late period and ptolemaic pottery from the work of the sgsp

5/17/2018 Late Period and Ptolemaic Pottery From the Work of the SGSP - slidepdf.com

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/late-period-and-ptolemaic-pottery-from-the-work-of-the-sgsp 1/11

ORIENTALIA LOVANIENSIA

ANALECTA

---150---

PROCEEDINGS OF THE

NINTH INTERNATIONAL

CONGRESS OF EGYPTOLOGISTS

ACTES DU NEUVIEME CONGRES

INTERNATIONAL DES EGYPTOLOGUES

Grenoble, 6-12 septembre 2004

Volume I& II

EDITED BY / EDITES PAR

Jean-Claude GOYON et Christine CARDIN

UITGEVERIJ PEETERS en DEPARTEMENT OOSTERSE STUDIES

LEUVEN - PARIS - DUDLEY, MA

2007



12.2

LATE PERIOD AND PTOLEMAIC POTTERY FROM THE WORK OF

THE SAQQARA GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY PROJECT

CARLA GALLORINI

University of Birmingham

Recent work of the Saqqara Geophysical Survey Project has focused on two dis-

tinct areas North and South of the Serapeum. In both areas magnetometer readings

had detected mud brick structures provisionally identified as platforms for temples and

associated buildings 1. To test the accuracy of the magnetometer readings and to clarify

the nature of these structures test excavations were carried out in 2001 in the area South

of the Serapeum (near the so called L-shaped enclosure) and in 2003 in the area North

of the Serapeum, at Temple Site 1.

The ceramic material recovered from these test squares is discussed below with

a particular emphasis on its chronological implications, in view of the fact that thepottery offers the only evidence for dating the structures, as no inscriptions and very

few objects were discovered from the excavation.

The LS structures to the South of the Serapeum appear on the gradiometer survey

map as large rectangular structures, closely packed together in a line, with indica-

tion of entrances on the north walls, facing toward an approach route to the Serapeum

from the East. Test excavations were carried out on the entrances and north walls of

three of these structures, namely LS1 and LS5 (the two larger buildings) and LS4, the

narrow one squeezed between LS3 and LS5.

The survey showed that for all three structures the entrance consisted of a staircase

giving access to a raised platform. In the case of LS4 the state of preservation was

excellent and a fine limestone staircase set into a mud brick ramp was uncovered, while

in LS1 and LS5 only the mud brick ramp was still in place. In both LS4 and LS1 a pair

of roughly symmetrically disposed pedestals stood on either side at the bottom of the

staircase. The platforms were not excavated, but from what could be seen they were cre-

ated by solid enclosure walls filled with sand and rubble. These structures are clearly

not funerary, and they were most probably used as bases for temples and associated

buildings as is the case for example in the Sacred Animal Necropolis at North Saqqara.

Of the three LS structures, LS5 is the least well preserved. The archaeology lay very

close to the surface and it had been extensively destroyed by robbers recycling building

I For a detailed description of the work undertaken by the Saqqara Geophysical Survey Project see

the contributions by Ian Matthieson and Dan Lines, p. 1137-1149 in this volume.



790 C. GALLORINI

material. Comparatively little pottery was recovered from this structure: the loose

sand surrounding the buildings was unusually clean, with only a few diagnostics among

the weathered body-sherds. However, at least in one case, the pottery came from a

context closely associated with the architectural remains.

The amphora rim 1084 (fig. la) was found in the foundation trench into which the

2 bottom courses of the platform enclosure wall were inserted (context n. 124). Thefabric is coarse, the surface fired a light greenish grey (2.5Y 7/2 light gray) and has

a wide very pale brown (10 YR 8/4) core framed by light reddish brown edges (5YR

6/4). The numerous inclusions comprise fine to coarse limestone, medium coarse sand

and fine to coarse red brown to black particles. Shells might also be present, but with

only a lOx hand lens the identification is not certain. Although the shape is similar

to the type of Levantine storage jars presented by Sagona in his group 62, the fabric

is different and can be identified with Aston's fabric K63• The best parallel I could

find for this vessel both in shape and fabric comes from Elephantine, from one of the

houses in Phase V. This phase, which corresponds to P. French's third phase of Late

Dynastic pottery, is dated by Aston to between ca. 550-ca. 400 BC, although this par-

ticular vessel was given a slightly wider range, between the 7th and the yh centuries BC4•

