Title Page
Copyright Page
Contents
OLE_LINK1
Figure 1: Map of sites with Old Kingdom copper tools and model tools (Martin Odler in software qGIS, map: Natural Earth).
Figure 2: Shortcuts of the sites in the text and in the catalogue
Figure 3: Classification of the artefacts and their relation to emic and etic categories (drawing by Martin Odler, © Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague, Czech Institute of Egyptology)
Figure 4: Analyses of the chemical composition of Old Kingdom tools and model tools
Figure 5: Semiotic triangle of meaning (drawing by Martin Odler, © Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague, Czech Institute of Egyptology)
Figure 6: Semiotic triangle of meaning applied to Old Kingdom copper tools and models tools (drawing by Martin Odler, © Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague, Czech Institute of Egyptology)
Figure 7: Ancient Egyptian measures of length (based on Rossi 2004, Table 2)
Figure 8: Scale used for drawings of the Old Kingdom copper tools. Ancient Egyptian measures are measured from right to left, centimetres are displayed from left to right (drawing by Martin Odler, © Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague, Czech Ins
Figure 9: Structure of the database of Old Kingdom copper tools and model tools
Figure 10: The updated basic model of the structure of administration in the capital during the Old Kingdom (after Dulíková 2016, 58, Fig. 4.1, © Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague, Czech Institute of Egyptology)
Figure 11: Saqqara, weighing of adze blades in the tomb of Kaemrehu (icon76, after Mogensen 1921, Fig. 42, corrected drawing of the adze blades based on the original exhibited in the Egyptian Museum, Cairo, drawing by Markéta Kobierská)
Figure 12: Offering lists and tool names (composed after Köhler - Jones 2009, 148–149, with kind permission by C. E. Köhler; AEIN 896b, © Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek. Photo: Ole Haupt; drawing by Markéta Kobierská after Smith 1933, Pl. XXIV; Junker 1940, Taf.
Figure 13: Helwan, offering list of Wabkhenemu (after Köhler - Jones 2009, 148–149, with kind permission by C. E. Köhler)
Figure 14: Giza, Saqqara or Abusir, Offering list of Isi (AEIN 896b, (c) Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek. Photo: Ole Haupt.)
Figure 15: Giza, Offering list on the sarcophagus of Prince Minkhhaf (redrawing by Markéta Kobierská after Smith 1933, Pl. XXIV)
Figure 16: Giza, Tomb of Kaemankh, offering list of Kaemankh (after Junker 1940, Taf. IX)
Figure 17: Inscribed Old Kingdom tools (except of mirrors)
Figure 18: Selection of Old Kingdom full-size adze blades. Contexts and sources: X1 - UC16330, Courtesy of the Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology, UCL, X5 - EA66207, courtesy of the Trustees of the British Museum, G23 - MFA 11.785, drawings by Martin
Figure 19: Selection of Old Kingdom full-size axe blades. Contexts and sources: AR1 - after Valloggia (2011, Fig. 164), G23 - MFA 11.784; NI1 - after Rowe (1936, 283–289) , drawings by Markéta Kobierská, Martin Odler; G23 - MFA 11.784, G12 -after Kromer (
Figure 20: Selection of Old Kingdom full-size chisel blades. Contexts and sources: G2 and G3 - after Reisner and Smith (1955, Figs. 36-37); X2 -after Rowe (1938, Pl. LIX, drawing by Markéta Kobierská); G26 - MFA 11.841, X3 - EA66208, X4 - EA66209, both ar
Figure 21: Old Kingdom sites with iconographic sources concerning tools (Martin Odler in software qGIS, map: Natural Earth).
Figure 22: Saqqara, craft scenes in the tomb of Ty, sculptors and carpenters (icon12, 56; after Steindorff 1913, Taf. 133)
Figure 23: Old Kingdom iconographic sources with tools (1)
Figure 24: Giza, Tomb of Iymery (G 6020), first chamber, south wall, craft scenes (icon15; after Weeks 1994, Fig. 30, © MFA)
Figure 25: Deir el-Gebrawi, wooden haft of a model adze blade (after Kanawati 2013, Pl. 81: DGS06: 5, © ACE. with kind permission by N. Kanawati)
Figure 26: Deir el-Gebrawi, Tomb of Djau-Shemai and Djau, chapel, north wall, east section (icon25, 50, 63; after Kanawati 2013, Pl. 75, © ACE. with kind permission by N. Kanawati)
Figure 27: Old Kingdom archaeological contexts with copper tools, according to the sites (1)
Figure 28: Bubastis, Context Ba4 – Tomb 161 (after el-Sawi 1979, Figs . 148–149, redrawn by Markéta Kobierská, © Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague, Czech Institute of Egyptology)
Figure 29: Abu Rawash, selected Old Kingdom contexts. Sources: AR1 - after Valloggia (2011, Fig. 163–164); AR5 - after Bisson de la Roque (1925,Pl. XXVI: 446a–b); ; AR6 - after Bisson de la Roque (1925, pl. XXVI: 453ab, 455, 454ab); AR7 - after Bisson de
Figure 31: Abusir, Context A50, Tomb AS 65 of Neferherptah, Shaft 1, perhaps of his relative (wife?), mirror (drawing by Martin Odler, Lucie Vařeková, © Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague, Czech Institute of Egyptology)
Figure 32: Abusir, Context A37, Tomb AS 27: Tomb Lake of Abusir 5, Shaft 2, model tool kit deposited on a travertine offering table (photo by Květa Smoláriková, © Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague, Czech Institute of Egyptology)
Figure 33: Abusir, Context A49, Tomb AS 22, burial chamber of Inti Pepyankh; copper model tools (find No. 140/JJ/2000) together with a ceramic vessel and limestone model vessels (photo by Kamil Voděra, © Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague, Czec
Figure 34: Giza, Old Kingdom contexts in the database (1)
Figure 35: Giza, selected Dynasty 4 contexts with model tool kits. Contexts and sources: G5 – after Reisner (1942, Fig. 218); G9 – after Reisner (1942, Fig. 321); G10 – after Reisner (1942, Fig. 323); G20 – MFA 27.2037, G34 - MFA 36-12-31, 36-12-32, 36-12
Figure 36: Giza, Context G33, model tool types from the tomb of Khnumbaf (G 8260) (after Hassan 1953, 9, no scale)
Figure 37: Giza, Contexts G11 - G19, tools and tool fragments from the settlement debris, datable to the reigns of Khufu and Khafre (after Kromer 1978, Taf. 32)
Figure 38: Giza, finds from the Menkaure valley temple, MFA Boston. Contexts and accession numbers: G23 – 11.784, 11.785; G25 – 11.842; G26 – 11.841; G27 – 11.845; G30 – 11.843. © MFA. Drawings by Martin Odler, Valéria Uramová
Figure 39: Giza, Dynasty 5 model tools deposited in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. Contexts and numbers: G42 – 24.2989, 24.2990; G47 – 15-12-52; G48 – 27-2-462; G49 – 33-1-41, 33.1046 - 33.1048, 33.1055; G50 – 15-11-42; G52 – 25-12-120, 25.2915; G55 – 2
Figure 40: Giza - Dynasty 5 full-size and model tools, contexts in other museums. Contexts and sources: G46 – after Reisner (1942, Fig. 304a); G53 – after Hassan (1941, Fig. 217); G68 – after Reisner (1942, Fig. 310); G69 – after Hassan (1941, Fig. 208).
