54 K. E.

Pi quet t e: Inscribed Label Fragment from Abydos ZS 137 (2010)

KATHRYN E. PIQUETTE
A Compositional Approach to a First Dynasty Inscribed Label
Fragment from the Abydos Tomb Complex Ascribed to Qaa
Hierzu Tafel IVI
Introduction
The inscribed bone, ivory and wooden labels
of the First Dynasty (and a small number of
earlier examples) were first brought to light in
1895 by the French Coptologist, mile Clment
Amlineau, during excavations of the early ne-
cropolises at Abydos (Aml i neau 1905; 1904;
1902; 1899). Subsequent work by Flinders Petrie
and his team at the same site revealed numerous
further labels and fragments (Petri e 1925; 1901;
1900; see also 1902). Over the decades inscribed
labels have also been found in cemeteries at
Naqada (de Morgan 1897), North Saqqara
(Emery 1954; 1949; Emery and Sa ad 1938;
Qui bel l 1923), West Saqqara (Macramal l ah
1940), Helwan (Sa ad 1969; 1951; 1947; 1942),
and a small number of other funerary sites.
More recently (re-)discoveries have derived from
German re-excavation work Abydos (e.g.
Dreyer et al. 2003; 2000; 1998; 1996; 1993;
1990), and Australian excavations at Helwan, as
well as renewed study of Zaki Saads finds from
this site (Khl er 2008; 2005; 2004; 2000). Un-
doubtedly more inscribed labels will emerge in
future excavations and hopefully from contexts
that provide direct evidence for their precise
function as well as help answer questions con-
cerning non-funerary label use, if any.
Beyond primary publication in excavation re-
ports and short articles, a small number of stud-
ies have been dedicated to the inscribed labels
(e.g. Legge 1907; Newberry 1912; Pi quette
2007), while others draw upon them in address-
ing broader subjects (e.g. Bai nes 2007; Dreyer
2000; Engel 1997; Hel ck 1987; Kahl 1994;
Kapl ony 1963; Petri e 1927; Redford 1986).
Our understanding of these small, inscribed
perforated plaques is thus informed by multiple
layers of knowledge constructed across several
generations of scholarly endeavour. Since Am-
lineaus (Aml i neau 1905: 398; 1904: 6) initial
suggestion that the labels were suspended from
the neck of the deceased, and notwithstanding
more than 430 examples discovered since, their
precise function and role in the funerary ritual
remains something of a puzzle. Research on the
inscribed labels has nevertheless provided in-
sights into the Late-PredynasticEarly Dynastic
(c.3200c.2700 BCE) social processes of script
emergence in the Nile Valley and the increasing
stabilisation of iconographic practices, and the
development of administrative procedures. Their
study has elucidated the ways in which some
high status members of Egyptian society sym-
bolically and materially expressed concept of
royal power and ideology, religious belief, indi-
vidual and group identities, and relationships
between people and things in funerary, if not
also mortuary, ritual.
In the following paper, however, I shift the
scale and scope of analysis from these broad
themes to address the labels in terms of their
artefactuality and graphical composition. From
an epistemological standpoint, a central concern
is the extent to which oversights or mispercep-
tions concerning early script and image may be
bound up with the marginalisation of the physi-
cal artefact on which they occur (Pi quette
2008; see also Morel and 2006; 2001; Mat-
thews 2003: 131). I begin by elaborating the
motivations for my particular approach, follow-
ed by a brief critical assessment of the two-
dimensional modes used in the reproduction
ZS 137 (2010) K. E. Pi quet t e: Inscribed Label Fragment from Abydos 55
and re-presentation the inscribed labels in print-
ed and related media. I then present a composi-
tional and artefactual-centred case study of a late
First Dynasty label fragment from Abydos and
thereby seek to provide a more context sensitive
account of the graphical conventions label-
composers used, thus permitting a more groun-
ded reconstruction of this label fragment.
Retrospective and Contextual Approaches
As an alternative to retrospective methods
where images are identified, read and attributed
phonetic or other semantic meanings with refer-
ence to evidence from later temporal, spatial and
social contexts, the approach taken here aims
to avoid anachronistic impositions. The terms
writing and picture are often used to describe
various types of early graphical media, but fitting
the evidence into these categories and the func-
tions they imply can be problematic, if not un-
helpful, when we consider the diverse ways in
which artisans constructed and deployed images
within particular compositional and material
circumstances in time-space. Studies in many
culture history sub-disciplines focus on the key
question of when writing emerges (e.g. various
chapters in Houston 2004; Bard 1992;
Coul mas 2003; Senner 1989). I am concerned
that we may cast our nets too short by searching
for one type of complexity based on a largely
predetermined category, and thus overlook
other possible types of complexity and nuance,
which may then be relegated to a miscellaneous
category of non-writing, often labelled art.
Although John Baines has demonstrated the
utility of a non-westernising conception of art
(Bai nes 1989: 475) and discusses nuance in
graphical modes, such as the emblematic mode
of representation which stands between normal
representation and writing (Bai nes 1985:
277305), the presence of the conventions
which later distinguish these is difficult to dis-
cern in much of the early evidence.
In view of these and other difficulties in de-
termining, without recourse to later evidence, the
types and functions of label imagery, for the
purposed of this case study, I employ descriptive
terms to set out the analytical units. Simple
Graphical Object or SGO refers to an individ-
ual image, e.g. . For SGOs combined into
complex compositional configurations involving,
for example contiguity, containing/contained,
overlapping/overlapped, e.g. , I use the term
Complex Graphical Object or CGO. Where
SGOs are not involved in the compositional
associations characterising CGOs, but occur in
clusters of two or more and are attested twice or
more, whether on the same or different artefacts,
I refer to such groupings as Clusters, e.g. .
In addition to using descriptive vocabulary to
avoid imposing a priori sign functions, for heuris-
tic purposes and methodological consistency, I
also avoid other designations derived from later
evidence, e.g. Horus falcon or serekh.
In conducting an archaeology of early script
and image, I believe it is important to employ
contextually derived terminologies and ap-
proaches that are clearly distinguished from, and
precede the use of, those of a retrospective cha-
racter. Rather than a rejection of anachronistic
methods, which have their utility when contex-
tually-derived interpretative keys have been ex-
hausted, the point here concerns methodological
procedure and the prioritisation of direct over
indirect inference. The following represents an
attempt which I hope demonstrates the value of
grounded study. Nevertheless, the development
of methodologically-rigorous analytical procedu-
res and theoretically-informed interpretive frame-
works which integrate synchronic approaches
with diachronic perspectives remains an area for
further development within studies of early gra-
phical culture.
Inscribed Objects, Surrogates and Seeing
Methods for re-presenting the inscribed la-
bels include two- and three-dimensional forms,
such as line drawings or plaster/resin casts. The
methods used for different types of documenta-
tion can have a significant impact on subsequent
phases of analysis and interpretation. Examples
from conventional print publication include
black and white photography (e.g. Petri e 1901;
1900), colour photography (e.g. Dreyer 2000),
black and white photography of a line drawing
(Qui bel l 1923: pl. 11, no. 3), line drawings with
56 K. E. Pi quet t e: Inscribed Label Fragment from Abydos ZS 137 (2010)
colour (e.g. Emery and Sa ad 1938: pl. 18A;
Petri e 1900: pl. 17, no. 26) and without (e.g.
Emery 1954: 104), and electrotype copy (e.g.
Legge 1907: 70, 73, no. 4).
In surveying published label images and
comparing them with the artefacts themselves
during first-hand study, it appears that in some
cases line drawings were not created with direct
reference to the original artefact, but rather to a
photograph. This may have been the case with
an ivory plaque from Abydos reproduced on
Tafel I. This object was first published in photo-
graphic form and described as a large thick
label of ivory or tablet (Petri e 1901: 20,
pl. 3, no. 1). Incised on its surface is the CGO
comprised of a niched panelled faade with a
frame above containing a shield and mace or
Personal Indicator (PI) conventionally rende-
red Aha, the whole of which is surmounted by
a bird (hereafter I refer to this motif as a ni-
