Egyptqnd lhe leuqnt

INTERRETATIONSFROMTHE 4TH THROUGH THE EARTY 3RDMITTENNIUM BCE

Edited by Edwin C. M. vqn den Brink ond Thomqs E. Lery

LeicesterUniversity Press London. New York TheRelotiveChronologicol Posilion of EgypliunPredynustic ondEorly Dynoslic Tombswilh 0biecls lmpofied from the NeorEustond the Nufure of Inferregionol Conlocls

STANHENDRICKX AND LAURENTBAVAY

lnfroduction their chronological position compared with the chronolog- ical sequence of the Naqada culture cannot be established Foreign objects found in Egyptian Predynastic and Early with enough precision. Dynastic tombs received much attention in the past, and For the excavations carried out at the end of the have frequently been discussed during recent years (see, nineteenth century or during the first decades of the among others, Adams and Friedman 1992; Andelkovic twentieth, the identification of imports is in many cases 1995; Braun and van den Brink 1998; Hartung 1994; very difficult, because the objects themselves can often no Hennessy 1967; I(antor 1992; I(roeper 1989; Tutundzic longer be located. It is also probable that a number of 1993). The discovery of a large quantity of Canaanite imported artifacts or materials were not recognized as such pottery at cemetery U in Abydos (Hartung 1993,1996; see at the time. The problem is even more important because however Porat and Goren, this volume) in tombs dating the cemeteries excavated in those days represent the large to the late Naqada II and early Naqada III period, i.e. majority of published Predynastic and Early Dynastic before the beginning of the First Dynasty, is of particular tombs, and will certainly continue to do so for a long time. importance. Nevertheless, a number of problems concern- The well-known decorated Predynastic objects, such as ing Egypt's relations with the Near East still remain. the Gebel el-Arak knife handle or the decorated palettes, Among them are the relative chronology of these relations which have often been used as evidence for Mesopota- and a few elements concerning their nature, which will mian influence (see Boehmer 1974; Sievertsen 1992), be discussedhere. were, in reality, produced in Egypt, as is shown by the use The chronological framework used for this paper fol- of hippopotamus ivory for the knife handles and mud- lows a revision (Hendrickx 1989) of I(aiser's Stufen chro- stone or grauwacke for the palettes, which are most nology (I(aiser 1957, 1990). The attribution of the certainiy native Egyptian raw materials. Although stylistic individual tombs with foreign imports to particular chro- influences cannot be excluded, they are Ieft out of the nological phases has been taken directly from this revision, present discussion because their chronological relevance is the full details of which have not yet been published (see, very limited, not only because they would only attest however, Hendrickx 1996, 1999\. A few tombs for which indirect relations with the Near East, but also because the the funerary assemblage has never been published have archeological context of most of these objects is unknown. been dated approximately by comparison with the Foreign influences have also been recognized for the Sequence Dates attributed by Petrie to these tombs (Petrie stamp and cylinder seals (Boehmer 1974; Kantor 1952), l92O: pl. LI-LII). The most notable differences with l(ai- but since in most casesit has remained unknown if they ser's original work are to be found in the late Naqada II- represent genuine imports or Egyptian imitations, they early Naqada III periods (Hendrickx 1996) (Fig. 3. I ). There will not be discussedin detail either. is no break in the material culture at the beginning of the It is obvious that foreign pottery found in Egypt was historic period, and when no written information is avail- probably not imported for the pottery itself, but for the able the archaeological evidence does not allow an indi- contents, which unfortunately remain difficult to deter- vidual tomb to be dated to the reign of a particular king. mine (see however McGovern et al. 1997; Serpico and Therefore, the Naqada culture, as archaeologically defined, White 1996). Therefore, the most interesting source of includes the First and Second Dynasties. The cemeteries of information regarding Egypt's foreign relations are raw the Buto-Maadi culture (Debono and Mortensen 1988; materials which do not occur naturally in Egypt, because Habachi and I(aiser 1985; Rizkana and Seeher 1990) have they directly refer to the reasons for these contacts. Objects not been taken into consideration for this paper, because in obsidian, Iapis lazuli, turquoise and silver play an EGYPTIANPREDYNASTIC AND EARLY DYNASTIC TCMBS I 59

Kaiser 1957,1990 Hendrickx 1989.1996

no cylindricaljars NaqadaIIID

50t StUfCIIIC3 50 b-c,h-t NaqadaIIIC2 l [.,- - .*F+':7s. ll l '.:q; tr;l i\ rl i\ 50d StUfEIIIC2 50 d-g NaqadaIIICI rl llllr i1 iIL ',-] ll L_r i I I I \rI t-

ri

.l€t.$..qoG'so'Gcarr J1 499 - - - r\ 48s,tl49d,l/50d StufeIIIcI ll tl il

48s,tl49d,l Stufe IIIb2

47t /^-/^.ll\-r\- # -f 6AA I "2a,6 1'7 t 47 StufeIIIbI 47r-tl48sl49d, NaqadaIIIB j;\ F- ir o il b L--l L_,-, --< M{ W50/ W5l a w55/W58 MXIw55/W56g Stufe IIIa2 w60 /w61 NaqadaIIIA2 IViI w61/W62 w62 n\l irr U E5

w49/W50 W5l/W56a,g NaqadaIIIAI

.+' ,:1," w4ttw43b W47g StUfEIIIAl 1$l\1\7'- \_/ \___J/

- w4ttw43b w4tlw42 lN'1 W47g Stufe IId2 W43blW47a,g, NaqadaIID2 1 \i \1 \T'J W47m \_-,/ i-\ w24lw25 / )\l w24tw25 StufeIIdl w27 Naqada IID1 i )fiw3/w19 Stufe IIc w3/w19 NaqadaIIC Figure 3.I Relative chronological periods of the Naqada culture as distinguishedby I(aiser 1957, 1990 and Hendrickx 1989, 1996, 1999, illustrated by the t!?es of Wavy Handled/Cylindrical Jars (types Petrie1921.1953) 60 I STANHENDRICKX AND TAURENT BAVAY important role in the discussion of Egypt's foreign rela- from the Badari district, there are problems (Tabie 3.1). tions. It is to be noted however that the Egyptian deserts Either the identification as turquoise is questioned by the are very rich in all kinds of raw materials and that there excavators themselves, or the chronological position of the certainly was no pressure for the import of raw materials tomb in which it was found is uncertain, or the turquoise on the economy and subsistence of Egypt in the fourth comes from the fill of a disturbed tomb. Furthermore, the miliennium BC. In this respect, it is important to mention excavators sometimes seem to contradict themselves when that copper can be found in a few places in the Eastern the description of the tombs is compared to the tomb Desert of Egypt (cf. Castel and Pouit L997; Castel and register and the bead typology. Lucas and Harris (1962: Soukiassian I989: ll-12) and that there is no reason at 208, n.4), referring to information supplied by Brunton, 'the all to consider copper as an imported material as has often state that material originally classed doubtfully as been done-especially because the Eastern Desert was turquoise has now been definitely identified as turquoise.' very well known to the Egyptians from the beginning of However, a few of the objects from Brunton's excavations Predynastictimes onward (e.g.Debono 1951; Hobbs L998; are preserved in the British Museum, where Andrews Majer 1992; Resch 1964). (1981) identified two of them as glazed steatite; while the third one she was able to locate was indeed turquoise, it came from the fill of a disturbed tomb (cf. Table 3.1). The Obsidion beads from tomb 5403, preserved in the Petrie Museum, have been identifled as steatite (Adams, pers. comm.). Obsidian sources are to be found in Armenia and Cappa- Finkenstaedt 1t983) considered the technique which pro- docia in the Near East, as well as in Ethiopia and Yemen, duced glazed steatite beads (common in Badarian graves) Tibesti (Central Sahara), and some Mediterranean islands. to originate from northern Mesopotamia. However, the Owing to the geochemical peculiarities of the different existence of numerous steatite sources in the Eastern sources, this glassy material has for a long time been Desert (De Putter and I(arlshausen 1992 140-l), and the recognized as reliable evidence for reconstructing prehis- skillful mastery of firing techniques attested by the un- toric exchange patterns (c/ Williams-Thorpe 1995, with equaled quality of the Badarian pottery, make it most further references). Recently, analytical research has been probable that the technique of glazed steatite was invented carried out on l0 obsidian artifacts found in Pre- and Early independently in the Nile Valley and the Near East. Dynastic contexts at Hierakonpolis, the royal tombs from Turquoise has not been found in tombs dating to the Abydos, Naqada and Qaw el-I(ebir (Bavay et a\.2000). Naqada I and early Naqada II period (Table 3.2), and This study demonstrated all of these objects to originate therefore an interruption in the import of turquoise would from Ethiopian or Yemenite sources, and definitely not have to be supposed, if it did already occur during the from Armenia or Cappadocia. Therefore, the presence of Badarian. However, the material development of the Bad- obsidian should no longer be considered as evidence for ari and early Naqada culture shows no sign of any event relations between Upper Egypt and the Near East. Conse- which could have been the cause for such an interruption. quently, this material wiil not be discussedhere. However, Considering all of this, the oldest unquestionable it should be stressedthat one cannot exclude that obsidian occurrence of turquoise is to be moved to the Naqada IIC of different origins reached the Egyptian Nile Valley during period (Table ).2). It is certainiy not to be excluded that the Predynastic period. This is particularly true for Lower the corpus of Predynastic tombs containing turquoise is Egyptian sites, such as Abusir el-Meleq, which yielded an also hampered by erroneous identifications of the blue 'Badarian' important number of obsidian pieces (Scharff 1926), and stone, as was the case with the pieces. This is Tell el-Iswid South (Schmidt 1989: 83, fig. l5). Ongoing exemplified by two tombs at Naqada (1899 and B 50), for analyses of additional objects will help to confirm or which Baumgartel (1970) mentions the presence of tur- modify the preliminary conclusions of these investigations. quoise; in both casesit proved to be glazed steatite (Payne 1997: 208, n. 1695-1696). Nevertheless, the evidence gathered in Table 3.2 clearly shows the occurrence of Turquoise turquoise at various sites during Naqada IIC-D, while its presence during the Naqada III period seems mainly lim- That Sinai was the source of turquoise is hardly a matter ited to the elite tombs at Abydos and Hierakonpolis. of discussion any longer. Turquoise has already been Finally, it is to be noted that the occurrence of tur- attested for the Fayumian (Caton-Thompson and Gardner quoise in Egyptian tombs does not necessarily imply con- 1974: 53), although it concerns only a surface find. This tacts with the Levant. Indeed, turquoise is found in the isolated occurrence, which is to be placed in the fifth western part of the Sinai, especially in the area of Maghara millennium cal. ec if indeed Fayumian, apparently bears and Serabit el-I(hadim. Egyptians could easily have pro- no relation with the much more recent flnds from Predyn- cured the material without contact with even the south- astic tombs. Turquoise has been considered as evidence ernmost part of Palestine. During the 1970s, Israeli for the foreign relations of the Badarian culture (Prag archeologists excavated a turquoise mining and processing 1986; Tutundzic 1989). However, the identification of site attributed to a Ghassulian group (Beit Arieh 1980). turquoise with the naked eye proves to be particularly Since turquoise artifacts are almost completely absent difficult. Experiments have shown that confusion may from the Chalcolithic sites in the southern Levant, Beit easily arise with glazed objects, which are well attested Arieh ( 1980: 58, 6l ) suggestedthat the exploitation of the from the Badarian onwards. It is hardly a surprise that the stone was intended primarily for exportation to Egypt. identification of turquoise from Badarian tombs is highly However, an exclusively Chalcolithic date for the site disputable. Actually, for each of the l3 examples known appears highly disputable. The published fragments of EGYPTIANPREDYNASTIC AND EARTY DYNASTIC TOMBS I 6I

Table 3.1 Turquoise in Badarian context

Tomb Objects Comments

'turquoise?'The Badari 5106 beads Brunton and Caton-Thompson 1928: pl. I (86,I(.28) beads are not mentioned in the tomb register (ibid. pl. v) 'turquoise?' Badari 5107 beads,ivory figurine, pebble Brunton and Caton-Thompson 1928: pl. I (86,R.14) 'steatite.'The Andrews l98l: 2)-24, n. 60 bead comes from the fill of the tomb (Brunton and Caton-Thompson 1928 7) 'turquoise.'The Badari 5I I I matting, scraps of pottery. beads Brunton and Caton-Thompson 1928: pl. I (89,C.6) pendant is not mentioned in the tomb register (ibid.: pl. v) nor in the description of the tomb (ibid.: 7) 'turquoise?' Badari 5364 matting, BB 64 c, BR 24 k, beads, Brunton and Caton-Thompson I928: pl. xlix (75,C.9) Red Sea shells

Badari 5397 matting, BB 12 d, BR 21, beads, Red Brunton and Caton-Thompson 1928: pl. xlix (7 5,C.3,9) 'turquoise?' Sea shell, ivory pin (?) 'turquoise?' Badari 5403 mat, BR 24 h, SB ) k, 9 k, beads, Brunton and Caton-Thompson 1928: note 5 times {pl. xlix Nile bivalve, pebble, I0 flint flakes, (75,8.I5,I8, C.12,15,pl. I (86,L.10))and 2 times'turquoise'{pl. I ivory bangle. bone objects (86,K.30,P.18)). The last one is not mentioned in the tomb inventory (ibid.: pl. vi). UC.9190, Steatite (BarbaraAdams, pers. com.) 'turquoise?' Badari 5407 Red Sea shell Brunton and Caton-Thompson 1928: note both {pl. I (86,L.10)} 'turquoise' and {pl. I (86,K.18)}. The beads are not mentioned in the tomb inventory (ibid. pl. vi) 'blue Badari5413 matting, BB I I h, beads Brunton and Caton-Thompson 1928: I2 glazed steatite or turquoise'; pl. xlix (75,B.I 5)'turquoise?' 'green Badari5418 matting, beads, Red Sea shell. Brunton and Caton-Thompson 1928: l2 glazed steatite or turquoise'; 'turquoise' quartzite pl. I (86,P.18) 'turquoise?' Badan 5449 matting, beads, ivory spoon? Brunton and Caton-Thompson 1928: pl. xlix (75,8.15) 'glazed Andrews l98I: 24, n. 6l steatite' 'turquoise?' Badari 5718 RB I I h, beads, Red Sea shells, Brunton and Caton-Thompson 1928: pl. I (86,K.26) palette, flint flake, ivory vase and hook 'turquoise?' Badari 5740 beads, Red Sea shells Brunton and Caton-Thompson 1928: pl. I (86,M.16,R.14) 'glazed Andrews I98l: 19, n. I steatite' 'turquoise.' Matmar 1094 PR or P sherds / Red Sea shell Brunton 1948: pl. Ixx Not mentioned in description of tomb (ibid.: 8)

