HELWAN POINTS in the EGYPTIAN NEOLITHIC Noriyuki SHIRAI*
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
HELWAN POINTS IN THE EGYPTIAN NEOLITHIC Noriyuki SHIRAI* Introduction Although ancient Egyptian people are thought to have begun agriculture in the Neolithic period around 5,000 B.C. not by the domestication of wild plants in the Nile Valley but by the adoption of domesticated wheat and barley from the Levant, it is still not clear how and why agriculture came into Egypt and why it came 2,000 years later. Since domesticated plants do not move by themselves, it is obvious that human beings were behind such movement, and it is necessary to examine how and why Egyptian people contacted the Levantine people. It may have been a friendly exchange of knowledge and materials or, alternatively, unilateral contact. In other words, agricultural knowledge and domesticated plants may have been passed to Egyptian people in barter exchange at the boundary area between Egypt and the Levant, or perhaps Levantine people immigrated into Egypt with their domesticated plants, dominated the local people and intermingled with them. Again, Egyptian people may have immigrated into the Levant and learned agriculture, whereupon they or their descendants returned to Egypt with domesticated plants. There are still more possible ways in which contact may have been made, but they cannot be substantiated so long as domesticated plants are the sole focus of study. Another way of examining the contact between Egypt and the Levant in the Neolithic period is to focus on the material culture in both areas. Archaeological literature has long discussed what kinds of human activities are reflected in the distribution of an archaeological material culture, and it has been argued that the expansion and change of an archaeological material culture is not always caused by the migration of a particular human group or the interaction and intermingling of human groups. On the contrary, the migration of human groups could certainly bring .about change and diffusion of an archaeological material culture. Therefore, it is necessary to know the characteristics, distribution, and * Ph .D. Student, Department of Archaeology, Waseda University Vol. XXXVII 2002 121 Sheikh Hassan Type Nahal Levan Type Fig. 1 Helwan Points of the Sheikh Hassan Type and the Nahal Levan Type (Adachi 1997) changes among the Neolithic cultures in Egypt and the Levant, in order to examine whether the migration of people or the diffusion of knowledge and materials led to the beginning of agriculture in Egypt. Among the Neolithic material cultures in both areas, stone tools are thought to be the most useful for identifying human groups and examining the migration of those groups. While stone materials and other goods including pottery vessels are known to have been traded frequently beyond a given region, finished stone tools for daily use have not been traded as often as other goods and would likely have been difficult to imitate without proper instruction. Thus, the distribution of a specific stone tool-making technique may be assumed to be 122 ORIENT HELWAN POINTS IN THE EGYPTIAN NEOLITHIC the result of the migration of specific stone tool makers. My previous feasibility study (Shirai 2000) has recognised that there are few similarities between the stone tools in these areas, and even the sickle blades which are closely related to agriculture in both areas share no common characteristics. Nevertheless, one type of stone arrowhead did exist in both areas. This study will focus on this unique variety of arrowhead called the Helwan point and, using the arrowhead found in both areas as a basis for examination, will discuss the contact between Egypt and the Levant in the Neolithic period. The Helwan Point The Helwan point is a type of side-notched stone arrowhead. Although the Helwan point was named after Helwan on the east bank of the Nile near Cairo, there were few Helwan points found in Egypt, and most Helwan points known to date have been found in the Levant. Due to the rarity of the Helwan point in Egypt, its study has been neglected in the Egyptian archaeology, while Helwan points have been a focus of study in the Levantine archaeology. The Helwan points in the Levant vary in form and size, and the variations are thought to depend on period and region. While middle-sized, narrow, tanged arrowheads were prev- alent around the middle reaches of the Euphrates in the Fig. 2 Diffusion Process of the Helwan Point (Gopher 1994) earlier periods, small-sized, Vol. XXXVII 2002 123 wide, winged arrowheads were prevalent around the Dead Sea in later periods. For this reason, the Helwan point has recently been subdivided into the earlier Sheikh Hassan type and the later Nahal Levan type (Fig. 1), named after the centres of their distribution (Adachi 1997). Gopher (1994) has analysed the geographical and chronological distribution of Helwan points in the Levant and argued that Helwan points first appeared in northern Syria around 8,000 B.C.