metallurgy ok egypt

8/13/2019 Metallurgy Ok Egypt

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/metallurgy-ok-egypt 1/26

ORIENTALIA LOVANIENSIAANALECTA

————— 214 —————

UITGEVERIJ PEETERS en DEPARTEMENT OOSTERSE STUDIESLEUVEN – PARIS – WALPOLE, MA

2012

ANCIENT MEMPHIS

‘Enduring is the Perfection’

Proceedings of the International Conference held atMacquarie University, Sydney on August 14-15, 2008

edited by

LINDA EVANS



CONTENTS

FOREWORD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII

ABSTRACTS

Non-contributing speakers . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Rehab ASSEM

Hathor’s cult in Memphis . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Miroslav BÁRTA

Equal in rank, different in the afterlife: Late Fifth and late

Sixth Dynasty burial chambers at Abusir South . . . . . 27

Susanne BINDER

“Let me tell you what happened to me…”: Memphite officials

and the Gold of Honour . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

V.G. CALLENDERSome notes concerning Reisner’s royal family history of the

Fourth Dynasty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Christopher J. DAVEY

Old Kingdom metallurgy in Memphite tomb images . . . . 85

Katherine EATON

Memphite, Theban, and Heliopolitan gods of rule in the New

Kingdom: Memphite perspectives on their relationships . . 109

Abeer EL SHAHAWY

Thebes-Memphis: An interaction of iconographic ideas . . 133

Beatrix GESSLER-LÖHR

Pre-Amarna or post-Amarna? The tomb of the God’s Father

Hatiay at Saqqara . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147

Michelle HAMPSON

‘A princely find’: The lost scenes of craftsmen in the tomb of

Khuenre at Giza . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193Yvonne M. HARPUR

The Scene-Details Database and the ‘Egypt in Miniature’

series of the Oxford Expedition to Egypt (OEE) . . . . . 205



VI CONTENTS

David JEFFREYS

Climbing the White Walls: Recent experiences of the MemphisSurvey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221

Naguib KANAWATI

The Memphite control of Upper Egypt during the Old Kingdom:

The cases of Edfu, Abydos, and Akhmim . . . . . . . 237

Lesley J. KINNEY

Butcher queens of the Fourth and Fifth Dynasties: Their asso-

ciation with the Acacia House and the role of butchers as

ritual performers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253Christian KNOBLAUCH

The Memphite area in the late First Intermediate Period and

the Middle Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267

E. Christiana KÖHLER

The orientation of cult niches and burial chambers in Early

Dynastic tombs at Helwan . . . . . . . . . . . . 279

Audran LABROUSSE

Recent discoveries at the necropolis of King Pepy I . . . . 299

Angela Sophia LA LOGGIA

Architects, engineers, and builders in Early Dynastic Memphis 309

Lisa MAWDSLEY

The foundation and development of Tarkhan during the

Naqada IIIA2 Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . 331

Ann MCFARLANE

Occupied carrying chairs at Memphis in the Old Kingdom . 349Boyo G. OCKINGA

Evidence for New Kingdom tomb structures in the Teti Pyramid

Cemetery North: Insights from the Macquarie excavations . 371

Adela OPPENHEIM

The north and south walls of Senwosret III’s North Chapel at

Dahshur . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 397

Alain ZIVIE Amenhotep III et l’Ouest de Memphis . . . . . . . . 425



1 For example, P.P. BENTANCOURT, The Chrysokamino Metallurgy Workshop andits Territory (Hesperia Suppl. 36; Athens, 2006); L. AL-GAILANI, ‘Tell edh Dhiba’i’,Sumer 21 (1965), 33-40.

OLD KINGDOM METALLURGYIN MEMPHITE TOMB IMAGES

Christopher J. DAVEY

La Trobe University

The crucible shape depicted in Old Kingdom tomb images was signifi-

cant enough to become the hieroglyphic sign associated with metalworkers and copper. The metal working tomb scenes raise a number ofquestions that have been resolved with the discovery of comparable cru-cibles at the Old Babylonian site of Tell edh-Dhiba’i. This technologicalunderstanding in turn contributes to an appreciation of the images them-selves, their artisic form, and the technological practices they represent.This review concludes that the earliest depictions are in part eyewitnessrecords of Memphite metallurgical activity and that three artistic stylesare identifiable. The metal working scenes depict the production of lux-

ury objects and may have had a didactic purpose for the benefit of thetomb owner in the afterlife.

Introduction

A vital resource of Old Kingdom culture was the large volume of copperbased metal that was available for utensils and tools. Some of the objectssurvive and provide an opportunity to study the metallurgy of the period.A number of ancient Near Eastern coppersmiths’ workshops and imple-

ments have been discovered in archaeological excavations providingadditional metallurgical information.1 It is Egyptian tombs with imagesof metalsmiths at work, however, that potentially offer a unique insightinto the metallurgical practices of the 3rd millennium BCE.

Many scholars have disregarded the images, believing them to bestylistic and not a representation of reality. MALEK has observed thatthere is no evidence that the tomb images were intended to be a record



86 CHRISTOPHER J. DAVEY

2 J. MALEK, Egyptian Art (London, 1999), 128.3 G. ROBINS, Egyptian Painting and Relief (Aylesbury, 1986), 57.

4 H. SCHÄFER, Principles of Egyptian Art, trans. J. Baines (Oxford, 1974).5 ibid., xi.6 ibid., xiv.7 ibid., 121-205.

of contemporary Egyptian society.2 There is no doubt that religiousscenes were governed by formal artistic principles and mythology,however, when tackling what ROBINS calls “more mundane subjects”,the artist could produce “scenes full of vitality and life”.3 This paperexamines Old Kingdom metal working scenes with the aim of under-standing the processes involved, to see if they offer the kind of evi-dence that MALEK needs.

The ‘stylising’ practices of Egyptian artists were described compre-hensively by SCHÄFER.4 BAINES introduced the English translation ofSCHÄFER’s book by claiming that underlying his work was the belief that

Egyptian artists “construct their representations according to mentalimages which, in their view, summarise the essential physical characterof the objects depicted as opposed to their appearence..”.5

SCHÄFER sought to explain why objects are shown in a particular wayin Egyptian art,6 describing the principles of spatial distibution employedby Egyptian artists and the methods by which they depicted nature andthe human form. His analysis identified particular graphic techniques,such as see-through/x-rays (‘false transparencies’), sections, groundplans, vertical and horizontal layering, a form of plan and section, and

flexible viewing directions.7

Many of these conventions are similar totechnical drawing practices used by modern engineers and draughts-people who are familiar with exploded drawings, cut-aways, plan andsection, sequential diagrams, and so on. Geometrical projections, how-ever, such as isometric and axiometric drawings, were not specificallyused by Egyptian artists, although the absence of foreshortening com-mon in most projections is a feature of their art.