Figure 41: Giza - Dynasty 5 and 6 provenanced contexts from the Kunsthistorisches Museum Wien. G51 - Context II; G67 - Context XVI; G107 - inventory numbers on drawing; G112 - Context I. Drawings by Martin Odler, Valéria Uramová, layout by Markéta Kobiers
Figure 42: “Giza “ - late Dynasty 5 and early Dynasty 6 contexts. Contexts and sources: G63 – after Hassan (1941, Fig. 82); G92 – after Hassan (1941, Fig. 118).
Figure 43: Giza - Dynasty 6 contexts in the MFA Boston. Contexts and numbers: G76 – 25.2688; G77 – 25.2610; G93 – 25.1783; G94 – 25.1634; G100 – 12-11-52; G120 – 30-12-5, © MFA. Drawings by Martin Odler, Valéria Uramová, layout by Markéta Kobierská
Figure 44: Giza, Context G97. Tools and model tools from the tomb of Ptahshepses Impy, G 2381, Shaft A. © MFA. Drawings by Martin Odler, Valéria Uramová, layout by Markéta Kobierská
Figure 45: Giza, Context G98. Model tools from Tomb G 2381, Shaft Z, © MFA. Drawings by Martin Odler, Valéria Uramová, layout by Markéta Kobierská
Figure 46: Giza - selected Old Kingdom mirrors and model mirrors. Contexts and sources: G99 – after Simpson (1980, 14, Pl. XXXIIc, redrawn by Markéta Kobierská); G115 – MFA, 37.1235; G126 – KHM Wien, Context V. Drawings by Martin Odler, Valéria Uramová, M
Figure 47: Giza, unprovenanced Old Kingdom material from the excavations by Hermann Junker, now in the Kunsthistorisches Museum Wien. Contexts G123 - G131. Drawings by Martin Odler, Valéria Uramová, Markéta Kobierská, layout by Markéta Kobierská
Figure 48: Kafr Ammar, Old Kingdom mirrors. Sources: KA1 – after Petrie and Mackay (1915, Pl. XIV), KA2 – after Petrie and Mackay (1915, Pl. XIV)
Figure 49: Saqqara, Context S4, model tool kit from the tomb of Kaemsenu (after Firth - Gunn 1926, Fig. 38, no scale, © IFAO)
Figure 50: Saqqara - model tool kits from the Tombs of Kagemni (S6) and Neferseshemra- Shesi (S9). Source: S6 – after Firth and Gunn (1926, Fig. 17); S9 – after Firth and Gunn (1926, Fig. 14), © IFAO.
Figure 51: Saqqara - model tool blades from Context S24 (after Jéquier 1925, Fig. 24, no scale, © IFAO)
Figure 52: Saqqara - mirror from Context S26 (after Jéquier 1925, Fig. 63, no scale, © IFAO)
Figure 53: Saqqara - Context S31, most probably from the First Intermediate period or Middle Kingdom (after Jéquier 1940, Fig. 47, © IFAO)
Figure 54: Abydos - selected contexts with copper model tool kits. Ay1 – the British Museum, axe blades after Davies (1987, Pl. 2: 12); Ay10 – the British Museum; Ay11 – the British Museum, (c) Trustees of the British Museum. Drawings by Martin Odler, Val
Figure 55: Matmar, Old Kingdom copper alloy finds. Contexts and sources: Mt1 – after Brunton (1948, Pl. XXXV: 5); Mt2 – after Brunton (1948, Pl. XXXVII: 3208-10)Mt3 – after Brunton (1948, Pl. XXXV: 6); Mt4 – after Brunton (1948, Pl. XXXV: 8); Mt5 – after
Figure 56: Mostagedda, Old Kingdom copper alloy finds. Contexts and sources, new drawings by Martin Odler, Valéria Uramová: Ms1 – British Museum, EA63113; Ms2 – British Museum, EA62529, both courtesy of the Trustees of the British Museum; Ms3 – Ashmolean
Figure 58: Dara, Context D1, late Old Kingdom copper alloy finds: model axe blade with haft and model chisel (after Weill 1958, Pl. XL, f, g, © IFAO)
Figure 59: Dendera, selected Old Kingdom copper alloy finds. Context and sources: Dd2 – after Petrie (1898, 7, Pl. XX); Dd3 – after Petrie (1898, Pl. XX); Dd4 – after Petrie (1898, Pl. XX); Dd5 – Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, AN1896-1908 E.1742, drawing by Ma
Figure 60: Diospolis Parva (Hu), selected Old Kingdom copper alloy finds. Contexts and numbers: DP2 – after Petrie (1901, Pl. XXXI: D14); DP3 – after Petrie (1901, Pl. XXXI: N 19).
Figure 61: Edfu, selected Old Kingdom copper alloy finds. Contexts and sources: Louvre - Ed1 – E 25975; Ed4 – E 25973, E 25978. National Museum, Warsaw: Ed2 – MN 141673; Ed8 – MN 140331; Ed10 – MN 141590. Drawings by Martin Odler, Valéria Uramová
Figure 62: El-Kab, Old Kingdom copper alloy finds. EK1 – after Hendrickx and Eyckerman (2009, Fig. 27, with kind permission by S. Hendrickx); EK2 – after Quibell (1898, Pl. XVIII: 56–65); EK3 – after Lilyquist (1979, Fig. 10, with kind permission by C. Li
Figure 63: El-Kab, mirror from Context EK4 (no scale, after Limme 2008, Fig. 23, with kind permission by D. Huyge).
