Egypt Exploration Society
Tomb 100: The Decorated Tomb at Hierakonpolis Author(s): Humphrey Case and Joan Crowfoot Payne Reviewed work(s): Source: The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, Vol. 48 (Dec., 1962), pp. 5-18 Published by: Egypt Exploration Society Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3855778 . Accessed: 18/04/2012 10:33 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 of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of 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 Journal of Egyptian Archaeology.
http://www.jstor.org
(5)
TOMB 100: THE DECORATED TOMB AT HIERAKONPOLIS By HUMPHREY
CASE and JOAN CROWFOOT
PAYNE
IN the winter of 1897-8 J. E. Quibell, assisted by F. W. Green, excavatedthe Temple Enclosure and other sites in the area of the ancient Hierakonpolis for the Egyptian Research Account. Green led a second expedition in I898-9 when the so-called decorated or painted tomb, a rectangularbrick-lined and plastered pit with painted walls and brick partition, was discovered.' He formed the opinion that it had been robbed two or three years previously. The paintings were removed and transported to the Cairo Museum. Green's full-size copy of them found a home in the Griffith Institute, Oxford (pl. I).2 The monument has not been uncovered since 1899, and is reputed destroyed. The decorated tomb has attracted a considerable variety of interpretations. The majority of scholars share the excavator'sview that it was a tomb. Brunton suggested that it was a subterraneandwelling or shrine.3 It is, however, generally different from other early Egyptian non-sepulchral structures and generally similar to numerous Protodynastic tombs. And recent fieldwork by Kaiser has confirmed its situation in a cemetery.4 Divergent dates or cultural connotations have been proposed by a succession of scholars. To Petrie, it was 'S.D. 63',5 by implication 'Semainean' and assignableto the 'Dynastic Conquest'.6 It was 'Dynasty O' in Reisner's view7 or 'Dynasty O-I' and classifiable among 'Tomb types of Dynasty I ... Menes to Zet'.8 Baumgartelwas inclined to date it to 'protodynastic times'.9 On the other hand, its discoverer termed it 'prehistoric'; it was 'late Gerzean' to Kantor,?1and 'Naqada IIc' (or mid-Gerzean) to Kaiser."T Some of these opinions are plainly influenced by preconceived views of the controversial problems of the rise of the First Dynasty, and all except Green's are based on a secondary source, since no first-hand reassessmenthas been made of the contents since the excavator'sinventory. This would not, in any event, have been an easy task, for the group of objects appearsto have suffered a series of misfortunes. The 'drawings'copied 2 3
Quibell and Green, Hierakonpolis, II, 20-23. Reproduced at two-thirds scale by the British School of Egyptian Archaeology in I953. 'The predynastic town-site at Hierakonpolis', in Griffith Studies, 275.
4 MDAIK
I7 (I96I),
I2.
5
Quibell and Green, op. cit., 54.
7 Mycerinus, 136. Petrie, The Making of Egypt, 65-67. 8 Tomb Development, I6-17, 362. 9 The Cultures of Prehistoric Egypt, ii, 126. JOJNES 3 (I944), II9. " 'Zur inneren Chronologie der Naqadakultur', in Archaeologia Geographica6 (1957), 75; also MDAIK 16 (1958), I88-9. 6
PLATE I
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ?aa~a-
0
_
_
_
.z e4
....'
1
r
Iv
: _::I_:I:
1'f
?-
?a 3?
'.7"
u
V.
.,
C)
. ..
::,,:
-:I
ti
a
__~~~~~W .-..-
A*
" Mo ..T
V, I
I, M " 1.1..7 I .-I f..F:, M.
__ s_aim
7-1
.1 ..,
,00
n ----IC.- b
7NM7
o,gw:,"WmeinI
.
-
.
34
I
Ai
-t4 4 :
1,?
--
I L-
~~~~ ~
',
I
41
I.
.
.t.
