The Politics of Trade: Egypt and Lower Nubia in the 4th Millennium BC (Culture and History of the Ancient Near East)

The Politics of Trade

Culture and History of the Ancient Near East Founding Editor

M.H.E. Weippert Editor-in-Chief

Thomas Schneider Editors

Eckart Frahm W. Randall Garr B. Halpern Theo P.J. van den Hout Irene J. Winter

VOLUME 47

The Politics of Trade Egypt and Lower Nubia in the 4th Millennium BC

By

Jane Roy

LEIDEN • BOSTON 2011

This book is printed on acid-free paper. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Roy, Jane. The politics of trade : Egypt and lower Nubia in the 4th millennium B.C. / by Jane Roy. p. cm. – (Culture and history of the ancient Near East, ISSN 1566-2055, v. 47) ISBN 978-90-04-19610-0 (hbk. : acid-free paper) 1. Egypt–Commerce–History. 2. Nubia–Commerce–History. 3. Egypt–Antiquities. 4. Nubia–Antiquities. 5. Exchange–Egypt–History–To 1500. 6. Exchange–Nubia–History–To 1500. 7. Material culture–Egypt–History–To 1500. 8. Material culture–Nubia–History–To 1500. 9. Salvage archaeology–Egypt. 10. Salvage archaeology–Nubia. I. Title. II. Series. HF365.R69 2011 382.0932'03978–dc22 2010045703

ISSN 1566-2055 ISBN 978 90 04 19610 0 Copyright 2011 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Hotei Publishing, IDC Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change.

For my parents And for my husband Thomas

CONTENTS

List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii List of Plates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xv Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xvii Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xix Egypt in Nubia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xx Nubia in Egypt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxi Chapter One. Nubia and Egypt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . General Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Archaeology and Ethnicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . History of Exploration and Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . First Archaeological Survey of Nubia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . First Archaeological Survey under Firth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Second Archaeological Survey of Nubia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Aswan High Dam and the UNESCO Salvage Operation . . Setting the Scene—Where Are We? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chronology—When Are We? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Neolithic and Chalcolthic in Egypt and Nubia . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lower Egypt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Upper Egypt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lower Nubia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Upper Nubia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Deserts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Naqada Culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The A-Group Culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1 1 2 4 5 8 10 12 16 18 20 20 23 31 34 36 43 43 44

Chapter Two. Egypt in Nubia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Land of Nubia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-Group Ceramics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

47 47 47 49

viii

contents

What Is Egyptian Pottery in Nubia? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Other Egyptian Material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . What Are A-Group Graves? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Sites—The Nubian A-Group Cemeteries between Aswan and Wadi Halfa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . State of Preservation of the Cemeteries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Possible Nature of Exchange . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The First Archaeological Survey of Nubia from Shellal to Gebel um Simbela . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The First Archaeological Survey of Nubia under C.M. Firth . . . . . . Summary and Results of the First Archaeological Survey of Nubia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Second Archaelogical Survey of Nubia between Wadi es-Sebua and Adindan – . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary and Results of the Second Archaeological Survey . . . . . . The University of Chicago, Oriental Institute Nubian Expedition The ‘Royal’ Cemetery L at Qustul . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cemeteries W, V, S, Q, T Qustul . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary and Results of the Oriental Institute, University of Chicago . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Scandinavian Joint Expedition to Sudanese Nubia. . . . . . . . . . . . Summary and Results of the Scandinavian Joint Expedition . . . . . . The Egyptian Material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pottery—W-ware and D-ware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Siltstone (‘slate’) Palettes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stone Vessels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Copper Objects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Maceheads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Amulets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cylinder Seals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter Three. Nubia in Egypt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . What the Nubians Left Behind . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Elephantine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The A-Group in the Aswan-Kom Ombo Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hierakonpolis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Henri De Morgan’s Second Season of Excavations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . El Ma"Mariya . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kom el Ahmar (Hierakonpolis) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Abu Zaidan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

50 53 55 57 61 63 65 94 138 143 153 155 155 158 165 167 182 184 185 189 192 192 193 196 199 201 201 201 203 204 206 206 207 207

contents

ix

El Masa"Id . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208 Minshat Abu Omar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208 Nubians in Egypt?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209 Chapter Four. Inscriptional, Pictorial and Glyptic Evidence . . . . . . . What We Say and How We Say It. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Incense Burners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Qustul Incense Burner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Archaic Horus Incense Burner. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rock Cut Carvings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gebel Sheikh Suleiman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gebel Tjauti . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hill B Inscription. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . West Bank Aswan and Wadi Abu Subeira . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stelae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Seals and Seal Impressions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Siali Seal Impressions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ashkeit Seal Impression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sarras West Seal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Qustul Seals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Faras Seal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gerf Hussein Seal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ikkur/Koshtamna Seals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Abu Simbel Seal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Toshka West Seal Impression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Labels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bone and Ivory Labels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Year Labels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Potmarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Seyala Gold Mace Handles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . In Writing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

211 211 212 214 215 217 217 220 222 223 226 228 229 230 230 231 231 232 232 233 233 234 234 235 237 238 239

Chapter Five. Commodities Exchanged . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Commodities Sought from Lower Nubia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Autobiography of Harkhuf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Incense and Resins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ebony . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Oil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Panther/Leopard Skins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Elephant Tusks/Ivory. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

245 245 248 251 253 253 254 255

x

contents “Every Good Product” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pottery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Black Incised Ware (Class N) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Obsidian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cork Wood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ostrich Eggs and Feathers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Monkeys and Baboons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Goods from Egypt in Nubia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pottery and Its Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wavy-Handled Ware (Class W) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Decorated Ware (Class D) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Crossed Line Ware (Class C) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Siltstone (‘slate’) Palettes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stone Vessels. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Copper Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Maceheads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Amulets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cylinder Seals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stone Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Faience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Linen/Cloth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ivory Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . What the Egyptians Wanted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

257 258 258 262 264 264 265 265 266 267 268 268 269 270 272 274 276 278 280 280 281 281 282 282 283 284 284

Chapter Six. The Nature of the Beast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Naqada Culture and the A-Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Egyptian Goods in Nubia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nubian Goods in Egypt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Where Are the A-Groups? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Types of Exchange . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Visiting the Neighbours? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

287 287 294 297 297 299 300 302 310

Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 317

contents

xi

Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 351 Plates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 357

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure  Figure  Figure  Figure  Figure  Figure  Figure  Figure  Figure  Figure  Figure  Figure  Figure 

Map of northeastern Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  Chronological chart for the cultures in the Egyptian Nile Valley and Lower Nubia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  Chronological sequence for the Naqada Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  Map of Lower Nubia indicating approximate areas of the Nubian Archaeological Surveys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  Map of Lower Nubia showing principal sites mentioned in the text . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  Distribution of Egyptian W-ware pottery in Nubian cemeteries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  Distribution of Egyptian D-ware pottery in Nubian cemeteries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  Distribution of Egyptian siltstone palettes in Nubian cemeteries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  Distribution of Egyptian stone vessels in Nubian cemeteries . .  Distribution of Egyptian stone maceheads in Nubian cemeteries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  Distribution of copper in Nubian cemeteries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  Distribution of amulets in Nubian cemeteries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  Distribution of cylinder seals in Nubian cemeteries . . . . . . . . . . 

LIST OF PLATES Plate  Source:

Pre- and Early Dynastic tomb types in Nubia according to G.A. Reisner From Reisner , figures –.

Plate  Source:

Graves from Cemetery  at Khor Bahan From Reisner , figures , , , , , –.

Plate  Source:

Graves from Cemetery  at Mediq and Cemetery  at Koshtamna From Firth , figures –, –, .

Plate 

A-Group and Egyptian pottery from the Second Archaeological Survey of Nubia Emery and Kirwan , plates –.

Source: Plate  Source:

Plate  Source:

Shaft tomb types from the Scandinavian Joint Expedition concession area From Nordström, H.-A. Neolithic and A-Group Sites. The Scandinavian Joint Expedition to Sudanese Nubia, Publications, Vol. :, Plate . Uppsala and Lund . Reproduced with the permission of H.-A. Nordström. Graves : , :  and :  from the Scandinavian Joint Expedition From Nordström, H.-A. Neolithic and A-Group Sites. The Scandinavian Joint Expedition to Sudanese Nubia, Publications, Vol. :, Plates , , , . Uppsala and Lund . Reproduced with the permission of H.-A. Nordström.

Plate  Source:

Tomb L at Qustul and a selection of finds From Williams, B.B. The A-Group Royal Cemetery at Qustul, Cemetery L. Vol. III. Oriental Institute Nubian Expedition. Part . Excavations between Abu Simbel and the Sudan Frontier. pp. , , , . Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, . Courtesy of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.

Plate  Source:

Tomb L at Qustul and a selection of finds From Williams, B.B. The A-Group Royal Cemetery at Qustul, Cemetery L. Vol. III. Oriental Institute Nubian Expedition. Part . Excavations between Abu Simbel and the Sudan Frontier. pp. , , . Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, . Courtesy of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.

xvi

list of plates

Plate a Qustul incense burner from Tomb L at Qustul Source: From Williams, B.B. The A-Group Royal Cemetery at Qustul, Cemetery L. Vol. III. Oriental Institute Nubian Expedition. Part . Excavations between Abu Simbel and the Sudan Frontier. Plate . Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, . Courtesy of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Plate b Archaic Horus incense burner from Tomb L at Qustul Source: From Williams, B.B. The A-Group Royal Cemetery at Qustul, Cemetery L. Vol. III. Oriental Institute Nubian Expedition. Part . Excavations between Abu Simbel and the Sudan Frontier. Plate . Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, . Courtesy of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Plate  Rock inscription at Gebel Sheikh Suleiman Source: Adapted from Williams and Logan, ‘The Metropolitan Museum Knife Handle and aspects of Pharaonic imagery before Narmer’, Journal of Near Eastern Studies , pp. –. Plates A, B. University of Chicago Press. Courtesy of the University of Chicago Press. Plate  Mace handle from Tomb  at Seyala Cemetery  Source: From Firth , figure . Plate a Seal impression from Siali Source: From Williams, B.B. The A-Group Royal Cemetery at Qustul, Cemetery L. Vol. III. Oriental Institute Nubian Expedition. Part . Excavations between Abu Simbel and the Sudan Frontier. Plate a. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, . Courtesy of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Plate b Seal from Sarra West Source: From Williams, B.B. The A-Group Royal Cemetery at Qustul, Cemetery L. Vol. III. Oriental Institute Nubian Expedition. Part . Excavations between Abu Simbel and the Sudan Frontier. Plate b. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, . Courtesy of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Plate c Ivory seal from Tomb L at Qustul Source: From Williams, B.B. The A-Group Royal Cemetery at Qustul, Cemetery L. Vol. III. Oriental Institute Nubian Expedition. Part . Excavations between Abu Simbel and the Sudan Frontier. Plate c. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, . Courtesy of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Plate d Seal from Faras Source: From Williams, B.B. The A-Group Royal Cemetery at Qustul, Cemetery L. Vol. III. Oriental Institute Nubian Expedition. Part . Excavations between Abu Simbel and the Sudan Frontier. Plate d. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, . Courtesy of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

In writing this book, which is based on my doctoral dissertation, I have received a great deal of support and assistance for which I owe many thanks. My doctoral supervisor, Dr. E. Christiana Köhler, has from the outset offered me encouragement, a regular sounding board and a door that was always open. I cannot express my gratitude strongly enough for all her support and assistance as without her this simply could not have been written. I would also like to thank Dr. Elisabeth Cooper at the University of British Columbia for carefully reading over earlier drafts and offering valuable suggestions and advice. I am also grateful to the reviewers whose useful comments have been incoporated in the final version. I would like to thank the Oriental Institute, University of Chicago, Prof. B.B. Williams and Prof. H-Å. Nordström for their kind permission to reproduce drawings from their respective publications. No list of thanks would be complete without expressing how much I have valued the enduring support and encouragement of my family. My parents in particular have always done everything in their power to help me in my work and I am forever in their debt. Finally my warmest thanks also go to my husband for his patience and advice and because he never let me give up.

INTRODUCTION

In the beginning there was no Egypt, no Nubia. Rather there was a series of settlements along the Nile, in what is today Egypt and Sudan, that developed with the increasingly sedentary lifestyle of an agrarian economy. These were simple kin-based groups and villages that had the potential to become chiefdoms and eventually states, a potential that was to be realised. Certainly by around  bc several increasingly complex chiefdoms had emerged and were beginning to define not only themselves but also their neighbours. Until recently much of the discussion regarding the A-Group has emphasised the influence of Egypt in the region. Egyptian pottery and other artefacts found in A-Group contexts have pointed to some type of exchange system between the two regions. The lack of A-Group manufactured objects in Egyptian contexts has led to the argument that the relationship was somewhat one-sided. This book looks at the development of these social and cultural groups along the Nile Valley, concentrating on the area of Upper Egypt and Lower Nubia. The aim of this discussion is not to describe and evaluate these cultures but to view their relationship to one another and how this develops from the beginning of the Naqada period (ca.  bc) to the end of the nd Dynasty (ca.  bc). Bronze Age Nubians had no form of written language and the paucity of written records in the Predynastic and Early Dynastic Periods in Egypt generally and more specifically in relation to trade and exchange with the lands to the south, means that the study of the material evidence is paramount. In other words it is the goods themselves that one must look at; their production, distribution and possible redistribution and reuse and whether they can indeed be considered imports. Indeed, the clearest indication of exchange is material remains. The main source for material evidence comes from Nubia itself and predominantly in the cemeteries of the local people. Unfortunately, the excavation and study of habitation sites in the Nubian Nile Valley has been extremely limited and the flooding of much of Lower Nubia with the creation of Lake Nasser (known as Lake Nubia in the Sudan) means that this is likely to remain the case for this region.

xx

introduction

The fundamental issue in this discussion is the very nature of contact and exchange. Imports and exports are things or ideas that one individual or group has and another needs or wants. The systems or means of exchange can take many forms. They can be gift exchanges between equals; kin-based exchanges; tribute from one group or chief to another; payment for services or payment for goods. These exchanges may be relatively equal—give and take—or more beneficial to one party at the expense of another. In the case of Egypt and Nubia the development of a trade/exchange relationship can be seen in the increased number of Egyptian artefacts in Nubian (A-Group) graves and the few habitation sites that have been studied; the increase in the wealth of remains; and the increased use of exotic raw materials such as ebony, ivory, gold and high quality stone in the manufacture of goods. The trade relationship between Egypt and Nubia is not, however, one of simple two-way exchange. It involved a wider region and group of people. Essentially it is the link between Upper Egypt and Lower Nubia and the link between Lower and Upper Nubia and how this fluctuates and develops. This study aims to better understand the nature of contact and exchange between Lower Nubia and Egypt by looking at the supposed imports themselves on both sides (sometimes assumed based solely on later accounts such as the autobiography of Harkhuf) and their distribution (based on the material collected here) as well as looking at inscriptional and glyptic evidence that, in spite of its scarcity, has been used to explain the nature of the relationship in question. The majority of evidence comes from Lower Nubia, primarily from cemeteries. This has undoubtedly contributed to the idea that the relationship between Egypt and Nubia was one-sided. It is, therefore, important to look at the material from these cemeteries to gain a fuller picture of what was being brought into Nubia. What was being sent also needs to be looked at although the evidence is less tangible. Inscriptional and glyptic evidence, while limited, can also potentially help to clarify the nature of contact and exchange between Egypt and the A-Group. Egypt in Nubia Chapter two looks at the Egyptian presence in Lower Nubia; those items considered to be imports from Egypt have been collected and listed. The nature of these imports are discussed (luxury or everyday commodities);

introduction

xxi

and the distribution or redistribution examined to establish whether such imports were widely distributed or restricted to certain regions or members of a community. The evidence considered comes from three major archaeological salvage campaigns in southern Egypt and northern Sudan. With some older site reports it can be difficult to determine, particularly in the case of ceramics, whether an object is of Egyptian or Nubian manufacture. However, certain ceramics, the hard pink (marl) wares, are clearly of Egyptian origin and are generally easy to identify. While ceramics are the most common they are not the only commodities considered imports from Egypt. Stone vessels, siltstone palettes and copper artefacts have generally been attributed to Egyptian manufacture or origin as have faience and ivory objects as well as cylinder seals. These and other objects will be considered in terms of their possible/probable origins and their distribution within Lower Nubia. Upper Egypt was not the only source of exchange and contact that the A-Group had. Within this context it is also valuable to look at non-AGroup material found in Lower Nubian contexts that is not of Egyptian origin. This includes Syro-Palestinian material as well as artefacts from Sudanese Nubia. Nubia in Egypt The amount of clearly A-Group material found in Egyptian contexts is extremely limited and scholars generally view access to raw materials as the objective in Egyptian exchange with Lower Nubia as was the case in Dynastic times. Some Nubian pottery is to be found in places such as on the island of Elephantine and at Hierakonpolis and perhaps even as far north as Minshat Abu Omar in the Nile Delta. The quantities are, however, extremely small. In addition, when looking at the region between Kom Ombo and the Aswan area before the st Dynasty, the border between regions is not as fixed as it was to become and we may have to view this as a grey area or in John Baines’ words a large buffer zone (Baines : ). Chapter three aims, as with the Egyptian material in Lower Nubian contexts, to understand the nature and distribution of Nubian material such as pottery, within Egypt proper. When found, for instance, is it within a clearly Egyptian context such as a burial or part of a Nubian context within Egypt? A burial at Hierakonpolis, for example, contained

xxii

introduction

both Egyptian and A-Group material—does this mean that the A-Group material is imported or that the grave itself is that of a Nubian? A brief summary of the inscriptional and glyptic evidence is looked at in chapter four. While this type of evidence is scarce and limited, it gives a picture, albeit largely one-sided, of early foreign relations. The people of Lower Nubia were not literate, or at least had no written language of their own at this time. Therefore, what evidence we have is Egyptian and predominantly serves Egyptian purposes. Part of the interest of these written sources lies in the way the evidence helps to define Egypt’s image of itself—it gives an official version or ‘authorised biography’. In other words it tells us more about Egypt’s view of itself and of its place in the world than it does of Nubia. With few exceptions Nubia barely rated a mention and generally not a favourable one. Yet this attitude helps us to understand what Egypt wanted and even needed from its southern neighbours. While Egypt’s vilification of Nubia may be seen as the recognition of a competitor, it also fits within an increasingly formulaic definition of Egypt versus the outside or other. In addition, the actual material from which some of this glyptic evidence is made, is also an indicator of exchange and contact between Upper Egypt and Lower Nubia. The use of ivory and ebony in the making of commodity labels points to exchange, particularly in the case of ebony which was not available locally in Egypt. What is actually being exchanged between Upper Egypt and Lower Nubia? As mentioned above it is difficult to determine just what the Egyptians desired from their southern neighbours as so little A-Group material has been found in Egyptian contexts. It has been assumed, owing to the lack of manufactured products such as ceramics, that the Egyptians looked upon Lower Nubia as a source of, or means to, luxury raw materials such as gold, ivory and ebony, that an emerging elite sought in greater and greater quantities. Some luxury material such as resins may also have been required for cultic purposes adding an extra element to the demands of exchange. Chapter five looks at the types of raw materials the Egyptians may have sought from Nubia using historical texts, in particular the authobiography of Harkhuf as a starting point. The list of precious goods that Harkhuf brought back from one expedition to Nubia and which he so conveniently provides in the autobiography in his tomb is extremely useful. While this text dates to the th Dynasty and there is always a danger in projecting back to the past, the objects Harkhuf lists are discussed in chapter five along with other possible commodities alluded to in his final entry, ‘every good product’.

introduction

xxiii

Some materials such as ebony clearly had to be brought from the south. Yet what of the gold, elephant tusks, incense and oils and animal skins that Harkhuf mentioned? Is there any evidence for these items in Naqada contexts and if so how likely is it that they came from or via Lower Nubia? In conclusion, the final chapter brings together all the evidence discussed. Much of the evidence points to the fact that the Naqada and AGroup cultures indeed shared many cultural features including ceramics, burial practices and personal adornment, with regional variations. This is particularly true before Naqada III and can best be seen in the northernmost A-Groups in the First Cataract region. In addition many of the exotic raw materials such as ivory, leopard pelts, gold and incense may have been obtained from sources other than Nubia and even from within Egypt itself. The amount of goods exchanged cannot have been vast. Instead there seems to be a relatively simple and reciprocal exchange between neighbours. Yet it is an exchange that becomes increasingly formalised between elites which is highlighted by the exceptional cemetery L at Qustul in the Second Cataract region. As Egyptian society becomes more centralised so does its network of contact and exchange. Qustul briefly benefits, displaying evidence for a similar growing social complexity. Yet this is relatively short lived. A centralised state in Egypt has begun to define itself and for the time being the ‘other’, in this case the A-Group seems either to be incorporated or ignored.

chapter one NUBIA AND EGYPT

General Introduction Over thirty years have passed since the largest ever cultural rescue campaign came to an end with the completion of the Aswan High Dam and the final flooding of Lake Nasser. Through both earlier research and as a consequence of the UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) salvage operation, many different pictures of Nubia and its relationship with Egypt have been drawn. These pictures range from a southern settlement by Egyptians and a pale copy of Egyptian civilisation to a strong rival to Egypt’s growing power and even the originator of many Egyptian notions of statehood and particularly kingship; from a subjugated land to a viable partner in a wider trade network. More recent research has favoured the interpretation of an indigenous cultural tradition that influenced and was influenced by Egypt. However the nature of the relationship between Egypt and Nubia, particularly as the Egyptian state fully emerged at the end of the th millennium bc, is still a matter for discussion. It is not possible to simply divide the Nile Valley into Egypt versus Nubia. The Nile Valley, from the Egyptian Delta in the north to the point where the river divides into the White and Blue Niles, was home to several distinct cultural groups. A better understanding comes from looking at these groups and their development both as separate entities and in relation to one another. The growth of political states in the Nile Valley from the late th millennium bc onwards is linked with the growing adaptation to an agricultural and/or pastoral economy and more sedentary lifestyle. The Egyptian Nile Valley was particularly able to support an agricultural economy and the increased population that resulted. A more complex social system begins to emerge with this increase in population and the concepts of private ownership and the accumulation of wealth along with the heightened competition for resources that a sedentary lifestyle seems to bring.



chapter one

While a more nomadic or mobile lifestyle allows for the easy exchange of both things and ideas, the move to a more sedentary way of life does not necessarily mean an end to exchange between communities although it tends to result in an increasingly formal arrangement. The growing craft specialisation in Egypt after  bc promoted existing exchange relations and their markets and encouraged the development of new ones. The demand for raw materials from both Western Asia and Central Africa created long-distance trade and opportunities for commercial as well as reciprocal exchange relationships. The nature of Egypt’s relationships with her trading partners differed from region to region and over time. The economies and subsistence patterns of these trading partners would also have had a bearing on the nature of exchange relationships with Egypt because they had a bearing on the structure of their communities. The internal nature of a society then, plays a significant part in the nature of its external relations. The catalyst for statehood and ‘civilisation’ has sometimes been linked to both technological advancement and a growth in trade and exchange. However, it seems more likely that trade, exchange and relations between neighbouring groups are among several factors involved in the development of complex societies. What then of the Nile Valley? Did an increased demand for raw materials and therefore trade and exchange significantly contribute to the unification of Egypt or did the emerging state of Egypt alter the various relationships along the Nile Valley? What, in fact were those relationships? Specifically, what was the relationship between the populations of Lower Nubia and those of the Egyptian Nile Valley? Archaeology and Ethnicity The concept of what constitutes Egyptian (Naqadan) versus Nubian (AGroup) enters into the broad scope of the discussion. The very nature of the Nile Valley makes the question of how the populations along the riverbanks viewed themselves and their neighbours valuable in the understanding of the nature of exchange and contact between peoples. How a group of people sees itself and, more importantly, how it sees other groups, has a profound effect on the way they interact. Can we see this as an expresson of ethnic identity in Pre- and Protodynastic Egypt? Modern borders and boundaries can seem fixed and they can also be seen as arbitrary particularly when imposed by outsiders or colonists as in the case of many modern African states. This type of colonialism or

nubia and egypt



colonial encounter is very much one of an implanted settlement or group politically, economically and perhaps culturally dominating that of the host settlement or group (Stein ). Yet in non-Western, pre capitalist societies this need not be the case. Borders can be fluid and encounters amicable and mutually beneficial. The natural or geographical boundaries facing the Egyptian Nile Valley surely had an effect on ancient Egypt’s view of itself and the outside world. The Egyptians established political borders that “tended to coincide with strategic national boundaries” (Smith : ) and the creation of physical boundaries coincides with the creation of ethnic and cultural boundaries although it is difficult to say which comes first. Ethnicity implies certain commonalities including territory, origins or descent, language, culture and beliefs, particularly religion (Smith : ). An ethnic identity can be self-defined or imposed from outside and it has been argued that the awareness of ethnic identies is more about the differences than the similarities (Jones : ). Ethnicity then is defined by the very idea of ‘otherness’ and thus implies the need for contact in order to exist at all (Smith : ). Perhaps the most easily recognisable group identity is that of the family—immediate and extended. Interaction and identification with other kin-based groups could have strengthened the perception of commonalities between groups and ultimately differences. In the historical period Egyptians referred to groups to the south by various names including Nehasyu and Medjay, as well as place names such as Wawat, Yam and Kush, the latter in the New Kingdom often with the prejorative ‘Wretched Kush’. The term Ta-Seti, the ‘Land of the Bow’, is also used to refer to Lower Nubia although it is also used to refer to the first nome of Egypt itself. We do not know, however, what the AGroup people of Lower Nubia called themselves or how they referred to other groups living along the Nile Valley or in the desert margins. Did the A-Group(s) see themselves as essentially different from their Upper Egyptian counterparts? How did those groups living close to the First Cataract view those living further south? Did the Naqadan Egyptians see the people south of the First Cataract as a completely foreign element? Contact and exchange between these groups would have affected and been affected by the perceived differences and similarities. For the puposes of this discussion the term Naqada refers to a predominantly Upper Egyptian cultural group. After the Naqada II period this term incorporates the whole of the Egyptian Nile Valley from the Delta



chapter one

to the First Cataract. Following Hendrickx (; ) the Naqada Culture has been divided as follows (See also Figure ): Naqada I—ca. – bc Naqada II—ca. – bc Naqada III—ca. – bc

In northern or Lower Egypt (the Delta, Fayum and region immediately to the south of modern day Cairo) the Maadi-Buto complex is roughly contemporary with the Naqada I–II phases of Upper Egypt, i.e. ca. –  bc. In this discussion the A-Group refers to a predominantly Lower Nubian cultural group stretching between the First and Second Cataracts. This A-Group is further divided chronologically based on the chronologies of Nordström () and Williams () with revisions by Gatto (): Early A-Group (Naqada IC–IIB) Classic or Middle A-Group (Naqada IIB–IIIA) Terminal or Late A-Group (Naqada IIIB–C)

While these geographical divisions may seem to indicate a fixed cultural, ethnic and even political border, as shall be demonstrated, this was not the case. The cultural border in particular was apparently as fluid as the Nile itself and the possible ethnic divisions were no doubt as flexible. Ethnicity can be difficult to detect in the archaeological record but as will be discussed in chapter six, archaeological as well as textual evidence can be used to illuminate cultural and ethnic differences and similarities. History of Exploration and Research Exploration of Lower Nubia goes back to antiquity itself. As this book will outline, Egypt’s interest in the region does not spring up overnight. Certainly once we enter the historic periods we are presented with a view, albeit an Egyptian one, of contact and exchange between Egypt and her southern neighbour. Later, Greek travellers made their way to Egypt and eventually to Nubia (Adams : ). The best known of these is probably Herodotus who recorded his history of Egypt in the th century bc. Although he did not travel south of Aswan he did record the observations of others who had travelled beyond Egypt’s border.1 This is the oldest surviving 1

Herodotus Book II: –; Book III: –; Book VII: –.

nubia and egypt



account of Nubia’s history and geography. Other classical writers who left accounts of Nubia include Strabo,2 Diodorus Siculus3 and Pliny.4 Portuguese Jesuit missionaries to Ethiopia in the th century offer limited accounts of Nubia and in the early th century several European explorers ventured south along the Nile although their accounts are also limited (Adams : ). Extensive travel and exploration really began with the scholars and scientists who accompanied Napoleon during his invasion of Egypt5 and this paved the way for such scholars as Burkhardt and Lepsius (Adams : ) and others well into the th and st centuries. Although travel and exploration to Nubia go back many centuries, the full scale scientific exploration of Nubia has largely been one of rescue campaigns brought about by the periodic raising of the Aswan Dam and finally the construction of the Aswan High Dam. Salvage operations, undertaken because of the construction of a dam and its reservoir, are generally huge in scale, certain of finds, and operate with the knowledge that whatever is not excavated will be lost. As a result, a combination of survey and selection mean, inevitably, that not all can be excavated (Adams : ). The year  saw the centenary of the world’s first pre-planned archaeological salvage campaign. First Archaeological Survey of Nubia Early explorations of Nubia were generally intended to record hieroglyphic inscriptions and architectural structures (Adams : ). When the Aswan Dam was first proposed and begun in  virtually no consideration was made of the destruction and flooding of archaeological material although the flooding of the temple of Philae was prevented (Adams : ) Early exploration of the area by Garstang in  paved the way for the notion that the monuments and history of Nubia were worth preserving or at least recording. Scientific archaeological work in Nubia began in earnest when the Aswan Dam was to be enlarged and temples such as Philae, Kalabsha and Gerf Hussein were at risk (Adams : ). This led to the First Archaeological Survey of Nubia which explored, between  and , approximately  kilometres of the Nile Valley between Shellal and Wadi es-Sebua, which was to be flooded. 2 3 4 5

Strabo Book VII: ,. Diodorus Siculus Book I: ; book III: –, –. Pliny Book VI: . Description de l’Egypte.



chapter one

In this campaign, particularly after the first season, cemeteries of the earlier periods of Nubian history were concentrated on (Adams : ). Arthur Weigall made an initial survey of the region in  determining that not only monumental sites but smaller sites should also be recorded (Weigall , Adams : ). While the temples themselves would not be permanently flooded and destroyed, smaller sites such as cemeteries, even if only seasonally flooded, would be lost. George Reisner was hired to conduct what was essentially the first large scale international salvage operation in the world. It was thus, a salvage operation coordinated under one director; it was also well financed and provided with good survey maps (Adams : ). At this time it was still considered a part of archaeology to recover those objects which could be easily transported to museum and placed in museum collections. Any settlements or campsites excavated were almost incidental. The earliest report laid the foundation for Reisner’s ‘groups’ as they described previously unfamiliar grave types (Reisner ). In this Reisner describes the older graves, his A-Group, as having burials where the body was contracted on the left side and generally with the head south. These burials contained such grave goods as hand-made pottery, maceheads, stone axeheads, palettes of various materials and ivory figures all, in Reisner’s view, part of a rather primitive culture (Reisner : –). His B-Group graves also contained contracted burials but without any orientation preference. Reisner dated some of these graves to the nd to rd Dynasties whereas others he assigned to the th to th Dynasties and even as late as the th to th Dynasties (Reisner : – ). Reisner’s third group, the C-Group, he believed only occurred in the south-eastern areas. The circular graves contained bodies lying contracted on their left side with the head east. Some of the graves were fairly deep while others had been heavily denuded. Reisner found these graves to be similar to the Pan Grave type. Some of the pottery he found associated with these graves Reisner equated with the incised ware Petrie had found in the th Dynasty graves in the Nubian settlement at Diospolis Parva as well as that found by the Hearst Expedition at Deir el-Ballas and dating to the th to th Dynasties (Reisner : –). Reisner also states that the skeletons of B and C show stronger Negroid characteristics than those in his A, and claims that this is more Nubian in character. He also looks for a continuity between A and B, and speculates that both groups would have originally been much larger (Reisner : ).

nubia and egypt



Reisner saw his A-Group as being essentially Egyptian in character, whereas the B- and C-Groups he saw as almost completely un-Egyptian (Reisner : ). Reisner based his early dynastic period of Nubia almost exclusively on Cemetery  at Khor Bahan and felt that for the earliest periods Egypt and Nubia seem to have been culturally and racially the same (Reisner : ). For Reisner there was an increasing ‘retardation’ in Lower Nubia in cultural terms after the early Predynastic. He sums it up thus, “ ‘Wretched Nubia’, as the Egyptians called it, was thus at first a part of Egypt. After the First Dynasty, it was only an appendage of the greater country, and its history is hardly more than an account of its use or neglect by Egypt, its enrichment or impoverishment by changes of the Nile and the climate. Its very race appears to be a product of its poverty and its isolation— a Negroid Egyptian mixture fused together on a desert river bank too far away and too poor to attract a stronger and a better race. In Upper Nubia, a different race appears to have been produced—a race with no more initiative than the Lower Nubians, but with greater courage and better organization, a race which was able to take advantage of the disintegration of Egypt and to fight Babylonia for the possession of Syria” (Reisner : ). For Reisner the A-Group was essentially an offshoot of the Upper Egyptian cultures which, over time, deteriorated or lagged behind Egypt due to increasing contact and intermarriage with more southern groups. His chronological framework for the early period, based largely on the remains from Cemetery  at Khor Bahan, is outlined below. For Reisner, the Naqada I and II periods (Reisner’s Predynastic) in Egypt and Nubia were identical. This time was, an Egyptian period par excellence, with Nubia occupied by Egyptians displaying the same racial and cultural traits as Egyptians of the same period (Reisner : ). In Reisner’s terminology and chronology, the distinct A-Group emerges in the st and nd Dynasties (Reisner’s Early Dynastic) and was described as a second Egyptian period; Egyptians still occupy Nubia but the region is not able to keep up with the Egyptian culture in Egypt itself (Reisner : ). This he evidenced by the continuing appearance of pottery styles in Lower Nubian graves that had long lost favour in Upper Egyptian graves so that Predynastic styles appear alongside early Dynastic material (Hoffman : ). The A-Group was still being seen as essentially Egyptian in character, but was interpreted as being somewhat second-rate in comparison to the ‘real thing’. Reisner, and indeed many of his colleagues and contemporaries, saw this lagging behind as



chapter one

the result of racial inferiority although physically the skeletal evidence does not show any general difference between the people of Lower Nubia and Upper Egypt (Nordström : ; Hoffman : ). This has been observed in a more recent study of the skeletal remains from the C-Group cemetery at Hierakonpolis (Irish a; b). Surprisingly the individuals from the C-Group cemetery displayed more similarities to their Egyptian contempories than to C-Groups in Nubia (Irish a: ; b: ). In this instance it has been suggested that the Hierakonpolis group may have represented the immigration of some newcomers from outlying regions (Irish a: ). Certainly the outdated concepts of racial inferiority/superiority have no basis in the physical evidence. Reisner assigned the Old Kingdom period (rd–th Dynasties) to his B-Group which he described as the first real Nubian period with pottery and other artefacts which were not found in Egypt at the same time but that were rather degenerated forms of Early Dynastic Egyptian material (Reisner : ). The B-Group certainly made a convenient filler between the A-Group and the C-Group. First Archaeological Survey under Firth Reisner continued his work in – but increasingly handed over the day-to-day supervision of the work to his assistant, C.M. Firth and indeed the subsequent reports were written by the latter. Although Firth added a few vague hypotheses, ifs, buts and maybes of his own, as Reisner’s assistant his work and analyses generally followed that of Reisner. Firth like Reisner concluded that the only reasons for habitation in such an apparently inhospitable part of the Nile Valley were that they were the remains of settlers who had been left behind when the majority moved north or alternatively were the southern most expansion of those already in Egypt. Again racial inferiority is brought into the discussion with Firth seeing the material culture in Nubia as inferior to that in Egypt. According to Firth one racial group may have moved north to subsequently be assimilated into the Egyptian culture but more likely they moved southwards, hampering their own advancement by taking them further away from the superior north (Firth : ). Time and time again this inherently racist language comes into play in early th century Egyptological scholarship. This influence can certainly be seen in the interpretations that Nubia, due to its supposed ‘negro element’, was poorer and somehow naturally inferior to Egypt. For instance Firth states “[c]omplete political separation and the mixture of ‘negro’ blood must alike have

nubia and egypt



prevented any development or advance on the part of the scanty population of Lower Nubia in the Old Kingdom” (Firth : ). Junker hesitatingly questioned Reisner’s B-Group (Junker ). Junker conducted excavations in a cemetery immediately north of the First Cataract at Kubanniya South. While he did not openly contradict or attempt to eradicate Reisner’s B-Group he did question Reiser’s dating of the B-Group, especially at Cemetery  at Bahan, to the Old Kingdom and preferred to place them into the Late Predynastic. He was the first to question the idea that all Reisner’s B-Group graves should be assigned as a different cultural group and to suggest that many could be placed in the A-Group. Despite some obvious reservations amongst the academic community with regard to Reisner’s division and in particular his B-Group, the use of this term as a distinct cultural group remained. It seems it was simply too convenient a filler—if the A-Group ‘disappeared’ after the st or nd Dynasty and the C-Group did not appear until the end of the Old Kingdom then there must be something in between. Even during the early stages of the UNESCO campaign the term B-Group was still being utilised although very few excavations were willing to commit much material to this terminology. It was not until H.S. Smith’s () definitive study of Reisner’s and Firth’s material as well as some of Emery’s excavated material that the BGroup disappeared from the academic terminology. Smith was able to demonstrate that of the graves assigned to the B-Group, more than one quarter were empty,  were animal burials and of the remainder most could be assigned to the A-Group, some to the C-Group, while the largest number could not be dated at all due to the heavy plundering or lack of datable material (Smith ). There were other expeditions in Nubia around the same time as the First Archaeological Survey. Indeed the First Archaeological Suvey of Nubia set the stage for subsequent work in Nubia (Adams : ). David Randall-MacIver and Leonard Woolley conducted work for the University of Pennsylvania Museum. They uncovered a Bronze Age settlement at Areika; were the first to extensively excavate the fortress of Buhen; and excavated a town at Karanog dating to the nd and rd centuries ad (O’Connor : xiii). Other excavations by different expeditions at this time concentrated on architecture and on the Meroitic Period which the First Archaeological Survey largely ignored (Adams : ). Others, like the Oxford and Pennsylvania expeditions concentrated on the study of Christian Nubia



chapter one

(Adams : ). In the First Archaeological Survey only one church was excavated although many were in the area to be flooded (Adams : ). Reisner also returned to Nubia in  and his expedition for Harvard University and the Boston Museum of Fine Arts gained virtually exclusive rights to work in the northern Sudan (Adams : ). This work, covering the royal cemetery at Kerma, several of the Second Cataract fortresses, and the royal cemeteries at Napata and Meroe formed the foundation for studies on the Napatan-Meroitic period (Adams : –). Second Archaeological Survey of Nubia When a further enlargement of the Aswan Dam was planned it led to the establishment of the Second Archaeological Survey of Nubia. This was directed by W.B. Emery and L.P. Kirwan between  and , this time financed not by the Egyptian Survey Department but by the Services des Antiquités. The Second Archaeological Survey’s methods and results were similar to those of the first survey and also concentrated on cemeteries. In fact, as Emery points out, Firth gave the expedition a typed, detailed account of the methods used in – and that this was used also for the second survey (Emery : ). Emery was content to simply repeat the work of Reisner and Firth and goes so far as to say that the “archaeological material of this early Nubian period discovered by the expedition has been of no great value and in no way alters or adds to the conclusions set forth by the previous excavators in this field” (Emery and Kirwan : –). Emery continued to place the A-Group in the Early Dynastic Period (st–nd Dynasties) and the B-Group in the Old Kingdom. He dated very few graves to the so-called B-Group era stating that “[t]he settlements of the B-group people are few and extremely poor in archaeological material” (Emery and Kirwan : ). Nevertheless, Emery did not underestimate the value of carrying out the salvage operation as he states “all the time one’s thought was that ‘what I miss now will never be recovered, and I have so little time to make sure’ ” (Emery : ). In addition the survey conducted excavations at the Pharaonic fortress of Kubban and C-Group and Meoritic/X-Group settlement of Wadi el-Arab, the only settlement to be excavated by either of the surveys (Adams : ; Adams : ). As stated above, Emery made little variation to the history of Nubia as outlined by Reisner and Firth. He did, however, revive the Dynastic Race theory with a vengeance. He believed that prior to the st Dynasty, Nubia

nubia and egypt



was virtually uninhabited and that it was still only sparsely inhabited in the developing Predynastic Period. The unification of Egypt in the st Dynasty brought an increase in population in Lower Nubia. It is worth noting that while Emery agrees that the material remains are similar to those of Late Predynastic Egypt he dates these cemeteries of Nubia to the Early Dynastic Period for no apparent reason other than his opinion that such a primitive people could not possibly do better. Emery sees the change as sudden and large and that it can be accounted for only by an influx of population from the north, fleeing the invasion of a superior people (Emery : –). Again it is seen that this era of archaeological work was still clouded by a very different and more racist view than that of modern science and statements such as “[m]any of the B-group skulls show strong traces of Negroid blood and it may have been this international mixture with a more backward race lead to a subsequent degeneration” (Emery and Kirwan : ) are not uncommon. For the C-Group the picture seems to have remained unclear. Emery was not able to establish an origin for the C-Group or any certain connection between them and those occupying the area in the Early Dynastic Period (Emery and Kirwan : ). However, he did feel that there probably was some continuity between the A-Group (and by chronological association the B-Group) and the C-Group (Emery and Kirwan : ). In terms of date he gives a late one following Reisner in that it was “probable that the C-group culture developed during the latter half of the First Intermediate Period” (Emery and Kirwan : ). Like Reisner he believed that the C-Group were somewhat passive and thus suffered from the raids of the ‘superior’ Egyptians until peace, brought about by the total conquest of Lower Nubia by Amenemhet I and Senwosret I, allowed them to flourish under Egypt’s “peaceful administration” (Emery and Kirwan : ). Finally for Emery and Kirwan the end of the CGroup comes with the Hyksos invasions and the collapse of the Middle Kingdom resulting in Egyptian settlers moving south. Always the prosperity of Lower Nubia is linked to Egyptian dominion. Arguably the most valuable work of the survey was the excavation of the X-Group royal cemeteries of Ballana and Qustul. The final report on the royal cemeteries was almost twice as long as the report dealing with the rest of the survey (Emery and Kirwan ; Adams : ) and the work at Ballana and Qustul added greatly to the knowledge of the X-Group and its organisation.



chapter one The Aswan High Dam and the UNESCO Salvage Operation

With the inundation of Lower Nubia and the onset of the Great Depression in Europe and North America, much work in Nubia came to an end although both Oxford University and the Egypt Exploration Society continued to work in the region until the outbreak of the Second World War (Adams : ). In  the Sudan Antiquities Service began regular excavations which paved the way for the enormous salvage operation which was to come when the Aswan High Dam construction was proposed. This was not merely an enlarging or raising of the existing dam but the construction of a massive and entirely new dam. The Aswan High Dam thus created a need for a vast rescue operation due to the fact that the submerged area would not only increase but, unlike the situation after the first two enlargements, would be permanently inundated. Such huge archaeological and engineering challenges sparked the United Nations, under the umbrella of UNESCO to launch an international appeal in conjunction with the Egyptian and Sudanese Governments (Adams : ). The main roles of UNESCO involved coordinating the campaigns as well as publicising the need for excavation (Adams : ). Funding for the dismantling and relocation of monuments came from UNESCO whereas funding for excavation largely came from Egyptological museums and institutes with the work being carried out by well-known Egyptologists (Adams : ). While those conducting the work certainly felt the need for excavation, many of the Egyptologists and archaeologists involved had no experience working in Nubia or even particular research interests in Nubia; but as the Egyptian Government would not allow excavation elsewhere in Egypt until the salvage campaign was completed there was certainly an incentive to participate (Adams : ). The situation in the Sudan was different as the Sudanese Government had no such sites to offer in the future and it was presumably only individuals and institutions that had an interest in Sudanese Nubia who would offer to work in this region (Adams : ). A total of  foreign missions were recruited to work in Sudanese Nubia while the remainder of the work was ostensibly carried out by the Sudanese Antiquities Service (Adams : –). It concentrated on habitation sites although it did not exclude the excavation of cemeteries, and aimed not to simply repeat the work of others but to supplement that work (Adams : ). While the first two archaeological surveys of Nubia had covered much of the area of Nubia from Aswan to the Egyptian-Sudanese border, the

nubia and egypt



UNESCO campaign, starting in , was two-fold. In Egypt some  major temples and various smaller monuments had to be moved to higher ground (Adams : ) while a survey of Sudanese Nubia was organised which covered the length of the Nile Valley from the Egyptian border to the head of what would become Lake Nasser/Lake Nubia, a distance of around  kilometres (Adams : ). Following this international salvage and rescue operation the main work on Lower Nubia has been evaluated by W.Y. Adams (), B.G. Trigger (, ), H.-Å. Nordström (), H.S. Smith (), and B.B. Williams (). Further evaluations have been compiled by D.O’Connor (), P.L. Shinnie () and M. Gatto (, , ) amongst others. As Lower Nubia has now been flooded no further material evidence can be gained from this area of the Nile Valley. However the ongoing excavations by the German Archaeological Institute, Cairo and the Swiss Institute for Architectural and Archaeological Research, Cairo, at Elephantine continue to shed more light on the creation of an Egyptian southern border and trading post that still had direct contact with the Lower Nubian peoples. This may indeed show more continuity between the so-called A-Group and C-Group. The idea that A-Group and CGroup are closely related is not new (Nordström ) but has been largely speculative. The most important early work on the C-Group is undoubtedly that of M. Bietak () which also highlights continuities between the A- and C-Groups. The building of the High Dam and flooding of Lower Nubia has actually led to an increased and ongoing interest from the archaeological community in Nubia in general and Upper Nubia in particular. While many working early on in Nubia were Egyptologists who often saw work in Nubia as an extension to work in Egypt and to the Egyptian culture this is no longer the case. Today the discipline of Nubiology sits alongside the discipline of Egyptology. Egyptologists working as part of the UNESCO campaign may have been encouraged by the enforced stoppage of work at unthreatened sites within Egypt (such as Saqqara and Thebes) and keen to eventually return (Adams : ) but the interest in Nubia was not drowned with the land itself. Noted archaeologists and anthropologists such as W.Y. Adams, and B.G. Trigger amongst others, may never have taken an interest in Nubia had it not been for the requirements and opportunities such a large scale operation generated. The UNESCO salvage operation also stimulated an interest in Egypt and Nubia amongst prehistorians as the area had previously been “almost



chapter one

unanimously relegated to the status of a prehistoric backwater, a reserve archaeologically fit only for Egyptologists and others of the Classical persuasion” (Close : preface xi). Fred Wendorf of the Southern Methodist University had no experience with or particular interest in African archaeology but was one of only a few archaeologists who had experience in leading large scale archaeological salvage campaigns (Close : preface xi; Clark : ). Wendorf formed the Combined Prehistoric Expedition in – and fully expected to return to the archaeology of the southwest United States once the project was complete. The Expedition, however, has continued working in Egypt, Nubia and briefly in Ethiopia under the direction of Wendorf, profoundly altering the perception of the prehistory of Northeast Africa. At the same time ongoing work outside the Nile Valley, in the Eastern and Western Deserts, is also shedding more light on the relationships between cultural groups over a wider area. The deserts had long been neglected as regions to study and shed light on developments throughout the region. Gertrude Caton-Thompson was one of the first archaeologists to carry out extensive surveys in the Western Desert and Kharga Oasis with a view to better understanding the relationship between prehistoric groups in the Nile Valley and their desert neighbours (Caton-Thompson ; ). Other early explorers also ventured into the remote regions of the desert, largely under the auspices of the Royal Geographical Society. These included R. Bagnold, P. Clayton, G. Pendergast and L. Almásy (Kuper : – and references). In the s E. Baumgartel was also pondering the origins of the Egyptian civilisation although she dismissed the concept of a Saharan origin or influence (Baumgartel ). However, it was the rescue operation mounted by UNESCO to face the threats posed to the archaeological sites by the building of the Aswan High Dam that had a strong effect on the study and understanding of Nubian cultures and the relationship between the desert and valley regions. It was also a long-lasting effect. Wendorf ’s Combined Prehistoric Expedition not only focussed on the Nubia Nile Valley proper but also the areas surrounding, and what was initially intended as a short-term salvage operation, developed into a long-term pioneering endeavour that has greatly altered the perception of the Prehistory of northeastern Africa and it has become clear that this region is crucial to our understanding of the development of the Neolithic and domestication (Kuper : ). The work of Wendorf and R. Schild and their teams have continued to add to our knowledge of these regions over the past decades.

nubia and egypt



Studies of the various oases in the Western Desert have also provided valuable data. The Dakhla Oasis Project (DOP), begun in , has continued to “analyse the desert-Nile contacts from an in-depth regional study” (Riemer : ). More recently Kharga Oasis, only  km west of the Nile Valley, has again become the focus for survey and excavation led by the Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale (IFAO) which have discovered prehistoric and Early Dynasitc sites. Since the year  the Kharga Oasis Prehistoric Project has been exploring Palaeolithic remains and since  the North Kharga Oasis Survey has also uncovered prehistoric sites while exploring ancient caravan routes (Ikram and Rossi ). Survey and excavation work by the University of Rome at Farafra Oasis have also concentrated on its role as a “strategic area of communication between the Central Sahara and the Nile Valley” (Barich and Lucarini : ). The understanding of interactions between desert and Nile Valley have also been aided by the work of the Theban Desert Road Survey under the direction of J.C. Darnell which is exploring the ‘road’ between Luxor and Kharga (Darnell, J.C. a; b; Darnell, D. ). Finally, the questions of human adaptation to ecological changes in the desert, the distribution of people in Africa and their contribution to Egyptian civilisation have been the focus of the Arid Climate Adaptation and Cultural Innnovation in Africa (ACACIA) project, funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft and directed by R. Kuper (Kuper : –; Riemer : –). This long term project had the aim of finding evidence to support the idea that the drying up of the Sahara was really the impetus for change, innovation, and movement of peoples in Africa (Kuper : ). Thus far all research in the deserts and oases seems to support a shift to the Nile Valley at the end of the th millennium bc along with their cultural traits (McDonald : ; Riemer : ). Ongoing interest in and work south of the Second Cataract continues to this day as is clearly evidenced by the now well established International Society for Nubian Studies (founded Warsaw ) and its related international conferences as well as the founding of societies open to the general public such as The Sudan Archaeological Research Society with its annual publication Sudan and Nubia. The ability of the academic community to heed the call for salvage operations in the Fourth Cataract region due to the Merowe Dam Project without the sort of international governmental intervention required due to the building of the Aswan High Dam, clearly illustrates the level of interest in Nubia.



chapter one Setting the Scene—Where Are We?

The following map (Fig. ) indicates the Egyptian and Sudanese Nile Valley and surrounding regions. The present discussion is most concerned with the region between the First and Second Cataracts and immediately to the north of the First Cataract, and concentrates on the Nile Valley itself. However, Lower Nubia and Upper Egypt cannot be seen in isolation and were in fact part of a broader geographical and cultural landscape. Both the river and deserts played a part in the movement of people, things and ideas. The development of Egypt was dominated by three geographical factors, the Nile and its floodplain, the Eastern Desert and Sinai Peninsula which links Egypt to Western Asia and the Western Desert providing a link to the Sahara (Midant-Reynes : ). The Nile itself is fed by the rains of equatorial and central Africa and journeys through  km of desert before finally spreading into a delta and draining into the Mediterranean. The river passes through Nubian sandstone formations and is cut by six outcrops of igneous rocks which form the cataracts and which impede river transport; from Aswan all the way to the Mediterranean, however, its flow is uninterrupted. The geographical and cultural border between Egypt and Lower Nubia has been put at Gebel es-Silsila about  km north of the First Cataract (Nordström : ; Junker : ). However, such a cultural ‘border’ should be seen in more fluid terms than our modern political borders and as shall be discussed, evidence suggests that a cultural grey zone existed between the Naqada and A-Group cultures that extended even further north. The region between the Dehmit district, about  km south of Aswan, and the Second Cataract is dominated by Nubian sandstone, gravel formations and silt banks (Nordström : ). The desert to the west is largely made up of an eroded sandstone plateau, while to the east the desert is more dissected (Nordström : ). Wadis, especially to the east of the river, connect the Nile with the desert and the Sinai, providing valuable means of access to natural resources such as stone and minerals. This also enabled contact with other peoples. During the fifth and early fourth millennia bc both the floodplain and hinterlands of Lower Nubia provided favourable living conditions just as they were in Egypt but there was a deterioration in conditions in the third millennium which saw the disappearance of fauna such as rhinoceros, giraffe and elephant from Egypt (Nordström : ). Generally speaking, Lower Nubia was more restricted than Egypt in terms of river transport because

nubia and egypt

Figure . Map of northeastern Africa.





chapter one

of the cataracts (although it should be pointed out that Egyptians from the Old Kingdom on at least, seemed to have preferred donkey caravans for their expeditions) and had less arable land. Nonetheless, numerous examples of desert rock art depict boats indicating the importance of this form of transportation (Engelmayer ). Chronology—When Are We? The focus of this book is the nature of a trade/exchange relationship between Egypt and Lower Nubia in the Predynastic Period. This term is generally used to refer to the th millennium bc in Upper Egypt and its Naqada culture. In Lower Egypt the th millennium bc is characterised by the Maadi-Buto culture (Hendrickx : ) and is now considered to be present over much if not all of Lower Egypt (Hendrickx : ). In Lower Nubia the same period has been considered to be represented by the so-called A-Group culture although this is problematic. It is during these late Neolothic periods that we see an increase in the social and political complexity of Egyptian society in particular (Hendrickx : ). As these cultures cannot be seen in isolation, a brief overview of the Neolithic and Chalcolithic follows in order to place them in their broad geographical and chronological context. The following chart (Fig. ) outlines the chronology used in this discussion showing the cultural overlaps between Egypt and Lower Nubia in the Nile Valley.

nubia and egypt



Figure . Chronological Chart for the Cultures in the Egyptian Nile Valley and Lower Nubia (After Köhler ) Absolute date General culturalin years bc historical phase –     

Old Kingdom Early Early Dynastic Bronze (Dynasties –) Age Protodynastic Late Chalcolithic Early Chalcolithic



Late Neolithic

  , ,

Early Neolithic Epipalaeolithic Palaeolithic

Relative chronology— Egypt

Relative chronology— Lower Nubia

Naqada IIIC–D Terminal A-Group Naqada IIIA–B Naqada IIC/D–IIIA Middle A-Group Naqada IB/C–IIB Early A-Group Naqada IA/B Badarian El-Omari Merimde Benisalame Fayum A

The terminology for the relative chronology of the Predynastic period is not always consistent in the literature (Hendrickx : , Table II..). Petrie initially used the terms Amratian, Gerzean and Semainian to distinguish different cultural phases, but while the Semainian is no longer regarded as a distinct phase (Kantor ) the terms Amratian and Gerzean are still occassionally used by scholars today (Hendrickx ; ). However, the relative continuity of these cultural developments has led many to prefer the term Naqada culture for the th millennium bc and this is used here as Naqada I (Amratian), Naqada II (Gerzean) and Naqada III along with their subdivisions. The chronology of the A-Group remains problematic. It has been divided into three consecutive phases of Early, Middle (or Classic) and Late (or Terminal) following several scholars (Trigger ; Williams ; Nordström ). Current research suggests that the Early AGroup is roughly contemporaneous with late Naqada I/early Naqada II, while the Middle A-Group dates from late Naqada II to the beginning of Naqada III, and the Late A-Group dates to Naqada IIIB–C (Gatto ) although regional variations have been observed which may further revise this (Kopp : –). One example may be the cemetery of Qustul in which the Late/Terminal A-Group has been dated to Naqada IIIA which would suggest some chronological overlap with this earlier period (Williams : –, Table ).



chapter one The Neolithic and Chalcolthic in Egypt and Nubia

Early research into the climate and environment of the Nile Valley assumed that the current floodplain had been an uninhabitable swampland and that early settlers were only able to live on the margins of the valley (Butzer : ) although wetter periods would certainly have pushed some people to the desert fringes following game (Hassan : ). However, more recent research has shown that while these swamps have always been a feature of the region, in particular in the northern Delta, the Nile Valley is rather a seasonally inundated floodplain and well able to support human occupation (Butzer : –; Trigger : ; Hassan ). Evidence suggests that from the end of the Ice Age there was an increase in rainfall in Egypt at different stages, that the wadis and “desert-savannah” supported enough vegetation to allow limited herding by nomadic groups and that the deserts were able to support seasonal hunting (Butzer : ; Hassan : ). The Nile reached a new peak in the early to mid-Holocene with three moist periods. These subphases of dry and wet periods continued until ca.  bp (Hassan : ; Wetterstrom : ; Clark : ; Midant-Reynes : ). Gordon Childe () popularised the idea that hunter-gatherers from the desert moved into the Nile Valley following a period of severely dry climate conditions and that these desert people subsequently became farmers. Clark (; ) has also demonstrated that the Nile Valley was well adapted for the adoption of agriculture and so it is not clear whether agriculture was introduced from another region or developed independently in the Nile Valley. The development of the Neolithic and Chalcolithic in the Nile Valley is outlined briefly below. Lower Egypt The earliest evidence for agriculture in the Nile Valley comes from northern Egypt, in the Fayum A, Merimde Beni Salama and el-Omari (named after Amim El-Omari who was one of the discoverers of the site in ) dating to ca. – bp. The earliest dates for the southern regions of Egypt are ca. – bp (Kantor : –; Hassan : –). However, the beginnings of farming in the southern Levant predate the Nile Valley by up to two millennia. Why did the Nile Valley apparently adopt an agricultural subsistence so much later than the Near East? Various arguments have been put forth. The rich natural resources of the Nilotic environment may have delayed a need to adopt the domestication

nubia and egypt



of cereals and animals. It has also been suggested that later evidence for fully adopted farming has turned attention away from early experimentation in farming and herding (Bard : –; Wetterstrom : –). There is no reason to suppose that communities in Egypt were not already aware of the advantages derived from more efficient and sophisticated resource management than simply hunting and gathering at random. This in fact, would encourage the easy adoption of clearly beneficial practices to supplement their diet which other groups or even individuals may have brought to the region. What does seem clear is that the transition to the Neolithic in the Nile Valley was a gradual process rather than a sudden revolutionary movement. The variations in the development of agriculture along the Nile from north to south would seem to support the idea of gradual change. It is believed that domesticated plants and animals were first introduced to northern Egypt from southwest Asia. The people of Fayum A were agriculturists as attested by the remains of underground granaries containing emmer wheat and barley. They may also have kept some domestic animals such as sheep, goats and possibly even cattle. However they also seem to have maintained some dependence on fishing and hunting. Both the abundance of lacustrine resources and the fact that the land was not suited to intensive farming may account for the only partial adoption of a sedentary agricultural subsistence (Bard : ; Trigger : –). The northern Egyptian sequence suggests a gradual increase in herding and the cultivation of crops and a decrease in hunting at the end of the Predynastic and into the Early Dynastic Period. Trigger () has suggested that despite the earlier dating of northern Neolithic settlements the move to a full farming economy was slower in Lower Egypt due to the rich natural resources of the Fayum and Delta and certainly these regions had abundant food sourses year round (Wetterstrom : ) but the inundation could pose as much of a threat as a blessing to these populations and so the exploitation of domesticates and wild resources complemented each other rather than competing with each other. The Fayum was also an oasis in the Sahara which may have seen a migration of people from the west where they would have faced poor climatic conditions in the th millennium bc. The Fayum offered opportunities to exploit and eventually domesticate certain species of plants and animals that were available here and in the neighbouring Delta region. Other important Lower Egyptian sites which gained early attention were Merimde Beni Salame and el-Omari. El-Omari provided information for the earliest Lower Egyptian cultures (Debono and Mortensen



chapter one

). This site dates to the late fifth, early fourth millennium bc and investigations uncovered numerous storage pits, pit dwellings and postholes. There is evidence for the exploitation of cereals including wheat, barley and rye as well as legumes and flax yet it is unclear how advanced their agriculture was although sickle blades were also found. Domesticated goats, sheep, cattle and pig were exploited. Fishing seems to have been important and the inhabitants of el-Omari also hunted crocodile and hippopotomus. Merimde, on the western edge of the Delta, was initially investigated by Junker and was subsequently reinvestigated by A. Badawi (, ) and J. Eiwanger (, ). Pestles and mortars found at all levels of the site indicated the exploitation of cereals, while the faunal remains showed that domesticated animals, primarily sheep but also cattle, pigs and, rarely, goat, were also present. It is not clear from where domesticated cattle originated but the presence of sheep and goat suggests a Near Eastern origin for these species and the earliest evidence for domesticated pig comes from Çayonu in Anatolia. Based on these remains and the ceramics (Larsen ) one can certainly argue for an Asiatic connection for the earliest levels of the site. Later levels (Levels III–V) display oval semi-subterranean houses taking on a more village like appearance. As with the Fayum granaries are found in these younger levels. The many similarities between remains from these levels and Fayum A may suggest that Merimde I is the common ancestor for both (Midant-Reynes : ) and that the people of the Fayum adopted domesticates from their Merimde neighbours. When we enter into the th millennium bc in Lower Egypt we encounter the Predynastic or prehistoric Maadi-Buto Culture (also referred to as the Buto-Maadi Culture or simply Maadi culture). While this culture is generally considered to be present across Lower Egypt, particularly in the Naqada IIC–D phase (Levy and van den Brink : –), it does not necessarily mean a political unity for the entire region (Hendrickx : ; Levy and van den Brink : ). As the name suggests the sites of Maadi and Buto have provided much of the material evidence for this Lower Egyptian culture. They also provide valuable evidence for Egyptian-Levantine connections; for instance the presence of Levantine-style pottery (although locally made) has been found in the earliest levels at Buto (Stratum Ia/b) (Faltings : –). The amount of Levantine-style pottery decreases in Stratum Ib (Buto Ib/Naqada IC) and the growing influence of Upper Egypt is particularly evident from Naqada IIC–D onwards (Hendrickx

nubia and egypt



: ). By Naqada IIIA (Buto IIId–e) the Naqada material predominates (Köhler ). Recent and ongoing excavations in Lower Egypt are furthering our understanding of the relationship between Lower Egypt and the Levant as well as the relationship between Lower Egypt and Upper Egypt. Sites such as Tell el-Farkha (Ciałowicz , ) and Buto (Von der Way ; Faltings , ; Köhler b; Hartung ; Hartung et al. , ) in the Delta continue to add to our knowledge of the importance of this region in long-distance trade with the Levant as does the work at Maadi where subterranean stuctures and tabular flint scrapers also attest to the Lower Egyptian connection to the Near East (Hartung ; ) which even extends to Upper Egypt (Hartung ). Upper Egypt Although the excavation of cemeteries outnumbers settlement sites, the Predynastic of Upper Egypt is better known than that of Lower Egypt. While the chronology of the Badarian, Naqada I and Naqada II periods are not yet fully established, current evidence continues to support consecutive rather than contemporary status (Kaiser : –; Kantor : ; Holmes and Friedman : –; Hendrickx , ). For this reason the divisions Badarian, Naqada I and II have been used in favour of Amratian and Gerzean as this better illustrates this continuity. The earliest Predynastic phase known from southern Egypt is the Badarian and both graves and habitation sites have been studied including Badari (Brunton and Caton-Thompson ), Hammamiya (Brunton and Caton-Thompson ), Mostagedda (Brunton ), Matmar (Brunton ) and Mahgar Dendera  (Hendrickx et. al. ). The Badarian culture was thought to be roughly contemporaneous with the northern traditions of the Fayum and Merimde (Midant-Reynes : ) although it was quite distinct and seems to have been more advanced. For Brunton the Badarian was earlier than Amratian/Naqada I (Brunton and Caton-Thompson : –). Thermoluminescence dating suggests that the Badarian may go back as far as  bc but modern radiocarbon analysis can only confirm between  and / bc as the earliest dates (Hassan : ; Hendrickx : ) which has been further confirmed by the work of Holmes and Friedman () thus placing the Badarian as predominantly later than the Fayum A and Merimde cultures but contemporaneous to el-Omari. Habitation areas show evidence of hearths and basket lined pits for the storage of



chapter one

grain. Domestic objects such as pottery, stone tools and basketwork have also been found. However, there is no evidence for fully permanent housing which might indicate that at least a partially nomadic lifestyle was still being followed (Baumgartel : ; Brunton and Caton-Thompson ). Alternatively, the lack of housing remains may also be due to the nature and early date of the architecture being investigated where organic materials used have not survived although seasonal campsites certainly existed as can be attested with the site of Mahgar Dendera  which was clearly a temporary campsite used for specialised tasks (Hendrickx et.al. : –). Regional distinctions are most evident in burial customs and provide a rich source of material. Cemeteries were located in the desert away from the main settlements. The graves were generally simple oval pits containing one or more individuals placed in a contracted position, the majority with their head to the south and facing west (MidantReynes : ). The body was often covered with matting or animal hides and offerings were placed with the burial. These included stone palettes and vessels, ivory objects such as small vessels, bracelets, combs, spoons and human figurines. Objects for personal use were particularly popular such as necklaces made from shells originating in the Red Sea and discs made of cornelian, jasper, alabaster and calcite. A small amount of copper and steatite pins and beads also appear in the Badarian complex (Trigger : –; Midant-Reynes : ; Brunton and Caton-Thompson ). Among the offerings were jars containing grains (wheat and barley) and traces of bread have also been found. In addition a few deliberate animal burials are scattered among the human interments (Midant-Reynes : ). The most distinctive object amongst the Badarian remains was the pottery; in particular the ripple surfaced pottery. This pottery had not been seen previously in Egypt although the excavators made some comparisons with other Predynastic ware and also Nubian pottery (Brunton and Caton-Thompson : –). The pottery of the Khartoum Neolithic, in particular, foreshadows this ware (Midant-Reynes : ). Further varieties found are black-topped brown or red polished ware, polished red ware, rough ware as well as some fancy and decorated ware (Brunton and Caton-Thompson : ). At least one beaker has been assigned to Petrie’s N-ware (incised black ware), which is generally assumed to be Nubian in origin (Brunton and Caton-Thompson : ). However, the early appearance of this form of pottery along with the evidence of white powder on the surface of some of the rippled ware may in fact

nubia and egypt



indicate that it was Badarian in origin and that the Badarian culture was more widespread than previously believed. That the Badarians were in contact with other groups and regions is evident from the objects found in their habitation and cemetery sites (Brunton and Caton-Thompson : –). A detailed examination of the Badarian pottery and its relation to other regions of the southern Nile Valley would help to clarify the extent of its influence and possible trade connections as well as the origins of the Badarian, which are generally credited to sources outside the Nile Valley (Hays : ). Brunton argued for very strong connections between the Badarian and Nubian cultures, seeing the Badarian culture as spreading as far south as Nubia where it was not as affected by outside influences than were later Predynastic cultures in Upper Egypt (Brunton and Caton-Thompson : –) although Kaiser has argued for a northern origin. A southern origin may account for pottery forms found in Nubia long after they had fallen out of fashion in Egypt although it does not account for the appearance of N-ware. Certainly there are broad similarities between the Badarian and Nubian artefacts (Brunton and CatonThompson : –) which would seem to suggest that the overlaps between the Badarian and Naqada I indicate a broad Middle-Upper Egyptian tradition that had its roots in the south and perhaps through the Western Desert, but which increasingly (especially from Naqda II on) turned to the north rather than the south (Midant-Reynes : ). Guy Brunton (), based on pottery finds, believed he had found a new culture that in fact predated the Badarian and which termed the Tasian after the site of Deir el-Tasa in Middle Egypt. Baumgartel argued against this, interpreting the Tasian as a regional variant of the Badarian (Baumgartel : –). The pottery most associated with the so-called Tasian are brown to black calciform beakers with flaring rims and white filled incised decoration on the outer surface (Brunton : –; Bourriau : ; Friedman : –; Hendrickx and Vermeersch : ). They have been associated with northern Neolithic sites (Kaiser ), Petrie’s N-ware generally thought to be Nubian, and with Neolithic Sudanese where similar vessels have been found at sites such as Kadero (Chłodnicki ; Hendrickx : ; Hendrickx and Vermeersch : ). The case for and against a separate Tasian culture continues and will be discussed in more detail later in chapter five. Along with the evidence for the utilisation of domestic plants and animals the Badarian tool assemblage shows a continued reliance on fishing and hunting. Flint arrow-heads, throwing sticks and fish hooks



chapter one

along with the bones of wild animals, fish and birds, clothing made from animal skins and remains of wild seeds have been used to indicate that the Badarian culture had not become fully agricultural (Trigger : ; Brunton and Caton-Thompson : –, Hendrickx et. al. ). However, Badarian sites have also yielded evidence for the exploitation of domesticates in the form of emmer wheat and six-row barley and flax (Brunton : ). In addition cereals and bread offerings occasionally appear in graves (Brunton : ) as do sheep and goat and cattle (possibly wild and domesticated) along with wild species (Brunton and Caton-Thompson : , , Hendrickx et. al. ). On the whole the Badarian economy seems to have continued to utilise fishing, hunting and gathering but with a greatly increased reliance on farming and possibly pastoralism (Wetterstrom : ; Midant-Reynes : ) and had a much more sedentary lifestyle (Wetterstrom : ). The site of Mahgara Dendera  seems to suggest this pattern. As mentioned it was clearly a seasonal campsite, probably used for specific purposes at a time when the Nile was low and work in the field was over but with the majority of the population remaining at the permanent settlement (Hendrickx et. al. : –.) The Badarian phase also seems to have had considerable contact with other regions (Red Sea, Sinai, Syria and possibly Nubia) (Midant-Reynes : –; Brunton and CatonThompson : –). The full extent and geographical limits of the Badarian complex is not, however, fully understood. Once thought to be a distinct and chronologically separate cultural unit, the Badarian has been shown to have both more complex origins and development. The Badarian culture was thought to be restricted to the Badari region but some artefacts have been found at Armant (Myers and Fairman ), Elkab (Vermeersch ) and Hierakonpolis (Hoffman ) as well as in the Wadi Hammamat (Debono ). Little Naqada I material is found in the Badari region, and few Badarian objects are found south of Badari and so we may be seeing regional variations with some overlap between the Badarian and Naqada I cultures with the Badarian gradually being outstripped by the Naqadan. In spite of this seeming continuity, to date no cemeteries are known to have been used continuously from Badarian to Naqada I times (Hendrickx : ). The sites of the subsequent Naqada I phase, generally larger and wealthier than Badarian ones are found as far north as Matmar, throughout Upper Egypt to Kubbaniya and even as far as Nubia in the south (Baumgartel : –; Kantor : ; Midant-Reynes : –). The type site of the Naqada tradition was the centre of

nubia and egypt



this cultural development. Stone was increasingly used to make vessels and basalt was the most popular material. The production of stone vessels as objects of beauty virtually replaces fine pottery and was to develop into an important industry during the Naqada period (Spencer : –; Baumgartel : ) although it is interesting to note that the basalt vessel industry was in Lower Egypt indicating exchange between the two regions and cultures. In essence, however, Naqada I does not differ greatly from the Badarian although it should be noted that Naqada I sites occur only in Upper Egypt from the Badari region down to just south of Aswan (Hendrickx : ). Burials and grave offerings remain essentially the same although there are objects distinct from the Badarian and new types of pottery appear with more variety in their shapes. The black-topped red ware common in the Badarian complex continues to be popular in the Naqada I sequence although the finish differs from the Badarian examples. Red polished wares also remain popular. Some of these red wares were painted with white geometrical patterns and later with human and animal figures (Kantor : ; Trigger : – ; Midant-Reynes : ). It had been suggested that the depiction of men or men and animals indicates that huting was still extermely important to the economy of the Naqada I people (Baumgartel : ). The depiction of wild riverine animals, however, is hardly surprising as this was the environment on which the Naqada I people depended; in addition the traditions of hunting and its incumbent symbolism of power and provision long continued as part of the Egyptian iconography. As mentioned above, wild animals are represented in decoration, particularly riverine animals (Midant-Reynes : ). But the increasing importance of domesticated animals can also be seen in clay figures representing goats, sheep, cattle and pigs found among grave goods. This is also reflected in the actual faunal remains found in settlements (MidantReynes : ). Wheat and barley continued to be cultivated, possibly along with peas, vetch and berries (Midant-Reynes : ). The riverine environment is clearly still important, as are larger wild animals as evidenced in the decorations of the later Naqada I pottery (Kantor : ) but fishing, fowling and hunting are not the main source of subsistence. As the largest part of our information for this early phase of the Naqada culture comes from cemeteries it is difficult to make a thorough assessment of settlement patterns (Baumgartel : ). Remains of permanent structures may point to a more sedentary lifestyle than that of the Badarian. The precise relationship between the Badarian and Naqada I



chapter one

is still debated. However, the basic economy and cultural assemblage appears to be very similar with an increasing sophistication and variation in the Naqada I tradition. There is no distinct line separating the late Naqada I and early Naqada II phases. In fact there is virtually no cultural difference between Naqada IC and IIAB. Subsequently, however, the Naqada II phase shows much more rapid development and innovation. The distribution of the Naqada II culture was wider than during Naqada I, extending from Lower Egypt to as far south as Nubia. It has been suggested that the Naqada II existed throughout the Egyptian Nile Valley, at least in its later development (Kantor : ). Naqada II graves show an increasing variation in size, complexity and grave goods as well as numbers, indicating greater social stratification and a rise in population. It has even been argued that Cemetery T at Naqada and the ‘Decorated Tomb’, tomb  at Hierakonpolis could be classified as royal burials (Trigger : ; Kemp : ). Social and economic equality are replaced by increased power and prestige for a minority which is reflected in increasingly elaborate tombs such as those mentioned above and in the growing urbanisation of the population (Kemp : –). This more rapid development and adoption of new products has been taken as evidence for the arrival of new groups of people although arguments for an invading ‘Dynastic Race’ now hold little appeal. In Upper Egypt where the floodplain was narrower but more easily controlled and hunting and herding possibilities were more limited than in the north, agriculture did develop as the most reliable means of subsistence and the population density in this region increased (Trigger : –). Kemp’s model for the expansion of settled agricultural communities, which competed for resources and power, allows for both internal social and cultural developments as well as a steady and peaceful infiltration of ideas, products and possibly people from other regions (Kemp : –). The major difference between the Naqada I and Naqada II phases is in the ceramic assemblage, which shows an increase in both craft specialisation and contacts with outside cultures. The decoration of the pottery shows less concern with motifs of wild animals and hunters, the hunting scenes are more formalised, depictions of flora are more stylised, and ships with what could represent nome (province) standards begin to be seen (Kantor : ; Baumgartel : , –). In fact the importance of the river is paramount as a means of transport and communication as much as a source of food. The appearance of wavy-handled jars shows a connection with Palestine while the existence of cross-lined

nubia and egypt



pottery as well as red-polished and black-topped wares shows continuity with Naqada I traditions. To the south, contacts with Nubia have been argued from the ceramic assemblage, which include polished incised wares (N-Ware) said to originate with the Nubian A-Group (Hartung and Hartmann ; Midant-Reynes : ). A new examination of the origin of N-Ware could be of great importance in determining the nature of any relationship of exchange between Egypt and her southern neighbours. In Baumgartel’s words in this period there is “no reason to assume a political frontier between them (A-Group) and Egypt” (Baumgartel : ). Greater craft specialisation and development is not confined to pottery. Decoration was more sophisticated, flint blades and knives were more elaborate and of higher quality (Holmes ), siltstone palettes show a greater variety of shapes, stone vases in calcite, limestone, marble, basalt, diorite and granite develop considerably and metallurgy in particular advanced greatly including the use of copper, gold and silver (Baumgartel : ). It has been suggested that the more specialised blade technology originated in the Levant and spread to Upper Egypt via El-Omari and Maadi (Holmes : ). In effect the Naqada II period shows a great advance in the development and demand for luxury goods. Everyday objects continue to display regional characteristics but high quality goods, in some cases possibly the exported products of specialist workshops also appear. This increase in the ability to produce goods of such high quality can only add to the evidence supporting an increase in commercial links both internally and externally and a developing elite and social hierarchy (Holmes : – ). The studies of Werner Kaiser have helped to clarify the period between the Predynastic and st Dynasty (Kaiser ). Kaiser termed this phase Naqada III. In this period there is a gradual change in the ceramic assemblage. More recent studies have raised questions about whether there was a gradual development or sudden changes but certainly by Naqada III the culure had spread throughout the Egyptian Nile Valley (Hendrickx : –). The black-topped pottery of earlier phases disappears and function rather than decoration takes priority. This can be seen clearly in the wavy-handled jars of the late Naqada II period in which the ledge handles become increasingly stylised into a continuous line around the upper part of the jar. In addition cylindrical shapes begin to appear which developed from the Palestinian influenced wavyhandled jars but within an Egyptian tradition.



chapter one

There was evidently a great increase in long distance trade and exchange in Upper Egypt in this last phase of the Predynastic. Luxury products such as ivory, ebony and copper are more evident along with variations in shape and form of the pottery and palettes. Stone vessels, too, are more common and as previously mentioned, by the late Predynastic their production has fully developed as an industry. Many objects such as palettes, maceheads and flint knives seem to be more ceremonial than practical and deliberately made to furnish burials. The graves themselves are much more substantial and there is a greater use of mud-brick or wooden lining and in general the cemeteries of the late Naqada phase indicate a much more complex social structure. The excavations at cemetery U in Abydos have drawn a very clear picture of this long-distance trade (Hartung ). In particular pottery vessels of Levantine origin and containing approximately  litres of wine were part of the funerary equipment of tomb U-j and it is suggested that this wine was not imported for the funeral but was part of the day-to-day palace supply; in other words the tomb was furnished from the existing cellar (Hartung : –). The types of vessels used to transport and store the wine, while coming from the Palestinian-Levantine region, are not in fact well known from Canaanite sites. The jar sealings, too, were made of Nile mud and so were probably brought to Egypt by Canaanite traders via the Nile Delta where they would have been sealed for the further journey south. There is no evidence for Egyptian traders in Palestine at this time but it is certainly possible that there was a joint effort by specialised traders, both Egyptian and Cannanites, as such longdistance trade would have required great effort and extensive knowledge of the landscape and routes to be taken, probably using donkey caravans (Hartung : –). The only Lower Nubian/A-Group context for Palestinian type vessels is from cemetery L at Qustul. Wine was not the only imported commodity to be found at cemetery U. Ongoing excavations have uncovered N-ware, probably Nubian, possible Western Desert wares, black-polished lug handled vessels which indicates contact with Lower Egypt, galena and turquoise which would have come from the east, and obsidian (Hartung and Hartmann : ; Hartung ) which could have come from as far away as Anatolia or Ethiopia. North, south, east and west are all represented at Abydos, along with evidence for contact and exchange over an even longer distance. The material culture of Naqada makes its presence felt in ever wider fields. From late Naqada II products from Upper Egypt are found in Lower Nubia and in the Delta region and by Naqada III they are the dom-

nubia and egypt



inant group in Egypt (Bard : –). The growth of the Naqada III phase, particularly to the north, continued to be a gradual process, part of an ongoing development. In addition, it has been demonstrated that the Naqada culture, while broadly similar throughout Egypt, certainly from Naqada II on, was less homogenous than previously thought and regional changes are evident (Friedman ; Holmes ). This regionality may also affect how we view the A-Group culture in comparison to the Naqada culture. Both Upper and Lower Egypt were more fully agricultural but there may have been an increased pressure on access to resources in southern Egypt that led to increased competition. It was the competition for control of these resources that encouraged more socially complex communities and the development of small states. The major centres in this development were Abydos, Naqada and Hierakonpolis and these political groups may have been able to achieve unification through alliances rather than large-scale conquest, as there is little evidence for the latter. Eventually a strong southern alliance may have been able to ‘conquer’ the north (Delta and Fayum) relatively easily (Trigger : –). However, attempts to prove a violent conquest of the north by the south have not been successful and more recent studies have suggested that the various regions of Egypt, both Upper and Lower, developed gradually and from within, with different influences from neighbouring regions (Holmes ; Friedman ; Köhler , , ). Lower Nubia In the subpluvial period in Nubia, which coincides with the beginning of the Neolithic (Fayum A) in Egypt and lasts until the end of the th Dynasty, climatic conditions improved considerably. Both the floodplain and hinterlands of Lower Nubia were as favourable to human occupation as they were on the plains and levees in Egypt’s low desert and in the Delta in the same period (Nordström : ). The changes in subsistence brought about by this ‘wet phase’ can be clearly seen in the late Stone Age culture of the Second Cataract known as the Qadan. The Qadan is aceramic and subsistence still appears to be based around hunting, fishing and gathering but there is evidence for grinding of wild cereals. Large habitation sites and cemeteries may also indicate at least semipermanent occupations (Nordström : –). What is interesting is the apparently growing importance of ground grains as a food source. Wendorf has postulated that this increasing use of grain played a key role in the development of a food producing culture in Nubia and that the aceramic Qadan may have evolved into the ceramic Abkan culture.