ched frame). To the viewers left a palm and
heart are incised. In Petries photograph a per-
foration in the upper left corner can be easily
discerned but the details of the upper right area
are somewhat obscured by shadow. A more
recent photograph and first hand examination of
this object, now held in the British Museum (EA
35513), shows that figure of the bird is fully pre-
served although the surface is somewhat upbrai-
ded. Also visible is a second perforation located
in the upper right-hand corner. Given this, and
the presence of two holes drilled into the bot-
tom edge and one on either side edge (Tafel I),
rather than a label, this object is probably part
of small box (Spencer 1980: 65, no. 463 and
pl. 50, no. 54), or other furniture element.
The presence of these features raises the
question of why Petrie identified this object as a
tablet or label and what was intended by the
use of these terms. The entry in the excavation
report for this object reads, as these objects
are all small pieces of ivory, they are likely to be
from toilet articles (Petri e 1901: 20 [Section
20. PL. III. 1.]). It is not clear whether Petrie
is suggesting that the plaque was part of a box or
other item that served as a toilet article or
whether the plaque may have been attached to a
toilet article, and in this sense was from an-
other object. Publication speed and associated
pressures undoubtedly impacted on the level of
detail documentation procedures could accom-
modate, and Petrie (1900: 1) himself warns the
reader of the provisional status of the report.
Some 40 years later, components of EA
35513 appeared in Walter B. Emery and Zaki
Yusef Saads report, Excavations at Saqqara
(19371938): H
.
or-Ah
.
a. Included in the line
drawings produced in Appendix IV, Collection
of Hieroglyphs from the Monuments of H
.
or-
Ah
.
a, are the two SGOs incised to the left of the
niched frame CGO (see Tafel I), each listed as
deriving from a Wooden label (Emery with
Saad 1939: 84, No. 8, 98, No. 43). Two decades
later, in Archaic Egypt, the inscribed face of
this plaque is reproduced as a line-drawing, iden-
tified as Ivory label from Abydos (1961: 53,
Fig. 13). However, the perforation in the upper
right is missed off as is the top of the birds
head. Rather than observation of the original
artefact, it is likely that study and interpretation
were based on a surrogate, probably Petries
photograph (initially without consultation of the
published description?), given the correspon-
dence between the area obscured by shadow in
the photograph and the missing bird head and
perforation (cf. Tafel I).
As this example shows, depending on how
source material is used, potentially significant
material features may be overlooked; in particu-
lar the importance of first-hand observation and
object handling (cf. Chatterj ee 2008) should
not be underestimated. By considering the fac-
tors that inform an investigators method, im-
portant information can be gleaned about the
hermeneutic enterprise the process of transla-
tion and interpretation (Gi ddens 1984: 284
285; Shanks and Ti l l ey 1996: 107108) and
thus the scope and depth of analysis and the
conclusions drawn. Having raised these various
epistemological and methodological issues and
the need for material contextualisation, I now
turn to the case study.
Case Study: A label fragment
from Abydos Tomb Q
During their first field season at Abydos in
the winter of 1899/1900, Petrie and his team
ZS 137 (2010) K. E. Pi quet t e: Inscribed Label Fragment from Abydos 57
discovered the lower half of an incised label
made from ivory by the offering place of
Qa, on the East side of the tomb, that is, Tomb
Q ascribed to Qaa (to use the current conven-
tional spelling), the last ruler of the First Dy-
nasty (Petri e 1900: 23). In the excavation re-
port, Petrie provides a black and white photo-
graph of the label fragment (Petri e 1900: pl. 11,
no. 12) and a line drawing (pl. 17, no. 28), both
of which are reproduced on Tafel II. The lower
half of the object is preserved, including the
lower left, bottom and right edges. Incised im-
agery is visible on the primary face but on the
right side in Column 1 the concentric laminae
which constitute the tusk have split and frac-
tured, perhaps due to desiccation (Krzysz-
kowska and Morkot 2000: 329), making the
incisions in this area more difficult to discern
(Tafel II). This label fragment, E.1262, is now
housed in the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford.
Format
The primary face is divided into three col-
umns. Proceeding from the viewers right to left,
a single vertical line on the right is undoubtedly
the lower portion of the SGO . The vertical
line on the middle-right delineates Column 1
from 2; the double vertical line on the left de-
lineates Column 2 from 3. The vertical or co-
lumnar format first appears on labels bearing the
PI of Den, a scribal innovation which may date
to the latter part of this rulers reign (Pi quett e
2007). The 3-column format of the primary face
of this label fragment is typical of labels bearing
the PIs of Semerkhet and Qaa, particularly the
latter. A chronological affiliation with the reign
of Qaa is further corroborated by the remains
of this rulers PI in Column 2, the presence of a
double vertical line, and the archaeological find
context, although whether deposition by the
offering place of Tomb Q was associated with
pre-burial, funerary or mortuary activities cannot
be ascertained at this juncture.
Imagery
The imagery in Columns 2 and 3 on the ori-
ginal artefact is clearly preserved and reproduced
with relative accuracy in the published drawings.
The imagery in Column 1, however, is partially
damaged and it is here that Petries drawing
raises some questions. Progressing from right to
left and top to bottom, the graphical content of
this column appears to consist of: a long straight
SGO, doubtless as mentioned above, fol-
lowed to its left by a portion of a horizontal
sign, and under neath this, . Below this Clus-
ter is given, and finally the left-hand por-
tions of two vertically stacked SGOs (Tafel II).
In the published drawing the lines in this area
appear slightly sketchy or dashed compared with
those in Columns 23, suggesting that the
drawer (Petrie himself?, cf. Petri e 1900: 1) may
have been less certain of the graphical content in
this damaged area. Indeed, Petrie tells us that the
signs below suten biti, i.e. , cannot be
read, and look much more like ket, with the
small bird determinative (Petri e 1900: 23).
In studying this label first-hand at the Ash-
molean Museum in Oxford (thanks to the kind
assistance of Helen Whitehouse), all imagery
apparent in the original photo and what is ren-
dered in the drawing for Columns 23 remains
clearly discernable. I was not, however, able to
identify all the SGOs Petrie shows in Column 1.
Initially I thought this was due to deterioration
subsequent to original documentation. The frac-
turing and flaking on the surface here appear to
be somewhat fresh but seem to have deterio-
rated minimally since the excavation photograph
was taken (Tafel II). More recent damage was
apparent on the secondary face, especially along
the left edge, and to a lesser extent on the right,
possibly due to the removal of an adhesive
substance once used for display mounting (?)
(Tafel II upper right). Many labels excavated by
Petrie and now held in different museums bear
small circular patches on the right and left sides
of the secondary face where adhesive or some
other substance was once applied and then re-
moved, taking the original surface with it in
some cases. This suggests that the damage proba-
bly occurred to these objects prior to their dis-
tribution to collections. Other marks on the
secondary face of E.1262 include the museum
inventory number in black ink. Below this the
tomb identifier Q is inscribed in pencil, as was
58 K. E. Pi quet t e: Inscribed Label Fragment from Abydos ZS 137 (2010)
Petries habit. Beyond this the secondary face
appears to be uninscribed, although a mark just
visible in the middle of the broken edge may be
the remains of incision, as attested on other
labels dated to the reign of Qaa, such as the
incised double-sided ivory label Ab K 1445
found at Tomb Q (N6N vor Eingang; Engel
1997: 456; see Tafel III lower).
As for my questions concerning the graphical
content of Column 1 as drawn, especially Clus-
ter , I begin by investigating the comparative
evidence that would have been available to
Petrie and his team around the time of the label
fragments excavation and documentation, par-
ticularly others excavated during that season, in
order to determine whether these may have
influenced this rendering. Cluster is attested
on four other labels published in the 1900 exca-
vation report. These include two ascribed to
Den and two to Semerkhet, and upon which
Cluster occurs in the following composi-
tional configurations:

