A Compositional Approach to a First Dynasty Inscribed Label Fragment from the Abydos Tomb Complex Ascribed to Qa’a_ZÄS 137.pdf

5/19/2018 A Compositional Approach to a First Dynasty Inscribed Label Fragment from the ...

http:///reader/full/a-compositional-approach-to-a-first-dynasty-inscribed-label-fr

54 K. E. Pique tte : Inscribed Label Fragment from Abydos ZS 137(2010)

KATHRYN E.PIQUETTE

A Compositional Approach to a First Dynasty Inscribed LabelFragment from the Abydos Tomb Complex Ascribed to Qaa

Hierzu Tafel IVI

Introduction

The inscribed bone, ivory and wooden labels

of the First Dynasty (and a small number ofearlier examples) were first brought to light in1895 by the French Coptologist, mile Clment

Amlineau, during excavations of the early ne-cropolises at Abydos (Amlineau 1905; 1904;1902; 1899). Subsequent work by Flinders Petrieand his team at the same site revealed numerousfurther labels and fragments (Petrie 1925; 1901;1900; see also 1902). Over the decades inscribedlabels have also been found in cemeteries atNaqada (de Morgan 1897), North Saqqara

(Emery 1954; 1949; Emery and Saad 1938;Quibell 1923), West Saqqara (Macramallah1940), Helwan (Saad 1969; 1951; 1947; 1942),and a small number of other funerary sites.More recently (re-)discoveries have derived fromGerman re-excavation work Abydos (e.g.Dreyer et al. 2003; 2000; 1998; 1996; 1993;1990), and Australian excavations at Helwan, as

well as renewed study of Zaki Saads finds fromthis site (Khler 2008; 2005; 2004; 2000). Un-doubtedly more inscribed labels will emerge in

future excavations and hopefully from contextsthat provide direct evidence for their precisefunction as well as help answer questions con-cerning non-funerary label use, if any.

Beyond primary publication in excavation re-ports and short articles, a small number of stud-ies have been dedicated to the inscribed labels(e.g. Legge 1907; Newberry 1912; Piquette2007), while others draw upon them in address-ing broader subjects (e.g. Bain es 2007; Drey er2000; Engel 1997; Helck 1987; Kahl 1994;

Kaplony 1963; Petrie 1927; Redford 1986).

Our understanding of these small, inscribedperforated plaques is thus informed by multiplelayers of knowledge constructed across several

generations of scholarly endeavour. Since Am-lineaus (Amlineau 1905: 398; 1904: 6) initialsuggestion that the labels were suspended fromthe neck of the deceased, and notwithstandingmore than 430 examples discovered since, theirprecise function and role in the funerary ritualremains something of a puzzle. Research on theinscribed labels has nevertheless provided in-sights into the Late-PredynasticEarly Dynastic(c.3200c.2700 BCE) social processes of scriptemergence in the Nile Valley and the increasing

stabilisation of iconographic practices, and thedevelopment of administrative procedures. Theirstudy has elucidated the ways in which somehigh status members of Egyptian society sym-bolically and materially expressed concept ofroyal power and ideology, religious belief, indi-

vidual and group identities, and relationshipsbetween people and things in funerary, if notalso mortuary, ritual.

In the following paper, however, I shift thescale and scope of analysis from these broad

themes to address the labels in terms of theirartefactuality and graphical composition. Froman epistemological standpoint, a central concernis the extent to which oversights or mispercep-tions concerning early script and image may bebound up with the marginalisation of the physi-cal artefact on which they occur (Piquette2008; see also Moreland 2006; 2001; Mat-thews 2003: 131). I begin by elaborating themotivations for my particular approach, follow-ed by a brief critical assessment of the two-

dimensional modes used in the reproduction



ZS 137(2010) K. E. Piquette: Inscribed Label Fragment from Abydos 55

and re-presentation the inscribed labels in print-ed and related media. I then present a composi-tional and artefactual-centred case study of a lateFirst Dynasty label fragment from Abydos andthereby seek to provide a more context sensitiveaccount of the graphical conventions label-composers used, thus permitting a more groun-ded reconstruction of this label fragment.

Retrospective and Contextual Approaches

As an alternative to retrospective methodswhere images are identified, read and attributedphonetic or other semantic meanings with refer-ence to evidence from later temporal, spatial andsocial contexts, the approach taken here aimsto avoid anachronistic impositions. The termswriting and picture are often used to describe

various types of early graphical media, but fittingthe evidence into these categories and the func-tions they imply can be problematic, if not un-helpful, when we consider the diverse ways in

which artisans constructed and deployed imageswithin particular compositional and materialcircumstances in time-space. Studies in manyculture history sub-disciplines focus on the key

question of when writing emerges (e.g. variouschapters in Houston 2004; Bard 1992;Coulmas 2003; Senner 1989). I am concernedthat we may cast our nets too short by searchingfor one type of complexity based on a largelypredetermined category, and thus overlookother possible types of complexity and nuance,

which may then be relegated to a miscellaneouscategory of non-writing, often labelled art.

Although John Baines has demonstrated theutility of a non-westernising conception of art

(Baines 1989: 475) and discusses nuance ingraphical modes, such as the emblematic modeof representation which stands between normalrepresentation and writing (Baines 1985:277305), the presence of the conventions

which later distinguish these is difficult to dis-cern in much of the early evidence.

In view of these and other difficulties in de-termining, without recourse to later evidence, thetypes and functions of label imagery, for thepurposed of this case study, I employ descriptive

terms to set out the analytical units. Simple

Graphical Object or SGO refers to an individ-ual image, e.g. . For SGOs combined intocomplex compositional configurations involving,for example contiguity, containing/contained,overlapping/overlapped, e.g. , I use the termComplex Graphical Object or CGO. WhereSGOs are not involved in the compositionalassociations characterising CGOs, but occur inclusters of two or more and are attested twice ormore, whether on the same or different artefacts,I refer to such groupings as Clusters, e.g. .In addition to using descriptive vocabulary toavoid imposing a priorisign functions, for heuris-tic purposes and methodological consistency, Ialso avoid other designations derived from laterevidence, e.g. Horus falcon or serekh.

