BADER, B.-Ancient - Egyptian - Pottery

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/347207902
Ancient Egyptian pottery in The Oxford Handbook of Egyptology ed. by I. Shaw

and E. Bloxam
Chapter · December 2020
CITATIONS READS
0 2,739
1 author:
Bettina Bader
Austrian Academy of Sciences (OeAW)
71 PUBLICATIONS 105 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Bettina Bader on 15 December 2020.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRST PROOF, 30/05/20, SPi
chapter 15
A ncien t Egy pti a n

pot tery
Bettina Bader
Introduction
The examination of ceramics in Egypt has a relatively short history compared to archaeologies
in other areas of the world (see Chapter 13 in this volume), previously seriously neglecting
an important and abundant source that can be used for historical interpretations far beyond
chronological disputes. The study of such material should not be considered in isolation, but in
relation to other sources. It provides insights into issues connected to exchange of commod-
ities, socio-economy, and functional interpretation of archaeological features. The ceramic
repertoire found in and around tombs and cultic installations gives direct clues concerning the
cult, how the cult was conducted, and how long it may have lasted. Technological questions
connected to the production and firing of ceramics can be addressed as well as metrology
and supply routes, and even organizational or socio-economic developments might be
visible in the way ceramics were distributed. Together with textual evidence and other
archaeological finds, the interpretation of the archaeological record as a whole provides
a powerful tool towards a more comprehensive view on numerous aspects of life and
culture in ancient Egypt.
History
While beautifully decorated painted vessels of the Predynastic Period and New Kingdom
blue-painted jars were always prized as objects of early art, the same cannot be said for the
bulk of undecorated wares which abound on Egyptian sites. In the late 1800s and early
1900s archaeology in Egypt began to be conducted in a more scientific and controlled way,
mostly due to the work of Flinders Petrie and, as a result of his influence, pottery vessels
gained value as chronological markers and as ethnographic objects illustrative of daily life
in Egypt.1 In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries Petrie shipped many pots
1
Petrie 1904.
0004741645.INDD 312 Dictionary: NOSD 5/30/2020 4:29:45 PM

Ancient Egyptian pottery 313
back to Britain for educational purposes, the majority of which ended up in University
College, London, but other vessels were distributed as ‘payment’ for subscriptions from
smaller provincial museums, which helped to defray the costs of Petrie’s excavations.2
Collections in Europe and the United States—New York, Leiden, Paris, Turin, Munich,
London, Leipzig, Berlin, and Vienna come to mind—also started to obtain pottery vessels,
mainly from excavations these museums had sponsored. Gradually Egyptian ceramics
came to be displayed in the great museums, mostly complete and/or decorated examples
like the assemblage of pottery from the tomb of Tutankhamun in the Museum in Cairo.3
A boost for pottery in museum showcases came in the late 1970s and early 1980s, with
exhibitions focusing on ceramics and their importance for interpreting ancient Egypt from
another point of view.4
Early excavation reports treated ceramic finds somewhat cursorily, sometimes giving
only a verbal description of vessels found. If such pieces were drawn, the drawings were
made in perspective, much like a tracing from a photograph, and showed only the outline.
While these are far from ideal, distinctive pottery types can usually be recognized.5 Petrie’s
treatises of finds in his later years (in the 1920s) were exemplary for his time, because he
supplied typologies of all find categories and tomb registers which listed all items found. If
checked closely there are of course inconsistencies, but his publications can be used to
reassess archaeological material to this day, because many of the finds still exist in museum
collections all over the world, often with their contextual information available. While
Reisner’s work in Nubia provides the second example of early rigour in methodology con-
cerning pottery analysis6, the combined efforts of several excavators in the 1930s to bring
some system into Egyptian pottery studies were not successful in the end.7 In the 1960s and
1970s, when archaeologists in other parts of the world were no longer content with the trad-
itional approach to archaeological interpretations8, a new generation of excavators in Egypt
began to regard ceramics as an additional source for dating, and collected more ceramic
material than ever before.9 This can also be seen in connection to the salvage campaign of
UNESCO in Nubia before the Aswan High Dam was built.10
The year 1975 saw the publication of the first volume of the Bulletin de Liaison du groupe
international d’étude de la céramique Ègyptienne, which was the first successful public forum
for general information on pottery found in excavations around Egypt including a gazetteer.
Soon thereafter a need was felt to categorize the wares and fabrics, and due to the initiative
of a group of field archaeologists working in Egypt the so-called ‘Vienna System’ of fabric
classification was created in the 1980s.11 This system, based on pottery mainly from the
Middle Kingdon and the Second Intermediate Period, was meant to provide a general
framework that could be utilized at any site and for various periods, with the inbuilt intention
of extending and elaborating it as the ceramicist at a given site would see fit (Nordström and
Bourriau 1993: 168). At the same time it provides the possibility of comparing the ceramic
material from different sites and ascertaining that the same kind of material appears at
2
Stevenson 2016.
3
See El-Khouli et al 1993, although the addition of new drawings would have been an asset in view
of such an important and well-dated assemblage.
4
Arnold and Schulte 1978; Bourriau 1981. 5
E.g. De Morgan 1895; Garstang 1907.
6
Reisner 1910. 7
Bader et al. 2016: ix–x. 8
E.g. Binford 1972.
9
Arnold 1968. 10
Bourriau et al. 2000: 121.
11
Bourriau 1981; Arnold 1982; Bourriau and Aston 1985; Bietak 1991a: 324–30; Nordström and
Bourriau 1993, and see also ‘Fabrics: Vienna System’, later in this chapter.

314 Bettina Bader
various sites. It also facilitates mapping the distribution of certain fabrics in Egypt and
beyond, and thus emerging spatial patterns can be interpreted. There are local differences
between certain Nile clay fabrics in some periods12, but currently there are no additional
scientific studies to test this hypothesis. While this is perhaps less significant for the ubiqui-
tous alluvial Nile clay fabrics, it might give a better idea of the origin of the ‘desert wares’ or
marl clay fabrics, which to this day remain a grouping much more difficult to distinguish.
This particularly holds true for the earliest periods of Egyptian history—the Predynastic,
early Dynastic, and Old Kingdom marls—due to the very elaborate preparation of fabrics in
these periods.
In the late 1980s a new journal with a focus on ceramic studies in Egypt was launched, the
Cahier de la Céramique Égyptienne (founded by Pascale Ballet and now edited by Sylvie
Marchand, ceramicist at the Institut Française Archéologique Orientale, Cairo). It provides
a venue for longer reports and articles than the Bulletin de Liaison as well as themed discus-
sions. Since then numerous reports and books with ceramic studies as their sole topic,
based on painstaking work, have come into the public domain. These reports improved
continuously in their standards, particularly in terms of general description of shape and
fabric, craftsmanship of drawings, and the amount of material covered. The works include
pottery catalogues from excavations, typologies, and analyses, as well as interpretations.13
Sometimes pottery is the only type of artefact recovered from a site, and therefore the only
means for dating and interpretation in addition to the excavated structures. A certain caveat
is still noticeable in the interpretation of ceramic finds, which is not as far advanced as in
other areas of the world.14
Undoubtedly progress has been made, as demonstrated by the variety of contributions to
the conference Vienna 2 in 2012.15 In the twenty-first century, excavators in Egypt are gener-
ally conscientious not to leave pottery they have unearthed unprocessed or unanalysed.
However, the resources put into the study of ceramics differ to a great degree and this has
an immediate bearing on the quality and extent of the results that can be achieved. It is
hoped that this chapter will help to remove some of the barriers which still exist, and raise
awareness for the use of ceramics as a source in the historical disciplines in conjunction
with all other available sources.
Fabrics: Vienna System
The first specialized treatise on the raw materials of ancient Egyptian ceramics was by
Alfred Lucas in Materials and Industries in Ancient Egypt.16 He distinguished the fabrics in
the first place by colour, with the additional remark that there was a difference between ‘des-
ert’ wares and wares with organic inclusions. He also devoted some attention to surface
treatments and pigments.
In order to use ceramic material for any interpretation a categorization is a necessary first
step. It has been stated in the past17 that vessel shape is not sufficient for a proper assessment,
because similar shapes were manufactured from different raw materials. And those, in turn,
12
Bourriau 1998; Bader 2009: 602–39. 13
Millet 2007. 14
Arnold 1985; 1993.
15
Bader et al. 2016. 16
Lucas 1948: 425–41. 17
Bourriau 1991.

