The Relationship between the Badarian and the Amratian in Prehistoric

Justine J James

Two Year Paper

Stephen. Harvey

Gil Stein

March 2004 James 1

Introduction

Despite over a century of research since Jacques de Morgan and W. M. F. Petrie made the first discovery and identification of prehistoric artifacts in Egypt, the prehistoric or Predynastic period, especially in the final 2000 or so years leading up to the historic period,1 is not clearly understood. One of the major questions still facing Egyptologists is the question of the origins of pharaonic civilization. Specifically, was pharaonic civilization the product of a gradual evolution of a single cultural antecedent in the valley, the product of a combination of a number of different cultural antecedents in the

Nile valley, the product of an entirely new culture whose origins are outside the Nile valley, or a combination of all of the above? Answering this question requires a clearer understanding of prehistoric cultures both in the Nile valley proper and in the surrounding deserts and south into the modern Sudan, especially in terms of chronology and geography.

In an attempt to clarify one of these cultural relationships, this paper will focus on the

Badarian and Amratian cultural units.

The Badarian is traditionally described as a farming culture dating to between 5000/4000 and 3900 BC focused in a 35 km strip of around 40 settlement areas in

Middle Egypt along the Nile, despite finds of Badarian-like materials outside this presumed homeland at Hierakonpolis, Armant, and Wadi Hammamat.2 The Amratian is described as a Predynastic farming culture with a widespread presence in spanning

Matmar in the north to Wadi Kubbaniya in the south, dating to between 3900 and 3650 BC.

1 The term “historic period” here refers to the advent of writing, and the end of the Predynastic/prehistoric period usually dated to Dynasty 1 (ca. 3000 BC). 2F Debono, "Expedition Archéologique Royale Du Désert Oriental.," Annales du Service des Antiquitiés de l'Egypte 51, no. 1 (1951); Michael A. Hoffman, "Predynastic Cultural Ecology and Patterns of Settlement in Upper Egypt as Viewed from Hierakonpolis," in Origin and Early Development of Food-Producing Cultures in North-Eastern Africa, ed. Lech Krzyzaniak and Micha Kobusiewicz (Poznan: Polish Academy of Sciences; Poznan Archaeological Museum, 1984). James 2

One of the first things one should note about the very brief descriptions, which will of course be further elaborated below, of these two cultures given above is the distinction between “Neolithic” and “Predynastic.” The majority of authors discussing prehistoric

Egypt draw a clear distinction between cultures predating the 4th millennium BC and the cultures dated to the 4th millennium prior to what is considered to be historic, unified

Egypt, based on a perception of 4th millennium, primarily upper Egyptian cultural events as the catalyst leading into unification and the rise of the Egyptian state.3 While this distinction between “Neolithic” and “Predynastic” is convenient in clarifying the

(apparently) sudden changes and expansion of upper Egyptian culture, it is an artificial construct. The Predynastic was no less “Neolithic” than the preceding Neolithic cultures present in the Nile valley, of which the Badarian is an example, especially in its earliest phases. The Amratians and the Badarians both practiced and pastoralism, both made , both still utilized tools made primarily of stone rather than metal, which meets the simplest definition of a “Neolithic” culture.4 The problem with this distinction is that it tends to automatically orient the scholar to an attitude of assuming that there is some distinctly different between the “Neolithic” and the “Predynastic” when this may, and probably is not in fact the case, in other words, the categories become reified. There is a tendency to place both categories – the Neolithic and the Predynastic- into neatly outlined boxes that do not touch, when we should in fact be interested in the interface between them- the place where these neat categories overlap.

3 For examples of this distinction and some discussion regarding the tendency see: Guy Brunton and Gertrude Caton Thompson, The Badarian Civilisation and Predynastic Remains near Badari (London,: British school of archaeology in Egypt etc., 1928), 1-2; Fekri A. Hassan, "The Predynastic of Egypt," Journal of World Prehistory 2, no. 2 (1988); Béatrix Midant-Reynes, The Prehistory of Egypt: From the First to the First , trans. Ian Shaw (Oxford, UK ; Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 2000), 169. 4 Of course, the use of pottery is not necessarily a requirement to for a culture to be categorized as Neolithic – per the “Pre-Pottery Neolithic” cultures of the . James 3

A more focused example of the problem of reification of cultural units and terminology is the relationship of the Badarian to the Amratian. Along with the already present bias of the Badarian being considered “Neolithic” while the Amratian is considered

“Predynastic” the two cultures themselves are placed into neatly defined units of space and time and little consideration is given to the interface between the two. Despite evidence and commentary on the similarities between the two, they are still essentially regarded as distinct units in time and space and the only contact between them is when the Amratian apparently spread northward and replaced Badarian material culture with its own. The problem, however, is that a close examination of the excavation of stratified settlement remains in the Badari region at the site of North Spur Hemamieh belies this simple explanation – if the Badarian as a culture was suddenly overtaken the Amratian culture, either in the form of conquest, colonization, intensive trading, or some other means of transmission, we would expect there to be a sudden, distinction between the Badarian material culture and the Amratian material culture. As will be discussed in further detail below, this is not the case. In addition, despite, as mentioned above, the similarities cited between Badarian material culture and Amratian material culture, a clear quantification of these similarities has not been made. Nor has an explanation for why these similarities exist been clearly stated.

In an attempt to further clarify the relationship between the Badarian and the Amratian as cultural units, this paper will focus on outlining the basic aspects of settlements and their associated material culture for both the Amratian and the Badarian followed by a case study in which Amratian artifacts from a disturbed settlement context excavated in recent years at Abydos during ongoing investigations led by Dr. Stephen Harvey will be James 4 identified, described, and then compared to the available corpus of Badarian artifacts from settlement contexts. Using a discreet range of artifacts from an Amratian settlement context rather than the entirety of available artifacts is seen as a more practical approach for the purposes of this paper given the enormous range of artifacts that would need to be examined should the entirety of the Amratian settlement corpus be used for comparison. It is hoped that this comparison will give us a clearer idea of the similarities and/or difference between the Badarian and Amratian and also, depending on the degree of similarity and/or difference between the two in terms of material culture help to shed light on the degree of contact and possibly the nature of contact between the two, especially in the later phases of the Badarian and the early phases of the Amratian.

The Badarian as a Cultural Unit

The Badarian culture was first identified in the late 1920s by a British archaeologist, Guy Brunton working in the Badari region of Middle Egypt.5 Brunton was initially in the region investigating dynastic cemeteries when he happened upon an unusual sherd of handmade rippled ceramic unlike anything he had ever seen. Further investigation resulted in the discovery of a grave with an unusual collection of objects, including rippled surface pottery and survey of the low desert in the region yielded yet more rippled sherds.

Brunton, by his own admission, immediately assumed that this new material was part of a hitherto unknown Predynastic culture, but was not sure where this new culture fit into the framework already established by Petrie.6 Brunton then devoted his 1924-24 field season

5 Guy Brunton and Gertrude Caton Thompson, The Badarian Civilisation and Predynastic Remains near Badari (London,: British school of archaeology in Egypt etc., 1928). 6 See W. M. Flinders Petrie, Corpus of prehistoric pottery and palettes (London,: British school of archaeology in Egypt etc., 1921); W. M. Flinders Petrie and A. C. Mace, Diospolis Parva, the cemeteries of Abadiyeh and Hu, 1898-9 (London; Boston: Egypt Exploration Fund, 1901). James 5 to investigating the cemeteries and settlement remains of this new culture, culminating in the publication of The Badarian Civilisation and Predynastic Remains near Badari in

1927. In the first part of that publication, Brunton, based on evidence both from the cemeteries and from the second part of the publication written by Gertrude Caton-

Thompson (discussed further below) that it was highly unlikely that the Badarian was contemporaneous with “the Predynastic” – in this instance, meaning the Amratian,

Gerzean, and Semainean.7 Instead, the Badarian was almost certainly earlier, based on what seem to have been certain affinities and/or precursors to the first phase of the

Predynastic – the Amratian. Brunton’s work predated the advent of radiocarbon dating by several decades, therefore, no absolute date could be provided for the Badarian So far as