Den:
1. British Museum, EA 32650, almost complete
label. Register 3 of Column 1 (Pet ri e 1900: [P]
pl. 11, no. 14, [D] pl. 15, no. 16).
2. Oriental Institute, Chicago 6125: Fragmentary
label. Register 3 (?) of Column 1 (Pet ri e 1900:
[P] pl. 11, no. 4, [D] pl. 15, no. 18).

Semerkhet:
3. British Museum, EA 32668, complete label with
some surface damage. Top right of Column 2
(Pet ri e 1900: [P] pl. 12, no. 1, [D] pl. 17, no. 26).
4. Fitzwilliam E86.1900, fragmentary label. Top
right (of Column 1?) (Pet ri e
1
1900: [P] pl. 11,
no. 18, [D] pl. 17, no. 27).


1
Pet r i e 1900: 23 writes that this label fragment
was found in the tomb of Mersekha (now conven-
tionally rendered Semerkhet). Interestingly, this com-
positional configuration of the double or triple colum-
nar format and the use of the incised technique are
attested on five other labels/label fragments, all of
which were found in and around Tomb Q ascribed to
Semerkhets successor (Engel 1997). This raises poten-
tially interesting questions concerning label practices,
both in terms of compositional changes and continui-
ties from reign to reign, as well as differential uses
within the cemeterybearing in mind that the find
location may be due to post-depositional disturbances
and patterning may reflect gaps in preservation, since
only about seven labels can be associated with Semerk-
het compared with almost 60 for Qaa.
Thus, in no instance is Cluster attested in
the middle/lower part of Column 1 as rendered
in the drawing on Tafel II. Likewise, labels
found during the following excavation season
(Petri e 1901) do not exhibit this Cluster in such
a position, but rather follow those composi-
tional configurations noted above. From the
evidence available around the time of Petries
excavation and in contemporary publications,
including labels excavated earlier at Abydos by
Amlineau (1905; 1904; 1899) and de Morgan at
Naqada in 1897, the rendition presented in
Petries drawing appears to be unattested.
A few years later, this label fragment was in-
cluded in a study by George Francis Legge enti-
tled Tablets of Negadah and Abydos, appear-
ing in the final of six monthly instalments
published in 19061907 in the Proceedings of
the Society of Biblical Archaeology. Legge ap-
pears to work primarily from surrogates, mainly
in the form of photographs. When discussing
label fragment E.1262, he does not mention
Petries line drawing, but states only that the
sinister register [Column 1] which probably once
contained a year-name is illegible (Legge
1907: [T] 249, no. 17, [P] pl. 2, no. 17).
Newberry (1912: [T] 289, [D] pl. 32, no. 11)
also examined E.1262 as part of a study on First
Dynasty labels, mainly in the context of sacred
oils as unidentified through both contextual and
retrospective approaches. His drawing of this
fragment delineates more explicitly the up-
braided areas in Column 1, perhaps on the basis
of first-hand study(?). His examination focuses
on imagery in the lower middle column, and he
does not comment on the content of Column 1,
although he reproduces the imagery in Column
1 as originally rendered by Petrie.
A half century later E.1262 is incorporated
into Raymond Weills study (Wei l l 1961: 62ff.)
which also follows suit. Peter Kaplonys monu-
mental work on early writing of Dynasties 13
includes this label fragment (Kapl ony 1963:
984), referred to as Q`- d and redrawn on pl.
145, fig. 847B. It would appear here that the
re-drawer worked from the published photo-
graph and line drawing, to produce a copy of
Petries rendition. Kaplony takes the work one
step further, however, in providing a partial
ZS 137 (2010) K. E. Pi quet t e: Inscribed Label Fragment from Abydos 59
reconstruction for Column 1 and full recon-
structions for Columns 23 (Tafel III upper). I
return to these below.
More recently, Eva-Maria Engel studied label
fragment E.1262 in the context of her PhD the-
sis on Abydos tomb complex Q (Engel 1997:
[T] 445, [D] 446, fig. 218, no. 4, see also 433
481). Here Petries original line drawing is also
reproduced without any apparent change. Ac-
cording to the conventional retrospective ap-
proach, a transliteration and translation of the
graphical content are given (Engel 1997: 445):

rnp(.t) |
2
| nsw(.t) bft k |
3
| |
4
hrw q`f|- t sf hrw (?)
|s| tpf h`.t d thnw |mdh mdh(.w) nsw.t| hnw-k`

