DEIR EL-BALLAS Preliminary Report on the Deir el-Ballas Expedition, 2017—2021 Frontispiece: Reconstruction of North Palace by Fran Weatherhead and Andrew Boyce A NC I E N T EG Y P T I A N H E R I TAGE A N D A RCH A EOLOGY FUND R EPORTS DEIR EL-BALLAS Preliminary Report on the Deir el-Ballas Expedition, 2017–2021 Peter Lacovara, Sue D’Auria and Jonathan P. Elias, eds. Published in the United States © 2021 Ancient Egyptian Heritage and Archaeology Fund No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or in any way, be it electronic, mechanical, photoduplicative or by other means, without the prior written permission of the publisher. ISBN: 978-8-42-578575-6 Editorial supervision and layout with all diagrams by Jonathan P. Elias Pendici Publishing, Carlisle Pennsylvania DEDICATION To the memory of Charles A. Evers and Cynthia Lynn Shartzer, invaluable members of the original expedition. CONTENTS Preface...................................................................................................... viii Acknowledgments..................................................................................... xii List of Figures........................................................................................... xiii List of Plates.............................................................................................. xv 1. Overview of the Work Done at the Site............................................... Peter Lacovara 1 2. House E.................................................................................................. Nicholas R. Brown 7 3. The Pottery............................................................................................. Bettina Bader 15 4. The Small Finds..................................................................................... Peter Lacovara 29 5. The Botanical Remains.......................................................................... Amr Shahat 31 6. Chapter Summaries (in Arabic)............................................................. Gina Salama 35 Appendix 1: Unit Number Sheet.............................................................. Appendix 2: Object Number Sheet........................................................... 53 59 Figures....................................................................................................... 67 Plates.......................................................................................................... 78 vii LIST OF FIGURES LIST OF FIGURES Frontispiece: Reconstruction of North Palace. Fig. 1.1: Map of Deir el-Ballas. Fig.1.2: Plan of the “South Palace.” Fig. 1.3: Plan of the South Wadi structures in Areas 1 and 2. Fig. 1.4: Plan of the North Palace. Fig. 1.5: Plan of House D. Fig. 2.1: Plan of House E. Fig. 3.1: Pottery from House E, Room 3, Unit 78. Fig. 3.2: Pottery from House E, Room 3, Unit 78. Fig. 3.3: Pottery from House E, Room 3, Units 78, 82 and 89. Fig. 4.1: Remains of a leather belt. Fig. 4.2: Ship timber with mortise and tenon. xiii DEIR EL-BALLAS 2017–2021 xiv LIST OF PLATES LIST OF PLATES Plate 1.1: North Palace at Deir el-Ballas 2017 pre-restoration, looking east. Plate 1.2a-b: The “South Palace” before and after latest restoration efforts. Plate 1.2c: Section through fill of “South Palace” casemate at top of stairway. Plate 1.3: The South Wadi structures in areas 1 and 2. Plate. 1.4: Restoration work being conducted at the North Palace. Plate 1.5: House D after restoration. Plate 2.1a: View of House E, Room 3 after excavation, looking south. Plate 2.1b: View of House E, Room 3 after excavation, looking east. Plate 2.2: View of House E, Room 3 after surface cleaning, but before excavation of the pharaonic deposits. Note the central mound that is the eastern wall collapse (Unit 33), which helped preserve the pharaonic deposits beneath. Plate 2.3: A view of the threshold between Rooms 2 and 3 (looking east). Plate 2.4: Post excavation of the mud-plaster floor (Unit 85) and hearth area (Unit 84) in the southeast corner of House E, Room 3. Plate 2.5: View of House E, Room 5 after excavation. Plate 2.6: A view of the western square mud-brick installation (Unit 23) post-excavation, looking northeast. The feature was preserved to its original height of approximately 60 centimeters. Plate 2.7: The limestone socket block (Object 58) discovered in House E, Room 5. xv DEIR EL-BALLAS 2017–2021 List of Plates (continued) Plate 2.8: View of House E, Room “5a” (i.e. the eastern section of Room 5), post excavation, looking west. Plate 2.9: Overview of House E West, looking east. Plate 2.10: Section along the east wall of Room 3 in House E. Plate 3.1: Photo of the pottery industry in January 2020. Plate 3.2: Docket/Ostracon from Unit 78. Plate 3.3: Cooking pot from House E, Room 3, Unit 78-36. Plate 4.1: Mud “seal blanks.” Plate 4.2: Fragment of greywacke kohl pot. Plate 4.3: Archaic Period greywacke bowl re-used as a scraper. Plate 4.4 a-b: Ship timber with mortise and tenon in situ and removed. Plate 5.1: Ficus sycomorus from House E, Room 3, Feature 82. Plate 5.2: House E, Room 3, Feature 82, acacia pod (Acacia nilotica (L.) Delile). Plate 5.3: House E, Room 3, Feature 89, emmer wheat spikelet (Triticum dicoccum Schrank ex Schübl). Plate 5.4: House E, Room 3, Feature 89, sheep/goat dung, desiccated Plate 5.5: House E, Room 3, Feature 89, sample of bean (Vicia faba L) cross section view. Plate 5.6: Date fragment (Phoenix dactylifera L.), desiccated, from Feature 89. xvi LIST OF PLATES Plate 5.7: House E, Room 3, Feature 82, doum exocarp and mesocarp frag (fragment (Hyphaene thebaica (l.) Mart.). Plate 5.8: Piece of burned textile found in Feature 66, in House E West. xvii DEIR EL-BALLAS 2017–2021 xviii THE POTTERY 3 THE POTTERY Bettina Bader During January 2020 it was possible to obtain a first impression of the ceramic material collected during reconstruction and cleaning work in the northern part of the current concession held by the Ancient Egyptian Heritage and Archaeology Fund, and more specifically in and around two probably domestic structures, Houses