Assignment 2 Anthropology
P1: VENDOR/GCX P2: GCR
Journal of Archaeological Research [jar] PP078-295744 April 20, 2001 8:17 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999
Journal of Archaeological Research, Vol. 9, No. 2, 2001
Some Recent Trends in the Archaeology of Predynastic Egypt
Stephen H. Savage1
The traditional explanation of the origin of Egypt credits the legendary Menes with founding the state through the conquest of the Delta region, but this is more of a political legend than explanation. Anthropological archaeologists and Egyp- tologists are bringing new methods and questions to their search for an adequate explanation for the development of one of the world’s first territorial states. Early investigations of cemetery sites in Upper Egypt and settlements in the Delta have been supplemented by the excavation of more Upper Egyptian settlement sites, while cemeteries and other important settlements are now being uncovered in the Delta. Three trends are particularly important for the development of social complexity in ancient Egypt: (1) a growing appreciation of regional differences in Predynastic culture; (2) chronological refinements; and (3) an emphasis on group social and political developments, and trade. A consensus appears to be develop- ing that stresses the gradual development of complex society in Egypt, in which a number of small polities coalesced into three or four larger entities during the late Predynastic, followed by the assimilation of the northwestern Delta by the Thinite rulers. The effort to control trade with the southern Levant and Mesopotamia seems to have encouraged expansion of Upper Egyptian cultural and political influence northward.
KEY WORDS: Egypt; Predynastic; Early Dynastic; state formation; trade.
INTRODUCTION
In the Ptolemaic period, a priest named Manetho wrote a history of ancient Egypt for his Greek overlords; he described 30 ruling families, or dynasties, and credited the founding of Egypt to the first king of the 1st Dynasty, whom he called Menes. Over the past 125–150 years, archaeologists have learned a great deal
1Department of Anthropology, Box 872402, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona 85287-2402; e-mail: shsavage@asu.edu.
101
1059-0161/01/0600-0101$19.50/0C© 2001 Plenum Publishing Corporation
P1: VENDOR/GCX P2: GCR
Journal of Archaeological Research [jar] PP078-295744 April 20, 2001 8:17 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999
102 Savage
about the prehistory of ancient Egypt (Fig. 1) and the development of one of the world’s first states. Some archaeological discoveries have supported the traditional account; others have forced revisions (while still keeping the general outline). In the late 1800s and early 1900s, many cemeteries in Upper Egypt were cleared, and settlement sites in Middle and Lower Egypt were investigated, especially those thought to have a biblical connection (Trigger, 1989, p. 103). Significant advances in chronology were made early on; Petrie’s (Petrie, 1901) invention of ceramic se- riation provided the first framework for Egyptian prehistory and spurred an entire generation of fieldwork. Petrie’s chronological work placed the Predynastic period (identified earlier by Morgan [1897]) on solid ground; he defined three subperi- ods, the Amratian, Gerzean and Semainean (or “Protodynastic”), and “Sequence Dates,” based on his division of 900 Nagada graves into 50 groups of 18 graves each.
Petrie’s contribution spurred several decades of digging in Egypt. Many ceme- teries were excavated, or “cleared,” in Upper Egypt, including Nagada and Ballas (Petrie and Quibell, 1896), Armant (Mond and Meyers, 1937), Badari (Brunton and Caton Thompson, 1928), Harageh (Engelbach and Gunn, 1923), Mahasna (Ayrton and Loat, 1911), Matmar (Brunton, 1948), Mostagedda (Brunton, 1937), and Naga-ed-Dˆer (Lythgoe, 1905; Lythgoe and Dunham, 1965). Little attention was paid to settlement sites in Upper Egypt in these early decades, though Quibell and Green’s work at Hierakonpolis (Quibell, 1900; Quibell and Green, 1901), Gertrude Caton Thompson’s careful excavations at Hemamieh (Brunton and Caton Thompson, 1928), and Petrie’s early investigation at Nagada South Town (Petrie and Quibell, 1896) were notable exceptions.
In contrast to a largely cemetery-based archaeology of the Upper Egyptian Predynastic, early efforts in Lower Egypt concentrated more on settlement sites such as Merimde (Junker, 1929, 1930), el Omari (Bovier-Lapierre, 1926a, 1926b), Maadi (Menghin, 1931, 1932, 1934; Menghin and Amer, 1932, 1936), and the Fayum (Caton Thompson, 1927, 1934). These projects revealed a Lower Egyptian Predynastic culture different from the valley tradition further south. Ceramics, lithics, burial practices (when cemeteries were found), and house forms (where they could be compared) all differed from those discovered by Petrie and his colleagues (see Hoffman, 1984).
By the middle of the twentieth century, though, other concerns had pre- empted Predynastic archaeology, World War II, Egyptian independence, and the Arab–Israeli wars interrupted fieldwork, while the rising tide of nationalism in the Middle East encouraged an emphasis on Islamic archaeology more than the earlier periods (Trigger, 1989, p. 183). In spite of these distractions, several im- portant contributions occurred during this period. Baumgartel (1955) discussed her research with Petrie’s collections and stressed a Mesopotamian or Elamite ori- gin of the “Dynastic Race.” Saad conducted extensive excavations in the environs of Helwan (Saad, 1947, 1951, 1957, 1969). Walter Emery’s excavations in the
P1: VENDOR/GCX P2: GCR
Journal of Archaeological Research [jar] PP078-295744 April 20, 2001 8:17 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999
Some Recent Trends in the Archaeology of Predynastic Egypt 103
Fig. 1. Location of major Predynastic sites and regional subtraditions in relation to modern towns in Egypt.
P1: VENDOR/GCX P2: GCR
Journal of Archaeological Research [jar] PP078-295744 April 20, 2001 8:17 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999
104 Savage
Saqqara region were put on hold during World War II and again following the 1948 war with Israel, but he was able to complete the excavation of a sequence of large, 1st Dynasty cenotaphs or tombs (Emery, 1949, 1954, 1958).
The construction of the Aswan Dam shifted the center of investigations to Upper Egypt and Lower Nubia for several years and helped revive prehistoric archaeology (see Adams, 1992); Wendorf and his colleagues (1968) illuminated earlier periods in Egyptian prehistory that help set the stage for later developments. Arkel and Ucko’s (Arkel and Ucko, 1965) review of the Predynastic collated much of the previous work but was handicapped by the current state of research. Trigger (1968, p. 61) noted that “. . . for various reasons there have been few systematic excavations on prehistoric sites in Egypt in recent years and most studies have consisted of the reworking of old and rather badly published evidence.”
In spite of these efforts, by the 1950s and 1960s advances in anthropological archaeology elsewhere seemed to have marginalized Egypt. Near Eastern archae- ology and Egyptology were often seen by outsiders as essentially atheoretical and still committed to the cultural historical, biblical, or classical paradigms that had played such important roles in their early development (Trigger, 1968, p. 61, 1989). If Egyptologists were conscious of theoretical advances taking place in anthropol- ogy, they seemed to view them as having little relevance to ancient Egypt. The need for theoretical abstractions was obviated by detailed evidence from hieroglyphics, art, and political history, but anthropologists rarely possessed the skills needed to master these subjects. So by midcentury, many anthropological archaeologists and Egyptologists had come to view each other’s contributions as largely irrelevant to their own fields of inquiry. Although Egyptologists and prehistorians recognized that Egypt was one of the earliest examples of a “pristine,” “territorial” state, it was thought that she had little to contribute to a growing anthropological interest in the development of state-type societies elsewhere because of her perceived unique- ness. Egypt was viewed as a peculiar place, whose cultural history was perhaps so unique that it shed little new light on large theoretical issues (Trigger, 1993, p. 2).
By the last decades of the twentieth century, these attitudes had begun to change. Renewed fieldwork in Egypt, led frequently by anthropologically trained archaeologists such as the late Michael Hoffman, showed that the archaeology of Predynastic Egypt was far more complicated than had been assumed earlier. Regional differences began to be appreciated, and these caused some researchers to reevaluate the chronological methods employed by earlier generations of Egyp- tologists. The complexity now revealed called for more sophisticated models than those provided by traditional Egyptology. Within anthropology, postprocessualism sought to reemphasize the links between archaeology and history and encouraged positivist archaeologists to pay less attention to general analogies and more to reading the past from specific cultural contexts. And while few researchers work- ing in Egypt applied this paradigm explicitly (for exceptions, see Bard, 1992a; Rice, 1990), it has affected a partial rapproachment between Egyptologists and
P1: VENDOR/GCX P2: GCR
Journal of Archaeological Research [jar] PP078-295744 April 20, 2001 8:17 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999
Some Recent Trends in the Archaeology of Predynastic Egypt 105
anthropologists (see the papers in Lustig, 1997; especially those by O’Connor, Adams, Wenke, and Trigger). As a result, anthropologists are taking renewed in- terest in early Egypt. Although unique in some ways, Egypt now resembles early civilizations in other regions. Trigger’s study (Trigger, 1993, p. 110) of seven early states showed that
. . . a wide variety of economic behavior was associated with early civilizations, the one constant being the production of surpluses that the upper classes appropriated through a tributary relationship. Yet I have been able to discover only one basic form of class hierarchy, two general forms of political organization, and a single basic religious paradigm that constituted the supernatural counterpart to the tributary relationship. I have documented significant variation from one early civilization to another only in terms of art styles and cultural values.
Trigger’s cross-cultural comparison helps explain the older conflicts between anthropological archaeology and Egyptology, while showing that an anthropolog- ical approach can contribute to a study of ancient Egypt. The “significant variation in art styles and cultural values” that Trigger noted has formed the cleavage plane between anthropology and Egyptology in the past, since Egyptology has focused on the differences while anthropology has been more concerned with the class hierarchy, economic and political organization that share similarities with other early states. Thus the uniqueness of Egypt’s artistic expression and cultural system led Egyptologists to consider the civilization of the Nile Valley to be something apart. However, the fact that Trigger finds only a few cross-cultural differences in many aspects of ancient states means that the study of any early civilization can inform research on the others. So the study of the emergence of the Egyptian state may shed new light on the development of others elsewhere.
The early excavations continue to influence our understanding of the Pre- dynastic. We still know more about mortuary practices in Upper Egypt than we know about settlement sites, and we know more about settlements in the north than we know about cemeteries. But recent work has begun to redress these im- balances. Hierakonpolis (Harlan, 1985; Hoffman, 1982, 1987), Nagada (Hassan, 1992), the Hu-Semaineh region (Bard, 1989, 1992b), the Badari region (Holmes, 1993; Holmes and Friedman, 1994), and the Abydos-Thinis region (Patch, 1991) have all been the targets of regional archaeological survey and excavation. In the Delta, renewed work at Maadi and el Omari (Canevaet al., 1987; Debono and Mortenson, 1990; Rizkana, 1989), Heliopolis (Debono and Mortenson, 1988), and Merimde (Eiwanger, 1988, 1992) has added to our understanding of these early cultures, highlighting differences from each other and from Upper Egypt. In addition, new excavations at Tell Fara’in-Buto (Faltings and K¨ohler, 1996; Way, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1991a, 1991b, 1992), Minshat abu Omar (Kroeper, 1988, 1989), and Mendes (Friedman, 1991, 1992) have further defined the Lower Egyp- tian culture, its relations with Canaan, and its eclipse by the Nagada culture of Upper Egypt sometime in the Late Predynastic period.
P1: VENDOR/GCX P2: GCR
Journal of Archaeological Research [jar] PP078-295744 April 20, 2001 8:17 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999
106 Savage
Since the 1970s fieldwork in the Predynastic has flourished, and many im- portant new contributions have been made. It is beyond the scope of this paper to consider them all, and readers are encouraged to consult the abbreviated bib- liography for some of the relevant publications. Following a short discussion of the traditional Predynastic chronology and a summary of earlier views about how ancient Egypt emerged from the Predynastic, I discuss three developments that I believe are central to the renewed contribution that Egypt can bring to the study of early complex societies. These are (1) a growing appreciation of regional de- velopments along the Nile Valley in the Predynastic; (2) a refined chronological framework that helps anchor not only Egyptian prehistory but also the larger Near East; and (3) the study of sociopolitical developments and trade, which frames a fresh understanding of the evolution of the Egyptian state. These considerations are not independent of each other. Many researchers are beginning to appreciate this fact, and a nascent consensus appears to be forming that emphasizes the grad- ual coalescence of a series of small polities, encouraged by competition in the mortuary regime and the effort to control foreign trade.
Predynastic Chronological Considerations
Chronological difficulties abound in the Predynastic. Petrie’s Amratian, Gerzean, and Semainan periods were replaced by Kaiser’s (Kaiser, 1957) Nagada I, II, and III, and a complicated set of 11 to 15 subphases. The Semainan was gen- erally rejected by Egyptologists, some of whom referred to the last part of the Predynastic as the “Protodynastic period” (see Kantor, 1944, 1992). An earlier tradition, now called the “Badarian,” was foreseen by Petrie (who had started his Sequence Dates at 30 to leave room for it) but not documented until Brunton and Caton Thompson’s (Brunton and Caton Thompson, 1928) work at Badari and Hemmamiah. The growing appreciation of regional differences along the Nile, which I discuss later, has encouraged some researchers to set aside chrono- logical schemes that assumed similar cultural trajectories, in favor of tying re- gional chronologies together through external methods such as radiocarbon dating. Hassan’s (Hassan, 1985, 1988) radiocarbon-based chronology recognizes four ab- solute periods in the Nile Valley: (1) the Early Predynastic (ca. 5000–3900 B.C.), (2) Middle Predynastic (ca. 3900–3650 B.C.), (3) Late Predynastic (ca. 3650– 3300 B.C.), and (4) Terminal Predynastic (ca. 3300–3050 B.C.). These periods are roughly equivalent to the Badarian, Nagada I (Amratian), Nagada II (Gerzean), and Nagada III (Protodynastic).
The term “Dynasty 0” complicates the chronology as well. It describes a politi- cal period rather than a cultural period, sometime before the 1st Dynasty (belonging to the Nagada III or Protodynastic), during which some researchers believe Egypt had already been unified under the rule of Upper Egyptian paramount chieftains or kings (e. g., Kaiser and Dreyer, 1982). Renewed work at the Umm el-Qaab near
P1: VENDOR/GCX P2: GCR
Journal of Archaeological Research [jar] PP078-295744 April 20, 2001 8:17 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999
Some Recent Trends in the Archaeology of Predynastic Egypt 107
Abydos has revealed a series of tombs belonging to rulers attributed to Dynasty 0. Royal names have been found incised on pottery vessels, including “Scorpion” (not the “Scorpion” from the well-known “Scorpion Macehead” discovered by Quibell, 1900, at Hierakonpolis) and “Ka” (Kaiser and Dreyer, 1982, p. 263). Two other, as yet undeciphered royal names are referred to as “King A” (Brink, 1996) and “King B” (Wilkinson, 1995, p. 206, 1999, pp. 52–58). These new discoveries document the power of the Thinite royal family before the unification of Egypt, although the term “Dynasty 0” implies a family of kings ruling over the whole of Egypt, and this has not yet been demonstrated.
The development of regional chronologies has fostered a reinterpretation of existing mortuary data. Where once variation in the mortuary regime was thought to reflect temporal development in a relatively straightforward way, new research suggests that Predynastic cemeteries are far more complicated spaces where de- scent group rivalries demanded different burial treatments. These document the existence of local and regional competition in the Predynastic, setting the stage for the unification of Egypt at the beginning of the 1st Dynasty (ca. 3050 B.C.).
The Origins of Ancient Egypt—Earlier Views
The Legend of Menes
In considering the origins of the Egyptian state, it is best to start with the Egyptians themselves. The traditional story was recorded by Manetho, a priest who lived during the late fourth and early third centuries B.C. Looking back over 2,500 years, Manetho desribed 30 dynasties who had ruled Egypt. The first two consisted of a family of rulers from This, who conquered Lower Egypt (see Trigger, 1983, p. 52) to found the state. Manetho names Menes as the first king of the 1st Dynasty. Before Menes, Manetho states that Egypt was ruled by a series of demigods from Upper and Lower Egypt; on the Pyramid Texts of the late Old Kingdom (ca. 2350–2150) they are called the “Divine Souls of Nekhen” (ancient Hierakonpolis) and “Divine Souls of Pe” (Buto in the northwest Delta). “Together, the Souls of Nekhen and Pe are considered to be collective representations of the deceased kings of the Predynastic Upper and Lower Egyptian kingdoms whose capitals were housed at Hierakonpolis and Buto respectively” (Friedman, 1996, p. 344).
The traditional explanation of Egypt’s beginning, like Manetho’s dynastic division of Egyptian history, is much more recent than the events it describes. There are no extant copies of Manetho’s text; it is described in the writings of Josephus from the middle of the first century A.D. However, several lists of kings from ancient Egypt appear to support Manetho’s system, including the Palermo Stone (which lists kings from the 5th Dynasty back before the 1st Dynasty, and a series of mythological kings who had ruled over a prehistoric, unified
P1: VENDOR/GCX P2: GCR
Journal of Archaeological Research [jar] PP078-295744 April 20, 2001 8:17 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999
108 Savage
Egypt); the Karnak Tablet from the 18th Dynasty lists kings back to Menes. The Abydos Tablet from the reign of Seti I and the Saqqara Tablet from the reign of Rameses II (both 19th Dynasty) list rulers at least as far back as the 1st Dy- nasty. The Turin Papyrus, written sometime in the 19th Dynasty, includes mythical, semidivine kings before the 1st Dynasty (see Hoffman, 1984). The name Menes (or Meni) does not appear in the lists until the 18th Dynasty (Vercoutter, 1992, p. 199).
The discovery of the Narmer Palette at Hierakonpolis (Quibell, 1900) pro- vided artistic, if not archaeological, support for the traditional view; it also in- troduced the difficulty of a Thinite versus Hierakonpolis origin for the founder of the Egyptian state. On one side of the palette, Narmer is depicted wearing the white crown of Upper Egypt, delivering the coup d’grace to a helpless victim identified with the sites of Buto and Sais in the northwestern Delta; on the other side of the palette, Narmer wears the red crown of Lower Egypt and observes a procession of standard bearers carrying nome symbols. The main register on the palette depicts two mythological “serpo-leopards” with their necks intertwined. The traditional interpretation of the iconography views the intertwined beasts as a symbol of political unification resulting from warfare.
There are many problems with the traditional view, which stem primarily from the lack of historical connections between the sources and the events, dif- ficulties related to the interpretation of specific finds, and a tendency to read the artifacts literally. Fairservis (1991) recently reevaluated the meaning of the Narmer Palette, concluding that it has nothing to do with the unification of Upper and Lower Egypt. Moreover, it is of uncertain archaeological provenience, having been found in the “main deposit” of the temple enclosure at Hierakonpolis, where Fairservis describes it as having been “‘junked’ by later occupiers of the temple area” (1991, p. 1). The cache of objects may be a foundation deposit accompany- ing the remodeling of the temple (Quibell, 1900), but the remodeling may have taken place as late as the 2nd or 3rd Dynasty, several centuries after the event the palette proports to describe. Wilkinson (1999) and Millet (1990) further caution against reading the Narmer Palette literally; Wilkinson indicates that “it is perhaps safer to ignore the palettes and maceheads as potential historical sources” (1999, p. 49).
The identification of Narmer as the first king of the 1st Dynasty is fairly secure, although his identification with the legendary Menes is less certain. Menes might have been Pharaoh Aha, Hor-Aha, or he might have been Narmer. It is clear, though, that Narmer was a historical figure, his tomb has been excavated at Abydos, and his name is found incised on potsherds and other objects from Tell Erani in the north (Ward, 1969) to Hierakonpolis in the south (Wilkinson, 1999, p. 69, lists numerous other examples).
The issue is not Narmer’s existence, but rather the role he may have had in bringing about the unification of Egypt. Dreyer’s reexcavation around the tomb of
P1: VENDOR/GCX P2: GCR
Journal of Archaeological Research [jar] PP078-295744 April 20, 2001 8:17 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999
Some Recent Trends in the Archaeology of Predynastic Egypt 109
Narmer at Abydos revealed a small ivory label on which Narmer smites an enemy identified with Buto by the papyrus reeds sprouting from his head. Dreyer states that it is “the same event as depicted on the Narmer Palette. From this we may conclude that the Narmer Palette indeed refers to an historical event which took place in a certain year” (Dreyer, in Davies and Friedman, 1998, p. 35). Although Wilkinson has cautioned against reading the Narmer Palette literally, he agrees that the label lends new weight to the historical interpretation (1999, pp. 49, 68). In any event, as Wenke (1991) points out, the traditional description is more of a political history than explanation. Recent research has shown that there probably was no unified polity in existence in Lower Egypt around 3100 B.C. (Kemp, 1989, pp. 43, 44).
The “Dynastic Race” Hypothesis
Petrie (1939) believed that ancient Egypt was unified by an invading “dynas- tic race” that originated in the east, somewhere around ancient Elam or Sumer, and entered Upper Egypt via the Wadi Hammamat around the beginning of the Gerzean period (ca. 3500 B.C.), conquering the “primitive” Egyptians. Influenced by the appearance of Mesopotamian trade items and architectural elements found in Predynastic and Dynastic contexts, Petrie’s views were based on the hyper- diffusionism of his day. The idea was discarded by Massoulard (1949) in favor of indigenous development, though several researchers (e.g., Baumgartel, 1955; Edwards, 1971; Emery, 1961) continued to espouse the older view. Modern schol- arship agrees with Massoulard (though see Rice, 1990, for an exception).
Recent Views, Anthropological and Otherwise
Anthropologists have suggested several possible explanations for the devel- opment of the Egyptian state. Wittfogel’s (Wittfogel, 1952) hydraulic hypothesis attributed the rise of political power to the need to manage expanding irrigation sys- tems; Carneiro’s circumscription hypothesis (Carneiero, 1970, also see Bard and Carneiro, 1989) outlined a process of conflict over scarce resources, leading finally to the creation of a single state polity. Both of these ideas have been rejected by later scholarship. While Wittfogel’s notion may be applicable to ancient Mesopotamia, it appears that irrigation in the Nile Valley was not centrally controlled because basin agriculture, fed by the annual Nile flood, was the dominant mode (see Hassan, 1988; Lamberg-Karlovsky and Sabloff, 1979). Likewise, population pressure, or circumscription, may not have played a significant role. Hassan (1988, p. 165) argues that the population of ancient Egypt was insufficient to create much cir- cumscription, as do Kemp (1989, p. 31) and Wilkinson (1999, p. 45). However, Hoffman (1984, pp. 309, 310) suggests that population concentration (though not
P1: VENDOR/GCX P2: GCR
Journal of Archaeological Research [jar] PP078-295744 April 20, 2001 8:17 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999
110 Savage
necessarily actual growth) resulted in locally circumscribed environments. Bard and Carneiro emphasize that social circumscription may have played as large a part in creating interpolity friction; by the later Predynastic, Upper Egypt was essentially filled up with regional polities such that “the splitting off of new groups would have been less permissible” (1989, p. 21).
An explanation based on multiple causes seems better suited to the available data. A combination of factors, including trade (though Kemp, 1989, does not think trade was an important factor), iconography, and competition among descent groups and larger polities appears to form the developmental milieu out of which a unified state in Egypt finally emerged (Hassan, 1988; Lamberg-Karlovsky and Sabloff, 1979; Trigger, 1983; Wilkinson, 1996, 1999).
