DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.41333#0137
Some Remarks on the Old Kingdom White Painted Funerary Cult Pottery...
found in Tomb 28. The whole vessel was encrusted
with gypsum plaster.15 In the Tomb 29 bowls were
found, some bear signs burned on the interior. One
polished bowl was coated internally and externally
with gypsum plaster.16 Other examples come from the
Workmen’s Village.
Important observations on pottery cult vessel were
made by Linda C. HULIN. Tall potstands and bowls
without pre-fired surfaces treatment were coated with
gypsum on the outside surface and on the interior.
Gypsum had also been poured into the stem. Inside
the stem there is a small hole from top to bottom,
apparently formed around a stick, or created by
a stick being forced into the gypsum before it set.
Similar potstands were found in the place of cult in
sanctuary, i.e. in the Main Chapel. These are a tall
offering stand with gypsum plaster on the exterior
surface (No 51973) and a small foot bowl with
a thin layer of gypsum with remains of burnt incense
inside.17
Some parallels are known from Thebes as well.
In the tombs of Amenhotep, Khnummose and
Amenmose (TT Nos 294,253,254) among the pots
there was a potstand coated on the exterior and rims
with gypsum.18
Some white painted potstands were found in tombs
or chapels at Deir el-Medina as well.19
From Tod came a fragment of a censer covered
on all surfaces with a white substance.20 Since it was
found in the vicinity of a chapel, it is likely that it be-
longed to the equipment of the chapel.
The most widespread explanation of the practice
of white painted pots in the Old Kingdom was that
they imitate more expensive stone vessels.21 This
15 P. ROSE, The Pottery, in: A. el-KHOULY, G.T. MARTIN,
Excavations in The Royal Necropolis at el-‘Amarna
1984, Supplement aux ASAE, Le Caire 1989, p. 24.
16 Ibidem, p. 27.
17 ROSE, Pottery from the Main Chapel, in: B. KEMP,
Amama Reports III. London 1986, p. 101, fig- 7.2.
18 ROSE, Pottery, in: N. and H. STRUDWICK, The Tomb of
Amenhotep, Khnummose, and Amenmose (Nos. 294, 253
and254), Oxford 1996, p. 176, No 93, pi. 65.
19 G. NAGEL, La ceramique du Nouvel Empire a Deir
el-Medineh, Le Caire 1938, e.g. from tomb 1169, pp. 91-92,
fig. 72, Nos 24-25; from chapel 1193, pp. 111-112, figs. 97-
98, Nos 3-4,6,12,13.
20 G. PIERRAT-BONNEFOIS, La ceramique dynastique et
ptolemiaque des fouilles du Louvre a Tod, CCE 6, Le
Caire 2000, p. 312, fig. 122.
theory may seem convincing. But a comparison be-
tween the Old Kingdom funerary cult pottery and
the New Kingdom ceramics opens up various ques-
tions, for example: Is this true “imitation”? Why
should the Egyptians imitate only white stone when
they made pots or other artefacts imitating various
types of stone?22 The idea of “stone imitation” has
no sense from the ceramological point of view either.
Why should luxury ceramics, like the Old Kingdom
red slipped and polished bowls and potstands from
the Merefnebef chapel, have been covered with
a white substance? Polished or burnished surfaces
look much nicer and shine more than a surface cov-
ered with a white substance. There is no evidence of
a practice of treating the pot surface in such a way
i.e. covering the well elaborated surface with a white
substance. In fact, white painting has nothing to do
with the surface treatment of pots at all. It seems to
be secondary. The finds from the Old Kingdom
mastabas show clearly that, if stone potstands and
bowls were used in the funerary cult, they were made
almost always exclusively of white limestone.23 The
basic ancient Egyptian term for limestone was inr
hd,24 which means “white stone”. It seams probably,
that the white painting on the red slipped pottery did
not imitate white stones. This intend the cultic funerary
cult pottery to be white i.e. ritually purified.
The next problem to solve was whether or not
these types of white painted pots were known from
settlements of the Old Kingdom times. There is, how-
ever, no information on this in scholarly literature.25
So one is dealing here with the practice of cover-
ing the pots with white paint, and not with the pots
that imitate white stone. This practice is known from
21 M. BARTA, Cemeteries at Abusir South, p. 167.
22 R. BALDASSARI, Proposte di classificatione e di
interpretazione dei vasi imitanti del Regno Nuovo, EVO
IV (1981), pp. 143-175.
23 L. BORCHARDT, Denkmdler des Alten Reiches (ausser
den Statuen) im Musem von Kairo Nr. 1295-1808, part I
Catalogue General des Antiquites Egyptiennes du Musee
du Caire, Berlin 1937, pp. 1-4, pi. 1, Nos 1295-1303.
H.G. FISCHER, Offering Stands from the Pyramid of
Amenemhet I, MMJ 7 (1973), pp. 125-126, fig. 6, footnote
7. He quoted taht in the offering niche of Giza tomb 1453
stood two limestone stands with bowls.
