|
Ancient
Egyptian Stone Vessel Making
by Archae Solenhofen
Last
modified December 10, 2002
Stone vessels were
one of the most common items of funerary equipment used by the ancient
Egyptians. The oldest examples are found in Lower Egypt at the settlement
of Merimde Beni Salamais, dating to the Merimden period over 6000 years
ago, and exhibit a low level of technical competency in their manufacturing
(Hoffman 1979). During the rest of the Predynastic period (c. 4000-3000 BC)
the quality of the manufacturing increased dramatically. The late
Predynastic period of Upper Egypt was generally characterized by an
increasing shift away from pottery of fine craftsmanship to stone vessels
for use in tombs. This may reflect a shift in the direction of consumer
demands of the elite, with an emphasis on exotic luxury goods for the
afterlife, and the increasing economic difference between the ruling class
and the rest of the populous (Hoffman 1979). As a result stone vessel
manufacturing reached a high level of technical competency during the Early
Dynastic (c. 3000-2700 BC) and Old Kingdom (c. 2700-2200 BC) periods, were
they were made in very large numbers. After the Old Kingdom, stone vessels
continued to be made, but on a much lesser scale.
A wide variety of
different rocks and mineral were employed in their manufacture, and these
materials often varied over time as availability and aesthetics changed
(Fig. 1). The rocks and minerals came from numerous sources throughout
Egypt, and some types were imported from afar, such as obsidian and lapis
lazuli (Nicholson & Shaw 2000). These raw materials were either
collected as eroded debris or quarried from rock outcrops. The majority of
vessels were made of carbonate rocks, such as travertine
(Egyptian alabaster), limestone,
limestone breccia, and dolomite, smaller numbers were made of other rocks
and mineral.
Fig.
1. Stone vessel materials used over ancient Egyptian history (Aston 1994,
Lilyquist 1995, Nicholson & Shaw 2000)
The
earliest materials used were limestone, basalt, travertine,
limestone breccia, and hornblende
diorite during the early Predynastic period (Aston 1994). The Early
Dynastic period exhibits a wide degree of experimentation with different
types of stone, including vein quartz, which was the hardest material
worked by the ancient Egyptians into vessels (Lucas & Harris 1962). The
more exotic rocks and minerals, as well as the harder and more expensive to
work material were restricted mainly to royal tombs. Although, more common
and easier to work rocks like limestone, travertine, and alabaster were
used for great numbers of vessels in royal tombs, they were by far the main
materials used in non-royal tombs.
The range of
stylistic forms were quite varied. Many are original in design (Fig. 2), or
representations of foreign designs (Fig. 3), some are common to pottery
(e.g. UC41108),
to basket-work (e.g. UC35654,
UC36986,
UC36987),
and even to metal vessels (e.g. a stone vessel with simulated rivet-heads
(Lauer 1976, pl. 109)). Others appear to be fantasies on the part of the
craftsmen (Fig. 4), or stone representations of certain useful objects made
of fragile or perishable materials for use in the afterlife (e.g. UC35727).
Stone vessel forms were sometimes imitated in pottery (Fig 5b), such as
that expressed in the spiral and zigzag line decorations (Fig 5a)
representing the mottled appearance of limestone breccia (Bourriau 1981).
Many of these vessels are remarkable for both perfection of workmanship and
purity of stylistic form, which is especially true in the case of hardrock
vessels.
Fig.
2. Metasiltstone
ornamental toilet tray and representation of missing center portion (after
El-Khouli 1978), 1st Dynasty. (Cairo Museum, Photograph by Jon Bodsworth The
Egypt Archive)
Fig.
3. Basalt footed jar with perforated handles from the Nagada I period and
thought to be originally a Mesopotamian design common to pottery (Adams
1988) (height c. 28 cm, Musee
de Louvre, Paris. Photograph by Jon Bodsworth The
Egypt Archive)
Fig.
4. Theriomorphic vessel in shape of a bird made of limestone breccia, Late
Predynastic-early 1st Dynasty c. 3100 BC. (British Museum (BM35306),
Photograph by Jon Bodsworth The
Egypt Archive)
Fig.
5. a) Ceramic pot from the Nagada II period (Gerzean culture) with spiral
pattern imitation of limestone breccia (height c.10 cm, Musee
de Louvre, Paris. Photograph by Jon Bodsworth The
Egypt Archive) b) Andesite porphyry, squat jar with gold-leafed,
tubular handles from the 1st or 2nd Dynasty 3100-2686 BC. (height. c. 10
cm, British
Museum (BM) Photograph by Jon Bodsworth The
Egypt Archive)
As
well, Petrie (c1977) describes what he called "evasion of the
difficulty" in the working of some stone vessels, which began to occur
during the 0-1st Dynasties. This is characterized by the cutting the stone
vessel into sections so that the interior could be easily hollowed and the
sections then glued back together, this was continued to the 12th Dynasty
(Fig 6a); cutting a hole through the bottom of the vessel to allow easy
access to the interior for grinding, in which the hole was later plugged
with a disk of rock (Petrie c1970); the manufacturing of imitation vessels
made of blue glass paste to simulate lapis lazuli, and black mud with
fragments of white limestone to simulate andesite porphyry (Petrie c1977;
c1970), and the ancient Egyptians sometimes did not hollow vessels out
completely, or at all, which became more common later in their civilization
(Fig. 6b).