Kemp’s (Kemp, 1989) research points to a gradual process of coalescence, in which many small polities formed along the Nile from independent agricultural villages in the Nagada I (Amratian) period, later being absorbed into a series of larger units in Nagada II that merged into the kingdoms of Upper and Lower Egypt. Kemp describes the process as a sort of Monopoly game, in which everything began relatively equal and ended when one family (the 1st Dynasty rulers) controlled virtually everything. The process may have begun as far back as the Badarian period (ca. 5500–4000 B.C.), when Anderson (1992) notes that there were already differences between elite and nonelite graves.
Predynastic Sociopolitical Units
The sociopolitical landscape of Egypt in the historic period reinforces Kemp’s explanation of the development of complexity. During the historic period, Egypt was divided into administrative districts called nomes. Egyptologists have seen in the nome structure what they believe to be the ancient remnants of preunification political and social structure. Breasted (1964, p. 66) noted that, “These ‘nomes’ were presumably the early principalities, from which the local princes who ruled them in prehistoric days, had long disappeared.” Trigger agrees, stating that “It has also frequently been assumed that the original Egyptian states were small units equivalent to the nomes or districts that served as administrative divisions of the country in historic times. Out of the union of these tiny states, two coherent, independent kingdoms were thought to have emerged.. . . ” (1983, pp. 44, 45). Grimal (1992, p. 58) notes that “although the provinces were not actually identified as such until the time of Djoser [3rd Dynasty]. . . the emblems representing each of the nomes date back to the period before the unification of Egypt. These were the territories of the ancient provincial dynasties.. . . ” Kemp’s model envisions a gradual process of political unification of Upper Egypt; during the early to middle Predynastic small polities were gradually merged into three larger configurations, centered at Hierakonpolis, Nagada, and This (near Abydos). During the middle to
P1: VENDOR/GCX P2: GCR
Journal of Archaeological Research [jar] PP078-295744 April 20, 2001 8:17 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999
Some Recent Trends in the Archaeology of Predynastic Egypt 111
late Predynastic, Kemp believes these three polities merged into what he called the “proto-kingdom of Upper Egypt,” which then continued its expansion northward to encompass the “proto-kingdom of Lower Egypt.”
These polities were probably large chiefdoms. Several researchers have sug- gested or implied that chiefdom-type social organizations existed in Predynastic Egypt. For example, Hoffman (1982) believed that the Painted Tomb at Hierakonpolis was possibly that of a local paramount chieftain; Hassan (1988, pp. 170–172) describes the Predynastic in terms of a “hierarchy of chiefs”; Bard and Carneiro (1989, p. 21) suggest that chiefdoms existed in Upper Egypt by Nagada II.
For anthropologists, confusion has been created by the way Egyptologists borrow or use terms like “chiefdom,” “state,” “ranked society,” and “stratified society.” Although these terms were optimistically described by Service (1971) and Fried (1967), they have proven more elusive in the archaeological record (for example, see Binford, 1971; Brown, 1981; Chapman and Randsborg, 1981; Earle, 1987, 1991; Flannery, 1995). Scholars working with early Egyptian materials frequently borrow the terminology but use it rather loosely. For example, Anderson (1992) suggested that Badarian graves exhibited a two-tiered social structure that might already have been stratified, implying that certain individuals enjoyed greater status and the preferential access to resources that went with it. Likewise, Wilkinson (1999, p. 29) states that “the stratified nature of Upper Egyptian society in Naqada I is also highlighted by the presence, in certain graves, of objects that seem to indicate a special role for the tomb owner, though not necessarily a position of political power.” From a strict anthropological point of view, such items might indicate a ranked society rather than a stratified one. But in Nagada II, “elaborate child burials point to a ranked society with inherited status” (Wilkinson, 1999, p. 30). This presents the rather awkward picture of a developing society moving from a more complex stratified form in Badarian and Nagada I times to a less complex, ranked form in Nagada II. Certainly, however, this is not what Anderson and Wilkinson mean to suggest; their use of these terms should probably be understood in a more vernacular sense.
Another example is seen in the various terminology used for the polities in Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt. By Nagada II, Kemp (1989) suggests the presence of “kingdoms” at Hierakonpolis, Nagada, and This, but he calls the polity that resulted from their unification the “proto-kingdom of Upper Egypt.” Clearly, he doesn’t mean to imply that kingdoms evolve into more complex polities that are merely proto-kingdoms. Wilkinson (1999) implies that the unification event is what created the state in Egypt, that is, that earlier polities were not states, but kingdoms. Trigger, however, clearly suggests that there were states in the Predynastic period, in both his 1983 discussion quoted earlier and in his 1968 work: “there is also the question of why a southern state should have been the one to unite all of Egypt” (p. 87).
P1: VENDOR/GCX P2: GCR
Journal of Archaeological Research [jar] PP078-295744 April 20, 2001 8:17 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999
112 Savage
The tiny states to which Trigger refers are the same polities that Hassan calls chiefdoms and Kemp calls kingdoms, while Trigger’s state in his 1968 discussion clearly means the Upper Egyptian polity that Kemp calls a proto-kingdom. Guksch (1988) believes that Egypt was not a state, anthropologically speaking, until the end of the First Intermediate period (ca. 2040 B.C.), because many of the criteria that Renfrew (1973, p. 543) discusses as being characteristics of chiefdoms were not present in Early Dynastic, or even Old Kingdom Egypt. I have suggested elsewhere (Savage, 1997) that many of the anthropological characteristics of states developed in Egypt after the unification rather than before it. In any event, the various uses of these terms means that the polities that are discussed in the following sections should be thought of as chiefdoms in a rather loose sense.
State Formation in Ancient Egypt
Recent developments in Predynastic Egyptian archaeology in regional differ- entiation, chronological refinements, and the nature of Predynastic sociopolitical relations have allowed researchers to develop exciting new interpretations of old evidence. These developments are clearly nested; one cannot reinterpret Predynas- tic mortuary treatments and gain fresh insights into social organization without first reevaluating cemetery chronology. If we see temporal drift as the only cause of the spatial layout in cemeteries, then many other social factors that contributed to their final form will be obscured. But by developing new seriation and radiocarbon-based cemetery chronologies, we reveal complex social relationships hitherto unseen. It makes sense that Predynastic cemeteries would be organized along descent group lines, especially since later ones were, as Reisner (1932) pointed out, but it has taken a fresh chronological approach to reveal them.
The reanalysis of Predynastic chronometrics would not have been under- taken without a renewed appreciation of regional differentiation along the Nile. Although Scharff saw regional differences in Predynastic ceramics as long ago as 1928, it has taken more thorough analyses of ceramics (Finkenstaedt, 1980, 1981, 1985; Friedman, 1994), lithics (Holmes, 1989), and settlement patterns (e.g., Patch, 1991) to specify precisely what the regional differences are and to establish their approximate boundaries. Their work helped spur Wilkinson (1996) and Savage (1995, 1997) to develop their regional chronologies, which in turn encouraged fresh approaches to the problem of the origin of the Egyptian state.
What motivated the rulers of Upper Egyptian polities (and ultimately Narmer) to expand their influence northward might have been economic rather than political. The disproportionate wealth of Cluster 3 burials at Naga-ed-Dˆer in the period from 3510 to 3340 B.C. included items of west Asian origin (Savage, 1997). Trigger (1983, p. 49), and Hassan (1988, p. 172) have suggested that interpolity conflict probably resulted from a desire to control trade. In recent years significant amounts of Canaanite materials have been found at the east Delta sites of Maadi (Caneva
P1: VENDOR/GCX P2: GCR
Journal of Archaeological Research [jar] PP078-295744 April 20, 2001 8:17 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999
Some Recent Trends in the Archaeology of Predynastic Egypt 113
et al., 1987; Rizkana, 1989) and Minshat abu Omar (Kroeper, 1988, 1989). The North Sinai Survey (Oren, 1973, 1989) recorded more than 250 sites of the EB I (late Predynastic) period with mixed Egyptian/Canaanite materials. Several EB I sites in the Levantine Coastal Plain and northern Negev contain significant amounts of Egyptian material, which suggests the presence of an Egyptian trading colony at ‘En Besor and possible trading stations at Taur Ikbeinah and Tell Ma’ ahaz (Harrison, 1993; Joffe, 1993).
One consequence of the effort to extend the power of Upper Egyptian chiefs northward and monopolize trade routes to western Asia was the creation of a sin- gle, larger polity, ranging from the area of the First Cataract in the south to the Mediterranean. Immediately, it seems, Egyptian trading colonies were established in the Negev region; Levyet al. (1995) have published aserech(an early form of the royal name, containing the ruler’s name above a palace facade) of Narmer from the Lahav Terrace in southern Israel and evidence of Egyptian ceramic manufac- turing and architectural styles. Their results suggest that by the beginning of the 1st Dynasty the Pharaohs were already beginning to exert control over the northern trade routes.
The political union of Upper and Lower Egypt achieved by the end of the Predynastic seems tenuous at best, and there are ample reasons to suggest that it did not immediately result in the formation of a state, at least in the conventional anthropological sense (Savage, 1997, pp. 258–261). Rather Narmer’s conquest of Buto in the Delta seems to have created only a more territorially extensive version of the southern chiefdom. The formation of the state in Egypt was an unintended consequence of Narmer’s initial expedition to take control of the northern trade routes and the incremental efforts of later 1st and 2nd Dynasty kings to consolidate their political, economic, and ideological power.
REGIONALISM IN THE UPPER EGYPTIAN PREDYNASTIC
The evidence of regional differences along the Nile has existed for some time. Prehistorians and Egyptologists have long recognized Upper and Lower Egyptian cultures that appeared to legitimate the traditional division of Egypt into the “Two Lands.” Differences in ceramics, housing, and mortuary treatments in the Early and Middle Predynastic had disappeared by the end of the Late Predynastic in favor of southern material culture and practices; archaeologists have interpreted these developments as evidence of the spread of Upper Egyptian cultural influence into the Delta in the later Predynastic, and political expansion by some time in Dynasty 0.
However, there is evidence of significant regional variation in Upper Egypt itself, especially in the Early and Middle Predynastic. The three principal re- gions of Upper Egypt (Fig. 1), moving from south to north, are (1) Hierakonpolis, (2) Nagada, and (3) Abydos (or Thinis). While the Elephantine region in the far
P1: VENDOR/GCX P2: GCR
Journal of Archaeological Research [jar] PP078-295744 April 20, 2001 8:17 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999
114 Savage
south functioned in the Predynastic as an important entry point for Nubian trade and a source of pink granite and other crystalline rocks, the agricultural potential of the area could not support enough people to have allowed the area to develop into a significant polity on its own. However, further south, in Lower Nubia, Wilkinson (1999, pp. 40, 41) suggests that a major center of Predynastic kingship evolved around the region of Qutsul. There, early rulers had at least adopted some of the iconography of Upper Egyptian rulers (including the White Crown, the god Horus, and niched mud-brick architecture). Furthermore, cemeteries at Hierakonpolis and Qutsul contain cattle burials (Hoffman, 1982, pp. 55, 56; Williams, 1986, p. 176). Early trade in ivory clearly would have traversed the region, and it is clear that this important center, while outside Egypt proper, participated in a complex web of material and ideological exchange with the Hierakonpolis polity to the north (Wilkinson, 1999, pp. 345, 346).
Hierakonpolis Region
The Hierakonpolis regional tradition is centered in the upper Nile River Val- ley, from Lower Nubia north to a line somewhat upriver of Armant (in this sense, it includes the area around Elephantine). Badarian period settlements appear con- centrated in the northern part of the region, from Hierakonpolis to Asyut (Fig. 1). During the Nagada II and III periods, it is thought that the political influence of the Hierakonpolan polity gradually spread northwards, absorbing the Nagada region (Hoffman, 1984, also believed that Hierakonpolis absorbed the Abydos region). More than 70 “localities” have been discovered near Hierakonpolis (Hoffman, 1982, Table VI.3). Settlements, cemeteries, and industrial sites also were found up the Wadi Abul Suffian at Hierakonpolis, a settlement pattern atypical of other regions (Hoffman, 1982, 1984; Patch, 1991). Decreased rainfall and lower Nile floods are thought to be partly responsible for the gradual nucleation of Predynastic settlement closer to the river (Hoffmanet al., 1986, pp. 183, 184). By the middle of the Nagada II period, settlements in the Hierakonpolis region were generally found on Nile levees, buried wadi fans, and the low desert terraces at the edge of the flood plain. Settlement clusters were usually not spaced closer than 4–5 km apart in the more densely populated stretches of the river valley (Patch, 1991). Regional centers were flanked by smaller outlying sites of various functions, while cemetery sites continued to be located in the low desert, sometimes reusing earlier locations (Hoffman, 1982, p. 123; Hoffmanet al., 1982). Smaller agricultural settlements ap- pear as clusters of simple structures and associated hearths, pits, and other features. Little evidence of community organization has been found; villages appear to have developed organically and do not appear to follow any preconceived plan. Spaces between houses are irregular in shape and size. Small-scale ceramic manufactur- ing appears to have occurred at the household level, while larger, industrial-scale production facilities were located up wadis, in locations where kiln fires could
P1: VENDOR/GCX P2: GCR
Journal of Archaeological Research [jar] PP078-295744 April 20, 2001 8:17 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999
Some Recent Trends in the Archaeology of Predynastic Egypt 115
have been fanned by prevailing winds. By the Nagada II period, the larger centers appear more nucleated. Larger structures may have served religious/administrative functions (Hoffman, 1982; Hoffmanet al., 1986). Houses were circular and small, or slightly larger, rectangular, and semisubterranean (Hoffman, 1980, 1982).
The later Predynastic economy in the Hierakonpolis region was founded on surplus production of wheat and barley, cattle, sheep, goats, and (to a lesser extent) pigs; the economy in the Early Predynastic suggests some remnant foraging/ hunting as well (Allen, 1997; Bard, 1994a; Endesfelder, 1984; Hassan, 1988; McArdle, 1982; Wetterstrom, 1993). Trade with Lower Egypt and the southern Levant is attested by Maadian and Palestinian ceramics in cemetery and settlement sites (Adams and Friedman, 1992).
Ceramic production occurred at various scales, from relatively simple house- hold production to specialized industries devoted to supplying the funeral cult (Hoffman, 1980, 1982, 1989a). Several classes of pottery are diagnostic of various subperiods. Friedman (1994) found that temper, manufacturing technique, sur- face decoration, and shape of utilitarian ceramics varied among the Hierakonpolis, Nagada, and Hemamiah regions; variation was pronounced in the Nagada I period but disappeared by the middle of Nagada II. In the Hierakonpolis region, these wares in the Nagada I period were tempered with shale fragments. In contrast, the black-topped red and polished red classes show little regional variation (Friedman, 1994, pp. 862–882).
Lithic tool types from Hierakonpolis include burins, retouched pieces, end scrapers, notches, microdrills, winged drills, and transverse arrowheads. Crescent drills and sickle blades appeared in Nagada II, associated with a large, temple- workshop complex (Locality HK-29A). Utilitarian, chipped stone tools were made on flakes and blades, but “ceremonial” stone implements such as ripple-flaked knives and fishtail flints were standardized throughout Upper Egypt (Holmes, 1987, 1989). The microdrills and crescent-shaped drills were probably used for manufacturing beads and groundstone jars/maceheads, two other Hierakonpolis lithic specialties (Hoffman, 1982, p. 13, 1987, pp. 213–216).
Nagada Region
The Nile River Valley from slightly south of Armant to a line slightly upriver from Hu (Diospolis Parva) encompasses the Nagada region (Fig. 1). The area immediately around the town site of Nagada is considered the heartland of the Nagada culture, which spread south to Hierakonpolis in the early Nagada I period before being carried northward to the Delta by the Late Predynastic.
Butzer (1976, pp. 13–19) suggests that the natural levees of the Nile, its banks, and the edge of the low desert terraces were the main loci of Predynastic settlement. Many lower-lying Predynastic sites were located on raised banks of the Nile, where they have been buried by accumulated alluvium and more recent
P1: VENDOR/GCX P2: GCR
Journal of Archaeological Research [jar] PP078-295744 April 20, 2001 8:17 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999
116 Savage
settlement (Butzer, 1982; Hoffman, 1989b). At Armant, features included circular to ovoid post structures, stone rings, hearths, wattle-and-daub lined pits, and other trash pits (Ginter and Kozlowski, 1994). Early settlements in the Nagada region consist of small sites (3 ha or less) on low terraces overlooking the edge of the flood plain, spaced about 2 km apart. House features consist of small postholes but no built structural remains, suggesting that their walls were probably made of woven reeds, perhaps smeared with mud, around a frame of wooden posts. There are many blocks of Nile mud and stones on some sites, suggesting that some structures (or at least their foundations) were made of bonded mud and stone. Houses often contained hearths and storage pits, and sometimes subfloor burials. Trash pits and animal pens were scattered among the dwellings. The sites are thought to have been home to between 50 and 250 people (Hassan, 1981, 1988). Some sites appear to have been occupied for several generations, with “sets of up to five overlapping occupations with lateral shifts suggesting a pattern of abandonment and reoccupation” (Hassan, 1988, p. 155). Larger communities in the Nagada II period appear more planned; Nagada South Town had rectangular, mud-brick buildings inside a 2-m thick wall thought to be a fortification system (Petrie and Quibell 1896, p. 54; Spencer, 1995, p. 35).
Farming and herding were already well established in the Nagada region by Badarian times. By Nagada I, Predynastic peoples were growing barley and wheat, raising sheep, goats, cattle, and pigs. Hunting was vestigial by this time, indicated by very limited gazelle remains, but fishing was widely practiced (Hassan, 1988, p. 156). Field irrigation does not appear to have been practiced. Instead, small earthen berms were made to hold the Nile flood in natural basins (Hassan, 1988, p. 156).
In the Nagada region, utilitarian ceramics were tempered with grog and coarse organic materials in the Nagada I period. In contrast, the black-topped red and polished red classes show little regional variation (Friedman, 1994, pp. 862–882). White Cross-Line ware (Petrie’s C-Ware, see Petrie, 1901) exhibits dif- ferent decorative motifs in the Nagada region than in the Abydos region further north (Finkenstaedt, 1985). “The principle subject matter of the Naqada painted wares comprises domesticated animals or potential domesticates grazing peace- fully in a landscape setting. None of the cultic apparatus nor the active hunting scenes of the Abydos group occurs” (Finkenstaedt, 1981, p. 10).
Regional variation also occurs in lithic artifacts, a fact recognized by the excavators at Armant (Mond and Meyers, 1937, p. 2). Holmes (1989, p. 330) describes a unified lithic tradition in the Nag Hammadi-Nagada-Armant area. In Nagada I, this industry was characterized by high proportions of end scrapers, notches, burins, and retouched pieces, chipped from secondary flakes produced by hard-hammer technology. The Nagada II assemblage was essentially similar, with the addition of a few blade tools, such as sickles (Holmes, 1989, pp. 336–337). The production of bifacially worked, flint axe blades, many with their working edge
P1: VENDOR/GCX P2: GCR
Journal of Archaeological Research [jar] PP078-295744 April 20, 2001 8:17 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999
Some Recent Trends in the Archaeology of Predynastic Egypt 117
prepared by the removal of a transverse flake, also appears centered in the Nagada region. Although there are isolated specimens from Hierakonpolis (Needler, 1984; Quibell and Green, 1901) and further south at El Qara (Morgan, 1912), and axe preparation flakes are known from the Badari region, Holmes (1989) agrees with Huzayyin (1937, 1939) that the axes are indicators of a regional cultural facies centered in the Nagada area.
Social differentiation was already apparent in the Nagada cemeteries by the early Predynastic, where Bard found evidence of a two-tiered hierarchy in several cemeteries in Nagada I. By Nagada II, a four-tiered hierarchy is evident (Bard, 1994b, pp. 91–96). These results at Nagada contrast with those of the more provin- cial Armant cemetery, where a two-tiered hierarchy was seen in all time periods except the late Nagada II (Bard, 1994b, pp. 59–68). Griswold (1992) suggests that inequality decreased at Armant through time. Cemetery T at Nagada is recog- nized as the burial ground of an elite social stratum (Bard, 1994b, p. 105; Davis, 1983; Kemp, 1989). Evidence from dental morphology (Johnson and Lovell, 1994) and cranial nonmetric traits (Prowse and Lovell, 1996) suggests that this social stratum was endogamous, while Hassan (1988, pp. 157, 169) indicates that vil- lage exogamy was probably the norm and that lineages were probably matrilineal (based on the exclusive internment of women and children at Merimda). Hassan (1988, p. 172) describes a “hierarchy of chiefs” of at least three levels, legitimated through the bestowal of sumptuary goods, the mortuary cult, and maintenance of order among squabbling underlings and peer-polities. He further speculates that intergroup military conflicts probably developed during the Nagada III period, from disputes related to trade, and that “systematic warfare. . . must have become an integral element of the iconography of regional chiefs” (1988, pp. 172, 173). Wealth interred in Nagada III burials declined at Nagada (Bard, 1994b), a process perhaps explained by the expansion of the Hierakonpolis polity, which may have absorbed this region by Nagada III (when the large tombs at Hierakonpolis Local- ity 6 were constructed). However, the recent reexcavation of Dynasty 0 tombs at Abydos, especially Tomb U-j, which is somewhat earlier than Locality 6, suggests that Nagada may have been absorbed by the Abydos polity instead (Wilkinson, 1999, p. 50).
Abydos (Thinite) Region
The Nile River Valley from Asyut south to Hu (Diospolis Parva) was the home of a regional polity named for the principle Dynastic period sites of Abydos or This (Fig. 1). The Nagada culture is thought to have spread north to the Abydos region, from its heartland around the Qena bend of the Nile during late Nagada I and early Nagada II. Most of the settlement pattern data from the Abydos region is extrapolated from the distribution of Predynastic cemeteries (e.g., Ayrton and Loat,
P1: VENDOR/GCX P2: GCR
Journal of Archaeological Research [jar] PP078-295744 April 20, 2001 8:17 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999
118 Savage
1911; Brunton, 1927, 1928, 1937, 1948; Brunton and Caton Thompson, 1928; Lythgoe and Dunham, 1965; Naville, 1914; Peet, 1914). A recent archaeological survey by Patch (1991) has located a few settlement sites; Patch believes that the Abydos region in Nagada I and early Nagada II was not as densely settled as the Nagada and Hierakonpolis regions. Part of the reason may have been that the large basins in the floodplain were not amenable to the available farming techniques. Unlike the Hierakonpolis region, Predynastic sites are not found in the major wadis (Hoffman, 1982, 1984; Patch, 1991). Instead, settlements in Nagada I and early Nagada II were generally placed within 100 m of the boundary between the low desert and the edge of cultivated land. Settlements on the east bank of the Nile were about 1–2 km apart, while on the west bank the sites were further separated. Cemeteries are of relatively equal size and spacing, implying a rather undifferentiated settlement pattern.
During the late Nagada II and throughout Nagada III, settlements became more nucleated; several cemeteries were no longer used or had fewer graves in this period. Affiliated settlements were either abandoned, sharply curtailed, or adopted other cemetery sites that have not been found. The available data show that only the cemetery at el-Mahasna increased in size (Ayreton and Loat, 1911; Patch, 1991, p. 307). Settlement in the Late Predynastic seems aggregated around Naga-ed-Dˆer and Abydos. Villages in the Abydos-Thinis region were probably not occupied by more than 100 people (Patch, 1991, p. 337), and few have been excavated from the Abydos region. Caton Thompson (Brunton and Caton Thompson, 1928) recorded several small hut circles in the Amratian (Nagada I) level at Hemamieh, but some of these may have been animal pens or grain storage bins (Holmes and Friedman, 1989, p. 17).