Note: BB = Black topped brown, BR = Biack topped red, PR = Polished red, SB = Smooth brown, RB = Rough brown pottery are generally very small and no entire shapesof excavated (Table 3.3). Although its foreign origin has been vesselscould be reconstructed.Among the shapesrepre- questioned by several authors (Lucas and Harris 1962: sentedare bowls and holemouth jars, which might just as 199; Needler 1984: 3l l; Nibbi I998; Vercoutter 1992 59\, well be Early Bronzein date.The lithicscomprised numer- the very specific geological conditions required for the ous Canaaniteblades, characteristic for the Early Bronze formation of lapis lazuli are not found in Egypt (Bavay Age, and particularlyfor EB I (RosenI983). Furthermore, 1997: 80). The nearest sources for lapis lazuli are in some sherds of an Egyptian marl clay cylindrical jar, Badakhshan in north-eastern Afghanistan, about 400Okm presumablysimilar to Perrie'sW 58 (c/ Beit Arieh 1980: from Egypt. Therefore, lapis lazuli appears secure evidence fig. 7,14-15; pl. l8,l-2) also point to a date around for long-distance contacts between Egypt and the East. NaqadaIIIA2, contemporary with EB I. The chronological and geographical distribution of 'massive' lapis lazuli shows a sudden and appearance during the Naqada IIC period (Table 3.1). Only one or two Lopis lozuli tombs containing lapis lazuli artifacts are to be dated earlier-tomb 1858 at Naqada, which dates to the Naqada Lapis lazuli occurs more often in Predynastic and Early IC period, and probably also tomb B 75 at Abadiya. It Dynastic tombs than turquoise, but even considering the seems nevertheless reasonable to consider Naqada IIC as impact of looting, its presence remains exceptional when the moment from which lapis lazuli was systematically compared to the thousands of tombs which have been imported. Furthermore, from the beginning it appears to 62 I STANHENDRICKX AND LAURENT BAVAY

Table 1.2 Turquoise in Predynastic and Early Dynastic tombs (adapted with additions after Griswold 1992)

Site Tomb Period Bibliography

Abydos u-2)4 Naqada IIA-IIB Dreyeret al. 1998:82 Matmar 2656 Naqada IIC Brunton l9)7: lxx

Mustagedda t8lI Naqada IIC Brunton 1948:71

Abydos L7)0 Naqada IiC Frankfort 1930:214

Naqada 494 Naqada IIC Baumgartel1970: xx Naqada 836 Naqada IIC (?) Petrie 1920: 44

Gerza 90 Naqada IIC-D? (SD 47-63) Petrie1912: 22

Gerza 80 Naqada IID? (SD 58-$) Petriel9I2:22

Naqaed-Deir 7)04 Naqada IIC-IID2 Kantor 1952:239

Abydos u-t)2 Naqada IIC-IID2 Dreyeret al. 1996: I5 Abydos u-r3l Naqada IIDI-IID2 Dreyeret al. I996: 17

Abydos u-t)4 Naqada IIDI-IID2 Dreyeret al. 1996:18

Abydos u-t49 Naqada IID I-IID2 Dreyeret al. 1996:l8

Abydos u-200 Naqada IID2 Dreyer199):27

Abydos u-210 Naqada IID2 Dreyeret al. 1996:20

Abydos u-)4) Naqada IID2 Dreyeret al. 2000:55

Abusir el-Meleq 52.h.8 Naqada IID2 Scharff 1926: 142

Abydos U-287 Naqada IID (?) Dreyer et al. 1998:89

Abydos u-501 Naqada IID (?) Dreyeret al. l99B:92

Abydos U-a Naqada IIIAI Dreyeret al. 1996:26

Abydos u-j Naqada IIIAI Dreyer1993: J4

Abydos U-o Naqada IIIAI Dreyeret al. 1996:27

Abydos u-qq Naqada IIIAI Dreyeret al. 1996:28

Abydos U-vv Naqada IIIAI Dreyeret al. 1996:28

Abydos U-ww Naqada IIIAI Dreyeret al. 1996:29

Matmar 5108 Naqada IIC-IIIAI? (SD 47-68) Brunton l9)7: lxx

Hierakonpolis,Hk. 6 ll Naqada IIIA2 Adams and Friedman 1992: 330

Matmar 205 Naqada IIIA2 Brunton 1937:lxx

Naqada )99 Naqada IIC-IIIA2 (?) Baumgartel1970: xvii

Abydos u-pp Naqada IIIA (?) Dreyeret al. L998:9)

Abydos U-I Naqada IIIB Dreyer 199): )2

Abydos U-D Naqada IIIA-IIIB Dreyeret al. 1996:22

Abydos U-c Naqada IIIA-IIIB Dreyeret al. 1996:26

Abydos o Naqada IIIC I (Djer) Petriel90i: i7

Matmar 5201 undated ('protodynastic' ) Brunton 1948:pl. Ixx Qau 105 undated Brunton and Caton-Thompson1928: xlix Qau r25 undated Brunton and Caton-Thompson1928: xlix Hammamiya l6BI undated Brunton and Caton-Thompson1928: xlix Abadiya undated Petrieand Mace I90l:27 I(ubaniya-south P.82 undated Junker 1919:102

I(ubaniya-south P.T45 undated JunkerI9l9:102 EGYPTIANPREDYNASTIC AND EARTYDYNASTIC TOMBS I 63

Table 3.3 Lapislazuli in Predynasticand Early Dynastictombs (adaptedwith additionsafter Bavay 1997)

Site Tomb Period Bibliography

Naqada 1858 Naoada IC Baumgartel 1970: Ix

Abadiya 875 Naqada IC-IIA? (SD 36-42) Petrie l92O:44

Gerza t3) Naqada IIC Petrie l9l2: 16

Matmar 2645 Naqada IIC Brunton l94B: pl. viii

Matmar 266r Naqada IIC (?) Brunton I94B: pl. viii

Matmar 1005 Naqada IIC Brunton 1948: pl. ix

Matmar )126 Naqada IIC Brunton I948: pl. x

Matmar )l)4 Naqada IIC Brunton 1948: pl. x

Matmar 5112 Naqada IIC Brunton 1948: pl. x

Matmar 5llI Naqada IIC Brunton I948: pl. x

Mustagedda 1759 Naoada IIC Brunton 1937: pl. xxx

Mustagedda r8lI Naqada IIC Brunton 1937: pl. xxx

Badari )7)O Naqada IIC Brunton and Caton-Thompson 1928: xxxii

Badari )732 Naqada IIC (?) Brunton and Caton-Thompson I928: xxxii

Badari 1850 Naqada IIC Brunton and Caton-Thompson 1928: xxxiii

Hammamiya ISII NaqadaIIC Brunton and Caton-Thompson 1928: pl. xxx

Hammamiya 1756 Naqada IIC Brunton and Caton-Thompson 1928: p. xxxi

Naqa ed-Deir 7290 Naqada IIC Lythgoe and Dunharn 1965: 166

Naqa ed-Deir 7)04 Naqada IIC (IID l?) Lythgoe and Dunham 1965: I79

Naqa ed-Deir 7338 Naqada IIC Lythgoe and Dunham L965: 202

Naqa ed-Deir 7)40 Naqada IIC (?) Lythgoe and Dunham 1965:207

Naqa ed-Deir 75)4 Naqada IIC Lythgoe and Dunham 1965:347

Naqa ed-Deir 7461 Naqada IIC (?) Lythgoe and Dunham 1965:286

Naqa ed-Deir 7527 NaqadaIIC (?) Lythgoe and Dunharn 1965: 343

Naqa ed-Deir 7538 NaqadaIIC-IIDI Lythgoe and Dunham 1965 )5)

Naqa ed-Deir 7540 NaqadaIIC (?) Lythgoe and Dunham 1965: )59

Naqa ed-Deir 7546 Naqada IIC (?) Lythgoe and Dunham 1965: )62

Mahasna t07 Naqada IIC Ayrton and Loat l9ll:22 el-Amra a96 Naqada IIC Mclver and Mace 1902: 19 el-Amra al I8 Naqada IIC Mclver and Mace l9O2: 17 el-Amra al39 Naqada IIC Mclver and Mace I902: l8 el-Amra b40 Naqada IIC Mclver and Mace l9O2:22

Naqada 822 Naqada IIC Petrie and Quibell 1896: 27

Naqada T5 Naqada IIC Baumgartel 1970: lxvii

Naqada 8)6 Naqada IIC (?) Petrie and Quibell 1896: 2l

Matmar 3067 Naqada IIDI Brunton 1948: pl. ix

Badari )827 Naqada IIDI Brunton and Caton-Thompson 1928: xxxiii

table continues 64 I STANHENDRICKX AND TAURENTBAVAY

Table 3.1 (cont.)

Site Tomb Period Bibliography

Badari 4602 Naqada IIDI Brunton and caton-Thompson 1928: xxxiii

Badari 4604 Naqada IIDI Brunton and Caton-Thompson 1928: xxxiii

Badafi 3839 Naqada IIC-ID I Brunton and caton-Thompson 1928: xxxiii

Naqada 667 Naqada IIC-IIDI (?) Baumganel 1970: xxvi el-Amra b62 Naqada IIDI Mclver and Mace 1902: 20 el-Amra bl06 Naqada IIDI Mdver and Mace 1902: 22 el-Amra b230 Naqada IIDI Mclver and Mace 1902: 2]

Naqada 690 Naqada trDl Petrie and Quibell 1896: 19

Minshat Abu omar 761 Naqada IID2 Kroeper and wildung 1994t 152

Mustagedda 11757 NaqadaIID2 Brunton l9l7:75, xxx

Abydos E7 Naqada IID2 Mclver and Mace 1902: 19

Abydos E 169 Naqada rID2 Mclver and Mace 1902: 16

Abydos u-151 Naqada IID2 Dreyer et al.2ooo:47 el-Amra bf7 Naqada IID2 Mclver and Mace 1902: 20 el-Amra bI04 Naqada IID2 Mclver and Mace 1902124

Khor Bahan,cem. 17 15 NaqadaIID2 Reisnerl9l0: l2E

Hammamiya 1629 Naqada IID2 (?) Bmnton and Caton'Thompson 1928: pl. xxxi

Hammamiya 1630 Naqada lID2 (?) Bmnton and Caton-Thompson 1928: pI. xxxi

Abadiya B ]21 Naqada [D2? (SD 60) Petrie and Mace l90l: J4

Minshat Abu Omar (?) 699 Naqada llc-[D2 Kroeper and Wildung 1994: 103

MinshatAbu Omar 815 Naqada IIC-IID2 (MAO l) Kroeper and Wildung2ooo:25

Minshat Abu Omar 833 Naqada IIC-IID2 (MAO l) Kloeper and Wildung20oo:25

Hammamiya 1579 Naqada UC-trD2 (?) Brunton and Caton-Thompson 1928: pl. xxxi

Naqada 1247 NaqadaIIC-uD2? (SD48-59) Payne 1993:n.2064

Gerza 80 NaqadaIIDI-IID2? (SD 58-63) Petrie1912:22

Qaw el-Kebir 102 Naqada IC-IID2 Brunton and Caton-Thompson 1928: pl. xxx

Qaw el-Kebir lo5 Naqada IC-IID2 Brunton and Caton-Thompson 1928: pl. xxx

Qaw el-Kebir l4o Naqada IC-IID2 Brunton and Caton-Thompson 1928: pl. xxx

Kubaniya-south 20.j.2 Naqadan (?) Junker l9l9: 102

Naqada 624 Naqada IIIAI Baumgartel 1970: pl. lviii

Abydos U-qq Naqada UIAI Dreyer et al. 1996t 28

Gerza 142 Naqada IID-IIIAI? (SD t7-65) Perie 1912.22

Abydos U-g NaqadaIIIA2 Dreyer 1993:28

Hierakonpolis, Hk.6 ll Naqada nIA2 Adams and Friedma\ 1992: '3o

Kubaniya-south 20.1.4 NaqadaIIIA2 Junker l9l9: 102

celza 55 Naqada llIAl-[I2? \SD 65-72) Pe$ie l9l2t 22

Abusir el-Meleq 22.h.2 Naqada IIC-IIIA2 (?) Scharfl 1926: 125

table continues EGYPIIANPREDYNASTIC AND EARLYDYNASTIC TOMBS I 65

Table 1.3 (cont.l

Site Tomb Period Bibliography

Dakka,cem. i02 I90 Naqada IID-IIIA2 Firth 1915: 69

Dakka,cem. 102 504 Naqada IID-IIIA2 Firth l9 I 5: 80

Tarkhan l9 Naqada IIIB Petrie 19ll: pl. lxiii

HammamiYa t765 Naqada IIIB Brunton 1927:pl. xi, xvii

Abydos U-c Naqada IIIAI-IIIB Dreyer et al. 1996: 26

Shellal,cem.7 325 Naqada IIIAI-IIIB (?) Reisner 19lO:25

Turah I ).I.4 Naqada IIIB (or IIIC t ) Junker L9I2:61

Abu Zeidan Naqada IIDI-IIIB (?) Needler 1984: 3ll

Abydos o Naqada IIICI (Djerl Petrie I9Ol: 17, )7

Abydos cem.W Naqada IIICI (Djed) Petrie l90l: xxxviii, l0

Giza v, ll Naqada IIICI (Djed) Petrie l9O7: pl. iii, v.3

Saqqara s.3507 Naqada ItrC2 (Denl Emery 1958: 81

Abu Roash A+B Naqada IIIC2 Hawass l9B0:242

Abu Roash Ml9 Naqada IIIC2 I(lasens 196l:126

Abu Roash 40 Naqada IIID I(lasens 1958a: l0

Abydos a Naqada IIID (Qa'a) Engel 1997:686

Minshat Abu Omar ? Naqada IIID (?) I(roeper l9BB: I7

Abusir el-Meleq 052 Naqada III Scharff 1926: 154

Nubia,cem. unknown 148 Naqada III Firth 1927: 222

Debod,cem. 23 45 Naqada III (lst dyn.?) Reisner l9I0: 159

Abusir el-Meleq 8 f,2 undated Scharff 1926: ll2

Abusir el-Meleq 54e l0 undated Scharff 1926:144

Matmar to46 undated ('protodyn.') Brunton 1948: pl. xx, Ixx

I(awamil undated Cleyet-Merle 1982:124

Abydos E.I55 undated Mclver and Mace I9O2: 15

Abydos E 203 undated Mclver and Mace l9O2: 16

GebelTarif undated Quibell 1905:279

Ballas 2) undated Payne 1993:n.1699

Ballas 198 undated Payne 199): n. l70l

Naqada 2)8 undated Baumgartel 1970: x

Naqada r)49 undated Baumgartel 1970: xl

Naqada T29 undated Baumgartel 1970: lxix

Armant t567 undated Mond and Myers 1937: pl. xli

I(ubaniya-south l e.j.l undated Junker 1919:102

I(ubaniya-sourh l9.n.I undated Junker l9l9: i02

I(ubaniya-south 20.h.4 undated Junker l9l9:102

GerfHussein, cem. 79 190 undated (A-group) Firth l9l2: 150 66 I STANHENDRICKX AND LAURENTBAVAY

