, AA-Eb and AA-Ec, which were part of the slaughterhouse complex located south-east of the Raneferef temple (Fig. 7). These rooms did not contain any miniature plates, cups, stands or bd.3 moulds. The most frequent category were bowls (dominating particularly in room AA-Ea), followed by less frequent storage vessels and "prt moulds. Nine pottery types with an arithmetical mean equal to or greater than one were present. Beer jars (type VIII) were the most frequent (3 items), followed by XLV bowls (2 items), LIl "prt moulds with low rims (1.7 items), VI storage vessels and XLII bowls (1.3 iterns), and 1 item of XIV, XVII, XXIII, XXXI types. No miniature vessels were found here, which contrasts greatly with the other parts of the temple, where miniature vessels were always present in varying numbers. These rooms were most likely used only for cutting and preparing meat, as is suggested by the survivíng large mudbrick block which with all probability served for the butchering of cattle (Verner 1985- 87 in report on the Archaeological survey of the construction pIan of the temple, 125, unpublished). Slaughtering of animals took place in room AB, which ls immediatelly adjacent to these three rooms (Verner 1985-87 in report on the Archaeological survey of the construction pIan of the temple, 119, unpublished); it is located to the west of the entrance corridor within the slaughterhouse complex. In the category of bowls the large thick-walled types dominated; their purpose was to hold the blood of slaughtered animals. Also bowls on three knobs were present (XLII), which are known to have been used for cooking meat. The pottery types recovered in the area to the west of rooms XH, XI, and XJ show a link with the above rooms AA-Ea-c. Bowls were the only pottery found here (apart from 1 Cprt mou Id and 1 bdJ mould) and consisted largely of the same types as were
those from rooms AA-Ea-c: XIV (7 items), XUI (6 items), XVII (3 Items), XXIII (2 Items) and XLV (2 items). Besldes these, there were also types XVIII, XXVIII and XXIX (1 item each). This combination suggests that the assemblage was used in the slaughterhouse: the large coarse bowls served during the slaughtering and for meat processing. The same combination of pottery was discovered in magazines XC and XG belonging to the slaughterhouse. Room XG showed a slight difference, as it contained a very smaI1 quantity of the following types: 4 storage vessels (VIII), 2 bowls (XVII and XLII), 1 miniature plate and 1 taIl stand. By contrast, magaziue XC contaíned the combination typícal of the slaugterhouse context: 3 storage vessels (VI - 1 item, VIII - 2 items) and the rest were bowls, totaIling 17 items. Large solid bowls were the most frequent type (XLII - 4 Items, XLV - 3 ltems), followed by 2 items of types XVII and XXVIII, and 1 item each of XIII, XIV, XV, XXa -, XXI and XXII. ln the hypostyle DW storage vessels prevailed in the pottery recovered (61 items), followed by bowls (33 items) and stands (30 items). Miniature plates and "prt moulds were aImost absent, and no bd} moulds were found here at all. The most frequent types were beer jars VIII (41 items), tall stands Llb* (23 items), and miniature cups XII (9 items). Prevai1ing amongst the bowls were types XLIII (9 items), XLV and XLVII (8 items), which are larger types of a coarse character. A large number of stone vessels were also found in the hypostyle. Again a link between the use of cerarnic bowls and tall stands suggests itself. The hypostyle was the only area of the temple where Uc* stands with fiat bases were found (5 items). Vector synthesís in the form of princip a! component analysís was conducted for the pottery types. This procedure has proved helpful in eva!uating other kinds of archaeological materia! (Neustupný 1973; 1979). Individua! pottery types were used as descriptors of the descriptive system and theír locations wíthin the temple (e.g, individual rooms and areas) as objects (Neustupný 1979, 60). In the next step, latent roots and latent vectors of the correlation matrix were computed (Neustupný 1979, 61), with the following results for the latent roots: 1. 8.401 2.4.905 3.4.763 4.4.060 5.2.977 6.2.650 7.2.288 8.2.171
The total of the first eight factors amounts to 32 but the sum of the first four factors is 22, which represents more than 47 per cent of the total variation. Consíderíng these results it was decided to rotate the fírst four factors (see below). The first factor was dominated, on its positive pole, by pottery types XL VI, XXXVI, XXXVIII, XLI, XV and XXa*, in other words in most cases by the large and sma11 bowls. The following pottery types were diagnostic for the positive pole of the second factor: miniature cups and platea. large and smaI1 bow1s XXX, XXI, XIV and XLII. Its negative pole was dominated by types XVa*, XXXV and XXXIV. The positive pole of the third factor was dominated by types XXXV, XXXIV and XXXI, whereas the negative pole by types XLVII, Uc*, XLIII, VIII, Vand Llb*. Eventually, the positive pole of the fourth factor was characterised by types XUVa*, XIXa*, XL, XVIII, XXIII and XXXIX, its negative pole by the fragments of bread forms and type XLII. The following tendency Is clearly discemíble: the pottery corpus of the temple is in most cases characterised by specifíc types of large and sma11 bowls, which is probably a result of the large variety of their types and the many dífferent functions they were used for. These were followed by miniature cups and plates, beer jars and stands. The factor analysis supports the conclusions arrived at on the preceding pages and pinpoínts the most diagnostic pottery types in the temple of Raneferef. II is no surprise that with the exception of the positive pole of the second factor, the miniature cups and plates were of no importance due to theír abundance throughout the temple. The results of the factor analysis for individual rooms and areas (see Table 5, Factor scores of individua! rooms and areas, below) proved to be less satisfyíng. For the communications only the negative pole of the second factor was characteristic (without exception). In the case of the refuse areas the second factor again was dominant (3 times the positive pole and once the negative pole). Príest rooms were characterised by the second factor too: 6 times its negative pole, and further by the posítive pole of the fourth factor (5 tímes), For the magazines the negative pole of the fourth factor was diagnostic (4 times) and both poles of the second factor (3 times the posítive pole and 4 times the negative pole). As can be seen, the second and fourth factor were the most diagnostic, whereas the first (only 6 times) and the third factor (4 times) were almost of no relevance. The following results were obtained by the rotation of the first four factors by means of program PRINC 2 writen by E. Neustupný (see be/ow, Tab/es 1-4). The left column contains the current line number of the pottery type (in ascending order) followed by the code of the poltery type,
20
15 10
ImAA-Ea IllAA-Eb LlAA-Ec
5 O.jL.-:=+-=+--='-+--=~-=~-=~-='-' 4 7 2 1 Fig. 7. Distribution ofthe pottery classes in the rooms AA-Ea, AA-Eb and AA-Ec.