In conducting an archaeology of early scriptand image, I believe it is important to employcontextually derived terminologies and ap-proaches that are clearly distinguished from, andprecede the use of, those of a retrospective cha-racter. Rather than a rejection of anachronisticmethods, which have their utility when contex-tually-derived interpretative keys have been ex-hausted, the point here concerns methodologicalprocedure and the prioritisation of direct over

indirect inference. The following represents anattempt which I hope demonstrates the value ofgrounded study. Nevertheless, the developmentof methodologically-rigorous analytical procedu-res and theoretically-informed interpretive frame-

works which integrate synchronic approacheswith diachronic perspectives remains an area forfurther development within studies of early gra-phical culture.

Inscribed Objects, Surrogates and Seeing

Methods for re-presenting the inscribed la-bels include two- and three-dimensional forms,such as line drawings or plaster/resin casts. Themethods used for different types of documenta-tion can have a significant impact on subsequentphases of analysis and interpretation. Examplesfrom conventional print publication includeblack and white photography (e.g. Petrie 1901;1900), colour photography (e.g. Dreyer 2000),black and white photography of a line drawing

(Quibell 1923: pl. 11, no. 3), line drawings with




colour (e.g. Emery and Saad 1938: pl. 18A;Petrie 1900: pl. 17, no. 26) and without (e.g.Emery 1954: 104), and electrotype copy (e.g.Le gge 1907: 70, 73, no. 4).

In surveying published label images andcomparing them with the artefacts themselvesduring first-hand study, it appears that in somecases line drawings were not created with directreference to the original artefact, but rather to aphotograph. This may have been the case withan ivory plaque from Abydos reproduced on

Tafel I. This object was first published in photo-graphic form and described as a large thicklabel of ivory or tablet (Petrie 1901: 20,pl. 3, no. 1). Incised on its surface is the CGOcomprised of a niched panelled faade with aframe above containing a shield and mace orPersonal Indicator (PI) conventionally rende-red Aha, the whole of which is surmounted bya bird (hereafter I refer to this motif as a ni-ched frame). To the viewers left a palm andheart are incised. In Petries photograph a per-foration in the upper left corner can be easilydiscerned but the details of the upper right areaare somewhat obscured by shadow. A morerecent photograph and first hand examination of

this object, now held in the British Museum (EA35513), shows that figure of the bird is fully pre-served although the surface is somewhat upbrai-ded. Also visible is a second perforation locatedin the upper right-hand corner. Given this, andthe presence of two holes drilled into the bot-tom edge and one on either side edge (Tafel I),rather than a label, this object is probably partof small box (Spencer 1980: 65, no. 463 andpl. 50, no. 54), or other furniture element.

The presence of these features raises the

question of why Petrie identified this object as atablet or label and what was intended by theuse of these terms. The entry in the excavationreport for this object reads, as these objectsare all small pieces of ivory, they are likely to befrom toilet articles (Petrie 1901: 20 [Section20. PL. III. 1.]). It is not clear whether Petrieis suggesting that the plaque was part of a box orother item that served as a toilet article or

whether the plaque may have been attached to atoilet article, and in this sense was from an-

other object. Publication speed and associated

pressures undoubtedly impacted on the level ofdetail documentation procedures could accom-modate, and Petrie (1900: 1) himself warns thereader of the provisional status of the report.

Some 40 years later, components of EA35513 appeared in Walter B. Emery and Zaki

Yusef Saads report, Excavations at Saqqara(19371938): H. or-Ah. a. Included in the linedrawings produced in Appendix IV, Collectionof Hieroglyphs from the Monuments of H. or-

Ah. a, are the two SGOs incised to the left of theniched frame CGO (see Tafel I), each listed asderiving from a Wooden label (Emery withSaad 1939: 84, No. 8, 98, No. 43). Two decadeslater, in Archaic Egypt, the inscribed face ofthis plaque is reproduced as a line-drawing, iden-tified as Ivory label from Abydos (1961: 53,Fig. 13). However, the perforation in the upperright is missed off as is the top of the birdshead. Rather than observation of the originalartefact, it is likely that study and interpretation

were based on a surrogate, probably Petriesphotograph (initially without consultation of thepublished description?), given the correspon-dence between the area obscured by shadow inthe photograph and the missing bird head and

perforation (cf. Tafel I).As this example shows, depending on how

source material is used, potentially significantmaterial features may be overlooked; in particu-lar the importance of first-hand observation andobject handling (cf. Chatterjee 2008) shouldnot be underestimated. By considering the fac-tors that inform an investigators method, im-portant information can be gleaned about thehermeneutic enterprise the process of transla-tion and interpretation (Giddens 1984: 284

285; Sha nk s and Ti ll ey 1996: 107 108) andthus the scope and depth of analysis and theconclusions drawn. Having raised these variousepistemological and methodological issues andthe need for material contextualisation, I nowturn to the case study.

Case Study: A label fragmentfrom Abydos Tomb Q

During their first field season at Abydos in

the winter of 1899/1900, Petrie and his team




discovered the lower half of an incised labelmade from ivory by the offering place ofQa, on the East side of the tomb, that is, TombQ ascribed to Qaa (to use the current conven-tional spelling), the last ruler of the First Dy-nasty (Petrie 1900: 23). In the excavation re-port, Petrie provides a black and white photo-graph of the label fragment (Pe tr ie 1900: pl. 11,no. 12) and a line drawing (pl. 17, no. 28), bothof which are reproduced on Tafel II. The lowerhalf of the object is preserved, including thelower left, bottom and right edges. Incised im-agery is visible on the primary face but on theright side in Column 1 the concentric laminae

which constitute the tusk have split and frac-tured, perhaps due to desiccation (Krzysz-kowska and Morkot 2000: 329), making theincisions in this area more difficult to discern(Tafel II). This label fragment, E.1262, is nowhoused in the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford.

Format

The primary face is divided into three col-umns. Proceeding from the viewers right to left,a single vertical line on the right is undoubtedly

the lower portion of the SGO . The verticalline on the middle-right delineates Column 1from 2; the double vertical line on the left de-lineates Column 2 from 3. The vertical or co-lumnar format first appears on labels bearing thePI of Den, a scribal innovation which may dateto the latter part of this rulers reign (Piquette2007). The 3-column format of the primary faceof this label fragment is typical of labels bearingthe PIs of Semerkhet and Qaa, particularly thelatter. A chronological affiliation with the reign

of Qaa is further corroborated by the remainsof this rulers PI in Column 2, the presence of adouble vertical line, and the archaeological findcontext, although whether deposition by theoffering place of Tomb Q was associated withpre-burial, funerary or mortuary activities cannotbe ascertained at this juncture.

