a n i n t e r nat i o na l j o u r na l

f o r a r c h a e o l o g y, h i s t o ry
a n d a r c h a e o m e t ry o f
marbles and stones

9 2013

offprint

p i s a ro m a
fa b r i z i o s e r r a e d i to r e
m m xv
 Direttore Editor
Lorenzo Lazzarini Universit i.u.a.v. (Venezia)

Comitato scientifico internazionale International Scientific Committee

Archeologia e Storia dellArte Archaeology and History of Art

Clayton J. Fant Universit di Akron (oh, u.s.a.)
Anna Maria Giusti Opificio delle Pietre Dure (Firenze)
Olga Palagia Universit di Atene
Patrizio Pensabene Sapienza Universit di Roma
Isabel Rod Universit Autonoma di Barcellona
Rolf M. Schneider Universit di Monaco di Baviera

Archeometria Archaeometry
Aurelio lvarez Perez Universit Autonoma di Barcellona
Vincent Barbin Universit Reims-Champagne-Ardenne (f)
Claudio DAmico Universit di Bologna
James A. Harrell Universit di Toledo (oh, u.s.a.)
Marino Maggetti Universit di Friburgo (ch)
Myrsini Varti-Matarangas i.g.m.e. (Atene)

Marmora is an International Peer-Reviewed Journal.

The eContent is Archived with Clockss and Portico.
 LIMESTONE AND SANDSTONE QUARRYING
IN ANCIENT EGYPT: TOOLS, METHODS,
AND ANALOGUES
James A. Harrell* Per Storemyr**

Abstract
An analysis is made of the tools and methods for quarrying limestone and sandstone in ancient
Egypt. It is concluded that the chisel, originally of copper and later of bronze or iron, was the prin-
cipal quarrying tool during all periods, with chisels becoming longer (over 50 cm) at the beginning
of the New Kingdom (about 1500 bc). Iron picks and wedges were also occasionally used during the
Graeco-Roman period and perhaps also earlier in the Late Period. Prior to the New Kingdom, stone
in open-cut quarries was mainly extracted in a non-systematic manner with blocks removed individ-
ually or in small groups. From the New Kingdom onward, quarrying was usually done more sys-
tematically with multiple blocks extracted simultaneously on descending bedrock platforms, a method
of quarrying which first appeared in the early Old Kingdom (about 2500 bc). Stone extraction in the
underground gallery quarries was similar in all periods with blocks removed sequentially from ceil-
ing to floor along the walls. The use of descending platforms and long chisels were major quarrying
innovations. Although the former continued in use up until the present day, ancient Egyptian con-
servatism prevented the general adoption of quarrying tools more advanced than the chisel, such as
picks.
keywords: Egypt, limestone, sandstone, quarries, quarrying tools and methods.

1. Introduction the Middle Kingdom. By the most recent

imestone and sandstone were the prin-
L cipal building stones of ancient Egypt
(Lucas 1962, 50-57; Arnold 1991, 27-36;
Aston et alii 2000, 40-41 and 56; Harrell
2012). From Early Dynastic times until the end
of the Roman period (an interval spanning
nearly 3,400 years - Tab. 1), limestone was the
construction material of choice for temples,
pyramids and mastaba tombs wherever lime-
stone bedrock occurred along the Mediter-
ranean coast and in the Nile Valley from Cairo
in the north to Esna in the south (Fig. 1).
Where sandstone bedrock was present in the
Nile Valley from Esna south into Sudan this
was, with rare exception, the only building
stone employed for monumental architec-
ture during all periods. Sandstone, however,
was also commonly imported into the lime-
stone region for use in temples beginning in
count (Harrell 2012), 89 ancient quarries for
limestone and another 36 for sandstone have
been recorded with the great majority of
these in the Nile Valley (see also Klemm and
Klemm 1993, 29-197 and 225-281, and 2008, 23-
145 and 167-213; Harrell and Storemyr
2009, 9-17; and the first authors website at
www.eeescience.utoledo.edu/eg ypt/,
where precise locations are given for all
quarries referred to in this paper). Each of
these quarries is actually a quarry landscape
a collection of separate but nearby or
adjoining excavations, which if taken indi-
vidually would number in the thousands in
the hills and cliffs bordering the Nile Valley.
Although Egypts ancient limestone and
sandstone quarries have been known to
scholars for over two centuries, until now
there has been no comprehensive analysis
of the tools used or of the methods applied

** Addresses for correspondence: Department of Environmental Sciences, The University of Toledo, 2801 West
Bancroft St., Toledo, 43606-3390 (oh, usa). james.harrell@utoledo.edu ** Archaeology and Conservation
Services, Myklebustfeltet, n 6957 Hyllestad (Norway). per.storemyr@hotmail.com
marmora 9 2013
20 james a. harrell per storemyr

Predynastic period (before 2950 bc)

Dynastic (Pharaonic) period
Early Dynastic period: Dynasties 1-3 (2950-2575 bc)
Old Kingdom: Dynasties 4-8 (2575-2125 bc)
First Intermediate Period: Dynasties 9-11 (2125-1975 bc)
Middle Kingdom: Dynasties 11-14 (1975-1640 bc)
Second Intermediate Period: Dynasties 15-17 (1640-1540 bc)
New Kingdom: Dynasties 18-20 (1540-1075 bc)
Third Intermediate Period: Dynasties 21-25 (1075-715 bc)
Late Period: Dynasties 25-30 (715-332 bc)
Graeco-Roman period
Ptolemaic (Macedonian) period (332-30 bc)
Roman period (30 bc-ad 395)

Table 1. Ancient Egyptian Chronology (adapted from Baines and Malek 2000, 36-37).