The rest ofthe diagnostics shown in Fig. la come from loose sand. Vessel n° 1085is a well known type in Late Period sites: it is a fairly large bowl with a folded rim

that has also been shaped to create a deep ridge under the true rim. It rarely survives

complete, but when it does it always shows an intentional pre-firing hole in the cen-

tre of the base. At Buto this type of vessel occurs in the two most recent phases in

the stratigraphical sequence, the so called Kiln Phase provisionally dated ca. to the

first half of the 6thcentury BC and the so called Cache Phase again provisionally

dated to the second half of the 6th century BC5. Parallels to the two small dishes

n° 1095 and 1066, can be found close by in the Sacred Animal Necropolis" and also

in the pottery excavated by the Egyptian Antiquities Organization at the south side

of the Unas causeway. This pottery was originally dated by P. French to the first half

of the 4thcentury BC on the basis of the supposed date of the demotic hand in an

inscription found with the pottery from Cache II in the tomb of Horemheb and also

of the dating of some shabtis found in the burial in Chamber C of the tomb of Paser".

2 A.G. Sagona, «Levantine Storage jars of the 13th to the 4thcentury Be», Opuscula Atheniensia 14

(1982), p. 80-82.

3 D.A. Aston, Elephantine XIX. Pottery from the Late New Kingdom to the Early Ptolemaic Period

(Mainz am Rhein, 1999), p. 8.

4 lbid., p. 232.

5 P. French, «Phase dating at Buto in the Third Intermediate and Late Dynastic Periods», MDAIK 59

(2003), p. 219-21.

6 P. French, personal communication.

7 P. French and H. Ghaly, «Pottery chiefly of the Late Dynastic Period, from Excavations by the

Egyptian Antiquities Organization at Saqqara, 1987», CCE 2 (1991), p. 93-123.



LATE PERIOD AND PTOLEMAIC POTTERY FROM THE SAQQARA SURVEY 791

1084

LSS: context 12 4

~ .. - ..". .

1046

108S

Fig. la. Selected diagnostics from LS5.

~1053

rl ~063

LS1:Ptolemaicpotlery

~1106

r=r-~"'Y043

1101

1071

~1017

1095

~1066

~1051

t~~ P["-1044 I

I ~ ~1047 1079

~~lOll 10~

1082

"n71062

1038

1093

1112

Fig. lb. Selected diagnostics from LSI.

~1065

~

~1072

Fig. lc. Selected diagnostics from LS4.

P. French has revised the date of this assemblage in two recent articles inMDAIK 49

and CCE 7 where, drawing from his own work on the pottery from Buto, the

work by Oren at Migdol (site T 21) in North Sinai and the pottery from the tomb of

Udjahorresnet at Abusir, he proposes a new date for the third phase of late dynastic

pottery in the second half of the 6th century Be.



792 C. GALLORINI

No Ptolemaic pottery was retrieved from LSS. So a late Saite-Persian date for the

pottery from LSS is called for and possibly for the foundation and main use of the

building.

LS 1 is the easternmost of the seven LS structures and the largest. Ptolemaic pot-

tery was found between the mud brick rubble from the collapse of the enclosure wall

of the platform. Parallels for the casserole n? 1063 in fig. l b (dense Nile clay,uncoated, surface fired reddish brown, 2.S YR 4/3, and the fracture is red, 2.S YR 4/6.

Fine to coarse sand is the dominant inclusion, but there is also a scattering of unde-

composed fine and coarse limestone) have been found at Naucratis where they are

dated to the 3rd century BC8 and Mendes, with a similar date". As for the bowl with

incurved rim and flat base n? 1046 (Nile B2, uncoated)!" a very good parallel can be

found in house D at Elephantine, dated by Aston to the late 3rd/early 2nd century BCII.

The rest of the material from LS1 comes from the loose sand and is constituted

mainly by open forms in Nile clays. Small plates and dishes are very frequent (fig. 1b

n? 10S3, 1017, 10S2 and lOS1) and many of them show black staining on the inte-

rior and on the rim. The staining is similar to the blackening found on torches and

suggests the possibility that these vessels were used either as lamps or for incense

offerings. Only one example (n? lOS2) shows traces of mummification material adher-ing to the exterior, as is often the case for this type of vessel in contemporary Late

Dynastic deposits at Saqqara, but no examples of jars containing such material were

found. Carinated dishes in Nile B2 with red slip are also common, both with round

and ring base. Two other very common types are the so-called «gold fish bowls» type

n° 1047 and the «barrel jar» type 1082. Lamps and torches are also very frequent and

fragments of them were found in almost every context. Closed forms are rare

and very fragmentary: we had the upper part and non-joining base of a shouldered,

slender jar (n° 1101) with short, direct rim in Nile clay (limestone tempered Nile B2,

uncoated), and two rims in Marl A4, one from a small jar or juglet (n° 10S4) and

one from a larger jar with flaring, modelled rim (n? 1081). The only import is the

rim of an Aegean amphora (type n° 1038)12 in a fine, light clay; the surface fired

pale yellow (2.SY 8/2), and the fracture is an uniform reddish yellow (SYR 6/6).