Evaluating artistic approaches is not necessarily straightforward.Where the human form or natural image is concerned, everyone has a

feel for reality, but this is not always true for industrial processes, espe-cially those that ceased in antiquity. Archaeology and existing industrialknowledge may nevertheless provide insights about the equipment usedand essential processes when studying such industrial scenes.



OLD KINGDOM METALLURGY IN MEMPHITE TOMB IMAGES 87

It should also be acknowledged that tomb images from the FifthDynasty had related inscriptions giving information about the peopledepicted and their activity. This feature may support the view that theimages are intended to convey information about the activity representedand are not works of art in any modern sence.8

The following paper hypothesises an industrial process on the basis ofexcavated objects, experimental data, and the images found in one tomb.The plausibility of the hypothesis is then discussed in relation to metalworking scenes in other tombs.

The hypothesisMetal working scenes have been the subject of much conjecture, espe-cially amongst German scholars.9 The discussions have been inconclu-sive, however, because the processes being applied have not been clearfrom the two-dimensional images. The crucibles depicted are particu-larly enigmatic.

Complete examples of Old Kingdom style crucibles have been foundat the Old Babylonian site of Tell edh-Dhiba’i and these have subse-quently been identified as the same as those portrayed in the SixthDynasty tomb of Mereruka at Saqqara (see below).10 Furthermore, theoperation of the crucibles has been researched and replicated revealingthat the Mereruka depictions are generally accurate.11 The Tell edh-Dhiba’i crucibles have consequently provided significant informationabout the crucibles depicted in Old Kingdom tomb scenes, includingtheir three-dimensional geometry, and that: • the seat of the fire was inside the crucible, • the crucibles were used repeatedly until they failed,

• the crucibles failed by breaking horizontally across the lower portion, • the crucibles were made from a refractory and insulating, but weak,clay mix,

8 C.J. DAVEY, forthcoming.9 A. ERMAN, Reden, Rufe und Lieder auf Graberbildern des Alten Reiches (Berlin,

1919), 62; H. JUNKER, ‘Die Hieroglyphen für “Erz” und “Erzarbeiter”’, MDAIK 14(1958), 89-103; R. DRENKHAHN, Die Handwerker und ihre Tätigkeiten im alten Ägypten (ÄA 31; Wiesbaden, 1976); B. SCHEEL, ‘Studien zum Metallhandwerk im AlternÄgypten I, Handlungen und Beischriften in den Bildprogrammen der Gräber des AltenReiches’, SAK 12 (1985), 117-177.

10 AL-GAILANI, Sumer 21; C.J. DAVEY, ‘The metalworkers’ tools from Tell edhDhiba’i’, BIAUL 20 (1983), 169-185.11 C.J. DAVEY & W.I. EDWARDS, ‘Crucibles from the Bronze Age of Egypt and Meso-

potamia’, Proc. Royal Soc. Vic. 120/1 (2007), 146-154.




• new crucibles were fired lightly to 600-700o C, or were • made from a thicker sun-dried fabric, and • the crucibles had common internal dimensions indicating that they

were made over a horn-shaped pattern.

The experimental findings concurred with Egyptian depictions by show-ing that molten metal may be retained in the crucible by a barrier par-tially covering the hole in the side of the crucible, and that a cover has-

tened the temperature rise in the crucible (fig. 1). The amount of materialthat could be melted in each crucible was probably limited to about50 ml and so to produce most copper objects, the crucible melting pro-cess may have been duplicated or repeated many times. The experimentsalso demonstrated that the technology associated with the operation ofthe crucible was moderately sophisticated. The operation of the barrierwas not straightforward; if the crucible fabric contained a fluxing agent,such as iron oxide, its surface would vitrify, causing the barrier to bewelded to the crucible, making its removal impossible. Suitable clays

were therefore essential.

Metal working in the tomb of Mereruka

The metal working scene in the tomb of Mereruka (fig. 2) is one of themost complete and explicit of the 27 known Old Kingdom examples. Itdepicts four activities: weighing, melting, casting, and hammering in achronological sequence from left to right. The process involves the melt-ing of copper to produce sheet copper, which is then used to fabricate

the types of metal vessels depicted along the top of the register.The melting scene shows six men with blowpipes in a layered con-

figuration, which may indicate that they formed a circle around the two

Fig. 1. A: a drawing of a Tell edh-Dhiba’i crucible with a barrier inserted;B: melting cross-section; C: casting cross-section.




crucibles between them.12 Scenes in other tombs often arrange the blow-pipe operators differently, however the Mereruka artist used this con-figuration because it shows that the blowpipes are directed at what wenow know is an opening above the temporary barrier partly blocking thehole in the side of the crucible. The crucible shapes are portrayed inprofile, back-to-back, with what appears to be a lid on them and a smallamount of charcoal around the hole.

The casting scene shows the crucible being carried with the aid of two

wads of wet clay, or some other suitable insulating material, to a workerwho pokes it to allow the molten copper to pour forth onto a flat surface.The arms of the crucible-carrier are depicted frontally, while the crucibleis in profile, so that the process and equipment are clear. It is the posi-tion of the blowpipes and the poking depiction that provide the essentialinformation needed to recreate the operation of the Tell edh-Dhiba’i cru-cibles.

This scene has been the subject of much speculation. The cruciblesfrom Tell edh-Dhiba’i were made from an insulating fabric and revealed

that the external temperature around the sides and rear did not exceed700o C. Carrying such crucibles in the manner shown is therefore pos-sible. Those who have questioned this have often been under the misap-prehension that the crucibles were heated externally; such a processwould have increased the surface temperature above the melting point ofcopper (1080o C) and produced too much radiant heat to be picked upwithout iron tools.

The second issue has been the implausibility of pouring the moltenmetal into the sprue of a mould from such a height; however no such

12 H. BALCZ, ‘Symmetrie und Asymmetrie in Gruppenbildungen der Reliefs des AltenReiches’, MDAIK (1930), 137-152; SCHÄFER, Principles of Egyptian Art, 185.

