6 THE DATING OF LATE PERIOD BES VASES D. A. ASTON AND B. G. ASTON In recent years much attention has been focused on Late period Bes vases, and a number of different typologies and sources of origin have been proposed.' No at- tempt, however, has been made to arrange these enigmatic objects in a chronological order, no doubt due to the diffilculties of dating Late period pottery in general. Indeed, as Bourriau (1987, 86-87) has pointed out, a comprehensive study of these Bes vases, taking into account the archaeological context, fabric, ware, vessel shape, and tech- nique of manufacture, is badly needed. It is the aim of this paper to take up this suggestion and attempt to produce a firm chronological typology for Egyptian Bes vases similar to that produced by Blakeley and Horton (1986, 111-19) for vessels found in southern Palestine during the Persian period. Kuchman Sabbahy (1982, 147-48) was the first to provide a typology for Late period Bes vases found in Egypt when she divided them into two basic types: 1) the juglet or juglet decanter type produced in "fine buff clay" and found only at a few sites in the Memphite area and the Fayum; and 2) a drop-shaped jar type produced in a "rough red ware" and found at sites throughout Egypt. One year later, Guidotti (1983) published an article in which she divided Late period Bes vases into four types: A; B, which she subdivided into BI and B2; and C. Type C vessels are clearly Hellenistic or later and lie outside the scope of this article (see ibid., 54-56; Jesi 1963). The other types were classified as follows. Type A consisted of vessels that were of large dimensions with a mouth with lips, barely differentiated neck, and ovoid body. Into this class Guidotti placed six vessels, three of which were indeed large (our type I) and three of which clearly dif- fered in being much smaller (our type II). Vessels of type B were subdivided into two contemporary groups2-those in B2 being much coarser and more schematic than those in B1: 96 Egyptian Pottery B1) Vases of type B 1 are made of a fine clay, have a tall neck, give an indication of the arms, which are pro- portionally smaller than the face, and, unusually for representations of Bes, do not show the tongue pro- truding from the mouth. The face becomes progres- sively more grotesque and representations of the feathered headdress are only found on a few ex- amples. B2) Vases of type B2 are separated from those of type B 1 by being made of a coarser clay and by having a larger mouth, a short neck, and a rounded base with- out a foot. The above represents two different ways of looking at these objects. For Kuchman Sabbahy the fabric was clearly the primary factor influencing her typology, whilst for Guidotti the physical appearance of the vessel was more important. In our opinion, which clearly echoes that of Bourriau, a sensible typology of these vessels can only be formulated if both fabric and appearance are considered as equally impor- tant. The present corpus of Late period Egyptian Bes vessels amounts to over one hundred pieces, and, we believe, may be divided into the following six types based on fabric, ware, and technique of manufacture: type I, large Nile silt ovoid jars; type II, small Nile silt ovoid jars; type III, bag-shaped Nile silt vessels with detailed facial features; type IV, Nile silt jars with schematic facial features; type V, well-made marl clay vessels with detailed facial features; and type VI, less carefully made jars in both marl and silt clays with more schematic facial features. In addition, there are a small number of Bes vases known to us which do not fall into any of the above categories and are best described as miscellaneous vessels lying outside the main line of devel- opment. These latter are probably to be seen as the quirks of individual potters and will not be discussed in this paper.3 TYPE I Bes vases of type I (fig. 6.1) may be characterized as large Nile silt jars with ovoid bodies, rounded bases, rolled rims, and minimal necks. The Bes face is found on the upper part of the body and is made by the addition of rolls of clay to represent the ears, eyes, nose, mouth, tongue, and arms. Characteristic of these pots is a feathered headdress shown above the eyes. In view of the large size of these vessels, they rarely survive intact. Indeed, only two complete examples are known to us: 1) a vessel found by Petrie (1909a, pl. LIV.845) in the storerooms of the mortuary temple of Seti I at Thebes and dated to Dynasties 23 to 26; and 2) a similar vessel found by Rosellini and now in Flo- rence (inv. no. 3359; Rosellini 1834, 344, n. 125, pl. LVI.125; Guidotti 1983, pl. IA). Sherds of two others of this type were found at Ashmunein in level 1 (Spen- cer 1986, 14-15, fig. 24.112, 114), which was dated to the Third Intermediate period/ Saite period. Two more may have been recovered at Mendes, but these "large storage jars" remain unpublished (S. Allen 1982, 20), and fragments of three others may have been discovered at Amarna.4 The Dating of Late Period Bes Vases Figure 6.1 Bes vase of type I, with /%_ ] Bes face on upper part of ovoid body / 0 0 C and feathered headdress above eyes While the Florence vessel has lost its original archaeological context, the remaining vessels can be dated through the other pots found with them. The pottery found with that recovered from the Seti I temple at Thebes includes two examples of Attic brush-banded amphorae (Petrie 1909a, pl. LIV.849-50) that are characteristic of the first half of the sixth century B.C., though they may extend as late as ca. 500 B.C. (Sparkes and Talcott 1970, 192-93, nos. 1500-1505, fig. 12 and pl. 64). The bowls (Petrie 1909a, pl. LIV.814-6, 819-20) and bottle (ibid. 834) find ready parallels in Persian period caches at Saqqara (cf. French 1988, 79-89; P. G. French and H. Ghaly 1991, 93-123; D. A. and B. G. Aston, in preparation). On the basis of demotic inscrip- tions found on a small number of vessels, French consistently dates the