Structure and content of the labels

This investigation has shown that the label texts follow a standard structure. The analytic chapters in this study follow the pattern of information found on the labels. First came a date written on the first line, followed by a designation of the product (irp or SdH), classification, institution and / or a geographic location. In the second line a geographic location (if not found on the first line) was placed, followed by the title and name of the responsible producer, in some cases preceded by the name and title of the official to whom the producer of the wine would have been accountable. Only in exceptional cases was this pattern abandoned.

The minimum information found on the labels from these three groups of primary sources, supplemented with material from Ramesseum and Malqata, consists of the date and product, in some cases followed by a classification of the wine. The conclusion that the Year date is of importance equal to the product name is based on its reoccurring presence on the labels in all the material.

This pattern is found on the many shards comprising the three groups of primary sources, as well as on the shards from the Ramesseum. The texts found on the shards of the Malqata material were however abbreviated, generally reduced to the single word irp (wine) that in some cases was expanded to include the classifications smA (blended), nfr (good) och nfr nfr (very good) (Hayes 1951: fig. 8, nos 85, 86, 87, 88, 89¹⁸).

Classification is not however common, with the majority of labels indicating unclassified wines. It is evident that the shards from Malqata provide the minimum level of obligatory information.

An additional characteristic distinguished the Malqata material. The text was sometimes written immediately next to or under the jar handle. This location, as well as the abbreviated form of the texts, is not found for the labels from Amarna or Deir el-Medina. However, two jars from Tutankhamun’s tomb have seal imprints with the text

“the ruler’s house” on one of the jar handles (Tut 14, 23). This does not rule out the possibility of text next to the handle on some shards from Amarna and Deir el-Medina, since photographs have not been available.

The structural pattern of the texts is clear in the material from Tutankhamun’s tomb, where it is closely followed. The material from Amarna and Deir el-Medina have

18 No. 85, irp smA, is found on 13 labels; no. 86, irp nfr nfr hnw 6, on 1 label; no. 87. irp nfr nfr. on 1 label; no. 88, irp nfr, on 3 labels and and no. 89, irp, on 26 labels.

greater variation, with the scribe occasionally inserting additional information after the first line had provided date, product and classification. For example, four wine jar labels (Am 50, 51, 52, 53) from the Amarna material had the phrase aA m aHaw=f (The One who is great in his lifetime), with Akhenaten’s name written immediately before the phrase in the texts from three of them (Am 50, 51, 53). In the Deir el-Medina material, more expansive texts are found after Ramses II’s succession, where the names of one or two different institutions, are placed on line 2 or 3. For instance, the institution pr imn (Estate of Amun) is often combined with another institution (DeM 5, 10, 12, 15, 21, 50, 60, 70, 147, 162, 193). In some cases it is written directly after the name of another institution, as if the two were connected, and in other cases only pr imn is written. When there are references to two institutions it may be that one is the intended destination of the wine.

It has been deduced that the text was written on the wine jar before it left the vineyard. This can not be proven without doubt but there are strong indictions. First of all, it is difficult to identify the contents of a sealed and unmarked jar after it has left its source. It is logical that the label was written on the jar in connection with its sealing before leaving the vineyard. Secondly, the quality of the wine could only be judged before the jar was sealed. After sealing, the jar would have had to be broken for the wine to be tasted and judged. This indicates that the wine jar labels, that could include a quality classification, was written by someone who had the possibility to taste and judge the wine before it was sent away.

5.2 Classification

The most common terms for classification are nfr (good) and nfr nfr (very good). The word nDm (sweet) was also used to classify some wines and nfr nDm (good sweet) provides another level of this classification. Furthermore, some singular wine jar labels have the classification hAyt nfrt (“merry-making” or “good going down”, cf. discussion above). There is also a kind of descriptive dating relating to a day (n hrw, of day X) followed by a number. This is an unusual pattern that appears to have been in use mostly during the reign of Ramses II. The position of the phrase, with the genitive n directly after irp or irp + the quality classification nfr etc., indicates that it is an attribute of the wine, perhaps an additional way of defining the quality according to the day the wine was made.

Most of the classified wines from Amarna and Tutankhamun’s tomb came from institutions where the god Aton was included in the name. These institutions could be

located at different places throughout Egypt. The classified wines from Deir el-Medina that had an institutional designation have more diversified sources.

Classification of the quality of the wine is infrequent in the material, with the unclassified wine being by far the most common. Comparing the places of production of the classified wine, it was not possible to determine if the better wines came from a specific place. Rather, there is a wide distribution of the better wines among the institution vineyards.

There is also the question of whether there is a proportional relationship between the unclassified wine and that classified as nfr and nfr nfr, with the latter being the best of a large production. There is nothing in the three groups of labels that explicitly supports this assumption. The expected distribution is however found in the significantly larger material from the Ramesseum: nfr nfr (27 examples = 1,2%), nfr (160 examples = 6,2% ) and unclassified (2461 examples = 92,6%). There were also 45 wines that had been classified as nDm (sweet) (Spiegelberg 1898: Pl. XIX-XXXV^A; Bouvier 1999-2001: Fasc.

I-IV).

The result from the Ramesseum material is most likely applicable to the distribution of wine deliveries to Amarna and Deir el-Medina, even if this is not reflected in the preserved material. However, the majority of the wine jar labels in these two groups lack classifications thus supplying some support for this conclusion. The more even distribution of nfr- and nfr nfr-wines is more difficult to explain.

While there is some consensus that irp was a wine made of grapes, it has been more complicated to identify the fruit used to make the SdH-wine or even if it was a wine, rather than vinegar as has been suggested (Tallet 1995: 460). Chemical analyses (LC/MS/MS) of residue from a jar marked SdH has, however, clarified the question and has unambiguously proven that it was a red grape wine (Guasch-Jané et al 2004: 1672;

2006a: 99-101). Furthermore, often classified as nfr nfr and described as sweet in one love poem (P. Harris 500: Group B, nos. 12, e.g. Fox 1985: 21 with n. b; Mathieu 1996:

62), it was apparently a pleasant drink, which does not correspond to vinegar. It has now been established that both irp and SdH wines were made from grapes.

The sources indicate that the production processes of the two wines may have differed. SdH-wine may have been made of crushed grapes that were poured into a pot, heated and then filtrated into a concentrate, a kind of grape syrup. This syrup was then poured into already fermented wine so that a second fermentation was started. This would have produced a wine that was both sweeter and higher in percentage of alcohol. This, it has been concluded, was the production process of the sweet and intoxicating SdH-wine.

Questions of the quality and production of irp-wine have tended to be taken for granted, without examination in any greater depth. Examples of questions that should be examined are durability of the wine and if the inside of the wine jar was perhaps treated, for example with resin, to prevent evaporation. There is significant disagreement among scholars on this point and research has yet to provide an answer to these questions.

It was first 2006 that the question of whether white wine was made in Egypt earlier then Greek period (332-30 B.C.) was answered. Chemical analyses using the LC/MS/MS method of residue from wine jars from KV 62 have proven that white wine was made as early as the 18^th dynasty (1550-1295 B.C.; Guasch-Jané et al 2004: 1672, 2006b: 1077-1078).

There was a similar distribution of quality of irp-wine in the two groups of labels from Amarna and Deir el-Medina. However, SdH-wine is not represented in the material from Deir el-Medina while there are three SdH-labels in the Amarna material. It was noted that, with the exception of the absence of SdH-wine, the wine delivered to Deir el-Medina was similar to the standard of that delivered to the palace area in Amarna.