8 Model Stone Vessels

Lucie Jirásková

Excav. No. 19, 1–77/AS37/2007 (figs. 8.1–8.15; pls. 1–2)

Assemblage of modelstone vessels made of white limestone, which is harder, lessporous and heavier than the usual type used for the production of model stone vesselsfound in the Abusir South necropolis.1 The specific material might have been thereason for their distinct appearance and process of production. Moreover, it mightalso express the status of the person who had them made for his eternal life. Thisbeautiful white stone symbolising purity shall be of special interest concerning thepriest Neferinpu.

The number of vessels found in the burial chamber of Neferinpu total 77, consistingof two classes according to the class-type2 typology: model jars (m.j.), model bowlsand dishes3 (m.b., m.d.). There are 18 model jars that can be divided into 5 types – 6 cylindrical jars, 5 tall jars with a splayed foot and a ledge between the foot and body,4 massive shouldered jars, 2 jars with a splayed foot, a ledge between the foot andbody and two model handles (?) in the upper part, and a jug. All of the tall jars haveflat bases and flat orifices.

The most numerous are the cylindrical jars (nos. 11, 14, 19, 20, 30 and 35) witha modelled angled rim and a maximum bulge in the upper part of body. Their sidesare rather convex-shaped with an indication of a splayed foot in some cases (compareHassan 1948, 28, no. 3). Such a type of vessel usually represents a fat or ointmentcontainer, being a tradition surviving from the Early Dynastic Period onwards. Aboveall, they are often the exclusive type of container in the lists of the seven sacred oils.The height and width of the individual pieces of the assemblage varies, but their basicshapes remain similar, and it is possible to imagine a single worker as their producer.This is, in fact, valid even for the other groups of jars, as they retain the samecharacteristics with little variations.

Tall jars with a splayed foot and concave-modelled collar (nos. 21, 31, 32, 59 and62) are usually included in the group of wine jars. As was suggested by Lacovara(1988, 78), the specific shape of the collar might have come from the same shape madewhen sealing with a tied rope. The pottery (and some stone) examples show, in manycases, that the sealing cap might not have necessarily been modelled into a concaveshape, but might have remained conical with straight sides (e.g. 2 model jars fromtomb AS 67 at Abusir; Junker 1929, Abb. 11; Reisner 1942, fig. 321). A specific featurein the case of the types belonging to the assemblage of AS 37 is the ledge dividing the body from the foot. Nevertheless, more examples exist, such as those found in the Giza cemeteries (Reisner 1942, figs. 304b, 310; http://www.metmuseum.org/Collections/search-the-collections/100035853?rpp=20&pg=1&ft=model+tableware&pos=1;Hassan 1948, 31, no. 10). As was suggested by Hassan (1948, 31), and is to be foundon many reliefs with scenes of offerings being presented to the deceased, the “foot”divided by a ledge could be a stand used to hold a vessel with a pointed base. The

1 For the basic definition of the difference between model and miniature vessels, see Allen 2006.Although not all of the stone vessels with small dimensions shall be referred to as model (see Jirásková in prep.), the collection that has been discovered in the burial chamber of Neferinpuseems to meet the criteria for model rather than miniature vessels.2 The typology is based on the class-type typology introduced by Hill and Evans (1972).3 Concerning the typology of open forms, the criteria specified by Aston (1994, Appendix C) arefollowed. Although some of the open forms might be denoted as cups, the term was omitted infavour of the basic types specified in the table (Aston 1994, fig. 22).

low “foot” of the model stone vessels of Neferinpu and the division in the shape ofa ledge between the “foot” and the body might be an example of a misunderstandingon the side of the craftsman who created them. He was probably making copies ofvessel shapes that he did not understand well, and therefore he did not form the lowerpart properly as a stand.

