Imported Pottery from Abydos: Weni the Elder and Late Old Kingdom Egyptian

Abstract

The article contributes new data for Egyptian–Levantine relations during the Egyptian 6^th Dynasty drawing on a petrographic study of Levantine Combed Ware jars found at Abydos. This is the largest group of Combed Ware Jars from the provinces and the only Old Kingdom group from outside the Memphite area to be studied using this method. The article confirms that the Egyptian–Levantine trade for liquids throughout the Old Kingdom using Combed Ware Jars was principally with a limited area of coastal Lebanon and was probably organised at the Levantine end by the port of Byblos.

Keywords

Egyptian–Levantine trade imported pottery Abydos

Introduction

In recent years, new textual and archaeological data has revealed the complexity of Old Kingdom Egyptian trade relations with the eastern Mediterranean during the Early Bronze III–IV. Data has included new insights on the Ebla texts and the source of commodities, and a more nuanced understanding of the role of Byblos as a central trade node on the Levantine coast, alongside that of regional intermediaries and supra-regional networks. This article contributes to our understanding of Egyptian–Levantine relations through a new petrographic analysis of imported Combed Ware Jars (CWJ) found in 6^th Dynasty contexts at Abydos in Egypt. The corpus from the tomb of Weni the Elder and his family network is the largest group of 6^th Dynasty CWJ and the only corpus outside the Memphis capital zone hitherto studied using this method. By considering the petrography together with technical considerations, stylistic features, and ‘pot marks’, the study provides new information on the geographic focus of the trade and how the supply of pottery for maritime trade was organised.

The Combed Ware Jar is a distinctive Levantine pottery type used locally for interregional commerce and for exporting liquid substances.¹ The vessels have a distinctive appearance that over time and could have been considered a ‘brand’: they are large, flat-based, with two vertical loop handles and a combed outer surface.² In Egypt, the earliest occurrences of CWJ were in Dynasties 0–2, when it was one of a number of container types used to import foreign substances.³ During the 4^th Dynasty, CWJ became the principal imported transport jar found in Egypt and by the 6^th Dynasty, the sole type, perhaps reflecting the specialisation and increased specificity of the liquids trade over time. In total, the corpus of CWJ in Egypt encompasses around 100 complete examples and additional sherd material.⁴ Until recently, the majority of CWJ in Egypt dated to the 4th Dynasty, reflecting the focus of systematic early excavations at Giza. New excavations reveal the continued importation of such jars in high volumes until the end of the 6^th Dynasty.⁵ There is a concentration of CWJ in tombs in the Memphite area (Giza, Saqqara, Abusir, Dashur, Abu Rawash), but CWJ also occur in settlements (Giza, Elephantine, Buto) as well as in provincial cemeteries (Abydos, Edfu, Matmar, Ballas).⁶ In Egyptian cemetery contexts CWJ are found almost exclusively in the tombs of elite male officials. As foreign trade was a royal monopoly in Old Kingdom Egypt, the substances transported in CWJ may have been gifts to loyal officials: as recorded in the 6^th Dynasty biography of Djau of Deir el-Gebrawi, he received textiles and sft-oil imported from the Levant, for his burial from the double treasury.⁷ As an exotic product, the jars themselves may have been gifted.⁸

Determining the provenance of Levantine CWJ in Egypt is complicated owing to the preservation of many intact vessels from tombs, whereas the Levantine material consists primarily of sherds from settlements. As vessels with a combed surface were found over a wide area of the Early Bronze Levant, narrowing down production zones of the CWJ found in Egypt was difficult.⁹ The subjective nature of comparative work, different definitions of CWJ, and the state of excavation and publication for some important sites were further problems.¹⁰ Thus, provenance studies using macroscopic techniques, such as vessel morphology, seal impressions, and surface treatment were inconclusive, identifying different origins for the same materials, including different regions of the Levant and Egypt (fig. 1).¹¹ Recently, significant progress has been made utilising scientific approaches on fabrics and clays, identifying a production zone in coastal Lebanon.¹² Yet the majority of petrographically studied CWJ in Egypt are from the Memphite area and date to either the 4^th Dynasty or the end of the 6^th Dynasty.

Fig. 1

Levantine Combed Ware Jars in the Levant and Egypt (plan: Martin Sauvage/ARCANE, amended by K. Sowada and C. Knoblauch. Used with permission).

The current study aims to correct this imbalance with a more representative dataset through the petrographic study of twelve CWJ from Abydos in Upper Egypt, where a large corpus of vessels was found in 6^th Dynasty contexts dating to the reigns of Pepi I, Merenre, and Pepi II. The study provides new data for defining the geographical scope, chronological trajectory, and organisation of Levantine–Egyptian trade from the early to late 6^th Dynasty.

Combed Ware at Abydos

Abydos is located in Sohag province, 400 km upstream of Cairo. The CWJ in this article were excavated by the University of Michigan from 1999 to 2022 in the ‘Middle Cemetery’ (AMC) (fig. 2).¹³ The area was used in the 6^th Dynasty by national elites aligned with the royal court at Memphis.¹⁴ The vessels come from three tombs belonging to successive generations of one family: Iww, a vizier who served Pepi I; his eldest son, Weni the Elder, the famous Old Kingdom official who served Teti, Pepi I, and Merenre; and Idi, a vizier and overseer of Egypt who lived into the first half of the reign of Pepi II and whose complex was probably connected to a niece of Weni’s.¹⁵ The tombs span three generations in the late 24^th to mid-23^rd centuries BCE and are contemporary with the EB IV or the Early Central Levant (ECL) 5–6, Early Northern Levant (ENL) 5 period as defined in the ARCANE chronology.¹⁶A minimum of 23 CWJ were recorded but taking non-joining diagnostic rims into consideration, the number was closer to 25 (table 1).¹⁷ Although none were found complete or in undisturbed contexts, the distribution of the sherds and physical distances between tombs mean attribution of vessels to tombs is unproblematic. Sherds were found in the main shafts and burial chambers; probably all vessels were grave goods placed on the floor of the burial chamber.¹⁸ Some vessels contained contents – oils/resins (e.g. fig. 14b).

Fig. 2

Plan of the Abydos Middle Cemetery (AMC), state of excavation 2022 (drawing: Geoffrey Compton, University of Michigan (UM) AMC Project).

Table 1.

Overview of CWJ in the Abydos Middle Cemetery, by tomb.

Tomb	Date	Min. Number of Vessels (probable)	Vessel Number – Sample name in brackets if sampled	Non-joining Diagnostics - Sample name in brackets if sampled	Number of Samples – Sample name in brackets
Iww	Pepi I	4 (5)	P19-58/59 (M), 67, 68; P09-71	P09-74, 75, 76, 78 (P19-28); P19-15 (G), 29; 59	2 (G, M)
Weni the Elder	Merenre	11 (13–14)	P19-1, 2 (B), 3 (C), 6, 11, 13 (U), 26, 38, 53 (J), 66(Q), 75/81/83/83 (S)	P12-23; P19-28, 47, 63/64; P22-21	6 (B, C, J, Q, S, U)
Idi	Pepi II	8 (9–10)	P19-5, 39, 40/41/42 (I), 57(L), 60 (N), 68, 70, 71	P09-131, P09-132, 133; P19-9 (E), 10, 48; P22-1,73, 79, 83, 84	4 (E, I, L, N)
Attribution unclear	6^th Dynasty	0 (1)		P19-4, 17, 32, 44, 48, 49, 70	0

The CWJ sherds belong to large jars 40–45 cm in height with flat bases and two vertical looped handles. Macroscopically using a 10x hand lens, the different fabrics were classified as deriving from one common non-Egyptian clay distinguished by limestone, brown to grey sub-rounded quartz sand, angular geode quartz, angular red-brown to light brown chert, and iron ooliths in a red-brown or pink groundmass.¹⁹ The vessels were fired hard and show a spectrum of surface colours, including grey, orange, pink, red, and brown. The vessel body was produced using coils joined by pinching. A turning device was used for the rim, neck and the combing. The base may have been made with a mould. The vessel interior was smoothed with a tool without wheel assistance. Two morphological groups can be discerned: shouldered vessels with a maximum diameter in the upper third of the vessel; and ovoid vessels with a point of maximum diameter near the middle of the vessel. The vessels have everted, folded rims.