'.4",
"I
'. 1% `1
.
i
JI
-,?,:
t.' Ii
4 .v \
,.:
,
.
t
t
"-)
Ad ?l
1-
'
-eX'
^0
\
~
~ ,
~ ~~ ,
b THE PAINTINGS IN TOMB 100 AT HIERAKONPOLIS, after F. W. GREEN. Scale: 30 cms.
I
HUMPHREY CASE AND JOAN CROWFOOT PAYNE by Green from the decoratedtomb were shown at the exhibition of antiquities from the excavations of the Egypt Exploration Fund at University College, London, in July, I899.1 The cases of antiquities which should have accompanied them were delayed, and at some stage objects from Hierakonpolis were confused with those from other sites in Egypt. The consignment for the Ashmolean reached the museum during a period of rebuilding, when cataloguingwas temporarilyhalted. Dr. MargaretMurray brought the museum's catalogues up to date in 1908-9, and found that many objects which were certainly from Hierakonpolis had been attributed to Abydos and HiuDendera. In many cases Dr. Murray corrected these errors, and the confusion has been further resolved in recataloguingthe museum's early Egyptian collection before exhibition in new galleries. One of the results of this work has been the reassembling of what we believe to be the major part of the objects excavated by Green from the decorated tomb.2 6
I. The contents of the tomb The first object identified as part of the decorated tomb group was the flint forked lance-head (fig. i, no. 7), unmistakablythat published by Green,3 plainly marked 100. It had been marked 'Hu-Dendereh' by the Museum, but it had not previously been catalogued. The fact that the lance-head was numbered 7 in Green's list indicated that the number which had been given to the decorated tomb was Ioo, a fact which is not mentioned anywherein the originalpublication. Once the number of the tomb had been established, it was possible to identify most of the other objects. The following list gives details of the tomb group as it now stands.4 Pottery types are those published in Petrie's PrehistoricEgypt Corpus, unless stated otherwise. The pots show no signs of use of the wheel. The stone vases are classified according to Petrie's PrehistoricEgypt. A. Objects on Green's list r. Miniaturestonevase, form 66. Veined limestone. Quibell and Green, Hierakonpolis,ii, pi. LXIV, no. 6. (Fig. i, no. I.) 2. Stone vase, form 42. Much altered basic igneous rock, possibly volcanic ash. (Fig. i, no. 2.) 3. Bowl, incomplete,P 23 c, lower (S.D. 35-68, 80), and Mond and Myers, Cemeteriesof Armant, pi. XXIV, P 23 ai and P 23 ci (s.D. 52-66?). Buff ware, dark red polish inside and over rim, outside decorated with red circle, and faint traces of other possible decoration. (Fig. 2,
no. 3.) 4. Missing. See Catalogue of antiquitiesfrom the excavations of the Egypt Exploration Fund . . . exhibited . at University College ... London ... (1899), 8-9. 2 While this paper is throughout a work of collaboration, Part I was essentially drafted by J. C. Payne and Part II by H. Case. For invaluable help we are indebted to most of the staff of the Ashmolean Museum, and above all to Mr. Jeffery Orchard. Particular thanks are also due to Dr. A. J. Arkell of University College, London, Mr. R. V. Nicholls of the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge, Mlle J. Monnet of the Musee du Louvre, 3 Quibell and Green, op. cit., 50; pl. LXIV, 9. and to Mrs. E. J. Baumgartel and Dr. J. R. Harris. 4 To avoid confusion, both the list and the drawings here on figs. I and 2 are numbered to correspond with Green's list in Hierakonpolis, II, pl. LXVII.
TOMB 100: THE DECORATED TOMB AT HIERAKONPOLIS
7
5. Missing. 6. Pot, basal and other sherds, W I4-19, handles type A-B (S.D. 46-66). Pinkish-buff ware. (Fig. 2, no. 6.) 7. Forked lance-head, lower end missing. Brown flint. V-shaped upper edge, flat retouch over both faces, fine denticulation round edge. Quibell and Green, Hierakonpolis, ii, pl. LXIV, no. 9. (Fig. I, no. 7.) 8. Pot, R 8I (s.D. 38-67). Coarse brown ware with chaff. (Fig. 2, no. 8.) 9. Pot, P 40 a (s.D. 39-70). Red ware, polished red outside and over rim. (Fig. 2, no. 9.)