Figure 64: Mahasna, Old Kingdom copper alloy finds. Contexts and sources: Ashmolean Museum, Oxford: Mh1 – AN.1896-1908 E.1860; Mh6 – AN.1896-1908 E.1783; Petrie Museum, UCL: Mh3 – UC 40535, Courtesy of the Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology, UCL; Mh2 –
Figure 65: Zawiyet el-Mayitin, Old Kingdom copper alloy finds. Drawings by Martin Odler, Valéria Uramová. Louvre: ZM1 - E11457; ZM2 - E11470; ZM3 - E11464.
Figure 67: Balat, selected Old Kingdom copper alloy mirrors, layout by Markéta Kobierská. Contexts and sources: B4 – after Valloggia (1998, Pl. LXXVI, B); B10 – after Castel, Pantalacci and Cherpion (2001, Fig. 123–124); B11 – after Castel, Pantalacci and
Figure 68: Selected Old Kingdom copper alloy finds from Nubia. Contexts and sources: Ad1 – after Williams (1989, Fig. 70c); Ad2 – after Williams (1989,Fig. 71: b, j), both figures published with kind permission by the Oriental Institute, University of Chi
Figure 69: Tool counts in the iconographic sources (1)
Figure 70: Saqqara, Tomb of Mereruka, north wall, Room A3, east wall, craft scenes (icon22, 80, after Kanawati et al. 2010, Pl. 74, © ACE. with kind permission by N. Kanawati)
Figure 71: Abusir, Tomb of Ptahshepses, Room 4, east wall, register 1, sculptors (icon54; after Verner 1986, Pls. 27–28, © Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague, Czech Institute of Egyptology)
Figure 72: Sheikh Said, Tomb of Serefkai, metalworking scene with products of the workshop (icon7, 77, after Davies 1901, Pl. 4)
Figure 73: Deshasheh, Tomb of Inti, chapel, east wall, south of entrance, craft scenes (icon32, 67, 79, after Kanawati - McFarlane 1993, Pl. 29, © ACE. with kind permission by N. Kanawati)
Figure 74: Finds of chisels according to the sites and periods
Figure 75: Types and variants of chisels used in Shaft 113 at Saqqara (after Welc 2010, Fig. 27, with kind permission by F. Welc)
Figure 76: Abusir, Tomb AS 60, chisel marks in the burial chamber (photo by Lucie Jirásková, © Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague, Czech Institute of Egyptology)
Figure 77: Abusir, Tomb AS 60, chisel marks in the burial chamber (photo by Lucie Jirásková, © Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague, Czech Institute of Egyptology)
Figure 78: Abusir, Tomb AC 15: burial chamber of Khekeretnebty, chisel cut marks on a sarcophagus (photo by Milan Zemina, © Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague, Czech Institute of Egyptology)
Figure 79: Abusir, interior of the canopic jar 15_3/AS67/2012 with chisel traces. The tool might have been used either to cut out the drilling core remaining after the use of a copper tube drill or to gouge out the stoneto shape the interior of the jar (p
Figure 80: Abusir, a detail of the wall of a canopic jar (find No. 24/AS37/2007), which was once deposited in the burial chamber of Neferinpu’s wife or mother situated at Abusir South. In this case, a chisel was used instead of the figure-of-eight borer t
Figure 81: Abusir, another canopic jar from the set of Neferinpu’s wife or mother (find No. 25/AS37/2007) showing that bases of all the jars belonging to this set were dressed using a copper chisel (photo L. Jirásková, © Faculty of Arts, Charles Universit
Figure 82: A bowl (find No. 19_25/AS37/2007) belonging to the assemblage of model stone vessels collected in the burial chamber of Neferinpu (AS 37) at Abusir. All of the bowls of this set bear traces of the use of copper chisels to shape the depressions.
Figure 83: Abusir, Tomb of Ptahshepses, fine traces of chisels and polishing agents on a relief fragment (photo by Milan Zemina, © Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague, Czech Institute of Egyptology)
Figure 84: Reconstruction of the semiotic triangle for mnx chisel. Relief and tool name after Wild (1953, Pl. CXXVIII © IFAO). Drawing by Martin Odler.
Figure 85: Meidum, Tomb of Rahotep. Shipbuilding scene (icon40; after Petrie 1892, Pl. XI, register 1).
Figure 86: Chisels in Old Kingdom iconographic sources (1)
Figure 87: Saqqara, Tomb of Ankhmahor-Sesi, Room II, south wall, craft scenes (icon60, 69, 150; after Kanawati - Hassan 1997, Pl. 40, © ACE. with kind permission by N. Kanawati)
Figure 88: Hawawish, Tomb of Kaihep/Tjeti-Iker, chapel, south wall, west of entrance, craft scenes (icon26, 64; after Kanawati 1980, Fig. 9, © ACE. with kind permission by N. Kanawati)
Figure 89: Giza, Tomb of Senedjembi Inti (G 2370), Room II, north wall, craft scenes (icon14, 58, 149, after Brovarski 2001, Fig. 45, © MFA, with kind permission by E. Brovarski)
Figure 90: Old Kingdom chisels, Types A–C, no scale. Drawing by Martin Odler, sources: A1 – after Castel, Pantalacci and Cherpion (2001, Fig. 123–124); A2 – after Jéquier (1929, Fig. 24); A4 – after Reisner (1942, Fig. 304a); A3, A5, A6, A7 – after Firth
Figure 91: Old Kingdom chisels, Types D–G, no scale. Drawing by Martin Odler, sources: D1 – after Castel, Pantalacci and Cherpion (2001, Fig. 123–124); D2 – ÄMUL 2116; E2 – after Kaplony (1965, Taf. VII); D3 – after Hassan (1941, Fig. 118); D4 – after Fir
Figure 92: Terminology used for the description of tools, selected terms. Drawing by Martin Odler, © Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague, Czech Institute of Egyptology
Figure 93: Terminology used for the description of chisels. Drawing by Martin Odler, © Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague, Czech Institute of Egyptology.