A range of combing patterns were executed with different tools and gestures. Lighter horizontal combing, with or without irregular, thin horizontal bands of light vertical or oblique combing, is more common for the two youngest tombs and the most common surface treatment overall. The tomb of Iww shows more variety – it contained one example each of: horizontal combing with larger patches of superimposed oblique combing (fig. 9), cross combing (fig. 8), and long vertical strokes divided by horizontal lines (fig. 13). The latter occurs on a vessel with herringbone incisions on the shoulder and a raised collar around the neck. Three other vessels have a band of impressed faux-cord decoration around the neck (fig. 7). The corpus also includes 20 pot marks and most vessels were marked, on the vessel body or on the top of the handle and, in some cases, both. While the vessels show variation, a group of eight vessels from the tomb of Weni are noticeably more like one another – the so-called ‘Weni Group’ with similar red-brown fabric, rim and body morphology, traces of manufacture, surface treatment, and surface colour.²⁰ Four of these vessels also have the same potter’s mark (figs 6, 14, and below).

Petrographic Method and Sample List

Twelve vessels were chosen for thin-section petrography from across the corpus (Table 2, figs 3 –14; full details of each vessel are in Table 3; petrographic descriptions are in Table 4). The samples were selected as representative of the corpus within the resources available, and to investigate conformity and variation in the macroscopic appearance of fabrics, surface treatment, morphology, and pot marks. The twelve thin sections were made on-site at Abydos from 22 to 24 September 2022. The methods employed are those described in Ownby 2010.²¹ The in-field analysis with a petrographic microscope at 100x magnification followed standard procedures.²² For each section its colour in plane (PPL) and cross polarised (XPL) light was noted, an estimate was made for the frequency of inclusions relative to the clay matrix, and sorting of the inclusions was specified. The minerals identified were listed by those that represent the main inclusions, and those that are less common. For the inclusions, both their general shape and size range were noted. Finally, comments were made on the relationship between samples, technology of production, and potential provenance. All of the provenance assignments are postulated as the thin sections were not compared to ceramic raw materials or kiln material from known sites. Geological maps and some soil maps were consulted to arrive at the postulated provenance.²³

Table 2.

Sample list.

Sample # and AMCP Reg. #	Tomb	Petrofabric
[B] AMCP19-2/fig. 3	Weni	P202
[C] AMCP19-3/fig. 4	Weni	P200
[E] AMCP19-9/fig. 5	Idi	P200
[G] AMCP19-15/fig. 6	Iww	P200
[I] AMCP19-40/fig. 7	Idi	P200
[J] AMCP19-53/fig. 8	Weni	P201
[L] AMCP19-57/fig. 9	Idi	P200
[M] AMCP19-58/fig. 10	Iww	P200
[N] AMCP19-60/fig. 11	Idi	P200
[Q] AMCP19-66/fig. 12	Weni	P200
[S] AMCP19-75/fig. 13	Weni	P200
[U] AMCP19-13/fig. 14	Weni	P200

Fig. 3

a) AMCP19-2 Sample B (drawing: Christian Knoblauch, UM AMC Project); b) AMCP19-2 (photo: Ayman Damarany); c) AMCP19-2 sherd fracture (photo: Karin Sowada and Ayman Damarany).

Fig. 4

a) AMCP19-3 Sample C (drawing: Christian Knoblauch); b) AMCP19-3 pot mark (photo: Ayman Damarany); c) AMCP19-3 sherd fracture (photo: Karin Sowada and Ayman Damarany).

Fig. 5

a) AMCP19-9 Sample E (drawing: Christian Knoblauch); b) AMCP19-9 sherd fracture (photo: Karin Sowada).

Fig. 6

a) AMCP19-15 Sample G (photo: Ayman Damarany); b) AMCP19-15 sherd fracture (photo: Karin Sowada).

Fig. 7

a) AMCP19-40 Sample I (photo: Ayman Damarany); b) AMCP19-40 (photo: Karin Sowada).

Fig. 8

a) AMCP19-53 Sample J (photo: Ayman Damarany); b) AMCP19-53 (photo: Karin Sowada).

Fig. 9

a) AMCP19-57 Sample L (drawing: Christian Knoblauch); b) AMCP19-57 (photo: Ayman Damarany); c) AMCP19-57 sherd fracture (photo: Karin Sowada).

Fig. 10

a) AMCP19-58 Sample M (photo: Ayman Damarany); b) AMCP19-58 sherd fracture (photo: Karin Sowada).

Fig. 11

a) AMCP19-60 Sample N (drawing: Christian Knoblauch); b) AMCP19-60 sherd fracture (photo: Karin Sowada and Ayman Damarany).

Fig. 12

a) AMCP19-66 Sample Q (drawing: Christian Knoblauch); b) AMCP19-66 (photo: Ayman Damarany); c) AMCP19-66 sherd fracture (photo: Karin Sowada).

Fig. 13

a) AMCP19-75 Sample S (drawing: Christian Knoblauch); b) AMCP19-75 (photo: Ayman Damarany); c) AMCP19-75 sherd fracture (photo: Karin Sowada).

Fig. 14

a) AMCP19-13 Sample U (drawing: Christian Knoblauch); b) AMCP19-13 pot mark (photo: Ayman Damarany); c) AMCP19-13 sherd fracture (photo: Karin Sowada).

Table 3.

Macroscopic details of the sampled vessels.