Friedman (1994) found that Nagada I utilitarian wares in the Hemamiah area exhibit a continuation of earlier Badarian manufacturing techniques; they are made of relatively coarse to fine Nile silt, tempered with grass stems, or of unrefined Nile silt with smaller, naturally occurring organic inclusions. Vessels have rounded or tapered rim profiles, in contrast to the squared-off rim profiles in the Nagada region (Friedman, 1994, pp. 868, 869).
White Cross-Line ware (Petrie’s C-Ware, see Petrie, 1901) exhibits different styles in the Abydos and Nagada regions (Finkenstaedt, 1980, 1985). In the Abydos region, decorative motifs include hunting scenes, and cultic vessels are also found; but neither are present in the Nagada region (Finkenstaedt, 1981, p. 10). There are also differences in the composition of the paint used. In the Hemamiah area, the paint is chalky and pinkish, while in the Nagada and Hierakonpolis regions the paint is generally whiter (Finkenstaedt, 1980, p. 116; Friedman, 1994, p. 874).
Regional variation also occurs in lithic artifacts found in settlements, where lo- cal Badarian technology developed into the subsequent Mostageddan industry; nei- ther has much in common with lithic industries from the Nagada or Hierakonpolis regions (Holmes, 1989, p. 323). The main tool classes present near el Badari, in
P1: VENDOR/GCX P2: GCR
Journal of Archaeological Research [jar] PP078-295744 April 20, 2001 8:17 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999
Some Recent Trends in the Archaeology of Predynastic Egypt 119
the Abydos region, include end scrapers, truncations, backed pieces, sickle blades, and retouched pieces. The later Mostagedda industry adds large circular scrapers, truncation knives, blade knives, and glossy bladelet tools (Holmes, 1989, p. 326). There appear to be no significant differences in lithic assemblages from cemeter- ies of Gerzean and later date; thus cemeteries indicate interregional contact and probably only a few specialized lithic production locales devoted to supplying the mortuary regime (Holmes, 1989, pp. 328, 333).
Clear social distinctions existed between elites and nonelites as far back as the Badarian period. Anderson (1992) suggests that a two-tiered social hierarchy existed in which elite graves contained exotic goods, such as ivory. Some child burials included abundant sumptuary goods. Thus a pattern of differential access to exotic items was established early in the Predynastic and continued throughout, with differences between rich and poor graves increasing through time. There is no evidence of differential burial by sex in the Badari cemeteries (Anderson, 1992, p. 57) and very little at Naga-ed-Dˆer, though females buried in Cemetery N7000 may have had more social roles available than did males (Savage, 2000). The graves from Cemetery U at Abydos are part of a sequence of elite tombs that began in Nagada I, developing into the royal graves in Cemetery B from the Nagada III period (Dreyer, 1992a; Kaiser and Dreyer, 1982; Peet, 1914). This long developmental sequence makes a Nekhen (Hierakonpolis) origin of the 1st Dynasty more difficult to sustain.
It is also likely that different burial areas were used by members of different descent groups. The cemeteries in the Abydos region are thought to be too small to include whole village populations and probably represent smaller social groups (Patch, 1991, p. 308). At Naga-ed-Dˆer, it looks as if six different descent groups used Cemetery N7000 simultaneously, each group burying its dead in a separate part of the graveyard. The various descent groups controlled different exotic goods, experienced waxing and waning economic fortunes through time, and probably pursued different power-building strategies (Savage, 1997). Early in Cemetery N7000’s use, one group appears to have controlled ivory and created the wealthiest graves; later this group was eclipsed by a different group, which had access to imports of northern origin (Savage, 1995, 1997). Grave robbing soon after the burial, already evident in the Badarian (Anderson, 1992), intensified throughout the later Predynastic (Savage, 1995, 1997) at Naga-ed-Dˆer.
Based on the differences between the three regions, it is tempting (though not yet conclusive) to view the evidence as indicative of what would later develop into the three principle polities of Upper Egypt (see Wilkinson, 1999, Chapter 10, for additional discussion of regionalism in early Egypt). While it is probably too simplistic to merely read the regional differences in material culture as direct ev- idence of regional polities, groups of settlements in a region that share cultural traits might have been more amenable to early assimilation than groups that did not share such characteristics. Later, the division of Egypt into nome districts in
P1: VENDOR/GCX P2: GCR
Journal of Archaeological Research [jar] PP078-295744 April 20, 2001 8:17 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999
120 Savage
the dynastic period is thought to have its roots in an earlier, prehistoric config- uration (Breasted, 1964, p. 66; Rice, 1990, p. 108; Trigger, 1983, pp. 44–45). If the historic nomes can be traced back thousands of years to polities that ex- isted in the Predynastic, it does not seem too unreasonable to speculate that the larger chiefdoms that seem to have emerged in Upper Egypt by Nagada II could have been founded upon groups of smaller polities that shared similar cultural characteristics.
CHRONOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS
The regional variation that existed in Upper Egypt and between Upper and Lower Egypt during the Predynastic has only recently begun to be appreciated fully. Until the last few years, it was essentially assumed that Upper Egypt was a relatively unified cultural region during the Predynastic, different from Lower Egypt, but internally consistent from place to place. In the past, this assumption led to an uncritical acceptance of chronological schemes based on the analysis of whole forms recovered from Predynastic cemeteries in Upper Egypt. Petrie’s (Petrie, 1901) ceramic seriation, periodization, and sequence-dating approach was based on his work in the Nagada region; Kaiser’s (Kaiser, 1957) description of the Nagada I–III periods and his development ofstufen, or stages, within his larger periods was based mostly on a reanalysis of Mond and Meyers’ (Mond and Meyers, 1937) excavation of the Armant cemetery (see Hendrickx, 1996; Savage, 1997, 1998, for discussion and critique). Both systems have been applied from the Delta south to the First Cataract of the Nile, operationalizing the hidden assumption of similar cultural trajectories across this vast region. And Kaiser’s dating method rests on the assumption that “space equals time” in Predynastic cemeteries, an observation that originated with Junker (1912) at Tura and Brunton at Badari (Brunton and Caton Thompson, 1928). Using Petrie’s sequence-dating methods, Brunton observed a tendency in the small Badari cemetery for early graves to be located near the center, with later graves arranged near the outside edge. Kaiser used this observation to develop his dating method; he assumed that early graves at another small cemetery, Armant, would be in the center and later ones to the outside, and proceeded to date the ceramics accordingly. The result is somewhat tautological, since there are known errors in Petrie’s methods (Hendrickx, 1996; also see Baumgartel, 1955, p. 42; Friedman, 1981, p. 2; Scharff, 1926, p. 73; Vercoutter, 1992, p.101), and it reaches an extreme when empty graves are dated based on the dates of other graves nearby.
The ceramic forms that Kaiser assigned to his variousstufenhave been used like “index fossils” by other archaeologists to redate graves in other cemeteries, and to date the deposits on settlement sites “from Hierakonpolis in the far south (Adams, 1987) to Buto in the northwestern delta (Way, 1991a)” (Wilkinson, 1996, p. 10).
P1: VENDOR/GCX P2: GCR
Journal of Archaeological Research [jar] PP078-295744 April 20, 2001 8:17 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999
Some Recent Trends in the Archaeology of Predynastic Egypt 121
The implicit assumption of uniform ceramic development that underlies these applications of thestufesystem (or Petrie’s, for that matter) is beginning to be replaced by an understanding of the regional character of Predynastic ceramic production and development. Naville stated emphatically that “for pottery, the only true classification is not chronological: it is geographical, or rather, local” (1914, p. xi). Scharff (1928) suggested that regional variations in Petrie’s C-Ware class existed, and Finkenstaedt distinguishes three principal regions, each of which “produced a type of C ware peculiar to it.” She infers that “in some cases, individual sites evolved a distinctive local variation on the regional style” (1981, p. 7). Kaiser warned that differences between sequences at Armant and Nagada might reflect differences in development at the two sites (1957, p. 73). More recently, Patch notes that “it would be surprising if all Predynastic sites followed the same development” (1991, p. 192).
Computerized methods of ceramic seriation have begun to replace the more traditional methods. Kemp (1982) used a multidimensional scaling (MDS) pro- gram, HORSHU, to test the sequence of graves in Cemeteries A and B at el-’ Amrah, Armant 1400-1500, and el-Mahasna. MDS, a technique like corre- spondence analysis, is a form of dual scaling that can arrange both cases and types in chronological order (see Nishisato, 1980). HORSHU, developed by Kendall (1971) specifically to automate the process that Petrie used to create his original seriation, could handle no more than 100 graves on the machines of its day, because of the computationally intensive nature of nonmetric MDS (see Shennan, 1990, pp. 281–283, for a brief discussion of MDS). Kemp condensed the Petrie corpus (see Petrie, 1928) into 43 types for his analysis and distinguished three clusters of graves based on these types. The clusters were interpreted to confirm Petrie’s basic division of the Predynastic into Amratian, Gerzean, and Semainean (and the ma- jor divisions in Kaiser’sstufedating method), although Kemp’s division between Amratian/Nagada I and Gerzean/Nagada II appears somewhat later than Petrie’s.
Since Kemp’s initial computer seriation, others have used similar methods. (1) Seidlmayr (1990) employed seriation to identify local chronologies at indi- vidual sites and then correlated the results. (2) Wilkinson (1996) used the Bonn Seriation Program (a form of correspondence analysis, see Scollar, 1993) to de- velop independent chronologies at eight different Predynastic and early dynastic sites. He subsequently correlated them by connecting the various phases from the eight sites to thestufesystem. His results lack external dating controls, such as those provided by radiocarbon dating, but are illuminating nonetheless. (3) Savage (1995, 1997) used correspondence analysis to date 143 graves from Cemetery N7000 at Naga-ed-Dˆer and plotted the burial order on the cemetery map (Fig. 2). Temporal drift clearly cannot account for the burial order, and other analysis suggests that the six spatial clusters (Fig. 3) observed in the cemetery were the burial grounds of distinct descent groups, as were later cemeteries in the Naga-ed-Dˆer region. Reisner stated that “it is to be understood of course that the cemetery [Cemetery 500-900] falls into family groups several of which were begun at nearly the same
P1: VENDOR/GCX P2: GCR
Journal of Archaeological Research [jar] PP078-295744 April 20, 2001 8:17 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999
122 Savage
F ig
.2 .
B u
ri a
l o
rd e
r o
f 1
4 3
g ra
ve s
a t
C e
m e
te ry
N 7
0 0
0 ,
N a
g a
-e d
-D ˆ
e r,
b a
se d
o n
co rr
e sp
o n
d e
n ce
a n
a ly
si s.
A d
a p
te d
fo r
A u
to C
a d
a n
d A
rc V
ie w
fr o
m Ly
th g
o e
a n
d D
u n
h a
m (1
9 6
5 ).
P1: VENDOR/GCX P2: GCR
Journal of Archaeological Research [jar] PP078-295744 April 20, 2001 8:17 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999
Some Recent Trends in the Archaeology of Predynastic Egypt 123
F ig
. 3
. B
u ri a
lc lu
st e
rs in
N a
g a
-e d
-D ˆ
e r
C e
m e
te ry
N 7
0 0
0 , b
a se
d o
n k-
m e
a n
s a
n a
ly si
s o
f g
ra ve
lo ca
tio n
s.
P1: VENDOR/GCX P2: GCR
Journal of Archaeological Research [jar] PP078-295744 April 20, 2001 8:17 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999
124 Savage
time and grew simultaneously” (1932, p. 181) and “the ‘western’ nucleus of the whole cemetery was similarly composed of separate family groups” (1932, p. 183).
There are clear problems with traditional chronological methods. While the three methods used in the past all agree on a tripartite division of the Predynas- tic (after the Badarian), they disagree on further subdivisions, and attempts to rectify problems in any method by resorting to another and then redating graves in the first only created tautological nightmares. Furthermore, regional variation in Predynastic ceramic assemblages is generally not considered (but see Wilkin- son, 1996, for a notable exception), meaning that chronological schemes worked out in one place are applied uncritically in other places. The whole question of “space as time” rests on an assumption that needs to be verified by an external, independent dating method. O’Shea stresses the importance of independent refer- ence points: “precise dating, particularly dating that is independent of the material culture and behavior being examined (as in radiometric dating), provides a crit- ical underpinning for any serious anthropological research into the past” (1996, p. 16). The only way out of the current muddle is to develop a radiocarbon-based chronology.
Efforts are underway. Radiocarbon dates have been obtained from many Predynastic and Dynastic sites (for some recent compilations see Close, 1980, 1984, 1988; Derricourt, 1971; Hassan, 1984, 1985; Hassan and Robinson, 1987; Kantor, 1992). Hassan’s radiocarbon-based periodization of the Predynastic has already been mentioned. However, the corpus of radiocarbon dates from Predy- nastic contexts is not without problems—most absolute dates are from settlement sites, not cemeteries. Because of the history of Egyptian archaeological research, there are two parallel chronological schemes for the Predynastic period. The first, based on relative methods, is exemplified by the work with ceramics from ceme- tery contexts (mostly whole vessels) by Petrie (1901), Kaiser (1957), and Kemp (1982). The second is based more on sherds for its ceramic typology and on ra- diocarbon dates obtained mostly from settlement sites (and tombs from the later dynastic period). However, the ceramic assemblages in settlement sites are dif- ferent from those in cemeteries. Decorated, marl clay pots, termed “D-Ware” by Petrie, are very rare in settlements (see Hoffman, 1987) but fairly common in cemeteries, and low-fired, coarse clay pans, called “Bread Molds,” are hardly ever found in cemeteries but are abundant in settlements. The chaff-tempered, coarse pottery known as “Rough-faced Ware,” or “R-Ware,” is far more dominant in settlements than in cemeteries during Nagada I, only becoming the dominant type in cemeteries in Nagada II (see Ginter and Kozlowski, 1994, pp. 95–101; Hendrickx, 1996, p. 39). Radiocarbon dating in settlements and relative dating by ceramic seriation or horizontal drift in cemeteries are not well connected. Pre- dynastic cemetery sites remain largely undated by radiocarbon methods, and the possibility exists that cemetery chronologies may not coincide with those from settlements.
P1: VENDOR/GCX P2: GCR
Journal of Archaeological Research [jar] PP078-295744 April 20, 2001 8:17 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999
Some Recent Trends in the Archaeology of Predynastic Egypt 125
A radiocarbon-based chronology for the Predynastic cemetery, N7000, at Naga-ed-Dˆer is underway. Recently, Savage (1998) published AMS radiocarbon dates from 12 of the 143 graves in his seriation study. The results showed that organic material curated at the Hearst Museum of Anthropology, University of California at Berkeley, could produce viable dates and helped demarcate four use phases in the cemetery. Further, a recalibration of radiocarbon dates from Upper Egypt showed that each of Hassan’s four periods could be subdivided into an early and late phase (Early Predynastic I and II, Middle Predynastic I and II, etc.) and placed the Cemetery N7000 material in the Middle Predynastic I through Terminal Predynastic I, from about 3800 to 3090 B.C. (two sigma ranges, see Savage, 1998, pp. 243–247). One hundred additional samples from Cemetery N7000 have recently been submitted for AMS dating under a National Science Foundation grant; 30 dates will be published soon (Savage, in press). The results should allow a radiocarbon-based ceramic chronology to be developed for the first time with Predynastic materials.
SOCIOPOLITICAL DEVELOPMENTS AND TRADE
The archaeological evidence in support of the traditional interpretation of the unification of Egypt, or a more modern update, is surprisingly thin, partly because it has not been sought and partly because assumptions operationalizing other as- pects of Predynastic research have obscured it. The assumption that variation in Predynastic cemeteries was explained largely by temporal drift has precluded ex- planations of differences based on other social factors, although it has long been recognized that certain Predynastic cemeteries (notably Cemetery T at Nagada) were different from others. The acknowledged variation was seen to exist between cemeteries, rather than within them.
The advances in chronological research have brought our rather fuzzy under- standing of Predynastic mortuary practices into sharper focus and provided exciting new evidence that helps frame a picture of Predynastic Egypt that includes intense intergroup competition, even at the local level.
Group Dynamics and Competition at Naga-ed-Dˆer Cemetery N7000
At Naga-ed-Dêr, Savage has shown that six different burial clusters exist in the Predynastic cemetery, N7000 (Savage, 1997, Figure 5). As noted earlier, the cemetery was used from about 3800 B.C. to about 3090 B.C., based on AMS radio- carbon dates. These dates can be divided into four phases (Table I) that correspond remarkably well with the four use phases developed from the ceramic seriation.
Descent (based on kinship), power, and competition appear as powerful orga- nizing principles in the Predynastic at Naga-ed-Dˆer. Alternative hypotheses related
P1: VENDOR/GCX P2: GCR
Journal of Archaeological Research [jar] PP078-295744 April 20, 2001 8:17 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999
126 Savage
Table I. Naga-ed-Dˆer Cemetery N7000 Use Phases Based on Combined AMS Radiocarbon Dates
Phase Graves 1 sigma rangea 1 sigmapb 2 sigma rangec 2 sigmap
1 7110, 7394 3760–3740 .19 3800–3630 1.00 3720–3640 .81
2 7036, 7159 3630–3500 .82 3640–3500 .73 7491 3410–3380 .18 3460–3370 .27
3 7251, 7522 3500–3450 .62 3510–3340 1.00 7526, 7603 3380–3350 .38
4 7292, 7468 3340–3290 .26 3360–3090 1.00 7513 3240–3100 .74
a68.2% confidence overall. Calendar years B.C. bProbability of date falling into alternative date ranges. c95.4% confidence overall. Calendar years B.C.
to demographic, temporal, or wealth differentiation can be rejected, suggesting that the burial clusters, which might be descent groups, probably represent clan-type organizations in Predynastic society (Savage, 1997, pp. 234–249).
Economic power was clearly not shared equally among the different groups. First, Cluster 4 contained so few grave goods that none of its graves could be used in the seriation study. The location of Cluster 4 on the lower terrace of the cemetery suggests a lower status compared with burials on the upper terrace. Finally, these burials were plundered far less frequently, suggesting that they were not adorned with the kinds of items that attracted economic plundering, and that they did not attract the psychological attitudes that seem to accompany ideology-based plundering, where plundering may have been a deliberate attempt to damage the deceased in the afterlife by damaging or destroying the corpse. Cluster 4 appears to have formed an underclass in Cemetery N7000.
Competition in Cemetery N7000 is evident from the intensification in plun- dering, elaboration of grave architecture and mortuary ritual, and the increased inclusion of grave goods through time. Different groups controlled specific, rare resources. Cluster 1 appears to have controlled the ivory, suggesting that their power was based on trade with the south, where the ivory probably originated. Cluster 3, at the time of its ascendancy and greatest power in Phase 3, appears to have controlled the products associated with Mesopotamian trade. At some time between Phases 1 and 3 the trade with the south appears to have collapsed and was later replaced with trade to the north. The group that controlled the trade to the south, Cluster 1, declined sharply from Phase 2 to Phase 3, at precisely the point where Cluster 3 experienced its ascendancy.
Economic Changes in the Later Predynastic
As independent agricultural villages coalesced into larger units, and these into early chiefdoms that were eventually assimilated into larger polities encompassing
P1: VENDOR/GCX P2: GCR
Journal of Archaeological Research [jar] PP078-295744 April 20, 2001 8:17 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999
Some Recent Trends in the Archaeology of Predynastic Egypt 127
long stretches of the Nile Valley, economic consequences might be expected. Re- gional centers might find themselves eclipsed, their surplus production appropri- ated as tribute or taxes payable to ruling elites at larger centers; such surpluses might be funnelled through local elites before being passed up the line. Conse- quently, we might expect to see a decline in overall regional wealth, accompanied perhaps by the concentration of some of the wealth that remained in the hands of fewer people. Given appropriate chronological controls, it has become possible to track such shifts at several places in Upper Egypt, with varying results.
Bard’s (Bard, 1994b) analysis of Cemetery 1400-1500 at Armant found some increasing energy expenditure through time (from Nagada I through Nagada III); there are larger graves and more grave goods in later burials (the same is gener- ally true across most cemeteries in Upper Egypt, see Castillos, 1982). She reports that social stratification was not indicated, but that an incipient form of ranking existed. Significant changes did not take place at Armant in terms of social strati- fication, though there was evidence of the development of differential status. Bed burials occurred at Armant, which might indicate higher status or authority, but “no elite of a highly hierarchical society seems to have evolved” (Bard, 1994b, p. 74). Toward the end of the cemetery’s use, two larger, brick-lined graves were constructed (numbers 1207 and 1208), which Bard suggests might signal a new form of authority (1994b, p. 75) and perhaps the concentration of wealth or status into the hands of a local elite, but overall there seems to be little evidence for economic decline as a result of state formation. Armant was clearly a provincial cemetery belonging to a small agricultural community, so it is not surprising that major economic changes seem to have bypassed it.
In contrast to the Armant cemetery, those at Nagada and Ballas exhibit some significant changes through time. Petrie excavated three cemeteries (B, N, and T) at Nagada, recording over 2200 graves. Of these, Cemetery T, used in Nagada II and III, was by far the richest, with the most elaborate tombs, and indicates the presence of a local elite class. Cemetery N can be divided into an earlier, eastern part dated mostly to Nagada I; the western part (as well as Cemetery B) dates mostly to Nagada II (Bard, 1994b, pp. 100,101).
Spatial segregation by cemetery began in the region in Nagada II, when ceme- teries T, B, and N west were established. Several indices (e.g., mean number of pots per grave, grave size, the number of stone vessels) increased significantly during the Nagada II period, but declined during Nagada III. “Collectively, there is a drop in wealth of grave goods in all Nagada grave clusters, indicating an abrupt shift in cemetery development from what evolved from Nagada I to Nagada II. While the emergence of elite graves in Cemetery T during Nagada II clearly represents members of the highest status descent group, Bard indicates that it is not possible to tell if this was the result of the imposition or emergence of a paramount hier- archy (1994b, p. 105). “Differentiation in burials decreased in Nagada III times, indicating that high-status burials had ceased or shifted elsewhere” (Bard, 1994b,
P1: VENDOR/GCX P2: GCR
Journal of Archaeological Research [jar] PP078-295744 April 20, 2001 8:17 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999
128 Savage
p. 103), to an area about 6.8 km south of Nagada. For Bard, this suggests a major shift in power in the region, “sometime before the Egyptian Early Dynastic state coalesced, the new authority asserted its control over Nagada, and such elite burials as were the work of the local Nagada II power base disappear from the archaeolog- ical record” (1994b, p.108). The declining wealth of Nagada III graves here might provide evidence of the assimilation of the Nagada polity by the Hierakonpolis chiefdom (Wilkinson, 1999, p. 50).
By Nagada II/III, there also was a decline in median wealth interred in the graves at Naga-ed-Dˆer Cemetery N7000 (Savage, 1995, 1997). At N7000, Phase 3 dates from 3510 to 3340 B.C., and Phase 4 from 3360 to 3090 B.C. (based on AMS radiocarbon dates). The median wealth of the richest grave cluster declined from just over 18 items per grave in Phase 3 to about 11 items per grave in Phase 4, and two other spatial clusters experienced a smaller decline (Fig. 4). It is tempting to see in this decline a process similar to that reported by Bard for the Nagada cemeteries, though this interpretation must remain tentative at present.