Fig.
6a) Cross-section of travertine vessel cut in two halves from the late
Dynasty 0 (after Petrie c1977). b) Cross-section of alabaster (gypsum)
cylinder vase with perfunctory hollowing from the late Dynasty 0 (after
Petrie c1977).
The
shapes of forms, as well as, the materials used for vessels changed over
time, which makes stone vessels a useful tool for dating archeological
sites (Date
range of cylindrical beakers). The size of stone vessels range from
quite small, on the order of a few centimeters in height (e.g. 4.4
cm UC17010, 3.4
cm UC31515, 2.9
cm UC41251), to large (Fig. 7).
Fig.
7. Predynastic period (Nagada I) basalt
vase (height: 42.8 cm, Musee
de Louvre, Photograph by Jon Bodsworth The
Egypt Archive).
The
places were stone vessels were made are dependant on the materials used. At
the gypsum quarries at Umm el-Sawwan there are many examples of unfinished
vessels and some of the chert tools used to carve them (Caton-Thompson
& Gardner 1934). Many other quarry sites have little evidence of on
site carving, suggesting that the rock was quarried or collected and
transported to workshops, where it was transformed into vessels and other
objects. The remains of numerous storerooms and workshop complexes for
metal working, butchering, and stone vessel manufacturing have been found
in the Early Dynastic and Old Kingdom town of Hierakonpolis dating from
about 2800 to 2200 BC (Quibell & Green 1902), and a model stone vessel
workshop has been found from an estate, dated about 3080 BC during the
reign of King Aha at Saqqara (El-Khouli 1978, pl. 147).
Shaping of the
Vessel's Form
Most rocks can be
carved by percussion, which involves striking the rock with sufficient
pressure to crush the mineral grains on its surface. Today, rock can be
shaped to a fine scale by this method with the use of bush hammers, which
are made of soft tool steel or cast iron (Rich 1970). Stone hammers and
other such tools will also work, as long as the stone being carved has a
lower rock
hardness than that of the tool, and the fracture
toughness of the mineral grains in the rock being carved are not too
high. Other types of tools made of flint, such as pecking hammers, work as
a result of the combination of the indentation
hardness of quartz and the brittle nature of the rock flint. As the
flint tool is struck against a rock's surface, its sharp edges cut into the
mineral grains and the end of the tool fractures producing new sharp edges.
Repeated quick striking of the rock's surface with such a tool effectively
wears away minerals with lower indentation hardness and fracture toughness
than quartz (such as feldspar in granite, leaving the quartz grains exposed
and more easily undercut and removed by crushing with a stone hammer). The
durability of stone tools is less than their modern equivalents made of
metal, and as a result, more frequent replacement would be necessary during
use.
As a result of high
impact stresses sustained by stone percussion tools during use, hardrocks
of igneous, metamorphic, and sedimentary composition are preferable as the
material of manufacturing of these tools. The ancient Egyptians routinely
worked such rocks into axeheads (e.g. UC2661,
UC2674,
UC2579,
UC3617),
maceheads (e.g. UC15399),
and adzes (e.g. UC13787)
in Upper and Lower Egypt during the early Predynastic period (Hoffman
1979). Many of the skills developed during early stone tools manufacturing
could be used in the manufacturing of stone vessels, as well as other stone
objects such as statues. For example, the similarities in the symmetrical
shape and the hollowing of the center in both early maceheads and stone
vessels is quite evident (Fig. 8).
Fig
8. Disc-shaped stone maceheads from El-Mahasna of early Predynastic date,
Naqada I, c. 4000-3600 BC. (left, diameter c. 10 cm, British
Museum (EA 49003), Photograph by Jon Bodsworth The
Egypt Archive)
Much
of the rough shaping of the stone vessels by the ancient Egyptians could be
accomplished with simple hand-powered percussion and lapidary tools. The
ancient Egyptian's choice of tools would depend on the type of rock used in
the vessel, the amount of waste rock that needed to be removed from the
initial block of stone, and the vessel's form. Percussion tools may consist
of metal chisels (hardened copper (cold-worked and arsenic alloy) or
bronze, e.g. UC7240,
Fig. 9) for use on most softrocks, such as porous limestone (Stocks 1999),
and stone mauls (e.g. UC30858,
UC30184,
UC16328),
hammerstones (e.g. UC44234),
pecking hammers, pounders (e.g. UC27323,
UC35981,
UC379,
UC21411),
chisels, and punches for both softrocks and hardrocks. (Engelbach 1923,
Zuber 1956, Stocks 1986a; 1999). The process of working porous limestone
and similar rocks is easily done with these tools, however, carving igneous
rocks like granite is a slow process (Stocks 1999). Examples of unfinished
stone vessel exhibiting marks from percussion tools are also known (Fig.
10, e.g. UC36879,
UC6934,
UC33304,
UC33306,
UC33307,
UC33308,
UC33310,
UC33311).
