Remove That Pyramid!: Studies on the Archaeology and History of Predynastic and Pharaonic Egypt in Honour of Stan Hendrickx (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta, 305) 904294255X, 9789042942554

Citation preview

O R I E N TA L I A L OVA N I E N S I A A N A L E C TA Remove that Pyramid! Studies on the Archaeology and History of Predynastic and Pharaonic Egypt in Honour of Stan Hendrickx

edited by WOUTER CLAES, MARLEEN DE MEYER, MEREL EYCKERMAN and DIRK HUYGE †

P E E T ERS

REMOVE THAT PYRAMID!

Stan Hendrickx and the Narmer Palette, Egyptian Museum, Cairo, 2010 (© ZDF).

ORIENTALIA LOVANIENSIA ANALECTA ————— 305 —————

REMOVE THAT PYRAMID! Studies on the Archaeology and History of Predynastic and Pharaonic Egypt in Honour of Stan Hendrickx

edited by

WOUTER CLAES, MARLEEN DE MEYER, MEREL EYCKERMAN and DIRK HUYGE †

PEETERS LEUVEN – PARIS – BRISTOL, CT 2021

A catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. © 2021, Peeters Publishers, Bondgenotenlaan 153, B-3000 Leuven/Louvain (Belgium) All rights reserved, including the rights to translate or to reproduce this book or parts thereof in any form. ISBN 978-90-429-4255-4 eISBN 978-90-429-4256-1 D/2021/0602/113

TABLE OF CONTENTS Wouter CLAES, Marleen DE MEYER & Merel EYCKERMAN From pots to rocks: Editorial tribute to Stan . . . . .

.

.

.

.

XI

Lieve DE TROYER The Apache . . .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

XV

Anne HENDRICKX That’s our dad . .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

XVII

Lisa HENDRICKX So, what does your dad do for a living? .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

XIX

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

XXIII

TABULA GRATULATORIA .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

XXIX

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF STAN HENDRICKX .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

XXXI

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

LVII

Alain ANSELIN La tombe, l’image et le mot : Systèmes de signes, interférences et entrée en scène de la langue dans la culture funéraire des élites naqadiennes de l’Égypte antique . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3

.

.

.

.

David A. ASTON Un animal sauvage dans l’Égypte Hyksos: Crocodiles in L81 .

.

29

Vladimir Wolff AVRUTIS & Eliot BRAUN Imported artefacts from Early Bronze I tombs at Nesher-Ramla, Israel and their chronological significance . . . . . . . . . . . .

49

Masahiro BABA Firing temperature of Predynastic pottery from Hierakonpolis .

.

65

Bettina BADER High and low cuisine in late Middle Kingdom Egypt: Who is the cook? And who made the cooking pot? . . . . . . . . . . . . .

75

Nathalie BUCHEZ Retour à Adaïma pour un point de chronologie

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

. 115

VI

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Richard BUSSMANN Visual traditions and early writing: Falcon and Naqada plant at Hierakonpolis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 Marcello CAMPAGNO Emergence of the state and local leadership in the Nile Valley (4th– 3rd millennia BC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 Josep CERVELLÓ AUTUORI The boundaries between the first three dynasties: Actual fact or late tradition? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151 Marek CHŁODNICKI New discoveries of Neolithic caliciform beakers on the Upper Nile (Sudan) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 Krzysztof M. CIAŁOWICZ The eastern part of the Tell el-Farkha cemetery during the Early Dynastic period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175 Wouter CLAES, Dorian VANHULLE & Thierry DE PUTTER Obsidian in early Egypt: The provenance of a new fragment from the Predynastic settlement at Elkab and the question of possible exchange routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187 Kylie CORTEBEECK, Helen PEETERS & Nina TROOSTERS Regional typological variation: An example of early Middle Kingdom pottery assemblages from zone 9 at Dayr al-Barshā . . . . . . . 237 John Coleman DARNELL Dancing women and waltzing ostriches: Ratites in Predynastic and Pharaonic imagery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271 Marleen DE MEYER Chaos en beheersing: The life of Henri Asselberghs and his friendship with Jean Capart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309 David DEPRAETERE, Anne DEVILLERS, Morgan DE DAPPER & Wouter CLAES An enigmatic subterranean building within the Great Walls at Elkab . . 363 Xavier DROUX Found in a cellar, but from Naqada? A new Predynastic hunting scene on a C-ware fragment from the Garstang Museum of Archaeology, Liverpool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 389

VII

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Dina A. FALTINGS Aulâd esh-Sheikh: Hermann Ranke’s short trip into the Early Dynastic . 405 Frank FÖRSTER Die Vision von der Figur im Flint: Ein Silex-Skorpion aus der Sammlung des Ägyptischen Museums der Universität Bonn . . . . . . . . 469 Renée FRIEDMAN Coming together: Fancy greywacke vessels from the Abydos Royal Tombs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 483 Maria Carmela GATTO The First Cataract region in the Predynastic/Early Dynastic period: New data from Wadi el-Tawil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 513 Achilles GAUTIER Some shells and vertebrates from Neolithic sites west of Nabta Playa, Western Desert, Egypt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 527 Gwenola GRAFF Contribution à l’iconographie de la violence au Prédynastique égyptien : Scènes de triomphe, de domination animale et de guerre dans le wadi Abu Subeira (Assouan) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 537 Elizabeth HART The production and use of Early Dynastic Egyptian flint bangles .

.

. 561

Rita HARTMANN „Augengefässe“ aus Tell el-Faraʻin/Buto

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

. 597

Ulrich HARTUNG Holzköpfe aus Abydos .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

. 613

.

.

.

.

.

Salima IKRAM The ‘Jacuzzi’ and the ‘Doughnuts’: Possible directions to a watering hole in Egypt’s Eastern Desert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 633 Mariusz A. JUCHA Made of burnt clay tiles: The Early Dynastic structures within the Nile Delta cemeteries and settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . 645 Karin KINDERMANN Predynastic Elkab: A first stony perspective

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

. 661

E. Christiana KÖHLER A chronology and material puzzle from Helwan .

.

.

.

.

.

.

. 681

VIII

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Robert KUHN Schwein haben oder nicht? Zur Frage von Kontext, Datierung und Funktion des „Baliana-Konvolutes“ aus dem Ägyptischen Museum und Papyrussammlung Berlin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 697 Lucia KUIJPER & Merel EYCKERMAN Top or bottom? Stone components of chariots from the calcite alabaster workshop in al-Shaykh Saʻīd/Wādī Zabayda . . . . . . . . . 725 Jean-Loïc LE QUELLEC Des barques égyptiennes au Tassili ? .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

. 739

Georgia LONG A well-stocked kitchen: Model food offerings from the Middle Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 759 Sylvie MARCHAND « Entre deux murs… » : Note sur quelques tessons et terres cuites remarquables d’Elkab du IVe siècle av. J.-C. . . . . . . . . . . . 809 Béatrix MIDANT-REYNES, Christiane HOCHSTRASSER-PETIT & Gaëlle BRÉAND À propos d’une frise animalière sur panse de jarre funéraire à Adaïma : Le graffito S574/3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 829 Vera MÜLLER The hippopotamus hunt and its relationship to other rituals in the 1st Dynasty as represented on seals . . . . . . . . . . . . 853 Tanja POMMERENING & Harco WILLEMS Unravelling Daressy’s excavations of the five shafts in front of the tomb of Djehutihotep at Dayr al-Barshā . . . . . . . . . . . . . 871 René PREYS Une image de l’hippoptame … 3000 ans plus tard

.

.

.

.

.

.

. 899

Ilona REGULSKI Divine depictions: First representations of gods in Egypt .

.

.

.

. 911

Heiko RIEMER Caravan pioneers in Old Kingdom times: Pots and paths from the Darb el-Tawil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 933 Alice STEVENSON Notes on Predynastic figurines in the Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 955

TABLE OF CONTENTS

IX

Yann TRISTANT, Olivier P. ROCHECOUSTE, Yann ARDAGNA & Yannick PROUIN The subsidiary burials of Abu Rawash: New archaeological data to evaluate the sub-plot of human sacrifice in Early Dynastic Egypt . . . . 967 Edwin C.M. VAN DEN BRINK The stone and wooden cylinder seals in the Stern collection, Israel Museum, Jerusalem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1005 Athena VAN DER PERRE “To be spoken over a figure of the foe, made of clay”: A comprehensive typology of the Brussels execration figurines . . . . . . . . . 1023 Bart VANTHUYNE Late Early Dynastic – Early Old Kingdom collared/Kragenhals beer jars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1039 Eugène WARMENBOL The ape, the myth, the legend revisited: KV 50, 51, and 52: ‘Pet Sematary’ II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1059

FROM POTS TO ROCKS: EDITORIAL TRIBUTE TO STAN WOUTER CLAES, MARLEEN DE MEYER & MEREL EYCKERMAN

“Remove that pyramid!” With these winged words, uttered in 1977, Stan Hendrickx’s extraordinary career in Egyptian archaeology took flight. One year after obtaining his MA in archaeology at KU Leuven, Stan was invited by the Committee of Belgian Excavations in Egypt and the Royal Museums of Art and History in Brussels to excavate the newly discovered Naqada III cemetery at the Upper Egyptian site of Elkab. Being a novice in fieldwork in Egypt, he had to learn a few basic words and phrases in Arabic to communicate with the Egyptian workmen. When on the morning of the second day in the field, a donkey was standing in the middle of the excavation trench, he instructed the workmen to “sheel al-haram!”. To his surprise, rather than removing the donkey from the trench, the workmen looked at each other in utter amazement. Instead of asking them to remove the donkey (“sheel al-humar” in Arabic), Stan had in fact asked them to remove a pyramid! To everyone’s amusement, not in the least Stan’s own, this anecdote is still recounted regularly at the dinner table or during gatherings with a cold beer on the terrace of the Somers Clarke excavation house at Elkab after a hard day’s work. Although this whimsical tale has already been featured in a previous publication,1 it may be unknown to those who never worked with the Belgian mission at Elkab. Deserving of a place in the historiography of Egyptian archaeology, we have chosen it as the title of this volume that honours Stan on his official retirement. Not only is it a fitting wink to Stan’s interests in the early phases of Egyptian civilisation prior to the Pyramid Age, it also nicely illustrates that Stan is a scholar who never took himself too seriously. Refreshing ideas on Egypt’s early history go hand in hand with making sure that there are always enough cold ‘refreshments’ in the fridge of the excavation house. And he generously shares his encyclopaedic knowledge and sheer mountain of documentation with anyone who is interested, regardless whether it is a student, PhD-researcher, or professor.

1 BAHN, P., 2013. Dirty diggers: Tales from the archaeological trenches. Walnut Creek, CA: 59–60.

XII

FROM POTS TO ROCKS: EDITORIAL TRIBUTE TO STAN

Although Belgium has a long-standing tradition of archaeological research in Egypt2 and many Belgian scholars have made significant contributions to shaping Egyptology into the multidisciplinary scientific research field it is today, few scholars have had such a profound impact on its development in the past decades as Stan. Many topics, including Predynastic and early pharaonic pottery, the chronology of early Egypt, its art, iconography and material culture, and recently also rock art, have been greatly influenced by Stan’s research and numerous publications.3 As an art history professor at Hasselt University, Stan has also inspired vast numbers of students over the years. Through his intercession, a select number of these artists also worked as illustrators for various archaeological missions in Egypt and beyond, skilfully drawing pottery, small finds, or rock art. The wonderful drawings that have been integrated into this volume are a token of appreciation by some of these students for their mentor. We offer them our special thanks for having responded so enthusiastically to our call to add a creative touch to this Festschrift. We warmly thank all the authors of this volume for their papers and for entrusting us with the publication of their research. The sheer quantity of contributions, as well as the variety of topics, reflect our collective appreciation and respect for Stan, a scholar without equal. We are grateful to the various reviewers and to Megan Lucie Thomasson for her help with the proofreading during her internship at the Royal Museums of Art and History. A special word of thanks goes to Bert Verrept for his indispensable help with the editing process and to Peeters Publishers and Harco Willems for accepting publication of this volume in the series Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta. And last but certainly not least, we are grateful that Stan’s compagnon de route, Dirk Huyge, (with feigned reluctance) agreed to help us make this Festschrift a reality shortly before his untimely death in 2018. We like to think that he is nevertheless content to have his name on the cover. Stan, this Festschrift is best enjoyed with a cold Stella in hand!

2 For an overview, see: BAVAY, L.; BRUWIER, M.-C.; CLAES, W. & DE STROOPER, I. (eds), 2012. Ceci n’est pas une pyramide  : Un siècle de recherche archéologique belge en Égypte. Leuven; DE MEYER, M. & DE CARTIER D’YVES, S. (eds), 2021. Belgians on the Nile: A history of royal visits, entrepreneurship, and archaeological exploration in Egypt. Alexandria. 3 See the bibliography on p. XXXI–LVI. Perhaps the only regret in Stan’s career is that he never was accepted to publish in ‘De Woef’ (www.woef.be), Belgium’s leading dog magazine, despite his seminal publication on the role and significance of the African wild dog (Lycaon pictus) in Predynastic iconography (Hendrickx 2006, The dog, the Lycaon pictus and order over chaos in Predynastic Egypt). Another great man in Egyptology, George A. Reisner, did succeed in such a feat in the American equivalent of ‘De Woef’: REISNER, G.A., 1938. Ancient king gives dog a royal burial. The American Kennel Gazette 55(5): 7–9, 180–182.

Stan at Elkab in 1977 (left) and 2005 (right) (© Belgian Archaeological Mission to Elkab).

The Elkab team in 1986. From left to right, top row: Hans Vandekerckhove, Dirk Huyge, Stan Hendrickx, Luc Limme; bottom row: Abdu Mahmud Ahmed Daud, Tayeb Mohamed Tayeb, Gabr Hussein Ali (© Belgian Archaeological Mission to Elkab).

Stan with Prince Philippe of Belgium at Elkab in 1999 (© Belgian Archaeological Mission to Elkab).

Stan at the German excavation house in the Dakhla Oasis (Photo by Frank Förster).

THE APACHE LIEVE DE TROYER

No … a prince on a white horse was never my intention. A wild Apache, yes, that is what I wanted. And on a beautiful day in 1978, sitting on a bar stool, not a horse, was the spitting image of my great hero Winnetou with flowing long black hair and sweet amber eyes. That evening we smoked the peace pipe and we have been together ever since. He became forever my wild Apache. Together we built our wigwam in faraway Werchter and had two beautiful daughters. His drive and passion for history and archaeology manifested itself very early on during our numerous trips and holidays with family and friends. No church or chapel, ruin or small-town museum escaped his eagle eye. Sand and sea … forget it, that was for other people. His own office also bears witness to his zeal and perseverance: a true battlefield, in which even a cat cannot find her own cubs.1 But for my dear husband, this chaos is a true pleasure and a place where he finds everything he needs without problems. Admirable! Even now that he is retired, he continues to work as never before. Family trees are thoroughly combed through, local historical societies are no longer safe, lectures in Belgium and abroad, deadlines for yet another article, international Skype conversations in French, German, and English. And let us not forget his excavations. Those truly are his elixir of life. After five weeks in Egypt I get back a man who is fully charged and sincerely happy, for which I thank the wonderful teams. It is my hope that he can continue to work for many more decades, and that he can remain the wonderful husband, father and grandfather that he is … but, please, tidy up that desk!

1

Literal translation of the Flemish “waar een kat haar eigen jongen niet in terugvindt”.

Lieve, Lisa, Stan, and Anne.

THAT’S OUR DAD ANNE HENDRICKX

Our dad is anything but ordinary. It is only while growing up that you realise who your father really is. My sister and I thought it was perfectly normal for our dad to leave the country for several weeks every year, to wait for some postcards from a sandy country, and then in the end to collect a bronzed father at the airport. Souvenirs decorated the house throughout the year, until he left again for a few weeks. That’s our dad. Over the years we learned that he not only went to Egypt to get us the latest Cleopatra statue, but that he actually had something to say. While most of the vocabulary at home was of the Urbanus1 humour variety, he presented at the same time the latest academic results at leading research institutions all over the world. When my mom, Lisa, and I went to New York with him and saw him speak there, we realised: that’s our dad. At the same time, he guided us through all possible museums, whether we wanted him to or not. Like an animal in its habitat, he knew exactly what was made where and when, and especially why. Pictures were never just pictures, as he had learned from his favourite book by Eddy De Jongh.2 Searching for meaning in the past, that is what he was after. All those years must somehow have set something in motion, because when I was 18 years old I chose to study history myself. For many years he enjoyed reading over my assignments and finally my thesis. That’s our dad. After years of getting by with limited Arabic vocabulary—largely consisting of ‘alhamdulillah’ and ‘bukra fi’l mishmish’—he made the wise decision to join me for Arabic evening classes. Every Monday we first went out to dinner, during which I gave him a refresher lesson before he would not be able to follow again. Now he can impress the local villagers of Elkab and Dayr al-Barshā with a few fine words of Standard Arabic. Hik abi. I followed my father’s example, and in his footsteps ended up in the Middle East, in Palestine. His interest in the local beer brewery at Taybeh was undoubtedly the main reason for his and my mother’s holiday in the region, but his love for archaeology was also omnipresent there. While on the one hand he had dinner with our friend 1

Flemish comedian. DE JONGH, E., 1995. Kwesties van betekenis: Thema en motief in de Nederlandse schilderkunst van de zeventiende eeuw. Leiden. An English translation appeared as DE JONGH, E., 2000. Questions of meaning: Theme and motif in Dutch seventeenth-century painting. Translated by M. Hoyle. Leiden. 2

XVIII

THAT’S OUR DAD

Muhammad in the al-Jalazone refugee camp, he also quietly listened to his Israeli colleagues. That’s our dad. In turn, I also went to his area, to the excavations at Elkab and Dayr al-Barshā. Despite the busy work days there, he amply took the time to show me around. I saw on the walls of the excavation house at Elkab the drawings we had sent him as children so many years ago. History has beautiful twists, and no doubt Eddy De Jongh taught him the meaning of this. This slice of family history, in the middle of excavations into a distant past, shows what a wonderful father he is. That’s our dad. Retirement is only a stamp, because his interests keep him active. While his eternal passion for archaeology continues to occupy his time, he also delves into the history of Maaseik, expands his postcard collection of Werchter, and finally also shows himself to be a meticulous master in creating comic strips about and for his grandchildren. A true jack-of-all-trades if ever there was one, with much love for the past, but perhaps even more so for his family and the present. That’s our dad.

SO, WHAT DOES YOUR DAD DO FOR A LIVING? LISA HENDRICKX

So, what does your dad do for a living? A classic question among children. I always answered proudly: my dad is an archaeologist. That was invariably followed by a ‘wow!’. In high school I dared to admit that my father also taught a bit: art history. The reactions to that were not always great, so I changed the answer to the question again to ‘my dad plays a lot in the sand and makes little drawings.’ Fortunately, I can now answer this question simply as ‘my dad is retired, at least he pretends to be, because he still works.’ Dad’s work and his passion for it were always omnipresent in my upbringing and youth. As a toddler of nearly two years old, I walked into the hospital with him to visit my new-born baby sister. Dad shone with pride when I was able to name some works of art in the hospital corridors, a talent that has now largely escaped me thirty years later, to dad’s great shame. I even remember that as a toddler I loved looking at the images in books about ancient Egypt, Tutankhamun’s mask of course being my favourite. When I was able to read letters and words a little later, it soon became clear that books like these were still too difficult for me. Fortunately, dad had a worthy alternative: comic books. We had hours of fun with his extensive comic book collection alongside his library of books about Egypt and Maaseik. Neighbours and friends were also welcome in our library, as long as we used cards to indicate which comic book had been borrowed. When we were teenagers, the comic books were moved to less accessible places to make more room for books about Egypt, Maaseik, art, etc. It will therefore come as no surprise to anyone that dad is extremely happy with his version of a man cave: the office, the sanctuary of father Hendrickx, where he writes articles, makes PowerPoints, scans, types and does god knows what else. If mom, Anne and I had planned an evening in front of the TV, we invariably would have to yell if we wanted him to join us. He had his headphones on with appropriate music, which allowed him to completely cut himself off from the daily routines of the Hendrickx household. To scare him by suddenly tapping on his shoulder was our revenge. It was only when dad discovered the video game Tomb Raider that we were also glued to his PC. The fact that this was a game with an ‘archaeologist’ was sufficient for dad to make this pedagogically sound. We loved the giant spider, the dinosaur and the mansion of Lara Croft with her butler, but we ourselves hardly played because dad was better at it and we secretly found it all quite scary.

XX

SO, WHAT DOES YOUR DAD DO FOR A LIVING?

What our dad also always did better than any other dad was to help with homework. Not necessarily for the classic mathematics assignments, crafting or knitting, but especially when it came to oral presentations. Anne and I soon realised that Egypt and everything to do with history were easy subjects. My first presentation was with Marthe, one of my friends at the time, who did not have it easy at school. We used slides, photos, books and did our best to convey as well as possible what dad had explained to us. I think Marthe had never before achieved such brilliant results. We were proud as hell! I do not think it had escaped the teacher’s notice though that we had received some help. A few years later, dad was asked to give a talk for the upperclassmen. Tom Bastin, son of the local carpenter, was very enthusiastic and wanted to ask a question, but the stand-in teacher kept ignoring him, whether consciously or not. Unsurprisingly, a few doors were skewed by father Bastin at our home. Fortunately, they were able to make up for it a few decades later when they discovered their shared passion for Werchter postcards. In addition to being a well-known figure in Werchter, dad is also a true citizen of the world. While he would attend conferences several times a year, he experienced his highlights as a tourist with his wife and daughters. When we were little, this was generally limited to a cultural outing to some museum in Belgium, but we also went on city trips to Paris and New York. Our annual holidays included at least one day of culture as well. For me, the most beautiful holiday is still the trip to Egypt. Admittedly, in the beginning I was not so keen on this trip: I was in my first year of high school and during the Easter break a trip to Spain was planned. I was not allowed to go, but ‘had to’ come along to Egypt instead. However, I had a great time with my sister, Annelies and “the oldies.” Dad was not only a concerned father, but also our guide, interpreter, tour operator and hero. Thanks to him we saw places that many people do not even know existed, and we always got factual and interesting information. What should have been the highlight for me, the tomb of Tutankhamun, was a bit of a disappointment, but the visit to the Egyptian Museum in Cairo with the funerary mask was fabulous… or was it the cool air inside at the time that made the impression? At home or abroad, Anne and I can always count on the unconditional support of our parents. What do you want to be when you grow up, Liske? What are you going to study, Flippe? Have you made up your mind already? Why yes, I want to become a teacher! And, so, dad approved of my idea for an education as a primary school teacher. Here too I was able to make use of his passion for art, culture and history on several occasions. A number of portfolios were proofread and corrected by him, and accurate tables of content and source references were entirely his merit. When I had to design a city walk for children, we went to Maaseik with dad and grandma, which led to a magnificent result. During an internship with children with a disability, dad came to talk

SO, WHAT DOES YOUR DAD DO FOR A LIVING?

XXI

about Egypt, which these children will certainly remember for a long time. Also going forward, he will often be brought in to teach the current generation of children. Not in the least my own children. When Jeff was in his second year of primary school, the question of professions came up. And what does your dad do? My dad is a painter, but my granddad is an archaeologist! And just like that, a visit by Tonneke1 to the primary school of Werchter in 2017 was a fact. There is no denying that Tonneke is a very proud Tonneke, especially when Jeff discovered that not all figures on the Narmer Palette have calf muscles. This was a great observation that Tonneke himself had not made before. It was spoken about it with great pride at one of the many conferences. Another highlight came when I first brought a child into the world and gave him the name Stan. Like a real Nostradamus, dad claimed to have already known this. The next oracle he predicted was a granddaughter who finally would pay attention to him instead of to the beautiful blond pearls of our family. And so, it happened that Nel was born, Tonneke’s best friend. “Where is Tonneke’s belly?” remains her favourite game. With a lot of love, Tonneke currently tells his grandchildren the biggest nonsense. I am looking forward to all the moments when he can help them in the same way he did for me and my sister. Dad is an archaeologist, draughtsman, storyteller, playmate, loyal friend, in short, the best!

1 Nickname for Stan. ‘Tonneke’ is Flemish for a small beer barrel, which is appropriately also how Jeff calls his grandfather, Stanneke.

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS Alain ANSELIN (†) Université des Antilles-Guyane Schoelcher, Martinique France David ASTON Austrian Academy of Sciences Institute for Oriental and European Archaeology Hollandstraße 11–13 1020 Vienna Austria [email protected] Vladimir Wolff AVRUTIS University of Haifa The Zinman Institute of Archaeology 199 Aba-Hushi Avenue Haifa 3498838 Israel [email protected] Masahiro BABA Waseda University Waseda Institute for Advanced study 1-6-1 Nishiwaseda, Shinjuku-ku Tokyo 169-8050 Japan [email protected] Bettina BADER Austrian Academy of Sciences Institute for Oriental and European Archaeology Hollandstraße 11–13 1020 Vienna Austria [email protected] Eliot BRAUN WF Albright Institute of Archaeological Research 26 Salah el Din Street Jerusalem 91190 Israel [email protected] Gaëlle BRÉAND 28 rue Noemie Dessalles 31500 Toulouse France [email protected]

Nathalie BUCHEZ Inrap Hauts-de-France UMR 5608 TRACES 32 avenue de l’Étoile du Sud 80440 Glisy France [email protected] Richard BUSSMANN University of Cologne Institute of African Studies and Egyptology Albertus-Magnus-Platz 50923 Cologne Germany [email protected] Marcelo CAMPAGNO University of Buenos Aires & National Council of Scientific Research IMHICIHU-CONICET Saavedra 15 5° piso C1083ACA Buenos Aires Argentina [email protected] Josep CERVELLÓ AUTUORI Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona Departament de Ciències de l’Antiguitat i de l’Edat Mitjana Institut d’Estudis del Pròxim Orient Antic Edifici MRA, porta 010 08193 Bellaterra (Cerdanyola del Vallès) Spain [email protected] Marek CHŁODNICKI Poznań Archaeological Museum Wodna 27 61-781 Poznań Poland [email protected] Krzysztof M. CIAŁOWICZ Jagiellonian University Institute of Archaeology 11 Gołębia str. 31-007 Kraków Poland [email protected]

XXIV

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS

Wouter CLAES Royal Museums of Art and History Parc du Cinquantenaire 10 1000 Brussels Belgium [email protected] Kylie CORTEBEECK KU Leuven Department of Archaeology Blijde Inkomststraat 21 box 3318 3000 Leuven Belgium [email protected] John Coleman DARNELL Yale University Department of Near Eastern Languages 304 Elm Street New Haven CT 06511 USA [email protected] Morgan DE DAPPER Ghent University Department de Geography, Research Unit Regional Geomorphology & Geoarchaeology Krijgslaan 281 (S8) 9000 Gent Belgium [email protected]

Anne DEVILLERS Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences Rue Vautier 29 1000 Brussels Belgium [email protected] Xavier DROUX Fondation Gandur pour l’Art rue du Collège 1 1110 Morges Switzerland [email protected] Merel EYCKERMAN Gooraard 1 2560 Bevel Belgium [email protected] Dina FALTINGS University of Heidelberg Heidelberg Center for Cultural Heritage Marstallstrasse 6 69117 Heidelberg Germany [email protected]

Marleen DE MEYER KU Leuven Department of Archaeology Blijde Inkomststraat 21 box 3318 3000 Leuven Belgium [email protected]

Frank FÖRSTER Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn Abteilung Ägyptologie mit Ägyptischem Museum Institut für Archäologie und Kulturanthropologie Regina-Pacis-Weg 7 53113 Bonn Germany [email protected]

Thierry DE PUTTER Royal Museum for Central Africa Department of Earth Sciences Geodynamics and mineral resources Leuvensesteenweg 13 3080 Tervuren Belgium [email protected]

Renee FRIEDMAN Hierakonpolis Expedition Ashmolean Museum c/o Department of Antiquities Beaumont Street Oxford OX1 2PH United Kingdom [email protected]

David DEPRAETERE Flemish Government Flemish Land Agency Diestsepoort 6 bus 74 3000 Leuven Belgium [email protected]

Maria Carmela GATTO Polish Academy of Sciences Institute of Mediterranean and Oriental Cultures Nowy Świat 72, room 327 00–330 Warsaw Poland

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS

Achilles GAUTIER Kruisstraat 60 9930 Zomergem Belgium [email protected] Gwenola GRAFF Institut français de Recherche pour le Développement UMR 208 Patrimoines Locaux 57 rue Cuvier CP 26 75231 Paris cedex 05 France [email protected] Elizabeth HART Metropolitan Museum of Art USA [email protected] Rita HARTMANN Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Kairo 31 Sharia Abu el-Feda ET-11211 Cairo Egypt [email protected] Ulrich HARTUNG Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Kairo 31 Sharia Abu el-Feda ET-11211 Cairo Egypt [email protected] Christiane HOCHSTRASSER-PETIT 6 rue des Martrois 91580 Etréchy France [email protected] Dirk HUYGE (†) Royal Museums of Art and History Brussels Belgium Salima IKRAM American University in Cairo Department of Sociology, Egyptology and Anthropology AUC Avenue P.O. Box 74 New Cairo 11835 Egypt [email protected] Hannah JORIS [email protected]

Mariusz A. JUCHA Jagiellonian University Institute of Archaeology 11 Gołębia str. 31-007 Kraków Poland [email protected] Karin KINDERMANN University of Cologne Institute of Prehistoric Archaeology, African Archaeology Bernhard-Feilchenfeld-Straße 11 50969 Cologne Germany [email protected] E. Christiana KÖHLER University of Vienna Department of Egyptology Franz-Klein-Gasse 1 1190 Vienna Austria [email protected] Robert KUHN Ägyptisches Museum und Papyrussammlung Berlin Geschwister-Scholl-Straße 6 10117 Berlin Germany [email protected] Lucia KUIJPER KU Leuven Department of Archaeology Blijde Inkomststraat 21 box 3318 3000 Leuven Belgium [email protected] Jean-Loic LE QUELLEC CNRS – Institut des mondes africains 27 rue Paul Bert 94204 Ivry-sur-Seine cedex France [email protected] Benjamin LEROY Gooraard 1 2560 Bevel Belgium [email protected]

XXV

XXVI

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS

Georgia LONG KU Leuven Department of Archaeology Blijde Inkomststraat 21 box 3313 3000 Leuven Belgium [email protected]

Ilona REGULSKI The British Museum Department of Egypt and Sudan Great Russell Street London WC1B 3DG United Kingdom [email protected]

Sylvie MARCHAND Institut français d’archéologie orientale 37 Sharia Sheikh Aly Youssef B.P Qasr al-Ainy 11562 11411 Cairo Egypt [email protected]

Heiko RIEMER University of Cologne Institute of Prehistoric Archaeology, African Archaeology Bernhard-Feilchenfeld-Straße 11 50969 Cologne Germany [email protected]

Béatrix MIDANT-REYNES Université Jean Jaurès CNRS-UMR5608-TRACES 5 allées Antonio Machado 31058 Toulouse cedex 9 France [email protected] Vera MÜLLER Austrian Academy of Sciences Institute for Oriental and European Archaeology Hollandstraße 11–13 1020 Vienna Austria [email protected] Helen PEETERS KU Leuven Department of Archaeology Blijde Inkomststraat 21 box 3313 3000 Leuven Belgium [email protected] Tanja POMMERENING Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz Institut für Altertumswissenschaften, Ägyptologie Hegelstraße 59 55122 Mainz Germany [email protected] René PREYS Université de Namur Département d’histoire de l’art et archéologie Rue de Bruxelles 61 5000 Namur Belgium [email protected]

Oliver P. ROCHECOUSTE Macquarie University Department of History and Archaeology Sydney NSW 2109 Australia [email protected] Wout SCHILDERMANS Engelselei 86 2140 Borgerhout Belgium [email protected] Alice STEVENSON University College London Institute of Archaeology 31–34 Gordon Square London WC1H 0PY United Kingdom [email protected] Jenny STIEGLITZ Constitutiestraat 76/1 2060 Antwerpen Belgium [email protected] Carla SWERTS Pacificatiestraat 46 1000 Brussels Belgium [email protected] Yann TRISTANT Macquarie University Department of History and Archaeology Sydney NSW 2109 Australia [email protected]

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS

XXVII

Nina TROOSTERS PXL-MAD (Media, Arts and Design) School of Arts Elfde-Liniestraat 25 3500 Hasselt Belgium [email protected]

Bart VANTHUYNE KU Leuven Department of Archaeology Blijde Inkomststraat 21 box 3318 3000 Leuven Belgium [email protected]

Loesje ULENAERS Grotstraat 16b 3570 Alken Belgium [email protected]

Eugène WARMENBOL Université libre de Bruxelles Centre de Recherches en Archéologie et Patrimoines Campus du Solbosch – CP 133/01 Avenue F.D. Roosevelt 50 1050 Brussels Belgium [email protected]

Edwin C.M. VAN DEN BRINK Israel Antiquities Authority Department of Archaeological Research Rockefeller Museum POB 586 Jerusalem 9100402 Israel [email protected] Athena VAN DER PERRE KU Leuven Department of Archaeology Blijde Inkomststraat 21 box 3318 3000 Leuven Belgium [email protected] Dorian VANHULLE Université Libre de Bruxelles Centre de Recherches en Archéologie et Patrimoine Campus du Solbosch – CP 133/01 Avenue F.D. Roosevelt 50 1050 Brussels Belgium [email protected]

Harco WILLEMS KU Leuven Department of Archaeology Blijde Inkomststraat 21 box 3318 3000 Leuven Belgium [email protected]

TABULA GRATULATORIA Katarína ARIAS KYTNAROVÁ John BAINES Laurent BAVAY Ann BESSEMANS Janine BOURRIAU François BRIOIS Mike CARREMANS Willy CLARYSSE Marc COENEN Éric CRUBÉZY Bea DE CUPERE Roger DE KEERSMAECKER (†) Paul DE PAEPE Frans DEPUYDT Luc DELVAUX Günter DREYER (†) Eva-Maria ENGEL Peter FRENCH Lucie JIRÁSKOVÁ Bart HELLINCKX Jochem KAHL Michał KOBUSIEWICZ Rudolph KUPER Luc LIMME Veerle LINSEELE Karine MADRIGAL

Colleen MANASSA DARNELL Elena MARINOVA Lieven MOELANTS Liam MCNAMARA Claire NEWTON Martin ODLER Lies OP DE BEECK Diana Craig PATCH Kathryn PIQUETTE Dietrich RAUE Joanne ROWLAND Stephan SEIDLMAYER Ian SHAW Geertrui STORMS Nabil SWELIM Izumi TAKAMIYA Pierre TALLET Wim VAN NEER Philip VAN PEER Marie-Paule VANLATHEM Stefanie VEREECKEN Pierre VERMEERSCH Bert VERREPT Nicolas WARNER Lana J. WILLIAMS Anna WODZIŃSKA

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF STAN HENDRICKX COMPILED BY WOUTER CLAES, MARLEEN DE MEYER & MEREL EYCKERMAN PART I: EGYPT ARTICLES,

BOOKS AND REVIEWS

1977 HENDRICKX, S., Een Predynastisch grafveld te Elkab. Leuven (Unpubl. MA thesis, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven). 1981 HENDRICKX, S., Review of “KROMER, K., 1978. Siedlungsfunde aus dem frühen Alten Reich in Giseh: Österreichische Ausgrabungen 1971–1975. Wien: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften”. BiOr 38(1–2): 34–36. 1982 HENDRICKX, S., Review of “SPENCER, A.J., 1980. Catalogue of Egyptian antiquities in the British Museum 5: Early Dynastic objects. London: Trustees of the British Museum”. BiOr 39(3–4): 306–308. 1984 HENDRICKX, S., Review of “Atzler, M., 1981. Untersuchungen zur Herausbildung von Herschaftsformen in Ägypten. HÄB 16. Hildesheim: Gerstenberg”. CdÉ 59(118): 285–286. HENDRICKX, S., The Late Predynastic cemetery at Elkab (Upper Egypt) [in:] KRZYŻANIAK, L. & KOBUSIEWICZ, M. (eds), Origin and early development of foodproducing cultures in North-Eastern Africa. SAA 1. Poznań: 225–230. 1986 HENDRICKX, S., Predynastische objecten uit Naqada en Diospolis Parva (Boven Egypte). BKMKG/BMRAH 57(2): 31–44. 1987 HENDRICKX, S., Review of “ARNOLD, D. (ed.), 1981. Studien zur altägyptischen Keramik. SDAIK 9. Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern”. CdÉ 62(123–124): 174– 176.

XXXII

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF STAN HENDRICKX

1988 HENDRICKX, S. & MIDANT-REYNES, B., Preliminary report on the Predynastic living site Maghara 2 (Upper Egypt). OLP 19: 5–16. 1989 HENDRICKX, S., De grafvelden der Naqada-cultuur in Zuid-Egypte, met bijzondere aandacht voor het Naqada III grafveld te Elkab: Interne chronologie en sociale differentiatie. Leuven (Unpubl. PhD dissertation, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven). HENDRICKX, S., Review of “NEEDLER, W., 1984. Predynastic and Archaic Egypt in the Brooklyn Museum. Wilbour Monographs 9. Brooklyn: The Brooklyn Museum”. CdÉ 64(127–128): 197–198. HENDRICKX, S. & HUYGE, D., Elkab 4  : Topographie, fascicule 2  : Inventaire des sites archéologiques. Brussels. 1990 HENDRICKX, S., [Catalogue entries] [in:] WAELKENS, M. (ed.), Eeuwige steen: Van Nijl tot Rijn: Groeven en prefabricatie. Brussels: 185–186, 192–197, 199–200 (nos 62, 66–67, 79–86, 91–92). Boorkop: 192 (no. 79). Cilindervormige schijnvaas: 197 (no. 86). Cilindervormige vaas: 195 (no. 84). Cilindervormige vaas: 196 (no. 85). Fragment van een stenen vaas: 193 (no. 81). Knotshoofd: 186 (no. 67). Mes: 185 (no. 62). Onafgewerkte schaal: 199 (no. 91). Ruitvormig palet met ingesneden voorstelling van een olifant: 186 (no. 66). Schaal: 200 (no. 92). Stenen vaas in de vorm van een veldfles: 194 (no. 83). Stuk kalksteen met proefboringen: 193 (no. 80). Vaasje voor cosmetica: 194 (no. 82).

HENDRICKX, S., [Catalogue entries] [in:] WAELKENS, M. (ed.), Pierre éternelle  : Du Nil au Rhin  : Carrières et préfabrication. Brussels: 185–186, 192–197, 199–200 (nos 62, 66–67, 79–86, 91–92). Casse-tête: 186 (no. 67). Couteau: 185 (no. 62). Fragment d’un vase en pierre: 193 (no. 81). Mandrin: 192 (no. 79). Morceau de pierre calcaire avec perforations expérimentales: 193 (no. 80). Palette en forme de losange, sculptée d’un éléphant: 186 (no. 66). Plat: 200 (no. 92). Plat inachevé: 199 (no. 91). Pot à cosmétique: 194 (no. 82). Vase cylindrique: 195 (no. 84). Vase cylindrique: 196 (no. 85). Vase cylindrique peu évidé: 197 (no. 86). Vase en pierre ayant la forme d’une gourde: 194 (no. 83).

HENDRICKX, S., Review of “ADAMS, B., 1987. The Fort Cemetery at Hierakonpolis (excavated by John Garstang). Studies in Egyptology. London – New York: KPI”. BiOr 47(5–6): 643–646. HENDRICKX, S., Une importante collection de vases égyptiens en pierre. BKMKG/ BMRAH 61: 5–46.

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF STAN HENDRICKX

XXXIII

1991 HENDRICKX, S., [Catalogue entries] [in:] GUBEL, E. (ed.), Van Nijl tot Schelde – Du Nil à l’Escaut. Brussels: 34–49 (nos 1–47). Amulet (?) – Amulette (?): 42–43 (no. 26). Amuletten – Amulettes: 38–39, 41 (nos 12–20). Black-topped” vaas – Vase à bord noir: 34–35 (no. 1). Black-topped” vaas – Vase à bord noir: 34–35 (no. 2). Black-topped” vaas – Vase à bord noir: 34–37 (no. 3). Geometrische schminkpaletten – Palettes à fard géométriques: 36–37 (nos 5–6). Knotshoofden en gewichten (?) – Massues et poids (?): 38–43 (nos 21–25). Kom – Coupe: 46–47 (no. 39). Schminkpaletten in de vorm van vissen – Palettes à fard en forme de poisson: 36–40 (nos 7–11). Stenen vaas – Vase en pierre: 44–46 (no. 38). Stenen vaas – Vase en pierre: 46–47, 49 (no. 41). Stenen vaas – Vase en pierre: 48–49 (no. 42). Stenen vaatwerk – Vases en pierre: 42–45 (nos 27–32). Stenen vaatwerk – Vases en pierre: 44–45 (nos 33–37). Stenen vaatwerk – Vases en pierre: 48–49 (nos 43–47). Versierde vaas – Vase décoré: 36–37 (no. 4). Zalfvaas – Vase à onguent: 46–47 (no. 40).

HENDRICKX, S., Review of “GÜNTHER, P. & WELLAUER, R., 1988. Ägyptische Steingefässe der Sammlung Rudolph Schmidt Solothurn. Ägyptologische Hefte des Orientalischen Seminars der Universität Zürich 2. Zürich: Orientalisches Seminar de Universität Zürich”. BiOr 48(5–6): 812–813. 1992 HENDRICKX, S., Bibliographie sur la préhistoire et les premières dynasties de l’Égypte et du Soudan du Nord. Lettre d’information Archéo-Nil 4: 7–8. HENDRICKX, S., The Predynastic cemeteries at Khozam [in:] FRIEDMAN, R. & ADAMS, B. (eds), The Followers of Horus: Studies dedicated to Michael Allen Hoffman, 1944–1990. Egyptian Studies Association Publication 2; Oxbow Monographs 20. Oxford: 199–202. HENDRICKX, S., Review of “SOUKIASSIAN, G.; WUTTMANN, M.; PANTALACCI, L.; BALLET, P. & PICON, M., 1990. Balat 3 : Les ateliers de potiers d’Ayn-Aṣīl : Fin de l’Ancien Empire – Première Période Intermédiaire. FIFAO 34. Le Caire: Institut français d’Archéologie orientale”. BiOr 49(5–6): 717–721. HENDRICKX, S., Une scène de chasse dans le désert sur le vase prédynastique Bruxelles, M.R.A.H. E.2631. CdÉ 67(133): 5–27. HENDRICKX, S., Status report on the excavation of the Old Kingdom rock tombs at Elkab [in:] Sesto Congresso Internazionale di Egittologie. Atti I. Turin: 255–257, pl. VIII. MIDANT-REYNES, B.; BUCHEZ, N.; CRUBÉZY, E.; JANIN, T. & HENDRICKX, S., Le site prédynastique d’Adaïma : Rapport préliminaire de la troisième campagne de fouille. BIFAO 92: 133–146. 1993 HENDRICKX, S. & VAN WINKEL, C., Fragments de récipients décorés en pierre provenant de la nécropole royale des premières dynasties à Abydos (Haute-Égypte). BKMKG/ BMRAH 64: 5–38.

XXXIV

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF STAN HENDRICKX

1994 HENDRICKX, S., Antiquités préhistoriques et protodynastiques d’Égypte. Musées royaux d’Art et d’Histoire. Guides du département égyptien 8. Brussels. HENDRICKX, S., Prehistorische en Vroeg-Dynastische oudheden uit Egypte. Koninklijke Musea voor Kunst en Geschiedenis. Wegwijzers voor de Egyptische Afdeling 8. Brussels. HENDRICKX, S.; VAN ROSSUM, V. (coll.), Elkab 5: The Naqada III cemetery. Brussels. HENDRICKX, S. & HUYGE, D., Elkab 1993 : Tombes rupestres de l’Ancien Empire. BÉC 18: 50–56. 1995 HENDRICKX, S., Analytical bibliography of the Prehistory and the Early Dynastic period of Egypt and Northern Sudan. EPM 1. Leuven. HENDRICKX, S., [Catalogue entries] [in:] PHILLIPS, T. (ed.), Africa: The art of a continent. Munich: 59–60, 78–79 (nos 1.9–10, 1.37). Decorated ostrich egg: 78–79 (no. 1.37). Vase decorated with hunting scene: 59 (no. 1.9). Vase decorated with victory scene: 60 (no. 1.10).

1996 HENDRICKX, S., Bibliography of the Prehistory and the Early Dynastic period of Egypt and Northern Sudan: 1996 addition. Archéo-Nil 6: 85–122. HENDRICKX, S., [Catalogue entries] [in:] PHILLIPS, T. (ed.), Afrika: Die Kunst eines Kontinents. Munich: 59–60, 78–79 (nos 1.9–10, 1.37). Vase mit Jagdszene: 59 (no. 1.9). Vase mit Siegeszene: 60 (no. 1.10). Verziertes Straussenei: 78–79 (no. 1.37).

HENDRICKX, S., Considerations on the “Analytical bibliography of the Prehistory and the Early Dynastic period of Egypt and Northern Sudan” [in:] KRZYŻANIAK, L.; KROEPER, K. & KOBUSIEWICZ, M. (eds), Interregional contacts in the Later Prehistory of Northeastern Africa. SAA 5. Poznań: 409–418. HENDRICKX, S., Two Protodynastic objects in Brussels and the origin of the bilobate cult-sign of Neith. JEA 82: 23–42. HENDRICKX, S., The relative chronology of the Naqada culture: Problems and possibilities [in:] SPENCER, A.J. (ed.), Aspects of early Egypt. London: 36–69. 1997 HENDRICKX, S., Bibliography of the Prehistory and the Early Dynastic period of Egypt and Northern Sudan: 1997 addition. Archéo-Nil 7: 151–168. HENDRICKX, S., Review of “DEBONO, F. & MORTENSEN, B., 1990. El Omari: A Neolithic settlement and other sites in the vicinity of Wadi Hof, Helwan. AV 82. Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern”. BiOr 54(1–2): 92–96. HENDRICKX, S., Review of “RIZKANA, I. & SEEHER, J., 1990. Maadi 4: The Predynastic cemeteries of Maadi and Wadi Digla. AV 81. Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern”. BiOr 54(1–2): 96–99. HENDRICKX, S. & HUYGE, D., Elkab 1995 : Tombes rupestres de l’Ancien Empire. BÉC 20: 36–44. LIMME, L.; HENDRICKX, S. & HUYGE, D., Elkab: Excavations in the Old Kingdom rock necropolis. EA 11: 3–6.

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF STAN HENDRICKX

XXXV

MIDANT-REYNES, B.; BOISSON, H.; BUCHEZ, N.; CRUBÉZY, E.; HENDRICKX, S. & JALLET, F., Le site prédynastique d’Adaïma : Rapport de la huitième campagne de fouille. BIFAO 97: 201–219. 1998 HENDRICKX, S., Bibliography of the Prehistory and the Early Dynastic period of Egypt and Northern Sudan: 1998 addition. Archéo-Nil 8: 129–147. HENDRICKX, S., Habitations de potiers à Elkab à l’époque romaine [in:] CLARYSSE, W.; SCHOORS, A. & WILLEMS, H. (eds), Egyptian religion: The last thousand years: Studies dedicated to the memory of Jan Quaegebeur II. OLA 85. Leuven: 1353– 1376. HENDRICKX, S., La nécropole de l’Est à Adaïma : Position chronologique et parallèles. Archéo-Nil 8: 105–128. HENDRICKX, S., Peaux d’animaux comme symboles prédynastiques : À propos de quelques représentations sur les vases White Cross-lined. CdÉ 73(146): 203–230. 1999 GAUTIER, A. & HENDRICKX, S., Vultures and other animal remains from a tomb in the Elkab necropolis, Upper Egypt: An exercise in salvage archaeozoology [in:] BECKER, C.; MANHART, H.; PETERS, J. & SCHIBLER, J. (eds), Historia Animalium ex Ossibus: Beiträge zur Paläoanatomie, Archäologie, Ägyptologie, Ethnologie und Geschichte der Tiermedizin: Festschrift für Angela von den Driesch zum 65. Geburtstag. Internationale Archäologie: Studia Honoraria 8. Rahden: 161– 179. HENDRICKX, S., Bibliography of the Prehistory and the Early Dynastic period of Egypt and Northern Sudan: 1999 addition. Archéo-Nil 9: 165–183. HENDRICKX, S., [Catalogue entries] [in:] WILLEMS, H. & CLARYSSE, W. (eds), Keizers aan de Nijl. Leuven: 180–192 (nos 60–78). Amfoor: 184–185 (no. 68). Amfoor met Griekse tekst: 186–187 (no. 71). Amfoor met tekst betreffende rekening voor wijn: 186–187 (no. 70). Barbotine vaas: 181 (no. 63). Bes-kruik: 191 (no. 77). Drinkkommetje versierd met plantenmotief: 190 (no. 76). Dromedaris met lading amforen: 192 (no. 78). Fles met geometrische versiering: 190 (no. 75). Kantharos: 182–183 (no. 64). Kantharos: 182–183 (no. 65). Kookpot: 184 (no. 67). Langgerekte amfoor: 184–185 (no. 69). Schaal: 182 (no. 66). Schaal met ingestempelde versiering: 181 (no. 62). Schaal met opgezette versiering: 180 (no. 61). St. Menas-flesje: 180 (no. 60). Vaas versierd met gestileerde druiven: 188 (no. 73). Versierde kom: 186 (no. 72). Versierde voorraadkruik: 189 (no. 74).

HENDRICKX, S., La chronologie de la préhistoire tardive et des débuts de l’histoire de l’Égypte. Archéo-Nil 9: 13–81, 99–107. HENDRICKX, S., Review of “WILKINSON, T.A.H., 1996. State formation in Egypt: Chronology and society. BAR. International Series 651; CMAA 40. Oxford: Tempus reparatum”. JEA 85: 241–245.

XXXVI

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF STAN HENDRICKX

HENDRICKX, S., Elkab [in:] BARD, K.A. (ed.), Encyclopedia of the archaeology of ancient Egypt. London: 289–293. HENDRICKX, S.; MOSSAKOWSKA, M. & POBLOME, J., Aardewerk [in:] WILLEMS, H. & CLARYSSE, W. (eds), Keizers aan de Nijl. Leuven: 52–56. 2000 BAVAY, L. & HENDRICKX, S., [Catalogue entries] [in:] KARLSHAUSEN, C. & DE PUTTER, T. (eds) Pierres égyptiennes … Chefs d’œuvre pour l’éternité. Mons: 118–119, 128– 135, 139–145 (nos 10–11, 21–27, 30–35). Bol: 135 (no. 27). Coupe: 118 (no. 10). Coupe: 145 (no. 35). Couteau: 128, 130 (no. 22). Couteau en silex « ripple flake »: 128–129 (no. 21). Essais de forage ?: 120 (no. 12). Fragment en forme de pilier djed: 141 (no. 31). Fragments d’objet en forme de palmier: 139–140 (no. 30). Meule-foret: 119 (no. 11). Palette à fard en forme d’éléphant: 133 (no. 25). Palette à fard en forme de quadrupède: 132 (no. 24). Petite coupe fragmentaire: 144 (no. 34). Petite vase cylindrique: 142 (no. 32). Petite vase cylindrique: 143 (no. 33). Silex figuratif: 131 (no. 23). Vase ovoïde: 134 (no. 26).

DE PUTTER, T.; BIELEN, S.; DE PAEPE, P.; HENDRICKX, S. & SCHELSTRAETE, V., Les mille et un vases de pierre des premières dynasties à Bruxelles [in:] KARLSHAUSEN, C. & DE PUTTER, T. (eds), Pierres égyptiennes ... Chefs-d’œuvre pour l’éternité. Mons: 49–62. HENDRICKX, S., Autruches et flamants : Les oiseaux représentés sur la céramique prédynastique de la catégorie Decorated. CCdÉ 1: 21–52. HENDRICKX, S., Bibliography of the Prehistory and the Early Dynastic period of Egypt and Northern Sudan: 2000 addition. Archéo-Nil 10: 127–152. HENDRICKX, S., [Catalogue entries] [in:] WILLEMS, H. & CLARYSSE, W. (eds), Les empereurs du Nil. Leuven: 180–192 (nos 60, 62–69, 72–78). Amphore: 184–185 (no. 68). Amphore allongée: 184–185 (no. 69). Bouteille à décoration géométrique: 190 (no. 75). Bouteille de Saint Menas: 180 (no. 60). Canthare: 182–183 (no. 64). Canthare: 182–183 (no. 65). Coupe: 182 (no. 66). Coupe à décoration estampée: 181 (no. 62). Coupe décorée: 186 (no. 72). Cruche à provision décorée: 189 (no. 74). Cruche Bes: 191 (no. 77). Dromadaire avec un chargement d’amphores: 192 (no. 78). Gobelet à motif floral: 190 (no. 76). Pot à cuisson: 184 (no. 67). Vase décoré de raisins stylisés: 188 (no. 73). Vase en barbotine: 181 (no. 63).

HENDRICKX, S., [Catalogue entry] [in:] KARLSHAUSEN, C. & DE PUTTER, T. (eds) Pierres égyptiennes … Chefs d’œuvre pour l’éternité. Mons: 120 (no. 12).

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF STAN HENDRICKX

XXXVII

HENDRICKX, S.; FRIEDMAN, R.F. & LOYENS, F., Experimental archaeology concerning black-topped pottery from ancient Egypt and the Sudan. CCÉ 6: 171–188. HENDRICKX, S.; MOSSAKOWSKA, M. & POBLOME, J., La céramique [in:] WILLEMS, H. & CLARYSSE, W. (eds), Les empereurs du Nil. Leuven: 52–56. HENDRICKX, S. & POBLOME, J., [Catalogue entries] [in:] WILLEMS, H. & CLARYSSE, W. (eds), Les empereurs du Nil. Leuven: 180, 186–187 (nos 61, 70–71). Amphore avec texte grec: 186–187 (no. 71). Amphore avec un texte concernant un compte de vin: 186–187 (no. 70). Coupe à décoration appliquée: 180 (no. 61).

HENDRICKX, S. & VERMEERSCH, P.M., Prehistory: From the Palaeolithic to the Badarian culture (c. 700,000–4000 BC) [in:] Shaw, I. (ed.), The Oxford history of ancient Egypt. Oxford: 17–43. 2001 GILROY, T.D.; ADAMS, B.; HENDRICKX, S. & VAN DEN BRINK, E.C.M., A checklist of sherds with potmarks from Petrie’s excavations in the royal necropolis at Umm el-Ga’ab, Abydos. GM 182: 31–58. HENDRICKX, S., Arguments for an Upper Egyptian origin of the palace-façade and the serekh during Late Predynastic–Early Dynastic times. GM 184: 85–110. HENDRICKX, S., Bibliography of the Prehistory and the Early Dynastic period of Egypt and Northern Sudan: 2002 addition. Archéo-Nil 11: 177–200. HENDRICKX, S., Maqueta representant un grup de persones en un banquet – Maqueta que representa a un grupo de personas en un banquete – Model group representing people at a banquet [in:] NICOLAU, A. & ZIMMERMANN, S. (eds), Aliments sagrats: Pa, vi i oli a la Mediterrània antiga – Alimentos sagrados: Pan, vino y aceite en el Mediterráneo antiguo – Sacred foods: Bread, wine and oil in the ancient Mediterranean. Barcelona: 192–193. HENDRICKX, S.; BIELEN, S. & DE PAEPE, P., Excavating in the museum: The stone vessel fragments from the Royal Tombs at Umm el-Qaab in the Egyptian collection of the Royal Museums for Art and History at Brussels. MDAIK 57: 73–108. HENDRICKX, S.; MIDANT-REYNES, B. & VAN NEER, W., Mahgar Dendera 2 (Haute Égypte), un site d’occupation badarien. EPM 3. Leuven. 2002 BUCHEZ, N. & HENDRICKX, S., La chronologie de la nécropole [in:] CRUBÉZY, É.; JANIN, T. & MIDANT-REYNES, B., Adaïma 2  : La nécropole prédynastique. FIFAO 47. Cairo: 411–417. CIAŁOWICZ, K.M.; CHŁODNICKI, M. & HENDRICKX, S. (eds), Origin of the state. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt (Cracow, Poland: 28th–1st September 2002): Abstract of papers: Krakow. CRUBÉZY, É. & JANIN, T.; BUCHEZ, N.; HENDRICKX, S. & MIDANT-REYNES, B. (coll.), Corpus des tombes [in:] CRUBÉZY, É.; JANIN, T. & MIDANT-REYNES, B., Adaïma 2  : La nécropole prédynastique. FIFAO 47. Cairo: 15–406. CRUBÉZY, E.; JANIN, T. & MIDANT-REYNES, B.; BUCHEZ, N.; COURTAUD, P.; HENDRICKX, S.; LUDES, B. & WALTER, P. (coll.); ALUNNI, V.; DE VARTAVAN, C.; FILLY, M.-L.; GOULET, J.; HOCHSTRASSER-PETIT, C.; PERNAUD, J.-M.; ROUGE, D. & WAPLER, U. (part.); HOCHSTRASSER-PETIT, C. (dessins); JANIN, T. & LECLER, A. (photogr.), Adaïma 2  : La nécropole prédynastique. FIFAO 47. Le Caire.

XXXVIII

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF STAN HENDRICKX

FRIEDMAN, R.F. & HENDRICKX, S.; DARNELL, J.C. (coll.), Gebel Tjauti rock inscription 1 [in:] DARNELL, J.C., Theban Desert Road Survey in the Egyptian Western Desert 1: Gebel Tjauti rock inscriptions 1–45 and Wadi el-Ḥôl rock inscriptions 1–45. OIP 119. Chicago: 10–19. HENDRICKX, S., Barbara and the boxes in Brussels. Nekhen News 14: 6–7. HENDRICKX, S., Bibliography of the Prehistory and the Early Dynastic period of Egypt and Northern Sudan: 2002/2 addition. Archéo-Nil 12: 138–152. HENDRICKX, S., Bovines in Egyptian Predynastic and Early Dynastic iconography [in:] HASSAN, F.A. (ed.), Droughts, food and culture: Ecological change and food security in Africa’s later Prehistory. New York: 275–318. HENDRICKX, S., Checklist of Predynastic “Decorated” pottery with human figures. CCdÉ 3–4: 29–50. HENDRICKX, S., Obituary Barbara Adams. The Independent, 28 September: 24. HENDRICKX, S., A remarkable tomb with an exceptional pot. Nekhen News 14: 11–12. HENDRICKX, S. & BAVAY, L., The relative chronological position of Egyptian Predynastic and Early Dynastic tombs with objects imported from the Near East and the nature of interregional contacts [in:] VAN DEN BRINK, E.C.M. & LEVY, T.E. (eds), Egypt and the Levant: Interrelations from the 4th through the early 3rd millennium BCE. New Approaches to Anthropological Archaeology. London: 58–80. HENDRICKX, S.; FALTINGS, D.; OP DE BEECK, L.; RAUE, D. & MICHIELS, C., Milk, beer and bread technology during the Early Dynastic period. MDAIK 58: 277–304. HENDRICKX, S.; HUYGE, D. & WARMENBOL, E., Un cimetière particulier de la deuxième dynastie à Elkab. Archéo-Nil 12: 47–54. HENDRICKX, S. & MIDANT-REYNES, B., Introduction. Archéo-Nil 12: 5–10. HENDRICKX, S. & VAN DEN BRINK, E.C.M., Appendix A [in:] YANNAI, E., Imported finds from the ‘Ein Assawir tombs (Israel) and their significance in understanding the chronological synchronization between Israel, Egypt and Eastern Anatolia [in:] VAN DEN BRINK, E.C.M. & LEVY, T.E. (eds), Egypt and the Levant: Interrelations from the 4th through the early 3rd millennium BCE. New Approaches to Anthropological Archaeology. London: 340–341. HENDRICKX, S. & VAN DEN BRINK, E.C.M., Inventory of Predynastic and Early Dynastic cemetery and settlement sites in the Egyptian Nile Valley [in:] VAN DEN BRINK, E.C.M. & LEVY, T.E. (eds), Egypt and the Levant: Interrelations from the 4th through the early 3rd millennium BCE. New Approaches to Anthropological Archaeology. London: 346–399. KANSA, E.; HENDRICKX, S.; LEVY, T.E. & VAN DEN BRINK, E.C.M., Nahal Tillah reed decorated pottery: Aspects of Early Bronze Age IB ceramic production and Egyptian counterparts [in:] VAN DEN BRINK, E.C.M. & YANNAI, E. (eds), In quest of ancient settlements and landscapes: Archaeological studies in honour of Ram Gophna. Tel Aviv: 193–218. MIDANT-REYNES, B. & BUCHEZ, N.; VAN NEER, W.; DE VARTAVAN, C.; EMERYBARBIER, E.; PERNAUD, J.-M.; DIETRICH, A. & PROST, D. (coll.); CRUBÉZY, E.; HENDRICKX, S. & PEREZ, P. (part.); HOHSTRASSER-PETIT, C. & DEVILDER, G. (dessins); LECLER, A. (photogr.), Adaïma 1  : Économie et habitat. FIFAO 45. Le Caire. 2003 HENDRICKX, S., Bibliography of the Prehistory and the Early Dynastic period of Egypt and Northern Sudan: 2003 addition. Archéo-Nil 13: 153–169.

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF STAN HENDRICKX

XXXIX

HENDRICKX, S. & FRIEDMAN, R.F., Chaos and order: A Predynastic “Ostracon” from HK29A. Nekhen News 15: 8–9. HENDRICKX, S. & FRIEDMAN, R.F., Gebel Tjauti rock inscription 1 and the relationship between Abydos and Hierakonpolis during the Early Naqada III period. GM 196: 95–110. HENDRICKX, S.; HUYGE, D. & ADAMS, B. (†), Le scorpion en silex du Musée royal de Mariemont et les silex figuratifs de l’Égypte pré- et protodynastique. Cahiers de Mariemont 28–29: 6–33. KUPER, R.; RIEMER, H.; HENDRICKX, S. & FÖRSTER, F., Preliminary report on the field season 2002 of the ACACIA project in the Western Desert. Cologne [online report: http://www.uni-koeln.de/sfb389/a/a1/download/acacia%20A1-E3_report%202002. pdf]. 2004 FRIEDMAN, R.F. & HENDRICKX, S., Preface [in:] HENDRICKX, S.; FRIEDMAN, R.F.; CIAŁOWICZ, K.M. & CHŁODNICKI, M. (eds), Egypt at its Origins: Studies in memory of Barbara Adams. Proceedings of the International Conference “Origin of the State. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt”, Kraków, 28th August–1st September 2002. OLA 138. Leuven: XV–XXI. HENDRICKX, S., Bibliography of the Prehistory and the Early Dynastic period of Egypt and Northern Sudan: 2004 addition. Archéo-Nil 14: 101–125. HENDRICKX, S., Des images au service du pouvoir. Le Monde de la Bible 162: 36–41. HENDRICKX, S., Out of the desert. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 14: 122–124. HENDRICKX, S., Symbolisme et pouvoir dans l’Égypte prédynastique. Le Monde de la Bible 162: 36–41. HENDRICKX, S. & DEPRAETERE, D., A theriomorphic Predynastic stone jar and hippopotamus symbolism [in:] HENDRICKX, S.; FRIEDMAN, R.F.; CIAŁOWICZ, K.M. & CHŁODNICKI, M. (eds), Egypt at its Origins: Studies in memory of Barbara Adams. Proceedings of the International Conference “Origin of the State. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt”, Kraków, 28th August–1st September 2002. OLA 138. Leuven: 801–822. HENDRICKX, S.; FRIEDMAN, R.F.; CIAŁOWICZ, K.M. & CHŁODNICKI, M. (eds), Egypt at its Origins: Studies in memory of Barbara Adams. Proceedings of the International Conference “Origin of the State. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt”, Kraków, 28th August–1st September 2002. OLA 138. Leuven. KUPER, R.; RIEMER, H.; HENDRICKX, S. & FÖRSTER, F., Preliminary report on the study season 2003 of the ACACIA project in the Western Desert. Cologne. [Online report: http://www.uni-koeln.de/sfb389/a/a1/download/acacia%20A1-E3_ report%202003.pdf. VERMEERSCH, P.M.; VAN NEER, W. & HENDRICKX, S., El Abadiya 2, a Naqada I site near Danfiq, Upper Egypt [in:] HENDRICKX, S.; FRIEDMAN, R.F.; CIAŁOWICZ, K.M. & CHŁODNICKI, M. (eds), Egypt at its Origins: Studies in memory of Barbara Adams. Proceedings of the International Conference “Origin of the State. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt”, Kraków, 28th August–1st September 2002. OLA 138. Leuven: 213–276. WILLEMS, H.; DE MEYER, M.; DEPAUW, M.; DEPRAETERE, D.; HENDRICKX, S.; HERBICH, T.; KLEMM, D.; KLEMM, R.; OP DE BEECK, L. & PEETERS, C., Preliminary report of the 2002 campaign of the Belgian Mission to Deir al-Barsha. MDAIK 60: 237–283.

XL

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF STAN HENDRICKX

2005 EICHHORN, B.; HENDRICKX, S.; RIEMER, H. & STERN, B., Desert roads and transport vessels from late Roman-Coptic times in the Eastern Sahara. JAA 3(2): 213–230 HENDRICKX, S., Bibliography of the Prehistory and the Early Dynastic period of Egypt and Northern Sudan: 2005 addition. Archéo-Nil 15: 103–126. HENDRICKX, S., The earliest example of pharaonic iconography. Nekhen News 17: 14–15. HENDRICKX, S., L’Égypte prédynastique dans les musées [in:] L’Égypte prédynastique. Dossiers d’Archéologie 307: 82–92. HENDRICKX, S., Rough jars in an elite context. Nekhen News 17: 13. MIDANT-REYNES, B. & TRISTANT, Y. (eds); ROWLAND, J. & HENDRICKX, S. (coll.), L’Égypte pré- et protodynastique  : Les origines de l’état – Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt: Origin of the State. Toulouse (France), 5–8 septembre 2005: Livret des résumés – Abstracts of papers. Toulouse. RIEMER, H.; FÖRSTER, F.; HENDRICKX, S.; EICHHORN, B.; NUSSBAUM, S.; PÖLLATH, N.; SCHÖNFELD, P. & WAGNER, G., Zwei pharaonische Wüstenstationen südwestlich von Dachla. MDAIK 61: 291–350. 2006 HENDRICKX, S., Bibliography of the Prehistory and the Early Dynastic period of Egypt and Northern Sudan: 2006 addition. Archéo-Nil 16: 95–107. HENDRICKX, S., The dog, the Lycaon pictus and order over chaos in Predynastic Egypt [in:] KROEPER, K.; CHŁODNICKI, M. & KOBUSIEWICZ, M. (eds), Archaeology of early Northeastern Africa: In memory of Lech Krzyżaniak. SAA 9. Poznań: 723–749. HENDRICKX, S., Predynastic–Early Dynastic chronology [in:] HORNUNG, E.; KRAUSS, R. & WARBURTON, D.A. (eds), Ancient Egyptian chronology. HOS 83. Leiden: 55–93, 487–488. 2007 HENDRICKX, S. & FRIEDMAN, R.F., The falcon has landed: Falcons in “The City of the Falcon”. Nekhen News 19: 9–10. LINSEELE, V.; VAN NEER, W. & HENDRICKX, S., Evidence for early cat taming in Egypt. JAS 34(12): 2081–2090. 2008 EYCKERMAN, M. & HENDRICKX, S., Visuele documentatie van de grafmodellen uit het graf van Henu te Deir el-Bersha (Egypte). ArcK 2: 80–90. HENDRICKX, S., Bibliography of the Prehistory and the Early Dynastic period of Egypt and Northern Sudan: 2007–2008 addition. Archéo-Nil 18: 184–200. HENDRICKX, S., Les grands mastabas de la Ire dynastie à Saqqara. Archéo-Nil 18: 60–88. HENDRICKX, S., Rough ware as an element of symbolism and craft specialisation at Hierakonpolis’ Elite Cemetery HK6 [in:] MIDANT-REYNES, B. & TRISTANT, Y. (eds); ROWLAND, J. & HENDRICKX, S. (coll.), Egypt at its Origins 2. Proceedings of the International Conference “Origin of the State. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt”, Toulouse (France), 5th–8th September 2005. OLA 172. Leuven: 61–85. HENDRICKX, S. & EYCKERMAN, M., The Predynastic–Early Dynastic cemetery of Nag’ el-Hagg Zeidan [in:] ENGEL, E.-M.; MÜLLER, V. & HARTUNG, U. (eds), Zeichen

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF STAN HENDRICKX

XLI

aus dem Sand: Streiflichter aus Ägyptens Geschichte zu Ehren von Günter Dreyer. MENES. Studien zur Kultur und Sprache der ägyptischen Frühzeit und des Alten Reiches 5. Wiesbaden: 219–253. HENDRICKX, S.; EYCKERMAN, M. & FÖRSTER, F., Late Predynastic falcons on a boat (Brussels E.7067). Journal of the Serbian Archaeological Society 24: 371–384. LINSEELE, V.; VAN NEER, W. & HENDRICKX, S., Early cat taming in Egypt: A correction. JAS 35(9): 2672–2673. MIDANT-REYNES, B. & TRISTANT, Y. (eds); ROWLAND, J. & HENDRICKX, S. (coll.), Egypt at its Origins 2. Proceedings of the International Conference “Origin of the State. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt”, Toulouse (France), 5th–8th September 2005. OLA 172. Leuven. 2009 CLAES, W.; DE MEULENAERE, H. & HENDRICKX, S. (eds), Elkab and beyond: Studies in honour of Luc Limme. OLA 191. Leuven. GATTO, M.C.; DARNELL, J.C.; DE DAPPER, M.; GALLORINI, C.; GERISCH, R.; GIULIANI, S.; HART, E.; HENDRICKX, S.; HERBICH, T.; JORIS, H.; KLOSE, I.; MANASSA, C.; MAREE, M.; NORDSTRÖM, H-Å.; PITRE, M.; PYKE, G.; RAUE, D.; ROMA, S.; ROSE, P.; ŚWIĘCH, D. & USAI, D., Archaeological investigation in the Aswan-Kom Ombo region (2007–2008). MDAIK 65: 9–47. GATTO, M.C.; DE DAPPER, M.; EYCKERMAN, M.; GERISCH, R.; JORIS, H.; NEWTON, C. & HENDRICKX, S., Landscape reconstruction of the Predynastic site at Nag elQarmila (Upper Egypt). Sahara 20: 63–68. GATTO, M.C.; DE DAPPER, M.; GERISCH, R.; HART, E.; HENDRICKX, S.; HERBICH, T.; JORIS, H.; NORDSTRÖM, H.-Å.; PITRE, M.; ROMA, S.; ŚWIĘCH, D. & USAI, D., Predynastic settlement and cemeteries at Nag el-Qarmila, Kubbaniya. ArchéoNil 19: 186–206. GATTO, M.C.; HENDRICKX, S.; ROMA, S. & ZAMPETTI, D., Rock art from West Bank Aswan and Wadi Abu Subeira. Archéo-Nil 19: 151–168. HENDRICKX, S., Bibliography of the Prehistory and the Early Dynastic period of Egypt and Northern Sudan: 2009 addition. Archéo-Nil 19: 207–226. HENDRICKX, S., [Catalogue entries] [in:] BOZET, N. (ed.), Aux origines de pharaon. Guides archéologiques du Malgré-Tout. Treignes: 99–122 (nos 35–66). Cône de scellement avec empreintes de sceau au nom de Peribsen: 121–122 (no. 66). Coupe White Cross-lined: 101–102 (no. 39). Coupe White Cross-lined: 103 (no. 41). Coupe White Cross-lined: 103–104 (no. 42). Coupe White Cross-lined à décor végétal: 104 (no. 43). Étiquette inscrite: 161–162 (no. 127). Jarre: 118–119 (no. 63). Jarre « à vin »: 120–121 (no. 65). Jarre avec passoire: 118 (no. 62). Jarre de stockage en céramique à dégraissant végétal: 117–118 (no. 61). Jarre Decorated: 114–115 (no. 56). Jarre Wavy-handled: 115 (no. 57). Jarre Wavy-handled décorée de lignes ondulées: 116 (no. 58). Tesson avec graffito en forme de serekh: 119–120 (no. 64). Vase Black-topped: 99–100 (no. 35). Vase Black-topped: 100 (no. 36). Vase Black-topped: 100–101 (no. 37). Vase Black-topped: 101 (no. 38).

XLII

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF STAN HENDRICKX

Vase Decorated: 106 (no. 47). Vase Decorated: 107 (no. 48). Vase Decorated: 113 (no. 52). Vase Decorated globulaire / Vase Decorated globulaire / Vase Decorated globulaire: 113–114 (nos 53–55). Vase Fancy: 105–106 (no. 46). Vase Red-polished / Vase Red-polished: 104–105 (nos 44–45). Vase Wavy-handled / Vase Wavy-handled à décor de filet ocre rouge: 116–117 (nos 59–60). Vase Wavy-handled à décor de type Decorated / Vase Wavy-handled à décor de type Decorated: 108–113 (nos 50–51). Vase White Cross-lined: 102–103 (no. 40).

HENDRICKX, S. & EYCKERMAN, M., [Catalogue entries] [in:] DERRIKS, C. & DELVAUX, L. (eds), Antiquités égyptiennes au Musée royal de Mariemont. Morlanwelz: 52–53, 278–279, 305–332, 337–338, 453–457. Bol: 308. Bol: 309. Bol: 310–311. Bol: 310–311. Bol: 328–329. Bol: 329. Bol à goulot cylindrique: 318. Bol biconique: 327–328. Bouchon de vase: 338. Coupe: 316–317. Coupe: 316–317. Coupe: 316–317. Couteau: 278. Grand plateau: 324. Grand vase cylindrique: 319. Grand vase cylindrique: 320. Grand vase cylindrique: 330. Grattoir sur lame de silex: 279. Petit vase: 329–330. Petit vase: 332. Petit vase à khôl: 332. Petit vase à khôl: 337. Petit vase cylindrique: 321. Petit vase cylindrique: 321. Petit vase cylindrique: 322. Petit vase cylindrique: 322. Petit vase cylindrique: 323. Petit vase cylindrique: 323. Petite aiguière: 338. Plat: 312–313. Plat: 312–313. Plat: 312–313. Plat: 314–315. Plat: 314–315. Profils de récipients: 453–457. Silex en forme de scorpion: 52–53. Vase à anses tubulaires: 307. Vase biconique: 331. Vase cylindrique: 326. Vase cylindrique: 331. Vase en deux parties assemblées: 326.

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF STAN HENDRICKX

XLIII

Vase ovoïde: 327. Vase ovoïde à anses: 325. Vasque du roi Den: 305–306.

HENDRICKX, S. & EYCKERMAN, M., [Catalogue entry] [in:] BOZET, N. (ed.), Aux origines de pharaon. Guides archéologiques du Malgré-Tout. Treignes: 128–129 (no. 69). Palette décorée: 128–129 (no. 69).

HENDRICKX, S. & EYCKERMAN, M., Les vases en pierre [in:] DERRIKS, C. & DELVAUX, L. (eds), Antiquités égyptiennes au Musée royal de Mariemont. Morlanwelz: 299– 304. HENDRICKX, S. & EYCKERMAN, M.; VAN WINKEL, C. (coll.), The 1955 excavation of an early Old Kingdom storage site at Elkab [in:] CLAES, W.; DE MEULENAERE, H. & HENDRICKX, S. (eds), Elkab and beyond: Studies in honour of Luc Limme. OLA 191. Leuven: 1–30. HENDRICKX, S. & GATTO, M.C., A rediscovered Late Predynastic – Early Dynastic royal scene from Gharb Aswan. Sahara 20: 147–150. HENDRICKX, S. & MIDANT-REYNES, B., [Catalogue entry] [in:] BOZET, N. (ed.), Aux origines de pharaon. Guides archéologiques du Malgré-Tout. Treignes: 159–160 (no. 125). Silex figuratif: 159–160 (no. 125).

HENDRICKX, S. & REGULSKI, I., [Catalogue entry] [in:] BOZET, N. (ed.), Aux origines de pharaon. Guides archéologiques du Malgré-Tout. Treignes: 160–161 (no. 126). Sceau cylindre: 160–161 (no. 126).

HENDRICKX, S.; RIEMER, H.; FÖRSTER, F. & DARNELL, J.C., 2009. Late Predynastic/ Early Dynastic rock art scenes of Barbary sheep hunting in Egypt’s Western Desert: From capturing wild animals to the women of the “Acacia House” [in:] RIEMER, H.; FÖRSTER, F.; HERB, M. & PÖLLATH, N. (eds), Desert animals in the Eastern Sahara: Status, economic significance, and cultural reflection in antiquity. Proceedings of an Interdisciplinary ACACIA Workshop held at the University of Cologne (December 14–15, 2007). Colloquium Africanum 4. Cologne: 189–244. HENDRICKX, S.; SWELIM, N.; RAFFAELE, F.; EYCKERMAN, M. & FRIEDMAN, R.F., A lost Late Predynastic – Early Dynastic royal scene from Gharb Aswan. Archéo-Nil 19: 169–178. ROWLAND, J.; MAŘÍKOVÁ-VLČKOVÁ, P.; HENDRICKX, S.; HERBICH, T.; CLAES, W. & HUYGE, D., Old Kingdom settlement remains at Elkab (Upper Egypt): Preliminary report on the 2009 field season. BKMKG/BMRAH 80: 21–50. WARMENBOL, E. & HENDRICKX, S.; DE PUYDT, F.; MOELANTS, L.; ROLOUX, F. & VANDENBRUANE, M. (coll.), Une tombe intacte du début de la 18ème dynastie : Elkab, BE 18 [in:] CLAES, W.; DE MEULENAERE, H. & HENDRICKX, S. (eds), Elkab and beyond: Studies in honour of Luc Limme. OLA 191. Leuven: 75–125. WILLEMS, H.; VEREECKEN, S.; KUIJPER, L.; VANTHUYNE, B.; MARINOVA, E.; LINSEELE, V.; VERSTRAETEN, G.; HENDRICKX, S.; EYCKERMAN, M.; VAN DEN BROECK, A.; VAN NEER, W.; BOURRIAU, J.; FRENCH, P.; PEETERS, C.; DE LAET, V.; MORTIER, S. & DE KOONING, Z., An industrial site at al-Shaykh Saʽīd / Wādī Zabayda. Ä&L 19: 293–332. 2010 EMMONS, D.; EYCKERMAN, M.; GOYON, J.-C.; GABOLDE, L.; HENDRICKX, S.; MADRIGAL, K. & MIDANT-REYNES, B., L’Égypte au Musée des Confluences  : De la

XLIV

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF STAN HENDRICKX

palette à fard au sarcophage  : Les collections égyptiennes du Musée des Confluences. Milan. FÖRSTER, F.; RIEMER, H.; BOLTEN, A.; BUBENZER, O.; HENDRICKX, S.; & DARIUS, F., Tracing linear structures: Remote sensing, landscape classification and the archaeology of desert roads in the Eastern Sahara [in:] MÖHLIG, W.J.G.; BUBENZER, O. & MENZ, G. (eds), Towards interdisciplinarity: Experiences of the long-term ACACIA Project. Topics in Interdisciplinary African Studies 16. Cologne: 49–75. HENDRICKX, S., Review of “RZEUSKA, T., 2006. Saqqara 2: Pottery of the late Old Kingdom: Funerary pottery and burial customs. Warsaw: Neriton”. BiOr 67(5–6): 542–545. HENDRICKX, S., L’iconographie de la chasse dans le contexte social prédynastique. Archéo-Nil 20: 106–133. HENDRICKX, S. & CLAES, W., Bibliography of the Prehistory and the Early Dynastic period of Egypt and Northern Sudan: 2010 addition. Archéo-Nil 20: 172–185. HENDRICKX, S. & EYCKERMAN, M., Continuity and change in the visual representation of Predynastic Egypt [in:] RAFFAELE, E.; NUZZOLO, M. & INCORDINO, I. (eds), Recent discoveries and latest researches in Egyptology. Proceedings of the First Neapolitan Congress of Egyptology (Naples, 18th–20th June 2008). Wiesbaden: 121–143. HENDRICKX, S. & EYCKERMAN, M., Les statues d’hommes barbus [in:] EMMONS, D.; EYCKERMAN, M.; GOYON, J.-C.; GABOLDE, L.; HENDRICKX, S.; MADRIGAL, K. & MIDANT-REYNES, B., L’Égypte au Musée des Confluences  : De la palette à fard au sarcophage  : Les collections égyptiennes du Musée des Confluences. Milan: 76–79. HENDRICKX, S. & FÖRSTER, F., Early Dynastic art and iconography [in:] LLOYD, A.B. (ed.), A companion to ancient Egypt. Blackwell Companions to the ancient World. Chichester: 826–852. HENDRICKX, S.; HUYGE, D. & NEWTON, C., The walls of Elkab [in:] BIETAK, M.; CZERNY, E. & FORSTNER-MÜLLER, I., (eds), Cities and urbanism in ancient Egypt. Papers from a workshop in November 2006 at the Austrian Academy of Sciences. DGÖAW 60; UZK 35. Vienna: 145–169. HENDRICKX, S.; HUYGE, D. & WENDRICH, W., Worship without writing [in:] WENDRICH, W. (ed.), Egyptian Archaeology. Blackwell Studies in Global Archaeology. Chichester: 15–35. HENDRICKX, S.; MIDANT-REYNES, B. & EYCKERMAN, M., La collection prédynastique [in:] EMMONS, D.; EYCKERMAN, M.; GOYON, J.-C.; GABOLDE, L.; HENDRICKX, S.; MADRIGAL, K. & MIDANT-REYNES, B., L’Égypte au Musée des Confluences  : De la palette à fard au sarcophage  : Les collections égyptiennes du Musée des Confluences. Milan: 50–75. HENDRICKX, S.; MIDANT-REYNES, B. & EYCKERMAN, M., L’histoire de l’Égypte à la période prédynastique [in:] EMMONS, D.; EYCKERMAN, M.; GOYON, J.-C.; GABOLDE, L.; HENDRICKX, S.; MADRIGAL, K. & MIDANT-REYNES, B., L’Égypte au Musée des Confluences  : De la palette à fard au sarcophage  : Les collections égyptiennes du Musée des Confluences. Milan: 16–19. POMMERENING, T.; MARINOVA, E. & HENDRICKX, S., The Early Dynastic origin of the water-lily motif. CdÉ 85(169–170): 14–40. 2011 DE MEYER, M.; VEREECKEN, S.; VANTHUYNE, B.; HENDRICKX, S.; OP DE BEECK, L. & WILLEMS, H., The early Old Kingdom at Nuwayrāt in the 16th Upper Egyptian

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF STAN HENDRICKX

XLV

nome [in:] ASTON, D.; BADER, B.; GALLORINI, C.; NICHOLSON, P. & BUCKINGHAM, S. (eds), Under the potter’s tree: Studies on ancient Egypt presented to Janine Bourriau on the occasion of her 70th birthday. OLA 204. Leuven: 679– 702. EYCKERMAN, M. & HENDRICKX, S., The Naqada I tombs H17 and H41 at el-Mahâsna: A visual reconstruction [in:] FRIEDMAN, R.F. & FISKE, P.N. (eds), Egypt at its Origins 3. Proceedings of the Third International Conference “Origin of the State. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt”, London, 27th July–1st August 2008. OLA 205. Leuven: 379–429. GRAFF, G.; EYCKERMAN, M. & HENDRICKX, S., Architectural elements on Decorated pottery and ritual presenting of desert animals [in:] FRIEDMAN, R.F. & FISKE, P.N. (eds), Egypt at its Origins 3. Proceedings of the Third International Conference “Origin of the State. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt”, London, 27th July–1st August 2008. OLA 205. Leuven: 437–465. HENDRICKX, S., [Catalogue entries] [in:] TEETER, E. (ed.), Before the pyramids: The origins of Egyptian civilization. OIMP 33. Chicago: 153–154, 156, 158–159, 177–178, 200–201, 216–218, 243 (nos 1, 3, 5, 30, 53, 74–76, 104–107). Amulet in form of a man: 218 (no. 76). Carved tusk: 156 (no. 3). Composite animal palette: 200–201 (no. 53). Decorated ostrich egg: 158–159 (no. 5). Figurine of a youth: 216 (no. 74). Furniture inlays: 243 (no. 104–107). Jar with hunting scene: 153–154 (no. 1). Painted vessel: 177–178 (no. 30). Stylized tag: 217 (no. 75).

HENDRICKX, S., The chronology workshop [in:] FRIEDMAN, R.F. & FISKE, P.N. (eds), Egypt at its Origins 3. Proceedings of the Third International Conference “Origin of the State. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt”, London, 27th July–1st August 2008. OLA 205. Leuven: 911–915. HENDRICKX, S., Crafts and craft specialization [in:] TEETER, E. (ed.), Before the pyramids: The origins of Egyptian civilization. OIMP 33. Chicago: 93–98. HENDRICKX, S., Hunting and social complexity in Predynastic Egypt. Academie royale des Sciences d’Outre-Mer. Bulletin des Séances / Koninklijke Academie voor Overzeese Wetenschappen. Mededelingen der Zittingen 57(2–4): 237–263. HENDRICKX, S., Iconography of the Predynastic and Early Dynastic periods [in:] TEETER, E. (ed.), Before the pyramids: The origins of Egyptian civilization. OIMP 33. Chicago: 75–81. HENDRICKX, S., Legs from furniture [in:] TEETER, E. (ed.), Before the pyramids: The origins of Egyptian civilization. OIMP 33. Chicago: 244. HENDRICKX, S., Naqada IIIA–B, a crucial phase in the relative chronology of the Naqada culture. Archéo-Nil 21: 65–80. HENDRICKX, S., Sequence dating and Predynastic chronology [in:] TEETER, E. (ed.), Before the pyramids: The origins of Egyptian civilization. OIMP 33. Chicago: 15–16. HENDRICKX, S. & CLAES, W., Bibliography of the Prehistory and the Early Dynastic period of Egypt and Northern Sudan: 2010 addition. Archéo-Nil 21: 147–162. HENDRICKX, S. & EYCKERMAN, M., Tusks and tags: Between the hippopotamus and the Naqada plant [in:] FRIEDMAN, R.F. & FISKE, P.N. (eds), Egypt at its Origins 3. Proceedings of the Third International Conference “Origin of the State. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt”, London, 27th July–1st August 2008. OLA 205. Leuven: 497–570.

XLVI

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF STAN HENDRICKX

HENDRICKX, S.; FRIEDMAN, R.F. & EYCKERMAN, M., Early falcons [in:] MORENZ, L.D. & KUHN, R. (eds.), Vorspann oder formative Phase? Ägypten und der Vordere Orient 3500–2700 v. Chr. Philippika 48. Wiesbaden: 129–162. OP DE BEECK, L. & HENDRICKX, S., Deir al-Barsha 2002 pottery survey. CCÉ 9: 311– 344. POMMERENING, T. & HENDRICKX, S., Kopf und Schädel im Alten Ägypten [in:] WIECZOREK, A. & ROSENDAHL, W. (eds), Schädelkult: Kopf und Schädel in der Kulturgeschichte des Menschen. Publikationen der Reiss-Engelhorn-Museen 41. Regensburg: 87–96. 2012 HENDRICKX, S., Badarian [in:] BAGNALL, R.S.; BRODERSEN, K.; CHAMPION, C.B.; ERSKINE, A. & HUEBNER, S.R. (eds), The encyclopedia of ancient history. Hoboken: 1015–1017. HENDRICKX, S., Naqada [in:] BAGNALL, R.S.; BRODERSEN, K.; CHAMPION, C.B.; ERSKINE, A. & HUEBNER, S.R. (eds), The encyclopedia of ancient history. Hoboken: 4694–4696. HENDRICKX, S., Predynastic [in:] BAGNALL, R.S.; BRODERSEN, K.; CHAMPION, C.B.; ERSKINE, A. & HUEBNER, S.R. (eds), The encyclopedia of ancient history. Hoboken: 5513–5517. HENDRICKX, S., Review of “BUSSMANN, R., 2010. Die Provinztempel Ägyptens von der 0. bis zur 11. Dynastie: Archäologie und Geschichte einer gesellschaftlichen Institution zwischen Residenz und Provinz. PdÄ 30. Leiden – Boston: Brill”. BiOr 69(5–6): 468–472. HENDRICKX, S. & CLAES, W., Bibliography of the Prehistory and the Early Dynastic period of Egypt and Northern Sudan: 2012 addition. Archéo-Nil 22: 95–111. HENDRICKX, S.; DARNELL, J.C. & GATTO, M.C., The earliest representations of royal power in Egypt: The rock drawings of Nag el-Hamdulab (Aswan). Antiquity 86(334): 1068–1083. HENDRICKX, S.; DARNELL, J.C.; GATTO, M.C & EYCKERMAN, M., Iconographic and palaeographic elements dating a Dynasty 0 rock art site at Nag el-Hamdulab (Aswan, Egypt) [in:] HUYGE, D.; VAN NOTEN, F. & SWINNE, D. (eds), The signs of which time? Chronological and palaeoenvironmental issues in the rock art of Northern Africa. Brussels: 295–326. HENDRICKX, S. & EYCKERMAN, M., Visual representation and state development in Egypt. Archéo-Nil 22: 23–72. 2013 HENDRICKX, S. & CLAES, W., Bibliography of the Prehistory and the Early Dynastic period of Egypt and Northern Sudan: 2013 addition. Archéo-Nil 23: 115–128. HENDRICKX, S.; FÖRSTER, F. & EYCKERMAN, M., The pharaonic pottery of the Abu Ballas Trail: ‘Filling stations’ along a desert highway in southwestern Egypt [in:] FÖRSTER, F. & RIEMER, H. (eds), Desert road archaeology in ancient Egypt and beyond. Africa Praehistorica 27. Cologne: 339–379. 2014 CLAES, W.; HENDRICKX, S.; DEVILLERS, A.; HART, E.; KINDERMANN, K.; DE DAPPER, M.; IKRAM, S.; STORMS, G.; SWERTS, C. & HUYGE, D., From the early Old Kingdom to the Badarian: Preliminary report on the 2012 excavation campaign in the set-

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF STAN HENDRICKX

XLVII

tlement area of Elkab [in:] MĄCZYŃSKA, A. (ed.), The Nile Delta as a centre of cultural interactions between Upper Egypt and the Southern Levant in the 4th millennium BC. SAA 13. Poznań: 77–85. HENDRICKX, S., The emergence of the Egyptian state [in:] RENFREW, C. & BAHN, P. (eds), The Cambridge world prehistory 1: Africa, South and Southeast Asia and the Pacific. Cambridge: 259–278. HENDRICKX, S. & CLAES, W., Bibliography of the Prehistory and the Early Dynastic period of Egypt and Northern Sudan: 2014 addition. Archéo-Nil 24: 191–206. HENDRICKX, S.; DE MEYER, M. & EYCKERMAN, M., On the origin of the royal false beard and its bovine symbolism [in:] JUCHA, M.; DĘBOWSKA-LUDWIN, J. & KOŁODZIEJCZYK, P. (eds), Aegyptus est Imago caeli: Studies presented to Krzysztof M. Ciałowicz on his 60th birthday. Krakow: 129–143. HENDRICKX, S. & HUYGE, D., Neolithic and Predynastic Egypt [in:] RENFREW, C. & BAHN, P. (eds), The Cambridge world prehistory 1: Africa, South and Southeast Asia and the Pacific. Cambridge: 240–258. 2015 HENDRICKX, S., Review of “KUPER, R. (ed.), 2013. Wadi Sura – The Cave of Beasts: A rock art site in the Gilf Kebir (SW-Egypt). Africa Praehistorica 26. Cologne: Heinrich-Barth-Institute”. BiOr 72(5–6): 661–664. HENDRICKX, S. & CLAES, W., Bibliography of the Prehistory and the Early Dynastic period of Egypt and Northern Sudan: 2015 addition. Archéo-Nil 25: 137–151. HENDRICKX, S.; DARNELL, J.C. & GATTO, M.C., De rotstekeningen van Nag el-Hamdulab. Phoenix 61(2–3): 101–120. HENDRICKX, S. & EYCKERMAN, M., Les animaux sauvages dans l’Égypte prédynastique [in:] MASSIERA, M.; MATHIEU, B. & ROUFFET, F. (eds), Apprivoiser le sauvage – Taming the wild. CENiM 11. Montpellier: 197–210. 2016 HENDRICKX, S., It’s good to meet people at conferences. Heinrich Barth Kurier 2(16): 35. HENDRICKX, S., Review of “WARDEN, L.A., 2014. Pottery and economy in Old Kingdom Egypt. CHANE 65. Leiden – Boston: Brill”. CdÉ 91(181): 97–99. HENDRICKX, S. & CLAES, W., Bibliography of the Prehistory and the Early Dynastic period of Egypt and Northern Sudan: 2016 addition. Archéo-Nil 26: 205–222. HENDRICKX, S.; CLAES, W.; DEVILLERS, A.; STORMS, G.; SWERTS, C. & VEREECKEN, S., The pottery from the late Early Dynastic and early Old Kingdom settlement at Elkab (excavation season 2010) [in:] BADER, B.; KNOBLAUCH, C.M. & KÖHLER, E.C. (eds), Vienna 2: Ancient Egyptian ceramics in the 21st century. Proceedings of the International Conference held at the University of Vienna, 14th– 18th May, 2012. OLA 245. Leuven: 259–276. HENDRICKX, S. & DARNELL, J.C.; GATTO, M.C. & EYCKERMAN, M. (coll.), Nag elHamdulab au seuil de la Ire dynastie. BSFÉ 195–196: 47–65 HENDRICKX, S.; EYCKERMAN, M. & VEREECKEN, S., The visualisation of pottery in Egyptian archaeology [in:] BADER, B.; KNOBLAUCH, C.M. & KÖHLER, E.C. (eds), Vienna 2: Ancient Egyptian ceramics in the 21st century. Proceedings of the International Conference held at the University of Vienna, 14th–18th May, 2012. OLA 245. Leuven: 277–286. HENDRICKX, S.; FÖRSTER, F. & EYCKERMAN, M., The Narmer Palette: A new recording [in:] ADAMS, M.D. (ed.); MIDANT-REYNES, B.; RYAN, E.M. & TRISTANT, Y. (coll.),

XLVIII

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF STAN HENDRICKX

Egypt at its Origins 4. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference “Origin of the State. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt”, New York, 26th–30th July 2001. OLA 252. Leuven: 535–546. HENDRICKX, S.; PIQUETTE, K.E.; EYCKERMAN, M.; MADRIGAL, K. & GRAVES-BROWN, C., The origin and early significance of the White Crown [in:] POLZ, D. & SEIDLMAYER, S.J. (eds), Gedenkschrift für Werner Kaiser. MDAIK 70–71: 227–238. HENDRICKX, S.; SIMOENS, P. & EYCKERMAN, M., “The facial veins” of the bull in Predynastic Egypt [in:] ADAMS, M.D. (ed.); MIDANT-REYNES, B.; RYAN, E.M. & TRISTANT, Y. (coll.), Egypt at its Origins 4. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference “Origin of the State. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt”, New York, 26th–30th July 2001. OLA 252. Leuven: 505–533. HENDRICKX, S. & VAN DEN BRINK, E.C.M., A note concerning the Egyptian palette and calcite jar [in:] YANNAI, E., ‘En Esur (‘Ein Asawir) 2: Excavations at the cemeteries. Jerusalem: 86–87. 2017 DARNELL, J.C.; HENDRICKX, S. & GATTO, M.C., Once more the Nag el-Hamdulab early hieroglyphic annotation. Archéo-Nil 27: 65–74. HENDRICKX, S. & CLAES, W., Bibliography of the Prehistory and the Early Dynastic period of Egypt and Northern Sudan: 2017 addition. Archéo-Nil 27: 75–89. HENDRICKX, S. & EYCKERMAN, M., Packed and ready: Painted plaster plaques in the Elite Cemetery. Nekhen News 29: 9–10. 2018 HENDRICKX, S. & CLAES, W., Bibliography of the Prehistory and the Early Dynastic period of Egypt and Northern Sudan: 2018 addition. Archéo-Nil 28: 99–118. HENDRICKX, S. & CLAES, W., Hommage à Dirk Huyge (1957–2018) – In memory of Dirk Huyge (1957–2018). Archéo-Nil 28: 11–16. HENDRICKX, S.; DROUX, X. & EYCKERMAN, M., Predynastic human representations: Two sides of a story [in:] HUYGE D. & VAN NOTEN, F. (eds), What ever happened to the people? Humans and anthropomorphs in the rock art of Northern Africa. Brussels: 431–443. HENDRICKX, S.; DROUX, X.; EYCKERMAN, M. & HARTMANN, R., Hunting for power: An exceptional White Cross-lined jar in the National Museum of Denmark. MDAIK 74: 83–97. HENDRICKX, S. & EYCKERMAN, M., Decorated palettes of a different type: Rhomboids from Hierakonpolis and beyond. Nekhen News 30: 35–36. 2019 CLAES, W.; DAVEY, C.J. & HENDRICKX, S., An Early Dynastic crucible from the settlement of Elkab (Upper Egypt). JEA 105(1): 29–42. HENDRICKX, S., [Catalogue entries] [in:] ABDUL WAHID, R.; BRUWIER, M.-C.; GAUTHIER, N. & HAGGAG, M. (eds), Antiquités égyptiennes de la Préhistoire à la Basse Époque. Études alexandrines 48 ; Catalogue du musée éducatif d’Antiquités de la Faculté des lettres de l’Université d’Alexandrie 2. Alexandrie: 41–52, 103–105 (nos 17–56, 145–150). Beaker: 41 (no. 17). Beaker: 41 (no. 18).

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF STAN HENDRICKX

XLIX

Beaker: 41 (no. 19). Beaker: 41–42 (no. 20). Beaker: 42 (no. 21). Beaker: 42 (no. 22). Bottle: 44 (no. 28). Bouteille: 104 (no. 148). Bouteille: 104–105 (no. 150). Bowl: 42 (no. 23). Bowl: 43 (no. 24). Bowl: 43 (no. 25). Bowl: 43 (no. 26). Bowl with two legs: 43–44 (no. 27). Cup: 44 (no. 29). Cup: 44 (no. 30). Cylindrical jar: 46 (no. 36). Cylindrical jar: 46 (no. 37). Cylindrical jar: 47 (no. 38). Decorated jar: 47 (no. 39). Decorated jar: 47 (no. 40). Decorated jar: 47–48 (no. 41). Decorated squat jar: 48 (no. 42). Jar: 45 (no. 31). Jar: 45 (no. 32). Jar: 45 (no. 33). Jar: 45–46 (no. 34). Jar: 46 (no. 35). Jarre: 103 (no. 145). Jarre: 104 (no. 149). Meidum bowl: 103–104 (no. 146). Meidum bowl: 104 (no. 147). Oval jar: 48 (no. 43). Small jar: 48 (no. 44). Small jar: 49 (no. 45). Small jar with lug handles: 49 (no. 46). Small storage jar: 50 (no. 50). Storage jar: 49 (no. 47). Storage jar: 49–50 (no. 48). Storage jar: 50 (no. 49). Water or beer jar: 50 (no. 51). Water or beer jar: 51 (no. 52). Wavy handled jar: 51 (no. 53). Wavy handled jar: 51 (no. 54). Wavy handled jar: 51–52 (no. 55). “Wine” jar: 52 (no. 56).

HENDRICKX, S., Review of “HARTMANN, R., 2016. Umm el-Qaab 4: Die Keramik der älteren und mittleren Naqadakultur aus dem prädynastischen Friedhof U in Abydos (Umm el-Qaab). AV 98. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz”. CdÉ 94(187): 100–102. HENDRICKX, S. & CLAES, W., Bibliography of the Prehistory and the Early Dynastic period of Egypt and Northern Sudan: 2019 addition. Archéo-Nil 29: 195–211. 2020 ANGEVIN, R.; VANHULLE, D.; HENDRICKX, S. & MADRIGAL, K., De l’outil au symbole : Sur une lame de silex retouchée en bateau provenant de Gebelein (Haute Égypte,

L

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF STAN HENDRICKX

Nagada IIC–D, Lyon, musée des Confluences : Inv. T. 1224). Archéo-Nil 30: 73–96. HENDRICKX, S., Le faucon à l’aube de la culture égyptienne. Ouhemou 6: 62–68. HENDRICKX, S., Mea culpa after 40 years, a mutilated body in grave 77 of the Naqada III cemetery at Elkab. CCdÉ 24–25: 165–178. HENDRICKX, S., The Predynastic period [in:] SHAW, I. & BLOXHAM, E. (eds), The Oxford handbook of Egyptology. Oxford Handbooks. Oxford: 573–595. HENDRICKX, S. & CLAES, W., Bibliography of the Prehistory and the Early Dynastic period of Egypt and Northern Sudan: 2020 addition. Archéo-Nil 30: 169–187. HENDRICKX, S. & FÖRSTER, F., Violence and the early Egyptian state. Ä&L 30: 77–83. HENDRICKX, S.; FÖRSTER, F. & EYCKERMAN, M., Le taureau au Prédynastique et son importance pour le développement de l’iconographie royale, avec un excursus sur l’origine du sceptre heqa [in:] AUFRÈRE, S. (ed.) Les taureaux de l’Égypte ancienne  : Publication éditée à l’occasion de la 14e rencontre d’Égyptologie de Nîmes. Nîmes: 33–73. HENDRICKX, S.; FÖRSTER, F.; PIQUETTE, K.E.; EYCKERMAN, M.; GOFFIN, L. & MEYERS, L., A history of the visualisation of the Hunters’s Palette and a tentative reconstruction of its missing part. Archéo-Nil 30: 123–148. HENDRICKX, S.; FRIEDMAN, R.F.; DROUX, X. & EYCKERMAN, M., Size mattered in Predynastic Egypt: A very large Decorated vessel in the British Museum [in:] WARFE, A.R.; GILL, J.C.R.; HAMILTON, C.R.; PETTMAN, A.J. & STEWART, D.A. (eds), Dust, demons and pots: Studies in honour of Colin A. Hope. OLA 289. Leuven: 279–304.

In preparation / in press CLAES, W. & HENDRICKX S., The lost tell of Elkab [in:] BUCHEZ, N. & TRISTANT, Y. (eds), Égypte antérieure  : Mélanges de préhistoire et d’archéologie offerts à Béatrix Midant-Reynes par ses étudiants, collègues et amis. OLA 304. Leuven: 189–212. CLAES, W.; HENDRICKX, S. & DE DAPPER, M., A life on the rocks: Dirk Huyge (1957– 2018) and the development of rock art research in Egypt [in:] GATTO, M.C.; MEDICI, P.; POLKOWSKI, P.L.; FÖRSTER, F. & RIEMER, H. (eds), Current research in the rock art of the Eastern Sahara: In memory of Dirk Huyge (1957–2018). Proceedings of the 20th International Rock Art Congress IFRAO, Session 2B, Valcamonica, 29th August–2nd September 2018. Archaeopress Access Archaeology. Oxford. HENDRICKX, S. ; FÖRSTER, F. & EYCKERMAN, M., The “Vase Bally”: Captives on a Predynastic stone vessel. HUYGE, D. (†); HENDRICKX, S.; ROTS, V. & MIDANT-REYNES, B., A group of Predynastic flints from the First Dynasty “royal mastaba” at Naqada [in:] BUCHEZ, N. & TRISTANT, Y. (eds), Égypte antérieure  : Mélanges de préhistoire et d’archéologie offerts à Béatrix Midant-Reynes par ses étudiants, collègues et amis. OLA 304. Leuven: 407–442. MADRIGAL, K.; EYCKERMAN, M. & HENDRICKX, S., Le site de Rôda, près de Médamoud, dans la collection prédynastique du Musée des Confluences de Lyon [in:] KÖHLER, E.C. ; KUCH, N. ; JUNGE, F. & JESKE, A.-K., Egypt at its Origins 6. Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference “Origin of the State. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt”, Vienna, 10th–15th September 2007. OLA 303. Leuven: 453–467.

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF STAN HENDRICKX

LI

TOONEN, W.H.J.; CORTEBEECK, K.; HENDRICKX, S.; BADER, B.; PEETERS, J. & WILLEMS, H., The hydro-geomorphological setting of the Old Kingdom town of Al-Ashmūnayn in the Egyptian Nile Valley.

CONFERENCE ABSTRACTS 1995 HENDRICKX, S., Pottery at Elkab, from the 4th millennium B.C. until the Roman period [in:] EYRE, C. (ed.), Seventh International Congress of Egyptologists, Cambridge 3–9 September 1995: Abstracts of papers. Oxford: 83–84. 1998 HENDRICKX, S., Bovines in Egyptian Predynastic and Early Dynastic iconography [in:] EUROPEAN SCIENCE FOUNDATION, Ecological change and food security in Africa’s later Prehistory. London, Sept. 15–18: Abstracts. London: 39. 2002 HENDRICKX, S., A small Second Dynasty cemetery at Elkab [in:] CIAŁOWICZ, K.M.; CHŁODNICKI, M. & HENDRICKX, S. (eds), Origin of the state. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt (Cracow, Poland: 28th–1st September 2002): Abstracts of papers: Krakow: 40. VERMEERSCH, P.M. & HENDRICKX, S., Abadiya 2, a Naqada I site near Danfiq, Upper Egypt [in:] CIAŁOWICZ, K.M.; CHŁODNICKI, M. & HENDRICKX, S. (eds), Origin of the state. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt (Cracow, Poland: 28th–1st September 2002): Abstracts of papers: Krakow: 77. 2005 HENDRICKX, S., Craft specialisation at Hierakonpolis during the early Naqada II period in the elite context of cemetery HK6 [in:] MIDANT-REYNES, B. & TRISTANT, Y. (eds); ROWLAND, J. & HENDRICKX, S. (coll.), L’Égypte pré- et protodynastique  : Les origines de l’état – Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt: Origin of the State. Toulouse (France), 5–8 septembre 2005: Livret des résumés – Abstracts of papers. Toulouse: 51. 2007 HENDRICKX, S., The falcon and the origin of royal symbolism [in:] Vorspann oder formative Phase  ? Ägypten und der Vordere Orient 3500–2700 v. Chr. Leipzig, 07.09–08.09.2007. Leipzig: 24. 2008 DE DAPPER, M.; EYCKERMAN, M.; GATTO, M.C.; GERISCH, R.; HART, E.; HENDRICKX, S.; HERBICH, T.; JORIS, H.; NORDSTRÖM, H.-Å.; PITRE, M.; ROMA, S.; SWIECH, D. & USAI, D., Rescue excavations of a Predynastic site in Nag el-Qarmila (Kubbaniya) [in:] FRIEDMAN, R.F. & MCNAMARA, L. (eds), Abstracts of papers

LII

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF STAN HENDRICKX

presented at the Third International Colloquium on Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt. London: 86–87. GRAFF, G. & HENDRICKX, S., Architectural representations on D-ware: Identification and comparison with archaeological data [in:] FRIEDMAN, R.F. & MCNAMARA, L. (eds), Abstracts of papers presented at the Third International Colloquium on Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt. London: 99–101. HENDRICKX, S., The chronology workshop [in:] FRIEDMAN, R.F. & MCNAMARA, L. (eds), Abstracts of papers presented at the Third International Colloquium on Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt. London: 31–33. HENDRICKX, S., Continuity and change in the visual representations of Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt – Continuità e cambiamento nelle rappresentazioni figurative dell’Egitto Predinastico e Arcaico [in:] ASSOCIAZIONE NAPOLETANA DI STUDI EGITTOLOGICI, First Neapolitan Congress of Egyptology – Primo Convegno Napoletano di Egittologia. Napoli 18–20 Giugno 2008: Naples: 10–11. HENDRICKX, S., Tusks and tags [in:] FRIEDMAN, R.F. & MCNAMARA, L. (eds), Abstracts of papers presented at the Third International Colloquium on Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt. London: 104–106. 2010 HENDRICKX, S.; DARNELL, J.C.; GATTO, M.C. & EYCKERMAN, M., Rock art and Early Dynastic iconography at Naq’ el-Hamdulab (Aswan, Egypt) [in:] Colloquium “The signs of which times? Chronological and palaeoenvironmental issues in the rock art of Northern Africa“ (Brussels, 3–5 June 2010). Brussels: 15. 2011 EYCKERMAN, M. & HENDRICKX, S., Naqada I–early Naqada II decorated rhomboid palettes: A neglected iconographic source [in:] PATCH, D.C. & ADAMS, M., Egypt at its Origins. The Fourth International Conference on Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt. July 26–30, 2011: Programs and abstracts. New York: 31. HENDRICKX, S., The iconography of social complexity and differentiation in Predynastic Egypt [in:] STEIN, G.J.; ALIZADEH, A. & ROWAN, Y. (eds), Pathways to power: Comparative perspectives on the emergence of political authority and hierarchy in the ancient Near East. November 4–5, 2011, The Oriental Institute: Program and abstracts. Chicago: 5–6. HENDRICKX, S.; DARNELL, J.C.; GATTO, M.C. & EYCERKMAN, M., The Dynasty 0 rock art complex at Nag‘ el-Hamdulab (Aswan, Egypt) [in:] PATCH, D.C. & ADAMS, M., Egypt at its Origins. The Fourth International Conference on Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt. July 26–30, 2011: Programs and abstracts. New York: 35. 2012 BAETEN, J.; PAUL, M.; MARINOVA, E.; HENDRICKX, S.; POMMERENING, T.; DE VOS, D.; JAUCH, J. & FRIEDMAN, R., Grave goods in Predynastic Hierakonpolis, Egypt: Botanical and molecular approaches to identify plant substances [in:] BRAEKMANS, D.; HONINGS, J. & DEGRYSE, P. (eds), 39th International Symposium on Archaeometry, 28 May–1 June 2012, Leuven, Belgium: Programme and abstracts. Leuven: 269–270. HENDRICKX, S., Workshop: Visualisation of ceramics [in:] Vienna 2: Ancient Egyptian ceramics in the 21st century. 14th–18th May 2012: Book of abstracts. Vienna: 18.

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF STAN HENDRICKX

LIII

HENDRICKX, S. & VEREECKEN, S., The pottery from the early Old Kingdom settlement at Elkab [in:] Vienna 2: Ancient Egyptian ceramics in the 21st century. 14th– 18th May 2012: Book of abstracts. Vienna: 17. 2014 CLAES, W.; HENDRICKX, S.; DEVILLERS, A.; HART, E.; KINDERMANN, K.; DE DAPPER, M.; IKRAM, S.; STORMS, G.; SWERTS, C. & HUYGE, D., From the early Old Kingdom to the Badarian: Recent excavations in the settlement area of Elkab [in:] MIDANT-REYNES, B. & TRISTANT, Y. (eds), Origins 5. Cairo, 13–18 April 2014. Fifth International Conference of Predynastic and Early Dynastic Studies: Abstracts of papers. Cairo: 38–39. HENDRICKX, S. & FRIEDMAN, R., A re-evaluation of ‘formal’ and ‘preformal’ culture from a Predynastic point of view [in:] Third Australasian Egyptology Conference. July 16–18, 2014. Macquarie University Sydney: Program & abstracts. Sydney: 31–32. HENDRICKX, S.; REGULSKI, I. & FRIEDMAN, R.F., Fish and the temple: Writing or reality? [in:] MIDANT-REYNES, B. & TRISTANT, Y. (eds), Origins 5. Cairo, 13–18 April 2014. Fifth International Conference of Predynastic and Early Dynastic Studies: Abstracts of papers. Cairo: 61–62. 2015 HENDRICKX, S., Human representations in Predynastic rock art and cemetery objects: Two sides of one story [in:] What ever happened to the people? Humans and anthropomorphs in the rock art of Northern Africa: Abstracts. Brussels: 78–79. 2017 CLAES, W.; DE DAPPER, M.; HART, E.; HENDRICKX, S.; IKRAM, S.; KINDERMANN, K. & HUYGE, D., The settlement of Elkab: Results of recent fieldwork [in:] Origins 6. International Conference on Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt. Vienna, September 2017. Vienna: 14. HENDRICKX, S., Bovine symbolism as an essential element for the development of royal iconography [in:] Origins 6. International Conference on Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt. Vienna, September 2017. Vienna: 18. MADRIGAL, K.; EYCKERMAN, M. & HENDRICKX, S., The Predynastic collection of the Musée des Confluences in Lyon [in:] Origins 6. International Conference on Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt. Vienna, September 2017. Vienna: 38–39. 2018 HENDRICKX, S., Predynastic rock art in its environmental context (Egypt) [in:] GIORGI, M. (ed.), Standing on the shoulders of giants – Sulle spalle dei giganti. 20th international rock art congress IFRAO 2018. Valcamonica-Darfo Boario Terme (BS) Italy: Book of abstracts. Capo di Ponto: 146. Submitted HENDRICKX, S. & EYCKERMAN, M., Rhomboid is not just a shape. Origins 7. International Conference on Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt. Paris, September 2022. Paris.

LIV

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF STAN HENDRICKX

PIQUETTE, K.; EYCKERMAN, M.; FÖRSTER, F. & HENDRICKX, S., Reviewing the Narmer palette. Origins 7. International Conference on Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt. Paris, September 2022. Paris. VANHULLE, D. & HENDRICKX, S., A little bird told me ... Origins 7. International Conference on Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt. Paris, September 2022. Paris.

PART II : MAASEIK 2000 HENDRICKX, S., Maaseiker “geschiedschrijving” op het einde van de 17de eeuw? Limburg: Het oude Land van Loon 79: 353–373. 2001 HENDRICKX, M. (†) & HENDRICKX, S., Beknopte historiek van het stadsmuseum te Maaseik voor 1965. De Maaseikenaar 32(3): 114–123. 2002 HENDRICKX, M. (†) & HENDRICKX, S., Graanprijzen te Maaseik tussen 1653 en 1713. De Maaseikenaar 33(2): 105–109. HENDRICKX, M. (†) & HENDRICKX, S., Historiek van de Maaseiker archivalia [in:] NIJSSEN, R. & RASKIN, R., Inventaris van de Maaseiker archieven overgedragen door Marcel Hendrickx. Rijksarchief te Hasselt. Toegangen in beperkte oplage 37. Brussel: 5–21. 2003 HENDRICKX, M. (†) & HENDRICKX, S., Maaseiker archieven. De Maaseikenaar 34(2): 103–114. HENDRICKX, M. (†) & HENDRICKX, S., Maaseiker archieven. De Maaseikenaar 34(3): 163–174. 2004 HENDRICKX, M. (†) & HENDRICKX, S., Overzicht en interpretatie van de geboortes en de sterfgevallen te Maaseik van 1610 tot 1809. Limburg 83: 167–183. HENDRICKX, M. (†) & HENDRICKX, S., Arnold Morrees, Maasschipper uit Nijmegen verkoopt zijn schepen met inhoud te Maaseik in 1693 aan Joannes van Naemen, eigenaar van “Den Gulden Arent”. De Maaseikenaar 35(3): 122–128. 2012 GODELAINE, T. & HENDRICKX, S., “Aan mijn teergeliefde moeder op deszelfs naamfeest”. De Maaseikenaar 43(4): 171–178. 2013 HENDRICKX, S., Postkaarten als facebook voor studentes van de Ursulinen in 1899. De Maaseikenaar 44(3): 149–158.

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF STAN HENDRICKX

LV

HENDRICKX-GODELAINE, T. & HENDRICKX, S., Een kleine vondst met een lange geschiedenis. De Maaseikenaar 44(4): 207–210. 2014 GODELAINE, T. & HENDRICKX, S., Een grafschild van Eugenius de Bors d’Overen (1763). De Maaseikenaar 45(3): 108–110. HENDRICKX, S., Maaseik in prentbriefkaarten, een oproep. De Maaseikenaar 45(4): 154–155. HENDRICKX, M. (†) & HENDRICKX, S., Het standbeeld van de gebroeders Van Eyck, gezien door Johannes Gessler in 1864. De Maaseikenaar 45(4): 168–178. 2015 HENDRICKX, S. (ed.), Registrum Statutorum Oppidi Maeseijckensis Leodiensis Diœcesis 1766: Kopie en transcriptie. Maaseik. HENDRICKX, S. (ed.), Rekeningenregister van het voormalige Agnetenklooster te Maaseik (1800–1821): Kopie en transcriptie. Maaseik. HENDRICKX, S. & DECKER, W., De Eerste Wereldoorlog in prentbriefkaarten te Maaseik. De Maaseikenaar 46(3): 163–180. 2018 HENDRICKX, S., De Bleumerpoort tijdens het einde van de 19de en het begin van de 20ste eeuw. De Maaseikenaar 49(1): 15–23. HENDRICKX, S., Een kaartje van Maaseik uit 1828–1830 met aanduiding van de waterputten en stadspompen. De Maaseikenaar 49(2): 66–81. HENDRICKX, S., Woensdag 12u05 op de Bospoort rond 1965. De Maaseikenaar 49(3): 187–189. 2019 HENDRICKX, S., Het bezoek aan Maaseik van Gustave Rolin-Jaequemyns, minister van Binnenlandse Zaken, op 22 september 1879. De Maaseikenaar 50(4): 206–216. HENDRICKX, S., Het familieboek van Eugène Joseph de Bors en Anna Helena Francisca de Groote (1722–1779) [in:] AARTS, B.; VAN PINXTEREN, A. & SCHATORJÉ, J. (eds), Limburgensia: De schatten van Schillings. Venlo: 160–167, 247–248. HENDRICKX, S., Geen Romeinse brug te Maaseik. De Maaseikenaar 50(4): 188–190. HENDRICKX, S., Louis Adriaenssens, eerste machinist op de spoorlijn Hasselt–Maaseik. De Maaseikenaar 50(3): 145–157. HENDRICKX, S., Verordening uit de 18de eeuw om de Maaseiker jeugd te verbieden voor geld te spelen. De Maaseikenaar 50(4): 221–223. HENDRICKX, S. & NULENS, R., Vermelding in 1869 van een tekening van Maaseik uit 1674. De Maaseikenaar 50(2): 75–78. 2020 HENDRICKX, S., Aankoop van huizen en gronden door prins-bisschop Johan Theodoor van Beieren voor de bouw van het Prinsenhof (1752) [in:] Het Prinsenhof van Maaseik. Maaseik: 82–103. HENDRICKX, S., Een foto van de Broederschap van de H. Anna (ca. 1893). De Maaseikenaar 51(4): 235–241.

LVI

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF STAN HENDRICKX

HENDRICKX, S., Het Prinsenhof op de kaart [in:] Het Prinsenhof van Maaseik. Maaseik: 58–73. HENDRICKX, S., Het Prinsenhof te Maaseik in het familieboek van Eugène Joseph de Bors d’Overen en Anna Helena Francisca de Groote (1722–1779) [in:] Het Prinsenhof van Maaseik. Maaseik: 74–81. HENDRICKX, S., Inleiding [in:] Het Prinsenhof van Maaseik. Maaseik: 7–11. HENDRICKX, S., Maaseiker recepten: Hazenpaté. De Maaseikenaar 51(3): 180–186. HENDRICKX, S., Maaseiker recepten: Kalfskop. De Maaseikenaar 51(1): 18–21. HENDRICKX, S., Maaseiker recepten: Pommade. De Maaseikenaar 51(4): 210–214. HENDRICKX, S., Maaseiker recepten: Varkenspoten. De Maaseikenaar 51(2): 111–114. HENDRICKX, S., Het oudste bidprentje van Maaseik (1807). De Maaseikenaar 51(1): 68–78. HENDRICKS, S. & COOLEN, J.; DREESEN, C. (clb.), 1740: Maaseik anders gezien aan de hand van 3 tekeningen van Jan de Beijer. Maaseik. HENDRICKX, S. & CORSTJENS, W., Restanten van het Prinsenhof [in:] Het Prinsenhof van Maaseik. Maaseik: 105–133. HENDRICKX, S. & EYCKERMAN, M., Een Spaans reliekkruis van ca. 1700 gevonden in Aldeneik. Limburg: Het Oude Land van Loon 99: 58–68. HENDRICKX, S. & HENDRICKX, F., Een naaldenkoker (1748) in groen ivoor van Pieter Geuns. De Maaseikenaar 51(3): 155–165. 2021 HENDRICKX, S., Bespreking: Gruwelijke moord te Maeseyck (1930). De Maaseikenaar 51(1): 13–14. HENDRICKX, S., De eerste publicatie (1858) en de oudste foto’s (1891) van de Codex Eyckensis. De Maaseikenaar 52(1): 48–55. HENDRICKX, S., Maaseiker recepten: Wandluizen. De Maaseikenaar 52(2): 26–28. HENDRICKX, S., “Pas de photographe dans l’antique cité de Maeseyck” (1902). De Maaseikenaar 52(2): 94–100. In press BLEUKX, L. & HENDRICKX, S., Martin Boonen (Maaseik, 21 januari 1932 – Maaseik, 20 september 2018): Bibliografie 2019. HENDRICKX, S., Marcel Hendrickx (Hasselt, 9 november 1926 – Maaseik, 23 januari 2000): Bibliografie 2018.

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS Ä&L ÄA AAR ÄAT ACE AH AJA AnSoc APF ASAÉ ASE ASOR AV BACE BAR BASOR BdÉ BCÉ BÉC BES BIE BIFAO BiOr BKMKG/BMRAH BMMA BMPES BMSAES BÖN BSAE BSFÉ CAA CAENL CASAÉ CCdÉ CCÉ CCEM CdÉ CENiM

Ägypten und Levante Ägyptologische Abhandlungen African Archaeological Review Ägypten und Altes Testament. Studien zu Geschichte, Kultur und Religion Ägyptens und des Alten Testaments Australian Centre for Egyptology Aegyptiaca Helvetica American Journal of Archaeology Ancient Society Archiv für Papyrusforschung und verwandte Gebiete Annales du Service des Antiquités de l’Égypte Archaeological Survey of Egypt American Schools of Oriental Research Archäologische Veröffentlichungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo Bulletin of the Australian Centre for Egyptology British Archaeological Reports Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research Bibliothèque d’Étude de l’Institut français d’Archéologie orientale Bulletin de Liaison de la Céramique égyptienne Bulletin de Liaison du Groupe international d’Étude de la Céramique égyptienne Bulletin of the Egyptological Seminar Bulletin de l’Institut d’Égypte Bulletin de l’Institut français d’Archéologie orientale Bibliotheca Orientalis Bulletin van de Koninklijke Musea voor Kunst en Geschiedenis/ Bulletin des Musées royaux d’Art et d’Histoire Bulletin of the Metropolitan Museum of Art British Museum Publications on Egypt and Sudan British Museum Studies in Ancient Egypt and Sudan Berichte des Österreichischen Nationalkomitees der UNESCOAktion für die Rettung der Nubischen Altertümer British School of Archaeology in Egypt Bulletin de la Société française d’Égyptologie Corpus Antiquitatum Aegyptiacarum Contributions to the Archaeology of Egypt, Nubia and the Levant Supplément aux Annales du Service des Antiquités de l’Égypte. Cahier Cahiers Caribéens d’Égytologie Cahiers de la Céramique égyptienne Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean Chronique d’Égypte Cahiers « Égypte Nilotique et Méditerranéenne »

LVIII

CHANE CMAA CRAIBL CRIPEL DE DOPM DGÖAW EA EDAL EES EM EES OP EPM ERA EVO FIFAO FÉRÉ GM GM/B GOF HÄB HAS HdO HES HOS IBAES JAA JAEI JANEH JARCE JAS JEA JEH JEOL JNES JÖAI JSSEA JWP LdÄ MA MÄS MDAIK MEEF MEES

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

Culture and History of the Ancient Near East Cambridge Monographs in African Archaeology Comptes rendus des Séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres Cahiers de Recherches de l’Institut de Papyrologie et d’Égyptologie de Lille Discussions in Egyptology Dakhleh Oasis Project Monograph Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie Egyptian Archaeology Egyptian and Egyptological Documents, Archives and Libraries Egypt Exploration Society. Excavation Memoirs Egypt Exploration Society. Occasional Publication Egyptian Prehistory Monographs Egyptian Research Account Egitto e Vicino Oriente Fouilles de l’Institut français d’Archéologie orientale Fondation Égyptologique Reine Élisabeth Göttinger Miszellen. Beiträge zur ägyptologischen Diskussion Göttinger Miszellen. Beihefte Göttinger Orientforschungen. 4. Reihe: Ägypten Hildesheimer Ägyptologische Beiträge Harvard African Studies Handbuch der Orientalistik. 1. Abteilung: Der Nahe und der Mittlere Osten Harvard Egyptological Studies Handbook of Oriental Studies. Section 1: Ancient Near East Internet-Beiträge zur Ägyptologie und Sudanarchäologie Journal of African Archaeology Journal of Ancient Egyptian Interconnections Journal of Ancient Near Eastern History Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt Journal of Archaeological Science Journal of Egyptian Archaeology Journal of Egyptian History Jaarbericht van het Vooraziatisch-Egyptisch genootschap Ex Oriente Lux Journal of Near Eastern Studies Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäologischen Institutes Journal of the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities Journal of World Prehistory HELCK, W. & OTTO, E. (eds), 1975–1992. Lexikon der Ägyptologie. Wiesbaden Monumenta Aegyptiaca Münchner Ägyptologische Studien Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo Egypt Exploration Fund Memoirs Egypt Exploration Society Memoirs

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

MIE MIFAO MKS MMJ MRÉ MVEOL OBO OIMP OINE OIP OLA OLP OMRO PAM PdÄ PMMA PNAS PSBA RAPH RdÉ RecTrav SAA SAGA SAOC SARS SCO SDAIK SSR TAVO TTS Urk. USE UZK Wb WVDOG WZKM YEP ZÄS ZDMG

LIX

Mémoires de l’Institut d’Égypte Mémoires publiés par les membres de l’Institut français d’Archéologie orientale Middle Kingdom Studies Metropolitan Museum Journal Monographies Reine Élisabeth Mededelingen en verhandelingen van het VooraziatischEgyptisch genootschap Ex Oriente Lux Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis University of Chicago. Oriental Institute Museum Publications University of Chicago. Oriental Institute Nubian Expedition University of Chicago. Oriental Institute Publications Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica Oudheidkundige Mededelingen uit het Rijksmuseum van Oudheden te Leiden Polish Archaeology in the Mediterranean Probleme der Ägyptologie Publications of the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Egyptian Expedition Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology Recherches d’Archéologie, de Philologie et d’Histoire Revue d’Égyptologie Recueil de Travaux relatifs à la Philologie et à l’Archéologie égyptiennes et assyriennes Studies in African Archaeology Studien zur Archäologie und Geschichte Altägyptens Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization Sudan Archaeological Research Society Publication Studi Classici et Orientali Sonderschriften des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo Studien zur spätägyptischen Religion Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients Theban Tomb Series Urkunden des ägyptischen Altertums, Leipzig Uppsala Studies in Egyptology Untersuchungen der Zweigstelle Kairo des Österreichischen Archäologischen Institutes ERMAN, A. & GRAPOW, H. (eds), 1926–1961. Wörterbuch der aegyptischen Sprache. Leipzig Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen der Deutschen Orientgesellschaft Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes Yale Egyptological Publications Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft

Merel Eyckerman

LA TOMBE, L’IMAGE ET LE MOT : SYSTÈMES DE SIGNES, INTERFÉRENCES ET ENTRÉE EN SCÈNE DE LA LANGUE DANS LA CULTURE FUNÉRAIRE DES ÉLITES NAQADIENNES DE L’ÉGYPTE ANTIQUE ALAIN ANSELIN (†) Université des Antilles-Guyane, Martinique, France

Note of the editors: Shortly before his untimely death on 16 May 2019, Alain Anselin sent us this article without abstract or bibliography. Since the text only contained author-date references, we have tried to compile the complete bibliography of all citations, but otherwise his contribution is printed with only minor edits. In response to our invitation to contribute to this Festschrift, Alain kindly wrote to us that he would “try to make a text as beautiful as a Naqadian Decorated vase”. It is our sincere hope that he would have been satisfied with the printed result.

L’oecumène d’un bassin de cultures : lieux, climat, périodes Aux bords d’une mer de sable, l’Égypte ancienne se coule dans la vallée du fleuve majeur de l’Afrique du Nord-Est, le Nil. Du milieu du 9e au 6e millénaire BC, la région était un tapis de savanes parsemé de lacs et traversé d’oueds aujourd’hui fossiles—le lieu de l’élaboration d’un pastoralisme africain original et de la formation d’un patchwork linguistique interférent, caractérisé par la progression des langues africaines de la famille afro-asiatique dans l’espace géographique du Sahara oriental, domaine des langues nilo-sahariennes (Blench 2017). À partir du milieu du 6e millénaire BC, le dessèchement du Sahara repousse progressivement la majorité de ses habitants, dont les pasteurs, vers les horizons plus verts des vallées du Nil égyptien (Kuper & Kröpelin 2006 : fig. 3), des Nils soudanais, de leurs affluents, aujourd’hui desséchés, et plus tard vers les rives d’un Méga-Tchad dont la surface atteint encore 200.000 km2 à l’époque de l’Ancien Empire (Schneider 2010 : 5–6, figs 5–8). Un vaste complexe égypto-soudanais se forme (Wengrow et al. 2014) depuis la mobilité des modes de vie de la cueillette et de la chasse, chevauchés par l’émergence des cultures pastorales qui en empruntent les chemins des saisonnalités entre les savanes à la saison des pluies et les rives du Nil en saison sèche—un phénomène d’une grande ancienneté pour les aires contigües de Nabta, dans le désert occidental d’Égypte et d’Abka, au Soudan (Usai 2005), et autour de la sédentarisation des populations sur les bords du fleuve selon des stratégies de sécurité alimentaire nouvelles fondées sur le grain et le grenier (Gatto 2011 ; Hartung 2016 : 292).

4

A. ANSELIN

Les sites archéologiques de la vallée égyptienne et des vallées soudanaises sont alors autant de fenêtres ouvertes par les archéologues sur le passé des 5e et 4e millénaires BC, les lieux de pouvoir et les systèmes de signes qui y sont mis en œuvre pour l’exprimer, l’exhiber et en construire le palais de la durée. Lieux de pouvoir et systèmes de signes : les scénographies funéraires On est longtemps entré dans la vie des sociétés antiques par les cimetières. Cela fut particulièrement vrai de l’Égypte antique. Mais la tombe n’est pas que la porte du Noun, de l’au-delà, ouverte au défunt, c’est aussi celle d’une approche sociologique de la culture à laquelle il appartient : les manières de mort, la taille et les dispositifs des tombes constituent le hall d’entrée d’une première lecture du mode de vie, de l’organisation sociale et de sa stratification (Hartung 2018), distinguant les pauvres par leur natte et les élites par les attributs de leur statut. La scénographie des espaces funéraires en est décelable visuellement : distribution spatiale des corps, humains ou animaux, agencement des offrandes et des artéfacts semblent avoir égrené les attributs du sujet défunt au fil des rites oraux et gestuels qui accompagnent leur mise en place. « La tombe nagadienne […] apparait comme un champ sémantique clos où les offrandes se déploient comme autant de signes, révélant un art consommé de la métaphore » (Midant-Reynes 2001 : 4). Ses dispositifs soutiennent d’être analysés comme un système de signes. « Tous les produits de l’activité humaine à partir de matériaux naturels en sont des artefacts […] Tous les artefacts sont susceptibles, au même titre que les objets naturels de l’univers, d’entrer dans la constitution des systèmes de signes d’une culture » (Anselin 2017 : 745). Les uns et les autres sont « visibles » et « lisibles », dans une lecture sémantique de leurs contenus sous plusieurs formes, sous plusieurs systèmes de signes : scénographies des corps, des offrandes et des inhumations animales, du mobilier, iconographies portées sur celui-ci, et langue enfin des oralitures rituelles, dont les mots scandaient le déroulement des cérémoniels. Scénographies en Haute-Égypte À partir de 3700 BC, les nécropoles les plus anciennes de Haute-Égypte sont le livre d’un véritable discours du pouvoir. Le cimetière des élites du site HK6 de Nekhen en est une exhibition symbolique exprimée par la taille des tombes des premiers rois, et leur maitrise du chaos incarnée dans la faune sauvage des tombes subsidiaires : éléphant de la tombe 33 (Majer 2009 ; Friedman et al. 2011 : 175–176), chiens de la tombe 48 (Friedman 2011 ; Friedman et al. 2017 : 237), crocodile de la tombe 45 (Van Neer 2011 : 10 ; Friedman et al. 2017 : 239), hippopotames de la tombe 12 (Van Neer et al. 2004 : 84), bœuf de la tombe 49 (Droux 2011 ; Friedman et al. 2017 : 242–243), bucéphale de la

LA TOMBE, L’IMAGE ET LE MOT

5

tombe 46 (Majer 2011 ; Van Neer 2011 ; Friedman et al. 2017 : 238) et de manière plus générale dans les décors de la poterie White Cross-lined des tombes de la période du Naqada I. À la charnière du Naqada IIB et du Naqada IIC, la culture funéraire naqadienne connaît de nouveaux développements qui touchent des sites moins importants. La scénographie des tombes d’Adaïma, voisin de Nekhen, constitue l’espace funéraire des élites locales en une série cohérente de libellés artéfactuels du statut social de leurs propriétaires anonymes. La tombe 100 contient un cercueil de bois et un harpon ; la tombe S24, une patte de bovidé (ḫpš), un coffre contenant tête de massue et sandales, un vase peint d’un décor de bateaux (Midant-Reynes 2003 : 175). Scénographies au Soudan Au Soudan septentrional, les dispositifs funéraires ne sont pas moins originaux : deux chiens sont inhumés aux quatre points cardinaux du cimetière de Kadruka KDK21, des bucranes sont déposés dans d’autres tombes, datées de 3960 à 3400 BC ; au Soudan central, sur la rive droite du Nil, ce sont de jeunes capridés et ovidés et des bucranes d’une faune domestique, des restes de gazelles, crocodiles, et hippopotames que les tombes du cimetière de El Kadada livrent, ainsi que nombre d’artefacts, bracelets, peignes, cuillers, ciseaux taillés dans l’os et dans l’ivoire (Chaix & Reinold 2018). Coupes chronologiques En Haute-Égypte, le site d’Abydos compte parmi les sites majeurs du millénaire naqadien (Hartung 2018 : fig. 7). Une coupe chronologique du Cimetière U courant du Naqada I au Naqada IIC–D montre que la taille des tombes les plus riches les distingue peu des tombes ordinaires au Naqada I, mais beaucoup des tombes plus grandes et plus équipées du Naqada IIC–D (Hartung 2018 : 325– 327). À partir du Naqada III, Ulrich Hartung observe que la transformation du Cimetière U d’Abydos en une nécropole des élites est comparable à celle de l’autre site majeur de la région, Hierakonpolis : « If Umm el-Qaab was (one of) the first large burial place of the Naqada culture after its arrival in the Nile valley, the location where the earliest Naqada chiefs were buried must have been of outstanding interest for the cultural identity of the descendants. […] A burial close to the chiefs of the forefathers would symbolize roots and identity. The same idea probably formed the background of the re-use of the elite complex of HK6 during Naqada III  » (Hartung 2018 : 329). Ulrich Hartung décèle dans la variation des contenus un changement culturel notable lié au développement de la stratification sociale le long d’un mode de production et de gestion des ressources de plus en plus hiérarchisé : (rares) têtes de massue,

6

A. ANSELIN

figurines d’hippopotames et de taureaux, peignes en ivoire et en os (concordant avec l’iconographie des chasses à l’hippopotame de la White Cross-lined), abondent jusqu’au Naqada IIA–B où palettes cosmétiques, malachite et galène apparaissent. Le Naqada IIC–D se caractérise par un mobilier plus riche, une poterie funéraire dont les iconographies plus variées élargissent la figuration humaine aux femmes sur les vases Decorated et les premières impressions de sceaux (Hartung 2018 : 319). Lieux de pouvoir et systèmes de signes : les iconographies dans leur contexte historique Du Naqada I au Naqada IIA, les sociétés de la vallée sont caractérisées par une économie de subsistance fondée sur l’agriculture, la formation des institutions palatiales à Hierakonpolis c. 3700–3600 BC, et un commerce inter-régional actif atteignant les cultures du Delta, Buto, Maadi, ainsi que les côtes du Levant. Le Naqada IIC–D voit le développement des mêmes fondations économiques rurales et des institutions politiques et religieuses des élites, accompagné de l’essor du commerce à longue distance atteignant la Mésopotamie. Dès le Naqada I, les types de poteries en usage dans les échanges des élites voisinent dans les tombes : Black-topped, White Cross-lined et jarres importées de Maadi dans la tombe 24 de l’éléphant du site HK6 à Hierakonpolis au Naqada IC–IIA (Friedman 2004 : fig. 7). Au Naqada IIC–D/IIIA le site majeur de Tell el-Farkha à l’est du Delta livre quelques poteries nubiennes à impression (Ciałowicz 2009 : 85, fig. 3 ; Sobas 2012 : 193, figs 4.8 & 6.2). Trois royaumes rivaux se disputent alors le contrôle de l’ensemble et du Delta, porte du commerce oriental. Tell el-Farkha, finit sous le contrôle de IryHor qui pousse jusqu’au Sinaï, y laissant mention de la fondation de Memphis à la pointe du Delta (Ciałowicz 2017; Tallet 2012). On peut supposer avec Ulrich Hartung que, dès Iry Hor, les rois abydéniens « built their tombs in Umm el-Qaab far away from their political business in Memphis  » (Hartung 2018 : 329), en des lieux où « la mort est le masque du roi », qui continuera d’y avoir tombe pendant toute la 1re Dynastie. Les artéfacts et la faune qui qualifient le défunt lors des cérémonies funéraires sont passés depuis des siècles de la tombe aux décors de son mobilier céramique. Les iconographies égyptiennes – Naqada I Peintes en lignes blanches sur fond brun-rouge de bols et de coupes ou flancs de vases oblongs de la White Cross-lined, incisées sur les premières palettes, les iconographies du Naqada I ordonnent la figuration de sujets humains

LA TOMBE, L’IMAGE ET LE MOT

7

uniquement masculins, et d’un univers animal varié où prédominent faune aquatique du nouvel environnement : hippopotames (plus d’une vingtaine d’attestations), crocodiles (moins d’une vingtaine), tortues, poissons—et faune du désert : oryx, gazelles, canidés, bovinés, ânes, éléphants, en quantités moindres, ou rares : ibex (Graff 2009 : 156–167; Adams 2002). Comme l’assemblage des textes hiéroglyphiques et de leurs vignettes plus tard, les iconographies possèdent un « double caractère pictural et textuel à toutes les époques ». Harold Hays a souligné avec insistance la concordance des images, des gestes et des paroles ainsi consignés, et l’homologie de la syntaxe des rites avec les constructions verbales (Hays 2012 : 83–86 ; 2013).1 Au Naqada I, si les paroles à dire, les dd mdw de l’égyptien ancien, n’étaient pas textuellement couchées au fond des bols ou sur les flancs des poteries, elles n’étaient pas pour autant absentes des rituels funéraires, mais co-textuelles de leur déroulement. Portées sur les flancs des vases ou les fonds des coupes, les iconographies de la poterie White Cross-lined mettent en scène et ritualisent l’action ellemême, et son moyen : un filet (crocodile), un artefact lancé aux jambes (bovinés), un harpon avec corde (hippopotame). L’ennemi structurant du pouvoir par excellence, l’hippopotame, motive une abondante statuaire, dont environ 70 objets hippomorphes sculptés dans la pierre ou l’os, ou modelés dans l’argile (Droux 2015 : 8). Les scènes de chasse à l’hippopotame d’un bol du Cimetière B d’Abydos (Payne 2000a : 61, n° 411, fig. 29) et de la palette cosmétique du Musée de Stockholm (Asselberghs 1961 : 138–139, pl. XLVI ; Säve-Söderbergh 1953 : fig. 8) reçoivent un éclairage significatif des chasses de l’hippopotame au harpon auxquelles se livr(ai)ent les pêcheurs Elmolo sur les bords du lac Turkana dans un contexte de cohabitation et d’intégration culturelle avec les pasteurs nilotes Maasai façonnant une situation linguistique susceptible de tendre un miroir actuel au passé dépourvu de traces linguistiques du Naqada I : les Elmolo, qui parlaient autrefois une langue couchitique apparentée au Daasenech, usent aujourd’hui d’un dialecte du Maa(sai) proche du Samburu, langue nilotique. En raison de la poursuite de leur activité majeure dans la recherche de subsistances, la pêche et la chasse lacustres, leur Maa garde la trace d’un substratum portant sur la faune aquatique : le nom de l’hippopotame mâle, commun au singulier guris, diffère au pluriel : gurisi en samburu, yeme en elmolo. Le vocabulaire de la pêche est d’origine elmolo, de même celui de la chasse au crocodile et à l’hippopotame : harpon : samburu toor (pêche), elmolo poorte (crocodile); radeau de troncs de palmiers doum : samburu lkadic, 1 Les Textes des Pyramides qui accompagnent les représentations picturales comportent souvent des notations paratextuelles (e.g. zp fdw, quatre fois) donnant le nombre de récitations du texte par l’officiant du rite funéraire (Hays 2012 : 83–86).

8

A. ANSELIN

elmolo àrte (Brenzinger 1992 : 246 et sq.). On ne peut déduire des données iconographiques muettes du Naqada I–IIB ni la complexité du bassin de langues en contact en Haute-Égypte, ni la langue des graphistes de la poterie White Cross-lined. Mais le parallèle sociologique et lexicographique Elmolo a le mérite d’éclairer un type de paysage culturel et linguistique récurrent au 3e millénaire BC dans la zoonymie égyptienne de l’hippopotame, partagée entre plusieurs items, pyr dbỉ (Wb V : 434.2) et AE ḫꜢb (Wb III : 229.6), et dans l’emploi de mots spécifiques : le hiéroglyphe T21 désigne le harpon naqadien à une barbe, wꜥ (Gardiner 1957 : 514), le mot DynI msnw le harponneur du seul hippopotame (Takács 2008 : 565), déterminé par le hiéroglyphe V32 du flotteur, msn (Wb II : 145.4). En Égypte, l’abondance des représentations d’hippopotame dans la statuaire et le décor des poteries semble marquer rituellement l’occupation des terres de la vallée et du delta par des sociétés humaines désormais céréalicoles, et les modalités, structurant le pouvoir lui-même, de leur maitrise d’une faune nouvelle, aquatique, voisine dans leur bestiaire avec les animaux du désert toujours traqués ou piégés. L’asymétrie des données archéologiques et du discours pictural a été bien observée par Stan Hendrickx : « In the archaeological society of fourth-millennium Egypt, hunting crocodile or hippopotamus, and the economic importance of hunting in general, was marginal. After the initial phase of the Naqada culture, hunting represented less than two percent of the food procurement  » (Hendrickx et al. 2010 : 27). Les chasses à l’hippopotame et au crocodile d’une société de plus en plus rurale sont alors moins des chasses alimentaires que des courres ordonnant sans partage l’espace des sociétés humaines et leur propre hiérarchie. Les chasses au félin et à l’antilope des Duupa dans le massif du Poli dans le bassin du Tchad fournissent ici un parallèle sociologique complémentaire : elles sont source de prestige social dans des sociétés rurales auxquels les champs fournissent l’essentiel de leur alimentation. En des temps plus anciens, les Duupa recouraient à des filets de fibre végétale pour des chasses collectives, sous l’autorité morale des aînés, et la boisson de bière de mil en accompagnait le succès. « Plus que le désir de viande, c’est la quête de prestige individuel qui amène un homme à organiser une chasse collective. Prestige des jeunes hommes qui tuent les grands animaux et font montre de leur virilité, mais prestige aussi des anciens, des cultivateurs, car c’est avec le surplus des produits de l’agriculture que l’on prépare la boisson qui sert à organiser les chasses collectives » (Garine Wichatitsky 1999 : 510–517 ; 522). Certaines iconographies, celles d’une coupe de la tombe 3802 de Badari,2 et d’un bol du Cimetière U d’Abydos,3 dépeignent des chasses

2 3

Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology, Londres, UC 9547. Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, 11.1460.

LA TOMBE, L’IMAGE ET LE MOT

9

conduites au filet, tenu par deux hommes, ce qui pourrait impliquer une action de groupe et suggérer un contexte de ce type. Toujours datés du Naqada I, plusieurs vases oblongs au col allongé du Cimetière U, provenant des tombes U-239, U-380, U-415 et U-637,4 développent un discours figuratif très élaboré du pouvoir. La tombe U-415 de la nécropole d’Abydos contenait le corps d’un homme de 35–45 ans, visiblement un chef, et à ses pieds celui d’un jeune homme de 18–20 ans, ainsi que deux jarres oblongues White Cross-lined portant elle-même un décor. La première jarre dépeint sur trois registres un groupe de quatre hippopotames, deux gazelles et un chien, et quatre captifs répartis autour d’un homme sans lien. L’iconographie de la seconde dispose sur deux registres deux libellés iconographiques construits de la même façon : un sujet, humain, plus grand, caractérisé par le port d’une queue dont la Palette de Narmer offre une réplique célèbre quelques siècles plus tard, un artéfact, en l’occurrence une corde, et une même action de subjugation de captifs et d’hippopotames—chacun des trois pachydermes, chacun soumis par un homme muni d’un lasso. Voisin des hippopotames soumis, un taureau y est libre d’attache, et parait figurer, comme le note Stan Hendrickx, une métaphore du chef (Hendrickx & Eyckerman 2010 : 123). Les décors des vases oblongs d’Abydos semblent délaisser les moments culturels de la vie du groupe, rites de socialisation du territoire autant qu’étapes de la vie humaine, au profit des devises iconographiques des défunts dont ils exhibent qualités et statut, pouvoir enfin. Ce que figurines zoomorphes et palettes expriment aussi à la même époque : palette des autruches, hippomorphes de la tombe abydénienne U-2395 (Naqada I), également peintes en rouge dont l’une est marquée d’une incision sur le cou suggérant que la chasse a été suivie d’une mise à mort sacrificielle  : « There can be no doubt that the hippopotamus figurine was ritually killed  » (Hendrickx 2011 : 244). Cette iconographie renouvelle les métaphores visuelles du pouvoir, les ennemis structurants des poteries White Cross-lined du Naqada I, Bos primigenius, crocodile, deviennent le masque de leur vainqueur, et nourrissent le discours royal et ses rituels. Le roi est le taureau de son peuple, ce qu’il continuera d’être dans les métaphores graphiques plus tardives des palettes du musée du Louvre E11255 et de Narmer. Considérés ensemble, les deux types de libellés iconographiques, celui de la chasse au filet du crocodile, souvent représenté tenu par deux hommes, non emplumés pouvant symboliser un groupe, et celui d’une scène de capture qui subordonne des attributs à un sujet unique (coiffé de plumes), pourrait 4 U-239 (Dreyer et al. 1998 : figs 12.1–13), U-380 (Dreyer et al. 2000 : fig. 7, pl. 6a), U-415 (Dreyer et al. 2003 : figs. 5–6a), U-637 (Dreyer et al. 2003 : fig. 6b). Voir également Graff 2009 : cat. 155, 158, 160–162. 5 Voir Dreyer et al. 1998 : pl. 4a.

10

A. ANSELIN

exprimer dans le langage de la chasse le développement d’un procès de stratification sociale à l’œuvre dans les univers ruraux que sont déjà les sociétés naqadiennes de la vallée, où le grain abonde dans les greniers et la bière dans les cuves tout au long de la première moitié du 4e millénaire BC : un fragment de poterie représentant une gazelle a été trouvé sur le site de la brasserie HK24B à Nekhen (Droux & Friedman 2016 : p. 8) Scénographies funéraires des corps et des artéfacts et iconographies de leur mobilier sont inséparables d’un troisième système de signes fondé sur la matérialité phonique de son artéfact, le mot : la langue. Tissée en oralitures sacrées, la parole des rituels des cérémonies funéraires aujourd’hui inaudible, demeure inaccessible faute d’avoir pu être consignée, et rendue lisible. Mais l’une des caractéristiques des métaphores visuelles des iconographies et des dispositifs funéraires est qu’elles renvoient à l’arrière-plan linguistique dont elles sont solidaires : « Visual metaphor is hard to qualify as a separate entity in the Egyptian record: it is often tied to metaphor in complementary modes, as a representation of a linguistic metaphor or as a complement (and perhaps precursor) of graphemic metaphor » (Di Biase-Dyson 2017 : 8). Cela soulève à ce stade de la réflexion la question des langues parlées par les acteurs des cultures de la vallée et des indices que les iconographies pourraient en fournir. – Naqada IIC–D Les iconographies des poteries du Naqada IIC–D présentent un décor semblable à celui du Naqada I, celui d’un biotope resserrant l’histoire humaine autour des lieux d’eau dans un univers de plus en plus aride, mais un bestiaire différent : « Les animaux les plus fréquents sont des bovidés (addax, ibex, cobe de Buffon) et des oiseaux. […] les deux espèces prépondérantes sont l’addax et l’autruche/flamant » accompagnent fréquemment des personnages masculins et féminins nombreux, les uns et les autres souvent associés au bateau : « Le bateau N1 est présent sur 251 objets, ce qui représente 38,8 % de l’ensemble du corpus et 38,8 % de l’ensemble des Decorated de ce corpus » (Graff 2009 : 67, 132). Les animaux aquatiques, hippopotames, crocodiles, bien présents dans les décors de la poterie White Cross-lined, constituent une faible proportion de la faune qui accompagne un bateau. Les flamants sont attestés 121 fois. Les autruches, qui partagent une similarité de dessin avec l’échassier et s’en distinguent par le déploiement d’ailes courtes, une douzaine de fois. Les ibex sont représentés 43 fois. Les occurrences répétées de ces éléments graphiques, bateaux, flamants, autruches, ibex, relevées par G. Graff, et la régularité de leurs associations ne sont pas sans signification : le flamant est combiné au bateau 49 fois sur 121 occurrences, et l’autruche, « ailes déployées », sept fois

LA TOMBE, L’IMAGE ET LE MOT

11

appariée au flamant, l’est de manière significative au bateau et au flamant : « Sur 10 représentations d’autruches, 3 accompagnent des échassiers Ao1 en présence de bateaux » (Graff 2009 : 59, 61), alors que de manière remarquable, « […] l’autruche n’apparaisse que très exceptionnellement en combinaison avec des autres oiseaux dans les représentations prédynastiques » (Hendrickx 2000 : 26). Pour sa part, l’ibex est 14 fois sur 43 associé au bateau et deux fois à l’une des 38 représentations d’addax (Graff 2009 : 58–59). L’opposition du groupe bateau et sujet humain et de trois éléments du bestiaire naqadien : oiseaux, du désert et du fleuve—parfois appariés—et ibex des rocailles du désert, parait organiser les différents décors. Comme autant d’attributs d’un défunt royal et de métaphores de sa maîtrise du désordre ? Faune, zoonymes et zoogrammes La faune  : les espèces dans leur environnement géographique En dehors de l’addax, dont la combinaison régulière aux figures de la plante naqadienne et de la femme formule un au-delà de la mort fleuri de rites de renaissance (Graff 2003), les espèces les plus représentées sont donc « l’autruche/flamant » et l’ibex (Graff 2009 : 59, 61). L’ibex est attesté dès le milieu du Pleistocène venant d’Asie où il garde des habitats. En Afrique, l’ibex nubiana se partage entre Égypte, Soudan, Libye. Sebastian Payne identifie la faune de l’iconographie par la distinction des cornes et des queues des différentes familles de bovidae. L’ibex nubien possède des cornes longues recourbées, ainsi que l’oryx dammah gazelle, la queue courte de l’ibex et la queue longue de l’oryx les différenciant—l’addax possède des cornes torsadées, et l’antilope bucéphale, en lyre (Payne 2000b : 260–261). L’association fréquente sur les poteries naqadiennes de l’ibex et du flamant sur fond de « rangées de triangles » a vite retenu l’attention (Osborn & Osbornová 1998: 183). Certains auteurs ont même vu dans le motif des montagnes renversé le nid des flamants, mais le flamant n’est guère l’hôte de la HauteÉgypte. C’est un oiseau migrateur qui séjourne l’hiver dans les espaces lacustres et les deltas (Hendrickx 2000). L’autruche est pour sa part répandue dans les biotopes semi-désertiques de l’Afrique occidentale à l’Arabie méridionale (Houlihan 1986 : 1–5). La faune  : les zoonymes égyptiens dans leur arrière-pays linguistique , pyr nj.w < *nl-w, (Wb II : 202.8) est Le nom égyptien de l’autruche, apparenté par Gabor Takács au berbère méridional *a-nhil, variante Ayr : a-nil (Takács 1999 : 89–90), tamasheq du Mali : a-nəhil, du Burkina : anil

12

A. ANSELIN

(Heath 2006 : 218) et à l’omotique, dizi : noy- (Beachy 2005 : 170). Le tamasheq de l’Ahaggar, a-nhêl, a pour contrepartie masculine, e-taeqq, partagé par des langues nilotiques comme le lotuho : neetak, neetaki (Raglan 1922 : 295). nỉꜢ < *nyl-w (Wb II : Le nom égyptien de l’ibex : OK , nỉꜢ.w, var. 202.1–4; Takács 1999 : 80) possède dans la région d’origine du capriné des cognats qui désignent une grande variété d’antilopes : akkadien : nayalu, nālu, chevreuil, tigrina : nāl-āt, antilope femelle (Takács 1999 : 80). Sa variante nrꜢw< *n-r, ibex (Wb II : 280.3), trouve parenté en berbère : *a-ner, tamasheq (Niger) : é-nher, oryx gazelle dama (mâle), fém. t-e-nher-t, zenaga (Mauritanie) : äna’r (Heath 2006 : 20; Blench 2001 : 183), amazigh (Maroc) : anir, pl. iniren, antilope / enir < *n-r Maroc (Haddadou 2006–2007 : 147, nr. 585). Le berbère approche la paronymie lexicographique égyptienne à ceci près que : a) les formes les plus anciennes des zoonymes égyptiens de l’autruche et de l’ibex sont les plus voisines : nỉw et nỉꜢw ; b) la gazelle *nr du tamasheq n’est pas le bouquetin de l’égyptien mais une antilope peu représentée dans l’iconographie prédynastique : un seul exemplaire au Naqada I, un seul au Naqada IID, contre 44 pour l’ibex et 38 pour l’addax (Graff 2009 : 156). Le tamasheq n’en propose pas moins une paire de paronymes, a-nəhil autruche ~ é-nher gazelle dama mâle, similaire à égyptien njw autruche ~ njꜢw, nrꜢw, ibex, restituant les valeurs respectives des consonnes finales. Les zoogrammes de l’iconographie naqadienne Qu’est-ce qui caractérise, sous leur aspect figuratif et d’un point de vue sémantique, les zoogrammes des autruches, des flamants et des ibex ? – Parographies et métaphores Dans l’iconographie naqadienne, autruches et flamants alternent parfois en une répétition de la métaphore dont ils sont le véhicule : flamants, et autruches aux ailerons « déployés » dans la course (Graff 2009 : 164). Ils apparaissent alors comme les versions célestes et aquatiques d’une part, terrestres et désertiques d’autre part, du « rouge » agressif du « chaos » dont la maitrise nourrit le paradigme du pouvoir. , dšr, rouge La langue égyptienne désigne le flamant par sa couleur, (Wb V : 488–491). Hendrickx (2000) observe que la posture, le bec penché , dans le système d’écriture vers le sol, de l’ornithogramme du flamant G27, hiéroglyphique (Gardiner 1957 : 470), et celle du « flamant » de l’iconographie des vases Decorated sont différentes. Le choix d’un profil dressé pour l’ornithogramme naqadien du flamant l’assimile à l’autruche en colère des

LA TOMBE, L’IMAGE ET LE MOT

13

mêmes iconographies. « La nuque rouge » de l’autruche en « est une des caractéristiques les plus remarquables. Quand elle se fâche, l’autruche gonfle sa nuque de manière considérable pour impressionner ses adversaires » (Hendrickx 2000 : 42). En égyptien ancien, le mot dšr qui désigne le flamant « est beaucoup plus fréquemment utilisé pour nommer la couleur “rouge” (Wb V : 488–491) et connaît pour mots dérivés dšr.w “sang” et dšr.w ou dšr.t “colère” » (Hendrickx 2000 : 42). Cette couleur ne désigne jamais l’autruche elle-même, nỉw (Wb II : 202.8), mais c’est sur le rougeoiement de la nuque et de la colère de l’oiseau qui court et qui ne vole pas, que se forme par attraction la métaphore du flamant dans l’iconographie naqadienne, à une époque où l’échassier visite déjà chaque hiver le Delta et le Fayoum. Les zoonymes de l’hippopotame s’inscrivent dans une constellation de métaphores similaires. Les figurines hippomorphes de la tombe abydénienne U-239 (Naqada I) étaient peintes en rouge. Mille ans plus tard leur fait écho un zoodšr, « hippo » (Wb V : nyme nommant l’hippopotame sous cette couleur, 492.13). Et de même que dans la langue égyptienne, c’est sur le nom du taureau kꜢ, des savanes montagneuses du Nord Est africain autrefois agressif, kꜢ mḥj, chassé, que se forme un autre zoonyme de l’hippopotame, le « taureau des marais  » (Wb V : 96.10), de même dans l’iconographie naqadienne, le flamant est graphiquement repensé comme l’« autruche des marais » ou l’« autruche du Nil » à travers le prisme d’une culture plus ancienne établie dans des lieux où l’oiseau du désert était pratiqué. Au regard de l’alignement de la posture des deux oiseaux naqadiens sur celle de l’autruche des rupestres sahariens, Stan Hendrickx avait proposé d’y voir un oiseau composite : « les dessins des vases Decorated auraient été stylisés de façon à obtenir une combinaison entre le flamant et l’autruche, similaire à celle, également prédynastique, de l’homme, du bovidé et du faucon » dont, souligne-t-il, l’autruche (était) à l’origine (Hendrickx 2000 : 41, 43), ce qu’il est par métaphore de l’un formée sur l’autre. Aussi, sans être strictement homographes non plus, l’autruche et le flamant de l’iconographie naqadienne sontils, jusqu’à les confondre ainsi que l’a observé Stan Hendrickx, des parographes, des analogues d’une même classe sémantique d’objets accordés sur des propriétés communes (Hendrickx & Friedman 2003).6 La compatibilité des métaphores visuelles de l’iconographie naqadienne du flamant et de l’autruche, plusieurs fois associées ensemble au bateau des vases Decorated du Naqada IIC–D, n’est pas sans parallèle sociologique dans les 6 ME

nỉw ḥr ỉbꜢ m ỉn.wt : « L’autruche danse dans la vallée » avec le soleil, à son lever (stèle d’Ahmosis, CGC 34001). Mais à Tell el Amarna, la danse des autruches au lever du soleil les dépeint en compagnie de gazelles et d’un lièvre dans un biotope du désert, avec les ailes déployées des échassiers (Kuentz 1924), dans une savoureuse inversion de la parographie naqadienne. Nous formons le terme de parographie pour les métaphores graphiques sur le modèle de la paronymie des linguistes. Voir également la contribution de J. Darnell dans ce volume.

14

A. ANSELIN

vocabulaires culturels des langues de l’aire égypto-soudanaise : à la parographie naqadienne apparente, à sa paronymie possible, fait ainsi écho une paronymie nilotique qui affecte la même paire d’oiseaux, une autruche et un échassier. Chez les Dieng (Dinka), locuteurs d’une langue nilotique, un jeu du type mangala ou awele, reçoit aussi bien le nom de l’autruche, wuut, que celui de la grue, awet, pl. aweet, dans une opposition analogue de l’oiseau qui ne vole pas des savanes xérophyles et d’un échassier des espaces aquatiques.7 Le troisième terme du jeu est le bétail des pasteurs et implique sa naissance : l’exclamation « la vache a vélé !  » ponctue les coups gagnants du wuut ou aweet dans le campement, wut. En dinka, wut, pl. wuoot est le troupeau, son enclos; wuut, l’autruche, awet, pl. aweet, la grue (Blench 2005 : 22, 187–188). – Paronymies et métaphores Si l’iconographie peut assimiler graphiquement des animaux aux zoonymes différents, ici en égyptien (nỉw # dšr), elle peut aussi apparier sur un même vase des objets iconographiquement dissemblables et par le graphisme et par le zoonyme, comme l’ibex, identifiable à sa queue relevée, et le flamant (nꜢrw # dšr) : vase 20.2.10 du Metropolitan Museum of Art de New York (Patch 2011 : 70–72, cat. 71) et vase UC 6339 du Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology à Londres (Graff 2009 : 364, cat. 511). L’autruche et l’échassier ne portent pas le même nom, nỉw et dšr, mais leur dessin assimile le second à la première. Ils ne semblent pas réunis par hasard dans le tissu des métaphores visuelles du discours du pouvoir des élites en mode « way of death  » (Hoffman 1980) dans un jeu à trois avec l’ibex. Les associations de métaphores sont toujours fécondes (Raible 2016). La parographie de l’autruche et du flamant favorise-t-elle par attraction lexicographique OK nỉꜢ (Wb II : 201, 280), la paronymie réunissant cette fois l’ibex du désert, nỉw (Wb II : nꜢrw (Wb II : 280 ; Gardiner 1957 : 461), et l’autruche, dšr, 2012 ; Gardiner 1957 : 470), parogramme hétéronyme du flamant, dans une langue où le graphiste puise les mots de ses zoogrammes ? Les libellés iconographiques des vases Decorated sont fondés sur l’articulation sémantique. Si l’égyptien est bien la langue des graphistes naqadiens des premiers pluriels archaïques, la paronymie de nỉw et nỉꜢw dans leur langue est-elle pour autant l’occasion d’un libellé purement linguistique appariant les deux zoonymes, hétérographes, dans les décors de la poterie ? C’est loin d’être assuré. D’abord, les deux zoogrammes intègrent une iconographie où les sujets ne sont pas alignés dans une seule et même direction comme c’est la règle dans 7 « aweet, SWr n. African game in which pebbles or seeds are placed in four lines of little holes in conformity with certain rules  » (Blench 2005 : 22). Jean-Loïc Le Quellec en a mis en évidence la généralité en Afrique (Le Quellec 2002).

LA TOMBE, L’IMAGE ET LE MOT

15

l’écriture hiéroglyphique (Goldwasser 2016 : 121), et où les humains sont représentés de face, les animaux de profil. Ensuite, ils ne fournissent pas d’indice de l’emploi d’un seul signe iconique réglé sur l’articulation phonétique pour signifier un autre objet sémantique, comme le signe de la houe, mr, dans l’anthroponyme « aimé ». Pareille paronymie ne peut être ici que sous-jacente : les graphistes connaissent et pratiquent les mots du répertoire dans lequel ils puisent leurs associations, mettant l’image au bord de l’affleurement lexicographique et de la langue, mais ne la plaçant pas sous sa loi. L’iconographie atteint en l’occurrence un point sensible de l’interférence des systèmes de signes iconographique et linguistique dans l’expression du discours du sujet royal. Continuités dans l’expression du discours royal et interférences des systèmes de signes L’expression du discours royal et religieux est marqué par des continuités culturelles, des transformations et des réagencements de ses formes et de ses contenus, et le développement des interférences des systèmes de signes scénographiques, iconographiques et linguistiques d’abord dénuées d’intention scripturale. Continuités culturelles Le vase Decorated 20.2.10 du Metropolitan Museum of Art de New York associe des montagnes, des femmes, la plante naqadienne, des bateaux, et, en rangées alternées, des flamants et des autruches (Graff et al. 2011 : 446, fig. 8 ; Patch 2011 : 70–72, cat. 71). La répétition de ce décor de vase en vase dégage un cadre constant d’éléments communs : un homme (emplumé ?), des femmes qui dansent et clappent les rythmes de cérémonies aujourd’hui muettes comme une chorégraphie du cinéma des années vingt du siècle dernier, un bateau, sa chapelle, un emblème. Certaines fêtes des périodes suivantes, thinite et Ancien Empire, trouvent visiblement leur origine dans des cérémoniels politico-religieux funéraires de ce type. Stan Hendrickx a décelé dans les décors de la trentaine de vases Decorated qui associent des bateaux et des oiseaux « une iconographie politique et religieuse standardisée qui se laisse parfaitement intégrer dans le cadre du développement de la royauté, au moins à partir du Naqada IIC » (Hendrickx 2000 : 43). Gravée sous l’Ancien Empire, une inscription de la Pierre de Palerme (Jiménez Serrano 2004 : 33) présente des similarités avec l’iconographie du vase Decorated UC 6341. Pourvus chacun de deux cabines et d’un emblème, les deux bateaux de ce vase sont associés l’un à un flamant, l’autre à une autruche (Graff 2009 : cat. 456). Pour sa part, l’inscription de la Pierre de Palerme réunit dans son enregistrement des actions de la seconde année du règne de Djer les

16

A. ANSELIN

Suivants d’Horus, šmsw ḥr, et la fête Rouge, ḥb dšr (Jiménez Ser(Wb V : 490.15). Elle comrano 2004 : 33 ; Wilkinson 2000 : 96), porte trois signes : le hiéroglyphe O22 (sḥ), qui retient en contexte festif la valeur ḥb (Gardiner 1957 : 495) ; celui du flamant G27, et le déterminatif de la barque sacrée P3. À l’Ancien Empire, la hiéroglyphie de la langue perpétue encore cet assemblage naqadien du bateau et du flamant qui parait opaque hors perspective historique, comme expression dans la construction navale : OKdšr, als Ausdruck beim Schiffsbau, et comme Fête (Wb V : 490.15). Ce que Stan Hendrickx ne manque de remarquer : « La relation équivoque entre l’autruche et le flamant pourrait aussi se répéter à un autre niveau que celui du dessin et de la ressemblance des formes stylisées: la langue  » (Hendrickx 2000 : 41). « La relation entre dšr et le bateau est confirmée par l’expression “šd m dšr”,“to build a boat” (Jones 1988: 228, n° 115) dans les mastabas de Rahotep, Ti et Nianchchnoum  » (Hendrickx 2000 : 42). Il y a là continuité ultime de la métaphore conceptuelle du Rouge, conduite , figurant le flamant sous l’ornithogramme modifié du hiéroglyphe G27 OK dšr(.w) dans la posture courbée de l’oiseau des zones inondées, (Hannig 1995 : 987), et altération au regard de la posture dressée de l’échassier naqadien du modèle originel. Le flamant apparait peu ensuite dans l’art funéraire ou les bas-reliefs des élites—les barques funéraires disparaissent aussi des tombes après Khufu. Mais le mot, sous ce signe classique G27, habille toujours en égyptien ancien pyr , dšr.t (Wb V : 494.5), point de réféla notion de désert, rence cognitif du Chaos, de la solitude du désordre, opposée aux limons fertiles de la vallée du Nil et à ses zones habitées—une conception partagée par les berbères méridionaux comme en témoignent le parallèle avec le tamasheq : *nr, t-è-nere, pl. tinariwen, brousse, désert ; t-ae-nere, solitude; diable, djinn (Heath 2006 : 232). Transferts des objets d’un système de signes à l’autre et interférences L’iconographie des poteries naqadiennes est bâtie sur l’association et l’opposition d’éléments géographiques : montagnes et espaces aquatiques, et animaux : bestiaire du chaos distribué entre le désert et le fleuve et son delta. Les actions qui qualifient le pouvoir sont représentées sous forme de métaphores visuelles construites sur un schéma de subjugation par des sujets humains ou leur métaphore, et organisées selon l’articulation sémantique du signe. D’une époque à l’autre, les décors diffèrent, par le développement des schémas de subjugation, qui les fondent et par leur vocabulaire cynégétique. Au Naqada I, la faune du Chaos chassée sur les rives du désert, fournit au roi défunt en sa nécropole sa cohorte de tombes subsidiaires animales des sites

LA TOMBE, L’IMAGE ET LE MOT

17

de Hierakonpolis et les éléments de la thématique iconographique de son mobilier céramique White Cross-lined, marquant le passage d’un système de signes à l’autre, de la scénographie à l’iconographie. Les figures les plus notables du nouveau biotope fluvial, hippopotames et crocodiles, envahissent le décor des poteries. Le sujet humain, masculin, généralement caractérisé par une coiffure de plumes (plutôt que végétale) y est opposé au taureau des savanes et à celui des rivières, l’hippopotame, ou au crocodile et au filet de sa capture. De même sur la palette du Musée de Stockholm, qui met en scène l’action de subjugation de l’hippopotame depuis une barque par un sujet armé d’un harpon. Puis la métaphore du pouvoir glisse du sujet dominant l’animal vaincu à l’animal lui-même. Le taureau du vase oblong de la tombe U415 d’Abydos dans lequel s’incarne un roi naqadien, et le crocodile aux trois échassiers du vase Decorated UC 6340 du Petrie Museum (Graff 2009 : cat. 292), comme toutes les métaphores visuelles s’élaborent depuis des métaphores nominales fondées sur des pratiques, en l’occurrence des devises, cynégétiques ou guerrières, ayant pu exister dans la langue, inapparente, des graphistes des décors naqadiens. Camille Di Biase-Dyson parle justement à ce propos de « visualcum-language metaphor  » (Di Biase-Dyson 2017 : 8). Au bal des signes, la langue est le chef d’orchestre. Sous le dessin, avec lui, la langue, que nous n’entendons plus, que nous « voyons », mais ne lisons pas—pas encore! Taureau ou crocodile y sont quasiment des « noms de triomphe » graphiques, comparables à ceux, verbaux, accordés aux chasseurs victorieux chez les Hadza de Tanzanie (Blench 2013), ou chez les Tenda du Sénégal au siècle dernier, quand la chasse, ponctuée de fêtes rituelles abondantes en bière de mil, ouvrait les chemins d’un pouvoir davantage sénioral aux hommes les plus vaillants, qualifié par le port de noms d’honneur et de la queue de l’animal vaincu : « …tuer les « animaux d’honneur », les end-an-ndang, éléphant, hippopotame, panthère, buffle, lion, hyène, valorise le chasseur, qui en garde la queue » (Ferry & Thibout 1978 : 556–559). Au Naqada IIC–D, la scénographie funéraire et les rituels qu’elle implique investissent l’iconographie des vases Decorated en l’occurrence des bateaux ; le harpon de la subjugation de l’animal dangereux, powerfact marqueur du statut du défunt, quitte la scénographie des tombes d’Adaïma du Naqada IIA, pour devenir la métaphore graphique du pouvoir des vases Decorated UC 6340 du Musée Petrie (Graff 2009 : cat. 292 ; Petrie & Quibell 1896 : pl. LXVII.12) et AN1924.326 du Ashmolean Museum à Oxford (Payne 2000a : 113, cat. 928, fig. 50 ; Graff 2009 : cat. 563). Au Naqada IIIC, le harpon de la chasse à l’hippopotame est désormais l’attribut régalien de l’Horus harponneur, ḥr msnw, de la Palette de Narmer. La Pierre de Palerme, rédigée sous l’Ancien Empire, en consigne l’office rituel par l’Horus Den (régistre III.8 ; Wilkinson 2000 : 112–115) au milieu de

18

A. ANSELIN

la 1re Dynastie : Wp.t š st.w-nṯr.w sṯt (?) db(ỉ), « ouvrir le lac « Trône des dieux », transpercer l’hippopotame », écho d’un sceau daté de son règne ; au Nouvel Empire, une stèle de Sethi II en grave le cérémoniel royal ainsi perpétué tout au long de l’histoire pharaonique (Roche 2014). Interférences des systèmes iconographiques et linguistiques Le décor du vase UC 6340 du Petrie Museum est caractérisé par un travail métaphorique intense. L’une des trois séquences graphiques y superpose les zoogrammes du crocodile et des flamants au-dessus d’une barque. L’opposition du crocodile, unique, au triel des échassiers suggère l’investissement du libellé iconographique par les règles invisibles de la langue, en l’occurrence de la grammaire du nombre. Tout comme la séquence du triomphe pharaonique de la peinture de la Tombe 100 du site de Nekhen et ses trois captifs de la massue de Narmer, le décor de la palette du Musée de Manchester8 qui oppose un sujet humain à un triel d’autruches, l’iconographie de cette poterie triélise les zoogrammes du flamant comme l’égyptien pluralise ses hiéroglyphes. Les triels de l’iconographie naqadienne sont l’expression visible d’une norme que les graphistes respectent : celle de leur langue en matière de pluriel (Anselin 2001 : 127–130 ; 2007). Là où le pluriel commence à trois, il implique l’existence du duel. La langue peu à peu prend ses marques dans le décor. Interférences des systèmes iconographiques et scripturaux Le transfert des scénographies des rites du pouvoir vers les décors funéraires du mobilier des tombes du Naqada I et du Naqada IIC–D et vers les powerfacts qui les y rejoindront jusqu’aux débuts du Naqada III, connaît un point d’orgue d’une complexité subtile avec la Palette des Chasseurs caractérisée par les interférences des systèmes de signes, scénographiques, iconographiques et linguistiques dans l’expression du discours des élites. Ainsi, dotés de la même signification d’attribut sacrificiel qualifiant le poušsꜢw des Égyptiens anciens, l’Alcelaphus buselaphus des voir, le zoologues (Osborn & Osbornová 1998 : 171–173), attesté dans la tombe 46 du site HK6 de Nekhen (voir supra) et figuré dans l’enclos sacrificiel de la Palette de Narmer provenant du dépôt funéraire de Nekhen, appartiennent-ils à deux systèmes de signes différents : une scénographie funéraire du Naqada I, et une iconographie d’une palette d’un dépôt funéraire du Naqada III. Sur un support encore usuel à la fin du 4e millénaire BC, la Palette des Chasseurs combine un troisième système de signes aux deux premiers dans un même décor. Elle met en scène en son centre, une faune du désert étoffée et du 8

Inv. Nr. 5476 ; voir Crompton 1918 ; Patenaude & Shaw 2011 : 35, 95.