Table 1.4 Silverobjects in Predynasticand Early Dynastictombs (afterPrag 1978,wrth additions)

Site Tomb Period Bibliography

Mahasna H4l Naqada IC Ayrton and Loat l9l I : 16

Naqada t547 Naqada IIA Baumgartel 1955: 7

Naqada 63 Naqada IIB Payne 1987:182

Naqada t257 Naqada IIC Payne 199): n. l686

Naqada 1770 Naqada IID I Petrie and Quibell 1896: 45

Mostagedda I 630 Naqada IID I Brunton 1937:86 el-Amra b 230 Naqada IID I Mclver and Mace 1902: pl. vi el-Amra b 23) Naqada IID I Mclver and Mace I9O2:24

Hierakonpolis Hk.6 ll Naqada IIIA2 Adams 1996a: 13

Matmar 5201 undated ('protodynastic' ) Brunton 1948:26

Gebel et-Tarif undated Quibell 1905: CGI45L4-6

Naqada t635 undated Petrie and Quibell 1896: 45

Naqada t760 undated Petrie l92l: 43

Naqada undated Petrie and Quibell I896:46

Ballas undated Baumgartel 1955: 8

be distributed all over Upper Egypt. Lapis lazuli tends to Predynastic silver. Unfortunately most of the very few become less frequent from the beginning of Naqada III, silver items known for Predynastic and Early Dynastic when a concentration in the elite cemeteries of Hierakon- Egypt (Table 3.4) have not been analyzed. It is not likely polis, Abydos and the Memphis region can be observed. that many analyses will be carried out in the future either, The relative scarcity may be explained by the heavy because the present whereabouts of some of the objects is 'silver' looting which took place in these elite tombs, rather than unknown. Most of the identifications as have been by a diminishing import. The latest occurrence of lapis made a long time ago, and should be checked. Two well- lazuli dates to the time of Qa'a. The absence of lapis lazuli analyzed objects (Gale and Stos-Galel98l: I l5) represent during the Second and Third Dynasties may possibly both types of silver. A lid of a stone jar from Naqada tomb reflect the break in the procurement of the stone observed 1257, dated to Naqada IIC, is made of the second type of on contemporary Near Eastern sites, as a result of political gaiena silver and might therefore have been imported. circumstances during the Mesopotamian Early Dynastic I However, the source of this silver cannot be determined. period (Bavay 1997: 9)-4; Herrmann 1968; Majidzadeh Finally a hawk model, from the Naqada IIC tomb 721 1982:62). However, the limited archaeological evidence at Naqada, was first described as made of lead (Petrie and for the Second and Third Dynasties should also be taken Quibell 1896: 46), was next considered to be of silver into consideration. (Prag 1978), but finaliy found to be of lead as originally With regard to the catalog of tombs containing tur- supposed(Gale and Stos-Galel98l: Il5; Payne 199):14, quoise and lapis lazuli, it is remarkable that the large Early n.6).The lead, with a very high silver content, is con- Dynastic mastabas at Saqqara are represented only once. sidered by Gale and Stos-Gale not to come from Eglpt; Considering the importance of these tombs, second only this however was contradicted by Hassan and Hassan to the royal tombs at Abydos, this absence can oniy be (1981). Anyhow, considering the very exceptional occur- explained through the heavy looting of the Saqqara rence of lead artifacts in the Near East of the fourth mastabas. millennium, nothing definitive could be said about its provenience.

Silver ond leod Cholcolithic pottery Silver has in the past been regarded as a sure import (Lucas and Harris 1962 245-53), but more recent Besides raw materials, imported pottery has also been research proved that part of the Egyptian silver is native found in Predynastic and Early Dynastic tombs. The earli- aurian silver (Gale and Stos-Gale l98l). The remaining est find known at present comes from the Badarian tomb silver, with a low gold content, might have been obtained 569 at Qaw el-I(ebir, where a globular jar with four lug from foreign galena ores (ibid.: ll4). However, this is handles of non-Egyptian type and material has been found questioned by Hassan and Hassan (1981), who consider (Brunton and Caton-Thompson I928: ), pI. xvi,7, xxvi). the possibility of Egyptian galena being the source of The Badarian date of this jar has been questioned by EGYPTIANPREDYNASTIC AND EARLYDYNASTIC TCMBS I 67

Baumgartel (1955: 2l ), who suggeststhat the material of have contained principally wine and, to a far more limited the disturbed tomb 569 may have been mixed with that extent, vegetable oils. Figs have also been found, but these 'protodynastic' of the equally disturbed tomb 569a. How- were probably only used for sweetening wine (McGovern ever, not only was the jar in question apparently found in et al. 1997: l0). Tomb U-j at Abydos may have contained contact with the arm of the skeleton, which, admittedly, a total volume of some 4500 liters of wine stored in was not in its original position (Brunton and Caton- Canaanite vessels (ibid.: I 1). On the other hand, the Thompson I928: 3), but also it finds no parallels among absence of Egyptian jars that can be identified with cer- the Canaanite Early Bronze IB or Early Bronze II pottery. tainty as wine jars during the Naqada IIIAI-IIIA2 period Recently, the Chalcolithic date of the jar and its proveni- allows us to suggest that wine was not yet produced in ence from northern Canaan have been demonstrated most Egypt itself at that time (cl page 70). convincingiy by Friedman (1999a). Besides the storage jars, there are a few other types of Canaanite imports (Table 3.6; for illustrations, see I(roeper I989: 412-17 , fi1. 5-10), although it cannot be established Eorly Bronze I poftery with certainty for each one of them that they were actu- ally produced outside Egypt. This is however certainly so For the Canaanite EB I storage jars found in Egyptian for the jug from Gerza, for which perfect paralleis have tombs (Table 1.5) a few broadly defined types can be been found on several EB I sites (Helms 1987 73 fig. recognized. Only the jar from tomb 3l I I at Matmar, dated l9,l-6). Equally imported are the loop-handled jugs tentatively Naqada IC, is different, both in its shape and found in the elite tombs at Qustul (Williams 1986: 78-80), the very early date of the tomb in which it was found. which represent the southernmost find of EB I pottery The attribution to the Naqada IC period is open for discus- (see also Gophna and van den Brink, this volume). The sion because of the presence among the grave goods of a Qustul tombs are difficult to integrate in the relative jar of Petrie's type R 81, which is very characteristic of the chronological framework used here. From the Egyptian Naqada IIC period. On the other hand, there are also a pottery they contained, the tombs can only roughly be few Black-topped vesseisthat point to an earlier date. The dated to Naqada IIIA2-IIIC2. However, considering the excavator already suggested, without further details, a Naqada IIIA2 date of the jug from Hierakonpolis Hk 6, foreign origin for the jar under discussion (Brunton 1948 tomb I l, which although incompletely preserved is a close I8). There are no obvious Canaanite parallels, although parallel for the Qustul jugs, it may be accepted that the related shapes can be found among the Canaanite pottery Qustul tombs antedate the Naqada IIIC period, and hence from Tomb U-j. The problem posed by this jar cannot be the First Dynasty. A few very large loop-handled cups answered at present. made from Nile silt with a large amount of vegetal temper Among the EB I storage jars, the most numerous are (Petrie l92I: pl. LI, type L 70), and which are thus locally broad jars with wavy handles (c/ Iftoeper 1989: 409, fi,g. produced in Egypt, may have been influenced indirectly 2), generally accepted to represent the oldest examples of by Canaanite pottery, with Lower Egypt as the go- the Wavy Handled pottery which will become so import- between (von der Way I 993: )2). This opinion however ant for the study of the relative chronology of the Naqada has been rejected by Tutundzic (199.l.:4l-)), who looks culture. Some of these pots combine both wavy handles for direct influence from Canaan. The cups have all been and ledge handles. They have been found on different found at living sites and it is therefore impossibie to sites all over Egypt from Naqada IIC onwards. Apparently integrate them in the relative dating sequence used here. from the very beginning when the Egyptians started to With the exception of the storage jars and the loop imitate the Canaanite prototypes, they developed smaller handled jugs, all of the EB I pottery types found in Egypt and slimmer types, which must represent adaptations to served for various domestic functions and not for storage their own requirements. Therefore the difference between and transport. This probably aiso explains why the Canaanite imports and locally made Wavy Handled jars majority of the types and examples have been found at becomes obvious by their shape as early as the Naqada Minshat Abu Omar, where the occasional presence of IIC. For the Naqada IIIAI-A2 period, Canaanite vessels Canaanites can be expected. But even on this site, the almost exclusively come from Abydos (Table 3.5). Jars of occurrence of imported vesselsis occasional, at least if we a similar shape, but without the wavy handles, occur with accept the funerary assemblage to reflect daily life. 'knobbed ledge handles and with a combination of ledge and loop The Canaanite origin of bowls' (Petrie l92l: handles (I(roeper 1989: 410-l , fig. )-4). Their presence pl. XV, F 5 a-b) seems ascertained (I(antor 1992 l); seems to be restricted to Naqada trC-D. Finally, large bottles Tutundzic 1993:47-B), although probably only the without handles occur only from Naqada IIIAI onwards. example from Mostagedda is a genuine import, the others The latter are particularly numerous in Tomb U-j at Aby- being Egyptian imitations. Unfortunately oniy one of these dos. For all the above mentioned types, Canaanite parallels bowls can be dated. It seems nevertheless highly probable can be found (Amiran 1969: pl. 16,7-8; I(roeper 1989; that they should be placed in Naqada IIC-D. Porat 1991 with further references; Yekutieli 1995). Three spouted vesselsfound at Minshat Abu Omar are Before the Naqada IIIAI period, the number of these certain Canaanite imports, but they apparently have no jars remains very limited. There never occurs more than relation with the spouted vessels belonging to Petrie's one example in a tomb. This picture changes radically Fancy class,which are still to be discussed (page 70). Both during the Naqada III period, where the enormous the shape of the jars themselves and the tlpe of the spouts amount of Canaanite pottery from Tomb U-j is especially differ considerably and the Minshat Abu Omar examples remarkable. are more recent than those from Upper Egypt. EB I jars found in Egypt are generally considered to Finally, a double jar from tomb 87 at Gerza (Petrie 68 I STANHENDRICKX AND IAURENTBAVAY

Table 1.5 Early BronzeI storagejars in predynastictombs

Site Tomb Number Period Bibliography

Matmar lltl I Naqada IC (?) Brunton 1948: I8, xiii.20

el-Amra I a6 I Naqada IIC Mclver and Mace 1902:22 el-Amra b 166 Naqada IIC Mclver and Mace 1902:20

Naqada t246 I Naqada IIC Baumgartel1970: xxxvi Naqada 1298 I Naqada IIC Payne199): n. 1088

I Armant 1362 I Naqada IIC Mond and Myers 1937:pl. xxiv Naqada I Naqada IIC? (SD 40) Payne 1993:n. I087

I el-Amra b 224 I Naqada IID I Mclver and Mace 1902: 24 Hierakonpolis 558 I Naqada IIC-IID I Adams 1974:103 Friedman pers. comm.