Zuber (1956) conducted an experiment in the use of flint percussion tools
to carve a small Egyptian style bust in granite, it took approximately 36
hours to complete the carving of the statue's form, but involved no
polishing of the surface. Stocks (2001) conducted hieroglyphic carving
experiments in granite using hammer-driven flint chisels and obtained a
rate of 5 cm3 per hour of rock removal. Engelbach (1923)
conducted granite quarrying experiments using diabase (dolerite) pounders
at Aswan and obtained rates of 450 cm3 per hour of rock removal.
Fig.
9. Small bronze chisel (UC30861)
without handle for use as a hand graver, 19th Dynasty. (The
Petrie Museum, Photograph by Jon Bodsworth The
Egypt Archive)
Fig.
10. Unfinished travertine vessel exhibiting tool marks from rough-shaping.
(The Petrie Museum,
Photograph by Jon Bodsworth The
Egypt Archive)
Lapidary
tools such as hand- or bow-powered slabing
saws and coring
drills are very useful for the removal of waste rock, and in the
shaping of complex and delicate shapes in stone. An example of a partially
completed granodiorite
porphyry vessel, on display in the Cairo Museum (JE18758), demonstrates
how a coring drill could be used to remove waste rock in the manufacturing
of stone vessels (Stocks 1999, image
1, image
2, image
3, image
4, image
5). Eight core holes can be observed with 7 closely spaced around the
perimeter of the bowl's inner surface, and one in the center. This method
of removing waste rock reduces the effort necessary for the manufacturing
of stone vessels from blocks of stone, and is a common timesaving technique
still used today. An example of the faceting of a small unfinished
statuette of vein quartz demonstrates the removal of waste rock and the
rough shaping of the front and sides by the use of a small lapidary saw
(e.g. UC16617,
Petrie c1974). In materials like vein quartz, only lapidary tools can be
used, since percussion will lead to fracturing of the rock's interior,
which makes it more difficult to work and the surface less appealing when
completed. Stone rubbers and scrapers can also be useful grinding tools for
shaping both hardrocks and softrocks.
Turning has also been
suggest as a method used to shape stone vessels by the ancient Egyptians
(Petrie 1883, c1970). Petrie (1883, e-book
section 132) gives two examples as evidence of lathe-turned objects:
a) Fragment of
diorite bowl, showing evidence in the form of a off-centered cusp from use
of a lathe tool (e.g. Drawing
#14)
b) Rim fragment of anorthosite gneiss bowl showing evidence in the form of
a cusp from use of a lathe tool, 4th Dynasty (e.g. UC16042,
Drawing
#15)
Petrie (c1977) states
that Predynastic stone vessels exhibit markings consistent with grinding in
a up and down direction, and it is in the Early Dynastic that the circular
tool marks that suggest turning in a block begin to appear (Fig. 11). The
quality of early Predynastic stone vessels demonstrates the ability of the
ancient Egyptians to produce symmetrical vessels in stone and that it
existed prior to the development of a possible lathe-like tool (Fig. 7).
The ability of the ancient Egyptians to produce symmetrical shapes without
a lathe is also demonstrated in their ability to carve fine statuary in a
variety of complex forms. However, the only prerequisites for a lapidary
lathe and other simpler devices is that the object being worked and the
grinding tools be held ridged as the object is rotated. This does not have
to be a high-speed or high-pressure type tool, only enough pressure to
cause abrasion between the grinding surface and the object being worked is
needed. The optimum pressure for lapidary cutting using quartz abrasive is
< 1 kg/cm2 (Stocks 2001). Such tools may involve the
adaptation of a turntable (slow-wheel), potter's wheel, or the bow-drill.
The object being worked could be placed on pivots and hand-rotated, or the
bow drill could be modified into a partial rotary pole-lathe. Pole-lathes
are tools that rotate the object back and forth rather than spinning it. If
a primitive lathe was used by the ancient Egyptians, it might be expected
that in most cases it was used as a finishing tool for fine dressing the
vessel's form. All the rough shaping would be done by percussion and other
types of lapidary techniques, since in most cases the removal of waste rock
is more efficient and less time consuming by these methods. The lack of
pivot holes on stone vessels is a problem (Fig. 14), although these may
have been removed during finishing of the vessel's outer surface.
Fig.
11. Old Kingdom basalt cup (UC42075) exhibiting circular striations.
(height c. 8 cm. The
Petrie Museum, Photograph by Jon Bodsworth The
Egypt Archive) Note: Higher
Res. image.
The
striations on such objects as the above basalt cup may also be explained by
the rotation of the tool as the vessel is held in place. Modification of
the end of a coring drill barrel into a tapered cone could be used to
produce various shapes by lapidary grinding, while the end of the rotating
tool is pressed down onto the stationary stone object being worked. As we
see below (Fig. 22-23) the boring tool used to hollowing the interior of
stone vessels is also capable of making cusp-shaped ridges as well.
