The petrography of imported Levantine Combed vessels from ...

The petrography of imported LevantineCombed vessels from early Old Kingdom GizaKarin Sowada 1, Mary Ownby 2 and Anna Wodzinska 3

Thin-section petrography was used to examine 36 samples of imported Early Bronze Age Combedvessels from Giza, Egypt. The samples come from fragmentary pots found in early Old Kingdomtombs of high officials, and the workers’ settlement at Heit el-Ghurab. Most date to the 4th Dynasty;coeval with the ARCANE Early Central Levant (ECL) 4 and Early Southern Levant (ESL) 5b periods.Results reveal a primary fabric with slight variations, containing material pointing to productioncentres close to Cretaceous formations outcropping in Central Lebanon, from Beirut and Tripoli. Nofabrics from the southern Levant were identified. The results also demonstrate that by the early OldKingdom, supply-lines to ceramic production centres in the Central Levant, linked to the acquisitionof coniferous timbers, largely supplanted the diffuse networks of the Early Dynastic period.Keywords Egypt, Old Kingdom, Levant, trade, ceramics, petrography, Giza

IntroductionFlat-based jars, with vertical looped handles and a‘combed’ exterior surface, are a ceramic hallmark forEarly Bronze Age commodity exchange in theLevant (Marcus 2002: 409–11; Thalmann andSowada 2014) (Fig. 1). A significant number areknown in Egypt, yet scientific analysis of this materialhas been piecemeal. This paper outlines results from aprogramme of thin-section petrography on Levantinecombed vessels found in Egypt dating to the OldKingdom. Until now, no such data has been publishedfor any imported pottery in Egypt for this period. Thevessels in this study come from tombs at Giza, and alsofrom the nearby workers’ settlement at Heit el-Ghurabon the Giza Plateau. The results provide importantclarity as to the origin of Levantine imports to Egyptduring the Old Kingdom, and have broader impli-cations for our understanding of Egyptian-Levantinerelations during the 3rd millennium.

The Combed jar in EgyptEarly Combed jar forms appear in Egypt fromNaqada IIIB/Dynasty 0. Examples appear at

Hierakonpolis (Dynasty 0) (Fig. 2a) and ButoStratum V (Dynasty 0) (Fig. 2b); others are knownfrom Abydos Cemetery U and B (Hartung 2001:208, fig. 457; Hartung et al. 2015: 305) (Fig. 2c).1

The type continues into the 1st Dynasty where theyappear in the tomb of King Djer at Abydos (Fig.2d–e). None are thus far known in the 2nd Dynasty:a small number of jugs and uncombed jars withouthandles come from Helwan, identified petrographi-cally as coming from Lebanon (Köhler and Ownby2011: 38–39). For imports generally, there is a gap inthe archaeological record during this period, andalso for the 3rd Dynasty. This may represent the acci-dent of discovery and the failure of older excavationsto retain sherds, rather than a cessation of trade(Kantor 1992: 20).2

The majority of known Combed jars from Egyptcome from early 4th to late 6th Dynasty tombs belong-ing to members of the royal household, or high offi-cials (Sowada 2009: 56–90). Indeed, during the earlyOld Kingdom, the titles of many high officials reveal

© 2019 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis GroupThis is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is notaltered, transformed, or built upon in any way.DOI 10.1080/00758914.2019.1664197 Levant 2020 VOL. 52 NOS. 1–2

1Department of Ancient History, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia;2School of Anthropology, University of Arizona; 3Institute of Archaeology,University of Warsaw.

Karin Sowada (corresponding author), Department of Ancient History,Macquarie University, North Ryde, 2109, Australia. Email: [email protected]

1ACombed jar fromCemetery B at Abydos, Dynasty 0 to early 1st Dynasty,was made of a silty shale Lower Cretaceous clay suggested to be fromLebanon (Hartung et al. 2015: 305–06, 319–22). Fragments from NaqadaIIIA1 Tomb U-y were surface finds (Hartung et al. 2015; pers. com. 28/9/18) but had a similar petrographic origin.2As previously observed in Hartung et al. (2015: 326), the absence of anypublished foreign vessels from the tomb of 2nd Dynasty King Nynetjer atSaqqara is curious (see Lacher-Raschdorff 2014: 87–89). Such vesselswould be expected in a royal tomb.

197

http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4438-9225

http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0530-7354

http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4450-4249

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1080/00758914.2019.1664197&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2021-06-01

they were related to the king, thus close to the organsof power. With Levantine expeditions state-controlled,the initial distribution of products was also managed

by the administration. The presence of sherds at theHeit el-Ghurab settlement, established to house keyworkers during pyramid construction (Lehner 2007),

Figure 1 Map of the eastern Mediterranean, showing the production and diffusion patterns of Combed vessels (Thalmann andSowada 2014: fig. 1).

Sowada et al. The petrography of imported Levantine Combed vessels from early Old Kingdom Giza

Levant 2020 VOL. 52 NOS. 1–2198

also suggests that such vessels, once emptied of theiroriginal contents, circulated through the royaleconomy. As a result, Combed jars were prized fortheir contents and the symbolism of what they rep-resented: access to royal grace and favour. The shapewas even imitated in Egyptian clay as a form ofstatus display (Sowada 2018).

Jars may have transported a variety of Levantineliquid commodities, including resins, wine, oils or mix-tures of these. Textual sources and iconographic evi-dence identify ash-oil (cedar oil), and sefetj-oil as keyproducts from Levantine expeditions (Gardiner 1969:32; Marcolin and Espinel 2011: 576, 582; Sowada2018: fig. 5). A Combed jar from the tomb of Djer

Figure 2 Early Combed jars in Egypt.a. Hierakonpolis, Locality 29A, Dynasty 0 (after Adams and Friedman 1992: fig. 8e).b. Buto, Stratum V, Dynasty 0, TeF 87 T IXB 26/18 & 18a (Köhler 1998: pl. 68.9, 7312).c. Abydos, Tomb U-y, early Naqada IIIB, U-y/1 (Hartung 2001: 208, fig. 457).d. Tomb O (Djer), 1st Dynasty, Petrie Museum UC17388 (drawing K. Sowada).e. Tomb O (Djer), 1st Dynasty, Ashmolean Museum E4031 (after Petrie 1902: pl. VIII.6).


Levant 2020 VOL. 52 NOS. 1–2 199

(Fig. 2e) contained a vegetable oil (Serpico and White1996: 134–35). Limited residue analysis has been con-ducted to date, with possible coniferous resin identifiedin one vessel, Boston MFA 47.1661 (Lucas and Harris1989: 320; Sowada 2009: 161, 199).3

Close to 100 individual imported vessels, manyintact or nearly complete, are known across Egyptfrom both cemeteries and settlements (Thalmannand Sowada 2014: 371). This number includes bothCombed jars and a small number of one-handledjugs. Although much debated over the years, limitedscientific study has been conducted on their originsand contents. Moreover, in recent years, new materialhas been discovered, including a large corpus from the6th Dynasty tomb of Weni the Elder at Abydos andother elite mastabas from the Middle Cemetery atAbydos (Knoblauch 2010).4 New sources includelate 6th Dynasty tombs at Abusir (Bárta 2009: 243–55, 261, 264, 270–71, pls 32, 33.5–6, 34.12, 38.1),Saqqara (Rzeuska 2008: 236, fig. 5 and references),Abu Rawash, Dashur and the Elephantine town(Forstner-Müller and Raue 2008). None are knownthus far from contexts dating to the FirstIntermediate Period.