Sample	Vessel Description
[B] AMCP19-2	AMC Unit 27 Level 3 Tomb of WeniBD (base diameter): 15 cmJoining fragments and loose sherds of a CWJ. Many base and lower body pieces; no handles or rim. Coil-made; base made in a mould. Heavy smoothing with fingers on interior. Exterior: uncoated, weak red 2.5YR 5/4. Wide (5 cm) light horizontal combing all over with sporadic short strokes of diagonal combing around middle. Possible remains of plaster stopper on neck now blacked with residue. White depositional artefact looks like paint but not. Burnt exterior. Extensive residues on many sherds and over the base. One body sherd with dark grey textile adhering to surface, with dark grey-black residue with glossy surface embedded with sub-rounded quartz sand; on another sherd this same residue is present without the textile. Same glossy black residue but without sand visible on other sherds. Thick (1–2 mm) dark grey residues coating the surface around the interior base; elsewhere a glossy black surface to matt dark grey surface residue. Moderate to hard firing.Medium-fine fabric, medium porosity. Medium hard to hard. Section/break: fine groundmass evenly fired dusky red 2.5YR 3/3. Very sandy fabric. Plenty sub-rounded translucent light brown quartz sand, most <0.5 mm, some up to 1.25 mm; micritic limestone, sporadic chert some pieces up to 1.5 mm, sporadic pieces of sub-rounded iron <1.5 mm, fine black stone <0.25 mm (shale?).WENI GROUP
[C] AMCP19-3	AMC Units 27/28/29 local eastern side of Tomb of WeniBD: 14 cm; MD (maximum diameter): 33 cm; preserved H (height): 40.5 cmSubstantial profile of a CWJ, including base, one handle, and body, no rim. Coil-made, base made in a mould. Interior wet-smoothed with tool; exterior with light horizontal combing. Pot mark to the left of handle, incised pre-firing over combing, two triangles joined together like a butterfly. Applied dot of clay placed where triangles meet. Surface pitting where inclusions have blown out during firing. Exterior: surface red 2.5YR 5/6 to weak red 10R 5/4. Imprints of a gypsum seal on shoulder with traces of a mud seal lower on shoulder. Grey-white accretions on surface. Could be depositional artefact. Interior coated with dark residues.Medium coarse fabric, hard fired. Porosity low. Section/break: two zoned break; exterior: 2.5YR 4/8 red; interior: 10YR 5/2 greyish brown; even.Well sorted with mostly fine inclusions and sporadic larger pieces. Inclusions: plenty angular light brown chert, mostly medium-sized pieces <0.5 mm up to <1 mm, sporadic medium sub-angular iron pieces <2 mm weathering out, translucent brown-grey sub-rounded quartz sand <0.5 mm, sporadic large angular (geode) quartz pieces <1 mm, micritic limestone, some finer pieces of dark stone <0.25 mm – shale?
[E] AMCP19-9	AMC Unit 3 Level 1, 2, 17 Tomb of Idi; old number P12-42BD: 14 cm; preserved H: 18 cmVery fragmentary CWJ, not much remaining – mended segment of lower body and part of base, handle (P19-10), other mended parts of the body and loose body sherds. No rim. Coil-made; base made in a mould. Interior wet-smoothed with a tool. Lower 11 cm of interior 10YR 8/3; above this 2.5YR 6/4–5/4. Exterior combed. Deep horizontal combing near base applied using a turning device. Above this a band of very faint vertical combing. The horizontal combing above the latter is light. Some faint oblique combing strokes on non-joining body sherds. Exterior surface 10R 6/6–6/8. Handle base (P19-10) has a pre-firing pot mark shaped like an elliptical depression.Medium coarse fabric. Section/break: uniform break 2.5YR 4/6, dark red; uneven. Porosity: low; hardness: soft. Inclusions: primary inclusion is plentiful grey, light brown, brown, and orange sub-rounded quartz sand <0.5 mm (2); frequent large sub-angular limestone pieces <3 mm (2); micritic limestone; sporadic large grey chert pieces <3 mm, smaller pieces also visible; sporadic sub-rounded iron pieces <0.5 mm; fine to medium-fine sand (2).
[G] AMCP19-15	AMC Unit 10 Level 5 Tomb of IwwTwo joining sherds with a pre-firing pot mark incised with a wide, flat-headed tool. Coil-made. Exterior combed horizontally with some noticeably light oblique combing. Interior wet-smoothed with tool. Exterior surface: 2.5YR 6/4 reddish brown; interior surface: 2.5YR 4/2 dusky red. Thick, dark residue on interior.Medium coarse fabric. Section/break: medium-fine silty fine groundmass evenly fired dusky red 2.5YR 3/3 in section, very sandy fabric doubtless the reason for ‘loose’ quality, moderate porosity and firing. Plenty sub-rounded translucent light brown quartz sand, most <0.5 mm, some up to 1.25 mm; micritic limestone; sporadic chert some pieces up to 1.5 mm; sporadic pieces of sub-rounded iron <1.5 mm; fine black stone <0.25 mm (shale?). WENI GROUP
[I] AMCP19-40, 41, 42	AMC Unit 3 Level 1, 17, 18 Tomb of IdiHandle stump, base of handle, and 44 body sherds from the same vessel. No rim present. A neck with incised ‘rope’ decoration (P19-41/P09-154) is certainly from the same vessel, as is a body sherd (P19-42) with a pot mark consisting of an applied button and shallow incisions. Exterior with light horizontal combing and bands of very faint vertical combing. Weak red 2.5YR 5/4. Interior: wet-smoothed with a tool, 7.5YR 7/4. Residues on interior: patchy thin film of grey-black residue, also visible on other sherds from this vessel. Medium coarse fabric. Low porosity, hard. Section/break: zoned break; exterior orange-red, interior dusky brown. Coarse angular chert (1–2); medium coarse white-yellow stone (1–2); fine to medium white-grey stones (2); fine to medium-fine sand (1–2).
[J] AMCP19-53	AMC Unit 27 East face of Tomb of WeniBody sherd and four additional sherds. Cross combing consists of vertical combing with horizontal combing over the top. Light combing only. Exterior surface 5YR6/4 light reddish brown. Unusual fabric. Hard fired, thin-walled and high tensile strength. Section/break: zoned break with three zones. Interior dark red-brown, occasional red core, interior red. Inclusions: iron-rich, fine inclusions quartz sand <0.5 mm but up to 1 mm (2), sporadic iron pieces <1 mm (1), geode quartz <1 mm, limestone <1 mm. No chert.
[L] AMCP19-57	AMC Unit 3 Level 1, 2, 17 Tomb of Idi. Old numbers: P09-132, 153BD: 12.5 cmFragments of a CWJ, part of mended base and mended sherds of one side including handle base, and thirteen non-joining body sherds. No rim. Vessel is coil-made. The exterior is horizontally combed with patches of oblique combing over the top of the horizontal combing. Combing gets deeper and more defined towards the base. Interior smoothed with a tool. An incised pot mark (P22-58) joins the body sherds at the height of the handle base. Firing uneven, surface red 10R 4/6 to light brown 7.5YR 6/4, with some fire clouds on surface. Some surface accretions, grey and cream coloured. Oily stain on exterior near base.
	Medium coarse fabric, medium hard. Section/break: zoned break with a layer of red near the exterior; interior grey. Inclusions: large limestone inclusions clearly visible in the surface. Quartz sand, brown/red colours <0.5 mm, sporadic iron ooliths <2 mm, conspicuous large limestone <3 to 4 mm, smaller limestone pieces, fine sub-angular black stone – shale?, geode quartz <1mm also some smaller fragments, small iron fragments <0.25mm. No chert.
[M] AMCP19-58/59	AMC Unit 10 L5, Feature 6 Tomb of IwwFragments of the body of a CWJ, some pieces mended, upper body and base missing. No rim. Coil-made, smoothing marks on interior. The exterior has distinctive cross combing on lower half; horizontal combing over vertical combing. The upper body has horizontal combing with some superimposed patches of oblique combing. Pot mark (P19-59) belongs to this vessel, incised pre-firing on the shoulder. Exterior surface 7.5YR 6/6 light brown. Interior surface deeply pitted, with weathering or corrosion. Traces of brown residue on parts of interior and exterior.Medium coarse fabric, medium hard. Section/break: uniform, brown, 7.5YR 4/4 – greyish brown 7.5YR 4.2. Inclusions: conspicuous rock pieces visible on surface, including black stone 3.5 mm, sub-angular limestone inclusions visible on the surface and in fracture, geode quartz <2 mm, sporadic weathered iron oxide <0.5 mm, light brown angular chert <1.0 mm, sub-rounded black stone <0.5 mm, larger flattish angular black stone pieces <2 mm shale?, translucent quartz sand <0.5 mm and smaller, same colours as before.
[N] AMCP19-60	AMC Unit 3 Levels 1 Tomb of IdiBD: 4.5 cm; RD (rim diameter): 14 cm; MD: 32.5 cm; H: 45 cmSubstantially complete CWJ, full profile present (only one handle remaining) in mended pieces. Coil-made, base made in a mould, rough smoothing marks on interior (almost scraped). Neck added to body very coarsely, evidence of use of turning device to smooth neck and rim. Wide horizontal combing (5 mm) on exterior, narrower toward the base. Sporadic diagonal/vertical combing on lower body. Exterior surface pale red to light red 10R 4/6–6/6, evenly fired all over body. Traces of plaster cap visible around neck. Creamy accretions on exterior, probably depositional artefact. The interior has light traces of glossy black residue adhering to walls of the lower base (seen with a lens).Medium coarse fabric: moderate to hard firing, carefully controlled. Section/break: orangey-red with dusky red core. Inclusions: moderately sorted with conspicuous inclusions visible in surface in a reddish groundmass include large grey and brown chert pieces <3 mm, sub-rounded limestone 4.0 mm, geode quartz <4 mm, sub-rounded iron pieces 2 mm, sub-angular black stone <2.0 mm, v. fine black stone, sub-rounded sand <0.5 mm but up to 1 mm, small iron pieces <0.0 cm
[Q] AMCP19-66	AMC Unit 27 Level 9, Units 28/29 Tomb of WeniBD: 13 cmFragments of a CWJ. Mended base, shoulder, and neck, small section of rim, assorted body sherds. No joints between neck and base. Thickened rim is unusual for this corpus. Coil-made; base made in a mould, smoothed interior surface, 2.5YR 2/2. Exterior with extremely pronounced horizontal combing, almost ribbing, 2.5YR 6/4–6/6. The interior and exterior are heavily encrusted with residues. On the base these are very thick with a smooth surface, with black glossy tar-like material underneath. ‘Bubbly’ surface. Different to granular material seen on other vessels.Medium coarse fabric. Section/break: red (5YR 3/3) with dusky red core. Well sorted and iron-rich. Very sandy fabric, many grains of translucent brown and red quartz sand, hardly any limestone, pieces of brown chert <1.5 cm, fine black stone <0.25 cm, angular fine geode quartz <0.5 mm, sporadic large iron ooliths <2 mm.
[S] AMCP19-75/81/83	AMC Unit 1 Level 1, Units 28/29 Tomb of WeniTwelve body sherds of a CWJ with unusual, combed decoration. Coil-made with wet-smoothed interior. Applied ridge at base of the exterior of the neck; below this, horizontal combing then a band of very coarse herringbone-pattern combing. Body sherds have long strokes of vertical or lightly oblique wide combing subdivided by well-spaced bands of horizontal combing. Exterior surface weak red 10R 5/4. Some sherds secondarily darkened/burnt. Medium coarse fabric. Hard fired. Section/break: orange brown with wide grey core. Inclusions: quartz sand <0.5 mm, large limestone <3 mm, chert 3 mm, small pieces of iron <0.5 mm but likely some larger ones too.
[U] AMCP19-13	AMC Unit 27 Level 4, Units 28/29 Tomb of WeniBD: 14.5 cm; RD: 12 cm; MD: 28 cm; H: 39.5 cmComplete profile of a CWJ, reconstructed from sherds. Coil-made; base made in a mould. Interior hand-smoothed, neck and rim smoothed on a turning device. Join to neck is extremely coarse. Exterior has wide horizontal combing with a few light traces of vertical combing. Pre-firing pot mark on shoulder incised with a wide, flat-headed tool. Two pot marks from the corpus (P19-14 and 15) were executed in the same hand and fabric. Uneven exterior colour, red 2.5YR 6/6. Residues and other depositional artefacts on exterior, including textile pieces. Clumps of blackish residue, flattish surface, underneath black glossy residue. Remains of a cap visible under the rim with oily-looking residue adhering to surface. Medium coarse fabric. Medium hard. Section/break: uniform dark red-brown. Inclusions: sandy fabric with plenty brown/light brown, grey translucent sub-rounded quartz sand <0.5 mm, grey chert pieces <1 mm, very sporadic limestone <1–0.75 mm; some large pieces sub-angular quartz 2 mm, fine black stone (shale?) <0.15 mm; sporadic iron pieces rounded <1 mm. Similar to fabric noted above on similar jars.WENI GROUP