chapter one

This argument is based primarily on the lithic assemblages of the two cultures (Wendorf : –). While the lithic assemblage resembles that of the Qadan, the pottery of the Abkan shows similarities with Neolithic Egypt (Adams : ). It is generally thin walled but plain and undecorated. Some indented patterns do appear but the designs are very simple. Other artefacts include tools made of Egyptian flint, grinding implements, palettes and beads made of ostrich shell. The Abkan culture, which was concentrated in the region of the Second Cataract, may have been the oldest food producing culture in Lower Nubia. Hunting appears to have declined in importance, although wild animals certainly made up a proportion of the food source in some areas, while fishing played the most significant role in other sites (Nordström : –; Trigger : –). The location of Abkan sites very close to the river lends support to the idea of a fishing based economy. The keeping of domestic animals such as cattle and goats is inconclusive. Further to the north in Lower Nubia the beginnings of the Nubian A-Group are probably in part contemporaneous and in part continuous to the Abkan culture. Once thought to be the result of an Egyptian migration to the area, the A-Group is now seen as an indigenous culture greatly influenced by but showing clear distinctions from its northern neighbours. A-Group sites are found as far north as Kubbaniya and as far south as Saras in the Second Cataract and have been divided into three phases—Early, Classic/Middle and Terminal/Late. The increase in the number of sites in this period supports the idea of an increase in population, which in turn is related to a greater reliance on agriculture (Shinnie : –). Grains of wheat, barley, lentils and peas, along with grinding stones and blades with a ‘sickle sheen’ on the edge point to, at least, the small-scale cultivation of crops. It is presumed that the use of these cereals was the result of diffusion from Upper Egypt (Nordström : ). The keeping of domestic animals (cattle and goat) is not certain. Nordström has concluded that the use of cattle dung as a temper for pottery can be seen in the Classic and Terminal A-Group as well as the later C-group assemblages and that this argues for the keeping of domestic cattle either by the A-Group peoples themselves or by nomadic pastoralists with whom they may have been in close contact (Nordström : –). The appearance of fish and gazelle bones as well as of wild fruits such as dates suggests that hunting, fishing and gathering continued to play a role in the subsistence economy of the AGroup.

nubia and egypt



Early A-Group burials are almost identical to the late Naqada I, early Naqada II graves of Upper Egypt. They consist of either a simple oval pit or a pit with a niche for the body cut into one side; in this latter form they differ from their Egyptian counterparts with some possible exceptions. The body was usually placed on its side in a contracted position, sometimes laid on matting or wrapped in leather. Grave goods consisted of pottery and other objects of daily use such as grinding stones and palettes and simple jewellery (Gatto : ; Shinnie : ; Adams : ). As the A-Group develops it shows an increase in the objects originating in Egypt while maintaining its own ceramic and artistic traditions. The A-Group displays an increased reliance on farming and possibly also domesticated animals. However, it would appear that unlike its northern neighbour, hunting, fishing and the gathering of wild plants continued to significantly supplement the diet of the A-Group for a longer period. The population, while increasing, never seems to have been large and certainly did not rival that of Egypt. Some particularly wealthy burials, such as those excavated at Seyala and Qustul show an increasing social complexity particularly from Classic A-Group times (O’Connor : ) These wealthier burials again show most similarity with the elite burials of the late Naqada phase in Egypt such as Cemetery T at Naqada, the ‘Decorated Tomb’ at Hierakonpolis and the elite cemetery at locality  at Hierakonpolis. The broad similarity of the A-Group culture with that of the Naqadan should be seen in the context of a shared Neolithic tradition and regional variations. An exciting recent discovery has implications for the range of the AGroup. M. Gatto was shown four incomplete vessels while working in Khartoum in , which clearly have attributes in common with AGroup ceramics (Gatto ). These pottery vessels purportedly came from a village north of Sabaloka (the Sixth Cataract) and as they almost certainly came from an as yet undiscovered cemetery context, we can only speculate on their presence so far south of hitherto known AGroup material (Gatto : –). They may indicate an extremely southern A-Group cemetery, the long-term presence of A-Group people (traders/expedition leader?) in the region or that people had significant and far raching contact with their southern neighbours; all tantalising prospects for the discussion of long-term contact and exchange in the Nile Valley.



chapter one

Upper Nubia The earliest evidence of food production in Nubia actually comes from the region of Central Sudan with the appearance of the Khartoum Neolithic. The Khartoum Neolithic (also known as the Early Neolithic or esh-Shaheinab Complex) with its similar lithic and ceramic industries is derived from the Khartoum Mesolithic and dates to ca.  bc to  bc. The Late Neolithic dates to ca.  bc to  bc. The typesite for the Khartoum Neolithic is esh-Shaheinab about fifty kilometres north of Khartoum where the remains of a small goat as well as sheep and cattle implies the beginnings of food production (Arkell : ). The Khartoum Neolithic remained heavily reliant on hunting and fishing but herding plays an increasing role in subsistence. Isabella Caneva has argued that the Khartoum Mesolithic shows a more sedentary lifestyle than its successor, although completely based on a hunting/gathering economy (Caneva : ). Thus the adoption of food production may have been paved by the already somewhat sedentary lifestyle of the preceding Early Khartoum period (Jesse ) Whether due to external pressures from Saharan pastoral groups moving into the Nile region as conditions became drier or more internal pressures, there was a gradual shift from purely hunting and gathering to an economy based around both hunting and herding. Features similar to the Khartoum Neolithic can be seen as far north as the Second Cataract particularly around the Wadi Halfa region. However, the Neolithic sites in Lower Nubia are smaller, more temporary campsites. The Abkan was identified as a cultural group in the Second Cataract region comparable to the Khartoum Neolithic (Nordström : –). The cultural similarities do not express the same level of prosperity as seen in the south. It is possible that desert conditions may have been more advanced further north and therefore resources for hunting limited (Adams : –). Caneva has also suggested that as the Khartoum Neolithic developed land was overgrazed, forcing the semi-pastoralists to become even more mobile. This could account for the lack of both settlement and burial sites in the later Neolithic periods in the Middle Nile region (Caneva : –). Certainly from the th millennium bc onwards the region of what is today the Sahara, was becoming increasingly arid which led to the concentration of settlements in the different wadi systems which were more favourable (Neumann ). Since the s more and more work has been carried out in the central Sudan with excavations at sites such as Kadero, Geili, Zeikab, Kadada and Kadruka (Caneva , ; Haaland , Reinold :

nubia and egypt



–, , ). To cite one example, extensive work by the Polish team of Krzyzaniak at Kadero has offered new information regarding the development of the Neolithic and a food producing economy in Upper Nubia (Krzyzaniak ). The chronology of Kadero is compatible with esh-Shaheinab with radiocarbon dates of – bp (Krzyzaniak : ). The Neolithic site comprises two settlement areas and burial grounds. While the status of crop cultivation remains unclear at this site (plant impressions on pottery indicate the expoloitation of sorghum (Stemler )), domestic animals were certainly in evidence (Krzyzaniak : –). Both domestic (sheep, goat and cattle) and wild (antelope) animal remains have been found at Kadero but the domesticated animals are clearly in the majority. Subsistence is based on herding, gathering, some hunting and at least partial exploitation of locally available cereals. Evidence from the cemeteries of Kadero points to a clear social hierarchy in the community and one that is quite advanced. What appears to be an elite, dominated by adult men also incorporates women and children and may point to inherited status within the social group (Krzyzaniak : –). The grave goods also indicate social distinctions, personal wealth and long-distance trade, in particular with the Red Sea. The ceramic assemblage displays variations in style and quality, which would argue for some craft specialisation. Krzyzaniak has compared the wealth of the Kadero elite with that of the Badarian. The Neolithic site of Kadero certainly displays a growing accumulation of goods and an increasingly complex social structure. It would appear to be an economy based on pastoralism which appears restricted to riverine envrionments in the th millennium bp whereas it spread further in the th millennium bp (Krzyzaniak : ). It is also an economy that is participating in external trade and exchange. Krzyzaniak has further hypothesised that in fact the Central Sudan displayed variable adaptations based around riverine, valley plain and wadi environments that reflected “a diversified picture of adaptation strategies . . . at the advent of the production of food” (Krzyzaniak : ) This idea of variable adaptations to precise environmental conditions is compatible with the heterogeneous character of cultural developments in Nubia, which contrasts to the seemingly more homogenous tradition, which developed in Egypt. As has been discussed above, however, regional variations within a broadly similar framework appear to mark the Upper Egyptian cultural development as well—variations on a theme as it were, influenced by topography and perhaps also a



chapter one

growing awareness of self. Were the people of communities such as Kadero amongst Caneva’s increasingly nomadic pastoralists? Were they amongst the ancestors of Trigger’s southern Nubians with whom the early Egyptian state set up direct trade relations at the expense of the A-Group? Or were they a combination of the two? The Deserts While the Nile Valley is the primary focus of this book, it cannot be seen in isolation. Gertrude Caton-Thompson was one of the first archaeologists to explore the Western Desert of Egypt and the relationship of the cultures of the desert and the Nile Valley. While survey and excavation work in the Nile Valley and to a lesser extent the oases, have been numerous it was not until the latter part of the th century that more explorations into the deserts and oases were undertaken. Fortunately in recent years this has changed and once again the desert and the Nile are openly talking to one another. The last decades have also seen the proposal that the development of the Predynastic Nile Valley culture was influenced by desert traditions (Friedman ); parallels can be drawn between cultural traits found in the desert and oases and those in the Nile Valley with the most important impact for contact being climate change (Hassan ; ; Midant-Reynes ). R. Kuper made some small scale preliminary investigations into the Western Desert (Kuper ) and this was followed up by the ACACIA project focusing on the prehistory of the Egyptian Limestone Plateau between the Nile Valley and the oases (Kindermann ; Riemer ). These explorations have concentrated on the central area known as the Abu Muhariq Plateau, investigating around  sites ranging from multiple occupation sites to simple hearth and fireplace remains that were probably only used once (Riemer and Kindermann : ). In combination with excavations and surveys being carried out at Dakhla, Kharga and Farafra oases and in the Eastern Desert, this work is not only covering a vast geographical range but is greatly contributing to our understanding of the influence of environmental and climate change on people’s behaviour and the relationship between peoples of the deserts, oases and Nile Valley. This period of early Holocene settlement of these desert regions is identified as the ‘Neolithic Wet Phase’ (Kuper : ). This is a time when, around , years ago, the environmental and climatic conditions changed, making the Sahara habitable once more albeit for only a few thousand years (Kuper : ). It was also during this period that mankind made the move from hunter-gatherer to farmer and pastoralist.

nubia and egypt



This Neolithic way of life had its origins in the so-called Fertile Crescent of the Near East and by the s Egypt and the Sahara were seen as the inheritors of this change in lifestyle and its technological innovations such as pottery (Kuper : ) although in the case of pastoralism this seems to have been an indigenous development in Africa. Interestingly there are several sites where pottery was found in the Sahara that can be dated as early as the earliest pottery of the Near East although the real hallmarks of the Neolithic including sedentism, agriculture and animal domestication are not as evident. One important site displaying aspects of the Neolithic is Nabta Playa located in the south of Egypt but away from the Nile Valley at about  km west of Abu Simbel (Wendorf and Schild , ). Nabta Playa is a basin which measures about  square kilometres and has a catchment area of more than  square kilometres which must have supplied seasonal surface water supplies at least. Around  archaeological sites have thus far been identified dating from the Epipalaeolithic through to the Neolithic (Wendorf and Schild ). The sites display a variety of features including semi-subterranean huts, bell-shaped storage pits, hearths and shaft wells. Several megalithic circular and linear arrangements of standing stones dating to the Late Neolithic have been identified. The stone slabs weigh several tons which points to communal building activity and their orientation to the cardial points would suggest their use for ceremonial activities. While some sites are relatively large with several houses built in rows it does not necessarily mean that Nabta Playa’s population was fully sedentary but rather that these sites were more frequented than others, displaying a more continuous but still seasonal occupation. Much can be gleaned from the Early Neolithic Site E-– about subsistence and economy, and domestic architecture. Radio-carbon dates suggest a date of ca.  bc for E-– which is located at the centre of the playa. Numerous remains of domestic architecture were found, made up of three to four rows of round as well as elongated huts of wattle and daub construction. Some were of considerable size with the elongated variety measuring up to  m in length while the round huts are up to  m in diameter and both types contained hearths and potholes. Faunal remains associated with the huts include bones of hare and small gazelle as well as large bovid or cattle bones. Cattle must have played a significant part in the economic and ceremonial life at Nabta Playa as two burials of long-horned cattle were found near one of the megalithic stone structures and further cattle burials were excavated in one of the wadis



chapter one

leading to the site. Sheep and goat remains do not appear until the Late Neolithic at Nabta Playa and must have been introduced as neither have natural ancestors in the region. Floral remains include wild sorghum, leguminosae and zizyphys seeds and fruit as well as apparently two grains of barley. Some ceramic vessels with incised herringbone decoration have been found but in such small quantities that it has been suggested that the majority of containers would have been made of perishable materials. In the Egyptian Nile Valley no pottery older than  years has been found (Kuper : ). Indeed both pottery and the Neolithic way of life seem to have come to Egypt somewhat late and ongoing studies and surveys are helping to understand the influence of climate changes on population movements and adaptations (Vermeersch : ). In comparing the ceramic technology in the Near East with that of the Sahara in the th millennium bc it becomes clear that well made pottery is in fact better represented in the latter. As many more excavations have been carried out in the Near East it would certainly seem that the making of pottery was an indigenous invention in the southern fringes of the Sahara (Kuper : ). Traditionally pottery has been closely associated with a Neolithic way of life although the term Pre-Pottery Neolithic used in the Levant shows that it was not essential.6 In addition, in its earliest appearances in the Sahara it is found in a context that includes bone harpoons along with the remains of fish, hippopotamus and crocodile indicating “relatively sedentary hunting and fishing communities living along the shores of permanent lakes” (Kuper : ). Gabriel Camps () identified two Neolithic traditions in the western Sahara. The first was the Capsian Tradition distinguished by pointedbase vessels and decorated ostrich eggshell; the second was the Saharan Sudanese Neolithic with globular jars that had an overall wavyline style decoration similar to the Khartoum style pottery, and bone harpoons. The reoccupation of the eastern Sahara was relatively rapid with the appearance of undecorated coarse-tempered pottery found at concentration  in the area of Regenfeld about  km north of Bir Kiseiba. The appearance of this pottery in ca.  bc seems to go hand in hand with the appearance of bifiacial flintknapping, a technique typical of the Predynastic in the Nile Valley (Kuper : ). It is interesting to note that an assemblage from Djara with bifacials including fine pressure flaking 6 A similar phenomenon can be seen in the J¯ omon culture of Japan where pottery appeared long before agriculture was adopted. See Habu .

nubia and egypt



reminiscent of Egyptian ripple-flake knives is only  km west of the site of Badari in the Nile Valley although the material at Djara is several hundred years earlier than comparable material from the Nile Valley (Kuper : ). The earliest appearance of domestic animals in the Sahara occurs in the northeast while the most recent appear at least  years later in the southernmost part of the continent (Kuper : ). Cattle were probably already domesticated in the eastern Sahara from local wild species, more than , years ago. Sheep/goat, on the other hand, are not native to Africa and must have come from Western Asia via the northeast of the continent (Kuper : ). Increasing aridity after ca.  bp made the desert regions increasingly less habitable and thus less inhabited. Change in the climate also put increasing limits on the frequency and pattern of contacts (Riemer and Kindermann : ). Wth the development of the Egyptian Dynastic culture the desert and Nile became more and more differentiated (Kuper : ). The timeline of the changes in climate and contact can be divided into four phases: the end of the Holocene wet phase in the deserts (Phase I); the beginning of the transition to the Early Predynastic in the Nile Valley ca.  bc (Phase II); the development into the Predynastic (Phase III) and finally (Phase IV), into the Late Predynastic and Early Dynastic (Riemer and Kindermann : ). In the first phase of this change studied in the Abu Muhariq Plateau, most sites dated to the final period of the Holocene wet phase which approximately covers the th millennium bc (Riemer and Kindermann : ). This timeframe also correlates with phase B at Djara (Kindermann ) and Late Bashendi A/Early Bashendi B at Dakhla (McDonald ). At this time the people of the desert were hunter-gatherers, exploiting wild plants but not cultivating domestic plants or exploiting pastoralism to any significant extent (Riemer and Kindermann : ). The subsistence pattern was heavily influenced by the fact that the oases were really the only permanent water sources; during the rainy season people could gravitate towards temporary water holes but during the dry months would have been restricted to the oases and possibly the Nile (as suggested with the presence of Nile dwelling molluscs at desert sites) thus creating an adaptive and mobile society enabling contact, both short- and long-distance (Riemer and Kindermann : ). While pottery is not found in any great numbers, sherds have been located, primarily in the southern part of the Abu Muhariq Plateau,



chapter one

dating to the th millennium bc (Riemer and Kindermann : ). Desert pottery has also been found around the Kharga and Dakhla Oases (Hope ; ; Warfe ). It may be possible to see an affinity in the distribution of desert pottery and that of the slightly younger Badarian/Naqada I pottery of the Nile Valley (Riemer and Kindermann ; ) but more work needs to be done on the latter. The appearance of simple vessels, some with blackened rims (Riemer ) and some that resemble the so-called Tasian beakers (Friedman and Hobbs ) may in fact be precusors to their Predynastic Nile Valley counterparts. The second phase that has been identified and dating to ca. –  bc sees the transition from the desert cultures to the Early Predynastic in the Nile Valley when the drying of the desert sees its depopulation with only the oases continuing to be occupied (Riemer and Kindermann : ). Now indeed seems to be the time of the cultural emerging of the oases and the Nile Valley. As mentioned this transitional phase and migrational shift may be seen in some of the desert cultural markers, particularly the black-topped ceramics and decorated beakers and, most distinctively the bifacial flint technology (Riemer and Kindermann : , fig. ). Differences do, however, become evident marking the shift in lifestyles (Kuper : ). The most fundamental change is in subsistence patterns. The Nile dwellers of the Early Predynastic are moving towards herding and agriculture and a more sedentary way of life with some fishing and hunting as the population adapts to new environmental conditions (Riemer and Kindermann : ). After  bc then, ones sees very little artefactual and occupational evidence from the Western Desert regions between Nile and oases and this evidence actually decreases in the Predynastic Period (ca. –  bc). Contact across the desert at this time appears to be sporadic indicating that little desert travel was taking place (Riemer and Kinderman : ). This view may change somewhat as more surveys are conducted; some of the results of the Theban Desert Road Survey may hint at this ongoing travel (Darnell, D : ; Darnell, J.C. a; b). As with other Western Desert sites in the mid-Holocene, Dakhla Oasis shared some basic Neolithic traits such as the production and use of pottery and grindstones with some evidence of domesticated cattle and some sedentism (McDonald : ). Bifacially retouched flint tools are also found as are polished stone axes (Eiwanger ). Items such as amazonite beads, stone lip plugs and shell bracelets are also traits

nubia and egypt



which are shared with the Khartoum Neolithic, the Post-Shamarkian in Nubia and Fayum A (Arkell and Ucko ; Arkell , Schild et. al. ). Dakhla also had stone circles which may be for shelters that would resemble those found at Merimde in the Delta and various Predynastic sites in Upper Egypt (Hassan ). This is indicative of cultural exchange between the deserts and the Nile Valley and as many of these traits appear earlier in the desert regions than in the Nile Valley it would certainly seem that the drying of the deserts played a role in their transmission to the Nile Valley ca.  bp (McDonald : ). The subsistence patterns of the Nile Valley dwellers, although not facing the same climatic deterioration as the desert people may have been profoundly affected by increasing migrations of people into the Nile Valley (McDonald : ). What then was happening in the Western Desert in the final development into the Late Predynastic/Early Dynastic phase of the Nile Valley? Studies at Dakhla indicate that the oases people were nomadic pastoralists rarely venturing beyond the oases themselves (Riemer and Kindermann : ). One find group of particular interest for this time is the so called Clayton rings found across the Eastern Sahara (Riemer ). These may point to a network of contacts across the desert although they remain enigmatic (Riemer ). The growing desertification of the Sahara did not necessarily mean old networks and contact routes were simply cut off and disused but it seems likely that such networks concentrated on specific routes and regions (Gehlen, Kindermann, Lindstädter and Riemer : ). A couple of unusual ceramic bowls excavated at cemetery U at Abydos also lend credence to the idea that contact continued between the desert and the Nile Valley (Hartung and Hartmann ). These bowls, from tombs U- and U- and dated to Naqada IIA/B, resemble ceramics from the Sheikh Muftah culture at Dakhla and if petrographic analysis confirms this then they would offer a direct link between the Nile and this oasis (Hartung and Hartmann : ). The tomb U- is of particular interest. It is a relatively large tomb and contained over  pottery vessels, a diorite macehead, copper implements, animal figurines, ivory fragments, galena and a turquoise pendant thus indicating the social status of the owner. The pottery included not only the probable Dakhla bowl but also an N-ware vessel and  black polished lug handled vessels. The N-ware is generally associated with Nubia whereas the black polished ware points more towards a northern, Delta influence. This tomb seems to have connections through its pottery to the north, south and west while the galena and turquoise seem to point to



chapter one

eastern contacts. The geographical range of people, both from the desert and the Nile Valley, and their level of contact and exchange does indeed seem to be widespread. Further south, excavations and surveys carried out by the University of Cologne in the Laqiya region (Wadi Shaw and Wadi Sahal), more than  km south of the Second Cataract, yielded a large number of archaeological sites containing a variety of ceramics some of which included AGroup ceramics (Lange : ). Further work by Lange has not only revealed more sites in the Laqiya region containing A-Group ceramics but also a copper awl and stone cosmetic palettes which also appar to be A-Group (Lange : ). Most of the material dates to the latter part of the th millennium bc. In comparing material from Nile Valley A-Group assemblages, Lange was able to demonstrate that the two groups of pottery were indistinguishable (Lange : ). As the Nubian A-Group subsistence economy is very much associated with cattle herding it may well be that these cattle herders were moving further than has so far been postulated (Lange : ). No Egyptian material predating the late th to early th Dynasties has been found in the region but at such a distance from Upper Egypt this is perhaps not surprising for this early period. These A-Group populations may have been attracted by better grazing land further to the south (Lange : ). In addition, southern Egypt and northern Sudan would still have been able to maintain a desert-based subsistence as A-Group (or related) pottery found at Bir Sahara in the Western Desert may indicate (Gatto –). The possible presence of A-Group nomads in the Western Desert would certainly also fit the picture of the A-Group in particular and Nubians in general as being largely dependent on herding, a picture which continued into the Old Kingdom.7 A similar picture appears to emerge in the desert regions to the east of the Nile Valley. Although the archaeological evidence from the Eastern Desert is a little later than that of the Western Desert, there are remarkable similarities in terms of reoccupation patterns (Vermeersch :

7 Note for instance the boast of Snofru in the Palermo Stone when he records raids into Nubia successfully carrying off , head of cattle. The figure of , seems overly high but the boast itself shows that cattle were considered a major part of the Lower Nubian economy. Harkhuf too mentions a gift of cattle and goats from a grateful (or contrite?) ruler of Irtjet, Setju and Wawat.

nubia and egypt



–). Work being conducted on the Elkabian culture of Upper Egypt is indicating that the Nile Valley, at least in Upper Egypt, may have had connections with not just the Western Desert regions but also those to the East. The desert regions east of the Nile Valley were also extremely important to the ancient Egyptians for the procurement of valuable stone, metals and minerals. Ancient texts show that in Pharaonic times the state was certainly sending out mining expeditions (Gundlach ) but there is evidence for Egyptian mining activites dating back to prehistoric times (Shaw : ). Such expeditions would have had to contend with long-distance travel and harsh environments and would also have had to deal with local populations. These local populations may indeed have been used as valuable guides. Terminology In this discussion the terms Naqada and A-Group are used to describe the main cultural groups living in the Nile Valley in the th millennium bc. These are of course modern terminologies and while convenient, they oversimplify the social and perhaps ethnic complexities that existed. The Naqada Culture The Predynastic Naqada culture derives its name from the site of Naqada in Upper Egypt. W.M.F. Petrie first divided this predynastic period into three phases; the Amratian (Naqada I), the Gerzean (Naqada II) and the Semainean. Subsequent work by Helene Kantor dismissed the notion of the Semainean as a separate culture which was the result of a foreign invasion and instead argued that there was a continuation of the previous periods (Kantor ). Petrie’s chronology has since been succeeded by the divisions of Werner Kaiser () and while Amratian and Gerzean are sometimes still used the terms Naqada I, Naqada II and Naqada III with their further subdivisions are preferred. Briefly, the Naqada culture was initially confined to Upper Egypt. In the Naqada I phase the material culture extended from Matmar in the north to Khor Bahan in the south. By the Naqada II phase, the culure was no longer limited to the Naqada-Matmar region but was attested in the Fayum and the eastern Delta as well as further south (Midant-Reynes : ). The final phase, Naqada III is subdivided



chapter one

into Naqada IIIA, B, C and even D. The Naqada IIIA and Naqada IIIB have been seen as the final phases of the Predynastic. The Naqada IIIB phase sees the emerging dynastic state and the appearance of named rulers (Dynasty ) (Kaiser and Dreyer ; Dreyer , ; MidantReynes : –) whose influence extended into the Memphite region in the north and possibly as far south as the Second Cataract. The term Protodynastic for the Naqada IIIA–B period is perhaps preferable in light of the excavations at cemetery U at Abydos, in particular the grave U-j, clearly the grave of an important ruler possibly called Scorpion (Dreyer ; Hartung ). Naqada IIIC may be equated with the First Dynasty beginning with Aha. Several recent studies have demonstrated that the Naqada culture actually displayed regional variations (Köhler ; Friedman ; Holmes ) which can be seen in both pottery and lithic assemblages. For the purposes of this study the Naqada culture refers generally to an essentially Egyptian culture of the Nile Valley. The chronological sequence for the Naqada period used in this study can be seen in figure  below. This chart shows the primary chronologies used at various times in the study of the Egyptian Predynastic and Early Dynastic periods from Petrie’s initial sequence dating through Kaiser’s stufen and finally to Hendrickx’s further refinement of the Naqada stufen (Hendrickx , , ). In addition the corresponding Lower Nubian chronologies have been included. The A-Group Culture George A. Reisner’s excavations in Egyptian Nubia in – established the identification of what has become known as the A-Group culture (Reisner ). Reisner’s definitions accounted for historical periods only; when it came to prehistoric material he viewed it as Egyptian and used Petrie’s classification system (Petrie and Quibell ). Reisner’s AGroup was in fact the final phase of Lower Nubian prehistory, contemporary to the end of the Naqada III period in Upper Egypt, into the earliest Egyptian dynasties (Reisner ; Kaiser ; Gatto ). Further work by C.M. Firth (Firth ; ; ) and especially the salvage campaigns of the ’s under the auspices of the UNESCO have continued to improve and clarify what we mean by the A-Group and although new terminologies were proposed such as “A-Horizon” (Adams ), Reisner’s name has continued in predominant use. The work of Gatto and Tiraterra () has postulated that we should talk of A-Groups rather than a homogeneous A-Group. In keeping with

nubia and egypt



several studies demonstrating that the Naqada culture also displayed regional variations (Köhler ; Friedman ; Holmes ) this makes excellent sense. Broadly speaking the A-Group is a cultural complex geographically located between the First and Second Cataracts, with influences from the Abkan and Khartoum Variant as well as from the Naqada culture(s) of Egypt, but one that shows regional variations. How the A-Groups and Naqadans saw themselves and each other is difficult to see in the archaeological material but the question of ethnic as well as cultural diversity is one that shall be raised. In this discussion a line has been drawn between Egypt and Nubia in the First Cataract region which was to become Egypt’s southern political border. Thus Nubia is south of Aswan and Egypt is north of and inclusive of Aswan. This is a relatively arbitrary division based on the st Dynasty border and used for convenience. Political borders do not necessarily reflect cultural borders. Thus, the actual ‘border’ between Naqadan and A-Group cultures is much more difficult to define as Egyptian material appears in A-Group contexts and vice versa. The Aswan area in particular has been described as having a Nubian flair (Kopp : ) and ongoing work in the AswanKom Ombo region (Gatto ; ) highlights the ‘grey zone’ of any concept of cultural border.



chapter one

Figure . Chronological Sequence for the Naqada Period Years bc

Petrie’s SD



Kaiser’s Stufen

Hendrickx

Egyptian Kings

IIID IIIC

Qaa Semerkhet

IIIc IIIC



IIIc Semainean 

Djer Aha Narmer

Terminal A-Group Terminal Late A-Group A-Group

IIIb IIIB



IIIa

IIIA



IIIa

Gerzean

IId



IId

IIIA IID IID



IIc

IIC



IIb

IIB

IIa

IIA





Classic A-Group

IIIb



Kopp8

IIIC Irj-Hor/ Ka



Williams

Anedjib Den Djet

IIIc 

Nordström

U-j Middle A-group Classic A-Group

Early Early A-Group A-Group 

8

Amaratian –

Ia–c

These chronological dates are based on material from Elephantine. See Kopp .

chapter two EGYPT IN NUBIA

Introduction Nubia has invariably been tied to its northern neighbour geographically, culturally, historically and also in the scientific study of its people and artefacts. When Reisner first identified his A-Group through his work at Shellal, he noted the similarities between its pottery and that of the Predynastic Egyptians. Indeed Reisner looked upon the Predynastic material in Lower Nubia as the remains of an Egyptian migration (Reisner : ; Reisner : ). Chronologically, Reisner’s A-Group does not begin until the Early Dynastic Period. Thus, from the very beginnings of scientific investigation in Nubia, Egypt has been given the starring role. Subsequent work in Nubia, in particular the UNESCO salvage campaign of the s, has altered the perception that initial settlement in the region was the result of Egyptian migration although the idea of Nubia’s inherent ‘backwardness’ has not entirely disappeared. While it is generally accepted that the A-Group was indigenous to the land of Nubia, rather than an introduced Egyptian phenomenon, there is still debate over its complexity and how it influenced and was influenced by its neighbours. Egypt again takes a central position due to the large number of Egyptian artefacts found in Nubian contexts. It is, therefore, of benefit to re-examine what artefacts have been found, in what numbers and where. The Land of Nubia The climate in Nubia is extreme with incredibly hot summer months and mild winter months which can nonetheless turn very cold (Adams : ). There is also very little rainfall between Aswan and Dongola between the Third and Fourth Cataracts which means that rain fed agriculture is not possible. Prevailing winds in Nubia also create problems for the local population causing damage to mudbrick structures and encroaching on farm land (Adams ; –). Nevertheless the Nile means that the region is habitable even if the traditional flooding of the Nile did not



chapter two

deposit as much fertile soil as it did in Egypt. In addition the lower water levels of the Nile in Nubia has meant that irrigation methods such as the use of the waterwheel (saqia) and the lever-lift (shaduf ) are not as effective in Nubia as they are in Egypt. Vegetation in Nubia is virtually the same from Khartoum to Aswan in the riverine areas of Nubia but the situation varies considerably in the desert regions (Adams : ). The dom palm which is native to Nubia is found along the desert margins and its trunk serves as a source of timber for building houses, particularly furnishing the roofs (Adams : ). Acacia trees are numerous in Nubia, valuable for boat building, housing, grazing for goats and possibly for charcoal. The official Weni even mentions acacia for building barges, some of which came from Wawat.1 Young shoots of halfa grass are also an important source of grazing for domestic animals. In the deserts rainfall alone allows for the presence of vegetation and this gradually increases as one travels from north to south although the sandstone plateau in Lower Nubia has no vegetation except in times of sporadic, short-lived rainfall (Adams : –). As rock drawings show, Nubia was home to a range of game such as giraffes, elephants, rhinoceros, hippopotamus and gazelle. Other desert animals such as foxes and jackals also lived in the region as well as the leopards/panthers whose pelts the Egyptians desired particularly as they became scarcer in Egypt itself. In this same vein ostrich feathers and eggs (Phillips ), live animals as well as their skins (van Driel-Murray : ) and ivory (Kryzyszkowska and Morkot ) were also sought from the increasingly more reliable sources in the south (Adams : ) Birds and fish are also seasonally available in Nubia just as they were in the Egyptian Nile and were important to the Nubian subsistence (Adams : –). While Lower Nubia was never able to sustain agriculture on the same scale as Egypt, it was a region that was able to provide (or provide access to) other resources. Nubia is most often associated with gold but it has been suggested that in fact copper was the material which first created an interest in the area (Adams : ). The Wadi Allaqi is a convenient gateway to many of the natural resources available in the Eastern and Nubian Deserts such as cornelian, steatite, quartz and possibly amethyst (Andrews : –; Aston, Harrell and Shaw ; Ogden ) and it seems no coincidence that there is a concentration of A-Group

1

URK I, .

egypt in nubia



remains in this region. The Wadi Allaqi and its tributaries were also where most of the Egyptian mines have been found and thus access to this region was extremely important (Adams : –). Diorite and granite were exploited from the region west of Toshka, and sandstone was also quarried from various parts of Nubia. Amethyst mines are known from Gebel el-Asr  km northwest of Abu Simbel (Shaw : ) although to date most evidence for amethyst exploitation in Nubia dates from the Middle Kingdom onwards. Amethyst was certainly being exploited in Predynastic times but the only known source dating to at least the st Dynasty is from Wadi Abu Had which is in the Eastern Desert adjoining Middle Egypt (Shaw : ). Gebel el-Asr also yielded cornelian near the gneiss quarries although it is not clear if these were exploited in ancient times (Engelbach : , : , ; Aston, Harrell and Shaw : ). It certainly seems no coincidence that these regions are where the Nubians themselves also concentrated and congregated. A-Group Ceramics The A-Group had its own ceramic tradition and assemblages. The Nubian ceramic wares tended to be tempered with animal dung or with a sandy ash mixture. They are often softer and lighter than the mass-produced Egyptian imports probably due to less sophisticated firing methods (Needler : ). The shapes and finish of Nubian pottery can also help to distinguish them from Egyptian wares. The forms are predominantly rounded or pointed ovoid forms generally with open or slighly inverted mouths (Needler : ). The surfaces are often less highly polished than Upper Egyptian pottery and the decorated A-Group pottery has incised or impressed decoration or a very narrow blackening at the rim. The earliest A-Group sites seem to be concentrated in the northern part of Lower Nubia. The sites of Khor Bahan, El Kubbanieh Sud, Shellal Cemetery  (graves –) and Dakka Cemetery  all show similar characteristics. They are in the region of the First Cataract, closely resemble Naqada I graves (ie Upper Egyptian), contain primarily Nubian goods such as Nubian pottery and the remains of leather garments, and also contain some Egyptian pottery. Other sites from this earliest period which have yielded Egyptian goods include Seyala Cemetery  (grave ) and  (grave ), Masmas cemetery  and possibly also Amada, Aniba, Ballana and Dabud.



chapter two

The number of Egyptian ‘imports’ noticeably increases in the Middle A-Group phase with an increase particularly in pottery from Upper Egypt, which coincides with the northern spread of the Naqada culture apparently through trade and other contacts. This made for a broadly homogenous material culture in the Nile Valley, with regional variations, and may have included the northern-most A-Groups. What Is Egyptian Pottery in Nubia? The scope of the work of the First Archaeological Survey was huge and the work was conducted using the best scientific methods of the time and indeed George Reisner was a pioneer of scientific archaeological method. His work also established the relative dating of the various Lower Nubian cultural assemblages and his excavation reports and those of his successor, C.M. Firth were extensive. However, the terminology used to describe and discuss the pottery is not always clear or consistent. For instance, in some cases a description might simply be ‘as’ or ‘like’ a particular type. In general Reisner’s first report is more detailed and descriptive than Firth’s subsequent reports but both present problems. Reisner established his own terminology, largely based on Petrie’s work and terms such as black-topped pottery, red polished pottery, decorated pottery and wavy-handled pottery are commonly used (Reisner : –). Firth does not use Reisner’s exact terminology but generally follows it. The most easily identifiable Egyptian pottery vessels are those that belong to Petrie’s categories of decorated (D-) ware, wavy-handled (W-) ware and to a lesser extent late (L-) ware as they are given the most obvious descriptions even if not always illustrated or photographed. Blacktopped pottery is much more problematical as it is generally difficult to distinguish, based on the published descriptions, between Egyptian black-topped and what could be locally made pottery of a similar type. Black-topped pottery appears in early assemblages of the th millennium bc which seems to have been due to the use of simple firing methods but which subsequently became a deliberate decorative element (Arnold and Bourriau : ). It was made during the Badarian and Naqada I–II periods in Upper Egypt but was later confined to Nubia where it continued for much longer. Where the term black-mouthed ware is used this is taken to be the varieties of A-Group manufacture as per Nordström’s AIX and AX which he dates to the Middle to Terminal A-Group. Along with other material, the types of pottery found in A-Group graves may also give an indication of ethnic identities in the region.

egypt in nubia



In order to study the available material based on the excavation reports I have attempted to follow as consistent a terminology as possible. In this light Table  below outlines the terminology used by Reisner and Firth and how this has subsequently been interpreted based on the terminologies of Petrie (a), Nordström () and Williams (). Erring on the side of caution, where there was any doubt about the specific type of pottery being described it has not been counted as a possible Egyptian import. Table . Ceramic Terminology Reisner’s terminology2 EP I black-topped pottery EP II red polished pottery EP III (–) black or brown ware, black incised filled with white EP III () red-polished brown decorated with white lines MP I MP II red-polished ware MP III pink ware MP IV smooth coarse red ware LP I black-topped pottery LP II black-mouthed pottery LP III plum polished pottery LP IV pink ware LP V decorated ware LP VI LP VII smooth coarse ware ED I black-topped pottery ED II mud ware ED III plum-polished ware ED IV pink ware ED V burnished ware

Petrie’s terminology (also Nordström)3 B-ware P-ware N-ware C-ware B-ware P-ware D-ware and F-ware and W-ware R-ware B-ware (Nordström’s Type Group AIX, possibly AX) P-ware L-ware and D-ware D-ware W-ware L-ware, figurines (Nordström’s Type Group AIX, possibly AVII) (Nordström’s Type Group AI) P-ware L-ware F-ware? (Nordström’s Type Group AVIII)

2 Based on G.A. Reisner, The Archaeological Survey of Nubia. Report for –. volume I Archaeological Report, National Print Department, Cairo, . 3 Based on W.M.F. Petrie and A.C. Mace, Diospolis Parva. The Cemeteries of Abadiyeh and Hu, –, Egypt Exploration Fund, London, . Also H.-Å. Nordström, Neolithic and A-Group Sites, Volumes . and . of the Scandinavian Joint Expedition to Sudanese Nubia, Uppsala .



chapter two

Reisner’s terminology (cont’d)

Petrie’s terminology (also Nordström)

EDVI decorated ware ED VII pink ware

D-ware L-ware (Nordström’s Type Group AXIn, p) EDVIII wine jars L-ware (Nordström’s Type Group AXIq) ED IX W-ware ED X smooth coarse ware R-ware, L-ware? (possibly Nordström’s Type Group AIe, g) Smooth coarse red brown ware R-ware Hard pink ware/fine hard pink salmon D-ware, W-ware, L-ware ware

As the earlier site reports are sometimes lacking in detailed descriptions a set of general guidelines has been used to determine dating. These are outlined below: – Firth uses the generic term wavy-handled jars which he differentiates from wavy-handled cylindrical ware. Where no illustration is given this term is taken to be the earlier broader forms of W-ware and a broad date of Naqada IIC–D is given. – Where the term wavy-handled cylindrical jars is used this is taken to be W-ware of Naqada IIIA date as opposed to the more advanced cylindrical jars of Naqada IIIB. – The term wavy-handled cylindrical jars with net-painted pattern is much more specific and these vessels are dated to Naqada IIIA following the chronology of Hendrickx (). – Another more specific term used is cylindrical jars with an incised line around the neck and these are dated to Naqada IIIB based on the chronology of Hendrickx (). – While not particularly common, decorated ware does occur in AGroup contexts although not always with a detailed description or accompanying illustration. Decorated ware that is described as having simple vertical or horizontal painted lines or splashes of painted decoration are taken (based on those that do have accompanying illustrations or photographs) as later forms with more rudimentary decoration dating to Naqada IIIA–B. Other forms with pierced side handles and more elaborate decoration including imitation of stone vessels, whorl decoration or figural decoration are dated earlier (Naqada IIC–D) according to Kaiser’s stufe.

egypt in nubia



– While it is not common several of the later cemeteries do contain very fine, thin-walled A-Group pottery. Various terms are used to describe such wares. These include “buff potsherds of thin ware black polished inside, linear pattern in red outside” (Reisner : , Fig. , ); “jar thin red ware, red painted patterns” (Firth : ); “deep bowl thin black cored ware; orange-red painted and polished, with darker painted basket-pattern” (Firth : ). Firth in particular used the term “basket pattern”. These are taken to be the so-called eggshell ware which dates to the Terminal or Late A-Group and which does not appear earlier than Naqada III. Other Egyptian Material While chapter five discusses in more detail the possibilities of imported objects in both Egypt and Lower Nubia, in analysing the material from the cemeteries studied only those objects which can be most confidently assigned an Egyptian origin (either manufactured in Egypt or coming via Egypt) have been included. Cosmetic palettes are found in both Egyptian and A-Group contexts and appear to be part of a shared tradition. Siltstone (commonly referred to as slate) was not readily available to the people of Lower Nubia, nor do the figurative shapes often used for these palettes feature in what are considered local Nubian palettes, which tend to be lozenge-shaped. Therefore the siltstone palettes should be considered Egyptian in origin. Based on the raw material, siltstone bracelets have also been considered Egyptian imports. Stone vessels are also here considered Egyptian imports; indeed working in stone generally, is seen as a particularly Egyptian skill. Stone vessels are not common in A-Group contexts and there is no evidence to suggest that the Lower Nubians themselves were working stone into vessels and access to the raw materials appears to have been limited. Copper objects have traditionally been viewed as Egyptian in origin. While all copper objects have been included in this study as Egyptian this will be further discussed, both in this chapter and in chapter five. Copper objects are limited which is probably partly due to plundering. However, it is particularly worked copper objects such as chisels and axeheads that should be viewed as imports as there is no evidence that Lower Nubians were working copper into such objects. Copper exploitation in fact is linked rather with northern sites such as Maadi in Lower Egypt and, as shall be discussed, the more ‘sophisticated’ copper objects have parallels in the Levant as well as Egypt.



chapter two

Stone maceheads are also not common to A-Group sites. Those found are identical to the stone disc and pear-shaped maceheads found in Egyptian contexts and have been taken here to be of Egyptian manufacture. They should probably be seen as prestige objects associated with the status of authority. High quality flint artefacts such as fishtail knives and bifacial knives are also taken to be Egyptian as they are extremely rare in Lower Nubia and no A-Group equivalents have been found. While not included in the various tables they are discussed when present. Amulets are slightly more problematic as there is no reason to suggest that the A-Group were unable to create such objects themselves. However, various forms are so close to those found in Egyptian contexts, and at the same time are not found in any great quantities in Lower Nubia, that they have been included in the discussion as possible Egyptian imports. They may have been more common than the finds suggest but as they are very small, they may have easily been lost or overlooked. Cylinder seals have also been included as possible imports. The idea of using such seals in fact does not originate in Egypt or Nubia—an import then in itself. They were subsequently made locally in Egypt and the idea, and indeed the seals themselves, may have come to Nubia via Egypt. They are rare and each seal will be discussed on a case by case basis (and are also discussed in chapter four in terms of their iconography). In the case of ivory objects, these have generally not been taken to be Egyptian imports in this study, although the combs with decorated heads could be seen as such. There are very few such objects; in addition ivory was widely available to the people of the A-Group and there is no reason to suppose that they were not able to work the material themselves. The decorative elements used for cosmetic objects such as the combs might have been influenced by the Naqada culture and it is possible that they could have been introduced by northerners but it is equally possible that there was a shared cultural tradition that had the same repertoire. Faience is also not taken by default to be an Egyptian import as it is likely that the A-Group was also manufacturing glazed material, mostly beads (Lacovara ). In his publication of cemetery L at Qustul, Williams differentiates between Egyptian faience and locally manufactured faience material but this appears to be an exception and will be discussed in the context of that cemetery (Williams : , ). Some manufactured items made of gold will also be discussed although not included in the tables. Linen or cloth is sometimes reported in A-Group contexts. However, the amounts are very limited and often, particularly in the older reports,

egypt in nubia



not described or identified in detail. While linen/cloth is discussed as a possible import from Egypt into Nubia it is not included in the statistical analysis. Those objects considered of Egyptian manufacture or origin will be presented in the form of tables for each cemetery discussed where relevant. The following symbols have been chosen to indicate Egyptian material:

= Egyptian pottery including D-, W-, R-, L-ware

= all shapes of Egyptian siltstone (‘slate’) palettes = all types of Egyptian stone vessels = all copper objects = all stone maceheads = siltstone (‘slate’) bracelets = amulets = cylinder seals

What Are A-Group Graves? Cemeteries of the A-Group have yielded a large amount of information and show a fairly high level of variability. Generally the graves are oval or circular in shape with one or sometimes two lateral niches although rectangular graves with rounded corners are also recorded (Adams : –; Emery : ; Reisner ). Tomb  at the elite cemetery  at Hierakonpolis also has a similar side-chamber type (Adams : ). Another is a type of bee-hive shape with one chamber or two chambers, one on top of the other and these generally appear in the northern part of Lower Nubia (Reisner ; Firth ; ; ). Superficially it appears that most of the A-Group graves do not have any superstructures but this is probably due to erosion, (Adams : –). Certainly the fact that the tomb pits were sometimes opened more than once indicates that they were visible and thus probably marked in some way, for example by a tumulus. The shafts themselves were sometimes sealed



chapter two

by stone slabs. Bodies were laid in a contracted position generally with their head facing west wrapped in matting, animal skins or occasionally cloth, possibly linen. At Qustul remains of wooden beds have also been recorded (Williams ). Multiple burials are not uncommon. Burials are usually accompanied by grave goods including local and Egyptian pottery, stone vessels, cosmetic palettes, maceheads, copper implements, personal ornaments, incense burners, and clay figurines as well as shells, seeds and fruit (Gatto : ; Shinnie : ; Adams : ). Animal burials also occur, either in human graves or independently. Animal burials occur mainly in the First Cataract area and date to the Early A-Group (Gatto ). Several animal graves are found in cemetery L at Qustul which is later in date and much further south and it has been suggested that this is in imitation of animal burials found within the elite cemetery at locality  in Hierakonpolis (Gatto : ; Adams ; Friedman ). It may however, be of indigenous Nubian origin, reflecting the importance of cattle to the society. In his first report Reisner classified Predynastic and his B-Group graves into six types, some of which also had sub-groups (Reisner : –). These are briefly outlined below (see Pl. ). Archaic type Ia are oval graves which are nearly circular. Archaic type Ib are oval graves. Archaic type IIa are broad rectangular graves with rounded corners. Archaic type IIb are broad rectangular graves with squared corners. Archaic type III are circular graves. Archaic type IVa are circular beehive graves. Archaic type IVb are rectangular beehive graves. Archaic type V are double beehive graves. Archaic type VIa re recess graves with a sunken chamber. Archaic type VIb are simple recess graves.

Reisner dates types IV, V and VI as Late Predynastic and Early Dynastic and suggests they could be covered with stone slabs ostensibly for protection although he states that earlier graves had wooden roofs as in Egypt (Reisner : ). Reisner saw the disappearance of these forms as part of Lower Nubia’s cultural degredation over time (Reisner : ). In addition Reisner listed several burial types classified by the treatment of the body (Reisner : –, Figs. –). The main type for the Predynastic and Early Dynastic period is his type I, where the body is loosely contracted, generally on the left side, oriented south which is similar to Upper Egypt (Reisner : ). Coverings of leather, matting, skins and sometimes linen occur although very little of this type

egypt in nubia



of material was recovered. Pot burials were not common. Reisner classified his burial type II as a modification of type I and equated them with poor graves in Egypt in the nd to th Dynasties. Type III and IV are also seen in the Predynastic but also occur in Reisner’s B- and C-Groups. Reisner states that while his type V does occur in the Predynastic, it is uncommon until later times (Reisner : ). He saw types I and IV as larger types while the smaller, narrower types II, III and V were, in the early periods at least, poorer graves. Reisner’s B-Group is no longer recognised as a separate group and in fact the graves are largely indistinguishable from A-Group graves apart from their comparative poverty (Smith ). These poorer graves may in fact be an indication of social differentiation within the A-Group (Adams : ). The Sites—The Nubian A-Group Cemeteries between Aswan and Wadi Halfa The following map (Fig. ) shows the approximate borders of the various Nubian surveys conducted in the th century up until the construction of the Aswan High Dam. This examination concentrated on funerary evidence using material from  cemeteries containing  tombs altogether (see Table  below). The sources used comprised material excavated by the First Archaeological Survey (Reisner ; Firth , , ), the Second Archaeological Survey (Emery and Kirwan ), the Scandinavian Joint Expedition (Nordström ) and the Oriental Institute, University of Chicago expedition to Qustul cemeteries L, Q, S, T, V and W (Williams , ). In all instances the sequence of cemeteries as published by the authors has been followed. The salvage expedition results used offer perhaps the most complete and comprehensive publications of material from Lower Nubia although the first two surveys do present problems which shall be outlined, and give a good geographical representation of the material from north to south between the First and Second Cataracts. The cemeteries at Qustul, particularly L, are small and narrow in scope but they are included here for the exceptional richness of their finds. They also offer an important contrast to the overall material discussed.



chapter two

Figure . Map of Lower Nubia indicating the approximate areas of the Nubian Archaeological Surveys.

egypt in nubia



Table . A-Group Cemeteries Studied st Archaeological Survey (Reisner and Firth –)

nd Archaeological Survey (Emery and Kirwan)

Cemetery Shellal  Khor Bahan  Khor Ambukol  Dabod  Qamar  Meris Markos  Siali  Dehmit  Dehmit  Dehmit  Dehmit  Dehmit  Metardul  Moalla  Gerf Hussein  Gedekol  Mediq  Mediq  Koshtamna  Koshtamna  Ikkur  Ikkur  Dakka  Dakka  Dakka  Dakka  Dakka  Dakka  Dakka  Dakka  Kuban  Wadi Alagi  Wadi Alagi  Wadi Alagi  Qurta  Qurta  Sheikh Sharaf  Seyala  Seyala  Seyala  Naqa Wadi  Cemetery  Total 

Cemetery Korosko  Amada  Amada  Ineiba  Tushka  Tushka  Kolotod  Tamit  Abu Simbel  Abu Simbel  Naga Zebeida  Naga Iryan  Cemetery  Naga Hawari  Total 

 of graves               (+ x)                     a few        Total  + x

 of graves small cemetery      (?) (?)   (?) (?) (?) (?) Total  + x

Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago (Williams) Cemetery Qustul L Qustul W Qustul V Qustul S Qustul Q Qustul T Total 

 of graves       Total 

Scandinavian Joint Expedition (Nordström) Cemetery Serra East  Debeira  Debeira  Ashkeit  Ashkeit  Ashkeit  Ashkeit  Ashkeit  Ashkeit  Sahaba  Halfa Degheim  Abka  Gamai  Total 

 of graves              Total 



chapter two

Figure . Map of Lower Nubia showing principal sites mentioned in the text.

egypt in nubia



The map on figure  shows Lower Nubia between the Aswan/First Cataract region and the Second Cataract indicating the principal Lower Nubian sites mentioned in the text. The map also indicates the major wadis which connect the Nile Valley with the resource rich Eastern Desert. As will be further discussed it seems that the main A-Group concentrations are in the northerm-most region close to the First Cataract, at the mouth of Wadi Allaqi and in the Second Cataract region. State of Preservation of the Cemeteries As can be seen in Table  below, virtually all the cemeteries examined had been disturbed by plundering and/or sebbakh-digging and sometimes by natural denudation. In spite of this destruction the amount of material that could be excavated was still considerable. However, caution has been taken in assigning material to graves within this study; where material is said to come from the debris or near a particular grave it has been discussed but excluded from the overall material. The numbers after site names are those given by the excavators, thus Shellal  refers to cemetery  at Shellal. Table . Sites Studied and Their State of Preservation State of Preservation Disturbed

Undisturbed

Shellal  Khor Bahan  Khor Ambukol  Dabod  Wadi Qamar  Meris Markos  Siali  Dehmit  Dehmit  Shem Nishai  Dehmit  Dehmit  Metardul  Moalla  Gerf Hussein  Gedekol  Mediq  Mediq  Mediq  Mediq  Mediq 

Unknown



chapter two

Disturbed (cont’d)

Undisturbed

Unknown Koshtamna  Ikkur 

Ikkur  Dakka  Dakka  Dakka  Dakka  Dakka  Dakka  Dakka  Dakka  Kubban  Wadi Alagi  Wadi Alagi  Wadi Alagi  Qurta  Qurta  Sheikh Sharaf  Seyala  Seyala  Seyala  Naga Wadi  ? (site name unknown)  Korosko  Amada  Amada  Ineiba  Tushka Shenq  Tushka Shenq  Kolotod  Tamil  Abu Simbel  Abu Simbel  Naga Zebeida  Naga Iryan  Naga Difturki  Naga Hawari  Ashkeit  Qustul L Qustul W Qustul V Qustul Q Qustul T Serra East  Debeira  Debeira  Ashkeit 4

4

This was a predominantly C-Group cemetery with  graves dating to the A-Group.

egypt in nubia Disturbed (cont’d)

Undisturbed



Unknown

5

Ashkeit Ashkeit 6 Ashkeit 7 Ashkeit  Sahaba 8 Halfa Degheim  Abka  Gamai 

Possible Nature of Exchange Something imported implies materials or items that are not made or found in a society or region but which have made their way there through human intervention. These items can be raw materials such as minerals, metals, precious stones, flora or fauna; or man made goods such as pottery, jewellery, foodstuffs which have been produced or processed in some way (eg. beer, wine) and fabric such as linen. Such goods can enter a society or region in many different forms such as gifts or tribute, as traded commodities, as one end of an exchange, or as redistribution from a third source. The way an imported item becomes part of a group’s cultural makeup depends on the relationship between the two or more parties involved, socially, culturally and politically. It should be noted that simply because an artefact, such as a ceramic vessel, resembles one found or known to be manufactured elsewhere it does not necessarily follow that it originated elsewhere. For instance there is evidence to suggest that pottery found in Kerma and previously believed to be Egyptian imports based on stylistic analysis alone were in fact locally produced copies of Egyptian wares (Bourriau : ). This demonstrates that trade and exchange can be in ideas and information as well as material goods. Once they have arrived, commodities can then be redistributed and/or reused within a social group. Again this depends on the nature of the exchange itself and also on the value placed on the imports within 5 This site was made up of  pits and graves. Only those designated as graves were included in the study. 6 This site was made up of  pits and graves. Only those designated as graves were included in the study. 7 This site was made up of  pits and graves. Only those designated as graves were included in the study. 8 This site was made up of  storage pits and  graves and pits. Only those designated as graves were included in the study.



chapter two

the receiving group. For instance, are the goods exchanged by private individuals who then redistribute them amongst the rest of the group? Or are they traded within a market which incorporates many individuals or representatives of various social or political entities? What is being exchanged may give an indication of the type of exchange being made. That is, were luxury goods or ‘ordinary commodities’ being exchanged? The former implies prestige while the latter may imply a more mutually profitable trading relationship (Renfrew and Bahn : –). With a few exceptions our knowledge of the Nubian A-Group comes from cemeteries from Kubbaniya north of Aswan to at least the Second Cataract region in the south. The artefacts found in these cemeteries coupled with the few habitation sites that have been examined certainly show contact with Egypt and include ceramics, copper implements, amulets, stone vessels and siltstone palettes. Ceramics easily account for the largest number of Egyptian objects. Cemeteries in particular reveal a large number of Egyptian pots and interestingly these are not luxury wares but rather ‘day-to-day’ vessels which would probably have been used for transportation and storage purposes. In other words, it is most likely that they contained goods such as foodstuffs and drink which were imported into Nubia from Egypt and which were subsequently reused and/or redistributed among the local population. However, how far did this distribution/redistribution flow? Was it confined to one area? And did the distribution of these imports change over time? With a view to better understanding the nature of contact and exchange between Egypt and the A-Group a detailed re-examination of the Nubian sites purported to contain Egyptian material is necessary. What sites contained Egyptian material? In the broader perspective this will indicate just how widespread the distribution of Egyptian material in Nubia really was. Where Egyptian material appears, what exactly is found both in terms of the material itself and its dating? Are we looking at a trade in luxuries alone or in more practical or day-to-day commodities? Does the type of imported material change over time? And does the geographical distribution change over time? Finally where Egyptian material is found in what proportion is it to indigenous Nubian material in the same context? For the following analysis this study concentrates on Egyptian pottery, siltstone palettes, Egyptian stone vessels and copper objects taking these to represent imports from Egypt. A more detailed discussion as to why these particular objects were taken to be Egyptian objects is outlined below.

egypt in nubia



The First Archaeological Survey of Nubia from Shellal to Gebel um Simbela The raising of the Aswan Dam created a pressing need for systematic archaeological survey of the area to be affected. George A. Reisner was given the task of organising this substantial effort and directly carried out the work in the – season with the work of subsequent seasons being conducted by C.M. Firth. Working from north to south, the cemeteries that were excavated by Reisner and Firth are re-examined and paying particular attention to that which could be considered Egyptian imports. Cemetery  Shellal (Reisner : –) The site was largely denuded as well as showing signs of plundering. The graves dated to the A-Group have also been identified by Elliott Smith as containing the bodies of Egyptians whereas he described those of the so-called B-Group and C-Group as displaying increasing racial mixtures between Egyptians and ‘negroes’. In other words early excavators saw the A-Group as essentially the same group of people as the early Egyptians but paralleled the ‘deterioration’ of the local culture with some sort of racial impurity. While the similarities between the Predynastic and particularly Early Dynastic southern Egyptians and Lower Nubian populations cannot be denied, nor can the differences, however small. The cemetery was divided into a number of groups by Reisner but Table  below indicates the total number of graves of Predynastic and Early Dynastic date for the entire cemetery. The  unclassified graves were counted but are excluded from the study due to the lack of datable material in them. The graves classified as containing Egyptian material include graves which have clearly Egyptian material such as pottery or siltstone palettes in the debris and therefore not in a solid context. Those graves with material only in the debris will not be included in the final analysis. Egyptian material includes pottery, stone vessels and maceheads, siltstone palettes and copper objects.



chapter two

Table . Cemetery  Shellal  graves9

Unclassified graves10

Animal graves

Graves with no Egyptian material11

Graves with Egyptian material











An attempt has been made to date the graves containing Egyptian material. Very precise dating is difficult due to the fact that the material is not always described in detail or accompanied by detailed line drawings or photographs. When the date was in some doubt (for example when only one vessel or object was in the assemblage) a conservative approach was taken and the grave placed in the broadest lifespan of the object. Dating is based on the work of Petrie (), Kaiser (), Hendrickx (; ) and Nordström (). The term Predynastic has been used to indicate where Egyptian material was found but not in situ. Naqada I–III is used where Egyptian material is found in the grave context but cannot be more precisely dated (see footnote ). In some cases it will be clear to the reader that actually the grave is probably closer to Naqada II–III based on the whole cemetery but for consistency these will be specifically mentioned. The dating of Naqada II–III indicates that Naqada I can be excluded but cannot be more precisely dated than the long phase of the nd half of the th millennium. In both of the latter cases it must be emphasised that Naqada III does not include Naqada IIID, which dates to the nd Dynasty, as there is no archaeological evidence for the A-Group in the Nile Valley after the second half of the st Dynasty. Table  below indicates the dating of graves in cemetery  that contained material of Egyptian origin in an attempt to show whether Egyptian material becomes more or less frequent over time.

9 This is the total number of graves Reisner assigned to his Predynastic, Early Dynastic and B-Group phases. 10 These are graves which could not be dated as they did not contain datable material or were later graves within the cemetery. 11 This includes graves where there was material in the debris but could not be defined as Egyptian or Nubian.

egypt in nubia



Table . Cemetery  Shellal: Dating of Graves Date

 graves Dynastic12

Predynastic/Early Naqada I–IIIC13 Naqada II–IIIC Naqada IIC–D Naqada IID-IIIA Naqada IIIA–C Naqada IIIA Naqada IIIA Naqada IIIA Naqada IIIA–B Naqada IIIA-B Naqada IIIB Naqada IIIA-C

    14   15     16

Total



Table  below indicates the types of Egyptian grave goods found in the cemetery and their date. Table . Cemetery  Shellal: Egyptian Material

Date

 graves

Predynastic/Early Dynastic Naqada I–IIIC Naqada II–IIIC Naqada IIC–D Naqada IID-IIIA Naqada IIIA–C Naqada IIIA

      

12

      

      

      

      

      

Predynastic/Early Dynastic is used to indicate the presence of Egyptian material that is only found in the debris associated with a grave. 13 Naqada I–III is used to indicate Egyptian material listed in the grave contents but cannot be more precisely dated, for example an artefact merely described as a “rough siltstone palette” (Reisner : ). 14 The dating of this grave () is based on the presence of a Wavy-handled vessel which compares with Petrie’s W/. However based on Hendrickx’s chronology this vessel would be Naqada IID only. 15 The dating for this grave () is based on the presence of a vessel of D-ware that compares with Petrie’s D types. 16 This grave () is given a broad date range based on the fact that it is a double burial containing older pottery types (IIIA W-ware) and younger types (IIIC cylindrical W-ware) and may indicate that the interments were made at different times with one assemblage belonging to an earlier burial.



chapter two

Date (cont’d)

 graves

Naqada IIIA Naqada IIIA Naqada IIIA–B Naqada IIIA-B Naqada IIIB Naqada IIIA-C

     

     

     

     

     

     

Total













The majority of the graves fall into the Naqada III period and the amount of Egyptian material would seem to increase in this period, particularly the pottery. The largest assemblages of Egyptian pottery are in the Naqada IIIA-B periods. Stone vessels and maceheads only appear in the earlier graves and copper not at all. Graves –, , and – (Reisner : –) These graves largely date to Naqada IIIA to Naqada IIIB, into Naqada IIIC. Graves  and  were completely plundered and the debris contained “Coptic and archaic potsherds, mixed” (Reisner : ) and were not included. The clearest indication of material of Egyptian origin is in the pottery, a stone vessel (, a multiple burial) and siltstone palettes (, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ). The pottery vessels most easily identified are storage vessels of hard pink ware (marls), wavy-handled cylindrical jars and decorated ware (Petrie’s D-ware, Reisner’s EDVI). Other pottery vessels are more difficult to identify based on Reisner’s descriptions alone. The stone vessel is simply described as an alabaster cup and so from the material is taken to be Egyptian in origin. Graves of Interest Grave  had been disturbed and all that remained was a broken stone palette and in the debris some cornelian pendants and a few shells. However, the debris also contained a siltstone scorpion amulet (Reisner : , Pl.  a.) which fits into Petrie’s Sequence date of – (Naqada IIIA–C). Grave  was a multiple burial with three adult males and was relatively undisturbed (Reisner : ). Among the grave goods was a rectangular siltstone palette with incised border lines which probably dates to early Naqada III and there was also an ‘alabaster’ cup which

egypt in nubia



should be given a younger date closer to the st Dynasty. It is possible that the interments were made at different times as the plates indicate that the three could be uncovered in a sequence (Reisner : Pls. a–d). An amulet of dark green steatite (Reisner : Pl. a.) should probably also be dated to early Naqada III and was associated with the lowest burial. Grave  (Reisner : ) was also disturbed and contained the remains of two skeletons, one an adult female and the other of a young male. Along with hard pink storage jars, wavy-handled cylindrical, netpatterned jars (Petrie’s W type) dating to Naqada IIIA, ivory bracelets and a rectangular siltstone palette the grave also contained several beads and pendants of various materials (mother of pearl, carnelian, green stone, and garnet) and four scorpion amulets of a translucent green stone. Another double burial, , (Reisner : ) contained two cylindrical W-ware vessels. One has the net-patterned decoration of Naqada IIIA while the other is described as a cylindrical jar of white ware with an incised line just below the rim which dates to Naqada IIIB. It is possible that the earlier form was considered as a type of heirloom or valuable enough to keep or that the two burials were placed in the grave at different times. Grave  gives a clear indication of the poor state of preservation of the burials or the level to which they have been disturbed. In the excavation report the grave is listed as being “in the wood closet of the fish-cook’s shop” (Reisner : ). Cemetery : Graves – (Reisner : –) Although listed as part of Cemetery , the graves – were situated “on the knolls around the southeastern corner of the plain” (Reisner : ) and thus were above the plain on which the previous graves were situated. This group contained  graves (numbers – were not used) of which nine were animal burials without grave goods. Number  is described as “a small brick enclosure” and “no tomb” (Reisner : , original emphasis). Of the fifty-two remaining burials, the majority were plundered. Twelve of the plundered graves contained no offerings apart from body wrappings, while of the unplundered graves, four contained only wrappings. Reisner dated all these graves to his Early B-Group (Reisner : ). H.S. Smith, however, has convincingly argued against a distinct B-Group culture and has demonstrated that the majority of these graves probably date from Naqada I to Naqada III/Dynasty  while the



chapter two

rest should be dated to the C-Group (Smith : ). Of the  graves excavated the vast majority contained no material that could be considered of Egyptian origin. Four contained siltstone palettes and one () contained a stone disc mace-head (Reisner: ). Cemetery : Graves –, , –,  and  (Reisner : –) Reisner dated this group of graves, with the exception of , to his Late B-Group (Reisner : ). They are situated on five ridges or knolls just to the south of the graves – (Reisner : ). H.S. Smith’s analysis, however has placed all but two graves in this area into the CGroup period (Smith ). Grave , containing two interments (one male and one female), was particularly rich in finds. Associated with the adult male were a copper piercer, a copper adze and a copper axe as well as a necklace of small gold beads and two ivory armlets (Reisner : –). Reisner puts the adze into the st to rd Dynasties based on comparisons with Naga ed-Deir, the copper axe into the st to th Dynasties and the gold beads into the st to rd Dynasties, again based on comparisons with Naga ed-Deir and should probably be assigned to the C-Group (Reisner : ). Cemetery  Bahan (Reisner : –) (see Pl. ) When the cemetery was first noticed (December , ), the surface had been considerably disturbed . . . by the villagers taking out the mud stratum . . . for use as fertilizing material for the fields. The lower terraces had suffered still more from the same cause; and the lowest terrace of all, being near the edge of the reservoir, had recently been made into a cultivated field. (Reisner : )

Table . Cemetery  Bahan Unclassified Animal Graves with no Graves with  graves graves graves Egyptian material Egyptian material 









The cemetery is roughly divided into three terraces; the top at the  m level, followed by a  m level and finally a  m level. The top terrace contained approximately  burials, the  m level contained three graves as well as “empty pans, potsherds and broken bones” (Reisner : ), and the lowest level had potsherds and broken bones but no

egypt in nubia



graves. The graves in the uppermost terrace were dated to the Early and Middle Predynastic by the excavators and a re-examination of the report would suggest that this is generally correct. Table . Cemetery  Bahan: Dating of Graves Date

 graves

Predynastic/Early Dynastic Naqada I–IIIC Naqada I Naqada I–IIA Naqada IC–IIA Naqada IIA–C Naqada IIC–D Naqada IIC–IIIA Naqada IIIA Naqada IIIA

 17      18 19 20

Total



This cemetery was greatly disturbed through sebbakh-digging and ancient plundering. Of the approximately  graves that Reisner excavated,  are published in his report. Of these  are animal burials (Reisner : –) mostly dog burials. Reisner did not consider any of these burials to contain grave goods although graves ,  and  did contain matting on the animals and in the case of grave , linen was also placed over the dog. The burials are scattered throughout the cemetery. Table . Cemetery  Bahan: Egyptian Material

Date

 graves

Predynastic/Early Dynastic Naqada I–IIIC Naqada I Naqada I–IIA

   

   

   

   

   

   

17 Amongst this group is grave . It contained black-topped red ware beakers of Naqada I type but also a cylindrical alabaster jar of Early Dynastic date. There was no burial remaining so it is unclear if it was a multiple burial which may have been used at different times or if it had been a single interment in which case the earlier pottery forms would appear to have been heirlooms or simply valued by the occupant. 18 The dating for this grave () is based on two R-wares comparable to Petrie’s R. 19 The dating for this grave () is based on the presence of a vessel of W-ware and L-ware the latter of which compares with Petrie’s L. 20 This is based on the presence of a W-ware vessel with net-patterned decoration.



chapter two

Date (cont’d)

 graves

Naqada IC–IIA Naqada IIA–C Naqada IIC–D Naqada IIC–IIIA Naqada IIIA Naqada IIIA

     

     

     

     

     

     

Total













As Table  demonstrates, cemetery  at Khor Bahan dates predominantly to the late Naqada I to late Naqada II and thus the majority of Egyptian material is found in these groups. Copper is not common at any time and the Naqada I–IIA phase is where we see the bulk of stone maceheads, often in conjunction with prestigious flint knives, including fishtail knives, which may be an indication for increasing competition, social stratification and the growing importance of the image of a powerful, generally male, figure. Khor Bahan is very close to the First Cataract region and the large amount of Egyptian material may indicate that sites in the very north of Lower Nubia are, in the early Naqada periods, broadly similar to those of Upper Egypt and may be seen as part of a shared tradition. The importance of the site may have declined as there appears to be very little late Naqada material but as the site is very heavily disturbed it is hard to judge. Of the remaining  published graves,  appear to contain material of Egyptian origin although seven of these graves have Egyptian material in the debris as opposed to a fixed context. The Egyptian material includes ceramics, stone vessels and maceheads, siltstone palettes and copper objects as well as flint knives. In the graves with flint objects (, , , , , , , , ,  and ) the material includes arrowheads, bifacial knives and fishtail knives. For these graves where the gender of the grave owner could be determined they were all adult males and in some cases the graves also contained maceheads (/, , , , , ). These types of flint knives are not common and are certainly not generally found in A-Group contexts. The earlier graves (, , , , , , , /, /, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ) are characterised by black-topped red-polished ware with some black or brown ware decorated with white lines (Petrie’s C-ware) and black or brown pottery with incised and white filled decoration (Petrie’s N-ware). Without an analysis

egypt in nubia



of the clay the exact origin of the black-topped red ware is difficult to determine although the shapes seem to point to an Egyptian one. The N-ware has generally been given a Nubian origin as incised ware, particularly since the paste-filled incised decoration is alien to Egyptian pottery but is seen in Nubian pottery. The N-Ware in Khor Bahan cemetery  has been placed in the earlier phase of this type of pottery giving it a Naqada Ic–IIa date possibly into Naqada IIb (Glück : ) which is consistent with the overall dating of the cemetery. Other goods found in these earlier graves which could be seen as Egyptian in origin are siltstone palettes (, , , –, , , , , , , , , ). The majority of these are diamond or rhomboid shaped but a palette in the shape of a turtle (:), one in the shape of an ox (:) with an eye inlaid in shell, two carved in the shape of a fish (: head found in debris, :) and one of a stylised double bird head (:) were also found. Several stone vessels were found (graves , , , , ). These all appear to be small vessels and jars of ‘alabaster’ (, , ), basalt (, ) or breccia (). Grave  is curious as the remains of a burial are not recorded in the text (Reisner : ) although the photograph seems to indicate that there was a burial it is difficult to determine if the bones visible are part of the same pit (Reisner : Pl. b). All grave goods but an ivory container and an ivory comb are stone vessels. It is possible that this is not a grave at all but an offering deposit as part of a burial ceremony. Other stone objects in this cemetery are maceheads as indicated above. A possible Egyptian origin may be seen in the copper implements (, , , ) of which all but one (:) are needles. The copper objects in grave  are described as rivets. The debris associated with grave  contained beads described as green-glazed and therefore possibly of faience but no other evidence for faience can be seen in these earlier graves. The later graves (, , , , , –, , , , , ) are characterised by fewer black-topped red polished wares, plum polished wares, hard pink storage vessels and decorated wares. Also included is one wavy-handled vessel () which should be dated to Naqada IID (Petrie’s W type) and one wavy-handled net-patterned ware vessel in grave  (Petrie’s W dating to Naqada IIIA) and smooth coarse red ware. Grave  also contained a squat jar of pink ware perforated side handles and decorated with red whorls (Petrie’s D-ware type e). This is the only D-ware vessel in the cemetery.



chapter two

Only two of these graves contained siltstone palettes. Grave – (possibly one grave) had a broken siltstone palette and grave  had two turtle-shaped siltstone palettes and a crescent-shaped siltstone palette. Grave  yielded the largest number of objects in this group of graves including pottery, the above-mentioned siltstone palettes, strings of beads including green-glazed beads and a copper knife. There were two burials in this grave, both adult females. With the exceptions of four examples of Petrie’s Fancy-ware (:///) and some polished red ware it is difficult to definitively assign the pottery to local or Egyptian origin. Only one grave () yielded a stone vessel. Firth dated  graves to the so-called B-Group, the Old Kingdom or as indeterminate (, , , , , , , , , , , , , ?, ?, , , , , , , , –?, , , , , , , , ). Of these only three can be said definitely to have Egyptian material. Graves  and  both had siltstone palettes and grave  contained a black-topped red ware pot and a bowl of smooth coarse red ware both of which could be Egyptian and had green-glazed beads in the debris. Grave  did yield a black and white porphyry palette which could be Egyptian in origin based on the material. Quarry sites for porphyry are only known for the Roman period but sources are available in the Eastern Desert, particularly northwest of Hurghada (Aston, Harrell and Shaw : ). It is possible that such stone was sourced by the local population. Some graves also had potsherds of a hard pink ware which could also be Egyptian but are described as being used as digging implements and their identification is not conclusive. The dating of these graves is indeed problematic but it would seem to fit rather with H.S. Smith’s argument against a separate B-Group culture (Smith ). The graves are very much disturbed and appear to be rather poorer and simpler graves in comparison to those of the earlier group described above. Many of the grave goods are made up of red-polished black-topped ware, shell bracelets and armlets, shells, rough palettes and rubbing stones and some flint flakes. Graves of Interest The assemblages from graves  and  are possibly to be seen as one assemblage as number  is described as either a plundered grave or objects thrown out of  (Reisner : ). The assemblage is quite rich and contains a lot of material in spite of being heavily plundered. It contained a large quantity of red-polished black-topped ware, some red-polished ware and a bowl of N-ware. It also contained a black basalt footed vessel, several worked flints including two lozenge shaped knives

egypt in nubia



and a projectile point and a diorite disc-shaped macehead (Reisner : –) indicating the high status of the grave owners. Grave  also had a rich assemblage although it too had been heavily plundered (Reisner : –). The partial remains of a young adult was in the grave which contained five flint knives, several flint blades and a breccia hammer head. It also contained an ox-shaped siltstone palette and two tusks decorated with incised patterns. Grave  also contained a male skeleton who had been buried with two flint knives and a stone disc macehead. One of the knives appears to be of the type known as a Hemmamiya knife. This appears to be a pattern with male burials of a certain status. Several graves are interesting as they contain large quantities of grave goods that appear relatively undisturbed but where the body of the deceased has been entirely removed. Grave  contained vessels of redpolished black-topped ware, two fishtail knives, three copper needles and a siltstone palette (Reisner : –, Fig. ). The southern end of the grave was empty. Grave  contained two maceheads, a large quantity of pottery vessels, two horn implements similar to grave , ivory combs, a long fringed leather garment and a leather kilt but again the body had been removed. All the grave goods appeared to be largely undisturbed (Reisner : –, Fig. ). Grave  contained three stone maceheads, several pottery vessels cooper rivets and a decayed animal horn. Several of the pottery vessels were still sitting in an oval basket and much of the grave goods appeared to be untouched but there were no remains of a burial (Reisner : , Fig. ). Like graves  and  the grave had a clean area where a body may have once been placed. The removal of the burials is curious but it may be explained by some form of ancestor worship or by plundering where the grave robber was specifically looking for objects likely to be found on the deceased’s body. At least one grave contained gold objects described as bow tips (Reisner : , Pl. . a., ) albeit from the debris, and this was probably the type of object that a thief was aiming for. Grave  was a double interment, both females. Among the grave goods was a large quantity of pottery, two of which were fancy forms of Petrie’s F- type. One vessel is described as boat-shaped and has an incised figure of an elephant (Reisner : –, Fig. , ). Additionally the grave contained three siltstone palettes, a copper knife (Reisner : , Pl. .b.), bead necklaces of which one is described as having silver beads and several flint flakes. Part of the assemblage falls neatly into a Naqada IC–IIA date while the rest falls into a later



chapter two

Naqada IIC–D date which demonstrates the transition of various forms. It is possible that the bodies were buried at different times and we may even be looking at a mother and daughter. It was certainly a wealthy burial, indicating that the two women were of high status. The later burials in this cemetery were considerably poorer than the earlier ones. Cemetery  Khor Ambukol (Reisner : –) This cemetery was heavily affected by denudation and sebbakh-digging (Reisner : ). The excavator only assigned  pits to the B-Group, two were just pottery jars buried in the sand and one was a goat or sheep burial. Of the remaining ,  contained no grave goods or only matting and leather. Only threes burials could possibly be assigned to the AGroup period. The graves are listed below in Table . Table . Cemetery  Khor Ambukol Unclassified Animal Graves with no Graves with  graves graves graves Egyptian material Egyptian material 









Only one grave () could be said with certaintly to contain any Egyptian goods and these are listed in Table  below. Table . Cemetery  Khor Ambukol: Egyptian Material

Date

 graves

Naqada IIIA–C 











Total













Grave  contained an ivory comb and a stained siltstone palette was found  cm west of the grave; grave  contained a small roughly rectangular alabaster palette (but the dating of this is uncertain); and grave  contained a lozenge-shaped siltstone palette, worn in the centre. Cemetery  Dabod (Reisner : –) At Dabod the physical formation permits the cultivation of a comparatively large area, and the ancient cemeteries indicate, as was to be expected, a continuous population (Reisner : )

egypt in nubia



. . . this one . . . contained a great assortment of burials . . . The archaic series included bodies belonging to the Late Predynastic and Early Dynastic (AGroup), to the “Archaic Nubian” or Late Ancient Empire (B-Group) . . . (Smith, G.E. and Woods : )

Cemetery  at Dabod is heavily disturbed both through plundering and sebbakh-digging which the excavators noted was continuing even as they were digging. Dating is problematic and many of those graves dated by the excavator to the B- and C-Groups could also fall into the A-Group. What remains, indicates a simple cemetery for ordinary people. Table . Cemetery  Dabod Unclassified Animal Graves with no Graves with  graves graves graves Egyptian material Egyptian material 









The overall dating of the cemetery is late Naqada II to early Naqada III as demonstrated in Table . Table . Cemetery  Dabod: Dating of Graves Date

 graves

Predynastic/Early Dynastic Naqada I–IIIC Naqada II–IIIC Naqada IID

   21

Total



The number of grave goods is quite limited but this is undoubtedly due to the poor state of preservation of the site as can be seen in Table  below. Table . Cemetery  Dabod: Egyptian Material

Date

 graves

Predynastic/Early Dynastic Naqada I–IIIC Naqada II–IIIC Naqada IID

   

   

   

   

   

   

Total













21

The dating of this grave is based on a W-ware vessel and two D-ware vessels.



chapter two

The majority of Egyptian material is pottery and is seen in the late Naqada II – early Naqada III periods. The pottery includes decorated ware and wavy-handled ware and one grave contained two stone vessels. Of the  graves published, only  can be safely dated to the Predynastic/Early Dynastic periods. Of these  indicate Egyptian artefacts. These are ceramic finds (predominantly wavy-handled jars), siltstone palettes (graves , , ,  and ) and stone vessels (grave ). Grave  also contained lapis lazuli which should also be considered an import (Reisner : ). Grave  is actually a large pottery vessel that contained fragments of bone and cloth (Reisner : ). The vessel was repaired in antiquity and is decorated with both human and animal figures. It is difficult to tell from the publication which is the top and which is the bottom of the fragment shown. As seen in the publication there are four human figures all wearing what appears to be a sash, forming a line before a quadruped and a cloaked human figure. To the left of these figures are at least five more human figures without sashes. There are also traces of four quadrupeds on the right side of the vessel below which are three circular objects with vertical rectangular shapes coming from them. It is unclear what this is but it could be a cluster of trees (Reisner : , Fig. ). Cemetery  Wadi Qamar (Reisner : –) Lying between two stretches of the alluvial bank, cemetery  has suffered from denudation and heavy plundering. Of the  graves dated to Pre- and Early Dynastic periods,  could be said to contain Egyptian material. Amongst the graves classified as C-Group, one (grave ) can be dated to the Naqada IIIA period. Table . Cemetery  Wadi Qamar Unclassified Animal Graves with no Graves with  graves graves graves Egyptian material Egyptian material 









The dating of the graves is listed in table  below. Most of the graves date to the mid-late Naqada II period with three dated to the Naqada IIIA period based on the presence of wavy-handled cylindrical jars with netpatterned decoration.

egypt in nubia



Table . Cemetery  Wadi Qamar: Dating of Graves Date

 graves

Predynastic/Dynastic Naqada I–IIIC Naqada I Naqada II Naqada I–IIA Naqada IIB–D Naqada IIC–D Naqada IID Naqada IIIA

22 23 24  25    

Total



The graves contained objects of Egyptian manufacture and these are outlined in Table  below. Table . Cemetery  Wadi Qamar: Egyptian Material

Date

 graves

Predynastic/Early Dynastic Naqada I–IIIC Naqada I Naqada II Naqada I–IIA Naqada IIB–D Naqada IIC–D Naqada IID Naqada IIIA

        

        

        

        

        

        

Total













Table  would seem to indicate that there is not much change in the amount of Egyptian material over time. It is predominantly pottery along with a few palettes and stone vessels. The pottery consists of wavy22

This grave () is actually described as a pile of debris from a grave but it did contain plum polished ware. 23 A more precise date has not been given to this grave () as the siltstone palette is a double bird headed type which has a long lifespan and a bowl of plum polished ware which can be seen throughout the Naqada period. The appearance of an A-Group blackmouthed vessel may indicate that this is a Classic-Terminal A-Group period grave. 24 This one grave () contained a black-topped vessel seen throughout the Naqada I period. 25 Grave  contained a wide-mouthed black top jar that is seen in Naqada I and into IIA (Petrie’s B).



chapter two

handled jars, sherds and vessels of hard pink ware, D-ware and plum polished ware. There are three graves (,  and ) containing siltstone palettes. Grave  containing the remains of one adult female, had cloth and goatskin on the body the former of which may have been linen. There were scraps of copper found as well as a fan of ostrich feathers tied at the base with leather. Cemetery  Meris-Markos (Reisner : –) The early cemeteries in the Meris-Markos plain were on the larger knolls along the western side, as if the plain had been under cultivation during the period previous to the New Empire. (Reisner : ).