Fig. 1. Map of Egypt showing localities mentioned in the paper (drawing James A. Harrell).
 limestone and sandstone quarrying in ancient egypt
in extracting these two rock types, although
earlier attempts were made by Clarke and
Engelbach (1930, 12-22), Arnold (1991, 27-36)
and, to a lesser extent, Klemm and Klemm
(1993, 260-266; 2008, 194-201). In this paper
we present the results of such an analysis,
one based on surviving stone-working tools
as well as our observations of tool marks
and other extraction features within quar-
ries. We will concentrate on the tools used
for cutting blocks of stone from bedrock as
well as on the association of these tools
with quarrying methods. Brief comparisons
with ancient and Medieval analogues else-
where in the Mediterranean region and
beyond are also attempted. Tools such as
levers and ropes, which must have been very
important in stone quarrying, are omitted
from the discussion as are issues related to
transportation.
2. Stone-Working Tools and
Quarry Tool Marks
In Dynastic Egypt the harder stones gran-
ite, metagraywacke and silicified sandstone
(or quartzite) among others were quarried
with stone tools, such as the dolerite
pounders (Petrie 1917, 46; Arnold 1991,
258-264; Kelany et alii 2010), and also by fire-
setting (Clarke and Engelbach 1930, 27;
Storemyr et alii 2002, 27; Heldal and Sto-
remyr forthcoming). Blocks of hard stone
were sometimes dressed with metal tools
and this was perhaps the function of the 24
cm-long, inscribed copper chisel of the 4th
Dynasty found in the so-called Chephrens
Quarry (for anorthosite and gabbro gneiss-
es) in Egypts western Nubian Desert (Rowe
1938, 391-393) and now in Cairos Egyptian
Museum ( JE 68754). It is also possible that
this tool is actually a gad, which was ham-
mered into pre-existing fractures to widen
them and so facilitate block extraction. In
contrast, the softer limestone and sandstone
were quarried with metal tools. Initially they
were of copper (and also copper-arsenic al-
loy) and then, beginning in the Middle King-
dom, these were gradually replaced by the
harder bronze tools (Davies 1987, 24; Ogden
2000, 149-161). By sometime in the Late Peri-
od, perhaps as early as the 26th Dynasty but
21
certainly by the 30th Dynasty, the still harder
iron (actually carburized iron or steel) tools
came into use (Harrell and Brown 1999:
19-20; Ogden 2000, 166-168). The specific
tool forms employed in quarrying Egyptian
soft stones have long been a matter of some
debate because, with the two exceptions not-
ed below, no recognizable metal tools have
been recovered from the limestone and sand-
stone quarries. Our understanding of what
was used is based, therefore, on tools found
at ancient construction sites where these
stones were carved (i.e., pyramids, temples
and tombs), ancient tomb and stela scenes
showing workers dressing blocks of these
stones (e.g., in the 18th Dynasty tomb of
Rekhmira at Thebes - Davies 1943, pl. 52; and
in the 19th Dynasty stela of Ramesses II in
the Gebel el-Silsila sandstone quarry - Mar-
tinez 2009, fig. 9), and tool marks preserved
on quarry walls.
2. 1. Chisels in the Dynastic Period
Available evidence indicates that the primary
tool employed in limestone and sandstone
quarrying during the Dynastic period was the
chisel. These were made from metal bars that
were rectangular or circular in cross-section
with the cutting ends tapering to either a
point or a wide, flat edge (Petrie 1917, 20;
Arnold 1991, 257-259; for examples of chisels
see also the University College London web-
site at www.digitalegypt.ucl.ac.uk/tools/
chisel.html). These tools, which were struck
with a wooden mallet, were typically be-
tween 15 and 25 cm in length prior to the New
Kingdom and subsequently often over 50 cm
in length (Figs. 2-3). Chisels leave distinctive
tracks on quarry walls and these are seg-
mented grooves, where each segment (usual-
ly less than 1 cm long) represents a single
strike of the mallet (Figs. 4, 9-12). The
grooves are quite narrow (less than 1 cm)
when cut with a pointed chisel or the corner
of a flat-edged one, but they show a flat
chisels full width when its cutting edge was
oriented parallel to the stone surface (e.g.,
Fig. 16).
With the exceptions of the copper chisel
or gad from Chephrens Quarry noted above
and the tip of a bronze chisel of probably
Middle Kingdom date from the Gebel el-Sil-
22 james a. harrell per storemyr
Fig. 2. Bronze chisel and wooden mallet of
Middle Kingdom stonemasons. The chisel, which
dates to the reign of Mentuhotep II in the 11th
Dynasty, comes from Deir el-Bahri, Thebes and is
now in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New
York (27.3.12, Rogers Fund 1927), length 19.5 cm.
The wooden mallet, which dates to the reign of
Senwosret I in the 12th Dynasty, comes from this
kings pyramid temple at El Lisht and is now in
the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York
(24.1.76, Rogers Fund and Edward S. Harkness
Gift 1924), height 28 cm
(photo The Metropolitan Museum of Art).
sila sandstone quarry (Maria Nilsson, Lund
University, pers. com.), the only other metal
tool found in a pre-Roman quarry of any
rock type in Egypt is an exceptionally long
bronze chisel (Clarke and Engelbach 1930,
17; Arnold 1991, tab. 6.1 - Fig. 5a). This
comes from the el-Dibabiya limestone quar-
ry near el-Gebelein and is now in Cairos
Egyptian Museum ( JE 31318). The chisel is 52
cm long, 1.7 cm wide, and has a square cross-
section with a flat cutting edge. It is perhaps
not a coincidence that its length corresponds
to one royal cubit, a distance between 52.3
Fig. 3. Limestone ostracon of the 19th Dynasty
with a drawing of a stonemason holding a mallet
and chisel from Deir el-Medina in Thebes and
now in the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge
(E.G.A.4324a.1943), height 15.5 cm and width 14
cm (photo courtesy of the Fitzwilliam Museum).
and 52.5 cm. This tool is reported in the lit-
erature as being made of copper but staff at
Cairos Egyptian Museum now believe it to
be bronze (Neil Spencer, British Museum,
pers. com.). The el-Dibabiya quarry is well
dated by rock-cut inscriptions to the 19th and
21st Dynasties and also by painted graffiti to
the Roman period (Weigall 1910, 301;
Klemm and Klemm 1993, 185-187, and 2008,
136-139; Endo and Nishimoto 2009). Given
that the chisel is made of bronze rather than
iron, it must date to one of the New King-
dom dynasties. Only one other long chisel
has been reported from Egypt and this
comes from the ruins of the 18th Dynasty
city of Akhenaten, modern Tell el-Amarna
(Pendlebury 1951, 51, in vol. 1 - Fig. 5b). It is
now in Cairos Egyptian Museum ( JE 64979).
Only the chisels length has been published,
67.2 cm, but based on the photograph in Fig-
ure 5b the flat cutting edge appears to be 4-5
cm wide.
Another unique bronze tool of the 18th
Dynasty, also from Tell el-Amarna, is a 23 cm-
long hammer (catalog no. 540 in Stlerbau
and Charlottenburg 1967, 49-50, now in
the gyptisches Museum Berlin, M 20712)
(Fig. 6). We believe this hammer and the
chisel in Figure 5b were both used to cut lime-
stone, but since they were not found togeth-
 limestone and sandstone quarrying in ancient egypt 23

Fig. 4. Segmented chisel tracks in the New Kingdom part of the Nag el-Hammam
sandstone quarry near Gebel el-Silsila. Note the deep, narrow trench at left which
must have been cut with a long chisel. Smallest scale division is 1 cm
(photo James A. Harrell).

er or in either a quarry or construction con- function of the bronze hammer. Janssen

text, their true purposes remain uncertain. It (1975, 318-321) and Davies (1987, 68) say the an-
would seem, however, that a wooden mallet cient Egyptian word qerdjen, a foreign import
has insufficient mass to effectively strike such appearing in 19th and 20th Dynasty texts at
a heavy chisel and so perhaps this was the Deir el-Medina in Thebes, refers to a bronze

b
Fig. 5. a. Bronze chisel of the 19th or 21st Dynasty from the el-Dibabiya limestone quarry near
el-Gebelein and now in the Egyptian Museum, Cairo ( JE 31318), length 52 cm (photo adapted from
Clarke and Engelbach 1930, fig. 263); b. Bronze chisel of the 18th Dynasty, reign of
Akhenaten/Amenhotep IV from Tell el-Amarna and now in the Egyptian Museum, Cairo
( JE 64979), length 67.2 cm (photo from Pendlebury 1951, vol. 2, pl. 74).
The chisels are shown at their correct relative sizes.
24 james a. harrell per storemyr

Fig. 6. Bronze hammer head of the 18th Dynasty, reign of Akhenaten/Amenhotep IV,
from Tell el-Amarna and now in the gyptisches Museum Berlin (M 20712),
length 23 cm, with top (above) and side (below) views (photo Iris Hertel,
Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, gyptisches Museum und Papyrussammlung).