Fig. 2. The metal working scene from the tomb of Mereruka.From: P. Duell, The Mastaba of Mereruka 1 (OIP 31; Chicago, 1938), pl. 30.




funnel is involved. To make a copper sheet, the molten copper waspoured onto a flat surface and the energy of such a high discharge meantthat the metal spread out so that it could be hammered flat as it cooled.Old Kingdom casting scenes in addition to Mereruka’s all show a simi-lar discharge height. The hammering scene depicts four men layered intwo groups working on the same piece of copper. This number of work-ers would facilitate a rapid beating of the metal into a sheet. As copper-work hardens quickly, making it brittle and impossible to shape mechan-ically, beating it in a hot state would mean that annealing may have beenunnecessary.

Comment on the hypothesis

The idea that the fire was seated inside the crucible is not logical formost non-metallurgists who understandably think that to melt material itis best put it in a pot on a heat source. In the Bronze Age, tools did notexist to successfully manipulate objects, such as crucibles, with tempera-tures greater than 1000o C, so other methods were adopted. The normalpractice in the Near East prior to the Iron Age was to put fire inside or

on top of the crucible.13

Crucibles known from Egypt include those fromBuhen,14 First Intermediate Period Qau,15 Second Intermediate PeriodTell el-Dab‘a,16 and New Kingdom Serabit el-Khadim, Sinai,17 and el-Amarna.18 These crucibles all have slag or indications of severe heatingon their internal surfaces, revealing that the fire was inside, not outside,the crucible. Indeed, the tomb of Rekhmire actually depicts cruciblesunder fires.19

13 R.F. TYLECOTE, The Prehistory of Metallurgy in the British Isles (London, 1986),97.

14 W.B. EMERY, H.S. SMITH & A. MILLARD, The Fortress of Buhen: The Archaeo-logical Report (London, 1979), 122, 176, pls 43, 69.

15 G. BRUNTON, Qua and Badari I (BSAE 44; London, 1927), 36, 67, pl. 41;C.J. DAVEY, ‘Crucibles in the Petrie collection and hieroglyphic ideograms for metal’, JEA 71 (1985), 142-148.

16 G. PHILIP, Tell el-Dab‘a, Metalwork and Metalworking: Evidence of the Late Middle Kingdom and the Second Intermediate Period (Wien, 2006).

17 W.M.F. PETRIE, Researches in Sinai (London, 1906), 162, pl. 161; C.J. DAVEY,

JEA 71.18 M. ECCLESTON, ‘Metal working at Amarna: A preliminary report’, BACE 19 (2008),29-48.

19 N. DE G. DAVIES, The Tomb of Rekh-mi-re at Thebes (New York, 1943).




CURTO has commented on the nature of the crucibles that appear inOld Kingdom reliefs, referring to those found by PETRIE in Sinai andGuy BRUNTON at Qau.20 Both of these crucibles are different in profile tothose depicted in Old Kingdom tombs.21 CURTO believed that objectsfound at Deir el-Medina by SCHIAPARELLI and BRUYERE gave rise to thehieroglyphic sign, Gardiner N34 , but again the profile of these vesselsis significantly different, making such an identification highly unlikely.

The hieroglyphic sign does, however, match the profile of the cruci-bles portrayed in the tomb of Mereruka and those found at Tell edh-Dhiba’i. While the shape has been a mystery since the 2nd millennium

BCE, the creator of the metal working tomb scene knew that contempo-rary observers would be familiar with the depicted object. The scenewas therefore constructed so that the crucible profile was unambiguousand, by outlining the two crucibles back-to-back, Gardiner sign W13was recognisable. DRENKHAHN has already made this identification.22 This approach to Egyptian art has been described by WILKINSON formany other hieroglyphic signs.23

The chronological and geographic separation between the tomb ofMereruka and Tell edh-Dhiba’i may appear to make the connection

tenuous. Lawrence GARÈNNE-MAROT has discussed the proposed asso-ciation, pointing out the lack of evidence from Syria.24 I have argued,however, that crucibles of this shape will have been used until theydisintegrated and that in a fragmentary state they would not be immedi-ately recognisable as Old Kingdom style crucibles.25 In fact, this cruci-ble type may have been fairly common during the Early and MiddleBronze Ages in the drier regions of the Near East. The crucible shapeidentified as Pottery Type 188 at Buhen is indeed similar to theMereruka and Tell edh-Dhiba’i shapes and is currently the only occur-

rence of the shape in an Egyptian context.26

20 S. CURTO, ‘Postille circa la Metallurgia Antico-Egiza’, MDAIK 18 (1962) 59-69.21 DAVEY, JEA 71, 142-148.22 DRENKHAHN, Die Handwerker , 39.23 R.H. WILKINSON, Reading Egyptian Art: Hieroglyphic Guide to Ancient Egyptian

Painting and Sculpture (London, 1992).

24 L. GARÈNNE-MAROT, ‘Le travail du cuivre dans l’Égypte pharonique: d’après lespeintures et les bas-reliefs’, Paléorient 11/1 (1985), 85-100.25 DAVEY & EDWARDS, Proc. Royal Soc. Vic. 120/1, 151.26 EMERY et al., Fortress of Buhen, 176, pl. 69.




Other metal working scenes including casting

In addition to Mereruka, there are four tombs depicting metal workingscenes that include both melting and casting or crucible carrying: Nebe-makhet, Wepemnefert, Ty, and Pepyankh: Heny-kem (fig. 3). The FifthDynasty tomb of Iymery at Giza also had such scenes, but the lowerportion of the register where the crucible was represented is missing.27 They are, however, the earliest known metal working scenes with anaccompanying text.

Photographs of the scenes in Wepemnefert28 and Ty29 confirm pub-lished drawings. The crucible shape and the use of bare hands depictedby LEPSIUS in the carrying scene of Nebemakhet seem to cast doubt onthe hypothesis. HASSAN’s publication of the tomb omits the upper por-tion of the worker carrying the crucible,30 but James BURTON, who wasin Egypt between 1824 and 1839 and who was an excellent draughts-man, drew the scene clearly showing a carrying pose and a crucibleshape similar to that portrayed in Mereruka (fig. 4).