E25 and F, cleaned and reconstructed in part during that season (see Chapter 2).26 These structures are situated approximately 10 m to the west of the remains of the so-called North Palace and lay in the immediate vicinity of the village school to the southeast and the newly expanded western road leading to Qena to the west. Because of time constraints only very little material could so far be assessed and recorded. However, the focus of the brief study period was on deposits from within the houses and from below the surface in secure pharaonic contexts, not contaminated with later material, such as Coptic/ Late Antique material or even modern surface material derived from the nearby pottery manufacturing industry for Balâlîs, which is still going strong (pl. 3.1).27 Especially in House E, Room 3, several seemingly untouched contexts from lower strata were uncovered, and a selection of material from these is presented here as a starting point for discussion. The material encountered includes Nile clay fabrics as well as marl clay fabrics well within the Vienna System,28 with a few exceptions, such as a singular imported Levantine transport amphora rim fragment (see fig. 3.2, 78-4) and a very small and eroded body sherd of what is probably a juglet (fig. 3.2, 78-39). Moreover, although the majority of the pottery vessels and fragments hitherto recorded belong unequivocally to the well-known local Egyptian manufacturing tradition of the transition from the late Second Intermediate Period to the early New Kingdom, there were also 25 This structure had been excavated in part by a previous project, cf. P. Lacovara, Deir el-Ballas: Preliminary Report on the Deir el-Ballas Expedition, 1980–1986 (Boston/Winona Lake, 1990), pl. 5 for House E. 26 Further thanks are due to the team members helping in collection, organization, washing, and piecing together of pottery: Nicholas R. Brown, Piet Collet, Tom Hardwick, and Victoria Jensen. 27 Cf. P. Nicholson and H. Patterson, “Pottery Making in Upper Egypt: An Ethnoarchaeological Study,” World Archaeology 17 (1985), 222–39; P. Nicholson, “Pottery Production in Egypt: The Chaîne Opératoire as a Heuristic Tool,” Studies in Ancient Art and Civilization 21 (2017), 25–52. 28 H.A. Nordström and J. Bourriau, “Ceramic Technology: Clays and Fabrics,” in Do. Arnold and J. Bourriau, An Introduction to Ancient Egyptian Pottery (Mainz, 1993), 145–90. 15 DEIR EL-BALLAS 2017–2021 several vessel fragments belonging to the Nubian manufacturing tradition (see fig. 3.3). The pottery was mostly fragmentary, but more archaeologically complete profiles could be recovered than expected. The material from stratigraphic units 78, 82, 84, 86, and 89 was distributed close to or on the original floor (cf. Chapter 2), and there were cross joins between a few of these units, suggesting that the material was distributed in antiquity, as it was well below the immediate surface, and distant from the backfills of the campaigns from the 1980s. Moreover it was also untouched by Reisner’s earlier excavations. However, it remains very uncertain whether this material is a remnant of actual activities conducted in this building, as it more likely represents fill accumulated when the building was abandoned, or shortly thereafter. In terms of use traces, the ceramic material showed some sooting and smoke blackening (see pl. 3.3), but no other obvious secondary traces were discerned as yet. House E, Room 3, Unit 78 –Fill layer below wall and roof collapse– (figs 3.1–3) Whatever the processes were that led to the pottery assemblage of this unit, it seems in itself largely consistent as far as it is known from other and roughly contemporary sites (for a discussion of parallels, see below). It should also be noted that one of the most conspicuous pottery vessels, the very sooted cooking bowl 78-36 made in Nubian cultural tradition (see figs. 3.3 and pl. 3.3), yielded cross joins to stratigraphic units 82, 84, and 86 also from Room 3. Thus, it is to be expected that more joins will be found as work progresses. However, it seems to suggest that these units were in contact with each other and should, thus, be considered contemporary. For this reason, the suggested date of the assemblage presented here has to remain very preliminary until more work can be done with the material in the future. The pottery from Unit 78 will be described in some detail, while from the other units only certain examples are highlighted, which are not represented in Unit 78 (see below). The pottery manufacturing technology encountered, which can only be judged from traces left on the products, indicates the use of turning devices, but it is difficult to distinguish whether pottery was turned on a turntable with a more irregular rotational force (and an assistant turning it?) or a proper wheel that was turned by the feet of the potter. Notably for the larger vessels such as 78-40 and the stand 78-12, the use of a coiling technique (aided by a wheel or a turning device) is suggested. A couple of body sherds of hand-formed large closed vessels, which seemed to have been made from a marl clay fabric with a brownish red section and abundant small limestone particles and even more sand sized mineral inclusions (probably Marl B) also belong to that context. As for base forming and finishing technology, the following was observed: bases of open forms included a ring base (78-16) with a separate pad added to an otherwise trimmed base, which was subsequently turned on a turning device/wheel, and trimmed “raised” bases (78-9, 78-11, others not 16 THE POTTERY drawn) with concentric circles on the underside, exemplifying finishing on a turning device/wheel upside down. Notably the lower area just above the base, on the exterior of the body, was trimmed horizontally with a tool and also turned on a turning device/wheel, dragging the larger quartz particles across so that rather deep horizontal “scratches” were produced. The potter had not tried to remove these traces in a later step. The base of a marl clay fabric dish was cut from