Table 4.

Petrographic Data.

Sample	Frequency Inclusions	Sorting	Size	Shape	Firing Temp	Main	Other
[B]	30	Fair	V. fine to coarse	Ang–subround	800 °C	Quartz, micritic limestone, microfossils, iron oxides	Chalcedony, clay pellets (terra rossa), opaques
[C]	30	Fair	V. fine to v. coarse	Ang–subround	800 °C–850 °C	Quartz, micritic limestone, chert, iron oxides	Plagioclase, chalcedony, geode quartz, clay pellets (terra rossa), iron-rich oolites, opaques, calcite, sparry limestone, microfossils
[E]	30	Fair	V. fine to v. coarse	Ang–subround	800 °C–850 °C	Quartz, foraminiferous limestone (circular microfossils), chert, iron oxides	Plagioclase, chalcedony, geode quartz, micritic limestone, microfossils
[G]	30	Fair	V. fine to coarse	Ang–subround	800 °C–850 °C	Quartz, micritic limestone, chert, iron oxides	Plagioclase, chalcedony, geode quartz, clay pellets (terra rossa), opaques, iron-rich oolite, microfossils
[I]	30	Fair	V. fine to v. coarse	Ang–subround	800 °C–850 °C	Quartz, micritic limestone, chert, iron oxides	Plagioclase, chalcedony, geode quartz, clay pellets (terra rossa), opaques
[J]	30	Fair	V. fine to coarse	Ang–subround	800 °C–850 °C	Quartz, micritic limestone, iron oxides	Microfossils, opaques, pyroxene?
[L]	30	Fair	V. fine to v. coarse	Ang–subround	800 °C–850 °C	Quartz, micritic limestone, chert, iron oxides	Plagioclase, chalcedony, geode quartz, ARF, opaques
[M]	30	Fair	V. fine to coarse	Ang–subround	800 °C–850 °C	Quartz, micritic limestone, iron oxides, opaques	Chert, plagioclase, chalcedony, geode quartz, clay pellets (terra rossa)
[N]	30	Fair	V. fine to v. coarse	Ang–subround	800 °C–850 °C	Quartz, micritic limestone, chert, iron oxides	Plagioclase, chalcedony, geode quartz, clay pellets (terra rossa), opaques, dolomite, microfossils
[Q]	30	Fair	V. fine to coarse	Ang–subround	800 °C–850 °C	Quartz, foraminiferous limestone (some with very fine glauconite), chert, iron oxides	Chalcedony, geode quartz, clay pellets (terra rossa), opaques, microfossils, micritic limestone, calcite, iron-rich oolites, glauconite
[S]	30	Fair	V. fine to v. coarse	Ang–subround	800 °C–850 °C	Quartz, micritic limestone, chert, iron oxides	Plagioclase, chalcedony, geode quartz, clay pellets (terra rossa), ARF, opaques, microfossils, foraminiferous limestone, iron-rich oolite, glauconite
[U]	20	Fair	V. fine to v. coarse	Ang–subround	800 °C–850 °C	Quartz, micritic limestone, chert, iron oxides	Plagioclase, chalcedony, geode quartz, clay pellets (terra rossa), opaques, microfossils, calcareous sandstone (with calcite and rare quartz), iron-rich oolite

Results

The petrographic analysis revealed that all twelve samples were produced with a related set of raw materials. As they were comparable to the CWJ imported fabrics identified at Giza, those petrographic groups are employed here to classify the samples.²⁴ It was not possible to take images of the Abydos thin sections, but they are comparable to published photos from the Giza corpus, which can be linked through the petrofabric groups.

The largest number of samples, ten, belonged to the iron-rich and calcareous Chert Petrofabric P200. The clay could be rendzina, a soil developed in the Levant on limestone formations.²⁵ Inclusions of quartz, micritic limestone, and chert are common, while chalcedony, geode quartz, dolomite, and pellets of terra rossa (an iron-rich soil) are rare. These inclusions may represent sand temper, but it is difficult to know how the secondary clay deposits from the erosion of limestone, iron-rich deposits, and sandstone could form. A few notable inclusions provide more detail on the geological formations that were the source of the raw materials. For example, Sample C has a few iron-rich oolites with very fine quartz inclusions that are characteristic of the Lower Cretaceous Chouf Sandstone deposit.²⁶ Sample E has foraminiferous limestone inclusions with microfossils that may be Orbulina sp. or Orbulinoides sp. Similar inclusions are in Sample Q, but some of the foraminiferous limestone also contains fine-sized glauconite. The latter are also frequent in the paste and up to medium in size. Sample U has a single fragment of calcareous sandstone comprised mostly of fine-sized calcite and a few fine-sized quartz grains. One sherd, Sample M, within this group has mostly fine-sized grains, suggesting temper was not added.

Two samples did not belong to this group. Sample J has a paste that is more similar to Petrofabric P201, iron-rich, less calcareous, with no chert. The clay contains rare microfossils and common quartz, some up to sand size that could suggest temper. These larger inclusions make the sample distinct from the Giza sherds in Petrofabric P201, relating it more closely to the other Abydos P200 fabric samples. Sample B has common microfossils that make it closer in appearance to Petrofabric P202, calcareous, less iron-rich, with foraminifera. Quartz sand and micritic limestone are also in the paste but chert is absent. The overall appearance is similar to Petrofabric P200 with the common quartz sand (possibly added), but the lack of chert and frequent microfossils (possibly Orbulina sp., Globigerinidae sp., and Globorotalia sp.) make this sample distinct. The presence of sand indicates the sherd is not identical to the Giza P202 samples.

Discussion

Origin of the Abydos jars

The petrographic analysis of twelve samples from 6^th Dynasty tombs at Abydos connects this material to earlier imported combed jars found in Egypt. The majority were of a similar iron-rich and calcareous fabric previously identified at Giza for ECL 4/EBA IIIB CWJ imported in the 4^th Dynasty. The two samples not of this fabric were also similar to those at Giza and clearly part of the same raw material source utilised for all of the CWJ from Abydos and Giza²⁷ and 6^th Dynasty Abusir.²⁸ The latter six CWJ were all assigned to the P200 Petrofabric. Slight differences among this material probably represent the natural variability of the clay deposit exploited for these CWJ over the centuries. Alternatively, they may indicate some new clay resources that were utilised but still within the general geological origin of the previous clay deposits.

As noted for those studies, the features of the paste and inclusions suggest the raw materials were acquired from outcrops of Lower Cretaceous and Upper Cretaceous formations. The former are more iron-rich and sandy, while the latter are more calcareous and can contain chert, chalcedony, and geode quartz.²⁹ Although these formations are prevalent throughout the Levantine area, they crop out most clearly in association along the Lebanese coast, particularly between Beirut and Tripoli.³⁰ Rendzina soil produced from the erosion of these formations is common in the general region.³¹ The paste appearance of the main group of CWJ sherds analysed here is also similar to some of the petrofabrics for such vessels at sites along the Lebanese coast including Byblos, Fadous Kfarabida, and Koubba.³² Chemical data indicates that Byblos in particular may be a source for the Giza jars, and the petrographic similarities with the Abydos material could indicate that area was a source as well.