147
code letter (the originál number of the pottery type before sorting the coefficients) of the room and area respectively (taken from Tahle 5, see below), and fmally the factor coefficient (factor loading) and lts graphic forrns represented by a row of 8' s. Factor coefflcients for rooms and areas served as the basis for establishing the most typical representatives of each of the groups into which the Interier of the temple has been divided, i.e. priest rooms, magazínes, communícatíons, refuse areas and others; these typical representatives were given by the highest absolute value of the factor coefficient (Fig. 8). It was room O for the priest roorns (1.686), area B for communications (0.849), rooms CF and CV for magazines (6.121) and areas AA - west for refuse areas (4.357). Figure I in this diagram stands for storage vessels, 2 for miniature cups, 3 for bowls, 4 for rniuiature plates, 5 for stands, 6 for cprt moulds and 7 for ht}} moulds. The above data allow us to conclude, with some reservation, that the functional division of the temple' s interior presented at the beginning of this section has been confirmed by the pottery material, The smallest quantity of pottery was recovered from communications and the composition of the pottery there was sirnilar to that from the priest rooms; the communícations included in this Investígation were located in close vicinity to the priest rooms. Miniature cups, rniuiature plates and storage vessels were the prevailing types in refuse areas, where they had most probably been discarded after being used in the daily service within the temple, Meidum bowls and ta11 stands were characterictic of the priest rooms. Miniature cups and plates were dorniuant also in the north-west magazines, where they obviously had been stored before being used in the temple, as were the storage vessels, in whlch supplies were kept that were essential for running the daily service in the temple; also bowls were present. The slaughterhouse complex yielded primarily thick- walled bowls, which can be supposed to have been used for cutting cattle and processing meat and by-products. Miniature vessels showed the least degree of fragmentation, which was due to their small size (usually a few centimetres), as did the stands, which were not obviously frequently moved from place to place,
2.2. Chronological classijication oj the pottery The chronology of the Old Kingdom pottery has been mentioned above on several occassíons and some of the data detailed below have already been referred to. As the classilication of the Old Kíngdom pottery by Reisner and Smith (Reisner-Smith 1955, 62), who divided ít into four major periods, appears to be oversimplified from the present day point of view, this section will discuss some of the types within each category of pottery and will also attempt to assess their chronological significance. Those descriptors will be accentuated within some pottery types (and they can be expected to differ with each type) that are essentíal for more detailed subdivisions of the Old Kingdom pottery. MJjor changes in the quality and quantity of pottery are evident at the beginning of the 4th dynasty, such as the sudden emergence of large quantities of Meidum ware pottery, the rapid development of rniniature vessels which was made possible by the introduction of the whee1, and replacement of some vessel types made of stone by their ceramic equivalents (stands, some types of bowls). This period saw rapid development in all fields of the ancient Egyptian civilization, which was observed as early as towards the end of the 19th century by W. M. F. Petrie (1892, 35; for more recent sources see e.g. von der Way - Kohler - Schmidt 1992,294-295). ln contrast with the preceding section which was concemed with pottery classes, this section will deal with the individual pottery types. The types are here regarded as fundamental for assessing the significance of pottery in relation to Hrne. It should
148
Tahle 1: Factor I
I. )(LVI 38 0.906 888888888888888888888888888888888888 2. XXXVI 29 0.865 8888888888888888888888888888888888 3. XXXVIII 30 0.851 8888888888888888888888888888888888 4.)(LI 33 0.803 88888888888888888888888888888888 9 0.793 8888888888888888888888888888888 5. >rv 6. XXa* 16 0.630 8888888888888888888888888 7. fbf! 48 0.617 888888888888888888888888 8. XXIX 21 0.559 8888888888888888888888 9. II 2 0.514 88888888888888888888 10. Llb* 42 0.493 8888888888888888888 ll. xvnr 12 0.442 88888888888888888 12. XIII 7 0.431 88888888888888888 13. xvn 11 0.425 88888888888888888 32 0.394 888888888888888 14. )(L 15. I I 0.355 88888888888888 16. XXXII 24 0.302 888888888888 17. XII 6 0.282 88888888888 18. XXXIV 27 0.241 888888888 19. )(LIl 34 0.211 88888888 20. XX 15 0.202 88888888 21. )(LV 37 0.189 8888888 22. )(LIlI 35 0.169 888888 23. VIII 5 0.158 888888 24. >rva* 10 0.135 88888 25. XXXIII 25 0.134 88888 26. XLla* 41 0.131 88888 27. VI 4 0.116 8888 28. XXIV 19 0.097 888 29. )(LVII 39 0.054 88 30. XXXV 28 0.049 8 31. )(LVIII 40 0.049 8 22 0.037 8 32. XXX 33. XXXIX 31 0.002 8 34. )(LIV 36 -0.024 8 35. XlXa* 14 -0.0428 36. XXXlIIa* 26 -0.0438 37. XIX 13 -0.05288 38. XXXI 23 -0.05288 39. XIV 8 -0.07288 40. LIl 44 -0.087 888 41. LIlI 45 -0.090888 42. XXIII 18 -0.101 8888 43. XXI 17 -0.1028888 44. LlVa* 46 -0.1208888 45. XXVIII 20 -0.13288888 46. Llc* 43 -0.165888888 47. LlVb* 47 -0.170888888 48. V 3 -0.1888888888 I fbf - fragments of hrl} forrns (not Included in Tahle 5)
be pointed out here that the pottery from the Raneferef temple can neither be described as "funerary" or "settlement". Only miniature cups and plates have a stríctly rituál character, whereas the remaining types are cornrnonly found at settlement sites, too. Stone vessels seem to have served as a kind of luxury item in the ritual alongside the rniuiature vessels; a large concentration of stone vessels was found for instance in the hypostyle (DW). Out of the storage vessels, only the height and maximum wídth of beer jars showed some pattem in relatíon to the passage of time as these parameters a1tered, mainly during the 5th and 6th dynasties. Three assemblages of beer jars were compared: the assemblage from the Raneferef pyramid temple, an assemblage
Table 2: Factor 2
Table 3: Factor 3
1. XLVIII 40 0.774 888888888888888888888888888888 2. )JI 6 0.762 888888888888888888888888888888 3. XXX 22 0.731 88888888888888888888888888888 4. XXI 17 0.652 88888888888888888888888888 5.)JV 8 0.616 888888888888888888888888 6. XLII 34 0.545 888888888888888888888 7. XXXI 23 0.447 88888888888888888 8. LIlI 45 0.447 88888888888888888 9. LIVa* 46 0.398 888888888888888 10. XVII 11 0.394 888888888888888 11. XLV 37 0.386 888888888888888 12. LIVb* 47 0.375 88888888888888 13. XXIII 18 0.328 8888888888888 14. VIII 5 0.304 888888888888 15. XXVIII 20 0.208 88888888 16. fbf 48 0.205 88888888 17. II 2 0.175 888888 18. VI 4 0.147 88888 19. XXIX 21 0.146 88888 20. XV 9 0.128 88888 21. LIl 44 0.118 8888 22. XLVI 38 0.096 888 23. I 1 0.082 888 24. XXXVIII 30 0.058 88 25. XXIV 19 0.036 8 26. LIa* 41 0.035 8 27. )JXa* 14 -0.0188 28. XL 32 -0.024 8 29. XXXVI 29 -0.0298 30. XXXIIIa* 26 -0.05188 31. XXXIII 25 -0.083888 32. XXXIX 31 -0.085888 33. XLVII 39 -0.097888 34. XLI 33 -0.098888 35. LIc* 43 -0.111 8888 36. V 3 -0.121 8888 37. )JX 13 -0.136 88888 38. )JIl 7 -0.14188888 39. LIb* 42 -0.14688888 40. XVIII 12 -0.161888888 41. XX 15 -0.1858888888 42. XLIII 35 -0.1858888888 43. XXXII 24 -0.195 888888 44. XLIV 36 -0.210 88888888 45. XXa* 16 -0.226888888888 46. XXXIV 27 -0.2548888888888 47. XXXV 28 -0.333 8888888888888 48. XVa* 10 -0.386888888888888888
1. XXXV 2. XXXIV 3. XXXI 4. XXI 5. XVII 6. XXXII 7. LIVa* 8. XLII 9.)JV 10. XVa* ll. XXVIII 12. XXX 13. XXa* 14. XXXIX 15. )JX 16. XXXIII 17. XVIII 18. XXXIIIa* 19. XX 20. VI 21. )JIl 22. LIVa* 23. XXXVI 24. XXIII 25. XLI 26. LIl 27. XXIX 28. XV 29. XLVIII 30. XL 31. )JXa* 32. LIa* 33. fbf 34. XLVI 35. XXXVIII 36. )JI 37. LIlI 38. I 39. XLIV 40. XLV 41. XXIV 42. II 43. LIb* 44. V 45. VIII 46. XLIII 47. LIc* 48. XLVII
from the mastaba of official Kaaper of the early 5th dynasty, and an assemblage from the farni1y tomb of Fetekta of the early 6th dynasty (all of the sites are located in Abusir). The Raneferef temple provided the largest number of data for analysís, Beer jars from the Kaaper mastaba measured up to 25-27 cm high and 1415 cm wide. Those from the Raneferef temple were 30-36 cm high and their maximum width was 15-18 cm, while the beer jars found in and around the tomb of Fetekta were 34-35 cm high and 14 cm wide, Other measurements, such as the height of the rim, the inner diarneter of the rim or the height of the base were alrnost identical independently of the vesse1s' provenance or their datings. The rims were 2 cm high, the inner diarneter of the rims varied between 9 and 10 cm, and the height of the base between 5