the clay hump with string or a kind of wire (78-1). One preserved base of a closed vessel in this context belongs to the large jar 78-40, which was clearly trimmed with a (wooden) tool in an oblique way, but in no apparent pattern. This large vessel was also made in several parts (probably by wheel coiling), the joins being quite visible in the finished pot. The only other base fragment is from a red slipped and burnished jar with funnel neck (78-30), which has the turning spiral preserved in the interior. The smoothing on the exterior has been done very well, leaving only faint traces of vertical ridges from the trimming and was thus well obliterated by the surface treatment.29 The vessel fragments produced using Nubian manufacturing traditions were fired in reducing kiln atmosphere and handmade (78-2, 78-3, 78-27, 78-28, 78-36). The surface treatments encountered include leaving the surface uncoated, using red slip on interior and exterior, as well as pattern burnishing on open and closed vessels and on ring stands. The Nubian manufacturing tradition used a reducing atmosphere in the kiln to make the surface appear dark grey to black and red/black. Burnishing was also used for the interior and exterior surfaces on some of the sherds (78-2, 78-28) or just on the interior (78-27). The small beaker sherd (78-28) just shows the typical black and red coloring of so-called Kerma beakers,30 but unfortunately the upper part with the decorative band is totally abraded,31 so that only the black and red parts are preserved. In terms of decoration, only the pottery made in Nubian manufacturing technology was treated with oblique pre-firing incised lines crossing each other (78-3) or were more narrowly spaced parallel oblique lines (78-27). The incurved bowl 78-36 was also decorated with a pattern of quite regular oblique lines of drop-shaped “holes” perhaps produced with a mat or a rocker stamp. The most common fabrics occurring certainly belong to the Nile clay fabric group, which includes a range of medium fine Nile B2 fabrics32 and some slightly coarser variants, which have been called Nile C1 at other sites.33 In deviation from the definition of this raw material in the north, some of the sherds showed a higher amount of limestone particles or quartz particles in the Nile B2 fabric than average examples. A fine variant of Nile B2 also occurs.34 The marl clay fabrics 29 The parallels of this vessel type will be discussed below with the better-preserved vessel 82-25. https://collections.mfa.org/search/objects/*/Kerma%20Beaker 31 Currently experiments on how such kinds of bands were produced are being undertaken by Vera and Ludwig Albustin (potters specialized in making handmade pottery), Aaron de Souza, and the author. 32 Nordström and Bourriau, “Ceramic Technology: Clays and Fabrics,” 171–73. 33 Cf. M. Bietak, Tell el-Dab ͨ a V. Ein Friedhofsbezirk der Mittleren Bronzezeitkultur mit Totentempel und Siedlungsschichten (Vienna, 1991), 325. Cf. B. Bader, Tell el-Dab ͨ a XIX. Auaris und Memphis im späten Mittleren Reich und in der Hyksoszeit, Vergleichsanalyse der materiellen Kultur (Vienna, 2009), 619–22. 34 But it is not as fine as, for example, a Middle Kingdom hemispherical cup made from Nile B1. 30 17 DEIR EL-BALLAS 2017–2021 were rather few and far between; just one dish (78-1), one stand (78-12), and several body sherds belong to this type of raw material, among them also one docket/ostracon (pl. 3.2). While the large stand can be assessed as Marl B (greenish scum, pink section), it is less easy to identify the dish, because the section is reddish brown35 rather than the usual yellowish green or pink.36 Nevertheless the inclusions visible with 10x hand lens consist mainly of sand-sized mineral grains occurring in abundance and less frequently limestone particles. The same holds true for the handmade body sherd of a large vessel already mentioned above. The large vessel 78-40 appears similar to the reddish-brown marl clay fabric in texture and looks, but contains in addition organic material in relative abundance. Thus, this material might be classified as Marl E37 or a mixed clay until a chance for more thorough analysis arises. The vessels made according to Nubian manufacturing tradition consist of Nile clay fabrics with the addition of straw and chaff, respectively. The vessel shapes occurring in Unit 78 comprise a variety of open vessels with direct everted rims (in one case with a slightly trimmed rim [78-9]), with flaring rims and with inflected direct rims. Furthermore, dishes with incurved rims were noted, as well as such with an outwards folded lip. Other open vessels include at least one likely fragment of a so-called flower pot (78-6) and a more restricted vessel that could have been a slightly deeper bowl (78-18). Among the closed vessel types, small beakers were identified (78-31, 78-41, and some body fragments) as well as sherds of an ovoid red burnished bottle with everted funnel neck (78-30 and some body fragments, see also below). Furthermore, two rim fragments of closed vessels belong to the assemblage of this unit (7817, 78-37). Both have outwards folded lips, while 78-17 was also trimmed with a tool to achieve a sharp edge on the lower end of the lip. Finally, several stands were found, one of which (78-29) seems to belong to the well-known ring stand types generally increasing in prominence in the Second Intermediate Period at least in northern Egypt,38 although pattern burnishing does not seem to be very well attested for this vessel type in the literature as yet. The base technology with the telltale scraping on the interior especially gives this type away. The other stands seem to be different in morphology and perhaps were a bit higher with some attached dishes and red slip, but also white slip. This seems especially true for 78-34, which may have belonged to a higher stand. The large marl clay stand with vertical attachments (for strengthening?) is quite unusual but not unknown in 35 Cf. Nordström and Bourriau, “Ceramic Technology: Clays and Fabrics,” color plate VI.b for a good likeness. See Z. Barahona Mendieta, F. Relats Montserrat, and R. Séguir, “Nouvelles données sur un four à ceramiques de XVIIe-XVIIIe dynasties à Medamoud,” BCEg 29 (2019), 165–229. Interestingly the repertoire is not very similar, which hints at different uses of different locations, such as kiln areas and housing zones. 