The large tombs of Dynasty 0 rulers at Abydos, recently reexcavated by the German Archaeological Institute (Dreyer, 1992b; Kaiser and Dreyer, 1982) are indicative of the rise of this polity to dominance in northern Upper Egypt by the middle of Nagada II. Abydos might have dominated the Nile Valley as far north as Minshat Abu Omar in the Delta by late Nagada II; Tomb U-j from the Umm el-Qaab cemetery at Abydos, which dates to about 3150 B.C., contained over 200 “wine jars” imported from the southern Levant. The dominance of the Abydos/This polity at the end of the Predynastic (see Kaiser and Dreyer, 1982; Trigger, 1983) suggests that wealth may have been absorbed within the region rather than being transferred to a different area.
Recently, Wilkinson (1996) has analyzed a number of Predynastic and Early Dynastic cemeteries, including Tura, Tarkan, Matmar, Mostagedda, Mahasna, Armant, and the “Fort Cemetery” at Hierakonpolis. After conducting chronolog- ical studies, using the Bonn Seriation Program, Wilkinson examined changes in grave wealth during the Late Predynastic–Early Dynastic transition (his period of state formation). His research documents “increasing authority and social strati- fication” at all of these sites during the early and middle Nagada II period, when it appears that regional polities were forming. However, the later Nagada II and Nagada III periods are more complicated. The cemeteries at Matmar and Mahasna indicate declining wealth and grave differentiation in the Nagada III to Early Dy- nastic periods, while those at Mostagedda and Hierakonpolis document increased grave wealth and differentiation. Wilkinson interprets these results as evidence of the increasing importance of the Abydos-This and Hierakonpolis regional polities in the Late Predynastic (Wilkinson, 1996, pp. 75–85).
Finally, Stan Hendrickx (1994) has recently excavated and analyzed burials from the Nagada III cemetery at El Kab, across the Nile from Hierakonpolis. Us- ing a dating technique based on spatial drift, Hendrickx assigned the graves to the Late Predynastic—1st Dynasty. Most of the dated graves are of the late Nagada III
P1: VENDOR/GCX P2: GCR
Journal of Archaeological Research [jar] PP078-295744 April 20, 2001 8:17 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999
Some Recent Trends in the Archaeology of Predynastic Egypt 129
Fig. 4. Median wealth of graves in Naga-ed-Dˆer Cemetery N7000 by burial cluster and phase (dates from AMS C-14, see Savage, 1998).
period; a hiatus seems to have occurred during the early 1st Dynasty, and then other graves from the later 1st Dynasty were placed across the cemetery. Graves from the missing period might have been located elsewhere in the cemetery, of which only a part survived. Having dated the graves and organized the ceramics and other artifacts into chronological groups, Hendrickx proceeded to perform a weighted analysis of the grave contents. He concluded that the graves at El Kab are wealthier than the average graves from Upper Egypt during the transition from the Predynastic to the Dynastic period. Although the limited number of graves excavated (95) from El Kab might allow sampling error to explain the apparent wealth in the cemetery, Hendrickx (1994, p. 221) also suggested, “Considering the great importance of Hierakonpolis during the late predynastic and early dynastic times, it is not only possible that the average wealth was more elevated in this region, but also that a larger middle class existed.”
The evidence of economic change during the Predynastic to Early Dynastic periods appears to support a revised version of Kemp’s model, in which a gradual coalescence of three polities occurred in Upper Egypt, at Hierakonpolis, Nagada, and Abydos-This during the Nagada I to Nagada II periods. Sometime toward the end of Nagada II, it appears that the Nagada polity was absorbed by Hierakonpolis, and sites in the Nagada region experienced an economic decline about this time.
P1: VENDOR/GCX P2: GCR
Journal of Archaeological Research [jar] PP078-295744 April 20, 2001 8:17 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999
130 Savage
It is conceivable that supralocal authorities diverted surplus away from the tombs of local elites, resulting in the visible decrease in grave wealth and size described by Bard at Nagada. Elsewhere, smaller settlements appear to have contracted or been abandoned in favor of settlement nucleation around the growing centers at Hierakonpolis and Abydos. The wealth of these centers continued to expand during the Late Predynastic–Early Dynastic periods. Rather than a single proto- kingdom of Upper Egypt at the time of the unification as Kemp suggested, the economic evidence suggests that the Hierakonpolis and Thinite polities remained independent until just prior to the emergence of a united Egypt.
Trade Relations and the Rise of Egypt
The reorientation of the trade activity at Naga-ed-Dˆer appears to have played an important role in the emergence of Cemetery N7000 Cluster 3 and may have important implications for the development of further social complexity in Pre- dynastic Egypt as a whole. The “Mesopotamian connection” may have been a primary factor that stimulated the emergence of the state in Egypt. Besides lapis, cylinder seals, and copper from the north, the Late Predynastic shows other cul- tural affinities with Mesopotamia. These include niched architecture similar to ’Ubaid period temple facades (especially visible in the Archaic period palace- facade tombs at Abydos and Saqqara, and later in Djoser’s 3rd Dynasty mortuary complex). Mythical beasts, such as those found on the Narmer Palette, are probably of Mesopotamian origin.
Trade has been acknowledged as one of the main factors that stimulated the expansion of the Nagada culture into Lower Egypt. As early as Nagada I, items of Upper Egyptian manufacture appear in the Delta. Sites of the Maadi culture (ca. 3750–3200 B.C.) extend from Buto in the northwest Delta to Sedmet, some 100 km south of modern Cairo. The Maadians imported slate palettes, disc- shaped maceheads, diorite jars, flint tools, and black-topped red pottery (which they tried to copy, unsuccessfully) from Upper Egypt. However, their contacts with Syro-Palestine were more extensive (Mark, 1998, p. 16). Jars (imported for their contents—they were never copied), V-shaped bowls, basalt rings, tabular scrapers, flint blades, and asphalt were imported from the north. Considerable Canaanite material is concentrated at Maadi itself, at the apex of the Delta (Canevaet al., 1987; Rizkana, 1989), and at Minshat abu Omar, far to the northeast on the road to the Sinai (Kroeper, 1988, 1989). The North Sinai Survey (Oren, 1973, 1989) recorded over 250 sites of the EB I period with mixed Egyptian/Canaanite materials. By early Nagada II there was a flourishing trade system established between the Delta and Canaan.
By the middle of Nagada II, the Upper Egyptian Nagada culture appears to have spread downriver as far as Minshat abu Omar. Ceramics and other Upper Egyptian traits began to dominate many Lower Egyptian sites, to the extent that
P1: VENDOR/GCX P2: GCR
Journal of Archaeological Research [jar] PP078-295744 April 20, 2001 8:17 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999
Some Recent Trends in the Archaeology of Predynastic Egypt 131
an Upper Egyptian colonization of the northeast Delta has been postulated (see Baumgartel, 1955; Kaiser, 1964; Seeher, 1999; Way, 1991b). K ¨ohler (1995) sug- gests that a colonization is not required, since the pottery evidence seems to indicate a gradual replacement of indigenous ceramic production and exchange patterns by those from Upper Egypt. But the Predynastic graves at Minshat abu Omar and Abusir el-Meleq contained mostly pottery of Upper Egyptian style, and at Abusir el-Meleq individuals of an Upper Egyptian type occur alongside those of Lower Egyptian type, leading Seeher (1999, p. 93) to suggest that “the site may have been an outlying post regulating the routes of communication to trade colonies in the delta, such as Buto and Minshat Abu Omar.”
It seems clear that the spread of Upper Egyptian influence into the Delta was focussed on controlling trade routes, especially the overland route to Canaan. Bone labels from tomb U-j at Abydos are the earliest writing yet found in Egypt, and their short inscriptions (two or three hieroglyphic signs) are place names that probably identify the origin points of various commodities imported to the Abydos region. Localities mentioned include Bubastis, a town in the northeastern Delta (Dreyer, 1992a, 1992b, 1993). Wilkinson concludes that “either the Thinite king already ruled Lower Egypt or he possessed sufficient status to command surplus from the delta” (1999, p. 41).
Buto, in the northwest Delta, was not in a position to exploit overland trade with Canaan because it would have been cut off from a direct connection by the Upper Egyptians at Minshat abu Omar. Rather it appears that sea-borne con- tacts with northern Syro-Palestine (and thence to Mesopotamia) played a greater role. Way (1987) discovered a building with clay cones and pegs at Buto, which were similar to those from Susa. Clay bottles, similar to those from Susa and southern Mesopotamia, were also recovered from the site. Mark (1998, p. 125) believes that the distribution of imported pottery, raw materials, cylinder seals, and Mesopotamian artistic motifs suggests that the bulk of these items arrived via a water route, which would clearly have involved Buto. The site may have remained independent of an expanding Thinite polity. Rather than the abrupt shift from Lower Egyptian pottery to Upper Egyptian forms seen in sites of the north- east Delta, there was a transition level at Buto, which indicates that the adoption of the Upper Egyptian cultural repertoire was more gradual. Clay-cone decoration continued at the site after the period of ceramic transition, until the early third millennium (Way, 1988), but not at any other Nagada site. Summarizing the evi- dence, Mark concludes that “it is impossible to show that Buto was transformed into a Naqada site at the end of the Naqada II period” (1998, p. 103).
Rather than being absorbed early on into an expanding Upper Egyptian sphere, as the northeastern Delta appears to have been, the region around Buto may have been in protracted conflict with the polity controlled by the Dynasty 0 rulers buried in the large tombs at Abydos. A number of artifacts, such as the Gebel el Arak knife handle and the Tjehenu palette, possibly depict battles against Buto (Mark,
P1: VENDOR/GCX P2: GCR
Journal of Archaeological Research [jar] PP078-295744 April 20, 2001 8:17 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999
132 Savage
1998). The Narmer palette and the recently discovered label from Abydos appear to describe the same event—the conquest of Buto and unification of all of Egypt under one ruler (see Way, 1993).
TOWARDS A CONSENSUS VIEW OF THE ORIGIN OF THE EGYPTIAN STATE
Much of the evidence reviewed here can be assembled into a sort of synthetic view, explaining the process of state formation in early Egypt. Kemp’s Monopoly model hypothesizes a scenario in which a group of independent, Neolithic-style agricultural villages gradually coalesced into a number of competing chiefdoms in Upper Egypt. From this point, Kemp envisioned proto-kingdoms in Upper and Lower Egypt persisting until the time of the unification, at which point the Narmer palette and the traditional account of Manetho suggests the conquest of the Delta by the Upper Egyptian polity. Conflict and competition seems to have existed at many levels in Predynastic society, as shown by the intensifying mortuary cult, increased tomb robbing, and control of various resources by different descent groups at Naga-ed-Dˆer. But the kind of power game Kemp describes could not have occurred solely based on conflict. Clearly, other strategies, such as alliances between local rulers, including marriage alliances, would have been used as well (Trigger, 1968, 1983); the Narmer or “wedding” macehead found at Hierakonpolis may depict the wedding of Narmer with a princess named Neith-hotep (Emery, 1961, p. 47; Saad, 1969, p. 66; though see Wilkinson, 1999, pp. 68, 69). There is some disagreement about whether Narmer or his successor Hor-Aha married the princess, but Hoffman (1984, p. 322) likened the event to the wedding of Ferdinand and Isabella.
Recent interpretations of the evidence suggest that, rather than a single, uni- fied polity in Upper Egypt, and a polity encompassing the entire Delta at the time of unification, a more complicated situation existed. The discoveries of the Ger- man Archaeological Institute at Abydos have documented the names of several rulers of Dynasty 0. When the epigraphic evidence is combined with the size of their tombs (surpassing the large tombs at Hierakonpolis from the Late Pre- dynastic), what emerges is a picture of a powerful chiefdom that controlled the Nile Valley from below Abydos to the northeastern Delta. Tomb U-j attests to the extent of trade with Canaan, and the place names recorded on bone labels there suggest a possible tribute relationship. The expansion of Nagada II material culture into this region points to a trade related explanation of the rise of Thinite power.
Rather than controlling all of Upper Egypt, though, the growing Thinite polity had to contend with the presence of a powerful chiefdom to its south, at Hierakonpolis. Having probably absorbed the Nagada chiefdom during the final stages of the Nagada II period, the Hierakonpolis polity appears to have remained a
P1: VENDOR/GCX P2: GCR
Journal of Archaeological Research [jar] PP078-295744 April 20, 2001 8:17 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999
Some Recent Trends in the Archaeology of Predynastic Egypt 133
force to be reckoned with right up to the point of unification. Indeed, growth of the fortified town of Nekhen, earlier ceremonial installations, the ceremonial artifacts from the Hierakonpolis “Main Deposit” (such as the Narmer palette, Scorpion macehead, and wedding macehead), the continued reverence of later Egyptians for the “divine souls of Nekhen,” and the attention lavished on the site by later Pharaohs suggested to Hoffman (1984) and his followers (e.g., Adams, 1996; Davies and Friedman, 1998; Friedman, 1994) that Hierakonpolis was the capital of Upper Egypt and that Narmer originated there. However, this view does not fit well with Manetho’s statement that the first two dynasties were Thinite, nor does it easily accommodate the burial of the 1st and 2nd Dynasty kings and queens at Abydos. It would seem that a Thinite origin of Narmer is preferred (Trigger, 1983; Wilkinson, 1999), while still emphasizing the importance of Hierakonpolis as the early center of kingship in Upper Egypt. A local king named Scorpion seems to have deposited his macehead in the temple at Hierakonpolis (later exca- vated by Quibell and Green), but Scorpion of Nekhen is not attested at Abydos. Thus the Scorpion king of Nekhen may have been the last independent ruler at Hierakonpolis. Wilkinson (1999, p. 51) suggests
. . . there may have been two rival polities governed from This and Hierakonpolis up to the very threshold of the First Dynasty. The reverence shown to Hierakonpolis by the Early Dynastic kings may reflect the site’s importance during the final stages of state formation. The end of Scorpion’s rule may have marked a decisive turning-point, the moment at which the king of This assumed an uncontested position as sovereign of all Egypt.
Perhaps a final alliance was forged between This and Hierakonpolis through marriage. Neith-hotep, the probable wife of Narmer and mother of Hor-Aha (Narmer’s successor), was buried at Nagada rather than at Abydos, a fact that might indicate her origin (Wilkinson, 1999, p. 70). Since it is likely that Hierakonpolis had absorbed the Nagada chiefdom (perhaps a century before), Neith-hotep would have probably been a member of the Hierakonpolis ruling line, even if she was born at Nagada. Thus the event depicted on the wedding macehead might signify a union between Narmer, from This, and Neith-hotep, of Hierakonpolis. Given that political legitimacy seems to have passed through the female line at times in ancient Egypt, such an interpretation could help explain the continued reverence of Early Dynastic and Old Kingdom Pharaohs for their ancestors at Nekhen. By this account, they would have been descendants of the royal houses of both This and Nekhen. A marriage alliance between This and Hierakonpolis thus would ex- plain the Thinite origin of the first two dynasties and the position of Nekhen in legitimating the authority of the Early Dynastic kings.
Clearly, this interpretation is speculative, and considerable work needs to be done on the nature of economic relations between This, Hierakonpolis, and Nagada before we can be sure which of the two larger polities absorbed Nagada. A careful study of ceramic exchange through temper sourcing might help sort out these relationships.
P1: VENDOR/GCX P2: GCR
Journal of Archaeological Research [jar] PP078-295744 April 20, 2001 8:17 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999
134 Savage
A developing consensus also seems to view Buto and the northwest Delta as the final hold-out in the process of unification, but more work is required. We do not know yet what the relationship was between Buto/Sais and the Thinite polity prior to unification; it could have ranged from complete independence to some kind of client or dependency status. The Narmer palette and the tag from Abydos seem to depict the conquest of the Buto/Sais region by a king who controled the rest of Egypt. With the assimilation of the northwest Delta, the 1st Dynasty kings were able to dominate not just the land-based trade routes but also the sea-borne traffic.
We are arriving at a consensus that sees the emergence of the Egyptian state as a gradual, indigenous process, stimulated by intraregional and interregional con- flict, shifting political and economic strategies, political alliances, and competition over trade routes. Speaking from an anthropological perspective, this multifaceted explanation of the development of the Egyptian state seems far more satisfying than a single-cause approach. As I have emphasized elsewhere (Savage, 1997), I do not believe that the final assimilation of the northwest Delta resulted ipso facto in a state, because many of the characteristics that anthropologists ascribe to early states did not develop in Egypt until well into the 2nd Dynasty. I am, nonethe- less, persuaded that the processes that led to statehood were clearly evident from Nagada I times, accelerating dramatically with the spread of Upper Egyptian cul- ture into the northeast Delta by late Nagada II, and the rise of the Dynasty 0 kings at Abydos in Nagada III. These processes, which can be detailed with such richness here, provide valuable and compelling evidence not just of the development of the state in Egypt, but of the formation of early states in other parts of the world.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank Drs. Steven E. Falconer, Charles L. Redman, Keith W. Kintigh, Robert J. Wenke, Alison L. Rautman, Joan E. Gero, and Joyce E. Marcus for invaluable advice and assistance while my Ph.D. thesis was under development, and for reviewing several subsequent drafts of various publications. Drs. Gary Feinman and Bruce Trigger made valuable suggestions for improving the first draft of this manuscript. I have tried to incorporate their suggestions, and any failures in the final product are entirely my own. Dr. Christopher Carr’s graduate seminar in mortuary analysis at Arizona State proved to be one of the most enjoyable and thought-provoking courses in my graduate career and helped frame the theoretical and analytical approaches I have subsequently used. The late Michael Allen Hoffman was a good friend and mentor who first stimulated my interest in the Predynastic and sent me to Hierakonpolis in 1990 to map three sites in preparation for the excavations we planned that I would conduct for my Ph.D. project. Alas, this was not to be, but his early influence continues to guide my efforts. The Hearst Museum of Anthropology, University of California at Berkeley,
P1: VENDOR/GCX P2: GCR
Journal of Archaeological Research [jar] PP078-295744 April 20, 2001 8:17 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999
Some Recent Trends in the Archaeology of Predynastic Egypt 135
has been hospitable and gracious in giving me access to their collections, including permission to gather samples for radiocarbon dating. Arizona State’s Graduate and Professional Student Association provided a small grant to help collect the first sixteen carbon samples, and the AMS Radiocarbon Dating facility at the University of Arizona ran them at no charge, anticipating a larger dating program in the future. That program is now underway, thanks to a National Science Foundation grant (SBR-9973067). Finally, I would like to thank my wife, Kim, who spent many weekends typing the bibliography while I was in the field; surely there are better ways to spend the summer in Arizona, and her sacrifice is appreciated.
REFERENCES CITED
Adams, B. (1987).The Fort Cemetery at Hierakonpolis, Kegan Paul, London. Adams, B. (1996). Elite tombs at Hierakonpolis. In Spencer, J. (ed.),Aspects of Early Egypt, British
Museum, London, pp. 1–15. Adams, W. Y. (1992). The Nubian archaeological campaigns of 1959–1969: Myths and realities,
successes and failures. In Bonnet, C. (ed.),Etudes nubiennes. Conférence de Geǹeve. Actes du VIIe Congr̀es International d’́Etudes Nubiennes, Genève, Vol. I, pp. 3–27.
Adams, B., and Friedman, R. F. (1992). Imports and influences in the Predynastic and protodynastic settlement and funerary assemblages at Hierakonpolis. In Brink, E. C. M. van den (ed.),The Nile Delta in Transition: 4th–3rd Millennium B. C., van den Brink, Tel Aviv, pp. 317–338.
Allen, R. C. (1997). Agriculture and the origins of the state in ancient Egypt.Explorations in Economic Prehistory34: 135–154.
Anderson, W. (1992). Badarian burials: Evidence of social inequality in Middle Egypt during the early Predynastic era.Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt29: 51–66.
Arkell, A. J., and Ucko, P. J. (1965). Review of Predynastic development in the Nile valley.Current Anthropology6: 145–166.
Ayrton, E. R., and Loat, W. L. S. (1911).The Predynastic Cemetery at El Mahasna, Memoir 31, Egypt Exploration Fund, London.
Bard, K. A. (1989). Predynastic settlement patterns in the Hu-Semaineh region, Egypt.Journal of Field Archaeology16: 475–478.
Bard, K. A. (1992a). Toward an interpretation of the role of ideology in the evolution of complex society in Egypt.Journal of Anthropological Archaeology11: 1–24.
Bard, K. A. (1992b). Preliminary report: The 1991 Boston University excavations at Halfiah Gibli and Semaineh, Upper Egypt.Newsletter of the American Research Center in Egypt158/159: 11–15.
Bard, K. A. (1994a). The Egyptian Predynastic: A review of the evidence.Journal of Field Archaeology 21: 265–288.
Bard, K. A. (1994b).From Farmers to Pharaohs: Mortuary Evidence for the Rise of Complex Society in Egypt, Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield.
Bard, K. A., and Carneiro, R. (1989). Societes urbaines en Egypte et au Soudan,Cahiers de Recherches de l’Institut de Papyrologie et d’Egyptologie de Lille11: 15–23.
Baumgartel, E. J. (1955).The Cultures of Prehistoric Egypt, Vol. I, Rev. edn., Oxford University Press, London.
Binford, L. R. (1971). Mortuary practices: Their study and potential.Society for American Archaeology Memoirs25: 6–29.
Bovier-Lapierre, P. (1926a). Une nouvelle station n´eolithique (El Omari) au nord d’H´elouan.Compte Rendu do Congr̀es International de Ǵeographie4: 268–282.
Bovier-Lapierre, P. (1926b). Stations pr´ehistoriques des environs du Caire.Compte Rendu do Congrès International de Ǵeographie4: 298–308.
Breasted, J. H. (1964).A History of Egypt from the Earliest Times to the Persian Conquest[1905], Bantam, New York.
P1: VENDOR/GCX P2: GCR
Journal of Archaeological Research [jar] PP078-295744 April 20, 2001 8:17 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999
136 Savage
Brink, E. C. M. van den. (1996). The incised serekh-signs of Dynasties 0–1, Part I: Complete vessels. In Spencer, J. (ed.),Aspects of Early Egypt, British Museum, London, pp. 140–158.
Brown, J. A. (1981). The search for rank in prehistoric burials. In Chapman, R., Kinnes, I., and Randsborg, K. (eds.),The Archaeology of Death, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 25–38.
Brunton, G. (1927).Qau and Badari, Part I, No. 44, British School of Archaeology in Egypt, London. Brunton, G. (1928).Qau and Badari, Part II, No. 45, British School of Archaeology in Egypt, London. Brunton, G. (1937).Mostagedda and the Tasian Culture, Egypt Exploration Society, London. Brunton, G. (1948).Matmar, Egypt Exploration Society, London. Brunton, G., and Caton Thompson, G. (1928).The Badarian Civilisation and Predynastic Remains
near Badari, British School of Archaeology in Egypt and Egyptian Research Account, Bernard Quaritch, London.
Butzer, K. W. (1976).Early Hydraulic Civilization in Egypt: A Study in Cultural Ecology, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Butzer, K. W. (1982).Archaeology as Human Ecology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Caneva, I., Frangipane, M., and Palmieri, A. (1987). Predynastic Egypt: New data from Maadi.African
Archaeological Review5: 105–114. Carneiro, R. (1970). A theory for the origin of the state.Science69: 733–778. Castillos, J. (1982). Analyses of Egyptian Predynastic and Early Dynastic cemeteries: Final conclusions.