Jahr: [] des Knigs von Ober- und Untergypten
[Horus Qa]a, Baumgarten des Palastes (?) [in? s],
beste Qualitt des d thnw ls [Leiter der Zimmer-
leute des Knigs von Obergypten] Henuka

Year: [] the King of Upper and Lower Egypt []
[Horus Qaa], arboretum of the palace (?) [in? s],
best quality of d thnw-oil [Chief Carpenter of the
King of Upper Egypt] Henuka

Thus, in surveying the publication history of
Abydos label fragment E.1262, it is probable
that subsequent investigators worked primarily
from the original published line drawing and to a
lesser extent, the photograph. Beyond Petrie
(above) and Legges (Legge 1907: 249) com-
ments concerning the illegibility of the content
in the lower-most part of Column 1, investiga-
tors appear to accept its content, if not its status
as reproduction, rather than reconstruction.
Given that there is minimal clear differentiation
in the drawing technique to readily distinguish
the former from the latter, if one did not consult
Petries written description of the object, repro-
duction would be assumed. Thus, apart from the
fact that no label available to Petrie, Legge,
Newberry or Kaplony bore Cluster fol-
lowed by (and to date none are attested),


2
Engel 1997: 445 notes here the remains of the
horizontal line as indicated in the drawing.
3
Engel also notes that, on the basis of , the sign
below each could be . She also suggests that the two
signs further below could each be the tail of a bird.
4
Engel places hrw outside the brackets, however,
the bird atop the niched frame CGO is not preserved.
I have shifted the brackets to reflect the signs which are
preserved.
there was limited reason for previous investiga-
tors to question the original line drawing rendi-
tion. It is really with the benefit of discoveries
over the past two decades of mid- to late First
Dynasty labels of this type that we can fully ap-
preciate how closely all examples conform to the
compositional schemes attested for Den 1 and
2, or Semerkhet 1 and 2 outlined above (discov-
ery, during the second season of Petrie and his
team at Abydos, of a similarly composed label
bearing a PI of Semerkhet with a three-column
layout does not significantly alter the composi-
tional rule label practioners were reproducing
in the later part of the First Dynasty (see Petri e
1902: [D] pl. 11, no. 9; 1901: [P] pl. 8, no. 5;
Oriental Institute, Chicago, 6198).
Compositional Analysis and
Reconstruction of Label Fragment E.1262
In bringing the presently available data to-
gether for compositional analysis in what fol-
lows, I assess the mechanics of individual image
expression and the internal organisation of
content (cf. Rose 2001: 178). The types of
graphical relationship examined include general
spatial distribution vis--vis the label surface,
and compositional features of individual images
types (i.e. SGO, CGO, Cluster, as presented
above) such as mode, orientation, direction,
association and view. I also examine the rela-
tionships between these variables, as well as a
range of material features, including technique
and colour (see also Pi quette 2008). For this
particular case study, I present the analysis ac-
cording to the way in which I worked through
the evidence, beginning with the known and less
varied features, and moving to the unknown and
more varied features, but also deploying Kap-
lonys reconstruction as a heuristic device (Tafel
III upper). For this reason, the sequence of
study commences with Column 3 and ends with
Column 1, and therefore reflects the research
process and is not intended to imply the ancient
reading/viewing sequence.
Reconstructing Column 3
The preserved content in Column 3 shows
+ + aligned vertically. This Cluster ap-
60 K. E. Pi quet t e: Inscribed Label Fragment from Abydos ZS 137 (2010)
pears on other labels bearing either the PI of
Semerkhet or Qaa, confirming it as a meaning-
ful Cluster, which Francis Llewellyn Griffith (in
Petri e 1900: 43) has read retrospectively as the
PI Henu-ka. Comparison of contemporary
labels bearing this Cluster also exhibit the co-
lumnar format, and in the left-most column
above + + , Cluster + + + is
consistently encountered, although the sequence
can vary. All sufficiently preserved instances of
this Cluster indicate through morphology and
the use of colour that two different types of axe
were intended: and . Overall, the evi-
dence supports Kaplonys reconstruction of
Column 3 of E.1262 (Kapl ony 1963: pl. 145,
Q`- d) apart from two points. Despite the pres-
ence of in the fully preserved example co-
figured on the same plate in his publication (Q`-
a, 1), Kaplony omits this SGO in all four recon-
structed instances of this Cluster. Given this and
the fact that 11 of 12 preserved examples dis-
covered to date bearing the PI of Henuka (and
Qaa) include , this SGO should be added to
Kaplonys reconstruction for Column 3. It is
clear that two types of axe must be distin-
guished.
Reconstructing Column 2
Shifting our attention to Column 2, one of
the more recognisable motifs here is the niched
frame CGO. Despite its fragmentary condition,
the morphology of the surviving component of
the PI in the upper part of the niched frame
can be confidently identified as , the lower
SGO in the Cluster comprising the PI of Qaa as
reconstructed by Kaplony. There is no reason to
doubt his reconstruction of the niched frame
motif, which agrees with all other contemporary
examples.
However, the Cluster Kaplony locates to the
left of the niched frame is problematic. For all
preserved contemporary labels bearing the ni-
ched frame where is immediately adjacent,
the latter always occurs to the right of former,
never to the left. Further, the positions of
and should be swapped and their direction
reversed; they always face towards the niched
frame, thus: . We must therefore seek an
alternative reconstruction.
About 75% of all label imagery is right-facing
as discernable for pictorial, asymmetrical im-
ages (Pi quette 2007). Where image direction
alters from this dominant right-facing position,
this occurs primarily with human figures or
other imagery juxtaposed with them. Thus, left-
facing imagery most commonly occurs in the
context of narrative scenes. These appear mainly
on labels where imagery is organised in the hori-
zontal format datable from the reign of Narmer
up to the (latter part? of the) reign of Den, after
which the vertical format becomes the norm and
narrative scenes fall out of use (Pi quette 2007;
see also Redford 1986). That faces the
niched frame, a CGO containing the PI of the
ruler, suggests that meaning extends beyond the
purely semantic, perhaps conveying a kind of
social relationship similar to that constructed
through juxtaposition and the inward-facing
directionalities attested for human figures in the
earlier narrative label imagery (see Pi quette
2007). Perhaps the left-facing direction of
signalled some aspect of the rulers status or role
as an individual in contrast, or in addition, to the
architectural significance of the niched frame
motif in constructing aspects of rulership through
reference to the built world (Wi l ki nson 2001:
201202). Conventional understandings of
as tutelary goddesses associated with rulership
and geographic locals (Bai nes 1995: 127) pre-
sent important interpretive possibilities, but these
extend beyond the methods and scope of this
article.
Returning to Kaplonys reconstruction and
the imagery he locates below , it is also the
case that all examples of Cluster + never
occur to the left of the niched frame. Note that
this Cluster can be expressed using any combi-
nation of , , and/or and in all manifes-
tations appears to be linked to the position and
directionality of . This is determined on the
basis of the Cluster being consistently posi-
tioned by the scribes below this CGO and left-
facing direction of both, as confirmed by those
instances where the asymmetrical SGO is
included, albeit highly schematised (see Tafel III
lower). This Cluster, in its various configura-
ZS 137 (2010) K. E. Pi quet t e: Inscribed Label Fragment from Abydos 61
tions, i.e. ( ) + + ( ), is attested only on labels
bearing the PI of Qaa. Therefore, on the basis
of the preserved compositional evidence for these
sets of imagery, taking account of position, as-
sociation and directionality, there is no evidence
to support Kaplonys reconstruction of the area
to the left of the niched frame in Column 2.
Comparison of the imagery incised below the
niched frame with the more recently discov-
ered Qaa labels A
5
, B
6
and C
7
on Tafel IVV
shows that the repertoire of SGOs, their loca-
tion, sequence, and right-facing direction (de-
termined via the asymmetrical examples) are
identical: + + . Comparison of this
Cluster with labels bearing ( ) + + ( ) shows
that in all instances, these Clusters are in fact,
mutually exclusive, thus constituting a second
argument against Kaplonys reconstruction of
E.1262 using + .
Moving to the SGOs located to the left of
+ + , the repertoire is somewhat varied,
but consistently includes juxtaposed with ,
the former always preceding the latter. Occur-
ring above or below