Brunton could determine it was early relative to the Amratian, though there seems to have been very little time elapsed between the end of the Badarian and the beginning of the

Amratian. Brunton’s reconstruction of Badarian culture was that they were a sedentary people practicing both agriculture and pastoralism, along with supplemental hunting and fishing, living in probably fairly ephemeral dwellings, as he found no evidence of houses or other built structures. Personal adornment, based on numerous finds of beads and pendants, seemed to have been common. They produced pottery, flint tools, worked leather, wove baskets and cloth, and carried on trade with communities nearby and at a distance. Burial customs seem to have been fairly fixed within the society, given the high number of similarly oriented burials and the inclusion of grave goods. Overall, Brunton concluded that: “We may not be far wrong if we suppose that the Badarians were sufficiently civilised to carry handkerchiefs.”8

7 The Semainan is now defunct as a category, but was considered to be the last phase of the “Predynastic” at the time of Brunton’s work. 8 Brunton and Thompson, The Badarian Civilisation and Predynastic Remains near Badari, 41. James 6

Gertrude Caton-Thompson also carried out investigations in the Badari region and her results are published in the same volume as Brunton’s first report on the Badarian - The

Badarian Civilisation and Predynastic Remains near Badari. Caton-Thompson focused her work near the modern village of Hemamieh – the site came to be known as “North Spur

Hemamieh.” Here Caton-Thompson found the conditions she had been looking for in a prehistoric Egyptian site – a stratified settlement site which could potentially help to clarify cultural mechanisms at work in the Predynastic period, such as culture contact and change in material culture, as well as helping to clarify the placement of the Badarian in relation to other identified Predynastic cultural traditions. Caton-Thompson carried out a thorough excavation for her time, taking note of the provenience of artifacts9 in 3 dimensional space as well as sieving hearths and hut circles in an attempt to find grains or other microartifacts. The basic levels she identified were:

1. overwash of limestone scree (no deeper than 10 inches)

2. majority of settlement accumulation (ca. 6 ft); midden deposit, mostly homogeneous gray, occasionally streaks of ash lenses

3. breccia deposit (no deeper than 10-12 inches); initially believed to be bottom of settlement accumulation

4. sparse Badarian artifacts in situ

Of the 6.5 feet of settlement accumulation, Caton-Thompson identified about 4.5 feet at the bottom of the accumulation as Badarian. Immediately above the purely Badarian levels is what appeared to Caton-Thompson to be an intermediate level, combining both Early

Predynastic (Amratian) artifacts with some Badarian ceramics, as well as 9 hut circles.

Caton-Thompson regarded this intermediate level as evidence that the Badarian represented

9 Though, it must be noted, only “special” sherds and artifacts, as opposed to rough wares. James 7 an earlier phase of the Amratian and that the increase in Amratian artifacts reflected a

“degeneration” of the pure Badarian forms. Caton-Thompson’s conclusions regarding the dating and stratigraphy of the site were reexamined in the 1990s – this reexamination will be discussed further below.

Brunton continued his study of the Badarian civilization. Two seasons near the modern village of Mostagedda, in the Badari region resulted in the publication of British

Museum Expedition to Middle Egypt. First and Second Years, 1928, 1929: Mostagedda and the Tasian Culture10 in which Brunton describes a new culture – the Tasian.

According to Brunton, the Tasian predates the Badarian and is characterized by a distinctive style of graves, the presence of stone celts, and incised beakers.11 Brunton also finds “irrefutable proof that the Badarian preceded the Amratian”12 in the form of

Amratian graves intruding into Badarian village remains. In addition to his work at

Mostagedda on Badarian and Tasian graves and settlements, Brunton carried out a further two seasons in the Badari regions, near the modern village of Matmar.13 Matmar yielded more Badarian material culture remains from grave and settlement contexts as well as a few scattered Tasian artifacts.

Around the same time of Brunton and Caton-Thompson’s work, additional

Badarian finds were excavated at Deir Tasa by S. Gabra, working for the Egyptian

Antiquities Service.14 Gabra discovered a settlement covering around 5000 m as well as

10 Guy Brunton and G. M. Morant, Expedition to Middle Egypt. First and Second years, 1928, 1929: Mostagedda and the Tasian Culture (London,: B. Quaritch ltd, 1937). 11 The relationship of the Tasian to the Badarian is not entirely clear, for the sake of simplicity, the Tasian will be regarded as part of the Badarian when discussion of artifacts or localities identified as “Tasian” by the excavator is necessary. 12 Brunton and Morant, British Museum Expedition to Middle Egypt. First and Second years, 1928, 1929: Mostagedda and the Tasian Culture, 21. 13 Guy Brunton, British Museum Expedition to Middle Egypt, 1929-1931: Matmar (London,: B. Quaritch, 1948). 14 S Gabra, "Fouilles du Service des Antiquitiés à Deir Tasa," Annales du Service des Antiquitiés de l'Egypte 30 (1930). James 8 the first clearly Badarian structures at a depth of a few to a few tens of centimeters. The structures were huts and windbreaks with associated hearths and storage pits.

The next major discussion of the Badarian took place in 1947 with E. Baumgartel’s publication The Cultures of .15 Baumgartel calls into question Brunton’s identification of the Tasian as a distinct cultural unit on the grounds that the distinction between burial practices is rather scant, and that many of the “Tasian” elements of material culture are identified as such through rather circular reasoning.16 In addition, there is not a clear distinction between Tasian and Badarian flint work.

In 1977, Lech Krzyzaniak provided a synthesis of the Badarian based on the works mentioned above as part of a larger work on early farming cultures in the Nile valley.17

Krzyzaniak also stated while a descriptive typology and relative chronology were available for the Badarian, the absolute chronology and spatial distribution of the Badarian were still unclear.18 Krzyzaniak also presented a model for Badarian settlement patterns, suggesting that permanent or semi-permanent settlements with associated cemeteries were established on the low desert above the flood plain, but that seasonal camps were also established to enable more efficient exploitation of resources, such as cultivation areas.19

New research into the Badarian did not take place until the late 1980s and early

1990s with the work of Diane Holmes and Renee Friedman. Holmes has published a number of articles and a two volume work on lithics which deal extensively with a review

15 Elise J. Baumgartel, The Cultures of Prehistoric Egypt, 2 vols., vol. 1 (London: Published on behalf of the Griffith Institute Ashmolean Museum by Oxford University Press, 1947). 16 In essence, Brunton identified, for example, a stone celt as being Tasian because it was found in a Tasian grave, but the grave is identified as Tasian either because it has a niche in one wall or because, lacking a niche, there is a stone celt present. 17 Lech Krzyzaniak, Early farming cultures on the lower Nile : the Predynastic Period in Egypt (Varsovie, Poland: Editions scientifiques de Pologne, 1977), 68-84. 18 Ibid., 69. 19 Ibid., 81-82. James 9 of old evidence and some new work on the Badarian and Amratian lithic traditions.20 Her

1989 volumes covered her comparative study of Predynastic lithics in which, among other things, she revised previous characterizations of the Badarian lithic technology as a core industry with relatively poor tools to a generalized flake-blade technology.21 Holmes also, in the same volumes, revised previous characterizations of the Amratian lithic industry by

Baumgartel as a bifacial industry to suggest that there was no single Amratian lithic tradition.22

In addition to her work on lithics, Holmes and Renee Friedman have carried out survey and test excavations in the Badari region in an attempt to find additional Badarian sites and to clarify chronology.23 In addition to locating sites missed by Brunton in his investigations, test pit excavations in the same locality as Caton-Thomson’s earlier excavation and analyses of the stratigraphy and ceramics have clarified the chronological sequence at North Spur Hemamieh and confirmed Caton-Thompson’s notion of a “pure”

Badarian giving way to a transitional period incorporating elements of both the Amratian and the Badarian.24 This idea of a transitional period, though, is complicated by the fact that the Amratian ceramics are known primarily from cemetery contexts which may not reflect