Imagery

The imagery in Columns 2 and 3 on the ori-

ginal artefact is clearly preserved and reproduced

with relative accuracy in the published drawings.The imagery in Column 1, however, is partiallydamaged and it is here that Petries drawingraises some questions. Progressing from right toleft and top to bottom, the graphical content ofthis column appears to consist of: a long straightSGO, doubtless as mentioned above, fol-lowed to its left by a portion of a horizontalsign, and under neath this, . Below this Clus-ter is given, and finally the left-hand por-tions of two vertically stacked SGOs (Tafel II).In the published drawing the lines in this areaappear slightly sketchy or dashed compared withthose in Columns 23, suggesting that thedrawer (Petrie himself?, cf. Petrie 1900: 1) mayhave been less certain of the graphical content inthis damaged area. Indeed, Petrie tells us that thesigns below suten biti, i.e. , cannot beread, and look much more like ket, with thesmall bird determinative (Petr ie 1900: 23).

In studying this label first-hand at the Ash-molean Museum in Oxford (thanks to the kindassistance of Helen Whitehouse), all imageryapparent in the original photo and what is ren-dered in the drawing for Columns 23 remainsclearly discernable. I was not, however, able to

identify all the SGOs Petrie shows in Column 1.Initially I thought this was due to deteriorationsubsequent to original documentation. The frac-turing and flaking on the surface here appear tobe somewhat fresh but seem to have deterio-rated minimally since the excavation photograph

was taken (Tafel II). More recent damage wasapparent on the secondary face, especially alongthe left edge, and to a lesser extent on the right,possibly due to the removal of an adhesivesubstance once used for display mounting (?)

(Tafel II upper right). Many labels excavated byPetrie and now held in different museums bearsmall circular patches on the right and left sidesof the secondary face where adhesive or someother substance was once applied and then re-moved, taking the original surface with it insome cases. This suggests that the damage proba-bly occurred to these objects prior to their dis-tribution to collections. Other marks on thesecondary face of E.1262 include the museuminventory number in black ink. Below this the

tomb identifier Q is inscribed in pencil, as was




Petries habit. Beyond this the secondary faceappears to be uninscribed, although a mark just

visible in the middle of the broken edge may bethe remains of incision, as attested on otherlabels dated to the reign of Qaa, such as theincised double-sided ivory label Ab K 1445found at Tomb Q (N6N vor Eingang; Engel1997: 456; see Tafel III lower).

As for my questions concerning the graphicalcontent of Column 1 as drawn, especially Clus-ter , I begin by investigating the comparativeevidence that would have been available toPetrie and his team around the time of the labelfragments excavation and documentation, par-ticularly others excavated during that season, inorder to determine whether these may haveinfluenced this rendering. Cluster is attestedon four other labels published in the 1900 exca-

vation report. These include two ascribed toDen and two to Semerkhet, and upon whichCluster occurs in the following composi-tional configurations:

Den:1. British Museum, EA 32650, almost complete

label. Register 3 of Column 1 (Petrie 1900: [P]pl. 11, no. 14, [D] pl. 15, no. 16).

2.

Oriental Institute, Chicago 6125: Fragmentarylabel. Register 3 (?) of Column 1 (Petrie 1900:[P] pl. 11, no. 4, [D] pl. 15, no. 18).

Semerkhet:3. British Museum, EA 32668, complete label with

some surface damage. Top right of Column 2(Pe tr ie 1900: [P] pl. 12, no. 1, [D] pl. 17, no. 26).

4.

Fitzwilliam E86.1900, fragmentary label. Topright (of Column 1?) (Petrie 1 1900: [P] pl. 11,no. 18, [D] pl. 17, no. 27).

1 Petrie 1900: 23 writes that this label fragment

was found in the tomb of Mersekha (now conven-tionally rendered Semerkhet). Interestingly, this com-positional configuration of the double or triple colum-nar format and the use of the incised technique areattested on five other labels/label fragments, all of

which were found in and around Tomb Q ascribed toSemerkhets successor (E ngel 1997). This raises poten-tially interesting questions concerning label practices,both in terms of compositional changes and continui-ties from reign to reign, as well as differential uses

within the cemeterybearing in mind that the findlocation may be due to post-depositional disturbancesand patterning may reflect gaps in preservation, sinceonly about seven labels can be associated with Semerk-

het compared with almost 60 for Qaa.

Thus, in no instance is Cluster attested inthe middle/lower part of Column 1 as renderedin the drawing on Tafel II. Likewise, labelsfound during the following excavation season(Pe trie 1901) do not exhibit this Cluster in sucha position, but rather follow those composi-tional configurations noted above. From theevidence available around the time of Petriesexcavation and in contemporary publications,including labels excavated earlier at Abydos by

Amlineau (1905; 1904; 1899) and de Morgan atNaqada in 1897, the rendition presented inPetries drawing appears to be unattested.

A few years later, this label fragment was in-cluded in a study by George Francis Legge enti-tled Tablets of Negadah and Abydos, appear-ing in the final of six monthly instalmentspublished in 19061907 in the Proceedings ofthe Society of Biblical Archaeology. Legge ap-pears to work primarily from surrogates, mainlyin the form of photographs. When discussinglabel fragment E.1262, he does not mentionPetries line drawing, but states only that thesinister register [Column 1] which probably oncecontained a year-name is illegible (Legge1907: [T] 249, no. 17, [P] pl. 2, no. 17).

Newberry (1912: [T] 289, [D] pl. 32, no. 11)also examined E.1262 as part of a study on FirstDynasty labels, mainly in the context of sacredoils as unidentified through both contextual andretrospective approaches. His drawing of thisfragment delineates more explicitly the up-braided areas in Column 1, perhaps on the basisof first-hand study(?). His examination focuseson imagery in the lower middle column, and hedoes not comment on the content of Column 1,although he reproduces the imagery in Column

1 as originally rendered by Petrie.A half century later E.1262 is incorporated

into Raymond Weills study (Weill 1961: 62ff.)which also follows suit. Peter Kaplonys monu-mental work on early writing of Dynasties 13includes this label fragment (Kaplony 1963:984), referred to as d and redrawn on pl.145, fig. 847B. It would appear here that there-drawer worked from the published photo-graph and line drawing, to produce a copy ofPetries rendition. Kaplony takes the work one

step further, however, in providing a partial




reconstruction for Column 1 and full recon-structions for Columns 23 (Tafel III upper). Ireturn to these below.