Saqqara ma- terial to the fourth century B.C., although he readily admits that it need not necessarily be all of the same date. From stratified deposits at Elephantine (unpublished), it would appear that the Saqqara pottery is not all of the same date but falls into two groups, one slightly earlier than the other. The vessels published by French and Ghaly (1991, 97, 123.18a-b) with demotic inscriptions dated to the fourth century B.C. by H. S. Smith are only found in levels provisionally dated to the fourth century at Elephan- tine, whilst the bowl types found at Qurneh appear stratigraphically one layer lower. From the foregoing discussion it is probable, therefore, that the Qurneh pottery dates to the sixth and fifth centuries B.C. A date in the first half of the sixth century for the Bes vase is perhaps indicated by the sherds recovered at Ashmunein. All of the pub- lished material from Spencer's level 1 falls into the period covered by the Twenty- fifth and Twenty-sixth dynasties, as a comparison with the pottery associated with the South Tombs at Amama (French 1986, 147-88) and in unpublished stratified layers at Elephantine clearly shows. TYPE II These vessels, of which only a few are known, consist of small, neckless Nile silt ovoid jars with a rolled rim and rounded or pointed bases. The applied decoration comprises eyes and nose in all examples, usually mouth and ears, and sometimes 'cheeks' (fig. 6.2). The following vessels are known to us: 1) Ashmunein 1985/28 (Spencer and Bailey 1986, 61, fig. 9.1); 97 98 Egyptian Pottery / Figure 6.2 Bes vase of type II; small, /.? 0 ? ...) 0 - ?neckless ovoid jars with applied decorations representing eyes and nose, and often ears and mouth 2) Ashmunein 1985/29 (ibid., fig. 9.2); 3) Thebes (Petrie 1909a, pl. LIV.826); 4) Thebes (ibid., pl. LIV.827); 5) Thebes (Mysliwiec 1987, 57, no. 368). Petrie dated his vessels to Dynasties 23 to 26, but as they were found with the vessel of type I above, then these too should be dated to the sixth-fifth centuries B.C., with a preference for the first half of the sixth century B.C., owing to the presence of the Attic brush-banded amphorae found in the same place. The vessel published by Mysliwiec was found in a pottery cache with a number of other vessels, which find their closest parallels in an unpublished Saite/Persian context at Buto (P. G. French, personal communication) and in that recovered by Petrie with intrusive burials at Lahun, which he dated to the Twenty-second Dynasty (cf. Mysliwiec 1987, 54-63 with Petrie, Brunton, and Murray 1923, pls. LIX-LX). Despite the generally poor nature of the Lahun graves, enough hints survive to show that these burials date to the seventh century B.C. Bead nets were found with the burials in tombs 603 and 650, which are thus later than ca. 750 B.C. (Aston 1987, 519-23). The published drawings of the finger rings found in tombs 610 and Nl l show the bezel raised above the shank (Petrie, Brunton, and Murray 1923, pls. LXIX.22, LXVIII.23), a characteristic that appears to be no earlier than the Twenty-sixth Dynasty, when the shape of finger rings changed to a type in which the bezel is raised above the shank, whilst the underside of the bezel is cut away to leave room for the finger (Wilkinson 1971, 194-95). The foreign pottery found included a small amount of Cypriote Black-on-Red ware recov- ered from tombs 602, 607, 609, 620, and 851. The jug neck (Oxford Ashmolean 1914.705) from tomb 602 would appear to belong to a Black-on-Red II (IV) jug of Gjerstadt's type 3a (1948, fig. XXXVIII.3a), whilst the base sherd found in Lahun 607 may derive from a bottle of this same Black-on-Red II (IV) ware (cf. ibid., fig. XXXIX.19 with Petrie, Brunton, and Murray 1923, pl. LX.98M). Both vessels would thus date to the Cypro-Archaic period, ca. 750 - 600 B.C. The remaining Cypriote sherds cannot be typed but are likely to be of the same date. Taken together, there- fore, the above material points to a date somewhere between 750 and 600 B.C., with the finger rings pointing towards the later part of the period. This is made all the more likely by a comparison with the pottery thrown out of the South Tombs at Amarna, the unpublished stratified Saite material at Buto, and by unpublished stratified deposits at Elephantine. When compared with the Amama pottery (French 1986), which is dated The Dating of Late Period Bes Vases to or around the Twenty-fifth Dynasty, the Lahun material is clearly different. Since both groups are funerary in nature, the differences between the two groups can pre- sumably be due only to regional or chronological factors. Regional differences, how- ever, can probably be discounted since vessels from both the Amarna and Lahun corpora reappear at Buto in the north and at Thebes and Elephantine in the south. At both Buto and Elephantine, pottery similar to the Amarna group occurs in a lower level than that which is similar to the Lahun group. The pottery at Lahun, therefore, would seem to be later than the Twenty-fifth Dynasty. Yet, since the other grave goods at Lahun indicate a date in the period ca. 750-600 B.C., it is probable that the entire Lahun assemblage should be assigned to the period ca. 650-600 B.C. More- over, this date is consistent with French's (1992) dating of the Buto group with Lahun parallels to the late seventh or early sixth century B.C.5 Since, as already stated, material from the Theban caches in which the Bes vase (no. 5 above) was found is similar to the Lahun group, then it is logical to date the Theban pottery also to the late seventh-early sixth century B.C. The two vessels from Ashmunein were found in sector W, square j 10, level 1 in a fill layer with pots that were dated to the Third Intermediate period/Twenty-sixth Dynasty (Spencer and Bailey 1986, 3). All published vessels from level J1, however, find their closest par- allels in the material from the Amarna South Tombs and in unpublished deposits at Elephantine provisionally dated to Dynasties 25/26. A