The crucible profiles shown in the carrying-casting scenes of Nebe-makhet and Wepemnefert are identical to the Mereruka shape. TheWepemnefert scene also portrays the pour in profile and clearly showsobjects in the hands to assist in the carrying of a hot crucible. The cruci-ble in the Ty casting scene is depicted obliquely, rather than in profile,so that the molten metal is shown being poured partly toward or awayfrom the observer. This perspective is unusual in Egyptian art. The cru-cible shape here is consistent with the Tell edh-Dhiba’i crucibles whenviewed from the same perspective. I suggest that an artist could not havemade this variation without a visual knowledge of the process.

The crucible shape shown in the provincial tomb of Pepyankh is dif-

ferent, but evidence from Tell edh-Dhiba’i may possibly account for thisapparent change in design. An essential feature of the Tell edh-Dhiba’icrucibles was their consistent internal profile. It seems that two slightlydifferent horn shapes were used to make the six crucibles found there

27 K.R. WEEKS, Mastabas of Cemetery G 6000. Including G 6010 (Neferbauptah);G 6020 (Iymery); G 6030 (Ity); G 6040 (Shepseskafankh) (GMas 5; Boston, 1994),fig. 30.

28 S. HASSAN, Excavations at Gîza 1930-1931 2 (Cairo, 1936), pl. 74.

29 G. STEINDORFF, Das Grab des Ti 2 (Leipzig, 1913), pl. 134; L. KLEBS, Die Reliefsdes alten Reiches (2980-2475 v. Chr.). Material zur ägyptischen Kulturgeschichte (Heidelberg, 1915), fig. 67.

30 S. HASSAN, Excavations at Gîza 1932-1933 4 (Cairo, 1943), fig. 81.




and their different external sizes and shapes were the result of variablewall thicknesses.31 The crucibles made from the thickest clay displayedthe characteristics of a sun-dried fabric. Once it is accepted that it is theinternal shape that is diagnostic, the external profile of the crucibleceases to be so important.

31 DAVEY & EDWARDS, Proc. Roy. Soc. Vic. 120/1, 150.

Fig. 3. Scenes of melting and casting or carrying from the tombs ofNebemakhet, Wepemnefert, Ty, and Pepyankh: Heny-kem.

Reproduced from the following publications: C.R. Lepsius, Denkmäler aus Aegypten und Aethiopien Text 2 (Leipzig, 1904), pl. 13 (Nebemakhet);

S. Hassan, Excavations at Gîza 1930-1931 2 (Cairo, 1936), fig. 219(Wepemnefert); H. Wild, Le Tombeau de Ti 3: La chapelle (MIFAO 65;

Cairo, 1966), fig. 173 (Ty); A.M. Blackman & M.R. Apted, The Rock Tombs

of Meir 5 (ASE 28; London, 1953), pl. 16 (Pepyankh: Heny-kem).




Fig. 4. James Burton’s drawing of a crucible being carried in

the Fifth Dynasty tomb of Nebemakhet at Giza.From: J. Burton, British Library, MSS. 25621 (1824-39), 87.Courtesy of the British Library.




Odd-shaped crucibles depicted in tombs such as Pepyankh may there-fore represent vessels with thick walls of sun-dried clay and proportion-ately larger internal dimensions, but which are otherwise consistent inform with the Mereruka crucibles. Such vessels could be picked up withbare hands as depicted, even though they contained molten metal. Theother departure in Pepyankh is the person with a water jar who, accord-ing to the text, is ready to sprinkle water, probably onto the casting toquench it. This may have been necessary because a larger volume ofmolten metal was being cast. These two unique aspects of the Pepyankhimage indicate that the artist in provincial Meir observed and illustrated

a local adaptation of the standard technology.

Artistic Styles

These five scenes show both technical consistencies and artistic varia-tions. The Nebemakhet, Wepemnefert, and Ty furnaces are depicted dif-ferently even though their adjacent scenes show Mereruka type crucibles.While the artists used different spatial conventions to depict multipleblowpipe operators, it is clear that the blowpipes in each scene are

directed at the side of the crucible where we now know there was a partlyblocked opening; indeed, one of the main subjects of the accompanyingtexts is the direction of the air being blown into the crucibles. The scenesalso make it clear that there was no significant fire under the crucibles.

The Wepemnefert furnace is an accurate image of what these struc-tures actually looked like. The back-to-back crucibles are supported bysurrounding charcoal and the blowpipes point to the top of the charcoalwhere the openings into the crucibles were located. The crucibles arealso filled with charcoal to fuel the internal fire. The blowpipe operators

are arranged as they would have appeared to an observer situated slightlyoff-centre; the nearest workers on both sides of the furnace are offsetto the left. This contrasts with the layered arrangement of the Mererukascene. The hammering scene shows one worker striking the coppersheeting while the other worker’s arm is raised in a ready position. Theworkers will have hammered alternately, so the view is again visuallyauthentic, a real-time image. Apart from the depiction of the arms hold-ing the crucible in the casting scene and the legs of the blowpipe opera-tors, the Wepemnefert images are visually accurate. A realistic represen-

tation was intended here.The Nebemakhet furnace has a similar profile to that of Mereruka,

which consists of two back-to-back crucibles without any supporting




material alongside. The Nebemakhet furnace also has a height extension.The Mereruka furnace has a lid and it is possible that the profile repre-sented in Nebemakhet includes something on top of the crucibles thatlimited the release of gases and heat. Experiments have shown that sucha restriction hastens the temperature rise; it would also have protectedworkers to some extent from radiant heat and fumes.

The hammering scenes in both Mereruka and Nebemakhet show allworkers with arms raised, however workers could not have struck thecopper sheet simultaneously without causing injury. The scene has beenadjusted to indicate the stroke of the hammering and hence its intensity.

The hammering scene in Wepemnefert could be interpreted to indicatethat one workman was tapping rather than hammering, but those inMereruka and Nebemakhet make it clear that they were all hammering.The scenes in these tombs have details omitted and images adjusted sothat the technical aspects of the process can be understood. These areconsequently technical representations.

The artist in the tomb of Ty depicts the profile of the crucibles back-to-back, but adds what appear to be flames. If there were such a fire,the blowpipe operators would have needed to be much further away.

The ‘flames’ coming from around and inside the crucibles instead indi-cate that they are hot inside. The images were intended to conveythe sensations associated with the process, the heat, and the noise. Theartist has illustrated what is happening by means of a naturalistic rep-resentation.

