Read your PDF for free
Sign up to get access to over 50 million papers
By continuing, you agree to our Terms of Use
Continue with Email
Sign up or log in to continue reading.
Welcome to Academia
Sign up to continue reading.
Hi,
Log in to continue reading.
Reset password
Password reset
Check your email for your reset link.
Your link was sent to
Please hold while we log you in
Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Hendrickx, S., The relative chronology of the Naqada culture: Problems and possibilities [in:] Spencer, A.J. (ed.), Aspects of Early Egypt. London: British Museum Press, 1996: 36-69.

Profile image of Stan HendrickxStan Hendrickx

Cite this paper

MLAcontent_copy

Hendrickx, Stan. Hendrickx, S., The Relative Chronology of the Naqada Culture: Problems and Possibilities [in:] Spencer, A.J. (Ed.), Aspects of Early Egypt. London: British Museum Press, 1996: 36-69.

APAcontent_copy

Hendrickx, S. Hendrickx, S., The relative chronology of the Naqada culture: Problems and possibilities [in:] Spencer, A.J. (ed.), Aspects of Early Egypt. London: British Museum Press, 1996: 36-69.

Chicagocontent_copy

Hendrickx, Stan. “Hendrickx, S., The Relative Chronology of the Naqada Culture: Problems and Possibilities [in:] Spencer, A.J. (Ed.), Aspects of Early Egypt. London: British Museum Press, 1996: 36-69.,” n.d.

Vancouvercontent_copy

Hendrickx S. Hendrickx, S., The relative chronology of the Naqada culture: Problems and possibilities [in:] Spencer, A.J. (ed.), Aspects of Early Egypt. London: British Museum Press, 1996: 36-69.

Harvardcontent_copy

Hendrickx, S. (no date) “Hendrickx, S., The relative chronology of the Naqada culture: Problems and possibilities [in:] Spencer, A.J. (ed.), Aspects of Early Egypt. London: British Museum Press, 1996: 36-69.”

Abstract
sparkles

AI

The relative chronology of the Naqada culture in early Egypt, as discussed by Hendrickx, addresses several prevailing ambiguities in terminology and periodization that challenge the understanding of this significant archaeological phase. The author emphasizes the necessity for systematic re-evaluation due to the increased body of information and the lack of universally accepted definitions, advocating for a careful reconsideration of the archaeological framework to clarify the cultural and chronological placements of the Naqada phases.