Figure 94: Histogram of the length of complete Old Kingdom model chisels
Figure 95: Histogram of the length of complete Old Kingdom model chisels of A1 variant (produced in Systat software)
Figure 96: Saqqara, Context S8, model tool kit from the tomb of Mereruka (numbers under the tools denote the preserved specimens of the types, after Firth - Gunn 1926, Fig. 22, © IFAO)
Figure 97: Histogram of the length of complete Old Kingdom model chisels of A5 variant (produced in Systat software)
Figure 98: Context A40, model chisel blade with traces of a wooden handle and a textile wrapping (photo by Kamil Voděra, © Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague, Czech Institute of Egyptology)
Figure 99: Histogram of the length of complete Old Kingdom model chisels of D1 variant (produced in Systat software)
Figure 100: Saqqara, chisels of Variant D1 from Context S11 and a fragment of an adze blade (after Kanawati et al. 2006, Pl. 75: cdef, © ACE. with kind permission by N. Kanawati)
Figure 101: Context A45 – two chisels, an adze and a needle (drawing by Martin Odler, Lucie Vařeková, © Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague, Czech Institute of Egyptology)
Figure 102: Dynasty 4 chisels found at Giza (no scale; after Junker 1929, Abb. 17)
Figure 103: Variants of chisels according to the sites
Figure 104: Variants of chisels according to the periods
Figure 105: Abusir, Context A49, set of five cross-cut chisels of Variant D1 bound by a thread (photo by Kamil Voděra, © Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague, Czech Institute of Egyptology)
Figure 106: Abusir, Context A49, copper model tools corroded together (photo by Kamil Voděra, © Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague, Czech Institute of Egyptology)
Figure 107: Abusir, Context A40, model chisel blades with traces of wooden handles (photo by Kamil Voděra, © Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague, Czech Institute of Egyptology)
Figure 108: Abusir, Context A37, remains of wooden handles on model chisels (photo by Kamil Voděra, © Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague, Czech Institute of Egyptology)
Figure 109: Abusir, Context A40, detail of the remains of a wooden handle on a chisel blade (photo by Kamil Voděra, © Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague, Czech Institute of Egyptology)
Figure 110: Finds of adzes according to the sites and periods
Figure 111: Reconstruction of the semiotic triangle for an.t adze. Full-size blade after Petrie (1892, Pl. XXIX: 11), relief after Wild (1966, Pl. CLXXIII, © IFAO), drawing by Martin Odler
Figure 112: Reconstruction of the semiotic triangle for msx.tyw adze. Drawing by Martin Odler. Relief and tool name after Hassan (1938, Pl. XCVI), drawing by Martin Odler
Figure 113: Old Kingdom terms for adzes (after Odler 2015, Fig. 4)
Figure 114: Abusir, Tomb of Ptahshepses, hieroglyph of an adze with a lashing, butcher knife (most probably stone) (photo by Milan Zemina, © Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague, Czech Institute of Egyptology)
Figure 115: Adzes in the Old Kingdom iconographic sources (1)
Figure 116: Abusir, Tomb of Ptahshepses, sculptor with an adze at work (icon54; photo by Milan Zemina, © Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague, Czech Institute of Egyptology)
Figure 117: Meidum, Tomb of Atet, south wall of the niche, shipbuilding (icon41; after Petrie 1892, Pl. XXV)
Figure 118: Giza, Tomb of Wepemnefret (G 8882), chapel, eastern wall (icon13, 57; after Hassan 1936, Fig. 219)
Figure 119: Saqqara, a loose block found at the causeway of the pyramid of Wenis (icon78, after Hassan 1938, Pl. XCVI)
Figure 120: Saqqara, Tomb of Mereruka, north wall, west of statue niche, shipbuilding (icon47, after Kanawati et al. 2011, Pl. 74, © ACE. with kind permission by N. Kanawati)
Figure 121: Giza, Tomb of Kaemankh, burial chamber, west wall, lumberjacks and metalworker (icon33, after Junker 1940, Taf. X)
Figure 122: Abusir, Causeway of Sahure, block SC/south/2003/07 (icon83; after el-Awady 2009, Pl. 5, © Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague, Czech Institute of Egyptology)
Figure 123: Saqqara, Tomb of Ihy (Idut), Room VIII, west wall, a carpenter with an adze (icon21; after Kanawati - Abder-Raziq 2003, Pl. 61, © ACE. with kind permission by N. Kanawati)
Figure 124: Abusir, Tomb of Ptahshepses, loose block, an adze at rest (icon30; after Vachala 2004, Fragment F 138, © Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague, Czech Institute of Egyptology)
Figure 125: Histogram of the length of complete Old Kingdom adze blades
Figure 126: Types and variants of Old Kingdom adze blades, no scale. Sources: C3 – after Hassan (1941, Fig. 217); C4 – MFA, 27-2-462i; D1 – after Bárta et al. (2009, Fig. 6.3.111); D2, D6, D7, D8 – after Firth and Gunn (1926, Figs. 6, 14, 17); D4 – after
Figure 127: Abusir, model adze blades of Variant D1 from Context A47 (drawing by Lucie Vařeková, © Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague, Czech Institute of Egyptology)
Figure 128: Variants of adzes according to the sites
Figure 129: Variants of adzes according to the periods
Figure 130: Abusir, Context A40, thread on a neck of a model adze blade (photo by Kamil Voděra, © Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague, Czech Institute of Egyptology)
Figure 131: Abusir, Context A40, model chisel blades with traces of wooden handles and textile wrapping on a model adze blade (photo by Kamil Voděra, © Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague, Czech Institute of Egyptology)
Figure 132: Abusir, Context A41, negative traces of a thread on a model adze blade (photo by Kamil Voděra, © Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague, Czech Institute of Egyptology)
Figure 133: Abusir, Context A40, model adze blades with traces of a thread on the neck (photo by Kamil Voděra, © Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague, Czech Institute of Egyptology)
Figure 134: Abusir, Context A49, set of adze blades of Variant D2 bound by a thread (photo by Kamil Voděra, © Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague, Czech Institute of Egyptology)
Figure 135: Semiotic triangle for Old Kingdom axe. Drawing by Martin Odler. Relief and tool name after Wild (1953, Pl. CXXIX), full-size axe blade after Valloggia (2011, Fig. 164, redrawn by Markéta Kobierská)
Figure 136: Axes in the Old Kingdom iconographic sources (1)