This is a large cemetery, or rather group of cemeteries. The excavators certainly divided the groups of graves (Cemetery :; Cemetery :; Cemetery :; Cemetery :–; Cemetery : –; Cemetery : –; Cemetery :). The early grave groups are Cemetery :; Cemetery : and Cemetery :. Table . Cemetery  Meris-Merkos Unclassified Animal Graves with no Graves with  graves graves graves Egyptian material Egyptian material 









In the groups  graves are published and of these only  contain artefacts of certain Egyptian origin. These are pottery vessels, stone palettes and copper objects. One grave () contained possible traces of linen but this is uncertain. The graves of :  often contained leather or hide. It is also interesting to note that graves – are all considerably larger than the others in this cemetery and are set apart. They all appear to have been greatly disturbed and little remains beyond a few pots although three of these are wavy-handled jars and two at least can be dated to the Naqada III period. It is possible that these were the graves of elites that were obvious to plunderers as a source of wealth. The cemetery can be dated to mid Naqada II down to Naqada IIIB as seen in Table  below.

egypt in nubia



Table . Cemetery  Meris-Merkos: Dating of Graves Date

 graves

Predynastic/Early Dynastic Naqada II Naqada II–IIIC Naqada IIB–C Naqada IIB–D Naqada IIC–D Naqada IID Naqada IIIA–B Naqada IIIA Naqada IIIB

  26 27 28  29  30 31

Total



The Egyptian pottery is generally of the hard pink ware of storage vessels (wavy-handled jars, cylindrical jars and D-ware). Some pottery remains are difficult to distinguish as local or Egyptian from the descriptions, such as black-topped ware (grave ) or smooth coarse brown ware (grave ). Six graves contain palettes (graves , , , ,  and ), four of which are siltstone, one is a hard greenish stone and one is limestone. Three of the siltstone palettes are diamond-shaped. Three graves contained copper objects (,  and ). One is a needle (), one a copper ring () and the third simply described as a fragment of oxidised copper found in the debris (). Table  outlines the types of Egyptian material and their relative dating.

26 This grave () contained Late Predynastic pottery but could not be further defined (Reisner : ). 27 The dating of this grave () is based on the presence of an R-ware vessel comparable to R-b/R- in Petrie’s Sequence Dating (Reisner : ). 28 This grave () contained a bowl of R-ware that could not be further narrowed in date (Reisner : ). 29 This grave () is dated based on an R-ware vessel (Rd) and a W-ware vessel () the latter of which would be Naqada IID according to Hendrickx’s chronology (Reisner : ). 30 Grave  contained a cylindrical pottery vessel with net-patterned decoration (Reisner : ). 31 Grave  contained a cylindrical pottery vessel of “hard buff ware” with an incised line just below the rim (Reisner : ).



chapter two

Table . Cemetery  Meris-Merkos: Egyptian Material

Date

 graves

Predynastic/Early Dynastic Naqada II Naqada II–IIIC Naqada IIB–C Naqada IIB–D Naqada IIC–D Naqada IID Naqada IIIA–B Naqada IIIA Naqada IIIB

         

         

         

         

         

         

Total













Almost half the graves containing Egyptian material cannot be securely dated as the material is found in the debris and not in a firm context. Most of the rest of the tombs fall into the mid-Naqada II to Naqada IIIA–B. Most of the material is pottery and the largest number (after the Predynastic group) dates from late Naqada II to IIIA–B. Only  palettes were uncovered and these were sometimes very worn indicating a long use life. Cemetery  Siali (Reisner : –) This cemetery had been heavily disturbed by sebbakh-digging, particularly in the area north of the modern village (Reisner : ). Table . Cemetery  Siali Unclassified Animal Graves with no Graves with  graves graves graves Egyptian material Egyptian material 









Of the graves of Predynastic/Early Dynastic date six were completely empty and the excavator listed them as of Archaic type (C-Group) and two graves (, ) were also listed as not belonging to the Early Dynastic cemetery. Three were animal burials,  had no Egyptian material and  contained artefacts of Egyptian origin. Two of these  graves only had Egyptian material in the debris. The graves date across the Naqada period but the majority that can be dated fall into the late Naqada II to mid Naqada III period as Table  demonstrates.

egypt in nubia



Table . Cemetery  Siali: Dating of Graves Date

 graves

Predynastic/Early Dynastic Naqada I–IIIC Naqada II–IIIC Naqada IIC–D Naqada IIC–IIIA Naqada IID–IIIA Naqada IIIA–B Naqada IIIA Naqada IIIA Naqada IIIA Naqada IIIB

  32   33  34 35  

Total



Once again the Egyptian artefacts are predominantly pottery vessels as can be seen in Table . There are also palettes, copper objects and one stone vessel. Table . Cemetery  Siali: Egyptian Material

Date

 graves

Predynastic/Early Dynastic Naqada I–IIIC Naqada II–IIIC Naqada IIC–D Naqada IIC–IIIA Naqada IID–IIIA Naqada IIIA–B Naqada IIIA Naqada IIIA Naqada IIIA Naqada IIIB

          

          

 36         

          

          

          

Total













32 The only datable material in grave  was a double bird-headed siltstone palette which is found in both the late Naqda II and Naqada III periods (Reisner : –, Pl. . b.). 33 Grave  contains a plum polished ware vessel that is comparable to Petrie’s Pb (Reisner : ). 34 Grave  contained a vessel of L-ware comparable to Petrie’s L as well as a slimmer form of L-ware (Reisner : , Figs. , ). 35 Grave  contained a W-ware vessel which is comparable to Petrie’s W which Hendrickx places in the Naqada IIIA period (Hendrickx ). 36 One of the graves () is described as containing a “schistose” palette which is taken to mean siltstone (Reisner : ).



chapter two

The pottery vessels are generally storage jars, including wavy-handled and cylindrical jars. One pottery object is that of a hippopotamus in hard pink ware with brown stripes (grave :). There are  graves containing palettes of possibly Egyptian origin (graves , , , , , , , , ,  and ) and of these eight are siltstone, one is a black and white stone and two are greyish-black stone. The copper objects are found in four graves (, ,  and ). One () is a wire bracelet, one () a copper harpoon, one described as a “copper dog, wrapped in fine linen, on string around neck” of burial B (Reisner : ) and the fourth in grave  was a copper scorpion from behind the neck of burial C. Grave  was a multiple burial with three skeletons which contained not only the copper scorpion but also several pottery vessels and an ivory pin with a seated ape at the top. One grave () contained a porphyry bowl as well as a rough wavy-handled jar. Also of special importance is grave  in which “the aperture in the south wall had been closed with stones and heavily plastered with mud” (Reisner : ). This mud bore a number of impressions of a seal cylinder (Reisner : , Pl. .f). This seal impression is discussed in further detail in chapter . Cemetery  Dehmit (Reisner : –) Cemetery  contains a very uniform set of graves, and probably belongs entirely to the later Predynastic period . . . The other graves are not so easily determinable. (Reisner : )

Table . Cemetery  Dehmit Unclassified Animal Graves with no Graves with  graves graves graves Egyptian material Egyptian material 









Of the  graves recorded from Cemetery ,  contain material of possible Egyptian origin but  of these contained material in the debris alone. Table  shows the date range for the cemetery which is largely late Naqada II to early Naqada III.

egypt in nubia



Table . Cemetery  Dehmit: Dating of Graves Date

 graves

Predynastic/Early Dynastic Naqada I–IIIC Naqada II–IIIC Naqada II Naqada IC–IIA Naqada IIB–D Naqada IIB–IIIC Naqada IIC–D Naqada IIC–IIIA Naqada IIC Naqada IID–IIIA Naqda IID

   37 38    39 40 41 42

Total



The Egyptian material found in the cemetery is shown in Table  below. Once again pottery predominates although some siltstone palettes are also among the finds. Table . Cemetery  Dehmit: Egyptian Material

Date

 graves

Predynastic/Early Dynastic Naqada I–IIIC Naqada II–IIIC Naqada II Naqada IC–IIA Naqada IIB–D

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

37 Grave  contained a vessel which is comparable to Petrie’s R which occurs throughout the Naqada II period. 38 Grave  contained a boat-shaped vessel which falls into Kaiser’s stufe IC, However more recent research has shown that the division between IC and IIA is not so clear cut. Where Kaiser has dated material exclusively to IC I have broadened this dating to include IIA. 39 Grave  contained a wavy-handled jar with a reference to type L.P. VI,  which is not a very distinct line drawing and therefore the vessel could fall into the whole range of Naq IC to IIIA but not later (Reisner : , Fig. ). 40 Grave  contained B-ware that resembles Petrie’s B which only appears in Kaiser’s IIC period. It also contains a B-ware vessel of earlier date (Reisner : ). 41 Grave  contained a small vessel of plum polished ware comparable to Petrie’s P type (Reisner : ). 42 Grave  contained a wavy-handled vessel comparable to Petrie’s W along with a slightly older D-ware (Reisner : ).



chapter two

Date (cont’d)

 graves

Naqada IIB–IIIC Naqada IIC–D Naqada IIC–IIIA Naqada IIC Naqada IID–IIIA Naqada IID

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

Total















The amount of Egyptian pottery found in the cemetery appears to remain fairly steady. The unequivocally Egyptian pottery is made up of wavyhandled jars (graves , , , ,  and ), and D-ware (graves ,  and ). Possible Egyptian vessels are hard pink wares (, , , ,  and ). Several fragments are also described as hard fine pink ware plum polished on the inside and the rim. Only four graves contain siltstone palettes (graves , ,  and ) and these were the only palettes found. Grave  contained a siltstone bracelet. The only metal object recorded as a copper fish-hook from grave . The graves of this cemetery were badly affected by plundering and sebbakh-digging and those the excavator described as of undetermined date were particularly disturbed. Note that a lot of the ‘Egyptian’ vessels were deep bowls of hard pink ware, plum polished inside and partly on the rim, common to late Naqada II and early Naqada III. The bowls themselves do not seem to be in any way remarkable or particularly suited to transporting goods. On the other hand, they may have been common storage bowls for certain commodities and therefore traded. Cemetery  Dehmit (Reisner : –) . . . it is not surprising to find cemeteries representing a continuous and considerable population from the Predynastic period to the present day. (Reisner : )

The graves in this cemetery appear to be quite disturbed. Of the  graves examined,  were empty and only  had artefacts of an Egyptian origin (see Table  below).

egypt in nubia



Table . Cemetery  Dehmit Unclassified Animal Graves with no Graves with  graves graves graves Egyptian material Egyptian material 









This is a small cemetery which is, as the excavator states, quite uniform in date. As the table below shows the majority of dateable graves belong to the mid-late Naqada II period, possibly going into Naqada IIIA. Table . Cemetery  Dehmit: Dating of Graves Date

 graves

Predynastic/Early Dynastic Naqada IIB–D Naqada IIC–D Naqada IIC–IIIA

   

Total



Of the Egyptian material it was mostly, in fact almost exclusively, pottery but only a wavy-handled vessel in grave  is certain (see Table  below). Two other graves contain a (?) diorite palette (grave ) and a siltstone palette (grave ). This latter was the least disturbed grave. Table . Cemetery  Dehmit: Egyptian Material

Date

 graves

Predynastic/Early Dynastic Naqada IIB–D Naqada IIC–D Naqada IIC–IIIA

   

   

   

   

   

   

Total













Cemetery  Shem Nishai (Reisner : –) The cultivation is also answerable for extensive sebbakh-digging in the tops of the knolls. But part of the damage to the cemeteries was due also to modern plundering for antiquities . . . At any rate the cemetery was in a condition of great confusion, and although about  graves were cleared, only a few were unplundered in recent times. (Reisner : –)



chapter two

Cemetery  close to the village of Shem Nishai had been affected by the cultivation as well as heavy sebbakh-digging and modern plundering (Reisner : –). The excavator divided the area into  ‘blocks’. Unfortunately there are some discrepancies in the number of tombs mentioned in the introductory paragraphs and those actually published. For instance Block A is mentioned as containing  graves but assigned the numbers – and finally only nine are actually described in the publication (Reisner : –). The published graves of Predynastic and Early Dynastic date can be summarised in Table . Table . Cemetery  Shem Nishai Unclassified Animal Graves with no Graves with  graves graves graves Egyptian material Egyptian material 









The dating of the graves with Egyptian material is outlined in the following table. As can be seen the graves in this cemetery predominantly date from mid-late Naqada II to the beginning of the st Dynasty. Table . Cemetery  Shem Nishai: Dating of Graves Date

 graves

Predynastic/Early Dynastic Naqada I–IIIC Naqada II–IIIC Naqada IIB–IIIA Naqada IIB–C Naqada IIC–D Naqada IID-IIIB Naqada IIIA–B Naqada IIIA-B Naqada IIIA

   43 44  45  46 

43

Grave  contained a large fish-shaped palette with a suspension hole. The palette is a very rounded shape which would fit the broad date given (Reisner : , Pl. .b.). 44 Grave  contained a D-ware vessel with whorl decoration which, according to Kaiser’s stufe does not appear after IIC (Reisner : ). 45 Grave  contained a vessel of Petrie’s L type with a pronounced shoulder. This type first appears in Naqada IID and continues through Naqada IIIB (Reisner : ). 46 Grave  contained a vessel of Petrie’s L type which does not appear before Naqada IIIA but also appears in Naqada IIIB. In addition it contained a net-patterned cylindrical W-ware in the debris (Reisner: : ).

egypt in nubia Date (cont’d)

 graves

Naqada IIIA Naqada IIIB Naqada IIIC–D

 47 

Total





The lack of Egyptian material is in part due to the extensive destruction of the cemetery. The Egyptian material is outlined in Table . Table . Cemetery  Shem Nishai: Egyptian Material

Date

 graves

Predynastic/Early Dynastic Naqada I–IIIC Naq II–IIIC Naqada IIB–IIIA Naqada IIB–C Naqada IIC–D Naqada IID-IIIB Naqada IIIA–B Naqada IIIA-B Naqada IIIA Naqada IIIA Naqada IIIB Naqada IIIC

            

            

            

            

            

            

Total













The overwhelming majority of artefacts of Egyptian origin are pottery vessels and these are generally storage vessels. Wavy-handled and cylindrical vessels feature prominently (graves , , , , , , , ,  and ). There were also several vessels or sherds described as hard pink ware such as the so-called wine jars (graves , , , , , , ,  and ). Four graves contained vessels of Petrie’s D-ware (, ,  and ). Of the local material there is no eggshell ware. Siltstone palettes were found in  graves (, , , , , , , , , , ,  and ) and these were of various designs— diamond, rectangular and oval shaped as well as one in the shape of a

47 Grave  contained a vessel of Petrie’s L type which according to Kaiser’s stufe does not appear before IIIB (Reisner : ).



chapter two

turtle (). The largest number comes from the graves dated Naqada II– III but three appear in graves which contained Naqada III material which shows that such cosmetic palettes could have a long use-life and may have been regarded as heirlooms. Two stone vessels were recovered. One was an alabaster bowl of simple shape (grave ) and one was a cylindrical alabaster vessel (grave ). These would appear to be of very late Naqada III (early Dynasty I) date. One is described as a short cylindrical alabaster vessel that the excavator notes is of a type from the st to th Dynasties based on comparisons with Naga ed-Deir, Abydos and Mykerinus (Reisner : , footnote). Only one grave contained any metal objects. Grave  had a copper needle amongst its finds. Graves of Interest Grave  was a double-chambered burial with a circular lower chamber reached by a shaft from the upper level. There are no traces of a burial but it may have been a double burial. The grave contained eight pottery vessels of which five were cylindrical W-ware vessels which could all fit into the Naqada IIIA period. Grave  also contained several wavy-handled cylindrical jars and a D-ware vessel all consistent with a Naqada IIIA dating. The excavator describes the surviving burial as intrusive and ascribes four of the vessels to the original burial with the remaining being doubtful (Reisner : –, Figs. , ). As the material is of a uniform date, if there had been an earlier burial it does not appear to have predated the second one by a long period of time. One grave () contained two burials, both children. The grave goods included a fan of feathers and a fan of black feathers with red ribs. A greatly disturbed grave () contained the body of a small female, apparently wrapped in cloth and matting. The cloth is not further described and while it may be a northern import this cannot be determined. The dating of this tomb is difficult. Many of the graves had remains of leather and goatskin. Cemetery  Dehmit (Reisner : ) This was a predominantly Byzantine cemetery but had at least two Predynastic burials (Reisner : ) which are listed in Table .

egypt in nubia



Table . Cemetery  Dehmit Unclassified Animal Graves with no Graves with  graves graves graves Egyptian material Egyptian material 





?



Only one grave could be said to contain Egyptian goods in the form of pottery which is listed below in Table . Table . Cemetery  Dehmit: Egyptian Material

Date

 graves

Predynastic/Early Dynastic 











Total













Sebbakh-digging had been extensive and heavy. Of the two earlier graves one definitely had evidence of Egyptian artefacts with sherds of hard pink ware. The other may also have had remains of Egyptian pottery. Dating is difficult. Cemetery  Dehmit (Reisner : –) This very disturbed cemetery was only recorded as having four early graves (, , , ). Table . Cemetery  Dehmit Unclassified Animal Graves with no Graves with  graves graves graves Egyptian material Egyptian material 









The dating of the graves with Egyptian material is shown in Table  below. Table . Cemetery  Dehmit: Dating of Graves Date

 graves

Predynastic/Early Dynastic  Naqada II–IIIC  Naqada IIIA–B  Total





chapter two

The graves are probably all of a later date (Naqada III). The Egyptian material is distributed as shown in Table . Table . Cemetery  Dehmit: Egyptian Material

Date

 graves

Predynastic/Early Dynastic  Naqada II–IIIC  Naqada IIIA–B 

  

  

  

  

  

Total













Of these graves two contained Egyptian material (, ) and a third () appears to have had sherds of an Egyptian pottery vessel in its debris. Grave  contained four copper rings on one hand and a limestone incense burner. The only pottery vessel was a “bowl of red ware, line-polished” (Reisner : ) but it is probably local. Reisner describes it as occurring “in most Early Dynastic cemeteries in Nubia. In Egypt the only examples I know came from Naga-ed-Deir, Cemetery N which ranged from the nd to the th Dynasties” (Reisner : ). Grave  contained two small jars of fine pink or red ware (/:,) and the rim and part of a storage vessel of Reisner’s ED Type VIII (wine jars). Grave  had fragments of hard pink ware in the debris. It also contained sherds of eggshell ware. The presence of eggshell ware would give the cemetery a later date fitting in with the Terminal A-Group. Cemetery  Metardul (Reisner : –) It must be noted that this cemetery was greatly disturbed. All graves had been disturbed in some way and there is evidence that in some instances this occurred shortly after interment. Also of note is the fact that the graves are all of a relatively substantial size, be they singular or multiple burials. A later New Kingdom cemetery has also disturbed the earlier remains. In spite of plundering a reasonable amount of material remains. Table  shows the overall size. Table . Cemetery  Metardul Unclassified Animal Graves with no Graves with  graves graves graves Egyptian material Egyptian material 









egypt in nubia



Grave numbers – are described by the excavator as belonging “to the B-Group rather than the C-Group” (Reisner : ) but are in fact difficult to date as they are largely empty of grave goods and the grave goods that do exist are not particularly distinguishable. They have, however, been included for the sake of completeness. Of the  Preand Early Dynastic graves,  contain Egyptian material although two of these graves only have Egyptian material in the debris. As can be seen in Table , the majority of graves containing Egyptian material date to the Naqada IIIA–B period. Table . Cemetery  Metardul: Dating of Graves Date

 graves

Predynastic/Early Dynastic Naqada II–IIIC Naqada IIIA–B Naqada IIIA-B Naqada IIIA Naqada IIIA Naqada IIIB Naqada IIIC

   48 49   50

Total



Nearly all the graves containing clearly Egyptian material have it in the form of cylindrical buff ware (marl) vessels and/or so-called wine jars. Table  shows the Egyptian material in cemetery . Table . Cemetery  Metardul: Egyptian Material

Date

 graves

Predynastic/Early Dynastic Naqada II–IIIC Naqada IIIA–B Naqada IIIA-B Naqada IIIA

    

    

    

    

    

    

48 Grave  contains a broken vessel of L-ware comparable to Petrie’s L (Reisner : ). 49 Grave  contains a wavy handled pottery vessel that falls into the IIIA period according to Hendrickx’s chronology (Reisner : ). 50 Grave  contained a cylindrical pottery vessel with no wavy handles or incised line decoration which dates to the Naqada IIIC period accoding to the chronologies of both Kaiser and Hendrickx (Reisner : ).



chapter two

Date (cont’d)

 graves

Naqada IIIA Naqada IIIB Naqada IIIC

  

  

  

  

  

  

Total













The majority of the Egyptian material comes from Naqada IIIA–B and Naqada IIIB contexts. There are also two burials with siltstone palettes ( and ) both in multiple burials both of which can be dated to the Naqada IIIB period. However, grave  is noted as having been intruded upon by a New Kingdom burial (Reisner : , Fig. ). Nevertheless it is a very large grave, containing at least two interments and five pottery vessels and two siltstone palettes. Grave  is a multiple burial with five interments that contains cylindrical W-ware that dates to the Naqada IIIA and also to Naqada IIIB. The burials may have occurred at the same time or, if at different times, close together (Reisner : , Figs. , ). There also appears to be faience beads in many graves along with beads of shell, carnelian and garnet. Grave , although greatly disturbed, contained some pottery and four scorpion amulets in a green-glazed material. Grave  was a little difficult to date as it contained four adult burials although the interments appear to be simultaneous (Reisner : , Fig. ). The grave only contained one pottery vessel (Reisner’s ED type VIII, ) which is described as pink ware which resembles Petrie’s L type found in Naqada IIIA and B. The First Archaeological Survey of Nubia under C.M. Firth George Reisner continued his work in Nubia although he increasingly handed over the running of the survey to C.M. Firth. Work began on  October  but having organised the workmen, Reisner returned to Cairo in order to finish his first report, not returning until  December (Firth : ). The second annual report was also completed not by Reisner, who was working for Harvard University in Syria, but by Firth. The overall layout of the second annual report is the same as the first. Unfortunately in this volume Firth does not employ Reisner’s full pottery terminology (EP, MP etc.) which makes precise dating more problematic.

egypt in nubia



Cemetery  Moalla (Firth : –) This cemetery consisted of a number of graves on the west bank but these were mostly of the Coptic period. One New Kingdom grave was identified and one Early Dynastic grave (Firth : ). The Early Dynastic grave, number , had been intruded on by a Coptic burial but still contained three early pottery vessels. Two of the vessels are A-Group black-mouthed ware but there is also a wavy-handled jar. Unfortunately a more detailed description is not given, nor is there a line drawing or photograph. It is certainly not earlier than Naqada IIC when W-ware makes its appearance. The presence of black-mouthed ware may imply a later date. Although it is difficult to give a relative chronology for this ware it is found in both Classic (Naqada III) and Terminal A-Group (Naqada III—beginning of the st Dynasty). Cemetery  Gerf Hussein (Firth : –) This cemetery, located about a kilometre south of Gerf Hussein had been denuded by sebbakh-digging (Firth : ). The lack of intact burials clearly frustrated Firth as he states “it would have been a most valuable site, as some of the material is evidently transitional and marks the close of the Early Dynastic and B-Group periods” (Firth : ). There are also some C-Group and Ptolemaic groups in the overall area. Table . Cemetery  Gerf Hussein Unclassified Animal Graves with no Graves with  graves graves graves Egyptian material Egyptian material 









As table  above shows, the majority of graves did not contain material that could be definitively classified as Egyptian in origin and in fact many of the pits have no grave goods or even burials remaining. The following table outlines the date range for the graves containing Egyptian material. Table . Cemetery  Gerf Hussein: Dating of Graves Date

 graves

Predynastic/Early Dynastic  Naqada I–IIIC  Naqada II–IIIC 



chapter two

Date (cont’d)

 graves

Naqada IIC–D Naqada IIC–IIIA Naqada IIC–IIIB Naqada IIIA Naqada IIIA Naqada IIIB

51 52 53  54 55

Total



Where more specific dates could be assigned, the majority of the graves fall into the late Naqada II to IIIB periods. Table  below shows the type of Egyptian material found in these  graves. Table . Cemetery  Gerf Hussein: Egyptian Material

Date

 graves

Predynastic/Early Dynastic Naqada I–IIIC Naqada II–IIIC Naqada IIC–D Naqada IIC–IIIA Naqada IIC–IIIB Naqada IIIA Naqada IIIA Naqada IIIB

        

        

        

        

        

        

Total













As can be seen in Table  by far the greatest number of Egyptian objects are pottery vessels. Of the  ceramic vessels, six were W-ware and one 51

Grave  contained a siltstone palette with incised border which falls into Kaiser’s Naqada IIC–D (Firth ; ). 52 Graves , , ,  and  contained wavy-handled jars only two of which are specified with reference to a photograph (Firth , Pl. , b.). As the excavator distinguishes between wavy-handled and cylindrical wavy-handled vessels the five in these graves have been considered among the broader, earlier forms of W-ware and could be dated from Naqada IIC but not later than Naqada IIIA going by Hendrickx chronology. 53 Grave  contained a vessel of D-ware but no specific description is given nor is there a picture (Firth : ). 54 Grave , described as a “small circular excavation” (Firth : ) contained a wavy-handled cylindrical net-patterened ware (Firth : ). 55 Grave  contains three burials but is dated by the cylindrical jar with reduced line (W-ware) to Naqada IIIB.

egypt in nubia



was D-ware. There was only one stone vessel in the form of an alabaster bowl and two bracelets of copper wire were found in grave . Grave  contained lapis lazuli (Firth : ) which would have been imported and most likely via Egypt. Cemetery  Gedekol (Firth : –) Cemetery  is described as actually being two cemeteries with graves – dating to the New Kingdom, some possibly of X-Group date as well as some Christian and Muslim graves. Graves – Firth divided into two groups, the first dated to the Late Predynastic and Early Dynastic, and the second to the B- and C-Groups and the New Kingdom (Firth : ). The graves which Firth assigned to the B- and C-Groups have not been included as their dating is very unsecure due to the lack of finds and in many instances the excavator has dated completely empty graves (Firth : –). While the cemetery had suffered from denudation Firth describes the early burials as being far less disturbed than the CGroup graves (Firth : ) and from the few line drawings included it would appear that the Predynastic/Early Dynastic graves are largely undisturbed by plundering or sebbakh-digging. Table  outlines the graves included in this study. Table . Cemetery  Gedekol Unclassified Animal Graves with no Graves with  graves graves graves Egyptian material Egyptian material 









The total number of  includes the B- and C-Group graves of which  will be dealt with here as they have A-Group material. The dates of the tombs with Egyptian artefacts can be seen in Table . Table . Cemetery  Gedekol: Dating of Graves Date

 graves

Naqada I–IIIC Naqada II–IIIC Naqada IIB–D

  56

56 Grave  contained two vessels of D-ware, one with wavy line decoration and one decorated to imitate hard stone like granite which match Kaiser’s stufe Naqada IIB to IID (Firth : , Fig. ).



chapter two

Date (cont’d)

 graves

Naqada IIC–D Naqada IID Naqada IID Naqada IIB–IIIA Naqada IIC–IIIA Naqada IIIA–B Naqada IIIA

57 58  59 60 61 62

Total



The graves generally fall into the Naqada II–III period with at least  dating to the mid-late Naqada II into Naqada IIIB. The types of Egyptian material are outlined in the table below. Table . Cemetery  Gedekol: Egyptian Material

Date

 graves

Naqada I–IIIC Naqada II–IIIC Naqada IIB–D Naqada IIC–IID Naqada IID Naqada IID Naqada IIB–IIIA Naqada IIC–IIIA Naqada IIIA–B Naqada IIIA

         

         

         

         

         

         

Total













57

Grave  contained a vessel of D-ware with side handles but there is no further description or drawing to clarify the type. It also contained a pottery vessel of Petrie’s R type (Firth : ). 58 Grave  contained two vessels which match Petrie’s W ware which both Kaiser and Hendrickx only have in Naqada IID as well as a large L-ware vessel that compares to Petrie’s L ware (Firth : , Figs. , ). 59 Grave  contained a broken fish-shaped palette (Firth : ). 60 Grave  contained a wavy-handled jar which could date from the earliest appearance of these forms to Naqada IIIA after which they become more cylindrical (Firth : , Pl. . b.). 61 Grave  contained a vessel of L/ ware along with an older type of W-ware (Firth : , Fig. ). 62 Grave  contained a rounded fish palette with pronounced tail as well as a bowl resembling Petrie’s Pr type (Firth : , Fig. ).

egypt in nubia



Graves of Interest The only stone vessel comes from grave  and is a cylindrical steatite jar with perforated side-handles. Grave  also contained the only copper object, fragments of a copper wire bracelet (Firth : –). Grave  was said to contain a string of carnelian, garnet, serpentine and lapis lazuli beads amongst the grave goods (Firth ; ). Grave  contained a wavy-handled jar and a decorated-ware vessel. The decorated jar did not have side handles and had reduced red painted decoration in the form of wavy red lines almost vertical. It also had a potmark on its surface which is a human figure in a frontal pose with arms stretched out to the side. Cemetery  Mediq (Gerf Husein) (Firth : –) (see Pl. ) Firth does not specify whether or not this Predynstic/Early Dynastic cemetery had been plundered or heavily disturbed by sebbakh-digging but from the few line drawings of burials it certainly appears that plundering had occurred.63 In total the cemetery contains  graves of which  are sheep burials and  are empty pits as outlined in Table  below. Table . Cemetery  Mediq Unclassified Animal Graves with no Graves with  graves graves64 graves Egyptian material Egyptian material 









As can be seen   of the graves can be considered to contain Egyptian material and their dating is outlined in Table . Of the  graves containing Egyptian material,  can be dated to the mid-late Naqada II to Naqada IIIB with  falling into a possible date earlier than Naqada IIB. The dating is however, tenuous as with all cemeteries from the First Archaeological Survey due to the inconsistancies of the recording in some cases and the lack of detailed descriptions. Nevertheless, the cemetery also contains quite a high quantity of high quality 63 For example grave  is a relatively large rectangular grave but only the lower part of a male skeleton remains amongst the grave goods (Firth : , Fig. ). Another large grave,  has also been disturbed with the burial removed leaving only the skull on the floor of the grave (Firth : , Fig. ). 64 These graves could not be securely classified as they were all listed as empty graves. Their presence within the Predynastic/Early Dynastic cemetery has led them to being included in the overall grave count of the cemetery but not further studied.



chapter two

A-Group pottery such as eggshell ware and incised ware which fit well into Nordström’s corpus (Nordström  Vol. II, Pls. –) in particular his types AIa, AVII, AVIII and AIX which are found in Classic and Terminal A-Group periods and would confirm a Late Naqada II to midlate Naqada III date. Table . Cemetery  Mediq: Dating of Graves Date

 graves

Predynastic/Early Dynastic Naqada I–IIIC Naqada I–II Naqada II–IIIC Naq II Naqada IC–IIB Naqada IIB–D Naqada IIB–C Naqada IIC–D Naqada IIC–III Naqada IIC–IIIA Naqada IID Naqada IIIA–C Naqada IIIA–B Naqada IIIA

 65 66  67  68   69 70 71   

65 Grave  simply contained a deep bowl of red-polished black-mouthed ware as well as a sherd of a similar vessel and fragments of a siltstone palette (Firth : –). 66 Grave  contained a fragment of a lozenge shaped siltstone palette the shape of which occurs during Naqada I–IIA according to Kaiser but which Petrie pushes a bit further into Naqada II (Firth : ). 67 Grave  contained black-topped ware and a bowl of smooth coarse rough ware (R-ware) which is difficult to date. (Firth : ). 68 Grave  contained a small jar of hard pink ware with perforated side handles which could be P-ware as per Petrie’s P- types or D-ware as per D-/ (but undecorated) or Dk (Firth : ). 69 Grave  contained three intermenents which may have been buried at different times or together. Among the grave goods were a palette with an incised decoration around the entire border which is found in Kaiser’s Naqada IIC–D and a palette described as an oval siltstone palette with incised border which falls into Petrie’s SD –, making it younger. The grave also contained vessels of L-ware (L-/) which are first seen in Naqada IIIA/B, a jar with a strainer in the neck and amongst the A-Group pottery a deep bowl or cup which could be a variation on Nordström’s Type Group I () (Nordström : , Pl. ) or Type Group IX () (Nordström : , Pl. ) which would give a Classic-Terminal A-Group date (Late Naqada II–IIIC). 70 Grave  contained a vessel of Petrie’s R- type as well as a vessel of hard pink ware (L-) with a potmark (Firth : –). 71 Grave  contained a D-ware vessel of Petrie’s Da form as well as R-ware vessels of R-/ type and R- type (Firth : , Fig. , ).

egypt in nubia Date (cont’d)

 graves

Naqada IIIA Naqada IIIB

72 

Total





The types of Egyptian artefacts are outlined below in Table . Table . Cemetery  Mediq: Egyptian Material

Date

 graves

Predynastic/Early Dynastic Naqada I–IIIC Naqada I–II Naqada II–IIIC Naqada II Naqada IC–IIB Naqada IIB–D Naqada IIB–C Naqada IIC–D Naqada IIC–III Naqada IIC–IIIA Naqada IID Naqada IIIA–C Naqada IIIA–B Naqada IIIA Naqada IIIA Naqada IIIB

                

                

                

                

                

                

                

                

Total

















The Egyptian material overwhelmingly consists of pottery vessels, the bulk of which fall into the late Naqada II to Naqada IIIB periods. There are no maceheads which may be accounted for by the later date of the cemetery. The cemetery only contained two stone vessels; one grave contained a cylinder seal and two graves contained what may be described as Egyptian amulets and a cylinder seal. At least two graves (, ) are said to contain lapis lazuli beads. There were  siltstone palettes of various shapes found in the cemetery. These included two fish-shaped, one tortoise-shaped, one hippopotomus-shaped, one oval, one lozenge, five rectangular, two rough and four undetermined. 72 Graves  and  both contained cylindrical wavy-handled jars with net patterned decoration and grave  also contained a W-ware simply described as a cylindrical wavyhandled vessel (Firth : ).



chapter two

Of the Egyptian pottery vessels,  in total,  were wavy-handled jars (graves , , , , A, B, , , , , , , ,, , , , , ) and of these nine were cylindrical wavy-handled jars of Naqada IIIA date. In addition six graves (, , , , , ) contained rough ware vessels with strainers in the neck. All but one of these ‘strainer’ jars were found in association with large storage vessels of L-ware, often with potmarks and it is possible that these storage vessels contained a commodity that required straining. There is also a fairly large quantity of eggshell ware and other fine wares of local A-Group type and this along with the presence of some relatively large graves should indicate that some of those buried in cemetery  were of high status. Graves of Interest Grave  contained the body of an infant which appeared to have been wrapped in red-dyed leather (Firth : ). The grave goods included several items of jewellery such as shell and bone beads and ivory bracelets as well as a small rectangular siltstone palette. The grave also contained two amulets of “transparent gypsum” (Firth : , Pl.  a. ) one of a frog and one of a hawk. The hawk amulet is generally linked to Horus and may indicate that it came from Egypt and possibly even show an awareness of a Horus cult related to an emerging elite/royalty. It should also be noted that in later times Lower Nubia was associated with several Horus gods: Horus of Miam (Aniba), of Baki (Quban), of Buhen and of Meha although little is known of them (Traunecker : ) although caution must always be taken when applying younger concepts and evidence to much older material. Grave , while clearly disturbed (Firth : , Figs. , ) was a comparatively large rectangular grave at  ×  ×  cm. It contained the remains of a male adult skeleton and possible female bones and so may have been a double/multiple burial. It contained two quartz palettes, two large, hard pink ware (L-ware) storage jars (both with potmarks) and a coarse ware vessel with strainer in the neck. In addition it contained a deep bowl or cup of eggshell ware and potsherds of a similar vessel, a small ivory cup and a strip of rolled up copper wire. It is certainly of no earlier than Naqada III date and based on the L-ware should probably be dated to late Naqada III/Dynasty . Grave  is a very disturbed grave with only fragmentary remains of a skeleton found in the debris (Firth : ). The contents of the grave were likewise in a fragmentary state including sherds of eggshell

egypt in nubia



ware, smooth brown-ware with incised zig-zag patterns around the brim, smooth coarse ware with dotted incised zig-zag patterns and shells. It also contained a dark green, possibly serpentine amulet of a bull’s head (Firth : Pl.  a.). This frontal animal head is characterised by two large eyes and curved horns that almost encircle the head. It may have been designed to transfer the strenghth and virility of the bull to the owner (Andrews : ). However, the A-Group were pastoralists and so the bull’s head may have had a more localised meaning. In either case it should be noted that this style of amulet is also found in Egypt. Grave  is another very disturbed grave with fragmentary remains of a skeleton and three complete vessels (Firth : ). It also contained a limestone vessel which, judging by the simple line drawing, resembles an incense burner similar to those found at Qustul, although a positive identification is impossible from the publication alone (Firth : , Fig. ). This grave is also worth noting due to its large size at . × . × . m. Grave  was another comparatively large rectangular grave measuring . × . × . m (Firth : , Fig. ). It was a multiple burial with the remains of three adult skeletons interred. Although disturbed it still contained a large quantity of pottery vessels (Firth ; , Fig. ) including two large storage vessels of L-ware, a coarse ware vessel with strainer in the neck, five bowls and one deep bowl/cup of fine smooh red ware with incised zig-zag decoration over about two-thirds of the body. One of the skeletons also had a copper bracelet and four shell bracelets on one arm and a necklace of garnet beads was found on the neck of body B. While the siltstone palettes found in the grave could date from late Naqada II, the pottery seems to largely date from Naqada III and it may be that the interments were not made at the same time but also not very far apart. Another large grave, also very disturbed, was number . It measured . × . × . m and the burial had been completely removed with the remains of two skeletons (one male and one female) in the debris. All the remaining grave goods were found at one end of the grave while the rest appears clean (Firth : , Fig. ) which may indicate that if the grave was disturbed by grave robbers, which seems most likely, the main temptation was on or near the bodies. Among the pottery vessels were two pottery stands, two large hard pink ware storage jars, at least one with a potmark, and a coarse ware jar with strainer. A quantity of jewellery (beads and bracelets of shell, cornelian, garnet and ivory) was also found.



chapter two

Described as a very large oval grave (Firth : , Fig. ), number  contained four skeletons and appears to be undisturbed. Three of the bodies were adult males, the fourth was that of an infant. The grave contained a large quantity of pottery vessels ( in total) amongst which were Egyptian hard pink wares (two with potmarks), black-mouthed wares and red ware bowls (Firth : , Fig. ). The tomb also contained three quartz palettes, carnelian, shell and green-glaze beads and three copper awls. Grave , while not as large as some, does appear to have been intact. It contained one of the coarse ware jars with a strainer in the neck. It also contained a hard pink ware necked jar which is described as having a “Pot-mark of animal entering a snare, drinking from a canal or entering an enclosure” (Firth : , Fig. /). The line drawing shows an elaborate ‘potmark’ which actually more closely resembles painted decorated ware but it is not possible to verify this based on the publication. Grave  also appears to have been intact and contained a single burial of an adult male. It contained  pottery vessels including a wavyhandled jar, a decorated-ware jar (as Petrie’s D m) and another hard pink ware necked jar as well as black-mouthed bowls and three vessels of thick black-mouthed ware with red striped painted decoration (Firth : , Figs. , ). It also contained a cylinder seal (Firth  vol. II, PL.  a.). This cylinder seal was described as green glazed steatite and based on the material and the markings it is taken to be Mesopotamian (Boehmer : ). The cylinder seal may be a direct import but could also have come via Egypt. In light of the presence of high quality Egyptian pottery, the large number of local pottery vessels and the cylinder seal it would seem that this was an individual of high status who may have had exchange contacts with Upper Egypt or acted on behalf of a high status individual or family. Grave  was another double burial with the body of an infant below that of an adult male (Firth : , Fig. ). It contained a large Rware vessel (Petrie’s R-) along with two wavy-handled vessels and local pottery. It also appears to have been largely intact. Cemetery  Mediq (Firth : –) The excavator only describes this small cemetery as having graves of Late Predynastic and Early Dynastic type and it does appear to be largely undisturbed.

egypt in nubia



Table . Cemetery  Mediq Unclassified Animal Graves with no Graves with  graves graves graves Egyptian material Egyptian material 









The cemetery contains  graves of which only eight can be said to contain Egyptian material. The dating of the graves containing Egyptian material is shown in Table . Table . Cemetery  Mediq: Dating of Graves Date

 graves

Naqada II–IIIC Naqada IC–IIC Naqada IIB–D Naqada IIB–C Naqada IIC–D

  73 74 

Total



Virtually all the graves in this small cemetery fall into the mid-late Naqada II period. The three that have been assigned Naqada IC–IIC (, , ) all contain black-topped ware of Petrie’s B type. Sometimes these forms look like early Naqada B-ware but it is difficult to assign them as either Egyptian or A-Group in origin especially the more closed vessels. At times both Reisner and Firth ascribe black-topped ware as Egyptian and at other times as Nubian, often without any further explanation as to why. Thus it may be that the numbers of Egyptian pottery figures could be slightly inflated. The types of Egyptian material found in the cemetery are outlined in Table . Table . Cemetery  Mediq: Egyptian Material

Date

 graves

Naqada II–IIIC  Naqada IC–IIC 

 

 

 

 

 

73 Grave  contained a vessel of D-ware with line decoration in imitation of stone (Firth ; , Fig. /). 74 Grave  contained a vessel of D-ware with spiral decoration as per Pertrie’s D- but of a shape as per D-g (Firth : ).



chapter two

Date (cont’d)

 graves

Naqada IIB–D Naqada IIB–C Naqada IIC–D

  

  

  

  

  

  

Total













Pottery is almost exclusively the only Egyptian material found in this cemetery and is made up of black-topped pottery, two vessels of decorated ware, three vessel of early W-ware and a vessel of R-ware. Only one grave () contained any copper objects which was a copper awl. This grave also contained the only siltstone palette in the cemetery and a wavyhandled vessel. Grave  contained two wavy-handled vessels and two large rough ware vessels of Petrie’s R- type, both with potmarks which appear to represent a plant of some kind (Firth : , Figs. , ). Cemetery  Mediq (Firth : ) In this small cemetery the excavator states that graves , ,  and  “may perhaps be assigned to the B-Group; the remainder are C-Group” (Firth : ). However the remains are scanty at best and it is difficult to justify any date to a grave that is described as “Fragments of human bones in irregular grave dug in mud” (Firth : ). Therefore this cemetery has not been further included in the present study. Cemetery  Koshtamna (Firth : ) This cemetery is described as having B-Group graves. Only five have been published and of these only two ( and ) contained possible Egyptian material. Grave  contained a copper awl as well as a local pottery vessel and beads; grave  contained a nearly round siltstone palette with incised border of possible Naqada III date. The two graves are listed below in Table . Table . Cemetery  Koshtamna: Dating of Graves and Egyptian Material

Date

 graves

Naqada IIIA–C 











Total













egypt in nubia



Cemetery  Koshtamna (Firth : ) While Firth dated this cemetery to the Early Dynastic or B-Group the lack of remains makes dating difficult. The graves are largely empty apart from skeletal remains and have been partly destroyed by sebbakhdigging. Cemetery  Koshtamna (Firth : –) (see Pl. ) Firth does not specify the state of this cemetery. There is no mention as to whether it had been affected by sebbakh-digging or plundering. Some of the graves are described as denuded and from the state of some it would appear that there has been some disturbance. However, to what extent the whole has been disturbed is unclear. The number of graves is listed in Table . Table . Cemetery  Koshtamna Unclassified Animal Graves with no Graves with  graves graves graves Egyptian material Egyptian material 









Of the  graves  did not contain any grave goods that could be definitively described as Egyptian and of these  contained no grave goods at all. Twenty-five could be said to contain Egyptian material; the dating of these is outlined in Table . Table . Cemetery  Koshtamna: Dating of Graves Date

 graves

Naqada II–IIIC Naqada IC–IID Naqada IIC–D Naqada IIC–IIIA Naqada IIIA–C

 75 76 77 

75 Grave  contains a fish palette and a bowl of red-polished black-mouthed ware. No further desription of the fish palette is given (Firth : ). 76 Grave  contained potsherds of a wavy handled jar which is taken to be an earlier form as Firth generally makes a distinction between wavy-handled and cylindrical wavyhandled jars. The presence of eggshell ware may indicate a slightly younger date with the W-ware being an heirloom (Firth : ). 77 Grave  contained a broken ripple-flake knife which can date between Naqada IIC and Naqada IIIA. It also contained a small necked jar of hard pink ware (Firth : ).



chapter two

Date (cont’d)

 graves

Naqada IIIA Naqada IIIA Naqada IIIB

 78 79

Total



In spite of the broad Naqada IC–IID date given to one grave, the majority of graves with Egyptian material in this cemetery can be dated from the late Naqada II to Naqada IIIB with at least  in Naqada IIIA–B. The types and distribution of the Egyptian artefacts is outlined in Table  below. Table . Cemetery  Koshtamna: Egyptian Material

Date

 graves

Naqada II–IIIC Naqada IC–IID Naqada IIC–D Naqada IIC–IIIA Naqada IIIA–C Naqada IIIA Naqada IIIA Naqada IIIB

       

       

       

       

       

       

Total













With  vessels pottery makes up the largest group of Egyptian artefacts, most in the Naqada III period. However there are also  siltstone palettes, again with at least five dated to the Naqada III period. The siltstone palettes have various shapes with two fish-shaped, three double bird head-shaped, one circular-shaped, two rectangular and the remaining four either fragmentary or of undetermined shape. The Egyptian pottery includes six wavy-handled vessels (two of which are cylindrical wavy-handled jars) and only one vessel of D-ware of a Naqada III date. The presence of A-Group eggshell ware confirms a later dating for this cemetery. Only one grave contained a stone vessel with an alabaster 78 Grave  contained a cylindrical wavy-handled jar with red net-patterned decoration as well as a vessel of D-ware with rudimentary decoration (Firth : –, Figs, , ). 79 Grave  contained a round siltstone palette which fits with Kaiser’s Naqada IIIB. It also contained a small jar of hard pink ware with a depiction of an elephant (Firth : ).

egypt in nubia



jar being amongst the grave goods in grave  (Firth : , Pl.  d. ). One grave () contained a macehead amongst its grave goods. The cemetery yielded a total of seven copper objects from five graves (, , , , ) including chisels, adzes, an awl and a bracelet. Graves of Interest Grave  was a large rectangular grave measuring . × . × . m although it had been disturbed and only fragments of bones and potsherds remained (Firth : ). Among the contents were potsherds from a wavy-handled jar and eggshell ware and an ivory cup. Another large grave was number  measuring . × . × . m, also disturbed (Firth : –). Only some bracelets, beads, four pottery vessels, some resin, a quartz palette and leather remained. Grave  measuring . × . × . m was also a large rectanguler grave which had been greatly disturbed. There was no burial remaining but the grave contents included two quartz palettes and an alabaster jar with side handles (Firth : , Pl.  d.). Amongst the debris were sherds of eggshell ware. Grave  was a double burial containing the remains of an adult female and an adult male and while not particularly large, appears to have been undisturbed. The female was lying on a mass of leather which had been dyed red, while the male had been covered with goatskins (Firth : –). This grave also contained the only decorated ware in the cemetery as well as a wavy-handled jar with net-patterned decoration. It also contained a bowl of hard pink ware with a potmark, a “raw hide bucket” (Firth : ), a quartz palette and cakes of resin. It is unclear if the interments occurred at the same time, but if they were buried at different times it seems likely that it was within a short time frame. Grave  was a relatively large grave measuring . × . × . m (Firth : –, Pl. , f). It contained a single burial and appears to have been undisturbed. Among the grave goods were a quartz palette, a late palette, a large jar of hard pink ware (probably L-ware) with a depiction of an ostrich on it, a water bucket sitting on a mass of leather which the line drawing labels as “fine soft gazelle leather” (Firth : : Fig. ) and a copper chisel (Firth  Vol II: Pl.  c. ). The pottery, including a black-mouthed jar, dates the tomb to Naqada III, while the chisel falls into late Naqada II to mid Naqada III. However the siltstone palette is of a clear rhomboid shape as found in Naqada I– IIA/B which may have been an heirloom. Along with the large graves mentioned above it would seem that this individual (an adult male) was of relatively high status.



chapter two

Grave  was also relatively large but was a multiple burial containing the skeletons of two adult females and that of a new-born underneath one of the adults. This grave, while damaged by sebbakh-digging was relatively undisturbed. The contents of the grave included a broken siltstone palette, a copper bracelet, two jars of black-polished ware with incised patterns filled with white one of which appeared to be a kind of lid for the other (probably N-ware of a type which closely resembles leather vessels), several shell bracelets and a necklace of carnelian, garnet and glazed beads. Both females had a quantity of leather and linen under their skulls. The N-Ware vessels, particularly the one with a lid, are of a form and decoration that has been placed in the younger phase of this group dating to approximately Naqada IID–IIIA (Glück : –) which certainly fits with the overall assemblages. The grave also contained a pearshaped stone macehead which seems unusual in a grave with two females since maceheads are generally associated with the domain of men (warrior/hunter/ruler). It is always possible that these two women held a special place within their society that warranted the inclusion of the macehead but it may also be that the new-born was a male child who needed such an implement or who belonged to a family of warrior or ruler status. Grave  was a relatively large grave measuring . × . × . m and contained the skeleton of an adult male whose lower body was covered in goatskins (Firth : , Fig. ). His grave goods included black-mouthed ware bowls, a large coarse ware jar with fragments of a mud sealing, plum polished ware and shell and green-glazed beads. Of interest is a small object which appears to be held in the hand of the deceased (Firth : , Fig.  object ). It is described as a bag or case for malachite which is made of plaited matting and lined with linen (Firth : ). Grave  measured . × . × . m and had been greatly disturbed with only fragmentary remains of an interment. Very little was left in the grave but it did include a broken copper chisel and a broken copper adze or axe-head (Firth : , Pl.  c. , ). Grave  was a similar size to  and had also been disturbed with partial remains of an adult male in the grave. Along with local pottery and one small jar of hard pink ware the grave goods also included a copper awl wrapped in linen, a copper adze or chisel found in the debris immediately above the body (Firth : ) and a broken ripple-flake flint knife. This type of flint knife displays the pinnacle of flint-knapping in ancient Egypt and would have been a prestigious object imported from the north. It also appears to have been deliberately broken as its break is identical to the breaks

egypt in nubia



seen in the ripple-flake knives at Abusir el-Meleq (Scharff : Pl. ) which appears to be ritual. This is an interesting detail as it implied that not only are status objects being appropriated but also the accompanying rituals associated with them. This may imply that there is a stronger level of influence from Egypt at least amongst the elite. Certainly based on the remaining grave goods, the individual buried in  would have been of high status. Grave  was another relatively large grave which had been disturbed. The excavator lists a possible ivory knife handle among the grave goods although there is no way of verifying this from the publication (Firth : ). It also contained a large wavy-handled jar. Grave  measured . × . × . m and contained amongst its grave goods, a copper chisel which was in the owner’s hand (Firth : ), a siltstone palette and a broken flint bifacial knife (Firth : , Pl.  a.). The flint knife again shows a fairly high level of flint-knapping skill although not as high as seen in the ripple-flake knives and was undoubtedly a prestigious import from Egypt and an indicator of the tomb owners status. Overall the cemetery would seem to indicate at least some differentiation in status amongst the individuals buried there. Cemetery  Ikkur (Firth : –) This cemetery had already been excavated by J. Garstang in , apart from four unrecorded graves which were subsequently excavated by the Archaeological Survey team. Of these four graves only one contained clear Egyptian material. Grave number  contained a large jar of decorated ware of Petrie’s type a (Naqada IIB–D). Cemetery  Ikkur (Firth : –) Cemetery  lay in an area which had been heavily denuded and the Predynastic/Early Dynastic graves had been “cut to pieces by the XGroup graves” (Firth : ). The graves were sometimes very shallow and some of the early grave goods had been found in shaft fillings or in the later graves (Firth : ). Table . Cemetery  Ikkur Unclassified Animal Graves with no Graves with  graves graves graves Egyptian material Egyptian material 











chapter two

As can be seen in Table  above, the cemetery contained  graves of which only eight contained any Egyptian material. The dating of those graves is outlined below in Table . Table . Cemetery  Ikkur: Dating of Graves Date

 graves

Naqada I–IIIC Naqada II–IIIC Naqada IIB–D Naqada IIC–D Naqada IIIA–C

  80  81

Total



These graves all date to roughly late Naqada II to Naqada III. The three graves given the broadest date of Naqada I–III (A, , ) each contained a siltstone palette. One is described as rough, one as rectangular and one is merely listed as fragments and so a more precise date cannot be given (Firth : –). The types of Egyptian material are shown in Table . Table . Cemetery  Ikkur: Egyptian Material

Date

 graves

Naqada I–IIIC Naqada II–IIIC Naqada IIB–D Naqada IIC–D Naqada IIIA–C

    

    

    

    

    

    

Total













The cemetery contained very little Egyptian material with only pottery vessels and siltstone palettes but the poor state of preservation must account for the lack of grave goods. It should also be noted that two graves (, ) contained flint tools. Grave  had what is described as 80 Grave  contained an irregular siltstone palette that is difficult to date but it also contained a jar of decorated ware of Petrie’s type D which dates to Naqada IIB–D (Firth : , Pl.  a.). 81 Grave  contained a rectangular siltstone palette with an incised decoration around the edge which first appears in mid Naqada II. The presence of eggshell ware (Firth  Vol II Pl.  a, b), however, would indicate a later date of Naqada III (Firth : ).

egypt in nubia



a flint point (Firth : ) and grave  had two “flint flakes worked as knives” (Firth : , Pl.  a. , ) which may have been imports from Egypt. The Archaeological Survey of Nubia. Report for – (Firth ) C.M. Firth continued his work from the previous – season, again following the principles of Reisner as laid down in the latter’s first report (Reisner ; Firth : ). The work was conducted in the Dakka region of the Nile Valley just to the south of Ikkur. Both the east and west banks were investigated; with only a few tombs of New Kingdom date and plundered burials of the C-Group being uncovered, the work concentrated on the west bank (Firth : –). Of the  cemeteries excavated, seven (, , , , ,  and ) contained Predynastic and Early Dynastic cemeteries (Firth : ). Firth gives four categories of Early Dynastic local pottery in these cemeteries: . black-mouthed red ware (which he distinguishes from black-topped red ware); . bowls of thick brown ware with incised decoration; . black or brown thick ware with white filled incised decoration; . thin orange painted polished ware painted with basket patterns (‘egg shell’ ware) (Firth : ). Unfortunately the overall description of tomb contents, particularly the pottery, tends to be broad, generalised and sometimes with a lack of good (or any) line drawings. For instance in Cemetery :  one of the vessels is simply described as “Bowl” (Firth : ) and another vessel in Cemetery :  is described as “Bowl, smooth brown ware” (Firth : ). While generally distinguishing black-mouthed red polished wares from black-topped red polished wares, Firth sometimes states that it is either/or. Further, while he describes smooth coarse brown ware as equivalent to Petrie’s rough faced ware, without access to the material or detailed fabric, shape and finishing descriptions it is generally impossible to say if these are indeed Egyptian wares or local coarse wares, the latter explanation being perhaps the more logical. Alternatively, we should perhaps be looking at a shared cultural heritage within Upper Egypt (Naqada culture) and Lower Nubia (A-Group) particularly northern Lower Nubia (Wengrow : ; Edwards : ). Can we perhaps



chapter two

say that for some of the more common, widespread, ‘everyday’ types the concept of local or imported is superfluous? Cemetery  Dakka (Firth : –) This cemetery had been almost completey destroyed either through plundering or sebbakh-digging (Firth : ). As a result virtually all the graves were empty. Of the  graves recorded only six are published with any information beyond a grave number. Graves , , , A, and  are listed as intrusive C-Group graves. Cemetery  Dakka (Firth : –) Cemetery  contained  graves but  are listed as denuded and only five are actually published. Of these three contained no grave goods. Grave  contained a cylindrical jar with an incised line around its neck (W-ware) dating to Naqada IIIB. Grave  contained a small jar of hard pink ware. Cemetery  Dakka (Firth : ) This cemetery is described as an Early Dynastic to B-Group cemetery. Four graves are listed in the publication but none contained any Egyptian material. It did contain vessels described as black-topped or blackmouthed ware and probably dates to the Classic to Terminal A-Group. Cemetery  Dakka (Firth : –) This cemetery had been plundered in ancient times, had been intruded upon by a Roman cemetery and was also being used for sebbakh (Firth : ). Table . Cemetery  Dakka Unclassified Animal Graves with no Graves with  graves graves graves Egyptian material Egyptian material 









As can be seen in Table  above, Firth listed  graves from this cemetery that he dated to Pre- Early Dynastic or B-Group (Firth : –) but only seven contained any material which could be considered Egyptian. The dating of graves containing Egyptian material is outlined in Table  below.

egypt in nubia



Table . Cemetery  Dakka: Dating of the Graves Date

 graves

Naqada I–IIIC Naqada IIC–D Naqada IIIA–C Naqada IIIA–B Naqada IIIA

82 83 84 85 

Total



These seven graves should probably all be dated to Late Naqada II to mid Naqada III. As there are only seven it is not possible to see any real development in the types of material that are found. Of all the graves recorded with finds a large number contained black-mouthed ware which would also fit this dating. The types of Egyptian material are outlined in Table . Table . Cemetery  Dakka: Egyptian Material

Date

 graves

Naqada I–IIIC Naqada IIC–D Naqada IIIA–C Naqada IIIA–B Naqada IIIA

    

    

    

    

    

    

Total













Pottery is once again the main Egyptian material found. Amongst the pottery are four wavy-handled jars (three of these are of the later cylindrical form) and one vessel of D-ware. Only four siltstone palettes were

82 Grave  contained a rectangular siltstone palette with no further description and thus could not be more narrowly dated (Firth : ). 83 Grave  contained a wavy-handled jar with no further description or illustration. Based on the excavator’s distinction between wavy-handled and cylindrical wavyhandled jars this W-ware is designated to the earlier broader forms which would date Naqada IIC–D (Firth : ). 84 Grave  contained a large vessel of L-ware similar to L  type as well as a coarse ware jar with strainer in the neck and a rectangular siltstone palette. 85 Grave  contained a vessel of D-ware with reduced decoaration and no side handles which puts it into Naqada IIIA–B. It also contained an oval fish palette which could be a late form of a fish palette (Firth : ).



chapter two

found, two rectangular in shape and two oval in shape. The grave containing a coarse ware jar with neck strainer also contained a large L-ware vessel as was the case with cemetery  above. Cemetery  Dakka (Firth : –) Cemetery  is described as being of Nubian type with pottery that consists of “imitations of the Predynastic black-topped pottery and exhibit the local black-mouthed ware” (Firth : ) with no further explanation of the distinction between Egyptian and Nubian black-topped ware. This makes identification of some of the material problematic combined with the fact that very few of the graves in this cemetery give detailed descriptions for the pottery or include illustrations. The grave types are outlined below in Table . Table . Cemetery  Dakka Unclassified Animal Graves with no Graves with  graves graves graves Egyptian material Egyptian material 









This grave only contained  graves and half of them contained grave goods which could be considered Egyptian. The dating of these tombs is outlined in Table  below. Table . Cemetery  Dakka: Dating of Graves Date

 graves

Naqada II–IIIC Naqada IC–IIA Naqada IIB Naqada IIC–D Naqada IIIA–C

 86   87

Total



The graves containing Egyptian material date largely to the Late Naqada II period with only one or two which could be dated later and 86 Grave A apparently contained two interments and their grave goods are listed as two separate graves (A and ). A contained black black-topped pottery beakers like types B and B as well as a jar of R-ware as type R. It also contained an early form of a double bird head siltstone palette of Kaiser’s Ic–IIa type. The second interment contained later material which would date to Late Naqada II–III. 87 Grave  contained an L-ware vessel of type L as well as a stone vessel.

egypt in nubia



one interment of apparently earlier date. The grave goods contained are outlined in Table  below. Table . Cemetery  Dakka: Egyptian Material

Date

 graves

Naqada II–IIIC Naqada IC–IIA Naqada IIB Naqada IIC–D Naqada IIIA–C

    

    

    

    

    

    

Total













Virtually all the Egyptian material is made up of pottery vessels with four of them being wavy-handled vessels. There were no D-ware vessels (Firth : , Fig. ) and one grave () contained a small cup of N-ware and an incised sherd of similar ware was found in  (Firth : , Fig. ). Of the five siltstone palettes found, two were double bird-shaped, one was fish-shaped and two were unidentified. Only one grave () contained a stone vessel (Firth : , Pl. a, ) and the same grave contained the only copper object, a copper bracelet. This grave also contained a vessel of L-ware (type L) as well as a bowl of L-ware which was incised with the figure of an ostrich (Firth : , Fig. ). Grave  was a double burial. Cemetery  Dakka (Firth : –) According to the excavator, cemetery  is actually part of  but recording had begun before the whole area was cleared of sand and so the separate numbers were retained (Firth : ). It had been heavily disturbed by sebbakh-digging. The main dating criteria of the excavator was the presence of “[s]urvivals and degenerate local copies of the redpolished black-topped Predynastic ware” (Firth : , his emphasis) as well as the few examples of decorated ware. The graves are listed in Table . Table . Cemetery  Dakka Unclassified Animal Cache or Graves with no Graves with  graves graves graves offering pits Egyptian material Egyptian material 













chapter two

The cemetery is a very large one containing over  graves of which  can be said to have contained Egyptian material. The dating of these tombs is outlined below. Seven are described as possible cache pits or offering places and will be described separately. Table . Cemetery  Dakka: Dating of Graves Date

 graves

Naqada I–IIIC Naqada II–IIIc Naqada IIB–C Naqada IIC–IIIA Naqada IIC–D Naqada IID Naqada IIIA–C Naqada IIIA–B Naqada IIIA Naqada IIIA

  88   89    90

Total



While a total of  graves could not be given a more precise dating than Naqada II–III, for the most part the graves fall into a late Naqada II–mid Naqada III date. The types of Egyptian material found are outlined in Table  below. Table . Cemetery  Dakka: Egyptian Material

Date

 graves

Naqada I–IIIC Naqada II–IIIC Naqada IIB–C Naqada IIC–IIIA Naqada IIC–D Naqada IID Naqada IIIA–C

      

      

      

      

      

      

88 Grave  contained only a squat jar of decorated ware with spiral/whorl pattern (Firth : ). 89 Grave  contained a small double jar of decorated ware (also classified with Petrie’s fancy wares) with abstract decoration and a wavy-handled jar similar to type g. It also contained a rough ware vessel like type  which is not seen before Naqada II (Frith : , Fig. ). 90 Grave  contained a cylindrical wavy-handled jar with net-patterned decoration (Firth : ).

egypt in nubia



Date (cont’d)

 graves

Naqada IIIA–B Naqada IIIA Naqada IIIA

  

  

  

  

  

  

Total













As seen in previous cemeteries, Egyptian pottery vastly outnumbers other Egyptian artefacts. Amongst the  vessels are  wavy-handled jars, of which seven are of the cylindrical wavy-handled type. There are also six jars of D-ware. The other artefact found in any numbers is the siltstone palette found in a variety of shapes including fish, double bird, hippopotamus and rectangular. Cemetery  also contained several vessels of Petrie’s N-ware. The only copper objects found were a bracelet, a fish hook and a piece of oxidised copper. Four graves contained stone vessels (,  and ); grave  contained a small squat vessel of breccia with perforated side handles (Firth : , Pl.  a, ), grave  a small black basalt vessel (Firth : , Pl.  a, ) and grave  contained what is described as a limestone mortar (Firth : ). Two graves,  and  contained lapis lazuli (Firth : , ) which certainly had to be imported, probably via Egypt. Graves of Interest Grave  was a reasonably large grave measuring . × . × . m and contained the skeleton of an adult. Along with a bowl of blackmouthed ware and a rectangular siltstone palette, this grave also contained three large storage jars of type R each with potmarks of gazelles or ibex (Firth : , Figs. , ). These potmarks are similar to the potmarks found in grave , which is actually described as a cache of pots or offering place (Firth : , Fig. , Pl. , e). It certainly did not contain any human remains and the pottery vessels take up all the available space in the pit. Grave  contained two skeletons, one of an adult and the other of a child (Firth : , Fi. ). The grave goods included two quartz palettes,  shell bracelets, several beads and  pottery vessels. Amongst the pottery vessels seven are classified as Egyptian and these include a wavy-handled jar and a small twin jar with red-painted decoration dated to Naqada IID with abstract designs and a mountain motif. These types of early D-ware are very uncommon and are often interpreted as being for use in elite burials (Finkenstaedt ) although they do also appear



chapter two

in settlement contexts (Gilbert : ). In contrast to this relatively wealthy burial the only other figuratively decorated ware of an early date comes from grave  which is a fairly simple oval burial containing one skeleton and only three pottery vessels as grave goods (Firth : , Figs. , ). Two of the ceramic vessels are simple bowls of blackmouthed ware while the third is a jar with perforated side handles, decorated with figures of a ship, ostriches and vegetation (Firth : Pl.  a, ). Among the seven so-called pottery caches or offering places, three contain Egyptian material. Number , as mentioned above, contained nine rough ware storage jars. Number  contained a wavy-handled jar and a rudimentary vessel of D-ware (Firth : , Fig. ) among the  vessels. While the interpretation of a cache cannot be ruled out this pit contained room for an interment and may in fact be a disturbed grave (Firth : Pl. , f). Pit  contained three vessels, one of which was a cylindrical wavy-handled jar (Firth : ) but no illustration or photograph accompanies the description. Pit  is described as an offering place or possibly the denuded grave of a child (Firth : ). It contained six steatopygous dolls of unbaked mud which had been painted and had modelled hair (Firth : Pl. c). It also contained four simple bowls. Cemetery  Dakka (Firth : –) Cemetery  is described as a continuation of cemetery  and contained the wealthier tombs. This cemetery is well preserved probably owing to the fact that C-Group graves were built over the stone sealing slabs of the earlier graves (Firth : ). There is some destruction from sebbakh-digging. Some of the descriptions of pottery are limited. The breakdown of the graves is outlined below in Table . Table . Cemetery  Dakka Unclassified Animal Cache or Graves with no Graves with  graves graves graves offering pits Egyptian material Egyptian material 











Of the  graves in total, the majority contained some material of Egyptian origin. Those tombs are dated as seen in Table .

egypt in nubia



Table . Cemetery  Dakka: Dating of Graves Date

 graves

Predynastic/Early Dynastic Naqada II–IIIC Naqada IIC–D Naqada IIIA–B Naqada IIIA Naqada IIIA Naqada IIIA Naqada IIIB

91     92  

Total



As can be seen from the above chart the graves containing Egyptian material all date to the late Naqada II to Naqada III period with the majority in Naqada IIIA–B periods. The types of Egyptian grave goods are outlined in Table  below. Table . Cemetery  Dakka: Egyptian Material

Date

 graves

Predynastic/Early Dynastic Naqada II–IIIC Naqada IIC–D Naqada IIIA–B Naqada IIIA Naqada IIIA Naqada IIIA Naqada IIIB

       

       

       

       

       

       

Total













As can be seen, pottery vastly outnumbers any other grave good that can be considered Egyptian. Of the  Egyptian pottery vessels excavated,  were wavy-handled vessels and four were D-ware with reduced decoration. Most of the pottery dates to the Naqada IIIA–B period. Only

91 Grave  contained three small bowls or cups of coarse ware which are probably locally manufactured. There was also a cylindrical wavy-handled jar with red netpatterned decoration, however it is listed as outside the grave (Firth : ). 92 Grave  contained a cylindrical wavy-handled jar which in the line drawing resembles Petrie’s type W which Hendrickx dates to Naqada IIIA although Kaiser puts it in IIIA.



chapter two

eight siltstone palettes were found none of which appear to be animalshaped; they are oval, rectangular or not specified. However, there were also  palettes which were likely local in origin as they are simply listed as quartz, pebble or stone. The only copper objects found were a copper wire bracelet and an axe which had apparently been deliberately broken (Firth : ). Graves of Interest Grave  was a relatively simple grave of a child. It contained six shell bracelets on the child’s arm, a large jar of coarse ware and a thin black polished bowl with milled rim. However it also contained a small squat jar with perforated side handles and wavy handles (Firth : , Fig. ) which displays the huge variety that can be seen in decorated and wavy-handled ware. Grave  contained two jars of hard pink ware, one of which is decorated with black horizontal line decoration (Firth : , Fig. ). It also contained a long necked jar of hard pink ware which has a parallel with a jar found in grave a at Abusir el-Meleq (Scharff : Pl. ). Grave  was a relatively large grave containing three interments, two of which appear to have been moved aside to make room for the third (Firth : , Fig. ). It also still had stone sealing slabs in place. It contained several ceramic bowls and hard pink ware jars along with a wavy-handled cylindrical jar with net-patterned decoration and also an example of eggshell ware (Firth : –, Fig. ). Several graves (,  and  for example) contained large coarse ware vessels with poorly manufactured lower bases (Firth : , Figs. , ) which have good parallels with vessels found in tomb U-j at Abydos (Dreyer et al. : Pl. , a-e). Grave  was a double burial also with stone sealing slabs in position. Among the grave goods were jars of hard pink ware and several ceramic bowls. One bowl was described as thin re-painted ware with painted pattern that is undoubtedly eggshell ware. Another is a jar or cup with zigzag incised patterns (Firth : , Fig. /, Pl.  b, ) which may fit into Nordström’s Type group AVII and Williams’ Group VII. The shaft of A is parallel to a C-Group grave shaft and was enclosed by it and at some point a hole was dug to connect the two, possibly for the burial of the infant found in it. The C-Group grave was, however, plundered and so the grave robbers may also have broken into the earlier burial which could account for the disturbance of the earlier grave (Firth : –, Figs. , ). The grave also contained a quantity of pottery

egypt in nubia



vessels including black-mouthed ware and hard pink ware jars as well as shell bracelets and an oval siltstone palette. Grave  is another relatively large grave measuring . × . × . m and also with several stone sealing slabs still in position. It contained two interments and at least  pottery vessels including hard pink ware and coarse ware. Also amongst the pottery was a deep jar of incised brown ware (Firth : , Fig. , Pl.  b, ). This jar parallels Williams’ form group VII which he classifies as of Sudanese tradition (Williams : –). The grave also contained a bowl of thin red ware with a red-painted interior design (Firth : , Fig. , Pl.  d, ) which are common to cemetery L at Qustul (Williams : ) and which he classifies amongst the A-Group pottery although it also resembles some of the C-ware which Petrie also classified as being foreign, specifically Libyan in origin (Petrie a: ). There are no other examples of this ware in this cemetery and Williams states that it is rare outside of Qustul (Williams : ). Grave  also retained its stone sealing slabs and was a single burial with the skull of the individual resting on finely chopped straw (Firth : , Fig. , Pl. f). It contained a large jar of hard pink ware and a large jar of coarse ware with a strainer amongst its grave goods (Firth : , Fig. ). It also contained what appear to be several bowls of eggshell ware and one jar of red brown ware with incised patterns (Firth : , Fig. , Pl.  b, ). This was also one of only two graves which contained copper objects. The copper axe in this grave was found close to the body of the deceased and was apparently deliberately broken (Firth : ). Cemetery  Dakka (Firth : –) No detailed description is given for this cemetery as a whole but from the few line drawings given and the description of the graves it seems evident that the cemetery has been disturbed. A total of  graves are published. One grave, number , is not treated as a separate grave but as part of  as the contents are described as being in sand at the western end of grave  (Firth : ). The graves are outlined in Table . Table . Cemetery  Dakka Unclassified Animal Graves with no Graves with  graves graves graves Egyptian material Egyptian material 











chapter two

As can be seen only eight graves could be said to contain Egyptian material. Many of these graves contained black-topped and blackmouthed wares and it is difficult to assign them as Egyptian or local. In cemetery  Firth describes the material as being “degenerate local copies” of black-topped ware (Firth : ). In some instances no illustration is given and only a distinction is made in the description between black-mouthed and black-topped. In these instances black-mouthed is taken to be local and black-topped possibly Egyptian. Where illustrations accompany a grave description an attempt has been made to identify the pottery based on forms. Where there was any doubt the material is not included for further study. The dating of the graves containing Egyptian material is outlined in Table  below. Table . Cemetery  Dakka: Dating of Graves Date

 graves

Naqada I–IIA 93 Naqada IIB–C  Naqada IIB–D  Total



As the table above shows, the majority of the graves fall into the mid to late Naqada II period. The broad date of Naqada IIB–D is used for five of the graves as the material cannot be said to be of Naqada I, nor is it datable to Naqada III. However the large numbers of black-mouthed ware could indicate a younger date is possible based on Nordström’s dating of this material to the Classic and Terminal A-Group (Nordström : ). The types of Egyptian material can be seen in Table . Table . Cemetery  Dakka: Egyptian Material

Date

 graves

Naqada I–IIA  Naqada IIB–C  Naqada IIB–D 

  

  

  

  

  

Total













93 Grave  is dated Naqada I–IIA based on the presence of a long lozenge-shaped siltstone palette which appears throughout the Naqada I period. As the distinction between Naqada IC and Naqada IIA is not clear the dating has been pushed as far as Naqada IIA.

egypt in nubia



The cemetery did not contain much material that could be definitively classified as Egyptian and the only types of goods are pottery vessels and siltstone palettes. Of the pottery vessels only one is decorated ware (Dware) and one is described as a hard pink ware jar with pierced side handles which resembles the D-ware forms. Four of the siltstone palettes are bird-shaped. No copper objects or stone vessels were found. This cemetery also contained several N-ware vessels which appear to date essentially to the Naqada II period (Glück : –). Cemetery  Kubban (Firth : –) Firth’s final season, –, continued the previous years work and was finally published in . Cemetery  at Kubban is a very small cemetery with a limited number of A-Group graves which Firth dates as Early Dynastic (Firth : ). There are seven A-Group graves but the cemetery has been affected heavily by wind denudation and plundering. The graves are listed below in Table . Table . Cemetery  Kubban Unclassified Animal Graves with no Graves with  graves graves graves Egyptian material Egyptian material 









Of these seven graves, three contain objects of Egyptian origin. The dating of the graves containing Egyptian material is outlined in Table  below. Table . Cemetery  Kubban Date

 graves

Naqada II–IIIC  Naqada IIIA–C 94 Total



As can be seen the dating of the graves is fairly broad as they did not contain many grave goods and the descriptions of them was somewhat 94 Grave  contained only a bowl of black-mouthed ware, a jar of eggshell ware and an alabaster jar. The Naqada IIIA–C date is based on the presence of the alabaster jar and the eggshell ware.



chapter two

limited. The presence of black-mouthed ware alongside eggshell ware would suggest a Terminal A-Group or Naqada IIIA–C date. The types of Egyptian grave goods are listed in the following table. Table . Cemetery  Kubban: Egyptian Material

Date

 graves

Naqada II–IIIC  Naqada IIIA–C 

 

 

 

 

 

Total













There is very little Egyptian material amongst these graves. One grave () contains a siltstone palette (the only Egyptian palette) with incised border line; grave  contains an alabaster jar and grave  has a long jar of hard pink (Marl) ware. Two of the graves ( and ) also contain eggshell ware. The rest of the cemetery was dated to the C-Group and the seven earlier graves were set a little way apart from the rest of the cemetery (Firth : ). It is possible that there were more early graves as the cemetery had suffered from wind denudation and plundering but this cannot be certain. Cemetery  Wadi Alagi (Firth : –) Located approximately half a kilometre north of the Wadi Alagi post office, Firth gave this cemetery a date of Late Predynastic to Early Dynastic with some later Middle and New Kingdom intrusions (Firth : ). On the whole the cemetery is relatively undisturbed. The graves are listed below in Table . Table . Cemetery  Wadi Alagi Unclassified Animal Graves with no Graves with  graves graves graves Egyptian material Egyptian material 









Of the  graves,  contain material of Egyptian origin. One of these, number , only contained amulets in the filling. The dating of these graves is outlined in Table  below.

egypt in nubia



Table . Cemetery  Wadi Alagi: Dating of Graves Date

 graves

Predynastic/Early Dynastic Naqada II–IIIC Naqada II–IIIA Naqada IIC–D Naqada IIIA–C Naqada IIIA-C Naqada IIIA–B Naqada IIIA Naqada IIIA Naqada IIIA Naqada IIIB

95  96  97 98    99 100

Total



The majority of graves containing Egyptian material fall into the Late Naqada II–III period. The presence of eggshell ware would also agree with a later date. The types of Egyptian grave goods found are shown in Table . Table . Cemetery  Wadi Alagi: Egyptian Material

Date

 graves

Predynastic/Early Dynastic Naqada II–IIIC Naqada II–IIIA Naqada IIC–D Naqada IIIA–C

    

95

    

    

    

    

    

    

Grave  was a small circular grave containing two amulets but only in the filling and so the grave could not be more specifically classified (Firth : ). 96 Grave  contained two vessels of P-ware and one of hard pink ware. P-ware appears in Naqada II but not in Naqada IIIB according to Kaiser’s stufe (Firth : ). 97 Grave  contained only one vessel which could be considered Egyptian, a small jar of hard pink ware. It also contained a vessel of eggshell ware which gives it the Naqada IIIA–C date (Firth : ). 98 Grave  contained three vessels of hard pink ware, one of which was a long broad jar of L-ware like Petrie’s L which does not appear before Naqada IIIA (Firth : –). 99 Grave  contained a cylindrical wavy-handled jar with reduced wavy band around the neck which parallels Petrie’s W- and which both Kaiser and Hendrickx place in the Naqada IIIA (Firth : ). 100 Grave  contained a rectangular siltstone palette with incised border and a circular siltstone palette with incised border which is among the very latest in Petrie’s sequence and which Kaiser does not have before Naqada IIIB (Firth : ).



chapter two

Date (cont’d)

 graves

Naqada IIIA-C Naqada IIIA–B Naqada IIIA Naqada IIIA Naqada IIIA Naqada IIIB

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

Total















The bulk of the Egyptian material is made up of pottery vessels of hard pink (Marl) ware including wavy-handled (W) and decorated (D) Ware. Only one vessel of D-ware was found (grave ) while  graves contained W-ware ( vessels). Other Egyptian objects were cosmetic siltstone palettes ( palettes in  graves). Local palettes of quartz or sandstone were found in  graves. Three copper objects were also discovered: a copper awl (grave ), copper wire ornament and copper tube (grave ). Only two graves contained copper. Grave  contained two elephant head amulets, one of black stone and one of ivory. While these amulets may not in fact be Egyptian imports it shows a shared artistic repertoire. Cemetery  Wadi Alagi (Firth : –) This cemetery was only a few hundred yards from Cemetery  and was predominantly an X-Group cemetery (Firth : –). Among the graves but set a little apart from it were “about a dozen graves . . . dating apparently from the later Early Dynastic period” (Firth : ). No further description was given. Cemetery  Wadi Alagi (Firth : ) Located to the south of the Wadi Alagi post office this cemetery may have been a continuation of Cemetery  but was in very poor condition and many of the  graves are completely empty. Cemetery  Qurta (Firth : ) This cemetery is listed as containing Early Dynastic graves all of which have been intruded on by graves of the Roman Byzantine period and thus almost completely destroyed. In addition the cemetery has been affected by plundering and sebbakh-digging. No specific number of graves was given, only the designation “a few” (Firth : ).