Figures (12)
Tab. 1. Absolute chronological implications of Petrie’s Sequence Dates. PUL ee ee eee Tn nee en een ene en ee EEE It is obvious that Petrie makes no clear distinction between typology and chronology. He postulates the evolution of the Wavy Handled class without sufficient evidence for the earlier stages of its evolu- tion (Kaiser 1956b: 93-5). Also, the criteria used for the definition of the pottery classes (Petrie 1921) are heterogeneous. The basic criterion may be either the fabric (Rough class), the method of firing and/or finishing (Black-Top and Polished Red), the decoration (White Cross Lined and Decorated), the shape (Fancy), a morphological detail (Wavy Handled) or the relative chronology (Late). This last class causes a special problem because of the lack of consistency in pottery fabric (cf. Patch 1991: 171). Furthermore, the definition of the individual types within these classes is not bound by strict rules (cf. Petrie 1921: 5). Also, the types are not distinguished in the same way for each of the pottery classes. All these factors will cause problems for any type of seriation, including the one devised by Petrie. When subsequent use is made of this kind of typological corpus for typing objects in the grave registers of excavations not carried out by Petrie himself, it is only to be expected that errors are bound to arise. As already stated, the system was developed using only nine hundred graves containing five or more pottery types. Since it is now obvious that the average number of objects in a grave increased through time (cf. Seidlmayer 1988), it is generally accepted that this causes the earlier periods to be under-represented by Petrie (e.g. Petrie 1920: 4; Kaiser 1956b: 92). However, if we test this idea with the currently accepted absolute chronology, a rather puzzling image appears (table 1). The importance of the final phase of the predynastic period, as defined by Petrie, seems not over-represented, although it remains a fact that the earliest phase is under-represented. This is most probably the result of the numerically dominating role of the Main Cemetery at Naqada when Petrie developed his the Sequence Dates. Indeed, at this cemetery the number of graves belonging to the Naqada II period is restricted (cf. Payne 1992: fig. 1-2).
Tab. 1. Absolute chronological implications of Petrie’s Sequence Dates. PUL ee ee eee Tn nee en een ene en ee EEE It is obvious that Petrie makes no clear distinction between typology and chronology. He postulates the evolution of the Wavy Handled class without sufficient evidence for the earlier stages of its evolu- tion (Kaiser 1956b: 93-5). Also, the criteria used for the definition of the pottery classes (Petrie 1921) are heterogeneous. The basic criterion may be either the fabric (Rough class), the method of firing and/or finishing (Black-Top and Polished Red), the decoration (White Cross Lined and Decorated), the shape (Fancy), a morphological detail (Wavy Handled) or the relative chronology (Late). This last class causes a special problem because of the lack of consistency in pottery fabric (cf. Patch 1991: 171). Furthermore, the definition of the individual types within these classes is not bound by strict rules (cf. Petrie 1921: 5). Also, the types are not distinguished in the same way for each of the pottery classes. All these factors will cause problems for any type of seriation, including the one devised by Petrie. When subsequent use is made of this kind of typological corpus for typing objects in the grave registers of excavations not carried out by Petrie himself, it is only to be expected that errors are bound to arise. As already stated, the system was developed using only nine hundred graves containing five or more pottery types. Since it is now obvious that the average number of objects in a grave increased through time (cf. Seidlmayer 1988), it is generally accepted that this causes the earlier periods to be under-represented by Petrie (e.g. Petrie 1920: 4; Kaiser 1956b: 92). However, if we test this idea with the currently accepted absolute chronology, a rather puzzling image appears (table 1). The importance of the final phase of the predynastic period, as defined by Petrie, seems not over-represented, although it remains a fact that the earliest phase is under-represented. This is most probably the result of the numerically dominating role of the Main Cemetery at Naqada when Petrie developed his the Sequence Dates. Indeed, at this cemetery the number of graves belonging to the Naqada II period is restricted (cf. Payne 1992: fig. 1-2).
studying the spatial distribution within the Naqada III cemeteries of Lower Egypt. However, a number of tombs from other sites are dated by typical objects they contained.
studying the spatial distribution within the Naqada III cemeteries of Lower Egypt. However, a number of tombs from other sites are dated by typical objects they contained.
WiSGes Gow ts Awe eee For the Naqada II period, which was the main topic of interest in this article, the following sum- mary can be given (table 9). The earliest royal tombs at Abydos date to Naqada IJIA2. Naqada IIB can be linked with the earliest tombs for which serekh’s are known and thus also with Kaiser’s Horizont A. Two of the kings of Dynasty 0, Irj-Hor and Ka, are also to be placed in Naqada IIIB. Since the inscrip- tions which were previously attributed to Scorpion are now no longer considered to belong to his reign, no inscriptions of this king remain, except of course on the Hierakonpolis mace head, nor is his tomb known at Abydos. Therefore his very existence becomes questionable. Naqada IIIC1 is certainly identical with the reigns of Narmer, Hor-Aha, and Djer. Naqada IIIC2 covers the reigns of Djed, Den and Adjib. The very limited evidence available for Semerkhet, from tomb U at Umm el-Qaab, does not allow a choice between Nagada IIIC2 and IMD. Naqada IND might be found to commence with Semerkhet, but it can certainly be recognised already in the tombs attributed to the time of Qa-a. Because of the lack of historically dated material from the early Second Dynasty, a limit to Naqada TMD cannot be defined. The inconsistencies regarding the archaeological description of the differences between the princi- pal periods of the Naqada culture are important enough to enforce a change in terminology. However, it seems to be too early to do so. It is to be expected that more data will become available within the next few years, than has through the last fifty years. These will come both from old excavations which still remain to be (re)published (el Ahaiwa, Mesaid, Mesheikh, Naqa ed Deir, Naga el Hay, Shurafa, Deir el Ballas, Hierakonpolis, cf. note 9), and from recent ones (Minshat Abu Omar, Abusir, Umm el Qaab, el Adaima, Elkab, Hierakonpolis). Therefore, it is better to wait until the chronological conse- quences of these data have been evaluated before accepting a far-reaching change, such as proposing a new chronological terminology.
WiSGes Gow ts Awe eee For the Naqada II period, which was the main topic of interest in this article, the following sum- mary can be given (table 9). The earliest royal tombs at Abydos date to Naqada IJIA2. Naqada IIB can be linked with the earliest tombs for which serekh’s are known and thus also with Kaiser’s Horizont A. Two of the kings of Dynasty 0, Irj-Hor and Ka, are also to be placed in Naqada IIIB. Since the inscrip- tions which were previously attributed to Scorpion are now no longer considered to belong to his reign, no inscriptions of this king remain, except of course on the Hierakonpolis mace head, nor is his tomb known at Abydos. Therefore his very existence becomes questionable. Naqada IIIC1 is certainly identical with the reigns of Narmer, Hor-Aha, and Djer. Naqada IIIC2 covers the reigns of Djed, Den and Adjib. The very limited evidence available for Semerkhet, from tomb U at Umm el-Qaab, does not allow a choice between Nagada IIIC2 and IMD. Naqada IND might be found to commence with Semerkhet, but it can certainly be recognised already in the tombs attributed to the time of Qa-a. Because of the lack of historically dated material from the early Second Dynasty, a limit to Naqada TMD cannot be defined. The inconsistencies regarding the archaeological description of the differences between the princi- pal periods of the Naqada culture are important enough to enforce a change in terminology. However, it seems to be too early to do so. It is to be expected that more data will become available within the next few years, than has through the last fifty years. These will come both from old excavations which still remain to be (re)published (el Ahaiwa, Mesaid, Mesheikh, Naqa ed Deir, Naga el Hay, Shurafa, Deir el Ballas, Hierakonpolis, cf. note 9), and from recent ones (Minshat Abu Omar, Abusir, Umm el Qaab, el Adaima, Elkab, Hierakonpolis). Therefore, it is better to wait until the chronological conse- quences of these data have been evaluated before accepting a far-reaching change, such as proposing a new chronological terminology.

Key takeaways

  • The Sequence Dating is based on the gravegoods from the cemeteries excavated by Petrie and his assistants at Naqada, Ballas (Petrie & Quibell 1896) and Diospolis Parva (Petrie & Mace 1901).
  • This is most probably the result of the numerically dominating role of the Main Cemetery at Naqada when Petrie developed his the Sequence Dates.
  • Several cemeteries belonging to the Naqada culture bear evidence for the presence of three groups of graves, dominated respectively by the presence of Black-Topped, Rough and Late pottery.
  • Besides the studies using seriation for discussing the relative chronology of the Naqada culture, there is the second group which starts from the spatial distribution within the cemeteries.
  • In an attempt to see whether certain pottery types are characteristic for a certain region, all cemeteries studied were grouped into four regions,89 namely the Badari district,9O the region around Abydos,gl the Naqada cemeteries 92 and finally the cemeteries of Armant.93 For pottery types represented five or more times in total, a Tab.