28 0.171 888888 27 0.154 888888 23 0.150 888888 17 0.142 88888 11 0.111 8888 24 0.107 8888 47 0.103 8888 34 0.094 888 8 0.092 888 10 0.088 888 20 0.056 88 22 0.054 88 16 0.042 8 31 0.034 8 13 0.023 8 25 0.022 8 12 0.016 8 26 0.001 8 15 -0.0068 4 -0.0278 7 -0.0368 46 -0.0398 29 -0.0468 18 -0.0498 33 -0.05388 44 -0.06788 21 -0.076888 9 -0.087 888 40 -0.088888 32 -0.089888 14 -0.13088888 41 -0.13088888 48 -0.14088888 38 -0.153888888 30 -0.164888888 6 -0.204 88888888 45 -0.29488888888888 1 -0.4048888888888888888 36 -0.4228888888888888888 37 -0.52088888888888888888888 19 -0.5738888888888888888888888 2 -0.5738888888888888888888888 42 -0.6468888888888888888888888888 3 -0.73888888888888888888888888888888 5 -0.809888888888888888888&&&&&&&8&&&&&& 35 -0.8658888888888888888888888888888888888 43 -0.89988888888888888888888888888888888888 39 -0.918888888888888888888888888888888888888
and 8 cm. Inner diarneters of the rims from the early 5th dynasty found in Kaaper's tomb were slightly smaUer, 7-8 cm at most. Bach assemblage generaUy appeared very uniforrn in íts content. The capacity of beer jars was also measured: It was between 1.5 and 1.6 litres for the Kaaper's jars, from 1.9 to 2.6 litres (mostly 2.4litres) for Raneferef's jars, and the maximum of 2.6 litres for Fetekta's jars. Beer jars and Meidum bowls were the pottery types most characteristic of the Old Kingdom. The height and width of the beer jars gradua11y increased in such a way that they appeared slender because their height increased faster than their width; their capacity grew as well. Over the given period, however, these pararneters appear to be constant (for particu1ars see Bárta 1994b,
149
Table 4: Factor 4 1. LIVa* 46 0.779 8888888888888888888888888888888 2. XIXa* 14 0.765 888888888888888888888888888888 3. XL 32 0.744 88888888888888888888888888888 4. XVIlI 12 0.697 888888888888888888888888888 5. XXIII 18 0.666 88888888888888888888888888 6. XXXIX 31 0.657 88888888888888888888888888 7. XXIX 21 0.522 88888888888888888888 8. XX 15 0.518 88888888888888888888 9. XVa* 10 0.434 88888888888888888 10. LIa* 41 0.301 888888888888 ll. LIb* 42 0.290 88888888888 12. XIX 13 0.284 88888888888 13. XVII 11 0.275 88888888888 14. LIlI 45 0.269 8888888888 15. XXa* 16 0.265 8888888888 16. LIl 44 0.234 888888888 17. XLV 37 0.198 8888888 18. XXXV 28 0.195 8888888 19. XXXII 24 0.189 8888888 20. XLI 33 0.180 8888888 21. XXXIV 27 0.176 8888888 22. XLVII 39 0.148 88888 23. II 2 0.108 8888 24. XXXVIlI 30 0.099 888 25. XLIlI 35 0.096 888 26. XLVIlI 40 0.089 888 27. LIVb* 47 0.086 888 28. XIV 8 0.076 888 29. V 3 0.064 88 30. XII 6 0.044 8 31. XLIV 36 0.044 8 32. XXXI 23 0.039 8 33. XXX 22 0.036 8 34. XXXIII 25 0.036 8 35. VI 4 0.032 8 36. XXXVI 29 0.011 8 37. XIII 7 0.011 8 38. XXVIlI 20 -0.011 8 39. XXIV 19 -0.0178 40. XV 9 -0.0368 41. LIc* 43 -0.0498 42. XLVI 38 -0.05888 43. I 1 -0.06388 44. XXI 17 -0.1058888 45. XXXIIIa* 26 -0.1238888 46. VIlI 5 -0.133 88888 47. XLII 34 -0.238888888888 48. fbf 48 -0.29488888888888
1-13). Beer jars are one of the few pottery types (as are brl3 bread moulds) that have a long tradition - as regards the vessel shape which can be traced back to the 1st dynasty; they were found for example in graves dated to the period under King Hor-Aha at Zawijet el-Arjan (Dunham 1978,1). In the category of bowls, the Meidum types (types XIII XVIlI) are chronologically irnportant. The earliest are datable to the end of the 3rd and the early 4th dynasties. Because they were found in Meídum, they were given the narne "Meidum ware" by
Petrie in 1892 (Petrie 1982, 3; PIs. XXX, 4,6,9; XXXI, 4-7). G. Brunton was probably the flrst to notice that theír characteristic shape changed over a period of time, from an alrnost hernispheric form in the 4th dynasty (Brunton - Gardiner - Petrie 1927, Pl. XIlI, 37g,rn) to flatter shapes later on, and the height of their rirns decreased (Brunton 1928, 5, Pl. XXVI, type 13; LXXXII, 131). The tendency towards Jower rims has been supported by other finds such as those from Giza, where bowls with large recurved rims from the 4th dynasty (Junker 1929,116, Abb. 12,7-14) were found alongside those from the 5th dynasty whose shou1ders were p1aced higher and rims were lower (Reisner - Smith 1955, 81, type C-XXXIl, Hg. 110); by contrast, bowls from the 6th dynasty found at Sakkara and Abu Ghurab had very low rims (Jéquier 1929,90, fig. 101; Kaiser 1969, 60, type XVIlI). W. Kaiser arrived at the same conclusion when studying the morphology of Meidum bowls from Giza and Abu Ghurab (Kaiser 1969, 78-82, Abb. 9-10). He dated the XIII and XV types to the 4th and the early 5th dynasties, and the type XIV to the 6th dynasty alongside the XVI-XX types, AIso the bowls XXXIII, XXXIV and XXXIX were found in Giza only in mastabas from the 6th dynasty onward. By contrast, types XXI, XXX, XXXI and XXXVI were most frequently used up until the end of the 5th dynasty (Kaiser 1969,78-81). Kaiser's conclusions were also confirrned by evidence from the Raneferef temple when the presence of individual bowl types was analysed (Fig. 9). The low-rimmed type XVII was the most frequent (106 ltems), along with types XIV (69) and XVIlI (67), typical of the 6th dynasty. Those typical of the 4th and 5th dynastíes, XIII and XV, were scarce (12 and 26), while those from the 5th dynasty were more numerous, particularly XXI (46 Items), XXXI (41) and XXXVI (29) (Fig. 9). J. Osing also noticed changes in the fabric used for making the vessels: the fabric of the earliest bowls ls a marl-clay of sandy colour (Osing 1982, 50; Eggebrecht 1974, 177); however, he made this conc1usion after analysing the pottery from the Dachla oasis, where the clay is different from that of the Nile valley. The clay nature of the fabric only attests to these vessels being produced locally. Another indicator which helps establish the age of the Meidum bowls is the width-heíght index, which was calculated by P. Ballet on the basis of stratified pottery finds from Ayin Asii in the Dachla oasis (Ballet 1987, 8-9 - Fig. 6). This index is given by the quotient of the rim height and the mouth diameter. The quotients were then divided by the interval method ínto intervals from 0.001 to 0.200 with intervals of 0.010. The resu1ts showed that the older the bowl, the higher the interval range. This formula was applied to the materiál from the Raneferef ternple (Fig. 10). The bowls were divided by their provenance ínto 3 groups: priest rooms (96 indexes), north-west magazines (64), and refuse areas AC* (ll). The lasl group ernerged as the oldest area of the temple, the magazines being younger and the priest roorns the youngest. This was probably as a resu1t of gradual abandonment of rooms, areas and whole sections of the temple. The beginning of the 4th dynasty may be regarded as the earliest period where the míníature plates and cups with ritual function were produced on a large scale. This ís suggested by evidence found in the fill of a burial shaft in mastaba No, I 8 in Meidum (Petrie 1892, Pl. XXX) as well as by miniature vessels recovered during later re-excavation conducted on the sarne site by A. el-Khouli (Khouli 1991, Pl. 50, A-E). The finds from the Snofru valley temple in Dahshur also confirrn the above conclusion (Fakhry 1961, 135-136). Miniature vessels were not mentioned by W. B. Emery (Emery 1949, 149-153) nor by W. M.
~ Table 5: Factor coefficients of individual rooms and areas ( C - cornrnunication, M - magazine, O - other, P - priest roorn, R - refuse (No.48 - fragrnents of b!i.3 forms - are not included in the Table)
150
Location I Factor
Type of room or area
I.ACd
R
2
2. ACb - north
R
4
3. ACc
R
2
4. ACc with a stripe
R
5. ACb-south
R
4
6.K
P
2
7.J
P
2
8. M-north
P
2
9. M-south
P
2
10.Nb
P
1
ll. Na
P
4
12.B
C
2
13.Z
P
4
14. O
P
4
15. T
P
2
16. P
P
4
17. Y
P
3
18. J - north
P
4
19.E
M
20. E-basin
M
-0.354
4 3
21. E-southeast
M
-0.094
2
22. ABb-north
O
-0.405
4
-0.269
23. AA-west
R
24. CO
M
2
25.CF,CV
M
1
26.CQ
M
4
27. CP
M
4
2,4
28. CE
M
2
29. CW-east
M
4
30.CX
M
-0.18
31. CY
M
-0.526
4
32. CZ
M
2
33. CR
M
2
34.DW
O
3
35. DL
C
2
36. A with a stripe
P
37.DX
M
-0.305
2
38. CAb
C
-0.496
-0.362
2
39.DZ
M
-0.336
-0.43
2
40.XM
C
-0.374
-0.457
2
41. XC
M
-0.161
-0.62
4
42.XH,Xl)O
O
-0.397
-0.278
3
43. AI=XG
M
-0.442
-0.541
2
44. AC-southwest
R
-0.467
-0.379
2
45. AA-Ea
O
-0.428
-0.111
46.AA-Eb
O
-0.291
-0.508
47.AA-Ec
O
-0.566
-0.368
4
4
151
7 6 ~
Series4 • Series3 ~ Series2 Seriesl
5 4 3 2
1 40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
60%
50%
Fig. 8. Distribution of the pattery classes (1-7) in O (Series 1), B (Series 2), CF and CV (Series 3) and AA-west (Series 4).
120
100 ----~-----------------------_.
-----
--_. ---
-
60
rrr-
40
I-I-1-
f--
20
o
- - - -
I -
80
I--I--I---
I
ll-
-----
I-
If-----f------
-
---
I---
I---------
---
f-----f------
I---
I---
II---
-
---_.
.8l!It
~
--
I--I---
I-
----I-
~
e------
-
'I
-
f-f--
---
---
I I-
-----
e------
---
-
---
r_
---
---
I--------I---------
t-----
,-
1-
---
I----
~_._-
t---
-
I-
-
'I I
t---
I--
-
I-----
---
l------
-
1-
I-
- - -
Fig. 9. Distribution of the class 3 (small and large bowls) pottery types.
