11.6: Inscribed Labels
-
- Last updated
- Save as PDF
More than 430 inscribed whole and fragmentary perforated plaques form one of the largest surviving corpora of script-bearing material from the Nile Valley from the period of c. 3300 / 3200 BCE to c. 2800 BCE ( Table 1 ). These dockets or labels range in size from about 1.0–9.5 cm in height and width, with most tending towards the smaller dimensions (e.g. Figures 2–3 ). Largely on the basis of later written evidence the label inscriptions are understood as communicating the date, quantity and quality of funerary goods or other associated commodities, as well as place names, personal names, and titles. It is generally assumed that labels were affixed to items deposited in the tomb, such as containers of oil, clothing, jewellery, implements and other items the deceased required for a successful afterlife. Overall, labels and label fragments are encountered at seven cemetery sites in the lower Nile Valley ( Figure 1 ), although the vast majority derive from the upper Egyptian cemetery site of Abydos. The labels can be divided chronologically into two main phases. Of some 370 published examples from Abydos, almost 200 come from a Predynastic / Later Predynastic cemetery (U) at this site, most being found in and around the large multi-chambered tomb U-j (Dreyer 1998). These have been dated to the Naqada IIIA1 cultural phase ( c. 3300 / 3100 BCE; Boehmer et al. 1993; Görsdorf et al . 1998). The remainder date from the Naqada IIIC– early D cultural phases ( c. 3100–2770 BCE), or the entire 1st Dynasty.
These plaques are marked using four main techniques involving incision and / or the application of pigment (Piquette 2008). At least five different kinds of graphical episode can be discerned:
- inscription
- inscription > further inscription
- inscription > partial erasure
- inscription > full erasure
- inscription > erasure > possible re-inscription
A selection of these is detailed below.
Inscription > (Partial and Full) Erasure
At least 12 inscribed labels bear marks indicating that after initial inscription surface material was subsequently removed with the apparent intention of partially or fully eliminating the original inscription. In the following sub-sections I present those labels which evidence this sequence of graphical acts and consider the possible implications.
Begin Again?
A small Naqada IIIA1 bone label (Ab K 834) from Cemetery U, Abydos, is one of the earliest surviving labels showing evidence for graphical content adjustment and seems to be unique among this early group. It was incised on one face with ‘G5-s33(?)’ / ‘bird perched on triangular support’ which was then vigorously scraped away, although not completely ( Figure 2a ). The opposite face bears an entirely different image, a ‘rectangular shape’ in a vertical orientation. 1 It is unclear whether the acts of incision + erasure occurred before or after the incision on the opposite face. A possible clue to the relationship between the two motifs is the co-occurrence on other contemporary labels of the ‘bird perched on triangular support’ motif with instances of a morphologically similar ‘architectural element (?)’ ( Figure 2b). However, these are paired on the same face with the latter oriented horizontally with, and in at least two further instances, the ‘bird’ perches directly on this rectangular feature ( Figure 2c–d ). One might venture various explanations for the erasure, from error correction during the label production phase to re-purposing or re-cycling at a later stage of use, but if this was ever a common part of early labelling practices it seems to have been restricted to functions that preceded the funerary ritual or the activities that led to deposition in the tomb.
(Co)modification
I now turn to the early 1st Dynasty when more elaborate labels come into use. Two labels of elephant ivory, found in / around a tomb dated to the reign of Aha and located at the Upper Egyptian site of Naqada (de Morgan 1897; Garstang 1905: 61, fig. 1; Figure 3a–b ), bear virtually-identical incised imagery organised in three horizontal registers. Each exhibits an area on the left in the lower-most register that has been scraped away. These are the only examples from the reign of Aha preserving the lower register on this label type, but comparison with similar examples dated to the preceding and following reign (Narmer and Djer, respectively), suggests that the erased area on these Naqada labels may have contained numerical or other information related to an offering or other commodity with which the label was associated (Newberry 1912: 288).