Fig. 7. Trench cut by a long chisel in the New Kingdom part of the Nag el-Hammam sandstone
quarry near Gebel el-Silsila. Note the chisel tracks running from top to bottom on the trench wall.
Smallest scale division is 1 cm (photo James A. Harrell).
 limestone and sandstone quarrying in ancient egypt
Fig. 8. Partially extracted block in the 18th
Dynasty part of the Qurna limestone quarry at
Thebes. Note the line of chisel holes along the
blocks base and the narrow trenches along its
sides that must have been cut with a long chisel.
A natural fracture separates the blocks back side
from the bedrock. Brush is 21 cm long
(photo James A. Harrell).
stone-working tool that was larger and,
hence, more costly than the ordinary stone-
masons chisel. The precise form of this tool
is uncertain, but most likely it is a socketed
hammer like that in Figure 6 (Vivian Davies,
British Museum, pers. com.).
The use of long chisels for quarrying
limestone and sandstone is well supported
by the extraction traces in New Kingdom
and later quarries. For example, in the New
Kingdom part of the Nag el-Hammam sand-
stone quarry near Gebel el-Silsila (Klemm
and Klemm 1993, 239-242; Klemm and
Klemm 2008, 178-180), one sees trenches that
are 6-8 cm wide at their top and taper down-
ward to a depth of up to 40 cm (Figs. 4 and
7). Continuous chisel tracks run from top to
bottom on the sides of these trenches. The
trenches are too narrow to accommodate a
hand holding a chisel or the mallet used to
strike it, and so must have been cut with a
long, narrow chisel like the one in Figure 5a.
Similar narrow trenches are seen in many
other quarries (e.g., Figs. 8-9) and must have
been cut with the same kind of tool. At 85
25
Fig. 9. Partially extracted blocks in the Ramesside
(19th-20th Dynasties) part of the Gebel el-Silsila
sandstone quarry. Note the two parallel grooves
at the back of the leftmost trench. Smallest scale
divisions are 1 cm at center and 10 cm at right
(photo John Ward).
cm deep, the trenches in the Ramesside (19th
to 20th Dynasties) section of the Gebel el-Sil-
sila sandstone quarry are the deepest yet
recorded (Maria Nilsson, Lund University,
pers. com. - Fig. 9). It would seem that a chis-
el on the order of 1 m in length would be re-
quired to cut these trenches. Although
strongly dependent on the size of the lime-
stone and sandstone blocks to be extracted,
prior to the New Kingdom the trenches were
usually much wider. This was especially the
case for the taller blocks where the trenches
had to be wide enough to accommodate the
bodies of the workmen who were cutting
them with short chisels (e.g., Fig. 29).
2. 2. Adzes and Other Pick-Like Tools
in the Dynastic Period
Another copper or bronze tool potentially
available to stoneworkers during the Dynas-
tic period is the adze with a flat metal blade
lashed to the end of a curved, wooden han-
dle (Petrie 1917, 16-18). All extant represen-
tations of adzes in tomb scenes and models
show them being used to cut wood (e.g.,
Sliwa 1975, 24-26). There is no reason to
think, however, that adzes with a copper or
bronze blade would be less effective than
chisels of the same metal for cutting lime-
stone and sandstone, provided the blade is
sufficiently thick to resist buckling upon
26 james a. harrell per storemyr
impact. We agree with Clarke and Engel-
bach (1930, 17) that stonemasons may have
mounted a chisel on the end of an adze han-
dle, in place of the usual broad flat blade, to
create a pick-like tool the chisel-adze.
Mackay (1921, 163-164) concluded that the
non-segmented tool tracks on the limestone
walls of the 19th Dynasty tomb of Ramose
in Thebes (TT 166) were made with a
bronze-bladed adze. These tracks, however,
are only 1 cm wide and so perhaps it was a
chisel-adze that was used.
Others have suggested that picks of hard
stone, especially of chert (or flint), were
used to quarry or dress limestone and sand-
stone. For example, Arnold (1991, 33) argued
that such a tool, with a stone head mounted
at the end of a wooden handle, would have
been swung on an arc and so may have pro-
duced the somewhat curved tool tracks
commonly seen in Old and Middle King-
dom quarries (e.g., Fig. 14). Chisel tracks,
however, can also develop a concave-up cur-
vature when only the chisel point, rather
than the entire length of the chisel, is in con-
tact with the stone. Such tracks, of course,
will also exhibit segmented grooves. What
have been interpreted as chert pick-heads
have been found in the Wadi el-Sheikh chert
quarry of early Dynastic to possibly New
Kingdom age (Weisberger 1982, 202; Wei-
ner 2011, 135-137), but it is not known if these
were tools used only to quarry the chert
nodules from the limestone bedrock at this
locality or if they were exported to other
sites around Egypt, notwithstanding Seton-
Karrs (1905) dubious claim of finding chert
truncheons from Wadi el-Sheikh that were
used to excavate the New Kingdom tombs
at Thebes. In any case, fragments of stone
picks have not been found in the debris be-
low the walls of limestone and sandstone
quarries. Also, it is doubtful that the relative-
ly blunt tips and irregular lateral (non-cut-
ting) edges of stone picks could produce the
highly regular, narrow tool tracks seen on
these walls. Given that segmented chisel
tracks are not only ubiquitous in limestone
and sandstone quarries of the Dynastic peri-
od, but are the only recognizable tool marks
reported thus far, we must conclude that
metal chisels (hand-held and struck with a
mallet rather than mounted on an adze han-
dle) were the tools used to quarry these
stones. This is surprising, however, given
the widespread use of other, more advanced
bronze tools for working soft stones in Mi-
noan Crete. Here during the late Minoan
period, which is roughly contemporary
with the Egyptian New Kingdom, socketed
bronze axe-adzes, pick-axes, double-adzes
and hammers were employed, presumably
for quarrying and dressing the common
building stones on this island, including gyp-
sum, limestone and sandstone (Waelkens
et alii 1990, 51-52, and 1992, 8-9; Shaw 2009,
38-44). The Minoan socketed hammers
(Shaw 2009, 42-44) closely resemble the tool
seen in Figure 6. Thus, during the 18th Dy-
nasty at least, when there were close ties be-
tween Crete and Egypt, the Egyptians must
have been aware of these other bronze tools
but as yet there is no evidence that they
adopted them for quarrying.
2. 3. Tools in the Graeco-Roman Period and Later
The Bronze-Age tradition of socketed picks
and other bronze tools, so well represented
in Minoan Crete, spread throughout the
Mediterranean region and down through
the centuries. By the Graeco-Roman period
these stone-working tools were made of
iron and took the varied forms of picks, pick-
axes, axe-adzes, hammers, chisels of various
types, wedges, wedge feathers, and saws
(Ward-Perkins 1971; Bessac 1988 and 1996;
Vandeput 1987-1988; Waelkens et alii 1988
and 1990; Adam 1994, 29-40; De Nuccio and
Ungaro a cura di 2002, 497-517; Gutirrez
and Moreno 2009, 261-270). Such tools were
used to quarry a wide variety of soft stones
as well as the harder metamorphic marble,
and were so well adapted for these purposes
that they remained the principal implements
for extracting stone through the European
Middle Ages and, in some cases, even until
the 20th century. Examples from Medieval
France include the Caen limestone quarries
(Dugu et alii 2010, 55-58), limestone quar-
ries around Nmes (Bessac 1996, 237-247),
the Bibemus sandstone quarries near Aix-en-
Provence, and the limestone quarries in the
Paris Basin (Guini-Skliar 2000, 34-40). In
 limestone and sandstone quarrying in ancient egypt
Spains Balearic Islands, traditional extrac-
tion of the soft calcareous sandstone, Piedra
de Mars of Menorca Island, was undertak-
en with double picks up until modern times
with the squared stones loosened below
with hammered wedges (see the second au-
thors web article at http://per-storemyr.
net/2012/02/15/with-pickaxe-into-modern-
times-ii-quarrying-of-mares-at-the-balearic-
islands/). Another outstanding example of
the use of double picks until the 20th centu-
ry is the quarrying of soft Bernese sandstone
in the region of Berne, Switzerland. Here, as
at many other places, the technique relied on
Roman and Medieval traditions (Trachsel
2006 - see also the second authors web
article at http://per-storemyr.net/2012/01/
11/with-pickaxe-into-modern-times-quarry-
ing-of-bernese-sandstone-ch/).
Various pick-like iron tools must have
been well-known and available in Graeco-
Roman Egypt, but they were rarely used.
The principal tool clearly continued to be
the long chisel, but now very likely made
from iron (e.g., Figs. 10-12). It has, in fact,
only recently been discovered that pick-like
tools were employed for quarrying sand-
stone in Egypt during these periods. One
example can be found in the small, likely
Ptolemaic, Shesmetet quarry near El-Kab,
another is in the el-Kejal quarry close to Ed-
fu, and a third in a presumed Ptolemaic/
Roman context is in the Gebel el-Silsila
quarry. The Shesmetet quarry is particular-
ly instructive, because it features both the
segmented grooves left by long chisels and
the smooth, 10-15 cm long continuous
grooves of a pick or adze-like tool with a
narrow cutting edge (Fig. 11) (see also the
second authors web article at http://
per-storemyr.net/2013/01/22/stone-extrac-
tion-with-pickaxes-in-ancient-egypt-fact-
or-fiction/).
No actual tools have yet been found in
Egypts Graeco-Roman limestone and sand-
stone quarries, but small pieces of unidenti-
fiable iron implements have been recovered
from the Roman part of the Gebel el-Silsila
sandstone quarry (Maria Nilsson, Lund Uni-
versity, pers. com.). Larger fragments of iron
tools have been reported from two Roman
quarries in Egypt for other rock types: chis-
27
els in a quarry for anhydrite and gypsum at
Wadi el-Anbaut near Marsa Alam (Harrell
2010, 51-53), and a chisel or pick along with
probable wedge feathers in the tonalite
gneiss quarry at Mons Claudianus west of
Safaga (Lang 1997; Peacock 1997, 190).
Judging from the pre-cut, wedge-shaped
holes seen in some Graeco-Roman sand-
stone quarries, iron wedges were occasional-
ly employed for splitting stone not only
along horizontal bedding planes (Fig. 13),
but also across them, following vertical
joints or fractures (Fig. 12). The use of
wedge-splitting during this period is largely
confined to sandstone quarries between
Aswan and Gebel el-Silsila, especially in the
mainly small-scale workings along the west
bank of the Nile River close to Aswan (Hel-
dal and Storemyr 2007, 125), and so may
have been influenced by the widespread use
of wedges in the Aswan granite/granodior-
ite and silicified sandstone quarries.
No systematic survey of limestone and
sandstone quarrying for the post-antiquity
period has yet been undertaken in Egypt.
Klemm and Klemm (1993, 263-265, and 2008,
197-199) mention the use of chisels for mak-
ing trenches during the Medieval Islamic
times and later. Such quarrying, however, is
quite rare with the clear preference of
builders during this period to obtain their
stone from ancient monuments. Also, Maria
Nilsson (Lund University, pers. com.) has re-
cently found evidence of the use of chisels in
the Gebel el-Silsila quarries both in the Ot-
toman period (1517-1867) and especially in
the early 20th century. This further corrobo-
rates the long-lasting, conventional use of
chisels in Egypt, a tradition unaffected by
whoever ruled the country. But we also
know that a pick-adze (also called a pick-mat-
tock) was the preferred tool for the extrac-
tion of soft soapstone (or steatite) in numer-
ous quarries in the Eastern Desert from the
8th century onward, although this tradition
may have been imported from Arabia (Har-
rell and Brown 2008, 43 and 60-61). Picks
are used today for various extraction works,
usually together with wedge-splitting, in
manual artisan quarrying, both near Cairo
(Dobrowolska 2005, 23-25; see also Clarke
and Engelbach 1930, 17) and in Aswan.
28 james a. harrell per storemyr

Fig. 10. Segmented chisel tracks in the Ptolemaic

part of the Gebel el-Silsila sandstone quarry. The
two large quarry marks at center (resembling a
harpoon or arrow combined with the numeral
four) and another smaller, fainter one at upper left
(a harpoon only) symbolized the god Horus but
may also have had some meaning related to
the quarrying process (Nilsson 2013;
photo James A. Harrell).
Fig. 11. Pick (center) and chisel (top and bottom)
tracks in the Ptolemaic part of the Shesmetet
sandstone quarry near el-Kab. Smallest scale
division is 1 cm (photo Per Storemyr).