F. Petrie (1900,28-29, Pls. XXXIX-XUI), neither were they by G. Brunton (Brunton 1927), who were all concerned with pottery of the first two dynasties. As discussed above, miniature vessels were preceded by stone equivalents and may be presumed to have been the less e1aborate substitutes of stone vessels. Only with the introduction of the potter's wheel could they be mass produced for the ritual service. The first rniniature vessels were fairly large and exquisitely made (this is true in particular of those found at the Eastern cemetery at Giza datable predorninantly to the first halí of the 4th dynasty, which yielded only a lirnited number of rniniature
152
vessels), whereas from the 5th dynasty onwards the vessels tend to be smaller and less carefully made (Reisner - Smith 1955, 86). The miniature vessels from the tomb of Queen Hetepheres (I.) (G 7000X) (Reisner - Smith 1955, 66, Fig. 75) are an exarnple of how large the size of the earliest rniniature vessels was. II is virtually impossible to capture the changes in the shapes of rniniature vessels in relation to time due to their wide diversification. II is, however, possibLe to say that the miniature vessels of the Old Kingdom took their own specific forrns and were never copies of shapes of full-size vessels. Alongside these rniniature vessels,
recovered in the sun ternple of King Veserkaf (Kaiser 1969, 77), 98 pieces in the Raneferef temple, and circa 82 "prt moulds from the second halí of the 5th dynasty were found in the mastaba of Ptahshepses (Charvát 1981, 165). These data indicate that cprt moulds began to be made on a larger scale during the 5th dynasty. Their earlier parallels are, nonetheless, identifiable as early as in the 2nd and 3rd dynasties in Sakkara for exarnple (Quibell 1923, Pl. XXXIX) or in el-Kab (Quibell1898, Pl. XII, 39), in Qau and Badari (Brunton 1928, Pl. LXXVI, 1M and IN), in Mahásna and Bet Khalláf (Garstang 1902, Pl. XXX). "prt moulds did not undergo any change in shape in the course of the 4th-6th dynasties. The beginnings of brl3 moulds can be traced back to the beginning of the prehistoric and the early historie period, i.e. around the year 3000 BC. AIoug with beer and storage jars, these moulds are one of the oIdest and the most secular pottery type existíng in ancient Egypt. From approxirnately the 3rd dynasty onward, they develop the typical shape known from the Old Kingdom Period. ExarnpIes of bd} moulds of this period are known from Bet Khal1M (Garstang 1902, Pl. XXX, 17; 1904, XIII, 2-4), from Naga cd-Děr (Reisner 1932, 84, Fig. 36, 2-3), from Meidum (Khouli 1991, Pl. 49, 13) and from el-Kab (Quibell 1898, Pl. XII, 35). Their shapes further developed during the Old Kingdom Period. The rnouths of vessels from the 4th dynasty are wider than those from the 3rd dynasty and the rims acquire a goblet-like shape (Reisner 1932, 84, Fig. 36,4-5). Trus widening of rims did not oceur until the second halí of the 4th dynasty because the walls of the moulds found in Meidum are sti11 alrnost perpendicuIar (Petrie 1892, Pl. XXXI, 17). Also the height oř this type of vessel increases during the 4th-5th dynasties (Reisner 1932, 85, Fig. 36, 6-7) and fiat bases appear alongside oval ones (Reisner 1932,85, Fig. 36, 9). This is the phase which can be seen in the Raneferef temple, where both of the shapes were found alongside one another, The height of fiat bases gradually íncreases (e.g. Brunton 1948, Pl. XXXVIII, 4) and this type of brl3 mouIds persists into the 6th dynasty (Kemp 1975, 286; Jéquier 1929, 57, Fig. 64). ft ís interesting to note that a great coucentration of brl3 moulds was
there are also miniatures found on settlement sites and these are quite a different type of vessels which, except for the small size, have nothing in cornrnon with the above type of rniniature vessels (e.g. Kohler 1992,10, Fig, 1 - dynasty 0/1). Until the 3rd dynasty, stands were also made of stone and exarnples of these, datiug from the 1st dynasty (under King Den), are known from the tomb of Hernaka in Sakkara (Emery 1938, Pls. 30; 36, 43-46; 37,48-51) and from Abydos (Petrie 1900, 29, Pl. XL, 13-15). The transition from stone to pottery stands took part probably during the 3rd dynasty, as can be observed in the corridor of the tomb of Hesire in Sakkara where four representations of stands are visíble on the walls, two of which are painted red, obviously representiug the colour of pottery (Quibell 1913, Pls. IV, I, XVI, North End). Archaeological evidence of pottery stands largely dates from the 3rd and early 4th dynasties. A high double-conical stand from the 3rd dynasty was found in the tomb of Sutenabu in Dendera (Petrie 1898, Pl. XVI, I). The stands recovered from the tombs in Bet Khalláf are also datable to the 3rd dynasty (Garstang 1902, Pls. XXXI, 30; XXXII, MI04; 1904, Pl. XIII, 14 and 15), as well as those from EI-Kab (Quibell1898, Pl. XII, 40-46, 50), where both high and low stands were found. The high stands found in Meidum are from the early 4th dynasty (Petrie 1892, Pl. XXX, 21). Double-conical stands appeared during the 4th dynasty, as can be demonstrated by the finds from Dahshur dating to the period of King Snofru (Faltings 1989, 139, Abb. 4; 145, Abb. 9d) and those from Meídum (Petrie . Mackay Wainwright 1910, Pl. XXV, 35-36) or from Giza (Reisner - Smith 1955,Figs.129-130). cprt moulds were quite rare in the early period, that is in particular during the 4th dynasty; 2 exarnpIes were found in the valley temple of Menkaure in Giza (Reisner 1931, 223), one (Reisner - Smith 1955, 88) was found in a mastaba at Giza datable to the period spanning the reign of Khephren and Neferirkare (mid 4th-mid 5th dynasty), 3 exarnples (Reisner - Smith 1955, 88) date from the second halí of the 5th dynasty, and 20 items from the 6th dynasty (Reisner - Smith 1955, 88). As many as 118 pieces were
2018
16
/
14
12
,,' "
/
/
10 8
/ /
6-
/
4
2-
O
o o
~
ciI ~
o o
ci
o M o
o "'o"
o
'
- - -"'" ciI
~
o
ci
ciI M
o
ci
oI
o
ci
o
o '" ci I
~
'
o
ci
o o
\D
ciI
-'" o
ci
o o
r-
ci
..!.. \D o
ci
o 00 o
ciI ~
r-.
o
ci
o o ciI
0\
~
00
o ci
o
o
ciI
~
~
~
0\
o
ci
~
o
M
ciI
~
o
ci
"'ci"
o
'
~
ciI
-
o
o
o
'" ci
\D
~
~
I
ciI
00
0\
o
o o
ciI
ciI
ciI
ciI
~
o
r-
~
I
ciI
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
M
"'ci"
'
'" ci
\D
~
ci
~
ci
~
~
ci
~
ci
o
-
M
r-
~
~
00
0\
~
~
~
ci
ci
ci
Fig. lO. Frequency distribution of the width/height index of the Meidurn bowls. Refuse areas AC* (Series 1), north-western magazines (Series 2), "priest rooms" (Series 3).
153
CLASSES (1-7)
,\., CP-I
~
CF,CV-I
~ YJ
TYPES (I-LlV) mcp.I
Rl
ACd·11
m s==r--t ~ 10cm
i
,,",
CLASSES (1-7)
III
CW·V-11I
DW-Y
~ N.·~V \( )
cr . XII.!
CZ-XlI,l
\
cv : XlI.2
.. -xx
~
E - XII, 3
CF. CV -
~1.4
CE· Vl
~XLVlII.2
cp· XXIII
Ii
B· XXIX
WAA-Z·~I.5
II
C....
~ E-XLVIIl,1
I /
C ;J
ij AC·~I.4
\J7~
~s.~
~
'\:
7
I
7
p. XXXIX
O-XL
~'--~XLI í \ I
WAA'Z'XXX ACo·XII.6
~
\
~
CF, ev - XLVII
I. CI... ?
CI_ss 6
s
I
D=1"'S'LI"
~E-XLVIII.3
~
~
Z-XLVlII,4
.--l---:-
individua! hrud mould fonns wese not dnwn
CF ev •
CW-V
'----I"F . XL V111.5
W-
"C
L .._.J
\'M-S-L1b- '------+1 ..-- -- ......., ~/'=='===1--~ ~ l'--------ln....-- -' j / \ L __+-----30 l "VIII 7
•
E·XLVlIl,8
eX-LlIl
\
\
ACé-LIlI
ex·
1ocoo=-=-o-=110 cm
propcrly in tbe documcntationGust skctebed)
_L1b*
~n=·eLll.w
Lib-
ACc- LIII
Nb - Llb"
Plate I. Scheme of the class-type classification of the pottery from the pyramid temple of King Raneferef in Abusir.
154
I
ey· XLV
lK
~ CI... 4
TVPES (I-LlV)
)j
Nb· VIII
CQ-VIII
Clau3
Class 2
C.... l
found in the valley temple of King Menkaure in Giza, where they made up 32.08 % of the pottery (Reisner 1931,222). A general decrease in the quantity of these vessels during the Old Kingdom is visible as compared to Cprtmoulds. ln fact, two major pottery groups of the Old Kingdom can be identified within the area around the capital Memphis jf the time of their emergence ls taken as criterion, The first group comprises beer and storage jars and bd} bread moulds, both of which were firrnly established in the pottery inventory of ancient Egypt since the early 1st dynasty. The second group consists of most of the bowl types (particularly the Meidum ware types), rniniature cups and plates, stands and Cprt moulds. These pottery types did not emerge until the late 3rd - early 4th dynasties and they followed a tradition of sirnilar older vessels made of stone which were for some time used alongside the cerarnic ones. At the begínning of the 6th dynasty there is a trend towards regional production of pottery, which, however, would be beyond the scope of this paper, Beer jars and Meidum bowls appear to be the most reliable pottery types for dating during the Old Kingdom. Stands and rniniature plates and cups are usually indicative of the beginning of the 4th dynasty and later períods, while "prt moulds largely indicate the 5th and 6th dynasties.