Figure 137: Saqqara, Tomb of Niankhnum and Khnumhotep, Door Room, north wall, shipbuilding scene and lumberjacks (icon35, 43; after Moussa - Altenmüller 1977, Abb. 8, with kind permission by H. Altenmüller)
Figure 138: Zawiyet el-Mayitin, Tomb of Niankhpepy-Khnumhotep-heti, fragment of relief, lumberjacks at work (icon38, after Varille 1938, Pl. XVI, © IFAO)
Figure 139: Meir, Tomb of Pepyankh the Black, Room 1, north wall, craft scenes (icon24, 62; after Kanawati and Evans 2014, Pl. 73; © ACE. with kind permission by N. Kanawati)
Figure 140: Hammamiya, Tomb of Kakhenet and Khentkaus, chapel, east wall, section C, shipbuilding and carpentry (icon18, after El-Khouli and Kanawati 1991, Pl. 69, © ACE. with kind permission by N. Kanawati)
Figure 141: Histograms of the heigth of complete Old Kingdom model axe blades
Figure 142: Finds of axes according to the sites and periods
Figure 143: Types and variants of Old Kingdom axe blades, no scale. Drawing by Martin Odler, sources: A1, A2, A3, A7 – after Firth and Gunn (1926, Fig. 14); A4 – after Hassan (1953, 9); A5 - after Bárta et al. (2009, Fig. 6.3.111); A6 – after Edel, Seyfri
Figure 144: Saqqara, model tool kit from Context S10, after Firth and Gunn (1926, Fig. 6, © IFAO)
Figure 145: Abusir, model tool kit from Context A46 (drawing by Martin Odler, Lucie Vařeková, © Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague, Czech Institute of Egyptology)
Figure 146: Abusir, Context A44, model tool kit with a model bowl (photo by Kamil Voděra, © Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague, Czech Institute of Egyptology)
Figure 147: Abusir, model tool kit from Context A44 (drawing by Martin Odler, Lucie Vařeková, © Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague, Czech Institute of Egyptology)
Figure 148: Deshasha, Tomb of Inti, chapel, east wall, north of the entrance, siege of a town (icon147, after Kanawati - McFarlane 1993, Pl. 26, © ACE. with kind permission by N. Kanawati)
Figure 149: Saqqara, mortuary temple of Pepy II, a halberd-shaped blade (after Jéquier 1938, Pl. 45, © IFAO)
Figure 150: Variants of axes according to the sites
Figure 151: Variants of axes according to the periods
Figure 152: Abusir, Context A37, model axe blades with traces of wooden hafts (photo by Kamil Voděra, © Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague, Czech Institute of Egyptology)
Figure 153: Abusir, model tool kit from Context A37 (drawing by Květa Smoláriková, Lucie Vařeková, © Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague, Czech Institute of Egyptology)
Figure 154: Abusir, Context A40, textile wrapping on a model axe blade (photo by Martin Frouz)
Figure 155: Finds of saws according to the sites and periods
Figure 156: Giza, Tomb of Meresankh III (G 7530-7540) (icon1, 156; after Dunham and Simpson 1974, Fig. 5, © MFA)
Figure 157: Semiotic triangle for Old Kingdom saw. Drawing by Martin Odler. Relief after Wild (1966, Pl. CLXXIV); Full-size saw blade after Petrie (1892, Pl. XXIX: 12); model saw blade after Firth – Gunn (1926, Fig. 11); tool name after Junker (1940, Taf.
Figure 158: Saws in Old Kingdom iconographic sources (1)
Figure 159: Saqqara, Tomb of Nefer and Kahai, east wall, alcove, craft scenes (icon9, 34; after Lashien 2013, Pl. 83, © ACE. with kind permission by N. Kanawati)
Figure 160: Histograms of the length of Old Kingdom saw blades.
Figure 161: “Types and variants of Old Kingdom saw blades, no scale. Sources: A1 – after James (1953, Fig. 4); A2 – after Hassan (1941, Fig. 217); A3 - MFA, 14.1723; B1 – after Quibell (1898, Pl. XVIII: 59); B2 – after Reisner (1942, Fig. 310); B3 - ÄMUL
Figure 162: Variants of saws according to the sites
Figure 163: Variants of saws according to the periods
Figure 164: Old Kingdom full-size saws. Contexts and sources: M3 – Petrie (1892, Pl. XXIX: 12); G2, G3 – after Reisner and Smith (1955, Figs. 36-37)
Figure 165: Saqqara, Context S7, model tool kit (after Firth and Gunn 1926, Fig. 11, © IFAO)
Figure 166: Abusir, Context A38, model saw blades with traces of wooden handles (photo by Kamil Voděra)
Figure 167: Drills in the Old Kingdom iconographic sources
Figure 168: Deir el-Gebrawi, Tomb of Ibi, north wall, east of offering recess, craft scenes (icon23, 48, 61, 151, 157; after Kanawati 2007, Pl. 72, © ACE. with kind permission by N. Kanawati)
Figure 169: Meir, Tomb of Pepyankh the Black, Room 1, west wall, drilling of stone vessels (icon169, after Kanawati - Evans 2014, Pl. 72, © ACE. with kind permission by N. Kanawati)
Figure 170: Saqqara, Tomb of Ty, bow-drill in use (icon146, after Wild 1966, Pl. CLXXIV, detail, © IFAO)
Figure 171: Finds of razors according to the sites and periods
Figure 172: Semiotic triangle for Old Kingdom razor. Drawing by Martin Odler, full-size razor after Reisner and Smith (1955, Fig. 45); model razor blade ÄMUL 2132; razors in an etui after Khouli and Kanawati (1991, Pl. 64, (c) ACE); tool name after Moussa
Figure 173: Razors in the Old Kingdom iconographic sources
Figure 174: Saqqara, Tomb of Niankhnum and Khnumhotep, Door Room, north wall, lower relief field, circumcision scene and market scene (icon71, 82; after Moussa - Altenmüller 1977, Abb. 10, with kind permission by H. Altenmüller)
Figure 175: Hammamiya, Tomb of Kakhenet and Khentkaus, chapel, west wall, section E, razor case as offering (after El-Khouli and Kanawati 1991, Pl. 64, © ACE. with kind permission by N. Kanawati)
Figure 176: Types and variants of Old Kingdom razor blades, no scale. Sources: A1 - MFA, 13.3082; A2 – after Minault–Gout and Deleuze (1992, 116); B1 - Context G127, KHM Wien; i (1979,Fig. 147); B2 – PM 2730, RPM Hildesheim; B3 - after Hassan (1953, 9);
Figure 177: Variants of razors according to the sites
Figure 178: Variants of razors according to the periods
Figure 179: Finds of mirrors according to the sites and periods
Figure 180: Semiotic triangle for Old Kingdom mirror. Sources: full-size mirror: MFA, 37.1325, relief after Thompson 2014, Pl. 65, © ACE. with kind permission by N. Kanawati), model mirror Context G126, tool name after Jéquier (1929)
Figure 181: Mirrors in the Old Kingdom iconographic sources (1)
Figure 182: Tehna, Tomb of Kaihep, false door, west wall, mirror with papyriform handle as offering (after Thompson 2014, Pl. 65, © ACE. with kind permission by N. Kanawati)
Figure 183: Saqqara, Tomb of Mereruka, mirror dancing (after Kanawati et al. 2011, Pl. 76, © ACE. with kind permission by N. Kanawati)
Figure 184: Abusir, Tomb of Ptahshepses, metalworkers at work, a mirror among the products of the workshop (icon74, photo by Milan Zemina © Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague, Czech Institute of Egyptology)