The cemetery corpus (Figs 3, 5, 7, 9 andAppendix 1)George Reisner found many imported jars, fragmen-tary and intact, in and around tombs of theEgyptian elite during the 1907–42 HarvardUniversity-Boston Museum of Fine Arts Expeditionon the Giza plateau (Reisner and Smith 1955: 73–76). Twenty-nine of these vessels, spanning the early4th to end of the 6th Dynasty, are held in theMuseum of Fine Arts, Boston (MFA). This is thelargest single corpus outside Egypt and has longbeen of scientific interest (Esse and Hopke 1986;Helck 1971: 25–37; Kantor 1992: 19–21;Sowada 2009: 54–74; 154–82 and references; Stager1992: 38–41).Two archaeometric studies have been conducted on

the MFA material. In the mid-1980s, Doug Esse andPhil Hopke (1986) published a hierarchical clusteranalysis based on a Neutron Activation Analysis(NAA) study of 21 samples. One early to mid-4thDynasty vessel, MFA 37.1319 (Table 1, Sample 11 inthe present study) (Fig. 9a, App. 1, Fig. E), clusteredclosely with a sample from Byblos (Esse and Hopke

1986: 335, Gi EP07; annotated in Sowada 2009:177).5 The primary elemental data, unpublished andpresumed lost, was recently re-discovered in theMFA archives. The data is now of limited worthowing to the narrow set of rare earth elementalvalues in the 35-year-old results, and the greater pre-cision that can be obtained from current NAA,XRF, and ICP-MS techniques.

A second study using the PIXE-PIGME techniquewas conducted in the late 1990s (Grave, in Sowada2009: app. II.1–II.8). Eight Giza samples, ranging indate from the early 4th to the early 5th Dynasty,were analyzed. These vessels were not included in theHopke and Esse study. The results identified twomain groups: one was silica rich, reflecting the pres-ence of quartz sand and geode quartz, while thesecond had overall lower silica with more clay elementsof iron and aluminium (Grave, in Sowada 2009: app.II.6–II.7). It is of interest that these groups clusteredeither side of samples taken from Byblos but belongto the same general group.

At the time, the MFA material was also visuallyexamined, including section fractures under a 10xhand lens where possible. Of the Combed jars,several ware and fabric variations were observed,with a coarse and fine version of one dominantfabric type designated ‘Group IV’ (Sowada 2009:169–72). This was the silica rich group noted above.

Over the years, at least 25 jars have been foundassociated with 4th Dynasty Giza tombs; likely thenumber is closer to 30+ given the uncertain datingof various contexts (Sowada 2009: 55–69; Thalmannand Sowada 2014: 371, table 3). In 2017 and 2018,ten fragmentary Combed jars, nine of which are atthe MFA, were sampled for thin-section petrography(Samples 1–3, 7–13). This number represents close toone third of known jars from the cemetery. OtherMFA jars are intact or completely mended and thusnot available for sampling. Six samples came fromthe same vessels used in the PIXE-PIGME study(Grave in Sowada 2009: 178, table 10) and four werealso sampled by Esse and Hopke. Nine vessels dateto the 4th Dynasty (Samples 1–3, 7–11, 13) with afurther example dating to the early to mid 5thDynasty (Sample 12). With the permission of projectdirectors, a jar from the tomb of Khafre-ankh foundduring Russian excavations at Giza was included(Kormysheva 1999: 37, pl. IIb; Malykh 2011: 187,192, 202, fig. 9) (Sample 13).6

3A programme of residue analysis by Margaret Serpico and RichardNewman on Combed jars from Giza tombs in the Museum of Fine Arts,Boston, is currently underway.4The material is currently the subject of study by the authors and ChristianKnoblauch (University of Swansea).

5MFA 37.1319 will be comprehensively published in Sowada and Ownby(forthcoming).6Now in the Institut français d’archéologie orientale (IFAO) in Cairo.Fragments of a second imported jar were also found during the


Levant 2020 VOL. 52 NOS. 1–2200

https://doi.org/10.1080/00758914.2019.1664197

Table 1 Summary of all samples included in the petrographic analysis

Sample # Catalogue/Registration Number(s) Vessel/Sherd Type ProvenanceDate ofContext

Petrographic & FabricGroup Figure

Exemplar Samples1 MFA 13.5638

Reisner Reg. 13-11-64Sowada 2009: 56–57, [5]

Combed jar Tomb G 4240Owner: Sneferu-seneb

Early-mid 4th

DynastyPetrographic Group 1Fabric P200

Fig. 3

2 MFA 13.5593Reisner Reg. 13-10-29Sowada 2009: 59, [15]

Combed jar Tomb G 4340 AOwner: name notpreserved

4th Dynasty Petrographic Group 2Fabric P201

Fig. 5

3 MFA 37.2729Reisner Reg. 38-8-11Sowada 2009: 58–59, [12]

Combed jar Tomb G 5020 Annex AOwner: name notpreserved

Early-mid 4th


Fig. 7

4* HeG Reg. 69608 Combed krater rim Heit el-Ghurab, GalleryComplex

Late 4th

DynastyPetrographic Group 1Fabric P200Giza Fabric Group GF-4

Fig. 4

5 HeG Reg. 96251 Combed jar base Heit el-Ghurab, RoyalAdministrative Building

Late 4th


Fig. 6

6 HeG Reg. 105925 Combed jar body sherd Heit el-Ghurab, GalleryComplex

Late 4th


Fig. 8

Supplementary Samples7 MFA 13.5639

Reisner Reg. 13-11-65Sowada 2009: 57, [6]