LA TOMBE, L’IMAGE ET LE MOT

19

désert seul : l’antilope du sacrifice funéraire de la Palette de Narmer : un Alcelaphus buselaphus poursuivi par un canidé, un lycaon, un daim, une autruche, une gazelle dorcas, un renard rouge, un lièvre, des lions (Osborn & Osbornová 1998 : 3, figs 1–3), et répartit sur ses bords en deux files opposées des sujets humains coiffés de deux plumes, exhibant la panoplie complète des artéfacts de la chasse et du combat : arc, massue, lance, bâton de jet, poignard (?), carquois, lasso, lance, hache. Deux des sujets sont porteurs d’étendard : celui de l’Ouest, en tête de file, avec son faucon et sa plume d’autruche, celui de l’Est, en queue, caractérisé par une lance. Ce sont autant d’éléments scripturaux : de hiéroglyphes (Gardiner 1957 : 502). Au Naqada IIIA, les sociétés sont depuis longtemps rurales. L’archéologie a exhumé sur le site HK24B de Nekhen des greniers, et des cuves de brasseries datées au 14C, 3762–3537 BC, du Naqada IC–IIB, contemporaines du cimetière des élites du site HK6, célèbre pour ses inhumations animales (Takamiya & Shirai 2011). L’administration des rois porte depuis longtemps sur leur gestion, l’artisanat, la taxation des régions peu à peu intégrées au royaume, la recherche et le contrôle de matières premières, comme le cuivre, le commerce avec les élites des pays voisins. L’iconographie renvoie à une autre réalité. En cela comparables au chasseur d’autruche du site rupestre d’Abu Wasil (Winkler 1938 : pl. XXIII.3), les Chasseurs de la Palette sont coiffés de plumes d’autruche et portent un pagne orné d’une queue de lycaon (Hendrickx et al. 2010 : 28–29) témoignant d’une idéologie émargeant à un fond culturel plus ancien : « […] il y avait déjà pendant le prédynastique une relation entre l’autruche et la guerre ou la chasse ». Et « l’autruche est connue pour être un oiseau agressif, comme l’illustrent ses combats d’appariement. Il faut peut-être y voir la raison pour laquelle ses plumes étaient, dès le début de l’histoire de l’Égypte, ainsi qu’en témoigne l’art prédynastique, associé de manière emblématique aux guerriers et à leurs commandants » (Hendrickx 2000 : 42). Comme souvent, l’Afrique de l’Est du pastoralisme fournit ici à l’égyptien ancien ses meilleurs miroirs sociologiques. La métaphore conceptuelle du Bien et de l’Ordre,

, mꜢꜥ.t, développée par la

, pensée égyptienne, y est convoyée par la plume d’autruche, hiéroglyphe un signe jamais mobilisé pour écrire mꜢꜥ « vrai », dans les textes du MoyenEmpire en hiératique (Gardiner 1957 : 474). Les Maasai du Kenya, de langue nilotique, partagent un modèle culturel voisin. Leur culture pastorale véhicule et ré-agence aussi des traits anciens de la chasse à l’autruche dont les plumes sont la source d’une métaphore conceptuelle de ce qui est bon. Leur langue, le maa, fournit une paire de cognats sémantiques parfaite à la langue égyptienne : e-sidáí, nomme l’autruche, sidáí, définit ce qui est bon, e-sídánʉ́ « bon, beau ». Les guerriers Maasai portent une coiffure de plumes, é-sidai ; la force est bonne, qui est le chemin du

20

A. ANSELIN

pouvoir : éísidaîn inkíaasîn ɔ́lmʉ́rránì, the works of the warrior are good, kɛ́átà ɔlmʉrraní inkiaasîn sidaîn, a warrior (by his nature) has good deeds (Payne & Ole-Kotikash 2008). Les cultures de langues couchitiques emploient un autre mot encore, avec le même champ sémantique : en afar, baàla désigne la plume portée par celui qui a tué un homme ; en borana la plume d’autruche proprement dite, en ormo et waata, l’autruche elle-même. La plume d’autruche est clairement un emblème métaphorique du pouvoir : le champ sémantique de baalli en borana va de « plume d’autruche » à « pouvoir, autorité, responsabilité » dont elle est le symbole transmissible en des rites de passage qui sont la clé de voûte de la société (Stegman 2011). Il pourrait être séduisant de voir dans les files de chasseurs de la palette une équipe de nw.w, conduite comme ce sera le cas à l’Ancien Empire par un directeur des chasseurs de sa Majesté, OKjmy-r nw.w n ḥm.f, et au Moyen Empire, par un directeur des chasseurs des déserts, MKjmy-r nw.w ḫꜢs.wt, rapportant au Palais autruches captives, œufs et plumes d’autruche, lièvre, oryx (Gandonnière 2015). Mais les nw.w du Moyen Empire chassent dans le désert, tandis que les Chasseurs de la Palette opèrent devant le temple de P, Bouto, dans le Delta. Il est aussi remarquable que, y compris les deux porteurs d’enseigne de l’Ouest ỉmn.t, et de l’Est, ỉꜢb.t, cinq des Chasseurs de la Palette portent le šms, le sac dorsal du hiéroglyphe complexe T18 composé d’une houlette (S39) et d’un sac attaché à elle (Gardiner 1957 : 513), une innovation technique et une marque de statut social. Les données archéologiques en témoignent. Elles consistent en plaques ovales de plâtre peintes, découvertes aussi bien dans la tombe 72 du site HK6 de Nekhen, datable de 3700–3600 BC, Naqada IC–IIA, que, à côté d’imitations de sandales et de dague en plâtre déposées aux pieds du défunt dans un coffret de bois, dans la tombe S24 d’Adaïma à 20 km au nord, daté du Naqada IIA–B. Leur forme oblongue et leur décoration « make them very similar to the objects on the backs of five of the hunters on the Hunters Palette  » (Hendrickx & Eyckerman 2017 : 9). Stan Hendrickx les identifie comme des imitations des sacs portés au dos par les membres des élites dans leurs chasses dans le désert, destinées aux offrandes funéraires, témoignant d’un statut social élevé selon « the same concept as the many wild animals included in subsidiary tombs at HK6 : order over chaos  » (Hendrickx & Eyckerman 2017 : 10). Il parait donc logique de proposer de voir dans les Chasseurs de la Palette, encadrés par leurs porteurs d’enseigne, des šms.w ḥr consacrant le sanctuaire de la Basse-Égypte à P (Bouto), le pr-nw, figuré à côté d’un taureau héraldique double, et consacrant aussi l’intégration territoriale des temples et dieux du Delta dans l’Égypte des Horus venus de Haute-Égypte.

LA TOMBE, L’IMAGE ET LE MOT

21

Zoom sur les interférences scripturales La Palette des Chasseurs ne propose pas un discours du pouvoir formulé dans une suite de libellés scripturaux, donc linguistiques. Les matériaux de l’écriture s’y sont invités, ses éléments figuratifs, le temple pr-nw, les étendards de l’Ouest ỉmn.t, et de l’Est ỉꜢb.t, propres à l’univers hiéroglyphique, en sont les emblèmes métonymiques et caractérisent l’Ordre par des objets scripturaux, aux valeurs phonétiques identifiables dans les premières inscriptions prédynastiques, dont la Palette pourrait être contemporaine. Les mêmes signes figurent dans des inscriptions un peu plus tardives, dans un contexte strictement hiéroglyphique : ỉmn.t, l’une de Den, milieu de la 1re Dynastie (Kahl 2002 : 33), l’autre combinant ỉmn.t et ỉꜢb.t dans une inscription religieuse datée de Netjeritchet : ỉmn.tỉ nr.w [tꜢ.wy] ỉꜢb.tỉ [ḳbḥ.w] nṯr.w, enfin le pr.w-nw sur une stèle de Netjeritchet (Kahl 2002 : 9–10 et 152–153). Du seul fait de sa construction qui oppose des catégories du bestiaire et des artefacts du pouvoir dans le désordre des actions de chasse, il semble peu probable que les interférences des modes d’expression iconographique et scriptural n’aient pas été intentionnelles. L’intention n’est pas en l’occasion phonétique : les hiéroglyphes sont ici un faisceau cohérent de métaphores visuelles de l’Ordre, qui règle le discours du tableau. En cela, l’iconographie de la Palette des Chasseurs est analogue à celle du peigne Davis, artefact en ivoire, dont canidés attachés au pouvoir et symboles de celui-ci (rosette) contrôlent des files d’animaux (Ciałowicz 1992 : 250 et sq.). Mais l’abandon de l’échelle de la représentation et la réduction à une taille unique des signes iconiques définie par la grille de graphie, face ordonnée dans une même direction, d’une part, et la succession des files en boustrophédon, d’autre part, règlent l’iconographie du peigne Davis sur autant de principes graphiques de l’écriture, faisant là aussi de celle-ci un patron métaphorique de l’Ordre organisant le Chaos dans un jeu d’interférences subtil. Dans le répertoire de l’écriture hiéroglyphique, le signe T18, , doté de la valeur šms « suivre, accompagner », désigne l’équipement complexe auquel les compagnons d’Horus doivent leur nom, et dont l’indispensable sac dorsal est la partie la plus significative (Gardiner 1957 : 513). Pouvant contenir armes de poing et matériel de gravure, il permettait d’accompagner le roi dans ses chasses rituelles, ainsi que dans ses missions politiques et économiques, ellesmêmes ritualisées. En un épilogue rupestre prédynastique de l’extension sociologique de l’écriture, on retrouve le sac dorsal gravé sur le roc de Nag el-Hamdulab au nord d’Assouan. L’image et la langue n’y interfèrent plus dans l’expression graphique : elles sont solidaires et se renforcent mutuellement dans un exposé multimodal du discours royal. Après en avoir soigneusement discuté chaque

22

A. ANSELIN

signe, notamment le hiéroglyphe T18, John Darnell propose pour lecture de son inscription hiéroglyphique, šms.w ḥr nḥb bꜢ (Darnell 2015 ; Darnell et al. 2017). L’ensemble combine une exhibition rituelle du pouvoir et la taxation biennale d’une localité soumise à l’ordre pharaonique en Haute-Égypte, une Place des Peaux de Panthère (bꜢ pour Ꜣbỉ > nbỉ [plus ancien nom de Kom Ombo, nbwy.t ?]). Les peaux de panthère ont longtemps constitué une des marchandises majeures des expéditions royales, comme en témoigne la biographie d’Harkhouf sous la 6e Dynastie (Darnell 2015 : 35). Le déplacement royal consiste en une navigation rituelle où la Couronne Blanche marque son territoire, précédée des emblèmes du placenta royal et de Wp-wꜢ.wt, et accompagnée des šms.w ḥr. Sur la Palette de la Chasse, le sac est logiquement endossé, et contribue, comme les plumes du pouvoir et les emblèmes, à qualifier les Chasseurs comme šms.w ḥr, comme Suivants d’Horus, « les rois de l’ancien temps » (Wb IV : 486.15–19; Meeks 1982 : 291). Ultimes réflexions De la fin du Naqada I au début du Naqada III, scénographies des tombes, iconographies de leur mobilier, circulaires des bols et coupes, et linéales de la poterie oblongue White Cross-lined du Naqada I, décors organisés en registres linéaires des vases Decorated du Naqada IIC–D et des powerfacts prédynastiques, constituent autant de systèmes de signes à l’œuvre dans la culture de l’Égypte ancienne. Leur point commun est d’apparaître en contexte funéraire et d’y connaître un développement qui exhibe le statut des défunts et mesure leur pouvoir : la mort y est le masque du roi (Adler 2005), et les oralitures rituelles, les ḏd mdw, en sont la figure muette. Ils sont pourtant marqués par leurs interférences complexes et l’entrée en scène de la langue, opposition, association, nombre, dans leurs dispositifs en une relation étroite de leurs métaphores visuelles et des métaphores verbales développées et disponibles dans le langage des graphistes et des ritualistes. Tous travaillés par la langue des acteurs, ces systèmes de signes rencontrent à leur tour dans la Palette des Chasseurs un système qui en réalise l’expression écrite. L’iconographie était réglée sur la valeur sémantique du signe, l’écriture hiéroglyphique est fondée sur le spectre de métaphores phonétiques que ses éléments iconiques autorisent dans la langue de ses auteurs, développant systématiquement selon ce principe l’usage des matériaux graphiques puisés dans le corpus iconographique existant et, toujours respectant un principe d’iconicité, en augmentant sans cesse et indéfiniment le nombre. Chaque élément entrant dans l’ensemble du système produit un jeu d’interférences nouveau dont le cours aux méandres imprédictibles en attise aussi bien la productivité qu’il en dévoile les fragilités. Aussi, l’expression écrite de la langue n’échappe pas à son tour aux interférences fécondes des systèmes

LA TOMBE, L’IMAGE ET LE MOT

23

existants, ni à celles liées à l’essor, parallèle, de son usage dans l’espace politique et administratif du pouvoir. L’écriture hiéroglyphique, qui standardise taille et direction des logogrammes qu’elle emploie pour leur valeur phonétique, incorpore en retour dans le libellé scriptural certains de ces éléments pour leur seule valeur sémantique, classificateurs graphiques ou déterminatifs qui réinjectent dans le flux phonétique des textes hiéroglyphiques une métaphore d’ordre iconique, identifiant la catégorie à laquelle appartiennent les mots d‘une pensée originale du monde. C’est que la route des interférences que tous les systèmes de signes empruntent est à deux voies, et d’une fécondité complexe. Ainsi, le répertoire hiéroglyphique de la 1re Dynastie documente les signes de deux supports d’in, aisément reconscriptions nouveaux, le sceau, S20 , et le papyrus, Y1 naissables par leur iconicité, et qui ont partie liée avec l’extension sociologique de l’écriture dans l’espace administratif et comptable des pratiques politiques et économiques du pouvoir. Les inscriptions prédynastiques déterminent le titre de prêtre lecteur ẖr.y ḥb.t par le hiéroglyphe V12 de la corde qui lie les rouleaux de papyrus. La tombe d’un haut-fonctionnaire de Den, Hemaka, livre un papyrus vierge; et le site de Wadi el-Jarf au bord de la Mer Rouge, le plus ancien papyrus hiéroglyphé trouvé à ce jour, le journal de bord et d’enregistrement comptable d’un fonctionnaire royal, Merer (Tallet 2017). Le papyrus, d’un emploi aisé, favorise des formes cursives de graphie à l’encre lourdes d’un nouveau type d’écriture, le hiératique, caractérisé par la réduction de l’iconicité du signe scriptural. L’espace réduit du sceau pousse lui aussi vers une simplification du trait fréquente dans les corpus d’inscriptions prédynastiques. Pourtant, peut-être parce que plus ancienne que la papyrographie, la scigillographie garde la marque du caractère visuel du système de l’écriture hiéroglyphique : l’étude des plus anciens sceaux, datés du Prédynastique, met en évidence qu’un petit nombre d’entre eux est construit sur un simple motif pictural, ce qui défie la notion d’administration basée sur l’enregistrement écrit et en limite l’avenir. « What is striking […] is that these ‘inscriptions’ do not represent phonetic writing. They do not provide names and titles of officials or refer to specific institutions, which one might expect in an administrative context  » (Bussmann 2013 : 23), et nourrit une ultime réflexion où les interférences de systèmes de signes ne sont pas nécessairement toutes productives.

Bibliographie ADAMS, B., 2002. Decorated sherds from renewed excavations at Locality 6, Hierakonpolis. CCdÉ 3–4 : 5–27. ADLER, K., 2005. Tiere im kulturellen Gefüge afrikanischer Gesellschaften: Eine Auswahl [in :] FITZENREITER, M. (éd.), Tierkulte im pharaonischen Ägypten und im

24

A. ANSELIN

Kulturvergleich: Beiträge eines Workshops am 7.6. und 8.6.2002. IBAES 4. Londres : 207–227. ANSELIN, A., 2001. Notes sur les inscriptions des colosses de Min de Coptos. CCdÉ 2 : 115–136. ANSELIN, A., 2007. Aegyptio-graphica IX : Libellés iconographiques nagadéens et pluriel archaïque hiéroglyphique. GM 213 : 9–13. ANSELIN, A., 2017. Iconographies, oralitures, hiéroglyphie : Quelques réflexions sur les contextes culturels de l’apparition de l’écriture [in :] MIDANT-REYNES, B. & TRISTANT, Y. (éds) ; RYAN, E.M. (coll.), Egypt at its Origins 5  : Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference “Origin of the State. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt”, Cairo, 13th–18th April 2014. OLA 260. Louvain : 741–776. ASSELBERGHS, H., 1961. Chaos en beheersing: Documenten uit Aeneolithisch Egypte. Documenta et monumenta Orientis antiqui 8. Leyde. BEACHY, M.D., 2005. An overview of Central Dizin phonology and morphology. Arlington (Unpubl. MA thesis, University of Texas, Arlington). BLENCH, R.M., 2001. Types of language spread and their archaeological correlates: The example of Berber. Origini: Preistoria e protostoria delle civiltà antiche 23 : 169–190. BLENCH, R.M., 2005. Dinka – English dictionary. Cambridge. BLENCH, R.M., 2013. Linguistic aspects of Hadza interactions with animals [in :] WITZLACK-MAKAREVICH, A. & ERNSZT, M. (éds), Khoisan languages and linguistics. Proceedings of the Third International Symposium, July 6–10, 2008, Riezerln/ Kleinwalsertal. Quellen zur Khoisan-Forschung 29. Cologne : 101–110. BLENCH, R.M., 2017. African language isolates [in :] CAMPBELL, L. (éd.), Language isolates. Routledge Handbooks Online. Abingdon : 162–192. BRENZINGER, M., 1992. Lexical retention in language shift: Yaaku/mukogodo-Maasai and Elmolo/Elmolo-Samburu [in :] BRENZINGER, M. (éd.), Language death: Factual and theoretical explorations with special reference to East Africa. Contributions to the sociology of language 64. Berlin : 213–254. BUSSMANN, R., 2013. Administration without writing. Nekhen News 25 : 23–24. CHAIX, L. & REINOLD, J., 2018. Animals in Neolithic graves: Kadruka and Kadada (Northern and Central Sudan) [in :] KABACIŃSKI, J. ; CHŁODNICKI, M. ; KOBUSIEWICZ, M. & WINIARSKA-KABACIŃSKA, M. (éds), Desert and the Nile: Prehistory of the Nile Basin and the Sahara: Papers in honour of Fred Wendorf. SAA 15. Poznań : 233–249. CIAŁOWICZ, K.M., 1992. La composition, le sens et la symbolique des scènes zoomorphes prédynastiques en relief : Les manches de couteaux [in :] FRIEDMAN, R. & ADAMS, B. (éds), The Followers of Horus: Studies dedicated to Michael Allen Hoffman, 1944–1990. Egyptian Studies Association Publication 2; Oxbow Monographs 20. Oxford : 247–258. CIAŁOWICZ, K.M., 2009. The Early Dynastic administrative-cultic centre at Tell elFarkha. BMSAES 13 : 83–123. CIAŁOWICZ, K.M., 2017. New discoveries at Tell el-Farkha and the beginnings of the Egyptian state. Études et Travaux 30 : 231–250. CROMPTON, W.M., 1918. A carved slate palette in the Manchester Museum. JEA 5(1) : 57–60. DARNELL, J.C., 2015. The early hieroglyphic annotation in the Nag el-Hamdulab rock art tableaux, and the Following of Horus in the northwest hinterland of Aswan. Archéo-Nil 25 : 19–43.

LA TOMBE, L’IMAGE ET LE MOT

25

DARNELL, J.C. ; HENDRICKX, S. & GATTO, M.C., 2017. Once more the Nag el-Hamdulab early hieroglyphic annotation. Archéo-Nil 27 : 65–74. DI BIASE-DYSON, C., 2017. Metaphor [in :] STAUDER-PORCHET, J. ; STAUDER, A. & WENDRICH, W. (éds), UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology. Los Angeles. http://digital2. library.ucla.edu/viewItem.do?ark=21198/zz002kcbfm (last accessed 13/10/2020). DREYER, G. ; HARTUNG, U. ; HIKADE, T. ; KÖHLER, E.C. ; MÜLLER, V. & PUMPENMEIER, F., 1998. Umm el-Qaab: Nachuntersuchungen im frühzeitlichen Königsfriedhof: 9./10. Vorbericht. MDAIK 54 : 77–167. DREYER, G. ; VON DEN DRIESCH, A. ; ENGEL, E.-M. ; HARTMANN, R. ; HARTUNG, U. ; HIKADE, T. ; MÜLLER, V. & PETERS, J., 2000. Umm el-Qaab: Nachuntersuchungen im frühzeitlichen Königsfriedhof: 11./12. Vorbericht. MDAIK 56 : 43–129. DREYER, G. ; HARTMANN, R. ; HARTUNG, U. ; HIKADE, T. ; KÖPP, H. ; LACHER, C. ; MÜLLER, V. ; NERLICH, A. & ZINK, A., 2003. Umm el-Qaab: Nachuntersuchungen im frühzeitlichen Königsfriedhof: 13./14./15. Vorbericht. MDAIK 59 : 67–138. DROUX, X., 2011. Where’s the beef? The surprise of tomb 49. Nekhen News 23 : 16–17. DROUX, X., 2015. Hierakonpolis hippo round up! Nekhen News 27 : 8–9. FERRY, M.-P. & THIBOUT, M., 1978. Les mammifères connus des Tenda (populations du département de Kédougou, Sénégal). Bulletin de l’Institut fondamental d’Afrique noire 40(3) : 556–577. FRIEDMAN, R.F., 2004. Elephants at Hierakonpolis [in:] HENDRICKX, S. ; FRIEDMAN, R.F. ; CIAŁOWICZ, K.M. & CHŁODNICKI, M. (éds), Egypt at its Origins: Studies in memory of Barbara Adams. Proceedings of the International Conference “Origin of the State. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt”, Kraków, 28th August–1st September 2002. OLA 138. Louvain : 131–179. FRIEDMAN, R.F., 2011. Dog days: Tomb 48. Nekhen News 23 : 13. FRIEDMAN, R.F. ; VAN NEER, W. & LINSEELE, V., 2011. The elite Predynastic cemetery at Hierakonpolis: 2009–2010 update [in :] FRIEDMAN, R.F. & FISKE, P.N. (éds), Egypt at its Origins 3. Proceedings of the Third International Conference “Origin of the State. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt”, London, 27th July– 1st August 2008. OLA 205. Louvain : 157–191. FRIEDMAN, R.F. ; VAN NEER, W. ; DE CUPERE, B. & DROUX, X., 2017. The elite Predynastic cemetery at Hierakonpolis HK6: 2011–2015 progress report [in :] MIDANTREYNES, B. & TRISTANT, Y. (éds) ; RYAN, E.M. (coll.), Egypt at its Origins 5  : Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference “Origin of the State. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt”, Cairo, 13th–18th April 2014. OLA 260. Louvain : 231–289. GANDONNIÈRE, C., 2015. Chasseurs et équipes de chasseurs de l’Ancien au Nouvel Empire. NeHeT 1 : 47–69. GARDINER, A., 1957. Egyptian grammar being an introduction to the study of hieroglyphs. 3e éd. rev. Oxford. GARINE WICHATITSKY, E., 1999. Chasser dans une société agraire : À propos des Duupa du massif de Poli [in :] BAROIN, C. & BOUTRAIS, J. (éds), L’homme et l’animal dans le bassin du lac Tchad. Paris : 501–523. GATTO, M.C., 2011. The Nubian pastoral culture as link between Egypt and Africa: A view from the archaeological record [in :] EXELL, K. (éd.), Egypt in its African context: Proceedings of the Conference held at The Manchester Museum, University of Manchester, 2–4 October 2009. BAR. International Series 2204. Oxford : 21–29.

26

A. ANSELIN

GOLDWASSER, O., 2016. From the iconic to the linear: The Egyptian scribes of Lachish and the modification of the early alphabet in the Late Bronze Age [in :] FINKELSTEIN, I. ; ROBIN, C. & RÖMER, T. (éds), Alphabets, texts and artifacts in the ancient Near East: Studies presented to Benjamin Sass. Paris : 118–160. GRAFF, G., 2003. Les vases nagadiens comportant des representations d’addax. CCdÉ 5 : 35–57. GRAFF, G., 2009. Les peintures sur vases de Nagada I–Nagada II  : Nouvelle approche sémiologique de l’iconographie prédynastique. EPM 6. Louvain. HADDADOU, M.A., 2006–2007. Dictionnaire des racines berbères communes, suivi d’un index français-berbère des termes relevés. Alger. HANNIG, R., 1995. Die Sprache der Pharaonen: Großes Handwörterbuch ÄgyptischDeutsch (2800–950 v. Chr.). Kulturgeschichte der antiken Welt 64. Mayence. HARTUNG, U., 2016. Chronological aspects of the funerary equipment in Cemetery U at Abydos (Umm el-Qa’ab) [in :] ADAMS, M.D. (éd.) ; MIDANT-REYNES, B. ; RYAN, E.M. & TRISTANT, Y. (coll.), Egypt at its Origins 4. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference “Origin of the State. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt”, New York, 26th–30th July 2001. OLA 252. Louvain : 271–298. HARTUNG, U., 2018. Cemetery U at Umm el-Qaab and the funeral landscape of the Abydos region in the 4th millennium BC [in :] KABACIŃSKI, J. ; CHŁODNICKI, M. ; KOBUSIEWICZ, M. & WINIARSKA-KABACIŃSKA, M. (éds), Desert and the Nile: Prehistory of the Nile Basin and the Sahara: Papers in honour of Fred Wendorf. SAA 15. Poznań : 313–337. HAYS, H.M., 2012. The organization of the Pyramid Texts: Typology and disposition. PdÄ 31. Leyde. HAYS, H.M., 2013. The end of rites of passage and a start with ritual syntax in ancient Egypt [in :] AMBOS, C. & VERDERAME, L. (éds), Approaching rituals in ancient cultures / Questioni di rito: Rituali come fonte di conoscenza delle religioni e delle concezioni del mondo nelle culture antiche. Proceedings of the Conference, November 28–30, 2011, Roma. Rivista degli studi orientali. Supplemento 86(2). Pise : 165–186. HEATH, J., 2006. Tamachek dictionary. Paris. HENDRICKX, S., 2000. Autruches et flamants : Les oiseaux représentés sur la céramique prédynastique de la catégorie Decorated. CCdÉ 1 : 21–52. HENDRICKX, S., 2011. Hunting and social complexity in Predynastic Egypt. Academie royale des Sciences d’Outre-Mer. Bulletin des Séances / Koninklijke Academie voor Overzeese Wetenschappen. Mededelingen der Zittingen 57(2–4) : 237–263. HENDRICKX, S. & EYCKERMAN, M., 2010. Continuity and change in the visual representation of Predynastic Egypt [in :] RAFFAELE, E. ; NUZZOLO, M. & INCORDINO, I. (éds), Recent discoveries and latest researches in Egyptology. Proceedings of the First Neapolitan Congress of Egyptology (Naples, 18th–20th June 2008). Wiesbaden : 121–143. HENDRICKX, S. & EYCKERMAN, M., 2017. Packed and ready: Painted plaster plaques in the elite cemetery. Nekhen News 29 : 9–10. HENDRICKX, S. & FRIEDMAN, R.F., 2003. Chaos and order: A Predynastic “ostracon” from HK29A. Nekhen News 15 : 8–9. HENDRICKX, S.; HUYGE, D. & WENDRICH, W., 2010. Worship without writing [in :] WENDRICH, W. (éd.), Egyptian archaeology. Blackwell Studies in Global Archaeology. Chichester : 15–35. HOFFMAN, M.A., 1980. Egypt before the pharaohs: The prehistoric foundations of Egyptian civilization. Londres.

LA TOMBE, L’IMAGE ET LE MOT

27

HOULIHAN, P.F., 1986. The birds of ancient Egypt. The Natural History of Egypt 1. Warminster. JIMÉNEZ SERRANO, A., 2004. La Piedra de Palermo: Traducción y contextualización histórica. Bibliotheca Aegyptiaca Hispanica 1. Madrid. KAHL, J., 2002. Frühägyptisches Wörterbuch. Erste Lieferung Ꜣ-f. Wiesbaden. KUENTZ, C., 1924. La danse des autruches. BIFAO 23 : 85–88. KUPER, R. & KRÖPELIN, S., 2006. Climate-controlled Holocene occupation in the Sahara: Motor of Africa’s evolution. Science 313(5788) : 803–807. LE QUELLEC, J.-L., 2002. À propos d’un mythe Nyangatom d’origine du bétail. CCdÉ 3–4 : 179–199. MAJER, J., 2009. Elephant hunting at Hierakonpolis. Nekhen News 21 : 8–9. MAJER, J., 2011. A hartebeest and its handler: Tomb 46. Nekhen News 23 : 9. MEEKS, D., 1982. Année lexicographique  : Égypte ancienne, tome III (1979). Paris. MIDANT-REYNES, B., 2001. Introduction. Archéo-Nil 11 : 1–4. MIDANT-REYNES, B., 2003. Aux origines de l’Égypte  : Du néolithique à l’émergence de l’état. Paris. OSBORN, D.J. & OSBORNOVÁ, J., 1998. The mammals of ancient Egypt. The Natural History of Egypt 4. Warminster. PATCH, D.C., 2011. Dawn of Egyptian art. New York. PATENAUDE, J. & SHAW, G.J., 2011. A catalogue of Egyptian cosmetic palettes in the Manchester University Museum collection. Catalogue Egypt Collections Manchester Museum 1. Londres. PAYNE, J.C., 2000a. Catalogue of the Predynastic Egyptian collection in the Ashmolean Museum: With addenda. Oxford. PAYNE, S., 2000b. Comments on the identification of animals [in :] PAYNE, J.C., Catalogue of the Predynastic Egyptian collection in the Ashmolean Museum: With addenda. Oxford : 260–261. PAYNE, D.L & OLE-KOTIKASH, L., 2008. Maa dictionary. https://darkwing.uoregon. edu/~maasai/Maa%20Lexicon/lexicon/main.htm (last accessed 13/10/2020) PETRIE, W.M.F. & QUIBELL, J.E., 1896. Naqada and Ballas 1895. Londres. RAGLAN, L., 1922. The Lotuko language. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 2 : 267–296. RAIBLE, W., 2016. Metaphors as models of thinking [in :] HORN, F. & BREYTENBACH, C. (éds), Spatial metaphors: Ancient texts and transformations. Berlin Studies of the Ancient World 39. Berlin : 21–42. ROCHE, A., 2014. Et le roi tua l’hippopotame : Enquête sur les origines d’un rite égyptien. Archimède 1: 71–87. SÄVE-SÖDERBERGH, T., 1953. On Egyptian representations of hippopotamus hunting as a religious motive. Horae Soederblomianae 3; Travaux publiés par la Société Nathan Söderblom 3. Lund. SCHNEIDER, T., 2010. The west beyond the west: The mysterious “Wernes” of the Egyptian underworld and the Chad palaeolake. JAEI 2(4) : 1–14. SOBAS, M., 2012. Pottery from the Western Kom [in :] CHŁODNICKI, M. ; CIAŁOWICZ, K.M. & MĄCZYŃSKA, A. (éds), Tell el-Farkha 1: Excavations 1998– 2011. Poznań : 181–197. STEGMAN, V.G., 2011. English – Borana word list. [s.l.]. TAKÁCS, G., 1999. Etymological dictionary of Egyptian 1: A phonological introduction. HdO 48(1). Leyde. TAKÁCS, G., 2008. Etymological dictionary of Egyptian 3: m-. HdO 48(3). Leyde.

28

A. ANSELIN

TAKAMIYA, I. & SHIRAI, N., 2011. The inside story: The installation and granary at HK24B. Nekhen News 23 : 20–21. TALLET, P., 2012. Sur la fondation de la ville de Memphis au début de l’histoire pharaonique  : De nouvelles données au Ouadi ‘Ameyra (Sud-Sinaï). CRAIBL 4 : 1649–1658. TALLET, P., 2017. Les papyrus de la mer Rouge 1  : Le «  journal de Merer  » (Papyrus Jarf A et B). MIFAO 136. Le Caire. USAI, D., 2005. Early Holocene seasonal movements between the desert and the Nile Valley: Details from the lithic industry of some Khartoum Variant and some Nabta/Kiseiba sites. JAA 3(1) : 103–115. VAN NEER, W., 2011. Two more wild animals from the Elite Cemetery. Nekhen News 23 : 10–11. VAN NEER, W. ; LINSEELE, V. & FRIEDMAN, R.F., 2004. Animal burials and food offerings at the Elite Cemetery HK6 of Hierakonpolis [in:] HENDRICKX, S. ; FRIEDMAN, R.F. ; CIAŁOWICZ, K.M. & CHŁODNICKI, M. (éds), Egypt at its Origins: Studies in memory of Barbara Adams. Proceedings of the International Conference “Origin of the State. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt”, Kraków, 28th August–1st September 2002. OLA 138. Louvain : 67–130. WENGROW, D. ; DEE, M. ; FOSTER, S. ; STEVENSON, A. & BRONK RAMSEY, C., 2014. Cultural convergence in the Neolithic of the Nile Valley: A prehistoric perspective on Egypt’s place in Africa. Antiquity 88(339) : 95–111. WILKINSON, T.A.H., 2000, Royal annals of ancient Egypt: The Palermo Stone and its associated fragments. Studies in Egyptology. New York. WINKLER, H.A., 1938. Rock-drawings of southern Upper Egypt 1: Sir Robert Mond Desert Expedition: Season 1936–1937: Preliminary report. ASE 26. Londres.

UN ANIMAL SAUVAGE DANS L’ÉGYPTE HYKSOS: CROCODILES IN L81 DAVID A. ASTON Austrian Academy of Sciences, Austrian Archaeological Institute, Department of Prehistory, Western Asian and North-east African Archaeology, Vienna, Austria

This paper discusses the two- and three-dimensional representations of crocodiles—un animal sauvage—found in a Hyksos Period context at Tell el-Dab‘a.

Amongst the many facets of Stan’s ceramic interests is his fascination with “les animaux sauvages dans l’Égypte prédynastique,” especially as represented in Predynastic iconography, in particular depictions of such on White Cross-Lined and Decorated pottery. In two recent articles Stan and Merel Eyckerman (Hendrickx & Eyckerman 2012; 2015) discussed a number of animals which they put in this role, namely crocodiles and hippopotami in regard to Nile scenes; and gazelles, oryx, ibexes, goats and wild bulls for desert scenes. Being no expert in such early periods, I would like to offer Stan a small report on the crocodiles found in a Hyksos Period context at Tell el-Dab‘a. Pictorial representations of crocodiles are apparently more common on Predynastic vessels (Graff 2009: 62), but less frequently illustrated in later times, although examples occur on Marl C fish dishes.1 Sculptured representations of saurians—by which term I mean both lizards and crocodiles, even if this is biologically unsound—affixed to pottery vessels are even rarer. Recently the discovery of two bowls at Ayn Asil, dating to the end of the First Intermediate Period– beginning of the Middle Kingdom, has led Valérie Le Provost to review all pots with such decoration (Le Provost 2016). Most of her examples, including those on the Ayn Asil bowls, would appear to be representations of lizards, or geckos,2 although the differentiation between lizards and geckos seems to be only in the eye of the beholder, as can be seen in the case of the Predynastic beaker London BM EA53885. On its first publication the creature was identified as a lizard (Scharff 1928: 263, no. 10, pl. XXV.4), but in a later work as a gecko (Bourriau 1981: 32, no. 42). Le Provost assumed that all the examples she studied were lizards on the grounds that the represented saurians were too

1 For fish dishes, see now Bader 2001: 79–99; Aston & Bader 2009: 41–52, 60–61; Allen 2011: 3–18; Bietak & Bader 2015: 157–178; Bader 2016: 221–238; Allen 2017: 1–14. 2 For the antipathy of the Egyptians towards geckos, see Hanson 2003.

30

D.A. ASTON

large to be geckos.3 Nevertheless whether they should be seen as lizards or geckos, the only true crocodiles appear to be those found on the Predynastic cup, Cairo CGC 18804, thought to come from Gebelein (von Bissing 1913: 23–24, pl. VII; Ikram 2010: 93; Le Provost 2016: 246, fig. 11), and that found on a Middle Kingdom/Second Intermediate Period bowl at Deir Rifeh (Petrie 1907: 14, pl. 11A; Quirke 2016: 331, 384). It is likely, however, that the lizard-like saurian added to the rim of the Predynastic bowl London BM EA63408 (Patch 2011: 35, no. 22), should also be seen as a crocodile because it is in association with four hippopotami, and hippopotami and crocodiles are often associated together. To this small group we can now add a lid which forms the starting point for this article. In 2006, excavations in area F/II at Tell el-Dab‘a led to the discovery of a large pit complex, L81. The study of the material is still on-going, but in terms of date, it is clear that the majority of the material dates to the Hyksos Period, Phase E/1 in the general Tell el-Dab‘a stratigraphy, although some material is clearly earlier, deriving either from the levels through which the pit complex was cut, or were old pieces at the time they were deposited. Continued study of the ceramic material has convinced me that practically all of the Egyptian pottery can be dated to a very short period of time, equivalent to Phase E/1, or at the latest, the transition from Phases E/1–D/3 in the general Tell el-Dab‘a chronology,4 although, as might be expected, some older material may also be present, but, significantly, nothing demonstrably later was discovered. With a dating of the majority of the ceramic material found in this pit to Phases E/1–D/3 it is probably suggestive that among the numerous mud seals found in this pit complex, the three mentioning a king’s name all refer to Khayan (Sartori 2009: 284–288; Bietak 2010b: 988, fig. 15). The exact chronological date of Khayan is not fixed since he is a floating king (Aston 2018), but nevertheless it can be presumed that he reigned at least forty to fifty years before the conquest of Avaris on the following grounds: Khayan presumably preceded Yanassi since the latter claims to be Khayan’s eldest son (Bietak 1966: 66–67). The last Hyksos king was undoubtedly Khamudi, who was a contemporary of Ahmose, and ruled for at least eleven years. Ahmose was preceded 3

However I have certainly, although rarely, seen geckos in Egypt that were considerably larger than the usual lizards. 4 For the latest published stratigraphic chart (stand 2008), see Bietak 2010a: 33. This dating is disputed by Kopetzky 2010: 125, n. 742, who wishes to date the material to the ‘späte Hyksoszeit’. However her methodology is suspect in that she assigns small rim or base sherds to complete ‘shapes’ without real proof that such rim or base sherds come from that particular ‘shape’, and then combines a number of clearly different shapes into a single ‘type’, and, from her work, I see no justification for dating the pit as late as Phase D/2. Indeed, her work is suggestive of quite the opposite, see below n. 8. On the particular problems with regard to identifying whole shapes from rim sherds, in particular in respect to the Tell el-Dab‘a material, see Bader 2010: 214–217.

UN ANIMAL SAUVAGE DANS L’ÉGYPTE HYKSOS

31

by Kamose and Seqenenre, both of whom were contemporaries of Apophis, who reigned for at least thirty-three years,5 and possibly forty-four years.6 At the earliest, therefore, Khayan would date to 11 (reign of Khamudi) plus 33/44 (reign of Apophis), plus X (reign of Yanassi)7 years before the conquest of Avaris in Year 22 of Ahmose. The end of Khayan’s reign would therefore fall at least 44/55 + X years before the conquest of Avaris, which, thus, puts the end of his reign, at latest, in the early years of Phase D/3 in the general Tell el-Dab‘a chronology. Should pit complex L81 have been filled at a later date, one might expect seals of later kings, and certainly many more flat-based cups,8 although it is, of course, possible, that if L81 were filled with ‘old rubbish’ then the seals of Khayan could have been old when they were deposited. However since practically all of the pottery found in L81 is to be dated, at least in my opinion, to Phase E/1(–D/3), the same date as can be presumed for Khayan, it is highly likely that the seals, most of the Egyptian pottery, and in all probability most of the other objects, are contemporary with the reign of Khayan (or earlier), irrespective of the date when it was collected and thrown into the pit(s). During the last decade, several articles have been devoted to a number of finds from this complex, with the fish dishes exciting the most interest (Bietak & Forstner-Müller 2006: 75; 2007: 24–25, 33–34; 2009: 104; Aston & Bader 2009: 57–61, pls 5–9; Bietak 2010b: 983, fig. 9; Aston 2013: 387–388; Bietak & Bader 2015: 157–178; Allen 2017). Several other classes of pottery have also been discussed with the oases pottery (Aston & Bader 2009: 61–63; Aston forthcoming), black burnished wares (Aston 2016b), Nubian imports (Aston 2012; Forstner-Müller & Rose 2012; Aston & Bietak 2017: 509–514) and Levantine fine wares (Aston & Bader 2009: 62–67, nos 94–100; Aston 2013: 382–387), being presented in their entirety, whilst most of the Tell el-Yahudiya ware (Aston & Bader 2009: 38–40; Aston & Bietak 2012: passim) and ceramic sculpture (Aston & Bader 2009: 67–68; Bietak & ForstnerMüller 2009: 104; Bietak 2010b: 982, fig. 8; Aston 2015b; 2020) has also been published, with some of the more usual Egyptian pottery also being

5

A Year 33 is recorded on the Rhind Mathematical Papyrus, London BM EA10058. The Turin King List lists the first king (name lost, but undoubtedly Apophis) before Khamudi as reigning for 40+x years. 7 If Yanassi is the second king (name lost) before Khamudi recorded in the Turin King List, then Yanassi reigned for a minimum of 10+x years. The actual reading is unclear, but is either 10+, 20+ or 30+ years. 8 In Tell el-Dab‘a it is clear that the flat-based cups developed later than the round-based cups which they gradually replaced. Flat-based cups first appear in Phase E/2, where they are in the minority, rising to a majority in Phase D/2. Among the sherd collections studied by Kopetzky, only 6 % of the cups in Phase E/2 are of the flat-based variety, 8 % in E/1, 36 % in D/3 and 64% in D/2 (Kopetzky 2010, 71, fig. 12). From a count of the bases found in L81, 29 flat-based cups (0.5 %) and 6039 (99.5 %) round-based cups were found in the pit complex L81. 6

32

D.A. ASTON

illustrated in other articles (Aston & Bader 2009: 20–61; Bietak 2010b: 984– 986, figs 8–10; Kopetzky 2010: 109, illustration centre right, TD 9007D, although there not stated that the drawing is of a vessel from L81; Kopetzky 2010–2011: 177, fig. 69, although there not stated that the vessel TD 9010F comes from L81). In addition Karl Kunst (2009; 2013) has written on the bone material, and Nicolas Sartori (2009: 284–288) on some of the clay sealings, whilst I have also presented various gaming objects and metal artefacts (Aston 2016a). Among the more spectacular pieces of pottery, as yet unpublished, is an incomplete red slipped and burnished pottery lid, L81–988 (Figs 1–2), which clearly once bore two modelled crocodiles presumably depicted nose to tail. It was originally 18 cm in diameter, but currently only approximately 20 % of the

Fig. 1. Pottery lid L81-988 with parts of two crocodiles (© Austrian Archaeological Institute, Cairo; drawing by M. Negrete-Martinez).

UN ANIMAL SAUVAGE DANS L’ÉGYPTE HYKSOS

33

rim is still preserved. As the pieces of this lid are very distinctive and thus could be easily picked out from the mass of sherds, one must assume that this lid was already broken before it was deposited in this pit. It stood 7.2 cm high, and the central knob has a diameter of 4.0 cm. It is made out of a finely

Fig. 2. Different views of pottery lid L81-988 with parts of two crocodiles (© Austrian Archaeological Institute, Cairo; photos by Bettina Bader).

34

D.A. ASTON

levigated Nile B2 clay, and is red slipped (10R4/6 red) and burnished on both the upper and lower surfaces. In a nice touch, the teeth are painted white. The eyes, nostrils and snout are particularly well modelled whilst the skin is indicated by a series of small indents made whilst the clay was still wet. The claws are designated by three parallel lines, perhaps made with a fingernail. No trace of the tail is preserved. That this is not a lizard or gecko, is suggested by the fact that only four, rather than five, toes are indicated on each foot, but is most clear from the white-painted teeth. Whilst one might assume that this vessel dates to the reign of Khayan, it is, of course, possible that L81 also contained residual material, either belonging to the strata through which the pits were cut, or transported upwards with soil from older levels and, indeed, it has recently been suggested that several sherds of Nubian pottery found their way into these pits in this manner (Aston & Bietak 2017: 500). The latter could derive from the earlier phase of the Hyksos palace or even from the older palatial building below that, in which Kerman pottery, somewhat similar to that discovered in L81, has been found.9 However, only five of the 64 Nubian sherds coming from L81 were thought to be Kerman, the remainder are clearly Nubian, but different to anything previously known and have thus been variously termed ‘PseudoPan Grave’ or ‘Pan-Grave related’ (Aston & Bietak 2017: 509–512), hence both their exact origin and, more importantly, their date remain unknown. Nevertheless one might also suppose that an imitation Minoan vessel (Aston 2015a), and a ceramic copy of a metal bowl, TD 9028E (Aston 2016b: 10–12), which finds metal parallels in the Tod treasure, could also be residual pieces, although it cannot be discounted that TD 9028E is contemporary with the Hyksos period and might thus help in dating the Tod treasure. In view of the fact that this is a unique piece, the exact dating of lid L81–988 is thus not certain. Whilst I would favour a date contemporary with the reign of Khayan, the fact that it could also be earlier cannot be positively discounted. Nevertheless a dating into the Second Intermediate Period brings to mind the somewhat contemporary examples of saurians which are found on Classic Kerma vessels of Reisner’s type XXXII, a kind of handled globular bowl, Reisner (1923: 406–407) termed “teapots”, with particularly good examples being found on the complete vessel Khartoum SNM 1135 (Reisner 1923: 407; Wildung 1997: 98; Le Provost 2016: 244, fig. 7), and the body sherd Boston MFA 20.378, the latter from Cemetery S – Tomb XB.10 Whilst Reisner termed these saurians crocodiles, an identification followed by the Boston Museum of 9 For the context, see Bietak et al. 2012–2013: 32–36; for the pottery, see Forstner-Müller & Rose 2012: 199, fig. 33; Aston & Bietak 2017: 509, 510, fig 13A. 10 http://www.mfa.org/collections/object/red-polished-vessel-fragment-with-crocodileapplique-488668 (accessed 11/04/2020). I am grateful to Susan Allen for providing me with pictures of the interior of this fragment.

UN ANIMAL SAUVAGE DANS L’ÉGYPTE HYKSOS

35

Fine Arts, they differ markedly to those found on the lid L81–988, and Le Provost (2016: 235) suggests, probably correctly, that the Kerman examples are, in reality, lizards. It may also be assumed of course that the differences may be due to geographical reasons with the Kerman potters representing a crocodile in a different fashion—with apparent ribs and backbone—to the Hyksos potters who represented the tough skin by a series of punctures. However, a somewhat eroded sherd from a dish with a very close parallel to the Classic Kerma examples has also been found at Tell el-Dab‘a. That piece, L6030.1 (Fig. 3), which preserves parts of the back, the two back legs and tail, was found in Ezbet Helmi deposit L6030, a casemate fill from beneath the Tuthmosid palace. As it comes from a casemate fill, it can only be dated to any time before the reign of Tuthmosis I/III, and as such, could well be contemporary with the Kerman examples. It is made of a local Delta Nile E clay (Nile E4 in the Tell el-Dab‘a terminology) and was red slipped on both the inner and outer surface.

Fig. 3. Sherd L6030.1, part of a dish with a crocodile or lizard on the interior (© Austrian Archaeological Institute, Cairo; photo by the author).

36

D.A. ASTON

Fig. 4. Crocodile (?) fragment TD 9031N (© Austrian Archaeological Institute, Cairo; drawing by M. Negrete-Martinez).

The fragment TD 9031N (Figs 4–5) might also come from a pottery representation of a crocodile. However, I know of no free-standing sculpted ceramic crocodiles, with the exception of several for the most part crudely modelled examples found by Petrie at both Koptos (Dubiel 2008: 113) and Kahun (Petrie 1890: 30, pl. VIII.20)11—and, at least in the latter case, thought by him to have been toys made by children—and by Reisner at Uronarti (Dunham 1967: 53, pl. 39, 29-1-82). One of the Kahun examples, London UC7196 (Quirke 2016: 384, fig. 4.144), however, was somewhat better made and painted red. Their interpretation as toys has been doubted by Quirke who rather sees them, in association with other crude mud figurines, as objects “prepared not for the amusement of children, but in support of the prevailing textually abundant preoccupation with health as self-defence” (Quirke 1998: 149). This view is followed by Waraksa (2009: 164), who points out that a spell to dispel a headache, as recorded in P. Chester Beatty V, was specifically to be recited over a clay crocodile.12 The L81 fragment, however need not necessarily come from a free-standing statuette, but could have also been part of a figure attached to the rim of a vessel, reminiscent of those on the probably contemporary marl clay vessels found at Deir Rifeh (Petrie 1907: 14, pl. 11A; Quirke 2016: 331, fig. 4.9), Koptos (?) (Quirke 2016: 384, fig. 4.146), and Askut (Smith 2012: 390, fig. 10d), or, perhaps, on a spout such as the Nile clay example also found at Askut (Smith 2012: 382, fig. 2p). Indeed this seems more likely when one looks at the underside of the piece which is somewhat rough, although its size 11 Although the illustrated example looks more like a dolphin! Nine of these crocodiles are now in London UC7193–7201. 12 In the same vein, see also Szpakowska 2003: 113–122.

UN ANIMAL SAUVAGE DANS L’ÉGYPTE HYKSOS

Fig. 5. Crocodile (?) fragment TD 9031N (© Austrian Archaeological Institute, Cairo; photo by Axel Krause).

37

38

D.A. ASTON

might be against such an interpretation. As preserved, TD 9031N is 2.4 cm wide at its maximum point, 3.0 cm long and 1.4 cm high. Should this piece thus belong to a crocodile added to the rim of a vessel, then such a bowl must have had a very wide rim, such as that exhibited by the Predynastic vessel London BM EA63408 from Matmar tomb 2646 (Patch 2011: 35, no. 22), touched on earlier, on which are added models of a saurian and four hippopotami. Perhaps, then, what we have here is a fragment from another lid. As previously stated, representations of crocodiles are found on at least two of the fish dishes found in L81. As these have been published several times, the descriptions which follow are kept to a minimum, with the emphasis being placed on the crocodiles. Of these, the best preserved is that found on the Marl C2 dish TD 9015L (Aston & Bader 2009: 47–49, pl. 7). This dish (Fig. 6), of which the preserved part is 39.0 cm in length, is of the type with a large central fish in the middle as seems to be the norm in L81. It was made by hand with a sharply trimmed rim, and the oval boat shape is clear despite its fragmentary state. The natural white surface layer (Ownby & Griffiths 2009) is quite thin and transparent when compared to other fish dishes, and the incised lines are rather thin and not very deep. The centre of the base fish shows signs of wear: abrasion of the white surface and the incised lines are less deep in the

Fig. 6. Detail of the Marl C2 fish dish TD 9015L (© Austrian Archaeological Institute, Cairo; photo by Manfred Eccarius).

UN ANIMAL SAUVAGE DANS L’ÉGYPTE HYKSOS

39

centre than at the edges. What is preserved of the incised decoration is a ‘frieze’ oriented towards the right and the rear part of a large base fish, undoubtedly a tilapia. Over the caudal fin of this base fish is what can only be a crocodile, with a long snout and a long tail, facing towards the right. The body was filled with cross hatching whilst on the back and tail short oblique lines represent the scaling. The snout is depicted with two rows of large teeth opposite each other indicated by diagonal lines. Five short bent lines divide the head from the body, and the eye is separated by one line from the head. Less well preserved is the crocodile shown on the Marl C1 dish TD 8994C (Aston & Bader 2009: 46–47, pl. 6; Bietak & Bader 2015: 163–164, 174–175, figs 7–9), which has a preserved length of c. 42 cm and a width of 31.5 cm (Fig. 7). The central motif again represents a large tilapia fish. About a sixth of the dish is missing, including, unfortunately, a part of the head of the fish. The white surface layer is well developed, so that the incised motifs show up very well. The very centre of the dish, in fact the middle of the fish, shows signs of use probably by rubbing of some kind, since the surface layer is missing there and the incisions are, through use, much shallower than in other parts of the centre. The central fish is depicted much in the usual manner: the head is divided from the body with three parallel, more or less curved lines, the body is filled with notches and the median line is shown by means of cross hatching. As with TD 9015L, the decorative frieze is oriented towards the right with the

Fig. 7. Detail of the Marl C2 fish dish TD 8994C (© Austrian Archaeological Institute, Cairo; photo by Axel Krause).

40

D.A. ASTON

exception of one small fish, which swims in the other direction. Over the caudal fin two smaller fish are drawn that look slightly more squashed than the average tilapia, although they show the right shape of dorsal, pectoral and anal fins. This may be caused by the fact that the artist has drawn a crocodile at the rim (Fig. 7), leaving very little space between it and the caudal fin, in which to squash these fish. Unfortunately the crocodile is partly eroded, especially the back parts, but preserved are its four short legs, somewhat poorly drawn and almost added as an afterthought, in a walking position, its long tail reaching the muzzle of one of the goats (not shown in the detail photo, Fig. 7), and its long snout, decorated with a series of incised slashes, is slightly open. The eye is clearly marked, and the teeth are indicated by a series of backward pointing lines. The remainder of the scaled body is rendered with cross-hatching. The method of drawing the head and neck of the crocodile on TD 9015L, might suggest that the small Marl C1 rim fragment, TD 9016A (Fig. 8), is also part of a crocodile, although it was previously suggested (Aston & Bader 2009: 50, pl. 8), probably incorrectly, that this fragment might have represented part of a bird. The only other fish dish known to me with a representation of a crocodile is an example from Lisht (Allen 2017: 5, fig. 3; 8, fig. 6b), which, unfortunately, is missing its head. In contrast to the Tell el-Dab‘a examples, that crocodile is not shown over the caudal fin of the base fish, but over its dorsal fin. The body is not cross-hatched but decorated with two rows of dots.

Fig. 8. Marl C1 fish dish rim fragment TD 9016A (© Austrian Archaeological Institute, Cairo; photo by Manfred Eccarius).

UN ANIMAL SAUVAGE DANS L’ÉGYPTE HYKSOS

41

The cross-hatched body decoration of the L81 fish dish crocodiles is again reminiscent of two-dimensional depictions of crocodiles engraved on Classic Kerma vessels (Ferrero 1984: 24, pl. II.10; Le Provost 2016: 236, 247, fig. 13), and is also to be found on the bone amulet TD 9474R (Figs 9–10) also found in the pit complex L81. This typical cross-hatching clearly indicates that we are again dealing here with the representation of a crocodile. It is relatively well preserved, with only part of the tail missing. As preserved, it is 1.8 cm long, with a maximum width of 0.375 cm and stands 0.4 cm high. A circular hole is carefully drilled through the centre. The upper part is carefully smoothed and finished, the sides and base less so. Crocodile amulets are well known (Petrie 1914: 48, pl. XLI, types 240B, 241; Andrews 1994: 26, 36; Dubiel 2008: 71–76), though the closest parallels to the L81 example would appear to be the apparently less well-made crocodile-shaped amulets in blue glazed faience/ steatite (?) found at Harageh (Engelbach 1923: pl. 50, group 13) and Qau (Brunton 1930: pl. 4.13), dated to the Middle Kingdom. Finally one should also mention the black burnished Nile B2 pottery fragments TD 9026W (Fig. 11), which I have suggested (Aston 2016b: 10, 19, pl. 6) are parts of a sculpted crocodile. Certainly the oval-shaped protuberances are reminiscent of the osteoderms found on the back of a crocodile; however this would make it the first known example of a ceramic crocodile sculpture.

Fig. 9. Crocodile amulet TD 9474R (© Austrian Archaeological Institute, Cairo; drawing by M. Negrete-Martinez).

Fig. 10. Crocodile amulet TD 9474R (© Austrian Archaeological Institute, Cairo; photo by Axel Krause).

42

D.A. ASTON

Fig. 11. Crocodile (?) fragments TD 9026W (© Austrian Archaeological Institute, Cairo; drawing by M. Negrete-Martinez).

Perhaps, then, the pottery fragments TD 9026W should be seen as parts of a fish with the apparent almond-shaped protuberances being meant to represent scales, since they are somewhat similar to the painted scales found on the 18th Dynasty blue-painted fish-shaped vessel Brooklyn 48.111 (Cooney 1949). Moreover contemporary fish vessels made in so-called Tell el-Yahudiya Ware are well known (Prag 1973; 1974; Merrillees 1978: 81; Kaplan 1980: 33) and

UN ANIMAL SAUVAGE DANS L’ÉGYPTE HYKSOS

43

Fig. 12. Fragments of a Marl C2 fish-shaped vessel TD 9026U (© Austrian Archaeological Institute, Cairo; photo by Axel Krause).

examples of such have previously been found at Tell el-Dab‘a (Kopetzky 2008: 200–201; Aston & Bietak 2012: 288, 524–527). Furthermore, fragments of a, previously unpublished, Marl C2 fish-shaped vessel, TD 9026U (Fig. 12), were also found in L81, in which the representations of the fish scales are similarly amygdaloid to those of TD 9026W, except that those on TD 9026U are incised, whilst those on TD 9026W are in relief. As we have seen above, clay crocodiles were probably not made for the amusement of children, but, perhaps, this small offering on a savage animal from the Hyksos Period, will indeed serve to amuse the honouree of this Festschrift. Acknowledgements I am grateful to Manfred Bietak for entrusting me with the material from this pit. For the drawings of the lid L81–988, the fragments TD 9026W and TD 9031N, and the amulet TD 9474R I am beholden to Marian Negrete-Martinez. For the photos of L81– 988, I thank Bettina Bader; for the pictures of TD 8994C, TD 9026U, TD 9031N and TD 9474R, Axel Krause; and for the images of TD 9015L and TD 9016A, Manfred Eccarius.

44

D.A. ASTON

Bibliography ALLEN, S.J., 2011. Fish dishes at Dahshur [in:] ASTON, D.A.; BADER, B.; GALLORINI, C.; NICHOLSON, P. & BUCKINGHAM, S. (eds), Under the potter’s tree: Studies on ancient Egypt presented to Janine Bourriau on the occasion of her 70th birthday. OLA 204. Leuven: 3–18. ALLEN, S.J., 2017. Decoration and image on Middle Kingdom pottery: Can fish dishes be read? [in:] MINIACI, G.; BETRÒ, M. & QUIRKE, S. (eds), Company of images: Modelling the imaginary world of Middle Kingdom Egypt (2000–1500 BC). Proceedings of the International Conference of the EPOCHS Project held 18th–20th September 2014 at UCL, London. OLA 262. Leuven: 1–14. ANDREWS, C.A.R., 1994. Amulets of ancient Egypt. London. ASTON, D.A., 2012. From the deep south to the far north: Nubian sherds from Khatana and Ezbet Helmi (Tell el-Dab‘a) [in:] FORSTNER-MÜLLER, I. & ROSE, P. (eds), Nubian pottery from Egyptian cultural contexts of the middle and early New Kingdom. Proceedings of a Workshop held at the Austrian Archaeological Institute at Cairo, 1–12 December 2010. Ergänzungshefte zu den JÖAI 13. Vienna: 159–179. ASTON D.A., 2013. Mother’s best tea service: Pottery as diplomatic gifts in the Second Intermediate Period [in:] BADER, B. & OWNBY, M. (eds), Functional aspects of Egyptian ceramics in their archaeological context. Proceedings of a Conference held at the McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge, July 24th–July 25th, 2009. OLA 217. Leuven: 375–401. ASTON, D.A., 2015a. A copy of a copy of a copy, or an imitation Kamares-ware vessel from Tell el-Dab‘a [in:] JIMÉNEZ-SERRANO, A. & VON PILGRIM, C. (eds), From the Delta to the Cataract: Studies dedicated to Mohammed el-Bialy. CHANE 76. Leiden: 1–11. ASTON, D.A., 2015b. The faces of the Hyksos: Ceramic sculpture in the Fifteenth Dynasty [in:] OPPENHEIM, A. & GOELET, O. (eds), The art and culture of ancient Egypt: Studies in honour of Dorothea Arnold. BES 19. New York: 103–116. ASTON, D.A., 2016a. A possible twenty-square game (?) and other varia from L81 [in:] FRANZMEIER, H.; REHREN, T. & SCHULZ, R. (eds), Mit archäologischen Schichten Geschichte schreiben: Festschrift für Edgar B. Pusch zum 70. Geburtstag. Forschungen in der Ramses-Stadt 10. Hildesheim: 25–42. ASTON, D.A., 2016b. Turning towards the dark side: Fifteenth Dynasty black burnished wares [in:] BADER, B.; KNOBLAUCH, C.M. & KÖHLER, C.E. (eds), Vienna 2: Ancient Egyptian ceramics in the 21st century. Proceedings of the International Conference held at the University of Vienna, 14th–18th of May, 2012. OLA 245. Leuven: 1–26. ASTON, D.A., 2018. How early (and how late) can Khyan really be? [in:] FORSTNERMÜLLER, I & MOELLER, N. (eds), The Hyksos ruler Khyan and the early Second Intermediate Period in Egypt: Problems and priorities of current research. Proceedings of the Workshop of the Austrian Archaeological Institute and the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, Vienna, July 4–5, 2014. Ergänzungshefte zu den JÖAI 17. Vienna: 15–56. ASTON, D.A., 2020. Putting one’s feet up under the palm trees: Some examples of ceramic sculpture from Tell el-Dab‘a Locus 81 [in:] GABLER, K.; GAUTSCHY, R.; BOHNENKÄMPER, L.; JENNI, H.; REYMOND, C.; ZILLHARDT, R.; LOPRIENO-GNIRS, A. & MÜNCH, H.-H. (eds), Text-Bild-Objekte im archäologischen Kontext: Fest-

UN ANIMAL SAUVAGE DANS L’ÉGYPTE HYKSOS

45

schrift für Susanne Bickel. Lingua Aegyptia. Studia Monographica 22. Hamburg: 1–15. ASTON, D.A., forthcoming. A long way from home: Oasis vessels in the Nile Valley. CCÉ 12. ASTON, D.A. & BADER, B., 2009. Fishes, ringstands, nudes and hippos: A preliminary report on the Hyksos palace pit complex L81. Ä&L 19: 19–89. ASTON, D.A. & BIETAK, M., 2012. Tell el Dab‘a 8: The classification and chronology of Tell el-Yahudiya Ware. DGÖAW 66; UZK 12. Vienna. ASTON, D.A. & BIETAK, M., 2017. Nubians in the Nile Delta: À propos Avaris and Peru-Nefer [in:] SPENCER, N.; STEVENS, A. & BINDER, M. (eds), Nubia in the New Kingdom: Lived experience, pharaonic control and indigenous traditions. BMPES 3. Leuven: 491–524. BADER, B., 2001. Tell el-Dab‘a 13: Typologie und Chronologie der Mergel C-Ton Keramik: Materialien zum Binnenhandel des Mittleren Reiches und der Zweiten Zwischenzeit. DGÖAW 22; UZK 19. Vienna. BADER, B., 2010. Processing and analysis of ceramic finds at the Egyptian site of Tell el-Dab‘a/Avaris (“Eves” and other strange animals) [in:] HOREJS, B.; JUNG, R. & PAVÚK, P. (eds), Analysing pottery: Processing–classification–publication. Studia Archaeologica et Medievalia 10. Bratislava: 209–233. BADER, B., 2016. Fish dishes at Memphis: Overview and analysis [in:] BOURRIAU, J. & GALLORINI, C. (eds), Survey of Memphis 8: Kom Rabi‘a: The Middle Kingdom and Second Intermediate Period pottery. EES EM 108. London: 221–238. BIETAK, M., 1996. Avaris, the capital of the Hyksos: Recent excavations at Tell elDab‘a. London. BIETAK, M., 2010a. Houses, palaces and social structure in Avaris [in:] BIETAK, M.; CZERNY, E. & FORSTNER-MÜLLER, I. (eds), Cities and urbanism in ancient Egypt. Papers from a Workshop in November 2006 at the Austrian Academy of Sciences. DGÖAW 60; UZK 35. Vienna: 11–68. BIETAK, M., 2010b. Le Hyksos Khayan, son palais et une lettre en cunéiforme. CRAIBL 154(2): 973–990. BIETAK, M. & BADER, B., 2015. Canon and freedom of fringe art: À propos the fish bowls in the Second Intermediate Period [in:] OPPENHEIM, A. & GOELET, O (eds), The art and culture of ancient Egypt: Studies in honour of Dorothea Arnold. BES 19. New York: 157–178. BIETAK, M. & FORSTNER-MÜLLER, I., 2006. Eine palatiale Anlage der frühen Hyksoszeit (Areal F/II): Vorläufige Ergebnisse der Grabungskampagne 2006 in Tell elDab‘a. Ä&L 16: 63–78. BIETAK, M. & FORSTNER-MÜLLER, I., 2007. Ein rituelles Mahl und das Ende eines Palastes [in:] KÖHBACH, M.; PROCHÁZKA, S.; SELZ, G.J. & LOHLKER, R. (eds), Festschift für Hermann Hunger zum 65. Geburtstag gewidmet von seinen Freunden, Kollegen und Schülern. WZKM 97. Vienna: 21–34. BIETAK, M. & FORSTNER-MÜLLER, I., 2009. Der Hyksos-Palast bei Tell el-Dab‘a: Zweite und dritte Grabungskampagne (Frühling 2008 und Frühling 2009). Ä&L 19: 91–119. BIETAK, M.; MATH, N.; MÜLLER, V. & JURMAN, C., 2012/2013. Report on the excavations of a Hyksos palace at Tell el-Dab‘a/Avaris (23rd August–15th November 2011). Ä&L 22–23: 17–53. BOURRIAU, J., 1981. Umm el Ga’ab: Pottery from the Nile Valley before the Arab conquest. Cambridge.

46

D.A. ASTON

BRUNTON, G., 1930. Qau and Badari III. BSAE 50. London. COONEY, J.D., 1949. A magical Egyptian fish. Brooklyn Museum Bulletin 11(1): 1–4. DUBIEL, U., 2008. Amulette, Siegel und Perlen: Studien zur Typologie und Tragesitte im alten und Mittleren Reich. OBO 229. Freiburg. DUNHAM, D., 1967. Second Cataract forts 2: Uronarti, Shalfak, Mirgissa. Boston. ENGELBACH, R.E., 1923. Harageh. BSAE 28. London. FERRERO, N., 1984. Figurines et modèles en terre cuite mis au jour dans la ville de Kerma. Genava 32: 21–25. FORSTNER-MÜLLER, I. & ROSE, P., 2012. Nubian pottery at Avaris in the Second Intermediate Period and the New Kingdom: Some remarks [in:] FORSTNER-MÜLLER, I. & ROSE, P. (eds), Nubian pottery from Egyptian cultural contexts of the middle and early New Kingdom. Proceedings of a Workshop held at the Austrian Archaeological Institute at Cairo, 1–12 December 2010. Ergänzungshefte zu den JÖAI 13. Vienna: 181–212. GRAFF, G., 2009. Les peintures sur vases de Nagada I–Nagada II  : Nouvelle approche sémiologique de l’iconographie prédynastique. EPM 6. Leuven. HANSON, N.B., 2003. Leaping lizards! “Poison” geckos in ancient and modern Egypt [in:] HAWASS, Z. & BROCK, L.P. (eds), Egyptology at the dawn of the twenty-first century. Proceedings of the Eighth International Congress of Egyptologists, Cairo, 2000, 2. Cairo: 290–297. HENDRICKX, S. & EYCKERMAN, M., 2012. Visual representation and state development in Egypt. Archéo-Nil 22: 23–72. HENDRICKX, S. & EYCKERMAN, M., 2015. Les animaux sauvages dans l’Égypte prédynastique [in:]. MASSIERA, M.; MATHIEU, B. & ROUFFET, F. (eds), Apprivoisir les sauvages/Taming the wild. CENiM 11: 197–210. IKRAM, S., 2010. Crocodiles, guardians of the gateways [in:] IKRAM, S. & HAWASS, Z. (eds), Thebes and beyond: Studies in honour of Kent R. Weeks. CASAÉ 41. Cairo: 85–98. KAPLAN, M.F., 1980, The origin and distribution of Tell el-Yahudiyeh ware. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 62. Gothenburg. KOPETZKY, K., 2008. The MB IIB-corpus of the Hyksos period at Tell el-Dab‛a [in:] BIETAK, M. & CZERNY, E. (eds), The Bronze Age in the Lebanon: Studies on the archaeology and chronology of Lebanon, Syria and Egypt. DGÖAW 50; CCEM 17. Vienna: 195–241. KOPETZKY, K., 2010. Tell el-Dab‘a 20: Die Chronologie der Siedlungskeramik der Zweiten Zwischenzeit aus Tell el-Dab‘a. DGÖAW 62; UZK 32. Vienna. KOPETZKY, K., 2010–2011. Egyptian pottery from the Middle Bronze Age in Lebanon. Berytus 53–54: 167–179. KUNST, G.K., 2009. Animal remains from offering pit L81: Preliminary report. Ä&L 19: 70–72. KUNST, G.K. 2013. Animal bone assemblages from a Bronze Age palace at Tell elDab‘a, Egypt [in:] DE CUPERE, B.; LINSEELE, V. & HAMILTON-DYER, S. (eds), Archaeozoology of the Near East 10. Proceedings of the Tenth International Symposium on the Archaeozoology of South-Western Asia and Adjacent Areas. Ancient Near Eastern Studies. Supplement Series 44. Leuven: 323–341. LE PROVOST, V., 2016. À propos de céramiques à décor de sauriens : Ayn Asil (oasis Dakhla) fin IIIe/début IIe millénaire. BCÉ 26: 229–249. MERRILLEES, R., 1978, El-Lisht and Tell el-Yahudiyeh ware in the Archaeological Museum of the American University of Beyrouth. Levant 10: 75–98. OWNBY, M. & GRIFFITHS, D., 2009. Questions of scum. Ä&L 19: 229–239.

UN ANIMAL SAUVAGE DANS L’ÉGYPTE HYKSOS

47

PATCH, D.C. (ed), 2011. Dawn of Egyptian art. New York. PRAG, K., 1973. A Tell el-Yahudiyeh style vase in the Manchester Museum. Levant 5: 128–131. PRAG, K., 1974. A Tell el-Yahudiyeh ware fish vase: An additional note. Levant 6: 192. PETRIE, W.M.F., 1890. Kahun, Gurob and Hawara. London. PETRIE, W.M.F., 1907. Gizeh and Rifeh. BSAE 13. London. PETRIE, W.M.F., 1914. Amulets. London. QUIRKE, S.G.J., 1998. Figures of clay: Toys or ritual objects? [in:] QUIRKE, S.G.J. (ed.), Lahun studies. [Reigate]: 141–151. QUIRKE, S.G.J., 2016. Birth tusks: The armoury of health in context – Egypt 1800 BC. MKS 3. London. REISNER, G.A., 1923. Excavations at Kerma IV–V. HAS 6. Cambridge. SARTORI, N., 2009. Die Siegel aus Areal F/II in Tell el-Dab‛a: Erster Vorbericht. Ä&L 19: 281–292. SCHARFF, A., 1928. Some Prehistoric vases in the British Museum and remarks on Egyptian Prehistory. JEA 14(3–4): 261–276. SMITH, S.T., 2012. Pottery from Askut and the Nubian forts [in:] SCHIESTL, R. & SEILER, A. (eds), Handbook of pottery of the Egyptian Middle Kingdom 2: The regional volume. DGÖAW 72(2); CCEM 31(2). Vienna: 377–405. SZPAKOWSKA, K., 2003. Playing with fire: Initial observations on the religious uses of clay cobra figurines. JARCE 40: 113–122. VON BISSING, F.W.F., 1913. Tongefässe 1: Bis zum Beginn des Alten Reiches. Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennes du Musée du Caire, nos 2001–2152 et 18794–18815. Vienna. WARAKSA, E., 2009. Female figurines from the Mut Precinct: Context and ritual function. OBO 240. Freiburg. WILDUNG, D. (ed), 1997. Soudan  : Royaumes sur le Nil. Paris.

IMPORTED ARTEFACTS FROM EARLY BRONZE I TOMBS AT NESHER-RAMLA, ISRAEL AND THEIR CHRONOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE VLADIMIR WOLFF AVRUTIS1 & ELIOT BRAUN2 1 

University of Haifa, Zinman Institute of Archaeology, Haifa, Israel WF Albright Institute of Archaeological Research, Jerusalem, Israel

2 

Several imported vessels found in burial caves of late phases of Early Bronze I at the site of el-Khirbe, Nesher-Ramla in the central coastal plain of Israel, offer important evidence of trade and chronological correlations with neighbouring regions. This paper presents that evidence and offers interpretations as to its significance.

The Nesher-Ramla Quarry (henceforth NRQ) in central Israel is a modern facility located in the limestone bedrock of the Lod Valley that borders the Judean Incline on its west (Fig. 1). Archaeological prospection and salvage excavation that preceded all quarrying operations there have yielded evidence of numerous periods of ancient activity (Avrutis 2012). The site is also known as el-Khirbe, the Arabic term for ruin. It includes remains of nine natural, karstic cavities, slightly modified and used as tombs in late phases of the Early Bronze I period (henceforth EB I) dating to sometime around the end of the 4th millennium BCE (Regev et al. 2012). In most cases the EB I burials reused earlier Late Chalcolithic (henceforth LC) caves used for burial (Figs 2–3) and domestic purposes (Fig. 4). One tomb, however, was only utilised in the EB I period (Fig. 5) (Avrutis 2018).1 Such cave tombs in bedrock, repositories for multiple burials over time, are of a type common to the Southern Levant and particularly the central region of Israel (e.g. Macalister 1912: pl. XIII; Ben-Tor 1975; Amiran 1985; Lass 2000; van den Brink et al. 2008). Burials were probably originally primary but became disarranged during successive interments accompanied by placement of grave goods including pottery, ground stone vessels, flint tools, copper weapons and faunal remains, likely food offerings (Figs 6–7). Thus, these tombs represent chronological ranges that are determined by associated artefacts. Among numerous ceramic vessels of local, South Levantine origin are four of Egyptian origin (Fig. 8) and

1 For purposes of documentation the tombs were divided into features (F) defined by the excavators, and constructed units. Features are sub-divided into loci (L) which represent threedimensional excavation units. Baskets are three-dimensional units within loci.

50

V.W. AVRUTIS & E. BRAUN

a single extremely rare import from the region of Syria-Anatolia, likely from the Euphrates Valley. The imported Egyptian ceramic vessels that were associated with late EB I burials are three small tear-drop shaped bottles and an intact, relatively small storage jar (Fig. 8). The bottles were found in three different burial caves (F-355, F-565 and F-868). One of them (Fig. 8.1) was collected from the southeastern extremity of Cave F-355 where there was no evidence of additional archaeological deposits. It has a slightly elongated, globular body and a high cylindrical neck with a thickened, everted rim. Its exterior surface is redslipped. A second bottle (Fig. 8.2) from Cave F-565, found upon a stone pavement, Locus 10457, differs in morphology, having a short neck with a rounded, slightly everted rim. The third bottle (Fig. 8.3) from Cave F-868 has a globular body and short neck.2 Below its simple rounded rim are two antithetic pinholes, which probably served for fixing a lid in place. Petrographic examination of the vessels from Caves F-355 and F-565, revealed the fabrics of both bottles are of alluvial Nile clays (Golding-Meir & Isirlis 2012: samples 75 and 117). Their forms are very similar to Petrie’s Sequence Type 87a–d (Petrie 1953: pl. XXV). In the Nile Delta comparable vessels appear in Naqada IIIA–B contexts, e.g., at Tell Ibrahim Awad (van den Brink 1992: fig. 7.2, pl. 18.2) and Tell el-Faraʻin/Buto (Level III; Köhler 1992: fig. 7). In the Southern Levant, similar bottles are found at sites extending from northern Sinai to ʻEin Assawir/‘En Esur on Israel’s coastal plain, all of them from late EB I contexts (Amiran & van den Brink 2001: fig. 3.10). Analogous vessels imitating Egyptian forms and techniques were sometimes produced in the southern Levant from local clays and are known as Egyptianised (Braun 2016). Such vessels are restricted to southern sites, e.g., Wady Ghazzeh Site H (Nahal Besor) and ʻEn Besor3 (Gophna 1992: figs 4.7, 6.4). The morphology of the intact storage jar found in Burial Cave F-554 (Fig. 8.4) marks it as Egyptian, which is corroborated by petrographic examination (Tsatskin 2010: 55–56, fig. 4.25). The vessel with a plain exterior is of Egyptian marl clay fired at a high temperature. It belongs to Petrie’s Predynastic group L53 Types h–j (Petrie 1921: pl. L) and Protodynastic Types 94d2 and 94k (Petrie 1953: pl. XXIX). More than fifty occurrences of this type of jar in Egypt offer a chronological framework that does not predate Naqada III. The majority of examples fall within Naqada IIIA2, although later examples occur in Naqada IIIB–C (Avrutis 2012: 117–118, tab. 4.2.1 and references therein).

2 This burial cave was damaged by a Byzantine winepress, built in the eastern part of the cave. As a result of this, most of the human remains and artefacts deposited there were found in disarray. 3 Nahal Besor is the Hebrew name for the Wady Ghazzeh. 4 The exact find spot of the vessel within the cave is uncertain.

IMPORTED ARTEFACTS FROM EARLY BRONZE I TOMBS AT NESHER-RAMLA

51

Given its present context, attributing the NRQ jar to Naqada IIIB–C seems most likely. Two piriform alabaster maceheads found in Caves F-565 (in association with stone pavement L. 10457) and F-868 (found in disarray), show high levels of craftsmanship (Fig. 8.5–6). The alabaster appears to be of Egyptian origin but it is unknown where the objects were manufactured.5 Similar maceheads are frequently recorded from the Naqada III period in Egypt but appear less frequently in the Southern Levant in Early Bronze Age contexts such as Jericho (Kenyon 1960: fig. 66.4) and Horvat ʻIllin Tahtit (Braun et al. 2002: fig. 4.7). Production of alabaster items was very characteristic of early Egypt (e.g. elKhouli 1978; van den Brink & Braun 2006) and the export of such products to the Southern Levant has been recorded (e.g., Amiran 1970).6 It is likely these artefacts were either manufactured in Egypt or the raw material was imported and they were fashioned in the Southern Levant. Shells of the freshwater bivalve species Chambardia rubens arcuata, obvious imports from the Nile, were found in EB I contexts in Caves F-355 and F-565 (Fig. 9; Mienis 2012: 252–254, fig. 12.1: 10). Such shells are also known from LC contexts at NRQ (e.g. Cave F-477), as well as from numerous other sites in the Southern Levant. Those from the NRQ caves do not exhibit any signs of man-made modifications, meaning there is no indication that they were exploited in one way or another beyond being used as grave goods. This observation applies to most of the shells found in excavations throughout the Levant. In Egypt these mussels were used for numerous purposes such as scoops and for the production of containers, combs, scrapers, discs and pendants. Their inclusion in the burials of the LC and EB I in the Southern Levant suggests they may have had some symbolic value, although they were also used for production of pendants in the LC period. These shells are additional evidence of trade, but their presence is not necessarily indicative of the same system of exchange to which the ceramic vessels owe their presence at the site. The Egyptian objects from NRQ are additional evidence of large scale contemporary contacts that brought with them a significant quantity of imports, primarily pottery found especially in considerable quantities at Tell es-Sakan, Tel Erani, ‘En Besor (van den Brink & Braun 2002) and possibly a fourth as yet unexcavated site, Tel Ma’ahaz (Amiran & van den Brink 2001; 2002). They have been described in terms of Egyptian material culture in the southern Levant as ‘Tier 1 sites’ (Braun 2014), possibly functioning as entrepôts or

5 Quarrying of alabaster in the Southern Levant (e.g., Te’omim Cave; Frumkin et. al 2014) began only during the Middle Bronze Age. 6 Several Egyptian alabaster vessels found in an EB III temple at ʻAi were probably heirlooms imported from Egypt during late EB I (Amiran 1970).

52

V.W. AVRUTIS & E. BRAUN

centres of distribution, i.e. conduits through which Egyptian imports and Egyptianised ceramic vessels were distributed to other South Levantine ‘Tier 2’ and ‘Tier 3’ sites that have yielded archaeological deposits categorised by far fewer relative quantities of Egyptian associated artefacts.7 ‘Tier 2’ sites may have several scores of such objects, while ‘Tier 3’ sites have fewer than twenty and possibly only a mere handful or even a single artefact. The NRQ necropolis, and specifically the tombs containing the Egyptian imports are, in this hierarchy, examples of ‘Tier 3’ sites, which have, to the present, yielded only minimal evidence of Egyptian related material culture. Other nearby ‘Tier 3’ sites of this sort are Horvat ‘Illin Tahtit and Tel Beth Shemesh, where only a handful of Egyptian associated objects have been discovered. The large EB I site of Lod (van den Brink & Braun 2002), a few kilometres to the north is, however, categorised as a ‘Tier 2’ site. Its large collection of serekhs appears to be indicative of a significant and possibly direct relationship with Egyptians (traders?). The spouted jar (Figs 10 and 11.1) was found in Cave F-662 in association with a stone pavement Locus 11122. The vessel is characterised by a globular body, high neck and an everted, thickened rim. Its morphology and surface treatment mark it clearly as an import. It is obliquely burnished in the upper register and horizontally burnished below. Petrographic examination of the jar confirms its likely origin somewhere in the Euphrates Valley. Such jars, spouted and un-spouted, are characteristic of Syrian and even Mesopotamian ceramic repertoires. Parallels for the jar under discussion are found at Tepe Gawra (Fig. 11.2, 8; Speiser 1935: 47–48, pls LXV.63, LXVI.80), Mohammed ʻArab (Fig. 11.3; Rova 2014: 7, pl. 2.1), Tell Brak (Fig. 11.9; Felli 2003: 67, figs 4.16, 4.25.20) and Khafajeh (Fig. 11.4; Delougaz 1952: pl. 187.C.655.222). This vessel seems to be related typologically to a class of pottery known as ‘Late Reserve Slip Ware’, although it differs in its surface finish (e.g. Fig. 11.5–7; Braidwood & Braidwood 1960: fig. 219.1, 3; Frangipane 2007: fig. 8.17.13). That group is well known in the Euphrates and Amuq Valleys (Jamieson 2014), which is primarily dated to ARCANE period Early Middle Euphrates 1–2, which corresponds with South Levantine early EB I to early phases of EB II. Imports from the region of Anatolia-Syria in the South Levantine EB I are extremely rare. To date only three examples of them have been definitively identified as such, although it is likely that others, preserved only in fragmentary states, have been unearthed but remain unidentified. In addition to the NRQ bottle, the other imported Syro-Anatolian vessels, both small, were found in a burial cave at the site of ‘Ein Assawir (Yannai & Braun 2001; Avrutis & 7 These include Egyptian imported pots, flint tools and Egyptianised (of Egyptian style and/ or morphology) vessels made locally.

IMPORTED ARTEFACTS FROM EARLY BRONZE I TOMBS AT NESHER-RAMLA

53

Yannai 2018), where they indicate correlations between EB I, Late Uruk and Jemdat Nasr periods and Naqada IIIB–C. In absolute chronology that dates them to the end of the 4th and the beginning of the 3rd millennia BC. The NRQ bottle and the Egyptian vessels additionally agree with that dating and thus are important evidence for the veracity of that correlation. Small, but significant quantities of Egyptian imports are known from numerous late EB I sites in the southwestern region of the Levant (Braun 2014). They are sometimes associated with burials as is the case of Azor, Assawir and Ramla. The provenience of these imports, and especially of the AnatolianSyrian bottle, suggests that the owner/s of the Ramla burial cave might have had some special status that prompted those responsible for interment to forgo the use of such a rare object in favor of the interred. Acknowledgements The authors are grateful to the NRQ expedition surveyors and illustrators, V. Pirsky and S. Alon, and to the field photographer T. Appelbaum. Thanks are due to E. Rova for her valuable advice on understanding the significance of the Syro-Anatolian bottle.

Bibliography AMIRAN, R., 1970. The Egyptian alabaster vessels from ʻAi. Israel Exploration Journal 20: 170–179. AMIRAN, R., 1985. Canaanite merchants in tombs of the Early Bronze Age I at Azor. ‘Atiqot (English Series) 17: 190–192. AMIRAN, R. & VAN DEN BRINK, E.C.M., 2001. A comparative study of Egyptian pottery from Tel Ma’ahaz, Stratum I [in]: WOLFF, S. (ed.), Studies in the archaeology of Israel and neighboring lands in memory of Douglas L. Esse. SAOC 59. Chicago: 29–58. AMIRAN, R. & VAN DEN BRINK, E.C.M., 2002. The ceramic assemblage from Tel Ma’ahaz, Stratum I (seasons 1975–1976) [in:] VAN DEN BRINK, E.C.M. & LEVY, T.E. (eds), Egypt and the Levant: Interrelations from the 4th through the early 3rd millennium BCE. New Approaches to Anthropological Archaeology. London: 273–279. AVRUTIS, V.W., 2012. Late Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age I remains at NesherRamla Quarry. Haifa. AVRUTIS, V.W., 2018. Southern Levantine interregional interactions as reflected by the finds from an Early Bronze Age I burial ground at Nesher-Ramla Quarry (elHirbe), Israel [in:] HOREJS, B.; SCHWALL, C.; MÜLLER, V.; LUCIANI, M.; RITTER, M.; GIUDETTI, M.; SALISBURY, R.B.; HÖFMAYER, F. & BÜRGE, T. (eds), Proceedings of the 10th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, 25–29 April 2016, Vienna. Vol. 2. Wiesbaden: 461–474. AVRUTIS, V.W., 2020. Imported artifacts from an Early Bronze Age I burial ground at Nesher-Ramla Quarry (el-Khirbe): Two cases of interregional goods’ transitions [in]: IAMONI, M. (ed.), From the Prehistory of Upper Mesopotamia to the Bronze

54

V.W. AVRUTIS & E. BRAUN

and Iron Age Societies of the Levant. Proceedings of the 5th “Broadening Horizons” Conference (Udine 5–8 June 2017), Vol. 1. West & East: Rivista della Scuola di Specializzazione in Beni Archeologici. Monografie 2. Trieste: 185–200. AVRUTIS, V.W. & YANNAI, E., 2018. Two imported pottery vessels from the Middle Euphrates to the southern Levant and their contribution to the chronology of the end of the Early Bronze I and the beginning of the Early Bronze II. Eretz Israel 33: 10–24 (Hebrew, with English summary). BEN-TOR, A., 1975. Two burial caves of the Proto-Urban period at Azor, 1971. Qedem 1: 1–54. BRAIDWOOD, R. & BRAIDWOOD, L., 1960. Excavations in the plain of Antioch 1: The earlier assemblages phases A–J. OIP 61. Chicago. BRAUN, E., 2002. Egypt’s first sojourn in Canaan [in:] VAN DEN BRINK, E.C.M. & LEVY, T.E. (eds), Egypt and the Levant: Interrelations from the 4th through the early 3rd millennium BCE. New Approaches to Anthropological Archaeology. London: 173–189. BRAUN, E., 2014. Reflections on the context of a late Dynasty 0 Egyptian colony in the southern Levant: Interpreting some evidence of Nilotic material culture at select sites in the southern Levant (ca. 3150 BCE–ca. 2950 BCE) [in:] MĄCZYŃSKA, A. (ed.), The Nile Delta as a centre of cultural interactions between Upper Egypt and the Southern Levant in the 4th millennium BC. SAA 13. Poznań: 7–55. BRAUN, E., 2016. Little pot who made thee, dost thou know who made thee? [in:] BADER, B.; KNOBLAUCH, C.M. & KÖHLER E.C. (eds), Vienna 2. Ancient Egyptian ceramics in the 21st century. Proceedings of the International Conference held at the University of Vienna 14th–18th of May, 2012. OLA 245. Leuven: 69–84. BRAUN, E.; VAN DEN BRINK, E.C.M.; GOPHNA, R. & GOREN, Y., 2002. New evidence for Egyptian connections during a late phase of Early Bronze I from Soreq Basin in South-Central Israel [in:] VAN DEN BRINK, E.C.M. & LEVY, T.E. (eds), Egypt and the Levant: Interrelations from the 4th through the early 3rd millennium BCE. New Approaches to Anthropological Archaeology. London: 59–98. DELOUGAZ, P., 1952. Pottery from the Diyala Region. OIP 63. Chicago. FELLI, C., 2003. Developing complexity: Early to mid-fourth millennium investigations: The northern Middle Uruk period [in:] MATTHEWS, R. (ed.), Excavations at Tell Brak 4: Exploring an Upper Mesopotamian regional centre, 1994–1996. McDonald Institute Monographs. London: 53–95. FRANGIPANE, M., 2007. Establishment of a Middle/Upper Euphrates Early Bronze I culture from the fragment of the Uruk world: New data from Zeytini Bahçe Höyük (Urfa, Turkey) [in:] PELTENBURG, E. (ed.), Euphrates river valley settlement: The Carchemish sector in the third millennium BC. Levant. Supplementary Series 5. Oxford: 122–141. FRUMKIN, A.; BAR-MATTHEWS, M.; DAVIDOVICH, U.; LANGFORD, B.; PORAT, R.; ULLMAN, M. & ZISSU, B., 2014. In-situ dating of ancient quarries and the source of flowstone (‘calcite-alabaster’) artifacts in the Southern Levant. JAS 41: 749–758. GOLDING-MEIR, N. & ISIRLIS, M., 2012. Petrographic examination of ceramics [in:] AVRUTIS, W.V., Late Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age I remains at NesherRamla Quarry. Haifa: 255–268. GOPHNA, R., 1992. The contacts between ʻEin Besor Oasis, southern Canaan, and Egypt during the late Predynastic and the threshold of the First Dynasty: A further assessment [in:] VAN DEN BRINK, E.C.M. (ed.), The Nile Delta in transition: 4th.–3rd. millennium B.C. Proceedings of the Seminar held in Cairo,

IMPORTED ARTEFACTS FROM EARLY BRONZE I TOMBS AT NESHER-RAMLA

55

21.–24. October 1990, at the Netherlands Institute of Archaeology and Arabic Studies. Tel Aviv: 385–394. JAMIESON, A., 2014. Late Reserved Slip Ware [in:] LEBEAU, M. (ed.), ARCANE Interregional 1: Ceramics. Turnhout: 101–116. KENYON, K.M., 1960. Excavations at Jericho 1: The tombs excavated in 1952–4. London. EL-KHOULI, A., 1978. Egyptian stone vessels: Predynastic Period to Dynasty III: Typology and analysis. SDAIK 5. Mainz am Rhein. KÖHLER, C.E., 1992. The Pre- and Early Dynastic pottery of Tel el-Faraʻin/Buto [in:] VAN DEN BRINK, E.C.M. (ed.), The Nile Delta in transition: 4th.–3rd. millennium B.C. Proceedings of the Seminar held in Cairo, 21.–24. October 1990, at the Netherlands Institute of Archaeology and Arabic Studies. Tel Aviv: 11–22. LASS, E.H.E., 2000. Ḥorbat Tittora, the eastern slope. Excavations and Surveys in Israel 20: 99 and 72*–73* (Hebrew and English). MACALISTER, R.A.S., 1912. The excavation of Gezer III. London. MIENIS, H.K., 2012. Malacological remains [in:] AVRUTIS, W.V., Late Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age I remains at Nesher-Ramla Quarry. Haifa: 251–254. PETRIE, W.M.F., 1921. Corpus of Prehistoric pottery and palettes. BSAE/ERA 32. London. PETRIE, W.M.F., 1953. Ceremonial slate palettes and corpus of Proto-Dynastic pottery. BSAE/ERA 66A. London. REGEV, J.; DE MIROSCHEDJI, P;, GREENBERG, R.; BRAUN, E.; GREENHUT, Z. & BOARETTO, E., 2012. Chronology of the Early Bronze Age in the Southern Levant: New analysis for a high chronology. Radiocarbon 54(3–4): 525–566. ROVA, E., 2014. Post-LC 5 North Mesopotamian developments [in:] LEBEAU, M. (ed.), ARCANE Interregional 1: Ceramics. Turnhout: 1–29. SPEISER, E.A., 1935. Excavations at Tepe Gawra I: Levels I–VII. Publications of the Baghdad School. Excavations 1. Philadelphia. TSATSKIN, A., 2010. Petrographic examination of ceramics from Burial Cave F-355 and burial F-257 [in:] KOL-YA‘AQOV, S., Salvage excavations at Nesher-Ramla Quarry I. Haifa: 43–57. VAN DEN BRINK, E.C.M., 1992. Preliminary report on the excavations at Tell Ibrahim Awad: seasons 1988–1990 [in:] VAN DEN BRINK, E.C.M. (ed.), The Nile Delta in transition: 4th.–3rd. millennium B.C. Proceedings of the Seminar held in Cairo, 21.–24. October 1990, at the Netherlands Institute of Archaeology and Arabic Studies. Tel Aviv: 43–68. VAN DEN BRINK, E.C.M. & BRAUN, E., 2002. Wine jars with serekhs from Early Bronze Lod: Appellation vallée du Nil contrôlée, but for whom? [in:] VAN DEN BRINK, E.C.M. & YANNAI, E. (eds), In quest of ancient settlements and landscapes: Archaeological studies in honour of Ram Gophna. Tel Aviv: 167–192. VAN DEN BRINK, E.C.M. & BRAUN, E., 2006. South Levantine influences on Egyptian stone and pottery production: Some rare examples [in:] KROEPER, K.; CHŁODNICKI, M. & KOBUSIEWICZ, M. (eds.), Archaeology of early northeastern Africa: In memory of Lech Krzyżaniak. SAA 9. Poznań: 817–825. VAN DEN BRINK, E.C.M.; OVADIA, A. & GOPHNA, R., 2008. Burial Cave 2 in the AzorHolon cemetery: An Early Bronze Age I tomb with Egyptian finds. Ä&L 7: 59–72. YANNAI, E. & BRAUN, E., 2001. Anatolian and Egyptian imports from Late EB I at Ain Assawir, Israel. BASOR 321: 41–56.

56

V.W. AVRUTIS & E. BRAUN

Fig. 1. Map of the Southern Levant with sites mentioned in the text (Avrutis 2020: fig. 1).

IMPORTED ARTEFACTS FROM EARLY BRONZE I TOMBS AT NESHER-RAMLA

Fig. 2. Plan and cross-section of Burial Cave F-662 (Avrutis & Yannai 2018: fig. 1 low right).

57

58

V.W. AVRUTIS & E. BRAUN

Fig. 3. Plan and cross-section of Burial Cave F-355 (Avrutis 2012: figs 2.7–8).

IMPORTED ARTEFACTS FROM EARLY BRONZE I TOMBS AT NESHER-RAMLA

Fig. 4. Plan and cross-section of Burial Cave F-565 (Avrutis 2012: figs 2.16, 2.20).

59

60

V.W. AVRUTIS & E. BRAUN

Fig. 5. Plan and cross-section of Burial Cave F-55 (Avrutis 2012: fig. 2.36).

IMPORTED ARTEFACTS FROM EARLY BRONZE I TOMBS AT NESHER-RAMLA

Fig. 6. Finds from Burial Cave F-55 (Avrutis 2012: fig. 4.4).

Fig. 7. Selection of the ceramics from Burial Cave F-662 (Avrutis 2020: fig. 3: B).

61

62

V.W. AVRUTIS & E. BRAUN

Fig. 8. Imported Egyptian ceramic vessels (1–4) and alabaster maceheads (5–6) from NRQ burial caves (Avrutis 2020: fig. 4).

IMPORTED ARTEFACTS FROM EARLY BRONZE I TOMBS AT NESHER-RAMLA

Fig. 9. Chambardia rubens arcuate shell from Burial Cave F-355 (Mienis 2012: fig. 12.1: 10).

Fig. 10. Middle Euphrates spouted jar from Burial Cave 662 (Avrutis 2020: fig. 7).

63

64

V.W. AVRUTIS & E. BRAUN

Fig. 11. Selected parallels for the spouted jar from NRQ (Avrutis 2020: fig. 8).

FIRING TEMPERATURE OF PREDYNASTIC POTTERY FROM HIERAKONPOLIS MASAHIRO BABA Waseda University, Waseda Institute for Advanced study, Tokyo, Japan

In this paper we report on research to estimate the firing temperature of Predynastic pottery retrieved from Hierakonpolis. Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) analysis was used to compare the extent of vitrification visible in the matrices of archaeological pottery sherds as well as in samples of local clay that was potentially used in pottery production and which was progressively fired at known temperatures. The results show that untempered fabrics, straw-tempered fabrics and calcareous fabrics present slightly different ranges of firing temperatures, which probably suggests the use of different firing methods.

Introduction In the study of Predynastic Egyptian pottery, the firing technique is still poorly understood since there is little archaeological evidence of kilns and/or firing places. Under these circumstances, pottery itself has to be investigated by means of analytical devices. The firing temperature of pottery from Hierakonpolis has been the subject of previous research, mainly using X-ray diffraction (Allen et al. 1982; Hamroush 1985: 262–315; Hamroush et al. 1992). Reexamining these results, this research focusses on firing temperature analysis using Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) on archaeological pottery sherds and comparative samples of local clay at Hierakonpolis. Based on the results, firing methods will be discussed. Method and materials The SEM can produce very high-resolution images that yield a three-dimensional appearance useful for understanding the surface structure of the sample. This method has been widely employed in archaeological science. In the study of pottery, it has been applied mainly to estimate the approximate firing temperature. The methodology was established by M.S. Tite who examined the internal morphology that developed during firing. It was used particularly to compare the extent of vitrification visible in the matrices of ancient pottery and in samples of local clay that was potentially used in pottery production and which was progressively fired at known temperatures (Maniatis & Tite 1981; Tite & Maniatis 1975). The present study followed this methodology.1 1

The SEM analyses were performed using a CamScan MaXim at Cardiff University.

66

M. BABA

Materials for this study included 17 sherds composed of untempered Nile silt (Polished-red and Black-topped), straw-tempered Nile silt and calcareous fabrics (marl), which are now stored in the British Museum (Table 2).2 These sherds originate mainly from excavations on Mound A at HK11C by J.F. Harlan (1982: 14–25) and derive from collections constituted by the late M.A. Hoffman from various areas of the site. For the clay samples, chemical analyses have already specified the local clay sources which have the best potential for the aforementioned three fabrics (Baba 2011: 652–656): the untempered fabric was made from Sahaba silt prevalent in the low desert of Hierakonpolis close to the cultivation. These silts were also used for the straw-tempered fabric but were also made from Masmas silt which can be obtained from the wadi terraces around HK11C, approximately 2 km from the cultivation (Fig. 1) and was used especially for the local production of the straw-tempered pottery at HK11C (Baba 2011: 656). The marl fabric was made from a calcareous clay that, since it could not be found in the vicinity of Hierakonpolis, was collected from modern potters at Ballas (cf. Nicholson & Patterson 1985). This clay had been used as a representative of marl clay and proved to be matched to the marl sherds. SEM analysis Clay samples Test tiles made from Sahaba silt, Masmas silt and calcareous clay were fired from 600º to 1100ºC at intervals of 100ºC in an electric kiln under oxidising conditions. The stages in the development of vitrification are used as reference data for the estimation of the firing temperatures of the archaeological sherds. According to Tite’s works, the development of vitrification can be divided roughly into five stages (Maniatis & Tite 1981; Tite & Maniatis 1975): 1. No vitrification: aggregates of flaky clay particles are essentially the same as in raw clay. 2. Initial vitrification: isolated smooth-surfaced areas or filaments of glass are developed. 3. Extensive vitrification: a network of smoothed-surfaced glass filaments forms an open or cellular structure over the fracture surface. 4. Continuous vitrification FB: the cellular structure has totally disappeared and been replaced by a continuous vitrified surface containing fine isolated pores. 2 These sherds were exported as a study collection with the permission of the Egyptian Antiquities Organisation in 1980. The material at the British Museum is kept under the supervision of R. Friedman, director of the Hierakonpolis expedition.

FIRING TEMPERATURE OF PREDYNASTIC POTTERY FROM HIERAKONPOLIS

67

5. Continuous vitrification MB: same as 4, but the pores are bloating to medium size. On the basis of this framework, the vitrification stages of the test tiles observed in the SEM were established (Table 1). As can be seen in Figure 2, the Sahaba and Masmas silts showed the same behaviour. No change was detected by 800ºC while the extensive vitrification (Stage 3) developed by 900ºC. The continuous vitrification (Stage 4) formed in temperatures from 900º to 1000ºC. Over 1000ºC, the vitrification developed further and the pores became larger and fewer (Stage 5). Although the boundary between stages 2 and 3 was within 800º to 900ºC, it can be situated around 850ºC. In the calcareous clay, the vitrification development was almost identical to the Sahaba and Masmas silts by 900ºC, but the continuous vitrification (Stage 4) remained unchanged from 900º to 1100ºC (Fig. 3). Table 1 Firing temperature ranges (ºC)

Vitrification Stage 1 2 3 4 5

No vitrification Initial vitrification Extensive vitrification Continuous vitirification FB Continuous vitirification MB

S

Sahaba

Masmas

Calcareous

800 800–850 850–900 900–1000 1000–1100

800 800–850 850–900 900–1000 1000–1100

800 800–850 850–900 900–1100

Table 2 Samples and SEM results (VWLPDWHG7HPSHUDWXUHž&     

)DEULF&ODVV

%01R

9LWULILFDWLRQ6WDJH

8QWHPSHUHG5HG 8QWHPSHUHG%7 8QWHPSHUHG5HG 8QWHPSHUHG5HG 8QWHPSHUHG5HG ZLWKTXDUW]

%0 %0 %0 %0 %0

1R 1R 1R 1R 1R

‫ أ‬ ‫أ‬ ‫أ‬ ‫أ‬ ‫أ‬

6WUDZWHPSHUHG 6WUDZWHPSHUHG 6WUDZWHPSHUHG 6WUDZWHPSHUHG 6WUDZWHPSHUHG 6WUDZWHPSHUHG 6WUDZWHPSHUHGZLWKTXDUW]

%0 %0 %0 %0 %0 %0 %0

1R 1R &RQWLQXRXV 1R ([WHQVLYH 1R 1R

‫أ‬ ‫أ‬  ‫أ‬  ‫أ‬ ‫أ‬

&DOFDUHRXV &DOFDUHRXV%7 &DOFDUHRXV &DOFDUHRXV &DOFDUHRXV

%0 %0 %0 %0 %0

&RQWLQXRXV ,QLWLDO &RQWLQXRXV ([WHQVLYH ([WHQVLYH

‫أ‬  ‫أ‬  

68

M. BABA

Estimation of firing temperature The extent of vitrification observed in the freshly fractured surfaces of the ancient sherds was compared with these results. The firing temperature for each sherd was estimated as shown in Table 2 and Figure 4. All untempered fabrics showed no vitrification (Fig. 4.1), suggesting that they were fired under 800ºC. Of seven straw-tempered fabrics, only two samples (BM15 and BM28) showed vitrification. BM15 had an extensive vitrified surface area and fine bloating pores (Fig. 4.2), which suggests vitrification stage 4 and an estimated temperature of over 900º to 1000ºC. BM28 showed limited vitrification with fine bloating pores but the edges of the clay platelets were not melted (Fig. 4.3). It could be placed within stage 3 with an estimated temperature of 850º to 900ºC. For the calcareous fabrics, vitrification was observed in all samples. BM26 and BM33 showed a continuous vitrified surface containing fine isolated pores (Fig. 4.4), which suggests stage 4 and an estimated temperature in excess of 900ºC. In the samples of BM34 and BM35, vitrified surfaces with bloating pores were produced but the clay platelets still retained their edges (Fig. 4.5). They appear to have been fired at a temperature of 850º to 900ºC (stage 3). BM32 showed the initial vitrification with no cellular structure (Fig. 4.6), suggesting stage 2 and an estimated temperature of 800º to 850ºC. Discussion Untempered Nile silt fabric Previous studies have reported that the firing temperature of untempered fabrics is to be situated in the range of 800º to 900ºC (Hamroush 1985: 312–313; Hamroush et al. 1992: 50) or at least 1000ºC (Allen et al. 1982: 211) which is higher than the results obtained through SEM analysis (less than 800ºC).3 However, the firing of a fine fabric such as the untempered Nile silt, requires a stable and gradual heating regime as well as low temperatures prior to the development of vitrification, all of which can minimise firing shrinkage, thermal shock and failure of the wares. The absence of higher temperatures in the current samples also suggests that the firing was relatively controlled, perhaps in some kind of closed or partially closed structure. In open firings, local temperatures can easily reach over 800°C due to the fanning action of the wind and is therefore difficult to control (Baba & Saito 2004; Thér 2014). In addition, there is another possible reason for the use of a lower firing temperature. 3 This seems to be caused by the different methods that were applied. They mainly used X-ray diffraction analysis in which the presence and/or absence of particular clay minerals is key to estimate the temperature (Hamroush 1985: 305–315). For example, metakaolinite is produced from kaolinite by 400° to 500°C, and then transforms into mullite around 1000°C (Rice 1987: 90).

FIRING TEMPERATURE OF PREDYNASTIC POTTERY FROM HIERAKONPOLIS

69

Untempered Nile silt was used for the production of black-topped pottery. To obtain its characteristic smudged black colour around the rim, the pots are inverted in organic materials (e.g. sawdust or chaff) to carbonise in a reducing atmosphere (Baba & Saito 2004) which requires a limited firing temperature so that the organic materials are not burnt out. Hendrickx et al. (2000) suggest that a screen kiln enclosed with a wall is the most suitable firing method for the production of Black-topped pottery. Straw-tempered Nile silt fabric Hamroush (1985: 312–313) suggested that the firing temperatures of the strawtempered fabrics were in the range of 750º to 900ºC.4 This is almost in agreement with the results obtained in this study, except for the maximum temperature that could be much higher (up to 1000ºC). In contrast to the untempered fabric, the straw-tempered is characterised by the variation of the temperature. This is probably due to the firing conditions or firing method and is a crucial point for our understanding of the type of kiln that was used. Ethno-archaeological studies (Gosselain 1992; Tite 1995) indicate that the use of a bonfire is generally characterised by a wider range of temperatures than those occurring in an updraft-kiln. Vessels with a coarse open fabric are less susceptible to firing damage and are very suitable for such a simple firing (Gibson & Woods 1997). On the basis of the estimated temperatures, straw-tempered pottery could have been fired in a bonfire. However, the presence of firing stain patterns on pottery surfaces suggests that the modelled rim jars, a dominant shape of the straw-tempered fabric, were fired in a pit with a covering, that can be categorised into the bonfire types but are technologically more advanced (Baba 2011: 659–667). Calcareous (marl) clay fabric According to the SEM analyses by Hamroush (1985: 283–286) and by Maniatis and Tite (1981: table 4), the calcareous fabric mostly showed vitrification stage 3 or 4 with a firing temperature that was estimated to be between 800º and 900ºC (Hamroush 1985: 311–312). In contrast, our current analysis suggests that the upper limit is well over 900ºC. However, it is difficult to estimate this higher range for the calcareous fabric, because the extent of vitrification after stage 4 remains essentially unchanged from 900º to 1100ºC.5 Therefore, it is assumed that the maximum temperature was around 900ºC, as suggested by 4

It was based on the presence of metakaolinite and calcite. Maniatis and Tite (1981: 65–66) also mentioned that the extent of vitrification for calcareous fabrics remains essentially unchanged from 850° to 1050°C. 5

70

M. BABA

Hamroush. It is important to note that the calcareous fabrics were generally fired at a higher temperature than the Nile silt fabrics, suggesting the use of different kiln types. Although it is not difficult to achieve 900ºC with a bonfire (Gosselain 1992; Livingstone Smith 2001), constantly maintaining and controlling the range of higher temperatures can only be attained with an updraft (or downdraft) kiln (Rice 1987: 158–163; Rye 1981: 98–103). Moreover, as we know, the marl vessels rarely have distinct black stains on the exterior face, indicating firing in updraft kilns where the pottery is separated from the fuel.6 Although remains of updraft-kilns have not been found at Predynastic sites, the indirect evidences seem to indicate that the marl vessels were fired in such a structural kiln. Our analysis shows another interesting result with regard to the calcareous fabrics. The estimated temperature of the calcareous sherds can be divided roughly into two groups: BM26 and BM33 (higher temperature) and BM34 and BM35 (lower temperature). Based on the visual classification according to the Hierakonpolis pottery classification (Adams 2000: 7–17; Friedman 1994), the former is equivalent to “crushed calcium carbonate tempered Nile silt” and the latter to “marl mixed with Nile silt”. However, our analyses of petrographic thin-sections and chemical ICP-AES (Baba 2011: 652–656) revealed that there was no difference between them.7 Therefore, this distinction is probably not due to raw materials in the fabrics, but to different firing temperatures. It is generally said that firing temperatures are various among both pots and firings (Gosselain 1992). Therefore, the estimated temperatures and the proposed firing methods in this study should be considered as preliminary and requires further analysis. Nevertheless, each fabric has its own characteristics in firing temperature, which strongly suggest that Predynastic potters used different firing methods suitable for the fabric properties. Acknowledgements I am deeply grateful to Renée Friedman for allowing me to examine the materials in the British Museum. The laboratory study of estimating the firing temperatures was conducted at Cardiff University as a part of the research project: Technological analysis of Predynastic pottery sherds from Hierakonpolis. Many thanks are due to Ian Freestone (UCL) and Paul T. Nicholson (Cardiff University), who supervised my research. Finally, I would like to thank Stan Hendrickx who gave me the great opportunity to present my first academic paper at the first Origins conference held in Kraków in 2002. 6 Our observations on 33 samples of the Predynastic marl vessels stored in the British Museum show that there is no vessel having the distinct black stain caused by a close contact to fuel during firing. 7 This result is consistent with the observations by Bourriau et al. (2004: 652) on material from Hemamieh.

FIRING TEMPERATURE OF PREDYNASTIC POTTERY FROM HIERAKONPOLIS

71

Bibliography ADAMS, B., 2000. Excavations in the Locality 6 Cemetery at Hierakonpolis 1979– 1985. Egyptian Studies Association Publication 4; BAR. International Series 903. Oxford. ALLEN, R.O.; ROGERS, M.S.; MITCHELL, R.S. & HOFFMAN, M.A., 1982. A geochemical approach to the understanding of ceramic technology in Predynastic Egypt. Archaeometry 24(2): 199–212. BABA, M., 2011. Pottery production at Hierakonpolis in the Naqada II period: Towards a reconstruction of the firing technique [in:] FRIEDMAN, R.F. & FISKE, P.N. (eds), Egypt at its Origins 3. Proceedings of the Third International Conference “Origin of the State. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt”, London, 27th July– 1st August 2008. OLA 205. Leuven: 647–670. BABA, M. & SAITO, M., 2004. Experimental studies on the firing methods of the blacktopped pottery in Predynastic Egypt [in:] HENDRICKX, S.; FRIEDMAN, R.F.; CIAŁOWICZ, K.M. & CHŁODNICKI, M. (eds), Egypt at its Origins: Studies in memory of Barbara Adams. Proceedings of the International Conference “Origin of the State. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt”, Kraków, 28th August–1st September 2002. OLA 138. Leuven: 575–589. BOURRIAU, J.; BELLIDO, A.; BRYAN, N. & ROBINSON, V., 2004. Neutron activation analysis of Predynastic to Early Dynastic pottery from Minshat Abu Omar, Hemamieh and Armant [in:] HENDRICKX, S.; FRIEDMAN, R.F.; CIAŁOWICZ, K.M. & CHŁODNICKI, M. (eds), Egypt at its Origins: Studies in memory of Barbara Adams. Proceedings of the International Conference “Origin of the State. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt”, Kraków, 28th August–1st September 2002. OLA 138. Leuven: 637–663. FRIEDMAN, R.F., 1994. Predynastic settlement ceramics of Upper Egypt: A comparative study of the ceramics of Hemamieh, Nagada and Hierakonpolis. Ann Arbor (Phd dissertation, University of California, Berkeley). GIBSON, A. & WOODS, A., 1997. Prehistoric pottery for the archaeologist. 2nd ed. London. GOSSELAIN, O.P., 1992. Bonfire of the enquiries: Pottery firing temperatures in archaeology: What for? JAS 19: 243–259. HAMROUSH, H.A., 1985. Archaeological geochemistry of Hierakonpolis in the Nile Valley, Egypt. Ann Arbor. HAMROUSH, H.A.; LOCKHART, M. & ALLEN, R., 1992. Predynastic Egyptian finewares: Insights into the ceramic industry [in:] FRIEDMAN, R. & ADAMS, B. (eds), The Followers of Horus: Studies dedicated to Michael Allen Hoffman 1944–1990. Egyptian Studies Association Publication 2; Oxbow Monograph 20. Oxford: 45–52. HENDRICKX, S.; FRIEDMAN, R. & LOYENS, F., 2000. Experimental archaeology concerning black-topped pottery from ancient Egypt ant the Sudan. CCÉ 6: 171–187. HARLAN, J.F., 1982. Excavations at Locality 11C [in:] HOFFMAN, M.A. (ed.), The Predynastic of Hierakonpolis: An interim report. Egyptian Studies Association Publication 1. Cairo: 14–25. LIVINGSTONE SMITH, A., 2001. Bonfire II: The return of pottery firing temperatures. JAS 28(9): 991–1003. MANIATIS, Y. & TITE, M.S., 1981. Technological examination of Neolithic-Bronze Age pottery from central and southeast Europe and from the Near East. JAS 8(1): 59–76.

72

M. BABA

NICHOLSON, P.T. & PATTERSON, H., 1985. Pottery making in Upper Egypt: An ethnoarchaeological study. World Archaeology 17(2): 222–239. RICE, P.M., 1987. Pottery analysis: A sourcebook. Chicago. RYE, O.S., 1981. Pottery technology: Principles and reconstruction. Washington. THÉR, R., 2014. Identification of pottery firing structures using the thermal characteristics of firing. Archaeometry 56: 78–99. TITE, M.S., 1995. Firing temperature determination. How and why [in:] LINDHAL, A. & STILBORG, O. (eds), The aim of laboratory analysis in archaeology. KVHAA Konferenser 34. Stockholm: 37–42. TITE, M.S. & MANIATIS, Y., 1975. Examination of ancient pottery using the scanning electron microscope. Nature 257(5522): 122–123.

73

FIRING TEMPERATURE OF PREDYNASTIC POTTERY FROM HIERAKONPOLIS

Nekhen

Cultivation (Nile Alluvium) HK24

HK22

HK22B HK21

HK20A

HK25C

HK22A

HK29B

HK27 HK22

Fort HK27C

HK22C

HK33 HK34

HK54 HK45

HK29A HK29

OK-SIP Tombs

HK44

HK43

Low Desert

N 0

Great Wadi (Wadi Abul Suffian)

NKTombs

200m

Settlement Cemetery

Cairo

HK11C HK11E HK6

Red Sea

HK13 HK12 Hierakonpolis

HK5 HK3

N

Nubian Sandstone Rocks

Fig. 1. General site map of Hierakonpolis.

0

100

200km

74

M. BABA

800°C

900°C

1000°C

Fig. 2. SEM photomicrographs of fired samples of Masmas clay.

800°C

900°C

1000°C

Fig. 3. SEM photomicrographs of fired samples of Ballas clay.

1. Untempered fine (BM29)

2. Straw-tempered (BM15)

3. Straw-tempered (BM28)

4. Calcareous (BM33)

5. Calcareous (BM34)

6. Calcareous (BM32)

Fig. 4. SEM photomicrographs of Hierakonpolis sherds.

HIGH AND LOW CUISINE IN LATE MIDDLE KINGDOM EGYPT: WHO IS THE COOK? AND WHO MADE THE COOKING POT? BETTINA BADER Austrian Academy of Sciences, Austrian Archaeological Institute, Department of Prehistory, Western Asian and North-east African Archaeology, Vienna, Austria

This article is written with great pleasure to celebrate Stan Hendrickx, who is a most delightful colleague to work with and to learn from. As he does not mind to engage with a whiff of the ‘spirit of contradiction’, I hope this article finds his interest, although it is outside the chronological scope he especially likes to delve into.

This article discusses cooking pottery as expression of group identity in the Egyptian context in the late Middle Kingdom and the Second Intermediate Period. While evidence is not abundant in all regions and periods, the data available from Tell el-Dab‘a, Memphis and more limited Elephantine are gathered to identify which cooking pots are used in the Delta and/or further south. Thus, five cooking pottery types are presented, three of which are influenced by Syro-Palestinian and two by Egyptian traditions. The restricted bowl with folded rim used as cooking pottery (‘hole-mouth’ vessels) derived from Egyptian tradition is overwhelmingly more frequent and longer in use than the others. This cooking pot type is the only one in the mixed/entangled pottery repertoire of the late Second Intermediate Period at Tell el-Dab‘a. The article outlines the research history and quantity of these pottery types, discusses parallels in SyriaPalestine and Egypt, and traces possible precursors in both traditions. In Middle Bronze Age IIA Syria-Palestine no hole-mouth vessel shape was used for cooking, but rather a different type with upright or gutter rim. Thus, the entangled/mixed community at Tell el-Dab‘a knew and used a small proportion of non-Egyptian cooking pots, but the majority belonged to the Egyptian tradition, demonstrating the material and/or relational entanglement at the site.

Introduction Egyptian archaeology increasingly takes part in theoretical approaches derived from social anthropology, and in research into some areas of cultural behaviour as reflected in the archaeological record. Interest in the identities of individuals (e.g. Insoll 2007) and their material worlds, interconnections between Egyptians and neighbouring countries, as well as immigration of non-Egyptian people into Egypt as attested in Egyptian texts, opened the question how nonEgyptians might be identified in the archaeological record if the culture-historical

76

B. BADER

paradigm and the one-to-one connection between certain objects and individual identity are abandoned (Jones 1997; Bader 2012; 2013a; 2017; Matić 2017). Beside language, funerary ritual and the modalities of exposure to cultural contacts, food-ways have been considered as a social behaviour which may provide indicators of a socially induced group identity and therefore represent a non-Egyptian group identity that can be recognised in the archaeological record (Smith 2003; Hubschmann 2010: 184–185). Behaviour connected to food production, distribution, preparation and consumption are important socio-cultural areas in which group identity is forged and maintained (Villing & Spataro 2015). Following this approach, the use of material items connected to this essential behaviour is seen as a vital and selfchosen expression of belonging to a group. Beside sleep, food is the most important factor in keeping humans alive, and thus also the group (Goody 1982: 12–17, 37). Although ideally the entire context of food production, distribution, preparation and consumption needs considering to better understand group identity (Goody 1982: 40–48), only one aspect can be discussed here. While food preparation and eating are considered as very traditional ‘ways of doing things’—a part of the human habitus, which influences social behaviour—they are also creative and therefore subject to change over time (Villing & Spataro 2015: 13). The cuisine and related items allow vital insights into the identity of people, who eat certain foods cooked in certain pots in a culturally prescribed way. One of the fixed opinions in this field is that women did the cooking in pre-modern societies (Goody 1982: 68, 100–101; Villing & Spataro 2015: 14–15),1 necessarily with exceptions in expeditions and military campaigns in Egypt. The other preconceived notion surrounding the cooking pot discussion is that if non-local cooking pots are found in an archaeological context, there must be migrants involved as nobody would give up their way of eating (Smith 2003). Whilst this certainly is one possibility, a careful consideration of all factors constituting the larger context of food-ways is necessary to come to an informed conclusion. The reason for going into greater detail with the existing cooking pot typology in the late Middle Kingdom (MK) and the Second Intermediate Period (SIP), is that the discussion about the contexts of these finds is frequently too brief and has never been considered with a view towards behaviour in contact situations between cultural traditions and how that might change opinions. The conceived presence of immigrants at Tell el-Dab‘a in the northeastern Delta relies on the reported presence and rapid increase of Middle Bronze Age

1 It is interesting to observe, however, more male involvement in industrial food production, as on a tomb owner’s estate. In many tomb scenes men are depicted preparing the food. Thus, the opinion that only women prepare the food falls a bit short. More gender related research will clarify this point.

HIGH AND LOW CUISINE IN LATE MIDDLE KINGDOM EGYPT

77

(MBA) pottery imports2 and locally produced copies (Bietak 1991a: 38), among which are also cooking pots (Yasur-Landau 2010: 21–22). However, several types of cooking pots with various backgrounds were used at Tell elDab‘a from the early MK onwards up to the early New Kingdom (NK), and research has shown that the appearance and development of these types has to be differentiated. Exceeding generalisation leads to a simplistic culture-historical ‘pots = people’ perspective, which misses the shades in between. Research on eating and cooking habits in MK Egypt is caught in the general lack of settlement excavations with cooking installations and thorough treatment of cooking vessels, as there are not even many depictions of cooking in funerary art in this period (see below). Identification of cooking pots: Shape and use traces First, criteria for the identification of cooking pots need to be established, and ensuing problems addressed (Sinopoli 1991: 14, 84; Bader 2013b: 4–13; Jauss 2018). Although certain vessel shapes work better than others (Sinopoli 1991: 14; Rzeuska 2013: 74), there is no immediate necessity for cooking pots to have a certain form. While it is admissible to term a vessel a cooking pot if a fair percentage of the specimens is burnt, others may have been used in an ad hoc manner with regard to typology or clay fabric (e.g. Nordström & Bourriau 1993: 179, fig. 22; Rzeuska 2013: 87–97). The usual fragmentary state of cooking pots derived from settlements, prevents intimate knowledge of form variations, the form of bases, or the presence of handles, as rims predominate. Criteria 1) Sooting, smoke-blackening or burning of a vessel when exposed to open fire serve as indicators; the position of these marks provides evidence on the cooking method (Rzeuska 2013: 83–84; Lis 2015: 106–108; Jauss 2018).3 In situ findings of pottery in a hearth are unfortunately rare. 2) The fabric needs to be resistant to thermal shock/stress and, thus, enable expanding and shrinking due to heat exposure. Required are porous fabrics (burnt out organic matter) or fabrics with irregularly-shaped temper, the 2 A priori and beyond historical sources this represents only proof for commodity exchange between Syria-Palestine and the Egyptian Delta, and more precisely one side of such exchange. 3 Intensive conversation with Vera and Ludwig Albustin, potters working for many years in experimental archaeology (mostly European prehistory), clarified that repeated exposure to fire/ coals does not always result in sooted and smoke-blackened bases, but may lead to (re)oxidation of the black soot resulting in brownish crusts on the base and blackening further towards the top of the vessels. Personal communication January 2020.

78

B. BADER

smaller the better (Bronitsky & Hamer 1986; Sinopoli 1991: 14–15). In the MK/SIP the cooking pottery was often made of a coarse Nile clay fabric with abundant rounded quartz inclusions—Nile E (Nordström & Bourriau 1993: 175, pl. III.d–h, fig. 9.b),4 but others are used as well (Bader 2009: 403, n. 1339; Kopetzky 2010: 146; Rzeuska 2013; Bourriau & Gallorini 2016). 3) Some shapes facilitate cooking: access to the content while it is cooking should be possible; the opening of the pot should not be too narrow so food can be put in and taken out; and it should not be too deep (Hally 1986: 278–281; Villing & Spataro 2015: 6). However, jars with quite narrow openings were evidently also used for cooking (Bader 2009: 396–399, types 98c, d, e, regularly smoke-blackened; Kopetzky 2010: 144; Schiestl & Seiler 2012: 742–747). Moreover, the shape needs to facilitate the even distribution of heat (Rzeuska 2013: 74). The cooking pot types occurring at Tell el-Dab‘a Five different varieties of cooking pots have been identified at Tell el-Dab‘a with differential life spans, developments, fabric variants, quantities and parallels from different geographic areas. 1. Handmade straight-walled vessels (Fig. 1a) occur from Phases H to F in decreasing quantity, with a few genuine imports (Aston 2002: fig. 11.1; 2004: vol. 2: 161–165), but the majority was locally produced. Overall they are very rare (Bader 2009: 410–411; 540–541; Kopetzky 2010: 213– 214, 217, 249–252, tables 6, 11).Variants show a row of horizontal holes pinched through the walls or only half way, holes and ledges and rows of shallow finger imprints. For the detailed differentiation according to technical styles/chaînes opératoires in the eastern Delta, Wadi Tumilat and SyriaPalestine, see Klassen 2015: 12. 2. Upright rim cooking pots and gutter rim cooking pots (Fig. 1b and c) very occasionally occur as imports (Aston 2002: fig. 11.2–3) but were mostly locally produced (Bader 2009: 404, 409–410; Kopetzky 2010: 214–215). They predominantly exist in the early SIP (Phases F to E/3) with rare occurrences later. Overall, these types with a number of rim variants are rare among the settlement pottery and they were always fragmented (Aston 2004: vol. 1: 159–160; vol. 2: types 141–145a, b, 168–171, Bader 2009: 404–410).

4 Sinopoli mentions specifically that a high number of quartz inclusions are less than ideal for use in a cooking pot fabric, but see Bourriau et al. 2000: 124 who refer to successful trials with quartz in cooking vessels; see also Villing & Spataro 2015: 11.

Fig. 1. Cooking pots of the late Middle Kingdom/early Second Intermediate Period from Tell el-Dab‘a. a) flat-based straight-walled cooking pot (drawn and inked by the author); b) upright rim cooking pot, after Bader 2009: fig. 38; c) upright (gutter) rim cooking pot, after Bader 2009: fig. 66; d) burnished cooking bowl (with handles not preserved), after Bader 2009: fig. 226; e) cooking jar, after Bader 2009: fig. 229.

80

B. BADER

3. Cooking pots with horizontal handles (Fig. 1d) were exclusively made of Nile E in Phases G/3–1, F and E/3, but are extremely rare (Aston 2004: vol. 1, 160; vol. 2, 172; Bader, in preparation; Kopetzky 2010: 214, table 24 in absence of rim fragments only handles were assigned to this type to mark their presence). 4. Medium to large jars with profiled rim (Fig. 1e), made of Nile E1 and E2, are often smoke-blackened or white slipped and sooted. They occur quite rarely, but are sufficiently preserved to the maximum diameter in the late MK and the early SIP, Phases G/4 to E/3 (Bader 2009: types 98 c and d, 396–399, n. 1321, 540) and may continue into the late SIP (Kopetzky 2010: 101, 141, 144, tables 9, 12). 5. Restricted bowls with outward folded lip (‘hole-mouth pots’)5 (Figs 2–5) are very often sooted or smoke-blackened, with various rim types. They occur at Tell el-Dab‘a in all phases of the late MK and the SIP as the most frequent variety of cooking pot (Figs 2–5). Interestingly this type lives on into the early NK, although others start to replace it. Its further development goes beyond the scope of this paper (see e.g. Hein & Jánosi 2004: fig. 80c.41–44 for the form, see also Seiler 1999: 221–224; Budka 2016). Manufacturing technology, shape variants, surface treatment and fabric varieties will be covered below. There are four variants: a) a restricted bowl shape with a direct rim (Schiestl & Seiler 2012: 735); b) a restricted bowl shape without a shoulder, steeply sloping contour and a heavy folded lip with direct transition to the body; seemingly the bowl is quite deep (Figs 2b–g, 3b–f); c) a restricted bowl shape with a folded rim and a short distinct neck confined to Phases H, G/4 and G/3–1 (Figs 2a, 2f, 3a, 3g) and d) a restricted bowl shape with notable shoulder and the maximum diameter probably wider than the height of the vessel in the SIP (Fig. 5). The rim morphology is quite varied as well as wall thickness, volume and depth (Figs 2–5), in special cases the forming process of the rim can be seen in the vertical break (Fig. 11). Observation proved that the rim was folded outwards, but also a direct rim occurs onto which a separate coil of clay was set, and the lip on the interior and exterior was formed by means of probably wooden tools and turning on a turning device (Fig. 3d–e). In fragmentary state the most obvious distinction is whether the shoulder swings out (Fig. 5) or if the contour is quite straight and without notable shoulder (Figs 2–4). The wide variety of rim types suggests a multitude of workshop traditions or potters.

5 Certainly the use of this terminology for the restricted bowls led to the identification of this vessel type with the Syro-Palestinian pottery. In the following, Egyptian examples of this type are referred to as restricted bowls after Bourriau & Gallorini 2016.

HIGH AND LOW CUISINE IN LATE MIDDLE KINGDOM EGYPT

81

Types 1 to 3 find parallels in Syria-Palestine,6 type 4 has at least one parallel at Lisht (Bader 2009: n. 1321), while type 5 overwhelmingly has parallels in Egypt and only fragmentary ones in Syria-Palestine, which were apparently not used for cooking (‘hole-mouth krater’; see below). The fragmentary state of settlement pottery, cooking pots included, makes unequivocal identification certainly very difficult (Bader 2010: fig. 10). Thus, while a similar shape of rim fragments is a good start for identifying parallels, a suspected identification remains a hypothesis until a complete profile with sooting/burning is unearthed. This holds true specifically for shape parallels across fabric types. Nile E seems to be a common choice for cooking pot production in Egypt. Chronological research history of cooking pots While not much information on cooking pottery is available from other sites (for a summary, see Schiestl & Seiler 2012: 734–749), it is worth summarising the research history of cooking pots especially at Tell el-Dab‘a, to highlight the development of the opinion that all cooking pot types found at that site mark the presence of non-Egyptian people there. New publications and, more importantly, quantifications help to clarify the intricacies of cooking pottery and provide context. Apart from singular vessels of different shapes found at Lahun, which were smoke-blackened (Nordström & Bourriau 1993: fig. 22; Bader 2001: 72, cat. no. 81, UC18959), not much attention has been paid to cooking pottery of the MK as it was rarely identified as such by use traces in publications. During early research at Tell el-Dab‘a, however, the presence of non-Egyptian cooking pots was emphasised. In 1991 the MK cooking pots were divided into ‘handmade’ and ‘wheelmade’ types without illustration for this period (Bietak 1991a: 31). The section on the late SIP Phase D/3 includes cooking pots with an illustration headed “MB II B, C type groups during the Hyksos period (Strata E/1– D/2, see Fig. 13)”. This figure identifies cooking pots by shape (Bietak 1991a: figs 11.11 and 11.12, Nile E fabric) as MBA pottery, always with the addition that they were produced locally. Their description is as follows: “The Canaanite wheelmade cooking pot is still produced locally (Fabric I–e); little change can be observed from earlier strata” (Bietak 1991a: 44–45). Unfortunately, the illustrations are not mentioned there, resulting in misunderstandings because fig. 11 shows two different vessel types: a) the so-called ‘hole-mouth’ cooking pot with round and flat base (fig. 11.11, here Fig. 6a), and b) the upright rim

6 For space reasons parallels and references are not repeated here unless it is necessary for understanding, see cited bibliography to follow up details.

82

B. BADER

cooking pot with flat(tened) base (fig. 11.12, here Fig. 6b).7 Most crucially, all parallels given only refer to upright rim cooking pots in Syria-Palestine, namely from Byblos (Fig. 7; Tufnell 1969: 26, fig. 7.58) and Aphek (Beck 1975: figs 2.11, 2.13, 4.20–21, 6.17; 1985: figs 2.11, 4.8, 5.10). Although restricted bowls were shown in fig. 11.11, they were not described in detail or compared to the Syro-Palestinian pottery corpus by means of parallels. Thus, Bietak did not explicitly state that restricted bowls with folded rims are derived from Syria-Palestine, but the inclusion in the figure implies this (see also Bietak 1996) and was perhaps intensified by the lack of illustration of MK cooking pots, which are basically the same. In 1994, a smoke-blackened restricted bowl used as cooking pot of the later SIP was published, referring to unspecified MBA parallels in Syria-Palestine (MBA IIB) (Hein 1994: 161, cat. no 143). Manufacturing details are not provided but the vessel shows clear traces of being exposed to fire on one side of the exterior, thus proving that vessels of this type were indeed used for cooking. The Syro-Palestinian imports of the MBA IIA at Tell el-Dab‘a were summarised in 2002 by D. Aston, including imported cooking pots from contemporary Phases H, G/4 and G/3–1 (Aston 2002: 45–47, fig. 11). Importantly, the proportion of imported cooking pots compared to other imported pottery is extremely small.8 The imported types include the rare flat-based straight-walled cooking pots (Aston 2002: fig. 11.1, fabric I-e-3 with basaltic inclusions, cf. Pape 1991: 65–66), which was also produced locally in slightly higher numbers but still not frequently (Fig. 1a) (cf. Klassen 2015). The second cooking pot type exhibits an upright rim and horizontal grooving on the body with several rim variants (Aston 2002: fig. 11.2, cf. here Fig. 1b). The third type comprises the so-called gutter rim cooking pot characterised by its restricted shape and an upright rim with a marked internal groove (Aston 2002: fig. 11.3, cf. here Fig. 1c), and finally two rim fragments occur of imported ‘kraters’ of restricted form and with folded lip, both turned on a turning device (Aston 2002: fig. 11.4–5; Bader 2009: 489–490; Kopetzky 2010: 248 for Phase E/3 with parallels). This is the type that superficially resembles the restricted bowl with folded rim (see Figs 2–5 and 8). All fragments remained uncoated and smokeblackening or sooting was not mentioned. Aston states that hole-mouth cooking vessels are very common at Tell el-Dab‘a during the MBA IIA, and are mainly made from local clays in contrast to the imported ones (only three undisputed imports, see Figs 8, 10e–f for examples). Aston favours an Egyptian origin of 7 These three complete vessels seem to be reconstructions because they do not occur in Aston 2004, which includes most complete profiles found at the site in Phases H to D/2. Moreover, flat bases have not been attested so far at Tell el-Dab‘a. 8 The absolute number of examples barely exceeds those six to seven published in Aston 2002; 2004; Bader 2009: 489–490; Kopetzky 2010.

HIGH AND LOW CUISINE IN LATE MIDDLE KINGDOM EGYPT

83

Fig. 2. Restricted cooking bowls of the late Middle Kingdom from Tell el-Dab‘a. a–c) after Bader 2009: fig. 48; d) after Bader 2009: fig. 232; e) after Bader 2009: fig. 113; f) after Bader 2009: fig. 38; g) after Bader 2009: fig. 32.

Fig. 3. Restricted cooking bowls without shoulder of the late Middle Kingdom from the settlement of Area A/II at Tell el-Dab‘a (all drawn and inked by the author, except g) inked by Will Schenck).

Fig. 4. Restricted cooking bowls without shoulder of the late Middle Kingdom and the early Second Intermediate Period at Tell el-Dab‘a. a–b) after Bader 2009: fig. 38; c–e) after Bader 2009: figs 67–68.

HIGH AND LOW CUISINE IN LATE MIDDLE KINGDOM EGYPT

85

86

B. BADER

the restricted bowls because according to him the type would have had to enter the Egyptian repertoire very early since it already exists in large quantities from Phase H onwards (i.e. the late 12th Dynasty, see Fig. 13). Moreover, the frequency of this type in the Memphis-Fayum region is high despite a lack of other imported or Syro-Palestinian style pottery vessels there (Aston 2002: 46). V. Müller presented one incomplete late SIP restricted bowl as made on the advanced wheel, with smoke-blackening on the exterior, and horizontal smoothing marks below the rim but vertical in the lower part of the vessel. The entry also mentions the possibility of mould making (Müller 2002: 284–285, fig. 8.6, reg.no. 3953A). The Tell el-Dab‘a pottery corpus includes a comprehensive description of cooking pottery occurring at the site as outlined before, but this time also with locally produced vessels. First to be mentioned is the handmade straight-walled variety with a range of decoration schemes such as added plastic ledges, finger imprints and holes under the rim (Aston 2004: vol. 1, 156–158). This is followed by various vessel types with upright rims with or without ‘gutters’ or deep grooves on the interior of the rim (Aston 2004: vol. 1, 159–160)9 and a rare type with horizontal handles and ledge handles, respectively (Aston 2004: vol. 1, 160–161). These vessels all have parallels in Syria-Palestine (Aston 2004: 156–161), but were made from the local Egyptian Nile E2 clay (Bietak 1991b: 326). Thirdly, there are the restricted bowls with folded rims with all then known parallels, which are not repeated here (Aston 2004: vol. 1, 81–82, 167– 169). While the opinion on the origin remained unchanged, the four subtypes mentioned before were defined. They were all described as wheelmade on a turntable. In the late SIP only the variety of restricted bowls with folded rim remains in use for cooking. The fabric used is still Nile E with some more organic temper (I–e–1), and some are white slipped on the exterior with even fewer showing a red slipped rim in addition. Parallels in the SIP cover only the Wadi Tumilat, North Sinai and northern Upper Egypt (Aston 2004: 144–245), as they were known then. Thus, in the late SIP settlement in Area A/V (Hein & Jánosi 2004) the restricted bowls represent the only cooking pot type and it was assigned to the Egyptian pottery corpus. The publication remains undecided about its origin, because parallels were seen in both Syria-Palestine and Egypt (e.g. on the surface at Lahun). Moreover, similar shaped rim fragments in the Levant were not smoke-blackened. Restricted bowls showed a white or a red slip or remained uncoated. The fabric variants include Nile B2, E1 and E2. The manufacturing technology is not specified, or indicated in drawings (Kopetzky 2004: 246, 9 Note also a variety of singular examples connected to this type by similar shapes. They are far from unified in morphology.

HIGH AND LOW CUISINE IN LATE MIDDLE KINGDOM EGYPT

87

Fig. 5. Restricted cooking bowls with shoulder of the early to late Second Intermediate Period at Tell el- Dab‘a. a–b) after Bader 2009: fig. 16; c–d) after Bader 2009: fig. 64; e–f) after Bader 2009: fig. 57.

figs 175–176, 192, 195–196, 213–215). Only one drawing of such a cooking pot fragment shows signs of wheel-turning (on a turntable/turning device) and the outwards folded rim added in a separate stage (Hein & Jánosi 2004: 146 and fig. 105C.29). I. Forstner-Müller followed the assessment of Aston 2002 that the development of restricted bowls happened independently in the Levant and Egypt (Forstner-Müller 2007: 89).10 V. Müller discusses the use of cooking pots in offering pits at Tell el-Dab‘a. While no complete example was preserved, fragments continuously appear 10

A position now also held by Oren 2019: 264.

88

B. BADER

(Phase E/3 to the early NK). The predominant fabric is Nile E(2), with a few other fabrics occasionally occurring (Nile B2, C). They are rarely slipped either red or/and white. The restricted cooking bowl forms a standard part of offering pits connected with ritual meals, while the cooking pot with upright, everted rim (Müller 2008: 203, fig. 176) appears more rarely: 11 upright rim cooking pots occur in offering pits, compared to 75 restricted bowls. The prototypes for the latter, she sees in Syria-Palestine (Müller 2008: vol. 1, 204, fig. 176).11 In the course of the comprehensive comparison between settlement pottery of Tell el-Dab‘a and Kom Rabi‘a in a random sampling procedure (Bader 2009: 64–74), which allows statistically valid quantitative inferences, the cooking pottery was also compared (Bader 2009: Nile B2/C1 type 36d 304–306, Nile E1/2 402–411, frequency distribution 540–541). Again a final decision was not taken whether restricted bowls originate either in Syria-Palestine or Egypt, but increasing parallels in Egypt and Nubia tipped the balance towards Egypt, as did their frequent occurrence at Kom Rabi‘a while other MBA pottery types were extremely rare or did not occur at all (see also Mahmud et al. 2008: 203 for Heliopolis). Although the earlier phases at Kom Rabi‘a only rarely yielded cooking pottery in the shape of restricted bowls, but not any other either, they became gradually more frequent in some of the sectors (Bader 2009: 579–601; Bourriau & Gallorini 2016: 122–123, table 20). Thus it is likely that the spatial distribution of this vessel type in the settlement at Kom Rabi‘a varied depending on the function of the various areas. The manufacturing technology for these pots is either coiled and turned (on a turning device) with the rim added and folded at the last stage, or wheel-turned without the rim being recognisably added later.12 The other types of cooking pottery (see types 1–3 above), which did not appear at Kom Rabi‘a, comprised those with upright rim (Bader 2009: types 103e–f with rim variants, here Fig. 1b) and gutter rim (Bader 2009: type 103g, here Fig. 1c). Both occurred in small quantities only in certain phases. Flat-based straight-walled cooking pots (Bader 2009: type 105a) are extremely rare at Tell el-Dab‘a and missing at Kom Rabi‘a, especially compared to the overall assemblage. These three types have ample parallels in Syria-Palestine. However, the restricted bowl with folded rim cooking pot type occurs in all levels from the late MK to the end of the SIP and is more frequent, while the others were only found in Phases G/3– 1, F and E/3 (the late MK and the early SIP) (Bader 2009: 305–306, 358–359, 403–411, 489–490).

11

V. Müller no longer holds this opinion; personal communication in September 2018. At Memphis they are recorded as only wheel-turned. This identification is based on the preserved rim only, which was not substantial in most cases. Whether these vessels might have been coiled and turned in the lower, not preserved portions of the vessel body cannot be ascertained. 12

HIGH AND LOW CUISINE IN LATE MIDDLE KINGDOM EGYPT

89

The quantitative study of fragmentary settlement pottery of the MK and the SIP at Tell el-Dab‘a based on a purposive sample13 includes all the above cooking pot types made from Nile B2,14 E1 and E2, but only the restricted bowls with folded rims are of interest here. The technology changes from ‘handmade’ (i.e. coiling and turning, Fig. 10a, c–d) to entirely wheelmade. This development starts already in the early 13th Dynasty and continues until the very end of the SIP. To interpret this development as increasing industrialisation of cooking vessel production seems not supported by the percentages given (Kopetzky 2010: 146; tab. 4, 9), because both manufacturing technologies exist side by side in 1-digit percentages. Only in the last Phase (D/2) wheel-turning appears to become more frequent. The chronological development of the vessel shape is unfortunately based on very few vessels with complete profiles. The restricted bowls are part of the Egyptian assemblage and always much more frequent than the others. The Syro-Palestinian cooking pot types appear in the early SIP in very small quantities of around 1 % mostly, up to 3 or 4 % in exceptional contexts (Kopetzky 2010: 108–109, 141–142, 145–148, 213–217, 248–253 with parallels; tab. 6, 10, 23, 25). Finally the assignation of round-based restricted bowls with folded rims to the ‘Egyptian corpus’ was spelled out expressis verbis (Bader 2012: 221–222; fig. 3; Bietak & Kopetzky 2012: 105–106, fig. 2; Schiestl & Seiler 2012: 734–741), but by then most research viewed this cooking pot type either as non-Egyptian or Delta specific at least. Unfortunately the intricacies of these different cooking pot types and their quantities have largely been ignored especially when the presence of immigrants was discussed. These cooking pots were always taken to securely represent immigration from Syria-Palestine without putting the evidence in the larger context of the site, the parallels, its environment and the long time span involved (c. 150–200 years, cf. Fig. 13). Cooking vessels in the late MK and SIP In this section the cooking pot traditions of Syria–Palestine and Egypt, focussing on the period of the early Middle Bronze Age (MBA IIA) are highlighted, when it could be reasonably assumed that any transfer of knowledge would have taken place in the course of immigration as suggested by previous 13 The contexts were picked purposively without the aid of a statistical procedure only on the virtue of their size, which does now allow the correct calculation of statistical variables. The problematic nature of identification of small pottery fragments with complete types has been mentioned before (Aston 2016: n. 12). 14 As no complete example of a Nile B2 cooking pot with sooting has been discovered yet, the rims resembling Nile E hole-mouth pots might belong to another vessel type altogether, cf. Bader 2010: fig. 10.

90

B. BADER

Fig. 6. a) ‘Hole-mouth’ cooking pot; b) upright rim cooking pot, not to scale (after Bietak 1991: fig. 11.10–12).

Fig. 7. Upright rim cooking pot from Byblos, not to scale (after Tufnell 1969: fig. 7.58).

HIGH AND LOW CUISINE IN LATE MIDDLE KINGDOM EGYPT

91

research. It is not the aim here to repeat all parallels ever given to the type, rather type sites are mentioned as well as critical insights into the identification of cooking vessels, where such were made. The focus on dating at given sites often obscured the functional aspects of the pottery found. Syria-Palestine While there is some evidence for MBA IIA (contemporary to Phases H up to the transition to MBA IIB in Phase F, see Fig. 13) pottery of similar shape to rims of restricted bowls in Syria-Palestine,15 they were seemingly never sooted (e.g. Kochavi et al. 2000: 129, 175, 200) and also rarely if ever complete (e.g. Beck 1975: figs 4.18–19, 6.15–16; Kochavi & Yadin 2002: 202, figs 15.6–7, 9–11; for a list of parallels in Syria-Palestine, see Aston 2002: 46–47; Kopetzky 2010: 248). Already P.L.O. Guy in his work on Megiddo names the gutter rim type (Fig. 1c) as cooking bowls (Guy 1938: pl. 27.6, tomb 257) and O. Tufnell in 1969 speaks of the “standard shape for a cooking vessel” referring to an upright rim type of a pot at Byblos with a shouldered ovoid body shape and narrowing towards a rounded base (Tufnell 1969: 16 and fig. 7.58) (Fig. 7). The same was said by Ben-Dor earlier (Ben-Dor 1950: 32–33). Selected type sites highlight that other cooking pot types than holemouth kraters were the usual vessels for cooking in Syria-Palestine. Beck divided the MBA IIA cooking pots at Aphek in Stratum BV into two: “The first is handmade and straight walled, with a thumb indented applied plastic band below the rim. Above this is a row of perforations which in some vessels did not completely pierce the wall. (…) The second is wheel turned, with rounded body and internally accentuated rim, at times gutter like (…). Both types appear at Aphek from the earliest phases onward [MBA IIA], the wheelturned type being the most common.” (Kochavi et al. 2000: 113, upright and gutter rims: figs 8.10.6–9; 8.11.3, 8.12.10–11, 8.13.1–2, 8.20.4, 10.1.20, 10.1.23, 10.10.20–21, 10.12.17, 10.13.18–19).16 Both types appear to be mostly uncoated and they are to be distinguished from ‘hole-mouth pots’ or ‘kraters’17 with a folded rim/lip as they are called in the Syro-Palestinian pottery typologies (Ben-Dor 1950: 29–30, fig. 23). The dearth of complete cooking pots in the MBA IIA section of Amiran’s seminal book beside the straight-walled and upright/gutter rim variety, suggests 15 Insights into the chaîne opératoire can only be made superficially, as the description of the Syro-Palestinian pottery is mostly restricted to handmade or wheelmade. 16 Unfortunately no mention is made where and how many of these fragments were smokeblackened. The same description is repeated in other words on p. 176 of the same book. 17 In pottery descriptions of Levantine and Syro-Palestinian sites a distinction in vessel types is made, namely cooking pots and kraters with subtypes such as hole-mouth kraters. The only distinction seems to be the presence of sooting or smoke-blackening in cooking pots.

92

B. BADER

a lack of completely preserved cooking pots from settlement sites.18 The gutter rim fragment and handmade flat-based and straight-walled cooking pots indicate a different tradition of cooking pot use in Syria-Palestine in the MBA IIA (Amiran 1969: 100, pl. 30) than in the Egyptian Nile Delta. Only in the MBA IIB–C, which is considerably later than the late MK settlement of Phases H, G/4 and G/3–1, one complete parallel to the Egyptian restricted bowl cooking pot is shown and moreover marked to be “uncommon” (Amiran 1969: 102, pl. 30.7). This singular vessel is derived from stratum XII at Megiddo (tomb 3182).19 The fact that in MBA IIB–C such restricted bowls seem to be attested in Syria-Palestine (Kopetzky 2010: 248; Bonfil 2019: 84, pl. 1.3.15), possibly turns the direction of influence around. At this time the hole-mouth cooking pots in the Levant may have been copying Egyptian examples, but the record is still too patchy to be definitive. Overall, research in Syria-Palestine, e.g. at Shechem (Cole 1984: 63–65, 67, fig. 18, pls 24.c–f, 25, 26.a–d), Yokne’am (Ben-Ami & Livneh 2005: figs IV.8.1–3, IV.8.4–13, IV.6.1–8) and Tell el-Hayyat (Falconer & Fall 2006: 44, and figs 4.4.i–j, 4.6.g–l [‘hole-mouth kraters’ with very intricate morphological details of the lips not found in Egypt and not smoke-blackened], flatbased cooking pots figs 4.2.k, 4.4.q, 4.7.a–l, 48, 49, 52–57, fig. 4.2.l–m) showed that the cooking vessel types as indicated by sooting marks in these places were not of hole-mouth shape with folded lip, but either flat-based and straightwalled or more restricted with upright or gutter rim (Bonfil 2019: 82–84; Ilan & Marcus 2019: 13–15). The same holds true for Ashkelon (Stager & Voss 2019b: 146–155). The ‘hole-mouth kraters’ or ‘closed kraters’ were suspected to be intended for serving food (Ben-Ami & Livneh 2005: 264; see also Stager & Voss 2019b: 139–145). More recent excavations in the Levant have unearthed a few restricted bowls of presumed Egyptian derivation.20 In Lebanon, at Fadous-Kfarabida, remarkably a single Egyptian Nile E2 cooking pot was found (Genz 2010–2011: fig. 14.2), while the usual local type is wheel-made, round-based with upright rim or, more rarely in this area, handmade straight-walled with a flat base (Genz 2010–2011: figs 8.1–4 [round-based], 8.5–7 [flat-based]). The same seems to hold true for Sidon (Kopetzky 2010–2011: fig. 3), although no mention is made of quantity, sooting or technology.

18

The situation did not substantially change fifty years later, cf. Ilan & Marcus 2019: 13–15, pl. 1.2.11–12. 19 This vessel is still shown in the chapter on MBA IIA cooking pottery, cf. Ilan & Marcus 2019: pl. 1.2.11.5. 20 Although the fabric is macroscopically very similar to the Egyptian fabric Nile E, scientific analyses have so far not been published.

HIGH AND LOW CUISINE IN LATE MIDDLE KINGDOM EGYPT

93

Fig. 8. Imported ‘hole-mouth krater’ 1967/60156 (drawn and inked by the author).

At Ashkelon some Egyptian ‘flat-folded cooking pots’21 were found in Phases 11 and 10 (equals late SIP), namely very few real Egyptian imports, while others were locally produced.22 The overall number of Egyptian sherds over the five phases at Ashkelon is only 48, with five imported restricted bowls in Phase 11 and five in Phase 10. They accept this pottery type as Egyptian, but they do not state if these fragments showed sooting. The usual cooking pot at Ashkelon also belongs to the upright rim type (Stager & Voss 2011: 122 and pls 1.6–8, 2.6–7; 2019a: 238–241 and pls 6.1.6–8, 6.2.6–7). One small rim fragment was published from Haror (Oren 2019: 264, pl. 4.1.1.5). One imported example of a ‘hole-mouth krater’ was found in the late MK settlement of Area A/II at Tell el-Dab‘a (Aston 2002: 46, 74–75, fig. 4) (Figs 8, 10e–g). This rim fragment is wheel-turned, but it is too eroded to judge the primary manufacturing technology. Moreover, the lip is turned over and everted and is not stuck onto the outside of the vessel wall as the Egyptian restricted cooking bowls frequently show. The rim diameter is only 16 cm, which is in stark contrast to the average 20 to 35 cm rim diameter of the local Nile E2 restricted bowls with folded rims. Egypt In Egypt rim fragments of presumed cooking pots in the shape of restricted bowls are frequently of the same highly sand-tempered23 Nile clay (E) fired to a red brown/dull brown, sometimes with sooting marks as at Tell el-Dab‘a.24 Whether similar rim fragments made of other Nile clay fabrics (B2, C) also belonged to cooking pots, cannot as yet be entirely ascertained, because so far only two complete 12th Dynasty examples made of Nile C with sooting marks from Tell el-Dab‘a and Karnak are published (Aston 2004: 81, cat. no. 141 21

Flat-folded is the term used for the rim shape by Stager &Voss 2011; 2019a–b. Unfortunately the frequency distribution does not state how many locally produced restricted bowls were found. 23 Sand is here conceived as a size, not as mineral identification, which still needs to be undertaken. 24 In the earlier publications, use marks such as massive sooting were not always mentioned. 22

94

B. BADER

+ register book; Millet 2007: pl. XX.8091.14).25 Nevertheless they are mentioned below. While the Nile E restricted bowls were initially best known in northern Egypt especially in the late MK, as settlement research increases also our understanding of the spatial distribution of this pottery type improves. Although quantities from north to south seem to dwindle, this may perhaps also be due to the fact that full publication has not been achieved everywhere. The sites listed from north to south and concentrating on well described parallels, are: Wadi Tumilat (Redmount 1989: 820–832, fig. 138; Holladay 1997: pl. 7.6 wheelmade for cooking) in the later SIP, and the sites within (Holladay 1997: pls 7.11–12, 7.14–15); in North Sinai (Oren 1997: fig. 8.23.3 fabric not stated); the temple precinct at Heliopolis (Mahmud et al. 2008: 203–204, fig. 6b.1–2); Mersa Gawasis on the Red Sea coast (Wallace-Jones 2018: 19–20, 64, used for cooking, rare); Dahshur (Arnold 1982: complex 6, fig. 6.10, Nile C, (wheel) turned with red slip; complex 7,26 fig. 10.6, Nile E, handmade rough surface); Lisht (Arnold et al. 1995: 20, fig. 4.18); Memphis (Bourriau & Gallorini 2016: Corpus 2, Nile B2 (= D4): fig. 25.25c4.5; Corpus 3, Nile B2 (= D4): figs 32.25b3.3 and 32.25c4.3, Nile C (= D3): fig. 36.16d1.1, Nile E (= D5): figs 38.51c3.3–4 and 38.51c3.6; Corpus 4, Nile B2 (= D4): fig. 46.25c4.5, Nile E (= D5): figs 50.51c3.4 and 50.51c3.7; Corpus 5, Nile B2 (= D4): figs 60.25b3.2–4, and 60.25c4.1–6, Nile E (= D5): figs 69.51b1.2, 69.51c3.2–9, 69.51d1.2 and 69.51d1.4; Corpus 6, Nile B2 (= D4): small size, figs 86.25b3.3 and 86.25b3.5, medium to large size, figs 86.25c4.1, 87.25c3.1, 87.25c4.2–3, 87.25c4.5–6, 87.25d3.1–3, and 87.25d3.5, Nile C (= D3): fig. 93.16d1.1–2, Nile E (= D5): figs 95.51c3.1–2, 95.51c3.5, 96.51c3.4, 96.51c3.6–7, 96.51c3.9 and 96.51d1.4; Corpus 7, Nile E (= D5): figs 111.51b1.1 and 111.51c3.4); Lahun (Bourriau & Quirke 1998: fig. 5.4, 71, who think Nile E is an import to Lahun; Gallorini 1998: 68–69, fig. 33.1–2: EA74592 [smoke-blackened] & UC 7649 [not smoke-blackened]); 25 Fragments of this type might well belong to the vessel type of jar with high foot (‘canopic’ shape), Aston & Bader 2009: 31, figs 35–36. 26 Because it seems that the original chronological assessment of the material from Complex 7 has frequently been misunderstood, I would like to offer an explanation for the dating of Arnold 1982: 40 “(…) in der Keramik (…) Beispiele der Töpferei der 13. Dynastie vorliegen, der 13. Dynastie mit Ausschluß ihres ersten Drittels.” Earlier, Arnold had stated that the utmost border for Complex 7 was 1650 BC, the beginning of the Hyksos rule in northern Egypt. This would mean that she used a “short 13th Dynasty” for her estimate just like that used in the Delta. Because she divided the 13th Dynasty into three parts (Drittel), it is quite possible that she had Bietak’s chronological chart in mind, where the 13th Dynasty equals Phases G/4, G/3–1, F and E/3. In that case, the period she was referring to meant the last part of G/3–1, F and E/3 as possible equivalent phases for Complex 7. My own work comparing settlement pottery of Kom Rabi‘a with Tell el-Dab‘a suggests that the slow development of the Kom Rabi‘a settlement pottery had proceeded and that Complex 7 should not have been deposited much later than Level VII. This is especially visible in the Marl C corpus found at Kom Rabi‘a, unless one would like to propose a differential development between Dahshur and Kom Rabi‘a, which seems currently unlikely as no available evidence supports it.

HIGH AND LOW CUISINE IN LATE MIDDLE KINGDOM EGYPT

95

Qasr el-Sagha (Arnold & Arnold 1979: fig. 22.4; Śliwa 1987–1988: fig. 27.5– 6); Abydos (Wegner 2007: 241, fig. 101.31a with sooted exteriors, Nile C and E; fig. 112.74–77, technology and quantity not mentioned); Karnak North (Jacquet-Gordon 1990: fig. 1.7, fabric not mentioned; 2012: 73 and fig. 34.f–h, k–l morphological parallels in fabrics Nile C, D and E, presence of sooting is not mentioned); Edfu (Ayers 2018: 71, fig. 6.f, handmade with white slip, Nile E); and Aswan (Forstner-Müller & Müller 2013: 102, 106, fig. 6.5, Nile E2, coiled and turned; Rzeuska 2013: fig. 6 for restricted cooking bowls in Nile E, but there are also other types and other fabrics such as Von Pilgrim 1996: fig. 159.k, p, s in Nile B2 of two different forms in Bauschicht 14–15, see below). Parallels of the restricted bowls are known in Nubia at Askut, where such pottery was made from a heavily quartz tempered Nile clay fabric, often burnt/smoke-stained (Smith 1995: figs 3.7.G and 3.8.H; Smith 2003: fig. 5.19). Alternatives in the late MK and the SIP are Nubian cooking vessels, which cannot be discussed here due to space reasons, and a variety of other vessel types (Rzeuska 2013), but no other specific cooking vessel has been presented for Upper Egypt or other regions for this period (Schiestl & Seiler 2012: 743– 749), although unspecified ‘Upper Egyptian’ cooking pots are mentioned but hitherto not shown or described (Seiler 1999: 221; Ayers 2018: 71). Quantification of restricted bowls with folded rims The fragmentary preservation of restricted bowls with folded lips creates problems in their identification as cooking pots made from Nile E and other fabrics

Fig. 9. Spouted bowl (Nile B2) from Elephantine used as a cooking pot (after von Pilgrim 1996: fig. 159.s).

96

B. BADER

Fig. 10. a) Interiors of Nile E2 cooking pots from Phase G/3–1; b) section of K786/19397 Nile E2 cooking pot; c) interior of K1039/70016; d) exterior of K1039/70016; e–g) imported hole-mouth krater K1967/60156 (all photos by the author).

HIGH AND LOW CUISINE IN LATE MIDDLE KINGDOM EGYPT

97

Fig. 11. Vertical section of 1023/30816, Nile E2 (photo by the author).

(Nile B2 and C, rare complete profiles). This has an impact on the quantification, because not all rims are burnt or sooted, and even if they are, this may be derived from secondary use or post depositional processes. Although the assumption that all restricted rims with folded lips of Nile E2 belong to restricted bowls used as cooking vessels, touches the limits of quantitative pottery analysis, some such quantifications are detailed below, but the caveat has to be kept in mind. Quantitative considerations in the settlement of the late MK in Area A/II In the late MK settlement of Area A/II in Phases H to G/3–1, a considerable number of Nile E2 restricted bowl fragments were found. There was no complete example, but the percentage of smoke-blackening and sooting is at 65 % of all recorded restricted bowl rim fragments (using estimated vessel equivalents for quantification and summing them up, Orton et al. 1993: 171–173). Although the final quantification sorted into the three chronological phases has not been established, a lump number of all three phases together shows that of the entire random sample ~13 % is cooking pottery. Of all cooking pottery restricted bowls amount to c. 93 %, while flat-based straight-walled cooking

98

B. BADER

pottery constitutes c. 5–6 % and the other cooking pottery types only 1–2 % (Bader, in preparation). Quantitative considerations concerning the late MK and SIP The quantitative distribution of the rim fragments of presumed restricted cooking bowls with folded rims over Phases G/4 to D/2 achieved during earlier analyses of Tell el-Dab‘a and Kom Rabi‘a pottery, also yielded some results. Again the assumption was that all Nile E rim fragments belonged to cooking pots. Of the 119 randomly selected restricted bowl fragments at Tell el-Dab‘a used for the comparison, 48 were smoke-blackened/sooted (using estimated vessel equivalents), which equals 45.6 % covering the period of the late MK and the SIP. Interestingly, in Kom Rabi‘a only 26.7 % showed these signs of use (Bader 2009: n. 1339). This suggests either that at Kom Rabi‘a other vessels were used for cooking as well, or other factors such as the fragmentary state of preservation, different discard patterns, or different subsistence patterns bear on this result. The development of the frequency distribution of restricted cooking bowls in two types at Tell el-Dab‘a (Figs 2–5) is c. 10 % in the late MK decreasing to c. 3–4 % in the transition from the early to the late SIP (Phases E/3 and E/2), with another rise to about 9–11 % thereafter. All other cooking pot types are quite rare with percentages below 1 %. At Kom Rabi‘a the division according to the levels yielded a lower percentage of c. 0.5 % per level for the shoulderless type (cf. Figs 2–4) and 1–5 % for the shouldered type (Bader 2009: 540–541). This amount is in congruence with the final publication of the Kom Rabi‘a corpus, which further sub-divided the levels according to sectors (Bourriau & Gallorini 2016: 122–123, table 20). Possible precursors in Syria-Palestine and Egypt For Syria-Palestine some representative type sites were chosen to investigate whether possible precursors exist for the shape of restricted bowls with folded rims in Egypt (type 5, above). In Syria-Palestine large ‘hole-mouth jars’ with restricted rim, either direct or slightly thickened/trimmed lip, and a flat base were frequently found since the Early Bronze III–IV/Intermediate Bronze Age (e.g. Kochavi et al. 2000: figs 8.3.15–24 with red slip, 8.4.4–7, 8.4.17–23, 8.6.21–32) in morphological variants with various decorations (Amiran 1969: pl. 16.6, 78, fig. second row from top, 3rd and 2nd vessel from the right). None of these vessels seem to show any sooting. Nevertheless they were divided into storage and cooking jars, but based on their clay composition rather than on sooting marks (Kochavi et al. 2000: 107). The cooking pots used at Hazor in the Intermediate Bronze Age show a different design to hole-mouth jars and already then comprise gutter rims (Ben-Tor et al. 2017: 165–166, fig. 6.3).

HIGH AND LOW CUISINE IN LATE MIDDLE KINGDOM EGYPT

99

From a morphological point of view the rims [only!] of ‘deep hole-mouth kraters’ look similar to the Egyptian variants of restricted bowls and they are quite common, but unfortunately neither the manufacturing technology (chaîne opératoire) nor use-specific traits are described (Ben-Tor et al. 2017: 164–166, fig. 6.2.3–7). At Tell Arqa a vessel shape very reminiscent of globular cooking pots with upright rim is found in the Early Bronze Age IV, Phase P, which becomes elongated in the MBA Phase N (Thalmann 2006: vol. 1, 116, 128– 129, 145; vol. 2, pl. 53, 76–78.1–4, 93.5–6, 94.1–11), when some close parallels to Tell el-Dab‘a’s non-Egyptian cooking pots also appear (e.g. Thalmann 2006: pl. 94.11). The early ones were handmade. To summarise briefly, it seems that the ‘hole-mouth jars’ or ‘kraters’ known from the Early Bronze Age in SyriaPalestine may sometimes have a similar rim morphology, but the overall shape, where preserved, often differs: they have a more flaring shoulder than the earlier type of Egyptian restricted bowls with folded rims, the contour of which is without much of a shoulder. The pots actually used for cooking are already of an upright rim variety, where this can be stated with any certainty. However, the fragmentary state of cooking pottery makes hypotheses difficult. Looking for possible precursors for type 5 in the Old Kingdom and First Intermediate Period pottery corpora in Egypt, some feasible shapes can already be found in the 4th Dynasty, although many have spouts and they were found in tomb contexts, which makes it unlikely that these were actually used for cooking (Reisner & Smith 1955: figs 68–72, 79, 117 bottom row; according to Wodzińska 2007: 301 [CD 22] they are beer/bread basins and not used for cooking). At Kom el-Hisn, a settlement of the Old and Middle Kingdoms, some rim shapes made from Nile B1, B2 and C were found, which could have been precursors of the restricted bowl form, such as type 5 (large basin), type 9 (restricted bowl), and also types 15–16 (restricted bowls).27 They were all described as wheelmade, probably coiled and turned (Kroeper 2016: 265–267, figs 8.9–12, 8.14, 8.26–30). It seems that not even settlements yielded much pottery that was clearly used for cooking in the Old Kingdom, or at least the published pottery catalogues do not list any as such. Wodzińska’s type CD 25 from the 4th Dynasty settlement at Giza is made of Nile B2 and handmade, and with its thickened lip is a reasonable precursor to the shape, although it is thought to have been used in beer production (Wodzińska 2007: 303–304, fig. 11.29). Interestingly some were white slipped, while others were found in a bakery context. Less similar in shape (rim fragment) but with ‘burning marks’ is CD 24, red slipped and well burnished, but no specific function is mentioned for this type (Wodzińska 2007: 303, fig. 11.28).

27 A MK occupation at Kom el-Hisn has been suggested, which might support a MK date of these types.

100

B. BADER

Also at Giza large restricted vessels made from Nile E, variant B1, were retrieved from cemetery contexts. A parallel to the shape might be represented by rim fragments of type E2 spouted, flat-based basins (Hawass & Senussi 2008: 58–59, figs 57–64; 173, fig. I 65 Nile E, variant B2, red slipped, but also made of other fabrics; shapes not complete). The ceramic material at Saqqara, also a cemetery context, yielded some vats which were made from Nile E, coiled and turned, with traces of fire. Unfortunately, none of them were complete and their exact dating is not known. They were thought to belong to the 6th Dynasty (Rzeuska 2006: 324–325, Form 200; a similar shape was made from Nile B1: 320–323). None of these vessel fragments form compelling evidence for precursors of the restricted bowl with folded rim, and even less for them being used for cooking, but at least there is a long tradition in the overall rim morphology relating to restricted bowls with folded lips. The evidence from tomb scenes connected with baking and cooking in the Old Kingdom shows that several types of pottery may have been used as cooking pots (Faltings 1998: 57–58, bowls with flat base and carinated rim; 202–203, various deep bowls with folded rim and spouts, some used for cooking; 248–250, bowls with carinated rims, some folded). Already in the earliest phases of the early MK planned settlement at Tell el-Dab‘a precursors occur. While the material culture does not show much influence from Syria-Palestine (Czerny 1999: 110–111, 204), only 3 % of cooking pottery was found. It was made of a highly sand-tempered fabric, seen as precursor for the later fabric used for cooking (Czerny 1999: 54–55).28 This pottery falls into three classes by manufacturing technology: handmade, wheelturned and a mixed technology where the body was freely built by hand and the rim turned on a turning device. The body shape is deep and rounded and slightly restricted at the direct rim without a pronounced lip. No complete profile is preserved, but a rounded base is likely. All examples described in the publication were smoke-blackened (Czerny 1999: 173). Rare examples of more or less straight-sided cooking pot fragments from a non-Egyptian fabric were found (Czerny 1999: 109–111, 204, A1–A4), but they did not appear in the frequency distribution, thus they must have been extremely rare. These vessels differ from the flat-based, straight-walled cooking pottery (type 1, above) well known in Syria-Palestine in the MBA IIA and lack pre-firing holes or other decoration. However, the fabric is notably non-Egyptian and they were thought to be derived from contacts with nomadic people in the vicinity (Czerny 1999: pl. XXVII.A1–A2). Other restricted shapes were also found, but made from Nile B and C, which according to the description also sometimes showed 28 18 sherds belong to type Ng 97–100 (= 3 % of all sherds (sherd count)). The handmade pottery comprises types Nh1–10, 109 and 204.