The next most numerous types are the neck-less shouldered jars with a thinmodelled, angled rim (nos. 22, 27, 33 and 36). These pieces of the assemblage are of a massive wide kind, with the maximum body diameter reaching up to 6.8 cm (no. 33). These vessels are similar to the pottery and stone types that are, at the sametime, to be found in large (regular) dimensions, as well as, the previously mentionedcylindrical jars (e.g. Reisner 1931, figs. 46, 49). However, the large vessels usually havea collared rim, as do most cases of model vessels. Junker (1929, 128) assigns this typeto that of beer jars in the case of pottery examples, which differ from the stoneinstances in respect of their profiles, above all the stressed shoulder and narrow collar.On the other hand, they might represent a different type, as both were discovered inthe tomb of Hetepheres (Reisner – Smith 1955, fig. 140), i.e. the rather barrel-shapedtype Vb, and the wide cup-like jar with a splayed foot of type Vd. Hassan (1948, 28,no. 5) describes them as “nemeset-jars” that were used for different kinds of liquids.

The next two vessels are probably a different type of wine jar (nos. 17 and 34) thatis always included in the Fifth Dynasty assemblages of model stone vessels. The shapeof the types found in the burial shaft of Neferinpu is very specific, however, and hasno parallels. The lower part copies the previously mentioned 5 wine jars. They havea flat base which is created by a “foot” divided from the body part by a “ledge” –which is probably again a wrong interpretation of a vessel with a pointed base insertedinto a ring stand. Their rims are shaped in the same way as in the case of the other talljars, i.e. a thin sharply angled ring. The unusual parts difficult to interpret are twohandle-like features. Similar ones are to be found in reliefs with offerings collected forthe deceased. Other vessels situated in stands are sometimes open tall vessels withoutcap sealings with two strange rectangular features on their sides and some objectssticking out (e.g. Hassan 1953, fig. 53). Nevertheless, these two examples shall hereinbe seen as the classical two wine jar pieces of barrel shape with a net surrounding thecentral part of the body.

The last tall vessel belonging to the assemblage is a jug (no. 18). It is not a slendertype, but a massive kind with dimensions resembling the 4 shouldered jars. The jughas a thick rim with a flat orifice, and the handle is not pierced (as is usual in the caseof model jugs). There is also no spout.

Aside from the tall jars, the assemblage found in the burial chamber of Neferinpucontained 59 model bowls and dishes. All were found complete, except for no. 4,which was glued together from 3 pieces and no. 77, which is represented by a half ofa bowl only.4 The variety of their shapes testifies to the several workmen whoproduced them. Most of them have rounded bases; however, 11 examples with flatbases are also present (nos. 7, 15, 25, 26, 37, 40, 58, 63, 66, 68 and 71). It is clearly visiblethat the first stage in their production was a cube which was then just roughly workedinto the shape of a bowl or dish. Therefore the rims remained un-modelled and flat,and only in several examples, where the depression of the bowl was smoothed, doesa simple and rough smoothing of the rims appear (nos. 13, 15, 16, 41, 42, 51, 53, 56, 61,63, 65, 70, 72, 74 and 76). Only a few pieces are irregular and seem to be created froman irregular piece of stone or were damaged in the process of shaping (nos. 57 and 58). The depression of the bowls can also vary widely in respect of the smalldimensions of the vessels, ranging from 0.5 to 1.5 cm. All the depressions were cutwith a chisel approx. 0.8 cm wide that has left clear marks on the surface, showing the

88 Neferinpu

4 All the model stone vessels were found west of the sarcophagus, most of them together in a heapnext to the row of beer jars. It did not seem that any object had fallen on them and caused thedamage to the two broken pieces. In this respect, it seems possible that they were damaged inthe course of the burial.

movement of the instrument from the rim of the vessel to the centre of the depression.Only some of the bowls and shallow plates have been smoothed in the interior, andin the exterior, respectively. Rougher smoothing of the outer wall that was intendedto remove the edges of the cutting planes is also visible on the examples withoutsmoothed depressions. Nevertheless, it is much coarser than in the case of the overallsmoothed pieces. The range of the rim diameters testifies to the carelessness in theprocess of preparation of the initial cubes, or the shaping of the vessels. One wouldsuppose that a skilled craftsman would be able to work his products with slightdifferences, and in the same style. Therefore, the variations in the assemblage of openforms give evidence to a workshop of several workers creating one collection togetherin all the stages. There might have been a few people cutting the cubes, others wouldroughly shape the vessel, then others would smooth its exterior, the next group wouldwork on the boring process, and the last on the final finer smoothing. On the otherhand, it is not possible to exclude the idea of several workers producing the item fromits beginning to its final stage, omitting an arrangement of systematic manufacture.