Journal of the Society for the Study of Egyptian AntiquityXII (1): 29–53. Caton Thompson, G. (1927). Exploration in the northern Fayum.Antiquity1: 326–348. Caton Thompson, G. (1934).The Desert Fayum, Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and
Ireland, London. Chapman, R., and Randsborg, K. (1981). Approaches to the archaeology of death. In Chapman, R.,
Kinnes, I., and Randsborg, K. (eds.),The Archaeology of Death, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 1–24.
Close, A. (1980). Current research and recent radiocarbon dates from northern Africa.Journal of African History21: 145–167.
Close, A. (1984). Current research and recent radiocarbon dates from northern Africa, II.Journal of African History25: 1–24.
Close, A. (1988). Current research and recent radiocarbon dates from northern Africa, III.Journal of African History29: 145–176.
Davies, V., and Friedman, R. F. (1998).Egypt Uncovered, Stewart, Tabori and Chang, New York. Davis, W. (1983). Cemetery T at Naqada.Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts,
Abteilung Kairo39: 17–28. Debono, F., and Mortensen, B. (1988).The Predynastic Cemetery at Heliopolis: Season March–
September 1950, Archäologishe Ver¨affentlichungen 63, Mainz am Rhein. Debono, F., and Mortensen, B. (eds.) (1990).El Omari. A Neolithic Settlement and Other Sites in the
Vicinity of Wadi Hof, Helwan, Archäologishe Ver¨affentlichungen 82, Mainz am Rhein. Derricourt, R. M. (1971). Radiocarbon chronology for Egypt and North Africa.Journal of Near Eastern
Studies30: 271–292. Dreyer, G. (1992a). Recent discoveries at Abydos cemetery U. In Brink, E. C. M. van den (ed.),The
Nile Delta in Transition: 4th–3rd Millennium B. C., van den Brink, Tel Aviv, pp. 293–299. Dreyer, G. (1992b). The royal tombs of Abydos. In Kerner, S. (ed.),The Near East in Antiquity,
Vol. III, Goethe Institute, al Kutba Publishers, Amman, pp. 55–67. Dreyer, G. (1993). Umm el-Qaab. Nachuntersuchungen im fr¨uhzeitlichen k¨onigsfriedhof. 5./6.
Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo49: 23–62. Earle, T. K. (1987). Chiefdoms in archaeological and ethnohistorical perspective.Annual Review of
Anthropology16: 279–308. Earle, T. K. (1991). The evolution of chiefdoms. In Earle, T. K. (ed.),Chiefdoms: Power, Economy,
and Ideology, Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 1–15. Edwards, I. E. S. (1971). The Early Dynastic period in Egypt. In Edwards, I. E. S., Gadd, C. J., and
Hammond, N. G. L. (eds.),The Cambridge Ancient History, 3rd edn., Vol. I, Part 2, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 1–70.
Eiwanger, J. (1988).Merimde-Benisal̂ame II. Die Funde der Mittleren Merimdekultur, Archäologische Veröffentlichungen 51, Mainz am Rhein.
P1: VENDOR/GCX P2: GCR
Journal of Archaeological Research [jar] PP078-295744 April 20, 2001 8:17 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999
Some Recent Trends in the Archaeology of Predynastic Egypt 137
Eiwanger, J. (1992).Merimde-Benisal̂ame III. Die Funde der J̈ungeren Merimdekultur, Archäologische Veröffentlichungen 59, Mainz am Rhein.
Emery, W. B. (1949).Great Tombs of the First Dynasty I. Excavations at Saqqara, Cairo University, Cairo.
Emery, W. B. (1954).Great Tombs of the First Dynasty II, Egyptian Exploration Society 46—Excavations at Saqqara, London.
Emery, W. B. (1958).Great Tombs of the First Dynasty III, Egyptian Exploration Society 47— Excavations at Saqqara, London.
Emery, W. B. (1961).Archaic Egypt, Penguin, Harmondsworth. Endesfelder, E. (1984). Social and economic development towards the end of the Predynastic period
in Egypt. In Krzyzaniak, L., and Kobusiewicz, M. (eds.),Origin and Early Development of Food Producing Cultures in Northeastern Africa, Polish Academy of Sciences, Poznan, pp. 95– 100.
Engelbach, R., and Gunn, B. (1923).Harageh, Egyptian Research Account, London. Fairservis, W. (1991). A revised view of the Na⊂rmr palette.Journal of the American Research Center
in Egypt28: 1–20. Faltings, D., and Kohler, E. C. (1996). Vorbericht ¨uber die ausgrabungen des DAI in Tell el-Fara’
in/Buto 1993 bis 1995.Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 52: 87–114.
Finkenstaedt, E. (1980). Regional painting styles in Predynastic Egypt.Zeitschrift f̈ur Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde107: 116–120.
Finkenstaedt, E. (1981). The location of styles in painting: White cross-lined ware at Naqada.Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt18: 7–10.
Finkenstaedt, E. (1985). Congnitive vs. ecological niches in prehistoric Egypt.Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt22: 143–147.
Flannery, K. V. (1995). Prehistoric social evolution. In Ember, C., and Ember, M. (eds.),Research Frontiers in Anthropology, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, pp. 1–26.
Fried, M. H. (1967).The Evolution of Political Society: An Essay in Political Anthropology, Random House, New York.
Friedman, R. F. (1981).Spatial Distribution in a Predynastic Cemetery: Naga-ed-Dêr N7000, Unpublished M. A. thesis, Department of Near Eastern Studies, University of California, Berkeley.
Friedman, R. F. (1991). Mendes/Tell el-Roba, 1990. (University of Illinois, Champaigne-Urbana and the University of Washington, Seattle).Bulletin de Liason du Groupe Internationall d’Etude de la CéramiqueÉgyptienne15: 8–13.
Friedman, R. F. (1992). The Early Dynastic and transitional pottery of Mendes: The 1990 season. In Brink, E. C. M. van den (ed.),The Nile Delta in Transition: 4th–3rd Millennium B. C., van den Brink, Tel Aviv, pp. 199–205.
Friedman, R. F. (1994).Predynastic Settlement Ceramics of Upper Egypt: A Comparative Study of the Ceramics of Hemamieh, Nagada, and Hierakonpolis, Department of Near Eastern Studies, University of California, Berkeley, University Microfilms International, Ann Arbor.
Friedman, R. F. (1996). Hierakonpolis (Egypt). In Ring, T. (ed.),International Dictionary of Historic Places, Vol. 4, Fitzroy Dearborn, Chicago, pp. 344–349.
Ginter, B., and Kozlowski, J. (1994).Predynastic Settlement near Armant, Deutsches Arch¨aolisches Institut, Cairo.
Grimal, N. (1992).A History of Ancient Egypt, Vol. I (Shaw, I., trans.), Blackwell, Oxford. Griswold, W. (1992). Measuring social inequality at Armant. In Friedman, R., and Adams, B. (eds.),The
Followers of Horus. Studies Dedicated to Michael Allan Hoffman, Egyptian Studies Association Publication, No. 2, Oxbow Monograph 20, Oxford, pp. 193–198.
Guksch, C. E. (1988). Ethnoarchaeology in Egyptology—A view from anthropology. In Schoske, S. (ed.),Akten des Vierten Internationalen̈Agyptolgen Kongresses M̈unchen 1985, Helmut Buske, Hamburg, pp. 41–51.
Harlan, J. F. (1985).Predynastic Settlement Patterns: A View from Hierakonpolis, Department of Anthropology, Washington University, St. Louis, University Microfilms International, Ann Arbor.
Harrison, T. P. (1993). Economics with an entrepreneurial spirit: Early Bronze trade with late Predy- nastic Egypt.Biblical Archaeologist56(2): 81–93.
P1: VENDOR/GCX P2: GCR
Journal of Archaeological Research [jar] PP078-295744 April 20, 2001 8:17 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999
138 Savage
Hassan, F. A. (1981). The Predynastic of Egypt: Subsistence-settlement in the Nagada-Khattara region. Final Report to the National Science Foundation, Department of Anthropology, Washington State University, Pullman.
Hassan, F. A. (1984). Radiocarbon chronology of Predynastic Naqada settlements, Upper Egypt.Cur- rent Anthropology25: 681–683.
Hassan, F. A. (1985). Radiocarbon chronology of Neolithic and Predynastic sites in Upper Egypt and the Delta.The African Archaeological Review3: 95–116.
Hassan, F. A. (1988). The Predynastic of Egypt.Journal of World Prehistory2: 135–185. Hassan, F. A. (1992). Town and village in ancient Egypt: Ecology, society and urbanization. In Shaw,
T., Sinclair, P., Andah B., and Okpoko, A. (eds.),The Archaeology of Africa: Food, Metals and Towns, Routledge, London, pp. 551–569.
Hassan, F., and Robinson, S. (1987). High precision radiocarbon chronometry of ancient Egypt, and comparisons with Nubia, Palestine, and Mesopotamia.Antiquity61: 119–135.
Hendrickx, S. (1994).Elkab V: The Naqada III Cemetery, Musées Royale d’Art et d’Histoire, Bruxelles. Hendrickx, S. (1996). The relative chronology of the Naqada culture: Problems and possibilities. In
Spencer, J. (ed.),Aspects of Early Egypt, British Museum, London, pp. 36–69. Hoffman, M. A. (1980). An Amratian house from Hierakonpolis and its significance for Predynastic
research.Journal of Near Eastern Studies39: 119–137. Hoffman, M. A. (1982). The Predynastic of Hierakonpolis: An interim report, Egyptian Studies Asso-
ciation Publication, No. 1, Cairo University Herbarium, Giza. Hoffman, M. A. (1984).Egypt Before the Pharaohs, Alfred A. Knopf, New York. Hoffman, M. A. (1987). A final report to the national endowment for the humanities on Predynastic
research at Hierakonpolis, 1985–86 (N. E. H. Grant Number RO-20805-85), Earth Sciences and Resources Institute, University of South Carolina, Columbia.
Hoffman, M. A. (1989a). Packaged funerals and the rise of Egypt.Archaeology42: 48–51. Hoffman, M. A. (1989b). A stratified Predynastic sequence from Hierakonpolis (Upper Egypt). In
Krzyzaniak, L., and Kobusiewicz, M. (eds.),Late Prehistory of the Nile basin and the Sahara, Poznan Archaeological Museum, Poznan, pp. 317–332.
Hoffman, M. A., Lupton, C., and Adams, B. (1982). Excavations at Locality 6. In Hoffman, M. A. (ed.), The Predynastic of Hierakonpolis: An Interim Report, Egyptian Studies Association Publication, No. 1, Giza, pp. 38–60.
Hoffman, M. A., Hamroush, H. A., and Allen, R. O. (1986). A model of urban development for the Hierakonpolis region from Predynastic through Old Kingdom times.Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt23: 175–187.
Holmes, D. (1987). A preliminary report on the chipped stone assemblages from HK-29A. In Hoffman, M. A. (ed.),A Final Report to the National Endowment for the Humanities on Predynastic Research at Hierakonpolis, 1985–86, Earth Sciences and Resources Institute, University of South Carolina, Columbia, pp. 196–212.
Holmes, D. (1989).The Predynastic Lithic Industries of Upper Egypt: A Comparative Study of the Lithic Traditions of Badari, Nagada, and Hierakonpolis, Cambridge Monographs in African Archaeology 33, BAR International Series 469(i), Oxford.
Holmes, D. (1993). Archaeological investigations in the Badari region, Egypt: A report on the 1992 season.Nyame Akuma39: 19–25.
Holmes, D. L., and Friedman, R. F. (1989). The Badari region revisited.Nyame Akuma31: 15–19. Holmes, D. L., and Friedman, R. F. (1994). Survey and test excavations in the Badari region, Egypt.
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society60: 105–142. Huzayyin, S. (1937). The flint industry. In Mond, R., and Meyers, O. H. (eds.),The Cemeteries of
Armant I, Egypt Exploration Society, London, pp. 191–253. Huzayyin, S. (1939). Some new light on the beginnings of Egyptian civilization.Bulletin de la Socíet́e
Royale de Ǵeographie d’́Egypte20: 203–273. Joffe, A. H. (1993).Settlement and Society in the Early Bronze Age I and II, Southern Levant, Sheffield
Academic Press, Sheffield. Johnson, A. L., and Lovell, N. C. (1994). Biological differentiation at Predynastic Naqada.American
Journal of Physical Anthropology93: 427–433. Junker, H. (1912).Bericht über die Grabungen der Kaiserl. Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien
auf dem Friedhof in Turah. Winter 1909–1910, Denkschriften der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, Philosophisch-Historische Klasse 56, Alfred Holder, Vienna.
P1: VENDOR/GCX P2: GCR
Journal of Archaeological Research [jar] PP078-295744 April 20, 2001 8:17 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999
Some Recent Trends in the Archaeology of Predynastic Egypt 139
Junker, H. (1929). Vorl¨aufiger bericht ¨uber die grabung der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien auf der neolithischen siedlung von Mermde-Benisalˆame (Westdelta) vom 1. Bis 30 M¨arz 1929. Anzieger der Akademie der Wissenschaften in WienXVI/XVIII : 156–250.
Junker, H. (1930). Grabung der Weiner Akademie der Wissenschaften auf der neolithischen siedlung von Mermde-Benisalˆame (Westdelta des Nils).Forschungen und Forrtschritten6(4): 49–51.
Kaiser, W. (1956). Stand und probleme derÄgyptischen vorgeschichtsforschung.Zeitschrift f̈ur Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde81: 87–109.
Kaiser, W. (1957). Zur inneren chronologie der Nagadakultur.Archaeologia Geographica6: 69–77. Kaiser, W. (1964). Einige bemerkungen zurÄgyptischen frühzeit. III.Zeitschrift f̈ur Ägyptische Sprache
und Altertumskunde91: 36–125. Kaiser, W., and Dreyer, G. (1982). Umm el Qaab. Nachuntersuchungenin fr¨uhzeitlichen k¨onigsfriedhof.
1. Vorbericht.Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo38: 155– 164.
Kantor, H. J. (1944). The final phase of Predynastic culture, Gerzean or Semainean?Journal of Near Eastern Studies3: 110–136.
Kantor, H. J. (1992). The relative chronology of Egypt and its foreign correlations before the First Intermediate Period. In Ehrich, R. W. (ed.),Chronologies in Old World Archaeology, 3rd edn., University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 3–21.
Kemp, B. J. (1982). Automatic analysis of Predynastic cemeteries: A new method for an old problem. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology68: 5–15.
Kemp, B. J. (1989).Ancient Egypt: Anatomy of a Civilization, Routledge, London. Kendall, D. G. (1971). Seriation from abundance matrices. In Hodson, F. R., Kendall, D. G., and Tautu,
P. (eds.),Mathematics in the Archaeological and Historical Sciences, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, pp. 215–253.
Köhler, E. C. (1995). The state of research on Late Predynastic Egypt: New evidence for the development of the Pharaonic state?Goettinger Miszellen147: 79–92.
Kroeper, K. (1988). Excavations of the Munich East-Delta Expedition in Minshat Abu Omar. In Brink, E. C. M. van den (ed.),The Archaeology of the Nile Delta, Egypt: Problems and Priorities, Netherlands Foundation for Archaeological Research in Egypt, Amsterdam, pp. 11–33.
Kroeper, K. (1989). Palestinian ceramic imports in pre- and protohistoric Egypt. In Miroschedji, P. de (ed.), L’urbanisation de la Palestine a l’age du Bronze ancien, BAR International Series 527, Oxford, pp. 407–422.
Lamberg-Karlovsky, C. C., and Sabloff, J. A. (1979).Ancient Civilizations: The Near East and Mesoamerica, Benjamin/Cummings, Menlo Park, CA.
Levy, T. E., van den Brink, E. C. M., Goren, Y., and Alon, D. (1995). New light on King Narmer and the protodynastic Egyptian presence in Canaan.Biblical Archaeologist58(1): 26–35.
Lustig, J. (1997).Anthropology and Egyptology, A Developing Dialogue, Monographs in Mediterranean Archaeology 8, Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield.
Lythgoe, A. M. (1905). The Egyptian expedition of the University of California; An Early Predynastic cemetery at Naga-ed-Dˆer. American Journal of Archaeology9: 79.
Lythgoe, A. M., and Dunham, D. (1965).The Predynastic Cemetery, N 7000. Naga-ed-Dêr, Part IV, University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles.
Mark, S. (1998).From Egypt to Mesopotamia, A Study of Predynastic Trade Routes, Texas A&M University Press, College Station.
Massoulard, E. (1949).Préhistoire et Protohistoire d’́Egypte, Institut d’Ethnologie, Travaux et Mémoires 53, Paris.
McArdle, J. (1982). Preliminary report on the Predynastic fauna of the Hierakonpolis region. In Hoffman, M. A. (ed.),The Predynastic of Hierakonpolis: An Interim Report, Egyptian Studies Association Publication, No. 1, Giza, pp. 116–121.
Menghin, O. (1931). Die grabung der Universit¨at Kairo bei Maadi.Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo2: 143–147.
Menghin, O. (1932). Die grabung der Universit¨at Kairo bei Maadi.Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo3: 150–154.
Menghin, O. (1934). Die drabung der Universit¨at Kairo bei Maadi.Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo5: 111–118.
Menghin, O., and Amer, M. (1932). The excavations of the Egyptian University in the neolithic site at Maadi. First Preliminary Report, Egyptian University, Cairo.
P1: VENDOR/GCX P2: GCR
Journal of Archaeological Research [jar] PP078-295744 April 20, 2001 8:17 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999
140 Savage
Menghin, O., and Amer, M. (1936). The excavations of the Egyptian University in the neolithic site at Maadi. Second Preliminary Report (Season of 1932), Egyptian University Faculty of Arts Publication 20, Cairo.
Millet, N. B. (1990). The Narmer macehead and related objects.Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt27: 53–59.
Mond, O., and Meyers, R. H. (1937).Cemeteries of Armant I, Egyptian Exploration Society, London. Morgan, H. de. (1912). Report on excavations made in Upper Egypt during the winter 1907–1908
[note: this should be 1906–1907; the date is a misprint].Annales du Service des Antiquités de l’ Égypte12: 25–50.
Morgan, J. de. (1897).Recherches sur les origines de l’Egypte. II Ethnographie préhistorique et tombeau royal de Negadah, Ernest Leroux, Paris.
Naville, E. (1914).The Cemeteries of Abydos, Part I, Egyptian Exploration Fund 33, London. Needler, W. (1984).Predynastic and Archaic Egypt in the Brooklyn Museum, The Brooklyn Museum,
Brooklyn, NY. Nishisato, S. (1980).Analysis of Categorical Data: Dual Scaling and Its Applications, University of
Toronto Press, Toronto. Oren, E. (1973). The overland route between Egypt and Canaan in the Early Bronze Age, a preliminary
report.Israel Exploration Journal23: 198–205. Oren, E. (1989). Early Bronze Age settlement in northern Sinai: A model for Egypto-Canaanite inter-
connections. In Miroschedji, P. de (ed.),L’urbanisation de la Palestine a l’age du Bronze ancien, BAR International Series 527, Oxford, pp. 389–405.
O’Shea, J. (1996).Villagers of the Maros: A Portrait of an Early Bronze Age Society, Plenum Press, New York.
Patch, D. C. (1991).The Origin and Early Development of Urbanism in Ancient Egypt: A Regional Study, Department of Oriental Studies, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, University Mi- crofilms International, Ann Arbor.
Peet, T. E. (1914). The mixed cemetery (E): Description. In Naville, E. (ed.),The Cemeteries of Abydos. Part I. The Mixed Cemetery and Umm el-Ga’ab, Egyptian Exploration Fund, London, pp. 12– 34.
Petrie, W. M. F. (1901).Diospolis Parva: The Cemeteries of Abadiyeh and Hu, Egyptian Exploration Fund, London.
Petrie, W. M. F. (1928).Corpus of Predynastic Pottery and Palettes, Egyptian Exploration Society, London.
Petrie, W. M. F. (1939).The Making of Egypt, Sheldon Press, London. Petrie, W. M. F., and Quibell, J. E. (1896).Naqada and Ballas, Quaritch, London. Prowse, T., and Lovell, N. (1996). Concordance of cranial and dental morphological traits and evi-
dence for endogamy in ancient Egypt.American Journal of Physical Anthropology101: 237– 246.
Quibell, J. E. (1900).Hierakonpolis I, Egyptian Research Account, No. 4, London. Quibell, J. E., and Green, J. (1901).Hierakonpolis II, Egyptian Research Account, No. 5, London. Reisner, G. A. (1932).A Provincial Cemetery of the Pyramid Age: Naga-ed-Der Part III, University
of California Publications in Egyptian Archaeology, Vol. VI, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Renfrew, C. (ed.) (1973).The Explanation of Culture Change, Duckworth Press, London. Rice, M. (1990).Egypt’s Making: The Origins of Ancient Egypt 5000–2000 B.C., Routledge, London. Rizkana, I. (1989). The work done at the prehistoric site of Maadi in the past two years. In Schoske, S.
(ed.),Akten des Vierten Internationalen̈Agyptolgen Kongresses M̈unchen 1985, Helmut Buske, Hamburg, pp. 347–350.
Saad, Z. Y. (1947). Royal excavations at Saqqara and Helwan (1941–1945).Annales du Service des Antiquities de l’Egypte, supplementary cahier 3, Institut Fran¸cais d’Archéologie Orientale, Cairo.
Saad, Z. Y. (1951). Royal excavations at Saqqara and Helwan (1945–1947).Annales du Service des Antiquities de l’Egypte, supplementary cahier 14, Institut Fran¸cais d’Archéologie Orientale, Cairo.
Saad, Z. Y. (1957). Ceiling stelae in Second Dynasty tombs from the excavations at Helwan.Annales du Service des Antiquities de l’Egypte, supplementary cahier 21, Institut Fran¸cais d’Archéologie Orientale, Cairo.
Saad, Z. Y. (1969).The Excavations at Helwan: Art and Civilization in the First and Second Egyptian Dynasties, University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, Oklahoma.
P1: VENDOR/GCX P2: GCR
Journal of Archaeological Research [jar] PP078-295744 April 20, 2001 8:17 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999
Some Recent Trends in the Archaeology of Predynastic Egypt 141
Savage, S. H. (1995).Descent, Power and Competition in Predynastic Egypt: Mortuary Evidence from Cemetery N7000 at Naga-ed-Dêr, Department of Anthropology, Arizona State University, Tempe, University Microfilms International, Ann Arbor.
Savage, S. H. (1997). Descent group competition and economic strategies in Predynastic Egypt.Journal of Anthropological Archaeology16: 226–268.
Savage, S. H. (1998). AMS14carbon dates from the Predynastic Egyptian cemetery, N7000, at Naga- ed-Dêr. Journal of Scientific Archaeology25: 235–249.
Savage, S. H. (2000). The status of women in Predynastic Egypt as revealed through mortuary analysis. In Rautman, A. (ed.),Reading the Body: Representations and Remains in the Archaeological Record, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, pp. 77–94.
Savage, S. H. (in press). Towards an AMS Radiocarbon Chronology of Predynastic Egyptian Ceramics. In Proceedings of the 17th International Radiocarbon Conference, Jerusalem, Israel, June, 2000.