24 Wb I, p. 97.
25 The author asked her colleagues working on the Old
Kingdom pottery from the settlements at Giza and on the
Elephantine whether they had any white painted stands
131
found in Tomb 28. The whole vessel was encrusted
with gypsum plaster.15 In the Tomb 29 bowls were
found, some bear signs burned on the interior. One
polished bowl was coated internally and externally
with gypsum plaster.16 Other examples come from the
Workmen’s Village.
Important observations on pottery cult vessel were
made by Linda C. HULIN. Tall potstands and bowls
without pre-fired surfaces treatment were coated with
gypsum on the outside surface and on the interior.
Gypsum had also been poured into the stem. Inside
the stem there is a small hole from top to bottom,
apparently formed around a stick, or created by
a stick being forced into the gypsum before it set.
Similar potstands were found in the place of cult in
sanctuary, i.e. in the Main Chapel. These are a tall
offering stand with gypsum plaster on the exterior
surface (No 51973) and a small foot bowl with
a thin layer of gypsum with remains of burnt incense
inside.17
Some parallels are known from Thebes as well.
In the tombs of Amenhotep, Khnummose and
Amenmose (TT Nos 294,253,254) among the pots
there was a potstand coated on the exterior and rims
with gypsum.18
Some white painted potstands were found in tombs
or chapels at Deir el-Medina as well.19
From Tod came a fragment of a censer covered
on all surfaces with a white substance.20 Since it was
found in the vicinity of a chapel, it is likely that it be-
longed to the equipment of the chapel.
The most widespread explanation of the practice
of white painted pots in the Old Kingdom was that
they imitate more expensive stone vessels.21 This
15 P. ROSE, The Pottery, in: A. el-KHOULY, G.T. MARTIN,
Excavations in The Royal Necropolis at el-‘Amarna
1984, Supplement aux ASAE, Le Caire 1989, p. 24.
16 Ibidem, p. 27.
17 ROSE, Pottery from the Main Chapel, in: B. KEMP,
Amama Reports III. London 1986, p. 101, fig- 7.2.
18 ROSE, Pottery, in: N. and H. STRUDWICK, The Tomb of
Amenhotep, Khnummose, and Amenmose (Nos. 294, 253
and254), Oxford 1996, p. 176, No 93, pi. 65.
19 G. NAGEL, La ceramique du Nouvel Empire a Deir
el-Medineh, Le Caire 1938, e.g. from tomb 1169, pp. 91-92,
fig. 72, Nos 24-25; from chapel 1193, pp. 111-112, figs. 97-
98, Nos 3-4,6,12,13.
20 G. PIERRAT-BONNEFOIS, La ceramique dynastique et
ptolemiaque des fouilles du Louvre a Tod, CCE 6, Le
Caire 2000, p. 312, fig. 122.
theory may seem convincing. But a comparison be-
tween the Old Kingdom funerary cult pottery and
the New Kingdom ceramics opens up various ques-
tions, for example: Is this true “imitation”? Why
should the Egyptians imitate only white stone when
they made pots or other artefacts imitating various
types of stone?22 The idea of “stone imitation” has
no sense from the ceramological point of view either.
Why should luxury ceramics, like the Old Kingdom
red slipped and polished bowls and potstands from
the Merefnebef chapel, have been covered with
a white substance? Polished or burnished surfaces
look much nicer and shine more than a surface cov-
ered with a white substance. There is no evidence of
a practice of treating the pot surface in such a way
i.e. covering the well elaborated surface with a white
substance. In fact, white painting has nothing to do
with the surface treatment of pots at all. It seems to
be secondary. The finds from the Old Kingdom
mastabas show clearly that, if stone potstands and
bowls were used in the funerary cult, they were made
almost always exclusively of white limestone.23 The
basic ancient Egyptian term for limestone was inr
hd,24 which means “white stone”. It seams probably,
that the white painting on the red slipped pottery did
not imitate white stones. This intend the cultic funerary
cult pottery to be white i.e. ritually purified.
The next problem to solve was whether or not
these types of white painted pots were known from
settlements of the Old Kingdom times. There is, how-
ever, no information on this in scholarly literature.25
So one is dealing here with the practice of cover-
ing the pots with white paint, and not with the pots
that imitate white stone. This practice is known from
21 M. BARTA, Cemeteries at Abusir South, p. 167.
22 R. BALDASSARI, Proposte di classificatione e di
interpretazione dei vasi imitanti del Regno Nuovo, EVO
IV (1981), pp. 143-175.
23 L. BORCHARDT, Denkmdler des Alten Reiches (ausser
den Statuen) im Musem von Kairo Nr. 1295-1808, part I
Catalogue General des Antiquites Egyptiennes du Musee
du Caire, Berlin 1937, pp. 1-4, pi. 1, Nos 1295-1303.
H.G. FISCHER, Offering Stands from the Pyramid of
Amenemhet I, MMJ 7 (1973), pp. 125-126, fig. 6, footnote
7. He quoted taht in the offering niche of Giza tomb 1453
stood two limestone stands with bowls.
24 Wb I, p. 97.
25 The author asked her colleagues working on the Old
Kingdom pottery from the settlements at Giza and on the
Elephantine whether they had any white painted stands
131