3.0. CONCLUSION
The main goal of this paper was to demonstrate, using the pottery assemblage from the Raneferef temple in Abusir, that the criteria selected for the classiflcation of archaeological material are deterrnined by the objective which is to be attained. That is why a special emphasis is put in this paper on the purpose of classification, which should be based on the nature of the given material and the quality and quantity of the information available. That ís how the working concept of the "class-type" distinction carne into being. The elass categories enabled the identification of various areas of activities within the temple, while the types have made it possible to study the chronology of the pottery and the gradual abandonment of some parts of the temple. Many questions have not been considered, e.g. the relationship between a new pottery class and developments in other spheres of life. Further subdivisions of some of the large class groups, such as the group of large and small bowls, could also be considered. Another aim of this work was to demonstrate that any theory should be based on concrete evidence, no matter whether it is of European or overseas provenance. It is most important to consider which questions a study seeks to answer; in this particular case they are the questions about the function of the recovered pottery types, how they developed over a given period of time, what activitles they attest to within the different sections of the temple, and how they help in dating of these areas.
Appendix
Classification of the Old Kingdom pottery encountered in the pyramid temple of the King Raneferef 1. Storage jars I • Jars with low, uncarinated neck II - Jars with sharply carinated neck III - Bottle-shaped vessels with everted, tapering rim V - Jars made of Qena or Ballas marl-clay VI - Jars with white, yellow or red slip VIII - Plain jars with oval or pointed base of coarse clay 2. Miniature cups XII - Small cup models 3. Small and large bowls
XlII - Bowls with rounded base and shoulders and with slightly recurved (almost vertical) rirn XIV - Bowls with rounded base and sharp carination between the shoulders and the recurved rirn XV - Bowls with rounded base, with sharply carinated shoulders and with strongly recurved rirn XVa* - Bowls with rounded base, slightly carinated shoulders and strongly recurved rirn XVI - Bowls with rounded base, sharply carinated shoulders and less strongly recurved rirn XVII - Bowls with rounded base, less sharply carinated shoulders and slightly recurved short rim XVlII - Plain bowls with rounded base and profllated low rirn XIX - Plain bowls with rounded base and contracting shoulders with roll rim XIXa* - Plain bowls withrounded base and withroll rirn XX - Plain bowls with rounded base and plain rirn XXa* - Plain bowls with rounded base and slendered low rirn XXI - Plain bowls with rounded base, outwards bent shoulders and with pouring rirn with scoríng on outside just below the rirn XXII - Bowls with rounded base, outwards bent shoulders and plain rirn XXIII - Bowls with rounded base, outwards bent shoulders and profilated rirn XXIV - Bowls with rounded or flattened base, outwards bent shoulders and plain rirn XXVII - Bowls with rounded base and doubly recurved rirn XXVIII - Bowls with rounded base, with pronounced bent shoulders and recurved rim XXIX - Bowls with rounded or flattened base, contracting shoulders and plain rirn (in several cases with scoring on outside just below the rirn) XXX - Bowls with rounded base, with outside bent shoulders and with rounded rim XXXI - Bowls with rounded base and with bent thickish rirn XXXII - Bowls with rounded base and molded rim (in several cases with scoring on outside below the rirn) XXXIII - Bowls with rounded base and strongly molded rirn (in several cases with scoring on outside below the rim) XXXlIIa* - Bowls with thickish molded rirns with a db on inside below the rim XXXIV - Bowls with rounded base and thickish molded rirn in most cases with scoring on inside below the rirn XXXV - Flaring bowls with rounded base, with convex-concave sides and projecting extemal rirn XXXVI - Bowl with rounded base, gracefully carinated shoulders and rounded rirns (in several instances with scoring on outside below the rirn) XXXVIII - Large bowls with flaring sides and thickish molded rirns (in several instances with scoring on outside or inside below the dm) XXXIX - Deep large bowls with bent shoulders and thickish rounded drn (in several ínstances with scoring on outside below the rirn) XL - Large bowls with flaring sides and with rounded or molded rirn XLI - Bowls with flaring sídes and projecting rim (sometimes with internal scoring on rim) XLII - Bowls with knob feet and with flaring sides and wide ledge rirn sometimes with heavy internal scoríng on rim XLIV - Large vessels with simple base ring XLV - Deep bowls with contracting shoulders, thickísh rirn (sometimes with scoring on outside below the rim) and in most cases with a spout
155
XLVI - Bowls with thickish rolled rim, in several cases with a spout XLVII - Bowls with recurved rim, in several cases with a spout 4. Miniature plates XLVIII - Miniature plates 5. Stands LIa* - Low biconícal stands LIb* - Tal1 biconical stands LIc* - Biconical stands with flat base 6. "prt moulds LIl - Trays with rounded flat base and high flaring sides and flat rím LIII - Trays with rounded base and short flaring sides 7. Bd.3moulds LIVa* - Forms with flat base LIVb* - Forms with rounded base September 1994 Czech Inst. of Egyptology Charles University
původně nejméně
ze tří stran vymezena svými vlastními zdmí a měla původně zpravidla i strop. Příkladem místností mohou být sklady v severozápadní části chrámu CO-CZ nebo obydlí kněží FZ (viz PIan I). Termínem prostora je míněna struktura, která není vymezena vlastuimi zdmi a nemusí být ani zastropena. Typickým příkladem prostor jsou odpadní prostory AC* nebo komunikace v chrámu (např, hlavní přístupová cesta B). Základní rozdíl mezi těmito dvěma pojmy spočívá v tom, že místnost vystupuje jako aktivní struktura (je vymezena vlastními zdmi), kdežto prostora jako pasívní struktura (je vymezena svým okolím, okolními aktivními strukturami). Archeologicky se vzájemně odlišují také kvantitativně v tom smyslu, že místnosti obsahují daleko větší množství artefaktů než prostory (s výjimkou prostor odpadních). V neposlední řadě je třeba také vyzvednout tu skutečnost, že místnosti jsou vyčlenitelné jako nejmenší rozlišitelná místa aktivit, v kterých jsou nalézány jednotlivé artefakty (Flannery - Winter 1976,34).
1.2. Princip
třfdění
keramiky
Tento článek shrnuje základní metody a výsledky jejich aplikace, které byly použity v letech 1993-1994 při zpracovávání nálezů keramiky pocházející z pyramidověho chrámu panovníka 5. dynastie Raneferefa v Abúsíru (2475-2325 př.Kr.). Tento chrám, jenž byl součásti zádušního komplexu panovníka (Edwards 1991, 170-171; Stadelmann 1991, 174-175), se nachází na české archeologické koncesi v Abňsíru a je s menšími přestávkami zkoumán dodnes (Verner 1982; 1984; 1985; 1986; 1988; 1990; 1992). Tato práce se zabývá takovými, na první pohled nespojitými otázkami, jako je druhotypové třídění keramiky, děleni a charakteristika uměle strukturovaného prostoru chrámu, a nebo mírou rozpoznatelnosti míst různých aktivit lidské činnosti na základě keramického inventáře. Kapitoly, které bezprostředně následují, obsahují stanoviska, názory a postupy, které byly zvoleny (a ně které i vytvořeny nebo modifikovány) v době tvorby a obhajoby diplomové práce na toto téma na Karlově Universitě v létě roku 1994. Povaha otázek, na které byly hledány možné postupy řešení, je obecně archeologického charakteru, i když konkrétní soubor nálezů, na kterém jsou metody aplikovány a demonstrovány, pochází z Egypta doby Staré říše. Práce je rozdělena následovně: 1.0. Předpoklady: 1.1. Stratigrafie 1.2. Princip třídění keramiky 2.0. Interpretace nálezů keramiky: 2.1. Zóny aktivit v chrámu (funkční aspekt interpretace nálezů keramiky) 2.2. Chronologické zařazení nálezt't keramiky (časový aspekt interpretace nšlezů keramiky) V prvém oddílu (1.0) je věnována prvořadá pozornost především takovým skutečnostem, které mohou být důležitě pro vlastui výklad a vysvětlení nělezů keramiky, jak co do množství, tak co do jejího zastoupení na jednotlivých místech v chrámu zkoumanén v oddílu druhém (2.0).