All the vessels bear traces of their production. Even the tall jars that have beenmore carefully made cannot match the quality of similar products of the FifthDynasty from Abusir. Some of the tall vessels have cutting planes still visible on theexterior, although the surface has been smoothed (especially nos. 21 and 27). Thepebble used for smoothing and polishing was probably coarse-grained, as there arequite deep grooves visible on all the model vessels belonging to the assemblage ofNeferinpu. The drilling holes in the tall jars are, on the other hand, finely made, notexceeding the usual depth. It was probably not necessary to use a tubular drill forthe small-sized vessels made of soft stone, such as limestone.5 Therefore the drillingof the model tall vessels seems to have been done with elongated borers (e.g. Bevan2007, figs. 4.4, 4.5), rather than with tubular drills and sand (which is the case ofregular size stone vessels).

The outer walls of the open forms of the assemblage also testify to the productionprocess.6 The planes left by the adzes that were used to roughly shape the future vesselare in most cases still recognizable. However, the sharp edges dividing them havebeen roughly smoothed. Similarly, a coarse-grained pebble must have been appliedduring the smoothing process, for the outer walls bear similar deep grooves, as in thecase of the tall vessels. Also the pieces that have been smoothed in their depressionsgive evidence to a coarse-grained smoother. The rims of the bowls, cups and plateshave mostly flat planes that have not been modelled and remain as witnesses to theoriginal cubic shape of the stone designated to become a small-sized vessel. Theinteriors of the bowls and plates are much more interesting from the point of view ofthe model stone vessel production. All the other examples found in the Abusirnecropolis bear circular or triangular boring traces in their depressions. This featuredocuments the use of crescent-shaped flint tools in the drilling process (such as theexamples in Caton-Thompson – Gardner 1934, pl. LXVIII, LXIX or Lauer 1936, 234,pl. XCVI). Contrarily, the open forms of Neferinpu’s assemblage show the marks ofchisels approximately 0.8 cm wide. These remind one of the Syropalestinian andAgean style of stone vessel production (Sparks 2007, 194). The reason for sucha specific and in Egypt not common process might lie in the material chosen. In thecase of a harder kind of limestone, hand boring would have been more demandingfor the application rather than the use of a copper chisel. On the other hand, it is notpossible to exclude the presence of foreign workmen participating in the workshopproduction.

Model Stone Vessels 89

5 The soft stones such as limestone and travertine must have been much easier to work with atthe time of their extraction in the quarry. It is possible to suppose that the workshops weresituated close to the source of stone, and therefore it was still fresh when processed. After theextraction from the rock, it started to lose its moisture and slowly became harder. It is possibleto find pieces of limestone in the desert that have been weathered so much that it is not possibleto use a flint blade for drilling any more, as they became so hard.6 For the basic steps of stone vessel production in general, see the table in Bevan 2007, fig. 4.11.

The typology of the assemblage, as well as the material used, sets the model stonevessels discovered in the burial chamber of Neferinpu into the Fifth Dynasty.Concerning the number of vessels and individual types, it resembles otherassemblages collected at the officials’ cemetery at Abusir South, such as tomb AS 47,or both shafts of AS 67 (all dated to the Fifth Dynasty, and almost completelypreserved). These were also made of limestone and contained 5 different types of talljars including 1 jug, cylindrical jars, shouldered jars, barrel-shaped wine jars and jarswith a concave-shaped collar (Jirásková in prep.). The assemblage is also similar to the Fifth Dynasty collection coming from the tomb of Perneb (http://www.met -museum.org/search-results?ft=perneb&x=0&y=0). The variety of particular shapes ofdifferent types is interesting in respect of the origin of the workshops. It would beexpected that the shapes should not differ as much as they do, including the variationsreflecting different quality – e.g. the carefully carved nets in the case of barrel-shapedwine jars (e.g. Junker 1929, Abb. 11; Reisner 1942, fig. 297b).