20 Diane L. Holmes, "Predynastic lithic industries of Badari, Middle Egypt: new perspectives and inter- regional relations," World archaeology 20, no. 1 (1988); Diane L. Holmes, The Predynastic Lithic Industries of Upper Egypt : a Comparative Study of the Lithic Traditions of Badari, Nagada, and Hierakonpolis, BAR international series 469 (i-ii) (Oxford, England: B.A.R., 1989); Diane L. Holmes, "Archaeological investigations in the Badari region, Egypt: a report on the 1992 season," Nyame Akuma 39 (1993); Diane L. Holmes and Renee F. Friedman, "Badari Region Revisited," Nyame Akuma, no. 31 (1989); Diane L. Holmes and Renee F. Friedman, "Survey and test excavations in the Badari Region, Egypt," Proceedings, Prehistoric Society 60 (1994). 21 Holmes, The Predynastic Lithic Industries of Upper Egypt : a Comparative Study of the Lithic Traditions of Badari, Nagada, and Hierakonpolis, 187-88, 336. 22 Ibid., 336. 23 Renee Friedman, "Predynastic Settlement Ceramics of Upper Egypt: A Comparative Study of the Ceramics of Hemamieh, Nagada, and Hierakonpolis" (Ph.D, University of California, Berkeley, 1994); Holmes and Friedman, "Badari Region Revisited."; Holmes and Friedman, "Survey and test excavations in the Badari Region, Egypt." 24 Holmes and Friedman, "Survey and test excavations in the Badari Region, Egypt," 135. James 10 the Amratian settlement ceramic corpus.25 Kaiser’s suggestion that the Badarian represents a regional phenomenon contemporaneous with the Amratian elsewhere is supported to a degree by the evidence from Hemamieh, but his suggestion that it did not contribute to the local Amratian is not.26

Friedman’s 1994 dissertation Predynastic Settlement Ceramics of Upper Egypt: A

Comparative Study of the Ceramics of Hemamieh, Nagada, and Hierakonpolis also approached the question of the relationship between the Badarian and Amratian. Discussed in detail below is her re-analysis of Badarian and Amratian ceramics excavated at

Hemamieh as well as her integration of data obtained from the test pits excavated in Caton-

Thomson’s locality.27

The Amratian as a Cultural Unit

The Amratian was first discovered at Nagada in 1896 during Petrie’s excavation of graves and a settlement identified as “South Town” he identified as belonging to a “New

Race” who invaded Egypt sometime around the First Intermediate Period.28 Petrie corrected his assessment soon after his less than beloved colleague, De Morgan, suggested that these graves and the associated settlement represented the prehistoric period.29 Despite his incorrect dating of the graves and South Town at Nagada, the publication itself is still valuable in providing information about the mortuary practices and material culture of the

Amratian. South Town is not well described or drawn in Naqada and Ballas and all that

25 Ibid. 26 Ibid.: 135-37; Werner Kaiser, "Stand und probleme der ägyptischen Vorgeschichtsforschung.," Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache und alterumskunde 81 (1956). 27 see 20above above. 28 Baumgartel, The Cultures of Prehistoric Egypt, 25; W. M. Flinders Petrie and James Edward Quibell, Naqada and Ballas. 1895 (London,: B. Quaritch, 1896). 29 Baumgartel, The Cultures of Prehistoric Egypt, 25; J. de Morgan, Recherches sur les Origines de L'Egypte; L'Àge de la Pierre et les Métaux (Paris,: E. Leroux, 1896); W. M. Flinders Petrie and University College London, Prehistoric Egypt, illustrated by over 1,000 objects in University College, London (London,: British School of Archaeology in Egypt etc., 1920), 1. James 11 can be conclusively stated is that there are rectangular buildings constructed of bricks that are probably Predynastic dwellings.30 Recent research has suggested that the South Town structure probably dates to the Nagada II/Gerzean phase.31

Petrie’s next publication regarding the Amratian (and the Predynastic in general) corrected his mistake in the Naqada and Ballas publication and introduced his typology and sequence dating method for pottery and other objects.32 Sequence dating is now known as seriation and is still one of the methods available for establishing relative chronology between related groups of artifacts. The Diaspolis Parva publication added to the growing corpus of Predynastic material, but was limited to graves.

The majority of publications dealing with Predynastic materials including the

Amratian were limited to cemetery excavations.33 One exception is the Predynastic settlement near Mahasna excavated by Garstang is discussed in his publication.34 Based on the descriptions of the pottery and lithics found, the settlement is likely to date to the

Amratian. The settlement also revealed remains of an ephemeral, possibly wattle-and-daub structure and a series of kilns.35 Petrie published a synthesis of the available information on the Egyptian Predynastic in 1920 and a corpus of Predynastic pottery in 1921.36

30 Elise J. Baumgartel, The Cultures of Prehistoric Egypt, 2 vols., vol. 2 (London: Published on behalf of the Griffith Institute Ashmolean Museum by Oxford University Press, 1960), 133-34; Petrie and Quibell, Naqada and Ballas. 1895, 54. 31 Béatrix Midant-Reynes, The prehistory of Egypt: from the first Egyptians to the first pharaohs, trans. Ian Shaw (Oxford, UK ; Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 2000), 198-99. 32 Petrie and Mace, Diospolis Parva, the cemeteries of Abadiyeh and Hu, 1898-9. 33 Edward Russell Ayrton and W. L. S. Loat, Pre-dynastic cemetery at El Mahasna (London ; Boston, Mass.: Sold at the Offices of the Egypt Exploration Fund, 1911); Brunton, British Museum Expedition to Middle Egypt, 1929-1931: Matmar; W. M. Flinders Petrie et al., Abydos (London,: Offices of the Egypt Exploration Fund, 1902); James Edward Quibell, F. W. Green, and W. M. Flinders Petrie, Hierakonpolis, 2 vols., vol. 2 (London,: B. Quaritch, 1902); David Randall-MacIver, A. C. Mace, and F. Ll Griffith, El Amrah and Abydos, 1899-1901 (London, Boston, Mass.,: Sold at the offices of the Egypt exploration fund etc., 1902). 34 John Garstang and Kurt Sethe, Mahasna and Bet Khallaf (London,: B. Quaritch, 1903), 5-7. 35 Ibid., 6-7. 36 Petrie, Corpus of prehistoric pottery and palettes; Petrie and University College London, Prehistoric Egypt, illustrated by over 1,000 objects in University College, London. James 12

Brunton’s work discussed above at Badari and Qau and at Mostagedda also uncovered Amratian graves and settlements. In the Badari/Qau area, numerous villages were located, including one at Hemamieh (distinguished from Caton-Thompson’s North

Spur Hemamieh settlement) that began in the Badarian phase and continued at least into the

Amratian.37 Another locality was discovered which included circular huts similar to those discovered by Caton-Thompson at North Spur Hemamieh.38 At Mostagedda, eighteen areas were identified by Brunton as Amratian villages. At one of these localities (Area

1900), Brunton discovered a pair of circular pits that may have been “sunk huts or underground cellars.”39 A hut circle similar to the ones found at Hemamieh and North Spur

Hemamieh was found in the same locality. Area 1900 was apparently used as a settlement in the Badarian period, but the main settlement dated to the Predynastic.40 As in the Badari region, the majority of the Amratian remains were artifacts without associated structures and no (described) stratigraphy.