could be derived from different locations or workshops. Therefore the interpretation of the
vessel being made locally or imported from somewhere else (even within Egypt) depends
heavily on the identification of the raw materials. Crucial for the correct identification of
fabrics of wheel-turned pottery is the examination of a fresh sherd break made parallel to
the rim, because due to the centrifugal force of turning devices the organic inclusions are
oriented in the same way. In handmade pottery the classification may be based on scrutiny
of the surface and closer examination of the raw material.
Because several works on fabric classification of various periods have already appeared,
the description is here kept short.18 The classification of ceramics is based on the division
between Nile clay fabrics, marl clay fabrics, a mix of the two, and ceramics imported into
Egypt from the Aegean, Cyprus, Syria/Palestine, and Nubia. The first three groups are dis-
tinguished as follows. The Nile clay fabrics are divided into A, B1, B2, C, D, and E according to
their inclusions. Nile A shows fine mica and mineral inclusions, B1 some mineral inclusions
and chaff, B2 a larger amount of mineral inclusions and chaff, C contains pieces of straw and
some mineral inclusions, D includes limestone particles, and E rounded mineral inclusions.
The Nile E fabric was further divided into two groups depending on the number of quartz
grains and the presence of additional chaff.19 Some pottery classification systems divide
between Nile C1 and C2 depending on the size of the straw particles.20 The marl clay fabrics
are divided depending on the presence and quantity of mineral inclusions, limestone, and
argillaceous inclusions/‘marl pieces’. Marl A can be broken down into A1, A2, A3, and A4,
whose appearance seem to be chronologically significant.21 Marl A3 is the most distinctive
of the group due to the density of the groundmass and relative scarcity of inclusions. Marl
A1 is also relatively dense and limestone inclusions dominate, with some coarser mineral
inclusions. Marl A2 appears well sorted and contains a large quantity of limestone particles,
sometimes small pieces of marl/argillaceous inclusions, as well as some fine quartz. Marl A4
contains the same range of inclusions but coarser. Marl B shows many mineral grains in
different colours and a dense groundmass. Marl C22 was divided into three distinct sub-
groups: Marl C compact, Marl C1, and C2, with ‘C compact’ being distinguished by its very
thick white surface layer and extraordinary density. The nature and reason for the develop-
ment of this surface layer has recently been examined using chemical analysis.23 C1 shows a
dominance of limestone particles over mineral inclusions and C2 is dominated by mineral
inclusions over limestone particles. All three varieties contain relatively coarse brownish
reddish marl/argillaceous inclusions which give the fabrics their distinctive appearance.24
Marl D appears first in the 18th Dynasty, showing a red-brown section with many very
small limestone inclusions. Like Marl C, the surface shows a naturally developed light sur-
face that is often burnished, particularly in the later New Kingdom.25 The designation of
Marl E was given to a fabric similar to Marl B, but additionally containing coarse straw. The
18
Nordström 1972; Holthoer 1977: Bourriau and Aston 1985; Bietak 1991a: 317–33; Bourriau and
Nicholson 1992; Nordström and Bourriau 1993; Bourriau et al 2000; Aston 1998; Bader 2001;
Cyganowski 2003; Rzeuska 2006: 35–44; Rose 2007: 11–16.
19
Bietak 1991a: 326. 20
Bietak 1991a: 325–6. 21
Nordström and Bourriau 1993: 176–8.
22
Nordström and Bourriau 1993: 179–81; Bader 2001; Cyganowski 2003.
23
See Ownby and Griffiths 2009.
24
Cyganowski 2003; Griffiths and Ownby 2006: 67; Ownby and Griffiths 2009.
25
See Nordström and Bourriau 1993; Aston 1996: 65–6; McGovern 1997, but note that this study is
flawed due to the lack of a control sample: see Aston 2004b: 286.

316 Bettina Bader
main inclusion characterizing Marl F, the latest addition to the Vienna System, is mineral
grains, which are densely packed and give the fabric a crumbly and loose structure. It is
found mainly in the Eastern Nile Delta.26 There may be some overlap with a very sandy fab-
ric belonging to the Marl C2 grouping that appears at Tell el-Dabca in the late Second
Intermediate Period, but a thorough analysis is needed to find distinguishing criteria.
The existence of fabrics mixed from Nile and marl clays was proved by means of petro-
logic and chemical analysis for the Old and the New Kingdoms.27 The visual identification
of such mixes by means of macroscopic detection with a 10x hand lens, which is the usual
tool for the bulk of the material, is not easy and identification can only be ascertained by
means of technical analyses (see ‘Scientific Technologies used for Analysis of Ancient
Ceramics (Overview)’, later in this chapter).
Imports into Egypt, particularly from Syria/Palestine, are found on a regular basis, ran
ging from the Predynastic to the Late Periods and beyond.28 While the differentiation of
imports from the Egyptian fabrics in the Pharaonic periods is, in most cases, straightfor-
ward (despite exceptions to this rule, particularly in the Early Bronze Age), the distinction
between the various imported fabrics poses more problems. Ground-breaking petrographic
work has been done for the New Kingdom29, but the assumed less standardized organiza-
tion of production of transport containers (Figure 15.1) in the Middle Kingdom and the
Second Intermediate Period creates more difficulties. It is possible to define areas of origin,
but the distribution within Syria/Palestine is still largely unclear. Shape catalogues (also of
rims) might help in demarcating the distribution of certain form varieties. Such corpora are
available only for very few areas, such as Jericho and Aphek.30 A combination of petrologic
data and vessel or rim shape might also suggest origins of transport vessels. To date it is not
certain if there is a relationship between fabric and shape in the Middle Bronze Age mater
ial, because pilot studies are sorely missing. This information could be used for interpret
ation of transport routes and volume as well as for detection of shifts in trade patterns.
Imports from the Aegean and Cyprus are generally less common, but this is subject to
change during different periods.31 Such imports are considered particularly important for the
establishment of chronological networks between those cultures, and are used extensively.32
Other fabric classification systems

For the Predynastic and early Dynastic periods as well as for the Late Period, the Greco-
Roman period, and late antiquity, it has been noted that fabrics appear that cannot be easily
accommodated within the Vienna System, and thus somewhat defy the original idea of a
comparative ‘skeleton’. Pottery specialists of the early periods therefore created their own
Bietak 1991a: 328; Aston 1998: 67; Aston 2004a: 35; Bader 2009: 652–3.
26
Nordström and Bourriau 1993: 166–7; Aston 1998: 68; Bourriau et al 2000: 19–25; Rzeuska 2006:
27
42–4.
28
Hartung et al. 2015; Nordström and Bourriau 1993: 183–6.
29
Smith et al. 2000; Serpico et al. 2003. 30
Kenyon and Holland 1982; Beck 2000.
31
See Merrillees 1968; Kemp and Merrillees 1980; Bell 1985; Walberg 1991; 1992; Maguire 1995;
Hankey 1995; Bourriau and Eriksson 1998; Fitton et al 1998; Merrillees 2003; Hein 2007.
32
Åström 2001; Bietak 2000–07; Phillips 2008.

0
1
2
3
4
5
10
Figure 15.1 New Kingdom Amphora made of oasis fabric.
classification systems.33 Similarly, the approach to the pottery fabrics in the later periods
concentrates much more on wares (fabric + surface treatment) because by then it is safe to
speak about large-scale industries that were distributed all over Egypt. This development
had already started in the Late Period and continued.34
Scientific technologies used

for analysis of ancient
ceramics (overview)
Since the late 1960s, several modern technologies, generally used in other scientific fields,
have found their way into Egyptian archaeology.35 One of the first methods used was
Neutron Activation Analysis (NAA), initially applied in order to obtain information on the
33
E.g. Köhler 1998.
34
See Aston 1999: 2–9; Marchand 2009; Ballet and Południkiewicz 2012; Gates-Foster 2012.
35
I would like to thank M. Ownby for providing me with literature and discussing technologies with me.

318 Bettina Bader
chemical composition of ceramics and to detect the origins of the fabric.36 It was used, on
the one hand, to characterize Egyptian fabric groups and to check if they were consistent37
and, on the other hand, to detect the origins of wares imported into Egypt from the Levant.38
This expensive and destructive method involves the use of a nuclear research reactor and
multivariate statistical analysis for interpretation. The interpretations of the results of such
analyses can be very useful39 but can also be misleading.40 This depends both on the sampling
strategy used by the archaeologists and the comparative databases of the scientific labora-
tory. It has also proved difficult to relate ceramics and raw materials within this method.41
Another factor to be considered is whether the chemical soil composition in the regions
under scrutiny is different enough to yield a meaningful result. It has been found that even
Nile alluvium can be differentiated.42 Recent years have seen a considerable reduction of
research reactors and therefore fewer possibilities to use this method. Gradually NAA has
been replaced by Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry (ICP-MS), which provides
a similar set of data to NAA but without the toxic waste.43
As for Egyptian ceramics and ceramics found in Egypt, petrography by itself, or in con-
junction with X-Ray Fluorescence Analysis (XRF), is being used more frequently.44 The
principle of petrography is to link the geology of inclusions (minerals, microfossils, etc) and
clay to the geology of a given region by scrutinizing a thin section. Not only does this
method provide a way of getting closer to the origins of ceramics, but a check on grouping
strategies for fabrics is also possible along with general information on shaping methods and
firing temperatures.45 The ideal way of publishing such information is in colour photographs
of the thin sections in conjunction with the sherd break, because it is the sherd break the
ceramicist tries to identify in the field. Thus, it would be possible to compare published fabric
groupings to material currently under analyses (ideally executed by Smith et al 2000).
Unfortunately, this is still not standard procedure and therefore much of the benefit of such
analyses cannot be used by ceramicists.
Standard XRF analysis acquires bulk compositional chemical data from powdered cer-
amic material. However, non-destructive XRF analysis measures the chemical composition
on the surface of pottery fragments or on the sherd break, as does Scanning Electron
Microscopy (SEM). Both provide data for the interpretation of slips, washes, and other sur-
face layers, as has been done on Marl clay fabrics. Such data allows syntheses on how and why
surface layers develop.46 The use of thermo-luminescence for Egyptian ceramics is quite
restricted and generally applied in order to estimate firing temperatures and to detect the
date of pigments and pottery.47 It is well worth exploring scientific technologies for analysis
of ceramic material, because, if used correctly, they can provide much additional informa-
tion for a diverse range of research questions.
Perlman and Asaro 1969.