Figure 185: Histogram of complete Old Kingdom mirror disc heights
Figure 186: Histogram of complete Old Kingdom mirror widths
Figure 187: Types and variants of Old Kingdom mirrors, no scale. Sources: A1 – after Saleh (1983, Taf. 47, redrawn by Martin Odler); B1 – after Williams (1989, Fig. 71: b, with kind permission by the Oriental Institute, University of Chicago); C1 - MFA, 3
Figure 188: Old Kingdom mirrors and clamps found at Qubbet el-Hawwa. Sources: QH1 – after Edel, Seyfried and Vieler (2008, 834); QH5 – after Edel, Seyfried and Vieler (2008, Fig. 12); QH6 – after Edel, Seyfried and Vieler (2008, Fig. 58); QH7 – after Edel
Figure 189: Variants of mirrors according to the sites
Figure 190: Variants of mirrors according to the periods
Figure 191: Abusir, Context A50, a mirror with traces of textile wrapping (photo by Martin Frouz © Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague, Czech Institute of Egyptology)
Figure 192: Abusir, Context A50, a mirror with traces of textile wrapping (photo by Martin Frouz © Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague, Czech Institute of Egyptology)
Figure 193: Inscribed Old Kingdom mirrors. Contexts and sources: With kind permission by C. Lilyquist: X8 – after Lilyquist (1979, 14, Fig. 8); X10 – after Lilyquist (1979, 14, Fig. 9); X14 – after Lilyquist (1979, 14, Fig. 7); X15 – after Lilyquist (1979
Figure 194: Inscribed Old Kingdom mirrors
Figure 195: Deir el-Gebrawi, Tomb of Ibi, west wall, north section, three mirrors with papyriform handles and tweezers(?) under the chair (icon139; after Kanawati 2007, Pl. 56, © ACE. with kind permission by N. Kanawati)
Figure 196: Types and variants of Old Kingdom tweezers, no scale. Sources: A1– after Garstang (1902, Pl. XXXIII, XL: 349); B1 – after Valloggia (1998, Pl. -CVIII)
Figure 197: Finds of needles according to the sites and periods
Figure 198: Types and variants of Old Kingdom needles, no scale. Sources: A1 - after Hassan (1941, Fig. 217); B1, B2 -after Junker (1944, Abb. 93)
Figure 199: Variants of needles according to the sites
Figure 200: Variants of needles according to the periods
Figure 201: Finds of needles according to the feature types
Figure 202: Abusir, Tomb of Fetekty, market scene with a cluster of fish-hooks (icon72, after Bárta 2001, fig. 317, © Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague, Czech Institute of Egyptology)
Figure 203: Fish-hooks in the Old Kingdom iconographic sources
Figure 204: Types and variants of Old Kingdom fish-hooks, no scale. Sources: A1 – after Callender (2008, Fig. 4.88); B1 – after Dreyer (1986, Abb. 48); B2 – after Kromer (1978, Taf. 32: 7)
Figure 205: Harpoons in the Old Kingdom iconographic sources (1)
Figure 206: Deir el-Gebrawi, Tomb of Henqu II, chapel, north wall, east of serdab, double-barbed harpoon (icon116; after Kanawati 2005, Pl. 54, © ACE. with kind permission by N. Kanawati)
Figure 207: Types and variants of Old Kingdom knives, no scale. Sources: A1 – after Soukiassian, Wuttmann and Pantalacci (2002, Fig. 98); B1 – after Labrousse and Lauer (2000, Fig. 35); C1 – after Garstang (1902, Pl. XXXIII, XL: 349)
Figure 208: Giza - Dynasty 5 and 6 contexts. Contexts and sources: G76 – 25.2688; G77 – 25.2610; G82 – ÄMUL 2170; G109 – RPM Hildesheim, drawing by Martin Odler, Valéria Uramová; G118 – after Hassan (1943, Pl. XXII: C, redrawn by Markéta Kobierská); G11
Figure 209: Deshasha, Tomb of Iteti/Shedu, south wall, west of the engaged pillar, craft scenes (icon29, 70, after Kanawati - McFarlane 1993, Pl. 49, © ACE. with kind permission by N. Kanawati)
Figure 210: Leather-cutting knives in the iconographic sources
Figure 211: Daggers in iconographic sources
Figure 212: Giza, artefact from Context G8 (the British Museum, EA 67819) © Trustees of the British Museum
Figure 213: Saqqara, artefacts from Context S1 (after Labrousse and Lauer 2000, Fig. 35 © IFAO)
Figure 214: Types of structures with tool finds in the Old Kingdom, according to the periods (1)
Figure 215: Abusir, context A49, copper model tools in situ (photo by Miroslav Bárta, © Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague, Czech Institute of Egyptology)
Figure 216: Abusir, context A37, bundle of model chisels bound by a thread (photo by Kamil Voděra, © Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague, Czech Institute of Egyptology)
Figure 217: Abusir, context A49, copper model tool kit (drawing by Martin Odler, Lucie Vařeková, © Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague, Czech Institute of Egyptology)
Figure 218: Abusir, context A37, complete model tool kit (photo by Kamil Voděra, © Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague, Czech Institute of Egyptology)
Figure 219: Abusir, context A41, model tool kit (drawing by Martin Tomášek, Lucie Vařeková, © Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague, Czech Institute of Egyptology)
Figure 220: Abusir, context A41, model tool kit (photo by Kamil Voděra)
Figure 221: Abusir, context A40, model tool blades corroded together (photo by Kamil Voděra,© Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague, Czech Institute of Egyptology)
Figure 222: Abusir, context A40, model tool blades corroded together (photo by Kamil Voděra, © Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague, Czech Institute of Egyptology)
Figure 223: Abusir, context A40, model tool blades corroded together. Complete tool blades were preserved together with fragments of smaller chisel blades (photo by Kamil Voděra, © Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague, Czech Institute of Egyptolo
Figure 224: Contents of the Old Kingdom complete model tool assemblages (1)
Figure 225: Set of analyzed artefacts. Dashed lines and arrows indicate the sampled locations (Photo J. Kmošek, © Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague, Czech Institute of Egyptology).
Figure 226: Summary of parameters of the analyzed set of artefacts.
Figure 227: Techniques used to characterize composition and mechanical properties of the examined artefacts.
Figure 228: Results of X-Ray diffraction analysis of corrosion products presented on surface of the selected artefacts (weight %).
Figure 229: Razor ÄMUL 2130 with detail of preserved fragments of mineralised textile on the surface (Photo J. Kmošek).
Figure 230: Results of Energy Dispersive X-Ray Fluorescence analysis of metallic material of the artefacts (weight %).