The typical feature for the Fifth Dynasty model stone vessel assemblages in non-royal tombs is the material – limestone. Travertine seems to be the exclusive materialfor the members of the royal family and the highest officials. Contrarily, the Fourthand Sixth Dynasty assemblages use travertine widely, and limestone pieces are lessoften (e.g. Reisner 1942, 297b). Examples from different dynasties of the Old Kingdomalso vary in respect of the size. The Sixth Dynasty pieces are usually smaller and thevariety of types and shapes included widens. The Fifth Dynasty seems to be moreclearly defined in the repertoire with the five types of tall jars, omitting for instancetables and ewers with basins.7

The number of bowls varies, however, in all cases even in the Abusir cemeteries. Itseems that their numbers were not been strictly defined; however, none of the Abusirassemblages have come from an undisturbed context. Only Neferinpu’s burialequipment has survived in its original deposition and contents. On the other hand,even other assemblages from different cemeteries do not contain the same number ofopen forms (Junker 1929, 108; Hassan 1948, 25–26).

Catalogue:19–1: m.b., width 4.6 cm, height 1.9 cm, depth of boring 0.9 cm, rounded base,

unmodelled flat rim (figs. 8.1 and 8.8);19–2: m.b., w. 5.2 cm, h. 2.3 cm, d. of boring 1.1 cm, rounded base, unmodelled flat

rim (figs. 8.1 and 8.8);19–3: m.b., w. 4.8 cm, h. 2.3 cm, d. of boring 1.1 cm, rounded base, unmodelled flat

rim (figs. 8.1 and 8.8);19–4: m.b., w. 4.8 cm, h. 2.3 cm, d. of boring 1.2 cm, rounded base, unmodelled flat

rim (figs. 8.1 and 8.8);19–5: m.b., w. 4.8 cm, h. 2.1 cm, d. of boring 0.9 cm, rounded base, unmodelled flat

rim (figs. 8.1 and 8.8);19–6: m.b., w. 4.8 cm, h. 2.1 cm, d. of boring 1.1 cm, rounded base, unmodelled flat

rim (figs. 8.1 and 8.8);19–7: m.b., w. 5.2 cm, h. 2.7 cm, d. of boring 0.9 cm, flat base, unmodelled flat rim,

almost perpendicular side walls (figs. 8.1 and 8.8);19–8: m.d., w. 5.4 cm, h. 1.8 cm, d. of boring 0.9 cm, rounded base, unmodelled flat

rim (figs. 8.1 and 8.8);19–9: m.b., w. 5.0 cm, h. 2.8 cm, d. of boring 1.5 cm, rounded base, unmodelled flat

rim (figs. 8.1 and 8.8);19–10: m.b., w. 4.6 cm, h. 2.1 cm, d. of boring 1.2 cm, rounded base, unmodelled

flat rim (figs. 8.1 and 8.8);

90 Neferinpu

7 Even the assemblage of Khekeretnebty made of travertine found at the royal cemetery at Abusirrespect the above stated number of types and particular shapes, although the jug was not beenfound – which shall be taken as a consequence of the looting of the tomb (Verner – Callender2002, 36-37).

19–11: m.j., h. 9.6 cm, max. w. 4.5 cm, d. of boring 4.1 cm, flat base, flat rim, tubular-shaped body (figs. 8.6 and 8.9);

19–12: m.b., w. 4.6 cm, h. 2.2 cm, d. of boring 0.8 cm, rounded base, unmodelledflat rim (figs. 8.1 and 8.9);

19–13: m.b., w. 5.6 cm, h. 2.1 cm, d. of boring 0.6 cm, rounded base, modelled rim(figs. 8.1 and 8.9);

19–14: m.j., h. 9.3 cm, max. w. 4.2 cm, d. of boring 3.2 cm, flat base, flat angled rim,tubular-shaped body (figs. 8.6 and 8.9);

19–15: m.b., w. 4.8 cm, h. 2.6–3.2 cm, d. of boring 1.2 cm, flat base, modelled rim(figs. 8.2 and 8.9);

19–16: m.d., w. 4.3 cm, h. 1.3 cm, d. of boring 0.5 cm, rounded base, modelled rim(figs. 8.2 and 8.9);

19–17: m.j., h. 10–10.1 cm, max. w. ? cm, d. of boring 2.2 cm, flat base, flat angledrim, undulating foot (figs. 8.7 and 8.9);

19–18: m.j., h. 8.6 cm, max. w. ? cm, d. of boring 4.1 cm, flat base, flat rim, jug withan unpierced handle (figs. 8.7 and 8.9);