Minshat Abu Omar 799 I Naqada IIC-IID2 (MAO la) I(roeper l9B9 4ll, fig. 4a I(roeper and Wildung 2000: I

Minshat Abu Omar 840 I Naqada IIC-IID2 (MAO la) I(roeper 1989: 4lO, frg.4a Kroeperand Wiidung 2000: 136 Minshat Abu Omar )r6 I Naqada IIC-IID2 (MAO Ib) I{roeperand Wildung 2000: 80

Abydos u- 133 I Naqada IIDI-IID2 Dreyeret al. 1996:17 Abydos u-503 I Naqada IIDI-IID2 Dreyeret al. L998:92

Abydos u-t)4 I Naqada IID2 Dreyeret al. 1996:L7 Abusir el-Meleq 4l a2 I Naqada (IID2) IIIAI Scharfi1926: Tf.. 9,5; 45 Abydos U-a l0 Naqada IIIAI Dreyeret al. 1996:26 Abydos u-j 700 Naqada IIIAI HartungI99):49-56

Abydos U-o 6 Naqada IIIAI Dreyeret al. 1996:27

TI - I Abydos u-l Naqada IIIAI Dreyeret al. 1996:23

Abydos U-ww I Naqada IIIAI Dreyeret al. 1996:29 Abydos U-s ) Naqada IIIA2 Dreyer1990:57

Abusir ei-Meleq to37 I Naqada IIIA2-IIIB Scharff1926: Tf. 62,8

Abydos u-b I Naqada III Dreyeret al. L996:24 Abydos u-d 1 Naqada III Dreyeret al. 1996:23 Abydos U-p I Naqada III Dreyer 1990:Tf.. 24c Abydos U-yy ) Naqada III Dreyeret al. 1996:24

Abydos U-zz I Naqada III Dreyeret al. 1996:25 Tarkhan I Naqada IIIA2-IIIC2 Yekutieli 1995 Gerza t85 I Naqada IIC-IIIA? (SD 43-70) Petrie1912: pl. XI

I Gerza )3 I Naqada IIC-IIIA? (SD 57,64\ Petrie 1912:pl. XI

Abydos ? Naqada III Am6lineau IB99: pl.x,xiv-v

Abydos ? undated Quibell1905: CG I1652-7 ) Abydos undated Quibell1905: CG I1663

l9L2: pl. XI, F 46 b) cannor be dated, but according to the ples are clearly derived from frequently occurring Naqadian ware description most probably represents a genuine shapes (see also Tutundzic l99i:50-l). Also, the shape import. The suggestion by I(antor (\942: 185, 205) rhat evolution of the double vasesfollows that of vesselsbelong- Predynastic double vases in general would show foreign ing to Petrie's Red Polished and Decorated and is therefore influence is hardly acceptable,because the Egyptian exam- strongly linked with the Egyptian porrery tradition. EGYPTIANPREDYNASTIC AND EARLYDYNASTIC TCMBS I 69

Table 1.6 Varioustypes of EB I pottery

Site Tomb Number Period Bibliography

Loop-handledjugs

Gerza 94 I Naqada IIC-IIIA? (SD 47-70) Petrie I9l2: xi, F 100

HierakonpolisHk.6 l1 I Naqada IIIA2 Adams and Friedman 1992: T2, fig 15

Qustul L9 I Naqada IIIA2-IIIC2 Williams1986: 100 Qustul L 19 I Naqada IIIA2-IIIC2 Williams1986: 100

Qustul L24 9 Naqada IIIA2-IIIC2 Williams1986: 100

Ituobbedbowls

Abusirel-Meleq 7g5 I Naqada IID2 Scharff1926: TI. 21,156;4I

Mustagedda I 600 undated Brunton I9)7: pl. xxxiv.l5

Naqada ll85 I undated Baumgartel1970: pl. xl

Naqada ?- undated Petrieand Quibell l896: pl. xxv, F 5b

Double vessel

Gerza 87 I Naqada IID-IIIA? SD 50-70 Petrie l9l2: pi. xi, F 46b

Small ovoid jars with two lug handles

Hierakonpolis 106 I Naqada IIC Adams 1996b:flg. I,d

Mostagedda (?) II7t9 I Naqada IIDI-IID2 (?) Bruntonl9]7: xxxi, xxxvi

Minshat Abu Omar 221 I Naqada IIC-IIDI (MAO l) I(roeper and Wildung 1994: 126

Abusirel-Meleq l0I9 I Naqada IIIA2 Scharff 1926:24, Tf..8,59

Naqada undated Petrieand Quibell I896: xxiv, P 79

Spoutedjars

Minshat Abu Omar 242 I Naqada IID2 (MAO I ) I(roeperand Wildung 1994:156

Minshat Abu Omar 103 I Naqada IID2 (MAO I ) Kroeperand Wildung I994: 124

Minshat Abu Omar TO I Naqada IID2 (MAO l) I(roeper and Wildung 1994: l2O

Churn

Minshat Abu Omar 787 I Naqada IIC-D (MAO Ia) I(roeper1989: 416, fig.8a I(roeperand Wildung 2000: l0-ll

I(eg

Minshat Abu Omar 313 I Naqada IID2 (MAO l) I(roeperand Wildung 1994:L15

Unidentifed

Hierakonpolis Naqada IIC-D Friedman1999b:4

Mesoporomioninluence? :ff T,::'f.",:,,:X,:::li"H1f:ffi::11,i..,,J'i.lTlili; A number of Predynastic pottery t)?es and decorative universal themes, developed indipendently in various patterns have been suggested to shoyr' Mesopotamian regions, and they can, for example, also be found on influence. Baumganel (1955: 52-102) recognizedexten- Mesoamericanand Chinesepottery. Also, there is not a sive M€sopotamian influence for nearly all of the Deco- single example known oI Decoratedpottery impoded from rated Predynastic pottery. This however is no longer Mesopotamia to Egypt or viceyersa. accepted.The large majodty of motives which Baumgartel For a few pottery types, the possible Mesopotamian recognizes for both regions consist of rather simple geo- influence should be considered a little bit rnore in detail. metrical patterns, most of which appear to be stylized Among them are the pots with triangular lug handles renderings for water, mounhins, or plants. AIso, imita- belonging to Petrie's Decorated class (Petde I92l: pl. 70 I STANHENDRICKX AND TAURENT BAVAY

XXXIV-XXXV, D 45 b,s, D 50, D 50 b, D 5l m, D 57, D 59 a long time ago by Hennessy (1967). Besides one actual c,p,t), dating mainly to Naqada IIDI-2. These pots are find from Helwan, EB II jars are also occasionally depicted locally made in Egypt from marl ciay and their decoration on Second Dynasty stelae from Saqqara and Helwan (Saad shows the typical motives of the Naqada IIC-D period, but 1957 pl. XXIV, XXVI; Smith 1958: pl. la). They are more the type of handles also occurs for Obeid and Uruk pottery frequently depicted in Old I(ingdom mastabas (Baicz 1934: from Mesopotamia (Amiran 1992:427-8). These handles 90-4). The production of this type of jar continues also occur on late Uruk pottery from Palestine and north- throughout the EB II and EB III periods, and it is therefore ern Syria. Although highiy disputable, a Mesopotamian to be supposed that the near complete absence in Egypt influence, albeit indirect, cannot be excluded completely after the First Dynasty is at least partially due to our (Amiran 1992; Kantor 1992: 14). Similar influence has limited archeological knowledge of the Second Dynasty also been recognized in spouted vessels (Petrie l92l: pl. (c/ I(antor 1992: 20). XV[I, F 58 a-s), the few well-dated examples of which Among the contents of the EB II jars were certainly occur from Naqada IIC onwards. Although these jars are vegetable oils, which may have come from southern Leb- produced in Egypt from Nile silts, and despite the fact that anon (Serpico and White 1996). They could have been the shapes of these vessels are most frequent among the used in food preparation or for cosmetic purposes. This is Red-Polished pottery (Petrie l92l: pl. XI-XII), a Meso- corroborated by the relatively small volume of the jars. potamian origin for the bent spout has been suggested Also, Ioop-handled jars of the shape discussed here, (Amiran 1992:427; Baumgartel 1955: 9l-3; I(antor 1992: although made of stone, will be used during the Old l4), though never widely accepted (I(roeper 1989: I(ingdom as determinative for different types of cosmetic 412-16; Tutundzic 1993 49-50). It is indeed true that oils (Balcz l9)4:76-82), and they are also represented in spouts are not common for Predynastic Egyptian pottery, the Old I(ingdom mastabasas oil jars (Balcz L9)4:90-4t. but the function of these vesselsfor washing hands (and Wine, which was certainly imported during the EB I as at the same time as a symbol for the elite way of living) is mentioned above, was produced locally in Egypt from the well known for the Early Dynastic period and the Old Early Dynastic period onwards (McGovern et al. 1997: ICngdom (Hendrickx 1994: 88 with further references). 7-8).Although the exact moment for the introduction of all these reasons, For it seems most probable that spouted viniculture is difficult to define, it seems logical to situate vessels,which all-in-all are not a spectacular nor complex it between Naqada IIlAl, the time of tomb U-j at Abydos invention, were developed independently in Mesopotamia and the beginning of the Early Dynastic period. The large and EgypI (contra I(antor 1992: l4). In a similar manner, jars with rope decoration (Emery 1938, 1949, L954, i958: the suggestedrelation for loop-handled pots (I(antor 1942: types Al-2, A6-12; Petrie I9)J: pl. XXII-XXIII, types 176), which was already doubted by Baumgartel (1955: 76a-y) manufactured in EglTt are generally considered to 94), can also be refuted. have been used exclusively as wine jars, which has been In conclusion, the Mesopotamian influence on Egyp- disputed, but for which confirmation has been found tian pottery manufacture appears highly disputable. recently (I(ohler 1996: 5l-4). In a few cases,the function as wine jar has been confirmed through the find of grape pips (Emery 1962 7; I(ohler L996:52). The earliestjars of Eorly Bronze ll pofiery this type are attested for the Naqada IIIB period, which consequently could represent the introduction of large- scale viniculture in Egypt. This is confirmed by the in situ Early Bronze II pottery found in Egypt (Tables ).74.9) find of grape pips in the tomb of Iry-Hor (I(ohler 1996: consists almost exclusively of elongated flasks, generally 52). However, the majority of the examples date to the with one large loop handle, but they also occur with two Naqada IIICI-IIIC2 period. The production of wine in small lug handles and without handles at all (c/ I(antor Egypt itself and, diminishing 1992 fig. l0-14; I(roeper 1989: 418, fig. ll). They have as a consequence, the 'Abydos originally been designated Ware,' a term no importance of imported wine, might well explain why jars longer appropriate, not oniy because this pottery has been large EB II storage (Table ).9), which can be supposed manufactured in Canaan and not in Abydos, but also to have contained wine during Naqada IIIC l-mC2, are f.ar because it is not a uniform fabric. Three different ware less numerous than the related EB IB jars during the groups have been distinguished, namely Red-Polished Naqada IIIA l-IIIA2 period. Ware, Light-Faced Painted Ware and Metallic Ware (Hen- It is remarkable that no EB II jars have been found in nessy and Millet 196); I(antor 1992: l9). The majority of Upper Egypt, with the notable exception of the royal the Early Bronze II jars most probably belong to the tombs at Abydos. Nearly all of the other jars have been Metallic Ware produced in the Upper Jordan Valley and found in the Memphite area, in elite tombs such as the adjacent regions (Greenberg and Porat 1996; Porat and Early Dynastic mastabas at Saqqara or in tombs that are Adams 1996 102). The Light-Faced Painted jars (Table directly linked with this elite, such as the cemetery at 3.8) were probably manufactured in Lower Galilee, per- Saqqara west (cI I(aiser 1985). Another observation is that haps in the vicinity of Lake I(inneret (Porat and Adams although the Saqqara tombs yielded an important number 1996: I04). As for the Red-Polished Ware, this is a hetero- of Canaanite imports, the variety in shapesmay have been geneous group that may have been produced at different larger for the royal tombs at Abydos. places in middle and southern Canaan. The earliest EB II One last EB II import from Canaan is a remarkable jars found in Egypt date to the reign of Djer and, as far as zoomorph vessel found in grave 2275 at Minshat Abu known at present, they hardly occur in Egypt after the Omar, dated by the excavators to the First Dynasty (I(rzy- First Dynasty, which conflrms the view already expressed zaniak et al. 1996: cover). EGYPTIANPREDYNASTIC AND EARLYDYNASTIC TOMBS I 7I

Table 1.7 Early BronzetI jars (includingMetallic Ware) in EgyptianEarly Dynastictombs

Site Tomb Number Period Bibliography

Abu Roash 389 I Naqada IIIC I I(lasens 1958b: )6-9

Abydos o 6 Naqada IIICI (Djerl Serpico and White 1996 Porat and Adams I996

Saqqara s.3504 24 Naqada IIIC2 (Djed) Emery 1954: 68-81

Tarkhan I 060 I Naqada IIIC2 (Djed) Petrie 19l), xvi,4 xxx,6-7

Abu Roash T z Naqada IIIC2 (Den?) Montet 1946: 162

Abu Roash M19 Naqada IIIC2 (Den?) I(lasens l96l: I I l-l l

Abu Roash M20 z Naqada IIIC2 (Den?) ICasens 196l I I I-l l

Abu Roash M 2l I Naqada IIIC2 (Den?) Klasensl96l: I I l-l l

Abu Roash M22 I Naqada IIIC2 (Den?) KlasensI96I: I I I-I l

Abu Roash M24 I Naqada IIIC2 (Den?) I(lasens l96l: I I l-l l

Abu Roash M25 2 Naqada IIIC2 (Den) IflasensI96l: lll-Il

Saqqara s.l016 5 Naqada IIIC I-IIIC2 (Den) Emery 1949: 8l

Saqqara s.3015 ) Naqada IIIC2 (Den) Emery l9lB: 50, pL 26-7

Saqqara s.3506 55 Naqada IIIC2 (Den) Emery I958: 5I-6

Saqqara s.I 507 20 Naqada IIIC2 (Den) Emery I958: 85-8

Saqqara-west l7 I Naqada IIIC2 (Den?) Macramallah I940

Saqqara-west 35 I Naqada IIIC2 (Den?) Macramallah 1940

Saqqara-west 40 I Naqada IIIC2 (Den?) Macramallah 1940

Saqqara-west 49 I Naqada IIIC2 (Den?) Macramallah 1940

Saqqara-west 78 I Naqada IIIC2 (Den?) Macramallah 1940

Saqqara-west r97 I Naqada IIIC2 (Den?) Macramallah 1940

Saqqara-west 198 I Naqada IIIC2 (Den?) Macramallah 1940

Saqqara-west 225 I Naqada IIIC2 (Den?) Macramallah 1940

Saqqara-west 226 I Naqada IIIC2 (Den?) Macramallah I940

Saqqara-west 229 2 Naqada IIIC2 (Den?) Macramallah 1940

Helwan I16.H4 I Naqada IIIC2 Saad l95l: pl. xi,b,B

Tell Ibrahim Awad I I Naqada IIIC2 van den Brink 1988: fig. I9

t Tell Ibrahim Awad I 2 Naqada IIIC2 van Haarlem 1996: pl. I I, 33

'7 Lahun <,'7 3 Naqada IIIC2 (?) Petrie et al. 1923: pl. Iiii

Abydos >) Naqada IIIC2-D ( Semerkhet) I(antor 1992 II,24 Porat and Adams 1996

Abydos I Naqada IIIC-IIID Amdlineau 1899: pl. ii

Saqqara s.I 500 Naqada IIID (Qa'a) Emery I958: 105-6

Saqqara s.350 5 l4 Naqada IIID (Qa'a) Emery 1958: 15-I9 Abydos a Naqada IIID (Qa'a) Engel 1997 Minshat Abu Omar ? I Naqada IIID (MAO 4) I(roeper 1989: 4L7, fi,g. I}a