Figure 231: Results of the SEM/EDS analysis of the main chemical phases occurring in the analyzed artefacts (weight %).
Figure 232: SEM images of cross sections of analyzed samples. A - corroded structure of sample ÄMUL 2120 (SE image, photo T. Jamborová), B - partly corroded structure of sample ÄMUL 2129 (SE image, photo T. Jamborová), C - metallic structure of sample ÄMU
Figure 233: Results of the SEM/EDS analysis of the main chemical phases present in the analyzed artefacts.
Figure 234: Optical microscopy images of the metallic structures after etching. A - recrystallized grains of α-Cu phase and slip lines (ÄMUL 2129, photo M. Kmoníčková), B - partly corroded, fully recrystallized grains of α-Cu phase with As-rich γ phases a
Figure 235: Old Kingdom contexts with complete adze blades. The category of social status was determined by Veronika Dulíková (1)
Figure 236: Formula of centroid size
Figure 237: Form of Old Kingdom adze blades, results of the PCA analysis for periods (Ján Dupej, © Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague, Czech Institute of Egyptology)
Figure 238: Form of Old Kingdom adze blades, results of the PCA analysis for sites (Ján Dupej, © Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague, Czech Institute of Egyptology)
Figure 239: Form of Old Kingdom adze blades, effect of the principal component 1 (Ján Dupej, © Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague, Czech Institute of Egyptology)
Figure 240: Form of Old Kingdom adze blades, effect of the principal component 2 (Ján Dupej, © Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague, Czech Institute of Egyptology)
Figure 241: Form of Old Kingdom adze blades, mean forms of the periods (Ján Dupej, © Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague, Czech Institute of Egyptology)
Figure 242: Form of Old Kingdom adze blades, mean forms of variants (Ján Dupej, © Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague, Czech Institute of Egyptology)
Figure 243: Form of Old Kingdom adze blades, mean forms of the sites (Ján Dupej, © Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague, Czech Institute of Egyptology)
Figure 244: Form of Old Kingdom adze blades, mean forms of the parts of sites (Ján Dupej, © Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague, Czech Institute of Egyptology)
Figure 245: Form of Old Kingdom adze blades, mean forms of full-size blades and model blades (Ján Dupej, © Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague, Czech Institute of Egyptology)
Figure 246: Shape of Old Kingdom adze blades, results of the PCA analysis for periods (Ján Dupej, © Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague, Czech Institute of Egyptology)
Figure 247: Shape of Old Kingdom adze blades, results of the PCA analysis for sites (Ján Dupej, © Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague, Czech Institute of Egyptology)
Figure 248: Shape of Old Kingdom adze blades, effect of the principal component 1 (Ján Dupej, © Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague, Czech Institute of Egyptology)
Figure 249: Shape of Old Kingdom adze blades, effect of the principal component 2 (Ján Dupej, © Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague, Czech Institute of Egyptology)
Figure 250: Shape of Old Kingdom adze blades, mean shapes of the periods (Ján Dupej, © Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague, Czech Institute of Egyptology)
Figure 251: Shape of Old Kingdom adze blades, mean shapes of variants (Ján Dupej, © Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague, Czech Institute of Egyptology)
Figure 252: Shape of Old Kingdom adze blades, mean shapes of the sites (Ján Dupej, © Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague, Czech Institute of Egyptology)
Figure 253: Shape of Old Kingdom adze blades, mean shapes of the parts of sites (Ján Dupej, © Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague, Czech Institute of Egyptology)
Figure 254: Shape of Old Kingdom adze blades, mean shapes of full-size blades and model blades (Ján Dupej, © Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague, Czech Institute of Egyptology)
Figure 255: Form of Old Kingdom adze blades, mean forms of the social status categories, as defined by Veronika Dulíková (Ján Dupej, © Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague, Czech Institute of Egyptology)
Figure 256: Form of Old Kingdom adze blades, mean shapes of the social status categories, as defined by Veronika Dulíková (Ján Dupej, © Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague, Czech Institute of Egyptology)
Figure 257: Dating of problematic Old Kingdom contexts with both copper implements and stone vessels (1)
Acknowledgements
Introduction
1. Limits of subject, chronology and chorology
2. Tools and model tools in archaeological theory
3. Tools and toilet implements in Ancient Egypt – history of research
4. Definitions of artefacts
4.1.1. Ancient Egyptian models
4.1.2. Model and miniature tools
4.2. Semiotic triangle of meaning
4.3. Old Kingdom weights and measures applicable to tools
5. Research tools
5.3. Catalogues of artefacts
6. Copper tools in Old Kingdom textual and iconographic sources
6.1. Pr-HD – Treasury and metals
6.2. Written sources
6.2.1. Offering lists
6.2.2. Copper tools in market scenes
6.2.3. Inscribed Old Kingdom tools
6.3. Iconographic sources – reliefs and palaeography
6.3.1. Sites with iconographic and written sources
6.3.1.1. Sites in Lower Egypt
6.3.1.2. Sites in Upper Egypt
7. Archaeological sources – material culture
7.1. Archaeological context of copper artefacts
7.1.1. Sites with findings of copper artefacts
7.1.1.1. Sites in Lower Egypt
7.1.1.2. Memphite region
7.1.1.3. Sites in Upper Egypt
7.1.1.4. Sites in Nubia
7.1.1.5. Sites in the Levant
8. Tools and toilet implements
8.1. Stonework, timberwork, carpentry and sculpture tools
8.1.1. Chisels
8.1.1.1. Chisels before the Old Kingdom
8.1.1.2. Semiotic definition of the tool(s)
8.1.1.3. Database entry and general descriptive statistics
8.1.1.4. Flat chisels
8.1.1.5. Cross-cut chisels
8.1.1.6. Type G: Picks