Combed jar Tomb G 4240Owner: Sneferu-seneb

Early-mid 4th


App. 1, Fig. A

8 MFA 13.5671Reisner Reg. 13-11-106 Sowada 2009: 57,[7]

Combed jar Tomb G 4440Owner: name notpreserved

Early-mid 4th


App. 1, Fig. B



Early-mid 4th


App. 1, Fig. C



Early-mid 4th


App. 1, Fig. D

11 MFA 37.1319Reisner Reg. 34-6-17jSowada 2009: 59, [14]

Combed jar Tomb G 7330 AOwner: name notpreserved

Mid-late 4th


Fig. 9a; App. 1,Fig. E

12 MFA 13.5132Reisner Reg. 13-1-506Sowada 2009: 65, [38]

Combed jar Tomb G 2175 BOwner: Khnum-nefer

Early-mid 5th

Dynasty (?)Petrographic Group 3Fabric P202

App. 1, Fig. F

13 Reg. 98/11/23Sowada 2009: 61–62, [22]

Combed jar Tomb G 7948Owner: Khafre-ankh

Late 4th

DynastyPetrographic Group 2/3Fabric P201/202

App. 1, Fig. G


Late 4th


App. 2, Fig. A

Continued

Sowadaet

al.Th

epetro

grap

hyofim

ported

Levantin

eCombed

vesselsfro

mearly

Old

Kingdom

Giza

Levant

2020VOL.52

NOS.1

–2201

Table 1 Continued



15 HeG Reg. 3903 Combed jar body sherd Heit el-Ghurab, south ofWall of the Crow

Late 4th


App. 2, Fig. B

16 HeG Reg. 4308 Combed jar handle Heit el-Ghurab, GalleryComplex

Late 4th


App. 2, Fig. C

17 HeG Reg. 4502 Combed jar handle Heit el-Ghurab, GalleryComplex

Late 4th


App. 2, Fig. D


Late 4th


App. 2, Fig. E


Late 4th


App. 2, Fig. F

20 HeG Reg. 22967 Combed jar base Heit el-Ghurab, south ofWall of the Crow

Late 4th


App. 2, Fig. G


Late 4th


App. 2, Fig. H


Late 4th


App. 2, Fig. I

23 HeG Reg. 45316 Combed jar body sherd Heit el-Ghurab, RoyalAdministrative Building

Late 4th


App. 2, Fig. J

24 HeG Reg. 65286 Combed jar handle Heit el-Ghurab, RoyalAdministrative Building

Late 4th


App. 2, Fig. K

25 HeG Reg. 107579 Combed jar base Heit el-Ghurab, GalleryComplex

Late 4th


App. 2, Fig. L

26 HeG Reg. 115276 Combed jar body sherd, possibly from akrater

Heit el-Ghurab, StandingWall Island area

Late 4th


App. 2, Fig. M

27 HeG Reg. 130872 Combed jar base Heit el-Ghurab, Kromer’sdebris

Mid-late 4th


App. 2, Fig. N

28 HeG Reg. 130960 Combed jar body sherd Heit el-Ghurab, Kromer’sdebris

Mid-late 4th


App. 2, Fig. O

Continued

Sowadaet

al.Th

epetro

grap

hyofim

ported

Levantin

eCombed

vesselsfro

mearly

Old

Kingdom

Giza

Levant

2020VOL.52

NOS.1

–2202

Table 1 Continued



29* HeG Reg. 35124 Combed jar body sherd, possibly fromkrater

Heit el-Ghurab, GalleryComplex

Late 4th


App. 2, Fig. P

30* HeG Reg. 105978 Combed jar body sherd, possibly from akrater


Late 4th


App. 2, Fig. Q



Late 4th


App. 2, Fig. R



Late 4th


App. 2, Fig. S



Late 4th


App. 2, Fig. T

34* HeG Reg. 112828 Combed krater rim Heit el-Ghurab, GalleryComplex

Late 4th


App. 2, Fig. U



Late 4th


App. 2, Fig. V

36 HeG Reg. 58187 Combed jar base Heit el-Ghurab, RoyalAdministrative Building

Late 4th


App. 2, Fig. W

* Samples 4, 29–35 may come from the same vesselBreakdown of material analysedCemeteryMaterialSettlementMaterial

Total number of samples analysed10 samples26 samples, all sherds, including two rims,five bases, three handles and 16 bodysherds

Total number of vessels represented10 fragmentary jarsProbably no more than 5, includingseveral two-handled jars and maybe twokraters

Sowadaet

al.Th

epetro

grap

hyofim

ported

Levantin

eCombed

vesselsfro

mearly

Old

Kingdom

Giza

Levant

2020VOL.52

NOS.1

–2203

The Heit el-Ghurab settlement corpus (Figs 4, 6,8 and Appendix 2)The settlement at Heit el-Ghurab lies 400 m south ofthe Sphinx. First examined in 1988, the excavatedarea now spreads over 250 × 400 m, exposing a largesettlement that includes a planned community tohouse workers retained for building the royal monu-ments. Sealings of kings Khafre and Menkaure —

builders of the second and third pyramids — alongwith coeval ceramic assemblages, place the date ofthe town from the mid to late 4th Dynasty, c. 2558–2503 BC (Lehner and Hawass 2017: 354–401).7

Twenty-six imported sherds from the settlementwere examined petrographically (Samples 4–6, 14–36). It is likely that some sherds come from the samejar (especially Samples 4, 29–35) although suchrelationships could not be determined on physicalexamination. The imported material represents a tinyproportion of the over 300,000 diagnostic sherds oflocal origin found at the site. The group includedtwo rim sherds, five bases, three handles and 16body sherds. The material originated from three ofthe five town quarters identified at the site: theGallery Complex and the so-called RoyalAdministrative Building; one sherd was found in thearea called Standing Wall Island located to the southof the Western Town. None were found in theEastern or Western Towns (Lehner 2007: esp. 43–46;Wodzinska and Ownby 2011: 291). Recently twomore sherds were identified, in the context of debrisleft after excavations conducted by Karl Kromer(Witsell 2018).Not all of these are associated with the elite housing

and certainly represent re-use of the vessels. As asettlement established by royal prerogative, this closerelationship likely resulted in imported jars being re-used for storage once emptied of their original con-tents. Examination under a hand lens in the field orig-inally grouped the mostly Combed jar fragments intofive fabric groups; all were dated to the late 4thDynasty (Wodzinska and Ownby 2011: 287–90, 292).Preliminary study suggested that most were madewith similar raw materials that were Levantine, poss-ibly Lebanese, in character (Wodzinska and Ownby2011: 293).It is noteworthy that two combed vessel types were

found at Heit el-Ghurab: a two-handled transport jar

and large krater without handles. Seventeen sherdsfrom two-handled jars (Samples 5–6, 14–25, 27–28,36) were identified, along with nine sherds from twoprobable kraters (Samples 4, 26, 29–35). The latter isespecially interesting since no other jars of this kindare known, so far, in Egypt (Wodzinska and Ownby2011: 292–93). How many individual vessels thesherds represented is unknown, but given the size ofthe sherds and the number of diagnostics, less thanfive are likely.

Analytical methodPetrographic study of the 36 samples from the tombsand the settlement followed standard procedures andwas conducted at 100x magnification using a LEICADM 2500P polarizing microscope (see Bourriau andNicholson 1992: 33–35; Ownby 2010; Whitbread1995). For each section its colour in plane (PPL) andcross-polarised (XPL) light was noted; an estimatewas made for the frequency of inclusions relative toclay matrix; and the sorting of the inclusions wasspecified. The minerals identified in the thin sectionwere listed by those that represent the main inclusions,and those that are less common. For the inclusions,both their general shape and size range were noted.Finally, comments were made on the relationshipbetween samples, technology of production and poten-tial provenance. All of the provenance assignments arepostulated, as the thin sections were not compared toceramic raw materials or kiln material from knownsites. Geological maps and some soil maps were con-sulted to arrive at the postulated provenance (Bartov1994; Beydoun 1977; El Shazly 1977).

Fabric classification frameworkIn addition to petrographic groups, new fabric desig-nations were developed to facilitate research byarchaeologists and ceramicists working with importedmaterial in Egypt. The Vienna System is the primaryfabric classification scheme used for local andimported ceramics in Egypt (Bourriau and Arnold1993: 162–86). However, the Vienna System does notextensively classify 3rd millennium BC material,focusing rather on ceramics of the 2nd and early 1stmillennia BC. Even with further scientific refinement,the creation of new imported fabric groups within theVienna System could not, for historical reasons, beaccommodated for this project. Otherlocalized schemes exist but these are often site orperiod specific.

Thus, rather than create a new, separate nomencla-ture, the 3rd millennium BC imported material wasincorporated into the well-known Memphis/Saqqara

excavations but not published (Kormysheva 1999: 37); sherds from thelatter were not at the IFAO.7Dates used are those outlined in Shaw (2003: 482–83). For further exten-sive information and publications of the Heit el-Ghurab settlement, see thewebsite of Ancient Egypt Research Associates, URL aeraweb.org(accessed 13 August 2019).


Levant 2020 VOL. 52 NOS. 1–2204

https://doi.org/10.1080/00758914.2019.1664197

scheme (Bourriau and Eriksson 2010: 17–32).8 Theclassification framework defines ‘fabric’ as ‘the rawmaterial of pottery making as collected, processed andfired by the potter’ (Bourriau and Eriksson 2010: 17).The term stands in contrast to the oft-used phrase‘ware’, a broader expression which defines ‘the recurrentassociation, in a group of ceramic artefacts, of acomplex set of traits or attributes such as fabric, temper-ing materials, mode of manufacture, firing, surface treat-ment and decoration, morphological or functionalfeatures, or any combination of these’ (Thalmann andSowada 2014: 355). In the study of ceramics in Egypt,‘ware’ is more simply defined as the combination offabric, surface treatment and firing (Bourriau andNicholson 1992: 30). For the purposes of this paper,characterizing Combed jar fabrics found in Egypt is astep in further defining the nuances of ‘Combed Ware’in ceramic production during the Levantine EarlyBronze Age (Thalmann and Sowada 2014: 356).Based on the petrography, macro description and

chemical profile, new numbers in the Memphis/Saqqara ‘P’ fabric sequence from ‘P200’ onwardwere allocated to the material presented here.9 Thisnomenclature can be applied and further developedfor all Old Kingdom imports, based on the definingparameters of inclusions, particle size, raw materialand firing. The designators will be refined with chemi-cal data in due course.

Petrographic results and fabric designationsThe results of the petrographic analysis are presented inTable 1. The analysis revealed that the samples wereproduced with a related set of raw materials. Subtledifferences divided the samples into three petrographicgroups. Exemplars for each group are illustrated inFigs 3–8 in this paper, with all additional materialincluded in the Supplementary Appendices 1 and 2.