19–19: m.j., h. 10.1–10.2 cm, max. w. 4.5 cm, d. of boring 3.5 cm, flat base, flat angledrim, tubular-shaped body (figs. 8.6 and 8.9);

19–20: m.j., h. 9.4 cm, max. w. 5.0 cm, d. of boring 3.6 cm, flat base, flat angled rim,tubular-shaped body (figs. 8.6 and 8.9);

19–21: m.j., h. 9.9 cm, max. w. 4.5 cm, d. of boring 2.5 cm, flat base, concave-shapedcollar, undulating foot (figs. 8.7 and 8.10);

19–22: m.j., h. 8.4–8.8 cm, max. w. 6.3 cm, d. of boring 3.9 cm, flat base, flat angledrim, situla-shaped body (figs. 8.6 and 8.10);

19–23: m.b., w. 5.3 cm, h. 2.6 cm, d. of boring 0.9 cm, rounded base, unmodelledflat rim (figs. 8.2 and 8.10);

19–24: m.b., w. 5.5 cm, h. 2.7 cm, d. of boring 0.9 cm, rounded base, unmodelledflat rim (figs. 8.2 and 8.10);

19–25: m.b., w. 6.0 cm, h. 2.6 cm, d. of boring 1.0 cm, flat base, unmodelled flat rim(figs. 8.2 and 8.10);

19–26: m.b., w. 5.0 cm, h. 3.0 cm, d. of boring 1.0 cm, flat base, unmodelled flat rim(figs. 8.2 and 8.10);

19–27: m.j., h. 8.2–8,4 cm, max. w. 6.5 cm, d. of boring 2.4 cm, flat base, flat angledrim, situla-shaped body (figs. 8.6 and 8.10);

19–28: m.b., w. 4.6 cm, h. 2.1 cm, d. of boring 1.2 cm, rounded base, unmodelledflat rim (figs. 8.2 and 8.10);

19–29: m.b., w. 5.4 cm, h. 2.3 cm, d. of boring 1.0 cm, rounded base, unmodelledflat rim (figs. 8.2 and 8.10);

19–30: m.j., h. 8.8 cm, max. w. 4.6 cm, d. of boring 3.4 cm, flat base, flat angled rim,tubular-shaped body (figs. 8.6 and 8.10);

19–31: m.j., h. 9.1 cm, max. w. 4.4 cm, d. of boring 2.7 cm, flat base, concave-shapedcollar, undulating foot (figs. 8.7 and 8.11);

19–32: m.j., h. 9.6 cm, max. w. 4.2 cm, d. of boring 2.7 cm, flat base, concave-shapedcollar, undulating foot (figs. 8.7 and 8.11);

19–33: m.j., h. 8.6–8,7 cm, max. w. 6.8 cm, d. of boring 2.9 cm, flat base, flat angledrim, situla-shaped body (figs. 8.6 and 8.11);

19–34: m.j., h. 10.0 cm, max. w. 5.2 cm, d. of boring 2.0 cm, flat base, flat angled rim,undulating foot (figs. 8.7 and 8.11);

19–35: m.j., h. 9.9 cm, max. w. 4.2 cm, d. of boring 3.9 cm, flat base, flat angled rim,tubular-shaped body (figs. 8.6 and 8.11);

19–36: m.j., h. 8.0–8.1 cm, max. w. 6.5 cm, d. of boring 3.5 cm, flat base, flat angledrim, situla-shaped body (figs. 8.6 and 8.11);

19–37: m.b., w. 4.7 cm, h. 1.9 cm, d. of boring 1.0 cm, flat base, unmodelled flat rim(figs. 8.2 and 8.11);

19–38: m.b., w. 5.0 cm, h. 2.4 cm, d. of boring 1.2 cm, rounded base, unmodelledflat rim (figs. 8.2 and 8.11);

Model Stone Vessels 91

19–39: m.b., w. 5.1 cm, h. 2.5 cm, d. of boring 1.0 cm, rounded base, unmodelledflat rim (figs. 8.2 and 8.11);

19–40: m.b., w. 4.5 cm, h. 2.6 cm, d. of boring 0.8 cm, flat base, unmodelled flat rim(figs. 8.2 and 8.11);