date in the late seventh-early sixth century B.C. for the Ashmunein pieces is thus highly probable. The fact that both types I and II come from the same sites and are of the same date indicates a close relationship between the two. TYPE III Bes vases of type III make up a small but related group found in Upper Egypt. They consist of Nile silt ovoid or bag-shaped vessels with rounded or ring bases, distinct necks, and rolled or disc rims. The detailed applied facial features show the ears, eyebrows (though not in all examples), eyes, a well-modelled nose, and a full mouth showing both lips (fig. 6.3). The eyes are sometimes pricked to indicate the pupils. The following examples are known: 1) Asfunul-Mata'nah (Bakry 1968, 37-9, pl.4, fig. 7b); 2) Asfunul-Mata'nah (ibid., pl. 5, fig. 8b); 3) Asfunul-Mata'nah (ibid., pl. 6, fig. 9b); 4) Asfunul-Mata'nah (ibid.); 5) Asfunul-Mata'nah (ibid.); 6) Asfunul-Mata'nah (ibid.); 7) Asfunul-Mata'nah (ibid., pl. 10, fig. 14b); 8) Asfunul-Mata'nah (ibid., pl. 12, fig. 16b); 9) Asfunul-Mata'nah (ibid.); 10) Asfunul-Mata'nah (ibid., pl. 14, fig. 18b); 11) Asfunul-Mata'nah (ibid.); 12) Asfunul-Mata'nah (ibid., pl. 15, fig. 18c); 13) Asfunul-Mata'nah (ibid.); 14) Esna (Downes 1974, 15 e28, fig. 18,46 no. 144); 15) Esna (ibid., no. 144A); and 16) El Kasr, Bahria oasis (Fakhry 1938, 428-9, pl. 71a). With the exception of the Bahria pot, which was dated to the Roman period, 99 100 Egyptian Pottery Figure 6.3 Bes vase of type III; / c) ouo ;> \detailed applied facial features showing (QThQ 2 eyes, eyebrows, ears, nose, and mouth with two lips. none of the above vessels were dated by their publishers. The Asfunul-Mata'nah cemetery can be dated to the late Twenty-sixth or early Twenty-seventh Dynasty through other grave goods that were found in the same cemetery. Some of the mum- mies found were covered with bead nets to which were attached faience Sons of Horus and a disjointed winged scarab (Bakry 1968,46,50, pls. 37-40, 64). They are thus of Silvano's (1980, 84) type A, which are the earliest, having developed sometime after ca. 750 B.C., with most datable examples falling in the seventh century B.C., and pos- sible extensions as late as ca. 525 B.C.(Aston 1996). The ordinary pots found with some of these burials can be dated to about the Twenty-sixth Dynasty (Bakry 1968, pls. VIII, fig. 12b; XXIV, fig. 35) or to the Persian period (ibid., pls. XIX, fig. 27; XXI, fig. 31). A dating in or around the sixth century B.C., therefore, would seem best suited for these type III vessels. TYPE IV Bes vases of type IV consist of small Nile silt bag-shaped jars with rounded or pointed bases and rolled rims (fig. 6.4). Usually they bear representations of eyes, ears, and nose, but no mouth. Less carefully made pots only bear representations of the eyes and nose or the eyes alone. The facial features are formed by indenting applied lumps of clay, or by indentations directly in the vessel wall with or without additional ap- plied lumps for the pupils. Eyebrows are not usually delineated although several examples bear an incised headdress. The following examples are known to us: 1) Tell Defenneh (Petrie 1888, 64-5 pl. XXXV.64); 2) Tell Defenneh (ibid., pl. XXXV.66); 3) Suwa (idem 1906, pl. XXXIX.F.178); 4) Suwa (ibid., pl. XXXIX.F.179); 5) Suwa (ibid., pl. XXXIX.F.180); 6) Suwa (ibid., pl. XXXIX.F.18 1); 7) Suwa (ibid., pl. XXXIX.F.182); 8) Suwa (ibid., pl. XXXIX.F.183); 9) Suwa (ibid., pl. XXXIX.F.184); 10) Tell el-Yahudieh (ibid., pl. XXIA.34); 11) Tell el-Yahudieh (ibid., pl. XXIA.35); The Dating of Late Period Bes Vases Figure 6.4 Bes vase of type IV; small, bag-shaped jar with eyes and nose but no mouth depicted 12) 13) 14) 15) 16) 17) 18) 19) 20) 21) 22) 23) 24) 25) Heliopolis (Petrie and E. Mackay 1915, pl. XI.48); Heliopolis (Guidotti 1983, 51, fig. 27, 63 pl. IID; Turin 3684); Heliopolis (ibid., fig. 28, 64 pl. IlA; Turin 3685); Heliopolis (ibid., fig. 29, 64 pl. IIIB; Turin 3644); Heliopolis (ibid., fig. 30, 64 pl. IIIC; Turin 3641); Saqqara (Macramallah 1940, 78 fig. 38); Memphis (Engelbach 1915, pl. XXXIX.109); Memphis (Petrie 1909b, pl. XLVI.39); Mit Rahineh (Anthes 1959, pl. 17e.47); Mit Rahineh (ibid., pl. 17e.48); Mit Rahineh (Anthes 1965, pl. 60.434); Mit Rahineh (ibid., pl. 60.436); Kafr Ammar (Petrie and Mackay 1915, pl. XXXIII.47); Meidum (Petrie, Mackay, Wainwright 1910, pl. XXVIIH.138); and 26) Abydos tomb D16B (Bourriau 1981, 83 no. 161). The original publishers of these pieces have dated these vessels to Dynasties 19 to 26 (no. 12), the Third Intermediate period (no. 26), around the Twenty-third Dynasty (no. 25), Dynasties 23 to 24 (24), the Twenty-sixth Dynasty (no. 18), Dynas- ties 26 to 30 (nos. 3-9), Late (nos. 17, 22-23) and Ptolemaic (nos. 10-11, 19) periods, or left them undated. Some of the vessels, however, can be dated more accurately if one considers the other objects found with them. The tombs at Kafr Ammar, in which the Kafr Ammar Bes vase was found, can be divided into two types. The first consisted of a small shaft which descended to a depth of between 2.75 m and 6.00 m. At the bottom were two or three chambers that generally contained a number of painted coffins that were sometimes enclosed in a qrsw coffin.6 The other type of tomb comprised a shaft which ended in a number of chambers with secondary rooms sometimes opening off the shaft on the way down. In these, the mummies were buried without coffins. Commenting on the burials as a whole, Wainwright observed that "the objects discovered all belong to a well known group generally placed between the end of the Twenty-second and the rise of the 101 102 Egyptian Pottery Twenty-sixth dynasties," and that most of the adults were buried "with nothing what- soever but a bead work covering and a Ptah-Sokar-asar figure" (Wainwright 1915, 33). Many of these tomb groups, however, also contained pottery (Petrie and Mackay 1915, pls. XXII-XXIV), much of which resembled that found at Defenneh and dated to the Twenty-sixth Dynasty (cf. Petrie 1888, pls. XXXIII-XXXVI). Wainwright (1915, 33) divided the pottery into native Egyptian and foreign Greek types, and assumed that the tombs which contained the Greek vases were chronologically the latest "perhaps even dating to the early part of the Twenty-sixth Dynasty." To this foreign class he erroneously attributed a series of handled jugs of a greenish-grey ware (Petrie 1888, pI. XXIV.60-69), rightly pointing out that type 60 was identical with one published by Petrie (1888, pl. XXXV.44), which he then used to date nine of his graves to chronologically the latest period of the cemetery's use. Numerous items among the tomb groups, however, indicate that they date to the late seventh century B.C. at the earliest, and, in all probability, to the sixth century B.C., with some possibly as late as the fifth century B.C. The qrsw coffins, unknown before ca. 750 B.C.7, do not become common until the early seventh century B.C. The Ptah-Sokar-Osiris figures are distinctly Saite types (Raven 1979,272), and the published bead net is of Silvano's (1980, 83-95) type C, which is chronologically the latest and not known before the Twenty-sixth Dynasty (Aston 1996,519-23). The offering table of Hori and the cof- fin of Merneit both show the pennant spelling of Osiris, which seems to have ap- peared at Thebes around 720 B.C. and sometime later at Memphis where it was still uncommon by 664B.C.8 Finally, the close parallels of the pottery found in the 'latest' tombs with that from Defenneh, which must date from the late Twenty-sixth Dynasty or later,9 strongly indicate a sixth century B.C. date for these pieces at the earliest. A number of other pieces, however, are even later (Petrie and Mackay 1915, pls. XXIII.2- 28, 48-50; XXIV.51-59, 71, 73). These find ready parallels in Late period caches at Saqqara which are provisionally dated to the Persian period,'0 and in unpublished stratified deposits at Elephantine. This Persian period phase is well marked in north- ern sites where it has been dated to the fifth and fourth centuries B.C. (French 1992). Such a date accords well with the pottery from Elephantine, where it occurs immedi- ately above layers provisionally dated to Dynasties 25/26, but below a level which is itself sealed by a house of the early Ptolemaic period (pre-Ptolemy IV). The Suwa Bes vases were found in graves 3, 36, 101, 121, 179, and 216, of which graves 3, 101, 121, and 179 contained other pots that clearly belong in this same fifth-fourth century B.C. phase (Petrie 1906, pls. XXXIX.F.142, 143, 146, 148, 157, 158, 167, 171, 172, 174, 187, 189, 190, 194, 195, 198A, 199; XXXIX.H.260). The close similarities between the Suwa and the Tell el-Yahudieh vessels would tend to indicate that the latter should also be attributed to this period, the more so since pottery of this date is not unknown at Tell el-Yahudieh, having been found in Petrie's tombs 44,50,310, and 410 (ibid., pls. XIX, XXA). The Bes vases from Defenneh are certainly no earlier than the reign of Amasis, and probably somewhat later. Although the remainder cannot be dated by archaeological context, it seems clear from the foregoing discussion that vessels of this type should be dated no earlier than the sixth and, more probably, to the fifth century B.C. TYPE V Type V Bes vases (fig. 6.5) are made from a fine marl clay, invariably Marl A2 or The Dating of Late Period Bes Vases Marl A3, and are generally well fired, thin-walled, and carefully finished. They are usually necked vessels with an ovoid body exhibiting a distinct shoulder, and either a ring or rounded base. The rim is either flanged ('ledge rim') or flaring with a rolled lip. One or more 'collar' ridges may appear on the neck and/or at the base of the neck. A vertical handle running from neck to shoulder is usually present on the opposite side of the vessel from the face. The details of the face are a combination of applied, impressed, and incised elements; occasionally some details are painted in black. The eyes, nose, mouth, eyebrows, ears, and arms are usually modelled from applied lumps of clay; secondarily the eyes are impressed with an annular implement or pricked with a tool. A small circular impression may also appear in the centre of the forehead. Incised mustaches and beards are common, headdresses rare. Painted bands may also be found, usually on the neck, but sometimes above and below the face. At present, vessels of this type are principally known from the Memphite/Fayum region and south- ern Palestine. As such, they clearly belong in a lower Egyptian pottery tradition. The following examples are known to us: 1) Tell el-Hesi 1981/1620 (Blakely and Horton 1986, 115, fig. 2.1, 116 pl. XXIV); 2) Deve Huyuk (ibid. 115, fig. 2.2, 117 pl. XXV; Ashmolean Figure 6.5 Bes vase of type V; ovoid body with neck and ringed bottom, facial details include applied, impressed or incised elements 103 104 Egyptian Pottery 1913.640); 3) Heliopolis (Guidotti 1983, 48 no. 26, 63 pl. IIC; Turin 3683); 4) Abusir 180 (Charvat 1981, 156-57, pl. 8); 5) Abusir A 738 (ibid.); 6) Abusir E 977 (ibid.); 7) Abusir E 1049 (ibid.); 8) Abusir E 11 7 (ibid.); 9) Abusir F.287 (ibid.); 10) Abusir I.438 (ibid., pl. 9); 11) Abusir J.1898 (ibid., pl. 10); 12) Abusir A- 18-20-22 (ibid., pl. 66); 13) Abusir A 36/5 (ibid.); 14) Abusir A 38 (ibid.); 15) Saqqara, EAO excavations south of the Unas causeway (French and Ghaly 1991, 107 no. 28); 16) Saqqara, surface debris (EES-Leiden excavations 1975, P699, unpublished); 17) Saqqara, surface debris (EES-Leiden excavations 1975, P240, unpublished); 18) Saqqara, pottery cache (EES-Leiden excavations 1975, P445, unpublished); 19) Saqqara, surface debris (EES-Leiden excavations 1975, P707, unpublished); 20) Saqqara, surface debris 87-218 (EES-Leiden excavations 1987 unpublished); 21) Saqqara, surface debris 87-307 (EES-Leiden excavations 1987 unpublished); 22) Saqqara, surface debris 87-312 (EES-Leiden excavations 1987 unpublished); 23) Saqqara, surface debris 87-337 (EES-Leiden excavations 1987 unpublished); 24) Saqqara, Tomb of Maya, shaft ix 90-220 (EES-Leiden ex- cavations 1990 unpublished); 25) Saqqara, Tomb of Maya, shaft ix 90-313 (EES-Leiden ex- cavations 1990 unpublished); 26) Saqqara, Tomb of Maya, shaft ix 90-280 (EES-Leiden ex- cavations 1990 unpublished); 27) Saqqara, Tomb of Maya, shaft ix 90-237 (EES-Leiden ex- cavations 1990 unpublished); 28) Saqqara, Tomb of Maya, shaft ix 90-301 (EES-Leiden ex- cavations 1990 unpublished); 29) Saqqara, Tomb of Maya, shaft ix 90-311 (EES-Leiden ex- cavations 1990 unpublished); 30) Saqqara, Tomb of Maya, shaft ix 90-312 (EES-Leiden ex cavations 1990 unpublished); 31) Saqqara, Tomb of Maya, shaft ix 90-263 (EES-Leiden ex- cavations 1990 unpublished); 32) Saqqara, Tomb of Maya, shaft ix 90-266 (EES-Leiden ex- The Dating of Late Period Bes Vases cavations 1990 unpublished); 33) Saqqara, Tomb of Maya, shaft ix 90-310 (EES-Leiden ex- cavations 1990 unpublished); 34) Saqqara, Tomb of Maya, shaft xiii 90-491 (EES-Leiden excavations 1990 unpublished); 35) Saqqara, Tomb of Maya, shaft xiii 90-493 (EES-Leiden excavations 1990 unpublished); 36) South Saqqara, Le Mastabat Faraoun, Cairo (Jequier 1928, 35, fig. 36); 37) Dahshur (De Morgan 1895, 45, fig. 94); 38) Lahun (Petrie 1890, pl. XXIV.27); 39) Provenance unknown (Perrot and Chipiez 1884, 820-1, fig. 14); 40) Provenance unknown (Guidotti 1983, 46, fig. 10, 62 pl. IC; Turin 3555); 41) Provenance unknown (ibid., 47, fig. 20, 63 pl. IIB; Turin 3554); 42) Provenance unknown (ibid., 46, fig. 11, 62 pl. ID; Turin 3553); 43) Provenance unknown (ibid., fig. 12,63 pl. HA; Florence 3451); 44) Provenance unknown (Price 1897, 404 no. 3345); 45) Provenance unknown (Guidotti 1983, 47, fig. 15; London, BM 5696). 46) Provenance unknown (Meisterwerke 1978, 209-10, no. 356; Munich AS 4528); 47) Provenance unknown (Description de L'Egypte, tome 5eme 1823, pl. 75 no.7);1" 48) Provenance unknown (Bourriau 1981,83 no. 160; BinIiing- ham Wi 138); 49) Provenance unknown (Hope 1987, 46, fig. 61; London UC 2888); and 50) Provenance unknown (ibid.; London UC 2877). An unusual vessel from Thebes must also belong to this group since it is made from the same clay and has a face made in a similar manner. The vessel itself, however, is not a closed shape but an open form (Guidotti 1978, 112, fig. 14; idem 1983, 44, no. 7,46, fig. 7). These vessels are perhaps the most familiar and most aesthetically pleasing of the Late period Bes vases. Unfortunately, no doubt owing to their inherent charm, they have tended to be published in isolation, devoid of all archaeological context. Indeed, of the fifty vessels listed above, only the Tell el-Hesi, Deve Hiiyiik, and the unpublished examples from Saqqara, P445, and those from the Tomb of Maya shafts ix and xiii, can be dated archaeologically. The vessels found in southern Palestine, which, from the description of the clay as one that has fired pink with a whitish bloom covering the exterior surfaces, are clearly Egyptian in origin'2 and have been dated, independently of one another, to the fifth century B.C. The vessel from Tell el-Hesi was found in a pit that, on the basis of its stratigraphic location and the local pottery found within it, has been dated to the mid-fifth century B.C. (Toombs 1983, 33-35). The vessel from Deve Huyiik comes from a site that appears to be a military cemetery dating from the early fifth century B.C.'3 Such a dating puts these pots firmly in the 105 106 Egyptian Pottery Persian period, a date which corresponds with those found at Saqqara. Other pots found with the Bes vases in shafts ix and xiii at the tomb of Maya and with the vessel P445 belong in the same ceramic phase discussed above when dealing with vessels of type III, and date to the fifth-fourth centuries B.C. Without a doubt, therefore, Bes vases of type V should be dated to the fifth century B.C., with the possibility that they may have extended into the fourth century B.C.. TYPE VI Bes vases of type VI (fig. 6.6) are usually made of marl clay, but four examples are also known to us in Nile silt (nos. 7, 11-13 below). In shape, type VI vessels are similar to type V; both are necked and have a generally ovoid body, a distinct shoul- der, and either a flanged rim or a flaring rim with rolled lip. Type VI vessels, how- ever, rarely have a ring base; bases are round, or flattened with a pointed centre. Facial features are schematic; the mouth usually lacking. The eyes, nose and ears are simply applied lumps of clay, though a slit is sometimes incised in the eyes. Applied or incised eyebrows may be present; one or both eyebrows are occasionally doubled. Other features that sometimes occur are incised mustaches, headdresses or forehead spots, and simple applied or incised arms without detailed hands. The following vessels belong in this group: 1) Tell Jemmeh (Gerar) EXXXVI 26/8 (Blakely and Horton 1986, 115, fig. 1.2, 112 pl. XIX); 2) Tell Jemmeh (Gerar) EXXXVI 25/13 (Petrie 1928, pl. LIX.78m; Blakely and Horton 1986, 115, fig. 1.3, 113 pl. XX); 3) Tell Jemmeh (Gerar) EXXXVI 25/14 (ibid., fig. 1.4, 113 pI. XXI); 4) Tell Jemmeh (Gerar) EXXXVI 25/15 (Petrie 1928, pl. LIX.78c; Blakely and Horton 1986, 115 fig. 1.5, 114 pl. XXII); 5) Tell Jemmeh (Gerar) (Petrie 1928, pl. LIX.76v); 6) Tell el-Hesi 1981/1687 (Blakely and Horton 1986, 114 pl. XXIII); 7) Mendes (S. Allen 1982, pls. XVI-XVII, no. 10); 8) Saqqara (Lauer 1939, 451 fig. 37); 9) Saqqara (ibid., fig. 38); 10) Saqqara, surface debris, 82-S-252 (EES-Leiden excava- tions 1982 unpublished); 11) Saqqara, surface debris, P69 (EES-Leiden excavations 1975 unpublished); 12) Saqqara, surface debris, P561 (EES-Leiden excava- tions 1975 unpublished); 13) Saqqara, Tomb of Maya, shaft ix 90-239 (EES- Leiden excavations 1990 unpublished); 14) Memphis (Anthes 1959, 26 no. 49, pl. 20b); 15) Hawara (Petrie 1912, pl. XXXVI.118); 16) Provenance unknown (Guidotti 1983, 48 no. 31, 52 fig. 31, 64 pl. HIID; Florence 3221); and 17) Provenance unknown (ibid., 48 no. 