Inclusions consist of fine mica, fine quartz and fine to coarse decomposed limestone.

8 W.O.E. Coulson, Ancient Naukratis. Volume 1/, Part I: The Survey at Naukratis (Oxford, 1996),

p. 32-3.

9 R. Hummel and S.B. Shubert, «Ceramic analysis» in O.B. Redford, Excavations at Mendes. Vol-

ume I. The Royal Necropolis (Leiden and Boston, 2004), p. 143, pIs. 0 and E.

10 When possible pottery fabrics are classified according to the Vienna System as set out in O. Arnold

and J. Bourriau, An Introduction to Ancient Egyptian Pottery (Mainz am Rhein, 1993).

IIO.A. Aston, Elephantine XIX. Pottery from the Late New Kingdom to the Early Ptolemaic Period

(Mainz am Rhein, 1999), p. 340.

12 The example shown in fig. lb comes from a different location (LS4 South extension), but the fab-

ric and rim shape are identical to the piece discussed here.




This type of amphorae with mushroom-shaped rim has been linked to various centres

of production (Rhodes, Samos, Naxos, Paros and more recently Knidos) but chrono-

logically it appears to be restricted to the late 5th- 4th century BCi3 .

As for the dating of the whole assemblage, again the best parallels for all the types

is to be found in the pottery excavated by the Egyptian Antiquities Organization at

the south side of the Unas causeway and also the ceramic material associated withLate Period burials found by the French mission working in the sector of the

Akhethetep mastaba at Saqqara. The bulk of this material, as said above, can be now

dated to the second half of the 6th century BC, although most of the open forms shown

here have a longer life span, well into the 5th century BC14• To sum up, the bulk of

pottery from LS 1 is datable to the late Saite and Persian period. Ptolemaic pottery is

rare, but its presence in the rubble from the collapse of the platform wall suggests that

by the late 3rd- 2nd century BC LS1 had been abandoned.

LS4 is the best preserved of the three structures, the fine limestone staircase was

still in place and shows very little sign of wear. It is also much narrower than the other

structures and it seems to have been squeezed between LS3 and LS5. These facts

prompted the excavators to suggest that the structure could be of a later date than the

others. If we tum to the pottery for confirmation, we see that the bulk of the mater-ial retrieved from the loose sand in LS4 is very similar to the material from the loose

sand in LSI, but with the addition of a few types (see fig. lc). Some of them are

clearly Ptolemaic, comprising a dish with rolled rim and ring base, a dish with incurved

rim and a small carinated bowl with flat base and direct rim, all datable to the 3rd cen-

tury BC on the basis of parallels from Athribis'", Balamun'" and Elephantine!", but

also shapes with a longer life span like small lids or bowls with incurved rim. A ves-

sel worth of special mention is n° 1071: a bowl with direct out-turned rim, tall flar-

ing neck and ring base. It is made of a sandy Nile clay, identical to the one used for

the Ptolemaic casserole (n? 1063). And in fact the vessel must have been used as a

cooking pot or exposed to fire because the exterior was completely blackened by

smoke. In term of shape the best parallel is to be found in a vessel found at Tell el-

Muqdam in a closed context dated by the presence of two Attic black-glazed lekythoi

13 V.R. Grace, «Sarnian Amphoras», Hesperia 40 (1971), 52-95; S.Iu. Monakhov, E.la. Rogov,

«Amphoras of the Panskoe I Necropolis [Amfory necropoli a Panskoe I]», AMA 9 (1990), p. 139-40,

pl. 6 n° 38-41; S. Iu. Monakhov, «Toward a Typology of Knidian amphoras of the 4th- 2nd century BC

[K tipologii knidskikh amfor IV-II vv. Do n.e.]», The Bosporan Phenomenon: Greek Culture on the

Periphery of the Ancient World [Bosporskii fenomenon: grecheskaia kul'tura na periferi antichnoglo

mira] (St. Petersburg, 1999) p. 171-72.