egypt in nubia



Cemetery  Qurta (Firth : –) Containing only six A-Group graves, Cemetery  had been plundered and older graves had also been disturbed by younger graves. None of the burials contained grave goods which could be definitively designated Egyptian. Grave  also contained a mud jar sealing with illegible impressions from a cylinder seal. Cemetery  Sheikh Sharaf (Firth : –) This relatively large cemetery had been extensively plundered by sebbakhdigging although the excavator states that it had originally been a cemetery of importance (Firth : ). The graves are outlined in Table  below. Table . Cemetery  Sheikh Sharaf Unclassified Animal Graves with no Graves with  graves graves graves Egyptian material Egyptian material 









Of the  graves of A-Group date,  contained artefacts of Egyptian origin. Two graves, however (, ) contained Egyptian material in the filling only and therefore could not be given a firm dating. The dating of the graves containing Egyptian material is outlined in Table . Table . Cemetery  Sheikh Sharaf: Dating of Graves Date

 graves

Predynastic/Early Dynastic Naqada II–IIIC Naqada IIC–IIIA Naqada IIC–D Naqada IIIA

  101  

Total



The dating of this cemetery is very broad extending from Naqada II to Naqada III but the majority would appear to date from Late Naqada II to early Naqada III. The types of Egyptian grave goods are outlined in Table  below. 101 Grave  and  both contained a large jar of smooth coarse red ware that following the description and the illustration provided is a vessel of R type which first appears in Naqada IIC all the way through to Naqada IIIA (Firth : –).



chapter two

Table . Cemetery  Sheikh Sharaf: Egyptian Material

Date

 graves

Predynastic/Early Dynastic Naqada II–IIIC Naqada IIC–IIIA Naqada IIC–D Naqada IIIA

    

    

    

   

   

   

Total













The Egyptian material is fairly evenly divided between pottery vessels and siltstone palettes. Of the  pottery vessels seven were wavy-handled jars but one of these was found in debris. Amongst the local pottery there appears to be some eggshell ware which would fit in with the Naqada III dating. Egyptian palettes were found in eight graves. Copper was found in the debris of one grave () in the form of a knife blade. Grave , in addition to a breccia palette contained a grey breccia stone vessel, which was the only stone vessel found in this cemetery. An obsidian flake (Firth : Pl. .e.) was found in grave  along with two Egyptian pottery vessels and a rectangular siltstone palette. No analysis of the obsidian has been carried out but it does not necessarily follow that the source must have been far distant Anatolia, as obsidian can be found in modernday Eritrea and Ethiopia. However, this does still indicate exchange or expeditions for raw materials. Cemetery  Seyala (Firth : –) Located just to the south of Seyala on the west bank, this cemetery had suffered heavily due to sebbakh-digging. Firth described the cemetery as “quite strongly Nubian in character” (Firth : ) based on the increase in the number of red-polished black-mouthed ware. In spite of the damage, this relatively small A-group cemetery of  graves, several contained a relatively large number of grave goods indicating that it must have been quite wealthy. The make up of the graves is outlined in Table  below. Table . Cemetery  Seyala Unclassified Animal Graves with no Graves with  graves graves graves Egyptian material Egyptian material 









egypt in nubia



Of the  graves in this cemetery essentially half contain some Egyptian material. The dating of those containing Egyptian material is contained in Table . Table . Cemetery  Seyala: Dating of Graves Date

 graves

Predynastic/Early Dynastic Naqada I–IIA Naqada II–IIIC Naqada IIC–D Naqada IID Naqada IIIA

 102  103 104 105

Total



The graves with Egyptian material fall into the broad Naqada II–III date with one possible earlier burial. The presence of a large number of AGroup black-mouthed wares would make a late Naqada II into early Naqada III date preferable. The types of grave goods are outlined in Table . Table . Cemetery  Seyala: Egyptian Material

Date

 graves

Predynastic/Early Dynastic Naqada I–IIA Naqada II–IIIC Naqada IIC–D Naqada IID Naqada IIIA

     

     

     

     

     

     

Total













102 Grave  contained an early form of R ware and a lonzenge-shaped siltstone palette which may be slightly older but is not inconsistent with a Naqada IIA date (Firth : ). 103 Grave  contained a P-ware vessel similar to Petrie’s P type (Firth : ). 104 Grave  contained fine black-mouthed ware with red on orange pattern that resembles Nordström’s type group AX forms but with decoration similar to that seen on eggshell ware so the tomb is likely to be late Naqada II into Naqada III with perhaps an older form of w-ware as an heirloom. It should be noted that this grave intruded upon a slightly older one. 105 Number  was in fact a storage pit and certainly not a grave. It did however contain three Egyptian L-ware vessels like types L/ and has therefore been included.



chapter two

Thirteen ( ) of the graves contained Egyptian material, mostly pottery. The pottery vessels were made up of Marl wares including two with W-ware, as well as some Smooth coarse red ware. One vessel in grave  is a cylindrical jar with pierced side handles of a hard black ware apparently in imitation of a basalt vase (Firth : ). A-Group pottery vessels were found in   of the graves. Palettes of siltstone as well as porphyry and one described as “marble (?)” (Firth : ) were also found in five graves compared to seven graves containing locally made palettes. Four copper objects were found in two graves. These were a copper knife (Firth : Pl. .b.) and two copper awls (Firth : Pl. .b., ) in grave  and a thick copper needle found in grave . No stone vessels or D-ware was found. Two incised ware pottery vessels were found indicating more southern influences and exchange. As with cemetery , one grave () contained an obsidian flake (Firth : Pl. .e.). The cemetery can be dated to Naqada IIIA–C. Cemetery  Seyala (Firth : –) Cemetery  is located on the east bank to the south of Seyala and is perhaps best known for the two gold mace handles found in grave  (see Pl. ). The cemetery had, unfortunately, been thoroughly plundered. However, the graves were all large and had been originally roofed with sandstone slabs which led to the site being used as a quarry (Firth : ). The cemetery is relatively small containing  graves and at least some (, , ) were multiple burials which, as the excavator points out, may indicate the burial site being the private burial location of a local chief and his family with some graves being reused by people of equal rank (Firth : ). The graves are broken down in Table . Table . Cemetery  Seyala Unclassified Animal Graves with no Graves with  graves graves graves Egyptian material Egyptian material 









Only five of the graves contained identifiable Egyptian material and this may be due to the fact that the cemetery had been so heavily disturbed. Those containing Egyptian material are dated in Table .

egypt in nubia



Table . Cemetery  Seyala: Dating of Graves Date

 graves

Naqada IIIA–C  Total



As can be seen this small cemetery is very homogenous and dates to the Terminal A-Group (Naqada IIIA–C) although it should be pointed out that as several of the tombs clearly contained multiple burials, the same grave may have been used over time. Nevertheless the material contained in these graves is also fairly homogenous. While the graves have been damaged and plundered, several still contained a large number of grave goods and the cemetery must have been an exceptionally wealthy one. The graves also contained a lot of A-Group pottery including the very fine eggshell ware and thin red-brown ware that had been incised (Nordström’s Type Group AI). Several graves also contained Egyptian material and these are outlined in Table . Table . Cemetery  Seyala

Date

 graves

Naqada IIIA–C 











Total













The cemetery must have contained a great deal more material, both Egyptian and local. As it is, pottery and copper objects are almost equal. Only three siltstone palettes were found in two graves although there were at least nine locally produced palettes as well as grinding slabs. Three stone vessels were found, again coming from only two graves. The copper objects include chisels, adzes and a harpoon. From the cemetery as a whole, five contained Egyptian objects. Two of the graves contained stone vessels made of alabaster and siltstone. Eleven vessels of Egyptian pottery are found in all five graves and consists of vessels of hard pink (Marl) ware but no W- or D-ware. Locally made pottery consists of  vessels and is predominantly red-polished black-mouthed ware although there is also some eggshell ware (graves ,  and ) and one vessel described as a bowl of black ware with an incised basket pattern (Firth : –; Pl. .d.), probably N-ware. Grave , which was also very large, contained several grinding slabs and palettes, eggshell ware



chapter two

and an Egyptian storage jar as well as a granite mortar or incense burner that had an incised decoration (Firth : , Pl.  a, ). Graves of Interest Grave number  is the richest and, along with grave  is the largest measuring  × – cm. The grave had contained at least two adult individuals, and had originally been covered by sandstone slabs one of which had apparently fallen into the grave, thus concealing some of the human remains and grave goods (Firth : , Pl.  c, d). Along with the gold mace handles and their maceheads it contained four copper chisels, three copper adzes, a copper harpoon, two stone vessels (one of siltstone and one of porphyry), two siltstone palettes and Egyptian pottery vessels. The siltstone palettes were both double bird head-shaped palettes, one of which was exceptionally large (Firth : –, Pl. c). This grave also contained an amulet in the shape of a lion’s head (Firth : , Pl.  d, e). The majority of pottery vessels found in this grave were, however, locally made. The gold plating of the mace handles consisted of tubes of thin gold and the larger of the two was decorated with a ribbed pattern, possibly imitating leather binding (Firth : ). The smaller mace handle also has a ribbed decoration but only at the lower end of the handle. Firth writes that the “junction between the two edges of gold must have been produced by cold welding” (Firth : ) as the joint is invisible. The remainder of the gold plating is decorated with a series of animals in low relief. The animals are an elephant trampling twin serpants, a giraffe, a crane or stork, an ox and scimitar-horned oryx, an eland (the only known representation of this animal in ancient Egyptian art), a lion, deer, a leopard and a hyena (Osborne : –). The combination and representation of these animals is similar to that seen in several ivory knife handles such as the Brooklyn knife handle, the Pitt-Rivers ivory knife handle, the Carnarvon knife handle and especially the Gebel el-Tarif knife handle as well as the Davis ivory comb (Kantor : ; Osborne : –). Unfortunately this mace handle went missing, presumed stolen, from the Egyptian Museum in Cairo in  and has never been recovered. The tomb owners of grave  must have been of exceptionally high status and were probably chiefs of some kind.

egypt in nubia



Cemetery  Seyala (Firth : –) This cemetery is described as containing about  graves of the later Early Dynastic period which had been completely plundered. The rest of the cemetery consisted of Roman, Byzantine and X-Group graves. No further details were given. Cemetery  Naga Wadi (Firth : –) This small cemetery of  A-Group graves had been thoroughly plundered, apparently by an antiquities dealer from Luxor who had presented the local villagers with false documentation purported to be from the department of antiquities (Firth : ). However, in spite of the looting and damage done, several of the graves still yielded significant finds. The graves are outlined below. Table . Cemetery  Naga Wadi Unclassified Animal Graves with no Graves with  graves graves graves Egyptian material Egyptian material 









As shown in Table  above, five of the graves were animal burials and only four of the graves contained objects of Egyptian origin. For the dating of those graves containing Egyptian goods see Table  below. Table . Cemetery  Naga Wadi: Dating of Graves Date

 graves

Naqada IIIA–C  Total



Like cemetery  at Seyala, the dating of the graves is uniform and falls into the Terminal A-Group. The graves contained a variety of material and the Egyptian objects are listed below in Table . Table . Cemetery  Naga Wadi: Egyptian Material

Date

 graves

Naqada IIIA–C 











Total















chapter two

Although the cemetery yielded a fair amount of material, very little of it could be identified as Egyptian in origin. Only one vessel is described as being of hard pink ware, presumably Marl ware. One grave (), which had been reused in the early New Kingdom, contained a siltstone palette and another () contained a piece of a small alabaster vessel. The majority of the pottery was local in origin ( ), including eggshell ware in four graves (, , , ). Graves of Interest Grave number  was exceptionally large and measured . × . × . m although the northern end was completely empty (Firth : ). It contained two copper chisels (Firth : Pl. .b.) and two copper axe heads (Firth : Pl. b..). This particular grave, containing an adult and a child, yielded the most material. It did not contain any Egyptian pottery that could be identified from the descriptions. It did contain eggshell ware (one of which was decorated with paintings of ostriches) and incised ware, numerous beads of carnelian and garnet and a number of ivory and mother-of-pearl braclets. Cemetery  (Firth : –) Firth described this cemetery of “strongly Nubian type” (Firth : ) again based on the high proportion of red-polished black-mouthed ware. The cemetery had suffered from denudation and was disturbed and contained  graves of A-Group date and these are outlined in Table . Table . Cemetery  Unclassified Animal Graves with no Graves with  graves graves graves Egyptian material Egyptian material 









Overall the cemetery had  graves which contained material which originated from Egypt. The dating of these graves can be seen in the following table. Table . Cemetery : Dating of Graves Date

 graves

Naqada I–IIIC  Naqada II–IIIC  Naqada IIIA–C 

egypt in nubia Date (cont’d)



 graves

Naqada IIIA–B 106 Naqada IIIA 107 Total



The dating of these tombs was problematic as the material was often given only very basic descriptions. Those dated broadly to Naqada I–III contained only siltstone palettes which do not have illustrations or descriptions of their shape beyond ‘fish’ or ‘rectangular’; or they contained copper objects, again with only cursory description and no illustration. The presence of eggshell ware, black-mouthed ware and incised ware would, however, indicate an overall date of late Naqada II to Naqada IIIC. Table  below shows the types of Egyptian material found. Table . Cemetery : Egyptian Material

Date

 graves

Naqada I–IIIC Naqada II–IIIC Naqada IIIA–C Naqada IIIA–B Naqada IIIA

    

    

    

    

    

    

Total













The Egyptian material is limited and the majority of it is pottery. The Egyptian pottery consisted of hard pink (Marl) ware including one each of W-ware and D-ware, and smooth coarse red ware. Half of the Nubian pottery vessels were red-polished black mouthed ware and there were also some eggshell vessels and incised ware. Seven graves contained Egyptian cosmetic palettes while  contained locally made palettes. One grave () contained a stone vessel described as made of white marble (Firth : ); and the same grave contained two copper wire bracelets and beads of lapis lazuli. Two other graves contained copper objects; grave  contained a copper chisel and grave  contained a copper needle. One pottery vessel found in grave  was described as 106 Grave  contained a vessel of D-ware with rudimentary wavy line decoration similar to Petrie’s Dg (Firth : ). 107 Grave  contained a long, cylindrical wavy-handled jar but not further description or illustration is given (Firth : ).



chapter two

a deep pot of thin red painted and polished ware that had the figures of a man and two animals scratched into the surface (Firth : ). The excavator speculated that these animals were monkeys but the scene more closely resembles the taming of wild animals as seen in palettes and tomb  at Hierakonpolis. Summary and Results of the First Archaeological Survey of Nubia The majority of cemeteries in this survey had been disturbed through plundering, sebbakh-digging, natural denudation or a combination of these. Nevertheless they still contained a lot of material. The following charts show the total number of A-Group graves studied in the First Archaeological Survey and the types and quantities of Egyptian material found. Of the over  graves examined, only   could be said to definitely contain material of Egyptian manufacture. Most of this was pottery and siltstone palettes. Very little copper or stone vessels were found and only three cemeteries (Shellal , Khor Bahan  and Seyala ) contained maceheads. It has been suggested that maceheads did not represent any social status (Gatto : ). However, their scarcity in A-Group contexts would seem to contradict this. The maceheads found in Seyala Cemetery , grave , and associated with gold covered handles, one of which was decorated with figures of animals similar to decoration seen on carved ivory knife handles, also indicates that these objects were prestigious. In addition, those found at Shellal were often associated with high quality flint knives such as fishtail knives (which are also rare) and should be seen as symbols of power, authority and prestige, predominantly if not exclusively associated with males (Hikade ). There is a general similarity between these cemeteries and their Naqadan counterparts. The types of grave shafts, treatment of the bodies and grave assemblages are broadly similar and some, such as Khor Bahan and Shellal are virtually indistinguishable from contemporary Egyptian ones. In fact, as can be seen in table  Egyptian pottery and siltstone palettes outnumber those considered Nubian for these cemeteries and it is not until we reach Metardul and further south that the trend towards more Nubian material in comparison to Egyptian can be seen. These northernmost regions should be seen as closely tied to the Naqada culture and even as a regional variant as also suggested by Gatto (). Indeed Gatto () has argued that the definition of the First Cataract region should extend south as far as Metardul and possibly even to Dakka.

egypt in nubia



Access to Egyptian made pottery and its contents seems to have been fairly widespread although objects which could be considered more prestigious such as maceheads, copper implements, high quality flint knives and stone vessels were more limited, particularly in later periods. Northern Lower Nubia, particularly in the Early A-Group appears to have had a simple down-the-line reciprocal exchange network with the north when it came to more mundane objects such as pottery. As can be seen in table  below, the proportion of Nubian pottery to Egyptian in the northern-most region of Lower Nubia was relatively close (  to  ) and there is an equal number of Egyptian siltstone palettes in comparison to Nubian palettes. However, prestige objects were only available to a small proportion of the population. This may mean that exchange could have been conducted by a limited number of people but the redistribution of pottery was widespread. The example of later cemeteries like Seyala  and Naga Wadi , which are elite cemeteries separated from the general population, indicates that this exchange became increasingly formalised between elites. The question was posed in the descriptions of these various cemeteries: can we suggest that for more common ‘everyday’ items such as pottery, the concept of trade and exchange is superfluous? Not entirely. Trade in a modern, commercial sense should be ruled out as the material does not support a large scale entrepreneurial exercise; nor should we see the regions surveyed by Reisner and Firth as completely foreign entities to Upper Egypt. Certain pottery forms such as black-topped/black-mouthed red wares were common features to both Upper Egypt and Lower Nubia and while pottery made of marl clay was certainly manufactured north of Aswan, it enjoyed a widespread distribution or redistribution. The same could be said for siltstone palettes— the use of palettes was widespread and in the northern-most parts of Lower Nubia access to those manufactured in Egypt of siltstone was readily available. Some objects, however, as has been pointed out, were not widespread, and access to objects manufactured of copper or stone, including maceheads and high quality flint tools, was clearly limited and they should thus be seen as prestigious or luxury items that displayed the power, wealth and authority of the owner. These then were exchange gifts between elites who may also have controlled access to Egyptian manufactured pottery and its contents. If indeed Lower Nubia as far south as Metardul should be seen as part of the First Cataract region and perhaps also as more closely tied to the Naqada tradition than to a Nubian one this does not rule out the concept of exchange but it makes for a simpler, more localised exchange (between next-door neighbours?) rather than one of long-distance exchange between foreign groups.



chapter two

Table . Nubian Pottery and Palettes and Egyptian Pottery and Palettes from the First Archaeological Survey Cemetery

Nubian pottery

Egyptian pottery

Nubian palettes

Egyptian palettes

Shellal  Bahan  Khor Ambukol  Dabod  Wadi Qamar  Meris-Markos  Siali  Dehmit  Dehmit  Shem Nishai  Dehmit  Dehmit  Metardul  Moalla  Gerf Hussein  Gedekol  Mediq  Mediq  Mediq  Koshtamna  Koshtamna  Koshtamna  Ikkur  Ikkur  Mediq  Dakka  Dakka  Dakka  Dakka  Dakka  Dakka  Dakka  Kubban  Wadi Allagi Qurta  Qurta  Sheikh Sharaf Seyala 

          ?        ?  ?    ?          ?   

                  ?  ?    ?          ?   

          ?        ?  ?    ?          ?   

                  ?  ?    ?          ?   

Seyala  Seyala  Naga Wadi  Cemetery 

 ?  

 ?  

 ?  

 ?  

Total

 ( )  ( )  ( )  ( )

egypt in nubia



Table . Chronological Distribution of Egyptian Objects in Reisner’s Excavations between Shellal Cemetery  and Metardul Cemetery  Unclassified Animal Graves with no Graves with  graves graves graves Egyptian material Egyptian material 









Date

 graves

Predynastic/Early Dynastic Naqada I Naqada I–IIA Naqada IC–IIA Naqada I–IIIC Naqada II–IIIC Naqada II Naqada IIA–C Naqada IIB–C Naqada IIB–D Naqada IIB–IIIA Naqada IIB–IIIC Naqada IIC Naqada IIC–D Naqada IIC–IIIA Naqada IIC–IIIA Naqada IIC–IIIB Naqada IID Naqada IID Naqada IID–IIIA Naqada IID-IIIA Naqada IID-IIIB Naqada IIIA Naqada IIIA Naqada IIIA Naqada IIIA–B Naqada IIIA-B Naqada IIIA–C Naqada IIIA-C Naqada IIIB Naqada IIIC

                              

                              

                              

                              

                              

                              

                              

Total

















chapter two

Table . Chronological Distribution of Egyptian Objects in Firth’s Excavations between Moalla Cemetery  and Naga Wadi Cemetery / Unclassified Animal Cache or Graves with no Graves with  graves graves graves offering pits Egyptian material Egyptian material 











Date

 graves

Predynastic/Early Dynastic Naqada I–II Naqada I–IIA Naqada IC–IIA Naqada IC–IIB Naqada IC–IIC Naqada IC–IID Naqada I–IIIC Naqada II–IIIC Naqada II Naqada IIB Naqada IIB–C Naqada IIB–D Naqada IIB–D Naqada IIB–IIIA Naqada IIC–D Naqada IIC–D Naqada IIC–III Naqada IIC–IIIA Naqada IIC–IIIA Naqada IIC–IIIB Naqada IID Naqada IID Naqada IID Naqada IIIA–C Naqada IIIA Naqada IIIA Naqada IIIA Naqada IIIA–B Naqada IIIA–C Naqada IIIB

                              

                              

                              

                              

                              

                              

                              

                              

Total

















egypt in nubia



The Second Archaelogical Survey of Nubia between Wadi es-Sebua and Adindan – Due to a further heightening of the Aswan Dam W.B. Emery and L.P. Kirwan’s work was effectively the second major archaeological survey and excavation of Lower Nubia. In their introduction the authors conclude that the material discovered in this survey did not alter or greatly contribute to the conclusions of earlier excavations in Lower Nubia and unfortunately they were largely dismissive of their Predynastic and Early Dynastic finds. The Egyptian material is made up of ceramic vessels, copper objects and palettes. The descriptions and illustrations of the pottery are sometimes extremely simple which can make identification problematic (see Pl. ). Most of the palettes were described as alabaster by the excavators but there are no photographs or scientific analyses to help in identification. If they are indeed Egyptian alabaster, then the raw material is possibly imported. The palette shapes themselves do not parallel those found in Egypt for the same period but do find parallels in similar finds made by the Scandanavian Joint Expedition in the ’s. In the latter case the material used was local. So to reiterate if the material in the Emery/Kirwan excavations is Egyptian alabaster then the palettes may have been made especially for export to Nubia or may have been altered in shape by the local population. Grave Types The second archaeological survey did not fundamentally alter the definitions of Reisner and Firth. The grave types for the A-Group listed by Emery and Kirwan are briefly outlined below. Type A.. This type is an oval pit which is nearly circular which parallels Reisner’s type Ia (Emery and Kirwan : , Fig. ). Type A.. This is described as a lateral-niche grave made up of an oval pit with a chamber to one side which parallels Reisner’s type VIa (Emery and Kirwan : , Fig. ). Type A.. This is a double lateral-niche grave (Emery and Kirwan : , Fig. ).

Emery and Kirwan placed the following two types into the B-Group. Type B.. Type B..

This type is a circular ‘bee-hive’ grave with mud plastered walls which parallels Reisner’s type IV (Emery and Kirwan : , Fig. ). This is a circular pit with a lining of flat stones and a mud plastered floor (Emery and Kirwan : , Fig. ).



chapter two

Cemetery  Korosko (Emery and Kirwan : ) This cemetery is described as being a small Early Dynastic cemetery that had been completely plundered and “unworthy of excavation” (Emery and Kirwan : ). Cemetery  Amada (Emery and Kirwan : –) Situated on the west bank of the Nile River just under a kilometre south of Amada, the graves in this cemetery were “of the archaic period” (Emery and Kirwan : ) and were largely plundered. There were also some New Kingdom and Meroitic burials. The A-Group graves are listed in Table . Table . Cemetery  Amada Unclassified Animal Graves with no Graves with  graves graves graves Egyptian material Egyptian material 









Of the  graves of late Predynastic or Early Dynastic date,  contained Egyptian material. Yet even this number should be treated with caution due to the limited descriptions and drawings provided by the excavators. The dating of these graves is outlined in Table  below. Table . Cemetery  Amada: Dating of Graves Date

 graves

Naqada II–IIIC Naqada IIC–D Naqada IID Naqada IIIA–B Naqada IIIA–C Naqada IIIB–C

108 109    

Total



108 Grave  contained a quantity of local pottery and a rough siltstone palette. As there do not appear to be any Naqada I graves, the broad dating of Naqada I–III was excluded. In addition the presence of black-mouthed forms which date to the Classic and Terminal A-Groups confirm this broad date (Emery and Kirwan : , Fig. ). 109 Grave  contained a broad form wavy-handled jar (Emery and Kirwan : , Fig. ).

egypt in nubia



Most of the graves in this cemetery can be dated to the Naqada IIIA–C period with three of late Naqada II date. The Egyptian material in these graves is outlined in Table . Table . Cemetery  Amada: Egyptian Material

Date

 graves

Naqada II–IIIC Naqada IIIA–C Naqada IIIA–B Naqada IIIB–C Naqada IIC–D Naqada IID

     

     

     

     

     

     

Total













This heavily plundered cemetery contained very little Egyptian material, almost exclusively pottery. Among the pottery are five wavy-handled jars in three graves and one decorated ware. The majority of grave goods are simple pottery vessels and most of these should probably be assigned as local in manufacture and origin. One grave () contained a fine red ware incised bowl which has a good parallel to Nordström’s Avi (Nordström  Vol. , Pl. ). Only one rough siltstone palette was found. Emery and Kirwan’s use of the term alabaster for many palettes is problematic, although broken stone vessels of Egyptian alabaster/calcite may have been recyled, and it is probably a misidentification of quartz.110 Cemetery  Amada (Emery and Kirwan : –) A short distance north of cemetery  and still on the west bank of the river is a mixed cemetery. This cemetery too, was heavily plundered. The cemetery itself contained  graves of which the excavators dated  to the Early Dynastic period. These graves are set out in Table  below. Table . Cemetery  Amada Unclassified Animal Graves with no Graves with  graves graves graves Egyptian material Egyptian material 









110 For a discussion on the term alabaster see Bourriau (), Harrell (), Klemm and Klemm () and Aston, Harrell and Shaw (: –).



chapter two

As can be seen, half of the graves could not be classified further than being Pre- or Early Dynastic as they had been thoroughly plundered. Only two graves could be classified with certainty as containing Egyptian material and they are dated below. Table . Cemetery  Amada: Dating of Graves Date

 graves

Naqada II–IIIC 111 Naqada IIIA 112 Total



Based on the A-Group pottery, along with the limited Egyptian material, an overall date of Naqada IIIA–B seems plausible but the poor state of the cemetery makes dating difficult. The limited Egyptian material is listed in the following table. Table . Cemetery  Amada: Egyptian Material

Date

 graves

Naqada II–IIIC  Naqada IIIA 

 

 

 

 

 

Total













Only pottery is amongst the material described as Egyptian and this consists of a wavy-handled jar and a jar of D-ware as well as a small flat bottomed jar of L-ware. Cemetery  Ineiba (Emery and Kirwan : –) This cemetery contained  graves and all but one date to the C-Group and X-Group. Number  was the grave of two infants who were buried with five locally manufactured pottery vessels, one of which was incised coarse ware. No other details are given. 111 Grave  contained a vessel of L-ware similar to Petrie’s L (Emery and Kirwan : ). 112 Grave  contained the skeleton of an adult female and two pottery vessels. One was a cylindrical wavy-handled jar which does not appear in Hendrickx’s Naqada IIIB and the other is a decorated vessel wih simple wavy line painted decoration (Emery and Kirwan : , Fig. ).

egypt in nubia



Cemetery  Tushka (Emery and Kirwan : –) Midway between Masmas and Tushka this cemetery contained  graves of both A-Group and New Kingdom date. Of these,  were dated to the Early Dynastic period and they are outlined below. Table . Cemetery  Tushka Unclassified Animal Graves with no Graves with  graves graves graves Egyptian material Egyptian material 









The cemetery had been heavily plundered although some of the A-Group graves were untouched. Those containing Egyptian material are dated in Table . Table . Cemetery  Tushka: Dating of Graves Date

 graves

Naqada IIC–D 113 Naqada IIIA–C  Total



The graves are homogenous in date and nearly all can be dated to the Naqada IIIA–C period (Terminal A-Group). A narrower date is difficult to assign as much of the Egyptian material is L-ware pottery vessels of types appearing throughout this period. The Egyptian grave goods are listed in Table  below. Table . Cemetery  Tushka: Egyptian Material

Date

 graves

Naqada IIC–D  Naqada IIIA–C 

 

 

 

 

 

Total













Most of the Egyptian artefacts are pottery vessels and of the six found, one is a wavy-handled jar and one is a late form of decorated ware. The 113 Grave contained a broad form of a wavy-handled jar as well as a copper chisel (Emery and Kirwan : , Fig. ).



chapter two

remainder are large storage vessels of L-ware. Also among the grave good were six metal objects which the excavators labelled ‘bronze’ although they are probably copper. These included two stylus, two chisels and two borers. They are all found in graves with multiple burials. Once again palettes are described as alabaster and again their shapes more closely parallel Lower Nubian rather than Egyptian shapes. Most of the graves contained simple, probably local pottery vessels and palettes. Cemetery  Tushka (Emery and Kirwan : –) Described as a small cemetery, about half a kilometre south of Masmas, cemetery  had been heavily plundered (Emery and Kirwan : ). The excavators also described the majority of pottery vessels as “smooth coarse ware which is very common in the late Predynastic graves of northern Nubia” (Emery and Kirwan : ). Blacktopped or black-mouthed ware was uncommon. The graves are listed in Table . Table . Cemetery  Tushka Unclassified Animal Graves with no Graves with  graves graves graves Egyptian material Egyptian material 









This cemetery has  graves and only nine can confidently be said to contain grave goods of Egyptian origin. The dating of these tombs is outlined in Table  below. Table . Cemetery  Tushka: Dating of Graves Date

 graves

Naqada IIIA–C  Naqada IIIB–C 114 Total



The dating of the graves with Egyptian goods ties in with the excavators date of Early Dynastic. Three of the graves did not have reliably datable material but as the general character of the grave appears to be Naqada IIIA–C they were included in this broad date rather than 114 Grave  contained a round siltstone palette with an incised pattern around the edge which is a late form (Emery and Kirwan : , Fig. ).

egypt in nubia



the extremely cautionary Naqada I–III. The Egyptian material is limited and is presented in Table . Table . Cemetery  Tuskha: Egyptian Material

Date

 graves

Naqada IIIA–C  Naqada IIIB–C 

 

 

 

 

 

Total













Seven Egyptian vessels were found although none were of wavy-handled or decorated ware. Three siltstone palettes were found, one square shaped and one circular and one undetermined. Once again the excavators have described many palettes as being made from alabaster— in total—but where line drawings are provided the shapes parallel local variants as we have seen in Nordström’s publication (Nordström ). Metal objects, generally thought of as Egyptian imports, are described as bronze awls or chisels (graves , , , ). Cemetery  Kolotod (Emery and Kirwan : ) Located near the temple at Kolotod, the excavators describe this cemetery as containing Early Dynastic, C-Group and New Kingdom graves. No other details are given. Cemetery  Tamil (Emery and Kirwan : ) This cemetery at Tamil, contained Early Dynastic graves but it is described as totally plundered and no further details are given. Cemetery  Abu Simbel (Emery and Kirwan : –) Situated in the mouth of a wadi to the north of the temple of Abu Simbel this cemetery contained over  graves which the excavators designated Early Dynastic with a few B- and C-Group graves and was described as “of importance as it appeared to give a continuous series running through to the C-group period” (Emery and Kirwan : ). Cemetery  is largely unplundered and seems to have been a relatively wealthy burial ground. The  early burials that were published are listed in Table  below.



chapter two

Table . Cemetery  Abu Simbel Unclassified Animal Graves with no Graves with  graves graves graves Egyptian material Egyptian material 









While most of the graves did not contain identifiable Egyptian goods,  could be said to contain Egyptian artefacts and these are dated in Table  below. Table . Cemetery  Abu Simbel: Dating of Graves Date

 graves

Naqada IIIA–C  Naqada IIIA–B 115 Naqada IIIC 116 Total



As can be seen in the above chart none of the graves dates earlier than Naqada IIIA and this also fits in with the A-Group pottery found at the cemetery such as eggshell ware. The Egyptian grave goods are outlined in Table . Table . Cemetery  Abu Simbel: Egyptian Material

Date

 graves

Naqada IIIA–C  Naqada IIIA–B  Naqada IIIC 

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

Total

















Pottery is clearly the most common Egyptian material. The cemetery did not contain any wavy-handled vessels and only two decorated vessels. Nearly all the burials were single and where multiple burials occur they are almost always of two or more adult females or adult and child.

115 Grave  contained a jar of decorated ware which is described as having red splashes which corresponds to the later D-ware like D (Emery and Kirwan : ). 116 Grave  contained a necked jar of red ware which is probably a variant of L as well as a black steatite cylinder seal (Emery and Kirwan : , Fig. ).

egypt in nubia



There is a relatively large number of large Egyptian storage vessels; some evidence of gold leaf (grave ); palettes are all described as alabaster although there are no photographs and line drawings are few; and copper (described as bronze) objects such as borers and a spear head. Perhaps the most significant find is a black steatite inscribed cylinder seal which was found in a plundered grave () containing a few bones of an adult female. The seal was inscribed with a seated figure and hieroglyphic signs which seems to offer praise to the goddess Neith but could equally be a personal name. This seal should date to the very beginning of the Dynastic period. The other finds remaining in this grave were a fragment of a black topped bowl, a bronze (?) borer, some shell beads and a rather fine medium necked red ware pot. Of the local objects found as grave goods the majority are pottery made of simple rough or coarse brown ware, black-topped rippled ware and black-topped or black mouthed ware. This cemetery also contains several examples of fine eggshell ware known from the Terminal Agroup (graves , , , , , ) as well as some fine red ware incised black-topped bowls (grave :, Nordström’s AVIIa.), incised black ware (grave :/:, Nordström’s AV), and incised red ware (grave :, Nordström’s AIXa./). There were also sandstone palettes, various beads and bracelets made of shell, ivory and even pottery. Graves of Interest Grave , measuring . × . × . m, contained the body of a child and contained two large storage vessels of hard pink ware and a bowl of painted eggshell ware as well as some other A-Group pottery and some beads. The grave had been plundered (Emery and Kirwan : , Fig. ). Grave  was the unplundered grave of an adult female. No measurements were given. It contained five vessels which could be considered of Egyptian origin as well as an A-Group bowl. The Egyptian vessels included three large storage vessels of L-ware (Emery and Kirwan : , Fig. ). Grave  was another unplundered tomb. It contained the body of an adult male who had been wrapped in skins and covered with matting (Emery and Kirwan : , Fig. ). It contained  complete pottery vessels and fragments of another. Six of these vessels were Egyptian including large storage vessels, one of which had painted decoration similar to Nordström’s Type AXI. It also contained a bronze (?) borer and an eggshell ware cup and a bowl of thin polished red ware which had a painted interior like William’s Form group V.



chapter two

Grave  had been plundered but still contained a considerable number of grave goods (Emery and Kirwan : , Fig. ). Amongst the pottery were three eggshell ware vessels and a large Egyptian storage jar. Grave  was unplundered and contained the remains of an adult female (Emery and Kirwan : , Fig. ). It too contained  large Egyptian storage vessels and a bowl of eggshell ware as well as a bronze borer set into a bone handle. Grave , while plundered, still contained an incised red ware bowl and a bronze (?) leaf shaped spear head. Cemetery  Abu Simbel (Emery and Kirwan : –) This cemetery north of Abu Simbel was of C-Group date (Emery and Kirwan : ). However, it did contain one grave of Early Dynastic date which also contained at least one Egyptian pottery vessel. This was a storage jar (‘wine jar’) dating to Naqada IIIA–C. A second rough brown bowl was also found which is hard to assign as either Egyptian or local although the latter seems more likely. The grave had been plundered and contained no human remains. Cemetery  Naga Zebeida (Emery and Kirwan : ) This cemetery at Naga Zebeida is dated to the Early Dynastic by the excavators and is described as being heavily denuded with only the bottom of the graves surviving and with a few surface finds of Egyptian pottery. No other details are given. Cemetery  Naga Iryan (Emery and Kirwan : ) This cemetery is simply described as being a small Early Dynastic cemetery which had been totally plundered. Cemetery  (Emery and Kirwan : ) Located behind a C-Group settlement south of the boundary between Qustul and Adindan the cemetery is only described as Early Dynastic and plundered. Cemetery  Naga Hawari (Emery and Kirwan : ) Again this cemetery is only described as being Early Dynastic and plundered.

egypt in nubia



Summary and Results of the Second Archaeological Survey There was some geographical overlap between the areas examined by the First and Second Archaeological Surveys but essentially Emery and Kirwan started in the area where Firth had finished and moved southwards. From the  cemeteries  graves were included in this study. No animal graves were excavated amongst the A-Group graves. Only   contained Egyptian material as can be seen in the charts below. Nearly all the objects which were of Egyptian origin were pottery vessels. Only four siltstone palettes were found but the number of palettes described as alabaster was higher. No stone vessels were found and most of the copper objects came from Naqada IIIA–C (Middle to Terminal A-Group) and are described as chisels, awls and borers. Indeed most of the graves fall into this date. As can be seen in table  below, the gap between Egyptian and Nubian manufactured pottery and palettes is widening as we move further south. Nubian pottery now accounts for   of the pottery found and siltstone (Egyptian) palettes make up only   of the total palettes recovered. In no cemetery does Egyptian pottery outnumber Nubian. Cemetery  at Abu Simbel also contained eggshell ware which is otherwise not attested in these cemeteries. Access to what can be termed luxury or prestige items such as copper or stone vessels, even when the poor state of preservation of a cemetery is taken into account, is extremely limited. No stone vessels, maceheads or high quality flint tools (eg. fishtail or ripple-flaked knives) were recovered. We may be dealing with lower status people who had limited access to such goods. However, the type of copper objects found is worth noting. They include chisels, awls and at least one spear head not just simple copper wire or needles. In addition one steatite cylinder seal inscribed with hieroglyphic signs was found in one grave (Abu Simbel cemetery  grave ) and there was some evidence for the use of gold leaf (Abu Simbel  grave ). The Egyptian pottery found included wavy-handled and decorated wares as well as large late ware storage jars. Clearly this region further south displays more Nubian characteristics than Naqadan and so we should see these objects (most clearly the pottery) as real imports into a foreign region rather than part of a shared repertoire as seen in the region surveyed by Reisner and Firth. Access to this exchange still seems to be one handled or controlled by a few, possibly an elite, hence the limited number of prestige objects. The results from the



chapter two

Second Archaeological Survey pose some problems. The excavators were not as interested (and perhaps as thorough) in investigating the earlier periods of Nubia and all but one cemetery was disturbed. Indeed many of the cemeteries noted were not even excavated or reported in full. Still, it seems clear that Egyptian manufactured goods are becoming harder to come by the further south one goes and that access to such objects was increasingly limited suggesting more formalised exchanges between elites and their go-betweens. This may also indicate increasing cultural differences between Egyptians and Nubians as one travels further south. Table . Nubian and Egyptian Pottery and Palettes from the Second Archaeological Survey Cemetery

Nubian pottery

Egyptian Nubian pottery palettes

Egyptian palettes

Korosko  Amada  Amada  Aniba  Tushka  Tushka  Kolotod  Tamil  Abu Simbel  Abu Simbel  Naga Zebeida  Naga Iryan  Cemetery  Naga Hawari 

?      ? ?   ? ? ? ?

?      ? ?   ? ? ? ?

?      ? ?   ? ? ? ?

Total

 ( )  ( )  ( )  ( )

?      ? ?   ? ? ? ?

Table . Chronological Distribution of Egyptian Objects in Emery and Kirwan’s Excavations between Korosko Cemetery  and Naga Hawari  Unclassified Animal Graves with no Graves with  graves graves graves Egyptian material Egyptian material 









egypt in nubia



Date

 graves

Naqada II–IIIC Naqada IIC–D Naqada IID Naqada IIIA Naqada IIIA–B Naqada IIIA–C Naqada IIIB–C Naqada IIIC

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

Total















The University of Chicago, Oriental Institute Nubian Expedition As part of the UNESCO salvage operation the Oriental Institute Nubian Expedition spent – in the region of Ballana and Qustul in spite of the report by the Egypt Exploration Society in  that further excavation was not recommended (Williams : preface xxxiii). In their initial season the team uncovered early Christian, X-Group, Meroitic, New Kingdom and C-Group cemeteries (Williams : preface xxxvi). It was not until February  that the expedition found something new. When we started digging in an open region farther than usual from native dwellings and dominated by a single picturesque tree, we were trusting to luck. Yet we had more than luck; we had our trusted Gufti workmen, expert in finding graves even where there was no visible trace of them on the surface. Thus we opened our first A-Group cemetery which we designated L (Seele as quoted in Williams : preface xxxvi)

The ‘Royal’ Cemetery L at Qustul Were the tombs found in Egypt, Cemetery L would have been attributed to rulers, without qualification, from the evidence of wealth alone. (Williams : )

There is no question of the importance and singularity of Cemetery L at Qustul. In spite of the evidence of heavy plundering its graves yielded a vast amount of pottery both local and imported, as well as stone vessels, palettes, jewellery and incense burners. The figures for Egyptian material may appear somewhat inflated due to the very disturbed nature of the cemetery. In addition Williams has listed sherds of pottery and stone vessels as individual pieces and so the total amount listed in the charts



chapter two

below will be a maximum amount. Having said this, given the overall richness of the cemetery, large numbers of pottery and stone vessels are possible as can also be seen with the large number of grave goods found in tomb U-j at Abydos. The cemetery was somewhat small in size ( graves) and the graves themselves were unusually large. They are listed below in Table . Table . Cemetery L Qustul Unclassified Animal Graves with no Graves with  graves graves graves Egyptian material Egyptian material 







117

Seven of the graves were described as bovine burials and three of these were buried with some form of grave goods. One of the bovine burials in grave six also contained Egyptian pottery and so will be included in the list of graves containing Egyptian objects; the dating of these graves can be seen in Table . Table . Cemetery L Qustul: Dating of Graves Date

 graves

Naqada IIIA–C  Naqada IIIB  Naqada IIIC  Total



The cemetery has been dated to the Naqada IIIA phase and Williams has pointed to similarities with the B cemetery at Abydos (although this is largely based on the size and wealth of the tombs) and also to material at Hierakonpolis. More recent discussions have placed Qustul, Cemetery L, tomb , in the Naqada IIIB phase—Dynasty  at Abydos (Gophna and van den Brink : ). While half of the tombs are given a broad Naqada IIIA–C date, the remaining  all date to the latter part of this period. Williams assigns all the graves to single rulers who reigned one after the other but the lack of skeletal evidence means that multiple burials cannot be entirely ruled out. Many of the objects discovered were of Egyptian origin, most notably pottery and stone vessels and these are outlined in Table . 117 As one of the animal burials contained grave goods of Egyptian origin it has been included in the graves with Egyptian material figure as well as the animal graves.

egypt in nubia



Table . Cemetery L Qustul: Egyptian Material

Date

 graves

Naqada IIIA–C  Naqada IIIB  Naqada IIIC 

  

  

  

  

  

  

Total















Williams has divided the Egyptian pottery into two categories, “Hard Pink-Orange Pottery” (Williams : ) and “Coarse Pottery” (Williams : ). In the first group are small jars and bowls, medium-sized jars and medium and large jars (Williams : ) and all were of the same type of high quatily clay (Williams : ). While most vessels are storage jars (including at least  which could be classified as D-ware of the Naqada IIIA–B period) there are also a considerable number of bowls. The coarse ware occurs as “tapered jars, jars with strainers, potstands and pedestal platters” (Williams : ). The majority were potstands, some of considerable size and at least one in grave  was decorated with vertical serpents attached separately (Williams : , fig.  c). Others were decorated with incised and/or excised decoration (Williams : , fig.  b, d and fig.  b, d and e). Of the  graves in the cemetery  contained Egyptian pottery. It must be noted that the disturbed nature of the site meant that not all finds could be assigned a grave. The next largest group of Egyptian imports is stone vessels and they were found in  of the graves where finds could be definitely assigned. In all Williams calculated over  stone vessels in cemetery L as both complete pieces and fragments. The fragmentary nature of the finds could mean that this number is too high (Adams : ) although this assertion has been convincingly contested (Williams : –) and there certainly were a large number for a relatively small cemetery. Most are calcite but breccia, diorite and siltstone vessels have also been found. The stone vessels are both bowls and jars including cylindrical jars with wavy band and rope band decorations on the upper body and convex jars with small lug handles. Other objects of Egyptian origin included faience vessels (one complete, two fragments) in three graves (,  and ); faience beads are not interpreted as Egyptian. Metal objects were also found including a triangular spearhead, papyriform finial possibly from a bed and “an oval dish-like object with ribbed sides” all from grave  (Williams : ).



chapter two

Other metal objects were found in grave  (shallow dish fragments), grave  (an awl, a thin gold bracelet and copper rings) and grave  (a needle or awl). Other metal objects found are described as metal beads (gold) by Williams and he has in fact given them a local origin. While it is certainly true that simple gold objects could easily have a Nubian origin one find in grave  of a necklace of sheet beads with a small gold fly pendant is suspicious (Williams : ). Several ivory objects were uncovered at cemetery L coming from  graves (, .  and ). These are fragmentary and in some cases also burnt but include gaming sticks, rectangular plates, tapered dowls, small plaques, remains of vessels, caskets, a pin, a box, jewellery and a spoon. Two ivory pointed shafts have been described as possible arrowheads (Williams ; –). In addition an ivory seal was found in grave  and will be discussed in further detail in chapter . It should be noted that local Nubian pottery easily outnumbers Egyptian pottery and that cemetery L at Qustul yielded a large amount of so called eggshell ware (Williams’ “Exterior Painted Pottery”). This type of pottery is not common at any site, however, Cemetery L yielded over  fragmentary vessels most of which could be assigned specific tombs (Williams : ). In addition the decoration of the vessels displayed patterns not seen elsewhere and overall the quantity and variety of eggshell ware is exceptional (Williams : ). It may indeed be the case that the Qustul region was the origin for this type of high quality pottery and was distributed to other A-Group centres albeit in limited numbers (Williams ; –). Additionally, these vessels could have had such a prestigious value that their distribution was limited. Qustul is also interesting for the pottery found there of Sudanese origin (incised-impressed pottery) and imported pottery probably of southwestern origin. The latter is described as being clear predecessors of the C-Group incised ware both in decoration and manufacturing technique (Williams : ). Finally, cemetery L also contained vessels of Syrio-Palestinian tradition. These vessels had shapes typical of Early Bronze Age Levantine pottery (Williams : , fig. ). It is noteworthy that no other sites in Nubia have yielded this type of vessel. Cemeteries W, V, S, Q, T Qustul In addition to the well-known cemetery L at Qustul the Oriental Institute, University of Chicago excavated in five locations also containing

egypt in nubia



A-Group material. The material was found in both tombs (just over ) and what appeared to be approximately  deposit pits (Williams : ). Due to a large part of the area being covered later with houses and thus not excavated, the A-Group remains appear more scattered and sparse than perhaps they originally were (Williams : ). Cemetery W The graves in Cemetery W are the least disturbed as the local village of Qustul did not cover it and so there was limited plundering with some graves untouched (Williams : ). Cemetery W contained a number of large, wealthy and undisturbed graves along with poorer graves (Williams : , ). The graves are listed in Table . Table . Cemetery W Qustul Unclassified Animal Graves with no Graves with  graves graves graves Egyptian material Egyptian material 









Of the numbered graves of A-Group date only ten contained material of Egyptian origin and these are dated in Table  below. Table . Cemetery W Qustul: Dating of Graves Date

 graves

Naqada IIC–D Naqada II–IIIC Naqada IIIA–C Naqada IIIC

118 119  120

Total



Williams dates most of the graves in cemetery W to the Middle A-Group with a few dating to the Late A-Group (Williams : ). The types of Egyptian objects found are listed in Table  below. 118 Grave W is dated Middle A-Group by Williams and contained mostly beads but it also contained a wavy-handled jar (Williams : , Fig.  c). 119 Grave W contained an incised bowl, a large jar, copper awl and palette. Williams simply dated this tomb as A-Group but presence of the incised bowl probably indicates a late Naqada II to Naqada IIIC date (Williams : , Fig.  c). 120 Grave W contained an ivory cylinder seal as well as several eggshell ware vessels (Williams : , fig. ).



chapter two

Table . Cemetery W: Egyptian Material

Date

 graves

Naqada IIC–D Naqada II–IIIC Naqada IIIA–C Naqada IIIC

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

Total















Virtually all the Egyptian material is pottery with  vessels consisting of both hard pink (Williams’ Form Group X) and coarse wares (Williams Form Group XI) (Williams : –). Of the A-Group vessels,  (  of total,   of A-Group wares) belong to Williams Form Group I, Exterior Painted Pottery (Williams : , pls. –). One of the nonEgyptian bowls is an incised Sudanese bowl, Williams’ Form Group VII, Sudanese Overall Zone-Incised found in grave W (Williams : ). Another interesting bowl, found in grave W is identified by Williams as being a local imitation of Egyptian hard pink ware (Williams : , pl. , fig. d) which may be an indicator that Egyptian pottery was valued in its own right. Aside from pottery, cemetery W also yielded several other objects which may have come from or via Egypt. Grave W contained an ivory cylinder seal and although the surface was worn and the piece broken in two the decoration could be retrieved showing a figure which appears to be kneeling before a panel of vertical lines (Williams : , fig. b). This is discussed further in chapter . Williams has compared the decoration of this cylinder seal with that of others found in Sudanese Nubia although the latter have standing figures (Williams : , note ). In addition Williams compares the composition with the sealings found at Faras and Siali illustrating an understanding of early ‘royal’ iconography (Williams : –; Williams : –, –). Several copper objects were found at cemetery W, all but one of which comes from the same grave. Four copper objects come from W, by far the largest A-Group grave in cemetery W, including  copper adzes, a copper axe and a copper harpoon head. Unfortunately the grave no longer contained a burial although it appears to have been a burial with a bed (Williams : , fig. a). In addition to the copper objects, W was also one of only five graves in cemetery W to contain beads or jewellery of any kind (W, , , , ) and also contained a number

egypt in nubia



of Egyptian storage vessels (‘beer jars’) as well as a number of exterior painted pottery (‘eggshell ware’). Only one other grave, W, contained a copper awl. Two of the graves in cemetery W contained incense burners. The incense burner found in W, a double burial, one of which was an adult female, the other disturbed, is described as a clay incense model (Williams : ). The second, found in W, also the grave of an adult female, was made of sandstone and was undecorated (Williams : , fig. e). Cemetery V Cemetery V has a few scattered groupings of A-Group graves as well as isolated graves and some circular storage or cache pits some of which were reused for later interments (Williams : ). The graves are in Table . Table . Cemetery V Qustul Unclassified Animal Graves with no Graves with  graves graves graves Egyptian material Egyptian material 









Most of the graves are dated by Williams to the Late A-Group but owing to the destruction or reuse of some graves it could not be established if there were more graves of earlier A-Group periods (Williams : ). As with cemetery W, some of the graves were quite large and wellequipped but not on the scale of cemetery L. Cemetery V contained  burials in total, with  identified as belonging to the A-Group. Only three graves contained material which could be identified as Egyptian and these are dated in Table  below. Table . Cemetery V Qustul: Dating of Graves Date

 graves

Naqada IIIA–C  Naqada IIIA–B 121 Total



121 Grave V contained fragments of an Egyptian hard pink ware vessel that appears to be decorated ware of Naqada IIIA–B (Williams : –, Fig.  n).



chapter two

The dating of the graves is consistent with Williams’ Late A-Group as all three fall into the Naqada IIIA–C period. The Egyptian material is fairly limited but is outlined below. Table . Cemetery V Qustul: Egyptian Material

Date

 graves

Naqada IIIA–C  Naqada IIIA–B 

 

 

 

 

 

Total













Three of the A-Group burials contained Egyptian artefacts and in all but one case these were ceramics. V contained one complete eggshell ware vessel, sherds of Egyptian hard pink ware along with sherds of eggshell ware and Sudanese incised-impressed ware (Williams : – , figs. , ). Grave V, which was later reused, also contained sherds of eggshell ware and Egyptian hard pink ware (Williams : –, figs. , ). Grave V, also later reused, contained two Egyptian hard pink ware bowls as well as six eggshell ware vessels, two heavily incised Sudanese bowls, three palettes, bone bracelets, an incense burner and the only copper object from the cemetery, a copper awl (Williams : –, figs. , , ). One particularly interesting find from this grave was a bar or block of resin/incense. The block appears to have been cut and handmoulded to shape and is the same reddish-brown material as found in cemetery L (Williams : ). The resin, possibly myrrh, burnt slowly, produced a lot of ash and released an incense-like aroma (Williams : ). Cemetery S This is a smaller area with five New Kingdom burials and four A-Group deposit pits some of which had been reused as graves and these are listed below. Table . Cemetery S Qustul Unclassified Animal Pits with no Pits with  pits pits graves Egyptian material Egyptian material 









egypt in nubia



Only one deposit contained any Egyptian material and this pit can only be dated to Naqada IIIA–C. The Egyptian material is outlined below. Table . Cemetery S Qustul: Egyptian Material

Date

 graves

Naqada IIIA–C 











Total













Deposit pit S contained bracelets, carnelian pendants and ostrich eggshell fragments as well as a small alabaster cup (Williams : , Fig.  c). The four pits contained various artefacts including carnelian pendants, shell bracelets, ostrich eggshell, palettes, A-Group pottery vessels, eggshell ware bowls and sherds and an incense burner made of clay (Williams : –, figs. –). Two of the deposits (S and S) included ivory objects. S contained two ivory rings while S contained an ivory pin with a decorated head, a complete ivory jar and a fragment of an ivory jar. These ivory objects could be local or imported. Cemetery Q Cemetery Q is divided into four areas—Meroitic, X-Group, Christian and A-Group. The A-Group remains are not burials but deposit pits. These pits are outlined in Table  below. Table . Cemetery Q Qustul Unclassified Animal Pits with no Pits with  pits pits graves Egyptian material Egyptian material 









Of the  pits, only three (Q, Q, Q) contained any objects and only one (Q) contained Egyptian material. This pit was dated by Williams as Middle A-Group. The Egyptian material consists of two narrow Egyptian storage jars both with a mud sealing intact on the mouth of the jar (Williams : –, figs. b, c, a). Q also contained a flint blade with cortex remaining and a flint flake but the possible source of these has not been identified. No eggshell ware was found but A-Group rippled jars were found. The grave dates to Naqada IIIA–C.



chapter two

Cemetery T This is a large C-Group cemetery which also contained a few poorer AGroup graves (Williams : ). The eight A-Group graves are outlined in the table below. Table . Cemetery T Qustul Unclassified Animal Graves with no Graves with  graves graves graves Egyptian material Egyptian material 









Of the eight A-Group graves four contained objects which could be considered Egyptian and these are dated in Table . Table . Cemetery T Qustul: Dating of Graves Date

 graves

Naqada IIC–D 122 Naqada IIIA–C  Total



The types of Egyptian material are limited but listed in Table . Table . Cemetery T Qustul: Egyptian Material

Date

 graves

Naqada IIC–D  Naqada IIIA–C 

 

 

 

 

 

Total













Graves T, T, T and T each contained Egyptian pottery vessels of hard pink ware or coarse ware. There was one wavy-handled jar in T which dates to the Naqada IIC–D period (Williams : fig. ). Other objects found in Cemetery T include a large number of faience beads.

122 Grave T contained three Egptian pottery vessels one of which was a broad form of W-ware (Williams : , Fig. ).

egypt in nubia



Summary and Results of the Oriental Institute, University of Chicago The excavations at Qustul revealed a remarkable cemetery. Cemetery L is exceptional within the A-Group. It dates to the Middle to Terminal A-Group and was certainly the cemetery of an elite—chiefs and their families. It had been heavily plundered. However, the extraordinaly rich grave goods, in spite of this heavy disturbance, show the high status of the grave owners and stand in contrast to most of the other cemeteries. It can be compared to Seyala  but is even wealthier than that cemetery. With imported grave goods like Egyptian pottery, Syro-Palestinian pottery and stone vessels, as well as the large amount of fine local pottery (especially eggshell ware) the owners of the graves in Cemetery L show that they had access to prestigious goods and in quantities not seen anywhere else. Of the pottery found in the six cemeteries excavated at Qustul,   can be considered Egyptian in origin. This preference reverses the trend already seen in the discussion of the First and Second Archaeological Surveys. In spite of this, the cemeteries at Qustul should not be seen in the Naqadan tradition. They are clearly Nubian. No siltstone palettes were counted amongst the cosmetic palettes from the cemetery and there is still a large proportion of local pottery (a particularly large amount of eggshell ware which may well have its main production in the Qustul region) as well as heavily incised pottery described as in the Sudanese tradition. Several incense burners, not associated with Egyptian traditions, were also found. Only cemetery L and cemetery S contained stone vessels but in cemetery L the number found was extraordinary. Copper objects found in cemetery L included a spearhead, jewellery and shallow dishes as well as what appeared to be the remains of furniture; and in cemetery W copper adzes, an axe and a harpoon were found. In one grave at cemetery L, a gold fly pendant was also found. Other items associated with authority and power such as cylinder seals (cemeteries L and W) and maceheads were also found (cemetery L). The people at Qustul were special by both Egyptian and Nubian standards. They clearly had important links to the people and products south of the Second Cataract and would have benefited greatly from facilitating this contact with Egypt. The sheer amount of Egyptian manufactured goods including pottery and its contents, stone vessels and copper objects as well as the presence of Egyptian iconography and Syro-Palestinian style pottery, indicates that unlike the regions to the immediate north (Second Archaeological Survey)



chapter two

Qustul probably dealt with Upper Egypt directly. They undoubtedly had a reciprocal exchange relationship with the elite of Upper Egypt probably through official representatives. The dating of the cemeteries at Qustul is contemporary to the developing state in Egypt (Williams : ), a time when the display of power and authority, partly through access to exotic goods from far-distant lands, was of paramount importance. Access to these resources was, therefore, also important. No other cemeteries in Lower Nubia can really compare to the richness of Qustul, Seyala perhaps coming closest. Seyala was located close to the Wadi Allaqi and its richness may be reflective of its strategic position. It was also in a region of Lower Nubia that was better able to support agro-pastoralism (Jiménez-Serrano : ; Gatto and Tiraterra : ). It has been suggested that there was a rivalry between Seyala and Qustul and the cemeteries are at least partly contemporary (JiménezSerrano ). That the Gebel Sheikh Suleiman reliefs (see chapter four below) could represent a localised conflict between A-Group rulers is certainly possible but there is no real evidence to support direct and specific conflict between Seyala and Qustul. Table . Nubian and Egyptian Pottery and Palettes from the Oriental Institute Excavations Cemetery

Nubian pottery

Egyptian pottery

Nubian palettes

Egyptian palettes

Cemetery L Cemetery Q Cemetery S Cemetery T Cemetery V Cemetery W

     

     

     

     

Total

 ( )  ( )  ( )  ( )

Table . Chronological Distribution of Egyptian Objects in William’s Excavations at Qustul Cemeteries L to T Unclassified Animal Graves with no Graves with  graves graves graves Egyptian material Egyptian material 









egypt in nubia



Date

 graves

Naqada IIC–D Naqada II–IIIC Naqada IIIA–B Naqada IIIA–C Naqada IIIB Naqada IIIC

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

Total















The Scandinavian Joint Expedition to Sudanese Nubia The following cemeteries were excavated between  and  by the Scandinavian Joint Expedition and the excavators were anxious to point out that all ancient sites were investigated rather than simply a sample of promising sites (Nordström and Save-Söderbergh preface in Nordström : xv). Unless otherwise stated all terminology for artefacts such as quartzite and sandstone, are those of the excavator. Site  Serra East—A-Group Cemetery (Nordström : –) This site contains  graves or pits in total although only  are published. All of the graves and pits have been partly or wholly plundered or disturbed. However the graves still contained numerous finds, particularly pot sherds, stone objects for everyday use and personal adornments (Nordström : ). It is worth noting that the majority of the graves were rectangular and were quite long although often shallow. Number  was the smallest and was a simple round pit containing only a few pot sherds whereas number  certainly stands out in size measuring . × . × . m. The graves are listed below. Table . Cemetery  Serra East Unclassified Animal Graves with no Graves with  graves graves graves Egyptian material Egyptian material 









Only ten of the graves contained grave goods which could be identified as Egyptian and they are dated in the next chart. Number  is described as a pit with no finds and probably not a grave (Nordström : ).



chapter two

Table . Cemetery  Serra East: Dating of Graves Date

 graves

Predynastic/Early Dynastic 123 Naqada IIIA–C  Total



Based on the ceramic assemblage Nordström dated the cemetery to the transitional between the Classic and Terminal A-Group (Nordström : ) with which I concur. Surface finds consisted entirely of pot sherds, most of which was Nubian but some sherds of Egyptian ware were also found (Nordström : ). The types of Egpyptian grave goods can be seen in Table . Table . Cemetery  Serra East

Date

 graves

Predynastic/Early Dynastic  Naqada IIIA–C 

 

 

 

 

 

Total













Most of the Egyptian artefacts were ceramics including wine jars and simple jars and bowls all of hard pink ware. Copper objects were found in three graves and one grave contained a cup of banded alabaster (Nordström : , Pl. , ). Graves of Interest Several graves are worth mentioning. Grave number  contained disturbed skeletal remains (probably adult), at least  vessels of Nubian origin, one vessel of eggshell ware. It also contained at least nine vessels of Egyptian origin, including three wine jars and was the only grave in the cemetery to contain a stone vessel which is a very rough alabaster cup. Grave  contained the disturbed burial of an adult. It contained at least  vessels of Nubian origin and two eggshell ware vessels. It also contained an incense burner and faience beads. This grave only had the remains of one vessel of Egyptian origin (red polished ware). 123 Grave  contained remains of three vessels including a bowl of hard pink ware but all were found in the fill, not in situ (Nordström : ).

egypt in nubia



Grave  was another of the larger graves and contained a large number of Nubian vessels () and two eggshell ware vessels. It did not contain any Egyptian ware but two copper objects were found (awls). Finally, the largest grave in the group was number  which cut into number . It was considerably larger than the other graves in length, breadth and depth. This grave contained at least seven vessels of Nubian origin including three of eggshell ware. It also contained nine vessels of Egyptian ware, and one copper object. One fragment of the Egyptian hard pink ware has a red painted representation of a boat with a high stern (Nordström : ) but as this is a bowl not a closed vessel this cannot be classified as D-Ware The location of Serra East is significant. It is south of Qustul and thus lies in its ‘shadow’. No foreign goods from the north could have arrived in Serra East and other more southerly sites, without passing the powerful rulers of Qustul. Site  Debeira—A-Group Cemetery (Nordström : –) This site contains  mostly undisturbed graves. Nordström has divided the graves into two groups; one group are oval or sub-rectangular and contain adult burials whereas the second group is made up of child burials which are mostly shallow, round or broadly oval pits. The child burials are clustered in a group in the southern part of the site (Nordström : –). Of the  burials five are pits containing no trace of burials or finds and nine are child burials ( with no grave goods) and all are listed below. Table . Cemetery  Debeira Unclassified Animal Graves with no Graves with  graves graves/pits graves Egyptian material Egyptian material 









Only three of the graves could be said to definitely contain Egyptian material and these are dated in Table . Table . Cemetery  Debeira: Dating of Graves Date

 graves

Naqada IIIA–C  Total





chapter two

All three graves date to the Naqada IIIA–C which agrees with Nordström’s Terminal A-Group dating. There were not many Egyptian grave goods but they are listed in table  below. Table . Cemetery  Debeira: Egyptian Material

Date

 graves

Naqada IIIA–C 











Total













Only ten Egyptian pottery vessels or fragments of pots were found. The copper objects consisted of a copper bracelet, an adze and an axe blade. Graves of Interest Grave  contained the remains of an adult burial and was relatively large measuring . × . × . m (Nordström : , Pl. ). It had one eggshell ware vessel, one palette of quartzite and four Egyptian wine jars. The largest grave, number , contained the remains of two burials at least one of which was an adult and which were not buried at the same time. The grave contents are listed as containing more than ten vessels of Nubian origin, one quartzite palette, an ivory bracelet, two Egyptian wine jars, a copper axe blade and a copper adze blade. Site  Debeira—A-Group Habitation Site (Nordström : – ) This habitation site is located on a sandstone plateau about  m from the riverbank and had been partly disturbed due to the nearby modern houses (Nordström : ). The occupation layer contained potsherds and other finds as well as the remains of hearths and storage pits (Nordström : ). Among the pottery only three incomplete vessels could be identified and these consisted of a brown coarse ware cup (Type AIa), a brown coarse ware “ladle?” (Nordström : ) and a bowl of Egyptian hard pink ware (Type AXIIm). The remaining potsherds were made up predominantly of brown, coarse or smooth wares mostly from “simple bowls, dishes and jars with unrestricted or restricted orifices” (Nordström : );  of them had impressed patterns on them and  had incised patterns while at least one sherd is probably of C-Group date (Nordström : ). Other wares include Egyptian

egypt in nubia



hard pink wares, most probably from wine jars but with a few from bowls; only one sherd was identified as Egyptian Predynastic in date (Nordström : ). The remaining finds consisted of grinders (sandstone, quartzite), mortars (sandstone), palettes (quartzite, ceramic, other stone), beads (ostrich eggshell, ivory, faience), a carnelian pendant, a bottle-shaped amulet, a ceramic figure, possibly of a dog, a few lithic blades, animal bones and carbonised material (Nordström : –). The site has been dated to the Terminal A-Group. About  m southwest of site  a single surface find (Site ) was made of an Egyptian cylindrical jar of hard buff ware (Type AXIs) (Nordström : ) which dates to Naqada IIIB. Site  Debeira—surface find (Nordström : –) This site is simply a surface find found about  m from the habitation site . It was an Egyptian cylindrical pottery vessel with a cord impression around the neck which dates to Naqada IIIB (Nordström : , Pls.  and , ). Site  Debeira—single A-Group Grave (Nordström : ) This single disturbed grave was of a reasonable size (. × . × . m) and was sub-rectangular. It contained a few fragments of human bones and some potsherds one of which was of Egyptian hard pink ware. Nordström simply gives it a general A-Group date, Naqada IIIA–C (Nordström : ). ... Site  Ashkeit—Cemetery of A-Group and C-Group (Nordström : –) Most of the graves in this cemetery belong to the C-Group. There are seven graves of A-Group date which are listed in Table . Table . Cemetery  Ashkeit Unclassified Animal Graves with no Graves with  graves graves/pits graves Egyptian material Egyptian material 









Only one of the graves could with confidence be said to contain Egyptian material. This grave, number , dates to the Naqada IIIA–C period. The Egyptian material is listed in Table  below.



chapter two

Table . Cemetery  Ashkeit

Date

 graves

Naqada IIIA–C 











Total













Grave  contained three adult burials (two females and one male) and the grave goods consisted of six pottery vessels of Nubian origin and one Egyptian wine jar. All of the vessels were complete or nearly complete. The only other object found was a quartzite palette. Grave  contained only fragmentary skeletal remains, some pottery sherds of which two were of egghell ware, and a faience bead. Site  Ashkeit—A-Group and C-Group Cemetery (Nordström : ) This site contained a single A-Group grave as most of the graves could be dated to the C-Group. Grave  contained only one vessel of Nubian ware. Site  Ashkeit—A-Group Cemetery (Nordström : –) This cemetery contained  graves or pits of which  were recorded. All had been wholly or partly disturbed or plundered. The designation of grave versus pit is problematic as Nordström does not indicate the criteria for the definitions. For instance number  is called a grave even though it contained no burial remains or finds whereas number  which also contained no finds or burial is called a pit (Nordström : ). All have been included in this study for completeness and are outlined below. Table . Cemetery  Ashkeit Unclassified Animal Graves with no Graves with  graves graves/pits graves Egyptian material Egyptian material 









As the majority of graves and pits had been disturbed (Nordström : ), most that contain any Egyptian material have been designated Predynastic as the material comes from the fill or debris and was not found in situ. The dating of the graves with Egyptian material is outlined in Table .

egypt in nubia



Table . Cemetery  Ashkeit: Dating of Graves Date

 graves

Predynastic/Early Dynastic  Naqada IIIA–C  Total



Nineteen were designated pits that were either devoid of finds or contained organic material, usually seeds. Of the graves,  contained Egyptian material. The types of material are listed in Table . Table . Cemetery  Ashkeit: Egyptian Material

Date

 graves

Predynastic/Early Dynastic  Naqada IIIA–C 

 

 

 

 

 

Total













The only remains of Egyptian origin were ceramics and  of these were wine jars. Three of the graves (,  and ) had the remains of jar sealings. The sealing in grave  consisted of a pottery sherd of Egyptian hard pink ware used as a lid, covered by a layer of mud with impressions of a cylinder seal (Nordstrom : ). The lid is found with an Egyptian wine jar with an incised depiction of a horned animal, possibly a cow or ox (Nordström : ). The seal impression shows a walking man framed by two verticals, a goat (or gazelle), and a dog (or hyena) under a bird, above which is a round hole (Nordström : ). The impression has been dated by the excavator to Classic A-Group/Naqada IIIA or perhaps later, in the reign of Aha (Nordström : ). Site  Ashkeit, Amintobirki—A-Group Cemetery (Nordström : –) This site had  graves and pits nearly all of which are disturbed or plundered (Nordström : ). Only six have been designated graves and none contained material that was in situ and have therefore been designated Predynastic in this study although the material that was found was dated to the Classic to Terminal A-Group by the excavator. They are listed below.



chapter two

Table . Cemetery  Ashkeit Unclassified Animal Graves with no Graves with  graves graves/pits graves Egyptian material Egyptian material 









Of the graves only three contained Egyptian material and this is outlined in Table  below. Table . Cemetery  Ashkeit: Egyptian Material

Date

 graves

Predynastic/Early Dynastic 











Total













The Egyptian material was limited to pottery (wine jars and one red polished ware). All three of these graves had Nubian pottery and one had an eggshell ware vessel. One burial was of an infant and also contained some fragments of leather and wooden material. Site  Ashkeit, Kashkush—A-Group Cemetery (Nordström : –) Site  has  graves and pits mostly plundered and disturbed. The majority () have been called pits and one was listed as probably CGroup. Most graves were round or nearly round and there is evidence that some were originally covered with stone covers or superstructures (Nordström : ). The graves and pits are listed in Table  below. Table . Cemetery  Ashkeit, Kashkush Unclassified Animal Graves with no Graves with  graves graves/pits graves Egyptian material Egyptian material 









Seven of the graves contain Egyptian material and only one of these contained material that was in situ. The dating of the graves with Egyptian material is listed in Table  below.

egypt in nubia



Table . Cemetery  Ashkeit, Kashkush: Dating of Graves Date

 graves

Predynastic/Early Dynastic  Naqada IIIA–C  Total



As with the previous cemetery, graves that only contained material in the debris or filling were given a general Predynastic date although Nordström dates most of the material to the Terminal A-Group (Nordström : ). While there is not a great deal of Egyptian material it is listed in Table  below. Table . Cemetery  Ashkeit, Kashkush: Egyptian Material

Date

 graves

Predynastic/Early Dynastic  Naqada IIIA–C 

 

 

 

 

 

Total













With regard to the Egyptian material only pottery (predominantly wine jars) was found. The only relatively undisturbed burial was number  which contained four burials at two different levels (one adult female and three infants). This grave contained at least nine vessels of Nubian origin and more than one Egyptian wine jar along with  beads (shell, carnelian) a palette, probably of quartz, over  faience beads, several plates of ostrich egg shell (this appears to be quite common in child burials) and some small textile remains. Site  Ashkeit—Cemetery of A-Group, C-Group and Late Nubian (Nordström : –) There are  graves in all of which  A-Group graves are located mostly in the southern part of the site (Nordström : ). In many areas the silt surface was disturbed or eroded and there is evidence of sebbakhdigging (Nordström : ). The cemetery could possibly extend westward but the presence of a Muslim cemetery prevented further investigation (Nordström : ). The graves which were investigated are listed below.



chapter two

Table . Cemetery  Ashkeit Unclassified Animal Graves with no Graves with  graves graves/pits graves Egyptian material Egyptian material 









Of the  graves  contained Egyptian material. Graves A nd B were listed separately. The graves with Egyptian material are dated in Table . Table . Cemetery  Ashkeit: Dating of Graves Date

 graves

Predynastic/Early Dynastic  Naqada IIIA–C  Naqada IIIA 124 Total



Two graves are not classified beyond a date of Predynastic as the material from grave  is not found in situ and in grave  Nordström states that “the relationship between these vessels and the burial is uncertain” (Nordström : ). The Egyptian objects are listed in Table  below. Table . Cemetery  Ashkeit: Egyptian Material

Date

 graves

Predynastic/Early Dyanstic  Naqada IIIA–C  Naqada IIIA 

  

  

  

  

  

  

Total















The Egyptian objects consisted mostly of pottery (wine jars, bowls and dishes of hard pink ware). Amongst the pottery, one grave () contained three vessels of decorated ware and one cylindrical wavy-handled jar with a net pattern painted decoration. Two graves ( and ) also contained copper objects and one () had a falcon shaped pendant

124 Grave  contained a number of Egyptian wine jars (D-ware) and a cylindrical wavy-handled jar with net pattern decoration (Nordström : , Pl. , Type AXIs.).

egypt in nubia



made of ‘alabaster’. Grave  also contained a gypsum incense burner which was undecorated (Nordström : ). One grave did contain a quartzite cup which is very shallow and quite rough and is not taken to be an import (Nordström : –, Pl. , –) and in fact greatly resembles a similar piece from Site  which Nordström actually describes as a “shallow, saucer-like mortar” (Nordström : ) of quartzite. Graves of Interest The two largest and richest graves were  and . Grave  (. × . × . m) was rectangular and contained one adult burial (female; Nordström pers. comm.). It was also made up of two levels. The grave goods consisted of seven vessels of Nubian origin, including two of eggshell ware. It also contained three quartzite palettes as well as grinders and mortars and objects of personal adornment such as beads (ivory, shell, carnelian), bracelets and pendants. The grave also contained two amulets, one of chalcedony in the shape of a frog and the other of ivory shaped as the head of an animal which if not imported from Egypt, certainly may indicate Egyptian influence (Nordström : , Pl. , ). Fragments of wooden material were found as well as leather and also fragments of a jaw-bone of a small animal (feline?). Most of the Egyptian objects were pottery vessels consisting of wine jars (one with a mud sealing and seal impression), bowls, a small jar and a cylindrical jar with cross net painted pattern (Naqada IIIA). A D-ware vessel of Naqada IIIC date was also found which highlights that older objects can be found in younger burial contexts. There were two copper objects in the grave—an awl and the blade of a knife (Nordström : , Pl. , ). It is clear from the size and design of the grave along with the amount and style of grave goods that the individual buried in grave  was of an adult of considerable wealth and importance although, as mentioned, the gender is not indicated. The other grave of comparable size and wealth is number . This grave however, consists of two burials, both adults, one male and one female. These individuals were probably buried at different times with the whole southeasern part of B connected to the northwestern part of A which it has disturbed. Grave A (male) contains some Nubian pottery, two palettes of quartzite, some beads, an Egyptian wine jar and two bowls of Egyptian hard pink ware. There are also some remains of basketry.



chapter two

Grave B (female) appears to be the wealthier of the two, at least by the number and type of grave goods it contains. These include eight vessels of Nubian origin including one eggshell ware vessel as well as a quartzite palette and a grinder and mortar. There are also several beads and pendants (ivory and shell). With regard to Egyptian material the grave contains two wine jars and one medium-seized necked jar of Egyptian hard pink polished ware. Site  Sahaba—Cemetery with A-Group, C-Group and Late Nubian graves (Nordström : –) This site has  storage pits and  pits and grave shafts. Twelve of the pits are included in Nordström’s volume but as the cemetery is extremely heterogeneous with C-Group, A-Group, Meroitic and undetermined they have not been included in the present study. Of the  graves published,  can be assigned to the A-Group and all but four are disturbed. The graves are outlined below. Table . Cemetery  Sahaba Unclassified Animal Graves with no Graves with  graves graves graves Egyptian material Egyptian material 









There are only eight A-Group graves which contain Egyptian material and their dating is shown in Table . Table . Cemetery  Sahaba: Dating of Graves Date

 graves

Predynastic/Early Dynastic  Naqada IIIA–C  Total



Nordström dated the A-Group graves to the Terminal A-Group which ties in with the dating in the above chart. The Egyptian material is quite limited but is listed below in Table .

egypt in nubia



Table . Cemetery  Sahaba: Egyptian Material

Date

 graves

Predynastic/Early Dynastic  Naqada IIIA–C 

 

 

 

 

 

Total













Only Egyptian pottery was among the finds with at least four wine jars, two bowls and one cylindrical jar which is listed as probably of Type AXI s which is a net patterned wavy-handled jar. This find is attached to grave B which may indicate a date of Naqada IIIA but as the finds were not in situ the grave was included in the broad Predynastic/Early Dynastic group. The largest grave, that of an adult male was number  (Nordström : ). While the body was only partly disturbed it is possible that the northern part of the shaft had been disturbed (Nordström : ). The body was lying on a reed mat while the head was covered by a leather cap. An ostrich feather fan was also found on the chest. These fans are often associated with adult males and the graves in which they have been found date to the Terminal A-Group although they have been found in at least one female burial and several child burials (Nordström : ). Ostrich feather fans have also been found in C-Group graves (Nordström : ; see also Firth : –, ). The grave goods also consisted of more than at least four eggshell ware vessels, a quartzite palette and a small leather bag. Two Egyptian vessels were also found (wine jar and bowl). The deceased was evidently an individual of some status. Site  Halfa Degheim—A-Group Cemetery (Nordström : – ) This site has  graves and three pits which do not appear to have been disturbed by modern activity including sebbakh-digging (Nordström : ). There was no indication of superstructures and low mounds and some stone slabs were the only indicators of grave site (Nordström : ). Site  was the largest undisturbed site in the concession area (Nordström : ) and is all the more valuable as a result. Three of the graves were multiple burials and the finds have been treated as separate burials bringing the total to  not  and these are listed below.



chapter two

Table . Cemetery  Halfa Degheim Unclassified Animal Graves with no Graves with  graves graves graves Egyptian material Egyptian material 









Only  graves contained Egyptian material and the dating of these is in Table . Table . Cemetery  Halfa Degheim: Dating of Graves Date

 graves

Naqada IID–IIIC Naqada IIIA Naqada IIIa Naqada IIIA–B Naqada IIIA–C Naqada IIIB–C

125 126 127   128

Total



The graves all date to the Naqada IIIA–C periods with one possibly older, which largely agrees with Nordström’s date of Classic and Terminal AGroup (: ). There is not a great deal of Egyptian material and it is listed below. Table . Cemetery  Halfa Degheim: Egyptian Material

Date

 graves

Naqada IID–IIIC  Naqada IIIA  Naqada IIIa 

  

  

  

  

  

125 Grave  contained two bowls of black-topped rippled ware of Nordström’s Types AXa and AIXa as well as a bead or handle (?) of gold plate around a tubular core of copper (Nordström : –, Pl. , ). 126 Grave  contained wavy-handled jar similar to Petrie’s W/ types (Nordström : , Pl. , ). 127 Grave  contain two L-ware vessels that a like Petrie’s L and La types as well as a broad form wavy-handled jar. As this assemblage fits perfectly with Kaiser’s Naqada IIIa, in this instance Kaiser’s and not Hendrickx chronology has been followed (Nordström : , Pls , ; , ). 128 Grave  contained an Egyptian necked jar of Nordström’s Type AXIVp which is like Petrie’s L types. (Nordström : , Pl. ,).

egypt in nubia



Date (cont’d)

 graves

Naqada IIIA–B Naqada IIIA–C Naqada IIIB–C

  

  

  

  

  

  

Total













There are several multiple burials in the cemetery and a proportionally high number ( ) of child/infant burials (Nordström : ). The proportion of adult male to adult female burials is roughly equal and interestingly it seems that there was a deliberate separation of male from female—certainly multiple burials seem to follow a rule of separate groupings of men and women (Nordstrom : –). There is only one grave in which a male has been buried with an infant. Once again the predominant Egyptian objects are pottery vessels, nearly all of which are wine jars. Two burials (, ) each had a wavyhandled vessel amongst the finds. Grave  contained at least one adult female and a child, while the third burial was of an adult of undetermined gender. Grave  contained the burial of an adult female. Only one grave () containing Egyptian material also contained eggshell ware and was a double male adult burial. Several graves also contained copper objects including two adzes, two awls and an axe blade. One grave () contained gold; a bead or handle of copper with gold plate around it was found in this child burial. Grave  containing two adult male burials had at least eight vessels of Nubian origin including the only eggshell ware in the cemetery, three Egyptian wine jars, a bowl of Egyptian hard pink ware and two ostrich feather fans. Grave B had  ring-shaped gold beads as well as several pottery vessels and copper awls. This grave also contained the only stone vessel found in the cemetery. It is described as a small ointment jar “made of a hard granitic rock material of variagated colour” (Nordström : , ) of green-grey black. There would appear to be a social/gender distinction in objects left for the deceased and this seems to translate even into the objects which have their origin in Egypt. Women and children are donated pottery and probably take with them the personal adornments they owned in life. The women also receive grinders and mortars and sometimes palettes. Men generally do receive palettes but almost never jewellery. Ostrich feather fans clearly indicate some position within the community as they are not rare but also not widespread and usually reserved for adult male burials. Child burials not uncommonly contain plates/discs of shell, often



chapter two

with a hole in the centre. Cemetery  was used for some time but is relatively small and indicates that only elites were buried here (O’Connor : ). Three of the graves (,  and ) were particularly large and all contained female burials. Grave  contained a necklace of  gold beads. Site  Abka—A-Group and C-Group graves (Nordström : ) This is a predominantly C-Group cemetery but two graves have been dated to the A-Group (Nordström : ). Neither contained any Egyptian material but one grave did contain eggshell ware which would date the grave to the Terminal A-Group. The site also yielded a wavyhandled jar of Egyptian hard pink unpolished ware (Naqada IIC–D) and one fragment of another wavy-shaped handle but only as surface finds. Cemetery  Gamai—graves and pits of A-Group date (Nordström : ) Surface finds of potsherds indicated this site as a possible cemetery. Only two graves and one pit, all disturbed, were found. None contained any Egyptian material. Summary and Results of the Scandinavian Joint Expedition As with the Qustul cemeteries most of the graves from this expedition date to the Naqada IIIA–C phase as can be seen in the following table . Only   contained identifiable Egyptian material, virtually all in the form of pottery vessels. Copper implements outnumber stone vessels (only  stone vessels are recorded). Most of the cemeteries were badly disturbed. Again, it can be seen that the distribution or redistribution of Egyptian pottery vessels was fairly broad whereas access to prestige objects like copper and stone vessels was limited. The Scandinavian Joint Expedition worked in the southernmost region of Lower Nubia examined here. The trend seen with the first two surveys can again be seen—Nubian pottery is now overwhelmingly in the majority accounting for   of the pottery found (see table ). Nubian cosmetic palettes make up   of the assemblage. While copper objects outnumber stone vessels they are not found in any great quantities. Eleven copper objects were found including adzes, axe blades, awls, a bracelet and a knife blade.

egypt in nubia



Cemetery  grave  contained a falcon pendant which was described as made of alabaster and was likely an import. This grave also contained an incense burner as did cemetery  grave . Cemetery  was the least disturbed of the cemeteries excavated by the Scandinavian Joint Expedition and was also a small cemetery with  graves containing  burials. It has been suggested that it was thus the cemetery of an elite and selected lower status people (O’Connor : ). The same has been suggested for cemetery  which is only  km away and of slightly later date (O’Connor : ). This may well be the case but if so then they represent an elite on a smaller scale than seen at Qustul. If, as was suggested above, the elite of Qustul were dealing directly with Upper Egypt in an exchange system, they may well have redistributed some of this wealth to a subservient ‘elite’ in the vicinity. This may also have been the case with some of the people buried just to the north at Abu Simbel  (Second Archaeological Survey) where some wealth and access to luxury goods is displayed. In the case of the southernmost cemeteries in Lower Nubia, in the makeup of their grave goods and the proportion and type of Egyptian material, a combination of geographical distance from the source and access limited by elites can be seen; it seems unlikely that any goods would have made their way to sites south of Qustul without the latter’s ‘approval’. Table . Nubian and Egyptian Pottery and Palettes from the Scandinavian Joint Excavation Cemetery

Nubian pottery

Egyptian pottery

Nubian palettes

Egyptian palettes

Serra East  Debeira  Debeira  Debeira  Ashkeit  Ashkeit  Ashkeit  Ashkeit  Ashkeit/Kashkush  Ashkeit  Sahaba  Halfa Degheim  Abka  Gamai 

  ?           