32, 51 fig. 32). The Dating of Late Period Bes Vases Figure 6.6 Bes vase of type VI; similar in shape to type V but type VI has a round base The dating of these vessels is dependent on the examples found in southern Palestine, since, with the exception of no. 13, the Egyptian examples are devoid of any archaeological context. Kuchman Sabbahy (1982, 148) has suggested that this type is a Palestinian imitation of the Egyptian type V, but this seems unlikely since so few Bes vases of type V have been found in Palestine, and the above list shows that at least eight examples of type VI have been found in Egypt.14 The Tell el-Hesi piece was found in the same pit as the Tell el-Hesi vase of type V and can thus be dated to the middle of the fifth century B.C. The vessels from Tell Jemmeh cannot be dated with precision but are apparently earlier, and possibly much earlier, than the granary phase at Jemmeh which began sometime after 350 B.C. (Petrie 1928, 7- 9; Van Beek 1983, 18-19; Blakely and Horton 1986, 117). The Saqqara vessel, 90- 239, was found with other vessels of type V together with pottery datable to the fifth-fourth centuries B.C. Once again a date in the fifth, possibly extending into the fourth, century B.C. is thus indicated for this type. In conclusion, it seems that, of the forms discussed here, types I and II are the earliest, dating from the late seventh and early sixth centuries B.C. These would ap- pear to be followed by Bes vases of type III sometime during the sixth century B.C. Bes vases of type IV first appear in the late sixth century B.C. and continue into the fifth whence they are joined by types V and VI. As such, they form just one part of the changing pottery repertoire recognizable in Persian period contexts."5 It is perhaps something of a conundrum that the three earlier types are restricted to sites south of Ashmunein, whilst the three later ones are concentrated in an area extending north- wards from the Fayum to Southern Palestine. It is, of course, possible that this is simply due to a gap in the archaeological record with the corresponding early sites in the north and late sites in the south still waiting to be excavated.16 The contemporaneity of types IV-VI has led Kuchman Sabbahy (1982, 149) to suggest that the differences were economic, with the Nile silt vessels being a less expensive and more easily 107 108 Egyptian Pottery produced version of the marl clay types. This, however, seems unlikely."7 From the distribution pattern of the provenanced examples it would appear that the marl clay vessels forn part of a ceramic industry centered on the Memphis-Fayum region, from where they were traded elsewhere, whereas the Nile silt vessels belong in a Lower Egyptian (Delta) pottery tradition.18 Most of the vessels listed above come from funerary contexts, but not all. Indeed, a significant number have been found on town sites (Tell el-Hesi, Tell Defenneh, Mendes, Mit Rahineh, Ashmunein) or in pottery caches (Qurneh), suggesting that these vessels also played some part in the daily lives of the living. Nevertheless the fact that most with known provenance derive from cemetery sites tends to support the idea that they were primarily manufactured for burial with the deceased.'9 This is in marked contrast to the New Kingdom, when almost all Bes vases with known provenance come from town sites. Clearly a change in emphasis in the nature of the god Bes had taken place over time, but a discussion of such religious changes lies outside the scope of this article.20 NOTES The term "Late period" as used in this paper refers to the period initiated by Psammetichus I's accession in 664 B.C. and ended by Alexander's conquest in 332 B.C. In company with previous writers we have tacitly assumed that the faces found on these vessels represent the god Bes; any discussion on the validity of this identification lies outside the scope of this article. For earlier studies see Stern 1976a, 183-87; idem 1976b, 34-35, 69-71; Charvat 1980, 46-52; Kuchman Sabbahy 1982, 147-49; Guidotti 1983, 33-64; Blakeley and Horton 1986, 111-19 2 Since Guidotti does not attempt to date any of her vessels, her observation that her types B 1 and B2 are contemporary is not proved. As this article will show, however, that observation was indeed correct. 3 The most famous of these unusual vessels is probably that excavated by Petrie at Tell Defenneh (1888, pl. XXXV.65). 4 Since writing this article, P.G. French has informed us that the three pieces he published in Amarna Reports III(French 1986, 160 and fig. 9.22.3) may derive from vessels of this type. If so, then the illustrated "breast" may be an eye (or a cheek?) and the drawing should be reori- ented. I However, French is since inclined, on the basis of further work on the Buto material, to prefer a date at least a century later (personal communication). 6 For this term see Niwinski (1983). 7 The earliest coffins of this type are those of Tabekhtenaskhet ii (Tamit) and Irbastwedjanefu A (Louvre E.3872), dated to ca. 750 and ca. 730 B.C., respectively. Compare Taylor 1985, 86- 93, 468-70. 8 Cf. Leahy 1979, 141-53. The start date of ca. 740 B.C. has been revised to ca. 720 B.C. by Aston and Taylor 1990, 149. I We do not agree with Petrie that the Saite fort at Defenneh was founded in ca. 664 B.C. since the pottery types found do not suggest so early a date. This conclusion was also reached by The Dating of Late Period Bes Vases P.G. French (personal communication), who believes the pottery to be no earlier than the reign of Amasis, at the very earliest, and who would date most of it to the late fifth or even the early fourth centuries B.C. 10 Mostly unpublished, but cf. Lauer and Iskander 1956, 167-95; Bourriau and Aston 1985, 54-5; French 1988, 79-89; French and Ghaly 1991, 93-124. 1 Not seen. Cited by Guidotti 1983, 45 no. 17, 47 fig. 17. 12 An Egyptian origin for the vessel from Deve Huyiik has already been postulated by Kuchman Sabbahy (1982, 148). 