More recently, Eva-Maria Engel studied labelfragment E.1262 in the context of her PhD the-sis on Abydos tomb complex Q (Engel 1997:[T] 445, [D] 446, fig. 218, no. 4, see also 433481). Here Petries original line drawing is alsoreproduced without any apparent change. Ac-cording to the conventional retrospective ap-proach, a transliteration and translation of thegraphical content are given (En gel 1997: 445):

2 3 4

Jahr: [] des Knigs von Ober- und Untergypten[Horus Qa]a, Baumgarten des Palastes (?) [in? ],beste Qualitt des ls [Leiter der Zimmer-leute des Knigs von Obergypten] Henuka

Year: [] the King of Upper and Lower Egypt [][Horus Qaa], arboretum of the palace (?) [in? ],best quality of -oil [Chief Carpenter of theKing of Upper Egypt] Henuka

Thus, in surveying the publication history ofAbydos label fragment E.1262, it is probablethat subsequent investigators worked primarilyfrom the original published line drawing and to alesser extent, the photograph. Beyond Petrie(above) and Legges (Legge 1907: 249) com-ments concerning the illegibility of the contentin the lower-most part of Column 1, investiga-tors appear to accept its content, if not its statusas reproduction, rather than reconstruction.Given that there is minimal clear differentiationin the drawing technique to readily distinguishthe former from the latter, if one did not consultPetries written description of the object, repro-duction would be assumed. Thus, apart from the

fact that no label available to Petrie, Legge,Newberry or Kaplony bore Cluster fol-lowed by (and to date none are attested),

2 Engel 1997: 445 notes here the remains of thehorizontal line as indicated in the drawing.

3 Engel also notes that, on the basis of , the signbelow each could be . She also suggests that the twosigns further below could each be the tail of a bird.

4 Engel places outside the brackets, however,the bird atop the niched frame CGO is not preserved.I have shifted the brackets to reflect the signs which are

preserved.

there was limited reason for previous investiga-tors to question the original line drawing rendi-tion. It is really with the benefit of discoveriesover the past two decades of mid- to late FirstDynasty labels of this type that we can fully ap-preciate how closely all examples conform to thecompositional schemes attested for Den 1 and2, or Semerkhet 1 and 2 outlined above (discov-ery, during the second season of Petrie and histeam at Abydos, of a similarly composed labelbearing a PI of Semerkhet with a three-columnlayout does not significantly alter the composi-tional rule label practioners were reproducingin the later part of the First Dynasty (see Petrie1902: [D] pl. 11, no. 9; 1901: [P] pl. 8, no. 5;Oriental Institute, Chicago, 6198).

Compositional Analysis andReconstruction of Label Fragment E.1262

In bringing the presently available data to-gether for compositional analysis in what fol-lows, I assess the mechanics of individual imageexpression and the internal organisation ofcontent (cf. Rose 2001: 178). The types ofgraphical relationship examined include general

spatial distribution vis--vis the label surface,and compositional features of individual imagestypes (i.e. SGO, CGO, Cluster, as presentedabove) such as mode, orientation, direction,association and view. I also examine the rela-tionships between these variables, as well as arange of material features, including techniqueand colour (see also Piquette 2008). For thisparticular case study, I present the analysis ac-cording to the way in which I worked throughthe evidence, beginning with the known and less

varied features, and moving to the unknown andmore varied features, but also deploying Kap-lonys reconstruction as a heuristic device (TafelIII upper). For this reason, the sequence ofstudy commences with Column 3 and ends withColumn 1, and therefore reflects the researchprocess and is not intended to imply the ancientreading/viewing sequence.

Reconstructing Column 3

The preserved content in Column 3 shows

+ + aligned vertically. This Cluster ap-




pears on other labels bearing either the PI ofSemerkhet or Qaa, confirming it as a meaning-ful Cluster, which Francis Llewellyn Griffith (inPetrie 1900: 43) has read retrospectively as thePI Henu-ka. Comparison of contemporarylabels bearing this Cluster also exhibit the co-lumnar format, and in the left-most columnabove + + , Cluster + + + isconsistently encountered, although the sequencecan vary. All sufficiently preserved instances ofthis Cluster indicate through morphology andthe use of colour that two different types of axe

were intended: and . Overall, the evi-dence supports Kaplonys reconstruction ofColumn 3 of E.1262 (Kaplony 1963: pl. 145,d) apart from two points. Despite the pres-ence of in the fully preserved example co-figured on the same plate in his publication (a, 1), Kaplony omits this SGO in all four recon-structed instances of this Cluster. Given this andthe fact that 11 of 12 preserved examples dis-covered to date bearing the PI of Henuka (andQaa) include , this SGO should be added toKaplonys reconstruction for Column 3. It isclear that two types of axe must be distin-guished.

Reconstructing Column 2

Shifting our attention to Column 2, one ofthe more recognisable motifs here is the nichedframe CGO. Despite its fragmentary condition,the morphology of the surviving component ofthe PI in the upper part of the niched framecan be confidently identified as , the lowerSGO in the Cluster comprising the PI of Qaa as

reconstructed by Kaplony. There is no reason todoubt his reconstruction of the niched framemotif, which agrees with all other contemporaryexamples.

However, the Cluster Kaplony locates to theleft of the niched frame is problematic. For allpreserved contemporary labels bearing the ni-ched frame where is immediately adjacent,the latter always occurs to the right of former,never to the left. Further, the positions of and should be swapped and their direction

reversed; they always face towards the niched

frame, thus: . We must therefore seek analternative reconstruction.