Scharff, A. (1926).Die ärchäologischen ergebnisse des vorgeschichtlichen gräberfeldes von Abusir el-Meleq: Nach den aufzeichnungen Georg Möllers, Weissenschaftliche Ver¨offentlichungen der Deutschen Orientgesellschaft 49, Leipzig.
Scharff, A. (1928). Some prehistoric vases in the British Museum and remarks on Egyptian prehistory. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology14: 260–276, Plates xxiv–xxviii.
Scollar, I. (1993).The Bonn Seriation and Archaeological Statistics Package, Version 4, The Unkelbach Valley Software Works, Bonn, Germany.
Seeher, J. (1999). Abusir-el-Meleq. In Bard, K. (ed.),Encyclopedia of The Archaeology of Ancient Egypt, Routledge, New York, pp. 90–93.
Seidlmayr, S. J. (1990).Gräberfelder aus dem̈ubergang vom Alten zum Mittleren Reich: Studien zur arcḧaoloue der Ersten Zwischenzeit, Studien zur Arch¨aologie und Geschchte Alt¨agyptens 1, Heidelberg Orientverlag, Heidelberg.
Service, E. R. (1971).Primitive Social Organization: An Evolutionary Perspective, 2nd edn., Random House, New York.
Shennan, S. (1990).Quantifying Archaeology, Academic Press, New York. Spencer, A. J. (1995).Early Egypt: The Rise of Civilisation in the Nile Valley, University of Oklahoma
Press, Norman. Trigger, B. D. (1968).Beyond History: The Methods of Prehistory, Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, New
York. Trigger, B. D. (1983). The rise of Egyptian civilization. In Trigger, B. G., Kemp, B. J., O’Connor, D.,
and Lloyd, A. B. (eds.),Ancient Egypt: A Social History, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 1–70.
Trigger, B. D. (1989).A History of Archaeological Thought, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Trigger, B. D. (1993).Early Civilizations: Ancient Egypt in Context, The American University in Cairo
Press, Cairo. Vercoutter, J. (1992).L’ Égypte et la Valĺee du Nil, Tome 1, Des Originesà la Fin de l’Ancien Empire
12000–2000 av. J.-C, Presses Universitaires de France, Paris. Ward, W. A. (1969). The supposed Asiatic campaign of Narmer.Mélanges de l’Universit́e Saint-Joseph
45: 205–221. Way, T. von der. (1986). Tell el-Fara’in—Buto, 1. Bericht.Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen
Instituts, Abteilung Kairo43: 241–257. Way, T. von der. (1987). Tell el-Fara’in—Buto, 2. Bericht.Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen
Instituts, Abteilung Kairo43: 241–257. Way, T. von der. (1988). Tell el-Fara’in—Buto, 3. Bericht.Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen
Instituts, Abteilung Kairo44: 283–306. Way, T. von der. (1989). Tell el-Fara’in—Buto, 4. Bericht.Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen
Instituts, Abteilung Kairo45: 275–307. Way, T. von der. (1991a). Die grabungen in Buto und die reichseinigung.Mitteilungen des Deutschen
Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo47: 419–424. Way, T. von der. (1991b). Investigations concerning the Pre- and Early Dynasty periods in the northern
Delta of Egypt. In Kerner, S. (ed.),The Near East in Antiquity, Vol. II, Goethe Institute, al Kutba Publishers, Amman, pp. 47–61.
Way, T. von der. (1992). Excavations at Tell el-Fara’in/Buto in 1987–1989. In Brink, E. C. M. van den (ed.),The Nile Delta in Transition: 4th–3rd Millennium B.C., van den Brink, Tel Aviv, pp. 1–10.
P1: VENDOR/GCX P2: GCR
Journal of Archaeological Research [jar] PP078-295744 April 20, 2001 8:17 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999
142 Savage
Way, T. von der. (1993).Untersuchungen zur Spätvor—Und Fr̈uhgeschichte Unterägyptens, Studien zur Archäologie und Geschchte Alt¨agyptens 8, Heidelberg Orientverlag, Heidelberg.
Wendorf, F. (ed.) (1968).The Prehistory of Nubia, Vol. 2, Southern Methodist University Press, Dallas. Wenke, R. J. (1991). Explaining the evolution of cultural complexity: A review.Advances in Archae-
ological Method and Theory4: 79–127. 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., and Okpoko, A. (eds.),The Archaeology of Africa: Food, Metals and Towns, Routledge, London, pp. 165–226.
Wilkinson, T. A. H. (1995). A new king in the Western Desert.Journal of Egyptian Archaeology81: 205–210.
Wilkinson, T. A. H. (1996).State Formation in Egypt: Chronology and Society, Cambridge Monographs in African Archaeology 40, BAR International Series 651, Oxford.
Wilkinson, T. A. H. (1999).Early Dynastic Egypt, Routledge, London. Williams, B. (1986). Forebears of Menes in Nubia: Myth or reality?Journal of Near Eastern Studies
46: 15–26. Wittfogel, K. A. (1952).Irrigation Civilizations: A Comparative Study, Social Science Monographs
1, Pan American Union, Washington, DC.
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF RECENT LITERATURE
The number of published works on Predynastic and Archaic period Egypt/ Nubia now exceeds 8,500 items. Clearly, a complete listing here is beyond the scope of this paper. Two more complete lists have been published. Kent Weeks’ An Historical Bibliography of Egyptian Prehistory(Weeks, 1985), includes 2515 items published through 1985. Hendrickx’sAnalytical Bibliography of the Prehis- tory and the Early Dynastic Period of Egypt and the Northern Sudan(Hendrickx, 1995) lists 7407 items, excluding some of the works included in Weeks’ compi- lation; he has recently published updates (Hendrickx, 1996, 1997). I have taken a number of steps to reduce the size of the bibliography listed below. First, I have listed only a sample of the works published since 1985, (the list does not include works referenced earlier). To reduce the length of the list still further, if more than one chapter of an edited volume is germane I have included one ref- erence to the volume rather than the individual chapters. I have not listed papers presented at conferences but not yet published, and, unlike Weeks and Hendrickx, I have restricted the bibliography to items that directly pertain to the Badarian and Predynastic periods.
Adams, B. (1988).Predynastic Egypt, Shire Egyptology 7, Aylesbury. Adams, B. (1993). Hierakonpolis. 1992 season (University of South Carolina).Bulletin de Liaison du
Groupe International d’Etude de la ĆeramiqueÉgyptienne17: 35–37. Adams, B. (1995).Ancient Nekhen: Garstang in the city of Hierakonpolis, Egyptian Studies Association
Publication 3, Eisenbrauns, New Malden, Indiana. Adamson, P. B. (1992). The possibility of sea trade between Egypt and Mesopotamia during the late
Predynastic period.Aula Orientalis10: 175–179. Aksamit, J. (1992). Petrie’s type D 46 D and remarks on the production and decoration of Predynastic
decorated pottery. In Ballet, P. (ed.),Cahiers de la Ćeramique Egyptienne3, Institut Fran¸cais d’Archéologie Orientale, Cairo, pp. 17–21.
Alesio, M., Barich, B. E., Belluomini, G., Hassan, F. A., Mahmoud, A. A., and Manfra, L. (1992). A further report on Farafra (Western Desert, Egypt): New research and radiocarbon dates.Nyame Akuma38: 19–28.
P1: VENDOR/GCX P2: GCR
Journal of Archaeological Research [jar] PP078-295744 April 20, 2001 8:17 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999
Some Recent Trends in the Archaeology of Predynastic Egypt 143
Algaze, G. (1993). Expansionary dynamics of some early pristine states.American Anthropologist95: 304–333.
Allen, J. P. (1992). Menes the Memphite.Göttinger Mizellen. Beitr̈age zurÄegyptogischen Diskussion 126: 19–22.
Allen, R. O., and Hamroush, H. A. (1986). Prehistoric ceramic technology.ChemtechAugust: 484– 488.
Allen, R. O., Hamroush, H. A., and Hoffman, M. A. (1986). Uncovering the secrets of the ancient Nile. Analytical Chemistry58: 572–575.
Allen, R. O., Hamroush, H. A., and Hoffman, M. A. (1989). Archaeological implications of differences in the composition of Nile sediments. In Allen, R. O. (ed.),Archaeological Chemistry IV, Advances in Chemistry No. 220. Washington, DC, pp. 33–56.
Allen, R. O., Hamroush, H. A., and Stanley, D. J. (1992). Impact of environment on Egyptian civilization before the Pharaohs.Analytical Chemistry65(1): 32A–34A.
Andelkovic, B. (1995).The Relations between Early Bronze I Canaanites and Upper Egyptians, Faculty of Philosophy, Institute of Archaeology, Belgrade.
Andres, W., and Wunderlich, J. (1991). Late Pleistocene and Holocene evolution of the eastern Nile Delta and comparisons with the western Delta. In Br¨uckner, H., and Radtke, U. (eds.),Von der Nordsee bis zum Indischen Ozean, F. Steiner, Stuttgart, pp. 121–130.
Armelagos, G. J., and Mills, J. O. (1993). Palaeopathology as science: The contribution of Egyptology. In Davies, W. V., and Walker, R. (eds.),Biological Anthropology and the Study of Ancient Egypt, British Museum Press, London, pp. 1–18.
Arnold, D. O., and Bourriau, J. D. (eds.) (1993).An Introduction to Ancient Egyptian Pottery, Deutsches Archäologisches Institut Abteilung Kairo, Sonderschrift 17, Mainz am Rhein.
Atzler, M. (1991). Zu einigen problemen der herausbildungÄgyptischer kultur.Cahier de Recherches de l’Institut de Papyrologie et d’Egyptologie de Lille13: 25–33.
Baines, J. (1989). Communication and display: The integration of early Egyptian art and writing. Antiquity63: 471–482.
Baines, J. (1990). Trˆone et dieu: Aspects du symbolisme royal et divin des temps archa¨ıques.Bulletin de la Socíet́e Française d’Egyptologie118: 5–37.
Baines, J. (1991). Egyptian myth and discourse: Myth, gods, and the early written and iconographic record.Journal of Near Eastern Studies50: 81–105.
Barakat, H. (1990). Plant remains from El Omari. In Debono, F., and Mortensen, B. (eds.),El Omari: A Neolithic Settlement and Other Sites in the Vicinity of Wadi Hof, Helwan, P. von Zabern, Mainz am Rhein, pp. 109–114.
Barber, E. J. W. (1991). Egypt. Early techniques. In Barber, E. J. W. (ed.),Prehistoric Textiles: The Development of Cloth in the Neolithic and Bronze Ages, Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp. 145–149.
Bard, K. A. (1987). The geography of excavated Predynastic sites and the rise of complex society. Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt24: 81–94.
Bard, K. A. (1988). A quantitative analysis of the Predynastic burials in Armant cemetery 1400–1500. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology74: 39–55.
Bard, K. A. (1989). The evolution of social complexity in Predynastic Egypt. An analysis of the Naqada cemeteries.Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology2: 223–248.
Bard, K. A., and Carneiro, R. L. (1989). Patterns of Predynastic settlement location, social evolution and the Circumscription Theory.Cahier de recherches de l’Institut de Papyrologie et d’Egyptologie de Lille 11: 15–23.
Barich, B. E. (1989). Food production as a process: Two examples from the Sahara. InAtti della XXVII Riunione Scientifica, Ferrara 1987, Ferrara, pp. 429–439.
Barich, B. E. (1993). Culture and environment between the Sahara and the Nile in the early and mid- Holocene. In Krzyzaniak, L., and Kobusiewicz, M. (eds.),Environmental Change and Human Culture in the Nile Basin and Northern Africa until the Second Millennium B. C., Poznan Archae- ological Museum, Poznan, pp. 171–183.
Barich, B. E., Hassan, F. A., and Mahmoud, A. M. A. (1992). L’area preistorica di Bahr Playa (Oasi di Farafra) e aspetti Predinastici della valle del Nilo. InSesto Congresso Internazionale di Egittologia. Atti. Vol. I, International Association of Egyptologists, Turin, pp. 33–39.
Barocas, C. (1986). Les raisons d’une fouille et d’un survey: le site de Naqadah.Cahier de Recherches de l’Institut de Papyrologie et d’Egyptologie de Lille8: 17–28.
P1: VENDOR/GCX P2: GCR
Journal of Archaeological Research [jar] PP078-295744 April 20, 2001 8:17 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999
144 Savage
Bar-Yosef, O., and Belfer-Cohen, A. (1989). The origins of sedentism and farming communities in the Levant.Journal of World Prehistory3: 447–498.
Bar-Yosef, O., and Kra, R. S. (eds.) (1994).Late Quaternary Chronology and Paleoclimates of the Eastern Mediterranean, University of Arizona, Tucson.
Beck, K. G. (1989). Die pr¨ahistorischen fundpl¨atzen von Maadi und Wadi Digla. In Schoske, S. (ed.),Akten des Vierten Internationalen̈Agyptolgen Kongresses M̈unchen 1985, Helmut Buske, Hamburg, pp. 257–264.
Ben-Tor, A. (1991). New light on the relations between Egypt and southern Palestine during the Early Bronze Age.BASOR281: 3–10.
Bergamini, G. (1988). Religion et pratiques fun´eraires de l’Egypte pr´epharaonique. In Donadoni Roveri, A. M. (ed.) La Civilisation desÉgyptiens. Les Croyances Religieuses, Museo Egizio di Torino, Torino, pp. 20–37.
Best, J. G. P. (1990). A timber-grave complex in Egypt around 3200 BC.Orpheus0: 24–28. Bietak, M. (1986). Tell ed-Dab’a. In Helck, W., and Otto, E. (eds.),Lexikon derÄgyptologie, O.
Harrassowitz, Weisbaden, pp. 321–323. Boehmer, R. M. (1991). 14C-Daten aus Uruk und Abydos.Ägyptisches (?) im fr¨uhen Nordsyrien,
Sumer und Elam.Baghdader Mitteilungen22: 223–230. Boehmer, R. M. (1991). Gebel-el-Arak und Gebel-el-Tarif-griff: Keine f¨alschungen.Mitteilungen des
Deutschen Arcḧaologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo47: 51–60. Boehmer, R. M., Dreyer, G., and Kromer, B. (1993). Einige fr¨uhzeitliche 14C-datierungen aus Abydos
und Uruk.Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo49: 63–68. Bower, J., and Lubell, D. (eds.) (1988).Prehistoric Cultures and Environments in the Late Quaternary
of Africa, Cambridge Monographs in African Archaeology 26, British Archaeological Reports 405, Oxford.
Brack, A., and Zoller, H. (1989). Die pflanze auf der dekorierten Naqada II-keramik: Aloe oder wild- banane (ensete)?Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo45: 33– 53.
Brewer, D. J. (1986).Cultural and Environmental Change in the Fayum, Egypt: An Investigation Based on Faunal Remains, Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Nashville, University Microfilms International, Ann Arbor.
Brewer, D. J. (1987). Seasonality in the prehistoric Faiyum, based on incremental growth structures on the Nile catfish (Pisces clarias). Journal of Archaeological Science14: 459–472.
Brewer, D. J. (1989).Fishermen, Hunters and Herders. Zooarchaeology in the Fayum, Egypt (ca. 8200–5000 bp), British Archaeological Reports 478, Oxford.
Brewer, D. J. (1991). Temperatures in Predynastic Egypt inferred from the remains of the Nile perch. World Archaeology22: 288–303.
Brewer, D. J. (1991). Fishing in prehistoric Egypt: Inferences from faunal remains. In Purdue, J. R., Klippel, W. E., and Styles, B. W. (eds.),Beamers, Bobwhites and Blue-Points: Tributes to the Career of P. W. Parmalee, Illinois State Museum, Springfield, pp. 333–340.
Brink, E. C. M. van den. (1987). A geo-archaeological survey in the north-eastern Nile Delta, Egypt: The first two seasons, a preliminary report.Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo43: 7–32.
Brink, E. C. M. van den (ed.) (1988).The Archaeology of the Nile Delta: Problems and Priorities, Netherlands Foundation for Archaeological Research in Egypt, Amsterdam.
Brink, E. C. M. van den (ed.) (1989). A transitional late Predynastic—Early Dynastic settlement site in the northeastern Nile Delta, Egypt.Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo45: 55–108.
Brink, E. C. M. van den (ed.) (1992).The Nile Delta in Transition: 4th–3rd Millennium B. C, van den Brink, Tel Aviv.
Brovarski, E. J. (1986). Thinis. In Helck, W., and Otto, E. (eds.),Lexikon derÄgyptologie, Vol. 6, O. Harrassowitz, Weisbaden, pp. 475–486.
Buikstra, J. E., Baker, B. J., and Cook, D. C. (1993). What diseases plagued ancient Egyptians? A century of controversy considered. In Davies, W. V., and Walker, R. (eds.),Biological Anthropology and the Study of Ancient Egypt, British Museum Press, London, pp. 23–53.
Caneva, I. (1986). Maadi (Cairo). (Joint Italo-Egyptian project of research 1985–1986.)Bulletin de Liason du Groupe Internationall d’Etude de la CéramiqueÉgyptienne11: 19–21.
P1: VENDOR/GCX P2: GCR
Journal of Archaeological Research [jar] PP078-295744 April 20, 2001 8:17 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999
Some Recent Trends in the Archaeology of Predynastic Egypt 145
Caneva, I. (1992). Le littoral nord-Sina¨ıtique dans la pr´ehistoire.Cahier de Recherches de l’Institut de Papyrologie et d’Egyptologie de Lille14: 33–38.
Caselitz, P. (1988). Zur klassifikation der Pr¨adynastischen keramik von Heliopolis/Unter¨agypten.Stu- dien zur Alẗagyptischen Kultur15: 27–52.
Caselitz, P. (1989). A new approach on the classification of Egyptian ceramics.Discussions in Egyp- tology13: 10–27.
Castillos, J. J. (1991). Pottery distribution in Upper Egyptian Predynastic cemeteries.Revue d’Egyptologie Publíee par la Socíet́e Française d’Egyptologie42: 267–281.
Chazan, M., and Lehner, M. (1990). An ancient analogy: Pot baked bread in ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia.Paléorient16(2): 21–35.
Chlodnicki, M. (1988). Pottery from the Archaeological Survey of the Eastern Nile Delta, Egypt— Interim Report. (Italian Archaeological Mission of the Ligabue Study and Research Center, Venice.)Bulletin de Liason du Groupe Internationall d’Etude de la CéramiqueÉgyptienne13: 22–26.
Chlodnicki, M. (1995). Some remarks about Late Predynastic, Early Dynastic and Old Kingdom bread moulds.Etudies et Travaux17: 23–27.
Chlodnicki, M., Fattovich, R., and Salvatori, S. (1991). Italian excavations in the Nile Delta: Fresh data and new hypotheses on the 4th millennium cultural development of Egyptian prehistory.Rivista di Archeologia15: 5–33.
Chlodnicki, M., Fattovich, R., and Salvatori, S. (1992). The Italian archaeological mission of the C.S.R.L.—Venice to the eastern Nile Delta: A preliminary report of the 1987–1988 field seasons. Cahier de Recherches de l’Institut de Papyrologie et d’Egyptologie de Lille14: 45–62.
Churcher, C. S. (1986). Dakhleh Oasis Project. Palaeontology: Interim report on the 1985 field season. Journal of the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquity16: 1–4.
Churcher, C. S. (1988). Dakhleh Oasis Project. Palaeontology: Interim report on the 1987 field season. Journal of the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquity18: 113–118.
Churcher, C. S. (1992). Ostrich bones from the Neolithic of Dakhleh Oasis, western Egypt. Palaeoecology of Africa23: 67–71.
Cialowicz, K. M. (1986). Predynastic mace-heads. Principles and criteria of the typological classifica- tion. In Recherches arch́eologiques de 1984, L’Insitut, Krakow, pp. 100–104.
Cialowicz, K. M. (1996). La Dynastie 0. Conqu´erants ou administrateurs?Prace Archeologiczne58: 7–23.
Clagett, M. (ed.) (1989).Ancient Egyptian Science. A Source Book, Vol. I, Knowledge and Order, Tome I, American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia.
Clayton, P. A. (ed.) (1994).Chronicle of the Pharaohs: The Reign-by-Reign Record of the Rulers and Dynasties of Ancient Egypt, Thames and Hudson, London.
Close, A. E. (1990). Living on the edge: Neolithic herders in the eastern Sahara.Antiquity64: 76–96. Close, A. E. (1990). Identifying style in stone artifacts: A case study from the Nile Valley. In Henry,
D. O., and Odell, G. H. (eds.),Alternative Approaches to Lithic Analysis, Archeological Papers No. 1, American Anthropological Association, Washington, DC, pp. 3–26.
Close, A. E. (1992). Holocene occupation of the eastern Sahara. In Klees, F., and Kuper, R. (eds.),New Light on the Northeast African Past, Heinrich-Barth-Institut, K¨oln, pp. 155–183.
Close, A. E. (ed.) (1987).Prehistory of Arid North Africa. Essays in Honor of Fred Wendorf, Southern Methodist University, Dallas.
Clutton-Brock, J. (1989). Cattle in ancient North Africa. In Clutton-Brock, J. (ed.),The Walking Larder: Patterns of Domestication, Pastoralism, and Predation, Unwin Hyman, London, pp. 200–206.
Connan, J., Nissenbaum, A. and Dessort, D. (1992). Molecular archaeology: Exports of Dead Sea asphalt to Canaan and Egypt in the Chalcolithic—Early Bronze Age (4th–3rd millennium BC.). Geochimca et Cosmochimica Acta56(7): 2734–2759.
Cooper, J. S., and Schwartz, G. M. (eds.) (1996).The Study of the Ancient Near East in the Twenty-First Century, Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake, IN.
Coutellier, V., and Stanley, D. J. (1987). Late Quaternary stratigraphy and paleogeography of the eastern Nile Delta, Egypt.Marine Geology77: 257–275.
Cowell, M. (1986). The composition of Egyptian copper-based metalwork. In David, R. A. (ed.),Science in Egyptology: Proceedings of the “Science in Egyptology” Symposia, Manchester University Press, Manchester, pp. 463–468.
P1: VENDOR/GCX P2: GCR
Journal of Archaeological Research [jar] PP078-295744 April 20, 2001 8:17 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999
146 Savage
Czichon, R. M., and Sievertsen, U. (1993). Aspects of space and composition in the relief representaitons of the Gebel el-Arak knife-handle.Archéo-Nil 3: 49–55.
Dam, K. van.(1983). Het ‘Sequence Dates’ system.De Ibis8: 119–123. Darmon, F., Emery-Barbier, A., and Leroi-Gourhan, A. (1989). Exemples d’occupation r´egionale au
Proche-Orient en fonction des variations pal´eoclimatiques. In Leville, H. (ed.),Variations des Paléomilieux et Peuplement Préhistorique, Cahiers du Quaternaire 13, Bordeaux, pp. 21–38.
Darnell, J. C., and Darnell, J. (1996). The Theban Desert Road Survey (The Luxor-Farshˆut Desert Road Survey). InThe Oriental Institute 1995–1996 Annual Report, Chicago, pp. 62–70.
Dautzenberg, N. (1986). Zu den regierungszeiten in Manethos 1. Dynastie.Göttinger Mizellen. Beitr̈age zur Äegyptogischen Diskussion92: 23–28.
David, A. R. (1996).A Biographical Dictionary of Ancient Egypt, University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.
Davies, W. (1991).Egypt and Africa: Nubia from Prehistory to Islam, British Museum Press in asso- ciation with the Egypt Exploration Society, London.