37 Cf. Nordström and Bourriau, “Ceramic Technology: Clays and Fabrics,” 182. 38 See Bader, Tell el-Dab ͨ a XIX, 532, 559–601 for a steady increase in the percentage of ring stands (type 42a) per Phase in the late Second Intermediate Period in Tell el-Dab ͨ a and Kom Rabi ͨ a. W.M.F. Petrie, Hyksos and Israelite Cities (London, 1906), pl. X.28–51. Part of this material was re-recorded in the course of the START project Beyond Politics: Second Intermediate Period Material Culture in Egypt and Nubia, in collaboration with Lucia Hulková. J. Bourriau, C. Gallorini, The Survey of Memphis VIII, Kom Rabi ͨ a: The Middle Kingdom and Second Intermediate Period Pottery, Excavation Memoir 108 (London, 2016), in Level VI, which is equivalent to the Second Intermediate Period, cf. 141, fig. 63; 177, fig. 89. 36 18 THE POTTERY the Egyptian pottery repertoire.39 Finally, the small eroded body sherd of a marl clay vessel, probably a juglet of some sort, needs to be mentioned (89-39), as well as the rim of a Levantine transport container (78-4) made from a fabric that also occurs in the Middle Bronze Age levels at Tell elDabʻa. It is also worth thinking about whether the large jar 78-40 and the stand 78-12 might have constituted a set that was used at one time in Room 3 because they fit so excellently in size and are more complete in terms of preservation than the other vessels (see fig. 3.2). However, currently it is hard to ascertain, based on the ceramic evidence, whether we see two or more use episodes or a single longer-use period. The parallels for the pottery cited here will be restricted to well-dated and newly excavated examples, with a preference for examples from sites close to Deir el-Ballas and the Theban region. However, parallels for the shallower open vessel shapes made of Nile clay fabrics (fig. 3.1) can be found all over Egypt at Tell el-Dabʻa,40 Kom Rabiʻa/Memphis,41 Abydos,42 Thebes,43 and Ele39 Cf. W.M.F. Petrie, Kahun, Gurob and Hawara (London, 1890), 32–34, pl. XX. 38. I would like to thank D. Aston for drawing my attention to this reference. A more precise dating of the settlement at Medinet Gurob than in the 18th Dynasty and later seems currently not possible, and it is also difficult to judge whether this is a Nile or marl clay fabric specimen. See for a recent overview of Gurob, D. Aston, From the Hyksos to Horemheb (in press), ms 318–19. A Nile clay fabric example was found at Abydos, there assigned to the later 18th Dynasty to Ramesside Period, cf. J. Budka, “The Oriental Institute Ahmose and Tetisheri Project at Abydos 2002-2004: The New Kingdom Pottery,” Egypt & Levant 16 (2006), 100–01, fig. 11.7, with further parallels supporting that date. Also note that Marl C and B pot stands (without the vertical strengthening element) are dated to Phase 1, equivalent to the early 18th Dynasty, cf. Ibid., 100 and fig. 12. So far House E did not yield ceramic material obviously much later than “early 18th Dynasty.” However, only after assessing all the material can a firm conclusion be reached. See below for the parallel from Deir el-Ballas itself. 40 Parallels can be found mainly for the direct out-turned and inflected dishes 78-14, 78-21, 78-23, 78-33, 78-38, cf. D. Aston, Tell el-Dab ͨ a XII: A Corpus of late Middle Kingdom and Second Intermediate Period Pottery (Vienna, 2004), vol. 2, pl. 199.757–761: Phases E/1 to D/2 - late Second Intermediate Period; pl. 200–201 with various surface treatments also Phases E/1 to D/2. I. Hein and P. Janosi, Tell el-Dab ͨ a XI (Vienna, 2004), Phase E/1: fig. 9.2; Phase D/3: fig. 27.4; Phase D/2: fig. 50.2, fig. 76.9, fig. 80A.3-7, fig. 106.3. P. Fuscaldo, Tell el-Dab ͨ a X, Part I (Vienna, 2000), 53–61 with many variations – late Second Intermediate Period. P. Fuscaldo, Tell el-Dab ͨ a X, Part II (Vienna, 2010), 50, fig. 10.a-l from the late Second Intermediate Period. Direct out-turned and/or inflected dishes still occur in phases of the early New Kingdom at Tell el-Dabʻa: Cf. I. Hein, “Untersuchungen und vorläufige Bilanz zur Keramik aus Ezbet Helmi, speziell Areal H/V,” Egypt & Levant 11 (2001), fig. 3.20. Incurved dishes rather seem to follow their own development different from Deir el-Ballas in the Second Intermediate Period. 41 Everted direct: J. Bourriau and C. Gallorini, The Survey of Memphis VIII, Kom Rabi ͨ a: The Middle Kingdom and Second Intermediate Period Pottery, Excavation Memoir 108 (London, 2016), 87, fig. 30, 21b1.1-7 level VI; 133–34, fig. 55.56.21b1.1-8, Level VI; all Second Intermediate Period. Everted direct: J. Bourriau, The Survey of Memphis IV: Kom Rabiՙa: The New Kingdom Pottery, EES Excavation Memoir 93 (London, 2010), 75, fig. 15.565, Level IV early New Kingdom. Incurved but uncoated: Bourriau and Gallorini, Survey of Memphis VIII 133, fig. 55.21b1.10, Level VI; Second Intermediate Period. Incurved bowls with pattern burnishing: Bourriau, Survey of Memphis IV, in Level V, transition from Second Intermediate Period to early New Kingdom. 42 It is to be expected that the pottery repertoire from the Ahmose Pyramid Complex differs in certain ways from settlement material. Dishes with everted rims: Budka, “Oriental Institute Ahmose and Tetisheri Project,” fig. 4.2–3, 7–8; Dishes with incurved rims: Ibid., 92–93, fig. 5.1–8. 43 Direct out-turned dishes: H. Jacquet-Gordon, Karnak Nord X. Le trésor de Thoutmosis Ier, La ceramique (Cairo, 2012), vol. 1, 58, vol. 2, fig. 27b–c, red slip in, Second Intermediate Period and early New Kingdom. Incurved dishes: M.