Related papers

Hendrickx, S., The chronology workshop [in:] Friedman, R.F. & Fiske, P.N. (eds.), Egypt at its Origins 3. Proceedings of the International Conference “Origin of the State. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt”, London, 27th July - 1st August 2008. OLA 205. Leuven, 2011: 911-915.
Stan Hendrickx
View PDFchevron_right
SEQUENCE-DATING: A BRIEF HISTORICAL REVIEW. Submitted to Prof. A. J. Mills for NES 4140, Archaeology of Egypt (Toronto 1973)
Edmund Meltzer

The system of sequence-dating was originated at the turn of the century by Flinders Petrie, who sought to establish a reliable internal chronology of prehistoric Egyptian material through pottery types. Petrie explains how he developed the system in his memoir on Diospolis Parva.(1) Nine pottery types were included:

View PDFchevron_right
Before the pyramids: the origins of Egyptian civilization
Emily Teeter

2011

View PDFchevron_right
Hendrickx, S., Predynastic – Early Dynastic chronology [in:] Hornung, E.; Krauss, R. & Warburton, D.A., (eds.), Ancient Egyptian Chronology. Handbook of Oriental Studies. Section One. The Near and Middle East, vol. 83. Leiden, 2006: 55-93, 487-488
Stan Hendrickx
View PDFchevron_right
Hendrickx, S., “Badarian”, “Naqada”, “Predynastic” [in:] Bagnall, R.S.; Brodersen, K.; Champion, C.B.; Erskine, A. & Huebner, S.R. (eds.), The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. 2012
Stan Hendrickx
View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • Predynastic and Early Dynastic E...
    • ASPECTS OF EARLY EGYPT EDITED BY JEFFREY SPENCER BRTTISHMUSEUMPRESS The Relative Chronology of the Naqada Culturet Problemsand Possibilities Stan Hendrickx l.Introduction. Terminologyregardingthe relativechronologicalperiodswithin the predynasticand early dynastic culture of Egypt is nowadaysfrequentlyusedin a mannersuggestingcompletereliability. Nevertheless, severalfundamentalproblemsconcerningthe relativechronologyof the Naqadaculture still by severalauthorsthatno generallyacceptedterminologyexistsfor exist.It hasalreadybeenstressed Egypt's late prehistoryandearlyhistory (e.g.Mortensen1991:fig. 1; Tutundzic1992).For instance, (Scharff1931: 16-30;Kantor1965;Baumgartel (Petrie1920:46-50),Protodynastic thetermsSemainean 1970a),NaqadaItr (Kaiser 1957;1990:Abb. 1) or TerminalPredynastic(Hassan1988)canbe used, the andareactuallyused,for moreor lessthesameperiod.Besidestraditionandpersonalpreferences, main reasonfor this confusionseemsto be that the termsarein mostcasesill-defined,both archaeologically as well aschronologically.Sincethe relativechronologyof theNaqadaculturehasnot been andsincemeanwhilethe availableinformadealtwith in a systematicway duringthe lastfew decades, to re-examinethe subject. it seemsabsolutelynecessary tion hasincreasedconsiderably, 2. SequenceDating. The original study goesback to the early yearsof the century whenW.M.F.Petrie worked out his SequenceDating (Petrie1899;Petrie& Mace l90l: 4-12; Petrie 1920:34), the first attemptat what is now known as seriation.The SequenceDating is basedon the gravegoodsfrom the cemeteries at Naqada,Ballas(Petrie& Quibell 1896)and DiospolisParva excavatedby Petrieandhis assistants 'predynastic'pottery, (Petrie& Mace 1901).As a fust step,the potterywas uuranged in a corpusof consistingof nine classesof potteryandover 700types(Petrie1921,seealsobelow,pp.44-46).Next" all objectsfrom eachgravewerenotedon a slip of card.Finally,thecardswerearrangedin a relative of types.In this stageof thework, Petrieusedonly nine chronologicalorderbasedon theresemblance graves five intact or moredifferentpotterytypes,out of over four thouhundredrelatively containing sandexcavatedgraves.The chronologicalorderwasdefinedby two mainprinciples.First, an earlier and a later phasewere distinguishedthroughthe observationthat the classesof White Cross-lined pottery on one hand,and Decoratedand Wavy Handledpottery on the other hand,neveror almost neveroccured together.Secondly,it wasacceptedthattherehadbeena degradationof the form of the Wavy Handledtypes,going from globularto cylindrical shapes.When all gravecardshad beenar.-gia in order,pltrie dividedthe cardsinto fifty equalgroupi, eachof themconsistingof 18 graves, numberingthem as Sequence Datesfrom thirty to eighty.By choosingto startat SD 30 he left space for earliercultures,which he thoughtwere still to be discovered.Finally the fifty SD's weredivided culturallyandchronologicallydifferent. into threegroupswhich he consideredto be archaeologically, 'cultures' were namedAmratian (SD 30-37),Gerzean(SD 38-60)and Semainean(SD 60-75), The after someimportantpredynasticcemeterysites. 'protodynastic'potThe Sequence Dateswerecontinuedwith a secondtypologicalcorpus,for the atTiukhan tery (Petrie1953).This is almostexclusivelybasedon materialfrom theextensivecemeteries (Petrie,Wainwright& Gardiner1913,Petrie 1914).This time the numberof typesreached885 (see partly overThe 'protodynastic'corpus below,pp.a6-a7)andno classesof potteryweredistinguished. 