Baumgartel’s 1947 Cultures of Prehistoric Egypt synthesizes the available information about the Amratian in great detail.41 Baumgartel clearly regards the Amratian as a progression from the preceding Badarian phase.42 The next major publication to address the Amratian was an article by Werner Kaiser which was concerned with the chronology of all the Predynastic.43 Although Kaiser’s work was focused exclusively on cemetery materials, he did contribute greatly to the clarification of chronology for the

Predynastic. Kaiser refined Petrie’s sequence dating system, resulting in a sequence for the

37 Brunton and Thompson, The Badarian Civilisation and Predynastic Remains near Badari, 43. 38 Ibid., 44. 39 Brunton and Morant, British Museum Expedition to Middle Egypt. First and Second years, 1928, 1929: Mostagedda and the Tasian Culture, 76. 40 Ibid. 41 Baumgartel, The Cultures of Prehistoric Egypt, 24-38. 42 Ibid., 24-25. 43 Werner Kaiser, "Zur inneren Chronologie der Naqadakultur," Archaeologia geographica (1957). James 13

Predynastic divided into Nagada I (Amratian, in Petrie’s system); Nagada II (Gerzean); and

Nagada III (Semainean). More recently, Hendrickx has further clarified the system, but it has in general stood the test of time.44

Krzyzaniak included a synthesis of available information regarding the Amratian in his 1977 Early Farming Cultures on the Lower Nile. He also presented a model for

Amratian settlement patterns, as he had done for the Badarian. He suggests that changes in agricultural production led to changes in settlement patterns and led to population growth, though he admits this supposition is difficult to prove throughout Upper Egypt given the limitations of the available archaeological evidence. The Middle Egypt region investigated by Brunton, however, does provide some evidence of demographic changes, as Amratian settlements increased in relation to the number of Amratian cemeteries. In the Badarian period, the pattern essentially was one cemetery for each settlement. In the Amratian, this changes to about 2.5 settlements for each contemporaneous cemetery. Amratian settlements were still established above the floodplain .45

In more recent years, Fekhri Hassan has undertaken a systematic investigation of

Nagada settlements located between Danfiq and Ballas. Interestingly, some of these remains were initially dated to the Badarian on the basis of the presence of rippled potsherds, but a closer analysis of the lithic and ceramic material revised this to the Nagada

I.46 The sites are located on a low terrace near the edge of cultivation. The sites date to the late Nagada I and possibly to the transition into the Nagada II. The only structural remains

44 Stan Hendrickx, "The Relative Chronology of the : Problems and Possibilities," in Aspects of Early Egypt, ed. A. Jeffrey Spencer (London: British Museum Press, 1996). 45 Krzyzaniak, Early farming cultures on the lower Nile : the Predynastic Period in Egypt, 116-17. 46 T. R. Hays, "A reappraisal of the Egyptian Predynastic," in From hunters to farmers : the causes and consequences of food production in Africa, ed. J.D. Clark and S. A. Brandt (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984); Midant-Reynes, The prehistory of Egypt: from the first Egyptians to the first pharaohs, 183. James 14 are postholes and rubble suggesting houses were made of wattle-and-daub and/or blocks of mud and stones. Hearths and storage pits were common features in dwellings. Hassan’s work has led him to conclude that the settlement pattern prior to 3600 BC in Upper Egypt was small dispersed communities.47

In 1978 excavations resumed at Hierakonpolis under the direction of Michael

Hoffman.48 Between 1978 and 1980, four localities (29, 11C, 6, 54) with early Predynastic elements, including settlements were excavated. An early Predynastic trash mound was also excavated by Hoffman in 1969 (Locality 14). One of the most exciting discoveries was in Locality 29, where a rectangular house and an oven or kiln was discovered that date to the Amratian period. The rectangular house was partly subterranean, with plastered mud/dung plastered walls and eight posts to support the superstructure. Trenches discovered on the eastern and northern sides of the house suggest that it may have been enclosed by walls. An oven and storage pots were discovered inside the house.49

Locality 11C is also Amratian settlement area, located on the edge of a wadi. In addition to a midden, hearths and food processing areas were identified. The location of the settlement near the wadi and stands of trees made it an ideal location for kilns and the seasonal grasses also made it a good location for seasonal pastoralism.50 Another Amratian settlement was identified in Locality 6, with an associated cemetery.51 Locality 54 was

47 Fekri A. Hassan, "The Predynastic of Egypt," Journal of World Prehistory 2, no. 2 (1988): 154-55. 48 Michael A. Hoffman, The Predynastic of Hierakonpoli : An Interim Report (Macomb, Il.: Cairo University Herbarium, Faculty of Science and the Deptartment of Sociology and Anthropology Western Illinois University, 1982). 49 Michael A. Hoffman, "A rectangular Amratian house from Hierakonpolis," Journal of Near Eastern studies 39, no. 2 (1980); Michael A. Hoffman, "Excavations at Locality 29," in The Predynastic of Hierkanpolis: An Interim Report, ed. Michael A. Hoffman (Macomb, Il.: Cairo University Herbarium, Faculty of Science and the Deptartment of Sociology and Anthropology Western Illinois University, 1982). 50 J. Fred Harlan, "Excavations at Locality 11C," in The Predynastic of Hierkanpolis: An Interim Report, ed. Michael A. Hoffman (Macomb, Il.: Cairo University Herbarium Faculty of Science ; Dept. of Sociology and Anthropology Western Illinois University, 1982). 51 Michael A. Hoffman, Carter Lupton, and Barbara Adams, "Excavations at Locality 6," Ibid. (Cairo University Herbarium, Faculty of Science and the Deptartment of Sociology and Anthropology Western James 15 badly deflated, but included an Amratian component.52 Locality 14 was a trash mound with an Amratian component.53

Badarian and Amratian Material Culture from Settlement Contexts

While much of the material excavated from Badarian and Amratian sites in general comes from cemetery contexts, it seems desirable here to discuss settlement remains exclusively because: 1) it is not clear exactly how similar or dissimilar Badarian and

Amratian settlement artifacts and grave goods are and such a distinction is beyond the scope of this work; and 2 the material to be discussed can be reduced to a slightly more manageable level by limiting the range of materials described.

Badarian Ceramics

The most distinctive feature of Badarian cultural remains seems to be handmade black-topped red or brown ware with a rippled or combed surface, occasionally rubbed with a white substance to accentuate the rippling. This rippling occurs on the exterior of closed form vessels and on the interior of open forms, such as bowls, and is interpreted as being decorative, though it may have originated in combing to thin the vessel walls.54

Brunton, following Petrie’s example, developed a typology for the Badarian vessels he found, though he based the system on surface treatment and quality rather than form.55

Brunton identified 7 classed of Badarian pottery:

1. BB – black-topped polished brown ()

Illinois University). 52 Michael A. Hoffman, "Excavations at Locality 54," Ibid. 53 Michael A. Hoffman, "Introduction," in The Predynastic of Hierkanpolis: An Interim Report, ed. Michael A. Hoffman (Macomb, Il.: Cairo University Herbarium, Faculty of Science and the Deptartment of Sociology and Anthropology Western Illinois University, 1982). 54 Brunton and Thompson, The Badarian Civilisation and Predynastic Remains near Badari, 20-21. 55 Ibid., 21. James 16

2. BR – black-topped polished red ()

3. PR – plain polished red ()

4. SB – smooth brown ()

5. RB – rough brown ()

6. AB – all black, smoothed or polished

7. MS – miscellaneous; “fancy forms” and decorated pots56

Brunton’s seven classes can be understood as distinguishing between the fine, highly polished decorated wares (BB, BR, PR, AB), coarse or rough utilitarian wares (SB,

RB), and decorated wares that do not fit into the fine polished categories or the utilitarian categories (MS).57 The fine, polished wares and the utilitarian wares occur in both cemetery and settlement contexts, though the fine wares compose much more of the cemetery assemblages than do the rough wares.58 Both fine and rough types feature repair holes.59 The MS class is highly variable, including cups, vases with and without handles, rectangular bowls, point-burnished sherds, pale pink painted vessels, and black wares with incised decorations filled with white material.60 Many of the MS wares, especially the vessels with pale pink paint are highly suggestive of Petrie’s C-ware, suggesting either that these examples were from contexts difficult to date or that they represent overlap of some sort with the Amratian phase in the Badari region. More detailed discussion of Badarian ceramics will be found below.