+ are four SGOs
comprising any of the following: , , ,
/,

, , . These appear in slightly different
combinations and sequences (see e.g. New-
berry 1912: 287 who relates imagery in this area
of the composition to types of oil).
Above this position and to the left of the ni-
ched frame on labels AC, we encounter a
Cluster including the same three SGOs:

+

+ , the latter SGO being comprised of a se-
ries of three or four peaks. This Cluster is con-
sistent in its location, directionality and sequence


5
Complete single-sided label of ivory (type unspeci-
fied), incised and infilled with red and black paint,
found in the area of Abydos tomb complex Q ascribed
to Qaa (see Dr eyer 1993: [T, P] 10; Engel 1997: [T]
444, [D] 446, fig. 218 [2]).
6
Complete single-sided label of ivory (?), incised
and infilled with black ink, found in the area of Aby-
dos tomb complex Q ascribed to Qaa, Q-NW Sand
unter LZ-Bruch westlich W8W9 (see Engel 1997:
[T] 444445, [D] 446, fig. 218 [3].
7
Almost complete double-sided label of elephant
ivory, incised and infilled with red and black paste,
found in Abydos tomb complex Q ascribed to Qaa,
Chamber N6N before the entrance (see Engel 1997:
[T] 443444; Hawass 2002: [P] 7.
in reading from right to left and top to bottom,
although on label C,

+ are horizontally
aligned rather than stacked vertically.
Given the extent to which the preserved por-
tion of the E.1262 label fragment conforms to
the compositional patterns exhibited by labels
AC, I propose that the area to the left of the
niched frame be reconstructed with Cluster

+

+ . This configuration is also posited
by Engel in her transliteration and translation
(above).
Column 1
Finally, for Column 1, Kaplony does not of-
fer a drawn reconstruction apart from adding
the upper portion of to the E.1262 line draw-
ing, nor is a transliteration and translation pos-
ited by Engel. Nevertheless, in examining first-
hand the top-most SGO preserved on the frag-
ment, the horizontal incision as depicted in the
drawing is still visible. Moreover, a small depres-
sion below the right end of the incision can be
discerned, suggesting that this SGO is, in fact,
. Indeed, contemporary labels found in and
around Tomb Q bearing show a Cluster of
four vertically stacked SGOs which include
(Tafel IVV). This Cluster appears as either

+

+

+ or its inverse

+

+

+ .
Given this pattern and the preservation of , I
believe that should in fact be understood as
the lower-most SGO of Cluster

+

+

+
, rather than part of Cluster

+ + .
This leaves the presence of to explain. No
less than 10 incised labels bearing from the
area of Tomb Q contain this SGO in Column 1.
In many instances appears in the upper or
middle part of the column (its repetition in the
lower-most part of the column relates to a dif-
ferent Cluster, e.g. Tafel III lower). When we
consult the parallels in Tafel IVV, B shows
immediately to the right of . However, a
survey of all occurrences of shows that its
positioning is entirely independent of in its
role as a constituent of

+

+

+ .
Once this Cluster is isolated and set aside, analy-
sis shows that is clustering with the following
SGOs: , / , , . The sequence, loca-
tion and constituents of these groupings vary.
62 K. E. Pi quet t e: Inscribed Label Fragment from Abydos ZS 137 (2010)
For example, on label A, we see that the Cluster
comprises + + while has not been
included.
Nevertheless, overall comparison suggests
that we should find some variation of Cluster
( )