36 37
Bourriau 1998; Bourriau et al 2006.
McGovern and Harbottle 1996; McGovern 2000.
38 39
Bourriau et al. 2006.
40
McGovern 2000; Goren 2003; Aston 2004c. 41
Bourriau 1998: 190–1.
42
Bourriau 1998: 193–9. 43
Mallory-Greenough et al. 1998; Tschegg et al. 2008.
44
Bourriau, Nicholson, and Rose 2000: 133; Cohen-Weinberger and Goren 2004; Griffiths and
Ownby 2006; Rzeuska 2006: 522–36; Ownby and Griffiths 2009.
45
Bourriau et al. 2000: 132–3. 46
See Ownby and Griffiths 2009.
47
Bourriau 1981: 58; Crowfoot Payne et al. 1977.

Quantitative analysis
The knowledge of the quantity of different types of pottery (and/or other artefacts) in contexts
gives additional information about the character of a site: trade emporium versus settlement
versus workshop, to name but a few. The consideration of the frequency distributions of
pottery types in contexts may help to clarify functions or functional areas.48
The measurement for quantity of pottery forms the backbone of any statistical analysis.
In the past several methods for quantification have been used, such as sherd count49, number
of vessels represented50, surface measurement, displacement volume, or weight. The results
of such methods may be useful, but some applications are either complicated or heavily
biased, due to the various properties of ceramics. For example, sherd count is biased towards
thin-walled vessels, because they break more easily and into more pieces, and besides it is
not a constant measure.51 The concept of estimated vessel equivalents, first described in print
by Clive Orton, is based on the premise that each sherd broken off an ancient vessel represents
a certain proportion or percentage of a formerly complete vessel, regardless of whether it is
a body, base, handle, or rim fragment. This measurement represents the preserved part of a
vessel and creates no bias due to ceramic properties. As it is not always possible to measure the
preserved proportion of the rim/base exactly, the term estimated vessel equivalent is used.52
Measuring the preserved (diagnostic) parts of the vessels for determination of quantity
has been used in Egyptian archaeology by the founder members of the ‘Vienna Group’ since
the mid-1970s, although it has not been formulated or tested theoretically. Only recently
several studies were published using this kind of data.53 Because body fragments are often
ambiguous, the focus of quantitative studies is on so-called diagnostics like bases and rims.
They provide the most information about ancient vessels, facilitating an attribution to a
type. The identification of sherd material sometimes suffers from ambiguity, because some
rim types could belong to more than one vessel shape.54 Such cases must be taken into con-
sideration in the analysis, but should not deter from the approach in general. A measure-
ment of diameter is necessary for a measurement of the preserved part of the vessel (fractions
of a circle), taken by means of a rim diameter chart.55 This is the collected frequency data
which will disclose the quantity of the pottery in the end, sorted by type, fabric, or any other
criterion the analyst is interested in. Through a mathematical transformation, the estimated
vessel equivalents can be turned into numbers that have the same statistical properties as
counts, and can be used in statistical analyses56, although this has not yet been attempted
with Egyptian material. In connection with random sampling techniques such data provide
a powerful tool to answer the question ‘How many?’ in an objective way.57
Bader 2010: Figure 9, 2016.

48 49
Arnold 1982. 50
Arnold 1992: 116, n 303.
Orton et al. 1993: 169–70.
51 52
Orton 1975; Orton et al. 1993: 21, 171–3.
53
Bader 2007; 2009; 2015; Bader et al. 2016; Bourriau and Gallorini 2012; 2016; Kopetzky 2010;
Müller 2008.
54
See Figure 15.2, and also Bader 2010: Figures 8–10.
55
Egloff 1973; Orton et al. 1993: Figure 13.2.
56
Orton et al. 1993: 174; Orton 1993.
57
Fletcher and Lock 1994; Orton 2000; Bader 2009: 58–74; Bourriau and Gallorini 2016.

320 Bettina Bader
(a) (b)
0 1 2 3 4 5 10
(c) (d) (e)
(k)
(j)
(f)
(i)
(g) (h)
Figure 15.2 Various pottery types to which small fragments can be ascribed.
Typology
The desire to try and impose order on things is perhaps deeply ingrained in human nature,
thus a division into different groups either according to shape, function, or size is often pre-
sented. Ideas proposed for botany by Linné and for archaeology by Montelius (1903) found
their counterparts in Egypt.58 The compilation of typologies of various ceramic vessels in
Egyptology began with Petrie. He and his followers were the first archaeologists in Egypt to
arrange (complete) pottery vessels by shape into a system of types and subtypes arranged by
letters and numbers, as for example in the Riqqeh corpus (e.g. 2k2 on pl. 28). A similar pro-
cedure was proposed by Guy.59 Petrie also did the same for all other artefact groups.60 This
arrangement developed over time, and rather than presenting a range of pottery of the same
type, as for example from Tell el-Yahudieh in 1906 (Petrie 1906: pl. 10), the approach later
changed to providing one example of each type as in Riqqeh61, Harageh62, and Sedment63,
although quite a wide variety of pots was shown. An intrinsic problem in the re-evaluation
58
Petrie 1904: 122–6. 59
Cf. Rose 2007: 169–76. 60
Engelbach 1915.
61
Engelbach 1915. 62
Engelbach and Gunn 1923. 63
Petrie and Brunton 1924.

of work done by Petrie and his followers is that the criteria for ascribing a vessel to one type
or another are unknown, and often vessels from one site were typed to vessels from another
site.64 It remains unknown how the early archaeologists typed pots from one site to another,
as examples are not physically available. In order to use these valuable data collections,
which are often the only information available from sites that are now destroyed, there is no
choice but to assume that the vessels were very similar.65 To disregard these early works
entirely would be a loss of information we cannot afford (see ‘Going Back to Material from
Old Excavations’, later in this chapter).
Nevertheless, it could only have been a small fraction of what was actually found and most
broken pottery was ignored (as was usual in the first half of the twentieth century). Pots show-
ing differences in fabrics or wares on the whole were not distinguished as separate types.
Since then ceramic typologies have been greatly refined, and not only do they take fabric
and ware into consideration, but also sherd material and certain indices. The typologies of
hemispherical cups66 and so-called ‘beer/wine jars’67 in the Middle Kingdom and Second
Intermediate Period provide a good example, as well as amphorae in the New Kingdom.68
These particular cases demonstrate that minute changes in the morphology of vessel types
are often of chronological significance, but not always. While passing time need not neces-
sarily be the only reason for such changes, it is by far the most frequently observed one.
Differences in morphology could also be due to regional shifts or the way in which work-
shops are organized or knowledge is transferred, but painstaking analysis is necessary to
find firm evidence for any of these interpretations. In contrast, other pottery types do not
seem to show any remarkable changes in shape over long periods of time (e.g. large rough
Nile C plates or dishes and pot stands in the Middle Kingdom and the Second Intermediate
Period), but other changes such as in raw material or technology may occur. Crucial for
inferences of this kind is the employment of enough well-stratified examples in order to be
sure that a suspected change is not a mere coincidence, and consideration of all the different
factors together.
The possibility of using computerized statistical seriation and correspondence analysis to
define types and distributions has so far only been applied in cemeteries in Nubia.69
Why a good drawing is important
Drawings of vessels or diagnostic fragments, whether rim or base, handle or decorated wall
fragment, constitute the main part of an accurate, up-to-date description of ceramics.
Inaccurate drawings can very easily lead to misinterpretations.70 Nevertheless good drawings
convey a much better idea of the material than any verbal description could ever do, provided
the published scale is not too small. It should be noted that the pottery drawings produced
by Flinders Petrie and Guy Brunton in Sedment, for instance, were quite accurate even by
64
See Petrie and Brunton 1924: pl. xlvii. 65
Seidlmayer 1990: 5, 17–19.
66
Arnold 1982; 1988; Bietak 1991b; Bader 2007.
67
Arnold 1988; Szafranski 1998; Bader 2007; 2009: 160–82, 215–22. 68
Aston 2004b.
69
Säve-Söderbergh and Troy 1991: 220–93.
70
See Bader 2003; Marcus et al. 2009; Doumet-Serhal et al. 2009.