8.1.1.7. Outlines of chronology
8.1.1.8. Analyses
8.1.1.9. Near Eastern and Aegean analogies
8.1.2. Adzes
8.1.2.1. Adzes before the Old Kingdom
8.1.2.2. Semiotic definition of the tool
8.1.2.3. Database entry and general descriptive statistics
8.1.2.4. Type A: plain adzes with flat butt
8.1.2.5. Type B: plain adzes with rounded butt
8.1.2.6. Type C: necked adzes with flat butt
8.1.2.7. Type D: necked adzes with butt
8.1.2.8. Outlines of chronology
8.1.2.9. Adzes in archaeological contexts
8.1.2.10. Tool traces
8.1.2.11. Analyses
8.1.2.12. Near Eastern analogies
8.1.3. Axes
8.1.3.1. Semiotic definition of the artefact
8.1.3.2. Database entry and general descriptive statistics
8.1.3.3. Type A: plain forms
8.1.3.4. Type B: single-perforation forms
8.1.3.5. Type C: lugged forms
8.1.3.6. Battle axes
8.1.3.7. Outlines of chronology
8.1.3.8. Axes in archaeological contexts
8.1.3.9. Analyses
8.1.3.10. Near Eastern analogies
8.1.4. Saws
8.1.4.1. Saws before the Old Kingdom
8.1.4.2. Semiotic definition of the tool
8.1.4.3. Database entry and general descriptive statistics
8.1.4.4. Type A: Symmetrical saw blades
8.1.4.5. Type B: Asymmetrical saw blades with tang
8.1.4.6. Type C: Asymmetrical saw blades with handles and without tang
8.1.4.7. Outlines of chronology
8.1.4.8. Saws in archaeological contexts
8.1.4.9. Analyses
8.1.4.10. Near Eastern analogies
8.1.5. Drills
8.1.6. Wedges
8.2. Cosmetic tool kit
8.2.1. Razors
8.2.1.1. Razors before the Old Kingdom
8.2.1.2. Semiotic definition of the tool
8.2.1.3. Database entry and general descriptive statistics
8.2.1.4. Type A: symmetrical razor blades without a tang
8.2.1.5. Type B: symmetrical razor blades with a tang made together with blade
8.2.1.6. Type C: symmetrical razor blades with an attached tang
8.2.1.7. Outlines of chronology
8.2.1.8. Razors in archaeological contexts
8.2.1.9. Analyses
8.2.1.10. Near Eastern analogies
8.2.2. Mirrors
8.2.2.1. Semiotic definition of the artefact
8.2.2.2. Database entry and general descriptive statistics
8.2.2.3. Variants
8.2.2.4. Outlines of chronology
8.2.2.5. Mirrors in archaeological contexts
8.2.2.6. Analyses
8.2.2.7. Near Eastern analogies
8.2.3. Tweezers
8.2.4. Hair curlers
8.2.5. Kohl-sticks
8.2.6. Cosmetic tool kit from Mahasna
8.3. Textile and leatherwork tool kit
8.3.1. Needles
8.3.1.1.Semiotic definition of the artefact
8.3.1.2. Database entry and general descriptive statistics
8.3.1.3. Variants
8.3.1.4. Outlines of chronology
8.3.1.5. Needles in archaeological contexts
8.3.1.6. Near Eastern analogies
8.3.2. Awls
8.3.3. Pins
8.4. Hunting and food processing tool kit
8.4.1. Fish-hooks
8.4.1.1. Semiotic definition of the artefact
8.4.1.2. Database entry and general descriptive statistics
8.4.1.3. Variants
8.4.1.4. Chronology and archaeology
8.4.1.5. Near Eastern analogies
8.4.2. Harpoons
8.4.2.1. Semiotic definition of the artefact
8.4.2.2. Variants, chronology and archaeological contexts
8.4.3. Knives
8.4.3.1. Semiotic definition of the artefact
8.4.3.2. Outlines of morphology and chronology
8.4.3.3. Type A – knives with a blunt back, one-sided edge and a tang
8.4.3.4. Type B – knives with a straight back and an incorporated handle
8.4.3.5. Type C – leather-cutting knives
8.5. Agricultural tools: sickles, hoes
8.6. ‘Cosmetic spatulas’ – Old Kingdom ingots?
8.7. Weapons
8.7.1. Arrowheads
8.7.1.1. Results of previous research
8.7.1.2. Semiotic definition of the artefact
8.7.1.3. Outlines of morphology and chronology
8.7.1.4. Near Eastern analogies
8.7.2. Spearheads
8.7.2.1. Results of previous research
8.7.2.2. Semiotic definition of the artefact
8.7.2.3. Outlines of typology and chronology
8.7.2.4. Near Eastern analogies
8.7.3. Daggers
8.7.3.1. Results of previous research
8.7.3.2. Semiotic definition of the artefact
8.7.3.3. Outlines of morphology and chronology
8.8. Tools of unknown use
8.8.1.1. Forked object from the pyramid of Khufu
8.8.1.2. Unfinished chisel from Balat
8.8.1.3. Fan-shaped object from Dendera
8.9. Other objects
9. Towards a semiosis of tools in the Old Kingdom culture
9.1. Contexts with full-size tools
9.1.1. Settlement and temple contexts
9.1.2. Finds out of context
9.1.3. Full-size tools vs. models and their technological changes
9.2. Contexts with model tools
9.2.1. Funerary archaeological contexts
9.2.1.1. Tools and model tools in royal tombs
9.2.1.2. Tools and model tools in non-royal tombs
9.2.1.3. Contents of tool assemblages from in situ burials
9.2.1.4. Tools in shaft graves and grave pits
9.2.1.5. Tertiary contexts
9.2.2. Morphology of artefacts – secondary changes
9.2.3. Model tools: interpretations
9.2.3.1. Tools and the patron – craftsman relationship and its religious meaning
9.2.3.2. Model tools in female burials
9.2.3.3. Social status and comparison of tool kits
9.2.3.4. Copper and the production of burial equipment
9.2.3.5. Tool variables and their interpretation
10. Conclusion
10.1. Tasks for future research
11. Case studies
11.1. Archaeometallurgical study of copper alloy tools and model tools from the Old Kingdom necropolis at Giza
Jiří Kmošek – Martin Odler – Tereza Jamborová – Šárka Msallamová – Tereza Šálková – Martina Kmoníčková
Introduction
Arsenic copper alloys
Corrosion deterioration of artefacts
Methodology
X-Ray diffraction analysis
Optical microscopy
Energy dispersive X-Ray fluorescence spectrometry
Scanning electron microscopy with X-Ray energy dispersive analyser
Vickers micro hardness testing
Results and discussion
Corrosion deterioration
Alloy composition
Microstructural characterization
Conclusion
11.2. Morphometrical and statistical case study of Old Kingdom adze blades
Martin Odler – Ján Dupej
Introduction
Related work
Material and methods
Results and discussion
Form
Shape
Social status
Conclusion
11.3. Dating of archaeological contexts from the Memphite necropolis with copper tools and model tools based on assemblages of model stone vessels
Lucie Jirásková
11.4. Dating of select Old Kingdom archaeological contexts in the Memphite region based on ceramic finds
Katarína Arias Kytnarová
Bibliography
Web sources
Catalogue
The catologue is avaliable at https://www.XXXXXXXXXXXXX.com
_GoBack
Cover
Dedication
Cover