Základem této práce je především keramika pocházející z nadpodlažních (primárních) vrstev v chrámu a dále z odpadních prostor. Jako východisko pro třídění keramiky byla použita typologie vypracovaná W. Kaiserem (1969, 49-82). Jeho systém bylo ale nutno rozšířit a upravit. Pro třídění keramiky byly zavedeny dvě kategorie: druh a typ. Druh představuje v podstatě prototypický tvar nádoby, který je výsledkem základního tvaru a funkce nádoby. Jako základních sedm druhů byly vyčleněny (viz Plate I a Appendix): zásobnice (I-XI), miniaturní poháry (XII), misky a mísy (XIII-XLVII), miniaturní misky (XLVIII), stojany (Lla*-LIc*), formy "prt (LIl-LIlI), formy bJ!J LIVa*-LIVb*). Pro podrobnější členění druhů na základě jednotlivých tvarových variant je potom používán tecrnín typ. V rámci každého druhu se vyskytují takové typy, které mají společnou funkci ke které byly používány, ale odlišující se právě svým tvarem. Pro druhovou kategorii je příznačné, že hranice mezi jednotlivými druhy jsou nepřekroěitelné, kdežto mezi typy v rámci jednoho druhu ano. To je zapříčiněno zejména tím, že typy v rámci jednoho druhu podléhají v čase proměnám tvaru. Z této prokázané charakteristiky vyplynul další závěr, a to, že druhy keramiky lze s úspěchem použít pro funkční analýzy jednotlivých částí chrámu (protože každý druh představuje specifickou funkci nádob, která může defmovat specializované činnosti), kdežto jednotlivé typy pak k datování těchto aktivit. Typy představují nádoby, které mají společnou funkci, ale liší se v detailech tvarového provedení. Celkem byla keramika z chrámu Raneferefa rozdělena do sedmí druhů, které dále sestávaly z celkem 44 typů a jejich 9 variant (označené asterisky), Jak již bylo předeslšno, kromě kritéria formálního, hrálo důležitou roli při uspořádávání keramiky v navrhovaný systém, i hledisko funkční. V tomto ohledu měly významnou úlohu ikonografické prameny pocházející především ze staroegyptských hrobek, ve kterých jsou s výjimkou miniatur zobrazeny všechny druhy keramiky společně s typem činnosti, se kterým byly svázány. Kromě těchto pramenů byly do analýzy zahrnuty i písemné prameny, v nichž jsou některé významné funkce jednotlivých druhů a typů keramiky výslovně uvedeny.
1.1. Stratigrafie
2.1. Z6ny aktivit v chrámu
SOUHRN Druhotypová interpretace nálezů keramiky Keramika z chrámu panovnika Raneferefa a její význam
Chrám je členěn na místnosti a prostory. Pojem místnost je používán pro takovou trojrozměrnou strukturu, která byla
156
Místnosti a prostory chrámu byly dovně (viz Pian l):
rozděleny
podle funkce násle-
komunikace (B, CAb, DL, XM), odpadni prostory (ACd, ACb-sever, ACc, ACc s pruhem, ACb-jih, AA-západ, AC-jihozápad), obydli kněži (J, J-sever, K, M-sever, M-jih, Na, Nb, O, P, T, Y, Z, A s pruhem), sklady (CO, CP, CQ, CR, CF and CV, CW-východ, CX, CY, CZ, E, E-bazének, E-jihovýchod, CE, DX, DZ, XC, XG, XH a XI aXJ), jiné (AA-Ea, AA-Eb, AA-Ec, DW, ABb-sever, DW, ABbsever). Komunikace byly typické nejmenším zastoupením keramiky, které bylo dáno tím, že byly udržovány po dobu kultu v chrámu v provozu (Fig. 3). Odpadní prostory byly naopak struktury, které vznikly na místech, která již neměla jiné využití a která tedy umožňovala deponad odpadu ve velkém rozsahu, jak co do jeho množství, tak i co do pestrosti zastoupení jednotlivých skupin artefaktů, keramiku nevyjímaje (Fig. 4). Nejvíce (a to v ohromných množstvích) byly zastoupeny miniaturní misky a miniaturní poháry používané v každodenním kultu v chrámu, po nich následovaly pivní džbány (VIII), a džbány typu I, dále formy "prt, a misky a mísy typu XIV, XLV, XLII. V odpadních prostorách byly tedy deponovány téměř všechny keramické druhy s výjimkou stojanů. V obydlích kněží byly nejpočetněji zastoupeny (Fig. 5) miniaturní misky, vysoké stojeny (LIb*), miniaturní poháry, misky a mísy (XVIII), XL, XX, XVII) a zásobnice (VIII). Dominovaly tu tedy především mísy (meidúmské) a spolu s nimi vysoké stojany. Mísy a stojany tak mohly vytvářet i funkční celek, protože mísy nebylo možno ve většině případů jen tak pokládat podstavou na podlahu. V severozápadních skladech (Fig. 6) byly nejvíce zastoupeny miniatury, které zde byly zřejmě skladovány před použitím při kultovních úkonech. Po nich následovaly zásobnice (VIII a I), tři druhy misek a mis (XLII, XVII, XXI) a nakonec nízké stojany. Velký výskyt miniatur a zásobnic odpovídá funkci skladů, kde byly na přechodnou dobu mimo jiné uskladňovány i potraviny a tekutiny. Nízké stojany byly zřejmě používány jako stojany pro zásobnice. V případě místností AA-Ea, AA-Eb a AA-Ec, které byly součástí komplexu rituálních jatek nacházejícího se jihovýchodně od chrámu, bylo rovněž zjištěno zcela příznačné zastoupení inventáře (Fig. 7). Tyto místnosti obsahovaly výhradně misky a mísy, a méně potom zásobnice a formy "prt. V těchto třech místnostech zřejmě docházelo k porážení zvířat (viz. dodnes zachovaný řeznický špalek v AA-Ea) a jejich následovnému porcování. Z misek a mis převažovaly tlustostěnné exempláře, o kterých je z ikonografických pramenů známo, že byly používány k chytání krve porážených zvířat. O mísách typu XLII je zase známo, že byly používány k tepelným úpravám masa. Pro jednotlivé keramické typy byla v programu PRINC 2 (vytvořeným E. Neustupným) provedena vektorová syntéza (Neustupný 1973 a 1979), která prokázala správnost předešlých poznatků (Table 1-5). Pomoci jejích výsledků bylo možno vybrat pro každou skupinu místností a prostor nejtypičtějšího zástupce, jehož keramické složení nejlépe odpovídalo složení ideálnímu (Fig. 8). Pro obydlí kněží to byla místnost O, pro komunikace prostora B, pro sklady místnosti CF a CV a pro odpadní prostory prostora AA-západ. 2.2. Chronologické Při
řazen(
nálev} keramiky
zkoumání keramiky z hlediska její časové citlivosti se ukázalo, že jsou to typy (ne však všechny), které jsou velmi citlivým ukazatelem dobových proměn. Ze zásobnic to byly pouze pivní džbány (VIII), u nichž byla zjištěna závislost jejich velikosti na čase. Důsledkem toho byla ta
skutečnost, že jejich obsah v průběhu času stoupal, v daných ča sových okamžicích byl ale vždy konstantní. Džbány z počátku 5. dynastie měly objem kolem 1,5-1,6 I, kdežto džbány druhé poloviny 5. dynastie kolem 2,4 I. Tyto hodnoty je možno snadno převést na abstraktní míru rovnající se 4,8 I. Tato míra je spolehlivé doložena ze soudobých písemných pramenů. Z druhu misek a mis jsou to především meidúmské mísy (typy XIII - XVIII), které mají chronologický význam. Jejich nejstarší výskyt spadá na konec 3. a počátek 4. dynastie. Jde o nálezy z Meidúmu, které již r. 1892 popsal Petrie jako meidúmský typ (Petrie 1892, 35, Pls. XXX, 4, 6, 9; XXXI, 4-7). Byl to pravděpo dobně G. Brunton, který zaznamenal jako první, že se v čase tvarově proměňují, a to od téměř hemisférických mis ve 4. dynastii (Brunton - Gardiner - Petrie 1927, Pl. XIII, 37g,m) k mísám plošším, a že rovněž výška jejich okrajů se neustále zmenšuje (Brunton 1928,5, Pl. XXVI, typ 13; LXXXII, 131). Ke stejnému závěru, pokud se týká morfologie meidúmských mis, dospěl i W. Kaiser na základě metrického rozboru keramiky z Gízy a Abú Gurábu (Kaiser 1969, 78-82, Abb. 9-10). Mísy typu XIII a XV kladl především do 4. a první poloviny 5. dynastie. Mísy typu XIV do 6. dynastie společně s typy XVI-XX. Rovněž mísy XXXIII, XXXIV a XXXIX se vyskytují v Gíze pouze v mastabách ze 6. dynastie. Naopak typy XXI, XXX, XXXI a XXXVI se vyskytují hlavně do konce 5. dynastie (Kaiser 1969, 78-81). Jeho závěry se potvrdily i v chrámu panovníka Raneferefa při analýze zastoupení jednotlivých typů misek a mis (Fig. 9). Z mis totiž byly nejvíce zastoupeny typ XVII (106 kusů) - typ svelmi nízkým okrajem, XIV (69) a XVIII (67), tedy typy nejvíce charakteristické právě pro období 6. dynastie. Mísy typické pro 4. a první polovinu 5. dynastie - typy XIII a XV byly zastoupeny velice nepatrně (12, resp. 26 kusů). Lépe na tom byly typy charakteristické pro 5. dynastii - relativně početné byly zejména typy XXI (46 kusů), XXXI (41) a XXXVI (29). Dalším charakteristickým ukazatelem stáří meidúmských mis je jejich šířkovýškový index, který vypracovala P. Balletová na základě stratifikovaných nálezů keramiky z oázy Dachla v lokalitě Ajn Asíl (Baltet 1987, 8, 9 - fig. 6). Tento index se vypočítá jako podíl výšky okraje a průměru ústí nádoby. Výsledky jsou potom rozděleny intervalovou metodou - v tomto případě na intervaly od 0,001 do 0,200 s