322 Bettina Bader
modern standards. When the author redrew some vessels from Sedment, reduced them to
a scale of 1:6 and overlaid them with the drawings of the same types from the original pub-
lication they looked exactly the same. However, for a critical consideration of various
aspects of the vessel, a scale of 1:3 is highly preferable, where even small details of technol-
ogy and rim morphology are recognizable.
Certain conventions should be followed, namely the combination of the outside view
with the section of the vessel in order to make the material visually comparable. Additionally,
an indication in the drawing of the manufacturing technique is useful, because it supplies
further clues not only for the dating of the vessel but also for technological considerations.
Sketching the quality of the surface, by drawing large straw, limestone, or other particles,
may prove useful sometimes, but the fabric description includes the quality of the surface.
Because time constraints are always involved, such a procedure is not considered crucial.
Often this is subject to artistic taste, much like the question concerning whether the section
of a vessel should be blackened in or left white, or whether the top line should touch the
section or not. While the process of drawing a vessel brings the ceramicist very close to
knowing its shape intimately, it is not sufficient by itself and needs to be complemented by
a short description including fabric, surface treatment, state of preservation, and measure-
ments, in order to produce a high standard for modern reports. Archaeological illustration
today has come a long way from the standards of the late nineteenth century.71
Ready access to digital photography has certainly radically changed procedures in docu-
mentation of pottery in the last five to seven years. But while it is an easy way to create a
visual record of a sherd or vessel, or minute details of it, digital photography cannot replace
drawing of pottery and with it the personal engagement with the material. The same holds
true for 3D scanning of pottery vessels, which may make sense for very special or fragile
material in museums.
Manufacture
The interpretation of pictorial evidence, mainly from tombs, helps in understanding the
stages of manufacture of Egyptian pottery.72 Additional data could be obtained from arch
aeological sites and scientific methods73, as well as from ethno-archaeology.74 By means of
this combined approach it has been possible to obtain a clearer idea of which techniques
were used in which periods. The particulars of collecting the raw material, processing it,
various shaping methods by hand or wheel or combined techniques, drying of the vessels,
and surface treatment and decoration, as well as firing, all have a potential bearing on the
dating of ceramics75 as well as on the history of manufacturing techniques and organiza-
tional issues. Close scrutiny of the vessels and fragments themselves provides additional
71
See pottery illustrations in De Morgan 1895; Nagel 1938; Bourriau 1981; Bourriau et al. 2000: Figure
5.4; as well as Wegner 2007; Rose 2007; and Hendrickx and Eyckerman 2016.
72
Arnold 1976; Bourriau 1981: 14–22; Arnold 1993; Holthoer 1977: 5–37.
73
Vandiver and Lacovara 1985/1986.
74
Brissaud 1982; Nicholson and Patterson 1985a; 1985b. For a list of kiln sites over a larger spread of
periods see Bourriau et al. 2000: 137–43 and Soukiassian et al. 1990.
75
Bourriau 2006.

hints on the techniques used76, because the potters did not always remove all traces of
manufacture very carefully, and thus the ceramicist gains insights into the sequence of steps
undertaken to produce the vessels (chaîne operatoire). One particular problem is the recog-
nition in pottery vessels of the use of the fast or kick wheel, in contrast to the slow wheel,
which according to Klotz’s discovery of a depiction of the kick wheel in the Ramesside
period should be dated much earlier than traditionally.77 In particular the firing process is
of great interest, because the technology used can tell us much about the temperatures
achieved and therefore the technical abilities of the ancient Egyptians.78
Function of vessels
Beside the actual shape of vessels—open for presentation and consumption and closed for
storage and preservation79—pictorial evidence is crucial in the Egyptian context for the
interpretation of the function of vessels. This source helped to identify a number of func-
tional vessels used such as bread moulds, spinning bowls, large vats for the production of
beer, beer jars, and firedogs, to name but a few.80 The identification of special ritual vessels
like hes-vases or canopic jars does not pose further problems. Relating pottery to reliefs or
wall paintings and ritual is very rewarding81 and provides further insights into the use of
ceramic vessels, even though there may sometimes be a discrepancy between the intended
use and the actual use. The latter can occasionally be understood by traces of secondary
modification and use like abrasions (stand) or smoke blackening marks from exposure to
fire (for cooking).82 The study of jar labels might also allow some interpretations, but
whether the designation signifies usual or unusual contents often remains unresolved.83 The
archaeological context and additional non-ceramic finds often also allow interpretations
concerning function.84 Many avenues of exploration are still to be followed in this field.
Strategies to tackle ceramics:

consideration of context
With an overwhelming amount of potsherds resulting from controlled excavations85 a

strategy for dealing with these finds is necessary. Because ceramics are often the only type
76
Rzeuska 2006: 45–54. 77
Klotz 2013.
78
Nicholson and Patterson 1985c; Soukiassian et al 1990; Nicholson 1993; Hope 1993.
79
Arnold 1988: 135–6.
80
See for bread moulds Jacquet-Gordon 1981, spinning bowls Dothan 1963; Vogelsang-Eastwood
1987/1988; Allen 1998; Gould 2010, large vats for the production of beer Faltings 1998, beer jars Holthoer
1977: 86–8, and firedogs Aston 1989.
81
E.g. Seiler 1995; Rzeuska 2001; Hendrickx et al 2002; Op de Beeck 2007.
82
See Bourriau et al. 2000: 142–4. 83
Aston 2007.
84
Bietak 1985; Bader and Ownby 2013; Sullivan 2013.
85
E.g. 1,000,000 diagnostics mentioned by Rzeuska 2006: 55, and 85,000 mentioned by
Bourriau 1991: 264.

324 Bettina Bader
of artefact found, there should be a system in operation that allows evaluation of as many
aspects as possible, in order to take the whole archaeological record into account. It will
only rarely be possible to ‘draw everything’, except in very favourable conditions and with
plenty of resources. Crucial in the decision of what and how to record is the nature of the
site. If the ceramic material comes from the surface or contexts disturbed in modern times,
it would be a waste of resources to concentrate on typological studies of certain morpho-
logical aspects of pottery. The same holds true for most known dumps of early excavators
and the fills of casemate structures. While it would be deeply wrong to simply discard such
material without any further study, a general corpus of shape and fabrics will enhance the
knowledge of spatial distribution of shapes and fabrics within the country and the site. It
will also allow periods of use to be pinpointed by comparative analysis with ceramic mater-
ial from better dated sites. There may not be other types of finds in some periods, so ceram-
ics are almost always the best way to get a comprehensive overview of the occupational
history of a site. Another issue is controlled excavation versus survey, both of which require
different approaches towards the material.
Certainly the most rewarding strategy is to concentrate on diagnostic fragments such as
rims, bases, handles, and any painted, incised, or unusual sherds. The viability of the attempt
to reconstruct complete vessels depends on the care taken in the excavation, the scale of the
operation, and the nature of the site. While complete vessel shapes are much more common
in grave contexts or special (e.g. foundation) deposits, the likelihood of such finds is rather
small in settlements. Without doubt, complete vessels hold more information than partly
ambiguous sherd material, therefore any chance for reconstruction should be taken
wherever feasible. With some experience it is possible to judge fairly accurately if certain
contexts will yield joins, making it potentially worthwhile to spend time on this. The
body fragments of broken vessels also contain information that should not be disposed of
too lightly. Non-joining body fragments of various contexts should at least be sorted into
fabric and ware groups and the quantity measured. The most promising methods are
weighing (e.g. Memphis) or measuring the surface area (practice at Dahshur, S. Allen,
personal communication and Tell el-Daba), in order to gain independent quantitative
data that is comparable between contexts in addition to the diagnostic fragments.86
Moreover, fabrics may be represented among the body fragments missing in the range of
diagnostics, and therefore such information would be lost. A combination of weighing
and sherd count can provide interesting insights into post-depositional processes in dif-
ferent contexts, if compared.
The use of random sampling is an innovation in Egyptian archaeology and a few recent
studies have utilized this methodology. It has to be understood that techniques like random
sampling do not replace the knowledge of the ceramicist but form an addition to retrieving
quantitative data in an objective way.87 Random sampling does not mean a subjective choice
(or ‘shopping list’) as many archaeologists still believe, and it is common practice in prehis-
tory as well as in zooarchaeology and the study of human remains, and is now included in
various computer programs (e.g. the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences).
See Bourriau 1991.

86
See Bourriau 1991 for an example involving a ceramicist collaborating with a trained statistician; see
87
also Bourriau and Gallorini 2012; 2016; Bader 2009.