7 01
234
5
CMS
I o.
Missing. I I. Bowl, incomplete, R 23 b (s.D. 37-75), and Brunton, Mostagedda, p1. XXXVI, 20 (s.D. 52-53). Coarse brown ware with chaff. (Fig. 2, no. I I.) 12. Pot, P 95 b (s.D. 46-72). Red ware, polished red outside and over rim. (Fig. 2, no. 12.) 13. Missing. Red ware, polished red inside, traces of polish outside. (Fig. 2, 14. Bowl, P II b (s.D. 35-71). no.
I4.)
Pot, P 95 a (S.D. 37-7I). Brown ware, polished red outside and over rim. (Fig. 2, no. I5.) I6. Bowl, Mond and Myers, op. cit., pl. XXV, R 6 c (s.D. 44-61?), and Brunton, op. cit., pl. XXXVI, 5 (s.D. 50-53). Coarse brown ware with chaff. (Fig. 2, no. i6.) 63). Red ware, black-topped, black inside, polished outside and 17. Pot, B 42 b (s.D. 31-50, over rim. (Fig. 2, no. I7.) i8. Pot, R 94 (S.D. 49, 53). Coarse red-brown ware with chaff. (Fig. 2, no. I8.)
15.
B. Objects additional to those on Green's list 19. Pot, rim sherd, P 40. Red ware, polished red outside and over rim. Diam. of rim c. 0-090 m. 20. 21.
Bowl, incomplete, P 24 g. Red-brown ware, polished red inside and over rim. Bowl, rim sherd, ? P 24. Red-brown ware, polished red inside and over rim. Diam. of rim C. 0-230 m.
Pot, sherds, ? W 14-19, handle type A-B. Light brown ware. Diam. at handle c. o-i65 m. 23. Pot, sherd, ? W I4-19, handle type H. Drab ware. Diam. at handle c. 0-I95 m. 24. Pot, basal sherd, ? wavy-handled. Buff ware. Diam. of base c. 0-09o m.
22.
8
HUMPHREY CASE AND JOAN CROWFOOT PAYNE
m
K u
1
'-
14
1.
11 0 I
5 I
10 I
15 1
' h i .-,~ ---
20 I
?It .
CMS
16 NI
I I
18
FIG. 2
TOMB 100: THE DECORATED TOMB AT HIERAKONPOLIS
9
25. Pot,basalsherd,?wavy-handled. Lightredware.Diam.of basec. 0o095m. 26. Pot, rimsherd,R 8I. Coarsered-brownwarewithchaff.Diam.of rimc. o0240m. 27. Pot, rimsherd,R 8I. Coarsebrownwarewithchaff.Diam.of rimc. 0o220m. Green's originalplan of the tomb and its contents, with his numbering, is reproduced on fig. 3. The table below shows how the revised list compareswith Green's, and gives Objects on Green's list I. H 52, limestone 2. H 27, diorite 3. D 8 4. Shell 5. W 41 6. W 41 7. Flint lance 8. R 8I 9. P 40 io. R 94 Ix. R 24 I2. R 94
I896-I908, E. 3117 E. 2786 I896-I908, 1961.37
I96I.372 I959.I41
23. 24. -
25. 26. 27. -
Corpus type 66
Ioo/i
42
o00
W I4-I9
W 14-19
P 23 c
Tomb no. in Prov. marked Mus. Catalogue on pot by Museum (I896-I908) Ioo/i
Hierakonpolis Hu-Dendereh
I00
100/3 1006
-
100/7
-Hu-Dendereh
I959.45I
R 81 P 40 a
R 8 P 40 a
I961.373 I959.452
R 23 P 95 b
R 23 b P 95 b
ioo ?