'predynastic' Datesfor corpus,asa resultof which the Sequence lapswith themostrecenttypesof the the 'protodynastic'corpusstartfrom SD 76 andcontinueto SD 86,which shouldmark the beginning of theThird Dynasty.However,theSD's 83-86remainedalmostcompletelytheoreticalbecauseof the Datesis not carried lack of SecondDynastymaterial.Thedistinctionbetweenthe individualSequence 36 Date is out in the samemanneras for the predynasticcorpus,but the transitionto a new Sequence HanWavy the bur.d on typologicalbreakswhich Petriedefinedmainly throughthe developmentof Datingwith the historicallydatedpotterytypesand dt.d ,yp"r. Finally,PetrieconnectedtheSequence atAbydos(Petrie,Wainwright& Gardiner tombs earliest dynasties the royal of the otherobjectsfrom 1913:3). oneof the major intellectual Datescertainlyrepresents Althoughthe developmentof theSequence shortcuts (cf. methodological anumberof predynastic 1963), Kendall of Egypt study the in achievements (1913), Scharff whomLegge andpossibleerrorswereafterwardspointedoutby severalauthors,among (1955:2, 1970a:4-5)and Kaiser(1956b)arethe mostim(l9M), Baumgartel Ogi6:7I4), Kantor problems methodological severalpointsmay be noted. Among the Dortant. It is obviousthatPetriemakesno cleardistinctionbetweentypologyandchronology.He postulates theevolutionof theWavy Handledclasswithout sufficientevidencefor theearlierstagesof its evolution(Kaiser1956b:93-5).Also,thecriteriausedfor thedefinitionof thepotteryclasses(Petrie1921) The basiccriterionmay be eitherthe fabric (Roughclass),the methodof firing areheterogeneous. and/orfinishing (Black-TopandPolishedRed),the decoration(White CrossLined and Decorated), theshape(Fancy),a morphologicaldetail(WavyHandled)or the relativechronology(Late).This last classcausesa specialproblembecauseof the lack of consistencyin potteryfabric (cf. Patch 1991: l7l). Furtherrnore,the definition of the individual typeswithin theseclassesis not bound by strict rules(cf. Petriel92l: S).Also, thetypesarenot distinguishedin the sameway for eachof the pottery All these factorswill causeproblemsfor any type of seriation,includingthe onedevisedby classes. petrie.Whensubsequent useis madeof this kind of rypologicalcorpusfor typing objectsin the grave of excavationsnot carriedoutby Petriehimself,it is only to beexpectedthaterrorsarebound registers to arise. Petrie Cal BC PetrieSD's I numberSD _s-"ssr,sgr_-ir-lgkLfq__igq__-+pJ6_-i-tt----ig{g---, 2----+-zs----;1t49-Qgp*!----j-1€t1390---+-3lL---+iqf Amratian!:soo:oso!zso izr-tt irs.zr it (1). After Hassan(1988):138. Tab. 1. Absolute chronologicalimplicationsof Petrie's SequenceDates. As alreadystated,the systemwas developedusing only nine hundredgravescontainingfive or morepotteryfypes.Sinceit is now obviousthat the averagenumberof objectsin a graveincreased throughtime (cf. Seidlmayer1988),it is generallyacceptedthat this causesthe earlierperiodsto be under-represented by Petrie(e.g.Petrie1920:4;Kaiser 1956b:92). However,if we testthis ideawith thecurrentlyacceptedabsolutechronology,a ratherpuzzlingimageappears(table1).The importance of thefinal phaseof thepredynasticperiod,asdefinedby Petrie,seemsnot over-represented, although tt remainsa fact that the earliestphaseis under-represented. probably This is most the result of the numericallydominatingrole of theMain Cemeteryat NaqadawhenPetriedevelopedhis theSequence Dates.Indeed,at this cemeterythenumberof gravesbelongingto the NaqadaIII periodis restricted (cf.Paynet992: frg.l-Z). The SD's for the 'predynastic'and the 'protodynastic'corpuswerenot definedin the s:rmeway. _. Ihrs implies of coursethat their eventualchronologicalvalue cannotbe compared.Also, the protodynastic SD's weredefinedby meansof typologicaldifferences,which werea priori acceptedto navechronologicalvalue.Furthermore,Petrietreatscemeteriesfrom differentsitesas an entity. He acceptsthe cultural uniformity of the predynasticculrureas guaranteed,leavingno place for local variation.This is characteristicof the time when Petriewas working; far moreattentionwas paid to culruraldiffrrsionthanto local srowthandevolution. 5t Finally, the definition of the original SequenceDateswasmadein a mannerto minimize the chronological dispersionof eachtypeof pottery.This resultsin a compromisebetweenthecompetingclaims of all pottery types for closerproximity. This perfectbalance,however,is purely artificial, since, Datesfor a numberof typeswill whenevernew gravesareaddedto the system,therangeof Sequence Dating becomespurely hypothetiby the Sequence haveto be expandedandthe accuracysuggested cal. Also, it is not at all clear in what mannerPetrieaddednew typesto the alreadyexistingcorpus. types(e.g.Wavy Handled)in the company Probablynew typesweredatedaccordingto characteristic of which they werefoundandno longeraccordingto gravegloups(Mortensen1991:16).Of couise, the archaeological when addingnew datato the system,the original point that eachSD represented was originally basedon an materialfrom 18 graveswas also lost. Obviously,the fact that eachSD a similar periodof time. This was equalnumberof gravesneverimplied that every SD represented of the system,since (Petrie an inconvenience remained 4) and always 1920: himself realisedby Petrie one automaticallytendsto considerthe SD's as chronologicalunits. However,the