Davies, W. V., and Walker, R. (1993).Biological Anthropology and the Study of Ancient Egypt, British Museum Press, London.
Davis, W. M. (1989).The Canonical Tradition in Ancient Egyptian Art, Cambridge New Art History and Criticism, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Davis, W. M. (1990). The Study of Rock Art in Africa. In Robertshaw, P. (ed.),A History of African Archaeology, Heinemann, Portsmouth, NH, pp. 271–295.
Davis, W. M. (1992).Masking the Blow. The Scene of Representation in Late Prehistoric Egyptian Art, University of California, Berkeley and Los Angeles.
De Cree, F. J. (1991). “Mutatis Mutandis” Egyptian relations with Palestine in the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age I–IV.Göttinger Mizellen. Beitr̈age zuräegyptogischen Diskussion124: 21–42.
Dessel, J. P. (1992). Egypto-Canaanite relations in the fourth millennium: A view from the Halif Terrace.Bulletin de Liason du Groupe Internationall d’Etude de la CéramiqueÉgyptienne16: 44–45.
Dittmann, A. (1990).Zur Paläogeographie derÄgyptischen Eastern Desert. Der Aussagewert Prähistorischer Besiedlungsspuren für die Rekonstruktion von Paläoklima und Reliefentwicklung, Marburger Geografische Schriften 116, Marburg.
Dixon, D. M. (1989). A note on some scavengers of ancient Egypt.World Archaeology21: 193– 197.
Dochniak, C. C. (1991). The Libyan Palette interpreted as depicting a combination pictorial year-name. Varia Aegyptiaca7: 108–114.
Dominik, J., and Stanley, D. J. (1993). Boron, beryllium and sulfur in Holocene sediments and peats of the Nile Delta, Egypt: Their use as indicators of salinity and climate.Chemical Geology104: 203–216.
Dreyer, G. (1987). Ein siegel der fr¨uhzeitlichen k¨onigsnekropole von Abydos.Mitteilungen des Deutschen Arcḧaologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo43: 33–44.
Dreyer, G. (1990). Umm el-Qaab: Nachuntersuchungen im fr¨uhzeitlichen k¨onigsfriedhof. 3./4. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo46: 53–90.
Dreyer, G. (1991). Zur rekonstruktion der oberbauten der k¨onigsgräber der 1. Dynastie in Abydos. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo47: 93–104.
Dreyer, G. (1992). The royal tombs of Abydos. In Kerner, S. (ed.)The Near East in Antiquity, Vol. III, Goethe Institute, al Kutba Publishers, Amman, pp. 55–67.
Dreyer, G. (ed.) (1993). Umm el-Qaab. Nachuntersuchungen im fr¨uhzeitlichen k¨onigsfriedhof. 5./6. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo49: 23–62.
Dreyer, G., Engel, E. M., Hartung, U., Hikade, T., K¨ohler, E. C., and Pumpenmeier, F. (1996). Umm el-Qaab. Nachuntersuchungen im fr¨uh-zeitlichen k¨onigsfriedhof 7./8.Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo52: 11–81.
Edwards, D. N., and Osman, A. M. S. (1992). University of Khartoum Mahas Survey, Nubia: 1990–91 field seasons.Nyame Akuma38: 63–66.
Edwards, W. I., Hope, C. A., and Seguit, E. R. (1987).Ceramics from the Dahleh Oasis: Preliminary Studies, Occasional Paper No. 1, Victoria College Archaeological Research Unit, Victoria.
El Banna, A. (1990). Une n´ecropole inédite d’époque archa¨ıque découvertée, près de Hélouan, au Sud du Caire.Göttinger Mizellen. Beitr̈age zurÄegyptogischen Diskussion117/118: 7–54.
P1: VENDOR/GCX P2: GCR
Journal of Archaeological Research [jar] PP078-295744 April 20, 2001 8:17 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999
Some Recent Trends in the Archaeology of Predynastic Egypt 147
Emery-Barbier, A. (1990). L’homme et l’environnement en Egypte durant la p´eriode Prédynastique. In Bottema, S., Entjes-Nieborg, G., and Zeist, W. van (eds.),Man’s Role in the Shaping of the Eastern Mediterranean Landscape, A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 319–326.
Endesfelder, E. (1990). Zur keramikausstattung Pr¨adynastischer gr¨aber, dargestellt am beispiel des friedhofes von Armant.Meroitica 12: 97–118.
Endesfelder, E. (ed.) (1991).Probleme der Fr̈uhen Gesellschaftsentwicklung in Alten̈Agypten, Akademie Verlag, Berlin.
Endrödi, J. (1991). “Figurative discourse” and “communication” in the emerging State of Egypt. Göttinger Mizellen. Beitr̈age zurÄegyptogischen Diskussion125: 21–36.
Engel, E. M. (1993). Abydos, Umm al-Qa’abm. Grab des Qa’a. (Grabung des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Kairo.)Bulletin de Liason du Groupe Internationall d’Etude de la CéramiqueÉgyptienne17: 24–31.
Esse, D. L. (1991).Subsistence, Trade, and Social Change in Early Bronze Age Palestine, Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilizations 50, University of Chicago, Chicago.
Fairservis, W. A. (1986).Excavation of the Archaic Remains East of the Niched Gate: Season of 1981, The Hierakonpolis Project, Occasional Papers in Anthropology 3, Poughkeepsie, NY.
Fattovich, R. (1988). La dimensione sociale delle pratiche funerarie Predinastiche nell’ alto Egitto. Rivista di Antropologia66 (Suppl.): 395–410.
Finkelstein, I. (1995).The Archaeology and History of the Negev, Sinai and Neighbouring Regions in the Bronze and Iron Ages, Monographs in Mediterranean Archaeology 6, Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield.
Finkenstaedt, E. (1988). Prehistoric Egyptian pottery.Bulletin of the Cleveland Museum of Art75: 75–94.
Fischer, H. G. (1991). The Origin of Egyptian Hieroglyphs. In Senner, W. M. (ed.),The Origins of Writing, University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, pp. 59–76.
Forbes, D. C. (1996). Quibell at Hierakonpolis.Khemet7(3): 46–59, 68. Foucault, A., and Stanley, D. J. (1989). Late Quaternary palaeoclimatic oscillations in East Africa
recorded by heavy minerals in the Nile Delta.Nature339: 44–46. Friedman, E., and Gophna, R. (1990). Early Bronze sickle blades from Site H in Nahal Besor.Tel Aviv
17: 87–90. Friedman, R. F. (1990). Predynastic of Badari Project. (Institute of Archaeology, London.)Bulletin de
Liason du Groupe Internationall d’Etude de la CéramiqueÉgyptienne14: 13–14. Friedman, R. F. (1990). Hierakonpolis: Locality 29A. (University of South Carolina, 1985–1986.)
Bulletin de Liason du Groupe Internationall d’Etude de la CéramiqueÉgyptienne14: 18– 25.
Friedman, R. F. (1990). Hierakonpolis: Locality 64. (University of South Carolina.)Bulletin de Liason du Groupe Internationall d’Etude de la CéramiqueÉgyptienne14: 25.
Friedman, R. F., and Adams, B. (eds.) (1992).The Followers of Horus: Studies Dedicated to Michael Allen Hoffman, 1944–1990, Egyptian Studies Association Publication 2, Oxbow Monograph 20, Oxford.
Fuchs, G. (1991). Petroglyphs in the eastern desert of Egypt: New finds in the Wadi el-Barramiya. Sahara4: 59–70.
Gauthier, J. G. (1992). Envelopement en bandelettes et momification. A propos d’une s´epulture de la nécropole Pr´edynastique d’Ada¨ıma.Archéo-Nil 2: 128–135.
Gebauer, A. B., and Price, T. D. (1992).Transitions to Agriculture in Prehistory, Monographs in World Archaeology 4, Prehistory Press, Madison, WI.
Geller, J. R. (1989). Recent excavations at Hierakonpolis and their relevance to Predynastic production and settlement.Cahier de Recherches de l’Institut de Papyrologie et d’Egyptologie de Lille11: 41–52.
Geller, J. R. (1992).Predynastic Beer Production at Hierakonpolis, Upper Egypt: Archaeological Evidence and Anthropological Implications, Department of Anthropology, Washington University, St. Louis, University Microfilms International, Ann Arbor.
Genz, H. (1993). Zur bemalten keramik der Fr¨uhbronzezeit II–III in Pal¨astina.Zeitschrift der Deutschen Palästina Vereins109: 1–19.
Giddy, L. L. (1987).Egyptian Oases: Bahariya, Dakhla, Farafra and Kharga during Pharaonic times, Aris and Phillips, Warminster.
P1: VENDOR/GCX P2: GCR
Journal of Archaeological Research [jar] PP078-295744 April 20, 2001 8:17 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999
148 Savage
Ginter, B., Kozlowski, J. K., Litynska, M., and Pawlikowski, M. (1988). Field report from the excavation of the sites MA 21/83 and MA 21a/83 near Armant in Upper Egypt in 1986.Mitteilungen des Deutschen Arcḧaologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo44: 95–104.
Ginter, B., Kozlowski, J. K., and Pawlikowski, M. (1987). Investigations into sites MA 6/83 and MA 21/83 in the region of Qurna-Armant in Upper Egypt.Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo43: 45–66.
Godron, G. (1988). L’Horus Den. Un pharaon bien oubli´e de la Premi`ere Dynastie.Dialogues d’Histoire Ancienne81(14): 11–20.
Godron, G. (1990).Etudes sur l’Horus Den et quelques problèmes de l’Egypte archaı̈que, Cahier d’Orientalisme 19, Gen`eve.
Godron, G. (1990). La politique ext´erieure de l’Egypte sous les deux premi`eres dynasties.Dialogues d’Histoire Ancienne16(1): 47–61.
Godron, G. (1991). Recherches sur l’´epoque Thinite.Bibliotheca Orientalis48: 13–24. Goedicke, H. (1988). Zum K¨onigskonzept der Thinitenzeit.Studien zur Alẗagyptischen Kultur15:
123–141. Goldwasser, O. (1992). The Narmer Palette and the “triumph of metaphor.”Lingua Aegyptia2: 67–
85. Gonen, R. (1992). The Chalcolithic period. In Ben-Tor, A. (ed.),The Archaeology of Ancient Israel,
Yale University Press, New Haven, pp. 40–80. Gopher, A. (1989). Diffusion process in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic Levant: The case of the Helwan
point. In Hershkovitz, I. (ed.),People and Culture in Change, British Archaeological Reports 508. Oxford, pp. 91–106.
Gophna, R. (1987). Egyptian trading posts in southern Canaan at the dawn of the Archaic period. In Rainey, A. F. (ed.),Egypt, Israel, Sinäı: Archaeological and Historical Relationships in the Biblical Period, Hebrew University, Tel Aviv, pp. 13–22.
Gophna, R. (1990). The Egyptian pottery of ‘En Besor.Tel Aviv17: 144–162. Gophna, R. (1990). The Early Bronze I settlement at ‘En Besor oasis.Israel Exploration Journal40:
1–11. Gophna, R. (1995).Excavations at ‘En Besor, Hebrew University, Tel Aviv. Gowlett, J. A. J. (1987). The archaeology of radiocarbon accelerator dating.Journal of World Prehistory
1: 127–170. Gowlett, J. A. J. (1993). Specialization along the Nile. In Gowlett, J. A. J. (ed.),Ascent to Civilization:
The Archaeology of Early Humans(2nd edn.), Collins, London, pp. 152,153. Gowlett, J. A. J., Hedges, R. E. M., Law, I. A., and Perry, C. (1987). Radiocarbon dates from the Oxford
AMS system: Archaeometry datelist 5. Early equids in the Near East.Archaeometry29:137. Goyon, J. C. (1991). Du pr´edynastique au pharaonique: L’Egypte et les c´eréales. In Cauvin, M. C.
(ed.),Rites et rythmes agraires, Travaux de la maison de l’Orient 20, Lyon, pp. 45–51. Grébénart, D. (ed.) (1988).Les origines de la ḿetallurgistes en Afrique occidentale, Abidjan, Paris. Grimal, N. (1988).Histoire de l’Egypte ancienne, Fayard, Paris. Griswold, W. A. (1992).Imports and Social Status: The Role of Long-Distance Trade in Predynastic
Egypt State Formation, Department of Anthropology, Harvard University, Cambridge, University Microfilms International, Ann Arbor.
Guksch, C. E. (1991). Ethnological models and processes of state formation—Chiefdom survivals in the Old Kingdom.Göttinger Mizellen. Beitr̈age zurÄegyptogischen Diskussion125: 37–50.
Haaland, R. (1991). Specialized pastoralism and the use of secondary products in prehistoric central Sudan.Archéologie du Nil Moyen5: 149–155.
Haiman, M. (1992). Sedentarism and pastoralism in the Negev highlands in the Early Bronze Age: Results of the Western Negev Highlands Emergence Survey. In Bar-Yosef, O., and Khazanov, A. (eds.),Pastoralism in the Levant, Monographs in World Archaeology 10, Prehistory Press, Madison, WI, pp. 93–104.
Haldane, C. (1992). “A Pharaoh’s fleet:” Early Dynastic hulls from Abydos.The Institute of Nautical Archaeology Quarterly19(2): 12–13.
Hall, E. S. (1986).The Pharaoh Smites his Enemies: A Comparative Study, MünchnerÄgyptologische Studien 44, M¨unchen, Berlin.
Hamroush, H. A. (1986). Geoarchaeology: Egyptian Predynastic ceramics and geochemistry.Episodes 9: 160–165.
P1: VENDOR/GCX P2: GCR
Journal of Archaeological Research [jar] PP078-295744 April 20, 2001 8:17 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999
Some Recent Trends in the Archaeology of Predynastic Egypt 149
Hamroush, H. A. (1992). Pottery analysis and problems in the identification of the geological origins of ancient ceramics. In Ballet, P. (ed.),Cahiers de la Ćeramique Egyptienne 3, Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale, Cairo, pp. 39–51.
Hamroush, H. A., and Stanley, D. J. (1990). Paleoclimatic oscillations in East Africa interpreted by analysis of trace elements in Nile Delta sediments.Episodes14: 264–269.
Haarlem, W. M. van.(1990). Were the Archaic kings buried in Saqqara or Abydos?Discussions in Egyptology17: 73–74.
Harlan, J. R. (1992). Indigenous African agriculture. In Cowan, C. W., and Watson, P. J. (eds.),The Origins of Agriculture: An International Perspective, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, pp. 59–70.
Hassan, F. A. (1986). Holocene lakes and prehistoric settlements in the western Fayum, Egypt.Journal of Archaeological Science13: 483–501.
Hassan, F. A. (1986). Desert environment and origins of agriculture in Egypt.Norwegian Archaeological Review19: 63–76.
Hassan, F. A. (1989). Desertification and the beginning of Egyptian agriculture. In Schoske, S. (ed.), Akten des Vierten Internationalen̈Agyptolgen Kongresses M̈unchen1985, Band 2, Helmut Buske, Hamburg, pp. 325–331.
Hawass, Z., Hassan, F. A., and Gautier, A. (1988). Chronology, sediments, and subsistence at Merimda Beni Salama.Journal of Egyptian Archaeology74: 31–38.
Hedges, R. E. M., Housley, R. A., Bronk, C. R., and Van Klinken, G. J. (1991). Radiocarbon dates from the Oxford AMS system: Archaeometry datelist 12. Egypt: Halfia Gibli and Semanineh H, Hiw. Archaeometry33: 129–130.
Hedges, R. E. M., Housley, R. A., Bronk, C. R., and Van Kliniken, G. J. (1992). Radiocarbon dates from the Oxford AMS system: Archaeometry datelist 15. Egypt: Nazlet Safaha and Taramsa. Archaeometry34: 342.
Hedges, R. E. M., Housley, R. A., Bronk, C. R., and Van Klinken, G. J. (1993). Radiocarbon dates from the Oxford AMS system: Archaeometry datelist 16. Egypt: Nabta Playa Site E-75-6.Archaeometry 35: 163–164.
Helck, W. (1986). Thinitenzeit. In Helck, W., and Otto, E. (eds.),Lexikon derÄgyptologie, Vol. 6, O. Harrassowitz, Weisbaden, pp. 486–493.
Helck, W. (1990).Thinitische topfmarken, Ägyptologische Abhandlungen 50, Wiesbaden. Helck, W. (1991). Zu Ptah und Sokar, religion und philosophie im altenÄgypten. In Verhoeven, U., and
Graefe, E. (eds.),Religion und Philosophie im Alten̈Agypten: Festgabe für Philippe Derchain, OLA 39, Leuven University, Leuven, pp. 159–164.
Hendrickx, S. (1995).Analytical Bibliography of the Prehistory and the Early Dynastic Period of Egypt and the Northern Sudan, Egyptian Prehistory Monographs, Leuven University, Leuven.
Hendrickx, S. (1996). Bibliography of the prehistory and the Early Dynastic period of Egypt and the northern Sudan, 1996 addition.Archéo-Nil 6: 85–122.
Hendrickx, S. (1997). Bibliography of the prehistory and the Early Dynastic period of Egypt and the northern Sudan, 1997 addition.Archéo-Nil 7: 151–168.
Hendrickx, S., Gubel, E., and Bruwier, M. C. (1991). P´eriode pré-et protodynastique. In Gubel, E. (ed.), Van Nijl tot Schelde—Du Nil̀a l’Escaut, Musées Royaux d’Art et d’Histoire, Bruxelles, pp. 34–53.
Hendrickx, S., and Midant-Reynes, B. (1988). Preliminary report on the Predynastic living site Maghara 2 (Upper Egypt).Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica19: 5–16.
Herbert, S., and Wright, H. (1988–1989). Report on the 1987 University of Michigan/University of Assiut Expedition to Coptos and the eastern desert.Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt143/144: 1–4.
Hillman, G. (1996). The principal plant foods available to Predynastic populations and their exploita- tion. Archéo-Nil 6: 17–26.
Hoffman, M. A. (1987). A regional perspective of the Predynastic cemeteries of Hierakonpolis. In Adams, B. (ed.),The Fort Cemetery at Hierakonpolis, Kegan Paul, London, pp. 187– 202.
Hoffman, M. A. (1988). Egypt before the Pharaohs: How Egypt became the world’s first nation state. The SciencesJanuary/February: 40–47.
Hoffman, M. A. (1989). In search of the first Egyptians.Humanities10(1): 4–7.
P1: VENDOR/GCX P2: GCR
Journal of Archaeological Research [jar] PP078-295744 April 20, 2001 8:17 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999
150 Savage
Hoffman, M. A. (1989). An introduction to the Predynastic period in Egypt.Terra (Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County)27(56): 34–43.
Hoffman, M. A., Hamroush, H. A., and Allen, R. O. (1987). The environment and evolution of an early Egyptian urban center: Archaeological and geochemical investigations at Hierakonpolis. Geoarchaeology2: 1–13.
Hoffman, M. A., Willoughby, K. L., and Stanton, E. B. (1988).The First Egyptians, University of South Carolina, Columbia.
Holmes, D. L. (1987). Problems encountered in a high-power microwear study of some Egyptian Predynastic lithic artefacts. In Sieveking, G. de, and Newcomer, M. H. (eds.),The Human Uses of Flint and Chert, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 91–96.
Holmes, D. L. (1988). The Predynastic lithic industries of Badari, Middle Egypt: New perspectives and interregional relations.World Archaeology20: 70–86.
Holmes, D. L. (1990). The flint axes of Naqada, Egypt: Analysis and assessment of a distinctive Predynastic tool type.Paléorient16(1): 1–22.
Hope, C. A. (1987).Egyptian Pottery, Shire Egyptology 5, Aylesbury. Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale du Caire. (1991). Abydos. The Pennsylvania-Yale Expedition
to Abydos, 1991 and the University Museum, University of Pennsylvania, Yale University.Bulletin d’Information Arch́eologique4: 53.
James, T. G. H. (1995).A Short History of Egypt: From Predynastic to Roman Times, Harper and Row, New York.
Janin, T. (1992). Arch´eologie funéraire et anthropologie: L’exemple du cimeti`ere Prédynastique d’Adaı̈ma (Haute Egypte).Archéo-Nil 2: 31–36.
Jeffreys, D., and Giddy, L. L. (1992). Towards Archaic Memphis.Egyptian Archaeology2: 6–7. Johnson, S. B. (1990).The Cobra Goddess of Ancient Egypt: Predynastic, Early Dynastic and Old
Kingdom Periods,Studies in Egyptology, Kegan Paul, London. Kaiser, W. (1987). Zum friedhof der Naqada-kultur von Minshat Abu Omar.Annales du Service des
Antiquities de l’Egypte71: 119–126. Kaiser, W. (1987). Zum siegel mit fr¨uhen königsnamen von Umm el-Qaab.Mitteilungen des Deutschen
Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo43: 115–120. Kaiser, W. (1990). Zur entstehung des gesamt¨agyptischen staates.Mitteilungen des Deutschen
Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo46: 115–119. Kaufman, D. (1992). Hunter-gatherers of the Levantine Epipalaeolithic: The socioecological origins
of sedentism.Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology5: 165–201. Kelley, A. L. (1989). The current status of Egyptian Prehistory. Part I: Palaeogeographical and palaeo-
climatical considerations.Journal of Ancient Civilization4: 1–27. Kempinski, A. (1988). Early Bronze Age urbanization of Palestine: Some topics in a debate.Israel
Exploration Journal33: 235–241. Kempinski, A. (1992). Fortifications, public buildings and town planning in the Early Bronze Age. In
Kempinski, A., and Reich, R. (eds.),The Architecture of Ancient Israel: From the Prehistoric to the Persian Periods, Israel Exploration Society, Jerusalem, pp. 68–80.
Kempinski, A., and Gilead, I. (1991). New excavations at Tel ’Erani: A preliminary report of the 1985–1988 seasons.Tel Aviv18: 164–191.
Klees, F. and Kuper, R. (1992).New Light on the Northeast African Past, Heinrich-Barth-Institut, K¨oln. Köhler, E. C. (1992). Problems and priorities in the study of Pre- and Early Dynastic pottery.Cahiers
de la Ćeramique Egyptienne3: 7–15. Köhler, E. C. (1992). Problems and priorities in the study of Pre- and Early Dynastic pottery. In Ballet,
P. (ed.),Cahiers de la Ćeramique Egyptienne, Institut Francais d’Arch´eologie Orientale, Cairo, pp. 7–15.
Köhler, E. C. (1996). Arch¨aologie und ethnographie. Eine fallstudie der Pr¨adynastichen und Frühzeitlichen t¨opfereiproduktion von Tell el-Fara’ in-Buto.Cahiers de la Ćeramique Egypti- enne4: 133–143.
Kroeper, K. (1986–1987). The ceramics of the Pre/Early Dynastic cemetery of Minshat Abu Omar. Bulletin of the Egyptological Seminar8: 73–94.
Kroeper, K. (1988). Minshat Abu Omar. (Staatliche SammlungÄgyptisher Kunst, M¨unchen.)Bulletin de Liason du Groupe internationall d’Etude de la CéramiqueÉgyptienne13: 8–13.
Kroeper, K. (1990). Tell Ibrahim Awad—North-eastern Delta. (University of Amsterdam.)Bulletin de Liason du Groupe internationall d’Etude de la CéramiqueÉgyptienne14: 6–9.
