Tomb 100: The Decorated Tomb at Hierakonpolis Confirmed

Egypt Exploration Society

Tomb 100: The Decorated Tomb at Hierakonpolis ConfirmedAuthor(s): Joan Crowfoot PayneSource: The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, Vol. 59 (Aug., 1973), pp. 31-35Published by: Egypt Exploration SocietyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3856093 .

Accessed: 29/08/2014 05:42

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Egypt Exploration Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journalof Egyptian Archaeology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 88.223.66.88 on Fri, 29 Aug 2014 05:42:44 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ees

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3856093?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


(31)

TOMB 100: THE DECORATED TOMB AT HIERAKONPOLIS CONFIRMED

By JOAN CROWFOOT PAYNE

THE famous Decorated Tomb of Hierakonpolis was discovered and excavated by F. W. Green in I898-9; it was published as a unique tomb, the walls painted in the style of predynastic decorated pottery, plundered, but datable by its remaining contents to S.D. 63.' In subsequent years, the tomb has been the subject of discussion, for, in the light of increased knowledge, it became clear that the tomb group as published was not homogeneous, and was inconsistent with its identification as a closed group. This difficulty was largely resolved some ten years ago, when objects belonging to the tomb group were identified in the collection of the Ashmolean Museum. The group as reconstructed was found to be typical of well-known tomb groups of the Gerzean period.2

The reconstruction of the tomb group was primarily based on the identification of the number of the tomb, Ioo, found on a flint lance-head published by Green as part of the contents of the Painted Tomb. Other objects with this tomb number, some also with sub-numbers agreeing generally, but not always, with Green's published list of contents, made up the reconstituted group.

The Green papers, preserved by his family and recently presented to the Faculty of Oriental Studies in Cambridge,3 include original excavation records of the Painted Tomb, and photographs taken during the excavations (see pls. XXIII-XXV). The records begin with the drawing of the plan published by Green,4 headed 'Ioo- Decorated Libyan Tomb'. The margins of the plan show larger, and therefore more accurate, sketches of some of the objects, and below there are notes of details such as contents and condition. In addition to the excavation records, a manuscript register of pottery types in a series of about 150 predynastic graves has recently been found,5 and there is no doubt that the graves listed are those of the small predynastic cemetery at Hierakonpolis. Tomb Ioo is included; here the pottery register follows the Ashmolean group precisely, with only a few minor variations in typing, such as are to be expected, and with three additional pots.

The following list gives the reconstructed group as it now stands; it includes further information obtained from Green's excavation notes and photographs, and from his manuscript pottery register. The numbering follows that used by Green in his publication of

I Quibell and Green, Hierakonpolis, II, 20-23, 54, pls. 64, 6, 9; 67. 2 Case and Payne, 'Tomb Ioo: the Decorated Tomb at Hierakonpolis', JEA 48 (1962), 5-I8. 3 Catalogued as 'Green MSS. 205.2'. 4 Quibell and Green, op cit. pl. 67. 5 Found by Mr. Barry Kemp, in Green's copy of Naqada and Ballas; catalogued as 'Green MSS. 329'.



JOAN CROWFOOT PAYNE

the tomb.' Pottery and stone vessels, unless stated otherwise, are typed according to Petrie's Naqada and Ballas.

A. Objects published by Green, Hierakonpolis, pl. LXVII

I. Miniature stone vase, form 66 (Prehistoric Egypt). Veined limestone. (Ash. Mus. E. 3II7.) Green's published list: H 52. Shown in plan without handles, but in larger sketch in margin with handles, and certainly intended for this vase; its profile is, however, sufficiently altered to make Green's typing as H 52 explicable.

2. Stone vase, form H 27. Probably volcanic ash. (Ash. Mus. E. 2786.) Green's published list: H 27. Confirmed by accurate sketch in margin, described as 'diorite'.

3. Bowl, P 23 C (Diospolis Parva). Buff ware, dark red polish inside and over rim, outside decorated with large red circle, and possible traces of other decoration; restored from sherds. (Ash. Mus. 1961.371.) Green's published list: D. 8. Drawn both in plan and in margin as D 8 b or d, marked 'decorated'. In notes 'under 3 earth slightly discoloured reddish pink probably from decoration of pot which has been destroyed only remaining in places'. Shown in foreground of photograph (pl. XXIII); from its size in comparison with other vessels in the photograph, probably the larger D 8 d. There is thus no doubt that a D 8, probably D 8 d, was found in the tomb. It is, however, not listed in Green's manuscript pottery register; instead, this gives 'frags. as L i6, red wash in, 0 in brown outside'. Our sherds, restored as P 23 C (Diospolis Parva) were therefore also found in the tomb.