Group 1: iron-rich and calcareous with chert

Cemeterysamples

Exemplar: Sample 1 (Fig. 3), Additional:7–11 (App. 1, Figs A–E)

Settlementsamples

Exemplar: Sample 4 (Fig. 4), Additional:14–35 (App. 2, Figs A–V)

This is by far the largest group, comprising 29 of 36samples. They are very similar with an iron-rich andcalcareous clay that could be rendzina; a soil developed

in the Levant on limestone formations (Wieder andAdan-Bayewitz 2002). The main inclusions aremedium- to coarse-sized quartz, micritic limestoneand chert. These grains may represent sand temper,but it is difficult to know how the secondary clay depos-its from the erosion of limestone, iron-rich outcrops andsandstone could form. Also present are fragments ofchalcedony, geode quartz, iron-rich shale (argillaceousrock fragments [ARF]), clay pellets (Terra Rossa) andfine-sized dolomite (often with limonite). A fewsamples have rare inclusions of sparry limestone, phos-phate, calcite, microfossils, glauconite and iddingsite.This may indicate a related but distinct source of rawmaterials for these samples, but the technologicalapproach with possible sand temper is the same.

Description of Fabric P200

Structure/hardness is medium with sporadic sub-rounded and elongated pores, poorly sorted inclusions(2), and medium porosity. Firing colour in section isred (10R 5/8) to light reddish brown (5YR 6/4) to yel-lowish red (5YR 6/6) with no zones.Inclusions: sporadic very coarse sub-angular to sub-

rounded yellow to grey-white limestone <1.5 mm [5]visible to the naked eye; sporadic coarse angularlight grey to white quartz or calcite 500 μm–1.0 mm[6]; sporadic coarse angular brown/grey chert granules<2.0 mm [5] visible to the naked eye; plentiful finesub-rounded translucent red/light brown/light greyquartz sand <250 μm [8]; plentiful fine to very finelimestone 60–250 μm [9]–[8]; plentiful coarse Fepieces <500 μm [7]; sporadic very fine sub-roundedgrey-black stone 60–250 μm [9]–[8].

Group 2: iron-rich, less calcareous with no chert

Cemeterysamples

Exemplar: Sample 2 (Fig. 5)

Settlementsamples

Exemplar: Sample 5 (Fig. 6), Additional: 36(App. 2, Fig. W)

Three samples were similar but with a more iron-richlikely rendzina clay and almost no chert fragments.The inclusions are fine to medium in size and aremostly calcite, microfossils, ARF, chalcedony, geodequartz, pyroxene, glauconite, sandstone (iron-matrix),iddingsite and possibly eroded volcanic rock fragments.The iron-rich nodules and ARF are common in thepaste, while dolomite is absent. There is no indicationthat these inclusions represent sand temper and theyare likely natural to the clay deposit. The overall pasteappearance relates these samples to Group 1 suggestinga similar area of production.

8In this respect we owe thanks to Dr Barbara Aston and Dr Carla Galorinifor their opinion and helpful discussion.9The macro description was observed under a 10x hand lens on a freshbreak oriented parallel to the rim, then checked under an optical micro-scope at low magnification. For the terminology and definition of size frac-tions, see Bourriau and Eriksson (2010: 17–21).


Levant 2020 VOL. 52 NOS. 1–2 205


Dense silty paste, structure/hardness is hard withsporadic fine rounded and larger elongated pores,sorting of inclusions is fair, porosity is medium todense. Fired in two zones, dark grey (7.5YR 4/1)and red (2.5YR 6/8) close to exterior. Overall fewerinclusions and of smaller size.Inclusions: sporadic coarse tomedium textured, sub-

rounded to rounded yellow-white limestone 250 μm–

1.0 mm [7]–[6]; sporadic very coarse angular white/light grey quartz <2.0 mm visible to the naked eye [5];sporadic coarse rounded iron ooliths <1.0 mm [6];plentiful coarse to fine sub-angular Fe pieces<1.0 mm [6] visible to the naked eye; sporadic finerounded light brown/grey quartz sand <250 μm [8];medium textured sub-rounded black stone<500 μm[7].

Group 3: calcareous, less iron-rich with foraminifera

Cemeterysamples

Exemplar: Sample 3 (Fig. 7), Additional: 12, 13(App. 1, Fig. F-G)

Settlementsamples

Exemplar: Sample 6 (Fig. 8)

The three samples in Group 3 have a very fine clay, morecalcareous and with notable foraminifera (a type ofsingle shell organism). Again the clay could be rendzina,with natural inclusions, probably fired between 800°Cand 850°C. Chert is less common but its presence,along with quartz, micritic limestone, sparry limestone,calcite, geode quartz, Terra Rossa, ARFand chalcedony,suggests a connection to the previous samples. Theseinclusions appear natural to the clay deposit. Most ofthe foraminifera are too indistinct to identify theirspecies, but in Sample 12 some are suggested to beGlobigerinidae sp., Globorotalia sp., and Orbulinoidessp. or Orbulina sp. that date to the Paleogene period,while a possible Lenticulina sp. dates to the UpperCretaceous. Additional information on the species of for-aminifera may help to date the clay deposits.

The vessel from the tomb of Khafre-ankh (Sample13) has a more iron-rich clay with foraminifera; thisis similar to Groups 2 and 3. Other inclusions werechert, geode quartz, chalcedony, calcite, micritic andsparry limestone, iron-rich clay pellets, volcanic rockfragments (weathered) and glauconite. These appearednatural to the clay and the overall characteristics

Figure 3 Imported pottery from Giza tombs: petrography Group 1— Iron-rich, calcareous with chert, Fabric P200. Exemplar—Sample 1, Combed jar (MFA 13.5638), Tomb G 4240, early–mid 4th Dynasty.a. MFA 13.5638 (Photo © 2019 Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, photo and drawing K. Sowada).b. Sherd fracture (photo K. Sowada).c. Thin-section at plane-polarised light (PPL), 100x magnification (micrograph M. Ownby).d. Thin-section at cross-polarised light (XPL), 100x magnification (micrograph M. Ownby).Thin-sections show chert inclusion at top, decomposing limestone inclusion at bottom, quartz grain at lower right.


Levant 2020 VOL. 52 NOS. 1–2206

suggest a similar source to the other samples fromGiza.


Structure/hardness is medium, sorting is fair to good,porosity medium. Silty groundmass, well-preparedand well-mixed paste, evenly fired red (10R 5/6) insection with no zones.Inclusions: plentiful very fine rounded quartz sand

<60 μm [10]; very sporadic larger grey/white quartz<1.25 mm [5]; very sporadic coarse limestone<1.0 mm [6]; plentiful very fine limestone <125 μm[9]. Very fine grey-black stone <125 μm.

DiscussionThe results provide important clarity on the rawmaterials utilized for the production of importedvessels from Giza. All the vessels were manufacturedin a similar area, with the clay and inclusions

indicative of the Lower Cretaceous formation, likelyalong the Lebanese coast (Table 1; Dubertret 1945;1962; Badreshany et al. 2019: fig. 11). In this region,the Lower Cretaceous deposits are iron-rich andsandy, but Upper Cretaceous calcareous formationsare present as well (Beydoun 1977: 322–35). In par-ticular, the prevalent sub-rounded and medium-sizedquartz may indicate a source near the LowerCretaceous Chouf Sandstone Formation. The UpperCretaceous Cenomanian-Turonian outcrops inLebanon contain limestone, chert and geode quartz(Beydoun 1977: 322, 329, 332–33). The Paleogene for-aminifera in Sample 12 may relate to the Chekkamarls in this area, which is also suggested by the pres-ence of chalcedony and geode quartz in the paste. TheLenticulina sp. is Upper Cretaceous in date. Althoughrendzina is common in the general region (Ilaiwi1985), the Lower Cretaceous unit is located closest tothe coast in the area between Beirut and Byblos.