-J. Lopez Grande, “Red Vases at Dra Abu el-Naga: Two Funerary Deposits,” in Functional Aspects of Egyptian Ceramics within their Archaeological Context, ed. B. Bader and M. Ownby, Proceedings of a Conference Held at the McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, July 24th to July 25th, 2009, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 217 (Leuven/Paris/Walpole, MA, 2013), 262–64, 270, fig. 6.d with further parallels, Second Intermediate Period and early New Kingdom. 19 DEIR EL-BALLAS 2017–2021 phantine.44 Very rare, on the other hand, are parallels for incurved dishes made of marl clay fabrics, with one incomplete example in Marl B from Karnak dated to the Second Intermediate Period.45 Fragments of so-called flower-pots with similar details on the rim are published from Abydos46 and Karnak,47 from both Second Intermediate Period and early New Kingdom contexts. Turning to the closed shapes, fragments, presumably of small beaker jars 78-31, 78-41 were also found at Kom Rabiʻa/Memphis in the Second Intermediate Period,48 as well as at Thebes.49 Parallels for jars 78-3750 and 78-1751 are known from Tell el-Dabʻa and Kom Rabiʻa dating to the Second Intermediate Period.52 In the treasury of Thutmosis I in Karnak, a parallel for 78-37 was dated to the Second Intermediate Period.53 Good parallels for the large jar 78-40 are extremely scarce, especially from well-dated contexts. Two similar vessels in comparable preservation are known from the cemetery S/SA of Aniba. The jars with oblique trimming were found in tombs dated to the New Kingdom.54 However, due to differences in the technology, an earlier date for the current example is not impossible. A similar rim of a Levantine transport jar was published from Kom Rabiʻa, Level V, transition from SIP to NK.55 A rim, morphologically quite similar but made 44 Incurved dishes: A. Seiler, “Zur Formentwicklung der Keramik der 2. Zwischenzeit und der frühen 18. Dynastie, ” in W. Kaiser et al., Stadt und Tempel von Elephantine 25./26./27. Grabungsbericht, MDAIK 55 (1999), [204–224] [63–236], 206–209, fig. 46.2-4 in Bauschicht 12 to 10 covering both the Second Intermediate Period and the early New Kingdom. 45 Jacquet-Gordon, Karnak Nord X, vol. 1, 36, vol. 2, fig. 16r.P2107, Marl B2. 46 Budka, “Oriental Institute Ahmose and Tetisheri Project at Abydos,” 92, fig. 4.9 but not exactly the same type of rim, early New Kingdom. 47 Jacquet-Gordon, Karnak Nord X, vol. 1, 60, vol. 2, fig. 27u.P1087, SIP; vol. 1, 92–93, vol. 2, fig. 41a.P1162 early NK. 48 Bader, Tell el-Dab ͨ a XIX, 309–310, fig. 186.38c1, late Second Intermediate Period. Bourriau and Gallorini, The Survey of Memphis VIII, 89–90, fig. 32–33, 29.1.2, 29.1.4, 29.1.6-7, 29.1.9, Level VI; 139, fig. 61. type 29.1.1-9, Level VI; 176, fig. 88. 29.1.6, 29.1.9, Level VI; Second Intermediate Period. 49 B. Bader and M. Seco, “Results of Five Years of Pottery Analysis in the Temple of Millions of Years of Thutmosis III in Western Thebes (2011–2015),” Egypt & Levant 26 (2016), 194–195, fig. 17.e-f; 198–199, fig. 19.b. A. Seiler, Tradition & Wandel: die Keramik als Spiegel der Kulturentwicklung Thebens in der zweiten Zwischenzeit (Mainz, 2005), 86, fig. 37. ZN02/115 – Late Second Intermediate Period; for the line of development as seen at Dra Abu el-Naga shaft tombs see Seiler, Tradition & Wandel, Falttafel 6. Jacquet-Gordon, Karnak Nord X, vol. 1, 75, vol. 2, fig. 35k.P1633, 35l. P1644, both Second Intermediate Period. 50 Bader, Tell el-Dab ͨ a XIX, 314, 317, fig. 188.39j.D1273, fig. 189.39j.D929 Phase D/2, late Second Intermediate Period. Bourriau and Gallorini, Survey of Memphis VIII, 140, fig. 62.29.21.12, Level VI; Second Intermediate Period. 51 P. Fuscaldo, Tell el-Dab ͨ a X, Part I, fig. 31.i, late Second Intermediate Period. Bader, Tell el-Dab ͨ a XIX, 314, fig. 188.39h, late Second Intermediate Period. 52 Further publication of rim variants from Ezbet Helmi will probably also yield similar examples from the transition to the early New Kingdom and perhaps also the early New Kingdom. 53 Jacquet-Gordon, Karnak Nord X, vol. 1, 71, vol. 2, fig. 33w.P1629. 54 A striking parallel is Leipzig 6442, which fits in size, material, and technology described. The base of the Deir el-Ballas example, however, does not show obvious turning traces on the exterior. Unfortunately, a closer dating than to the “New Kingdom” could not be undertaken due to a lack of parallels. Cf. J. Helmbold-Doyé and A. Seiler, Die Keramik aus dem Friedhof S/SA von Aniba (Unternubien), ZÄSB 8 (Berlin/Boston 2019), 249, 255.II.J.5.1 Gruppe 5. Similar is Group 6 from a technological viewpoint, but the material is described as Nile B2/C1, which isn’t paralleled at Deir el-Ballas. Tomb S56 seems to have been used from mid-18th Dynasty to Ramesside times, cf. Ibid., 74. 55 Bourriau, Survey of Memphis IV, 51, fig. 9.6281. 20 THE POTTERY from Marl B, was found at Medamud.56 At Karnak again similar rim shapes were found, made of both an oasis fabric and a Levantine import, which are likely to date from the New Kingdom.57 For the very small fragments of vessels in Nubian manufacturing tradition, no attempt is being made to list parallels in this report. The larger fragment of the sooted bowl, however, does find a striking parallel at Deir el-Ballas from previous work (see below). House E, Room 3, Unit 82–Deposit resting on floor level and Unit 89–Lower deposit of windblown sand, north doorway (fig. 3.3) Turning to other stratigraphic units from House E, Room 3, only a few examples are added in this preliminary report, avoiding repetition in the corpus as it can be presented to date, even more so as the sooted bowl 78-36 proved to join fragments from unit 82 (and units 84 and 86, not yet fully recorded). Sherd 89-2 in turn could also be joined to a fragment from unit 82, thus these units were only divided in post-depositional processes but should really be considered together. In terms of manufacturing technology, surface treatment, and fabrics used, a few remarks need to be added to the above, namely that the red burnished jar/bottle 82-25 was most probably wheel coiled with the neck squeezed together and turned at the same time, leaving tell-tale folding marks on the interior of neck and shoulder. The vessel was made in two parts, as the inner surface shows. The