13 P. R. S. Moorey 1975, 108-117; the fifth century date is based on imported Greek pottery and bronzes. 14 Moreover the unpublished vessel 82-S-252 is clearly made in an Egyptian marl clay, which can be equated with Saqqara fabric K5 (for which see Bourriau and Aston 1985, 52). 15 This is especially noticeable in marl clay vessels which bear little resemblance to the shapes that went before. In this respect it may be more than mere coincidence that the kick wheel was apparently introduced during the reign of Darius I (521-486 B.C.). 16 It is also possible that during the Third Intermediate period, when Egypt split into a Libyan north and an Egyptian south, that the religious connotations of Bes vases were alien to Libyan culture and gradually lost. In the south the ideas were perhaps retained and only spread back to the north after the effective reunification of Egypt during the reign of Psammetichus I. 17 Kuchman-Sabbahy's hypothesis has also been doubted by Guidotti, (1983, 60, n.45). 18 A distinct Memphis-Fayum tradition is already noticeable in the New Kingdom, with a ceramic industry based on marl D clays (cf. Nordstrom and Bourriau 1993). 19 Why this should be is not known with certainty. Kuchman Sabbahy (1982, 149) has suggested, following Hornblower (1930, 16), that they were used to contain milk, which at this time was thought of as a purifying substance for the dead (Bonnet 1971, 460). 20 The changing nature of Bes is touched on by Charvat (1981, 48-50). REFERENCES ALLEN, S. J. 1982 "The Pottery." Chap. 3 in Cities of the Delta, Part I. Mendes: Prelimi- nary Report on the 1979 and 1980 Seasons by K. L. WILSON. American Research Center in Egypt Reports 5. Malibu: Undena, 13-26. ANTHES, R. 1959 Mit-Rahineh 1955. Museum Monographs. Philadelphia: The Univer- sity Museum, University of Pennsylvania. 1965 Mit-Rahineh 1956. Museum Monographs. Philadelphia: The Univer- sity Museum, University of Pennsylvania. 109 110 Egyptian Pottery ASTON, DAVID A. 1987 Tomb Groups from the End of the New Kingdom to the Beginning of the Saite Period. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Birmingham. 1996 Egyptian Pottery of the Late New Kingdom and Third Intermediate Period (Twelfth - Seventh Centuries BC): Tentative Footsteps in a Forbid- ding Terrain. Heidelberg: Heidelberger Orientverlag, 1996. Studien zur Archaologie und Geschichte Altiigyptens 13. ASTON, D. A., and J. H. TAYLOR 1990 "The Family of Takeloth III and the 'Theban' Twenty-third Dynasty." In Libya and Egypt c.1300- 750 B.C., edited by A. LEAHY. School of Oriental and African Studies Centre of Near and Middle Eastern Studies and Society for Libyan Studies. London: Centre of Near and Middle Eastern Studies, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, 131-54. BAKRY, H. S. K. 1968 "Asfunul-Mata'neh Sondages." Annales du Service des Antiquites de l'tgypte 60: 37-53. BLAKELEY, J. A., and F. L. HORTON, JR. 1986 "South Palestinian Bes Vessels of the Persian Period." Levant 18: 111- 19. BOURRIAU, J. 1981 Umm El-Ga ab: Pottery from the Nile Valley Before the Arab Con- quest. Catalogue of the Exhibition organized by the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge, 6 October to 11 December 1981. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press and the Fitzwilliam Museum. 1987 "Pottery Figure Vases of the New Kingdom." Cahiers de la Ceramique Egyptienne 1: 81-96. BOURRIAU, J., and D. A. ASTON 1985 "Pottery." Sect. 5 in The Tomb Chapels of Paser and Ra'ia at Saqqiara by G. T. MARTIN. Egypt Exploration Society Excavation Memoir 52. Egypt Exploration Society in collaboration with the National Museum of Antiquities, Leiden. London: Egypt Exploration Society, 32-55. CHARVAT, P. 1980 "The Bes Jug. Its Origin and Development in Egypt." Zeitschriftfur agyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 107: 46-52. 1981 The Pottery: The Mastaba of Ptahshepses. Czechoslovak Excavations at Abusir. Prague: Univerzita Karlova. DE MORGAN, J. 1895 Fouilles a Dahchour, Mars-Juin 1894. Vienna: Adolphe Holzhausen Description de l'Egypte 1823 Description de l'Egypte, ou, Recueil des Observations et des recherches qui ont ftifaites en Egypte pendant l'expedition de l'Armee francaise. VoL 5: Antiquites. 2nd ed., Paris: Panckoucke. DOWNES, D. 1974 The Excavations at Esna, 1905-6. Warminster: Aris and Phillips. ENGELBACH, R. E. 1915 Riqqeh and Memphis VI. British School of Archaeology in Egypt and Egyptian Research Account Publication 25. London: British School of Archaeology in Egypt and Bernard Quaritch. FAKHRY, A. 1938 "Bahria and Farafra Oases: A Preliminary Note on the New Discover- ies." Annales du Service des Antiquites de l'tgypte 38: 396-434. FRENCH, P. G. 1986 "Late Dynastic Pottery from the South Tombs." Chap. 9 inAmarna Reports III, by B. J. KEMP. Occasional Publications 4. London: Egypt The Dating of Late Period Bes Vases Exploration Society, 147-88. 1988 "Late Dynastic Pottery from the Berlin/Hannover Excavations at Saqqara, 1986." Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archaologischen Instituts Abteilung Kairo 44: 79-89. 1992 "A Preliminary Study of Pottery in Lower Egypt in the Late Dynastic and Ptolemaic Periods." Cahiers de la Ceramique Egyptienne 3 (Ateliers de Potiers et Productions Ceramiques en Egypte): 83-94. FRENCH, P. G., and H. GHALY 1991 "Pottery Chiefly of the Late Dynastic Period, From Excavations by the Egyptian Antiquities Organization at Saqqara, 1987." In Cahiers de la Ceramique Egyptienne 2: 93-124. GJERSTADT, E. 1948 The Swedish Cyprus Expedition, Vol. 4.2: The Cypro-Geometric, Cypro-Archaic and Cypro-Classical Periods. Stockholm: Swedish Cyprus Expedition. GUIDOTTI, M. C. 1978 "A proposito dei vasi con decorazione hathorica." Egitto e Vicino Oriente 1: 105-18. 