19–41: m.b., w. 6.0 cm, h. 2.5 cm, d. of boring 1.3 cm, rounded base, modelled rim(figs. 8.3 and 8.12);

19–42: m.b., w. 5.3 cm, h. 2.3 cm, d. of boring 1.3 cm, rounded base, modelled rim(figs. 8.3 and 8.12);

19–43: m.b., w. 5.3 cm, h. 2.4 cm, d. of boring 1.0 cm, rounded base, unmodelledflat rim (figs. 8.3 and 8.12);

19–44: m.b., w. 5.4 cm, h. 2.8 cm, d. of boring 1.0 cm, rounded base, unmodelledflat rim (figs. 8.3 and 8.12);

19–45: m.b., w. 5.6 cm, h. 2.3 cm, d. of boring 1.2 cm, rounded base, unmodelledflat rim (figs. 8.3 and 8.12);

19–46: m.b., w. 5.7 cm, h. 2.4 cm, d. of boring 1.2 cm, rounded base, modelled rim(figs. 8.3 and 8.12);

19–47: m.b., w. 5.9 cm, h. 2.6 cm, d. of boring 1.1 cm, rounded base, unmodelledflat rim (figs. 8.3 and 8.12);

19–48: m.b., w. 5.1 cm, h. 2.1 cm, d. of boring 0.7 cm, rounded base, unmodelledflat rim (figs. 8.3 and 8.12);

19–49: m.b., w. 5.1 cm, h. 2.5 cm, d. of boring 1.1 cm, rounded base, unmodelledflat rim (figs. 8.3 and 8.12);

19–50: m.b., w. 5.9 cm, h. 3.4 cm, d. of boring 1.0 cm, rounded base, unmodelledflat rim (figs. 8.3 and 8.12);

19–51: m.b., w. 5.6 cm, h. 2.9 cm, d. of boring 1.2 cm, rounded base, modelled rim(figs. 8.3 and 8.13);

19–52: m.b., w. 5.2 cm, h. 2.4 cm, d. of boring 1.0 cm, rounded base, unmodelledflat rim (figs. 8.3 and 8.13);

19–53: m.b., w. 5.8 cm, h. 2.0–2.8 cm, d. of boring 0.7 cm, flat base, modelled rim(figs. 8.4 and 8.13);

19–54: m.b., w. 5.0 cm, h. 2.3–2.8 cm, d. of boring 1.5 cm, flat base, unmodelled flatrim (figs. 8.4 and 8.13);

19–55: m.b., w. 5.8 cm, h. 2.7 cm, d. of boring 1.0 cm, rounded base, unmodelledflat rim (figs. 8.4 and 8.13);

19–56: m.b., w. 5.4 cm, h. 2.4 cm, d. of boring 0.6 cm, rounded base, modelled rim(figs. 8.4 and 8.13);

19–57: m.b., w. 5.1 cm, h. 2.0 cm, d. of boring 1.1 cm, rounded base, unmodelledflat rim (figs. 8.4 and 8.13);

19–58: m.d., w. 5.3 cm, h. 1.9 cm, d. of boring ? cm, flat base, modelled rim (figs. 8.4and 8.13);

19–59: m.j., h. 8.8 cm, max. w. 4.4 cm, d. of boring 2.9 cm, flat base, concave-shapedcollar, undulated foot (figs. 8.7 and 8.13);

19–60: m.b., w. 4.7 cm, h. 2.1 cm, d. of boring 1.1 cm, rounded base, unmodelledflat rim (figs. 8.4 and 8.13);

19–61: m.b., w. 5.7 cm, h. 2.6 cm, d. of boring 1.5 cm, rounded base, modelled rim(figs. 8.4 and 8.14);

19–62: m.j., h. 9.2–9,4 cm, max. w. 4.7 cm, d. of boring 2.6 cm, flat base, concave-shaped collar, undulating foot (figs. 8.7 and 8.14);

19–63: m.b., w. 4.6 cm, h. 2.4 cm, d. of boring 0.8 cm, flat base, modelled rim (figs.8.4 and 8.14);

19–64: m.b., w. 5.7 cm, h. 2.7 cm, d. of boring 1.2 cm, rounded base, unmodelledflat rim (figs. 8.4 and 8.14);