About 75% of all label imagery is right-facing as discernable for pictorial, asymmetrical im-ages (Piquette 2007). Where image directionalters from this dominant right-facing position,this occurs primarily with human figures orother imagery juxtaposed with them. Thus, left-facing imagery most commonly occurs in thecontext of narrative scenes. These appear mainlyon labels where imagery is organised in the hori-zontal format datable from the reign of Narmerup to the (latter part? of the) reign of Den, after

which the vertical format becomes the norm andnarrative scenes fall out of use (Piquette 2007;see also Redf or d 1986). That faces theniched frame, a CGO containing the PI of theruler, suggests that meaning extends beyond thepurely semantic, perhaps conveying a kind ofsocial relationship similar to that constructedthrough juxtaposition and the inward-facingdirectionalities attested for human figures in theearlier narrative label imagery (see Piquette2007). Perhaps the left-facing direction of signalled some aspect of the rulers status or roleas an individual in contrast, or in addition, to the

architectural significance of the niched framemotif in constructing aspects of rulership throughreference to the built world (Wilkinson 2001:201202). Conventional understandings of as tutelary goddesses associated with rulershipand geographic locals (Baines 1995: 127) pre-sent important interpretive possibilities, but theseextend beyond the methods and scope of thisarticle.

Returning to Kaplonys reconstruction andthe imagery he locates below , it is also the

case that all examples of Cluster + neveroccur to the left of the niched frame. Note thatthis Cluster can be expressed using any combi-nation of , , and/or and in all manifes-tations appears to be linked to the position anddirectionality of . This is determined on thebasis of the Cluster being consistently posi-tioned by the scribes below this CGO and left-facing direction of both, as confirmed by thoseinstances where the asymmetrical SGO isincluded, albeit highly schematised (see Tafel III

lower). This Cluster, in its various configura-




tions, i.e. ( ) + + ( ), is attested only on labelsbearing the PI of Qaa. Therefore, on the basisof the preserved compositional evidence for thesesets of imagery, taking account of position, as-sociation and directionality, there is no evidenceto support Kaplonys reconstruction of the areato the left of the niched frame in Column 2.

Comparison of the imagery incised below theniched frame with the more recently discov-ered Qaa labels A5, B6 and C7 on Tafel IVVshows that the repertoire of SGOs, their loca-tion, sequence, and right-facing direction (de-termined via the asymmetrical examples) areidentical: + + . Comparison of thisCluster with labels bearing ( ) + + ( ) showsthat in all instances, these Clusters are in fact,mutually exclusive, thus constituting a secondargument against Kaplonys reconstruction ofE.1262 using + .

Moving to the SGOs located to the left of + + , the repertoire is somewhat varied,but consistently includes juxtaposed with ,the former always preceding the latter. Occur-ring above or below + are four SGOscomprising any of the following: , , ,

/, , , . These appear in slightly different

combinations and sequences (see e.g. New-berry 1912: 287 who relates imagery in this areaof the composition to types of oil).

Above this position and to the left of the ni-ched frame on labels AC, we encounter aCluster including the same three SGOs: ++ , the latter SGO being comprised of a se-ries of three or four peaks. This Cluster is con-sistent in its location, directionality and sequence

5

Complete single-sided label of ivory (type unspeci-fied), incised and infilled with red and black paint,found in the area of Abydos tomb complex Q ascribedto Qaa (see Dreyer 1993: [T, P] 10; Engel 1997: [T]444, [D] 446, fig. 218 [2]).

6 Complete single-sided label of ivory (?), incisedand infilled with black ink, found in the area of Aby-dos tomb complex Q ascribed to Qaa, Q-NW Sandunter LZ-Bruch westlich W8W9 (see Engel 1997:[T] 444445, [D] 446, fig. 218 [3].

7 Almost complete double-sided label of elephantivory, incised and infilled with red and black paste,found in Abydos tomb complex Q ascribed to Qaa,Chamber N6N before the entrance (see Engel 1997:

[T] 443444; Ha wa ss 2002: [P] 7.

in reading from right to left and top to bottom,although on label C, + are horizontallyaligned rather than stacked vertically.

Given the extent to which the preserved por-tion of the E.1262 label fragment conforms tothe compositional patterns exhibited by labels

AC, I propose that the area to the left of theniched frame be reconstructed with Cluster + + . This configuration is also positedby Engel in her transliteration and translation(above).

Column 1

Finally, for Column 1, Kaplony does not of-fer a drawn reconstruction apart from addingthe upper portion of to the E.1262 line draw-ing, nor is a transliteration and translation pos-ited by Engel. Nevertheless, in examining first-hand the top-most SGO preserved on the frag-ment, the horizontal incision as depicted in thedrawing is still visible. Moreover, a small depres-sion below the right end of the incision can bediscerned, suggesting that this SGO is, in fact, . Indeed, contemporary labels found in andaround Tomb Q bearing show a Cluster of

four vertically stacked SGOs which include (Tafel IVV). This Cluster appears as either + + + or its inverse + + + .Given this pattern and the preservation of , Ibelieve that should in fact be understood asthe lower-most SGO of Cluster + + +

, rather than part of Cluster + + .This leaves the presence of to explain. No

less than 10 incised labels bearing from thearea of Tomb Q contain this SGO in Column 1.In many instances appears in the upper or

middle part of the column (its repetition in thelower-most part of the column relates to a dif-ferent Cluster, e.g. Tafel III lower). When weconsult the parallels in Tafel IVV, B shows immediately to the right of . However, asurvey of all occurrences of shows that itspositioning is entirely independent of in itsrole as a constituent of + + + .Once this Cluster is isolated and set aside, analy-sis shows that is clustering with the followingSGOs: , / , , . The sequence, loca-

tion and constituents of these groupings vary.




For example, on label A, we see that the Clustercomprises + + while has not beenincluded.

Nevertheless, overall comparison suggeststhat we should find some variation of Cluster( ) + , / , , ( ) in the lower part ofColumn 1 on E.1262. Indeed, examination ofthe artefact itself reveals the faint remains ofincisions which correspond to this Cluster.Hopefully most visible to the present reader in

Tafel II are the left-most portions of two verti-cally stacked occurrences of the SGO. Thedownward angle (top right to bottom left) ofboth incisions corresponds to the angle of theleft-most portion of as it appears on AC.