base was very well smoothed, leaving hardly any trace of the trimming on the exterior, more so as the red slip and burnishing vertically and less obvious horizontally obliterated these marks even more. A special feature is the bipartite section with a dark grey to black zone on the interior of the section and a reddish-yellow to brown zone on the exterior. They are sharply set off from each other. Such a pattern can also be observed in this particular vessel type at other sites.58 Furthermore, in the vessel, which had almost the whole body preserved, no intentional post-firing hole was observed.59 The cylindrical jar base 82-16 was also coiled and (wheel) turned with the base trimmed obliquely and left uncoated. The bowl 82-27 in Nubian manufacturing technology with pre-firing incised lines crossing each other was handmade. The fully preserved storage jar rim 89-1 is a representative of a very specialized line of vessel manufacturing technology that goes Barahona Mendieta et al., “Nouvelles données,” fig. 30.12. I. Hein, Excursus A, in H. Jacquet-Gordon, Karnak Nord X, (volume 2) 147–74. The rim is in vol. 2, fig. 69e. P1987 made of PKN 30 and oasis fabric vol. 1, 154, vol. 2 pl. XIX.2a-b. The fabric shown on this plate does not resemble the specimen from Deir el-Ballas, suggesting a greater variety of the same rim type in various imported fabrics. 58 For example, on the pottery from the Djehuty Project directed by José-Manuel Galan, who kindly invited me to look at some ceramic material from the Second Intermediate Period/early New Kingdom. 59 In contrast to a higher number of such vessels with intentional holes, cf. Lopez Grande, “Red Vases at Dra Abu el-Naga, passim; Seiler, Tradition & Wandel, passim. 56 57 21 DEIR EL-BALLAS 2017–2021 back to the beginning of the Middle Kingdom and seems to focus on medium-to-large-size storage containers of various shapes and type series.60 The body was hand formed probably by coiling and connecting and compacting these coils in further work steps, as visible by the smoothing marks on the interior, while the rim was turned on a turning device/wheel. The top of the rim of the vessel shows a clearly incised pre-firing wide groove derived from the trimming of the top of the rim, as frequently encountered in storage jars in general. The fabric is either a (local?) marl clay fabric with lots of mineral grains and abundant limestone inclusions or a mixed clay.61 The pottery is very hard, and the section was fired to a dusky reddish-brown with a grey core. The borders between these zones are rather blurred. Parallels for the vessel fragments will concentrate predominantly on the Theban region, although most of them have a wider distribution over other areas in Egypt and Nubia. Cylindrical jars 82-16 (“drop pots”) with obliquely trimmed bases occur in the Second Intermediate Period as well as in the early New Kingdom, e.g., at Thebes62 and Elephantine.63 It will be very interesting to see whether the finishing on the wheel of such jars, which leaves exclusively horizontal scratches close to the base instead of oblique traces, will be found during future work in material from these houses at Deir el-Ballas.64 Red burnished bottles with funnel necks, such as 822565 vary widely in details of shape (the length of the funnel neck, the degree to which the funnel is everted, the actual body shape [globular, ovoid, bi-conical], the relation of the height of the vessel to the height of the body) as well as surface treatment and the minute differences of the burnishing patterns (some examples even remain without burnishing);66 a lot of work is still needed to pin down developments and their chronological significance more closely. Based on the work already done, it seems that a smaller funnel with ovoid body hints at a dating into the Second Intermediate Period For a thorough discussion of this topic see B. Bader, “Marl C in the Area H/VI,” in D. Aston, Tell el-Dab ͨ a: From the Hyksos to Horemheb, in press. See also B. Bader, Tell el-Dab ͨ a XIII: Typologie und Chronologie der Mergel-C-TonKeramik. Materialien zum Binnenhandel des Mittleren Reiches und der Zweiten Zwischenzeit, (Vienna, 2001), 127–94. 61 Unequivocal identification of this material has so far been unsuccessful. It is possible that this is the material that J. Bourriau designated as “Marl D group” in 1990, but she had also connected it with a local Marl in 1986, see below note 61. However, this hypothesis still has to be verified. 62 Cf. Seiler, Tradition & Wandel, Falttafel 6.2-4, 11. Lopez Grande, “Red Vases at Dra Abu el-Naga,” 269, fig. 4.a, fig. 5.f–g notes that in the same deposit occur both base technologies obliquely trimmed with a tool (without use of a wheel) and traces of horizontal trimming with use of the wheel (at least as far as one can make out from the published drawings). 63 J. Budka, “Pots and People, Ceramics from Sai Island and Elephantine,” in From Microcosm to Macrocosm: Individual Households and Cities in Ancient Egypt and Nubia (ed. J. Budka and J. Auenmüller; Leiden, 2018), fig. 13.2 from House 55 dated to the early New Kingdom. [147-170]. 64 In the previously published material one example was made that way, cf. J. Bourriau, “The Pottery,” in Deir el-Ballas: Preliminary Report on the Deir el-Ballas Expedition, 1980–1986, ARCE Reports 12 (ed. P. Lacovara; Boston/ Winona Lake, 1990), fig. 4.3.11. However, it is not entirely clear where this material came from. 65 Another full profile of such a bottle was found close to House F, but from the surface. 