The Pepyankh furnace is the crucible itself, probably largely as itwould have appeared and there are no ‘flames’ to indicate heat. Thehammering scene is similar to Wepemnefert and the final product isshown in the hands of a workman, rather than diagrammatically at the

edge of the register. The Pepyankh artist had the same rationale as theWepemnefert artist to illustrate things as they were observed; the Pepy-ankh scenes thus belong to the realistic style.

The depiction of the blowpipe operators in Ty and Pepyankh show thevisual order of the upper and lower portions reversed. This is reminis-cent of a servant girl in the tomb of Rekhmire, whose feet are orientateddifferently to her body.32 It is not a common pose in Egyptian art andmay possibly be used here to indicate that the workmen were actuallyarranged around the crucible at the same distance from it.

32 SCHÄFER, Principles of Egyptian Art, 264.




These scenes clearly do not support the idea that there was a pattern-book of metal working images that was overseen by a supervisor. Theprocesses depicted are accurately portrayed, but the artists have usedtheir own ways of representing the activity. The resulting differences donot in any way diminish the accuracy of the images when they are con-sidered in the context of the applied conventions. It would seem unlikelythat the artists created these interpretations without a firsthand apprecia-tion of the processes and the equipment. There are also a number oftechnical variations that could not have been depicted without a visualknowledge of the processes. It is therefore proposed that the artists actu-

ally witnessed the metal smiths at work and may have sketched whatthey saw and incorporated those sketches into the tomb images.

Scenes of metal melting

Casting scenes clearly show crucibles of the Mereruka shape and revealthat the corresponding furnace depictions can vary significantly. Thisprovides a basis for interpreting the scenes where no explicit crucibleshape is shown.

There is also a question about the end product and whether or not thescenes depict the production of sheet copper to be used in the fabricationof metal vessels. Hammering scenes, images of the metal vessels, andaccompanying texts comparable to those from other tombs that depictmetal vessels, are three features that may indicate the manufacture ofsheet metal. These may not be entirely diagnostic, as hammering, weld-ing, and annealing were also part of the metal vessel fabrication process.

Tombs with hammering scenes include those of Meresankh, Nebe-makhet, Iymery, Wepemnefert, Tepemankh, Kaemrehu, Ty, Niankh-

khnum and Khnumhotep, Unas Causeway, Mereruka, Ankhmahor, Mehu,Ptahshepses, Ibi, Hemre, Pepyankh, Kahep, and Hesimin. The images inSerfka, Niankhpepy: Khnumhotep-heti, Zau, Shepsipumin, Unasankh,Khenty, and Ihy are incomplete and may have had such a scene.

Tombs that have nearly complete scenes and comparable texts includeWepemnefert, Kaemrehu, Niankh-khnum and Khnumhotep, Mereruka,Ankhmahor, Ibi, and Pepyankh. Incomplete scenes that appear to havesimilar texts include Iymery, Ty, Senedjemib, Mehu, and Hemre. Thelast two tomb scenes have an indication that gold is also involved.

The scenes that have images of vessels indicating the end product ofmetal working include Iymery, Ptahshepses, Serfka, Mereruka, Unas,Kahep, Hemre, Pepyankh, Hesimin, and Shepsipumin.




33 D. DUNHAM & W.K. SIMPSON, The Mastaba of Queen Mersyankh III. G 7530-7540 (GMas 1; Boston, 1974), 12, fig. 5.

34 C.R. LEPSIUS, Denkmäler aus Aegypten und Aethiopien Text II (Leipzig, 1904), 13;HASSAN, Excavations at Gîza 4, 140, fig. 81.

35 S. HODJASH & O. BERLEV, The Egyptian Reliefs and Stelae in the Pushkin Museumof Fine Arts, Moscow (Leningrad, 1982), 38; W.S. SMITH, ‘The origin of some unidenti-fied Old Kingdom reliefs’, AJA 46 (1942), 516f, fig. 6.

36 WEEKS, Mastabas of Cemetery G 6000, 35, fig. 30, pl. 13.37 M. VERNER, Abusir I . The Mastaba of Ptahshepses. I/1 Reliefs (Prague, 1986),

52-56, fig. 27.38

HASSAN, Excavations at Gîza 2, 192f, fig. 219, pls 74, 76.39 A.M. MOUSSA & H. ALTENMÜLLER, Das Grab des Nianchchnum und Chnumhotep, Old Kingdom Tombs at the Causeway of King Unas at Saqqara (AVDAIK 21; Mainz,1977), 135ff, pl. 64.

40 H. WILD, Le Tombeau de Ti 3: La chapelle (MIFAO 65; Cairo, 1966), fig. 173;STEINDORFF, Das Grab des Ti 2, pl. 134; KLEBS, Die Reliefs des alten Reiches, fig. 67.

41 M. MOGENSEN, Le Mastaba égyptien de la Glyptothèque Ny Carlsberg (Copen-hagen, 1921), 41f, figs 40-42; W. WRESZINSKI, Atlas zur altaegyptischen Kultur-geschichte 1 (Leipzig, 1923), Tomb 402.

42 N. DE G. DAVIES, The Rock Tombs of Sheikh Saïd (ASE 10; London, 1901), 13, pl. 4.43 N. KANAWATI, The Rock Tombs of El-Hawawish. The Cemetery of Akhmim 4

(Sydney, 1983), 22, fig. 14.

44 E. BROVARSKI, The Senedjemib Complex 1: The Mastabas of Senedjemib Inti(G 2370), Khnumenti (G 2374) and Senedjemib Mehi (G 2378) (GMas 7; Boston, 2001),148, fig. 116b; LEPSIUS, Denkmäler Text II, 75a.

45 SMITH, AJA 46, 509-531, fig. 8.46 H.D. SCHNEIDER, The Memphite Tomb of Horemheb, Commander-in-Chief of

Tutankhamun 2: A Catalogue of the Finds (EES EM 60; Leiden, 1996), 88, pl. 94.47 H. JUNKER, Giza 4: Die Mastaba des K’jm’nh (Kai-em-anch) (Wien, 1940), 72-75,

pl. 10.48 W.M.F. PETRIE, Deshasheh 1897 (MEEF 15; London, 1898), 8, pl. 13.