The use of a
primitive lathe in woodworking (Fig. 12) appears from some evidence that it
could have been used before Greco-Roman times, but was very limited and
restricted to primitive pole-lathes or just wood held in pivots and rotated
by hand as it was sanded (Lucas & Harris 1962). A small 12 Dynasty lid
(e.g. UC7123)
exhibits a center hole, which may have been used for a pivot, but the hole
for a handle may not be ruled out (Nicholson & Shaw 2000). A number of
New Kingdom stool legs also show the possible use of a primitive lathe in
their manufacture, although this may also be the result of other methods (Manuelian
1981).
Fig.
12. Earliest known representation of the use of a woodworking lathe in the
tomb of Petosiris from the early Ptolemaic period (after Nicholson &
Shaw 2000).
Core
Drilling of the Vessel's Interior
As of yet no tubular
barrels made of copper or the wooden drill-shaft used for coring of rock
have been found in the archeological record from ancient Egypt, Crete, or
Mesopotamia where rock coring and stone vessel making was employed (Warren
1969, Stocks 1993). For the copper barrel, this may be due to the wearing
down of the copper tube to lengths that were no longer usable, at which
point the remaining copper tube was recycled (Stocks 1993). The use of bow-
and hand-powered coring drills (Fig. 13) as a method of cutting rock is
inferred from marks observed on ancient Egyptian stoneworks, and includes
pieces of waste rock, as well as finished and unfinished stone objects (Copper
coring drills). Traces of verdigris, either copper or bronze, as well
as abrasive have been found in core holes in both Egypt (Reisner 1931) and
Crete (Warren 1969).
Fig.
13. Representation of the ancient Egyptian coring drill used in the rock
cutting experiments of Stocks (1993, 2001).
Before
the introduction of the a bow- or hand-powered coring drill during the mid-Predynastic
Period, holes in rocks were drilled by boring, a more time consuming
practice due to the larger volume of rock that needed to be removed. The
use of the coring drill as a method of removing waste rock from the
vessel's intended form would have greatly increases the ancient Egyptians
ability to manufacture these objects. The use of the coring drill would be
dependent on the vessel's form, which are many through the long history of
stone vessel production in ancient Egypt. In the case of a narrow-necked
vessel (i.e. the neck opening is of smaller diameter than the vessel's
interior), the coring drill is quite useful. After initial shaping of the
vessel's form was completed a circle would first be marked on the top
surface of the vessel and a small groove cut along it to act as a guide for
the barrel of the coring drill (Fig. 14). A core hole would be cut through
the center of the neck of the vessel to a depth that would allow access to
the interior for the purpose of hollowing. This is similar to the methods
used today by lapidist when making stone vessels (Long 1976,
Can
narrow-necked stone vases be made today?).
Fig.
14. Unfinished travertine stone vessel marked with red paint for coring
with drill, possibly 6th Dynasty (height c. 7 cm. The
Petrie Museum, Photograph by Jon Bodsworth The
Egypt Archive)
The
core (e.g. UC44986,
UC68247,
UC44988,
UC43723,
UC43893,
UC44987,
UC44989,
UC44991,
UC55364)
would be cut with a coring drill using an abrasive, such as quartz sand,
either dry or as a slurry. The sides of the core and core hole were
generally kept as parallel as possible to reduce the risk of breakage of
the neck, which is often the weakest part of the vessel. The core would
then be snapped out of the vessel, presumably with the add of wooden wedges
and a light taping of a hammer. Sometimes the core would not break cleanly
at the base of the vessel, a number of unfinished vessel exhibit this (Fig.
15, e.g. UC44992).
The use of a material to coat the outer delicate surfaces of the vessel for
the purpose of strengthening them, such as glue or resin soaked linen
strips could also have been used, and this is also done today by modern
Egyptian stone vessel makers (El-Khouli 1978). Vessels of the early 1st
Dynasty date often do not contain a circular groove at the bottom of the
vessel's interior, representing the depth of the coring barrel's cut. The
ancient Egyptians carefully ground the groove away during the hollowing
procedure. This changes by the middle of the 1st Dynasty where the ring is
commonly shown (e.g. UC41273),
in later times the ring became a necessity (Fig. 16, UC41210)
and was even imitated by a scraped line if none already existed (Petrie
c1977).
Fig.
15. Unfinished travertine stone vessel split longitudinally to reveal
remaining drill core fragments partially attached, possibly 4th Dynasty
(height 6.9 cm, The
Petrie Museum (UC44993),
Photograph by Jon Bodsworth The
Egypt Archive)
Fig.
16. Metasiltstone ornamental bowl with coring slot from the Step Pyramid,
3rd Dynasty. (diameter 38 cm., Cairo Museum, Photograph by Jon Bodsworth The
Egypt Archive)
Another
use of the coring drill is in the manufacturing of rock tubes and ridges. A
tube cut from basalt (Fig. 17), most likely a waste fragment from the
coring of another object, could be done by centering and cutting two core
holes of different diameter and then detaching the tube. This is a useful
method of removing larger cores, since it reduces the amount of stress
necessary to break the core from the base of the core hole. Another example
of tube making by the ancient Egyptians is an Early Dynastic period
metasiltstone ornamental bowl, the tube is left attached and the
surrounding rock is removed (Fig. 18). Stocks (1993) demonstrated the
ability of hand-powered coring drill to make a rock tube in limestone
during a stone vessel manufacturing experiment (see
below). This is a method still used today by amateur lapidists for the
making of cylindrical vessels and bracelets (Long 1976).