+ , / , , ( ) in the lower part of
Column 1 on E.1262. Indeed, examination of
the artefact itself reveals the faint remains of
incisions which correspond to this Cluster.
Hopefully most visible to the present reader in
Tafel II are the left-most portions of two verti-
cally stacked occurrences of the SGO. The
downward angle (top right to bottom left) of
both incisions corresponds to the angle of the
left-most portion of as it appears on AC.
Above these, a longer incision is also faintly
visible at roughly the same angle, but descending
to the left a bit more sharply. I suggest this inci-
sion forms the left-most portion of . I be-
lieve it may have been the line forming the
body of this serpent, combined with precon-
ceptions (below) or lack of access to the artefact
during drawing, that led the drawer to see .
Perhaps the handle of was derived from
the curvature of the incision forming the tip of
the serpents tail. Finally, to the right of ,
the even fainter remains of incised parallel lines
or can be observed. Thus, given the
correspondence of the compositional features
(i.e. morphology, position, sequence and direc-
tion) of the faint incisions on E.1262 with the
comparative evidence, I propose that this area
of the label fragment should be reconstructed
according to the corresponding content in Col-
umn 1 of label B on Tafel IV.
So why did Petrie and others see Cluster
amongst the preserved marks in Column 1?
The fractured surface undoubtedly made it diffi-
cult to discern intentional from non-intentional
lines. I also suspect that because and
were aligned on roughly the same horizontal
axis, a meaningful association was assumed be-
cause it met with certain external expectations
concerning royal titles attested elsewhere. It
would have then been relatively easy to make
out the shapes of + in the diamond- or
lozenge-shaped fractures in the laminae of the
ivory. Cluster was already known from
labels bearing the PI of Den. These were, how-
ever, located in entirely different compositional
contexts of a narratival nature, and restricted to
labels dating from the beginning to the middle
of the First Dynasty (e.g. Aml i neau 1904
1905, [T] 124, [P] pl. 37, no. 3; Dreyer et al.
1998: [T] 138139, 166, [D] fig. 29, [P] pl. 5c;
Petri e 1900: [T] 22, [D] pl. 15, no. 16, [P] pl.
11, no. 14). Subsequent occurrences are attested
on labels bearing a PI of Semerkhet where
always co-occurs with right-facing instances of
(e.g. Petri e 1900: [T] 23, [D] pl. 17, no. 26,
[P] pl. 12, no. 1), but these are mutually exclu-
sive with the niched frame motif. The case is
the same for their appearance on labels dated to
the reign of Qaa. For this and the other compo-
sitional reasons discussed, the configuration as
reconstructed by Petrie and Kaplony for E.1262
is therefore untenable.
Beyond this, it only remains to propose that
what may be a Cluster comprised of and
(although the latter is not always expressed or
closely juxtaposed with the former), in the upper
corner of this label type, should be added to the
reconstruction. Thus, apart from the variable
imagery in the lower middle column and based
on the preserved and published label finds to
date, it is possible to propose a contextually
derived reconstruction of E.1262 with possible
variants as presented in Tafel VI.
With regard to the conventional retrospecti-
vely-derived transliteration and translation propo-
sed by Engel, this would be adjusted as follows:

rnp(.t) |m`(`)| nsw(.t) |mdh.wf| bft snd |hrw q`f|- .t sf
hrw (?) |s| tpf h`.t d thnw |mdh mdh(.w) nsw.t| hnw-k`

Jahr: knigliche [Inspektion der beiden Zimmerleute
des] Knigs von Untergypten und (Lieferung) von
Akazienholz [Horus Qa]a, Baumgarten des Palastes
(?) [in? s], beste Qualitt des d thnw ls [Leiter der
Zimmerleute des Knigs von Obergypten] Henuka