4. Missing; possibly reprpesented by no. 29 below. Green's published list: Shell. Large shells drawn in plan and in margin. In notes 'shells level with wavy handles of jars 5, 2 mouth to inside, 2 lower ones mouth to wall'.

5. Missing. Green's published list: W 41. In notes 'inside white calcareous powder with small bivalve, pieces of limestone'. Photograph (pl. XXIII) shows this vessel and the following no. 6, both clearly W pots; the size of these pots in comparison with the known distance between the end of the partition and the side wall confirms the typing of both as the larger W I4-I9, instead of the smaller W 41.

6. Sherds, W 14-I9, with handles type A-B. Pinkish-buff ware. (Ash. Mus. I96I.372.) Green's published list: W 41. In notes 'the tomb has been evidently open on the N side up to the partition for a long time as that side of the pots is quite weathered through by sand blast process'. This description exactly fits the condition of the remaining sherds.

7. Forked lance-head fragment, brown flint. V-shaped end. (Ash. Mus. 1959.141.) Green's published list: Flint lance. In notes 'under the flint which is broken and near the wavy handle pot no. 5 small fragment of bone and white ash'.

8. Pot, R 8i. Coarse brown ware with chaff. (Ash. Mus. E.2928.) Green's published list: R 8i. Three vessels marked 8 in plan, with sketch of R 8I in margin. In notes 'fragments of bones, remains of funeral feast (?) between 8 a and 8 b. 8 b empty only desert

Quibell and Green, op. cit., pl. 67.

32



PLATE XXIII

* . .4 a S ·In ··e'Ijh ~ ·~- ,% ·

4.1 Alt

U ';

f*r,- . ..

j f* *y ^. ̂w -.*iF ^i:'

sf-" .Jf * ' -.: .eF bf'9

THE DECORATED TOMB AT HIERAKONPOLIS

I

.

- ,..



PLATE XXIV

b v U W *z r r -;%4ri0 j i ~ Z~ ~ -I:: l 'IftPPr'1 *

L·~~jpII~i~i;::. lb~ :3 :r*~.:**:~·4?a;i~j :^ . .

r*.

a .t

..

-, . .

· .,..z

tf : : :. ;

· ·.~ ̂

*- M.f'

,. 4' ;. ~ * ,, ... ,.:..,/ ..^ , . v

S' i D

.. *

/i /. . I Y.A, 'Ii

?l.

{ Sr ·

o: '#

_r ^^- * *tf" Ft*

'A

^ ^ y.-. 1!S t;

)r *, .,s.

(J_]

& 0

qf, ·c·

5 c" ;* t "' "" -;. i: ,r

%: '' ·:.; : u·'

·' I::· :r:C:. '' yr


.w

A b * .



PLATE XXV

t-* R · ' 2:L · 1%

t e ii l n Ck;-·=

dJI+- ·i· u ·i p te A·

·-126




THE DECORATED TOMB AT HIERAKONPOLIS sand in it. 8 c potmark I towards angle of walls, inside fragment of shell but may have fallen in. 8 a wheelmade, remains of yellow ochre on surface, pot was painted all over yellow, at bottom some bones of some small bird'. The only remaining R 8i must be Green's 8 b, with neither potmark nor yellow wash; it shows traces of hand-turning inside the mouth, and Green presumably in- terpreted these marks as signs of the use of the wheel.I

9. Pot, P 40 a. Red ware, polished red. (Ash. Mus. I959.45I.) Green's published list: P 40. Accurate sketch in margin. In notes 'sand and few small fragments of charcoal and a little Nile mud at bottom, bits of bone under it in contact. This row of pots 8 and 9 stand about o I m. above brick floor on loam and at angle under 8 b a shaqf of coarse ware.'

Io. Missing. Green's published list: R 94. In notes 'rough face distorted in making, sand inside'.

1 i. Bowl, R 23 b. Coarse brown ware with chaff, restored from sherds. (Ash. Mus. I96I-373.) Green's published list: R 24. Accurate sketch in margin. In notes 'rough face, wheel made, face down'. The present bowl has clear marks of hand-turning below the rim outside.'

12. Pot, P 95 b. Red ware, polished red. (Ash. Mus. I959.452.) Green's published list: R 94. Sketch in margin shows pot as P 95 b, marked 'p. red'. In notes 'empty'.

13. Bowl, P Ii b. Red ware, polished red. (Ash. Mus. E.2957.) Green's published list: R i. A sketch in the margin shows a small shallow bowl. In notes 'empty, mouth up'.