Fig.
17. Drill core waste fragment made of basalt (UC44985),
double cored to producing a tube, unknown date possibly 4th Dynasty.
(height: 8.3cm, The
Petrie Museum, Photograph by Jon Bodsworth The
Egypt Archive) Note: Higher
Res. image.
Fig.
18. Rock tube in center of the metasiltstone ornamental bowl from the 1st
Dynasty tomb of Sabu (Tomb 3111 (Emery 1949)). (tube diameter 10 cm, Cairo
Museum, Photograph by Jon Bodsworth The
Egypt Archive)
An
interesting travertine tray (link)
exhibits a series of raised ridges (El-Khouli 1978). These features could
have been made with a number of lapidary coring bits of varying diameters
to create the 3 outer ridges. To produce each of the raised ridges 2 coring
bits would be needed. These bits can just be a single sheet of copper,
which is attached to wooden dowels of the appropriate diameters. One bit
would need its outside diameter equal to inside diameter of the ridge, and
the other bit would need its inside diameter equal to the outside ridge's
diameter. Properly centering and drilling (coring to a set depth in the
rock's surface) in a way similar to that demonstrated in Stocks (1993)
would produce a ridge of travertine. Partially coring the rock that
occupies the needed groove area a number of times with bits of varying
diameter could also be done, this makes this waste rock easy to removed by
chiseling from the grooves. The use of a coring drill would actually be a
faster and easier method then turning the object with a lapidary lathe,
since less material needs to be ground away.
Boring of the
Vessel's Interior
The next stage in the
manufacturing of stone vessels would involve the hollowing of its interior
using the center core hole for access, and this was usually accomplished
with stone borers of various shapes and sizes attached to a forked wooden
drill shaft (Petrie c1970). The partial rotary motion of the borer's drill
shaft could be engaged by a bow or twisted by hand. Stone bores have been
found from ancient Egypt, but the wooden shafts have not survived. In Egypt
numerous representations of the apparent use of such a tool are known from
scenes depicting stone vessel manufacturing (Fig. 21a). Unfortunately, the
working end of the borer is always obscured by the vessel being worked in
these representations. However, the Old Kingdom period ideogram (Fig. 19a)
for such words as 'craft', 'art', and 'workman' depict a forked shaft with
two weights attached to its sides, after the Old Kingdom the ideogram
changed (Fig. 19b) to a forked shaft lashed to a central shaft and a single
circular weight (Gardiner 1964). The shaft was probably made of a tree
branch of suitable shape and the weights made of stone.
Fig.
19. Representations of ancient Egyptian ideogram for 'workman', a) Old
Kingdom b) New Kingdom (after Stocks 1993)
The
Egyptian stone borer usually consisted of an elongated figure eight shaped
hardstone, which was usually flat on top and curved on the bottom (Fig.
20). In Egypt the borers were generally made of diorite, chert, siliceous
sandstone, and siliceous limestone. The mid-point of the borer's long axis
was notched on either side to allow for the attachment of a forked wooden
shaft. Some borers have been found in Egypt at such sites as Hierakonpolis
(e.g. UC14889),
which are known to be associated with Early Dynastic stone vessel
production (Quibell & Green 1902). Stone borers have also been found
from Mesopotamia (Woolley 1955), where stone vessels were manufactured
starting about 3600 BC, and also in Crete where they were made between 2600
to 1400 BC (Warren 1969).
Fig.
20. Stone borers use for vessel making. ( The
Petrie Museum (from left to right: UC38386,
UC69828, UC36878),
Photograph by Jon Bodsworth The
Egypt Archive)
Round
shaped stone borers used to make bowls with interiors no wider than the
mouth are known from the ancient city of Ur in Mesopotamia (Woolley 1955).
Inverted truncated cones notched on the upper surface, believed to be used
to shape the stone vessel's mouth, are also known from Egypt (e.g. UC368,
UC369,
UC373,
Stocks 1993). Crescent shaped flints were used to cut softstones, like
gypsum, without sand abrasive (Fig 21b, e.g. UC6134,
UC6135,
Caton-Thompson & Gardner 1934). In the case of bowls with openings
exhibiting an inward curing edges, Petrie (c1977) suggests a 2 piece,
hinged grinding tool was used. Striations observed on the interior of
ancient Egyptian stone vessels (Fig. 22) and on stone borers (e.g. UC367)
are found to be both variable in width and depth (Stocks 1993). The
experimental evidence of Stocks (2001) demonstrates that quartz sand is
capable of producing striations when a force of 1 kg/cm2 is
applied to the cutting surface of the grinding tool. Most vessel's
interiors were left rough, exhibiting striations (Fig. 22) and ridges (Fig.
23) left from the hollowing process. In the case of bowls (e.g. UC41119,
UC41187,
UC41108,
UC18153,
UC15801)
and thin-walled vessels (e.g. UC41156,
UC41157)
the interiors were usually worked to a finished state.