  ? ?          

  ?           

  ?           

Total

 ( )  ( )  ( )  ( )



chapter two

Table . Chronological Distribution of Egyptian Objects in the Scandinavian Joint Expedition Excavations between Serra East Cemetery  and Gamai Cemetery  Unclassified Animal Graves with no Graves with  graves graves graves Egyptian material Egyptian material 









Date

 graves

Predynastic/Early Dynastic Naqada IID–IIIC Naqada IIIA Naqada IIIA Naqada IIIA Naqada IIIA–B Naqada IIIA–C Naqada IIIB–C

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

Total















The Egyptian Material Within the cemeteries analysed, several types of artefacts have been taken to be of Egyptian manufacture or to have potentially come to Nubia via Egypt. The largest number are ceramics, particularly vessels made of marl clays, the most distinctive being wavy-handled and decorated wares. In addition, stone vessels, siltstone palettes, copper objects, stone maceheads, cylinder seals and some amulets have been included. Ceramics far outnumber any other object of Egyptian manufacture found in A-Group contexts. As can be seen in table  below Egyptian pottery and palettes account for almost   of each find category. With the exception of Qustul the clear trend is for the proportion of Egyptian pottery and palettes to lessen the further south one travels. The northernmost sites, particularly north of Metardul, should be seen as closely related to the Naqadan tradition. Cemeteries such as Shellal and Khor Bahan are virtually indistinguishable from their Egyptian counterparts. Thus the Egyptian material found should be seen in the context of an intraregional exchange. South of Metardul, the grave goods display more of an affinity with Nubian (A-Group) cultures. Fewer Egyptian manufactured goods are found as well as fewer goods which could be

egypt in nubia



considered luxuries (stone vessels, copper objects) or objects displaying power and authority (maceheads, high quality flint tools and cylinder seals). Qustul is very much the exception. Here, particularly in cemetery L, large quanties of Egyptian pottery are found as well as unprecedented amounts of stone vessels. Elaborately carved incense burners were found displaying the burgeoning ‘royal’ iconography of Egypt. High quality copper objects were also found as were large quantities of eggshell ware pottery. Cemetery L is also the only A-Group site where pottery of SyroPalestinian type has been found. The size of the tombs and the wealth of their goods, even when the heavy plundering and destruction are taken into account, is unrivalled in Lower Nubia. Those buried at Qustul had a status unmatched, even by the chiefs at Seyala . They must surely have controlled a large part of Lower Nubia in Terminal A-Group times (O’Connor : ) and probably dealt directly with rulers in Upper Egypt via emissaries. The maps in figures  through  show the distribution of these objects in the A-Group contexts examined. In the case of pottery, W-ware and D-ware are shown as these are the most distinctive. The maps also include the sites of Aswan and Wadi Halfa as convenient geographical markers. Pottery—W-ware and D-ware Egyptian ceramics are widely distributed in the sites studied. In some cases, such as with black-topped and black-mouthed ware, identification in terms of an Egyptian or Nubian manufacture is difficult and in these cases generally ceramics labelled black-topped red ware are taken as Egyptian and black-mouthed red ware as Nubian. However, they should probably be seen in the light of a shared ceramic tradition. In the case of vessels made with marl clays the identification of an Egyptian origin is simpler. The most distinctive Egyptian made vessels are wavyhandled vessels (W-ware), including the later cylindrical varieties, and decorated vessels (D-ware). Of these two types of pottery, W-ware is more widespread than D-Ware. Decorated ware continues to be made up to the Naqada IIIB period with the decoration becoming increasingly simplified with decoration reduced to wavy lines on the body of the vessels. Wavy-handled vessels become more cylindrical in shape over time and the wavy-handle itself reduces to a narrow wavy-band around the vessel just below the mouth, then to an incised line, and finally disappears



chapter two

Figure . Distribution of Egyptian W-ware pottery in Nubian cemeteries.

egypt in nubia

Figure . Distribution of Egyptian D-ware pottery in Nubian cemeteries.





chapter two

altogether. Wavy-handled jars are found from Naqada IIC to Naqada IIIC and while their slightly longer lifespan may account for some of the disparity in distribution it probably does not explain the full picture. There is very little D-ware south of the Wadi Allaqi region. The two clusters of D-ware are in the region to the immediate south of the First Cataract and in the Wadi Allaqi region whereas W-ware also clusters in the Second Cataract region with most coming from the First Cataract region. Thus these types of wares may not have travelled farther south. Perhaps they were not particularly valued in themselves, their contents were not traded further south, or the vessels were retained by groups in the more northerly region. The contents were likely processed products such as oils and fatty substances which the Nubians could have used themselves, redistributed for favours or traded on. We may also be seeing a closer affinity of northern-most Lower Nubia to the Naqadan tradition than to a Nubian one. Very little D-ware is found at Qustul while some W-ware is found at Cemetery T and Cemetery L. Cemetery L dates from the very late Predynastic to the beginning of the Early Dynastic period, which fits in with the D-Ware present (similar to Kaiser’s Dp and D) which would date to Naqada IIIA–B, and it also contained a remarkably high number of stone vessels. As this was a particularly rich cemetery it is rightly seen as belonging to an elite, probably chiefs and their kin and possibly privileged retainers, and a preference for and access to stone vessels may be a further indication of their status. Egyptian decorated ware is no longer valued as highly as stone vessels as a marker of prestige and W-ware had become more purely functional in appearance and smaller. Prestige from pottery would have come from the large amount of (imported) commodities indicated by the quantity of large Egyptian made storage vessels. In addition, Qustul is one of the southernmost A-Group sites and D- and Wware in any significant quantities may simply not have journeyed this far in any quantities if at all. Decorated pottery was still valued but was represented by the presence of the very fine A-Group produced eggshell ware. The other visibly prestigious cemetery, Seyala  contained neither D- nor W-ware and only contained  vessels of recognisably Egyptian manufacture. Status came with the gold mace handles and their maceheads, copper adzes, chisels and a harpoon and a few stone vessels and the overall size of the graves in a small cemetery. Grave  at Seyala , the most prestigious, contained a lion head-shaped amulet while Cemetery L at Qustul contained gold fly-shaped amulets, both of which may also have conferred some authority or status.

egypt in nubia



Table . Proportion of Nubian Pottery and Palettes and of Egyptian Pottery and Palettes Expedition

Graves

Nubian pottery

Egyptian pottery

Nubian palettes

Egyptian palettes

st Survey nd Survey Oriental Inst. SJE

+x129 +x  

 ( )130  ( )  ( )  ( )  ( )  ( )  ( )  ( )

 ( )  ( )  ( )  ( )

 ( )  ( )  ( )  ( )

Total

+x

 ( )131  ( )  ( )  ( )

Siltstone (‘slate’) Palettes The A-Group had its own tradition of cosmetic palettes which are generally in quartz. However, siltstone palettes, imported from Egypt also appear. The only known ancient quarry for the related materials siltstone, greywacke and conglomerate in Egypt is in the Wadi Hammamat, which was exploited from Predynastic to Roman times (Aston, Harrell and Shaw : ). These palettes have erroneously been called slate but the layering and splintering characteristic of slate are not found in the Egyptian examples quarried in the Wadi Hammamat and should be identified as siltstone (Aston, Harrell and Shaw : –). Of the nearly  siltstone palettes counted in this study, most come from the northern-most sites and a few date as late as the Naqada III period. No siltstone palettes were found at Qustul or in the concession of the Scandinavian Joint Expedition and only four were identified in the Second Archaeological Survey. In the latter, the excavators often describe palettes as being of alabaster but this may be a misidentification and their shape rather parallels local A-Group palettes. It is clear that while cosmetic palettes were a shared cultural feature, siltstone palettes were more favoured and/or readily available at sites closer to the First Cataract region and that over time these palettes became less popular or less widely distributed just as in Egypt. The fact that none were found at Qustul may indicate that siltstone palettes were not distributed this far south or this late (Naqada III) or that they were not of particular value. While some 129

The x refers to graves excavated or noted by the expedition but not published in full. The percentage for each archaeological expedition refers to the individual pottery and palette assemblages of each survey. 131 The percentage refers to the overall pottery and palette assemblages from the cemeteries studied. 130



chapter two

Figure . Distribution of Egyptian siltstone palettes in Nubian cemeteries.

egypt in nubia

Figure . Distribution of Egyptian stone vessels in Nubian cemeteries.





chapter two

impressive siltstone palettes are found in A-Group graves (eg. the exceptionally large double bird-headed palette at Seyala Cemetery , grave  in Firth : –; Pl. c) no ceremonial palettes, like the Narmer Palette, have been found in A-Group contexts. Stone Vessels Stone vessels, while not as widespread as pottery, are the third largest group of Egyptian manufactured objects found in A-Group contexts. There is no evidence that Nubians were exploiting stone in any great quantity or working it. Stone working is very much seen as an Egyptian craft. Stone vessels are not uncommon in A-Group contexts nor particularly widespread. Qustul alone accounts for around   of stone vessels found in Lower Nubia with over  by Williams calculation (Williams ) with the rest largely coming from the First Cataract region. No stone vessels were found in the Second Archaeological Survey’s concession and only two in the Scandinavian Joint Expedition’s concession. The stone vessels found in Reisner and Firth’s excavations in the northern part of Lower Nubia are from both early and later contexts. The distribution of stone vessels in the northern part of Lower Nubia and at Qustul highlights the special position of Qustul and indicates the strong Egyptian influence in the northern half of Lower Nubia. In other words, these objects are found either relatively close to the source or in the highest status cemeteries of the A-Group. At the comparable cemetery  at Seyala only three stone vessels (one of siltstone, one of porphyry and one of ‘alabaster’) were discovered. Copper Objects Objects manufactured from copper are found in a number of the AGroup cemeteries examined. It is more problematic definitively identifying them as having come from Egypt as imports. Of the more than  objects identified, over  are described as wire rings, bracelets or fragments and nearly  are needles and these need not be imports at all although they have been included here as such. Copper is not common and the early trade in copper ore and manufactured goods is evidenced in Lower Egypt which makes an Egyptian source for the copper objects found in Lower Nubia likely. However, objects such as axeheads, adzes, harpoons, chisels and awls which make up over  of the copper objects should probably be considered as definitively coming from the north. When compared to pottery, copper makes up very little of what can be

egypt in nubia



considered imported material and while plundering and recycling must be taken into consideration, even at heavily disturbed sites such as Qustul copper objects were still to be found and so copper was probably not common at this time. Over half of the copper objects are found in the northern part of Lower Nubia and come from the excavations of Reisner and Firth. This may be due to the fact that these sites are geographically closest to Upper Egypt but it must also be pointed out that these make up the largest number of cemeteries included in the study and that no copper at all was found in the northen-most site of Shellal. In addition, the vast majority of copper objects come from later contexts, particularly after Naqada II. As with the D- and W-ware pottery, copper is generally found in the First Cataract, Wadi Allaqi and Second Cataract regions. Maceheads Very few maceheads have been found in A-Group contexts. The excavations of Reisner and Firth discovered , none were found by Emery and Kirwan, none by the Scandinavian Joint Expedition and only two were found in Qustul. The best known examples came from Cemetery  at Seyala, excavated by Firth (: –). Two maceheads were found in one grave (grave number ) along with gold covered handles. This was an exeptionally wealthy grave which also contained four copper chisels, three copper adzes, a copper harpoon, stone vessels, siltstone palettes and a lion’s head amulet. At least two adults had been buried in this grave and it seems safe to assume that they were members of an elite, probably chiefs although the gender of the individuals was not determined, with close contacts to the north. Two maceheads were found at Cemetery L at Qustul although one from grave  is described as a fragment, possibly from a macehead (Williams : ). It may also be a fragment from a stone vessel. The second macehead was found in grave  which also contained the Qustul incense burner. Both graves were empty of burials but exceptionally rich in grave goods in spite of being plundered. Maceheads were clearly considered objects of some status, associated with power and authority. This is demonstrated by their scarcity and by their association at Shellal and Khor Bahan with high quality flint knives. They are most common in the northern-most sites no doubt due to their proximity to Egypt, but that they were considered prestigious objects is clear from their appearance in Seyala and Qustul, both high status cemeteries. The maces from Seyala



chapter two

Figure . Distribution of Egyptian stone maceheads in Nubian cemeteries.

egypt in nubia

Figure . Distribution of copper in Nubian cemeteries.





chapter two

in particular draw attention as prestige items as they are associated with decorated gold covered handles. They were not widely distributed and there does not appear to be an A-Group equivalent, although stone maceheads are found in Neolthic sites in Upper Nubia. Amulets Amulets are not common in Egypt or Nubia in the Predynastic. Only a handful have been found in A-Group contexts studied here. These are extremely small objects and considering the disturbed nature of most of the sites included here could easily have been lost or overlooked. In addition they may have been plundered in antiquity or modern times. Amulets need not be seen as objects imported from Egypt. They could have been locally made. The symbolism of the amulets may have a shared tradition or could have been adopted from the north. They are not particularly common and this, in combination with the shape of many being shared with those found in Egyptian contexts, has led to their inclusion here as imports. The amulets found include those in the shape of scorpions, frogs, hawks/falcons, a bull’s head, elephant heads, a lion’s head and a fly. It has been noted that in the case of the falcon shaped amulets and their possible association with Horus that this god was later associated with Lower Nubia in various forms (Traunecker : ). In addition the bull’s head amulets may also have a local tradition and the reliance of the A-Group subsistence on cattle herding shoud not be ignored. The material from which they are made includes various stone, copper, ivory and gold. They are found at Shellal, Siali, Gerf Hussein, Wadi Allagi, Seyala, Ashkeit and Qustul and they tend to be in wealthier graves. It is possible that they conferred authority on the grave owner although in the case of grave  at cemetery  Gerf Hussein the burial was that of an infant. The decorative and/or protective quality of the amulets may have had given no special status to the owner at all. In the case of the fly amulet this must certainly be seen as a prestige object as it was found in the elite cemetery L at Qustul and was made of gold. Other amulets may also have implied power such as the lion’s head found in grave  at Seyala .

egypt in nubia

Figure . Distribution of amulets in Nubian cemeteries.





chapter two

Figure . Distribution of cylinder seals in Nubian cemeteries.

egypt in nubia



Cylinder Seals Cylinder seals and their impressions are discussed in greater detail in chapter four. The distribution of seal impressions is not included in this discussion in detail as they are not actual commodities. The origin, or rather the concept of cylinder seals is neither Egyptian nor Nubian, but their presence throughout the Nile Valley indicates some system of long distance exchange. Cylinder seals and seal impressions are not widely found in A-Group contexts and all date to the Naqada III period. Cylinder seals or their impressions are found both in the northern part of Lower Nubia (Wadi Allaqi region) and further south (Second Cataract region). The seal impressions certainly seem to indicate an exchange of goods but as they are extremely limited in number they do not point to a large commercial enterprise. It is also possible that the use and distribution of cylinder seals was restricted and their late appearance in Nubia may indicate an increasingly formalised exchange system amongst elites; alternatively they may have been valued as a luxury item in themselves which conferred prestige to the owner.

chapter three NUBIA IN EGYPT

What the Nubians Left Behind As has been seen the majority of Egyptian artefacts in A-Group contexts are ceramics. By and large they are more pragmatic than luxurious— storage vessels and the like—and need not have been prized in themselves. They are still, however, imports. Stone vessels are also relatively numerous in wealthier graves from the later period of the A-Group and probably contained ointments. The Egyptians then, were sending goods to Nubia, but in exchange for what? There are only a handful of sites within Egypt which have yielded identifiable Nubian artefacts. These are discussed below from south to north. Elephantine Elephantine is situated at what was to become Egypt’s southern border, separating it from the land we call Nubia. The Egyptian name for the island of Elephantine bw meaning elephant and ivory was only translated by the Greeks as Elephantine (WB I p. ) and thus has led to the assumption that Elephantine was already a trading post for ivory in previous periods. Whether this already counts for the Predynastic period has been disputed (Jiménez-Serrano : ). In addition the name bu is first attested from an Old Kingdom inscription of Khufu-Ankh on Elephantine (Habachi : –, Fig. , Pl. ). The name of the site is not depicted with a city determinative but rather a fortress which is in keeping with its role as a political boundary. Elephantine is the only site where evidence for Egypt’s relationship with her southern neighbour can be studied in continuous stratigraphy (Raue , : ). The earliest occupation of the island dates to the Naqada IID period and from the very beginning evidence suggests that Nubians and Upper Egyptians lived side by side here (Raue , : ). Predominantly simple undecorated wares with fabric comparable to the A-Group have been found along with limited amounts of decorated



chapter three

ware although it has been suggested that a close relationship with the Terminal A-Group is lacking as the site is too far north (Kaiser et. al. ). Recent work has shown that Middle and Terminal A-Group material does occur at Elephantine (Kopp ) although in limited amounts, including some described as fine wares (Kopp : , Pl. ). Kopp has dated his Terminal A-Group on the island to Naqada IIIB–C (Kopp : –) which agrees with Gatto’s () dating of the Terminal AGroup. He also describes the general region as having a Nubian flavour to it (Kopp : ). Nubian material is also found in late st–nd Dynasty contexts but the ceramic evidence found is more commonly associated with later Nubian cultural assemblages (Raue : ). Raue has applied a model of “small-scale migration and assimilation” to explain this pattern with small groups moving into the Nile Valley initially maintaining their cultural and ethnic identity as seen in the pottery (Raue : ). This “is followed by their assimilation into Egyptian urban culture (at least the material culture), or to a Nubian culture already established in the town and/or its surroundings” (Raue : ). The evidence at Elephantine fits this model well as over the course of the Early Dynastic-Old Kingdom Periods Nubian pottery shows features that have hitherto been associated with earlier or later developments (Raue : –, see also note ). In the early nd Dynasty contexts at Elephantine Nubian pottery makes up to   of the total (Raue : ). It is simple and largely undecorated pottery but the fabric distinguishes it from the Egyptian ceramics. This percentage drops dramatically during the rd Dynasty but appears to show a more deliberate differentiation with finer wares and more decoration and this continues through the th Dynasty (Raue : ). If the Nubian pottery is becoming more obviously different then there is reason to assume that other things such as language, ceremonies and even clothing might also bear clear ethnic and cultural markers (Raue : ). In the later Old Kingdom Elephantine becomes more important to the royal administration and at the same time changes in the Nubian pottery appear that have no parallels in earlier or later phases although some of the changes show similarities to later C-Group techniques which may indicate the beginnings of a new migration wave (Raue : ). At a time when archaeological evidence from further south points to a cultural disappearance of the A-Group, Elephantine offers a view of continuous occupation by Nubian groups in the immediate vicinity. It cannot be conclusively argued whether there were specific Nubian

nubia in egypt



quarters on the island but Raue has plausibly suggested that Nubian populations at various times may have indeed lived on the island side by side with Egyptians or that there may have been a Nubian settlement on the mainland near modern Aswan, at least in later periods, with people coming across to the island where pottery vessels may have been produced for households on the island (Raue : –). The areas to the immediate east and west of Elephantine and modern day Aswan are vast and have yet to be extensively surveyed but the Nubian material found at Elephantine may indicate a more continuous view of these assemblages than previously believed and that what we refer to as the AGroup culture may in fact be a smaller part, possibly an elite or a regional part, of a broader cultural tradition. The A-Group in the Aswan-Kom Ombo Region The region between Aswan and Kom Ombo highlights the ‘grey zone’ of the cultural border between Nubia and Egypt. Excavations at Kubbaniya (Junker ) have been seen as Nubian and the remains are certainly Nubian in character. However, Kubbaniya also displays many Naqadan characteristics in the form of pottery, stone and copper objects and even amulets. It should perhaps be seen as an excellent example of the shared traditions between southern Egypt and the very northern part of Lower Nubia. A survey conducted by the British Museum and the University of Milan in / in the area between Aswan and Kom Ombo aimed to look at the question of whether the First Cataract region was in fact a true border between the Egyptian and Nubian populations (Gatto : ). During this survey an isolated stone tumulus was found in the the Wadi el-Lawi area, specifically in a small valley called Shaab Negema (Gatto : ). The tumulus had been disturbed and the burial plundered but based on the pottery found on the surface of the tumulus the grave could be dated to the late Early A-Group contemporary with Egyptian Naqada IIA–D and is one of the few such burials known north of Aswan and in the Eastern Desert (Gatto : ). This grave also seems to have been located on one of the main desert routes connecting Lower Nubia with southern Egypt, especially the area around Hierakonpolis and Elkab (Gatto : –). While the geographical border between Egypt and Nubia is at Gebel es-Silsila to the north of Kom Ombo, from the First Dynasty the political border seems to have been at Elephantine



chapter three

and the area between Kom Ombo and Elephantine was included in Egypt proper becoming part of the first nome of Upper Egypt (Gatto : ). In the New Kingdom this region was the northern-most part of the area controlled by the Viceroy of Kush. New research in the region has demonstrated that Nubian cemeteries and possibly also settlements existed in Upper Egypt further north than their traditional cut-off point of Kubbaniya and could indicate the importance of desert routes for both Nubian and Egyptian populations as well as the importance of the Hierakonpolis region as a border area (Gatto : ). Hierakonpolis In the – season at Hierakonpolis one of the projects was designed to gather evidence of the A-Group in Upper Egypt, specifically at Hierakonpolis (Gatto : ). Hierakonpolis and Nubia can be connected by both desert and riverine routes and Hierakonpolis is connected to the Kharga Oasis to the west and the gold mining areas of the Wadi Allaqi to the southeast. While the project did not find any evidence for an A-Group cemetery or campsite its re-examination of previously excavated material has shown that the A-Group was certainly present even if only peripherally (Gatto : ). A-Group pottery has been found at various locations at Hierakonpolis including the town mound of Nekhen, the Predynastic temple of HKA, the petroglyph site of HK, the elite cemetery of HK and in graves at the cemetery of HK (Gatto : ). Most of the pottery is in the form of sherds but Henri de Morgan excavated several graves at the cemetery close to the enclosure of Khasekhemwy which contained A-Group vessels and one of them contained a complete eggshell ware vessel, a type dating to the Terminal AGroup which does not have a wide distribution (Gatto : ; Needler : –). The grave itself, with a side chamber and stone slab roof also resembles the later northern A-Group grave types. This sidechamber type of grave is also found in the elite cemetery  at Hierakonpolis and is perhaps indicative of the shared cultural traditions of Upper Egypt and Lower Nubia particularly in regions closer to the First Cataract. Two complete A-Group vessels found in the HK cemetery have clear parallels to Gatto’s northern Early A-Group (Gatto : ) whereas a sherd from HK is of a type not recorded in Nubia. The latter has a typically Nubian zigzag decoration but with a crushed quartz temper.

nubia in egypt



Such fabric and decoration has been found on similar pottery from the Western Desert which again highlights the importance of the desert routes for both Nubian and Egyptian populations (Gatto : ). The presence of Nubian pottery in both settlement and cemetery contexts at Hierakonpolis suggests that they were day-to-day objects rather than exotic imports. Animal burials at Hierakonpolis cemetery HK are also known in the Badarian and Maadi cultures and later, as well as in the northern A-Group and Sudanese Neolithic but do not appear to be either Nubian or Egyptian but part of a shared belief (Gatto : ). Kubbaniya, only  kilometres north of Aswan, with evidence for some A-Group presence, has long been considered the cultural border between Egypt and Nubia. However, with the similarities in burial practices between some of the Hierakonpolis and northern A-Group grave types and the discovery of A-Group pottery in the Hierakonpolis region, Gatto’s proposal that the cultural border of Egypt and Nubia should be placed in the Hierakonpolis region and that it may even be pushed as far north as Armant, noting that it is at Hierakonpolis and Armant where desert routes from the south meet the Nile Valley bears consideration (Gatto : ). Worth noting here is the C-Group cemetery at Hierakonpolis (HKC). Dating from the th Dynasty possibly to the early th Dynasty, this cemetery, at  kilometres north of Aswan, is the most northerly physical presence of the C-Group known in Egypt (Friedman : ). Considerable effort was spent on the construction and outfitting of the tombs and this along with the proximity of the cemetery to the contemporary Egyptian cemetery indicates that this group of Nubians enjoyed wealth and were certainly not considered an underclass (Friedman : ). This group also appears to be biologically dissimilar to Nubians in the southern part of C-Group territory and thus “represent both culturally and biologically, a northern facie of the Nubian CGroup culture” (Friedman : ). A contemporary cemetery at Kubbaniya is the only other C-Group cemetery attested north of Aswan and is strikingly similar to HKC (Friedman : ). This would then indeed suggest that the cultural border between Egypt and Nubia in the Middle Kingdom was in the Hierakonpolis region rather than the Kubbaniya/Aswan region and it is very likely a tradition that goes back to the A-Group culture. This fits in with the proposal of A-Groups, (Gatto ; Gatto and Tiraterra ) as well as with the idea that the northern most A-Group was culturally very close to the Naqadan Egyptians and may represent a regional variation. Certainly, Hierakonpolis maintained a Nubian presence throughout its history.



chapter three Henri De Morgan’s Second Season of Excavations

Henri de Morgan conducted two excavation seasons in Upper Egypt in the winters of – and – which were sponsored by the Brooklyn Institute of Arts and Sciences. As a result, the greater part of the Brooklyn Museum’s collection of Predynastic and Archaic Egyptian material comes from these excavations (Needler : ). De Morgan published three short preliminary reports in which some of the noteworthy graves and their contents were discussed and illustrated although inadequately (Needler : ). De Morgan unfortunately died not long after conducting his excavations and his full report of the first season was published posthumously. The second season’s work was published by W. Needler in  as part of the Brooklyn Museum’s catalogue of the collection and is described as very much the culmination of a scholarly salvage campaign begun by W. Federn forty years earlier (Needler : ). The provenance of the finds had been poorly recorded, particularly for the first season although de Morgan had provided an incomplete but nonetheless useful, descriptive list that contained some simple sketches and serial numbers matching those inked on the objects. Unfortunately, de Morgan’s maps, drawings and photographs from his excavations in Egypt along with his fieldnotes proved of little assistance in matching objects with particular graves (Needler : ). In the first season de Morgan’s concession stretched between Esna in the north and Edfu in the south. Arriving in January , de Morgan conducted a thorough survey of the area including Palaeolithic and Pharaonic remains but concentrated on Predynastic and Archaic cemeteries and settlements (Needler : ). In the following year the concession was extended south to Gebel es-Silsila. De Morgan spent the entire season at the Predynastic and Archaic cemeteries of El Ma"mariya, Kom el Ahmar, Abu Zaidan, El Masa"id and Es-Sib"iya (east) and the settlements of El #Adaima and Kom el Ahmar (Needler : ). El Ma"Mariya This was a very large cemetery about  km south of Kom el Ahmar, close to and even partly within the cultivation area (Needler : ). The eastern part of the cemetery was entirely buried under the alluvium. While de Morgan’s topographical account was apparently unclear it seems that there were two distinct burial groups; the earlier being Predynastic while the later dating to mid st Dynasty to nd Dynasty (Needler

nubia in egypt



: ). Only three of the burials could be confidently assigned an assemblage based on the available information. Burial  contained a Nubian decorated bowl of fine soft brown fabric (Needler : Fig. . No. ; Catalogue No. ). It is decorated with alternate impressed and red-polished panels and its fabric, shape and decoration clearly identify it as a vessel of the Classic A-Group (Needler: : ). This type of vessel and decoration are found as far south as modern Khartoum and the tradition may originate from this region (Needler : ) which points to early long distance contact between the regions of Upper Egypt, Lower Nubia and Upper Nubia. Amongst the other finds were five other vessels, two terracotta female figures and a flint fishtail knife. The gender of the grave owner, as in all cases with de Morgan’s excavations, was not specified. The date given to this burial was Naqada IIA. Three other vessels of Nubian origin were found by de Morgan although a precise context is unavailable (Needler : Fig.  No. ; Fig.  No.  and Fig.  No. ). These do not greatly assist in narrowing down the dating as two are of the black-mouthed ware and one is a simple deep cup of coarse reddish-brown ware. Kom el Ahmar (Hierakonpolis) De Morgan excavated a few graves northeast of the so called fort which were at the southeastern end of a larger cemetery probably dating from late Naqada II to Naqada III (Needler : ). Again it was difficult to assign specific objects to specific graves. However, burial  (already mentioned in the section on Hierakonpolis above) could be reconstructed and was certainly of interest as it appeared to follow the A-Group style of side-chambered burial. It contained three coarse red pottery vessels, two elongated wavy-handled vessels, an alabaster vase and jar, three siltstone palettes and an eggshell ware vessel (Needler : fig.  No. , Catalogue No. ). The grave is given a date of Naqada III in Needler’s catalogue but should probably be dated no later than Naqada IIIB. Abu Zaidan Just to the south of Edfu, the site of Abu Zaidan had a large Predynastic cemetery which was dated to Naqada III (Needler : ). Four pottery vessels of clearly Nubian origin were found in the Abu Zaidan region of de Morgan’s excavations. These included two of soft red



chapter three

fabric, decorated with squares of a rough checker pattern marked with incised lines; some squares were left plain but lightly polished while the alternates were filled with dotted lines made with a toothed rocker stamp (Needler :  Catalogue No. ). One vessel was classified as similar to eggshell ware although only decorated with a large graffito of a frog (Needler : , Catalogue No. ). The fourth vessel was of coarse reddish-brown fabric with a shape and fabric described as “typically Nubian” and with a deeply incised potmark (Needler : , catalogue No. ) El Masa"Id This was the southern-most site excavated by de Morgan and was possibly intact (Needler : ). The cemetery yielded at least two Nubian vessels—both relatively rough in soft reddish-brown ware with incised decoration. One was found in burial  which also contained two cylindrical jars with painted decoration, two storage (?) jars, a large red dish and a siltstone palette with cross line border (Needler : ). One Nubian vessel is described as a deocrated bowl (Needler : Fig.  No. , Catalogue No. ). The second Nubian vessel apparently came from burial  although the rest of the assemblage is not listed. It was a jar with impressed and incised decoration (Needler : Fig.  No. ). Minshat Abu Omar As has been noted above, pottery vessels of a Canaanite jug type have been found in the A-Group cemetery L at Qustul. Several pottery vessels initially identified as of Nubian A-Group type have been found as far north as the eastern Delta site of Minshat Abu Omar (Kroeper and Wildung , ) although not in any great numbers. Three bowls of a shell-tempered ware fitting Nordström’s Group III (Nordström : –) were discovered at Minshat Abu Omar (Kroeper and Wildung : ). They are found in graves of Grave Group IIIb type in Minshat Abu Omar dating to Dynasty  (Kroeper ). These forms are not widespread and are generally found at sites of Abkan and A-Group date in the Wadi Halfa region (Nordström : ) but their precise identification with Nubian wares is inconclusive (Kroeper ; Riedere ) and at least two of the vessels in question should be identified as local settlement wares (Köhler b).

nubia in egypt



Nubians in Egypt? The relative abundance of Egyptian goods, particularly pottery, in Lower Nubia in the time of the A-Group, suggests an Egyptian presence although not necessarily a permanent one. It has been suggested that the quantity of pottery vessels alone indicates that Egyptians were frequent visitors to Lower Nubia although they do not seem to have journeyed south of the Second Cataract (Adams : ). But is this in fact the case? A pot is not a person and pottery vessels may have entered Nubia without direct Egyptian involvement. It is entirely possible that A-Group Nubians or others took Egyptian vessels and their contents south. A direct A-Group presence in Egypt itself is even harder to find. We can only speculate, generally based upon later texts, as to what the Egyptians were seeking from Lower Nubia; these are by and large assumed to be raw materials based on the lack of Nubian manufactured goods found. A-Group pottery is not found in any great quantities in Egyptian contexts. This suggests that the A-Group pottery and any possible contents were not of interest to the Egyptians. It is also possible that Egyptians transported goods back to Egypt in their own vessels. Were Egyptians and Nubians travelling back and forth between Upper Egypt and Lower Nubia? Or were they perhaps meeting at one or several neutral points as has been suggested with Khor Daud? What is significant is where the A-Group material is found. The three pottery vessels found in graves at Minshat Abu Omar may indicate the presence of people from the south or at least that their ceramics came north. Did they belong to someone from Lower Nubia who died while travelling in Egypt (for trade or other purposes) or who had actually migrated to Egypt for work as modern Nubians do? However, the identification of two of these vessels as Nubian is speculative at best and they are likely local settlement ceramics. At Elephantine, which was to become Egypt’s southern border, A-Group and Egyptian pottery appear side by side from the very beginning although througout its history Egyptian ceramics vastly outnumber ceramics of Nubian tradition on the island (Raue ). Thus by the end of the Naqada II period at least, there is a recognised differentiation between the two cultural groups even if there are also shared traits. Pottery in the A-Group tradition is also found north of Aswan, although again not in any great quantities. In de Morgan’s excavations, amongst the hundreds of pottery vessels and sherds, only  Nubian vessels were found. More recent surveys across the Hierakonpolis site



chapter three

and between Aswan and Kom Ombo have also uncovered scattered remains of Nubian pottery and occasionally burials. While no A-Group cemetery has been found at Hierakonpolis, the similarities in burial practices between some graves there (locality  the elite cemetery) and those of the A-Group point to shared traditions and the fluidity of the cultural and ethnic border before state formation in Egypt. It is interesting that the eggshell ware, often considered the finest of the AGroup pottery, was rarely found in Egypt with the northern-most find in Naqada (Williams : ). One of the few examples found north of Lower Nubia was in a grave at Hierakonpolis which was possibly that of a Nubian although it also contained alabaster jars, wavy-handled pottery vessels and siltstone palettes. There are several possible reasons for the lack of eggshell ware in Egyptian contexts: it is very fine, generally in the form of open vessels such as cups and, as the name suggests, fragile and so would not have been ideal to transport; it may not have been prized by the Naqadan Egyptians; or it may have only been offered to them in exceptional situations. Eggshell ware is not widespread even in Nubia and was probably a marker of status at a time when decorated pottery was increasingly, in Egypt, losing its value as a status symbol in comparison to objects made of stone and metal (Smith : ; Bourriau ). The eggshell ware may have had a special function through display at feasts and funerals that meant very little to the Naqadan Egyptians. It seems that in comparison to Egyptians in Nubia, very few Nubians travelled north to Egypt or if they did, they became assimilated with the northern culture (Raue : ). The lack of manufactured goods from the south, such as pottery also suggests that as long suspected, it was raw materials which the Egyptians sought from their southern neighbours and that the formation of a centralised state in Egypt eventually drew a more defined line between what had been cultures and people of a shared tradition.

chapter four INSCRIPTIONAL, PICTORIAL AND GLYPTIC EVIDENCE

What We Say and How We Say It What we write about is what we want remembered. Even today many people feel they have at least one story to tell. So too, the ancient Egyptians recorded what they felt was worth remembering. In its earliest incarnations as rock carvings and pottery decoration, as votive palettes, ceremonial maceheads and ivory labels attached to funerary equipment and goods, ancient Egyptian documentation served both practical and commemorative purposes. The Nubians were not to give their own account of history until the eighth century bc (Adams : –). All of the earliest textual evidence regarding Egypt and her relations with Nubia is Egyptian in origin and thus served Egyptian purposes. The Nubian perspective was, from the Egyptians’ written point of view, entirely irrelevant. As such we should be careful not to immediately take those accounts literally and at face value. While this is not the most precise way to draw a picture, the Egyptian view of herself and her neighbours can give some indication of those ‘foreign’ lands and Egypt’s relationship with them. Even a one-sided testimony can yield information as it tells us something of the writer and his or her possible feelings towards their subject matter. There are very few historical sources from the late Predynastic period and, as stated, none at all from the Nubian side. Such evidence comes from both Egyptian and Lower Nubian contexts although what we have in relation to Egypt and Nubia is seemingly one-sided and understandably, the earliest hints for Egyptian activity in, or connection with Nubia are the most ambiguous. Why then use such material when discussing the nature of contact and exchange between Egypt and Lower Nubia? After all there is no correspondence between the two regions, no ‘Qustul letters’. What this material does offer, however, is an understanding of the connections between the regions and their people. Did they share a common cultural tradition, common values, ideas and even modes of



chapter four

expression? Looking at iconography used (and how and where it was used) we may gain an insight into the type of relationship that existed between Egypt and Lower Nubia, whether it was positive or hostile, close or disparate, beneficial or detrimental. How well, in fact, did they understand one another? And just who was talking to whom? Incense Burners Two incense burners found at Qustul have been decorated with what has been described as early ‘royal’ Egyptian iconography and therefore included in this chapter on glyptic and inscriptional evidence. Several ‘incense burners’ have been found in Lower Nubian A-Group contexts although not always decorated. These objects have been variously described as lamps, incense burners and even mortars, the latter being plausible as some have been found with traces of pigment (Nordström : –). For the sake of consistency the widely used and accepted term, incense burner is used here throughout. Two were found in a wealthy grave at Faras West (Griffith : ); one in Cemetery  grave 1 (Reisner : ); one in a Terminal A-Group grave at Gezira Dabarossa (Nordström : ); and two in two separate A-Group cemeteries excavated by the Scandinavian Joint Expedition, site /: (Nordström : ; Pls.  and : ) and site /: (Nordström  Pl. ). Of these, two have simple linear decoration on the exterior surface. These objects are generally seen as Nubian in origin, specifically A-Group (Nordström : ). Further examples of incense burners were found at Qustul Cemetery L (Williams : –; Pls –) of which two are decorated with palace façades, boats or serekhs. Writing in Egypt was developing in the late Naqada II period and was probably not fully formulated until the beginning of the Dynastic Period. However, several early rock carvings as well as decorated prestige goods such as seals, seal impressions, incense burners and mace handles have been found in A-Group contexts and their decoration gives an insight into early imagery and iconography and the exchange of such ideas and materials (Mark : esp. chapter ; Williams : ; Williams and Logan ).

1 Note that this grave consists of two interments; one Reisner dated to the Early Dynastic while the second, which cut through the first was dated to the New Kingdom. Both burials were disturbed and plundered (Reisner : ).

inscriptional, pictorial and glyptic evidence



Traditionally, these incense burners have been viewed as having a Nubian origin with no comparative objects found in Egypt (Nordström ; Williams ). This is interesting in light of the role that incense plays in Egyptian religion from early historical times (Manniche : ) and certainly in Pharaonic times, and that texts such as the autobiography of Harkhuf clearly show that it was an import. The subsequent publication of coarse stone vessels from the Predynastic settlement at Maadi, therefore needs to be considered (Rizkana and Seeher : –, Pls –; Pl XII, ). The preliminary report (Menghin and Amer  cited in Rizkana and Seeher ) suggested that the , both complete and fragmentary, coarse limestone bowls were oil lamps as most had soot-like traces and evidence of burning (Rizkana and Seeher : ). A few had clean interiors and some may have been mortars. They were thick walled with heavy bases and had been roughly hollowed out in comparison to other stone vessels found at the site (Rizkana and Seeher : ). In comparison with incense burners found in Lower Nubia the bases of these stone vessels are, by and large, rounded; the bowls tend to be broad and shallow, and most are round; on the whole they are not carefully made (Rizkana and Seeher : ) which is in contrast to those found in Lower Nubia, in particular the two found at Qustul. Nor are any of the Maadi vessels decorated. All the incense burners found in Lower Nubia date to the Terminal A-Group (Nordström : –) making them younger than those found at Maadi. In three cases the contents of the Maadi vessels were analysed (by R. Rottländer) but the poor preservation meant that a definite identification was not possible (Rizkana and Seeher : –). What was clear, however, was that the bowls contained a resinous type of vegetable fat which led to the conclusion that they were not used as lamps but as incense burners (Rizkana and Seeher : ). With such a large number of these types of vessels coming from the settlement, fragrant resins must have been an important import as resinous plants are not numerous in Egypt and in this instance the Levant was logically suggested as the closest source (Rizkana and Seeher : ). Does this mean that incense burners were not a Nubian invention but that their use had a Lower Egyptian or even Levantine origin? Vessels of Syro-Palestinian origin have been found in Lower Nubia but only at cemetery L Qustul. The chronological and geographical distances between the Lower Nubian and Maadian incense burners are problematic as are the very different stylistic forms these vessels take. In addition incense burners, apart from these



chapter four

tentatively suggested examples from Maadi, do not appear in Predynastic Egyptian contexts. However, incense burners were not common to Lower Nubia (Nordström : –), made their appearance at a time when the A-Group appeared to be growing increasingly complex socially (Nordström : ; Smith ; O’Connor : ), and at a time when contact between Egypt and Lower Nubia seems to have been at its most intense. While claiming that the Lower Nubian incense burners were direct imports from the Levant is no doubt going too far (the ‘Pharaonic’ decorative motifs on the Qustul incense burners at least would seem to exclude this), it is worth noting that once again we may need to more fully consider the idea of shared traditions and cultural practises. The Qustul Incense Burner (see Pl. a) Described as the most valuable discovery made by Seele from the AGroup cemetery at Qustul (Williams : ), the Qustul incense burner, while mainly pictorial in decoration and fragmentary, is by many considered a source of historical significance and has led to much discussion regarding trade/exchange and the origins of royal iconography. Initially the Qustul incense burner was identified as being made of limestone but was later described as being made of a mix of fine clays (Williams : ). The decoration is made up of three sailing vessels which resemble Egyptian ‘royal’ barques all moving towards a palace façade with additional figures and signs (Williams : ). The types of boats depicted commonly appear in early Egyptian representations such as in the decorated Tomb  at Hierakonpolis, on Naqada II pottery; various rock inscriptions; knife handle decoration such as the Gebel el-Arak knife and the Metropolitan Museum knife; and palettes. The stern of barque III (Williams : , figure ) contains a standard. Although damaged, Williams has interpreted the figure atop the standard as a falcon and that they most closely resemble those seen in Kaiser’s early serekh group. A similar falcon shape is found on the Siali sealings from Nubia, on a pottery vessel in Upper Egypt and on a rock carving at Khor Abu Subeira in the Aswan-Kom Ombo region (Williams : ). More recently, the depiction of a falcon standard in a rock carving tableau at Wadi Magar, west of Naqada, has been paralleled to the standard on the Qustul incense burner (J. Darnell ). A recent publication of some rock carvings near Aswan also features the depiction of a boat (paralleled with Naqada IIC D-ware examples) with a falcon standard

inscriptional, pictorial and glyptic evidence



(Gatto et. al. : ). The boat with sail has also been paralleled with a depiction on a rock carving in the Wadi of the Horus Qa"a (J. Darnell ). Also interesting are the figures associated with barques I and II (Williams : , , figs.  and  respectively). These are, from right to left, a seated figure wearing what appears to be the white crown which was to become associated with Upper Egypt, a falcon above a serekh and a rosette. Barque I contains a seated figure with his arms bound behind his back, guarded by a second figure who appears to be restraining him. The final destination of the procession appears to be a palace façade or serekh (Williams : ). The iconography on this incense burner is very much in the framework of an emerging ‘royal’ iconography in Egypt, suggesting that, at least amongst elites in the Nile Valley, there is a shared imagery denoting power and authority and which indicates contact and exchange between these elites. The Archaic Horus Incense Burner (see Pl. b) Cemetery L at Qustul revealed another decorated incense burner known as the Archaic Horus incense burner from L (Williams : –; Pls  and : a). The surface condition of this incense burner is varied with much of it affected by crumbling (Williams : ). While much of the decoration is worn, several motifs have been identified. These include palace façades, part of a sacred barque, a “shrouded falcon— the Archaic Horus” (Williams : ) and what appears to be a robed human figure crowned with the white crown. Williams has linked its decoration to that of the Qustul incense burner (Williams : ). Williams firmly ties the iconography and the composition of these incense burners to Pharaonic civilisation, citing it as a source for the beginnings of Pharaonic representation. At the time of Williams’ argument, the Qustul cemetery and the ‘royal’ iconography found there was dated to the Naqada IIIA period, thus antedating royal cemeteries in Egypt of the Naqada IIIB phase. New evidence from Abydos, however, particularly the excavation of Cemetery U and the tome U-j, dating to Naqada IIIA has shown that this iconography appears earlier in Egypt.2

2 For a full report on tomb U-j see Dreyer, G. . Umm el-Qaab/I: Das prädynastiche Königsgrab U-j und seine frühen Schriftzeugnisse, Archäologische Veröffentlichungen , Mainz.



chapter four

The decoration and find context deserve attention. If the rulers of Qustul were not the forerunners of Egyptian Pharaonic traditions what is the significance of these depictions? One possible interpretation is that while the incense burners were probably local, the decoration, or at least its derivation, was not. O’Connor has argued that the incense burner was made in Egypt or decorated by Egyptians and presented to a ruler of Qustul as a gift (O’Connor : ). It has been argued that incense burners are, however, unknown in Egypt and so it would seem unlikely that Egyptian craftsmen would make something so unfamiliar in order to send it to Nubia. Yet this alternative cannot be rued out; incense burners may in fact have been known to the people of Maadi although in style and manufacture they are much rougher and undecorated (Rizkana and Seeher : –). An alternative explanation is that these images of rulership—the seated figure with white crown, the high prowed barque, the bound and subjugated figures, wild animals, a feline figure, the standards, falcon and serekhs—may have long been shared as such. In other words the regions of Upper Egypt and Lower Nubia had a common cultural tradition. Can we see this as a gift from one ruler to another, i.e. among equals? The iconography would presumably only be significant in a gift if it was understood by the recipient. Williams himself has argued that the design elements of the Qustul incense burner are to be found throughout the Egyptian Nile Valley from Naqada II on (Williams : ). In addition, elements such as the royal barques and the rosette may be shared with or actually borrowed from earlier Mesopotamian motifs (Marks : esp. Chapter ; Pittman : ). While these motifs may not have had the same precise meanings in their Egyptian contexts (Pittman : –) it can be suggested that at an early date (at least Naqada II) there was a movement of ideas as well as objects, in this case amongst a burgeoning elite. and that certainly the Nile River would have facilitated the fluidity of such exchanges. The Qustul incense burner remains problematic for a number of reasons. It was found in an extremely fragmentary state and was subsequently heavily restored. Its precise context has been questioned although the excavators were confident and consistent in assigning it to a tomb.3 However, Williams is partly justified in stating that “it indicates that monumental Pharaonic culture was entirely at home in Nubia”, at least 3 Adams points out the graves of Cemetery L at Qustul were heavily plundered, disturbed and scattered in antiquity making it difficult to assign specific objects to

inscriptional, pictorial and glyptic evidence



amongst a certain group, and that it highlights closer ties between Egyptian and its southern neighbours (Williams : ). In light of the tentative identification of rough incense burners at Maadi it is possible that the incense burners with figurative decoration at least, were made in either Egypt or Nubia by craftsmen (either Egyptian or Nubian) who were familiar with the Egyptian iconography, as a gift between rulers. I believe that it is most likely that the Qustul incense burners were made and decorated in Nubia by a craftsman familiar with the ‘royal’ iconography, for a ruler who both understood and was allowed access to such iconography. Upper Egypt and Lower Nubia may indeed have shared many aspects of material culture and at the same time the A-Group elite may have acquired, via trade or gift exchange, prestige goods and new iconography from Egypt and, like the Egyptians, used them as symbols of power and authority (Smith : ). Rock Cut Carvings Gebel Sheikh Suleiman (see Pl. ) One of the most important pieces of inscriptional evidence for possible Egyptian presence or incursions in Lower Nubia comes from a sandstone relief at Gebel Sheikh Suleiman just south of Buhen in the Second Cataract region (Arkell : –). The scene has been described as a commemoration of a st Dynasty Egyptian conquest of Nubia or at least two regions within it (Arkell : ; Trigger : ). It shows several fallen figures beneath a boat and two bound figures, one of which is perhaps to be identified by a Stj-bow but could also simply be represented as bound. One of the bound figures is also attached to the prow of a boat, a scene which is similar to a rock carving in the Wadi of the Horus Qa"a to the west of Naqada and dated from the end of Naqada II to the beginning of Naqada III (J. Darnell ). Similar motifs also show wild animals attached to boats and probably indicate the special place of hunting amongst the elite and the control of the natural, wild world by that elite (Gatto et. al. : ). There are two town signs; one is a fourspoked circle topped by a hawk, while the second wheel is topped by a sack-like object. Arkell suggested that these are in fact somewhat unusual specific graves. See Adams : –, notes  and . However Williams responds by pointing out that the excavator had no problem assigning objects, including the Qustul incense burner, to a specific grave. See Williams : –.



chapter four

renderings of two of the four st Dynasty royal standards (Arkell : ) such as can be seen on the Narmer palette. Perhaps the most significant feature on this relief is a serekh at the left of the rock. The serekh itself is rather crude but has been identified by some scholars with that of King Djer, placing its date firmly in the early st Dynasty (ca. – bc) (Arkell ; Säve-Söderbergh ; Trigger ; Emery ). This attribution was not without its detractors (Helck : –; Nordström : ) and certainly the serekh may be described as devoid of any name at all. Murnane has convincingly argued, based on first-hand examination of the carving, that the supposed sign for Dr was actually an antelope graffito which was added later (Murnane : ). As such the serekh itself bears no royal name, just some drill holes apparently for decorative purposes (Murnane : ). Thus the dating for this rock art should be placed prior to the st Dynasty and probably to Kaiser’s Horizon A (Naqada IIIb) (Murnane : ; van den Brink : Fig. /, Table ). Is it possible to see a territorial struggle in the Naqada III period between the emerging Egyptian state and the Terminal A-Group dominated by the Qustul chiefs? The inscription denotes some form of conflict or rivalry and may indeed mark a victorious campaign or raid in the south. There was little of agricultural value in the actual land of Lower Nubia to tempt the Egyptians to colonise the region on a large-scale but certainly access to exotic goods such as gold, ebony, ivory and semiprecious stones would have been increasingly important as the Egyptian state (and elite) emerged. Economic interests could be effectively served by establishing a few strategic points of control along the Nile. This may be part or the whole of the inscription’s intent—to mark a point of interest and ‘claim’ some sort of control over it. Alternatively the Gebel Sheikh Suleiman inscription could be interpreted from a more localised, A-Group point of view. If the Qustul incense burners can be interpreted as locally made and decorated why not the rock inscription? The iconography as suggested with the incense burners may have been understood by both an Upper Egyptian and Lower Nubian elite. Is it possible that they represent a territorial struggle between rival A-Group rulers? Another reading of the inscription may also be more generically symbolic; once again there is a depiction of victory over chaos represented by bound captives. A second inscription found at Gebel Sheikh Suleiman, just a few steps from the one described above, has also been given an early date (Needler ). The inscription is made up of the large figure of a scorpion

inscriptional, pictorial and glyptic evidence



that appears to be holding a rope in its claws which is attached to a bound captive. Directly to the left of the bound figure is another human figure holding some kind of weapon (not unlike the later hieroglyphic determinatives for hwii or hii—Gardiner’s sign list A/A—meaning ‘to strike’) and possibly wearing an animal’s tail; while to the right is a third human figure wearing a knee length kilt with, in this instance, almost certainly an animal tail and holding a bow and arrow. Needler describes the bound captive as being threatened or subjugated by both the scorpion and the armed men, who were presumably followers or allies of whoever is represented by the scorpion (Needler : ). This scene has been described as possibly being inspired by the better known inscription (Needler : ) or as a record of an expedition or raid into Lower Nubia by a late Predynastic Egyptian ruler (the scorpion) possibly even a King Scorpion (Needler : –; Wilkinson : ). It is at a considerable distance but is there any relation to this scorpion inscription and the ‘King Scorpion’ of U-j? Or with the Gebel Tjauti inscription (see below)? Scorpions are not, however, exclusive to Egypt and can be found in the deserts of Lower Nubia as much as further north and scorpion amulets are found in A-Group contexts, albeit particularly in northern-most Lower Nubia. Scorpion figurines have also been found at Hierakonpolis in the elite cemetery at HK (Friedman : –) and certainly one of them was designed to be mounted on a stick, such representations surviving into Pharaonic times and being associated with the goddess Selket (Marée : ). Selket was, however, a Delta goddess and thus it has been suggested that earlier representations of the scorpion represented a more general idea of power and strength (Marée : ). Certainly the scorpion can be associated with at least two early Egyptian rulers/kings. Such inscriptions have been described as evidence for Egyptian military conquests of, or ‘spheres of influence’ over Lower Nubia. However, the mere presence of these graffiti does not necessarily point to some sort of outright conquest or annexation, particularly when Egyptians seem to have preferred long-distance trade or raids rather than long-term occupation. That they depict conflict seems clear but what exactly this conflict is and/or between whom is not so straightforward. The finding of a rock inscription at Gebel Sheikh Suleiman does not instantly mean that there was an Egyptian military conquest of that area. If this is the case why would there be an inscription in the Second Cataract region and not in the First Cataract region? The latter was to essentially become the southern Egyptian border so why not make a military point at a soon to be



chapter four

established border? Nevertheless the Second Cataract region would become of strategic importance to the Egyptian state in the Old Kingdom and particularly Middle Kingdom. Instead what we are probably looking at is the ongoing development of a ‘royal’ iconography. An important part of this iconography is the aggression and power of the ruler as well as the submission and defeat of his ‘enemies’. Such motifs can be traced to as early as late Naqada I with a painted white cross vessel (Petrie’s C-Ware) from tomb U- at Abydos (Köhler a: Figs. ., ) and while the scenes could be interpreted as actual events it seems more likely that they follow developing conventions (Baines : ). Egypt is beginning to define itself through the role of kingship and its identification and view of ‘the other’ be they Asiatics, Libyans or, in this case, Nubians (Köhler  esp. –). Gebel Tjauti Such rock-cut carvings of apparent victory scenes were not common in the Predynastic period. The only other known such rock carving comes from Gebel Tjauti on the #Alamat Tal Road near Luxor and, based on an identification with the ruler possibly named Scorpion from U-j at Abydos, dated Naqada IIIA (Darnell, J.C. a: –; Pls. –). While far north of Lower Nubia, this inscription has been interpreted as a likely victory of Abydos over the Naqada region (Hendrickx and Friedman : –) which has implications for Hierakonpolis and possibly by association, its relation to its southern neighbours. As the Egyptian state emerged, likely with a peaceful, gradual cooperation between Abydos and Hierakonpolis (Hendrickx and Friedman : –) trade with the north became increasingly important. The Nile Delta was an important region in terms of trade further to the northeast (Levant, Anatolia. Mesopotamia) but also in agricultural potential. It has been suggested that in the Naqada I–II transition grain cultivation became increasingly decisive in the development of Egypt (Wengrow : ). The Romans (albeit some three millennia in the future) saw Egypt and especially the Delta, as the breadbasket of the Roman Empire and there is no reason to suppose that the Upper Egyptian elite did not also see the potential of the north. It may well have been in the interests of the rulers of Abydos and Hierakonpolis to harness both the land and the people of Lower Egypt for their own gain. In comparison, south of Hierakonpolis, agricultural potential becomes limited and Pre- and Early Dynastic sites become less

inscriptional, pictorial and glyptic evidence



frequent (Hendrickx and Friedman : ). In Lower Nubia, more sparsely populated and with even less arable land available, it may have been more viable to dramatically cut off access to prestige goods (perhaps also grain) from the north, launch punitive raids and deprive the elite at centres such as Seyala but especially Qustul, of their emblems of power. In this early period Hierakonpolis should probably be seen as the southern border of an emerging Egyptian state whereas the First Cataract region, fully exploited by the beginning of the st Dynasty, offered a natural barrier which could be patrolled and controlled. The Gebel Tjauti inscription slightly predates the Gebel Sheikh Suleiman carving but in some respects they can be seen in a similar light. The aggression and dominance of the ruler/king is attested in both scenes and the geographical location of both seems significant. Gebel Tjauti is located in the strategic Qena bend and Gebel Sheikh Suleiman in the Second Cataract region. Cemetery L at Qustul is north of the Second Cataract and dates to the Naqada IIIA–B period. If this cemetery displays a peak of A-Group power as displayed in its elite tombs, the dating of the Gebel Sheikh Suleiman inscription (Naqada IIIB-Dyn ) may indicate the pushing of the border further south and creating an extensive southern frontier or buffer zone (Baines : ). For the scenes depicted to be of any value they had to be comprehensible. The importance of the meaning and interpretation of the Gebel Sheikh Suleiman carvings is impossible to separate from their intended audience. Images such as the barque, fallen ‘enemies’ and the serekh, which would all become part of later royal iconography were, even at this stage, elite symbols and as such associated with an emerging elite. Later depictions of the king displaying power and aggression were to be found in temples to which only priests, coming from the elite, had access (Baines : ) whereas the rock carvings at Gebel Sheikh Suleiman were not hidden. Nonetheless, would the local population have understood the Egyptian imagery? Would they have seen themselves in the bound captive? No doubt the local elite, possibly the intended audience, would have fully understood the charged imagery just as an elite further north would have understood the Gebel Tjauti inscription. It is also possible that the inscription was intended for an Egyptian audience, perhaps an expedition group. In this case the emerging iconography of kingship and its power over chaos, including unfamiliar territories, may have given a sense of the protection of the ruler; an early scene of ‘smiting the enemy’. This would clearly indicate that this far south was early on regarded as foreign.



chapter four

Particularly from the beginning of Naqada III, Egyptian artefacts are found in increasing quantities in Lower Nubian graves indicating trade/exchange. Even some objects of Levantine origin are found. As Upper Egypt consolidated its power and the Egyptian state began to emerge, the A-Group access to raw materials such as hard stone, ebony and gold, so coveted by the Upper Egyptian elite, may have meant that they were ‘squeezed out’ of the distribution system and such inscriptions as Gebel Sheikh Suleiman may be indicators for such an aggressive policy of exclusion. Alternatively these inscriptions may have been intended solely for an Egyptian audience indicative of the protection received from the ruler while in a foreign climate. Hill B Inscription Around nine kilometres from Gebel Sheikh Suleiman and behind the northern end of the Old Kingdom settlement of Buhen a further inscription is to be found on Hill B. The inscription is considerably worn but the technique of carving as well as comparisons for some of the hieroglyphs indicate an early, probably Archaic date (Smith : –). H.S. Smith gives it a date of no later than the rd Dynasty and possibly as old as the st Dynasty (Smith : ). The organisation of the hieroglyphs does not follow later conventions; instead the signs in line  face the opposite direction of those in line  and this lack of order, particularly with common epithets such as ntr # (great god) or ntr nfr (good/beautiful god) may also be indicative of an early date (Smith : ). The inscription’s interpretation is problematic but the epithets used seem to refer either to an unnamed ruler or to an actual place (Smith : ). Smith goes on to interpret the purpose of the inscription as a dedication, possibly for the founding of Buhen (Smith : –). It certainly seems no accident that the inscriptions at Buhen North and Gebel Sheikh Suleiman are to be found in the Second Cataract region, an area which was to hold strategic territorial importance for the Egyptian state and which the Egyptians sought to control, initially with the fortress at Buhen and later in the Middle Kingdom with a series of fortresses. As Elephantine was established and fortified as Egypt’s southern border in the late st/early nd Dynasty (Ziermann :  table ) it could then be used as a base for maintaining control over and/or access to the immediate southern region; launching raids, military campaigns or expeditions further south although by this stage the evidence for Egyptian material culture in Lower Nubia is lacking. The Second Cataract

inscriptional, pictorial and glyptic evidence



region on the other hand was outside Egypt proper but a presence, even if just an inscription, was important from an ideological perspective. The dating of the inscriptions at Gebel Sheikh Suleiman and Buhen Hill B may also be significant as they are dated slightly later than Cemetery L at Qustul. This particular cemetery was heavily plundered and destroyed and never reused although later Nubian kings were buried at Ballana and Qustul. However, while Gebel Sheikh Suleiman may depict an actual event, it is just as plausible that it depicts a general attitude. It could be that Upper Egypt had already succeeded in ‘breaking the back’ of the A-Group elite and the inscriptions and subsequent establishment of a permanent garrison at Buhen are the physical manifestations of this power and control cut in stone and mudbrick. For such inscriptions to have been effective they need not have been seen at all times by all people; yet their presence should be known and understood by their intended audience—the elite (Baines ). It does seem significant that these inscriptions are found in the Second Cataract region and not at the First Cataract which would seem to be the natural border between the A-Group and the Egyptians. In fact it would appear that the population around the Aswan region posed no threat to the Egyptians at all and that Nordström’s interpretation that the ‘real’ A-Group was located in the Wadi Halfa and Second Cataract region should be considered as this is near where the elite A-Group cemetery of Qustul is to be found. However, recently discovered and re-discovered rock inscriptions in the vicinity of Aswan may mean a reassessment of the Second Cataract inscriptions is needed. West Bank Aswan and Wadi Abu Subeira The Aswan-Kom Ombo Archaeological Project has been investigating rock art sites from Gharb Aswan and Wadi Abu Subeira (Gatto et.al. ). The sites on the West Bank of Gebel Qurna and Hagar el-Ghorab in the Sheikh Mohamed region are easily visible and accessible and could have acted as landmarks by those approaching Elephantine by river, whereas the site at Khor Abu Subeira is more secluded (Gatto et. al. : , ). Predynastic/A-Group, Middle Kingdom, Byzantine and possibly C-Group cemeteries were also excavated in the Sheikh Mohamed district (Junker ). At Gebel Qurna Ptolemaic and modern quarrying have probably played a role in the deterioration or destruction of some of the rock drawings (Gatto et. at. : –). However several rock carvings remain, some dated to the Predynastic. These include the



chapter four

depiction of giraffes, possibly gazelle and a dog, and a bovine as well as an anthropomorphic figure (Gatto et. al. : –). The scenes seem to suggest hunting, wild animals and perhaps domestic animals. The site of Hagar el-Ghorab has inscriptions and pictographs dating from Predynastic to Coptic times and surface finds of C-Group, Middle and New Kingdom and Ptolemaic pottery were identified (Gatto et. al. : ). Early rock carvings include a giraffe, a dog hunting an ibex, hunters with bow and arrow and boats. One drawing of particular interest is of a large boat with two human figures and based on the style of the boat is dated to the Predynastic/Early Dynastic (Gatto et. al. : ). The larger and more central human figure is probably male and has raised arms in a gesture reminiscent of an expression of power and/or victory and the angular bent of the arms is similar to the image of a victor holding a mace and prisoners as seen on the Narmer Palette (Gatto et. al. : ). Another human figure at the site has been identified as actually holding a mace, an object that is generally associated with warfare and power rather than hunting (Gatto et. al. : –). However, several of the hunter’s depicted on the Hunter’s Palette (also known as the Lion Palette) are holding what clearly seem to be maceheads on handles (Spencer : , no. )—the iconography of the hunter appears to have been later incorporated into that of the ruler which in turn fits into the concept that hunting became the official domain of the ruling elite in the th millennium bc. Further rock carvings are recorded at Khor Abu Subeira south where the original excavators also noted a Clayton ring and disk near the site (Murray and Myers ). As discussed in chapter one these curious Clayton rings, which date from the Predynastic to the Old Kingdom, are generally found in the desert regions and may be of importance for long-distance travel (Riemer ). The rock art includes the depiction of ibex, donkeys, cattle, ostriches, giraffes, elephants, a hippopotamus and (possibly) a lizard, and archers sometimes associated with the wild animals. Boats however, are the most numerous and some of these have human figures with them, always male and all with raised arms. They have all been dated to the Predynastic going into the Dynastic (Gatto et. al. : ). A freestanding stone appears to mark an entrance of some kind at the site and in the central area of this stone is a human figure with raised arms and two feathers on his head. Such figures are known from other rock sites (Rohl ) as well as from victory scenes on C-ware vessels (Köhler a); in addition hunters are depicted in this way on the Hunter’s or Lion Palette in the British Museum (BM , ,

inscriptional, pictorial and glyptic evidence



Spencer : , no. ). Thus it would appear that the ‘entrance’ to this site is marked by a successful hunter (Gatto et. al. : ). Another scene shows a tethered hippopotamus with a human in front; the site of all these rock drawings indicate not only hunting but the different environments—riverine or desert—where such activities took place. On Wall III at Khor Abu Subeira, on an isolated rock face that is clearly visible, is the depiction of a boat with a falcon standard and while the type of boat depicted is also frequently found on D-ware vessels of a Naqada II date as well as on knife handles and the Painted Tomb  at Hierakonpolis, the falcon standard is not part of the repertoire (Gatto et. al. : ). The falcon standard is, however, a part of other depictions such as at Gebel Tjauti (Darnell ) and possibly also on the Qustul incense burner (Williams : , see also Plate a) and the Archaic Horus incense burner (Williams : , see also Plate b). Is it possible that such a standard was only part of a depiction that was ‘away’ from the Nile Valley, in other words when entering into the less ‘ordered’ world? It is certainly an expression of elite power and authority (Gatto et. al. : ). Wall I, which is protected by an overhang has several hunting scenes but the central focus is a large boat pulled by rope by a group of men and it is suggested that these many representations of boats and large human figures “refer to power and have religious and sociologic implications” (Gatto et. al. : ). Boats do seem to be related to the elite although their practical functions should not be completely ignored; boat journeys are certainly later connected to the journeys of the gods (Huyge ) although this concept of solar journeys does not really take hold until the Old Kingdom and one must be extremely cautious in attributing such later ideas to the prehistoric. Hunting too, at this time, seems to be associated with the elite, particularly in view of the fact that hunting was no longer of primary economic importance to th millennium bc Egypt (Gatto et. al. : ). Finally this central area of the site “ends in a steep transition to the upper part of the wadi” (Gatto et. al. ; ) offering a natural shelter and good views to either side of the wadi. Within this shelter Wall XLIII is covered with rock drawings including a large number of human figures, some with raised arms and at least one hunting scene. Thus the drawings may refer to the use of both shelter and wadi by hunters. Further rock art has also been recorded in the Elkab region opposite the site of Hierakonpolis and has yielded similar images from the th



chapter four

millennium bc (Huyge ). These include images of giraffes, wild asses, ibexes, gazelle and cattle as well as boats, human figures typically with raised arms and interestingly, an early representation of the shrine of Upper Egypt (Huyge : –, fig. ). In his examinations of the rock art D. Huyge () has attempted to find whether a communal motiviation, language and meaning can be recognised but the lack of a narrative makes this difficult. For all these sites, the rock drawings offer a remarkable repertoire and range but scenes of power, authority and the exertion of control over the natural world are most evident. The rituals of hunting, when no longer vital to the subsistence economy, the images of the ‘big man’ and the tethering of the wild, point to a display and reaffirmation of elite authority. It is tempting to see the rock inscription at Gebel Sheikh Suleiman as a primitive form of narrative but the inscriptions are not all contemporaneous and the images are more easily interpreted as an idea rather than storytelling. Stelae From the nd Dynasty a fragment of a stela found at Hierakonpolis depicts part of a person kneeling on a platform which ends with the head of a man showing a bow resting on it (Quibell and Green : pl. LVIII). Below this depiction is the serekh of Khasekhem and the text ‘humbling the foreign lands’. The bow on the head of the kneeling figure is most clearly identified with the ‘land of the bow’, in other words Nubia. This is a period of Egyptian history which remains unclear, yet the indications for unrest in Khasekhem/Khasekhemwy’s reign lend credence to the idea of internal disputes and that external borders and interests may have come under threat, thus having to be re-affirmed. When it comes to Nubia this idea is dependent on, as well as indicative of, the concept that the regions immediately to the south of Egypt proper had already been subdued prior to the reign of this king. The material evidence available may clarify the veracity of this idea. It is interesting to note that the Nubian A-Group had, according to the archaeological record, disappeared or withdrawn from this region by this time. Clearly, however, any perceived threat from the region of Lower Nubia (or perhaps Upper Nubia) had not. Certainly the construction of the fortress at Elephantine in the late st Dynasty or early nd Dynasty is significant (Ziermann ) both in terms of creating a physical political border

inscriptional, pictorial and glyptic evidence



and in terms of what that frontier meant for Egypt and her neighbours to the south. However, too literal a reading of this stela should be cautioned against and it is here suggested that it is directed more at an internal rather than external audience. Ideological borders were just as important to the Egyptians as physical borders. While for the most part this discussion is concerned with the region of Lower Nubia, Egypt’s relationship with regions further south cannot be ignored as will later be seen in references to the land of Yam. Egyptian sources hint at a larger population in Upper Nubia than in Lower Nubia4 and ongoing archaeological work would seem to support this. The nature of any relationship between Egypt and Upper Nubia is still not precisely understood but was probably more peaceful than that between Egypt and Lower Nubia and indeed may have been more equal. Upper Nubia (south of the Second Cataract) was a major source of exotic goods which the Egyptians desired (O’Connor : ). One piece of inscriptional evidence that points to direct and cooperative contact between the two regions is a stela from Helwan belonging to a man called Sisi (Saad : –). On stylistic grounds the piece has been dated to the late nd to early rd Dynasty and Sisi was originally related to the B-Group (Fischer : ). The figure of Sisi is shown in Egyptian pose, seated at an offering table. However, his hairstyle is distinctive and quite unlike Egyptian hairstyles depicted from the same period. Sisi also wears a series of armlets which again, are not known from any contemporary Egyptian male representations (Wilkinson : ) but is characteristic of later depictions of Nubians (Fischer : —comparing the armlets to those worn by an Upper Nubian represented on the causeway reliefs of Sahure’s mortuary temple). Sisi was probably a Nubian, possibly from Upper Nubia (Wilkinson : ). One corroborating piece of archaeological evidence comes from a burial at cemetery , Shellal, immediately to the south of Aswan in which the owner was buried with a V-shaped armlet in ivory on each arm (Reisner :  Shellal cemetery  grave ). Most burials in this cemetery belong to the A-Group and date to the st Dynasty but this interment was peripheral to the rest of the cemetery and has been dated to later than the st Dynasty, either rd to th Dynasty (O’Connor : ) or the nd to rd Dynasty (Fischer : ). O’Connor (: ) has suggested that the burial was of an Upper 4 Note for instance the apparent campaign of Khasekhem (wy), nd Dynasty and that of Snofru in the early th Dynasty. In addition, Sahure later claims to have raided Upper Nubia and depicts captives in the causeway of his funerary temple.



chapter four

Nubian engaged in trade who died unexpectedly while in Egypt. Sisi on the other hand, buried at Helwan, appears to have been an Upper Nubian resident in Egypt. Seals and Seal Impressions Another indication of Egyptian activity in or with Lower Nubia comes from several seals or seal impressions found in Nubian A-Group contexts. Cylinder seals attest to an early form of accounting systems across the Near East, used to seal vessels, goods and doors (Collon : ). Cylinder seals are found in Egypt as early as the Naqada IIC/D period although there is no direct evidence that these were used as seals (Kantor : I:; Williams : ) and are considered as imports or at least copies of Mesopotamian and Iranian seals (Mark : ) and the earliest datable finds in Lower Nubia are of a similar date. Mesopotamian and Iranian cylinder seals were mostly made of stone (Collon : – ), while the first Egyptian seals were made of perishable materials such as wood or ivory (Collon : ; Nordström : ). The two seals found in Qustul Cemetery L are also of ivory (Williams : ) while others found in A-Group contexts are made of pottery amongst other materials (Nordström: – see citations). Whereas in Palestine clay vessels were impressed with seals before firing, in Mesopotamia and Egypt seals appear to have been used to impress documents and jar sealings (Collon : ). The Egyptians also seem to have worn them as ornaments (Mark : ) perhaps as amulets (Collon : ). Cylinder seals and seal impressions are the earliest indicators for bureaucratic record keeping and relate to the recording of access to and distribution of goods (Hartung ). It is argued that certain goods were controlled by a person or institution and that such control was in the hands of an elite as suggested by the fact that the earliest such bureaucratic evidence comes from the two regional centres of Abydos and Naqada (Köhler ). Seals and seal impressions not only indicate bureaucratic activities but may also be seen as “signifiers of product identity” almost like product branding (Wengrow : ). This type of sealing or branding may indicate the exclusivitiy, authenticity and exoticism of a product (Wengrow : ). Whether seals and seal impressions had such significance for the Nubian A-Group is doubtful considering the limited number of examples found in A-Group contexts; if so then it was a significance understood only by a few, probably elites.

inscriptional, pictorial and glyptic evidence



Siali Seal Impressions (see Pl. a) These seal impressions were discovered by Reisner in Cemetery  in what he described as a robbed beehive type burial (Reisner  vol. I: ). Williams has however shown that it was actually a storage pit (Williams : ). The pit was sealed with stones and mud plaster which had been impressed several times with a cylinder seal (Reisner : ; pl. f). Reisner dated the cemetery in which the seal impressions were found to the late Predynastic or early st Dynasty (Reisner : ). The reconstructed impressions show a seated and bearded figure with one arm raised above his head and the other touching an animal (possibly a dog or a bovine) standing on a platform. To the left of this animal are two dogs, one on the base line and the other directly above it. Above the seated figure are two simple serekhs, one of which is incomplete while the other has a falcon (much like Williams’ ‘Archaic Horus’) on top of it. Before the human figure is a bow with a square ‘sign’ below it which Williams has suggested is a land or tɜ sign. To the right of the bow is a group of rectangles which resemble those from the Faras seal and which should probably be identified as a serekh particularly as it has another falcon seated on top. Reisner interpreted this figure, based on a line running through the rectangles, as a tree or other plant (Reisner : ). On either side of the serekh are two D-shaped signs resembling the heb-sed markers such as seen on the Narmer Macehead. Above the whole is a row of circular shapes with small, curved protrusions at their tip. The iconography does not exhibit clear parallels with anything from Mesopotamia. Williams has seen this seal impression as showing the signs tɜ-sty and that the falcon topped serekhs point to early kings in Nubia, and goes further in identifying the circular objects as incense burners with stylised flames, a characteristically Nubian object (Williams : ). This would imply that the Nubians identified themselves in a fashion that the Egyptians later adopted as a stereotype which does not seem likely. Further, Hill has pointed out the figure could just as easily be seen as people of the land of Ta-Seti showing submission to Horus of Egypt, either an actual King Horus Falcon or the generic symbol of Egyptian kingship and that the circular objects could be bags of gold dust (Hill : ). While the interpretation of saluting a king or ruler could be correct it is less likely that circular objects are bags of gold as there is little evidence to suggest large scale Egyptian or Nubian exploitation of Nubian gold at this date. Some evidence may exist from the middle of the



chapter four

th millennium bc for gold production sites in the Eastern Desert (Sadr ; Klemm, Klemm and Murr : –; : ), however, gold artefacts, even when plundering and reuse have been taken into account, are rare and do not suggest large scale exploitation, production and exchange of the raw material. Ashkeit Seal Impression Ashkeit cemetery , grave  contained a pottery sherd of Egyptian hard pink ware which had been used as a lid for an Egyptian wine jar (Nordström : ). This lid had then been covered by a layer of mud with the impressions left by a cylinder seal. The seal impression depicts a striding man framed by two verticals, a goat (or gazelle) and a dog (or hyena) under a bird, above which is a round hole (Nordström : ). The excavator dated the impression to the Classic A-Group but possibly as late as the reign of Aha (Nordström ; ). Sarras West Seal (see Pl. b) The ivory seal found at Sarras West (Mills and Nordström : , fig. .) is incised with the figure of a man standing in a high-prowed boat which also contains a seat or throne. The figure is holding a staff or possibly a bow. Above the prow of the boat is a pair of inverted arms, possibly an inverted kɜ. In front of the boat is a tall wading bird which is surrounded by short lines. Several similar elements are seen in seal impressions from Tomb U-j at Abydos such as the standing man holding a staff and the “filler elements” of the short lines (Hill : ). There are also similarities with elements found in the #En Besor seal impressions such as the inverted kɜ arms (Kaplony : , figs. . and .)5 Kaplony has read these kɜ arms, which are common to the #En Besor seals, as the hieroglyph zhn, “to embrace”, equating it with dwɜ or rd-jɜw, “worshipper” (:  ff.). He further goes on to interpret this as part of a name such as “Embracer of the consort” or “Embracer of the Lord” and postulates that such names may have been given as Egyptian names to foreign chiefs or rulers who payed obeisance to the Egyptian king (Kaplony : ). If we accept this interpretation, this practice may be true toward

5 These inverted kɜ signs also appear as potmarks, for example on imported Egyptian pottery at cemetery L, Qustul. See Williams : –; pl. .