Their parallel treatment suggests that both labels were subject to the same general set of original circumstances of creation, but also subsequent changes to those circumstances. If numerical or related item information had been present but was then erased, perhaps this was due to changes in quantities or other features of items involved in the equipping of the tomb or the funeral. The obliteration of product and/or numerical information raises a range of questions about the function of such labels and the intentions behind their use. Did original and subsequent circumstances arise prior to or after the arrival of the labels, and presumably associated goods, to the tomb? Why was this new information not updated on the label? The absence of quantitative or qualitative information would seem to contradict the function often posited for the labels, that of the administration of goods exchange (e.g. Ciałowicz 2001: 134, 138–139) — a function which also seems to have been secondary if the amount of compositional space dedicated to elaborate narrative imagery is any indication of priority. In contrast to the more comprehensive and vigorous removal of the entire, albeit less complex, composition of Ab K 834 discussed above, the act of ‘erasure’ here involves the relatively careful removal of marks from a larger composition. We might conjecture that the person who made these tidy erasures intended the space to be re-inscribed with new or updated information, or perhaps the labels had ceased to play a strictly administrative role by the time of deposition. Could this adjustment relate to label de-activation and/or re-deployment in the context of the deceased’s transition from life to afterlife? While firm conclusions cannot be drawn at this juncture this example highlights the potential importance of, in addition to the creation of writing, studying its obliteration.
Renegotiating Events
A small fragment of an incised wooden label from Abydos ( Figure 4 ), also dated to the reign of Aha, depicts what appears to be the preparation of oil or wine (see James 1995), or some other product involving crushing or pressing. A very similar scene appears in the middle register of each of the two ivory labels discussed above ( Figure 3a–b ); on each side of a large mortar and pestle stands a human figure, the left figure holding/manipulating the pestle. Another figure on the far right leans on a staff and appears to oversee the activity. On the wooden label fragment ( Figure 4 ), however, we find that the space between the vessel and the figure on the right (who, rather than holding a staff, holds an arm up toward the body) is in fact empty. First-hand inspection reveals that the surface of this apparently empty area has been reworked. Rather than the type of scraping consistent with surface preparation, a slight concave depression attests to the removal of surface material. That something was there previously, perhaps a human figure, is also suggested by comparison with a similar scene in both labels in Figure 3a–b .
This erasure, previously unremarked to my knowledge, is particularly intriguing for several reasons. As noted, this scene is paralleled on the two ivory labels from Naqada, each of which also bears an erasure albeit in the lower-most register on the left. In contrast to the removal of what seems to be quantitative or qualitative product information, the erasure on the wooden fragment occurs in the context of narrative imagery in what appears to be a middle register and thus seems to relate to a different semantic category. Some scenes on labels have been interpreted as year names, understood to have been named according to festivals, cultic or other scheduled events, or perhaps assigned retrospectively after important campaigns or expeditions (Kahl 2006: 99–100). If we assume label production and pre-depositional use occurred in the context of centralised administrative activities, as suggested by the presence of similar iconography at the two different but contemporary cemetery sites (Naqada and Abydos), one would expect product dating conventions to be fixed at the time of label creation. Even if this scene was not related to goods dating, but to commissioning, production, packaging, dispatch, or delivery — whether directly to the tomb complex or to officials, family or friends involved in tomb preparation who then brought the label and associated item(s) to the tomb as part of the funeral or subsequent mortuary activities — the presence of this erasure in one of three surviving examples suggests that despite any centralisation of labelling activities, label meaning and use was subject to re-negotiation at a more local level, in this case at Abydos.
Changing Identities
The practice of erasure persists at least into the mid-1st Dynasty as attested on several other label fragments from Abydos. Ab K 2602 and Ab K 2536 are two virtually-identical labels found in debris to the north of tomb complex T during re-excavation of this area (Dreyer et al. 1998: 162– 163, pl. 12a; 2003: 93–94; Figure 5a–b ). In the upper-most register each bears a ‘niched frame’ motif containing the PI of a ruler conventionally rendered ‘Djet’. To the left of the ‘niched frame’, a vertical swath of the surface traversing Registers 1 and 2 has been vigorously scraped away.