P Ii b P 95 a B 42 b R 94
P i b P 95 a R 6c B 42 b R 94
-
1896-1908,
E. 2928
Excavator's tomb no. on pot
H 27 -
-
13. R i 14. R i e 1896-I908, E. 2957 E. 2949 15. R 94 1896-1908, i6. 1896-1908, E. 2960 I7. B 42 1959-453 I8. R 94 I959.454 Additional objects 19. I961.374 20.21. 22. -
Naqada and Ballas type
Ashmolean Museum catalogue number
oo00/8
ioo/8
Abydos Abydos
-
Hu-Dendereh
I00/9
I00/12
00/I2
100/I7
Ioo/i8
100/15 oo/6 -Hu-Dendereh -Abydos
Hierakonpolis Hierakonpolis Hierakonpolis
-
P 40
P 40
00
1961.375 I961.376
-
P 24g P 24?
oo00 Ioo?
I96I.377 1961.378 1961.379 I96I.380 1961.381 I961.382
W I4-I9? W I4-9 ? W? W ? R 8i R 8i
W I4-I9? W I4-I9? W ? W ? R 8 R 8i
Ioo I00
Ioo o00 00oo I00
-
the information from which the objects were identified. Study of it suggests that numbers i, 2, 6-9, I7, and I8 can be accepted safely; the remainder should be regarded with varying degrees of caution. However, the homogeneity of the group as a whole is impressive. The revised list is unlike Green's in a number of respects, but in the more important cases it is easy to see how the differences arose. No. i, the little limestone vase, which has no lip, was reconstructed by Green as type H 52 in Petrie's Naqada and Ballas (later published by Petrie in TarkhanI, II as Protodynastic type 71). As type H 52, the vase has been the subject of discussion, especially by Reisner' and Kantor.2 In fact, the little vase almost exactly resembles H 30 in Naqada and Ballas without neck or lip, an example of which was published later as type 66 in Petrie's PrehistoricEgypt. No. 6 was typed by Green as W 41, but is in reality W 14-I9. W 41 is much the same in form as W I4-19, but it is very much smaller, a difference which would not be clear 2
Mycerinus, 136. C 505
C
JNES 3
(I944),
113-I4.
IO
HUMPHREY CASE AND JOAN CROWFOOT PAYNE
to someone working only with the plates in Naqada and Ballas. Other differences are less easy to explain. However, it is clear that both Petrie's calculationof the sequencedate of the tomb and the drawings of the objects on the published plan (fig. 3) were made from Green's list of contents, and not from the actual objects. The decorated tomb now presents a very different, and in most respects simpler, problem as far as dating is concerned. Petrie's original date of S.D. 63 was based on the
1'C)" r~c 'o14
/
8(d 15?
017
07 8?
90
6
,->\
C\
-j
,Q0
>
2
on
/A
A
\
FIG. 3
pots of type W 41, which are now found to be in fact the earliertype, W I4-I9. Reisner's proposed even later dating of the group to the Protodynastic period was based on the supposed presence of a Protodynasticlimestone vase, type H 52 in Naqada and Ballas, which is now seen to be a little vase typical of the Predynasticperiod. The difficultyof accepting all the objects on the original list as coming from one grave led Brunton and Kantor to suggest that the chamber was a shrine or dwelling-place, rather than a tomb. However, the whole group now appears to be a typical grave-group of the Gerzean culture, always rememberingthat we have a portion only of the original contents of the tomb. Its essentially Gerzean nature is emphasized chronologicallyby the absence of L ware, and geographically by the lack of any marked Nubian character, contrary to Reisner's suggestion.' Most of the pots are common types in a very large number of Gerzean graves. The following graves, however, are particularlyclose parallels, having each three or more types in common with the decorated tomb: Naqada T 5 (S.D. 50) Naqada 414 (S.D. 51) Naqada 421 (S.D. 50)
Armant 1550 (S.D. 57-64) Matmar 5118 (s.D. 53-57) Mostagedda 1831 (S.D. 50-53)
Armant 1523 (S.D. 48-53)
el-