Year: royal [inspection of the Double Carpenter of]
the King of Lower Egypt and (delivery) of acacia
wood [Horus Qa]a, arboretum of the palace (?) [in?
s], best quality of d thnw-oil [Chief Carpenter of the
King of Upper Egypt] Henuka
Concluding Remarks
In sum, through this compositional analysis
of selected First Dynasty labels found in and
ZS 137 (2010) K. E. Pi quet t e: Inscribed Label Fragment from Abydos 63
around tomb complex Q at Abydos, and in con-
junction with first-hand study, it has been possi-
ble to propose an adjusted reconstruction of
label fragment E.1262 (Tafel VI), as well as dis-
cern and explain possible reasons for oversights
in previous research. This underlines the impor-
tance of reflexivity concerning the epistemologi-
cal processes underpinning (re-)construction
and interpretation. Investigators may see dif-
ferent graphical content or physical features
depending on whether study is based on the
original artefacts or surrogates, and seeing may
also be informed by preconceptions held in the
investigators mind. In developing a less teleo-
logical perspective in the study of early Egyptian
script and image (see Bai nes 2004: 184), I hope
that the micro-level analysis presented here
demonstrates the value of grounding study and
interpretation of graphical imagery in their im-
mediate artefactual, compositional and contem-
porary cultural situation, thus providing a firmer
basis for addressing broader questions of label
function, meaning and other types of socio-
cultural significance.
Acknowl edgements
Portions of the research presented in this article
derive on my doctoral research conducted at the
UCL Institute of Archaeology, supported by the UK
Overseas Research Students Award Scheme and
grants from the Institute of Archaeology Awards and
the UCL Graduate School. I am grateful to the late
Barbara Adams, Gnter Dreyer, Eva-Maria Engel,
Andrew Gardner, Wolfram Grajetzki, Liam McNa-
mara, Roger Matthews, Lutz Popko, Stephen Quirke,
Dietrich Raue, Jeffrey Spencer, John Tait, Claudia
Zehrt and Helen Whitehouse for valuable discus-
sions, image provision and permissions and other
valuable support. My thanks are also due to the ZS
editorial committee.
References
Aml i neau, E. 1905. Les Nouvelles Fouilles dAby-
dos: 18971898 (Deuxime Partie). Paris.
Aml i neau, E. 1904. Les Nouvelles Fouilles dAby-
dos: 18971898. Paris.
Aml i neau, E. 1902. Les Nouvelles Fouilles dAby-
dos: Seconde campagne 18971898. Paris.
Aml i neau, E. 1899. Les Nouvelles Fouilles dAby-
dos: 18951896 Part I. Paris.
Bai nes, J. 2007. Visual and Written Culture in
Ancient Egypt. Oxford.
Bai nes, J. 2004. The Earliest Egyptian Writing:
Development, context, purpose. In Houst on,
S. D. (ed.) The First Writing: Script invention as
history and process, 150189. Cambridge.
Bai nes, J. 1995. Origins of Egyptian Kingship. In
O Connor, D. and Si l verman, D. P. (eds.)
Ancient Egyptian Kingship, 95156. New York.
Bai nes, J. 1989. Communication and Display: The
integration of early Egyptian writing and art.
Antiquity 63: 471482.
Bai nes, J. 1985. Fecundity Figures: Egyptian per-
sonification and the iconology of a genre. War-
minster.
Bard, K. A. 1992. Origins of Egyptian Writing. In
Fri edman, R. and Adams, B. (eds.) The Fol-
lowers of Horus: Studies dedicated to Michael
Allen Hoffman 19441990, 297306. Oxford.
Chat t erj ee, H. J. (ed.) 2008. Touch in Muse-
ums: Policy and practice in object handling.
Oxford.
Coul mas, F. 2003 [1989]. The Writing Systems of
the World. Oxford.
de Morgan, J. 1897. Recherches sur les Origines de
lgypte: Ethnographie prhistorique et tombeau
royal de Ngadah. Paris.
Dreyer, G. 2000. Egypts Earliest Historical Event.
Egyptian Archaeology 16: 67.
Dreyer, G. 1993. A Hundred Years at Abydos.
Egyptian Archaeology 3: 1012.
Dreyer, G., Hart mann, R., Hart ung, U., Hi -
kade, T., Kpp, H., Lacher, C., Ml l er, V.,
Nerl i ch, A. and Zi nk, A. 2003. Umm el-Qaab:
Nachuntersuchungen im frhzeitlichen Knigs-
friedhof. 13./14./15. Vorbericht. Mitteilungen
des Deutschen Archologischen Instituts,
Abteilung Kairo 59: 69138.
Dreyer, G., von den Dri esch, A., Engel , E.-M.,
Hart mann, R., Hart ung, U., Hi kade, T.,
Ml l er, V. and Pet ers, J. 2000. Umm el-Qaab.
Nachuntersuchungen im frhzeitlichen Knigs-
friedhof. 11./12. Vorbericht. Mitteilungen des
Deutschen Archologischen Instituts, Abteilung
Kairo 56: 46125.
Dreyer, G., Hart ung, U., Hi kade, T. and Ml -
l er, V. 1998. Umm el-Qaab: Nachuntersuchun-
gen im frhzeitlichen Knigsfriedhof. 9./10. Vor-
bericht. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archolo-
gischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 54: 78167.
Dreyer, G., Engel , E.-M., Hart ung, U., Hi kade,
T., Khl er, C. E. and Pumpenmei er, F. 1996.
Umm el-Qaab. Nachuntersuchungen im frhzeit-
lichen Knigsfriedhof. 7./8. Vorbericht. Mittei-
lungen des Deutschen Archologischen Instituts,
Abteilung Kairo 52: 1376.
64 K. E. Pi quet t e: Inscribed Label Fragment from Abydos ZS 137 (2010)
Dreyer, G., Hart ung, U. and Pumpenmei er, F.,
1993. Umm el-Qaab: Nachuntersuchungen im
frhzeitlichen Knigsfriedhof. 5./6. Vorbericht.
Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archologischen Ins-
tituts, Abteilung Kairo 49: 3343.
Dreyer, G., Boessneck, J., von den Dri esch, A.
and Kl ug, S., 1990. Umm el-Qaab: Nachunter-
suchungen im frhzeitlichen Knigsfriedhof.
3./4. Vorbericht. Mitteilungen des Deutschen
Archologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 46:
5389.
Emery, W. B. 1961. Archaic Egypt. England.
Emery, W. B. 1954. Excavations at Saqqara: Great
tombs of the First Dynasty, II. London.
Emery, W. B. 1949. Excavations at Saqqara: Great
tombs of the First Dynasty, I. Cairo.
Emery, W. B. with the collaboration of Saad, Z. Y.
1939. Excavations at Saqqara (193738): H
.
or-
Ah
.
a. Cairo.
Emery, W. B. and Sa ad, Z. Y. 1938. Excavations
at Saqqara: The tomb of H
.
emaka. Cairo.
Engel , E.-M., 1997. Das Grab des Qaa in Umm el-
Qaab: Architektur und Inventar, IIII. Unpub-
lished PhD dissertation. Gttingen University.
Gi ddens, A. 1984. The Constitution of Society:
Outline of the theory of structuration. Berkeley.
Hawass, Z. 2002. Hidden Treasures of the Egyptian
Museum: One hundred masterpieces from the
centennial exhibition. The American University in
Cairo Press.
Hel ck, W. 1987. Untersuchungen zur Thinitenzeit.
Wiesbaden.
Houst on, S. D. (ed.) 2004. The First Writing: Script
invention as history and process. Cambridge.
Kahl , J. 1994. Das System der gyptischen Hiero-
glyphenschrift in der 0. 3. Dynastie. Wiesbaden.
Kapl ony, P. 1963. Die Inschriften der gyptischen
Frhzeit, IIII. Wiesbaden.
Khl er, C. E. 2008. The Helwan Project. In
Smyt h, J. (ed.) Corroboree: 25 Years of co-
operation between Egyptians and Australians in
the field of Egyptology: Catalogue of the special
exhibition in the Egyptian Museum, Cairo, Feb-
ruary 4March 4 2008. Cairo.
Khl er, C. E. with contributions by Bi rrel l , M.,
Casey, I., Hi kade, T., Smyt he, J. and St.
Cl ai r, B. 2005. Helwan I: Excavations in the
Early Dynastic cemetery. Season 1997/98. Hei-
delberg.
Khl er, C. E. 2004. The 2004 Lecture Series: The
Cairo Museum collection of artefacts from Zaki
Saads excavation at Helwan. Armidale.
Khl er, C. E. 2000. Excavation in the Early Dynas-
tic Cemetery at Helwan: A preliminary report of
the 1998/99 and 1999/2000 Seasons. Bulletin of
the Australian Center for Egyptology 11: 8392.
Krzyszkowska, O. and Morkot , R. 2000. Ivory
and Related Materials. In Ni chol son, P. and
Shaw, I. (eds.) Ancient Egyptian Materials and
Technology, 320331. Cambridge.
Legge, G. F. 1907. The Tablets of Negadah and
Abydos. Proceedings of the Society of Biblical
Archaeology 29: 1824, 7073, 101106, 150
154, 243250.
Macramal l ah, R. 1940. Fouilles Saqqarah: Un
cimetire archaque de la classe moyenne du
peuple Saqqarah. Cairo.
Mat t hews, R. 2003. The Archaeology of Meso-
potamia: Theories and approaches. London.
Morel and, J. 2006. Archaeology and Texts: Sub-
servience or enlightenment. Annual Review of
Anthropology 35: 135151.
Morel and, J. 2001. Archaeology and Text. Lon-
don.
Newberry, P. E. 1912. The Wooden and Ivory
Labels of the First Dynasty. Proceedings of the
Society of Biblical Archaeology 34: 279289.
Qui bel l , J. E. 1923. Excavations at Saqqara (1912
1914): Archaic mastabas. Cairo.
Pet ri e, H. 1927. Egyptian Hieroglyphs of the First
and Second Dynasties. London.
Pet ri e, W. M. F. 1925. Tombs of the Courtiers and
Oxyrhynkos. London.
Pet ri e, W. M. F. 1902. Abydos. London.
Pet ri e, W. M. F. 1901. The Royal Tombs of the
Earliest Dynasties, Part I. London.
Pet ri e, W. M. F. 1900. The Royal Tombs of the
Earliest Dynasties, Part II. London.
Pi quet t e, K. E. 2008. Re-Materialising Script and
Image. In Gashe, V. and Fi nch, J. (eds.), Cur-
rent Research in Egyptology IX: Proceedings of
the ninth annual symposium, which took place at
the KHN Centre for Biomedical Egyptology,
University of Manchester, January 2008, 89107.
Bolton.
Pi quet t e, K. E. 2007. Writing, Art and Society: A
contextual archaeology of the inscribed labels of
Late PredynasticEarly Dynastic Egypt. PhD
dissertation. University of London.
Redf ord, D. B. 1986. Pharaonic King-Lists, Annals
and Day Books: A contribution to the study of
the Egyptian sense of history. Mississauga.
Rose, G. 2001. Visual Methodologies: An introduc-
tion to the interpretation of visual materials.
London.
Rummel . U. (ed.) 2007. Meeting the Past: 100 Years
in Egypt. Deutsches Archologisches Institut
Kairo 19072007, Catalogue of the Special Ex-
hibition in the Egyptian Museum in Cairo (19th
November, 2007 to 15th January, 2008). Cairo.
Saad, Z. Y. 1969. The Excavations at Helwan: Art
and civilization in the First and Second Egyptian
Dynasties. Norman, OK.
Saad, Z. Y. 1951. Royal Excavations at Helwan:
19451947. (Supplment aux Annales du Service
des Antiquits de lgypte 14) Cairo.
ZS 137 (2010) K. E. Pi quet t e: Inscribed Label Fragment from Abydos 65
Saad, Z. Y. 1947. Royal Excavations at Helwan:
19411945. (Supplement aux Annales du Service
des Antiquits de lgypte 3) Cairo.
Saad, Z. Y. 1942. Preliminary Report on the Royal
Excavations at Helwan. Annales du Service des
Antiquits de lgypte 41: 405409.
Senner, W. N. (ed.) 1989. The Origins of Writing.
Lincoln, NE.
Shanks, M. and Ti l l ey, C. 1996. Re-constructing
Archaeology: Theory and practice. (2
nd
ed.). So-
merset.
Spencer, A. J. 1980. Catalogue of Egyptian Anti-
quities in the British Museum V: Early Dynastic
objects. London.
Wei l l , R. 1961. Recherches sur la I
re
Dynastie et les
temps prpharaoniques. Cairo.
Wi l ki nson, T. A. H. 2001 [1999]. Early Dynastic
Egypt. London.
Summary
The case study presented in this article takes a
compositional approach to the reconstruction of an

































