DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.41333#0092
Rafat Kolinski
merous collection was found in the grave of Mer-neit,
where 442 marks were identified. Unfortunately, in
most of the older publications relations between the
signs and pottery shapes could not be traced. Such an
identification was possible in the case of the Abu Ro-
ash cemetery, where 188 of the total of 1679 vessels
were incised with pottery marks (about 11%). The
incised signs occurred most frequently on the so-called
“wine jars”, narrow jars with a tampering body and
rounded bottom. They occurred on 88 out of 148
vessels of this type (58%). This group of vessels was
reputedly most frequently marked on the other sites
too. The other groups of vessels that were marked with
remarkable frequency were ovoid jars with a blunt
rounded base (42 out of403, i.e. 10%), barrel shaped
vessels with flat or rounded bottoms and sharp angles
(15 out of 132, i.e. 11%) shallow bowls (10 out of
92, i.e. 11%) and bowls with convex sides and flat
bases (21 out of 253, i.e. 8%).5
2474 potmarks were scrutinised in respect of
the signs used and the composition of the marks.
The signs occurred in groups composed of one to
six signs, usually applied horizontally on the shoul-
der of the vessel. Some of the signs are similar to
the signs of hieroglyphic writing and may (but not
necessarily have to) be considered taken from Egyp-
tian writing. There is also a group of signs which
may be considered numerical ones, for instance
combinations of horizontal strokes, one to four in
number. Nevertheless, there is a relatively nume-
rous group of signs which cannot be found among
the hieroglyphs. The most often encountered were
groups composed of two signs (56.1% of the
marks). Single signs were less frequent, forming
28.7% of the corpus, groups of three signs formed
12.3% of all marks, and groups of four, five and six
signs had only marginal significance, forming 2.9%
5 Ibidem, p. 269 and fig. 3.
6 Ibidem, pp. 271-4, tab. 2 and figs. 6-17.
7 W.M.F. PETRIE, J.E. QUIBELL, Naqada and Balias, BS AE
1, London 1896, p. 44.
8 PETRIE, The Royal Tombs of the First Dynasties I, EES
18, London 1900, pp. 29-32.
9 J. de MORGAN, Recherches sur les origines d'Egypte:
ethnographic prehistorique et tombeau royal de Nega-
dah, Paris 1897, p. 165.
10 E. AMELINEAU, Les Nouvelles Fouilles d’Abydos,
1985-19861, Paris 1989, pp. 199-200; Z. SAAD, The Tomb
of Hemaka, in: W.B. EMERY, Excavations at Saqqara
of the coipus. Van den BRINK grouped all the signs
according to a sign placed at the beginning (or the
end) of the mark.6 77 groups composed of similar
signs (like rectangles with different internal divisions,
or quadrupeds of similar appearance) were formed.
Only four signs out of 77 identified never occurred
as a single sign. The triple groups are usually a de-
velopment of a double group to which one more
sign was added. In 71 cases of different triple groups
only in 14 cases there is no double group com-
posed of any of the signs used for composing a trip-
le group known. In other cases there are one, two
or even three such groups known. This frequent oc-
currence of the groups of signs instead of single
signs (28.1%) gives a writing-like appearance to
the pottery markings in ancient Egypt.
Several scholars had already considered the pur-
pose of marking pots. PETRIE in 1896 proposed
understanding them as property marks,7 and in 1900
he identified them as a mixture of hieroglyphs and
earlier prehistoric signs.8 In 1897 de MORGAN pro-
posed seeing them as indications of the content of
the container.9 In this proposition he was later joined
by AMELINEAU (1899), SAAD (1938), EMERY
(1949).10DARESSY proposed in 1905 explaining
them as fantastic drawings done by the potter and
deprived of any significance.11 JUNKER in 1919 pro-
posed seeing them as proper potters’ marks, i.e. as
identification of the craftsmen or workshop.12 BRUN-
TON in 1927 interpreted them as determination of
the volume of the pot.13 SAAD in 1938 thought that
marks may also determine the place a pot was bought
(and made).14 In 1985, HELCK proposed seeing them
as the descriptions of the quality and origin of wine
kept in the pots.15 In 1990 he interpreted the pottery
marks as a “writing” originating from Lower Egypt
(“Butische Schrift”) that was later replaced by Hie-
1937-38, Cairo 1938 (hereinafter referred to as; Tomb of
Hemaka), p. 53; W.B. EMERY, Great Tombs of the First
Dynasty I, Cairo 1949, pp. 154-156.
11 M.G. DARESSY, Une edifice archai'que Nezlet Batran,
ASAE 6 (1905), pp. 6-7.
12 H. JUNKER, Bericht iiber die Grabungen der keiserli-
schen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien aufden Frie-
dhofen von el-Kubaniek-Siid, Wien 1919, pp. 80-82.
13 G. BRUNTON, A. GARDINER, PETRIE, Qau andBadari,
BSAE 44, London 1927, pp. 18,68.