HIGH AND LOW CUISINE IN LATE MIDDLE KINGDOM EGYPT

101

smoke-blackening, perhaps from cooking (Czerny 1999: 84–85, 174, Ng 107, charts 275–276).29 They resemble in some respects the restricted cooking bowls. The fact that cooking pottery is quite rare in the early planned settlement suggests either that the broken cooking pottery was dumped elsewhere and the excavation did not catch it, or that the need for cooking pottery was not great because the food was cooked (and eaten?) elsewhere. In the slightly later, planned settlement of Ezbet Rushdi, restricted bowls with heavy folded lip appear in strata equivalent to the earlier 12th Dynasty made from Nile E2, coiled and turned and with a white slip on the exterior (Czerny 2015: 345–346, fig. T102–T103), which attests to the early tradition of this type at the site before the interconnections with Syria-Palestine took off. One example of a restricted bowl with sooting marks was made from Nile C2 with a red discoloured slip (Czerny 2015: 293, fig. T48.41). A quantification was not undertaken, and thus frequencies of types cannot be discussed. Interestingly, in Elephantine Bauschicht 14–15, during the transition of the 11th to the 12th Dynasty, a coiled and turned bowl with spout and folded lip made from Nile B2 with sooting marks was found (Von Pilgrim 1996: fig. 159.s, 358) (Fig. 9). This vessel might represent a connection from the OK spouted vessels with folded rim to the restricted cooking bowls of later date. Of similar shape but without the spout are depictions of cooking pots used for a lexicographical study of the word psj ‘cooking’ (Verhoeven 1984: 7–14, 85–109, 110–118, 130–131, 150–154). Of course, more well contexted cooking pottery is necessary to fill the gap between the pictorial and archaeological evidence. Rare early MK tomb scenes show more or less open bowls of red/brown colour, in which joints of meat were cooked (e.g. Newberry 1893: pl. XII; Davies & Gardiner 1920: pl. VIII; Paice 1997: 13–15, fig. 19, the tomb of Antefoker). These vessels may well resemble some of those shown here. One particularly nice example (Fig. 12) of the late FIP/early MK found at Herakleopolis Magna shows a cooking scene in the lower register (Pérez Die 2009: 190–191). Two persons are depicted to the left and right of a cooking vessel on top of a cooking installation. The vessel is hemispherical with a visible lip (not restricted) and protruding from it are pieces of meat and fish. The person on the left holds a piece of meat or fish, while the other on the right tests with a stick whether the meat is cooked. The inscription on top of the scene reads “Look! It is cooking. Taking and roasting the meat” (Pérez Die 2009: 389). The vessel, the installation and the spaces between the pot and the installation are all coloured reddish brown without obvious fire or fire wood being visible, which may suggest that the cooking was done by means of heat derived from

29

The publication does not state which sherds were smoke-blackened or how many.

102

B. BADER

Fig. 12. Cooking scene on a limestone block found in the necropolis of the late First Intermediate Period/early Middle Kingdom at Herakleopolis Magna, now Egyptian Museum in Cairo JE 91095 (with permission of M.C. Pérez Die, after Pérez Die 2009: 19; photo by Ahmed Amin).

HIGH AND LOW CUISINE IN LATE MIDDLE KINGDOM EGYPT

103

coals (another option is the use of hot stones directly in the pot)30 rather than on an open fire. The installation, which Paice (1997: 15) calls a stove, has feet elevating it from the ground leaving some space below (also coloured reddish brown) and a hollow in the middle. Whether the installation should be imagined round with the walls drawn low on at least two or three sides (in the manner of three-legged stands (e.g. Aston & Aston 2010: pl. 42.364–365) but bigger and perhaps built from mud brick), or perhaps similar to the way of fire-dogs (e.g. Aston 1989), remains unclear from this evidence.31 Thus, ‘ethnographic’ evidence from tomb scenes in the MK/SIP is not frequent and does not allow many inferences about the type of pot used, the cooking process itself and the actual installation, namely the stove or hearth. Conclusions Currently it is not possible to write a comprehensive history of the use and development of cooking pots for most eras and regions in Egypt, because so little actual archaeological material with the necessary details is published. For the MK and SIP the evidence available at the moment highlights only some regions, namely the Delta, Kom Rabi‘a, and Elephantine. It is hoped that other sites will soon follow suit. So far there is no actual proof for the existence of restricted bowls with folded rims used as cooking pots made from the Egyptian fabrics Nile B or Nile C, because too few complete examples with sooting/burning marks are preserved. Because the cooking pot debate has often been connected in a simplistic way to the (ethnic) identity of the people who used them, this relation needs to be discussed. The line of development of the restricted bowls with folded rims and the comparison with Syria-Palestine has shown that the cultural background of this pottery type is much more likely to be found in Egypt.32 The evidence from Syria-Palestine overwhelmingly attests to a different type of vessel used for cooking in that region. Moreover, the quantity of restricted bowls as cooking vessels in contrast to pottery showing non-Egyptian influence is so high, so that the culture-historical narrative of Syro-Palestinian immigrants bringing their cooking pottery with them in high percentages is not tenable in the current scholarly discourse. Of course, other vessel types used for cooking at Tell elDab‘a show Syro-Palestinian influence, but they occur far less frequently. Thus, the presence of Syro-Palestinian traditional food cooked in these vessels 30 There is currently no evidence of the use of this cooking technique in Egypt, cf. Thornton 2016 for the process. 31 For a discussion of the feasibility of various cooking methods, cooking installations and fuel use with references, see Aston 2019. 32 Oren 2019: 264 for an independent development in the Levant and Egypt.

104

B. BADER

can be assumed, at least initially. The inhabitants of Tell el-Dab‘a do not seem to have chosen these types of cooking pots (types 1 to 3, see above) in the long run, as these cooking vessels disappear towards the end of the early SIP (after Phase E/3, see Fig. 13). This means that either the eating/cooking tradition for which this pottery was employed, died out, or was adjusted to the use of restricted cooking bowls, the only type in use during the late SIP. The position of the site of Tell el-Dab‘a in a liminal zone between Egypt and Syria-Palestine seems to have led to a unique peculiarity of material culture utilising and mixing traits from each of these traditions, certainly used by creative people from these areas acting as agents. Thus, it was an environment in which the people making pottery were influenced by multiple traditions, which merged in various ways over time, without being able to assign these craftspeople to a specific cultural tradition.33 The development of cooking pottery illustrates this nicely, as several cooking vessel types were in use for a period of time. For this reason, it seems wise not to equate the cultural background of the maker with the product, because it deprives the analyst of a wide range of interpretational possibilities. The finds of Egyptian-style cooking pottery in places like Fadous-Kfarabida, Sidon and Ashkelon and Haror, seem to prove that cooking pots were traded/ exchanged (without necessarily transferring food traditions or being evidence for Egyptians living in these places), although their low numbers hardly warrant an interpretation as a high frequency exchange commodity. On the other hand, there may still be many fragments that remain unidentified and therefore unreported. As a hypothesis it could be assumed that the Egyptian-style cooking pots in Syria-Palestine influenced the local tradition of cooking vessels, as the complete example from Megiddo (MBA IIB–C) and variations of it (Bonfil 2019: pl. 1.3.15) might indicate. However, in order to prove such a proposition many more examples would be necessary. With evidence for exportation of cooking pots to Syria-Palestine, the idea that Nile E restricted cooking bowls were also being traded down south has a certain justification, although it seems prudent to refrain from a final verdict until more settlements are excavated and published in full. For the south of Egypt there is still hardly any published evidence for cooking pottery that would have been used instead of the restricted cooking bowl with folded rim (apart from Nubian pottery). For this reason more research on cooking vessels has to be undertaken, until a final assessment can be reached.34

33 As the majority of the cooking pots derive from an Egyptian tradition, it would have to be assumed that they were made by Egyptians in the culture-historical way of thinking. 34 A beginning has been made to conduct more research into the habit of cooking, cf. Budka 2016; Budka et al. 2019.

HIGH AND LOW CUISINE IN LATE MIDDLE KINGDOM EGYPT

105

Previous short surveys of Egyptian cuisine, mainly based on NK tomb scenes, identified the presence of a ‘high’ and ‘low’ cuisine, the former largely defined by the presence of exotic foods from abroad, spices, and a number of cooking methods which differ from the food stuffs prepared and eaten by people of a lower social status (Goody 1982: 99–102; for food in general, see Darby et al. 1977). While it is not possible to specify the type of cuisine for the entire site of Tell el-Dab‘a with its various contexts ranging from palaces,

Fig. 13. Simplified chronological chart of the relative and absolute chronology in Egypt and Syria-Palestine (after Bietak et al. 2001: fig. 2).

106

B. BADER

temples, and elite housing to humble domestic housing through all phases, some more solid remarks can be made for the late MK settlement in Area A/II, given that all the data concerning this settlement were collected by the author.35 The structure, average finds and absence of most high status items (Bader 2020; in preparation) suggest that the cuisine in the late MK settlement in Area A/II should rather be regarded as belonging to the low cuisine. The type of food that was eaten, can only be surmised from the archaeobotanical and faunal remains found at the site, and it is currently not possible to know how they were prepared.36 Emmer wheat, wheat spelt and various clover species occur more frequently, with lesser amounts of mustard/runch, mallow, dock/sorrel, and date palms (Thanheiser 1987: 31–32, discussion 24–66). The faunal remains include cattle, sheep, goat, smaller quantities of pig, fish, birds, tortoises, river mussels and rare gazelle and rabbit (Boessneck & von den Driesch 1992: 68, table 2; 74, table 8; 134, table 80; 135, table 82). Some conjectures as to what was cooked in the restricted cooking bowls with folded rims can be gleaned from its slightly restricted shape. The rim diameters of this vessel type range from c. 15 cm (rare) to more than 40 cm in some cases. While the smallish vessels would not necessarily provide easy access, the larger ones do, which means that evaporation would be quite rapid. This facilitates to cook meals in need of thickening liquid and frequent stirring. It is also likely that most of the restricted bowls are about as deep as they are wide (although there are not many complete ones). Such a shape holds liquid longer and would be useful for food with high liquid content such as porridges, stews or broth (Villing & Spataro 2015: 6). Moreover, depictions in tomb scenes show meat/fish cuts sticking out of cooking pots (Fig. 12), so the pots could have served to boil meat and produce a broth. However, scientific analysis is needed to gain more insight and it is hoped that this will be possible in the future. With this I wish Stan ‘smakelijk eten!’ and many happy returns.

35 It would be an interesting project to compare archaeological remains of cuisine in the various context types. 36 It was not possible to conduct analyses on the cooking pots as this settlement was excavated from the 1960s to the 1980s.

HIGH AND LOW CUISINE IN LATE MIDDLE KINGDOM EGYPT

107

Table 1. Details of cooking pot vessel fragments shown in the article sherd no.

fabric

33942/1061 70800/2667 71738/4056 70040/1171

I.e.3 I.e.2 I.e.2 I.e.2

70888/2817

I.e.2

3002/71098

I.e.2

3002/71095

I.e.2

3002/71096

I.e.2

1039/70018 4285/71940

I.e.2 I.e.2

2667/70841 2497/70690 551/13540

I.e.2 I.e.2 I.e.2

482/10844

I.e.2

551/13538

I.e.2

867/20784

I.e.2

1134/41794

I.e.2

614/16838 842/19919

I.e.2 I.e.2

2667/70847 2667/70837 4056/71730

I.e.2 I.e.2 I.e.2

37

surface treatment

rim diam.37

pres. %

Phase

Uncoated Uncoated Uncoated White slipped rim in/out burnished White slip out/ rim in White slip out

40.0 30.0 15.0 32.0

0.12 0.13 0.06 0.07

G/3–1 G/3–1–F F G/3–1

Handmade Turned Turned Turned

1.a 1.b 1.c 1.d

11.0

0.18

G/3–1

Turned

1.e

27.0

0.07

G/4

25.5

0.06

G/4

Coiled+turned; 2.a rim trimmed with tool Coiled+turned 2.b

25.0

0.09

G/4

Coiled+turned

2.c

25.0 25.0

0.06 0.13

G/4–1 G/4

Coiled+turned Coiled+turned

2.d 2.e

24.0 24.0 21.0

0.03 0.10 0.04

G/3–1(-F) Coiled+turned (G/3–1)-F Coiled+turned G/3–1 Coiled+turned

2.f 2.g 3.a

26.0

0.09

G/3–1

Coiled+turned

3.b

28.0

0.05

G/3–1

24.0

0.08

G/3–1

Coiled+turned; 3.c rim trimmed with tool Coiled+turned 3.d

28.0

0.05

G/1–F

Coiled+turned

3.e

29.0 28.0?

0.12 0.09

G/3–1 G/3–1

Coiled+turned Coiled+turned

3.f 3.g

33.0 38.0 19.0

0.06 0.06 0.06

G/3–1(-F) Coiled+turned G/3–1(-F) Coiled+turned F Coiled+turned

4.a 4.b 4.c

White slip out/ rim in White slip out/ rim in White slip out White slip out/ rim in White slip out White slip out White slip out/ rim in White slip out/ rim in White slip out/ rim in White slip out/ rim in White slip out/ rim in White slip out White slip out/ rim in Uncoated Uncoated White slip out

Manufacture Fig.

The diameter measured represents the actual aperture of the vessel fragment.

108

B. BADER

4056/71724 4056/71741 2399/70417

I.e.2 I.e.2 I.e.2

2399/70418

I.e.2

3702/71595 3702/71591 3180/71238 3212/71287

I.e.2 I.e.2 I.e.1 I.e.2

1967/60156

IV

Uncoated White slip out White slip out/ rim in White slip out/ rim in Uncoated Uncoated Uncoated White slip out/ rim in Uncoated

15.0 31.0 19.0

0.33 0.13 0.05

F F E/3

Coiled+turned Coiled+turned Coiled+turned

4.d 4.e 5.a

19.0

0.07

E/3

Coiled+turned

5.b

25.0 26.0? 21.0 27.0

0.08 0.06 0.13 0.13

D/2 D/2 D/2 D/2

Turned Turned Turned Turned

5.c 5.d 5.e 5.f

16.0

0.09

G/3–1

Turned rim, eroded

Acknowledgements Research for this paper was conducted during the projects “Foreigners in Egypt: The Archaeology of Culture Contact in an Egyptian Settlement” (V147–G21) and “Beyond Politics: Material Culture in Second Intermediate Period Egypt and Nubia” (START project Y754–G19) funded by the Austrian Science Fund. I would like to thank David Aston and the editors for correcting the English and Roman Gundacker for drawing my attention to the book of U. Verhoeven. I would like to thank V. Müller for commenting on an earlier draft of this paper, and Carmen Pérez Die for providing the permission to use the photograph of a tomb scene found at Herakleopolis Magna in this article (Fig. 12). However, any mistakes are my own responsibility. This work was possible due to the kind collaboration of the Austrian Archaeological Institute directed by M. Bietak until 2009 and by I. Forstner-Müller since then.

Bibliography AMIRAN, R., 1969. Ancient pottery of the Holy Land: From its beginnings in the Neolithic period to the end of the Iron Age. Jerusalem. ARNOLD, D., 1982. Keramikbearbeitung in Dahschur 1976–1981. MDAIK 38: 25–65. ARNOLD, D. & ARNOLD, D., 1979. Der Tempel Qasr el-Sagha. AV 27. Mainz. ARNOLD, D.; ARNOLD, F. & ALLEN, S., 1995. Canaanite imports at Lisht, the Middle Kingdom capital of Egypt. Ä&L 5: 13–32. ASTON, D.A., 1989. Ancient Egyptian “Fire dogs”: A new interpretation. MDAIK 45: 27–32. ASTON, D.A., 2002. Ceramic imports at Tell el-Dab‘a during the Middle Bronze IIA [in:] BIETAK, M. (ed.), The Middle Bronze Age in the Levant. Proceedings of an International Conference on MB IIA Ceramic Material, Vienna, 24th–26th January 2001. CCEM 3; DGÖAW 26. Vienna: 43–87. ASTON, D.A., 2004. Tell el-Dab‘a 12: A corpus of late Middle Kingdom and Second Intermediate Period pottery. DGÖAW 28; UZK 23. Vienna. ASTON, D.A., 2016. Turning to the dark side: Fifteenth Dynasty black burnished ware [in:] BADER, B.; KNOBLAUCH, C.M. & KÖHLER E.C. (eds), Vienna 2: Ancient

8

HIGH AND LOW CUISINE IN LATE MIDDLE KINGDOM EGYPT

109

Egyptian ceramics in the 21st century. Proceedings of the International Conference held at the University of Vienna 14th–18th of May, 2012. OLA 245. Leuven: 1–26. ASTON, D.A., 2019. Hot water technology in ancient Egypt? A possible use for briquettes en terre cuite. BCÉ 29: 321–338. ASTON, D.A. & ASTON, B.G., 2010. Late Period pottery from the New Kingdom necropolis at Saqqara. EES EM 92. London. ASTON, D.A. & BADER, B., 2009. Fishes, ringstands, nudes and hippos: A preliminary report on the Hyksos palace pit complex L81. Ä&L 19: 18–89. AYERS, N.D., 2018. Pottery from the late Middle Kingdom through the Second Intermediate Period at Tell Edfu: The broader archaeological context of the Khyan sealings [in:] FORSTNER-MÜLLER, I. & MOELLER, N. (eds), The Hyksos ruler Khyan and the early Second Intermediate Period in Egypt: Problems and priorities of current research. Proceedings of the Workshop of the Austrian Archaeological Institute and the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, Vienna, July 4–5, 2014. JÖAI. Ergänzungsheft 17. Vienna: 57–82. BADER, B., 2001. Tell el-Dab‘a 13: Typologie und Chronologie der Mergel C-Ton Keramik: Materialien zum Binnenhandel des Mittleren Reiches und der Zweiten Zwischenzeit. DGÖAW 22; UZK 19. Vienna. BADER, B., 2009. Tell el-Dab‘a 19: Auaris und Memphis im Mittleren Reich und in der Hyksoszeit: Vergleichsanalyse der materiellen Kultur. DGÖAW 53; UZK 31. Vienna. BADER, B., 2010. Processing and analysis of ceramic finds at the Egyptian site of Tell el-Dab‘a/Avaris (“Eves” and other strange animals) [in:] HOREJS, B.; JUNG, R. & PAVÚK, P. (eds), Analysing pottery: Processing–classification–publication. Studia Archaeologica et Medievalia 10. Bratislava: 209–233. BADER, B., 2012. Migration in archaeology: An overview with a focus on ancient Egypt [in:] MESSER, M.; SCHROEDER, R. & WODAK, R. (eds), Migrations: Interdisciplinary perspectives. Vienna: 213–226. BADER, B., 2013a. Cultural mixing in Egyptian archaeology: The “Hyksos” as a case study. Archaeological Review from Cambridge 28 (1): 257–286. BADER, B., 2013b. Introduction: Functional aspects of Egyptian ceramics within their archaeological context [in:] BADER, B. & OWNBY, M.F. (eds), Functional aspects of Egyptian ceramics in their archaeological context. Proceedings of a Conference held at the McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge, July 24th–July 25th, 2009. OLA 217. Leuven: 1–27. BADER, B., 2017. Zwischen Text, Bild und Archäologie: Eine Problemdarstellung zur Konzeptualisierung von Kulturkontakten [in:] BECK, S.; BACKES, B. & VERBOVSEK, A. (eds), Interkulturalität: Kontakt–Konflikt–Konzeptualisierung. Beiträge des sechsten Berliner Arbeitskreises Junge Aegyptologie (BAJA 6), 13.11.–15.11.2015. GOF 63. Wiesbaden: 13–34. BADER, B., 2020. Tell el-Dab‘a 24: The late Middle Kingdom settlement of Area A/II: A holistic study of non-elite inhabitants of Tell el-Dab‘a, Vol. 1: The excavations of 1966 to 1969. DGÖAW 85; UZK 39. Vienna. BADER, B., in preparation. Tell el-Dab‘a 24: The late Middle Kingdom settlement of Area A/II: A holistic study of non-elite inhabitants of Tell el-Dab‘a, Vol. 2. The excavations of 1975 to 1985. BECK, P., 1975. The pottery of the Middle Bronze Age IIA at Tel Aphek. Tell Aviv 2: 45–85. BECK, P., 1985. The Middle Bronze Age IIA pottery from Aphek, 1972–1984: First summary. Tell Aviv 12: 181–203.

110

B. BADER

BEN-AMI, D. & LIVNEH, A., 2005. The typological analysis of the pottery of the Middle and Late Bronze Ages [in:] BEN-TOR, A.; BEN-AMI, D. & LIVNEH, A. (eds), Yogne‘am 3: The Middle and Late Bronze Ages: Final report of the archaeological excavations (1977–1988). Qedem Reports 7. Jerusalem: 247–348. BEN-DOR, I., 1950. A Middle Bronze Age temple at Nahariya. Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities of Palestine 14: 1–41. BEN-TOR, A.; ZUCKERMAN, S.; BECHAR, S. & SANDHAUS, D., 2017. Hazor 7: The 1990–2012 excavations: The Bronze Age. Jerusalem. BIETAK, M., 1991a. Egypt and Canaan during the Middle Bronze Age. BASOR 281: 28–72. BIETAK, M., 1991b. Tell el-Dab‘a 5: Ein Friedhofsbezirk der Mittleren Bronzezeitkultur mit Totentempel und Siedlungsschichten. DGÖAW 9; UZK 8. Vienna. BIETAK, M., 1996. Avaris, the capital of the Hyksos: Recent excavations at Tell elDab‘a. London. BIETAK, M.; DORNER, J. & JÁNOSI, P., 2001. Ausgrabungen im Palastbezirk von Avaris: Vorbericht Tell el-Dab‘a/‘Ezbet Helmi 1993–2000. Ä&L 11: 27–119. BIETAK, M. & KOPETZKY, K., 2012. The Egyptian pottery of the Second Intermediate Period from northern Sinai and its chronological significance [in:] GRUBER, M.; AḤITUV, S.; LEHMANN, G. & TALSHIR, Z. (eds), All the wisdom of the east: Studies in Near Eastern archaeology and history in honor of Eliezer D. Oren. OBO 255. Freiburg: 105–127. BOESSNECK, J. & VON DEN DRIESCH, A., 1992. Tell el-Dab‘a 7: Tiere und historische Umwelt im Nordost-Delta im 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr. anhand der Knochenfunde der Ausgrabungen 1975–1986. DGÖAW 11; UZK 10. Vienna. BONFIL, R., 2019. Middle Bronze Age IIB–C [in:] GITIN, S. (ed.), The ancient pottery of Israel and its neighbours from the Middle Bronze Age through the Late Bronze Age. Volume 3. Jerusalem: 77–136. BOURRIAU, J.; NICHOLSON, P. & ROSE, P., 2000. Pottery [in:] NICHOLSON, P. & SHAW, I. (eds), Ancient Egyptian materials and technology. Cambridge: 121–147. BOURRIAU, J. & QUIRKE, S., 1998. The late Middle Kingdom ceramic repertoire in words and objects [in:] QUIRKE, S. (ed.) Lahun Studies. [Reigate]: 60–83. BOURRIAU, J. & GALLORINI, C., 2016. The survey of Memphis 8: Kom Rabi’a: The Middle Kingdom and Second Intermediate Period pottery. EES EM 108. London. BRONITSKY, G. & HAMER, R., 1986. Experiments in ceramic technology: The effects of various tempering materials on impact and thermal-shock resistance. American Antiquity 51(1): 89–101. BUDKA, J., 2016. Egyptian cooking pots from the Pharaonic town of Sai Island, Nubia. BCÉ 26: 285–295. BUDKA, J.; GEIGER, C.; HEINDL, P.; HINTERHUBER, V. & RESCHREITER, H., 2019. The question of fuel for cooking in ancient Egypt and Sudan. EXARC Journal 2019(1): https://exarc.net/ark:/88735/10398. COLE, D.P., 1984. Shechem 1: The Middle Bronze IIB pottery. ASOR Excavation Reports. Cambridge. CZERNY, E., 1999. Tell el-Dab‘a 9: Eine Plansiedlung des frühen Mittleren Reiches. DGÖAW 16; UZK 15. Vienna. CZERNY, E., 2015. Tell el-Dab‘a 22: „Der Mund der beiden Wege“: Die Siedlung und der Tempelbezirk des Mittleren Reiches von Ezbet Ruschdi. DGÖAW 77; UZK 38. Vienna. DARBY, W.J.; GHALIOUNGUI, P. & GRIVETTI, L., 1977. Food: The gift of Osiris. London.

HIGH AND LOW CUISINE IN LATE MIDDLE KINGDOM EGYPT

111

DAVIES, N.d.G. & GARDINER, A., 1920. The tomb of Antefoḳer, vizier of Sesostris I, and of his wife, Senet (no. 60). TTS 2. London. FALCONER, S.E. & FALL, P.L., 2006. Bronze Age rural ecology and village life at Tell el-Hayyat, Jordan. BAR. International Series 1586. Oxford. FALTINGS, D., 1998. Die Keramik des Lebenmittelproduktion im Alten Reich: Archäologie und Gebrauch eines Gebrauchartikels. SAGA 14. Heidelberg. FORSTNER-MÜLLER, I., 2007. The colonization/urbanization of the Tell Area A/II at Tell el-Dab‘a and its chronological implications. Ä&L 17: 83–95. FORSTNER-MÜLLER, I. & MÜLLER, W., 2013. Function and reuse of pottery within a Middle Kingdom baking area in Syene/Aswan [in:] BADER, B. & OWNBY, M.F. (eds), Functional aspects of Egyptian ceramics in their archaeological context. Proceedings of a Conference held at the McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge, July 24th–July 25th, 2009. OLA 217. Leuven: 99–117. GALLORINI, C., 1998. Incised marks on pottery and other objects from Kahun: Systems of communication in Egypt during the late Middle Kingdom. London (Unpubl. PhD dissertation, University College London). GENZ, H., 2010–2011. Middle Bronze Age pottery from Tell Fadous–Kfarabida, Lebanon. Berytus 53–54: 115–132. GOODY, J., 1982. Cooking, cuisine and class: A study in comparative sociology. Themes in the social Sciences. Cambridge. GUY, P.L.O., 1938. Megiddo tombs. OIP 33. Chicago. HALLY, D.J., 1986. The identification of vessel function: A case study from northwest Georgia. American Antiquity 51(2): 267–295. HAWASS, Z. & SENUSSI, A., 2008. Old Kingdom pottery from Giza. Cairo. HEIN, I. (ed.), 1994. Pharaonen und Fremde: Dynastien im Dunkel. 194. Sonderausstellung des Historischen Museums der Stadt Wien in Zusammenarbeit mit dem Ägyptologischen Institut der Universität Wien und dem Österreichischen Archäologischen Institut Kairo, Rathaus Wien, Volkshalle, 8. Sept.–23. Okt. 1994. Vienna. HEIN, I. & JÁNOSI, P., 2004. Tell el-Dab‘a 9: Areal A/V Siedlungsrelikte der späten 2. Zwischenzeit. DGÖAW 25; UZK 21. Vienna. HOLLADAY, J.S., 1997. The eastern Nile Delta during the Hyksos and Pre-Hyksos periods: Toward a systemic/socioeconomic understanding [in:] OREN, E.D. (ed.), The Hyksos: New historical and archaeological perspectives. University Museum Symposium Series 8; University Museum Monograph 96. Philadelphia: 183–252. HUBSCHMANN, C., 2010. Searching for the “archaeologically invisible”: Libyans in Dakhleh Oasis in the Third Intermediate Period. JARCE 46: 173–187. ILAN, D. & MARCUS, E., 2019. Middle Bronze Age IIB–C [in:] GITIN, S. (ed.), The ancient pottery of Israel and its neighbours from the Middle Bronze Age through the Late Bronze Age. Volume 3. Jerusalem: 9–75. INSOLL, T., 2007. The archaeology of identities: A reader. London. JACQUET-GORDON, H., 1990. Karnak-Nord. BCÉ 14: 14–17. JACQUET-GORDON, H., 2012. Karnak-Nord 10  : Le trésor de Thoutmosis Ier: La céramique. FIFAO 65. Cairo. JAUSS, C., 2018. Cooking techniques and the role of cooks in an early urban society: Vessel analysis, experiment, archaeological context and texts. Zeitschrift für Orient-Archäologie 11: 180–196. JONES, S., 1997. The archaeology of ethnicity: Constructing identities in the past and present. London.

112

B. BADER

KLASSEN, S., 2015. MB II flat-bottomed handmade cooking pots from Wadi Tumilat: A useful chronological marker or an indicator of technical style? [in:] HARRISON, T.P.; BANNING, E.B. & KLASSEN, S. (eds), Walls of the Prince: Egyptian interactions with southwest Asia in Antiquity. Essays in honour of John S. Holladay, Jr. CHANE 77. Leiden: 11–36. KOCHAVI, M.; BECK, P. & YADIN, E., 2000. Aphek-Antipatris 1: Excavations of Areas A and B: The 1972–1976 seasons. Tel Aviv. KOCHAVI, M. & YADIN, E., 2002. Typological analysis of the MBIIA pottery from Aphek according to the stratigraphic provenance [in:] BIETAK, M. (ed.), The Middle Bronze Age in the Levant. Proceedings of an International Conference on MB IIA Ceramic Material, Vienna, 24th–26th January 2001. CCEM 3; DGÖAW 26. Vienna: 189–225. KOPETZKY, K., 2004. Typologische Bemerkungen zur Siedlungskeramik von A/V–p/19 [in:] HEIN, I. & JÁNOSI, P. (eds), Tell el-Dab‘a 11: Areal A/V Siedlungsrelikte der späten 2. Zwischenzeit. DGÖAW 25; UZK 21. Vienna: 237–335. KOPETZKY, K., 2010. Tell el-Dab‘a 20: Die Chronologie der Siedlungskeramik der Zweiten Zwischenzeit aus Tell el-Dab‘a. DGÖAW 62; UZK 32. Vienna. KOPETZKY, K., 2010–2011. Egyptian pottery from the Middle Bronze Age in Lebanon. Berytus 53–54: 167–179. KROEPER, K., 2016. A selection of ceramic types found at Kom el-Hisn [in:] WENKE, R.J.; REDDING, R.W. & CAGLE, A.J. (eds), Kom el-Hisn (ca. 2500– 1900 BC): An ancient settlement in the Nile Delta of Egypt. Atlanta: 263–293. LIS, B., 2015. From cooking pots to cuisine: Limitations and perspectives of a ceramicbased approach [in:] VILLING, A. & SPATARO, M. (eds), Ceramics, cuisine and culture: The archaeology and science of kitchen pottery in the ancient Mediterranean world. Oxford: 104–114. MAHMUD, N.A.; FARIS, G.; SCHIESTL, R. & RAUE, D., 2008. Pottery of the Middle Kingdom and the Second Intermediate Period from Heliopolis. MDAIK 64: 189– 205. MATIĆ, U., 2017. Der dritte Raum, Hybridität und das Niltal: Das epistemologische Potenzial der postkolonialen Theorie in der Ägyptologie [in:] BECK, S.; BACKES, B. & VERBOVSEK, A. (eds), Interkulturalität: Kontakt–Konflikt–Konzeptualisierung. Beiträge des sechsten Berliner Arbeitskreises Junge Aegyptologie (BAJA 6), 13.11.–15.11.2015. GOF 63. Wiesbaden: 93–111. MILLET, M., 2007. Architecture civile antérieure au Nouvel Empire : Rapport préliminaire des fouilles archéologiques à l’est du lac Sacré, 2001–2003. Cahiers de Karnak 12: 681–743. MÜLLER, V., 2002. Offering practices in the temple courts of Tell el-Dab‘a and the Levant [in:] BIETAK, M. (ed.), The Middle Bronze Age in the Levant. Proceedings of an International Conference on MB IIA Ceramic Material, Vienna, 24th– 26th January 2001. CCEM 3; DGÖAW 26. Vienna: 269–295. MÜLLER, V., 2008. Tell el-Dab‘a 17: Opferdeponierungen in der Hyksoshauptstadt Auaris (Tell el-Dab‘a) vom späten Mittleren Reich bis zum frühen Neuen Reich. Teil I: Auswertung und Deutung der Befunde und Funde. DGÖAW 45; UZK 29. Vienna. NEWBERRY, P.E., 1893. Beni Hasan I. ASE 1. London. NORDSTRÖM, H.-Å & BOURRIAU, J., 1993. Ceramic technology: Clays and fabrics [in:] ARNOLD, D. & BOURRIAU, J. (eds), An introduction to ancient Egyptian pottery. SDAIK 17. Mainz am Rhein: 143–190.

HIGH AND LOW CUISINE IN LATE MIDDLE KINGDOM EGYPT

113

OREN, E.D., 1997. The “Kingdom of Sharuhen” and the Hyksos Kingdom [in:] OREN, E.D. (ed.), The Hyksos: New historical and archaeological perspectives. University Museum Symposium Series 8; University Museum Monograph 96. Philadelphia: 251–283. OREN, E.D., 2019. Middle Bronze Age II–Late Bronze Age II Egyptian and Egyptian type pottery [in:] GITIN, S. (ed.), The ancient pottery of Israel and its neighbours from the Middle Bronze Age through the Late Bronze Age. Volume 3. Jerusalem: 259–338. ORTON, C.; TYERS, P. & VINCE, A., 1993. Pottery in archaeology. Cambridge Manuals in Archaeology. Cambridge. PAICE, P., 1997. The pottery of daily life in ancient Egypt. The Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities: Studies 5. Missisauga. PAPE, A., 1991. Keramik – eine schwierige Quelle: Interdisziplinäre Methoden ihrer Erforschung. ZÄS 118(1): 54–68. PÉREZ DIE, M.C., 2009. Fragmento de pared de una tumba [in:] PÉREZ DIE, M.C. & AL-SADDIK, W. (eds), 120 años de arqueología española en Egipto. Madrid: 190– 191, 381. REDMOUNT, C.A., 1989. On an Egyptian/Asiatic frontier: An archaeological history of Wadi Tumilat. Chicago (Unpubl. PhD dissertation, University of Chicago). REISNER, G. & SMITH, W.S., 1955. A history of the Giza necropolis 2: The tomb of Hetep-heres the mother of Khufu. Cambridge. RZEUSKA, T., 2006. Saqqara 2: Pottery of the late Old Kingdom: Funerary pottery and burial customs. Warsaw. RZEUSKA, T., 2013. Dinner is served: Remarks on Middle Kingdom cooking pots from Elephantine [in:] BADER, B. & OWNBY, M.F. (eds), Functional aspects of Egyptian ceramics in their archaeological context. Proceedings of a Conference held at the McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge, July 24th– July 25th, 2009. OLA 217. Leuven: 73–97. SCHIESTL, R. & SEILER, A., 2012. Handbook of the pottery of the Egyptian Middle Kingdom 1: The corpus volume. CCEM 31(1); DGÖAW 72(1). Vienna. SEILER, A., 1999. Zur Formentwicklung der Keramik der 2. Zwischenzeit und der frühen 18. Dynastie. MDAIK 55: 204–224. SINOPOLI, C.M., 1991. Approaches to archaeological ceramics. New York. ŚLIWA, J., 1987–1988. Qasr el-Sagha: Studies on the Middle Kingdom and Second Intermediate Period settlement in 1979–1985. Fontes Archaeologici Posnanienses 36: 189–216. SMITH, S.T., 1995. Askut in Nubia: The economics and ideology of Egyptian imperialism in the second millennium B.C. Studies in Egyptology. London. SMITH, S.T., 2003. Wretched Kush: Ethnic identities and boundaries in Egypt’s Nubian empire. London. STAGER, L.E. & VOSS, R., 2011. Egyptian pottery in Middle Bronze Age Ashkelon. Eretz Israel 30: 119*–126*. STAGER, L.E. & VOSS, R., 2019a. Egyptian pottery found in Middle Bronze Age Ashkelon [in:] STAGER, L.E.; SCHLOEN, D. & VOSS, R.J (eds), Ashkelon 6: The Middle Bronze Age ramparts and gates of the north slope and later fortification. Final reports of the Leon Levy expedition to Ashkelon. Philadelphia: 237– 243. STAGER, L.E. & VOSS, R., 2019b. The Middle Bronze Age pottery of Ashkelon [in:] STAGER, L.E.; SCHLOEN, D. & VOSS, R.J (eds), Ashkelon 6: The Middle Bronze

114

B. BADER

Age ramparts and gates of the north slope and later fortification. Final reports of the Leon Levy expedition to Ashkelon. Philadelphia: 117–207. THALMANN, J.-P., 2006. Tell Arqa 1  : Les niveaux de l’âge du Bronze. Bibliothèque archéologique et historique de l’Institut français d’archéologie du Proche-Orient : Beyrouth-Damas-Amman 177. Beyrouth. THANHEISER, U., 1987. Untersuchungen zur ägyptischen Landwirtschaft in Dynastischer Zeit anhand von Pflanzenresten aus Tell el-Dab‘a. Vienna (Unpubl. PhD dissertation, University of Vienna). THORNTON, J., 2016. Cooking in baskets using hot rocks. EXARC Journal 2016(3): https://exarc.net/ark:/88735/10256. TUFNELL, O., 1969. The pottery from royal tombs I–III at Byblos. Berytus 18: 5–33. VERHOEVEN, U., 1984. Grillen, Kochen, Backen im Alltag und im Ritual Altägyptens: Ein lexikographischer Beitrag. Rites égyptiens 4. Brussels. VILLING, A. & SPATARO, M., 2015. Investigating ceramics, cuisine and culture: Past, present and future [in:] SPATARO, M. & VILLING, A. (eds), Ceramics, cuisine and culture: The archaeology and science of kitchen pottery in the ancient mediterranean world. Oxford: 1–25. VON PILGRIM, C., 1996. Elephantine 18: Untersuchungen in der Stadt des Mittleren Reiches und der Zweiten Zwischenzeit. AV 91. Mainz am Rhein. WALLACE-JONES, S., 2018. Egyptian and imported pottery from the Red Sea port of Mersa Gawasis, Egypt. Archaeopress Egyptology 20. Oxford. WEGNER, J., 2007. The mortuary temple of Senwosret III at Abydos. Publications of the Pennsylvania-Yale Expedition to Egypt 8. New Haven. WODZIŃSKA, A., 2007. Preliminary ceramic report [in:] LEHNER, M. (ed.), Giza reports 1: Project history, survey, ceramics and Main Street and Gallery III.4 operations. Boston: 283–324. YASUR-LANDAU, A., 2010. The Philistines and Aegean migration at the end of the Late Bronze Age. Cambridge.

Postscript Zukerman (2014: 116–117) maintains that all restricted bowls were derived from the Syro-Palestinian tradition and assigns them to foreign influences. The reason for local production he sees in the higher costs of large scale import of cooking pots. However, he overlooks the change of assignation of rectricted bowls from the Syro-Palestinian to the Egyptian style pottery corpus i.a. due to the finds of early precursers at Ezbet Rushdi (cf. Bader 2012; Bietak & Kopetzky 2012; Schiestl & Seiler 2012; Czerny 2015) and the subtle differences described above. For this reason his general conclusions need to be revised. His interpretation of incised bread moulds will be discussed in another paper. ZUKERMAN, A., 2014. Baking trays in the second millennium BCE Levant and Egypt: Form, function and cultural significance. Syria 91: 99–125.

RETOUR À ADAÏMA POUR UN POINT DE CHRONOLOGIE NATHALIE BUCHEZ Inrap Hauts-de-France, Glisy / UMR 5608 TRACES, Toulouse, France

C’est au moment où les tombes les plus anciennes de la nécropole d’Adaïma furent mises au jour que mon chemin croisa pour la première fois celui de Stan Hendrickx, plus particulièrement investi à cette époque dans les questions ayant trait à la chronologie du Prédynastique. Trente ans après, nos hypothèses d’alors concernant le faciès chronologique représenté par ces tombes—et par les assemblages céramiques les plus anciens de l’habitat—sont à reconsidérer. Au regard des données récemment publiées, il est désormais envisageable de mettre en parallèle l’émergence des installations humaines dans la plaine d’Adaïma avec les débuts de la culture de Naqada, ce qui ne va pas sans rendre discutable le modèle d’une culture se développant à partir d’un noyau initial dans la région de Naqada-Mahasna.

Introduction En 2002 sortait la publication, à laquelle collabora Stan Hendrickx, des tombes fouillées depuis 1990 à Adaïma (Crubézy et al. 2002). Sur la base des mobiliers céramiques, les tombes les plus anciennes de ce que nous avons appelé « la nécropole de l’Ouest » furent alors attribuées à la fin de la période Naqada I. La reprise, dans le cadre d’un travail de thèse (Buchez 2008), de l’ensemble des données issues tant des nécropoles (de l’Ouest et de l’Est)1 que de l’habitat explorés entre 1989 et 2005 contribua à faire émerger l’hypothèse que l’encrage des implantations humaines dans la plaine d’Adaïma pouvait être antérieure. La proposition reposait sur la mise en évidence d’un faciès céramique2 représenté aussi bien dans quelques tombes—dont celles publiées en 2002—qu’à la base des séquences d’occupation sur l’habitat et caractérisé par des formes considérées ailleurs comme plus caractéristiques des phases anciennes de la période Naqada I. Toutefois, c’est seulement à l’issue des travaux de Rita Hartmann (2016) 1

De cette dernière, fondée plus tardivement, à la période Naqada (IIC)–IID, il ne sera pas question ici. 2 Nous parlerons ici de faciès morpho-stylistiques en dehors de toute approche technique globale. La démarche consistant à analyser les mobiliers céramiques à travers le concept des chaînes opératoires en préalable de la définition de groupes techno-stylistiques, incluant formes et décors, n’a été que très récemment appliquée au domaine prédynastique (Bajeot & Roux 2019). Jusque-là—et ce sera le cas dans cette présentation—seuls certains aspects techniques étaient pris en compte dont notamment les matériaux. Si l’étude de Renée Friedman (1994) sur les pâtes a démontré tout l’intérêt des approches considérant les modes de fabrication, une étude plus globale, susceptible d’éclairer la genèse et des premiers développements de la culture naqadienne, reste à entreprendre.

116

N. BUCHEZ

sur les ensembles céramiques du Cimetière U d’Abydos et suite aux nouvelles approches appliquées aux séries de datations isotopiques (Dee et al. 2013) que cette proposition s’est trouvée plus solidement étayée. Le présent volume offert à Stan est l’occasion d’un retour à Adaïma, quelques 30 ans après la fouille de la tombe S55, vraisemblable élément fondateur de la nécropole (Crubézy 2017), pour reprendre le dossier des mobiliers Naqada I de ce site qui n’ont été que partiellement publiés. Le faciès Naqada I d’Adaïma, les tombes Ce faciès chronologique a été défini à partir des mobiliers provenant d’une dizaine d’ensembles funéraires découverts sur la nécropole de l’Ouest (cf. notamment les tombes S55, S28 et S42, publiées en 2002, Crubézy et al. 2002 : 140, 87, 120) et sur l’habitat (9000-U2-13b, 4001/21d ; Fig. 1). La sépulture de nouveau-né 9000-U2-13b, étroitement liée et sous-jacente à une aire cendreuse fortement anthropisée définissant une unité d’habitat, contenait, outre un peigne zoomorphe en ivoire et un vase en pierre légèrement renflé à pied et anse vertical, deux céramiques à bord noir, tronconiques et à paroi légèrement curviligne du même type que celle issue de la tombe 28 de la nécropole de l’Ouest (Fig. 1). Ce qui a été enregistré en 4001/21d correspond à un petit gobelet et à un micro-vase en pâte fine à bord noir trouvés associés à la base de l’une des plus vastes accumulations anthropiques repérées dans la plaine d’Adaïma : le secteur 1001 localisé à 200 m de la précédente unité (Midant-Reynes & Buchez 2002). De telles céramiques de petite dimension étant privilégiées dans les sépultures d’enfant (Buchez 1998), il est légitime de se demander s’il ne s’agit pas là des éléments d’un dépôt funéraire de nouveauné remanié. Le petit gobelet, tronconique, est également proche du vase découvert dans la tombe 28 de la nécropole de l’Ouest. L’une des formes caractéristiques de ce groupe de tombes est donc le vase à bord noir (« Black Top » de la classification Petrie, 1921) à paroi oblique et fond plat (Fig. 1). Des types peuvent être différenciés sur la base du caractère plus ou moins trapu et ouvert, les parois étant soit quasiment rectilignes, soit légèrement convexes, plus rarement faiblement sinueuses. Les meilleures parallèles s’établissent avec les types Petrie B18-, B19-, B22o (et B29b ?). Le micro-vase 4001/21d se distingue par son fond, aplati et marqué par une arête à la base de la paroi, qui n’est pas sans rappeler certaines morphologies de vases badariens (Brunton & Caton-Thompson 1928 : pl. XII.31e–t). Les assemblages funéraires comprennent aussi des céramiques à surfaces rouges polies (« Polished Red » de la classification Petrie). Il s’agit alors de petites formes en coupelle que l’on peut qualifier de semi-sphériques (Fig. 1), même si plusieurs types plus ou moins profonds peuvent être distingués, et d’une catégorie relativement spécifique d’un point de vue stylistique puisqu’elle

RETOUR À ADAÏMA POUR UN POINT DE CHRONOLOGIE

117

est caractérisée par un profil caréné (Fig. 1). Des formes à profil évasé sinueux, rectiligne ou légèrement convexe et alors marqué par une inflexion dans sa partie haute, sont également représentées (Fig. 1). Pour les profils carénés, une concordance avec le type Petrie P7 peut être établie tandis que les petites formes curvilignes, semi sphériques sont comparables aux types P1a, c. Pour les profils évasés, il faut chercher des parallèles parmi les séries P15, P17 et P19. Une forme ovale, découverte en un exemplaire, peut correspondre au type F12c. Les trois céramiques décorées issues de la tombe S55 (Fig. 1 et Crubézy et al. 2002 : 140) qui complètent ce faciès sont spécifiques à cet ensemble et sans parallèle connu considérant le matériau (à dégraissant végétal fin), la forme (en tonnelet et destinée à être fermée par un couvercle conique) et le décor (motif en zigzag réalisé postérieurement à la cuisson) associés. Le faciès Naqada I d’Adaïma, l’habitat De façon générale, i.e. quelles que soient les séquences stratigraphiques étudiées, la question de l’homogénéité des assemblages se pose, l’activité des animaux et des hommes occasionnant inévitablement des brassages, mais le phénomène est particulièrement marqué lorsque le contexte sédimentaire est un sable fluide. Si les accumulations anthropiques découvertes en différents points de la bande sableuse qui constitue la plaine d’Adaïma se sont indéniablement constituées dans la durée, rien n’y était lisible : ni la succession des apports anthropiques et naturels, ni les remaniements ultérieurs, et encore moins les phénomènes érosifs responsables d’éventuels hiatus. La fouille n’a pu être conduite que par passe arbitraire, seule l’analyse des ensembles céramiques permettant, au travers d’une approche quantitative, de restituer, dans une certaine mesure, la stratigraphie. Les assemblages domestiques d’Adaïma sont ainsi nécessairement hétérogènes. D’un secteur fouillé à l’autre, le spectre reconnu à la base des séquences d’occupation est globalement similaire et constitué de mobiliers que l’on retrouve au sein des tombes distribuées sur les phases Naqada I à Naqada IIB. Les légères variations observées sont déterminées par l’importance quantitative des mobiliers les plus anciens, de datation Naqada I, au sein des assemblages ce qui laisse à penser que les durées d’occupation par période ont pu varier d’un secteur à l’autre. Toutefois, la forme de l’occupation durant les phases anciennes de la période naqadienne (permanente ? cyclique ?, selon quelles modalités ?) n’étant pas établie (Buchez 2008), cela ne signifie pas nécessairement que l’implantation a été plus précoce en certains points de la frange désertique d’Adaïma. La part ancienne de ces assemblages est notamment constituée, en parallèle des ensembles funéraires, de formes carénées rouges polies et de poteries à paroi oblique ou éversée, rouges polies à bord noir (Fig. 2.1–2). On relèvera que ces

118

N. BUCHEZ

dernières sont aussi représentées sans bord noir (Fig. 2.2). Soit le corpus des tombes, peu conséquent, n’est pas représentatif, soit les vases à bord noir ont été privilégiés dans les dépôts funéraires, cette seconde hypothèse étant la plus probante dans la mesure où les mêmes différences sont observées pour la phase Naqada II. La catégorie des « Shale Ware », presque totalement absente des tombes, complète les assemblages domestiques (Fig. 2.3), représentant en moyenne 30 % des effectifs (évaluation pour la fourchette Naqada I–IIB, les pourcentages pour le Naqada I ne pouvant être précisés).3 À l’exception d’un petit nombre d’exemples dont certains, obliques ou éversés, peuvent apparaître comme des imitations des séries à surfaces rouges polies (Fig. 2.3), les bords répertoriés proviennent majoritairement de formes similaires dont on peut se faire une idée au travers des quelques vases découverts en position fonctionnelle dans l’habitat (utilisé secondairement comme structure de stockage ou de calage). Il s’agit essentiellement de formes ovoïdes à fond rond et à paroi légèrement rentrante ou peu évasée, de toutes dimensions. Les vases entiers portent presque tous des dépôts en faveur d’une utilisation primaire comme pot à cuire, ce qui peut expliquer leur exclusion du domaine funéraire (Buchez 2004). Les phénomènes de migration des tessons en contexte sableux et les remaniements hypothèquent largement toute possibilité de situer en chronologie relative les catégories céramiques représentées par de faibles effectifs, et donc notamment les mobiliers pouvant témoigner d’échanges. Je me contenterai donc de constater que certains vestiges ont plus particulièrement été recueillis à la base des accumulations anthropiques : soit les fragments de poterie à décor peint en blanc (catégorie « White Cross-lined » de la classification Petrie, Fig. 2.4) et ceux à décor peint en rouge, en rehaut sur une surface crème polie (Fig. 2.5), mais aussi un groupe de vases à cuire très différent des « Shale Ware » (Fig. 2.6). Les céramiques à décor rouge sur fond crème se rapprochent morphologiquement des productions rouges polies Naqada I. En dehors d’un éventuel élément de ronde-bosse, il s’agit de petites coupelles évasées ou convexes à fond rond. Les décors répertoriés sont des tracés digités horizontaux obliques ou verticaux, plutôt rectilignes mais parfois légèrement sinueux qui affectent la paroi externe des vases, un bandeau rouge pouvant courir sur le rebord de ceux-ci. Ce qui peut être considéré comme une catégorie de pots à cuire—les formes simples fermées et sans lèvre individualisée sont souvent associées à des dépôts carbonées—se différencie des productions locales par la pâte (à dégraissant végétal fin) et l’aspect non poli et « gratté » de la surface.

3 L’évaluation est d’autant moins aisée que cette catégorie ne disparaît pas totalement. À Adaïma comme à Eléphantine (Kopp 2006) ou à Elkab (Claes et al. 2020) elle est attestée jusque fin Naqada III.

RETOUR À ADAÏMA POUR UN POINT DE CHRONOLOGIE

119

Éléments de comparaison et de discussion Les vases à bord noir à paroi oblique ou légèrement convexe qui apparaissent dans quelques tombes de la nécropole de l’Ouest et au sein de dépôts funéraires associés à des nouveau-nés sur l’habitat trouvent des parallèles avec les mobiliers de la phase Ia du Cimetière U d’Abydos (Hartmann 2016), soit plutôt avec les phases Naqada IA à Naqada IB de la chronologie traditionnelle, même si la concordance n’est pas stricte (Hartmann 2016 : fig. 87). La confrontation des données à partir de la documentation ancienne issue des nécropoles fouillées entre Matmar, au nord, et Armant, au sud conforte ce point de vue (Hartmann 2016 : fig. 151). Les petites coupelles à fond rond des tombes S28 et S55 d’Adaïma et la forme carénée présente en S55 sont par ailleurs considérées comme particulièrement caractéristiques de la phase initiale (Ia1) du Cimetière U d’Abydos (Hartmann 2011 ; 2016). La forme carénée est largement représentée dans les contextes domestiques à Adaïma comme à Armant, notamment sur la zone 1000 localisée en bordure de plaine alluviale (Mond & Myers 1937 : pl. LIV/3). Ce site, étudié dans les années 1930, correspond à une accumulation similaire à celle d’Adaïma, épaisse d’une vingtaine de centimètres et ne présentant pas de stratigraphie immédiatement perceptible. Dès lors, les auteurs de la fouille ont hésité entre un dépôt « being merely detritus washed down from a higher level » (Mond & Myers 1937 : 164) et un ensemble pouvant témoigner d’une occupation in situ. Environ 450 m2 ont été fouillés par carré de 2 × 2 m et par « niveau » ou passée de 10 cm, avec relevé des vestiges mobiliers les plus significatifs. Un réexamen des assemblages par « niveau » à partir de ces éléments significatifs permet d’attester qu’une évolution verticale des mobiliers est bien sensible comme à Adaïma. Alors que dans les 10 cm supérieurs du site 1000 (niveau I) apparaissent des éléments céramiques indubitablement récents, Naqada IIB– IIC, IID et III (types Petrie R69, R81, R84, L36, L86 et L33n), la base de l’accumulation (niveaux II et III) est caractérisée par la présence—marquée— des vestiges Naqada I (formes carénées rouges polies et vases à bord noir à paroi oblique ou sinueuse) associés à quelques éléments plus tardifs (formes fermées rouges polies ou à bord noir). Des céramiques trouvées in situ (Mond & Myers 1937 : pl. LIV, pots B18o, p, q), sont morphologiquement proches des exemplaires issus des tombes S55 et S42 d’Adaïma. Une bonne part des céramiques en pâte grossière qui complètent l’assemblage de ces premiers niveaux d’Armant correspond probablement à une production chamottée considérée être le pendant local des « Shale Ware » d’Adaïma (Friedman 1994). Cette production chamottée est effectivement attestée sur la zone d’habitat MA21-21A/83 localisée sur une croupe de la bordure désertique et située à environ 1,5 km de la zone 1000. Le faciès associé (Ginter & Kozłowski 1994) présente des similitudes avec celui des premiers niveaux du site 1000. Il a été par ailleurs rapproché de celui de Khattara, plus au nord : la forme carénée est

120

N. BUCHEZ

là aussi un élément marquant (Friedman 1994 : fig. 8.8 à 8.10), alors que l’on retrouve les catégories morphologiques décrites pour le faciès Naqada I d’Adaïma avec, en bonne place, les profils rectilignes à convexes (mis en corrélation avec les types Petrie B18–19, B29a–d, m ; Friedman 1994). On ne dispose pas de datation 14C pour le secteur 1000 d’Armant. En revanche, la belle série du site MA21-21A/83 se concentre sur une plage 4100– 3600 cal. BC (Midant-Reynes & Sabatier 1999 : 94). Le Cimetière 1400-1500 dont la fondation peut remonter à la phase Ia2 d’Abydos U (d’après Hartmann 2011 ; 2016) jouxte la zone MA21-21A/83. Les datations les plus hautes du Cimetière U qui concernent deux tombes des groupes Ia3 (Naqada IB–C de la chronologie traditionnelle) et Ib1 (Naqada IC–IIA de la chronologie traditionnelle), donc pas nécessairement les plus anciennes, se situent entre 3700 et 3600 cal. BC (Hartmann 2016 : 157). Les débuts de l’occupation à Adaïma se placeraient également aux alentours de 3700–3600 cal. BC, compte tenu de datations isotopiques (Midant-Reynes & Buchez 2002 : 28 ; Hendrickx 1999 : 68–69 ; Buchez 2008) qui, là non plus, ne sont pas nécessairement en relation avec les foyers initiaux de l’habitat. Une datation (Ly 7691 : 4875±40, soit 3764–3537 cal. BC, à 95,4 %) obtenue sur un charbon de bois provenant d’une structure creusée dans le substrat caillouteux du secteur 1002 (fosse 4E) peut être directement associée à un assemblage ancien. Alors que l’on calait communément, jusqu’à il y a peu, les débuts de la période Naqada II dans cet horizon 3700–3600 cal. BC (Hassan 1985 ; Midant-Reynes & Sabatier 1999 : 95, nr. 13), une étude récente, qui reconsidère l’ensemble des datations isotopiques de la période naqadienne selon une approche bayésienne (Dee et al. 2013) et tend à rajeunir la transition entre le Badarien et le Naqadien en la situant entre 3800 et 3700 cal. BC, est en accord avec nos observations à partir des mobiliers céramiques. Le constat de la reconnaissance, à Adaïma, d’un faciès morpho-stylistique très proche de celui identifié dans les tombes les plus anciennes du Cimetière U d’Abydos ne va pas sans rendre discutable le modèle proposé (Kaiser 1957) d’une culture se développant à partir d’un noyau initial situé dans la région de NaqadaMahasna. Toutefois, la nature des contextes sédimentaires propres à la plupart des habitats de la vallée et le caractère généralement « hybride » des assemblages domestiques limitent largement notre appréhension des premiers développements de la culture naqadienne ; les modalités de l’occupation à cette période également. S’il est possible, à Abydos, de suivre l’évolution des mobiliers constituant les dépôts funéraires, ce n’est pas le cas à Adaïma pour la raison qu’il ne faut pas chercher sur la partie fouillée de la nécropole de l’Ouest attribuée à Naqada I lato sensu, les logiques de fonctionnement d’un cimetière utilisé sur le long terme et par l’ensemble d’une communauté (Crubézy 2017). Même si la fouille de ce secteur est restée partielle, les données suggèrent que lieu « sacralisé » par la tombe fondatrice S55 est, durant les périodes Naqada I et IIA–IIB, non pas, ou pas uniquement, un lieu de sépulture, mais un lieu cérémoniel.

RETOUR À ADAÏMA POUR UN POINT DE CHRONOLOGIE

121

Bibliographie BAJEOT, J. & ROUX, V., 2019. The Lower Egyptian culture: New perspectives through the lens of ceramic technology. Archéo-Nil 29 : 157–178. BRUNTON, G. & CATON-THOMPSON, G., 1928. The Badarian civilisation and Predynastic remains near Badari. BSAE/ERA 46. Londres. BUCHEZ, N., 1998. Le mobilier céramique et les offrandes à caractère alimentaire au sein des dépôts funéraires prédynastiques : Éléments de réflexion à partir de l’exemple d’Adaïma. Archéo-Nil 8 : 83–103. BUCHEZ, N., 2004. Les vases à cuire à l’époque prédynastique à Adaïma : Aspects techniques, économiques et culturels. CCÉ 7 : 15–45. BUCHEZ, N., 2008. Chronologie et transformations structurelles de l’habitat au cours du prédynastique  : Apports des mobiliers céramiques funéraires et domestiques du site d’Adaïma (Haute-Égypte). Toulouse (PhD dissertation, École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales). CLAES, W. ; DAVEY, C.J. & HENDRICKX, S., 2020. An Early Dynastic crucible from the settlement of Elkab. JEA 105(1) : 29–42. CRUBÉZY, É. (éd.), 2017. Adaima 3: Demographic and epidemiological transitions before the pharaohs. FIFAO 76. Le Caire. CRUBÉZY, É. ; JANIN, T. & MIDANT-REYNES, B., 2002. Adaïma 2  : La nécropole prédynastique. FIFAO 47. Le Caire. DEE, M. ; WENGROW, D. ; SHORTLAND, A. ; STEVENSON, A. ; BROCK, F. ; GIRLAND FLINK, L. & BRONK RAMSEY, C., 2013. An absolute chronology for early Egypt using radiocarbon dating and Bayesian statistical modelling. Proceedings of the Royal Society, A. Mathematical, Physical & Engineering Sciences 469 : 1–10. FRIEDMAN, R.F., 1994. Predynastic settlement ceramics of Upper Egypt: A comparative study of the ceramics of Hemamieh, Nagada, and Hierakonpolis. Ann Arbor (PhD Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley). GINTER, B. & KOZŁOWSKI, J.K., 1994. Predynastic settlement near Armant. SAGA 6. Heidelberg. HARTMANN, R., 2011. Some remarks on the chronology of the early Naqada culture (Naqada I / early Naqada II) in Upper Egypt. Archéo-Nil 21 : 21–32. HARTMANN, R., 2016. Umm el-Qaab 4: Die Keramik der älteren und mittleren Naqadakultur aus dem prädynastischen Friedhof U in Abydos (Umm el-Qaab). ÄV 98. Wiesbaden. HASSAN, F.A., 1985. Radiocarbon chronology of Neolithic and Predynastic sites in Upper Egypt and the Delta. AAR 3 : 95–116. HENDRICKX, S., 1999. La chronologie de la préhistoire tardive et des débuts de l’histoire de l’Égypte. Archéo-Nil 9 : 13–81. KAISER, W., 1957. Zur inneren Chronologie der Naqadakultur. Archaeologia Geographica 6 : 69–77. KOPP, P., 2006. Elephantine 32: Die Siedlung der Naqadazeit. AV 118. Mayence. MIDANT-REYNES, B. & BUCHEZ, N., 2002. Adaïma 1  : Économie et habitat. FIFAO 45. Le Caire. MIDANT-REYNES, B. & SABATIER, P., 1999. Préhistoire égyptienne et radiocarbone. Archéo-Nil 9 : 83–107. MOND, R. & MYERS, O.H., 1937. The cemeteries of Armant I. MEES 42. Londres. PETRIE, W.M.F., 1921. Corpus of Prehistoric pottery and palettes. BSAE/ERA 32. Londres.

122

N. BUCHEZ

S.13

S76

9000-U2-13B/01

S.42

surface

S.28

S.55 0

4001/21d Fig. 1. Le faciès Naqada I d’Adaïma, les tombes.

10 cm

123

RETOUR À ADAÏMA POUR UN POINT DE CHRONOLOGIE

0 1 cm

5

4

2

3

1 6

0

Fig. 2. Le faciès Naqada I d’Adaïma, l’habitat.

10 cm

Wout Schildermans

VISUAL TRADITIONS AND EARLY WRITING: FALCON AND NAQADA PLANT AT HIERAKONPOLIS RICHARD BUSSMANN University of Cologne, Institute of African Studies and Egyptology, Cologne, Germany

The paper discusses the imagery of a clay seal from Hierakonpolis in light of visual and material developments in late Predynastic Egypt. The sealing pattern combines elements typical of Predynastic D-ware vessels, specifically a boat cabin and the socalled Naqada plant, with younger symbols, such as a falcon on a sickle and, possibly, hieroglyphs. It is argued that cylinder seals were a visual medium and that their imagery overlapped with the decoration of other pieces of sculptured portable artifacts. However, the seal from Hierakonpolis is slightly unusual because the iconography of the sealing pattern is closer to painted than sculptured art. The origin of the early phonetic script, used on Egyptian cylinder seals, is understood in this paper as a result of visual and material trajectories during the state formation period rather than as a response to the need for notating the spoken word.

I remember a most inspiring talk Stan gave a few years ago in Berlin, in which he discussed the shapes and meaning of the Naqada plant (Hendrickx & Eyckerman 2011). In later articles, he developed his thoughts in light of the state formation period in Egypt (Hendrickx & Eyckerman 2012) and reviewed the earliest representations of falcons, an icon of vital importance for royal ideology in the Pharaonic period but poorly attested in the visual culture of the Predynastic period (Hendrickx et al. 2011). In fact, rapid social developments in the late 4th and early 3rd millennia have radically transformed visual communication in Egypt and Lower Nubia (Hendrickx & Eyckerman 2010; Morenz 2014). New types of objects emerged and engendered a new language for visual display among emerging kings and courtiers. The origin of phonetic writing is placed squarely in this development (Baines 2010). Seal inscriptions provide a rich body of evidence for language bound script in the Early Dynastic period. Interestingly, however, there is little overlap between the imagery of the Naqada period (Graff 2009) and the Early Dynastic repertoire of hieroglyphic signs (Regulski 2010). Apparently, phonetic writing in Egypt was born into an existing history of visual communication, but most hieroglyphic signs were not themselves derived from the shapes and forms of Predynastic art. This paper departs from the presentation of a seal from Hierakonpolis, depicting two falcons and, I suggest, the Naqada plant. It ties in with on-going

128

R. BUSSMANN

debates of the interplay between imagery, writing and early sealing practice in Egypt and other areas of the world (Regulski et al. 2012; Graff & Jiménez Serrano 2016; Ameri et al. 2018). The discussion draws heavily on Stan’s work, and I hope that it will delight the honoured. Archaeological context The seal fragments presented below were excavated by James E. Quibell and Frederik W. Green (1900; 1902) in the temple and town area of Hierakonpolis. Hierakonpolis, a central place of Egyptian state formation, is famed for the Narmer palette, the first monumental representation of a pharaoh. The palette was found in the temple precinct within a deposit of votive objects, called Main Deposit by the excavators. Subsequent excavations in the 1960’s have unearthed parts of a palatial structure, lending physical reality to the presence of kingship at the site (Friedman & Bussmann 2018). However, the stratigraphy of the site, the overall arrangement of built structures and their associated objects remains poorly understood. Archival research and the documentation of objects in museum collections is an important tool for establishing a context for Quibell’s and Green’s publication (Adams 1974a; 1974b). A substantial proportion of the objects from the settlement, less shiny than those of the Main Deposit, were given to the Faculty of Oriental Studies at Cambridge. These included most of the clay seals.1 Reconstruction of the archaeological context of the seals is difficult. At the Faculty of Oriental Studies, the seals were accessioned with an LE number. In 1991, they were transferred to the Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology at Cambridge and received new accession numbers. The two joining fragments presented below (Fig. 1) were registered separately as 2005.541 (LE 167) and 2005.542 (LE 162). The larger fragment 2005.541 was published by Quibell and Green (1902: pl. 70.8). A third fragment 2005.547 (LE 163) shows the same sealing pattern (Fig. 2). It does not physically join the other two fragments, but might very well have belonged to the same seal. The reverse side of the joining fragments is completely worn off. The third fragment shows the impressions of strings from a large knot, on which the seal was originally placed. What kind of object was knotted and sealed is not entirely clear, possibly a batch of linen or a door. According to the archival notes kept 1 In this paper, the term “cylinder seal” refers to cylindrical sealing devices, “sealing pattern” to the sequence of signs—phonetic or not—carved on them, and “seal” to the pieces of clay on which the pattern was impressed. The impressed and often broken seals are commonly referred to as “clay sealings” in the research literature, but “sealing” is better used to describe an activity than an object.

FALCON AND NAQADA PLANT AT HIERAKONPOLIS

129

Fig. 1. Fragments 2005.541 and 2005.542 (Courtesy Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, Cambridge. Drawing: Richard Bussmann, Christina von Elm).

Fig. 2. Fragment 2005.547 (Courtesy Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology Cambridge. Drawing: Richard Bussmann, Christina von Elm).

130

R. BUSSMANN

with the seals, the joining fragments were found in two different contexts: 2005.541 in context “184” and 2005.542 in context “189”. The third fragment 2005.547 came from the same context (“189”) as 2005.542, suggesting that it was part of the same seal. The location and nature of contexts 184 and 189 are not known. It is even possible that these are, in fact, not two different, but just one single context, labelled with two context numbers. Iconography The cylinder seal was rolled three times over the joining fragments and twice over the third. From the five impressions, a larger proportion of the original sealing pattern can be retrieved (Fig. 3). The structure in the centre is formed of a vertical trunk and a set of rounded lines hanging down from it. To the left, a bird on a crescent is shown below a rectangular element and the segment of a circle. Another rectangular element is placed to the right of the centre, above an M-shaped feature and another bird. Further to the right, a few fragmentary signs are preserved. They are difficult to decipher and will not be considered further in this paper.

Fig. 3. Reconstructed sealing pattern, retrieved from 2005.541, 2005.542 and 2005.547 (Drawing: Corinna Müller).

Some of the individual elements are known from other depictions. The birds most likely represent falcons. The crescent has been variously identified as a boat, a sickle or a throw stick. Hendrickx et al. (2011: 144–146) have convincingly argued that the falcon probably holds this object, rather than being seated on it, just as falcons are shown on other pieces of artwork holding sticks and other objects. According to the list compiled by the authors (Hendrickx et al. 2011: 162), the depictions of a falcon and sickle date to the period from Naqada IIIA1 (bone or ivory tags from tomb U-j at Abydos) to the reign of Aha (a seal impression from tomb 3357 at Saqqara). The bulk of relevant pieces are stone vessels, found in the Main Deposit at Hierakonpolis. The group of a falcon and a sickle was either carved on or sculptured from them.

FALCON AND NAQADA PLANT AT HIERAKONPOLIS

131

Morphologically, the stone vessels of the Main Deposit belong into the late Predynastic repertoire, pre-dating the 1st Dynasty (Bussmann 2010: 396–401). For these reasons, the cylinder seal, from which the impressions discussed here derive, was probably crafted in the reigns of Narmer and Scorpion, i.e. Dynasty 0. Further, it is tempting to assume that contexts 184 and 189 were located in the temple area, just as the Main Deposit is. The M-shaped feature is more difficult to identify. Depictions of boat cabins, typical of scenes on D-ware, offer close parallels (Graff 2009: 172, sign N4). The cabins usually have two elongated poles on either side with loops attached to them. The cabin is often placed on a boat, but also occurs as a separate visual element. On some vessels, it appears simultaneously placed on a boat and next to it. Alternatively, the M-shaped feature could depict in a very stylised way what is usually referred to as Lower Egyptian sanctuary (pr-nw), with two upright poles placed on either side of a domed chamber (e.g. on the Hunter’s Palette; Patch 2011: 143, fig. 38; Hendrickx et al. 2020). It could also be an early palace façade (serekh) (van den Brink 1996; 2001; van den Brink & Köhler 2002). The falcon associated with it would support such an interpretation. However, early serekhs have angular or pointed ends, as can be seen on the illustrations of van den Brink and Köhler, and the falcon would either be expected to be placed on top of the serekh or within it, if it was part of the royal name. Therefore, an interpretation of the M-shaped feature as the representation of a boat cabin seems most plausible. The element in the centre is also enigmatic. It is interpreted here as a stylised version of the Naqada plant, again a typical feature of D-ware imagery (Graff 2009: 168, sign V2).2 The Naqada plant is typically composed of a trunk, a circle placed on top of it, branches hanging down from the upper part of the trunk and an extension at the top with leaves. There seem to have been two types of trunks, one cone-shaped and the other in the form of a boat cabin (Hendrickx & Eyckerman 2012: 46, fig. 19a and b). The Naqada plant is repeatedly depicted next to a boat with cabins or just the cabin without a boat. It also appears as a separate motif (i.e. not in combination with a boat nor a cabin) and once in combination with a boat with no cabin (Graff 2009: cat. no. 489). Different from depictions of the Naqada plant on D-ware vessels, however, the sign on the seal discussed here rests on a vertical line. It resembles a sign depicted on a seal found in tomb 43 of Cemetery 40 at Siyali in Lower Nubia (Reisner et al. 1910: 232, 238, 331, pl. 65f). Using the photograph of 2

Wouter Claes kindly pointed out to me that cat. no. 290 (London, British Museum, EA36327) is erroneously mentioned here. In the description of the vessel (Graff 2009: 290, cat. no. 290), the V2-sign is not mentioned in the list of elements. Although this cannot be confirmed on the basis of the published photos and drawing, which present only a partial view on the entire decoration, additional photos in the online catalogue of the British Museum confirm the absence of sign V2 (https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/Y_EA36327; last accessed 16.05.2020).

132

R. BUSSMANN

the original publication, Peter Kaplony (1964: 49–50, no. 885) published a linedrawing of the sealing pattern, which shows among other elements a falcon placed on this sign. According to Bruce Williams (1986: 169, fig. 58a), tomb 43 was, in fact, a storage pit and the central stroke in Kaplony’s drawing a crack in the cylinder seal. The sign would rather represent a stylised serekh, just as two other serekhs with falcon would be shown in the sealing pattern.3 This reading of the sign, which has been accepted as authoritative (Roy 2011: 229–230), is very clearly not possible for the seal from Hierakonpolis, where the central stroke belongs to the sign. It is therefore suggested that the sign at Hierakonpolis depicts the Naqada plant. The two rectangular elements and the segment of a circle resemble the hieroglyphs N37 (garden pool) and X1 (loaf of bread) in Gardiner’s sign list (Gardiner 1957: 491, 531). Whether they were meant to allude to specific sounds and words in the context of this sealing pattern or, more likely perhaps, function as decorative elements, is difficult to say. It is also possible that they belonged to the fragmentarily preserved signs on the right-hand side, which might be phonetic hieroglyphs. The bottom part of the sealing pattern is not preserved. It is unclear whether the falcon on the right-hand side was placed on a sickle, too, and whether a boat was depicted below the entire scene. As a note for the correct understanding, the lower sealing pattern of 2005.547 shows the rectangular element (N37) above the boat cabin, rather than the bottom part of the Naqada plant. Visual traditions, early writing and sealing practice The pattern of the seal from Hierakonpolis, specifically the boat cabin and the Naqada plant, is overall closer to D-ware imagery, which disappears with the latest figurative D-ware vessels in Naqada IID, than to Early Dynastic seal inscriptions. A vessel of unknown provenance and today in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York (20.2.10) shows a boat with two cabins and a falcon and sickle placed on a pole, presumably a standard (Patch 2011: 70–72, cat. no. 71). Similarly, a falcon placed on a pole is combined with two cabins and a boat on a vessel from Hu (Crowfoot-Payne 2000: 106, cat. no. 852; for a third example, see Hendrickx et al. 2011: 133–134). However, the falcon is not typical of D-ware imagery (Graff 2009) and is an element of a new visual 3 Williams argues that the vertical line cuts through the base line and that a cylinder seal from Faras, depicted in his fig. 58d, would show a serekh similar to one on the seal from Siyali. The interpretation of the vertical line as a crack might be correct, but Williams, like Kaplony, bases his drawing on the photo published by Reisner rather than on the original seal impression. There remains a slight possibility that the vertical line, poorly executed, belonged to the original pattern and that the entire sign depicts the Naqada plant in a similar fashion as the sign on the seal from Hierakonpolis.

FALCON AND NAQADA PLANT AT HIERAKONPOLIS

133

tradition. With few exceptions, falcons were not widely depicted before the Naqada III period (Hendrickx et al. 2011: 129–135). If the rectangular signs, the semi-circular elements and the fragmentary signs on the right-hand side really add up to a meaningful phonetic statement, this would further underline the novel character of the pattern. The date of the seal to the reigns of Narmer and Scorpion may also explain the difference to the imagery of the Predynastic seals from Cemetery U at Abydos, dated to the period from Naqada IID to IIIA2 (Hartung 1998). These seals usually show rows of decorative elements or animals. Some of the decorative patterns have a scene or an individual sign placed centre stage, but none of these depict a falcon, a boat cabin or a sign similar to the Naqada plant on the seal from Hierakonpolis. The seals from Cemetery U echo some elements of D-ware imagery, such as the arrangement of animals in a row and the range of species of some animals, but other scenes, such as female figures, boats with rudders and other floral elements are missing from Abydos. Closer parallels to the Abydos seals come from elite objects of their time, such as the Davies comb, the Gebel elArak knife handle, ceremonial palettes and ivory objects from the Main Deposit. Similarly, a cylinder seal from Helwan, dating like the seal from Hierakonpolis to Dynasty 0, shows two giraffes on either side of a palm tree, comparable to a scene on the Battlefield Palette, the Dog Palette and two further ceremonial palettes (Köhler 1999). It appears that sealing patterns overlap more strongly with the decoration of these ceremonial objects than with the elements of the D-ware. While D-ware imagery finds close parallels in rock art (Lankester 2016), on portable objects it was possibly tied more closely to painting. In contrast, the ceremonial objects of the nascent court elites were sculptured, just as sealing patterns were carved into a seal rather than painted. Kaplony’s monumental compilation of Early Dynastic inscriptions (1963; 1964; 1966; 1968), many of which carved on cylinder seals, has privileged the search for phonetic elements in early sealing patterns over the visual nature of seals. By the Old Kingdom, cylinder seals are unquestionably decorated with phonetic hieroglyphs, which render names and titles of kings and officials (Kaplony 1977; 1981). Many Early Dynastic sealing patterns, too, contain phonetic script, although the decipherment of the inscriptions is still difficult (Pätznick 2005). Kahl (1994; 2003) and Regulski (2010) have significantly advanced their understanding. However, the Predynastic seals from Cemetery U and the seal presented in this paper make it very clear that cylinder seals originally were visual media. The use of phonetic script in sealing patterns is a secondary development (Regulski 2008: 992–997). Some of the seals from Cemetery U are composed

134

R. BUSSMANN

of extensive decorative patterns, which would make little sense if the element placed within the patterns, often only partially impressed on the piece of clay, was the most important message. Many sealing patterns of the Early Dynastic period contain non-phonetic elements, such as the offering table scene (Regulski 2011). The wide-spread use in the Old Kingdom and the Middle Kingdom of button seals and scarabs with floral designs and figurative patterns shows that the visual tradition continued through the centuries (Gratien 2002; Dubiel 2008; Willems 2018). Since the sealing patterns from Cemetery U and Hierakonpolis stem from sealed pieces of clay, it is evident that cylinder seals, decorated with non-phonetic imagery, were used as administrative devices rather than only as pieces of jewellery placed on the deceased to protect him or her. If cylinder seals were visual media, why then were hieroglyphs used on them from the Early Dynastic period onwards? Intuitively one might think of phonetically bound hieroglyphs as the standard for a sealing inscription and of visual elements as subordinate to them, a simpler forerunner or a deviation in non-literate communities. I have argued elsewhere that phonetic script was not necessary for sealing practice to function (Bussmann 2014). Hieroglyphs on cylinder seals, whether or not used for notating words, essentially operate as images, very different from hieratic handwriting. It has often been remarked that hieroglyphs are miniature versions of Egyptian art and vice versa (Davies 1987: 10–20). In the case of cylinder seals, one can take the argument a step further. It is not only the shapes of hieroglyphic signs that overlap with elements in monumental display, but it is the visual genre in which hieroglyphs are used that make them a piece of visual communication. Sealing patterns were clearly embedded in visual developments of their time. The arrangement of animals in rows, as at U-j, and the overlap with D-ware imagery, as in the case of the seal from Hierakonpolis, corroborate this observation. Similarly, in the late Old Kingdom, the imagery of amulets on button seals, found in provincial cemeteries, echoes the votive imagery found in local community shrines (Dubiel 2008; Bussmann 2010: 407–421). In the Early Dynastic period, the development of hieroglyphs was one of the most iconic visual events among the forming elite of the time. It is suggested here that for this reason, they started being carved on cylinder seals, until phonetic script eventually became the rule for seal inscriptions during most of the Old Kingdom, overshadowing other visual elements. Conclusion Early writing is traditionally seen as bound up with the birth of bureaucracy and the origins of early states. In Egypt, cylinder seals form an important body of evidence for early writing, prior to definite evidence for administrative

FALCON AND NAQADA PLANT AT HIERAKONPOLIS

135

record keeping in the Fourth Dynasty (Tallet 2017). However, as argued in this paper, cylinder seals were a visual medium decorated with patterns of visual elite art of the time. The seal from Hierakonpolis dates to around the reigns of Narmer and Scorpion, i.e. Dynasty 0. It is unusual in combining older visual traditions, such as the depiction of the Naqada plant and the boat cabin typically found on D-ware vessels, and new elements, such as the falcon on a sickle. Phonetic hieroglyphs migrated onto cylinder seals in the late Predynastic and Early Dynastic period as part of a broader transformation of an object repertoire, which included an increasing array of sculptured work inscribed with hieroglyphic signs. The emergence of the hieroglyphic script is the result of visual and material trajectories at a period of nascent centralisation and stratification, much more than a response to the need of notating the sound of the spoken word. This paper is a small contribution to a large field—and to the oeuvre of a great scholar. Provisional and limited in scope as it may be, it rests on Stan’s pioneering contributions to our understanding of Predynastic and Early Dynastic art. I hope to have offered some food for thought for further discussion.

Bibliography ADAMS, B., 1974a. Ancient Hierakonpolis. Modern Egyptology Series. Warminster. ADAMS, B., 1974b. Ancient Hierakonpolis: Supplement. Modern Egyptology Series. Warminster. AMERI, M.; KIELT COSTELLO, S.; JAMISON, G. & JARMER SCOTT, S. (eds), 2018. Seals and sealing in the ancient word: Case studies from the Near East, Egypt, the Aegean, and South Asia. Cambridge. BAINES, J., 2010, Aesthetic culture and the emergence of writing in Egypt during Naqada III. Archéo-Nil 20: 134–149. BUSSMANN, R., 2010. Die Provinztempel Ägyptens von der 0. bis zur 11. Dynastie: Archäologie und Geschichte einer gesellschaftlichen Institution zwischen Residenz und Provinz. PdÄ 30. Leiden. BUSSMANN, R., 2014. Locking and control: A door bolt sealing from Hierakonpolis. JARCE 50: 95–101. DAVIES, W.V., 1987. Egyptian hieroglyphs. Reading the past. London. DUBIEL, U., 2008. Amulette, Siegel und Perlen: Studien zu Typologie und Tragesitte im Alten und Mittleren Reich. OBO 229. Freiburg. FRIEDMAN, R. & BUSSMANN, R., 2018. The Early Dynastic palace at Hierakonpolis [in:] BIETAK, M. & PRELL. S. (eds), Ancient Egyptian and ancient Near Eastern palaces I. Proceedings of the Conference on Palaces in ancient Egypt, held in London 12th–14th June 2013, organised by the Austrian Academy of Sciences, the University of Würzburg and the Egypt Exploration Society. CAENL 5; DGÖAW 83. Vienna: 79–99. GARDINER, A.H., 1957. Egyptian grammar being an introduction to the study of hieroglyphs. 3rd rev. ed. Oxford.

136

R. BUSSMANN

GRAFF, G., 2009. Les peintures sur vases de Nagada I–Nagada II  : Nouvelle approche sémiologique de l’iconographie prédynastique. EPM 6. Leuven. GRAFF, G. & JIMÉNEZ SERRANO, A. (eds), 2016. Préhistoires de l’écriture  : Iconographie, pratiques graphiques et émergence de l’écrit dans l’Égypte prédynastique. Préhistoires de la Méditerranée. Aix-en-Provence. GRATIEN, B. (ed.), 2002. Le sceau et l’administration dans la Vallée du Nil  : Villeneuve d’Ascq, 7–8 juillet 2000. CRIPEL 22. Villeneuve-d’Ascq. HARTUNG, U., 1998. Prädynastische Siegelabrollungen aus dem Friedhof U in Abydos (Umm el-Qaab). MDAIK 54: 187–217. HENDRICKX, S. & EYCKERMAN, M., 2010. Continuity and change in the visual representation of Predynastic Egypt [in:] RAFFAELE, E.; NUZZOLO, M. & INCORDINO, I. (eds), Recent discoveries and latest researches in Egyptology. Proceedings of the First Neapolitan Congress of Egyptology (Naples, 18th–20th June 2008). Wiesbaden: 121–143. HENDRICKX, S. & EYCKERMAN, M., 2011. Tusks and tags: Between the hippopotamus and the Naqada plant [in:] FRIEDMAN, R.F. & FISKE, P.N. (eds), Egypt at its Origins 3. Proceedings of the Third International Conference “Origin of the State. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt”, London, 27th July–1st August 2008. OLA 205. Leuven: 497–570. HENDRICKX, S. & EYCKERMAN, M., 2012. Visual representation and state development in Egypt. Archéo-Nil 22: 23–72. HENDRICKX, S.; FÖRSTER, F.; PIQUETTE, K.E.; EYCKERMAN, M.; GOFFIN, L. & MEYERS, L., 2020. A history of the visualisation of the Hunters’ Palette and a tentative reconstruction of its missing part. Archéo-Nil 30: 123–148. HENDRICKX, S.; FRIEDMAN, R. & EYCKERMAN, M., 2011. Early falcons [in:] MORENZ, L.D. & KUHN, R. (eds), Vorspann oder formative Phase? Ägypten und der Vordere Orient 3500–2700 v. Chr. Philippika 48. Wiesbaden: 129–162. KAHL, J., 1994. Das System der ägyptischen Hieroglyphenschrift in der 0.–3. Dynastie. GOF 29. Wiesbaden. KAHL, J., 2003. Die frühen Schriftzeugnisse aus dem Grab U-j in Umm el-Qaab. CdÉ 78(155–156): 112–135. KAPLONY, P., 1963. Die Inschriften der ägyptischen Frühzeit I–III. ÄA 8. Wiesbaden. KAPLONY, P., 1964. Die Inschriften der ägyptischen Frühzeit: Supplement. ÄA 9. Wiesbaden. KAPLONY, P., 1966. Kleine Beiträge zu den Inschriften der ägyptischen Frühzeit. ÄA 15. Wiesbaden. KAPLONY, P., 1968. Steingefäße mit Inschriften der Frühzeit und des Alten Reichs. MA 1. Brussels. KAPLONY, P., 1977. Die Rollsiegel des Alten Reichs 1: Allgemeiner Teil mit Studien zum Konigtum des Alten Reichs. MA 2. Brussels. KAPLONY, P., 1981. Die Rollsiegel des Alten Reichs 2: Katalog der Rollsiegel. MA 3. Brussels. KÖHLER, E.C., 1999. Re-assessment of a cylinder seal from Helwan. GM 168: 49–56. LANKESTER, F., 2016. Egyptian script and rock-art: Connected or unconnected? [in:] GRAFF, G. & JIMÉNEZ SERRANO, A. (eds), 2016. Préhistoires de l’écriture  : Iconographie, pratiques graphiques et émergence de l’écrit dans l’Égypte prédynastique. Préhistoires de la Méditerranée. Aix-en-Provence 29–45. MORENZ, L.D., 2014. Anfänge der ägyptischen Kunst: Eine problemgeschichtliche Einführung in ägyptologische Bild-Anthropologie. OBO 264. Freiburg.

FALCON AND NAQADA PLANT AT HIERAKONPOLIS

137

PÄTZNICK, J.-P., 2005. Die Siegelabrollungen und Rollsiegel der Stadt Elephantine im 3. Jahrtausend v. Chr.: Spurensicherung eines archäologischen Artefaktes. BAR. International Series 1339. Oxford. PATCH, D.C., 2011. Dawn of Egyptian art. New York. PAYNE, J.C., 2000. Catalogue of the Predynastic Egyptian collection in the Ashmolean Museum: With addenda. Oxford. QUIBELL, J.E., 1900. Hierakonpolis, part I. ERA 4. London. QUIBELL, J.E. & GREEN, F.W., 1902. Hierakonpolis, part II. ERA 5. London. REGULSKI, I., 2008. The origin of writing in relation to the emergence of the Egyptian state [in:] MIDANT-REYNES, B. & TRISTANT, Y. (eds); ROWLAND, J. & HENDRICKX, S. (coll.), Egypt at its Origins 2. Proceedings of the International Conference “Origin of the State. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt”, Toulouse (France), 5th–8th September 2005. OLA 172. Leuven: 985–1009. REGULSKI, I., 2010. A palaeographic study of early writing in Egypt. OLA 195. Leuven. REGULSKI, I., 2011. Egypt’s Early Dynastic cylinder seals reconsidered. BiOr 68(1): 6–31. REGULSKI, I.; DUISTERMAAT, K. & VERKINDEREN, P. (eds), 2012. Seals and sealing practices in the Near East: Developments in administration and magic from Prehistory to the Islamic Period. Proceedings of an international Workshop at the Netherlands-Flemish Institute in Cairo on December 2–3, 2009. OLA 219. Leuven. REISNER, G.A.; ELLIOT SMITH, G. & WOOD JONES, F., 1910. The archaeological survey of Nubia: Report for 1907–1908. Cairo. ROY, J., 2011, The politics of trade: Egypt and Lower Nubia in the 4th millennium BC. CHANE 47. Leiden. TALLET, P., 2017. Les papyrus de la mer Rouge 1  : Le «  journal de Merer  » (Papyrus Jarf A et B). MIFAO 136. Cairo. VAN DEN BRINK, E.C.M., 1996. The incised serekh-signs of Dynasties 0–1, part I: Complete vessels [in:] SPENCER, J. (ed.), Aspects of early Egypt. London: 140–158. VAN DEN BRINK, E.C.M., 2001. The pottery-incised serekh-signs of Dynasties 0–1, part II: Fragments and additional complete vessels. Archéo-Nil 11: 23–100. VAN DEN BRINK, E.C.M. & KÖHLER, E.C., 2002. Four jars with incised serekh-signs from Helwan recently retrieved from the Cairo Museum. GM 187: 59–81. WILLEMS, H., 2018. “Cylinder seals for the lower classes”: Ein Merkmal der Provinzkultur des Alten Reiches? ZÄS 145(2): 187–204. WILLIAMS, B.B., 1986. Excavations between Abu Simbel and the Sudan frontier 1: The A-Group Royal Cemetery at Qustul: Cemetery L. OINE 3. Chicago.

EMERGENCE OF THE STATE AND LOCAL LEADERSHIP IN THE NILE VALLEY (4TH–3RD MILLENNIA BC) MARCELO CAMPAGNO University of Buenos Aires / National Council of Scientific Research, Buenos Aires, Argentina

Studies on the emergence of the state tend to begin by focusing on communal dynamics, particularly their forms of leadership. They subsequently expand the scope of their research as the timeline continues on towards kingship and the political-administrative state apparatus. In this analytical strategy, communal spaces and their leaders are practically ignored once the analysis focuses on the state sphere and the figure of the king. Contrary to this approach, I will consider funerary, iconographic, and textual evidence of local leadership before and after the advent of the state in the Nile Valley between roughly the 4th and 3rd millennia BC. My objective is to understand how the nature of local leadership transforms as the state emerges and is consolidated on a global scale. Stan Hendrickx is indisputably a pillar in the field of studies on Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt, both for his own research and for that patient and enormous task of compiling all the existing bibliography on these issues. I am proud to have the opportunity to contribute to this book in his honour, with some reflections that begin with a topic that has been central to Stan’s work: Predynastic leadership.

In the field of Egyptian Predynastic research, there are very good studies on local leadership, based both on archaeological and iconographic sources (see for instance Baines 1995: 95–124; Midant-Reynes 2003: 326–375; Friedman 2008a; Hendrickx & Eyckerman 2012). However, this situation contrasts with the practically total absence of this topic in the studies on the immediately subsequent periods. What happens to those local rulers once the state emerges? Do they simply disappear under the weight of the state apparatus? Admittedly, the evidence of local leaders after state consolidation is very scarce, but such circumstances are not very different with respect to pre-state leadership. In my opinion, it is the question itself about local leadership in dynastic times which is rarely posed. I think this is so because of the notorious evolutionist bias from which the timeline is considered: the expectation is that things grow, so the focus moves from the community to the state; from chiefs to kings. Once the latter appear, the former vanish from the perspective. Contrary to this approach, I will consider funerary, iconographic, and textual evidence of local leadership both before and after the advent of the state in the Nile Valley between roughly the 4th and 3rd millennia BC. My objective is to understand how the nature of local leadership transforms as the state emerges and is consolidated on a global scale.

140

M. CAMPAGNO

Let us begin by considering the available evidence of leadership in the Nile Valley prior to the emergence of the state. In terms of funerary evidence, during Naqada I a new type of rectangular tomb is used, which coexists with an older, oval-shaped grave typical of the Badarian period. Slightly larger in size, these new tombs tend to contain a greater quantity and diversity of grave goods. These new graves are a minority, though, while most of the tombs continue to be similar to those of the former period (see Wilkinson 1996: 75–85; Friedman 2008b; Campagno 2002: 151–153). Within this context, certain grave goods are significant as they may have functioned as leadership insignia. In tomb A35 of el-Omari, for instance, an individual holds a 35 cm long cane as if it were a kind of sceptre (Debono & Mortensen 1990: pl. 28.1). In several tombs there are maces that likely were not used as weapons, given the impractical materials in which they were made (porphyry, diorite, breccia). It is much more likely that they were included in the tomb to emphasise the warlike role of its owner (Hoffman 1982: 145; Midant-Reynes 1992: 172, 183; Campagno 2002: 154–155). It is possible to trace a relationship between this kind of objects and the tomb’s occupant, as if they symbolise the outstanding position of their owners, as would also happen after the emergence of the state with the objects that symbolised the power of the king. Pre-state iconography includes a series of images worth considering in this regard. An object very similar to the later Red Crown of Lower Egypt is depicted on a Naqada I potsherd (Wainright 1923; Baines 1995: 95–96, 98–99; Payne 2000: 94, no. 774, fig. 34.774). The sherd belongs to a period that largely predates the process of political unification when this crown was associated to the White Crown of Upper Egypt. During the Naqada I period, the object could represent a headdress or a crown symbolising the leadership of some local character. Moreover, the decorations on some Naqada I vessels depict certain individuals that stand out from the many other characters in the scene. This is due to their larger size, their central position with their arms raised, and their attire, which includes feather headdresses and animal tails that hang from their waist, similar to those the Egyptian king wore in later times. These figures also hold a mace similar to those previously discussed with respect to grave goods. Furthermore, they seem to be subduing a group of smaller individuals, whom they take by the neck or tie up with ropes, in a scene that resembles the sacrifice of prisoners by the king during the Dynastic period (Dreyer et al. 1998: 84, 111–115; Hendrickx 1998: 204–207; see Fig. 1). In a slightly later period, at the beginning of Naqada II (c. 3600 BC), vessel decorations also depict figures with penis sheaths, holding objects that look like sceptres or boomerangs, and usually interacting with figures with prominent feminine features (Vandier 1952: 286–288, 352–353; Midant-Reynes 1992: 165–167, 180–182). Furthermore, a number of statuettes recovered from these

EMERGENCE OF THE STATE AND LOCAL LEADERSHIP IN THE NILE VALLEY

141

Fig. 1. Abydos U-239/1 (after Dreyer et al. 1998: 114).

epochs depict bearded individuals who also may be interpreted as emphasising certain attributes that were common in later characterisations of the Egyptian monarch (Vandier 1952: 419–428; Midant-Reynes 1992: 169). Beyond the funerary context, the rock art of the Eastern and Western Deserts includes a large number of scenes that resemble the aforementioned iconography. In the Eastern Desert, a specific type of boat is frequently represented, in which one or more large characters appear, often with arms raised, holding maces, bows, and sceptres, and wearing feather headdresses. These navigation scenes may have had ritualistic significance, similar to scenes associated with hunting wild animals (particularly the hippopotamus) and others depicting warlike scenarios that include weapons and hand-to-hand combat (Winkler 1938; Redford & Redford 1989; Wilkinson 2000a: 158–165). The more distant Western Desert rock art also includes hunting scenes and interactions with wild animals, as well as other images that share some “air de famille” (Muzzolini 2001: 213; see also Le Quellec 2019: 85) with the imaginary that emerges from the Nile Valley and Eastern Desert iconography (Leclant & Huard 1980). Within this context, it is worthwhile to consider some recently documented images in the Gilf Kebir region. In a scene from the so-called ‘Cave of the

142

M. CAMPAGNO

Beasts’ (Wadi Sura II; Kuper 2013) a large individual wields a type of axe or mace. Below this character, on the left, a human figure appears upside down in a position that resembles the later Egyptian iconography depicting defeated opponents. To the right, two rows of individuals, the lower composed of smaller, upside down characters, might either depict two groups in face to face combat, or the victory of the upper party over the lower (Bárta & Frouz 2010: 35–37; see Fig. 2). The exact meaning is unknown, but the relationship between the large characters holding weapons and the opposing group seems to illustrate a warlike context.

Fig. 2. Cave of the Beasts / Wadi Sura II (after Bárta 2010: 40).

To summarise the available evidence regarding pre-state leadership, we have, on the one hand, the funerary context characterised by tombs of larger size and grave goods of greater variety and quality. This suggests the existence of communal leadership figures, to whom the grave goods, such as sceptres and maces, would belong. On the other hand, contemporary iconography suggests that these leaders are characterised by two primary attributes. First, there seems to be an association between leadership and the ritual sphere: scenes such as those related to boats or those presided by large characters raising their arms may depict a ritualistic performance. Second, there is a possible link between these leaders and violence, not only because the rituals seemingly involve human sacrifice, but also because these characters frequently hold maces or axes and appear associated with hunting and combat scenes, which may suggest a close link between leadership and war.

EMERGENCE OF THE STATE AND LOCAL LEADERSHIP IN THE NILE VALLEY

143

It can be argued that other possibilities for the exercise of leadership should remain open. Some authors, including Michael Hoffman (1989), who took into account evidence of work specialisation in Hierakonpolis from the beginning of the 4th millennium BC, have suggested a more economically-oriented leadership profile, which could have been linked to the administration of production surplus for exchange or accumulation. While this possibility cannot be totally excluded, the iconography of the time does not support this hypothesis. Just as iconography highlights hunting practices over agriculture and husbandry, despite the increasingly decisive role of the latter in production, depictions of prominent figures always emphasise attributes linked to ritual and violence. While other leadership characteristics may have been present, they do not exist in the preserved iconography. But what if we consider these same issues once the state emerges? If we turn our attention once more to funerary evidence, the Egyptological tradition compels us to consider a very well-known series of tombs of increasing complexity, from tomb U-j at Abydos at the beginning of Naqada III (c. 3200 BC), to the mastabas of the kings and the elite of the 1st Dynasty at the beginning of the 3rd millennium BC, and the monumental tombs of the Old Kingdom (see e.g. Reisner 1936; Snape 2011: 7–85). Instead, I would like to consider another type of tombs that are much less frequently investigated, although information is equally available. These graves are contemporary to the Old Kingdom royal tombs but much smaller in size and less spectacular. Take, for example, the tombs explored by Guy Brunton (1927) in the area of Qau-Badari. The grave goods are quite modest, usually limited to some vessels. Certain tombs contain necklaces and amulets; less frequently, objects associated with the state sphere may appear, such as a vase with hieroglyphic inscriptions, which may indicate that these individuals had access to the elites, perhaps through patronage relationships. In general, however, the overall image of these tombs is not very different from that of pre-state epochs, although during the Old Kingdom, nonelite tombs are more diverse in terms of tomb size and type of grave goods. During this time, cemeteries for the general population (for example, in Giza, Gurob, and Naga ed-Der) contain a variety of tombs, including small oval tombs very similar to the ones known almost 2000 years before, shaft tombs, and small mastabas connected to each other, possibly reflecting kinship ties (Grajetzki 2003: 24–26). But in any case, the contrast between these types of tombs and those of the state elite is great. Common graves are quite different from the large royal, elite tombs, and are comparable to those of pre-state times. Even if the small mastabas or modest grave goods mentioned above (cf. the vase with inscriptions), allow us to suspect the existence of village elites, this type of tomb alone does not explain much about forms of leadership. However, textual evidence fills this gap in information. The Old Kingdom texts frequently mention the significant position

144

M. CAMPAGNO

of ḥqꜢ niwt, the village chief or headman (Moreno García 1999: 232). The first known reference of a ḥqꜢ is from the 3rd Dynasty: a fragment of a jar from Elephantine on which the chief of the village Itiutau is mentioned (Kahl et al. 1995: 170–171; Moreno García 2004: 89). This ḥqꜢ appears in relation to an amount of goods that, according to existing interpretations, he likely paid as a tribute to the state. Slightly later, the Gebelein papyri (4th Dynasty) refer to ḥqꜢw niwwt, village chiefs in charge of providing clothes to the state administration, also suggesting a tributary sequence mediated by these headmen (Posener-Kriéger 1975: 219; Moreno García 2004: 89). In later texts, especially the Coptos Decrees (6th Dynasty), we find more references to local leaders such as the ḥqꜢw niwwt. In Decree G, the king commands to an official: “You shall make this division of land of this per-shena together with the chiefs, the rulers of the towns, and the tribunals of the fields” (Urk. I: 294, 15–16; Strudwick 2005: 114–115). Decree M also states that “the mayors, the seal-bearers of the king of Lower Egypt, the sole companions, the overseers of priests, the chiefs and the rulers of the towns and their associates will operate under his command” (Urk. I: 301, 1–2; Strudwick 2005: 121). The mention of these village rulers in the context of a division of fields commanded by the king, or at the end of a hierarchical sequence of officials linked to the state administration, is interesting as both contexts simultaneously imply the participation and strong subordination of the ḥqꜢw niwwt in tasks performed by the state. Funerary iconography from the Old Kingdom also offers evidence of these ḥqꜢw niwwt. A scene in the mastaba of Ti in Saqqara depicts three characters, clearly identified as ḥqꜢw niwwt, appearing before authorities for a tax appraisal, prostrate in front of scribes who take notes (Steindorff 1913: pl. 129; Kanawati 1987: 114; see Fig. 3). Similar scenes are repeated in other elite tombs (for example Mereruka in Saqqara or Queen Meresankh III in Giza), in which the ḥqꜢw also appear prostrate or tied up, reporting to officials who force them to bend their backs or who hold sticks to hit them (Duell 1936: pl. 36–38; Dunham & Simpson 1974: 18, fig. 9; see Fig. 4). These images, therefore, describe the ḥqꜢw as local leaders who were both responsible before the state, and strongly subdued to it. Nevertheless, further evidence indicates that while the ḥqꜢw were susceptible to violent subjection, they may have had more autonomy than these scenes suggest. On the one hand, there is a type of small statue, like that of Ankhudjes (Fitzwilliam Museum E.35.1907), in which the sculpted character is explicitly identified as ḥqꜢ (Moreno García 2001). Looking at these sculptural representations, it can be inferred that the ḥqꜢw may have had some privileges as they likely possessed this type of prestige goods and could be important enough to be represented in a statue. So, it is reasonable to conclude that the ḥqꜢw did not occupy the lowest stratum of the peasant population. On the other hand, texts

EMERGENCE OF THE STATE AND LOCAL LEADERSHIP IN THE NILE VALLEY

145

from the beginning of the First Intermediate Period provide information compatible with what these small statues suggest. An inscription on the stela of Hasi (CGC 1649) mentions a character who says of himself: jnk mrjj n nb.f ḥzjj n ḥqꜢw.f, “I was a beloved of his master, praised by his chiefs.” In this way, Hasi emphasised that he was someone who enjoyed the esteem of both his master and the ḥqꜢw over which Hasi himself had preponderance (Urk. I: 152, 2–3; Moreno García 2001: 149). Thus, the ḥqꜢw appear as subordinate characters with enough significance to be mentioned by the esteem that their superiors received from them. This leads us to a social distinction apparent in the First Intermediate Period, between a ‘great one’ (wr / ꜥꜢ) and a ‘little one’ (nḏs). A ‘great’ one is, according to the terminology of Juan Carlos Moreno García, a rural “magnate”. Rather than a peasant, the ‘little one’ is someone who is simply below the ‘great one’ in the social hierarchy (Moreno

Fig. 3. Mastaba of Ti (after Kanawati 1987: 114).

Fig. 4. Mastaba of queen Meresankh III (after Dunham & Simpson 1974: fig. 9).

146

M. CAMPAGNO

García 2004: 91–95; 2013: 139–140). The text of the stela of Cairo CGC 20503 states: jr.n(.j) mrrt ꜥꜢw ḥzzt nḏsw, “I have done what the great ones loved, what the little ones praised” (Urk. I: 151, 11; Moreno García 2004: 92). The structure of this text closely resembles that of the stela of Hasi, using even the same verbs. In this way, the master (nb) / chief (ḥqꜢ) relationship mirrors the relationship between the great one and the small one. Therefore, it can be inferred that the ḥqꜢw were equivalent to what would later be known as nḏsw. In summary, evidence of local leadership during the 3rd millennium BC on the one hand indicates communal burial practices with noticeable continuity, although, if we extend the timeline, we can see even some impoverishment of the local elite tombs from the 3rd millennium BC when compared to pre-state epochs. On the other hand, in iconography and texts, local leaders appear responsible for larger collectives as representatives of village communities clearly subordinate to state administration. But they also—according to what we saw with respect to the small statues and texts of the stelae—enjoyed some amount of local prestige that allowed access to certain goods or recognition by individuals at a higher socio-political level. But what happens to the ritualistic and warlike bias characteristic of pre-state leadership after the emergence of the state? According to available evidence from the 3rd millennium BC, such a bias disappears completely. That it may be the result of a shortage of evidence is a possibility that should not be ignored. However, there is reason to suspect that this change is not accidental. Since the emergence of the state, the ritual sphere is fundamentally associated with the figure of the king, and hence remains in the realm of the state. Both the iconography—the panels of King Netjerikhet at Saqqara (Firth & Quibell 1935: pls XV–XVI, XXXXII), or the stela of King Qahedjet (Ziegler 1990: 56)—and texts, especially the Pyramid Texts (Sethe 1908–1910; Allen 2005), explicitly assert that the monarch, in his position as god-king, performs the rituals of cosmic safeguard. He is the one who interacts directly with the gods. This does not imply an absence of practices linked to what Barry Kemp (2006:141–142; see also Bussmann 2011) refers to as local traditions, which could have survived or developed outside the sphere of the state. For example, a variety of small votive objects from the 3rd millennium BC were recovered at various sites, including Abydos, Hierakonpolis, and Elephantine. These objects diverge from the state canonical tradition and likely belonged to local cults, where they could serve a variety of functions free from the constrictive intervention of the state. However, these objects, possibly related to propitiatory rituals, do not indicate any association with figures of local leadership. In dynastic times, the relationship par excellence between leadership and ritual is exclusively characteristic of the figure of the ‘ritualistic king’ (Cervelló Autuori 2009).

EMERGENCE OF THE STATE AND LOCAL LEADERSHIP IN THE NILE VALLEY

147

With respect to violence, something similar occurs: it becomes a prerogative to which the state is exclusively entitled. The Narmer Palette (Quibell 1900: pl. XXIX) clearly reflects that this simultaneously ritualistic and violent bias is concentrated in the figure of the king. The massacre of the enemy is a fundamental ritual of cosmic guarantee. Beginning in the 1st Dynasty, it is carried out against neighbours that the Egyptian state identifies as enemies: the Libyans (in Narmer’s cylinder seal; Quibell 1900: pl. XV), the Nubians (on an Aha label; Petrie 1901: pl. III.11) and the Asiatics (on a Den label; Amélineau 1899: pl. 33). In addition to the violence deployed outwards, the state also monopolised violence within its own borders. For example, on a vessel of King Khasekhem (2nd Dynasty) there is an image of the goddess Nekhbet perched on a ring with the word bš (‘rebel’) in front of the king’s serekh (Quibell 1900: pl. XXXVI). This illustration was perhaps created in celebration of the suppression of internal rebellion. Furthermore, a number of 3rd millennium BC documents refer to rḫyt, a type of lapwing that symbolised the subordinate population. They are depicted hanging (top register of Scorpion macehead; Quibell 1900: pl. XXXV), below the king’s feet (in a pedestal of king Netjerikhet; Firth & Quibell 1935: pl. LV), or with a knife at the neck suggesting decapitation (Palermo Stone; Wilkinson 2000b: 97–98). All of this seems to confirm the elite perception that the Egyptian population itself was an object of state coercion. Therefore, the state monopolised both inward and outward violence, and in doing so confiscated the attributes of violence that previously characterised local leadership (Campagno 2013). To conclude this analysis, I would like to return to my initial observation about evolutionism and the obstacles that such a doctrine imposes on thought about local leadership in ancient societies. From the evolutionist perspective, when we look at the scene on the vase of Abydos’ tomb U-239, we automatically see the path that leads to the scene of the Narmer’s Palette—the path from chiefs to kings. The point here is not to deny the common elements of these scenes, but instead to point out that whereas some paths led to Narmer, most led to the ḥqꜢw niwwt of the Old Kingdom. The idea of a unique path that leads exclusively from the leader of tomb U-239 to Narmer is, precisely, the evolutionist illusion. We can observe this phenomenon once more if a selection of tombs is organised chronologically from the Badarian period to Nagada I, II and III, and then from the 1st to the 4th Dynasties. We see a pattern of progression and growth, but this is an illusion. The whole sequence depends on the initial selection of tombs under consideration. On the contrary, if we compare the variety and quality of pottery production during the earlier stages of the Predynastic period with the much simpler pots of Naqada III, and with the decidedly rough wares of the Old Kingdom, we can appreciate what Norman Yoffee calls “the evolution of simplicity” (Yoffee

148

M. CAMPAGNO

2005: 92) inasmuch as the emergence of the state not only produces expansion—as seen in the size of the elite tombs—but also reduces variability. In a way, the “evolution of simplicity” observable in pottery production, is similar to the process that takes place with respect to local leadership once the state is consolidated. Local leadership was preserved in figures such as the ḥqꜢw niwwt. However, in contrast with pre-state village chiefs, the ḥqꜢw niwwt were stripped of the decisive ritual and warlike aspects of their authority, now captured by the state apparatus. These local chiefs and the deprivation they experienced speaks much about the world to come, perhaps more so than the paraphernalia and iconography representing the powerful and ritualistic god-king.

Bibliography ALLEN, J.P., 2005. The ancient Egyptian Pyramid Texts. Writings from the Ancient World 23. Atlanta. AMÉLINEAU, É., 1899. Les nouvelles fouilles d’Abydos  : 1895–1896  : Compte rendu in extenso des fouilles, description des monuments et objets découverts. Paris. BAINES, J., 1995. Origins of Egyptian kingship [in:] O’CONNOR, D. & SILVERMAN, D.P. (eds), Ancient Egyptian kingship. PdÄ 9. Leiden: 95–156. BÁRTA, M., 2010. Swimmers in the sand: On the Neolithic origins of ancient Egyptian mythology and symbolism. Prague. BRUNTON, G., 1927. Qau and Badari I. BSAE/ERA 44. London. BUSSMANN, R., 2011. Local traditions in early Egyptian temples [in:] FRIEDMAN, R.F. & FISKE, P.N. (eds), Egypt at its Origins 3. Proceedings of the Third International Conference “Origin of the State. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt”, London, 27th July–1st August 2008. OLA 205. Leuven: 747–762. CAMPAGNO, M., 2002. De los jefes-parientes a los reyes-dioses: Surgimiento y consolidación del estado en el antiguo Egipto: Del período badariense al dinástico temprano ca. 4500–2700 A.C. Aula Ægyptiaca. Studia 3, Barcelona. CAMPAGNO, M., 2013. Coercion, creation, intervention: Three capacities of the early Egyptian state [in:] FROOD, E. & MCDONALD, A. (eds), Decorum and experience: Essays in ancient culture for John Baines. Oxford: 214–219. CERVELLÓ AUTUORI, J., 2009. El rey ritualista: Reflexiones sobre la iconografía del festival de Sed egipcio desde el Predinástico tardío hasta fines del Reino Antiguo [in:] CAMPAGNO, M.; GALLEGO, J. & GARCÍA MACGAW, C. (eds), Política y religión en el Mediterráneo Antiguo: Egipto, Grecia, Roma. Buenos Aires: 61–102. DEBONO, F. & MORTENSEN, B., 1990. El Omari: A Neolithic settlement and other sites in the vicinity of Wadi Hof, Helwan. AV 82. Mainz am Rhein. DREYER, G.; HARTUNG, U.; HIKADE, T.; KÖHLER, E.C.; MÜLLER, V. & PUMPENMEIER, F., 1998. Umm el-Qaab: Nachuntersuchungen im frühzeitlichen Königsfriedhof: 9./10. Vorbericht. MDAIK 54: 77–167. DUELL, P., 1936. The mastaba of Mereruka 1: Chambers A1–10. OIP 31. Chicago. DUNHAM, D. & SIMPSON, W.K., 1974. The mastaba of queen Mersyankh III: G7530– 7540. Giza Mastabas 1. Boston. FIRTH, C.M. & QUIBELL, J.E., 1935. The Step Pyramid. Excavations at Saqqara. Cairo. FRIEDMAN, R.F., 2008a. Excavating Egypt’s early kings: Recent discoveries in the Elite Cemetery at Hierakonpolis [in:] MIDANT-REYNES, B. & TRISTANT, Y. (eds),

EMERGENCE OF THE STATE AND LOCAL LEADERSHIP IN THE NILE VALLEY

149

ROWLAND, J. & HENDRICKX, S. (coll.), Egypt at its Origins 2. Proceedings of the International Conference “Origin of the state, Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt”, Toulouse (France), 5th–8th September 2005. OLA 172. Leuven: 1157–1194. FRIEDMAN, R.F., 2008b. The cemeteries of Hierakonpolis. Archéo-Nil 18: 8–29. GRAJETZKI, W., 2003. Burial customs in ancient Egypt: Life in death for rich and poor. Duckworth Egyptology. London. HENDRICKX, S., 1998. Peaux d’animaux comme symboles prédynastiques : À propos de quelques représentations sur les vases White Cross-lined. CdÉ 73(146): 203– 230. HENDRICKX, S. & EYCKERMAN, M., 2012. Visual representation and state development in Egypt. Archéo-Nil 22: 23–72. HOFFMAN, M.A., 1982. General summary and conclusions: Issues in Predynastic culture history [in:] HOFFMAN, M.A. (ed.), The Predynastic of Hierakonpolis: An interim report. Egyptian Studies Association Publication. Cairo: 139–148. HOFFMAN, M.A., 1989. Packaged funerals and the rise of Egypt. Archaeology 42(2): 48–51. KAHL, J.; KLOTH, N. & ZIMMERMANN, U., 1995. Die Inschriften der 3. Dynastie: Eine Bestandsaufnahme. ÄA 56. Wiesbaden. KANAWATI, N., 1987. The tomb and its significance in ancient Egypt. Prism Archaeological Series 3. Giza. KEMP, B.J., 2006. Ancient Egypt: Anatomy of a civilization. 2nd ed. London. KUPER, R. (ed.), 2013. Wadi Sura: The Cave of Beasts: A rock art site in the Gilf Kebir (SW-Egypt). Africa Praehistorica 26. Cologne. LECLANT, J. & HUARD, P., 1980. La culture des chasseurs du Nil et du Sahara. Mémoires du Centre des Recherches anthropologiques, préhistoriques et ethnographiques 29. Algiers. LE QUELLEC, J.-L., 2019. Égypte, Afrique, Sahara : Arts rupestres et mythologies. Archéo-Nil 29: 81–100. MIDANT-REYNES, B., 1992. Préhistoire de l’Égypte  : Des premiers hommes aux premiers pharaons. Paris. MIDANT-REYNES, B., 2003. Aux origines de l’Égypte  : Du Néolithique à l’émergence de l’État. Paris. MORENO GARCÍA, J.C., 1999. Ḥwt et le milieu rural égyptien du IIIe millénaire  : Économie, administration et organisation territoriale. Bibliothèque de l’École des hautes études. Science historiques et philologiques 337. Paris. MORENO GARCÍA, J.C., 2001. ḤqꜢw, “jefes, gobernadores”, y élites rurales en el III milenio antes de Cristo : Reflexiones acerca de algunas estatuas del Imperio Antiguo [in:] CERVELLÓ AUTUORI, J. & QUEVEDO ÁLVAREZ, A.J. (eds), …ir a buscar leña: Estudios dedicados al prof. Jesús López. Aula Ægyptiaca. Studia 2. Barcelona: 141–154. MORENO GARCÍA, J.C., 2004. Egipto en el Imperio Antiguo (2650–2150 antes de Cristo). Barcelona. MORENO GARCÍA, J.C., 2013. The territorial administration of the kingdom in the 3rd millennium [in:] MORENO GARCÍA, J.C. (ed.), Ancient Egyptian administration. HdO 104. Leiden: 85–151. MUZZOLINI, A., 2001. Les relations entre l’Égypte et le Sahara aux temps néolithiques [in:] CERVELLÓ AUTUORI, J. (ed.), Africa antigua: El antiguo Egipto, una civilización africana. Aula Ægyptiaca. Studia 1. Barcelona: 205–218. PAYNE, J.C., 2000, Catalogue of the Predynastic Egyptian collection in the Ashmolean Museum: With addenda. Oxford.

150

M. CAMPAGNO

PETRIE, W.M.F., 1901. The Royal Tombs of the earliest dynasties 1901, part II. MEEF 21. London. POSENER-KRIÉGER, P., 1975. Les papyrus de Gébélein : Remarques préliminaires. RdÉ 27: 211–221. QUIBELL, J.E., 1900. Hierakonpolis, part I. ERA 4. London. REDFORD, S. & REDFORD, D.B., 1989. Graffiti and petroglyphs old and new from the Eastern Desert. JARCE 26: 3–49. REISNER, G.A., 1936. The development of the Egyptian tomb down to the accession of Cheops. Cambridge. SETHE, K., 1908–1910. Die altaegyptischen Pyramidentexte: Nach den Papierabdrücken und Photographien des Berliner Museums. Leipzig. SNAPE, S., 2011. Ancient Egyptian tombs: The culture of life and death. Blackwell ancient Religions. Malden. STEINDORFF, G., 1913. Das Grab des Ti. Veröffentlichungen der Ernst von Sieglin Expedition in Ägypten 2. Leipzig. STRUDWICK, N., 2005. Texts from the Pyramid Age. Writings from the Ancient World 16. Atlanta. VANDIER, J., 1952. Manuel d’archéologie égyptienne 1  : Les époques de formation. Paris. WAINRIGHT, G.A., 1923. The red crown in early Prehistoric times. JEA 9: 26–33. WILKINSON, T.A.H., 1996. State formation in Egypt: Chronology and society. BAR. International Series 651; CMAA 40. Oxford. WILKINSON, T.A.H., 2000a. Rock drawings of the Eastern Desert: Survey expedition December 1999 [in:] ROHL, D. (ed.), The Followers of Horus. Eastern Desert Survey Report 1. Basingstoke: 158–165. WILKINSON, T.A.H., 2000b. Royal annals of ancient Egypt: The Palermo Stone and its associated fragments. Studies in Egyptology. London. WINKLER, H.A., 1938. Rock-drawings of southern Upper Egypt 1: Sir Robert Mond Desert Expedition: Season 1936–1937: Preliminary report. ASE 26. London. WINLOCK, H.E., 1955. Models of daily life in ancient Egypt from the tomb of Meket-rē at Thebes. PMMA 18. Cambridge. YOFFEE, N., 2005. Myths of the archaic state: Evolution of the earliest cities, states, and civilizations. Cambridge. ZIEGLER, C., 1990. Musée du Louvre  : Catalogue des stèles, peintures et reliefs égyptiens de l’Ancien Empire et de la Première Période Intermédiaire vers 2686–2040 avant J.-C. Paris.

THE BOUNDARIES BETWEEN THE FIRST THREE DYNASTIES: ACTUAL FACT OR LATER TRADITION? JOSEP CERVELLÓ AUTUORI Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Departament de Ciències de l’Antiguitat i de l’Edat Mitjana, Institut d’Estudis del Pròxim Orient Antic, Barcelona, Spain

In his Aigyptiaka, Manetho organises the history of Egypt on the basis of the concept of ‘dynasty’—as a definite and closed sequence of kings—and isolates thirty dynasties. Traces of this chronographical arrangement can be found in earlier Egyptian sources, so it is not an invention of Greco-Roman times, but a feature of the Pharaonic conception of time and past. But at what time in Egyptian history did the notion of ‘dynasty’ take shape? Did it already exist from the very beginning of the Dynastic Period? In this contribution we discuss this issue and the evidence which seems to confirm that the boundaries between the first three dynasties were already established contemporarily by the creators of the Egyptian chronography.

1. The concept of ‘dynasty’: a creation of modern scholars or a notion of Egyptian chronography? Is the notion of the Egyptian ‘dynasty’—as a definite and closed sequence of kings—a modern creation on the basis of the Greek concept of dynasteia used by Manetho in his Aigyptiaka, or was it already a ‘unit’ of the Pharaonic conception of time and past? If the latter, when did this notion take shape? Did it already exist from the very beginning of the Dynastic Period? In other words, were the sets of kings that we group in the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Dynasties (and the following) already conceived as such by contemporary Egyptians? Two opposite opinions have been raised on this matter. According to B. Anđelković, for example, “the finds of two clay sealings with royal names from Abydos do not unequivocally testify that Narmer was the first king of the First Dynasty. The concepts and terms such as ‘Dynasty 0’ or ‘First Dynasty’ were not established by contemporary ancient Egyptians but by modern scholars” (Anđelković 2011: 31, n. 2). On the other hand, M. Baud has written: “Un certain nombre de rois ont innové en matière de datation, comme en d’autres domaines. À ce titre, il est juste de les considérer comme des véritables fondateurs, d’autant que les pratiques nouvelles qu’ils instaurent ont été suivies par leurs successeurs immédiats. Dans ces conditions, il est très probable que les rois des quatre premières dynasties aient eu conscience d’appartenir à autant de groupes monarchiques successifs […]. Le découpage répercuté par

152

J. CERVELLÓ AUTUORI

Manéthon ne saurait donc être le fruit du hasard : il suit remarquablement les sources contemporaines et la présentation annalistique de l’Ancien Empire” (Baud 2000: 44). Regarding Anđelković’s statement, while it is true that the term and concept of ‘Dynasty 0’ is a creation of modern scholars based on Manetho’s terminology, this is not the case for ‘1st Dynasty’, and for ‘dynasty’ in general, which is present in Manetho and, as a chronographic concept, also in some Pharaonic sources such as the Royal Canon of Turin (RCT). So Anđelković’s assertion seems unsustainable, at least in its actual formulation. As for Baud’s position— which we will discuss in detail later (see 2.5 below)—it is based upon very conclusive annalistic evidence, but this is not the only field in which we can find evidence for early dynastic division. In the following pages we will discuss this issue and the evidence which seems to confirm that the boundaries between the first three dynasties were already established contemporarily by the creators of the Egyptian chronography. In doing so, they linked the actual facts of the kings’ continuous succession and the deeply transformative action of some reigns to the mythical notions of continuous and cyclical time. It is my great pleasure to offer these remarks to the giant of Egyptian prehistoric and Predynastic studies who is Stan Hendrickx, for whom I have both great professional admiration and deep personal appreciation. 2. Boundaries between the first three dynasties? Critical review of the sources Let us first address the matter in the general context of Egyptian chronographical sources focusing on both the Early Dynastic Period and the Old Kingdom. 2.1. The Royal Canon of Turin As is well known, the dynastic division in Manetho and in the Ramesside sources such as the RCT is based on the location of the royal residence (Redford 1986: 13; Málek 1997: 11–14, 17; Baud 2000: 33, 45). This allows Manetho to distinguish between his 1st and 2nd Dynasties—which he links to Thinis—and his 3rd to 8th Dynasties—which he relates to Memphis (except for the 5th Dynasty, which he associates with Elephantine). The fact that in the RCT the first dynastic division only occurs between the 5th and the 6th Dynasties is undoubtedly due to the fact that Memphis was the sole capital of the country throughout this entire period (Early Dynastic Period and Old Kingdom). According to Málek (1997: 11–13), the isolation of the 6th Dynasty reflects the topographical movement of the city centre from the area east of north Saqqara to the area east of south Saqqara, but this isolation is only partial,

THE BOUNDARIES BETWEEN THE FIRST THREE DYNASTIES

153

since a new summation starting from Menes is made after the 6th and 8th Dynasties, incorporating them into the Memphite sequence (Gardiner 1959: pl. II, fragments 44, 61 [emended by Ryholt 2000: 95–96, fig. 2]; Redford 1986: 12, no. 8; Málek 1997: 8). It is therefore clear that the RCT does not define any formal division between the first five dynasties. Nevertheless, this does not mean that the canon does not make any sort of distinction inside this long sequence. K. Ryholt (2004: 145–146; 2006: 28) has shown that, on the one hand, there is a different pattern concerning the details provided for the kings of the Early Dynastic Period (1st and 2nd Dynasties) and those of the Old Kingdom (3rd to 6th Dynasties): the reigns of the former “are recorded in years, months and days, and to this information their age at death is added”, while the reigns of the latter “are recorded in round years alone” (Ryholt 2004: 145). According to Ryholt, this is due to the fact that different sources were used to compile these two sections of the canon, and this means that the chronographical tradition worked in sections which coincide perfectly with clusters of dynasties (in this case two clusters, separating the dynasties of the Early Dynastic Period from those of the Old Kingdom). On the other hand, emphasis through the use of red ink for the royal title and/or through a special textual remark, which is quite exceptional in the RCT, characterises, respectively, the entries of king Djeserit (= Netjerikhet) and king Huni, the first and the last kings of the 3rd Dynasty, which remain thus clearly identified within the sequence of the Old Kingdom reigns (Ryholt 2004: 145). It is true that in the RCT Djeserit is not recorded as the first king of that dynasty, Nebka being the one who occupies this position, but this is clearly due to a mistake in transmission, as the Saqqara list gives the correct order of succession of these kings (von Beckerath 1997: 216; Baud 2002: 65–68; see 2.3 below). The succession Khasekhemuy-Netjerikhet is ensured by the discovery of seal impressions of the latter in the grave of the former at Umm el-Qaab (Dreyer 1998; Wilkinson 1999: 95; Baud 2002: 60‒61; Seidlmayer 2006: 118; Cervelló Autuori 2008: 892). The exceptional emphasis in Djeserit’s title on the RCT is probably ultimately due to his actual role as a dynastic founder, more than “to his outstanding reputation in later times”, as Ryholt (2004: 145) suggests (see also Wilkinson 1999: 96). 2.2. Royal annals The same pattern that we find in the royal lists, that is to say, two different sequences of reigns separated by the transition from the 5th to the 6th Dynasties, can also be found in the royal annals. In fact, as is well known, two different annalistic sources cover the first six dynasties: the Palermo Stone and its associated fragments, which comprise the annals of the kings of the first five dynasties (Redford 1986: 87–90; Wilkinson 2000; most recently Nuzzolo 2020);

154

J. CERVELLÓ AUTUORI

and the South Saqqara stone, a basalt block originating from the pyramid complex of Pepy II that was re-used as the lid on the sarcophagus of Pepy’s queenmother Ankhnespepy, which is a single, complete monument, with a very different arrangement of the information in relation to the previous one, and includes the annals of the 6th Dynasty only (Baud & Dobrev 1995; Nuzzolo 2020: 56 n. 6). This means that the 6th Dynasty was conceived, already by its contemporaries, as a unit clearly separated from the previous sequences of reigns and to which a single annalistic monument could be devoted. 2.3. The Westcar papyrus The Westcar Papyrus (most recently: Bagnato 2006; Lepper 2008; Stauder 2013: 110–132; Parys 2017), dated to the end of the Second Intermediate Period or the beginning of the 18th Dynasty, gives us three different chronological sequences of fictional-historical characters: that of the kings under whose reigns the wonders recounted in the tales took place; that of the princes who narrate the tales; and that of the first three kings of the 5th Dynasty.1 The kings of the first sequence are Djeser, Nebka, Snefru, and Khufu, two of the 3rd Dynasty (in the correct chronological order, since [Netjerikhet-]Djeser was the first king of that dynasty: Dreyer 1998; Wilkinson 1999: 94–96, 101–103; Baud 2002: 60–61; Seidlmayer 2006: 118) and two of the 4th Dynasty. As for the princes, the last three are Khafre, Baufre and Hordjedef, Khufu’s sons, the name of the first having not been preserved. This was probably Djedefre (Baud 2005: 548), since in the late Middle Kingdom, when the text of pWestcar was probably originally written (Farout 2008: 126), Khufu and his four sons Djedefre, Khafre, Baufre, and Hordjedef were considered as a coherent group and were believed to have reigned over Egypt successively (see 2.4 below). Finally, the three kings of the 5th Dynasty who are mentioned are Useref (= Userkaf), Sahre (= Sahure), and Keku (= Neferirkare Kakai), the first three kings of that dynasty. But what we are interested in is the phraseology used by the storyteller when describing the transition between the 4th and 5th Dynasties. Djedi, the magician, says to king Khufu: “Then his Incarnation said: ‘[…] But who is she, this Reddjedet?’. And Djedi answered: ‘She is the wife of a wab-priest of Re, lord of Sakhebu, who is pregnant with three sons of Re, lord of Sakhebu. And he [= Re] has said about them: they will perform this efficient function [= kingship] in all this country, and their oldest will (also) act as the Greatest of the Seers in Heliopolis’. Then his Incarnation, his heart fell into sadness because of it. And Djedi said: ‘What is this feeling, sovereign l.p.h., my lord? Is it because of these three children I have mentioned? It will 1 A fourth sequence is that of the magicians or chief lector-priests who perform the miracles. Only the names of the last three are preserved and they probably correspond to fictional characters.

THE BOUNDARIES BETWEEN THE FIRST THREE DYNASTIES

155

be your son (first), (then) it will be his son, (and only then) it will be one of them.’” (pWestcar 9,8–9,14)

The reason for the dynastic change is clear and not related to the structure or the location of the royal tombs, but to blood and lineage: the mythical argument for the dynastic transition is that the new kings are direct sons of Re, and this implies a categorical opposition to the previous line in terms of descent. The division between the 4th and 5th Dynasties is stressed in the text by the description of Khufu’s sadness and Djedi’s pious effort to comfort the king. The dynastic transition is thus presented as a major and critical change. This means that, at least since the Middle Kingdom, there existed a cultural consciousness of a strong separation between these two dynasties, likely promoted by the Heliopolitan priests, and that king Khufu and his two-generation line (“your son” and “his son”) formed a well-defined and closed unit. It is important to highlight that this is a cultural construct, although probably based on the actual fact that the 5th Dynasty (as well as perhaps the 4th and the 6th) implied a change of ruling family or at least of family line (Baud 2010: 66). On the other hand, it is also clear that pWestcar conveys an actual chronographical event through an ideological (fictional) approach and without any intention of factual historicity (for example, four reigns, and not two, separate Khufu from Userkaf; Hays 2002). 2.4. The king list of the Wadi Hammamat mentioning Khufu and his sons The king list carved in the Wadi Hammamat, dating from the Middle Kingdom (Drioton 1954; Redford 1986: 25; Parys 2017: 17), gives the names of Khufu and four of his sons, Djedefre, Khafre, Hordjedef(-Re) and Bafre. All these names are arranged inside a cartouche, although the last two never reigned (Ritter 1999: 42), since Khafre was succeeded by Menkaure and Shepseskaf, the last two kings of the dynasty. The correct order of succession of the last kings of the 4th Dynasty and the first kings of the 5th can be read in the inscriptions of the tombs of Netjerpunesut (G 8740; from Djedefre to Sahure) and Sekhemkare (LG 89 = G 8154; from Khafre to Sahure), both in the central field at Giza (Roccati 1982: 70–71; Redford 1986: 59‒60, n. 205; Jánosi 2005: 46, 379; Strudwick 2005: 78). Although Hordjedef is a historical character (his mastaba, G 7210+20, is located in the Eastern Cemetery at Giza; Baud 2005: 522–523, #158; Jánosi 2005: 100, fig. 7, 104–106), the name of Ba(u)fre does not appear in 4th Dynasty sources, although it has been argued that he could be the owner of the heavily damaged mastaba G 7310+20, next to that of Hordjedef (Baud 2005: 548, 614–615, 631; Jánosi 2005: 100, fig. 7, 106). The fact that Hordjedef and Ba(u)fre never ruled may explain why they appear in interchanged order in pWestcar and in the Wadi Hammamat list. On the other hand,

156

J. CERVELLÓ AUTUORI

the presence of Djedefre in the Wadi Hammamat list allows us to suppose that he was the prince mentioned in the missing part of pWestcar (see 2.3 above). Be that as it may, it seems clear that, in the Middle Kingdom, a tradition existed about a dynastic line formed by Khufu and four of his sons. This means a notion of a strong and closed dynastic unity, even if it does not coincide with the complete dynasty. This is what Baud has called the “modèle de la dynastielignée” (Baud 2000: 45), which implies a well-defined conception of chronographical discontinuity. 2.5. Year designations If we now turn to sources contemporary to the first four dynasties, we must first consider the crucial issue of the year designations. In his paper meaningfully titled “Les frontières des quatre premières dynasties: Annales royales et historiographie égyptienne” (2000), M. Baud analyses all the sources dating from the period spanning the 1st until the 4th Dynasty containing ‘designations’ of regnal years (see also Baud 1999: 114–115; 2002: 54–56). These sources are, on the one hand, the royal annals (Palermo Stone, Cairo Stone and fragments), and, on the other hand, contemporary inscriptions such as those on the annalistic labels of the 1st Dynasty, the dipinti on vases from the underground galleries of the step pyramid at Saqqara and from Elephantine dating to the 2nd Dynasty, and the quarry marks and inscriptions from the pyramids of Snefru at Meidum and Dahshur. Baud observes that in all sources corresponding to the 1st and 3rd Dynasties, the regnal years are named after events (nom événementiel), while in all sources corresponding to the 2nd and 4th Dynasties they are designated in a numerical way (nom numérique), the boundaries between the two being precisely the transition between the last reign of one dynasty and the first of the following one (Baud 2000: 39, table). According to him, this means that the first king of each of these four dynasties innovated in the field of dating (as well as in other possible fields), and in this sense it is correct to consider them as ‘founders’ (see quotation at the beginning of this paper). Baud concludes (2000: 43): “Le recoupement entre les sources indique sans équivoque, en termes manéthoniens, que le passage de la IIe à la IIIe dynastie d’une part, de la IIIe à la IVe dynastie d’autre part, correspond à un changement de mode de désignation des années. La disparition des étiquettes datées [= the annalistic labels] après Qa’a joue aussi en faveur de cette conjonction entre les Ire et IIe dynasties. […] Les quatre premières dynasties ont donc connu l’alternance de systèmes événementiel et numérique de désignation des années, par binômes successifs Ire–IIe puis IIIe–IVe. À cette date, le mode numérique finit par l’emporter définitivement”. Baud’s study seems to be conclusive. However, one objection may be raised with respect to it. Baud fails to consider the inscriptions carved on stone vases

THE BOUNDARIES BETWEEN THE FIRST THREE DYNASTIES

157

of king Khasekhem (probably later Khasekhemuy), towards the end of the 2nd Dynasty, where the years are designated by event names (Quibell 1900: pl. 36; Wilkinson 1999: 91). This exception in an otherwise perfect pattern (the regnal years of Khasekhemuy himself are designated numerically: Baud 2000: 36‒39) can be explained by the commemorative nature of the inscriptions of Khasekhem (carved in stone) in front of the more documentary nature of the inscriptions from Saqqara and Elephantine (written in ink), or by political reasons (attempt to emulate the usage of the 1st Dynasty in what seems to have been a critical time; disruption caused by the crisis that probably affected the Egyptian State in the second half of the 2nd Dynasty and led to the second unification of the country), and does not invalidate Baud’s conclusions. 2.6. The ‘Thinite royal lists’ The second issue to be considered regarding the contemporary sources from the first dynasties is that of the so-called ‘Thinite royal lists’ (Cervelló Autuori 2005; 2008 and references). This issue concerns the 1st Dynasty and the first half of the 2nd. Two kinds of Thinite royal lists can be distinguished: those that we might call ‘closed’ or ‘true’ lists, namely the lists carved at a single moment on objects that were not reused, such as cylinder seals2 or statues, and conceived of as lists from the beginning; and those we might call ‘resultant’ lists, i.e. lists carved on re-used objects such as ritual stone vessels, on which different successive kings had their names carved one after another in a single register and in the same module and similar style. To date, four true lists and fifteen resultant lists are recorded, most of them kept at the Egyptian Museum in Cairo (Cervelló Autuori 2008: 887–890). They list between two and eight kings, always in perfect order of succession. The best known true lists are those recorded on two seal impressions originating from the tombs of Den and Qaa in Umm el-Qaab, which give respectively the Horus names of the first five kings of the 1st Dynasty, starting with Narmer, and the Horus names of the eight kings of the same dynasty, starting with Narmer and ending with Qaa (Dreyer 1987; Dreyer et al. 1996: 72–73); and the one carved on the statue of the priest Hetepdief, which gives the Horus names of the first three kings of the 2nd Dynasty (Kahl 2006: 96‒98, 102; Cervelló Autuori 2008: 887–888, figs 1–4). The best known resultant lists are those carved on stone vessels found in the galleries under the step pyramid at Saqqara where the nesut-bity and nebuy/ nebty names of the last four kings of the 1st Dynasty, starting from Khasty 2 A cylinder seal can be considered as an object that was not re-used in the sense that it has a ‘finite’ use, during a single reign or for a single set of objects (for example, part of the furniture of a single tomb), that is to say, it is made for a ‘closed’ purpose.

158

J. CERVELLÓ AUTUORI

(= Horus Den) and ending with Qaa (= Horus Qaa), are recorded (Lacau & Lauer 1959: 10: pl. 4; 1961: 9–12; Kaplony 1968: 20–24, pls 11, 18; 1973: 6, #25, pl. 2, 7, 20; Cervelló Autuori 2008: 889, figs 5–7). From the analysis of all these documents, the following conclusions can be drawn: 1. The two lists that show the beginning of the 1st Dynasty start with Narmer, who must be considered the first king of that dynasty (for a full discussion of this issue see Cervelló Autuori 2005; 2021; Kahl 2006: 94‒101; Heagy 2014). 2. All the lists that show the end of the 1st Dynasty end with Qaa. 3. The three lists that record the first kings of the 2nd Dynasty start with Hetepsekhemuy. After Ninetjer, the third king of that dynasty, the practice of carving this kind of king lists ends, coinciding with the political unrest that took place in the second half of the dynasty. 4. No lists predate Narmer and so there are no documents in which Narmer is listed with a predecessor. Narmer means an absolute beginning, in this as well as in many other fields (see 3.1.1 below). 5. There are no lists which combine the last king or kings of the 1st Dynasty with the first one or ones of the 2nd. As can be seen, the boundaries between Dynasty 0 and the 1st Dynasty, and between the 1st and the 2nd Dynasties are clear cut, and they match up perfectly with the boundaries defined by the changes in the patterns of year designation (see 2.5 above). J. Málek (1997: 17) has written: “Les divisions entre la 1ère et la 2ème, la 2ème et la 3ème (notre division moderne entre l’époque archaïque et l’Ancien Empire), la 3ème et la 4ème, et la 4ème et la 5ème dynasties sont fondées sur les considérations qui dérivent de l’histoire de l’architecture royale et du déplacement de la nécropole royale”, that is to say, on the passage from the royal mastaba to the step pyramid and from the latter to the true pyramid; on the construction of the solar temples; and on changes in the location of the royal necropolis from Abydos to Saqqara, and, inside the Memphite necropolis, from Saqqara to Zawiyet el-Aryan, Dahshur, Abu Rawash, Giza and Abusir. However, although these changes had an effect on dynastic division, they are not enough by themselves to explain it,3 and they are rather to be regarded in dialectic relationship with the chronographical principle of dynastic discontinuity, as manifested in 3

Some changes in the structure and/or location of the royal tomb did not entail a dynastic change, such as those of Peribsen in the middle of the 2nd Dynasty, Khaba in the middle of the 3rd, Snofru-Khufu-Djedefre at the beginning of the 4th, or Shepseskaf at the end of the 4th (Baud 2010: 67–68). Conversely, some continuities in the structure, location, and ritual meaning of the royal tomb occurred between different dynasties, as is the case with Unis, the last king of the 5th Dynasty, and Teti, the first king of the 6th.

THE BOUNDARIES BETWEEN THE FIRST THREE DYNASTIES

159

king lists and year designations (events or numbers). In fact, these topographical and monumental changes took place in brief moments when many other cultural and political changes occurred. Indeed, as M. Bárta (2015) has recently shown, the history of Old Kingdom Egypt seems to be marked by short periods of multiple and fundamental changes, alternating with long periods of continuity and absence of significant change. This historiographical pattern is inspired by the biological theory of ‘punctuated equilibrium’. However, at least in part, these periods of multiple changes, which Bárta calls ‘multiplier effect periods’ (MEP), coincide perfectly with the boundaries between dynasties, since he describes the first three as MEP 1: Netjerikhet Djoser; MEP 2: Sneferu; MEP 3: transition between the 4th and 5th Dynasties. Bárta fixed a fourth MEP in the reign of Niuserre, but he does not distinguish another one in the transition from the 5th to the 6th Dynasties because he believes that from Niuserre to the end of the Old Kingdom “the periods of relatively long stasis dividing individual major events or periods of change cease to be present” (Bárta 2015: 9) since important and constant changes occur in all the reigns. Be that as it may, at least regarding the three first MEPs, the accumulation of cultural and political change could be perceived by contemporaries as the sign of disruption in the succession of kings. Another indication of the awareness of belonging to different units on the part of the kings of the successive dynasties of the Old Kingdom can be found in the special link that the kings of the 6th Dynasty established with those of the 4th, as different sources suggest: “It, therefore, seems that the kings of the 6th Dynasty […] looked back with nostalgia at the past grandeur of Snefru and his lineage, turning their backs on their immediate predecessors of the 5th Dynasty” (Baud 2010: 69–70). 3. Evidence of disruption between the first three dynasties and concluding remarks On the basis of the above, let us review which concrete bodies of evidence allow us to conclude that Egyptians contemporary to the first three dynasties already conceived of them as three different and well defined units, and the boundaries between them as qualitative disruptions in the kings’ sequence, according to their chronographical conception. 3.1. Evidence that the Egyptians conceptualised disruption between Dynasty 0 and the 1st Dynasty 1. Narmer as the ‘absolute founder’. Narmer was not only the founder of a dynasty, such as Hetepsekhemuy, Netjerikhet, Snefru, Userkaf and Teti (for the Early Dynastic Period and the Old Kingdom), but he was also the founder of the historical Egyptian kingship in absolute terms, since his reign marks

160

2.

3.

4.

5.

J. CERVELLÓ AUTUORI

a before and an after in the development of Egyptian civilisation: it can be considered as a ‘hinge’ between Predynastic and dynastic times. Indeed, some defining features of the Predynastic culture end with Narmer, such as the use of decorated votive palettes and mace heads as a means of expressing royal ideology (these objects will disappear after him); the use of the ‘elamite motifs’ and the representation of the king as a wild beast in iconography; and the small dual-chamber funerary complex at Umm el-Qaab. And some defining features of the dynastic culture start with Narmer, such as the formal iconographic motifs of the pharaoh smiting the enemy (Narmer palette), the ritual stage for the Sed-festival (Narmer mace head), and the four standards accompanying the king (both Narmer palette & mace head); the representation of the king wearing the white crown and the red crown in a single document (Narmer palette); the annalistic tradition, the king lists, and the year designations (Baud 2002: 53–54); the second or ‘birth’ name of the kings (Cervelló Autuori 2005; 2021); and the foundation and designation of royal estates (Spencer 1980: 64, pls 48, 52, #456). The first annalistic labels (Spencer 1980: 64, pls 48, 52, #456; Dreyer 2000) and, in consequence, the beginning of the annalistic tradition date back to the reign of Narmer (Baud 1999: 114–117). In the context of this initial annalistic tradition, Narmer is the creator of year designations by event names (Baud 2002: 53–54), which his successors will continue to use up to Qaa, the last king of the 1st Dynasty. The earliest royal lists were compiled during the 1st Dynasty and they do not record any king previous to Narmer. As we have seen (2.6 above), the two lists that show the beginning of the 1st Dynasty start with him, which probably means that he was perceived as its founder. At present, the identity between Narmer and Menes appears to be well established (Cervelló Autuori 2005; 2021, with references; Kahl 2006: 94‒95, n. 4; Heagy 2014, with references), and Menes is the first king of the 1st Dynasty and the founder of Egyptian kingship in all the Ramesside and classical king lists and ‘historical’ sources. As for Dynasty 0, the kings preceding Narmer are unknown to Manetho and the pharaonic chronographical sources (annals and king lists), which suggests that the chronographical practice itself was unknown before Narmer and only established under his reign.

3.2. Evidence that the Egyptians conceptualised disruption between the 1st and 2nd Dynasties

1. Hetepsekhemuy, the founder of the 2nd Dynasty, leaves the ancestral cemetery of Umm el-Qaab and moves his funerary complex and cult northwards to Saqqara, the necropolis of Memphis.

THE BOUNDARIES BETWEEN THE FIRST THREE DYNASTIES

161

2. The annalistic labels are a feature of the 1st Dynasty only: the last known ones were carved in the reign of Qaa, the last king of that dynasty. After him, they stopped being made. From that moment, the annalistic data must have continued to be registered, but on other supports unknown to us, as evidenced by the annals compiled in the 5th Dynasty. 3. Hetepsekhemuy is the creator of the numerical way of year designation, which remained in use throughout the 2nd Dynasty. 4. As has been stated above (see 2.6), all the king lists that record the last kings of the 1st Dynasty end with Qaa; all the lists that record the first kings of the 2nd Dynasty start with Hetepsekhemuy; and there are no lists which combine the last king or kings of the 1st Dynasty with the first one or ones of the 2nd. 5. The identity between the first five kings of the 2nd Dynasty according to contemporary sources and according to Manetho is clear. 3.3. Evidence that the Egyptians conceptualised disruption between the 2nd and 3rd Dynasties 1. After the second half of the 2nd Dynasty, in which the kings returned to Umm el-Qaab as the place of burial for the last time, Netjerikhet, the founder of the 3rd Dynasty, comes back to Saqqara. Undoubtedly as a result of his close contact with Imhotep, the high priest of the solar cult at Heliopolis (Baud 2002: 140–142, 199–202; Cervelló Autuori 2011: 1128– 1130), he builds for himself the first pyramid in Egyptian history, in the centre of a monumental funerary enclosure made entirely of stone for the first time. 2. Netjerikhet returns to the year designation by event names, which remained in use throughout the 3rd Dynasty. This will be changed again by Snefru, the first king of the 4th Dynasty, who will return definitively to dating by numbered regnal years. 3. In the RCT, the entries of king Djeserit and king Huni, the first and the last kings of the 3rd Dynasty, are emphasised through the use of red ink for the royal title (the first one) and through a specific textual remark (both). By these means, which are quite exceptional in the RCT, both kings remain clearly identified within the sequence of the Old Kingdom reigns (see 2.1 above). As we have seen, the RCT clearly isolates dynasties by means of its headings and summations starting from the 6th Dynasty. This means that the Ramesside Egyptians were well aware of the fact that royal succession was ‘punctuated’ by a certain number of disruptions motivated by a major reason: in the specific case of the RCT, a change of the capital city. However, it is obvious that this chronographical principle is not an invention of the Ramesside chronographers

162

J. CERVELLÓ AUTUORI

and that it comes from the previous king lists and annalistic tradition. Evidence like, above all, the ‘Thinite royal lists’ and the changes in year designation through the first four dynasties seem to confirm that the notion of disruption in the kings’ sequence or, what is the same, the notion of ‘dynasty’, is inherent to the Egyptian chronographical practice from the very beginning. The second Abydos seal impression, which gives the Horus names of the eight kings of the 1st Dynasty in perfect order of succession from Narmer to Qaa (see 2.6 above), can be seen as an eloquent piece of evidence for that. Line and segment, continued succession and punctuated disruption: in fact, these temporal concepts, at once opposing and complementary, were deeply rooted in Egyptian culture and expressed through the dichotomy between djet-time and neheh-time. Just as, in the spatial field, the early dynastic Egyptians accommodated their view of the country and state to the cosmological dual principle, according to which perfection lies in the dialectics between two spatially complementary opposites, in the temporal field they could read royal succession through the principle of the double cosmic time, according to which eternity has both a continuous and a cyclical dimension at the same time (Hornung 1992: 64–69; Assmann 2001: 73–80; 2011: 13–85; Servajean 2007; 2008). By these means, the actual space and time can be incorporated in the mythical sphere, which is the ultimate origin of the meaning of life and society in a culture of ‘mythical ontology’ like the Egyptian one. Bibliography ANĐELKOVIĆ, B., 2011. Political organization of Egypt in the Predynastic Period [in:] TEETER, E. (ed.), Before the pyramids: The origins of Egyptian civilization. OIMP 33. Chicago: 25–32. ASSMANN, J., 2001 [1984]. The search for god in ancient Egypt. Translated by LORTON, D. Ithaca. ASSMANN, J., 2011. Steinzeit und Sternzeit: Altägyptische Zeitkonzepte. Munich. BAGNATO, D., 2006. The Westcar Papyrus: A transliteration, translation and language analysis. Vienna. BÁRTA, M., 2015. Ancient Egyptian history as an example of punctuated equilibrium: An outline [in:] DER MANUELIAN, P. & SCHNEIDER, T. (eds), Towards a new history for the Egyptian Old Kingdom: Perspectives on the Pyramid Age. HES 1. Leiden: 1–17. BAUD, M., 1999. Ménès, la mémoire monarchique et la chronologie du IIIe millénaire. Archéo-Nil 9: 109–147. BAUD, M., 2000. Les frontières des quatre premières dynasties : Annales royales et historiographie égyptienne. BSFÉ 149: 33–46. BAUD, M., 2002. Djéser et la IIIe dynastie. Paris. BAUD, M., 2005. Famille royale et pouvoir sous l’Ancien Empire égyptien. BdÉ 126. 2nd ed. Cairo. BAUD, M., 2010. The Old Kingdom [in:] LLOYD, A.B. (ed.) A companion to ancient Egypt. Chichester: 63–80.

THE BOUNDARIES BETWEEN THE FIRST THREE DYNASTIES

163

BAUD, M. & DOBREV, V., 1995. De nouvelles annales de l’Ancien Empire égyptien : Une “Pierre de Palerme” pour la VIe dynastie. BIFAO 95: 23–83. CERVELLÓ AUTUORI, J., 2005. Was king Narmer Menes? Archéo-Nil 15: 31–46. CERVELLÓ AUTUORI, J., 2008. The Thinite “royal lists”: Typology and meaning [in:] MIDANT-REYNES, B. & TRISTANT, Y. (eds); ROWLAND, J. & HENDRICKX, S. (coll.), Egypt at its Origins 2. Proceedings of the International Conference “Origin of the State. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt”, Toulouse (France), 5th–8th September 2005. OLA 172. Leuven: 887–899. CERVELLÓ AUTUORI, J., 2011. The sun-religion in the Thinite Age: Evidence and political significance [in:] FRIEDMAN, R.F. & FISKE, P.N. (eds), Egypt at its Origins 3. Proceedings of the Third International Conference “Origin of the State. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt”, London, 27th July–1st August 2008. OLA 205. Leuven: 1125–1150. CERVELLÓ AUTUORI, J., 2021. Menes, Teti, Iti, Ita: An update [in:] BUCHEZ, N. & TRISTANT, Y. (eds.), Égypte antérieure  : Mélanges de préhistoire et d’archéologie offerts à Béatrix Midant-Reynes par ses étudiants, collègues et amis pour son 70e anniversaire. OLA 304. Leuven: 161–173. DREYER, G., 1987. Ein Siegel der frühzeitlichen Königsnekropole von Abydos. MDAIK 43: 33–43. DREYER, G., 1998. Der erste König der 3. Dynastie [in:] GUKSCH, H. & POLZ, D. (eds), Stationen: Beiträge zur Kulturgeschichte Ägyptens, Rainer Stadelmann gewidmet. Mainz: 31–34. DREYER, G., 2000. Egypt’s earliest historical event. EA 16: 6–7. DREYER, G.; ENGEL, E.-M.; HARTUNG, U.; HIKADE, T.; KÖHLER, E.C. & PUMPENMEIER, F., 1996. Umm el-Qaab: Nachuntersuchungen im frühzeitlichen Königsfriedhof. 7./8. Vorbericht. MDAIK 52: 11–81. DRIOTON, É., 1954. Une liste des rois de la IVe dynastie dans l’Ouâdi Hammâmât. BSFÉ 16: 41–49. FAROUT, D., 2008. Les fourberies de Djédi : P. Westcar 6, 22–9, 21 [in:] GALLOIS, C.; GRANDET, P. & PANTALACCI, L. (eds), Mélanges offerts à François Neveu par ses amis, élèves et collègues à l’occasion de son soixante-quinzième anniversaire. BdÉ 145. Cairo: 123–143. GARDINER, A.H., 1959. The Royal Canon of Turin. Oxford. HAYS, H.M., 2002. The historicity of Papyrus Westcar. ZÄS 129(1): 20–30. HEAGY, T.C., 2014. Who was Menes? Archéo-Nil 24: 59–92. HORNUNG, E., 1992. Idea into image: Essays on ancient Egyptian thought. New York. JÁNOSI, P., 2005. Giza in der 4. Dynastie: Die Baugeschichte und Belegung einer Nekropole des Alten Reiches 1: Die Mastabas der Kernfriedhöfe und die Felsgräber. DGÖAW 30; UZK 24. Vienna. KAHL, J., 2006. Inscriptional evidence for the relative chronology of Dyns. 0–2 [in:] HORNUNG, E.; KRAUSS, R. & WARBURTON, D.A. (eds), Ancient Egyptian chronology. HdO 83. Leiden: 94–115. KAPLONY, P., 1968. Steingefäße mit Inschriften der Frühzeit und des Alten Reichs. MA 1. Brussels. KAPLONY, P., 1973. Beschriftete Kleinfunde in der Sammlung Georges Michailidis: Ergebnisse einer Bestandsaufnahme im Sommer 1968. Publications de l’Institut Historique et Archéologique de Stamboul 32. Istanbul. LACAU, P. & LAUER, J.-P., 1959. La pyramide à degrés 4  : Inscriptions gravées sur les vases, 1  : Planches. Fouilles à Saqqarah. Cairo.

164

J. CERVELLÓ AUTUORI

LACAU, P. & LAUER, J-P., 1961. La pyramide à degrés 4  : Inscriptions gravées sur les vases, 2  : Texte. Fouilles à Saqqarah. Cairo. LEPPER, V., 2008. Untersuchungen zu pWestcar: Eine philologische und literaturwissenschaftliche (Neu-)Analyse. ÄA 70. Wiesbaden. MÁLEK, J., 1997. La division de l’histoire d’Égypte et l’égyptologie moderne. BSFÉ 138: 6–17. NUZZOLO, M., 2020. La pierre de Palerme et les fragments associés : Nouvelles découvertes sur les plus anciennes annales royales égyptiennes. BSFÉ 202: 55–82. PARYS, L., 2017. Le récit du Papyrus Westcar  : Texte, traduction et interprétation. Textes égyptiens 1. Brussels. QUIBELL, J.E., 1900. Hierakonpolis I. ERA 4. London. REDFORD, D.B., 1986. Pharaonic king-lists, annals and day-books: A contribution to the study of the Egyptian sense of history. Mississauga. RITTER, V., 1999. Hordjédef ou le glorieux destin d’un prince oublié. Égypte, Afrique et Orient 15: 41–50. ROCCATI, A., 1982. La littérature historique sous l’Ancien Empire égyptien. Littératures anciennes du Proche Orient 11. Paris. RYHOLT, K. 2000. The late Old Kingdom in the Turin king-list and the identity of Nitocris. ZÄS 127(1): 87–100. RYHOLT, K., 2004. The Turin king-list. Ä&L 14: 135–155. RYHOLT, K., 2006. The Turin king-list or so-called Turin Canon (TC) as a source for chronology [in:] HORNUNG, E.; KRAUSS, R. & WARBURTON, D.A. (eds), Ancient Egyptian chronology. HdO 83. Leiden: 26–32. SEIDLMAYER, S.J., 2006. The relative chronology of Dynasty 3 [in:] HORNUNG, E.; KRAUSS, R. & WARBURTON, D.A. (eds), Ancient Egyptian chronology. HdO 83. Leiden: 116–123. SERVAJEAN, F., 2007. Djet et Neheh  : Une histoire du temps égyptien. Orientalia Monspeliensia 18. Montpellier. SERVAJEAN, F., 2008. Duality [in:] DIELEMAN, J.; WENDRICH, W. (eds.) UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology. Los Angeles. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/95b9b2db (last accessed 6/11/2020). SPENCER, A.J., 1980. Catalogue of Egyptian antiquities in the British Museum 5: Early Dynastic objects. London. STAUDER, A., 2013. Linguistic dating of Middle Egyptian literary texts. Lingua Aegyptia Studia Monographica 12. Hamburg. STRUDWICK, N., 2005. Texts from the Pyramid Age. Writings from the Ancient World 16. Atlanta. VON BECKERATH, J., 1997. Chronologie des pharaonischen Ägypten: Die Zeitbestimmung der ägyptischen Geschichte von der Vorzeit bis 332 v. Chr. MÄS 46. Mainz. WILKINSON, T.A.H., 1999. Early Dynastic Egypt. London. WILKINSON, T.A.H., 2000. Royal annals of ancient Egypt: The Palermo Stone and its associated fragments. London.

NEW DISCOVERIES OF NEOLITHIC CALICIFORM BEAKERS ON THE UPPER NILE (SUDAN) MAREK CHŁODNICKI Poznań Archaeological Museum, Poznań, Poland

Caliciform beakers are spread widely throughout the Nile valley and the deserts of Southern Egypt and Northern Sudan. Radiocarbon dates suggest that they appear at the beginning of the 5th millennium and were used until the 4th millennium BC. For a long time, there was a gap in the distribution of these beakers in the area of the Southern Dongola Reach and the 4th Nile Cataract. Recent research shows that caliciform beakers were common in this area. This is evidenced not only by the discovery of the pots but also their representations in the rock art.

Specific vessels, characterised by a flared rim and slim shape, are widespread in Southern Egypt and Northern Sudan. They appear in the Nile Valley as well as in the deserts and are known under different terms: Tasian beakers, caliciform beakers, or tulip shaped beakers. When examining the details one can notice big differences in shape, size, and decoration. It should be noted that, contrary to the standardised shape and decoration of Neolithic pottery, the caliciform beakers differ in character as no two vessels are identical. They also differ from a technological point of view—produced with mineral or organic temper, covered, or not, with red slip, burnished, or not. A characteristic trait of these vessels is their geometric decoration covering the whole external surface, although undecorated objects also appear (Brunton 1937: 28–29; Friedman & Hobbs 2002: 185–186; Gatto 2006; Longa 2011). These vessels were important to their owners (Friedman & Hobbs 2002: 185). This is expressed by their intensive use but also by their individualistic style which seems to have been the aim of the producers (Jesse 2006: 46) and fell in line with the expectations of the users. The frequent presence of the caliciform beakers in cemeteries leads to a conclusion that they were related to funerary rituals, most probably libation (Reinold 2004: 46; Jesse 2006: 46–47). These kinds of beakers were identified as characteristic for the Tasian Culture in Middle Egypt (Brunton 1937) but they were known from the beginning of the 20th century. Often however, the origin of these vessels is poorly documented (Firth 1915; Petrie 1921; Scharff 1928; Brunton & Caton-Thompson 1928; Lugn 1931; Brunton 1934; 1937; Larsen 1961; Bourriau 1981). Recent research shows that this specific kind of vessel is widely distributed in both the

166

M. CHŁODNICKI

Eastern and Western Deserts of Egypt: Gilf Kebir, Jebel Kami; Dakhleh Oasis, Nabta Playa, Wadi Attula (Hope 2002; Friedman & Hobbs 2002; Gatto 2006; 2010; Kobusiewicz et al. 2004; 2010; Kuper 2007). Most of the discoveries of caliciform beakers in Sudan are concentrated along the Nile Valley (Sedinga, Kadruka, Kawa, 4th Cataract region; see Geus 1979; Reinold 1987; 1994; 2001; Welsby 1994; Salvatori & Usai 2002; 2008; Chłodnicki 2006; Chłodnicki et al. 2007) and in central Sudan (Kadada, Ghaba, Kadero; see Geus 1984; Caneva 1988; Krzyżaniak 1991; 2011; Chłodnicki 1997; 2011; Reinold 2008; Salvatori et al. 2016). Research at Wadi Howar shows that they are also present far into the desert (Jesse 2006; 2007). Radiocarbon dates from cemeteries with graves containing caliciform beakers suggest that the oldest caliciform examples appeared at the beginning of the 5th millennium BC and are present until late Neolithic times in the 4th millennium BC (Friedman & Hobbs 2002: 178; Salvatori & Usai 2008: 143–145; Chłodnicki & Kabaciński 2015: 200–203, Salvatori et al. 2016: 23). It seems that the beakers first appeared in Nubia and soon spread into the Western and Eastern Desert, and the Egyptian Nile Valley as well as further south to the area of Khartoum (Gatto 2006: 106). In central Sudan, caliciform beakers were still used in the late Neolithic. When they were discovered in Kadada, they were recognised as characteristic for the late Neolithic (Kadadien) (Geus 1979; Reinold 1987: 33; 2008: 196) but after discoveries at Kadero, we know that the vessels appeared there as early as the early Neolithic (Chłodnicki & Kabaciński 2015: 200–203). A gap in the distribution of caliciform beakers extending from the Southern Dongola Reach to the area of the 4th Cataract existed for a long time. This was not only an effect of less intensive archaeological research in this area, but also of the fact that Neolithic societies in this area were probably nomadic groups which did not leave behind any substantial settlements or extended cemeteries. When in 1966–67, a mission of the Southern Methodist University (SMU) carried out a survey on the left bank of the Nile between Wadi el-Milk and Korti at the distance of 80 km along the river and 10 km into the desert, only a small piece of a flared rim of what may possibly have been a caliciform beaker was discovered. It was connected to the Neolithic Karat group (Marks & Ferring 1971: 253; Gatto 2006: 104). At El-Mulataga, in the area previously surveyed by the Southern Methodist University, the French Archaeological Unit of The National Corporation for Antiquities and Museums conducted excavations in 2001–2003. They were surprised to discover many small, Neolithic cemeteries in this area. Although the pottery found in the graves shows strong affinities with the material known from Kadruka and the R12 sites, the burial customs differ from other cemeteries known from the Nile Valley. They are located on small mounds and counted no more than five to six graves.

NEW DISCOVERIES OF NEOLITHIC CALICIFORM BEAKERS ON THE UPPER NILE

167

Among the grave goods, an almost complete caliciform beaker was found and assigned to the El-Multaga Neolithic on the basis of similarities with the material from Kadruka and R12 which dates to the second half of the 5th millennium BC (Geus & Lecointe 2003). On the opposite side of the Nile, in the area of the Southern Dongola Reach, the Royal Ontario Museum Expedition started its research almost 20 years later. During archaeological prospections in 1984–1985, several Neolithic sites were located (Grzymski 1987). When excavations of a few prehistoric sites started ten years later, many more complete beakers were found that likely came from the eroded cemetery but were different in shape and decoration. A first beaker had a much more flaring rim and was decorated with geometric motifs, created by narrow bands filled with oblique comb impressions, whereas the second beaker was decorated with wide oblique bands filled with herringbone pattern made by comb impressions which were separated by plain narrow bands (Chłodnicki 2000: 56; Chłodnicki & Kabaciński 2003: 58). Unfortunately, no radiocarbon dates are available for these vessels and we can only estimate their chronological range to the second half of the 5th millennium BC. Between 1997 and 2003, a survey on the east bank of the Nile, upstream of the Letti basin up to Ez-Zuma, was carried out by the Polish Southern Dongola Reach Survey (SDRS), which lead to the discovery of many Neolithic sites. They were attributed to the Karat tradition but only very little material was collected from the surface (Phillips 2003: 390) and no traces of cemeteries were recognised. When in 2016 a new project in the Affad Basin started,1 the situation was very similar to that encountered by the French Mission following the SMU survey. The Affad Basin is located on the opposite side of the Nile from El-Multaga and had already been surveyed by the SDRS. From the beginning, attention was paid to several small mounds covering the area of the basin, expecting the same situation as was found at El-Multaga and resulting in the discovery of several small Neolithic cemeteries containing from one up to four graves. All of them were heavily eroded and only a few graves were preserved and undisturbed. Most of them were in very bad condition and grave goods were scattered around remains of human bones. Among those scattered finds were fragments of caliciform beakers. All of them have brown burnished surfaces and their fabric tempered with fine to medium sand. We can reconstruct two of them with considerable accuracy on the basis of the preserved fragments of

1 Epigones and Forerunners – Adaptation Strategies of the Sub-Saharan Societies in terminal Pleistocene and early Holocene. Case study of the region of Affad Basin, Southern Dongola Reach, Sudan. NCN 2015/18/E/HS3/00416.

168

M. CHŁODNICKI

the rim, body and base sherds. From two other vessels, only the upper parts were preserved. The first vessel, from Affad 129, grave no. 1, was the most complete. The external surface was completely covered with dotted lines filling irregular fields (Fig. 1.1). The flared rim has a diameter of 18 cm, the small elongated body was 8.5 cm in diameter and about 24 to 25 cm in height. The base of what is likely a fifth beaker, decorated with incised bands filled with oblique dotted

Fig. 1. Affad Basin. Caliciform beakers: 1) Affad 129, grave 1; 2) Affad 132, grave 2; 3) Affad 133, grave 1; 4) Affad 69, grave 1 (drawings B. Bednarczyk).

NEW DISCOVERIES OF NEOLITHIC CALICIFORM BEAKERS ON THE UPPER NILE

169

lines, was also found in this grave. The site yielded also fragments of Karat group pottery but these should probably be connected with the remains of the settlement rather than with the graves. The second vessel, from Affad 132, grave no. 2, has a flared rim of only 14 cm in diameter. The diameter of the body measures about 10 cm and is about 23 cm high. It was decorated with incised bands filled with oblique incisions of a comb. The slightly thickened rim was covered with a crisscross pattern of comb impressions (Fig. 1.2). Fragments of undecorated brown bowls and rippled ware vessels were also found at the site. All of them come from the destroyed graves. The upper part of another beaker comes from grave no. 1 in Affad 133. The flared rim is 19 cm in diameter. The preserved part of the pot was covered with hanging triangles filled with comb impression. The thickened rim was also covered with a chain of hanging triangles hatched with oblique dotted lines (Fig. 1.3). A brown bowl, whose upper parts were decorated with the parallel lines of impressed dots, and half of a small undecorated bowl were also found at the site. At Affad 69, grave no. 1, only the upper part of a beaker was preserved. The rim has the same dimensions as the one from Affad 133 and was thickened and decorated with a chain of hanging triangles hatched with oblique dotted lines. The upper part of the vessel was decorated with semi-circular panels of dotted lines which covered the whole neck and were bordered at the top and bottom with plain bands (Fig. 1.4). A small cup, decorated with oblique running dotted zig zag lines, was also found. This kind of decoration is also known from R12 (Salvatori & Usai 2008: fig. 16.196) as well as from Affad 130. From the latter site, a radiocarbon date of 5350 ±35 BP is available, making it contemporary with the later graves at Kadruka and the Middle Neolithic B in Upper Nubia (Salvatori & Usai 2008: 145). The presence of rippled ware in the graves on the site of Affad 132 and in the settlement at Affad 69 could suggest that these beakers might be younger and date to the Late Neolithic. Out of the six Neolithic cemeteries excavated in the Affad Basin, caliciform beakers were found in four of them. Pottery was not a very abundant grave good and only 18 vessels or vessel fragments of pots could have come from these graves. Among them, caliciform beakers constitute more than a quarter of all pots, while in the large cemeteries in Nubia and central Sudan they represent only a small percentage: 2.4 % in Kadero (Chłodnicki 2011: tab. 9) and 1.29 % in Ghaba (Salvatori et al. 2016: tab. 3.5). On site R12, where caliciform beakers are more common, they still make out only less than 10 % of the grave goods (Salvatori & Usai 2008: 161–284). Similar proportions of beakers in graves occur only in Gebel Ramlah (27.3 %; Gatto 2010: 146, tab. 3.2) and possibly also at the site of Wadi Attula (Friedman & Hobbs 2002).

170

M. CHŁODNICKI

Fig. 2. Hagar el-Beida. Caliciform beakers depicted on the rock (photo M. Chłodnicki).

Fig. 3. Hagar el-Beida. Caliciform beaker depicted on the rock (photo M. Chłodnicki).

NEW DISCOVERIES OF NEOLITHIC CALICIFORM BEAKERS ON THE UPPER NILE

171

The shape of the vessels from Affad shows the best similarities with the slim forms with very flared rims known from Kadero, Ghaba, R12 and the Letti Basin. The decorations of the vessels from Affad 132 can be compared with those known from R12, whereas the decorations of the vessels from Affad 129 and 133 have no parallel in other caliciform beakers but appear only on the bowls known from Kadero. Looking at the material from Affad, it seems that it is more connected with northern than with the central Sudan. Particularly, a strong convergence with R12 seems to exist, although the organisation of society—probably shepherds wandering in small groups—in the Southern Dongola Reach was different. In these societies, occupying the deserts and the border between desert and Nile Valley, caliciform beakers played a more important role than in more sedentary groups living on the banks of the river (Friedman & Hobbs 2002: 189). In the discussion regarding the special function of caliciform beakers in Neolithic societies, discoveries from the 4th Nile Cataract are very important. In this area, caliciform beakers and their fragments have also been discovered (Fuller 2004: 7–8; Edwards & Fuller 2005: 24; Longa 2011), but at one place, the site of Hagar el-Beida 38, caliciform beakers were also depicted on the rocks (Chłodnicki et al 2007). The site is also known as Jebel Kitaba (Longa 2011: 15). These depictions were placed on two stone blocks situated at the bottom of the wadi, some 3.5 km from the Nile Valley. Each of three depicted vessels have different shapes but the size is similar to the real pots (Longa 2011: fig. 2, pls 1–2). Two of them have shapes already known from the actual pottery but the third one was different (Figs 2–3). It tell us that the variation of caliciform beakers is bigger than currently known. The fact that caliciform beakers were immortalised in the form of petroglyphs is a unique phenomenon and emphasises the great symbolic and ritual significance of this type of vessel. Bibliography BOURRIAU, J., 1981. Umm el-Ga’ab: Pottery from the Nile Valley before the Arab conquest. Cambridge. BRUNTON, G., 1934. Some Tasian pottery in the Cairo Museum. ASAÉ 34: 94–96. BRUNTON, G., 1937. Mostagedda and the Tasian culture. London. BRUNTON, G. & CATON-THOMPSON, G., 1928. The Badarian civilization and Predynastic remains near Badari. BSAE/ERA 46. London. CANEVA, I., 1988. El Geili: The history of a Middle Nile environment 7000 BC – AD 1500. BAR. International Series 424; CMAA 29, Oxford. CHŁODNICKI, M., 1997. New types of the Neolithic pottery in Kadero. CRIPEL 17(2): 29–35. CHŁODNICKI, M., 2000. The Neolithic of the Letti Basin (Nubia) [in:] CIAŁOWICZ, K.M. & OSTROWSKI, J. (eds) Les civilisations du bassin méditerranéen  : Hommages à Joachim Śliwa. Kraków: 53–60.