inscriptional, pictorial and glyptic evidence



foreigners to the north or south or could simply imply anyone who should be subject to the Egyptian king, Egyptian or foreigner alike.6 Qustul Seals (see Pl. c) Tomb W  seal: Found in Cemetery W, this ivory seal is simple in style. It has two tree-like features with shallow Vs and a kneeling human figure made up of a few simple lines and what appears to be a drill hole for the head (Williams : ). Tomb L  seal: Found in Cemetery L, the ivory of this seal is split and the surface has deteriorated. However, the decoration still clearly shows a group of wading birds with what appears to be a harpoon above. Following the birds is the partial human figure similar in dress and attitude to the saluting figure on the Qustul incense burner (Williams : ). Williams makes a firm connection between this seal and others found in Nubian A-Group contexts (Williams : –) but we must also take into account similarities with seals found in Abydos Cemetery U (Dreyer : –) and consider that while the cylinder seals were probably manufactured in Egypt and/or Nubia the idea of the cylinder seal is foreign to both. It is also interesting to note that of the seal impressions discovered in tomb U-j at Abydos, many are associated with pottery imported from Palestine although their distinctive style has been interpreted as being Egyptian applied either by Egyptians in Palestine or in Egypt itself (Baines : ). A similar system may have operated for sealed goods imported into Lower Nubia. Faras Seal (see Pl. d) Discovered in a grave at Faras, not far from Qustul, this ivory cylinder seal dates to the Terminal A-Group phase (Griffith, , pl. II). The grave in which the seal was found (Faras Grave ) had been robbed in antiquity and was smaller than the largest of the Qustul tombs but still contained a good quantity of high quality ceramics (Hill : ). The seal is incised with three rectangular shapes resembling palace façades or early representations of serekhs. Above the smallest of these is an elongated six pointed star shape which Williams has described as a rosette suggesting 6 Kaplony discusses the lack of distinction between Egyptians and foreigners in earlier representations, particularly in relation to the attitude of supplication towards the king and identification with hair-pigtails, hair ribbons or ribbons attached to their belts. See Kaplony :  ff.



chapter four

some correspondence to the rosette seen on the Qustul incense burner (Williams : ). The seal also contains the image of a seated figure with what appears to be a lock of hair at the back of his head. One arm is hanging by his side or behind his back while the action of the other arm has been variously described as holidng a flute or raising a hand in salutation or supplication, or to strike an enemy (Williams : ). The smallness of the piece and the imprecise rendering of the figure make an interpretation difficult. Hill has drawn a tentative parallel to the hairstyles of bowmen on ivory labels from Tomb U-j at Abydos, and suggested that the figure could represent a Nubian (Hill : ). However, Dreyer (Dreyer et. al ) interprets those labels as representing a military institution rather than indicating commodities from Nubia. Such labels are not found in Nubia and it seems unlikely that the A-Group people would depict themselves in the manner of the Egyptian stereotype of Nubians. Gerf Hussein Seal Excavated by C.M. Firth in  in a Lower Nubian cemetery this seal has been dated to Naqada IIc–d by Kaiser in an unpublished manuscript (Boehmer : , Fig. /a, b). It is made of green glazed steatite and is . cm in height with a diameter of . cm. Its design has been compared to contemporaneous cylinder seals from Abydos based on the use of alternating and inverted triangles (Hill : ). However, these designs also closely parallel seals from Susa and the Diyala region (Boehmer : –, Fig. ) and of the examples cited it very closely parallels the Tell Be¸sir seal (Boehmer : , fig. /e). Based on the design and the fact that it is made of green glazed stone, as are the Mesopotamian parallels, it has been suggested that this seal was an import from Mesopotamia as a trade item or with a tradesman (Boehmer : –). While originally from Mesopotamia it cannot be said whether it came to Nubia directly or via Egypt although the latter is more probable. Ikkur/Koshtamna Seals Two seals were made as surface finds by Firth (Firth ). The seal from Ikkur is . cm in height and has a diameter of . cm. The example found at Koshtamna has a preserved height of . cm and a diameter of  cm. These seals have been dated to Naqada IIc–IIIa (Boehmer : ). The geometric patterns again have parallels with Mesopotamian seals

inscriptional, pictorial and glyptic evidence



(Boehmer : ) but the designs are poorly cut into the surface. While not in a clear archaeological context the two seals are interesting as they are made of clay rather than the more common ivory, bone or limestone which suggests that they are of Egyptian (Boehmer : ) or local manufacture although the source of the clay has not been studied (Boehmer : ). Abu Simbel Seal Cemetery  Abu Simbel contained a black steatite cylinder seal (grave ) that had been plundered and contained a few bones from an adult female (Emery and Kirwan : –). The seal was inscribed with a seated figure and hieroglyphic signs. These signs seem to offer praise to the goddess Neith but could also be read as a personal name. The seal probably dates to the very beginning of the st Dynasty. The other goods found in this grave were a fragment of a black-topped bowl, a medium necked red-ware ceramic vessel, a copper borer (described as bronze by the excavator) and some shell beads. Toshka West Seal Impression This mud-clay sealing was dated to the st Dynasty but found in a C-Group grave in Toshka West (Simpson, : –). The text of the . cm fragment consists of several ht signs and a standing figure holding an implement of some kind above the phonetic sign s. Based on the groupings, W.K. Simpson has dated the seal to the reign of Aha and cites this seal impression as the the earliest indicator of a specific dynastic ruler so far south (Simpson : ).7 This is problematic based on a simple seal impression especially in view of the fact that it was found in a disturbed and reused context. Nor is there a description of the commodity to which the mud sealing was attached. All that we can say is that it was probably part of a commodity that was sealed by an Egyptian seal which somehow made its way to Nubia through some form of exchange. Alternatively, the commodity was sealed in Nubia by an Egyptian official or as part of a Nubian redistribution system. It does suggest contact was ongoing at least until the reign of Aha. 7 Simpson has translated the second group of signs as hwsi meaning ‘to pound’ or ‘to build’ and has also suggested its possible connection to quarrying in the desert west of Toshka although there is no direct evidence for such work in this early period. See Simpson : .



chapter four

The cylinder seals and seal impressions show that Egyptians were using cylinder seals as administrative tools in the Predynastic period and that their use extended into Lower Nubia. We can only speculate as to whether Egyptians themselves were using the seals in Nubia but it is also possible (at least for the actual seals excavated) that indigenous Nubians were using the seals for administrative (trade) purposes or possibly as personal ornaments. While seal impressions on pottery vessels may, and probably are, connected with an Egyptian administration, it does not necessarily follow that there was a comparable Nubian administrative organisation (Gatto : –). As with other prestige objects such as maceheads, the seals themselves may point to a Lower Nubian sharing or adoption of elite artefacts, while seal impressions point to some form of exchange. In addition we should perhaps see the decorative elements of these seals (many of which are borrowed from Mesopotamian imagery) as formulaic rather than explicit (Pittman : ). These types of cultural baggage helped the already established rulers to further define themselves and their status and to display such distinctions (Moorey  cited in Pittman ). Many motifs borrowed from Mesopotamia do not continue in use in Egypt as new, indigenous elements are introduced. It was not so much the meaning as the formulas that were of most interest to the ancient Egyptians (Pittman : ). It should also be noted in regards to the iconography of seals and their impressions that ancient sealings were often made quickly and so sometimes only part of the design was reproduced (Wengrow : ). Thus the actual motifs may not be as charged as some may think but simply identifiers. Labels Bone and Ivory Labels Coming from tomb U-j at Abydos (Dreyer ; Dreyer et. al. ) small bone labels incised with simple hieroglyphic signs are among the earliest examples of writing in Egypt (Postgate, Wang and Wilkinson : ; Baines ). It is presumed that these labels record where various commodities originated and would seem to indicate royal estates and official administrative regions (Postgate, Wang and Wilkinson : ). The earliest forms of writing in Egypt come from royal graves or temple deposits and could indicate that writing may have been largely intended for sacred uses or a royal prerogative (Baines : ). While

inscriptional, pictorial and glyptic evidence



the function of the writing would appear to be practical, its elite context should not be ignored and while the early writing or perhaps protowriting found in tomb U-j may be administrative such administrative writing was likely to have been restricted to the elite (Baines : ). Labels, like potmarks, the latter of which became standardised (Postgate, Wang and Wilkinson : ; Baines : –.), served an economic and administrative role rather than a solely commemorative one; while the aspect of display should not be ruled out (Baines ), it was controlled by the ruler or king and his elite inner circle. It was on the elite that supply, distribution and redistribution of commodities relied, particularly it is presumed, in the case of high prestige and luxury items. Five of the labels found in tomb U-j depict bowmen similar to those seen on Nubian rock carvings and the depictions on the Hunter’s Palette (Dreyer et. al. : , Abb. , –). However, Dreyer does not interpret these as labels for commodities from Nubia or from archers but rather that they represent a military institution (Dreyer et. al. : ). While the labels may refer to a southern origin (i.e. south of Abydos), it is certainly less likely that these refer to a Nubian administrative institution as no such labels are found in Nubia. Year Labels Some of the earliest records, dating from the beginning of the st Dynasty are the labels known as year labels. These have been found only in royal or elite burials and are often made from highly valued material such as ivory and ebony and attached to luxury commodities (Postgate, Wang and Wilkinson : ). These year labels identified a specific year in a king’s reign and commemorated significant events (Postgate, Wang and Wilkinson : ). While these may be commemorative they are also essentially practical examples of record keeping by and for the elite. One such label may refer, albeit somewhat ambiguously, to Egyptian activity south of Elephantine. This ebony label found at Abydos and dating to King Aha appears to depict a prisoner who is identified by the Stj-bow. W.M.F. Petrie originally described it as having “been an enumeration of captives, of which the number is lost below, but the name remains Khent-ta or Nubia ‘the land of the bow’ ” (Petrie : , pls. III. ; XI.). However, what sort of military action this would indicate is unclear and it is just as likely, if not more so, to have been a reaffirmation of Egypt’s control over her frontiers and trade/exchange



chapter four

interests (Emery ; Trigger ). Indeed T. Säve-Söderbergh has argued that at this stage in Egyptian dynastic history, Ta-Seti in fact refers to the first nome of Upper Egypt (Säve-Söderbergh : ; Nordström : ). Such early depictions may be ideological in nature as scenes of ‘smiting the enemy’ were to become. However, such a depiction of power and subjugation in conjunction with a possible identification of an ‘other’ (Nubian) may indicate a more clearly defined sense of ‘us’ (Egyptian). The fact that the label has been indentified as being made of ebony is interesting as ebony or African blackwood, is not native to Egypt and was imported from the south where it was readily available (Gale, Gasson, Hepper and Killen : ). Petrie also lists a label that apparently belonged to objects from Nubia, possibly wood from an Upper Nubian town or general region in Nubia (Petrie : , Pl. III, ). The sign on the right-hand of the label certainly suggests the ‘land of the bow’ Ta-Seti and would appear to be a clear indicator of commodities coming from Nubia or at least from south of Abydos. As mentioned these labels were largely administrative pieces and therefore served such a purpose. They were not symbolic pieces so much as bureaucratic ones intended to act as identification markers. However, as mentioned above, the representations on such labels may be of a recognised or established scene that was also to be found on stele or larger monuments. For instance an ivory label dating to Narmer clearly reflects the iconography of larger, commemorative pieces such as the Narmer Palette (Dreyer : ). What these labels do seem to indicate is that Nubia was acknowledged as a source of certain raw materials and goods and perhaps, by association, also a source of competition for control over access to these commodities. By extension, following A. Loprieno’s concept of topos and mimesis, (Loprieno ) such iconography of ‘smiting the enemy’ reiterates an Egyptian concept of their place in the world as defined against an ‘other’. The above-mentioned labels were found firmly within Egypt’s physical borders; the scenes may identify an outside source of materials but that source is depicted as subject to the king and by association, Egypt. In other words, the official line was not diplomacy and trade/exchange, but subdue and take, whatever the realities may have been.

inscriptional, pictorial and glyptic evidence



Potmarks Marks have been found on pottery in several A-Group contexts. At cemetery L at Qustul, Williams has categorised five types of marks ranging from simple marks to representations to inscriptions and simple hieroglyphs (Williams : ). Those classified as representations were all made after firing whereas all the others were made both pre- and post-firing (Williams : ). Hieroglyphs and groups of hieroglyphs found on imported Egyptian vessels were made pre-firing (Williams : ) and therefore at the point of manufacture and origin of the vessels. Marks made post-firing, including lines, hieroglyphs and representations are found on both Egyptian and local pottery (Williams : ) and may indicate direct exchange as well as redistribution. Simple marks on rim, neck or shoulder are similar to marks found in Egypt and may be connected to the pottery workshops or may have been used as identification for transport and/or trade/exchange (Williams : – ). The consistency and repetition of various signs, it is argued, means that they must be dealing with comparable commodities and that other major groups in this corpus were used as production controls or memory aids rather than actual wriing (Williams : ). One potmark from an Egyptian vessel from cemetery L, while not an actual serekh, shows a bird, possibly a Horus falcon, perched on a rectangle below which is a somewhat crude kɜ sign (Williams : ; pl. ). This vessel is incomplete but other marks are also partially preserved and all are made post-firing. The mark resembles potmarks found at Abydos which show a falcon perched on what appears to be an r sign and read as Iry-Hor, predating Ka and Narmer (Kaiser and Dreyer ; van den Brink : ) and of which at least  examples were found in the same tomb Abydos B (van den Brink : , Fig. ). Williams has read the sign from Qustul as the royal name of a king Pe-Hor (Williams : ). While some doubts were thrown on this interpretation (Adams ) it has subsequently found more favour (von der Way : , Abb /; van den Brink ). Pe-Hor is seen as roughly contemporaneous with Iry-Hor and it perhaps comes as no surprise that we are probably seeing several rulers or even kings, exercising power in different regions but at roughly the same time and perhaps in competition as well as contact with one another (von der Way : –). Reports from Reisner () and the Scandinavian Joint Expedition (Nordström ) also show similar potmarks on vessels of both



chapter four

Egyptian and Nubian provenance. In the case of the Scandinavian concession all but one of the  incised vessels (five of which have two potmarks) from seven different cemeteries are Egyptian in origin and most are on so-called wine jars (Nordström : . pl. ). In only one instance is it noted whether the mark was made made pre- or post-firing (Nordström : , pl. :). Reisner’s report () does not indicate whether the potmarks are made pre- or post-firing. In all only  vessels have potmarks and these are generally simple lines. Two have marks hesitatingly described as scorpions by the excavator (Reisner : –; , cemetery /; /), three have an animal figure incised on the vessel (Reisner : ; ; , cemetery /; /; /) and one is described by the excavator as a boat (Reisner : ) although it looks similar to a schematic standard. The majority of marked vessels are storage jars or large beakers but  are open bowls, probably local in origin and one is a wide-mouthed black-topped jar (Reisner :  cemetery /). It is clear that potmarks are not common to vessels found in Nubian contexts and it is only at Qustul that the marks are repetitive and would appear to be potter’s marks or general identification marks rather than indicators of a complex commercial trade system. Seyala Gold Mace Handles (see Pl. ) The extraordinary gold covered mace handles excavated by Firth at Seyala cemetery  came from an exceptionally rich grave (Firth ; –, Pl. c). One of the mace handles has a ribbed decoration while the second had a ribbed decoration at the lower part of the handle, with the upper part decorated with a series of animal figures. Similar arrangements of animals and even the style in which they are executed are also found on carved ivory handles like the Brooklyn, Carnarvon, Pitt-Rivers and Gebel el-Tarif handles, and on the Davies ivory comb (Kantor : ; Osborne : –). With the possible exception of the ox, these animals all represent the wild fauna which would have been known to the people of the Nile Valley, both in Egypt and Nubia. The handles and their maces should be seen as part of the repertoire of a chief or ruler; symbols of power and prestige. The wild animals not only represent the power and strength of the ruler, but coupled with the authority of the mace, also display the chief ’s mastery over these elements of the wild. It is an iconography that was apparently shared by the Egyptians and Nubians.

inscriptional, pictorial and glyptic evidence



Curiously one of the animals depicted on the mace handles has been identified as an eland which is nowhere else represented in Egyptian art (Osborne : ). Today, elands are found south of the Sahara in Ethiopia, Sudan, part of West Africa and in the north of Zaire but not in deserts or dense forests (Osborne : ). In Predynastic and Early Dynastic times they may have been found in Nubia and the southern Western Desert which may account for one being represented on the mace handles found in Seyala but not on figurative art found in Egyptian contexts. Does this mean that the artist was local or simply familiar with fauna found in Nubia? Of course, it is possible that other representations of the eland have yet to be found or positively identified or that the Seyala mace handle (sadly also now lost) may have been a lone survivor. Certainly the motifs and iconography that are seen in these mace handles and several knife handles shows that the elite of Upper Egypt and Lower Nubia, certainly by late Naqada II – early Naqada III shared regalia displaying their power and prestige and it is possible that these particular mace handles were a gift from one ruler to another. In Writing The inscriptional and glyptic evidence may be relatively one-sided but it does provide us with some valuable information regarding her trade/exchange and perhaps even diplomatic relationship between Egypt and groups to the south. It also provides some insight into the emerging iconography and self-representation of the elite in the Nile Valley. Various wooden labels found attached to grave goods are presumed to have indicated where certain commodities originated. Several labels found at Abydos show the figure of a man with a bow in his hand. It is possible that this indicates that the goods connected with these labels came from Lower Nubia but it is by no means certain. Dreyer, for instance, sees these as representing a military institution (Dreyer et. al. : ). Year labels are also found attached to luxury items and have been seen as commemorative and/or examples of record keeping. An ebony label found at Abydos gives a clear example of contact with regions south of Egypt simply by virtue of the raw material from which it is made. Significantly, such labels are not found in Lower Nubia. Incense burners have generally been considered Nubian objects. Two incense burners found at cemetery L at Qustul are also decorated with what has been described as ‘royal’ iconographny. Certainly the



chapter four

appearance of boats, standards, rosettes, a palace façade and seated figure apparently wearing the white crown of Upper Egypt all point to early Egyptian iconography. While Williams (; ) daringly argued that the iconography on the Qustul incense burner pointed to a Nubian origin for kingship this has subsequently been ruled out due to evidence from Abydos. Such imagery, while not common, is found far more frequently in Egyptian contexts and rarely in A-Group contexts. The incense burners, if of limestone, may have had an Egyptian origin and perhaps have been a gift from an Egyptian ruler to his counterpart in Qustul. However, if as Williams has attested () the material is a mixture of clays it would make a local origin more likely. At the same time, the decorative elements must have been understood to stand for rulership and power indicating a movement of ideas between elites. A similar sharing of motifs of power and authority can also be seen between southern Mesopotamia and Egypt in such objects as the Gebel el-Arak knife handle and the Narmer Palette. Potmarks are not common in A-Group contexts and occur equally in early as well as later contexts. The meaning of these potmarks is not clear but repetitions of certain ‘signs’ points to their use as identifiers of origin, content, ownership or even potter’s marks. As they are not precisely understood it is difficult to say what they can tell us about exchange relationships between Egypt and Lower Nubia but the fact that they appear on both Egyptian and A-Group pottery certainly shows a commonality in means of identification and possibly that some form of exchange was taking place. Cylinder seals and seal impressions are also uncommon in A-Group contexts. These may have been used as ornaments or in an administrative capacity. In at least one instance several impressions of the same seal were found in an A-Group context in cemetery  at Siali (Reisner : ) which Williams has interpreted not as a grave but as a storage pit (Williams : ). The pit had certainly been covered with stones and plastered with mud which was then impressed with the seal showing an understanding of the use of the impressions to ‘lock’ a pit or jar. The various signs and representations seen on the seals or their impressions may also indicate that at least for some sectors of A-Group society the iconography and idea were understood. Stelae offering additional information with regards to the relationship between Egypt and Nubia in this early period are few and far between. Coming from the Early Dynastic and early Old Kingdom periods they inform us that a distinction has been made between Egyptian

inscriptional, pictorial and glyptic evidence



and Nubian; in other words groups are defining themselves, or being defined, one against another. In order for the Egyptians to fully define themselves they must also define an ‘other’ whether or not their picture of the other agrees with how the other views himself. In the case of the fragment of a stela dated to the reign of Khasekhemwy, the southern lands are clearly defined by the bow and are seen in submission. The land of the bow, Ta-seti, was also the name of the first nome of Upper Egypt. Perhaps the Aswan-Kom Ombo region as much as Lower Nubia needed to be brought into line. The stela was, after all, found at Hierakonpolis. It may also be an indication that before the Old Kingdom, in spite of the fortress at Elephantine, the border between Egypt and Nubia was still very fluid and ambiguous. The stela of Sisi at Helwan is less ambiguous. It is found firmly within Egyptian territory. The owner of the stela is represented wearing a hairstyle and armlets which are characteristic of representations of Nubians not Egyptians (Fischer : ). As Sisi was of a status to afford such a stela and we must assume he commissioned it. Therefore he must have approved the manner in which he was depicted. The land of the bow may officially have been an enemy worth smiting but reality shows that while there was clearly a difference between being Egyptian and Nubian there was nothing wrong with being recognisably Nubian in Early Dynastic Egypt. Thus, even if the relationship between Egypt and Nubia was not equal, it was apparently amicable. It is certainly interesting to note that a foreigner, in this instance a Nubian, was able to rise through the social and administrative ranks within Egypt and achieve a status that enabled him to be able to afford such a carved piece for his funerary equipment. Additionally he was so far assimilated that he actually shared Egyptian funerary beliefs. At the same time he had no qualms in showing some distinction in dress. This again gently highlights the concepts of topos and mimesis (Loprieno ), reflecting the apparent contradiction between official policy towards foreigners, the ‘other’, and the day-to-day realities. Rock carved inscriptions such as those found at Gebel Sheikh Suleiman, when taken literally can be perfectly clear, telling of desired or actual Egyptian military victories over southern foes. Or perhaps of a struggle between rulers in Lower Nubia (Seyala versus Qustul?). However, a literal interpretation is problematic for this inscription and in many ways the inscription is hazy in exact meaning. The people and places referred to are no longer easily identifiable nor is the final ‘outcome’ explicit. They may refer to real events, real conflicts, but it is as likely that they indicate the desire of the Egyptians (or rather an Egyptian



chapter four

ruler) to display military superiority in a region they were hoping to control and that this is achieved through formulaic representations. Further, it may also be interpreted as a precursor to the ‘royal duty’ of smiting Egypt’s enemies seen in subsequent expeditionary stela, thus providing an expedition with the protection of the ruler while in a foreign place. To hope to fully understand the significance and meaning of such inscriptions we need to consider the audience for whom they were intended. Was the audience the participants of an Egyptian campaign or a local, Nubian population, particularly their rulers? The location of the Gebel Sheikh Suleiman and Hill B inscriptions may be significant; they are in the Second Cataract region rather than at the First Cataract which was to become Egypt’s southern political border. They also date to a time when the Egyptian state was emerging and could point to the developing ideologies of ‘us and them’, helping define the Egyptian state and perhaps indicating that the Nubians of southern Lower Nubia were in fact the true ‘others’ with whom Egypt had to deal. Newly published rock art in the Aswan (First Cataract) region should give pause to any Egyptian domination interpretations of the Second Cataract inscriptions. These inscriptions are perhaps not in any way narrative but symbolic; they all display similar gestures, scenes and regalia, and in this way transmit the concept of a dominion over disorder and chaos. Elites are emerging throughout the communities of the Nile Valley. They must deal with the social complexities of their immediate communities, negotiate with their neighbours along the valley and desert routes, and navigate the dangers of the untamed. The natural world, including the world of men, is increasingly under an elite control, a control which must be maintained and ritually confirmed. What the inscriptional evidence tells us and what the ancient Egyptians wanted to say may not always be the same thing. The inscriptional and glyptic sources are limited in both quantity and objectivity. However, it does offer us some of the earliest glimpses into Egypt’s perception of herself and her neighbours and that like it or not, the Egyptians had to deal with and interact with those neighbours one way or another. It is perhaps pertinent to add that with the use of labelling, sealing and artistic representation we are seeing an emerging elite making use of administrative and iconographic tools; tools whose use and meaning were probably not widespread. While it is clear that there was contact between Egypt and Lower Nubia the nature of exchange, judged on the glyptic evidence is ambiguous. It is suggested here that as the Egyptian state consolidated itself and began to define itself against an ‘other’, that southern or Nubian

inscriptional, pictorial and glyptic evidence



‘other’ was centred more in the Second Cataract region, that their cultural and social differences were more perceptible. The ‘land of the bow’, particularly in the First Cataract region as far south as Metardul, and as far north as the Hierakonpolis region, on the other hand, was closer in cultural terms to the Naqadan tradition.

chapter five COMMODITIES EXCHANGED

Commodities Sought from Lower Nubia A dictionary definition of trade is “the buying and selling, or exchanging, of commodities, either by wholesale or by retail, within a country or between countries, a purchase, sale or exchange” (Macquarie Dictionary th edition ) to which can be added that trade is exchanging “something for something else, typically as a commercial transaction” (New Oxford English Dictionary ). Exchange on the other hand refers to the giving of something in place of another where there is an assumption of equal value and it is not necessarily a commercial transaction. Exchange is defined as “to part with for some equivalent; give up (something) for something else; to give and receive reciprocally” (Macquarie Dictionary th edition ). In modern economies many commodities or their values whether gold, grain, crude oil or even orange juice, are traded through a stock exchange such as the New York Stock Exchange through shares. On a smaller scale many stores today offer exchange only on purchases, not straight refunds. The goods purchased are returned and something else is taken in its stead. If a more or less expensive item is chosen then the purchaser or store must make up the difference. In these cases exchange implies equivalence in value and in this sense, where commodities are involved and a monetary system used, exchange and trade are largely synonymous. Exchange, however, need not be for material profit, nor need it involve commodities at all. Exchange can also involve less tangible things, that is, the exchange of information, technologies and ideas. For the Naqada period when analysing and describing possible trade/ exchange between the Naqada cultures of Egypt and the A-Group culture of Lower Nubia we do not have the luxury of texts such as the autobiography of Harkhuf or tomb decoration such as the New Kingdom tomb of Rekhmire. Based, however, on such accounts as Harkhuf ’s journey to Yam and on some of the material remains themselves, for instance an ebony label bearing the name of King Aha, various assumptions have



chapter five

been drawn as to what commodities the Egyptians were importing from Nubia. These include such items as gold, ebony and semi-precious stones (Adams : –, , ; Nordström : , ; Smith, H.S. : ; Trigger ). In other words, the Egyptians saw the south as a source of raw materials. Identifying the exact source of such raw materials as ivory, ebony, metals and incense is difficult as scientific analyses for the various raw materials are scarce. The picture of Egyptian goods being exchanged to the south is a little clearer. As this and previous studies have shown the majority of Egyptian artefacts found in A-Group contexts are pottery vessels. These may have been valued for themselves but it is more likely that they contained perishable goods such as beer, wine, oil or cheese or bulk items (Trigger : ; Adams : ; Shinnie : ). Part of this assumption again comes from later textual evidence such as a th Dynasty text dealing with the export of oil, honey, clothing and ointment to Nubia (Adams :  see footnote ). The transport of perishable goods over long distances does create its own problems not least of which is keeping food and liquids such as beer, wine, oil and cheese, ‘fresh’. In these cases the types of vessels used for transport would have been extremely important and certainly different vessel types had different functions. Modern water storage vessels, zirs, are porous which helps keep the water cool and fresh and modern marl jars, gullas, do the same (Bourriau, Nicholson and Rose : –, ). For the transportation of liquids such as beer and wine, the choice of clay and the use of slips or burnishing, can also play a factor in how permeable a vessel is (Bourriau, Nicholson and Rose : ). Delivery of goods and then the reuse of storage vessels containing less easily perishable goods such as grain, should also not be excluded. Considering the archaeological evidence for long-distance transport of perishable items such as the quantity of wine delivered to Abydos, the Egyptians and their neighbours were clearly aware of the potential problems and how to prevent them. In addition to pottery and its contents, stone vessels, siltstone palettes, maceheads, copper tools, amulets and stone tools probably originating in Egypt have been found in A-Group contexts. It has also been suggested that pigments for cosmetic purposes like malachite and galena were brought from Egypt and that species of shell from the Mediterranean also point to exchange and contact with the north (Trigger : ). Small amounts of linen found in A-Group contexts also probably came from Egypt as there is no evidence to suggest that Nubians were weaving cloth

commodities exchanged



at this time (Trigger : ). Notwithstanding the loss of some prestige goods, particularly metal ones, due to tomb robbery, the vast majority of goods coming into Lower Nubia were bulk items. One question is were these goods part of a broad commercial exchange or was the distribution of imports limited to an elite and if so are we actually looking at a localised exchange of goods amongst equals? If the latter, the picture would then be more reciprocal than commercial in nature. H.S. Smith () discusses the possible development of trade with the A-Group. He posits that there was trade between Upper Egypt and Lower Nubia from the Naqada IC–IIA period although what the AGroup traded is uncertain, possibly elephant ivory (Smith : ). This trade then expanded in the Naqada IIB–C period as far south as Seyala with Smith hypothesising that the A-Group is now exploiting the Eastern Desert for gold and semi-precious stones (Smith : ). In the Naqada IID–IIIA period trade is further expanded as far as the Second Cataract region (Smith : ). While Smith suggests that the large number of wavy-handled jars found in A-Group contexts could point to long-distance trade with the Delta or even Palestine (Smith : ) it seems more plausible that these vessels came from Upper Egypt (Nordström : ). This would certainly seem the case based on the geographical proximity of Upper Egypt to Lower Nubia as well as the broad similarities between the material culture of the two. It has been pointed out that the majority of Egyptian wares in Nubian contexts between Kubbaniya and Saras, including wavy-handled jars, are of Egyptian clay (Nordström : ; Williams : –) indicating an Egyptian rather than a Palestinian origin. Finally in the Naqada IIIB period the so-called eggshell ware develops and trade with Upper Egypt, shown by the presence of copper tools, stone vessels and prestige ‘royal’ objects such as the gold handled maces from Cemetery , grave  at Seyala and the Qustul incense burners, is greatly increased (Smith : ). The wealth of goods found in principal sites such as Dakka, Seyala and Qustul, as well as the presence of cylinder seals or their impressions, certainly suggest that at least the elite were involved in extensive exchange of some sort (Smith : ). Whether or not the A-Group were acting as middlemen in long-distance riverine trade along the Nile and/or supplying a large quantity of gold and semi-precious stones to Upper Egypt is however to be considered (Smith : ). The types of goods exchanged may give an indication of the nature of the exchange relationship. Possession of a commodity that is difficult to obtain may confer prestige on the owner. Prestige or status may, however,



chapter five

also come from seemingly ordinary items. For instance, the A-Group people produced their own food but may have imported additional foodstuffs from Egypt giving them a surplus which may have conferred status and power on a chief or tribal leader. The Autobiography of Harkhuf 1 The scarcity of Nubian manufactured goods in Egypt has led to the assumption that it was raw materials and possibly mercenaries that were sought from or through Lower Nubia (Adams : ; Nordström : ; Trigger : ). In the th Dynasty the inscriptional evidence for trade and exchange increases as record keeping, on both official and private levels, develops and expands. In addition later texts indicate that the Egyptians were sending officials to the south to acquire such goods. The detailed autobiographies of high ranking and trusted officials such as Weni and Harkhuf point to the direct roles being played by Egyptian officials on behalf of the king. The best known is that of Harkhuf, whose autobiography describes four separate expeditions to the land of Yam, and includes a list of goods brought back on one of these trips. While dating to the th Dynasty, Harkhuf ’s list is a useful starting point when looking into what Nubia had to offer Egypt. Harkhuf ’s list is largely specific but ends with the enticing ‘every good product’. What were these good products? Some suggestions in this chapter have been derived from textual sources (for instance the reference to gold in the Amarna letters) and epigraphic sources (such as the scenes of foreign tribute in the th Dynasty tomb of Rekhmire), while others are based on materials simply not available locally in Egypt but found in Egyptian contexts such as obsidian. Harkhuf served under the kings Merenre and Pepi II and rose to the position of Governor of Upper Egypt. Prior to his rise, however, Harkhuf undertook four expeditions to Yam which also involved contact with the lands of Wawat, Irtjet and Setju. The land of Yam is mentioned in several Old Kingdom texts which indicate that it was south of Egypt (O’Connor : ). The exact location of Yam is unknown but several candidates have been postulated (Yoyotte ; Dixon ; Edel ; Vercoutter ; Goedicke ; O’Connor ). These various arguments have placed Yam in the Kerma region, at Dunkul Oasis, no further south than the Second Cataract, in the Western Desert and the oases there and as 1

URK I, –.

commodities exchanged



far south as the Shendi reach of the Nile. The distance of Yam from Egypt has been calculated based on the length of time Harkhuf ’s expeditions took (seven and eight months for the first two journeys), speculation on the distances travelled each day (by donkey caravan), the number of days spent in Yam and, importantly, where the journey began. It is likely that, as mentioned in his third journey, Harkhuf made the outward trip for these expeditions with a donkey caravan (O’Connor : ) and thus probably partly at least via Western Desert routes (O’Connor : ). The prevailing opinion is that Wawat, Irtjet and Setju were all located in Lower Nubia and Yam in Upper Nubia, specifically in the Kerma region. However, O’Connor () makes a compelling argument for Wawat occupying all of Lower Nubia (as it was referred to from the early th Dynasty) while Irtjet and Setju were to be found in Upper Nubia and Yam as far south as the Shendi reach-northern Butana. This is of historical significance as it has a bearing on arguments as to the size and power of these territories, their potential relationships with one another (by Harkhuf ’s fourth journey Wawat, Irtjet and Setju are united under one ruler so that if the latter were in Upper Nubia this would be an extremely large territory), their potential threat to Egypt’s interests and the scope of Egypt’s influence and access to desirable resources. However, the fact that Wawat, Irtjet and Setju all unite under one ruler, that Wawat becomes the preferred term for Lower Nubia, and the rise of the Kerma culture make the argument that Yam is to be located in the Kerma region both reasonable and logical. If Harkhuf and his donkey caravans were willing and able to make a round trip of possibly – kilometres (O’Connor : ) over seven to eight months in search of ‘every good product’, how far were Upper Egyptians and Lower Nubians able and willing to go in the Preand Protodynastic periods? If the Old Kingdom Egyptians were travelling to Yam which was at least in Upper Nubia and possibly even further south can we assume that their Naqadan ancestors were doing the same? If the Old Kingdom Egyptians were dealing with chiefs of Wawat, Irtjet and Setju and these were in Lower Nubia and possibly also in Upper Nubia were their Naqadan ancestors doing the same and were some of the Lower Nubian A-Groups such as Qustul a precursor to the country of Wawat, or Irtjet or Setju? By the mid-fourth millennium bc the donkey had been at least partly domesticated and was being used as a pack animal greatly facilitating long-distance interaction (Ovadia ; Osborne : ). Remains of early domesticated donkeys at Maadi (Rizkana and Seeher : )



chapter five

and Uruk (Boessneck, von den Driesch and Steger ), figurines from Israel depicting laden donkeys (Wengrow : ; figure .) and depictions on the Libyan or Town palette reiterate this. Surely then the use of pack animals influenced southern connections as well as northern ones? The use of boats along the Nile also facilitated both long- and shortdistance contact but the use of pack animals overland would have been able to avoid the hazardous cataracts along the river. Egyptian pottery and other goods in Lower Nubian contexts show that there was contact between the regions, but not how it was organised nor on what scale. Donkey caravans may already have been traversing the deserts and oases in search of precious objects. Or was there a simpler down-the-line exchange that used the river and the donkey in combinations over smaller distances? In addition were they seeking the same or similar commodities as the later Old Kingdom Egyptians? Among his listed titles, Harkhuf includes, Chamberlain, Guardian of Nekhen, Chief of Nekheb, Seal-bearer of the King of Lower Egypt, Lector-priest, Overseer of interpreters/caravan leaders, he who is master of all the maters of the southern part of Egypt . . . who brings products of every foreign land for his lord, who brings gifts for the royal insignia, overseer of all the deserts of the head of Upper Egypt, one who places the fear of Horus in the foreign lands.2 These titles, while seemingly standardised, do point to one of the crucial roles that Harkhuf carried out in his career—leading expeditions of a diplomatic, exploratory and economic nature on behalf of the crown, while also maintaining order in the southern regions of Egypt, presumably the region of Elephantine where he was buried. Harkhuf describes four expeditions to Yam. The first is in the company of his father, Iri, bringing back precious gifts for the king; a journey often described as a means of initiating Harkhuf into his future responsibilities. The second expedition more fully describes Harkhuf ’s exploration of regions that are taken to be in Lower Nubia (Makher, Terers and Irtjet; all in Irtjet and Setju). Harkhuf ’s fourth trip is described in the form of a letter from the young king, Pepi II, the focus being on a dancing dwarf or pygmy whom the king is eager to see. However, it is Harkhuf ’s third expedition that is of particular interest here. It is a journey that is told in much more detail due to complications that arose and which Harkhuf resolves. Returning to Egypt via the region of Irtjet, Setju and Wawat, described as a confederacy (Lichtheim :

2

URK I, –.

commodities exchanged



) under one ruler, Harkhuf also lists the goods he has brought with him, laden on  donkeys:3 – sntr – hbny – h. knw-oil –s t –b – ms w bw – tni – m # w nb nfr

incense ebony hekenu—oil (a sacred oil) (meaning uncertain) panther/leopard skins elephant tusks throw sticks every good product

Incense and Resins The terms sntr and #ntyw have been mentioned in numerous texts but they have not been precisely identified botanically. Both terms have been linked to frankincense and myrrh (Manniche : –). It has also been suggested that sntr referred to Pistacia resin (Loret ) and there is an argument for identifying sntr obtained from the Syria-Palestine region with Pistacia spp. thus leaving the translation of #ntyw open to interpretation (Serpico : ). Species of pistacia were available in Arabia, Sudan, Eritrea, Ethiopia and Somalia. While later evidence, such as from the Ulu Burun shipwreck, and ‘Canaanite amphora’ from Tell el-Amarna would seem to support the identification of sntr with pistacia resin (at least during the New Kingdom) this evidence would also seem to indicate that Mediterranean sources were most likely. However, Harkhuf ’s mentioning of it in his third trip to Yam suggests a source obtained directly in Africa or indirectly from Arabia; or a different botanical identification. It has been further argued that Harkhuf obtained sntr from Wawat (Baum : –). The terms sntr and #ntyw are certainly translated as types of incense made from resins although a sole source and precise translation have not been clarified. Current research tends to favour the identification of sntr (Wb , ., . ) with frankincense and #ntyw (Wb , .–.) with myrrh4 (Manniche : –). The sntr mentioned in Harkhuf ’s third expedition, has been translated simply as incense (Faulkner : ; Lichtheim : ) but also as frankincense5 (Wb , ., .) and sometimes as 3

URK I, –. The Wörterbuch translates #ntyw as Myrrhenharz or ‘myrrh resin’. 5 The Wörterbuch gives the translation Weihrauch in the German which translates both as ‘incense’ and ‘frankincense’. 4



chapter five

myrrh (Manniche : ; Serpico : ) These two terms certainly designate some kind of incense but with more than one source, one of which appears to have been from or via Lower Nubia. Sources for resins within Egypt itself were limited and there is little evidence to suggest that the Egyptians themselves were involved in tapping resins in foreign climes (Serpico : ). While Egyptians may have visited the actual sources for resins it seems most likely that they obtained various resins through trade as can be seen in the expedition to Punt depicted on Hatshepsut’s mortuary temple at Deir el-Bahri or as described in Harkhuf ’s autobiography. One Predynastic example comes from the tomb of Djer at Umm el-Qaab, Abydos which yielded traces of a coniferous resin, probably pine or cedar, in a ceramic vessel imported from Palestine (Jones : ). Resinous material has been found at sites such as Abydos, Badari, Adaima, Mostagedda and Hierakonpolis although not all have been fully analysed (Jones ). That some of the earliest resinous material found has come from Hierakonpolis is interesting; in the Predynastic Period it was the southern-most settlement of any size and importance, and relatively close to Lower Nubia. The material from Adaima and Hierakonpolis comes from cemeteries of the Naqada IIA–B period (Jones : ) while that from Badari and Mostagedda dates to the Badarian Period (c. – bc) (Jones : ). In addition this resinous material is associated with linen wrappings (Friedman : ; Jones ). Herbs and flowers can provide scent and certainly Egypt had flora of its own to provide this (Manniche : ). However, such scents are short-lived. In addition, the more exotic, expensive and hard to obtain an item, the more desirable it often is and the ancient Egyptians certainly imported large amounts of fragrant goods (Manniche : , ). If such fragrant commodities are imported over great distances their fragrance must either be strong enough to last for a long time or be able to be revived, for example by heat, such as resins, bark and wood (Manniche : ). Incense is a prepared form of plant material which is intended to produce a fragrant smoke when burned. Incense in the form of sticks is common to China and Japan whereas incense burned indirectly (ie with coals or hot ash) was traditionally the preferred type used in the Middle East and Western world. Resins, obtained locally or through exchange, could have been used by the ancient Egyptians to make small objects such as amulets or even as adhesives (Serpico : ). However, it was probably for their scent that resins were desired by the Egyptians

commodities exchanged



either for cosmetic use, in burials or for ritualistic purposes. Incense and aromatic resins became increasingly important for royal and ritual ceremonies in Egypt and the lack of local sources would have made their import from regions with a more plentiful supply imperative. SubSaharan Africa would have been just such a region and Lower Nubia could have facilitated such a supply. Ebony The ancient Egyptian term hbny has been translated as ebony (Wb , .–). Egyptian textual sources suggest that a New Kingdom source for ebony was from a southern ‘tribe’ called Gnb.tyw (Breasted . II ), as well as being part of tribute from Kush.6 The source, nonetheless, is clearly listed as a southern one. While this th Dynasty text is a long way from the A-Group an early southern source is more than plausible. African black/iron wood or ebony is not available in Egypt and the Egyptians were importing ebony from an early period. It grows in the dry savannah woodland of tropical Africa from Senegal to Eritrea and northern Ethiopia to Angola and the Transvaal; it also grows in Western India (Gale, Gasson, Hepper and Killen : ). Ancient Egyptian references to the importation of ebony indicate that it was brought from south of Egypt (Gale, Gasson, Hepper and Killen : –) probably from Sudan, and so involved considerable distances. Small ebony objects such as the label bearing the name of King Aha found at Abydos, have survived from st Dynasty contexts (Petrie ) and ebony is also mentioned in rd Dynasty texts (Murray : ) Used in a variety of ways such as veneers, inlays and frameworks, ebony appears to have been a relatively common commodity. Importantly for the Pre- and Early Dynastic periods, Lower Nubia would have had direct as well as indirect access to ebony which could then be exchanged with Egypt. Oil The product h. knw listed by Harkhuf has been translated as a sacred oil (Wb , . –; Faulkner : ) although Lichtheim simply lists it as h. knw-oil without a more specific designation (Lichtheim : ). The list of seven sacred oils or unguents can be dated as far back as the th Dynasty (Manniche : ). Egypt had many sources for both

6

URK IV : –.



chapter five

animal and vegetable oils and they are frequently mentioned in Egyptian texts although exact translations have not always been possible (Lucas : ). Egypt would certainly have had access to oil from local sources but high demand for a wide range of uses (cooking, lighting, ointments, a base for cosmetics and perfumes, and as medicines) would have made imports desirable as well. As with its translation the precise origin of the h. knw-oil is unknown. Much later recipes for h. knw-oil come from Edfu temple and list a variety of ingredients and the procedure needed to make this sacred oil including seeds of nedjem trees (identified as coming from Ethiopia), water, Oasis wine, spices, #ntyw and ab resins (Manniche : –). However this does not necessarily mean that it is exactly the same substance as the earlier mentions of h. knw-oil (Manniche : ). It does seem to have been a mixture of ingredients rather than a single vegetable or animal oil and many of the ingredients or the mixture itself, may have been obtained from or via Lower Nubia. Whether the Egyptians were obtaining it from the south in the Predyanstic and Early Dynastic periods is still open to conjecture. Panther/Leopard Skins At least as early as the time of Narmer, human figures are depicted wearing what appears to be a leopard or panther skin.7 This can be seen in the upper register of the verso of the Narmer Palette worn by the figure labelled tt preceding Narmer. An even earlier depiction has been suggested from Tomb  from Hierakonpolis (Williams and Logan : , note ) although the apparel in question is less clear. Another early representation includes a figure on the Turin stela (Scamuzzi : Pl. VIII). A leopard is also depicted on the Abu #Umuri palette now in the Egyptian Museum in Cairo (Cairo JE ). Such garments were to become the common attire for sm-priests although they have sometimes been identified as imitation leopard/cheetah skins (Osborne : ). The earliest representation of a leopard from the Dynastic period is found on the gold mace handle from Seyala dating to the st Dynasty. A leopard (sometimes identified as a cheetah) is also found in the th Dynasty tomb decoration of Nefermaat at Meidum (Osborne : , fig. –). 7 For a discussion on the wearing of the leopard skin in the Naqada period see Williams .

commodities exchanged



Leopards and also cheetahs as well as their skins were imported from southern Africa and Asia as is attested in later depictions such as Hatshepsut’s Punt expedition and in the th Dynasty tomb of Rekhmire but they were also indigenous to Egypt (Houlihan : ). Leopards can survive in several types of environment—desert, rainforest and high mountains. While the leopard faces extinction today it may survive in the southeastern part of the Eastern Desert and the southern Sinai in Egypt proper (Osborne : ). Outside Egypt leopards can be found in parts of Algeria and Morocco and in most of sub-Saharan Africa as well as parts of the Arabian Peninsula and Asia (Osborne : ). From the prehistoric period faunal remains identified as leopard have been found in Chalcolithic Maadi (Boessneck cited in Osborne ), in a cave in the Eastern Desert dating to the Epi-palaeolithic, Predynastic and Intermediate periods (Goodman et. al. cited in Osborne ). A felid claw, possibly from a leopard skin robe was found in tomb  at the elite cemetery  at Hierakonpolis (Adams : ; : ). While leopard skins should be seen as an exotic object and one that probably carried some status with it, there is no evidence to suggest that in the th millennium bc Upper Egyptians would have needed to import such skins from the south although they certainly brought them from Nubia in the Old Kingdom as is shown in Harkhuf ’s inventory. It is as possible that they obtained such skins themselves in their own territories or produced imitation skins. Nevertheless such skins would have been prestigious luxury items and were clearly important as an indicator of rank and position and thus the reliability of a regular supply was paramount and this may have been best achieved by exchange with Egypt’s southern neighbours where the supply was more reliable. Elephant Tusks/Ivory Objects made from ivory were already fairly common in the Predynastic and Early Dynastic periods in Egypt and Lower Nubia. However, these objects which included small figurines, gaming pieces, inlays, knife handles, combs and the like, are often simply described as being made of ivory without specifying the type (Krzyszkowska and Morkot : ). While more work needs to be done to identify the types of ivory in finished products elephant ivory was certainly being used (Randall ; Payne ; Barnett ; Spencer ). While the teeth of the elephant, mammoth, hippopotamus, walrus and narwhal are often described as ivory only the teeth of the elephant (and the now extinct mammoth) are considered ‘true ivory’ (Vickers : ).



chapter five

The most prized ‘true ivory’ comes from the African elephant as they are considerably larger than their Asian counterparts and both the females and males have tusks (Vickers : ). The tusks of an African elephant have an average weight of around  kg and an average length of  m although they can be considerably larger. Not only are the tusks of the African elephant larger than those of the Asian elephants but the ivory is considered finer grained (Vickers : ). There are several alternatives to elephant ivory. The hippopotamus was once widely hunted for its meat, oil, hide and ivory-like teeth (Vickers : ). The lower jaw contains six teeth, two of which are long and curved; the smaller hippopotamus teeth are largely hollow and only useful for fashioning small objects (Vickers : ). The ivory itself is dense, white, strong and fine-grained and is non-yellowing but unlike elephant ivory it is covered with enamel that makes it much more difficult to work (Vickers : ). Along with other animal bone hippopotamus ivory would have been available within Egypt itself as the hippopotamus survived in the Nile Delta until the seventeenth century ad (Krzyszkowska and Morkot : ). The hunting of hippopotamus was a popular scene in tomb paintings and reliefs and indeed many ivory objects would appear to be made from hippopotamus rather than elephant ivory (Krzyszkowska and Morkot : ). The wild pigs of Africa and Asia such as the warthog have four fairly large tusks which are ivory like but are rarely longer than  cm. Rhinoceros horns are not like ivory in appearance or composition and in fact are more like a toe-nail than a tooth. However the rhino horn, like the antlers of deer, has been used to carve small objects (Vickers : ). Animal and human bone has been described as ‘poor man’s ivory’ and although not finely grained or able to be highly polished (Vickers : ) bone has certainly been used in similar ways to true ivory, particularly for smaller objects and perhaps inlays. Harkhuf certainly lists elephant tusks or ivory— bw (Wb , .–)— amongst the products he procured on his third trip to Yam and there is no reason to believe this was an isolated incident. While tusks from western Asia cannot be ruled out, it seems more likely that in the Predynastic, Egypt’s source would have been Egypt itself as well as perhaps Nubia. The elephant was found throughout Egypt until about  bc (Houlihan : ) but its range was pushed southwards during the Predynastic period probably due to hunting and competition for grazing and agricultural land as well as climatic changes and may have become extinct in Egypt proper by Dynastic times (Osborne : –;

commodities exchanged



Krzyszkowska and Morkot : –). The elephant may indeed have survived in parts of Upper Egypt and Lower Nubia until the early Old Kingdom (Osborne : ; Krzyszkowska and Morkot : ). If, as O’Connor suggests (), Yam was in the Berber-Shendi reach, Harkhuf ’s expedition would have taken him to the source of commodities such as elephant ivory, ebony and perhaps resins whereas if Yam was in the Kerma region then indirect long-distance trade with regions further south would be inferred (Krzyszkowska and Morkot : ). Depictions of elephants on prehistoric and Predynastic rock drawings in the Qift-Quseir region, along the eastern and western borders of the Nile Valley and in the Eastern and Western Deserts (Houlihan : ), on siltstone palettes, pottery, and knife handles clearly indicate that elephants were well known and hunted in Egypt at the time. The discovery of elephant burials at Hierakonpolis dating to the Naqada IIAB period (Adams , ; Friedman : –) may also point to the presence of elephants in Upper Egypt or to expeditions (trade or hunting) further south in Lower Nubia. If the elephant was found in Egypt until about  bc (Houlihan : ) but was being progressively pushed further south, Hierakonpolis may have been one of the regions where acquiring ivory (and elephants themselves) was still possible in the later Predynastic and Early Dynastic periods. The island of Elephantine, named bw by the Egyptians, meaning elephant or ivory, was translated or renamed as Elephantine by the Greeks. This has led to the assumption that Elephantine had been an entrepot for ivory trade even in periods previous to the Ptolemaic although whether this was already the case in the Predynastic has been disputed (JiménezSerrano : ) and certainly the southern border at Elephantine was not firmly established until the st Dynasty (Seidlmayer ). In addition the fact that Nubian A-Group material appears not only on the island but also north of Aswan rather indicates that this region was not yet clearly defined as Egyptian nor as Nubian. While ivory may have come to Egypt from Nubia in the Predynastic it seems that the Egyptians were able to source ivory (elephant and hippopotamus) more ‘locally’ than in Pharaonic times. “Every Good Product” Harkhuf ’s last entry on his list is an all encompassing one and it leads to suggestions of various other materials or goods that could have been obtained from or via Lower Nubia.



chapter five

Pottery Imported pottery is more often associated with Egyptian pottery in Nubia rather than the other way around. Nevertheless, non-Egyptian pottery is found in Upper and Lower Egypt albeit in small quantities, and some is considered Nubian. Pottery vessels considered Nubian in origin are tempered with animal dung or sometimes an ash mixture and are fired at lower temperatures than their Egyptian counterparts resulting in softer, lighter and more porous vessels (Midant-Reynes : –, ; Needler : , Nordström ). In addition their surfaces tend to be less highly polished (Needler : ). Early Nubian wares, with the exception of those of the Abkan, are often decorated with incised or impressed designs on their exterior surfaces. In the case of so-called eggshell ware the exterior has painted decoration. Black Incised Ware (Class N) In establishing his sequence dates and corpus of Predynastic pottery, Petrie discussed his N-ware category essentially as an import. He observed that it was quite different from other pottery in Egypt and was found only in rare cases (Petrie a: ). Petrie himself classified this as ‘incised ware’ but it has generally become associated as Nubian ware (Reisner : , Fig. ). Petrie himself actually initially believed that it resembled pottery found at Ciempouzuelos near Madrid and at Butmir in Bosnia and assumed that it had a foreign source such as Libya, Sicily or Italy (Petrie a: ). Other examples of incised ware are found in Egypt and Lower Nubia which are not classified as N-ware. Petrie’s N-ware was described as consistently soft ware that had not been well-baked, with the outer surface decorated with impressed and incised designs probably with a serrated comb or rocker stamp (Needler : ; Friedman : ). The incised decoration was usually but not always, filled with a white paste or pigment. Other variations of decoration or patterning have been described as cord impression, ‘door frame’ decoration, deep incised (similar to incised pottery found at Qustul L) and deep dot impressions around and/or on the rim (Glück : – ). The surface was generally black or brown but examples with a red surface have also been found, these generally being dated to a later phase of N-ware (Glück : ). The vessels tend to be restricted to deep and shallow bowls. However there are also beakers of more medium size and with more closed mouths, some with lids (Glück : ) and some examples resembling the Tasian beakers (Petrie , pl. XXVII, no. ). In addition two phases of N-ware have potentially been identified (Glück

commodities exchanged



). An older phase dating to Naqada IC/IIA perhaps into Naqada IID is predominantly found at Naqada in Upper Egypt and in Lower Nubia is predominantly found in the northern-most region whereas the younger phase (Protodynastic) seems to shift to Diospolis Parva in Upper Egypt and to the Second Cataract region in Lower Nubia (Glück ). Both the forms and decorative elements seem to change and the change in forms may indicate a change in function and use. N-Ware is not common; in Upper Egypt it is found at Naqada, Abydos (cemetery U), elMa"amariya, Matmar, el-Amrah, Armant, Diospolis Parva, Abu Zaidan and el-Masa"id; in Lower Nubia it is found at Khor Bahan, Dakka, Wadi Allaqi, Mediq, Seyala, Faras, Serra, Ashkeit and Koshtamna (Glück : –). While incised decoration appears in pottery in Egypt from very early on, for example the early phase at Merimde has incised pottery (Einwanger ), it seems to be predominantly part of an African influenced element of Egyptian culture (Arkell ; Needler : –; Williams : –; Nordström : ; Arnold and Bourriau : ; Glück : –) and it is the paste filled decoration in particular that seems to be alien to Egyptian styles. Guy Brunton early on suggested a southern origin for black incised pottery (Brunton : ). Arkell builds on this theory by comparing complicated impressed rim decoration styles on Khartoum Neolithic pottery with black incised ware found in Predynastic Egypt (Arkell : , Figs. , ). Arkell thus gives a southern origin for N-ware, probably from the Khartoum area, as he assigns the examples from Egyptian contexts a younger date than those from the Khartoum region (Arkell : ). Black or brownish ware that is decorated with white-filled incised lines (Petrie’s N-ware), which is not common to Upper Egyptian sites is more common at Khor Bahan immediately south of the First Cataract, and is comparable to Terminal Abkan pottery sherds (Nordström : ). In the Predynastic the incised ware of Petrie’s class N may be imports or imitations of more southern African traditions (Arnold and Bourriau : ). Incised or impressed decoration has a longer tradition in Nubia and Sudan than in Egypt which makes for a logical argument that it is Nubian (Bourriau : ; Glück : –). Pottery with incised and paste filled decoration is, for example, a common feature of C-Group ceramics. However, for this to be entirely true the style of decoration should also be seen in conjunction with other ‘Nubian’ traits such as being hand-made (i.e. not on a turning device) and using dungtempered Nile silt clays (Bourriau : ). In fact some vessels found



chapter five

in Naqada II contexts share the complicated rim decoration noted by Arkell but in fabric and manufacturing technique appear to belong to the Egyptian tradition (Bourriau : , see catalogue numbers  and ). This highlights that style may be imported but manufactured locally. Another type of pottery may also throw some light on the origins of N-ware. As mentioned in chapter one Guy Brunton () believed he had discovered a new culture that predated the Badarian in the Nile Valley, a culture he termed Tasian after burials excavated near Deir el-Tasa in Middle Egypt. This dating has not been widely accepted and Baumgartel argued that the Tasian culture was in fact the same as the Badarian but a regional variant (Baumgartel : –); it has also been suggested that the material dated to the later stages of the latter (Bourriau : ). Baumgartel’s interpretation has in part gained favour (Krzyzaniak : n. ; Hoffman : ). However, it has continued to be argued that the Tasian is a separate culture from the Badarian, possibly a nomadic culture with a Sudanese origin (Friedman : ). Alternatively Kaiser () suggested that the Tasian may be linked to northern Neolithic sites and to the Amratian but this is unlikely due to the presence of beakers in the Sudan. The Badarian culture itself was long thought to be found only in the Badari region but Badarian or Badarian influenced objects have also been found further south at sites such as Armant, Elkab and Hierakonpolis (Hendrickx and Vermeersch : ; Hendrickx : –). In addition new dating suggests that the Tasian may in fact have begun before the Badarian although it was partially contemporaneous with it (Hendrickx : ). Thus we may once again be seeing a more porous cultural ‘border’ in the Predynastic Nile Valley with the Hierakonpolis region acting as a sort of gateway to the south; perhaps one of several. The most characteristic pottery of the so-called Tasian culture are the brown to black calciform beakers with wide flaring rims and white filled incised decoration on the outer surface and inside the flaring rim (Brunton : –; Bourriau : ; Friedman : –; Hendrickx and Vermeersch : ). The decorative style of these beakers is not unlike that of the N-ware although the latter does not make an appearance until Naqada II (Naqada IC/IIA). It has also been stated that the decorative style is more characteristic of the A-Group pottery although they did not produce such beakers (Bourriau : ). Similar vessels are known from contemporary Neolithic Sudanese sites such as Kadero dating to the late th to early th millennium bc (Chłodnicki ; Hendrickx : ; Hendrickx and Vermeersch : ; Nordström :

commodities exchanged



, his ware M. associated with the Terminal Abkan). Petrie’s N  found in the University College London collection but without clear provenance, also resembles these beakers in form and decoration (Petrie , pl. XXVII no. ). The Tasian beakers are generally described as being made of untempered clay but some examples have been found which are tempered with dung (Friedman : ) which is another possible indication of a southern connection. The early N-ware pottery is also described as untempered (Glück : , see note ). Ongoing research and excavation in the Eastern and Western Deserts of Egypt and Nubia continues to shed more light on this elusive culture (eg. Friedman ; Darnell, D. ). A disturbed burial site in the Wadi Atulla yielded flare rimmed incised beakers that resemble those of the Tasian beakers found in Middle Egypt. However, the Middle Egyptian beakers, while superficially the same, also display differences; their surfaces are generally black (as opposed to red to tan) with white filled incised decoration (similar to the majority of N-ware decoration); the fabric is always a fine Nile silt; the decorative motifs are slightly different; the flared rims are more pronounced and they are almost exclusively found in settlement contexts (Friedman ; ). N-ware vessels are found almost exclusively in cemetery contexts (Glück  see note ) but this may well be due to the lack of settlement excavation in Upper Egypt and Lower Nubia. Vessels similar to these Tasian beakers have also been found in the southwestern desert at Gebel Ramlah (Schild et al. ) as well as Wadi Atulla and early Neolithic cemeteries in the Dongoloa Reach (Reinold , Salvatori and Usai ,  Friedman ) and as far south as El-Kadada (Nordström : , Cat. ). One comparable vessel found in the Badari area has parallels with vessels from the southern Levant (Kantor : ). While it is tempting to see connections between north and south (or south and further south) one should exercise caution when comparing decorative styles. Impressed and incised decoration on pottery vessels can certainly develop independently from region to region. Indeed it seems a very natural thing to decorate clay using a fingernail or stick; even today people ‘doodle’ this way in the dirt or sand. Regional preferences do, however, seem to come into play. The dotted wavy-lined impressed and incised decoration seen on ceramics found west of the Nile can be quite different in terms of patterning to the decorative elements seen on Tasian beakers or N-ware vessels. Nevertheless, decorative patterns typical of the A-Group are seen in ceramics found in the Laqiya region to the north of Wadi Howar (Jesse : ). Also the forms of the N-ware vessels are not related to the Tasian beakers.



chapter five

Ceramic and other evidence from sites studied as part of the Theban Desert Road Survey (Darnell, J.C.: a; Darnell, D. ) also suggests well developed contact and interaction between the Western Desert and the Nile Valley and that the Badarian, Naqada I, Abkan and A-Group as well as other Nilotic groups may have shared a common ancestor in these desert regions (Darnell, D : ). The incised ware we see in the Tasian and N-ware may be a Nilotic interpretation of a more southern or south-western tradition. N-ware may thus have its origins in a SaharanSudanese cultural background of the Western Desert (Glück ; ); it would certainly not be the only desert influence on the Nile Valley (Kuper ; Riemer ; ; Riemer and Kindermann ), nor should the presence of A-Group peoples in the southwestern desert be ignored (Lange ). Gold Gold is not mentioned in Harkhuf ’s list of commodities. However, Egypt had a reputation, at least in later times, as a land awash with gold such as references in diplomtic letters from the Amarna archives.8 That gold artefacts from Predynastic times have been found shows that production was also taking place in Egypt (Klemm, Klemm and Murr : ). The ancient Egyptians themselves referred to three sources for gold (Vercoutter ): . the ‘gold of Coptos’ from the Eastern Desert in the Hammamat to Abad region; . the ‘gold of Wawat’ obtained via the Wadis Allaqi and Gabgaba; and . the ‘gold of Kush’ from what is now the Sudan and possibly parts of Ethiopia. (Ogden : ). Exploitation in Pre- and Early Dynastic times seems to have been limited in quantity but expanded across the Eastern Desert as far south as Aswan and Ras Banas (Ogden : ). Possible sites of gold exploitation have been tentatively suggested for the Pre- and Early Dynastic period in the very northern parts of the Eastern Desert in Egypt proper (Hartung : Abb.  with references). Surveys undertaken in the Eastern Desert between  and  indicated quite extensive mining activity, including the mining for gold (Klemm and Klemm ). However, there is little evidence to suggest that the gold of Wawat and Kush was exploited in any substantial way until the Middle Kingdom and it is assumed that 8

For example see EA, EA and EA.

commodities exchanged



early exploitation was indeed confined to the Eastern Desert. Survey and excavation carried out by the Centro Richerche sul Deserto Orientale in the Wadi Allaqi uncovered two plundered tombs from ca.  bc based on radio-carbon dating and with pottery described as similar to that of the A-Group and at least one bracelet of gold wire (Sadr ; Castiglioni and Castiglioni : , cat. ). In addition a  m pit, presumably a miner’s pit, was discovered suggesting that gold was exploited in the Wadi Allaqi albeit in a primitive way and on a small scale in the th millennium bc (Castiglioni and Castiglioni : ). Textual evidence suggests that the gold of Wawat, if not the gold of Kush, was important in the Middle Kingdom and into the New Kingdom and more southerly sources may have been sought in the New Kingdom due to the possible exhaustion of the northerly Eastern Desert sites (Ogden : ). These Eastern Desert sites were re-examined in the later New Kingdom either due to improved mining technologies or because the political situation in the south made more northern sources desirable (Ogden : ). Gold exploitation was limited in the Predynastic and nothing suggests that a voracious appetite for gold was leading Naqadan Egyptians south although some Nubian gold may indeed have reached Egypt via the northern-most Lower Nubians and those settled near the mouth of the Wadi el-Allaqi. Nubia at this time does not seem to have been important as a source of gold for the Egyptians. Even in the Old and Middle Kingdoms evidence for gold mining activities in the Eastern Desert is few and far between (Klemm, Klemm and Murr : ) but as gold is explicitly mentioned in Old Kingdom expedition reports (Gundlach ) it is certainly possible that the Eastern Desert activitiy was simply not producing enough gold and more was being sought further south into Nubia. In addition studies of roughly  known mining sites in Egypt and the Sudan have shown that the legendary gold wealth of Egypt was unattainable from the known sources and that for Egypt’s  year history of gold production less output was achieved than the monthly output of modern South Africa (Klemm, Klemm and Murr : – ). Either other mining sites have yet to be discovered or much of Egypt’s gold was recycled (Klemm, Klemm and Murr : ). Gold was certainly extremely important to the Egyptian state in Pharaonic times and evidence does suggest that from the Middle Kingdom at least (possibly from the Old Kingdom) Nubian sources of gold were being expoited (Ogden : ). Egyptian fortifications at sites such as Quban near the entrance to Wadi Allaqi indeed point to the Egyptian



chapter five

desire to control this exploitation. Recent studies of desert and oases routes show that the Egyptians were using several roads to reach the luxury raw materials of the south (Kuhlmann ) but not for gold in Predynastic times. There is simply no direct evidence for extensive Egyptian interest in or exploitation of gold from Nubia in the Predynastic period. Obsidian Obsidian is a volcanic glass which is commonly black in colour but may also be clear, brown, red or colour-banded (Aston, Harrell and Shaw : ). The source of obsidian has long been associated with Anatolia but there are also regional sources in Armenia, the Saudi Arabian Peninsula, Tibesti in Chad and Libya (Bavay et. al : –). Examination of a vessel fragment from the Early Dynastic royal cemetery at Abydos has pointed to the northern Rift Valley of Ethiopia as the most likely source for the raw material (Bavay et. al.  cited in Aston, Harrell and Shaw : ). Analysis of Pre- and Early Dynastic artefacts is ongoing but a southern source of obsidian supplying at least Upper Egypt is plausible. As Egypt has an abundant supply of good quality flint, the appearance of obsidian as flakes, blades and fishtail knives, as well as beads, pendants and vessels (Aston, Harrell and Shaw : ) is more in keeping with prestige objects and raw materials, the supply of which may have been facilitated by the A-Group in the south. Obsidian could, for example, have come from Abyssinia through Nubia (Adams : ). However obsidian objects are predominantly found in Middle and Upper Egyptian sites which may point to a trade via the Red Sea and the wadis of the Eastern Desert (Zarins : –). As there is no obsidian found in Predynastic contexts at Elephantine, trade through the Nile Valley from further south seems unlikely (Kopp : –). Obsidian objects found in the Delta would suggest a northern origin for the raw material but trade within Egypt itself cannot be ruled out. Wood Acacia. The acacia tree is widespread in tropical Africa and is found in hot deserts from Egpyt to Jordan and even Iraq. While the wood of the acacia is hard and durable the small size of the trees limits its use (Gale, Gasson, Hepper and Killen : ). Acacia charcoal was used in smelting (Scheel ) and acacia was also used for boat-building, housing and making furniture, bows and arrows and coffins (Meiggs , Western and MacLeod ). Even the blossoms were used for

commodities exchanged



garlands (Beauverie , Germer ). Many species of acacia also produce gum and could have been used as thickening agents in the making of perfume and in medications (Gale, Gasson, Hepper and Killen : ). The best acacia gum comes from Acacia senegal which is found in eastern Africa as far north as Sudan (Gale, Gasson, Hepper and Killen : ). While we have no direct evidence that acacia gum was imported from the south by the Egyptians it is certainly possible. Acacia, which is a source for vegetable tannins (van Driel-Murray : ) may have been used in leather-making. Goatskins were found at Gebelein— the so-called Predynastic tannery—along with large amounts of acacia pods which are still used in tanning today (van Driel-Murray : ). The evidence for vegetable tanning at this time is, however, inconclusive. In his autobiography Weni mentions building boats from acacia of Wawat which are then used to transport granite for the pyramid of Merenre. Sabni, son of Pepinakht-Heqaib also describes building boats in Wawat. Although Egypt had its own sources of acacia it seems clear that its widespread availability made it an important commodity especially as it meant that expeditions did not have to bring timber with them. Cork Wood Originating in tropical Africa, cork wood is a soft wood suitable for making rafts and floats (Gale, Gasson, Hepper and Killen : ). However there are few samples found in Egypt. These are fragments of furniture dating from the rd Dynasty (Gale, Gasson, Hepper and Killen : ). Ostrich Eggs and Feathers The ostrich is well represented in ancient Egyptian art from the earliest times and is in fact the first species of bird that the Egyptians depicted at all (Houlihan : ). Rock drawings dated to Naqada I, from both Upper Egypt and Lower Nubian desert regions indicate that from early times, ostriches were hunted (Phillips : ). One particularly lively example comes from Silwa Bahari (between Edfu and Kom Ombo in Upper Egypt) which shows a human figure shooting at an ostrich with a bow and arrow. Other animals associated with this drawing are all desert animals and include a rhinoceros and an elephant. Some palettes also depict ostriches such as one now housed in the Manchester Museum, University of Manchester, and dating to Naqada III which shows a hunter stalking three ostriches. The Hunters Palette, now in the British Museum, also includes an ostrich amongst the animals depicted. Evidence also



chapter five

suggests that in ancient times ostriches were to be found in the southern desert areas of Egypt as well as in the Sudan and Central and southern Africa. Ostrich feathers appear in Predynastic graves as do ostrich eggs, some showing traces of painting and engraving. In the New Kingdom, tomb decorations show ostrich feathers, eggs and even live birds being brought as tribute from Nubia, Libya, Syria and Punt. Ostriches were valued for their feathers, eggs and possibly meat. The feathers were used for decoration and in fans; eggs could have been valued for food although they must be consumed within a few days of collection; and eggshells could be made into beads and discs for simple necklaces or clothing decoration (Phillips : ) and could also be used for containers (Reinold : ). In later royal and religious iconography feathers, possibly ostrich, make an appearance in headdresses and crowns such as the Atef crown. Ostrich feathers also appear in tomb paintings made into fans. While southern Egypt would have had its own source for ostriches, there is no reason that exchanges involving ostriches and/or their feathers and eggs could not have begun from earliest times coming from a variety of sources including Nubia and lands accessible via Lower Nubia. Lions Burned remains of lion bones have been found at the Neolithic site of Merimde Beni Salama (von den Driesch and Boessneck : ). The remains of seven young lions (some under the age of six months, some less than a year old and two adults), at least kept if not bred in captivity, were found at Abydos, associated with the st Dynasty tomb of Aha (Boessneck, J and von den Driesch, A : –). Depictions of lions figure frequently in early representations on ceremonial palettes such as the Battlefield Palette and the Lion Palette, as well as on knife handles such as the Gebel el-Arak knife, early gaming pieces and in the decorated Tomb  from Hierakonpolis where a human figure is standing between what appear to be two lions in a pose reminiscent of the the Gebel el-Arak Knife handle. In these instances, with the exception of Tomb , the lions depicted have been identified as Asian lions based on the fact that their manes extend over their shoulders and along their belly (Osborn : ). While this may indicate that lions were imported from western Asia it is far more likely that the iconography was borrowed. Lions certainly existed in Egypt in prehistoric and Pharaonic periods and were probably still quite common up to and including the New King-

commodities exchanged



dom (Houlihan : ). There do not appear to be any depictions of lions as tribute or trade goods from the south although New Kingdom tombs do show lions brought as tribute from Asia (for example from the tomb of Huy in Thebes). However it is not clear if these are just artistic standardisations, imitations of Mesopotamian themes and conventions (for instance the image of a man dominating two lions as seen on the Gebel el-Arak knife handle) or remnants of long-maned lions that probably originated in Africa, migrating into Asia during the PliocenePleistocene transition (Colbert ). Monkeys and Baboons The earliest representation of a monkey in ancient Egypt is a calcite statue of a seated baboon that is inscribed with the name of Narmer. Burials of baboons are even earlier. An animal precinct at the elite cemetery  (dated from Naqada IC to Nqada IIC–D with a return in Naqada III) at Hierakonpolis contained the burials of baboons, African elephant, gazelle and dogs (Adams ; ; ) and may also have contained burials of cattle, Nile crocodile and hippopotamus, (Adams : – ). At the royal cemetery of Abydos the remains of baboons, lions, cattle and geese were found, associated with the st Dynasty tomb of Aha (Boessneck and von den Driesch : –). These burials could have had religious significance or could have been ‘pets’ in a royal menagerie that also accompanied the king in death. It does seem significant that the baboons buried at Hierakonpolis were located in the eastern edge of the cemetery and it may be that the baboon is already associated with the dawn as it was in later times (Houlihan : –). Representations of monkeys and baboons were common in all historical periods and these included the Green Monkey and the Hamadryas Baboon although modern excavations of monkey mummies indicate that the Olive Baboon and Barbary Monkey were also kept (Houlihan : ). Figurines of baboons in particular appear early such as those found at Hierakonpolis by Quibell described as “monkey and young” (Quibell : ; Osborn : , fig. –) and two faience figurines were found at Abydos and dated to the st Dynasty (Petrie : pl. IV; Schoske and Wildung : –, pl. ). While monkeys no longer occur in the wild in Egypt their distribution in prehistoric times is uncertain due to a lack of fossil remains (Osborn : ). Certainly the climate in the early Predynastic period would have been acceptable for some species of monkey and especially the baboon (Houlihan : ) although it has been suggested that the baboon would have become



chapter five

extinct by the time of the st Dynasty (Smith ). It likely that, in the Dynastic Period, they were known to the Egyptians as exotic imports from Nubia, Punt and regions of Africa further to the south; today the baboon is found in eastern Sudan, Somalia and Ethiopia as well as in the Red Sea Hills and the southwestern Arabian peninsula (Osborn : ) although once found closer to home. The baboon burials found at Hierakonpolis and Abydos, then, may represent the last of the local baboons or the beginnings of their place among the exotic, rare and prestigious. Goods from Egypt in Nubia A-Group cemeteries and settlements contain substantial amounts of Egyptian material and the focus has largely been on luxury items such as copper tools, stone vessels and ivory (Adams : ). Those items considered Egyptian imports are based primarily on the archaeological evidence laid out in chapter two. Pottery and Its Contents The vast majority of Egyptian goods found in A-Group contexts are pottery vessels as has been demonstrated in chapter two. In addition most of the Egyptian pottery vessels found are not luxury wares but storage vessels of hard pink-orange ware. It is virtually impossible to know whether Egyptian vessels were imported for their own sake or for their contents, the latter being more likely. Original vessel contents are rarely found and when they are, earlier excavation reports often identified them simply as organic matter (Reisner ). The A-Group people were certainly capable of making their own ceramics as is attested by the large amount found and they were also capable of making attractive fine wares as can be seen with the eggshell ware. It seems unlikely that the Egyptian vessels were imported for themselves although they were undoubtedly valued (Adams : ; Trigger : ). It has been suggested that the Egyptian vessels were filled with bulk products such as beer, wine, cheese, oil and perhaps grain (Trigger : ; Shinnie : ) and with such perishables, the vessels and containers used for transport over long distances as well as the time taken must have played a factor. There would have been no point in delivering stale beer to an exchange partner. Adams does not favour the importation of food products such as cheese, oil and grain as these were common to both regions and instead suggests

commodities exchanged



that ointments, honey and cloth as attested in a th Dynasty text9 were exported (Adams : ; Breasted  I: ). Subsistence food products or ones that the Nubians also produced should not, however, be entirely ruled out as trade goods; if foodstuffs were being imported by an elite, they may have proved valuable as surplus. Economic surplus can then be redistributed to members of the community who do not produce their own (eg. specialised craftsmen), to confer a favour or sense of obligation, or perhaps even shared for a festival, ceremony or celebration of some kind. In addition, Adams’ example from the text of Sabni ignores the fact that this was clearly a gift exchange for a very specific purpose, not for commercial gain. Egyptian wares such as decorated ware and wavyhandled jars were valuable as prestige objects in themselves (Takamiya : , note ) and/or by association with their contents. It has been demonstrated that small-scale transactions were conducted at least from the Old Kingdom and it is thus likely that pottery also changed hands as both container and as a product itself (Eyre : –) and the same may have happened in the Naqada period. The actual pots may also have been redistributed in the community even when their original contents were gone. The most obviously imported vessels were those that were made of marl clays. Marl clays, which are calcareous, come from the shales and limestones found along the Nile between Esna and Cairo, with secondary deposits such as those found at Wadi Qena (Bourriau et. al. : – ). Unless the Nubians were travelling vast distances in order to secure such clay deposits which seems unlikely, we can safely assume that vessels made of these marl clays came from Upper Egypt. Wavy-Handled Ware (Class W) According to Petrie, wavy-handled or W-ware was a very variable class of pottery (Petrie a: ). The wavy-handle is seen to be characteristic of Palestinian pottery and it was assumed that the vessels were used for the transport and storage of ointments like palm oil (Petrie a: ) although other liquids are also possible such as wine. On occasion the wavy-handled jars are also decorated although distinct from the later 9 The autobiography of Sabni from his tomb describes his journey to Wawat in order to bring back the body of his deceased father Mekhu. For this he takes, loaded on  donkeys, oil, honey, ointment and cloth as gifts for the people of Wawat (no doubt the chiefs) to facilitate the safe return of his father’s body and perhaps also as thanks for the safekeeping of the body. This then is a clear gift exchange not commercial trade or trade of goods that one side does not have or cannot produce.