The art of discarding ceramics from archaeological

excavations
With the need to process a huge amount of pottery unearthed every season in controlled
excavations, sooner or later a lack of storage space will affect work. In Petrie’s days after
recording the pottery found, a selection of typical specimens was prepared for find division
as well as for shipping back to Britain. Some of the bulkier material was reburied, for
example, in excavated tombs. Some caches of such material left behind by Petrie have been
found (e.g. Sedment: A. Abd el-Galal, personal communication). Since finds division
between the Egyptian Antiquities Service and foreign missions was abolished around the
mid-1980s, all ceramic material has to remain at the site, ideally in purpose-built magazines
but not unfrequently in the open air. Thus, space restrictions apply and a decision has to be
made as to which material can be discarded to make room for newly excavated material. For
long-term projects it is an advantage to plan ahead where to rebury material, and to then
take the coordinates and mark the spot of the reburial. The addition of several labels, as was
done by the Expedition of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in Dahshur, can help to prevent
future confusion. Ceramics derived from surface layers and large secondary pit fills lacking
a secure stratigraphic position should be sorted into body and diagnostic fragments and
then into fabrics and wares. The body fragments are subsequently weighed88 or measured
(surface area), ideally in combination with counting, while the diagnostics are kept for
recording. The bulk of the body sherds can be discarded after processing, except for special
imports, and painted or otherwise decorated fragments or pieces unknown to the cerami-
cist. Probably most of the diagnostics could also be discarded after recording, except for
special fragments. A teaching collection at the site may be built up from such material.
Fragmentary pottery from closed contexts should be kept wherever possible, although
non-joining body fragments might be discarded after recording and publication. It seems to
be self-evident that intact or complete vessels must not be disposed of, even after publication.
In no instance is it advisable to discard any ceramic material that is not processed or not
identifiable by the ceramicist. Where no site magazine exists, for example during surveys, a
controlled redeposition will be much appreciated by any following archaeological team.
Going back to material

from old excavations
The increasing trend to re-evaluate pottery in museums from excavations conducted in the
early part of the twentieth century offers valuable insights by means of re-recording and
redrawing the material according to modern standards. This undertaking alone provides
vital evidence for the distribution of shapes and fabrics in Egypt, hitherto only suspected
due to the cursory description given in these old site reports.89 Combined with a re-evaluation
of the excavation itself, a possibility exists for more refined dating of find groups other than
88
Bourriau 1991. 89
E.g. Bader 2001: 111, for comparanda for ‘type 36’.

326 Bettina Bader
just the pottery, and additional inferences may in many cases be possible.90 Several such
studies have been undertaken, but unfortunately not all have been published to date.91 A
re-evaluation of the early Middle Kingdom cemetery of Sedment undertaken by the author
still awaits its final touches and publication.
The largest project making use of the excellent preservation of ceramic vessels was the
Middle Kingdom Pottery Handbook project (initiated by Bietak in the framework of the
Special Research Programme: Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean
in the 2nd Millennium bc), the results of which were published.92 In this respect there are
still many possibilities for future projects hidden in the storerooms of museums.
Suggested reading
During the past decade so many publications dealing with ancient Egyptian ceramics
appeared that it is impossible to list them here in their entirety. The conference proceedings
of Vienna 2—Egyptian Ceramics in the 21st century edited by Bader et al., Knoblauch and
Köhler in 2016 may serve as a starting point because it contains a diachronic overview of the
steadily growing field with many older references and new research avenues. Nevertheless,
the fundamental works on Egyptian ceramic studies of the pharaonic periods out of which
everything else developed are Arnold, D. 1981, Bourriau 1981, Arnold and Bourriau 1993,
and Bietak 1991a. While those provide the foundations for successful engagement with
Egyptian pottery on a practical level, works such as Aston 1998, Bourriau and Nicholson 1992,
and Bourriau, Smith, and Nicholson 2000 point the way to New Kingdom fabric classifica-
tion systems. For more fabric classification systems beyond the Vienna System see Ballet
and Południkiewicz 2012, Gates-Foster 2012, Köhler 1998, and Marchand 2009.
Ideas for research avenues to be applied on data from Egyptian pottery can be found in
Arnold, Dean 1985, Bader and Ownby 2013, Redmount and Keller 2003, and Orton et
al. 1993 (with a new edition by Orton and Hughes 2013). Pollard et al. 2007 gives a compre-
hensive overview of the application of analytical chemistry to ceramics although many of
those can currently only be applied to Museum pieces outside of Egypt due to severe sam-
pling restrictions. Two specialized periodicals dealing with Egyptian pottery are Bulletin de
Liaison de la Céramique Égyptienne (1975 onwards) and Cahiers de la Céramique Égyptienne
(1977 onwards).
Bibliography
Allen, S.J. 1998. Spinning Bowls: Representation and Reality. In J. Phillips (ed), Ancient Egypt, The
Aegean and the Near East: Studies in Honour of Martha Rhoads Bell. San Antonio: Van Siclen Books,
17–38.
Arnold, Dean 1985. Ceramic Theory and Cultural Process. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Arnold, Dean 1993. Ecology and Ceramic Production in an Andean Community. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
90
Seidlmayer 1990. 91
See, however, Snape 1986; Orel 1993.
92
Schiestl and Seiler 2012.

Arnold, D. 1968. Keramikbeispiele aus den Gräbern der frühen 11. Dynastie in El-Tarif, Mitteilungen
des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 23: 38–67.
Arnold, D. 1976. Wandbild und Scherbenbefund. Zur Töpfertechnik der alten Ägypter vom Beginn
der pharaonischen Zeit bis zu den Hyksos, Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts,
Abteilung Kairo 32: 1–34.
Arnold, D. 1981. Studien zur altägyptischen Keramik. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern.
Arnold, D. 1982. Keramikbearbeitung in Dahschur 1976–1981, Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäolo-
gischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 38: 25–65.
Arnold, D. 1988. The Pottery. In D. Arnold, The Pyramid of Senwosret I.: The South Cemeteries of
Lisht I.The Metropolitan Museum of Art Expedition XXII. New York: The Metropolitan Museum
of Art, pp.
Arnold, D. 1993. Techniques and Traditions of Manufacture in the Pottery of ancient Egypt. In D. Ar-
nold and J. Bourriau (eds), Introduction to Ancient Egyptian Pottery. Fascicle 1. Mainz: Philipp von
Zabern, 1–141.
Arnold, D., Arnold, F., and Allen, S.J. 1995. CanaaniteImports at Lisht, the Middle Kingdom Capital
of Egypt, Egypt and the Levant 5: 13–32.
Arnold, D. and Bourriau, J.D. (eds). 1993. Introduction to Ancient Egyptian Pottery. Fascicles 1 and 2.
Mainz: Philipp von Zabern.
Arnold, D. and Schulte, R. 1978. Meisterwerke altägyptischer Keramik: 5000 Jahre Kunst und Kun-
sthandwerk aus Ton und Fayence. Höhr-Grenzhausen Keramik-Museum Westerwald. Hachenburg:
Druckerei Hachenburg.
Aston, D. 1989. Ancient Egyptian ‘Fire Dogs’—A New Interpretation, Mitteilungen des Deutschen
Archäologischen Institutes, Abteilung Kairo 45: 27–32.
Aston, D. 1998. Die Keramik des Grabungsplatzes Q1. Teil 1: Corpus of Fabrics, Wares and Shapes.
Forschungen in der Ramsesstadt, vol 1. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern.
Aston, D. 1999. Elephantine XIX: Pottery from the Late New Kingdom to the Early Ptolemaic Period.
Aston, D. 2004a. Tell el-Dabca XII: A Corpus of Late Middle Kingdom and Second Intermediate P eriod
Pottery. 2 vols. Untersuchungen der Zweigstelle Kairo 23. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen
Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Aston, D. 2004b. Amphorae in New Kingdom Egypt, Egypt and the Levant 14: 175–213.
Aston, D. 2004c. Review of P. E. McGovern, The Foreign Relations of the ‘Hyksos’: A Neutron
Activation Study of Middle Bronze Age Pottery from the Eastern Mediterranean, British
Archaeological Reports, International series 888, Oxford 2000, Journal of Egyptian Archaeology
90: 233–7.
Aston, D. 2007. A Taste of Honey. mnt- and mdqt-vessels in the late Eighteenth Dynasty. In
T. Schneider and K. Szpakowska (eds), Egyptian Stories: A British Egyptological Tribute to
Alan B. Lloyd on the Occasion of his Retirement. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 347. Münster:
Ugarit Verlag, 13–31.
Aston, D. 2008. Untersuchungen im Totentempel des Merenptah in Theben IV: The Pottery (Beiträge 17).
Åström, P. (ed). 2001. The Chronology of Base-ring Ware and Bichrome Wheel-made Ware. In
P. Åström (ed), Proceedings of a Colloquium held in the Royal Academy of Letters, History and
Antiquities, Stockholm, May 18–19 2000. Kungl. Vitterhets Historie och Antikvtets Akademien
Konferenser 54. Stockholm: Kungl, 131–42.
Bader, B. 2001. Tell el Dabca XIII: Typologie und Chronologie der Mergel C-Ton Keramik: Materialien
zum Binnenhandel des Mittleren Reiches und der Zweiten Zwischenzeit. Vienna: Verlag der Öster-
reichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Bader, B. 2007. A Tale of Two Cities: First Results of a Comparison between Avaris and Memphis. In
M. Bietak (ed), The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second
Millennium B.C., vol. III, Proceedings of the SCIEM 2000 Euro Conference, Vienna, 28th of May to 1st
of June 2003. Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 249–67.