172

M. CHŁODNICKI

CHŁODNICKI, M., 2006. The Neolithic of the Fourth Cataract. Archéo-Nil 16: 85–94. CHŁODNICKI, M., 2011. Pottery [in:] CHŁODNICKI, M.; KOBUSIEWICZ, M. & KROEPER, K. (eds), Kadero: The Lech Krzyżaniak excavations in the Sudan. SAA 10. Poznań: 215–266. CHŁODNICKI, M. & KABACIŃSKI, J., 2003. The Neolithic of the Dongola Reach (Nubia). Gdańsk Archaeological Museum African Reports 2: 57–69. CHŁODNICKI, M. & KABACIŃSKI, J., 2015. Radiocarbon dates from Kadero revised [in:] KABACIŃSKI, J.; CHŁODNICKI, M. & KOBUSIEWICZ, M. (eds), Hunter-gatherers and early food producing societies in Northeastern Africa. SAA 14. Poznań: 195– 220. CHŁODNICKI, M.; LEMIESZ, M.; LONGA, A.; OSYPIŃSKI, P. & SIP, M., 2007. Excavations at Es-Sadda and Hagar el-Beida, survey between Es-Sadda and Shemkhiya: Two seasons of work in 2005. PAM 17: 337–347. EDWARDS, D.N. & FULLER, D.Q., 2005. Excavations and survey in the central AmriKirbekan area, Fourth Cataract, 2003–2004. Gdańsk Archaeological Museum African Reports 4: 21–29. FIRTH, C.M., 1915. The archaeological survey of Nubia: Report for 1909–1910. Cairo. FRIEDMAN, R.F. & HOBBS, J.J., 2002. A ‘Tasian’ tomb in Egypt’s Eastern Desert [in:] FRIEDMAN, R.F. (ed.), Egypt and Nubia: Gifts of the desert. London: 178–191. FULLER, D.Q., 2004. The central Amri to Kirbekan survey: A preliminary report on excavations and survey 2003–04. Sudan and Nubia 8: 4–10. GATTO, M.C. 2006. Prehistoric Nubian ceramic tradition: Origin, development and spreading trajectories [in:] CANEVA, I. & ROCCATI, A. (eds), Acta Nubica: Proceedings of the X International Conference of Nubian Studies, Rome 9–14 September 2002. Rome: 103–106. GATTO, M.C., 2010. Pottery from Gebel Ramlah [in:] KOBUSIEWICZ, M.; KABACIŃSKI, J.; SCHILD, R.; IRISH, J.D.; GATTO, M.C. & WENDORF, F., Gebel Ramlah: Final Neolithic cemeteries from the Western Desert of Egypt. Poznań: 123–157. GEUS, F., 1979. Rapport annuel d’activités 1978–1979  : Service des antiquités du Soudan. Lille. GEUS, F., 1984. Rescuing Sudan ancient cultures. Khartoum. GEUS, F. & LECOINTE, Y., 2003. Survey and excavation at el-Multaga, a resettlement area related to the construction of the Merowe Dam: Preliminary results. Sudan and Nubia 7: 33–39. GRZYMSKI, K., 1987. Archaeological reconnaissance in Upper Nubia. SSEA Publications 14. Toronto. HOPE, C.A., 2002. Early and Mid-Holocene ceramics from the Dakhleh Oasis: Traditions and influences [in:] FRIEDMAN, R.F. (ed.), Egypt and Nubia: Gifts of the desert. London: 39–61. JESSE, F., 2006. Cattle, sherds and mighty walls: The Wadi Howar from Neolithic to Kushite times. Sudan and Nubia 10: 43–54. JESSE, F., 2007. Un nouvel aspect du Néolithique au Wadi Howar (Nord du Sudan) : Des vases caliciformes [in:] GRATIEN, B. (ed.), Mélanges offerts à Francis Geus  : Égypte – Soudan. CRIPEL 26. Lille: 178–196. KOBUSIEWICZ, M.; KABACIŃSKI, J.; SCHILD, R.; IRISH, J.D. & WENDORF, F., 2004. Discovery of the first Neolithic cemetery in Egypt’s western desert. Antiquity 78(301): 566–578. KOBUSIEWICZ, M.; KABACIŃSKI, J.; SCHILD, R.; IRISH, J.D.; GATTO, M.C. & WENDORF, F., 2010. Gebel Ramlah: Final Neolithic cemeteries from the Western Desert of Egypt. Poznań.

NEW DISCOVERIES OF NEOLITHIC CALICIFORM BEAKERS ON THE UPPER NILE

173

KUPER, R., 2007. ‘Looking behind the scenes’: Archaeological distribution patterns and their meaning [in:] BUBENZER, O.; BOLTEN, A. & DARIUS, F. (eds), Atlas of cultural and environmental change in arid Africa. Africa Praehistorica 21. Cologne: 24–25. KRZYŻANIAK, A., 2011. Neolithic cemetery [in:] CHŁODNICKI, M.; KOBUSIEWICZ, M. & KROEPER, K. (eds), Kadero: The Lech Krzyżaniak excavations in the Sudan. SAA 10. Poznań: 57–198. KRZYŻANIAK, L., 1991. Early farming in the Middle Nile basin: Recent discoveries at Kadero (Central Sudan). Antiquity 65(248): 515–532. LARSEN, H., 1961. Finds from Badarian and Tasian civilizations. Medelhavsmuseet Bulletin 1: 9–19. LONGA, A., 2011. Neolithic beakers from North-Eastern Africa. Sudan and Nubia 15: 13–17. LUGN, P., 1931. A ‘beaker’ pot in the Stockholm Egyptian Museum. JEA 17(1/2): 22. MARKS, A.E. & FERRING, C.R., 1971. The Karat group: An early ceramic bearing occupation of the Dongola Reach [in:] SHINER, J.L.; MARKS, A.E.; CHMIELEWSKI, V.; DE HEINZELIN, J. & HAYS, T.R. (eds), The Prehistory and geology of Northern Sudan. Report to the National Science Foundation: 187–275. PETRIE, W.F.M., 1921. Corpus of Prehistoric pottery and palettes. BSAE/ERA 32. London. PHILLIPS, J., 2003. An overview of the ceramics [in:] ŻURAWSKI, B. (ed.), Nubia 2: Survey and excavations between Old Dongola and Ez-Zuma: Southern Dongola Reach of the Nile from Prehistory to 1820 AD based on the fieldwork conducted in 1997–2003 by the Polish Archaeological Joint Expedition to the Middle Nile. Southern Dongola Reach Survey 1. Warsaw: 387–437. REINOLD, J., 1987. Les fouilles pré- et proto-historiques de la Section Française de la Direction des Antiquités du Soudan : Les campagnes 1984–85 et 1985–86. Archéologie du Nil moyen 2: 17–67. REINOLD, J., 1994. Les sépultures primitives de Sedeinga dans le contexte du Néolithique soudanais [in:] BERGER, C.; CLERC, G. & GRIMAL, N. (eds), Hommages à Jean Leclant. BdÉ 106(2), Cairo: 351–359. REINOLD, J., 2001. Kadruka and the Neolithic in the Northern Dongola Reach. Sudan & Nubia 5: 2–10, pl. I–XV. REINOLD, J., 2004. Kadruka [in:] WELSBY, D. & ANDERSON, J.R. (eds), Sudan: Ancient treasures. London: 42–45. REINOLD J., 2008. La nécropole néolithique d’el-Kadada au Soudan central 1  : Les cimetières A et B (NE-36-O/3-V-2 et NE-36-O/3-V-3) du kôm principal. Paris. SALVATORI, S. & USAI, D., 2002. Graves with caliciform beakers at the Neolithic cemetery of R12 in the Northern Dongola Reach (Kawa, Sudan). Rivista di Archeologia 26: 5–7. SALVATORI, S. & USAI, D. (eds), 2008. A Neolithic cemetery in the Northern Dongola Reach: Excavations at site R12. BAR. International Series 1814; SARS 16. Oxford. SALVATORI, S.; USAI, D. & LECOINTE, Y., 2016. Ghaba: An early Neolithic cemetery in central Sudan. Frankfurt. SCHARFF, A., 1928. Some Prehistoric vases in the British Museum and remarks on Egyptian Prehistory. JEA 14(3/4): 261–276. WELSBY, D.A., 1994. The SARS Northern Dongola Reach Survey. SARS Newsletter 94: 6.

THE EASTERN PART OF THE TELL EL-FARKHA CEMETERY DURING THE EARLY DYNASTIC PERIOD KRZYSZTOF M. CIAŁOWICZ Jagiellonian University, Institute of Archaeology, Kraków, Poland

During Phase 5 (Naqada IIIB–IIIC1), Tell el-Farkha was at the peak of its development. A few mastaba graves built in this period continued the tradition already known at Tell el-Farkha from the beginning of the Naqada IIIB period. At the same time, on the eastern border of the Naqada IIIB cemetery, a new edifice was erected. This building was probably connected with a posthumous cult. During Phase 6 (Naqada IIIC2–D), many graves were dug in the ruins of the edifice. Also, some of these Naqada IIIB mastabas were cut by burials from this period, which means that two meter high graves had already been forgotten and covered with layers of erosion and mud. These changes at the cemetery could prove that the settlement was abandoned for some period of time and that new settlers arrived at the end of the 1st Dynasty.

Phase 5 at Tell el-Farkha dates from the middle of Naqada IIIB to Naqada IIIC1, the period contemporary with Dynasty 0 (reign of Iry-Hor) and the very beginning of the 1st Dynasty, until the reign of Djer (Hendrickx 2006: 92). This period was the peak of Tell el-Farkha’s development and is visible first of all in the administrative-cultic centre on the Western Kom, a large complex composed of several rooms encircling an inner, open courtyard. The important role of this area is confirmed by two chapels (?) in which votive deposits were discovered, as well as stone vessel workshops (Ciałowicz 2012: 171–180). The significance of Tell el-Farkha is also illustrated by the cemetery. A number of mastaba graves, generally richly equipped, were built in this period, continuing a tradition known at Tell el-Farkha from the beginning of the Naqada IIIB period (Dębowska-Ludwin 2012: 53–54). Of further importance still was a partially excavated building erected at the eastern border of the cemetery (Fig. 1). The building measures at least 15 × 10 m and three rooms were distinguishable. The walls were constructed of dark mud bricks, as well as sand-and-mud bricks. The main walls, 0.8–1 m wide, were covered by a 3–5 cm thick pale mortar, both on the outside and inside (Fig. 2). It is significant that an identical kind of mortar was also put on the walls of mastaba grave no. 63 from the same period (Ciałowicz 2018: pl. V.2). The northern room (A) of our building was separated from the northern outside wall by a 1.5 m wide corridor. Attached to the northern wall of this room is a kind of step or bank also from mud brick. Two other rooms (B & C)

176

K.M. CIAŁOWICZ

Fig. 1. Map of the eastern part of the cemetery at Tell el-Farkha.

were placed in the south-western part of the building. Both were very similar, almost square (c. 4 × 4 m) and in both of them some additional short walls were joined to the western inner façade. Under the floor of room B, two tall wine jars and a pot-stand decorated with an engraving were unearthed in the same layer. The first wine jar, discovered on the last day of the excavations in 2014, was found adjacent to the second one, discovered in 2015. The pot-stand was touching the second jar from the north (Fig. 3). The first wine jar was engraved with a pot mark composed of a rectangular frame and a fish on the right of it. Under the southern part of the floor of room C, potsherds from a few jars were discovered and under the northern wall of the same room, a completely preserved bread mould was found. On the east side of said room, a wall that had collapsed onto its side was recognised along with an entrance that was placed in the south-eastern corner. Attached to the northern wall of the edifice is another space surrounded on three sides by walls. Its western wall is not preserved, but because it was erected at the same time it is very probable that this additional room was a part of our building, and was established on the western side of the inner (?) courtyard.

THE EASTERN PART OF THE TELL EL-FARKHA CEMETERY

Fig. 2. The northern wall of room A.

Fig. 3. The pot-stand and wine jar in situ.

177

178

K.M. CIAŁOWICZ

It is very difficult to interpret this structure. Its construction method with pale walls, a complicated plan, and pots discovered beneath the building suggest that it was not an ordinary house. In addition, the place in which it was erected is significant. During three additional years of excavations, all visible traces of burials were recorded, but it remains to be seen whether the earlier graves lie in the deepest layers of this part of the site. It is therefore possible, that this edifice was erected on the eastern border of the Naqada IIIB cemetery. It should also be taken into consideration that our mysterious construction was connected with an important grave situated in the southern part of the Eastern Kom. Traces of some large structures were discovered there during a geophysical survey (Herbich 2012: 388–390). Nevertheless, it seems likely that the edifice from the Eastern Kom was connected in the same way with a posthumous cult. In the middle of the 1st Dynasty, Tell el-Farkha lost its political importance and changed its role. The administrative-cultic centre and the entire Western Kom were abandoned. At the same time, changes were also observed at the Tell elFarkha cemetery. The aforementioned building from Phase 5 was destroyed. Unfortunately, it is impossible to determine whether the building was demolished as a result of a natural catastrophe, or an intentional action. The wall that has collapsed onto its side, as mentioned above, in the eastern part of the building, could be proof of both possibilities. Nevertheless, many graves were dug in the ruins of the edifice. In all of them, the skeletons were put in a contracted position, on their left side and with their heads facing north. Some of the graves were equipped with different goods. The deceased from grave no. 132, a 30–35 year old man,1 had three beads, seven clay vessels and one stone pot. In grave no. 141 a woman, around 30–40 years old, was buried together with twelve beer jars and eight stone vessels: seven made of travertine and one made of sandstone. Grave no. 144 (Fig. 4) belonged to a 40–50 year old man and was equipped with five pottery beer jars and three stone vessels: two travertine and one made of basalt. The skeleton in grave no. 148 was only partially preserved. An adult person was buried there. During the excavation, five beer jars, one wine jar and a small cylindrical jar, as well as part of a basalt bowl were discovered. The 35–45 year-old male from grave no. 149 (Fig. 5) was equipped with six beer jars and a bowl, as well as two travertine pots. The excavated pottery allows us to date the abovementioned graves to Phase 6 at Tell el-Farkha, which is contemporary with Naqada IIIC2–D (Kazimierczak & Doros 2018: 120). The other graves (p.e. no. 125 (Fig. 6), 129, 131 (Fig. 7) 1 The anthropological analyses were carried out by K. Mądrzyk, B. Woźniak, A. Kozłowska and A. Szczepanek.

THE EASTERN PART OF THE TELL EL-FARKHA CEMETERY

Fig. 4. Grave no. 144.

Fig. 5. Grave no. 149.

179

180

K.M. CIAŁOWICZ

Fig. 6. Grave no. 125, dug into the main western wall.

Fig. 7. Grave no. 131, dug into the northern wall of the additional room.

THE EASTERN PART OF THE TELL EL-FARKHA CEMETERY

181

and 135) held only very poorly preserved skeletons of children and adults. All bodies were wrapped in matting. These graves yielded no equipment and can be dated only based on their stratigraphic position and their similarity to the graves discovered in the vicinity. At the same time, some of the Naqada IIIB mastabas were also cut by burials that can be dated to Tell el-Farkha Phase 6. For instance, grave no. 100, which dates to Naqada IIIB, is intersected by grave no. 108 from this period. Another burial (no. 71) was dug into the south-western corner of the abovementioned grave no. 63. It dates to the second half of the 1st Dynasty, which means that the two-meter-high grave no. 63, as well as grave no. 100, had already been forgotten and covered with layers of erosion and mud. The most interesting finds were graves nos 126 and 130. The first, a twochamber grave, was built on top of the second one (Fig. 8). It is dated to the turn of the 1st and the 2nd Dynasty (Naqada IIIC2–D). In the grave, the body of a man of about 25–35 years old, lying in a typical position was discovered. The southern chamber contained eleven ceramic vessels, mainly beer jars, while in the northern chamber twelve stone pots and one bead were deposited (Fig. 9). Mastaba grave no. 130 was older. It is dated to the very beginning of Tell el-Farkha Phase 5 (the middle of Naqada IIIB) which means that it was built

Fig. 8. Cross-section of graves nos 126 and 130.

182

K.M. CIAŁOWICZ

Fig. 9. The offerings and remains of the skeleton in grave no. 126.

THE EASTERN PART OF THE TELL EL-FARKHA CEMETERY

183

during Dynasty 0. The aforementioned grave no. 126 was not only built on grave no. 130 but its northern wall was also erected on the southern wall of mastaba no. 104, which also dates to the beginning of Phase 5. The lower part of the superstructure of grave no. 130 was built with bricks mixed with pottery fragments (Fig. 8). Mud brick walls, at least 1.5 m high, were built on top of this on all sides. The space between the walls was filled with soil, broken bricks and pottery fragments. The covering of the burial chamber was partially preserved below the superstructure (Fig. 10). It was a kind of matting made from reeds and twigs in a manner similar to the method used for roofing houses in modern Egyptian villages. A burial chamber with rounded corners was found further down. It was enclosed by mud brick walls and filled with mud that was almost liquid. This is a well-known method of construction at Tell el-Farkha. In many graves dated to the Protodynastic period, mud was poured into the burial chambers to protect both the goods and the deceased. Grave no. 130 was built on a wall belonging to the oldest Naqadian settlement. A 30–39 year-old woman was buried here, lying in a contracted position on her left side, with the head to the north. She was equipped with four stone and seventeen ceramic pots, a cosmetic palette, and a necklace of 139 carnelian and one lapis-lazuli beads.

Fig. 10. The burial chamber of grave no. 130. Different stages of exploration.

184

K.M. CIAŁOWICZ

Graves nos 55, 98 and 104 are in a different but yet also very interesting situation. All of them were mastabas, but date to different periods. Graves nos 98 and 104 were older. They were constructed in the middle of the Naqada IIIB period. Grave no. 55 was built during the Early Dynastic period. In all described above cases, much poorer and smaller graves from Tell el-Farkha Phase 6 were dug into the richer and bigger mastabas dating to Naqada IIIB. Mastaba tomb no. 55 represents an opposite situation in which a rich mastaba covered earlier graves. The first one (grave no. 98) was of relatively small size and measures 3.24 × 1.2 m. Its superstructure was constructed of massive walls that were 1.1 m thick. The burial chamber was approximately 1.2 m deep but rather small (1.15 × 0.81 m). The deceased, an adult female, was lying in a tightly contracted position on her left side, with the head to the north. She was accompanied by eight pottery vessels, two stone vessels, a greywacke palette and a grinder, as well as beads of agate (Dębowska-Ludwin 2012: 59–60). The superstructure of the second grave (no. 104) was almost completely destroyed by mastaba grave no. 55. Only a part of its southern wall was preserved on which the aforementioned grave no. 126 was built. It is thus possible that the superstructure of grave no. 104 was of the same height as grave no. 130 (at least about 1.5 m). The burial chamber measures 4.2 × 3.2 m, was surrounded by thick walls and was almost 1.9 m deep (Fig. 11). The deceased,

Fig. 11. Grave no. 104. The southern part of the burial chamber of grave no. 55 is visible in the upper left corner.

THE EASTERN PART OF THE TELL EL-FARKHA CEMETERY

185

a man around 35–50 years old, was lying in a contracted position with his head to the north. He was equipped with twenty-two pottery and four stone vessels. Grave no. 55 consisted of a burial chamber divided into four small compartments with a brick superstructure surrounded by a perimeter wall that measures 9.16 × 6.77 m, and a subsidiary burial, grave no. 64. The superstructure was preserved to a height of over 1.5 m (Fig. 12). It was constructed of dark mud bricks that created the core of the structure, surrounded with an extra adjusting wall of sand-and-mud bricks. At the core, spaces between bricks were filled with soil. In the eastern façade of the superstructure were two niches, one close to the northern corner, and the other close to the southern one. An extremely high amount of rough pottery, mostly bread moulds, was concentrated near the niches but still within the perimeter wall. This suggests the significance of these niches, probably for the cult of the dead. The 0.3 m thick perimeter wall has rounded corners and was much lower than the main structure. An entrance to the enclosure was placed in the south. The main body of the superstructure, which measures 7.96 × 5.44 m, as well as the perimeter wall were perfectly shaped, carefully built and plastered. All these features indicate that this part of the burial was intentionally planned to be visible above the cemetery level (Dębowska-Ludwin 2012: 69–70). Fifty-two pottery and thirty stone vessels, as well as two copper harpoons, were deposited as offerings.

Fig. 12. The superstructure of grave no. 55.

186

K.M. CIAŁOWICZ

The reasons for such changes at the cemetery are difficult to explain. We can presume that during c. 200 years, between Iry-Hor and the second part of the 1st Dynasty (Hendrickx 2006: 92), some of the graves were partially eroded, covered with plants and soil. In effect, they were destroyed and forgotten. The same fate could have met the described building in the eastern part of the cemetery. Other possibilities should be also taken into consideration. The changes at the cemetery could be proof that our settlement was abandoned for some period of time (probably short) and that new settlers arrived at the end of the 1st Dynasty. They were not aware of the existence of the cemetery and they established a new one in the same place. The reasons behind the transformations that took place at the end of the 1st Dynasty are probably completely different from those responsible for previous changes (Ciałowicz 2018). The appearance of a new group of people during late Predynastic and Protodynastic times could be explained as the result of competition between main centres of powers in various fields. The dominating issue could be the control over trade routes leading to the Sinai and the Southern Levant. The changes in the second part of the 1st Dynasty were not so dramatic, but could be connected with some economic or religious unrest. Unfortunately, our knowledge about the reign of the last kings of the 1st and almost all of the 2nd Dynasty is very limited and the reconstruction of the history of this time is still far from satisfactory. However, the internal migration and changes connected with them could well have taken place. Bibliography CIAŁOWICZ, K.M., 2012. Protodynastic and Early Dynastic settlement on the Western Kom [in:] CHŁODNICKI, M.; CIAŁOWICZ, K.M. & MĄCZYŃSKA A. (eds), Tell elFarkha 1: Excavations 1998–2011. Poznań: 163–180. CIAŁOWICZ, K.M., 2018. Socio-political transformations in the Eastern Delta in the second half of the 4th millennium B.C.: The view from Tell el-Farkha [in:] CIAŁOWICZ, K.M.; CZARNOWICZ, M. & CHŁODNICKI, M., Eastern Nile Delta in the 4th millennium B.C. Kraków: 9–20. DĘBOWSKA-LUDWIN, J., 2012. The cemetery [in:] CHŁODNICKI, M.; CIAŁOWICZ, K.M. & MĄCZYŃSKA A. (eds), Tell el-Farkha 1: Excavations 1998–2011, Poznań: 53–75. HENDRICKX, S., 2006. Predynastic–Early Dynastic chronology [in:] HORNUNG, E.; KRAUSS, R. & WARBURTON, D.A. (eds) Ancient Egyptian chronology. HOS 83. Leiden: 55–93. HERBICH, T., 2012. Magnetic survey [in:] CHŁODNICKI, M.; CIAŁOWICZ, K.M. & MĄCZYŃSKA, A. (eds), Tell el-Farkha 1: Excavations 1998–2011. Poznań: 383– 391. KAZIMIERCZAK, M. & DOROS, U., 2018. Pottery from the southern part of the Eastern Kom at Tell el-Farkha [in:] CIAŁOWICZ, K.M.; CZARNOWICZ, M. & CHŁODNICKI, M., Eastern Nile Delta in the 4th millennium B.C. Kraków: 115–124.

OBSIDIAN IN EARLY EGYPT: THE PROVENANCE OF A NEW FRAGMENT FROM THE PREDYNASTIC SETTLEMENT AT ELKAB AND THE QUESTION OF POSSIBLE EXCHANGE ROUTES WOUTER CLAES1, DORIAN VANHULLE2 & THIERRY DE PUTTER3 1 Royal Museums of Art and History, Brussels, Belgium Université libre de Bruxelles, CReA-Patrimoine, Brussels, Belgium 3 Royal Museum for Central Africa, Department of Earth Sciences, Geodynamics and Mineral Resources, Tervuren, Belgium

2

Since 2009, the Belgian Archaeological Mission to Elkab of the Royal Museums of Art and History is excavating the remains of a large settlement that has its origin in the Badarian period. During the excavation season of 2012, the distal end of an obsidian flake was found in the early Naqada II horizon of test pit 3. The geochemical analysis of its trace elements indicates that this flake, like other analysed samples from Hierakonpolis and Naqada, originates from obsidian sources in the Ethiopian Afar triangle. The Elkab flake brings additional data to the existing corpus of provenanced obsidian fragments and the discussion on possible exchange routes. Based on the archaeological context, the geographical and chronological distribution of all known obsidian objects, combined with new data emerging from recent and intensive archaeological research in the deserts south and west of the Egyptian Nile Valley, the question of these exchange routes needs to be reconsidered within a broader framework of various simultaneous supply networks. In this paper, we propose to break down the procurement of obsidian in early Egypt in two phases that also highlight some of the socio-economic developments occurring during the Predynastic period and the changes following the formation of the Egyptian state.

Excavated and published by the honouree of this Festschrift, the large Naqada III cemetery of Elkab still constitutes one of the best investigated Predynastic sites at Elkab (Hendrickx 1994). Since the excavation of this cemetery in the late 1970’s, Elkab’s early history has always been, and still is, a key focus point of the Belgian Archaeological Mission to Elkab, not in the least because of the pivotal role Stan has always played as an archaeologist and ceramicist in its research activities and fieldwork. In recent years, the Belgian mission has focussed its research almost exclusively on the early settlement of Elkab. During excavations in 2012, a small obsidian flake was found within the Predynastic part of the settlement area. Although Stan claims that size does matter (Hendrickx et al., 2020), we have chosen this humble little object as a subject for this modest contribution in his honour which we trust will be of interest to him.

188

W. CLAES, D. VANHULLE & T. DE PUTTER

Fig. 1. Map of the settlement area of Elkab with the location of the different test pits (© Belgian Archaeological Mission to Elkab).

OBSIDIAN IN EARLY EGYPT

189

Elkab in the Predynastic period Already at the end of the 19th century, several late Predynastic tombs were excavated at Elkab by James E. Quibell (1898: 8–11; Hendrickx 1994: 147– 148). One group seems to belong to the above-mentioned Naqada III cemetery, but its precise location is not known.1 Quibell also excavated about twenty heavily plundered tombs that predate this Naqada III necropolis (Quibell 1898: 9). It is not possible to determine a precise location for this group of burials due to the scanty published information, but they should be situated just outside the northern corner of the Late Period ‘Great Walls’.2 Several older Predynastic finds have also been attested. In 1955, Pierre Gilbert discovered in the so-called ‘archaic sector’, situated at the north-western corner of the temple area and inside the late Old Kingdom enclosure wall, a series of mud brick constructions and silo installations. Based on the archaeological material, they can be dated in the 3rd Dynasty, but several re-used Predynastic objects were also found inside these silos (Hendrickx & Eyckerman 2009: 15–26). These finds came as no surprise since the presence of Predynastic objects in this part of the site was already demonstrated at the beginning of the 20th century by Archibald H. Sayce, Somers Clarke and Frederic W. Green. Between 1901 and 1904, they excavated different locations within the temple zone and the area bordered by the late Old Kingdom enclosure wall, and found several fragments of Predynastic pottery and other artefacts that they considered to be for domestic purposes (Sayce & Clarke 1905: 257–269).3 Black-topped pottery was also discovered by Jean Capart near the foundation of the northern corner of the temple of Nekhbet (Gilbert 1954: 83).4 Because of the presence of these late prehistoric objects, the area was further investigated by Pierre Vermeersch and Herman De Meulenaere in 1968–1969 with the specific objective to retrieve the remains of a Predynastic settlement (Vermeersch 1978: 135). More mud brick constructions were uncovered, but, according to the excavators, they were situated in disturbed contexts making it impossible to determine their exact date. However, scattered ceramics of red polished and black-topped pottery (Vermeersch 1978: pl. VI) that can tentatively be dated to the Naqada I or early

1

According to Quibell, they were found “chiefly inside the fort of El Kab [= the Late Period enclosure wall or so-called ‘Great Walls’]”, cf. Quibell 1898: 9, pl. XXVII. See also Hendrickx 1994: 148, who states that some of these tombs could be dated to the early Old Kingdom. 2 For a probable location of these tombs, see Hendrickx & Huyge 1989: pl. II, no. 36. 3 See specifically trenches nos 11 & 13, pits nos 8, 16, 18, 19 & ‘D’ and ‘a’ near the “Small Temple”. The approximate location of the different pits and trenches is indicated on a plan (fig. 2) on p. 245. The exact location and dimensions of Pit ‘D’ can be found in: Clarke 1922, pl. VI. 4 See also the distribution list of objects between the Egyptian Museum, Cairo and the Royal Museums of Art and History (RMAH), Brussels in: FÉRÉ 1954: 107–112. No. 20 is a fragment of a black-topped jar, now in the collection of the RMAH (E.7759).

190

W. CLAES, D. VANHULLE & T. DE PUTTER

Naqada II period, confirmed a Predynastic occupation of this part of the site. Moreover, the presence of rippled ware sherds suggested that this occupation may even go back to the Badari Period and the very beginning of the Predynastic (De Meulenaere 1970: 32–34; Vermeersch 1972: 109; 1978: 135– 144). Additionally, during the 1955 excavations, an ellipsoid palette (K.242)5 with an incision on both ends, which is undoubtedly of Badarian vintage, was found within silo N (Hendrickx & Eyckerman 2009: 16, fig. 14, see fig. 2 for the location of silo N). Besides the above-mentioned Naqada III cemetery, the most significant Predynastic finds at Elkab consist of hundreds of rock drawings that cover the rock cliffs of the Wadi Hellal and the wider desert hinterland of Elkab. Based on stylistic grounds, subject matter and their relative chronology (i.e. superimpositions), the vast majority of these can be attributed to the Predynastic period (Huyge 1984; 1995; 1999; 2002). Although direct archaeological evidence was scanty, these various finds indicated that Elkab was intensively frequented during Predynastic times. Moreover, they also suggested the presence of a Predynastic habitation site located below and in the immediate vicinity of the temples. However, following the observations of De Meulenaere (1970: 33–34; 1975: 1226) and Vermeersch (1978: 8, 144), who estimated that it was unlikely that in situ Predynastic settlement remains could be excavated there, this part of the site was not investigated further until 2009 when systematic archaeological research in the settlement area of Elkab began. The archaeological context After the discovery in 2009 and 2010 of intact stratified Predynastic settlement remains in a small test pit (TP1) immediately south of the area of the 1955 excavations (Rowland et al. 2009: 25–26; Claes et al. 2014: 75–77), five additional test pits (TP2–5 & TP9), each measuring 2 × 2 m, were excavated between 2012 and 2016 (Fig. 1). During the excavation of TP3, the distal end of an obsidian flake, numbered as ELK12-F05 (Fig. 2), was found in a thick deposit of aeolian sand, some 10 cm below a floor level (TP3-Lc09), that consisted of a thin layer of hardened grey sandy silt, and was associated with two small hearths (TP3-Lc10 & 11). Based on the ceramics that were found on top of this layer of mud flooring, this horizon dates to the Naqada IIB–C period. Some 30 cm above this level, two fragments of typical Naqada IIIA decorated ware attest to a younger occupation phase, and the upper layers in this test pit can be dated to the Early Dynastic period. Below the floor level, two older occupation horizons could be discerned. The first one (TP3-Lc12) can be attributed to the late Naqada I/early Naqada II period. The lowest horizon 5

This palette is now kept in the Egyptian Museum in Cairo (JE 89574).

OBSIDIAN IN EARLY EGYPT

191

Fig. 2. Obsidian flake ELK12-F05 (© Belgian Archaeological Mission to Elkab).

(TP3-Lc13 & 14), situated at the base of the aeolian sand and the top of the alluvial Nile deposits, can be dated to the Badarian. Moreover, the chronological attribution of the lowest horizon is confirmed by a radiocarbon date of 4350 Cal BC (Claes et al. 2014: 77–85). The chronological sequence of the different occupation horizons in TP3 shows that Elkab was continuously inhabited throughout the 4th and early 3rd millennium BC from at least the Middle Predynastic and perhaps already from Badarian times onwards. Important to note is that not all the test pits show the same sequence of occupation horizons. Badarian pottery has only been found in TP1 and TP3, and archaeological material from the Naqada III period has only been clearly attested in pits 3 and 9. This seemingly indicates that the location of the Predynastic settlement of Elkab may have shifted over time, but one should also take into account the limited size of the excavated test pits. Besides large amounts of pottery, the late Naqada I/early Naqada II horizon in which the obsidian flake ELK12-F05 was found also yielded substantial amounts of lithic artefacts. They were predominantly made out of local flint that is abundantly available and easily accessible in the gravel deposits of the nearby Wadi Hellal. Besides typical Predynastic tools such as notches, borers, or denticulates, the tool kit of this horizon is dominated by burins. Altogether, 44 burins as well as 128 burins spalls (including primary and re-sharpening spalls) were counted in TP3-Lc12.6 Such a high amount of a specific tool 6 The preliminary report published in 2014 (see Claes et al. 2014: 85) mentions 28 burins and 70 burin spalls, but these numbers were based on an incomplete analysis of the excavated material. In the meantime, a complete attribute analysis of the lithic artefacts from TP3 has been executed by Karin Kindermann, and the numbers mentioned here can be considered as final.

192

W. CLAES, D. VANHULLE & T. DE PUTTER

category can only be explained as functional, and points to the presence of a specialised activity area in the immediate vicinity of the test pit (see also Kindermann, this volume). The presence of the ELK12-F05 fragment suggests that obsidian was probably also knapped in this workshop and that obsidian tools were produced or modified locally. The aeolian sand layer TP3-Lc12 is more than 1.5 m thick and, as stated above, ranges in date from the late Naqada I to the early Naqada II period. Since the obsidian flake was found in the upper layers of this locus, an early Naqada II date seems likely. No other obsidian fragment has ever been found in the archaeological record of Elkab before the First Intermediate Period or Middle Kingdom, nor have any other exotic raw materials, such as turquoise or lapis lazuli.7 With the exception of a few obsidian pieces from Nubia, the Elkab fragment, together with those found at Hierakonpolis, appear to be the southernmost examples ever reported from Predynastic contexts in the Egyptian Nile Valley. Moreover, it is also one of the oldest that has ever been found in Egypt (see Catalogue) and hints at Elkab’s involvement in long distance contacts at a very early stage in Egyptian history. Geochemical analyses of obsidian flake ELK12-F05 Obsidian is a natural volcanic silica-rich glass, formed from a magmatic material that has cooled too quickly to allow for crystal formation. This specific rock does not occur in Egypt where Cenozoic and Quaternary volcanic activity generated basalt flows, mostly in Northern Egypt (Meneisy 1990). However, obsidian occurs widely in the Near East and on both shores of the southern Red Sea.

7

Quibell mentions a string of beads made of carnelian, gold foil, small discs of gold and lapis lazuli that was found in tomb 264 which is located inside the Great Walls, close to its eastern entrance gate (Quibell 1898: 14, see pl. XXIV for the location of this tomb). The date of this tomb has been the subject of much debate. According to Quibell, tomb 264 dates to the 12th Dynasty (Quibell 1898: 14) while Sayce & Clarke (1905: 248) propose a slightly older date (10th or 11th Dynasty). Based on parallels with the pottery from the early Old Kingdom tombs at Reqâqnah, Garstang (1904: 40–41) dates this tomb to the 2nd or 3rd Dynasty. Again, based on the pottery, Seidlmayer (1990: 371–372) believes that a date in the late Old Kingdom can be attributed to this tomb. A re-analysis of the pottery, completed with the archaeological material deriving from additional excavations in this cemetery by the Belgian mission in 1968–1969, indicates an 11th Dynasty date for most of the tombs in this burial ground (Schotte 2011: 110). Yet, older tombs for which a date in the Old Kingdom can be accepted were also present in the same burial ground (Quibell 1898: 6, 10, 18–20, pls V.5, XX.28 & 30, XXIV; Sayce & Clarke 1905: 251– 252, fig. 3; see also Kaplony 1981: 97–98, 146, pls 32.2, 51.3 for the cylinder seals bearing the names of pharaohs Userkaf and Menkaura that were also found in this part of the cemetery), but a date in the First Intermediate Period or early Middle Kingdom seems most likely for tomb 264.

OBSIDIAN IN EARLY EGYPT

193

Analytical procedure The obsidian flake ELK12-F05 has been analysed for its trace elements. Laser ablation LA-ICP-MS measurements were performed at the Earth Sciences Department of the Royal Museum for Central Africa (Tervuren, Belgium). A New-Wave UP-193 FX fast excimer (193 nm) laser coupled with a Thermo Scientific X-Series2 quadrupole ICP-MS was used. The laser was run at 40 Hz with 75 μm spot size during 40 seconds ablation time. He-gas at a flow rate of 0.65 l/min was flushed into the ablation cell and was mixed after the cell with Ar carrier gas at a flow rate of 0.70 l/min. The LA-ICP-MS operating conditions were optimised to have low oxides and double-charge levels. 29Si (expressed as % SiO2) was used as the internal standard for correcting instrumental drift and ablation rate. The 3 NIST 610-612-614 glass standards were used as external standards for the calibrations. The accuracy was better than 10 % and the precision was below 10 % RSD. The results are listed in Table 1. Results and preliminary discussion Previous trace element analyses, using the same analytical method, have shown that in Lower Egypt, Predynastic and Early Dynastic obsidian raw material was obtained from Near Eastern subduction-type volcanoes, with Th/Ta ratios typically ≥ 5. In Upper Egypt, the material rather came from intraplate Ethiopian/ Yemeni volcanoes, with Th/Ta ratios ≤ 5 (Bavay et al. 2000; 2004). Extensive research on obsidian sources confirms that the Th/Ta ratio is generally high for Turkish and Armenian volcanoes (Chataigner & Gratuze 2014; Robin et al. 2016) while it is usually lower than 2 in Ethiopian and Yemeni volcanoes (Barca et al. 2012; Khalidi et al. 2010). A recent study further confirmed the Ethiopian origin for obsidian artefacts from Upper Egypt and tentatively identified trade routes for the procurement and supply of Ethiopian raw material towards these sites (Giménez et al. 2015).8 The Elkab flake brings additional data to the existing corpus, allowing the discussion of the southern origin of obsidian materials to be refined. The geochemical characteristics of the ELK12-F05 sample are very similar to other analysed samples from Hierakonpolis and Naqada (Table 2): the Th/Ta ratio has been used in previous papers (Bavay et al. 2000; 2004) while the Zn/Zr ratio has been recently proposed as a useful discriminating tool (Giménez et al. 2015).

8 After the 4th millennium, obsidian may have come also from the Yemini sources. According to a new analysis of six obsidian fragments found at the Middle Kingdom harbour site of Mersa/ Wadi Gawasis, at least one could originate from Yemen while four other samples indicate an Eritrean/Ethiopian source (Lucarini et al. 2020).

194

W. CLAES, D. VANHULLE & T. DE PUTTER

Furthermore, the patterns of rare-earth elements (hereafter REE) in obsidian samples from Upper Egyptian sites are quite similar overall, with a gentle slope (6 < LaN/YbN < 10) and a moderately marked negative Eu anomaly (0.2 < Eu/ Eu* < 0.4) (Fig. 3). In contrast, Near Eastern obsidians usually display flatter slopes (3 < LaN/YbN < 8) and a more marked negative Eu anomaly (Eu/ Eu* < 0.1). The Th/Ta vs. Th/U plot shown in Fig. 4 illustrates the affinity between: 1) the Yemen-Afar sources and obsidian artefacts from Upper Egypt, including the Elkab flake ELK12-F05 (cluster “a” in Fig. 4); 2) the Near Eastern obsidian sources and the Buto bladelet core (cluster “b” in Fig. 4). The REE pattern of the Elkab flake is plotted against potential obsidian sources, from volcanoes in Yemen and in the Ethiopian Afar region (Fig. 5). Though the patterns of the geological sources are quite similar due to a common intraplate setting, it nonetheless seems that the Elkab sample fits closer to the Afar samples for all the proxies used in this study: Th/Ta and Zn/Zr ratios (as taken from Negash et al. 2011), REE patterns and Eu anomaly. This new analysis of the Elkab flake confirms the overall southern origin of the obsidian used in Upper Egyptian sites. It appears that the source of the material has to be found in mainland Africa, most likely in the Afar triangle (see also Giménez et al. 2015). These results provide additional information to

Fig. 3. PAAS-normalised (Taylor & McLennan 1985) rare-earth elements (REE) patterns for Upper Egypt obsidian artefacts: data from Bavay et al. 2000; 2004 and this study, sample ELK12-F05 shown in red.

OBSIDIAN IN EARLY EGYPT

195

Fig. 4. Th/U vs Th/Ta plot showing two clusters of values: (a) high Th/U values and low Th/Ta values for artefacts from Upper Egypt and Yemeni-Ethiopian obsidian sources; (b) low- to intermediate Th/U values and high Th/Ta values for the Buto bladelet core and Near-Eastern obsidian sources.

Fig. 5. PAAS-normalised (Taylor & McLennan 1985) REE patterns for ELK12-F05 and likely obsidian sources, in Yemen and—still more comparable—in the Afar (Ethiopia).

196

W. CLAES, D. VANHULLE & T. DE PUTTER

our current knowledge regarding the possible exchange routes of the raw material to Upper Egypt, which will be discussed below. Obsidian exchange routes during the Predynastic and Early Dynastic periods – A review of the evidence In scientific studies relating to cross-cultural contacts over long distances in prehistoric times, the importance of obsidian was acknowledged very early on (Cauvin 1998a: 10). The first attempts to identify the sources of obsidian found in Egypt date back to the first half of the 20th century (Wainwright 1927; Lucas 1942; 1947) and were followed by several other studies in the subsequent decades (Cann & Renfrew 1964; Renfrew et al. 1966; van den Brink 1989; Pernicka 1996; Bavay et al. 2000; 2004; Giménez et al. 2015). It is now generally accepted that in late prehistoric times, the procurement of obsidian followed a pattern of successive exchanges that C. Renfrew defined in his pioneering work as ‘down-the-line’ (Renfrew 1975: 41–48). According to this model, the quantity of the ‘traded’ items becomes less abundant as the distance to the source area increases. As such, the rarity of obsidian in Egypt is explained, among other factors, by the remoteness of Egypt from the main geological sources. Obviously, this question should be considered on a caseby-case basis to take into account the complexity of human behaviour and the specific local socio-economic and cultural properties of the different communities or groups involved (Cauvin 1998b: 259–260, 267–268; Takamiya 1994). The East African origin of the Elkab sample seems to confirm the now wellestablished pattern of obsidian distribution in the Egyptian Nile Valley during pre-pharaonic times (Bavay et al. 2000: 17–19; 2004: 614–615). However, this seemingly logical pattern may be biased by the small number of analysed samples originating from Lower Egypt and needs therefore to be considered with caution until more data become available. Indeed, from all the analysed samples, only three were found in Lower Egypt: a knife fragment from Tell elIswid (see Catalogue, no. 6; van den Brink 1989; Pernicka 1996), a bladelet core from Buto (see Catalogue, no. 2; Bavay et al. 2004) and a fragment of a flake from Gerzeh (see Catalogue, no. 7; Cann & Renfrew 1964: 124, 129, 133). Until today, it remains unclear how obsidian entered the Egyptian Nile Valley. Previous studies primarily focus on two possible routes, the Red Sea and the Eastern Desert, on the one hand, and overland routes through the Sinai on the other (Tutundžić 1989; Zarins 1989; 1996; Mark 1997). However, based on new data emerging from recent and intensive archaeological research in the deserts south and west of the Egyptian Nile Valley, it is worthwhile to reconsider the question of these routes within a broader framework of various simultaneous supply networks. Recent studies showed indeed that the deserts played

OBSIDIAN IN EARLY EGYPT

197

a crucial role in connecting Egypt with its southern neighbours (Riemer et al. 2013) and that these remote areas were regularly crossed by groups of different cultural affinities during the 5th and 4th millennium BC. Because of its rareness, exotic origins and peculiar aspect, the Naqadans probably considered obsidian as an exclusive and prestigious material. Although some rare examples were discovered in settlement areas (see Catalogue, nos 2, 4, 6, 81, 82, 94, 111), it is primarily found in wealthy funerary contexts. Along with lapis lazuli, which is known in Egypt since the Naqada IIC period (Payne 1968; Bavay 1997: 81–82; Aston et al. 2000: 39–40; Hendrickx & Bavay 2002: 61–66, tab. 3.3), the presence of obsidian in the archaeological record illustrates the progressive stratification of Naqadan society (Bavay 2000; Bavay et al. 2000: 18–19; 2004: 614–615). Based on the rarity of obsidian in Predynastic and Early Dynastic contexts,9 it has been suggested that its procurement was most probably the result of indirect and occasional contacts rather than through a regular and well-organised exchange system (Bavay et al. 2000: 18–19). However, the chronological and geographical distribution of obsidian in Egypt during the 4th millennium BC indeed allows for a more nuanced analysis (Fig. 6). By the very end of Naqada II and during Naqada III, obsidian was almost exclusively found in centres of power such as Abydos, Naqada and Hierakonpolis.10 Moreover, the first kings and their elites managed to obtain fragments large enough to manufacture bottles, vases, bowls and plates (see Catalogue, nos 35, 37, 39, 48–51, 53, 56, 57, 61–64, 66, 67, 69–71, 73, 87–93). Thus, even though the overall quantity of obsidian did not particularly increase in comparison with earlier times, the size and quality of the pieces obviously did. On this basis, the procurement of obsidian in early Egypt can be broken down in at least two phases: a first one, from Naqada IC–IIA to Naqada IIC–D, with indirect and irregular procurement; and a second one from Naqada IIIA onwards. The latter phase is characterised by the integration of Egypt into already developed exchange networks, the active search for prestigious goods by powerful and competitive elites, the development of navigation along the Mediterranean coast and, ultimately, the formation of the incipient Egyptian state.

9 At least 209 fragments of obsidian (see Catalogue) and at least 130 attestations of lapis lazuli (Hendrickx & Bavay 2002: tab. 3.3; Vanhulle 2011) have been documented while more than 15.000 tombs are known for the 4th millennium BC (Hendrickx & van den Brink 2002: 346, tab. 23.1). 10 A notable exception is the site of Abusir el-Meleq where no less than 19 obsidian objects have been attested, while only a handful of fragments have been found at the other sites (see Catalogue and Fig. 6).

198

W. CLAES, D. VANHULLE & T. DE PUTTER

Fig. 6. Map and overview of Pre- and Early Dynastic sites in Egypt and Nubia where obsidian has been found.

OBSIDIAN IN EARLY EGYPT

199

Phase 1: Naqada IC–IIA to IIC–D Obsidian is extremely rare in the Egyptian Nile Valley prior to the Naqada II period with only three possible attestations currently documented (Abadiya and Hierakonpolis; see Catalogue nos 76, 94, 95)11. Their dating has been established from their archaeological context and should be considered with caution. As far as we know, the Naqadans did not expand south of Armant before Naqada IC (Gatto 2009: 127; 2014: 111). The procurement of East African obsidian by the Naqadans seems thus unlikely before the very end of the Naqada I period. Because obsidian was already exchanged between Ethiopia and Yemen during the 6th millennium BC (Francaviglia 1996; Inizan & Francaviglia 2002: 18; Khalidi 2007; 2009; Khalidi et al. 2010; 2012; 2013), a maritime route into Egypt involving the Red Sea and the crossing of the Eastern Desert seems plausible, although almost impossible to prove (Kantor 1965: 11–14; Zarins 1989; 1996; Bavay et al. 2000: 18).12 The use of the Red Sea cannot entirely be ruled out but remains a matter of speculation. Maritime expeditions are expensive, require a high level of social and political organisation and would imply the existence of a complex exchange network along the African shores of the Red Sea during the second half of the 4th millennium BC. Obviously, from this perspective, obsidian would only be one of several categories of exotic goods and raw materials intended for exchange. It is also well known that navigating the northern half of the Red Sea was difficult and dangerous during most of the year (Facey 2004; Fabre 2005: 36; Boivin et al. 2009: 254–255; Boivin & Fuller 2009: 118; Cooper 2014: 173–182, fig. 11.3–4). Moreover, the degree of nautical development achieved in the Naqada III period most likely only allowed navigation on a limited and seasonal basis.13 So far there is no archaeological evidence that supports the existence of such a maritime

11

Brunton also mentions very small ring beads, made out of a hard black stone “looking like obsidian”, that were found in tomb 547, which is dated to the Badarian (Brunton 1937: 51; see Catalogue no. 21). 12 The Ethiopian and Yemeni shores lie around 100 km apart (Khalidi 2009: 281) and the archipels of Farasān and Dahlak served as intermediates in these exchanges. We are thus facing a very different geographical situation, that cannot be compared with navigating the Red Sea up to for instance the Wadi Hammamat which is situated more than 1000 km to the north. 13 Reed boats coated with bitumen were used in an exchange network connecting the Persian Gulf with the Arabian Peninsula during the 6th millennium BC (Carter 2002; 2006; 2010; Carter & Crawford 2010). The first undeniable attestations of a sail, which signifies a major step in nautical development, appear as early as the Naqada IIIA period, like for instance on the decorated jar BM E35324, bearing the depiction of a wooden boat with a sail (Huyge & Darnell 2010). Moreover, the discovery at Wadi el-Jarf of highly advanced vessels, dating to the reign of Khufu (Tallet 2013), illustrates that maritime technology already knew a relatively long history of development by the beginning of the Old Kingdom. However, when Egyptians started building their own sea-going vessels still remains a matter of speculation (Meeks 1997).

200

W. CLAES, D. VANHULLE & T. DE PUTTER

route connecting Egypt to the southern parts of the Red Sea during the 4th millennium BC. The maritime hypothesis has been recently dismissed in favour of a land and/ or fluvial route involving the A-Group (Giménez et al. 2015: 356–359). It is, however, important to note that the interaction and exchange of goods in Predynastic times between the Naqadans and the A-Group seem not to have extended south of the Dakka/Sayala region (Edwards 2004: 72). Despite intensive surveys and excavations, only four fragments of obsidian have so far been reported from sites in Lower Nubia (see Catalogue nos 112–115). Its virtual absence in Nubia, and more significantly also in Elephantine, raises doubts as to obsidian entering Egypt from Ethiopia through the Nile Valley (Bavay et al. 2000: 17–18; Roy 2011: 264). Considering the lack of evidence for a maritime route from Upper Egypt to the southern parts of the Red Sea in Predynastic times, and its virtual absence at sites along the Nile Valley between the Ethiopian sources and the Elkab/ Hierakonpolis region, we tentatively suggest that obsidian must have reached the Upper Egyptian Nile Valley primarily by routes through the desert. However, the fact that not a single obsidian fragment has yet been discovered in the Western Desert could hint at the fact that the desert groups interacting with the Nile Valley made no functional use of this raw material. This does not exclude, however, that they realised its exchange value for the Naqadan elites. What Egyptians exchanged for obsidian remains a matter of discussion. The role of the Western Desert as a “highway” for goods and people, and its impact on the cultural development of the Nile Valley has long been underestimated. Indeed, intensive research conducted in the Sahara since the 1970’s (for an excellent overview and a current state of research, see: Riemer et al. 2013, with further references) showed that mobile groups occupied the desert from the onset of the Holocene. The cemeteries at Gebel Ramlah, dated to the mid-5th millennium BC, share strong similarities with other cemeteries in Sudanese Nubia (Kobusiewicz et al. 2010: 251–253). The funerary materials, which include turquoise from the Sinai, sub-Saharan ivory, and also shells and mica from the Red Sea Mountains (Kobusiewicz et al. 2010: 256), testify to regular contacts between the Sahara and both the Nile Valley and East Africa (Wendorf & Schild 2004: 24–25). Like it is the case for the Eastern Desert, the presence of rock art also confirms that the Naqadans used the wadis of the Western Desert (Hendrickx & Friedman 2002: 17–19; 2003; Darnell 2002; 2009; 2011; 2013) and penetrated west as far as the oases of the central Western Desert (Hope 1999; 2002; Ikram 2009; Hendrickx et al. 2009; Lucarini & Mariotti 2014; see also: Rossi & Ikram 2018: 330–331). Transit camps have also been discovered in, for instance, the Laqiya area, some 400 km to the south-west of the Second Cataract, and at Bir Sahara, where ceramics belonging to the A-Group/Naqada III period have been found (Gatto 2001–2002;

OBSIDIAN IN EARLY EGYPT

201

Lange 2003; Riemer 2013: 80–81; Riemer et al. 2013: 177–179). Clayton rings, used by human groups navigating the desert (Riemer & Kuper 2000; Riemer 2004; 2013: 81), have been found regularly at such sites in the Western Desert, but also in the Eastern Desert and Israel (Braun & van den Brink 2008: 652; Riemer 2013: 82, fig. 4). All of this allows for a better understanding of the human occupation of the desert and the intercultural contacts that took place there, and strongly advocate for the use of the Sahara by groups of both Nubian and Egyptian affiliation. The route by which obsidian reached Lower Egypt is somewhat easier to apprehend. Contacts between the Lower Egyptian cultures and the Levant are indeed well attested: Palestinian copper from Wadi Feinan and Timna made its way to the Delta along with some categories of Levantine ceramics and lithic technologies (Mączyńska 2013; 2014: 185–190). The development of sites such as Minshat Abu Omar and Tell el-Farkha in the eastern Delta, is another testimony in favour of an overland route through the Sinai.14 Obsidian from Anatolia reached Lower Egypt most probably through these networks, although in such small quantities that its procurement could very well have been accidental. The circulation of goods by boat along the Mediterranean coast is also a possibility, although undocumented before the Early Bronze Age I/ Naqada IIC–IIIA (Ward 1963; 1964; Marcus 2002). Despite Egypt’s growing means and increased regional power, the ‘downthe-line’ model may explain why obsidian objects have not been found in larger quantities and on a more widespread scale. However, studies focussing on the exchange of commodities between Egypt and Nubia indicate that the ‘downthe-line’ model is not corroborated by the archaeological data since the decline of available goods appears to be linear and not exponential. During the Naqada III period, a more direct exchange pattern seems to be in place in which local A-Group chiefs acted as middlemen for direct reciprocal transactions with Naqadan merchants (Takamiya 2004: 57). Contacts with the region of the Second Cataract, where local populations may have acted as “intermediaries with areas further south”, have also been suggested (Edwards 2004: 72–73; Takamiya 1994). Within this framework, the Naqadans were able to obtain or procure exotic products such as ivory, ebony, ostrich eggs or feathers and it would seem reasonable to expect the presence of obsidian among these exotic goods. Its virtual absence in Lower Nubia, however, especially in sites such as Qustul and Sayala (Williams 1986), is conspicuously striking and could in our opinion suggest that it was not transported into Egypt through the Nubian Nile Valley. 14 Recent research conducted in the area of the military road, known as the ‘Ways of Horus’, confirms that this “route was regularly used from the middle of the 4th millennium” (Hoffmeier & Moshier 2013: 507).

202

W. CLAES, D. VANHULLE & T. DE PUTTER

Phase 2: Naqada IIIA–IIIC2 The progressive stratification of Naqadan society reaches its apex during the Naqada III period. The HK6 Elite Cemetery in Hierakonpolis (Friedman 2010) and Cemetery U in Abydos (Hartung 2001) offer explicit examples of the need (or greed?) of the leaders for exceptional and valuable products in order to display their status and power. HK6 tomb 11 (Adams 2000) and the famous tomb U-j (Dreyer 2011), among other examples, testify to the power and influence of these rulers to gain access to foreign exchange networks. The procurement of obsidian is not incidental anymore since large chunks of raw material were then manufactured into high-quality vessels by professional craftsmen. However, the overall quantity of obsidian that reached Egypt remains limited. The apparent elimination of the A-Group in Lower Nubia during the st 1 Dynasty (Gatto 2019: 278–284), the progressive incorporation of the deserts into the political spheres of influence of Naqadan rulers and, ultimately, of the centralised Egyptian State15 (Darnell 2013: 785–789), undoubtedly had an impact on the existing modes of exchange between Egypt and its southern neighbours. Informal and irregular contacts with nomadic populations in the Western Desert could be controlled more easily by the new administration and obsidian could be procured by better structured networks. It is remarkably striking that this volcanic glass, as also lapis lazuli, has not yet been found in the Memphite necropolis. Whether this material was exclusively intended for the royal families of the first Egyptian dynasties is difficult to prove, but it seems that the amount of available obsidian was probably not high enough to share it with the high members of the administration. The absence of obsidian in Early Dynastic cultic deposits is another interesting observation and seems to indicate that it was not attached with any particular sacred power nor that it was used during the performance of rituals.16 Its provenance raises a number of questions as well. Following the foundation of 15 In our opinion, such an assumption can be advanced on the basis of the appearance of official rock art engravings, made by professional artists and depicting a clear royal iconography, that were commissioned from the Naqada IIIA period onwards by the first kings of the incipient Egyptian state to seize or affirm royal (ritual) control over remote areas (Darnell 2009). Among these engravings are famous examples such as the tableaus found at Gebel Sheikh Suleiman (Somaglino & Tallet 2014) and the Nag el-Hamdulab compositions (Hendrickx et al. 2012a–b), as well as the recently discovered engravings in the southern Sinai Peninsula (Tallet 2015). 16 The general find context of some of the obsidian fragments can be defined as ‘ritual/ceremonial’ but this does not necessarily mean that they were indeed used for the performance of rituals. Notable exceptions are a number of obsidian peseshkaf knifes (see Catalogue, nos 4, 26–30, 45). These objects are known to have been used, from the Old Kingdom onwards, by the priest during the ritual of the Opening of the Mouth. They are usually made out of flint or, sometimes, in black stones such as steatite and black jasper (Massoulard 1936: 154–157; Coqueugniot 1998: 355).

OBSIDIAN IN EARLY EGYPT

203

Memphis as the new capital of the unified Egyptian state, as well as the influx and procurement of wood, metal, oil and wine from the Levant, an Anatolian origin of Early Dynastic obsidian objects would seem more logical and would suggest that most foreign products arrived in Egypt from the north. However, it is important to acknowledge the fact that the analysis of several obsidian samples from a well-dated 1st Dynasty context in Abydos (see Catalogue nos 48, 71; Bavay 2000: 9–11) confirms their Ethiopian origin. This clearly illustrates that simplistic schemes alone will not allow us to completely understand how rare and exotic materials like obsidian found their way into Egyptian society. In Lower Egypt, the situation did not drastically change during the Naqada III period. The existence of a maritime route connecting Byblos with the Delta in the Early Bronze Age I is now no longer contested, especially since the discovery of several anchorage sites from that period along the Syro-Palestinian coast (Gophna 2002; Sharvit et al. 2002). Moreover, following the abandonment of the Egyptian colonies in the Levant around Naqada IIIC, imported goods from the Near East, such as lapis lazuli and cedar, were transported by sea (Prag 1986; Stager 2001; Hikade 2012: 836). This sea route even could have surpassed the traditional land route through actual Gaza and the Sinai (Wilkinson 1999: 160–162). The use of cedar in the construction of the royal tombs at Umm el-Qaab, but also the two ivory labels of Aha mentioning the transport of Levantine oil by boat (Spencer 1980: 64.3; O’Connor 1987: 33–34; JiménezSerrano 2002: 60; Tallet 2015: 26, fig. 57), are more testimony of the existence of a complex exchange network in the Mediterranean by the end of the 4th millennium BC. The discovery of a stone vase bearing the name of Khasekhemwy in Byblos should also be mentioned (Dunand 1937: pl. 39, no. 1115; 1939: 26), but the fact that it was an isolated find, lacking a solid archaeological context, prevents it from being a robust argument for the existence of an exchange network. Like lapis lazuli, obsidian disappears from the archaeological record between the 2nd and the 4th Dynasty (Bavay 1997; Aston et al. 2000: 47). The reasons behind this sudden disappearance are difficult to evaluate. However poorly understood, it seems that the political and perhaps also social turmoil that took place during the 2nd Dynasty (Dodson 1996; Wilkinson 1999: 82–94) resulted in the withdrawal of Egypt from the exchange networks in which it was involved. The abandonment of the colonies in the Levant in the second half of the 1st Dynasty (De Miroschedji 2002: 45–47; Braun 2011: 119–120; Mumford 2014: 71–72) could also have impacted the procurement of obsidian. The 3rd millennium BC saw the development of new networks in the Mediterranean and the domination of powerful states in the Nile Valley and the Near East. The situation was thus far more complex than before and no direct comparisons can be drawn.

204

W. CLAES, D. VANHULLE & T. DE PUTTER

Conclusion Based on our analysis of the available data, it seems plausible to state that most of the obsidian originating from Ethiopia, reached Egypt through the deserts and that its procurement, for which Nubian-related desert nomadic groups acted as middle-men, was largely incidental prior to the Naqada III period. From the onset of the latter period, the situation seems to change and the procurement of obsidian appears no longer to be incidental as a result of the political and socioeconomic changes that lie at the foundation of the progressive formation of the Egyptian state. The development of a maritime exchange route along the Mediterranean shores, but also of sites such as Tell el-Farkha and Minshat Abu Omar in the western Delta as well as the Egyptian presence in the Levant, testifies to the focus of the new centralised administration on exchange networks concentrated in the north of Egypt. In the course of the 1st Dynasty, the Egyptian rulers tried to consolidate the official borders of their land. In doing so, they abandoned their colonies in the Levant and pushed back the A-Group beyond the Second Cataract while at the same time, they also tried to regulate the access and movement of goods and people through the deserts. Although this does not imply that obsidian originating from Ethiopia was no longer brought into Egypt—as shown by the provenance of some fragments from tomb U-j, the tomb of Djer and three other fragments from an undetermined tomb from Umm el-Qaab (Bavay et al. 2000: 9–11)—we nevertheless consider it more likely that the Near East gradually becomes the predominant source of obsidian from the Naqada III period. This two-phased approach of obsidian procurement highlights some of the socio-economic developments occurring during the Predynastic period and the changes following the formation of the Egyptian state. Prior to the 1st Dynasty, the Egyptian territory was occupied by a patchwork of different socio-political entities that gradually developed into centres of power with borders that fluctuated between these “areas of influence”. Ultimately, the centralised Egyptian state with official borders emerged. Interactions between the Nile Valley and the neighbouring deserts were probably established on a regular basis and facilitated by the fact that the Western Desert was still, during most of the 4th millennium BC, far less arid and inhospitable than it is today. It is thus reasonable to believe that the Nile Valley and the deserts were, to some extent, vast open corridors of communication and that the Naqadans favoured interaction with these neighbouring cultural groups in the desert and Lower Nubia instead of developing contacts with the Near East and the Red Sea for their obsidian procurement. While the actions of the first kings before the reign of Narmer and the political unification of Egypt remain largely unknown, the content of tomb U-j (Dreyer 2011) as well as the rock inscriptions mentioning Iry-Hor and,

OBSIDIAN IN EARLY EGYPT

205

possibly, Sekhen/Ka in the South-Sinai Peninsula (Tallet 2015: 10, 12, pls 7–8, 10), are perfect examples of the desire of these early rulers to expand and consolidate the Egyptian economic relations with the Near East. The Egyptian colonies in the Levant are another good example of this political strategy during the Naqada IIIA–B period (De Miroschedji 2002). However, from the 1st Dynasty onwards, relations underwent a radical change. As the limits of what was to become the Egyptian territory needed to be defined, the first kings and the developing new central administration focussed on the consolidation of their borders. This led to the progressive withdrawal and abandonment of the Levantine colonies and probably also explains the expeditions that were organised to eradicate the threat arising in Lower Nubia (Gatto 2019: 278–284). The appearance of official rock engravings, such as those in the southern Sinai (Tallet 2015), Wadi el-Humur (Ibrahim & Tallet 2008) or Gebel Sheikh Suleiman (Somaglino & Tallet 2014), combined with the apparent drop in the number of rock engravings in the Eastern Desert during the Naqada IIIC period,17 suggests that the central Egyptian state tried to regulate access to these regions. There are good reasons to believe that the deserts probably became some sort of ‘buffer zones’ which made reciprocal contacts and exchange less easy. Moreover, the elaboration of state borders also resulted in the notion of defining every foreigner as a potential threat or enemy of Egypt that the pharaoh must subjugate in order to avert chaos and maintain Maat. These elements, in combination with the foundation of Memphis as the new capital, suggest that, from the mid-1st Dynasty onwards, most of the exotic goods may have entered Egypt through the Mediterranean and the eastern Delta. Occasional contacts with foreign groups in the desert passed beyond the needs of the centralised and powerful Egyptian administration. From this perspective, it would be interesting to analyse additional obsidian samples, especially those from Naqada III contexts of Umm el-Qaab and Naqada, in order to ascertain the source area of the stone. If an African origin is obviously to be expected, a larger influx of obsidian of Near Eastern provenance would not be so surprising after all. Acknowledgments The authors thank Renee F. Friedman, Vera Müller and Ilona Regulski for kindly providing us with info on unpublished obsidian objects, as well as Liam McNamara and Frank Förster for info on the fragments kept respectively in the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford and the Ägyptisches Museum in Bonn. We express our gratitude to Maria Gatto for her valuable comments on an earlier draft of this paper. We are also grateful

17 During the 1st Dynasty, the amount of rock engravings seems indeed to be less abundant in comparison to previous times. When present, it looks as if they are concentrated in specific areas and sometimes even modified already existing images. However, this observation, resulting from a recent doctoral research (Vanhulle 2016), remains to be confirmed by more in-depth analysis.

206

W. CLAES, D. VANHULLE & T. DE PUTTER

to Elizabeth Hart for kindly correcting the English. Funding for the excavations in the settlement area of Elkab was provided by the Belgian Ministry of Science Policy (Research project MO/38/020), the Egyptology Endowment Fund of Yale University, the Gerda Henkel Stiftung (Research project AZ 20/F/14), the National Geographic Society (Research project GEFNE173-16) and Het Huis van Horus. In addition, the Belgian embassy in Cairo, the Netherlands-Flemish Institute in Cairo and Vodafone Egypt offered administrative and logistical support. Wouter Claes also benefitted from a Special Ph.D. fellowship of the Research Foundation – Flanders (FWO).

Bibliography ADAMS, B., 1974a. Ancient Hierakonpolis. Warminster. ADAMS, B., 1974b. Ancient Hierakonpolis: Supplement. Modern Egyptology Series. Warminster. ADAMS, B., 1995. Ancient Nekhen: Garstang in the city of Hierakonpolis. Egyptian Studies Association Publication 3. New Malden. ADAMS, B., 1996a. Elite graves at Hierakonpolis [in:] SPENCER, J. (ed.), Aspects of early Egypt. London: 1–15. ADAMS, B., 1996b. Imports and imitations in Predynastic funerary contexts at Hierakonpolis [in:] KRZYŻANIAK, L.; KROEPER, K. & KOBUSIEWICZ, M. (eds), Interregional contacts in the later prehistory of Northeastern Africa. SAA 5. Poznań: 133–143. ADAMS, B., 1998. Something very special down in the Elite Cemetery. Nekhen News 10: 3–4. ADAMS, B., 1999. Discovery of a Predynastic elephant burial at Hierakonpolis. Archaeology International 2: 46–50. ADAMS, B., 2000. Excavations in the Locality 6 Cemetery at Hierakonpolis 1979– 1985. Egyptian Studies Association Publication 4; BAR. International Series 903. Oxford. ADAMS, B. & FRIEDMAN, R.F., 1992. Imports and influences in the Predynastic and Protodynastic settlement and funerary assemblages at Hierakonpolis [in:] VAN DEN BRINK, E.C.M. (ed.), The Nile Delta in transition: 4th. –3rd. millennium B.C. Proceedings of the Seminar held in Cairo, 21.–24. October 1990, at the Netherlands Institute of Archaeology and Arabic Studies. Tel Aviv: 317–338. [ASHMOLEAN REPORT], 1900. Egypt: Relics from the royal tombs of the first dynasties at Abydos. Ashmolean Museum and University Galleries. Report of the Keeper of the Ashmolean Museum for the Year 1900: 2–5. ASTON, B.G.; HARRELL, J.A. & SHAW, I., 2000. Stone [in:] NICHOLSON, P.T. & SHAW, I. (eds), Ancient Egyptian materials and technology. Cambridge: 5–77. BAINES, J., 2010, Aesthetic culture and the emergence of writing in Egypt during Naqada III. Archéo-Nil 20: 134–149. BAUMGARTEL, E.J., 1970. Petrie’s Naqada excavation: A supplement. London. BARCA, D.; LUCARINI, G. & FEDELE, F.G., 2012. The provenance of obsidian artefacts from the Wādī Ath-Thayyilah 3 Neolithic site (Eastern Yemen Plateau) by LA-ICP-MS. Archaeometry 54(4): 603–622. BAVAY, L., 1997. Matière première et commerce à longue distance : Le lapis-lazuli et l’Égypte prédynastique. Archéo-Nil 7 : 79–100. BAVAY, L., 2000. La pierre et le pouvoir dans l’Égypte prépharaonique et des premières dynasties [in:] KARLSHAUSEN, C. & DE PUTTER, T. (eds), Pierres égyptiennes… Chefs-d’œuvre pour l’éternité. Mons: 63–67.

OBSIDIAN IN EARLY EGYPT

207

BAVAY, L.; DE PUTTER, T.; ADAMS, B.; NAVEZ, J. & ANDRÉ, L., 2000. The origin of obsidian in Predynastic and Early Dynastic Upper Egypt. MDAIK 56: 5–20. BAVAY, L.; FALTINGS, D.; ANDRÉ, L. & DE PUTTER, T., 2004. A bladelet core from Tell el-Fara‘in-Buto and the origin of obsidian in the Buto-Maadi culture of Lower Egypt [in]: HENDRICKX, S.; FRIEDMAN, R.F.; CIAŁOWICZ, K.M. & CHŁODNICKI, M. (eds), Egypt at its Origins: Studies in memory of Barbara Adams. Proceedings of the International Conference “Origin of the State. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt”, Kraków, 28th August–1st September 2002. OLA 138. Leuven: 608–619. BIETAK, M. & ENGELMAYER, R., 1963. Eine Frühdynastische Abri-Siedlung mit Felsbildern aus Sayala-Nubien. Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-Historische Klasse. Denkschriften 82; BÖN 1. Vienna. BLEIBERG, E., 2008. To live forever: Egyptian treasures from the Brooklyn Museum. Brooklyn. BOIVIN, N.; BLENCH, R. & FULLER, D.Q., 2009. Archaeological, linguistic and historical sources on ancient seafaring: A multidisciplinary approach to the study of early maritime contact and exchange in the Arabian peninsula [in:] PETRAGLIA, M.D. & ROSE, J.I. (eds), The evolution of human populations in Arabia: Paleoenvironments, prehistory and genetics. Vertebrate Paleobiology and Paleoanthropology. Dordrecht: 251–278. BOIVIN, N. & FULLER, D.Q., 2009. Shell middens, ships and seeds: Exploring coastal subsistence, maritime trade and the dispersal of domesticates in and around the ancient Arabian peninsula. JWP 22(2): 113–180. BRAUN, E., 2011. Early interaction between peoples of the Nile Valley and the Southern Levant [in:] TEETER, E. (ed.), Before the pyramids: The origins of Egyptian civilization. OIMP 33. Chicago: 105–122. BRAUN, E. & VAN DEN BRINK, E.C.M., 2008. Appraising South-Levantine-Egyptian interaction: Recent discoveries from Israel and Egypt [in:] MIDANT-REYNES, B. & TRISTANT, Y. (eds); ROWLAND, J. & HENDRICKX, S. (coll.), Egypt at its Origins 2. Proceedings of the International Conference “Origin of the State. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt”, Toulouse (France), 5th–8th September 2005. OLA 172. Leuven: 644–688. BRUNTON, G., 1937. Mostagedda and the Tasian culture. British Museum Expedition to Middle Egypt. London. BRUNTON, G. & CATON-THOMPSON, G., 1928. The Badarian civilisation and Predynastic remains near Badari. BSAE/ERA 46. London. CANN, J.R. & RENFREW, C., 1964. The characterization of obsidian and its application to the Mediterranean region. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society. N.S. 30: 111–133. CARTER, R., 2002. The Neolithic origins of seafaring in the Arabian Gulf. Archaeology International 6: 44–47. CARTER, R., 2006. Boat remains and maritime trade in the Persian Gulf during the sixth and fifth millennia BC. Antiquity 80(307): 52–63. CARTER, R.A., 2010. The social and environmental context of Neolithic seafaring in the Persian Gulf [in:] ANDERSON, A.; BARRETT, J.H. & BOYLE, K.V. (eds), The global origins and development of seafaring. Cambridge: 191–202. CARTER, R. & CRAWFORD, H., 2010. Maritime interactions in the Arabian Neolithic: Evidence from H3, As-Sabiyah, an Ubaid-Related Site in Kuwait. American School of Prehistoric Research Monographs Series 8. Leiden. CAUVIN, M.-C., 1998a. L’obsidienne au Proche et Moyen Orient : Présentation et historique [in:] CAUVIN, M.-C.; GOURGAUD, A.; GRATUZE, B.; ARNAUD, N.; POUPEAU, G.; POIDEVIN, J.-L. & CHATAIGNER, C. (eds), L’obsidienne au Proche et

208

W. CLAES, D. VANHULLE & T. DE PUTTER

Moyen Orient  : Du volcan à l’outil. BAR. International Series 738. Oxford: 7–11. CAUVIN, M.-C., 1998b. L’obsidienne : Données récentes provenant de sites-habitats néolithiques [in:] CAUVIN, M.-C.; GOURGAUD, A.; GRATUZE, B.; ARNAUD, N.; POUPEAU, G.; POIDEVIN, J.-L. & CHATAIGNER, C. (eds), L’obsidienne au Proche et Moyen Orient  : Du volcan à l’outil. BAR. International Series 738. Oxford: 259– 271. CHATAIGNIER, C. & GRATUZE, B., 2014. New data on the exploitation of obsidian in the Southern Caucasus (Armenia, Georgia) and Eastern Turkey, part 1: Source characterization. Archaeometry 56(1): 25–47. CHŁODNICKI, M. & CIAŁOWICZ, K.M., 2002. Polish excavations at Tell el-Farkha (Ghazala) in the Nile Delta: Preliminary report 1998–2001. Archeologia. Rocznik Instytutu Archeologii i Etnologii Polskiej Akademii Nauk 53: 63–119. CHŁODNICKI, M. & CIAŁOWICZ, K.M., 2013. Polish excavations at Tell el-Farkha (Ghazala) in the Nile Delta: Preliminary report 2011–2013. Archeologia. Rocznik Instytutu Archeologii i Etnologii Polskiej Akademii Nauk 64: 99–140. CHŁODNICKI, M. & CIAŁOWICZ, K.M., 2015. Tell el-Farkha excavations, 2012–2013. PAM 24(1): 173–197. CLAES, W.; HENDRICKX, S.; DEVILLERS, A.; HART, E.; KINDERMANN, K.; DE DAPPER, M.; IKRAM, S.; STORMS, G.; SWERTS, C. & HUYGE, D., 2014. From the early Old Kingdom to the Badarian: Preliminary report on the 2012 excavation campaign in the settlement area of Elkab [in:] MĄCZYŃSKA, A. (ed.), The Nile Delta as a centre of cultural interactions between Upper Egypt and the Southern Levant in the 4th millennium BC. SAA 13. Poznań: 77–85. CLAES, W. & HUYGE, D., 2016. Finds from Elkab: Revealing the origins of the settlement. EA 49: 38–42. CLAES, W. & HUYGE, D., 2017. La zone d’habitat d’Elkab : À la recherche des origines de l’urbanisation en Égypte ancienne. Science Connection 55: 44–48. CLARKE, S., 1922. El-Kâb and its temples. JEA 8: 16–40. COQUEUGNIOT, É., 1998. L’obsidienne en Méditerranée orientale aux époques postNéolithiques [in:] CAUVIN, M.-C.; GOURGAUD, A.; GRATUZE, B.; ARNAUD, N.; POUPEAU, G.; POIDEVIN, J.-L. & CHATAIGNER, C. (eds), L’obsidienne au Proche et Moyen Orient  : Du volcan à l’outil. BAR. International Series 738. Oxford: 351– 361. COOPER, J.P., 2014. The medieval Nile: Route, navigation, and landscape in Islamic Egypt. Cairo. DARNELL, J.C., 2002. Theban Desert Road Survey in the Egyptian Western Desert 1: Gebel Tjauti rock inscriptions 1–45 and Wadi el-Ḥôl rock inscriptions 1–45. OIP 119. Chicago. DARNELL, J.C., 2009. Iconographic attraction, iconographic syntax, and tableaux of royal ritual power in the Pre- and Proto-Dynastic rock inscriptions of the Theban Western Desert. Archéo-Nil 19: 83–107. DARNELL, J.C., 2011. The Wadi of the Horus Qa-a: A tableau of royal ritual power in the Theban Western Desert [in:] FRIEDMAN, R.F. & FISKE, P.N. (eds), Egypt at its Origins 3. Proceedings of the Third International Conference “Origin of the State. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt”, London, 27th July–1st August 2008. OLA 205. Leuven: 1151–1193. DARNELL, J.C., 2013. Theban Desert Road Survey 2: The rock shrine of Pahu, Gebel Akhenaton, and other rock inscriptions from the Western hinterland of Qamûla. Yale Egyptological Publications 1. New Haven CT. DE MEULENAERE, H., 1970. Elkab 1966–1969 : Le secteur archaïque. CdÉ 45(89): 19–44.

OBSIDIAN IN EARLY EGYPT

209

DE MEULENAERE, H., 1975. Elkab [in:] LdÄ I: 1225–1227. DE MIROSCHEDJI, P., 2002. The socio-political dynamics of Egyptian-Canaanite interaction in the Early Bronze Age [in:] VAN DEN BRINK, E.C.M. & LEVY, T.E. (eds), Egypt and the Levant: Interrelations from the 4th through the early 3rd millennium BCE. New Approaches to Anthropological Archaeology. London: 39–57. DE MORGAN, J., 1897. Recherches sur les origines de l’Égypte  : Ethnographie préhistorique et tombeau royal de Négadah. Paris. DODSON, A., 1996. The mysterious 2nd Dynasty. KMT 7(2): 19–31. DREYER, G., 1992. Recent discoveries at Abydos Cemetery U [in:] VAN DEN BRINK, E.C.M. (ed.), The Nile Delta in transition: 4th.–3rd. millennium B.C. Proceedings of the Seminar held in Cairo, 21.–24. October 1990, at the Netherlands Institute of Archaeology and Arabic Studies. Tel Aviv: 293–299. DREYER, G., 1993. Umm el-Qaab: Nachuntersuchungen im frühzeitlichen Königsfriedhof: 5./6. Vorbericht. MDAIK 49: 23–62. DREYER, G., 1998. Umm el-Qaab 1: Das Prädynastische Königsgrab U-j und seine frühen Schriftzeugnisse. AV 86. Mainz am Rhein. DREYER, G., 2009. Report on the 21st campaign of reexamining the royal tombs of Umm el-Qaab at Abydos 2006/2007. ASAÉ 83: 165–175. DREYER, G., 2011. Tomb U-j: A royal burial of Dynasty 0 at Abydos [in:] TEETER, E. (ed.), Before the pyramids: The origins of Egyptian civilization. OIMP 33. Chicago: 127–136. DREYER, G.; BLÖBAUM, A.I.; ENGEL, E.-M.; KÖPP, H. & MÜLLER, V., 2011. Umm elQaab: Nachuntersuchungen im frühzeitlichen Königsfriedhof: 19./20./21. Vorbericht. MDAIK 67: 53–92. DREYER, G.; ENGEL, E.-M.; HARTUNG, U.; HIKADE, T.; KÖHLER, E.C. & PUMPENMEIER, F., 1996. Umm el-Qaab: Nachuntersuchungen im frühzeitlichen Königsfriedhof: 7./8. Vorbericht. MDAIK 52: 11–81. DREYER, G.; HARTUNG, U.; HIKADE, T.; KÖHLER, E.C.; MÜLLER, V. & PUMPENMEIER, F., 1998. Umm el-Qaab: Nachuntersuchungen im frühzeitlichen Königsfriedhof: 9./10. Vorbericht. MDAIK 54: 77–167. DUNAND, M., 1937–1939. Fouilles de Byblos 1: 1926–1932. Études et Documents d’Archéologie 1. Paris. EDWARDS, D.N., 2004. The Nubian past: An archaeology of the Sudan. London. ENGEL, E.-M., 2017. Umm el-Qa’ab 6: Das Grab des Qa’a: Architektur und Inventar. AV 100. Wiesbaden. FABRE, D., 2005. Seafaring in ancient Egypt. London. FACEY, W., 2004. The Red Sea: The wind regime and locations of ports [in:] LUNDE, P. & PORTER, A. (eds), Trade and travels in the Red Sea region. Proceedings of the Red Sea Project I held in the British Museum, October 2002. BAR. International Series 1269 ; Society for Arabian Studies Monographs 2. Oxford: 7–18. FALTINGS, D.; BALLET, P.; FÖRSTER, F.; FRENCH, P.; IHDE, C.; SAHLMANN, H.; THOMALSKY, J.; THUMSHIRN, C. & WODZIŃSKA, A., 2000, Zweiter Vorbericht über die Arbeiten in Buto von 1996 bis 1999. MDAIK 56: 132–179. FÉRÉ, 1954. Fouilles de El Kab  : Documents (Livraison III). Brussels. FEUCHT, E., 1986. Vom Nil zum Neckar: Kunstschätze Ägyptens aus pharaonischer und koptischer Zeit an der Universität Heidelberg. Berlin. FIRTH, C.M., 1927. The archaeological survey of Nubia: Report for 1910–11. Cairo. FRANCAVIGLIA, V.M., 1996. Il existait déjà au Néolithique un commerce d’obsidienne à travers la mer Rouge [in:] L’archéométrie dans les pays européens de langue latine et l’implication de l’archéométrie dans les grands travaux de sauvetage archéologique. Actes du Colloque d’Archéométrie 1995. Supplément à la Revue

210

W. CLAES, D. VANHULLE & T. DE PUTTER

Archéométrie, Pole Editorial Archéologique de l’Ouest (P.E.A.O.). Perigueux: 65–70. FRANKFORT, H., 1927. Studies in early pottery of the Near East: Asia, Europe and the Aegean, and their earliest interrelations. Royal Anthropological Institute. Occasional Papers 8. London. FRANKFORT, H., 1930. The cemeteries of Abydos: Work of the season 1925–26. JEA 16: 213–219. FRIEDMAN, R.F., 1996. The ceremonial centre at Hierakonpolis locality HK29A [in:] SPENCER, J. (ed.), Aspects of early Egypt. London: 16–35. FRIEDMAN, R.F., 2003. Return to the temple: Excavations at HK29A. Nekhen News 15: 4–5. FRIEDMAN, R.F., 2004. Elephants at Hierakonpolis [in:] HENDRICKX, S.; FRIEDMAN, R.F.; CIAŁOWICZ, K.M. & CHŁODNICKI, M. (eds), Egypt at its Origins: Studies in memory of Barbara Adams. Proceedings of the International Conference “Origin of the State. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt”, Kraków, 28th August–1st September 2002. OLA 138. Leuven: 131–179. FRIEDMAN, R.F., 2006. Bigger than the elephant: More surprises at HK6. Nekhen News 18: 7–8. FRIEDMAN, R.F., 2008. Excavating Egypt’s early kings: Recent discoveries in the Elite Cemetery at Hierakonpolis [in:] MIDANT-REYNES, B. & TRISTANT, Y. (eds); ROWLAND, J. & HENDRICKX, S. (coll.), Egypt at its Origins 2. Proceedings of the International Conference “Origin of the State. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt”, Toulouse (France), 5th–8th September 2005. OLA 172. Leuven: 1157–1194. FRIEDMAN, R.F., 2009. Hierakonpolis locality HK29A: The Predynastic ceremonial center revisited. JARCE 45: 79–103. FRIEDMAN, R.F., 2018. One to remember: Tomb 111 at HK6. Nekhen News 30: 4–6. FRIEDMAN, R.F., 2010. The early royal cemetery at Hierakonpolis: An overview [in:] RAFFAELE, E.; NUZZOLO, M. & INCORDINO, I. (eds), Recent discoveries and latest researches in Egyptology. Proceedings of the First Neapolitan Congress of Egyptology (Naples, 18th–20th June 2008). Wiesbaden: 67–86. FRIEDMAN, R.F. & DROUX, X., 2018. More adventures under the spoil heap: HK6 in 2018. Nekhen News 30: 15–17. FRIEDMAN, R.F.; HIKADE, T.; BABA, M.; MAJOR, J. & PAULSON, J., 2008. The 2005– 2006 field season of the Hierakonpolis expedition. ASAÉ 82: 89–111. FRIEDMAN, R.F.; HIKADE, T.; GELLER, J.; BABA, M.; TAKAMIYA, I.H.; HITOSHI, E.; DROUX, X. & PYKE, G., 2009. Report on the 2006–2007 season of the Hierakonpolis expedition. ASAÉ 83: 191–234. GARSTANG, J., 1904. Tombs of the Third Egyptian Dynasty at Reqâqnah and Bêt Khallâf. Report of Excavations at Reqaqnah 1901–2. Westminster. GATTO, M.C., 2001–2002. Two Predynastic pottery caches at Bir Sahara (Egyptian Western Desert). Sahara 13: 51–60. GATTO, M.C., 2009. Egypt and Nubia in the 5th–4th millennia BCE: A view from the First Cataract and its surroundings. BMSAES 13: 125–145. GATTO, M.C., 2014. Cultural entanglement at the dawn of the Egyptian history: A view from the Nile First Cataract region. Origini. Preistoria e Protostoria delle civiltà antiche 36: 93–123. GATTO, M.C., 2019. The later Prehistory of Nubia in its interregional setting [in:] RAUE, D. (ed.), Handbook of ancient Nubia. Berlin: 259–291. GILBERT, P., 1954. La place d’El-Kab dans l’histoire [in:] FÉRÉ, Fouilles de El Kab  : Documents (Livraison III). Brussels: 83–89.

OBSIDIAN IN EARLY EGYPT

211

GIMÉNEZ, J.; SÁNCHEZ, J.A. & SOLANO, L., 2015. Identifying the Ethiopian origin of the obsidian found in Upper Egypt (Naqada period) and the most likely exchange routes. JEA 101: 349–359. GOPHNA, R., 2002. Elusive anchorage points along the Israel littoral and the Egyptian-Canaanite maritime route during the Early Bronze Age I [in:] VAN DEN BRINK, E.C.M. & LEVY, T.E. (eds), Egypt and the Levant: Interrelations from the 4th through the early 3rd millennium BCE. New Approaches to Anthropological Archaeology. London: 418–421. HARTUNG, U., 2001. Umm el-Qaab 2: Importkeramik aus dem Friedhof U in Abydos (Umm el-Qaab) und die Beziehungen Ägyptens zu Vorderasien im 4. Jahrtausend v. Chr. AV 92. Mainz am Rhein. HARTUNG, U., 2016. Chronological aspects of the funerary equipment in Cemetery U at Abydos (Umm el-Qa’ab) [in:] ADAMS, M.D. (ed.); MIDANT-REYNES, B.; RYAN, E.M. & TRISTANT, Y. (coll.), Egypt at its Origins 4. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference “Origin of the State. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt”, New York, 26th–30th July 2011. OLA 252. Leuven: 271–298. HAYES, W.C., 1953. The scepter of Egypt: A background for the study of the Egyptian antiquities in the Metropolitan Museum of Art 1: From the earliest times to the end of the Middle Kingdom. New York. HENDRICKX, S., 1994. Elkab 5: The Naqada III cemetery. Brussels. HENDRICKX, S. & BAVAY, L., 2002. The relative chronological position of Egyptian Predynastic and Early Dynastic tombs with objects imported from the Near East and the nature of interregional contacts [in:] VAN DEN BRINK, E.C.M. & LEVY, T.E. (eds), Egypt and the Levant: Interrelations from the 4th through the early 3rd millennium BCE. New Approaches to Anthropological Archaeology. London: 58–80. HENDRICKX, S.; DARNELL, J.C. & GATTO, M.C., 2012a. The earliest representations of royal power in Egypt: The rock drawings of Nag el-Hamdulab (Aswan). Antiquity 86(334), 1068–1083. HENDRICKX, S.; DARNELL, J.C.; GATTO, M.C & EYCKERMAN, M., 2012b. Iconographic and palaeographic elements dating a Dynasty 0 rock art site at Nag el-Hamdulab (Aswan, Egypt) [in:] HUYGE, D.; VAN NOTEN, F. & SWINNE, D. (eds), The signs of which times? Chronological and palaeoenvironmental issues in the rock art of Northern Africa. Brussels: 295–326. HENDRICKX, S. & EYCKERMAN, M., 2009. The 1955 excavation of an early Old Kingdom storage site at Elkab [in:] CLAES, W.; DE MEULENAERE, H. & HENDRICKX, S. (eds), Elkab and beyond: Studies in honour of Luc Limme. OLA 191. Leuven: 1–30. HENDRICKX, S. & FRIEDMAN, R.F., 2002. Gebel Tjauti rock inscription 1 [in:] DARNELL, J.C., Theban Desert Road Survey in the Egyptian Western Desert 1: Gebel Tjauti rock inscriptions 1–45 and Wadi el-Ḥôl rock inscriptions 1–45. OIP 119. Chicago: 10–19. HENDRICKX, S. & FRIEDMAN, R.F., 2003. Gebel Tjauti rock inscription 1 and the relationship between Abydos and Hierakonpolis during the early Naqada III period. GM 196: 95–109. HENDRICKX, S.; FRIEDMAN, R.F.; DROUX, X. & EYCKERMAN, M., 2020. Size mattered in Predynastic Egypt: A very large decorated vessel in the British Museum [in:] WARFE, A.R.; GILL, J.C.R.; HAMILTON, C.R.; PETTMAN, A.J. & STEWART, D.A. (eds), Dust, demons and pots: Studies in honour of Colin A. Hope. OLA 289. Leuven: 279–304. HENDRICKX, S. & HUYGE, D., 1989. Elkab 4  : Topographie, 2  : Inventaire des sites archéologiques. Brussels.

212

W. CLAES, D. VANHULLE & T. DE PUTTER

HENDRICKX, S.; RIEMER, H.; FÖRSTER, F. & DARNELL, J.C., 2009. Late Predynastic/ Early Dynastic rock art scenes of Barbary sheep hunting in Egypt’s Western Desert: From capturing wild animals to the women of the “Acacia House” [in:] RIEMER, H.; FÖRSTER, F.; HERB, M. & PÖLLATH, N. (eds), Desert animals in the Eastern Sahara: Status, economic significance, and cultural reflection in antiquity. Proceedings of an Interdisciplinary ACACIA Workshop held at the University of Cologne (December 14–15, 2007). Colloquium Africanum 4. Cologne: 189–244. HENDRICKX, S. & VAN DEN BRINK, E.C.M., 1989. Inventory of Predynastic and Early Dynastic cemetery and settlement sites in the Egyptian Nile Valley [in:] VAN DEN BRINK, E.C.M. & LEVY, T.E. (eds), Egypt and the Levant: Interrelations from the 4th through the early 3rd millennium BCE. New Approaches to Anthropological Archaeology. London: 346–399. HIKADE, T., 2012. Egypt and the Near East [in:] POTTS, D.T. (ed.), A companion to the archaeology of the ancient Near East. Malden: 833–850. HIKADE, T.; PYKE, G. & O’NEILL, D., 2008. Excavations at Hierakonpolis HK29B and HK25: The campaigns of 2005/09. MDAIK 64: 153–188. HOFFMEIER, J.K. & MOSHIER, O., 2013. “A highway out of Egypt”: The main road from Egypt to Canaan [in:] FÖRSTER, F. & RIEMER, H. (eds), Desert road archaeology in ancient Egypt and beyond. Africa Praehistorica 27. Cologne: 485–511. HOFMANN, I., 1967. Die Kulturen des Niltals von Aswan bis Sennar: Vom Mesolithikum bis zum Ende der Christlichen Epoche. Monographien zur Völkerkunde 4. Hamburg. HOLMES, D.L., 1989. The Predynastic lithic industries of Upper Egypt: A comparative study of the lithic traditions of Badari, Nagada and Hierakonpolis. BAR. International Series 469; CMAA 33. Oxford. HOPE, C.A., 1999. Pottery manufacture in the Dakhleh Oasis [in:] CHURCHER, C.S. & MILLS, A.J. (eds), Reports from the survey of the Dakhleh Oasis Western Desert of Egypt 1977–1987, DOPM 2; Oxbow Monographs 99. Oxford: 215–250. HOPE, C.A., 2002. Early and mid-Holocene ceramics from the Dakhleh Oasis: Traditions and influences [in:] FRIEDMAN, R.F. (ed.), Egypt and Nubia: Gifts of the desert, London: 39–61. HUYGE, D., 1984. Rock drawings at the mouth of Wadi Hellal, Elkab (Upper Egypt) [in:] KRZYŻANIAK, L. & KOBUSIEWICZ, M. (eds), Origin and early development of food-producing cultures in Northeastern Africa. SAA 1. Poznań: 231–234. HUYGE, D., 1995. De rotstekeningen van Elkab (Boven-Egypte): Registratie, seriatie en interpretatie. Leuven (Unpubl. Phd dissertation, KU Leuven). HUYGE, D., 1999. Bearers of the sun. Discovering Archaeology 1(1): 48–58. HUYGE, D., 2002. Cosmology, ideology and personal religious practice in ancient Egyptian rock art [in:] FRIEDMAN, R.F. (ed.), Egypt and Nubia: Gifts of the desert. London: 192–206. HUYGE, D. & DARNELL, J.C., 2010. Once more British Museum EA35324. GM 225: 71–74. IBRAHIM, M.R. & TALLET, P., 2008. Trois bas-reliefs de l’époque thinite au Ouadi elHumur : Aux origines de l’exploitation du sud-Sinaï par les Égyptiens. RdÉ 59: 155–180. IKRAM, S., 2009. Drawing the world: Petroglyphs from Kharga Oasis. Archéo-Nil 19: 67–82. INIZAN, M.-L. & FRANCAVIGLIA, V.M., 2002. Les périples de l’obsidienne à travers la mer Rouge. Journal des Africanistes 72(2): 11–19. JIMÉNEZ-SERRANO, A., 2002. Royal festivals in the late Predynastic period and the First Dynasty. BAR. International Series 1076. Oxford.

OBSIDIAN IN EARLY EGYPT

213

KABACIŃSKI, J., 2003. Lithic industries at Tell el-Farkha (Eastern Delta) [in:] KRZYŻANIAK, L.; KROEPER, K. & KOBUSIEWICZ, M. (eds), Cultural markers in the later Prehistory of Northeastern Africa and recent research. SAA 8. Poznań: 201–212. KAHL, J., 2001. Vergraben, verbrannt, verkannt und vergessen: Funde aus dem „Menesgrab“. Münster. KAHL, J.; BAGH, T.; ENGEL, E.-M. & PETSCHEL, S., 2001. Die Funde aus dem „Menesgrab“ in Naqada: Ein Zwischenbericht. MDAIK 57: 171–185. KANTOR, H.J., 1965. The relative chronology of Egypt and its foreign correlations before the Late Bronze Age [in:] EHRICH, R.W. (ed.), Chronologies in Old World archaeology. Chicago: 1–46. KAPLONY, P., 1981. Die Rollsiegel des Alten Reiches 2: Katalog der Rollsiegel. MA 3. Brussels. KAYSER, H., 1973. Die ägyptischen Altertümer im Roemer-Pelizaeus-Museum in Hildesheim. Pelizaeus-Museum zu Hildesheim. Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichung 8. Hildesheim. KHALIDI, L., 2007. The formation of a southern Red Seascape in the late Prehistoric period: Tracing cross-Red Sea culture-contact, interaction, and maritime communities along the Tihamah coastal plain, Yemen, in the third to first millennium B.C. [in:] STARKEY, J.; STARKEY, P. & WILKINSON, T. (eds), Natural resources and cultural connections of the Red Sea. Proceedings of the “Red Sea Project III”. BAR. International Series 1661; Society for Arabian Studies. Monographs 5. Oxford: 35–43. KHALIDI, L., 2009. Holocene obsidian exchange in the Red Sea region [in:] PETRAGLIA, M.D. & ROSE, J.I. (eds), The evolution of human populations in Arabia: Paleoenvironments, prehistory and genetics. Vertebrate Paleobiology and Paleoanthropology. Dordrecht: 279–291. KHALIDI, L.; INIZAN, M.L.; GRATUZE, B. & CRASSARD, R. 2013. Considering the Arabian Neolithic through a reconstitution of interregional obsidian distribution patterns in the region. Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 24: 59–67. KHALIDI, L.; LEWIS, K. & GRATUZE, B., 2012. New perspectives on regional and interregional obsidian circulation in prehistoric and early historic Arabia. Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 42: 143–164. KHALIDI, L.; OPPENHEIMER, C.; GRATUZE, B.; BOUCETTA, S.; SANABANI, A. & AL-MOSABI, A., 2010. Obsidian sources in highland Yemen and their relevance to archaeological research in the Red Sea region. JAS 37: 2332–2345. KOBUSIEWICZ, M.; KABACIŃSKI J.; SCHILD, R.; IRISH, J.D.; GATTO, M.C & WENDORF, F., 2010. Gebel Ramlah: Final Neolithic cemeteries from the Western Desert of Egypt. Poznań. LANGE, M., 2003. A-Group settlement sites in the Laqiya region (Eastern Sahara, Northwest Sudan) [in:] KRZYŻANIAK, L.; KROEPER, K. & KOBUSIEWICZ, M. (eds), Cultural markers in the later Prehistory of Northeastern Africa and recent research. SAA 8. Poznań: 105–127. LOEBEN, C.E., 2011. Die Ägypten-Sammlung des Museum August Kestner und ihre (Kriegs-) Verluste. Museum Kestnerianum 15. Rahden. LUCARINI, G.; BARCA, D. & MANZO, A., 2020. The provenance of obsidian artefacts from the Middle Kingdom harbour of Mersa/Wadi Gawasis, Egypt, and its implications for Red Sea trade routes in the 2nd millennium BC. Quaternary International 555: 85–95. LUCARINI, G. & MARIOTTI, E., 2014. The Boats Arch: A new rock art site in Wadi el Obeiyid [in:] BARICH, B.; LUCARINI, G.; HAMDAN, M.A. & HASSAN, F.A. (eds), From lake to sand: The archaeology of Farafra Oasis, Western Desert, Egypt. Florence: 406–410.

214

W. CLAES, D. VANHULLE & T. DE PUTTER

LUCAS, A., 1942. Obsidian. ASAÉ 41: 271–275. LUCAS, A., 1947. Obsidian. ASAÉ 47: 113–123. [MACGREGOR], 1922. Catalogue of the MacGregor collection of Egyptian antiquities (Auction Sotheby, Wilkinson & Hodge). London. MĄCZYŃSKA, A., 2013. Lower Egyptian communities and their interactions with Southern Levant in the 4th millennium BC. SAA 12. Poznań. MĄCZYŃSKA, A., 2014. Some remarks on the visitors in the Nile Delta in the 4th millennium BC [in:] MĄCZYŃSKA, A. (ed.), The Nile Delta as a centre of cultural interactions between Upper Egypt and the Southern Levant in the 4th millennium BC. SAA 13. Poznań: 181–216. MARCUS, E., 2002. Early seafaring and maritime activity in the Southern Levant from Prehistory through the third millennium BCE [in:] VAN DEN BRINK, E.C.M. & LEVY, T.E. (eds), Egypt and the Levant: Interrelations from the 4th through the early 3rd millennium BCE. New Approaches to Anthropological Archaeology. London: 405–417. MARK, S., 1997. From Egypt to Mesopotamia: A study of Predynastic trade routes. Studies in Nautical Archaeology 4. London. MASSOULARD, E., 1936. Lances fourchues et peseshkaf : À propos des deux acquisitions récentes du musée du Louvre. RdÉ 2: 135–163. MCHUGH, W.P., 1982. The stone artifacts from structure II, locality 29 [in:] HOFFMAN, M.A., The Predynastic of Hierakonpolis: An interim report. Egyptian Studies Association 1. Cairo: 85–92. MEEKS, D., 1997. Navigation maritime et navires égyptiens : Les éléments d’une controverse [in:] GARCIA, D. & MEEKS, D. (eds), Techniques et économie antiques et médiévales  : Le temps de l’innovation. Actes du Colloque d’Aix-en-Provence, mai 1996. Travaux du Centre Camille Julian 21; Collection archéologie d’aujourd’hui. Paris: 175–194. MENEISY, M.Y., 1990. Vulcanicity [in:] SAID, R. (ed.), The geology of Egypt. Rotterdam: 157–172. MUMFORD, G.D., 2014. Egypt and the Levant [in:] STEINER, M.L. & KILLEBREW, A.E. (eds), The Oxford handbook of the archaeology of the Levant: C. 8000–332 BCE. Oxford Handbooks. Oxford: 66–89. NAVILLE, E., 1914. The cemeteries of Abydos 1: 1909–1910: The mixed cemetery and Umm el-Ga’ab. MEEF 33. London. NEEDLER, W., 1984. Predynastic and Archaic Egypt in the Brooklyn Museum. Wilbour Monographs 9. New York. NEGASH, A.; BROWN, F. & NASH, B., 2011. Varieties and sources of artefactual obsidian in the Middle Stone Age of the Middle Awash, Ethiopia. Archaeometry 53(4): 661–673. O’CONNOR, D., 1987. The earliest pharaohs and the University Museum: Old and new excavations: 1900–1987. Expedition 29(1): 27–39. PAYNE, J.C., 1968. Lapis lazuli in early Egypt. Iraq 30(1): 58–61. PAYNE, J.C., 1987. Appendix to Naqada excavations supplement. JEA 73: 181–189. PAYNE, J.C., 2000. Catalogue of the Predynastic Egyptian collection in the Ashmolean Museum: With addenda. Oxford. PEET, T.E., 1914. The cemeteries of Abydos 2: 1911–1912. MEEF 34. London. PERNICKA, E., 1996. Analyse eines prädynastischen Obsidianmessers aus Unterägypten [in:] KRZYŻANIAK, L.; KROEPER, K. & KOBUSIEWICZ, M. (eds), Interregional contacts in the later Prehistory of Northeastern Africa. SAA 5. Poznań: 286–287. PETRIE, W.M.F., 1901a. Diospolis Parva: The cemeteries of Abadiyeh and Hu 1898–9. MEEF 20. London.

OBSIDIAN IN EARLY EGYPT

215

PETRIE, W.M.F., 1901b. The Royal Tombs of the earliest dynasties 1901, part II. MEEF 21. London. PETRIE, W.M.F., 1902. Abydos, part I: 1902. MEEF 22, London. PETRIE, W.M.F., 1920. Prehistoric Egypt, illustrated by over 1000 objects in University College, London. BSAE/ERA 31. London. PETRIE, W.M.F. & QUIBELL, J.E., 1896. Naqada and Ballas 1895. London. PETRIE, W.M.F.; WAINWRIGHT, G.A. & MACKAY, E., 1912. The Labyrinth, Gerzeh and Mazghuneh. BSAE 18. London. PRAG, K., 1986. Byblos and Egypt in the fourth millennium B.C. Levant 18(1): 59–74. QUIBELL, J.E., 1896. Ballas. ERA 1. London. QUIBELL, J.E., 1898. El Kab. ERA 3. London. QUIBELL, J.E., 1904–1905. Archaic objects. Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennes du Musée du Caire, nos 11.001–12.000 et 14.001–14754. Cairo. QUIBELL, J.E. & GREEN, F.W., 1902. Hierakonpolis, part II. ERA 5. London. RENFREW, C., 1975. Trade as action at a distance: Questions of integration and communication [in:] SABLOFF, J.A. & LAMBERG-KARLOVSKY, C.C. (eds), Ancient civilization and trade. Albuquerque: 3–59. RENFREW, C.; DIXON, J.E. & CANN, J.R., 1966. Obsidian and early cultural contact in the Near East. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 32: 30–72. RIEMER, H., 2004. News about the Clayton rings: Long distance desert travellers during Egypt’s Predynastic [in:] HENDRICKX, S.; FRIEDMAN, R.F.; CIAŁOWICZ, K.M. & CHŁODNICKI, M. (eds), Egypt at its Origins: Studies in memory of Barbara Adams. Proceedings of the International Conference “Origin of the State. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt”, Kraków, 28th August–1st September 2002. OLA 138. Leuven: 971–989. RIEMER, H., 2013. Lessons in landscape learning: The dawn of long-distance travel and navigation in Egypt’s Western Desert from Prehistoric to Old Kingdom times [in:] FÖRSTER, F. & RIEMER, H. (eds), Desert road archaeology in ancient Egypt and beyond. Africa Praehistorica 27. Cologne: 77–106. RIEMER, H. & KUPER, R., 2000. “Clayton rings”: Enigmatic ancient pottery in the Eastern Sahara. Sahara 12: 91–100. RIEMER, H.; LANGE, M. & KINDERMANN, K., 2013. When the desert dried up: Late Prehistoric cultures and contacts in Egypt and Northern Sudan [in:] RAUE, D.; SEIDLMAYER, S.J. & SPEISER, P. (eds), The First Cataract of the Nile: One region – diverse perspectives. SDAIK 36. Berlin: 157–183. ROBIN, A.K.; MOURALIS, D.; AKKÖPRÜ, E.; GRATUZE, B.; KUZUCUOĞLU, C.; NOMADE, S.; PEREIRA, A.; DOĞU, A.F.; ERTURAÇ, K. & KHALIDI, L., 2016. Identification and characterization of two new obsidian sub-sources in the Nemrut volcano (Eastern Anatolia, Turkey): The Sıcaksu and Kayacık obsidian. JAS. Reports 9: 705–717. [RÖMISCH-GERMANISCHEN ZENTRALMUSEUMS], 1995. Schwarze Obsidianschale aus Abydos in Oberägypten (spätes 4. Jahrtausend v. Chr.). Jahrbuch des RömischGermanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz 40(2): 668–669. ROSSI, C. & IKRAM, S., 2018. North Kharga Oasis Survey: Explorations in Egypt’s Western Desert. BMPES 5. Leuven. ROY, J., 2011, The politics of trade: Egypt and Lower Nubia in the 4th millennium BC. CHANE 47. Leiden. ROWLAND, J.; MAŘÍKOVÁ VLČKOVÁ, P.; HENDRICKX, S.; HERBICH, T.; CLAES, W. & HUYGE, D., 2009. Old Kingdom settlement remains at Elkab (Upper Egypt): Preliminary report on the 2009 field season. BKMKG/BMRAH 80: 21–50.

216

W. CLAES, D. VANHULLE & T. DE PUTTER

SALEH, M. & SOUROUZIAN, H., 1986. Die Hauptwerke im Ägyptischen Museum Kairo. Mainz am Rhein. SAYCE, A.H. & CLARKE, S., 1905. Report on certain excavations made at El-Kab during the years 1901, 1902, 1903, 1904. ASAÉ 6: 239–272. SCHARFF, A., 1926. Ausgrabungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft auf dem vorgeschichtlichen Gräberfeld von Abusir el-Meleq 1: Die archäologischen Ergebnisse des vorgeschichtlichen Gräberfeldes von Abusir el-Meleq. WVDOG 49. Leipzig. SCHARFF, A., 1931. Die Altertümer der Vor- und Frühzeit Ägyptens 1: Werkzeuge, Waffen, Gefässe. Staatliche Museen zu Berlin. Mitteilungen aus der ägyptischen Sammlung 4. Berlin. SCHMIDT, K., 1992. Tell el-Fara’in/Buto and el-Tell el-Iswid (south): The lithic industries from the Chalcolithic to the early Old Kingdom [in:] VAN DEN BRINK, E.C.M. (ed.), The Nile Delta in transition: 4th.–3rd. millennium B.C. Proceedings of the Seminar held in Cairo, 21.–24. October 1990, at the Netherlands Institute of Archaeology and Arabic Studies, Tel Aviv: 31–41. SCHOTTE, Q., 2011. Analysis of a First Intermediate Period and early Middle Kingdom necropolis at el-Kab. Leuven (Unpubl. MA dissertation, KU Leuven). SEIDLMAYER, S.J., 1990. Gräberfelder aus dem Übergang vom Alten zum Mittleren Reich: Studien zur Archäologie der Ersten Zwischenzeit. SAGA 1. Heidelberg. SHARVIT, J.; GALILI, E.; ROSEN, B. & VAN DEN BRINK, E.C.M., 2002. Predynastic maritime traffic along the Carmel Coast of Israel: A submerged find from North Atlit Bay [in:] VAN DEN BRINK, E.C.M. & YANNAI, E. (eds), In quest of ancient settlements and landscapes: Archaeological studies in honour of Ram Gophna. Tel Aviv: 159–166. SOMAGLINO, C. & TALLET, P., 2014. Une campagne en Nubie sous la Ire dynastie : La scène nagadienne du Gebel Sheikh Suleiman comme prototype et modèle. NeHeT 1: 1–46. SPENCER, A.J., 1980. Catalogue of Egyptian antiquities in the British Museum 5: Early Dynastic objects. London. STAGER, L.E., 2001. Port power in the Early and the Middle Bronze Age: The organization of maritime trade and hinterland production [in:] WOLFF, S.R. (ed.), Studies in the archaeology of Israel and neighbouring lands in memory of Douglas L. Esse. SAOC 59; ASOR Books 5. Chicago: 625–638. STEVENSON, A., 2006. Gerzeh, a cemetery shortly before history. Egyptian Sites. London. STEVENSON, A., 2009. The Predynastic Egyptian cemetery of el-Gerzeh. OLA 186. Leuven. TAKAMIYA, I.H., 1994. Egyptian pottery in A-Group cemeteries, Nubia: Towards an understanding of pottery production and distribution in Pre-dynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt. Cambridge (Unpubl. M.Phil. dissertation, Cambridge University). TAKAMIYA, I.H., 2004. Egyptian pottery distribution in A-Group cemeteries, Lower Nubia: Towards an understanding of exchange systems between the Naqada culture and the A-Group culture. JEA 90: 35–62. TAKAMIYA, I.H., 2008. Return to the temple workshop: The manufacture of bifacial flint tools. Nekhen News 20: 8–9. TALLET, P., 2013. The Wadi el-Jarf site: A harbour of Khufu on the Red Sea. JAEI 5(1): 76–84. TALLET, P., 2015. La zone minière du Sud-Sinaï 2  : Les inscriptions pré- et protodynastiques du Ouadi ‘Ameyra (CCIS Nos 273–335). MIFAO 132. Cairo. TAYLOR, S.R. & MCLENNAN, S.M., 1985. The continental crust: Its composition and evolution. Oxford.

OBSIDIAN IN EARLY EGYPT

217

TRISTANT, Y., 2004. L’habitat prédynastique de la Vallée du Nil  : Vivre sur les rives du Nil aux Ve et IVe millénaires. BAR. International Series 1287. Oxford. TUTUNDŽIĆ, S.P., 1989. The problem of foreign north-eastern relations of Upper Egypt, particularly in Badarian period: An aspect [in:] KRZYŻANIAK, L. & KOBUSIEWICZ, M. (eds), Late Prehistory of the Nile basin and the Sahara. SAA 2. Poznań: 255–260. VAN DEN BRINK, E.C.M., 1989. A transitional Late Predynastic – Early Dynastic settlement site in the Northeastern Nile Delta, Egypt. MDAIK 45: 55–108. VAN NEER, W.; LINSEELE, V. & FRIEDMAN, R.F., 2004. Animal burials and food offerings at the Elite Cemetery HK6 of Hierakonpolis [in:] HENDRICKX, S.; FRIEDMAN, R.F.; CIAŁOWICZ, K.M. & CHŁODNICKI, M. (eds), Egypt at its Origins: Studies in memory of Barbara Adams. Proceedings of the International Conference “Origin of the State. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt”, Kraków, 28th August–1st September 2002. OLA 138. Leuven: 67–130. VAN WALSEM, R., 1979. The psš-kf: An investigation of an ancient Egyptian funerary instrument. OMRO 59-60: 193–249. VANHULLE, D., 2011. La pierre et le pouvoir dans l’Égypte prédynastique  : Étude du lapis-lazuli, de l’obsidienne, de la turquoise et de l’améthyste en contexte prédynastique. Brussels (Unpubl. MA dissertation, Université Libre de Bruxelles). VANHULLE, D., 2016. Le bateau pré- et protodynastique dans l’iconographie et l’archéologie égyptiennes  : Pour une étude analytique et sémiologique de la navigation au 4e millénaire avant J.-C. Brussels (Unpubl. PhD dissertation, Université Libre de Bruxelles). VERMEERSCH, P., 1972. De plaats van Elkab in de voorgeschiedenis van Egypte. AfricaTervuren 18: 104–113. VERMEERSCH, P., 1978. Elkab 2  : L’Elkabien, épipaléolithique de la Vallée du Nil. Brussels. WAINWRIGHT, G.A., 1927. Obsidian. Ancient Egypt 3: 77–93. WARD, W.A., 1963. Egypt and the East Mediterranean from Predynastic times to the end of the Old Kingdom. Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 6(1): 1–57. WARD, W.A., 1964. Relations between Egypt and Mesopotamia from prehistoric times to the end of the Middle Kingdom. Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 7(1–2): 1–45, 121–135. WENDORF, F. & SCHILD, R. (eds), 2004. The Western Desert during the 5th and 4th millennia BC: The Late and Final Neolithic in the Nabta-Kiseiba area. ArchéoNil 14: 13–31. WILKINSON, T.A.H., 1999. Early Dynastic Egypt. London. WILLIAMS, B.B., 1986. Excavations between Abu Simbel and the Sudan frontier 1: The A-Group Royal Cemetery at Qustul: Cemetery L. OINE 3. Chicago. WILLIAMS, B.B., 2011. Relations between Egypt and Nubia in the Naqada period [in:] TEETER, E. (ed.), Before the Pyramids: The Origins of Egyptian Civilization. OIMP 33. Chicago: 83–92. ZARINS, J., 1989. Ancient Egypt and the Red Sea trade: The case for obsidian in the Predynastic and Archaic periods [in:] LEONARD, A. & WILLIAMS, B.B. (eds), Essays in ancient civilization presented to Helene J. Kantor. SAOC 47. Chicago: 339–368. ZARINS, J., 1996. Obsidian in the larger context of Predynastic/Archaic Egyptian Red Sea trade [in:] READE J. (ed.), The Indian Ocean in antiquity. London: 89–106.

218

W. CLAES, D. VANHULLE & T. DE PUTTER

Table 1. Trace elements and rare-earth elements (REE) for obsidian artefacts from Bavay et al. 2000; 2004 and from this study (ELK12-F05). ppm sample id.

sector

Sc

Co

Cu

Zn

Ga

Ge

Rb

Sr

Y

Zr

Nb

Upper Egypt Elkab

ELK12-F05 spot 1

5.8 < 0.1

3.2 126

24

1.9 128 1.51

56

418

132

spot 2

4.9 < 0.1

3.7 151

22

1.8 128 1.63

57

430

130

spot 3

5.2 < 0.1

3.7 156

24

2.0 131 1.62

58

441

129

spot 4

4.7 < 0.1

5.8 149

23

2.0 130 1.57

56

410

128

spot 5

4.9 < 0.1

3.9 152

24

1.9 130 1.74

56

420

129

spot 6

4.8 < 0.1

4.4 152

23

2.0 130 1.75

57

420

127

average

5.1 < 0.1

4.1 148

24

1.9 130 1.64

57

423

129

SD

0.4

0.9

11

1

0.1

1

11

2

HK6

5.0

2.6

7.8 111

25

2.1

nd

2.8

nd

439

120

UC: 14877a

29.4

0.8

60 208 30.5

5.3

nd

2.8

nd 524.3 175.6

UC: 14877b

27.8

1.0 119 210 32.2

3.8

nd

4.0

nd 515.2 164.3

U-j

U-j 11a

3.86

1.8

6 136 27.2

2.0

nd

1.6

nd 473.7 123.7

U-j

U-j 11b

6.2

3.9

Hierakonpolis

Abydos

O

1 0.10

20 193 29.4

2.9

nd

4.0

nd 564.9 133.3

MRAH: E.4833a 17.9 26.5 209 494 36.6

4.5

nd

9.0

nd 732.6 212.6

MRAH: E.4833b 20.5

0.6

52 214 29.8

4.2

nd

3.2

nd 500.5 161.0

MRAH: E.4833c 24.8

0.9

68 196 28.7

4.8

nd

3.1

nd 481.6 163.1

MRAH: E.4833e 33.5

1.4 191 230 27.1

7.5

nd 48.3

nd 466.9 121.7

Naqada

499

UC: 4267

43.2

1.0 297 191 33.7

4.1

nd

6.9

nd 563.9 168.9

Naqada

743

UC: 4385

28.1

0.7 111 202 30.2

4.9

nd

3.3

nd 544.2 174.3

Hemamiah

23/1629

UC: 9587

25.6

0.9

93 247 30.9

3.4

nd

3.2

nd 534.7 176.9

layer IIa

bladelet core

3.5

2.1

4.3

1.7

nd 0.14

Lower Egypt Buto

87

22

nd

794

34

219

OBSIDIAN IN EARLY EGYPT

Ba

Hf

Ta

W

Pb

Th

U

La

Ce

Pr

Nd

Sm

Eu

Gd

Dy

Ho

Er

Yb

Lu

8.4 11.0

9.4 2.26

14.7 15.6

4.4

83

166 15.8

61 11.9 0.52 10.6 11.1 2.13

6.6

7.3 1.17

8.2 10.1

8.5 2.13

12.8 14.4

3.7

85

158 15.3

62 12.0 0.71 10.2 10.6 2.16

6.8

7.7 1.17

8.5 10.0

8.4 2.24

12.3 14.1

3.9

83

159 15.1

60 11.3 0.67

9.9 10.9 2.03

6.6

7.4 1.12

8.0

9.3

8.1 1.96

12.2 13.3

3.5

79

150 14.3

58 10.0 0.61

9.5 10.0 1.95

6.0

7.2 1.01

8.0 10.3

8.1 2.06

12.2 13.6

3.7

80

152 14.3

58 10.5 0.67

9.6

9.1 2.03

5.8

6.5 1.06

7.8

9.7

8.2 2.02

11.7 13.6

3.6

81

153 14.5

57 10.6 0.51 10.2

9.6 1.95

6.2

7.1 0.96

8.1 10.1

8.5 2.11

12.7 14.1

3.8

82

156 14.9

59 11.0 0.61 10.0 10.2 2.04

6.3

7.2 1.08

0.3

0.5 0.12

1.1

0.8

0.3

2

5.7

2.4

15 10.7

3.3

76

11.6 14.8 10.0

2.0

18.4 17.4

5.5

17.1 14.6

9.9

1.6

36.5 17.2

8.6 11.5

5.9

2.1

12.2 14.2

6.9

2.4

0.6

20 10.8

2

0.8 0.08

0.4

0.8 0.09

0.4

0.4 0.09

161 14.3 53.1

6

0.6

9.4 0.53

8.1

8.8

1.8

5.3

5.8

0.8

99.2 192.0 20.6 67.8 16.4

0.9 14.9 14.8

3.4

8.9

8.5

1.3

5.2

94.0 178.9 18.8 65.6 12.7

1.0 12.4 15.8

3.1

9.1

9.3

1.3

15.6 11.8

3.3

82.1 159.7 15.4 57.4 10.4

0.6

9.3 10.0

2.2

6.4

6.8

1.0

22.5 14.6

3.7

7.9

8.2

1.2

95.0 174.9 17.5 66.9 12.4

0.7 11.1 12.5

2.7

17.8 16.2 10.5

3.0 136.3 22.3

5.5 122.2 215.6 22.8 88.3 18.8

0.9 20.2 16.8

nd 10.3 11.3

nd

10.3 12.8

9.6

1.6

19.1 16.6

5.0

95.9 175.3 19.9 65.2 11.8

0.6 13.4 14.4

2.9

8.1

7.7

1.2

12.2 14.1

9.6

2.0

21.7 17.4

4.7

95.2 181.8 20.0 61.7 11.2

1.0 14.0 13.1

3.1

8.4

8.0

1.3

1112.5 14.2

8.0

2.5

63.3 17.4

5.8

78.8 152.1 15.9 52.7 11.2

1.6 12.9 15.1

3.1

9.5

9.9

1.5

13.0 22.7 15.5

2.2

54.6 30.7 10.0 108.1 222.1 25.1 93.3 16.4

1.3 20.1 21.7

4.5 13.9 11.1

1.9

11.9 15.1

9.8

1.7

25.9 17.7

5.3

97.8 193.6 20.6 65.1 12.7

1.0 13.6 14.4

3.3

7.8

7.8

1.4

13.2 13.5 10.5

2.4

37.4 18.2

6.2

98.5 192.3 21.1 66.4 12.7

0.8 15.2 13.7

3.1

8.2

7.5

1.5

1.8 2.82

20.2 12.8

4.9

9.8 11.3 2.37

7.0

7.1 1.05

1 14.3

52

119 12.2

48 10.1 0.27

Table 2. Th/Ta and Zn/Zr ratios for obsidian samples from Upper Egypt; the Lower Egypt Buto sample (last line) differs significantly from the Upper Egypt samples. Th/Ta ratio

Zn/Zr ratio

ELK12-F05 HK6 UC: 14877b U-j 11a U-j 11b MRAH: E.4833b MRAH: E.4833c UC: 4385 UC: 9587

Sample

Elkab Hierakonpolis Hierakonpolis Abydos Abydos Abydos Abydos Naqada Hemamiah

Location

1.7 1.9 1.7 2.0 2.1 1.7 1.8 1.8 1.7

0.35 0.25 0.41 0.29 0.34 0.43 0.41 0.37 0.46

Schnitt U I

Buto

7.1

0.11

Alexandria

Buto: Schnitt U I

Tell el-Farkha

2

3

Site / Context

Knife (fragment)

Core

Blades

1

1

4

Description Number

Naqada IIC–D1

Naqada IIB–C

Prehistoric

Period

= Ashmolean Museum, Oxford = British Museum, London = Brooklyn Museum, New York = Egyptian Museum, Cairo = Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge = Garstang Museum of Archaeology, Liverpool = Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, Cambridge = Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York = Museum August Kestner, Hannover = Musée du Louvre, Paris

1

No.

MMA MAK MdL

AM BM BrM EM FM GMA MAA

BM BM BM BM

2009,6017.690 2009,6017.692 2009,6017.693 2009,6017.694

Bavay et al. 2000: 19. Bavay et al. 2004. Faltings et al. 2000: 138, 139, fig. 2.1. Hartung 2001: 288. Chłodnicki & Ciałowicz 2002: 99, 101, fig. 26.5. Kabaciński 2003: 202, 2011, fig. 1.5.

Not published.

Bibliography

= Nubian Museum, Aswan = Royal Museums of Art and History, Brussels = Roemer-Pelizaeus-Museum, Hildesheim = Staatliche Museen zu Berlin – Ägyptische Museum und Papyrussammlung, Berlin = Suez National Museum, Suez = Universität Bonn – Ägyptisches Museum, Bonn = University College – Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology, London = Universität Heidelberg – Sammlung des Ägyptologischen Instituts, Heidelberg

Museum Inv. number

UH

SNM UB UC

NM RMAH RPM SMB

Abbreviations - Museums

Catalogue of obsidian objects found at Predynastic and Early Dynastic sites in Egypt and Nubia.

220 W. CLAES, D. VANHULLE & T. DE PUTTER

Tell el-Farkha: Western Kom, administrative cultic center Tell el-Farkha

Tell el-Iswid: Settlement

Gerzeh: Tomb 185

Gerzeh: Tomb 133

4

6

7

8

5

Site / Context

No.

Beads

Flake (fragment)

Knife (fragment)

Knives (fragment)

Fishtail knife (fragment) Naqada IIIA

Period

2

1

1

Museum Inv. number

Naqada IID1

AM: E.E.618 (1911.368) AM: E.E.620 (1911.370)

Naqada IIC–D2 UC: 42542

Naqada IIC–D

Not Naqada IIIB–C1 specified

1

Description Number

Chłodnicki & Ciałowicz 2002: 99, 105, fig. 30.3. Kabaciński 2003: 207, 209, fig. 5.3, 211. Bavay et al. 2000: 8, 19. Bavay et al. 2004: 608–609. Hartung 2001: 290, fig. 53a. Pernicka 1996: 286–287. Schmidt 1992: 34. Tristant 2004: 31, fig. 26, 32, 114. van den Brink 1989: 83, 88–91, fig. 15.11. Cann & Renfrew 1964: 124, 129, 133. Hartung 2001: 290. Massoulard 1936: 159. Petrie et al. 1912: 24. Stevenson 2006: 48. Stevenson 2009: 117, 271. Wainwright 1927: 77, 88. Zarins 1989: 362, tab. 6 (no. 13). Zarins 1996: 92, 98. Hartung 2001: 290. Massoulard 1936: 159. Payne 2000: 211 (no. 1720), 212 (no. 1722). Petrie et al. 1912: 16, pls II, IV, XIII. Stevenson 2006: 47–48. Stevenson 2009: 117, 266, 300, 310.

Chłodnicki & Ciałowicz 2013: 104, fig. 15. Chłodnicki & Ciałowicz 2015: 178, fig. 7.

Bibliography

OBSIDIAN IN EARLY EGYPT

221

2

2

2

11 Abusir el-Meleq: Blades Tomb 46c1

12 Abusir el-Meleq: Blades Tomb 51e3

13 Abusir el-Meleq: Blades Tomb 56c7

Naqada IID–IIIB

Naqada IID–IIIB

Naqada IID–IIIB

Naqada IID–IIIB

Bibliography

Hartung 2001: 290. Massoulard 1936: 159. Scharff 1926: 48, 114–115, pl. 30 (no. 280). Zarins 1989: 362, tab. 6 (no. 14). Zarins 1996: 98. Hartung 2001: 290. Massoulard 1936: 159. Scharff 1926: 132–133. Zarins 1989: 363, tab. 6 (no. 16). Zarins 1996: 98. Hartung 2001: 290. Massoulard 1936: 159. Scharff 1926: 140–141. Zarins 1989: 363, tab. 6 (no. 18). Zarins 1996: 98. UB: BoSAe 2163a–b Hartung 2001: 290. (?) (*) Massoulard 1936: 159. Scharff 1926: 142–143. EM: JE 38188 Hartung 2001: 290. Massoulard 1936: 159. Scharff 1926: 144–145. Zarins 1989: 363, tab. 6 (no. 20). Zarins 1996: 98.

Museum Inv. number

Naqada IID–IIIB SMB: 18680

Period

(*) The collection of the Ägyptisches Museum in Bonn contains two obsidian blades originating most probably from Abusir el-Meleq. The current inventory record states that an old label existed on one of the blades mentioning the number ‘5123/12’. It is well possible that this number is incorrectly cited on the current inventory card and that it in fact refers to object no. 12 from tomb 51e3 which, according to the published excavation report, contains 12 objects (Scharff 1926: 142–143). Unfortunately, the excavation report does not contain photos or drawings of the obsidian blades of tomb 51e3. Therefore, their attribution to the two fragments kept in Bonn cannot be stated with absolute certainty.

2

10 Abusir el-Meleq: Blades Tomb 36a2

Description Number 1

Site / Context

Abusir el-Meleq: Blade Tomb 13a2

9

No.

222 W. CLAES, D. VANHULLE & T. DE PUTTER

1

4

1

1

1

15 Abusir el-Meleq: Blade Tomb 1017

16 Abusir el-Meleq: Blades Tomb 1035

17 Abusir el-Meleq: Blade Tomb 1036

18 Abusir el-Meleq: Blade Tomb 1066

19 Abusir el-Meleq: Blade Tomb 1070

Description Number 2

Site / Context

14 Abusir el-Meleq: Blades Tomb 60a1

No.

Bibliography

Hartung 2001: 290. Massoulard 1936: 159. Scharff 1926: 48, 146–147, pl. 30 (no. 281). Zarins 1989: 363, tab. 6 (no. 15). Zarins 1996: 98. Naqada IID–IIIB SMB: 19134 Massoulard 1936: 159. Scharff 1926: 48, 150–151. Zarins 1989: 363, tab. 6 (no. 17). Zarins 1996: 91, 98. Naqada IID–IIIB MAK: 1921.2.26a–d Hartung 2001: 290. Loeben 2011: 207. Massoulard 1936: 159. Scharff 1926: 48, 152–153. Zarins 1989: 363, tab. 6 (no. 22). Zarins 1996: 98. Naqada IID–IIIB SMB: 19310 Hartung 2001: 291. Massoulard 1936: 159. Scharff 1926: 48, 152–153. Zarins 1989: 363, tab. 6 (no. 19). Zarins 1996: 98. Naqada IID–IIIB Hartung 2001: 291. Massoulard 1936: 159. Scharff 1926: 156–157. Zarins 1989: 363, tab. 6 (no. 23). Zarins 1996: 98. Naqada IID–IIIB RPM: 2763 Hartung 2001: 291. Kayser 1973: 30. Massoulard 1936: 159. Scharff 1926: 48, 156–157. Zarins 1989: 363, tab. 6 (no. 21). Zarins 1996: 98.

Museum Inv. number

Naqada IID–IIIB SMB: 18690 SMB: 18691

Period

OBSIDIAN IN EARLY EGYPT

223

Fishtail knife

Fishtail knives

26 Akhmim (?)

27 Akhmim (?)

Period

Naqada IIC

UC: 9587

RMAH: E.6181a–b

Museum Inv. number

2

Naqada II–IIIA2 EM: JE 56605 EM: JE 56606

Not PD UC: 20922 (?) specified 1 Naqada II–IIIA2 BrM: 35.1445

1

2 PD Not Badarian specified 1 Naqada IIB– IIIC2 2 Naqada IID1

(**) Identification as obsidian is uncertain.

Beads

25 Qau el Kebir

Beads

Bead

Blades Beads

Pierced flake (part of string of beads)

Beni Hasan (?) Mostagedda: Tomb 547 Mostagedda: Tomb 1631 Badari: Tomb 4602

20 21 (**) 22 (**) 23 (**)

Description Number

24 Hemamiah: Tomb 1629

Site / Context

No.

Bleiberg 2008: 64. Hartung 2001: 291. Needler 1984: 274–275 (no. 171). Zarins 1989: 364, tab. 6 (no. 32). Zarins 1996: 91. Hartung 2001: 291. Lucas 1947: 120. Saleh & Sourouzian 1986, cat. no. 5. Zarins 1989: 364, tab. 6 (nos 30–31). Zarins 1996: 91.

[MacGregor] 1922: 148 (no. 1132). Brunton 1937: 36: 51, pl. VIII. Hartung 2001: 291. Brunton 1937: 86, pl. XXIX. Hartung 2001: 291. Brunton & Caton-Thompson 1928: 56, pls XXXIII, L. Hartung 2001: 291. Bavay et al. 2000: 9. Brunton & Caton-Thompson 1928: 50, pl. L. Giménez et al. 2015: 350. Hartung 2001: 291. Massoulard 1936: 159. Wainwright 1927: 88. Zarins 1989: 362, tab. 6 (no. 12). Not published.

Bibliography

224 W. CLAES, D. VANHULLE & T. DE PUTTER

1

Blade

Blade

Blade (fragment)

31 Abydos: Tomb U-134

32 Abydos: Tomb U-135 33 Abydos: Tomb U-200

34 Abydos: Tomb E 381 35 Abydos: Tomb U-503 36 Abydos: Tomb U-545

1

Fishtail knife (fragment)

30 Akhmim (?)

Museum Inv. number

Naqada IID Naqada IID

1 1

Bowl (fragment) Blade

Naqada IID

1

Naqada IID

Naqada IID

Naqada IID

BM: EA49318

Naqada II–IIIA2 SMB: 15773

Naqada II–IIIA2 SMB: 15772

Naqada II–IIIA2 MdL: E14278 MdL: E14279

Period

Flake

1

1

1

Fishtail knife (fragment)

29 Akhmim (?)

2

Description Number

Fishtail knives

Site / Context

28 Akhmim (?)

No.

Dreyer 1993: 27. Hartung 2001: 292. Hartung 2016: 277–279, fig. 3. Hartung 2001: 291–292. Naville 1914: 17, pl. III.1. Dreyer et al. 1998: 91–92. Hartung 2001: 292. Hartung 2001: 292–293. Hartung 2016: 277–279, fig. 3.

Hartung 2001: 291. Massoulard 1936. Van Walsem 1979: 242. Zarins 1989: 363, tab. 6 (nos 28–29). Zarins 1996: 91. Hartung 2001: 291. Scharff 1931: 90 (no. 173), fig. 8 (no. 173). Wainwright 1927: 88–89. Zarins 1989: 363, tab. 6 (no. 26). Hartung 2001: 291. Scharff 1931: 90 (no. 174), fig. 8 (no. 174). Van Walsem 1979: 243. Zarins 1989: 363, tab. 6 (no. 27). Dreyer et al. 1996: 17–18. Hartung 2001: 292. Hartung 2016: 277–279, fig. 3. Hartung 2001: 292.

Bibliography

OBSIDIAN IN EARLY EGYPT

225

1 1

Blade & blade fragments

Flake

Blade (fragment)

40 Abydos : Tomb U-j 1, U-I Süd, U-j Umgebung

41 Abydos: Tomb U-qq 42 Abydos: Tomb U-g

3

6

Naqada IIIA2

Naqada IIIA1–2

Naqada IIIA1

Naqada IIIA1

Naqada II (?)

1

Bowls (fragments)

Naqada IID (?)

Period

1

39 Abydos: Tomb U-j 11 + U-I Süd

Description Number

Vessel (fragment) Flake

Site / Context

37 Abydos: Tomb U-166 38 Abydos: Tomb U-2

No.

Museum Inv. number

Dreyer 1993: 28. Hartung 2001: 292.

Hartung 2001: 292. Hartung 2016: 277–279, fig. 3. Peet 1914: 15. Zarins 1989: 362, tab. 6 (no. 9). Baines 2010: 138–139. Bavay et al. 2000: 10–11. Dreyer 1992: 297. Dreyer 1993: 34–35. Dreyer 1998: 14–15, 167, 168, fig. 100, 169, fig. 239, pl. 41. Dreyer 2011: 133. Giménez et al. 2015: 350. Hartung 2001: 292, fig. 53b–c. [Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums] 1995: 668–669, fig. 35. Dreyer 1993: 34. Dreyer 1998: 9, 165, 166, fig. 98 (nos 228, 229a–b), fig. 40 (no. 228). Dreyer 2011: 133. Hartung 2001: 292. Hartung 2001: 292.

Hartung 2001: 292.

Bibliography

226 W. CLAES, D. VANHULLE & T. DE PUTTER

1 1

Bead

Bowl (fragment)

1st Dynasty

1st Dynasty

Naqada III– 1st Dynasty 1st Dynasty

Naqada IIIB

Naqada III

Period

(***) Hartung 2001 erroneously refers to fig. 53d instead of 53e.

47 Abydos: Tomb of Djer 48 Abydos: Tomb of Djer

1

1

Fishtail knife Comb

46 Abydos: Tomb B 5

1

Blade (fragment)

44 Abydos: Tomb U-t (from immediate surroundings) 45 Abydos (?)

1

Description Number

Blade

Site / Context

43 Abydos: Tomb 1606

No.

RMAH: E.4833b

Hayes 1953: 19.

MMA: 24.213

Hartung 2001: 292. Petrie 1901b: 36, pl. XXXII.10. Wainwright 1927: 88. Zarins 1989: 364, tab. 6 (no. 34). Zarins 1996: 98. Dreyer 2009: 166, pl. VI.f. Dreyer et al. 2011: 63, fig. 18. Bavay et al. 2000: 9–10. Giménez et al. 2015: 350. Hartung 2001: 292, fig. 53e (***). Petrie 1901b, pl. XLVIII.O87. Wainwright 1927: 88. Zarins 1989: 364, tab. 6 (no. 35). Zarins 1996: 98.

Cann & Renfrew 1964: 124, 130, 133. Frankfort 1927: 192. Frankfort 1930: 214, pl. XXXI.1. Hartung 2001: 291. Wainwright 1927: 88. Zarins 1989: 362, tab. 6 (no. 8). Zarins 1996: 92. Hartung 2001: 292.

Bibliography

MAA: 1926.543

Museum Inv. number

OBSIDIAN IN EARLY EGYPT

227

Site / Context

58 Abydos: Tomb of Den 59 Abydos: Tomb of Den 60 Abydos: Tomb of Den

49 Abydos: Tomb of Djer 50 Abydos: Tomb of Djer 51 Abydos: Tomb of Djer 52 Abydos: Tomb of Djer 53 Abydos: Tomb of Djer 54 Abydos: Tomb of Djer 55 Abydos: Tomb of Djer 56 Abydos: Tomb of Djer of Djet 57 Abydos: Tomb of Djet

No.

I. Regulski, pers. comm. I. Regulski, pers. comm. Petrie 1902, pl. XIV.

AM: E.3000 (AN 1896-1908) AM: E.2984 SMB: 15456

UC (?)

1st Dynasty 1st Dynasty 1st Dynasty

1st Dynasty

1st Dynasty

1

1 1 1

Flake

Projectile point (?)

1

Bead

Bowl (fragment)

V. Müller, pers. comm. V. Müller, pers. comm.

1st Dynasty 1st Dynasty

1st Dynasty

Scharff 1931: 239–240 (no. 728), fig. 28 (no. 728). Wainwright 1927: 89. Cann & Renfrew 1964: 124, 130, 133. Hartung 2001: 292. Wainwright 1927: 88. Zarins 1989: 364, tab. 6 (no. 37). Zarins 1996: 92, 98. V. Müller, pers. comm.

Petrie 1902, pl. XIV.

I. Regulski, pers. comm.

1st Dynasty

1

1st Dynasty

I. Regulski, pers. comm.

1st Dynasty

Bibliography

1

Museum Inv. number I. Regulski, pers. comm.

Period 1 Dynasty

st

1

Jar 2 (fragments) (of 1 jar) Knife 1 (fragment) Knife 1 (fragment) Fancy Plate 1 (fragment)

Bowl (fragment) Bowl (fragment) Bowl (fragment) Inlay

Description Number

228 W. CLAES, D. VANHULLE & T. DE PUTTER

Site / Context

Hartung 2001: 292, fig. 53d (****) Petrie 1901b: pl. XLVIII.X106. Wainwright 1927: 88. Zarins 1989: 364, tab. 6 (no. 36). Zarins 1996: 98. L. McNamara, pers. comm.

UC: 36621

AM: E.3064

1st Dynasty

Knife (fragment)

1st Dynasty

1

1

Bowl (fragment)

V. Müller, pers. comm.

1st Dynasty

1

Bottle (fragment)

V. Müller, pers. comm.

1

Blade

1st Dynasty

5

Bottle (fragments)

V. Müller, pers. comm.

1

1st Dynasty

Dreyer et al. 1998: 158.

Bibliography

V. Müller, pers. comm.

Museum Inv. number

1st Dynasty

Period

V. Müller, pers. comm.

st

Not 1 Dynasty specified 1 1st Dynasty

Vessel (fragment)

Bottle (fragment)

Vessels

Description Number

(****) Hartung 2001 erroneously refers to fig. 53e instead of 53d.

68 Abydos: Tomb of Semerkhet

61 Abydos: Tomb of Den 62 Abydos: Tomb of Den or Djer 63 Abydos: Tomb of Den or Merneith 64 Abydos: Tomb of Den or Qa’a 65 Abydos: Tomb of Den or Semerkhet 66 Abydos: Tomb of Den, Djer or Djet 67 Abydos: Tomb of ‘Adj-ib

No.

OBSIDIAN IN EARLY EGYPT

229

Site / Context

Blade

Beads

76 Abadiya: Cemetery B 77 Naqada: Tomb 74

Naqada IID

?? Naqada IIC

??

Not Naqada IC–II specified 1 Naqada IID1

1

1 1

Vase Blade

Bead

1

Blade

AM: AN1985.1147

MMA: 99.4.2

FM (?)

EM: CGC 14391

Hartung 2001: 293. Payne 1987: 182. Payne 2000: 197 (no. 1626).

Quibell 1904–1905: 259, pl. 55 (no. 14391) Hartung 2001: 293. Massoulard 1936: 159. Petrie 1901a: pl. X.33. Petrie 1920: 43. Wainwright 1927: 88. Zarins 1989: 362, tab. 6 (no. 10). Hartung 2001: 293. Petrie 1901a: 27, pl. IV. (?) Wainwright 1927: 88, 89. Zarins 1989: 362, tab. 6 (no. 11). Petrie 1901a: 27, pl. IV. (?)

Hartung 2001: 292.

Bavay et al. 2000: 10.

1st Dynasty (?)

3

RMAH: E.4833a RMAH: E.4833c RMAH: E.4833d RMAH: E.4833e

Engel 2017: 407, fig. 258.15: 409.

1st Dynasty

3

[Ashmolean Report] 1900: 3.

Bibliography

Bowls (fragments) Vessel (fragments)

AM: E.1273

Museum Inv. number

1

1st Dynasty

Period

Vessel (fragment)

Description Number

75 Hiw

72 Abydos: Tomb U-142 73 Abydos 74 Hiw: Tomb U 207

69 Abydos: Tomb of Semerkhet 70 Abydos: Tomb of Qa’a 71 Abydos

No.

230 W. CLAES, D. VANHULLE & T. DE PUTTER

Beads

Blades

79 Naqada: Tomb 499

80 Naqada: Tomb 1260

Naqada IID2

Naqada IID1

Period

Not Naqada IID2 specified

12

1

Description Number

Knife (fragment)

Site / Context

78 Naqada: Tomb 743

No.

UC: 5427

UC: 4267

UC: 4385

Museum Inv. number Baumgartel 1970: pl. XXIX. Bavay et al. 2000: 11–12. Giménez et al. 2015: 350. Hartung 2001: 293. Holmes 1989: 277–278, 282. Massoulard 1936: 158–159. Petrie & Quibell 1896: 27, 45. Petrie 1920: 43, pl. XLV.46 Wainwright 1927: 88. Zarins 1989: 361, tab. 6 (no. 4). Zarins 1996: 93, tab. 1. Baumgartel 1970: pl. XXI. Bavay et al. 2000: 11 Cann & Renfrew 1964: 124, 130, 133. Giménez et al. 2015: 350. Hartung 2001: 293. Massoulard 1936: 159. Petrie 1920: 44. Wainwright 1927: 88. Zarins 1989: 362, tab. 6 (no. 5). Zarins 1996: 92, tab. 1. Baumgartel 1970: pl. XXXVII. Hartung 2001: 293. Holmes 1989: 277–278, 282. Massoulard 1936: 158–159. Petrie & Quibell 1896: 45. Petrie 1920: 43. Quibell 1896: 30. Wainwright 1927: 88. Zarins 1989: 361, tab. 6 (no. 3). Zarins 1996: 91, tab. 1.

Bibliography

OBSIDIAN IN EARLY EGYPT

231

Blade Blade

Blades

Bead (obsidian or pitchstone) Bottle (fragment)

83 Naqada 84 Naqada

85 Naqada: Tomb 140

86 Naqada: Tomb 388

87 Naqada: Royal Tomb, room C

Flakes

82 Naqada: South Town (?)

Naqada II (?)

Period

Naqada II (?) Naqada II (?)

1

1

UC: 4503

EM: CGC 11971

1st Dynasty

AM: AN1895.1148 AM: AN1895.1149

AM: AN1895.1146

AM: AN1895.1146

Museum Inv. number

Naqada IIIA

Not Naqada IIIA2– specified B (?)

1 1

Not Naqada II (?) specified

1

Description Number

Axe (fragment)

Site / Context

81 Naqada: South Town (?)

No. Baumgartel 1970: LXXII. Hartung 2001: 293. Payne 2000: 197 (no. 1629). Petrie & Quibell 1896: 57. Zarins 1989: 362, tab. 6 (no. 7). Zarins 1996: tab. 1. Payne 2000: 197 (no. 1629). Petrie & Quibell 1896: 57. Zarins 1989: 362, tab. 6 (no. 7). Zarins 1996: tab. 1. Payne 2000: 197 (no. 1627). Hartung 2001: 293. Payne 2000: 197 (no. 1628). Baumgartel 1970: pl. VI. Hartung 2001: 293. Zarins 1989: 362, tab. 6 (no. 6). Zarins 1996: tab. 1. Baumgartel 1970: pl. XVI. Hartung 2001: 293. Payne 1987: 184. de Morgan 1897: 163, 180, fig. 627. Hartung 2001: 293, fig. 53.f. Kahl 2001: 16, fig. 19. Kahl et al. 2001: 183, fig. 5d. Quibell 1904–1905: 193 (no. 11971). Wainwright 1927: 88. Zarins 1989: 364, tab. 6 (no. 33). Zarins 1996: 98.

Bibliography

232 W. CLAES, D. VANHULLE & T. DE PUTTER

EM: CGC 11974

EM: CGC 11972 GMA: E.5150 GMA: E.5149 GMA: E.5152

1st Dynasty

1st Dynasty 1st Dynasty 1st Dynasty

1

2 1 2

Vase (fragments) Vase

Vase

Not specified

Flakes

91 Naqada: Royal Tomb 92 Naqada: Royal Tomb 93 Naqada: Royal tomb 94 Hierakonpolis: HK29, Square 17L13, Structure II 95 Hierakonpolis: HK6, Structure E8, Deposit A

EM: CGC 11973

1st Dynasty

Vase (fragment) Vase (fragment)

89 Naqada: Royal Tomb 90 Naqada: Royal Tomb

1

Naqada IC–IIA2

Not Naqada I specified

3

1

Museum Inv. number EM: CGC 11970 EM: CGC 11970a

Period 1st Dynasty

Description Number

Bottles (fragments)

Site / Context

88 Naqada: Royal Tomb, room C

No.

Kahl et al. 2001: 183, fig. 5e. Wainwright 1927: 89. Kahl et al. 2001: 183, fig. 5f. Wainwright 1927: 89. Hartung 2001: 293. McHugh 1982: 90–91. Zarins 1989: 361, tab. 6 (no. 1). Zarins 1996: 91, 98. Friedman 2006: 7. Friedman et al. 2008: 90.

de Morgan 1897: 163, 180, fig. 626. Hartung 2001: 293, fig. 53.f. Kahl et al. 2001: 183, fig. 5c. Quibell 1904–1905: 194 (no. 11974). Wainwright 1927: 88. Zarins 1989: 364, tab. 6 (no. 33). Quibell 1904–1905: 193 (no. 11972).

de Morgan 1897: 163, 180, fig. 625. Hartung 2001: 293, fig. 53.f. Kahl et al. 2001: 183, fig. 5a–b. Quibell 1904–1905: 193 (nos 11970, 11970a). Wainwright 1927: 88. Zarins 1989: 364, tab. 6 (no. 33). Zarins 1996: 98. Quibell 1904–1905: 193 (no. 11973).

Bibliography

OBSIDIAN IN EARLY EGYPT

233

Site / Context

99 Hierakonpolis: HK6, Loc. 13110, associated with Tomb 73 100 Hierakonpolis: HK29A, Square 140L50-13, reg. 442 101 Hierakonpolis: HK29A, Wall trench 102 Hierakonpolis: HK29A, Square 140L50, loc. 3 103 Hierakonpolis: HK29B 104 Hierakonpolis: HK6, Surface

96 Hierakonpolis: HK6, Tomb 84 (?) 97 Hierakonpolis: HK6, Square H12/18H, Context 5 98 Hierakonpolis: HK6, Structure E8, Feature D

No.

4

Blades

Naqada IIA–B

Naqada IIA–B

Period

2

Flake and chunk

Not specified Blade (fragment)

Naqada IIB–C

Naqada IIB–C

Naqada II–B (?)

Naqada IIB–D Naqada II– III (?)

5 1

Not Naqada IID–IIIA specified

1

Bead

Flakes

1

Blade

Flakes and Not Naqada IIA–B large chunk specified

1

Blade

Description Number

Museum Inv. number

Friedman et al. 2009: 196. Hikade et al. 2008: 177. Bavay et al. 2000: 12.

Takamiya 2008: 8.

Friedman 2003: 4 Friedman 2009: 90

Friedman 1996: 29. Friedman 2009: 98.

Adams 1998: 3. Adams 1999: 48. Friedman 2004: 150, fig. 13. Van Neer et al. 2004: 88. Friedman 2004: 145. Friedman 2006: 7. Friedman 2008: 1173. Friedman 2009: 87. Friedman et al. 2008: 90. R.F. Friedman, pers. comm.

Friedman & Droux 2018: 16.

Bibliography

234 W. CLAES, D. VANHULLE & T. DE PUTTER

1

1

Flake

Bead

??

Naqada III (?)

3 beads, Naqada III (?) 2 flakes

Beads and flakes

109 Hierakonpolis: Nekhen, temple or royal ritual precinct 110 Hierakonpolis: Main Deposit (below Narmer palette)

5 blades, Naqada IIIA2 1 chunk Not Naqada III (?) specified

Blades and chunk Beads

Naqada IIIA2

Period

106 Hierakonpolis: HK6, Tomb 111 107 Hierakonpolis: Nekhen, revetment 108 Hierakonpolis: Nekhen, bead production deposit

5

Description Number

Blades

Site / Context

105 Hierakonpolis: HK6, Tomb 11

No. Adams & Friedman 1992: 334. Adams 1995: 51–52. Adams 1996a: 13. Adams 1996b: 140. Adams 2000: 83-84, pl. XXX.f, figs 14.128, 15.127. Hartung 2001: 294. Zarins 1989: 361, tab. 6 (no. 2) Zarins 1996: 98. Friedman 2018: 4

Bibliography

UC: 14877

Adams & Friedman 1992: 319.

Adams 1974a: 30–31 (no. 149), pl. 31. Adams 1974b: 32. Adams 1995: 70. Bavay et al. 2000: 12–13. Giménez et al. 2015: 350. Quibell & Green 1902: 12, 52. Wainwright 1927: 88. Zarins 1989: 364, tab. 6 (nos 38, 40, 43). Adams 1974b: 52. Adams 1996b: 140. Zarins 1989: 364, tab. 6 (no. 42).

FM: E.111.1898 (?) Adams 1974b: 18. Zarins 1989: 364, tab. 6 (no. 41).

Museum Inv. number

OBSIDIAN IN EARLY EGYPT

235

Flake

Flakes Blade

Knife (fragment) Blades Flakes

Vessel Blade

115 Sayala: Shelter

116 Unknown 117 Unknown

118 Unknown

121 Unknown 122 Unknown

119 Unknown 120 Unknown

Flake

114 Naga el Sheikh: Cemetery 136, Tomb 2

113 Sheikh Sharaf: Cemetery 134, Tomb 6

Not specified Flake

112 Khor Bahan

Naqada IIA

Period

PD–OK (?)

PD PD–OK (?)

ED

A-Group

1 ED (?) 2 (of 1) PD–ED

2 PD–OK (?) Not ED (?) specified

2

3 1

1

1

Not A-Group specified 1 A-Group

1

Description Number

Flake

Site / Context

111 Elkab: Settlement, TP3

No.

SNM SMB: 15341

BM: EA35121 BM: EA35122 EM NM

EM UH: 756

Museum Inv. number

Not published. Hartung 2001: 294. Lucas 1947: 119. Wainwright 1927: 88 Zarins 1989: 364, tab. 6 (no. 39). Not published. Scharff 1931: 58 (no. 86), fig. 8 (no. 86).

Claes et al. 2014: 85. Claes & Huyge 2016: 41. Claes & Huyge 2017: 46. Giménez et al. 2015: 358. Williams 2011: 83. Adams 1996b: 140. Bavay et al. 2000: 17, n. 45 Firth 1927: 193, pl. 21.e1. Hofmann 1967: 95. Roy 2011: 130. Adams 1996b: 140. Bavay et al. 2000: 17, n. 45 Firth 1927: 200, pl. 21.e2. Hofmann 1967: 95. Bietak & Engelmayer 1963: 26, pl. XIX (no. 13). Hofmann 1967: 95. Lucas 1947: 120. Feucht 1986: 11, 13 (no. 16). Zarins 1989: 363, tab. 6 (no. 25). Not published.

Bibliography

236 W. CLAES, D. VANHULLE & T. DE PUTTER

REGIONAL TYPOLOGICAL VARIATION: AN EXAMPLE OF EARLY MIDDLE KINGDOM POTTERY ASSEMBLAGES FROM ZONE 9 AT DAYR AL-BARSHĀ KYLIE CORTEBEECK,1 HELEN PEETERS1 & NINA TROOSTERS2 1

KU Leuven, Faculty of Arts, Department of Archaeology, Leuven, Belgium 2 Hasselt University, PXL-MAD Faculty, Hasselt, Belgium

The First Intermediate Period and early Middle Kingdom ceramic repertoire is characterised by allegedly northern and southern type jars. As a transitional area, Middle Egypt offers interesting opportunities to study the spatial distribution and interaction of these vessel types. Very little is currently known about their presence and variation at Dayr al-Barshā, however, one of the sites in this area. This article will discuss some preliminary results of the ceramic study and its contexts of several assemblages from zone 9, a First Intermediate Period to early Middle Kingdom cemetery in the desert plain in front of the governors’ tombs. Both jars with cylindrical necks (typically northern shapes) and bag-shaped vessels (typically southern shapes) are attested in these burials, suggesting that vessel types from both the northern and southern regions were present at Dayr al-Barshā. Most striking, however, is the apparent lack of other typically northern and southern shapes: jars with conical necks and jars with undulating rims respectively. In comparison to known pottery from the neighbouring sites Banī Ḥasan and Asyūṭ, the zone 9 assemblages seem to display a markedly different composition of pottery jar types.

First Intermediate Period and early Middle Kingdom jar types on the move During the First Intermediate Period, Egypt went through a process of regional fragmentation, which is reflected in its material culture. Regarding pottery, for example, it has been noted that several kinds of jars from the northern and southern parts of Egypt show clear typological differences (Arnold 1988: 144; Seidlmayer 1990: 380–381, 394–397, 439; Op de Beeck et al. 2012: 251). Typical shapes from northern sites—further on also labelled as the “northern types”, “northern type group” or “northern tradition”—are characterised by slender, ovoid or ellipsoid bodies and conspicuous conical-, funnel- or cylindershaped necks (Fig. 1).1 Such types are quite frequently found at Sidmant al-Jabal (henceforth called Sidmant) and al-Ḥarāja, which is why the group has also been labelled the “Sidmant(-Ḥarāja) formation” (Seidlmayer 1990:

1 The differentiation between conical and funnel necks is based on Seidlmayer’s terminology (e.g. Seidlmayer 1990: 241–244, 274–285).

238

K. CORTEBEECK, H. PEETERS & N. TROOSTERS

244–245, 298–300).2 Jars from southern sites, on the other hand, have no or less conspicuous necks. Many can moreover be distinguished from the typically northern vessels by low centres of gravity and are therefore described as “bagor drop-shaped” vessels. They display various degrees of slenderness and are made both of Nile and marl clay fabrics. Lastly, jars with undulating—or “quatrefoil”—rims frequently occur at southern sites. They have flat or rounded bases and are often decorated with different kinds of incised or even painted patterns. Sites where these vessels of the “southern type group” are frequently attested are, for instance, Thebes and Qāw-Matmar (Fig. 2).3 Where and when the manufacturing traditions or certain types were developed and occurred is not yet fully understood (Seidlmayer 1990: 438–440; Bader 2012b: 233; Rzeuska 2017: 187–190). Of particular interest is the contact zone between northern and southern Egypt, where both traditions potentially occurred together. This can be studied in the First Intermediate Period and early Middle Kingdom assemblages of Middle Egypt. Especially interesting is the area between Iḥnāsīya al-Madīna in the north and Ṭīḥnā al-Jabal in the south, which is almost devoid of archaeological sites. S. Seidlmayer was the first to identify this archaeological hiatus and called it a “Lücke” (Seidlmayer 1990: 394). In analogy to his terminology, we will further on identify this region as the “gap”. As noted by Seidlmayer, typically northern vessel types seem to have crossed this “gap”, as they are attested at sites south of it (Seidlmayer 1990: 394–397). Jars with conical and cylindrical necks are shown, for example, in the early type drawings from Banī Ḥasan and QāwMatmar, as well as in more recent publications on Asyūṭ.4 There is only scant evidence for a transfer the other way around.5

2 Petrie’s vessel families from Sidmant that encompass several forms belonging to the northern type group are 54–55, 62–66, 78, 86–89, 90 and 92 (Petrie & Brunton 1924: pls XXXI–XXXV). Examples of northern tradition jar types from al-Ḥarāja were published in Engelbach 1923: pls XXXII.51, 55, 82–83, 86–89 & XXXIII.90–100, 105–108, 109–115. See also Bader 2012a: figs 7–10. 3 Typically southern shapes from Thebes can be found in Petrie 1909: pls XVI, XVIII, XIX. Examples published by Brunton for the region of Qāw are families 20–24, 26–30, 33, 39, 91–94 (Brunton 1928: pls LXXIX, LXXXI–LXXXIII, LXXXVIII–XCII; 1937: pls LII–LIII; 1948: pls XXIX–XXX). For more recently published examples, see Seiler 2012, figs 10.1–5; Bader & Seco Álvarez 2016, figs 4a, m. 4 Examples of types from Banī Ḥasan and Asyūṭ will be discussed in greater detail below (see pages 258–260). Jars with conical and cylindrical necks reminiscent of northern parallels from Qāw-Matmar are encompassed in Brunton’s families 58 and 66 (Brunton 1928: pl. XC; 1937: pls LII–LIII). 5 Some drawings of bag-shaped vessel types are attested in the records of early excavations at Sidmant (Seidlmayer 1990: fig. 150.Z90, Z92) and Ghurāb (Brunton & Engelbach 1927: pl. XI.7). More recently, an example has also been found at Iḥnāsīya al-Madīna (Bader 2012a: fig. 4). At Sidmant, an example of a decorated jar with an undulating rim has moreover been documented (Petrie & Brunton 1924: pl. XXXV.95).

REGIONAL TYPOLOGICAL VARIATION

239

Fig. 1. Examples of several typical northern types from Sidmant (Petrie & Brunton 1924: pls XXXII.64L, XXXV.89R, 90M) and al-Ḥarāja (Engelbach 1923: pls XXXII.89, XXXIII.95, 113).

Fig. 2. Examples of typical southern types from Qāw-Matmar (Brunton 1928: pls LXXXIII.28K, LXXXIX.30N, XCII.94G) and Thebes (Petrie 1909: pls XVI.342, XVIII.450, 469).

Very little is currently known about the First Intermediate Period or early Middle Kingdom ceramic assemblages of Dayr al-Barshā and therefore of the extent to which the ceramic repertoire of the site reflects the northern and southern production traditions. Early archaeologists, such as G. Daressy, A. Kamal and G.A. Reisner, did some work here, but their excavations are not well published.6 They merely documented a very limited amount of information on the pottery. Insights into the ceramic assemblages from tombs at Dayr 6 For an overview of the excavation history and references to publications, consult, for example, De Meyer & Cortebeeck 2015; see also Pommerening & Willems, this volume.

240

K. CORTEBEECK, H. PEETERS & N. TROOSTERS

al-Barshā therefore has to be obtained from new or re-excavations. 7 In this paper, we will discuss some preliminary results of the ceramic study of several tombs in the desert plain (zone 9) in front of the governors’ tombs (zone 2, located high on the northern hill). Our aim is to illustrate which finds representative of typically northern and southern vessel types are so far attested here and to evaluate the presence or absence of such types in comparison to assemblages from the contemporary neighbouring cemeteries of Banī Ḥasan and Asyūṭ. Based on contextual comparisons of the finds with burial assemblages from governors’ tomb complexes, we can also suggest a somewhat more specific date for the occurrence of the types at Dayr al-Barshā. The ceramic material of zone 9 has been processed by several ceramicists over the years, more specifically—in chronological order—L. Op de Beeck, S. Vereecken and K. Cortebeeck. All of us are deeply grateful to Stan, who was not only good company in the dig house, but also helped a great deal with processing the ceramic finds. He gladly shared his knowledge with us and enjoyed to participate in discussions around the pottery table. Most appreciated is also his help regarding the drawings and his devoted search for students of the PXL-MAD (Media, Arts and Design) School of Arts in Hasselt, who joined us for several weeks every year to ink drawings.8 Zone 9 in summary The jars described in this article were excavated in the cemetery in the desert plain (zone 9) at Dayr al-Barshā.9 We will not elaborate on the architectural features and archaeological contexts in this cemetery here, as several preliminary and specialised studies have already been published.10 To contextualise the ceramic finds that will be discussed below, the preliminary reports of the 2002 to 2005 campaigns are the most relevant (Peeters 2004; 2006; 2009). Furthermore, Willems et al. 2005 provide a first attempt to place the cemetery in its wider chronological, geographical and sociological context, whereas Herbich & Peeters 2006 elaborate on the distribution of the tombs and their architectural structures based on a geomagnetic survey. Briefly summarised, the cemetery in zone 9 is located on an alluvial fan in the outflow of the Wādī Nakhla. It is situated north and south of an ancient 7 Since 2002, annual archaeological research has been conducted at Dayr al-Barshā under the direction of H. Willems (KU Leuven). 8 Special thanks are due to Nina Troosters and Merel Eyckerman, who inked the drawings that are shown here, and to Stan Hendrickx, who made the pencil drawings. 9 Consult Peeters 2009: 400, fig. 8 for an overview map of the cemetery and fig. 9 for a more detailed view including the tombs referenced in this article. 10 For general descriptions of the site of Dayr al-Barshā and its divisions into zones, consult for example Willems et al. 2004: 237–242; Willems 2007: 1–9; 2014: 59–123; Cortebeeck & De Meyer 2015.

REGIONAL TYPOLOGICAL VARIATION

241

mud road, which crosscuts zone 9 to connect the major rock tombs of the nomarchs of the Hare Nome (zone 2) with a harbour area where chapels dedicated to the local governors may have been located on the east bank of an arm of the Nile (Willems et al. 2005: 182–185). This road is presumably contemporary with the first nomarchs’ rock tombs, hence dating to the beginning of the Middle Kingdom. Furthermore, it should be noted that the cemetery of zone 9 only encompasses the easternmost part of the alluvial fan, which continues under the present Coptic burial ground and village of Dayr al-Barshā to the west of it. Research by the Dayr al-Barshā project has shown that tombs dating to the period concerned here continue in this entire area.11 The cemetery consists of tombs in walled complexes and zones with scattered simple shafts and pit burials. Near the road, larger tombs are arranged in more substantial compounds, whereas the burial complexes decrease in size further from this road. This arrangement suggests an underlying social hierarchy in the spatial layout of the cemetery (Willems et al. 2005: 181–185). Several jars discussed in the present article were found in tomb complexes 10O22 (tombs 10O22/1 and 10O22/2) and 10O13 (tombs 10O13/1B–C), which cluster around relatively large tomb shafts, but also include simple pit tombs.12 Based on the horizontal stratigraphy, tombs 10O22/1 and probably 10O22/2 seem to have been constructed before complex 10O13, as the walls of the latter were built when those of 10O22 were already in place. The finds from zone 9 can broadly be dated from the late First Intermediate Period to the early Middle Kingdom (as already argued in Op de Beeck et al. 2012: 244–251), apart from some reuse of the tombs during the Second Intermediate Period or the early New Kingdom. This dating reflects a typological horizon, as First Intermediate Period vessels are known to have remained in use after the Middle Kingdom unification. A closer dating based on resemblances with grave goods found in the tombs of governors from Dayr al-Barshā will be discussed below. Overview of the typically northern and southern form spectrum from zone 9 A general overview and some vessel types that characterise the zone 9 assemblages have already been published in Op de Beeck et al. 2012. This publication concerned finds from complexes 10O13 and 10O22. Among the published 11

An area west of zone 9 with most likely contemporary tombs has been designated as zone 10 (Peeters 2006: 329, fig. 13; Willems 2014: 73–79). It is assumed that the burials in this zone were originally part of the same cemetery as those found in zone 9. 12 For a map with the location of these tombs, see: Peeters 2009: 400, fig. 8 and 401, fig. 9. For a preliminary architectural plan of one of these tombs (10O22/1), see Herbich & Peeters 2006: 14, fig. 4.

242

K. CORTEBEECK, H. PEETERS & N. TROOSTERS

vessels are several jars representative of the northern and southern type traditions, but the article does not illustrate the variation among these types. Therefore, a more extensive overview is presented here. Due to the fact that many of the tombs had been robbed and that clear chronological markers are absent among the other grave goods, it unfortunately remains unclear what the morphological and technological variations reflect. For jar types with cylindrical and conical necks from Sidmant, for example, Seidlmayer has deduced a chronological development based on a seriation with types differentiated by their shapes (Seidlmayer 1990: 294, 300). Regarding the finds from Dayr al-Barshā, however, functional as well as regional or even local variations between workshops cannot be ruled out to explain the differences. Vessels of the southern type group Within the whole collection of ceramic material from zone 9, only two complete bag-shaped vessels have been found: 186/92/1 (Fig. 3a) and 186/94/1 (Fig. 3b) (an overview of the measurements of all the described vessels is provided in Table 1). The two jars are quite similar in shape and dimensions. They have scraped rounded bases, while their upper bodies show turning on a slow wheel. They have pronounced shoulders and direct rounded rims. Several parallels for such vessel shapes are known from Qāw-Matmar. The former jar compares well to Brunton’s types 27K, 28G and 29W, for example, whereas comparanda for the latter are 24L, 28K and 30B (Brunton 1928: pls LXXXII, LXXXIII, LXXXIX).13 Petrie’s type 476 from Qurnā also provides a good parallel for 186/94/1 (Petrie 1909: pl. XVIII).14 Our vessels are intact, so no fresh break could be made to study the fabric. Based on the surface characteristics and by analogy to most other bag-shaped jar fragments from zone 9, the fabric can tentatively be attributed to Nile B2 as defined by the Vienna System (Nordström & Bourriau 1993: 171–173, pl. II.a–d). Furthermore, remains of a red slip are attested. These vessels both originate from a deposition at the bottom of shaft 10O13/1C, which consisted of an almost complete set of ritual funerary objects. They were found buried under debris which had fallen from the shaft into the burial chamber during ancient robbing activities. Both jars were probably originally covered by two small dishes, but the ones of 184/94/1 seem to have fallen down (Op de Beeck et al. 2012: 248, fig. 15). Particularly interesting from a chronological point of view are the non-ceramic artefacts found in a small 13 See also Seidlmayer 1990: types K-B22.02 and K-B31.02 (most common in Qāw phases IIC–IIIB, corresponding to the late First Intermediate Period to Senwosret I); Schiestl & Seiler 2012: type II.E.6.b, 556–561. 14 See also Seidlmayer 1990: type QA215, Qurnā phases I–II (late First Intermediate Period to Mentuhotep II).

243

REGIONAL TYPOLOGICAL VARIATION

e

a

b

c

d

f

g

Fig. 3. Bag-shaped vessels from zone 9 (scale 1:3): a) 186/92/1; b) 186/94/1; c) 856/53/1; d) 164/35/1; e) 375/7/1~910/8/2; f) 372/12/1; g) 164/65/1 (© KU Leuven, Dayr al-Barshā Project; drawings by N. Troosters).

244

K. CORTEBEECK, H. PEETERS & N. TROOSTERS

niche in the southern wall of the burial chamber. Among them are several calcite-alabaster objects from which two headrests could be reconstructed, each consisting of three separate elements. Furthermore, four crude and roughly cut solid conical objects were present, which are most likely model vessels.15 An additional four of such objects were found standing upright in the sand, with traces of a decayed wooden base on which they had been mounted. Interestingly, these calcite-alabaster artefacts are so strikingly similar in material, shape and execution to parallels found in the burial of Ankh16 in Ahanakht I’s tomb complex, and in the tomb of Djehutinakht IV/V,17 that one may suggest they represent a local production tradition. Other artefacts found in the niche are a set of miniature copper tools inside a wooden box of which only the outlines were preserved; a small copper offering table; two miniature copper bowls and a small copper sieve, which must have once formed the central part of a larger wooden flat bowl with the copper sieve mounted in its bottom. Just like the stone artefacts discussed above, these copper objects have good parallels in the tomb equipment of Ankh (Willems 2016: 153–155) and Djehutinakht IV/V.18 Furthermore, remains of a decayed wooden frame and a pile of painted plaster fragments were encountered, stemming most probably from an offering stand with five plastered wooden model vessels on top.19 Remains of wooden veneer applied to the coffin of the deceased were also attested. Coffins of this type with veneer seem to be datable to the late 11th Dynasty or the reign of Amenemhat I.20 The chronological implications of these finds and parallels will be discussed later. Another example of a bag-shaped vessel, 856/53/1, was made by comparable production techniques as the previously discussed bag-shaped jars, but it differs 15

Similar objects have also been described as “bread loaves” (Doxey 2009: 138–139). See also the article by Long, this volume: 765, n. 14). 16 This burial was initially tentatively attributed to Djehutinakht I (Willems 2016: 151–152), but this was demonstrated to be wrong in Willems 2019, where the identification of a woman named Ankh is confirmed. 17 The tomb of Djehutinakht IV/V was excavated by Reisner in 1915, who designated it as Tomb 10A (= 17L04/1A). The similar calcite-alabaster objects are currently in the collection of the Museum of Fine Arts (MFA) in Boston, such as model vessels MFA 21.901a–e (Doxey 2009: 139, fig. 94), and headrests in three pieces MFA 21.906a–c and 21.907a–c (Doxey 2009: 144, fig. 104). 18 A comparable copper sieve mounted on a wooden bowl is MFA 21.16718. Examples of copper tools found in Djehutinakht’s IV/V tomb are MFA 15–5–41 and MFA 15–5–43. 19 This collection of wood and plaster debris could only be interpreted as part of such a stand by comparing them to a mostly intact version, presumably originating from Dayr al-Barshā, in the Pelizaeus-Museum Hildesheim (Martin-Pardey 1991: 43–46, cat. no. 1659). Unfortunately, since it was bought via an antiquities dealer in 1911, this object cannot be attributed to a specific tomb or tomb owner. 20 Examples of coffins with veneer listed by H. Willems are M12WAR, related to a group of coffins dated to the second half of the reign of Amenemhat I (Willems 1988: 96–97), coffin G1T dated to the late First Intermediate Period (Willems 1988: 110) and coffins BH1C and BH6C dating from the late 11th Dynasty to the reign of Amenemhat I (Willems 1988: 64).

REGIONAL TYPOLOGICAL VARIATION

245

in size and rim shape (Fig. 3c). The latter is folded and clearly pronounced by an undercut. A possible parallel for such a rim of a bag-shaped type can be cited from Dandara (Slater 1974: fig. 26.S7B). Furthermore, the vessel shows a well preserved red slip. The fabric, Nile B2, consists of abundant quartz inclusions (sometimes also larger grains) and fine plant remains, as well as some limestone (Fig. 4). This vessel has been partly preserved (40% of the rim) and was found in the fill of the previously robbed and/or excavated tomb 10N54/1. Beside some pottery, this chambered shaft tomb mainly contained scattered remains of model copper tools, a plaster funerary mask, a clay jar stopper and the scant remains of a double or possibly triple coffin. Furthermore, mostly rims and upper bodies of other presumably bag-shaped vessel types have been identified in zone 9. They illustrate that there must have been quite some variation among the vessels in size, pronunciation of the neck and rim technology. Several more examples distinctly different from the rims shown before will be briefly discussed here. 164/35/1 (Fig. 3d) has a short, flaring neck with a remarkable depression in between two coils at the interior. It has been made of Nile B2/C1 and its exterior has been covered with a red slip. No exact parallel for this is known among published examples. Two other fragments, one belonging to a broader (375/7/1~910/8/2; Fig. 3e) and the other

Fig. 4. Nile B2 fabric of 856/53/1, wall thickness 7 mm (© KU Leuven, Dayr al-Barshā Project; photograph by K. Cortebeeck).