19–65: m.b., w. 4.6 cm, h. 2.3 cm, d. of boring 1.0 cm, flat base, unmodelled flat rim(figs. 8.4 and 8.14);

19–66: m.b., w. 4.4 cm, h. 2.5 cm, d. of boring 0.8 cm, flat base, unmodelled flat rim(figs. 8.4 and 8.14);

92 Neferinpu

19–67: m.b., w. 4.8 cm, h. 2.1 cm, d. of boring 1.0 cm, rounded base, unmodelledflat rim (figs. 8.5 and 8.14);

19–68: m.b., w. 4.6 cm, h. 2.2 cm, d. of boring 1.0 cm, flat base, unmodelled flat rim(figs. 8.5 and 8.14);

19–69: m.b., w. 4.8 cm, h. 2.0 cm, d. of boring 0.9 cm, rounded base, unmodelledflat rim (figs. 8.5 and 8.14);

19–70: m.b., w. 3.9 cm, h. 2.3 cm, d. of boring 0.8 cm, rounded base, modelled rim(figs. 8.5 and 8.14);

19–71: m.b., w. 4.5 cm, h. 2.1–2.3 cm, d. of boring 1.0 cm, flat base, unmodelled flatrim (figs. 8.5 and 8.15);

19–72: m.b., w. 5.0 cm, h. 2.0 cm, d. of boring 0.6 cm, rounded base, modelled rim(figs. 8.5 and 8.15);

19–73: m.b., w. 5.3 cm, h. 2.5 cm, d. of boring 1.0 cm, rounded base, unmodelledflat rim (figs. 8.5 and 8.15);

19–74: m.b., w. 5.8 cm, h. 2.9–3.1 cm, d. of boring 1.1 cm, rounded base, modelledrim (figs. 8.5 and 8.15);

19–75: m.b., w. 4.0 cm, h. 1.1–1.5 cm, d. of boring 0.6 cm, rounded base, unmodelledflat rim (figs. 8.5 and 8.15);

19–76: m.b., w. 5.6 cm, h. 2.4 cm, d. of boring 0.9 cm, rounded base, unmodelledflat rim (figs. 8.5 and 8.15);

19–77: m.b., w. 5.4 cm, h. 2.3 cm, d. of boring 1.1 cm, rounded base, unmodelledflat rim; approx. half of the vessel (figs. 8.5 and 8.15).

Model Stone Vessels 93

Fig. 8.1 Model limestone bowls, Excav. no. 19/AS37/2007 (LV)

94 Neferinpu

Fig. 8.2 Model limestone bowls, Excav. no. 19/AS37/2007 (LV)

Model Stone Vessels 95

Fig. 8.3 Model limestone bowls, Excav. no. 19/AS37/2007 (LV)

96 Neferinpu

Fig. 8.4 Model limestone bowls, Excav. no. 19/AS37/2007 (LV)

Model Stone Vessels 97

Fig. 8.5 Model limestone bowls, Excav. no. 19/AS37/2007 (LV)

98 Neferinpu

Fig. 8.6 Model limestone jars, Excav. no. 19/AS37/2007 (LV)

Model Stone Vessels 99

Fig. 8.7 Model limestone jars, Excav. no. 19/AS37/2007 (LV)

100 Neferinpu

Fig. 8.8 Model limestone vessels, Excav. no. 19, 1–10/AS37/2007 (MF)

Model Stone Vessels 101

Fig. 8.9 Model limestone vessels, Excav. no. 19, 11–20/AS37/2007 (MF)

102 Neferinpu

Fig. 8.10 Model limestone vessels, Excav. no. 19, 21–30/AS37/2007 (MF)

Fig. 8.11 Model limestone vessels, Excav. no. 19, 31–40/AS37/2007 (MF)

Model Stone Vessels 103

Fig. 8.12 Model limestone vessels, Excav. no. 19, 41–50/AS37/2007 (MF)

Fig. 8.13 Model limestone vessels, Excav. no. 19, 51–60/AS37/2007 (MF)

104 Neferinpu

Fig. 8.14 Model limestone vessels, Excav. no. 19, 61–70/AS37/2007 (MF)

Fig. 8.15 Model limestone vessels, Excav. no. 19, 71–77/AS37/2007 (MF)