ivory label fragment (Ashmolean E.1262) discovered
over a century ago by Flinders Petrie and his team at
the Abydos tomb complex ascribed to Qaa, the last
ruler of the First Dynasty. Previous methods applied
to the study of labels and other early inscribed
objects and the modes used for their reproduction in
printed media are discussed and critically assessed. I
argue that the pitfalls presented by anachronistic and
de-contextualising approaches can be avoided by
anchoring analysis in the artefact in tandem with
detailed comparative study of contemporary gra-
phical culture. Previous reproductions and recon-
structions are thus reviewed and an adjusted re-
construction of the label fragment is proposed from
this grounded perspective.
Keywords
Abydos Qa-a Oxford, Ashmolean Museum,
E. 1262 writing, development of inscribed label
compositional analysis reconstruction
TAFEL I
Plaque BM EA 35513, from Abydos, elephant ivory, W 6.6 cm, H 3.1 cm, TH 0.7 cm. Above: Composite photo-
graph showing all sides (authors photographs, courtesy BM). Below: Original published photograph (Petrie 1901:
pl. 3, no. 1, courtesy EES) and drawing presumably based on it (Emery 1961: 53, g. 13, courtesy Penguin Books)
(zu Piquette, Inscribed Label Fragment from Abydos).
TAFEL II
Label fragment Ashmolean Museum E.1262, from Abydos, ivory (probably elephant). W 3.8 cm, H 3.73.75 cm,
TH 0.30.32 cm. Above: Composite photograph showing all sides (authors photographs, courtesy the Ashmolean
Museum, Oxford). Below: Original photograph and line drawing (Petrie 1900: pl. 11, no. 12 and pl. 17, no. 28,
courtesy of the Egypt Exploration Society )
(zu Piquette, Inscribed Label Fragment from Abydos).
TAFEL III
Reconstruction of upper half of E.1262 (Kaplony 1963: pl. 145, g. 847B, OA-a d, courtesy Harrassowitz)
(zu Piquette, Inscribed Label Fragment from Abydos).
Incised label Ab K 1445, from Abydos (Engel 1997: 455-456, g. 221 [3], with authors permission).
Ivory. W 3.55 cm, H 3.1 cm, TH 0.20.25 cm
(zu Piquette, Inscribed Label Fragment from Abydos).
TAFEL IV
A: Label Ab K 1630, R 340, from Abydos (photograph: Dreyer 1993: 10; drawing: Engel 1997: 446, g. 218 [2]).
Ivory. W 2.9 cm, H 3.15 cm, TH 0.35 cm
(zu Piquette, Inscribed Label Fragment from Abydos).
B: Label Ab K 1631, R 341, from Abydos (Engel 1997: 446, g. 218 [3]). Ivory (?).
W 3.65 cm, H 3.05 cm, TH 0.250.3 cm
(zu Piquette, Inscribed Label Fragment from Abydos).
TAFEL V
C: Label Ab K 1442, R 255 = JE 99161, from Abydos (photograph: Rummel 2007: 74, no. 54;
drawing: Engel 1997: 446, g. 218 [1]). Elephant ivory.
W 3.9 cm, H 3.5 cm, TH 0.30.4 cm (zu Piquette, Inscribed Label Fragment from Abydos).
TAFEL VI
Adjusted reconstruction of label fragment E.1262 with range of possible reconstructions for missing upper
portion. Authors drawing (after Kaplony 1963: pl. 145, Abb. 847B, OA-a d; Engel 1997: 446, g. 218 [1, 3])
(zu Piquette, Inscribed Label Fragment from Abydos).