krokem 0,010 - přičemž platí, že čím jsou mísy starší, tím mají větší zastoupení ve vyšších pásmech intervalů. Tato zákonitost byla aplikována i na materiál z chrámu Raneferefa (Fig. 10). Mísy byly rozděleny do tří skupin podle provenience - obydlí kněží (96 indexů), severozápadní sklady (64) a odpadní prostory AC* (11). Výsledkem bylo, že podle uvedeného vztahu se jako nejstarší jevily odpadní prostory typu AC*, jako mladší severozápadní sklady a jako nejmladší potom obydlí kněží. Výsledky této statistiky naznačují pořadí postupného vyřazování jednotlivých prostor, místností a do jisté míry i celých částí chrámu z provozu. Za nejstarší dokázaný výskyt masově vyráběných miniaturních misek a miniaturních pohárů s výhradní kultovní funkcí lze považovat období na počátku 4. dynastie. Jedná se o nálezy miniatur v Meidúmu (Petrie 1892, Pl. XXX). Na ně plynule navazují nálezy z údolního chrámu panovníka Snofrua z Dahšúru (Fakhri 1961, 135-136). Keramickým miniaturám předcházely kamenné nádobky. Je pravděpodobné, že miniatury keramické byly jejich levnější obdobou. Jejich masovou produkci a používání v kultu mohlo umožnit až zavedení hrnčířského kruhu. Zpočátku jsou tyto miniatury poměrně kvalitně provedené a velké (to se týká především miniatur nalézaných na Východním pohřebišti v Gíze, které spadá převážně ještě do první poloviny 4. dynastie, kde navíc byly miniatury nalézané v omezeném množství), zatímco od 5. dynastie jsou menší a méně pečlivě vyráběné (Reisner 1955, 86). Časové proměny morfologie miniatur je velmi těžko stanovit, protože jejich tvarová bohatost je tak
157
různorodá,
že je to zatím nemožné. Lze ale říci, že miniatury v období Staré říše nikdy nenapodobovaly tvary skutečných nádob a měly své vlastní specifické formy. Stojany se do období 3. dynastie vyskytovaly bez výjimky rovněž vyrobené pouze z kamene. Vlastní archeologické nálezy keramických exemplářťt pocházejí až z 3. a počátku 4. dynastie. Do 3. dynastie lze zařadit nálezy z hrobek v Bét Challáfu (Garstang 1902, Pls. XXXI, 30; XXXII, MI04; 1904, Pl. XlII, 14 a 15), Bl-Kabu (QuibeIl1898, Pl. XII, 40-46, 50) a Dendery (Petrie 1898, Pl. XVI, 1), kde byly nalezeny jak vysoké, tak nízké stojany postupně se zužující k vrcholu. Na počátek 4. dynastie spadají nálezy z Meidúmu (vysoké stojany) (Petrie 1892, Pl. XXX, 21). Dvojk6nické stojany se prosazují až postupně v průběhu 4. dynastie. Formy "prt byly ve staršim období, tj. předevšim ve 4. dynastii, nálézány poměrně sporadicky - v Gíze v údolním chrámu Mykerina byly nalezeny 2 exempláře (Reisner 1931, 223), z mastab v Gíze datovaných do období od Chefréna do Neferírkarea (112 4. - 112 5. dynastie) 1 kus (Reisner - Smith 1955, 88), z období 2. 112 5. dynastie 3 kusy (Reisner - Smith 1955, 88) a z období 6. dynastie ca 20 exemplářů (Reisner - Smith 1955, 88). Ve Veserkafově slunečním chrámu to bylo již 118 kusů (Kaiser 1969, 77), v chrámu Raneferefa 98 a v Ptahšepsesově mastabě (2. 112 5. dynastie) potom asi 82 kusů (Charvát 1981, 165). Podle těchto ňdajů je vidět, že masovější nástup forem "prt nastává až v průběhu 5. dynastie. Tvarově se tyto formy během 4.-6. dynastie neproměňují.
vývoj chlebových forem bi3 lze sledovat od přelomu prehistorického a raně historického období, tedy zhruba od roku 3 000 př, Kr. Řadí se tak vedle pivních džbánů mezi nejstarší a nejprofánnější keramické typy v Egyptě vů bec. Svého typického tvaru známého ze Staré říše nabývají přibližně od 3. dynastie. Nálezy z této doby pocházejí z Bét Challáfu (Garstang 1902, Pl. XXX, 17; 1904, XlII, 2-4), Naga ed-Děr (Reisner 1932, 84, Fig. 36, 2-3), Meidúmu (Khouli 1991, Pl. 49, 13) a el-Kabu (Quibell 1898, Pl. XII, 35). Během Staré říše se jejich tvary dále proměnují. Ve 4. dynastii jsou ústí nádob širší než ve 3. dynastii a okraje se kalichovitě rozevírají (Reisner 1932,84, Fig. 36,4-5). K tomuto rozevírání ale dochází nejdříve až ve 2. polovině 4. dynastie, protože v Meidúmu mají tyto nádoby ještě téměř kolmé stěny (Petrie 1892, Pl. XXXl, 17). Ve 4.-5. dynastii dochází rovněž k nárůstu výšky těchto nádob (Reisner 1932, 85, Fig. 36, 6-7) a během téhož období se vedle oválných bázi prosazují i báze ploché (Reisner 1932, 85, Fig. 36, 9). A to je fáze, kterou dokládají i nálezy z Raneferefova pyramidového chrámu, kde se vedle sebe vyskytují obě formy zároveň. Ploché báze s postupně se zvyšující podstavou (např. Brunton 1948, Pl. XXXVIII, 4) potom přetrvávají až do 6. dynastie (Kemp 1975, 286; Jecquier 1929, 57, fig. 64). Za zmínku zcela jistě stojí velká koncentrace forem bi3 v údolním chrámu panovníka Mykerina v Gíze, kde jejich podíl tvořil 32.08 % (Reisner 1931, 222). Obecně lze také konstatovat, že jejich vyskyt v průběhu Staré říše spíše klesá na úkor forem "prt.
3.0.
Závěr
a) prostorové zastoupení keramiky Pracovni rozdělení místností a prostor podle jejich funkčních odlišností se ukázalo na základě složení keramického inventáře jako oprávněné. Na komunikacích byly nálezy nejméně početné, a svou skladbou odpovídaly především složení z obydlí kněží, která byla komunikacím relativně nejblíže. V odpadních prostorách dominovaly zejména miniaturní poháry a miniaturní misky , které zde byly ukládány po upotřebení v každodenním chrámovém kultu, a zásobnice. V obydlích kněží byly nej-
158
typičtějšími zástupci inventáře meidúmské misy a vysoké stojany. V severozápadních skladech převažovaly miniaturní poháry a miniaturní misky, které tu mohly být deponovány před použitím v kultu, zásobnice pro skladování různých komodit nezbytných pro udržování každodenního kultu v chrámu, a mísy. V komplexu rituálních jatek to byly především tlustostěnné mísy používané při zpracovávání masa a ostatních produktů z porážených zvířat. V nejméně fragmentárním stavu byly nalézány miniatury, což bylo dáno jejich velikostí. Po nich následovaly stojany, protože tyto nebyly často přemisťovány z místa svého užívání. b) časové zastoupení keramiky Ve Staré říši lze tedy v oblasti kolem hlavniho města Egypta Mernfidy, v podstatě vyčlenit dvě velké skupiny keramiky podle kritéria období jejich nástupu. První skupinu tvoří pivní džbány a chlebové fonny bi3, které v keramickém inventáři mají své pevné místo nejméně od počátku 1. dynastie. Do druhé skupiny lze zařadit většinu mís (především pak meidúrnské mísy), miniaturní misky a poháry, stojany a formy "prt. Tyto keramické druhy a typy se objevují až na počátku 4. dynastie a navazují na jim příbuzné, starší a zčásti s nimi souběžné kamenné nádoby. Počát kem 6. dynastie se potom projevuje zřetelnější tendence k regionalizaci ve výrobě kramiky, kterou však tato práce samozřejmě postihnout nemůže, Jako nejjistější keramické typy pro datování nálezů ve Staré říši lze vyčlenit pivní džbány a meidúrnské misky. výskyt stojanů a miniaturních misek a poháru charakterisuje období od počátku 4. dynastie a mladší. Formy "prt pak spadají především do období 5. a 6. dynastie. Září 1994
REFERENCES
Adams, W. Y. 1986/87: Times, Types and Sites: The Interrelationship of Ceramic Chronology and Typology, Bulletin of the Egyptological Semínar 8, N ew York, 7-46. Ballet, P. 1987: Essai de c1assification des coupes type "MaidumBowl" du sondage nord de 'Ayn-Asil (oasis de Dakchla), Cahiers de la Céramique égyptienne I, 1-16. Bárta, M. 1994a: Význam nálezťJ keramiky z pyramidového komplexu panovníka Raneferefa. 1. Text, II. Katalog, diplomová práce, nepublikováno, Praha. 1994b: Ekonomícká interpretace nálezů pivních džbánů, In: Bárta, M. - Tomášek, M. (eds.): Miscellanea Archaeologica a discipulis J. Slámae dedicata, Pragae. Borchardt, 1. 1909: Das Grabdenkmal des Kónigs Nefer-ír-keRe. Leipzig. Brunton, G. 1928: Qau and Badari II. London. 1948: Matrnar. London. Brunton, G. - Gardiner, A. H. - Petrie, W. M. F. 1927: Qau and Badari I. London. Charvát, P. 1981: The Mastaba of Ptahshepses. The Pottery. Prague. Clarke, D. L. 1968: Analytical Archaeology. London. Clauj3, G. - Ebner, 1992: Statistik íiir Soziologen, Piidagogen, Psychologen und Mediziner. Band 1. Thun und Frankfurt am Main. Drenkhahn, R. 1976: Die Handwerker und ihre Tiitigkeiten im alten Agypten. Wiesbaden. Dunham, D. 1978: Zawiyet el-Arjan, The Cemeteries adjacent to the Layer Pyramid. Boston. Edwards.T: E. S. 1991: The Pyramids ofEgypt. London. Eggebrecht, A. 1974: Friihe Keramik aus Bl-Tarif, Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archiiologischen Instituts, Abtei1ung Kairo 30, 2, Mainz, 171-188.