246

K. CORTEBEECK, H. PEETERS & N. TROOSTERS

to a more slender type (372/12/1; Fig. 3f), display distinctly pronounced necks. Both of them are made of Nile B2 and have quite smooth upper bodies. They were also both coated with red slip. Similar shapes of upper bodies are known, for example, from the region of Qāw (Brunton 1928: pls LXXXIX.24P, LXXXII.26L, LXXXIII.29K), al-Ashmūnayn (Spencer 1993: pl. 105.10) and Asyūṭ (Zitman 2010: figs 7.1, 7.3). Quite different is 164/65/1 (Fig. 3g), of which the body shows clear coiling with almost angular transitions at the top. No parallels for such a ceramic type are currently attested. Our example has been made from Nile B2. The surface indicates that the vessel has been overfired and there were no remains of a slip. All the examples discussed in this paragraph have been found in features in which also northern jar type shapes were attested. The contexts are discussed below. Vessels of the northern type group Among ceramic vessels from zone 9 are several types of jars with cylindrical necks displaying characteristics of the northern type group. Most common are slender jars with ovoid bodies and rounded to somewhat pointed bases, such as 164/7/1~164/10/1~164/19~164/25/121 (Fig. 5a), 169/66/1 (Fig. 5b) and 169/66/2 (Fig. 5c). They are about 30 to 32 cm tall. Their upper bodies show coils and the use of a turning device, while the lower bodies have subsequently been (mostly vertically) scraped. The elongated and thickened rims are clearly separated from the neck by a groove or sharp edge incised with a tool. Other specimens made with less care, however, sometimes do not have such a groove, only a partial one or even a double groove. Usually the rim diameters are about 6 cm. Necks can slightly broaden out in the middle (e.g. 169/66/1 and 169/66/2), but this is not characteristic for all of them. These examples are made from Nile C1 (Fig. 6). They contain abundant small and larger grains of presumably quartz as well as plant remains (including straw particles). Limestone is common as small inclusions and occasional larger particles. All objects shown here are uncoated. Exact parallels for these jars are lacking from other sites, but similar vessels are known from Asyūṭ (Rzeuska 2017: nos 148–149), Banī Ḥasan (Garstang 1907: pl. XIII.29), Iḥnāsīya al-Madīna (Bader 2009: figs 5.a, 5.e; 2011: figs 5.67, 5.69), Qāw-Matmar (Brunton 1928: pl. XX.58C), Sidmant (Petrie & Brunton 1924: pl. XXXIV.86B, 86K) and Tall al-Dabʽa (Czerny 1999: 179.Ng 135).22 They differ in height of the necks, vessel index, surface treatment and sometimes base technology. Some of the cited parallels have not been 21 This long combination of numbers indicates that the vessel has been reconstructed from several sherds, each sherd being connected by ~. In this case, all sherds originate from feature 164, but sub-numbers have been provided for pottery from different sweeps within this feature. The third part “/1” has been used to label diagnostics (in this case two parts of the rim and the base). 22 See also Schiestl & Seiler 2012: 520–521, type II.D.20.

REGIONAL TYPOLOGICAL VARIATION

a

b Fig. 5. Jars with cylindrical necks from zone 9 (scale 1:3), a) 164/7/1~164/10/1~164/19~164/25/1; b) 169/66/1; c) 169/66/2 (© KU Leuven, Dayr al-Barshā Project; drawings by N. Troosters).

247

c

248

K. CORTEBEECK, H. PEETERS & N. TROOSTERS

d

e

Fig. 5. Jars with cylindrical necks from zone 9 (scale 1:3), d) 374/11/2~374/14/1~374/14/2; e) 374/11/1~374/14~375/10/1 (© KU Leuven, Dayr al-Barshā Project; drawings by N. Troosters).

REGIONAL TYPOLOGICAL VARIATION

249

Fig. 6. Nile C1 fabric of 164/7/1~164/10/1~164/19~164/25/1, wall thickness 13 mm (© KU Leuven, Dayr al-Barshā Project; photograph by K. Cortebeeck).

Fig. 7. Nile B2/C1 fabric of 374/11/2~374/14/1~374/14/2, wall thickness 15 mm (© KU Leuven, Dayr al-Barshā Project; photograph by K. Cortebeeck).

250

K. CORTEBEECK, H. PEETERS & N. TROOSTERS

vertically scraped, for example, whereas this is always the case for the examples from Dayr al-Barshā. Regarding their archaeological contexts, the three examples discussed here all belong to the same burial, 13O13/1B. 164/7/1~164/10/1~164/19~164/25/1 has been found in the filling of the undisturbed shaft of tomb 10O13/1B (feature 164) together with sherds of several dishes and seven conical clay jar stoppers. Jars 169/66/1 and 169/66/2 were found in the heavily plundered burial chamber. The latter was entered by robbers through the adjacent tomb 10O13/1C, which is part of the same architectural structure consisting of three bricked up shaft tombs. The contents of the burial chamber were unfortunately thoroughly mixed by looters and heavily damaged by water. One area in the north-western part of the room, however, seems to have been left intact. The distribution of the sherds of our jars suggested that they had been smashed on the spot. Other finds from the burial chamber are a small plate (169/70/1) walled in under the undisturbed blocking of this chamber, a carnelian bead, two very fragmentary wooden figurine heads presumably from a funerary model, a few copper tools as well as a miniature copper mirror. The copper finds very well compare to the tomb inventory composition of 10O13/1C and to finds from the burials of Ankh (Willems 2016: 153–154) and Djehutinakht IV/V. Moreover, very similar jars with cylindrical necks were found in the tomb of the former (Bader 2021: 58, fig. 2.6 l–m).23 A variant on the type is 374/11/2~374/14/1~374/14/2 (Fig. 5d), which is somewhat broader and larger than the previous specimens. The production techniques are comparable, but the scraping on this vessel displays both a vertical and an oblique orientation. Moreover, the artefact has been coated by a thick red slip. The fabric, Nile B2/C1, contains charred plant remains (Fig. 7). No parallel exactly matches this vessel in dimensions and surface treatment. Interestingly, this vessel has been found together with a second jar with cylindrical neck and red slip from Nile B2/C1, i.e. 374/11/1~374/14~375/10/1 (Fig. 5e). They were attested in an undisturbed part at the bottom of the shaft of tomb 10O22/2. Both seem to have been intentionally broken during burial rituals and were found mixed with the articulated bones of four calves’ feet (Fig. 8) from one individual aged three to four months (De Meyer et al. 2005– 2006: 49–50; De Meyer & Serrano 2019: 404). The interior of the sherds shows a thin, black clay layer without inclusions, which must have been added post firing. As will be illustrated and discussed for the following examples, this is not an uncommon practice at Dayr al-Barshā. The shape of 374/11/1~ 374/14~375/10/1 is unique at the site, as this is the only artefact that shows two 23 The tomb has been excavated in 2012 under the supervision of G. Criscenzo-Laycock. The pottery found in the shaft has been analysed by B. Bader, some of which is discussed in Bader 2021.

REGIONAL TYPOLOGICAL VARIATION

251

incised lines and a knob at its shoulder. There are also two large finger impressions, which were probably made while applying the knob. Parallels for jars with cylindrical necks and a knob at the shoulder are only known from Sidmant (Petrie & Brunton 1924: pl. XXXIV.87Q) and Iḥnāsīya al-Madīna (Bader 2009: fig. 6a). Both of these vessels are characterised by distinct coils at their necks, however, whereas they do not show the two incised lines of the Dayr al-Barshā specimen. In analogy to the one from Iḥnāsīya al-Madīna, our example does display the same shaping technologies (e.g. scraped base) and a red coating. Very different in shape are the smaller and slightly broader jars with slender cylindrical necks: 276/14/2~276/31/4~276/17~276/14~277/9~276/31/5 (Fig. 9a), 276/14/7~276/1~277/9 (Fig. 9b), 276/17/3 (Fig. 9c), 276/17/4 (Fig. 9d). They are up to 22 cm tall and have ovoid bodies with pronounced shoulders and pointed bases (when preserved). These bases differ from the previously discussed larger types, as no spiral or indications of coiling/turning are visible inside (only cracks can be discerned). Fig. 9b shows finger modelling at the exterior. The base technology of the other ones is obscured by

Fig. 8. Deposition of calves’ feet and broken red-slipped vessels at the bottom of the shaft of tomb 10O22/2 (© KU Leuven, Dayr al-Barshā Project; photograph by H. Peeters).

252

K. CORTEBEECK, H. PEETERS & N. TROOSTERS

vertical scrape marks. The necks of these jars are significantly narrower and taller than the ones from the larger jars. Their diameters vary between 4 and 5 cm. Among these vessels, different finishing techniques were applied. Two of them (Figs 9a–b) were covered with a red slip, while the other two are uncoated. It should also be noted that the latter are so closely comparable in shape, production techniques and raw materials that they have probably been made at the same workshop, if not by the same potter (Fig. 10). The fabric of all of these small vessels is Nile B2/C1, characterised by abundant fine minerals of probably quartz and plant remains (occasionally straw particles, which were charred in the case of 276/17/3) and small to somewhat larger limestone fragments. Merely two parallels for only the shape of the necks of these jars have been found, more specifically at Tall al-Dabʽa (Czerny 1999: 156.Nf 268, Nf 269).24 No complete parallels are known. Smaller variants of jars with cylindrical necks are furthermore attested at other sites, such as Sidmant (Petrie & Brunton 1924: pl. XXXV.89B, 89D, 89E), Banī Ḥasan (Garstang 1907: pl. XIII.23) and Asyūṭ (Rzeuska 2017: cat. no. 146), but their body shapes are different from the ones discussed here. The vessels from Dayr al-Barshā were found near the bottom of shaft 10O22/1 (almost all in feature 276), in front of and on top of the partially collapsed blocking of the robbed burial chamber. They have been reconstructed from a concentration of very small ceramic sherds, which suggests that they were intentionally smashed at that spot or heavily trampled by robbers. Whether or not the destruction was part of a ritual or brought about during later tomb robberies is open for debate. A late Second Intermediate Period or early New Kingdom intrusive burial above the ceramic concentrations indicates that at least at that time—but possibly already earlier as well— people have re-used and therefore disturbed the shaft. Interestingly, another deposit of articulated bones from four calves’ feet slaughtered at the age of three or four months has been found at the bottom of this shaft (De Meyer et al. 2005–2006: 48–49; De Meyer & Serrano 2019: 404, pl. LXXVIII). In combination with the broken red slipped sherds, the finds remind us of the deposit with calves’ feet found in tomb 10O22/2. However, in shaft 10O22/1 the jar fragments were found 25 cm above the in situ bones, more specifically in a layer with mixed and fragmented finds indicating a disturbance of the tomb. It is therefore not clear whether they were deposited together with the feet. Another resemblance suggesting a similar ritual for both shafts is the presence of a thin mud layer inside the broken vessels. It may also not be coincidental that both shafts are located within the same walled complex. As such, the presently excavated record suggests that possibly in two burials at Dayr al-Barshā, a ritual seems to have been carried out in which feet of cattle 24

See also Schiestl & Seiler 2012: 524–525, type II.D.21.b.

253

REGIONAL TYPOLOGICAL VARIATION

a

b

c

d

Fig. 9. Medium jars with tall cylindrical necks from zone 9 (scale 1:3), a) 276/14/2~276/31/4~276/17~276/14~277/9~276/31/5; b) 276/14/7~276/1~277/9; c) 276/17/3; d) 276/17/4 (© KU Leuven, Dayr al-Barshā Project; drawings by N. Troosters).

254

K. CORTEBEECK, H. PEETERS & N. TROOSTERS

as well as (broken) pottery—more specifically (red) jars filled with a thin layer of mud—played a role. These elements are reminiscent of a ritual known as sḏ dšr.wt or the “breaking of red vessels”. There are textual as well as archaeological indications that this ritual act already occurred in the Old Kingdom (e.g. Altenmüller 1972: 98–100; Ritner 1993: 144–147; Rzeuska 2006: 509–511; Bárta et al. 2017: 10). It even seems to have been part of a standard set of offering rituals (Lapp 1986: 176). Our contexts therefore most likely represent the archaeological evidence of a First Intermediate Period or early Middle Kingdom variant of this ritual. That the actual slaughtering of cattle may have played a role in this ritual is illustrated in New Kingdom iconography in which red jars are broken, while another priest slaughters a cow (Van Dijk 1993:

Fig. 10. Jars 276/17/3 and 276/17/4, which are very similar in shape and production techniques (© KU Leuven, Dayr al-Barshā Project; photograph by K. Cortebeeck).

REGIONAL TYPOLOGICAL VARIATION

255

173–188; Martin 1989: 101–102, pls 118–123).25 Remarkable is also that in the scenes of the Memphite tomb of Horemheb, the depicted broken vessels are jars with tall necks (Martin 1989: pls 120–123). These depictions even provide a potential meaning for the thin layer of mud in our vessels, as they show that a liquid seems to be running out of the broken vessels. Van Dijk and Martin considered this to be water, symbolising the blood of a slaughtered cow. The thin clay layer in our vessels may show the remains of some kind of grubby water or simply mud that was poured out to symbolise this blood. The ritual has been interpreted as a practice to destroy enemies or malicious influences and, therefore, to protect the deceased (e.g. Van Dijk 1993: 185–188; Ritner 1993: 146–147). In a similar way, several contexts from Dayr al-Barshā in which cattle feet were deposited—including the ones in which our vessels were found—have been interpreted as part of a slaughtering ritual symbolising the destruction of enemies (De Meyer et al. 2005–2006: 60–66; De Meyer & Serrano 2019: 404–405). Such ritual may have been strengthened by breaking red slipped vessels. It is moreover remarkable that most of the currently excavated vessels with cylindrical necks (or fragments of them) have not been red slipped, while several of the ones found in the discussed deposits with calves’ feet do show this surface treatment. A regional and chronological evaluation of the northern and southern type vessels The examples above demonstrate that vessel shapes of both the northern and southern type groups were part of the pottery assemblages in zone 9. Some were even deposited together (e.g. in feature 164), which suggests that they were in use at the same time. The southern type group does not seem to be as common as the northern one, however. Even though a full quantitative analysis of the assemblages is still in preparation, it can already be noted that the typically northern shapes with cylindrical necks are remarkably more frequent than jars or fragments of bag-shaped types (see also Op de Beeck et al. 2012: 248). This suggests that the northern pottery making traditions played a greater role or had a greater impact on the Dayr al-Barshā assemblages, but—surprisingly—only regarding jars with cylindrical necks. Typical First Intermediate Period and early Middle Kingdom Nile clay jars with conical necks, or the less common marl clay vessels with so-called funnel necks are completely absent in zone 9. This is actually true for almost all currently excavated contexts at Dayr al-Barshā, although a few (potential) exceptions should be noted. First of all, two ovoid jars with pointed bases and tall 25 Altenmüller also noted a (symbolical) relation between the breaking of red vessels and the slaughtering of cattle with regard to the Pyramid Texts (Altenmüller 1972: 98–100).

256

K. CORTEBEECK, H. PEETERS & N. TROOSTERS

a

b

Fig. 11. Marl and Nile clay jars with tall conical necks from zone 7 (scale 1:3), a) 3286/2/1~3290/1/1~3289/1/1; b) 3287/32/1~3288/9/1 (© KU Leuven, Dayr al-Barshā Project; drawings by M. Eyckerman).

conical necks were found in a rock-cut tomb on the southern hill of Dayr al-Barshā (zone 7), an area with predominantly late Old Kingdom rock-cut tombs, some of which have been reused during the First Intermediate Period.26 One of them (3286/2/1~3290/1/1~3289/1/1) has been made of a marl clay dominated by limestone and displays a white “scum” at the exterior (most likely a fine Marl C variant) (Fig. 11a). It has a tall conical neck with modelled rim, a turned upper body and vertically scraped base. Parallels for this vessel shape are known from Sidmant (Petrie & Brunton 1924: pl. XXXV.90D; Bader 2012b: 26 They were found in tomb 16H40/3, which is datable to the late Old Kingdom. This tomb was excavated by M. De Meyer in 2008.

REGIONAL TYPOLOGICAL VARIATION

257

fig. 7e), Iḥnāsīya al-Madīna (Bader 2009: fig. 12a), Saqqāra (Rzeuska 2006: pl. 35.110, 111) and Qāw-Matmar (Brunton 1928: pl. LXXXVII.66B). The other jar (3287/32/1~3288/9/1) is made from Nile clay, more specifically it corresponds to a Nile B1 in the Vienna System (Fig. 11b). It resembles the previous one in morphology and finishing. A pinkish slip may even be an attempt to imitate the “scum” on marl clay vessels. Because of their tall necks and pointed bases, the shapes of these vessels look more like Old Kingdom stone vessels (e.g. Aston 1994: 137) than the typically northern First Intermediate Period to early Middle Kingdom ceramic jars with conical necks. Two other—although questionable—exceptions may have been found in the Middle Kingdom tombs of governors Nehri I and Amenemhat in zone 2. They were excavated by A. Kamal in the early 20th century, who published two images of a jar type with a conical neck (Fig. 12) among the finds (Kamal 1901: 16, 33).27 As the figure is a hieroglyph of the IFAO hieroglyphic font, however, and the actual vessels are no longer preserved, no definite conclusions regarding the shape can be drawn. Kamal’s text merely specifies the height of the vessels (21 cm for the vessel in the tomb of Amenemhat and 25 cm for the one of Nehri), and it has to be taken into account that he probably had a limited choice in hieroglyphs. Recent re-excavations of shafts in the tomb of Nehri I by G. Long (Long et al. 2015; Long, this volume) did not provide examples or possible remains of jars with a conical neck.28 Also, only residual remains of jars with cylindrical necks have been found (one rim fragment and possibly some body sherds). It should be noted though that the shafts were heavily disturbed, which makes it impossible to draw definite conclusions regarding the presence or absence of types. Fig. 12: Example of the hieroglyph used by Kamal which illustrates the kind of jars found in the tombs of governors Nehri I and Amenemhat (Kamal 1901: 16, 33).

A third potential example of a jar with conical neck has been found in the tomb of governor Djehutinakht IV or V (De Meyer et al. 2014: 71, fig. 16). It concerns a rim fragment of a conical neck from a Nile clay jar (1330/1/1, Fig. 13). As only 24% of the rim and 2.8 cm of the height has been preserved, however, it can only tentatively be attributed to a jar type with conical-shaped neck, and even with more caution to a First Intermediate Period or early Middle Kingdom jar type with such a neck. Currently known parallels of conical necks from neighbouring sites datable to this period do not have such a pronounced coil in the middle of their necks. It also has to be noted that this sherd was 27

We would like to thank G. Long for pointing this out. The excavations in the tomb of Nehri I are under study by G. Long for her PhD dissertation. The pottery of the shafts was analysed by B. Bader, K. Cortebeeck and S. Hendrickx. 28

258

K. CORTEBEECK, H. PEETERS & N. TROOSTERS

Fig. 13. Fragment of a conical neck from the tomb of governor Djehutinakht IV or V (scale 1:3): 1330/1/1 (De Meyer et al. 2014: 71, fig. 16).

found in a feature with debris from Reisner’s 1915 excavation (De Meyer & Dils 2012: 67). Therefore, it may not have belonged to the original burial. Lastly, one actually clear exception is jar 661 (Fig. 14), currently located in the antiquities storeroom of the MoTA at al-Ashmūnayn. It originates from Usiris Ghubriāl’s 1970 excavations in zone 10,29 and was documented by M. De Meyer and S. Vereecken, but remains to be studied in greater detail. Among the many jars that have been found in zone 10 during several field seasons by the SCA in 1968–1972, only one was registered with a distinctly conical neck reminiscent of typically northern specimens (vessels with similar shapes can be found in Petrie & Brunton 1924: pl. XXXI.54G; Brunton & Engelbach 1927: pl. XI.25; Brunton 1928: pl. XC.66Q; Zitman 2010: fig. 10.3; see also Op de Beeck & Vereecken 2011: 739–740). Most frequent among the zone 10 closed vessel types were once again clearly jars with cylindrical necks. Consequently, jar 661 suggests that although there does not seem to have been a total absence of jars with conical necks in the Dayr al-Barshā region, their very infrequent occurrence in the assemblages underscores a clear preference for jars with cylindrical necks. Just like the northern ceramic tradition, the diversity of types among the southern one is merely partly represented at Dayr al-Barshā. Up until now, no jar types with undulating rims have been found. This interesting phenomenon is once again not only the case for the zone 9 ceramic assemblages, but for all currently known ceramic assemblages from Dayr al-Barshā. The present evidence indicates a remarkable absence of certain pottery types within the northern and southern vessel type groups at Dayr al-Barshā. Such an absence becomes particularly manifest when a comparison is made with the First Intermediate Period to early Middle Kingdom assemblages from neighbouring sites, such as Banī Ḥasan to the north and Asyūṭ to the south. Regarding the latter, located about 80 km from Dayr al-Barshā, several examples of jars with conical necks have been published (e.g. Chassinat & Palanque 1911: pl. 15.3; Zitman 2010: figs 10.3, 12.3, 12.4; Kahl et al. 2012: figs 7.7, 7.10; Rzeuska 2017: nos 177–179, fig. 171c; Kilian 2019: nos 99–100, 183–184). These artefacts are clearly reminiscent in shape to jars with conical necks from 29

For these excavations, see Willems 2014: 69–73, 103, n. 130.

REGIONAL TYPOLOGICAL VARIATION

259

Fig. 14. Jar 661 from zone 10 (© KU Leuven, Dayr al-Barshā Project; photograph by M. De Meyer).

Sidmant (e.g. Petrie & Brunton 1924: jar families 55, 64 and 66). Assemblages from Asyūṭ moreover also contained jars with cylindrical necks (e.g. Zitman 2010: figs 1.4B, 24.7; Rzeuska 2017: nos 146–149; Killian 2019: no. 385, Dok. 39.3). With respect to the southern type group, both bag-shaped vessels (Chassinat & Palanque 1911: pl. 15.3; Zitman 2010: figs 12.2, 18.9, 18.10; Kahl et al. 2012: figs 7.5, 7.6; Rzeuska 2017: nos 110, 113, 129; Kilian 2019: nos 68, 94, 134, 296, 297, 387, 480, 481) and jars with an undulating rim (e.g. Zitman 2010: figs 10.11, 17.10; Rzeuska 2017: nos 94–96, 155, 159, 162–163) are attested. Therefore, not only are both the northern and southern production traditions known at Asyūṭ, considerable variation in vessel shapes within these groups is attested. The combination of several vessel families of the northern and southern ceramic traditions is also known for the tombs at Banī Ḥasan. This site is situated approximately 30 km north of Dayr al-Barshā and has been excavated by J. Garstang in the early 20th century (Garstang 1907; see also Orel 1993). His

260

K. CORTEBEECK, H. PEETERS & N. TROOSTERS

pottery corpus displays both jars with conical necks30 and cylindrical necks,31 as well as vessels with undulating rims32 and bag-shaped vessel types.33 Even though Garstang’s typology does not display much detail nor variation (Seidlmayer 1990: 12–17), several different types were documented among the jars with conical and cylindrical necks. Fewer have been recorded representing vessels with undulating rims or bag-shaped bodies. A quantification of the types documented in Garstang’s tomb inventories, combined with vessels in museum collections with a known provenance from Banī Ḥasan, indicates that typically northern type jars are significantly more frequently attested than southern ones (Fig. 15).34 Even more surprising is the somewhat larger number of jars with conical necks in comparison to the ones with cylindrical necks, especially considering the limited evidence of the former at Dayr al-Barshā. This means that the composition of the First Intermediate Period and early Middle Kingdom assemblages at Banī Ḥasan differ significantly from the ones at Dayr al-Barshā. In addition to the differences in assemblage compositions across sites, the examples discussed above show that quite some variation is present among the vessels from Dayr al-Barshā itself. Most often, no exact parallels are known from other sites, whereas the jars from neighbouring sites also display marked variations in shapes. It remains to be studied to what extent these differences can be explained by, for example, chronological, functional or workshoprelated variation. Unfortunately, many of the burial assemblages from zone 9 do not allow precise dating, as they were found in uninscribed tombs and without a link to a royal name. A contextual study of our finds and the noted resemblances with burial assemblages in the tombs of the nomarchs does allow a somewhat more specific dating of the assemblages from zone 9. This is not the place to discuss the chronological implications in great detail, but some preliminary conclusions relevant for the date of the studied vessels can already 30 The following jars with conical necks reminiscent of typically northern types have been taken into account here: Garstang’s types 13, 14, 15, 16 and 27 (Garstang 1907: pls XII–XIII). In addition, Orel’s type 15/16 can be classified as such (Orel 1993: 85–92, fig. 2.10). S. Orel has undertaken admirable efforts to reassemble the tomb inventories from Banī Ḥasan based on finds from museum collections. Since a considerable number of those artefacts could not be linked to one of Garstang’s types, she extended his typology (Orel 1993: 172–214). 31 Garstang’s types 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29 (Garstang 1907: pl. XIII) and Orel’s type 25/26 (Orel 1993: 102–105, fig. 2.12). 32 Garstang’s types 10, 11 (Garstang 1907: pl. XII) and Orel’s types 10A, 10B, 79, 87 and 87A (Orel 1993: 77–80, 173–174, 181–182, figs 2.9, 2.21, 2.24). 33 Garstang’s types 33, 34, 35, 39, 43 (Garstang 1907: pl. XIV) and Orel’s type 33A (Orel 1993: 116–117, fig. 2.15). 34 Garstang’s ceramic inventories of all tombs datable to the First Intermediate Period and Middle Kingdom have been taken into account here. We also included vessels from museum collections that were not recorded by Garstang, but have been documented by S. Orel (1993: 527–578) and more recently also by K. Cortebeeck. As not all museums or private collections with objects from Banī Ḥasan have so far been consulted, the presented data are incomplete.

REGIONAL TYPOLOGICAL VARIATION

261

Fig. 15. Quantification of northern and southern type groups in the ceramic corpus at Banī Ḥasan (numbers based on Garstang 1907, Orel 1993, and documentation of unpublished vessels in various museum collections by K. Cortebeeck).

be noted. For example, several of the described contexts contained objects similar to those found in a shaft in the burial complex of governor Ahanakht I, who was in office around the time of the unification of Egypt by Mentuhotep II (Willems 2007: 84–88; Gestermann 2008: 10). As noted before, this burial belonged to a woman named Ankh (Willems 2019). We do not know how she was related to Ahanakht I and when exactly she was buried, but based on the prominent location of her burial in Ahanakht’s tomb complex, it can be expected that she died within or slightly after Ahanakht’s tenure. Since the pottery was not found in situ, however, we can only hypothetically date the pottery finds to this period. Another nomarch’s burial in which similar artefacts have been found is that of Djehutinakht IV or V, Reisner’s Tomb 10A (Berman et al. 2009; De Meyer & Dils 2012; De Meyer et al. 2014). It is not possible to assign the burial with certainty to either of the two nomarchs, and this is relevant for the dating. Djehutinakht IV was a son of Ahanakht I, and just like his brother Ahanakht II who succeeded their father, he was likely in office for only a short period of time. Djehutinakht V succeeded Nehri I—the successor of Djehutinakht IV— and reigned for at least 20 years (Willems 1983–1984: 84, 102). Based on Willems’ and Gestermann’s chronological reconstructions, Djehutinakht IV probably worked under Mentuhotep III, while Djehutinakht V must have been in office during the second part of the reign of Amenemhat I until the early years of Senwosret I (Willems 1983–1984: 85; Gestermann 2008: 12). It has been noted, however, that few remains of jars with cylindrical necks have been found among the burial goods in Nehri I’s tomb complex. While conclusions

262

K. CORTEBEECK, H. PEETERS & N. TROOSTERS

need to be drawn with caution, as the disturbed pottery assemblage is not representative for the entire original tomb inventory, this fact is nevertheless remarkable when compared to the finds in the tomb complex of Ahanakht I, which were also retrieved from a disturbed burial. This may suggest that the jars with cylindrical necks were no longer in vogue during the time of Nehri I. Correspondences between the tomb equipment in zone 9 and the governors’ tombs in zone 2 therefore suggest that the zone 9 assemblages were in use from the Middle Kingdom reunification and potentially up to the end of Mentuhotep III’s reign or the beginning of the reign of Amenemhat I at most. Further chronological substantiations require a detailed analysis of the ceramic vessels and other finds from zone 9 and zone 2 at Dayr al-Barshā. Conclusions and further research prospects Preliminary comparisons of First Intermediate Period to early Middle Kingdom ceramic assemblages from Dayr al-Barshā to Banī Ḥasan and Asyūṭ suggest that all three sites show a curious mix of elements from the northern and southern type groups (see also Seidlmayer 1990: 372). The pottery assemblages at Dayr al-Barshā differ from those of the other sites, however, because they show a marked preference for jars with cylindrical necks and bag-shaped vessels. Remains of jars with conical necks are conspicuously scarce, and in the case of jars with undulating rims even completely absent, whereas multiple examples of these types have been found at contemporary sites. At Banī Ḥasan, vessels with conical necks even seem to be attested in somewhat greater quantities than jars with cylindrical necks. Accordingly, even though several sites in Middle Egypt show influences from both the northern and southern parts of the country, this influence expresses itself differently from one site to another. This raises questions regarding local pottery use and exchange. It may indicate that there was a diverse input regarding the trade of vessels (or commodities within them), a variable exchange of ideas which might have affected the local pottery production, or different local interpretations and/or selections of the northern and southern pottery spectrum. Since the vessels under research are datable to the transition of a period characterised by regional fragmentation and conquests (the First Intermediate Period) and the era immediately after it (the early Middle Kingdom), they may offer us a glimpse of how material culture (such as pottery) was affected by political and socio-cultural change and possibly even played a role in communicating messages related to it. It is too early to draw such conclusions, however. Clarifying this requires detailed shape, technology and fabric comparisons of the northern and southern vessel types among sites in Middle Egypt and the areas where they allegedly come from. Furthermore, a comparison of the contexts of the discussed vessels from Dayr al-Barshā to those of the—admittedly disturbed—burials in nomarchs’

REGIONAL TYPOLOGICAL VARIATION

263

tombs, suggests they may occur until the reign of Mentuhotep III or the beginning of Amenemhat I. Several of the discussed vessels can also be linked to interesting funerary rites at the site. In the currently excavated record, more specifically at least once in tomb 10O22/2 and most likely a second time in tomb 10O22/1, we noted the combination of in situ juvenile cattle bones and broken, red-slipped jars with cylindrical necks. These remains likely form evidence of the “breaking of red vessels” ritual in combination with a slaughtering rite that required the deposition of calves’ feet. No such deposits with jars are currently known to us from other First Intermediate Period or early Middle Kingdom sites, which might mean that it was perhaps a local burial custom at that time. However, it should be remarked that this kind of contextual information is only to a limited extent known for the vessels that have been excavated and published—in much less detail—by early archaeologists. Further regional comparisons of burial assemblages may reveal to what extent similar burial customs were practiced elsewhere. Acknowledgements The research here reported upon was rendered possible by the financial support of the Research Foundation–Flanders (1177218N [2017–2021], G.0219.02 [2002–2006]) and the Special Research Fund of KU Leuven (C14/17/038 [2017–2021], OT/01/12 [2001– 2005]). Thanks is also due to the Dayr al-Barshā team and especially to Bettina Bader for her advice and cooperation in the pottery analyses, as well as for her helpful feedback on this article. We are also grateful to Harco Willems for supervising two of the PhD studies related to the subject of this article and for proofreading it.

264

K. CORTEBEECK, H. PEETERS & N. TROOSTERS

Table 1. Measurements of the illustrated Dayr al-Barshā vessels (abbreviations: Con: jar with conical neck; Cyl: jar with cylindrical neck; Bag: bag-shaped vessel; ⌀: diameter (of rim, neck or maximum width of the vessel); t: top of rim; o: outside; i: inside; VI: vessel index) Diagnostic number

Type

Fabric

Height

Rim ⌀

Rim %

Neck Max ⌀

Base %

VI

⌀

46.2

164/7/1~164/10/1~etc.

Cyl

Nile C1

29.9

6 (t)

70

7.2

13.8

100

164/35/1

Bag

Nile B2/C1

9.2

9 (o)

36

7.8

12.2

0

164/65/1

Bag

Nile B2

10.3

7 (o)

25

6.8

12.2

0

169/66/1

Cyl

Nile C1

32.2

6.6 (o)

100

7.3

12.9

100

40.1

169/66/2

Cyl

Nile C1

31.9

6-6.6 (t)

95

7.1

12.9

100

40.4

186/92/1

Bag

Nile B2

19.8

8.5 (t)

100

8.3

14.7

100

74.2

186/94/1

Bag

Nile B2

19.5

8.5 (t)

100

8.6

14.8

100

75.9

276/14/2~276/31/4~etc.

Cyl

Nile B2/C1

21.2

4.2 (t)

56

5.6

11.6

100

54.7

276/14/7~276/1~etc.

Cyl

Nile B2/C1

22.2

4.6 (t)

16

5.8

11.3

100

50.9

276/17/3

Cyl

Nile B2/C1

23.0

5 (t)

100

5.1

10.9

0

276/17/4

Cyl

Nile B2/C1

21.6

4.5 (t)

100

5.8

10.3

0

372/12/1

Bag

Nile B2

5.9

9 (o)

12.5

8.0

11.8

0

374/11/1~374/14~etc.

Cyl

Nile B2/C1

35.4

6.5 (o)

25

6.7

15.1

100

42.7

374/11/2~374/14/1~etc.

Cyl

Nile B2/C1

33.2

6.8 (t)

100

7.6

16.3

100

49.1

375/7/1~910/8/2

Bag

Nile B2

7.2

8-9 (t)

90

8.6

16.2

0

856/53/1

Bag

Nile B2

15.1

8.5 (t)

40

8.1

13.6

1330/1/1

Con

Nile B2

2.7

6.7 (o)

24

3286/2/1~3289/1/1~etc.

Con

Marl (C1?)

27.9

8 (i)

32.5

4.4

10.2

100

36.6

3287/32/1~3288/9/1

Con

Nile B1

30.5

9 (t)

100

4.8

10.0

100

32.8

0 0

Bibliography ALTENMÜLLER, H., 1972. Die Texte zum Begräbnisritual in den Pyramiden des Alten Reiches. ÄA 24. Wiesbaden. ARNOLD, D., 1988. Pottery [in:] ARNOLD, D. (ed.), The pyramid of Senwosret I. The South Cemeteries of Lisht 1. PMMA 22. New York: 106–146. ASTON, B.G., 1994. Ancient Egyptian stone vessels: Materials and forms. SAGA 5. Heidelberg. BADER, B., 2009. The Late Old Kingdom in Herakleopolis Magna? An interim interpretation [in:] RZEUSKA, T. & WODZIŃSKA, A. (eds), Studies on Old Kingdom pottery. Proceedings of the Old Kingdom Pottery Workshop, Warsaw, 20–21 August 2007. Warsaw: 13–41. BADER, B., 2011. A preliminary report on pottery found at Herakleopolis Magna. CCÉ 9: 37–69.

REGIONAL TYPOLOGICAL VARIATION

265

BADER, B., 2012a. Herakleopolis Magna – Ehnasya el-Medina, autumn 2006. BCÉ 23: 113–124. BADER, B., 2012b. Sedment [in:] SCHIESTL, R. & SEILER, A. (eds), Handbook of pottery of the Egyptian Middle Kingdom 2: The regional volume. CCEM 31(2); DGÖAW 72(2). Vienna: 209–235. BADER, B., 2021. Regional differences in pottery repertoires: Two case studies of early and late Middle Kingdom ceramic assemblages [in:] JIMÉNEZ-SERRANO, A. & MORALES, A.J. (eds), Middle Kingdom palace culture and its echoes in the provinces: Regional perspectives and realities. HES 12. Leiden: 45–76. BADER, B. & SECO ÁLVAREZ, M., 2016. Results of five years of pottery analysis in the Temple of Millions of Years of Thutmosis III in Western Thebes (2011–2015). Ä&L 26: 157–262. BÁRTA, M.; ARIAS KYTNAROVÁ, K.; ODLER, M. & SŮVOVÁ, Z., 2017. “Killed” for eternity: Artefacts and ritual behaviour from a unique ceremonial structure in Abusir South [in:] BÁRTA, M.; COPPENS, F. & KREJČÍ, J.R. (eds), Abusir and Saqqara in the Year 2015. Prague: 1–21. BERMAN, L.M.; DOXEY, D.M. & FREED, R.E., 2009. Dating Tomb 10A [in:] BERMAN, L.M.; DOXEY, D.M.; FREED, R.E. & PICARDO, N.S., The secrets of Tomb 10A: Egypt 2000 BC. Boston: 183–188. BRUNTON, G., 1928. Qau and Badari II. BSAE/ERA 45. London. BRUNTON, G., 1937. Mostagedda and the Tasian culture. British Museum Expedition to Middle Egypt. London. BRUNTON, G., 1948. Matmar. British Museum Expedition to Middle Egypt. London. BRUNTON, G. & ENGELBACH, R., 1927. Gurob. BSAE/ERA 41. London. CORTEBEECK, K. & DE MEYER, M., 2015. Dayr al-Barsha in een notendop / Dayr alBarcha en quelques mots [in:] DE MEYER, M. & CORTEBEECK, K. (eds), Djehoetihotep: 100 jaar opgravingen in Egypte / Djehoutihotep: 100 ans de fouilles en Égypte. Leuven: 15–21. CHASSINAT, É. & PALANQUE, C., 1911. Une campagne de fouilles dans la nécropole d’Assiout. MIFAO 24. Cairo. CZERNY, E., 1999. Tell el-Dab’a 9: Eine Plansiedlung des frühen Mittleren Reiches. DGÖAW 16; UZK 15. Vienna. DE MEYER, M. & CORTEBEECK, K. (eds), 2015. Djehoetihotep: 100 jaar opgravingen in Egypte / Djehoutihotep: 100 ans de fouilles en Égypte. Leuven. DE MEYER, M. & DILS, P., 2012. Fowl for the governor: The tomb of governor Djehutinakht IV or V at Dayr al-Barshā reinvestigated 1: Architecture and archaeology. JEA 98: 55–72. DE MEYER, M.; LINSEELE, V.; VEREECKEN, S. & WILLIAMS, L.J., 2014. Fowl for the governor: The tomb of governor Djehutinakht IV or V at Dayr al-Barshā reinvestigated 2: Pottery, human remains, and faunal remains. JEA 100: 67–87. DE MEYER, M. & SERRANO, J.M., 2019. Cattle feet in funerary rituals: A diachronic view combining archaeology and iconography [in:] PIACENTINI, P. & DELLI CASTELLI, A. (eds), Old Kingdom Art and Archaeology 7. Proceedings of the International Conference, Università degli studi di Milano, 3–7 July 2017. EDAL 6. Milan: 402–407. DE MEYER, M.; VAN NEER, W.; PEETERS, C. & WILLEMS, H., 2005–2006. The role of animals in the funerary rites at Dayr al-Barshā. JARCE 42: 45–71. DOXEY, D.M., 2009. The Djehutynakhts’ burial goods [in:] BERMAN, L.M.; DOXEY, D.M.; FREED, R.E. & PICARDO, N.S., The secrets of Tomb 10A: Egypt 2000 BC. Boston: 137–149.

266

K. CORTEBEECK, H. PEETERS & N. TROOSTERS

ENGELBACH, R., 1923. Harageh. BSAE/ERA 28. London. GARSTANG, J., 1907. Burial customs of ancient Egypt as illustrated by tombs of the Middle Kingdom: Being a report of excavations made in the necropolis of Beni Hassan during 1902–3–4. London. GESTERMANN, L., 2008. Die Datierung der Nomarchen von Hermopolis aus dem frühen Mittleren Reich: Eine Phantomdebatte? ZÄS 135(1): 1–15. HERBICH, T. & PEETERS, C., 2006. Results of the magnetic survey at Deir al‐Barsha, Egypt. Archaeological Prospection 13: 11–24. KAMAL, A.B., 1901. Fouilles à Déïr-el-Barsheh (mars–avril 1900). ASAÉ 2: 14–43. KAHL, J.; ENGEL, E.-M. & SANHUEZA-PINO, L., 2012. Pottery from Asyut [in:] SCHIESTL, R. & SEILER, A. (eds), Handbook of pottery of the Egyptian Middle Kingdom 2: The regional volume. CCEM 31(2); DGÖAW 72(2). Vienna: 261–271. KILIAN, A., 2019. Untersuchungen zur Keramik der Ersten Zwischenzeit und des frühen Mittleren Reichs aus Assiut/Mittelägypten. The Asyut Project 12. Wiesbaden. LAPP, G., 1986. Die Opferformel des Alten Reiches unter Berücksichtigung einiger späterer Formen. SDAIK 21. Mainz am Rhein. LONG, G.; DE MEYER, M. & WILLEMS, H., 2015. The use-life of the Middle Kingdom tomb of governor Nehri I at Dayr al-Barshā: Reconstructing find contexts based on the distribution of coffin fragments. SAK 44: 215–236. MARTIN, G.T., 1989. The Memphite tomb of Ḥoremḥeb, commander-in-chief of Tut’ankhamūn 1: The reliefs, inscriptions, and commentary. EES EM 55. London. MARTIN-PARDEY, E., 1991. Pelizaeus-Museum Hildesheim 6: Grabbeigaben, Nachträge und Ergänzungen. CAA. Mainz am Rhein. NORDSTRÖM, H.-Å. & BOURRIAU, J.D., 1993. Ceramic technology: Clays and fabrics [in:] ARNOLD, D. & BOURRIAU, J.D. (eds), An introduction to ancient Egyptian pottery. SDAIK 17. Mainz am Rhein: 140–186. OP DE BEECK, L.; PEETERS, C. & WILLEMS, H., 2012. Middle Kingdom pottery from Deir el-Bersha [in:] SCHIESTL, R. & SEILER, A. (eds), Handbook of pottery of the Egyptian Middle Kingdom 2: The regional volume. CCEM 31(2); DGÖAW 72(2). Vienna: 237–259. OP DE BEECK, L. & VEREECKEN, S., 2011. Pottery from Sidment and Haraga in the Royal Museums of Art and History Brussels [in:] ASTON, D.; BADER, B.; GALLORINI, C.; NICHOLSON, P. & BUCKINGHAM, S. (eds), Under the potter’s tree: Studies on ancient Egypt presented to Janine Bourriau on the occasion of her 70th birthday. OLA 204. Leuven: 731–750. OREL, S.E., 1993. Chronology and social stratification in a Middle Egyptian cemetery. Toronto (Unpubl. PhD dissertation, University of Toronto). PEETERS, C., 2004. Excavations in zone 9 (western island) [in:] WILLEMS, H.; DE MEYER, M.; DEPRAETERE, D.; PEETERS, C.; HENDRICKX, S.; HERBICH, T.; KLEMM, D.; KLEMM, R.; OP DE BEECK, A. & DEPAUW, M., Preliminary report of the 2002 campaign of the Belgian mission to Deir al-Barsha. MDAIK 60: 266– 269. PEETERS, C., 2006. Work in zone 9 [in:] WILLEMS, H.; DE MEYER, M.; DEPRAETERE, D.; PEETERS, C.; OP DE BEECK, A.; VEREECKEN, S.; VERREPT, B. & DEPAUW, M., Preliminary report of the 2003 campaign of the Belgian mission to Deir al-Barsha. MDAIK 62: 328–337. PEETERS, C., 2009. Work in zone 9 [in:] WILLEMS, H.; DE MEYER, M.; PEETERS, C.; VEREECKEN, S.; DEPRAETERE, D.; DUPRAS, T.L.; WILLIAMS, L.J.; HERBICH, T.; VERSTRAETEN, G; VAN LOON, G. & DELATTRE, A., Report of the 2004–2005 campaigns of the Belgian mission to Dayr al-Barsha. MDAIK 65: 401–408.

REGIONAL TYPOLOGICAL VARIATION

267

PETRIE, W.M.F., 1909. Qurneh. BSAE/ERA 16. London. PETRIE, W.M.F. & BRUNTON, G., 1924. Sedment I. BSAE/ERA 34. London. RITNER, R.K., 1993. The mechanics of ancient Egyptian magical practice. SAOC 54. Chicago. RZEUSKA, T.I., 2006. Pottery of the late Old Kingdom: Funerary pottery and burial customs. Saqqara 2. Warsaw. RZEUSKA, T.I., 2017. Chronological overview of pottery from Asyut: A contribution to the history of Gebel Asyut al-Gharbi. The Asyut Project 7. Wiesbaden. SCHIESTL, R. & SEILER, A. (eds), 2012. Handbook of pottery of the Egyptian Middle Kingdom 2: The regional volume. CCEM 31(2); DGÖAW 72(2). Vienna. SEIDLMAYER, S.J., 1990. Gräberfelder aus dem Übergang vom Alten zum Mittleren Reich: Studien zur Archäologie der Ersten Zwischenzeit. SAGA 1. Heidelberg. SEILER, A., 2012. Middle Kingdom pottery in the Theban necropolis [in:] SCHIESTL, R. & SEILER, A. (eds), Handbook of pottery of the Egyptian Middle Kingdom 2: The regional volume. CCEM 31(2); DGÖAW 72(2). Vienna: 299–320. SLATER, R.A., 1974. The archaeology of Dendereh in the First Intermediate Period. Philadelphia (Unpubl. PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania). SPENCER, A.J., 1993. Excavations at el-Ashmunein 3: The town. British Museum Expedition to Middle Egypt. London. VAN DIJK, J., 1993. The New Kingdom necropolis of Memphis: Historical and iconographical studies. Groningen (Unpubl. PhD dissertation, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen). WILLEMS, H., 1983–1984. The nomarchs of the Hare nome and early Middle Kingdom history. JEOL 28: 80–102. WILLEMS, H., 1988. Chests of life: A study of the typology and conceptual development of Middle Kingdom standard class coffins. MVEOL 25. Leiden. WILLEMS, H., 2007. Dayr al-Barshā 1: The rock tombs of Djehutinakht (No. 17K74/1), Khnumnakht (No. 17K74/2), and Iha (No. 17K74/3), with an essay on the history and nature of nomarchal rule in the early Middle Kingdom. OLA 155. Leuven. WILLEMS, H., 2014. Historical and archaeological aspects of Egyptian funerary culture: Religious ideas and ritual practice in Middle Kingdom elite cemeteries. CHANE 73. Leiden. WILLEMS, H., 2016. Die Grabkammer des Djehutinakht (I.?) in Dayr al-Barshā: Methodologische Aspekte der Rekonstruktion des Ablaufs des Bestattungsrituals anhand eines neuentdeckten Beispiels [in:] PRIES, A.H. (ed.), Die Variation der Tradition: Modalitäten der Ritualadaptation im alten Ägypten. Akten des Internationalen Symposions vom 25.–28. November in Heidelberg. OLA 240. Leuven: 133–170. WILLEMS, H., 2019. A fragment of an early Book of Two Ways on the coffin of Ankh from Dayr al-Barshā (B4B). JEA 104(2): 145–160. WILLEMS, H.; DE MEYER, M.; DEPRAETERE, D.; PEETERS, C.; HENDRICKX, S.; HERBICH, T.; KLEMM, D.; KLEMM, R.; OP DE BEECK, A. & DEPAUW, M., 2004. Preliminary report of the 2002 campaign of the Belgian mission to Deir al-Barsha. MDAIK 60: 237–283. WILLEMS, H.; PEETERS, C. & VERSTRAETEN, G., 2005. Where did Djehutihotep erect his colossal statue? ZÄS 132(2): 173–189. ZITMAN, M., 2010. The necropolis of Assiut: A case study of local Egyptian funerary culture from the Old Kingdom to the end of the Middle Kingdom. OLA 180. Leuven.

Hannah Joris

DANCING WOMEN AND WALTZING OSTRICHES: RATITES IN PREDYNASTIC AND PHARAONIC IMAGERY JOHN COLEMAN DARNELL Yale University, Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilisations, New Haven, USA

The ostrich (Struthio camelus), a member of the group of flightless, long-legged birds known as ratites, experiences two periods of significance within ancient Egyptian religious iconography: the mid- to late Predynastic (c. 3500–3250 BCE) and again in the second half of the second millennium BC. In the iconography of Decorated Ware vessels, images of the ostrich and a probable ostrich-feather fan mediate between the desert and Nilotic biomes, in a visual syntax relating to the constellation of women— early representatives of the Old Kingdom incumbents of the Acacia House—hunting, and ritual butchering. At desert sites of the late Middle Kingdom through the New Kingdom, desert dwelling Libo-Nubian groups participated in the worship of the goddess Hathor, religious activities that involved ostrich feathers in deposits and offerings, with the image of the ‘dancing’ ostrich entering into New Kingdom solar iconography. Ultimately, the significance of the ostrich may have derived from dance-like behaviour, and a relationship with both the daily and annual solar cycles.

Its feathers and eggs sought by the ancient Egyptians and their Saharan compatriots from remote prehistory (Wetterstrom 1993: 188; Hassan & Gross 1987: 95; see also Ikram 1995: 25), the ostrich enjoyed two periods of particular importance as an image in ancient Egyptian symbolism. During each of these two spans of time—between about 3500 and 3250 BC and again during the second half of the second millennium BC—Egyptian religious imagery appears to have incorporated the ostrich by focusing on behaviour that resembles human dancing (on the ostrich in Egypt in general, see Behrens 1986). During the first period, the Naqada II phase of the Upper Egyptian Predynastic Period, the association of ostrich flocks with herding animals, and aggressive displays by the male ostrich, made of the great bird a bridge between the worlds of elite hunting, the ritual of meat offering, and riverine festivals associated with the Nile inundation. During the second period, the morning waltzing-dance of the ostrich made of the animal one of a number of creatures who, through their daily activities, appeared as elements of a solar dominated and self-worshipping cosmos. This essay on the ostrich in ancient Egyptian imagery is dedicated to Stan Hendrickx, the scholar whose research has done so much to allow the long mute iconographic language of Predynastic and Protodynastic Egypt to speak again.

272

J.C. DARNELL

Dancing ostriches and bird-dancing women Ritual hunting in Predynastic iconography Although hunting appears to have been for the most part of only modest economic significance for Nilotic groups during the Predynastic Period (Linseele & Van Neer 2009), one of the most common themes of Predynastic Upper Egyptian iconography is the ritual hunt, in which humans—apparently members of the Upper Egyptian elite—sought to capture predominately desert game and bring the animals back alive for later sacrifice at a cult centre. The ritual hunt was the necessary prelude to the meat offering rituals of the early Egyptian temples. The hunt of the Barbary sheep is particularly illustrative of the ritual aspect of much of the hunting activity that appears in the iconography of early Egypt and Lower Nubia. Virtually absent from the not inconsiderable food remains of Upper Egyptian Predynastic Period sites, the ammotragus and the hunt thereof—by humans and canids—is a motif in Upper Egyptian iconography, particularly rock art, with a few such images surviving into the dynastic period in desert contexts. Most of the animals in Predynastic Egyptian hunting scenes are depicted as beset by hunters—human or canid—or under human control, but still alive (Hendrickx et al. 2010). The capture of a variety of animals— such as the ammotragus—and the keeping of those live animals for later sacrifice in cultic ritual, are aspects of the elite ritual hunt and the aftermath thereof that in many ways dominate early Egyptian iconography (Hendrickx 2010; Hendrickx & Eyckerman 2010; Graff et al. 2011). Evidence from the early ritual site HK29A at Hierakonpolis reveals the slaughtering and ritual presentation at the site of a variety of animals, including desert game and Nile fish (Friedman 1996; Linseele et al. 2009); similar activities appear to have accompanied elite burials at Hierakonpolis as well (Friedman 2008). Lines of animals come to dominate much of Egyptian iconography during the period immediately preceding and following the birth of a unified, protopharaonic state in Upper Egypt around 3250 BC. Corresponding in time to the growing complexity of the Upper Egyptian state, these processions of animals represent the result of the hunt, the taming of the wild, the ordering of the disordered. In Egypt, the hunt mirrors human society, with canids often representing humans, and human hunters wearing canid tails to reflect their animal counterparts (Hendrickx 2006). The potentially chaotic animal world is made to march in unnaturally—humanly—ordered rows. Some animal images, developed in earlier cosmographic iconography, come to represent proto-hieroglyphic annotations (see the references and examples in Darnell 2009). A canid may appear at the end of a line of quadrupeds, symbolising the control of potential disorder, and the triumph of canid/human order over wild disorder (Hendrickx 2006: 728, 736–739). Elements of Nilotic and desert hunting may blend, even

DANCING WOMEN AND WALTZING OSTRICHES

273

on the persons of both hunters and ritualists (see below), bringing about a union of the balanced worlds of desert and Nile (Hendrickx et al. 2010; Darnell 2009: 87–89). The ostrich and ostrich feather fan as mediating imagery on Decorated Ware vessels A particularly well-known medium for Upper Egyptian Predynastic iconography is Petrie’s so-called Decorated Ware (Friedman 1994: 98–99, 195, et passim), beginning just after the inception of the Naqada II Period (c. 3500– 3250 BC), and having but rare descendants during the subsequent Dynasty 0 (Huyge & Darnell 2010). Horned desert quadrupeds, ostriches, humans, ritual boats—Nilotic vessels with often twin shrines amidships—and a limited array of additional images dominate the iconography of these decorated ceramic vessels.1 Although the specific identity of the often more schematically designed birds has been disputed, the lines of long-legged birds often appearing on D-Ware vessels (Fig. 1), and in the rock art of Upper Egypt and Nubia as well (Darnell 2009: 94), are almost certainly all intended to be ostriches. The short, raised wings of bird images on the D-Ware vessel MMA 07.228.135 (Patch 2011: 47) (Fig. 2) are identical in appearance to those of the more summarily drawn birds on MMA 20.2.10 (Patch 2011: 70), those birds having bodies identical with others on the same vessel who exhibit no such “flapping” wings (Figs 3–4). The climate history of Upper Egypt, the place of origin of the D-Ware vessels and their iconography, are factors that speak against an identification of the long-legged and long-necked birds of D-Ware iconography as flamingos (Hendrickx 2000; Graff 2009a: 38, 61),2 and the birds in D-Ware iconography do not on the whole resemble the otherwise significant saddle-bill stork (Darnell et al. 2002: 15; Darnell 2009: 93–94).3 Some of the depictions on D-Ware vessels, more detailed than others, leave little doubt concerning the birds’ ratite affiliation (Payne 2000: 107–108 and fig. 42). The ostriches often appear in lines, and more commonly they occur without quadrupeds, although on a significant number of D-Ware vessels, lines of quadrupeds are present.4 In later Egyptian hunting scenes, the ostrich is the only non-mammalian prey to appear as the regular quarry of ancient Egyptian desert

1 From a corpus of about 124 separate images, most vessels employed between two and nine images in their decorative schemes (Graff 2016: 51–53). 2 Patch 2011: 68 identifies as flamingos birds whose appearance is identical to that of the ostriches on MMA 20.2.10, and elsewhere. 3 Note, however, the line of saddle bill storks—with rather clearly represented heads and schematically rendered bodies—in Darnell 2014: 103–104 and 328. 4 Quadrupeds decorating an ostrich egg may evoke the same association of ostriches and the desert hunt (Friedman 1995: 60).

274

J.C. DARNELL

Fig. 1. Painted ceramic box MMA 10.130.1175.

Fig. 2. D-Ware vessel MMA 07.228.135.

DANCING WOMEN AND WALTZING OSTRICHES

Fig. 3. D-Ware vessel MMA 20.2.10.

Fig. 4. D-Ware vessel MMA 20.2.10.

275

276

J.C. DARNELL

hunters (Strandberg 2009: 20), continuing the occasional presence of the bird in the company of quadrupeds on the D-Ware vessels. Some of the birds in D-Ware iconography raise their wings, but only once do all the birds in a line appear to do so (Payne 2000: no. 876). That the birds with raised wings and those without visible wings are most likely members of the same species finds support in the heraldically arranged central image of a longer tableau, of probable Naqada I date (human figure Type A2 of Brémont 2018, 479 and 483), at the Bir Umm Tineidba site in the distant Eastern Desert hinterland of Elkab (Fig. 5). In a large tableau of ostriches, donkeys, and hunting dogs, between a larger segment to the left and a smaller portion to the right, a hunter raising his arms and holding a throw stick stands between an ostrich with visibly raised wings to the left, and another without visible wings to right.5 Further support for the identity of those birds with raised wings and those without comes from the el-Hosh D-Ware vessel (Huyge 2005: 246), on which an image of a dancing woman and a depiction of the Naqada plant are separated on one side by four birds, and on the other side by three birds, at least two of which appear with their wings raised (Fig. 6). In other rock art scenes from Egypt and Lower Nubia, similarly represented birds appear, alone and in groups,6 even in the company of quadrupeds (Fig. 7),7 including some with wings raised.8 The rock art images of birds with raised 5 For a similar “master of animals” composition in rock art, involving two giraffes, see Morrow et al. 2010: 142. 6 Compare Winkler 1938: pl. 23; Hellström 1970: pls 26, 37, 47, 67, 78, 121; Morrow et al. 2010: 61, 68, 115, 132, 203, 223; Váhala & Červiček 1999: pls 35 (no. 119; Suková 2011: 42–43), 79 (no. 310; Suková 2011: 100–101 and pl. 48), 87 (no. 344; Suková 2011: 108–109), 108 (no. 418/B; Suková 2011: 142–143), 137 (no. 541; Suková 2011: 180–181), 148 (no. 588; Suková 2011: 186–187), 205 (nos 789/C and D; Suková 2011: 222–225 and pl. 112); Farkas & Horváth 2010: 158; Basch & Gorbea 1968: 214, 233, 252, 256. 7 Compare Winkler 1938: pl. 19; Hellström 1970: pls 12, 75–76, 81; Morrow et al. 2010: 35, 67, 90, 155, 157, 203; Váhala & Červiček 1999: pls 41 (no. 154; Suková 2011: 92–93), 48 (no. 183; Suková 2011: 48–49), 81 (no. 319; Suková 2011: 106–107 = Dunbar 1941: pl. 6, fig. 24 [apparently a vignette of lassoing a bovid and hunting ostriches with bow and arrow]), 83 (no. 328; Suková 2011: 116–117), 93 (no. 366; Suková 2011: 124–127), 122 (no. 476; Suková 2011: 172– 173), 148 (no. 585; Suková 2011: 186–187), 164 (no. 645/B; Suková 2011: 198–199), 165 (no. 647; Suková 2011: 198–199), 232 (no. 903; Suková 2011: 250–251); Farkas & Horváth 2010: 86, 140–142, 167–168; Förster 2015: 264; Basch & Gorbea 1968: 47, 114, 118, 134, 164, 179. Occasional groupings of ostriches and giraffes suggest an association of the two long-necked creatures, the ostrich perhaps thereby acquiring the associations of the giraffe (see Shimy & du Bourguet 1977: pl. 295, no. 3863, for an apparent juxtaposition of two ostriches and a giraffe, as though a group of three animals of increasing size) as a solar creature (Huyge 1999; 2002). 8 Hellström 1970: pl. 12; Morrow et al. 2010: 34, 91, 96; Váhala & Červiček 1999: pls 56 (no. 219; Suková 2011: 96–97), 58 (no. 224; Suková 2011: 96–97), 79 (no. 311; Suková 2011: 100–101), 224 (no. 855; Suková 2011: 244–245); Farkas & Horváth 2010: 92, 153; Basch & Gorbea 1968: 39, 231. Note the group of birds in which ten smaller and one larger bird do not raise wings, and three others, one smaller and two larger, do raise wings, those with raised wings beginning each line and concluding the group, in Váhala & Červiček 1999: pl. 27 (no. 91; Suková 2011: 30–31); in pl. 79 (no. 312/B; Suková 2011: 100–101), all eight birds raise their wings.

DANCING WOMEN AND WALTZING OSTRICHES

Fig. 5. Rock art tableau in Wadi Umm Tineidba (WUT 3 Panel 3).

Fig. 6. D-Ware vessel from Naqada IIC tomb at Gebelet Yussef, el-Hosh (Hugye 2005: 13; drawing by Ilona Regulski).

Fig. 7. Rock inscription southwest of Dakhla (Förster 2015: 264).

277

278

J.C. DARNELL

wings trapped by ropes attached to posts or tethering stones (compare Váhala & Červiček 1999: pls 102 [no. 401/B = Dunbar 1941: pl. 6, fig. 23], 166 [no. 650]; Suková 2011: 136–137 and 198–199) also support the ratite identification of the birds with raised wings in D-Ware iconography. Among the elements in D-Ware decoration, the significance of the ostrich remains somewhat incompletely explained. Within the corpus of D-Ware iconography, the ostrich appears to function as one of the two most frequently occurring members of a group of images that provide a connection between two opposed iconographic assemblages. In the visual imagery of D-Ware vessels, the addax is regularly associated in an antithetical manner with images of a prominent female figure (Graff 2009a: 94–112; 2016). On some vessels, corresponding to the pair of female figure and addax, is a combination of the animal skin and the so-called Naqada plant. The animal skin rarely appears, however, in any association with the addax or the female figure. The Naqada plant is rarely associated with the female figure (although dramatically paired with her on the el-Hosh D-Ware vessel), and never, apparently, with the addax. The Naqada plant, with its vertical “body” and voluminous fronds of “hair,” appears to represent the female figure (Graff 2009a: 28; 2009b; Hendrickx & Eyckerman 2011: 533–534; 2012: 44–51), the plant-like totem replacing the female image but seldom appearing in the same scene, just as the animal skin may represent the addax, with which it likewise but rarely appears in the same scene. Within the same corpus of D-Ware imagery, a fan-like element—designated as V1 in Graff’s iconographic list (Graff 2009a: 63–64, there designated a tree)—can interchange with the large birds (Fig. 8). The birds appear relatively frequently with the depiction of a boat and with the fan-like image and somewhat less commonly with the woman and the Naqada plant (as well as with the sets of offset horizontal lines, animal skin, ibex, and addax), whereas the fan-like element is closely associated with both the boat, birds, Naqada plant, sets of offset horizontal lines, and animal skin. With the ibex and the boat, the birds and fan-like object appear to mediate between the two poles of woman and addax on the one hand, and Naqada plant and animal skin on the other (Graff 2009a: 96–97; 2016: 57–58). Without the bird and the fan-like object in D-Ware iconography, aside from infrequent associations (such as rare occurrences of the woman with the Naqada plant and the animal skin), the boat alone would provide a strong connection between the two iconographic nodes of woman-addax and Naqada plant-animal skin. A plausible identification of the fan-like image is that it is indeed a fan, and more specifically an ostrich feather fan. At least two examples of the object have one or more drooping elements extending beyond the curving outer edge (Graff 2009a: 168 [V1 figs i & l]), the one larger element executed in the same manner as Graff’s “rameau” (Graff 2009a: 174 [N9 fig. a]). The longer,

DANCING WOMEN AND WALTZING OSTRICHES

279

drooping element is similar in appearance to representations of an ostrich feather in Naqada II and Protodynastic iconography (Darnell et al. 2002: 12; Darnell 2018: 399), particularly that on the head of a male figure on a D-Ware vessel (Graff 2009a: 152 [Hm 2]). In the corpus of D-Ware decoration, an image similar to the fan-like V1 object appears in the hand of a female figure on two vessels (Graff 2009a: 151 [Hf 6]) (Fig. 9), and in the hand of a male

Fig. 8. D-Ware vessel MMA 15.2.34.

Fig. 9. D-ware vessel Oxford AM1958.345 (Payne 2000: fig. 44, no. 871).

280

J.C. DARNELL

figure on one vessel (Graff 2009a: 153 [Hm 17]).9 An identification of the element in the hands of the human figures as a fan is plausible (uncertainly so designated in Graff 2009a: 25 & 49–50); as that object is the closest in appearance to the V1 icon on the D-Ware vessels, the fan-like V1 may itself represent such a fan.10 Such a visual association of the ostrich as desert animal and quarry of elite hunting, with the fan that may result from such activity in the desert, appears in the guise of the gilded ostrich feather fan from the tomb of Tutankhamun, the top of the fan bearing images of the royal hunt of the ostrich, and the bringing back of the birds.11 The apparent fan V1 frequently exhibits a straight or angled extension of the central vertical, at times a circular element at the bottom, features that could be consistent with a short handle and attachment for the feathers. The upper protrusions, occasionally visible, could well represent long feathers extending above the others in an ostrich-feather fan. An image of similar appearance, associated with a female figure, is incised on the back of an early Naqada II female figurine from Qau (London UC 9601; Patch 2011: 102 & 252 [cat. no. 83]; see also Fig. 2 in the article by Alice Stevenson in this volume), most likely a representation of a fan (Hendrickx et al. 2010: 24). That fan-like image also has a few elements protruding above the outer curving edge of the apparent fan, in appearance similar to the feathers emerging from the headdress of a figure at a large rock art and rock inscription site in the Wadi Nag el-Birka, northwest of Qurna (Hendrickx et al. 2010: 29, fig. 23), there parallel to other figures whose feathered adornments resemble the elements emerging from the fan-like objects that are Graff V1 figs i & j. The depiction on the back of the Qau figurine, the object in the hands of two female figures and one male figure in the corpus of D-Ware imagery, and the more common V1 images in the same corpus, probably all represent fans. As the V1 fan is associated with the ostrich as mediating icon in the D-Ware corpus, and considering the importance of the ostrich feather and ostrich feather fans in later pharaonic iconography and regalia, the V1 image may more specifically depict an ostrich feather fan. The iconography of D-Ware thus appears to reveal three groups, each consisting of a paired living being and a physical representation of that being. The nodes of human female and “plant dolly” on the one side, and living animal and skin of the sacrificed animal on the other side, are mediated by the ostrich and the ostrich feather fan. All of these find a focus in that larger mediating element, the nautical vessel that represents the unseen but all important element of water. 9 Her listing of Metropolitan Museum of Art 15.2.34 (Graff 2009a: no. 270) appears to be in error; compare Patch 2011: 76–77 (cat. no. 75). 10 Graff 2009a: 49–50 notes the similarity of appearance between V1 and the hand-held fan, but continues to refer to V1 as an “arbre”. 11 http://www.griffith.ox.ac.uk/gri/carter/gallery/p0696.html (last accessed 05-04-2020).

DANCING WOMEN AND WALTZING OSTRICHES

281

The women of the Acacia House and the ritual of meat offering The most prominent human image in the iconography of D-Ware vessels is a female figure striking a mannered pose, often with her arms raised and curved above her head (typologies in Graff 2009a: 125–127, 151). Associated with animal imagery in early Egyptian iconography are depictions of human females—both in two and three dimensions—some of a peculiarly avian visage, in association with one or more of the concepts of ritualised hunting, butchering, and Nilotic navigation (see Hendrickx et al. 2010: 212–219; Darnell 2004: 154). A group of female figurines with painted decoration, including desert hunting scenes and Nilotic flora on some examples (Hendrickx et al. 2010: 212–213; Leblanc 2011: 281–284) reveal the same association of women, ritualised hunting, and Nilotic allusions as that present in the ritual tableaux on the ‘Gebelein Shroud’ and in the Hierakonpolis ‘Painted Tomb’ (see Williams & Logan 1987; Adams & Ciałowicz 1997: 34–48). The painting on some of the figurines, probably representing tattooing, foreshadows the attested use of tattooing for later female musicians in Egypt (Keimer 1948), and supports the identification of the painted figures as images of Predynastic female dancers. The common juxtaposition of a female figure—usually adopting the pose of arms raised and curving above, or lowered with the elbows out to the sides— and the image of an addax on D-Ware vessels (Graff 2009a: 91–99) further reinforces the link between female ritual performers and hunting/animal sacrifice. The quadrupeds represent the animals hunted and ultimately sacrificed. Nilotic imagery in the body art represents the Nilotic terminus, for which the desert quadrupeds represent the other extreme. In their dance we might well expect the women to evoke both aspects of their activity, and their arm pose appears to be a human reflection of an attested Predynastic combination of bovid and avian imagery.12 The often beak-like head of three-dimensional images of these women is also a possible avian element, and the raised arms may be related to birds’ wings (Graff 2007; 2009a: 26–27), specifically the wings of a ‘dancing’ ostrich. A much later, 18th Dynasty inscription specifically refers to ostriches performing an ỉbꜢ-dance (Dautheville 1922; Kuentz 1924; Goyon 1957: 162–163; Michailides 1969; Behrens 1986: 72–74). The stela describes the king Ahmose (Cairo CGC 34001) as being seen (Urk. IV/1: 19, ll. 6–12): dgg.tw=f mỉ Rꜥ wbn=f mỉ psḏ ỉtn mỉ ḫꜥ Ḫprỉ m ỉr(.t)y st.wt=f m ḥr.w 12 For an overview of the dancing women, and their relationship to later Jubilee ritual, see Leblanc 2011: 266–294.

282

J.C. DARNELL

mỉ Ἰtm m ỉꜢb.t p.t nỉ.w ḥr ỉbꜢ m ỉn.wt mỉ psḏ ỉꜢḫ m ḥr-ỉb hrw ḏdf.t nb.t šm.tỉ He is astonishingly beheld, like Re when he rises, like the shining of the solar disk, like the glorious appearance of Khepri in the eyes (of people), his rays in the faces (thereof); like Atum in the east of heaven, when ostriches dance in the valleys; like the shining of the luminous solar eye in the midst of the day, when all slithering things are warmed.

In a rock art group from Lower Nubia (Váhala & Červiček 1999: pl. 34 [no. 117]; Suková 2011: 40–41), a group of three female figures with arms akimbo—perhaps a rock art equivalent to the three women in the scenes in Tomb 100—occurs alongside images of three ostriches without visible wings (females?) and one with wings outstretched (male in mating dance pose?). Although executed in different styles and thus probably at different times, the assemblage may represent an association of the women and the ostriches by the later artist. In the decoration on a vessel from Hammamiya (Fattovich 1978: 204), a canid in the second register is positioned directly above two ostriches displaying their wings in the third register, perhaps indicating that the birds, like the canid, reflect some aspect of the human world. The arms of the dancing female figures may also evoke the bull’s horns (Jensen 2017: 298–300), and bovid horns with bird terminals (Hendrickx 2002: 289–290, 305–306; Hendrickx & Eyckerman 2012: 35–40) indeed tie together the apparently purposeful ambiguity of the visual reference (similarly Jensen 2017). In pharaonic Egypt, the association of women, hunting, and butchering appears clearly with the female musicians of the pr-šnḏ.t, “the Acacia House,” textually attested by the early Old Kingdom (Fischer 1960: 187–190). Attached to the Acacia House was the ḫnr.t/ḫnr.w (Bryan 1982: 35–54; Ward 1986: 151–153; Roth 1992; Kinney 2008: 20–22), a group of musicians and dancers—perhaps always predominately female, certainly mixed in gender by the 5th Dynasty and probably so already during the Predynastic Period (Graff 2009a: 152)—who performed at funerary ceremonies and more infrequently at the royal Jubilee.13 Also in the Acacia House were butchers, during the 4th and 5th Dynasties primarily under the control of queens who bore the title ḫrp.t 13 Nord 1981: 137–145, with nn 26–31; Kinney 2008: 20–23; Fischer 1960: 189–190; Ward 1986: 69–80, 150–153; Vandekerckhove & Müller-Wollermann 2001: 315; Onstine 2005: 7–8. Note that men occasionally execute the wing/horn dance pose on Decorated Ware vessels (see Graff 2009a: 27).

DANCING WOMEN AND WALTZING OSTRICHES

283

sšm.tyw šnḏ.t, “director of the butchers of the Acacia House” (Baud 1999: 342 and n. 680; Kinney 2008: 24–25; 2012). The association of the musicians and butchers in the pr-šnḏ.t is the origin of the later (First Intermediate Period and Middle Kingdom) male titles ỉmy-rꜢ km.t/ḫm.t ḫnr.w, “overseer of the black herd/ḫm.t-herd of the ḫnr.w”, connecting the musicians with cattle, and perhaps butchery (Fischer 1981: 60–61 and n. 18; Nord 1981: 144–145, n. 74; Kinney 2008: 20 and n. 53, 27–28). A study of the labelled depictions of the personnel of the pr-šnḏ.t in Old Kingdom tomb scenes concludes: “A number of primary sources suggest an association between dance, butchery and the šnḏt in the context of funerary ritual … This association suggests that the Acacia House was responsible for the slaughter of cattle at funerals, as well as dancing and rhythmic accompaniment” (Kinney 2008: 24; Eyre 2002: 54–55).14 The musicians of the pr-šnḏ.t performed two sorts of dances: the ‘Diamond’ and ‘Salute’ (Kinney 2008: 51, 54–72, 73–87). The former recalls the poses of a number of figures in Predynastic art, including the women associated with animal rows (e.g. Graff 2009a: 253 (no. 180), 256 (no. 189), 303 (no. 328), et passim; Morrow et al. 2010: 90, fig. B), which can be considered the bringing of captured animals to the place where they are to be slaughtered (cf. Graff et al. 2011), images of control over the chaotic forces of the desert. The raised arms are also appropriate to jubilation and mourning, and are associated with funerary processions and the offering of food in the burial ritual. The gesture associated with ḥꜢy, “mourning cry”, can be both the raised, horn-like arm pose, and another with the elbows out and the arms down (Dominicus 1994: 61), a pose at times adopted by the female figures on D-Ware vessels (Dominicus 1994: 58–61). Scenes on D-Ware pottery (Graff 2009a: 257 (no. 190), 264 (no. 212), 266 (no. 218), 271 (nos 232–233), 276 (nos 247–248), 278 (nos 254– 255), 279 (no. 258), 289 (no. 287), 304 (no. 332), 306 (no. 338), 325 (no. 395), 328 (no. 403), et passim) and in rock art (see i.a. Morrow et al. 2010: 120, figs B & D, 173, figs A–B, 223, fig. F) of women in the ‘diamond’ pose in association with riverine vessels and desert fauna probably belong to the early royal ritual cycle (overviews in Williams & Logan 1987; Darnell 2009: 94–100; for the Jubilee Cycle as a later development thereof, see Leblanc 2011), the animals representing the ritually hunted game. Tattooed or painted with images of desert and Nile, and adopting the diamond pose, a single female dancer of the pr-šnḏ.t would embody in microcosm the dualities of desert and river, sacrifice and ritual celebration, death and life. But a very few painted/

14 An extension of the association of the performers of the Acacia House with meat sacrifice and the human funeral may lead ultimately to the Late Period summation of “that august chamber of [the goddess] Iusaas with acacias” (ꜥ.t twy šps ny.t ỉw=s-ꜥꜢ=s m šnḏ.wt) as mw.t pw ꜥnḫ ỉm=s, “it means that death and life are in it” (Altmann 2010: 35–37).

284

J.C. DARNELL

tattooed figurines survive; although only one has raised arms, that figurine shows that the “illustrated” women could adopt such a pose. A woman acting the part of a ḏr.t-kite—her songs or cries evoking the cries of the bird—participates with priests and a butcher in a butchering ritual appearing already during the 5th Dynasty, and surviving in the Opening of the Mouth ceremony (Otto 1950). Although neither labelled as a ḫnr.t/ḫnr.w-group, nor having overt association with a pr-šnḏ.t, a Middle Kingdom depiction of a female chorus of Hathoric singers in a ritual hunting context in a scene in the tomb of Ukhhotep at Meir shows the association of singing and offering with fishing and fowling (Blackman & Apted 1953: pls 11–12; Verhoeven 2009: 439; Darnell 2010: 125–130). The later musicians may well mimic the activities of birds of prey (Leblanc 2011: 284–286), perhaps representing a reinterpretation of the earlier ostrich-based dance. A comparison of those women with the group of female performers on the Gebelein shroud (Williams & Logan 1987) reveals the longevity of the association of a college of female musicians with offering ritual. The illustrated Nilo-Saharan hunter A blending together of desert and Nilotic imagery on the physical person of a participant in ritual hunting and sacrifice was not limited to women. Just as the women who participated in meat offering rituals in Nile Valley temples both wore on their bodies and presided physically over Nilotic and desert game, so desert huntsmen of the Predynastic Period could wear canid tails and ostrich feathers, physical attributes of the desert animals they hunted, while at the same time representing the Nilotic world through two-dimensional depictions of the hippopotamus hunt. Clustered together in the northern portion of the east side of the main concentration of rock inscriptions at the site of Was-ha-Waset (WHW, a possible ancient site name is “Dominion Behind Thebes), in the Wadi Nag el-Birka are several depictions of leather and feather-wearing Predynastic hunters (Darnell 2002: 145–146; 2009: 88–89; Hendrickx et al. 2010: 216–218). The hunters wear not only the feathers of their desert prey and the tails of their own canid counterparts, but at least two of the men have depictions of Nilotic game, specifically images of two confronted hippopotami, on their chests, perhaps etched into leather garments if not drawn or tattooed on their bodies. In one example (WHW 90) each of the confronted hippopotami has what appears to be a harpoon emerging from the head/snout of the animal. These depictions suggest that even Predynastic hunters themselves mingled desert and Nilotic imagery, embodying the duality of their world and revealing that they, like the female performers at the actual sacrificial and meat offering rituals, saw their activities in terms of a reconciliation of the Nilotic and Saharan biospheres.

DANCING WOMEN AND WALTZING OSTRICHES

285

The association of women, quadrupeds of the desert hunt and the ritual sacrifice, and Nilotic elements present on many D-Ware vessels—even on the persons of the hunters and female ritualists themselves in other media—is present in the tattooed/painted figurines of women, on most of the D-Ware vessels, and in the tableaux from the Gebelein shroud and the Hierakonpolis ‘Painted Tomb’. The woman and the addax symbolise the proper cultic translation of the meat offering, seeming to stand as the iconographic antipode to their symbolic representations as Naqada plant and animal skin. Just as the birds—predominately, at least ostriches—and the apparent ostrich feather fans mediate between those antithetical pairs, so in some way the female ritualist’s dance, evoking avian and bovid elements, helped accomplish the same. Understanding the bird-like aspect of the most prominent of her dance poses is closely linked to understanding the function of the ostrich, so ubiquitous in the decoration of D-Ware vessels. The ostrich dance What links all the elements on the D-Ware vessels, and connects the bird-like heads and the horn-like poses of female statuettes, the associations of bird and bovid elements on amulets—as well as in the dance of the female ritualists on the D-Ware vessels—is the performance of the meat offering ritual. The women in the iconography of D-Ware vessels could be ritual dancers, whose arm poses mirror the wings of the ostrich and the horns of the bull (note Goebs 2015: 167–170). In their postures they are both avian in anticipation of the sacrifice, and bovid as embodiments of the sacrificial animal. The ostrich, even its feathers in the form of the fan-like element, appears to have become a mediating image for the human and animal participants in the hunting ritual due to one of the dance-like behaviours the great birds exhibit. Some of the birds in D-Ware and rock art imagery have their wings outspread, most commonly depicted as curved over their backs on the decorated ceramics (see the list of examples in Graff 2009a: 164). When multiple ostrich images are present on a D-Ware vessel, the birds displaying their wings are often outnumbered by those not performing in such a way (Graff 2009a: nos 232, 457, 481). The ostrich’s adjustment of plumage in order to regulate body temperature (Maclean 1996: 102–103) may have appeared to be a ritualised event, and the propensity of the ostrich to perform a morning waltzing-dance (Martin 1891: 148; Duerden 1908) might lie behind the images of the birds with raised wings, although neither of these activities would seem suitably to explain the images of groups of ostriches in which a few birds perform the dance while more do not. A display of male aggression, or the male portion of the mating ritual, may lie behind the wing displays. Although a predator—other than human—is

286

J.C. DARNELL

virtually never present, an indication of ratite aggression (Evans 2010: 139–141 [Old Kingdom tomb scene]) is not impossible. At least two D-Ware vessels (Graff 2009a: nos 225 and 456) show a pair of ostriches, with one bird displaying its wings, suggesting that the display on those vessels may relate to the mating dance of the ostrich (Bolwig 1973; Deeming & Bubier 1999: 86; Shanawany & Dingle 1999: 57–61). Whether related to aggression or to breeding, the wing display is most likely that of the male bird, indicating that the arm gestures of the dancing women may represent feminine embodiments of two forms of male animal imagery—at once the horns of the bull and the wings of the male ostrich. A manifestation of the female ritualists as overseers of butchery, and a link between those women and the feathers of the ostrich, appears in the decoration on the gold leaf covered handle of the flint knife Cairo JE 34210 (CGC 64868), of Naqada IID/IIIA date—if the decoration is not forged (Aksamit 1989; Graff 2009a: 72; Ejsmond 2015; Vanhulle 2016: 263–264). Three women appear on one side, one holding a fan, with a boat on the other side. The ostrich and the meat offerings on the hoof The ostriches on the D-Ware vessels are often the only (non-hominid) animal present,15 but they do with some frequency occur with images of desert quadrupeds.16 The association of ostriches with other quadrupeds is particularly apparent on the Hammamiya D-Ware vessel (Hendrickx 2000: 39–40), and elsewhere in early Egyptian imagery ostriches perform what may be their mating dance amongst depictions of hunted animals.17 The almost quadruped-like size and terrestrial habits of the ostrich may have made of the bird an obvious visual bridge between the worlds of quadrupeds and birds.18 In spite of a reputation for shyness in interspecific encounters (Deeming & Bubier 1999: 84), and some disagreement as to the possible value of the activity for either group, flocks of ostriches do appear at times to associate with herds of quadrupeds 15 Cf. Graff 2009a: nos 186, 190, 195, 202–204, 208, 214, 216, 219, 221, 225, 226, 228, 235–237, 247, 249, 250–251, 256–260, 267–269, 271–272, 276–277, 281, 283, 293, 301–302, 305, 329, 338, 340, 348, 365, 387, 394, 401, 417, 433, 435–436, 440, 442–444, 450, 456, 461, 463, 466, 477, 481, 503, 505, 510, 520, 528, 530, 535–536, 553, 556–558, 572. 16 Cf. Graff 2009a: nos 183, 188–189, 199, 218, 232, 234, 243, 307, 385, 395–396, 457, 483, 500, 509, 511–512, 533, 565; for ostrich and quadrupeds, see also Ciałowicz 2009: 87. 17 So McHugh 1990, where a dog—again the canid representative of the human world—hunts the associated quadrupeds (on p. 269 McHugh identifies the birds as “wading species”); note also the appearance of an ostrich in an apparently Old Kingdom image of Barbary sheep hunting in Hendrickx et al. 2009: 200 and 204; the mating ostrich amongst herding animals may appear in rock art as well (Váhala & Červiček 1999: pl. 35 (no. 121; Suková 2011: 44–45). 18 Note the remarks of van Ghistele in Bauwens-Préaux 1976: 147: “Elles [autruches] ressemblent fort à des jeunes chameaux … et en tout cas, elles ressemblent plus à des bêtes de terre qu’à des oiseaux”.

DANCING WOMEN AND WALTZING OSTRICHES

287

(Dean & MacDonald 1981: 135–136, 138–139; Muir & Friedman 2011: 583), perhaps most commonly under the influence of available water (Sauer 1969: 102). The larger flocks of ostriches that might form at the beginning of the breeding season, and associate with herds of quadrupeds (Muir & Friedman 2011: 583), would begin to break apart into smaller breeding groups at the time when the ostrich mating dance was performed (Deeming & Bubier 1999: 83–84). The lines of ostriches on the D-Ware vessels may therefore be indicative of the great birds during the period bridging their formation into larger groups, and the dispersal of those groups prior to the onset of the mating season, visually associated with larger groups of quadrupeds.19 If the birds with raised wings represent male ostriches initiating mating, not merely defending territory, the depictions on the D-Ware vessels might more specifically depict the beginning of the mating dances that would lead to the larger flocks of ostriches forming smaller nesting groups. Lines of animals also become common elements in depictions of order imposed on the potentially chaotic, natural world, and the lines of ostriches on some vessels are probably reflections of both that iconographic conceit and the larger ostrich groups that would appear before the onset of the breeding season. This possible seasonal reference in ostrich iconography of the Predynastic Period may help explain the basic temporal and environmental background of the imagery on D-Ware vessels. The hunt of the ostrich as link between desert and Nile Trade between Saharans and Nile Valley dwellers The ostrich appears to have been sought by ancient hunters rarely if ever for meat, but rather as a source of feathers and eggs (references in Muir & Friedman 2011: 582–584). The hunt of the ostrich by desert dwellers, and the delivery of ostrich feathers and eggs into the Nile Valley, represented for the Egyptians a union of the desert and the Nile in terms of human cultures and populations. The arrival of feathers and eggs allow elements of the ostrich to facilitate the fusion of desert and Nilotic people that embodies the coming inundation’s annual blurring of the boundary between the desert and the sown. The ostracon from the ostrich feather deposit at HK64 At the sandstone outcropping designated HK64, approximately 2 kilometres west of the ancient settlement site of Hierakonpolis, is a concentration of rock 19 The practice of communal nesting and egg incubation (Bertram 1992) might also maintain ostrich flocks of sufficient size to give rise to the groups appearing on the D-Ware vessels.

288

J.C. DARNELL

art and rock inscriptions, with an associated campsite of a foreign, southern character (see http://www.hierakonpolis-online.org/index.php/explore-rock-art/ site-hk64 [last accessed 05-04-2020]). This hill was visited by a number of Egyptian officers of the late Middle Kingdom/Second Intermediate Period, including one officer of the royal bodyguard Renseneb, buried across the river at Elkab (Darnell 1999: 23–27). Foreign visitors to HK64 were present as well—on the south-eastern side of the outcrop, protected from the north-northwesterly winds, was an area of hearths that the excavator characterised as campfires. Clearance of the campsite revealed the remains of pottery of Nubian character, bone fragments, and lithic remains including flint and chipped quartz, the latter industry of an equally southern tradition (Friedman et al. 1999: 18–29; 1999). These foreign visitors also appear to have been responsible for a votive offering of ostrich feathers, consisting of a pit filled with two layers of feathers arranged in a radiating pattern, located in the midst of the campfires. Between the two layers of feathers, the one officiating at the offering deposited a small piece of sandstone, bearing a brief inscription of three hieratic Egyptian signs. The small text, carved for inclusion within the offering, reads (Darnell 1999: 27–29): Nbw ḫꜥ=s, “The Gold appears in glory”. ‘Gold’ as a feminine designation is in fact well known, in the form of the appellation of Hathor, the Gold (Aufrère 1991: 369–373). The statement concerning Hathor suggests an offering to Hathor, in her function as a solar goddess (Darnell 1995; 1997; Epigraphic Survey 1994: 31, n. f). The solar goddess is at once the solar eye, the pupil-and-iris disk of the cosmic deity—associated with the constellation of eye-serpent-crown (Guglielmi 1991: 16–18, 171–172, 204)—and the solar womb of the new-born sun of the eastern horizon (Feucht 1984: 412 and n. 44). The manner of depositing the feathers, as though radiating out from the ostracon in the centre, may have been intended to mimic the rays of light that the ostrich feather could itself represent (Goebs 2015: 154–155). Even the eggs of ostriches, attested in elite contexts, may have been the quarry of elite hunting groups (Graff et al. 2011: 460). The same hunters who tracked and captured addax, Barbary sheep, and other animals for ritual sacrifice, may also have brought back to the Nile Valley the feathers and eggs of ostriches, if not the very birds themselves. At HK64, the animal bones recovered at the site of the hearths included those of cattle, as well as desert game in the form of gazelle and hartebeest bones (Friedman 1999: 103). Gathering of ostrich feathers by Libyan hunters Ostrich feathers (see Teeter 2010 with basic references) were important in the cults of goddesses (Dils 1998: 1305–1308; Nilsson 2012: 27–28). Gathered by Libyan hunters, the feathers were worn by dancers for the goddess, among them

DANCING WOMEN AND WALTZING OSTRICHES

289

the Libo-Nubian Mentyew from the west of the Upper Nile. Compare a description of the dancing Libyans as given by the Mut Ritual (P. Berlin 3014 + 3053, XVI 6–XVII 1: Erman 1901: 49–50; Verhoeven & Derchain 1985: 22–23, 46–47; Darnell 1995: 70–72): ṯꜢ=n n=s mḥy.w nt psd n nỉꜢ.w sḫy n=ṯ ṯmḥ.w m ḳꜢmm.w=sn ỉsy=sn ỉry m ẖn.wt ỉry=n n=ṯ pꜢ ỉhꜢy ỉbꜢ n=ṯ ṯmḥ.w Let us take for her feathers of the back(s) of ostrich(es) which the ṯmḥ.w-Libyans strike for you with their throw sticks, their straps entirely20 being of leather; and let us make acclamation to you, and let the ṯmḥ.w-Libyan dancers dance for you …

Curiously the text refers to employing throw sticks for striking the ostriches from whom the feathers were taken—perhaps killing them—although actual remains of ostrich bones are incredibly few in archaeological contexts, in comparison to the remains of their eggs (Gautier 2001: 615–616; Pöllath 2009: 92). The Mut Ritual associates the Libyans with ostrich feathers, worn by Libyan and Libyanising dancers (Quaegebeur & Rammant-Peeters 1982: 191– 193). The Libo-Nubian groups hunting ostriches, attested at HK64, are perhaps related to the cattle-herding and ostrich-hunting (?) people appearing in a rock art scene on the east bank of the Nile north of Aswan (now almost certainly destroyed) (De Morgan et al. 1894: 207, no. 2). The HK64 deposit appears to be an offering from some group of desert dwellers and their Egyptian associates, and texts such as the Mut Ritual find concrete expression in the Hierakonpolis ostrich feather deposit and its accompanying ostracon. Interestingly, a 26th Dynasty hieroglyphic copy of the section on the Libyan Goddess is attested at Elkab (Verhoeven & Derchain 1985). Worship by Egyptians and foreigners at desert sites The worship at HK64 and at other desert sites did not involve only Egyptians. Considerable evidence, both textual and archaeological, reveals a significant Libo-Nubian involvement in the worship of the far-wandering goddess of the eye of the sun. On the basis of the Mut Ritual text, the offering of ostrich feathers suggests Libyans, and the pottery associated with the deposit and the site in general demonstrates a Nubian presence. This perhaps seemingly contradictory information actually identifies the desert-dwelling visitors to HK64, and the probable agents of the ostrich feather offering, as the Mentyew. A hymn 20

For this use of ỉry, compare Meeks 1998: 38.

290

J.C. DARNELL

to Rat-Tawy as Hathor at Medamûd, apparently of Roman Period date, describes the people and animals of the south that return with the far-wandering goddess of the eye of the sun to Egypt. Amongst them: gsgs n=ṯ Mnty.w m šṯꜢ.w=sn Sty.w m mdw.w=sn There dance ecstatically for you the Mentyew-Libyans in their crossed bands, and the Nubians with their maces.

The Mentyew are, according to the story of the Libyan goddess, objects of her divine wrath in the southwest; a text from Edfu Temple places this west of the Upper Nile (Darnell 1995: 68 and nn 112–113; Klotz 2012: 208–210). Evidence for Egyptian worship at desert sites is sparse but significant. Some rock inscriptions in the Wadi el-Hôl, on a major ancient road across the Western Desert filling the Qena Bend of the Nile, attest to the functioning of rituals infrequently and incompletely attested elsewhere (Darnell et al. 2002: 66–67, 126–127, and 129–138; Darnell 2002: 112–114). Several late Middle Kingdom visitors to the Wadi el-Hôl describe their visit as “spending the day beneath this mountain on holiday” (wrš ẖr ḏw pn ḥr hrw nfr—Darnell et al. 2002: 129–138). In combination with other inscriptions depicting singers and the goddess in her bovine form (Darnell et al. 2002: 93–94, 120 [a priest of Hathor], and 126–127), the ‘Spending the Day’ inscriptions provide some of the only evidence of Hathoric worship in the remote desert.21 A late hieratic text refers to an aspect of a festival for the returning goddess in which people are described as “going out upon the desert”; they then visit the area of the temple of the goddess Mut at Karnak “when Mut is satisfied”, a reference to the pacification of the goddess (refs. Darnell et al. 2002: 66, n. 275). A group of images in the Wadi el-Hôl depicting an Egyptian in festal garb, a feather-wearing and bearded foreigner—probably a Libyan—and Hathoric cow (Darnell et al. 2002: 126–127) may serve as a visual annotation to the physical evidence at HK64 for the interaction of Egyptians and denizens of the Western Desert in the worship of the wandering goddess of the solar eye. Deliveries of ostrich feathers by Libyans surely continued, and Libyans in the scenes of the great durbar of Akhenaton’s twelfth regnal year bring ostrich feathers and eggs (Davies 1905: pls. 37 and 40).

21

For Hathoric hrw-nfr see i.a. Husson 1977: 222, n. 14; Kessler 1988: 171–196; Darnell et al. 2002: 130–132; von Lieven 2003; Manniche 2003: 44; Depauw & Smith 2004: 81–82, 86–89.

DANCING WOMEN AND WALTZING OSTRICHES

291

The ostrich and the inundation Time of the worship of the returning goddess The goddess worshipped at desert sites during the Pharaonic Period is predominately Hathor, or some other form of the solar eye goddess, who leaves Egypt in the winter, and returns in the summer; her return with the heliacal rising of Sirius/Sothis corresponds roughly to the rising of the inundation waters of the annual Nile flood (refs. in Darnell 2010: 100–101 et passim). The ‘Spending the Day’ inscriptions in the Wadi el-Hôl appear to belong to the late 12th Dynasty, and are dated to the first, fifteenth, and seventeenth days of the first month of the shemou-season, so around the time of mid-summer (Luft 1992: table opposite 224). In Egypt proper, the time of the return of the goddess was a time of drunken revelry, nautical processions, and the nocturnal vigil for the goddess (refs. in Darnell 2010: 100–101; see also DesrochesNoblecourt 1995). The desert festivals probably represent an attempt to meet the goddess, and provide an Egyptian escort to accompany those mythical and foreign attendants who ushered her back into the Nilotic world (Darnell 1995). The late hymn to Rat-Tawy as Hathor, celebrating the return of the goddess to Medamûd (referenced above) describes Mentyew-Libyans and Nubians accompanying the goddess. The HK64 site appears to reveal an interaction of people of a southern cultural tradition—evidenced in the ceramic and lithic material—with their Egyptian neighbours, an archaeological assemblage that could serve as the physical illustration of both the Mut Ritual passage and the Medamûd hymn. As the excavator of HK64 has observed, the location of the site, near the desert edge, would have seen the first effects of the rising flood waters. The site could have been an ideal place for the interaction of Egyptians with seasonally moving pastoralists from the south, for whom the appearance of the heightened water levels and resulting seasonal plant growth at the desert margin of the cultivation would have been attractive to both humans and beasts (Friedman 1999: 103–104; Friedman et al. 1999: 22; Darnell 2014: 75). Prominent in the rock art on the HK64 outcrop are depictions of cattle, perhaps dating to the time of the use of the campsites, and a visual bovid counterpart to the ostrich feather deposit. If Nile Valley dwellers and their desert neighbours did meet at sites like HK64 at the time of the rising waters of the inundation, probably interacting there until those waters receded and the visitors might return to the south for the winter, then the bringing in of ostrich feathers, and perhaps other desert game, may well have broadly coincided with the breeding season of ostriches. Although that season appears to vary greatly depending on climate and food availability (Brown et al. 1982: 37), observations of modern ostrich farming describe the breeding season in the northern hemisphere as stretching between

292

J.C. DARNELL

March/April and September/October (e.g. Aiudi et al. 2009: 790; according to Hicks 1992, the end of the breeding season is during late spring and summer). Within the Upper Egyptian context, the filling of desert playas by the northern extension of the monsoonal rains during the summer between roughly the early 9th and mid-6th millennia BC (Wendorf et al. 1984: 427; Gehlen et al. 2002), with sporadic returns of moist conditions in some areas thereafter, would directly correspond to the photoperiodic synchronisation of the ostrich breeding season (Soley & Groenewald 1999: 150; Shanawany & Dingle 1999: 51–54; Madekurozwa et al. 2002; Bronneberg 2008: 6–7; Kennou Sebei et al. 2009), the latter particularly visible amongst birds in captivity (Smith 2003: 94). Although some areas, such as the Gilf Kebir, periodically enjoyed a Mediterranean climate of winter rains (Gehlen et al. 2002: 107–108 and 113), the 4th millennium BC saw the final desiccation of the Western Desert. The surviving ostrich flocks in the areas of the Upper Egyptian and Nubian deserts easily accessible to the increasingly river-based Upper Egyptian and Nubian hunters, would have become more dependent on permanent waterholes, perhaps contributing to an even greater influence of the lengthening days on the breeding cycle, thereby combining the influence of photoperiodicity on temperate breeding groups with the influence of seasonal conditions on more opportunistic breeders (compare Lambrechts 2004: 4–5, 14, and 22–31). Ostrich breeding in the Upper Egyptian area might well have occurred from March/April through September/October, with a focus on June through August if one considers the probable influence of length of day and available water. Old Kingdom imagery associates the laying or at least incubation of ostrich eggs with other depictions of the birthing of animal young. In the scenes of the seasons in the sun temple of Niuserre, depictions of ostriches appear in the imagery of the shemou-season (Edel & Wenig 1974: pls 13–14; Seyfried 2019: 93–94, fig. 65 [scene 25, ostrich over nest with eggs]; 102, fig. 72 [scene 30, ostrich with desert animals and hunters]; 127, fig. 124 [unplaced fragment]). The Niuserre scenes of the seasons divide the year into two seasons—akhet and shemou—with the ideal year being slightly off schedule, akhet beginning in April (Seyfried 2019: 143–148). The beginning of the six month long half of the ‘agricultural’ year there labelled shemou—October through March—is a time (according to iconography if not always biological reality) of ostriches and quadrupeds associated in the birthing of young. The Niuserre scenes of early shemou depict hunters and hunting dogs, who would have been in search of young animals for temple sacrifices and for raising of some young in captivity, a hunter carrying one small and apparently living gazelle in a sort of hunting bag (so Wenig 1966: 18, fig. 25)—a counterpart and even continuation of Predynastic scenes of elite hunting. For desert groups living and hunting near Egypt, taking advantage of the rising waters of the Nile, and for Egyptians venturing a bit farther out into

DANCING WOMEN AND WALTZING OSTRICHES

293

the desert for their hunting activities, the best time of acquiring feathers and eggs at once would apparently be around the time of the cresting of the inundation. According to medieval calendars from Egypt, the inundation attained its height in late September or very early October, before beginning to decline; the same calendars refer to the rutting of male ostriches in mid- to late August, and to females laying eggs in mid-September (Pellat 1986: 209, 234). As the calendars reference a resumption of hunting during the month of June, and a recurrence thereof in October as well (Pellat 1986: 214), the conjunction of ostrich breeding, high Nile waters, and sacrifice of desert game—the collective imagery of the D-Ware vessels—is complete. With ostriches laying eggs in mid-September, so at the cusp of the akhet and shemou seasons in the Niuserre calendar, and incubation of the eggs stretching across approximately 42 days, so into October, and hunting in October, the medieval calendar and the Niuserre scenes also align. During the time of the Naqada II Period in Upper Egypt, an increasing availability of ostrich feathers, perhaps even some ostrich eggs, and the height of the ostrich breeding season, might have corresponded almost exactly to the time of the return and prolonged fêting of the goddess—the time of the summer solstice through the cresting waters of the inundation. The breeding season of ostriches who had more direct access to water and plant life near and in the Nile Valley appears to have had an association with the time of the final rise and final fullness of the flood. The ostrich feather deposit at HK64 suggests that desert hunters brought ostrich feathers to a site where the first waters of the rising Nile would begin to seep up in the low desert (Friedman et al. 1999: 22), and a site that would have remained on the edge of the inundation until the waters began visibly to recede in early October. An association of the ostrich with a waterway—the ‘winding waterway’ of the Netherworld (Willems 1996: 169–170)—and the liminal event of the king’s ascent to the sky, appears in Pyramid Text §469 (Sethe 1908: 241). The ostrich there approaches a waterway in the other world at a time of change, perhaps mirroring its association with the time of the rising waters, the cresting of the flood, and the time of the receding of the waters. If the imagery of D-Ware shows ostriches in company with quadrupeds, beginning to mate, then the time depicted might be roughly July/August, the time of the flood, the season of ostrich breeding according to medieval calendars. The ostrich feather fans in the imagery might also imply the time of hunting that would come roughly in October, essentially corresponding to the Niuserre calendar, and perhaps an earlier hunt in June, as indicated by the medieval calendar. The imagery of the D-Ware vessels, in light of the ostrich and ostrich feather imagery, seems to focus on the time of the rise, cresting, and decline of the Nile flood. Faunal remains from the HK29A site at Hierakonpolis have suggested activities there that may have anticipated the

294

J.C. DARNELL

rising of the Nile flood, with the avifaunal remains more specifically hinting at important events associated with the autumn, and the decline of the flood (Linseele et al. 2009: 120, 134). Desert hunters bring in ostrich feathers; Nilotic ritualists wear the very feathers of the ostrich, and execute ritual dance poses mirroring the mating dance of the ostrich, as they officiate over the slaughter of the desert quadrupeds. The ostrich bridges the worlds of human hunters and meat offering ritualists, at the same time bridging the worlds of the quadrupeds with which its flocks may run, and that of the desert hunters who seek those quadrupeds—and the feathers of the great birds themselves—and the Nile Valley dwellers with whom they interact. The iconography of the ostrich, animal and feather, would focus on the months of July through October, essentially the ideal akhet-season (note also the remarks of Jensen 2017). The guinea fowl—parallel to the ostrich The only other bird to appear with any prominence on the D-Ware vessels, and then only rarely, is the helmeted guinea fowl (Numida meleagris—Graff 2009a: 164, 291 [no. 294], 322 [no. 385, if this is not a peculiarly depicted male ostrich], and 381 [no. 564]). In addition to some at least occasional associations with potential game animals (Dean & MacDonald 1981: 138, 142), this bird mimics the breeding habits of the ostrich in some ways. A chief male and female may abandon the flock for at least some time to breed, although never venturing far from the flock that remains together (van Niekerk 2010); in at least some groups, the coveys may break apart and form monogamous pairs (Mares 1999: 257–258). The birds also have a breeding season apparently corresponding primarily to seasonal rains (van Niekerk 2010: 22–23). These birds appear in the faunal remains at Nabta Playa from early and middle Neolithic contexts (Bochenski & Tomek 2001: 639–640 and 647), suggesting that they may have enjoyed a more northerly breeding area than is now the case. The identification of the subspecies appearing in Egyptian depictions as Numida meleagris somaliensis (Beaux 2004: 22–28) indeed supports the conclusion that although the birds may once have nested far to the north of their current habitat, their appearance in Egyptian imagery of the Naqada II period and later is probably indicative of hunting forays south of the home regions of the Naqada culture. The guinea fowl appears, albeit rarely, in pharaonic religious imagery as a herald of the rising sun. By its cry the guinea fowl is an animal whose vocalisation accompanies and even assists the rising of the sun (Beaux 2004: 28–31; Te Velde 1988); by play on the phonetic similarity between the term for the guinea fowl and the word for cyclical eternity, the cry of the nḥ-guinea fowl may evoke nḥḥ-eternity (Beaux 2004: 28–29, 31–35). Blending the nḥ-bird’s daily heralding of the sun and the association of nḥ-bird and nḥḥ-eternity,

DANCING WOMEN AND WALTZING OSTRICHES

295

a passage in Spell 301 of the Pyramid Texts (Sethe 1908: 232 [§449a–b]) refers to the guinea fowl as a zoomorphic manifestation of both the daily and the annual solar round: the guinea fowl nḥ, while being one “who makes Re live each day” (sꜥnḫ Rꜥ rꜥ nb), bears the epithet “lord of the year” (nb rnp.t). The guinea fowl as element in the decoration of the D-Ware vessels could—on the basis of later, albeit already Old Kingdom textual information—provide an appropriate associate to the ostrich as both daily and annual herald of the sun. The ostrich dance on the Decorated Ware vessels—the Inundation Festival and the dualism of Egyptian cosmography The iconography of the D-Ware vessels is entirely consistent with ritual events at the time of the Nile inundation. The lines of quadrupeds, associated with ostriches—sometimes entirely replaced by lines of ostriches—some of the ostriches engaged in a mating dance, all suggest the beginning of the breeding season for ostriches, triggered by the lengthening days of early summer. The quadrupeds represent the objects of the human hunt, a ritual hunt to acquire living game for proper sacrifice at sacred enclosures near and in the Nile Valley. The boats so prominent in the decorative schemes of the D-Ware vessels appear to be sacred barks with shrines, their presence evoking the riverine processions that sailed out upon the rising waters of the inundation. The dancing woman, officiating over the meat offering, holds her hands in a pose that evokes both the wing display of the male ostrich, and the horns of the quadrupeds of the meat offering. A proper understanding of the ostrich imagery provides the final, and perhaps most specific, indication that the imagery of the D-Ware vessels is a unity, describing the interplay of human and animal worlds as they relate to inundation festivals. The groups of ostriches on the D-Ware vessels, in company with quadrupeds, and the occasional depictions of what may be male ostriches engaged in mating ritual, could reference the time around March/April, potential beginning of the breeding season, through the time of July/August, perhaps the height of the breeding season in the areas bordering the Nile Valley—essentially the cusps of the two seasons in the Niuserre scenes. The presence of the ostrich feather fan in the D-Ware iconography suggests that the D-Ware imagery also represents the time of the birthing of young and the hunting of animals—and ostrich feathers (and eggs)—that would mark the end of shemou-season and the transition to akhet in the Niuserre scenes of the seasons. A possible additional appearance of the ostrich in Predynastic Upper Egyptian iconography is in the form of round elements hanging from the overcurving sterns of some Predynastic vessels (Winkler 1938: 37 and pls 35 [fig. 25], 36 [figs. 37–39, 41, 43–44, 46]; Darnell 2011: 1158, fig. 5 [the latter similar to Winkler’s pl. 36, fig. 39 example). These could be ostrich eggs—on one

296

J.C. DARNELL

depiction (Winkler 1938: pl. 36 [fig. 39]) three of the objects hang next to the skin of a quadruped, perhaps a physical display of the close association between the hunting of desert game with the acquisition of ostrich eggs (and feathers). The egg-shaped object on the prows of two vessels on the Gebel el-Araq knife could be an ostrich egg as well (Vanhulle 2016: 268; compare also the possible parallel Darnell 2007: 33 [fig. 3.3]). This possible use of the ostrich egg in decorating the prows of Predynastic vessels could then be a remote forerunner of much later uses of the ostrich egg to evoke and even represent light.22 Changing iconography—the feather survives the bird During the early Naqada III Period, beginning c. 3250 BC and corresponding to the rise of the unified, proto-pharaonic Upper Egyptian state we now generally designate as Dynasty 0, much bird imagery disappears, and the falcon is the chief surviving avian element of the earlier Predynastic iconography (Hendrickx et al. 2011). However, the feather of the ostrich ultimately represents equilibrium, through solar associations, and through the ‘taming’ of the outer chaotic element. Early representations of royal power only gradually allow the royal actor and his supporters to take centre stage, and zoomorphic images of power and domination prevail through the Naqada II period. In a late Naqada II period rock art tableau in the Wadi of the Horus Qa-a (northwest of Qurna), animals represent society, divine emblems appear, and the products of human ingenuity, but the only human is the arrow-pierced enemy (Darnell 2011; 2018). Only with the dawn of the 1st Dynasty does the human ruler don the final elements of royal regalia (Hendrickx et al. 2012), and a political incumbent supplants—but never fully replaces—the animal cosmographs of the preceding centuries. Millennia later, Egyptian art will still be applying the same principles, mirroring scenes of hunting and warfare, and actually applying the concept of ordered ranks to represent the properly acculturated prisoners of war, saved by their own defeat from a life of dystopian savagery (Menu 2004). Although the ostrich hunt, and for the most part images of the ostrich itself, cease to appear as important elements of iconography during the Pharaonic Period,23 the ostrich feather remains significant. The feather itself continued to function as a marker for dancers (Quaegebeur & Rammant-Peeters 1982: 191– 193). Just as the birds in their animal associations and dancing behaviour bridge the worlds of the hunted animals and human performers in the meat offering

22 For the late antique and medieval association of the ostrich egg with light, see Physiologus XLII; Flood 2001: 40–43; see also Boum & Bonine 2016: 9–13. 23 With some exceptions—note the ostrich hunt on the gilded fan in the tomb of Tutankhamun mentioned above.

DANCING WOMEN AND WALTZING OSTRICHES

Fig. 10. Ostriches dancing within the horizon in the Royal Tomb at Amarna (photo by Kyle van Leer).

297

298

J.C. DARNELL

Fig. 11. Detail of dancing ostriches in the Royal Tomb at Amarna (photo by Kyle van Leer).

DANCING WOMEN AND WALTZING OSTRICHES

299

ritual, and just as the procuring and delivering of ostrich feathers linked the Saharan and Nilotic worlds in ritual activity, so the ostrich feather fulfilled an important role in the Opening of the Mouth ritual, in which a statue or mummified body was prepared to function as a conduit of spiritual power (Otto 1960: 21). Through a related process of liminal transcendence, a fan—presumably ostrich-feathers—set up behind a divine image might indicate the deification of that image (Gauthier 1931: 151–155; Bell 1985). In a second phase of iconographic and textual significance during the New Kingdom, the ostrich could be said to dance for the solar king Ahmose at the beginning of the 18th Dynasty (see above; Dautheville 1922; Kuentz 1924; Goyon 1957: 162–163; Michailides 1969; Behrens 1986: 72–74), and ostriches are occasionally present—probably on the basis of their waltzing behaviour, but perhaps in echo of their earlier significance as well—amongst the zoomorphic worshippers of the sun (Martin 1989; Epigraphic Survey 1963: pl. 430B; Kampp-Seyfried 2003) (Figs 10 & 11). As birds related to human ritual dance, fellows and avian counterparts of herding quadrupeds in the desert hunt, and providers of feather insignia for human hunters, the images of the ostrich on D-Ware vessels are icons of the mediation and reconciliation of the desert and Nilotic worlds through the imagery of animals that embody a combination of the hunters, game, and ritualists of the Predynastic hunting ritual. Like the baboons who appear in Egyptian cosmographic texts and iconography as speakers of a mysterious and primordial solar language (Te Velde 1988), the ostrich may very well have taught the Predynastic Egyptians a dance whereby human performers assisted in the translation of the meat offering into the veritable food of the gods. Bibliography ADAMS, B., & CIAŁOWICZ, K.M., 1997. Protodynastic Egypt. Shire Egyptology 25. Princes Risborough. AIUDI, G.; NICASSIO, M.; PAGANA, G.; SILVESTRE, F. & LACALANDRA, G.M., 2009. Induction of sexual activity in male and female farmed ostriches (Struthio camelus) with GnRH implant. Italian Journal of Animal Science 8: 789–792. AKSAMIT, J., 1989. The gold handle of a fishtail dagger from Gebelein (Upper Egypt) [in:] KRZYŻANIAK, L. & KOBUSIEWICZ, M. (eds), Late Prehistory of the Nile Basin and the Sahara. SAA 2. Poznań: 325–332. ALTMANN, V., 2010. Die Kultfrevel des Seth: Die Gefährdung der göttlichen Ordnung in zwei Vernichtungsritualen der ägyptischen Spätzeit (Urk. VI). SSR 1. Wiesbaden. AUFRÈRE, S., 1991. L’univers minéral dans la pensée égyptienne 2. BdÉ 105. Cairo. BASCH, M.A. & GORBEA, M.A., 1968. Estudios de arte rupestre Nubio 1: Yacimentos situados en la orilla oriental del Nilo, entre Nag Kolorodna y Kars Ibrim (Nubia Egipcia). Comite español de excavaciones arqueologicas en el extranjero. Memorias de la misión arqueológica en Egipto 10; Memorias de la Misión arqueológica española en Nubia (Egipto y Sudán) 10. Madrid.

300

J.C. DARNELL

BAUD, M., 1999. Famille royale et pouvoir sous l’Ancien Empire égyptien. BdÉ 126(1). Cairo. BAUWENS-PRÉAUX, R. (ed.), 1976. Voyage en Égypte de Joos van Ghistele 1482–1483. Collection des voyageurs occidentaux en Égypte 16. Cairo. BEAUX, N., 2004. La pintade, le soleil et l’éternité : À propos du signe (G21). BIFAO 104: 21–38. BEHRENS, P., 1986. Strauß, Straußenei, und Straußenfeder [in:] LdÄ VI: 72–82. BELL, L., 1985. Aspects of the cult of the deified Tutankhamun [in:] POSENERKRIÉGER, P. (ed.), Mélanges Gamal Eddin Mokhtar. BdÉ 97(1). Cairo: 31–59. BERTRAM, B.C.R., 1992. The ostrich communal nesting system. Princeton. BLACKMAN, A.M. & APTED, M.R., 1953. The rock tombs of Meir VI. ASE 29. London. BOCHENSKI, Z. & TOMEK, T., 2001. Holocene bird remains from Nabta [in:] WENDORF, F.; SCHILD, R. & Associates (eds), Holocene settlement of the Egyptian Sahara 1: The archaeology of Nabta Playa. New York: 636–647. BOLWIG, N., 1973. Agonistic and sexual behavior of the African ostrich (Struthio camelus). The Condor 75: 100–105. BRÉMONT, A. 2018. Studying people through animals: Dating as a new application for the study of animal depictions in Naqadan rock art [in:] HUYGE, D. & VAN NOTEN, F. (eds), What ever happened to the people? Humans and anthropomorphs in the rock art of Northern Africa. Brussels: 475–490. BRONNEBERG, R., 2008. Basic and applied aspects of female reproduction in farmed ostriches. Ridderkerk. BROWN, L.H.; URBAN, E.K. & NEWMAN, K. (eds), 1982. Order Struthioniformes [in:] The birds of Africa 1: Ostriches and birds of prey. London: 32–37. BRYAN, B.M., 1982. The etymology of hnr “group of musical performers”. BES 4: 35–54. CIAŁOWICZ, K.M., 2009. The Early Dynastic administrative-cultic centre at Tell elFarkha. BMSAES 13: 83–123. DARNELL, J.C., 1995. Hathor returns to Medamûd. SAK 22: 47–94. DARNELL, J.C., 1997. The apotropaic goddess in the eye. SAK 27: 35–48. DARNELL, J.C., 1999. Pharaonic rock inscriptions from HK64 (chiefly of the Second Intermediate Period and early New Kingdom) [in:] FRIEDMAN, R.F.; with contributions by MAISH, A.; FAHMY, A.G.; DARNELL, J.C. & JOHNSON, E.D., Preliminary report on field work at Hierakonpolis: 1996–1998. JARCE 36: 24–29. DARNELL, J.C., 2002. Opening the narrow doors of the desert: Discoveries of the Theban Desert Road Survey [in:] FRIEDMAN, R.F. (ed.), Egypt and Nubia: Gifts of the desert. London: 132–155. DARNELL, J.C., 2004. Review of “VANDERKERCKHOVE, H. & MÜLLER-WOLLERMANN, R., 2001. Elkab VI: Die Felsinschriften des Wadi Hilâl. Turnhout.” JNES 63: 152– 155. DARNELL, J.C., 2007. The deserts [in:] WILKINSON, T. (ed.), The Egyptian world. Routledge Worlds. London: 29–48. DARNELL, J.C., 2009. Iconographic attraction, iconographic syntax, and tableaux of royal ritual power in the Pre- and Proto-Dynastic rock inscriptions of the Theban Western Desert. Archéo-Nil 19: 83–107. DARNELL, J.C., 2010. A midsummer night’s succubus: The Herdsman’s encounters in P. Berlin 3024, the pleasures of fishing and fowling, the songs of the drinking place, and the ancient Egyptian love poetry [in:] MELVILLE, S.C. & SLOTSKY, A.L. (eds), Opening the tablet box: Near Eastern studies in honor of Benjamin R. Foster. CHANE 42. Leiden: 99–140.

DANCING WOMEN AND WALTZING OSTRICHES

301

DARNELL, J.C., 2011. The Wadi of the Horus Qa-a: A tableau of royal ritual power in the Theban Western Desert [in:] FRIEDMAN, R.F. & FISKE, P.N. (eds), Egypt at its Origins 3. Proceedings of the Third International Conference “Origin of the State. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt”, London, 27th July–1st August 2008. OLA 205. Leuven: 1151–1193. DARNELL, J.C., 2014. Theban Desert Road Survey 2: The rock shrine of Pahu, Gebel Akhenaton, and other rock inscriptions of the western Hinterland of Qamûla. YEP 1. New Haven. DARNELL, J.C., 2018. Homo pictus and painted men: Depictions and intimations of humans in the rock art of the Theban Western Desert [in:] HUYGE, D. & VAN NOTEN, F. (eds), What ever happened to the people? Humans and anthropomorphs in the rock art of Northern Africa. Brussels: 397–418. DARNELL, J.C.; with the assistance of DARNELL, D. and contributions by DARNELL, D., FRIEDMAN, R.F. & HENDRICKX, S., 2002. Theban Desert Road Survey in the Egyptian Western Desert 1, Gebel Tjauti rock inscriptions 1–45 and Wadi el-Hôl rock inscriptions 1–45. OIP 119. Chicago. DAUTHEVILLE, L., 1922. Danse d’autruche en l’honneur du pharaon. BIFAO 20: 225– 229. DAVIES, N. de G., 1905. The rock tombs of El Amarna 2: The tombs of Panehesy and Meryra II. ASE 14. London. DE MORGAN, J.; BOURIANT, U.; LEGRAIN, G. ; JÉQUIER, G. & BARSANTI, A., 1894. Catalogue des monuments et inscriptions de l’Égypte antique I  : Haute Égypte 1  : De la frontière de Nubie à Kom Ombos. Vienna. DEAN, W.R.J. & MACDONALD, I.A.W., 1981. A review of African birds feeding in association with mammals. Ostrich: Journal of African Ornithology 52: 135–155. DEEMING, D.C. & BUBIER, N.E., 1999. Behavior in natural and captive environments [in:] DEEMING, D.C. (ed.), The ostrich: Biology, production and health. Wallingford: 83–104. DEPAUW, M. & SMITH, M, 2004. Visions of ecstasy: Cultic revelry before the goddess Ai/Nehemanit: Ostraca Faculteit Letteren (K.U.Leuven) dem. 1–2 [in:] HOFFMANN, F. & THISSEN, H.-J. (eds), Res severa varum gaudium: Festschrift für KarlTheodor Zauzich zum 65. Geburtstag am 8. Juni 2004. Studia Demotica 6. Leuven: 67–93. DESROCHES-NOBLECOURT, C., 1995. Amours et fureurs de la lointaine  : Clés pour la compréhension de symboles égyptiens. Paris. DILS, P., 1998. La couronne d’Arsinoé II Philadelphe [in:] CLARYSSE, W.; SCHOORS, A. & WILLEMS, H. (eds), Egyptian religion: The last thousand years: Studies dedicated to the memory of Jan Quaegebeur 2. OLA 85. Leuven: 1299–1330. DOMINICUS, B., 1994. Gesten und Gebärden in Darstellungen des Alten und Mittleren Reiches. SAGA 10. Heidelberg. DUERDEN, J.E., 1908. The waltzing instinct in ostriches. Agricultural Journal of the Cape of Good Hope 32: 499–501. DUNBAR, J.H., 1941. The rock-pictures of Lower Nubia. Cairo. EDEL, E. & WENIG, S., 1974. Die Jahreszeitenreliefs aus dem Sonnenheiligtum des Königs Ne-User-Re. Berlin. EJSMOND, W., 2015. Burial of a local ruler at Gebelein? An interpretation of a group of Predynastic artefacts purchased by J.E. Quibell in 1900. GM 244: 39–56. EPIGRAPHIC SURVEY, 1963. Medinet Habu 6: The temple proper. Part 2: the Re chapel, the royal mortuary complex, and adjacent rooms, with miscellaneous material from the pylons, the forecourts, and the first hypostyle hall. OIP 84. Chicago.

302

J.C. DARNELL

EPIGRAPHIC SURVEY, 1994. Reliefs and inscriptions at Luxor Temple 1: The festival procession of Opet in the colonnade hall. OIP 112. Chicago. ERMAN, A., 1901. Hieratische Papyrus aus den königlichen Museen zu Berlin 1: Rituale für den Kultus des Amon und für den Kultus der Mut. Leipzig. EVANS, L., 2010. Animal behaviour in Egyptian art: Representations of the natural world in Memphite tomb scenes. ACE Studies 9. Oxford. EYRE, C., 2002. The Cannibal Hymn: A cultural and literary study. Liverpool. FARKAS, M.A. & HORVÁTH, Z, 2010. Petroglyphs – Catalogue [in:] LUFT, U. (ed.), Bi’r Minayh: Report on the survey 1998–2004. Studia Aegyptiaca. Series Maior 3. Budapest: 68–172. FATTOVICH, R., 1978. Two Predynastic decorated vases from Hammamiya (Upper Egypt). Oriens Antiquus 17: 199–202. FEUCHT, E., 1984. Verjüngung und Wiedergeburt. SAK 11: 401–417. FISCHER, H.G., 1960. The butcher Pḥ-r-nfr. Orientalia 29: 168–190. FISCHER, H.G., 1981. Three stelae from Naga ed-Deir [in:] SIMPSON, W.K. & DAVIS, W.M. (eds), Studies in ancient Egypt, the Aegean, and the Sudan: Essays in honor of Dows Dunham. Boston: 58–67. FLOOD, F.B., 2001. The great mosque of Damascus: Studies on the makings of an Umayyad visual culture. Islamic History and Civilization. Studies and Texts 33. Leiden. FÖRSTER, F., 2015. Der Abu Ballas-Weg: Eine pharaonische Karawanenroute durch die Libysche Wüste. Africa Praehistorica 28. Cologne. FRIEDMAN, R.F., 1994. Predynastic settlement ceramics of Upper Egypt: A comparative study of the ceramics of Hemamieh, Nagada, and Hierakonpolis. Berkeley (Unpubl. PhD dissertation, University of California). FRIEDMAN, R.F., 1995. Decorated ostrich egg [in:] PHILLIPS, T. (ed.), Africa: The art of a continent. London: 60. FRIEDMAN, R.F., 1996. The ceremonial centre at Hierakonpolis Locality HK29A [in:] SPENCER, A.J. (ed.), Aspects of early Egypt. London: 16–35. FRIEDMAN, R.F., 1999. Pots, pebbles and petroglyphs, part II: 1996 excavations at Hierakonpolis locality HK64 [in:] LEAHY, A. & TAIT, J. (eds), Studies on ancient Egypt in honour of H.S. Smith. EES OP 13. London: 101–108. FRIEDMAN, R.F., 2008. Excavating Egypt’s early kings: Recent discoveries in the elite cemetery at Hierakonpolis [in:] MIDANT-REYNES, B. & TRISTANT, Y. (eds); ROWLAND, J. & HENDRICKX, S. (coll.), Egypt at its Origins 2. Proceedings of the International Conference “Origin of the State. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt”, Toulouse (France), 5th–8th September 2005. OLA 172. Leuven: 1157– 1194. FRIEDMAN, R.F.; with contributions by MAISH, A.; FAHMY, A.G.; DARNELL, J.C. & JOHNSON, E.D., 1999. Preliminary report on field work at Hierakonpolis: 1996– 1998. JARCE 36: 1–35. GAUTHIER, H., 1931. Les fêtes du dieu Min. RAPH 2. Cairo. GAUTIER, A., 2001. The early to late Neolithic archaeofaunas from Nabta and Bir Kiseiba [in:] WENDORF, F.; SCHILD, R & Associates (eds), Holocene settlement of the Egyptian Sahara 1: The archaeology of Nabta Playa. New York: 609– 635. GEHLEN, B.; KINDERMANN, K.; LINSTÄDTER, J. & RIEMER, H., 2002. The Holocene occupation of the Eastern Sahara: Regional chronologies and supra-regional developments in four areas of the absolute desert [in:] JENNERSTRASSE 8 (ed.), Tides of the desert – Gezeiten der Wüste: Contributions to the archaeology and

DANCING WOMEN AND WALTZING OSTRICHES

303

environmental history of Africa in honour of Rudolph Kuper. Africa Praehistorica 14. Cologne: 85–116. GOEBS, K., 2015. “Receive the Henu – that you may shine forth in it like Akhty”: Feathers, horns and the cosmic symbolism of Egyptian composite crowns [in:] COPPENS, F.; JANÁK, J. & VYMAZALOVÁ, H. (eds), Royal versus divine authority: Acquisition, legitimization and renewal of power, Prague, June 26–28, 2013. 7. Symposion zur ägyptischen Königsideologie / 7th symposium on Egyptian royal ideology. Königtum, Staat und Gesellschaft früher Hochkulturen 4(4). Wiesbaden: 145–175. GOYON, G., 1957. Nouvelles inscriptions rupestres du Wadi Hammamat. Paris. GRAFF, G, 2007. À propos d’une brasseuse de bière prédynastique: Évolution iconographique et attestations archéologiques. JSSEA 34: 83–106. GRAFF, G., 2009a. Les peintures sur vases de Nagada I–Nagada II: Nouvelle approche sémiologique de l’iconographie prédynastique. EPM 6. Leuven. GRAFF, G., 2009b. Les représentations de femmes et de la plante nagadienne sur les vases Decorated-ware de Nagada II. CCdÉ 12: 33–69. GRAFF, G., 2016. The iconography on Decorated Ware [in:] GRAFF, G. & JIMÉNEZSERRANO, A. (eds), Préhistoire de l’écriture  : Iconographie, pratiques graphiques et émergence de l’écrit dans l’Égypte prédynastique. Aix-en-Provence: 47–61. GRAFF, G.; EYCKERMAN, M. & HENDRICKX, S., 2011. Architectural elements on decorated pottery and ritual presenting of desert animals [in:] FRIEDMAN, R.F. & FISKE, P.N. (eds), Egypt at its Origins 3. Proceedings of the Third International Conference “Origin of the State. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt”, London, 27th July–1st August 2008. OLA 205. Leuven: 437–465. GUGLIELMI, W., 1991. Die Göttin Mr.t, Entstehung und Verehrung einer Personifikation. PdÄ 7. Leiden. HASSAN, F. & GROSS, G.T., 1987. Resources and subsistence during the early Holocene at Siwa Oasis, northern Egypt [in:] CLOSE, A.E. (ed.), Prehistory of arid North Africa: Essays in honor of Fred Wendorf. Dallas: 85–103. HELLSTRÖM, P., 1970. The rock drawings. The Scandinavian Joint Expedition to Sudanese Nubia 1(2). Stockholm. HENDRICKX, S., 2000. Autruches et flamants : Les oiseaux représentés sur la céramique prédynastique de la catégorie Decorated. CCdÉ 1: 21–52. HENDRICKX, S., 2002. Bovines in Egyptian Predynastic and Early Dynastic iconography [in:] HASSAN, F.A. (ed.), Droughts, food and culture: Ecological change and food security in Africa’s later Prehistory. New York: 275–318. HENDRICKX, S., 2006. The dog, the Lycaon pictus and order over chaos in Predynastic Egypt [in:] KROEPER, K.; CHŁODNICKI, M. & KOBUSIEWICZ, M. (eds), Archaeology of early Northeastern Africa: In memory of Lech Krzyżaniak. SAA 9. Poznań: 723–749. HENDRICKX, S., 2010. L’iconographie de la chasse dans le contexte social prédynastique. Archéo-Nil 20: 106–133. HENDRICKX, S.; DARNELL, J.C.; GATTO, M.C & EYCKERMAN, M., 2012. Iconographic and palaeographic elements dating a Dynasty 0 rock art site at Nag el-Hamdulab (Aswan, Egypt) [in:] HUYGE, D.; VAN NOTEN, F. & SWINNE, D. (eds), The signs of which time? Chronological and palaeoenvironmental issues in the rock art of Northern Africa. Brussels: 295–326. HENDRICKX, S. & EYCKERMAN, M., 2010. Continuity and change in the visual representation of Predynastic Egypt [in:] RAFFAELE, E.; NUZZOLO, M. & INCORDINO, I. (eds), Recent discoveries and latest researches in Egyptology. Proceedings of the

304

J.C. DARNELL

First Neapolitan Congress of Egyptology (Naples, 18th–20th June 2008). Wiesbaden: 121–143. HENDRICKX, S. & EYCKERMAN, M., 2011. Tusks and tags: Between the hippopotamus and the Naqada plant [in:] FRIEDMAN, R.F. & FISKE, P.N. (eds), Egypt at its Origins 3. Proceedings of the Third International Conference “Origin of the State. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt”, London, 27th July–1st August 2008. OLA 205. Leuven: 497–570. HENDRICKX, S. & EYCKERMAN, M., 2012. Visual representation and state development in Egypt. Archéo-Nil 22: 23–72. HENDRICKX, S.; RIEMER, H.; FÖRSTER, F. & DARNELL, J.C., 2009. Late Predynastic/ Early Dynastic rock art scenes of Barbary sheep hunting in Egypt’s Western Desert: From capturing wild animals to the women of the “Acacia House” [in:] RIEMER, H.; FÖRSTER, F.; HERB, M. & PÖLLATH, N. (eds), Desert animals in the Eastern Sahara: Status, economic significance, and cultural reflection in antiquity. Proceedings of an Interdisciplinary ACACIA Workshop held at the University of Cologne (December 14–15, 2007). Colloquium Africanum 4. Cologne: 189–244. HICKS, K.D., 1992. Ostrich reproduction [in:] FOWLER, M.E. (ed.), Zoo and wild animal medicine: Current therapy 3. Philadelphia: 203–206. HUSSON, C., 1977. L’offrande du miroir dans les temples égyptiens de l’époque grécoromaine. Lyon. HUYGE, D., 1999. Bearers of the sun. Discovering Archaeology 1(1): 48–58. HUYGE, D., 2002. Cosmology, ideology and personal religious practice in ancient Egyptian rock art [in:] FRIEDMAN, R.F. (ed.), Egypt and Nubia: Gifts of the desert. London: 192–206. HUYGE, D., 2005. The fish hunters of El-Hosh: Rock art research and archaeological investigations in Upper Egypt (1998–2004). Academie royale des Sciences d’Outre-Mer. Bulletin des Séances / Koninklijke Academie voor Overzeese Wetenschappen. Mededelingen der Zittingen 51(3): 231–249. HUYGE, D. & DARNELL, J.C., 2010. Once more British Museum EA35324. GM 225: 71–74. IKRAM, S., 1995. Choice cuts: Meat production in ancient Egypt. OLA 69. Leuven. JENSEN, V., 2017. Predynastic precursors to the Festival of Drunkenness: Beer, climate change, cow-goddesses, and the ideology of kingship [in:] ROSATI, G. & GUIDOTTI, M.C. (eds), Proceedings of the XI International Congress of Egyptologists. Florence Egyptian Museum. Florence, 23–30 August 2015. Archaeopress Egyptology 19. Oxford: 296–302. KAMPP-SEYFRIED, F., 2003. “Es lebt Re-Harachte, der im Lichtland jubelt”: Ein Glaubensbekenntnis ohne Worte aus der Nachamarnazeit [in:] GUKSCH, H; HOFMANN, E. & BOMMAS, M. (eds), Grab und Totenkult im alten Ägypten. Munich: 118–127. KEIMER, L., 1948. Remarques sur le tatouage dans l’Égypte ancienne. MIE 53. Cairo. KENNOU SEBEI, S.; BERGAOUI, R.; BEN HAMOUDA, M. & COOPER, R.G., 2009. Wild ostrich (Struthio camelus australis) reproduction in Orbata, a nature reserve in Tunisia. Tropical animal health and production 41: 1427–1438. KESSLER, D., 1988. Der satirisch-erotische Papyrus Turin 55001 und das “Verbringen des schönen Tages”. SAK 15: 171–196. KINNEY, L., 2008. Dance, dancers and the performance cohort in the Old Kingdom. BAR. International Series 1809. Oxford. KINNEY, L., 2012. Butcher queens of the Fourth and Fifth Dynasties: Their association with the Acacia House and the role of butchers as ritual performers [in:] EVANS, L.

DANCING WOMEN AND WALTZING OSTRICHES

305

(ed.), Ancient Memphis: ‘Enduring is the Perfection’. Proceedings of the International Conference held at Macquarie University, Sydney on August 14–15, 2008. OLA 214. Leuven: 253–266. KLOTZ, D., 2012. Caesar in the city of Amun: Egyptian temple construction and theology in Roman Thebes. MRE 15. Turnhout. KUENTZ, C., 1924. La danse des autriches. BIFAO 23: 85–88. LAMBRECHTS, H., 2004. Reproductive efficiency of ostriches (Struthio camelus). Bloemfontein (Unpubl. PhD dissertation, University of the Free State Bloemfontein). LEBLANC, M.J., 2011. “In accordance with the documents of ancient times”: The origins, development, and significance of the ancient Egyptian Sed Festival (Jubilee Festival). New Haven (Unpubl. PhD dissertation, Yale University). LINSEELE, V. & VAN NEER, W., 2009. Exploitation of desert and other wild game in ancient Egypt: The archaeozoological evidence from the Nile Valley [in:] RIEMER, H.; FÖRSTER, F.; HERB, M. & PÖLLATH, N. (eds), Desert animals in the Eastern Sahara: Status, economic significance, and cultural reflection in antiquity. Proceedings of an Interdisciplinary ACACIA Workshop held at the University of Cologne (December 14–15, 2007). Colloquium Africanum 4. Cologne: 47–78. LINSEELE, V.; VAN NEER, W. & FRIEDMAN, R.F., 2009. Special animals from a special place? The fauna from HK29A at Predynastic Hierakonpolis. JARCE 45: 105–136. LUFT, U., 1992. Die chronologische Fixierung des ägyptischen Mittleren Reiches nach dem Tempelarchiv von Illahun. Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-historische Klasse. Sitzungsberichte 598; Veröffentlichungen der Ägyptischen Kommission 2. Vienna. MACLEAN, G.L., 1996. Ecophysiology of desert birds. Adaptations of desert organisms. Berlin. MADEKUROZWA, M.-C.; CHABVEPI, T.S.; MATEMA, S. & TEERDS, K.J., 2002. Relationship between seasonal changes in spermatogenesis in the juvenile ostrich (Struthio camelus) and the presence of the LH receptor and 3β-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase. Reproduction 123: 735–742. MANNICHE, L., 2003. The so-called scenes of daily life in private tombs of the Eighteenth Dynasty: An overview [in:] STRUDWICK, N. & TAYLOR, J.H. (eds), The Theban necropolis: Past, present and future. London: 42–45. MARES, M.A. (ed.), 1999. Encyclopedia of deserts. Norman. MARTIN, A., 1891. Home life on an ostrich farm. New York. MARTIN, G.T., 1989. Royal tomb at el-‘Amarna 2: The reliefs, inscriptions, and architecture. London. MCHUGH, W.P., 1990. Implications of a decorated Predynastic terracotta model for Saharan Neolithic influence in the Nile Valley. JNES 49: 265–280. MEEKS, D., 1998. Année lexicographique: Égypte ancienne 2. Paris. MENU, B., 2004. Captifs de guerre et dépendance rurale dans l’Égypte du Nouvel Empire [in:] MENU, B. (ed.), La dépendance rurale dans l’Antiquité égyptienne et proche-orientale. BdÉ 140. Cairo: 187–209. MICHAILIDES, G., 1969. Nouveaux monuments sur la danse des autriches. Cahiers d’histoire égyptienne 11: 15–17. MORROW, M.; MORROW, M; JUDD, T. & PHILLIPSON, G. (eds), 2010. Desert RATS: Rock art topographical survey in Egypt’s Eastern Desert: Site catalogue. BAR. International Series 2166. Oxford. MUIR, A.H. & FRIEDMAN, R.F., 2011. Analysis of Predynastic ostrich eggshells from Hierakonpolis and beyond [in:] FRIEDMAN, R.F. & FISKE, P.N. (eds), Egypt at its Origins 3. Proceedings of the Third International Conference “Origin of the

306

J.C. DARNELL

State. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt”, London, 27th July–1st August 2008. OLA 205. Leuven: 571–593. NILSSON, M., 2012. The crown of Arsinoë II: The creation of an imagery of authority. Oxford. NORD, D., 1981. The term ḫnr: ‘Harem’ or ‘musical performers’? [in:] SIMPSON, W.K. & DAVIS, W.M. (eds), Studies in ancient Egypt, the Aegean, and the Sudan: Essays in honor of Dows Dunham. Boston: 137–145. ONSTINE, S.L., 2005. The role of the chantress (šmʻyt) in ancient Egypt. BAR. International Series 1401. Oxford. OTTO, E., 1950. An ancient Egyptian hunting ritual. JNES 9: 164–177. OTTO, E., 1960. Das ägyptische Mundöffnungsritual. ÄA 3. Wiesbaden. PATCH, D.C., 2011. Dawn of Egyptian art. New York. PAYNE, J.C., 2000. Catalogue of the Predynastic Egyptian collection in the Ashmolean Museum: With addenda. Oxford. PELLAT, C., 1986. Cinq calendriers égyptiens. Textes arabes et études islamiques 26. Cairo. PÖLLATH, N., 2009. The Prehistoric gamebag: The archaeozoological record from sites in the Western Desert of Egypt [in:] RIEMER, H.; FÖRSTER, F.; HERB, M. & PÖLLATH, N. (eds), Desert animals in the Eastern Sahara: Status, economic significance, and cultural reflection in antiquity. Proceedings of an Interdisciplinary ACACIA Workshop held at the University of Cologne (December 14–15, 2007). Colloquium Africanum 4. Cologne: 79–108. QUAEGEBEUR, J. & RAMMANT-PEETERS, A., 1982. Le pyramidion d’un « danseur en chef » de Bastet [in:] QUAEGEBEUR, J. (ed.), Studia Paulo Naster oblata 2: Orientalia antiqua. OLA 13. Leuven: 179–206. ROTH, A.M., 1992. The psš-kf and the “opening of the mouth” ceremony: A ritual of birth and rebirth. JEA 78: 113–147. SAUER, E.G.F., 1969. Interspecific behavior of the South African Ostrich. Ostrich 40 Suppl. 1: 91–103. SETHE, K., 1908. Die altaegyptischen Pyramidentexte nach den Papierabdrücken und Photographien des Berliner Museums 1. Leipzig. SEYFRIED, K.-J., 2019. Die Jahreszeitenreliefs aus dem Sonnenheiligtum des Königs Ne-User-Re. Staatliche Museen zu Berlin. Mitteilungen aus der ägyptischen Sammlung 9. Berlin. SHANAWANY, M.M. & DINGLE, J.H., 1999. Ostrich production systems. FAO Animal Production and Health Paper 144. Rome. SHIMY, M., 1977. Graffiti de la montagne thébaine 3, fascicule 7. Centre d’étude et de documentation sur l’ancienne Égypte. Collection scientifique. Cairo. SMITH, D.A., 2003. Ratites: Tinamiformes (Tinamous) and Struthioniformes, Rheiiformes, Cassuariformes (ostriches, emus, cassowaries, and kiwis) [in:] FOWLER, M.E. & MILLER, R.E. (eds), Zoo and wild animal medicine, 5th edition. St. Louis: 94–102. SOLEY, J.T. & GROENEWALD, H.B., 1999. Reproduction [in:] DEEMING, D.C. (ed.), The ostrich: Biology, production and health. Wallingford: 129–158. STRANDBERG, A., 2009. The gazelle in ancient Egyptian art: Image and meaning. USE 6. Uppsala. SUKOVÁ, L., 2011. The rock art of Lower Nubia (Czechoslovak Concession). Prague. TEETER, E., 2010. Feathers [in:] WENDRICH, W. (ed.), UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology, Los Angeles. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/4737m1mb [accessed 01-042020].

DANCING WOMEN AND WALTZING OSTRICHES

307

TE VELDE, H., 1988. Some remarks on the mysterious language of the baboons [in:] KAMSTRA, J.H.; MILDE, H. & WAGTENDONK, K. (eds), Funerary symbols and religion: Essays dedicated to professor M.S.H.G. Heerma van Voss on the occasion of his retirement from the chair of the history of ancient religions at the University of Amsterdam. Kampen: 129–137. VÁHALA, F. & ČERVÍČEK, P., 1999. Katalog der Felsbilder aus der tschechoslowakischen Konzession in Nubien. Prague. VANDEKERCKHOVE, H. & MÜLLER-WOLLERMANN, R., 2001. Elkab 6: Die Felsinschriften des Wadi Hilâl. Turnhout. VANHULLE, D., 2016. Le bateau pré- et protodynastique dans l’iconographie et l’archéologie égyptiennes  : Pour une étude analytique et sémiologique de la navigation au 4e millénaire avant J.-C. Brussels (Unpubl. PhD dissertation, Université Libre de Bruxelles). VAN NIEKERK, J.H., 2010. Social organization of a flock of Helmeted Guineafowl (Numida meleagris) at the Krugersdorp Game Reserve, South Africa. Chinese Birds 2010(1): 22–29. VERHOEVEN, U., 2009. Die wie Kraniche balzen: Männerphantasien zur Zeit Amenhoteps III. in Assiut [in:] KESSLER, D.; SCHULZ, R.; ULLMANN, M.; VERBOVSEK, A. & WIMMER, S. (eds), Texte – Theben – Tonfragmente: Festschrift für Günter Burkard. ÄAT 76. Wiesbaden: 434–441. VERHOEVEN, U. & DERCHAIN, P., 1985. Le voyage de la déesse libyque: Ein Text aus dem “Mutritual” des Pap. Berlin 3053. Rites Égyptiens 5. Brussels. VON LIEVEN, A., 2003. Wein, Weib, und Gesang: Rituale für die Gefährliche Göttin [in:] METZNER-NEBELSICK, C. (ed.), Rituale in der Vorgeschichte, Antike und Gegenwart: Studien zur Vorderasiatischen, Prähistorischen und Klassischen Archäologie, Ägyptologie, Alten Geschichte, Theologie und Religionswissenschaft; Interdisziplinäre Tagung vom 1.–2. Februar 2002 an der Freien Universität Berlin. Rahden: 47–55. WARD, W.A., 1986. Essays on feminine titles of the Middle Kingdom and related subjects. Beirut. WENDORF, F.; SCHILD, R. & CLOSE, A.E., 1984. Cattle-keepers of the Eastern Sahara: The Neolithic of Bir Kiseiba. Dallas. WENIG, S., 1966. Die Jahreszeitenreliefs aus dem Sonnenheiligtum des Königs NeUser-Re. Staatliche Museen zu Berlin. Ägyptisches Museum. Kleine Schriften 11. Berlin. WETTERSTROM, W., 1993. Foraging and farming in Egypt: The transition from hunting and gathering to horticulture in the Nile Valley [in:] SHAW, T.; SINCLAIR, P.; ANDAH, B. & OKPOKO, A. (eds), The archaeology of Africa. London: 165–226. WILLEMS, H., 1996. The coffin of Heqata (Cairo JdE 36418): A case study of Egyptian funerary culture of the early Middle Kingdom. OLA 70. Leuven. WILLIAMS, B.B. & LOGAN, T.J., 1987. The Metropolitan Museum knife handle and aspects of pharaonic imagery before Narmer. JNES 46: 245–286. WINKLER, H.A., 1938. Rock-drawings of southern Upper Egypt 1: Sir Robert Mond Desert Expedition: Season 1936–1937: Preliminary report. ASE 26. London.

CHAOS EN BEHEERSING: THE LIFE OF HENRI ASSELBERGHS AND HIS FRIENDSHIP WITH JEAN CAPART MARLEEN DE MEYER KU Leuven, Faculty of Arts, Department of Archaeology, Leuven, Belgium Netherlands-Flemish Institute in Cairo, Cairo, Egypt

Je moet es naar die meneer Asselberghs gaan, die is zijn hele leven directeur van het Spoorwegmuseum geweest en tegelijk is hij een vermaard egyptoloog. Is dàt niet wat voor je? Piramiden en rookpluimen?1 In 1961 Henri Asselberghs published a pioneering study on the concepts of chaos versus control in Predynastic and Early Dynastic iconography. This book appears to have come out of the blue, with Asselberghs not having published on this early period of Egyptian history before, and him not being a professional Egyptologist, but rather the director of the Railway Museum in Utrecht, the Netherlands. Based on archival sources, the life and career of Asselberghs are reconstructed, which form the context for the genesis of his Chaos en beheersing. Special attention is paid to Asselberghs’ relationship with Belgian Egyptologist Jean Capart, with whom he struck up a friendship that would last a quarter century.

Chaos en beheersing. Chaos and control. These are probably the only Dutch words that sound familiar to every researcher dealing with Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt, regardless what their native tongue may be. In 1961 Henri Asselberghs (1887–1980; Fig. 1) published his magnum opus on the art and iconography of early Egypt under this title, which ranks among the few studies in Dutch that held their ground in the world of Egyptology (Asselberghs 1961; see also the comments by Hendrickx 1996: 412).2 Yet 1 “You should go see this Mr. Asselberghs, he has been the director of the Railway Museum his entire life and, at the same time, he is a renowned Egyptologist. Is that not something for you? Pyramids and smoke plumes?” (Dendermonde, M., 1958. Tussen koningsgraven en rookpluimen: Egyptologie, de grote liefde van ex-spoorman Henri Asselberghs, Wekelijks bijvoegsel van Het Parool 18 October 1958, vol. 18, no. 4225: 1). Most of the cited newspaper articles can be consulted online at www.delpher.nl. All quoted passages in this article are rendered in their original language, but an English translation of the Dutch passages is provided in the footnotes. Transcripts of letters are reproduced exactly as found, including any possible typographical or grammatical errors in the original texts. 2 While Asselberghs’ analysis is now often inevitably outdated, the book is still used for its catalogue and extensive list of illustrations, as was commented upon recently by Ludwig Morenz “Einen bis heute wichtigen Überblick zu den Bildquellen mit guten Fotografien bietet Henri Asselberghs, Chaos en Beheersing, 1961” (Morenz 2014: 99).

310

M. DE MEYER

Asselberghs was not a ‘professional’ Egyptologist: he never held a post in the field, and apart from Chaos en beheersing, most of his other Egyptological publications have fallen by the scholarly wayside.3 Chaos en beheersing. Two words that could equally apply to the jubilant of this volume, who always works methodically despite an appearance of chaos. My first encounter with Stan dates back to 1995, when he taught an overview course at KU Leuven on pottery from the Predynastic to the Roman Period. Being a young student at the time and not familiar with the ‘ins and outs’ of ancient Egyptian ceramics, my memories of that course are more in the vein of chaos than control. Since then, our paths have kept on crossing. This happened mainly in the excavation house at Dayr al-Barshā, where Stan not only joined us on many occasions, but where he also joined many a potsherd. On paper, we collaborated on royal beards and bovine iconography (Hendrickx et al. 2015), and it gives me great pleasure to dedicate this contribution to him, not in the least because he also likes to dabble in local railway history (Hendrickx 2019). Asselberghs and Hendrickx have a thing or two in common as well. Apart from their obvious mutual interest in Predynastic and Early Dynastic iconography, both held a day job outside of Egyptology, while at the same time publishing in the professional circuit. While Hendrickx has formed the minds of many a young art student with an above average focus on Egyptian archaeology at the PXL Hasselt, Asselberghs was the director of the Spoorwegmuseum (Railway Museum) in Utrecht, the Netherlands. Both men also did groundbreaking work on the concepts of chaos versus control in early Egyptian art, for which Brémont4 recently named them together in one sentence (see e.g. also Baines 1993: 63; Linseele et al. 2007: 2087; Raffaele 2010: n. 13, 43, 60; Vanhulle 2018: 174, n. 18). Hendrickx himself recognises Asselberghs’ at the time pioneering insights in this regard when he writes: “Similar to the representations of dogs, the Lycaon does not actually hunt on the palettes. He is nevertheless to be considered the “controlling” element on the palettes, especially compared to the chaotic animal world on the palettes themselves, for which the Hierakonpolis palette is the most obvious example. The symbolic aspects of this have already been recognised in the past, with a first major breakthrough by Asselberghs (1961: 166–192)…” (Hendrickx 2006: 740).

3 He mainly published in JEOL and always in Dutch; see the bibliography of Asselberghs attached at the end of this article. A bibliography of Asselberghs up until 1935 is included in van Wijngaarden 1935: 20. 4 “Building on such pioneer works, these concepts have then been reasserted in a number of major Egyptological works that include Henri Asselberghs, Krzysztof Ciałowicz, and Stan Hendrickx in Predynastic studies, and, for Dynastic Egypt, Barry Kemp or Jan Assmann.” (Brémont 2018: 1–3).

THE LIFE OF HENRI ASSELBERGHS

311

Fig. 1. Portrait of Henri Asselberghs taken in Egypt in 1930 at Hollandia Studio, Cairo (© Francis Asselberghs).

But who was Henri Asselberghs? Little about him is known, and apart from a short in memoriam published in Dutch after his death on 21 April 1980, at age 93 (Heerma Van Voss 1980),5 he vanished without a trace in the Egyptological literature. However, in the framework of the EOS Project ‘Pyramids and Progress: Belgian expansionism and the making of Egyptology, 1830–1952,’ two files of correspondence between Henri Asselberghs and Jean Capart surfaced in the archives of the Royal Museums of Art and History in Brussels (RMAH) and the Fondation Égyptologique Reine Élisabeth (FÉRÉ). These letters document a long-lasting friendship and mentorship between Capart and Asselberghs, which formed the starting point to reconstruct some of Asselberghs’ life and career in Egyptology. Additional archival documents—some of which came into the possession of the author through a sale by a Dutch antiquarian bookstore and which are referred to here as ‘private collection’—and conversations with several of his grandchildren flesh out the story. In particular, I would 5

Heerma van Voss also provided the information on Asselberghs in Bierbrier 2019: 23.

312

M. DE MEYER

like to warmly thank Christophe, Francis, Brigitte, and Victor Asselberghs for their willingness and enthusiasm to share stories and photographs of their grandfather with me. Destined for trains, but with a passion for Egypt Johannes Jacobus Matheus Henri Marie Asselberghs,6 as was his full name (also written in Dutch as Jan Jacob Matheus Hendrik Maria), was born on 19 February 1887 in the station house of Grubbenvorst-Lottum7 (Fig. 2), where his father Petrus Johannes Victor Asselberghs was the first station manager. Trains and railways were thus ingrained in Henri since childhood, but his father had other ambitions for him. He sent his son to grammar school in Venlo, a two hour walk along the railway tracks each way, in hopes of steering him into a different direction. It was to no avail, and after several jobs in the Dutch railways, Henri was appointed in 1927 as the first director of the newly established Spoorwegmuseum in Utrecht (Dendermonde 1958). This position gave him the opportunity to combine his passion for trains with that for historical research, which he used to build up the museum’s collection8 and publish about it.9 He remained in this function until his retirement on 31 July 1953, having considerably helped the museum grow into the popular attraction that it still is today (www.spoorwegmuseum.nl). This was recognized in 1954 when Queen Juliana granted him the silver Erepenning voor Verdiensten jegens Openbare Verzamelingen (Honorary Medal for Merits toward Museum Collections), also known as the Museummedaille, one of the oldest distinctions in the Netherlands.10 Asselberghs received this medal on 5 November 1954 during the inauguration ceremony of the Spoorwegmuseum at its new location in the Maliebaanstation in Utrecht ([Anon.] 1954). In 1952

6

Asselberghs spells his own name as Asselbergs, without an h, up until about 1930. From 1930 onwards the h is added and his name changes into Asselberghs, also on official letterhead. The reason for this name change is not known. For the sake of consistency, his name is spelled as Asselberghs throughout this article, since this seems to be the official spelling. It is also how it already occurs on his marriage certificate of 1918 (https://www.openarch.nl/rat:17db93a4-386511e0-bcd1-8edf61960649, accessed 28/06/2020). 7 This station in the province of Limburg was built in 1883 and remained in use until 1938. In 1920 it was renamed to Lottum station, and the building was demolished in 1973. 8 “The collection, which at the time of foundation consisted of a small number of objects, has in the course of years grown, by the unremitting toil and flair of the Director, Henri Asselberghs, to be an imposing display giving a clear picture of the growth of railways in Holland” (De Bruyn 1957). 9 A select bibliography of Asselberghs’ publications on the history of the Dutch railways can be consulted on p. 361–362. 10 https://www.vriendennsm.nl/nl/historie/68-historie-slides/43-opening-nieuw-spoorwegmuseum-1953 (accessed 10/06/2020).

THE LIFE OF HENRI ASSELBERGHS

313

Fig. 2. Henri Asselberghs photographed at the Lottum train station in 1959, where he was born more than seventy years before (© Francis Asselberghs).

Asselberghs had already been decorated as Ridder in de Orde van OranjeNassau (Knight in the Order of Orange-Nassau).11 Asselberghs remained active in the museum as an advisor for several years after his retirement, resulting in his official farewell dinner only being celebrated on 7 January 1960 (Figs 3–4). One year later, on 1 February 1961, his daughter Marie-Anne (nicknamed Mimi) became the director of the Spoorwegmuseum.12 While she had already joined the museum staff as her father’s assistant in 1937 at age 17, this did not mean that she necessarily wanted to follow in his footsteps. “Maar ja, het was crisis! Je had niet veel te kiezen,”13 she later stated in an interview (Vlietstra 1984). In fact, it was only at the farewell dinner for her father in 1960 that she first heard what was in store for her, when J. Lohmann, the President-Director of the Nederlandse Spoorwegen (Fig. 3), told Henri that he had two surprises for him: one was a gift (a wallet), and the other was the news that his daughter would become director the following year after the retirement of De Bruyn (Lammers 1975). Nobody had asked her, but she did not refuse, and just like her father she held on to her post until her 11

https://www.nationaalarchief.nl/onderzoeken/index/nt00435/16ebd056-d2d8-11e8-828a00505693001d (accessed 14/06/2020). 12 In between the directorships of Henri and Marie-Anne, two brief terms were filled by W.R. Blankert (1 August 1953–31 May 1955) and F.F. De Bruyn (1 June 1955–31 January 1961) (personal communication, Tuur Verdonck, Spoorwegmuseum Utrecht). 13 “But well, it was crisis! You did not have much to choose.”

314

M. DE MEYER

retirement in 1984. In 2013 she passed away at age 93, also just like her father (Van Steenbergen 2013; Weterings 2018). The Asselberghs family thus put its stamp on the Dutch railway museum for over half a century. While the Spoorwegmuseum was Henri Asselberghs’ daytime job, his evenings were devoted to Egyptology. In an interview with him that appeared in Dutch newspaper Het Parool on 18 October 1958 (Fig. 5), when he was 71 years old, Asselberghs reflects on his career and his life (Dendermonde 1958).

Fig. 3. Group portrait at the farewell dinner for Henri Asselberghs on 7 January 1960 at Huize Molenaar (Korte Nieuwstraat 6) in Utrecht. From left to right: M.-A. Asselberghs, H.G.J. Schelling (architect), J.J.M.H.M. Asselberghs, J. Lohmann (President-Director of the Nederlandse Spoorwegen), L.M.J. Asselberghs-Verhulsen, D.F. Lunsingh Scheurleer, F.F. de Bruyn (Director of the Spoorwegmuseum since 1 August 1953), A.D. de Pater, and J.D.M. Bardet (© Collection Spoorwegmuseum, Utrecht; photo nr. 15117).

THE LIFE OF HENRI ASSELBERGHS

315

Without any surviving personal diaries or other autobiographical documents, this interview offers a rare first-hand glimpse into his experiences. He relates how his fascination for history in general already started at a young age. Then one day, in the early days of World War I, when the German mark was devaluating, he managed to buy a copy of the German edition of Breasted’s A History of Egypt (1905) on the cheap (Breasted 1910), forming the start of his lifelong passion for Egypt.

Fig. 4. Menu of the farewell dinner for Henri Asselberghs on 7 January 1960, honouring his double passion in railways and ancient Egypt by depicting the sphinx alongside a locomotive (© Collection Spoorwegmuseum, Utrecht).

316

M. DE MEYER

Fig. 5. DENDERMONDE, M., 1958. Tussen koningsgraven en rookpluimen: Egyptologie, de grote liefde van ex-spoorman Henri Asselberghs. Wekelijks Bijvoegsel van Het Parool 18 October 1958, vol. 18, no. 4225: 1.

THE LIFE OF HENRI ASSELBERGHS

317

Asselberghs as a family man Before diving into Asselberghs’ Egyptological activities, a brief word about his personal life is in order. On 1 July 1918, Asselberghs married Ludovica (Louise) Maria Joanna Verhulsen (1896–1977), a Belgian born in Antwerp (Fig. 6). Together they had five children: the eldest was daughter Marie-Anne (1919– 2013), followed by three sons: Victor (1920–1973), Erik (1923–1971), and Edgar (1925–2005) (Fig. 7). Their last child, born much later, was again a daughter, named Caecilia Maria Johanna (1939–2012), who suffered from epilepsy after a juvenile illness (Fig. 8). Marie-Anne spent her life looking after her younger sister Caecilia, and neither sister ever married. The three sons were all married and had children of their own. While originally from Lottum in the Netherlands, Asselberghs moved to Belgium and lived for several years in Essen (old spelling: Esschen), Handelsstraat 3, close to the Dutch-Belgian border. This address is perhaps not coincidentally located right across the railway station of Essen. In 1926 the family moved back to the Netherlands, where they lived in the Potgieterstraat 40 in Utrecht. They moved one last time, at the end of 1935, to the Prof. Leonard Fuchslaan 6, also in Utrecht, which remained Asselberghs’ home until his death. It is there that in a room upstairs he had his study, where he would retreat into the world of Egyptology after hours.

Fig. 6. Henri Asselberghs and his wife Ludovica (Louise) Verhulsen, possibly taken on the occasion of their engagement (© Christophe Asselberghs).

318

M. DE MEYER

Fig. 7. The Asselberghs family in Essen, 31 May 1925. From left to right: Henri, Erik, Marie-Anne, Victor, and Louise holding baby Edgar (© Francis & Christophe Asselberghs).

Fig. 8. The Asselberghs family tree.

The following biographical sketch of Henri Asselberghs inevitably remains riddled with lacunae, to a large extent due to the unfortunate fact that his personal archive and library were dispersed and partially auctioned off when the family house was emptied and sold after the death of his daughter Marie-Anne in 2013.14 Only a small portion of it remains with the family and with the author. 14 The auction house was Peerdeman in Utrecht, but no records of the sale survive (personal communication, Herman Peerdeman).

THE LIFE OF HENRI ASSELBERGHS

319

DOG, EES, and DMG The earliest trace of Asselberghs setting foot in the professional world of Egyptology is with his membership of the Deutsche Orient-Gesellschaft (DOG), which he initiated in 1921 as is deduced from membership cards and correspondence with the DOG (private collection; Fig. 9). Unfortunately, no correspondence of Asselberghs has been preserved in the archives of the DOG, which suffered damage during World War II,15 but a few exchanges with Bruno Güterbock16 are preserved in the private collection. It is clear that Asselberghs became a member of the DOG because of his interest in the Amarna Period and his eagerness to read about the work of the DOG at that site. While the exchanges with Güterbock are generally of a purely professional nature, comments on the state of the world sometimes inevitably sneak in, for instance, when Güterbock writes: “Für Ihre guten Wünsche für mein unglückliches Vaterland sage ich Ihnen besonderen Dank. Gerade in diesen trüben Tagen tut jede freundliche Stimme aus dem Auslande dem Herzen eines Deutschen wohl!”17

Güterbock was probably referring to the occupation of the Ruhr, which France and Belgium initiated during that month in response to Germany not fulfilling the reparations agreement after WWI. The year reports of the DOG show that Asselberghs remained a paying member until 1940, when WWII forced him to renounce most of his memberships (cf. infra). In 1959 he renewed his DOG membership, intending it to be for only that year as is clear from a letter he wrote on 10 August 1960 to Kurt Hartmann, the treasurer of the DOG. Conceding to one more year as a paying member in 1960, he wrote: “Alles geht leider zu Ende. Innerhalb dieser Woche werde ich Ihnen noch einmal den gewünschten Betrag durch Postanweisung übermachen. Das muss dann unwiderruflich der Schluss sein.”18

In 1922 Asselberghs also initiated his membership of the Egypt Exploration Society (EES), as is clear from its Annual Report of that year (Egypt Exploration Society 1923: 22). He kept this running for four years but did not renew in 1926. In 1934, however, he picked up the membership again, possibly because of the EES’ work at Amarna, which at that point was to a large extent funded by the Brooklyn Museum at the initiative of its then advisory curator of the Egyptian Department, Jean Capart. In 1940 he was forced to give up this membership again due to the outbreak of WWII (cf. infra), but the 1945 Annual 15 16 17 18

Personal communication by Joachim Marzahn (09/09/2018), whom I thank for verifying this. For Bruno Güterbock and his thirty year career at the DOG, see Raulwing 2020. Bruno Güterbock to Henri Asselberghs, 12 January 1923: private collection. Henri Asselberghs to Kurt Hartmann, 10 August 1960: private collection.

320

M. DE MEYER

Report mentions him on p. 8: “Additions to the Library include books and pamphlets presented or sent for review and war-time arrears of Continental exchanges. The thanks of the Committee are due to the following: Mr. Henri Asselberghs…”. After the war, he joined the EES for two more stretches, between 1947–1950 and 1955–1958. In either 1922 or 1923 Asselberghs furthermore became a member (#2162) of the Deutsche Morgenländische Gesellschaft (DMG), as is evident from the Mitgliedernachrichten ([Anon.] 1923: XV). He continues to be mentioned as a member in several further Mitgliedernachrichten (1926, 1930, 1931, and 1936), but is never listed among the Ausgetretenen. However, the DMG understandably had problems during and after WWII ([Anon.] 1945–1950) and it is suspected that Asselberghs terminated his membership at the start of the war, as he also did with his other memberships. Translating Tutankhamun Like with many an Egyptological calling, Tutankhamun had something to do with Asselberghs’ growing interest in Egyptology. It is here that we enter the correspondence between Capart and Asselberghs kept in the archives of the

Fig. 9. DOG membership card of Henri Asselberghs for the year 1921 (private collection).

THE LIFE OF HENRI ASSELBERGHS

321

RMAH. The discovery of the tomb of Tutankhamun by Howard Carter in November 1922 prompted Belgian Queen Elisabeth to travel to Egypt in February 1923 to be present at the opening of Tutankhamun’s burial chamber (Bruffaerts 1998). Belgian Egyptologist Jean Capart was her guide, who also reported in detail to various journals and newspapers worldwide about their most unusual journey. These letters were collected in Capart 1923 (published by Vromant & Cie in Brussels, 121 p., 12 pl.), which almost instantly became a worldwide bestseller. Undoubtedly cashing in on the Tutmania that engulfed much of the world since the discovery of the intact royal tomb, this book was quickly translated into several languages.19 The first Dutch translation of the book appeared already in 1924 and was produced by none other than Henri Asselberghs (Capart 1924, published by Van Munster’s Uitgevers-Maatschappij in Amsterdam, 147 p., 16 pl.).20 This edition includes four extra plates compared to the original French edition, as well as three extra letters sent by Marcelle Werbrouck21 to Belgian newspaper Le Soir. Asselberghs wrote a foreword, in the stately archaic Dutch that he mastered so well, and that is typical for all of his publications. This small sample may serve as an illustration: “Toen de telegrafen nog ’t eerste nieuws van Carter’s ontdekking over de wereld rondtikten heeft de groote Koningin der Belgen den beroemden hoogleeraar en onvermoeiden werker in ’t Cinquantenaire-Museum te Brussel, bij zich ontboden en hem gevraagd Haar gids te zijn naar Bibân-el-Molûk. Van deze unieke daad is dit boek de vrucht.”22 (Capart 1924: 8–9).

Asselberghs and Capart The first contact between Capart and Asselberghs goes back to 1922, at least from what can be gathered in archival sources. On 7 November 1922 Asselberghs thanked Capart for his invitation to the exhibition on Champollion at the Cinquantenaire Museum (Capart 1922), and replied that he would come to Brussels to visit the exhibition on 12 November.23 At that time, Asselberghs was living in Essen, in the province of Antwerp, and thus not in the Netherlands. 19 An overview of the translations is presented by J.-M. Bruffaerts in the preface of the recent re-edition (Capart 2018: 16). 20 An entirely revised version of Tout-Ankh-Amon appeared in 1943, which was translated into Dutch by B. Lindekens in 1944 (see Bruffaerts in Capart 2018: 23–28). 21 For a biographical sketch of Marcelle Werbrouck, see Bruffaerts 2018. 22 “When the telegraphs announced the first news of Carter’s discovery to the world, the great Queen of the Belgians summoned the famous professor and tireless worker at the Cinquantenaire Museum in Brussels and asked him to be her guide to Bibân-el-Molûk. This book is the fruit of this unique act.” 23 Correspondence between Asselberghs and Capart in the archive of the RMAH. Up until the end of 1924 this is kept in a file with Capart’s personal correspondence (folder H. Asselberghs), while letters between 1926 and 1959 are kept in the archive of the Fondation Égyptologique Reine Élisabeth (FÉRÉ). Generally only one side of the correspondence is preserved, being Asselberghs’

322

M. DE MEYER

A week later, on 15 November 1922 and after he had just met Capart in person in Brussels, Asselberghs wrote again to Capart to send him a copy of his three-part article Amenofis IV (Asselberghs 1922a–c), as well as three photos of the bust of Nefertiti which he had acquired during a visit to Berlin. About the former, Asselberghs cautions Capart “qu’il ne s’agit que d’un ouvrage d’un débutant,”24 and in effect this was the first time that he published on an Egyptological topic.25 While the reply of Capart is not preserved, a letter by Asselberghs dated 30 November 1922 makes it clear that although Capart thought favourably of the article, there were also some differences in opinion that he hoped to discuss in person. Asselberghs furthermore mentioned his forthcoming article in ZÄS about his ideas on an Amarna Period relief preserved at the Louvre (Asselberghs 1923a). He closed the letter with: “Etudiant pendant les derniers mois la préhistoire en général, je serais très heureux si Vous pourriez m’indiquer le titre d’un ouvrage traitant spécialement et à fond l’Egypte paléolitique.”26

This is the first indication of Asselberghs’ interest in prehistoric and predynastic Egypt. Several more exchanges took place between Asselberghs and Capart in that same year, sometimes merely through postcards, but generally on the topic of the Amarna Period. It appears that Asselberghs went to the RMAH in Brussels rather frequently, both to visit with and talk to Capart, as well as to use the library. The fact that at the same time when they were conversing about the Amarna Period, the tomb of Tutankhamun was being explored by Carter, must have made for stimulating discussions.

letters to Capart and other members of the FÉRÉ. Copies of the replies are only rarely preserved. 24 Henri Asselberghs to Jean Capart, 15 November 1922: Capart archive, folder H. Asselberghs, RMAH. 25 These three articles on Akhenaten even received a (fairly tongue in cheek) review in JEA by H.R. Hall, Keeper of Egyptian Antiquities at the British Museum, which is not devoid of British nationalist sentiments: “The author makes no pretence to first-hand research on the subject, and he naturally follows popularly accepted views of the more sensational kind with regard to that weird “individual” (which he certainly was!) Akhenaten. He is occasionally somewhat oldfashioned as to his authorities, quoting Lieblein, for instance, as of equal authority with modern writers. But in other cases he is quite up to date, and we notice with pleasure that he refers with interest and goodwill to our excavations at El-‘Amarnah and their publication in this Journal although he considers that the work of the Germans was “jammerlijk onderbroken” there by the world-war. We may take exception to “jammerlijk”: our excavators can do the work quite as well as the Germans, although we may regret that the Germans were unable to go on with it. By the way, when Mr. Asselberg (sic) says, referring to the fate of the El-‘Amarnah tablets: “het meerendeel dezer tafeltjes bevindt zich thans in Berlijn terwijl de overige hoofdzakelijk terecht kwamen in de musea van Cairo en Londen,” he really exalts the horn of Berlin to a greater height” (Hall 1924: 188). 26 Henri Asselberghs to Jean Capart, 30 November 1922: Capart archive, folder H. Asselberghs, RMAH.

THE LIFE OF HENRI ASSELBERGHS

323

In early 1923 Capart was otherwise engaged, travelling to Egypt with Queen Elisabeth and Crown Prince Leopold to attend the opening of the burial chamber of Tutankhamun (Bruffaerts 1998), and the correspondence with Asselberghs only picks up again in early 1924. Capart’s heavily publicised trip to Egypt must have incited Asselberghs even more to travel there himself, since he wrote to Capart on 22 January 1924: “Je n’ai aucun mérite; je le sais; mais j’ai une immense désir de voir un jour l’Egypte. Vous me comprendrez. Je ferais tout pour atteindre ce but. N’existe-t-il un moyen que je vous accompagne—n’importe en quelle qualité—lorsque vous partirez pour votre expedition? Si vous pourriez prendre une decision favourable à mon égard, je tacherais d’obtenir la correspondance d’un journal où une périodique hollandaise, ce qui soulagerait peut-être le coté économique.”27

Clearly Asselberghs was inspired by Capart’s letters to the press and he seems to have wanted to play a similar roll in Dutch media (cf. infra). Asselberghs’ desire to be involved in Egyptology and his interest in the Amarna Period, made him a likely candidate to translate Capart’s 1923 book, and on 1 February 1924 Asselberghs wrote to Capart: “Je me suis mis à la traduction de votre très joli petit livre “Toutankhamon” dont je viens de terminer le 1er chapitre.”28

However, finding a publisher for this translated book in the Netherlands turned out not to be an easy feat, and the manuscript was turned down several times, much to the frustration of Asselberghs. But on 26 June 1924 he proudly announced to Capart that Van Munster’s Uitgevers-Maatschappij in Amsterdam had agreed to publish the book in an edition of 1500 copies. The work that Asselberghs invested in the translation and publication of Tout-Ankh-Amon led to an important personal realisation that would have a strong impact on the course of his life. In that same letter Asselberghs wrote: “Un des éditeurs, auquel j’avais presenté le manuscrit m’a répondu que si j’étais Dr. ou Prof., je n’aurais eu aucune difficulté pour l’édition d’un livre pareil. Cela m’a fait réfléchir.”29

He continues with a long explanation about his desire to study Egyptology at Leiden University, and asks Capart for support in this endeavour. Since it gives an insight in the struggles of an amateur without a proper degree to gain acceptance in the world of academia at that time, this passage is quoted here in full: 27

Henri Asselberghs to Jean Capart, 22 January 1924: Capart archive, folder H. Asselberghs, RMAH. 28 Henri Asselberghs to Jean Capart, 1 February 1924: Capart archive, folder H. Asselberghs, RMAH. 29 Henri Asselberghs to Jean Capart, 26 June 1924: Capart archive, folder H. Asselberghs, RMAH.