Fig.
21. a) Tomb representation of vase making using a boring tool. b) Tool
reconstruction of borer used in gypsum vessel manufacturing (after Hodges
1964).
Fig.
22. Theriomorphic travertine vessel in the form of pig or hippopotamus with
interior surface striations, from the Naqada II period. (height 7.0 cm, The
Petrie Museum (UC15754),
Photograph by Jon Bodsworth The
Egypt Archive)
Fig.
23. A cross-sectioned Middle Kingdom travertine vessel from the Southern
Pyramid at Mazghuneh. (The
Manchester Museum, Photograph by Jon Bodsworth The
Egypt Archive)
Polishing
of Vessels
As with modern
lapidary work, the ancient Egyptian's rock polishing techniques would be
expected to vary depending on the type of rocks or minerals involved. The
ability to polish a rock is dependent mainly on rock
and mineral
hardness. Generally, only hardrocks can be polished, such as most igneous,
metamorphic, and hard sedimentary rocks. This is due to the fact that
softrocks have less cohesion, and the mineral or sedimentary grains can be
easily plucked from the surface during the working process, preventing a
consistently smooth surface from being obtained. Hardrocks that contain
mineral grains that are soft in terms of mineral hardness, such as
travertine (calcite), are less difficult and time consuming to polish than
rocks that contain hard minerals, like siliceous sandstone (quartz).
Monomineralic rocks such as travertine, which are made almost entirely of
calcite, pose little problem for polishing. Polymineralic rocks, like
granite, made mostly of the two primary minerals, quartz and feldspar, pose
more of a challenge due to the variability of hardness of these minerals.
However, this problematic nature is not as much as one might expect, since
the difference in hardness between quartz and feldspar is only about 20%.
Today, amateur lapidists use hard flat laps in the process of polishing
hardrocks like granite (Sinkankas 1984). These tools polish by removing the
high points of surface irregularities and help prevent the pitting of the
surface due to variations in mineral hardness.
A number of
representations of rock polishing are presented in ancient Egyptian art
(Fig. 24). The most common tool was a piece of rock called a polishing
stone or stone rubber (e.g. UC2935,
UC35657,
UC35657,
UC392,
UC393,
UC394,
UC395,
UC396,
UC397,
UC398)
used for shaping, smoothing, and polishing. These can be rectangular or
round shaped blocks of rock with a flat surface on one or more sides.
Polishing stones shaped for specific purposes could also be used (e.g. UC5662).
The ancient Egyptians made these tools out of a variety of rock types,
including granite, basalt, and sandstone (Clark & Engelbach 1930).
These tools could be rubbed by hand back and forth or in a circular motion
in a set pattern across the surface of the stone object with or without
abrasive. Larger versions of these tools are similar in some respects to
the modern levigator (a 10" to 12" cast iron disk with a handle,
used today with abrasives to smooth and polish the surface of lithographic
plates (Virtual
LITHOGRAPHY workshop). Smaller versions, in a variety of shapes, can be
used in a way similar to modern files and rasps made of steel to smooth the
surface of rock statues and other objects. In modern experiments of ancient
stone working techniques, stone rubbers are generally used wet to prevent
clogging of the grinding surface with rock dust, which lessens their
effectiveness (Pond 1980).
Fig.
24. Representation of teams of sculptors at work on a sphinx and a large
stone altar. Some appear to be doing heavy work with round pounders/mauls,
others are using polishing stones with an abrasive, from the tomb chapel of
the vizier Rekhmire' at Thebes, 18th Dynasty (after Ruffle 1977, Clark
& Engelbach 1930).
In
some cases, the final stages of polishing would involve the use of loose
abrasives. In modern times, generally coarse abrasives would be used first
and applied with a soft lap (e.g. cloth or leather) in the case of
softstones (i.e. rocks with minerals having hardnesses less than or equal
to 3 on Mohs' Scale) or a hard lap (e.g. stone, wood, pitch, or
copper/bronze/iron) for hardstones (i.e. rocks with minerals having
hardnesses greater than or equal to 7 on Mohs' Scale). The ancient
Egyptians would most likely follow similar techniques. The grain size of
the abrasive would be reduced as the polish became finer. Metal oxides make
ideal lapping abrasives, such as quartz (SiO2) and corundum (Al2O3),
as well other material such as charcoal and pumice could also be used. The
abrasive chosen would be dependent on the type of rock being polished.
Quartz abrasive will work on rocks that contain quartz and feldspar;
softstones would require abrasives with lower hardnesses than quartz so
that control during the final stages of polishing could be more easily
obtained. Quartz was readily available to the ancient Egyptians, but
corundum (emery) appears to only be obtainable in sufficient quantities in
late ancient Egyptian history (Lucas & Harris 1962, Arnold 1991).