Figure 4 Imported pottery from the settlement at Heit el-Ghurab, Giza: petrography Group 1— Iron-rich, calcareous with chert,Fabric P200. Exemplar — Sample 4, Combed krater rim (HeG Reg. 69608), square 4-E21, unit 21384, bakery, GalleryComplex, late 4th Dynasty.a. HeG Reg. 69608 (photo A. Wodzinska).b. Sherd fracture (photo J. Quinlan).c. Thin-section at plane-polarized light (PPL), 100x magnification (micrograph M. Ownby).d. Thin-section at cross-polarized light (XPL), 100x magnification (micrograph M. Ownby).Thin-sections show decomposing limestone as light brown inclusions, quartz as white inclusion, shale fragment asblack inclusion.


Levant 2020 VOL. 52 NOS. 1–2 207

Lower Cretaceous deposits are also present aroundthe Sea of Galilee, but these often have rare, finebasalt fragments; these are not present in the LowerCretaceous deposits along the Lebanese coast(Greenberg and Porat 1996: 16–17). No basalt frag-ments were seen in the thin sections, but chalcedonyand geode quartz that are known for LebaneseUpper Cretaceous deposits were noted. The pasteappearance of the main group of Giza Combedsherds, (Petrographic Group 1 — Fabric P200), issimilar to fabrics identified at the northern coastalLebanese sites of Tell Fadous-Kfarabida, Byblos andKoubba II, particularly Fabric 2A (Badreshany andGenz 2009; Badreshany et al. 2019). There may alsobe some connection to the Fabric 2 samples fromSidon as characterized by Griffiths (2006). The

petrographic analysis of EBA material from TellArqa (see Jean 2019) provides further comparativedata, but none of the Giza samples examined in thecurrent study are similar in fabric to those from TellArqa.

The petrography of the Giza imports aligns withother aspects of the vessels pointing to an origin inthe Central Levant. Features include the combingstyle (Sowada 2018: fig. 4; Thalmann and Sowada2014: 367, figs 4–5) and various potmarks.10 Thelatter requires more detailed study but, by way ofexample, the parallel of an applied-clay ‘ram’s head’

Figure 5 Imported pottery from Giza tombs: petrography Group 2 — iron-rich, less calcareous, with no chert, Fabric 201.Exemplar — Sample 2, Combed jar (MFA 13.5593), Tomb G 4340 A, 4th Dynasty.a. MFA 13.5593 (Photo © 2019 Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, photo and drawing K. Sowada).b. Sherd fracture (photo K. Sowada).c. Thin-section at plane-polarized light (PPL), 100x magnification (micrograph M. Ownby).d. Thin-section at cross-polarized light (XPL), 100x magnification (micrograph M. Ownby).Thin-sections show lack of sand-sized grains with a scatter of white silt-sized quartz grains.

10The surface finish— that is, the presence of a slip or wash— as diagnos-tic of origin is not a settled matter. For a summary of opinions in the litera-ture, see Sowada (2009: 157) and the contribution by Eliyahu-Behar et al.(2016). On the Combed jar found in Egypt with a cylinder seal impression,MFA 37.2724, see the recent contribution by Tumolo (2018).


Levant 2020 VOL. 52 NOS. 1–2208

on Sample 11, with near identical potmarks from TellFadous-Kfarabida, Byblos and Sidon, is undeniable(Fig. 9) (Genz 2010: 108, fig. 15; 2014: 72, fig. 12;Mazzoni 1985; Sowada 2009: 59, fig. 8 [14], pl. 8;Sowada and Ownby forthcoming). It is also strikingthat two kraters with a distinctive herring-bonepattern of combed decoration from Heit el-Ghurabfind the best parallels at Tell Arqa (Thalmann 2000:233–35), Fadous-Kfarabida (Badreshany et al. 2005:74–75) and Sidon (Doumet-Serhal 2006: 254).11

The petrographic results reveal the continuation ofearlier traditions of imported vessels from Lebanon,produced with Lower Cretaceous material, that goesback to Tomb U-j at Abydos (Hartung et al. 2015:322–24). By the Early Dynastic Period, a range of

different imported ceramic shapes, wares and fabricsappear in Egypt, concomitant with avarietyof procure-ment networks across the southern and central Levant(Adams and Porat 1996; Amiran 1974; Genz 1993;Hartung et al. 2015; Helck 1971: 28–34; Hendrickxand Bavay 2002: 70–72; Iserlis et al. 2019; Sowada2009: 39–48; Stager 1992: 37–39). The situation forthe 2nd and 3rd Dynasties is less clear; evidence fromHelwan suggests the maintenance of links with theLebanese coast (Köhler and Ownby 2011: 38–39).12

Most of the material in this study dates to the greatPyramid Age of the 4th Dynasty. This era is coevalwith the EB IIIB of the southern Levant (ARCANE

Figure 6 Imported pottery from the settlement at Heit el-Ghurab, Giza: petrography Group 2 — iron-rich, less calcareous, withno chert, Fabric P201. Exemplar — Sample 5, Combed jar base (HeG Reg. 96251), 6-U24, unit 28608, RoyalAdministrative Building, late 4th Dynasty.a. HeG Reg. 96251 (photo A. Wodzinska).b. Sherd fracture (photo J. Quinlan).c. Thin-section at plane-polarized light (PPL), 100x magnification (micrograph M. Ownby).d. Thin-section at cross-polarized light (XPL), 100x magnification (micrograph M. Ownby).Thin-sections show lack of sand-sized grains, large inclusion at upper left is a possible basalt fragment.

11The vessels will be published shortly by A. Wodzinska.

12The Helwan analysis was conducted before petrographic data was avail-able on EBA material from Tell Arqa (see Jean 2019). The original sugges-tion of a source in that area may need to be revised, however, theattribution of the Helwan samples to areas in the central Levant remainsaccurate at this time.


Levant 2020 VOL. 52 NOS. 1–2 209

ESL 5b) and the central Levant EB III (ARCANEmid–late ECL 4) (Lebeau and de Miroschedji 2014: ix;Sowada forthcoming: fig. 3). By the 4thDynasty, archae-ological and fragmentary textual data reveal large-scalemaritime imports of coniferous timbers and other pro-ducts such as oils/resins, silver and lapis lazuli (Urk I:236.4–5; Sowada 2009: 248–51; Strudwick 2005: 66[trans.]). The ‘Byblos run’ to the central Levant is the geo-graphical focus of early Old Kingdom maritime trade;the location of conifer forests and production centresfor liquid commodities sought by the Egyptian state(Marcus 2002: 407–12; Stager 1992: 40–41).Petrography of the Combed jars from early Old

Kingdom Giza confirms this connection. Whilefurther work on pottery imports from Egypt isneeded, all the material from 4th Dynasty Giza avail-able for study derives from the central Levant. At thispoint no material found in Egypt originates south ofthe Jezreel Valley (contra Eliyahu-Behar et al. 2016;Esse and Hopke 1986: 334; Sowada 2009: 174–75).

The petrography results point to a major shift inEgyptian commodity acquisition networks: the geo-graphical scope of Early Dynastic exchange routes dis-sipates in favour of a focus by the Egyptian state on theregion between Beirut to Tripoli. Moreover, thevariety of shapes and wares so evident in the EarlyDynastic period largely vanishes by this time. With ahandful of early exceptions, the Combed jar becomesthe main imported vessel type right up to the end ofthe 6th Dynasty (Marcus 2002: 409–11; Sowada2009: 55–80, 155–58; Thalmann and Sowada 2014:371, table 3). The Egyptian need for efficient transportmechanisms and procurement networks fuelled thesechanges, with Byblos as the likely key supply node.That said, the very incomplete nature of the OldKingdom textual and archaeological record meansthat Egyptian regional and international engagementwas likely more nuanced than these fragmentarydata suggest (e.g. Adams 2017; Arnold et al. 2016;Redford 1986; Sowada 2009: 245–55; Forthcoming).