14 SAAD, Tomb of Hemaka, p. 53.
15 W. HELCK. Topfaufschriften, LA VI, cols. 635-636.
86
merous collection was found in the grave of Mer-neit,
where 442 marks were identified. Unfortunately, in
most of the older publications relations between the
signs and pottery shapes could not be traced. Such an
identification was possible in the case of the Abu Ro-
ash cemetery, where 188 of the total of 1679 vessels
were incised with pottery marks (about 11%). The
incised signs occurred most frequently on the so-called
“wine jars”, narrow jars with a tampering body and
rounded bottom. They occurred on 88 out of 148
vessels of this type (58%). This group of vessels was
reputedly most frequently marked on the other sites
too. The other groups of vessels that were marked with
remarkable frequency were ovoid jars with a blunt
rounded base (42 out of403, i.e. 10%), barrel shaped
vessels with flat or rounded bottoms and sharp angles
(15 out of 132, i.e. 11%) shallow bowls (10 out of
92, i.e. 11%) and bowls with convex sides and flat
bases (21 out of 253, i.e. 8%).5
2474 potmarks were scrutinised in respect of
the signs used and the composition of the marks.
The signs occurred in groups composed of one to
six signs, usually applied horizontally on the shoul-
der of the vessel. Some of the signs are similar to
the signs of hieroglyphic writing and may (but not
necessarily have to) be considered taken from Egyp-
tian writing. There is also a group of signs which
may be considered numerical ones, for instance
combinations of horizontal strokes, one to four in
number. Nevertheless, there is a relatively nume-
rous group of signs which cannot be found among
the hieroglyphs. The most often encountered were
groups composed of two signs (56.1% of the
marks). Single signs were less frequent, forming
28.7% of the corpus, groups of three signs formed
12.3% of all marks, and groups of four, five and six
signs had only marginal significance, forming 2.9%
5 Ibidem, p. 269 and fig. 3.
6 Ibidem, pp. 271-4, tab. 2 and figs. 6-17.
7 W.M.F. PETRIE, J.E. QUIBELL, Naqada and Balias, BS AE
1, London 1896, p. 44.
8 PETRIE, The Royal Tombs of the First Dynasties I, EES
18, London 1900, pp. 29-32.
9 J. de MORGAN, Recherches sur les origines d'Egypte:
ethnographic prehistorique et tombeau royal de Nega-
dah, Paris 1897, p. 165.
10 E. AMELINEAU, Les Nouvelles Fouilles d’Abydos,
1985-19861, Paris 1989, pp. 199-200; Z. SAAD, The Tomb
of Hemaka, in: W.B. EMERY, Excavations at Saqqara
of the coipus. Van den BRINK grouped all the signs
according to a sign placed at the beginning (or the
end) of the mark.6 77 groups composed of similar
signs (like rectangles with different internal divisions,
or quadrupeds of similar appearance) were formed.
Only four signs out of 77 identified never occurred
as a single sign. The triple groups are usually a de-
velopment of a double group to which one more
sign was added. In 71 cases of different triple groups
only in 14 cases there is no double group com-
posed of any of the signs used for composing a trip-
le group known. In other cases there are one, two
or even three such groups known. This frequent oc-
currence of the groups of signs instead of single
signs (28.1%) gives a writing-like appearance to
the pottery markings in ancient Egypt.
Several scholars had already considered the pur-
pose of marking pots. PETRIE in 1896 proposed
understanding them as property marks,7 and in 1900
he identified them as a mixture of hieroglyphs and
earlier prehistoric signs.8 In 1897 de MORGAN pro-
posed seeing them as indications of the content of
the container.9 In this proposition he was later joined
by AMELINEAU (1899), SAAD (1938), EMERY
(1949).10DARESSY proposed in 1905 explaining
them as fantastic drawings done by the potter and
deprived of any significance.11 JUNKER in 1919 pro-
posed seeing them as proper potters’ marks, i.e. as
identification of the craftsmen or workshop.12 BRUN-
TON in 1927 interpreted them as determination of
the volume of the pot.13 SAAD in 1938 thought that
marks may also determine the place a pot was bought
(and made).14 In 1985, HELCK proposed seeing them
as the descriptions of the quality and origin of wine
kept in the pots.15 In 1990 he interpreted the pottery
marks as a “writing” originating from Lower Egypt
(“Butische Schrift”) that was later replaced by Hie-
1937-38, Cairo 1938 (hereinafter referred to as; Tomb of
Hemaka), p. 53; W.B. EMERY, Great Tombs of the First
Dynasty I, Cairo 1949, pp. 154-156.
11 M.G. DARESSY, Une edifice archai'que Nezlet Batran,
ASAE 6 (1905), pp. 6-7.
12 H. JUNKER, Bericht iiber die Grabungen der keiserli-
schen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien aufden Frie-
dhofen von el-Kubaniek-Siid, Wien 1919, pp. 80-82.
13 G. BRUNTON, A. GARDINER, PETRIE, Qau andBadari,
BSAE 44, London 1927, pp. 18,68.
14 SAAD, Tomb of Hemaka, p. 53.
15 W. HELCK. Topfaufschriften, LA VI, cols. 635-636.
86