56 Ibid., 21-24. 57 Brunton and Morant, British Museum Expedition to Middle Egypt. First and Second years, 1928, 1929: Mostagedda and the Tasian Culture, 16, 28; Brunton and Thompson, The Badarian Civilisation and Predynastic Remains near Badari, 25. 58 Brunton and Thompson, The Badarian Civilisation and Predynastic Remains near Badari; Midant- Reynes, The prehistory of Egypt: from the first Egyptians to the first pharaohs, 154. 59 Friedman, "Predynastic Settlement Ceramics of Upper Egypt: A Comparative Study of the Ceramics of Hemamieh, Nagada, and Hierakonpolis". 60 Brunton and Thompson, The Badarian Civilisation and Predynastic Remains near Badari, 22-23. James 17

Amratian Ceramics

Petrie was the first and arguably the most famous archaeologist to develop a typology for Predynastic pottery in general and Amratian pottery in particular. Amratian ceramics, along with other artifacts, were placed in Sequence Dates 30-37, the earliest in the series, with sequence dates 1-30 left open should earlier cultures be identified.61 While the sequence dates are no longer particularly useful, Petrie’s classification is still a useful reference. What must be kept in mind, however, is that Petrie’s typology is based on finds of whole vessels from cemetery contexts, which may be, and likely are different from ceramic assemblages from settlement contexts both in terms of types represented and the extent of the vessel preserved.62 Based on the analysis of Amratian assemblages presented in Friedman’s 1994 dissertation, the following classes from Petrie’s (mortuary) corpus occur in Amratian settlement contexts: B ware, P ware, and C ware.63 B ware is black- topped ware with a red to red-brown body, P ware is red polished ware, and C ware is white cross-lined ware.64

Black-topped Amratian vessels (B ware) are almost certainly an outgrowth of the

Badarian tradition exemplified in Badarian BB and BR wares, though they gradually decrease in frequency throughout the Amratian, eventually disappearing at the end of the

Predynastic period.65 () Red polished Amratian vessels are also are likely to have their

61 Petrie and Mace, Diospolis Parva, the cemeteries of Abadiyeh and Hu, 1898-9; Petrie and University College London, Prehistoric Egypt, illustrated by over 1,000 objects in University College, London, 46-48. 62 Friedman, "Predynastic Settlement Ceramics of Upper Egypt: A Comparative Study of the Ceramics of Hemamieh, Nagada, and Hierakonpolis", 863; Diana Craig Patch, "The Origin and Early Development of Urbanism in : A Regional Study" (Ph.D., University of Pennsylvania, 1991), 154. 63 Friedman, "Predynastic Settlement Ceramics of Upper Egypt: A Comparative Study of the Ceramics of Hemamieh, Nagada, and Hierakonpolis", 865. 64 Petrie, Corpus of prehistoric pottery and palettes; Petrie and University College London, Prehistoric Egypt, illustrated by over 1,000 objects in University College, London. 65 Baumgartel, The Cultures of Prehistoric Egypt, 25, 29; Friedman, "Predynastic Settlement Ceramics of Upper Egypt: A Comparative Study of the Ceramics of Hemamieh, Nagada, and Hierakonpolis", 395; Krzyzaniak, Early farming cultures on the lower Nile : the Predynastic Period in Egypt, 107; Midant- Reynes, The prehistory of Egypt: from the first Egyptians to the first pharaohs, 170. James 18 origins in the Badarian, though unlike B ware, they become more common and appear in more diverse forms throughout the Amratian period.66 () White crossed-line vessels (C ware), on the other hand, seem to be an innovation of the Amratian period.67 () C ware features a variety of shapes and is virtually identical to P ware (i.e. polished red) save for the addition of white painted designs. The patterns are primarily geometric, though occasionally scenes including humans and/or animals occur.68

Attractive as the fine wares represented by B, P, and C wares are, the utilitarian wares found exclusively in Amratian settlement contexts present some rather intriguing data. Based on analysis of ceramic fabric from assemblages in three regions (Hemamieh,

Nagada, and Hierakonpolis) Friedman has identified three regional traditions distinguished by use of different tempers, different techniques of manufacture, different surface treatments, and different shapes.69 These regional traditions in utilitarian wares exist alongside the fine ware traditions which do not show nearly so much variation in paste preparation, shaping, firing, surface treatment, or decorative themes, though there is enough variation to rule out distribution from a central source.70 The Hemamieh utilitarian tradition seems to be a continuation of the Badarian tradition and will be discussed further below.

The North Spur Hemamieh Ceramics

66 Kaiser, "Zur inneren Chronologie der Naqadakultur."; Midant-Reynes, The prehistory of Egypt: from the first Egyptians to the first pharaohs, 170. 67 Baumgartel, The Cultures of Prehistoric Egypt, 29; Midant-Reynes, The prehistory of Egypt: from the first Egyptians to the first pharaohs, 170. 68 Baumgartel, The Cultures of Prehistoric Egypt, 29-30; Midant-Reynes, The prehistory of Egypt: from the first Egyptians to the first pharaohs, 170-75. 69 Friedman, "Predynastic Settlement Ceramics of Upper Egypt: A Comparative Study of the Ceramics of Hemamieh, Nagada, and Hierakonpolis", 865. 70 Ibid., 871; Hendrickx, "The Relative Chronology of the Naqada Culture: Problems and Possibilities," 63. James 19

In her 1994 dissertation, Renee Friedman re-examined ceramics (mostly sherds) originally excavated by Caton-Thompson from the stratified sequence including the

Badarian, Amratian, and Gerzean at Hemamieh with an eye to fabric/temper and form as well as surface treatment. She also included information gained from the ceramics found in two test pits excavated on the edge of Caton-Thompson’s earlier excavation.71 In addition, she identified similarities between Badarian, Amratian, and Gerzean ceramics based on fabric, form, and surface treatment. 72 Fabrics and their associated shapes that include Badarian and/or Amratian examples are discussed below.

According to Friedman’s analysis, the characteristic surface rippling on Badarian vessels occurs most often on vessels of fine, untempered Nile silt (class 22).73 The vessels made of this fabric are thin walled, hard, and have a limited range of shapes and surface treatments. Nearly all of them are black-topped brown and rippled. Exterior rippling is usually oblique to the rim and runs to the right while the burnish runs to the left perpendicular to the rippling.74 Interior rippling is always vertical and occasionally is further accentuated by pattern burnishing.75 Friedman suggests that “the fine manufacture and finish of pots of this fabric have effaced all evidence of the method of production but suggest a certain level of standardization for these fine and no doubt labor intensive creations.”76 The range of vessel shapes found in this fabric are paralleled most closely by

Brunton’s BB, BR, and SB classes. The typical shapes are: bowls with sloping walls and

71 Holmes and Friedman, "Survey and test excavations in the Badari Region, Egypt." 72 Friedman, "Predynastic Settlement Ceramics of Upper Egypt: A Comparative Study of the Ceramics of Hemamieh, Nagada, and Hierakonpolis", Chapter 7. 73 Ibid., 390. Friedman developed a classification system based on fabric/temper in her dissertation where fabric/temper types are identified by a numeric code used solely as a mnemonic device. For further discussion of her system, see Chapter 4 of her dissertation, pp. 130-162 In this work, after the first mention of one of Friedman’s fabric types, they will thereafter be referred to by her coding system. 74 Ibid. 75 Ibid. 76 Ibid., 391. James 20 direct rims; beakers/bowls with vertical walls and direct rims; beakers and bowls with everted rims; and hole mouth jars.77

The next fabric type Friedman discusses is untempered plum red Nile silt (class

2).78 Many of the shapes occurring in vessels of this fabric also occur in the untempered

Nile silt fabric discussed above. Friedman interprets this fabric type as the link between

Badarian and Amratian ceramic traditions.79 This fabric type occurs in both Badarian ceramics and Amratian ceramics, however rippling on this fabric type occurs only in sherds from Badarian levels at Hemamieh.80 Most are red or black-topped red with black slipped, red slipped, or untreated interior surfaces.81 Vessel shapes of class 2 are similar in both

Badarian and Amratian examples, the primary difference being the increased presence of modeled or everted rims in Amratian vessels.82 Vessels of this fabric class are close parallels to Petrie’s B, P, and C wares.83 A full discussion of these shapes is presented below.