chapter five

net-painted wavy handled jars, or the handles appear in combination with pierced side handles (Petrie a: Pl. XV. , a, b). Egyptian pottery vessels are widely distributed amongst the sites studied but wavy-handled vessels are amongst the most distinct (see chapter two above, Fig. ). Where wavy-handled vessels are found clusters in three regions—just south of the First Cataract region, in the Wadi Allaqi region and in the Second Cataract region with the largest clustering in the northern-most sites. This may be accounted for by the close proximity to the source of manufacture north of Aswan but also by the fact that the more southern sites tend to be later in date. Qustul for instance has relatively few wavy-handled ceramic vessels (for example a net-painted wavy-handled jar in L) but a comparative wealth of stone vessels. By the middle of Naqada III the elite may have preferred stone vessels over pottery as a means of displaying their status. Qustul was part of the elite and so had access to such goods indicating a reciprocal exchange between equals. Decorated Ware (Class D) The type of decorated pottery changed in the Naqada II period. The white on dark painted decoration of C-ware is replaced with Petrie’s class D- or decorated ware. Decorated pottery was made of a similar fabric to the wavy-handled vessels (Petrie a: ), a pale marl clay. However, the surface of the vessels was decorated with a variety of figures including boats, human figures, flora and fauna and standards and later with more rudimentary line decorations. Some wavy-handled vessels are decorated in a similar manner. The decoration was applied before firing in a red, dark brown or black colour (Arnold and Bourriau : ). Decorated ware was also able to be fired at a much higher temperature than earlier ceramic types using Nile silts and therefore would most likely have needed a closed kiln (Bourriau et. al. : –). Such a change in firing techniques may also be tied to the gradual decline of blacktopped red ware at this time (Wengrow : ). The absence of marls in Nubian wares may also help to explain the longevity of black-mouthed and black-topped wares south of Egypt. Unlike the N-ware pottery, the decoration was not in imitation of basketry (Petrie a: ) and unlike C-ware is not constructed with linear, geometric designs. Some appears to be derived from imitations of stone vessels and perhaps even rope netting (Petrie a: ; Arnold and Bourriau : ). The more figurative decoration is earlier in date than the vessels with reduced decoration in imitaiton of stone or rope. It

commodities exchanged



would appear that it was mass-produced and distributed (Arnold and Bourriau : ) and can be seen as far north as the eastern Delta and Palestine and in A-Group sites to the south. The vessels with boats show large, many oared boats with one or two cabins and they may be intended to show gods or images of gods being transported or that these are religious journeys of some sort (Arnold and Bourriau : ). Wengrow (: –, –) has argued that decorative elements on vessels bring an understood landscape motif “into the intimate spaces of human circulation” (Wengrow : ) and by extension into social memory linking decoration to the human body. The short life span of such decoration can have many explanations. It has been postulated that the late Naqada II saw a shift from settlements in the lower desert closer to the floodplain and that the possible increased importance of boats for both transport and exchange may be reflected in the decoration of these storage vessels (Craig Patch ). The disappearance of such decoration may be tied to the beginnings of tomb decoration for the elite as seen in Hierakonpolis Tomb  although this should be treated with extreme caution as to date it is the only decorated tomb of this period (Finkenstaedt : ), nor does it explain the disappearance of decorated pottery that appears to imitate stone vessels. The decorated ware with figures of boats, humans, flora and fauna, which is seen for a very short time (Naqada IIC–D) and is not common in Egypt, is also rare in A-Group contexts. However, locally made decorated pottery (both painted wares and those decorated with incised or impressed decoration) maintained a long tradition in Nubia. Decorated pottery may have remained a valuable and desirable commodity in Nubia, whereas in Egypt pottery became more purely functional while stone vessels and copper objects became markers for status and prestige (Smith : ; Bourriau ). As pottery manufacturing techniques became more sophisticated, such as the introduction of the wheel, the potter may have become more ‘detached’ from the material, while at the same time production became faster which would also have affected decoration (Bourriau : ). Decorated ware is less widely distributed in Lower Nubia than wavyhandled vessels (see chapter  above, Fig. ). Egyptian D-ware disappears from the Egyptian repertoire earlier than W-ware which may account for this. In addition the possible commodities shipped in D-ware may not have reached sites further south and/or the vessels were retained by groups further to the north. For the Terminal A-Group eggshell ware may have been the preferred decorative ware among the elite. It is possible that



chapter five

the motifs on the decorated vessels were better understood or appreciated by groups in northern Lower Nubia as they had a closer shared cultural tradition. Crossed Line Ware (Class C) Petrie felt that Crossed line ware (C-ware) should also be seen as foreign and suggested a Libyan origin (Petrie a: ). The most common forms of C-ware are bowls but larger vase-like forms also occur. Most comes from graves (Finkenstaedt : ). C-ware is Upper Egyptian and dates to the Naqada I–IIA period (Arnold and Bourriau : ). The three main regions from which this type of pottery comes are the Badari region, the Naqada region and the El-Amrah region (Finkenstaedt : ). C-ware is typically decorated wih linear geometric patterns, often of lines which can also be used to fill in the outlined bodies of animals such as crocodiles and hippopotami (Wengrow and Baines : ). There is some evidence to suggest that the types of figural scenes depicted show regional variations; for instance the hunting or cultic scenes seen on Cware from Abydos are absent from the Naqadan corpus (Finkenstaedt : ). They may have been intended to provide for the deceased in the afterlife by magically duplicating the herds he owned in life or the wild game he caught (Finkenstaedt ; ). Very few forms are found in Lower Nubian contexts and they are all in the northern-most sites. Cemetery L at Qustul. As with other artefacts, cemetery L at Qustul stands out due to the large amount of Egyptian and local pottery and also due to the more unusual shapes and forms. This cemetery is significant not just for the amount of artefacts found, even after heavy plundering, but also the richness of the finds themselves, both locally manufactured and imported. In particular the amount of Egyptian material is unrivalled. The pottery at Qustul also shows that the further south the assemblages are found the more African or Sudanese in character the shapes and decoration become (Williams : –). The majority of Egyptian pottery excavated is of hard pink-orange ware—marls (Williams’ form group X). However, Egyptian pottery is not the only imported pottery found at Qustul. Pottery of Sudanese tradition with incised and impressed decoration (Williams’ form group VII) and pottery of (probably) south-western origin (Williams’ form group VIII) in the form of bowls with deeply incised decoration (Williams : – ) were also excavated. In addition eight or nine jugs of a type originating in Early Bronze Age Canaan were also excavated, five alone coming

commodities exchanged



from tomb L (Williams : –, fig. ). This type of jug has been dated to Late EBI (EBIB), (Gophna and van den Brink : ) which may be equated with Naqada IIIB/Dynasty  based on pottery found with associated objects from Minshat Abu Omar (Gophna and van den Brink : ) and could indicate that the people buried at cemetery L, Qustul, were involved either in direct trade with Canaan or in a long distance network. If, however, Williams is correct in stating that these jugs were Egyptian imitations (Williams pers. communication cited in Gophna and van den Brink : ) then they indicate that they were imported from Egypt by the Nubian elite as prestige objects, possibly in imitation of the Egyptian elite (Gophna and van den Brink : ). This type of jug is not found elsewhere in Nubia. Qustul is somewhat unique in A-Group contexts and shows that Lower Nubia was involved in a long-reaching exchange network but one that possibly only involved the elite. It has been demonstrated in chapter two that the proportion of Egyptian vessels in A-Group contexts decreases from north to south with the notable exception of the cemetery at Qustul. Black-topped ware, wavyhandled ware, decorated ware and late ware are all found in the northern part of Lower Nubia (First Cataract to Mediq) whereas only late ware is found in the southern part between Mediq and Melik en-Nasser (Gatto and Tiraterra : ). Virtually all the early material comes from the northern-most cemeteries. This is also shown in Takamiya’s analysis of the distribution of Egyptian hard orange ware vessels which shows that the northern cemeteries (Aswan to Seyala) contain wavy-handled jars, bowls, medium-sized necked jars and wine jars whereas the southern cemeteries (Abu Simbel to Halfa Degheim) rarely contain wavy-handled jars but have predominantly wine jars and bowls (Takamiya : ). The more southern sites also tend to be younger in date which would also account for the limited number of wavy-handled jars. However the overall distribution of Egyptian hard orange ware increases over time, particularly in the Naqada III period with concentrations of wavy-handled jars in the northern region and wine jars concentrated in the Aswan and Abu Simbel to Halfa Degheim regions (Takamiya : ). Might this also suggest the possibility that different commodities were being exchanged between Egypt and northern Lower Nubia and Egypt and southern Lower Nubia? In conjunction with the distribution of other Egyptian artefacts, the distribution of Egyptian pottery has led Gatto and Tiraterra to suggest that we are looking at A-Groups rather than an A-Group (). It certainly also suggests that the A-Groups closer to



chapter five

the Egyptian sources logically received the largest proportion of imports and that the further away from the original source the fewer the number of imported objects found. It has been suggested that there was a distribution centre somewhere between Hierakonpolis and Aswan, probably at Elephantine (Nordström : ; Takamiya : ). In addition the A-Group cemeteries in the northern-most part of Lower Nubia such as Shellal and Khor Bahan, are virtually indistinguishable from those of Upper Egypt. The higher proportion of Egyptian pottery in this region, therefore, may also be indicative of this First Cataract region being more a part of the Naqadan tradition rather than the Nubian (Gatto ) and therefore, at the end of the intraregional supply chain for such goods. Other exchange places have also been postulated such as the site of Khor Daud, excavated by a Soviet Union mission in – (Piotrovsky ). The site, which was directly opposite the Middle Kingdom fortress of Ikkur, had over  storage pits of which  contained pottery, mostly Egyptian and mostly hard pink or grey ware storage jars (Piotrovsky : –; Nordström : ). The earliest vessels date to Naqada IIA, the majority are of Naqada IIB–IID date and the youngest may be of Naqada IIIA–B date (Nordström : ). As well as the pottery a number of flint tools were found, a fragment of a copper chisel, clay beads, a fragment of an ivory bracelet, a siltstone palette pendant, pieces of ostrich eggshell and a small amount of grain. The site of Khor Daud showed no traces of occupation such as hearths or animal bones among the food remains (Piotrovsky : ) and was probably a place where people met to exchange goods (Nordström : ) A large number of wavy-handled jars were recovered at Khor Bahan and only a few bowls while the neighbouring cemeteries contained very few wavy-handled vessels and more bowls suggesting that if Khor Daud is indeed a bartering place the vessels themselves were not being exchanged (Takamiya : ). Siltstone (‘slate’) Palettes Cosmetic palettes fashioned from various types of stone and in some cases potsherds (Nordström : ) have been found in A-Group contexts, both cemetery and settlement. Cosmetic palettes are also common to Upper Egyptian assemblages although the materials and shapes vary. The majority of palettes in A-Group contexts are made of quartz and are lozenge or rhomboid-shaped. However, in earlier contexts (Early AGroup) palettes made of ‘slate’ (actually siltstone) are also found which

commodities exchanged



would seem to indicate an Egyptian origin. The only known ancient quarry is located in the Wadi Hammamat in the Eastern Desert and was worked from Predynastic times on (Aston, Harrell and Shaw : ). As has been pointed out the Early A-Group assemblages are virtually identical to contemporary (Naqada I–II) Upper Egyptian assemblages (Nordström : –, Smith ; see also chapter  above) but the appearance of siltstone palettes, particularly the animal-shaped varieties would seem to attest to an exchange of materials with the north. In later A-Group contexts as seen at Qustul and in the Scandinavian concession (Williams : –, Pls. –; Nordström : –, Pl. ) palettes appear to be almost exclusively local in origin (due to the materials used and the shapes) although a few made of limestone and siltstone have also been found (Nordström : , Pl. –,). Again the later dating of the more southerly sites may account for this. No decorated or ceremonial palettes have been found in A-Group contexts. While palettes themselves are not exceptional and are fairly widespread (see chapter  above), the siltstone palettes have a distribution limited to the northern half of Lower Nubia (Nordström : ; Gatto and Tiraterra : ; see chapter , fig.  above) and so would appear to be either prestigious substitutes for everyday items particularly valued and understood in the north or objects that simply did not make it far south and thus be a reflection on the types of exchange relationships taking place. This would also fit into the concept of ‘A-Groups’ rather than one A-Group as suggested by Gatto (Gatto and Tiraterra ; Gatto ) and by association also fits into the concept already discussed that the First Cataract, even as far south as Metardul, was indeed a southern variant of the Naqada culture. No siltstone palettes were found in Qustul and only four were identified by Emery and Kirwan. The decorative shapes of the siltstone palettes found in A-Group contexts share the motifs or themes that are found in a range of objects made in stone and ivory and bone such as combs, tags and hairpins (Brovarski : ). They indicate that while the origin for the manufacture of such objects may come from a single centre or a few centres, those who received them shared “a common aesthetic sense and value system that made the designs on these objects both appealing and comprehensible” (Brovarski : ). In addition many of the palettes have been found with remains of green (malachite) or black pigment; again these have been regarded as coming from Egypt (Nordström : ) although Williams lists pigments, including malachite amongst the



chapter five

A-Group objects at Qustul (Williams : ). Malachite was available in both the Eastern Desert and the Sinai in ancient times (Aston, Harrell and Shaw : ) and there is no reason to suppose that the Lower Nubians did not procure this copper ore for themselves unless we view the very use of such pigments as an imported idea. However, the use of pigments for cosmetic and hygienic purposes is so widespread that this seems unlikely. Further the use of cosmetic palettes may have actually been a remnant of the traditions of desert dwellers, one that they brought to the Nile Valley when the deserts began to dry up at the end of the th millennium bc (Riemer and Kindermann : ). They are also found in the Sudanese Neolithic. Thus, while the siltstone palettes can be seen as imports from Egypt the concept of cosmetic palettes was probably a shared tradition. Stone Vessels The production of stone vessels really became very much a product typically associated with Egyptian craftsmen from the Predynastic onwards (Aston, Harrell and Shaw : ). Even the ancient Egyptian word for craftsman, hmwty, is written with a determinative in the shape of a drill, indicating that originally only those craftsmen who drilled stone vessels were identified by the word (Aston, Harrell and Shaw : ). Basalt, limestone and calcite alabaster are the most commonly used materials for stone vessels found in A-Group contexts. Basalt is widespread throughout Egypt including the Abu Simbel region although only one ancient quarry is known from the northern Fayum (Aston, Harrell and Shaw : ). Limestone outcrops are widespread in Egypt from the Mediterranean to Esna and  ancient quarries are known. In most cases limestone was quarried close to where it was to be used as in the case of temples and pyramids (Aston, Harrell and Shaw : ). Smaller objects such as stone vessels could, naturally, travel more widely. Alabaster or Egyptian alabaster is a misnomer and while the terms calcite and calcite alabaster are currently used, the actual geological name is travertine (Aston, Harrell and Shaw : ). It occurs in small deposits in the Eocene limestones of the Nile Valley and adjacent desert plateaux between Esna and Cairo (Aston, Harrell and Shaw : ). Breccia and diorite are other materials identified in stone vessels in Nubia. Breccia or limestone breccia occurs between Esna and Minya in the Nile Valley but only one ancient quarry, east of Akhmim, is known (Aston, Harrell and Shaw : ). Diorite outcrops are common in the

commodities exchanged



Eastern Desert (Aston, Harrell and Shaw : ). While the A-Group may have been capable of exploiting such stone sources themselves it appears that they did not and the very ancientness of Egyptian stone vessel production can only indicate that these were indeed imported products. Stone vessels and cups are not common in the A-Group (see chapter  above, Fig. ), the material used is generally limestone, calcite alabaster and basalt (Nordström : ) and they tend to be found in later contexts (Late Naqada II—st Dynasty). Nor are they always of high quality (see for example the relatively rough calcite alabaster cup from the Scandinavian Joint Expedition cemetery , grave , object , Nordström : , –, pl. /). Poorer quality stone vessels could indicate less wealth or prestige on the part of the owner but in the case of stone vessels in Lower Nubia this need not be the case as they are uncommon in general. The exception to this comes from Cemetery L at Qustul where Williams reports that stone vessels are the second most numerous Egyptian imports after pottery (Williams : ). Most of the stone vessels were fragmentary although a few were complete or could be restored and as in Egyptian contexts are primarily made from calcite alabaster; two are breccia, one is of diorite and some are of siltstone (Williams : ), materials all found in Egypt. Stone vessels were also found in the earlier surveys. Their occurrence is not common and they are predominantly found in the northern-most region of Lower Nubia. Cemetery  at Khor Bahan contained the largest number and these included vessels made of basalt, ‘alabaster’, limestone and breccia. Indeed grave  contained only stone vessels,  in total and as its outline was described as lost and it contained no evidence for a burial it may in fact have been a storage or cache pit. Some of the basalt and breccia vessels were footed vessels with small perforated handles which date to the Naqada I–IIB period (Reisner : Pl. a). In addition mace-heads made of ‘alabaster’, diorite and breccia were also found in this cemetery and can be dated to Naqada I–IIA (Reisner : Pl. c). The Second Archaeological Survey of Nubia did not uncover any stone vessels and the only possible stone imports are described as alabaster palettes (Emery and Kirwan ). Unfortunately there are no photographs or scientific analyses to verify the material and in fact the line drawings indicate that their shape would more closely parallel local Nubian palettes such as found in the Scandinavian Joint Excavation cemeteries. If the material is indeed ‘alabaster’ then it could have been



chapter five

imported from Egypt as either a raw material or as a finished palette which would seem to indicate that they had been made for export. It seems far more likely that these were locally produced palettes from locally available materials and thus are not imports. Copper Objects It has been intimated that copper was in fact the earliest raw material to attract Egypt’s interest in Lower Nubia (Adams : ). While the Egyptian settlement of Buhen in the second cataract region has been postulated as a copper smelting site (Adams : ; Emery : ) this was not established until the th Dynasty and the source for the copper ore has not been determined. Copper tools first appear in Nubia in A-Group contexts dating to the Classic to Terminal A-Group. While not common, various copper objects have been found in A-Group contexts (see chapter  above, Fig. ) and these are generally presumed to have been brought from the north (Trigger : ) and it is only the larger graves of the elite such as at Seyala and Qustul that have yielded more than the occasional copper object (Tadmor : ). Copper objects found include awls, needles, axes, adzes, spearheads, knives, chisels and even rings (Trigger : ; Nordström : –; Williams : ). The copper awls are generally found in context with cosmetic palettes in Naqada IIIA–C cemeteries (Nordström : ). Utility objects such as blades and awls made of copper may be prestige substitutes for day-to-day objects generally made of more readily available materials. Certainly awls are common in A-Group graves (Nordström : ) and probably indicate leather working and leather was widely used in the Predynastic period (Van Driel-Murray : ). The First Archaeological Survey also uncovered copper artefacts and in fact most of the copper objects come from these excavations. The majority of these consist of small objects such as wire bracelets, rings, needles and awls. Several interesting copper objects come from cemetery  at Siali. From grave  a copper harpoon was found; from grave  a copper dog wrapped in fine linen; and from grave  a copper scorpion. The majority of the graves from this cemetery are dated to the late Naqada III period. The largest number of copper objects comes from cemetery  at Koshtamna in the region at the mouth of the Wadi Allaqi. Grave  contained a copper chisel (Firth : –); grave  contained a broken copper chisel and a broken copper adze or axehead (Firth : ) grave  contained copper awl wrapped in linen and a

commodities exchanged



copper adze or chisel (Firth : ); and grave  contained a copper chisel (Firth : ). Three of the graves had intact burials, all adult males. These tools are not commonly found in Nubia and the chisels and adzes parallel examples from the Kfar Monash hoard (Tadmor : ) whereas the axes found do not compare with this hoard (Tadmor : ). They should also be seen as more prestigious objects than more simple copper tools such as awls and needles which do not use as much metal or require elaborate technology to create. Certainly the individual buried in grave  at Koshtamna should be seen as having some status as his tomb equipment contained not only a copper awl and adze but also a ripple flake flint knife which is a prestige object in itself and which would have been brought from Upper Egypt. The Qustul cemetery yielded few metal objects but those found were not common including a triangular spearhead, a small, papyriform finial, an oval object resembling a dish and a shallow dish (Williams : ) which is another indication of the elite nature of Qustul. Metalworking was not known in Upper Nubia at the end of the th millennium bc but occasional finds of copper objects similar to those found in Lower Nubia attest to some contact with that region but not directly with Egypt (Honegger : , pl. ). As noted the copper awls, adzes and chisels found in both Egypt and Nubia have been shown to resemble similar metal tools from the Kfar Monash hoard from Israel and that metal tools found in Egypt and Nubia generally resemble their Canaanite counterparts (Tadmore ). Metallurgy is attested in the southern Levant from some time during the Chalcolithic period and evidence from sites in Lower Egypt such as Buto and Maadi show that metalworkers were receiving ores, ingots and technology from the Levant (Golden ). While there is evidence for metalworking in Upper Egypt at Abydos there is no evidence for smelting and the copper likely arrived in the form of ingots and was intended to be worked into goods for the nearby royal tombs (Golden : ). The most significant finds of metal tools in Egypt come from Buto and Minshat Abu Omar in the Delta. These sites also produced Palestinian pottery pointing to contact between the two regions. The combination of pottery jugs and metal tools resembling Canaanite jugs found at Qustul shows that there was some contact between Canaan and Nubia (Tadmor : –) although it is likely to be indirect and via Egypt.



chapter five

Maceheads Maceheads are also rarely found in A-Group contexts (see chapter  above, Fig. ). The excavations of Reisner and Firth discovered , none were found by Emery and Kirwan, none by the Scandinavian Joint Expedition and only two were found in Qustul. The best known examples came from Cemetery  at Seyala grave , along with gold covered handles. This was a particularly wealthy grave in which at least two adults had been buried along with pottery and copper implements, and it seems safe to assume that they were members of an elite, probably chiefs, although the gender of the individuals was not determined, with close contacts to the north. Two maceheads were found at Cemetery L at Qustul although one from grave  is described as a fragment and only possibly from a macehead (Williams : ). The fragment could also have come from a stone vessel. The graves in which they were found were empty of burials but exceptionally rich in grave goods in spite of being plundered. Maceheads were clearly objects of some status in Nubia, associated with power and authority. This is demonstrated by their scarcity and by their association at Shellal and Khor Bahan with high quality flint knives. They are most common in the northern most sites no doubt due to their proximity to Egypt, but that they were considered prestigious objects is clear from their appearance in Seyala and Qustul, both high status cemeteries. It should be noted that stone maceheads are not exclusive to Egypt and Lower Nubia and are in fact found in sites belonging to the Khartoum Neolithic (Jesse : ). Amulets As mentioned in chapter two (see Fig. ) amulets are not common in Egypt or Nubia in the Predynastic and only a handful have been found in A-Group contexts. It is possible that these have been overlooked as they are extremelty small and most of the sites are heavily disturbed. In addition they may have been plundered in antiquity or modern times. These objects may be imported but they could equally have been locally made. The amulets found include those in the shape of scorpions, frogs, hawks/falcons, a bull’s head, elephant heads, a lion’s head and a fly. The material from which they are made includes various stone, copper, ivory and gold. They are found at Shellal, Siali, Gerf Hussein, Wadi Allaqi, Seyala, Ashkeit and Qustul and they tend to be in wealthier graves. It is possible that they conferred authority on the grave owner although in the case of grave  at cemetery  Gerf Hussein the burial was that of

commodities exchanged



an infant. The decorative and/or protective quality of the amulets may have had given no special status to the owner at all. The gold fly amulet found in Cemetery L at Qustul must certainly be seen as a prestige object. Other amulets may also have implied power such as the lion’s head found in grave  at Seyala . Cylinder Seals Cylinder seals and seal impressions are found in Egypt as early as the Naqada IIC/D period (Kantor : I: ) and are themselves initially imports or copies of seals from Mesopotamia or Iran (Mark : ). They appear in Lower Nubia at about the same time (see chapter  above, Fig. ). There are very few cylinder seals or seal impressions found in A-Group contexts and the seals are made of ivory, pottery, a green glaze material and one of black steatite (Nordström : ). The use of cylinder seals shows that the Egyptians were using them as administrative tools or at least as identification tools. As there is undoubtedly contact between the Upper Egyptians and the A-Group, similar use of these seals may have extended to the south. Seal impressions are extremely fragile, however, the very limited number of seals or their impressions found in Lower Nubia might suggest a localised exchange rather than a complex official trade system. Stone Tools In the First Archaeological Survey of Nubia Reisner excavated A-Group sites dating to both earlier and later phases. Cemetery  at Khor Bahan dates largely to the Naqada IC–IIA phase. Several high quality flint tools were excavated. One grave, , contained two fishtailed knives as well as a calcite macehead, calcite dipper, ivory cup and siltstone palette, copper needles and numerous pottery vessels (Reisner : –, fig. , pl.  b , ). Grave  contained flint knives, several flint flakes as well as two incised tusks, an ox-shaped siltstone palette with inlaid eye, a breccia hammer head, fragments of inlaid ivory, a copper needle and the legs of an animal. (Reisner : –, fig. , pl. ). Grave  similarly has two flint knives, a siltstone palette and a quantity of pottery vessels (Reisner : ) and grave / contained three flint ‘lance-heads’ (rhomboid knives), an ivory bracelet and a stone macehead (Reisner : –). Grave  contained a diorite macehead, a flint projectile point, several flint chips or flakes (Reisner : –). These graves are particularly rich and where the gender was able to be determined the owner of the grave was an adult male (, /). In



chapter five

addition Cemetery  at Koshtamna had a grave () also of an adult male that contained, among other things, a ripple-flaked knife, a copper adze and an awl. A broken bifacial knife was also found in grave  in the same cemetery. Such fishtail knives and bifacials are prestige objects which have been convincingly argued were high status display items linked to the male domain (Hikade ). The Scandinavian Joint Expedition excavated lithic material most of which is locally made (Håland : –). Several ‘exotic’ tools were also found made of flint, probably originating in Egypt but no prestigious lithics such as fishtail or bifacial knives were found. Faience Faience, a non-clay glazed material, was made in the Predynastic Period from the glazing of crushed quartz (Nicholson and Peltenburg : –). Faience objects in A-Group contexts are generally restricted to beads and amulets. The Scandinavian Joint Expedition excavations note that faience beads, particularly ring-shaped ones, occur frequently (Nordström : ). At least one faience pendant was also found (Nordström : ). One complete faience vessel and fragments of two others were found in Cemetery L at Qustul (Williams : , Pls. a–c, a–b). Williams lists the faience vessel under Egyptian objects (Williams : ) but lists faience beads found at Qustul under AGroup objects (Williams : ). Faience found in A-Group contexts is often assumed to be an Egyptian import yet Nubians themselves were also producing glazed quartz (Lacovara : ) and Williams points to the finding of unfinished faience beads from L (Williams : ). Reisner’s publication () also often lists blue- or green-glazed beads amongst the A-Group finds and these may be Egyptian imports of faience although it seems just as likely that they are locally manufactured glazed beads. While faince beads may not have been imported into Nubia from Egypt, it is a possibility that the technology was imported from Egypt. Gold Gold is generally associated as a Nubian export rather than an import. Several gold objects have been found in A-Group contexts, particularly at cemetery L, Qustul and cemetery  at Seyala. While at face value there is no obvious reason to list gold objects as Egyptian in origin some deserve attention. At Qustul simple beads were found with a small gold fly amulet in L (Williams : , pl.  a, b). Williams lists this under A-Group

commodities exchanged



objects. The fly amulet was found in burials as early as the Naqada II period and these earliest examples are made of stone (Andrews : ). The finest examples are of gold and are mostly from the New Kingdom although a few of sheet gold have been found in First Intermediate Period contexts (Andrews : ). In the New Kingdom the fly ornament came to be associated with military honours, possibly for persistantly attacking the enemy (Andrews : ). The significance of the gold fly amulet at this early date is not clear but it is probably amuletic rather than military (Andrews : ). That gold flies are not common until the New Kingdom makes their appearance in an A-Group context at Qustul even more remarkable. Cemetery  at Seyala has also yielded extremely rich material. (Firth : –, Fig. ) Amongst these are two gold mace handles from tomb  and a pink quartz mace-head. These mace handles share the same early iconography of Egyptian kingship that is seen on the Qustul incense burner and point to a gift exchange between rulers rather than commercial trade (Smith : ). Linen/Cloth Linen, made from the flax fibre, is the most common textile in Egypt and while flax is not native to Egypt its use in Egypt goes back to prehistoric times (Vogelsang-Eastwood : ). Other textiles excavated in Egypt were made from sheep’s wool, goat hair and palm fibre (Vogelsang-Eastwood : ). Woven cloth has been found in Badarian sites (Brunton and Caton-Thompson : –); some is described as linen perhaps from a coarse type of flax but the decomposed state of the cloth made identification difficult (Brunton and Caton-Thompson : ). Very little linen or cloth has been found in A-Group contexts and it is assumed to have been an Egyptian import. The First Archaeological Survey of Nubia under Reisner noted only six graves in various cemeteries that contained what was described as linen or cloth and all these are north of Wadi es-Sebua. To the author’s knowledge no other linen has been found further south and leather garments are more common. Linen or cloth is very fragile and so much may simply have perished, been looted as a desirable commodity, or for the same reason not put in grave contexts. Based on the available evidence it seems to have been something that was more desired or at least available in the northern-most area of Lower Nubia. Animal hides and leather were more common in the graves of southern-most Lower Nubia.



chapter five

Ivory Objects Luxury ivory items such as spoons, gaming sticks, rectangular plates and small vessels, boxes and caskets are also attributed to Egyptian imports or at least influence (Nordström : –; Adams : ; Williams : ). The amount is, however, limited in quantity and distribution and like much of the Egyptian material in Lower Nubian contexts, points to limited exchange rather than broad commercial transactions. In addition, the widespread availability of ivory (and bone) in the Lower Nubian region cannot be ignored and while objects such as ivory spoons appear to be similar to those found in Egypt this does not necessarily point to direct imports. Bone and ivory were materials available to both Upper Egyptians and Lower Nubians and may have been put to similar uses. Ivory, as noted earlier in this chapter, has traditionally been seen as a commodity sought by the Egyptians rather than the other way around although importing raw materials and subsequently exporting the material as a finished manufactured product is not a modern economic invention. What the Egyptians Wanted The Nubian A-Groups and Egypt clearly seem to have had contact with one another; the exchange of materials and ideas can be seen in the artefacts themselves. The nature and extent of this exchange has been much discussed. We have written evidence from later periods in Egypt that tell us the types of goods that were exchanged between Egypt and Nubia but for the Predynastic and Early Dynastic periods no such written evidence is available. While Egyptian pottery has been found in large numbers in Lower Nubia, the same cannot be said for A-Group pottery in Egyptian contexts. It is assumed that, as in later periods, the Egyptians were seeking raw materials from the south such as ivory, ebony and gold. The vast majority of Egyptian goods found in A-Group contexts are pottery vessels which may have been valued for their own sake or came to Lower Nubia containing desired products. If the latter is the case it is interesting that Nubian vessels are not found in any quantity in Egypt which may have been presumed to have contained products desired from Nubia. This may also give an indication of the types of goods being transported which seems unlikely to be day-to-day food products. In later periods oil is listed as an import and it may have been sent to Egypt in the th millennium as well, possibly in Egyptian vessels.

commodities exchanged



Products such as elephant tusks, ostrich feathers or incense could be carried in baskets or loaded onto donkeys or stacked in boats. Other artefacts in A-Group contexts presumed to come from or via Egypt such as worked ivory, cylinder seals, copper tools and linen are extremely limited in number and distribution even when plundering is taken into consideration and should probably be seen as prestige objects exchanged between elites. Objects such as the Qustul incense burner are problematic because while the object itself may be Nubian in function the decoration follows Egyptian iconography but it is probable that the iconography was part of a shared cultural tradition at least amongst the elite.

chapter six THE NATURE OF THE BEAST

Introduction In his introduction to Nubia Egypt’s Rival in Africa David O’Connor wrote that Nubia and Egypt “shared the same river, the Nile, and a common frontier over which contact and interaction ebbed and flowed for thousands of years” (O’Connor : xi). Most people are familiar with Egypt and her boundaries: the Mediterranean Sea to the north, the First Cataract at Aswan in the south, the deserts to the east and west. Yet what of Nubia? When ethnologists today talk about Nubia, they are referring to the geographical area occupied by tribes which speak the Nubian languages. This region today stretches from Kom Ombo in the north to Debba between the Third and Fourth cataracts (Shinnie : ). Modern Nubian peoples tend to refer to themselves by the dialect they speak (Shinnie : ). The meaning and origin of the word Nubia remain uncertain; it did not even appear until the third century bc (O’Connor : ; Bianchi : ). It has been suggested that the term comes from the ancient Egyptian word for gold, nbw, particularly as Nubia is generally associated with gold exploitation; yet the ancient Egyptians themselves never used this term to refer to Nubia. Another possibility is that it is derived from the Nuba or Noba tribe. The earliest ancient Egyptian name for their southern neighbours was Ta-Seti meaning ‘Land of the Bow’. This is also the name for the first nome of Upper Egypt which certainly suggests a more fluid boundary than has sometimes been proposed. This term dates from at least the st Dynasty (Wenig : ) and could indicate that until the establishment of the fortress at Elephantine, the southern-most nome in Egypt was considered peripheral to the rest of the country. Later, during the Old Kingdom, names designating more specific regions within Nubia came into use. From north to south these include Wawat, Irtjet, Setju and Yam; and to the east, Medja (Wenig : ). With



chapter six

the possible exception of Yam, all these areas probably fell into northern or Lower Nubia. Bronze Age Egyptians used the term Nehasyu for Nubians and this seems to include Nubians along the floodplain, nomads in the desert and even people from Punt (O’Connor : ). The term Ta-Nehasyu simply meant ‘Land of the Nubians’ (O’Connor : ). In his autobiography, the official Weni describes putting together an army composed of, amongst others, men from Wawat, Irtjet, Yam, Medja and Kaau in which he uses the term Nehasyu when naming each group. After  bc the word Kush also came into use and seems to have originally been used to describe all or part of southern or Upper Nubia. While historians and archaeologists sometimes talk about Nubia and Egypt somewhat arbitrarily, it is important to note that in the th millennium bc these place names simply, so far as we know, did not exist. How the various groups of people of the Nile Valley referred to themselves at the time remains a mystery. How people refer to themselves and define themselves naturally leads to the concept of ethnicity and how one can identify it in the archaeological record. As mentioned in the opening chapter, the concept of ethnicity is based on commonalities such as ancestry, language, cultural practices and beliefs and sometimes territory, and that these are most clearly identified in differences between two or more groups. This can perhaps be best illustrated in examples of foreigners living in societies away from their homeland. Such evidence as distinct architecture, food preferences, material culture, burial practices and administrative technology may point to a different ethnic group living in a settlement perhaps in trade colonies or trade diasporas (Stein : ). It can also be seen in group or cultural encounters where traded items highlight difference and define groups or help them to define themselves. Ethnicity can be difficult to detect and assess. Racial and cultural bias can also cloud the issue of ethnicity. For instance how the ancient Egyptians perceived foreigners such as Libyans, Asiatics and Nubians may not have been how these peoples perceived themselves. The ancient Egyptians had a very rigid ideological system of dividing Egypt from the outside world; Egypt was the ideal whereas the outside world was chaotic (topos) yet there are sources in which the outside world is not shown as inherently bad (mimesis) (Loprieno ; Smith ). The definition of non-Egyptians, specifically enemies of Egypt, recurs again and again in Dynastic Egypt, in the use of the term the Nine Bows. Typically such enemies include Asiatics, Libyans and Nubians. Depictions of the people

the nature of the beast



referred to can be quite detailed showing dress, hairstyles and skin colour, all standardised to be instantly recognisable. In other cases, such as on footstools, the enemy status of foreigners can be reduced to the simple depiction of bows. Well known examples expressing the Egyptian world view of subduing foreingers are a pair of sandals, a footstool and the ‘Painted Box’ all from the tomb of Tutankamun (Reeves : , , ). Egyptology itself has also been affected by biased and racist beliefs (Trigger : ) with such arguments that the ancient Egyptian civilisation was the result of a Dynastic Race of conquerers from the Near East (Emery ) or that the cultures south of Egypt were inherently inferior because of the presence of negroid blood which accounts for a supposed degredation of the material remains (Reisner  vol. I: ). Archaeological context is, of course, important when searching for ethnicity. A Lower Palaeolithic hand axe from Britain and one from Africa look much the same yet most likely noone would question that they are made by two very different sets of people, even different ethnic groups; nevertheless a fuller material context would clarify this. As an example several studies around the world have shown that different ethnic groups can been distinguished from others through their burial practices (Cooper : ). One case comes from Mesoamerica at the site of Matapacan dating to ad –. This site seems to indicate enclaves of people from Teotihuacan evident in their distinct custom of flexed burials beneath floors and infant jar burials along with other Teotihuacan artefacts (Santley et. al. ). Such enclaves, perhaps trading colonies, may also be detected in more domestic contexts. If we move to the ancient Near East, the Uruk expansion (ca. – bc) can be taken as a good example of visible ethnic groups in foreign regions. In the mid-fourth millennium bc urban based state societies developed in southern Mesopotamia resulting in an extensive trade and contact network that reached as far as northern Syria, the Zagros Mountains and southern Anatolia (Algaze ). This expansion peaked in the Late Uruk Period before ending fairly suddenly ca.  bc. The site of Hacinebi, for instance, in southeast Turkey shows evidence for a Mesopotamian trading enclave in one area of an indigenous settlement (Stein et. al. , : ). The Uruk material at Hacinebi appears alongside the local Anatolian material and can be identified through ceramic forms, ceramic wall cones unique to Mesopotamian architectural decoration, the presence of bitumen which was common to southern Mesopotamia and administrative systems (cylinder seal impressions, tokens, bullae),



chapter six

and even in the faunal remains which shows the Mesopotamian preference for sheep/goat. That there is no clear evidence for fortifications or destruction layers shows that these two independent communities lived side by side peacefully and that these Mesopotamian colonies were not politically dominating but rather what Stein calls “an autonomous diaspora community” (Stein : ). Turning to Egypt and Nubia we have several examples that confirm the view that burial contexts can reveal foreign ethnicity. Yet even in these instances the material can be ambivilant. In the case of the tomb of Rekhmire from the New Kingdom (th Dynasty) we have several wall paintings showing Egyptians but also people from the Aegean, the Near East and Nubia (de Garies Davies : pls. XXI–XXIII). Here foreigners are clearly distinguished by their style of dress and hair, their skin colour and the gifts they present. There is no doubt as to their origins and ethnicity. However, in the case of a vizier of the later th Dynasty, evidence from his tomb indicates that he followed Egyptain religious beliefs, given the design of the tomb, its decoration and contents, but his name, Aper-al, makes it clear that he was of foreign (Asiatic) origin (Zivie ). When turning to Nubia we have the case of a man called Heka-nefer who lived slightly later than Aper-al. Heka-nefer’s tomb at Toshka in Lower Nubia, follows Egyptian tomb layouts, the grave offerings are Egyptian, there are hieroglyphic texts on the walls and his name is Egyptian meaning ‘the good ruler’ (Simpson , Trigger ). Everything from the tomb points to an Egyptian being the tomb owner. However, as the excavator (Simpson ) convincingly argued, this was the same Heka-nefer whom we know from a depiction in the tomb of the Viceroy of Nubia, Amenhotep also called Huy, at Thebes in Upper Egypt (Davies and Gardiner , pl. XXVII). In this tomb he is clearly shown as Nubian. The archaeological record from the tombs of Aper-al and Heka-nefer seem to tell one story while the name of Aper-al and the depiction of Hekanefer in Egypt tell another. This highlights the difficulty of identifying ethnicity in funerary contexts. It also opens up another problem; how we see ourselves and are seen. Aper-al and Heka-nefer had successful Egyptian careers, were buried according to Egyptian customs, depicted themselves as Egyptian and in the case of Heka-nefer even took on an Egyptian name. They were entirely Egyptianised; did they then see themselves as Egyptian in spite of their biological origins? While these two cases highlight individuals, in the case of Tombos and comparable sites in Nubia, analysis of cranial measurements along with other archaeological material shows that the region was biologically and ethnically mixed but with

the nature of the beast



no clear indication of ethnic boundaries (Buzon ). The case of Aperal also shows that textal evidence can often be the easiest indicator of ethinicity; in this instance his name points to his ethnic origins. Going back in time to the Second Intermediate Period we have the so called Hyksos, derived from the Egyptian heqa-khasut essentially meaining ‘foreign ruler’. Their capital, Avaris (Tell el Dab"a), was located in the eastern Nile Delta. Originally the site was founded by the Egyptians in the th Dynasty but was later resettled by Asiatics. A large palace, inhabited by Asiatic governors working for the Egyptian crown, had been built at the beginning of the th Dynasty (Bietak : –, figs. –). These governors built their tombs using Egyptian mudbrick technique but placed them in a small cemetery next to the palace which is very unlike Egyptian practices. In addition they followed the clearly Asiatic burial custom of the interment of a pair donkeys and sheep/goat in an adjacent burial pit (Bietak : figs. –, pls. –). Also the weapons in many of the male burials at Avaris were of Syro-Palestinian origin such as duck-bill axes. The Hyksos ruled the th Dynasty from Avaris, following the collapse of the central authority of the th Dynasty at Memphis. The Hyksos were not invaders but had risen to power from the Asiatic elite and warriors who had probably lived at Avaris for several generations. The Hyksos maintained the Egyptian traditions of kingship taking on royal titulary while including the title heqa-khasut alongside it (Bietak : fig. ). From this we might also assume that they adopted the royal regalia of an Egyptian king. The Hyksos did not rule over the whole of Egypt but seem to have clearly followed Egyptian traditions although later sources would condemn them as babarian invaders (see Schneider  for references). That larger groups of Asiatics also lived within other parts of Egypt is attested by long lists of the names of Asiatics working in Egyptian households (Schneider ). That the Egyptians were in fact already familiar with the title heqa-khasut can be seen in a depiction that comes from the th Dynasty (Newberry ). Wall paintings and textual sources are often more clear cut indicators for ethnicity as they illustrate and describe differences between peoples. A similar case to the depictions in the tomb of Rekhmire comes from the tomb of Khnumhotep at Beni Hasan in Middle Egypt, dating to the early th Dynasty. One painting shows a small caravan group made up of eight men, four women and three children who approach the tomb owner offering galena (Newberry : pl. ). The men are depicted with knee length kilts, some with long overcoats and with distinctive



chapter six

‘mushroom cap’ hairdos and beards while the women have long hair with hairbands and wear long woollen dresses with one shoulder exposed. The way the group is represented shows that they are not Egyptians and the accompanying text, referring to  aamu (Asiatics) confirms this. The pictorial and textual evidence for ethnic differences is clear where the archaeological record alone may not be. While the cases from the New Kingdom show a clear acculturation amongst the elite, the examples from the Middle Kingdom do not show such a clear picture. Nevertheless the acculturation of Nubians in the Egyptian elite goes far back to at least the early part of the third millenium bc. Moving closer in space and time to the period under investigation, two cases can be considered of Nubians in Egypt in the first half of the third millennium bc. One example, the stele of Sisi from Helwan, has already been discussed in chapter four. A further example, dated from the rd Dynasty, is the depiction of a woman called Hathor-nefer-hotep (CG : Allen et. al. , fig. ). She was married to the overseer of workers in the necropolis, Kha-bau-sokar. Based on her name and that of her husband Hathornefer-hotep would appear to be an Egyptian but her face is clearly that of a Nubian. In both cases people of non-Egyptian origin have adopted Egyptian practices and beliefs but are comfortable and secure enough to also show some differences. These would appear to be very early cases of acculturation as seen with Heka-nefer in the New Kingdom. An earlier fragment of a stela from the time of Khasekhemwy of the nd Dynasty also shows how the Egyptians defined different ethnicities and used standardised pictorial indicators. In this stela the southern lands are clearly defined by the bow (Ta-Seti) and in this instance are shown in submission. This use of the bow to define Nubia is used in other instances possibly even on the Gebel Sheikh Suleiman monument. In the case of Maadi, a site of the th millennuim bc near modern day Cairo, architecture can be seen as a marker of ethnicity. Maadi gives a clear picture of Egypt’s place in a wider trading network and exchange system. Commodities such as cedar wood, asphalt, resin, tabular flint scrapers and large ‘Canaanean blades’, all suggest contact and trade with the Levant (Rizkana and Seeher , , , ). Moreover, subterranean dwellings at the site have been linked to temporary or even long term occupation by people of Levantine origin (Hartung ). Finally returning to the region under consideration, the island of Elephantine next to the modern city of Aswan offers a view of different ethnic groups living side by side in a small settlement during the latter

the nature of the beast



part of the th millennium bc based on the ceramic assemblages (Kopp ). These examples, and they are by no means exhaustive, reiterate that in a sophisticated and literate society, the definitions of self and others, of ethnicity, can be most easily detected from textual and pictorial sources. Yet caution should be taken as those being described or depicted may not necessarily agree with the picture painted. For the A-Group in Lower Nubia the picture of ethnicity is based on often highly disturbed archaeological material, coming predominantly from cemeteries. For this time there is no textual and limited pictorial and glyptic evidence. Archaeological remains, including architectural features are our only guides. There are clear similarities between the AGroup and Naqada cultures particularly in their early phases and particularly in the Aswan region. Burial practices, for instance, are similar but not the same. The A-Group superstructures where visible or recoverable are distinct from those of Egypt and the sometime appearance of a lateral niche also appears to be exclusively Nubian although a similar style of grave is found at locality  at Hierakonpolis (Adams ; Friedman ) and near the so-called Fort at the same site (Needler : –). What then in the archaeological record in Nubia might be seen as markers of different ethnic groups? Both Nubians and Egyptians used cosmetic palettes, no doubt for the same reasons, but the material used and shapes of the palettes are different. The difference in material used can be explained by access to raw material; Egyptians using predominantly siltstone and the A-Group Nubians using mainly quartz. The clear distinction in shapes, however, can be seen as a cultural difference. The appearance of incense burners is another possible indicator of ethnicity. The burning of incense was not unique to Nubia but the forms of the incense burners are of a distinctive shape and material which points to them being of local manufacture rather than Egyptian imports. One clear and striking marker in the material make-up of the A-Group is the appearance of eggshell ware. This attractive pottery type is hand-made and of local, Nubian, fabric. It is rarely found in Egypt. These examples seem to be clear indicators of a Lower Nubian ethnic group albeit one that shared cultural traditions with southern Egypt. Unfortunately other ethnic indicators such as language are missing from the record in Nubia from this time. In attempting to understand the nature of contact and exchange between Egypt and the A-Group in the Nile Valley can strict cultural borders in fact be demonstrated? Do quantities of Egyptian goods lessen



chapter six

the further south one travels or is the picture a little more complex? Who was receiving these Egyptian products and what does this tell us about the nature of contact and exchange between the various regions in the Nile Valley? Certain artefacts in A-Group assemblages, such as hard pink-orange wares (e.g. wavy-handled ware) clearly originate north of the First Cataract region. What the A-Group exchanged in return is far less discernible as A-Group manufactured goods barely feature, if at all, in the Egyptian assemblages. In looking at where Nubian artefacts such as pottery have been found in Egypt it may be possible to suggest that the relationship between the A-Group, in particular the northern-most A-Group, and Naqadan Egypt was far closer than previously realised. Where in fact does the Naqada culture end and the A-Group begin? And what implications does this have for the nature of exchange between the two? There are certainly grey areas particularly in the First Cataract region but differences are detectable such as grave types, cosmetic palettes and pottery. If the Egyptians were not interested in Nubian pottery, what did they want? Traditionally scholars have relied on later texts from the historical periods to draw conclusions on the sort of goods that the Egyptians may have sought and acquired from or via their southern neighbours; and these conclusions are that the south was a source of raw materials such as gold, ivory and ebony, or at least the means to access such raw materials. Did the Egyptians in fact need to venture south for such raw materials as ivory and gold or were they able to obtain such goods closer to home? In other words just how important was Nubia to the emerging Egyptian state? In looking at commodities and ideas exchanged and shared, and attempting to better understand how this exchange took place, we need to start with the people themselves. How, in fact did they view themselves and others? The Naqada Culture and the A-Group When Reisner first began working in Lower Nubia, in Egypt’s southern reaches, he recognised that the cultural make-up of the region, while similar to that of contemporary Egypt, also displayed differences. As an easy means of identifying what he saw as cultural groups, he simply used the alphabet to distinguish the different chronological groups: A-Group for the earliest, then B-Group, C-Group and finally X-Group.

the nature of the beast



In a similar way, the culture of th millennium bc Egypt, in particular Upper Egypt, initially divided chronologically into Amratian and Gerzean is now identified by the term Naqada culture with three phases containing further subdivisions to emphasise the cultural continuity. The First Cataract along the Nile makes a convenient dividing line when referring to the cultures of Egypt and Nubia. Certainly by the late st Dynasty the island of Elephantine had been firmly established by the new Egyptian state as its southern border (Seidlmayer ). However, before this was established the border between Upper Egypt and Lower Nubia seems to have been far more fluid, as has been shown, and, as has been pointed out, there is certainly significance in the fact that the first nome of Upper Egypt shared its name with that which would become associated with Nubia, Ta-Seti. Broadly speaking the A-Group settled in Lower Nubia, the land between the First and Second Cataracts and into the region of the Batn el-Haga, while the Naqada ‘people’ or ‘culture’ inhabited Upper Egypt. The Early A-Group is roughly contemporary with Naqada IC/IIA– D and indeed in this earliest phase is culturally almost indistinguishable from the latter. Sites from this phase stretch from Kubbaniya in the north to Dakka-Seyala in the south (Midant-Reynes : ) with the majority in the northern part of Lower Nubia at sites like Khor Bahan just to the south of Aswan (Nordström : ; Midant-Reynes : ). The pattern of burial practices is similar but there are differences in pottery assemblages which indicate that they are not identical. The A-Group was also partly contemporaneous with the Abkan culture of the Second Cataract region and the similarities it shares with that culture can be seen in its pottery and lithic assemblage, indicating that the A-Group, while sharing many of the Naqada culture characteristics, was indigenous to Lower Nubia (Midant-Reynes : ; Nordström ). The influence of the Naqada I/II culture can be seen in the appearance of black-topped pottery, bifacial and fishtail flint knives, occasional stone vessels, stone maceheads and siltstone palettes (Nordström : ; Midant-Reynes : ). However, ongoing work suggests that the impetus for such pottery and lithics may in fact have entered the Nile Valley from the Western Desert regions at the end of the Holocene wet phase (Kuper ; Riemer ; ; Riemer and Kindermann ). Nonetheless, it seems clear that the th millennium material, in particular the bifacial flints, were entering Lower Nubia from Naqadan Egypt. The presence of A-Group material and pastoralists away from the Nile could surely point to desert influences on the Nile Valley A-Group that



chapter six

had little to do with the Naqada culture (Lange ). Black or brownish ware that is decorated with white-filled incised lines (Petrie’s N-ware) and which is not common to Upper Egyptian sites is more common at Khor Bahan and is comparable to Terminal Abkan pottery sherds (Nordström : ). In addition the black-topped pottery with rippled surfaces found in A-Group contexts could have been influenced by either northern (Naqadan) or southern (Abkan) traditions (Midant-Reynes : ) and it may be better to see this type of pottery as belonging to a broad Nile Valley tradition. In the later phases of the A-Group (Classic or Middle A-Group and Terminal or Late A-Group) cemeteries indicate a growing social hierarchy as demonstrated by the large and well equipped tombs at Seyala (cemetery ) and Qustul (cemetery L). Later A-Group graves also import marl wares from Egypt, particularly decorated and wavy-handled wares. The occurrence of copper increases as does that of stone vessels although neither is common. Local pottery, including blackmouthed wares, continue to appear and by the final phase of the A-Group the particularly fine decorated eggshell ware is found. The clear similarities between A-Group and Naqada sites could lead to the conclusion that the A-Group was merely a byproduct f the Naqada cultural expansion (Midant-Reynes : ; also Nordström : ) or that these were cultural groups born of the same tradition but which nevertheless displayed their own variations on the original theme. It may well be that the A-Group of northern Lower Nubia was part of the same Naqadan make up, while those further south in the Second Cataract region, were not as close culturally as well as geographically. Further, it is possible to see the disappearance of the A-Group (and it came to an end much more suddenly than in comparison to the C-Group or Kerma periods) in a similar light to the decline of centres such as Naqada and Hierakonpolis. In the Second Cataract region between approximately  and  bc, new complexes were emerging indicated by changes in the lithic assemblages and the appearance of pottery (Midant-Reynes : ). The Abkan cultural complex, named after the area of Abka where Mesolithic-type material was found by Oliver Myers in the late s (Myers ; ), spreads along the Nile riverbanks in the Wadi Halfa region and was at least partly contemporary with the A-Group and even the Badarian. In the ‘developed’ phase of the Abkan potsherds begin to appear and in the final Terminal phase of the Abkan this pottery becomes increasingly complex (Midant-Reynes : ) with polished and rippled wares

the nature of the beast



that may have been adopted from the A-Group or alternatively, introduced to the A-Group (Midant-Reynes : ). In addition decoration occasionally appears on potsherds from Abkan sites made up of simple impressed and incised designs (Midant-Reynes : ) which may have influenced A-Group decorated pottery and possibly even Petrie’s N-ware. That similar pottery appears in the Badarian complex, and to a lesser extent in the Naqada one may speak for either a southern or northern origin (although a southern origin is more plausible) but it may also be that exchange and contact was fairly fluid at this time and that we are looking at cultural complexes with shared traditions. As demonstrated by the work of R. Friedman () and D. Holmes () the Naqada culture was less homogenous than previously thought and was marked by regional variations; perhaps then, the A-Group should be seen as part of this regional variation, at least for the northern A-Group and particularly in the early periods. The A-Group shared cultural traditions with other groups in the Nile Valley, with the northern A-Group interacting with and being strongly influenced by Upper Egypt and the southern A-Group interacting with and being more influenced by groups to the south. The Imports Egyptian Goods in Nubia The northern part of Lower Nubia was examined by Reisner and Firth in the First Archaeological Survey of Nubia. With the exception of stone vessels and cylinder seals these sites yielded the highest number of Egyptian manufactured material including pottery vessels, maceheads, siltstone palettes and copper implements. It was also in these northern sites that high quality flint tools in the form of rhomboid and fishtail knives were found. As these sites are closest in proximity to Upper Egypt it is perhaps no surprise that they displayed the most similiarities with their northern neighbours. The Early A-Group, in particular, is predominantly in the northern-most part of Lower Nubia and can be seen as closely associated with its Upper Egyptian counterpart and has even been described as Naqadan in nature (Gatto : ). Subsequent salvage campaigns, precipitated by the raising of the Aswan Dam and the eventual building of the High Dam, were conducted further to the south. The cemeteries generally all date to mid-Naqada II onwards. In these more southern sites the amount of Egyptian material drops off. With the exception of some elite cemeteries, stone vessels,



chapter six

siltstone palettes and copper implements become scarce. Alabaster palettes, described in the Second Archaeological Survey, may be incorrectly identifified or may have been fashioned locally from imported raw material, perhaps even recycled broken stone vessels. Only Egyptian pottery vessels continue to be found throughout the region albeit in smaller numbers. Luxury or prestige items such as stone vessels and copper implements, it seems, were less accessible than previously. Cemeteries such as cemetery L at Qustul and cemetery  at Seyala highlight this limited access. Qustul in particular, with hundreds of Egyptian pottery and stone vessels shows the emergence of an elite which could acquire such luxury items and control access to them. The possibility that there was competition between the rulers buried at Seyala and those buried at Qustul, for access to resources and imported commodites and ultimately control over the better part of Lower Nubia (Jiménez-Serrano ) is intriguring but should be treated with caution. Nonetheless, Qustul appears to be the dominant group in Lower Nubia by the time of the Classic to Terminal A-Group. How an object came to be in a grave may have nothing to do with how it entered a community. An Egyptian bearing gifts/goods did not provide pottery vessels or copper implements to the A-Group for the sole purpose of equipping individual tombs. He was participating in a social system that was beneficial to himself and by association, his community, as well as to the A-Group community. If he dealt with a headman or chief who received certain goods, the whole community may gain, either through the chief ’s redistribution of goods or through their connection to a man of status with outside contacts. This ability to redistribute items that are effectively surplus, also places the recipients under an obligation—they become his debtors and subsequently may become his retainers (Polanyi  []: )—and it allows for the development of specialised craftsmen who are compensated by and responsible to him exclusively, thereby continuing to enhance his status. Pottery is by far the largest Egyptian manufactured object found in AGroup contexts with large quantities in the north, far less in middle section of Lower Nubia and a large amount at cemetery L Qustul. Nor can the pottery be described as luxury items. They are, by and large, mass produced storage and transportation vessels. Only the Syro-Palestinian pottery vessels found at Qustul could really be seen as prestigious or in some way exotic ceramic imports. Other imported goods in A-Group contexts are substantially fewer even when taking plundering into account. Unlike at Maadi, where unusual subterranean structures have been found

the nature of the beast



(Hartung et. al. ; Hartung ) indicating a foreign presence, there is no indication for a prolonged Egyptian presence in the form of a settlement, in Lower Nubia. As subsequent Egyptian texts would indicate, a long-term occupation does not seem to have been the objective until much later. Nubian Goods in Egypt The evidence for Nubian goods in Egypt is scarce. Remains of A-Group pottery are found in Egypt proper but not in any large quantities and always in the south. There is evidence for Nubians and Egyptians living side-by-side from the earliest time of settlement at Elephantine as well as scattered pottery remains at Hierakonpolis and the Aswan-Kom Ombo region in general and perhaps even as far north as Minshat Abu Omar although the latter is unlikely. However, none of these appear to be in Egyptian contexts. The grave uncovered by de Morgan at Hierakonpolis may have been of a Nubian although the overlaps seen in this grave and grave types at Hierakonpolis cemetery  and Qustul cemetery L may also indicate a closely shared cultural and social tradition. In the Aswan to Kom Ombo region the concept of Nubian versus Egyptian may not have applied as strongly as it would later in historical times. Even the fine eggshell ware seems not to have interested the Egyptians; it may have been the case that it was not even offered to them or that local Nubian ceramics did not cater to long-distance trade. Indeed, the distribution of this type of pottery is extremely limited and rarely occurs north of Gerf Hussein. The imbalance of Nubian pottery in Egypt as opposed to Egyptian pottery in Nubia also adds credence to the argument that the contents of the Egyptian pottery were most important, possibly beer, oil, cheese or even surplus grain. The relative lack of Nubian manufactured goods, as well as later written evidence, has led to the conclusion that the Egyptians were interested in obtaining raw materials. However, as has been shown in chapter five, many of these materials were still available in Egypt itself or from other sources to the north and northeast although their availability was probably higher in the south and this availability certainly seems to have been important. Unfortunately, apart from gold, these very materials are also more perishable than pottery or stone implements and thus more easily lost from the archaeological record. There is certainly evidence of gift-giving between the rulers of Egypt and Western Asia (Morkot : ) and there may well have been a similar practice between Egypt and Lower Nubia. Goods such as animal skins and



chapter six

elephant ivory were not readily available in Egypt in the Predynastic period, and ebony not at all; yet there is no evidence to suggest that vast quantities were arriving from the south and in the case of ivory, many objects found in Egyptian (and Nubian) contexts have not been scientifically analysed and may have been made from hippopotomus teeth. The burial of exotic animals in Egyptian elite or royal cemeteries may point to a gift exchange between elites or they may have been acquired by the Egyptians themselves. Lions were found buried in Abydos as well as baboons, cattle and geese, while at the elite cemetery  at Hierakonpolis, the burial of African elephants, cattle, gazelle, baboons and dogs and possibly crocodile and hippopotamus have been attested. For the latter site, it is worth noting again, its proximity to Lower Nubia and the presence of Nubian pottery found at Hierakonpolis. Animal burials at the elite cemeteries in Lower Nubia do not include such ‘exotic’ animals as lions and baboons. Instead they include cattle, sheep, goat and dogs. This probably points to the more pastoral aspect of the Nubian economy; that it is highlighted in the burials may be seen as a marker of cultural differences, particularly the further south one travels. The lack of Nubian manufactured goods may make it appear that Egyptians went south in search of commodities, but the Nubians did not journey northwards in any large numbers and if they did they must not have stayed very long or they must have been largely assimilated into the northern groups which would account for their apparent invisibility. But were they invisible? Until the latter part of the st Dynasty, there was no real political border between Egypt and Nubia. The cultural and ethnic border may also have been less tangible than in later times. The A-Group living in the Aswan area should perhaps best be seen as an extension of the various regionalities in Upper Egypt with relatively free movement of people, ideas and goods. Indeed we may see the Kom Ombo-Aswan region as a bridge between Egypt proper and the A-Group proper. This would also account for the large amount of Egyptian material in the very northern A-Group sites, particularly in the earlier graves, as well as the ‘drop off ’ further south. Where Are the A-Groups? In discussing Egypt and Nubia we are not referring to nations in the modern sense of the word. Terms such as nationalism and ethnicity are relatively modern ones (Booth : ). The word nation refers to

the nature of the beast



the common descent of a group of people (Ostergard : –) and is very much tied to geographical and territorial boundaries. Ethnicity on the other hand generally refers to the culture of a group of people or an individual and is not necessarily defined by country of origin (Booth : ). Material culture is one means, then, of identifying different ethnic groups. Individuals and groups living in close proximity to one another are more likely to think and behave in a similar way than are those who live at greater distances from one another (Jones : ). It has been demonstrated that there are many similarities between the Egyptian Naqada culture and that of the Lower Nubian A-Group, particularly the A-Group in the First Cataract region. There are also clear differences. The inscriptional evidence discussed in chapter four, particularly the Gebel Sheikh Suleiman and Hill B inscriptions are significant in that they highlight, not necessarily an actual event, but the growing definitions of self that help to differentiate groups. Later written evidence such as the stela of Khasekhemwy and Snofru’s references to Nubia in the Palermo Stone indicate that at some point the Egyptians clearly defined themselves and others, including the Nubians, even subdividing them into groups such as Wawat, Irtjet and Setju. As the Egyptian state emerged this became increasingly important to the ruling elite. Perhaps then, the A-Group did not disappear but, during the Early Dynastic Period, was overlooked by the Egyptian state as its focus shifted northward. Access to Egyptian manufactured goods dried up and Lower Nubia, particularly the southern-most regions, became increasingly peripheral to Egypt. That the Gebel Sheikh Suleiman inscription is found in the Second Cataract region may indeed show that the Egyptians considered the people of this part of the Nile Valley as different and non-Egyptian, in comparison to those living further north, although recent rediscoveries of rock inscriptions in the First Cataract region (Gatto et al. ) may bring this into question. Alternatively it could be that the inscription was an expression of power and protection in a remote and foreign climate. The ‘real’ A-Group might then be defined as those dating to the Middle and Terminal phases and found in the Second Cataract region (Gatto ; Nordström ). What does this mean for the concept of contact and exchange?



chapter six Types of Exchange

Trade and exchange are often used synonymously and both have entered the English vernacular in a variety of expressions. For instance, we can ‘trade insults’ or ‘exchange ideas’. Generally however, the term trade has a commercial implication and in archaeology is often used to refer to external transactions. Exchange can refer to the exchange of ideas, information and technologies as well as manufactured goods and raw materials. In addition, the exchange of goods can be a commercial transaction or a reciprocal or non-reciprocal gift exchange. With contact comes all sorts of exchange. If pottery vessels of Egyptian manufacture such as decorated and wavy-handled ware are found in non-Egyptian contexts it could mean either that Egyptians moved to a different region, taking their pottery types with them; or the pottery vessels (and their contents) were gifts or exchange goods between the two regions. If Egyptians moved permanently to southern regions and took their pottery types with them, this would account for styles but not fabric in the case of hard (marl) wares, as the clay was not readily available to Nubia. In the case of the A-Group, Egyptian pottery in particular, and other goods of Egyptian manufacture are found in A-Group cemeteries and settlement areas. There may also be a general flow of information and innovations. For instance, the burial practices of the A-Group and the Naqada culture were broadly similar but displayed some regional differences indicating shared cultural traditions and/or imitated modes. More particular similarities can perhaps be seen with the elite cemetery at locality  in Hierakonpolis and the elite cemeteries of Seyala and Qustul such as very large burial pits, the inclusion of animal ‘sacrifice’ burials within the cemetery and similar architectural features in the form of a lateral niche in at least two burials at Hierakonpolis. The elites of the Naqada III period at least, seem to have been exchanging ideas, beliefs and modes of display. The work of Karl Polanyi (,  []) remains influential today when discussing the organisation of pre-modern economies. This book is not a study of economic theory but the arguments laid out by Polanyi remain useful when considering how groups deal with one another especially in relationships of exchange. Polanyi considered a market economy driven by supply and demand as a modern phenonmenon whereas ancient economies were non-market ones in which the exchange of commodities and services are mainly based on redistribution in a society with a strong central government, while reciprocity could occur on lower

the nature of the beast



societal levels as well. This substantivist economic model also assumes that trade was rather small-scale and long-distance trade served the elites in securing their social status and power. Profit did not enter into the primary motivation for trade. Polanyi argued that man’s economy is “submerged in his social relationships” (Polanyi  []: ). This means that the possession of certain material goods is in the interests of social status and that the economic system is a function of social organisation (Polanyi  []: –). The economy, according to Polanyi, was embedded in the social and cultural life. Following Polanyi ( [], ) this results in three different modes of exchange. These are reciprocity (sometimes also referred to as gift exchange), redistribution and market exchange. Reciprocity refers to an exchange between people who are relatively equal in status similar to gift exchange. This equatable exchange can be based on a relationship that is kin-based or between people who are well-known to each other perhaps by political agreement. In gift exchange the goods are objects of value which confer prestige on both the giver and the receiver. By contrast if one person tries to outdo the other this is known as negative reciprocity and is an exchange between strangers or those not socially close. When, however, does a gift become a commodity, an article of trade or commerce, thereby signalling a change in the social relationship (Wengrow : )? The second type of exchange is redistribution which assumes some form of central organisation with commodities being acquired by the central figure (chief, king, institution) and then redistributed among the wider population or simply among the bureaucracy and supporters of the central figure. This type of system is associated with more organised societies like states or chiefdoms and is a form of internal exchange. This can, of course, create risks for the society; if the central authority is not able to maintain the redistribution system, the whole economy breaks down. As a simple illustration of the differences between reciprocity and redistribution let us consider the hunt. If, for instance, one person is successful in hunting game, the group or community may expect that this be shared with the understanding that on another day the previously successful hunter may receive game or other food from another successful hunt or forage. It is an equal give and take (reciprocity) within the social system. On the other hand, all hunters may be expected to give their kill to a headman or chief who then gives out portions to others in the group perhaps based on kinship or closeness (redistribution). Those who



chapter six

redistribute may subsequently be able to increase their political power or status by the way in which the redistribution is done (Polanyi  []: ). Redistribution can also take place on a household level which we should perhaps refer to as secondary redistribution as it does not necessarily directly involve a centralised organisation. In households today, children might complain about receiving their siblings’ ‘hand-me-downs’ instead of new clothes but the reuse of items by one member of a family when no longer wanted or required by another is a form of redistribution. Heirlooms can also be seen as a form of redistribution—one that may carry a certain status or prestige. When a person died, an item of value may have reentered the possession of the extended family and due to tradition or custom was in turn passed on to another family member. Alternatively, property can return to the state where it can again be redistributed. The final type of exchange is market exchange. In this type of exchange there are places where exchanges take place involving price negotiation. In these negotiations the price is determined by supply and demand. While it has been argued that a true market system did not appear until the advent of coinage in ancient Greece (Polyani ) any form of currency can be used and so markets may also have existed in the ancient Near East. Markets tend to be internal in the socio-political unit but as the example of trade ports shows, where merchants from a variety of sociopolitical units can meet, this need not be the case. When it comes to exchange and ultimately trade of commodities, one basic and very simple premise must be taken into account and that is the desire to have any particular object or material and the level of that desire. This leads to how far one is willing to go and how much one is willing to ‘pay’ in order to acquire the desired object (it also begs the question: did early contact and exchange come with early marketing strategies?). What may appear to have little or no intrinsic value may become very expensive simply because of demand. Or the potential exchange may even seem superfluous. On a small island off the coast of Vancouver, British Columbia, a local anecdote can help to illustrate this: “The freshly caught salmon lay stretched out on the counter between two men in the Galiano store. ‘What do you want for it?’ asked storekeeper Joe Burrill. ‘Two cans of salmon,’ answered the local Native [indigenous First Nations person] who had brought it in.” (Spalding : )

the nature of the beast



It is clearly not the salmon per se that is at issue—it is part of the staple diet of the local indigenous population and both men have access to salmon. Nor is it the ‘exoticness’ of the cans. Rather the fisherman has a surplus that he cannot easily preserve; the shopkeeper, on the other hand, has a preserved surplus already (Spalding : ) and one fresh salmon is easy for the latter to consume. Once one takes this concept to materials and commodities that are not necessarily vital for survival, and additionally may be difficult to obtain (due to distance, inaccessibility or other obstacles), their desirability may increase. This, in turn, may give certain goods a high, luxury status. Not only do people wish to gain access to such luxuries, the desire to limit access can also develop. The difficulties in analysing the ancient Egyptian economy can be seen in the two different focuses taken: one states that redistibution dominates economic transactions, whereas the other gives more importance to market mechanisms. Scholars such as Bleiberg (, ), Janssen (, ) and Müller-Wollermann () follow Polanyi’s substantivist model in which the ancient Egyptian economy was not a market based one. Rather it was a redistributive one in which the central authority (state) collected goods and then funneled them to others based on personal relationships, mutual responsibility and trust. As there was no coinage in Pharaonic Egypt the system would have been more akin to barter where parity rather than profit was the primary aim. Such exchanges were a means to aquire a commodity, a finished product such as a metal vessel or a service rather than a means to create and accumulate wealth. The argument for a redistributive system also states that pre-modern/pre-capitalist economies could not support a trade for profit as there were not the markets or coinage to do so and that the ancient Egyptians did not even have the words for buying, selling and profit. So it would seem that the dominance of the redistributive part of the economy depends on a strong central state and this would have an impact on the scale of market driven activities or whether they were even possible. Müller-Wollermann () has argued that the Old Kingdom economy followed the redistributive model. Redistribution was the most significant aspect of the economy, embedded in its social structure, with more individual reciprocity on a small scale. The driving forces, therefore, are not trade for profit but for parity. For the Old Kingdom it has also been demonstrated that expeditions for the acquisition of raw materials or finished products, were solely organised by the state, that is, the king; expeditions indeed being examples par ecellence of the redistributive role of an economic system (Eichler ). Officials like Weni and



chapter six

Harkhuf were not entrepreneurs, but bureaucrats working on behalf of the king and proudly proclaiming so. The king initiates the expedition, specifies where it is to go, what is to be acquired and for what exact purpose the goods were to be used. On the other side Kemp (), North (), Silver () and S.T. Smith () posit that an ancient economy could indeed have a much larger part of it being market driven. Kemp, for example, proposes that an ancient economy should not be characterised as exclusively market driven or exclusively redistributive, as one single system is insufficient to meet the needs of the whole society. What is under discussion is the proportion to which different exchange modes contribute to the overall economic system. For instance he argues that the state’s redistributive sytem failed in its support of the population when the central government weakened in the First Intermediate Period. The breakdown of the central government would then lead to a more market oriented exchange at a local level increasing the wealth of the community. In fact we see, for example, in the archaeological record based on grave goods from the seventh Upper Egyptian nome, an increasing yet modest rise in wealth during the First Intermediate Period (Seidlmeyer ). According to Kemp the increase was the result of market transactions. However, following the autobiography in the tomb of Ankhtifi, an Upper Egyptian nomarch, one can argue that the regional governor replaced the central authoritiy in his province in supplying his region with what was formally provided by the king i.e. mainly grain (Bleiberg ). This interpretation thus does not touch upon market exhange. One can thus argue that the redistributive system actually continued but successfully but shifted from state to regional levels (Bleiberg : ). A supposed case for apparent entreprenurial spirit, and thus market forces at play comes from the letters of an individual by the name of Heqanakht, a landowner who lived during the early Middle Kingdom (Allen ). His letters show that he loaned grain at interest, that he paid rent on fields for his family, stored some of his surplus and converted some to more long lasting items such as oil, cloth and copper and that he even warned his family not to sell a bull until he could make a better deal. Is this a rare case or one that was far more common? Smith (: ) points out that private archives such as that of Heqanakht rarely survive and that most of our knowledge of the Egyptian economy comes from state archives which are better preserved. During the Pharaonic period there may indeed have been many more Heqanakhts who certainly appears to be trading for profit. Yet, the same text was seen not as

the nature of the beast



ongoing entrepreneurial spirit but rather “demonstrates that the Egyptians were capable of looking after themselves when the government did not interfere” (Bleiburg : ). So Heqanakht’s activities could also be seen as a reaction to weaker control of the central government. Yet, is it possible to have market driven forces acting out when there is a strong central, authoritarian government in place? The differing house sizes at Amarna have been used as evidence for privately acquired wealth implying a market oriented mode of exchange (Kemp : –). The house sizes would express the desire of status, wealth and power. It is difficult, if not impossible, to argue against this statement as these are very real and human desires. However, was it actually possible to acquire a house in Amarna if not through the favour of the king (Bleiberg : )? Both sides of the argument use examples from historical periods in Egypt. During the Old, Middle and New Kingdoms, the strong, centralised government, would have been the major player in a redistributive economy following Polanyi’s model. It would only have been during times of weak government such as the intermediate periods, when more individual, market driven forces were at play and even then the redistributive system did not entirely disappear. On the other hand it has been argued that market driven transactions were always in place, are poorly documented but were necessary as a central authority would not have been able to run the whole Egyptian economy on a redistributive system. Where does this leave Egypt and Nubia in the th millennium bc? This was a time when there was not yet a centralised single state in either Egypt or Nubia. Nor do we have the luxury of texts. Yet we are seeing the rise of social stratification, craft specialisation and the iconography of rulership. The basic economic unit for such an agrarian society like ancient Egypt and Lower Nubia was the household or family group (Tschajanov : –). The household income is based on the work effort, that is, output is determined by input and input is based on the number of people in the household who are part of the actual ‘workforce’ be it for hunting, gathering (fruits, nuts, small game etc), farming or herding, and their related activities such as tool making and cooking (Tschajanov : –). Work is for necessity not profit and labour is not a commodity. Reciprocal exchanges were part of the economic and social life of such a community. This limits the capacity of production and generally does not allow for the creation of a surplus. Once a hierarchy starts to develop, or in order for a hierarchy to develop, this must be overcome; someone



chapter six

or some persons have to convince or coerce others in the group (or themselves) to work more in order to create a surplus. These dynamics eventually create a hierarchical structure of the society. Looking at the archaeological material from the region under consideraton, Nordström suggested that several sites could have been Egyptian/Nubian bartering places with access both by river and land routes, among them the site of Khor Daud in Lower Nubia (Nordström : ). At this site  storage pits were excavated of which  contained various objects, predominantly pottery vessels but also some flint tools, personal ornaments such as beads and bracelets, a palette pendant probably of siltstone and ostrich shell (Piotrovsky : –). A small amount of grain was found in one pit but no animal bones were found associated with foodstuffs (Piotrovsky : ). At this site more than two-thirds of the vessels found in the storage pits were of Egyptian provenience, mostly marl clay storage vessels, and ranged in date from Kaiser’s Naqada IIA to Naqada IIIA–B, with the majority falling into Naqada IIB– D (Nordström : ). The absence of fire places or occupation layers clearly indicates it was not a normal habitation site and its location at the mouth of Wadi Allaqi was certainly convenient for both river and overland contact which leads to the possibility that several groups used the site for storage and possibly exchange. This latter possibility would support the idea that the definitive border of ‘us and them’ was not in effect and that regional variations on a cultural theme were the order of the day until the consolidation of the Egyptian state. That more than one group could be using the location for storage and/or exchange purposes also means that desert peoples could have been participating as much as Nile Valley dwellers and adds to the picture of more widespread interaction and exchange. The role of the desert regions and peoples is becoming increasingly clearer within these contexts. The inhabitants of the Nile Valley (Egyptians and Nubians alike) did not, and probably could not, rely totally on one another for the precious raw materials and objects they desired, be it wood, resins, hard and semi-precious stones, metals, animal skins or manufactured products. The simple need to navigate the cataracts on the Nile would have sent expeditions out towards the deserts as clearly seems to be the case with Harkhuf from the Old Kingdom. The oases, with their reliable water sources, would have been vital links between desert and river valley. The deserts themselves, were also rich sources of raw materials. By extension, this also means that we should certainly not see the A-Group economy and very existence, as reliant on their northern

the nature of the beast



neighbours for exotic products. They would have had their own contacts with the desert (see for instance Lange ) as well as with regions further to the south. While bartering places such as Khor Daud may have attracted people from the Nile Valley as well as those from outside the valley, the Nile River itself would also appear to be an ideal facilitator for a down-theline trade which could account for the wide distribution of Naqadan pottery. Yet pottery (and no doubt its contents) would appear to be the only Egyptian commodity that is widespread. When it comes to stone vessels for instance, the largest number has been found at Cemetery L at Qustul. A much smaller amount was found in the northern A-Group sites but then virtually nothing until Qustul. The same can be seen with maceheads. As has been pointed out before, siltstone palettes rarely appear in the more southern A-Group sites. Access then, to Egyptian pottery vessels does not appear to have been greatly restricted. Of course, once a vessel and its contents had been exchanged it may have been reused and redistributed or exchanged several times. It is entirely possible that an Egyptian pottery vessel containing, say, oil, was exchanged for raw materials or services in the First Cataract region and was then emptied and refilled with another commodity that was exchanged further south. What, however, was the nature of exchange or barter at places such as Khor Daud? The idea of a reciprocal exchange is highly possible and is certainly the simplest mode of exchange. A redistribution centre is less likely given the fact that there is no evidence for long term occupation or fireplaces and the apparent lack of a central authority. The general similarities between the Early A-Group (predominantly in northern Lower Nubia) and its Naqada contemporaries could suggest that there was a very easy flow of goods, particularly between the First Cataract region and Egypt proper. The limited distribution of certain goods such as siltstone palettes (almost exclusively in northern Lower Nubia) and eggshell ware (rare north of Gerf Hussein) may also indicate that the regional variations and contacts can also be seen in goods exchanged. The special nature of sites such as Seyala  and particularly Cemetery L at Qustul indicates that as elites began to emerge both in Egypt and Nubia, the exchange of prestigious goods such as stone vessels or emblems of power such as the maceheads and gold handles and the iconography of the Qustul incense burner reflected a reciprocal exchange but one that was increasingly between elites. While the import of basic foodstuffs into Nubia has sometimes been dismissed due to the fact that there was no



chapter six

need to import what you can produce yourself, the very lack of necessity (subsistence) would make such imports valuable as surplus and thus facilitate the emergence of an elite, craft specialists and social stratification. Visiting the Neighbours? There is no doubt that there was contact between Lower Nubia and Upper Egypt. The evidence of Egyptian manufactured pottery alongside distinctly non-Egyptian pottery alone shows that there was some form of contact and exchange. The general similarity between the grave assemblages of the northern-most A-Group and Upper Egypt, particularly in the Early A-Group phase points to the regional extension of the Naqada culture. The graves at cemetery  at Khor Bahan, for instance, (see Pl. ) are virtually indistinguishable from Upper Egyptian graves. In other words, the Early A-Group around the First Cataract region might be seen as a southern variation of the Naqada cultural tradition albeit with influences from further south. The largest proportion of Egyptian pottery is found in this area along with other Egyptian manufactured material including siltstone cosmetic palettes, stone vessels, copper implements, maceheads, amulets and cylinder seals. Only Egyptian pottery and siltstone palettes are found in any large quantities in these sites. Rather than formalised commercial trade, the nature of exchange in this part of Lower Nubia appears to be a simple reciprocal exchange between neighbours of broadly similar social, cultural and political traditions. Perhaps it can even be suggested that Egyptian manufactured goods found in northern Lower Nubia are barely imports at all—rather they could be seen as part of an internal exchange system. Nonetheless, in spite of the great similarities in the Naqadan and northern-most AGroup assemblages, they are not identical; if cultural differences were to become more distinctive in a relatively short time, the distinctions must surely have already been in place? This is what makes the Aswan and ultimately Elephantine region so intriguing. From the very beginning Nubians and Egyptians were living side-by-side on Elephantine, and this continues uninterrupted even after the so-called disappearance of the A-Group (Raue ). There were differences in culture and no doubt in language and ritual; but there appears to have been enough common ground and perhaps pragmatism, for the two groups to co-exist and cooperate.

the nature of the beast



The situation in southern Lower Nubia appears to be slightly different. While the A-Group further south still shared a broad cultural tradition with the north and Egypt, stronger influences from further south can be seen in the locally manufactured pottery. This is perhaps the ‘real’ A-Group dating to the Middle to Terminal A-Group (Nordström ; Gatto ). With the exception of cemetery L at Qustul the amount of Egyptian pottery found in this region falls off dramatically as do other Egyptian manufactured goods, siltstone palettes almost entirely. Distance appears to have slowed the progress of Egyptian manufactured goods and time appears to have restricted its distribution. Cemetery  at Naga Wadi (Firth : –), cemetery  at Seyala (Firth : – ), both in the Dakka plain, and particularly cemetery L at Qustul (Williams ), which had all been heavily disturbed, deserve special attention. All three display features which can be considered as peculiar to an elite in Lower Nubia; long rectangular grave shafts with a lateral niche; all are small cemeteries; at Qustul and Naga Wadi animal burials are included in the cemetery; and all contain Egyptian manufactured goods which could be considered prestigious. Qustul clearly stands out. The graves were exceptionally large and contained particularly rich offerings of Egyptian and Syro-Palestinian pottery as well as elaborately decorated incised Sudanese ware, hundreds of stone vessels, gold beads, maceheads, seals and the well-known Qustul incense burner and the Archaic Horus incense burner both of which were decorated with early ‘royal’ iconography such as palace façades, falcons and sacred barques. Several types of objects are of note. At these sites, iconography is used in decoration that is clearly restricted in its distribution and display. Not everyone could receive a gold mace handle or elaborately decorated incense burner. The maceheads are no doubt symbols of power and authority which by this time (Middle to Terminal A-Group) have been largely appropriated by an elite. Access to copper implements such as copper axes and chisels, though never widespread, is also highly visible at these cemeteries. At the same time the majority of pottery vessels at these cemeteries are of local manufacture and Qustul in particular contained an enormous quantity of the very fine eggshell ware. The non-local goods which these people sought were of a more prestigious kind to show their special status within society. As an elite develops in Egypt so it does in Lower Nubia and it would appear that the types of exchange are now being controlled at an elite level. The uniqueness of Qustul within this cannot be overemphasised. It is the only site in Lower Nubia that contained Syro-Palestinian style pottery, probably containing wine, which



chapter six

may indicate direct contact with the Levant, but probably indicates an exchange with elites in Upper Egypt such as at Abydos or Hierakonpolis where similar pottery can be found. The material at Qustul indicates, for this site at least, an increasingly formalised exchange between elites that was probably carried out using merchants, representatives or emissaries. The paucity of Nubian manufactured goods in Egypt may indicate that it was more likely for Egyptians to go south than for southern Nubians to go north. This possible explanation is based on the archaeological evidence available and some goods, such as perishable goods like wood or skins, may simply not have survived. It is also possible that emissaries came from the indigenous population of the First Cataract region. The same should probably be said for Seyala and Naga Wadi. Qustul, however, reigned supreme in Lower Nubia. It was the southernmost of the elite cemeteries, distanced from Upper Egypt geographically but connected culturally. It was also in a position to provide exotic raw materials or access to them, in a region that was remote from Upper Egypt and therefore more ‘foreign’. This may be why the Gebel Sheikh Sulieman inscription is to be found south of Qustul—the Egyptians wanted to display the power and protection of their rulers while travelling in remote foreign areas. No doubt the indigenous elite understood its message as well; they had been sharing the same iconographies as can be seen in objects such as the Qustul and Archaic Horus incense burners and the Seyala mace handles. Egyptian manufactured goods tended to cluster in three regions; the First Cataract region, the region at the mouth of the Wadi Allaqi and the Second Cataract region. The First Cataract marks a convenient geographical boundary between Upper Egypt and Lower Nubia and it was also an impediment to riverine travel as was the Second Cataract. It is entirely possible and even likely that people in the Second Cataract region, with little riverine impediment between them and those in the Wadi Allaqi region had some form of exchange relationship. Subsequently those in the Wadi Allaqi region, with access to the highly valued raw materials such as stone and metals from the Eastern Desert, also had relatively easy access to those living in the First Cataract region. Those in the First Cataract region in turn, had relatively easy access to groups further north. This may also, in part, explain the lack of Nubian manufactured material in Egypt; the convenience of certain sites/regions for exchange along with the fact that for storage and transport the Egyptians had no need of Nubian manufactured goods would account for Egyptian mass produced pottery coming in while no Nubian pottery went out. This may

the nature of the beast



also mean that from a very early period, it was the Egyptians (and perhaps the people of the First Cataract region) who were dominating the modes of exchange. A close relationship existed between Egypt and Nubia for millennia and they indeed seem to have been intrinsically bound together along the Nile but with important contacts between desert and Nile as well. With regard to Lower Nubia and the A-Group this relationship was particularly neighbourly in the First Cataract region and gradually more formalised in the Wadi Halfa-Second Cataract region. As elites emerged in Egypt and a more centralised form of government developed, a definitive sense of self also developed. This also created a sense of ‘otherness’. Those ‘Nubians’ closest to the First Cataract and immediately north more naturally fell into the category of ‘us’ whereas those further south with access to remote regions gradually fell into the category of ‘them’. It seems no coincidence that when the modern states of Egypt and Sudan were independently established the border was fixed, not at the First Cataract but at the Wadi Halfa region. Even when the creation of Lake Nasser necessitated the relocation of hundreds of thousands of Nubians, those in the First Cataract region (the Egyptian Nubians) were relocated north to Kom Ombo while the Sudanese Nubians of the Wadi Halfa district were sent to new homes further south at Khashm el-Girba. The exchange between elites peaked with Qustul. No Egyptian manufactured goods are found in A-Group contexts that date later than the early part of the st Dynasty. This may have been due to the formation of a centralised state in Egypt and the move of the capital to Memphis in the north. The eyes of the Egyptian court may likewise have turned northwards and inwards. This northward move would also have facilitated the emergent centralised government’s contact with Western Asia and all the exotic natural resources and luxury manufactured goods that these regions could provide. Lower Egypt (Maadi-Buto culture) already had a well defined trade network with the Levant. When moving from north to south the long chain of the Nile is first interrupted at the First Cataract making a convenient break, and subsequently a border. The first nome of Upper Egypt was called Ta-Seti and the political border was eventually established at the geographic boundary of the Aswan region. South, Nubia itself would in turn become Ta-Seti. The ‘disappearance’ of the A-Group should properly be seen as a decline albeit a rather rapid one; a decline of certain elites, the Qustual elites, temporarily shut out of the reciprocal elite exchange system.