moststrikingomissionof Petrie'sway of workingremainsthefact that he nevertook the horizontaldistributionof the gravesinto consideration.This despitethe fact that he noticed,for instance,that noneof the cemeteriesfrom DiospolisParvacoveredthe whole rangeof the Sequence 'early' and 'late' cemeteriescould be distinguished(PetrieaadMace Datesbut that,on the contrary, lgOI:3I-2). Strangelyenough,Petriedoesnot mentionspatialdistributionwithin the cemeteriesof Naqada,Ballasor DiospolisParva,althoughit is hardly imaginablethat he did not noticeanythingat all. On the occasionof later excavationsby former assistantsof Petrie, the existenceof groupsof chronologicallyrelatedgraves,andthereforethe differencesin the spatialdistributionof objects,was noticedseveraltimesat differentsites(e.gRandall-MclverandMace 1902:3;AyrtonandLoat 1911: 1928:50-1)but no attemptsweremadeto usethese 2; Peet1914:18;BruntonandCaton-Thompson purposes. observationsfor chronological 3. Snfen chronologr Although SequenceDating was rightly criticised,the generalprinciplesof the developmentof the Naqadaculfilre, as establishedby Petrie,were never fundamentallycontradicted,neither are they Datingcannotbe maintained, it haslong beenobviousthatthe originalSequence today.Nevertheless, sinceit givesa misleadingideaof greataccuracy,while in realitythe systemwill becomeincreasingly Dating is nowadaysgenerallyreplaced impreciseasnew dataare incorporated.Therefore,Sequence by W. Kaiser'sSrufenchronology(Kaiser 1957).Unfornrnately,the study of Kaiser was only pubby elevenplates,andthis already lishedin anabridgedversionasan articleof ninepagesaccompanied publication, Kaiserwasunableto include 38 yearsago.Becauseof the limitationsof spacewithin the detailson his analyticalmethod.RecentlyKaisermentionedin an article the extensionof his Snfen chronologyinto the First Dynasty(Kaiser 1990:Abb. 1, seealsop. 42),but the mannerin which this was donestill remainsunpublished. In his original study,Kaiserstartsfrom the horizontaldistributionof potteryclassesand typesof objectswithin the cemetery1400-1500at Armant (Mond and Myers 1937).Althoughthis cemetery was publishedto a very high standardfor the time, the identificationof the objectscannotbe controlin led, sincetheoriginalobjectsareno longeravailableandonly typeswhich werenot yet represented of Blackthe corpusweredrawn.Threespatialzonesweredistinguishedby the relativepercentages Topped,RoughandLateWares,eachof themdominatingonezone.Thesezonesareconsideredto be chronologicalstages,which canberegardedasthethreemainstagesof thedevelopmentof theNaqada calledStufen,wererecognisedaccordingto the culture.Within thesethreeperiods,elevensubperiods, clusteringof typesof objects,chiefly pottery.ThusthedistinctionsbetweentheindividualSufen,and thereforealsobetweenthe threemain periods,aremadeup primarily on the basisof objecttype and containsonly 149gravesandmorethan notby therepresentation of wares.SincetheAnrumtcemetery half of the potterytypesoccurredonly once,the groupingof limited numbersof relatedtypeswuls unavoidable(Kaiser1957:77,n.67),althoughthis is not freefrom risk (seebelow).Of course,this methodcan be criticisedfrom the methodologicalpoint of view, sinceit more or lesspostulatesthe 38 chronologicalimplicationsof the spatialdistribution,but this doesnot seemto be a major practical problemwithin Egyptiancemeteries. Dating,Kaiser'ssystemhasthe advantageof includingnot only When comparedto the Sequence but alsofrom the spatialdistributionof the objects. the informationfrom the typologicalapparatus, Furthermore,it doesnot give an impressionof extremeaccuracy,but by defining periods,it escapes asnew dataare largely,althoughnot completely,the problemof becomingincreasinglymeaningless added. However,this doesnot meanthat thesystemis free from problems.AlthoughKaiserincludeddata besidestheoneatArmant,essentiallyit remainstruethatdatafrom only from a numberof cemeteries a singlecemeteryhasbeenusedfor the descriptionof the NaqadaculturethroughoutUpper Egypt. Kaiser is well awareof the possibilitiesfor regionaldifferentiation,and has noticed Nevertheless, regionalphenomena,at Mahasnafor example(Kaiser 1957:74).The problem causedby using the cemeteryof Armantbecomesevenmorecomplicatedsincethe earliestphaseof theNaqadacultureis not presentthere,andalsothe mostrecentphasesarevery sparselydocumentedor absent.Therefore, thedefrnitionof theSnfen Ia andIb is basedon merehypothesis,althoughexamplesfrom cemeteries otherthanArmantaregiven.The descriptionof Snfe IIIb, thoughlesshypotheticalthanSnfen Ia and ln mostcasesit was not possibleto studythe Ib, is alsobasedon informationfrom othercemeteries. spatialdevelopmentof thesecemeteriesand thereforeKaiser'sdescriptionof Snfen Ia-b and IIIb dependslargelyon the theoreticalevolutionofpottery typesasalreadyacceptedby Petrie. An initial point of debateis whetheror not Kaiser'sdivisionof theNaqadacultureinto threephases is valid. If so, it shouldbe questionedwhetherthe limits of the threemain periodsof the Naqada culturearebasedon factswhich are sufficientlyobvious.As far as the distinctionof threeperiodsis concemed,there seemsto be no problem