Figure 7 Imported pottery from Giza tombs: petrography Group 3 — calcareous, less iron-rich with foraminifera, Fabric P202.Exemplar — Sample 3, Combed jar (MFA 37.2729), Tomb G 5020 Annex A, early-mid 4th Dynasty.a. MFA 37.2729 (photo © 2019 Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, photo K. Sowada).b. Sherd fracture (photo K. Sowada).c. Thin-section at plane-polarized light (PPL), 100x magnification (micrograph M. Ownby).d. Thin-section at cross-polarized light (XPL), 100x magnification (micrograph M. Ownby).Thin-sections show lack of sand-sized grains, but silt-sized foraminifera middle at far right and lower left.


Levant 2020 VOL. 52 NOS. 1–2210

The biographical inscription of Iny reveals thelongue durée of maritime relations with the centralLevant. He served 6th Dynasty kings Pepy I,Merenre and Pepy II, a period coeval with the EBIV period in the central and southern Levant(ARCANE ESL6 and ECL6) (Sowada forthcoming:fig. 3). Iny mentions multiple locations — includingByblos — visited as a leader of sea-going royalexpeditions for the acquisition of lapis lazuli, silver,tin/lead, ‘Byblos ships’, men and women, and sefetj-oil (Marcolin and Espinel 2011: 574, 576, 581–82,607). Imported pottery fabrics from the late OldKingdom remain to be clarified; research currentlyunderway on the large corpus from 6th DynastyAbusir and Abydos (Knoblauch 2010) will provide acomparative dataset for foreign engagement at theend of the 3rd millennium BC. By this time, Egypt’srelationships focused on a handful of highly functional

economic entities of the central and northern Levant— such as Byblos and Ebla— as the urban complexesof the southern Levant had long collapsed and otherparts of the region faced further challenges (Sowadaforthcoming).13

ConclusionThin-section petrography of Combed jars establishesthe central Levant as a source of Combed jarsduring the early Old Kingdom. The variations ofpaste recipes may point to different local productionareas, but further research is required on this point.Notable is the consistent paste for the majority ofvessels from the early Old Kingdom — 80% ofthe samples belonged to the same petrographicgroup (Group 1 — Fabric P200) — suggesting

Figure 8 Imported pottery from the settlement at Heit el-Ghurab, Giza: petrography Group 3 — Calcareous, less iron-rich withforaminifera, Fabric P202. Exemplar— Sample 6, Combed jar body sherd (HeGReg. 105925), square 4-E21, unit 22286,bakery, Gallery Complex, late 4th Dynasty.a. HeG Reg. 105925 (photo A. Wodzinska).b. Sherd fracture (photo J. Quinlan).c. Thin-section at plane-polarized light (PPL), 100x magnification (micrograph M. Ownby).d. Thin-section at cross-polarized light (XPL), 100x magnification (micrograph M. Ownby).Thin-sections show lack of sand-sized grains, brown chert inclusion at upper middle, and foraminifera at upper left.

13For recent debate on these questions, see Höflmayer (2017).


Levant 2020 VOL. 52 NOS. 1–2 211

specialized production of the jars. What is emergingfrom the thin section and elemental data (see Gravein Sowada 2009: app II.1–8), however, is that whileByblos was likely the primary port of call forEgyptian expeditions, the wider region participatedin this exchange activity, either directly or indirectly.Absent are ceramics from the southern Levant. Thisindicates a major shift in procurement networks forcontainer-based products by the 4th Dynasty, frommultiple locations in favour of a single, efficientmaritime-based supply line directly to Byblos andenvirons. The question of Egypt’s impact oversuch a long period on the commodity producingcommunities of the central Levant, and the role ofthe southern Levant, remains to be fullyunderstood.

AcknowledgementsResearch for this paper was funded by the AustralianResearch Council as part of the first author’s ARCFuture Fellowship Project (FT170100288). Thankyou to the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, for per-mission to study and sample the vessels in this paper.In particular, the Head of the Department ofAncient Art, Dr Rita Freed; Curator, Dr DeniseDoxey; Research Associate, Dr Susan Allen; Headof Conservation, Dr Richard Newman; and 2018MFA Intern Ms Ines Torres, provided every supportfor the on-site work. We are indebted to Dr MarkLehner (Ancient Egypt Research Associates) forenabling inclusion of the Heit el-Ghurab material,and Dr Elena Kormysheva (Institute of OrientalStudies, Moscow) for permission to include the

Figure 9 Applied potmarks from Egypt and the central Levant.a. MFA 37.1319 (Sample 11), Tomb G 7330, mid-late 4th Dynasty. Petrography Group 1, Fabric P200 (Photo © 2019Museum of Fine Arts, Boston).b. Detail of potmark on MFA 37.1319.c. Applied ‘ram’s head’ potmark from Tell Fadous-Kfarabida (Genz 2014: fig. 12).


Levant 2020 VOL. 52 NOS. 1–2212

Khafre-ankh jar. Dr Sylvie Marchand, Dr JaneSmythe, Dr Anita Quiles and Nadine Mounir of theInstitut français d’archéologie orientale in Cairokindly facilitated access to the material and theIFAO laboratory. Special thanks are due to DrBarbara Aston, Dr David Aston (Austrian Academyof Sciences) and Dr Carla Galorini (University ofBirmingham, UK) for discussions about the fabricnomenclature and agreement to include the materialin the Memphis/Saqqara scheme. Professor Peter derManuelian (Harvard University) assisted with accessto the Peabody Museum collection and with mattersconcerning the Giza Archive (www.gizapyramids.org). Thanks are also due to Prof. Hermann Genzfor permission to reproduce the potmark in Fig. 9,Prof. Christiana Köhler for permission to use theimage in Fig. 2b, Dr Uli Hartung for Fig. 2c, and toDr Kamal Badreshany (University of Durham) andDr Stephen Bourke (University of Sydney) forhelpful comments during the production of thispaper. Dr Melissa Kennedy, Dr Aaron De Souza,Dr Alice McClymont and Anthony Dakhoul providedadditional support in preparing the text and illus-trations. Mahmoud el-Shafai (Egyptian Ministry ofAntiquities) kindly provided information aboutmaterial from Heit el-Ghurab between 2013 and 2018.

Supplementary dataSupplementary data for this article can be accessed herehttps://doi.org/10.1080/00758914.2019.1664197.

ORCIDKarin Sowada http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4438-9225MaryOwnby http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0530-7354Anna Wodzinska http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4450-4249

ReferencesAdams, B. and Friedman, R. F. 1992. Imports and influences in the

Predynastic and Protodynastic settlement and funerary assemblagesat Hierakonpolis. In, van den Brink, E. C. M. (ed.), The Nile Deltain Transition: 4th–3rd Millennium BC. Proceedings of the Seminarheld in Cairo, 21–24 October 1990, at the Netherlands Institute ofArchaeology and Arabic Studies: 317–38. Tel Aviv: E. C. M. vanden Brink.

Adams, B. and Porat, N. 1996. Imported pottery with potmarks fromAbydos. In, Spencer, A. J. (ed.), Aspects of Early Egypt: 98–107.London: British Museum Press.

Adams, M. J. 2017. The Egyptianized pottery cache from Megiddo’sArea J: a foundation deposit for Temple 4040. Tel Aviv 44(2):141–64. DOI:10.1080/03344355.2017.1357272

Amiran, R. 1974. The painted pottery style of the Early Bronze II periodin Palestine. Levant 6: 65–73.

Arnold, E. R., Hartmann, G., Greenfield, H. J., Shai, I., Babcock, L. E.and Maeir, A. M. 2016. Isotopic evidence for early trade in animalsbetween Old Kingdom Egypt and Canaan. PLoS One 11(6):e0157650. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0157650

Badreshany, K. and Genz, H. 2009. Pottery production on the northernLebanese coast during the Early Bronze Age II–III: the

petrographic analysis of the ceramics from Tell Fadous-Kfarabida. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research355: 1–33.

Badreshany, K., Genz, H. and Sader, H. 2005. An Early Bronze Age siteon the Lebanese coast. Tell Fadous-Kfarabida 2004 and 2005: Finalreport. Bulletin d’archéologie et d’architecture libanaises 9: 5–115.