66 See Seiler, Tradition & Wandel, Falttafel 8. Lopez Grande, “Red Vases at Dra Abu el-Naga,” passim. M. Nelson, “Une sépulture de la deuxième période intermédiaire (XVIIe dynastie) et ses ramifications,” Memnonia 24 (2013), [91–103], pl. XVIII.b. 60 22 THE POTTERY rather than the early New Kingdom,67 and that would apply to the example from Deir el-Ballas. The carinated bowl 89-2 is somewhat similar to a bowl from the Foundation Trench of the Karnak Temple Primitif de Ptah, which has been assigned to the same date range (late Second Intermediate Period/early New Kingdom).68 Elephantine also yielded comparable shapes to 89-2.69 Bowl 89-5 is similar to fragments found in the Karnak treasury of Thutmosis I70 and in Dra Abu el-Naga dated to the late Second Intermediate Period.71 The storage jar 89-1 is unfortunately incomplete, but several somewhat similar vessels are known at Abydos72 and Elephantine.73 This may hint at a very local production and distribution pattern for such vessels. Summary and Prospect Although recording the pottery and analytical work has only just begun, it is possible to propose a few very preliminary thoughts on the dating of the material and the range of the repertoire. It is worth noting that several pottery fragments from this report are paralleled by types shown in the earlier 1990 report by Janine Bourriau: dishes with direct rims 78-14, 78-21, 78-23, 78,33, 78-38,74 dishes with incurved rims and burnishing 78-5, 78-13, 78-16,75 small beakers 78,31, 7841,76 ovoid red burnished bottles with funnel neck 78-30, 82-25,77 stands 78-8, 78-10, 78-19,78 the 67 Cf. Seiler, Tradition & Wandel, Falttafel 8. G. Charloux, M. Ali Abady Mahmoud, R. Angevin, S. Biston-Moulin, S. Marchand, A. Mohamed Sayed Elnasseh, F. Pfingsttag, F. Pirou, J. Roberson, C. Thiers, and P. Zignani, “Le temple ‘primitif’ de Ptah à Karnak,” BIFAO 117 (2017), 125–59; Marchand, 142, fig. 15.3.Pt8081-10. 69 Seiler, “Zur Formentwicklung der Keramik,“ fig. 48.2, Bauschicht 11 – Second Intermediate Period. 70 Jacquet-Gordon, Karnak Nord X, vol. 1, 65, Nile C, rope marks, vol. 2, fig. 30j.P1779, Second Intermediate Period; vol. 1, 128, vol. 2, fig. 56y without rope marks from the New Kingdom. 71 Seiler, Tradition & Wandel, 148, fig. 66.1. 72 Budka, “The Oriental Institute Ahmose and Tetisheri Project at Abydos,” fig. 6.5 “Mixed clay A,” dating to the early New Kingdom. Whether this material is the same as that found at Deir el-Ballas needs to be tested in the future. The shape, however, is similar but not the same. 73 Seiler, “Zur Formentwicklung der Keramik,“ 216–19, fig. 50.1–2, but the typical example for Bauschicht 11, which covers the Second Intermediate Period, does have a ridge under the folded rim, which the Deir el-Ballas example does not show. The type example for Bauschicht 10 – the New Kingdom, made from a mixed clay, does not much resemble our Deir el-Ballas example, but the later storage jars, which are in the meanwhile much better known mainly from the royal tombs of the Valley of the Kings. Cf. D. Aston, “Pottery of the Egyptian New Kingdom: A Study. Eighteenth Dynasty Nile Clay Storage Jars from the Valley of the Kings,” in Dust, Demons and Pots: Studies in Honour of Colin A. Hope (ed. A. Wharfe, J.C.R. Gill, C.R. Hamilton, A.J. Pettman, and D.A. Stewart; Leuven 2020), OLA 289, 1–24. The fabric groupings of these storage jars in general need more work to get additional insight if similar vessel shapes were made from more than one fabric with immediate implications about production mode and organization. 74 Bourriau, “The Pottery,” fig. 4.2.13¬–14. 75 Bourriau, “The Pottery,” fig. 4.2.15, 4.3.9. 76 Bourriau, “The Pottery,” fig. 4.2.2, 4.2.8. 77 Bourriau, “The Pottery,” fig. 4.3.6. 78 Bourriau, “The Pottery,” fig. 4.2.16 although this example is also burnished. 68 23 DEIR EL-BALLAS 2017–2021 large pot stand 78-12,79 the bowl 89-5,80 the cylindrical jar,81 the storage jar 89-1,82 and the material in Nubian manufacturing technology, such as the cooking pot 78-36,83 the cross-hatched incurved bowl 78-3,84 and the small-size Kerma beaker.85 Some observations can already be made in the composition of the assemblage that seems to differ, in some respects, from that already published: more open vessels, fewer marl clay fabrics, less incised decoration in pottery made in Egyptian tradition. Also, the relative lack of red burnished bottles at Deir el-Ballas has been noted before and led to the classification of this type as a funerary vessel,86 but perhaps with more complete examples from the houses this distinction becomes a bit more blurred. Further work is needed to obtain a better idea, if such differences are fortuitous or provide a sound basis for pinpointing meaningful differences in social practice conducted in these houses. Most of the ceramic parallels span the transition from the late Second Intermediate Period to the early New Kingdom. This is a phenomenon frequently noted in tandem with the difficulty of trying to distinguish 17th from early 18th Dynasty pottery by means of changes in repertoire or technology,87 but readily conceivable considering that the border between the 17th and 18th Dynasty was drawn in retrospect through a family tree of interrelated rulers.88 Thus, this line was drawn due to historiographic tradition reflecting a political development, which appears unlikely to be recognizable in the uninscribed mass-produced material culture used on a daily basis. Moreover, Bourriau, “The Pottery,” fig. 4.6.4 made of Marl D group probably shown upside down. Not exactly the same Bourriau, “The Pottery,” fig. 4.1.14. 81 Bourriau, “The Pottery,” fig. 4.2.2. 82 Bourriau, “The Pottery,” fig. 4.5.12. “Marl D group” made in the same technology. The other examples fig. 4.5.8–11, 13–14 are less similar in shape. A more varied production is therefore quite likely. In previous work (J. Bourriau, “Cemetery and Settlement Pottery of the Second Intermediate Period to early New Kingdom,” BES 8 [1986/87], 53–54) the same group of pottery had been tentatively assigned to Marl A4 because of the similarity of the material to Do. Arnold, “Ägyptische Mergeltone (Wüstentone) aus der Gegend von Memphis,” in Do. Arnold, Studien zur Altägyptischen Keramik (Mainz, 1981), 190, color pl. IIc, pl. 18a. [183–91]. Although the production of the fabric as described by Arnold is of a much earlier date, the published fabric photograph looks, indeed, similar to 89-1 at least in texture and inclusions. It would fall under the heading of “Mergeltone mit gleichmäßig dichtem Bruchbild, rötlichem Scherbeninneren und heller oder grauer Außenschicht.” However, the identification as Marl A4 was later abandoned after scientific analysis was available, cf. Nordström and Bourriau, Ceramic Technology: Clays and Fabrics, 177–78. 