Emery, W. B. 1938: Excavations at Saqqara. The Tomb of Hemaka. Caíro. 1949: Great Tombs of the First Dynasty. Cairo, Fakhry, A. 1959: The Monuments of Sneferu at Dahshur. Volume I. The Bent Pyramid. Caíro, 1961: The Monuments of Sneferu at Dahshur, Volume II. The Valley Ternple. Part II. - The Finds. Cairo. Faltings, D. 1989: Die Keramik aus den Grabungen an der nordlichen Pyyramide des Snofru in Dahschur. Arbeitsbericht iiber die Karnpagnen 1983 - 1986, Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archaologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 45, Mainz, 133154. Flannery, K V. (ed.) 1976: The Ear1y Mesoamerican Village. New York. Flannery, K. V. - Winter, M. C. 1976: Analyzing Household Activities, In: Flannery, K. V. {ed.], New York, 34-47. Ford, J. A. 1954: The Type Concept Revisited, American Anthropologist 56, 42-57. Garstang, J. 1902: Mahásna and Bet Khalláf. London. 1904: The Third Egyptian Dynasty at Reqáqnah and Bet Khalláf, London. Harris, E. C. 1989: Prlnciples of archaeological stratigraphy. London. Hassan, S. 1943: Excavations at Giza. Vol. IV. 1932-1933. Cairo, Hill, J. N. - Evans, R. K 1972: A model for c1assification and typology. In: Clarke, D. L. (ed.): Models in Archaeology, London,231-273. Junker, H. 1929: Giza I. Die Mastabas der IV. Dynastie auf dem Westfriedhof. Wien und Leipzig. Jěquier, G. 1929: Tombeaux de particuliers contemporains de Pepi II. Caíro. Kaiser, W. 1969: Die TongefáBe. In: Ricke, H. 1969: Das Sonnenheiligtum des Konig Userkaf. Band II, 49-82. Beitrage zur Agyptischen Bauforschung und Alterturnkunde 8, Wiesbaden. Kemp, B. 1975: Dating Pharaonic Cemeteries. Part I. Nonmechanical Approach to Seriation, Joumal of Egyptian Archaeology 31,2, 259-291. el-Khouli, A. 1991: Meidum. Sydney. Kčhler, Ch. 1992: Problerns and Prioríties in the Study of Preand Early Dynastie Pottery, Cahiers de la Céramique égyptienne 3, Caire, 7-15. Krieger, A. D. 1944: The Typological Concept, American Antiquity, Vol. 3,271-288. Neustupný, E. 1958: Evolution in Archaeology, in Epitymbion Roman Haken, Pragae, 5-8. 1973: Jednoduchá metoda archeologické analýzy, Památky Archeologické 6412, Praha, 169-234. 1979: Vektorová syntéza sídlištní keramiky, Archeologické rozhledy 3111, 55-74. 1991: Zum Begriff des mitteleuropii.ischen Aneolithikums. In: Lichardus, J. (Hrg.): Die Kupferzeit als historische Epoche. Bonn, 747-752. 1993: Archaeological Method, Cambridge. Neustupny, J. 1958: Concrete and Abstract Typological Series, in Epitymbion Roman Haken, Pragae, 9-11. Newberry, P. 1893: Beni Hassan I, London. Osing, J. 1982: Denkrnii.ler der Oase Dachla. Mainz, Petrie, W. M. F. 1892: Medum. London. 1900: The Royal Tombs of the Earliest Dynasties. Part I. London. Petrie, W. M. F. - Mackay, E. - Wainwright, G. 1910: Meydum and Memphis (III). London. Posener-Kriěger, P. 1976: Les Archives de Temple de Něferirka re-Kakai. Traduction et Cornrnentaíre I, II. Caire.
Quibell, J. E. 1898: El Kab. London. 1913: Excavations at Saqqara (1911-1912). The Tomb of Hesy. Caíre. Quibell, J. E. - Green, F. W. 1902: Hierakonpolis. Part II. London. Reisner, G. A. 1931: Mycerinus. The Temp1es of the third Pyramid at Giza, Cambridge - Massachusetts. 1932: A Provincial Cemetery of the Pyramid Age. Naga edDer. Part III. Berkeley and Los Angeles. Reisner, G. A. - Smith, W. S. 1955: A History of the Giza Necropolis, Vol. II. The Tomb of Hetepheres, the mother of Cheops. London. Schiffer, M. B. 1972: Archaeological and Systematic context, American Antiquity 3712,156-165. 1976: Behavioral Archaeology, New York, San Francisco, London. 1983: Towards the Identification of Forrnation Processes, American Antiquity No. 4, 675-706. Spaulding, A. C. 1953: Statistical techniques for the discovery of artifact types, American Antiquity XVIlI/4, 305-313. Stadelmann, R 1991: Die agyptíschen Pyrarniden. Mainz. Steward, J. H. 1954: Types of Types, American Anthropologist 56,54-57. Verner, M. 1982: Excavations at Abusír. Season 1980/81 - Preliminary Report, Zeitschrift flir Agyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 10912, Berlin,157-166. 1984: Excavations at Abusír. Season 1982 • Prelirninary Report, Zeitschrift fiir Agyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde lIliI, Berlin, 70-78. 1985a: Les sculptures de Reneferef découvertes II Abusír, Bulletin de l'lnstitut Francais ď Archéologie Orientale 85, Caire,267-280. 1985b: Un roi de la Ve Dynastie: Reneferef ou Renefer, Bulletin de l'lnstitut Franeaís ď Archěologle Orientale 85, Caire, 281-284. 1985c: Abusir. Beitrage zur Methodik der archaologischen Forschungen in Agypten, Archiv fiir Orientforschung XXXII, Graz, 158-161. 1985d: Les statuettes des prisoniers en bois ď Abousir, Revue ďEgyptologie 36, Paris, 145-152. 1986a: A Slaughterhouse from the Old Kindom, Mitteilungen des deutschen Archii.ologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 42, Mainz, 181-190. 1986b: Supplément de Reneferef découvert II Abousir, Bulletin de l'lnstitut Francais ď Archéologie Orientale 86, Caire, 361-366. 1986c: Excavations at Abusir. Season 1984185 - Prelirninary Report. Zeitschrift fiir Agyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 11312, 154-160. 1986d: Abusir I. The Mastaba of Ptahshepses. Reliefs. Prague. 1988: Excavations at Abusir, Season 1985186 - Prelirninary Report. Zeitschrift fiir Agyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 115, Berlin, 77-84. 1990: Zum Aufsatz von K. Preuss: "Keramikfunde aus dem Tempel des Raneferef', Zeitschrift fiir Agyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 115 (1986), 69-76; Zeitschrift fiir Agyptische Spracheund Altertumskunde 117/1,70-71. 1992: The Discovery of a Potter's Workshop in the Pyramid Complex of Khentkaus at Abusir, Cahiers de 1a Cérarnique égyptienne 3, Caire, 55-59. 1994: Ztracené pyramidy, zapomenutí faraoni. Abúsír. Praha. 1995 (in print): Pyramid Complex of the Queen Khentkaus, Praha. von der Way, T. - Kohler, Ch. - Schmidt, K. 1992: Tell el-Fara in -
159
Buto. 4. Bericht, Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archaologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo. Mainz amRhein, 273-307. Whalon, R. Jr. 1972: A New Approach to Pottery Typology, American Antiquity 37/1, 13-33. Winter, M. C. 1976: The Archaeological Household Cluster in the
Valley in Oaxaca. In: Flannery, K. V. (ed.): The Early Mesoarnerican Village. New-York, 25-31. Wright, E. G. 1969: Archaeological Method in Palestine - An American Interpretation, Eretz - Israel, Vol. 9. W. F. A. AUbright Volume, Jerusalem, 120-133.
Miroslav Bárta, Český egyptologický ústav, Univerzita Karlova, Celetná 20, 110 00 Praha I, e-mail:
[email protected]
160