P1: VENDOR/GCX P2: GCR
Journal of Archaeological Research [jar] PP078-295744 April 20, 2001 8:17 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999
Some Recent Trends in the Archaeology of Predynastic Egypt 151
Krzyzaniak, L. (1986). Late prehistory of the Nile basin.Current Anthropology27: 191. Krzyzaniak, L. (1989). Some remarks on the Predynastic ecology and subsistence economy in the
eastern Nile Delta. In Schoske, S. (ed.),Akten des Vierten Internationalen̈Agyptolgen Kongresses München 1985,Band 2, Helmut Buske, Hamburg, pp. 333–338.
Krzyzaniak, L., and Kobusiewicz, M. (eds.) (1989).Late prehistory of the Nile basin and the Sahara, Studies in African Archaeology 2, Poznan Archaeological Museum, Poznan.
Krzyzaniak, L., Kobusiewicz, M. and Alexander, J. A. (eds.) (1993).Environmental Change and Human Culture in the Nile Basin and Northern Africa until the Second Millennium B.C.,Poznan Archaeological Museum, Poznan.
Lacovara, P., and Harvey, S. P. (1988). Predynastic period. Archaic period. In D’Auria, S., Lacovara, P., and Roehrig, C. (eds.),Mummies and Magic: The Funerary Arts of Ancient Egypt, Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, pp. 70–75.
Litynska-Zajac, M. (1993). Polish archaeobotanical studies in North Africa: Armant (Egypt).Wiado- mosci Botaniczne37(3/4): 171–172.
Magid, A. A. (1989).Plant Domestication in the Middle Nile Basin: An Archaeo-ethnobotanical Case Study, Cambridge Monographs in African Archaeology 35, British Archaeological Reports 523, Oxford.
Mahmoud, A. M. A., and Bard, K. A. (1993). Sources of Predynastic grinding stones in the Hu-Semaineh region, Upper Egypt, and their cultural context.Geoarchaeology8: 241–245.
Mazar, A., and Miroschedji, P. R. de. (1989). Hartuv. An Early Bronze Age I settlement in the Shephelah. [Hebrew.]Qadmoniot22(85/86): 27–32.
Midant-Reynes, B. (1987). Contribution `a l’étude de la soci´eté Prédynastique: Le cas du couteau “ripple-flake.” Studien zur Alẗagyptischen Kultur14: 185–224.
Midant-Reynes, B. (1990). Pr´ehistoire et Egyptologie. Un si`ecle de recherches pr´ehistoriques dans la vallée du Nil.Archéo-Nil 0: 10–20.
Midant-Reynes, B. (1992). L’Egyptepr´edynastique: habitats et cimeti`eres. Du r´egionalisme `a l’unification. Hathor 4: 30–36.
Miller-Rosen, A. (1996). Phytoliths in the Predynastic: A microbotanical analysis of plant use at HG in the Hu-Semaineh region, Egypt.Archéo-Nil 6: 77–80.
Miroschedji, P. R. de. (1992). Une paletteÉgyptienne pr´edynastique du sud de la plaine coti`ere d’Israel. Eretz-Israel23: 90–94.
Miroschedji, P. R. de. (1995). Les premi`eres cités-états canan´eennes.Les Dossiers de l’Arch́eologie 203: 81–100.
Miroschedji, P. R. de (ed.) (1989).L’urbanisation de la Palestinèa l’ âge du Bronze Ancien, British Archaeological Reports 527, Oxford.
Monnet-Saleh, J. (1986). Interpr´etation globale des documents concernant l’unification de l’Egypte. Bulletin de l’Institut Française d’Arch́eologie Orientale86: 227–238.
Monnet-Saleh, J. (1990). Interpr´etation globale des documents concernant l’unification de l’Egypte (suite).Bulletin de l’Institut Française d’Arch́eologie Orientale90: 259–279.
Moorey, P. R. S. (1987). On tracking cultural transfers in prehistory: The case of Egypt and Lower Mesopotamia in the fourth millennium B.C. In Rowlands, M., Larsen, M., and Kristiansen, K. (eds.),Centre and Periphery in the Ancient World, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 36–46.
Moorey, P. R. S. (1988).Ancient Egypt,2nd rev. edn., Oxford University Press, Oxford. Moorey, P. R. S. (1990). From Gulf to Delta in the fourth millennium BCE: The Syrian connections.
Eretz-Israel21: 62–69. Mortensen, B. (1991). Change in the settlement pattern and population in the beginning of the historical
period.Ägypten und Levante2: 11–37. Nicholson, P. T. (1993). The firing of pottery. In Arnold, D. O., and Bourriau, J. D. (eds.),An Introduction
to Ancient Egyptian Pottery,P. von Zabern, Mainz am Rhein, pp. 103–120. Nicholson, P. T. (1993).Egyptian Faience and Glass,Shire Egyptology 18, Aylesbury. Nordstrom, H. A. (1996). The Nubian A-Group: Ranking funerary remains.Norwegian Archaeological
Review29(1): 17–39. O’Brien, A. (1996). Theserekhas an aspect of the iconography of early kingship.Journal of the
American Research Center in Egypt33: 123–138. O’Connor, D. (1987). The earliest pharaohs and the University Museum. Old and new excavations:
1900–1987.Expedition29(1): 27–39.
P1: VENDOR/GCX P2: GCR
Journal of Archaeological Research [jar] PP078-295744 April 20, 2001 8:17 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999
152 Savage
O’Connor, D. (1989). New funerary enclosures (Talbezirke) of the Early Dynastic period at Abydos. Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt26: 51–86.
O’Connor, D. (1991). Boat graves and pyramid origins: New discoveries at Abydos, Egypt.Expedition 33(3): 5–17.
O’Connor, D. (1993).Ancient Nubia: Egypt’s Rival in Africa, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. O’Connor, D. (1995). The earliest royal boat graves.Egyptian Archaeology6: 3–7. O’Mara, P. F. (1986). Historiographies (ancient and modern) of the Archaic period. Part I: Should we
reexamine the foundations? A revisionist approach.Discussions in Egyptology6: 33–45. O’Mara, P. F. (1986). Historiographies (ancient and modern) of the Archaic period. Part II: Resolving
the Palermo Stone as a rational structure.Discussions in Egyptology7: 37–49. Parsche, F. (1991). Pal¨aodemographische und kulturhistorische untersuchungen an skelettfunden der
vor- und Frühdynastischen Nekropole in Minshat Abu Omar (¨ostliches Nildelta).Anthropologis- che Anzeiger49: 49–64.
Patch, D. C. (1990).Reflections of Greatness: Ancient Egypt at The Carnegie Museum of Natural History, Carnegie Museum of Natural History, Pittsburgh.
Payne, J. C. (1987). Appendix to Naqada excavations supplement.Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 73: 181–190.
Payne, J. C. (1990). The chronology of Predynastic Egyptian decorated ware.Eretz-Israel21: 77–82. Payne, J. C. (1993).Catalogue of the Predynastic Egyptian Collection in the Ashmolean Museum,
Ashmolean Museum, Oxford. Pérez Largacha, A. (1993). Some suggestions and hypotheses concerning the Maadi Culture and the ex-
pansion of Upper Egypt.Göttinger Mizellen. Beitr̈age zurÄegyptogischen Diskussion135: 41–52. Pérez Largacha, A. (1993). Relations between Egypt and Mesopotamia at the end of the fourth
millennium.Göttinger Mizellen. Beitr̈age zurÄegyptogischen Diskussion137: 59–76. Pérez Largacha, A. (1995). Some reflections on trade relations between Egypt and Palestine (IV–III
millenia). Göttinger Mizellen. Beitr̈age zurÄegyptogischen Diskussion145: 83–94. Pérez Largacha, A. (1995). Chiefs and chiefdoms in protodynastic Egypt.Journal of Ancient
Civilizations10: 101–110. Pérez Largacha, A. (1996). The rise of the Egyptian state and Carneiro circumscription theory.Cahier
de recherches de l’Institut de Papyrologie et d’Egyptologie de Lille18: 107–118. Pierini, G. (1990). La civilisation de Nagada. InL’Egypte des Milĺenaires Obscurs,Hatier, Paris,
pp. 49–76. Podzorski, P. V. (1988). Predynastic Egyptian seals of known provenience in the R. H. Lowie Museum
of Anthropology.Journal of Near Eastern Studies47: 259–268. Podzorski, P. V. (1990).Their Bones Shall Not Perish: An Examination of Predynastic Human Skeletal
Remains from Naga-ed-Dêr in Egypt, Sia Publishing, New Malden, Surrey, Kent. Porat, N. (1986–1987). Local industry of Egyptian pottery in southern Palestine during the Early
Bronze Age.Bulletin of the Egyptological Seminar8: 109–129. Porat, N., and Seeher, J. (1988). Petrographic analyses of pottery and basalt from Predynastic Maadi.
Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo44: 215–228. Porat, N., Yellin, J., and Heller-Kallai, L. (1991). Correlation between petrography, NAA, and ICP
analyses: Applications to Early Bronze Egyptian pottery from Canaan.Geoarchaeology6: 133– 149.
Ray, J. D. (1985–1986). The emergence of writing in Egypt.World Archaeology17: 307–316. Redding, R. W. (1988). A general explanation of subsistence change: From hunting and gathering to
food production.Journal of Anthropological Archaeology7: 56–97. Redford, D. B. (1986). Egypt and western Asia in the Old Kingdom.Journal of the American Research
Center in Egypt23: 125–143. Redford, D. B. (1992).Egypt, Canaan and Israel in Ancient Times, Princeton University, Princeton. Redford, D. B. (1994). Some observations on the northern and north-eastern Delta in the Late
Predynastic period. In Bryan, B. M., and Lorton, D. (eds.),Essays in Egyptology in Honor of Hans Goedicke, Von Siclen Books, San Antonio, pp. 201–210.
Reynders, M. (1993). Het Djoserdomein te Saqqara: funerair kader voor de eeuwige regering van de farao.De Scriba2: 68–79.
Richard, S. (1987). The Early Bronze Age: The rise and collapse of urbanism.Biblical Archaeologist 50(1): 22–43.
P1: VENDOR/GCX P2: GCR
Journal of Archaeological Research [jar] PP078-295744 April 20, 2001 8:17 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999
Some Recent Trends in the Archaeology of Predynastic Egypt 153
Riederer, J. (1992). The microscopic analysis of calcite tempered pottery from Minshat Abu Omar. Cahiers de la Ćeramique Egyptienne3: 33–37.
Ritchie, J. C. (1992–1993). Imagined and real applications of pollen analysis in reconstructing a Holocene Sahara.Sahara5: 111–114.
Ritchie, J. C., and Haynes, C. V. (1987). Holocene vegetation zonation in the eastern Sahara.Nature 330: 645–647.
Rizkana, I. (1989). Foreigners in Egypt. InThe Archaeology, Geography and History of the Egyptian Delta in Pharaonic Times, Discussions in Egyptology, Special publication 1, Oxford, pp. 227– 234.
Rizkana, I. (1989). Maadi Culture. InThe Archaeology, Geography and History of the Egyptian Delta in Pharaonic Times, Discussions in Egyptology, Special publication 1, Oxford, pp. 277–284.
Rizkana, I., and Seeher, J. (eds.) (1987).Maadi I. The Pottery of the Predynastic Settlement. Excavations at the Predynastic Site of Maadi and Its Cemeteries Conducted by Mustafa Amer and Ibrahim Rizkana on Behalf of the Department of Geography, Faculty of Arts of Cairo University 1930–1953, Archäologische Ver¨offentlichungen 64, P. von Zabern, Mainz am Rhein.
Rizkana, I., and Seeher, J. (eds.) (1988).Maadi II. The Lithic Industries of the Predynastic Settlement. Excavations at the Predynastic Site of Maadi and Its Cemeteries Conducted by Mustafa Amer and Ibrahim Rizkana on Behalf of the Department of Geography, Faculty of Arts of Cairo University 1930–1953, Archäologische Ver¨offentlichungen 65, P. von Zabern, Mainz am Rhein.
Rizkana, I., and Seeher, J. (eds.) (1989).Maadi III. The Non-Lithic Small Finds and the Structural Remains of the Predynastic Settlement. Excavations at the Predynastic Site of Maadi and Its Cemeteries Conducted by Mustafa Amer and Ibrahim Rizkana on Behalf of the Department of Geography, Faculty of Arts of Cairo University 1930-1953, Archäologische Ver¨offentlichungen 80, P. von Zabern, Mainz am Rhein.
Rizkana, I., and Seeher, J. (eds.) (1990).Maadi IV. The Predynastic Cemeteries of Maadi and Wadi Digla, P. von Zabern, Mainz am Rhein.
Robins, G., and Shute, C. C. D. (1986). Predynastic Egyptian stature and physical proportions.Human Evolution1: 313–324.
Rosen, A. M. (1991). Early Bronze Age Tel ’Erani: An environmental perspective.Tel Aviv18: 192–204. Rosen, S. A. (1988). A preliminary note on the Egyptian component of the chipped stone assemblage
from Tel ’Erani.Israel Exploration Journal38: 105–116. Roth, A. M. (1992). The Pss-kf and the ‘Opening of the Mouth’ ceremony: A ritual of birth and
rebirth.Journal of Egyptian Archaeology78: 113–147. Russell, K. W. (1988).After Eden: The Behavioral Ecology of Early Food Production in the Near
East and North Africa, British Archaeological Reports International Series 391, Oxford. Said, R. (1990).The Geology of Egypt, A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam. Said, R. (1993).The River Nile: Geology, Hydrology and Utilization,Pergamon, Oxford. Salvatori, S., and Usai, D. (1991). Chipped stone industry from Tell el-Farkha (eastern Nile Delta,
Egypt) 1988–1989: Fresh evidence from a Pre, Proto and Early Dynastic site.Rivista di Archeologia15: 34–45.
Schäfer, H. (1986).Principles of Egyptian Art, Griffith Institute, Oxford. Schulman, A. R. (1991). Narmer and the unification: A revisionist view.Bulletin of the Egyptological
Seminar11: 79–105. Schulman, A. R. (1994). The First Dynasty Egyptian presence at ‘En Besor in the Sinai. In Silverman,
D. P. (ed.),For his Ka: Essays offered in Memory of Klaus Baer, University of Chicago, Chicago, pp. 241–244.
Sebbane, M., Ilan, O., Avner, U., and Ilan, D. (1993). The dating of Early Bronze Age settlements in the Negev and Sinai.Tel Aviv20: 41–54.
Seeher, J. (1990). Maadi—eine Pr¨adynastische kulturgruppe zwischen Ober¨agypten und Pal¨astina. Prähistorische Zeitschrift65: 123–156.
Seger, J. D., Baum, B., Borowski, O., Cole, D. P., Forshey, H., and Futato, E. (1990). The Bronze Age settlements at Tel Halif: Phase II excavations, 1983–1987. In Rast, W. (ed.),Preliminary Report of ASOR-Sponsored Excavations 1983–1987, Bulletin of American Schools of Oriental Research, Suppl. 26, Baltimore, pp. 1–32.
Servajean, F. (1989). Le symbolisme des coquillages dans les rituels fun´eraires de l’Egypte préhistorique.XIX Congreso nacional de arqueologia1: 935–962.
P1: VENDOR/GCX P2: GCR
Journal of Archaeological Research [jar] PP078-295744 April 20, 2001 8:17 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999
154 Savage
Shaw, I. M. E. (1985). Egyptian chronology and the Irish Oak calibration.Journal of Near Eastern Studies44: 295–317.
Shaw, T., Sinclair, P., Andah, B., and Okpoko, A. (eds.) (1993).The Archaeology of Africa: Food, Metals and Towns, Routledge, London.
Sneh, A., Weissbrod, T., Ehrlich, A., Horowitz, A., Moshkovitz, S., and Rosenfeld, A. (1986). Holocene evolution of the northeastern corner of the Nile Delta.Quaternary Research26: 194–206.
Sowada, K. (1996). The politics of error: Flinders Petrie at Diospolis Parva.Bulletin of the Australian Centre for Egyptology7: 89–96.
Spencer, A. J. (ed.) (1996).Aspects of Early Egypt, British Museum Press, London. Springborg, P. (1990).Royal Persons: Patriarchal Monarchy and the Feminine Principle, Unwin
Hyman, London. Stanley, D. J. (1988). Subsidence in the northeastern Nile Delta: Rapid rates, possible causes, and
consequences.Science240: 497–500. Stanley, D. J. (1988). Low sediment accumulation rates and erosion of the middle and outer Nile Delta
shelf off Egypt.Marine Geology84: 111–117. Stanley, D. J., and Warne, A. G. (1993). Nile Delta: Recent geological evolution and human impact.
Science260: 628–634. Stanley, D. J., and Warne, A. G. (1993). Sea level and initiation of Predynastic culture in the Nile
Delta.Nature363: 435–438. Stine, R. S. (1991).Nile Silts and Predynastic Sites: Remote Sensing and Geographic Information
Systems Research at Hierakonpolis, Egypt, Department of Geography, University of South Carolina, Columbia, University Microfilms International, Ann Arbor.
Szymkiewicz, J. (1992). Predynastic and Archaic vessels in the collection of the National Museum in Poznan. In Sliwa, J. (ed.),Studies in Ancient Art and Civilization2, Prace Archeologiczne 51, Krakow, pp. 7–17.
Tangri, D. (1991). Neolithic basket-impressed pottery from Dakhleh Oasis, Egypt: New evidence for regionalism in the eastern Sahara.Sahara4: 141–143.
Tangri, D. (1992). A reassessment of the origins of the Predynastic in Upper Egypt.Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society58: 111–125.
Tefnin, R. (1993). L’image et son cadre. R´eflexions sur la structure du champ figuratif en Egypte Prédynastique.Archéo-Nil 3: 7–22.
Thanheiser, U. (1991). Untersuchungen zur landwirtschaft der vor- und F¨uhdynastischen Zeit in Tell-el-Fara’ in—Buto.Ägypten und Levante2: 39–45.
Thomas, N. (1996).The American Discovery of Ancient Egypt, Los Angeles County Museum of Art, Los Angeles.
Tutundzic, S. P. (1993). A consideration of differences between the pottery showing Palestinian characteristics in the Maadian and Gerzean cultures.Journal of Egyptian Archaeology79: 33–55.
Uphill, E. P. (1988).Egyptian Towns and Cities, Shire Egyptology 8, Aylesbury. Usai, D. (1992). Preliminary analysis on Tell el-Farkha lithic industry. InSesto congresso internazionale
di egittologia. Atti, Vol. I, International Association of Egyptologists, Turin, pp. 619–624. Vandiver, P., and Lacovara, P. (1985–1986). An outline of technological changes in Egyptian pottery
manufacture.Bulletin of the Egyptological Seminar7: 53–85. Vartavan, C. de. (1996). Flore de l’Egypte Pr´edynastique (20,000–5,000 BP): ´etude préliminaire.
Archéo-Nil 6: 9–16. Vartavan, C. de. (1991). Rapport pr´eliminaire sur les restes v´egétaux d’Ada¨ıma.Bulletin de l’Institut
Française d’Arch́eologie Orientale91: 244–246. Vercoutter, J. (1991). La pr´edynastiéEgyptienne. Anciens et nouveaux concepts.Cahier de recherches
de l’Institut de Papyrologie et d’Egyptologie de Lille13: 137-146. Vermeersch, P. M., and Paulissen, E. (1989). The oldest quarries known: Stone age miners in Egypt.
Episodes12: 35–36. Vernus, P. (1993). La naissance de l’´ecriture dans l’Egypte ancienne.Archéo-Nil 3: 75–108. Vernus, P., and Yoyotte, J. (1988).Les pharaons, MA Editions, Paris. Vycichl, W. (1988). Ménès Thinitès: réalité ou fiction?Bulletin de la Socíet́e d’Egyptologie12: 77–82. Warne, A. G., and Stanley, D. J. (1993). Late Quaternary evolution of the northwest Nile Delta and
adjacent coast in the Alexandria region, Egypt.Journal of Coastal Research9(1): 26–64. Waterbolk, H. T. (1990). Quality differences between radiocarbon laboratories illustrated on material
from SW Asia and Egypt.Pact29: 141–157.
P1: VENDOR/GCX P2: GCR
Journal of Archaeological Research [jar] PP078-295744 April 20, 2001 8:17 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999
Some Recent Trends in the Archaeology of Predynastic Egypt 155
Wauters, P. (1990). La statuaire pr´edynastique en Egypte.De Facto0: 5–9. Weeks, K. R. (1985).An Historical Bibliography of Egyptian Prehistory, American Research Center
in Egypt. Catalogs 6, Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake, IN. Weinstein, J. M. (1984). The significance of Tel ’Erani for Egyptian-Palestinian relations at the
beginning of the Bronze Age.Bulletin of American Schools of Oriental Research256: 61–69. Wendorf, F., Close, A. E., Gautier, A., and Schild, R. (1990). Les d´ebuts du pastoralisme en Egypte.
La Recherche220: 436–445. Wendorf, F., Close, A. E., and Schild, R. (1985). Prehistoric settlements in the Nubian desert.American
Scientist73: 132–141. Wendorf, F., Close, A. E., and Schild, R. (1987). Early domestic cattle in the eastern Sahara.
Palaeoecology of Africa18: 441–448. Wenke, R. J. (1989). Egypt: Origins of complex societies.Annual Review of Anthropology18: 129–155. Wenke, R. J. (1991).Patterns in Prehistory: Mankind ’s First Three Million Years,3rd edn., Oxford
University Press, Oxford. Wenke, R. J. (1991). The evolution of early Egyptian civilization: Issues and evidence.Journal of
World Prehistory5: 279–329. Wilkinson, T. A. H. (1993). The identification of Tomb B1 and Abydos: Refuting the existence of a
King *Ro/*Iry-Hor. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology79: 241–243. Wilkinson, T. A. H. (1994). A new comparative chronology for the Predynastic—Early Dynastic
transition.Journal of the Ancient Chronology Forum7: 5–26. Wilkinson, T. A. H. (1996). A reexamination of the Early Dynastic necropolis at Helwan.Mitteilungen
des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo52: 337–354. Williams, B. B. (1987). Forebears of Menes in Nubia: Myth or reality?Journal of Near Eastern
Studies46: 15–26. Williams, B. B. (1988). Narmer and the Coptos Colossi.Journal of the American Research Center in
Egypt25: 35–60. Williams, B. B. (1989). An early pottery jar with incised decoration from Egypt. In Leonard, A.,
and Williams, B. B. (eds.),Essays in Ancient Civilization Presented to H. J. Kantor, Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilizations 47, University of Chicago, Chicago, pp. 305–320.
Williams, B. B., and Logan, T. J. (1987). The Metropolitan Museum knife handle and aspects of Pharaonic imagery before Narmer.Journal of Near Eastern Studies46: 245–286.
Wood, W. (1987). The Archaic stone tombs at Helwan.Journal of Egyptian Archaeology73: 59–70. Wright, M. (1985). Contacts between Egypt and Syro-Palestine during the protodynastic period.
Biblical Archaeologist48: 240–253. Wunderlich, J., and Andres, W. (1991). Late Pleistocene and Holocene evolution of the western Nile
Delta and implications for its future development. In Br¨uckner, H., and Radtke, U. (eds.),Von der Nordsee bis zum Indischen Ozean, F. Steiner, Stuttgart, pp. 105–120.
Zohary, D., and Hopf, M. (1988).Domestication of Plants in the Old World: The Origin and Spread of Cultivated Plants in West Asia, Europe and the Nile Valley, Oxford University Press, Oxford.