Fig. 12. Pre-cut wedge holes along a natural fracture (at bottom center and right)
and chisel tracks (on walls at left and above) in the Roman Gebel el-Qurna
sandstone quarry near Aswan (photo Per Storemyr).
 limestone and sandstone quarrying in ancient egypt 29

Fig. 13. Wedge holes along the base of a block in the

Ptolemaic Naq el-Fugani sandstone quarry near Aswan (photo Per Storemyr).

ly less than 20 cm long and can be as short as

2. 4. Tool Mark Chronology
Klemm and Klemm (1993, 260-266, and 2008,
194-201) proposed a tool-mark chronology
for Egyptian limestone and sandstone quar-
ries. They assumed that these marks were
made by chisels during all periods. Based on
our own fieldwork in these quarries, we
agree with two of their principal observa-
tions. First, tool tracks on the walls of Old
through Middle Kingdom (and by extension,
early Dynastic) quarries are short, irregular-
ly spaced, and exhibit a haphazard, multidi-
rectional pattern (Fig. 14) whereas the tool
tracks of the New Kingdom and later are
longer, parallel and unidirectional across
large areas or within vertical tiers (Fig. 15).
And second, from the New Kingdom
through the Roman period, tool marks be-
came progressively longer, more parallel,
and more closely and uniformly spaced
(Figs. 4, 9-12, 15, 17 and 27). The Klemms do
not provide diagnostic lengths for the tool
tracks in their chronology, but certainly
those prior to the New Kingdom are typical-
5 cm, and by the Graeco-Roman period they
are commonly several tens of centimeters or
sometimes even over 1 m in length. We agree
with the Klemms conclusion that chisels be-
came longer after the Middle Kingdom, con-
sistent with evidence cited above, but we dis-
agree with their other conclusion that the
observed changes in tool mark patterns are
the result of the adoption of bronze chisels
in the early New Kingdom and iron ones in
the Ptolemaic period. These latter claims are
insupportable for three reasons. First, as pre-
viously discussed, bronze chisels first ap-
peared in the Middle Kingdom (e.g., Fig. 2)
and iron chisels (plus other iron tools) were
introduced sometime during the Late Peri-
od. Second, the Klemms overlooked the
sparse, but clear evidence of pick-like tools
that were used in Graeco-Roman times. And
third, a mere change in tool metal cannot ex-
plain the profound transformation in tool
mark patterns between the Middle and New
Kingdoms. This, we believe, resulted from a
fundamental change in the method of quar-
rying.
30 james a. harrell per storemyr
Fig. 14. Tool marks in the Middle Kingdom part
of the Nag el-Hammam sandstone quarry near
Gebel el-Silsila (photo James A. Harrell).
3. Quarrying Methods
3. 1. Extraction of Single Blocks
During all periods in ancient Egypt, lime-
stone and sandstone were extracted as rec-
tangular blocks (also occasionally as cylin-
drical or semi-cylindrical masses for column
drums and bases) by first cutting vertical
trenches into the bedrock along three sides
of a block. These were usually wider prior to
the New Kingdom because of the use of
shorter chisels and narrower subsequently
with the advent of longer chisels, except
when tall stone blocks were quarried. At
times, a natural fracture surface along one of
a blocks sides made trenching unnecessary
(Figs. 8 and 12). The tool marks seen on
quarry walls today are primarily those left on
the sides of the separation trenches. A block
was then detached from the underlying
bedrock by hammering in one or more chis-
els along the base of the blocks open side
(Figs. 8, 16 and 18). It is unclear whether mul-
tiple chisels along a line were used simulta-
neously or one chisel was pounded in at nu-
merous, closely spaced points along this line.
It is also unclear whether this tool was the
same one used to cut the separation trench-
es or perhaps was a shorter chisel (or even a
small wedge) specifically designed for this
task. In the case of the undercutting shown
in Figure 16, at least, it is evident that the
same flat-edged chisel leaving segmented
tracks on the rock face was also used to un-
dercut it given that the widths of the two
Fig. 15. Tool marks in the New Kingdom part of
the Nag el-Hammam sandstone quarry near
Gebel el-Silsila (photo James A. Harrell).
types of tool marks are identical (1.5 cm).
Certainly by the Roman period, if not earli-
er in the Ptolemaic or Late Period, iron
wedges set in pre-cut holes were commonly
employed for undercutting blocks (Fig. 13).
Larger holes along the base of blocks (i.e.,
lever or pry sockets) were sometimes cut to
accommodate levers, probably of wood
(Fig. 17).
The hammering of chisels or wedges un-
der blocks induced a fracture and it was on-
ly through the skill of the quarryman that
this was confined to a relatively horizontal
plane. This process, which sometimes failed
(Figs. 16 and 18), is only feasible for the small-
er blocks as control of the direction of frac-
ture propagation becomes more difficult as
the block depth increases. Undercutting was
greatly facilitated when blocks were separat-
ed from the bedrock along natural bedding
planes, which are essentially horizontal
throughout the Nile Valley (Fig. 17). After
the Middle Kingdom, at least, chisels were
occasionally inserted into shallow, pre-cut
holes in order to initiate the fracture from a
point further beneath a block as, for exam-
ple, in the 18th Dynasty Queen Tiy quarry
(Harrell 2012, 11 and fig. 11b) and Late Pe-
riod Deir el-Bersha quarry (Athena Van der
Perre, Leuven University, pers. com.), both
for limestone and near Tell el-Amarna.
Where large blocks for sculpture or archi-
tectural elements were required, these were
quarried in all periods with separation
trenches wide enough to accommodate the
bodies of workmen. An outstanding exam-
 limestone and sandstone quarrying in ancient egypt 31

Fig. 16. Chisel holes left in a failed attempted to
induce a fracture along the base of a block in the
Middle Kingdom Wadi Shatt el-Rigal sandstone
quarry near Gebel el-Silsila. Note the chisel tracks
above the holes, apparently made by the same tool
that produced the holes. Smallest scale division
is 1 cm (photo James A. Harrell).
Fig. 17. Lever sockets in the New Kingdom part
of the Nag el-Hammam sandstone quarry near
Gebel el-Silsila. Splitting occurred along horizon-
tal bedding planes within the rock. Smallest scale
division is 1 cm (photo James A. Harrell).

Fig. 19. Large limestone blocks with wide

Fig. 18. Chisel holes left in a failed attempted separation trenches in the New Kingdom
to induce a fracture along the base of a block Sultan Pasha quarry near el-Minya
in the Middle Kingdom Wadi Shatt el-Rigal (photo James A. Harrell).
sandstone quarry near Gebel el-Silsila. Note the
rough upper surface where the block broke free
of the bedrock above the line of chisel holes.
Smallest scale division is 1 cm
(photo James A. Harrell).

ple of this can be seen in the New Kingdom

Sultan Pasha limestone quarry near el-Minya
(Fig. 19). For such large blocks, separation
from the bedrock required complete under-
cutting, via a horizontal slot, with portions
of the bedrock left attached to the block in
order to support its weight during undercut-
ting (Fig. 20). At some point, loose pieces of
stone or wood would be inserted under- Fig. 20. Horizontal slots undercutting large
neath the block before the last connections limestone blocks in the New Kingdom
to the bedrock were cut away. The same Sultan Pasha quarry near el-Minya
process must have been employed in the 4th (photo James A. Harrell).
32 james a. harrell per storemyr
Fig. 21. Partially cut separation trench in the
Ptolemaic/Roman el-Keijal sandstone quarry
near Edfu. Note the three grooves with interven-
ing ridges. The tool marks appear to be those
of a 2 cm-wide pick-adze, but a chisel is also
a possibility (photo Per Storemyr).
Dynasty limestone quarry on the north side
of the Khafre pyramid at Giza as indicated by
the uniformly planar surfaces left by the ex-
traction of large pyramid core blocks (Fig.
29). It is seen again in Aswans Unfinished
Obelisk Quarry for granite, where there are
a partially undercut colossal statue and
obelisk of the 18th Dynasty.
In the 18th Dynasty during the reign of
king Akhenaten (1353-1336 bc, i.e., the Amar-
na Period), blocks of limestone and sand-
stone were often quarried with standardized
dimensions, which were small enough that
one workman could carry a block. These are
the so-called talatat blocks, which were in-
tended to measure one cubit long by a half
cubit wide and a little less than a half cubit
high (i.e., about 52 by 26 by 22 cm) but in
practice their dimensions varied somewhat
from these values (Vergnieux 1999, i, 8-15;
Arnold 2009, 238; Kramer 2009). The idea
behind these small blocks is that they would
simplify and thereby speed up temple con-
struction.
The separation trenches around blocks
are usually partially filled by debris, obscur-
ing some of the details on how they were
cut. Occasionally, however, the bottoms and
back ends are exposed and it can be seen in
trenches of New Kingdom and later date, at
least, that each trench was excavated in two
or three parallel grooves the edges of
which are marked on the trench walls by the
inclined tool tracks as wide as the tool used
to cut them with a thin ridge of bedrock left
between the grooves (Figs. 9 and 21). The
ridges were knocked off as the grooves deep-
ened. Similarly narrow trenches with paral-
lel grooves were cut with double picks in the
Roman quarries of southern France as well
described by Bessac (1996, 210-214). While
trenches originating from a single groove,
and thus only a few centimeters wide as in
Figure 8, would seem the most practical in
terms of time, energy and wasted stone,
wider trenches originating from two or
three grooves, about 10-12 cm wide, are the
norm. The wider trenches may have been
necessary for maneuvering the blocks with
levers and ropes, and to accommodate the
leg of the workman cutting the trench. Such
a posture one leg standing in the trench and
the other kneeling beside it would have
been a comfortable working position as not-
ed by Bessac (1996, 211 and fig. 132).
3. 2. Extraction in Open-Cut Quarries
To explain the change in tool mark patterns
between the Middle and New Kingdoms, we
propose a fundamental shift in the approach
to block extraction in open-cut (or open-pit
or -cast) quarrying: from mainly small-scale
quarrying by single-block extraction during
the Middle Kingdom and before (Figs. 22-23)
to large-scale quarrying by multiple-block
extractions on descending platforms from
the New Kingdom onward (Figs. 24-25). In
the earlier approach, blocks were typically
removed in a non-systematic manner indi-
vidually or in small groups at scattered points
across a rock outcrop with each separation
 limestone and sandstone quarrying in ancient egypt 33

Fig. 22. Single-block extraction in the 4th Dynasty Khufu limestone quarry
southeast of the Khafre pyramid at Giza. Behind the quarry in the foreground
are rock-cut tombs and the Khafre pyramid (photo Per Storemyr).