Tomb Owner Date Site Style Scenes

Meresankh [III]33 IV.6 Giza Realistic M HNebemakhet 34 IV.6-V.1 Giza Technical M* C*

Tepemankh [II]35 V.5-6? Saqqara Realistic M* H* T* P*

Iymery36 V.6 Giza Technical W* M* C*? H T P

Ptahshepses37 V.6-7 Abusir Realistic M (F?) H T P

Wepemnefert:Wep38 V.6-8? Giza Realistic M C H T

Niankh-khnum & Khnumhotep39 V.6L-7 Saqqara Naturalistic M H F T

Ty40 V.7-8E Saqqara Naturalistic W *? M* C H

Kaemrehu41

V.8 Saqqara Realistic W M H T PSerfka42 V.8-9E Sheikh Said Naturalistic M G

Hesimin (M 22)43 V.8-VI.1 el-Hawawish H* T* P*

Senedjemib: Mehi44 V.9 Giza W M F T

Unas Causway45 V Saqqara Technical W M H F T

OK 4246 V -VI Saqqara M* T*

Ka-em-ankh47 VI Giza M

Intj48 VI Darsheh F* W*




49 F.W. VON BISSING, Die Mastaba des Gem-ni-kai 1 (Berlin, 1905), 7, pl. 30.50 P. DUELL, The Mastaba of Mereruka 1 (OIP 31; Chicago, 1938), pl. 30.51 A. BADAWY, The Tomb of Nyhetep-Ptah at Giza and the Tomb of Ankhmahor at

Saqqara (Berkeley, 1978), 11f, fig. 32, pls 35-37.52 K.A. DAOUD, ‘Unusual scenes in the Saqqara tomb of Kairer’, EA 10 (1977), 6-7;

J.-P. LAUER, Saqqara. The Royal Cemetery of Memphis. Excavations and Discoveriessince 1850 (London, 1976), 77, pl. 68.

53 A. VARILLE, La Tombe de Ni-Ankh-Pepi à Zâouyet el-Mayetîn (MIFAO 70; Cairo,1938), 16, pls 7, 9.

54

H. ALTENMÜLLER, Die Wanddarstellungen im Grab des Mehu in Saqqara (AVDAIK42; Mainz, 1998), 146f, pl. 42.55 M. SALEH, Three Old-Kingdom Tombs at Thebes 1: The Tomb of Unas-Ankh no.

413, 2: The Tomb of Khenty no. 405, 3: The Tomb of Ihy no. 186 (AVDAIK 14; Mainz,1977), 25, pl. 15.

56 A.M. BLACKMAN & M.R. APTED, The Rock Tombs of Meir 5 (ASE 28; London,1953), 25, pl. 16.

57 SALEH, Three Old-Kingdom Tombs at Thebes, 20, fig. 41, pl. 11.58 N. DE G. DAVIES, The Rock Tombs of Deir el-Gebrâwi 1: Tomb of Aba and Smaller

Tombs of the Southern Group (ASE 11; London, 1902), 20, pl. 13.59 N. DE G. DAVIES, The Rock Tombs of Deir el-Gebrâwi 2: Tomb of Zau and Tombs

of the Northern Group (ASE 12; London, 1902), 35f, pl. 10.

60 N. KANAWATI, The Rock Tombs of El-Hawawish. The Cemetery of Akhmim 1(Sydney, 1980), 21, fig. 9, pl. 6.61 N. KANAWATI, The Rock Tombs of El-Hawawish. The Cemetery of Akhmim 2

(Sydney, 1981), 23, fig. 19.62 SALEH, Three Old-Kingdom Tombs at Thebes, 14, fig. 6, pl. 3.63 DAVIES, Rock Tombs of Deir el-Gebrâwi 2, 24, pl. 19; N. KANAWATI, Deir

el-Gebrawi 1 (ACE Reports 23; Sydney, 2005), 51f, pls 19, 48.64 Dating is that proposed by the Oxford Expedition to Egypt, http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/

catalogue/archive/oee_ahrc_2006/queryThemes.cfm (accessed 20 January 2009).

Tomb Owner Date Site Style Scenes

Kagemni: Memi49 VI.1E-M Saqqara Technical M* T*Mereruka: Meri50 VI.1M Saqqara Technical W M C H T P

Ankhmahor: Sesi51 VI.1L-2E Saqqara Naturalistic W M H T

Kairer 52 VI.2 Saqqara W T

Niankhpepy: Khnumhotep-heti53 VI.2? Zawyet el-Maiyetin Realistic M*

Mehu54 VI.2M-3? Saqqara Technical W M H T

Ihy55 VI.3-4 el-Khokha M*

Pepyankh: Heny-kem56 VI.4-5 Meir Realistic M C H T P

Khenty57

VI.4-5 el-Khokha M* H*Ibi58 VI.4E Deir el-Gebrawi Naturalistic W M H

Zau59 VI.4L Deir el-Gebrawi M* H*

Kahep: Theti-iker 60 VI.5-6 el-Hawawish Naturalistic M* H* T* P*

Shepsipumin: Kheni61 VI.6 el-Hawawish M* H* T* P*

Unisankh62 VI.6 el-Khokha M* H*

Hemre: Isi63 VI.7 Deir el-Gebrawi Naturalistic W M H T P

Table 1: Old Kingdom tomb metal working images. Scenes: W – weighing, C – casting or carrying, M – melting, H – hammering, F – fabrication,

T – texts, P – pot images, * – incomplete.64




Scenes that may depict a different process include the el-Khokhatombs of Unasankh, Khenty, Ihy, and Niankhpepy: Khnumhotep-heti. Itis possible that Tepemankh and Ptahshepses also display other proce-dures associated with the production of metal vessels.

The furnaces or hearths that appear in Old Kingdom tomb scenes arearranged in approximate chronological order in fig. 5. It is interesting tonote that the earliest scenes are found in tombs in the north and the latestare in the vicinity of Thebes. It can be observed that with the possibleexception of Kahep, all blowpipes are aimed at the side of the furnaces,and not the base.

Comments made above about the shape of the Nebemakhet furnace — that it is actually two crucibles back-to-back — also apply to Kagemniand Mehu. Stylised ‘flames’ of heat depicted in the tomb of Ty are sim-ilarly apparent in Niankh-khnum and Khnumhotep, Serka, Hemre, andKahep.