Badreshany, K., Philip, G. and Kennedy, M. 2019. The development ofintegrated regional economies in the Early Bronze Age Levant: newevidence from ‘Combed-Ware’ jars. Levant. DOI:10.1080/00758914.2019.1641009

Bárta, M. 2009.Abusir XIII: Abusir South 2. Tomb Complex of the VizierQar, his Sons Qar Junior and Senedjemib, and Iykai. Prague: CzechInstitute of Egyptology, Faculty of Arts, Charles University inPrague.

Bartov, Y. 1994. Geological Photomap of Israel and Adjacent Areas. 2nded. Jerusalem: The Geological Survey.

Beydoun, Z. R. 1977. The Levantine countries: The geology of Syria andLebanon (maritime regions). In, Nairn, A. E. M., Kanes, W. H. andStehli, F. G. (eds), The Ocean Basins and Margins, Volume 4A: TheEastern Mediterranean: 319–53. New York and London: PlenumPress. DOI:10.1007/978-1-4684-3036-3_8

Bourriau, J. D. and Arnold, D. 1993. An Introduction to AncientEgyptian Pottery, Fasc. 1. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern.

Bourriau, J. D. and Eriksson, K. 2010. The Survey of Memphis IV. KomRabia: The New Kingdom Pottery. Egypt Exploration Society,Excavation Memoir 93. London: Egypt Exploration Society.

Bourriau, J. and Nicholson, P. 1992. Marl clay pottery fabrics of theNew Kingdom from Memphis, Saqqara and Amarna. Journal ofEgyptian Archaeology 78: 29–91. DOI:10.2307/3822066

Dubertret, L. 1945. Carte Géologique au 50.000e. Feuille de Beyrouth.Beirut: Ministére des Travaux Publics, République Libanaise.

——— 1962. Carte Geologique Liban, Syrie et Bordure des Pays Voisins.Paris: Muséum d’histoire naturelle/Institut géographique national.

Doumet-Serhal, C. 2006. The Early Bronze Age in Sidon: ‘College Site’Excavations (1998–2000–2001). Bibliothèque Archéologique etHistorique 178. Beirut: Institut Français du Proche-Orient.

Eliyahu-Behar, A., Shai, I., Regev, L., Ben-Shlomo, D., Albaz, S.,Maeir, A. M. and Greenfield, H. J. 2016. Early Bronze Agepottery covered with lime-plaster: technological observations. TelAviv 43(1): 27–42. DOI:10.1080/03344355.2016.1161373

El Shazly, E. M. 1977. The geology of the Egyptian region. In, Nairn,A. E. M., Kanes, W. H. and Stehli, F. G. (eds), The Ocean Basinsand Margins, Volume 4A: The Eastern Mediterranean: 379–444.New York and London: Plenum Press. DOI:10.1007/978-1-4684-3036-3_10

Esse, D. and Hopke, P. 1986. Levantine trade in the Early Bronze Age:from pots to people. In, Olin, J. S. and Blackman, M. J. (eds),Proceedings of the 24th International Archaeometry Symposium:327–39. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Forstner-Müller, I. and Raue, D. 2008. Elephantine and the Levant. In,Engel, E. M., Müller, V. and Hartung, U. (eds), Zeichen aus demSand: Streiflichter aus Ägyptens Geschichte zu Ehren von GünterDreyer: 127–48. Menes 5. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Gardiner, A. H. 1969. The Admonitions of an Egyptian Sage from aHieratic Papyrus in Leiden (Pap. Leiden 344 recto). Hildesheim:Georg Olms Verlag.

Genz, H. 1993. Zur bemalten keramik der Frübronzezeit II–III inPalastina. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 109: 1–19.

——— 2010. Recent excavations at Tell Fadous-Kfarabida. NearEastern Archaeology 73(2–3): 102–13. DOI:10.1086/NEA25754040

——— 2014. Excavations at Tell Fadous-Kfarabida 2004–2011: anEarly and Middle Bronze Age site on the Lebanese coast. In,Höflmayer, F. and Eichmann, R. (eds), Egypt and the SouthernLevant in the Early Bronze Age: 69–91. Orient-Archäologie 31.Rahden/Westf: Marie Leidorf.

Greenberg, R. and Porat, N. 1996. A third millennium Levantine potteryproduction center: typology, petrography, and provenance of theMetallic Ware of northern Israel and adjacent regions. Bulletin ofthe American Schools of Oriental Research 301: 5–24. DOI:10.2307/1357293

Griffiths, D. 2006. The petrography. In, C. Doument-Serhal (ed.), TheEarly Bronze Age in Sidon: ‘College Site’ Excavations (1998–2000–2001): 279–89. Bibliothèque archéologique et historique178. Beirut: Institut français du Proche-Orient.


Levant 2020 VOL. 52 NOS. 1–2 213

http://www.gizapyramids.org

http://www.gizapyramids.org

https://doi.org/10.1080/00758914.2019.1664197

https://doi.org/10.1080/00758914.2019.1664197

http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4438-9225

http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4438-9225

http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0530-7354

http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0530-7354

http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4450-4249

http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4450-4249

http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4450-4249

https://doi.org/10.1080/03344355.2017.1357272

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0157650

https://doi.org/DOI:10.1080/00758914.2019.1641009

https://doi.org/DOI:10.1080/00758914.2019.1641009

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-3036-3_8

https://doi.org/10.2307/3822066

https://doi.org/10.1080/03344355.2016.1161373

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-3036-3_10

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-3036-3_10

https://doi.org/10.1086/NEA25754040

https://doi.org/10.1086/NEA25754040

https://doi.org/10.2307/1357293

https://doi.org/10.2307/1357293

Hartung, U. 2001. Umm el-Qaab II. Importkeramik aus dem Friedhof Uin Abydos (Umm el-Qaab) und die Beziehungen Ägyptens zuVorderasien im 4. Jahrtausend v. Chr. ArchäologischeVeröffentlichungen, Deutsches Archäologisches Institut,Abteilung Kairo 92. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern.

Hartung, U., Köhler, E. C., Müller, V. and Ownby, M. 2015. Importedpottery from Abydos: a new petrographic perspective. Ägypten undLevante 25: 293–333. DOI:10.1553/AEundL25s295

Helck, W. 1971. Die Beziehungen Ägyptens zu Vorderasien im 3. und2. Jahrtausend v. Chr. 2nd rev. ed. Ägyptologische Abhandlungen5. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Hendrickx, S. and Bavay, L. 2002. The relative chronological position ofEgyptian Predynastic and Early Dynastic tombs with objectsimported from the Near East and the nature of interregional con-tacts. In, van Brink, E. C. M. and Levy, T. E. (eds), Egypt andthe Levant. Interrelations from the 4th through the Early 3rdMillennium B.C.E.: 58–80. London/New York: Equinox.

Höflmayer, F. 2017. The Late ThirdMillennium in the Ancient Near East:Chronology, C14, and Climate Change. Oriental Institute Seminars11. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.

Ilaiwi, M. 1985. Soil Map of Arab Countries. Soil Map of Syria andLebanon. Damascus: The Arab Center for the Studies of AridZones and Dry Lands, Soil Sciences Division.

Iserlis, M., Greenberg, R., Steiniger, D. 2019. Contact between FirstDynasty Egypt and specific sites in the Levant: new evidencefrom ceramic analysis. Journal of Archaeological Science 24:1023–40. DOI:10.1016/j.jasrep.2019.03.021

Jean, M. 2019. Pottery production at Tell Arqa (Lebanon) during thethird millennium BC: preliminary results of petrographic analysis.Levant. DOI:10.1080/00758914.2018.1454239

Kantor, H. J. 1992. The relative chronology of Egypt and its foreign cor-relations before the First Intermediate Period. In, Ehrich, R. (ed.),Chronologies in Old World Archaeology: 3–21. 3rd ed. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.