Stocks (1993)
suggests that tailings from stone drilling
and sawing by
the ancient Egyptians could also be used as a fine polishing abrasive
because of its 0.5-5 micron grain size. Today, a grain size of 5 microns
(0.0002") is ideal for lapping gloss finishes on rock surfaces, since
the transition from frosted to semigloss lapidary finishes occurs with
abrasives about 15 micron in diameter, and high quality lapidary polishes
are generally done with abrasive grain sizes of 6 (0.00025") to 0.5
microns (0.00002") (Craig & Vaughan, 1981). A discussion of very
early mirror making at the Neolithic site of Çatalhöyük in central
Anatolia can be found at the following website (GRINDING
IT OUT).
Polishing of rocks is
very tedious and time consuming and would have taken up a large amount of
time during the manufacturing of stone vessels. The fine dust generated by
these processes would also be damaging to the lungs of those involved in
the work. An example of this is the poorly mummified remains of the 16 year
old boy, Nakht, from Thebes, who's lungs exhibit signs of mild silicoses
from polishing granite statues during the New Kingdom period (c.1100 BC).
Interestingly, he may have been given the job of polishing granite as a
punishment for a minor crime, demonstrating that it was not a particularly
enjoyable or desirable job (See
Webvideo Discussion).
Experimental
Test of Ancient Egyptian Methods
Stocks (1993) has
conducted experiments using hand-powered coring and boring drills during
the manufacturing of a narrow-necked stone vessel made of limestone. This
was based on the study of Old and New Kingdom period hieroglyphics
representing boring tools (Fig. 21a) and the depiction of the apparent use
of boring/coring tools in various tombs (Stocks 1986b). The completed
limestone vessel was 10.7 cm tall, 10.0 cm in diameter, and has a neck
opening about 5 cm in diameter. As exhibited in Stocks (2001), core
drilling with a bow-powered drill produces a tapered core and core hole due
to the reciprocal motion of the bow as it is drawn back and forth. When
making stone vessels with thin walls this becomes a serious problem and the
stresses generated by the wobbling of the drill shaft would generally lead
to breaking of the vessel. In the manufacturing of stone vessels the rock
core and the core hole walls must remain parallel. Stocks has demonstrated
that a drill powered by hands alone alleviated the tapering problem
associated with the bow-powered drills. Stocks (1988) found that if one
hand was placed on the drill shaft and other hand powered the drill by a
single curved handle, moved back and forth clockwise and anti-clockwise by
90o so that it returns to its starting position and the
workman's starting position moves around the circumference of the vessel to
keep the cutting even, the process produced a core with parallel sides.
This method was termed by Stocks (1993) as the Twist-Reverse-Twist Drilling
(TRTD) method.
The experiment in
vessel making starts with the shaping of a block of limestone with copper
chisels and adzes, flint chisels, punches, scrapers, and rubbers made of
sandstone. The rough shaping of the vase took about 6.5 hours. When the
rough shaping of the vase was complete Stocks drilled his centre hole using
a copper barrel, coring drill with the TRDT method, after first cutting out
circular guide grooves with flint chisels and scrapers to help center the
drill. To make the removal of the centre core easier and less damaging to
the vessel, 2 holes were cut with different diameter drills so that one
hole was within the other (Fig. 25). The core was removed with a copper
chisel and a mallet. The core drilling took about 5 hours to complete.
Fig. 25. Coring of the stone vessel's center hole using two coring drills
of different diameter.
The next stage
involved using stone borers of various shapes and sizes to remove the rock
from the inside of the vessel. The borer was inserted into the vessel
through the neck opening (Fig. 26) and a layer of dry sand was poured into
the bottom of the vase until the borer was covered.
Fig.
26. Insertion of the figure eight shaped stone borer through vessel's
center hole.
A
forked shaft was then inserted into the vessel and attached to the borer
and then boring commenced (Fig. 27). It was found by Stocks (1988) that
friction of the sand and jamming of the borer against the walls of the vase
occurred when it was powered by a bow, and that the TRDT method worked best
and did not jam. The TRDT method allowed both leverage and control to the
cutting process making the job much easier. The interior was enlarged by
using slightly larger borers than the diameter of the already existing
vessel's interior.
Fig.
27. Boring of the vessel's interior with stone borers of various sizes
using quartz sand as an abrasive.
The
cutting of the inner shoulder of the vessel was accomplished with
hand-held, hook-shaped flint scrapers and hooked-shaped stone borers in
combination with dry sand abrasive. The boring of the interior of the
vessel took about 10 hours, and the undercutting of the vase's shoulder
took an additional hour to complete.
In total, the
limestone vessel took about 22 hours 35 min. to complete without polishing.
From his previous work, Stocks suggests that a vessel made out of granite
of similar proportions and form would take about 75 hours to complete
without polishing (Stocks, 1988). It was also suggested (Stocks 1993) that
the manufacturing time can be reduced through experience, possibly by a
factor of 2.
References
Adams, B. (1988)
Predynastic Egypt, Shire, Aylesbury, 72 p.
Aldred, C. (1981)
Egypt to the end of the Old Kingdom. Thames and Hudson, London, 143 p.
Arnold, D. (1991)
Building in Egypt: pharaonic stone masonry. Oxford University Press, New
York, 316 p.
Aston, B.G. (1994)
Ancient Egyptian stone vessels: materials and forms. Heidelberger
Orientverlag, Heidelberg, 196 p.