From a compositional perspective the practioner’s disregard for the register line is noteworthy. Surface removal episodes identified on other labels conform to compositional divisions of graphical space established at the time of initial drafting, units of semantic or narratival meaning being organised within a single register, column or other circumscribed space. It is unusual though not impossible that a semantic link was present between image clusters that traversed registers, or perhaps the individual undertaking the erasure took advantage of a coincidence whereby separate images requiring removal happened to be aligned one above the other.
Making sense of the erased area to the left of a ‘niched frame’ motif in Register 1 is aided by comparison with two surviving labels also bearing the ‘niched frame’ of Djet (Vikentiev 1959: 4, 6, fig. 1, pls 1, 3). As exemplified by Figure 5c , both show a PI incised to the left, perhaps the name of an official ‘Sekhem-ka-sedj’ (cf. Emery 1954: 102–103, fig. 105; Wilkinson 2001 [1999]: 124). Tantalising clues on the surface of the label detail in Figure 5a show the faint remains of what may be a ‘D28’ / ‘pair of arms’, as well as the remnants of an incised trough from another sign above and to the right. 2 If ‘Sekhem-ka-sedj’ or another PI was originally present on Ab K 2602 or Ab K 2536, these would provide precedents for the three later labels also bearing PI similarly located erasures (below).
While this erased area in Register 1 was not re-inscribed in either case, one wonders whether the ‘architectural feature?’ in the midst of the heavily-scratched area in Register 2 of Ab K 2536 ( Figure 5b ) was added after the erasure episode. First-hand study is necessary to confirm the sequence of surface transformations although slight stylistic differences may be discernible, including narrower and apparently shallower incisions.
Among the preserved / available labels datable to the subsequent reign of Den, three incised examples exhibit erasures with a key similarity to those just discussed. To the left of the ‘niched frame’ motif there is a blank area with abrasions also consistent with the removal of surface material ( Figures 6–8 ). Above each is a cluster comprised of ‘S20’ / ‘seal on lanyard’ and ‘L2’ / ‘bee’, traditionally interpreted as ‘seal bearer of the ruler of Upper Egypt’. Comparison with 4–5 similarly-composed, contemporary labels and fragments (all from Abydos: Source Nos 1253, 1254, 1390, 4087, and possibly 1312, see also 1252), shows a cluster or PI conventionally rendered as ‘Hemaka’. No other PI is attested below the ‘S20’ / ‘seal on lanyard’ and ‘L2’ / ‘bee’ cluster on contemporary surviving labels, presenting the possibility that ‘Hemaka’ was originally inscribed in this location. But what was the reason for the obliteration of an aspect of the seal bearer’s identity?
Despite the presence of ‘S20’ / ‘seal on lanyard’ and ‘L2’ / ‘bee’ cluster on these labels, the parallels they exhibit with Ab K 2536 and Ab K 2602 datable to the reign of Djet (above) are notable.
If we assume that, based on complete examples, the space to the left of the niched frame was reserved for the PI of an official, seal bearer or otherwise, it is possible in each case of erasure that the individual retired, died or otherwise ceased to hold that post. It is tempting to conjecture a degree of continuity between reigns (see Table 1 ) whereby the same individual served Djet and Den rulers (and presumably the intervening ruler/regent Merneith), but who then fell out of favour or whose identity was otherwise deemed necessary to remove.
The presence of both erased and un-erased labels in the same cemetery at Abydos raises essential questions about processes of label creation and function(s). It is curious that the identity markers for one of the highest positions in the two lands at that time — seemingly key information for a label to carry, not least judging by its juxtaposition with the PI of the Egyptian ruler — could be omitted. That partially complete (or more accurately, ‘partially unmade’) labels were nevertheless ‘valid’ for use in the Egyptian ruler’s burial or associated rituals or ceremonies questions the understanding of these objects as administrative documents. These omissions may also point to a role for (some) labels where function took on a more symbolic aspect, such as deposition in the tomb to ensure the continuing efficacy of events and goods depicted and described on their surfaces. A more mundane explanation is that erasures were part of preparation for re-use that ultimately never took place. An abundance of later evidence attests to the re-use of scribal/artistic materials and products (Caminos 1986), but evidence among the labels for re-use, such as palimpsest in areas related to quantitative and qualitative product details, or PI information seems to be unattested.