Minshat Abu Omar ? I Naqada IIiD (MAO 4) I(roeper 1989: 417, fig lla

Minshat Abu Omar ? I Naqada IIID (MAO 4) I(roeper 1989: l7, fig llb

Helwan 40.H.) ? Naqada IIID (?) I(dhler 1998

Helwan 419.H8 I Naqada IIID (2nd dynasty) Saad 1957:pl. xxxiv,J

Helwan ? undated Saad l95l:pl. Ixxii,20

Helwan ) undated Saadl95l:pl. lxxii,2l 72 I STANHENDRICKX AND TAURENTBAVAY

Table 3.8 Early Bronze U Light-Faced Painted jars in Egyptian Early Dynastic tombs

Site Tomb Number Period Bibliography

A1 Saqqara-west +L t Naqada IIIC2 (Den?) Macramallah1940

Saqqara-west 222 I Naqada IIIC2 (Den?) Macramallah 1940

Abydos T >l Naqada IIIC2 (Den) Petriel90l: pl. liv Petriel9O2: pl. viii Scharffl9l l: n. 5I5

t Abusir 98-r I Naqada IIIC2 (?) Bonnet 1928:Tt.27 Steinmann1998:67-8

Abydos U >l Naqada IIIC2-D ( Semerkhet) PetrieI90l: pi. liv Petrie 1902:pl. viii ScharffI9lI: n.570-4

Abydos ? Naqada IIIC-IIID Am6lineau 1899:pl. ii, xiii Abydos a Naqada IIID (Qa'a) Engel 1997: 288, Abb. 144 ScharffI9)l: n. 5)6, 5)8

Saqqara s.3120 Naqada IIID (Qa'a) Emery 1949: fig. 68

Saqqara ) Naqada IIIC2-IIID (?) Emeryl96l: pl. 33

Table 3.9 Early BronzeII squatjars in EgyptianEarly Dynastictombs

Site Tomb Number Period Bibliography

Abydos o ) Naqada IIICI lDjer) Serpicoand White 1996

I Abydos 159 I Naqada IIICI (Djer) Petrie1925: pl. iv,9

I Saqqara s.1506 I Naqada IIIC2 (Den) EmeryI958: 5I-6

Abydos I Naqada IIICI-C2 Petrie1925: pl. iv,l0 Abydos a >l Naqada IIID (Qa'a) Engel1997: Abb. l4l

imported raw materials and pottery from Sinai and the Discussion southern Levant make their appearance on sites all over Upper Egypt. Although the list of objects appears to be For the Badarian period, which is probably older than the rather long, and despite the extensive looting of tombs period between 4400 and 4000 cal. ec attested for certain, which took place already in antiquity, it should be stressed only one imported vessel can be identified, while the that the actual number of imported goods remains low presence of turquoise most probably is to be denied. This compared to the number of tombs excavated. The indicates that contacts between Upper Egypt and the imported objects have mainly been found in richly Levant must have been very exceptional and of marginal endowed tombs, although there are a few exceptions. importance only. Indeed, it is highly questionable if any With regards to daily life, the economic relevance of the direct contact at all was ever established at that time imports is, of course, very limited. None of thern served (contraAndelkovic 1995: 2l; I(aplan 1959; Mark 1998: 12; basic subsistencepurposes. Their number is far too limited Rice 1990: 27-8; Tutundzic 1989, 1996). It is far more also to consider the development of a particular social class logical to consider the few possible imports as a result of solely associated with the procurement of exotic goods. Badarian contacts with the Nile Delta, where we know Their primary importance must have been as indicators of that extensive contact with the Ghassulian culture existed, social status. Therefore, the available information concern- and migration has probably been attested at Buto ing foreign goods for the Naqada IIC-IID period, about (Faltings, this volume). There is not the slightest indication 1500-1100 cal. Bc, can be related to the increasing during the Badarian period for relations with Mesopota- importance of local elites at various Upper Egyptian sites mia, either direct or indirect. (c/ Bard 1994). It is indeed during this period that an Little if anything seems to have changed during the important process of social stratification took place, with subsequent Naqada I and early Naqada II period. The very the development of local elites, and probably almost sim- few imported goods known point again to very sporadic ultaneously the appearance of territoriai entities, which 'proto-kingdoms' contacts only (cfl also Hartung I998). will grow into (I(emp 1989: 3l_a6) by A radically different picture emerges from the Naqada the end of the Naqada II period. The paintings from the ilC period, to be dated about 1500 BC, when both decorated tomb at Hierakonpolis (conveniently: Gautier EGYPTIANPREDYNASTIC AND EARLYDYNASTIC TOMBS I 73

L99)), which dates to Naqada IIC, clearly indicate that this slightly predates Tomb U-j (Dreyer et al. 1996:25-6,29), elite was not only based on economic grounds, but also contained about 30 vessels imported from Canaan-that manifested itself in a religious and political manner. For- is a larger number than all of the imported vesselsknown eign goods may well have been part of the expression of for the whole of Egypt up to that moment. The estimated political power. 700 imported vesselsfrom Tomb U-j itself clearly indicate How these goods reached Egypt is still a matter of that the contact with at least Canaan had entered a new discussion. Regarding the contacts with the southern dimension. On the other hand, the importance of the Levant, there seems to be enough evidence to accept a wine vessels from Tomb U-j should not be exaggerated. land route. It is certainly of importance to note that the As mentioned before, they contained about 4500 liters of earliest tombs at Minshat Abu Omar may already date to wine, which obviously is a very large quantity, but this Naqada IIC (cI I(aiser 1987). Both the location of Minshat only represents the production of a vineyard of about one Abu Omar in the eastern Nile Delta on the road to Sinai, hectare for a present day high class wine, and even less and the number of imports found there, clearly indicate for a low quality wine. The maintenance of such a vine- its importance for Egyptian relations with southern Pal- yard, even without modern equipment, can easily be done estine. Furthermore, the foreign goods are dispersed all as a side job for a single person. Since, furthermore, the along the Egyptian Nile Vailey, which might also indicate vessels from tomb U-j come from different regions in a route overland to the Delta, and subsequently by the Canaan, it is at first view not obligatory to presume the river to Upper Egypt. existence of organized wine production in Canaan desig- The Mesopotamian influence recognized in icono- nated for export to Egypt. In a basic article, Finkelstein graphic details of the decorated palettes, carved ivories, and Gophna (1993) demonstrated the strong increase of and cyiinder seals does not contradict this chronological sites in the highlands of Palestine during the EB I period. framework. Indeed, despite that fact that the provenience They suggest that the increasing importance of horticul- of most of these objects is unknown, they are generally ture, for which the region is very well suited, was the considered to date to the early Naqada III period. How- main reason for this. The mass production of wine and ever, recent evidence from Abydos (Dreyer et al. 1998: olive oil would have been the ultimate goal. The import- 98-100) indicates that at least a number of them should ance of the highlands starts from the very beginning of EB already be dated to (late) Naqada IID. Only a few stamp I, before the Egyptian presence in southern Canaan, and 'one and cylinder seals have been found in tombs (c/ Boehmer this agricultural specialization is regarded as of the 1974). They date to the Naqada IIC-IID2 period (Naqada main factors in the rise of the EB complex society' (ibid.: 18$ -- Naqada IIC (?), Naqa ed Deir 75Ol = Naqada IIC, l3). This development obviously opened the possibility for Mediq cem.79, t.160 = Naqada IIC-IIDI, Matmar 30)9 = wine and olive oil to be exported to Egypt. If indeed the Naqada IIDI, Naqa ed Deir 7)O4 = Naqada IID2). The growing demand in Egypt for Palestinian products stimu- 'master earliest example of a Mesopotamian motive is the lated this development and in the end even became pre- of the animals' from the Naqada IIC decorated tomb at dominant, as is suggested by Finkelstein and Gophna Hierakonpolis (Gautier 1997: 4), fig. 9). For the same (ibid.: L)-I41, it deserves however further conflrmation, period, Mesopotamian influence has been suggested for both for the quantitative importance of the export to some types of pottery, although this seems highly unlikely. Egypt and for the interregional economic structure in Nevertheless, if contacts with Mesopotamia did exist, they Palestine itself. did not predate the Naqada IIC period. Nevertheless, a large amount of goods was imported A Mesopotamian connection would, of course, imply into Egypt during the Naqada IIIAl-IIIB period, but appar- contacts over a far larger distance than those with Canaan, ently for the benefit of the very top of the elite only. and a sea route has often been suggested (e.g. Adamson Regional centers must have developed by this time, with 1992; Mark 1998; Rice 1990). Although the wadi Ham- Abydos and Hierakonpolis as the two predominant ones. mamat was already well known to the Egyptians from the The absence of imported goods from other cemeteries, e.g. beginning of the Predynastic period (e.g. Debono l95l) in the Badari district, could very well be considered as and Red Sea shells frequently occur in Badarian tombs evidence for early regional kingdoms that have taken (Bar-Yosef Mayer, this volume; Brunton and Caton- control over sites which previously had their own inde- Thompson 1928: 27 , )B), this certainly does not automati- pendent elite. For as far as we know at present from the cally imply contact by sea with the Near East. Considering archaeological record, Abydos must have played a key role the very limited evidence for Mesopotamian imports, the in this process. eventual contacts need not necessarily have been direct. The large number of imported vesselscan no longer be Indeed, if such contacts existed, it should seriously be accounted for by occasional or non-professional contacts considered that the southern Levant acted as intermittent with Canaan. On the other hand, the fact that the finds between Mesopotamia and Egypt. For all of these reasons, are limited to the tombs of the early rulers at Abydos reconstruction of far-reaching Predynastic trading routes indicates that these contacts were not a matter of individ- over sea such as recently presented by Mark (1998) is not uai free initiative, but were controlled by these early rulers supported by the available data. themselves. It is however of great importance to note that During the Naqada IIIAI-IIIB period imported objects for this period a permanent Egyptian presence in Canaan only occur very rarely at the Upper Egyptian sites where has not been attested. The exact nature of the relations they were attested previously, with the notable exception between Egypt and Canaan is not yet clear. It is to be of the elite tombs at Abydos and probably also at Hiera- accepted that, for example, Minshat Abu Omar must have konpolis. Nearly all of the EB I storage jars have been played its role as transit place. From the inscribed labels found at Abydos. The Naqada IIIAI Tomb U-a, which found in tomb U-j, it has been suggested that the Abydos 74 I STANHENDRICKX AND LAURENT BAVAY rulers already had a strong influence on the Delta (Dreyer The cylindrical jars were used for cosmetics (c/ Hendrickx I995). However, it remains unclear if this influence would 1994: 82-4 with further references) and this might also have extended into southern Canaan in order to get hold have been the case for the small jars, although this is not of the revenues of the region. If not, state organized trade their normal function in Egyptian daily life (ibid.: 87). is to be accepted from the Egyptian side. In that case, the Furthermore, among the imported objects from Egypt, products brought to Canaan by the Egyptians will most there are several palettes and small stone jars, both also probably have been the same as those which will be used for cosmetics (ibid.: 124-7; Yannai, this voh-rme). It discussedfor the period to follow. is possible indeed that the Egyptians brought back to Unfortunately, very little evidence concerning foreign Canaan cosmetics which were, at least partially, produced imports is available for the transition period Naqada IIIB- from vegetable oil that was originally exported from the IIICl, where the Dynasty 0 rulers, Iry-Hor to Narmer, are same area. If so, this wouid be one of the oldest examples to be situated and also for Hor-Aha, first king of the First of a most typical characteristic of colonization, where raw Dynasty. Their tombs at Abydos have been extremely materials are exported from the colony and the products disturbed and it is only from the time of Hor-Aha that the of a superior technology imported. Although considerable, first large mastaba (S.3357) at Saqqara is known, which the number of these vessels is certainly not sufficient to was also much disturbed and yielded no imported objects. be considered as proof for exchange on an equal basis. On On the other hand, it is for this period, and especially the other hand, if the Egyptians brought agricultural prod- for the reign of Narmer, that an impressive amount of ucts such as grain, it will be extremely difficult to find documents has been found in southern Israel. Although archeological testimony for this. The same is also true for the nature of this strong Egyptian presence is still disputed, gold, which has also been supposed a possible import from it is most obvious that the contacts with the southern Egypt. In this respect, it is to be noted that the suggested Levant had enormously increased. Also, there can hardly Egyptian provenience of the gold rings found in Ghassul- be any doubt that from the Egyptian side these contacts ian context at Nahal Qanah (Gopher and Tsuk 1996) is were state controlled, as is clearly shown by the Egyptian only based on presumptions. post at'En Besor (Gophna 1995). One of the most import- All in all, the Egyptians may well have brought a ant questions is whether all this should be considered to number of things in exchange, but as the dominance of 'trade.' represent some kind of Given the state control, Egypt over southern Canaan is generally accepted during which will also be very characteristic for the Old I(ingdom Dynasty 0 and at least the beginning of the First Dynasty economy, the possibility for free trade on an individual (e.g.Ben-Tor 1991; Gophna 1992), it is most unlikely that 'trade' basis can be excluded. It is not clear whether the Eglptians during this period on an equal basis existed. brought something in exchange for the goods they An exception is to be made for the procurement of exported from southern Canaan. Their military power lapis lazuli, which could not be taken directly from would certainly have allowed them to dominate the southern Canaan, but which has to come from northern region and take whatever they would like. Among the Afghanistan, far from the Egyptian sphere of influenc€. Egyptian objects found in the region are mainly objects From the north-eastern Afghan mountains, through the used in daily life, such as bread molds and bowls, which Iranian plateau and the Zagros highlands, to the Mesopo- are anyhow locally made, and only refer to the Egyptian tamian alluvium, several intermediary sites yielding influence on the way of living. At present, it cannot be unworked lapis lazuli fragments and/or processing activ- confirmed beyond doubt that Egyptians actually settled ities allow us to reconstruct the route(s) followed by the themselves permanently in southern Canaan, although precious stone (Bavay 1997 with further references). Dur- this seems likely (e.g. Ben-Tor l99l; Ward I99l). This ing its middle (VIII-VI) phase, the southern Mesopotamian implies that some of the goods which were gathered at, Uruk culture established a series of colonies in northern 'En for example, Besor may have been redistributed to Mesopotamia, notably on the Upper Euphrates (AIgaze Egyptian settlers. The seal impressions from'En Besor may I99j with further references). Unworked lumps of lapis reflect such activity. On the other hand, they may also lazuli have been found at Jebel Aruda (van Driel 1979: have been used for resealing and other administrative 19-20), an Uruk administrative and religious center in purposes concerning goods to be exported to Egypt. In this that region, situated about 200km from the Mediterranean respect, it is interesting to notice that the sealings were coast. These Uruk urban settlements in northern Syria originally considered to have been attached to bags therefore appear as a potential intermediary between (Schulman I976), which, however, has been questioned Mesopotamia and Egypt. Some questions, however, remain by van den Brink (1995), who considers at least some of regarding the chronological correspondence between the them to have been used for the sealing of jars. Predynastic and Uruk sequences. Most of the Uruk col- With regard to the possibility of goods brought in onies are abandoned by the end of Uruk IV. According to exchange to Canaan by the Egyptians, a few observations Boehmer et al. (199):68), Uruk IV would be contempor- can be made. Among the Egyptian pottery found in Israel ary with Naqada IIC. If we accept this correlation, the are quite a number of small vesselswith narrow openings introduction of lapis lazuli would correspond to the later (Andelkovic 1995: fi,g. 2,6; 4,1-4,8-9; 9-10; ll,3-5; phase of the Uruk colonies, which would no longer exist 12,4-8,II-12; 15,13-16; l6,l-8; 19,I-5,7-ll,l7; during Naqada III. Therefore we should assume that differ- 20,7,1)-14) as well as cylindrical jars (Andelkovic 1995: ent ways were used for the procurement of lapis lazuli fig. ),1; 8,12-15; 9,1-4; l5,l-l l; 18,8; 19,15-16). The during that period. However, a recent revision of the first group belongs mainly to Petrie's types L 58 c-d (Petrie Mesopotamian chronology (Rothman et al. 1998) estab- l92l pl. L) and his protodynastic types 86-88 (Petrie lished that the Uruk expansion lasted much longer than 195): pl. XXV-XXVI), dating mainly to Naqada IIIA2-IIIB. previously thought (seeStrommenger 1980: 65), spanning EGYPTIANPREDYNASTIC AND EARLYDYNASTIC TOMBS I 75