The petrography results are supported by analysis of vessel morphology and surface treatment, although much of the Lebanese evidence is from the ECL3-4/EBIII and not the ECL 5-6/EBIV, which until now has been represented by only a few excavated sites like Tell Arqa.³³ Pottery vessels with a combed surface were produced over a wide area of the southern, central, and northern Levant during the late fourth and third millennia BCE, but the production of slender loop-handled CWJ of the shape studied here was typical for the central and northern Levant.³⁴ The core production area in the ECL 3-4/EB III was the southern Lebanese coast (Tyre, Sidon, Nahr Damour), central coastal Lebanon (Beirut, Byblos, Fadous Kfarabida, Koubba, Anfeh), the Akkar plain in northern Lebanon (Tell Arqa), the Lebanese mountains, and the Bekaa valley (see fig. 1). The northernmost sites with locally produced CWJ are coastal Syria (Ras Shamra/Ugarit and Sianu). The southernmost were produced in upper Galilee (Tell Dan) and the northern Transjordanian plateau (Khirbet Zaraqon),³⁵ but the production of CWJ at these southern sites did not continue into the later ECL3-4/EBIII or ECL4-6/EBIV, the period contemporary with the later Old Kingdom. Based on the petrography, sites on the central Lebanese coast are likely sources, and of these Byblos is the only one with clear archaeological evidence for ECL 5/EBIV(a) occupation.

Thus, the CWJ from the three Abydos tombs, covering the reigns of Pepi I, Merenre, and Pepi II, provide further support for the hypothesis that commerce for commodities contained in such jars was almost exclusively with a limited area in Lebanon lying between Beirut and Tripoli. The 4^th Dynasty Giza jars were identified as deriving from Lebanon as well. In fact, all these CWJ samples continue an earlier tradition of imported vessels from Lebanon produced of Lower Cretaceous material that goes back to Tomb U-j at Abydos, 1^st Dynasty jugs from Abu Rawash, and jugs from 2^nd Dynasty Helwan.³⁶

Production and supply

As noted above, eight vessels from the tomb of Weni are similar in terms of paste, morphology, and surface treatment, as well as surface colour (the so-called ‘Weni Group’). The three vessels of this group subjected to petrographic analysis were all Petrofabric P200 (B, Q, U) and were probably produced in a single workshop, possibly at the same time. One sampled Weni Group vessel (U) also had a complex pot mark incised on the shoulder. The same mark occurs on three other Weni Group vessels.³⁷ This pot mark is also found on a vessel from the tomb of Iww (Pepi I) and a vessel from Saqqara dating to the reign of Pepi II.³⁸ Although a recent study of pot marks on CWJ found in Egypt concluded their function was unclear and possibly decorative,³⁹ the prevalence of the one pot mark in Egypt but across three generations and on multiple, similar vessels from a single tomb is suggestive. We propose that the mark was used in a single workshop to distinguish specific pottery batches with certain properties produced on demand to fill an order for Egyptian trade. This interpretation supports claims that the production of CWJ for export to Egypt was a specialised product of specialised workshops.⁴⁰

However, two-thirds of the Weni pottery did not have this mark and although each vessel was probably marked, the remainder of the marks occur only once. Moreover, while there is a basic similarity in the vessel shape and size of the CWJ, the remainder of the Abydos corpus does not belong to the Weni Group and similarity should not be confused with standardisation. There is variation in the preparation of the pastes, and the morphology of the body and aperture, the style of combing, and the tools used to execute them also show variation.⁴¹ As combing was related to the manufacturing process and not simply a decorative device,⁴² this strongly suggests that the Abydos CWJ exhibit a number of different work processes indicative of production by related but distinct communities of practice, presumably organised along workshop lines. That these differences do not necessarily relate to geographical differences is clear from a recent survey that found no evidence for spatial clustering of different combing motifs during ECL 3–4/EBIII.⁴³ These workshops might all have been at Byblos, which was the only large urban centre in the geological area and was large enough to support more than one workshop. Equally, workshops may have been located near smaller sites in coastal Lebanon, thus far superficially explored (i.e. Beirut, Koubba II, Anfeh). Earlier ECL3–4/EBIII Fadous Kfarabida is one such site,⁴⁴ where processing and intermediary storage of produce (probably olive oil) for eventual delivery to Byblos is attested.⁴⁵

Some of the observed petrographic and stylistic differences are of chronological importance. The fabric variant P201 occurs only once for a vessel (fig. 8) with cross-combed surface, a surface treatment that appears to have largely disappeared in ECL 4–5/EBIV, at least at Tell Arqa, where reliable quantification of stratified layers according to decoration took place.⁴⁶ As such, it is plausible that older vessels already in circulation were procured to meet the requirements or shortfalls of specific orders, leading to the mixture of old and new vessels observed in some cases.⁴⁷ Whether different fabrics, vessel types, and sizes relate to the identity of the contents is hitherto unknown but will be examined in a future scientific study.

Egypt and Lebanon in the late Old Kingdom

That the Abusir and, now, Abydos CWJ are confirmed genuine imports means that there was no proven Egyptian production of CWJ during the 6^th Dynasty as previously believed.⁴⁸ Petrographic, and ideally chemical, testing is required before accepting ‘imitations’ at face value. More importantly, the results here enable a re-evaluation of the model for the intensity and scale of Old Kingdom–Levantine trade, insofar as this is based on the quantification of CWJ in Egypt. Previously, the majority of CWJ in Egypt dated to the 4^th and 5^th Dynasties, followed by a decline in quantity in the 6^th Dynasty.⁴⁹ However, with the addition of the Abusir and now the Abydos assemblages, the 6^th Dynasty corpus⁵⁰ is greater than both the 4^th and 5^th Dynasties individually, which combined have a total only marginally in excess of the 6^th Dynasty total. Trade expeditions to Lebanon must have been a regular occurrence throughout the 6^th Dynasty, judging by the chronological distribution of Egyptian tombs containing imported pottery, even allowing for a delay from the date of import to their final deposition.

This picture of intensive and frequent foreign trade in the 6^th Dynasty is demonstrated by the biographical inscription of the seal-bearer of the god Iny,⁵¹ who claims to have visited ḫnty-š (i.e. Lebanon)⁵² five times during the reigns of Pepi I and Pepi II, and Byblos (kbn) in the reign of Merenre, returning from Byblos with Byblos ships, lapis-lazuli, lead or tin, silver, and sfṯ, one of the ‘seven sacred oils’ used in mummification, here determined with a two-handled jar.⁵³ The character and scale of the liquids trade in the 6^th Dynasty indicated by the petrographic study of the Abydos CWJ is therefore fully supported by contemporary textual evidence. In the same direction, there is an increase in the number of Egyptian artefacts at Byblos in the later Old Kingdom, including some bearing the names of 6^th Dynasty kings that were royal donations to the temple of Ba’alat Gebal, a goddess identified by the Egyptians with Hathor Mistress of Byblos, and a place where Egyptian and Byblite religious interests merged during this period.⁵⁴ The concentration of Egyptian objects in this temple and its neighbourhood marks it as a focal point for Egyptian–Byblite interaction and, arguably, the temple played an important mediating role in diplomatic and commercial relations between Egypt and the different groups who provided products, and benefited from Egyptian trade.⁵⁵

Conclusion

The petrographic data from three generations of Abydos tombs support the argument that the oils and liquids trade that supplied the Egyptian court throughout the Old Kingdom (ECL 3–6/EBIII–IV) was principally with the Lebanese coast, with the majority, if not all, probably originating in the vicinity of Byblos and its hinterland. Combined analysis demonstrates that a more narrow and specific set of raw materials were selected to produce CWJ over time and we identified a group of petrographically similar vessels produced in a single workshop, presumably for the Egyptian trade. This evidence for increased specialisation in CWJ production attests to the importance of foreign trade to local economies, social organisation, and social hierarchies. It belongs to a longer-term process of bringing pottery production underpinning foreign and interregional trade under the centralised control of coastal polities such as Byblos. It is certainly possible, as argued elsewhere, that Egyptian negotiation also played a significant role in the emergence of the CWJ export ‘brand’.