(uncalibrated) and thereafter diffused southwards to the east of the Sinai around 7000 B.C.(uncalibrated), eventually diffusing into Egypt across the Sinai (Fig. 2). It is not known, however, exactly how Helwan points found their way to Egypt because of the paucity of data on the Egyptian side. No Helwan point has ever been found in northern Sinai, where the route of diffusion is posited. For this reason, first and foremost, it is necessary to gather information on the Helwan points found in Egypt to date. As for the provenance, it is known that Helwan points were found in Merimde, Helwan and Fayum, all of which are located in northern Egypt (Currelly 1913; Debono & Mortensen 1990; Eiwanger 1983; 1984; de Morgan 1886; Schmidt 1996; Seton-Karr 1904). One Helwan point is reported in Fig. 4 Merimde Specimen (Eiwanger 1984) Fig. 5 Fayum Specimens (Seton-Karr 1904) Fig. 3 Helwan Specimens (Schmidt 1996) 124 ORIENT HELWAN POINTS IN THE EGYPTIAN NEOLITHIC Merimde (Fig. 4), and at least eight Helwan points are known in Helwan (Fig. 3), while it is presently not certain how many Helwan points have been collected in Fayum (Fig. 5). As Merimde and Fayum are the only Neolithic sites in which comprehensive excavations have taken place in Egypt, it cannot be said that the distribution of Helwan points is limited to these sites or to this period. Since no Helwan points have so far been found in sites of the subsequent periods, however, the Helwan point seems to be related to the Neolithic sites. As for the dates of the Helwan points found in Egypt, they are difficult to determine because most of them were discovered through surface collection and so lack stratigraphic information. Only one Helwan point, unearthed by stratigraphic excavation at Merimde (Fig. 4), is dated to 4,800 cal.B.C. by radiocarbon dating of the layer (Eiwanger 1988: 53; Midant-Reynes 2000: 110). Since radiocarbon dating has recently put the time range of the Neolithic in Fayum between 5,200 cal.B.C. and 4,500 cal.B.C.(Kozlowski & Ginter 1989: 163; Midant-Reynes 2000: 105), Helwan points found in Fayum may possibly be dated to this time range. This means that Helwan points found in Egypt were in use approximately 2,000 years later than those in the Levant. This gap must be explained. Concerning the Merimde specimen, not only the excavator but also other scholars doubt the radiocarbon date of 4,800 B.C., and argue that it should in fact be dated to the sixth millennium B.C. on the basis of separate artefacts that accompanied it in the same layer (Midant-Reynes 2000: 108-118). If this is the case, the suspected time gap between Helwan points in the two areas would decrease. In addition, since many Helwan points found in the Levant have never been dated by radiocarbon dating, it is probable that the time gap between Helwan points in both areas may not be as wide as previously believed. As for the form and manufacture of the Helwan points found in Egypt, there are some varieties among sites. Concerning the Helwan specimens (Fig. 3), six of eight seem to be made from blades and are hardly retouched, other than the notches on both edges. These features are also observed in the Helwan points of the Sheikh Hassan type in the Levant, and these six Helwan specimens may be paralleled with the ones found in Abu Maadi and Beidha in the Sinai (Fig. 7). On the contrary, another two Helwan specimens look different in terms of manufacture. At least one side of the two points is well retouched. The Merimde specimen (Fig. 4) is also well retouched not only on one side but also around the point and tang. Although the excavator asserted similarity between the Merimde Vol. XXXVII 2002 125 2 1 3 4 Fig. 6 Fayum Specimens housed in the Petrie Museum (drawn by the author) 1: UC.3781, 2: UC.3265, 3: UC.3264, 4: UC.3759 specimen and the ones found in Nahal Levan (Fig. 7), there are still differences in terms of the manufacture of the tang and the retouching of the surface. Concerning the Fayum specimens (Fig. 5), they have not been studied in detail because good quality drawings and pictures of them have never been published (cf., Seton-Karr 1904; Currelly 1913). It is not until I examined and drew four Helwan points, which were discovered in Fayum in the 1920s and since then have been housed in the Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology in University College London, that the Fayum specimens became available for comparative study. Among four Helwan points I examined (Fig. 6), three are well retouched on both sides and the last one is well retouched on the edges.