14 C. Defemez, La Ceramique d'Epoque Perse a Tell el-Herr, CRIPEL sup. 5 (Lille, 2001).

15 K. Mysliwiec, «Remains of a Ptolemaic villa at Athribis», MDAIK 44 (1988), p. 183-97.

16 A.J. Spencer, Excavations at Tell el-Balamun 1991-1994 (London, 1996), p. 67-74, pl. 51.

17 D.A. Aston, Elephantine XIX. Pottery from the Late New Kingdom to the Early Ptolemaic Period

(Mainz am Rhein, 1999), p. 331, pl. 111 n° 2928.



794 c.GALLOR1N1

to the second half of the 5th century BCI8. However the fabric of our vessel and the

very sharp edges of the rim and base, point to a later date for our example, possibly

in the early Ptolemaic.

On the geophysical plot of LS4 an anomaly appears in the southeast corner of the

structure and in 2001 a square was open to investigate its nature (LS4, South Extension).

It was discovered to be a shaft, 2.9 m deep, cut in to the bedrock and containinga large amount of damaged pottery: 8 complete vessels, another 12 damaged but the

complete profile could be reconstructed and then fragments of at least other 60 vessels.

The bulk is constituted again by open forms usually in Nile clay: small plates with

flat base (fig. 2, n? 1017 and 1018), carinated dishes with round base (n° 1002, 1008,

1036), bowls with incurved rim and flat or ring base (n° 1027+1037, 1023), «gold-

fish bowls» (n" 1030) and cooking pots with opposite handles (n° 1005). Closed

forms in marl clay are also well attested: symmetrical jars with direct, tall rim and

flat, short foot (n? 1004); ajar with two opposite vertical handles, folded rim, tall neck

and ring base (n" 1042), and jugs and juglets of various size (n? 1022); we also have

one large storage jar in Nile C with folded rim and applied «decoration» (n? 1073),

an Egyptian copy of a very well known type of Levantine amphora (n° 1041), the rim

of an Aegean amphora (no. 1038), and an endless number of torches (n? 1024)19. The dating of this material is crucial to the history of LS4 because it must have been

deposited in the shaft prior or during the construction of the platform, as the shaft was

sealed by the normal rubble fill of the platform itself. The open forms can be broadly

dated to Peter French's third phase of Late Dynastic pottery. Good parallels for the

cooking pot n? 1005 and the large jar 1073 were found at Migdol in North Sinai dated

to the second half of the 6th century. Jug 1022 has is best dated parallel at Tell el-

Muqdam in the context discussed above and dated to the second half of the 5thcen-

tury BC. Jar n? 1042 has parallels at Heboua and Tell el Herr in contexts dated to the

Persian period. The sherd that bears the latest date is the rim of Aegean amphora, that

bring us down to the late 5th- 4thcentury BC2o.Therefore LS4 must have been built

during or just after that date.

We shall move on now to the ceramic material from the sondage at Temple Site 1.

The structure belongs again to a series of mud brick buildings set in a line but this time

oriented southward, roughly toward the Serapeum. The test excavation revealed a mud

brick enclosure, up to 1.6 m in height, and filled with rubble to create a platform.

18 C.A. Redmount, R.F. Friedman, «Tales of a Delta Site: the 1995 Field Season at Tell el-Muqdam»,

fARCE 34 (1997), p. 64, fig. 9a.

19 During the discussion that followed the lecture a colleague pointed out the similarity in shape

between the torch illustrated here and the toe of an amphora. To avoid any misunderstanding I want to

point out that the example illustrated here has a true, folded rim, very well preserved, and that the fabric

is the local sandy variant of Nile B2.

20 See footnote 13.



LATE PERIOD AND PTOLEMAIC POTIERY FROM THE SAQQARA SURVEY 795

~1017

~1018

t:LJ. __ .

1002

~-I;Z;1008

~-

1036

(]J-

1004

1022

£: i~P1038

~1027+1037

~-kI023

~ . 1 - - - - - . - ~ - 91005

~1026

."1042

r,. - 1 - ~030

C D025

1024

) )1073 . .. .. .

I

-0I

1041

Fig. 2. Selected diagnostics from LS4 South Extension.



796 C. GALLORINI

The access ramp, part of the facade, including the south-east comer, and the entrance

on top of the platform were investigated.

In all c. 1600 sherds were unearthed, half of which were too small and eroded to be

positively identified. The majority of pottery comes from the clean sand ubiquitous

on site (context 500) and from context 502, a highly contaminated surface stratum of

sand mixed with decayed mud-brick. Overall the number of complete vessels recoveredwas minimal and the bulk of the material consists of fragmented sherds. Moreover

potentially interesting contexts, like the original fill of the temple platform, were

remarkably uninformative, with few, very small and eroded diagnostics and many

badly eroded sherds. It all contributes to a general feeling of residual debris rather than

one of association with the architectural structure.