Above these, a longer incision is also faintlyvisible at roughly the same angle, but descendingto the left a bit more sharply. I suggest this inci-sion forms the left-most portion of . I be-lieve it may have been the line forming thebody of this serpent, combined with precon-ceptions (below) or lack of access to the artefactduring drawing, that led the drawer to see .Perhaps the handle of was derived fromthe curvature of the incision forming the tip ofthe serpents tail. Finally, to the right of ,

the even fainter remains of incised parallel lines or can be observed. Thus, given thecorrespondence of the compositional features(i.e. morphology, position, sequence and direc-tion) of the faint incisions on E.1262 with thecomparative evidence, I propose that this areaof the label fragment should be reconstructedaccording to the corresponding content in Col-umn 1 of label B on Tafel IV.

So why did Petrie and others see Cluster amongst the preserved marks in Column 1?

The fractured surface undoubtedly made it diffi-cult to discern intentional from non-intentionallines. I also suspect that because and

were aligned on roughly the same horizontalaxis, a meaningful association was assumed be-cause it met with certain external expectationsconcerning royal titles attested elsewhere. It

would have then been relatively easy to makeout the shapes of + in the diamond- orlozenge-shaped fractures in the laminae of theivory. Cluster was already known from

labels bearing the PI of Den. These were, how-

ever, located in entirely different compositionalcontexts of a narratival nature, and restricted tolabels dating from the beginning to the middleof the First Dynasty (e.g. Amlineau 19041905, [T] 124, [P] pl. 37, no. 3; Dreyer et al.1998: [T] 138139, 166, [D] fig. 29, [P] pl. 5c;Petrie 1900: [T] 22, [D] pl. 15, no. 16, [P] pl.11, no. 14). Subsequent occurrences are attestedon labels bearing a PI of Semerkhet where always co-occurs with right-facing instances of (e.g. Pe tr ie 1900: [T] 23, [D] pl. 17, no. 26,[P] pl. 12, no. 1), but these are mutually exclu-sive with the niched frame motif. The case isthe same for their appearance on labels dated tothe reign of Qaa. For this and the other compo-sitional reasons discussed, the configuration asreconstructed by Petrie and Kaplony for E.1262is therefore untenable.

Beyond this, it only remains to propose thatwhat may be a Cluster comprised of and (although the latter is not always expressed orclosely juxtaposed with the former), in the uppercorner of this label type, should be added to thereconstruction. Thus, apart from the variableimagery in the lower middle column and basedon the preserved and published label finds to

date, it is possible to propose a contextuallyderived reconstruction of E.1262 with possible

variants as presented in Tafel VI.With regard to the conventional retrospecti-

vely-derived transliteration and translation propo-sed by Engel, this would be adjusted as follows:

Jahr: knigliche [Inspektion der beiden Zimmerleutedes] Knigs von Untergypten und (Lieferung) von

Akazienholz [Horus Qa]a, Baumgarten des Palastes(?) [in?], beste Qualitt des ls [Leiter derZimmerleute des Knigs von Obergypten] Henuka

Year: royal [inspection of the Double Carpenter of]the King of Lower Egypt and (delivery) of acacia

wood [Horus Qa]a, arboretum of the palace (?) [in?], best quality of -oil [Chief Carpenter of theKing of Upper Egypt] Henuka

Concluding Remarks

In sum, through this compositional analysis

of selected First Dynasty labels found in and


http:///reader/full/a-compositional-approach-to-a-first-dynasty-inscribed-label-fra


around tomb complex Q at Abydos, and in con-junction with first-hand study, it has been possi-ble to propose an adjusted reconstruction oflabel fragment E.1262 (Tafel VI), as well as dis-cern and explain possible reasons for oversightsin previous research. This underlines the impor-tance of reflexivity concerning the epistemologi-cal processes underpinning (re-)constructionand interpretation. Investigators may see dif-ferent graphical content or physical featuresdepending on whether study is based on theoriginal artefacts or surrogates, and seeing mayalso be informed by preconceptions held in theinvestigators mind. In developing a less teleo-logical perspective in the study of early Egyptianscript and image (see Baines 2004: 184), I hopethat the micro-level analysis presented heredemonstrates the value of grounding study andinterpretation of graphical imagery in their im-mediate artefactual, compositional and contem-porary cultural situation, thus providing a firmerbasis for addressing broader questions of labelfunction, meaning and other types of socio-cultural significance.

Acknowledgements

Portions of the research presented in this articlederive on my doctoral research conducted at theUCL Institute of Archaeology, supported by the UKOverseas Research Students Award Scheme andgrants from the Institute of Archaeology Awards andthe UCL Graduate School. I am grateful to the lateBarbara Adams, Gnter Dreyer, Eva-Maria Engel,

Andrew Gardner, Wolfram Grajetzki, Liam McNa-mara, Roger Matthews, Lutz Popko, Stephen Quirke,Dietrich Raue, Jeffrey Spencer, John Tait, ClaudiaZehrt and Helen Whitehouse for valuable discus-sions, image provision and permissions and other

valuable support. My thanks are also due to the ZSeditorial committee.

References

Aml ineau , E. 1905. Les Nouvelles Fouilles dAby-dos: 1897 1898 (Deuxime Partie). Paris.

Aml ineau , E. 1904. Les Nouvelles Fouilles dAby-dos: 18971898. Paris.

Aml ineau , E. 1902. Les Nouvelles Fouilles dAby-

dos: Seconde campagne 18971898. Paris.

Aml ineau , E. 1899. Les Nouvelles Fouilles dAby-dos: 1895 1896 Part I. Paris.

Baines, J. 2007. Visual and Written Culture inAncient Egypt. Oxford.

Baines, J. 2004. The Earliest Egyptian Writing:Development, context, purpose. In Houston,S. D. (ed.) The First Writing: Script invention ashistory and process, 150189. Cambridge.

Baines, J. 1995. Origins of Egyptian Kingship. InO Co nn or , D. and S il ve rm an , D. P. (eds.)

Ancient Egyptian Kingship, 95156. New York.Baines, J. 1989. Communication and Display: The

integration of early Egyptian writing and art.Antiquity 63: 471 482.

Baines, J. 1985. Fecundity Figures: Egyptian per-sonification and the iconology of a genre. War-minster.

Bard, K. A. 1992. Origins of Egyptian Writing. InFriedman, R. and Adams, B. (eds.) The Fol-lowers of Horus: Studies dedicated to Michael

Allen Hoffman 19441990, 297 306. Oxford.Chatterjee, H. J. (ed.) 2008. Touch in Muse-

ums: Policy and practice in object handling.Oxford.