83 Bourriau, “The Pottery,” fig. 4.1.4. 84 Bourriau, “The Pottery,” fig. 4.1.2. 85 Bourriau, “The Pottery,” fig. 4.1.9. 86 See Bourriau, “Cemetery and Settlement Pottery,” 47–59 [55]. 87 E.g. Aston, From the Hyksos to Horemheb; Bourriau, Survey of Memphis IV, 33–35; Charloux et al., “Le temple ‘primitif’ de Ptah.” Seiler, Tradition & Wandel, 160 sees the differences in the ceramic repertoire between the Second Intermediate Period/late Middle Kingdom tradition and the New Kingdom tradition already developing in the last part of the 17th Dynasty. Thus, she also does not believe in a possible distinction between the late 17th/early 18th Dynasty. 87 D. Polz, Der Beginn des Neuen Reiches, Zur Vorgeschichte einer Zeitenwende (Berlin/ New York 2007), 5–11, 303–307. B. Bryan, “The Eighteenth Dynasty before the Amarna Period,” in The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt (ed. I. Shaw; New York, 2000), 218–30. [218–71] 79 80 24 THE POTTERY there may also be differences in use of material culture in settlements and in tomb assemblages,89 quite beside the difficulty of identifying unequivocally the much more fragmentary ceramic material in settlements. Description of Pottery in Fig. 2 Vessel Type Rim Shape Fabric Surface Treatment interior/exterior Technology Base Tech Unit No. Rim diam. dish incurved Marl B? uncoated wheel coiled string cut 78-1 16.016.5 dish everted/ direct Nile B2 uncoated wheel (coiled) finished on wheel 78-9 20.020.5 dish out-turned Nile B2 red slip int/red slip ext turned – 78-23 19.0 dish inflected direct Nile B2+ lime red slip –int. turned – 78-33 22.0 dish out-turned Nile B2/C1 + some qu. red slip int/smoke bl. ext. turned – 78-14 23.0 dish out-turned/ irregular Nile B2+ lime red slip int/ext? turned trimming oblique 78-22 20.0 dish out-turned Nile B2/C1 uncoated turned – 78-38 22.0 dish inflected direct Nile B2 + v.f. lime red slip int. turned – 78-21 28.0 dish incurved Nile B2 fine red slip int/ext with red polished rim; horiz. burnishing int turned – 78-13 20.0 dish incurved Nile B2 red slip int/ext pattern burnishing int turned – 78-5 17.0 dish with folded lip Nile B2 fine red slip in/ext . horiz. burnishing int/ext turned – 78-7 19.0 dish – Nile B2/C1 red slip int turned (wheel) trimmed irregularly 78-35 – dish – Nile B2 fine red slip int/ext. partly under base, pattern burnishing on int turned trimmed, pad added on wheel 78-16 – dish – Nile B2 smoke bl. turned (wheel) wheel finished 78-11 flower pot flattened rim Nile B2 uncoated turned – 78-6 24.0 basin direct Nile C1 red slip int/red rim ext turned – 78-18 15.0 89 Cf. for convenience the examples from the early excavations: D. Aston, “New Kingdom Pottery Phases as Revealed Through Well-Dated Tomb Contexts,” in The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium BC, Vol. II (ed. M. Bietak; Vienna, 2003), 140–44. 25 DEIR EL-BALLAS 2017–2021 Description of Pottery in Fig. 3 26 Vessel Type Rim Shape Fabric Surface Treatment interior/exterior Technology Base Tech Unit No. Rim diam. cyl. jar direct Nile B2 uncoated turned – 78-31 6.0 cyl. jar direct Nile B2 v. fine red slip ext./rim int turned – 78-41 5.0 jar – Nile B2 red burnished ext turned trimmed obliquely 78-30 – jar folded rim trimmed edge Nile B2 red slip ext turned – 78-17 11.0 jar folded rim Nile B2/ C1+ lime red slip ext turned – 78-37 12.0 stand folded base Nile B2 fine red slip and burn ext turned trimmed int 78-29 19.0 stand folded base Nile B2 red slip ext turned turned 78-19 17.0 stand folded base Nile B2/ C1 white slip ext/rim int turned turned 78-10 16.6 stand folded base Nile B2 + lime white slip ext turned turned 78-8 17.0 jug? – Marl? eroded wheel turned – 78-39 – stand – Nile B2 red slip ext & burnished turned – 78-24 – amphora folded, trimmed Levantine import uncoated turned – 78-4 12.0 large jar missing Nile B2/ C1 perhaps Marl mix? obscured (wheel?) coiled obliquesly trimmed ext 78-40 – large stand folded Marl B uncoated, greenish scum int/ext coiled & turned coiled & turned 78-12 26.0 THE POTTERY Description of Pottery in Fig. 4 Vessel Type Rim Shape Fabric Surface Treatment interior/exterior Technology Base Tech Unit No. Rim diam. beaker? direct everted Nile + chaff reduced firing, horizontally burnished (highly) handmade – 78-2 15.0– 17.0? small beaker – Nile vertical and horizontal burnishing int/ext handmade – 78-28 – bowl? – Nile + straw, rough uncoated, incised decoration handmade – 78-3 – bowl? – Nile + straw uncoated, incised decoration ext, burnished int handmade – 78-27 – cooking pot incurved, trimmed rim Nile + straw (mat?) impressed decoration, heavily sooted handmade – 78-36 26.0 bowl incurved Nile + straw uncoated, incised ext, sooted ext handmade – 82-27 19.0 jar not preserved Nile B2 red slip, burnished vertically and horizontally (wheel) coiled wheelmade, trimmed by hand 82-25 – beaker jar not preserved Nile B2/ C1 uncoated (wheel?) coiled & turned trimmed obliquely 82-16 – storage jar everted, folded Marl B? eroded handmade, rim turned – 89-1 17.0 carinated bowl folded rim Nile B2/ C1 + lime red slipped & burnished int horizontally on rim oblique below (wheel?) turned – 89-2 26.0 bowl folded rim Nile B2 + lime uncoated, rope marks turned – 89-5 28.0– 30.0 27 DEIR EL-BALLAS 2017–2021 28 FIGURES Fig. 3.1: Pottery from House E, Room 3, Unit 78, drawn in the field by Bettina Bader, inked by Elke Kraft. 73 DEIR EL-BALLAS 2017–2021 Fig. 3.2: Pottery from House E, Room 3, Unit 78, drawn in the field by Bettina Bader, inked by Elke Kraft. 74 FIGURES Fig. 3.3: Pottery from House E, Room 3, Units 78, 82 and 89, drawn in the field by Bettina Bader, inked by Elke Kraft. 75 Plate 3.1: Photo of the pottery industry in January 2020, © Photo Bettina Bader. PLATES 89 DEIR EL-BALLAS 2017–2021 Plate 3.2: Docket/Ostracon from Unit 78, © Photo Bettina Bader. Plate 3.3: Cooking pot from House E, Room 3, Unit 78-36, © Photo Bettina Bader. 90