over at least 400 years. Jebel Aruda would be dated to It should however be noted that the absence for this about 1000 ec ('Late Chalcolithic 5'), thus being contem- period of non-royal elite tombs from the archaeological porary with the transition Naqada IIIC l-IIIC2. If the foun- record at Abydos does not necessarily imply that they dation of the colonies is to be situated about four centuries never existed, especially if one considers how heavily the earlier, these dates could roughly match the time period Abydos cemeteries have been disturbed in the past. Never- when lapis lazuli is attested in Egypt. theless, the amount of imported goods in the mastabas of Direct contacts between Egypt and the Uruk colonies the highest officials at Saqqara clearly is an additional have been suggestedby von der Way following the discov- illustration of their importance. ery of some terracotta nails ('Tonstifte') and a cone ('Gru- During the First Dynasty, there is no evidence at all benkopfnagel') in the Buto-Maadi and Naqadian levels at for contacts with Mesopotamia, either direct or indirect, Tell el-Fara'in/Buto. These objects have been interpreted except for the presence of lapis lazuli, which, however, (Moorey l99O; Teitge 1997; von der Way 1987, 19921 as could also have been obtained through the southern evidence for the existence in that part of the western Delta Levant-as already mentioned. of cone wall-mosaics characteristic of Uruk monumen- With regard to the EB II imports, the nature of the tal architecture. However, Faltings and I(ohler (1996: Egyptian relations with Canaan should be considered one 98-9, and this volume) convincingiy rejected this recon- more time. The archaeological material seems to indicate struction. that the Egyptian presence in southern Canaan had Evidence is lacking for a land route, for lapis lazuli has become far less important during the First Dynasty than it so far not been attested with certainty on Chalcolithic or was immediately before. Narmer is the last king positively EB I-II sites in the southern Levant. Some lapis lazuli identified in inscriptions found in Canaan (van den Brink beads were recovered in the Nahal Mishmar cave (Bar- 1995: 202). The Egyptian outposts in southern Israel and Adon 1980: 150), but the stratigraphic position of these along the northern Sinai coast had certainly been aban- examples is unclear and, as the excavators state, they doned by the end of the First Dynasty, but probably this could belong to the much later Bar I(okhba period occu- happened earlier. The change in the Egyptian-Canaanite pation of the cave. The only further information available relations apparently took place at the very beginning of is the possible presence of lapis lazuli in an EB IA context the EB II period, i.e. during the reigns of the first kings of at Bab edh-Dhra (Schaub and Rast 1989: 310), which, the First Dynasty (e.g. Ben-Tor l99l: 8; Brandl 1992; however, because of the location of Bab edh-Dhra does Gophna 1992; Porat 1992 $5). This has been explained not seem a likely indication for a land route to Egypt. through the growing strength of the Canaanite cities, The occurrence of lapis lazuli objects in Minshat Abu eventually in combination with internal problems in Egypt Omar is to be noted. The location of this site places it on (Gophna 1987). An alternative idea is that the improve- the land route from southern Palestine, but given the ments in shipping and navigation released the Egyptians apparent absence of contacts between the Uruk colonies from dependence on southern Palestine for contacts with and the southern Levant, as illustrated by the absence of Syria and Lebanon (Gophna, Marcus this volume; von der lapis lazuli in this region, one should also consider the Way 199): 69-7 5). An additional element for this theory possibility of a maritime route down the Syrian coast to could be the loss of interest in the import of wine from the eastern border of the Delta, then entering Egypt by a southern Canaan from the moment when the Egyptians branch of the Nile near Minshat Abu Omar. Such a route deveioped their own viniculture. During the First Dynasty, would avoid the perilous east-west crossing of the Nile the imported pottery seems to have contained primarily Delta postulated by von der Way (1993) in order to reach vegetal oils and resins, which probably came mainly from a western port such as Buto. southern Lebanon. This at least seems to be indicated by Early Bronze II pottery occurs first during the reign of the diminishing volume of the EB II pottery, designated Djer, but considering the lack of information for the for oil, compared to the EB I imports, which would mainly preceding reigns, this does not necessarily imply that have contained wine. The available analyses of the con- Djer's reign was contemporaneous with the start of EB II, tents of the vessels also supports this interpretation, which could also have taken piace a few generations although there are still too few analyses to allow definitive eariier. From the archeological point of view the beginning conclusions. of Naqada IIIC 1 and of EB II can be considered Finally, we would like to make a remark concerning 'trade' contemporaneous. the word that has been used so frequently when During Naqada IIICI-IIID, imported objects have been the relations between Egypt and Canaan are discussed.In found only at Abydos, and at a number of sites in the our present-day world, the word is easily considered to Memphite region. They are completely absent from other imply both private initiative and the principle of profit. Upper Egyptian sites, even Hierakonpolis. This clearly This is certainly not the case for the relationship between illustrates the shift of the Egyptian capital to Memphis, Egypt and Canaan as it has been described, perhaps in a 'minimalist' which certainly had taken place by the time of Hor-Aha manner, in the present paper. The nature of when the first large mastaba for one of the highest officials the relationship certainly changed over time (Hartung 'trade' was built at Saqqara. As a result the old Upper Egyptian 1998), but the idea of is especially questionable sites are becoming more and more of marginal import- during the late EB I period, when Egypt controlled ance, except for Abydos which continues to be used as the southern Canaan. On the contrary, even the idea of trade traditional royal burial place. When compared to Dynasty as an exchange of goods with equal value, however this 0, the number of imports found in non-royal elite tombs might have been expressed in the late fourth millennium is remarkable, and may be proof of the growing import- BC, cannot be accepted without objections. Once again, ance of administration and, therefore, of the royal court. lapis lazuli is to be mentioned as the most probable 76 I STANHENDRICKX AND LAURENTBAVAY

'traded,' product to have been because it comes from a Adamson, P. B. (1992) The possibility of sea trade between region located far beyond the Egyptian sphere of influence. Egypt and Mesopotamia during the Late Pre-dynastic Period. Aula Orientalisl0 175-9. Algaze, G. (1993) The Uruk World Sltstem: The Dynamics of Acknowledgments Expansion of Early MesopotamianCivilization. Chicago: Uni- Most useful comments on a draft version of this paper were versity of ChicagoPress. (1899) d'Abydos L made by Edwin van den Brink, who was also kind enough to Am6lineau, E. Les Nouvelles Fouilles ( -1896). contact Baruch Brandl and Benni Sassfor information on the 1895 Paris:Editions Leroux. (1969) presence of lapis lazuli in the southern Levant. We would Amiran, R. AncientPottery of the Holy Land Jerusalem- like to thank Ulrich Hartung, who put a copy of his Ph.D. Ramat Gan: Massada PressLtd. dissertation 'Importkeramik aus dem Friedhof U in Abydos Amiran, R. (1992) Petrie'sF-Ware. In The Nile Delta in Tran- (Umm el-Qaab) und die Beziehungen Agyptens zu Vordera- sition: 4th-3rd Millennium BC, edited by E. C. M. van den sien im 4. Jahrtausend v. Chr.' (Hamburg, 1996) at our Brink. Tel Aviv-Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, disposal.An important number of yet unpublished turquoise pp.427-32. and lapis lazuli objects from the DAIK excavations at Abydos Andelkovic, B. (19951 The Relationsbetween Early BronzeAge I mentioned in this thesis have, however, not been integrated Canaanites and Upper Egyptians. Belgrade: Faculty of into the present paper. Christiana l(ohier kindly made infor- Philosophy. mation available concerning her excavations at Helwan. Our Andrews, C. A. R. (1981) JewelleryI: From the EarliestTimes to gratitude aiso goes to Barbara Adams and Renee Friedman the SeventeenthDynasty: Catalogueof Egyptian Antiquities in for various information about the Hierakonpolis excavations. the British Museum6. London: British Museum Press. 'turquoise' Renee tried also to locate samplesof the Badarian Ayrton, E. R. and Loat, W. L. S. (I9ll) Pre-dynasticCemetery in the British Museum, but was unable to find any besides at El-Mahasna.Egypt Exploration Fund 31. London: Egypt those published by Andrews (198i). Finally we are thankful Exploration Fund. to Thierry De Putter, who provided much information on the Balcz, H. (1934) Die Gefdssdarstellungendes Alten Reiches. delicate problem of the identification of stone, and to Marc MDAIK 5:45-94. Buelinckx who shared his extensive knowledge on wine. Bar-Adon, P. (19801 The Caveof the Treasure.Jerusalem: Israel ExplorationSociety. Bard, K. A. (1994) From Farmersto Pharaohs:Mortuary Evidence Listof Abbreviotions for the Rise of Complex Society in Egypt. Monographs in Mediterranean Archaeology 2. Sheffleld: Sheffield Aca- ASAE Annales du Servicedes Antiquites de l'Egypte Press. BASOR Bulletin of the American Schoolsof Oriental demic (19551 Egypt l. Research Baumgartel, E. J. The Cultures of Prehistoric BSAE e ERA British Schoolof Archaeologyin Egypt d Egypt London: Oxford University Press. ResearchAccount Baumgartel, E. J. (1970) Petrie's Naqada Excavation:A Sup- DE Discussionsin Egyptology plement.London: Bernard Quaritch. Bavay, L. (1997) Matidre premidre et commerce ) longue FIFAO Fouilles de l' Institut franEaisd' Archdologie Orientale distance: le lapis-lazuli et I'Egypte predynastique. Arch6o- IEJ IsraeI Exploration Journal Nil T: 79-100. JEA Journal of Egyptian Antiquities Bavay, L., De Putter, T., Adams, B., Navez, J. and Andr6, L. JNES Journal of Near EasternStudies (2000) The origin of obsidian in Predynastic and Early MDAIK Mitteilungen desDeutschen Archiiologischen Dynastic Upper Egypt. MDAIK 56: 5-20. lnstituts, Abteilung Ikiro Beit Arieh, I. (1980) A Chalcolithic site near SerAbit El- OMRO OudheidkundigeMededelingen uit het I(hAdim. Tel Aviv 7: 45-64. Rijksmuseumvan Oudhedente Leiden Ben-Tor, A. ( l99l ) New light on the relations between Egypt ZAS Zeitschrift fiir iigyptischeSprache und and Southern Palestine during the Early Bronze Age. Altertumskunde BASOR28I: 3-I0. Boehmer, R. M. (1974) Das Rollsiegel im prddynastischen Agypten. ArchiiologischerAnzeiger 4: 495-514. References Boehmer, R. M., Dreyer, G. and l(romer, B. (1993) Einige Adams, B. (1974) Ancient HierakonpolisSupplement. Warrnin- Fnihzeitliche l4C-Datierungen aus Abydos und Uruk. ster: Aris & Phillips. MDAIK 49:63-8. Adams, B. (1996a) Elite tombs at Hierakonpolis. In Aspectsof Bonnet, H. (1928) Ein FrlihgeschichtlichesGriiberfeld bei Abusir. Early Egypt, edited by A. J. Spencer. London: British Verdffentlichungender Ernst von Sieglin Expedition in Agypten Museum Press,pp. l-I5. 4. Leipzig. Adams, B. (1996b) Imports and imitations in predynastic Brandl, B. (1992) Evidence for Egyptian colonization in the funerary contexts at Hierakonpolis. In InterregionalCon- Southern Coastal Plain and Lowlands of Canaan during tacts in the Later Prehistoryof NortheasternAfrica, edited by the EB I Period. In The Nile Delta in Transition: 4th-3rd L. I(rzyzaniak, I(. I(roeper and M. I(obusiewicz. Poznan: Millennium BC edited by E. C. M. van den Brink. Tel Poznan ArchaeologicalMuseum, pp. 133-44. Aviv-Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society,pp. 441-77. Adams, B. and Friedman, R. F. (19921Imports and influences Braun, E. and van den Brink, E. C. M.(1998) Some com- in the predynastic and protodynastic settlement and ments on the Late EB I sequence of Canaan and the funerary assemblagesat Hierakonpolis. In The Nile Delta relative dating of Tomb U-j at Umm el Ga'ab and Graves in Transition:4th-3rd Millennium BC, edited by E. C. M. 313 and 787 from Minshat Abu Omar with Imported van den Brink. Tel Aviv-Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Wares: views from Egypt and Canaan. Agyptenund Levante Society,pp. 317-38. 7:71-94. EGYPTIANPREDYNASTIC AND EARTYDYNASTIC ICMBS I 77