Coulmas, F. 2003 [1989]. The Writing Systems ofthe World. Oxford.

de Morgan, J. 1897. Recherches sur les Origines delgypte: Ethnographie prhistorique et tombeauroyal de Ngadah. Paris.

Dreyer, G. 2000. Egypts Earliest Historical Event.Egyptian Archaeology 16: 67.

Dreyer, G. 1993. A Hundred Years at Abydos.Egyptian Archaeology 3: 1012.

Dreyer, G., Hartmann, R., Hartung, U., Hi-kade, T., Kpp, H., Lacher, C., Mller, V.,Nerlich, A. and Zink, A. 2003. Umm el-Qaab:Nachuntersuchungen im frhzeitlichen Knigs-friedhof. 13./14./15. Vorbericht. Mitteilungendes Deutschen Archologischen Instituts,

Abteilung Kairo 59: 69138.Dreyer, G., von den Driesch, A., Engel, E.-M.,

Hartmann, R., Hartung, U., Hikade, T.,Mller, V. and Peters, J. 2000. Umm el-Qaab.Nachuntersuchungen im frhzeitlichen Knigs-

friedhof. 11./12. Vorbericht. Mitteilungen desDeutschen Archologischen Instituts, AbteilungKairo 56: 46125.

Dreyer, G., Hartung, U., Hikade, T. and Ml-ler, V. 1998. Umm el-Qaab: Nachuntersuchun-gen im frhzeitlichen Knigsfriedhof. 9./10. Vor-bericht. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archolo-gischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 54: 78167.

Dre ye r, G., Eng el, E.-M., Har tun g, U., Hik ade ,T., Khler , C. E. and P umpenmeier , F. 1996.Umm el-Qaab. Nachuntersuchungen im frhzeit-lichen Knigsfriedhof. 7./8. Vorbericht. Mittei-lungen des Deutschen Archologischen Instituts,

Abteilung Kairo 52: 1376.




Dre ye r, G., Har tun g, U. and Pump enm eie r, F.,1993. Umm el-Qaab: Nachuntersuchungen imfrhzeitlichen Knigsfriedhof. 5./6. Vorbericht.Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archologischen Ins-

tituts, Abteilung Kairo 49: 33 43.Drey er, G., Boe ssne ck, J., von den Drie sch , A.and Klug, S., 1990. Umm el-Qaab: Nachunter-suchungen im frhzeitlichen Knigsfriedhof.3./4. Vorbericht. Mitteilungen des Deutschen

Archologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 46:5389.

Emery, W. B. 1961. Archaic Egypt. England.Emery, W. B. 1954. Excavations at Saqqara: Great

tombs of the First Dynasty, II. London.Emery, W. B. 1949. Excavations at Saqqara: Great

tombs of the First Dynasty, I. Cairo.Em ery , W. B. with the collaboration of Sa ad, Z. Y.

1939. Excavations at Saqqara (193738): H. or-Ah. a. Cairo.Emery, W. B. and Saad, Z. Y. 1938. Excavations

at Saqqara: The tomb of H. emaka. Cairo.Engel, E.-M., 1997. Das Grab des Qaa in Umm el-

Qaab: Architektur und Inventar, IIII. Unpub-lished PhD dissertation. Gttingen University.

Giddens, A. 1984. The Constitution of Society:Outline of the theory of structuration. Berkeley.

Ha wass, Z. 2002. Hidden Treasures of the EgyptianMuseum: One hundred masterpieces from thecentennial exhibition. The American University inCairo Press.

Helck, W. 1987. Untersuchungen zur Thinitenzeit.Wiesbaden.

Houston, S. D. (ed.) 2004. The First Writing: Scriptinvention as history and process. Cambridge.

Kahl, J. 1994. Das System der gyptischen Hiero-glyphenschrift in der 0.3. Dynastie. Wiesbaden.

Kaplony, P. 1963. Die Inschriften der gyptischenFrhzeit, I III. Wiesbaden.

Khler , C. E. 2008. The Helwan Project. InSmyth, J. (ed.) Corroboree: 25 Years of co-operation between Egyptians and Australians inthe field of Egyptology: Catalogue of the specialexhibition in the Egyptian Museum, Cairo, Feb-ruary 4 March 4 2008. Cairo.

Khler, C. E. with contributions by Birrell, M.,Casey, I., Hikade, T., Smythe, J. and St.Clair, B. 2005. Helwan I: Excavations in theEarly Dynastic cemetery. Season 1997/98. Hei-delberg.

Khler, C. E. 2004. The 2004 Lecture Series: TheCairo Museum collection of artefacts from ZakiSaads excavation at Helwan. Armidale.

Khler, C. E. 2000. Excavation in the Early Dynas-tic Cemetery at Helwan: A preliminary report ofthe 1998/99 and 1999/2000 Seasons. Bulletin ofthe Australian Center for Egyptology 11: 8392.

Krzyszkowska, O. and Morkot, R. 2000. Ivory

and Related Materials. In Nicholson, P. and

Shaw, I. (eds.) Ancient Egyptian Materials andTechnology, 320331. Cambridge.

Legge , G. F. 1907. The Tablets of Negadah andAbydos. Proceedings of the Society of Biblical

Archaeology 29: 1824, 7073, 101106, 150154, 243250.Macramallah, R. 1940. Fouilles Saqqarah: Un

cimetire archaque de la classe moyenne dupeuple Saqqarah. Cairo.

Matthews, R. 2003. The Archaeology of Meso-potamia: Theories and approaches. London.