ABBREVIATIONS AAR ANM ASAE BACE BIFAO GM CRIPEL

African Archaeological Review Archéologie du Nil Moyen Annales du Services des Antiquités de l’Egypte Bulletin of the Australian Centre for Egyptology Bulletin de l’Institute Français d’Archéologie Orientale Göttingen Miszellen Cahiers de Recherche de l’Institut de Papyrologie et Egyptologie de Lille EA Siglum of Amarna texts following Die El-Amarna Tafeln by J. Knudtzon; also The Amarna Letters by W.L. Moran GM Göttingen Miszellen JAES Journal of African Earth Sciences JARCE Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt JEA Journal of Egyptian Archaeology JEH Journal of Economic History JEEH Journal of European Economic History JESHO Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient JFA Journal of Field Archaeology JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies JSSEA Journal of the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities Kush Journal for the Sudan National Board for Antiquities and Museums LÄ Lexikon der Ägyptologie MDAIK Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo NN Nekhen News PP Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society RT Receuil de Travaux Rélatifs à la Philologie et à l’Archéologie Egyptiennes et Assyriennes SAGA Studien zur Archäologie und Geschichte Altägyptens SAS Schriften aus der Ägyptischen Sammlung Sudan and Nubia Sudan and Nubia. The Sudan Archaeological Research Society Bulletin URK I and IV Urkunden des ägyptischen Altertums, Abt. I. Urkunden des alten Reiches, Leipzig Abt IV. Urkunden der . Dynastie, Leipzig and Berlin Wb Wörterbuch ZÄS Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde

REFERENCES ADAMS, B.  Predynastic Egypt, Princes Risborough: Shire Egyptology.  ‘Something Very Special down in the Elite Cemetery’, NN , pp. –.  Excavations in the Locality  Cemetery at Hierakonpolis –, BAR International Series , Oxford: Archaeopress.  ‘Locality , : Amazing Revelations’, NN , pp. –. ADAMS, W.Y.  Nubia: Corridor to Africa, London: Allen Lane.  ‘Doubts about the “Lost Pharaohs” ’, JNES , pp. –.  ‘A Century of Archaeological Salvage, –’, Sudan and Nubia , pp. –. AHMED, SALAH ELDIN MOHAMED.  ‘The Merowe Dam Archaeological Salvage Project’ in D.A. Welsby and J.R. Anderson (eds.) Sudan Ancient Treasures. An Exhibition of Recent Discoveries from the Sudan National Museum, London: The British Museum Press, pp. –. ALLEN, J.P.  The Heqanakht Papyri, Publication of the Metropolitan Museum of Art Egyptian Expedition, , Metropolitan Museum of Art. New York. ANDREWS, C.  Amulets of Ancient Egypt, London: British Museum Press. ARKELL, A.J.  Early Khartoum: an account of the excavation of an early occupation site carried out by the Sudan Government Antiquities Service in –, London, New York, Oxford University Press. . ‘Varia Sudanica’, JEA , pp. –.  Shaheinab: an account of the excavation of a Neolithic occupation site carried out by the Sudan Government Service –, London, New York: Oxford University Press.  The Prehistory of the Nile Valley, Leiden: Brill. ARKELL, A.J., and UCKO, P.J.  ‘Review of Predynastic development in the Nile Valley’, Current Anthropology , pp. –.



references

ARNOLD, D. and BOURRIAU, J (eds.)  An Introduction to Ancient Egyptian Pottery, Mainz: Philipp von Zabern. ASTON, B., HARRELL, J.A. and SHAW, I.  ‘Stone’ in Paul T. Nicholson and Ian Shaw (eds.), Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. –. BADAWI, A.  ‘Die Grabung der ägyptischen Altertümerverwaltung in Merimde Benisalame im Oktober/November ’, MDAIK , pp. –.  ‘Beigabengräber aus Merimde’ MDAIK , pp. –. BAINES, J. a. ‘Origins of Egyptian Kingship’ in D. O’Connor and D.P. Silverman (eds.) Ancient Egyptian Kingship, Leiden, New York: Brill, pp. – . b ‘Kingship, definition of culture and legitimation and origins of Egyptian Kingship’ in D. O’Connor and D.P. Silverman (eds) Ancient Egyptian Kingship, Leiden, New York: Brill, pp. –.  ‘Early Definitions of the Egyptian World and its Surroundings’ in T. Potts, M. Roaf and D. Stein (eds.) Culture through Objects. Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honour of P.R.S. Moorey, Oxford: Griffith Institute, pp. –.  ‘The earliest Egyptian writing: development, context, purpose’ in Stephen D. Houston (ed.) The First Writing. Script Invention as History and Process, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. –. BAINES, J., JAMES, T.G.H., and LEAHY, A. (eds.)  Pyramid Studies and other essays presented to I.E.S. Edwards. London. BAR-YOSEF, O. and KHZANOV, A. (eds.)  Pastoralism in the Levant: Archaeological Materials in Anthropological Perspective, Madison: Prehistory Press. BARD, K.A.  ‘The Egyptian Predynastic: a review of the evidence’, JFA , pp. – . BARICH, B.E., and LUCARINI, G.  ‘The Nile Valley Seen from the Oases. The Contribution of Farafra’, in in B. Midant-Reynes and Y. Tristant (eds), Egypt at its Origins . Proceedings of the International Conference “Origin of the State. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt”, Toulouse (France), th–th September , Leuven: Peeters, pp. –.

references



BARNETT, R.D.  Ancient Ivories in the Middle East, Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. BAUMGARTEL, E.  The Cultures of Prehistoric Egypt, London: Oxford University Press. BAVAY, L., de PUTTER, T., ADAMS, B., NAVES, J., and ANDRÉ, L.  ‘The Origin of Obsidian in Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt’, MDAIK, , pp. –. BEAUVERIE, M.A.  ‘Description illustrée des végéteaux antiques pharaoniques’, RT , pp. –. BIETAK, M.  Studien zur Chronologie der nubischen C-Gruppe: Ein Beitrag zur Frühgeschichte Unternubiens zwischen  und  vor Chr., Wien, Böhlau in Kommission.  Avaris. The Capital of the Hyksos—Recent Excavations at Tell el-Daba. The First Raymond and Beverly Sackler Foundation Distinguished Lecture in Egyptology. London.  ‘Zur Marine des Alten Reichs’, in J. Baines, T.G.H. James and A. Leahy (eds), Pyramid Studies and other essays presented to I.E.S. Edwards. London. pp. –.  ‘Two Near Eastern temples with bent axis in the eastern Nile Delta’, Ägypten und Levante : –. BIETAK, M. and SCHWARZ, M. (eds.)  Krieg und Sieg. Narrative Wanddarstellungen von Altägypten bis ins Mittelalter. Vienna. BLEIBERG, E.  ‘The Economy of Ancient Egypt’ in J.K. Sasson (ed), Civilizations of the Ancient Near East,  vols, Peabody, Massechusetts: Hendrickson Publishers Inc., pp. –.  The Official Gift in Ancient Egypt, Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. BOEHMER, R.M.  ‘Das Rollsiegel im Prädynastischen Ägypten’, Archäologischer Anzeiger , pp. –. BOESSNECK, J., Von den DRIESCH, A., and STEGER, U.  ‘Tierknochenfunden der Ausgrabungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts Baghdad in Uruk-Warka, Iraq’, Baghdader Mitteilungen,, pp. –.



references

BOOTH, C.  The Role of Foreigners in Ancient Egypt. A study of non-stereotypical artistic representations, BAR International Series , Oxford: Archeopress. BORCHARDT, L.  Das Grabdenkmal des Königs Sahure, Band II. Die Wandbilder. Leipzig. BOURRIAU, J.  Umm el-Ga"ab. Pottery from the Nile Valley before the Arab Conquest, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  Pharaohs and Mortals: Egyptian Art in the Middle Kingdom, Cambridge: Fitzwlliam Museum.  ‘Egyptian pottery found in Old and Middle Kerma graves at Kerma’ in T. Kendall (ed.) Abstracts of Papers. International Society for Nubian Studies th International Conference, August –, , Museum of Fine Arts Boston, Boston. BOURRIAU, J., NICHOLSON, P., and ROSE, P.  ‘Pottery’ in Paul T. Nicholson and Ian Shaw (eds.), Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. –. BREASTED, J.H.  Ancient Records of Egypt. Volume I. The First through the Seventeenth Dynasties, Chicago.  edition published by the University of Illinois Press with an introduction by Peter A. Piccione. BREWER, D.J.  Ancient Egypt: Foundations of a Civilization, Harlow: Pearson Education. BROVARSKI, E.  ‘Recurrent Themes in the Art of the Predynastic Period’, in Khaled Daoud, Shafia Bedia and Sawsan Abd el-Fatah (eds.), Studies in Honor of Ali Radwan, Cairo: Publication du Conseil Suprême des Antiquités de l’Égypte, pp. –. BRUNTON, G.  Mostagedda and the Tasian Culture, London: Quaritch Ltd.  Matmar, London. BRUNTON, G., and CATON-THOMPSON, G.  The Badarian Civilisation and Predynastic Remains near Badari, London: British School of Archaeology.

references



BUTZER, K.W.  Early Hydraulic Civilization in Egypt, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. BUTZER, K.W., and HANSEN, C.L.  Desert and River in Nubia: geomorphology and prehistoric environments at the Aswan reservoir, Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. BUZON, M.R.  ‘Biological and Ethnic Identity in New Kingdom Nubia. A Case Study from Tombos’, Current Anthropology , , pp. –. CAMPS, G.  Les civilisations préhistoriques de l’Afrique du nord et du Sahara, Paris. CANEVA, I.  El Geili. The History of a Middle Nile Environment  bc–ad , BAR International Series , Oxford: Archeopress.  ‘Post-Shaheinab Neolithic Remains at Geili’ in Krzyzaniak, L., Kroeper, K., and M. Kobusiewicz (eds), Interregional Contacts in the Later Prehistory of Northeastern Africa, Poznan. CANEVA, I., and ROCCATI, A., (eds.)  Acta Nubica. Proceedings for the X International Conference of Nubian Studies, Rome – September , Roma: Libero Dello Stato. CASTIGLIONI, A., and CASTIGLIONI, A.  ‘Gold in the Eastern Desert’, in D.A. Welsby and J.R. Anderson (Eds.), Sudan Ancient Treasures. An Exhibition of Recent Discoveries from the Sudan National Museum, London: British Museum Press, pp. –. CATON-THOMPSON, G.  ‘Prehistoric research expedition to Kharga Oasis, Egypt. Preliminary outlie of the season’s work’, Man , pp. –.  Kharga Oasis in Prehistory, London: University of London. CELENKO, T. (ed.)  Egypt in Africa, Indianapolis: Indianapolis Museum of Art in cooperation with Indiana University Press. CHILDE, V.G.  Man Makes Himself, revised edition, London. CHŁODNICKI, M.  ‘New Types of the Neolitic Pottery in Kader (Sudan)’, CRIPEL /, pp. –.



references

CIAŁOWICZ, K.M.  ‘Tell el-Farkha –. Excavations at the Western Kom’, in S. Hendrickx, R.F. Friedman, K.M. Ciałowicz, and M. Chłodnicki, M (eds.) Egypt at its Origins: Studies in Memory of Barbara Adams, Leuven: Peeters, pp. –.  ‘Ivory and Gold in the Delta: excavations at Tell el-Farkha’, in R.F. Friedman and L. McNamara (eds), Egypt at its Origins. Abstracts of Papers Presented at the Third International Colloquium on Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt, The British Museum, London, pp. –. CIAŁOWICZ, K.M, CHŁODNICKI, M., and HENDRICKX, S. (eds.)  Origin of the State. Predynstic and Early Dynastic Egypt, Crackow. CLARK, J.D.  The Prehistory of Africa, New York: Praeger.  ‘A Re-examination of the Evidence for Agricultural Origins in the Nile Valley’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society , pp. –.  ‘Human Populations and Cultural Adaptations in the Sahara and the Nile during Prehistoric Times’, Sahara and Nile, pp. –. COLBERT, E.H.  Wandering Lands and Animals, New York. COLLON, D.  First Impressions: Cylinder seals in the ancient Near East, London: British Museum. COOPER, L.  Early Urbanism on the Syrian Euphrates, New York: Routledge. COOPER, J.S., and SCHWARTZ, G.M. (eds.)  The Study of the Ancient Near East in the Twenty-First Century. The William Foxwell Albright Centennial Conference, Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. DARNELL, D.  ‘Gravel of the Desert and Broken Pots in the Road: Ceramic Evidence from the Routes between the Nile and Kharga Oasis’ in R. Friedman (ed.), Egypt and Nubia. Gifts of the Desert, London: British Museum Press, pp. –. DARNELL, J.C. a Theben Desert Road Survey in the Egyptian Western Desert Vol. I, Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. b ‘Opening the Narrow Doors of the Desert: Discoveries of the Theban Desert Road Survey’, in R.F. Friedman (ed.), Egypt and Nubia. Gifts of the Desert, London: British Museum Press, pp. –.

references 





‘The wadi of the Horus Qa"a’, in R. Friedman and L. McNamara (eds.) Egypt at its Origins. Abstracts of Papers Presented at the Third International Colloquium on Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt, The British Museum, London, pp. –. ‘Iconographic Attraction, Iconographic syntax and Tableaux of Royal Ritual Power in the Pre- and Protodynastic Rock Inscriptions of the Theban Western Desert’, Archéo-Nil .

DAVIES, N.M. de Garies, and GARDINER  The Tomb of Huy, Viceroy of Nubia in the Reign of Tut"ankhamun (no. ), London: Egypt Exploration Society. DAVIES, N.M. de Garies  The Tomb of Rekh-mi-re at Thebes, New York: Plantin Press. DAVIES, W.V., (ed.)  Egypt and Africa: Nubia from Prehistory to Islam, London: British Museum Press.  Studies in Egyptian Antiquities: a tribute to T.G.H. James, British Museum Occassional Papers, London: British Museum Press. DEBONO, F.  ‘Expédition archéologique royale au desert oriental (Keft-Kosseir). Raport préliminaire sur la campagne ’, ASAE /, pp. –. DEBONO, F., and MORTENSEN, B.  El-Omari: a Neolithic Settlement and other Sites in the Vicinity of Wadi Hof Helwan, Mainz am Rhein. DIXON, D.  ‘The Land of Yam’. JEA , pp. –. DREYER, G.  Umm el-Qa"ab I: das Prädynasticsche Königsgrab U-j und seine frühen Schriftzeugnisse, (with contributions by U. Hartung and F. Pumpenmeier), Mainz; Philipp von Zabern. DREYER, G., et.al.  Umm el-Qaab, Nachuntersuchungen im frühzeitlichen Königsfriedhof ./. Vorbericht, MDAIK , Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, pp. –.  ‘Zur Rekonstruktion der Oberbauten der Königsgräber der . Dynastie in Abydos’, MDAIK , Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, pp. –.  ‘Nachuntersuchungen im frühzeitlichen Königsfriedhof ’. /. Vorbericht, MDAIK , Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, pp. –.  Umm el Qa"ab. Nachuntersuchungen im frühzeitlichen Königsfriedhof ./. Vorbericht, MDAIK , Philipp von Zabern, pp, –.



references

EDEL, E.  ‘Inschriften des Alten Reiches XI. Nachträge zu den Reiseberichten des Hrw-Hwji’, ZÄS , pp. –. EDWARDS, D.N.  The Nubian Past. An Archaeology of the Sudan, London and New York: Routledge. EHRICH, R.W., (ed.)  Chronologies in Old World Archaeology Vol. I, rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. EICHLER, E.  Untersuchungen sum Expeditionswesen des ägyptischen Alten Reiches, GOF , Wiesbaden. EIWANGER, J.  Merimde-Benisalame I: Die Funde der Urschicht, Archäologische Veröffentlichungen , Mainz am Rhein.  Merimde-Benisalama II: Die Funde der mittleren Merimdekultur, Archäologische Veröffentlichungen , Mainz am Rhein. EMERY, W.B.  Archaic Egypt, Harmondsmith: Penguin.  Egypt in Nubia, London: Hutchinson & Co. EMERY, W.B. and KIRWAN, L.P.  The Excavations and Survey Between Wadi es-Sebua and Adindan –,  volumes, Cairo: Government Press. ENGELBACH, R.  ‘The Quarries of the Western Nubian Desert: a preliminary report’, ASAE , pp. –.  ‘The Quarries of the Western Nubian Desert and the ancient road to Tushka’, ASAE , pp. –. ENGELMAYER, R.  Die Felsgravierungen im Distrikt Sayala-Nubien, Berichte des Österreichischen Nationalkomitees der UNESCO-Aktion für die Rettung der Nubischen Altertümer;  Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-Historische Klasse. Denkschriften, , Graz. EYRE, C.J.  ‘Work and organisation of work in the Old Kingdom’ in M.A. Powell (ed.) Labor in the Ancient Near East, American Oriental Series . New Haven: Connetticut, pp. –.

references 



‘Weni’s Career and Old Kingdom Historiography’, Christopher Eyre, Anthony Leahy, Lisa Montagno Leahy (eds.) The Unbroken Reed: Studies in the Culture and Heritage of Ancient Egypt in Honour of A.F. Shore, London, pp. –.

FALTINGS, D.  ‘Recent Excavations in Tell el-Fara"in/Buto: New Finds and Their Chronological Implications’, in Christopher Eyre (ed.), Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress of Egyptologists, Cambridge, – September , Leuven, pp. –.  ‘The Chronological Frame and Social Structure of Buto in the Fourth Millennium bce’, in in Edwin C.M van den Brink and Thomas Levy (eds) Egypt and the Levant. Interrelations from the th through the Early rd Millennium B.C.E, London and New York: Leicester University Press, pp. –. FAULKNER, R.O.  A Concise Dictionary of Middle Egyptian, Oxford: Griffith Institute. FINKENSTAEDT, E.  ‘The Chronology of Egyptian Predynastic Black-topped Ware’ ZÄS , Deutsche Morgenländische Gesellschaft: Berlin, pp. –.  ‘Regional Painting Style in Prehistoric Egypt’, ZÄS , Deutsche Morgenländische Gesellschaft: Berlin, pp. –.  ‘The Location of Styles in Painting: White Cross-Lined Ware at Naqada’ in JARCE , pp. –.  ‘On the Life-span of Decorated Ware in the Gerzean Period’, ZÄS , Deutsche Morgenländische Gesellschaft: Berlin, pp. –. FIRTH, C.M.  The Archaeological Survey of Nubia. Report for –,  volumes, Cairo: Government Press.  The Archaeological Survey of Nubia. Report for –, Cairo: Government Press.  The Archaeological Survey of Nubia. Cairo: Government Press. FISCHER, H.G.  ‘Varia Aegyptiaca. . A Nubian (or Puntite) of the Archaic Period’, JARCE , pp. –. FRIEDMAN, F.D. (ed.) . Gifts of the Nile. Ancient Egyptian Faience. London: Thames and Hudson. FRIEDMAN, R.F.  Predynastic settlement ceramics of Upper Egypt: A comparative study of the ceramics of Hemamieh, Nagada and Hierakonpolis, U.M.I.: Berkeley.

      

references ‘Badari Grave Group ’ in W.V. Davies (ed.) Studies in Egyptian Antiquities: a tribute to T.G.H. James, British Museum Occassional Papers, London: British Museum Press, pp. –. ‘Nubians at Hierakonpolis: Excavation in the Nubian Cemeteries’, Sudan and Nubia , pp. –. ‘Foreward’, in R.F. Friedman, Egypt and Nubia. Gifts of the Desert, London: British Museum Press, pp. xiii–xv. ‘Excavating an Elephant’, NN , pp. –. ‘New Tombs and New Thoughts on HK’, in NN , pp. –. ‘The Nubian Cemetery at Hierakonpolis, Egypt. Results of the  Season: The C-Group Cemetery at Locality HKC’ Sudan and Nubia , pp. –.

FRIEDMAN, R.F. (ed.)  Egypt and Nubia. Gifts of the Desert, London: British Museum Press. FRIEDMAN, R.F., and ADAMS, B. (eds.)  Followers of Horus: studies dedicated to Michael Hoffman, –, Oxford: Oxbow Books. FRIEDMAN, R.F., and HOBBS, J.J.  ‘A ‘Tasian’ Grave in Egypt’s Eastern Desert’ in R.F. Friedman (ed.), Egypt and Nubia. Gifts of the Desert, London: British Museum Press, pp. –. FRIEDMAN, R.F., and McNAMARA, L. (eds.)  Egypt at its Origins. Abstracts of Papers Presented at the Third International Colloquium on Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt, The British Museum, London. GALE, R., GASSON, P., HEPPER, N., and KILLEN, G.  ‘Wood’, in Paul T. Nicholson and Ian Shaw (eds.) Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. –. GARDINER, A.  Egyptian Grammar, Third Edition. GATTO, M.C.  ‘The most ancient evidence of the “A-Groups” Culture in Lower Nubia’, in Recent Research Into the Stone Age of Northeastern Africa, Poznan Archaeological Museum, Poznan, pp. –. – ‘Two Predynastic pottery caches at Bir Sahara (Egyptian Western Desert)’, Sahara , pp. –.  ‘Hunting the Elusive Nubian A-Group’ in NN , pp. –.  ‘Nubians in Egypt: Survey in the Aswan-Kom Ombo Region’ in Sudan and Nubia , pp. –.

references  





‘The Nubian A-Group: a reassessment’ in Archéo-Nil , pp. –. ‘ “Je voudrais te montrer un truc”. A short note on a possible AGroup related cemetery at the Sixth Cataract of the Nile (Sudan)’ in B. Gratien (ed.) Mélanges offerts à Francis Geus. Cahiers de recherches de l’Instituts de Papyrologie et d’Égyptologie de Lille , pp. –. ‘Egypt and Nubia in the th–th millennia bc: a view from the First Cataract and surroundings’ in R. Friedman and L. McNamara (eds.), Egypt at its Origins. Abstracts of Papers Presented at the Third International Colloquium on Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt, The British Museum, London, pp. –.

GATTO, M.C., and TIRATERRA, F.  ‘Contacts between Nubian “A-Groups” and Predynastic Egypt’, in Interregional Contacts in the Later Prehistory of Northeastern Africa, Poznan Archaeological Museum, Poznan, pp. –. GATTO, M.C., HENDRICKX. S., ROMA, S., and ZAMPETTI, D.  ‘Rock Art from West Bank Aswan and Wadi Abu Subeira’, Archéo-Nil , pp. –. GEHLEN, B., KINDERMANN, K., LINDSTÄDTER, J., and RIEMER, H.  ‘The Holocene Occupation of the Eastern Sahara: Regional Chronologies and Supra-regional Developments in four Areas of the Absolute Desert’, in Tides of the Desert—Gezeiten der Wüste Contributions to the Archaeology and Environmental History of Africa in Honour of Rudolph Kuper. Africa Prehistorica , Cologne: HeinrichBarth-Institut, pp. –. GERMER, R.  Flora des pharaonischen Ägypten, Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern. GEUS, F., and THILL, F. (eds.)  Mélanges Offerts á Jean Vercoutter, Paris: Editions Recherche sur les civilisations. GILBERT, G.P.  ‘Some notes on Prehistoric Decorated Vessels with Boat Scenes’ in BACE , North Ryde: Australian Centre for Egyptology, pp. – . GLÜCK, B.  ‘Die ‘nubische’ N-Ware—eine nubische Ware?’, MDAIK , pp. –. GOLDEN, J.  ‘The Origins of the Metals Trade in the Eastern Mediterranean: Social Organization of Production in the Early Copper Industries’,



references in Edwin C.M. van den Brink and Thomas E. Levy (eds.) Egypt and the Levant. Interrelations from the th through the Early rd Millennium B.C.E, London and New York: Leicester University Press, pp. –.

GOODMAN, S.M., and HOBBS, J.J.  ‘Leopard-Hunting Scenes in Dated Rock Paintings from the Northern Eastern Desert of Egypt’, Sahara , pp. –. GOPHNA, R., and van den BRINK, E.C.M.  ‘Core-Periphery Interaction between the Pristine Egyptian Naqada IIIb State, Late Early Bronze Age I Canaan, and Terminal A-Group Lower Nubia: More Data’, in Edwin C.M. van den Brink and Thomas E. Levy (eds.) Egypt and the Levant. Interrelations from the th through the Early rd Millennium B.C.E, London and New York: Leicester University Press, pp. –. GRIFFITH, F. Ll.  ‘Oxford Excavations in Nubia’, Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology, Liverpool. GRIMAL, N.  A History of Ancient Egypt, translated by Ian Shaw, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. GUNDLACH, R.  ‘Expedition(en)’, LÄ II, pp. –. HAALAND, R.  Socio-economic differentiation in the Neolithic Sudan, BAR International Series , Oxford. HABACHI, L.  ‘A Group of Unpublished Old and Middle Kingdom Graffiti on Elephantine’ Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes , pp. –. HABU, J.  Ancient Jomon of Japan, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. HÄGG, T. (ed.)  Nubian Culture Past and Present: main papers presented at the Sixth International Conference for Nubian Studies in Uppsala, – August, , Stockholm: Almquist and Wiksell. HARRELL, J.A.  ‘Misuse of the term “alabaster” in Egyptology’, in GM , pp. –.

references



HARTUNG, U.  ‘Zur Entwicklung des Handels und zum Beginn wirtschaftlicher Administration im prädynastischen Ägypten’. Studien sur Altägyptischen Kultur, , pp. –.  Umm el Qa"ab II: Importkeramik aus dem Friedhof U in Abydos (Umm el-Qa"ab) und die Bezeihungen Ägyptens zu vorderasien im  Jahrtausend v. Chr. (with a contribution by L.J. Exner), Mainz: Philipp von Zabern.  ‘Imported Jars from Cemetery U at Abydos and the Relations between Egypt and Canaan in Predynastic Times’, in Edwin C.M. van den Brink and Thomas E. Levy (eds.) Egypt and the Levant. Interrelations from the th through the Early rd Millennium B.C.E, London and New York: Leicester University Press, pp. –.  ‘Predynastic subterranean dwellers in Maadi, Cairo’, Egyptian Archaeology. The Bulletin of the Egypt Exploration Society , London, pp. –.  ‘Rescue excavations in the Predynastic settlement of Maadi’, in S. Hendrickx, R.F. Friedman, K.M. Ciałowicz, and M. Chłodnicki, M (eds.) Egypt at its Origins: Studies in Memory of Barbara Adams, Leuven: Peeters, pp. –.  ‘Recent investigations at Tell el-Fara"in (Buto) in the western Nile Delta’, in R. Friedman and L. McNamara (eds), Egypt at its Origins. Abstracts of Papers Presented at the Third International Colloquium on Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt, The British Museum, London, pp. –. HARTUNG et.al.  ‘Tell el-Fara"in—Buto: . Vorbericht’, MDAIK , Mainz, pp. –.  ‘Tell el-Fara"in—Buto: . Vorbericht’, MDAIK , in print. HARTUNG, U., and HARTMANN, R.  ‘Zwei vermutlich aus der Westwüste stammende Gefäße im prädynastischen Friedhof U in Abydos’, MDAIK , –. HASSAN, F.A.  ‘Prehistoric settlements along the Main Nile’, in Martin A.J. Williams and Hugues Faure (eds) The Sahara and the Nile Quarternary environments and prehistoric occupation in northern Africa, Rotterdam: Balkema, pp. –.  ‘Radiocarbon chronology of Neolthic and Predynastic sites in Upper Egypt and the Delta’ AAR , pp. –.  ‘Desert Environment and Origins of Agriculture’, in T. Hägg (ed.) Nubian Cultures Past and Present: main papers presented at the Sixth International Conference for Nubian Studies in Uppsala, – August , Stockholm: Alquist and Wiskell, pp. –.  ‘The Predynastic of Egypt’, Journal of World Prehistory , pp. –.



references

HELCK, W.  ‘Zwei Einzelprobleme der Thinitischen Chronologie’, MDAIK , pp. –. HENDRICKX, S.  ‘The Relative Chronology of the Naqada Culture: Problems and Possibilities’, in Alan J. Spencer (ed) Aspects of Early Egypt, London: British Museum Press, pp. –.  ‘La chronologie de la préhistoire tardive et des débuts de l’histoire de l’Egypte’, Archéo-Nil , pp. –.  ‘Predynastic-Early Dynastic Chronology’, in E. Hornung, R. Krauss and D.A. Warburton (eds.), Ancient Egyptian Chronology, Leiden and Boston: Brill, pp. –. HENDRICKX, S., MIDANT-REYNES, B., and van NEER, W.  Maghar Dendera  (Haute Egypte) un site d’occupation Badarian, Egyptian Prehistory Monographs , Leuven: Leuven University Press. HENDRICKX, S., and FRIEDMAN, R.F.  ‘Gebel Tjuati Rock Inscription I and the Relationship between Hierakonpolis and Abydos during the Early Naqada III Period’, GM , pp. –. HENDRICKX, S., FRIEDMAN, R.F., CIAŁOWICZ, K.M., and CHŁODNICKI, M. (eds.)  Egypt at its Origins: Studies in Memory of Barbara Adams. Proceedings of the International Conference “Origins of the State. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt”, Krakow, th August-st September , Leuven: Peeters. HENDRICKX, S., and VERMEERSCH, P.  ‘Prehistory: From the Palaeolithic to the Badarian Culture (c. ,–  bc)’, in I. Shaw (ed.), The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. –. HIKADE, T.  Das Expeditionswesen im ägyptischen Neuen Reich, SAGA , Heidelberg: Heidelberger Orientverlag.  ‘Getting the Ritual Right-Fishtail Knives in Predynastic Egypt’ in S. Meyer (ed.) Ancient Egypt—Temple of the Whole World. Studies in Honour of Jan Assmann. Brill: Leiden, Boston and Cologne, pp. – . HILL, J.A.  Cylinder Seal Glyptic in Predynastic Egypt and Neighboring Regions, BAR International Series , Oxford: Archaeopress.

references



HOFFMAN, M.A.  Egypt Before the Pharaohs: The prehistoric foundations of Egyptian civilization, New York: Knopf. HOFFMAN, M.A. (ed.)  The Prehistory of Hierakonpolis, an Interim Report, Egyptian Studies Association , Cairo. HOLMES, D.L.  The Predynastic lithic industries of Upper Egypt. A comparative study of the lithic traditions of Badari, Naqada and Hierakonpolis, BAR International Series : Oxford. HOLMES, D.L., and FRIEDMAN, R.F.  ‘Survey and Test Excavations in the Badari Region, Egypt’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society , pp. –. HONEGGER, M.  ‘The Pre-Kerma Period’ in Derek A. Welsby and Julie R. Anderson (eds.), Sudan Ancient Treasures. An Exhibition of Recent Discoveries from the Sudan National Museum, London, British Museum Press, pp. –. HOPE, C.A.  ‘Early and Mid-Holocene ceramics from the Dakhla Oasis: Traditions and influences’, in R.F. Friedman (ed), Egypt and Nubia. Gifts of the Desert, London: British Museum Press, pp. –. HORNBLOWER, G.D.  ‘Funerary Designs on Predynastic Jars’, JEA , Egypt Exploration Fund: London, pp. –. HORNUNG, E., KRAUSS, R., and WARBURTON, D.A. (eds.)  Ancient Egyptian Chronology, Leiden and Boston: Brill. HOULIHAN, P.F.  The Animal World of the Pharaohs, Cairo: Cairo University Press. HOUSTON, S.D. (ed.)  The First Writing. Script Invention as History and Process. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. HUYGE, D.  ‘Cosmology, Ideology and Personal Religious Practice in Ancient Egyptian Rock Art’, in R.F. Friedman (ed), Egypt and Nubia. Gifts of the Desert, London: British Museum Press, pp. –.



references

IKRAM, S., and ROSSI, C.  ‘An Early Dynastic serekh from Kharga Oasis’, Egyptian Archaeology , pp. –. IRISH, J.D. a ‘Who was buried in the C-Group cemetery? Evidence from their teeth’, NN , p. . b ‘Overview of the Hierakonpolis C-Group Dental Remains’, Sudan and Nubia , pp. –. JANSSEN, J.J.  Commodity Prices from the Ramesside Period, Leiden: Brill.  ‘Die Struktur der pharaonischen Wirtschaft’, GM , pp. –.  ‘Gift-giving in Ancient Egypt as an Economic Feature’, JEA , pp. –. JESSE, F.  ‘The Neolithic’, in Welsby, D.A, and Anderson, J.R (eds), Sudan Ancient Treasures. An Exhibition of Recent Discoveries from the Sudan National Museum, London: British Museum Press, pp. –.  ‘A permanent link?—TheWadi Howar region and the Nile’ in I. Caneva and A. Roccati (eds.), Acta Nubica. Proceedings of the X Internatinal Conference of Nubian Studies, Rome – September , Rome: Libreria Dello Stato, pp. –. JIMÉNEZ-SERRANO, A.  ‘The Name of Elephantine in the Late Predynastic Period’, in K.M. Ciałowicz, M. Chłodnicki and S. Hendrickx (eds.) Origin of the State. Predynstic and Early Dynastic Egypt, Crackow.  ‘Two proto-kingdoms in Lower Nubia in the fourth millennium bc’, in L. Krzyzaniak, K. Kroeper, and M. Kobusiewiecz (eds.), Cultural markers in the Later Prehistory of Northeastern Africa and recent research, Poznan, pp. –. JONES, J.  ‘Towards mummification: new evidence for early developments’, Egyptian Archaeology , London: Egyptian Exploration Society, pp. –. JONES, S.  The Archaeology of Ethnicity: constructing identities in the past and present, London: Routledge. JUNKER, H.  Bericht uber die Grabungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien auf den Friedhofen von El-Kubanieh Sud: Winter –, Vienna: A. Hölder.

references



KADISH, G.E.  ‘Old Kingdom Egyptian Activity in Nubia: Some Reconsiderations’, JEA , pp. –. KAISER, W.  ‘Stand und Probleme der ägyptischeVorgeschichtsforshung’, ZÄS .  ‘Zur inneren Chonologie der Naqadakultur’, Archaeologia Geographica , pp. –.  ‘Zur Südausdehnung der vorgeschichtlichen Deltakulturen und zur frühen Entwicklung Oberägyptens’, MDAIK , pp. –. KAISER, W., and DREYER, G.  ‘Umm el Qa"ab: Nachuntersuchungen im frühzeitlichen Königsfriedhof ’, MDAIK , Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, pp. –. KAISER, W., et.al.  ‘Stadt und Temple von Elephantine ././. Grabungsbericht’, MDAIK , Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, pp. –. KANTOR, H.  ‘The final phase of the Predynastic culture Gerzean or Semainean?’, JNES : –.  ‘The relative chronology of Egypt and its foreign correlations before the Late Bronze Age’, in R.W. Ehrich (ed.) Chronologies in Old World Archaeology Vol. I, rd ed. Chicago, pp. –. KAPLONY, P.  ‘The #En-Besor Seal Impressions—Revised’ in Edwin C.M van den Brink and Thomas Levy (eds) Egypt and the Levant. Interrelations from the th through the Early rd Millennium B.C.E, London and New York: Leicester University Press, pp. –. KEMP, B.  Ancient Egypt. Anatomy of a civilization, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. KINDERMANN, K.  ‘Investigations of the Mid-Holocene settlement of Djara (Abu Muhariq Plateau, Western Desert of Egypt)’, in L. Krzyzaniak, K. Kroeper, and M. Kobusiewiecz (eds.), Cultural markers in the Later Prehistory of Northeastern Africa and recent research, Poznan, pp. –.  ‘Djara: Excavations and surveys of the – seasons’, Archéo-Nil , pp. –. KLEMM, R., and KLEMM, D.  ‘Calcite-Alabaster oder Travertin’, in GM , pp. –.

 

references ‘Chronologischer Abriss der antiken Goldgewwinung in der Ostwüste Ägyptens’, MDAIK , pp. –.

KLEMM, D., KLEMM, R., and MURR, A.  ‘Gold of the Pharaohs— years of gold mining in Egypt and Nubia’, in JAES : –.  ‘Ancient Gold Mining in the Eastern Desert of Egypt and the Nubian Desert of Sudan’, in R. Friedman (ed.), Egypt and Nubia. Gifts of the Desert, London: British Museum Press, pp. –. KÖHLER, E.C.  ‘The state of research on Late Predynastic Egypt: New evidence for the development of the Pharaonic state?’ GM , pp. –.  ‘Evidence for interregional contacts between Late Prehistoric Lower and Upper Egypt—a view from Buto’ in L. Kryzyzaniak, K. Kroeper and M. Kobusiewicz (eds) Interregional contacts in the Later Prehistory of Northeastern Africa. Poznan, pp. –. a ‘Frühe Keramik’ in G. Dreyer et.al. Umm el Qa"ab. Nachuntersuchungen im frühzeitlichen Königsfriedhof ./. Vorbericht, MDAIK , pp. –. b Tell el-Fara"in—Buto/. Keramik von der späten Naqada-Kultur bis zum frühen Alten Reich (Schichten III bis VI), Mainz: Philipp von Zabern.  ‘History or Ideology? New Reflections on the Narmer Palette and the Nature of Foreign Relations in Pre- and Early Dynastic Egypt’ in Edwin C.M van den Brink and Thomas Levy (eds) Egypt and the Levant. Interrelations from the th through the Early rd Millennium B.C.E, London and New York: Leicester University Press, pp. –.  ‘On the origins of Memphis—The new excavations in the Early Dynastic necropolis at Helwan’ in S. Hendrickx, R.F. Friedman, K.M. Ciałowicz and M. Chłodnicki (eds.), Egypt at its Origins. Studies in Memory of Barbara Adams. Proceedings of the International Conference “Origins of the State. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt”, Krakow, th August-st September , Leuven: Peeters, pp. –.  ‘The Interaction Between and the Roles of Upper and Lower Egypt in the Formation of the Egyptian State, Another Review’ in MidantReynes, B. and Y. Tristant (eds) Egypt at its Origins . Proceedings of the International Conference “Origin of the State. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt”, Toulouse, th–th September . Leuven: Peeters, pp. –.  ‘Theories of State Formation’ in Wendrich, W(ed), The Archaeology of Egypt, Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. –. KOPP, P.  Elephantine XXXII. Die Siedlung der Naqadazeit, Archäologische Veröffentlichungen , Mainz: Philipp von Zabern. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern.

references



KROEPER, K.  ‘The excavations of the Munich East-Delta Expedition in Minshat Abu Omar’ in E.C.M van den Brink (ed.) The Archaeology of the Nile Delta: Problems and Priorities, Amsterdam: The Netherlands Foundation for Archaeological Research in Egypt, pp. –.  ‘Shape + Matrix = Workshp? Ceramic from Minshat Abu Omar’ CCE , Cairo, pp. –. KROEPER, K., and WILDUNG, D.  Minshat Abu Omar: Münchner Ostdelta-Expedition; vorbericht – , SAS , Munich.  Minshat Abu Omar: Ein vor-und frügeschichlicher Friedhof im Nildelta/I Gräber –, Mainz. KRZYSZKOWSKA, O., and MORKOT, R.  ‘Ivory and related materials’, in Paul T. Nicholson and Ian Shaw (eds.), Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. –. KRZYZANIAK, L.  Early Farming Cultures of the Lower Nile: The Predynastic Period in Egypt, Warsaw.  ‘Early Farming in the Middle Nile Basin: recent discoveries at Kadero (Central Sudan)’, Antiquity , pp. –. KRZYZANIAK, L., and KOBUSIEWICZ, M. (eds.)  Origin and Early Development of Food Producing Cultures in North Eastern Africa, Poznan. KRZYZNIAK, L., KROEPER, K., and KOBUSIEWICZ, M. (eds.)  Interregional Contacts in the Later Prehistory of Northeastern Africa, Poznan.  Cultural markers in the Later Prehistory of Northeastern Africa and recent research, Poznan. KUHLMANN, K.P.  ‘The “Oasis Bypath” or The Issue of Desert Trade in Pharaonic Times’ in Tides of the Desert—Gezeiten der Wüste Contributions to the Archaeology and Environmental History of Africa in Honour of Rudolph Kuper. Africa Prehistorica , Cologne: Heinrich-BarthInstitut, pp. –. KUPER, R.  (ed) Forschungen zur Umweltgeschichte der Ostsahara. Africa Praehistorica , Cologne.  ‘Routes and Roots in Egypt’s Western Desert: The Early Holocene Resettlement of the Eastern Sahara’, in R. Friedman (ed.), Egypt



references and Nubia. Gifts of the Desert, London: British Museum Press, pp. – .

LACOVARA, P.  ‘Nubian Faience’ in F. D. Friedman (ed), Gifts of the Nile. Ancient Egyptian Faience. London: Thames and Hudson, pp. –. LANGE, M.  ‘A-Group settlement sites from the Laqiya region (Eastern Sahara, Northwest Sudan)’, in L. Krzyzaniak, K. Kroeper and M. Kobusiewicz (eds.), Cultural Markers in the Later Prehistory of Northeastern Africa and Recent Research, Poznan, pp. –. LARSEN, H.  ‘Die Merimdekeramik im Mittelmeersmuseum Stockholms’, Orientalia Suecana , pp. –. LEONARD, A., and BEYER, B. (eds.)  Essays in Ancient Civilization Presented to Helene Kantor, Chicago: Oriental Institute Press. LEVY, T.E., and van den BRINK, E.C.M.  ‘Interaction Models, Egypt and the Levantine Periphery’, in E.C.M. van den Brink and T.E. Levy (eds.), Egypt and the Levant: Interrelations from the th through the early rd millennium B.C.E, London, New York: Leicester University Press, pp. –. LICHTHEIM, M.  Ancient Egyptian Literature. Volume I: The Old and Middle Kingdoms, Berkeley and London: University of California Press.  Ancient Egyptian Autobiographies Chiefly of the Middle Kingdom: A Study and an Anthology, Freiburg, Schweiz: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. LOPRIENO, A.  Topos und Mimesis: zum Ausländer in der ägyptischen Literatur, Ägyptologische Abhandlungen , Wisebaden: Harrasowitz. LORET, V.  La resin de térébinthe (sonter) chez les anciens égyptiens, Cairo: Recherches d’archéologie et philology et d’histoire XIX. LUCAS, A.  Ancient Egyptian Materials and Industries, th edition revised and enlarged by J.R. Harris, London: Edward Arnold.

references



LYONS, C.L. and PAPADOPOULOS, J.K. (eds.)  The Archaeology of Colonialism, Los Angeles, CA: The Getty Research Institute. McDONALD, M.M.A.  ‘Relations between Dakhleh Oasis and the Nile Valley in the Mid-Holocene: a discussion’, in L. Krzyzaniak, K. Kroeper and M. Kobusiewicz (eds.), Interregional Contacts in the Later Prehistory of Northeastern Africa, Poznan, pp. –.  ‘Dakhla Oasis in Predynastic and Early Dynastic Times: Bashendi B and the Sheikh Muftah Units’, Archéo-Nil , pp. –. MANNICHE, L.  Sacred Luxuries. Fragrances, Aromatherapy and Cosmetics in Ancient Egypt, Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press. MARÉE, M.  ‘A Scorpion for Eternity’, in NN , pp. . MARK, S.  From Egypt to Mesopotamia. A study of predynastic trade routes. Texas A&M University Press. McARDLE, J.  ‘Preliminary Report on the Predynastic Fauna of the Hierakonpolis Project’, in M.A. Hoffman (ed.), The Prehistory of Hierakonpolis, an Interim Report, Egyptian Studies Association , Cairo. MEIGGS, R.  Trees and Timber in the Ancient Mediterranean World, Oxford: Clarendon Press. MIDANT-REYNES, B.  Prehistory of Egypt, translated from the French by Ian Shaw, Oxford, Maldon Mass.: Blackwell Publishing.  Aux Origines de L’Égypte. Du Néolithique à l’émergence de l’État, Paris: Fayard. MIDANT-REYNES, B. and TRISTANT, Y. (eds.)  Egypt at its Origins . Proceedings of the International Conference “Origin of the State. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt”, Toulouse (France), th–th September , Leuven: Peeters. MILLS, A.J. and NORDSTRÖM, H.-Å.  ‘The Archaeological Survey from Gemai to Dal. Preliminary Report on the Season –,’ Kush , pp. –.



references

MÖLLER, A.  Naukratis. Trade in Archaic Greece, Oxford: Oxford University Press. MORKOT, R.G.  ‘Nubia in the New Kingdom’, in W.V. Davies (ed.), Egypt and Africa: Nubia from Prehistory to Islam, London: British Museum Press, pp. –. MÜLLER-WOLLERMANN, R.  ‘Warenaustausch im Ägypten des Alten Reiches’, JESHO XXVIII, pp. –. MURNANE, W.J.  ‘The Gebel Sheikh Suleiman Monument: Epigraphic Remarks’, In B.B. Williams and T.J. Logan, ‘The Metropolitan Museum Knife Handle and aspects of Pharaonic imagery before Narmer’, JNES , pp. –. MURRAY, M.A.  Saqqara Mastabas I, London: EES. MURRAY, G.W., and MYERS, O.H.  ‘Some Predynastic Rock Drawings’, JEA , pp. –. MYERS, O.H.  ‘Abka re-excavated’, Kush , pp. –.  ‘Abka again’, Kush , pp. –. MYERS, O.H., and FAIRMAN, H.W.  ‘Excavations at Armant –’ JEA , pp. –. NEEDLER, W.  ‘A rock-drawing on Gebel Sheikh Suliman (near Wadi Halfa) showing a scorpion and human figures’, JARCE , pp. –.  Predynastic and Archaic Egypt in the Brooklyn Museum, Brooklyn, New York. NEUMANN, K.  ‘Zur Vegetationsgeschichte der Ostsahara im Holozän. Holzkohlen aus prähistorischen Fundstellen’, in Kuper, R (ed), Forschungen zur Umweltgeschichte der Ostsahara. Africa Praehistorica , Cologne, pp. –. NEWBERRY, P.E.  Beni Hasan I. London.

references



NICHOLSON, PAUL T., and PELTENBURG, E.  ‘Egyptian Faience’ in Paul T. Nicholson and Ian Shaw (eds.), Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. –. NICHOLSON, PAUL T., and SHAW, I. (eds.)  Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. NORDSTRÖM, H.-Å.  ‘A-Group and C-Group in Upper Nubia’ Kush , pp. –.  Neolithic and A-Group Sites, Volumes . and . of the Scandinavian Joint Expedition to Sudanese Nubia, Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell.  ‘The Nubian A-Group. Ranking Funerary Remains’ Norwegian Archaeological Review Vol.  No. . pp. –.  ‘Pottery Production’ in D.A. Welsby and J.R. Anderson (eds.), Sudan. Ancient Treasures. AnExhibition of Recent Discoveries from the Sudan National Museum, London: British Museum Press. NORDSTRÖM, H.-Å., and BOURRIAU, J.  ‘Ceramic technology: clays and fabrics’, in D. Arnold and J. Bourriau (eds.), An Introduction to Ancient Egyptian Pottery, Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, pp. –. NORTH, D.C.  ‘Markets and Other Allocation Systems in Hisotry: The Challenge of Karl Polanyi’, JEEH , pp. –. O’BRIEN, A.  ‘The Serekh as an Aspect of the Iconography of Early Kingship’, JARCE , pp. –. O’CONNOR, D.  ‘The Locations of Yam and Kush and Their Historical Implications’, JARCE , pp. –.  Ancient Nubia. Egypt’s Rival in Africa, Philadelphia: University Museum, University of Pennsylvania. OGDEN, J.  ‘Metals’ in Paul T. Nicholson and Ian Shaw (eds.), Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. –. OSBORN, D.J.  The Mammals of Ancient Egypt, Warminster: Arris and Phillips.



references

OSTERGARD, U.  ‘What is National and Ethnic Identity?’ in Bilde et.al (eds.), Ethnicity in Hellenistic Egypt, Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, pp. –. OVADIA, E.  ‘The domestication of the ass and pack animals: a case of technological change’ in O. Bar-Yosef and A. Khazanov (eds.) Pastoralism in the Levant: Archaeological Materials in Anthropological Perspective, Madison: Prehistory Press. PATCH, D.C.  The origin and early development of urbanism in Ancient Egypt: a regional study, Ann Arbor: Michigan. PAYNE, J.C.  Catalogue of the Predynastic Egyptian Collections in the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford: Ashmolean Museum. PETRIE, W.M.F.  The Royal Tombs of the Earliest Dynasties Part II, London: Egypt Exploration Fund. a Diospolis Parva. The Cemeteries of Abadiyeh and Hu, –, London: Egypt Exploration Fund.  Abydos Part I, London.  Abydos Part II, London.  Corpus of Prehistoric Pottery and Palettes, London: British School of Archaeology in Egypt. PETRIE, W.M.F., and QUIBELL, J.E.  Naqada and Ballas, London. PHILLIPS, J.S.  Ancient Egypt, the Aegean and the Near East. Studies in Honor of Martha Rhodes Bell, San Antonio.  ‘Ostrich eggshells’ in Paul T. Nicholson and Ian Shaw (eds.), Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. –. PIOTROVKSY, B.  ‘The Early Dynastic settlement of Khor-Daoud and Wadi Allaki. The ancient route to the gold mines’, Foullies en Nubie (–), pp. –. PITTMAN, H.  ‘Constructing Context: Mesopotamian and Egyptian Interaction in the Late Fourth Millennium B.C.E.’ in J.S. Cooper and G.M. Schwartz (eds.) The Study of the Ancient Near East in the Twenty-First Century.

references



The William Foxwell Albright Centennial Conference, Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, pp. –. POLANYI, K.  ‘The economy as instituted process’, in K. Polanyi, M. Arensberg and H. Pearson (eds.), Trade and Market in the Early Empires, Glencoe, Illinois: Free Press.  () The Great Transformation. The Political and Economic Origins of our Time, new edition, Boston: Beacon Press. POLANYI, K., ARENSBERG, M., and PEARSON, H., (eds.)  Trade and Market in the Early Empires, Glencoe, Illinois: Free Press. POSTGATE, N., WANG, T., and WILKINSON, T.  ‘The evidence for early writing: utilitarian or ceremonial?’ Antiquity , pp. –. POTTS, T., ROAF, M., and STEIN, D., (eds.)  Culture through Objects. Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honour of P.R.S. Moorey, Oxford: Griffith Institute. QUIBELL, J.E.  Hierakonpolis Part I, London: Bernard Quaritch. QUIBELL, J.E., and GREEN, F.W.  Hierakonpolis, II, London: Bernard Quaritch. RANDALL, R.H.  Masterpieces of Ivory from the Walters Art Gallery, New York and Baltimore: Hudson Hills Press in association with the Walters Art Gallery. RAUE, D.  ‘Ägyptische und Nubische Keramiker .-. Dynastie’ in W. Kaiser et.al. ‘Stadt und Temple von Elephantine ././.’ Granbungsbericht, MDAIK , Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, pp. –.  ‘Nubians on Elephantine Island’ in Sudan and Nubia , pp. –. REINOLD, J.  ‘Les Fouilles pré- et protohistoriques des la Section Française de la Directions des Antiquités due Soudan: Les campagnes – et –’, ANM , pp. –.  ‘Néolithique soudanais: Les coutumes funéraires’, in Davies, W.V. (ed), Egypt and Africa. Nubia from Prehistory to Islam.  Archéologie au Soudan: les civilisations de Nubia, Paris: Errance.  ‘Néolithique du Soudan central et de Haute Nubie—données sur le matérial céramique’, in Tides of the Desert—Gezeiten der Wüste.



references Contributions to the Archaeology and Environmental History of Africa in Honour of Rudolph Kuper. Africa Praehistorica , pp. –.

REISNER, G.A.  Archaeological Survey of Nubia, Bulletin No. , Cairo: Government Press.  Archaeological Survey of Nubia, Bulletin No. , Cairo: Government Press.  Archaeological Survey of Nubia, Report for –,  volumes, Cairo: Government Press. RENFREW, C.  The Emergence of Civilization: The Cyclades and the Aegean in the third millennium bc, London: Methuen. RENFREW, C., and BAHN, P., (eds.)  Archaeology. Theories, Methods and Practice, London: Thames and Hudson. RICHARDS, J.  ‘Text and Context in late Old Kingdom Egypt: The Archaeology and Historiography of Weni the Elder.’ JARCE , pp. –. RIEDERER, J.  ‘The Microscopic Analysis of Calcite Tempered Pottery from Minshat Abu Omar’, CCE , pp. –. RIEMER, H.  ‘Abu Gerara: Mid-Holocene sites between Djara and Dakhla Oasis (Egypt)’, in L. Krzyzaniak, K. Kroeper, and M. Kobusiewiecz (eds.), Cultural markers in the Later Prehistory of Northeastern Africa and recent research, Poznan, pp. –.  ‘News about the Clayton Rings: Long-Distance Desert Travellers during Egypt’s Predynastic’, in S. Hendrickx, R.F. Friedman, K.M. Ciałowicz, and M. Chłodnicki, M (eds.) Egypt at its Origins: Studies in Memory of Barbara Adams, Leuven: Peeters, pp. –.  ‘Interactions Between the Desert and the Nile Valley. Introduction’ in B. Midant-Reynes and Y. Tristant (eds), Egypt at its Origins . Proceedings of the International Conference “Origin of the State. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt”, Toulouse (France), th–th September , Leuven: Peeters, pp. –. RIEMER, H., and KINDERMANN, K.  ‘Contacts Between the Oasis and the Nile. A Résume of the Abu Muhariq Plateau Survey –’, in B. Midant-Reynes and Y. Tristant (eds), Egypt at its Origins . Proceedings of the International Conference “Origin of the State. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt”,

references



Toulouse (France), th–th September , Leuven: Peeters, pp. – . RIZKANA, I., and SEEHER, J.  Maadi I. The Pottery of the Predynastic Settlement, Mainz: Philipp von Zabern.  Maadi II. The Lithic Industries of the Predynastic Settlement, Mainz: Philipp von Zabern.  Maadi III. The Non-Lithic Small Finds and the Structural Remains of the Predynastic Settlement, Mainz: Philipp von Zabern.  Maadi IV. The Predynastic cemeteries of Maadi and Wadi Digla, Archäologische Veröffentlichungen des Deutschen Archäologische Institutes Kairo . Mainz. ROHL, D.M., (ed.)  The Followers of Horus. Eastern Desert Survey. Volume I, Abingdon. SAAD, Z.Y.  Ceiling Stelae in Second Dynasty Tombs from the Excavations at Helwan, IFAO. Supplement aux Annales du Services des Antiquités de l’Égypte, Cahier , Cairo: Impr. de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale. SADR, K.  ‘The Wadi Elei Finds’ CRIPEL /, pp. –. SALVATORI, S., and USAI, D.  ‘First season of excavations at R, a Late Neolithic cemetery in the northern Dongola Reach’, Sudan and Nubia , pp. –.  ‘The second excavation season at R, a Late Neolithic cemetery in the northern Dongola Reach’, Sudan andNubia , pp. –. SANTLEY, R., YARBOROUGH, C., and HALL, B.  ‘Enclaves, Ethnicity, and the Archaeological Record at Matacapan’, in R. Auger, M.F. Glass, S. MacEachern and P.H. MacCartney (eds), Ethnicity and Culture, Calgary: Department of Archaeology at the University of Calgary, pp. –. SASSON, J. (ed).  Civilizations of the Ancient Near East,  vols., Peabody, Massechusetts: Hendrickson Publishers Inc. SÄVE-SÖDERBERGH, T.  Ägypten Und Nubien: ein Beitrag zur Geschichte altägyptischer Aussenpolitik, Lund, Hakan Ohlssons Boktryckeri. SCAMUZZI, E.  Egyptian Art in the Egyptian Museum of Turin (translated by Barbara Arnett Melchiori), Turin: Edizioni d’arte fratelli pozzo.



references

SCHARFF, A.  Die Archaeologischen Ergebnisse des Vorgeschichtlichen Gräberfeldes von Abusir el-Meleq, Osnabrück: Otto Zeller. SCHEEL, B.  Egyptian Metalworking and Tools, Aylesbury: Shire Publications. SCHILD, R., KOBUSIEWICZ, M., WENDORF, F., IRISH, J.D., KABACINSKI, I. and KRÓLIK, H.  ‘Gebel Ramlah Playa’ in T. Lensenn-Erz (ed.), Tides of the Desert: Contributions to the Archaeology and Environmental History of Africa in Honour of Rudolph Kuper. Africa Prehistorica , Cologne: HeinrichBarth-Institut, pp. –. SCHILD, R. et.al.  ‘The Arkinian and Shamarkian Industries’ in F. Wendorf (ed), The Prehistory of Nubia, Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press, pp. –. SCHNEIDER, T.  Ausländer in Ägypten während des Mittleren Reiches nd der Hyksoszeit. Teil : Die ausländische Bevölkerung. Mainz.  ‘Foreigners in Egypt: Archaeological Evidence and Cultural Context’ in W. Wendrich (ed), Egyptian Archaeology, Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. –. SCHOSKE, S. and WILDUNG, D., (eds.)  Ägyptische Kunst München. Catalogue-Handbuch zur Staatlichen Sammlung Ägyptischer Kunst Museum, Munich: K.M. Lipp Verlag. SCHULZ, R.  ‘Der Sturm auf die Festung. Gedanken zu einigen Aspekten des Kampfbildes im Alten Ägypten vor dem Neuen Reich’, in Bietak & Schwarz, eds., –. SEIDLMAYER, S.J.  ‘Wirtschaftliche und gesellschaftliche Entwicklung im Übergang vom Alten Reich zum Mittleren Reich. Ein Beitrag zur Archäologie der Gräberfelder der Region Qau-Matmar in der Ersten Zwischenzeit’, in Assmann, J./Burkhard, G./Davies, V. , Problems and Priorities in Egyptian Archaeology, London New York, pp. – .  ‘Town and state in the early Old Kingdom. A view from Elephantine’ in J. Spencer (ed.) Aspects of Early Egypt, London: British Museum Press, pp. –.

references



SERPICO, M.  ‘Resins, amber and bitumen’, in Paul T. Nicholson and Ian Shaw (eds.) Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. –. SHAW, T., SINCLAIR, P., ANDAH, B., and OKPOKO, A., (eds.)  The Archaeology of Africa: Food, metals and towns, London and New York: Routledge. SHAW, I.  ‘The evidence for amethyst mining in Nubia and Egypt’ in Recent Research Into the Stone Age of Northeastern Africa, Poznan Archaeological Museum, Poznan, pp. –.  ‘Life on the Edge: Gemstones, Politics and Stress in the Deserts of Egypt and Nubia’, in R. Friedman (ed.), Egypt and Nubia. Gifts of the Desert, London: British Museum Press, pp. –. SHAW, I. (ed.)  The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt, Oxford: Oxford University Press. SHINNIE, P.L.  Ancient Nubia, London and New York: Kegan Paul International. SILVER, M.  ‘Karl Polanyi and markets in te ancient Near East: the challene of the evidence’, JEH XLIII, pp. –. SIMPSON, W.K.  Heka-Nefer and the Dynastic Material from Toshka and Arminna, New Haven and Philadelphia: Peabody Museum of Natural History. SMITH, G. ELLIOT and JONES, F. WOOD.  The Archaeological Survey of Nubia. Report for –. Volume II: Report on the Human Remains. Government Press: Cairo. SMITH, H.S.  ‘The Nubian B-Group’, Kush , pp. –.  ‘Animal domestication and animal cult in dynastic Egypt’, in P.J. Ucko and G.W. Dimbleby (eds.), The Domestication and Exploitation of Animals, Chicago, pp. –.  ‘The Rock Inscriptions of Buhen’, JEA , pp. –.  ‘The Development of the A-Group Culture in Northern Lower Nubia’ in W.V. Davies (ed.), Egypt and Africa. Nubia from Prehistory to Islam, London: British Museum Press.



references

SMITH, H.S., and GIDDY, L.L.  ‘Nubia and Dakhla Oasis in the Late Third Millennium bc: The present balance of textual and archaeological evidence’, Francis Geus and Florence Thill (eds.), Mélanges Offerts á Jean Vercoutter, Paris: Editions Recherche sur les civilisations, pp. –. SMITH, S.T.  Wretched Kush. Ethnic identities and boundaries in ancient Egypt’s Nubian Empire, London: Routledge. SPALDING, D.A.E.  Enchanted Isles. The Southern Gulf Islands, Maderia Park, bc: Harbour Publishing. SPENCER, A.J.  Catalogue of Egyptian Antiquities in the British Museum V: Early Dynastic Objects, London: British Museum Press. . Early Egypt. The Rise of Civilisation in the Near East, London: British Museum Press. SPENCER, A.J. (ed.)  Aspects of Early Egypt, London: British Museum Press. STEIN, G.  ‘Colonies without Colonialism: A Trade Diaspora Model of Fourth Millennium B.C. Mesopotamian Enclaves in Anatolia’, in C.L. Lyons and J.K. Papadopoulos (eds), The Archaeology of Colonialism, Los Angeles, CA: Getty Research Insititute, pp. –.  ‘The Political Economy of Mesopotamian Colonial Encounters’, in G. Stein (ed), The Archaeology of Colonial Encounters, Santa Fe, New Mexico: School of American Research Press, pp. –. STEIN, G. (ed.)  The Archaeology of Colonial Encounters, Santa Fe, New Mexico: School of American Research Press. STEMLER, A.  ‘A scanning electron microscopic analysis of plant impressions in pottery from the sites of Kadero, El Zakiab, Um Direiwa and El Kadada’, ANM , pp. –. TADMOR, M.  ‘The Kfar Monash Hoard Again: A View from Egypt and Nubia’, in Edwin C.M van den Brink and Thomas Levy (eds) Egypt and the Levant. Interrelations from the th through the Early rd Millennium B.C.E, London and New York: Leicester University Press, pp. – .

references



TAKAMIYA, I.H.  ‘Egyptian Pottery Distribution in A-Group Cemeteries, Lower Nubia: Towards an Understanding of Exchange Systems Between the Naqada Culture and the A-Group Culture’, in JEA , pp. –. TRAUNECKER, C.  The Gods of Egypt, translated from the French by David Lorton Ithaca: Cornell University Press. TRIGGER, B.G.  History and Settlement in Lower Nubia, Yale University Publications Anthropology .  Nubia Under the Pharaohs, London: Thames and Hudson.  ‘The Rise of Civilization in Egypt’ in J.D. Clark (ed.) The Cambridge History of Africa, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  ‘Egypt: A Fledgling Nation’, JSSEA , pp. –.  ‘Toshka and Arminna in the New Kingdom’, in P. der Manuelian (ed), Studies in Honor of William Kelly Simpson  vols, Boston, MA: Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, pp. –.  A History of Archaeological Thought, nd Edition, New York: Cambridge University Press. TRIGGER, B.G., KEMP, B.J., O’CONNOR, D., and LLOYD, A.B.  Ancient Egypt. A Social History. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. TSHAJANOV, A.  Die Sozialagronome, ihre Gundgedanken und Arbeitsmethoden, Berlin. Van den BRINK, E.C.M.  ‘The incised serekh-signs of Dynasties –, Part I: complete vessels’, in J. Spencer (ed.) Aspects of Early Egypt, London: British University Press, pp. –.  ‘Two Pottery Jars Incised with the Name of Iry-Hor from Tomb B at Umm el-Ga"ab, Abydos’ in Engel, E.-M., Müller, V., and Hartung, U. (eds), Zeichen aus dem Sand. Streiflichter aus Ägyptens Geschichte zu Ehren von Günter Dreyer, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, pp. – . Van den BRINK, E.C.M. (ed.)  The Archaeology of the Nile Delta: Problems and Priorities, Amsterdam: The Netherlands Foundation for Archaeological Research in Egypt. Van den BRINK, E.C.M., and LEVY, T.E. (eds.)  Egypt and the Levant: Interrelations from the th through the early rd millennium B.C.E, London, New York: Leicester University Press.



references

Van DRIEL-MURRAY, C.  ‘Leatherwork and skin products’, in Paul T. Nicholson and Ian Shaw (eds.) Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. –. VERCOUTTER, J.  ‘The gold of Kush’, Kush , pp. –. VERMEERSCH, P.M.  Elkab II. L’Elkabien, Epipaléolithique de la vallée du Nil Egyptien, Leuven and Brussels.  ‘The Egyptian Nile Valley during the Early Holocene’ in Tides of the Desert—Gezeiten der Wüste Contributions to the Archaeology and Environmental History of Africa in Honour of Rudolph Kuper. Africa Prehistorica , Cologne: Heinrich-Barth-Institut, pp. –. VERMEERSCH, P.M. (ed.)  A Holocene Prehistoric Sequence in the Egyptian Red Sea Area: The Tree Shelter. Egyptian Preshitory Monographs , Leuven: Leuven University Press. Von den DRIESCH, A. and BOESSNECK, J.  Die Tierknochenfunde aus der neolithischen Siedlung von MerimdeBenisalâme am westlichen Nildelta, Munich. Von der WAY, T.  Untersuchungen zur Spätvor- und Frühgeschichte Unterägyptens, SAGA : Heidelberg.  Tell el-Fara"in—Buto I. Ergebnisse zum frühen Kontext. Kampagnen der Jahre–, Archäologische Veröffentlichungen , Mainz. VICKERS, M. (ed.)  Ivory. A History and Collector’s Guide. London: Thames and Hudson. VOGELSANG-EASTWOOD, G.  ‘Textiles’ in Paul T. Nicholson and Ian Shaw (eds.) Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. –. WEIGALL, A.E.P.  A Report on the Antiquities of Lower Nubia, Oxford: Oxford University Press. WELSBY, D.A. and ANDERSON, J.R. (eds.)  Sudan Ancient Treasures. An Exhibition of Recent Discoveries from the Sudan National Museum, London: British Museum Press.

references



WENDRICH, W. (ed.)  Egyptian Archaeology, Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. WENDORF, F. (ed.)  The Prehistory of Nubia. Combined Prehistoric Expedition to Egyptian and Sudanese Nubia,  volumes, Taos, N.M: Fort Burgwin Research Center; distributed by Southern Methodist University Press: Dallas. WENDORF, F., and SCHILD, R.  Nabta Playa and its role in Northeastern African prehistory. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology (), pp. –.  Holocene Settlement of the Egyptian Sahara Volume : The Archaeology of Nabta Playa, New York: Springer. WENIG, S.  ‘Nubien’ in LÄ IV, pp. –. WENGROW, D.  The Archaeology of Early Egypt: Social Transformation in North-East Africa, , to  bc, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  ‘Prehistories of Commodity Branding’, Current Anthropology  (No. ), pp. –. WENGROW, D., and BAINES, J.  ‘Images, Human Bodies and the Ritual Construction of Memory in Late Predynastic Egypt’, in S. Hendrickx, R.F. Friedman, K.M. Ciałowicz and M. Chłodnicki (eds.) Egypt at its Origins: Studies in Memory of Barbara Adams, Leuver: Peeters, pp. –. WETTERSTROM, W.  ‘Foraging and Farming in Egypt: the transition from hunting and gathering to horticulture in the Nile valley’, in T. Shaw, P. Sinclair, B. Andah and A. Okpoko (eds.), The Archaeology of Africa: Food, metals and towns, London and New York: Routledge, pp. – . WILKINSON, T.A.H.  Early Dynastic Egypt, London: Routledge.  ‘What a King is This: Narmer and the Concept of the Ruler’, JEA , pp. –.  ‘Reality versus Ideology: The Evidence for ‘Asiatics’ in Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt’ in Edwin C.M van den Brink and Thomas Levy (eds) Egypt and the Levant. Interrelations from the th through the Early rd Millennium B.C.E, London and New York, pp. –.



references

WILLIAMS, B.B.  ‘Aspects of Sealing and Glyptic in Egypt Before the New Kingdom’ in M. Gibson and R.D. Briggs (eds.), Seals and Sealing in the Ancient Near East, Malibu: Undena Publications, pp. –.  ‘The Lost Pharaohs of Egypt’, Archaeology , New York, pp. –.  The A-Group Royal Cemetery at Qustul, Cemetery L, Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.  ‘Forbears of Menes in Nubia: Myth or Reality?’ JNES , Chicago, pp. –.  Neolithic, A-Group, and Post A-Group Remains from Cemeteries W, V, S, Q, and T, and a Cave East of Cemetery K, Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.  ‘The Qustul Incense Burner and the Case for a Nubian Origin of Ancient Egyptian Kingship’ in Theodore Celenko (ed) Egypt in Africa, Indianapolis Museum of Art in cooperation with Indiana University Press Indianapolis, pp. –.  ‘The Wearer of the Leopard Skin in the Naqada Period’, in J.S. Phillips (ed.), Ancient Egypt, the Aegean and the Near East. Studies in Honor of Martha Rhodes Bell, San Antonio, pp. –. WILLIAMS, B.B., and LOGAN, T.J.  ‘The Metropolitan Knife Handle and aspects of Pharaonic imagery before Narmer’, JNES  pp. –. WILLIAMS, M.A.J., and FAURE, H. (eds.)  The Sahara and the Nile. Quarternary environments and prehistoric occupation in northern Africa, Rotterdam. YOYOTTE, J.  ‘Pour une localisation du pays de Iam’, BIFAO , pp. –. ZARINS, A.  ‘Ancient Egypt and the Red Sea Trade: the case for obsidian in the Predynastic and archaic periods’, in A. Leonard and B. Meyer (eds.) Essays in Ancient Civilization Presented to Helene Kantor, Chicago: Oriental Institute Press, pp. –. ZIERMANN, M.  Elephantine XXVII. Die Baustrukturan der älteren Stadt (Frühzeit und Altes Reich), Grabungen in der Nordoststadt (– Kampagne) – , Archäologische Veröffentlichungen , Mainz: Philipp von Zabern. ZIVIE, A.  Découverte à Saqqarah: Le vizier oublié. Paris.

INDEX Abka, , , , ,  Abkan, , , , , , , , , , , ,  Abu Simbel, ,  Cemetery , , , –, , ,  Cemetery , , ,  Abu Zaidan, , ,  Abydos, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , –, , ,  Cemetery U, , , , , , , , , ,  lion burials, ,  U-j, , , , , , , , , , , ,  Aha, king, , , , , , , , ,  Amada,  Cemetery , , , –,  Cemetery , , , –,  Amarna, ,  letters, ,  amethyst, – Amratian, , , , ,  amulet, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , –, – #ntyw  Anatolia, , , , , , ,  Ankhtifi,  Aper-al,  Arid Climate Adaptation and Cultural Innovation in Africa (ACACIA), ,  Armant, , , , , 

Ashkeit, ,  seal impression,  Site , – Site , – Site ,  Site , – Site , – Site , – Asiatics, , , ,  Aswan, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,  Dam, , , ,  High Dam, , , –, ,  B-Group, , –, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,  baboons, –,  Badari, , , , ,  Badarian, –, , , , , , , , , , ,  Bahan, see Khor Bahan Ballana, , , ,  Bir Sahara,  Buhen, , , –,  fortress,  Buto, , , –, ,  C-Group, –, , –, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , – , , , ,  C-ware, see pottery Cemetery  Combined Prehistoric Expedition, 



index

copper, –, , –, , –, , –, – cylinder seals, see seals D-ware, see pottery Dabod, – Dakhla Oasis, ,  Dahlka Oasis Project,  Dakka, ,  Cemetery ,  Cemetery ,  Cemetery ,  Cemetery , – Cemetery , – Cemetery , – Cemetery , – Cemetery , – Debeira Cemetery , – Site ,  Site ,  Site , – Dehmit,  Cemetery , – Cemetery , – Cemetery , – Cemetery , – desert, , –, –, –,  Eastern, , , , , , , , , –, ,  routes, –, , , , –,  Sahara, Western, , , , , , , , ,  Djer, king, ,  donkey, ,  caravan, , , –, ,  domestication, – ebony, , –, , –, , , , , .  Elephantine, , –, , , , , , , , , , , , , , . 

elephant, , , , , , , , ,  burials, ,  ivory, , , –,  tusks, , –,  Elkab, , , , ,  ethnicity, –, –, – exchange, market, , –, –  reciprocity, –,  redistribution, –, , , , , , , –, ,  faience, , ,  falcon standard, ,  Farafra Oasis, ,  Faras West,  Fayum, , , , , , Fayum A, –, , , ,  First Cataract, –, , , , , , , , , –, , , , , , , –, , –, , –, – frankincense,  Gamai,  Gebel Tjauti, , –,  Gebel es-Silsila, ,  Gebel Sheikh Suleiman, , – , –, , –, , ,  Gedekol, – Gerf Hussein, , –, , – , ,  Gerzean, , , ,  Gezira Dabarossa,  Gharb Aswan,  gold, , , , , , , , , , , , , , – , , , , , , , –, –, , , , ,  Hagar el-Ghorab,  Halfa Degheim, – Hammamiya, 

index Harkhuf, , , –, , ,  autobiography, – Heka-nefer, ,  Helwan, –, ,  Heqanakht, – Herodotus,  Hierakonpolis, , , , –, , , , –, , , , , , , , , , , ,  HK, , –, , , , –, , , – HKC,  HKA,  HK,  HK,  HK,  Tomb , , , , , , , , –,  Hill B Inscription, –, ,  Horus, , , , ,  Huy, ,  Hyksos, ,  Ikkur, , ,  Cemetery ,  Cemetery , – Ineiba,  incense, , , – incense burners, , –, , , , , ,  Archaic Horus, –, , –,  Maadi, –,  Qustul incense burner, , , –, , , –, , , , , , – ,  Irtjet, –, , –,  Iry-Hor,  ivory, , , , , , , , , , , , , –, , , , , , , , , ,  elephant, , –,  hippopotamus, –



Ka, king,  Kadero, , –,  Kalabsha,  Kerma, , , , , ,  Khasekhem(wy), king, , , , ,  Kharga Oasis, , , , ,  Prehistoric Project,  Khartoum, , , ,  Khartoum Mesolithic, ,  Khartoum Neolithic, , , , ,  Khartoum Variant,  Khent-ta  Khnumhotep,  Khor Ambukol,  Khor Bahan, , , , , –, , , , , , , , , , , ,  Khor Daud, , – knife, , , , , ,  Gebel el-Arak, , , – Metorpolitan Museum knife handle,  ripple-flake, ,  Kom el-Ahmar, see Hierakonpolis Kom Ombo, , , , , , , , ,  Korosko,  Koshtamna, , , – Cemetery,   Cemetery,   Cemetery,  –, , ,  Kubban, , – Kubbaniya, , , , –, ,  Kubbanieh South/Sud,  Kush, , , , –,  labels, , , –,  Abydos –, year labels –  Laqiya, ,  leather, , , , , , – leopard, , – skins, , –



index

Levant, , –, , , , , , –, , , , , , ,  Libya, , ,  Libyans, ,  linen, –, , , , , –  lions, –,  Maadi, , , , , , –, , , , ,  Maadi-Buto culture, , , ,  mace handles,  Seyala, , , ,  maceheads, , , , , –, , , –, , , , , , , , , , , , ,  Narmer,  Maghar Dendera , – el-Ma"Mariya,  el-Masa"Id,  Matapacan,  Mediq, Cemetery , – Cemetery , – Cemetery ,  Medjay,  Merenre, ,  Merimde Beni Salama, –, , , ,  Meris-Markos, – Meroe,  Mesopotamia, , , , – , , , , , , –  Metardul, –, –, , ,  Minshat Abu Omar, –, , ,  Moalla,  monkeys, , – Mostagedda, ,  myrrh, , – N-ware, see pottery Nabta Playa, – Naga Wadi, –, –

Napata,  Narmer, king, , , ,  Nehasyu, ,  Nekhen, ,  Nine Bows,  obsidian, , , , ,  el-Omari, , , , ,  ostrich, , , , , , , –,  feather fan, , ,  shell, , , ,  Palermo Stone, ,  palettes, , , , , , , , , , , , , , –, – , , , , , , – , –, , , , ,  Battlefield,  Hunter, , ,  Libyan,  Narmer, , , , , ,  panther, see leopard Pe-Hor,  Pepi II, ,  Philae,  potmarks, , –,  pottery C-ware, , ,  D-ware, –, , ,  Levantine, , , , , , , ,  N-ware, , , , , , – , ,  Sudanese, , , , , , ,  Tasian, , , , – W-ware, , –, , ,  Syro-Palestinian, see Levantine Punt, , ,  Hatshepsut’s expedition to, , 

index Qadan, – Qurta Cemetery ,  Cemetery  Qustul, , , , –, , – , –, , , –, , , , , , , – , , , , , –, , , – Cemetery L, , , , –, , , , , , , , , , , , , –, , , , , , ,  incense burners, –, , , , , ,  seals, ,  Rekhmire, , , , ,  resin, , , , –, , , ,  rock carving, –, –, , –, –,  royal barque, ,  Sahaba, – Sahure,  Saras, ,  Scorpion, king, , ,  seals, Abu Simbel,  Ashkeit,  cylinder, , , , , , , , , , ,  Faras, , ,  Gerf Hussein,  Ikkur/Koshtamna,  Qustul,  Sarras West, ,  Siali, , , , Toshka West,  Selket,  Semainian,  Serekh , , , , , , , , ,  Serra East, – Setju, , , , , 



Seyala, , , , , , – , , , , , , , , , , , , ,  Cemetery , – Cemetery , –, , , , , , , , , , –,  Cemetery ,  esh-Shaheinab,  Sheikh Sharaf, – Shellal, , , , , , , , ,  Cemetery , –, ,  Shem Nishai, – Siali, – Sisi, –, ,  sntr,  ¯ stelae, , – stone vessels, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , –, , , , , – stj-bow, ,  Ta-Seti , , , , , ,  Tasian, , , see also pottery Tell el-Farkha,  Teotihuacan,  Theban Desert Road Survey, , ,  Toshka, ,  trade, see exchange Tushka, see also Toskha Cemetery,  – Cemetery,  – U-j, see Abydos Uruk, ,  W-ware, see pottery Wadi Abu Subeira,  Wadi Alagi Cemetery , – Cemetery ,  Cemetery , , see also Wadi Allaqi

 Wadi Allaqi, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,  Wadi es-Sebua, , ,  Wadi Halfa, , , , , ,  Wadi Hammamat, , ,  Wadi of the Horus Qa"a, ,  Wadi Sahal,  Wadi Shaw,  Wadi Qamar, –

index Wawat, , , , , , , , , , , ,  Weni, , , , ,  wood, , , , , , , –, , ,  acacia, – cork wood,  ebony, see ebony Yam, , , , , , , , , , –

PLATES

plates

Plate . Pre- and Early Dynastic tomb types in Nubia (Reisner , Figs. –)





plates

Plate . Graves from Cemetery  at Bahan (Reisner , Figs. , , , , , –)

plates

Plate . Graves from Cemetery  at Mediq and  at Koshtamna (Firth , Figs. –, –, )





plates

Plate . A-Group and Egyptian pottery from the nd Archaeological Survey (Emery , pl. –, not to scale)

plates

Plate . Shaft types from the SJE concession area (Nordström , pl. )





plates

Plate . Graves : , :  and :  (Nordström , pl. , , , )

plates

Plate . Tomb L at Qustul and a selection of finds (Williams , pp. , , , )





plates

Plate . Tomb L at Qustul and a selection of finds (Williams , pp. , , )

plates

Plate a. Qustul incense burner from Tomb L (Williams , pl. )

Plate b. Archaic Horus incense burner from Tomb L at Qustul (Williams , pl. )

Plate . Rock inscription at Gebel Sheikh Suleiman (Williams and Logan , Pl. A, B)





plates

Plate . Mace from Tomb  at Seyala  (after Firth , Fig. )

plates

Plate a. Seal impression from Siali (from Williams , Pl. a)

Plate b. Seal from Sarra West (from Williams , Pl. b)

Plate c. Ivory seal from Tomb L at Qustul (from Williams , Pl. c)

Plate d. Seal from Faras (from Williams , Pl.  d)