The remainder of the Abydos CWJ showed some variation that needs further investigation, both in Lebanon and with residue analysis in Egypt. Preliminarily, we suggest that there were both fixed and flexible strategies for filling trade orders, including specialised production across different workshops directly or indirectly under the influence of Byblos and the procurement of older vessels already in circulation. As such, there was no effort to completely standardise CWJ, as one might expect if a single authority or institution tried to systemise trade.⁵⁶ This might point to different networks at Byblos and its hinterland responsible for organising the supply of jars and their contents that were ultimately channelled through the port at Byblos to Egypt. Such networks are visible in the Ebla texts. This now presents an alternative scenario to one that treats Byblos as a single entity when considering its role in EBA interregional trade and relations.⁵⁷ Finally, the confirmation that large quantities of ECL 4–5/EBIV CWJ in a provincial cemetery in Upper Egypt are genuine imports also provides strong archaeological evidence for the claim that Egyptian foreign expeditions for liquids, and presumably other materials such as silver, lapis, and wood, must have been relatively frequent throughout the early to mid-6^th Dynasty, continuing into the first half of the long reign of Pepi II.

Combined with other contemporary evidence for interactions from both Egypt and Byblos, it appears that the 6^th Dynasty could be described as a period of intensive Egyptian–Byblite contact and trade volume.⁵⁸ Indeed, the period of the second half of the third millennium witnessed the broad intensification of exchange networks across western Asia. Yet it must be remembered that relations with the Levant during the third millennium were probably an unfolding story. The paucity of written evidence for Egyptian–Levantine trade relations between the early Old Kingdom and the late Old Kingdom – such as biographies – must be acknowledged. In addition, the emergence of Hathor as a ‘patron’ of expeditions and her veneration by Pepi I probably saw an increase in offerings at the Byblos Ba’alat Gebal temple, reflecting a shifting relationship with Byblos and its elites, rather than solely an increase in expeditionary activity. What can be said of the Abydos Middle Cemetery and imports found in Upper Egypt during the late Old Kingdom is that regional elites had access to the products of royal expeditions, and, as with the career of Weni himself, may have exerted more control over the rewards.

Footnotes

Funding

The University of Michigan AMC Project operates with the kind permission of the Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities, Egypt. Support for this research has included the University of Michigan, the National Geographic Society, the American Research Center in Egypt Antiquities Endowment Fund, the Shelby White and Leon Levy Program for Archaeological Publications, and Marjorie M. Fisher. The contribution of Karin Sowada and Mary Ownby was supported by Australian Research Council Future Fellowship FT170100288 ‘Pyramids, power and the dynamics of states in crisis’.

ORCID iD

Christian Knoblauch

1.

Sowada, et al. 2023. Identifying the original contents of the jars is problematic, because many were probably re-used more than once on arrival in Egypt. For CWJ, Hennessy 1967; Helck 1971: 28–37; Esse and Hopke 1986; Sowada 2009: 154–182; Thalmann and Sowada 2014: 369; : 61, 63–64.

2.

Sowada and Ownby in press; .

3.

Sowada, Ownby, and Wodzinska 2020: Fig. 2c from Abydos tomb U-y, dated to early Naqada IIIB; Petrie 1902: pl. 8:6; imports of the Early Dynastic Period are discussed in Sowada, et al. 2021; Hartung, et al. 2015; ; Hartung, Ownby, and Sowada 2022.

4.

Thalmann and Sowada 2014: 371, .

5.

Sowada, Ownby, and Bárta 2021; .

6.

Thalmann and Sowada 2014: 370–371; Sowada 2009: 154–180; Köhler 1998: pl. 68:9, 73:12; Sowada, et al. 2021. CWJ sherds were recently identified by Sowada at Dendera in the late Old Kingdom cemetery: Sowada pers. comm. 17 May 2024.

7.

Davies 1902: 13, pl. XIII; Kanawati, et al. 2013. For the identification of sft, Kemna 2018. On importing sft-oil, : 576, 582, 601–602.

8.

Sowada, et al. 2023.

9.

Sowada, et al. 2020: .

10.

: 154–155.

11.

Morphology: Reisner and Smith 1955: 75; Hennessy 1967: 83–84; Stager 1992: 38; seal impressions: Mazzoni 1985; surface treatment: Sowada 2009: 154–155; Hennessy 1967: 84; Esse 1991: 109–114; Eliyahu-Behar, et al. 2016.

12.

Badreshany, et al. 2019; Badreshany, et al. 2022; Sowada, et al. 2020; Sowada, Ownby, and Bárta 2021. A neutron activation analysis (NAA) grouped CWJ samples from Giza with material from the southern Levant as well as Byblos; however, the data and methods precluded certainty; Esse and Hopke 1986; : 173–175; de Miroschedji 2021: 63. A PIXE-PIGME study by Peter Grave in Sowada 2009 examined Giza material alongside CWJ sherds from Byblos and the southern Levant. The results identified clear trace element differences between these regions, and two fabric groups from the Byblos area, now understood as Fabric P200, and P201–P202.

13.

Janet Richards, Director. The CWJ corpus was examined from 2012 to 2021 with petrographic analysis by Mary Ownby in 2022. Intense cataloguing in 2018 to 2022 was by Christian Knoblauch and Karin Sowada. Detailed observations were made about the total number of vessels, manufacturing techniques, surface finish (including combing type), firing, pot marks, and morphology. The fabrics of each vessel were examined on a fresh break under a 10x hand lens, noting the hardness, porosity, and colour (with Munsell readings). Detailed descriptions of the fabric for each identified vessel were completed, noting groundmass colour, nature, frequency, and nature and size of inclusions (e.g. ). Fresh sections of sherds were photographed.

14.

Richards 2004; Richards 2007; Herbich and Richards 2005; Richards 2010; .

15.

Knoblauch in press; for the family of Iww, see .

16.

For EBA synchronisms between Egypt and the Levant, see Sowada, Ownby, Smythe, et al. 2021; see Lebeau and de Miroschedji 2014 for the ARCANE chronologies of early third millennium BCE Western Asia.

17.

The confirmed number of vessels is the absolute minimum number of vessels determined by counting the number of well-preserved bodies.

18.

Bárta 2009: 243, 261; Sowada, et al. 2023.

19.

Different pastes were identified based on the quantity and size of the quartz, and the fineness of the fabric and the presence or absence of white veins in the break (Fabrics 1, 2, 3a, 3b, 4, 5).

20.

Vessels AMCP19-2; AMCP19-3; AMCP19-6; AMCP19-11; AMCP19-13; AMCP19-14/P12-23; AMCP19-16/P12-39; P19-66.

21.

Ownby in Kemp, et al. 2010: 24.

22.

23.

Bartov 1994; Beydoun 1977; .

24.

Sowada, et al. 2020. The ‘P’ designation for the fabrics belongs to the Vienna System and was determined following discussions with David Aston, Barbara Aston, and Carla Gallorini.

25.

26.

: 322–335.

27.

Sowada et al. 2020. See also .

28.

Sowada, Ownby, and Bárta 2021.

29.

: 322–335.

30.

Dubertret 1945; .

31.

32.

Badreshany, et al. 2019: 31–32; Badreshany, et al. 2022.

33.

34.

Greenberg and Porat 1996; de Miroschedji 2021: 63; : 260.

35.

Tumolo and Badreshany 2023: fig. 5: Kc. Further south, Pierre de Miroschedji has demonstrated that combed jars, while related to the wider region, belong to a separate and distinct ceramic repertoire of the southern Levant: .

36.

Hartung, et al. 2015; Köhler and Ownby 2011; Sowada, Ownby, Smythe, et al. 2021.

37.

AMCP19-14/P12-23; AMCP19-1.

38.

: 25 fig. 25.

39.

: 259.

40.

Sowada, et al. 2023: 291. The hand-coiling technique also sets the CWJ industry apart from contemporary production. The belief that EBIV CWJ from Arqa was wheel-coiled contradicts the final site report – i.e. Thalmann 2006: 125. For the chaîne opératoire of EBIV at Arqa, see Roux 2013; Thalmann and Roux 2016; : 368–369.

41.

E.g. Fabric P202, which occurs only once with a very large vessel with unusual profile and pot mark. It is clearly not from the Weni Group workshop.

42.

43.