Bowls with sloping walls and direct rims in the class 2 fabric occur in both

Badarian and Amratian vessels.84 The Badarian examples have black-topped red rippled exteriors while the Amratian vessels are red polished on interior and exterior and are not rippled.85 One of the bowl sherds features a white painted dot design indicating that it fits into Petrie’s classification system as C ware, a ware typical of the Amratian.86 Dotted designs are a popular motif on C ware in the Badari region and Brunton thought the design

77 Ibid., 391-94. 78 Ibid., 395. 79 Ibid. 80 Ibid. 81 Ibid., 395. 82 Ibid. 83 Ibid., 865. 84 Ibid., 396. 85 Ibid. 86 Ibid. James 21 may have represented a local fashion.87 Interestingly, the Badari dot design is similar to the possible regional style identified in the Abydos region.88

Beakers with vertical/near vertical walls and direct rims in the class 2 fabric occur in both Badarian and Amratian vessels. The Badarian examples occur both with and without surface rippling and all are black-topped. The examples without rippling are similar to the Amratian examples, which also are not rippled adding additional support to the idea of a gradual transition to the Amratian phase in the Badari region. 89

Beakers with vertical walls and everted rims in the class 2 fabric also occur in both

Badarian and Amratian vessels. One subtype of this class 2 beaker is red polished and closely resembles contemporary Badarian stone vessels. The other subtype of this class 2 beaker occurs in both Badarian and Amratian levels at Hemamieh and all are black- topped.90 This may be yet another example of a gradual transition into the Amratian phase.

Two examples of the rare Badarian bowl type with a modeled rim occur at Hemamieh in the class 2 fabric type. One bowl is black-topped brown and has rippling and the other is black-topped and red slipped.91

Black-topped red rippled hole mouthed jars with low sloping shoulder in the class 2 fabric occur in the upper Badarian levels at Hemamieh and may represent a temporally significant form. Unrippled black-topped jars with more sloped shoulders or a convex

87 Brunton and Thompson, The Badarian Civilisation and Predynastic Remains near Badari, 54; Friedman, "Predynastic Settlement Ceramics of Upper Egypt: A Comparative Study of the Ceramics of Hemamieh, Nagada, and Hierakonpolis", 396. 88 Friedman, "Predynastic Settlement Ceramics of Upper Egypt: A Comparative Study of the Ceramics of Hemamieh, Nagada, and Hierakonpolis", 396. 89 Ibid., 397. 90 Ibid., 397-98. 91 Ibid., 398-99. James 22 body occur in the Amratian period produced in class 2 fabric. Black-topped red jars with modeled rims occur only in Amratian levels at Hemamieh. 92

The next fabric class that Friedman discusses is coarse organic tempered Nile silt

(class 21). This class corresponds to Brunton’s Rough Brown (RB) class. All shapes in this class typically exhibit brown self slip burnished with a pebble and decoration limited to finger channeling. Most shapes have rounded or tapered direct rims. Smaller vessels were pinched into shape while larger vessels were formed using coiling or slab construction.

There is some evidence that scraping and wiping with a reed brush were used to thin out and join sections of clay. The majority of vessels of class 21 are from Badarian levels in

Caton-Thomson’s excavation, but later excavation by Holmes and Friedman demonstrates that this fabric continued into the Amratian, though in decreasing amounts.93 All of the shapes discussed by Friedman are limited to Badarian wares. They are described as: bowls with sloping walls and direct rims; beakers with vertical walls and direct rims; bowls with modeled rims (only one example was found and this form has parallels in Amratian

Khattara sites is the Nagada region); and hole mouth jars with direct rims.94

Friedman’s next fabric class is described as fine organic tempered Nile silt (class

26).95 The nature of this fabric is somewhat confusing as the pastes and surface treatments in this class are more variable than in other fabrics. If the fabric is in fact unrefined Nile silt as Friedman believes, this may account for the variability in the fabric.96 The majority of vessels in this class, despite the variability, are self and brown slipped with loose burnish or were burnished while moist. Fabric class 26 corresponds best to Brunton’s Smooth

92 Ibid., 399. 93 Ibid., 401-02; Holmes and Friedman, "Survey and test excavations in the Badari Region, Egypt." 94 Friedman, "Predynastic Settlement Ceramics of Upper Egypt: A Comparative Study of the Ceramics of Hemamieh, Nagada, and Hierakonpolis", 403-04. 95 Ibid., 405. 96 Ibid. James 23

Brown (SB). Some of the class 26 vessels may be variations of class 21 in form and finish and have parallels in Brunton’s Rough Brown (RB) class. Some of the vessels dating to after the Badarian phase appear to be poorly made versions of red polished bowls (P ware) with red slip and “streaky” polish.97

Bowls with convex walls and direct rims with class 26 fabric had a variety of surface treatments, including brown or red slip or had no surface treatment at all. These bowls are found in Badarian and Amratian levels and have parallels in Brunton’s SB class.

Bowls with sloping walls and direct rims had also had variable surface treatments.

Examples were found in Badarian and Amratian levels and may be an imitation of P ware in the Gerzean period. A few examples included in this class and shape, with a higher limestone content in the silt may be a contemporary imitation of Badarian stone vessels.98

Hole mouthed jars with direct rims also occurred in the class 26 fabric. Most were convex in shape with high shoulders and large mouths. The exteriors were brown or self slipped and coarsely burnished. All of the examples came from Badarian contexts save a single rim sherd with a potmark from a poorly understood context. The lack of contextual information for the marked sherd is unfortunate because of the lack of evidence for

Badarian potmarks.99

The final fabric class Friedman discusses is class 1 – straw tempered Nile silt. This fabric occurs in all post-breccia levels at Hemamieh according to the data obtained from

Holmes and Friedman’s test pits.100 The frequency of fabric class 1 increases from the level immediately above the breccia to the topmost level, suggesting chronological significance. Unfortunately, shapes from the earliest levels are not well known because of 97 Ibid. 98 Ibid., 406. 99 Ibid., 407. 100 Ibid., 408. James 24 problems with Caton-Thomson’s excavation. Shapes from the Amratian phase are known only from Holmes and Friedman’s test excavations. The majority of examples of this fabric are known from Gerzean levels only.101 The only vessel shape of this fabric that can be even tentatively identified as Badarian is the hole mouth jar with direct rim, similar to the fabric class 26 hole mouth jar.102 The shapes with Amratian examples include: bowls with sloping walls and direct rims; bowls with everted rims; large bowls with simple rims; jars with modeled rims; and bottles.103

Badarian Lithics

Badarian lithic technology was initially characterized by Caton-Thomson as a core industry utilizing rough flint nodules picked up off the desert surface. The most common tool was the heavy, nodular push-plane/steep-ended scraper. The “best” flint work – pressure flaked sickle flints - were represented exclusively in cemetery contexts. However,

Caton-Thomson did attribute knives made using flake, rather than core, technology to the

Badarian. In addition, concave base were identified as part of the Badarian lithic assemblage. 104 More recently, Diane Holmes has reanalyzed Badarian lithics from

Caton-Thompson’s excavation at Hemamieh and Brunton’s excavations throughout the

Badari district.105 As a result she has concluded that the Badarian lithic industry was not “a poor core industry characterized by push-planes and a few bifacial tools.”106 Instead, the

Badarian industry may be described as “a generalized flake-blade industry characterized by non-bifacial tools made on flakes, blades, and occasionally on tabular pieces of flint, and

101 Ibid., 408-09. 102 Ibid., 410. 103 Ibid., 409-13. 104 Brunton and Thompson, The Badarian Civilisation and Predynastic Remains near Badari, 75-76. 105 Holmes, The Predynastic Lithic Industries of Upper Egypt : a Comparative Study of the Lithic Traditions of Badari, Nagada, and Hierakonpolis. 106 Ibid., 187. James 25 which included endscrapers, perforators and retouched pieces.”107 Bifacial tools are also present, however, and mostly , sickles, and concave-base arrowheads.108 Holmes suggests that this new characterization of the Badarian lithic technology may serve as better indicator of Badarian sites, as many sites outside the Badari region have been identified as such on the basis of ceramics alone, while the lithic assemblages at those sites are clearly different from the lithic assemblages in the Badari region.109 She goes on to suggest that the Badarian lithic technology was essentially a regional phenomenon.110