Brunton, G. (1927) Qau and Badari I. BSAE e ERA 44. Exploration Society47 - Excavatilns at Sakkara. London: London: Quaritch Egypt Exploration Society. Brunton, G. (1937) Mostageddaand the TasianCulture. London: Emery, W. B. (1961) ArchaicEgypt. Harmondsworth: Penguin Quaritch. Books. Brunton, G. (1948) Matmar. London: Quaritch. Emery, W. B. (1962) A FuneraryRepast in an Egyptian Tomb of Brunton, G. and Caton-Thompson, G. (1928\ The Badarian the Archaic Period:Scholae Adriani De Buck MemoriaeDicatae Civilisation and PrehistoricRemains near Badari. BSAE d ERA 1. Leiden: NederiandsInstituut voor het Nabije Oosten. 46. London: Quaritch. Engel, E.-M. \1997) Das Grab des Qa'a in Umm el-Qa'ab. Castel,G. and Pouit, G. (1997) Anciennes mines mdtalliques Architektur und Inventar. Unpublished doctoral disserta- dans la partie Nord du d6sert oriental d'ngypte. Arch1o-Nit tion, Philosophische Fakultdt, Georg-August Universitdt 7: l0L-12. zu Gottingen. Castel,G. and Soukiassian,G. (I989) Gebelel-Zeit l: LesMines Faltings, D. and I(ohler, E. C. (1996) Vorbericht uber die de Galine (Egypte,lle millenaire av. J.-C). FIFAO 35. Cairo: Ausgrabungen des DAI in Tell el-Fara'in / Buto l99l bis Institut Frangaisd'Arch6ologie Orientale. 1995. MDAIK 52: 87-114. Caton-Thompson, G. and Gardner, E. W. 11974) The Desert Finkelstein, I. and Gophna, R. (1993) Settlement, demo- Fayum. London: Royal Anthropological Institute. graphic and economic patterns in the Highlands of Pal- Cleyet-Merle,J.-J. and Vallet, F. (1982) Egypte.In Archlologie estine in the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Periods and comparde: Catalogue sommaire des collectionsdu musde de the beginning of urbanism. BASOR289: l-22. Saint-Germain-en-Laye,l, edrted by F. Beck, J. J. Cleyet- Finkenstaedt.E. (I983) Beadsar Badari.ZAS lI0:27-9. Merle, A. Duval, C. Eluere, J.-P. Mohen and F. Vallet. Firth, C. M. (1912) The ArchaeologicalSurvey of Nubia: Report Paris: fditions de la Reunion des musees nationaux, for 1908-1909. Cairo: Government Press. pp.68-165. Firth, C. M. (I915) The ArchaeologicalSurvev of Nubia: Report Debono,F. (1951)Exp€dition archeologiqueroyale au ddsert for 1909-1910.Cairo: Government Press. oriental (Keft-Kosseir): Rapport prdiiminaire sur la cam- Firth, C. M. (1927t The ArchaeologicalSurvey of Nubia: Report pagne 1949.ASAE 5l: 59-l 10. for 1910-191,1.Cairo: GovernmentPress. Debono, F. and Mortensen, B. (1988) The PredynasticCemetery Frankfort, H. (1930) The cemeteriesof Abydos: work of the at Heliopolis: SeasonMarch-September 1950. Archiiologische season 1925-1926. II. Tombs. JEA 16: 213-19. Verdffentlichungen63. Mainz am Rhein: Verlag Philipp von Friedman, R. F. (I999a) Badari Grave Group 569.In Studies Zabern. in Egyptian Antiquities,edited by W. V. Davies. A Tribute Delougaz, P. (1952) Potteryfrom the Diyala Region.Chicago: to T. G. H. James.London: British Museum Press:l-I l. University of ChicagoPress. Friedman, R. F. (1999b) Preliminary report on field work at De Putter, T. and I(arlshausen, C. (1992) Les Pierresutilisdes Hierakonpolis: 1996-1998. JARCE36: l-35. dans la sculpture et I'architecturede t'Egy.ptepharaonique: Gale,N. H. and Stos-Gale,A. (1981).Ancient Egyptiansilver. guide pratique illustre. Connaissancede l'Egypte Ancienne JEA 67: l0l-15. 4. Bruxelles: Connaissancede l'Egypte Ancienne. Gautier, P. (1991) Analyse de l'espacefiguratif par dip6les. Dreyer, G. (1990) Umm el-Qaab: Nachuntersuchungen im La tombe decor6e n" 100 de Hi6rakonpolis. Arch|o-Nil 3: frrihzeitlichen I(onigsfriedhof. j.14. Yorbericht. MDAIK 35-47. 46:5)-9O. Gopher, A. and Tsuk, T. (1996) Gold and electrum objects.In Dreyer, G. (1991) Umm el-Qaab: Nachunrersuchungen im The Nahal Qanah Cave:Earliest Gold in the Southern Levant, frilhzeitlichen I(onigsfriedhof . 5.16. Vorbericht. MDATK edited by A. Gopher. Tel Aviv University, Monograph 49:23-62. series of the Institute of Archaeology 12. Tel Aviv: Insti- Dreyer,G. (1995) Die Datierungder Min-Statuenaus l(optos. tute of Archaeology,pp. 165-174. In Sympostum im DAIK am 29. u.nd 30. Oktober 1991. Gophna, R. (1987) Egyptian trading posts in Southern Deutsches Archdologisches Institut Abteilung I(airo, Canaan at the dawn of the Archaic Period. In Egypt,lsrael, I(unst des Alten Reiches. DAII( Sonderschrift 28. Mainz Sinai': Archaeologicaland Historical Relarionshipsin the Bibli- am Rhein: Verlag Philipp von Zabern, pp. 49-56. cal Period, edited by A. F. Rainey. Tel Aviv University. Dreyer, G., Engel, E.-M., Hartung, U., Hikade, T., I(ohler, E. Jerusalem:Graph-Chen Press, pp. 13-22. 'En C. and Pumpenmeier, F. (1996) Umm el-Qaab.Nachun- Gophna, R. (1992) The contacts between Besor Oasis, tersuchungen im fnihzeitlichen I(onigsfriedhof. 7 .l 8. Y or- Southern Canaan, and Egypt during the Late Predynastic bericht.MDAIK 52: I l-81. and the threshold of the First Dynasty; a further assess- Dreyer, G., Hartung, U., Hikade, T., I(ohler, E. C., Muller, V. ment. In The Nile Delta in Transition:4th-3rd Millennium and Pumpenmeier, F. (1998). Umm el-Qaab.Nachunter- BC edited by E. C. M. van den Brink. Tel Aviv-Jerusalem: suchungen im fruhzeitlichen I(onigsfriedhof. 9./10. Vor- Israel Exploration Society,pp. 385-94. bericht. MDAIK 54: 77-167. Gophna, R. (1995) Excavationsat'En Besor.Tel Aviv: Ramot Dreyer, G., von den Driesch, A., Engel, E.-M., Hartmann, R., Publishing House, Tel Aviv University. Hartung, U., Hikade, T., Mtiller, V. and peters,J. (2000). Greenberg, R. and Porat, N. (1996) A third millennium Umm el-Qaab. Nachuntersuchungen im fnihzeitlichen Levantine pottery production center: typology, petro- I(onigsfriedhof. Il.l12. Vorbericht. MDAII( 56: 4i-t29. graphy and provenance of the Metallic Ware. BASORS0I: Emery, W. B. (1938) The Tomb of Hemaka: Excavationsat 5-24. Saqqara.Cairo: Government Press. Griswold, W. A. (1992) Imports and SocialStatus: The Role of Emery, W. B. (1949) Great Tombs of the First Dynasty: I. Long-Distance Trade in Predynastic Egltpt State Formatiln. Excavationsat Saqqara.Cairo: Government press. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms International. Emery, W. B. (1954) Great Tombsof the FirstDynasty: IL Egypt Habachi, L. and I(aiser, W. (1985) Ein Friedhof der Maadi- Exploration Societlt46 - Excavations at Sakkara. London: kultur bei es-Saff. MDAIK 4l: 43-6. Egypt Exploration Society. Hartung, U. (1993) Importkeramik aus Grab U-j. In Umm el- Emery, W. B. (195S) GreatTombsof the FirstDynasty: III. Egypt Qaab. Nachuntersuchungen im fnihzeitlichen I(onigs- 78 I STANHENDRICKX AND LAURENT BAVAY

friedhof. 5./6. Vorbericht, edited by C. Drever. MDAII(49: I(antor, H. J. (1992\ The relative chronology of Egypt and its 49-56. foreign correlationsbefore the First Intermediate period. Hartung, u. (199.4) Bemerkungen z,tr chronologie der rn chronologiesin old world Archaeology,3rd revised edi- Beziehungen Agyptens zu Sridkanaan in spdtprddyna_ tion, edited by R. Ehrich. chicago: university of chicago stischerZeit. MDAII( 50:107_I3. Press,vol. I. pp.3-21, vol. II, pp 2-4). Hartung, U. (1996) Friedhof U. In Umm el_eaab. Nachunter_ I(aplan, J. (1959) The connecrionsof the parestinianchalco- suchungen im f^ihzeitlichen I(cinigsfriedhof. yor- 7.1g. lithic Culture with prehistoric Egypt. IEJ 9: 134_6. bericht, edited by G. Dreyer, E.-M. Engel, U. Hartung, T. I(emp, B. J. (1989) Ancient Egypt: Anatlmy of a clvitization. Hikade, E. C. I(ohler and pumpenme\er. F. MDAII( 52: London-New york: Routledge. t3-2t. I(lasens,A. (1958a)The excavationsof the Leiden Museum Hartung, u. (1998) zur Entwicklung des Handels und zum of Antiquities at Abu-Roash: report of the first season Beginn wirtschaftlicher Administration im prdcryna- 1957. Part II. OMROi9: 2O-it. stischenAgypten. SAI( 26: 3 5-50. I{asens, A. (1958b) The excavationsof the Leiden Museum Hassan.A. A. and Hassan,F. A. (l9gl). Sourceof galena in of Antiquities at Abu-Roash: report of the second season PredynasticEgypt at Naqada.Archaeometry 23:77_g2. 1958.Part I. OMRO)9:32-55. Hawass, Z. (1980) Archaic graves, recently found at North I{asens, A. (1961)The excavationsof the Leiden Museum Abu Roash.MDAIK 36:229*44. of Antiquities at Abu-Roash: reporr of the third season1959. Helms, S. (1987) Jawa,Tell Um Hammad and the EB I / Late Part II. Cemetery M. OMRO42: 108-2g. Chalcolithiclandscape. Levant l9: 49-gl. I(cihler,E. c. (1996) Friedhof B. Bearbeitung der I(eramik. In Hendrickx, S. (1989) De grafvelden der Naqada-cultuurin umm el-Qaab. Nachuntersuchungen im f^ihzeitlichen Zuid-Egypte, met bijzondere aandacht voor het Naqada I(onigsfriedhof. 7./8. Vorbericht. edited by G. Dreyer, E._ III grafveld te Elkab. Inrerne chronologie en sociale differ- M. Engel, U. Hartung, T. Hikade, E. C. I(ohler and F. entiatie. unpublished doctoral dissertation,Departemenr Pumpenmeier. MDAII( 52: 49-j7. Archaeologie en Kunstwetenschap, I(atholieke universi- I(ohler, E. c. (1998) Excavations teit Leuven, Leuven. at Helwan: new insights into Early Dynastic stone masonry. Bulletin of the Aus_ Hendrickx, s. (1994) Elkab v: The Naqada III cemetery.Brus- tralian Centerof Egyptology9: 65-72. sels:Musdes Royaux d'Art et d,Histoire. I(roeper, K. (1988) The excavationsof the Munich East-Delta Hendrickx, s. (1996) The relative chronology of rhe Naqada Expedition in Minshat Abu omar. rn The Archaeologv culture: problems and possibilities. rn Aspectsof Early of the Nile Delta: Problemsand prioriries, edited Egypt,edited by A. J. Spencer.London: Brirish Museum by E. C. M. Press,pp.36-69. van den Brink. Amsterdam: Uitgeverij Woifkamp, pp. I l-46. Hendrickx,s. (1999) La chronologie de la prehistoire rardive Kroeper, K. (1989) palestinian ceramic imports pre_ et des d6buts de l'histoire de l,Egypte.Arch1o-Nit 9: l3_gl, in and 99-t07. Protohistoric Egypt. rn L'Llrbanisationde la palestined t'Age du Bronzeancien. BAR International Hennessy, J. B. (1967) The ForeignRerations of palestineduring Series 527, edited by P. R. de Miroschedji. the Early BronzeAge. London: euaritch. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports,pp.407-22. Hennessy,J. B. and Millett, A. (1963) Spectrographicanalysis Kroeper, I(. and Wildung, of the foreign potrery from the royal tombs of Abydos D. (1994) Minshat Abu Omar; Ein vor- und and Early Bronze Age pottery of palestine.Archaeometry friihgeschichtlicherFriedhof im Nildelta. I. Griiber 6: 10-17. 1-114.Mainz am Rhein: Verlag philipp von Zabern. I(roeper, I(. Herrmann, G. (1968) Lapis lazuli: the early phases of its and Wildung, D. (2000) Minshat Abu Omar II, trade.Iraq )0(l): 2I-57. Ein vor- und friihgeschichtlicherFriedhof i.m Nildelta. Griiber 115-204. philipp Hobbs, J. (1998) Bedouin perspectiveson the antiquities of Mainz am Rhein: Verlag von Zabern. the Eastern Desert. paper presented at the International I(rzyzantak, L., I(roeper, I(. and I(obusiewicz,M. (1996) (eds) 'Egypt Colloquium and Nubia. Gifts of the Desert., Lon_ Interregional contacts in the Later prehistory of Northeastern don, July 23-24, 1998. Africa. Studies in African Archaeology 5. poznan: poznan Junker. H. (I912) Bericht iiber die Grabungenvon der I(aiser- ArchaeologicalMuseum. lichen Akademie der wissenschaftenin wien, auJ'demFriedhof Lucas, A. and Harris, J. R. (1962) Ancient Egyptian Materials in Turah. Winter I9A9-1910. DAWW 56. Vienna: Akade_ and Industries.4threvised edition. London: E. Arnold. mie der Wissenschaften. Lythgoe, A. M. and Dunham. D. (1965) The predynasticCem- Junker, H. (19r9) Berichr iiber die Grabungenvln der l(aiser- etery N7000: Naqa-ed-Dar.part Iv. University of california Iichen Akademie der wissenschaftenin wien, auf den Frieclhtj- Publications.Egyptian Archeology 7. Berkeley: university fen von El l(ubanieh - Sud. tgI\-tgIL DAWW 62.3. of California Press. Vienna: Akademie der Wissenschaften. Macramallah, R. (1940) un cimetlire archai'quede la classe I(aiser, w. (1957) zur inneren chronologie der Naqadakul- mlyenne du peuple A Saqqarah. Cairo: Imprimerie tur. ArchaeologiaGeographica 6: 69_77. Nationale. I(aiser, w. (1985) Ein I(ultbezirk des I(onigs Den in Sakkara. Majer, J- (1992) The Eastern Deserrand Egyptian prehisrory. MDAIK 4L: 47-60. rn The Followersof Horus: studies Dedicatedto Michael Alten I(aiser, w. (1987) zum Friedhof der Naqada-kultur von Min- Hoffman, edited by R. Friedman and B. Adams. Oxford: shat Abu Omar. ASAE 7I: 119-26. Oxbow Books, pp. 227-34. I(aiser, w. (1990) Zur Entstehung des gesamtdgyptischen Majidzadeh, Y. (1982) Lapis lazuli and the Great I(horasan staates. MDAIK 46: 297_99. Road. Pal1orient8( I ): 59-69. I(antor, H. J. (1942) The early relations of Egypt with Asia. Mark, S. (199S) From Egypt to Meslpotamia:A Study of predyn_ I: 174-213. "rNES asticTrade Routes. London: Chatham publishing. Kantor, H. J. (1952} Further evidence for Eariy Mesopota- McGovern, P. E., Hartung, U., Badler, V. R., Glusker, D. L. mian relations with Egypr.JNES II:239_50. and Exner, L. J. (1997) The beginnings of winemaking EGYPTIANPREDYNASTIC AND EARLYDYNASTIC TOMBS I 79