328 Bettina Bader
Bader, B. 2009. Tell el-Dabca XIX: Auaris und Memphis im Mittleren Reich und in der Hyksoszeit:
Vergleichsanalyse der materiellen Kultur, Ausgrabungen in Tell el-Dabca. Vienna: Österreichische
Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Bader, B. 2010. Processing and Analysis of Ceramic Finds at the Egyptian Site of Tell el-Dabca/Avaris
(‘Eves’ and Other Strange Animals). In B. Horejs, R. Jung, and P. Pávuk (eds), Analysing Pottery:
Processing—Classification—Publication. Studia Archaeologica et Medievalia IX. Bratislava: Com-
menius University in Bratislava, 209–33.
Bader, B. 2015. A late Middle Kingdom Settlement at Tell el-Dabca and its Potential. In P. Kousoulis
and N. Lazaridis (eds), Proceedings of the Tenth International Congress of Egyptologists, Rhodes,
22nd to 29th of May 2008. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 241. Leuven: Peeters, 45–63.
Bader, B., Knoblauch, C.M., and Köhler, E.C. (eds) 2016. Vienna 2: Ancient Egyptian Ceramics in the
21st Century. Leuven: Peeters.
Bader, B. and Ownby, M.F. (eds). 2013. Functional Aspects of Egyptian Ceramics in Their Archaeological
Context. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 217. Leuven: Peeters.
Ballet, P. and Południkiewicz, A. 2012. Tebtynis V: la céramique des époques hellénistique et impériale:
Campagnes 1988–1993. Production, consommation et réception dans le Fayoum méridional. Fouilles
de l’Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale 68. Le Caire: Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale.
Beck, P. 2000. Area A: Middle Bronze Age IIA Pottery. In M. Kochavi, P. Beck, and E. Yadin (eds),
Aphek-Antipatris I: Excavations of Areas A and B, the 1972–1976 Seasons. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv Univer-
sity, Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology, 173–238.
Bell, M.R. 1985. Gurob Tomb 605 and Mycenaean Chronology. In P. Posener-Kriéger (ed), Mélanges
Gamal Eddin Mokhtar. Bibliothèque d’étude 97. Cairo: Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale, 61–86.
Bietak, M. 1985. Eine ‘Rhythmusgruppe’ aus der Zeit des späten Mittleren Reiches, Jahreshefte des
Österreichischen Archäologischen Institutes in Wien 56: 3–18.
Bietak, M. 1991a. Tell el-Dabca V: Ein Friedhof der Mittleren Bronzezeitkultur mit Totentempel und
Siedlungsschichten, Teil I. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Bietak, M. 1991b. Egypt and Canaan in the Middle Bronze Age, Bulletin of the American Schools of
Oriental Research 281: 27–72.
Bietak, M. (ed). 2000–07. The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second
Millennium B.C. vols 1–3. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Binford, L.R. 1972. An Archaeological Perspective. New York: Seminar Press.
Bourriau, J.D. 1981. Umm el-Ga’ab: Pottery from the Nile Valley before the Arab Conquest. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Bourriau, J.D. 1991. The Memphis Pottery Project, Cambridge Archaeological Journal 1(2): 263–8.
Bourriau, J.D. 1998. The Role of Chemical Analysis in the Study of Egyptian Pottery. In C.J. Eyre (ed),
Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress of Egyptologists, Cambridge 3–9 September 1995.
Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 82. Leuven: Peeters, 189–99.
Bourriau, J.D. 2006. Technology in the Pottery of the Middle and New Kingdoms: An Underrated
Tool in the Archaeologist’s Armoury. In B. Mathieu, D. Meeks, and M. Wissa (eds), L’apport de
l’Égypte à l’histoire des techniques: Methodes, chronologie et comparaisons, BdÉ 142. Cairo: Institut
Français d’Archéologie Orientale, 31–43.
Bourriau, J.D. and Aston, D. 1985. The Pottery. In G.T. Martin, The Tomb Chapels of Paser and Ra’ia at
Saqqara. London: The Egypt Exploration Society, 32–55.
Bourriau, J.D. Bellido, A., Bryan N., and Robinson, V. 2006. Egyptian Pottery Fabrics: A Comparison
between NAA Groupings and the ‘Vienna System’. In E. Czerny, I. Hein, H. Hunger, D. Melman,
and A. Schwab (eds), Timelines: Studies in Honour of Manfred Bietak. Orientalia Lovaniensia Ana-
lecta 149/3. Leuven: Peeters, 261–91.
Bourriau, J.D. and Eriksson, K.O. 1998. A Late Minoan Sherd from an Early 18th Dynasty Context at
Kom Rabi‘a, Memphis. In J. Phillips (ed), Ancient Egypt, The Aegean and the Near East: Studies in
Honour of Martha Rhoads Bell. San Antonio: Van Siclen Books, 95–120.
Bourriau, J.D. and Gallorini, C. 2012. Pottery from Memphis, Kom Rabica. In R. Schiestl and A. Seiler
(eds), A Handbook of Middle Kingdom Pottery, Vol. 2: Regional Volume. Vienna: Österreichische
Akademie der Wissenschaften, 107–30.

Bourriau, J.D. and Gallorini, C. 2016. Kom Rabia: The Middle Kingdom and Second Intermediate
Period Pottery, Survey of Memphis VIII. London: The Egypt Exploration Society.
Bourriau, J.D. and Nicholson, P.T. 1992. Marl Clay Pottery Fabrics of the New Kingdom from Mem-
phis, Saqqara and Amarna, Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 78: 29–91.
Bourriau, J.D., Nicholson, P.T., and Rose, P.J. 2000. Pottery. In P.T. Nicholson and I. Shaw (eds),
Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 121–47.
Bourriau, J.D., Smith, L.M.V., and Nicholson, P.T. 2000. New Kingdom Pottery Fabrics: Nile Clay and
Mixed Nile/Marl Clay Fabrics from Memphis and Amarna. Occasional Publications 14. London:
Egypt Exploration Society.
Brissaud, P. 1982. Les ateliers de potiers de la région de Louqsor. Bibliothèque d’Etude 78. Cairo: Institut
Français d’Archéologie Orientale.
Cohen-Weinberger, A. and Goren, Y. 2004. Levantine–Egyptian Interactions During the 12th to the
15th Dynasties Based on the Petrography of the Canaanite Pottery from Tell el-Dabca, Egypt and
the Levant 14: 69–100.
Crowfoot Payne, J., Kaczmarczyk, A., and Fleming, S.J. 1977. Forged Decoration on Predynastic Pots,
Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 63: 5–12.
Cyganowski, C.J.K. 2003. An Intersite Comparison of Middle Kingdom Lower Egyptian Marl C Fab-
ric. Unpublished MPhil thesis. Cambridge: University of Cambridge.
De Morgan, J. 1895. Fouilles à Dahchour, Mars–Juin 1894. Vienna: Adolf Holzhausen.
Dothan, T. 1963. Spinning-bowls, Israel Exploration Journal 13: 97–112.
Doumet-Serhal, C., Bader, B., Forstner-Müller, I., and Kopetzky, K. 2009. The Egyptian Jars from
Sidon in their Egyptian Context—Some Fresh Evidence, Archaeology and History in the Lebanon
29: 79–83.
Egloff, B.J. 1973. A Method for Counting Ceramic Rim Sherds, American Antiquity 38(3): 351–3.
El-Khouli, A., Holthoer, R., Hope, C.A., and Kaper, O.E. 1993. Stone Vessels, Pottery and Sealings from
the Tomb of Tutankhamun. Oxford: Griffiths Institute, Ashmolean Museum.
Engelbach, R. 1915. Riqqeh and Memphis VI. BSAE 19. London: Bernard Quaritch.
Engelbach, R. and Gunn, B. 1923. Harageh. BSAE 28. London: Bernard Quaritch.
Faltings, D. 1998. Die Keramik der Lebensmittelproduktion im Alten Reich: Ikonographie und Archäologie
eines Gebrauchsartikels. Studien zur Archäologie und Geschichte Altägyptens 14. Heidelberg:
Heidelberger Orientverlag.
Fitton, L., Hughes, M., and Quirke, S. 1998. Northerners at Lahun: Neutron Activation Analysis of
Minoan and Related Pottery in the British Museum. In S. Quirke (ed), Lahun Studies. Reigate: SIA
Publishing, 112–40.
Fletcher, M. and Lock, G.R. 1994. Digging Numbers: Elementary Statistics for Archaeologists. Oxford
University Committee for Archaeology Monograph 33, 2nd ed. Oxford: University Committee for
Archaeology.
Garstang, J. 1907. Burial Customs in Ancient Egypt. London: A. Constable and Co. Ltd.
Gates-Foster, J. 2012. Pottery. In C. Riggs (ed), The Oxford Handbook of Roman Egypt. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 648-63.
Goren, Y. 2003. Review of P. E. McGovern, The Foreign Relations of the ‘Hyksos’: A Neutron A ctivation
Study of Middle Bronze Age Pottery from the Eastern Mediterranean. British Archaeological
Reports, International series 888, Oxford 2000, Bibliotheca Orientalis 60(1–2): 105–10.
Gould, B. 2010. Egyptian Pottery. In T. Dothan and B. Brandl (eds), Deir el-Balah: Excavatations in
1977–1982 in the Cemetery and Settlement, Volume II: The Finds. Quedem 50. Jerusalem: Hebrew
University, 7–56.
Griffiths, D. and Ownby, M. F. 2006. Assessing the Occurrence of Egyptian Marl C Ceramics in
Middle Bronze Age Sidon, Archaeology and History in the Lebanon 24: 63–77.
Hankey, V. 1995. Stirrup Jars at el-Amarna. In W.V. Davies and L. Schofield (eds), Egypt the Aegean
and the Levant: Interconnections in the Second Millennium BC. London: British Museum Press,
116–24.
Hartung, U., Köhler, E.C., Müller, V., and Ownby, M.F. 2015. Imported Pottery from Abydos: A New
Petrographic Perspective, Egypt and the Levant 25: 295–333.