Knoblauch, C. 2010. Preliminary report on the Early Bronze Age IIIpottery from contexts of the 6th Dynasty in the Abydos MiddleCemetery. Ägypten und Levante 20: 243–61. DOI:10.1553/AEundL20s243

Köhler, E. C. 1998. Tell el-Fara‘în — Buto. Band III: Die Keramik vonder späten Naqada-Kultur bis zum frühen Alten Reich (SchichtenIII bis VI). Archäologische Veröffentlichungen, DeutschesArchaeologisches Institut, Abteilung Kairo 94. Mainz: Philippvon Zabern.

Köhler, E. C. and Ownby, M. F. 2011. Levantine imports and their imi-tations from Helwan. Ägypten und Levante 21: 31–46. DOI:10.1553/AEundL21s31

Kormysheva, E. 1999. Report on the activity of the Russian archaeolo-gical mission at Giza, Tomb G 7948, east field, during the season1998. Annales du Service des Antiquités l’Égypte 74: 23–37.

Lacher-Raschdorff, C. 2014. Das Grab des Königs Ninetjer in Saqqara:Architektonische Entwicklung Frühzeitlicher Grabanlagen in Ägypten.Archäologische Veröffentlichungen, Deutsches ArchäologischesInstitut, Abteilung Kairo 125. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Lebeau, M. and de Miroschedji, P. 2014. Foreword. In, Lebeau, M. (ed.),ARCANE (Associated Regional Chronologies for the Ancient NearEast and the Eastern Mediterranean), Interregional Volume II:Ceramics: ix–xi. Turnhout: Brepols.

Lehner, M. 2007. Introduction. In, Lehner, M. and Wetterstrom W.(eds), Giza Reports, Volume 1: Project History, Survey, Ceramics,and the Main Street and Gallery III.4. Operations: 3–50. GizaPlateau Mapping Project, Giza Reports 1. Boston: Ancient EgyptResearch Associates.

Lehner, M. and Hawass, Z. 2017. Giza and the Pyramids. Thames andHudson: London.

Lucas, A. and Harris, J. R. 1989. Ancient Egyptian Materials andIndustries. 4th ed. London: Histories and Mysteries of Man.

Malykh, S. 2011. Pottery from the rock-cut tomb of Khafraankh in Giza.Cahiers de la céramique égyptienne 9: 185–213.

Marcolin, M. and Espinel, A. D. 2011. The Sixth Dynasty biographicinscriptions of Iny: more pieces to the puzzle. In, Bárta, M.,Coppens, F. and Krejcí, J. (eds), Abusir and Saqqara in the Year2010, Volume 2: 570–615. Prague: Czech Institute of Egyptology,Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague.

Marcus, E. 2002. Early seafaring and maritime activity in the southernLevant from prehistory through the third millennium BCE. In,

van den Brink, E. C. M. and Levy, T. E. (eds), Egypt and theLevant. Interrelations from the 4th through the Early 3rdMillennium B.C.E.: 403–17. London/New York: Equinox.

Mazzoni, S. 1985. Giza ed una produzione vascolare di Biblio. In,Bondi, S. F., Pernigotti, F. Serra and Vivian, A. (eds), Studi inOnore di Edda Bresciani. 317–35. Pisa: Giardini.

Ownby, M. F. 2010. Canaanite jars from Memphis as evidence for tradeand political relationships in the Middle Bronze Age. PhD.University of Cambridge.

Petrie, W. M. F. 1902. Abydos, Part I. Egypt Exploration Fund Memoir22. London: Egypt Exploration Fund.

Redford, D. 1986. Egypt and Western Asia in the Old Kingdom. Journalof the American Research Centre in Egypt 23: 125–43.

Reisner, G. A. and Smith, W. S. 1955. A History of the Giza Necropolis,Volume II. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Rzeuska, T. 2008. Late Old Kingdom pottery from WestSaqqara necropolis and its value in dating. In, Vymazalová, H.and Bárta, M. (eds), Chronology and Archaeology in AncientEgypt (the third millennium B.C.): 223–39. Prague: Czech Instituteof Egyptology, Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague.

Serpico, M. andWhite, R. 1996. A report on the analysis of contents of acache of jars from the Tomb of Djer. In, Spencer, J. (ed.), Aspects ofEarly Egypt: 128–39. London: British Museum Press.

Shaw, I. (ed.) 2003. The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt. UniversityPress: Oxford.

Sowada, K. 2009. Egypt in the Eastern Mediterranean During the OldKingdom. An Archaeological Perspective. Orbis Biblicus etOrientalis 237. Fribourg/Göttingen: Academic Press/Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht.

——— 2018. Fake it till you make it: an imitation combed jar from OldKingdom Giza, Bulletin de liaison de la céramique égyptienne 28:117–22.

——— Forthcoming. Perspectives on Egypt in the southern Levant inlight of the high Early Bronze Age chronology. In, Richard, S.(ed.), New Horizons in the Study of the Early Bronze III and EarlyBronze IV in the Levant. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

Sowada, K. and Ownby, M. Forthcoming. The combed jar as a trade‘brand’ of the Early Bronze Age. BAAL Studies in Memory ofJean-Paul Thalmann.

Stager, L. 1992. The periodization of Palestine from Neolithic throughEarly Bronze Age times. In, Ehrich, R. (ed.), Chronologies in OldWorld Archaeology: 22–41. 3rd ed. Chicago: University ofChicago Press.

Strudwick, N. 2005. Texts from the Pyramid Age. Atlanta, GA: Societyof Biblical Literature.

Thalmann, J.-P. 2000. Tell Arqa. Bulletin d’archéologie et d’architecturelibanaises 4: 5–74.

Thalmann, J.-P. and Sowada, K. N. 2014. Levantine ‘Combed Ware’.In, Lebeau, M. (ed.), ARCANE (Associated RegionalChronologies for the Ancient Near East and the EasternMediterranean), Interregional Volume II: Ceramics: 355–78.Turnhout: Brepols.

Tumolo, V. 2018. The Levantine seal-impressed jar from the TombG2370 at Giza revisited. In, Vacca, M., Pizzimenti, S. and MicaleM. G. (eds), A Oriente del Delta Scritti sull’Egitto ed il VicinoOriente antico in onore di Gabriella Scandone Matthiae: 611–28.Contributi e Materiali di Archeologia Orientale XVIII. Roma:Scienze e Lettere.

Urk. I= Sethe, K. 1932. Urkunden des Alten Reichs, Abteilung I, Band I,Heft 1–4. 2nd rev. ed. Urkunden des Ägyptischen Altertums I.Leipzig: Hinrichs.

Whitbread, I. K. 1995. Greek Transport Amphorae: A Petrological andArchaeological Study. Fitch Laboratory Occasional Paper 4.Athens: British School at Athens. DOI:10.1002/gea.3340110509

Wieder, M. and Adan-Bayewitz, D. 2002. Soil parent materials and thepottery of Roman Galilee: a comparative study. Geoarchaeology 17:393–415. DOI:10.1002/gea.10019

Witsell, A. 2018. Kromer 2018: basket by basket. Aeragram 19(1): 2–9.Wodzinska, A. and Ownby, M. 2011. Tentative remarks on Levantine

combed ware from Heit el-Ghurab, Giza. In, Mynárová, J. (ed.),Egypt and the Near East: The Crossroads. Proceedings of anInternational Conference on the Relations of Egypt and the NearEast in the Bronze Age. Prague, September 1–3, 2010: 285–96.Prague: Czech Institute of Egyptology, Faculty of Arts, CharlesUniversity in Prague.


Levant 2020 VOL. 52 NOS. 1–2214

https://doi.org/10.1553/AEundL25s295

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2019.03.021

https://doi.org/10.1080/00758914.2018.1454239





https://doi.org/10.1002/gea.3340110509

https://doi.org/10.1002/gea.10019

The petrography of imported Levantine Combed vessels from ...

Documents

Transcript of The petrography of imported Levantine Combed vessels from ...