on frst inspection.Severalcemeteriesbelongingto the Naqadaculturebearevidencefor the presenceof threegroupsof graves,dominatedrespectivelyby thepresenceof Black-Topped,RoughandLatepottery.However,thesethreeclassesareidentifiedin differentmanners(seeabove,pp.44-5),althoughBlack-Toppedstandsprimarily for a Nile Silt fabric, Nile Silt fabric while Late standsmainly (cf. mainly Nile Silt A; Roughstandsfor a straw-tempered below)for a Marl fabric (for all fabrics,cf. Nordstrcim1986).Most of the otherpotteryclassesanda numberof their individual types can be attributedto one of thesethreefabrics.It would be more logicalto studythe spatialdistributionofthe threefabricsandnot only ofthe potteryclassesdefined by Petrie.Kaisernotedthe problem and describesthe relationbetweenthe fabrics and the pottery classes,but continuesto work by Petrie'spotteryclasses(Kaiser1957:76,note 8). Thetransitionfrom SrzleIto Sufe II at theArmantcemeteryraisescertainquestions(table2a-b,cf. SrufelshouldbedominatedbyBlackFriedman1981:70-1).AccordingtoKaiser'sgeneralprinciples, Toppedpottery which is indeedthe case,andStufeII by Roughpottery.This rule, however,fails to applyfor Sufe IIa, whenBlack-Toppedpotteryremainsdominant.ComparingNile SiltApottery with straw-tempered Nile Silt pottery,thedominanceof the secondfabric (52Voo 39 7o)remainslimited evenfor Sufe nb. The differencesbetweenStufeIIa and Ifb, when the dominantclassof ponery changesfrom Black-Toppedto Rough,as well asbetweenStufe\b andIIc, with the introductionof Wavy Handled and a number of new Decoratedtypes,are much more important than the difference betweenSrufelc and tra (cf. table 2a-b).Anotherpoint of importancein this discussion,is that the Roughpottery doesnot appearout of the blue at a certainmomentin the evolutionof the Naqada culture.It is more than obviousfrom settlementexcavationthat the Roughware makesup the large majorityof potteryfrom thebeginningof theNaqadaculture(e.g.Brunton1937;Hendrickx& Midanr Reynes1988:8; FriedmanL994),but the Roughware finds its way only slowly to the cemeteries. Sincethe Roughpottery alreadyexistedat a periodprior to its regularappearance in graves,its absenceor presenceis not sufficientreasonfor distinguishingtwo main periodsin the Naqadaculture. However,Kaiser'sdistinctionbetweenStufelandStufeII doesnot dependonly on therepresentation of thewares.Of greatimportanceis theappearan ce n StufeIIa of a numberof potterytypes,especially smallbag-shaped (R R 66 a, R 69 r, R 93 c), whichwerenot yet presentduing Stufe Roughtypes 65 b, Ic. Nevertheless,if a distinctionbetweena first and a secondperiod within the developmentof the Naqadaculture is to be made,it seemsmore logical to draw the line betweenStufena and IIb or perhapsevenbetweenSrufetrb andtrc. 39 I I I trA i tot ItrAI IJDZ IIDI I ! 1 ! - t - I I I trc trB t I t : l l r 1 r ---.-1+- -----!-- t l r l l l | t J----J.- l zri' 8i 9: l - 3 - t ---J.----r---: - r l - l ---+----- l l - --- s 7i 16: 16i 2o1 l - l P R r l - i 9 : r - r ' t - r t I - , - r ---+-----i------+---::- l l l l 4 1 t I 3 : +---------- l 0 : | | | - l - l - t l t -_---+----+-------+----:+-----+---+-------+--------l -P-4 flint l l 701 l - r - r 4 l ._J--_..-+------+r l r l . l l rl - ! - 1 total l - l l rl 8 i 4 t ---r----:.-L-----i l r - : 1 : l I l - : 2 t 7si 1351 72 'lab. ?-a.Armant Cemetery140G'1500.Number of objects,after Kaiser 1957. trA ITD? I 54.3| r l t l l 1 0 . 5 1 5 . 81 : +---':J---:-:J----L-+-------4-l t - t l - l I I IIIAl l - 'l l l - l 6,7: - l - - l - t l Q t -----'-;!+------+-.------+--------+------+--------+--------+---------I t l - r t - t l - r l - r - : 1 . 41 -------+--------+-------+-----+--------+--.----.-+---------+--------- - ll P .P R ---:.i--Z,Li-J1g+--s7Ay-J22i-e'9 j---jlai---lg',- I L-- w - l ---:+-----:+-----:+---ga+---:'!L-Ea j----1-q'-0-+--J,4-- I - l I 34 flint totat 15.4: 9,6i 3 I - l 99,9i - l I I - l 100,1 i i 100,0 i- 100,0 : 100,0 - l s9,gi too,o of potteryclassesfor eachSW, after Kaiser Tab. 2b. ArmantCemetery1400-1500.Percentage 1957. 40 The transitionfrom Stufeu.toStufeItr is alsonot without problems.The differencebetweenthem is madeup by the Late classwhich takesoverfrom theRoughclassasthenumericallymostimportant group.However,Kaiser'sview of the spatialdistributionof the Roughand Late pottery at Armant iKuir"r 1957: tf . 15B-C) doesnot takeinto accountthefactthatan importantnumberof theLate types arein realitymadein the Roughfabric (especiallythetypesbelongingto theL 30 series),althoughhe is well awareof the problem(Kaiser1957:76,note9). Countingthesewith the Roughclassgivesa completelydifferentpicture.The Late typesreach50Voof the potterytypesin only one,small,grave (l5g}), wheretwo out of four potsbelongto theLate class,the othertwo beingRoughtypes.On the otherhand,for all of thegravesin the southernsectionof the cemetery,theRoughtypesmakeup 50 Vo or in most casesfar more of the pottery.Thus,at Armant there is no part of the cemeterywhich is dominatedby Marl clay pottery.However,this doesnot meanthat groupsof gravesdominatedby Marl clay potterydo not occurduringthe Naqadaculture.On the contrary,largegroupsof graves,at Elkab