Of the vessels found in the clean sand five deserve special mention. The small

bowl 2031 (Nile B2, traces of cream slip inside and outside, base cut with string) in

fig. 3 was found upside down in the sand, level with 2nd course of brickwork down

from top of the adjacent part of wall 503 and bowl 2032 (Nile B2, uncoated, base

cut with string and post-firing mark applied on the exterior, just below the rim) was

found in an almost identical position on the other side of the ramp, four courses of

brick down from the top of the wall 506. In this same comer but lower down in thesand, bowl n" 2033 and the small dish 2030 were found. The other dish, n" 2039, was

found close to the platform enclosure wall near to its foundation and it is the only one

to show traces of incense offerings. Of the five vessels, n° 2033 is the only one that

can be closely dated as an identical vessel was found at Tell el-Muqdam in a closed

context dated by the presence of two Attic black-glazed lekythoi to the second half

of the 5th century BC21.

The rest of the ceramic material from the sand is mainly utilitarian in nature. Open

forms are by far the most common, usually in a sandy Nile clay and with red slip.

There are small plates with thickened rim and flat base (fig. 3, n? 2094, 2052), small

and medium-size carinated dishes with round base (n° 2111), carinated bowls with

flat base and incurved bowls with ring base (2076). Most of these shapes have a

long life span, covering both Late and the Ptolemaic Period, but the sandiness of the

fabric and the use of red slip fit better a Ptolemaic date. Ptolemaic cooking pots and

casseroles are also common (n? 2010, 2091, 2077, 2104), and so are torches (n° 2113

and 2042). Small and medium-sized jars and jugs in marl clay are rare (2040), and

the bulk of the closed shapes is constituted by amphorae, both Egyptian and imports

(from the Levant, n° 2067, and the Aegean, n° 2093).

A clue on when the temple ceased to be used is offered by context 546, a cluster

of pottery just east of the main cross wall of the temple platform, The pottery was

damaged by the collapse of the wall, but it was possible to reconstruct the complete

21 See footnote 13.




(J:2?2031

2033

w-

2032

~2030

~2039

Temp l e Si te 1 . c om ple te v es se ls fo un d u ps id e d ow n in c le ar s an d

2010

I2091

~ - . ~ C - I t2067

c::]2::J2094

~~20S2

2111

I . . •2104

2093

- 0 -

2055

t - I - . ~2068

2071 OJ)2070

Temple Sitel : selected diagnostics f rom content 546

w -

-

2113

TIl -_~

- . 3 ?" = l J

2042n · · _ I _ _

2061

I2096

2038

v····...} J. . : ~ '.._ _ .. -

.

2076

WFig. 3. Selected diagnostics from Temple Site 1.

2101



798 C. GALLORINI

profile of most vessels. The assemblage consists of at least 3 Egyptian amphorae, all

of the same type (2055), with folded rim, tall cylindrical neck and a set of two oppo-

site, vertical handles. Parallels from Buto (and I have to thank here Janine Bourriau

who has seen the amphorae and confirmed the identification) suggest a date between

the end of the 3rd and the middle of the 2nd century Be22• In the same context we also

found cups and bowls of various shapes, a cooking pot and two jars, all datable tothe same chronological phase.

Bearing in mind what has been said above on the fragmentary nature of the pot-

tery, and its lack of clear association with the structure, the datable, diagnostic ceramic

material suggests a life span for Temple Site 1 ranging from the late 5thcentury Be

to the middle of the Ptolemaic period.

To sum up: on the basis of the pottery evidence the LS structures south ofthe Ser-

apeum can be dated broadly to the period from the late 6th to the 4thcentury Be. They

were possibly built in different stages, LS5 being the oldest and LS4 the most recent.

It is not possible to establish when the structures ceased to be used, but by the end

of the 3rd century Be the supporting wall of at least one of the platforms was in ruin.

As we have just seen the pottery assemblage from Temple Site 1 suggests a slightly

later date with a much higher concentration of early to mid-Ptolemaic pottery. It is alsoworth mentioning that with the exclusion of a few Old Kingdom sherds, no recog-

nizable pottery from any other period of Egyptian history was found.

22 For a preliminary report on the amphorae from Buto see J. Bourriau, «Egyptian Amphorae of the

2nd - 1SI Century B.C. from the Excavations 1996-1999», MDAIK 59 (2003), p. 254-63.

late period and ptolemaic pottery from the work of the sgsp

Documents

ptolemaic pottery

ls structures

mud brick structures

structures test excavations

phase of latedynastic

north saqqara

little pottery

large rectangular structures