and viniculture in the Ancient Near East and Egypt. marks from Abydos. In Aspectsof Early Egypt, edited by Expedition19 ( I ) : 3 -21. A. J. Spencer.London: BritishMuseum Press,pp. 98-I07. Mclver, R. D. and Mace, A. C. (1902) El Amrah and Abydos, Prag, I(. ( 1978) Silver in the Levant in the fourth millennium 1899-1901. Egypt Exploration Fund 23. London: Egypt BC. In Archaeologvin the Levant: Essaysfor Ikthleen lknyon, Exploration Fund. edited by P. R. S. Moorey and P. J. Parr. Warminster: Aris Mond, R. L. and Myers, O. H. (19)7) Cemeteriesof Armant L & Phillips,pp.36-45. Egypt Exploration Society42. London: Egypt Exploration Prag, I(. (1986) Byblos and Egypt in the fourth millennium Society. sc. Levant18:59-74. Montet, P. (1946) Tombeaux de la Ire et de la IVe dynastiesa Quibell, J. E. (1905) Cataloguegdndral des antiquitds egyptiennes: Abou-Roach, deuxibme partie: inventaire des objets.Ikmi nos. lI.00I-12.000 et 11.001-11.754.Archalc Objects.Cairo: 8: 157-227. Government Press. Moorey, P. R. S. (1990) From Gulf to Delta in the fourth Quibell, J. E. and Green, F. W. (19021Hierakonpolis II. ERA 5. millenium ecr: the Syrian connection. Eretz Isradl 2l: London: Egypt ResearchAccount. 62*-69*. Reisner, G. A. (1910) TheArchaeological Suruey of Nubia: Report Needler, W. (i 984) Predynasticand Archaic Egypt in the Brook- for 1907-1908. Vol. I. ArchaeologicalReport. Cairo: Govern- lyn Museum.Wilbour Monographs 9. Brooklyn: Brooklyn ment Press. Museum. Resch, W. F. E. (1964) Eine vorgeschichtlicheGrabstdtte auf Nibbi, A. (1998) Lapis lazuli from the Western Desert?DE 4O: dem Ras Samadai. Mitteilungen der Anthropologischen l3l-5. Gesellschaftin Wien 93-4: l19-21. Payne, J. C. (1987) Appendix to Naqada Excavations Sup- Rice, M. (1990) Egypt'sMaking: The Origins of Ancient Egypt, plement. JEA 7): l8l-90. 5000-2000BC. London-New York: Routledge. Payne, J. C. (1993) Catalogueof the PredynasticEgyptian Collec- Rizkana, I. and Seeher,J. (1990) Maadi M: The Cemeteriesof tion in the AshmoleanMuseum. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Maadi and Wadi Digla: ArchiiologischeVerdffentlichungen 81. Petrie, W. M. F. ( i 90 L) The RoyalTombs of the EarliestDynasties. Mainz am Rhein: Verlag Philipp von Zabern. 1901. Part II. Egypt Exploration Fund 21. London: Egypt Rosen, S. A. (1983) The CanaaneanBlade and the Early Exploration Fund. Bronze Age. IEJ 33: 16-29. Petrie, W. M. F. (1902) Abydos.Part l. 1902. Egypt Exploration Rothman, M., ,\lgaze, G., Frangipane, M., Nissen, H., Pitt- Fund 22. London: Egypt Exploration Fund. man, H., Pollock, S., Schwartz, G., Stein, H. and Wright, Petrie, W. M. F. (1907) Gizeh and Rifeh BSAE d ERA 13. H. (1998) Mesopotatniain the Era of StateFormation. School London: British School of Archaeology in Egypt-Egypt of American ResearchAdvanced Seminar (in press). ResearchAccount. Saad, Z. Y. ll95l) Royal Excavationsdt Helwan (1945-1947). Petrie, W. M. F. (1912) The Labyrinth, Gerzehand Mazguneh. ASAE, suppl.cahier 14. Cairo: Government Press. BSAE e ERA 21. London: British School of Archaeology Saad, Z.Y. (19571 CeilingStelae in SecondDynasty Tombsfrom in Egypt-Egypt ResearchAccount. the Excavationsat Helwan. ASAE, suppl. cahier 21. Cairo: Petrie, W. M. F. (19L3) Tarkhan I and Memphis V. BSAE d Government Press. ERA 23. London: British School of Archaeology in Egypt- Scharff, A. (1926) Das VorgeschichtlicheGriiberfeld von Abusir el- Egypt ResearchAccount. Meleq. WissenschaftlicheVerdffentlichung der DeutschenOrient Petrie, W. M. F. (1920) PrehistoricEgypt.BSAE g ERA 31. Gesellschaft49. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs'sche Buchhandlung. London: British School of Archaeology in Egypt-Egypt Scharff, A. ( 193 l) Die Altertiimer der Vor-und FrilhzeftAgyptens. ResearchAccount. l. Werkzeuge,Waffen, Gefdsse.Staatliche Museen zu Berlin. Petrie, W. M. F. ( l92Il Corpusof PrehistoricPottery and Palettes. Mitteilungen aus der dgyptischenSammlung 4. Berlin: I(. BSAE e ERA i2. London: British School of Archaeology Curtius. in Egypt-Egypt ResearchAccount. Schaub,R. T. and Rast,W. E. (I989) Babedh-Dhra: Excavations Petrie, W. M. F. (1925) Tombsof the Courtiersand Oxyrlnkhos. in the CemeteryDirected by Paul W. Lapp (1965-67). Winona BSAE e ERA 2B. London: British School of Archaeology Lake: Eisenbrauns. in Egypt-Egypt ResearchAccount. Schmidt, K. (1989) Die lithischen I{einfunde. In E. C. M. van Petrie, W. M. F. (19)3) Corpusof Proto-DynasticPottery. BSAE den Brink, A transitional Late Predynastic-EarlyDynastic 66 (B). London: Quaritch. settlement in the Northeastern Nile Delta. MDAII( 45: Petrie, W. M. F. and Mace A. C. (l90ll DiospolkParva: The 82-94. Cemeteriesof Abadlyeh and Hu. 1898-1899.Egypt Exploration Schulman, A. R. (1976\ The Egyptian seal impressionsfrom 'En Fund 20. London: Egypt Exploration Fund. Besor.Atiqot (English Series) ll: 16-26. Petrie,W. M. F. and Quibell, J.E. (1896) Naqadaand Ballas. Serpico,M. and White, R. (1996) A report on the analysisof London: Quaritch. the contents of a cache of jars from the Tomb of Djer. In Petrie, W. M. F., Brunton, G. and Murray, M. A. (L923) Aspectsof Early Egypt, edited by A. J. Spencer. London: Lahun II. BSAE e ERA 33. London: British School of British Museum Press,pp. 128-39. Archaeology in Egypt-Egypt ResearchAccount. Sievertsen,U. (1992) Das Messer vom Gebel el-Arak. Bagh- Porat, N. (19921 An Egyptian colony in Southern Palestine dader Mitteilungen 23: l-75. during the Late Predynastic-Early Dynastic Period. In The Smith, W. S. (1958) The Art and Architectureof AncientEgypt. Nile Delta in Transition:4th-3rd Millennium BC, edited by Harmondsworth: Pelican. E. C. M. van den Brink. Tel Aviv-Jerusalem: IsraelExplo- Steinmann, F. (1998) Iktatog egyprischerSammlungen in Leip- ration Society,pp. 433-40. zig. Band 2. Tongefiissevln der vordynastischenZeit bis zum Porat, N. (1993) Petrographic description of two Canaanite Ende desMittleren Reiches.Mainz am Rhein: Verlag Philipp jars from Naqada. In Catalogueof the PredltnasticEgyptian von Zabern. Collectionin the AshmoleanMuseunt, edited by J. C. Payne. Strommenger, E. (1980) Habuba l(abira: Ein Stadt vor 5000 Oxford: ClarendonPress, p.259. Jahren.Mainz am Rhein: Verlag Philipp von Zabern. 'Grubenkopfndgel' Porat, N. and Adams, B. (1996) Imported pottery with pot- Teitge, W. (1997) Dre aus den Schichten 80 I STANHENDRICKX AND LAURENTBAVAY

des 3. Jahrtausends. In Tell el-Fara'in-Buto I. Ergebnisse Vercoutter, J. (1992) L'Egypte et la vallle du Nit. Tome l. Des zum frilhen I{ontext.I(ampagnen der Jahre 1983-1989.AV 83, originesd la fn de l'Ancien Empire. Paris: PressesUniversi- edited by T. von der Way. Mainz am Rhein: Verlag Philipp taires de France. von Zabern,pp. 232-8. von der Way, T. (1987) Tell el-Fara'in- Buto,2. Bericht. Tutundzic, S. P. (I989) The problem of foreign north-eastern MDAIK 43: 241-57. relations of Upper Egypt,particularly in Badarian Period: von der Way, T. (1992) Indications of architecture with an aspect. In Late Prehistoryof the Nile Basin and the Sahara, niches at Buto. ln The Followers of Horus: StudiesDedicated edited by L. I(rzyzaniak and M. I(obusiewicz. Poznan: to Michael Allen Hoffman, edited by R. Friedman and B. Poznan ArchaeologicalMuseum. pp. 255-60. Adams. Oxford: Oxbow Books, pp. 217-26. Tutundzic, S. P. (1993) A consideration of differences von der Way, T. (1993) Untersuchungenzur Spiitvor- und between the pottery showing Palestinian characteristicsin Frilhgeschichte UnrcrAgyptens:Studien zur Archiiologie und the Maadian and GerzeanCultures. JEA 79: )3-55. Geschichte Altrigyptens 8. Heidelberg: Heidelberger Tutundzic, S. P. (1996) Chalcolithic Canaan and Egypt: rein- Orientverlag. vestigations and considerations. Journal of the Serbian Ward, W. A. (I991) Early contacts between Egypt, Canaan, ArchaeologicalSociety L2: 25-33. and Sinai: remarks on the paper by Amnon Ben-Tor. van den Brink, E. C. M. (1988) The Amsterdam University BASOR281: I l-26. Survey Expedition to the Northeastern Delta Williams, B. B. (1986) Excavationsbetween Abu Simbeland the ( 1984-1 9861. ln The Archaeologyof the Nile Delta: Problems Sudan Frontier, Ikith C. Seele,Director. Part l: The A-Group and Prioriries,edited by E. C. M. van den Brink. Amster- Royal Cemetery at Qustul: Cemetery L. Oriental Institute dam: Uitgeverij Wolfkamp, pp. 65-l i4. Nubian Expedition,vol. lil. Chicago: The Oriental Institute van den Brink, E. C. M. (1995) The'En Besor cylinder seal of the University of Chicago. impressions in retrospect. In R. Gophna, Excavationsat'En Williams-Thorpe, O. (I995) Obsidian in the Mediterranean Besor.Jerusalem: Ramot Publishing House-Tel Aviv Uni- and the Near East:a provenancing successstory. Archaeo- versity,pp. 20I-14. metry37:2L7-48. Van Driel, c. (L979\ Jebel Aruda, 1977-1978. Akkadica 12: Yekutieli, Y. (1995) An imported pot redated. Friendsof the 2-28. PetrieMuseum Newsletter I): l-2.