for instance,(Hendrickx 1994)and Hierakonpolis(Adams 1987)and even entirecemeteries suchasthoseof Tarkhan(Petrie,Wainwright& Gardiner1913,Petriet9'1.4),Tura(Junkerl9l2) and Abu Roash(Klasens1957-61)arecompletelydominatedby Marl clay pottery.Only the transitionin from 'Rough'to 'Late'potteryshouldbe placedlater. dominance Besidestheseproblemsconcerningthe main structureof the Stufm chronology,a few problems relatedto particularStufenhaveto be mentioned.At first, the distinctionbetweenStufeTaand Ib is apparentlybasedon the contentsof a numberof glavesfrom sitesfor which no cemeteryplan is published(Abydos,el-Amrahand Mahasna,cf. Kaiser 1957:73-4).Fifteengraves,containing37 objects,areattributedtoStufeIa and27 gravescontaining66 objects,to StufeIb. Althoughthereis a differencebetweenthe groupof objectsattributedto eachof the Stufen,it must alsobe noticedthat severalrypes(B 22b,8 22 f ,B 26b,P 1 a, P 17)occurfor bothStufen.This,togetherwith thelimited numberof dataand the fact that the spatialdistributionof the objectscannotbe controlled,seemsto indicatethattheStufenIa andIb shouldbetterbeconsideredasanentity,aslong asno furtherevidence is available. Anotherproblemis causedby the relationshipbetweenKaiser'sStufentrd2 andIIIa1, which share the sameWavy Handledtypesand differ mainly throughthe presenceor absenceof Black-Topped types,andthroughtheir Decoratedtypes.Also of importancearethetransitionsfrom R 84-86to L 30 of restricted b,c and from P 40 gl andP 40 el to P 40 q andP 46 blArm, as well asthe appearance bowlse 2a q. However,whenlooking at the importantDecoratedtypeswhich Kaiser(1957:tt.23) givesastypical for Stufetrd2, it appearsthatthereis not a singlegravewhereoneof theseDecorated typesis presenttogetherwith a Black-Toppedtype and a Wavy Handlejar typical for StufeIId2.2 while the frequently Among the other significanttypes,severalof them occur only occasionally,3 occurringtypesR 84-86 and L 30 b,c are relatedto eachother and belongto a $oup of typesinto which Petrieapparentlyallowedimportantvariations(cf. p.a5). It is thereforeto be fearedthat the attributionof a vesselto one of thesetypesby excavatorsother than Petriemay have been rather arbitrary.Also the spatialdistributionat ArmantCemetery1400-1500easilyallowsa differentclustering of graves,by which the groupdefinedby KaiserasStufeIId2 no longerexists.Finally, sincethe WavyHandledtypes,from the momentof theirfrst appearance duringSrufenc until their disappearing at the endof the First Dynasty,alwaysseemto displaythe fastestevolutionof shape,it would be very strangeif this would not alsohavebeenthecaseduringStufeULdZ-lIIal. For all thesereasonsthe archaeological descriptionof theStufenIId2 andIIIaI cannotbe maintainedin the way it was defined by Kaiser. The reasonfor the confusionbetweentheStufentrd2 and trIal probablyoriginatesfrom Kaiser's analysisof theArmantcemetery. The distinctionbetweentheStufentrIal andIIIa2 causesa particular problem.First it shouldbe noticedthat on the spatialdistributionmapwherethe gravesbelongingto eachStufeareshown(Kaiser 1957: tf . 20 C), thesymbolsindicatingrespectivelyStufelfral andItra2 haveerroneouslybeeninterchanged. This wouldnot be a realproblemif it did not suggestthat it is the latterStufe,at the extremesouthernlimit of the cemetery,which is represented by only threegraves (1558,1.559,1594; part of the cemeterywhich and onemoreisolatedgrave,1578,in the northern howeverhasnot onetype in commonwith the otherthreegraves).Looking at the spatiaidistribution with this correctionin mind, itrs StufeIIIai whichis represented by just threegraves,thetwo richest 4l of them containingWavy Handledtypes(W 41) which are closelyrelatedto thoseoccurringfurther north (cf. Kaiser 1957:d. 16 B) in the groupsof gravesauributedby Kaiserto Sufe trd2.As already Nile Silt potteryis dominantfor the entiresouthernpart of the cemetery mentioned,straw-tempered just asit is for Kaiser's StufeIJdZgraves.Therefore,it seemsappropriateto omit the four gravesfrom group. SrufeVIal asa separate at Armant cemetery1400Next we haveto tum to theStufentrIb-Itrc3, which are not represented 1500.StufeIIfb wasalreadydefinedin Kaiser'soriginalpublication,the morerecentperiodhowever was originally describedin anotherway. Startingwith architecturalinformation,inscriptionsand arthreeperiods,calledHorizonten(Kaiser1964:92-6;Ka'material,Kaiserdistinguishes chaeological ser& Dreyer 1982:260-r.4 The definition of theHorizontendoesnot rely on spatialdistributionand is thereforeof a differentorderfrom the Stufenchronology.With regardto the pottery,theHorilonten aredescribedas follows (Kaiser& Dreyer 1982:264): largejars 74b,75 q-v. HorizontA (beforeIrj-Hor):W 80 andsimilar'protodynastic'types; Horizont B (Irj-Hor - Narmer):cylindricaljars with and without incisedwavy decoration,but the secondgroupincreasesin number('protodynastic'type 50); largejars as for previousgroup with additionaltypes76 and75 a-o. Horizont C (startingwith Hor-Aha):cylindricaljars without inciseddecoration;largejars mainly belongingto fype 76 or 75 a-o. descriptionof the Horizontenittmmediatelybecomesclear thatHorizont From the archaeological A can