Badreshany, et al. 2019.

44.

48.

See Sowada, Ownby, and Bárta 2021 revising the earlier study; Ballas jar published in Sowada 2011, now also revised as a genuine import in the above-mentioned publication. For a lone Egyptian copy of a CWJ, see .

49.

Sowada 2009; Helck 1971; . The quantitative preponderance of CWJ in the earlier Old Kingdom was probably due to the intensive and well-documented excavations in the Memphite region relative to the provinces where many elites were buried in the later Old Kingdom.

50.

Abydos (n=21+), Abusir (n=10), Giza (n=10), Saqqara (n=2), and Elephantine (sherds).

51.

Marcolin 2006; Marcolin and Diego Espinel 2011; .

52.

and literature cited there.

53.

Most recently Rageot, et al. 2023: 292 and literature cited there.

54.

: 108–109.

55.

Diego Espinel 2012: 12; Marcolin and Diego Espinel 2011; : 120.

56.

Definition of standardisation in : 19–22.

57.

Biga and Steinkeller 2021; see also : 113–114, n. 44.

58.

This model of a close relationship between Byblos and Egypt during the 6^th Dynasty fits the relationship of DUlu and Dugurasu in the Ebla archive and supports the identification of these toponyms with Byblos and Egypt; see Biga and Steinkeller 2021; .

Author biographies

Christian Knoblauch is a specialist in the archaeology of Egypt and the Sudan and has conducted fieldwork at Abydos for over 20 years. He has a PhD from Macquarie University, Sydney, and is a Senior Lecturer at Swansea University, Wales.

Mary Ownby has a PhD from Cambridge University, UK, in Archaeology; an MSc in Archaeological Analysis of Artefacts from University College London; an MA in Egyptian Archaeology from the University of California, Berkeley; and a BA in Anthropology from the University of Arizona. She has conducted scientific study of artefacts, mostly ceramics, for the past 20 years. Dr Ownby’s research focus is on potting communities, technological traditions, intercultural interaction, and economic systems.

Karin Sowada specialises in the archaeology of relations between Egypt and the eastern Mediterranean during the Bronze Age. She holds a PhD from Sydney University, and is an academic faculty member at Macquarie University, Sydney. Karin has worked extensively at sites and on material in museums across the region. Recent research has involved using scientific methods to track the movement of ceramics and raw materials, to map trade routes and cultural entanglement.

References

Badreshany

Genz

2009. Pottery production on the northern Lebanese coast during the Early Bronze Age II–III: The petrographic analysis of the ceramics from Tell Fadous-Kfarabida, BASOR 355: 51–83.

Badreshany

Philip

Kennedy

2019. The development of integrated regional economies in the Early Bronze Age Levant: New evidence from ‘Combed Ware’ jars, Levant 52(1–2): 1–37.

Badreshany

Sowada

Ownby

Jean

De Vreeze

McClymont

Philip

2022. The characterisation of ceramic production from the central Levant and Egyptian trade in the Pyramid Age, Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 41: article no. 103309. doi: 10.1016/j.jasrep.2021.103309.

Bárta

2009. Abusir XIII. Tomb Complex of the Vizier Qar, His Sons Qar Junior and Senedjemib and Iykai. Prague.

Bartov

1994. Geological Photomap of Israel & Adjacent Areas: Scale 1: 750 000. Jerusalem.

Beydoun

Z. R.

1977. The Levantine countries: The geology of Syria and Lebanon (maritime regions). In: Nairn

A. E. M.

Kanes

W. H.

Stehli

F. G.

(eds), The Ocean Basins and Margins. 4A: The Eastern Mediterranean. New York, London: 319–353.

Biga

M. G.

2023. The relationships between Egypt and Syria in the 24th century BCE according to the texts of the city of Ebla, Syria, Journal of Ancient Egyptian Interconnections 37: 71–84.

Biga

M. G.

Steinkeller

2021. In search of Dugurasu, Journal of Cuneiform Studies 73: 9–70.

Bogdanov

2019. The Old Kingdom evidence on the toponym xntj-S ‘Lebanon’, Ä&L 29: 125–148.

10.

Bogdanov

2020. Descendants of Vizier jww I in Abydos in the Early First Intermediate Period. Part II. Genealogy (in Russian), Vestnik drevnei istorii 80: 871–895.

11.

Davies

N. d. G.

1902. The Rock Tombs of Deir el Gebrâwi. EES ASM 12. London.

12.

de Miroschedji

2021. On Early Bronze Age Levantine combed vessels: The view from the south, Levant 53: 30–68.

13.

Diego Espinel

2002. The role of the temple of Ba’alat Gebal as intermediary between Egypt and Byblos during the Old Kingdom, SAK 30: 103–119.

14.

Diego Espinel

2012. Egypt and the Levant during the Old Kingdom, Aula Orientalis 30: 359–367.

15.

Dubertret

1945. Carte géologique au 50.000e Feuille de Beyrouth. Beirut.

16.

Dubertret

1962. Liban, Syrie et bordure des pays voisins. Paris.

17.

Eliyahu-Behar

Shai

Regev

Ben-Shlomo

Albaz

Maeir

A. M.

Greenfield

H. J.

2016. Early Bronze Age pottery covered with lime-plaster: Technological observations, Tel Aviv 43(1): 27–42. doi: 10.1080/03344355.2016.1161373.

18.

El Shazly

E. M.

1977. The geology of the Egyptian region. In: Nairn

A. E. M.

Kanes

W. H.

Stehli

F. G.

(eds), The Ocean Basins and Margins. 4A: The Eastern Mediterranean. New York, London: 379–444.

19.

Esse

Hopke

1986. Levantine trade in the Early Bronze Age: From pots to people. In: Olin

J. S.

Blackman

M. J.

(eds), Proceedings of the 24th International Archaeometry Symposium. Washington DC: 327–339.

20.

Esse

D. E.

1991. Subsistence, Trade, and Social Change in Early Bronze Age Palestine. SAOC 50. Chicago.

21.

Genz

2010. Reflections on the Early Bronze Age IV in Lebanon. In: Matthiae

Pinnock

Nigro

Marchetti

(eds), Proceedings of the 6th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East. Wiesbaden: 205–217.

22.

Genz

Ahrens

2023. In the shadow of Byblos: The Early Bronze Age Aegyptiaca from Tell Fadous-Kfarabida, Journal of Ancient Egyptian Interconnections 37: 135–152.

23.

Genz

Çakirlar

Damick

Jastrzebska

Riehl

Deckers

Donkin

2009. Excavations at Tell Fadous-Kfarabida: Preliminary report on the 2009 season of excavations, Bulletin d’archéologie et d’architecture libanaises 13: 71–123.

24.

Greenberg

Porat

1996. A third millennium Levantine pottery production center: Typology, petrography, and provenance of the metallic ware of northern Israel and adjacent regions, BASOR 301: 5–24.

25.

Hartung

Köhler

E. C.

Müller

Ownby

M. F.

2015. Imported pottery from Abydos: A new petrographic perspective, Ä&L 25: 295–333.

26.

Helck

1971. Die Beziehungen Ägyptens zu Vorderasien im 3. und 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr. ÄA 5. Wiesbaden.

27.

Hennessy

J. B.

1967. The Foreign Relations of Palestine During the Early Bronze Age. London.

28.

Herbich

Richards

2005. The loss and rediscovery of the Vizier Iuu at Abydos: Magnetic survey in the Middle Cemetery. In: Czerny

Hein

Hunger

Melman

Schwab

(eds), Timelines: Studies in Honour of Manfred Bietak. OLA 49. Leuven: 141–149.

29.

Ilaiwi

1985. Soil Map of Arab Countries: Soil Map of Syria and Lebanon. Damascus.

30.

Jean

2018. Pottery production at Tell Arqa (Lebanon) during the 3rd millennium BC: Preliminary results of petrographic analysis, Levant: 52(1–2): 160–196. doi: 10.1080/00758914.2018.1454239.

31.

Jéquier

1929. Tombeaux de Particuliers Contemporains de Pepi II. Cairo.

32.

Kanawati

Alexakis

Ikram

McFarlane

Schultz

Shafik

Thompson

Victor

Walker

2013. Deir el-Gebrawi. III: The Southern Cliff: The Tomb of Djau/Shemai and Djau. ACE Reports. Oxford.

33.