The Meresankh image is difficult to analyse as it is fragmentary andthere are no accompanying inscriptions. The adjacent scene is one ofhammering or at least tapping. This is not an unambiguous portrayal of

sheet copper production.The ‘beehive’ images from Ankhmahor and Ibi are mysterious. Thetext associated with Ankhmahor (and possibly Ibi) is similar to those ofcopper sheet production scenes. The shape may be intended by the artistto represent the furnace as a globule of heat. The stirring of the coals (ormaybe ‘poling’ of the copper) in the Ankhmahor image is unique in OldKingdom metal working scenes, but is seen in the New Kingdom tombof Rekhmire. Poling is a practice associated with refining.

The Tepemankh hearth may be a Mereruka shape crucible, but the

image does not display the full profile. The Ptahshepses hearths defi-nitely do not have anything resembling a crucible. Both tombs display arealistic style and may instead represent the vessel fabricating process,which would have involved a certain amount of annealing and welding.Kaemrehu and the Unas Causeway may depict gold working, accordingto the accompanying texts, but the technology seems nevertheless to berelated.

Niankhpepy appears to be a large, single crucible, similar to Pepy-ankh, but with supports. No charcoal is depicted under the crucible. The

scenes in Mehu and the Unas Causeway also show forms of support forthe crucibles.




Fig. 5. Furnace representations. Drawings are reproduced fromthe publications listed with Table 1 (see text for details), except Niankh-khnum

and Khnumhotep and Ptahshepses, which have been re-drawn frompublished photographs. Kagemni and Ankhmahor were re-drawn from

photographs taken by the author.




The tower shapes of Serfka, Hemre, and Kahep are unusual, as arethose of Unasankh, Khenty, and Ihy.65 In all these instances, the furnacecannot be an open fire as it would be too hot for the metal workers, notto mention very wasteful of fuel. The el-Khokha scenes are very similarand may represent a local tradition of tomb decoration or technology, orboth. The artists do not convey any detail about the furnace construction.

The scenes from Serfka, Hemre, and Kahep are more informative.They would appear to be associated with the production of sheet copper.There may be a modification of crucible shape or size used in these

65 The Khenty and Ihy scenes are fragmentary and have not been illustrated in fig. 5.

Fig. 6. Sketch of a metal worker from the tomb of Ka-em-ankh, Giza.

Photograph from: H. Junker, Giza 4: Die Mastaba des K’jm’nh(Kai-em-anch) (Wien, 1940), pl. 10.




cases or, more likely, the crucibles are held in a supporting frameworkthat elevates them.

The metal working scene in Senedjemib: Mehi does not depict a fur-nace and has no depictions of casting or hammering. The text is similarto other metal working scenes of the time and the fabrication sceneshows that it represents the making of metal. The scene does not illus-trate the equipment accurately or convey the technical detail or atmos-phere of the process, so it does not suit the styles identified herein.

The images display a variety of content and style. The realistic styleseems to include images in the tombs of Meresankh, Wepemnefert,

Tepemankh, Kaemrehu, Ptahshepses, Pepyankh: Heny-kem, and Niankh-pepy: Khnumhotep-heti. The technical style is apparent in Nebemakhet,Unas Causeway, Kagemni, Mereruka, and Mehu, while the naturalisticstyle is found in Ty, Niankh-khnum and Khnumhotep, Serfka, Ankhma-hor, Ibi, Hemre: Isi, and Kahep: Theti-iker.

Doubt has been cast on the use of blowpipes in the Old Kingdombecause bellows can deliver greater amounts of air. CRADDOCK has sug-gested that the scenes represent “artistic conservatism”.66 He does, how-ever, concede that blowpipes offer accuracy in directing a blast of air,

and it is this accuracy that was essential to make the technology work.The accompanying texts repeatedly give instructions about pointing theblowpipes to the seat of the fire. Melting operations required far lessventilation than smelting, which was the context of CRADDOCK’s discus-sion, and charcoal ventilated by jets of air from a blowpipe can quicklyreach the required temperature.

Drawing in the tomb of Ka-em-ankh

A sketch from the burial chamber of the Giza tomb of Ka-em-ankh isrevealing (fig. 6).67 It depicts a single metal worker with a blowpipeventilating an upright crucible that appears to be of a Mereruka shape.The blowpipe is directed toward the front of the crucible.

The simple outline conveys the appearance and atmosphere of thescene; its energy can almost be felt. It is the oblique perspective, how-ever, that is especially significant. Tomb images generally combine

66 P.T. CRADDOCK, Early Metal Mining and Production (Edinburgh, 1995), 178.67 G4561, Sixth Dynasty. See B. PORTER & R.L.B. MOSS, Topographical Bibliogra- phy of Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphic Texts, Reliefs and Paintings III, Part 1: Memphis. Abu Rawash to Abusir (Oxford, 1974), 131 (18).




frontal views and profiles, but this figure is pictured from the forequar-ter. It therefore does not appear to be copied from a pattern-book andwas most likely the product of a drawing made on location.

There is no direct indication that the scene was associated with thefabrication of metal vessels, although there is a traditional metal work-ing inscription in an adjacent register.68 Other scenes in the same registerdepicted carpentry activity using an axe and an adze.

Discussion

HARPUR found that basic agricultural and marsh scenes depicted duringthe Fourth Dynasty were then developed with greater detail later in theFifth Dynasty.69 During the Sixth Dynasty, there was a return to simplic-ity in the southern provinces by artists who were aware of Memphitetomb decoration.70 The metal working scenes have a different presenta-tion depicting a full array of subject matter with two artistic styles, real-ism and technical, from the end of the Fourth Dynasty. A third style,naturalism, began later in the Fifth Dynasty. Sixth Dynasty provincialtombs at el-Khokha and Deir el-Gebrawi do show a simplifying of the

images, while at Meir, the tomb of Pepyankh has a detailed scene of atechnological development not seen elsewhere. HARPUR was able totrace similarities in style and scene content in tombs situated near eachother.71 This can not be done for metal working scenes.

The identification of three artistic styles — realistic, technical andnaturalistic — is new for the analysis of Egyptian tomb art. SCHÄFER’sapproach, in which representations summarise the essential physicalcharacter of objects according to the artists’ mental images, effectivelyclassified Egyptian art as technical or naturalistic. These constructions

had a purpose other than conveying a visual record. The realistic style,which may also be apparent in three-dimensional art, represents the firststage of metal working portrayal and is likely to be the result of on-location observation and sketching.