324

M. DE MEYER

“Hier j’ai été à Leyde afin de m’orienter nettement sur la question de l’admission à l’université. Voici ce que j’ai appris. Il existe en Hollande un règlement des études universitaires contenant des conditions spéciales pour des étudiants n’ayant pas fait les humanités et qui manquent l’occasion de se préparer aux hautes études par la voie ordinaire. Concernant mon cas, il paraît qu’il existe une possibilité que je sois admis aux études des lettres par une résolution spéciale du Ministre et après ce qu’on appelle un “colloqium (sic) doctum.” Président de la commission permanente pour des cas analogues est Prof. Dr. J. Huizinga, Witte Singel 74, Leyde. C’est à lui qu’il faudra m’adresser afin d’obtenir une solution. Hier, cherchant à rencontrer le Dr. Boeser30 qui était en congé pour quelques semaines, j’ai parlé le Dr. van Wijngaerden, qui m’envoyait au Prof. Thierry. Ce professeur m’a advisé (sic) de me mettre en relation avec vous avant d’écrire officiellement au Prof. Huizinga. Si vous pourriez donner un avis favorable, se rapportant à mon instruction générale comme à la valeur de mes études déjà faites en matières savants et égyptologiques, cela donnerait une impression des plus excellentes. On ne me connaît absolument pas à Leyde. Il y a plus de 20 ans, j’ai fait 4 ans du gymnase, c.a.d. les deux classes inférieures, 6e et 5e avec latin et grec, les suivantes 4e et 3e sans les langues classiques. Si maintenant je devrais recommencer da capo, afin d’obtenir d’abord mon diplome de gymnase je n’en verrais plus la fin. Mais si on voudrait m’admettre p.e. à condition d’un an d’études énergiques en latin et grec je l’accepterais avec plaisir ; dusse je faire ces études avant l’admission à la faculté, ou bien en même temps que les autres études. Monsieur Capart, si vous avez la conviction que je pourrais participer avec succes aux hautes études des lettres en matière d’archéologie égyptienne, je vous serais très reconnaissant si vous vouliez communiquer votre opinion au Prof. Dr. Huizinga à qui je me propose d’écrire dans quelques jours. Votre avis, qui a la plus grande autorité à Leyde, m’étant favorable, je crois bien réussir et je veux vous assurer qu’une fois admis je ferais tout pour obtenir une promotion qui m’a paru jusqu’à ce moment même, au dela de toute espérance.”31

It is not known whether or not Capart actually wrote to Leiden in favour of Asselberghs, but the fact that the latter kept him updated on the progress in a letter dated 14 December 1924, suggests he did. More importantly, the student registration card of Asselberghs preserved in the Leiden University archives shows that he was indeed admitted to the university.32 He registered and paid for the academic years 1925–1926, 1926–1927, and 1927–1928, each year for “1 les” (one course) at the cost of f 50, which was a substantial amount of money at the time. On 4 February 1926 Asselberghs wrote to Capart, after having received the first volume of the Chronique d’Égypte: “Mon étude va

30 For the cast of characters in Egyptology at Leiden University at that time, see Kaper 2014: 41–44. 31 Henri Asselberghs to Jean Capart, 26 June 1924: Capart archive, folder H. Asselberghs, RMAH. 32 I thank Mart van Duijn of the Leiden University Archives for verifying this information.

THE LIFE OF HENRI ASSELBERGHS

325

bien. Elle me coûte toutes mes heures libres!”33 Only about a decade later, on 27 November 1936, did he take and successfully complete the Candidaatsexamen for Egyptische Taal en Letterkunde with Adriaan de Buck, at the cost of f 60, as is noted on his student registration card (see also [Anon.] 1936a). The Dutch translation of Tout-Ankh-Amon was finally published at the end of 1924, when Capart was touring the United States of America for the first time in his life (De Meyer 2021). Asselberghs tried to see Capart off for his first transatlantic journey, as he wrote in an undated letter: “Quand je savais à quelle heure vous partirez le 7 Octobre (à Anvers sans doute) je tacherais de venir vous serrer la main avant votre depart pour l’Amérique.”34

The correspondence between the two men continued across the continents, and on 27 January 1925 Capart sent Asselberghs a postcard from Boston to congratulate him with the birth of his son Edgar, and to ask him to send a copy of the translated Tout-Ankh-Amon to Marcelle Werbrouck, who at that time was in Luxor (Fig. 10). Meanwhile, Asselberghs seems to have promoted the Dutch translation of the book through a lecture tour to local associations. For instance, on 28 March 1925 he spoke about “Het graf van Tut-Anch-Amon en de cultuur, die het vertegenwoordigt”35 for the R.K. Onderwijzeressenbond and the R.K. Onderwijzersbond at Helmond, the Netherlands ([Anon.] 1925a). He spoke about the same topic on 18 May 1925 for the R.K. Bond van Spoor- en Tramwegpersoneel ‘St. Raphaël’ at Roosendaal, the Netherlands ([Anon.] 1925b); and on 16 March 1926 to den Geschiedkundigen Kring at Bergen op Zoom, the Netherlands ([Anon.] 1926). The Nieuwe Rotterdamsche Courant and other Dutch newspapers During the 1920s, Asselberghs’ early writings were often published in local magazines which sometimes were of a religious nature, such as De Katholiek (Asselberghs 1922a–c) or Romen’s Aankondiger, a magazine from Roermond (Asselberghs 1925a–b; 1926a). He almost exclusively wrote about the New Kingdom, not shying away from commenting upon links between the ancient Egyptian civilisation and the biblical world (e.g. Asselberghs 1923b, 1929b–c). An exception is his scholarly article in ZÄS (Asselberghs 1923a), which is also the only article he ever published that was not in Dutch. Asselberghs regularly published reviews of Egyptological books in Dutch newspapers, most often in the Nieuwe Rotterdamsche Courant. To this end, he 33 Henri Asselberghs to Jean Capart, 4 February 1926: FÉRÉ archive, folder H. Asselberghs, RMAH. 34 Henri Asselberghs to Jean Capart, ‘samedi soir’ (probably in September 1924): Capart archive, folder H. Asselberghs, RMAH. 35 “The tomb of Tutankhamun and the culture that it represents.”

326

M. DE MEYER

Fig. 10. Postcard of Jean Capart to Henri Asselberghs congratulating him with the birth of his son Edgar, sent from Boston on 27 January 1925 (private collection).

seems to have actively requested review copies from authors and publishers, as is evident in a 1927 letter from Georg Steindorff as editor of the Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft:36 “Ich habe an F.A. Brockhaus, den deutschen Verleger Carter’s, geschrieben und gebeten, Ihnen ein Rezensionsexemplar des Buches zur Besprechung im Literarischen Beiblatt des „Nieuwe Rotterdamsche Courant“ zu übersenden. Ich hoffe, dass er diesen Wunsch erfüllen wird. Würden Sie ev. auch die 2. Auflage meiner „Blütezeit des Pharaonenreichs“ (Leipzig–Bielefeld 1926) an gleicher Stelle anzeigen?”37

The book of which Steindorff speaks (Carter 1927) did indeed receive a review by Asselberghs in the Nieuwe Rotterdamsche Courant of 17 December 1927 (Asselberghs 1927c). A postcard by Eduard Meyer to Asselberghs dated 1 May 1928 (private collection) suggests he too arranged for one of his books to be sent to Asselberghs, most likely Meyer 1928. Asselberghs refers to this book 36 Steindorff was editor of the ZDMG for ten years before being asked to resign in 1933 (Cappel 2016: 72; Gertzen 2016: 361). 37 Georg Steindorff to Henri Asselberghs, 10 April 1927: private collection.

THE LIFE OF HENRI ASSELBERGHS

327

in a Nieuwe Rotterdamsche Courant article he wrote about Akhenaton in preparation of the open-air spectacle (openluchtspel) ‘Ichnaton’, which was the opening performance of the 1928 Summer Olympics in Amsterdam that year (Asselberghs 1928b).38 Several publications of the FÉRÉ were also reviewed by Asselberghs. In 1927 he wrote a lyrical reflection about the Chronique d’Égypte, at that time still a new journal in the world of Egyptology (Asselberghs 1927b). The opening paragraph of this article illustrates how Asselberghs cherished his time spent at the Cinquantenaire Museum, perhaps with a melancholy brought on by his then recent move to Utrecht, much further removed from Brussels than when he was still living in Essen. “Hoe graag verwijlt ’s menschen geest waar lieve herinneringen en oude sympathieën hem nooden! Ik denk aan het rustig-voorname Cinquantenaire-Museum in Brussel, toch betrekkelijk maar een bescheiden hoekse in den zuid-vleugel van het grootsch-opgevatte Jubel-paleis, welks indrukwekkende zuilenboog den statigen ingang vormt van de vriendelijke Avenue de Tervueren; aan de sfeer van intimiteit vol prettigen prikkel tot werken, zooals ze heerscht in de rijke bibliotheek, telkens wanneer ik er te komen placht vol stralende goud-warme namiddag-zon geladen; en wijd-open naar allen kant van lenteweelderig uitzicht over park en geboomte; de bibliotheek nu van de “Fondation”. En als vanzelf zie ik het beeld verschijnen van den altijd charmant-welwillenden, altijd rusteloosactieven heer Jean Capart, den oprichter en verdienstelijken directeur der Fondation.” (Asselberghs 1927b: 7).39

In 1930 a lengthy review of Capart & Werbrouck 1930 appeared by his hand, (Asselberghs 1930a), and in 1933 he wrote a glowing review of Jacques Pirenne’s Histoire des institutions et du droit privé de l’ancienne Égypte I  : Des origins à la fin de la IVe dynastie (Asselberghs 1933b), both in the Nieuwe Rotterdamsche Courant. Much later, in 1944, he reviewed Pierre Gilbert’s Le classicisme de l’architecture égyptienne in BiOr (Asselberghs 1944a). The attention that Asselberghs thus drew to the FÉRÉ, and the free publicity he gave it in the Netherlands, was undoubtedly appreciated by Capart.

38 ‘Ichnaton’ was performed for the first time by the Utrechtsch Studenten Corps in 1926. For a detailed history of this play, see Van Dijk 2010, with a mention of the performance for the 1928 Olympics on p. 79. 39 “How gladly the human spirit dwells where sweet memories and old sympathies need it to! I am thinking of the quiet-distinguished Cinquantenaire-Museum in Brussels, a relatively small corner in the southern wing of the grandly conceived Jubilee Palace, whose impressive colonnade forms the stately entrance to the friendly Avenue de Tervueren; of the atmosphere of intimacy full of pleasant stimulus to work, as it prevails in the rich library, every time I used to come there loaded with radiant gold-warm afternoon sun; and wide open to all sides of lush spring views over park and trees; the library now of the “Fondation”. And naturally I see the image appear of the always charming-kind, always restless-active Mr. Jean Capart, the founder and meritorious director of the Fondation.”

328

M. DE MEYER

Several book reviews by Asselberghs in Dutch newspapers may, however, never be recognised as such, since reviews were sometimes published without the name of the author. A case in point is the review he most likely wrote of Ludwig Keimer’s Die Gartenpflanzen im alten Ägypten (Keimer 1924), which was published anonymously in the Nieuwe Rotterdamsche Courant of 23 December 1924 ([Anon.] 1924b). A clipping of this review was wedged into Asselberghs’ personal copy of Keimer 1924, along with a clipping of Keimer 1926 (private collection). Another review that has all the markings of Asselberghs’ style and subject matter is, for instance, [Anon.] 1930. Whether or not these articles were actually of his hand, may remain impossible to ascertain. Sometimes Asselberghs himself comes to the rescue. Asselberghs 1933b only surfaced thanks to a comment in a postcard he wrote to Capart: “Je vous envois en même temps un article (dans le Nieuwe Rotterdamsche Courant du 3 de ce mois, Avondblad A) sur le livre de Pirenne. Malheureusement on a mutilé tout à fait cet article en le coupant à 4 endroits!”40

In a letter to Heinrich Schäfer dated 15 February 1941, Asselberghs thanks him for the ZÄS article in which an overview of Schäfer’s bibliography is published (Bothmer & Przybylla 1939), and he mentions that he has reviewed no less than seven of Schäfer’s publications (Asselberghs 1926b; 1928a; 1929a; 1929d; 1930; 1931; 1937). He concludes with: “Wie viel Freude und Gewinn hat mir allein schon das Studieren und Besprechen dieser zum grossen Teil riesigen (vor allem im geistigen Sinne) Werke gegeben!”41

1930s: travels, conferences, and exhibitions In early 1930 Asselberghs finally made a trip to Egypt, presumably his first one. Hardly anything is known about this voyage, but a few photos have survived in the family archives, such as one of him posing in front of the Sphinx at Giza (Fig. 11). It comes as no surprise that he would have travelled there over land, by train, rather than by boat, and he describes this journey from the Netherlands to Egypt lyrically in a three-part article published in a fairly obscure Dutch magazine: Het veilig spoor: Propagandablad van de Vereeniging van Geheelonthouders onder Nederlandsch Spoor- en Tramwegpersoneel42 40 Henri Asselberghs to Jean Capart, 6 March 1933: FÉRÉ archive, folder H. Asselberghs, RMAH. 41 Henri Asselberghs to Heinrich Schäfer, 15 February 1941. I thank Gertraude Fiebelkorn, granddaughter of Heinrich Schäfer, for sending me a copy of this letter, the original of which is kept at the Stadtarchiv Hannover. 42 “The safe track: Propaganda magazine of the Association of Total Abstainers among Dutch Rail and Tramway Personnel.”

THE LIFE OF HENRI ASSELBERGHS

329

Fig. 11. Henri Asselberghs in front of the sphinx at Giza, dated to February 1930 in his handwriting on the back of the photo. He adds: “Op den voorgrond mijn persoontje op den rand voor de afgraving (je ziet het aan de schaduw die plotseling afbreekt)”43 (© Christophe Asselberghs).

43

43 “In the foreground my person on the ridge of the escarpment (you can see it by the shadow that suddenly breaks off).”

330

M. DE MEYER

(Asselberghs 1931a–c). He crossed from the European continent into Asia at the Bosporus and writes with admiration about the brand-new trains of the Turkish railways. “Gloednieuwe D-treinen van de Turksche Staatsspoorwegen, samengesteld uit het beste Duitsche en Zweedsche materiel dat er bestaat; locomotieven van Henschel & Sohn in Cassel, niet minder krachtig dan de nieuwste machines van de Ned. Spoorwegen. Keurige slaapwagens en restauratie-rijtuigen! En die treinen worden uitstekend bediend, door bekwaam personeel, uiterst voorkomend en netjes in de kleren. Mein Liebchen, was willste….”44 (Asselberghs 1931b: 6).

The tantalizing comment “als ik nu, bladerend in mijn reisnotities, mijn herinnering laat gaan en terugdenk aan dien tocht door Klein-Azië…”45 (Asselberghs 1931b: 6) makes it clear that he must have kept a diary of the journey, which is now unfortunately lost. Asselberghs also refers to his voyage to Egypt in a letter to Marcelle Werbrouck dated 9 July 1930: “En réponse à votre aimable invitation je regrette beaucoup ne pouvoir pas participer à la Semaine Egyptologique à Bruxelles au cours du mois de Septembre prochain. Au commencement de l’année j’ai fait un voyage en Egypte, ce qui a épuisé tous mes jours de vacance.”46

Despite the lack of holiday time, he seems to have found a way to participate in the first Semaine égyptologique et papyrologique de Bruxelles (14–20 September 1930) anyway, since he writes to Capart on 2 September 1930: “Voulez-vous me faire parvenir le programme officiel de la Semaine Egyptologique. Je voudrais y assister, ne fût-ce que pendant un ou deux jours.”47

He is effectively listed as a participant in CdÉ 6 (1931): 189. In the same CdÉ volume, on p. 20, Asselberghs is also mentioned for the first time as a membre adhérant of the FÉRÉ, a membership he keeps up throughout the 1930s and during WWII as well (cf. infra). In 1935 Asselberghs participated in the second Semaine égyptologique et papyrologique de Bruxelles (7–13 July 1935), as is mentioned in the CdÉ 11 (1936): 21.48 Already at the beginning of the

44 “Brand-new D-trains of the Turkish State Railways, composed of the best German and Swedish material that exists; locomotives of Henschel & Sohn in Cassel, no less powerful than the newest machines of the Dutch Railways. Neat sleeper cars and dining cars! And those trains are excellently served, by competent personnel, extremely courteous and neatly dressed. Mein Liebchen, was willste….” 45 “If I now, leafing through my travel notes, let my memories roam and think back to that journey through Asia Minor….” 46 Henri Asselberghs to Marcelle Werbrouck, 9 July 1930: FÉRÉ archive, folder H. Asselberghs, RMAH. 47 Henri Asselberghs to Jean Capart, 2 September 1930: FÉRÉ archive, folder H. Asselberghs, RMAH. 48 For these Semaines égyptologiques, see Bruffaerts 2013: 227–229.

THE LIFE OF HENRI ASSELBERGHS

331

conference, on Monday 8 July, he wrote a postcard home to his wife Louise and their children to inform them that he would stay away longer than expected: “Beste Lou en Kinderen, Ik kom jullie even vertellen dat het wel vrijdag morgen zal worden eer ik thuis kom. Tot nog toe gaat alles goed, maar donderdag is er nog een uitstap naar Waterloo, Mariemont enz. waarheen tante Jeanne ook zal meegaan. In Antwerpen alles goed. Hartelijke groeten, Vader”49

In 1931 Asselberghs participated in the 18th International Congress of Orientalists, held at Leiden between 7 and 12 September ([Anon.] 1932: 256). That same year he also formed part of the committee that organised an exhibition at the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam about Egyptian and Near Eastern objects in private collections in the Netherlands, 4 October–15 November 1931 ([Anon.] 1931a; [Anon.] 1931b: 6). This committee consisted mainly of university professors (including A. de Buck and F.M.Th. Böhl at Leiden), but also included the private collector Frits Lugt. The latter lived in Maartensdijk, close to Utrecht, and he possessed a number of Egyptian antiquities in his large private collection (Stuart 2010). Asselberghs sent the catalogue of the exhibition to Capart, whose attention was particularly drawn to a head of Ramses II wearing the khepresh crown, of which the catalogue mentions that it greatly resembles the head of the well-known Ramses II statue in the Museo Egizio in Turin, inv. C. 1380 ([Anon.] 1931b: 48, no. 284, with figure). The name of the owner is not mentioned in the catalogue, but correspondence between Asselberghs and Capart makes it clear it was in the posession of the Lugt family: “La tête de Ramses II appartient à M. F. Lugt à Maartensdijk (près d’Utrecht). Seulement, il y a une question de famille et M. Lugt aimerait que vous lui avertissiez avant de publier son nom quelque part. (…) M. Lugt me dit qu’il se tient à votre disposition quant à toute information désirée au sujet de la tête.”50

This head was in fact in the possession of Lugt’s father-in-law, which explains why Frits Lugt did not want to have his name associated with it in print (for the fate of the head, see Stuart 2010: 10). Nevertheless, after Asselberghs had sent the catalogue to Capart, the latter decided the exhibition was worth a trip to Amsterdam, which he scheduled on 11 November 1931.

49 Henri Asselberghs to Louise Verhulsen, 8 July 1935: private collection. “Dear Lou and children, I have come to tell you that it will be Friday morning before I get home. So far so good, but on Thursday there will be an excursion to Waterloo, Mariemont, etc. to which aunt Jeanne will also come along. Everything is fine in Antwerp. Best wishes, Father.” Aunt Jeanne is Jeanne Verhulsen, the sister of Henri’s wife Louise; see further in n. 59. 50 Henri Asselberghs to Jean Capart, 23 October 1931: FÉRÉ archive, folder H. Asselberghs, RMAH.

332

M. DE MEYER

Five years later, in 1936, Asselberghs was again involved with an exhibition, this time at the Rijksmuseum van Oudheden (RMO) in Leiden. A short newspaper entry ([Anon.] 1936c) relates how Asselberghs donated to the RMO his collection of plates that appeared in ‘The Illustrated London News’ between November 1922 and June 1932 and that documented the excavations in the tomb of Tutankhamun. This collection was exhibited over the summer together with objects from the collection and books related to Tutankhamun. Ex Oriente Lux and NINO On 22 May 1933 the Dutch Vooraziatisch-Egyptisch Gezelschap ‘Ex Oriente Lux’ (EOL) was inaugurated in Leiden (Kampman 1947; Veenhof 2008) and Asselberghs was involved from the start. Already in the second volume of the journal Jaarbericht van het Vooraziatisch-Egyptisch Genootschap ‘Ex Oriente Lux’ (JEOL) he is named as corresponding member (JEOL 2 (1934): 56); and the lecture that he held in 1933 at the 7e Congres van het Oostersch Genootschap in Leiden was published in the first volume of the series Mededelingen en verhandelingen van het Vooraziatisch-Egyptisch genootschap ‘Ex Oriente Lux’ (MVEOL) alongside contributions by A. de Buck, W.D. van Wijngaarden, and other eminent academics (Asselberghs 1934a). In this lecture he elaborated on a relief that was featured in the previously mentioned 1931 exhibition at the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam about Egyptian and Near Eastern objects in private Dutch collections. This relief from the mortuary temple of Sahure shows an Egyptian sailor climbing in the rigging of a ship, and the comments by Asselberghs clearly show that Jean Capart and Heinrich Schäfer were his main influences.51 Between 1933 and 1940 Asselberghs was responsible for the section Egyptische Archaeologie in JEOL, which from JEOL 3 onwards was generally divided in A. Opgravingen (excavations) and B. Verdere Publicaties/Boekbesprekingen (other publications/book reviews). In the first section Asselberghs wrote yearly contributions in which he presented an overview of the most remarkable discoveries in the field during the past year, while in the second section he reviewed newly published books (Asselberghs 1933a; 1934b; 1935a; 1936a; 1938a: 1939a; 1940a). After 1940, when most archaeological expeditions came to a halt with the outbreak of World War II, he switched perspectives and in JEOL 8—the first JEOL volume that appeared during WWII—he sketched a history of Egyptology up until WWI (Asselberghs 1942b).

51 Years later, on 5 March 1940, Asselberghs wrote to George A. Reisner at the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston asking about a relief from the tomb of Nekhebu at Giza that also shows a sailor climbing the rigging of a ship (MFA 13.4349.4). I am grateful to Peter Der Manuelian for providing me with this reference.

THE LIFE OF HENRI ASSELBERGHS

333

This was followed up in JEOL 9, in which he continued the story for the interwar period (Asselberghs 1944b). In this article Asselberghs paid special tribute to Capart and the way in which he put ancient Egypt on the map in Belgium: “Een land dat geheel nieuw op den voorgrond trad, is België, waar de belangstelling voor alles wat het Oude Egypte betreft sinds het einde der vorige eeuw in Jean Capart een ongeëvenaarden gangmaker vond. De Egyptische afdeeling van het Cinquantenaire museum in Brussel kwam onder hem tot vollen luister en de in 1923 kort na de ontdekking van Toet-anch-amon’s graf door hem gestichte Fondation égyptologique Reine Elisabeth is de eerste mij bekende instelling, die zich uitsluitend op Egypte specialiseert. Aan haar initiatief is in België alles, maar ook daarbuiten héél wat te danken dat anders achterwege zou zijn gebleven.” (Asselberghs 1944b: 54).52

After the end of WWII Asselberghs wrote one more JEOL article (Asselberghs 1949–1950)—which is in fact a review of three books on pyramids—before focusing on his magnum opus Chaos en beheersing. After its publication in 1961, and thus also after his official retirement from the Spoorwegmuseum, Asselberghs reinvented himself once again. Between 1965 and 1976 he published four articles in JEOL focusing on various topics in ancient Egyptian religion, culture and art (Asselberghs 1965–1966; 1969–1970; 1971–1972; 1975–1976). Apart from publishing in JEOL, Asselberghs sometimes also lectured for EOL at various locations throughout the Netherlands. On 12 March 1935 he spoke at the Rijksmuseum van Oudheden in Leiden about “Egyptische reliëfs en hun ontstaan in verband met techniek en kleur”53 (JEOL 3 (1935): 60), about which a report was published in the Algemeen Handelsblad ([Anon.] 1935). Two years later he spoke on a similar topic (“Over de vervaardiging van reliëfs in de mastaba’s”)54 in Nijmegen on 13 February 1937 and in Amsterdam on 17 March 1937 (JEOL 5 (1937–1938): 474). He also lectured outside of the EOL circuit, for instance, already in August 1924 he had lectured at Antwerp during the Kunsthistorische Week on the topic “Over individualisme in de Egyptische beeldkunst” ([Anon.] 1924a). When Ex Oriente Lux celebrated its ten-year jubilee on 25 September 1943, Asselberghs attended the event. A photograph of the attendees shows Asselberghs standing all the way at the back, elevated above the crowd, next to J. Zandee (Fig. 12).55 The first ten years had been good ones for EOL, and

52 This passage was quoted in French in CdÉ 41 (1946): 16. See also Bruffaerts 2013: 232, where Asselberghs is erroneously identified as the director of EOL. 53 “Egyptian reliefs and their creation in relation to technique and colour.” 54 “On the manufacture of reliefs in mastabas.” 55 This photograph was also published in the EOL 75 year jubilee volume of Phœnix: Bulletin uitgegeven door het Vooraziatisch-Egyptisch Genootschap ‘Ex Oriente Lux’ 54.1 (2008): 1, but Asselberghs is not named in the caption.

334

M. DE MEYER

Fig. 12. Ten year jubilee of Ex Oriente Lux, with Asselberghs standing all the way at the back, elevated above the crowd, next to J. Zandee, 25 September 1943. Asselberghs’ professor at Leiden University, Adriaan de Buck, was also present (second row, behind the little girl in white) (© NINO Leiden).

the organisation was thriving, as is described by Kampman in the MVEOL volume that appeared on the occasion of the jubilee (Kampman 1947). However, in the 1950s the membership dropped and EOL faced other challenges as well (Veenhof 2008: 14–19). Asselberghs became one of the members of a committee created to evaluate the activities and publications of EOL, and to make recommendations for reforms (JEOL 13 (1953–1954): 266–267). In the meantime, the Stichting Nederlandsch Archaeologisch-philologisch Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten (NAIN, in 1955 changed into the Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, NINO) had been created in 1939 at Leiden (Van Zoest & Berntsen 2014), and Asselberghs published twice in its journal BiOr (Asselberghs 1944a; 1945a). He kept a subscription to BiOr until 1961, the same time when he was forced to give up all his other memberships and associations as well. On 28 February 1962 he wrote to A.A. Kampman, the Director of the NINO: “Ja, U zult wel denken: daar is hij weer! Maar er zijn nu toch verschillende redenen die mij nopen U mede te delen dat ik mijn abonnement op BiOr met het reeds ontvangen laatste nummer van Jaarg. XVIII (1961) definitief wil laten eindigen.

THE LIFE OF HENRI ASSELBERGHS

335

(…) Ook wilde ik mijn lidmaatschap van de ‘Vereeniging tot bevordering der kennis van de Antieke Beschaving’ per 31 December 1961 laten aflopen. Het gaat alles niet zonder pijn, maar het moet.”56

Corresponding member of the DAI In 1936 Asselberghs became a corresponding member of the Deutsches Archäologisches Institut (DAI), something that did not go unnoticed in the Dutch press. [Anon.] 1936b writes: “Aan den heer J.J.M.H.H. Asselberghs, directeur van het Nederlandsch Spoorwegmuseum te Utrecht, is de hooge wetenschappelijke onderscheiding te beurt gevallen door het Archaeologisches Institut des Deutschen Reiches benoemd te worden tot correspondeerend lid van dat instituut. Deze onderscheiding moet volgens het Instituut beschouwd worden als een blijk van waardeering voor het werk, dat de heer Asselberghs ter bevordering van de oud-Oriëntaalsche wetenschap verricht heeft en als een erkenning van de fijnzinnige studies, welke de heer Asselberghs op dit gebied heeft gepubliceerd.”57

He was nominated for this honour in 1935 by Heinrich Schäfer, Director of the Egyptian Department of the Staatliche Museen in Berlin, as is recorderd in a letter preserved in the archive of the DAI.58 While it is clear mainly from circumstantial evidence that Asselberghs and Schäfer must have known each other quite well, this letter gives some insight into their relationship which, according to Schäfer, must have started somewhere in the mid 1920s. “Für die Mitgliederwahlen, die in der ordentlichen Gesamtsitzung der Zentraldirektion im Jahre 1936 zur Verhandlung kommen sollen, erlaube ich mir, die folgenden beiden Ernennungen zu korrespondierenden Mitgliedern vorzuschlagen: 1. Herrn Dr. W.D. van Wijngaarden, Konservator der ägyptischen Abteilung des Reichsmuseums für Altertümer in Leiden. (…) 2. Herrn Henri Asselberghs, Direktor des Spoorwagen-Museums (sic) in Utrecht. Ich kenne Herrn A. seit mehr als zehn Jahren und habe ihn als einen feinsinnigen Menschen und durchaus ernst zu nehmenden Kenner ägyptischer Kunst und Kultur 56 Henri Asselberghs to Arie A. Kampman, 28 February 1962: NINO archive, Leiden. I thank Carolien van Zoest for granting me access to this archive. “Yes, you will probably think: there he is again! But there are now several reasons why I am forced to inform you that I definitively want to end my subscription to BiOr with the latest issue of Vol. XVIII (1961), which I already received. (…) I also want to end my membership of the Vereeniging tot bevordering der kennis van de Antieke Beschaving on 31 December 1961. All of this does not go without pain, but it must be done.” 57 “Mr. J.J.M.H.H. Asselberghs, director of the Nederlandsch Spoorwegmuseum in Utrecht, has been awarded the high scientific distinction of being appointed by the Archaeologisches Institut des Deutschen Reiches as corresponding member of that institute. According to the Institute, this award should be considered as a token of appreciation for the work carried out by Mr. Asselberghs for the promotion of ancient Oriental science and as an acknowledgement of the fine studies published by Mr. Asselberghs in this field.” 58 I warmly thank Isolde Lehnert for alerting me to this file, and Martina Düntzer for providing me with scans of its contents.

336

M. DE MEYER

hochschätzen gelernt. Für die Art, wie er diese seine Neigung betätigt, ist bezeichnend, dass er seit langen Jahren auf seinen jährlichen Erholungsurlaub verzichtet hat, um dafür alle Woche einmal nach Leiden zum Hören von Verlesungen fahren zu dürfen. So ist er denn auch angesehener und geschätzter Mitarbeiter in den Kreisen, die sich die Verbreitung der Kenntnis von antiker, besonders altorientalischer, Kunst zur Aufgabe gemacht haben. Literarisch hat er sich zu seinem Bedauern neben seiner anstrengenden dienstlichen Arbeit nur durch Buchbesprechungen betätigen können, die aber in Form und Gedanken fast immer ausgezeichnet sind. Auch er ist ein guter Freund deutscher Art. Heil Hitler! H. Schäfer”59

Asselberghs is indeed listed as a new corresponding member in the Jahresbericht des Archäologischen Instituts des Deutschen Reiches für das Haushaltsjahr 1936/37 ([Anon.] 1937: I). As was discussed before, Schäfer regularly sent offprints of his publications to Asselberghs, and the latter reviewed them for the Nieuwe Rotterdamsche Courant. Asselberghs’ ideas and writings on art history were heavily influenced by Schäfer (cf. infra). A comment in Asselberghs 1961: XI makes it clear that the two men met in person as well, although no details are known about such encounters. The war years Schäfer’s signature is a stark reminder that World War II is upon us. That the effects of this war were severe and far-reaching in Belgium and in the Netherlands, is also clear in the few surviving letters between Asselberghs and Capart and Werbrouck from this period. In 1940 Asselberghs was forced to give up all of his professional memberships, but he kept his subscription as membre adhérant to the FÉRÉ going as long as possible, perhaps out of loyalty to Capart. On 22 October 1940 he wrote to Capart: “Les circonstances me forcent de terminer définitivement la plupart de mes contributions aux sociétés savantes, même à celles de mon pays. Pour l’an (1940–)1941 la Fondation sera la seule association à la quelle (sic) je peux me permettre encore cette année-ci de contribuer. Afin d’éviter des frais je prieerai (sic) ma belle-sœur, mademoiselle J. Verhulsen,60 Antiquaire à Anvers, de vous virer ma souscription

59 Heinrich Schäfer to the President of the DAI, 13 December 1935: DAI Berlin, Archiv der Zentrale, Biographica-Mappe Henri Asselberghs. In the ‘j’accuse’ letter of Georg Steindorff Heinrich Schäfer is listed as one of three that are not discussed, in the case of Schäfer because he was too old at that point to play a roll in post-war Egyptology (Schneider 2013: 185–187). The use of ‘Heil Hitler’ as a greeting does not necessarily signify personal political convictions. For the use of this greeting, see Ehlers 2012 (I thank Thomas L. Gertzen for this reference). 60 Jeanne Verhulsen, the sister of Asselberghs’ wife, was quite the free spirit in her days. E. Asselberghs 1997: 65–66 paints a portrait of his flamboyant aunt, whose antique shop in Antwerp was named ‘Ye Olde Curiosity Shop.’ An Italian count, Riccardo Martinelli, had proposed to her to marry him in the late 1920s, but on the boat to Italy she met John Sulayman, an Egyptian who had studied at Oxford and who was on his way back to Cairo. It was love at first sight, and

THE LIFE OF HENRI ASSELBERGHS

337

de membre adhérant pour l’exercice 1940/41, s’élevant comme vous m’écrivez à 14 belgas. L’année passée, ayant aussi contribué à la Bibliothèque égyptologique, je regrette cependant infiniment de devoir vous prier de ne me considérer plus comme participant dès ce moment, réduit à la nécessité comme je me vois de retrancher partout où il est possible et même où il ne l’est pas.”61

The war would soon hit the Asselberghs family even much closer to home. Their three sons fled the country in order not to be incorporated into the German war machine. The story of their journey was written down and published over fifty years later by one of the sons, Edgar Asselberghs, offering occasional glimpses into the life of the Asselberghs family during the war (E. Asselberghs 1997).62 The first son to leave was Erik, who fled the occupied Netherlands in 1942. His two brothers, Victor and Edgar, inspired by their brother’s actions, did the same in the following year. However, after an initial attempt to leave the Netherlands, Victor and Edgar were already quickly forced to briefly return home. Edgar Asselberghs recounts: “We kwamen thuis op de dag van de zilveren bruiloft van onze ouders, het leek wel of we zo maar even voor die gelegenheid teruggekomen waren. Ik herinner me nog hoe mijn moeder daar stond op het tuinpaadje bij de schuur, een aluminium vergiet met tomaten in haar handen, mager, in een dunne, gebloemde zomerjurk, haar grijzend haar gevlochten in een knot. Ze schrokken toen ze ons zagen. (…) Daags tevoren was er politie aan de deur geweest om te informeren waar wij gebleven waren. Mijn vader had ons als vermist opgegeven en de agent had hem aangeraden er dan maar voor te zorgen dat we ook vermist bléven, want er zou zeker een opsporingsbericht in het politieblad komen. Daarna was hij met een blik van ‘we begrijpen elkaar’ verdwenen. Hij had zijn plicht gedaan.” (E. Asselberghs 1997: 17).63

Their second attempt to flee the Netherlands was successful, and after many peregrinations through France, they arrived in Spain. Erik’s fate was far worse

Jeanne decided to sail on to Port Said and marry John instead of Riccardo. However, she was not one to fit into a traditional Egyptian marriage, and her mother-in-law also did not approve of her son’s choice, so eventually she left John and Egypt, and fled back to Belgium with the help of the wife of the German consul. Despite the unsuccessful outcome of the marriage, this episode must have had an effect on Henri Asselberghs, since he accompanied Jeanne on some of her travels to Egypt, although exact details of the voyages are no longer known (personal communication, Christophe Asselberghs). 61 Henri Asselberghs to Jean Capart, 22 October 1940: FÉRÉ archive, folder H. Asselberghs, RMAH. 62 The introduction to the book is by Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands. 63 “We arrived home on the day of our parents’ silver wedding anniversary, it seemed as if we had just come back for the occasion. I remember my mother standing there on the garden path by the shed, an aluminium colander with tomatoes in her hands, skinny, in a thin, floral summer dress, her greying hair woven into a bun. They were startled when they saw us. (…) The day before there had been a police officer at the door to find out where we had gone. My father had reported us missing and the officer had advised him to make sure that we would also remain missing, because there would certainly be a search warrant in the police bulletin. He then left with a look of ‘we understand each other’ on his face. He had done his duty.”

338

M. DE MEYER

than that of his brothers, ending up in concentration camp Miranda de Ebro, a Spanish camp maintained by the Franco regime. This was an experience from which he never really recovered (E. Asselberghs 1997: 84–85; 118). Victor and Edgar were also captured in Spain, but were liberated in autumn 1943, then sent on to Lisbon, and finally to England in January 1944 where they ended up in the Royal Netherlands Brigade Prinses Irene. They landed in Normandy in August 1944, where they fought against the Germans. From there on out they made their way north towards Belgium and eventually also back to their home country. All three sons made it back to the Netherlands alive at the end of the war and were decorated with the Kruis van Verdienste (Cross of Merit). Edgar later on also became Officier in de Orde van Oranje-Nassau (Officer in the Order of Orange-Nassau). On 7 May 1945 the brothers were in the parade to celebrate the liberation of Utrecht: “Utrecht, wat was ik opgewonden toen we binnen reden, de Biltstraat, de Wittevrouwenbrug, de Voorstraat. Tussen al die blije, juichende mensen hoopte ik mijn vader, moeder of zusters te ontdekken, maar ze waren er niet bij. Toen de colonne een ogenblik tot stilstand kwam, zag ik een oude schoolvriend, Paul, zwaaiend en roepend. Het lukte hem om bij onze carrier te komen. Mijn handen schuddend zei hij dat thuis alles in orde was, iedereen had het overleefd. Ik gaf hem stukken chocolade, ‘boiled sweets’ en sigaretten mee en hij beloofde onmiddellijk mijn ouders te gaan vertellen dat hij mij gezien had. En verder trokken we weer.” (E. Asselberghs 1997: 115).64

Several days later—it is not specified when exactly—the moment finally arrived when the entire family was reunited (Fig. 13): “De volgende dag zagen we alledrie, Erik, jij en ik, kans om naar huis te gaan. Jij had een legerauto ‘geleend’. Hoe Erik gekomen was, weet ik niet meer, ik had een lift gekregen. Voor het eerst zagen we onze ouders en zusters en ook wijzelf elkaar terug. Vader was niet veel veranderd, wat ouder, zijn rug wat meer gekromd. Moeder was broodmager. Wat wordt er allemaal verteld bij zo’n weerzien? Mijn geheugen laat me in de steek en dat is geen uitvlucht. Natuurlijk hadden ze het thuis erg moeilijk gehad. Voedseltekort was het grootste probleem geweest, vooral vanaf de laatste winter. Maar daar werd niet lang over gesproken, alles was nu toch voorbij? Ma vertelde dat ze na ons vertrek een joods meisje in huis hadden verborgen. Op een dag was de buurman op bezoek gekomen, hij had gehoord dat wij alledrie in Spanje waren. ‘Uw zonen’ had hij gezegd, ‘zijn door andere mensen geholpen en beschermd. Wilt U niet een joods meisje in huis nemen?’ Ze hadden 64 “Utrecht, how I was excited when we drove into the Biltstraat, the Wittevrouwenbrug, the Voorstraat. Among all those happy, cheering people I hoped to discover my father, mother or sisters, but they were not there. When the motorcade stopped for a moment, I saw an old school friend, Paul, waving and shouting. He managed to get to our carrier. Shaking my hands he said that everything was fine at home, everyone had survived. I gave him pieces of chocolate, ‘boiled sweets’ and cigarettes and he promised to immediately go tell my parents that he had seen me. Then we moved on.”

THE LIFE OF HENRI ASSELBERGHS

339

het gedaan. Daisy was in het gezin opgenomen, drie dochters in plaats van twee. (…) Pa, de boekenwurm, helemaal niet gewend zwaar werk te doen, had in de winter hout gekapt en bomen gezaagd. Eén keer was hij bijna gepakt, toen hij kolen zocht tussen de stenen langs de spoorbaan. ‘De machinisten gooiden wel eens een schep kolen uit de locomotief om de mensen te helpen.’” (E. Asselberghs 1997: 116).65

Fig. 13. The Asselberghs family in May 1945, reunited after the liberation. From left to right: Marie-Anne, Louise, Victor, Caecilia on Erik’s lap, Henri, and Edgar (© Christophe Asselberghs).

‘Daisy’ was the nickname of Debora Henriëtte Kattenburg (1916–1995), and the description of her as ‘a Jewish girl’ is slightly misleading, since she was a 65 “The next day all three of us, Erik, you and I, saw an opportunity to go home. You had ‘borrowed’ an army car. I do not remember how Erik got there, I had gotten a lift. For the first time we saw our parents and sisters and each other again. Father had not changed much, a bit older, his back a bit more curved. Mother looked scrawny. What is said at such a reunion? My memory fails me and that is not an excuse. Of course they had had a hard time at home. Food shortage had been the biggest problem, especially since last winter. But this was not talked about for very long, it was all over now, was it not? Mother said that after we left they had hidden a Jewish girl in the house. One day the neighbour had come to visit, he had heard that all three of us were in Spain. ‘Your sons’, he had said, ‘have been helped and protected by other people. Do you not want to take a Jewish girl into your house?’ They had done it. Daisy had been taken into the family, three daughters instead of two. (…) Dad, the bookworm, not at all used to doing heavy work, had cut wood and sawed trees during the winter. Once he was almost caught looking for coal between the stones along the railway track. The train drivers sometimes threw a shovel of coal out of the locomotive to help people.”

340

M. DE MEYER

Fig. 14. Wedding photo of Debora ‘Daisy’ Henriëtte Kattenburg (center) and Bernard van Hessen (right) on 7 January 1941 at the synagogue of Bussum, the Netherlands. On the left stands Walter Kattenburg, a cousin of Daisy, who was killed at Auschwitz on 15 April 1944 (© Joyce Bergman).

27 year old married woman by the time she was taken in by the Asselberghs family in May 1944. Fig. 14 shows her on her wedding day, 7 January 1941, with Bernard van Hessen. A handwritten account by Daisy about her war experiences—kindly made available by her daughter Joyce Bergman—describes her time with the family as follows: “Door de van Loons66 kwam ik bij de Asselberghs in huis. Dat is altijd een warme vriendschap, nee meer, een gevoel van verwantschap, een familieband gebleven. Bij hen bleef ik tot Koninginnedag, 31 Augustus 1944. Papa was een eeuwige optimist en een mieterse vent. Moeder Louiske een warme lieve vriendin, met d’r voeten op de grond. Als Papa lekker eten kreeg, niet veel, maar perfect klaar gemaakt en verder met rust gelaten in zijn studeerkamer, tussen zijn boeken, dan was hij happy. Hij is Egyptoloog en spreekt of leest zelfs Hebreeuws.”67

66

The van Loons were the neighbours of the Asselberghs family, living at Leonard Fuchslaan 5 in Utrecht. 67 “The van Loons brought me to the Asselberghs house. That has always remained a warm friendship, no, more, a sense of kinship, a family bond. I stayed with them until Queen’s Day, 31 August 1944. Papa was an eternal optimist and a great guy. Mother Louiske was a warm dear friend, with her feet on the ground. If Papa got good food, not much, but perfectly prepared and

THE LIFE OF HENRI ASSELBERGHS

341

Daisy also made sketches about her life in the Asselberghs house. Fig. 15 shows her drawing of ‘Papa’ Henri’s study upstairs, and the accompanying notes also make it clear that as long as he was surrounded by his books and had good food available, he was perfectly content. Daisy survived the war, and her time with the Asselberghs family was clearly a happy one, a shelter from the harsh reality of the world around her. Her brother Dick Kattenburg was not so lucky. He was arrested on 5 May 1944 and deported to Auschwitz, where he was killed in September that same year, at age 24. A brilliant violinist and composer, his works were rediscovered by Joyce Bergman in 2004 and have since come back to life.68 Years later, on 5 August 1992, Henri and Louise Asselberghs were posthumously recognised as Righteous Among the Nations by Yad Vashem (file nr. M.31.2/5383/2), and a ceremony to honour them was held at the synagogue of Bussum on 7 September 1993.69 Gutman et al. 2004: 70–71 describe this episode as follows: “In 1943, Debora Henriette (born Kattenburg) and Bernard van Hessen, a young couple with false papers attesting to an ‘Aryan’ ancestry, were forced to leave their hiding place. Through her friends in Tuindorp, Utrecht, Jeanne Coolsma put the couple in touch with the Asselberghses, a Catholic family. Henri, an Egyptologist, and Louise had five children. Their three sons were fighting with the Allied forces and their two daughters, Marie Anne and Cecilia, lived at home. Over time, Marie Anne and Debora developed a very special relationship. Debora also described Louise as a good mother and friend. Debora and Bernard stayed with the Asselberghs family until the liberation.”

This statement is however not entirely correct, since Bernard never stayed with the Asselberghs family, and Daisy only arrived with them in May 1944. Despite the personal hardships, even during the war years Asselberghs continued to work on his Egyptological publications. In 1942 he published Beeldende Kunst in Oud-Egypte, a small booklet on Egyptian art aimed for the general public, written at a time when not many popular scientific books about ancient Egypt were yet available in Dutch (Fig. 16). A second edition already appeared in 1943. His interest in the early periods of ancient Egyptian civilisation shines through in this publication, which led Marcelle Werbrouck to comment in her short review: “Nous regrettons cependant que, dans ce petit livre, une grande place ait été faite aux débuts, ou plutôt à ces périodes primitives bien peu pharaoniques” (Werbrouck 1943: 259). Another criticism by Werbrouck, “Pourquoi le livre des Dessins ébauchés de Marcelle Baud n’est-il was left alone in his study, between his books, he was happy. He is an Egyptologist and even speaks or reads Hebrew.” 68 A short biography and his music list are available at https://www.forbiddenmusicregained. org/search/composer/id/100003 (accessed 18/10/2020). 69 https://www.yadvashem.org/yv/pdf-drupal/netherlands.pdf (accessed 30/07/2020).

342

M. DE MEYER

Fig. 15. Notes and sketches by Daisy about her time in hiding with the Asselberghs family in 1944 (© Joyce Bergman). On the top left Henri is depicted sitting at a table full of food, on the right his study upstairs is sketched. The accompanying texts read: I Whoopee, that looks mighty fine ! Good gravy, plenty o’ meat, lots of butter, which one needs badly, fat, or dripping, bacon, asparagus, chips, a swell drink, a good old steak, spinach + eggs and pan cakes. I shan’t be hungry tonight, no sir. II Il est defendu de toucher aux objets d’art ou les livres. Ah, comme on est bien ici Tous mes beaux livres, tous mes TutanchAmons, Nofretetes, Ramses + Ra’s, Ichnatons etc. et du bon tabac, une pipe plûtot, une banque, une lumière à lire : avec tout cela il ne me faut plus rien, sauf…

THE LIFE OF HENRI ASSELBERGHS

343

pas utilisé (…)?” (Werbrouck 1943: 259) is addressed in correspondence between Asselberghs and Werbrouck: “Quant à votre frappant reproche de ne pas avoir utilisé le livre des Dessins ébauchés de Marcelle Baud : un de mes défauts consiste à ne pas étudier des livres qui ne m’appartiennent pas.”70

This is a shortcoming for which he may be readily forgiven, writing during the war without access to an Egyptological library nearby. He continues: “S’il y a moyen, faites me parvenir, je vous prie, un exemplaire de cet ouvrage, dont je vous paierai le prix après la guerre. Je voudrais l’utiliser pour une 3e edition éventuelle.”71

Werbrouck did indeed send him Baud’s book, but a third edition of Beeldende Kunst never saw the light of day, despite the fact that Asselberghs clearly planned one. In a letter to Capart sent on 13 June 1945 by Victor Asselberghs on behalf of his father, he writes: “Pour la 3e édition revisée de mon petit livre “Beeldende Kunst in Oud Egypte”, à paraître à bref délai, j’aurais besoin des photos originaux suivantes (…)”, followed by a list of images he would like to obtain. He ends the letter on a personal note, saying: “Nous avons survécu les temps de misère sans trop de dommages. Nos trois fils échappés en 1942 et 1943 en Angleterre sont rentrés sains et saufs.”72

In another review of Beeldende Kunst by C. Kern the typical exuberant writing style of Asselberghs is commented upon: “In onze taal bezitten we sedert korten tijd het hierboven aangekondigde werkje van den Utrechtschen geleerde H. Asselberghs, een der geestdriftigste liefhebbers van de Egyptische kunst in het heele land. (…) Asselberghs heeft in zijn technisch verbluffend goed uit de pers gekomen boekje, dat aan het slot van een keur van toelichtende afbeeldingen is voorzien, een vlotte uitbundige schets van het geheel van de Egyptische kunst willen geven. Beide eigenschappen van zijn teekening in geschrift, strooken zoo volkomen als men zich maar kan voorstellen, met de voor prozaïsch welhaast te dichterlijke gaven van den auteur als schrijver. Op buitengewoon geestdriftigen toon wordt de lof der Egyptische kunst gezongen, en worden de lijnen, waarin de grootschheid van haar monumenten besloten ligt, als het 70

Henri Asselberghs to Marcelle Werbrouck, 21 September 1943: FÉRÉ archive, folder H. Asselberghs, RMAH. 71 Henri Asselberghs to Marcelle Werbrouck, 21 September 1943: FÉRÉ archive, folder H. Asselberghs, RMAH. 72 Henri and Victor Asselberghs to Jean Capart, 13 June 1945: FÉRÉ archive, folder H. Asselberghs, RMAH. The return address listed on this letter is: Pte. 4148 Vic. Asselberghs II Unit Royal Netherlands Brigade “Prinses Irene” B.L.A.

344

M. DE MEYER

Fig. 16. Copy of the first edition of ASSELBERGHS, H., 1942. Beeldende Kunst in Oud-Egypte mede beschouwd in verband met middelen en techniek. Den Haag, with dedication by the author to Jean Capart, 16 October 1942 (© Library of the RMAH Brussels). resultaat van moderne aesthetiseerende ontledingen, getrokken. Het is juist dit zeer zuiver aangevoeld, maar soms beslist buiten de schreef gaand enthousiasme, dat het gansche karakter van Asselberghs’ uiteenzettingen bepaalt. Overal hoort men denzelfden hyper-geestdriftigen toon.”73 (Kern 1944: 72).

Kern moreover criticizes Asselberghs for being too loyal to Heinrich Schäfer’s interpretation of Egyptian art, and his comments, written in the heat of WWII, perhaps betray some anti-German sentiments: 73 “In our language we have recently come to possess the aforementioned work by the Utrecht scholar H. Asselberghs, one of the most enthusiastic lovers of Egyptian art in the whole country. (…) Asselberghs has in his booklet, that technically came off the press astonishingly well, and that has been provided with a good selection of explanatory illustrations at the end, wanted to give a smooth exuberant sketch of the whole of Egyptian art. Both characteristics of his descriptions in writing align, as perfectly as one can imagine, with the almost too poetic talent of the author as a writer of prose. The praise of Egyptian art is sung in an extraordinarily enthusiastic tone, and the lines in which the grandeur of its monuments is contained are drawn as the result of modern aesthetising dissections. It is precisely this purely sensed, but at times decidedly out of line enthusiasm, that defines the entire character of Asselberghs’ expositions. Everywhere one hears the same hyper-spirited tone.”

THE LIFE OF HENRI ASSELBERGHS

345

“Het wil alle verschillen tusschen onze eigen- en de Egyptische visie op kunstzinnig gebied, zeer fraai beredeneerd, naar modernen en—nimmer uit te schakelen!— Duitschen trant van denken onder spiegelgladde woorden brengen. Op die manier sluipt ook vaak iets van het problematiseerende dat het Duitsche denkvermogen nu eenmaal heeft, in de wereld van de beeldende kunst in het oude Egypte binnen. Nu komt speciaal dit streng onderzoekende, en zoo systematisch mogelijk begrenzende en omschrijvende van Schäfer’s wetenschappelijke methode, mijns inziens zoo nu en dan wel eens wat ongelegen in de Egyptische kunst.”74 (Kern 1944: 73).

Asselberghs also kept up his Egyptological correspondence during the war, notably with German colleagues. One letter to Heinrich Schäfer is preserved, which he wrote on 15 February 1941 in reply to receiving some offprints of Schäfer’s publications. “Als ich an einem Abend in (sic) Januar von meiner Arbeit heimkehrte erkannte ich sofort den auf den (sic) Tisch liegenden Briefumschlag an seine (sic) von Ihnen geschriebene (sic) Anschrift. Auch die Widmung auf die (sic) darin enthaltenen Sonderdrucke (sic) zeigte dieselbe mir wohlbekannte Handschrift. Dass ich Ihnen nicht früher antwortete wird dadurch erklärt, dass fast alle von uns, auch ich selbst, inzwischen kürzer oder länger mit Grippe zu Bett lagen, jetzt aber wieder genesen sind. Nur die kleine Caecilia liegt noch mit Encephalitis im Krankenhaus; hoffentlich wird auch sie aber behalten bleiben. Es hat mich sehr gefreut wieder einmal etwas von Ihnen zu hören. Wir haben immer nur Gutes und Freundliches von Ihnen erfahren. Wir werden das niemals vergessen und zu Aller Zeit uns Ihrer in Dankbarkeit und Freundschaft erinneren (sic).”75

On 19 August 1940 he wrote a letter to Hermann Junker with philological questions about the latter’s newly published Götterlehre (Junker 1940). Known as the ‘Shabaka Stone’, this inscription dating to the 25th Dynasty records the Memphite theology, and Asselberghs made a Dutch translation of the text (Fig. 17). The draft of Asselberghs’ letter is preserved, and after one and a half pages of philological questions and ideas, he ends with: “und nun, am Ende, will ich doch hoffen nicht allzu dummes gesagt zu haben; bin ich ja erst Ägyptologe abends in freier Stunde! Schreiben Sie mir aber, lieber Herr Junker, einmal genau bitte was Sie zu meinem Vorschlag denken.”76

Only a very brief reply is preserved from Junker, written on 21 September 1940, in which he thanks Asselberghs for his comments. 74 “It wants to smoothly articulate all the differences between our own and the Egyptian vision of art, very nicely reasoned, in accordance with the modern and—never to be eliminated!—German way of thinking. In doing so, something of the problematising way that German thinking tends to have, often creeps into the world of the visual arts in ancient Egypt. Now in particular this strictly investigative, and as systematically as possible limiting and describing way of Schäfer’s scientific method, is, in my opinion, from time to time somewhat inappropriate in Egyptian art.” 75 Henri Asselberghs to Heinrich Schäfer, 15 February 1941 (see n. 41). 76 Henri Asselberghs to Hermann Junker, 19 August 1940: private collection.

346

M. DE MEYER

The post-war years The last trace of correspondence between Asselberghs and Capart is a postcard dated to 15 May 1946, in which Asselberghs writes: “Je regrette infiniment ne pouvoir pas assister à votre conférence prochaine de mardi 21 mai. Dimanche prochain je partirai pour Faulx (Namur) où je resterai quelques jours chez ma belle-sœur. Peut-être mon épouse sera présente. Je voudrais connaître les résultats de l’expédition d’El Kab après une nouvelle

Fig. 17. Handwritten notes by Henri Asselberghs on the Shabaka Stone (private collection).

THE LIFE OF HENRI ASSELBERGHS

347

sensationnelle dans un de nos journaux d’il y a deux ou trois mois, qui parlait d’une incendie désastreuse à l’hôtel au Caire.77 J’ai une nouvelle de notre ami M. Jozef Janssen du 25 avril nous disant qu’il se trouve (se trouvait) à l’Hopital français après une chute dans le tombeau d’Eje à El Amarna. Espérons qu’il guérira vite!”78

After the death of Capart on 16 June 1947, the correspondence between Asselberghs and the FÉRÉ nevertheless continued. In a copy of a letter dated to 1 February 1949, Arpag Mekhitarian thanks Asselberghs and his wife for having given him a place to stay in their home during a visit to the Netherlands. The relations between Mekhitarian and the Asselberghs family must have been amiable, as he writes: “Rentré sans aucun contretemps de mon voyage en Hollande, je tiens à vous remercier bien cordialement, ainsi que Madame Asselberghs et votre charmante famille, de l’accueil si gentil que vous m’avez fait lors de mon passage à Utrecht. La promenade que vous m’avez fait faire à travers la ville a été pour moi des plus fructueuses et elle m’a rappelé les excursions si instructives que nous avons faites ensemble l’été dernier à Chartres.”79

Asselberghs’ post-war membership of the FÉRÉ may have seen some interruptions. No membership lists were published in the CdÉ 20 and 21 (1945–1946) due to difficulties in communication during the war, and in CdÉ 22–24 (1947– 1949) only new members are listed, not complete membership lists, making it unclear whether Asselberghs continued his membership without interruption. However, in CdÉ 24 (1949): 183 Asselberghs is listed as a ‘new member’, suggesting that there was indeed a temporary break in his FÉRÉ membership. In CdÉ 25 (1950): 188 he is listed as membre effectif, but this was the last year in which complete membership lists were published in CdÉ. The final termination of his FÉRÉ membership is a long drawn-out process, which starts on 30 January 1954 when he writes to Mekhitarian: “Je viens de faire porter à votre compte à l’Amsterdamsche Bank à Leyden la contre-valeur de frs. B. 200.– comme payement de ma cotisation de membre effectif de la Fondation pour l’an 1954. Vu qu’à partir le 1er Mars prochain je prendrai ma retraite aussi comme directeur du Spoorwegmuseum, je regrette ne pouvoir plus continuer mon adhesion l’année prochaine.”80

77

See Bruffaerts 2013: 237 for this incident. Henri Asselberghs to Jean Capart, 15 May 1946: FÉRÉ archive, folder H. Asselberghs, RMAH. 79 Arpag Mekhitarian to Henri Asselberghs, 1 February 1949: FÉRÉ archive, folder H. Asselberghs, RMAH. 80 Henri Asselberghs to Arpag Mekhitarian, 30 January 1954: FÉRÉ archive, folder H. Asselberghs, RMAH. 78

348

M. DE MEYER

However, later that year he writes: “L’année passée je vous avais écrit concernant la Fondation, que vu ma retraite comme directeur du Musée des Chemins de Fer, je comptais que mon adhésion se terminerait fin 1954. Je viens maintenant de recevoir la nomination comme adviseur du musée surdit pour l’an 1955 et je suis heureux de pourvoir vous communiquer que je compte continuer mon adhésion à la Fondation encore cette année-ci.”81

The last communication of Asselberghs that is preserved in the FÉRÉ archives dates to 13 January 1959, in which he finally puts an end to his membership for good: “Ayant l’intention de quitter à la fin de l’an 1959 définitivement mon musée, je désirerais me voir inscrit pour cette année encore une fois comme membre effectif de la Fondation Reine Elisabeth.”82

Just like with his DOG membership which he briefly renewed in 1959 after a long hiatus (cf. supra), Asselberghs seems to have deliberately wanted to mark the end of his professional career with these memberships. But that did not mean Asselberghs stepped out of Egyptology: his most important work would still have to appear. Chaos en beheersing While the vast majority of Asselberghs’ publications had dealt with the New Kingdom, often with a focus on the Amarna Period, for his magnum opus he chose to work on Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt. In 1961 his Chaos en beheersing was published as the eighth volume of the series Documenta et Monumenta Orientis Antiqui, with a foreword by Jacques Vandier (Asselberghs 1961: IX–X) instead of the intended Adriaan de Buck, who had passed away on 28 October 1959, shortly before the completion of the manuscript. Vandier writes that Asselberghs had been interested in the topic for thirty years, and Asselberghs himself mentions a quote by Heinrich Schäfer about decorated Predynastic palettes that sparked his interest early on: “Man sollte sie einmal in einem Heft zusammen herausgeben” (Schäfer 1919: 15). Through his relationship with Capart, he was also familiar with the latter’s ideas on early Egypt (Capart 1904, with a revised and translated version in Capart 1905) and his work on Predynastic palettes (Capart 1908). However, the immediate catalyst to take up the work seems to have been Schott 1951 (Asselberghs 1961: XI–XII). And so, in the decade between 1950 and the publication of Chaos en beheersing in 1961, during which he also retired as director of the Spoorwegmuseum 81 Henri Asselberghs to Arpag Mekhitarian, 27 December 1954: FÉRÉ archive, folder H. Asselberghs, RMAH. 82 Henri Asselberghs to Arpag Mekhitarian, 13 January 1959: FÉRÉ archive, folder H. Asselberghs, RMAH.

THE LIFE OF HENRI ASSELBERGHS

349

(1953), he did not write any articles for JEOL, but focused on the research for his book instead. For the publication of the book Asselberghs received a subsidy of the Dutch Research Council, then named the Nederlandse Organisatie voor Zuiver-Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek ([Anon.] 1960; Asselberghs 1961: XIII). In his introduction, Asselberghs thanks only three people by name (Asselberghs 1961: XIII), the first one naturally being Adriaan de Buck, his then late professor at Leiden University, who had nevertheless read, commented upon, and approved of the manuscript. Secondly, he thanks Louis (Ludwig) Keimer, from whom he received numerous photographs of unpublished (fragments of) objects, many of which had been hidden in private collections up until that point, and which he was allowed to include in his book. This at the time substantial collection of fresh material gave a new impetus to the study of Predynastic and Early Dynastic iconography (see also the comments by Godron 1963: 260). Asselberghs (1961: XIII) mentions that he had hoped to discuss this material in person with Keimer during a visit the latter made to the Netherlands in 1955, but since he was forced to cut his trip short, this never happened (for this trip, see Keimer 1955). Despite the fact that no correspondence between the two men is preserved, it is likely that Asselberghs and Keimer knew each other for a long time. The 1924 review of Keimer’s Die Gartenpflanzen im alten Ägypten ([Anon.] 1924b) was probably written by Asselberghs (cf. supra), and the latter also refers to correspondence with Keimer (Asselberghs 1961: 175, n. 7; 201, n. 1). Moreover, four books with the ex-libris of Asselberghs ended up in Keimer’s library which now forms the core of the library of the Deutsches Archäologisches Institut in Kairo.83 All four books are early travel accounts (18th and 19th centuries), the collection of which was one of Keimer’s passions (Lehnert 2013). It is unfortunately not known how, when, or why these books from Asselberghs went to Keimer. The third person whom Asselberghs thanks, is Jozef Janssen, “die, in een zeer vroeg stadium al, reeds veel van het nog embryonnaire concept doornam en wiens voortdurende aanmoediging met het werk door te gaan, ‘er een boek van te maken’, uiteindelijk mede voor het eind-resultaat verantwoordelijk is”84 (Asselberghs 1961: XIII). Written in Asselberghs’ typical archaic Dutch, this study is in fact an amalgamate of several studies, among which the ones about the Gebel el-Arak knife and the Predynastic palettes are the most important ones. It is mainly the almost forty pages long English summary (Asselberghs 1961: 256–293) and the catalogue with a large collection of at that time often unpublished images that has made its way into the scholarly literature, and for

83

I thank Isolde Lehnert and Heike Schmidt for this information. “…who, already at a very early stage, went through much of the still embryonic concept and whose constant encouragement to continue the work, ‘to make a book out of it’, is ultimately partly responsible for the final result.” 84

350

M. DE MEYER

which the book continues to receive acclaim.85 But native Dutch speakers have a significant advantage in reading the book in its original language: ‘Rising Intellect’ as the translation for the title of Chapter 6 hardly does justice to the poetic subtlety of ‘Kruiend Brein.’ Asselberghs dedicated his book to the memory of Jean Capart and Heinrich Schäfer, both deceased by then, “die sinds den aanvang van de twintiger jaren mijn liefde voor Egypte inhoud en gestalte gaven.”86 At the end of his career he thus graciously showed his gratitude to these two Egyptologists and friends who had encouraged him since he had first started on his path in Egyptology. Several reviews appeared of Asselberghs’ book, certainly with critical notes, but mostly of a favourable nature, earning him recognition in the scholarly community. It is perhaps exactly because he was an outsider in Egyptological academia that he was able to approach the topic from a less traditional angle. T.G.H. James writes: “Dr. Asselberghs, who has for many years studied this period with care and with the depth of interest of a true scholar, may appear to interpret these documents with greater confidence than some Egyptologists would allow, but his line of general argument is sound and full of interest.” (James 1962: 164).

The longest and most in-depth review was written by G. Godron, who not only comments on Asselberghs’ book, but also uses it as a jumping off point to discuss some of his own views and opinions. He concludes: “Ma conclusion sera brève. Le texte de Chaos en Beheersing nous donne un état des questions à jour sur quelques-uns des problèmes essentiels de la préhistoire égyptienne et nous devons remercier son auteur de ce travail de mise au point. Mais ce livre est bien davantage. C’est désormais à lui qu’il faudra recourir pour étudier manches de couteaux et palettes préhistoriques, puisque, par le soin apporté à son album, M. Asselberghs nous a fourni un des futurs classiques de l’archéologie dans la vallée du Nil.” (Godron 1963: 261).

The brief review by M.J. Mellink does not go into the actual subject matter of the book, but instead criticises more formal aspects and the structure of the publication:

85

For instance, only recently Hendrickx et al. 2020: 132 commented on the quality of Asselberghs’ illustrations in the context of a history of the visualisation of the Hunters’ Palette: “That drawing was reused by Henri Asselberghs (1887–1980) (1961: 182, fig. 22), who combined it with photos of the entire palette, the Louvre fragment and a detail of the latter (id.: pl. LXV– LVII, fig. 122–124). The last photo was certainly the best photo of a detail published up to that time (Fig. 15). This is not a surprise, because Asselberghs aimed at publishing the best possible quality of illustrations.” A case in point that supports the latter statement is that in the catalogue of the exhibition ‘Dawn of Egyptian Art’ that was on view at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York in 2012, the iconic Narmer Palette was still illustrated with photographs taken from Asselberghs 1961 (Patch 2011: 10–11). I thank Wouter Claes for these references. 86 “…who gave meaning and shape to my love for Egypt since the early twenties.”

THE LIFE OF HENRI ASSELBERGHS

351

“The basic problem about this book seems to be the uncertainty for whom it was written. The text is often addressed to the beginner and provided with explanations redundant to the Egyptologist; yet the nature of the subject matter is not kept general enough for the layman and many questions of detail are of interest to the specialist only.” (Mellink 1963: 213).

The final review that appeared, by W. Kaiser, is likewise brief, and ends with: “Auch ohne diese grundsätzlich wünschenswerte sachliche Breite kann die Bereicherung, die der Ägyptologie durch die ausgezeichnet dokumentierte Arbeit Asselberghs’ erwachsen ist, jedoch zweifellos kaum überschätzt werden.” (Kaiser 1964: 140).

Post scriptum: ex-libris Asselberghs built up a sizeable personal library throughout his lifetime. Although this library has not survived as a single collection but was dispersed after the death of Mimi in 2013 (see n. 14), some of his books occasionally appear on the second-hand market and have found their way into various libraries and collections all over the world.87 They are clearly recognisable by his ex-libris, of which there are two versions (Fig. 18). An older version was a simple stamp, in which his name is still spelled as Asselbergs (see n. 6). Then in 1934 or 1935 he had a more artistic ex-libris designed and printed, about which he wrote in a letter to Capart: “Un de mes amis88 a dessiné pour moi un ex-libris. J’ai le plaisir de vous offrir ci-inclus deux specimen: l’un, colorié à la main, est réservé à des livres comme p.e. “Documents” I et II; l’autre est le type ordinaire. Trouvez vous qu’ils sont réussis?”89

Encircled by a cartouche, he chose a passage from the Great Hymn to the Aten in the tomb of Ay at Amarna, likely because the Amarna Period had always been a great interest of his. The translation of the hieroglyphs, circumventing the cartouche, is given as “Eyes are on beauties until thou settest.”90 87 For instance, one of his books ended up in the Institute of Fine Arts Library of New York University: https://archive.org/details/derportrtkopfd00borc/page/n5/mode/2up (accessed 01/10/2020). I thank Bart Hellinckx for this reference. 88 This friend was Hermanus Gerardus Jacob Schelling (1888–1978), an architect for the Dutch railways (Konrad & Pamminger 2014: 26–27). Asselberghs must have known him well from his professional life as director of the Railway Museum, and Schelling was in fact also present at the farewell dinner for Asselberghs in 1960 (see Fig. 3, second from the left). His monogram (an S in a circle) can be observed at the bottom of the ex-libris (Witte 1993: 101). Note that the designer was erroneously identified as Adrianus Hermanus Schelling (1887–1945), also an engineer and amateur graphic designer, in Vanlathem & Oost 2013: 7. 89 Henri Asselberghs to Jean Capart, 26 February 1935: FÉRÉ archive, folder H. Asselberghs, RMAH. 90 A more correct translation would have been: “Eyes are on (thy) beauty until thou settest”, referring to the setting sun (Simpson 2003: 283, line 13). In fact, Asselberghs had himself already

352

M. DE MEYER

Fig. 18. Ex-libris of Henri Asselberghs, on the left the older stamped version, and on the right the newer printed version, both in colour and monochrome (© FÉRÉ archive, RMAH Brussels).

Asselberghs’ own sunset came on 21 April 1980, and he was laid to rest at the St. Barbara cemetery in Utrecht in the same grave as his wife, who had passed away three years before him. In his obituary his name is followed by these four distinctions: Oud directeur Nederlands Spoorwegmuseum (Former director of the Dutch Railway Museum) Ridder in de orde van Oranje-Nassau (Knight in the Order of Orange-Nassau) Drager van de Museummedaille (Bearer of the Museum Medal) Corresponderend lid van het Duits Archeologisch Instituut (Corresponding Member of the German Archaeological Institute) “Merkwaardig van Egyptologen heb ik altijd gevonden, dat er zoveel museumdirecteuren uit zijn voortgekomen”91 It is difficult to ascertain whether Asselberghs thought of himself in the first place as the director of the Railway Museum with a passion for Egyptology on translated this line as such in Asselberghs 1922b: 396 (“Alle oogen zijn gevestigd op Uwe schoonheid, totdat Gij ondergaat”). 91 “I have always found it odd about Egyptologists that so many museum directors have come from them,” Marie-Anne Asselberghs, in an interview upon her retirement (Vlietstra 1984).

THE LIFE OF HENRI ASSELBERGHS

353

the side, or as an Egyptologist who happened to work at the Railway Museum. Regardless, despite the fact that Egyptology never was his profession, and while working a full and demanding daytime job as a museum director, Asselberghs managed to play his role within Dutch Egyptology during the midtwentieth century. He published in scholarly journals, attended scientific conferences, got involved with exhibitions, took up the study of Egyptology at Leiden University, became a member of several professional organisations including corresponding member of the DAI and EOL, corresponded internationally with Egyptologists, and also actively contributed to the popularisation of science by giving lectures and writing numerous articles for Dutch newspapers and magazines. His main interests lay with the New Kingdom, more particular the 18th Dynasty and the Amarna Period, and potential links with the Bible. He was heavily influenced by art historical studies, predominantly from the German branch of Egyptology, which clearly shines through in his own publications. In conclusion, the words of Vandier still ring true: “L’auteur, sans être égyptologue de métier, a su, par sa patience, par sa volonté et par son courage, devenir un spécialiste et un spécialiste qui a apporté quelque chose à la science; qu’il en soit remercié et félicité, et qu’il trouve, dans son travail toutes les satisfactions qu’il mérite.” (Asselberghs 1961: X).

Acknowledgements This research was made possible thanks to the funding of EOS Project 30885993 (Pyramids and Progress: Belgian Expansionism and the Making of Egyptology, 1830– 1952) by the Research Foundation – Flanders (FWO) and the Fonds de la Recherche Scientifique – FRS-FNRS. Many people have helped in this research along the way. In the first place I warmly thank Henri’s grandchildren Christophe, Brigitte, Francis, and Victor Asselberghs, as well as Joyce Bergman, the daughter of Daisy Kattenburg. For discussions and supplying various types of information, I thank Wouter Claes (RMAH), Isolde Lehnert (DAIK), Luc Limme (FÉRÉ), Martina Düntzer (DAI Berlin, Archiv der Zentrale), Peter Der Manuelian (Harvard University), Julia Viani Puglisi (Harvard University), Carolien van Zoest (NINO), Stephanie Boonstra (EES), Joachim Marzahn (DOG), Thomas L. Gertzen (FU Berlin), Hana Navrátilová (University of Reading), Tuur Verdonck and Evelien Pieterse (Spoorwegmuseum Utrecht), Stefan Derouck (KU Leuven Library), Mart van Duijn (Leiden University Archives), Nina van den Berg (International Institute of Social History, Amsterdam), Gertraude Fiebelkorn, Bert Verrept, Bart Hellinckx, and Rob Demarée.

Bibliography [ANON.], 1923. Mitgliedernachrichten. ZDMG 77: XIV–XX. [ANON.], 1924a. Kunsthistorische week. Het Vaderland: Staat- en letterkundig nieuwsblad 5 August 1924, vol. 56, Ochtendblad: 3. [ANON.], 1924b. Review of: KEIMER, L., 1924. Die Gartenpflanzen im alten Ägypten: Ägyptologische Studien (Hamburg: Hoffmann und Campe Verlag). Nieuwe Rotterdamsche Courant 23 December 1924, vol. 81, no. 355, Avondblad A: 1.

354

M. DE MEYER

[ANON.], 1925a. Koning Tuth-Ank-Amen in Helmond. De Zuid-Willemsvaart 30 March 1925, vol. 45, no. 75: 3. [ANON.], 1925b. Lezing over Egypte’s oudheid. De Grondwet: Dagblad voor westelijk Noord-Brabant 19 May 1925, vol. 63, no. 116: 3. [ANON.], 1926. Provinciaal nieuws. De Zuid-Willemsvaart 20 March 1926, vol. 46, no. 66: 2. [ANON.], 1930. Wat eeuwen lang verborgen bleef. Nieuwe Amsterdamsche Courant: Algemeen Handelsblad 3 May 1930, vol. 103, no. 33477, Avondblad Bijvoegsel: 5. [ANON.], 1931a. Egyptische en Voor-Aziatische voorwerpen in particulier bezit. Nieuwe Amsterdamsche Courant: Algemeen Handelsblad 16 January 1931, vol. 104, no. 33733, Avondblad, Derde Blad: 9. [ANON.], 1931b. Tentoonstelling van antieke voorwerpen uit Egypte en Voor-Azië hoofdzakelijk uit particulier Nederlandsch bezit in de zalen van het Koninklijk Oudheidkundig Genootschap in het Rijksmuseum te Amsterdam, 3 October– 31 October 1931: Geïllustreerde catalogus. Amsterdam. [ANON.], 1932. Actes du XVIIIe congrès international des orientalistes, Leiden, 7–12 septembre 1931. Leiden. [ANON.], 1935. Egyptische reliefs: Hun ontstaan, in verband met techniek en kleur. Algemeen Handelsblad 13 March 1935, vol. 108, no. 35236, Avondblad III: 9. [ANON.], 1936a. Academische berichten. Utrechtsch Nieuwsblad 28 November 1936, vol. 44, no. 180, vijfde blad: 15. [ANON.], 1936b. Henri Asselberghs. Spoor- en Tramwegen: 14-daagsch Tijdschrift voor het Spoor- en Tramwegwezen in Nederland en Indië 22 December 1936, vol. 9, no. 26: 635. [ANON.], 1936c. Prenten betreffende Toet-anch-amon: Tentoonstelling te Leiden. Het Vaderland: Staat- en letterkundig Nieuwsblad 26 May 1936, vol. 68, Avondblad C: 1. [ANON.], 1937. Jahresbericht des Archäologischen Instituts des Deutschen Reiches für das Haushaltsjahr 1936/37. Archäologischer Anzeiger: Beiblatt zum Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts 1937: I–IX. [ANON.], 1945–1950. Bericht über die Neugründung der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft (Mainz e. V.). ZDMG 99: 138–142. [ANON.], 1954. Mevr. de Ranitz-de Brauw opent Spoorwegmuseum: Mooie onderscheiding voor de heer H. Asselberghs, burgemeester fronst het voorhoofd (over iets anders). Utrechtsch Nieuwsblad 5 November 1954, vol. 62, no. 159: 2. [ANON.], 1960. Utrechtse studie over oud-Egypte gesubsidieerd. Utrechtsch Nieuwsblad 31 March 1960, vol. 67, no. 283: 4. ASSELBERGHS, E., 1997. Tussen licht en donker, 1943–1945. Westervoort. BAINES, J., 1993. Symbolic roles of canine figures on early monuments. Archéo-Nil 3: 57–74. BIERBRIER, M.L. (ed.), 2019. Who was who in Egyptology. 5th ed. London. BOTHMER, B.V. & PRZYBYLLA, H., 1939. Heinrich Schäfer: Verzeichnis seiner Schriften 1891–1938. ZÄS 75: 1–16. BREASTED, J.H., 1910. Geschichte Ägyptens. Vom Verfasser neubearbeitete Ausgabe. Translated by RANKE, H., Berlin. BRÉMONT, A., 2018. Into the wild? Rethinking the dynastic conception of the desert beyond nature and culture. JAEI 17: 1–17. BRUFFAERTS, J.-M., 1998. Une reine au pays de Toutankhamon. Museum Dynasticum 10: 3–35.

THE LIFE OF HENRI ASSELBERGHS

355

BRUFFAERTS, J.-M., 2013. Bruxelles, capitale de l’égyptologie : Le rêve de Jean Capart (1877–1947) [in:] BICKEL, S.; FISCHER-ELFERT, H.-W.; LOPRIENO, A. & RICHTER, S. (eds), Ägyptologen und Ägyptologien zwischen Kaiserreich und Gründung der beiden deutschen Staaten: Reflexionen zur Geschichte und Episteme eines altertumswissenschaftlichen Fachs im 150. Jahr der Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde. ZÄS Beiheft 1. Berlin: 193–241. BRUFFAERTS, J.-M., 2018. Marcelle Werbrouck ou l’égyptologie belge au féminin [in:] DOYEN, F.; PREYS, R. & QUERTINMONT, A. (eds), Sur le chemin du Mouseion d’Alexandrie  : Études offertes à Marie-Cécile Bruwier. CENiM 19: 43–71. DE BRUYN, F.F., 1957. Dutch Railway Museum. The Museums Journal 56: 77. CAPART, J., 1904. Les débuts de l’art en Égypte. Brussels. CAPART, J., 1905. Primitive art in Egypt. Translated by GRIFFITH, A.S., London. CAPART, J., 1908. Les palettes en schiste de l’Égypte primitive. Revue des questions scientifiques 13: 537–557. CAPART, J., 1922. Le centenaire du déchiffrement des hiéroglyphes par Champollion : Lecture faite à la séance publique de la Classe des lettres et des sciences morales et politiques de l’Académie royale de Belgique le 3 mai 1922. Bulletins de l’Académie royale de Belgique (Classe des lettres) 5: 135–152. CAPART, J., 1923. Tout-Ankh-Amon. Brussels. CAPART, J., 1924. Tut-Anch-Amon, benevens drie brieven uit Luxor van Marcelle Werbrouck. Translated by ASSELBERGHS, H., Amsterdam. CAPART, J., 2018. Toutankhamon. Saint-Laurent-le-Minier. CAPART, J. & WERBROUCK, M., 1930. Memphis à l’ombre des pyramides. Brussels. CARTER, H., 1927. Tut-ench-Amun: Ein ägyptisches Königsgrab entdeckt von Earl of Carnarvon und Howard Carter; mit einem Beitrag zur Geschichte der ägyptischen Kunst von den Anfängen bis Tut-ench-Amun von Georg Steindorff. Leipzig. CAPPEL, A., 2016. Adolf Erman und Georg Steindorff: Zur Dynamik eines LehrerSchüler-Verhältnisses [in:] VOSS, S. & RAUE, D. (eds), Georg Steindorff und die deutsche Ägyptologie im 20. Jahrhundert: Wissenshintergründe und Forschungstransfers. ZÄS Beiheft 5. Berlin: 7–90. DE MEYER, M., 2021. Jean Capart, a Belgian egyptologist on tour in the United States [in:] NYS, L.; BERTRAMS, K. & WILS, K. (eds), A century of transatlantic scientific exchange: The Belgian American Educational Foundation, 1920–2020. Leuven (in press). DENDERMONDE, M., 1958. Tussen koningsgraven en rookpluimen: Egyptologie, de grote liefde van ex-spoorman Henri Asselberghs. Wekelijks Bijvoegsel van Het Parool 18 October 1958, vol. 18, no. 4225: 1–2. EGYPT EXPLORATION SOCIETY, 1923. Report of the thirty-seventh ordinary general meeting (forty-first annual general meeting): Subscription list and balance sheets. Bristol. EHLERS, K.-H., 2012. Der “Deutsche Gruß” in Briefen: Zur historischen Soziolinguistik und Pragmatik eines verordneten Sprachgebrauchs. Linguistik Online 55(5): 3–19. GERTZEN, T.L., 2016. “In Deutschland steht Ihnen Ihre Abstammung entgegen”: Zur Bedeutung von Judentum und Konfessionalismus für die wissenschaftliche Laufbahn Georg Steindorffs und seiner Rolle innerhalb der École de Berlin [in:] VOSS, S. & RAUE, D. (eds), Georg Steindorff und die deutsche Ägyptologie im 20. Jahrhundert: Wissenshintergründe und Forschungstransfers. ZÄS Beiheft 5. Berlin: 333–400.

356

M. DE MEYER

GODRON, G., 1963. Review of: ASSELBERGHS, H., 1961. Chaos en beheersing: Documenten uit aeneolithisch Egypte. Documenta et Monumenta Orientis Antiqui 8 (Leiden: Brill). BiOr 20(5/6): 254–261. GUTMAN, I.; MICHMAN, J. & FLIM, B.J. (eds), 2004. The encyclopedia of the righteous among the nations, rescuers of Jews during the Holocaust: The Netherlands. Jerusalem. HEERMA VAN VOSS, M.S.G.H., 1980. Henri Asselberghs. Phœnix: Bulletin uitgegeven door het Vooraziatisch-Egyptisch Genootschap “Ex Oriente Lux” 25(2): 60–62. HENDRICKX, S., 1996. Considerations on the “Analytical Bibliography of the Prehistory and the Early Dynastic Period of Egypt and Northern Sudan” [in:] KRZYŻANIAK, L.; KROEPER, K. & KOBUSIEWICZ, M. (eds), Interregional contacts in the later prehistory of Northeastern Africa. SAA 5. Poznań: 409–417. HENDRICKX, S., 2006. The dog, the Lycaon pictus and order over chaos in Predynastic Egypt [in:] KROEPER, K.; CHŁODNICKI, M. & KOBUSIEWICZ, M. (eds), Archaeology of early Northeastern Africa: In memory of Lech Krzyżaniak. SAA 9. Poznań: 723–749. HENDRICKX, S., 2019. Louis Adriaenssens, eerste machinist op de spoorlijn HasseltMaaseik. De Maaseikenaar 50(3): 145–157. HENDRICKX, S.; DE MEYER, M. & EYCKERMAN, M., 2015. On the origin of the royal false beard and its bovine symbolism [in:] JUCHA, M.; DĘBOWSKA-LUDWIN, J. & KOŁODZIEJCZYK, P. (eds), Aegyptus est imago caeli: Studies presented to Krzysztof M. Ciałowicz on his 60th birthday. Kraków: 129–143. HENDRICKX, S.; FÖRSTER, F.; PIQUETTE, K.E.; EYCKERMAN, M.; GOFFIN, L. & MEYERS, L., 2020. A history of the visualisation of the Hunters’ Palette and a tentative reconstruction of its missing part. Archéo-Nil 30: 123–148. JAMES, T.G.H., 1962. Review of: ASSELBERGHS, H., 1961. Chaos en beheersing: Documenten uit aeneolithisch Egypte. Documenta et Monumenta Orientis Antiqui 8 (Leiden: Brill). JEA 48: 164–166. JUNKER, H., 1940. Die Götterlehre von Memphis (Schabaka-Inschrift). Berlin. KAISER, W., 1964. Review of: ASSELBERGHS, H., 1961. Chaos en beheersing: Documenten uit aeneolithisch Egypte. Documenta et Monumenta Orientis Antiqui 8 (Leiden: Brill). OLZ 59: 139–140. KAMPMAN, A.A., 1947. Tien jaren Ex Oriente Lux, 1933–22 mei–1943 [in:] Kernmomenten der antieke beschaving en haar moderne beleving. MVEOL 7. Leiden: 269–275. KAPER, O.E., 2014. De geschiedenis van de egyptologie aan Nederlandse universiteiten [in:] KAPER, O.E. & DERCKSEN, J.G. (eds), Waar de geschiedenis begon: Nederlandse onderzoekers in de ban van spijkerschrift, hiërogliefen en aardewerk. Leiden: 39–61. KEIMER, L., 1924. Die Gartenpflanzen im alten Ägypten: Ägyptologische Studien: Band 1. Hamburg. KEIMER, L., 1926. Die Angst der Aegypter vor der Wüste. Hamburger Fremdenblatt 6 January 1926, vol. 98, Abendblatt: 1–2. KEIMER, L., 1955. Voyages d’études aux Pays-Bas, en Suisse, et en Autriche. La Revue du Caire 18(182): 42–53. KERN, C., 1944. Een Nederlandsche Egyptische kunstgeschiedenis. Review of: ASSELBERGHS, H., 1942. Beeldende Kunst in Oud-Egypte mede beschouwd in verband met middelen en techniek (Den Haag: N.V. Servire). JEOL 9: 71–74. KONRAD, K. & PAMMINGER, P., 2014. Exlibris von Ägyptologen. 2nd revised ed. GM Beihefte 7(2). Göttingen.

THE LIFE OF HENRI ASSELBERGHS

357

LAMMERS, F., 1975. Na meisjesdroom (toneel) de mannenwereld van de spoorwegen: Marie-Anne Asselberghs, met museum opgegroeid. Trouw 26 May 1975, vol. 33, no. 9529: 6. LEHNERT, I., 2013. A thousand and one books: The early travel literature of Ludwig Keimer [in:] FORTENBERRY, D. (ed.), Souvenirs and new ideas: Travel and collecting in Egypt and the Near East. Oxford: 80–97. LINSEELE, V.; VAN NEER, W. & HENDRICKX, S., 2007. Evidence for early cat taming in Egypt. JAS 34: 2081–2090. MELLINK, M.J., 1963. Review of: ASSELBERGHS, H., 1961. Chaos en beheersing: Documenten uit aeneolithisch Egypte. Documenta et Monumenta Orientis Antiqui 8 (Leiden: Brill). JNES 22: 212–213. MEYER, E., 1928. Geschichte des Altertums, zweiter Band, erste Abteilung: Die Zeit der ägyptischen Großmacht. Berlin. MORENZ, L.D., 2014. Anfänge der ägyptischen Kunst: Eine problemgeschichtliche Einführung in ägyptologische Bild-Anthropologie. OBO 264. Göttingen. PATCH, D.C. (ed.), 2011. Dawn of Egyptian art. New York. RAFFAELE, F., 2010. Animal rows and ceremonial processions in late Predynastic Egypt [in:] RAFFAELE, F.; NUZZOLO, M. & INCORDINO, I. (eds), Recent discoveries and latest researches in Egyptology: Proceedings of the First Neapolitan Congress of Egyptology, June 18th–20th 2008. Wiesbaden: 245–285. RAULWING, P., 2020. Bruno Güterbock (1858–1940): Drei Jahrzehnte im Dienst der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft. Hans Gustav Güterbock (1908–2000): Auf den Spuren der Hethiter [in:] GERTZEN, T.L. & SCHOEPS, J.H. (eds), Grenzgänger: Jüdische Wissenschaftler, Träumer und Abenteurer zwischen Orient und Okzident. Berlin: 72–103. SCHÄFER, H., 1919. Von ägyptischer Kunst besonders der Zeichenkunst: Eine Einführung in die Betrachtung ägyptischer Kunstwerke. Leipzig. SCHNEIDER, T., 2013. Ägyptologen im Dritten Reich: Biographische Notizen anhand der sogenannten “Steindorff-Liste” [in:] SCHNEIDER, T. & RAULWING, P. (eds), Egyptology from the First World War to the Third Reich: Ideology, scholarship, and individual biographies. Leiden: 120–247. SCHOTT, S., 1951. Hieroglyphen: Untersuchungen zum Ursprung der Schrift. Abhandlungen der Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaftlichen Klasse 24. Mainz. SIMPSON, W.K. (ed.), 2003. The literature of ancient Egypt: An anthology of stories, instructions, stelae, autobiographies, and poetry. 3rd revised ed. New Haven. STUART, A.J., 2010. Egyptian artefacts from the Frits Lugt collection. Antiquities from the Frits Lugt Collection. Paris. VAN DIJK, J., 2010. Tussen droom en daad: Het openluchtspel Ichnaton–Horemheb opgevoerd door het Utrechtsch Studenten Corps in 1926. Ta-Mery 3: 68–80. VANHULLE, D., 2018. Boat symbolism in Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt: An ethno-archaeological approach. JAEI 17: 173–187. VANLATHEM, M.-P. & OOST, T., 2013. Goden, graven en farao’s: Het oude Egypte in het exlibris. Sint-Niklaas. VAN STEENBERGEN, E., 2013. Tante Trein, maar o wee als je haar zo noemde. NRC Weekend 2–3 February 2013: 16. VAN WIJNGAARDEN, W.D. Van Heurnius tot Boeser: Drie eeuwen Egyptologie in Nederland (1620–1935). MVEOL 2. Leiden. VAN ZOEST, C. & BERNTSEN, S., 2014. 75 jaar NINO: Geschiedenis van het Instituut in hoofdlijnen [in:] KAPER, O.E. & DERCKSEN, J.G. (eds), Waar de geschiedenis

358

M. DE MEYER

begon: Nederlandse onderzoekers in de ban van spijkerschrift, hiërogliefen en aardewerk. Leiden: 3–29. VEENHOF, K.R., 2008. Uit de geschiedenis van Ex Oriente Lux: Feiten, herinneringen en bespiegelingen. Phœnix: Bulletin uitgegeven door het Vooraziatisch-Egyptisch Genootschap “Ex Oriente Lux” 54(1) (Jubileumnummer 75 Jaar Ex Oriente Lux): 5–30. VLIETSTRA, J., 1984. Scheidende directrice van Spoorwegmuseum: ‘Met mijn postuur paste ik beter tussen locomotieven.’ Het Vrije Volk: Democratisch-Socialistisch Dagblad 22 August 1984, vol. 40, no. 11411: 5. WERBROUCK, M., 1943. Review of: ASSELBERGHS, H., 1942. Beeldende Kunst in OudEgypte mede beschouwd in verband met middelen en techniek (Den Haag: N.V. Servire). CdÉ 18: 258–259. WETERINGS, V., 2018. Asselberghs, Maria Anna [in:] Digitaal Vrouwenlexicon van Nederland, http://resources.huygens.knaw.nl/vrouwenlexicon/lemmata/data/ Asselberghs (accessed 18/05/2020). WITTE, K., 1993. Exlibris-Monogrammlexikon europäischer Künstler Vol. 3: N–Z. Frederikshavn.

Bibliography of Henri Asselberghs (Egyptology)92 ASSELBERGHS, H., 1922a. Amenofis IV. De Katholiek: Godsdienstig, Geschied- en Letterkundig Maandschrift 161(4): 234–251. ASSELBERGHS, H., 1922b. Amenofis IV. De Katholiek: Godsdienstig, Geschied- en Letterkundig Maandschrift 161(6): 387–403. ASSELBERGHS, H., 1922c. Amenofis IV. De Katholiek: Godsdienstig, Geschied- en Letterkundig Maandschrift 162(2): 79–92. ASSELBERGHS, H., 1923a. Ein merkwürdiges Relief Amenophis’ IV. im LouvreMuseum. ZÄS 58: 36–38. ASSELBERGHS, H., 1923b. Tut-Anch-Amon, de Pharao van den Exodus? De Nieuwe Eeuw: Weekblad voor Nederland 288, 1 March 1923: 697. ASSELBERGHS, H., 1924a. De 18e dynastie: Egypte’s bloeitijd I. Opgang: Geïllustreerd Weekblad voor Godsdienst, Wetenschap, Kunst, Staatkunde, Economie, Techniek, Landbouw, Handel, Industrie 11 October 1924, vol. 4, no. 191, 978–983. ASSELBERGHS, H., 1924b. De 18e dynastie: Egypte’s bloeitijd II. Opgang: Geïllustreerd Weekblad voor Godsdienst, Wetenschap, Kunst, Staatkunde, Economie, Techniek, Landbouw, Handel, Industrie 18 October 1924, vol. 4, no. 192, 1002– 1006. ASSELBERGHS, H., 1925a. Oud-Egypte 1: Indeeling van de geschiedenis. Romen’s Aankondiger 2. ASSELBERGHS, H., 1925b. Oud-Egypte 2: Bouwende en beeldende kunsten. Romen’s Aankondiger 2 or 3. ASSELBERGHS, H., 1926a. Oud-Egypte 3: Godsdienstige begrippen en voorstellingen. Romen’s Aankondiger 3. ASSELBERGHS, H., 1926b. Review of: SCHÄFER, H. & ANDRAE, W., 1925. Die Kunst des alten Orients. Propyläen-Kunstgeschichte 2 (Berlin: Propyläen-Verlag). Nieuwe

92 This bibliography is exhaustive for Asselberghs’ scientific publications, but not for his articles and book reviews in the Dutch press.

THE LIFE OF HENRI ASSELBERGHS

359

Rotterdamsche Courant 3 April 1926, vol. 83, no. 93, Avondblad A, gewijd aan de Letterkunde: 1–2. ASSELBERGHS, H., 1927a. Antieke godsdiensten. Vragen van den Dag: Maandschrift voor Nederland en Koloniën 42: 614–621. ASSELBERGHS, H., 1927b. Kroniek van Egypte. Nieuwe Rotterdamsche Courant 14 May 1927, vol. 84, no. 132, Avondblad A, gewijd aan de Letterkunde: 7–8. ASSELBERGHS, H., 1927c. Tut-anch-Amon’s gouden graf. Nieuwe Rotterdamsche Courant 17 December 1927, vol. 84, no. 348, Avondblad: 4. ASSELBERGHS, H., 1928a. De tegenstelling tusschen Egyptische en modern kunst. Review of: SCHÄFER, H., 1928. Ägyptische und heutige Kunst und Weltgebäude der alten Ägypter: Zwei Aufsätze. Propyläen-Kunstgeschichte 2 (Berlin: De Gruyter). Nieuwe Rotterdamsche Courant 21 September 1928, vol. 85, no. 263, Avondblad: 2. ASSELBERGHS, H., 1928b. Ichnaton. Nieuwe Rotterdamsche Courant 27 July 1928, vol. 85, no. 207, Avondblad: 2. ASSELBERGHS, H., 1929a. De praestatie der Egyptische kunst. Review of: SCHÄFER, H., 1929. Die Leistung der aegyptischen Kunst. Der alte Orient 28, 1/2 (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs). Nieuwe Rotterdamsche Courant 13 July 1929, vol. 86, no. 192, Avondblad: 2. ASSELBERGHS, H., 1929b. Het O.T.-onderzoek op nieuwe wegen? 1. Israël en Egypte. Review of: YAHUDA, A.S., 1929. Die Sprache des Pentateuch in ihren Beziehungen zum Aegyptischen. Erstes Buch (Berlin: De Gruyter). Nieuwe Rotterdamsche Courant 13 September 1929, vol. 86, no. 254, Avondblad C: 2–3. ASSELBERGHS, H., 1929c. Het O.T.-onderzoek op nieuwe wegen? 2. Egyptische invloed in de oudste deelen van den Pentateuch. Review of: YAHUDA, A.S., 1929. Die Sprache des Pentateuch in ihren Beziehungen zum Aegyptischen. Erstes Buch (Berlin: De Gruyter). Nieuwe Rotterdamsche Courant 20 September 1929, vol. 86, no. 261, Ochtendblad C: 3. ASSELBERGHS, H., 1929d. Review of: SCHÄFER, H. & ANDRAE, W., 1929. Die Kunst des alten Orients. Propyläen-Kunstgeschichte 2, 2nd ed. (Berlin: Propyläen-Verlag). Nieuwe Rotterdamsche Courant 31 December 1929, vol. 86, no. 362, Avondblad E: 2. ASSELBERGHS, H., 1930a. Review of: CAPART, J. & WERBROUCK, M., 1930. Memphis à l’ombre des pyramides (Brussels: Fondation Égyptologique Reine Élisabeth & Vromant). Nieuwe Rotterdamsche Courant 10 February 1930. ASSELBERGHS, H., 1930b. Een baanbrekend boek. Review of: SCHÄFER, H., 1930. Von ägyptischer Kunst: Eine Grundlage, 3rd ed. (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs). Nieuwe Rotterdamsche Courant 5 August 1930, Avondblad D: 2. ASSELBERGHS, H., 1931a. Over land naar Egypte: Indrukken van een spoorreis 1. Het veilig spoor: Propagandablad van de Vereeniging van Geheelonthouders onder Nederlandsch Spoor- en Tramwegpersoneel 20, 15 October 1931: 4–6. ASSELBERGHS, H., 1931b. Over land naar Egypte: Indrukken van een spoorreis 2. Het veilig spoor: Propagandablad van de Vereeniging van Geheelonthouders onder Nederlandsch Spoor- en Tramwegpersoneel 21, 1 November 1931: 5–6. ASSELBERGHS, H., 1931c. Over land naar Egypte: Indrukken van een spoorreis 3 (slot). Het veilig spoor: Propagandablad van de Vereeniging van Geheelonthouders onder Nederlandsch Spoor- en Tramwegpersoneel 22, 15 November 1931: 4–6. ASSELBERGHS, H., 1931d. Een oude strijdvraag op weg naar een oplossing? Review of: SCHÄFER, H., 1931. Amarna in Religion und Kunst (Berlin: Deutsche OrientGesellschaft). Nieuwe Rotterdamsche Courant 14 November 1931, Avondblad D: 2.

360

M. DE MEYER

ASSELBERGHS, H., 1933a. Ægyptische archæologie. JEOL 1: 4–7. ASSELBERGHS, H., 1933b. Review of: PIRENNE, J., 1932. Histoire des institutions et du droit privé de l’ancienne Égypte I  : Des origins à la fin de la IVe dynastie (Brussels: Fondation Égyptologique Reine Élisabeth). Nieuwe Rotterdamsche Courant 3 March 1933, Avondblad A: 2. ASSELBERGHS, H., 1934a. De matroos in het want: Een weinig voorkomende voorstelling in de Egyptische kunst [in:] Voordrachten gehouden op het zevende huishoudelijke Congres van het Oostersch Genootschap in Nederland, 13–15 September 1933 te Leiden door Prof. Dr F.M.Th. Böhl, B.A. van Proosdij, Dr A. van Selms, Prof. Dr A. Götze, Dr W.D. van Wijngaarden, Dr A. de Buck, H. Asselberghs. MVEOL 1. Leiden: 59–66. ASSELBERGHS, H., 1934b. Egyptische archæologie. JEOL 2: 20–24. ASSELBERGHS, H., 1934c. Hoe ontstond een oud-egyptisch relief? Nieuwe Rotterdamsche Courant 4 April 1934, Avondblad E: 2. ASSELBERGHS, H., 1934d. Hoe ontstond een oud-egyptisch relief? SoerabaiaschHandelsblad: Staat- en Letterkundig Dagblad van Nederlandsch-Indië 12 May 1934, vol. 82, no. 107, Vijfde blad: 1. ASSELBERGHS, H., 1934e. Review of: KLEBS, L., 1934. Die Reliefs und Malereien des Neuen Reiches (XVIII.–XX. Dynastie, ca. 1580–1100 v. Chr.) Teil I: Szenen aus dem Leben des Volkes (Heidelberg: Carl Winters Universitätsbuchhandlung). Nieuwe Rotterdamsche Courant 18 December 1934, vol. 91, no. 349, Avondblad E: 2. ASSELBERGHS, H., 1935a. Egyptische archæologie. JEOL 3: 72–78. ASSELBERGHS, H., 1936a. Egyptische archæologie. JEOL 4: 176–183. ASSELBERGHS, H., 1937. Review of: SCHÄFER, H., 1936. Das altägyptische Bildnis. Leipziger ägyptologische Studien 5 (Glückstadt: J.J. Augustin). Nieuwe Rotterdamsche Courant 7 August 1937, Avondblad D: 2. ASSELBERGHS, H., 1938a. Egyptische archæologie. JEOL 5: 309–314. ASSELBERGHS, H., 1939a. Egyptische archæologie. JEOL 6: 23–28. ASSELBERGHS, H., 1940a. Egyptische archæologie. JEOL 7: 314–319. ASSELBERGHS, H., 1942a. Beeldende kunst in Oud-Egypte mede beschouwd in verband met middelen en techniek. Den Haag. ASSELBERGHS, H., 1942b. Egyptische archæologie: Schets van een geschiedenis der Egyptische archæologie tot aan den wereldoorlog van 1914–1918. JEOL 8: 596–601. ASSELBERGHS, H., 1942c. Wreszinski’s atlas. Review of: WRESZINSKI, W., 1914–1923. Atlas zur altägyptischen Kulturgeschichte, erster Teil (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs); WRESZINSKI, W., 1925–1935. Atlas zur altaegyptischen Kulturgeschichte, zweiter Teil (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs); WRESZINSKI, W., [1936–1942]. Atlas zur altägyptischen Kulturgeschichte, Teil III: Gräber des Alten Reiches (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs). JEOL 8: 612–613. ASSELBERGHS, H., 1944a. Een classiek boekje over classicisme in de Egyptische architectuur. Review of: GILBERT, P., 1943. Le classicisme de l’architecture égyptienne (Brussels: Fondation Égyptologique Reine Élisabeth). BiOr 1: 67–69. ASSELBERGHS, H., 1944b. Egyptische archæologie: Schets van een geschiedenis der Egyptische archæologie na den wereldoorlog 1914–1918. JEOL 9: 49–55. ASSELBERGHS, H., 1945a. Review of: DE GARIS DAVIES, N., 1941. The tomb of the vizier Ramose, based on preliminary work by the late T.E. Peet and illustrated with the help of H. Burton, Nina M. Davies, W.B. Emery and G.S. Mileham (London: EES). BiOr 2: 94–98.

THE LIFE OF HENRI ASSELBERGHS

361

ASSELBERGHS, H., 1949a. Review of: JANSSEN, J.M.A., 1948. Ramses III: Proeve van een historisch beeld zijner regering (Leiden: NINO). ‘T Heilig Land 2(4), April: 45–47. ASSELBERGHS, H., 1949–1950. Naar consolidatie en verbreiding van onze kennis inzake de pyramiden. JEOL 11: 24–34. ASSELBERGHS, H., 1952. Nieuwe inzichten in de ontwikkeling van de Oud-Egyptische bouwkunst. Bouwkundig Weekblad 18 March 1952, vol. 70, nos. 11–12: 90–99. ASSELBERGHS, H., 1955. Van spoorwegen tot pyramiden. Het Parool 8 February 1955, vol. 15, no. 3091: 1. ASSELBERGHS, H., 1961. Chaos en beheersing: Documenten uit aeneolithisch Egypte. Documenta et Monumenta Orientis Antiqui 8. Leiden. ASSELBERGHS, H., 1965–1966. Beschouwingen over cultuur en kunst in Egypte 1. JEOL 19: 449–456. ASSELBERGHS, H., 1969–1970. Beschouwingen over religie, cultuur en kunst in Egypte 2: De mythe van het goddelijk koningschap. JEOL 21: 145–153. ASSELBERGHS, H., 1971–1972. Beschouwingen over religie, cultuur en kunst in Egypte 3: De nauw verwante wortels van religie en kunst. JEOL 22: 247–254. ASSELBERGHS, H., 1975–1976. Beschouwingen over religie, cultuur en kunst in Egypte 4: De witte top van de egyptologie bereikt in de ontdekking van de Egyptische kunst. JEOL 24: 62–73.

Selected bibliography of Henri Asselberghs on railway studies ASSELBERGHS, H., 1928c. Een Nederlandsch Spoorwegmuseum. Nieuwe Rotterdamsche Courant 1 December 1928, vol. 85, no. 334: 3. ASSELBERGHS, H., 1928d. Het Nederlandsch Spoorwegmuseum: Iets over de vormen der dienstregeling van den Treinenloop I. Spoor- en Tramwegen: 14-daagsch Tijdschrift voor het Spoor- en Tramwegwezen in Nederland en Indië 21 August 1928, vol. 1, no. 4: 105–108. ASSELBERGHS, H., 1928e. Het Nederlandsch Spoorwegmuseum: Iets over de vormen der dienstregeling van den Treinenloop II. Spoor- en Tramwegen: 14-daagsch Tijdschrift voor het Spoor- en Tramwegwezen in Nederland en Indië 4 September 1928, vol. 1, no. 5: 133–135. ASSELBERGHS, H., 1929e. Het Nederlandsch Spoorwegmuseum en zijn reorganisatie 1. Spoor- en Tramwegen: 14-daagsch Tijdschrift voor het Spoor- en Tramwegwezen in Nederland en Indië 5 February 1929, vol. 2, no. 3: 84–85. ASSELBERGHS, H., 1929f. Het Nederlandsch Spoorwegmuseum en zijn reorganisatie 2. Spoor- en Tramwegen: 14-daagsch Tijdschrift voor het Spoor- en Tramwegwezen in Nederland en Indië 19 February 1929, vol. 2, no. 4: 119–120. ASSELBERGHS, H., 1930c. Een honderd-jarige en hoe de eerste stappen op het ijzeren pad gezet werden. Spoor- en Tramwegen: 14-daagsch Tijdschrift voor het Spoor- en Tramwegwezen in Nederland en Indië 26 September 1930, vol. 3, no. 6: 163–166. ASSELBERGHS, H., 1931e. Een verouderd type spoorfiets. Spoor- en Tramwegen: 14-daagsch Tijdschrift voor het Spoor- en Tramwegwezen in Nederland en Indië 23 June 1931, vol. 4, no. 13: 338. ASSELBERGHS, H., 1932. George Stephenson-medaille. Spoor- en Tramwegen: 14-daagsch Tijdschrift voor het Spoor- en Tramwegwezen in Nederland en Indië 7 June 1932, vol. 5, no. 12: 303.

362

M. DE MEYER

ASSELBERGHS, H., 1935b. Twee voorstellingen van “Eerste Treinen” in het SpoorwegMuseum. Spoor- en Tramwegen: 14-daagsch Tijdschrift voor het Spoor- en Tramwegwezen in Nederland en Indië 1 January 1935, vol. 8, no. 1: 7–10. ASSELBERGHS, H., 1936b. Artistieke gedenkpenningen in het Nederlandsch Spoorwegmuseum. Spoor- en Tramwegen: 14-daagsch Tijdschrift voor het Spoor- en Tramwegwezen in Nederland en Indië 23 June 1936, vol. 9, no. 13: 293–297. ASSELBERGHS, H. (ed.). 1938b. Beijnes: Een eeuw van arbeid, 1838–1 November–1938. Haarlem. ASSELBERGHS, H., 1938c. 1863–October–1938: Maatschappij tot Exploitatie van Staatsspoorwegen. Spoor- en Tramwegen: 14-daagsch Tijdschrift voor het Spooren Tramwegwezen in Nederland en Indië 27 September 1938, vol. 11, no. 20: 501–503. ASSELBERGHS, H., 1939b. Bij het eerste eeuwfeest van onze Nederlandsche spoorwegen: Enkele grepen uit de kinderjaren van het groote bedrijf, hoe het werd en was…. Nederlandsche Spoorwegen 1839–1939. Feestnummer van het Rechte Spoor van 20 september 1939: 5–29. ASSELBERGHS, H., 1939c. De koninklijke fabriek van rijtuigen en spoorwagens J.J. Beijnes N.V. en de Nederlandsche Spoorwegen. Spoor- en Tramwegen: 14-daagsch Tijdschrift voor het Spoor- en Tramwegwezen in Nederland en Indië 16 September 1939, vol. 12, no. 19: 498–500. ASSELBERGHS, H., 1940b. Een nieuw feit met betrekking tot de geschiedenis onzer oudste locomotieven. Spoor- en Tramwegen: 14-daagsch Tijdschrift voor het Spoor- en Tramwegwezen in Nederland en Indië 8 June 1940, vol. 13, no. 12: 249–250. ASSELBERGHS, H., 1941. De Nederlandsche Vereeniging van Belangstellenden in het Spoorwegwezen en het Nederlandsch Spoorwegmuseum. Op de Rails 11: 40–41. ASSELBERGHS, H., 1945b. Het Nederlandsch Spoorwegmuseum. Amsterdam. ASSELBERGHS, H., 1949b. Amsterdam en de spoorwegen tentoongesteld in het Waaggebouw 15 October–20 November 1949. Spoor- en Tramwegen: 14-daagsch Tijdschrift voor het Spoor- en Tramwegwezen in Nederland en Indië 3 November 1949, vol. 22, no. 22: 352–354. ASSELBERGHS, H. & ASSELBERGHS, M.-A., 1949. Over een vergeten “abri”, dat in de hoofdstad gedurende vijf maanden als station fungeerde. Spoor- en Tramwegen: 14-daagsch Tijdschrift voor het Spoor- en Tramwegwezen in Nederland en Indië 20 October 1949, vol. 22, no. 21: 343–344. ASSELBERGHS, H., 1953. Spoorwegmuseum in eigen huis en terug in Utrecht. Spoor- en Tramwegen 26, 24 December 1953: 481–484. ASSELBERGHS, H., 1960. Vurig spoor: Een beknopte gids voor bezoekers van het Nederlands spoorwegmuseum. Utrecht. ASSELBERGHS, H., 1963. 1839: De ijzeren spoorweg van Amsterdam naar Haarlem en voor het zo ver was [in:] BOUMAN, P.J. & DIEPENHORST, I.A. (eds), 150 jaar Koninkrijk der Nederlanden: Ontstaan en bestaan. Amsterdam: 40–47.

AN ENIGMATIC SUBTERRANEAN BUILDING WITHIN THE GREAT WALLS AT ELKAB DAVID DEPRAETERE1, ANNE DEVILLERS2, MORGAN DE DAPPER3 & WOUTER CLAES4 1 Flemish Government, Flemish Land Agency, Belgium Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences, Brussels, Belgium 3 Ghent University, Department of Geography, Research Unit Regional Geomorphology & Geoarchaeology, Ghent, Belgium 4 Royal Museums of Art and History, Brussels, Belgium 2

Stan, speaking for many archaeologists in the field, nobody can wish for better company on an archaeological mission in Egypt, or elsewhere for that matter. As a mentor, you have always given full support and created opportunities to young researchers to study ancient Egyptian material culture in its country of origin.

In 1905, British archaeologists Archibald H. Sayce and Somers Clarke reported on the find of a granite block bearing the name of king Khasekhemwy at the Upper Egyptian site of Elkab. The block was brought to the Egyptian Museum in Cairo, but although currently lost, it constitutes decisive evidence of the existence of an Early Dynastic temple at the site of Elkab. Although the approximate location where the block was discovered is known, the area has never been subjected to a thorough archaeological investigation. In this paper we present the results of archaeological investigations carried out in that area, with the objective to verify the presence of such an Early Dynastic building and to investigate its role in the local and regional cultic landscape. The results, although not meeting the original objective, allow to understand the area’s stratigraphy and add two new structures to the archaeological map of Elkab. These consist of a mud brick enclosure, probably of fairly recent date, and the subterranean part of a stone building that, based on the ceramic evidence, is to be dated in the Roman period, possible the 2nd century AD.

During excavations at Elkab in February 1901, British archaeologists Archibald H. Sayce and Somers Clarke discovered several granite blocks in the northeastern corner of the Late Period Great Walls (Fig. 1). Two blocks were decorated with standing human figures while a third one contained the Horus and Seth name of Khasekhemwy, last king of the 2nd Dynasty (Sayce & Clarke 1905: 239). The block bearing the king’s name was brought to the Egyptian Museum in Cairo and registered as JE 34808 (Bussmann 2010: 41). Unfortunately, the current whereabouts of this inscribed block, as well as the two other decorated ones, are unknown and no drawing or photo of them seems to exist.

364

D. DEPRAETERE, A. DEVILLERS, M. DE DAPPER & W. CLAES

Khasekhemwy was not only the last king of the 2nd Dynasty but also the last Abydene ruler. He initially bore the name Khasekhem, meaning ‘The Power has Appeared’, which was changed later in his reign to the dual form Khasekhemwy (‘The Two Powers have Appeared’), possibly in order to celebrate a restoration of the unity of the country after a period of civil war and/or religious turmoil (Hoffman 1980: 350–351; Wilkinson 1999: 91; Baker 2008: 178). Apart from Abydos, where Khasekhemwy not only constructed a monumental funerary enclosure, known as the Shunet ez-Zebib, but also the largest tomb ever built in Egypt’s early history, it seems that especially during the earlier part of his reign, he attached particular importance to the site of Hierakonpolis, the ancient Predynastic capital just across the Nile from Elkab. At Hierakonpolis, he undertook a substantial ritual building programme (among other documents, a depiction of a temple foundation ceremony was found on a granite door jamb bearing his name; see Engelbach 1934). His so-called ‘Fort’ at Hierakonpolis, constructed in mud brick, but probably embellished with a relief-decorated cultic stone infrastructure at its entrance (see Alexanian 1998), is presumably also a large mortuary or ceremonial enclosure. It has long been assumed that the blocks from Elkab may also belong to an Early Dynastic temple founded by Khasekhemwy (Hendrickx & Huyge 1989: 13, no. 27; Wilkinson 1999: 309). Moreover, it can be hypothesised that he created a new cultic landscape in the symbolic twin towns of Hierakonpolis and Elkab at a scale previously not recognised which perhaps also reflected “a programme to consolidate central government control of the national economy through the institution of local temples” (Wilkinson 1999: 311). In view of Khasekhemwy’s substantial ritual building activity in Hierakonpolis and his attested presence at Elkab (Hartmann 1993; Bussmann 2010: 462), the presumed location of the decorated blocks was archaeologically investigated in the Spring of 2017 in order to verify the presence of an Early Dynastic construction in this part of the site and to investigate its role in the local and regional cultic landscape. Previous investigations in the north-eastern corner of the Great Walls According to Sayce and Clarke (1905: 239), other fragments belonging to the same granite monument at Elkab had been found at the end of the 19th century by their compatriot James Edward Quibell, in probable connection to a mud brick building in the north-eastern corner of the Late Period Great Walls.1

1 The remains of a small north-west–south-east oriented mud brick wall are still visible on the surface today (Fig. 2) in this part of the site. Whether this wall can be identified as part of the mud brick building of “unknown date”, mentioned by Sayce & Clarke (1905: 239) in connection to Quibell’s excavation, can not be stated with absolute certainty but is highly probable.

A SUBTERRANEAN BUILDING WITHIN THE GREAT WALLS AT ELKAB

365

Quibell, who excavated at Elkab in 1897, left no information on the location of these finds and his published report (Quibell 1898) does not contain any information with regard to these granite blocks. A survey of this part of the site was undertaken by the Belgian Archaeological Mission to Elkab in March 2015. The occurrence on the surface of a large amount of building materials, fragments of red granite and sandstone blocks that were clearly sculpted for building purposes (Fig. 2), indicate the former presence here of a construction of undoubtedly monumental character. These remains seem to be partially concentrated around a small depression that could potentially be the result of previous excavations (Quibell?) in the area. A multireceiver electromagnetic induction (EMI) survey2 in this area (about 0.3 hectares), measuring simultaneously the apparent electrical conductivity (ECa) and the magnetic susceptibility (MSa) of the subsoil over multiple depths, moreover suggested the existence of some large linear features with distinct boundaries, probably (double?) mud brick walls or pavements, in the first meter below the surface (Huyge & Claes 2015: 15). A survey of the surficial geology with hand drillings was conducted in 2016. It consisted of eight drillings, starting from a central point (drilling 01) in the north-east corner, following lines parallel to the northern (drillings 01–05) and the eastern courses of the Great Walls (drillings 06–08) respectively (Fig. 3).3 Except for drilling 01, all drillings present a uniform stratigraphy: the base is formed by a layer of Nile flood sediments, covered by a veneer of sub-recent aeolian sand; in the line parallel to the eastern part of the Great Walls the aeolian veneer itself is covered by a thin layer of colluvium derived from the ongoing erosion of the thick mud brick enclosure wall. All those sediments are of natural origin. In drilling 01, however, a 3 m thick layer of, most probably, man-made material was found. These observations seemed relevant to the early temple, but needed to be confirmed archaeologically. Results of the archaeological excavations of 2017 The main objectives of the 2017 excavation were to undertake systematic testtrenching in order to evaluate the archaeological features within this area as well as to interpret the stratigraphical context (Huyge 2017). To this aim, two long perpendicular test trenches (TK1 and TK2), each measuring 30 × 2 m, were laid out along the two series of drillings, parallel to respectively the northwestern and north-eastern courses of the Late Period Great Walls and incorpo-

2 The EMI-survey was executed in 2015 by Philippe De Smedt of the Department of Soil Management of Ghent University, Belgium. Field measurements were conducted with a multireceiver EMI instrument (Dualem-21S sensor). 3 A summary of the results is presented in the annex.

366

D. DEPRAETERE, A. DEVILLERS, M. DE DAPPER & W. CLAES

rating both the potential mud brick walls or pavements suggested by the EMIsurvey and the above-mentioned depression (Fig. 3). During the course of the excavation, these trenches were systematically enlarged (trenches TK1a–c and TK3; see Fig. 3) and several profile pits, each measuring 2 × 1 m, were excavated in order to interpret and find correlations with the local soil stratigraphy (TK1-PP1–4 and TK2-PP1; see Fig. 3). Already at an early stage during the excavation, it became clear that the southwestern section of TK1 proved to be natural soil. A large depression consisting of a mixed fill that was clearly different from the surrounding sediment could be delineated in the north-eastern section of the trench and was tentatively identified—based on the description by Sayce and Clarke (1905: 239)—as Quibell’s excavation trench. Therefore, our efforts were concentrated on the north-eastern section of TK1 as well as on the north-western extremity of TK2 where archaeological features also seemed to be limited to that part of the trench (Fig. 3). The above-mentioned extensions TK1a–c and TK3 were concentrated in this zone in order to investigate the remains of a mud brick structure that was the only partly visible archaeological feature on the surface (see note 1). A stone structure was subsequently found beneath the remains of the mud brick wall. Apart from the aforementioned surface finds, very little pottery or artefacts of any kind were present in the different trenches. This of course hampered the dating and interpretation of the excavated structures. Description of the mud brick remains (Figs 4–5) A mud brick wall (Lc6) discovered in the north-western extremity of TK2 ran north-east–south-west through TK3 towards the mud brick wall (Lc10) that was still visible above ground. The prolongation of Lc10 towards the northwest was badly damaged by the end of the 19th century excavation trench and by a large fox warren. Lc6 was followed towards the south-west, where a mud brick corner was quickly discovered in TK1b (Lc12). A corresponding corner to this was discovered to the north-west in TK1c providing the outline of the structure. The walls were all rather narrow—1.5 brick wide—and constituted of alternating courses of headers and stretchers. Immediately to the north-west of Lc6, a large and well-preserved mud brick collapse was discovered that was cut by Quibell’s excavations (Fig. 5). This collapse provided a hypothetical height for the wall, probably no more than five courses above the four still standing. This would suggest a low—ca. 1 m high—enclosure wall rather than a closed building. The mud brick structure was built on loose windblown sand without any foundation and was more or less square in shape, measuring approximately 7.40 × 6.60 m.

A SUBTERRANEAN BUILDING WITHIN THE GREAT WALLS AT ELKAB

367

Description of the stone structure The excavation was continued in the space within the mud brick walls in order to assess the disturbance caused by Quibell’s trench and to gain a better insight in the stratigraphy of the area. A deep sounding was established by ultimately combining three adjoining profile pits (PP2, PP3 and PP4; see Fig. 3) and indicated that the disturbed area ended at ca. 90 cm below the above-mentioned brick collapse. This corresponds to about 120 cm (81.95 m for the southwestern part) and 180 cm (81.70 m for the north-eastern part) below the surface. At a depth of about 2 m below the surface, large displaced sandstone ashlars were discovered, resting on a neatly laid out pavement of sandstone slabs which itself was located at ca. 260 cm below the surface (Lc16, at 80.84 m; Fig. 6). The rest of the area was subsequently excavated to a similar level, exposing three stone walls built of large sandstone ashlars (Lc19, 20 and 22; Figs 4, 7–9). The largest and best preserved wall (Lc19; see Figs 7–8) followed the same north-east–south-west orientation as mud brick wall Lc6 and was still standing up to a height of 140 cm which corresponds to four courses. It was interconnected with two other walls (Lc20 and 22; see Fig. 9) standing perpendicularly to the former as cross walls and defining as such a space of roughly 2.40 × 2.50 m. Both these cross walls were partly dismantled as their preserved height is roughly half a meter lower than that of wall Lc19. The sandstone ashlars measure between 46 and 140 cm in length, vary between 32 and 48 cm in height and are max. 35 cm wide. They are undecorated and visibly reused from (an)other earlier structure(s) as they present varying degrees of finishing and were sometimes re-cut to fit their present position. The largest one in the lower course of wall Lc19 has suspension holes cut in its side (Fig. 4) which constitutes additional proof for the fact that blocks have been reused in the construction of this building.4 Although made of slabs of irregular dimensions—probably also re-used and re-worked—the sandstone floor is even and nicely executed (Fig. 6). The slabs are 10 cm thick and the joints between them were filled with fine medium silty sand. Some are more yellowish while others have a more reddish colour. The floor itself is lined with more solid sandstone ashlars, forming a straight outer line along the south-western and north-western side. These ashlars most probably served as the base for outer walls that were entirely dismantled. 4 Suspension holes have been noticed before in quarries and coptic hermitages as means to suspend things from. Their presence in this particular block suggests it was once placed differently with the suspension holes on the lower side. These holes themselves seem to indicate an earlier re-use, when the ashlar in question was still in its original location. (Depraetere & Depauw in preparation)

368

D. DEPRAETERE, A. DEVILLERS, M. DE DAPPER & W. CLAES

Due to time constraints, the building could not be excavated entirely. In order to complete its ground plan, a test trench was excavated in the north-west profile to locate the north-westernmost corner of the building (Fig. 4). Complementary information was obtained from a series of drill tests that allowed us to confirm the presence of a wall parallel to the north-east–south-west oriented stone wall Lc19. A first drill test was made above cross wall Lc22 and a second one centrally placed in the north-west profile between cross walls Lc22 and Lc20. At a distance of respectively 73 cm and 1 m from the edge of the profile, the presence of such a wall was confirmed. A third drilling was done above the northern sandstone cross wall (Lc20) but here we did not encounter the wall. Possibly this cross wall is only preserved up to the second stone layer. The building can thus be reconstructed as a rectangular construction of 6 × 3.5 m (outer measurements) consisting of two, probably interconnected, rooms measuring 2.5 × 2.4 m and 2.4 × 2.3 m (inner measurements) respectively (Fig. 4). The largest ashlar in Lc22 can be identified as a threshold serving as a doorway between both rooms (Figs 4, 9). A foundation trench, about 20 cm wide was identified around the outer side of Lc19, cut into the natural alternating sand/silt layers (Fig. 11, layer 5) and was later cut again by Quibell’s excavation trench (Fig. 11, layer 3). This foundation trench, still clearly recognisable at the top level of Lc19, suggests that this part of the building was completely or largely underground. The fact that the exterior surface of the wall was irregular whereas the interior sides were smooth (Fig. 8) also suggests that the building was intended as a subterranean construction. This would also account for the significant difference in level between the mud brick structure and the stone building. Moreover, although the mud brick structure seems to follow the same orientation as the stone building, suggesting a connection between the two structures albeit at different levels, there exists no stratigraphical connection between both edifices. After the mapping and further excavation of the stone pavement, it also became clear that the mud brick structure is not covering the entire stone building, but is lying more towards the north-east (Fig. 4). Furthermore, the relatively simple architecture of the mud brick construction contrasts glaringly with the monumental character of the subterranean stone structure. The stratigraphy of the fill within the stone building reveals that Quibell’s excavation had reached the top of the highest preserved stone wall (Lc19, at 82.13–81.97 m; Figs 4 & 11), but never reached the cross walls or stone pavement. The stone pavement, measuring 3.40 × 2.80 m (including the surrounding wall foundations), is present only to the south-west of these walls, continuing however under the inner cross wall (Lc22; see Figs 9 & 11). It appears that within the space delineated by the standing walls (Lc19, 20 & 22), the floor

A SUBTERRANEAN BUILDING WITHIN THE GREAT WALLS AT ELKAB

369

was removed (Figs 7–9). This is suggested by the presence of a couple of fragmentary slabs appearing from underneath Lc22 that may have been broken when the pavement was dismantled (Fig. 4, 9). Description of the stratigraphy In order to understand the relation between the architectural remains, the sequence of their filling and the evidence of previous investigations, the study and interpretation of the stratigraphical evidence proved to be critical. What follows is a brief description of the stratigraphy as observed within the stone building. The stratigraphy of the fill within the stone building—that is the undisturbed sediment (Figs 10–11, layer 4) below Quibell’s excavation fill (Figs 10–11, layers 2–3, 5–6)—consists in the upper part of flash flood sediment of brown to dark brown fine sandy silt to silty fine sand with pockets of dense fine yellowish sandy silt lumps. Since the corners of these inclusions are sub-rounded due to transportation over a short distance and a limited area, they are most likely eroded from a nearby layer and form a local phenomenon. This flash flood sediment sits on top of and eroded the underlying sticky dark brown fine sandy silt to silty fine sand of fluvial origin, identified as such because of the horizontal orientation of the inclusions within the sediment. The top of this deposit is preserved at max. 82.20 m and ends at 80.79 m—the level of the sandstone floor—within the building. This dark brown silty deposit is different from the lower silty layers outside the building.5 It consists of an undifferentiated deposit (no banding/lamination/ layering), whereas in the latter we see a fine lamination with alternating sandy and silty layers or lenses that suggest a fluvial floodplain origin. This indicates that the former deposit may result from a sedimentation process or event other than a gradual formation year after year. Obviously, this is in itself the result of the fact that the formation of this deposit happened at a much later stage after the dismantling of the stone building. Further drill-core research in the wider area will be necessary in order to fully understand the origin of these flash flood and fluvial deposits that post-date the building’s destruction in this specific location within the perimeter of the Late Period Great Walls.

5 Documented in TK1-PP1, south-east profile, TK1-PP4, south-east profile and TK1, northwest profile (= Lc5).

370

D. DEPRAETERE, A. DEVILLERS, M. DE DAPPER & W. CLAES

Date of the structures Although this cannot be stated with absolute certainty, stone blocks from Elkab’s main temples were most probably recycled and used for the construction of the stone building. The extant remains of these temples date to the Ramesside period and Dynasties 26–30 (Hendrickx & Huyge 1989: 7, nos 1–2), meaning that the stone construction cannot be older than the Late Period. Unfortunately, this date cannot be narrowed down since, as stated above, none of the blocks were decorated or contained inscriptions and hardly any archaeological material was found during the excavation. Only a handful of diagnostic pottery sherds were recovered from both the foundation trench and from what was left of the fill on top of the stone pavement as well as inside the walled part of the stone building beneath and around the old excavations. All sherds can be dated roughly to the Graeco-Roman period. The most diagnostic one, unfortunately found in secondary stratigraphical context (Fig. 11, layer 3) outside the construction, is a two-handled amphora neck (Fig. 12) for which good parallels exist in the pottery corpus from the Graeco-Roman village at Elkab6 which is situated at about 400 m south of the present excavation (Fig. 1). The principal occupation phase of this Graeco-Roman settlement can be situated in the first half of the 2nd century AD (Hendrickx 1998: 1356).7 Other excavated artefacts include some tiny fragments of faience, flint material and remains of animal bone, as well as more sandstone and granite fragments, but did not provide any additional chronological clues. Although the scanty ceramic material evidently constitutes inconclusive evidence to date the remains of this construction, there are for the time being no other elements that allow us to propose a more precise date other than the 2nd century AD for this stone construction. Whatever its exact date, it is clear that it does not date to the 2nd Dynasty or Early Dynastic period. The date of the mud brick structure is even more difficult to define. No datable artefacts have been found in association with this construction and as stated above, no stratigraphical link exists with the stone edifice; the bottom of the mud brick walls are situated about 60 cm above the preserved maximum height of the walls of the stone construction. Although they both have a similar 6 Personal communication by Stan Hendrickx who is to be thanked for dating and analysing the ceramic finds. 7 This part of the Graeco-Roman village was excavated by the Belgian Archaeological Mission under the direction of the late Herman De Meulenaere during ten seasons of fieldwork between 1967 and 1982. The results of these excavations have never been properly published and with the exception of the Greek ostraca (Bingen & Clarysse 1989) and a larger article on the potters’ houses (Hendrickx 1998; this paper also deals with the amphorae that were found in these houses: see pages 1371–1374), only a handful of short notes have appeared (listed in Hendrickx 1998: 1353, n. 4).

A SUBTERRANEAN BUILDING WITHIN THE GREAT WALLS AT ELKAB

371

orientation, the mud brick structure has been built partially over the southwestern half of the stone building which could indicate that at the time of its construction, the older building was already out of use and no longer visible. In our opinion, this could indicate that the mud brick construction is of fairly recent date and must be associated with modern activity in this part of the site. This structure is presumably the ‘brick building of unknown date’ in which fragments of granite were found by Quibell (Sayce & Clarke 1905: 239). Since such fragments were also found in the immediate surroundings, there does not necessarily need to be a contextual relation with the brick structure or even the stone building. According to Quibell (1898: 2), in certain parts of the area inside the Great Walls, the surface is covered “with little parallel ridges” which indicates “that cultivation has been carried on there within the last few years”. The area Quibell refers to is located outside the ancient settlement of Elkab which at least until the 1840’s was visible in the landscape as a large tell. This tell was situated roughly between the temples of Elkab and the south-western course of the Great Walls and was almost completely destroyed in the course of the 19th century.8 Photos by Jan Herman Insinger from the 1880’s (Raven 2009: 202, figs 1–2) indeed show that at least a large portion of the area between the north-western course of the Great Walls and the temple enclosure was under cultivation. Whether this cultivated area extended all the way toward the north-eastern corner of the Great Walls is a matter of speculation but these photos show in any case that modern activity was going on inside the Great Walls. Purpose and function of the buildings Whatever the precise chronological attribution of both structures, its function and purpose are equally elusive. Their isolated location in the north-eastern corner of the Great Walls where other contemporaneous monumental buildings or residential areas are absent, the lack of in situ artefacts, inscriptions or decoration on the walls, or other archaeological indications make it difficult to elucidate the nature and function of these buildings, particularly that of the stone construction. However, since the building was not completely excavated, further excavation could uncover more clues. Considering its monumental nature, it must however have been a building of some importance. Its largely underground nature may point to a tomb or the crypt of a small temple that was completely dismantled aboveground. Since no traces remain of the superstructure of the building, this identification remains conjectural although its location could suggest a funerary nature. Indeed, the 8 For more information on the location of this tell and its gradual destruction, see Claes & Hendrickx 2021.

372

D. DEPRAETERE, A. DEVILLERS, M. DE DAPPER & W. CLAES

building is positioned in an area of the site that from Predynastic times onwards has been in use as a large burial ground and this more or less continuously until the Middle Kingdom (Hendrickx & Huyge 1989: nos 24, 26, 28–34, 38–42, 44, pl. II). Even if many of these funerary features were likely no longer apparent in the Late Period, especially those situated within the Great Walls (Hendrickx et al. 2010: 156), it is possible that the traditional funerary meaning and use of this area was still remembered. It was already mentioned that in our opinion, the mud brick structure is most probably of recent date and can possibly be associated with modern cultivation in this part of the site. As it is a very simply built construction that strongly resembles some of the mud brick structures in modern Egyptian villages, these mud brick walls most likely pertain to some kind of low enclosure, perhaps an animal pen. Concluding remarks Although it is clear that an Early Dynastic building from the reign of Khasekhemwy must have been present at Elkab, there is for the time being no decisive evidence to locate it in the north-eastern corner of the Great Walls. Like the other re-used blocks, the decorated granite blocks with Khasekhemwy’s name most probably originate from another location within the site, possibly from the temple complex that is situated in the south-western quarter of the area that is enclosed by the Late Period enclosure wall (Fig. 1). These temples, dedicated to the goddess Nekhbet and the gods Sobek and Thoth, date in their current state to the Ramesside and Late Periods but were also erected using older blocks (Capart 1940: 21–23; Vandersleyen 1971: 31–32; Derchain 1970). Yet, despite the fact that the earliest discovered architectural remains within the temples only date back to the 13th Dynasty (Eder 2002), it is more than probable that earlier temples (Old Kingdom, Early Dynastic or even Predynastic?) were erected at the same location.9 The wealth of 6th Dynasty rock inscriptions that cover the cliffs of the nearby Wadi Hellal, which mainly refer to priests attached to the temple of Nekhbet (Vandekerckhove & Müller-Wollermann 2001), and the presence of large mastabas dating to the 4th Dynasty immediately north of the Great Walls that were built for persons that could be identified as ‘Overseer of priests’ or ‘Inspector of the priests’ (Quibell 1898: 3–5; Limme 2000: 17), leave no doubt on the presence of a temple at Elkab as early as the Old Kingdom. Moreover, given the impor9 Several mud brick walls were found below the north-western angle of the temple of Nekhbet, carefully cut to allow for the construction of the stone walls of the later temple (Stienon 1940: 36; 1950: 37). The date or function of these walls could not be established but it seems that the construction of the later temples was done with ‘respect’ for the older mud brick walls that were carefully cut and otherwise left in situ.

A SUBTERRANEAN BUILDING WITHIN THE GREAT WALLS AT ELKAB

373

tance of Elkab’s principal deity Nekhbet as the tutelary goddess of Upper Egypt from the Early Dynastic period onwards but also as divine protectress of the pharaoh, the opposite would seem highly unlikely.10 Also, the presence of a Terminal Predynastic or Early Dynastic petroglyph in the Wadi Hellal, depicting a pr-wr, the ancestral and archetypal shrine of Upper Egypt (Huyge 2002: 198), provides an important indication for the presence of a shrine or temple at Elkab at the onset of the third millennium BC. Although its location is still unknown, the decorated blocks found by Quibell, Sayce and Clarke provide additional proof for the existence at Elkab of such an early temple or shrine. Given the close interconnection that exists between the cult of Nekhbet and that of the king, expressed for instance in the pharaoh’s nbty or ‘Two Ladies’ title which is attested from the 1st Dynasty onwards (Wilkinson 1999: 203, 292) or other important Early Dynastic documents,11 it should be no surprise that Khasekhemwy, who can be considered as the most prolific builder of all Early Dynastic rulers, also erected a temple at Elkab—the home realm of the goddess Nekhbet—especially after having re-established internal stability in Egypt. However, the location of this temple or shrine remains unknown until today. It is in any case not situated at the spot that has always been assumed to be the location of Khasekhemwy’s temple at Elkab. Acknowledgments The authors would like to dedicate this paper to the late Dirk Huyge (1957–2018), director of the Belgian Archaeological Mission to Elkab, who was looking forward to reading this field report and had encouraged us to publish it. We also thank the members of the Belgian Mission for their most valuable help in the field work. We express our gratitude to the Supreme Council of Antiquities/Ministry of State for Antiquities for allowing us to conduct field work in Elkab. We particularly thank Said Abdel Menaim, chief of the Aswan inspectorate, and Suzy Samir Labib, chief of the Edfu inspectorate, who greatly facilitated our work. We are also grateful for the valuable help of our inspectors, Michael Lotfi Abd el-Seed and Mohamed Sabr Ahmed Abu el-Hassan, of the Edfu inspectorate. Funding for the excavations was kindly provided by the National Geographic Society (Research project GEFNE173-16). In addition, the Belgian Embassy in Cairo, the Netherlands-Flemish Institute in Cairo and Vodafone Egypt offered administrative and logistical support. Wouter Claes also benefitted from a Special Ph.D. fellowship of the Research Foundation – Flanders (FWO).

10 For an overview of the origin and evolution of the cult of Nekhbet in the Early Dynastic period, see Hartmann 1989: 19–39. 11 E.g. the Narmer mace head and Narmer ivory cylinder (both kept in the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford) show the king in association with the vulture goddess Nekhbet. Specifically for Khasekhem(wy), we would like to refer to the stone vessels from Hierakonpolis (Quibell 1900: pls XXXVI–XXXVIII) and Saqqara (Lacau & Lauer 1959–1961: pl. 3.18) where Nekhbet is depicted facing the serekh of Khasekhem with an accompanying inscription ḫnty.t Nḫb which refers to Nekhbet as ‘She of Elkab’.

374

D. DEPRAETERE, A. DEVILLERS, M. DE DAPPER & W. CLAES

Bibliography ALEXANIAN, N., 1998. Die Reliefdekoration des Chasechemui aus dem sogenannten Fort in Hierakonpolis [in:] GRIMAL, N. (ed.), Les critères de datation stylistiques à l’Ancien Empire. BdÉ 120. Cairo: 1–29. BAKER, D.D., 2008. Encyclopedia of the pharaohs 1: Predynastic to the Twentieth Dynasty: 3300–1069 BC. Cairo. BINGEN, J. & CLARYSSE, W., 1989. Elkab 3  : Les ostracas grecs (O. Elkab gr.). Brussels. BUSSMANN, R., 2010. Die Provinztempel Ägyptens von der 0. bis zur 11. Dynastie: Archäologie und Geschichte einer gesellschaftlichen Institution zwischen Residenz und Provinz. PdÄ 30. Leiden. CAPART, J., 1940. Rapports sommaires sur les fouilles de la Fondation Égyptologique Reine Élisabeth : Deuxième campagne (janvier à mars 1938) [in:] FÉRÉ, Fouilles de El Kab  : Documents. Brussels : 20–34. CLAES, W. & HENDRICKX, S., 2021. The lost tell of Elkab [in:] BUCHEZ, N. & TRISTANT, Y. (eds), Égypte antérieure  : Mélanges de préhistoire et d’archéologie offerts à Béatrix Midant-Reynes par ses étudiants, collègues et amis pour son 70e anniversaire. OLA 304. Leuven: 189–212. DEPRAETERE, D. & DEPAUW, M., in preparation, The Nectanebo south quarries: Quarries 1–5: Wādī Nakhla limestone quarry system. OLA. Leuven. DERCHAIN, P., 1970. Elkab 1966–1969 : Les temples. CdÉ 45(89): 25–27. EDER, C. 2002. Elkab 7: Die Barkenkapelle des Königs Sobekhotep III. in Elkab: Beiträge zur Bautätigkeit der 13. und 17. Dynastie an den Göttertempeln Ägyptens. Turnhout. ENGELBACH, R., 1934. A foundation scene of the Second Dynasty. JEA 20: 183–184. HARTMANN, H., 1989. Necheb und Nechbet: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Kultortes Elkab. Mainz (Unpubl. PhD dissertation, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität, Mainz). HENDRICKX, S., 1998. Habitations de potiers à Elkab à l’époque romaine [in:] CLARYSSE W.; SCHOORS, A. & WILLEMS, H. (eds), Egyptian religion: The last thousand years: Studies dedicated to the memory of Jan Quaegebeur. OLA 85. Leuven: 1353–1376. HENDRICKX, S. & HUYGE, D., 1989. Elkab 4  : Topographie, 2  : Inventaire des sites archéologiques. Brussels. HENDRICKS, S.; HUYGE, D. & NEWTON, C., 2010. The walls of Elkab [in:] BIETAK, M.; CZERNY, E. & FORSTNER-MÜLLER, I. (eds), Cities and urbanism in ancient Egypt. Papers from a Workshop in November 2006 at the Austrian Academy of Sciences. DGÖAW 60; UZK 35. Wien: 145–169. HOFFMAN, M.A., 1980. Egypt before the pharaohs: The prehistoric foundations of Egyptian civilization. London. HUYGE, D., 2002. Cosmology, ideology and personal religious practice in ancient Egyptian rock art [in:] FRIEDMAN, R.F. (ed.), Egypt and Nubia: Gifts of the desert. London: 192–206. HUYGE, D. & CLAES, W., 2015. Report on the archaeological work at Elkab in 2015 executed in the scope of Gerda Henkel Forschungsprojekt AZ20-F/14 (Unpubl. preliminary report). HUYGE, D. 2017. Report on the archaeological work at Elkab in 2017 executed in the Scope of National Geographic Grant GEFNE173-16 (Unpubl. preliminary report).

A SUBTERRANEAN BUILDING WITHIN THE GREAT WALLS AT ELKAB

375

LACAU, P. & LAUER, J. P., 1959–1961. La pyramide à degrés 4  : Inscriptions gravées sur les vases. Fouilles à Saqqarah. Cairo. LIMME, L., 2000. L’Elkab de l’Ancien Empire. BSFÉ 149: 14–31. QUIBELL, J.E., 1898. El Kab. ERA 3. London. QUIBELL, J.E., 1900. Hierakonpolis, part I. ERA 4. London. RAVEN, M.J., 2009. Insinger in Elkab [in:] CLAES, W.; DE MEULENAERE, H. & HENDRICKX, S. (eds), Elkab and beyond: Studies in honour of Luc Limme. OLA 191. Leuven: 195–212. SAYCE, A.H. & CLARKE, S., 1905. Report on certain excavations made at El-Kab during the years 1901, 1902, 1903, 1904. ASAÉ 6: 239–272. STIENON, J., 1940. Notes techniques [in]: FÉRÉ, Fouilles de El Kab  : Documents. Brussels: 34–40. STIENON, J., 1950. El Kab : Fouilles de la Fondation Égyptologique Reine Élisabeth, 1949. CdÉ 25(49): 36–41. VANDEKERCKHOVE, H. & MÜLLER-WOLLERMANN, R., 2001. Elkab 6: Die Felsinschriften des Wadi Hilâl. Turnhout. VANDERSLEYEN, C., 1971. Les fouilles belges d’Elkab (Haute Égypte). Revue des archéologues et historiens de l’art de Louvain 4: 25–38. WILKINSON, T.A.H., 1999. Early Dynastic Egypt. London.

ANNEX Drilling 01 Location (UTM-coordinates): 36R/0479705/2778611 Z = + 83.31 m Date: 09/11/2016

0–50 cm Very slightly silty fine sand; 7.5 YR 3/3 -/3 (dull brown–brown); homogeneous Aeolian sand 50–250 cm Fine sandy silt; 7.5 YR 4/3 (brown); heterogeneous; no lamellation; very few sherds Most probably mud brick material 250–350 cm Fine sandy silt to silty fine sand; 7.5 YR 4/3 (brown); fine lamellation Most probably infill 350–(500) cm Fine sandy clayey silt; 350–400: 10 YR 6/4 (dull yellowish orange); 400–500: 7.5 YR 4/3 (brown); fine lamellation Nile floodplain sediment

376

D. DEPRAETERE, A. DEVILLERS, M. DE DAPPER & W. CLAES

Drilling 02 Location: 10 m west of 01 Z = + 83.39 m Date: 09/11/2016

0–130 cm Aeolian sand 130–(300) cm Nile floodplain sediment Drilling 03 Location: 20 m west of 01 Z = + 83.01 m Date: 09/11/2016

0–130 cm Aeolian sand 130–(200) cm Nile floodplain sediment Drilling 04 Location: 30 m west of 01 Z = + 83.09 m Date: 10/11/2016

0–150 cm Aeolian sand 150–(400) cm Nile floodplain sediment Drilling 05 Location: 36 m west of 01 Z = + 83.13 m Date: 10/11/2016

0–160 cm Aeolian sand 160–(200) cm Nile floodplain sediment Drilling 06 Location: 10 m south of 01 Z = + 83.44 m Date: 10/11/2016

A SUBTERRANEAN BUILDING WITHIN THE GREAT WALLS AT ELKAB

377

0–100 cm Fine sandy silt to silty fine sand; 7.5 YR 4/3 (brown); colluvium derived from eastern course of Late Period Great Walls 100–290 cm Aeolian sand 290–(450) cm Nile floodplain sediment Drilling 07 Location: 20 m south of 01 Z = + 83.13 m Date: 10/11/2016

0–50 cm Colluvium derived from eastern course of Late Period Great Walls 50–210 cm Aeolian sand 210–(400) cm Nile floodplain sediment Drilling 08 Location: 28.5 m south of 01 Z = + 82.91 m Date: 10/11/2016

0–50 cm Colluvium derived from eastern course of Late Period Great Walls 50–90 cm Aeolian sand 90–(300) cm Nile floodplain sediment

378

D. DEPRAETERE, A. DEVILLERS, M. DE DAPPER & W. CLAES

Fig. 1. Site-plan of the town-site of Elkab with main locations mentioned in the text. The * indicates the spot where the Khasekhemwy blocks were found (© Belgian Archaeological Mission to Elkab).

Fig. 2. View on the north-eastern corner of the Great Walls prior to the start of the excavations, with several fragments of sandstone blocks and pieces of red granite. In the background (centre), part of mud brick wall Lc10 can be seen (© Belgian Archaeological Mission to Elkab).

Fig. 3. General plan showing the layout of the trenches and the locations of the drillings (© Belgian Archaeological Mission to Elkab).

A SUBTERRANEAN BUILDING WITHIN THE GREAT WALLS AT ELKAB

379

380

D. DEPRAETERE, A. DEVILLERS, M. DE DAPPER & W. CLAES

Fig. 4. Groundplan and section-plan of the structural remains (© Belgian Archaeological Mission to Elkab).

A SUBTERRANEAN BUILDING WITHIN THE GREAT WALLS AT ELKAB

381

Fig. 5. Overview of the excavation before and after the discovery of the stone building. View from the north-east (© Belgian Archaeological Mission to Elkab).

382

D. DEPRAETERE, A. DEVILLERS, M. DE DAPPER & W. CLAES

Fig. 6. The sandstone floor (Lc 16) of the south-western room. View from the south-east (© Belgian Archaeological Mission to Elkab).

A SUBTERRANEAN BUILDING WITHIN THE GREAT WALLS AT ELKAB

Fig. 7. Overview of the stone building. View from the south-west (© Belgian Archaeological Mission to Elkab).

383

384

D. DEPRAETERE, A. DEVILLERS, M. DE DAPPER & W. CLAES

Fig. 8. North-eastern room respectively from the north-west and the south-east, showing the difference in wall finishing on the in- and outside (© Belgian Archaeological Mission to Elkab).

A SUBTERRANEAN BUILDING WITHIN THE GREAT WALLS AT ELKAB

385

Fig. 9. The south-western cross wall (Lc22) respectively from the north-east and south-west, showing the large ashlar that was presumably used as a threshold for a doorway (© Belgian Archaeological Mission to Elkab).

386

D. DEPRAETERE, A. DEVILLERS, M. DE DAPPER & W. CLAES

Fig. 10. TK1/TK3, north-west profile with Lc19 in the foreground (indicated as E–F on the groundplan in Fig. 4): 1) dust layer; 2) alternating layers of medium slightly silty sand and light brown silt; 3) fine loose light brown silty sand; 4) fine compact brown to dark brown silty sand (upper section) to sandy silt (lower section); 5) lense of dark brown mud brick fragments and sandstone fragments; 6) fine sandy silt with mud brick fragments; 7) fox warren; 8) natural stratigraphy (© Belgian Archaeological Mission to Elkab).

A SUBTERRANEAN BUILDING WITHIN THE GREAT WALLS AT ELKAB

387

Fig. 11. Inner cross wall (Lc22) with foundation trench of stone wall Lc19 visible in the profile (indicated as C–D on the grounplan in Fig. 4): 1) dust layer; 2) alternating layering of very fine aeolian sand and fine slightly silty to silty layers; 3) fine loose light brown silty sand; 4) fine compact brown to dark brown silty sand (upper section) to sandy silt (lower section); 5) foundation trench (© Belgian Archaeological Mission to Elkab).

388

D. DEPRAETERE, A. DEVILLERS, M. DE DAPPER & W. CLAES

Fig. 12. Neck of a Roman amphora, possibly 2nd century AD (© Belgian Archaeological Mission to Elkab; drawing by Layla Mesotten).

FOUND IN A CELLAR, BUT FROM NAQADA? A NEW PREDYNASTIC HUNTING SCENE ON A C-WARE FRAGMENT FROM THE GARSTANG MUSEUM OF ARCHAEOLOGY, LIVERPOOL XAVIER DROUX Fondation Gandur pour l’Art, Geneva, Switzerland

This article presents a fragment of an early Predynastic (Naqada I or early Naqada II) White Cross-lined beaker in the collection of the Garstang Museum of Archaeology, University of Liverpool. The partly-preserved painted decoration consists of a hunting scene in which an ibex is prey to hunting dogs, a theme otherwise known from several contemporaneous painted vessels of the same class. The style and details of this fragment allow to attribute it to a specific painter who produced several pottery vessels excavated at Naqada.

Introduction During a recent research visit at the Garstang Museum of Archaeology to examine its Predynastic collection in preparation for the launch of an openaccess online corpus of Predynastic painted pottery [Droux, in prep. (a)], I had the pleasant surprise to discover a White Cross-lined (C-ware) fragment of significant interest (Fig. 1). At first glance, this piece seems rather uninspiring: most of the vessel is missing, the surface is worn in places, and the paint has partly flaked off. However, a close inspection of the decoration reveals that this fragment belongs to a known group of vessels with a common decorative theme—one very familiar to Stan Hendrickx—and which share stylistic characteristics. It can be argued that these vessels were likely painted by the same individual, and although the provenance of the Garstang piece is not known, it can be inferred to be Naqada—with some caution. The Garstang Museum Fragment E4176 The Liverpool fragment comes from a beaker that belongs to the Black-top class (B-ware) with additional white-painted decoration, so that it is considered to be a C-ware vessel. These vessels were broadly produced during the earlier part of the Predynastic period, between Naqada IA and IIA. The base of the vessel is missing, but the profile of the vessel is almost fully preserved: the beaker was not much taller than the recorded 15.7 cm height of the fragment; it had a diameter of c. 9 cm (25 % preserved) (Fig. 1). The surface is particularly eroded on the upper part of the exterior, especially on the black

390

X. DROUX

area, which has lost its shine and is pitted. The very edge of the rim is worn and its exact contour cannot be determined with certainty—it may have been direct or modelled—, but it is unlikely that it was extending further up. The interior surface is better preserved: it shows that a narrow band (< 2 cm) inside the lip had been smoothed horizontally—the potter’s hand fingerprints having left recognisable thin lines—and slipped. The wall below had been roughly smoothed and preserves manufacturing traces, such as vertical scraping tool marks as well as finger marks. On the exterior, the lower part of the sherd is less damaged than the rim. Remains of white-painted decoration are visible on the red-polished part of the body of the vessel, below the black area. In places, the paint has flaked off, leaving a ‘ghost’ of buff traces on the otherwise shiny background, allowing for the extensive reconstruction of the original motifs.

Fig. 1. Liverpool sherd E4176: back, front, and profile views (Photographs by the author; courtesy of the Garstang Museum of Archaeology).

The painted scene is separated from the upper part of the vessel by two lines that likely ran continuously around the entire beaker. They are not quite horizontal and bend down on the right (Figs 1–2). At least two triangles can be seen hanging from the lower line. It is difficult to precisely distinguish their interior design (question marks on Fig. 2); in C-ware art, triangles tend to be filled in majority with crosshatching and with hatching of parallel oblique lines (more rarely parallel vertical or horizontal lines). If crosshatching cannot be excluded for the Liverpool fragment, it seems however more likely that these triangles were filled with solid white paint (see below).

391

? ?

10cm

FOUND IN A CELLAR, BUT FROM NAQADA?

Eroded surface Remains of original decoration Original decoration visible as ’ghost’

Fig. 2. Liverpool sherd E4176: painted decoration (Drawing by the author).

The main scene was painted below the near-horizontal lines and triangles. The preserved section shows two animals that face each other, with the tip of their muzzle in close proximity. Both are only partly preserved, and their backsides are missing. The main protagonist appears to be the one on the left: it has a fairly long neck, backward-curving horns with short strokes along their top edge, an elongated muzzle, and a body filled with crosshatching of horizontal and oblique (top-left to bottom-right) lines. In front of it stands a slightly shorter animal that faces left; it is characterised by a short neck, ears that end in small discs, and a pointed muzzle; below its neck is a small device consisting of a short line ending in a disc. The body of this animal is also filled with crosshatching, although the oblique lines have a reverse orientation (top-left to bottom-right). The legs of both animals are straight and extended further below the break; a small mark on the surface near the bottom of the front leg of one animal suggests that their feet were indicated. The very front part of the third animal,

392

X. DROUX

facing right, is just visible on the extreme left of the fragment,1 above the back of the larger animal. Only the short muzzle, neck, and perhaps parts of the ears, are preserved. Overall, the painted scene follows the observed usual trends of figural C-ware art. In the case of animals, silhouettes are highly stylised, to such an extent that considered in isolation they can provide no help in identifying the intended species. When several species are represented together, their relative size is not naturalistic either. For the Predynastic Egyptians, there was however a clear aim to make each species recognisable by adding discriminatory details (see Hendrickx et al. 2018: 88). For example, in wild bovids, horns are often their most striking feature, and the manner with which the ancient artists reproduced their individual shapes is usually sufficient to make them critical identification factors: the horns of ibexes curve backward, those of Barbary sheep are crescent-shaped and frame the muzzle (see Fig. 3), those of hartebeests are lyre-shaped, and those of gazelles are S-shaped with frontward-pointing tips. The identification of the bovid painted on the left of the Liverpool fragment is not hampered by its partial preservation since its horns are visible: they most closely resemble those of an ibex, and the artist even added short strokes along their upper edge to emphasise the characteristic bosses that can be observed in nature (see e.g. Hendrickx et al. 2018: fig. 7). The animal depicted in front of the ibex can be identified as a hunting dog (Hendrickx 1992; 2006; 2010). It is not the aim of this article to revisit the representations of dogs in C-ware art; the following paragraphs concentrate instead on the ibex and on the material with which the Liverpool fragment can be most closely compared. The ibex in C-ware art The ibex is the most-commonly depicted species of wild antelopes on C-ware vessels (Droux 2015: 151), with ten examples known (Table 1).2 On two of 1 It cannot be fully excluded that these scant remains belong to the backside of an animal, with a short downturned tail; this is however less likely based on comparison with other similar vessels; see infra. 2 An additional C-ware vessel (Oxford, Ashmolean Museum, AN1946.297, no provenance; see Payne 2000: 60, cat. 406, fig. 29; Droux in prep. (a): C-0178) may have to be added to the corpus. Although the animals were described as giraffes by Keimer (1935: 168–169) and by Graff (2009: 161, cat. 67), Navajas Jiménez (2012, with references) later proposed to identify the animals as ibexes, based on a new examination of the vessel. She is certainly correct in considering the smaller animals as dogs attacking the antelopes, but the identification of the antelopes remains difficult, especially because of the elongated necks and both chest and neck manes, which are not characteristic of the ibex. According to Graff (2009: 32), there are only two representations of ibexes on C-ware vessels, defined as motifs Ab3 and Ab20; however, these motifs are listed for five C-ware vessels in the catalogue: cat. 147, 136, 159, 162, and 172 (Table 1, nos 4, 5, 7, and 10, respectively; following my examination of Graff’s cat. 172 in Turin, I consider the decoration to be a modern forgery;

FOUND IN A CELLAR, BUT FROM NAQADA?

393

these vessels, the identification of the ibex is not guaranteed: one animal has horns that curve strongly backward but that are rather short; the other one’s horns are not especially curved, so that the identification of the animal as a White gazelle proposed by the excavators (Dreyer et al. 2003: 82) cannot be excluded (nos 9, 10, respectively).3 The bodies of ibexes are usually filled with parallel oblique lines (nos 5, 7, 9, 10), more rarely with chevrons (nos 6, 7) or left empty (nos 3, 4). Only one vessel, beside the fragment presented here, shows an ibex with its body filled with crosshatching (no. 8, see Fig. 3a). Few of these vessels come from well-documented archaeological contexts, except the latter and no. 10. No. 8 was found in the nearly intact tomb B102 at Naqada, behind the feet of the deceased in the north-east corner of the grave [Price 1895: 73; Baumgartel 1970: pl. LXIV; Droux in prep. (b)], while no. 10 had been deposited in the south corner of tomb U-415 at Abydos (Hartmann 2016: I: 271, fig. 125), in front of the head of the deceased. It can be deduced from these two examples that there was no correlation between C-ware motifs (and indeed C-ware vessels in general) and placement within a grave. The vessel from Naqada is of special interest here: it is a double-beaker joined on a horizontal base—a rather unusual shape for C-ware vessels4—that was filled with fine sand (Fig. 3a). The scene painted on each beaker mirrors the other: they are both hunting scenes, in which an ibex on one side and a Barbary sheep on the other are surrounded by hunting dogs (Navajas Jiménez 2012; Hendrickx 2011).5 The ibex is painted in a remarkably similar way to the ibex of the Liverpool sherd; its horns are nearly identical in shape and detail, including the bosses indicated by short strokes along the top edges. The Barbary sheep, as mentioned above, is easily recognised by the crescent-shaped horns framing the head; the artist also added a frontal mane, another feature characteristic of this species (Hendrickx et al. 2009).

work on this object and others from the Turin collection is ongoing). The horned quadrupeds on vessels nos 2, 3, and 8 are identified by Graff (2009: cat. 114, 99, 173, respectively) as representations of oryxes [motifs Ab4 (oryx), Ab10 (oryx beisa), Ab11 (oryx algazelle)]; they are more likely to all be ibexes. The remaining three vessels are not included in Graff’s catalogue (Table 1, nos 1, 6, and 9). 3 Numbers in bold refer to Table 1. 4 Only about eighteen double-vessels with C-ware decoration are known, two of which were found alongside one another in grave B102 at Naqada; beside the example in Philadelphia (Table 1, no. 8) was a white-painted Black-topped double-beaker with geometric decoration (Fig. 3e; Oxford, Ashmolean Museum, AN1895.478; see Payne 2000: 33, cat. 96, fig. 22; Droux in prep. (a): C-0282). Notably, a third C-ware vessel was present among this assemblage: it is a beaker painted on its exterior surface with geometric and vegetal motifs, and with short strokes inside the lip (Oxford, Ashmolean Museum, AN1895.469; see Payne 2000: 61, cat. 408, fig. 29; Droux, in prep. (a): C-0281). 5 For the identification of the animal as an ibex, see Osborn & Osbornova 1998: 183; Navajas Jiménez 2012: 173, n. 13; Droux 2015, cat. 1.65; contra Graff (2009: 156) who identifies the animal as an oryx.

&ROOHFWLRQ

0HVDLGWRPE

8QNQRZQOLNHO\1DTDGD

3URYHQDQFH

&

&

32Q'D

1RSURYHQDQFH

&

1RSURYHQDQFH

1DTDGDRU%DOODV

&

&

$E\GRVWRPE&

1RSURYHQDQFHOLNHO\$E\GRV

&

&

&

$E\GRVWRPE8

$E\GRV"H[*D\HU$QGHUVRQFROOHFWLRQ

&

&

+DUWXQJILJ'UH\HUHWDO ±ILJDSOE*UDIIFDW+DUWXQJILJF+HQGULFN[ (\FNHUPDQ ILJ+HQGULFN[ILJ'URX[FDW+DUWPDQQ,,,FDWQRSO

 $E\GRVDQWLTXLWLHVPDJD]LQHQR8

'URX[FDW0HGHOKDYVPXVHHWRQOLQHFDWDORJXH

 6WRFNKROP0HGHOKDYVPXVHHW00

3HWULH 4XLEHOOSO;;,;3HWULHSO;;95DQNHILJ.DQWRUILJG2VERUQ 2VERUQRYiILJ 1DYDMDV-LPpQH]QRWH*UDIIFDW+HQGULFN[ILJ1DYDMDV-LPpQH]±SO;;;,D'URX[FDW 8QLYHUVLW\RI3HQQV\OYDQLD0XVHXPRI$UFKDHRORJ\DQG$QWKURSRORJ\RQOLQHFDWDORJXH6HHWKLVDUWLFOH)LJD

 3KLODGHOSKLD8QLYHUVLW\RI3HQQV\OYDQLD0XVHXPRI$UFKDHRORJ\DQG$QWKURSRORJ\( 1DTDGDWRPE%

$\UWRQ /RDW±SO;;9,,*UDIIFDW7HHWHU±FDW'URX[FDW2ULHQWDO,QVWLWXWH0XVHXPRQOLQH FDWDORJXH

 &KLFDJR2ULHQWDO,QVWLWXWH0XVHXP2,0(

.DQWRUILJ''URX[FDW+HQGULFN[HWDO 

 &RSHQKDJHQ1DWLRQDOPXVHHW

3HWULHSO+3HWULHSO;9,,,3HWULHSO;;9.HLPHUILJ2VERUQ 2VERUQRYiILJ±*UDII FDW&DQQX\HU±ILJ'URX[FDW3HWULH0XVHXP RQOLQHFDWDORJXH

 /RQGRQ3HWULH0XVHXP8&

3DJH*DVVHU :LHVHFDWD:LHVHFDWD*UDIIFDW'URX[FDW

 %DVHO$QWLNHQPXVHXPXQG6DPPOXQJ/XGZLJ/J$H%'(

*UDII FDW +HQGULFN[ ILJ+HQGULFN[ (\FNHUPDQ ILJ 1DYDMDV-LPpQH]SO;;;,E'URX[ FDW

 %UXVVHOV5R\DO0XVHXPVRI$UWDQG+LVWRU\(

.DQWRUILJULJKW(KUOLFKVG±ILJ)LQNHQVWDHGW*UD U IIFDW'URX[FDW0XVHXPRI)LQH$UWV RQOLQHFDWDORJXH

 %RVWRQ0XVHXPRI)LQH$UWV0)$

8QSXEOLVKHG

 /LYHUSRRO*DUVWDQJ0XVHXPRI$UFKDHRORJ\(

Table 1: C-ware vessels with representations of ibexes. POnDa numbers refer to Droux, in prep. (a).

394 X. DROUX

FOUND IN A CELLAR, BUT FROM NAQADA?

395

More often than not, the ibex is the target of a hunt, a trend which is strengthened by the Liverpool sherd. The dogs are the active elements of the hunt and their human masters are not depicted, except on a jar of uncertain provenance— possibly Abydos (no. 6). This is a typical feature of desert hunting iconography in C-ware art, where dogs are shown surrounding their prey or at the end of a row of animals. In the context of the ibex hunt, there is no clear prevalence of one type of hunt over the other, with packs of dogs surrounding their prey on two vessels besides the Liverpool fragment (nos 4, 8), and dogs controlling rows of animals on three other vessels [no. 3 (in front) and nos 7, 10 (behind)]. The Copenhagen vessel (no. 6) is more unusual: two hunters and a dog take part in a hunt that includes an ibex, a Barbary sheep, a wild donkey and a gazelle as prey. The ibex is not attacked by the dog, but is prey to one of the hunters who appears to be holding a lasso (see Hendrickx et al. 2018: figs 2a–b, 18). On vessel no. 3, a boat is incorporated in the painted scene, which further emphasises the symbolic nature of the hunting iconography, since boats were evidently not used for hunting desert animals (Hendrickx 2011: 251). When the ibexes are not hunted (nos 2, 5, 9), they can be standing among other animals (no. 5) or among plant motifs (no. 9). Bowl no. 2 is particular, since it does not bear stricto sensu the depictions of ibexes, but rather of combs with recumbent ibex figurines at their top.6 The ibex is systemically the only antelope species present when painted inside bowls. Each of these bowls has a distinct shape: no. 9 is hemispherical, no. 2 has a flat base and no. 3 stands on a ring-base. In contrast, ibexes on closed vessels are seemingly always painted with other species. Desert animals—most commonly Barbary sheep (nos 5, 6, 8) but also, e.g. gazelles (nos 6, 10)—are prominent; a giraffe (no. 5) and hippopotamuses (no. 10) are more unusual in these combinations. Because the Liverpool fragment only preserves a small portion of the original scene, it is not certain whether another species was also the target of the hunt, perhaps on the opposite side of the vessel. Since this fragment does not come from a bowl, it would at first appear that it ought to be the case. However, the array of shapes of these closed vessels is very restricted: apart from the double beaker (no. 8), they are all flasks and bottles with a bulbous lower part, a neck that can be fairly long and narrow,7 and a flaring rim. Evidently, the Liverpool fragment comes from a beaker that does not belong to this group; instead other vessels appear to be better comparative examples, despite not all showing ibexes. 6 A second C-ware vessel bears similar depictions of combs with animal figurines: Princeton, University Art Museum, y1930-494 (no provenance); the two animals have long rounded ears and are possibly hares; see Kantor 1953: figs 1G, 2G, 3C, 5 left; Droux in prep. (a): C-0454. 7 The published drawing of the bottle from tomb C2 at Abydos (no. 7; see Ayrton & Loat 1911: 34–35, pl. XXVII, 12) renders an inaccurate shape; a photograph (Teeter 2011: 153– 154, cat. 1) shows that the narrow neck is longer and that the shape is closer to the that of the bottles found in tomb U-415 at Abydos (e.g. no. 10).

396

X. DROUX

Comparative material As pointed out above, the double-beaker from Naqada tomb B102 bears a decoration extremely similar to the Liverpool sherd on one of its elements. Not only is the ibex painted in the same style, it is also set in a hunting scene, in a similar position. Three dogs attack this ibex, one from the front, one from below, and one from behind (on the opposite side of the beaker, not visible on Fig. 3a). This vessel belongs to a long-recognised group of C-ware vessels (Figs 3a–d) that all bear depictions of Barbary sheep hunts (Kantor 1953: 77–78; Graff 2009: 116, pl. 6.18). Helene Kantor was cautious in attributing the group to a single hand, considering that “the rather simple character and technique of the White Cross-lined style make such suppositions dangerous”, but some arguments can nevertheless be brought forward in favour of a single artist being responsible for the decoration of this group of objects. Firstly, although Kantor was right in saying that C-ware style can appear simple in character—at least to our modern eye—, hunting scenes belong to the most complex scenes painted at the time. Moreover, the other vessels bearing this decoration theme are noticeably different in style to this group. Further, the similarities shared by the Barbary sheep and dogs in all four examples, especially the manner in which their bodies are filled with crosshatching of horizontal and oblique lines, is unlikely to be coincidental. Even seemingly more trivial details such as the rows of triangles strengthen the likelihood of a single painter. Indeed, filled-in triangles, a common occurrence in later D-ware decoration, are much rarer in C-ware art, with less than twenty examples known outside this group, of which only a handful were found during archaeological excavations, including three at Naqada.8 In all examples of the group, whether there is a single series

8 For the sake of brevity, only references to Droux in prep. (a) are listed here. Vertical series of downturned triangles on outside of vessels: bottle C-0276 (Naqada, tomb N1823, Oxford, Ashmolean Museum, AN1895.470), nearly identical to bottle C-0339 (Boston, Museum of Fine Arts, MFA 04.1816), and of similar style to bowl C-0585 (Boston, Museum of Fine Arts, MFA 04.1818). Horizontal series of upturned triangles on outside of vessels: bowl C-0278 (Naqada, tomb N1823, Philadelphia, Penn Museum, E.1412), nearly identical to bowl C-0521 (Stockholm, Medelhavsmuseet, MM10271); bottle C-0022 (Abydos, tomb U-415, Egypt); bowl C-0493 (New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art 07.228.109), nearly identical to C-0519 (Stockholm, Medelhavsmuseet, MM10268). Series of triangles alternatingly pointing in opposite directions: rattle C-0264 (vertical series; Naqada, tomb N1613, Oxford, Ashmolean Museum, AN 1895.467); bottle C-0437 (vertical series; London, Petrie Museum, UC 15339); bowl C-0777 (horizontal series; Toronto, Royal Ontario Museum 900.2.17). Horizontal series of downturned triangles on outside of bowls on ring base: C-0363 (Brussels, Royal Museums of Art and History, E. 2991), nearly identical to C-0453 (Toronto, Royal Ontario Museum 900.2.127). Series of downturned triangles inside rim: bottle C-0158 (Brussels, Royal Museums of Art and History, E. 3002); bowl C-0558 (Princeton, University Art Museum, y1930-490); bowl C-0595 (London, Petrie Museum, UC 36299). Double vertical series of triangles pointing in opposite direction: bowl C-0475 (Turin, Museo Egizio, S.396). Groups of triangles pointing in various directions: bottle C-0106 (Gebelein, Paris, Louvre Museum, E 25382).

FOUND IN A CELLAR, BUT FROM NAQADA?

397

of triangles pointing all in the same direction (Fig. 3d–e), two series pointing in opposite directions (Fig. 3a–c), or a combination of both (Fig. 3c), there is systematically a doubling of the base line which leaves an ‘empty’ line along (or between) the series of triangles. None of the examples listed in note 8 show a similar pattern. Although the decoration of the double-beaker in Fig. 3e is purely geometric, it can be attributed to the same group since it shows this exact same pattern of triangles; its find location alongside the double-beaker with hunting scenes (no. 8) further reinforces the possibility of a single artist. The decoration of the Liverpool fragment is similar in its details to vessels of this group. Although some uncertainties remain as to how the triangles in the upper part were filled (see above), it is likely that they were filled-in. This would explain the lack of discernible hatching or crosshatching as ‘ghost’ traces where the paint has disappeared. Moreover, the doubling of the baseline leaves the same ‘empty’ line above the triangles as seems characteristic of the style of the painter of the group. It also appears that this artist first painted the figural elements of the scenes, and the triangles afterwards: on the bottle in Fig. 3b, the head of the dog painted above the back of the Barbary sheep occupies the place of one of the triangles, and on the elliptical bowl in Fig. 3c, the series of downturned triangles above the animals’ heads is limited to the first and last triangles. It is therefore not surprising that the series of triangles on the Liverpool sherd is not continuous and that the horns of the ibex take the place of a potential triangle. In our opinion, the joint occurrence of these similarities and peculiarities across this group is sufficient to consider that a single person painted these six vessels. A single painter also implies that all the vessels of the group are contemporaneous. The four vessels with a known archaeological provenance come from Naqada, and were recovered in two separate tombs, N1644 and B102. Very little is known about the former: its exact location within the Great Cemetery is not recorded, but most tombs with C-ware vessels were found in its eastern part, closer to the floodplain. The ceramic assemblage of the tomb was limited to four vessels according to excavation records (Quibell 1895: 36). The recently recovered pottery list established by Petrie in the preparation of his relative chronology (Stevenson 2020: fig. 2.36) indicates that beside the two C-ware vessels was one beaker of type B27e, which does not help narrowing down the relative date of the tomb.9 Tomb B102, located over 900 m to the south, is better documented, and one Red-Polished bowl of type P7 can be dated to Naqada IC. By extension, it is likely that all the vessels of the group, including 9 Type B27e is noted for 12 tombs in the Naqada main cemetery: tombs N1463, N1465, N1471, N1499, N1500, N1641, N1644, N1661, N1729, N1783, N1851, and N1858; they range in date from Naqada IA to Naqada IIC (see Stevenson 2020: figs 2.33, 2.36–39, 2.41).

398

X. DROUX

a

b

c

d

e

f

Fig. 3. Group of C-ware vessels attributed to the same painter: a) Double-beaker from Naqada, tomb B102 (Philadelphia, Penn Museum, E.1418); b) Flask from Naqada, tomb N1644 (Oxford, Ashmolean Museum, AN1895.482); c) Elliptical bowl, said to come from Gebelein (Princeton, University Art Museum, y1930-491, Gift C. Hayes, 1925); d) Hemispherical bowl from Naqada, tomb N1644 (Oxford, Ashmolean Museum, AN1895.487); e) Double-beaker from Naqada, tomb B102 (Oxford, Ashmolean Museum, AN1895.478); f) Liverpool beaker fragment. Scale: 15 %. Drawings: (a–d) Kantor 1953: figs 4D, 4C, 4A, 4E, resp.; (e) Payne 2000: fig. 22, no. 96; (f) by the author. Photographs by the author.

FOUND IN A CELLAR, BUT FROM NAQADA?