Fig. 23. Characteristics of small-scale quarrying by single-block extraction typical

of the Middle Kingdom and earlier (drawing James A. Harrell).

trench cut from multiple directions, thus
leaving a haphazard pattern of tool tracks.
The resulting quarry surfaces are character-
ized by small, irregular, disconnected steps,
and walls with faint or no outlines of the ex-
tracted blocks (Figs. 14 and 26).
A more systematic, industrial-like ap-
proach to quarrying was adopted in the 18th
Dynasty. The motivation for this, we believe,
was the need for large numbers of blocks in
relatively standardized sizes for the increase
in temple construction at the beginning of
the New Kingdom, an industry that contin-
ued to flourish until the end of the 20th Dy-
nasty. There was, however, a geological
prerequisite for this approach: thick, hori-
zontal beds of relatively homogenous lime-
stone and sandstone with few open cracks or
joint fissures. Rock outcrops were reduced
along large bedrock platforms from which
multiple blocks were extracted simultane-
ously. The chessboard-pattern of separation
trenches on the larger platforms required less
total bedrock cutting, block for block, than in
the earlier single-block extraction and thus
led to greater quarrying efficiency. The two
perpendicular sets of platform-spanning
trenches (e.g., at right in Figure 25) provided a
34 james a. harrell per storemyr

Fig. 24. Multiple-block extraction on descending platforms in the New Kingdom

to Late Period part of the el-Sawayta limestone quarry near Samalut. Note the
wide, shallow steps left by offset platforms and, at center and at left, the two
narrower but deeper, squarish platform remnants (photo James A. Harrell).

Fig. 25. Characteristics of large-scale quarrying by multiple-block extraction

on descending platforms typical of the New Kingdom and later
(drawing James A. Harrell).

further increase in efficiency by simplifying to a lower level where another series of

the cutting of block corners, a notoriously blocks was then extracted. Each separation
difficult task in single-block extraction, espe- trench between adjoining blocks or between
cially when a pick is used. As each layer of a series of blocks and the adjacent quarry wall
blocks was removed, the platform descended were cut from a single direction, yielding par-
 limestone and sandstone quarrying in ancient egypt 35
allel, unidirectional tool tracks, the direc-
tions of which sometimes changed between
platform levels (Fig. 15). This reversal in tool
track directions produces what Klemm and
Klemm (1993, 261-262, and 2008, 196-197) refer
to as a herringbone pattern. They claim this
pattern is largely unique to the early New
Kingdom but we have seen it not infrequent-
ly in later quarries down to and including
those of the Roman period. In comparison to
the earlier workings with small-scale, single-
block extraction, the quarries with descend-
ing platforms are characterized by broader,
more regularly spaced series of steps (pro-
duced by lateral offsets in successive plat-
forms - Fig. 24) or by nearly vertical or even
slightly overhanging walls with well-defined
extraction levels (Fig. 27). The general rarity
of perched platforms in abandoned quarries
(like those in Figures 24 and 31) indicate these
usually descended all the way down to the
quarry floor (as in Figures 27 and 30). The de-
scending platform approach was anticipated
by Vergnieux (1999, i, 17-24 and figs. 7-8) in his
description of talatat block extraction at the Fig. 26. Tool marks in the Middle Kingdom part
Gebel el-Silsila sandstone quarry during the of the Nag el-Hammam sandstone quarry near
18th Dynastys Amarna period. Gebel el-Silsila (photo James A. Harrell).

Fig. 27. Platform extraction levels on the wall of the Roman Nazlet Hussein Ali
limestone quarry near el-Minya. Note the regularly spaced, vertical gashes left
at each platform level representing block widths (photo James A. Harrell).
36 james a. harrell per storemyr

Fig. 28. The 18th Dynasty Queen Tiy limestone quarry near Tell el-Amarna. Note the parallel chisel
tracks from a small descending platform at right and the non-systematic quarrying traces to the left
which resemble those in Middle Kingdom quarries (photo James A. Harrell).

The 18th Dynasty was a transitional peri-

Fig. 29. Limestone quarry on the north side of
the 4th Dynasty Khafre pyramid in Giza near
Cairo (photo James A. Harrell).
od for the two quarrying approaches and
evidence of both can be found in some quar-
ries of this age (e.g., Fig. 28). By the 19th Dy-
nasty, with the long-sustained building
boom of Ramesses II, essentially all large-
scale, open-cut quarrying followed the de-
scending platform approach, a practice that
continued through the Roman period. How-
ever, in small-scale quarrying operations,
where the aim was to obtain a few blocks on-
ly (e.g., Fig. 9), the cutting of individual
blocks still took place, as exemplified by sev-
eral small sandstone quarries in the Aswan
area (e.g., Figs. 12-13). Additionally, it must be
kept in mind that the tool marks left by
dressing already extracted blocks (to adjust
their shape or size) or, occasionally, quarry
walls (to make them smoother or more ver-
tical) tend to be haphazard and multidirec-
tional. Thus, one must be careful to not mis-
interpret dressing marks from the 18th
Dynasty onward as earlier extraction marks.
The same caution applies to the dressed sur-
faces of rock-cut tombs and shrines.
An important exception to the pre-New
Kingdom approach to quarrying is the afore-
 limestone and sandstone quarrying in ancient egypt
mentioned limestone quarry beside the
Khafre pyramid at Giza (Fig. 29). Here nu-
merous core blocks for the pyramid were sys-
tematically and simultaneously extracted at
one level. Presumably, on a descending plat-
form, one or more higher levels of blocks
were removed prior to the one now visible. As
with the many temple-building projects dur-
ing the New Kingdom and Graeco-Roman
period, the construction of pyramid com-
plexes beginning in the late early Dynastic pe-
riod and continuing into the Middle Kingdom
required a similar large-scale, industrial-like
approach to stone procurement.
Quarrying using variations on the de-
scending platform method was the norm in
large- and medium-scale Graeco-Roman
quarries throughout the Mediterranean re-
gion (Ward-Perkins 1971, 6-7), but was ac-
complished using picks and related tools,
rather than chisels, and sometimes in com-
bination with wedge-splitting both for sepa-
rating blocks at their bottoms and for induc-
ing vertical fractures along their sides.
Examples can be found in the Latium traver-
tine quarries near Rome (Tivoli), in the
Aphrodisias marble quarries in present-day
37
Turkey, at the El-Medol limestone quarries
near Tarragona in Spain, and at many other
places. However, as in Egypt, there are
many examples of small-scale, soft-stone
quarrying carried out in a less systematic
manner, often featuring the cutting of
trenches around individual blocks. The qual-
ity of the stone, quarry type, local traditions
and, not least, the size of the quarry and the
projects it was associated with can explain
deviations from the descending platform
norm. The same can be said of the applica-
tion of this approach during the European
Middle Ages and later. Much evidence has
been lost due to the fact that many Medieval
quarries continued to be worked until the
modern era, but in numerous cases it is evi-
dent that the descending platforms, as they
were used until recently, originated in Me-
dieval and earlier Roman traditions. Out-
standing examples can be found in Spains
Balearic Islands and in the region of Berne
(Switzerland), as noted in section 2. 3. (Figs.
30-32). These earlier traditions, however, ul-
timately go back to ancient Egypt and the
construction of the first pyramids in the
mid-3rd millennium bc.

Fig. 30. Limestone quarry in Ciutadella, Menorca (Balearic Islands, Spain), which was worked with
double picks on descending platforms (photo from Wikimedia Commons,
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:S%27Hostal_pedreres765.JPG
(Licence: Creative Commons, Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported).
38 james a. harrell per storemyr

Fig. 31. Sandstone quarry in Krauchtal, near Berne (Switzerland). In this 19th
century quarry, trenches were cut with double picks on descending platforms,
with a heavily deteriorated one visible at center (photo Per Storemyr).