Bourriau, J. (1981)
Umm el-Ga ab: pottery from the Nile Valley before the Arab conquest.
Cambridge University Press, New York, 141 p.
Caton-Thompson, G.
& Gardner, E.W. (1934) The desert Fayum v. 1-2. The Royal
Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, London, 167 p.
Clark, S. &
Engelbach, R. (1930) Ancient Egyptian masonry. Oxford University Press, New
York, 242 p.
Craig, J.R. &
Vaughan, D.J. (1981) Ore microscopy and ore petrography. John Wiley &
Sons, New York, 406 p.
Eaton-Krauss, M.
(1984) The representations of statuary in private tombs of the Old Kingdom.
Otto Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden, 208 p.
El-Khouli, A. (1978)
Egyptian stone vessels. Predynastic period to dynasty III v.1-3, Verlag
Philipp von Zabern, Mainz am Rhein.
Emery, W.B. (1949)
Great Tombs of the First Dynasty: Excavations at Saqqara v.1. Goverment
Press, Cairo, 157 p.
Engelbach, R. (1923)
The problem of the obelisks, from a study of the unfinished obelisk at
Aswan. G.R. Doran,, New York, 134 p.
Gardiner, A.H. (1964)
Egyptian grammar. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 646 p.
Hodges, H.W.M. (1964)
Artifacts: an introduction to primitive technology. F.A. Praeger, New York,
248 p.
Hoffman, M.A. (1979)
Egypt before the pharaohs. Routledge & Kogan, London, 390 p.
Lauer, J-P. (1976)
Saqqara: the royal cemetery of Memphis: excavations and discoveries since
1850. Thames and Hudson, London, 248 p.
Lilyquist, C. (1995)
Egyptian stone vessels: Khian-Tuthmosis IV. Metropolitan Museum of Art, New
York, 128 p.
Long, F. W. (1976)
The creative lapidary: materials, tools, techniques, design. Van Nostrand
Reinhold, New York, 136 p.
Lucas, A. &
Harris, J.R. (1962) Ancient Egyptian materials and industries. E. Arnold,
London, 523 p.
Manuelian, P. der
(1981) Notes on the so-called turned stools of the New Kingdom. In Studies
in Ancient Egypt, the Aegean and the Sudan: Essays in Honour of Dows Dunham
(eds. W.K. Simpson and W.M. Davis). MFA, Boston, 125-8.
Nicholson, P.T. &
Shaw, I. (2000) Ancient Egyptian materials and techniques. Cambridge
University Press, New York, 702 p.
Petrie, W.M.F. (1883)
The pyramids and temples of Gizeh. Field and Taer. London, 250 p. (e-book
link)
Petrie, W. M. F.
(c1970) Social life in ancient Egypt. Cooper Square Publishers, New York,
210 p.
Petrie, W.M.F.
(c1974) Tools and weapons. Aris & Phillips, Warminster, UK, 71 p.
Petrie, W.M.F.
(c1977) The funeral furniture of Egypt: with stone and metal vases. Aris
& Phillips, Wiltshire, 65 p.
Pond, A. W. (1980)
Primitive methods of working stone: based on experiments of Halvor L.
Skavlem. Kraus Reprint, Millwood, N.Y., 143 p.
Quibell, J.E. &
Green, F.W. (1902) Hierakonpolis. Part II. British School of Archaeology in
Egypt Memoir 5. London.
Reisner, G.A. (1931)
Mycerinus, the temples of the third pyramid at Giza. Harvard University
Press, Cambridge (MA), 292 p.
Rich, J.C. (1970) The
materials and methods of sculpture. Oxford Univ., New York, 416 p.
Ruffle, J. (1977)
Heritage of the pharaohs: an introduction to Egyptian archaeology. Phaidon,
Oxford, 224 p.
Sinkankas, J. (1984)
Gem cutting: a lapidary's manual. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 365 p.
Stocks D.A. (1986a)
Tools of the ancient craftsman. Popular Archaeology, June, 25-29.
Stocks, D.A. (1986b)
Egyptian technology II: stone vessel manufacture. Popular Archaeology, May,
14-18.
Stocks, D.A. (1988)
Industrial technology at Kahun and Gurob: experimental manufacture and test
of replica and reconstructed tools with indicated uses and effects upon
artifact production. Unpublished Masters thesis, University of Manchester.
Stocks, D.A. (1993)
Making stone vessels in ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt. Antiquity, 67,
596-603.
Stocks, D.A. (1999)
Stone sarcophagus manufacture in ancient Egypt. Antiquity, 73, 918-22.
Stocks, D.A. (2001)
Testing ancient Egyptian granite-working methods in Aswan, Upper Egypt.
Antiquity, 75, 89-94.
Warren, P. (1969)
Minoan stone vessels. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 280 p.
Woolley, C.L. (1955)
Ur excavations v. IV. The Trustees of the British Museum and the Museum of
the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, London.
Zuber, A. (1956)
Techniques du travail des pierres dures dans l'Ancienne Egypte. Techniques
et Civilisations, 29, 161-95.
|