Amratian Lithics

Baumgartel characterized the Amratian lithic tradition as being essentially bifacial, though she did say it was difficult to quantify, especially as the lithics from settlement contexts were difficult to date securely.111 She identified the following tool types: igneous and sedimentary axes, polished flint axes, polished and flaked axes, celts, concave base arrowheads, triangular arrowheads, sickles, leaf-shaped points, chisel-ended points, pebble- butted and pebble-backed tools, planes, side-scrapers, end-scrapers, core-scrapers, fish tails, double-edged round-tipped knives, single-edged knives, curved-backed knives, and daggers.112 Holmes’ reanalysis, however, suggests that there is no single Amratian lithic industry, instead there are multiple industries of regional character.113 In the Nagada region the lithic technology is flake oriented dominated by a high frequency of end- scrapers, burins, notches, and retouched pieces. The most common Nagadan bifacial tools

107 Ibid. 108 Ibid. 109 Ibid., 188. 110 Ibid., 336. 111 Baumgartel, The Cultures of Prehistoric Egypt, 26. 112 Ibid., 27-34. 113 Holmes, The Predynastic Lithic Industries of Upper Egypt : a Comparative Study of the Lithic Traditions of Badari, Nagada, and Hierakonpolis, 336-37. James 26 are axes.114 The late Amratian lithic technology at Hierakonpolis is dominated by flake tools, but also features blade tools. Burins, retouched pieces, end-scrapers, notches, microdrills, winged drills, and transverse arrowheads are the primary tool types.115 In the

Badari region, the Amratian lithics are primarily end-scrapers, perforators, truncations, backed pieces, sickle blades, blade knives, and bifacial knives.116

Miscellaneous Badarian Material Culture

Grinding stones and rubbers of hard stone were found in settlement contexts in the

Badari region.117 The larger examples are interpreted as grain grinders while the smaller ones may have been used for treating animal skins.118 Also found in a settlement context inside a basket were a pair of porphyry palettes. They are described as “flat rectangular slabs with rounded corners.”119 A flint pebble that may have served as a grinder was found with them.120 Baskets were also found in settlement contexts. Three baskets found in

Brunton’s first excavation held a cache of objects including the porphyry palettes mentioned above.121 Spindle whorls, flat, pierced pottery disks, and pottery boat models also contribute to the complement of Badarian material culture found in settlement contexts.

Basketry or matting was also found at Matmar, interpreted by Brunton as lining for granaries similar to that occurring in the Fayum.122 Fragments of stone vases made of dark grey basalt were found in settlement contexts near Sheikh ‘Esa and at Mostagedda, but

114 Ibid., 336. 115 Ibid. 116 Ibid. 117 Brunton and Thompson, The Badarian Civilisation and Predynastic Remains near Badari, 34. 118 Ibid. 119 Ibid., 35. 120 Ibid. 121 Ibid., 34. 122 Brunton, British Museum Expedition to Middle Egypt, 1929-1931: Matmar, 4. James 27 shapes could not be reconstructed from these fragments.123 Vases from grave contexts were either plain cylinders or had a splayed foot.124

Two human figurines were found in a village context at Mostagedda. They are not described in the text, but are presented in the plates. The first is a generalized depiction of a human figure, showing splayed arms and legs with no hands or feet, no facial features are distinguished on the tapered head. The two protrusions from the chest are the basis for the identification of the figurine as female.125 The other figurine is identified in the drawing as red clay. The arms are reduced to mere stubs and the legs are not differentiated, but are represented as a solid rectangle jutting at an angle from the waist. This figurine also features chest protrusions that suggest an identification as female is in order.126

Miscellaneous Amratian Material Culture

Amratian settlement material culture is in many ways quite similar to Badarian material culture. Cylindrical basalt jars were found in Amratian village deposits at

Mostagedda.127 Basketry was also found in village deposits at Mostagedda.128 Two human figurines with no context were also found at Mostagedda, one of which resembles the

Badarian figurines described above.129 A human figurine resembling the Badarian figurines was also found in a village context near Badari.130 Part of a model boat was also found

123 Brunton and Morant, British Museum Expedition to Middle Egypt. First and Second years, 1928, 1929: Mostagedda and the Tasian Culture, 52; Brunton and Thompson, The Badarian Civilisation and Predynastic Remains near Badari, 28. 124 Brunton and Morant, British Museum Expedition to Middle Egypt. First and Second years, 1928, 1929: Mostagedda and the Tasian Culture, 52; Brunton and Thompson, The Badarian Civilisation and Predynastic Remains near Badari, 28. 125 Brunton and Morant, British Museum Expedition to Middle Egypt. First and Second years, 1928, 1929: Mostagedda and the Tasian Culture, Plate XXVI, 1. 126 Ibid., Plate XXIV, 31. 127 Ibid., 86. 128 Ibid., 89, 93. 129 Ibid., 89. 130 Brunton and Thompson, The Badarian Civilisation and Predynastic Remains near Badari, 61, Pl. LVIII, 5. James 28 in a village context.131 Flat pottery disks are also attested in Amratian village contexts.132

Fragments of rhomboid Amratian slate palettes have been found in a number of village contexts, unlike the Badarian palettes, which were found exclusively in graves.133

Conclusion

Based on the evidence presented above, it seems clear that regarding the Badarian and the Amratian as entirely distinct cultural units is no longer a satisfactory explanation.

Based on the clear similarities in material culture, especially fine wares such as black- topped polished red and brown wares and polished red wares it seems clear that the

Badarian influenced the Amratian. The stratified sequence at North Spur Hemamieh also supports the notion that the Badarian is best viewed as an earlier phase of the Amratian in the Badari region that contributed to the regional style rather than a distinct cultural unit.

This does not, however, explain the presence of Badarian style ceramics outside what is regarded as the “homeland” of the Badarian culture, nor does it explain how features such as black-topped pottery became a common element of Amratian material culture throughout Upper Egypt. Of all possible explanations for this phenomenon, including trade, diffusion, and common cultural antecedents, Friedman’s view that “a Badarian culture as defined by its ceramic attributes was the precursor of Amratian ceramic traditions”134 seems the most tenable based on the available evidence. The different lithic traditions of the Badarian and the Amratian, and, in fact, between different regions of

131 Brunton and Morant, British Museum Expedition to Middle Egypt. First and Second years, 1928, 1929: Mostagedda and the Tasian Culture, 89. 132 Ibid., 89, Pl. XXXII, 5d, 5j; Brunton and Thompson, The Badarian Civilisation and Predynastic Remains near Badari, 61. 133 Brunton and Morant, British Museum Expedition to Middle Egypt. First and Second years, 1928, 1929: Mostagedda and the Tasian Culture, 86; Brunton and Thompson, The Badarian Civilisation and Predynastic Remains near Badari, 58. 134 Friedman, "Predynastic Settlement Ceramics of Upper Egypt: A Comparative Study of the Ceramics of Hemamieh, Nagada, and Hierakonpolis", 886. James 29

Upper Egypt during the Amratian period are difficult to explain. Holmes suggests that this may be explained by the exchange of ideas up and down the Nile, but in the view of this author one would expect more similarity in the lithic assemblages, rather than such a high degree of variability. In any case, despite the variability in lithic assemblages, it would be foolish to ignore the enormous number of similarities between the Badarian and Amratian phases and the similarities between regions during the Amratian.

Overall, it seems that the greatest barrier to a clear understanding of the relationship between the Badarian and the Amratian is a tendency to reify cultural categories. While there is no better heuristic device available to quantify cultural traditions, the creation and definition of cultural categories has the unfortunate side effect of setting up oppositions that do not actually exist. Because the Badarian was defined as “X” and the Amratian as

“Y” we tend to automatically assume that there is some inherent difference between them even as we take note of their similarities. There is no easy solution for this problem, but is one of which we must all be aware in the course of our research. James 1

Bibliography

Ayrton, Edward Russell, and W. L. S. Loat. Pre-Dynastic Cemetery at El Mahasna.