MALEK has noted that although there are hundreds of decorated Egyp-tian tombs, no two are identical.72 While there are less of them, the same

68 JUNKER, Giza 4, pl. 9.69 Y. HARPUR, Decoration in Egyptian Tombs of the Old Kingdom: Studies in Orien-

tation and Scene Content (London, 1987), 288.70 ibid., 280.71 ibid., 231.72 MALEK, Egyptian Art, 131.




applies to the metallurgical scenes discussed in this paper. The varia-tions can be understood as attempts by the artists to portray metal work-ing activities more explicitly. If artists were bound by a pattern-book,variations would be limited to artistic style and the images may appearformal or stylised.

When discussing artistic variations in early Egyptian palettes, DAVIS identified three factors — purpose of the palettes, artist education, andregional differences — as reasons for differences.73 He did not attributevariation to independent observation. The earliest metal working scenesare found in related geographical and chronological contexts, eliminat-

ing the last two reasons; the purpose of the scenes may consequently bemore significant.Egyptian tombs were prepared by the owners during their lifetime and

are therefore different from tombs in other societies. The tomb ownermay have selected the content of tomb scenes, but the purpose of thecontent has been a matter for discussion. KANAWATI has developed theconcept of the tomb as a ‘house for eternity’ enabling the owner contin-ued existence on earth and in the Netherworld.74 He believes that someof the decoration records the tomb owner’s achievements and was

intended to be a monument on earth. KAMRIN argues that tombs, in partat least, were a “schematized representation of the Egyptian cosmos”.75 She views the scenes from daily life as illustrations of order triumphingover chaos, ensuring the eternal survival of the tomb owner and theproper functioning of the Egyptian world.

The metal working scenes are didactic in that they depict the stages ofthe process, from the weighing of pieces of metal to the production ofsheet metal for the fabrication of splendid metal vessels. The associatedtexts of reported speech focus on the important details of the depicted

activity. The conventions adopted by the artists also aid the understand-ing of the technology. This methodology does not easily serve a memo-rialising function. While they could indicate that the tomb owner onceexerted control over such industry and was therefore important, thiscould have been established in more convincing ways.

Old Kingdom tomb scenes depict metallurgical processes associatedwith the making of sheet metal. During this period, there would have

73 W. DAVIS, The Canonical Tradition in Egyptian Art (Cambridge, 1989), 153ff.74 N. KANAWATI, The Tomb and Beyond: Burial Customs of Egyptian Officials (Warminster, 2001), 1.

75 J. KAMRIN, The Cosmos of Khnumhotep II at Beni Hasan (London, 1999), 2.




been other metal working practices producing tools, especially thoseused by masons for the construction of tombs, temples, and pyramids.This would have been a major industry and much of it would have beenlocated in the vicinity of the Memphite necropolises. Indeed, some ofthe artists’ equipment must have been produced by this industry.

Although the tomb artists may have walked past this activity regu-larly, it is the production of sheet metal for prestige objects that theyrepresented. Stone vessels were previously the prestige vessels of theEgyptian elite, but it seems that during the Fifth and Sixth Dynasties,metal vessels were the objects of choice.76 No tomb depicts the manu-

facture of chisels or the construction of funerary architecture. This wouldappear to imply a focus on the eternal afterlife where the construction ofmortuary facilities was not necessary and when the tomb owner wasaiming to ensure personal success without reliance on the king. Thetomb owner needed to be legitimately installed in the afterlife whilemaintaining the cosmic order.

The tomb images may possibly indicate that the tomb owner knewhow to manufacture luxury metal vessels from raw materials and wastherefore someone of knowledge and power. Alternatively, the scenes

may have been intended to remind the owner, or those who would workfor him in the afterlife, how the more complex activities of a success-fully ordered society were to be carried out.

The development of artistic styles beyond the portrayal of visualreality appears to be driven by the need to explain the processes beingundertaken. Crucible shape, its configuration as a furnace, and thenature of the beating of the sheet metal are all given greater explanationby the adoption of the technical style. Features indicating heat in thenaturalistic style further explain the process. At each stage, however,

the artist needed some visual and technical knowledge of the metalworking process.

There are only 17 known metal working scenes dating from theFourth to the Sixth Dynasty (a period of 150 years) in the Memphitenecropolises. Metal working scenes are therefore somewhat peripheralto Egyptian Old Kingdom tomb art, although the information theyprovide for modern research into metallurgy is important. With this lowlevel of application, it may be expected that artists would have neededto refer to real life to obtain or refine their images. Styles associated

76 J. BAINES, Visual and Written Culture in Ancient Egypt (Oxford, 2007), 306.




with the subject matter of metal working scenes would not have devel-oped into a self-contained canon, and the images would have remainedcomparatively unsophisticated. Direct observation may thus haveremained essential.

Conclusions

The metal working images in Old Kingdom Memphite tombs are techni-cally consistent in the way they depict weighing, crucible configuration,blowpipe function, metal casting, and the beating of sheet metal. When

considered in conjunction with the associated texts and the archaeologi-cal discoveries at Tell edh-Dhiba’i, the technology is comprehensible.The arrangement, content, and style of the scenes reveal a didactic

purpose, which was meant to assist the tomb owner in the afterlife. Theydo not appear to have had a memorialising intent.

SCHÄFER’s principles of Egyptian art are pertinent to the artistic stylesidentified as technical and naturalistic in this paper. While these stylescan be detected in many scenes, there are a significant number of earlierimages deemed to be realistic or visually accurate. It is possible that the

Memphite necropolis metal working scenes demonstrate the genesis of amotif type that, had it continued, would have become uniform and even-tually conformed to SCHÄFER’s observations. The reason why this devel-opment was slow may be due to the relative unpopularity of such scenes.

No two metal working tomb scenes in the Memphite necropolises arethe same and yet within the context of artistic styles and conventions,the images convey accurate information about the technology of theprocess. Indeed, the variations appear to be driven by the artists’ knowl-edge of the actual processes and their desire to make the technology

more explicit. Prior to the adoption of computer-aided drawing, techni-cal draughts-people aimed to accurately convey essential informationabout objects and processes in drawings explicitly, efficiently, neatly,and, if possible, aesthetically. The artists depicting metal working inOld Kingdom Memphis achieved most of these aims and have theadded distinction that their images still successfully communicate tech-nical information after four millennia.

metallurgy ok egypt

Documents