14. Missing. Green's published list: R i e (Hierakonpolis, pl. LXIX). Accurate sketch of this type in margin. No notes.

15. Pot, P 95 a. Brown ware, polished red. (Ash. Mus. E.2949.) Green's published list: R 94. Drawn on plan as P 95 a. In notes 'filled with sand'.

16. Bowl, R I e (Hierakonpolis, pl. LXIX). Coarse brown ware with chaff. (Ash. Mus. E.296o.) Omitted on Green's published list.

17. Pot, B 42 b. Black-topped, red-brown ware polished red. (Ash. Mus. I959.453.) Green's published list: B 42. In notes 'black top, sand, small pellet of clay, fragment of bivalve'.

I8. Pot, R 94. Coarse red-brown ware with chaff. (Ash. Mus. I959.454.) Green's published list: R 94. No notes.

B. Objects additional to those published by Green 19. Sherd, P 40. Red ware, polished. (Ash. Mus. I961.374.)

Lucas, Ancient Egyptian Materials and Industries, 368-9, and references, particularly Reisner, Kerma, IV-v, 323-4.

33



JOAN CROWFOOT PAYNE

20. Sherd, P 24 G (Prehistoric Egypt Corpus). Red-brown ware, polished. (Ash. Mus. I961.375.)

21. Sherd, P 24? (Prehistoric Egypt Corpus). Red-brown ware, polished. (Ash. Mus. I961.376.)

22. Sherds, W I4-I9, handle A-B. Light brown ware. (Ash. Mus. I961.377.) 23. Sherd, W 14-19, handle H. Drab ware. (Ash. Mus. I96I.378.) 24. Sherd, W (?). Buff ware. (Ash. Mus. I961.379.) 25. Sherd, W (?). Light red ware. (Ash. Mus. I96I.380.) 26. Sherd, R 8I. Coarse red-brown ware with chaff. (Ash. Mus. I96I.38I.) 27. Sherd, R 8I. Coarse brown ware with chaff. (Ash. Mus. 1961.382.) 28 (?). Two flints, a blade, and a core-revival flake, both small. (Museum of Archaeo-

logy and Ethnology, Cambridge, ZI539o a, b.)' 29 (?). Fourteen shells, thirteen specimens of Unio willcocksi R. B. Newton, and one

Etheria species, perhaps elliptica Lamarck.2 (Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Cambridge, ZI5390 c-P.)

C. Additional objects from Green's manuscript pottery register

30. P I6? (sequence date 33-58, 72). 3I. P 43 (sequence date 38-55). 32. R 58? (sequence date 46).

The addition of these three pots, and of the D 8 d (?) of Green's published group, does not affect the sequence date of 48-53 suggested for the Ashmolean group.3

Taken together, all the new sources of information confirm that the objects making up the Ashmolean group are indeed the original contents of the Painted Tomb, all that

plunderers left of the contents of a most important tomb of the Gerzean period. Many of the graves on Green's pottery register had been sequence dated, and the

dates can, of course, readily be checked. The cemetery is small, but the sequence dates are not closely grouped; they are evenly distributed through the whole of the Gerzean period; no grave need date from before 37, none after 63. This pattern of distribution, which closely follows that noted in the T cemetery at Naqada,3 supports Kaiser's suggestion that the graves surrounding the Painted Tomb formed a royal cemetery.4

I would like to thank Professor Plumley and Mr. Barry Kemp, of the Faculty of Oriental Studies in Cambridge, for making it possible for me to publish this article. The fact that both the manuscript pottery register and the Ashmolean group include

I Numbers 28 and 29, flints and shells, were identified by Mr. Barry Kemp in material from Hierakonpolis and other Egyptian sites at the Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Cambridge. They are individually marked 'ioo', in exactly the same way as most of the Ashmolean specimens from this tomb.

2 Very kindly identified by Mr. H. P. Powell, of University Museum, Oxford. 3 Case and Payne, op. cit. x. 4 W. Kaiser, 'Zur vorgeschichtlichen Bedeutung von Hierakonpolis', MDAIK I6 (1958), I89-91.

34



THE DECORATED TOMB AT HIERAKONPOLIS 35 a number of objects which were nowhere mentioned in the excavation records suggests a point which perhaps should be remembered when interpreting early records. When, by good fortune, the records of even a careful, accurate worker have been preserved, they may not necessarily contain all that was found in a given context; to expect otherwise is perhaps to interpret them in the light of our own conventions.



Documents

Tomb 100: The Decorated Tomb at Hierakonpolis Confirmed