399

the Liverpool sherd, date to Naqada IC. This date is slightly later than the one suggested for several other C-ware flasks with hunting scenes (Hendrickx et al. 2018: 87), but nevertheless fits well within the stipulated broad range of C-ware production (Naqada IA–IIA). A final aspect of the sherd can be considered: unlike the vast majority of C-ware vessels, it is not a Red-Polished (P-ware) beaker that was decorated, but one belonging to the B-ware class. These vessels only constitute a discrete group of 26 examples among a corpus of c. 880 C-ware pots and fragments [< 3 %; Droux, in prep. (a)].10 Fourteen have a known provenance, of which eleven were excavated at Naqada. Among these, five fragments come from peculiar ‘tubular’ vessels; it is not clear how many vessels they originally belonged to, but since they were found in three different burials, at least three vessels are likely [the exact number of tubular fragments found during Petrie’s excavation is also uncertain; Droux, in prep. (b)], which brings down the number of excavated painted B-ware vessels to twelve, of which no less than 75 % come from Naqada. Besides the tubular vessels and a bowl on foot (of which only the ring base is coated in paint), all the listed white-decorated B-ware vessels are beakers (including double-beakers, a beaker on a ring base, and a beaker on three legs). The decoration of white-painted vessels was applied prior to firing (Geller 1984: 93; see C-ware wasters from HK59a, Droux, in prep. (a): C-0872, C-0873), and in the case of these painted B-wares, the black-polished upper part of the vessel is usually not painted, as we can see on the Liverpool fragment. From these observations, we can draw two conclusions. First, that the 10 For the sake of brevity, only references to Droux in prep. (a) are given here. Vessels from Naqada: tomb N1465: bowl on ring-base C-0705, Oxford, Ashmolean Museum, AN1895.367; tomb N1584: beaker C-0260, Manchester, University Museum, 3128; tomb N1587: sherd of tubular vessel C-0228, Oxford, Ashmolean Museum, AN 1895.474; tomb N1591: sherds of tubular vessel C-0315 and C-0252 [the black-polished upper part of the latter is missing], Oxford, Ashmolean Museum, AN1895.471 and AN 1895.475; tomb N1599: sherds of tubular vessel C-0316 and C-0314, and beaker C-0312, Oxford, Ashmolean Museum, AN1895.472, .473, and .485, resp.; tomb N1628: beaker C-0311, Philadelphia, Penn Museum, E.1419; tomb N1681: double-beaker on base C-0706, Oxford, Ashmolean Museum, AN1895.342; tomb B102: doublebeaker C-0282, see infra. Vessels with other provenance: Abydos, tomb U-13: beaker C-0280, South Hadley, MA, Mount Holyoke College Art Museum, MH 1911.13.A.A; El-Amra, tomb a74: beaker C-0070, Bristol, Museum and Art Gallery, H691; Hierakonpolis, Locality HK29: sherd of beaker C-0142, Egypt. Vessels without certain provenance: Cairo, Egyptian Museum, CGC 11533: beaker on three feet C-0642 (Gebelein?); Berlin, Ägyptisches Museum und Papyrussammlung, ÄM 15784 and ÄM 22390: beaker C-0830 (Kus/Naqada region?) and beaker on foot C-0831 (Khozam?); Boston, Museum of Fine Arts, MFA 04.1820 and MFA 04.1821: beakers C-0587 (Basileia?) and C-0588 (no prov.); Cairo, Egyptian Museum, CGC 11572 and CGC 11574: sherd of double-beaker C-0562 and beaker C-0564 (both from Naqada?); Geneva, Musée BarbierMueller, 203-88: beaker C-0544 (no prov.); Geneva, Musées d’Art et d’Histoire, D1180: beaker C-0343 (‘Ombos’?); Liverpool, Garstang Museum, E4176: beaker fragment (see infra); London, Petrie Museum, UC 15308: beaker C-0709 (no provance); New York, Metropolitian Museum of Art, 07.228.142: beaker C-0498 (no provance).

400

X. DROUX

artists knew beforehand to leave the upper part free of decoration, so that these vessels were not intended to be classic red-polished C-wares that accidentally became black-topped during the firing process. And second, that it was deemed important to keep the white decoration clear of the material in which the vessel, placed upside down in the kiln, was partly buried (only two vessels contradict this trend: C-0498 and C-0587 (see note 10); for the production of B-ware vessels, see Hendrickx et al. 2000). Vessels of the Black-top class are considered to be less porous than those of the P-ware class, and it is possible that practical considerations led to the adaptation of the classic C-ware style to the Black-top class, although this cannot be demonstrated. The provenance of the Liverpool fragment and concluding remarks At present, there is no known document relating to the discovery or acquisition of the Liverpool sherd in the archives of the Garstang Museum. The only available information is provided by a handwritten note on a sticker glued to the back of the fragment: “Found in cellar”. This hardly helps us in identifying the provenance of the sherd, and only tells us that at some point in time, likely in the first half of the 20th century, the fragment was ‘re-discovered’ in a basement where it had been abandoned earlier and forgotten about. Having determined that the fragment was painted by the same hand as several vessels found at Naqada, and that B-ware beakers with white-painted decoration predominantly come from that site, it is tempting to suggest that the Liverpool sherd also comes from Naqada. Garstang worked in the region of Naqada in 1904—when he notably re-excavated in springtime the ‘royal mastaba’ found by de Morgan in 1896 (Garstang 1905)—so that he certainly had the opportunity to collect the sherd, perhaps as a surface find during a visit to the areas excavated nearly a decade earlier by Petrie and his team, which lies c. 8.5 km to the north of the royal mastaba (site PWT.112, see van Wetering 2012). Only the discovery of another fragment from the same vessel would positively confirm this supposition: it is all the more regrettable that the whole extent of the ‘Great Cemetery’ and of Cemetery B at Naqada have been thoroughly destroyed and are now cultivated over [Droux, in prep. (b)]. If the sherd does indeed come from Naqada, it is unlikely that the rest of the beaker will ever be recovered. Although attributing the sherd to Naqada appears as a seductive possibility, we must remain cautious in doing so. Indeed, our understanding of the production and dissemination of C-ware vessels is still extremely limited, and one example—among others—highlights that the Liverpool sherd may come from a different area of Upper Egypt altogether. Two bowls have a very similar decoration that broadly consists of four animals, all facing right and following

FOUND IN A CELLAR, BUT FROM NAQADA?

401

one another around the interior wall of each bowl, with a circular design at the bottom (Graff 2009: 142, pl. 6.18, vases nos 27 and 30; see Droux, in prep. (a): C-0201 and C-0119, resp.). The animals’ silhouettes are unparalleled in C-ware art, so that it is difficult to offer a certain identification of the species, although bulls were likely intended (Hendrickx 2002: 305, App. A, no. 2). The similarities between the two vessels are such—especially the manner with which the backsides of the animals are filled with concentric designs—that they were most certainly painted by the same person, despite some variations in the details of the rim and of the circular design at the bottom of the vessel. However, this seems countered by the distance separating the two find spots of these bowls: one was found at Hammamiya (tomb 1649), the other one about 80 km to the south, at Naqa ed-Deir (tomb 7014). This raises interesting questions: were C-ware vessels produced at a limited number of ‘facilities’ and distributed over fairly large distances? Did the artists travel and produce similar vessels at different places? If two artists from different places are responsible for such a group, did one observe and copy the work of the other? A more detailed analysis of groups of vessels with similar decorations and known archaeological provenances is necessary before such questions can be tentatively addressed. At present, it is best to remain careful in attributing a possible find area to an object based on comparison with others bearing similar or near-identical decoration. Thus, although it is certainly possible that the Liverpool sherd comes from Naqada, it may equally have been found elsewhere by Garstang. The history of the Liverpool fragment and of the beaker it was once part of remains mysterious. The hunting scene painted on its exterior surface fits well within the artistic corpus of the early Predynastic period. This small, unassuming piece also proves to be a valuable addition to a group of vessels that can be attributed to the same Predynastic painter, who lived during Naqada IC. Nothing may be known about this individual, but it would appear that his skills were well-appreciated and that he was a sought-after artist, especially for the production of complex White Cross-lined decoration, chief among them hunting scenes involving Barbary sheep, ibexes, and dogs. Acknowledgements We would like to thank the editors for their invitation to contribute an article to this volume. The study of the Liverpool fragment was greatly facilitated by the team at the Garstang Museum, and we thank in particular its curator Dr. Gina Criscenzo-Laycock for permission to access and publish this object. We thank the staff of the Department of Antiquities at the Ashmolean Museum of Art and Archaeology and in particular Mr. Liam McNamara, the Lisa and Bernard Selz Curator for Ancient Egypt and Sudan, for their help and welcome during several research visits.

402

X. DROUX

Bibliography AYRTON, E.R. & LOAT, W.L.S., 1911. Pre-dynastic cemetery at El Mahasna. MEEF 31. London. BAUMGARTEL, E.J., 1970. Petrie’s Naqada excavation: A supplement. London. CANNUYER, C., 2010. La girafe dans l’Égypte ancienne et le verbe   : Étude de lexicographie et de symbolique animalière. Acta Orientalia Belgica. Subsidia 4. Brussels. DREYER, G.; HARTMANN, R.; HARTUNG, U.; HIKADE, T.; KÖPP, H.; LACHER, C.; MÜLLER, V.; NERLICH, A. & ZINK, A., 2003. Umm el-Qaab: Nachuntersuchungen im frühzeitlichen Königsfriedhof: 13./14./15. Vorbericht. MDAIK 59: 67–138. DROUX, X., 2015. Riverine and desert animals in Predynastic Upper Egypt: Material culture and faunal remains. Oxford (Unpubl. PhD dissertation, University of Oxford). https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:d6d885a7-86f9-4d51-b4d5-bb21b26d2897. DROUX, X., in prep. (a). POnDa: Predynastic Online Database of painted pottery. https://ponda.org. DROUX, X., in prep. (b). The Naqada C-ware corpus: Revisiting Petrie’s excavations in light of preserved documentary evidence (working title). EHRLICH, P., s.d. The Predynastic of Mesaeed (Unpubl. manuscript, Department of Egyptian and Ancient Near Eastern Art, Museum of Fine Arts, Boston). FINKENSTAEDT, E., 1980. Regional painting style in Prehistoric Egypt. ZÄS 107: 116– 120. GARSTANG, J. 1905. Note upon excavations made 1904–05. Man 5: 145–146. GELLER, J., 1984. The Predynastic ceramics industry at Hierakonpolis, Egypt. Washington (Unpubl. MA dissertation, Washington University). GRAFF, G., 2009. Les peintures sur vases de Nagada I–Nagada II  : Nouvelle approche sémiologique de l’iconographie prédynastique. EPM 6. Leuven. HARTMANN, R., 2016. Umm el-Qaab 4: Die Keramik der älteren und mittleren Naqadakultur aus dem prädynastischen Friedhof U in Abydos (Umm el-Qaab). ÄV 98. Wiesbaden. HARTUNG, U., 2002. Abydos, Umm el-Qaab : Le cimetière prédynastique U. ArchéoNil 12: 87–94. HARTUNG, U., 2010. Hippopotamus hunters and bureaucrats: Elite burials at Cemetery U at Abydos [in:] RAFFAELE, E.; NUZZOLO, M. & INCORDINO, I. (eds), Recent discoveries and latest researches in Egyptology. Proceedings of the First Neapolitan Congress of Egyptology (Naples, 18th–20th June 2008). Wiesbaden: 107–120. HENDRICKX, S., 1992. Une scène de chasse dans le désert sur le vase prédynastique Bruxelles, M.R.A.H. E. 2631. CdÉ 67(133): 5–27. HENDRICKX, S., 2002. Bovines in Egyptian Predynastic and Early Dynastic iconography [in:] HASSAN, F.A. (ed.), Drought, food and culture: Ecological change and food security in Africa’s later Prehistory. New York: 275–318. HENDRICKX, S., 2006. The dog, the Lycaon pictus and order over chaos in Predynastic Egypt [in:] KROEPER, K.; CHŁODNICKI, M. & KOBUSIEWICZ, M. (eds), Archaeology of early Northeastern Africa: In memory of Lech Krzyżaniak. SAA 9. Poznań: 723–749. HENDRICKX, S., 2010. L’iconographie de la chasse dans le contexte social prédynastique. Archéo-Nil 20 : 108–136. HENDRICKX, S., 2011. Hunting and social complexity in Predynastic Egypt. Academie royale des Sciences d’Outre-Mer. Bulletin des Séances / Koninklijke Academie voor Overzeese Wetenschappen. Mededelingen der Zittingen 57(2–4): 237–263.

FOUND IN A CELLAR, BUT FROM NAQADA?

403

HENDRICKX, S.; DROUX, X.; EYCKERMAN, M. & HARTMANN, R., 2018. Hunting for power: An exceptional White Cross-lined jar in the National Museum of Denmark. MDAIK 74: 83–97. HENDRICKX, S. & EYCKERMAN, M., 2010. Continuity and change in the visual representation of Predynastic Egypt [in:] RAFFAELE, E.; NUZZOLO, M. & INCORDINO, I. (eds), Recent discoveries and latest researches in Egyptology. Proceedings of the First Neapolitan Congress of Egyptology (Naples, 18th–20th June 2008). Wiesbaden: 121–143. HENDRICKX, S.; FRIEDMAN, R. & LOYENS, F., 2000. Experimental archaeology concerning Black-topped pottery from ancient Egypt and the Sudan. CCÉ 6: 171–187. HENDRICKX, S.; RIEMER, H.; FÖRSTER, F. & DARNELL, J.C., 2009. Late Predynastic/ Early Dynastic rock art scenes of Barbary sheep hunting in Egypt’s Western Desert: From capturing wild animals to the women of the “Acacia House” [in:] RIEMER, H.; FÖRSTER, F.; HERB, M. & PÖLLATH, N. (eds), Desert animals in the Eastern Sahara: Status, economic significance, and cultural reflection in antiquity. Proceedings of an interdisciplinary ACACIA Workshop held at the University of Cologne (December 14–15, 2007). Colloquium Africanum 4. Cologne: 189–244. KANTOR, H., 1953. Prehistoric Egyptian pottery in the Art Museum. Record of the Art Museum, Princeton University 12(2): 67–83. KEIMER, L., 1935. Sur des vases prédynastiques de Khôzam. ASAÉ 35: 161–181. NAVAJAS JIMÉNEZ, A.I., 2009. Bos primigenius / Loxodonta africana  : Iconographie et symbolisme au travers de la céramique White Cross-lined. CdÉ 84(167–168): 50–87. NAVAJAS JIMÉNEZ, A.I., 2012. Some new hunting scenes in pre-dynastic C-wares: London Petrie Museum UC15331 and Oxford Ashmolean Museum 1946.297 ‘revisited’. ZÄS 139(2): 171–178. OSBORN, D.J. & OSBORNOVÁ, J., 1998. The mammals of ancient Egypt. The Natural History of Egypt 4. Warminster. PAGE-GASSER, M. & WIESE, A., 1997. Ägypten, Augenblicke der Ewigkeit: Unbekannte Schätze aus Schweizer Privatbesitz. Mainz am Rhein. PAYNE, J.C., 2000. Catalogue of the Predynastic Egyptian collection in the Ashmolean Museum: With Addenda. Oxford. PETRIE, W.M.F., 1902. Prehistoric Egyptian pottery. Man 2: 113. PETRIE, W.M.F., 1920. Prehistoric Egypt, illustrated by over 1000 objects in University College, London. BSAE/ERA 31. London. PETRIE, W.M.F., 1921. Corpus of Prehistoric pottery and palettes. BSAE/ERA 32. London. PETRIE, W.M.F. & QUIBELL, J.E., 1896. Naqada and Ballas 1895. London. PRICE, H., 1895. [Naqada excavation fieldnotes] (Unpubl. manuscript notebook no. 70, Petrie Museum, London). QUIBELL, J.E., 1895. [Naqada excavation fieldnotes] (Unpubl. manuscript notebook no. 137, Petrie Museum, London). RANKE, H., 1950. The Egyptian collections of the University Museum, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. University Museum Bulletin 15(2–3): 1–109. STEVENSON, A., 2020. The archival record of W.M.F. Petrie’s 1894–5 excavations in the Predynastic cemeteries of Naqada [in:] STEVENSON, A. & VAN WETERING, J. (eds), The many histories of Naqada: Archaeology and heritage in an Upper Egyptian region. GHP Egyptology 32. London: 11–15. TEETER, E. (ed.), 2011. Before the pyramids: The origins of Egyptian civilization. OIMP 33. Chicago.

404 VAN

X. DROUX

WETERING, J., 2012. Relocating de Morgan’s Royal Tomb at Naqada and identifying its occupant [in:] KABACIŃSKI, J.; CHŁODNICKI, M. & KOBUSIEWICZ, M. (eds), Prehistory of Northeastern Africa: New ideas and discoveries. SAA 11. Poznań: 91–124.

Online resources (last accessed 17.08.2019) Medelhavsmuseet online catalogue: http://collections.smvk.se/carlotta-mhm/web Museum of Fine Arts online catalogue: https://collections.mfa.org/collections Oriental Institute Museum online catalogue: https://oi-idb.uchicago.edu Petrie Museum online catalogue: http://petriecat.museums.ucl.ac.uk/search.aspx?form type=advanced University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology online catalogue: https://www.penn.museum/collections/

AULÂD ESH-SHEIKH: HERMANN RANKE’S SHORT TRIP INTO THE EARLY DYNASTIC DINA A. FALTINGS University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg Center for Cultural Heritage, Heidelberg, Germany

In 1913 Ranke was asked to direct an excavation in Middle Egypt in search of Greek papyri for the Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften and the Freiburger Wissenschaftliche Gesellschaft. By sending one of his Amarna-Quftis on a 25 km survey along the eastern bank from Sharûna to el-Hibe, an Early Dynastic cemetery near the village of Aulâd esh-Sheikh was found and afterwards explored for two days. Ranke published his results in a short chapter in his excavation report including some photographs of the excavation and a few selected finds (Ranke 1926: 8–13, pls 4–5). Some of the objects ended up in the Egyptian collection of the University of Heidelberg. A small chapter of its catalogue, including a collective photograph of the objects, is dedicated to Aulâd esh-Sheikh (Gessler-Löhr 1986: 29–31). However, drawings or detailed descriptions were never published except for one object, and this gap will be filled here.1 I will further augment the information given by Ranke with all data from his notebooks that did not get into the final publication.2

The necropolis of Aulâd esh-Sheikh The cemetery of Aulâd esh-Sheikh lay on a roughly drop-shaped spur of the desert south of Wadi Bashendi (Ranke 1926: figs 1–2) and had a length of 300 m and a maximum width of 100 m.3 Ranke worked in Aulâd esh-Sheikh only for two days on March 25–26, 1913.4 After a rough survey he divided the cemetery into four quarters (see sketch in Ranke 1926, fig. 2) and cleared three tombs, one of which had already been more or less emptied by grave robbers shortly before their arrival. The latter one in the south-western quarter was called No. I, the next two Nos II (north-western quarter) and III (north-eastern quarter). All of them were oriented north-south. 1

This publication is dedicated to Stan who is devoted (at least partially) to the Early Dynastic. May it please you! 2 The Egyptian collection of the University of Heidelberg did not only receive a quarter of the finds, but also holds the archives belonging to Ranke’s excavations in 1913 and 1914. This includes the preserved glass negatives and his excavation diaries. Another quarter of the finds went to Freiburg and is now stored in the depot of the Museum Natur und Mensch (NuM), Städtische Museen Freiburg, where access has only recently been allowed. 3 Already in 1913, it was lying directly at the edge of the cultivation. Today the site is built over by modern houses. 4 One of the reasons for this might be a telegram that reached Ranke on the evening of March 25, telling him: “Greek Roman to us more precious than Coptic. Heidelberg, Freiburg”.

406

D.A. FALTINGS

Grave I This tomb was never photographed and the finds that were still there consisted of some shards of alabaster dishes on the surface and in the fill. Three ceramic pots were recovered that Ranke only sketched in the text without providing any measurements or further information (Ranke 1926: 8; the sketch was a direct copy of page 52 from his 1913 excavation diary). However, as the sketch is not symmetric it is impossible to determine their exact shape. What can be deduced from it is that they are restricted vessels looking rather slender than squat, with a shoulder, a short neck with a slightly flaring rim and a flat bottom, probably some kind of storage jars.5 The tomb itself was a rectangular mud brick-lined pit that was originally plastered and white washed. The single chamber measured 1.90 × 1.00 m and had a height of 70 cm. No remains of a superstructure were found (Ranke 1926: 9, n. 6), nor does Ranke mention anything about the floor. The lack of detailed information prevents us from dating this tomb more precisely than Ranke did (late Predynastic to Early Dynastic). Grave II The next tomb was excavated in the north-western quarter of the cemetery (Ranke 1926: 8–9). It had likewise been robbed but Ranke presumed that this had happened already in antiquity, very shortly after the interment had taken place. The tomb consisted of a roughly rectangular pit with a narrow passage on the southern side leading to two small storage chambers. The pit was lined with mud brick walls that were plastered and white washed on the inside, and covered with a plastered floor (Excavation diary 1913: 55; see Figs 1–2). The main chamber’s internal dimensions were 1.90 × 1.22 m with a height of 1.35 m that together with the two storage chambers make up the inner rectangle of the tomb. The partition wall between the two storage rooms was only 12 cm wide while the north and south walls have a width of 30 cm. The side walls were 40 cm thick and originally roofed with trunks of acacia, parts of which were still lying on the surface, and three of them still in situ covering the small chambers. In addition, the walls of the main chamber were enclosed by another 30–40 cm thick mud brick wall which was preserved to a height of 25–30 cm (see Fig. 3) and contained a remaining piece of a tree trunk that was part of an additional roofing layer above the first one (Ranke 1926: pls 3–4 and Fig. 3). The mud bricks measured 11.5 × 24 cm. Their height was obviously not really clear or regular. Ranke notes that five courses of them, including the joins, represent a height of 63 cm (Excavation diary 1913: 55, see Fig. 3). 5 It remains unclear whether they, or some of them, went to Germany, see infra: list of unprovenanced finds.

HERMANN RANKE’S SHORT TRIP INTO THE EARLY DYNASTIC

Fig. 1. Grave II – Burial pit.

Fig. 2. Grave II – Finds in the north-western corner (photo published in Ranke 1926: pl. 5.1).

407

408

D.A. FALTINGS

Fig. 3. Grave II – Sketch from Ranke’s excavation diary, 1913: 55.

HERMANN RANKE’S SHORT TRIP INTO THE EARLY DYNASTIC

409

The outer wall might not have been constructed at the same depth as the main chamber but no excavation was carried out to verify this. The crosssection (Fig. 3) even seems to indicate the possibility that the presumed ‘outer wall’ is only an upper step dug into the desert ground and was not constructed on its own. The only published photograph of this tomb (Ranke 1926: pl. 5.1; Fig. 2) does not show the top of the wall but only gives a view on the in situ finds in the north-western corner: five shallow dishes and two deeper bowls, together with some animal bones6 and a wooden object that looks like a part of a piece of furniture.7 Except for the photographed objects in the north-western corner, Ranke also states in his report the find of a restricted vessel of brownish pottery (its find spot in the tomb, at the opposite wall, is only indicated in his diary sketch; see Fig. 3), and a string with ring-shaped beads of carnelian that lay beneath one of the dishes in the north-western corner.8 The only other photograph of this tomb was not published (Fig. 1) and shows a view to the south of the excavation. The shape of the ancient excavation pit is visible on the right side and resembles a staircase. Above, to the right of the acacia trunks, mud bricks are visible which covered the roof at about 2/3 of that step. Above that, there is only loose rubble, mainly consisting of limestone and sand. The photograph also shows the hole that the tomb robbers made in the south wall in order to gain access to the small storage chambers. After opening the eastern chamber, they went into the western one by breaking an opening 45 cm wide into the thin separating wall. Another hole was made in the southern wall of the first chamber, presumably in search of another set of storage chambers (according to Fig. 3: two holes, one each in the east and south wall).9

6 The animal bones that can be discerned on the picture include a mandible in the foreground, a leg (?) bone on the lower left plate and some ribs and a scapula (?) near the back wall. Furthermore, Ranke mentions a skull of an antelope (identified by Salima Ikram as a goat’s skull), which lay beneath two of the plates (Heidelberg Inv. no. 518, see below). Whether the visible mandible belongs to the skull cannot be determined, as it is not part of the Heidelberg collection. 7 See infra: List of finds no. 10 (Freiburg Inv. no. Ae 523) and list of unprovenanced finds, no. C (Heidelberg Inv. no. 523). 8 The pot is now in Freiburg, in the depot of the NuM (Inv. no. Ae 582, see infra List of finds no. 1) and the string of beads (List of finds, no. 11) in the Egyptian Museum Cairo. The jar was published without scale by Ranke (1926: pl. 5.7), but otherwise not mentioned anywhere. However, it appears also in the pottery photographs in Figs 4 (centre) and 5 (upper row, middle) which allows the identification with Freiburg Inv. no. Ae 582. 9 The modus operandi of the tomb robbers points to some other interesting facts: A. They started from the top by breaking through the roof directly into the burial chamber, which was obviously their main goal, probably in search of jewellery on the body. This seems to indicate that they must have known the exact location of the burial chamber which might hint at a kind of architectural marker on the superstructure.

410

D.A. FALTINGS

The finds of Grave II Some of the finds from this tomb went to Freiburg (Ranke 1926: 9, n. 1, 2 and 4) and to Heidelberg (Ranke 1926: 9, n. 3). Some of them, not mentioned in the publication, can be identified on the basis of the photographs and by exclusion as there were no such finds in Grave III while Grave I did not contain plates or bowls.10 – List of finds:11 1. Heidelberg Inv. no. 514 (Fig. 14): Flat pottery bowl with rounded (rocking) base, alluvial clay, light brown.12 Very well refined with very little organic and inorganic inclusions (some very fine chaff and sand, including limestone grains). Inside: red slip, burnished carelessly in parallel lines from one side to the other and irregularly along the rim. Outside (= base): roughly scraped to shape and smoothed over in upper third, red slip only along rim. Lower base sanded in dry state (or abraded by use?), resulting in two slightly convex planes, therefore rocking base. Diameter: 20.3– 21.4 cm, height: 4.2–4.8 cm. Reconstructed from two sherds, therefore find spot probably identifiable: See Fig. 2, the vessel beneath the dish in the lower row right has a similar crack in its wall. 2. Heidelberg Inv. no. 515 (Fig. 15): Flat pottery bowl with rounded base, alluvial clay, light brown. Lots of medium to coarse chaff and medium to

B. They were not expecting to get caught in action since all their debris was lying around: remains of the roof structure (heaps of sand, wooden trunks, reeds, mud bricks and plaster fragments), parts of the interment (e.g. coffin or coffin-parts, corpse, clothing/mummy wrappings etc.). This leads us to several questions: What gave them this sense of security? Was the cemetery far away from the settlement or did they proceed extremely quickly so that they were gone after one night or so? Was there no control on the cemetery and no contact with the dead (i.e. family visits to the grave) anymore after the burial? There were at least no signs of reburial. C. The robbers left the dishes and bowls in the north-western corner untouched. Was this merely a coincidence, were they not visible for some reason or was the pottery which obviously contained perishable food like meat and maybe milk not interesting enough? 10 In total, seven open vessels were found in this grave which are visible on Fig. 2 (= Ranke 1926: pl. 5.1). Four flat dishes could be identified with certainty of which one is kept in Freiburg and three in Heidelberg. A deeper bowl with the remains of a white fluid can be seen in the centre of the group of vessels. It is also shown in Fig. 4, middle row, left and Fig. 5, lower left and can be identified as Freiburg Inv. no. Ae 577. Another deep dish, possibly standing in the corner beneath a flat dish (Fig. 4, upper row, left) must have gone to Cairo. Finally, the current location of the broken dish on the lower left side of the photograph is unknown. 11 The finds in Freiburg are kept in the storage rooms of the Museum Natur und Mensch, Städtische Museen Freiburg, and were inaccessible until very recently. 12 In her description of the finds from Aulâd esh-Sheikh in the Heidelberg collection, GesslerLöhr (1986: 29, no. 124a–c) describes the fabric of this bowl and the two following ones as marl clay, but it is definitely too soft for that. Also other fabrics were not attributed correctly but this will not be noted individually.

HERMANN RANKE’S SHORT TRIP INTO THE EARLY DYNASTIC

411

coarse sand (including sub-angular and rounded limestone as part of the sand). Inside: red slip, originally possibly burnished (few small remaining spots of glossy surface, but could also be chemical reaction of slip with former contents). Outside (= base): roughly scraped to shape, smoothed over by application of thick brown slip covering up the minor bumps and dips, uppermost part irregularly painted red, lowest part sanded off (or abraded by use?). Diameter: 20.4 cm, height: 4.2 cm. The preserved white stripe outside near the rim might indicate that it is the upper vessel in the lower right of Fig. 2. 3. Heidelberg Inv. no. 516 (Fig. 16): Flat pottery bowl with rounded base, alluvial clay, light brown. Little relatively fine chaff and few fine to medium rounded sand and limestone grains. Inside: red slip without burnish. Outside (= base): roughly scraped to shape and careless smoothing afterwards, no slip except the red one near rim. Diameter: 22.8 cm, height: 5.4 cm. Inside: greasy spot (from original content?). Must have stood on a narrower vessel containing greasy matter, which ‘imprinted’ itself on the pottery of the underside in ring shape. Find spot therefore most probably uppermost left in Fig. 2, as this bowl stands on another vessel. 4. Freiburg Inv. no. Ae 900 (former no. 136) (Fig. 17): Flat pottery bowl with rounded base, alluvial clay, light brown. Little relatively fine organic matter (grass and chaff < 0.7 cm length), and little fine to medium rounded (< 0.5 mm diameter) and sub-angular (< 1.5 mm length) limestone grains. Inside: unburnished red slip on well smoothed surface. Outside (= base): lower half wet smoothed and slightly scraped, upper half well smoothed, no slip except red line near rim. Diameter: 22.2 cm, height: 5.0 cm. Inside: cloudy, dark grey, roundish spots (from original content, e.g. fruits?). Fig. 4, middle row, right (?); Fig. 5, lower right (?).13 As Fig. 2 shows four relatively flat plates of which the three from Heidelberg are most certainly identified, this one can only be the one to the right of the central vessel. 5. Freiburg Inv. no. Ae 582 (Fig. 18): Small slender ovoid jar with wellsmoothed rim and neck and flat groove around neck with ridge on the shoulder,14 lower half scratched vertically; light brownish grey to greenish grey marl clay pottery with some rounded limestone particles < 0.5 mm diameter, few bigger ones (angular and sub-angular) < 1.5 mm length; dark red wash, applied in streaks with a brush (upper part horizontal, lower half vertical, one repair area in lower half horizontal). Inside very irregular and bumpy, one large patch of clay applied near bottom. Probably a milk

13 14

Fig. 5 might represent the complete set of vessels from Grave II that went to Freiburg. This neck groove with shoulder ridge is a typical feature for the Early Dynastic.

412

D.A. FALTINGS

Fig. 4. Grave II – Pottery finds.

Fig. 5. Grave II – Stone and pottery vessels, now in Freiburg.

HERMANN RANKE’S SHORT TRIP INTO THE EARLY DYNASTIC

413

jar,15 height: 22.5 cm, height of rim: 2.3 cm. (Ranke 1926: 9, n. 2; see Fig. 4, middle row, 2nd from right; Fig. 5, top, middle). 6. Freiburg Inv. no. Ae 523 (Fig. 19): Fragment of furniture, crossbar of small table or tray? (cf. parallel from Saqqara tomb 3471: Emery 1949: fig. 29),16 wood: L: 28 cm. A bar with two trapezoidal ends, separated from the long part by grooves, c. 6 mm deep and 6–8 mm wide (for fixing strings). Ranke mentions that the ends have drill holes still containing the wooden dowels. They are still visible in the lower part, pointing downwards and seem to be positioned obliquely. In the sides there are round wooden irregularities, but it is not certain whether these are dowels or knotholes as their positions in both ends are different. In one of them there is a long triangular slot cut horizontally into its side, but the opposite end does not show this feature. It also appears in another, loose trapezoidal end-piece. Cf. infra: list of unprovenanced finds B and C. For the context see Fig. 2: found next to the stack of dishes and remains of meat, therefore perhaps part of a decayed small table or tray.17 7. Freiburg Inv. no. Ae 577 (Fig. 20): Bowl with slightly rounded base, very well refined reddish-brown alluvial clay with only very few pieces of grass (> 0.5 cm length, 0.1 cm width); covered all over by red slip applied with brush in thin, mostly diagonal stripes, sometimes blotchy. Well smoothed, inside and upper rim outside (until shortly below line of maximum diameter), pebble burnished in short, narrow, irregular stripes, not covering the complete surface, mostly horizontal, sometimes diagonal. Diameter of rim: 19.3 cm, height: 8.3–8.6 cm. Ring-shaped horizontal remains of white material inside with splashes and fingerprints above the horizontal line indicating a liquid being transported and deposited in the dish (central vessel in Fig. 2, see also Fig. 4, middle row left and Fig. 5, lower left). 8. Current location unknown (Egyptian Museum, Cairo?): Flat dish with slightly S-curved wall, maybe with flat base and probably red burnished, broken into three parts (lower left in Fig. 2, with leg bone). 9. Current location unknown (Egyptian Museum, Cairo?): Deep bowl with flat base, features unknown (probably beneath flat dish (no. 3), leftmost in Fig. 2, see also Fig. 4, upper row, left). 10. Heidelberg Inv. no. 518 (Fig. 21): Skull and neck vertebrae of a goat.18 15 The size and shape, as well as the matrix, point to a function as milk jar (Hendrickx et al. 2002: 284; Faltings 2011: 367–368 and n. 46.) 16 Here, as well as in Saqqara, the crossbar appears next to collapsed stacks of grave goods which might indicate that the table or tray was mainly made of perishable material like palm ribs. 17 Note the two small objects in the foreground of Fig. 2, near the crossbar: One is trapezoidal and white, and might be another end-piece of such a crossbar (possibly Heidelberg Inv. no. 523, Fig. 19). The other one seems to be a leaf-shaped flint scraper (cf. Emery 1949: fig. 41.2), but it was not recorded and might have gone unnoticed. 18 Ranke thought the skull possibly belonged to an antelope (Ranke 1926: 9).

414

D.A. FALTINGS

11. Egyptian Museum, Cairo: Well-preserved string of linen threads with ring-shaped carnelian beads. Length: 22 cm, no photograph given (Ranke 1926: 9, n. 5). 12. Reportedly Heidelberg Inv. no. 553, but currently not traceable:19 Part of a roof log from the small chambers, acacia wood (Acacia nilotica). According to Ranke (Ranke 1926: 8, n. 3) about 110 cm long and 20 cm in diameter, the Heidelberg inventory record mentions identical dimensions. Broken into three fragments. Grave III This tomb was the largest of the three. It was dug into the desert gravel and measured 4.70 m × 3.50 m. A special feature of the tomb consisted in the fact that the walls of the main chamber were lined with big rectangular slabs of limestone, well smoothed on the inside and set upright into the pit. According to Ranke they are 2 m high and 10 cm thick.20 The internal dimensions of this chamber were roughly 2.50 m in length,21 1.85 m in width and 2.00 m in height. Four small storage rooms are situated north of it. The separating mud brick walls of 28 cm thickness in their centre divided the space into a double set of two deeper (76 cm) and two slightly narrower (60 cm) chambers, all of them c. 90 cm wide (measurements from Excavation diary 1913: 63). The roof construction was found about 1 m below the surface and consisted of trunks of acacia, c. 1.80 m long. Six of them covered the storage rooms, while the rest may have disappeared as a result of the activities of tomb robbers that proceeded in the same manner as in Grave II by excavating the main

19 There is one piece of an acacia trunk of ca. 35 cm in length and ca. 20 cm in diameter, but it has no Inv. no. Presumably this is a mix-up of Inv. nos 533 and 553 because of their similarity. Ranke only mentions one log in Heidelberg where there is only one complete log with the Inv. no. 533 (see below: list of unprovenanced finds, second list, C). It might have suffered some damage over the years and two small parts might have broken off, hence the “three fragments”. The length of Heidelberg Inv. no. 533 is recorded as 113 cm, but in measuring large and bulky objects there is always the possibility of a slight deviation, depending on who is measuring and where on the object. 20 However, in the sketch of the tomb (Excavation diary 1913: 63) the eastern middle slab is noted as being 18 cm thick. If one compares the slab held upright by the workman in Fig. 8 with the one behind him and the measuring rod, it becomes clear that there is a considerable difference between the two on the north side and the much higher ones lining the chamber on the other sides. The slab held up is c. 1.75 m high and might well have a thickness of c. 10 cm. The block in the back of the workman is c. 2 m high and probably the 18 cm thickness noted in the sketch apply to these surrounding blocks. There is also a marked difference in height between the blocks of the western and the southern transverse wall (see Fig. 9). 21 The sketch in Ranke’s excavation diary differs slightly from the published one, as most of the measurements noted in the sketch are missing in the publication. According to this sketch, the chamber is slightly askew, the length of the western wall being 2.50 m while the eastern one is only 2.45 m long.

HERMANN RANKE’S SHORT TRIP INTO THE EARLY DYNASTIC

415

chamber first. The tree trunks that were still in place were originally covered with reeds. These reeds, in turn, had been covered with sandy mud-mortar and mud bricks that were still partially in place (Ranke 1926: 10; Excavation diary 1913: 56, see also Fig. 6, upper left corner, and Fig. 7).22 It looks as if the tomb robbers first emptied the tomb chamber completely before they tackled the side chambers. Ranke (1926: 10) mentions a difference between the lowest 20 cm of sand that covered the floor and the upper filling in which many tatters of white linen were spread. They might have been part of the interred body and were most probably torn into pieces outside the tomb in search for precious adornments or were part of the stored tomb gifts, e.g. bundles of linen that had originally been stacked in the small attached chambers. This means that the lowest 20 cm were filled back in by the plunderers before they opened the side chambers because under these 20 cm, three wooden bars were found lying on the smoothened desert floor while a fourth one was leaning upright against the western wall (see Figs 6–7).23 Their lengths were between 2.45 m (eastern wall) and 2.50 m (western wall), they were 8 cm thick and 10 cm wide (measures given in sketch, Excavation diary 1913: 63).24 No dimensions are known for the fourth one that was leaning against the western wall. According to Ranke, these bars might originally have carried a wooden floor that was torn out by the robbers.25 According to the published cross-section (Ranke 1926: fig. 6), the stone slabs of the western wall are slightly tilting,26 resulting in cleavages that had to be filled in, especially in the corners (see Figs 8 & 9), and the blocks were simply put on the ground of the pit. The ones of the north and south wall might have been held in place by the wooden bars on the floor. Some of the slabs lean on each other like in a house of cards, some of them seem to be held in place by mud brick or mortar (Ranke 1926: fig. 5, “N” is marked as mud brick wall in the original sketch, Excavation diary 1913: 63). He states that the 60 cm

22

The reeds were long gone but their impressions were still visible in the hard dried mud (Ranke 1926: 10). 23 This upright bar is the only indication to state that the robbers filled the chamber with sand and that it was not deposited there intentionally, nor that it has a structural function like e.g. stabilising the stone walls. 24 In Ranke’s published plan (Ranke 1926: fig. 5) the noted measures in his sketch were misinterpreted as a gap in the easternmost bar which is not there. Moreover, in the cross section (Excavation diary 1913: 64; Ranke 1926: fig. 6) the easternmost beam bears a step. However, in the diary sketch (Excavation diary 1913: 63) as well as in the published plan, such a step is not visible, nor is it mentioned anywhere, and must therefore be interpreted as a mistake. 25 I find this rather improbable. If the robbers had been interested in wood as a material why would they leave these bars in place? Probably the bars served a constructional purpose, like keeping the lower parts of the stone slabs in place. 26 It looks as if the slant in some of the stones is not intended as it is too irregular, but as stated by La Loggia (2008: 78), leaning the slabs against the walls reduces lateral pressure thus granting more stability, so it might even have been intended.

416

D.A. FALTINGS

Fig. 6. Grave III – Pottery above the tilted stone slab from the northern wall.

Fig. 7. Grave III (photo published in Ranke 1926: pl. 4.2).

HERMANN RANKE’S SHORT TRIP INTO THE EARLY DYNASTIC

Fig. 8. Grave III – Tilted stone slab from the northern wall.

Fig. 9. Grave III – Stone slabs in the northern wall.

417

418

D.A. FALTINGS

wide space between the limestone slabs and the long walls of the pit were backfilled with sand (“Hinterfüllung”; Ranke 1926: 10). However, in the sketch (Excavation diary 1913: 63) the distance of 60 cm is measured from the pit’s wall to the inside of the slabs, therefore the backfill is only 42 cm (max. 50 cm) deep. It seems more plausible that the composition of this backfill was of a more solid nature, probably consisting of mud brick, either as a wall or maybe in certain places as pisé or mud mixed with mud brick.27 At least some of the slabs, with a weight-pressure of nearly one cubic meter of sand behind them, would otherwise have had nothing to keep them in place. Counter-pressure would certainly have been needed to prevent the (otherwise free standing) central slab in the western wall and the northern two in the eastern wall from tilting inside.28 Maybe the top of the backfill was just covered by misleading loose sand when Ranke made his notes. After having taken out (the probable coffin or possible shrine with) the corpse, the looters created an entrance to the storage rooms by pulling down the eastern one of the two slabs that made up the northern wall. The slab did not fall down flat, but was kept in a tilted position by some sand (Fig. 10). As can be seen in Fig. 6, which shows a stage previous to Fig. 7 (= Ranke 1926, pl. 4.2), a small stool is situated on the floor to the left of the stone slab which must have ended up in the chamber directly after opening the storage rooms, either by pulling it out or by throwing it back in from above. After taking out the interesting items, it was left behind, maybe because it got damaged during their activities (see Fig. 26). Behind the stone slab, the plunderers chopped away a part of the dividing mud brick wall to the left, which separated the first two storage rooms and emptied them (most probably the pots from the main chamber came from here). According to Ranke, the two northernmost rooms were undisturbed and there was no entrance to them (Ranke 1926: 11, n. 9)29 (see Figs 6 & 11). These two back chambers still held their original contents. In the eastern one, Ranke found “a large number of pottery vessels, among them ten which still had their

27 See Fig. 7, lower left. A loose mud brick can be seen lying on the stone wall. To the left, two mud bricks with a wide join can be discerned. Cf. also Figs 9 and 11 with Ranke’s fig. 5. If the backfill had been granular, the outer walls of the small chambers would have been nonexistent and their dividing walls free-standing. For an example of a similar architectural situation in Helwan, see Köhler 2005, pl. 16.2. 28 Only if something inside the chamber would have kept them in place, e.g. a wooden frame or a big shrine or coffin, the backfill might have been granular. 29 However, on Ranke’s plan and photograph (Ranke 1926: fig. 5, pl. 5.2), the wall between the two eastern rooms shows an opening and in Fig. 11 there also seems to be a rectangular opening between the western two chambers. Ranke (1926: 12, n. 1) presumes that the thieves knew that the most valuable objects were always to be expected in the chambers adjacent to the burial chamber and lists parallel cases noted by Quibell and Junker.

HERMANN RANKE’S SHORT TRIP INTO THE EARLY DYNASTIC

Fig. 10. Grave III – View on burial chamber from the northwest (photo published in Ranke 1926: pl. 4.1).

Fig. 11. Grave III – Storage rooms (photo published in Ranke 1926: pl. 5.2).

419

420

D.A. FALTINGS

tapering jar stoppers” (Ranke 1926: 12, pls 5.2 & 5.4). The jar stopper on the latter plate is not really tapering but has a rounded tip and rather looks like a bobble hat. Of the six pots visible in plate 5.2, three or four have this ‘bobble hat’ cap, one has a rather rounded stopper and one has none. Ranke (1926: 12) states that these vessels were “stacked on top of each other in the sand” indicating at least a second layer of vessels not visible in the photograph. The western chamber contained nine pottery vessels of about 35 cm in height with conical flattened jar stoppers30 of which some had a rounded and some a pointed bottom. Moreover, there were also eight wine jars, one of which was still closed off with a flattened stopper. Potmarks were present on five of them which Ranke sketched on p. 12. However, his excavation diary (1913: 61) contains slightly different information and mentions only three vessels with potmarks while the design of some marks (Fig. 12) also differs from the published ones.31 The finds of Grave III As can be seen in Fig. 6, the pots were probably thrown out of the first two storage chambers by the robbers. They got caked in mud after a heavy rain when the tomb had lain open for a while and some wind-blown sand and mud flakes had accumulated against the north-western corner of the chamber. The accumulated fill above the stool and on the tilted stone slab looks different, more granular and looser than the muddy ‘crust’ in which the pots were found and which is also visible in Fig. 7. The finds are listed by Ranke in the order of their appearance in the excavation without heights given (Ranke 1926: 11: “in verschiedener Höhe”). – List of finds: 1. Freiburg Inv. no. Ae 440 (Fig. 22): Cylindrical ointment jar with slightly rounded bottom, made of dolomite32 with dark grey vertical veins and covered in- and outside with brownish remains of original resinous or greasy contents (Ranke 1926: 10, pl. 5.3). Outside wall and bottom very well

30 The different shapes seem to point to different contents and might have been a code that everybody understood at that time. 31 The notebook says that three vessels with pot-marks were found, but more marks or a different design could have been discovered after the cleaning of the pots. The missing two are a pot with two and one with four vertical strokes. See also the two wine jars in Freiburg Inv. no. Ae 160–161. 32 According to Ranke (1926: 10, n. 4) the jar is made out of limestone. However, it has a marble-like appearance with grey veins and light grey spots, cf. Aston 1994: 40–41.

HERMANN RANKE’S SHORT TRIP INTO THE EARLY DYNASTIC

Fig. 12. Excavation diary Ranke, 1913: 61.

421

422

D.A. FALTINGS

smoothed, not polished. The inside shows clear drilling grooves (Ranke 1926: 10, n. 4). Diameter of rim: 9.3 cm, height: 12.9 cm. Found near surface in the loose fill above that layer with pots. See also Fig. 4 middle row, 2nd from left and Fig. 5, top, right. 2. Heidelberg Inv. no. 555 (Fig. 23): Bread mould33 of very sandy, dark red, alluvial or maybe local desert clay with coarse lumps of limestone (even small nummulites).34 Inside: remains of fine, light grey slip. Outside: on upper part, a brown, thick coating smeared over the uneven surface; on base: addition of thick blob of clay after forming over core in order to thicken the base. Surface: bumpy, irregular, no smoothing. Due to the coarse components some hollows and bumps appeared after the forming over a cone and an attempt was made to smoothen the bumpy interior with a long flat instrument (spatula?) and to scoop out the excess of clay. Large burnt smudge. Diameter of rim: 18.4 cm, height: 10.9 cm. Found in the loose fill near the top. Ranke (1926: 10, n. 5) mentions that it was “obviously not belonging to the grave goods”. See also Fig. 4, top right. 3. Seven large storage jars without stopper and one loose mud cap (Ranke 1926: 11; see Fig. 6), found in the granular rubble fill and the muddy crust covering the dune above it. Ranke does not give any specific information and only notes their heights as being 25–30 cm. A) One of them might be seen in Fig. 4 (on floor: central pot). Probably Freiburg Ae 159 (Figs 24, 60):35 Slender, ovoid storage jar with pointed bottom and flat roll rim, made of beige to red marl clay (large red firing spot on shoulder downwards) with some fine and medium round and sub angular limestone particles (0.5–3 mm in diameter, visible mainly in red fired matrix because of flaked off surface above lime bits), occasional coarse organic impurities (grass seeds?). Surface outside: smoothed by vertical scraping, neck and shoulder wet smoothed horizontally. Outside streaky red wash applied with brush (only visible on beige matrix), on neck and shoulder horizontally, on body vertically and slightly slanting. Near bottom cloudy blackening (from mould?) and at tip thick deposit of slightly glossy black material (similar to opaque black varnish). 33 This shape is also know from Saqqara where at least one similar bread mould was found in 1st Dynasty tomb 3111, see Emery 1949: fig. 58A. 34 Cf. Fig. 45, there is a small nummulite in the yellow-fawn clay of the clay stopper. This local material might have formed the matrix of this vessel. 35 Several facts speak in favour of this identification. First of all, most of the vessels shown in this photograph went to Freiburg. Contrary to the other storage jars, this one is quite pointed and tall, and shows signs of a deposit formation from the contents seeping through the walls after the vessel tipped over and was lying obliquely. Finally, on the basis of the photograph, the jar has a whitish colour and Freiburg Inv. no. Ae 159 is the only one in the collections of Freiburg or Heidelberg that has a whitish-pink wash.

HERMANN RANKE’S SHORT TRIP INTO THE EARLY DYNASTIC

4.

5.

6.

7.

423

Surface inside: irregular at bottom, higher up better smoothing with signs of slab building and quite regular imprints of spatula, upper part smoothed over horizontally. Bottom area shows brownish discoloration (resinous or organic fluid’s deposit), near shoulder oblique line of deposition of fluid contents. Diameter of rim: 9 cm, height: 35.2 cm. B–E) Four other storage jars without stoppers kept in Freiburg might come from this grave: Freiburg Inv. no. Ae 155–158, see infra: last list of finds, g–j. F) Another one might be identified with the beverage jar Heidelberg Inv. no. 529 (see infra, last list of finds: e). G) Heidelberg Inv. no. 554 (Fig. 25): A loose clay stopper, reportedly still with a part of the vessel in it, is mentioned in the inventory of the Heidelberg collection. There is a stopper made of the yellowfawn clay with lots of fine chaff and limestone-grains that is typical for Aulâd esh-Sheikh but the object is so eroded by salt that it does not show an Inv. no. anymore. However, it is dome-shaped and bears on the inside an imprint with remains of red slip of a rim. Preserved diameter: 9.5 cm, preserved height: 6 cm. Diameter of imprinted vessel rim: c. 8 cm. Heidelberg, Inv. no. 525 (Fig. 26; part is modern restoration): Small stool made of acacia wood with netting made of grassy material. Found in or on top of the clean sand fill next to the tilted stone slab. Height: 20 cm, length: 41 cm. See also Fig. 6. Heidelberg Inv. no. 504 (Fig. 27): Rim-shard of top of footed table or very large flat bowl, very fine greywacke (schist).36 Extremely well smoothed, but not polished. Some dark brown and blackish spots, looking like greasy material soaked into the stone. Diameter of rim: 49 cm. From the fill. Heidelberg Inv. no. 505 (Fig. 28): Rim-shard of flat dish of grey, recrystallised limestone (Ranke 1926: 11, n. 2; cf. Aston 1994: pl. 9a) with more or less parallel veins like alabaster. Inside: smoothed, extremely well near rim, further down into centre few light drag grooves. Outside: smooth, but sanding grooves in different directions all over. Brown spots seemingly coming from greasy material soaked into the stone. Diameter of rim: 34 cm. From the fill. Heidelberg Inv. no. 506 (Fig. 29): Rim-shard of bowl with turned-in rim of calcite alabaster,37 glued together from two big shards and one splinter. 36

For a parallel, see Leospo 1987: 135. A rather new habit in Egyptology is to call alabaster “travertine” (Harrell 1990; Aston 1994: 43, 48). This is chemically wrong (Klemm & Klemm 1994: 199, 433f). According to Reinsch 37

424

D.A. FALTINGS

Inside: very well smoothed except for the area directly beneath the ridge under turned-in rim which is slightly rougher and has few very fine drag grooves; lower part of the inside: light brownish, slightly rougher area with horizontal border: chemical reaction to slightly acidic (? or salty?) liquid that stayed in it for some time. Outside: extremely well smoothed. Diameter of rim: 28 cm. From the fill. 8. Heidelberg Inv. no. 507 (Fig. 30): Rim-shard of flat bowl of calcite alabaster. Inside: many fine horizontal drill or drag grooves. Outside: fine horizontal drag grooves. Possibly glued in antiquity: reddish remains of resinous (?) material on the surface of one break. Diameter of rim: 21.4 cm. From the fill. 9. Heidelberg Inv. no. 508 (Fig. 31): Rim-shard of bowl or cup with turnedin rim of calcite alabaster. In- and outside extremely well smoothed. Diameter of rim: 18 cm. From the fill. 10. Heidelberg Inv. no. 509 (Fig. 32): Rim-shard of flat bowl with turned-in rim of calcite alabaster. In- and outside very even and well-smoothed but not polished and with a rough, ‘sanded’ feel. Diameter of rim: 38.6 cm. From the fill. 11. Heidelberg Inv. no. 510 (Fig. 33): Two rim-shards of the same stone vessel, but not joining, bowl with turned-in rim of quite homogenous yellowish-grey crystalline limestone with rusty-red spots, thin greyish crystal veins and small inclusion of petrified shell. In- and outside very well smoothed and slightly polished. Diameter of rim: 23.6 cm. From the fill. 12. Heidelberg Inv. no. 511 (Fig. 34): Rim-shard of large bowl or cup with turned-in rim of red breccia. In- and outside smoothed well; inside: below rim some fine horizontal drag grooves; outside: in upper area some fine horizontal drag grooves; further down: shorter ones showing in all directions. Sinter adhering to outer surface (similar to pots thrown into burial chamber, therefore probably from same area and height). Diameter of rim: 18 cm. From the fill. 13. Freiburg, Inv. no. Ae 558.1–2, Ae 048: An undefined number of mostly rim-shards from stone vessels went to Freiburg (Ranke 1926: 11). Three, made of calcite alabaster, are registered as coming from Aulâd esh-Sheikh. (1991: 153–154, 161), travertine only develops in flowing sweet water (usually in cold springs near limestone mountains like in Pamukkale/Turkey, Havasupai Canyon/USA, Bad Cannstadt/ Germany) whereas the limestone plateau of Egypt in which this kind of stone emerged in voids through influence of pressure, heat and water, is a petrified sea ground, therefore salty (Klemm & Klemm 1993: 29). The Greek name of Zawyet el-Maytin where a certain kind of oil-vessels was produced out of alabaster was Alabastropolis. The Italian alabaster that was named after the material in which those vessels were made, is chemically different from the Egyptian stone, however, it was the reason for early Egyptologists to call this material alabaster. So, in a way, the name came back to Egypt via a big loop through time and space. Admittedly, the Egyptian alabaster is a kind of calcite. Therefore, it would be more correct and less misleading to call it Egyptian or calcite alabaster as proposed by Klemm & Klemm (1994: 199), but certainly not travertine.

HERMANN RANKE’S SHORT TRIP INTO THE EARLY DYNASTIC

425

A) Ae 558.1 (Fig. 35), is nearly half of a small flat lid of 6.2 cm diameter, probably from a cosmetic vessel, with a very smooth and flat lower side which bears brown spots from a greasy matter soaked into the stone. The upper side is very well smoothed, but still bears a few sanding marks. It is not evenly shaped as its maximum thickness of 0.75 cm is not in the centre, but on one side. B) Ae 558.2 (Fig. 35), is a fragment of a spout of 3 cm diameter. Its outside is polished, the inside is well smoothed, but not polished except for a small area near the rim. C) Ae 048 (Fig. 36), is a sawn off rim of 4.6 cm diameter of a small cosmetic (?) vessel (intentionally made of two components or rim reused in a repair?). Outside, and down to the bend inside, it is polished. Inside (beneath the bend) it shows horizontal and slightly oblique drilling marks and fine perpendicular or diagonal sanding grooves. The rim was cut horizontally and the transversal surface shows some sawing marks. The inside and some of the outer surface too shows brown discolouring from a greasy matter soaked into the stone. 14. Freiburg, Inv. no. Ae 554 (Fig. 37): Nearly complete stone vessel of white limestone with visible large fossils (glued together from three shards in different states of preservation). Dish with flat bottom and a horizontal rim. Very well smoothed inside and out with only few slight sanding grooves outside beneath horizontal line near rim. The wall is much thicker than the bottom which is oddly thin and still bears a lot of pounding marks from the rough shaping stage on both sides which were sanded over but could not completely be smoothed away on account of the thinness of the remaining material. Rim on one spot chamfered (damage repair?). Diameter: 25.6 cm, height: 5.8 cm. Biggest shard (discoloured brownish from acidic environment?) shows marks of secondary use as a chopping tool on the straight bottom edge. 15. Heidelberg Inv. no. 519 (Fig. 38): Small cosmetic stone vessel, shouldered squat bowl with undercut rounded rim and flattened, slightly rounded base. Inside: semi-circular groove around the bottom. Dolomite with fine grey crystal veins and cloudy greyish spots (Ranke 1926: 11, n. 3: calcite alabaster). Very well smoothed and slightly polished outside. Below rim, on the base and inside: very well smoothed. Diameter: 5.5 cm, height: 2.1 cm. 16. Heidelberg Inv. no. 513 (Fig. 39): Small rectangular plain tablet (boxinlay?), probably ivory.38 Recto: white with yellowish horizontal layers

38

Because of the yellowish and white layers and their slight degree of roundness.

426

D.A. FALTINGS

near one long side, smoothed, but vertical fine drag grooves (sawing marks?). Verso: greyish, rough with diagonal sawing marks. The thin sides all show diagonal sawing or cutting marks. 3.5 × 2.3 cm,39 thickness: 0.3 cm. Maybe visible in Fig. 8: lying on top of tree trunk—if so, then probably coming from clearing the photographed area. 17. Heidelberg Inv. no. 512: Small rectangular plain tablet (box-inlay?). According to Ranke bone or ivory, probably (parallel to the other one) ivory. Recto: white and smooth. Verso: greyish, rough with diagonal sawing marks. 4.3 × 2.0 cm. (This object is lost). 18. Heidelberg Inv. no. 517 (Fig. 40): Straight right40 horn of a goat; Ranke (1926: 11, n. 4) quotes a Prof. Herbst who identifies it as a ram’s horn; twisted 2.5 times, length: 33.5 cm. 19. Freiburg Inv. no. IN 310 (Fig. 41): Corner-part of a bed or chair made of a stem and branch of hard wood with remains of reddish dark brown painted decoration (stripes and irregular dots—possibly remains of an inscription?) on the outside of the cross-bar. The conical, multi-surfaced shorter end which was the leg, is 32.5 cm long, thus corresponding to the height of the bed/chair. In the knee was a slightly conical slot for the other cross-bar which was destroyed by breaking off the upper bridge (probably by a hard blow from the upper inside). Ranke (1926: 11, no. 7) did not notice the breaks here. The preserved cross bar is broken off after 49 cm. Its inner side is flat and shows some sawing marks, but its outside still has the natural branch shape, even with two outstanding starting points of twigs. Here the surface was partially worked with a regularly, finely serrated instrument, the marks being painted over. On the inside it bears a mortise, which is 3.8 cm long, 1 cm wide and 2.1 cm deep. The remains of the upper and left sides of a second one are visible in the broken end. 20. Reportedly Heidelberg Inv. no. 520 (probably by mistake interchanged by Ranke and actually not traceable, neither in Heidelberg nor in Freiburg, cf. infra no. 22).41 Fragment of a flat oval wooden lid of a container. Inner lower part set off with a step that fitted into the container and the 0.6 cm wide protrusion resting on the rim; dowel hole with diameter of 0.4 cm for knob or handle in the centre in which there are still remains of a wooden peg in the lower (inside) part. According to Ranke (1926: 11, n. 8) made of willow (Salix sp.). Preserved length: 10 cm. See sketch of cross-section from Heidelberg Inventory register (Fig. 13).

39

Ranke (1926: 11, no. 5.) notes a slightly different size: 2.1 × 3.4 cm. Identified by testing it on the horns of the goat’s skull from Grave II: The twist allows only a position on the right side. 41 The next object on his list (Ranke 1926: 11, no. 9) that according to Ranke should be in Freiburg, is actually in Heidelberg and also carries the inventory number 520. 40

HERMANN RANKE’S SHORT TRIP INTO THE EARLY DYNASTIC

427

Fig. 13. Detail from Heidelberg collection inventory register, no. 520.

21. Heidelberg Inv. no. 521 (Fig. 42): Fragment of a similar flat oval piece of willow-wood (Salix sp., probably bottom of above-mentioned container), plain (without step or peg); length: 10 cm (today 9.5 cm), maximum preserved width: 3.7 m, thickness: 0.8 cm. 22. Heidelberg Inv. no. 520 (Fig. 43): Lower side part of a small wooden rectangular box, 10.0 × 2.1 × 0.4 cm.42 On the inside, at 0.3 cm from the edge, it bears a furrow which is 0.2 cm wide and 0.07 cm deep. Obviously, this is for fixing a base board of about 0.4 cm thick. The opposite long edge shows a small step, cut out to a depth of 0.07 cm and 0.3 cm in width. Both ends have similarly been cut out 0.07 cm deep for cross bars, one with a width of 0.4–0.5 cm, the other one 0.6 mm. Approximately in the centre of both ends, dowel holes of 0.3 cm in diameter were drilled that run diagonally through the board in order to cross both joining pieces of wood in such a way that the wooden peg connecting them could be fitted in from the outside. The upper long side shows two dowel holes whose upper ends have an irregular, rather oval shape (0.2 × 0.3 cm). In one of them there is a wooden dowel, which is cut off and smoothened over by sanding, the other is filled with a white mass (stucco or gypsum?) and also looks smoothed over. This leads to the assumption that this fragment was reused or that we are dealing with part of a box that originally had ivory-inlays. The tiny remains of whitish ‘glue’ could hint at this. The bottom still carries some remains of a reddish brown mass (paint, resinous varnish?) and on the outside are some tiny spots of black paint near one of the dowel holes. Reportedly in Freiburg, but actually in Heidelberg. 23. Heidelberg Inv. no. 522 (Fig. 44): Rectangular wooden fragment (crossbar?) of furniture (or other wooden object), 20.7 × 3.4 × 4.7 cm.43 42 Ranke (1926: 11, n. 7) states it has a length of 10.2 cm but the object in Heidelberg today is only 10 cm long. It might have shrunken through drying out since it arrived in the collection. 43 According to Ranke (1926: 11, n. 11) it was 22.2 cm long. Maybe it shrunk through drying out.

428

D.A. FALTINGS

Cross-section: square with one corner rounded. One end with pin sticking out, other end sawn out for fitting of prolongation (?) and mortise still with peg inside; another mortise in the size of the pin, repaired twice with (now missing) dowels, remains of black paint on white primer, mostly fallen off. 24. Heidelberg Inv. no. 527 (Fig. 45): A ‘large number’ of pottery vessels came from the north-eastern storage chamber, ten of which still held their contents closed off with a pointed, tapering clay stopper (see Fig. 11). One of the vessels is now in Heidelberg: Ovoid pot with slightly rounded (‘rocking’) base. Dark grey marl clay with beige self-slip. Quite high amount of medium to coarse limestone grains; vertical smoothing (some scraping marks, self-slip: streaky), big, light red firing spot on belly. Tapering clay stopper of yellow-fawn clay with big lumps of limestone (e.g. small nummulites). Overall height: c. 35 cm, diameter at shoulder: 20 cm. For a film of CT-scan, see https://www.uni-heidelberg.de/fakultaeten/philosophie/zaw/aegy/sammlung.html. 25. Heidelberg Inv. no. 526 (Fig. 46): Nine pottery vessels of about 35 cm in height and with pointed or rounded bottom came from the north-western storage chamber. They had flattened clay stoppers. One of them is now in Heidelberg: Ovoid pot with rounded bottom and sharp edged undercut rim. Fawn marl clay with many medium to coarse limestone grains, some fine sand and few fine to medium chaff inclusions. Inside wall covered with dark brown to black powdery substance (original filling). Outside: thin red wash applied vertically with a brush and afterwards smoothed over by hand on shoulder and belly (streaks of white and red). Flattened stopper of grey dried (Nile) clay over a rectangular thick coarse sherd of alluvial clay pottery. The stopper fell off during the last move of the collection so that the content of the vessel became visible which consists of sand with charcoal, small stones, some sherds and remains of burnt bones. Height of pot: c. 30 cm, overall height: 33 cm, diameter of shoulder: c. 18 cm. For a film of CT-scan, see https://www.uni-heidelberg.de/fakultaeten/philosophie/zaw/ aegy/sammlung.html. 26. Besides the pots with flattened stopper, the north-western storage chamber also contained eight Early Dynastic wine jars with bands. Their height varied between 65 and 77 cm. One of them (Heidelberg Inv. no. 531) was still closed with a flattened clay stopper. Ranke (1926: 12) sketched five different kinds of potmarks that were present on those wine jars. Two of them (the one with the stopper still in place and another one with a potmark) are now in Heidelberg and two others with potmarks went to Freiburg. Ranke obviously took off the clay lid and states that the contents consisted of an earthy mass, partially with pottery dishes (sic! “Tonschalen”, he probably meant sherds of dishes) and charcoal. Their contents are lost except for some remains of charred

HERMANN RANKE’S SHORT TRIP INTO THE EARLY DYNASTIC

429

marrowbones with remains of meat on them, see entry B – Heidelberg Inv. no. 552. A) Heidelberg Inv. no. 531 (Fig. 47): Wine jar with two bands, base broken off. Dense, heavy, greyish light brown marl clay with few medium sized inorganic inclusions (mainly limestone grains of 1–1.5 mm in diameter, a few intrusive, much bigger lumps < c. 8 mm). Surface fired fawn in upper part, salmon red in lower part of vessel; upper part: beige surface (firing skin) with streaky painting with thin dark red wash (from wet rag still containing Nile clay or slip?). Base broken off below lower band. Inside, the wall of the vessel is nearly completely covered with dark grey Nile mud. At the bottom some very big lumps of Nile mud clamped in. Preserved height: 71.5 cm (originally probably c. 73 cm), diameter of rim: 10.7 cm, diameter at shoulder-band: 18.4 cm, max. diameter: 18.7 cm. B) Heidelberg Inv. no. 552 (Fig. 48): Content of wine jar Inv. no. 531: Originally consisting of earth, charcoal, small stones, probably sherds (see above) and certainly burnt bones with meat still adhering to it (remains of a meal?). Although these different materials were found in the pot, Ranke only kept and gave a number to some organic pieces (parts of marrowbones with meat). C) Heidelberg Inv. no. 532 (Fig. 49): Wine jar with shoulder-band and potmark on shoulder. Heavy, dense, dark red to light salmon-red marl clay with medium temper of small rounded sand- and limestone particles (some of them created craters and big bumps by blowing up in the firing). Vertical, careless smoothing outside. Inside nearly completely covered by brown crust adhering to surface. Height: 78.5 cm, diameter at shoulder-band: 14.7 cm, maximum diameter: 16.5 cm. D) Freiburg Inv. no. Ae 160 (Fig. 50): Wine jar with shoulder band and potmark on shoulder. Heavy, dense and hard dark brown marl clay with thin red slip, in some parts flaked off (here: matrix of mottled appearance); few relatively fine rounded lime inclusions of about 1 mm in diameter. Although well smoothed all over, the vessel shows signs of coil-building. Outside: surface slightly wavy on body with careful vertical smoothing to a slightly fluted shape, pot marks applied in wet clay. Inside: turning spiral at bottom, but walls rather coiled (irregular distance of grooves and some deep imprints). Large spots of dark, glittering crust on the walls, at rim also black discolouration from contents, in upper part thin light grey layer of Nile clay adhering to the walls. Height: 65.9 cm, diameter at shoulder-band: 13.7 cm, max. diameter: 15.9 cm. E) Freiburg Inv. no. Ae 161 (Fig. 51): Wine jar with shoulder band and potmark on shoulder. Heavy, dense, brown marl clay with some fine

430

D.A. FALTINGS

rounded limestone particles < 0.1 mm diameter and few bigger ones (angular and sub angular < 1 mm). Near the bottom the clay flakes bend off conchoidally. Red slip outside, applied vertically. Probably coiled and perhaps put together from three or even four separate parts. Inside many diagonal imprints of an instrument. Near rim horizontal wet smoothing quite far down, possibly covering third connection groove. Vessel was set upside down on its rim when still wet or leather-hard as its rim is rough and shows imprints of straw or reeds. Potmark applied in wet clay. Height: 77.4 cm, diameter at shoulderband: 15.9 cm, max. diameter: 18.2 cm. 27. Heidelberg Inv. no. 550 “Fired mud brick” (quotation marks by Ranke, he obviously doubted that himself, see Ranke 1926: 12, n. 3) from the northwestern storage room. Dimensions: 25 × 12 × 7 cm. This brick might originally have been used to support the vessels stacked in this small room or might have fallen in from the roof. It is nowadays completely disintegrated. Unprovenanced finds44 Some finds from Aulâd esh-Sheikh, but without exact provenance, were only listed by Ranke in a footnote (Ranke 1926: 12, n. 5): A) Freiburg Inv. no. Ae 445 (Fig. 52): Small pottery vessel with flat bottom, strongly bulging body and narrow neck, made of medium alluvial brown to red clay with some organic matter (grass?) < 0.5 cm length and few round limestone particles < 0.5 mm, very few bigger round ones < 1.5 mm. Turned on slow wheel (thick turning grooves inside and string-cut bottom). Red slip applied only on upper two thirds of outer wall, getting thinner downward and with irregular lower border. Careless finish (finger dots on body and rough bump at bottom). Inside smoothed well down to the middle. Height: 8.5 cm. The only photo of this vessel was published by Ranke (1926: Fig. 5 [top row, left]). Its identification is based on the damage at the rim. B) Heidelberg Inv. no. 524: Fragment of furniture (?), wood. Length: 8.2 cm, thickness: according to Ranke 2 cm, according to inventory: 2.8 cm. Square cross-section with one rounded corner. Few remains of black and white paint. From description possibly a bar of the piece of furniture visible in Fig. 2 (the thickness is the same). If so, then from Grave II. No drawing of object recorded, actually not identifiable (lost?).

44 Of the large number of vessels found, some might have gone to Cairo, but this is not noted anywhere.

HERMANN RANKE’S SHORT TRIP INTO THE EARLY DYNASTIC

431

C) Heidelberg Inv. no. 523 (Fig. 53): Piece of wood of trapezoidal shape,45 probably part of the same object as described above (B). Only the long narrow side has no dowels or dowel-holes. It bears traces of exposure to air and is slightly worn. One dowel originally was situated under an oblique angle in the lower triangular slot of the opposite shorter narrow side (see below). One of its flat sides bears three grooves. The middle one is a deep, slightly oblique, tapering slot, which was sawn by two cuts of 1.25 cm depth and an upper width of 0.4 cm. Near the top and parallel to it, there is a flat, irregular and triangular groove running along the longer side which is 0.2–0.4 cm deep and 0.5–1 cm wide. Drilled into the groove are two dowel holes with a diameter of 0.2 cm. The lowest groove is hardly visible as the cut was made very close to the lower end of the plank and the inner lowest part is broken off, probably as a result of the oblique dowel that was inserted here. The irregularly sawn off short end contains two dowels, broken off in their holes. Two smaller dowels are present in the lower part of the opposite side while a big one can be seen in the flat outside. The large amount of dowels indicates repairs or reuse. It is possible that this object is visible in the dirt in front of the piece of furniture (Fig. 2) which is now in Freiburg (Grave II, List of finds, no. 6: Freiburg Inv. no. Ae 523) and has similar trapezoidal end-pieces. It might indeed belong to this piece of furniture. D) Fragment of animal skull, length: 10 cm. Might belong to the goat’s skull mentioned in the find list of Grave II. Reportedly in Heidelberg, no inventory number given, currently not identifiable. (mixed with other skull remains?, lost?, Freiburg?). E) Fragment of an animal horn, length: 10 cm, no inventory number given, currently not identifiable (mixed with other skull remains?, lost?, Freiburg?).46 Except for the objects that Ranke mentioned as coming from Aulâd esh-Sheikh, but without exact provenance, there are some additional objects in Heidelberg listed in the inventory book. Some of them certainly came from there, others only very probably, as they are archaic. The finds in Freiburg also definitely come from Aulâd esh-Sheikh, but without exact provenance. a) Heidelberg Inv. no. 3582 (Fig. 54): Wall-shard of a stone vessel, cylindrical beaker (probably with roll rim), calcite alabaster. Length: 4.9 cm,

45 The original dimensions of the block were 6–6.5 × 5.3 × 2.9 cm, but a triangular piece of 2.3 × 3.2 × 4 cm was sawn off from one corner that created an irregular pentagon and a reduction of the lower edge to 3.6 cm. 46 The single leg bone lying on a bowl that is visible in Fig. 2 resembles the one from Aulâd esh-Sheikh in Heidelberg (Inv. no. 3579), but is much bigger.

432

b) c)

d)

e)

f)

g)

D.A. FALTINGS

width: 1.3 cm, thickness: 0.5–0.53 cm, diameter: c. 8–9 cm. Up to now it was taken for a bone fragment and kept among the fragments of the goat skull. Therefore, probably from Grave II as animal bones were only reported from this tomb. Heidelberg Inv. no. 3579 (Fig. 55): Bone of a small animal. Maybe from Grave II as all the other bones also come from this tomb. Heidelberg Inv. no. 533: Part of a roof log, acacia wood (Acacia nilotica). Length: 113 cm, max. diameter: c. 20 cm. Possibly identical with Heidelberg Inv. no. 553, see n. 19. If so, then from Grave II, roof of small chambers. Heidelberg Inv. no. 528 (Fig. 56): Early Dynastic beer jar (for the date, see Faltings 1998: fig. 16a). Relatively wide, ovoid, vertically scraped body; rim and shoulder: horizontally smoothed over. Red alluvial clay with a lot of organic inclusions, partially overfired, thus large, whitish-grey spots. Height: 34 cm. The vessel was inventoried with other finds that were not marked as coming from Aulâd esh-Sheikh but for which there is no doubt that they originate from there. Heidelberg Inv. no. 529 (Fig. 57): Archaic or Old Kingdom storage and transportation vessel for beverages. Ovoid body with pointed base, short neck with elongated roll-rim. Well smoothed. Greyish marl clay with a beige slip or self-slip. Height: 31.5 cm. The vessel was inventoried between other finds that were not marked as coming from Aulâd esh-Sheikh but for which there is no doubt that they originate from there. Heidelberg Inv. no. 530 (Fig. 58): Early Dynastic or archaic squat ovoid pottery vessel with rim-groove and ridge on shoulder. Greyish marl clay with half of the pot being fired red. Outside: well smoothed. Inside: big, mushroom-shaped chunk of chaff-tempered clay (similar shape of clay chunk in Heidelberg Inv. no. 527, see film of CT-scan) on top of dark brown to black powdery mass. Height: c. 30 cm, max. diameter: 22 cm. The vessel shows a very wide belly, untypical for the high Old Kingdom. The vessel was inventoried between other finds that were not marked as coming from Aulâd esh-Sheikh but for which there is no doubt that they originate from there. As it still has its original content, it is probably one of the vessels from the north-eastern storage chamber of Grave III. Freiburg Inv. no. Ae 155 (Figs 59–60): Early Dynastic large ovoid storage jar with oblique bottom (chipped off by use) flat roll rim and rimgroove with ridge on shoulder. Made of light brownish marl clay with lots of very fine round (< 0.1 mm) to coarse subangular limestone particles (< 1 cm, nummulites?), some round black (< 1.5 mm diameter) and occasional coarse organic inclusions (< 4 mm length). Large fawn to light brown firing spot near bottom. Surface outside: scraped vertically on body, afterwards shoulder wet smoothed horizontally. Whitish pink to light red

HERMANN RANKE’S SHORT TRIP INTO THE EARLY DYNASTIC

433

wash covering outside surface and inside at rim, mostly flaked off. Inside surface: smoothed with spatula and wet smoothed horizontally at shoulder and neck. Tip of bottom: black (residues or surface chipped away and exposing core?), in lower third some large spots of very thin light grey layer of Nile clay (therefore: beer jar?). Height: 30.4 cm. Probably from the heap of thrown out pots from Grave III. h) Freiburg Inv. no. Ae 156 (Fig. 61): Archaic large ovoid storage jar with rocking base, flat roll rim and only shallow rim-groove with ridge on shoulder. Dark grey to beige marl clay with lots of small round lime particles (c. 1 mm) and few big rounded ones (< 7 mm, nummulites?). Light wash, partially light fawn to beige remains visible, mostly just lighter blotchy surface than matrix. Several firing spots with grey center, black coat and outer red ring. Surface outside: body wiped or scratched vertically, shoulder wet smoothed horizontally, pointing to an Early Dynastic date. Inside surface: quite smooth with imprints of spatula, upper third horizontal wet smoothing. Height: 31 cm. Probably from the heap of thrown out pots from Grave III. i) Freiburg Inv. no. Ae 157 (Figs 62–63): Early Dynastic large, somewhat squat ovoid storage jar with rim-groove and ridge on shoulder and rocking base, made of brown marl clay of mottled appearance, outside covered with red wash. Lots of fine round lime particles, few bigger ones (< 1.5 mm), mostly visible on outside surface, inside nearly none (visible only on account of the wash applied outside?). Outside surface shows wet smoothing in horizontal lines from neck to shoulder, on body roughly scraped to shape and wiped over, rocking base is slick, wiped with fingers and well smoothed. On body, big scratch with instrument, not smoothed over. Inside relatively well smoothed, upper part horizontal wet smoothing, beneath that, few signs of building technique (slab building?), at bottom irregular grooves and finger imprints. Inside thin layer of light grey dried Nile clay, (therefore: beer jar?) flaking off conchoidally. Inside several irregular fragments of corroded copper adhering to the walls. Height: 29.7 cm. Probably from the heap of thrown out pots from Grave III. j) Freiburg Inv. no. Ae 158 (Figs 62–63): Early Dynastic large, slightly clumsy, short necked ovoid storage jar with angular rim, rim-groove with ridge on shoulder and nearly flat rocking base. Brown marl clay with lots of fine round and a few bigger rounded limestone particles and occasional organic contaminations (grass seeds? < 0.5 cm length). Outside surface scraped and wiped over in vertical strokes on lower body and obliquely in the central part. Outside shows streaky red wash, applied with brush, in upper part horizontal, beneath that, oblique and vertical. Large firing spot on lower half. Inside slightly bumpy surface, smoothed over in different directions, some imprints of instrument. Whole inner surface covered by

434

D.A. FALTINGS

thin layer of light grey Nile clay (beer jar?). Height: 29.8 cm. Probably from the heap of thrown out pots from Grave III. k) Freiburg Inv. no. Ae 833 (Fig. 64): Cosmetic instrument (body scraper, see Faltings & Gessler 2008: nos 60 & 61, listing mainly Old Kingdom parallels) of uniform fine crystalline greenish-grey greywacke, 7.4 × 2.6 × 0.6 cm. All ridges, not only the four thin edges, are smoothly flattened to avoid injuries. All planes are very smooth and the flat lower side is absolutely level. Here and there, few very slight sanding marks or scratches through use and some small flakes chipped off mainly along the two long edges. Some of these show worn and even slightly polished edges from use. Brown spots at one end from greasy matter soaked into the stone. Maybe seen as a shard from one of the stone vessels, if so, then from Grave III. l) Freiburg Inv. no. Ae 581 (Fig. 65): Small, slender bottle with long neck, flat shoulder and rocking base. Rim is missing. Soft light brown alluvial clay with a high amount of coarse organic matter (chaff and grass) and some relatively fine inorganic inclusions like round bits of 0.5–4 mm in diameter, some of them rather sub angular. Break shows grey core with two red core zones and brown coats, hinting at good control of firing conditions (in contrast to all other vessels from Aulâd esh-Sheikh). Outside covered with thick red slip, missing in depressions. Clearly turned on wheel: turning spiral inside at bottom, narrow turning grooves in lower half of body, upper half smoothed over, neck again with narrow turning grooves. Preserved height: 26.7 cm, diameter at shoulder: 9.1 cm. All around the outside of the bottle runs a vertical wide deposition line of grey sinter. The slender and tensionless shape of the body and the long neck are unfamiliar to the Early Dynastic and the good firing conditions as well as the use of the wheel point to a later date, making it probably an intrusive surface find.47 Dating of the tombs On the basis of the grave goods, especially those of Grave III, we can safely state that the tomb owners belonged to the local elite. Luxury goods like the stool and other furniture (bed, inlaid box?, footed table?), the stone vessels, toiletry and the wine jars (although some of them were only filled with earth) are a clear sign that they were members of the highest levels of the local society. 47 Similar shapes, though considerably smaller, appear in the 26th Dynasty (e.g. in Nebesheh: Petrie 1888: nos 11, 15 or 29). Fitting ones in size, but maybe not quite as similar, from “Dynasty 23 and later” in Kafr Ammar (see Petrie & Mackay 1915: nos 54, 58–59).

HERMANN RANKE’S SHORT TRIP INTO THE EARLY DYNASTIC

435

Ranke (1926: 12) initially dated the cemetery to the Early Dynastic period,48 but then extends its date to the 3rd Dynasty on the basis of the excavated finds, particularly the wine jars that have parallels from 3rd Dynasty contexts at Mahâsna and Bêt Khallaf. He also mentions the great correspondence of Graves I and II with Early Dynastic and even earlier tombs while also listing a number of known parallels (Ranke 1926: 12, n. 9). Only Grave III with its special architecture seemed in his opinion to be of more recent date (late 3rd– early 4th Dynasty). In the current state of research, there are only a few clear chronological indications. Chronologically important are the burnished bowl (Freiburg Inv. no. Ae 577) and the stripe-burnished dish (Heidelberg Inv. no. 514) from an undisturbed context from Grave II. The type of burnishing on these two vessels does not appear anymore in the ceramic corpus of the 3rd Dynasty. Moreover, the careless burnishing of the latter dish hints at a date in the late 2nd Dynasty.49 However, this only holds true for Grave II.50 Dating Grave III poses more problems as most of the shapes of the stone vessels from this tomb are still common in the 3rd and very early 4th Dynasty. All the plates and bowls with plain or incurved rims point to Dynasty 1–3 (Aston 1994: 108, 111, 113 and fig. 10) or even Dynasty 1–4 (Aston 1994: 112). The concave cylinder jar (Freiburg Inv. no. Ae 440) can also be dated to Dynasty 1–4 (Aston 1994: 103). The small squat cosmetic vessel Heidelberg Inv. no. 519 finds an exact parallel dating to the 3rd Dynasty in Aston (1994: 84, fig. 13, no. 106), but the shape even ranges from Dynasty 1 to 6 (Aston 1994: 130).51 However, the small cosmetic vessel (Heidelberg Inv. no. 519) and the concave cylindrical ointment jar (Freiburg Inv. no. Ae 440), both made from dolomite, provide an important chronological clue. The use of dolomite for the production of stone vessels is restricted to Dynasty 1–3. Since it was not used during the Predynastic, nor in the 4th Dynasty (Aston 1994: 41),52 a date in these two periods can be ruled out. 48 Kaiser (1961: 40) also dates the cemetery to the Early Dynastic period, however, without any comment about omitting the 3rd Dynasty. I thank Wouter Claes for this and many of the following references. 49 A date within Naqada III for the whole cemetery, as proposed by Hendrickx and van den Brink (2002: 352) can thus be ruled out. 50 The technology of fitting a wooden support under the load-carrying perishable components of a tray or table as proposed by the furniture fragment (Freiburg Inv. no. Ae 523; and the probably belonging parts Heidelberg Inv. nos 523 and 524) and its possible parallel from a 1 st Dynasty tomb in Saqqara might point to the 1st Dynasty, but it is quite probable that this tradition persisted and was used in later times as well. The date of Grave II can thus be ascertained to the Early Dynastic period. 51 For comparable shapes, see also Meijer 2018, nos 20, 24–25, 27, 35a–d, 37a, 39 and 47. 52 The time-range of the other raw materials used for the production of stone vessel is even less exclusive: re-crystallised limestone such as used for one of the dishes (Heidelberg Inv. no. 505), came into use in the 1st Dynasty and continued into the 4th Dynasty (Aston 1994:

436

D.A. FALTINGS

The furniture does not provide much additional clues. The low height of the stool (Heidelberg Inv. no. 525) and the bed or chair (Freiburg Inv. no. Ae 310) points to an archaic date, as archaic furniture is still quite low (Killen 1994: fig. 26). The box inlays (Heidelberg Inv. nos 512–513) do not show the sophisticated carved patterns that were in use in the late Predynastic and Dynasty 0–1. Probably they were quite simply set as bands creating a pattern in a wooden box or a piece of furniture.53 Still, this does not constitute a convincing argument for dating the tomb to the Old Kingdom. The special shapes of the stoppers with a knob-like tip—here named bobble hat stoppers—on some of the jars, might bear at first sight a certain value for dating. However, intact stoppers are generally rarely found and usually only the ‘normal’ ones, the pointed and the rounded, are published. The depicted version of bobble hat stoppers appears from time to time on the so-called reliefslabs from Helwan54 or the upper parts of false-door niches (cf. Reisner 1936: 295; for an in situ find of such an object, see Quibell 1923: 10). Just like their counterparts from the Old Kingdom of which their position within the false door is clear, they usually show the so-called offering scene and often lists of goods. Among them are several that depict vessels with a lid that resembles a bobble hat stopper (Köhler & Jones 2009: pls 15 (two with angular tops next to the offering bread), 17 (bottom, next to the offering table), 22 (a small and a bigger one in the compartment), 28, 29 & 38), but as the craftsmanship is not always of the highest quality, they might represent vessels with ceramic lids that resemble the pieces that close off storage bins (cf. Emery 1949: figs 50 & 53). According to Köhler & Jones (2009: 56, table 18), they have their first appearance at the end of the 1st Dynasty, are quite frequent in the 2nd and run into the 3rd. However, bobble hat stoppers still do appear in the 6th Dynasty (Faltings 1998: 176) and thus cannot be used for a more precise dating. The pottery can give us at least some useful information. First of all there is the potmark on Freiburg Inv. no. Ae 161 which also appears in Saqqara and Abydos in the 1st Dynasty (Emery 1949: fig. 90.18).55 The bread-mould from

40). Red breccia was used from the Naqada I period onwards and only became less common after the 4th Dynasty (Aston 1994: 54). 53 Similar to the sides of a box in the Egyptian Museum of Turin (Inv. no. S 15709; Del Vesco 2015: 56, no. 40). The caption to the object says 5th Dynasty, but the contracted position of the mummy and the other grave goods from this tomb speak in favour of an archaic date (Del Vesco 2015: 55). 54 Generally the shapes of depicted items very closely resemble those of the actual models, a phenomenon which is very well documented in the parallel development of pottery and its depictions in the Old Kingdom (Faltings 1998: 288). 55 The wine jars with band(s) should point to an early date, however, the latest ones known date to the Old Kingdom and were found in the temple of Menkaure at Giza (Reisner 1931: fig. 61). Therefore, such vessels might be an old heirloom or were even kept after emptying as

HERMANN RANKE’S SHORT TRIP INTO THE EARLY DYNASTIC

437

Grave III (Heidelberg Inv. no. 555) has a shape that does occur in the 3rd Dynasty (Faltings 1998: 135), but as mentioned above, it already appears as early as the 1st Dynasty. It probably comes from the surface as such breadmoulds usually were used for food offerings in the daily cult and deposited on ground level (Faltings 1998: 223) and not in the tomb chamber, as was already implied by Ranke. The Early Dynastic beer jar with rough vertical scraping (Heidelberg Inv. no. 528) shows a surface treatment that does not appear anymore after the 2nd Dynasty. A similar pot (Freiburg Inv. no. Ae 156) points in the same direction, but just like the archaic, slightly squat ovoid pots (Heidelberg Inv. no. 530 and Freiburg Inv. no. Ae 158), none of them can be allocated with certainty to Grave III although the abundance of pots thrown out of the two southern storage chambers makes it probable that they came from here. Therefore, they can only stand witness for the necropolis as a whole. In summing up the results from the pottery, we can state that the two burnished vessels and one of the potmarks rather seem to point to the beginning of the Early Dynastic period, the vertically scraped beer jars and the closed vessels with rim-groove and shoulder ridge are Early Dynastic in date while the restricted vessels with rocking base have an archaic shape and some ovoid vessels show slender, even elegant shapes that are still used in the high 4th Dynasty (e.g. Freiburg Inv. no. Ae 159). Hence, Ranke’s general dating of the necropolis to Dynasty 1–3 can be accepted. However, his dating of Grave III into the early Old Kingdom needs further discussion. The architecture of Grave III is a special case: Ranke acknowledged the special character of its stone lining, but although he mentions that the architectural layout is comparable to the Early Dynastic tombs at Naga ed-Deir or Turah, he places it at the earliest in the 3rd Dynasty (Ranke 1926: 12–13). At the time of his publication, the tombs in Helwan were not yet found and the only early tomb architecture using stone known to Ranke was Khasekhemui’s tomb in Abydos (Ranke 1926: 12 –13). Although he was aware of the fact that this royal tomb has a staircase and thus represents a later development compared to chambers simply sunk into the ground (see Reisner 1936: 49–52, type i.b or Randall-MacIver & Mace 1902: 11–14, class 6–9, pl. IV),56 he still opted for the later date—somewhere in the 3rd to even 4th Dynasty—on account of the workmanship exposed in the dressing of the slabs. That the Egyptians were able to work big stone, even much earlier, is visible e.g. in the Koptos colossi. In addition, the workmanship exposed in Grave III does not seem to be of outstanding quality—the slabs were neither dressed to a sign of luxury and higher social rank. The filling of the Heidelberg vessel Inv. no. 531 with dirt points to that possibility. Therefore, they cannot be used for dating the complex. 56 Type IC of Clark (2016: 11).

438

D.A. FALTINGS

the same size, nor accurately positioned. In addition, for static reasons, it is architecturally unwise to set flat stones upright, especially when they are not grounded deeply enough, as they need counter pressure in order to stay in position. They are prone to tilting and falling as soon as this counter pressure disappears. It shows a stage of trial and error which points rather to an earlier than a later date. A date in the Old Kingdom as proposed by Ranke is also not accepted by Köhler (2005: 28, n. 134; 2012: 283) who is followed in her judgement without any argumentation by La Loggia (2008: 79) and Clark (2016: 90). Köhler dates Grave III to the 1st Dynasty because “the pottery associated with this tomb clearly dates to the mid 1st Dynasty”. Her statement is solely based on the published pottery (Ranke 1926: pl. 5) without checking the vessels in the collection. However, Ranke’s pl. 5.1 (Fig. 2) is merely a view on the bowls in Grave II while pl. 5.2 (Fig. 11) only shows the vessels in situ in the north-eastern chamber of Grave III, their shapes obscured by sand in which they are stacked, by the stoppers and the position from where the photograph was taken. As such, both pictures do not provide decisive elements that support a dating of the tombs. Plate 5.4 shows one of the pots from Grave III. It still bears its ‘bobble hat’ stopper which complicates the determination of the vessel’s shape. The wine jar (Ranke 1926: pl. 5.6), cannot be used for dating either (see n. 55), which is also the case for the milk jar of Grave II (Freiburg Inv. no. Ae 523) depicted in plate 5.7. As these pottery types also occur beyond the “mid 1st Dynasty”, it cannot be used as a sole criterion for dating Grave III. As stated above, La Loggia (2008: 79), who like Clark (2016: 81) erroneously situated the tombs beneath the Coptic cemetery of Qarara, also accepted a 1st Dynasty date for Grave III and compares it with the stone-lined tombs that were excavated by Zaki Saad at Helwan (La Loggia 2008: 77). However, according to her Appendix table, stone lining of walls stays in use in the 2nd and even the 3rd Dynasty. Admittedly, there are striking parallels and if Ranke had known the Helwan tombs, he would certainly have dated the graves from Aulâd esh-Sheikh to the Early Dynastic period, if not exclusively to the 1st Dynasty. On the other hand, it is possible that the provincial location of Aulâd esh-Sheikh may have had a retarding influence on the local tomb development. Therefore, a 1st Dynasty date should not be accepted as an absolute certainty. The available material supports Ranke’s opinion about the general date of the Aulâd esh-Sheikh cemetery. However, the date of Grave II can safely be refined to the Early Dynastic, most probably to the late 2nd Dynasty, while attributing a more precise date to Grave III would not be supported by solid arguments. On the basis of the pottery, the architectural layout and the similarities with the stone-lined tombs of Helwan, a date in the 1st Dynasty is highly probable but cannot be put forward with 100 % certainty.

HERMANN RANKE’S SHORT TRIP INTO THE EARLY DYNASTIC

439

His statement at the end of his chapter (Ranke 1926: 13) that this site would require further examination is absolutely true. However, today the desert landscape at Aulâd esh-Sheikh has profoundly changed and the site is completely built over by modern constructions. Acknowledgments My thanks go to Tanja Scheibel and Lilianne Stoeckel who made the tracings in Adobe Illustrator, as well as to Robert Ajtai, the photographer of the Egyptological Institute of the University of Heidelberg, who produced all photographs of the objects in our collection. Sarah Doll, curator of the anatomical collection of the University of Heidelberg, is to be thanked for executing the CT-scans of some of the pottery vessels. I am grateful to Lars Petersen of the Museum Natur und Mensch, Städtische Museen Freiburg for giving me their inventory numbers of the Aulâd esh-Sheikh objects and for sending photographs for identification, as well as Tina Brüderlin and Edgar Dürrenberger for their good cooperation and support. Salima Ikram kindly identified the animal remains.

Bibliography ASTON, B., 1994. Ancient Egyptian stone vessels: Materials and forms. SAGA 5. Heidelberg. CLARK, R., 2016. Tomb security in ancient Egypt from the Predynastic to the pyramid age. Archaeopress Egyptology 13. Oxford. DEL VESCO, P., 2015. The Old Kingdom: An eternity of stone [in:] BONAZINI, P. (ed.), Museo Egizio. Turin: 46–61. EMERY, W.B., 1949. Great tombs of the First Dynasty I. Excavations at Saqqara. Cairo. FALTINGS, D., 1998. Die Keramik der Lebensmittelproduktion im Alten Reich: Ikonographie und Archäologie eines Gebrauchsartikels. SAGA 14. Heidelberg. FALTINGS, D., 2011. Did the ancient Egyptians have bottle brushes? Some considerations about milk bottles in the Old Kingdom [in:] ASTON, D.; BADER, B.; GALLORINI, C.; NICHOLSON, P. & BUCKINGHAM, S. (eds), Under the potter’s tree: Studies on ancient Egypt presented to Janine Bourriau on the occasion of her 70th birthday. OLA 204. Leuven: 355–395. FALTINGS, D. & GESSLER-LOHR, B., 2008. Eine Königstochter und ein Königssohn aus der 18. Dynastie [in:] SPIEKERMANN, A. (ed.), “Zur Zierde gereicht…”: Festschrift Bettina Schmitz zum 60. Geburtstag am 24. Juli 2008. HÄB 50. Hildesheim: 63–89. GESSLER-LÖHR, B., 1986. Grabbeigaben aus dem Friedhof von Aulâd el-Scheich [in:] FEUCHT, E., Vom Nil zum Neckar: Kunstschätze Ägyptens aus pharaonischer und koptischer Zeit an der Universität Heidelberg. Berlin: 29–31. HARRELL, J. A., 1990. Misuse of the term “Alabaster” in Egyptology. GM 119: 37–42. HENDRICKX, S.; FALTINGS, D.; OP DE BEECK, L.; RAUE, D. & MICHIELS, C., 2002. Milk, beer and bread technology during the Early Dynastic period. MDAIK 58: 277– 304. HENDRICKX, S. & VAN DEN BRINK, E.C.M., 2002. Inventory of Predynastic and Early Dynastic cemetery and settlement sites in the Egyptian Nile Valley [in:] VAN DEN

440

D.A. FALTINGS

BRINK, E.C.M. & LEVY, T.E. (eds), Egypt and the Levant: Interrelations from the 4th through the early 3rd millennium BCE. New Approaches to Anthropological Archaeology. London: 346–399. KAISER, W., 1961. Bericht über eine archäologisch-geologische Felduntersuchung in Ober- und Mittelägypten. MDAIK 17: 1–53. KILLEN, G., 1994. Egyptian woodworking and furniture. Shire Egyptology 21. Aylesbury. KLEMM, R. & KLEMM, D., 1994. Steine und Steinbrücke im alten Ägypten. Berlin. KÖHLER, E.C., 2005. Helwan 1: Excavations in the Early Dynastic cemetery: Season 1997/98. SAGA 24. Heidelberg. KÖHLER, E.C. & JONES, J., 2009. Helwan 2: The Early Dynastic and Old Kingdom funerary relief slabs. SAGA 25. Rahden. LA LOGGIA, A.S., 2008. The use of stone in Early Dynastic Egyptian construction. BACE 19: 73–94. LEOSPO, E., 1987. Holzverarbeitung: Mobiliar und Kunsttischlerei [in:] DONADONIROVERI, A. (ed.), Das alte Ägypten: Das Alltagsleben. Milan: 130–171. MEIJER, W.A., 2018. Masters of stone: Egyptian stone vessels from Predynastic times to the Middle Kingdom. Amsterdam. PETRIE, W.M.F., 1888. Tanis 2: Nebesheh (Am) and Defenneh (Tahpanhes). MEEF 4. London. PETRIE, W.M.F. & MACKAY, E., 1915. Heliopolis, Kafr Ammar and Shurafa. BSAE/ ERA 24. London. RANDALL-MACIVER, D. & MACE, A.C., 1902. El Amrah and Abydos, 1899–1901. MEEF 23. London. RANKE, H., 1926. Koptische Friedhöfe bei Karâra und der Amontempel Scheschonks I. bei El Hibe: Bericht über die badischen Grabungen in Ägypten in den Wintern 1913 und 1914. Berlin. REINSCH, D., 1991. Natursteinkunde: Eine Einführung für Bauingenieure, Architekten, Denkmalpfleger und Steinmetze. Stuttgart. REISNER, G.A., 1931. Mycerinus: The temples of the third pyramid at Giza. Cambridge. REISNER, G.A., 1936. The development of the Egyptian tomb down to the accession of Cheops. Cambridge.

HERMANN RANKE’S SHORT TRIP INTO THE EARLY DYNASTIC

Fig. 14. Grave II – Stripe burnished dish (Heidelberg Inv. no. 514).

Fig. 15. Grave II – Red slipped dish (Heidelberg Inv. no. 515).

441

442

D.A. FALTINGS

Fig. 16. Grave II – Dish with red slip inside (Heidelberg Inv. no. 516).

Fig. 17. Grave II – Red slipped dish (Freiburg Inv. no. Ae 900).

HERMANN RANKE’S SHORT TRIP INTO THE EARLY DYNASTIC

Fig. 18. Grave II – Milk bottle (Freiburg Inv. no. Ae 582).

Fig. 19. Grave II – Piece of furniture (Freiburg Inv. no. Ae 523).

443

444

D.A. FALTINGS

Fig. 20. Grave II – Red burnished bowl (Freiburg Inv. no. Ae 577).

Fig. 21. Grave II – Goat skull and vertebrae (Heidelberg Inv. no. 518).

HERMANN RANKE’S SHORT TRIP INTO THE EARLY DYNASTIC

Fig. 22. Grave III – Cylindrical ointment jar (Freiburg Inv. no. Ae 440).

Fig. 23. Grave III – Bread mould (Heidelberg Inv. no. 555).

445

446

D.A. FALTINGS

Fig. 24. Grave III (?) – Storage jar for liquids (Freiburg Inv. no. Ae 159).

Fig. 25. Grave III (?) – Clay stopper (Heidelberg Inv. no. 554).

HERMANN RANKE’S SHORT TRIP INTO THE EARLY DYNASTIC

Fig. 26. Grave III – Wooden stool with netting (Heidelberg Inv. no. 525).

Fig. 27. Grave III – Top of footed stone table (?) (Heidelberg Inv. no. 504).

447

448

D.A. FALTINGS

Fig. 28. Grave III – Stone dish (Heidelberg Inv. no. 505).

Fig. 29. Grave III – Stone bowl (Heidelberg Inv. no. 506).

HERMANN RANKE’S SHORT TRIP INTO THE EARLY DYNASTIC

Fig. 30. Grave III – Stone bowl (Heidelberg Inv. no. 507).

Fig. 31. Grave III – Stone bowl or cup (Heidelberg Inv. no. 508).

449

450

D.A. FALTINGS

Fig. 32. Grave III – Stone bowl (Heidelberg Inv. no. 509).

Fig. 33. Grave III – Stone bowl (Heidelberg Inv. no. 510).

HERMANN RANKE’S SHORT TRIP INTO THE EARLY DYNASTIC

Fig. 34. Grave III – Stone bowl (Heidelberg Inv. no. 511).

Ae 558.12

Ae 558.2

Fig. 35. Grave III – Lid of cosmetic vessel (Freiburg Inv. no. Ae 558.1) and fragment of a spout (Freiburg Inv. no. Ae 558.2).

451

452

D.A. FALTINGS

Fig. 36. Grave III – Sawn off rim of a small vessel (Freiburg Inv. no. Ae 048).

Fig. 37. Grave III – Flat bowl with horizontal rim (Freiburg Inv. no. Ae 554).

HERMANN RANKE’S SHORT TRIP INTO THE EARLY DYNASTIC

Fig. 38. Grave III – Stone bowl (Heidelberg Inv. no. 519).

Fig. 39. Grave III – Ivory (?) tablet (Heidelberg Inv. no. 513).

453

454

D.A. FALTINGS

Fig. 40. Grave III – Right horn of a goat (Heidelberg Inv. no. 517).

Fig. 41. Grave III – Piece of chair or bed (Freiburg Inv. no. IN 310).

HERMANN RANKE’S SHORT TRIP INTO THE EARLY DYNASTIC

455

Fig. 42. Grave III – Base of oval wooden box (Heidelberg Inv. no. 521).

Fig. 43. Grave III – Lower side-piece of wooden box (Heidelberg Inv. no. 520).

456

D.A. FALTINGS

Fig. 44. Grave III – Piece of furniture (Heidelberg Inv. no. 522).

Fig. 45. Grave III – Storage jar with clay stopper, CT-scan (Heidelberg Inv. no. 527).

HERMANN RANKE’S SHORT TRIP INTO THE EARLY DYNASTIC

Fig. 46. Grave III – Storage jar, CT-scan (Heidelberg Inv. no. 526).

Fig. 47. Grave III – Wine jar (Heidelberg Inv. no. 531).

457

458

D.A. FALTINGS

Fig. 48. Grave III – Charred marrow bones from wine jar Heidelberg Inv. no. 531 (Heidelberg Inv. no. 552).

Fig. 49. Grave III – Wine jar with potmark (Heidelberg Inv. no. 532).

HERMANN RANKE’S SHORT TRIP INTO THE EARLY DYNASTIC

Fig. 50. Grave III – Wine jar with potmark (Freiburg Inv. no. Ae 160).

Fig. 51. Grave III – Wine jar with potmark (Freiburg Inv. no. Ae 161).

459

460

D.A. FALTINGS

Fig. 52. From Aulâd esh-Sheikh – small, slow-wheel turned vessel (Freiburg Inv. no. Ae 445).

Fig. 53. Grave II (?) – Fragment of wooden furniture (?) (Heidelberg Inv. no. 523).

HERMANN RANKE’S SHORT TRIP INTO THE EARLY DYNASTIC

Fig. 54. Grave II (?) – Body shard of a cylindrical stone vessel (Heidelberg Inv. no. 3582).

Fig. 55. Grave II (?) – Animal bone (Heidelberg Inv. no. 3579).

461

462

D.A. FALTINGS

Fig. 56. Probably from Aulâd esh-Sheikh – Storage jar (Heidelberg Inv. no. 528).

Fig. 57. Probably from Aulâd esh-Sheikh – Early Dynastic beer jar (Heidelberg Inv. no. 529).

HERMANN RANKE’S SHORT TRIP INTO THE EARLY DYNASTIC

Fig. 58. Probably from Aulâd esh-Sheikh, Grave III – Storage vessel with contents (Heidelberg Inv. no. 530).

Fig. 59. Grave III (?) – Storage jar (Freiburg Inv. no. Ae 155).

Fig. 60. Grave III (?) – Storage jar for liquids (Freiburg Inv. no. Ae 159; right) and storage jar (Freiburg Inv. no. Ae 155; left).

463

464

D.A. FALTINGS

Fig. 61. Grave III (?) – Storage jar (Freiburg Inv. no. Ae 156).

Fig. 62. Grave III (?) – Storage jars (Freiburg Inv. no. Ae 157 [left] and Ae 158 [right]).

HERMANN RANKE’S SHORT TRIP INTO THE EARLY DYNASTIC

Fig. 63. Grave III (?) – Storage jars (Freiburg Inv. no. Ae 157 [left] and Ae 158 [right]).

Fig. 64. Grave III (?) – Body scraper (Freiburg Inv. no. Ae 833).

465

466

D.A. FALTINGS

Fig. 65. From Aulâd esh-Sheikh – Late intrusive bottle (Freiburg Inv. no. Ae 581).

Carla Swerts

DIE VISION VON DER FIGUR IM FLINT: EIN SILEX-SKORPION AUS DER SAMMLUNG DES ÄGYPTISCHEN MUSEUMS DER UNIVERSITÄT BONN FRANK FÖRSTER Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn, Institut für Archäologie und Kulturanthropologie, Abteilung Ägyptologie mit Ägyptischem Museum, Bonn, Deutschland

Voor een verdomd goede vriend die verdomd goed weet hoe je wetenschap (en andere vormen van sociale interactie) in puur plezier transformeert!

Publication of a small (4.8 × 3.3 cm, max. thickness 0.5 cm) figurative silex from the collection of the Egyptian Museum of the University of Bonn (inv. no. BoSAe 657). Its general shape and fabrication, and especially a slightly raised “tail” in addition to a pronounced pair of “claws” or “pincers”, suggest an identification as a scorpion. Though considerably smaller and less well elaborated when compared to the only other known silex scorpion, today kept in the Royal Museum of Mariemont at Morlanwelz, Belgium (inv. no. Ac. 98/88), the artefact of unknown provenance can likewise be attributed to the (late) Predynastic Period or, at the latest, to the Early Dynastic Period (Naqada II–III).

In der Sammlung des Ägyptischen Museums der Rheinischen FriedrichWilhelms-Universität in Bonn befindet sich unter der Inventarnummer BoSAe 657 ein bislang unpubliziertes Artefakt aus Silex, das als „geschlagenes Steingerät“ registriert wurde und auf dem zugehörigen Inventarblatt u.a. als „aus einem flachen Abschlag hergestelltes, fischschwanzähnliches Gerät“ beschrieben wird (Abb. 1–2).1 Bei näherer Betrachtung erweist es sich jedoch mit großer Wahrscheinlichkeit als ein weiteres, wenn auch recht unscheinbares Exemplar jener aus geschlagenem Silex hergestellten figürlichen Darstellungen zumeist von Tieren, die aus spätprä- bis frühdynastischer Zeit (Naqada II–III/

1

Für die Anfertigung der Umzeichnung danke ich Heiko Riemer, der auch wertvolle Hinweise zu Material und technischer Herstellung des Stückes gab, sowie für fotografische Aufnahmen und Bildbearbeitung Olga Fast, David Sabel und Susanne Kroschel. Ferner gilt mein Dank Arnaud Quertinmont vom Département Égypte / Proche-Orient du Musée royal de Mariemont, Morlanwelz für die freundliche Erlaubnis zur Reproduktion von Fotos und Umzeichnungen des dortigen Parallelstücks Inv.-Nr. Ac. 98/88 (Abb. 4–5).

470

F. FÖRSTER

Mitte 1. Dyn., ca. 3700–3000 v.Chr., vgl. Hendrickx 2006) stammen und von denen derzeit rund 60 Stück inkl. Fragmenten bekannt sind.2 Das Stück ähnelt auf den ersten Blick einer zweiflügeligen Pfeilspitze, misst 4,8 cm in der Höhe und 3,3 cm an der breitesten Stelle; die maximale Stärke beträgt 0,5 cm, das Gewicht 6,6 Gramm. Das verwendete Material lässt sich als feinkörniger opaker Silex oder Flint von beige-hellbrauner Farbe bestimmen, der oft als „Karamellflint“ bezeichnet wird und dessen natürliches Vorkommen hauptsächlich im Bereich der eozänen Kalksteinformationen westlich des Niltals liegt.3 Diese Varietät gilt als hochwertiges Material, das sich für die Herstellung auch aufwendigerer, diffiziler Steingeräte gut eignet.4 Wie der fast durchlaufende kreidige Kortex auf der dorsalen Oberfläche, der zahlreiche feine Schleifspuren aufweist, zu erkennen gibt, handelt es sich hier um einen flachen Entrindungsabschlag (decortication flake) von einer größeren Silexknolle oder -platte. Der Schlagpunkt am spitzen Ende des Objekts hat dort auf der ventralen Seite einen leicht vorstehenden Bulbus entstehen lassen, was offenbar in Verbindung mit einer flächigen, etwa 1,1 cm langen Abtragung des Kortex auf der gegenüberliegenden Seite genutzt wurde, um diesen Bereich leicht, aber doch recht deutlich von der Achse des Abschlagverlaufs abweichen zu lassen. Ansonsten weist der Silexabschlag nur noch eine auf beiden Seiten angebrachte, in den meisten Bereichen nicht sehr regelmäßige umlaufende Kantenretuschierung auf, wobei die hier als Skorpionscheren gedeuteten dreieckigen Spitzen im Vergleich deutlich sorgfältiger ausgearbeitet sind. Im Unterschied zu den übrigen Randbereichen mit relativ flachen Retuschen ist die halbkreisförmige Aussparung zwischen den Scheren zudem mit deutlich steiler verlaufenden, wiederum von beiden Seiten aus regelrecht eingekerbten Druckretuschen ausgeformt worden.

2 Zum insg. 53 Objekte umfassenden, im Jahre 2003 publizierten „catalogue des silex figuratifs“ in Hendrickx et al. 2003: 15–17 (Tab. 1) sind nunmehr einige weitere, vor allem durch die fortschreitenden Grabungen in Hierakonpolis seitdem bekannt gewordene Stücke hinzuzuzählen: Adams 2002: Abb. 7; 2004; Figueiredo 2004: Abb. 5b, 7d (Steinbock); Friedman 2008: Abb. 7, unten links (Mähnenschafkopf), Abb. 8a, g (Gazelle oder Hund, Elefantenkopf [Frg.]); Nagaya 2011 (Esel, Menschenfigur; vgl. auch die vier dort abgebildeten „bow ties“); Friedman et al. 2017: Abb. 6 (dito sowie Fragment einer unklaren Tierdarstellung); Friedman & Droux 2018: 15, Abb. oben links (Mähnenschaf; vgl. hierzu auch Van Neer & De Cupere 2018: Abb. auf S. 17). Vgl. jetzt auch Hart-Skarzynski 2017: 489–492 (Tab. 6.1), Abb. 6.15–6.24. Zum gesamten Materialkomplex ist demnächst von Brigitte Goede (pers. Mitt. 4.2.2019) eine umfassende monographische Bearbeitung zu erwarten (Goede i.V.). 3 Vgl. Kindermann 2010: 48–50 (Nr. 0127). Zu den verschiedenen zur allgemeinen Materialansprache kursierenden Begriffen wie Feuerstein, Flint, Hornstein, Silex etc. und den Schwierigkeiten ihrer Abgrenzung, siehe Kindermann 2010: 50, Anm. 8. In Anlehnung an Hendrickx et al. 2003 wird hier der besonders im französischen Sprachraum übliche Begriff Silex verwendet. 4 Dies und die nachfolgenden technischen Ausführungen nach persönlicher Mitteilung von H. Riemer (E-Mail vom 22.1.2019).

EIN SILEX-SKORPION IM ÄGYPTISCHEN MUSEUM BONN

471

Abb. 1a–b. Vorder- und Rückseite des Silex-Skorpions aus der Sammlung des Ägyptischen Museums der Universität Bonn, Inv.-Nr. BoSAe 657 (Fotos: D. Sabel) (M. 1:1).

Abb. 2. Umzeichnung des Silex-Skorpions aus der Sammlung des Ägyptischen Museums der Universität Bonn, Inv.-Nr. BoSAe 657 (Umzeichnung: H. Riemer) (M. 1:1).

Schon allein aufgrund der beschriebenen leichten Abwinklung am Schlagpunktende des Abschlags sowie der kantenretuschierten Ausformung besonders der beiden gegenständigen Dreiecksenden lässt sich eine Identifizierung als Pfeilspitze sicher ausschließen, und auch eine Ansprache als ein anderer Steingerätetyp erscheint mehr als zweifelhaft. Die allgemeine Formgebung und auch die vergleichsweise sorgfältige Ausarbeitung sprechen vielmehr dafür, dass es sich um eine figürliche Darstellung handelt, wobei prima vista zunächst der

472

F. FÖRSTER

Kopf eines Tieres (mit relativ großen, aufgerichteten Ohren) in Frage käme, zumal solche aus Silex gefertigten Tierköpfe mehrfach bekannt sind und z.T. auch aus gesicherten Fundkontexten stammen.5 Doch neben der allgemeinen Form, die bereits stark an die Figur eines—wenn auch aufgrund der geringen Größe und des spröden Materials zwangsläufig recht abstrakt gestalteten— Skorpions erinnert, ist es insbesondere der leicht erhobene „Schwanz“, der diese Identifizierung nahelegt. Mit der Kortexseite auf einen planen Untergrund gelegt, kommt dieses, m.E. signifikante Detail in der Formgebung des Abschlags gut zur Geltung (Abb. 3).6 In diesem Zusammenhang ist zum einen auf die sorgfältige Schleifung des Kortex an der mutmaßlichen Unterseite und zum anderen darauf hinzuweisen, dass die mutmaßliche Schwanzspitze der ansonsten vollständig erhaltenen Figur möglicherweise ursprünglich noch eine heute abgebrochene kleine Verlängerung besaß, die einen „Stachel“ andeuten sollte. Zum Vergleich lassen sich zunächst einige kleinformatige Skorpionplastiken aus prä- und frühdynastischer Zeit heranziehen, die aus anderem Material wie etwa Fayence, Kalkstein, Kalzit, Hämatit und anderen Gesteinsarten gefertigt wurden (vgl. Hendrickx et al. 2003: 26–29, Tab. 2.2, Abb. 6; Capart 1905: 193, Abb. 151). Wie auch bei zeitgenössischen flachbildlichen bzw. nicht-rundplastischen Darstellungen (z.B. Dreyer 1998: Abb. 34–39, 80 [Nr. 141, 145]; Evans 2015: Abb. 1b–f; vgl. Hendrickx et al. 2003: 25–26, 29–31, Tab. 2.1, 2.3–7, Abb. 4–5, 7–12) ist hier der Skorpionschwanz mit Stachel als charakteristisches Merkmal des Tieres meist als deutlich erhoben (≥ 45°) wiedergegeben, doch gibt es auch Plastiken mit kaum oder gar nicht erhobenem Schwanz (z.B. Hendrickx et al. 2003: Abb. 6, unten [Oxford, Ashmolean Museum E.195]; Quibell & Green 1902: Taf. XXIII, oben links; Capart 1905: Abb. 151, oben links; vgl. neuerdings auch Friedman 2018: 7 für eine solche flachbildliche Darstellung auf einem kürzlich in Hierakonpolis entdeckten dekorierten Messergriff aus Elfenbein). Auch stark stilisierte, abstrakte Darstellungen fast ohne Angabe von Details wie Augen oder Beine kommen vor. In dieser Hinsicht wie auch hinsichtlich der Größe findet unser Bonner Stück seine nächsten Parallelen in einigen in Hierakonpolis ausgegrabenen kleinen Skorpionplastiken aus Kalkstein oder Kalzit (Adams 2004: Abb. 11e–f; Figueiredo 2004: 5 Vgl. Hendrickx et al. 2003: 15–17, Tab. 1 (Brüssel, MRAH E.6185A: Stierkopf aus dem „tombeau royal“ in Naqada; Grabungsmagazin Hierakonpolis, Standort Nr. 83, Reg.-Nr. 519: Giraffenkopf aus HK6 [Oberflächenfund]; London, BM EA.32124: Bovidenkopf, Herkunft unbekannt; Aufbewahrungsort unbekannt: Bovidenkopf [?] aus Grab des Djer in Abydos/Umm elQaab; aktueller Aufbewahrungsort unbekannt, ex Sammlung Garstang: Ibiskopf [?] aus Hierakonpolis [?]; aktueller Aufbewahrungsort unbekannt, ex Sammlung MacGregor: Bovidenkopf, Herkunft unbekannt). Siehe auch oben, Anm. 2 (Neufunde aus Hierakonpolis). 6 Am Rande sei noch angemerkt, dass der Skorpion mit der Kortexseite nach unten nur punktuell in seinem Zentrum aufliegt und sich daher auf einem glatten Untergrund wie ein Kreisel drehen lässt; umgedreht tritt dieser Effekt wegen mehrerer Auflagepunkte nicht auf.

EIN SILEX-SKORPION IM ÄGYPTISCHEN MUSEUM BONN

a c

473

b d

Abb. 3a–d. Verschiedene Schräg-/Seitenansichten des auf planem Untergrund liegenden Bonner Silex-Skorpions, wodurch der leicht erhobene Schwanz deutlich zur Geltung kommt (Fotos: O. Fast, D. Sabel).

Abb. 5c–d, 7b; Marée 2006; Friedman 2008: 1179–1180, Abb. 12b, 13a; Kwiecinski 2019: Abb. 7a). Obwohl in allen Fällen nicht vollständig erhalten, zeigt sich auch hier eine Reduzierung auf das Wesentliche: die sich nach hinten verjüngende, mehr oder minder langgestreckte Körperform, die schematische Angabe der Scheren sowie der (leicht) erhobene Schwanz (mit oder ohne Stachel)7. Was nun die Klasse der figürlichen Darstellungen aus geschlagenem Silex anbelangt, gibt es derzeit nur eine einzige sichere Parallele zu unserem Stück: einen aus braunem Flint gefertigten Skorpion unbekannter Herkunft, der sich 7 In einem Falle (Friedman 2008: 1179, Abb. 12b, 13a) wurde das abgebrochene zugehörige Schwanzende mit Stachel separat in einer im Vergleich zur Fundlage des Skorpionkörpers tieferen Verfüllungsschicht des betreffenden Grabes (Tomb 26) aufgefunden.

474

F. FÖRSTER

Abb. 4a–b. Vorder- und Rückseite des Silex-Skorpions aus dem Königlichen Museum Mariemont, Inv.-Nr. Ac. 98/88 (© Musée royal de Mariemont) (M. 1:1).

heute unter der Inventarnummer Ac. 98/88 im Königlichen Museum Mariemont im belgischen Morlanwelz befindet (Derriks 1998; Hendrickx et al. 2003; Hendrickx & Eyckerman 2009) (Abb. 4–5). Mit den Maßen 11,9 × 3,5 × 0,8 cm ist dieser mehr als doppelt so groß, und auch die feine Ausgestaltung, die sich etwa in der detaillierten Wiedergabe des segmentierten Schwanzes (mit angedeutetem Stachel) und der halbmondförmigen, wenn auch ziemlich kleinen Scheren zeigt, ist deutlich elaborierter; zudem ist auch der Kopf im Unterschied zum Bonner Stück halbkreisförmig angedeutet. Der Schwanz verläuft dagegen gerade und flach.

EIN SILEX-SKORPION IM ÄGYPTISCHEN MUSEUM BONN

475

Abb. 5. Umzeichnung des Silex-Skorpions aus dem Königlichen Museum Mariemont, Inv.-Nr. Ac. 98/88 (© Musée royal de Mariemont, Umzeichnung: Françoise Roloux) (M. 1:1).

Nur in Gestalt eines (zudem nicht sonderlich guten) Fotos in Michael Hoffmans Buch „Egypt before the Pharaohs“ ist eine Silexfigur bekannt, bei der es sich eventuell auch um einen Skorpion handeln könnte, wenngleich sie dort als „lizard (?)“ angesprochen wird (Hoffman 1980: 112, Abb. 30, unten links; vgl. Hendrickx et al. 2003: 17 [„Scorpion (?)“]). Allerdings würfen manche Details in der Ausgestaltung sowie die Proportionen der einzelnen Körperteile

476

F. FÖRSTER

bei einer solchen Identifizierung Fragen auf. Über Herkunft und Verbleib dieses Stückes liegen, soweit ich sehe, keine Angaben vor, und angesichts der anderen vier auf demselben Foto abgebildeten „Predynastic animal figurines of chipped flint“ mit breiten, unregelmäßigen Abschlägen erscheint seine Echtheit nicht über jeden Zweifel erhaben (vgl. Hart-Skarzynski 2017: 493–494, Tab. 6.2). In einer E-Mail vom 24.6.2018 wies mich Dirk Huyge (†) darauf hin, dass er auch die aus Abydos stammende Silexfigur EA 37269 im Britischen Museum in London (Umzeichnung bei Petrie 1902: Taf. XXVI, 294; Capart 1905: Abb. 115, A.294; Foto bei Budge 1909: 148) für eine mögliche Skorpiondarstellung hielt, doch erscheint mir eine Ansprache als Krokodil weiterhin überzeugender (vgl. Hendrickx et al. 2003: 16 sowie neuerdings auch die Diskussion bei Kwiecinski 2019). Bemerkenswert ist aber, wie ähnlich sich der Skorpion im Museum Mariemont und das Krokodil in London sind, was die allgemeine Formgebung anbelangt, und wie nur durch die geschickte Angabe weniger Details (Kopfform und gezackte Rückenlinie beim Krokodil, Scheren und Segmentierung des Schwanzes beim Skorpion) eine klare Unterscheidbarkeit erzielt wurde. Dies ist nicht zuletzt mit Blick auf den Herstellungsprozess solcher Silexfiguren (vgl. hierzu Hart-Skarzynski 2017: 236–239) von Interesse, denn die Wahl gewisser „Grundformen“ als Ausgangspunkt erlaubt konzeptionelle Änderungen, wenn beispielsweise bei einem Schlag ein größeres Stück abbricht als beabsichtigt, unerwünschte Einschlüsse im Material auftauchen etc. In diesem Zusammenhang ist auch auf Silexfiguren wie etwa die Menschen- und die Steinbockdarstellung aus Hierakonpolis hinzuweisen (vgl. oben, Anm. 2), deren Herstellung sowohl schlagtechnisch wie auch in der Formgebung eng mit derjenigen elaborierter Pfeilspitzen zusammenhängt, wobei die Beine den langgezogenen Flügeln eines hollow-based arrowhead entsprechen (vgl. Nagaya 2011: 19, „Group 2“).8 Die Menschenfigur—wohl die Darstellung eines Kleinwüchsigen—mit ihren symmetrisch angeordneten Armen und Beinen wirkt dabei gleichsam wie die Verschmelzung zweier Projektilspitzen als ursprünglich eigenständige „Versatzstücke“.9 8 Nach Nagayas Klassifizierung (Nagaya 2011) wäre unser Bonner Skorpion trotz seiner vergleichsweise geringen Größe aufgrund von Material/Farbe und technologischen Aspekten der „Group 1“ zuzuweisen. Die Nähe zu (schlagtechnisch ganz anders hergestellten) Pfeilspitzen ist dagegen nur eine scheinbare, allein auf eine äußerliche Ähnlichkeit in der langgestreckten Dreiecksform mit „Flügeln“ beschränkte. 9 Hier ist nicht der Raum, um auf die Verwendung und Kombination ikonographischer Elemente als bedeutungstragende Versatzstücke und das dahinterliegende „formassoziative Analogiedenken“ in prädynastischer Zeit einzugehen (vgl. hierzu Hendrickx 2002; Graff 2009; Hendrickx & Eyckerman 2012; Hendrickx & Förster 2010). Es sei aber wenigstens kurz erwähnt, dass (mind.) zwei aus Hierakonpolis stammende Fischschwanzmesser (eines davon heute in Berlin: ÄM 16127) im Bereich ihrer Griffzapfen eine ungewöhnliche, sehr sorgfältige Kerbung oder Segmentierung aufweisen, die an die Ausgestaltung des Skorpionschwanzes unserer Parallele aus Mariemont (Abb. 4–5) erinnert (Friedman & Droux 2018: 15). Gerade weil diese Ausformung

EIN SILEX-SKORPION IM ÄGYPTISCHEN MUSEUM BONN

477

Die figürlichen, oft höchst kunstvoll und raffiniert gearbeiteten Silices der prä- und frühdynastischen Zeit sind also nicht zuletzt auch aus ihrem Herstellungsprozess und ihrem technologischen Ursprung innerhalb der Produktion gewöhnlicher Steingeräte heraus zu verstehen. In gleichem Maße ist aber auch eine ganz andere Ebene zu berücksichtigen, die man in Anlehnung an den Titel eines Buches von H.-W. Fischer-Elfert (1998), das die arcansprachlich beschriebene „Offenbarung“ und „Geburt“ einer steinernen Statue im Rahmen des sog. Mundöffnungsrituals (Szenen 9–10) behandelt, als „die Vision von der Figur im Flint“ umschreiben könnte: Neben dem handwerklichen Können ist hier nämlich auch die eher intellektuelle Fähigkeit gefragt, eine quasi im Stein angelegte „verborgene“ Form zu erkennen und diese aus ihm zu „befreien“.10 Diese Fähigkeit und kreative Fantasie bei der Auswahl und Bearbeitung des „richtigen“ Rohmaterials ist im Übrigen nicht allein auf die Form beschränkt, sondern kann sich auch auf Einschlüsse, Bänderungen/Äderungen und andere Farbwechsel im Stein erstrecken, wofür wiederum die Menschenfigur aus Hierakonpolis das beste Beispiel ist: Hier ist ein natürlicher markanter Farbwechsel zwischen dunkelbraunen und schwarzen Partien geschickt genutzt worden, um eine Bekleidung, und zwar einen Schurz und eine Art Schärpe, anzugeben (vgl. Nagaya 2011: 18; Friedman 2011: 6). Die herausragende künstlerische Qualität dieses in seiner Motivik bislang einzigartigen, nicht einmal 11 cm hohen Stückes wird zudem noch durch die fast unmerkliche Wiedergabe von Ohren und Kniescheiben durch minimale Einschnitte bzw. Auswölbungen an den Rändern unterstrichen. Mit solchen, für eine gesellschaftliche Elite und deren Prestige erschaffenen Meisterwerken lässt sich unser Bonner Skorpion natürlich nicht vergleichen, und auch der Skorpion im Museum von Mariemont als derzeit einzige sichere Parallele ist qualitativ von einem ganz anderen Kaliber. Es ist auch gut möglich, dass es sich bei unserem Stück „nur“ um eine ad hoc-Kreation handelt, also um das Resultat eines spontanen Einfalls beim Beginn der Schälung einer Silexknolle oder -platte, von nicht viel mehr geleitet als puur plezier an der spielerischen Befreiung einer im Stein erkannten Form. Angesichts schon seit normalerweise durch den Griffaufsatz unsichtbar bleibt, ließe sich durchaus die Frage stellen, ob hier nicht ein wertvolles und prestigeträchtiges Steingerät mit einem speziellen ikonographischen Element kombiniert wurde, um dadurch seine magische Wirksamkeit zu erhöhen. Zu der vielleicht nicht nur formalen Nähe zwischen sog. Fischschwanzmessern und plastischen Skorpiondarstellungen siehe auch das bei Droux 2011: 16, oben links abgebildete, nur wenige Zentimeter große „fish-tail knife amulet“ aus Kalzit. 10 Vgl. das schöne, aus einem Sonett Michelangelos stammende Zitat, das Fischer-Elfert seinem Buch vorangestellt hat: „Ein wahrer Künstler hat keine Konzeption, d.h. kann sich keine Gestalt vorstellen, die nicht bereits in jedwedem Marmorblock enthalten wäre, mit all diesem mehr an steinerner Substanz, die dem noch unbehauenen Block anhaftet: jene herrliche, vollkommene Gestalt kann aus dem massigen Marmorstein durch die Hand des Künstlers befreit werden, der, vom Intellekt geleitet, die Form im Formlosen, die Ordnung im Chaos wahrzunehmen vermag.“ (Fischer-Elfert 1998: [V], zitiert nach Nardini 1985: 9–10).

478

F. FÖRSTER

dem frühen 20. Jahrhundert kursierender Fälschungen/Nachahmungen (vgl. Hendrickx et al. 2003: 9 mit Anm. 9–10; Hart-Skarzynski 2017: 493– 494, Tab. 6.2) ist vielleicht sogar in Erwägung zu ziehen, ob der Bonner Skorpion nicht auch modernen Ursprungs sein könnte. Dagegen spricht aber die deutliche Patinierung der Schlagflächen vor allem auf der Oberseite sowie die feine Zähnung der Scheren durch Druckretuschen, deren Breite z.T. unter einem Millimeter liegt—was einem modernen Fälscher nicht unbedingt zuzutrauen ist. Leider liegen—wie auch beim Mariemonter Skorpion und vielen anderen Silexfiguren, die aus dem Kunsthandel stammen—keine konkreten Informationen zur Provenienz des Stückes vor. Dies hängt in erster Linie mit der Geschichte der Bonner Sammlung von Aegyptiaca (BoSAe) zusammen, deren Altbestand zu einem großen Teil durch einen Bombenangriff im Zweiten Weltkrieg, der auch die Universität traf, verlorenging—und mit ihm auch das gesamte Inventarverzeichnis und etwaige andere Dokumentationen (vgl. Stünkel 2004: 7). Aufgrund der relativ niedrigen, alten Inventarnummer 657 kann unser Skorpion sicher diesem Altbestand der Sammlung zugewiesen werden, deren Aufbau im Wesentlichen auf Alfred Wiedemann (1856–1936; vgl. Bierbrier 2019: 489; Förster 2019), den Begründer der Ägyptologie in Bonn, zurückgeht.11 Es liegt daher die Vermutung nahe, dass das Stück Ende des 19. oder Anfang des 20. Jahrhunderts entweder von Wiedemann selbst in Ägypten gefunden oder (eher) von einem Antiquitätenhändler erworben wurde oder aber über einen seiner Kontakte zu damals dort tätigen Ausgräbern in seinen Besitz bzw. in den der Bonner Universität gelangte.12 In diesem Zusammenhang könnte von Belang sein, dass unsere Nummer 657 Teil einer ganzen Reihe von Silexartefakten—zumeist Pfeilspitzen, aber auch andere Steingeräte—ist, die offenbar als homogene Materialgruppe in direkter Folge hintereinander inventarisiert wurden (Inv.-Nr. 623–692). Als einziger Herkunftsvermerk in der näheren Umgebung unserer Inventarnummer findet sich bei einem Fragment eines Fischschwanzmessers (Inv.-Nr. 654; ein zugehöriges anderes Fragment ist unter der Inv.-Nr. 672 aufgenommen worden) die Angabe, dass es als ein Geschenk W.M. Flinders Petries aus dessen Grabung in Naqada stammt, und zwar aus dem Grab 1821 (vgl. Petrie & Quibell 1896: 29, Taf. LXXIII, 66). Freilich lässt sich weder daraus noch aus der Tatsache, 11 Die am Ende mit einem Punkt versehene Inventarnummer ist mit schwarzer Farbe auf einem zuvor (mit Schellack?) präparierten, leicht glänzenden Untergrund geschrieben worden, wobei deutlich zu erkennen ist, dass die Ziffern—und auch der Punkt—einer älteren Beschriftung nachgezogen wurden (vgl. Abb. 1b). Das zugehörige (neue) Inventarblatt in den Akten des Ägyptischen Museums ist wahrscheinlich in den 1980er Jahren von S.J. Seidlmayer erstellt worden, der damals unter J. Osing als Assistent am Bonner Ägyptologischen Seminar tätig war (vgl. Stünkel 2004: 9). 12 Bis zum Jahre 1928 waren die ägyptischen Objekte Teil der universitären Antikensammlung, die im Akademischen Kunstmuseum untergebracht war und der Klassischen Archäologie unterstand.

EIN SILEX-SKORPION IM ÄGYPTISCHEN MUSEUM BONN

479

dass Wiedemann rund zwei Jahre später, im Frühjahr 1897, an einer von Jacques de Morgan geleiteten, u.a. dem berühmten „tombeau royal“ gewidmeten Grabungskampagne in Naqada teilgenommen hat (vgl. de Morgan 1897: 147, 149, 203–228),13 zwingend ableiten, dass unser Stück tatsächlich von dort stammt. Ebensogut wäre denkbar, dass es bei Grabungen Petries in Abydos oder Koptos gefunden wurde und dann dank der (bis zum Ersten Weltkrieg) guten Beziehungen zwischen Wiedemann und Petrie seinen Weg nach Bonn fand, wohin nachweislich auch andere „Grabungsgeschenke“ Petries aus diesen Orten gelangten (vgl. Stünkel 2004: 6, Anm. 3–4). Von allen drei genannten Grabungsplätzen sind Funde prä- bzw. frühdynastischer Silexfiguren bekannt, wobei in quantitativer Hinsicht Abydos herausragt (und darin nur noch von Hierakonpolis übertroffen wird), während aus Naqada („tombeau royal“) nur ein und aus Koptos nur zwei figürliche Silices stammen (vgl. oben, Anm. 2). Angesichts der in großer Zahl dort aufgefundenen, möglicherweise auf einen lokalen Skorpionkult zurückgehenden Skorpionplastiken aus anderem Material wäre durchaus auch Hierakonpolis als möglicher Herkunftsort in Erwägung zu ziehen (vgl. Hendrickx et al. 2003: 14, 33, Tab. 2.2), doch bleiben solche Überlegungen letztlich Spekulation. Auch wenn sich die Provenienz unseres kleinen Silex-Skorpions nicht mehr sicher ermitteln lässt, so sind doch Bestimmung, Alter und Authentizität gut zu begründen. Zu der Menagerie bislang bekannter, zum Teil einmaliger Tierdarstellungen aus diesem Material—darunter Nilpferd, Antilope/Gazelle, Mähnenschaf, Steinbock, Fisch, Vogel, Rind, Krokodil, Hund, Esel, Giraffe, Skorpion und Schlange—gesellt sich also ein weiterer Skorpion, der zwar nicht viel Neues hinsichtlich der Frage nach Bedeutung und Verwendung solcher Silexfiguren in prä- und frühdynastischer Zeit14 beitragen kann, aber trotz oder vielmehr gerade wegen seiner vergleichsweise einfachen Gestalt und Machart in anderer Hinsicht durchaus von Interesse ist: Er wirft nämlich die Frage auf,

13

Von dieser Kampagne stammen vermutlich mindestens 13, von Wiedemann handschriftlich mit der Aufschrift „Nagada“ versehene Steingeräte in der Bonner Sammlung (BoSAe 2213–2214, 2216–2217, 2237–2245; vgl. auch BoSAe 631). 14 Die Bandbreite reicht hier allgemein von einer apotropäisch-schützenden, amulettartigen Funktion über die Annahme, dass es sich bei manchen Exemplaren um Opfer- oder Votivgaben in funerären Zusammenhängen handelt, bis hin zu einer hierdurch zum Ausdruck gebrachten politisch-religiösen Machtsymbolik, wobei sich diese Aspekte nicht gegenseitig ausschließen müssen und natürlich auch vom jeweiligen (Fund-)Kontext und der Art des dargestellten Tieres abhängen (vgl. Hendrickx et al. 2003: 14; Hart-Skarzynski 2017: 239–242). Im Falle von Skorpionsowie auch Schlangen- und Krokodildarstellungen ist wohl am ehesten an eine religiöse oder apotropäische Funktion zu denken, doch sollten—wie oben angedeutet—profanere Beweggründe bei ihrer Herstellung nicht außer Acht gelassen werden. Zu Vorkommen und Bedeutung des Skorpions in Kunst, Kultur und Religion des pharaonischen Ägypten siehe Behrens 1984; Stoof 2002; Evans 2015: 148–152; zu sonstigen Skorpiondarstellungen in prä- und frühdynastischer Zeit Hendrickx et al. 2003: 18–24 und zum heutigen Vorkommen verschiedener Skorpionarten in Ägypten die Übersicht bei Badry et al. 2018.

480

F. FÖRSTER

ob sich nicht auch noch in anderen Museen und Sammlungen eher unscheinbare und daher bislang nicht als solche erkannte „second class“-Exemplare dieser Art befinden, wobei insbesondere pfeilspitzenförmige Objekte näher in Augenschein zu nehmen wären. Weiterhin gibt er Anlass, in Zukunft verstärkt die dritte Dimension solcher meist nur als flachbildlich wahrgenommenen Silexfiguren in den Blick zu nehmen (tatsächlich handelt es sich ja um „platte“ Darstellungen, deren Stärke oft bei nur rund einem Zentimeter oder gar noch weniger liegt, vgl. Hart-Skarzynski 2017: 489–492, Tab. 6.1). Zusätzlich zu der quasi natürlich vorgegebenen und je nach Künstler mehr oder weniger betonten Plastizität der Figuren in ihren Randbereichen, die sich etwa in der Wölbung von Beinen oder einem Gehörn zeigt, könnte auch die Modellierung von Binnenflächen—wie bei einem Wandrelief sowohl erhaben als auch versenkt—gelegentlich für die Angabe signifikanter Details genutzt worden sein, wie es beispielsweise bei der Wiedergabe der Ohren (?) eines Elefantenkopfes aus Hierakonpolis zu vermuten steht (vgl. Friedman 2008: Abb. 8g; Nagaya 2011: 19; beide Seiten abgebildet bei Hart-Skarzynski 2017: Abb. 6.19). Und eben auch eine leichte, für die Bestimmung aber signifikante Abweichung von der Achse einer relativ abstrakt gehaltenen, vornehmlich zweidimensional angelegten Figur, die erst auf einem planen Untergrund voll zur Geltung kommt (vgl. Abb. 3), ist ein (weiteres) potenzielles Gestaltungsmittel, dessen Anwendung vielleicht nicht nur bei unserem Bonner Skorpion mit seinem leicht erhobenen Schwanz festzustellen ist.15 Bibliographie ADAMS, B., 2002. Seeking the roots of ancient Egypt: A unique cemetery reveals monuments and rituals from before the pharaohs. Archéo-Nil 12: 25–28. ADAMS, B., 2004. Excavations in the Elite Predynastic Cemetery at Hierakonpolis locality HK6: 1999–2000. ASAÉ 78: 47–52. 15 Hiermit hängt im Übrigen auch die Frage zusammen, ob es bei den Silexfiguren eine Hauptansichtsseite gab (was sich im Falle unseres Skorpions klar bejahen lässt) oder beide Seiten gleich sorgfältig und attraktiv ausgearbeitet wurden. In dieser Hinsicht und auch im Hinblick auf eine buchstäblich weitere Ebene der oben angesprochenen dritten Dimension ließe sich sogar spekulieren, ob es sich bei den eigenartigen „bow ties“ aus Hierakonpolis (Elitefriedhof HK6, Bereiche von Grab 48 und 49), die wohl auf dieselbe Künstlerhand zurückgehen, die auch eine in der Nähe aufgefundene Eselfigur geschaffen hat (vgl. Droux 2011: 17; Nagaya 2011; Hart-Skarzynski 2017: 234, Anm. 43), um „Modelle“ von Doppelpacktaschen zum Transport von Getreide handeln könnte, die vertikal auf beiden Seiten eben solchen Eselfiguren an die Flanken gelegt, dort mittels einer um die zentralen Einkerbungen über der Rückenlinie des Esels herumführenden Schnur befestigt und leicht auch wieder abgenommen werden konnten. Es ergäbe sich so auf beiden Seiten eine aspektivische Darstellung eines mit einer Zwillingspacktasche beladenen Esels, wie sie aus späterer pharaonischer Zeit gut bekannt ist: Hier wird der eigentlich vom Körper verdeckte hintere Teil der Ladung einfach „hochgeklappt“, damit sichtbar gemacht und scheint über dem Rücken des Tieres zu schweben (vgl. Schäfer 1963: 119–120, Abb. 68; Förster 2015: 395–396, Abb. 316–317). Sollte sich diese Deutung als zutreffend erweisen, wäre ein so früher Beleg dieser Darstellungsweise aus kunsthistorischer Perspektive sehr bemerkenswert.

EIN SILEX-SKORPION IM ÄGYPTISCHEN MUSEUM BONN

481

BADRY, A.; YOUNES, M.; SARHAN, M.M.H. & SALEH, M., 2018. On the scorpion fauna of Egypt, with an identification key (Arachnida: Scorpiones). Zoology in the Middle East 64(1): 75–87 (DOI: 10.1080/09397140.2017.1414976). BEHRENS, P., 1984. Skorpion [in:] LdÄ V: 987–989. BIERBRIER, M.L., 2019. Who was who in Egyptology. London (5., Auflage). BUDGE, E.A.W., 1909. A guide to the Egyptian collections in the British Museum, London. CAPART, J., 1905. Primitive art in Egypt. London. DE MORGAN, J., 1897. Recherches sur les origines de l’Égypte 2  : Ethnographie préhistorique et tombeau royal de Négadah. Paris. DERRIKS, C., 1998. Un scorpion en silex. Bulletin trimestriel du Musée royal de Mariemont 84: 12. DREYER, G., 1998. Umm el-Qaab 1: Das prädynastische Königsgrab U-j und seine frühen Schriftzeugnisse. AV 86. Mainz am Rhein. DROUX, X., 2011. Where’s the beef? The surprise of tomb 49. Nekhen News 23: 16–17. EVANS, L., 2015. Invertebrates in ancient Egyptian art: Spiders, ticks, and scorpions [in:] MASSIERA, M.; MATHIEU, B. & ROUFFET, F. (eds), Apprivoiser le sauvage / Taming the Wild. Cahiers de l’ENiM 11. Montpellier: 145–157. FIGUEIREDO, Á., 2004. Locality HK6 at Hierakonpolis: Results of the 2000 field season [in:] HENDRICKX, S.; FRIEDMAN, R.F.; CIAŁOWICZ, K.M. & CHŁODNICKI, M. (eds), Egypt at its Origins: Studies in memory of Barbara Adams. Proceedings of the International Conference “Origin of the State. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt”, Kraków, 28th August–1st September 2002. OLA 138. Löwen: 1–23. FISCHER-ELFERT, H.-W., 1998. Die Vision von der Statue im Stein: Studien zum altägyptischen Mundöffnungsritual. Schriften der Philosophisch-historischen Klasse der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften 5. Heidelberg. FÖRSTER, F., 2015. Der Abu Ballas-Weg: Eine pharaonische Karawanenroute durch die Libysche Wüste. Africa Praehistorica 28. Köln. FÖRSTER, F., 2019. Alfred Wiedemann – Bonner Professor mit vielfältigen Interessen und Kontakten [in:] RHEINISCHE FRIEDRICH-WILHELMS-UNIVERSITÄT BONN & ZOOLOGISCHES FORSCHUNGSMUSEUM ALEXANDER KOENIG (eds), Objektwelten als Kosmos: Von Alexander von Humboldt zum Netzwerk Bonner Wissenschaftssammlungen. Katalog zur Sonderausstellung im Zoologischen Forschungsmuseum Alexander Koenig, Bonn, 14.11.2019–22.03.2020. Bonn: 70–72. FRIEDMAN, R.F., 2008. Excavating Egypt’s early kings: Recent discoveries in the Elite Cemetery at Hierakonpolis [in:] MIDANT-REYNES, B. & TRISTANT, Y. (eds), Egypt at its Origins 2. Proceedings of the International Conference “Origin of the State. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt”, Toulouse (France), 5th–8th September 2005. OLA 172. Löwen: 1157–1194. FRIEDMAN, R.F., 2011. Perseverance pays off: Answers from tomb 16 at HK6. Nekhen News 23: 4–6. FRIEDMAN, R.F., 2018. Tomb 111 knife handle in detail. Nekhen News 30: 7–8. FRIEDMAN, R.F. & DROUX, X., 2018. More adventures under the spoil heap: HK6 in 2018. Nekhen News 30: 15–17. FRIEDMAN, R.F.; VAN NEER, W.; DE CUPERE, B. & DROUX, X., 2017. The Elite Predynastic Cemetery at Hierakonpolis HK6: 2011–2015 progress report [in:] MIDANTREYNES, B. & TRISTANT, Y. (eds); RYAN, E.M. (coll.), Egypt at its Origins 5. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference “Origin of the State. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt”, Cairo, 13th–18th April 2014. OLA 260. Löwen: 231–289. GOEDE, B., i.V. Die „Prunkpfeilspitzen“, die Harpunenprojektile sind: Bifaziale Hornsteinfiguren und andere oberägyptische Elitegrabbeigaben der Negadezeiten aus

482

F. FÖRSTER

den ägyptischen Abteilungen und Museen in Berlin, Hannover, London, Brüssel und Leiden (in Druckvorbereitung). GRAFF, G., 2009. Les peintures sur vases de Naqada I–Naqada II  : Nouvelle approche sémiologique de l’iconographie prédynastique. EPM 6. Löwen. HART SKARZYNSKI, E., 2017. Beyond prestige: A ritual production model for stone tool specialization in Naqada period Egypt. Charlottesville (Unpubl. PhD dissertation, University of Virginia). HENDRICKX, S., 2002. Bovines in Egyptian Predynastic and Early Dynastic iconography [in:] HASSAN, F.A. (ed.), Droughts, food and culture: Ecological change and food security in Africa’s later Prehistory. New York: 275–318. HENDRICKX, S., 2006. Predynastic–Early Dynastic chronology [in:] HORNUNG, E.; KRAUSS, R. & WARBURTON, D.A. (eds), Ancient Egyptian chronology. HOS 83. Leiden: 55–93. HENDRICKX, S. & EYCKERMAN, M., 2009. Silex en forme de scorpion [in:] DERRIKS, C. & DELVAUX, L. (eds.), Antiquités égyptiennes au Musée royal de Mariemont, Morlanwelz: 52–53. HENDRICKX, S. & EYCKERMAN, M., 2012. Visual representation and state development in Egypt. Archéo-Nil 22: 23–72. HENDRICKX, S. & FÖRSTER, F., 2010. Early Dynastic art and iconography [in:] LLOYD, A.B. (ed.), A companion to ancient Egypt, vol. II. Blackwell Companions to the Ancient World. Malden: 826–852. HENDRICKX, S.; HUYGE, D. & ADAMS, B., 2003. Le scorpion en silex du Musée royal de Mariemont et les silex figuratifs de l’Égypte pré- et protodynastique. Cahiers de Mariemont 28–29: 6–33. HOFFMAN, M.A., 1980. Egypt before the pharaohs: The prehistoric foundations of Egyptian civilization. London. KINDERMANN, K., 2010. Djara: Zur mittelholozänen Besiedlungsgeschichte zwischen Niltal und Oasen (Abu-Muharik-Plateau, Ägypten). Africa Praehistorica 23. Köln. KWIECINSKI, J.M., 2019. Depictions of crocodiles and scorpions in Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt: The case of the Abydos flint animals. GM 257: 97–107. MARÉE, M., 2006. A scorpion for eternity. Nekhen News 18: 13. NAGAYA, K., 2011. Focus on flint: Artisans of the Elite Cemetery. Nekhen News 23: 18–19. NARDINI, B., 1985. Michelangelos esoterische Weisheit. Stuttgart. PETRIE, W.M.F., 1902. Abydos, part I: 1902. MEEF 22. London. PETRIE, W.M.F. & QUIBELL, J.E., 1896. Naqada and Ballas 1895. London. QUIBELL, J.E. & GREEN, F.W., 1902. Hierakonpolis, part II. ERA 5, London. SCHÄFER, H., 1963. Von ägyptischer Kunst: Eine Grundlage (4., verbesserte Auflage herausgegeben und mit einem Nachwort versehen von Emma Brunner-Traut). Wiesbaden. STOOF, M., 2002. Skorpion und Skorpiongöttin im alten Ägypten. Antiquitates. Archäologische Forschungsergebnisse 23. Hamburg. STÜNKEL, I., 2004. Das Ägyptische Museum der Universität Bonn: Zur Geschichte der Sammlung [in:] GRALLERT, S. & STÜNKEL, I. (eds), Ägyptisches Museum: Bonner Sammlung von Aegyptiaca. Bonn: 6–11. VAN NEER, W. & DE CUPERE, B., 2018. Skilled in camouflage: Barbary sheep in the Elite Cemetery. Nekhen News 30: 17–18.

COMING TOGETHER: FANCY GREYWACKE VESSELS FROM THE ABYDOS ROYAL TOMBS RENÉE FRIEDMAN Hierakonpolis Expedition, Oxford, UK

The ‘Fancy’ stone vessels from the Royal Tombs at Abydos are among the most outstanding artistic creations and technical achievements of the Early Dynastic period. Yet, due to their fragmentary state and distribution across various museums and storerooms, they are little known and their shape range poorly understood. In collaboration with Stan Hendrickx, Barbara Adams in 1994 began her study of the Fancy vessels carved from greywacke held in the Petrie Museum. With the cooperation of her international colleagues she was able to bring together dispersed pieces and reconstruct shapes and motifs previously unknown and unsuspected. Adams was tragically unable to finalise her study before her untimely death in 2002, but her manuscript is now being revised and updated in light of new information and observations. This paper presents a brief overview of the corpus with a selection of the meticulous drawings made by Will Schenck. A discussion of the different shapes and concepts that have been distinguished so far is also provided along with a preliminary assessment of the size of this specialised production and some thoughts on the meaning, purpose and function of these remarkable objects.

Smashed, strewn and scattered, the so-called ‘Fancy’ stone vessels from the Royal Tombs of the Early Dynastic kings at Abydos are still poorly understood and the creativity displayed by the artisans, working mainly in ‘greywacke’,1 the main topic of this paper, is only vaguely acknowledged. The purpose and function of these remarkable creations also remain unclear. Why this is the case is not hard to comprehend given their highly fragmented condition, their dispersal across the necropolis, and their current distribution over many different museums and storerooms. Yet, from their first discovery, during the excavation at the Umm el-Qaab by Amélineau (1899; 1902; 1904–1905), the extraordinary character of the stone carving was obvious and, to his credit, Amélineau published copious plates, illustrating roughly 200 pieces in photographs and drawings. These have long been the only window onto the scope and variety of this type of material. Many more Fancy fragments were found during the subsequent (re)excavations of Petrie (1900; 1901), but realising that much mending

1 Greywacke is used here in a general and generic sense to designate the fine-grained, greygreen metamorphic rock which is also known as meta-greywacke, siltstone, or mudstone and incorrectly as slate or schist. For discussion of this stone, its variants and identification, see De Putter et al. 2000; Hendrickx et al. 2001: 78; Harrell 2013.

484

R. FRIEDMAN

would be necessary to make sense of them, Petrie chose to publish only a few examples, and of these only three of greywacke (Petrie 1900: pl. XXXVII.26; 1901: pl. VIA.26; pl. XXXII.54), famously stating “that the great variety of carved slate is left to be worked up in future” (Petrie 1900: 28). Petrie’s intention to undertake further study is clear from his purchase at auction of a large number of Amélineau’s Fancy vessel fragments, which was made possible with the assistance and collaboration of Jean Capart of the Musées royaux d’Art et d’Histoire (MRAH), Brussels (Adams MS; Hendrickx et al. 2001; Bielen 2004). Unfortunately, the project to join up and publish the pieces never transpired. It would be nearly 90 years before another collaboration between London and Brussels instigated by Stan Hendrickx and Barbara Adams, and spurred on by new discoveries from the excavations of the German Archaeological Institute (DAIK) at Abydos (generously shared by Günter Dreyer), finally brought the greywacke pieces together, both physically and virtually, allowing some of the remarkable compositions to be reconstructed. In 1993 Stan Hendrickx published the initial results of this collaborative effort in a discussion of the Fancy vessels known at the time in the MRAH, Brussels (Hendrickx & Van Winkel 1993). This work revealed for the first time a variety of shapes and types previously unknown and provided detailed views of the high quality of the workmanship. The following year, Barbara Adams began in earnest her study of the greywacke fragments retained by Petrie from his own excavations and supplemented by the pieces purchased from Amélineau2 held in the Petrie Museum of Archaeology (UC), London and the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford. In cooperation with MRAH, Brussels and Ägyptisches Museum (ÄM), Berlin, pieces were sent on loan to London, permitting many joins to be made, with the results painstakingly drawn by Will Schenck and augmented by further connections with newly discovered material from the DAIK excavations (Adams 1999). Unfortunately, Adams was unable to finalise this study before her untimely death in 2002. Her catalogue of over 300 fragments is currently being updated in light of recent work and new discoveries for publication in the near future by the author with the assistance of Jan Picton, Ivor Pridden and the Friends of the Petrie Museum, and in collaboration with the DAIK, who have kindly made available drawings and photographs of their excavated material, much of which was unknown to Adams.3 In advance of that publication, here I wish to share a brief overview of the shapes and themes that have been detected thus far, so that the diversity of

2 The majority of greywacke pieces illustrated in the first Abydos volume of Amélineau (1899: pls XXVII–XXVIII) have been identified in the Petrie Museum collection. 3 I am very grateful to Stephan Seidlmayer, Daniel Polz and Vera Müller for their assistance, cooperation and generosity concerning the Adams manuscript and other information.

FANCY GREYWACKE VESSELS FROM THE ABYDOS ROYAL TOMBS

485

greywacke Fancy vessels will be better known and their wider implications for many aspects of early Egyptian culture and technology can be taken into consideration. Some of the most distinctive pieces have already been published (Hendrickx & Van Winkel 1993; Hendrickx 1996; Adams 1999; Bielen 2004; Whitehouse 2009; Müller 2013; Kuhn 2015a; 2016a; Engel 2017), but can now be augmented by new joins and fresh observations.4 The use of the term ‘Fancy’ here follows Petrie (1920: 3), who coined it to categorise Predynastic pottery vessels that were of unusual, generally nonconcentric, shape. For the stone vessels, it is generally applied to those with a shape and/or decoration that imitates or evokes objects made in other materials, such as foliage and basketry. However, as will be seen below, it also includes a range of objects whose inspiration is more esoteric and inventive, as well as some whose identity remain a mystery. Among the roughly 1400 known fragments,5 those with surfaces decorated in relief or by incision are obviously easier to work with, and the majority can be grouped with associated pieces, allowing shapes to be reconstructed (or at least suggested) and minimum numbers to be estimated. Following Adams, the decorated fragments have been sorted into three general categories of motif: animal, vegetal, and man-made items in organic materials including basketry and matting, etc. These categories are used for descriptive purposes only, without necessarily implying a similarity of function or meaning for the stone vessels. Those without surface decoration but carved into unusual and sometimes remarkable shapes are harder to comprehend. This class is best known from the complete examples found at Saqqara and Abu Rawash (Emery 1949: 101, fig. 48, pl. 40; Montet 1946: 176–177, pl. V; see also Fig. 11), which have provided important points of reference, but a variety of other shapes can now be discerned, even if many fragments remain a puzzle. Highly three-dimensional, Fancy vessels are very difficult to describe, especially in their fragmentary state. It is hoped that together with the meticulous drawings of Will Schenck their intricacies will be clear. Photographs of all of the UC fragments are available on the Petrie Museum website6 and can be consulted to aid in visualising the pieces not illustrated here. Please note that, 4 Very few pieces in the Petrie Museum have notations regarding tomb provenance (n=14) and the question of tomb attribution will not be addressed here. 5 Calculations vary depending on whether mended pieces are counted as one or according to their constituent parts. The total includes roughly 300 mended fragments in the Petrie Museum, c. 500 unmended in the MRAH, Brussels, c. 600 greywacke fragments from the DAIK excavations, 25 in the Musée Municipal des Beaux Arts et d’Histoire Naturelle, Châteaudun, 23 in the ÄM, Berlin, 7 in the Louvre, Paris, and 6 in the Ashmolean, Oxford. There are reportedly Fancy vessel fragments in the University of Pennsylvania Museum and the Egyptian Museum, Cairo, but no information about them is available. 6 http:/petriecat.museums.ucl.ac.uk.

486

R. FRIEDMAN

for the purposes of their description, all of the objects are considered vessels, or ‘containers’, so that the concave side capable of holding is considered the interior. Whether this was actually the orientation in all cases remains to be seen. Animals Beetles (Fig. 1) Perhaps the best known of the Fancy vessels are the two decorated with representations of click beetles (Lanelater notodonata) now housed respectively mainly in Brussels (MRAH E.578; Hendrickx 1996) and the Petrie Museum (UC37001–2; Adams 1999), but each has benefitted greatly from new pieces from the DAIK excavations. Both are stunning examples of the skill of the craftsmen, showing the fine quality of the carving as well as the complexity of the artistic conception. UC37001–2 (Fig. 1a) is especially notable for the combination of different elements: the beetle’s body is flanked by basket-motif decorated rectangles, while its base is connected to an open tube which in turn connects to paired open cups that are separated from the beetle by trapezoidal voids. On the interior, all of the elements are concave or ‘hollowed out’, with holes drilled at the points of connection presumably to allow liquid to circulate. Influenced by the publication of the Brussels dish (see below), Adams (1999: fig. 3) proposed to reconstruct the UC vessel with two beetles symmetrically placed end to end and surrounded by a wide trough. This now needs to be reconsidered. The fragment completing the beetle’s head has recently been identified within the DAIK collection (K6182) and it shows no evidence for a connection to any other element, making the presence of an encircling trough less likely.7 At the side of one cup, stubs for the attachment of further elements arranged around another trapezoidal void are visible, but whether the composition was symmetrical cannot be confirmed. Regardless of its ultimate configuration, this piece introduces us to an intricate combination of elements that have no parallels in other surviving media. It also highlights the difficulty for understanding and reconstructing the numerous fragmentary cups and tubes that are present within the collections, as discussed further below. In contrast to the compositional complexity of UC37001–2, the Brussels beetle is carved only on the exterior of a shallow, thin-walled ovoid dish (Fig. 1b). The interior is well smoothed but plain. The upper part of the sceptre7 The head is of a shape that could well have served as a spout, suggesting an active usage for the vessel (libating?) rather than a passive holding function.

FANCY GREYWACKE VESSELS FROM THE ABYDOS ROYAL TOMBS

Fig. 1. Beetle vessels. A: Exterior and interior view of UC37001–2 with mending piece of the head from the DAIK (K6182). Drawing by Will Schenck; B: Brussels MRAH E.578 with mending pieces from the DAIK and UC37071 in revised reconstruction. Adapted from Hendrickx 1996: fig. 1 (scale 1:3).

487

488

R. FRIEDMAN

holding beetle found by Amélineau has been considerably augmented by finds from the DAIK, to which a piece in the Petrie Museum (UC37071) can now be added, completing the was-sceptre on the left. The rim curvature of the UC addition suggests that the vessel is smaller than the proposed reconstruction of Hendrickx (1996: fig. 1) and portrays only a single beetle, as also previously suggested by Müller.8 Two other elongated shallow dishes embellished with single beetles in relief (UC37066; one from the DAIK) are also carved only on the exterior; the interiors are smooth finished. The placement of the decoration is no help in determining function (i.e. lid vs. dish), since greater attention is given to the exterior surface across most categories of Fancy vessels. Indeed, the finer carving on UC37001 is also found on the exterior and would not have been visible to the actor when the interior was in use. The association of these beetles with the goddess Neith has been much discussed (see Hendrickx 1996; Adams 1999) and, as far as can be determined, no other animal is featured as the main subject on greywacke Fancy vessels. It was suggested by Adams (MS) that fragments belonging to a relatively large bowl, incised with a series of sinusoidal lines on both sides, might represent a shell or fossil, but this cannot be confirmed from the surviving pieces and its identity or inspiration remains unknown. The fragment now in the Ashmolean, preserving a charming duck head and part of a human arm, rather than presenting the animal as its main subject, is better grouped with others displaying human anatomy in the act of offering (see below). Human anatomy (Fig. 2) Depictions of human anatomy are limited to fragments of hands and arms, presumably meeting at the shoulder to make the ‘ka’ sign (D28; Regulski 2010: 353-3). They occur in two forms: 1) solid carved and appended to the sides of baskets; and 2) hollowed out on the interior and integrated into a design that presumably allowed the flow of liquids, as suggested by the drilled hole between the head of the duck and the arm on the Ashmolean fragment (E.139; Whitehouse 2009: 42–43). The best example of type 1 is the shallow rectangular basket (Fig. 2a: UC36986 mending with DAIK pieces; Müller 2013: fig. 25g), on which hands with forearms are set along the short side rims; a remnant of the elbow at the corner suggests the upper arms ran along one of the long sides and met in the middle. On the opposite long side, there is 8 In a paper presented at the Origins 6 conference in Vienna, Vera Müller (2017) questioned Hendrickx’s proposed reconstruction owing to the lack of fragments that could plausibly be part of a second beetle.

FANCY GREYWACKE VESSELS FROM THE ABYDOS ROYAL TOMBS

489

Fig. 2. Human anatomy. A: Basket held by solid carved hands, UC36986 with mends from the DAIK (K5027ab), in flattened exterior view and interior view showing turn out of wall at midpoint; B: Part of a hand UC36982, hollowed-out on interior; C: The meeting point of two arms UC42602, carved as hollow trough, exterior view. Drawings by Will Schenck (scale 1:3).

490

R. FRIEDMAN

a turning out of the rim near the centre (just before the break) suggesting that another element was appended here, but whether this was simply a spout9 or another object cannot be determined (for further discussion of additional elements at this point see palm leaf baskets below). Three other fragments with fingers in association with a basket motif appear to belong to at least two other vessels of this type (e.g. UC36983). Of the hollowed out variant (type 2), the best examples are the Ashmolean duck fragment mentioned above and the nearly complete hand discovered by the DAIK (Müller 2013: fig. 25f). Also of this type are a portion of a hand and three arm fragments in the Petrie Museum (Fig. 2b–c; UC36982, 42602). Two further hands are illustrated in Amélineau (1899: pl. XXVIII, top row centre) but their whereabouts and details are unknown. As a result, it is difficult to estimate the number of individual vessels depicting human anatomy, but there are perhaps at least five. Vegetal Plant leaves were a significant inspiration in Fancy vessel production, particularly in greywacke, no doubt due in part to the affinity in colour. Fragments of such vessels are fairly easy to identify from the care taken to reproduce leaf veins and stems. Notably, all of the recognisable plants (grape, fig and palm) produce desirable fruits, which, according to the archaeo-botanical record, were not widely available at this time (Murray 2000). Grapes (Fig. 3a) Two different grape leaf shaped vessels are relatively well represented in the Petrie Museum (UC37084, 37064) augmented by pieces from the DAIK (cf. Müller 2013: fig. 25e; Engel 2017: 398). A third example may be tentatively proposed based on some fragments with extremely thin walls (UC42993). The quality of the carving is remarkable, with the network of veins meticulously incised on the interior and duplicated in delicate raised relief on the exterior. Effort was also made to render the serrated, slightly undulating edges of the leaves true to nature. The same attention to detail can be seen on the nearly complete grape leaf example from the Saqqara tomb of Hemaka (Emery 1938: pl. 19c; el-Khouli 1978: no. 5602) as well as the leaf-shaped vessel in New York (MMA 19.2.17), which was identified as a lotus by Fischer (1972), but, as Adams (MS) pointed out, is certainly a grape leaf reworked in modern times to hide damage. Representing the pinnacle of the stone carvers’ skill, grape leaves 9 Compare New York, MMA 19.2.16 with hands holding an ankh sign, the end of which acts as a spout for libations (Fischer 1972).

FANCY GREYWACKE VESSELS FROM THE ABYDOS ROYAL TOMBS

Fig. 3. Leaves. A: Grape leaf, UC37064 with associated piece from the DAIK (K5015, drawing courtesy of the DAIK), interior and exterior view; B: Fig leaf, UC35653, exterior view; C: Unidentified leaves, UC37072 and 37068, exterior and interior views. Drawings by Will Schenck (scale 1:5).

491

492

R. FRIEDMAN

can be considered painstaking imitations celebrating a prestige plant that had only recently been introduced into Egypt for cultivation in the royal vineyards. Figs (Fig. 3b) The ovoid lobes and distinctive relief carving of the petiole, midrib and veins are distinguishing features of fig leaf vessels. In contrast to the rigorous imitation of the grape’s leaf, the common fig (ficus carica) served only as the inspiration for these larger and more stylised vessels. Carved with deep concave, undecorated, interiors, they are suitable for holding offerings dry or wet. A minimum number of five individual vessels can be identified in the Petrie collection judging from midrib and petiole preservation (e.g. UC35653, 37054; Stevenson 2015: 65), with possibly another represented within the lobe fragments. All correspond in size to complete examples from Saqqara (el-Khouli 1978: no. 5603, 5603a), although the shapes of the lobes vary (as they do in nature). The stem and lobe fragments in Brussels may also represent a fig but are without decoration (MRAH E.4852b; Hendrickx & Van Winkel 1993: 11, fig. 2). Similar in conception are other fragments of deep lobed vessels that may be considered fig variants, but could also represent leaves of a different species. These include pieces of wide, rather shallow lobes with a central vein in relief on both faces (UC37062 and DAIK) as well as the remains of the large vessel with irregular, asymmetric lobes and unnatural vein patterns in Brussels (MRAH E.4852a; Hendrickx & Van Winkel 1993: 11, fig. 1), which is perhaps a companion piece to the complete (?) example illustrated by Amélineau (1904–1905: pl. L.5–6). Both of the latter have plausibly been suggested to represent several leaves put together and perhaps bound with a fillet (Hendrickx & Van Winkel 1993: 10–11). Other leaves (Fig. 3c) A limited number of pieces are decorated with veins incised on the interior and in relief on the exterior, but have rounded edge rims and cannot be grouped with the grapes. The botanical reference is unclear and the full shapes undetermined (e.g. UC37072, 37068). There may be as many as five individual, seemingly rather small, shallow vessels based on details of decoration and wall thickness, but the limited number of fragments suggests far fewer. Palm tree The exquisite palm tree vessels composed of a long open tube, carved with the pattern of a palm trunk, and a crown of stylised fronds open on the interior are

FANCY GREYWACKE VESSELS FROM THE ABYDOS ROYAL TOMBS

493

masterpieces of the stone carvers’ art. Much speculation has surrounded the number of individual vessels present among the pieces distributed in UC, Brussels, Berlin and DAIK (Adams MS; Karlshausen & De Putter 2000: 139; Bielen 2004, Hendrickx & Van Winkel 1993; Kuhn 2015a), but thanks to new discoveries by the DAIK, it is now clear that the fragments belong to two nearly identical compositions of tubular trunk and open crown elements. How or if they were connected to one another (possibly as one long trunk with palm crowns at each end as suggested by Will Schenck) remains a matter to be resolved by future discoveries. Basketry and matting The pattern of woven basketry was a popular motif in the Early Dynastic period and appears on several items of ivory, wood and stone from the Royal Tombs, all showing attention to details of binding and sewing (e.g. Petrie 1900: pl. XXXVII; 1901: pls XXXIX, XLI and passim). The greywacke vessels decorated in this fashion are among the best preserved and, as Kuhn (2016b) has pointed out, provide glimpses at aspects of material culture that have in most cases not otherwise survived. They also indicate the use of a variety of vegetal resources. Mats (Fig. 4) Rectangular mats, probably originally composed of pierced and sewn Juncus sp. culms based on extant examples from earlier times (cf. Lythgoe & Dunham 1965: pl. 1c; Cole 2003: type 1), are represented by two relatively well-preserved greywacke examples and a few fragments of a possible third (UC37038– 40). Intricately carved on both sides, the culms are shown as fine parallel lines, while the cross binding sewn through the fibres is indicated by a ripple from which the cord emerges at the edges and loops over the side. The ends of the reeds are also shown in fine detail as blunt cut and bound with a double cord. Many mending and associated pieces for the two best preserved examples are present in the Petrie Museum, Berlin (ÄM 18019; Scharff 1931: no. 723) and the DAIK (Engel 2017: 397, fig. 254.1–6). Slightly bowed longitudinally, the estimated length is approximately 30 cm based on four cross bindings placed at 9 cm intervals. The width is still undetermined. Folded Baskets with bound ends (Fig. 5) Very distinctive are the oval or rectangular baskets made by turning up the long sides, folding and crossing the reeds over the short ends (creating side tabs), and then fixing the arrangement in place by gathering the short end reeds and

494

R. FRIEDMAN

binding them with cord. The simplicity of the original basket, which could have been rapidly assembled, stands in marked contrast to the efforts put into reproducing it in stone. There are three examples in the Petrie Museum, each showing notable attention to details. UC37005 (Fig. 5a) and mending pieces from Berlin (ÄM 18020–22; Scharff 1931: nos 721, 724, 725) are parts of a vessel that was expertly carved with parallel fluting on both sides and raised relief bindings; the side tabs are highly modelled and the bundled end stands proud. By bringing the pieces together, it was possible to reconstruct the full dimensions as 32 cm long and 13 cm wide. Similar attention to detail was lavished on UC37006–7, which represents a double-wide basket originally with two reed bundles at the ends (Fig. 5b). A third example (UC35654) is decorated only on the exterior and displays a more simplified approach to reproducing the construction. All three are stone vessels of significant size. Representing the same type of basket, but generally in smaller versions, are a fragmentary example from the tomb of Khasekhemwy (Kuhn 2016a: 141–142, fig. 5), the stunning vessel from a 2nd Dynasty tomb at Saqqara (Cairo JE 71298) and several others of more stylised workmanship from the Step Pyramid (Emery 1961: pl. 39b; el-Khouli 1978: nos 5604–5605; Lauer 1939: fig. 15; Quibell 1935). Questions

Fig. 4. Reed mat. UC37038 with mending and associated pieces from Berlin ÄM18019 marked with numbered tags in provisional layout. Photo courtesy of the Petrie Museum of Archaeology, UCL.

FANCY GREYWACKE VESSELS FROM THE ABYDOS ROYAL TOMBS

495

Fig. 5. Folded baskets. A: Interior view of UC37005 with mending pieces from Berlin ÄM18020–22, and detail of exterior showing binding of end bundle; B: Double wide basket, UC37006–7 with mending piece from the DAIK (K5453a, drawing courtesy of DAIK), interior view. Drawings by Will Schenck (scale 1:4).

496

R. FRIEDMAN

of heirloom usage or the revival of production for the 2nd and 3rd Dynasty examples are discussed by Kuhn (2016a), who suggests the relative popularity of this shape may indicate that the original basket had a special ritual function. Coiled basket Considering their presumed prevalence in daily life, coiled baskets imitated in stone are rare at Abydos. Only one is known, now in the Ashmolean (1576a–c, 1995.1), with associated pieces from the DAIK. It is of flat oval shape and thick-walled; the coils are carved in high relief. It is one of the very few Petrie chose to illustrate (Petrie 1901: pl. VIA). A round coiled basket of greywacke found beneath the Step Pyramid shows the same style of carving (Lauer 1939: fig. 17). Rectangular basket (?) A portion of a rectangular tray with vertical walls carved on the exterior with vertical ribs and schematic lashings along the rim and corners presumably represents basketry (UC35708, Petrie 1901: 36, pl. XXXII.54). This singular piece was found in the tomb of Hor Aha (B15) and is notable for having been made of separate pieces with carefully mitred edges that were glued together. As far as I am aware, it is the only example that was mantled from pieces. Assuming it does come from the reign of Hor Aha, it suggests that early stone carvers had not yet attained the confidence or sufficient raw materials to carve such a vessel as a single piece. Two corners are preserved giving a full width of 7.4 cm; the length is unknown. Palm leaf baskets (Figs 6–7) A number of fragments exhibit a basketry pattern involving parallel incisions delineating broad strips set longitudinally, with widely spaced plain crossbinding often rendered in raised relief. In all cases, the bindings run laterally across the short ends and at the middle. Adams (MS) believed this pattern reflected basketry originally made with palm leaves, although any broad leaf or stem (papyrus?) could be implied. Nevertheless, the elongated shapes, with generally flat or only laterally curved bases, do suggest a rigid original material. Among the collection, four shapes can be distinguished, notably all of which have indications (either as stubs of attachment or the bowing out of the wall) for combination with other shape elements, the exact nature of which is still unclear.