London ; Boston, Mass.: Sold at the Offices of the Egypt Exploration Fund, 1911.

Baumgartel, Elise J. The Cultures of Prehistoric Egypt. 2 vols. Vol. 1. London: Published

on behalf of the Griffith Institute Ashmolean Museum by Oxford University Press,

1947.

———. The Cultures of Prehistoric Egypt. 2 vols. Vol. 2. London: Published on behalf of

the Griffith Institute Ashmolean Museum by Oxford University Press, 1960.

Brunton, Guy. British Museum Expedition to Middle Egypt, 1929-1931: Matmar. London,:

B. Quaritch, 1948.

Brunton, Guy, and G. M. Morant. British Museum Expedition to Middle Egypt. First and

Second Years, 1928, 1929: Mostagedda and the Tasian Culture. London,: B.

Quaritch ltd, 1937.

Brunton, Guy, and Gertrude Caton Thompson. The Badarian Civilisation and Predynastic

Remains near Badari. London,: British school of archaeology in Egypt etc., 1928. de Morgan, J. Recherches Sur Les Origines De L'egypte; L'àge De La Pierre Et Les

Métaux. Paris,: E. Leroux, 1896.

Debono, F. "Expedition Archéologique Royale Du Désert Oriental." Annales du Service

des Antiquitiés de l'Egypte 51, no. 1 (1951): 59-91.

Friedman, Renee. "Predynastic Settlement Ceramics of Upper Egypt: A Comparative

Study of the Ceramics of Hemamieh, Nagada, and Hierakonpolis." Ph.D,

University of California, Berkeley, 1994. James 2

Gabra, S. "Fouilles Du Service Des Antiquitiés À Deir Tasa." Annales du Service des

Antiquitiés de l'Egypte 30 (1930): 147-58.

Garstang, John, and Kurt Sethe. Mahasna and Bet Khallaf. London,: B. Quaritch, 1903.

Harlan, J. Fred. "Excavations at Locality 11c." In The Predynastic of Hierkanpolis: An

Interim Report, edited by Michael A. Hoffman, 7-14. Macomb, Il.: Cairo

University Herbarium Faculty of Science ;

Dept. of Sociology and Anthropology Western Illinois University, 1982.

Hassan, Fekri A. "Radiocarbon Chronology of Neolithic and Predynastic Sites in Upper

Egypt and the Delta." African archaeological review 3 (1985): 95-116.

———. "The Predynastic of Egypt." Journal of World Prehistory 2, no. 2 (1988): 135-85.

Hays, T. R. "A Reappraisal of the Egyptian Predynastic." In From Hunters to Farmers :

The Causes and Consequences of Food Production in Africa, edited by J.D. Clark

and S. A. Brandt, 65-73. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984.

Hendrickx, Stan. "The Relative Chronology of the Naqada Culture: Problems and

Possibilities." In Aspects of Early Egypt, edited by A. Jeffrey Spencer, 37-69.

London: British Museum Press, 1996.

Hoffman, Michael A. "A Rectangular Amratian House from Hierakonpolis." Journal of

Near Eastern studies 39, no. 2 (1980): 119-37.

———. "Excavations at Locality 29." In The Predynastic of Hierkanpolis: An Interim

Report, edited by Michael A. Hoffman, 7-14. Macomb, Il.: Cairo University

Herbarium, Faculty of Science and the Deptartment of Sociology and Anthropology

Western Illinois University, 1982. James 3

———. "Excavations at Locality 54." In The Predynastic of Hierkanpolis: An Interim

Report, edited by Michael A. Hoffman, 14-25. Macomb, Il.: Cairo University

Herbarium, Faculty of Science and the Deptartment of Sociology and Anthropology

Western Illinois University, 1982.

———. "Introduction." In The Predynastic of Hierkanpolis: An Interim Report, edited by

Michael A. Hoffman, 5-7. Macomb, Il.: Cairo University Herbarium, Faculty of

Science and the Deptartment of Sociology and Anthropology Western Illinois

University, 1982.

———. The Predynastic of Hierakonpoli : An Interim Report. Macomb, Il.: Cairo

University Herbarium, Faculty of Science and the Deptartment of Sociology and

Anthropology Western Illinois University, 1982.

———. "Predynastic Cultural Ecology and Patterns of Settlement in Upper Egypt as

Viewed from Hierakonpolis." In Origin and Early Development of Food-Producing

Cultures in North-Eastern Africa, edited by Lech Krzyzaniak and Micha

Kobusiewicz, 235-46. Poznan: Polish Academy of Sciences; Poznan

Archaeological Museum, 1984.

Hoffman, Michael A., Carter Lupton, and Barbara Adams. "Excavations at Locality 6." In

The Predynastic of Hierkanpolis: An Interim Report, edited by Michael A.

Hoffman, 35-38. Macomb, Il.: Cairo University Herbarium, Faculty of Science and

the Deptartment of Sociology and Anthropology Western Illinois University, 1982.

Holmes, Diane L. "Predynastic Lithic Industries of Badari, Middle Egypt: New

Perspectives and Inter-Regional Relations." World archaeology 20, no. 1 (1988):

70-86. James 4

———. The Predynastic Lithic Industries of Upper Egypt : A Comparative Study of the

Lithic Traditions of Badari, Nagada, and Hierakonpolis, Bar International Series

469 (I-Ii). Oxford, England: B.A.R., 1989.

———. "Archaeological Investigations in the Badari Region, Egypt: A Report on the 1992

Season." Nyame Akuma 39 (1993): 19-25.

Holmes, Diane L., and Renee F. Friedman. "Badari Region Revisited." Nyame Akuma, no.

31 (1989): 15-19.

———. "Survey and Test Excavations in the Badari Region, Egypt." Proceedings,

Prehistoric Society 60 (1994): 105-42.

Kaiser, Werner. "Stand Und Probleme Der Ägyptischen Vorgeschichtsforschung."

Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache und alterumskunde 81 (1956): 87-109.

———. "Zur Inneren Chronologie Der Naqadakultur." Archaeologia geographica (1957):

69-77.

Krzyzaniak, Lech. Early Farming Cultures on the Lower Nile : The Predynastic Period in

Egypt. Varsovie, Poland: Editions scientifiques de Pologne, 1977.

Midant-Reynes, Béatrix. The Prehistory of Egypt: From the First Egyptians to the First

Pharaohs. Translated by Ian Shaw. Oxford, UK ; Malden, MA: Blackwell

Publishers, 2000.

Patch, Diana Craig. "The Origin and Early Development of Urbanism in Ancient Egypt: A

Regional Study." Ph.D., University of Pennsylvania, 1991.

Petrie, W. M. Flinders. Corpus of Prehistoric Pottery and Palettes. London,: British school

of archaeology in Egypt etc., 1921. James 5

Petrie, W. M. Flinders, Edward Russell Ayrton, C. T. Currelly, and Arthur Edward Pearse

Brome Weigall. Abydos. London,: Offices of the Egypt Exploration Fund, 1902.

Petrie, W. M. Flinders, and A. C. Mace. Diospolis Parva, the Cemeteries of Abadiyeh and

Hu, 1898-9. London; Boston: Egypt Exploration Fund, 1901.

Petrie, W. M. Flinders, and James Edward Quibell. Naqada and Ballas. 1895. London,: B.

Quaritch, 1896.

Petrie, W. M. Flinders, and University College London. Prehistoric Egypt, Illustrated by

over 1,000 Objects in University College, London. London,: British School of

Archaeology in Egypt etc., 1920.

Quibell, James Edward, F. W. Green, and W. M. Flinders Petrie. Hierakonpolis. 2 vols.

Vol. 2. London,: B. Quaritch, 1902.

Randall-MacIver, David, A. C. Mace, and F. Ll Griffith. El Amrah and Abydos, 1899-1901.

London, Boston, Mass.,: Sold at the offices of the Egypt exploration fund etc.,

1902.

Savage, S. H. "Some Recent Trends in the Archeology of Predynastic Egypt." Journal of

Archaeological Research 9, no. 2 (2001): 101-55. James 6