330 Bettina Bader
Hein, I. 2007. The Significance of the Lustrous Ware Finds from Ezbet Helmi/Tell el-Dab‘a (Egypt). In
I. Hein (ed), The Lustrous Wares of Late Bronze Age Cyprus and the Eastern Mediterranean. Vienna:
Austrian Academy of Sciences, 79-106.
Hendrickx, S., Eyckerman, M., and Vereecken, S. 2016. The Visualisation of Pottery in Egyptian
Archaeology. In B. Bader, C.M. Knoblauch, and E.C. Köhler (eds), Vienna 2—Ancient Egyptian
Ceramics in the 21st Century: Proceedings of the International Conference Held at the University of
Vienna, 14th–18th of May, 2012. Leuven: Peeters, 277–86.
Hendrickx, S., Faltings, D., Op de Beeck, L., Raue, D., and Michiels, C. 2002. Milk, Beer and Bread
Technology During the Early Dynastic Period, Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Insti-
tutes, Abteilung Kairo 58: 277–304.
Holthoer, R. 1977. New Kingdom Pharaonic Sites: The Pottery. The Scandinavian Joint Expedition to
Sudanese Nubia, vol 5:1. Lund: Berlings.
Hope, C.A. 1987. Ceramics from the Dakhleh Oasis. Burwood: Victoria College.
Hope, C.A. 1989. Pottery of the Egyptian New Kingdom: Three Studies. Burwood: Victoria College.
Hope, C.A. 1993. Pottery Kilns in the Oasis of el-Dakhla. In D. Arnold and J.D. Bourriau (eds), Intro-
duction to Ancient Egyptian Pottery. Fascicle 1. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 121–7.
Jacquet-Gordon, H. 1981. A Tentative Typology of Bread Moulds. In D. Arnold (ed), Studien zur altä-
gyptischen Keramik. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 11–24.
Kemp, B.J. and Merrillees, R.S. 1980. Minoan Pottery in Second Millennium Egypt. Mainz: Philipp von
Zabern.
Kenyon, K.M. and Holland, T.A. 1982. Excavations at Jericho IV: The Pottery Type Series and Other
Finds. London: British School of Archaeology, Jerusalem.
Klotz, D. 2013. The Earliest Representation of a Potter’s Kick-wheel in Egypt, Égypte Nilotique et
Méditerranéenne 6: 169–76.
Köhler, E.C. 1998. Tell el-Fara’in—Buto III. Die Keramik von der späten Nagada-Kultur bis zum frühen
Alten Reich (Schichten III bis VI). Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern.
Lucas, A. 1948. Materials and Industries in Ancient Egypt, 3rd ed. Timperley, Altrincham: St Ann’s Press.
Maguire, L. 1995. Tell el-Dabca: The Cypriot Connection. In W.V. Davies and L. Schofield (eds), Egypt,
the Aegean and the Levant. London: British Museum Press, 54–65.
Mallory-Greenough, L.M., Greenough, J.D., and Owen, J.V. 1998. New Data for Old Pots: Trace
Element Characterization of ancient Egyptian Pottery using ICP-MS, Journal of Archaeological
Science 25: 85–97.
Marchand, S. 2009. Appendix 2. Hawara 2000—The Pottery from Hawara. In I. Uytterhoeven (ed.),
Hawara in the Graeco-Roman Period: Life and Death in a Fayum Village. Orientalia Lovaniensia
Analecta 174. Leuven: Peeters, 685-813.
Marcus, E.S., Porath, Y., Schiestl, R., Seiler, A., and Paley, S.M. 2008. The Middle Kingdom Egyptian
Pottery from Middle Bronze Age IIa Tel Ifshar, Egypt and the Levant 18: 203–19.
McGovern, P.E. 1997. Wine of Egypt’s Golden Age: An Archaeochemical Perspective, Journal of
Egyptian Archaeology 83: 69–108.
McGovern, P.E. 2000. The Foreign Relations of the ‘Hyksos’: A Neutron Activation Study of the Middle
Bronze Age Pottery from the Eastern Mediterranean. British Archaeological Reports, International
Series 888. Oxford: Archaeopress.
McGovern, P.E. and Harbottle, G. 1996. ‘Hyksos’ Trade Connections between Tell el-Dabca (Avaris)
and the Levant: A Neutron Activation Study of the Canaanite Jar. In E.D. Oren (ed), The Hyksos:
New Historical and Archaeological Perspectives. University Museum Monograph 96. Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Museum, 141–57.
Merrillees, R.S. 1968. Cypriote Pottery Found in Egypt. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology XVIII.
Lund: Paul Aström Forlag.
Merrillees, R.S. 2003. The First Appearances of Kamares Ware in the Levant, Egypt and the Levant 13:
127–42.
Millet, M. 2007. Architecture civile antérieure au Nouvel Empire: rapport préliminaire des fouilles
archéologiques à l’est du lac Sacré, 2001–2003, Cahiers de Karnak XII: 681–743.

Montelius, O. 1903. Die älteren Kulturperioden im Orient und in Europa, vol. 1: Die Methode. Stock-
holm: Selbstverlag des Verfassers.
Müller, V. 2008. Tell el-Daba XVII: Opferdeponierungen in der Hyksoshauptstadt Auaris (Tell el-Daba)
vom späten Mittleren Reich bis zum frühen Neuen Reich. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences.
Nagel, G. 1938. La Céramique du Nouvel Empire à Deir el-Médineh. Cairo: Institut Français
d’Archéologie Orientale.
Nicholson, P.T. 1993. The Firing of Pottery. In D. Arnold and J.D. Bourriau (eds), Introduction to
Ancient Egyptian Pottery. Fascicle 1. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 103–20.
Nicholson, P.T. and Patterson, H.L. 1985a. Ethnoarchaeology in Egypt: The Bâllas Project, Archaeology
38(3): 52–9.
Nicholson, P.T. and Patterson, H.L. 1985b. Pottery Making in Upper Egypt: An Ethnoarchaeological
Study, World Archaeology 17(2): 222–39.
Nordström, H.A. 1972. Neolithic and A-Group Sites. The Scandinavian Joint Expedition to Sudanese
Nubia, vol 3:1. Stockholm: Scandinavian University Books.
Nordström, H.A. and Bourriau, J.D. 1993. Ceramic Technology: Clays and Fabrics. In D. Arnold and
J.D. Bourriau (eds), An Introduction to Ancient Egyptian Pottery. Fascicle 2. Mainz: Philipp von
Zabern, 143–90.
Op de Beeck, L. 2007. Relating Middle Kingdom Pottery Vessels to Funerary Rituals, Zeitschrift für
Ägyptische Sprache 134: 157–65.
Orel, S.E. 1993. Chronology and Social Stratification in a Middle Egyptian Cemetery. Unpublished
PhD Dissertation. Toronto: University of Toronto.
Orton, C. 1975. Quantitative Pottery Studies: Some Progress, Problems and Prospects, Science and
Archaeology 16: 30–5.
Orton, C. 1993. How Many Pots Make Five?—An Historical Review of Pottery Quantification,
Archaeometry 35: 169–84.
Orton, C. 2000. Sampling in Archaeology. Cambridge Manuals in Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Orton, C., and Hughes, M. 2013. Pottery in Archaeology. 2nd ed. Cambridge Manuals in Archaeology.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Orton, C., Tyres, P., and Vince, A. 1993. Pottery in Archaeology. Cambridge Manuals in Archaeology.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ownby, M. and Griffiths, D. 2009. Issues of Scum: Technical Analyses of Egyptian Marl C to Answer
Technological Questions, Egypt and the Levant 19: 229–39.
Perlman, I. and Asaro, F. 1969. Pottery Analysis by Neutron Activation, Archaeometry 11: 21–52.
Petrie, W.M.F. 1904. Methods and Aims in Archaeology. London: Macmillan.
Petrie, W.M.F. 1906. Hyksos and Israelite Cities. London: British School of Archaeology.
Petrie, W.M.F. and Brunton, G. 1924. Sedment I. BSAE 34. London: Bernard Quaritch.
Phillips, J. 2008. Aegyptiaca on the Island of Crete in their Chronological Context: A Critical Review.
Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 18. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichis-
chen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Pollard, A.M., Batt, C.M., Stern, B., and Young, S.M.M. 2007. Analytical Chemistry in Archaeology.
Cambridge Manuals in Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pusch E.B. (ed). 2007. Die Keramik des Grabungsplatzes Q I—Teil 2. Schaber—Scherben—Marken.
Hildesheim: Gerstenberg Verlag.
Redmount C.A. and Keller C.A. 2003. Egyptian Pottery: Proceedings of the 1990 Pottery Symposium at
the University of California, Berkeley. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Reisner, G.A. 1910. The Archaeological Survey of Nubia. Report for 1907–1908. Volume 1: Archaeological
Report. Cairo: National Printing Department.
Rose, P.J. 2007. The Eighteenth Dynasty Pottery Corpus from Amarna. Egypt Exploration Memoir 83.
London: The Egypt Exploration Society.
Rzeuska, T. 2001. The Pottery from the Funerary Complex of Vizier Merefnebef (West Saqqara), the
Evidence of a Burial and Cult of the Dead in the Old Kingdom. In J. Popielska-Grzybowska (ed),