Postscript?
In addition to erasure episodes, the labels bear other evidence for scribal acts that possibly took place after their initial making. More than 60 are inscribed on both faces, raising the question of production sequence and the passage of time between them. In those cases where the same technique for both sides occurs in a similar style and sign density, and organisation is similar (e.g. de Morgan 1897: 167, fig. 550–551, 553–555 A–B), the relationship between faces and episodes can be understood to be temporally and semantically more immediate. For labels which lack symmetry across these variables, it seems reasonable to assume that the most densely inscribed face was intended to be the primary side. From this point of departure then, differences in image density, organisation, and style may indicate two phases of inscription, and where technique is different the relationship between graphic episodes is probably even less direct.
For example, stepping back in time to label evidence from the earlier reign of Aha, two double-sided wooden labels bear densely incised imagery on their primary sides ( Figures 9–10 ). In contrast, the opposite faces are not only sparsely inscribed, but this has been accomplished using red and black colour, probably applied with a rush pen. The secondary side of Figure 9 bears a ‘U34v#’ / ‘mace / drill?’ in red colour and other possible imagery too faded to identify. The similar but more fragmentary wooden label in Figure 10 bears on its secondary face alternating images of a ‘vessel’ and ‘semi-circular shape’, also in red colour located ‘on’, or ‘protruding from’, a black ‘rectangle’, which may depict a ‘Y5#’ / ‘gaming board’ or container and its contents.
Both labels present an interesting parallel with the pair of elephant ivory labels from Naqada presented above, in that they also constitute a pair with material, technical, inscriptional, spatial, and temporal similarities. Both wooden labels appear to be made of the same type of wood (based on weight and visual inspection only), and were cut to the same general size, with similar narrative imagery and signs incised and formatted in four horizontal registers. Both were excavated from Cemetery B at Abydos (tombs B18 and B19; Petrie 1901: 21, 51), and date to around the time of Aha based on this find context and the presence of this ruler’s PI on each label.
These and other examples of mixed image-making methods raise the possibility that the use of different techniques and styles for the two faces reflects greater temporal separation between production episodes. Perhaps incision of the primary side was the result of the immediate concerns of the (commissioner and) label-maker, while the addendum (?) was undertaken by a (different?) individual using different materials and writing implement, at a different time (and place?). Like the pairs of Naqada and Abydos labels, the life histories of these two examples, also from Abydos, seem to have been closely related, based on their temporal and spatial affiliations and the materiality of their inscriptions — an intersection of variables which can perhaps be understood as an indicator of the close proximity in which commissioners, label-makers and users sometimes operated.
To contextualise these graphical practices attested on label evidence, I would now like to turn briefly to contemporary examples of erasure, addendum and non-completion on Early Dynastic stone vessels and stelae.
1 Here the artefact assumes the same orientation as when the erased ‘bird’ motif is viewed in an upright position. The conventional publication for NIIA1 labels prioritises the upright position of clearly identifiable figural images with the effect that perforations are rarely located on the side (cf. Piquette 2010: 59). However, the intended orientation of the preserved image on the label in Figure 2a may be questioned when we consider that the other instances of this rectangular shape co-occur as part of a ‘bird’ / ‘bird on perch’ combination. Based on morphological similarities with later examples, this rectangular shape may be classed as ‘N39’ / ‘pool’ (Regulski 2010: 532) — a designation that inherently requires horizontal orientation and also complements the upright orientation of the accompanying ‘bird’. Thus, together with the schematic nature of the preserved image on Figure 2a , which makes its iconic significance difficult to discern, and the precedent for the variable location of the perforation, intended orientation must remain an open question, whether in the past context of production or use (e.g. label attachment, grasping, viewing, turning).
2 Faint depressions in the shape of ‘D28’ / ‘pair of arms’ suggest the same sign, if not cluster, was also originally inscribed in the label in Figure 5b . In both cases, the sequence of surface transformations and the underlying marks could be clarified with the application of a computational photographic technique, such as Reflectance Transformation Imaging (e.g. Piquette 2011; see also Earl et al. 2011).