Fig. 32. Making separation trenches on a broad platform with heavy, double picks
(the German Schrotpickel) in the large Ostermundigen sandstone quarry near Berne
(Switzerland) in 1951 (photo by W. Nydegger as reproduced in Schmalz 1983,
30 along with several other very illustrative images of traditional extraction
techniques that were in full use in the modern era at Ostermundigen
well after more modern quarrying techniques became available).
 limestone and sandstone quarrying in ancient egypt 39

3. 3. Extraction in Gallery Quarries

The approach to block extractions in under-
ground gallery (or covered) quarries appears
to have remained largely unchanged during
the Dynastic and Graeco-Roman periods. As
described by Clarke and Engelbach (1930, 13-
14) and Arnold (1991, 32-33), quarry faces in-
side the galleries were near vertical or
steeply stepped. A horizontal slot was cut
along or just below the ceiling at the top of
a quarry face as far back as necessary for a
worker to get behind what would be a new
series of blocks (Fig. 33). A worker, crouch-
ing within this space, would then proceed to
cut vertical separation trenches along the
back and sides, removing blocks progressive-
ly downward to the gallery floor. In essence,
this is another expression of the descending
platform approach but with an important
difference: whereas for the latter there were
often multiple rows of blocks on broad plat-
forms, in the galleries there were narrow
benches with a single row of blocks. Appar-
ently the same method was used in the un-
Fig. 33. A gallery in the Ptolemaic or Roman
derground quarries of Bronze Age Crete, ex- part of the Gebel Tukh limestone quarry near
cept that picks were employed instead of el-Mansha with a horizontal slot cut at the top
chisels for cutting the separation trenches of the quarry face (photo James A. Harrell).
(Shaw 2009, 34-35). At the end of the down-
cutting process along a gallery wall, a new
near-vertical quarry face or, if offsets oc- ple of this is in the el-Dibabiya limestone
curred, a steeply stepped one was left and quarry (Endo and Nishimoto 2009), where
this was then cut back in the same manner as the long chisel in Figure 5a was found.
before to produce the next series of blocks.
An especially good illustration of this pro-
4. Egyptian Innovation
cess from the Dynastic period was provided
and Conservatism
in one of the earliest studies of Egyptian
soft-stone quarries, that of de Morgan et alii The ancient Egyptians were highly innova-
(1894, 357-358 and fig. 3) who surveyed the tive in some of their quarrying methods. For
Gebel Tukh limestone quarry near el-Man- example, the 4th Dynasty limestone quarry
sha. Although the basic approach described at Gizas Khafre pyramid (Fig. 29) is the
above was used in all periods, the tool marks worlds earliest example of stone extraction
on the quarry faces do reflect their age on a descending platform with separation
multidirectional if Middle Kingdom or older trenches cut in perpendicular lines resem-
and unidirectional (at a given block level) if bling a chessboard pattern. We are not aware
New Kingdom or younger. Another differ- of any Middle Kingdom examples of this
ence, introduced in the 18th Dynasty but method, and so it may have been re-invented
abandoned in the Late Period, was the paint- in the early New Kingdom as a result of the
ing of annotated lines on the ceilings of both enormous building projects underway at
limestone and sandstone galleries to mark that time. From then onward it remained the
quarrying progress. The outstanding exam- principal approach to soft-stone quarrying
40 james a. harrell per storemyr
across the Mediterranean region and in Eu-
rope up until the modern era when the quar-
rying process became mechanized.
Notwithstanding the example of the
Khafre pyramid quarry, the available evi-
dence suggests that cutting separation
trenches to obtain individual blocks or small-
er groups of blocks using short chisels was
the main method of soft-stone extraction
until the beginning of the New Kingdom
when another major innovation occurred.
This was the use of very long chisels for cut-
ting blocks on descending platforms, a tech-
nique that remained virtually unchanged for
2,000 years down through the Roman peri-
od. Two other quarrying innovations, also
introduced in the 18th Dynasty, were the
aforementioned talatat blocks and painted
lines on gallery ceilings. No other ancient
civilization employed gallery quarries to the
extent that the ancient Egyptians did. Un-
derground quarrying started already by the
4th Dynasty in the Tura-Masara limestone
quarries near Cairo and occurred through-
out the Nile Valley in later periods, mainly in
limestone but also in sandstone at Gebel el-
Silsila. Limestone galleries commonly pene-
trated over 100 m and at times as much as 250
m into the hillsides. In this way, the ancient
Egyptians avoided the laborious and time-
consuming removal of overburden or were
able to follow good layers of stone into the
bedrock when removal of overburden
would have been impractical.
Egyptian innovation was coupled with a
fundamental conservatism. Once they devel-
oped a new technique, the Egyptians had a
tendency to hold onto it even when newer
and better tools and methods became avail-
able. Thus, during the New Kingdom the
Egyptians were still using chisels in their
quarries at a time when the Minoans on
Crete were employing various types of picks.
Picks and pick-like tools continued to be
widely used in soft-stone (and marble) quar-
rying throughout the Mediterranean region,
especially during the Graeco-Roman period,
but in Egypt the quarrying tool of choice re-
mained the chisel. The Egyptians were also
very late to adopt the harder iron tools,
sometime during the Late Period, when
tools of this metal were widely available else-
where in the Mediterranean and Near East-
ern regions since the onset of the Iron Age in
the late 2nd millennium bc (Lucas 1962, 237;
Ogden 2000, 167-168). This Egyptian conser-
vatism arises perhaps from a reverence for
tradition in the crafts as well as a lack of ap-
preciation for ideas imported from abroad,
especially when they were imposed by for-
eign overlords. Alternatively, it may be that
quarrying with chisels was perfected to such
a degree that the adoption of other, seem-
ingly more advanced, techniques was simply
unnecessary. It is also conceivable that
Egyptian traditionalism in quarrying is the
result of this activity occurring within ex-
tremely long-lasting kinship systems that
were largely independent of the changing
political and religious hierarchies. Such, for
example, has been suggested for hard-stone
quarrying in the early part of the Dynastic
period (Bloxam 2007, Bloxam et alii 2009).
5. Need for Further Study
A study of the kind presented in this paper is
hampered by two problems. First, too few of
Egypts limestone and sandstone quarries
have been well investigated and so significant
evidence has probably been overlooked. And
second, age determinations for these quar-
ries are often problematical. Few have data-
ble inscriptions and although they may have
datable pottery, this has not been analyzed
except in rare cases. In consequence, the tool
mark chronology of Rosemarie Klemm and
Dietrich Klemm is especially useful, but it
needs further confirmation and refinement.
The views presented in this paper on quar-
rying tools and methods must, therefore, be
considered preliminary until more and
better information is available. The same
applies for the comparison of Egyptian quar-
rying methods with those in the Mediter-
ranean region and elsewhere, where the an-
cient and Medieval quarries have not been
well researched with respect to their organi-
zation and development. Fortunately, there
are now detailed studies of individual lime-
stone and sandstone quarries currently un-
derway in Egypt. For example, the Gebel el-
Silsila Survey Project, directed by Maria
Nilsson (Lund University, Sweden; project
 limestone and sandstone quarrying in ancient egypt
website at http://gebelelsilsilaepigraphic-
surveyproject.blogspot.com/) is looking at
the largest ancient sandstone quarry in
Egypt, a site that ranges in age from the Mid-
dle Kingdom to the Roman period. Another
example, this time in limestone quarries, is
the Dayr al-Barsha Project, directed by
Harco Willems (Leuven University, Bel-
gium; project website at http://www.dayral-
barsha.com/). This comprehensive archae-
ological survey includes four quarry
complexes just north of Tell el-Amarna dat-
ing to the 18th and 30th Dynasties.
There is great urgency for more studies
like those cited above because Egypts an-
cient quarries are being destroyed at an
alarming rate (Storemyr 2009). Modern
limestone quarrying for the cement industry
and sandstone quarrying for building stone
are primary culprits. The construction of
new roads and urban expansion are causing
further destruction. Even when ancient
quarries are legally designated as protected
sites, generally because of the associated an-
tiquities (e.g., tombs, inscriptions and
shrines) rather than the quarry workings
themselves, lax enforcement of laws leave
too many of them at risk.
6. Conclusions
Limestone and sandstone blocks from an-
cient Egyptian quarries were extracted pri-
marily with chisels. These were of copper
until the Middle Kingdom at which time
they were gradually replaced by bronze chis-
els. Iron chisels and, to a lesser extent, other
tools (e.g., picks and wedges) supplanted the
bronze chisels sometime during the Late Pe-
riod and were heavily used during the Grae-
co-Roman period. Stone-cutting chisels
were under 25 cm in length prior to the New
Kingdom but beginning in the 18th Dynasty
many, if not most, exceeded 50 cm.
A major change in quarrying approach,
along with an accompanying change in tool
mark patterns, occurred in open-cut quarries
between the Middle and New Kingdoms. In
the Middle Kingdom and earlier, limestone
and sandstone quarrying was mainly done in
a non-systematic manner where blocks were
extracted individually or in small groups at
41
scattered points along an outcrop. Separa-
tion trenches around blocks were cut from
multiple directions leaving a haphazard pat-
tern of multidirectional tool tracks on quar-
ry walls. During the New Kingdom and later,
however, quarrying was usually executed
more systematically and on a larger scale
with multiple blocks extracted simultane-
ously at one level on the top of progressively
descending bedrock platforms. Separation
trenches were cut from a single direction at
any given platform level, yielding horizontal
sets of parallel, unidirectional tool tracks on
quarry walls. With the introduction of
longer chisels at the same time the descend-
ing platform approach was adopted in the
18th Dynasty, the separation trenches be-
came narrower and the tool tracks became
longer than those of earlier periods.
Changes in underground gallery quarries
were less dramatic than in the open-cut