332 Bettina Bader
Proceedings of the First Central European Conference of Young Egyptologists, 1999: Perspectives of
Research. Warsaw: Institute of Archaeology, Warsaw University, 157–66.
Rzeuska, T. 2006. Saqqara II: Pottery of the Late Old Kingdom: Funerary Pottery and Burial Customs.
Polish-Egyptian Archaeological Mission. Warsaw: Edition Neriton.
Säve-Söderbergh, T. and Troy, L. 1991. New Kingdom Pharaonic Sites: The Finds and the Sites. The
Scandinavian Joint Expedition to Sudanese Nubia, vol 5:2. Uppsala: Almqvist and Wiksell Tryckeri.
Schiestl, R. and Seiler, A. 2012. A Handbook of Egyptian Middle Kingdom Pottery. vol. I: Corpus; vol. II:
Regional. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Seidlmayer, S.J. 1990. Gräberfelder aus dem Übergang vom Alten zum Mittleren Reich. Studien zur
Archäologie und Geschichte Altägyptens 1. Heidelberg: Heidelberger Orientverlag.
Seiler, A. 1995. Archäologisch faßbare Kultpraktiken in Grabkontexten der frühen 18. Dynastie in Dra’
Abu el-Naga/Theben. In J. Assmann (ed), Thebanische Beamtennekropolen. Studien zur Archäolo-
gie und Geschichte Altägyptens 12. Heidelberg: Heidelberger Orientverlag, 186–203.
Serpico, M., Bourriau, J., Smith, L.M.V., Goren, Y., Stern, B., and Heron, C. 2003. Commodities and
Containers: A Project to Study Canaanite Amphorae Imported into Egypt During the New King-
dom. In M. Bietak (ed), The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the
Second Millennium B.C. vol 2. Proceedings of the SCIEM 2000—EuroConference, Haindorf, 2nd of
May to 7th of May 2001. Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 4. Vienna:
Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 365–75.
Sinclair, P. and Troy, L. 1989. A Multivariate Analysis. In T. Säve-Söderbergh (ed), Middle Nubian
Sites: The Scandinavian Joint Expedition to Sudanese Nubia, vol. 4:1. Udevalla: Bohusläningens Bok-
trykeri, 273–90.
Smith, L.M.V., Bourriau, J.D., and Serpico, M. 2000. The Provenance of Late Bronze Age Transport
Amphorae Found in Egypt, Internet Archaeology 9. Available at: http://intarch.ac.uk/journal/
issue9/bourriau_index.html.
Snape, S.R. 1986. ‘Mortuary Assemblages from Abydos.’ Unpublished PhD dissertation. Liverpool:
University of Liverpool.
Soukiassian, G., Wuttmann, M., Pantalacci, L., Ballet, P., and Picon, M. 1990. Balat III: Les Ateliers de
Potiers d’Ayn Asil. Cairo: Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale.
Stevenson, A. 2016. Artefacts of Excavation: The International Distribution of Finds from Brit-
ish Excavations in Egypt 1880–1990. In T. Amijima (ed), From Petrie to Hamada: Proceedings of
the International Symposium on Egyptian Antiquities of Kyoto University. Kyoto: Kyoto University
Museum, 32–7.
Sullivan, E.A. 2013. A Glimpse into Ancient Thebes: Excavations at South Karnak (2004–2006). BAR
International Series 2538. Oxford: Archaeopress.
Szafranski, Z.E. 1998. Seriation and Aperture Index 2 of the Beer Bottles from Tell el-Dabca., Egypt
and the Levant 7: 95–119.
Tschegg, C., Hein, I., and Ntaflos, T. 2008. State of the Art Multi-analytical Geoscientific Approach
to Identify Cypriot Bichrome Wheelmade Ware Reproduction in the Eastern Nile Delta (Egypt),
Journal of Archaeological Science 35(5): 1134–47.
Vandiver, P. and Lacovara, P. 1985/1986. An Outline of Technological Changes in Egyptian Pottery
Manufacture, Bulletin of the Egyptological Seminar 7: 53–85.
Vogelsang-Eastwood, G.M. 1987/1988. A Note on the So-called ‘Spinning Bowls’, Jaarbericht Ex Ori-
ente Lux 30: 78–87.
Walberg, G. 1991. The Finds at Tell el-Dabca and Middle Minoan Chronology, Egypt and the Levant
2: 115–20.
Walberg, G. 1992. The Finds at Tell el-Dabca and Middle Minoan Chronology, Egypt and the Levant
3: 157–9.
Wegner J., 2007. The Mortuary Temple of Senwosret III at Abydos, ed W. K. Simpson and D.B. O’Connor.
Publications of the Pennsylvania-Yale Institute of Fine Arts Expedition to Egypt 8. New Haven and
Philadelphia: The Peabody Museum of Natural History of Yale University.

View publication stats

BADER, B.-Ancient - Egyptian - Pottery

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BADER, B.-Ancient - Egyptian - Pottery

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

BADER, B.-Ancient - Egyptian - Pottery

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Ancient Egyptian pottery in The Oxford Handbook of Egyptology ed. by I. Shaw

Chapter · December 2020

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

A ncien t Egy pti a n

0004741645.INDD 312 Dictionary: NOSD 5/30/2020 4:29:45 PM

Ancient Egyptian pottery 313

0004741645.INDD 313 Dictionary: NOSD 5/30/2020 4:29:45 PM

Fabrics: Vienna System

0004741645.INDD 314 Dictionary: NOSD 5/30/2020 4:29:45 PM

Ancient Egyptian pottery 315

0004741645.INDD 315 Dictionary: NOSD 5/30/2020 4:29:45 PM

Other fabric classification systems

0004741645.INDD 316 Dictionary: NOSD 5/30/2020 4:29:45 PM

Ancient Egyptian pottery 317

Figure 15.1 New Kingdom Amphora made of oasis fabric.

Scientific technologies used

0004741645.INDD 317 Dictionary: NOSD 5/30/2020 4:29:46 PM

Perlman and Asaro 1969.

0004741645.INDD 318 Dictionary: NOSD 5/30/2020 4:29:46 PM

Ancient Egyptian pottery 319

Bader 2010: Figure 9, 2016.

0004741645.INDD 319 Dictionary: NOSD 5/30/2020 4:29:46 PM

(c) (d) (e)

0004741645.INDD 320 Dictionary: NOSD 5/30/2020 4:29:47 PM

Ancient Egyptian pottery 321

Why a good drawing is important

0004741645.INDD 321 Dictionary: NOSD 5/30/2020 4:29:47 PM

0004741645.INDD 322 Dictionary: NOSD 5/30/2020 4:29:47 PM

Ancient Egyptian pottery 323

Strategies to tackle ceramics:

With an overwhelming amount of potsherds resulting from controlled excavations85 a

0004741645.INDD 323 Dictionary: NOSD 5/30/2020 4:29:47 PM

See Bourriau 1991.

also Bourriau and Gallorini 2012; 2016; Bader 2009.

0004741645.INDD 324 Dictionary: NOSD 5/30/2020 4:29:47 PM

Ancient Egyptian pottery 325

The art of discarding ceramics from archaeological

Going back to material

0004741645.INDD 325 Dictionary: NOSD 5/30/2020 4:29:47 PM

0004741645.INDD 326 Dictionary: NOSD 5/30/2020 4:29:47 PM

Ancient Egyptian pottery 327

0004741645.INDD 327 Dictionary: NOSD 5/30/2020 4:29:47 PM

0004741645.INDD 328 Dictionary: NOSD 5/30/2020 4:29:47 PM

Ancient Egyptian pottery 329

0004741645.INDD 329 Dictionary: NOSD 5/30/2020 4:29:47 PM

0004741645.INDD 330 Dictionary: NOSD 5/30/2020 4:29:47 PM

Ancient Egyptian pottery 331

0004741645.INDD 331 Dictionary: NOSD 5/30/2020 4:29:47 PM

0004741645.INDD 332 Dictionary: NOSD 5/30/2020 4:29:47 PM

You might also like