Moreland, J. 2006. Archaeology and Texts: Sub-servience or enlightenment. Annual Review of

Anthropology 35: 135151.Moreland, J. 2001. Archaeology and Text. Lon-

don.New be rr y , P. E. 1912. The Wooden and Ivory

Labels of the First Dynasty. Proceedings of theSociety of Biblical Archaeology 34: 279289.Qui be l l, J. E. 1923. Excavations at Saqqara (1912

1914): Archaic mastabas. Cairo.Petrie, H. 1927. Egyptian Hieroglyphs of the First

and Second Dynasties. London.Petrie, W. M. F. 1925. Tombs of the Courtiers and

Oxyrhynkos. London.Petrie, W. M. F. 1902. Abydos. London.Petrie, W. M. F. 1901. The Royal Tombs of the

Earliest Dynasties, Part I. London.Petrie, W. M. F. 1900. The Royal Tombs of the

Earliest Dynasties, Part II. London.Piquette, K. E. 2008. Re-Materialising Script and

Image. In Gashe, V. and Finch, J. (eds.), Cur-rent Research in Egyptology IX: Proceedings ofthe ninth annual symposium, which took place atthe KHN Centre for Biomedical Egyptology,University of Manchester, January 2008, 89107.Bolton.

Piquette, K. E. 2007. Writing, Art and Society: Acontextual archaeology of the inscribed labels ofLate PredynasticEarly Dynastic Egypt. PhDdissertation. University of London.

Redford, D. B. 1986. Pharaonic King-Lists, Annalsand Day Books: A contribution to the study ofthe Egyptian sense of history. Mississauga.

Rose, G. 2001. Visual Methodologies: An introduc-tion to the interpretation of visual materials.London.

Rummel. U. (ed.) 2007. Meeting the Past: 100 Yearsin Egypt. Deutsches Archologisches InstitutKairo 19072007, Catalogue of the Special Ex-hibition in the Egyptian Museum in Cairo (19thNovember, 2007 to 15th January, 2008). Cairo.

Saad, Z. Y. 1969. The Excavations at Helwan: Artand civilization in the First and Second EgyptianDynasties. Norman, OK.

Saad, Z. Y. 1951. Royal Excavations at Helwan:19451947. (Supplment aux Annales du Service

des Antiquits de lgypte 14) Cairo.




Saad, Z. Y. 1947. Royal Excavations at Helwan:19411945. (Supplement aux Annales du Servicedes Antiquits de lgypte 3) Cairo.

Saad, Z. Y. 1942. Preliminary Report on the Royal

Excavations at Helwan. Annales du Service desAntiquits de lgypte 41: 405 409.Senner, W. N. (ed.) 1989. The Origins of Writing.

Lincoln, NE.Shanks, M. and Tilley, C. 1996. Re-constructing

Archaeology: Theory and practice. (2nd ed.). So-merset.

Spencer, A. J. 1980. Catalogue of Egyptian Anti-quities in the British Museum V: Early Dynasticobjects. London.

Wei l l , R. 1961. Recherches sur la IreDynastie et lestemps prpharaoniques. Cairo.

Wi lk inson, T. A. H. 2001 [1999]. Early DynasticEgypt. London.

Summary

The case study presented in this article takes acompositional approach to the reconstruction of an

ivory label fragment (Ashmolean E.1262) discoveredover a century ago by Flinders Petrie and his team atthe Abydos tomb complex ascribed to Qaa, the lastruler of the First Dynasty. Previous methods applied

to the study of labels and other early inscribedobjects and the modes used for their reproduction inprinted media are discussed and critically assessed. Iargue that the pitfalls presented by anachronistic andde-contextualising approaches can be avoided byanchoring analysis in the artefact in tandem withdetailed comparative study of contemporary gra-phical culture. Previous reproductions and recon-structions are thus reviewed and an adjusted re-construction of the label fragment is proposed fromthis grounded perspective.

Keywords

Abydos Qa-a Oxford, Ashmolean Museum,E. 1262 writing, development of inscribed label compositional analysis reconstruction



TAFEL I

Plaque BM EA 35513, from Abydos, elephant ivory, W 6.6 cm, H 3.1 cm, TH 0.7 cm. Above: Composite photo-

graph showing all sides (authors photographs, courtesy BM). Below: Original published photograph (Petrie 1901:pl. 3, no. 1, courtesy EES) and drawing presumably based on it (Emery 1961: 53, fig. 13, courtesy Penguin Books)(zu Piquette, Inscribed Label Fragment from Abydos).



TAFEL II

Label fragment Ashmolean Museum E.1262, from Abydos, ivory (probably elephant). W 3.8 cm, H 3.73.75 cm,TH 0.30.32 cm. Above: Composite photograph showing all sides (authors photographs, courtesy the Ashmolean

Museum, Oxford). Below: Original photograph and line drawing (Petrie 1900: pl. 11, no. 12 and pl. 17, no. 28,courtesy of the Egypt Exploration Society )

(zu Piquette, Inscribed Label Fragment from Abydos).



TAFEL III

Reconstruction of upper half of E.1262 (Kaplony 1963: pl. 145, fig. 847B, OA-a d, courtesy Harrassowitz)(zu Piquette, Inscribed Label Fragment from Abydos).

Incised label Ab K 1445, from Abydos (Engel 1997: 455-456, fig. 221 [3], with authors permission).Ivory. W 3.55 cm, H 3.1 cm, TH 0.20.25 cm




TAFEL IV

A:Label Ab K 1630, R 340, from Abydos (photograph: Dreyer 1993: 10; drawing: Engel 1997: 446, fig. 218 [2]).Ivory. W 2.9 cm, H 3.15 cm, TH 0.35 cm(zu Piquette, Inscribed Label Fragment from Abydos).

B:Label Ab K 1631, R 341, from Abydos (Engel 1997: 446, fig. 218 [3]). Ivory (?).W 3.65 cm, H 3.05 cm, TH 0.250.3 cm




TAFEL V

C:Label Ab K 1442, R 255 = JE 99161, from Abydos (photograph: Rummel 2007: 74, no. 54;drawing: Engel 1997: 446, fig. 218 [1]). Elephant ivory.

W 3.9 cm, H 3.5 cm, TH 0.30.4 cm (zu Piquette, Inscribed Label Fragment from Abydos).



TAFEL VI

Adjusted reconstruction of label fragment E.1262 with range of possible reconstructions for missing upperportion. Authors drawing (after Kaplony 1963: pl. 145, Abb. 847B, OA-a d; Engel 1997: 446, fig. 218 [1, 3])


A Compositional Approach to a First Dynasty Inscribed Label Fragment from the Abydos Tomb Complex Ascribed to Qa’a_ZÄS 137.pdf

Documents

inscribed labelse

abydos amlineau

numerousfurther labels

theinscribed labels

small number of stud

abydos zs

funerary sites

funerary ritualremains