1983 "I potesi di significato e tipologia dei vasi egizi di Epoca Tarda raffiguranti il dio Bes." Egitto e Vicino Oriente 6: 33-65. HORNBLOWER, G. D. 1930 "Funerary Designs on Predynastic Jars." Journal of Egyptian Archae- ology 16: 10-18. HOPE, C. A. 1987 Egyptian Pottery. Shire Egyptology 5. Aylesbury, U.K.: Shire Publica- tions. JEQUIER, G. 1928 Le Mastabat Faraoun. Fouilles a Saqqarah. Service des Antiquites de l'Egypte. Cairo: Institut Francais d'Archeologie Orientale. JESI, F. 1963 "Bes bifronte e Bes ermafrodito."Aegyptus Anno 43: 237-55. KUCHMAN SABBAHY, L. 1982 Observations on Bes-pots of the Late Period. Zeitschtrift fur agyptisch Sprache und Altertumskunde 109: 147-49. LAUER, J.-P. 1939 "Fouilles du Service des Antiquites a Saqqarah, Secteur de la Pyramide a Degres (Novembre 1938-Mai 1939). I La Grande Cour Situee au Sud de la Pyramide." Annales du Service des Antiquites de l'tgypte 39: 448-52 LAUER, J.-P., and Z. ISKANDER 1956 "Donnees nouvelles sur la momification dans l'Egypte ancienne." Annales du Service des Antiquites de l'tgypte 53: 167-95 LEAHY, A. 1979 "The Name of Osiris Written." Studien zurAltiigyptischen Kultur 7: 141-53. MACRAMALLAH, R. N. 1940 Un cimetiere archaique de la classe moyenne du peupk a' Saqqarah. Fouilles a Saqqarah. Service des Antiquites de l'Egypte. Cairo: Imprimerie nationale, Boulaq. Meisterwerke altgyptischer Keramik 1978 Meisterwerke alt dgyptischer Keramik: 5000 Jahre Kunst und Kunsthandwerk aus Ton und Fayence. Hohr-Grenzhausen, Rastal-Haus, 16 September bis 30 November 1978. Montabaur: Forderkreis Westerwald fur Kunst und Keramik. III 112 Egyptian Pottery MOOREY, P. R. S. 1975 "Iranian Troops at Deve Huyuk in Syria in the Earlier Fifth Century B.C." Levant 7: 108-17. MYSLIWIEC, K. 1987 Keramik und Kleinfunde aus der Grabung im Tempel Sethos' I in Gurna. Archaologische Veroffentlichungen 57. Deutsches Archaologisches Institut Abteilung Kairo. Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern. NORDSTROM, H.-A., and J. BOURRIAU 1993 "Ceramic Technology: Clays and Fabrics." Fasc. 2 inAn Introduction to Ancient Egyptian Pottery, edited by Do. ARNOLD and J. BOURRIAU. Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern, 144-90. NIWINSKI, A. 1983 "Sarg NR-SpZt." Lexikon derAgyptologie 5: 434-68. PERROT, G., and C. CHIPIEZ 1884 Histoire de l'Art dans l'Antiquite. Vol. 1: l'Egypte. Paris: Hachette PETRIE, W. M. F. 1888 Tanis: Part II, Nebesheh (Am) and Defenneh (Tahpanhes). Fourth Memoir of the Egypt Exploration Fund. London: Trubner. 1890 Kahun, Gurob and Hawara. London: K. Paul, Trench, Trubner. 1906 Hyksos and Israelite Cities. British School of Archaeology in Egypt and Egyptian Research Account Publication 12. London: Office of the School of Archaeology and Bernard Quaritch. 1909a Memphis I. British School of Archaeology in Egypt and Egyptian Research Account Publication 15. London: School of Archaeology in Egypt and Bernard Quaritch. 1909b Qurneh. British School of Archaeology in Egypt and Egyptian Re- search Account Publication 16. London: School of Archaeology in Egypt and Bernard Quaritch. 1928 Gerar. British School of Archaeology in Egypt and Egyptian Research Account Publication 43. London: British School of Archaeology in Egypt and Bernard Quaritch. PETRIE, W. M. F., and E. MACKAY 1915 Heliopolis, Kafr Ammar and Shurafa. British School of Archaeology in Egypt and Egyptian Research Account Publication 24. London: School of Archaeology in Egypt and Bernard Quaritch. PETRIE, W. M. F., G. BRUNTON, and M. A. MURRAY 1923 Lahun II. British School of Archaeology in Egypt and Egyptian Research Account Publication 33. London: British School of Archaeology in Egypt and Bernard Quaritch. PETRIE, W. M. F., E. MACKAY, G. WAINWRIGHT 1910 Meydum and Memphis (111). British School of Archaeology in Egypt and Egyptian Research Account Publication 18. London: School of Archae- ology in Egypt and Bernard Quaritch. PETRIE, W. M. F., G. A. WAINWRIGHT, and E. MACKAY 1912 The Labyrinth, Gerzeh and Maghuneh. British School of Archaeology in Egypt and Egyptian Research Account Publication 21. London: School of Archaeology and Bernard Quaritch. PRICE, F. G. HILTON 1897 A Catalogue of the Egyptian Antiquities in the Possession of F. G. Hilton Price. London: B. Quaritch. RAVEN, M. J. 1979 "Papyrus-sheaths and Ptah-Sokar-Osiris Statues." Oudheidkundige Mededelingen uit het Rijksmusem van Oudheden te Leiden: 259-96. The Dating of Late Period Bes Vases ROSELLINI, I 1834 SILVANO, F. I Monumenti dell'Egitto e della Nubia: Disegnati dalla Spedizione Scientifico-Letteraria Toscana in Egitto: Distributi in Ordine di Materie, Interpretati ed Illustrati, Parte Seconda. Monumenti Civili, Vol. 2. Pisa: Niccolo Capurro. 1980 "Le reticelle funerarie nell'Antio Egitto: proposted di interpretazione." Egitto e Vicino Oriente 3: 83-97. SPARKES, B. A., and L. TALCOTT 1970 Black and Plain Pottery of the Sixth, Fifth, and Fourth Centuries B.C. Athenian Agora 12. Princeton: American School of Classical Studies at Athens. SPENCER, A. J. 1986 "Excavation in the Western Part of the Town." Chap. 1 in Ashmunein (1985) by A. J. SPENCER and D. M. BAILEY. British Museum Expedition to Middle Egypt. British Museum Occasional Paper No. 67. London: British Museum, 1-16. SPENCER, A. J., and D. M. BAILEY 1986 Ashmunein (1985). British Museum Expedition to Middle Egypt. British Museum Occasional Paper No. 67. London: British Museum. STERN, E. 1976a "Bes Vases from Palestine and Syria." Israel Exploration Journal 26: 183-87. 1976b Phoenician Bes Vases from Eretz Israel. Qadmoniot 9: 34-35, 69-7 1. TAYLOR, J. H. 1985 The Stylistic Development of Theban Coffins during the Third Intermediate Period. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Birmingham. TOOMBS, L. E. 1983 "Tell el-Hesi, 1981." Palestine Exploration Quarterly 115: 25-46. VAN BEEK, G. W. 1983 "Digging Up Tell Jemmeh."Archaeology 36: 12-19. WA1NWRIGHT, G. A. 1915 "Burials and Temple of 25th Dynasty." Chap. 13 in Heliopois, Kafr Ammar and Shurafa, by W. M. F. PETRIE and E. MACKAY. British School of Archaeology in Egypt and Egyptian Research Account Publica- tion 24. London: British School of Archaeology and Bernard Quaritch. WILKINSON, A. 1971 Ancient Egyptian Jewellery. Methuen's Handbooks of Archaeology. London: Methuen. 113