FANCY GREYWACKE VESSELS FROM THE ABYDOS ROYAL TOMBS

497

Fig. 6. Palm leaf baskets, flat based. A: Shape 1. Exterior views of corner pieces UC36995 and central fragment with lobe UC36999 in provisional arrangement; B. Shape 2. Interior view of UC36997 with inflected circular area at midpoint. Drawings by Will Schenck (scale 1:3).

498

R. FRIEDMAN

Fig. 7. Palm leaf baskets, curved base. A: Shape 3, with curved up corners. Composite arrangement of UC36989 (exterior view), 36990 and 36991; B: Shape 4, with vertical end walls. Brussels MRAH E.4849 (after Bielen 2004: fig. 4) with mending piece from the DAIK (K6162, drawing courtesy of DAIK) juxtaposed with UC36988 in suggested double basket arrangement. UC pieces drawn by Will Schenck (scale 1:3).

FANCY GREYWACKE VESSELS FROM THE ABYDOS ROYAL TOMBS

499

Shape 1: Flat based, rectangular (Fig. 6a). Two vessels with a flat base and vertical walls have been distinguished by the surviving corner pieces (UC36994, 36995). They are decorated on the exterior only and display cross bindings at the short ends, but presumably originally another was carved across the middle. Although non-mending, likely associated with them are two fragments with remnants of the central binding and a roughly conical (but in both cases incomplete) or lobe-shaped element projecting off of one edge (UC36999, 42675). Together, they appear to make a composite vessel evocative of the hieroglyph sign ḥtp (R4; Regulski 2010: 590-91), or a loaf on a reed mat, rendered in two dimensional view. In neither case is preservation good enough to determine whether this conical appendage could have functioned as an outlet for liquids or for making other types of offering as the hieroglyph might suggest. Shape 2: Flat based (Fig. 6b). A singular example (UC36997) takes the form of an elongated dish with a flat base decorated on both sides with a basket pattern, in the centre of which are the remnants of an undecorated circular area that is inflected, suggesting the beginning of another element. Flanking at least one side of the decorated area is a wide plain zone that slopes upward. The original appearance of this vessel remains a puzzle, but the indication of a centrally placed element within the composition is noteworthy. Shape 3: Curved base with upcurving ends (Fig. 7a). Six corner fragments from rectangular baskets with laterally curved bases, sloping up at the short ends, can be distinguished within the collections of UC and the DAIK. One piece (UC36990) shows an outward curve near the centre of the long wall indicating an appendage of some type, while two associated pieces from the mid floor (UC36989, 36998) suggest a rounded element was incorporated at this point. At the exterior angle of two corner fragments (UC36991a–b) are the remnants of a diagonally set cross-piece through which a hole was drilled connecting with the vessel interior. In both cases, the exterior element displays a curvature away from the vessel, suggesting a small cup may have been attached here. This type of hole and attachment seems to imply the manipulation of liquids, an activity for which basketry would seem most unsuited, thus the palm strip basketry motif may have been more evocative of a concept than imitative of an actual object or material.10 Shape 4: Curved base with vertical end walls (Fig. 7b). The final shape variety takes the form of an elongated rectangular basket, semi-circular in lateral cross section, with vertical end walls. At the exterior corners of one long side, set on a diagonal, are the remnants of what appears to be a broad band 10 See also the double-spouted rectangular vessel with a lightly incised basket pattern on the exterior from the tomb of Khasekhemwy (Berlin ÄM 18043; Scharff 1931: 257, no. 717) discussed by Kuhn (2016a: 143–144).

500

R. FRIEDMAN

with a curvature that suggests it wrapped around the vessel. Near the midpoint of the opposite long wall is a stub or out-curving, indicating a connection to another compositional element. As with the other palm leaf vessels described above, the nature of this appendage remains unclear. It could possibly be a spout, a cup or a ‘loaf’, but in this case the presence of external additions at the corners of only one side might also suggest that at this midpoint two similar baskets were connected to one another, with a band running around the exterior of the combination. This proposal accords well with the projected curvature of the external band, especially as preserved on Brussels E.4849 (Bielen 2004: fig. 4). However, it must be noted that so far only three vessels of this type are known (UC36987–88, MRAH E.4849), so this proposed reconstruction remains highly speculative. Nevertheless, many fragments bear this basketry pattern, and another example could well be present within the various collections.

Fig. 8. Lotiform fan. Interior view of UC37063 with rope binding along the edge rendered in raised relief. Drawing by Will Schenck (scale 1:3).

FANCY GREYWACKE VESSELS FROM THE ABYDOS ROYAL TOMBS

501

Other objects made of organic materials This may seem a somewhat miscellaneous or catch-all category, but it contains some pieces that are extraordinary for the extra attention given to them (gold leaf) or for the intricate carving that was used to reproduce what were likely cult or ritual items. Fan (Fig. 8) With a diameter of 55 cm, perhaps the largest known Fancy vessel is the flat dish in the form of a lotiform fan. It is decorated on both sides with shallow incised lines representing the reed fibres radiating from a cord motif in the centre, which reflects the binding to the handle. Around the outer edge, the fibres were depicted as bound with stylised cord, shown in high raised relief on one side and incised on the other. This magnificent object is unlikely to refer simply to an object of daily use, especially given the importance of fans on early royal monuments such as the mace-heads of Scorpion and Narmer. Its significance is further suggested by the constant presence of the nfyt-lotiform fan among the ritual objects that accompany the king in hebsed scenes, beginning with the Djoser reliefs at Saqqara. Such items are considered to have provided air and bestowed new life (Friedman 1995: 20–21, fig. 23). In addition to the numerous pieces in the Petrie Museum illustrated in Fig. 8, there are 24 further pieces from the excavations of the DAIK, together accounting for approximately 75 % of the rim. Djed-pillar Reproducing another ritual item is the djed-pillar vessel, represented by fragments in Brussels (E.4841) and supplemented by pieces from the DAIK (Müller 2013: fig. 25d). Lightly incised lines indicate an organic basis for the object be they mats, sheaves or reeds as discussed by Hendrickx & Van Winkel (1993: 13, figs 3 and 12; see also Karlshausen & De Putter 2000: 141). Sieve or net (Fig. 9) Pieces in the Petrie Museum (UC36985) and in Châteaudun from the excavations of Amélineau (1904–1905: pl. XXIII.20–30) make up a remarkable vessel intricately carved in raised relief to imitate a net or sieve composed of knotted cords within a circular frame. The plied cord is shown threaded through the frame and crossing the body in a radial pattern, with knots realistically tied at the junctions. In alternating squares within the resulting pattern the stone has been carved away, leaving an open or ‘void’ space. On the exterior, the net

502

R. FRIEDMAN

design is carved onto the surface of the slightly convex base, while on the interior it is placed on the tops of the wall that divide it into compartments. Solid vertical walls surround the void spaces, but where the compartments have floors, the walls are open and delicate bridging pieces maintain the net pattern. This elaborate system allowed communication across the vessel presumably for the circulation of liquids. A tentative reconstruction is offered in Fig. 9b. A dish with more stylised decoration in Brussels (E.8785a) may also evoke the same type of object. The alternating oval and trapezoidal walled compartments

Fig. 9. Sieve. A: Interior and exterior views of UC36985. Drawings by Will Schenck. Photograph courtesy of Petrie Museum of Archaeology, UCL; B: Preliminary reconstruction of the configuration of open (gray) and closed squares. Drawing by Will Schenck; C: Fragments of same vessel now in Châteaudun, some preserving open areas and bridging links (Amélineau 1904: pl. XXIII.20–30) (scale 1:4).

FANCY GREYWACKE VESSELS FROM THE ABYDOS ROYAL TOMBS

503

all have solid floors, but as the walls open onto the central area, this vessel is unlikely to represent a segmented serving basket as initially described (Hendrickx & Van Winkel 1993: 14, fig. 5). Notably, on the exterior near the rim of this vessel is part of an incised serekh, one of the few inscriptions found on a Fancy vessel, suggesting this particular example or object type had some special importance. With this in mind, it is interesting to consider the basketry sieves reproduced in calcite and inscribed for the queens of Pepy I buried at Saqqara (MinaultGout 2015; 2019: 99–103, 126, figs 25, 39, 77). Ritual basketry sieves (hnmtwr) were used over a long period of time in the funerary rites of purification, as shown for example in the tombs of Reneny at Elkab and Rekhmire at Thebes (Minault-Gout 2015). The calcite versions from the Pepy complex are now considered the earliest evidence for the ritual use of such sieves, but it is not hard to imagine that similar ritual activities were undertaken during the funerary ceremonies for the 1st Dynasty kings. Rope decorated bowls Raised relief cord designs on the interior lip of presumably concentric bowls are known from possibly two examples. On one of them, the relief is covered in gold foil (UC37009; Müller 2013: fig. 25b). An oval or sub-rectangular bowl (UC37008) also retains traces of gold foil on decoration of similar type. Other Other fragments displaying an organic material inspiration are harder to understand. They include one possibly representing cord binding the mouth of a leather bag (UC37018), another showing the binding of reeds (UC37017), a flat plaque with a circular cord design surrounding an open centre (MRAH E.4888; Hendrickx & Van Winkel 1993: fig. 7), and another flat piece with a raised circular feature deeply incised with diagonal lines (UC37012). Another vessel in Brussels (E.8785b) with stylised rope decoration will be discussed below under radiating lobe vessels. A bowl from the tomb of Khasekhemwy with striations and incised designs (Amélineau 1902: pl. XXIII.27) and another bowl with wavy walls incised with an intricate basketry pattern in Brussels (E.4837; Hendrickx & Van Winkel 1993: fig. 10) complete the list of decorated Fancy vessels known to me. Of course, many small decorated fragments cannot with certainty be identified, but among them no other types of decoration are apparent. Undecorated Undecorated fragments are more challenging and require larger pieces to comprehend. The ultimate forms or inspiration for some are still unfathomable.

504

R. FRIEDMAN

Fig. 10. Radiating lobe vessels. A: Base fragment UC42610 with remnants of five lobes and upper ring, juxtaposed with lobe fragment UC42628; B: Reconstruction with lobes opening laterally onto the centre; C: Lobe fragment Brussels 70H preserved to nearly full length, with part of upper ring and the beginning of the next lobe present; D: Lobe fragment UC42614 showing lateral opening onto central circular area and scar of upper bridging ring. Drawings by Will Schenck (scale 1:3).

FANCY GREYWACKE VESSELS FROM THE ABYDOS ROYAL TOMBS

505

Limiting the discussion here to the pieces in the Petrie Museum, shapes that can be distinguished include: rectangular dishes (3 examples, e.g. UC37034); so-called stepped-tanks (2 examples, e.g. UC37044, 37041; Bielen 2004: 632– 633, fig. 5); vessels with internal dividers (3 examples, e.g. UC42658); nested bowls (3 examples, e.g. UC37032, cf. Lauer 1939: fig. 6AB); bowls with wavy or fluted walls (UC37019 with other examples in Brussels and DAIK); as well as a variety of bowls with sinuously curving rims and other features (e.g. UC43633). In addition, two other major shape categories can be distinguished: so-called radiating lobe vessels and a general category involving trough-shaped elements. Radiating lobe vessels (Fig. 10) Key to understanding this shape is UC42610, a fragment preserving the full base and parts of the other compositional elements. From it and associated fragments, one can reconstruct a template involving a central circular base off of which radiate five deep elliptical lobes. An upper ring bridges the lobe rims where they open onto the centre. A reconstruction is provided in Fig. 10b. The referent or inspiration for this shape is unknown. It would seem a difficult shape to make in basketry, yet an example in Brussels is embellished with a stylised rope or basketry pattern on its central ring and lobe tops (E.8785b–c; Hendrickx & Van Winkel 1993: figs. 4, 6; joining with DAIK; Müller 2013: fig. 25c); however, this piece remains unique. The form of the lobes and the bridging pieces over them may instead point to a metal prototype. Likewise, one can only speculate about its function. Remnants of soot found on one base (UC42609) might suggest these vessels were used as lamps or incense burners, but the antiquity of the soot cannot be confirmed. Alternatively, they could plausibly have served for flower arrangements as suggested by Kuhn (2015b) for later vessels of vaguely similar shape. Adams (MS) felt that the general shape had a floral referent, although a specific plant could not be convincingly suggested. Judging from the identifiable base fragments, there were possibly six individual vessels of this type, which accords well with the large number of undecorated pieces that can be definitely or tentatively identified as parts of lobes and bridging links. Trough vessels (Figs 11–12) The key source for attaining some understanding of this vessel type was found at Abu Rawash (Fig. 11; Montet 1946: 176–177, pl. V; Cairo JE 44334).11 It 11 I am grateful to Yann Tristant for sharing information from the Archives Montet, Centre Wladimir Golenischeff, Paris, and especially the sketch illustrated in Fig. 11c.

506

R. FRIEDMAN

takes the form of a circular or ‘donut’-shaped trough (Adams called them wheel-shaped), with three oval cup appendages, extending into the central void space, each with holes drilled to allow them to communicate with the trough. Numerous fragments of open troughs carved in an array of shapes and sizes have been recovered from the Royal Tombs (Fig. 12) and attest to at least four vessels of a round shape (e.g. UC42698), possibly another four featuring an elliptical trough (e.g. UC42601) and several more involving a straight trough (n=4+, e.g. UC42682). Indications of attached features survive on almost all of them. Fragments belonging to a wide variety of small cups, tubes and other attached elements are also numerous within the Petrie collection (n=13?, e.g. UC37047, 37051), but their ultimate origins and configuration remain elusive. Some idea of the intricate arrangement of the potential compositions is provided by the beetle vessel (Fig. 1), as well as the upright cup coming off of an irregular shaped dish published by Müller (2013: fig. 25a). Both illustrate

Fig. 11. Circular trough vessel from Abu Rawash, Cairo JE44334. A: Top view showing attachments for three oval cups, after Montet 1946: pl. V; B. Section drawings of trough and cup attachments, after Montet 1946: 176; C: Sketch from the Montet Archive, courtesy of Centre Wladimir Golenischeff, EPHE, Section des Sciences religieuses, Paris. Diameter registered as 27 cm.

Fig. 12. Trough vessels and attachments. A: Elliptical trough UC42601, with stub of attachment at bottom and outward curve at top, interior view; B: Oval trough UC42632 with stub of attached feature on internal wall, interior view; C: Round trough UC37086, with hole drilled through internal wall and remnant of attached element, interior and side view detail; D: Trough with tubular attachment possibly ending in small cup, UC37047, exterior and interior view; E: Cup-like ending on tubular element UC37046, showing stub of further features on one side; F: Circular trough vessel UC42698 in provisional arrangement, interior view. Outer diameter estimated at 29 cm. Drawings by Will Schenck (scale 1:3).

FANCY GREYWACKE VESSELS FROM THE ABYDOS ROYAL TOMBS

Fig. 12.

507

508

R. FRIEDMAN

the possible complexity of design that is beyond our ability to even imagine. It is hoped that in the future digital technology will allow more joins to be made amongst the fragments to aid in our comprehension of these remarkable creations.

Discussion Müller (2013) estimates that at least 100 different Fancy vessels in all stone types were originally present in the Royal Tombs. This number seems appropriate. With the minimalist approach adopted here, approximately 75 individual vessels of greywacke have been distinguished based on shape, decoration, wall thickness, quality of carving and treatment. Admittedly, many fragments remain ambiguous and the possiblity of elaborate composite creations complicates any quantification exercise. For the time being, the various small cups and linking pieces have been omitted from the calculations. Such fragments could potentially be parts of vessels already counted, or it is equally possible, alone or in combination with other pieces, they represent vessels of which we are not aware. Thus this minimum vessel estimate is proposed here with caution. Considering the tens of thousands of stone bowls reported from the Royal Tombs (cf. Hendrickx et al. 2001), 75 to 100 fancy vessels is not a large number. Their rarity underscores their value as elite or prestigious items as well as the relatively limited period during which this production apparently flourished, even if the possibility of heirlooms, reuse and archaising revival must also be considered (cf. Kuhn 2016a). In recent literature Fancy vessels have featured mainly in discussions of imitations created for the purpose of transforming mundane materials into luxury items or for imparting eternal permanence to objects made of ephemeral (organic) or transitory (metal) materials (Kuhn 2016b; Gander 2012). While few of the chosen prototypes were likely considered mundane, the desire to capture and maintain the mutable may have been one of the motivating factors. Indeed, present as detailed imitations or reproductions are the grape leaves, mats, folded and coiled baskets, fan, djed-pillar and to some extent the sieves. To what extent metal work was faithfully reproduced cannot be assessed due to lack of exemplars. However, many of the greywacke fancy vessels are not just reproductions of objects. Several combine various elements to produce an evocation of actions and concepts. This can be seen in the hands carved on baskets in the act of offering and merged with the emblematic message of arms in the position of the ka sign. An abstract message can also be suggested for the baskets with lobe-shaped attachments possibly meant as manifestations of the ḥtp sign and the concept of offering. Nevertheless, in the current state of knowledge, still

FANCY GREYWACKE VESSELS FROM THE ABYDOS ROYAL TOMBS

509

others appear to be purely artistic creations in their own right, whether taking inspiration from other materials or as independent inventions of the craftsman’s imagination. As far as can be determined from the reconstructed pieces, all appear to have been functional, and none were models or dummy vessels. While all were made of greywacke with great care and skill, and may well derive from the same workshop, this does not, of course, necessarily imply that all were made for the same reason and that they or their prototypes were used in the same context. Some could have served as elegant table ware or serving vessels (for example, the fig leaf bowls, the grape-leaf trays, and some of the baskets). Some may plausibly have functioned as flower holders or lamps (e.g. radial lobe and trough vessels). Nevertheless, a significant number seem to be associated with the manipulation of liquids and were fashioned to allow its channelling and decanting, possibly for the purpose of libations or purification. The shapes and motifs of such vessels further suggest a ritual role, but whether their use was restricted specifically to royal funerary contexts (e.g. potentially the sieves), or was applied more widely to other elite ceremonial activities cannot yet be determined. Many questions remain, but from this brief overview of the range and scope of this specialised production one thing is clear: Fancy vessels are a source of frustration as well as fascination. We look forward to achieving greater understanding of these remarkable creations as more fragments can be brought together and become better known. Bibliography ADAMS, B., 1999. Dish of delight and Coleoptera [in:] LEAHY, A.J. & TAIT, W.J. (eds), Studies on ancient Egypt in honour of H.S. Smith. EES OP 13. London: 1–9. ADAMS, B., MS. Fancy stone vessels from the Early Dynastic Royal Tombs at Abydos. Unpublished manuscript. AMÉLINEAU, É., 1899. Les nouvelles fouilles d’Abydos  : 1895–1896  : Compte rendu in extenso des fouilles, description des monuments et objets découverts. Paris. AMÉLINEAU, É., 1902. Les nouvelles fouilles d’Abydos  : Seconde campagne 1896– 1897  : Compte rendu in extenso des fouilles, description des monuments et objets découverts. Paris. AMÉLINEAU, É., 1904–1905. Les nouvelles fouilles d’Abydos  : 1897–1898  : Compte rendu in extenso des fouilles, description des monuments et objets découverts. Paris. BIELEN, S., 2004. The funerary objects from the Early Dynastic Royal Tombs at Abydos in the Royal Museums of Art and History in Brussels [in:] HENDRICKX, S.; FRIEDMAN, R.F.; CIAŁOWICZ, K.M. & CHŁODNICKI, M. (eds), Egypt at its Origins: Studies in memory of Barbara Adams. Proceedings of the International Conference “Origin of the State. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt”, Kraków, 28th August–1st September 2002. OLA 138. Leuven: 621–635.

510

R. FRIEDMAN

COLE, F., 2003. It’s just Mat-tastic. Nekhen News 15: 23. DE PUTTER, T.; BIELEN, S.; DE PAEPE, P.; HENDRICKX, S. & SCHELSTRAETE, V., 2000. Les mille et un vases de pierre des premières dynasties à Bruxelles [in:] KARLSHAUSEN, C. & DE PUTTER, T. (eds), Pierres égyptiennes … Chefs-d’œuvre pour l’éternité. Mons: 49–62. EL-KHOULI, A., 1978. Egyptian stone vessels: Predynastic period to Dynasty III: Typology and analysis. SDAIK 5. Mainz. EMERY, W.B., 1938. The tomb of Hemaka. Excavations at Saqqara. Cairo. EMERY, W.B., 1949. Great tombs of the First Dynasty I. Excavations at Saqqara. Cairo. EMERY, W.B., 1961. Archaic Egypt. Harmondsworth. ENGEL, E.-M., 2017. Umm el-Qaab 6: Das Grab des Qa‘a: Architektur und Inventar. AV 100. Wiesbaden. FISCHER, H.G., 1972. Some emblematic uses of hieroglyphs with particular reference to an archaic ritual vessel. MMJ 5: 5–23. FRIEDMAN, F.D., 1995. The underground relief panels of king Djoser at the Step Pyramid complex. JARCE 32: 1–42. GANDER, M., 2012. Imitation of materials in ancient Egypt [in:] KÓTHAY, K.A. (ed.), Art and society: Ancient and modern contexts of Egyptian art. Budapest: 265– 271. HARRELL, J.A., 2013. Ornamental stone [in:] WENDRICH, W. (ed.), UCLA encyclopedia of Egyptology. Los Angeles. https://escholarship.org/uc/ite/4xk4h68c. HENDRICKX, S., 1996. Two Protodynastic objects in Brussels and the origin of the bilobate cult-sign of Neith. JEA 82: 23–42. HENDRICKX, S. & VAN WINKEL, C., 1993. Fragments de récipients décorés en pierre provenant de la nécropole royale des premières dynasties à Abydos (HauteÉgypte). BKMKG/BMRAH 64: 5–38. HENDRICKX, S.; BIELEN, S. & DE PAEPE, P., 2001. Excavating in the museum: The stone vessel fragments from the Royal Tombs at Umm el-Qaab in the Egyptian collection of the Royal Museums for Art and History at Brussels. MDAIK 57: 73–108. KARLSHAUSEN, C. & DE PUTTER, T. (eds), 2000. Pierres égyptiennes … Chefs-d’œuvre pour l’éternité. Mons. KUHN, R., 2015a. Ägyptens Aufbruch in die Geschichte: Frühe (Kultur-)Technologien im Niltal: Highlights aus dem Ägyptischen Museum und Papyrussammlung Berlin. Wiesbaden. KUHN, R., 2015b. Blumenschale order Öllampe? Gedanken zu einer Steinschale aus dem Gräberfeld von Abusir [in:] MORENZ, L.D. & EL HAWARY, A. (eds), Weitergabe: Festschrift für die Ägyptologin Ursula Rössler-Köhler zum 65. Geburtstag. GOF 53. Wiesbaden: 187–207. KUHN, R., 2016a. Imitationen und Altstücke: Zu einem Konvolut von PrunkSteingefässsen aus dem Grab des Chasechemui in Abydos im Berliner Ägyptischen Museum. MDAIK 72: 135–147. KUHN, R., 2016b. Some ideas concerning vessel imitations from the formative phase in ancient Egypt [in:] ADAMS, M.D. (ed.); MIDANT-REYNES, B.; RYAN, E.M. & TRISTANT, Y. (coll.), Egypt at its Origins 4. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference “Origin of the State. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt”, New York, 26th–30th July 2001. OLA 252. Leuven: 553–573. LAUER, J-P., 1939. La pyramide a degrés  : Compléments III. Fouilles à Saqqarah. Cairo.

FANCY GREYWACKE VESSELS FROM THE ABYDOS ROYAL TOMBS

511

LYTHGOE, A.M. & DUNHAM, D., 1965. The Predynastic cemetery N 7000, Naga edDêr. University of California Publications in Egyptian Archaeology 7. Berkeley. MINAULT-GOUT, A., 2015. Les tamis hnmt-wr des reines de la fin de la VIe dynastie [in:] LEGROS, R. (ed.), Cinquante ans d’éternité  : Jubilé de la Mission archéologique française de Saqqâra. BdÉ 162; Mission archéologique française de Saqqarah 5. Cairo: 195–208. MINAULT-GOUT, A., 2019. La vaisselle en pierre des reines de Pépy Ier, MIFAO 141. Cairo. MONTET, P., 1946. Tombeaux de la Ière et de la IVe dynasties à Abou-Roach : Deuxième partie, inventaire des objets. Kêmi 8: 157–223. MÜLLER, V., 2013. Fancy-Gefässe [in:] DREYER, G.; ENGEL, E.-M.; HARTMANN, R.; KÖPP-JUNK, H.; MEYRAT, P.; MÜLLER, V. & REGULSKI, I., Umm el Qaab: Nachuntersuchen im Frühzeitlichen Konigsfriedhof : 22./23./24. Vorbericht. MDAIK 69: 36–39. MÜLLER, V., 2017. Early Dynastic “Fancy vessels”: Are they just good pieces of craftsmanship? [in:] Origins 6. International Conference on Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt. Vienna, September 2017. Abstract book. Vienna: 25–26. MURRAY, M.A., 2000. Fruits, vegetables, pulses and condiments [in:] NICHOLSON, P.T. & SHAW, I. (eds), Ancient Egyptian materials and technology. Cambridge: 609– 655. PETRIE, W.M.F., 1900. The Royal Tombs of the First Dynasty 1900, part I, MEEF 18. London. PETRIE, W.M.F., 1901. The Royal Tombs of the earliest dynasties 1901, part II. MEEF 21. London. PETRIE, W.M.F., 1920. Prehistoric Egypt, illustrated by over 1000 objects in University College, London. BSAE/ERA 31. London. QUIBELL, J.E., 1935. Stone vessels from the Step Pyramid. ASAÉ 35: 76–80. REGULSKI, I., 2010. A palaeographic study of early writing in Egypt. OLA 195. Leuven. SCHARFF, A., 1931. Die Altertümer der Vor- und Frühzeit Ägyptens 1: Werkzeuge, Waffen, Gefässe. Staatliche Museen zu Berlin. Mitteilungen aus der ägyptischen Sammlung 4. Berlin. STEVENSON, A., 2015. Reconnecting across the centuries: Fragments from Abydos [in:] STEVENSON, A. (ed.), The Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology: Characters and collections. London: 64–65. WHITEHOUSE, H., 2009. Ancient Egypt and Nubia in the Ashmolean Museum. Oxford.

THE FIRST CATARACT REGION IN THE PREDYNASTIC/EARLY DYNASTIC PERIOD: NEW DATA FROM WADI EL-TAWIL MARIA CARMELA GATTO Polish Academy of Sciences, Institute of Mediterranean and Oriental Cultures, Warsaw, Poland

The present paper briefly discusses the new Predynastic/Early Dynastic evidence recently discovered in Wadi el-Tawil, Aswan West Bank. It consists of a possible settlement dated to Naqada IC–IIIA with a nearby storage area, and a series of rock art panels, most of which appear to be coeval with the settlement. The finding of another Predynastic village in the area confirms the hypothesis that during the majority of the Naqada period, small hamlets were scattered throughout the landscape in locations suitable for settlement and cultivation. The location of the rock art tableaux suggests that they were placed along an inland path which ran parallel to the Nile, a useful route, particularly during the flood season. The Late Predynastic depictions, which seem to pertain to one single semantic scheme, show ceremonial activities and paraphernalia that will be later formalised and incorporated in the royal iconography.

In the past decades, research on Predynastic/Early Dynastic Egypt has greatly improved, so much so that it has become one of the most dynamic subfields of Egyptology. Stan Hendrickx has certainly had a prominent role in this. He has been, and still is, one of the most prolific scholars the field has ever had. His eclectic work has been influential in revising the relative chronology of the period and in moving forward our knowledge of its art and iconography, particularly in regard to the development of socio-political complexity and state formation. He has also served as prehistorian and ceramicist for many archaeological expeditions throughout Egypt, especially the Belgian Archaeological Mission to Elkab. In 2007, Stan joined the Aswan-Kom Ombo Archaeological Project–AKAP to take charge of the study of the Naqadan pottery from the excavation of the Predynastic site of Nag el-Qarmila; I, thus, had the honour of becoming Stan’s mudira. While dealing with pots, he got intrigued by the outstanding rock art in our concession, a love that climaxed when we discovered the earliest evidence of official royal iconography at the rock art site of Nag el-Hamdulab. In the last few years, despite the appeal of the First Cataract’s sites, Stan has chosen to concentrate his ‘Egypt time’ working only with the Belgian missions at Elkab and Dayr al-Barshā. I have missed incredibly his brilliant mind and easy-going attitude, which make him the best team member a director could ask for. This paper is a token of gratitude and friendship to Stan, in the hope he will soon join us back in the field. Beers are in the fridge already!

514

M.C. GATTO

State of research Archaeological investigation in the region of the First Nile Cataract goes back more than a hundred years. This has facilitated the discovery of many sites dating to the Predynastic/Early Dynastic period (c. 3800–2700 BCE). South of the cataract, the research was guided by the need to find and document archaeological sites before their destruction by the rising waters of Lake Nasser, as a result of the construction of the Aswan dam (Reisner 1910: iii). Until recently, the investigation north of the cataract concerned two large cemeteries located in the area of Kubbaniya, on the West Bank, and some major rock art locales (Junker 1919: 1–138; 1920: 163–168; Murray & Myers 1933; Winkler 1939: 6–7). The ancient town of Abu on Elephantine Island has been the focus of an extensive investigation, which dated the earliest phase of occupation to the period under discussion (Kopp 2006). In recent years, an increasing number of archaeological missions has been working in the region, contributing to the discovery of even more prehistoric sites. Of particular interest, in this respect, is the finding of Naqada artefacts in soundings within ancient Syene/modernday Aswan (Von Pilgrim & Müller 2010: 3). Since 2005, the Aswan-Kom Ombo Archaeological Project–AKAP has been working in selected areas between Aswan and Kom-Ombo, which include: a sector of the West Bank, from Qubbet el-Hawa to Wadi el-Tawil; the two major wadis intersecting the valley north of Aswan from both deserts, Wadi Kubbaniya and Wadi Abu Subeira; and a portion of the desert south-east of the Kom Ombo Plain, particularly Wadi el-Lawi and its southern continuation Wadi Rasras. One of AKAP’s goals is to reconstruct the regional settlement pattern and social landscape during the Predynastic/Early Dynastic period, a time of great interest, as it corresponds to the unification of Egypt, when the region of the First Cataract became the state’s frontier with Nubia. Thanks to intensive field survey, remote sensing, geoarchaeological drill coring, rescue excavations, and rock art documentation, we have managed to collect an unparalleled wealth of information. Preliminary reports on sites investigated thus far, such as Nag el-Qarmila and Nag el-Hamdulab, have been published already with Stan Hendrickx’s contribution (e.g. Gatto et al. 2009a; Hendrickx et al. 2012a). However, new data have recently been found, which are still largely unpublished. The present paper will briefly report on the evidence discovered in Wadi el-Tawil, West Bank. New data from Wadi el-Tawil Wadi el-Tawil intersects the Nile Valley from the Western Desert, about 19 km north of Aswan (Fig. 1). Until recently, the valley was left mostly untouched by modern threats, a situation that is fast changing because of the construction

THE FIRST CATARACT REGION: NEW DATA FROM WADI EL-TAWIL

515

of houses and a burial ground, and the intensification of quarrying activities. The wadi is composed of two branches, which run parallel west-east to merge close to the river, forming a valley c. 600 m wide. At the centre of the lower valley and at its edges, there are Pleistocene terraces where remains of Palaeolithic occupations are quite rich. A small graveyard of the Pan-Grave culture is located on the southern bank. On the southern plateau, rock art depictions and stone structures, including game drives, are found. At the northern edge of the wadi’s mouth, on the Pleistocene terrace, we have located a large concentration (c. 100 m in diameter) of ceramic fragments, lithic artefacts, and some animal bones. No architectural features are visible from the surface. Unfortunately, in the past decades, a house and a garden were built on the same spot and a deep trench was dug across it. The area is, thus, heavily disturbed, which makes the evidence difficult to interpret. The pottery identified on the surface matches that found in the nearby site of Nag el-Qarmila, which is located 5 km south, at the mouth of another small valley. It consists of Naqadan Black-topped and Red-polished wares, Shale wares and Nubian wares, mainly Black-mouthed. Few Naqadan Marl A and Nile C wares were also recorded. Accordingly, a date to Naqada IC–IID/IIIA for the site can be suggested. On top of the lowest spur of the northern plateau, in an area heavily disturbed by modern quarrying, some circular depressions are visible on the surface. Fragments of Marl A wares were found, two of which have been

Fig. 1. Satellite map of Wadi el-Tawil with the location of the sites discussed in the text: 1) storage area; 2) village; 3) panel with giraffes; 4) boulders with rock art (Image © Digital Globe, Google Earth).

516

M.C. GATTO

reshaped to be used as tools/axes. The topographical positions of both locales (Fig. 2) are strikingly similar to those of the village and nearby storage area found in Nag el-Qarmila (Gatto 2014: 100–104; 2016: 229–231). There, in fact, the domestic quarters were found in the valley proper, on the northern bank, while the storage area was on the opposite side, on the lower spur of the plateau. Because of these similarities and the type of evidence encountered on the surface, it may be suggested that the two locales in Wadi el-Tawil are also a Predynastic village and its storage facility. In Nag el-Qarmila a graveyard was found adjacent to the village. In Wadi el-Tawil evidence of a funerary quarter has yet to be found, but the area is so disturbed that it could well be covered by modern features, although no remains of human bones were observed on the ground. In a side khor intersecting Wadi el-Tawil from the south-west, some rock art was discovered. One panel was engraved on a boulder placed at the mouth of the khor and shows images of giraffes and at least one donkey. The latter was portrayed in a different style and technique, suggesting that it belongs to a separate engraving action. The figures are very worn and difficult to see, but they are clearly Predynastic/Early Dynastic in date.

Fig. 2. Overview of the mouth of Wadi el-Tawil from the northern plateau, looking south-east. In the foreground, the possible storage area; to the right, location of the possible settlement, disturbed by a house and a large trench (© AKAP).

THE FIRST CATARACT REGION: NEW DATA FROM WADI EL-TAWIL

517

Midway on the eastern bank of the khor, on two adjoining boulders (Fig. 3), a series of tableaux was recovered. Entering the khor from the north, the first panel that comes into view is the one depicted on the northern face of the larger boulder (Boulder A, Panel 1). The nautical scene (Fig. 4), created by pecking, is composed of two human figures, filiform in shape and with round heads, standing in a frontal position. They both wear an animal tail, most likely of the Cape Hunting Dog (Lycaon pictus), as proposed by Stan Hendrickx (2006: 741). This attribute is commonly worn in the context of ritual hunting, but in a case such as this, it might be more broadly interpreted as a ceremonial element. To the left of the figures, a square-shaped boat is shown with high stern with a falling-down extremity that could represent a vegetal decoration, and a prow that seems shorter and with a flat extremity, represented by a pecked horizontal line. This pecked line, which alternatively could be interpreted as a towrope—though no towers are depicted—is attached to the outer contour of the prow. There are three small marks on the boat, but they are difficult to interpret. It is not clear if the prow of the boat partially overlaps with the lower limbs of the leftmost human, making it of the same height as the stern. If so, this could either imply a different chronological attribution for the two depictions—and thus the scene, that as it stands now, would then be the result of successive executions—or that the scene is a single creative event and the

Fig. 3. Overview of the three boulders with rock art in the side khor (© AKAP).

518

M.C. GATTO

overlapping is intentional and meaningful. The fact that the images in the scene share the same technique, style, and patina, would hint to this second option, if the boat and the human figure indeed overlap. A reason for this artistic choice, if ever there was one, could be the intention of recreating a perspective effect. To the right of the human figures, another smaller square-shaped boat with flat extremities is engraved in an unnatural vertical position. The reason for this is not straightforward, but again an attempt at creating a sense of perspective could be suggested. If so, the two individuals would be standing on dry land surrounded by water. Three large pecked dots are to the left of (below) the smaller boat. Several individual pecks are visible inside the boat, with few clearly overlapping the pecking of the boat. Another dot is behind the larger boat. Those associated to the smaller boat have slightly lighter patina, which would suggest a younger addition to the original scene. Their meaning is unclear. The apex of the stern of the larger boat is also rounded in shape and could be misinterpreted as a further example of those dots. However, at a closer look the dot is very round in shape, contrary to the others that are irregularly made, and no overlapping with the boat pecking can be noticed, giving the impression that they are part of one action, and thus that the dot indeed is the apex of the stern. On the southern wall of the same boulder (Boulder A, Panel 2), two boats similar in shape to those in the previous panel are depicted using the same style and technique (Fig. 5). They seem to be one inside the other, but their position

Fig. 4. Nautical scene on Boulder A, Panel 1 (© AKAP).

THE FIRST CATARACT REGION: NEW DATA FROM WADI EL-TAWIL

519

could well be an attempt at perspective representation. On the uppermost one, there are two human figures, one at the bow and the other at the stern of the boat. The person at the bow is represented facing forward with the upper body shaped like an upside-down triangle. The lower limbs are much smaller and shorter than the upper body, contrary to the arms, which are too long. The person wears an animal tail and holds a standing stick in his right hand. He also wears a pointed hat, which resembles the archaic White Crown as depicted in the Nag el-Hamdulab rock art cycle (Hendrickx et al. 2012a: 1070, fig. 2). In contrast, the other person is represented in a more canonic pose, in profile except for the torso that is frontally projected, and with the left leg advanced. The left arm is extended in front of the figure and holds a stick. He wears a short kilt or vest and a headdress, possibly cylindrical in shape. A donkey is depicted above the composition with a short straight line originating from the back of its head, which according to the late Dirk Huyge (2009: 302) could represent a stabbing weapon, a magical annihilation devise used to control a creature that we know had an evil and hostile connotation in ancient Egyptian thought and religion. At the bottom of the composition, which could well mean at the forefront, a giraffe is engraved, whose upper neck and head overlap with the outer boat. Traces of a quadruped, possibly another giraffe, can be detected to the right of the animal. To the left, partially covered by the giraffe and below the outer boat, a small sickle-shaped vessel seems to have been engraved.

Fig. 5. Nautical scene on Boulder A, Panel 2 (© AKAP).

520

M.C. GATTO

However, the depiction is not easily readable, and the shape of the boat could also be similar to that of the other two vessels and, thus, could be overlapped by both animal figures. The composition gives the impression of being a coherent act representing a nautical scene/procession composed of three adjacent vessels, in one of which are two individuals performing some kind of ceremony, as suggested by their pose, clothing, and weaponry. The donkey and giraffe(s) flanking the vessels could be later additions or part of the original scheme, but there are arguments for supporting the latter hypothesis, including shared executive technique, style, and patina. The giraffe has been identified as possibly symbolising a ‘solar carrier’, thus acting as a part of solar symbolism (Huyge 2002: 199; Darnell 2009: 89), the same association which occurs also with the donkey, although as an antagonistic part in the solar cycle (Huyge 2009: 302). Boats too can have a solar connotation and appear to replace the giraffe as ‘solar carrier’ during the late Predynastic (Huyge 2002: 201). In this scene, both are applied, which could either suggest an emphasis on the solar meaning of the theme, further strengthened by the presence of the donkey, or that the vessels represented here are not of the solar type, which would explain the need to include giraffes in the composition. If the application of the solar symbolism is accepted, the tableau could be an expression of religious imagery. A further political connotation could be added to the theme, as the postures and regalia used to represent the two human figures appear to be forerunners of royal imagery. An isolated squared boat is pecked on top of the boulder (Boulder A, Panel 3; Fig. 6) and it perfectly fits, in terms of technology and style,

Fig. 6. Boat on Boulder A, Panel 3 (© AKAP).

THE FIRST CATARACT REGION: NEW DATA FROM WADI EL-TAWIL

521

with the two scenes already described. Iconographic elements suggest a date into the late Naqada II–Naqada III period for the three panels, which in my opinion should be considered as a single artistic and ideological manifestation. The tableau found on the nearby boulder (Boulder B, Panel 1; Fig. 7) is the result of two distinct acts of engraving, as suggested by the use of two different carving techniques (pounding/abrasion and pecking) by the partial overlapping of some elements made with different techniques, and by the reworking of

Fig. 7. Scene on Boulder B (© AKAP).

522

M.C. GATTO

some of the images. The patination is also slightly different in colour. The result is rather difficult to read. The earliest theme seems to be constituted by a human figure, standing in a frontal position, wearing a cap with three ostrich feathers on top, and the Cape Hunting Dog tail. He is lassoing a bovid, most likely a bull (Darnell 2009: 95), with his left hand, but it is not clear if he is holding an object with his right hand. On the basis of the technique used for the engraving, a quadruped placed below the bovid seems to be part of the scene. Unfortunately, it has been partially reworked when the second theme has been added and now it is hard to say if it was originally a bovid, an ass or an elephant. The style of the bull has been dated by Huyge (2002: 195, fig. 2) to the Naqada I period. The human figure perfectly matches the iconography of the hunters in the Hunters Tableau of Was-ha-Waset, in the Theban Western Desert (Darnell 2009: 95, fig. 17) and in other Predynastic artistic representations, also of later date. Few other marks made with the same technique are visible on the rock surface, all problematic to read. A series of illustrations were added to the rock surface, incorporating the earlier depictions into a new scene, and as already noted, partially reworking one of the earlier animals. Unfortunately, some of the additions, executed with pecking, are difficult to interpret at this stage and further examination is needed. The focal point of the new theme is a large human figure standing in a frontal position. He seems to wear the animal tail and a possible bow appears to be attached to his right arm. Two smaller and schematic human figures are placed on top of the earlier bull. A dog is added in the space between the two animals of the first theme. The right part of the scene is very difficult to describe. A boat represented in a vertical position, similar to the one in the first tableau, may have been drawn here. Inside, possibly a crocodile and a human figure have been added. However, this combination of marks could well be representing something completely different, such as a trap of some kind. A stylised quadruped is probably at the far right. At the top edge of the rock wall a line executed with pounding and abrasion, as in the earlier scene, was reworked adding a pecked line, which seems to form a boat oar. Two other incomprehensible marks are found in the left bottom part of the tableau. The descriptions provided here are really only suggestions and further work is needed to gain a better understanding of the composition. The general meaning of the new theme is, thus, hard to grasp. Three small figures representing a bird, a quadruped and an unknown subject were drawn at the far bottom-end of the boulder. In front of the two large boulders, a small one has a decorated face with problematic marks. On the ground between the two larger boulders, a potsherd of Marl A ware and a flint flake were found (Fig. 8). Fragments of a Marl A jar were also found at the intersection between the khor and Wadi el-Tawil.

THE FIRST CATARACT REGION: NEW DATA FROM WADI EL-TAWIL

523

Preliminary remarks The Predynastic/Early Dynastic archaeological and artistic evidence from Wadi el-Tawil is rich and varied, although heavily affected by modern activities and will not survive much longer. The possible presence of a village near the river, contemporary to the one in Nag el-Qarmila, confirms previous assumptions that between Naqada IC–IID/IIIA, this part of the Nile Valley was occupied by a population living in small hamlets spread across the region where enough land was available both for settlement and cultivation (Gatto 2014: 110; 2016: 237). The rock art found in the side khor provides important information on the life of these communities. Its location is also interesting. Those scenes are not visible from the village or from the river and they seem to be isolated. However, if the location of other Predynastic/Early Dynastic rock art sites on the West Bank is taken into consideration, it becomes apparent that larger clusters of drawings are situated either in prominent locales along the river or they follow an inland path parallel to the river. They could have marked an extremely important route used during the summer flooding, when the narrow valley below was impassable and the only means of travel were boats and inland paths.

Fig. 8. Marl A potsherd and flint flake from the rock art locale (© AKAP).

524

M.C. GATTO

From a chronological point of view, the rock art panels discussed here could belong to two successive phases: the first, which includes the panel with giraffes at the entrance of the khor and the hunting scene with the hunter lassoing the bull, is probably contemporary to the early phase of the possible settlement (Naqada IC–IIB); the second, which includes the nautical scenes and more generally the pecked drawings, is probably contemporary to the later phase of occupation of the site (Naqada IIC–IIIA), if not later. The latter depictions, which seem to pertain to one single semantic scheme, show ceremonial activities and paraphernalia that will be later formalised and incorporated in the royal iconography. This is a quite common occurrence in the rock art of the region, as attested, for instance, by the falcon depicted on top of a boat cabin in Khor Abu Subeira South (Gatto et al. 2009b: 162–163, fig. 17); or by the persons in ceremonial attires, possibly including a pointed hat, performing on top of boat cabins, both at KASS and at Haggar el-Ghorab (Gatto et al. 2009b: 159, fig. 11, 163, fig. 17; Lippiello & Gatto 2012: 273, table 1, Horizon II); and, of course, by the many representations of a king wearing an archaic version of the White Crown at the site of Nag el-Hamdulab (Hendrickx et al. 2012a: 1070, fig. 2; 2012b: 297, 332, fig. 4). Such regional occurrence, which goes as far back as Naqada II, needs further thoughts and research, for which Stan Hendrickx’s contribution will be essential. Acknowledgments I would like to thank the co-director of the Aswan-Kom Ombo Archaeological Project, Antonio Curci, and the team members who have worked in Wadi el-Tawil. Thanks are also due to John Coleman Darnell and Salima Ikram for discussions on the rock art. My gratitude goes to Carla Gallorini for kindly correcting the English and to Desirè’ Bragalone for preparing the illustrations. Funding for the fieldwork was provided by the University of Bologna, the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the EAMENAEndangered Archaeology in the Middle East and North Africa Project.

Bibliography DARNELL, J.C., 2009. Iconographic attraction, iconographic syntax, and tableaux of royal ritual power in the Pre- and Proto-Dynastic rock inscriptions of the Theban Western Desert. Archéo-Nil 19: 83–107. GATTO, M.C., 2014. Cultural entanglement at the dawn of the Egyptian history: A view from the Nile First Cataract region. Origini. Preistoria e Protostoria delle civiltà antiche 36: 93–123. GATTO, M.C., 2016. Nag el-Qarmila and the southern periphery of the Naqada culture [in:] ADAMS, M.D. (ed.); MIDANT-REYNES, B.; RYAN, E.M. & TRISTANT, Y. (coll.), Egypt at its Origins 4. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference “Origin of the State. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt”, New York, 26th–30th July 2001. OLA 252. Leuven: 227–245. GATTO, M.C.; DE DAPPER, M.; GERISCH, R.; HART, E.; HENDRICKX, S.; HERBICH, T.; JORIS, H.; NORDSTRÖM, H-Å.; PITRE, M.; ROMA, S.; SWIECH, D. & USAI, D.,

THE FIRST CATARACT REGION: NEW DATA FROM WADI EL-TAWIL

525

2009a. Predynastic settlement and cemeteries at Nag el-Qarmila, Kubbaniya. Archéo-Nil 19: 184–204. GATTO, M.C.; HENDRICKX, S.; ROMA, S. & ZAMPETTI, D., 2009b. Rock art from West Bank Aswan and Abu Subeira. Archéo-Nil 19: 151–168. HENDRICKX, S., 2006. The dog, the Lycaon pictus and order over chaos in Predynastic Egypt [in:] KROEPER, K.; CHŁODNICKI, M. & KOBUSIEWICZ, M. (eds), Archaeology of early Northeastern Africa: In memory of Lech Krzyżaniak. SAA 9. Poznań: 723–749. HENDRICKX, S.; DARNELL, J.C. & GATTO, M.C., 2012a. The earliest representations of royal power in Egypt: The rock drawings of Nag el-Hamdulab (Aswan). Antiquity 86(334), 1068–1083. HENDRICKX, S.; DARNELL, J.C.; GATTO, M.C. & EYCKERMAN, M., 2012b. Iconographic and palaeographic elements dating a Dynasty 0 rock art site at Nag el-Hamdulab (Aswan, Egypt) [in:] HUYGE, D.; VAN NOTEN, F. & SWINNE, D. (eds), The signs of which time? Chronological and palaeoenvironmental issues in the rock art of Northern Africa. Brussels: 295–326. HUYGE, D., 2002. Cosmology, ideology and personal religious practice in ancient Egyptian rock art [in:] FRIEDMAN, R.F. (ed.), Egypt and Nubia: Gifts of the desert. London: 192–206. HUYGE, D., 2009. Detecting magic in rock art: The case of the ancient Egyptian “malignant ass” [in:] RIEMER, H.; FÖRSTER, F.; HERB, M. & PÖLLATH, N. (eds), Desert animals in the Eastern Sahara: Status, economic significance, and cultural reflection in antiquity. Proceedings of an Interdisciplinary ACACIA Workshop held at the University of Cologne (December 14–15, 2007). Colloquium Africanum 4. Cologne: 293–307. JUNKER, H., 1919. Bericht über die Grabungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien auf den Friedhöfen von El-Kubanieh-Sud: Winter 1910–1911. Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien. Philosophisch-historische Klasse. Denkschriften 62(3). Vienna. JUNKER, H., 1920. Bericht über die Grabungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien auf den Friedhöfen von El-Kubanieh-Nord: Winter 1910–1911. Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien. Philosophisch-historische Klasse. Denkschriften 64(3). Vienna. KOPP, P., 2006. Elephantine 32: Die Siedlung der Naqadazeit. AV 118. Mainz am Rhein. LIPPIELLO, L. & GATTO, M.C., 2012. Intra-site chronology and palaeoenvironmental reconstruction at Khor Abu Subeira South 1 (Aswan, Egypt) [in:] HUYGE, D.; VAN NOTEN, F. & SWINNE, D. (eds), The signs of which time? Chronological and palaeoenvironmental issues in the rock art of Northern Africa. Brussels: 269–293. MURRAY, G.W. & MYERS, O.H., 1933. Some Pre-dynastic rock-drawings. JEA 19: 129–132. REISNER, G.A., 1910. The archaeological survey of Nubia: Report for 1907–1908 1: Archaeological report. Cairo. VON PILGRIM, C. & MÜLLER, W., 2010. Report on the tenth season of the joint SwissEgyptian mission in Syene/Old Aswan (2009/2010). Interim report for the Supreme Council of Antiquities. http://www.swissinst.ch/html/forschung_neu. html. [accessed 06/04/2020]. WINKLER, H.A., 1939. Rock-drawings of southern Upper Egypt 2: Sir Robert Mond Desert Expedition: Season 1937–1938: Preliminary report (including Uwenât). ASE 27. London.

SOME SHELLS AND VERTEBRATES FROM NEOLITHIC SITES WEST OF NABTA PLAYA, WESTERN DESERT, EGYPT ACHILLES GAUTIER Ghent University, Research unit of Palaeontology, Ghent, Belgium

The paper provides an inventory and interpretation of the animal finds from three Neolithic sites excavated during the 2001 field school on the Nab el-Diep Playa immediately west of Nabta Playa, Western Desert, Egypt. The finds compare well with those discussed in already published sites from the same region and Bir Kiseiba.

Animal remains were collected from three Neolithic sites excavated during the field school campaign, organised in 2001 by the Combined Expedition to Egypt (CPE) and supported by grants of the Institute of International Education, USAID, to acquaint Egyptian antiquities inspectors with prehistoric archaeology, especially of the Western Desert (Wendorf 2008: XV, 330–331) A report on these finds was completed in September 2012. It was based on the notes, not always very detailed, made by the author who participated part-time in the campaign as an instructor, and on the attributions provided by the head excavators and derived from the ceramics and lithics encountered. The present text presents an updated version of this report. Unfortunately, the exact location of the sites, discovered and labelled in 2000, is no longer known. They were found on the Nab el-Diep Playa which is situated some 2 km to the west of the southern end of Nabta Playa (Fig. 1), a few hundred meters south of the tar road Abu Simbel–East Uweinat. A map of Nab el-Diep Playa will be included in the monograph in preparation dealing with the Nabta megalith (R. Schild, Warsaw, pers. com). On this map a cross section through the playa with geological trenches and pits is oriented west-east; the sites are located some hundred meters south of this section. The archaeological stages are those defined in Wendorf, Schild & Associates (2001). Site E-00-1 is definitely the largest. According to a sketch map made by Fred Wendorf, now in possession of the author, it covers a rectangle of some 250 by 250 meters in which some 13 areas were dug. In two of these, a walk-in well was found, in another, two burials. The excavation and the function of one of these wells is described in detail by Kobusiewicz (2003). A date on charcoal from the fill of the well is available: 5170 ±80 BP uncalibrated (A-11082) and places the abandonment of the well in the Final Neolithic. Some other 14C dates from the site indicate Late to Final Neolithic occupations (R. Schild, Warsawa, pers. com.). However, E-00-1 is clearly a much used multicomponent site with

528

A. GAUTIER

Fig. 1. Location of Nabta Playa with Nab el-Diep in its immediate vicinity.

SHELLS AND VERTEBRATES FROM NEOLITHIC SITES WEST OF NABTA PLAYA

529

Early Neolithic deposits, overlain and masked by Late to Final Neolithic deposits and recent aeolian sand. On the surface of the site (S in Table 1) seven bone clusters were mapped and collected near the excavated areas. All of them most probably date to the Late, the Final/Late or the Final Neolithic. They have been listed together with some other, miscellaneous finds, but no precise counts are available for this material. The attributions of the excavated areas are as follows: – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Area Area Area Area Area Area Area Area Area Area Area Area Area Area

A: Late/Final Neolithic and Final Neolithic. B: Late/Final Neolithic and Final Neolithic. C: Ghorab/Nabta and Jerar Neolithic and Final Neolithic. E: Ghorab/Nabta and Jerar Neolithic and Late/Final Neolithic. F: Jerar and Late/Final Neolithic. G: Final Neolithic. I: Ghorab and Jerar Neolithic with later admixtures. J: Late and Final Neolithic (?). K: Final Neolithic. L: Ghorab/Nabta and Final/Late Neolihic. M: Late and probably Final Neolithic. N: Ghorab/Jerar and Middle Neolithic. P: Jerar and Late Neolithic. Q: Jerar and Late Neolithic.

Site E-00-2 is situated on a truncated dune with Ghorab, Nabta and Jerar Neolithic finds but also Late Neolithic hearths in the northern cleaned area. Here a 14C-date was obtained on ostrich eggshell 8200 ±70 BP uncalibrated (A-11080) and most likely related to the Nabta Neolithic component of the site (R. Schild, Warsaw, pers. com.). Site E-00-3 is also situated on a truncated dune with only Late Neolithic artefacts. Table 1 summarises the compositions of the various assemblages. These could not be listed in chronological order, but according to their label (site number, alphabetic label), because most of the assemblages are mixed. As can be seen, the archaeozoological harvest of the campaign is very limited. Most of the remains are very poorly preserved and fragmented. The identification rates are very low and comparable with most of the ones calculated of the already studied sites from Nabta, Bir Kiseiba and environs (Gautier 2001). The poor preservation reflects no doubt very slow site formation processes during which bones remained on the surface for a long time or were buried only superficially. Repeated reoccupation of two of the sites did probably not favour bone preservation neither. Comments on most of the animal groups encountered follow. The reader is also referred to the detailed report on the archaeozoological sequence of Nabta, Bir Kaseiba and environs (Gautier 2001). This reference will not always be repeated in what follows.

530

A. GAUTIER

Several remains of marine molluscs occur in the collection. The fossil oyster finds consist of separate valves or fragments of valves derived from the Nubia Formation forming part of the substratum of the region. No attempt was made to provide a more precise identification. The recent marine gastropods comprise two worked cowry shells picked up from the surface of site E-00-1, comparable with previous finds from Nabta and Bir Kiseiba, but not identifiable to species, and two juvenile conids from the same surface in area A and B. The apex of both conids has been perforated and they could be worn on a string or otherwise attached; the height of the complete shells was about 7 and 8 mm. A comparable find was collected from the Middle Neolithic site E-75-8, spit 8 (Gautier 2001: 612). A fragment of a bracelet with an estimated internal diameter of some 50 mm and extracted from a large marine gastropod was also found on the surface of E-00-1. Several bangles of the same type were collected in graves of the Final Neolithic cemeteries at Gebel Ramlah. They appear to be made from Lambis truncata (Kurzawska 2010). The same author notes that such bangles occur frequently in Predynastic graves, mainly in Upper Egypt. The writer saw a comparable item from the Neolithic Cemetery C at Kadada in Sudan (Reinold 2008: 190). Canaanite bangles were made of the same shell but in a different way (A. Kurzawska, Poznań, e-mail 2006). Apparently Lambis bangles were a much appreciated exchange item for a long time. The non-marine molluscs comprise two land snails and some freshwater gastropods and bivalves. Zootecus insularis is the quite ubiquitous little land snail found in many Western Desert sites and elsewhere. A few finds pertain to Pupoides coenopictus. This little terrestrial snail is new in the Holocene archaeofaunas of the southern Western Desert, but it occurs in the marginal lake deposits from Bir Sahara and Bir Tarfawi dated to the Last Interglacial (Gautier 1980) and was also collected from Pleistocene tuffa in Kharga (Gardner 1935; Gautier 1980: 338). These few occurrences from the Western Desert suggest very accidental dispersal from the south of this tiny snail, no doubt by birds. It appears to be a common species in tropical Asia and Africa. Pickford (1995) found it often in the drier, not well vegetated regions of East Africa. Some small freshwater gastropods are present only in two assemblages from E-00-1 and identifiable as Bulinus scalaris. This bulinid as well as B. truncatus is known from Nabta. The first species thrives well in seasonal pools, the second one is less adapted to extreme conditions. The small bivalve, Corbicula consobrina is no doubt a reworked element, as the creature would not survive the pools where Bulinus thrived. It is also present in one of the Nabta sites. In both cases it can be interpreted as an older intrusive reworked from earlier and Pleistocene deposits as known from Bir Kiseiba or Bir Tarfawi (Gautier 2001). The larger freshwater bivalve remains consist of small fragments of the Nile oyster Etheria elliptica or Chambardi rubens, formerly known as Aspatharia or Spathopsis rubens. Two worked specimens of the first species come from E-00-1, area L. They have been modified into small receptacles (Fig. 2).

SHELLS AND VERTEBRATES FROM NEOLITHIC SITES WEST OF NABTA PLAYA

531

Several comparable artefacts or fragments of such objects were collected from the al-Jerar site E-91-1 (Gautier 2001: 613; Watrall 2001: 264, fig. 8.45). This find may indicate that the area also contains material attributable to the al-Jerar Neolithic. Receptacles made of Nile oysters are well known from Pharaonic contexts along the Nile (Falkner 1982; Gautier 2005a). Birds are represented mainly by fragments of ostrich eggshells, sometimes as prefabricates for the confection of beads. It is likely that not all the ostrich eggshell remains were added to the faunal samples; this explains their absence in some contexts. A few other remains derive from much smaller birds and eggshells.

Fig. 2. Worked shell of Nile oyster, Etheria elliptica from E-00-1, area L. The interrupted line around the margin of the find indicates the worked edge. Drawing by M. Puszkarski.

532

A. GAUTIER

Dorcas gazelle is quite well represented in the collection, but the larger dama gazelle is very rare except in area B of E-00-1; perhaps the dama finds there derive from a single kill. Ovicaprids are represented by the maxillae of one skull with P2-M3 and various postcranial remains from cluster 1 on the surface of E-00-1, remnants of a lower molar (cluster 3) and a distal humerus (cluster 2). Other remains include enamel fragments attributed with varying confidence to sheep or goat. The author made desperate attempts to distinguish small tooth remains of gazelles and ovicaprids, based on the difference in the enamel pattern and the crown height. In the end only larger tooth fragments were assigned and the residue was put in the medium ruminant category, but not counted; in earlier analyses this residue was added to the non-identifiable remains. The ovicaprid remains derive from sheep and probably goats, as goats may have been more frequent in early contexts (Gautier & Van Neer 2009). Table 2 gives measurements of some of the specimens. They suggest animals of varying size in the range of the earlier finds from Nabta (Gautier 2001: 624, table 23.4). The maxillae derive from a large skull that may represent a small, female Barbary sheep, Ammotragus lervia, but an example of a large Sudanese sheep in the Ghent collection has comparable dimensions. The impression is that we are dealing with a slender-legged, quite large sheep, as known from other early Egyptian sites (Gautier & Van Neer 2009). Most cattle remains are enamel fragments and some fragmentary jugal teeth collected from the surface of E-00-1, such as two upper molars (clusters 3 and 6), a lower molar (cluster 5) and two upper milk molars (cluster 7). Postcranial remains include fragments of long bones, some phalanges, sesamoids and a malleolar bone, the latter clearly exhibiting traits of Bos (Peters 1986). Table 2 gives some measurements of the phalanges. All the cattle remains seem to come from quite small animals suggesting that they are later Neolithic finds. The collection comprises all the taphonomic groups (Gautier 1987) regularly found in settlement sites. The consumption refuse consists no doubt of hare, the gazelles, sheep, goat and cattle. In the earlier appraisal of the animals found at Nabta, Bir Kiseiba and environs, the hedgehog was put among the animals of uncertain taphonomic status. However, in area N of site E-00-1 four remains of hedgehog were collected, including three mandibles referable to three animals; the foregoing makes it difficult to add the hedgehog finds to the contemporaneous intrusives. Moreover, hedgehogs were once eaten in England but possibly also in Egypt (Ikram 1995: 22). Frequent finds of European hedgehog (Erinaceus europaeus) at Dudka, a Meso-Neolithic site in northern Poland also suggests the creatures were a welcome addition to the basic diet (Gautier 2005b). Blench (2000) records the capture of white-bellied hedgehogs (Atelerix albiventris) and their fattening in northern Nigeria. The marine gastropods, the larger freshwater bivalves and the ostrich eggshell fragments represent workshop remains in a broad sense. The wild cat may

SHELLS AND VERTEBRATES FROM NEOLITHIC SITES WEST OF NABTA PLAYA

533

be added here; perhaps it was killed for its pelt. The reworked intrusives comprise the pre-Quaternary marine oyster and the Corbicula valve no doubt derived from older Quaternary freshwater deposits. The penecontemporaneous intrusives are the land snails and the Nile rat, to which some small bird bones and eggshell remains can be added: not much of these would be left if people had dealt with them. A small lizard and small birds occur also as late intrusives, together with gerbils; these intrusives look much fresher than the older ones. One could argue about the exact status of the marine oyster and Corbicula. Perhaps people brought these items to the site. However, they are so unimpressive that people may not have been particularly interested in them. These finds described in the forgoing do not add much to the already known archaeozoological data from Nabta, Bir Kiseiba and comparable environments, and their interpretation. The cattle, sheep and goat remains derive most likely from Late Neolithic or later occupations; the cattle because they are of small size and the sheep and goats because they arrive in the region in Middle Neolithic times (Gautier 2001). No doubt, hunting of gazelles and hare provided much of the needs for animal protein during the entire occupation history of the sites, and even very small mammals such as hedgehogs were added to the diet. Some marine gastropods from the Red Sea or Indian Ocean and large freshwater bivalves from the Nile confirm that the occupants of the sites had contacts with the Nile Valley. The only new element is the small land snail Pupoides coenopictus, that arrived on one of the sites by chance. The author would have preferred to grace this festive collection of papers dedicated to his colleague and friend Stan Hendrickx with something more substantial, as for example the vulture mummies discovered in one of the graves of the Elkab necropolis Stan co-authored with him (Gautier & Hendrickx 1999), but his academic working bench is now almost empty. Sorry, ouwe jongen! Acknowledgements The author thanks his Polish friends and colleagues, Romuald Schild (Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography, PAN, Warsaw) and Michał Kobusiewicz (Institute of Archaeology and Ethnology, PAN, Poznań Branch) for their help to locate and describe succinctly the sites. Aldona Kurzawska, based in the same institution as Michał Kobusiewicz, provided comments on the worked large marine shell.

Bibliography BLENCH, R.M., 2000. African minor livestock species [in:] BLENCH, R.M & MACDONALD, K.C., The origin and development of African livestock: Archaeology, genetics and ethnography. London: 314–338. FALKNER, G., 1982. Molluskenfunde der Ausgrabungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts Kairo im Satettempel auf Elephantine [in:] BOESSNECK, J. & VON

534

A. GAUTIER

DRIESCH, A., Studien an subfossilen Tierknochen aus Ägypten. MÄS 40. München: 152–166. GARDNER, E.W., 1935. The Pleistocene fauna and flora of Kharga Oasis, Egypt. Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society 91: 479–518. GAUTIER, A., 1980. Contributions to the archaeozoology of Egypt [in:] WENDORF, F. & SCHILD, R. (eds), Prehistory of the Eastern Sahara. New York: 317–344. GAUTIER, A., 1987. Taphonomic groups: How and why? ArchaeoZoologia 1(2): 45–52. GAUTIER, A., 2001. The Early to Late Neolithic archeofaunas from Nabta and Bir Kiseiba [in:] WENDORF, F.; SCHILD, R. & Associates, Holocene settlement of the Egyptian Sahara 1: The archaeology of Nabta Playa. New York: 609–635. GAUTIER, A., 2005a. Animal mummies and remains from the necropolis of Elkab (Upper Egypt). Archaeofauna 14: 139–170. GAUTIER, A., 2005b. Dudka Island revisited: The general archaeozoological sequence. Przegląd Archeologiczny 53: 5–25. GAUTIER, A. & HENDRICKX, S., 1999. Vultures and other animal remains from a tomb in the Elkab necropolis, Upper Egypt: An exercise in salvage archaeozoology [in:] BECKER, C.; MANHART, H.; PETERS, J. & SCHIBLER, J. (eds) Historia animalium ex ossibus: Beiträge zur Paläoanatomie, Archäologie, Ägyptologie, Ethnologie und Geschichte der Tiermedizin: Festschrift für Angela von den Driesch zum 65. Geburtstag. Internationale Archäologie 8. Rahden/Westfalen: 161–178. GAUTIER, A. & VAN NEER, W. 2009. Animal remains from Predynastic sites in the Nagada region, Middle Egypt. Archaeofauna 18: 27–50. IKRAM, S., 1995. Choice cuts: Meat production in ancient Egypt. OLA 69. Leuven. KOBUSIEWICZ, M., 2003. Neolithic wells from the Western Desert of Egypt. [in:] KRZYŻANIAK, L.; KROEPER, K. & KOBUSIEWICZ, M. (eds), Cultural markers in the later Prehistory of Northeastern Africa and recent research. SAA 8. Poznań: 95–104. KURZAWSKA, A. 2010. Mollusc shells at Gebel Ramlah [in:] KOBUSIEWICZ, M.; KABACIŃSKI, J.; SCHILD, R.; IRISH, J.D.; GATTO, M.C. & WENDORF, F., Gebel Ramlah: Final Neolithic cemeteries from the Western Desert of Egypt. Poznań: 227–237. PETERS, J., 1986. Osteomorphology and osteometry of the appendicular skeleton of African buffalo, Syncerus caffer (Sparrman, 1779) and cattle, Bos primigenius f. taurus Bojanus, 1827. Rijksuniversiteit Gent, Laboratorium voor paleontologie: Occasional Papers 1. Ghent. PICKFORD, M., 1995. Fossil land snails of East Africa and their palaeoecological significance. Journal of African Earth Sciences 20(3–4): 167–226. REINOLD, J. 2008. La nécropole néolithique d’el-Kadada au Soudan Central. Fouilles de la section française de la direction des antiquités du Soudan 1. Paris. WATRALL, E. 2001. Area 8 [in:] WENDORF, F.; SCHILD, R. & Associates, Holocene settlement of the Egyptian Sahara 1: The archaeology of Nabta Playa. New York: 257–265. WENDORF, F., 2008. Desert day: My life as a field archaeologist. Dallas. WENDORF, F.; SCHILD, R. & Associates, 2001. Holocene settlement of the Egyptian Sahara 1: The archaeology of Nabta Playa. New York. DEN

+ + + F

dama gazelle (Gazella dama)

medium sized ruminant

sheep/goat (c )

cattle (d)

not identified bone remains (e)

-

lesser gerbil (G. gerbillus) -

-

Nile rat (Arvicanthis niloticus)

+

-

hare (Lepus capensis)

dorcas gazelle (Gazella dorcas)

-

wild cat (Felis silvestris)

-

-

large freshwater bivalve (a)

hedgehog (Parechinus aethiopicus)

-

Corbicula consobrina

small bird/ egg shell

-

Pupoides coenopictus

-

+

Zootecus insularis

+

+

Bulinus scalaris

ostrich egg shell (b)

3

marine gastropods (a)

small lizard

1

Fossil oyster

S

5

1-

-

15

21

?1

1

-

2

-

1/R

F

-

1

-

RR

F

RR

1

-

B

?1

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

?1

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

R

-

-

-

C

5

?1

F

?1

1

-

-

-

-

-

-/R

R

-

1

-

-

RR

-

-

-

E

?1

-

+

-

1

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

R

-

-

-

F

1320 2750 120 660 170

17

6

1

1

21

-

-

-

2

-

1/R

F

-

-

-

-

RR

-

1

-

A

38

-

-

+

-

3

-

-

-

-

?1

-/R

R

-

-

-

-

R

-

-

-

G

-

-

-

-

2

-

-

-

-

-

-

R

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

J

-

-

-

-

1

1

-

4

9

-

1/-

R

-

2

-

-

RR

1

-

-

K

2

-

+

-

3

-

-

-

-

-

-/R

F

-

3

-

-

F

-

-

3

L

1

-

-

-

3

-

-

-

-

-

-

R

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

M

100 460 300 390 400

-

?1

+

-

1

-

-

-

-

-

-

1

-

-

1

-

-

-

-

-

I

E-00-1

57

-

-

-

-

2

-

-

-

-

4

-

-

1

1

-

-

RR

-

-

1

N

50

-

-

+

-

2

-

-

-

?1

-

-/R

F

-

+

-

-

F

-

-

3

P

50

1

-

+

-

1

-

-

-

-

-

-

F

-

-

-

-

F

-

-

-

Q

3

3

+

-

1

-

-

-

1

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

RR

-

-

-

3

250 325

-

-

-

-

3

-

-

-

5

-

2/-

F

-

-

-

-

1

-

-

-

2

E-00 E-02

Table 1. The faunal remains from the field school sites (fragment counts) (a) see text; (b) Struthio camelus; (c) Ovis ammon f. aries / Capra aegagrus f. hircus; (d) Bos primigenius f. taurus; (e) mostly estimates; (R)R (very) rare; (F)F (very) frequent; + present but not found back in the samples; ? identification tentative. SHELLS AND VERTEBRATES FROM NEOLITHIC SITES WEST OF NABTA PLAYA

535

536

A. GAUTIER

Table 2. Some measurements (mm) of sheep/goat and cattle from E-00-1. Sheep/goat maxilla, L. premolars L. M3 humerus, TR.D. dist.

± 72 22.0 ± 27

radius, TR.D. prox.

± 30,5

mc. TR.D. diaphysis

± 16

calcaneum, L.

± 67

mp, TR.D. dist.

25,5

30.0

Cattle Ph. 1, L.

± 59

TR.D. prox.

± 26

TR.D. dist.

± 25

± 27.5

27.5 27.6

CONTRIBUTION À L’ICONOGRAPHIE DE LA VIOLENCE AU PRÉDYNASTIQUE ÉGYPTIEN : SCÈNES DE TRIOMPHE, DE DOMINATION ANIMALE ET DE GUERRE DANS LE WADI ABU SUBEIRA (ASSOUAN) GWENOLA GRAFF Institut français de recherche pour le développement, UMR 208 Patrimoines Locaux, Paris, France

Cet article rend hommage au travail de Stan Hendrickx sur l’iconographie prédynastique au travers d’une thématique qu’il a particulièrement contribué à développer  : les représentations de la violence. À partir du corpus rupestre découvert dans la concession française du wadi Abu Subeira, elle est traitée dans ses trois déclinaisons  : scènes de victoire/triomphe, scènes de domination animale et scènes de guerre. Après avoir passé en revue les 18 scènes concernées, on étudiera leur répartition spatiale au sein de la concession, leurs relations réciproques et le contexte dans lequel elles sont placées. Nous verrons qu’elles sont très souvent associées aux scènes de chasse, beaucoup plus nombreuses au demeurant et à la figuration animale, qu’elle soit sauvage ou domestique. Enfin, nous les replacerons dans un réseau de relations multiscalaires qui nous amène à prendre en compte une sectorisation dans les répartitions des scènes prédynastiques. Ces deux niveaux d’analyse permettent de mettre en évidence plusieurs réseaux de cohérence qui se superposent dans l’implantation des stations et qui livrent d’intéressantes informations au-delà de ce qu’une analyse isolée de décor peut livrer.

Le wadi Abu Subeira (WAS) est une vallée sèche du désert Oriental égyptien, qui débouche sur la rive droite de la vallée du Nil, à environ douze kilomètres au nord de la ville d’Assouan. Ce wadi suit une progression globalement estouest sur 55 kilomètres, puis se connecte à d’autres réseaux qui lui permettent d’atteindre la mer Rouge, à quelque 250 kilomètres de son embouchure sur le Nil. Il est recoupé, au cours de sa progression, par des contributeurs qui lui sont le plus souvent perpendiculaires, c’est-à-dire nord-sud, comme le wadi Umm Ushsh, le wadi Khrait ou le wadi Rasras. Dans la section qui nous intéresse ici, il est large de 500 mètres et bordé de part et d’autre de falaises d’une centaine de mètres de haut. La première mention de l’intérêt archéologique des lieux remonte aux années 1930, par G.W. Murray qui fait état d’un Clayton ring et d’épandages lithiques à l’entrée du wadi, ainsi que d’une station rupestre depuis enregistrée et publiée sous le nom de KASS-1 (Murray & Myers 1933). Aucune autre mention du wadi Abu Subeira n’est faite jusqu’en 1981, lorsque l’équipe de F. Wendorf, alors en train de travailler de l’autre côté du Nil, dans le wadi Kubbaniyeh,

538

G. GRAFF

y effectue des prospections et découvre le site d’occupation paléolithique E-81-2, lui aussi dans l’embouchure (Wendorf 1989). En 2005, M.C. Gatto, au nom du « Aswan-Kom Ombo Archaeological Project », retrouvera le site de KASS-1 et découvrira celui de KASS-2, en travaillant elle aussi dans la zone d’embouchure (Gatto et. al. 2009 : 159–166 ; Lipiello & Gatto 2012). L’exploration du lit majeur du wadi Abu Subeira ne commencera qu’avec les travaux d’Adel Kelany et de son équipe, à partir de 2006, puis en 2013, pour la partie plus profonde, avec l’octroi d’une concession franco-égyptienne que je dirige. Entre 2013 et 2020, huit campagnes annuelles de terrain ont pu être menées, sur une surface de 34 km2 (Graff 2019), incluant le cours majeur, les contributeurs nord et sud et les plateaux surplombant, jusqu’au carrefour avec le wadi Khrait. Elles ont permis la découverte et l’enregistrement de 124 stations archéologiques (du Paléolithique moyen jusqu’à l’époque contemporaine) et 520 stations rupestres qui recèlent 670 panneaux ornés. Les gravures les plus anciennes sont attribuées à l’Épipaléolithique, puis au Prédynastique, à l’époque pharaonique, médiévale et moderne. Les gravures prédynastiques sont les plus nombreuses et représentent 60% des effectifs. La courte étude offerte ici ne s’intéressera qu’à ces gravures prédynastiques. Parmi les thématiques dont traitent les scènes que l’on trouve dans le wadi, comme dans les autres sites connus du désert Oriental, un certain nombre relève de l’iconographie de la violence. Pour rendre hommage à Stan Hendrickx, avec qui j’ai la chance d’avoir pu travailler depuis de nombreuses années, depuis l’époque où je préparais une thèse sur l’iconographie des vases peints naqadiens, j’ai choisi de développer cette thématique qu’il a largement contribué à mettre en évidence et à étudier au sein de l’univers mental naqadien. Mon approche sera de voir quels peuvent être la contribution et les apports à une thématique plus générale d’une étude systématique des manifestations rupestres sur un territoire circonscrit. L’iconographie de la violence1 recoupe différents sujets qui sont régulièrement traités, sur différents supports et différents contextes, tout au long de la période prédynastique, dans la vallée comme dans les déserts. On emploiera le terme de « scène de violence » lorsqu’une coercition directe est exercée par un ou plusieurs personnages masculins sur d’autres humain ou des animaux. On pourra ainsi voir des scènes qui relatent le triomphe ou la victoire d’un combattant ou d’un chef belliqueux, des scènes de domination animale au cours desquelles un ou plusieurs animaux sauvages sont maîtrisés et enfin des scènes 1 Etudiée par Stan Hendrickx dans des articles comme Hendrickx 1995 ; 2006 ; Hendrickx & Eyckerman 2010 ; 2015.

ICONOGRAPHIE DE LA VIOLENCE AU PRÉDYNASTIQUE ÉGYPTIEN

539

de guerre. La chasse ne sera pas traitée directement ici au titre de l’exercice de la violence, dans la mesure où sa représentation peut relever de l’expression d’une activité de subsistance, correspondant aux activités pratiquées dans les marges désertiques. Bien qu’elle ne constitue pas l’apport principal à l’alimentation prédynastique, la chasse est toujours pratiquée de manière ponctuelle et marginale et les abords du désert sont un des lieux où on s’y adonne. Très fortement corrélée aux trois autres sujets, la chasse a reçu un traitement spécifique dans l’art rupestre, par sa fréquence (119 scènes de chasse ont été découvertes au cours des six campagnes de terrain) et sa complexité d’expression, qui nous a amenée à la considérer comme un sujet relié, mais à part. La chasse est également la seule de ces activités bien attestée par l’archéologie (par les tombes de chasseurs, avec éventuellement leur équipement et leurs auxiliaires, les chiens, voire une proie prestigieuse,2 ou les restes fauniques retrouvés dans des sites de la vallée), quand la guerre ou a fortiori les triomphes se font particulièrement discrets. Sur un site comme Hiérakonpolis HK29A (Linseele et al. 2009), mais aussi dans certaines tombes de ce même site (Van Neer et al. 2015), les analyses archéo-zoologiques ont montré que des animaux sauvages avaient été capturés, parfois blessés, mais conservés vivants suffisamment longtemps pour que des fractures se ressoudent, avant leur abatage final. Ceci pourrait correspondre à certaines scènes de domination animale, avec des cas de capture au lasso, que l’on peut trouver dans le désert. Au départ définie par Stan Hendrickx, la scène de triomphe est caractérisée ainsi par lui : « The scenes of military triumph are characterised by bound prisoners and victorious persons with raised arms and/or mace heads » (Hendrickx 2011 : 238). Aussi, en tenant compte des spécificités du contexte désertique, ce que l’on appellera une scène de victoire ou de triomphe ici est une scène qui comporte au minimum un personnage masculin, le plus souvent vu de face, les bras levés au-dessus de la tête, et qui porte un attribut de pouvoir (comme un bâton ou un sceptre), de virilité (une coiffure de plumes ou un étui pénien) et/ou une arme (comme un arc ou une massue). Il peut être en relation avec un ou plusieurs autres personnages en position d’infériorité, souvent liés à lui, mais toujours figurés plus petits que le personnage victorieux. La scène de domination animale se distingue de la scène de chasse en ce qu’elle ne montre pas la prédation de l’animal (le gibier face au chasseur armé), mais la mainmise sur l’animal qui se traduit par sa capture (au lasso le plus souvent) ou par une monte acrobatique sur un animal réputé incontrôlable. La scène de guerre comprend deux variantes, la bataille au cours de laquelle deux groupes s’affrontent et la scène de duel qui oppose deux belligérants. Elle

2 Comme un jeune éléphant mâle dans certaines tombes de la nécropole d’élite sur le site de Hiérakonpolis, voir Friedman 2004.

540

G. GRAFF

doit comporter au moins deux personnages masculins, armés, qui se battent. Contrairement aux scènes de chasse collective, qui pourraient parfois être confondues avec une scène de bataille, les opposants portent souvent des armes offensives et défensives, avec en particulier ce qui semble être un petit bouclier rond (qui ne correspond pas aux attestations archéologiques). Pour traiter de la thématique de la violence, dix-huit scènes présentes dans la concession orientale du WAS ont été retenues. On voit bien à quel point leur nombre est restreint par rapport aux 119 scènes de chasse mentionnées plus haut. Elles se répartissent en cinq scènes de victoire, huit de domination animale et cinq scènes de guerre (Fig. 1). Méthodologie La méthodologie choisie pour répondre à la problématique soulevée par cette étude consiste à mettre en évidence des logiques d’échelle dans la répartition et l’implantation des images dans le territoire considéré, à savoir la concession. Ceci passe, d’une part, par l’établissement d’un réseau de correspondances

L. 022 2

L. 272

L. 283 L

L. 350 L. 369

L. 040 L. 039 L

Milit. lit. Camp B Milit. Camp Z L. 502 L. 506

L. 011 L. 0100

L. 058 L. 053

0

1869 m

WASRAP Wadi Abu Subeira Rock Art Project

Infographie : G. Graff f

Scène de triomphe

Scène de domination animale

Scène de guerre/bataille

Zone hors concession

Fig. 1. Carte des différents stations avec des scènes liées à l’exercice de la violence, dans la concession orientale du WAS.

ICONOGRAPHIE DE LA VIOLENCE AU PRÉDYNASTIQUE ÉGYPTIEN

541

multiscalaires et des analyses de proximité, couplées, d’autre part, avec l’observation de la localisation, à l’échelle de la concession, des représentations animales, réparties en espèces sauvages versus espèces domestiques. Après identification et description des scènes comportant des représentations liées à l’iconographie de la violence, nous avons établi un réseau de correspondances multiscalaires qui prenne en compte l’analyse des relations de proximité comme les logiques de répartition. L’analyse de la proximité se fait en considérant à partir d’une scène de violence donnée, appelée ci-après la cible, quels sont, s’il y a lieu, les panneaux voisins situés dans le même locus (les autres faces du bloc par exemple) et les stations proches. L’ensemble des scènes ainsi prises en compte sont celles qui se trouvent dans un rayon d’une dizaine de mètres autour de la cible. Elles constituent la nébuleuse de la cible. Sont recherchés les types de scène qui apparaissent dans l’environnement proche de la cible. Il en existe sept types différents qui constituent autant de variables. Les résultats de cette enquête sont traduits par des graphiques en toile d’araignée qui forment des heptagones, chaque face correspondant à une variable. Ces graphiques sont mis en regard, dans un deuxième temps, avec une grille de répartition des représentations animales selon que les espèces sont sauvages ou domestiques. On observe alors leur répartition spatiale à l’intérieur de la concession, en fonction de la topographie. Cette répartition permet de dégager une déclinaison locale de la dialectique sauvage/domestique. Ces différentes approches, en se situant seulement au niveau des scènes de violence ou en élargissant à celui de la concession toute entière, permettent de voir s’articuler différentes logiques en fonction de l’échelle considérée et de saisir la cohérence entre les règles qui président à l’implantation d’une scène donnée dans son contexte et celle qui se dégage de l’usage des lieux en règle générale. Les scènes de victoire/triomphe (Fig. 2) Les scènes de victoire/triomphe correspondant à la définition donnée supra ne sont pas très nombreuses, même si elles peuvent être spectaculaires. Le Locus 010 se trouve dans le lit majeur du WAS, dans la partie la plus occidentale de la concession. Le bloc, probablement tombé de la falaise nord avant d’être gravé, gît dans le sable à quelques mètres de la falaise. Peu visible dans le lit mineur du cours d’eau, il a probablement dû être recouvert par les crues successives et frotté par le sable en mouvement, ce qui explique l’altération de la surface gravée. Très difficile à lire, son décor a fait l’objet d’un traitement par la RTI (Reflectance Transformation Imaging) en 2013 (Piquette et al. 2017). Il s’agit d’une des scènes les plus complexes retrouvées au cours de nos

542

G. GRAFF

0

WASRAP 1 2013. Locus 011.

5 cm

WASRAP 5 2017. L. 350. B3.

WASRAP 1 2013. Locus 22. B8.

0

WASRAP 1 2013. Locus 010 (détail).

0

15 cm

WASRAP 1 2013. Locus 039.

5 cm

WASRAP 5 2017. Locus 350. B1. P3.

Fig. 2. Les scènes de victoire/triomphe (Infographie G. Graff).

ICONOGRAPHIE DE LA VIOLENCE AU PRÉDYNASTIQUE ÉGYPTIEN

543

prospections. Le panneau est subdivisé en cinq épisodes narratifs dont l’emplacement est déterminé par les accidents de la surface du bloc. Le sujet prédominant est la chasse, mais on reconnaît également une scène de triomphe, centrale sur le panneau, et trois figurations de domination animale. Celles-ci sont constituées par des représentations de capture au lasso d’un bovin. Figurent également 34 chiens et deux éléphants. Le personnage central dominant est d’une taille supérieure aux chasseurs et lève les avant-bras au-dessus de la tête. Le Locus 011 est une paroi verticale de la falaise nord du WAS, à quelques dizaines de mètres du Locus 010, avant l’embranchement avec le 1er diverticule nord. Il est constitué de la représentation isolée, réalisée avec grand soin, d’un personnage masculin les bras levés. Il arbore un étui pénien et une plume sur la tête et porte un bâton crochu dans la main droite. Cette scène jouit d’une grande visibilité dans le paysage. Le Locus 039 est un imposant bloc enfoui dans le sable au pied de la falaise ouest du premier diverticule nord. Seule sa face supérieure émerge. Elle est en partie couverte par un autre gros bloc tombé plus récemment de la paroi. Sur la partie émergeant du sable, sur une surface presque horizontale, se trouve une scènette composée d’un personnage aux bras étendus, portant un arc court d’un côté et un bouclier rond de l’autre. À ses pieds, gît un personnage tête bêche, les mains devant le visage. Il pourrait s’agir d’une représentation conventionnelle d’un mort. Très nettement séparé de ce groupe, on trouve sur la même face du bloc un combattant isolé, que l’on a comptabilisé parmi les scènes de guerre (voir infra). Le Locus 350 est un large bloc enfoncé dans le sable du lit mineur du wadi, sur une terrasse, à proximité de la falaise sud, dans le coude que forme le cours du wadi. On reviendra ultérieurement sur l’importance de ce changement dans le cours du wadi pour la compréhension de la logique paysagère à l’œuvre dans la répartition des stations. La station se compose de trois blocs côte à côte. La scène principale du bloc 1 est une grande bataille (voir infra) ; sur un panneau latéral de ce même bloc figurent deux personnages frontaux bras levés audessus de leur tête, l’un plus grand que l’autre, portant des étuis péniens, ainsi que deux ibex et des motifs peu compréhensibles, qui pourraient figurer un autre personnage tenant un objet. Le bloc 3, en regard de la scène principale, comporte un grand personnage levant les bras, un objet prolongeant son bras droit. Il porte une barbe, un étui pénien et une plume sur la tête. Face à lui, un personnage plus petit brandit un arc. Le Locus 022 doit être cherché au fond du 4ème diverticule nord. Il se compose de dix blocs. La scène qui nous concerne se trouve sur le bloc 8. Elle comprend

544

G. GRAFF

deux personnages masculins portant un étui pénien. Celui de gauche lève les avant-bras, doigts écartés. Celui de droite est très incliné, porte deux plumes sur la tête et un objet difficile à reconnaître de la main gauche. Les scènes de domination animale (Figs 3–5) Les huit scènes de domination animale se répartissent dans toute la concession. À une scène près, elles ne concernent que des bovins (des taureaux dès lors qu’une indication sexuelle est donnée). L’autre animal concerné est un éléphant. Le Locus 010 a été décrit plus haut, parce qu’il comprend également une scène de triomphe. Trois des quatre séquences de cette scène comportent un personnage masculin, dont deux les représentent avec des coiffures hérissées, qui tiennent de la main droite une corde les reliant à un bovin en mouvement. Autour de ces scènes de capture figurent des chiens, des chasseurs armés et deux éléphants. La proximité avec les pachydermes est d’autant plus intéressante que c’est le seul animal, avec le bovin, qui soit concerné par les scènes de domination animale. Le Locus 040 se trouve dans le 1er diverticule nord, au pied de la falaise ouest de celui-ci. Ce gros bloc repose dans le sable à quelques mètres de la falaise. La paroi ornée est celle qui fait face à l’entrée du diverticule, que l’on voit en y entrant par conséquent. La scène représente deux personnages, l’un tenant une massue, l’autre un arc, qui sont l’un et l’autre reliés par une corde à un quadrupède indéterminable. La scène a été réalisée par martelage, avec un rendu plutôt grossier et beaucoup d’impacts périphériques. Le Locus 053 se situe dans le grand affluent sud du WAS, le wadi Umm Ushsh, à l’entrée d’un ressaut que forme ce cours. Il s’agit d’un petit abri sous roche dans la falaise nord. Sur une dalle horizontale au sol a été gravée une scène de facture très grossière qui se compose d’un personnage portant un arc ou un bâton long de la main droite et une corde le reliant à un animal à la silhouette épaisse, arborant des cornes verticales. Le Locus 058 se trouve également dans le wadi Umm Ushsh. C’est un gros bloc de grès silicifié, détaché de la falaise sud et tombé dans un éboulis à son pied. Le dessus du bloc révèle une petite scène, piquetée et incisée, composée d’un personnage tenant de la main droite un lien qui le rattache à un bovin dont les pattes arrière sont effacées, alors que la queue est bien visible. Le Locus 283 est un gros bloc au milieu d’un éboulis au pied de la falaise nord du WAS, à l’entrée du coude de celui-ci, juste avant l’entrée dans le 4ème diverticule nord. La scène a été gravée sur le côté est du bloc, elle n’est donc visible que lorsque l’on se dirige vers la vallée, en ressortant du wadi.

ICONOGRAPHIE DE LA VIOLENCE AU PRÉDYNASTIQUE ÉGYPTIEN

0

50 cm

WASRAP 1 2013. Locus 010.

WASRAP 1 2013. Locus 040.

Fig. 3. Les scènes de chasse (Infographie G. Graff).

545

546

G. GRAFF

25cm

0

WASRAP 1 2014. Locus 053. B1. P1

0

5 cm

WASRAP 2 2014. Locus 058

30 cm

0

WASRAP 4 2016. Locus 283

0

5 cm

WASRAP 6 2018. Locus 506. B1.

Fig. 4. Les scènes de domination animale (Infographie G. Graff et L. Billault – IRD).

ICONOGRAPHIE DE LA VIOLENCE AU PRÉDYNASTIQUE ÉGYPTIEN

0

547

5 cm

WASRAP 6 2018. L. 502. B2. P6.

WASRAP 6 2018. Military Camp Z

Fig. 5. Les scènes de domination animale (suite et fin) (Infographie G. Graff).

Cette exceptionnelle scène de monte taurine (la plus ancienne connue en Égypte) a été présentée en septembre 2017 au colloque Origins 6 à Vienne, au cours d’une cession que présidait Stan Hendrickx. Elle comprend deux représentations de taureaux (des aurochs sauvages très probablement) sur le dos desquels sont juchés deux personnages qui se tiennent aux cornes de la main gauche tandis qu’ils empoignent de la main droite une corde les reliant à un acolyte derrière eux. Cette technique de monte ou de jeu taurin ne trouve pas de correspondance ethnologique documentée. Le Locus 506 est situé au débouché du WAS sur sa vaste intersection avec le wadi Khrait, qui lui est perpendiculaire. Depuis ce point, on contrôle tout le carrefour. La station se compose de huit blocs. Le bloc 1 recèle l’iconographie la plus riche du locus. Sur un panneau, on peut voir une scène avec des ibex, des bovins et un personnage aux bras levés devant une autruche, sur l’autre une série d’animaux dont des ibex, des chiens de facture grossière accompagnés d’un personnage tenant un objet rond et, au bas du bloc, un éléphant avec un personnage sautant sur son dos. Il est possible que les deux ensembles de ce

548

G. GRAFF

panneau ne soient pas contemporains. Le groupe nous intéressant ici pourrait être le plus ancien, d’après la qualité supérieure de sa facture. L’éléphant se présente de profil, avec le bas des pattes élargi, des oreilles hautes et étroites, les défenses et la trompe représentées. Un personnage prend appui sur sa croupe pour sauter : ses jambes sont presque horizontales et son corps forme un arc. Un éléphanteau, beaucoup plus petit que le premier, se devine entre la trompe et la patte avant du premier. Un autre éléphant, très proche de celui-ci stylistiquement avec des oreilles hautes et étroites a été retrouvé au Locus 500, de l’autre côté du wadi et de l’intersection avec le wadi Khrait, à quelques centaines de mètres du Locus 506, tandis qu’un autre cas d’éléphant avec un petit sous ses pattes a été reconnu sur le Locus 475, Bloc 1, Panneau 1. Au total, ce sont onze autres représentations d’éléphants qui ont pu être attribuées au Prédynastique dans la concession, incluant ceux du Locus 010. Il faut mentionner que l’une d’elles se trouve sur l’un des blocs du Locus 022, de même qu’une des scènes de victoire décrites plus haut. Le Locus 502 est une colonne naturelle, produit de l’érosion éolienne, à l’angle du débouché de la falaise sud du WAS sur l’aire d’intersection avec le wadi Khrait. Les dalles sont empilées les unes sur les autres, comme les tambours d’une colonne. Ce point éminent dans le paysage a été largement marqué par les graveurs, puisque quatorze panneaux y ont été enregistrés. La scène qui nous intéresse se trouve sur le bloc 2, panneau 6. Il s’agit de la surface horizontale d’une de ces dalles, en surplomb. On reconnaît trois figures de bovins, un motif en « T » double, un possible personnage accroupi vu de face et deux autres figures plus conventionnelles tenant un lien qui les relie à deux des trois bovins. La zone appelée Military Camp se situe au pied de la falaise sud du WAS, juste avant son intersection avec le wadi Khrait. Elle mesure environ 500 mètres de long et recèle la plus riche concentration de gravures de la concession. Elle doit son nom à la présence de vestiges d’un poste de contrôle douanier de l’armée égyptienne durant la Seconde Guerre Mondiale. Les stations, en cours d’enregistrement, ont été désignées par des lettres. La station Z est un bloc horizontal, posé sur le sable. La partie supérieure plane de la dalle est gravée d’une scène d’exécution fine où l’on reconnaît à la fois la silhouette d’un bateau et une scène de domination animale, avec trois bovins dont deux sont tenus au lasso par des personnages masculins. Les scènes de guerre (Figs 6–7) Les scènes de guerre sont au nombre de cinq. Elles se répartissent en scènes de duels et de batailles. Les duels consistent en la confrontation armée de deux

ICONOGRAPHIE DE LA VIOLENCE AU PRÉDYNASTIQUE ÉGYPTIEN

549

personnages. Ils arborent à la fois des armes offensives et défensives, en l’occurrence un petit bouclier rond. Deux duels ont été reconnus, sur les Loci 039 et 272. B1. Dans le cas du Locus 272. B1, un troisième personnage ne portant qu’un bouclier est placé sur un panneau latéral. Le Locus 039 présente une scène de victoire détaillée plus haut et un combattant isolé, sur la même face du bloc, mais distant de plusieurs dizaines de centimètres de la scène de victoire. C’est pourquoi nous l’avons classé comme combattant isolé. Les scènes de bataille sont au nombre de trois, avec les Loci 369, 350. B1. P1 et le Military Camp B. Au milieu de ces groupes qui s’affrontent, figurent souvent des animaux, comme des chiens, un âne ou des bovins, plus familiers dans les scènes de chasse. Une figuration particulière doit être mentionnée pour le Locus 350. B1. P1 : le personnage au centre de la séquence gauche du panneau, portant étui pénien et de grandes plumes sur la tête, allonge son bras droit au bout duquel se trouve un arc. Mais la ligne du bras se poursuit et s’incurve pour former la silhouette d’un bovin dont on reconnaît la tête, la corne et la ligne du dos. Il y a donc un jeu graphique par lequel le même trait est utilisé à la fois pour dessiner le bovin d’une part, les bras et les épaules de l’archer emplumé d’autre part. Ce cas d’ambivalence de la lecture du trait est rare dans la production rupestre de la concession, mais aussi dans l’iconographie naqadienne en général. Sur la séquence de droite, on peut s’interroger pour savoir si le personnage entre les deux archers est féminin, avec, si on suit cette lecture, un sein représenté et des hanches élargies. Il faut par ailleurs noter la présence d’un bateau au milieu du panneau Locus 350. B1. P1. Comme il a été remarqué au cours d’une précédente étude (Graff & Bailly en préparation), une organisation spatiale de la répartition des scènes de guerre est révélée par la position des scènes de duel situées dans la partie occidentale de la concession, jusqu’au coude que forment le WAS et les scènes de bataille à l’est, à partir du coude. La méthodologie adoptée pour notre travail dans la concession, qui est de procéder à des prospections systématiques, si elle conduit à une progression lente et nécessite de nombreux retours sur place, nous permet au bout de quelques années d’avoir une vision d’ensemble à la fois précise et synthétique de l’implantation des gravures et de comprendre quelles logiques spatiales et paysagères sont à l’œuvre. Nous allons donc à présent voir comment se situent les scènes liées à l’iconographie de la violence dans un réseau de correspondances multiscalaires, en analysant d’abord les relations de proximité de chacune des 18 stations sélectionnées, puis en observant les logiques de répartition à l’échelle de la concession.

550

G. GRAFF

0

15 cm

WASRAP 1 2013. Locus 039.

0

0

10 cm

WASRAP 1 2013. L. 039. B1.

0

5 cm

WASRAP 4 2016. L. 272. B1.

WASRAP 5 2017. L. 369. 0

Fig. 6. Les scènes de guerre (Infographie G. Graff).

5 cm

5 cm

551

ICONOGRAPHIE DE LA VIOLENCE AU PRÉDYNASTIQUE ÉGYPTIEN

0

WASRAP 5 2017. L. 350. B1. P1.

WASRAP 6 2018. Military Camp B

Fig. 7. Les scènes de guerre (suite et fin) (Infographie G. Graff).

25 cm

552

G. GRAFF

Dans un premier temps, nous allons étudier quelles sont les thématiques associées à chaque scène traitant de l’iconographie de la violence en allant chercher les autres panneaux du même locus, ainsi que les autres stations immédiatement voisines. Certaines stations peuvent être relativement isolées, comme le Locus 010, ou au sein d’une importante concentration. C’est pourquoi le nombre d’occurrences d’un type de scène associé est moins important que sa présence/absence. Ainsi, si on prend en compte la chasse, il est moins significatif de dire qu’elle est associée neuf fois au Locus 502, bloc 2, panneau 6 et seulement une fois au Locus 283, que de remarquer qu’elle est associée à toutes les scènes relatives à l’iconographie de la violence. Ces associations ont été synthétisées par les graphiques en toile d’araignée (Fig. 8) au sein d’heptagones dont chaque section représente un type de scène possible. Ils sont donc sept, à savoir : la scène de navigation, celle de domination animale, celle de guerre, celle de triomphe/victoire, celle de chasse, la scène pastorale et la scène de présentation animale.3 Il arrive que plusieurs des scènes étudiées ici soient proches les unes des autres et soient dans la nébuleuse l’une de l’autre du champ de voisinage commun.4 Les tendances générales qui se distinguent de ces diagrammes sont : – une très faible représentation des scènes pastorales, qui ne sont associées qu’à une scène de domination (Locus 040), une scène de victoire (Locus 039) et une scène de guerre (Locus 039). Il s’agit en réalité d’une seule et même scène pastorale, celle du Locus 043 que l’on trouve dans l’environnement proche à la fois de Locus 040 et de Locus 039, les trois stations composant une nébuleuse. En règle générale, les représentations pastorales sont peu fréquentes dans notre concession (14 au total). – au contraire, une forte présence des scènes de chasse, qui sont associées à toutes les scènes de violence. Or, si les scènes de chasse prédynastiques sont nombreuses (119), elles restent moins fréquentes que les scènes de présentation animale, pourtant bien moins attestées dans les diagrammes. 3

Pour la définition de ces types de scènes, voir supra et Graff 2009 : 79–88. Les stations ainsi prises en compte pour définir la nébuleuse dans laquelle chaque scène de violence est incluse comprennent : pour L. 039 : L. 040 et L. 043 ; pour L. 040 : L. 039 et L. 043 ; pour L. 272. B1. P2 : L. 272. B1. P1, L. 267 et L. 268 ; pour L. 350. B1. P1 : L. 350. B1. P2–4, L. 350. B2, L. 350. B3, L. 348 et L. 356 ; pour L. 350. B1. P3 : L. 350. B1. P1–2, L. 350. B1. P4, L. 350. B2–3, L. 348 et L. 356 ; pour L. 350. B3 : L. 350. B1. P1–4, L. 350. B2, L. 348 et L. 356 ; pour L. 369 : L. 371, L. 365 et L. 370 ; pour L. 010 : L. 011 et L. 013 ; pour L. 011 : L. 010 et L. 013 ; pour L. 022. B8 : L. 022. B1–7, L. 022. B9–10 et L. 045 ; pour L. 053. B1. P1 : L. 053. B1. P2–3, L. 049, L. 048. B1. P1–9 et L. 048. B2. P2 ; pour L. 058 : L. 055, L. 057. B2. P1 et L. 059 ; pour L. 283 : L. 282 et L. 281 ; pour L. 502. B2. P6 : L. 502. B1. P1–5, L. 502. B2. P1–5, L. 502. B2. P7, L. 502. B3–4, L. 503. B1. P1–2, L. 506. B1–8 ; pour L. 506. B1 : L. 502. B1. P1–5, L. 502. B2. P1–7, L. 502. B3–4, L. 503. B1. P1–2, L. 506. B2–8 ; pour Military Camp B : Military Camp X et H ; pour Military Camp Z : Military Camp B.2 et J. Il est à noter que seules les stations comportant des scènes prédynastiques ont été retenues ici. 4

553

ICONOGRAPHIE DE LA VIOLENCE AU PRÉDYNASTIQUE ÉGYPTIEN

exclus 6 5 4 4

4

4

4

3

3

3

4 3

3

3 2

2 1

2

2

2

1

1

1

Locus 350. B1. P1

Locus 011

Locus 350. B1. P3

2

1

1

Locus 010

Locus 039

Locus 022

Les scènes de victoire/triomphe 4

4

4

4

4

3

3

3

3

3

2

2

2

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

Locus 010

Locus 040

Military Camp Z

Locus 058

5

Les scènes de domination animale

Locus 283

9

6

9

8

8

7

7

4 3 2 1

6

6

5

5

4

4

3

3

2

2

1

1

Locus 053

Locus 502. B2. P6

Locus 506. B3

4

4

4

4

4

3

3

3

3

3

2

2

2

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

Locus 039

Locus 272. B1. P1

Locus 350. B1. P1

Military Camp B

Locus 369

Les scènes de guerre

WASRAP Wadi Abu Subeira Rock Art Project

Scène de guerre/bataille

Scène de domination animale

Scène de chasse

Scène de présentation animale

Scène de triomphe

Scène de navigation

Scène pastorale

Infographie : G. Graff

Infographie : G. Graff

Fig. 8. Diagrammes araignées des associations de thématiques.

554

G. GRAFF

– En effet, si toutes les scènes de victoire sont associées à la présentation animale, trois scènes de guerre sur cinq le sont, ainsi que cinq scènes de domination animales sur huit. Elles sont donc sous-représentées. – Les scènes de navigation prédynastiques sont au nombre de 61 dans la concession. Elles sont présentes 11 fois sur 18 ici, ce qui constitue une forte représentativité proportionnelle. Si on regarde les associations de scènes constituant l’iconographie de la violence entre elles, on est surpris de voir que peu de victoires sont associées à la guerre, dont elles auraient semblé pouvoir constituer l’aboutissement heureux. Le cas de figure n’existe que sur le Locus 350. En revanche, il ressort des graphiques que la victoire se conjugue plutôt à la domination animale, sauf dans le cas du Locus 039. Le cas d’association de la guerre à elle-même sur Locus 272 est un peu particulier, puisqu’il semble que le découpage en deux panneaux (unités graphiques induites par la morphologie du bloc support) divise arbitrairement ce qui semble avoir été une unité narrative de deux personnages s’opposant en duel et un troisième, ne portant qu’un bouclier, à leurs côtés. Une configuration assez proche a été décrite pour le Locus 039. Ces premiers résultats doivent être complétés par un autre questionnement des données, qui est de voir dans les nébuleuses liées à chacune des 18 scènes étudiées (en non dans ces scènes proprement dites), quel est le statut des animaux, que ce soit dans les scènes de domination animale, de chasse, de présentation, de pastoralisme ou de guerre lorsqu’il y a lieu. Du fait de son statut particulier d’auxiliaire de chasse et parfois de substitut de la présence humaine, le chien n’a pas été intégré dans ces décomptes. Il est par ailleurs, comme le chasseur, une figure intrusive dans le milieu désertique et n’appartient pas à ce biotope. La carte (Fig. 9) montre la répartition entre animaux domestiques et sauvages pour chacune des scènes concernées. Toutes les stations illustrant la violence dans la concession sont associées à des représentations animales. La première chose qui apparaît à la lecture de cette carte est la très nette sectorisation entre animaux sauvages et domestiques. Les animaux domestiques, constitués quasi exclusivement par des bovins dont le statut domestique est indiqué par les marques sur le pelage, par la déformation volontaire des cornes (Landais 2000 ; Insoll et al. 2015 ; Dioli 2018) ou par leur présence en contexte pastoral, sont tous situés à l’ouest de la concession, jusqu’au coude du WAS et au décrochement de son affluent, le wadi Umm Ushsh. En contrepoint, les animaux sauvages (comportant, ibex, éléphants, gazelles de différentes espèces, bovins et ânes sauvages) apparaissent à partir de ces coudes et s’étendent à l’est. Sur trois stations (Loci 283, 022 et 369) situées dans le coude du WAS, les deux statuts coexistent.

ICONOGRAPHIE DE LA VIOLENCE AU PRÉDYNASTIQUE ÉGYPTIEN

555

L. 022 2

L. 272

L. 283 L

L. 040 L. 039 L

3 L. 350 L. 369

Milit. it. Camp B Milit. Camp Z

L. 011 L. 0100

L. 5022

L. 506

L. 058 L. 053

0

1869 m

WASRAP Wadi Abu Subeira Rock Art Project

Infographie : G. Graff f

Les scènes associées comportent des représentations animales : Sauvages

Domestiques

Non identifiables

Zone hors concession

Fig. 9. Carte montrant le statut des animaux liés à l’exercice de la violence, dans la concession orientale du WAS.

Les animaux domestiques sont associés à deux scènes de domination,5 une scène de victoire6 et quatre scènes de guerre7 (total sept scènes) tandis que les animaux sauvages côtoient six scènes de domination,8 trois de victoire9 et deux guerres10 (total 11 scènes). Ceci montre qu’on ne trouve pas de relation exclusive entre un statut animal et un type de scène. Chaque statut animal peut être rencontré avec chacun des trois types de scènes, domination animale, victoire/ triomphe ou guerre. En revanche, certaines tendances se dégagent, comme le fait qu’il y ait plus de guerres avec les animaux domestiques qu’avec les sauvages, ce qui demande à être explicité, mais plus de sauvages avec la représentation de domination animale, ce qui était plus attendu. On pourrait en effet se demander si l’enjeu des conflits représentés ne pourrait être la possession d’animaux domestiques, et les représentations relater des 5

Pour L. 283 et L. 040. L. 022. B8. 7 L. 272, L. 369, L. 039 + L. 350. B1. P1. 8 L. 502. B2. P6, L. 506. B1, L. 283, L. 053, L. 058 et Military Camp Z. 9 L. 022. B8, L. 350. B3 et L. 350. B1. P3. 10 L. 369 et Military Camp B. 6

556

G. GRAFF

conflits autour de la possession de troupeaux. Cela est renforcé par le fait que Locus 039, une scène de guerre, a dans sa nébuleuse Locus 043, qui est la seule scène pastorale sollicitée dans cette étude. La dialectique sauvage / domestique s’articule autour de trois espèces principales que sont les bovins, sauvages comme domestiques, associés pour les sauvages à la chasse, à la domination et à la guerre, en plus du contexte pastoral pour les domestiques. Une autre espèce importante est l’éléphant, associé à la victoire et à la domination. Le troisième animal est l’ibex que l’on trouve en contexte de chasse ou associé de manière secondaire à la domination (Locus 283). Cette espèce semble particulièrement propre à caractériser le milieu environnant. Locus 010 est le seul cas d’association de chasse, de triomphe et de domination, avec des aurochs et des éléphants. Cette scène conforte les conclusions énoncées précédemment qui voient un lien privilégié entre la domination animale, la victoire et les animaux sauvages. Si on part de l’hypothèse que les scènes de domination dans l’art rupestre du désert Oriental, qui sont le plus souvent des scènes de capture, illustrent le prélèvement d’animaux vivants qui seront conservés captifs avant leur abattage final dans le cadre de rituels perpétrés au sein d’enceintes comme celle de HK29A, il faut avoir à l’esprit la prégnance des bovins sauvages dans ces scènes au sein du WAS. L’identification des restes osseux sur ce complexe publié par V. Linseele et al. (2009) témoigne bien de la présence de bovin, sans pour autant qu’il soit une espèce dominante dans les assemblages. Il semble avoir été mieux représenté à Mahasna, dans le complexe du Block 3 (Anderson 2011). Ceci ne correspond pas en revanche aux représentations qui pourraient correspondre sur les D-Ware, où on voit plutôt des ibex et des autruches dans les espaces enclos (Graff et al. 2011). Les rares représentations de bovins connues sur les peintures des vases relèvent toutes des C-Ware de Naqada I (Graff 2009 : 149–188, tableaux des éléments), en contexte de chasse (dont un cas où le bovin est associé à un éléphant), de présentation animale, de victoire et dans une scène pastorale. Ceci pourrait corroborer les observations archéozoologiques qui soulignent la disparition progressive de l’aurochs en HauteÉgypte à l’époque naqadienne, du fait de la concurrence des troupeaux domestiques (Van Neer et al. 2004 :110–111). Un squelette complet d’aurochs a par ailleurs été retrouvé à Hiérakonpolis, dans la tombe 19 de la nécropole HK6 (Van Neer et al. 2004 : 100–101). Les représentations de bovin seront plus nombreuses et plus investies au point de vue signifiant à Naqada III, lorsque la figure de cet animal pourrait être une allégorie de la figure royale. Mais il semble que les figurations des bovins, sauvages comme domestiques, dans le WAS, ne reprennent pas du tout cette étape de la mise en place de l’idéologie pharaonique, ce qui permettrait

ICONOGRAPHIE DE LA VIOLENCE AU PRÉDYNASTIQUE ÉGYPTIEN

557

de faire penser que nous avons affaire à des représentations antérieures à Naqada III. Si l’on considère maintenant les répartitions à une échelle plus vaste, celle de la concession, on voit apparaître d’autres logiques. En effet, nous avons déjà examiné les répartitions spatiales des gravures prédynastiques à cette échelle au cours d’une précédente étude (Graff & Bailly en préparation). En particulier, en prenant en compte toutes les stations prédynastiques, et non plus les seules nébuleuses liées aux scènes de violence, en particulier toutes les scènes de présentation animale, nous avons constaté une sectorisation très nette dans la répartition des représentations d’animaux sauvages et de leurs contreparts domestiques. On retrouve la césure au niveau du coude du WAS et du ressaut du wadi Umm Ushsh. Elle marque la perte de contact visuel avec la vallée et la bascule entre un contexte rupestre lié à la vallée (aussi longtemps que l’on voit l’embouchure du wadi) et un site pleinement dans le désert. Dans la partie occidentale de la concession vers l’aval, les représentations d’animaux sauvages prédominent, alors qu’ils laissent la place aux bovins domestiques et à quelques caprins à l’est, vers l’amont. Cette sectorisation est inversée par rapport aux résultats que nous donnent les nébuleuses des scènes de violence. Nous avons de toute évidence affaire à deux logiques de répartition qui se superposent. La première, celle qui tient compte de toutes les représentations animales prédynastiques, indiquerait que la partie ouest de la concession, plus proche de la vallée, serait liée à des activités de chasse et aussi d’introduction de jeunes gens à la société masculine (Graff et al. 2018), peut-être lors de rituels pratiqués au cours de parties de chasse. La seconde partie de la concession, plus profondément tournée vers le désert, à l’est, est davantage mise en relation avec une activité pastorale. La zone tampon, entre les deux, est marquée par des représentations conflictuelles. La seconde logique, mise en évidence par les nébuleuses, non seulement inverse la situation géographique des représentations d’animaux sauvages et domestiques, mais crée un lien entre les animaux sauvages et la domination animale d’une part et entre les animaux domestiques et la guerre d’autre part. Nous avons vu plus haut que l’enjeu des batailles représentées à l’est du coude du WAS pourrait être lié à la possession de troupeaux de bovins. La domination animale, outre la sphère du sauvage, est également associée à la victoire. Entre les deux dynamiques, ce qui apparaît clairement, c’est la valeur de barycentre de la zone du coude du WAS, avec une forte concentration de gravures et une zone de recouvrement ponctuel entre deux espaces très contrastés. Pour résoudre les contradictions apparentes entre les logiques de distribution des gravures, entre répartition générale et nébuleuses autour des scènes de violence, on pourrait proposer qu’elles correspondent :

558

G. GRAFF

1) à une inscription spatiale des types d’activité dans le paysage, à l’échelle d’un territoire, pour ce qui concerne la répartition générale, 2) à l’enjeu symbolique de l’exercice de la violence, mettant en avant la sphère signifiante cette fois, sans tenir compte de la spatialisation. Il nous est donc donné à voir que la domination animale ressort du contrôle du sauvage, la victoire ou le triomphe marque le contrôle du sauvage et par là du chaos réduit par l’ordre (comme manifestation de cette conception dualiste qui oppose la Maât à l’Isfet). Enfin, les scènes de batailles nous renvoient à un mode d’acquisition de capital, au sens étymologique du terme. En guise de conclusion provisoire de ce qui reste un travail en cours, il nous faut souligner l’intérêt de mener des études détaillées d’un territoire donné et la nécessité d’abandonner la méthodologie qui consiste à procéder par échantillonnage et sélection des stations les plus spectaculaires ou originales. En effet, notre approche, plus minutieuse, mais plus longue à mettre en œuvre et ne donnant pas des résultats immédiats, permet pour la première fois dans le domaine de l’étude de l’iconographie prédynastique égyptienne de détecter la présence de logiques d’échelles dans la répartition et dans l’implantation des images sur un territoire restreint. L’intérêt de l’iconographie sur support rupestre est de pouvoir étudier des ensembles fixes et non plus seulement des objets mobiliers, dispersés au gré des aléas de la conservation. On peut alors approcher la notion de paysage. Il est important de constater que la quantité et le degré de complexité des informations qui sont véhiculées par l’image, lorsque l’on peut prendre le contexte en compte, sont largement supérieurs à ce que livre le décor intrinsèquement. Ces niveaux de cohérence sont multiples et à différentes échelles, alors même qu’il reste impossible d’établir qu’un projet d’ensemble collectif préalable ait été fixé. En effet, même en restreignant notre étude à la seule période prédynastique (soit environ un millénaire d’occupation des lieux), il va sans dire que de nombreux graveurs ont contribué à la création de l’ensemble, se répartissant sur des générations. S’ils n’obéissaient pas à un plan initial transmis, ils partageaient probablement un ensemble de conceptions, un mode de vie et des représentations sociales. Ce sont ceux-ci qui se sont exprimés de manière cohérente à travers eux. L’apport de l’iconographie naqadienne du désert à la compréhension de ces sociétés humaines est de nous donner à voir se déployer la rhétorique de l’image en dehors du champ funéraire auquel elle était confinée depuis longtemps et d’apprécier comment, au travers du maillage du territoire, elle se déploie dans un espace qu’elle contribue à construire et à structurer.

ICONOGRAPHIE DE LA VIOLENCE AU PRÉDYNASTIQUE ÉGYPTIEN

559

Bibliographie ANDERSON, D.A., 2011. Evidence for early ritual activity in the Predynastic settlement at el-Mahasna [in :] FRIEDMAN, R.F. & FISKE, P.N. (éds), Egypt at its Origins 3. Proceedings of the Third International Conference “Origin of the State. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt”, London, 27th July–1st August 2008. OLA 205. Louvain : 3–29. DIOLI, M., 2018. Nomad aesthetic: Cattle modifications among the northern Turkana of north west Kenya. Pastoralism: Research, Policy and Practice 8(6) : 1–10. FRIEDMAN, R.F., 2004. Elephants at Hierakonpolis [in :] HENDRICKX, S. ; FRIEDMAN, R.F. ; CIAŁOWICZ, K.M. & CHŁODNICKI, M. (éds), Egypt at its Origins: Studies in memory of Barbara Adams. Proceedings of the International Conference “Origin of the State. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt”, Kraków, 28th August–1st September 2002. OLA 138. Louvain : 131–179. GATTO, M.C. ; HENDRICKX, S. ; ROMA, S. & ZAMPETTI, D., 2009. Rock art from West Bank Aswan and Wadi Abu Subeira. Archéo-Nil 19 : 151–168. GRAFF, G., 2009. Les peintures sur vases de Nagada I–Nagada II  : Nouvelle approche sémiologique de l’iconographie prédynastique. EPM 6. Louvain. GRAFF, G., 2019. Ouadi Abou Soubeira [in :] COULON, L. & CRESSENT, M. (éds), Archéologie française en Égypte  : Recherche, coopération, innovation. Institut français d’Archéologie orientale. Bibliothèque générale 59. Le Caire : 52–53 et 262–267. GRAFF, G. ; BAILLY, M. & KELANY, A., 2018. Figures d’hommes dans le wadi Abu Subeira (Assouan, Égypte) : Le proche désert investi [in :] HUYGE, D. & VAN NOTEN, F. (éds), What ever happened to the people? Humans and anthropomorphs in the rock art of Northern Africa. Bruxelles : 461–474. GRAFF, G. & BAILLY, M., en préparation. Wadi Abu Subeira (Désert oriental, Assouan, Égypte)  : De l’analyse de la répartition spatiale des représentations à la caractérisation de l’appropriation des espaces marginaux désertiques. GRAFF, G. ; EYCKERMAN, M. & HENDRICKX, S., 2011. Architectural elements on decorated pottery and ritual presenting of desert animals [in :] FRIEDMAN, R.F. & FISKE, P.N. (éds), Egypt at its Origins 3. Proceedings of the Third International Conference “Origin of the State. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt”, London, 27th July–1st August 2008. OLA 205. Louvain : 437–465. HENDRICKX, S., 1995. Vase decorated with hunting scene. Vase decorated with victory scene [in :] PHILLIPS, T. (éd.), Africa: The art of a continent. Londres : 59–60. HENDRICKX, S., 2006. The dog, the Lycaon pictus and order over chaos in Predynastic Egypt [in :] KROEPER, K. ; CHŁODNICKI, M. & KOBUSIEWICZ, M. (éds), Archaeology of early Northeastern Africa: In memory of Lech Krzyżaniak. SAA 9. Poznań : 723–749. HENDRICKX, S., 2011. Hunting and social complexity in Predynastic Egypt. Académie royale des Sciences d’Outre-Mer. Bulletin des Séances / Koninklijke Academie voor Overzeese Wetenschappen. Mededelingen der Zittingen 57(2–4) : 237–263. HENDRICKX, S. & EYCKERMAN, M., 2010. Continuity and change in the visual representation of Predynastic Egypt [in :] RAFFAELE, E. ; NUZZOLO, M. & INCORDINO, I. (éds), Recent discoveries and latest researches in Egyptology. Proceedings of the First Neapolitan Congress of Egyptology (Naples, 18th–20th June 2008). Wiesbaden : 121–143.

560

G. GRAFF

HENDRICKX, S. & EYCKERMAN, M., 2015. Les animaux sauvages dans l’Égypte prédynastique [in :] MASSIERA, M. ; MATHIEU, B. & ROUFFET, F. (éds), Apprivoiser le sauvage / Taming the wild. CENiM 11 : 197–210. INSOLL, T. ; CLACK, T. & REGE, O., 2015. Mursi Ox modification in the Lower Omo Valley, Ethiopia and the interpretation of cattle rock art in Ethiopia. Antiquity 89(343) : 91–105. LANDAIS, E., 2000. Le marquage du bétail dans les systèmes pastoraux traditionnels. Revue d’élevage et de médecine vétérinaire des pays tropicaux 53(4) : 349–363. LINSEELE, V. ; VAN NEER, W. & FRIEDMAN, R.F., 2009. Special animals from a special place? The fauna from HK29A at Predynastic Hierakonpolis. JARCE 45 : 105– 136. LIPPIELLO, L. & GATTO, M.C., 2012. Intra-site chronology and palaeoenvironmental reconstruction at Khor Abu Subeira South 1 (Aswan, Egypt) [in :] HUYGE, D. ; VAN NOTEN, F. & SWINNE, D. (éds), The signs of which time? Chronological and palaeoenvironmental issues in the rock art of Northern Africa. Bruxelles : 269– 293. MURRAY, G.W. & MYERS, O.H., 1933. Some Pre-dynastic rock-drawings. JEA 19 : 129–132. PIQUETTE, K.E. ; GRAFF, G. ; BAILLY, M. ; KELANY, A. & EL-BIALY, M., 2017. Documenting a new hunting scene from Wadi Abu Subeira with Reflectance Transformation Imaging [in :] MIDANT-REYNES, B. & TRISTANT, Y. (éds) ; RYAN, E.M. (coll.), Egypt at its Origins 5. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference “Origin of the State. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt”, Cairo, 13th–18th April 2014. OLA 260. Louvain : 883–903. VAN NEER, W. ; LINSEELE, V. & FRIEDMAN, R.F., 2004. Animal burials and food offerings at the Elite Cemetery HK6 of Hierakonpolis [in :] HENDRICKX, S. ; FRIEDMAN, R.F. ; CIAŁOWICZ, K.M. & CHŁODNICKI, M. (éds), Egypt at its Origins: Studies in memory of Barbara Adams. Proceedings of the International Conference “Origin of the State. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt”, Kraków, 28th August–1st September 2002. OLA 138. Louvain : 67–130. VAN NEER, W. ; UDRESCU, M. ; LINSEELE, V. ; DE CUPPERE, B. & FRIEDMAN, R.F., 2015. Traumatism in the wild animals kept and offered at Predynastic Hierakonpolis, Upper Egypt. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 27(1) : 86–105. WENDORF, F., 1989. Report on site E-81-2: A Middle Paleolithic site in Wadi Abu Subeira [in :] WENDORF, F. ; SCHILD, R. & CLOSE, A.E. (éds), The Prehistory of Wadi Kubbaniya 3: Late Paleolithic archaeology. Dallas : 825–829.

THE PRODUCTION AND USE OF EARLY DYNASTIC EGYPTIAN FLINT BANGLES ELIZABETH HART Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, USA

I am very grateful to have worked with Stan from an early stage in my career. He is incredibly generous with his time, information, and connections, encyclopedic in his knowledge and treatment of data, and best of all, fun to work with! Though a discussion of flint artefacts may not seem like the obvious choice for a volume dedicated to someone who has made substantial contributions to understanding early Egyptian iconography, ceramics, and chronology, here I tap into Stan’s interests in craft production and symbolism.

Ancient Egyptian flint bangles are practically unique in the world. Their production was technologically difficult and demonstrates the skill of ancient Egyptian craftsmen. This paper explores how bangles were made, and their use as jewellery. The primary data are inventories of bangles and their production remains, along with observations of examples from Wadi el-Sheikh and the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Finds from flint mining sites give insight into the organisation of production, and find contexts suggest possible meanings and uses of these delicate and technologically impressive items.

Flint bangles are a particularly important kind of ancient Egyptian artefact, not only because they demonstrate the high degree of expertise achieved by Egypt’s flint craftsmen, but also because they are an example of flaked-stone work with clearly symbolic uses. A knife may have been important ideologically, but we can argue endlessly about whether it was also used to cut. A bangle on the other hand, was worn, and it acted almost entirely in the realm of the symbolic. As expressed so elegantly by Holcomb (2018), jewellery is more than just a trivial indulgence. Wearing jewellery is a meaning-laden act tied up with issues that can include identity (e.g. class, social status/role, marital status), individual or group memory (e.g. heirlooms, regalia), mediations and links with deities (e.g. apotropaic items, talismans, insignia), and emotion (e.g. mourning, jealousy, lust), to name just a few. These meanings of course can be multiple and entangled. Moreover, Holcomb emphasised that jewellery does not only passively indicate, but can enact and transform. This is perhaps most familiarly exemplified by the crowning of a king, or the exchange of rings during marriage. Jewellery “stands at once as aspiration and manifestation”

562

E. HART

(Holcomb 2018: 15), and it has done so across cultures since the earliest reaches of human prehistory. Here I consider the example of Egyptian flint bangles, focusing on how they were made and how they worked in a specific place and time. Method This research is based on observation of ten flint bangles and fragments in the collection of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, and on the study of bangle production remains recently found by the University of Vienna at Wadi elSheikh (Köhler et al. 2017). To put these materials in context, I compiled an inventory of Egyptian flint bangles and preforms from publications and museum databases (Tables 1–3). The result is 43 preforms, 18 flaked bangles and fragments, and 66+ polished bangles and fragments. These lists include pieces from unknown provenances, so to avoid counting any bangles twice (in calculations of average sizes or tabulations of different types), I did not include bangles that were excavated before the 1980’s unless their current location could be identified1 or it was possible to confirm they were not repeats by reference to photos, dimensions, or excavation/accession dates. Table 4 lists the remaining published bangles. Though I have attempted to be comprehensive, it is probable that more references to bangles and preforms will come to light, and hopefully this publication will inspire others to put additional focus on this rather unique class of flint working. The terms ‘flint’ and ‘chert’ are both often used to refer to microcrystalline and cryptocrystalline quartz. Geologically they are the same, and the differences in use are historical and regional (Harrell 2012; Luedke 1992), so here they are considered interchangeable. A bangle is defined here as a solid bracelet made of a single material, in this case flint. As is shown below, bangles were often worn together on the forearm. There are two kinds of flint bangles described in literature about ancient Egypt, ones that are entirely flaked (Fig. 1), and ones that are polished (Fig. 2). Chronology The inventory of flint bangles and preforms from excavated contexts demonstrates very clearly that these items date to the Early Dynastic period. The only bangles associated with the Old Kingdom come from questionable contexts. Schmidt (1992b: 88) suggested that one from Tell Ibrahim Awad was displaced. Another from Elkab (Fitzwilliam Museum E.48.1902) is reported as 1 I assume all those excavated in the 1980’s or later are stored in Egypt, due to laws restricting the removal of archaeological objects from Egypt.

EARLY DYNASTIC EGYPTIAN FLINT BANGLES

Fig. 1. Fragment of a flaked bangle. WES 15-4-93, from Wadi el-Sheikh Locality 20c. Excavated by the University of Vienna Middle Egypt Project.

Fig. 2. Polished bangle. Metropolitan Museum of Art 02.4.79. Abydos, tomb M14. Diam. 6.1 cm, W. 0.5 cm, Th. 0.5 cm. Gift of the Egypt Exploration Fund, 1902. Photo Credit: Gustavo Camps.

563

564

E. HART

Predynastic, but it is probably the one from Quibell’s (1898: 10) excavations, which was a disturbed context whose components have been variously dated from the 2nd to 6th Dynasties (Alexanian 2016: 40–52; Vanthuyne 2017: 10–13, n. 7). Otherwise, the latest examples date to the 2nd Dynasty and come from Kom el-Ahmar in Middle Egypt, Naga ed-Der tomb 1584, and the tomb of Peribsen in Abydos (Tables 2–4). By far, most of the flint bangles date to the 1st Dynasty. Thirty-five flint bangles (from 15 separate contexts) were assigned specifically to the 1st Dynasty by the excavators (Tables 2–4). Only a few bangles may predate the 1st Dynasty. Petrie recovered a flint bracelet fragment from Cemetery B at Umm el-Qaab (Petrie 1901b: 35–36, pl. XXXII.49), which contains tombs of Dynasty 0 and the early 1st Dynasty. Petrie (1901a: 36) also excavated bangles from tomb U354 in Hiw, and dated the bangles to S.D. 70–80, which corresponds to Naqada IIIB–C or late Dynasty 0–Dynasty 1. Five additional bangles (from four separate contexts) date to the Early Dynastic period in general. Overall, these objects have a very narrow timespan, and can be considered chronologically diagnostic of the Early Dynastic period. Previous Research “…it had always struck me as singular that so unsuitable a material as flint should have been employed for that purpose.” (Pitt Rivers 1882: 385, referring to flint bangles).

Early on, scholars recognised the difficulty and skill involved in making bangles from flint and wanted to figure out how they were made. Pitt Rivers (1882) was the first to discuss bangle production as he had acquired two complete flaked, but not polished, bangles said to come from an unspecified tomb in Qurna. He had also found natural flint nodules in the shape of rings in the Theban area and suggested that these were the blanks, or starting points, for making flint bangles. This idea was reiterated by Spurrell (1896) who added that the bangles would have been ground (polished) after the flaking. That same year, J. de Morgan (1896) suggested a different production method that started with a solid piece of stone that knappers hollowed out via drilling with a pointed stick and abrasive sand. He also connected the flaked bangles to the polished ones as part of the same production process. In 1898 Seton-Karr first published finds of flint mining and production from Wadi el-Sheikh, and later, Forbes (1900: 78–80) laid out a sequence for bangle production based on those remains, complete with photos of artefacts illustrating each stage. In this reconstruction, the knapper selected or made a flattish piece of stone, trimmed and thinned it into a disc by flaking on both faces, then perforated the disc. Forbes noted that the initial trimming and thinning stage was completed to different degrees (from rather rough to finely finished), probably because the subsequent perforation stage was so risky. Though Forbes did not specify exactly how the

EARLY DYNASTIC EGYPTIAN FLINT BANGLES

565

perforation was done, he did note that many discs broke at this stage. Then the knappers widened the perforation with additional flaking. He also made the connection between flaked bangles and polished bangles, but then backtracked and suggested that natural flint rings could have been the blanks for polished bangles, made entirely by grinding without flaking. In the Fayoum, Seton-Karr (1904a; 1904b) found additional flaked discs and bangle fragments.2 Currelly (1913) described flaked discs as part of the production process for bangles in his catalog of stone implements in the Egyptian Museum in Cairo. After this initial flurry of finds and interest, flint bangles were not the focus of much discussion until many decades later. In this interlude the practice of flintknapping was revived in North America and Europe among archaeologists, which probably accounts for the renewed interest in, and appreciation of, these technologically impressive items. Rhodes (1970) published a perforation method that he suggested could have been used for Egyptian bangle production. The method was based on the work of R. Edwards in the 1930’s, who was trying to replicate Egyptian flint bangles. To start, a sizeable flake was removed from a very large core. Then, in the center of the resulting scar on the core, a blow from a heavy hard hammer created a small cone-shaped crack in the core. Lastly, a very large flake was struck so that the cone would be in the center of the resulting flake. Upon removal of the flake, the cone was able to come free, leaving a small hole in the center. Focusing on a different stage in the production process, finds of bangles at Buto and Tell Ibrahim Awad initially led Schmidt (1987: 253) to define flaked bangles as the unfinished version of polished bangles. However, he later questioned whether flaked bangles might have been finished products in and of themselves (Schmidt 1992b: 88). Weiner (2011) outlined a production process for bangles similar in the early stages to that of Forbes, but with additional details. Weiner added that direct percussion was probably used for the initial stage of shaping the disc, and that at the end of this stage, the outer edge was refined with small edge retouch. For the perforation technique, Weiner suggested a procedure described by Chevalier et al. (1982) for piercing carnelian beads. In this method a hole is pecked a few millimeters deep on one face, then a punch is placed in the depression and hit with a hammer, so that a small cone pops off through the piece. Next, Weiner indicated that the bangle was hollowed with pressure flaking, and lastly ground smooth. Tillmann (1992) followed Weiner’s production process (based on an earlier version), but supposed that flint bangles could also have been made by flaking natural rings, which implies two production processes in operation at the same time.

2 I was not able to determine from available data whether the bangle fragments are polished or flaked only.

566

E. HART

Most of the above authors agree that the most difficult, and least well understood, part of the process was how the bangles were perforated. Lund (2009) helpfully summarised the perforation techniques proposed up to that point, and added that a piece of raw material with a natural depression in the center could be thinned in such a way that the thinning scars eventually intersected with the depression, leaving a hole. Two more publications that discussed bangles should be mentioned here, though they did not focus as much on production. Pawlik (2006) reported the find of a complete flaked bangle and fragments from the settlement site of Kom el-Ahmar in Middle Egypt, which is very close to Wadi el-Sheikh, but he was unsure whether such bangles were ever polished. He noted that no (flint?) artefacts from the site were intentionally polished. Graves-Brown (2010: 481– 483) summarised a number of finds of bangles, adding that those not from workshop contexts are from graves. This summary of research on bangles shows that a number of points remain somewhat unclear. The first is whether bangles were made from natural rings, solid discs, or both. The second is whether polished bangles result from the same production process as flaked bangles. The third issue is that previous research has barely touched on how bangles were used and what their possible meanings were. Below I draw on new finds and an inventory of bangles to add insights into the creation and use of flint bangles. Production Process Observation of polished bangles in the Metropolitan Museum of Art’s collection and reference to drawings and photographs of others showed clearly that polished bangles were initially flaked (Fig. 3). Remnant flaking scars are clearly visible on 36 of the polished bangles in Table 3. For the remainder it is not possible to confirm the presence or absence of flake scars from the available data and images, which means that remnant scars may still be extant. The presence of flaking scars on so many polished bangles confirms that they were simply polished after being flaked into their basic form, and that both types of bangles are part of one production process. As to whether natural rings were used as blanks for bangles, I was only able to find three examples of partially worked natural rings (Table 1) and these may be ad hoc tools rather than bangle preforms. One of the pieces on display in the Egyptian Museum in Cairo (CGC 63195) looks denticulated, and the worked edge of CGC 63196 is off-center and not very evenly circular. The description of a similar item in the collection of Saint-Germain-en-Laye (Cleyet-Merle & Vallet 1982: 98) says it was made on a natural ring, but in the drawing the interior is entirely flaked, so this is difficult to confirm. The piece is described as a scraper. All three of these objects come from the Theban

EARLY DYNASTIC EGYPTIAN FLINT BANGLES

567

Fig. 3. Interior of a polished bangle showing remnant flaking scars. Metropolitan Museum of Art 02.4.77. Abydos tomb M14. Gift of the Egypt Exploration Fund, 1902. Photo Credit: Gustavo Camps.

area. In contrast to the small number of worked natural rings, there are 40 solid discs and disc fragments that must have started as flakes or natural thin tabular pieces. Additionally, one example, Egyptian Museum CGC 64870, has a hollow so small that the piece could not have been a natural ring to start with. Overall, the vast majority of bangle preforms were made from solid pieces of stone, and if bangles were made from natural rings at all, it was only a very small number coming from the Theban area. Before detailing the production process, four objects from el-Mâhasna require some comment. Garstang (1903: 7, pl. 3) excavated them from the S2 area of the settlement, and they are now housed in the Pitt Rivers Museum in Oxford. Garstang described them as portions of bracelets, but the photos in the publication show that they seem thick, irregular, and U-shaped compared to the other pieces inventoried here. Additionally, their Predynastic date is a bit too early, given the Early Dynastic date of all other reliably dated pieces. These items could be crescent-shaped drills instead of bangle preforms, but I have not observed them personally to confirm. Data from the recent finds at Wadi el-Sheikh support the basic production sequence outlined by de Morgan (1896), Forbes (1900), and Weiner (2011), with some additions. Table 5 summarises the sequence. Bangle production was integrated with raw material procurement, as most preforms have been found at the flint mining sites of Wadi el-Sheikh and Wadi Sannur. There may have

568

E. HART

been a third production site for bangles in the Fayum, where Seton Karr collected some discs (Table 1) and bangle fragments (Table 4; Seton-Karr 1904a; 1904b; Field Museum, Chicago online database). The presence of chalky cortex on a number of preforms underlines that the raw materials were obtained from primary sources. This is likely a functional requirement for bangle production since secondary or surface materials could have incipient fractures which would make successful completion of a bangle impossible. Three preforms from Wadi el-Sheikh have cortex on both faces (e.g. Fig. 4), as does one example from the Fayum (Field Museum 219326). These show that thin natural nodules or tabular fragments were often chosen as the blanks for bangle production. The thickness of the three Wadi el-Sheik discs with cortex on both faces ranges from 0.77–2.55 cm. At Wadi Sannur, flakes were used as

Fig. 4. Two faces of a disc-shaped bangle preform fragment showing cortex on both faces. WES 15-46, from Wadi el-Sheikh Locality 20c. Collected by the University of Vienna Middle Egypt Project.

EARLY DYNASTIC EGYPTIAN FLINT BANGLES

569

blanks (Briois, personal communication). This difference likely relates to the raw materials available at the sites. Small flat tabular pieces of raw material are present in Wadi el-Sheikh, but if only very large nodules were available at Wadi Sannur, then the knappers could have produced large flakes to serve as the basis for the bangles. For the next stage of thinning and shaping the blanks into round flat discs, at Wadi el-Sheikh the knappers situated themselves in front of rock shelters, possibly to take advantage of the shade or block the wind. All of the discs and the bangle fragment were found among dense accumulations of lithic debitage and debris in front of rock shelters. Additionally, the percentages and absolute counts of bifacial thinning flakes are higher in these deposits than near the extraction trenches (Köhler et al. 2017: 23–27, table 3). The actual thinning and shaping were probably done through soft or hard hammer direct percussion as suggested by Weiner (2011). So far only hard hammerstones have been recovered at Wadi el-Sheikh, but softer materials like bone or antler are less likely to preserve, especially on the surface. One disc (17-132.3) has a perverse fracture, which is a mishap that characteristically occurs during thinning (Whittaker 1994: 212–216). Forbes (1900: 79) suggested that the discs were shaped to varying degrees before the knappers proceeded to the perforation stage, and this assessment is supported by the recent finds from Wadi el-Sheikh. Four discs appear to have broken during the perforation stage. The edge-on profiles of two of the discs (16-46 & 16-58) are slightly wavy, while the two other discs (16-47 & 16-51) have straight edge-on profiles that could be considered finished. The average thickness of these four pieces is 0.76 cm. The next stage was perforation. From all sites, there are five complete discs with no hole, which rules out the method suggested by Rhodes (1970) where the hole was prepared in tandem with the blank. These five discs do not appear to have any significant natural depressions in the center, which excludes the perforation-via-thinning method suggested by Lund (2009). That leaves the options of grinding, pecking, using a punch, or some combination, as discussed by Lund (2009) and Weiner (2011). The four above-mentioned disc fragments from Wadi el-Sheikh all have similar breaks with radial striations that point to the center of the disc, indicating that force was applied near the center. Such a break could be in line with grinding, pecking, or using a punch, all of which would exert pressure in the middle of the piece. Small chipping scars are present at the center of disc 15-51 (Figs 5 & 7.3), implying a process that starts with pecking. Of more than 8,000 lithic artefacts over 1.5 cm in size analysed so far at Wadi el-Sheikh, no drills have been identified. Nor has any cone-shaped debitage been found, as might result from using a punch, even though over 3,400 pieces below 1.5 cm in size have been collected and counted. A combination of pecking and drilling, or pecking and a punch, seem to be the most likely methods but the precise details of this stage remain to be understood.

570

E. HART

Fig. 5. Disc-shaped bangle preform fragment. Note the small chipping scars visible at the center of the break. WES 15-51, from Wadi el-Sheikh Locality 20c. Collected by the University of Vienna Middle Egypt Project.

After a perforation was achieved, any necessary final shaping of the exterior edge must have been completed. Then the center was hollowed out by pressure retouch (Weiner 2011: 150–151), as is indicated by the presence of flake scars on the interior of flaked bangle fragments. This process results in a flaked bangle with a triangular cross-section (Fig. 7.1). Data was available on the direction of flaking for hollowing the interior on nine flaked bangles (Table 2). Four showed flaking from both faces (two directions) (e.g. Fig. 3), and five from only one face (one direction). We should bear in mind that hollowing must have taken a few series of removals, and only the last is visible on each piece. The exterior diameters of the flaked bangles are quite uniform, between 7.5–8.5 cm (average 8.1 cm), with a coefficient of variation (CV) of just of 5 % (Table 6). The thickness and width are more variable with CVs of 15 % and 17 %, respectively. The average thickness is 0.7 cm, and this matches well with the average thickness of the four Wadi el-Sheikh preforms broken during perforation. The widths range from 0.8–1.38 cm and average 1 cm.

EARLY DYNASTIC EGYPTIAN FLINT BANGLES

571

At this point, the bangles must have been transported to the Nile Valley, as is demonstrated by the distribution of flaked bangles and polished bangles. Of the 18 flaked examples, 16 were found in Nile Valley and Delta sites, while only two were found at a mining site (Wadi el-Sheikh). These two probably broke during the flaking process. No polished bangles have been found at the flint mining sites. Polishing, a time-consuming process, must have taken place in the settlements rather than the mining sites, otherwise we might expect to find some broken polished bangle fragments at the mining sites, considering how fragile these items were. Furthermore, there is a very low number of flaked bangles overall (18), relative to the numbers of polished bangles (66+), implying that the polished bangles were the intended finished form. Therefore, I find it likely that flaked bangles are present in settlements sites in conjunction with the polishing phase of production, rather than in relation to their use as worn jewellery. The relatively sharp exterior edges of flaked bangles support this idea that the flaked bangles were not worn in life in the settlements. Therefore, flaked bangles should generally be considered examples of unfinished polished bangles. If we consider flaked bangles unfinished objects, then their occurrence in multiple settlement sites, stretching from Buto in the north to Elephantine in the south, implies that the polishing was organised in a more diffuse rather than highly concentrated manner. Additional support for the diffuse organisation of the polishing is the degree of variability. Some are highly polished, shiny, and with barely discernable flake scars, such as Brooklyn Museum 36.264, or Metropolitan Museum of Art 01.4.119 (Fig. 6). Others are barely

Fig. 6. Highly polished bangle fragment showing how width and thickness measurements were taken. Metropolitan Museum of Art 01.4.119. Abydos, Umm el-Qaab, tomb of Djer. Diam. 6.9 cm, L. 6.5 cm, W. 0.6 cm, Th. 0.7 cm. Gift of the Egypt Exploration Fund, 1900. Photo Credit: Gustavo Camps.

572

E. HART

Fig. 7. Bangle and disc fragments from Wadi el-Sheikh. 1) Bangle, WES 15-4-93; 2) Disc, WES 15-46; 3) WES 15-51. All from Wadi el-Sheikh Locality 20. Collected by the University of Vienna Middle Egypt Project. Drawings: E. Hart.

EARLY DYNASTIC EGYPTIAN FLINT BANGLES

573

polished at all, with flake scars still visible on all edges, such as Egyptian Museum CGC 64873 and CGC 64875 (Currelly 1913: 272, pl. LXI). Often the interiors were less polished than the exteriors (Fig. 3). The possible implications of this variability are that the polishing process may not have been tightly controlled or regulated, that it took place in different locations or workshops, and/ or that the degree of polishing was not extremely important. The diffuse organisation of the polishing stage stands in marked contrast to the flaking stage which took place at only two to three sites in conjunction with flint mining. The polished bangles were finished to the average dimensions of 6.6 cm (external diameter), by 0.41 cm (width), by 0.58 cm (thickness) (Table 7, Fig. 6). As with the flaked bangle fragments, the external diameter is the most standardised measurement. The coefficient of variation is only 4.2 %, even smaller than that of the flaked bangles despite the much larger sample size. The width and thickness remain relatively more variable. Use For understanding patterns of use, there is data pertaining to the contexts of flint bangles, how they were worn, and who wore them. As mentioned above, the much larger number of polished bangles (66+, Table 3) rather than flaked ones (18, Table 2) shows that most bangles were polished. The polished bangles overwhelmingly come from cemeteries. Of the 61 examples (from at least 25 separate excavated contexts), 59 are from cemeteries, while only two are from settlements. The association of polished bangles with cemeteries contrasts sharply with the flaked bangles that come predominantly from settlements and mining sites. Indeed, the two polished bangle fragments from settlements probably broke during the polishing process. One is from Buto, where a number of flaked (= unfinished?) bangle fragments have also been recovered (Schmidt 1987; 1989; 1992a). The other is from the temple area of Nekhen, a site where bead production occurred (Quibell & Green 1902: 11–12), notably another kind of jewellery that was flaked, perforated, and polished. Therefore, considering that polished bangles are the final form, their prominence in cemeteries implies that this kind of jewellery was made for the afterlife. This idea is supported by a consideration of the fragility of the bangles. They are quite thin (Table 7). Flint is a brittle material when it is thin, and it can break quite easily, a point underlined by the many unfinished pieces broken during production. If the bangles were worn regularly during life, I would expect to see many more fragments broken and accidently lost in settlements. However, the number of polished bracelet fragments recovered in settlements is almost negligible (Tables 3–4). Furthermore, the distribution does not relate simply to excavation priorities and chance, considering that quite a few flaked bangle fragments have been recovered from settlements. Therefore, it seems

574

E. HART

likely that the polished bangles were intended specifically for the afterlife. Alternatively, the bangles could have been carefully worn and curated during life, with any broken fragments collected and placed in a burial.3 Either way, the bangles were ultimately saved for appropriate deposition in a tomb, and thus they have a relationship with the afterlife. In situ finds show that the deceased often wore multiple flint bangles together on the forearm. The person in Giza grave 23 wore two on what appears to be the right arm according to the sketch published by Petrie (1907: pl. VIa). In Tarkhan tomb 149, the tomb occupant wore four on each arm (Petrie et al. 1913: 11, 22, pl. 3). The owner of Hiw tomb U354 wore six on the left arm (Petrie 1901a: 36, pl. 7). The deceased in Abydos tomb M14 rather strikingly wore seven on the left arm and one on the right (Petrie 1902: 16).4 Multiple flint bangles and fragments have also been recovered from other less well-preserved tombs, including the tomb of Djer in Abydos (10 fragments from at least six or seven different bangles: Petrie 1901b: 37, pls XXXV.57, XXXV.60–65, XXXVIII.45), Saqqara mastaba 3507 (three complete, six fragments: Emery 1958: 82, nos 107–115, pl. 100), and Naga ed-Deir tomb 1584 (one complete, two fragments: Reisner 1908: 53, pl. 41b). It is not possible to specify how or if the deceased wore these bangles from disturbed tombs. It is possible that they were stored in the tomb rather than placed on the body, but so far, there is no direct evidence of such a practice. Returning to how the bangles were worn, there is no discernable pattern in which arm was chosen or how many were put on each arm, so it appears that there was some flexibility in how flint bangles could be used to adorn the body. Furthermore, the above-mentioned variability in the degree of polishing indicates that there was not one prevailing “look” desired for the individual bangles, in other words there was not a social pressure or a demand for them all to be highly polished. Being worn in groups raises the question of whether flint bangles were made, or selected, in sets. Considering that the diameter of the bangles is quite standardised (see above), they were probably not made to fit individuals’ forearms, in other words, they were not “made to order”. However, they may have been selected in groups for similar characteristics such as colour or thickness. The four from Abydos tomb M14 in the Metropolitan Museum of Art collection are all a light grayish brown (10YR 6/2) to yellowish brown (10YR 5/4) in colour. They are all also quite similar in size. Their average dimensions are 6.3 cm in diameter by 0.33 cm wide by 0.48 cm thick, and they show a very small degree 3 Note that here bangles are designated “complete” if 100% of the circumference is present, but in many cases they have modern repairs. 4 The sketch shows the reverse of the description, with only one bangle on the left arm, but the sketches seem to have been composed in multiple phases, some well after the tomb was excavated (Petrie 1902: 15–16, pl. XLVIII).

EARLY DYNASTIC EGYPTIAN FLINT BANGLES

575

of variability in diameter and thickness. The M14 bangles do look quite similar in both size and colour, but this is a very small sample, and there were originally four additional bangles in the tomb that I was not able to assess. Nonetheless, it is notable that the bangles from king Djer’s tomb at Abydos are substantially different. The five fragments in the Metropolitan Museum of Art collection (which derive from at least four different bangles), are noticeably thicker and wider than the ones from tomb M14, averaging 0.55 cm in width and 0.73 cm in thickness. This may not sound like a lot of difference on paper, but it is immediately noticeable in person (compare Figs 2 and 3 to Fig. 6). These five Djer pieces are all dark greyish brown (10YR 4/2), and an additional fragment from the tomb, now in the Pitt Rivers Museum, appears to also match. However, there are four other pieces also thought to come from Djer’s tomb, now in the Pitt Rivers collection, which are quite different in colour. One is beige, one a reddish brown, and one is very dark, almost black. This invites speculation as to how colour and size might have influenced how bangles were selected and worn (e.g. perhaps all the dark grey ones were worn on one arm). Alternatively, the apparent occurrence of “sets” of bangles of one colour could also be a result of the raw materials available at a given site in a given time when they were produced. Unless more data can be added, at this point it is only possible to suggest that size, colour, or simple availability might have influenced groupings. A central question of use concerns who wore flint bangles, and there is some data concerning location, sex, age, and status of the wearers. Polished bangles with confirmed cemetery contexts have been found from Abu Rawash in the north, to Naqada/Ballas in the south. Some of unknown context are said to come from the Hierakonpolis area (Basilea, Table 3) but otherwise they have not been found in cemeteries farther to the south nor in the Delta. That distribution differs from the flaked bangles, which, though fewer, cover a larger area, being found in settlements from Buto in the north to Elephantine in the south, and clustering in the Delta. But if, as argued above, the flaked bangles are present in settlements for polishing, it is hard to believe that they were then moved to a more constricted area. It is at least possible to conclude that bangles were not confined to one region, nor only to the areas adjacent to the mining sites where initial flaking took place, but were used throughout a large swath of the country. There are a few tombs that can give information about the sex and age of tomb occupants buried with bangles. Petrie (1902: 16) thought that the person in tomb M14 at Abydos might be male because of the very large size of the femur, but this is of course not conclusive. The presence of bangles in the tombs of king Djer (Petrie 1901b: 37, pls XXXV, XXXVIII), King Semerkhet (Petrie 1901b: 36, pl. XLIII.19), and King Peribsen (Petrie 1901b: 36,

576

E. HART

pl. XLV.14) show that the bangles could be worn by males. Because the cemetery of Umm el-Qaab was quite disturbed, it is possible that the bangles associated with the tombs of Djer and Semerkhet could actually be from subsidiary burials rather than that of each king. However, the find of a bangle from the tomb of Peribsen connects the bangles more directly with males (and kings) because Peribsen was not accompanied by subsidiary burials. The bangle from the tomb of Herneith (Saqqara 3507, Emery 1958: 82–83), which had no subsidiary burials, shows that they could also be associated with females. Flint bangles seem to have been worn by adults rather than children. The bangles of King Djer, who ruled for over 40 years, show that they were utilised by elder adults. Herneith was also advanced in years, as materials in her grave indicate she lived from the reign of Djer into the reign of Den (Emery 1958: 94). It is unlikely that children wore flint bangles because the sizes of the bangles are all relatively uniform, and there are no substantially smaller examples that would fit the smaller wrists of children. There was some variability in the status of bangle owners, though they do seem to be found among high-status and/or wealthy graves. Clearly, bangles were included in tombs of the highest status people, such as kings Djer, Semerkhet, and Peribsen, along with Herneith, who may have been Djer’s wife or consort (Emery 1958: 94). As mentioned above, in the cases of Peribsen and Herneith there is little question that they were associated with the tomb owner and not subsidiary burials. However, bangles were also found specifically in subsidiary burials, a clear difference in status. These include three from subsidiary burials around king Djet’s tomb (Cemetery W, tombs 30, 59, and 72; Petrie 1901b: 36, pl. XXXVIII.45), and three from subsidiary burials around a large mastaba tomb at Giza (tombs 11, 14, and 23; Petrie 1907: 4–6, pls III, V, Vd, VIa). Additionally, some bangles come from cemeteries not directly associated with royals at all, such as Helwan, Tarkhan, Naga ed-Deir, and Hiw. A full assessment of the relative wealth or status of the tomb occupants with bangles in these other cemeteries was beyond the scope of this paper, but it is notable that some were from mud brick lined tombs with ample grave goods (e.g. Abydos M14, Naga ed-Deir 1532 and 1584). There is less detail about some other tombs (e.g. Tarkhan 149, Hiw U354), which could be because there was little else in the burial or because the tomb was disturbed. Overall, polished bangles tend to be found in the tombs of well off, adult, males or females living near the Memphite area or in the Nile Valley. Discussion In summary, flint bangles date to the Early Dynastic period. They were flaked from solid pieces of stone at flint mining sites. How the disc-shaped preforms were perforated is still somewhat debatable. The fully-hollowed, flaked, but not

EARLY DYNASTIC EGYPTIAN FLINT BANGLES

577

yet polished, bangles were then transported to the Nile Valley, where a number of flaked bangle fragments have been found in settlements ranging from the Delta to Aswan. The polishing stage probably took place in these settlements. The polished bangles were placed in burials, worn by the deceased in different configurations on the forearms. In general, the bangles were included in burials of adult males and females who were high status and/or relatively wealthy, throughout the Nile Valley and Memphite area. Returning to the question of why ancient Egyptians wore flint bangles, or in other words, what the jewellery “did” in this circumstance, I argued above that these bangles were produced especially for the afterlife. The bangles may have contributed to the deceased’s identity in the afterlife, particularly in terms of status. It is interesting that two of the early high-status tombs with bangles are king Djer and his possible wife or consort, Herneith. Djer was one of the early rulers of the 1st Dynasty, and combined with the predominance of bangles in the 1st Dynasty, it is tempting to suggest that the royal court set a style of adorning the body for burial that was then followed by others. The royal court could even have sponsored the production of the bangles, but this idea requires further research. Additionally, it is possible that the flint bangles were included in burials because of the symbolic connotations of flint itself. In texts of later periods, particularly from the Middle Kingdom on, knives made specifically of flint were particularly efficacious for defeating enemies of the gods (GravesBrown 2010: 223–278; Midant-Reynes 1981). Graves-Brown (2010), building on the work of others (e.g. Aufrère 1983; Harris 1961; Midant-Reynes 1981) also traced the association of flint with fire, snakes, and the eye of Horus/Re along with other deities and animals. While I do not want to draw a direct line between these specific meanings and the Early Dynastic period, I simply offer them as an example showing that flint could have an ideological meaning in Egypt. That ideological meaning might be part of the reason why these bangles were interred with the dead. If part of the definition of jewellery is the ability to actively transform, then a question arises: at what point in the production process does an object become jewellery? At what stage is the piece active? In this case, these flint bangles only became wearable once the central perforation was made and widened. Afterwards, the bangles still had to be transported and polished. But the variability in the degree of polishing, possibly including a few pieces said to come from tombs which were not polished at all (Pitt Rivers 1882), indicates that there was not a set point when they were considered finished, and they could be effective at any point during the polishing process. Additionally, it is likely that the ability of these pieces to confer meaning was not confined only to the wearing. The step of perforating these discs was technologically sophisticated—we are still not sure exactly how it was done. Moreover, perforation and

578

E. HART

hollowing are very precarious processes that took great skill, or even talent, as the many disc-shaped preforms broken in these phases attest. Accordingly, the knowledge and ability to make flint bangles was very possibly defining for the people who created them. In fact we can see this play out on the ground at Wadi el-Sheikh, where remains from making stone tools are present all over the site, but the bangle production only took place in the prime areas sheltered from the wind and sun. The skilled bangle craftsmen were the ones occupying these choice areas. Thus, the production of bangles was likely just as active in conferring meaning and transforming the people involved, as the use of them. Bangles made from other materials are present before and throughout the Dynastic period, including shell, ivory, bone, metals, faience, ceramic, glass, and various stones. Many of these were made for thousands of years, raising the question of why flint bangles were so short-lived. One possibility relates to changes in the economic organisation of flint knapping. Sponsorship of skilled producers, if such was the case, could have given away to independent specialisation, or the focus of production could have shifted to a more limited range of items. However, the organisation of Dynastic stone tool production is an area of study that is only at an early stage (Kobusiewicz 2015). The lithic remains at settlement sites (e.g. Buławka 2017; Hikade 2013; Jeuthe 2012; 2018; Kabaciński 2003; Kindermann & Riemer 2016; Midant-Reynes 1998; Pawlik 2006; Skłucki 2018; Tillmann 1992; Werschkun 2007a; 2007b; see also Kindermann this volume) and the massive amounts at mining sites (Briois & Midant-Reynes 2014; 2015; Köhler et al. 2017) show that flint knapping was still quite prevalent throughout the Old Kingdom and later. Consequently, the end of flint bangle production cannot be directly related solely to the decline of flint use in general, which was a complex and long-term, though punctuated, process (Graves-Brown 2010; Rosen 1996). Additionally, the demand for flint bangles may have declined if the value of flint as a raw material changed. The religious significance of flint apparent in later texts was discussed above, and flint’s suitability as a tool stone is evident in the presence of flint knives, sickles, and other tools into the New Kingdom. However, it is possible that after the Early Dynastic period Egyptians did not consider flint an appropriate medium for status items. In any case, the short time span of flint bangles invites further inquiry into the factors affecting the use and production of flint in Dynastic Egypt. Scholars often point to the ripple-flaked knives of the Naqada period as the prime example of Egyptian flintknapping prowess, particularly as these items combine technological skill, symbolic meaning, and aesthetic value. However, the bangles show that flintknapping skill and creativity were still vibrant in the Early Dynastic period, with a production process that stretched across the country applied to making beautiful, delicate, and technologically intricate jewellery that could “transform the body” of the deceased in the afterlife.

EARLY DYNASTIC EGYPTIAN FLINT BANGLES

579

Bibliography ALEXANIAN, N., 2016, Die provinziellen Mastabagräber und Friedhöfe im Alten Reich. Heidelberg (Unpubl. PhD dissertation, University of Heidelberg). (DOI: 10.11588/heidok.00020538, accessed 04/05/2020). ANDREWS, C., 1981. Catalogue of Egyptian antiquities in the British Museum 6: Jewellery 1: From the earliest times to the Seventeenth Dynasty. London. AUFRÈRE, S., 1983. Caractères principaux et origine divine des minéraux. RdÉ 34: 3–21. BRIOIS, F. & MIDANT-REYNES, B., 2014. Sur les traces de Georg August Schweinfurth : Les sites d’exploitation du silex d’époque pharaonique dans le massif du Galâlâ nord (désert Oriental). BIFAO 114: 73–98. BRIOIS, F. & MIDANT-REYNES, B., 2015. Ouadi Sannur. Institut français d’Archéologie orientale. Rapport d’activité 2014–2015: 49–55. BUŁAWKA, S., 2017. Flint artefacts from Tell el-Retaba Polish-Slovak archaeological mission, seasons 2010–2016. Ä&L 27: 87–98. CHEVALIER, J.; INIZAN, M.-L. & TIXIER, J., 1982. Une technique de perforation par percussion de perles en cornaline (Larsa, Iraq). Paléorient 8(2): 55–65. CLEYET-MERLE, J.J. & VALLET, F., 1982. Égypte [in:] Archéologie comparée  : Afrique, Europe occicdentale et centrale. Catalogue sommaire illustré des collections du Musée des Antiquités nationales de Saint-Germain-en-Laye 1. Paris: 68–165. CURRELLY, C.T., 1913. Stone implements. Catalogue générale des antiquités égyptiennes du Musée du Caire, nos 63001–64906. Cairo. DE MORGAN, J., 1896. Recherches sur les origines de l’Égypte 1  : L’âge de la pierre et les métaux. Paris. EMERY, W.B., 1958. Great tombs of the First Dynasty III. Excavations at Sakkara; MEES 47. London. FORBES, H.O., 1900. On a collection of stone implements in the Mayer Museum made by Mr. H.W. Seton-Karr, in mines of the ancient Egyptians, discovered by him on the plateaux of the Nile Valley. Bulletin of the Liverpool Museums 2(3–4): 77–115. GARSTANG, J., 1903. Mahâsna and Bêt Khallâf. ERA 7. London. GRAVES-BROWN, C.A., 2010. The ideological significance of flint in Dynastic Egypt. London (Unpubl. PhD dissertation, University College). HARRELL, J.A., 2012. Utilitarian stones. UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology 1(1). https://escholarship.org/uc/item/77t294df. HARRIS, J.R., 1961. Lexicographical studies in ancient Egyptian minerals. Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin. Institut für Orientforschung. Veröffentlichungen 54. Berlin. HENDRICKX, S., 1994. Elkab 5: The Naqada III cemetery. Brussels. HIKADE, T., 2013. Elephantine 35: The lithic industries on Elephantine island during the 3rd millennium BC. AV 121. Wiesbaden. HOLCOMB, M. (ed.), 2018. Jewelry: The body transformed. New York. JEUTHE, C., 2012. Balat 10: Ein Werkstattkomplex im Palast der 1. Zwischenzeit in Ayn Asil. FIFAO 71. Cairo JEUTHE, C., 2018. Einblicke in die lithischen Industrien von der 1. Zwischenzeit bis in das Neue Reich: Die beispiele Tell el-Dab’a und Tell Edfu. Ä&L 28: 259–290. KABACIŃSKI, J., 2003. Lithic industries at Tell el-Farkha (Eastern Delta) [in:] KRZYŻANIAK, L.; KROEPER, K. & KOBUSIEWICZ, M. (eds), Cultural markers in the later Prehistory of Northeastern Africa and recent research. SAA 8. Poznań: 201–212.

580

E. HART

KATTHAGEN, B., 1985. Die Silexartefacte aus Elephantine: Ein Beitrag zur Steinindustrie des Alten Reiches in Ägypten. Tübingen (Unpubl. MA thesis, University of Tübingen). KINDERMANN, K. & RIEMER, H., 2016. Early Dynastic lithic production sequences from Tell el-Fara’in/Buto [in:] HARTUNG, U.; HARTMANN, R.; KINDERMANN, K.; RIEMER, H. & STÄHLE, W., Tell el-Faraʻin–Buto: 12. Vorbericht. MDAIK 72: 106–14. KLASENS, A., 1958. The excavations of the Leiden Museum of Antiquities at AbuRoash: Report of the second season: 1958, part I. OMRO 39: 32–55. KOBUSIEWICZ, M., 2015. The production, use and importance of flint tools in the Archaic Period and the Old Kingdom of Egypt. Archaeopress Egyptology 12. Oxford. KÖHLER, E.C., 2004. The Cairo Museum collection of artefacts from Zaki Saad’s excavations at Helwan. Museum of Antiquities Maurice Kelly Lecture 8. Armidale. KÖHLER, E.C.; HART, E. & KLAUNZER, M., 2017. Wadi el-Sheikh: A new archaeological investigation of ancient Egyptian chert mines. PLoS ONE 12(2): e0170840. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0170840. LUEDTKE, B.E., 1992. An archaeologist’s guide to chert and flint. Archaeological Research Tool 7. Los Angeles. LUND, M., 2009. Egyptian flint work, part II: Flint bracelets. Chips 21(2): 5–6. MIDANT-REYNES, B., 1981. Les noms du silex en égyptien. RdÉ 33: 39–45. MIDANT-REYNES, B., 1998. Le silex de ֝Ayn-Aṣil: Oasis de Dakhla–Balat. DFIFAO 34. Cairo. NEEDLER, W., 1984. Predynastic and Archaic Egypt in the Brooklyn Museum. Wilbour Monographs 9. New York. PAWLIK, A., 2006. The lithic industry of the pharaonic site Kom al-Ahmar in Middle Egypt and its relationship to the flint mines of the Wadi al-Sheikh [in:] KÖRLIN, G. & WEISGERBER, G. (eds), Stone Age – mining age. Veröffentlichungen aus dem Deutschen Bergbau-Museum 148; Der Anschnitt: Zeitschrift für Kunst und Kultur im Bergbau. Beiheft 19. Bochum: 545–561. PETRIE, W.M.F., 1901a. Diospolis Parva: The cemeteries of Abadiyeh and Hu 1898–9. MEEF 20. London. PETRIE, W.M.F., 1901b. The Royal Tombs of the earliest dynasties 1901, part II. MEEF 21. London. PETRIE, W.M.F., 1902. Abydos, part I: 1902. MEEF 22, London. PETRIE, W.M.F., 1907. Gizeh and Rifeh. BSAE/ERA 13. London. PETRIE, W.M.F., 1920. Prehistoric Egypt, illustrated by over 1000 objects in University College, London. BSAE/ERA 31. London. PETRIE, W.M.F. & BRUNTON, G., 1924. Sedment I. BSAE/ERA 34. London. PETRIE, W.M.F. & QUIBELL, J.E., 1896. Naqada and Ballas 1895. London. PETRIE, W.M.F.; WAINWRIGHT, G.A. & GARDINER, A.H., 1913. Tarkhan I and Memphis V. BSAE/ERA 23. London. PITT RIVERS, A.H.L.F., 1882. On the discovery of chert implements in stratified gravel in the Nile Valley near Thebes. The Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 11: 382–400. QUIBELL, J.E., 1898. El Kab. ERA 3. London. QUIBELL, J.E., 1900. Hierakonpolis: Part I. ERA 4. London. QUIBELL, J.E. & GREEN, F.W., 1902. Hierakonpolis: Part II. ERA 5. London. REISNER, G.A., 1908. The Early Dynastic cemeteries of Naga-ed-Dêr: Part I. University of California Publications. Egyptian Archaeology 2. Leipzig. RHODES, J.G., 1970. Flint rings and Egyptian armlets. Antiquity 44(174): 145–146.

EARLY DYNASTIC EGYPTIAN FLINT BANGLES

581

ROSEN, S.A., 1996. The decline and fall of flint [in:] ODELL, G.H. (ed.), Stone tools: Theoretical insights into human prehistory: 2nd Conference on Lithic Analysis: Papers. Interdisciplinary Contributions to Archaeology. New York: 129–158. SAAD, Z.Y., 1947. Royal excavations at Saqqara and Helwan (1941–1945). CASAÉ 3. Cairo. SCHARFF, A., 1929. Die Altertümer der Vor- und Frühzeit Ägyptens 2: Bestattung, Kunst, Amulette und Schmuck, Geräte zur Körperpflege, Spiel- und Schreibgeräte, Schnitzereien aus Holz und Elfenbein, Verschiedenes. Staatliche Museen zu Berlin. Mitteilungen aus der ägyptischen Sammlung 5. Berlin. SCHMIDT, K., 1987. Die lithischen Kleinfunde [in:] VON DER WAY, T. (ed.), Tell el-Faraʻin/Buto: 2. Bericht. MDAIK 43: 250–255. SCHMIDT, K., 1989. Die lithischen Kleinfunde [in:] VON DER WAY, T. (ed.), Tell el-Faraʻin/Buto: 4. Bericht. MDAIK 45: 300–307. SCHMIDT, K., 1992a. Tell el-Faraʻin/Buto and el-Tell el-Iswid (south): The lithic industries from the Chalcolithic to the early Old Kingdom [in:] VAN DEN BRINK, E.C.M. (ed.), The Nile Delta in transition: 4th.–3rd. millennium B.C. Proceedings of the Seminar held in Cairo, 21.–24. October 1990, at the Netherlands Institute of Archaeology and Arabic Studies. Tel Aviv: 31–41. SCHMIDT, K., 1992b. Tell Ibrahim Awad: Preliminary report on the lithic industries. [in:] VAN DEN BRINK, E.C.M. (ed.), The Nile Delta in transition: 4th.–3rd. millennium B.C. Proceedings of the Seminar held in Cairo, 21.–24. October 1990, at the Netherlands Institute of Archaeology and Arabic Studies. Tel Aviv: 79–96. SETON-KARR, H.W., 1898. Discovery of the lost flint mines of Egypt. The Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 27: 90–92. SETON-KARR, H.W., 1904a. Fayoom flint implements. ASAÉ 5: 145–186. SETON-KARR, H.W., 1904b. Flint implements of the Fayum, Egypt. Report of the United States National Museum for the year ending June 30, 1904: 745–751. SKŁUCKI, J., 2018. Lithic assemblages from the southern part of the Eastern Kom at Tell el-Farkha: Seasons 2015–2016 [in:] CIAŁOWICZ, K.M.; CZARNOWICZ, M. & CHŁODNICKI, M. (eds), Eastern Nile Delta in the 4th millennium BC. Kraków: 125–132. SPURRELL, F.C.J., 1896. Flint implements of Naqada [in:] PETRIE, W.M.F. & QUIBELL, J.E., Naqada and Ballas 1895. London: 55–59. TILLMANN, A., 1992. Die Steinartefakte des dynastischen Ägypten, dargestellt am Beispiel der Inventare aus Tell el-Dab’a und Qantir. Tübingen (Unpubl. PhD dissertation, University of Tübingen). VANTHUYNE, B., 2017. Early Old Kingdom rock circle cemeteries in the 15th and 16th nomes of Upper Egypt: A socio-archaeological investigation of the cemeteries in Dayr al-Barshā, Dayr Abū Ḥinnis, Banī Ḥasan al-Shurūq and Nuwayrāt. Leuven (Unpubl. PhD dissertation, KU Leuven). WEINER, J., 2011. Typologie und Technologie von Steinartefakten aus dem altägyptischen Hornsteinbergbau-Revier im Wadi el-Sheikh, Ägypten. Der Anschnitt: Zeitschrift für Kunst und Kultur im Bergbau 63: 130–156. WERSCHKUN, C., 2007a. Gallery III.4 lithics [in:] LEHNER, M. & WETTERSTROM, W. (eds) Giza reports, the Giza Plateau Mapping Project 1: Project history, survey, ceramics, and the Main Street and Gallery III.4 operations. Boston: 247–256. WERSCHKUN, C., 2007b. Main Street lithics [in:] LEHNER, M. & WETTERSTROM, W. (eds) Giza reports, the Giza Plateau Mapping Project 1: Project history, survey, ceramics, and the Main Street and Gallery III.4 operations. Boston: 153–161. WHITTAKER, J.C., 1994. Flintknapping: Making and understanding stone tools. Austin.

Field Museum, Chicago

Field Museum, Chicago

Pitt Rivers Museum, Oxford

Egyptian Museum, Cairo

Egyptian Museum, Cairo

Musée d’Archéologie nationale, Saint-Germain-enLaye

Egyptian Museum, Cairo

Egyptian Museum, Cairo

Said to be Fayum

Sahara Desert

Thebes, Valley of Kings

Theban area

Theban area

Unknown

Unknown

Current Location

Said to be Fayum

Site

CGC 64870

CGC 64869

52.651

CGC 63196

CGC 63195

1900.58.1.1–6

219327

219326

ID

Source

Context

Disc, partially hollowed

Disc

Disc?, partially hollowed

Partially worked natural ring

Partially worked natural ring

Disc

Disc

Disc

Type