workings. During all periods, the top of a
gallery wall was first excavated along the
ceiling to allow workers to cut separation
trenches behind a bedrock mass in order to
progressively remove a series of blocks from
ceiling to floor. Only the tool mark patterns
changed over time. As in the open-cut quar-
ries, these were haphazard, multidirectional
tool tracks during the Middle Kingdom and
earlier but parallel, unidirectional tool tracks
from the New Kingdom onward.
Although quarrying on descending plat-
forms became the norm during the New
Kingdom and later periods, the first (and so
far only known) example of its earlier use
dates to the Old Kingdoms 4th Dynasty
with the extraction of pyramid core blocks
at Giza. This highly efficient approach to
quarrying was a major ancient Egyptian in-
novation that continued in use up until the
modern era. Other innovations included the
use of long chisels and talatat blocks begin-
ning in the 18th Dynasty and the extensive
development of gallery quarries with, in the
New Kingdom, annotated ceiling lines indi-
cating work progress. The basic conser-
vatism of the ancient Egyptians, however,
caused them to continue using chisels for
soft-stone quarrying long after superior,
pick-like tools came into use elsewhere in the
Mediterranean region. Egypt also adopted
42 james a. harrell per storemyr
iron tools for stone-working much later than
the surrounding regions.
Acknowledgements
The co-authors gratefully acknowledge the
assistance of Maria Nilsson (Lund University,
Sweden) who shared information and a pho-
tograph, taken by her co-worker John Ward,
from her quarry survey at Gebel el-Silsila, and
Vivian Davies (British Museum, uk) who
brought to our attention important refer-
ences on bronze stone-working tools. Thanks
are also due to Barry Kemp and Anna Stevens
(Cambridge University, uk) and Neil Spencer
(British Museum, uk) who provided us with
information on the long bronze chisels.
References
Adam J.-P. 1994, Roman Building Materials and
Techniques, transl. by A. Matthews, London.
Arnold D. 1991, Building in Egypt Pharaonic Stone
Masonry, Oxford.
Arnold D. 2009, The Monuments of Egypt: An A-Z
Companion to Ancient Egyptian Architecture,
Cairo.
Aston B. G., Harrell J. A. and Shaw I. 2000,
Stones, in P. T. Nicholson and I. Shaw (eds.), An-
cient Egyptian Materials and Technology, Cam-
bridge, 5-77.
Baines J. and Malek J. 2000, Cultural Atlas of An-
cient Egypt, New York.
Bessac J.-C. 1988, Problems of identification and in-
terpretation of tool marks on ancient marble and
decorative stones, in N. Herz and M. Waelkens
(eds.), Classical Marble: Geochemistry, Technolo-
gy, Trade, Dordrecht.
Bessac J.-C. 1996, La pierre en Gaule Narbonnaise et
les carrires du Bois des Lens (Nmes): histoire,
archologie, ethnographie et techniques, Ann Ar-
bor (mi).
Bloxam E. G. 2007, Who were the pharaohs quarry-
men?, Archaeology International, 9, 23-27.
Bloxam E. G., Storemyr P. and Heldal T. 2009,
Hard stone quarrying in the Egyptian Old Kingdom
(3rd millennium bc ): Rethinking the social organi-
sation, in Y. Maniatis (ed.), asmosia vii , Pro-
ceedings of the Seventh International Confer-
ence of the Association for the Study of Marble
and other Stones in Antiquity (Thasos, 15-20
September 2003), Athnes-Paris (bch Suppl.,
51), 187-201.
Clarke S. and Engelbach R. 1930, Ancient Egypt-
ian Construction and Architecture, Oxford.
Davies N. de G. 1943, The Tomb of Rekh-mi-re at
Thebes, 2 vols., New York.
Davies W. V. 1987, Catalogue of Egyptian Antiquities
in the British Museum, vii, Tools and Weapons i ,
Axes, London.
de Morgan J., Bouriant U. and Legrain G. 1894,
Note sur les carrires antiques de Ptolmais
(Menchiyeh), Mission Archogique Franaise
au Caire Mmoires, 8, 353-379.
De Nuccio M. and Ungaro L. (a cura di) 2002, I
marmi colorati della Roma imperiale, Veggiano
(pd).
Dobrowolska A. 2005, The Building Crafts of
Cairo. A Living Tradition, Cairo-New York.
Dugu O., Dujardin L., Leroux P. and Savary
X. 2010, La Pierre de Caen. Des dinosaures aux
cathdrales, Caen.
Endo T. and Nishimoto S. 2009, The ancient Egypt-
ian quarry at Dibabiya, in Y. Maniatis (ed.),
asmosia vii , Proceedings of the Seventh Inter-
national Conference of the Association for the
Study of Marble and other Stones in Antiquity
(Thasos, 15-20 September 2003), Athnes-Paris
(bch Suppl., 51), 203-210.
Guini-Skliar A., Vir M., Lorenz J., Gly J.-P.
and Blanc A. 2000, Les Souterrains de Paris. Les
anciennes carrires souterraines, Cambrai.
Gutirrez A. and Moreno G. 2009, Roman Quar-
ries in the Northeast of Hispania (Modern Catalo-
nia), Tarragona.
Harrell J. A. 2010, An early Roman quarry for an-
hydrite and gypsum near Wadi el-Anbaut, Red Sea
coast (Egypt), Marmora, 6, 45-55.
Harrell J. A. 2012, Building Stones, in W. Wen-
drich (ed.), ucla Encyclopedia of Egyptology, Los
Angeles.
Harrell J. A. and Brown V. M. 1999, A late-period
quarry for naoi in the Eastern Desert, Egyptian
Archaeology, 14, 18-20.
Harrell J. A. and Brown V. M. 2008, Discovery of
a medieval Islamic industry for steatite cooking ves-
sels in Egypts Eastern Desert, in Y. M. Rowan
and J. R. Ebeling (eds.), New Approaches to Old
Stones Recent Studies of Ground Stone Artifacts,
London, 41-65.
Harrell J. A. and Storemyr P. 2009, Ancient
Egyptian quarries an illustrated overview, in N.
Abu Jaber, E. G. Bloxam, P. Degryse and T. Hel-
dal (eds.), QuarryScapes: Ancient Stone Quarry
Landscapes in the Eastern Mediterranean, Geo-
logical Survey of Norway Special Publication,
12, 12-48.
Heldal T. and Storemyr P. 2007, Chapter 6: the
quarries at the Aswan West Bank, in E. G. Bloxam,
T. Heldal and P. Storemyr (eds.), Characteriza-
tion of Complex Quarry Landscapes: An Example
from the West Bank Quarries, Aswan, Quar-
 limestone and sandstone quarrying in ancient egypt
ryScapes Report, Deliverable 4 for European
Union project inco-ct-2005-015416, 69-140.
Heldal T. and Storemyr P. 2014, Fire on the rocks:
Heat as an agent in ancient Egyptian hard stone
quarrying, in G. Lollino et alii (eds.), Engineering
Geology for Society and Territory, Proceedings of
the xii iaeg (International Association of Engi-
neering Geology) Congress (Turin, Italy, 15-19
September 2014), Basel, vol. 5, 291-295.
Janssen J. J. 1975, Commodity Prices from the Rames-
sid Period: An Economic Study of the Village of
Necropolis Workmen at Thebes, Leiden.
Kelany A., Harrell J. A. and Brown V. M. 2010,
Dolerite pounders petrology, sources and use,
Lithic Technology, 35, 2, 127-148.
Klemm R. and Klemm D. D. 1993, Steine und Stein-
brche im Alten gypten, Berlin.
Klemm R. and Klemm D. D. 2008, Stones and Quar-
ries in Ancient Egypt, London.
Kramer A. H. 2009, Talatat shipping from Gebel el-
Silsileh to Karnak a literature survey, Bibliothe-
ca Orientalis, 66, 1-2, 6-20.
Lang J. 1997, Iron points, in D. P. S. Peacock and V. A.
Maxfield (eds.), Survey and Excavation Mons
Claudianus 1987-1993, vol. 1,Topography and Quar-
ries, Cairo, 251-253.
Lucas A. 1962, Ancient Egyptian Materials and In-
dustries, 4th edn. with revisions by J. R. Harris,
London.
Mackay E. 1921, The cutting and preparation of
tomb-chapels in the Theban Necropolis, Journal
of Egyptian Archaeology, 7, 154-168.
Martinez Ph. 2009, Une commande royale pour le
Ramesseum: une stle indite de Ramss II au Gebel
Es-Silsileh, Memnonia - Bulletin dit par lAs-
sociation pour la Sauvegarde du Ramesseum,
20, 133-172.
Nilsson M. 2013, Pseudo script in Gebel el Silsila
preliminary results of the 2012 epigraphic survey,
Current Research in Egyptology, 14, 122-141.
Ogden J. 2000, Metals, in P. T. Nicholson and I.
Shaw (eds.), Ancient Egyptian Materials and Tech-
nology, Cambridge.
Peacock D. P. S. 1997, The quarries, in D. P. S. Pea-
cock and V. A. Maxfield (eds.), Survey and Exca-
vation Mons Claudianus 1987-1993, vol. 1, Topog-
raphy and Quarries, Cairo, 177-255.
Petrie W. M. F. 1917, Tools and Weapons, London.
Pendlebury J. D. S. 1951, The City of Akhenaten.
Part iii - The Central City and the Official Quar-
ters. The Excavations at Tell El-Amarna During the
Seasons 1926-1927 and 1931-1936, 2 vols., London.
Rowe A. 1938, Provisional notes on the Old Kingdom
inscriptions from the diorite quarries, Annales du
Service des Antiquits dgypte, 38, 391-396.
Schmalz K. L. 1983,Ostermundigen. Geschichte, Ge-
meindeentwicklung, alte Ansichten, Ostermundi-
gen.
Seton-Karr H. W. 1905, How the tomb galleries at
43
Thebes were cut and the limestone quarried at the
Prehistoric flint-mines of the E. Desert, Annales du
Service des Antiquits de lgypte, 6, 176-184.
Shaw J. W. 2009, Minoan Architecture: Materials and
Techniques, Padua (Studi di Archeologia Cre-
tese, vii).
Sliwa J. 1975, Studies in Ancient Egyptian Handicraft
Woodworking, Warsaw.
Storemyr P. 2009, Whatever else happened to the an-
cient Egyptian quarries? An essay on their destiny in
modern times, in N. Abu Jaber, E. G. Bloxam, P.
Degryse and T. Heldal (eds.), QuarryScapes: An-
cient Stone Quarry Landscapes in the Eastern
Mediterranean, Trondheim, 51-66.
Storemyr P., Bloxam E. G., Heldal T. and Sa-
lem A. 2002, Survey at Chephrens Quarry, Gebel
el-Asr, Lower Nubia: 2002, Sudan and Nubia: the
Sudan Archaeological Research Society Bul-
letin, 6, 25-31.
Stlerbau . and Charlottenburg S. 1967,
gyptisches Museum Berlin, Berlin.
Trachsel H. (Hrsg. von) 2006,Sandstein. Eine ber-
raschende Vielfalt, Bern.
Vandeput L. 1987-1988, Splitting techniques in quar-
ries in the Eastern Mediterranean, Acta Archaeo-
logica Lovaniensia, 26-27, 81-107.
Vergnieux R. 1999, Recherches sur les monuments
thbains dAmnophis IV laide doutils informa-
tiques - Mthodes et rsultats, Cahiers de la So-
cit dEgyptologie de Genve, 4, 1-29.
Waelkens M. 1992, Bronze Age quarries and quar-
rying techniques in the Eastern Mediterranean and
the Near East, in M. Waelkens, N. Herz and L.
Moens (eds.), Ancient Stones: Quarrying, Trade
and Provenance, Leuven (Acta Archaeologica
Lovaniensia. Monographiae, 4), 5-20.
Waelkens M., De Paepe P. and Moens L. 1988,
Patterns of extraction and production in the white
marble quarries of the Mediterranean: history,
present problems and prospects, in C. J. Fant (ed.),
Ancient Marble Quarrying and Trade, Oxford, 81-
116.
Waelkens M., De Paepe P. and Moens L. 1990,
The quarrying techniques of the Greek world, in
Marble: Art Historical and Scientific Perspectives
on Ancient Sculpture, Malibu (ca), 47-72.
Ward-Perkins J. B. 1971, Quarrying in antiquity
technology, tradition and social change, Proceed-
ings of the British Academy, 57, 137-158.
Weigall A. E. P. 1910, A Guide to the Antiquities of
Upper Egypt, from Abydos to the Sudan Frontier,
New York.
Weiner J. 2011, Typologie und technologie von
Steinartefakten aus dem altgyptischen Hornstein-
bergbau-Revier im Wadi el-Sheikh, gypten, Der
Anschnitt, 63, 4-5, 130-156.
Weisgerber G. 1982, Altgyptischer Hornsteinberg-
bau im Wadi el-Sheikh, Der Anschnitt, 34, 5-6,
186-210.
 composto in car attere dante monotype dalla
fabrizio serr a editore, pisa roma.
stampato e rilegato nella
tipo gr afia di agnano, agnano pisano (pisa).