Kemna

C. M.

2018. Im Schatten der Zeder: eine kulturübergreifende Spurensuche zu Identität und kultischer Verwendung des ʿš Baumes. GM Occasional Studies 4. Göttingen.

34.

Kemp

Blanke

Ownby

Pyke

Rose

Shepperson

Stevens

Wetzel

M. K.

Zabecki

2010. Tell el-Amarna, 2010, JEA 96: 1–29.

35.

Knoblauch

In press. A new chronology for the Abydos Middle Cemetery from the late Old Kingdom to the Early Middle Kingdom. In: Pillon

(ed.), FIP Chronologies and Contexts. BdE. Cairo.

36.

Knoblauch

C. M.

2010. Preliminary report on the Early Bronze Age III pottery from contexts of the 6^th Dynasty in the Abydos Middle Cemetery, Ä&L 20: 243–261.

37.

Köhler

E. C.

1998. Tell el-Far^cîn: - Buto III. Die Keramik von der späten Naqada-Kultur bis zum frühen Alten Reich. AVDAIK 94. Mainz am Rhein.

38.

Köhler

E. C.

Ownby

2011. Levantine imports and their imitations from Helwan, Ä&L 21: 31–46.

39.

Köhler

E. C.

Thalmann

J.-P.

2014. Synchronising early Egyptian chronologies and the northern Levant. In: Eichmann

Höflmayer

(eds.), Egypt and the Southern Levant in the Early Bronze Age. Rahden: 181–206.

40.

Marcolin

2006. Iny, a much-traveled official of the Sixth Dynasty: Unpublished reliefs in Japan. In: Bárta

Coppens

Krejčí

(eds), Abusir and Saqqara in the Year 2005: Proceedings of the Conference held in Prague (June 27– July 5, 2005). Prague: 282–310.

41.

Marcolin

Diego Espinel

2011. The Sixth Dynasty biographic inscription of Iny: More pieces to the puzzle. In: Bárta

Coppens

Krejčí

(eds), Abusir and Saqqara in the Year 2010. Prague: 570–615.

42.

Mazzoni

1985. Giza ed una produzione vascolare di Biblo. In: Bondì

S. F.

Pernigotti

Serra

Vivian

(eds), Studi in onore di Edda Bresciani. Pisa: 317–338.

43.

Ownby

M. F.

2010. Canaanite Jars from Memphis as Evidence for Trade and Political Relationships in the Middle Bronze Age. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Cambridge.

44.

Peršin

2023. Applied potmarks between Lebanon and Egypt in the Early Bronze Age, Journal of Ancient Egyptian Interconnections 37: 253–262.

45.

Petrie

W. M. F.

1902. Abydos I. MEEF 22. London.

46.

Rageot

Hussein

R. B.

Beck

Altmann-Wendling

Ibrahim

M. I. M.

Bahgat

M. M.

Yousef

A. M.

Mittelstaedt

Filippi

J.-J.

Buckley

Spiteri

Stockhammer

P. W.

2023. Biomolecular analyses enable new insights into ancient Egyptian embalming, Nature 614: 287–293.

47.

Reedy

C. L.

2008. Thin-section Petrography of Stone and Ceramic Cultural Materials. London.

48.

Reisner

Smith

W. S.

1955. A History of the Giza Necropolis II: The Tomb of Hetep-Heres the Mother of Khufu. Cambridge MA.

49.

Richards

2004. Text and context in Late Old Kingdom Egypt: The archaeology and historiography of Weni the Elder, JARCE 39: 75–102.

50.

Richards

2007. ‘Wonderful Things’: The 2007 Abydos Middle Cemetery Project, Kelsey Museum Newsletter spring: 1–4.

51.

Richards

2010. Spatial and verbal rhetorics of power: Constructing late Old Kingdom history, JEgH 3: 339–366.

52.

Richards

Tunmore

2016. Contextualising Idi, The British Museum Newsletter: Egypt and Sudan 3: 44.

53.

Roux

2013. Spreading of innovative technical traits and cumulative technical evolution: Continuity or discontinuity? Journal of Archaeological Method Theory 20: 312–330.

54.

Sowada

2009. Egypt in the Eastern Mediterranean during the Old Kingdom: An Archaeological Perspective. OBO 237. Fribourg, Göttingen.

55.

Sowada

2011. An Egyptian imitation of an imported two-handled jar from the Levant. In: Aston

Bader

Buckingham

Gallorini

Nicholson

(eds), Under the Potter’s Tree: Studies on Ancient Egypt Presented to Janine Bourriau on the Occasion of her 70th Birthday. OLA 204. Leuven, Paris, Walpole, MA: 885–893.

56.

Sowada

2018. Fake it till you make it: An imitation Combed Ware Jar from early Old Kingdom Giza, Bulletin de liaison de la ceramique égyptienne 28: 117–122.

57.

Sowada

Ownby

In press. The Combed Jar as a trade ‘brand’ of the Early Bronze Age, Bulletin d’Archeologie et d’Architecture Libanaises, edition in Memory of Jean-Paul Thalmann.

58.

Sowada

Ownby

Bárta

2021. The origin of imported jars from 6^th Dynasty Abusir: New light on Early Bronze Age Egyptian-Levantine relations, BASOR 386: 221–236. doi.org/10.1086/715651.

59.

Sowada

Ownby

Smythe

Marchand

Tristant

2021. Early Bronze Age exchange patterns between Egypt and the Levant: A view from first dynasty Abu Rawash, Ä&L 31: 425–449.

60.

Sowada

Ownby

Wodzińska

2020. The petrography of imported Levantine Combed vessels from early Old Kingdom Giza, Levant 52 (1–2): 197–214. doi.org/10.1080/00758914.2019.1664197.

61.

Sowada

Wetterstrom

Jacobsen

Bertuch

Serpico

2023. Contents, status, and symbolism: The study of residues from imported jars at Old Kingdom Giza, Journal of Ancient Egyptian Interconnections 37: 281–300.

62.

Stager

L. E.

1992. The periodization of Palestine. In: Ehrich

(ed.), Chronologies in Old World Archaeology. Chicago: 22–41.

63.

Thalmann

J.-P.

2006. Tell Arqa. - I: Les niveaux de l’âge du Bronze. Bibliothèque Archéologique et Historique 177. Beirut.

64.

Thalmann

J.-P.

Roux

2016. Évolution technologique et morpho-stylistique des assemblages céramiques de Tell Arqa (Liban, 3e millénaire av. J.-C.) : stabilité sociologique et changements culturels, Paléorient 42(1): 95–121.

65.

Thalmann

J.-P.

Sowada

2014. Levantine ‘combed ware’. In: Lebeau

(ed.), Associated Regional Chronologies for the Ancient Near East and the Eastern Mediterranean: ARCANE Interregional. I: Ceramics. Turnhout: 355–378.

66.

Tumolo

Badreshany

2023. The ‘Combed Ware’ storage and transport vessels from Khirbet ez-Zeraqon: A reappraisal of the EB II–III evidence in light of recent petrographic studies, Journal of Ancient Egyptian Interconnections 37: 301–324.

67.

Vreeze

M. d.

Badreshany

2023. Identity and monumentality: The construction of an Early Bronze Age landscape on the Lebanese coast, Journal of Ancient Egyptian Interconnections 37: 109–134.

68.

Warden

L. A.

2021. Ceramic Perspectives on Ancient Egyptian Society. Cambridge.

69.

Wengrow

2008. Prehistories of commodity branding, Current Anthropology 49(1): 7–34.

70.

Wieder

Adan-Bayewitz

2002. Soil parent materials and the pottery of Roman Galilee: A comparative study, Geoarchaeology: An International Journal 17: 393–415.

71.

Wodzińska

Ownby

2011. Tentative remarks on Levantine combed ware from Heit el-Ghurab, Giza. In: Mynářová

(ed.), Egypt and the Near East: The Crossroads. Proceedings of an International Conference on the Relations of Egypt and the Near East in the Bronze Age. Prague, September 1–3, 2010. Prague: 285–295.

Imported Pottery from Abydos: Weni the Elder and Late Old Kingdom Egyptian–Levantine Trade

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Combed Ware at Abydos

Petrographic Method and Sample List

Results

Discussion

Origin of the Abydos jars

Production and supply

Egypt and Lebanon in the late Old Kingdom

Conclusion

Footnotes

Funding

ORCID iD

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

49.

50.

51.

52.

53.

54.

55.

56.

57.

58.

Author biographies

References