*
Febbraio 2015
(cz 3 fg 22)

Tutte le riviste Online e le pubblicazioni delle nostre case editrici

(riviste, collane, varia, ecc.) possono essere ricercate bibliograficamente e richieste
(sottoscrizioni di abbonamenti, ordini di volumi, ecc.) presso il sito Internet:

www.libraweb.net
Per ricevere, tramite E-mail, periodicamente, la nostra newsletter/alert con lelenco
delle novit e delle opere in preparazione, Vi invitiamo a sottoscriverla presso il nostro sito
Internet o a trasmettere i Vostri dati (Nominativo e indirizzo E-mail) allindirizzo:

newsletter@libraweb.net

Computerized search operations allow bibliographical retrieval of the Publishers works

(Online journals, journals subscriptions, orders for individual issues, series, books, etc.)
through the Internet website:

www.libraweb.net
If you wish to receive, by E-mail, our newsletter/alert with periodic information
on the list of new and forthcoming publications, you are kindly invited to subscribe it at our
web-site or to send your details (Name and E-mail address) to the following address:

newsletter@libraweb.net
 Rivista annuale A yearly Journal
*
Indirizzo redazione scientifica Scientific Committee Address
Lorenzo Lazzarini l.a.m.a. (Dip. di Storia dellArchitettura),
Universit i.u.a.v., San Polo 2468, i 30125 Venezia, tel. + 39 041 2571413, -459,
fax +39 041 2571434, lorenzo@iuav.it
*
Amministrazione e abbonamenti Administration & Subscriptions
Fabrizio Serra editore , Pisa Roma
Casella postale n. 1, Succursale n. 8, i 56123 Pisa,
tel. +39 050 542332, fax +39 050 574888, fse@libraweb.net

Uffici di Pisa: Via Santa Bibbiana 28, i 56127 Pisa, fse@libraweb.net

Uffici di Roma: Via Carlo Emanuele I 48, i 00185 Roma,
tel. +39 06 70493456, fax +39 06 70476605, fse.roma@libraweb.net

I prezzi ufficiali di abbonamento cartaceo e/o Online sono consultabili

presso il sito Internet della casa editrice www.libraweb.net.
Print and/or Online official rates are available
at Publishers website www.libraweb.net.

I pagamenti possono essere effettuati tramite versamento su c.c.p. n. 17154550

o tramite carta di credito (American Express, Visa, Eurocard, Mastercard).
*
Autorizzazione del Tribunale di Pisa n. 11 del 15 04 2005
Direttore responsabile: Fabrizio Serra
A norma del codice civile italiano, vietata la riproduzione, totale o parziale (compresi estratti, ecc.),
di questa pubblicazione in qualsiasi forma e versione (comprese bozze, ecc.), originale o derivata,
e con qualsiasi mezzo a stampa o internet (compresi siti web personali e istituzionali, academia.edu,
ecc.), elettronico, digitale, meccanico, per mezzo di fotocopie, pdf, microfilm, film, scanner o altro,
senza il permesso scritto della casa editrice.

Under Italian civil law this publication cannot be reproduced, wholly or in part (included offprints, etc.),
in any form (included proofs, etc.), original or derived, or by any means: print, internet (included
personal and institutional web sites, academia.edu, etc.), electronic, digital, mechanical,
including photocopy, pdf, microfilm, film, scanner or any other medium,
without permission in writing from the publisher.

Propriet riservata All rights reserved

Copyright 2015 by Fabrizio Serra editore, Pisa Roma.
Fabrizio Serra editore incorporates the Imprints Accademia editoriale,
Edizioni dellAteneo, Fabrizio Serra editore, Giardini editori e stampatori in Pisa,
Gruppo editoriale internazionale and Istituti editoriali e poligrafici internazionali.
Stampato in Italia Printed in Italy

www.libraweb.net

issn 1824-6214
issn elettronico 1826-8072
 SOMMARIO

Susan Kane, Necrology: Norman Herz (1923-2013) 11

Lorenzo Lazzarini, Norman Herz, un ricordo personale 15

saggi
James A. Harrell, Per Storemyr, Limestone and sandstone quarrying in ancient Egypt:
tools, methods, and analogues 19
Ameur Youns, Les marbres des thermes de Ruspina (Henchir Tennir, Monastir, Tunisie) 45
Myrsini Varti-Matarangas, Dionysis Matarangas, Ancient marble quarries in Lesvos
Island (Greece): geological and petrographical characteristics 53
Antonio Mesisca, Lorenzo Lazzarini, Monica Salvadori, Studio ed analisi archeo-
metrica degli elementi marmorei ritrovati nel ninfeo romano di Aeclanum (Mirabella Eclano,
Avellino, Italia) 73
Michele Agus, Stefano Cara, Carlo Garbarino, Carlo Matzuzzi, Studio di al-
cune colonne granitiche della citt romana di Uthina (Tunisia) e sulle loro antiche cave del
Nord Sardegna 87
Silvia Michelucci, Elementi architettonici marmorei di reimpiego nella chiesa di San Sisto
in Pisa 109

note e discussioni
Lorenzo Lazzarini, Natura e origine della pietra del carico Bacn 1 naufragato nel xv se-
colo alla bocca del Lido di Venezia 131

recensioni
Filippo Venturini, I mosaici di Cirene di et ellenistica e romana (Malacrino) 143
Paolo Coen, Giovan Battista Fidanza (a cura di), Le pietre rivelate. Lo studio di molte pie-
tre di Pier Leone Ghezzi, Manoscritto 322 della Biblioteca Universitaria Alessandrina (Laz-
zarini) 145