be identifiedwith Stufelnb. The differencebetweentheHorizontenB andC is lessobvious. The informationfrom which Kaiser startsis very limited sincehe dealsonly with gravesin which havebeenfound.However,thisis notthemainproblem.ThedistinctionbetweenHorizont serekhmarks B andHorizontC is particularlydifficult to makesincethereareno typesof objectswhich arecharacteristicfor eachindividualHorizont,andthedifferencecanonly bemadethroughthe frequencyof the 'Wellendekor'(proto-dynastic74b,75 q-v) occuronly sametypes.Also, thediagnostictypeswith very exceptionally.At Tiarkhanonly 8 examplesarepresentamong5138pots.s RecentlyKaiserextendedtheStufenchronologyup to theendof theSecondDynasty(Kaiser1990: andthreeStufen,Itrc1,IIIc2 andIIIc3, wereadded. Abb. 1). Stufeffibwasdividedinto two subphases the chronologicalstagesdistinWith the latetypesof theWavy Handledclassasmain characteristics, in table7.6 guishedby Kaiseraresummarised ThedistinctionKaisermakesbetweenStufeffibI andIIIb2 doesnot seemjustified, sinceat Tiarkhan, for for instance,there are226 gravesin which oneof the typesoccurswhich shouldbe characteristic 46 (i.e belonging to the and types graves 50 Vo) (48 of these over s,t or 49 d,l), whilst in 116 Snfe nlb} 47 series(Snfe Itrbl) arealsopresent.Furthermore,the spatialdistributionof the two groupsof types showsno obviouspatterning(seealso p.59) and the very obviousspatialdistribution of the Turah types. cemeterydoesnot supportthi ideaof a chronologicaldifferencebetweenthe above-mentioned This view might be supportedby the observationthat the differencebetweenthe rypesbelongingto the47 seriesandtypes48 s,t| 49 d,l is not a differencein the shapeof thevessels,nor evenin the shape or importanceof thedecoration,but only in thetechniqueby whichthedecorationwasapplied.Therefore, and alsoby virnreof the fact that StufeIIIb2 coversa very limited period of time accordingto Kaiser(cf. Kaiser 1990:Abb. 1), it is preferableto makeno distinctionbetweentbeStufentrIbl and Itrb2. Kaiser's Stufefrcl consistsof types which are partly characteristicof StufeItrb2 and partly of 'transitionalperiods'within the evolution of the Naqada Stufelnc1. The existenceof thesekinds of culturecanof coursenot be denied,but it shouldbe questionedwhetherit is necessaryto distinguish a periodfor which thereareno characteristicanduniquetypesof objects.This is especiallytrue since the archaeological descriptionof theStufenis oftenusedfor datingindividual gravesor evenobjects. It thereforeseemsbetterto distinguishfewer periods,and admittedlyhaveeventuallya slightly less detailedideaof thechronologicalevolutionof a cemetery,whilst on the other handarchaeologically A1 -z distinctchronologicalphaseswill offer far betterpointsof comparison. Finally we shouldpay attentiononcemoreto Kaiser's1957article.In this study,the descriptionof theStufenis illustratedby plateson which the mostimportantandcharacteristictypesof objectsfor eachSnfe are drawn (Kaiser 1957: tf . 2I-4) . Theseplateshave beenreproducedor referredto in a large numberof srudiesdealingwith the Naqadaperiod.However,the relationshipbetweenthese platesand the study of the Armant materialis not obviousat all. The platespresent2M types of atArmant.Theother 125 typescomefrom ponery.Of theseonly 119 - lessthanhalf - arerepresented were by Kaiserto a particularSrufe,but this is not which allocated in cemeteries found other graves these125are the largemajority of Among basedon the horizontalstratigraphyof thesecemeteries. White Cross-lined,DecoratedandWavy Handledtypes,which areoftenusedasdiagnosticwhenthe or when attemptsare madeto comparefresh relativechronologyof the Naqadacultureis discussed, at Armant, 37 out of IL2, i.e.32,8 Vo,lta datawith theStufenchronology.For the typesrepresented given by Kaiseras characteristicfor morethan oneStufe,while the figure is only 13 out of 125,i.e. atArmant.Furthermore,in a numberof cases,theassignlO,4Vo,for thepotterytypesnot represented mentof potterytypesto a certainStufedoesnot correspondbetweenthe platesandthe resultsof the atArmant,amongthemthreeout of the Armantsfudy.This is truefor 34 7 out of 112typesrepresented plates shownby Kaiserhaveto be regarded that the obvious It is therefore Handled types. Wavy five with greatprudenceandcertainlycannotbe consideredasabsoluteguidelines,as occurstoo often in the literature,sincethis was not Kaiser's intention,and the platesare only to be consideredas an idealisedoutlineof the developmentof theSufen. 4. The presentinformation available for cemeteriesbelongingto the Naqada culture in Upper and Lower Egypt. SinceKaiser'sstudyin 1957,an importantquantityof dataon predynasticandearlydynasticcemeteralreadyexcavatedin UpperEgypt during the first two ies hasbecomeavailable.Severalcemeteries, E.J.Baumgartelpublished,after long andpainsdecadesof this century havesincebeenpublished.8 cemeteries(Baumgartel1970b,correctionsand from the Naqada work, corpus objects taking the of supplements Payne1987,Hendrickx1986),which howeverwill alwaysremainincompletesincea largenumberof objects,mainly Roughtypes,remainedin the field. The publicationby B. Adamsof Garstang's excavationat theFort Cemeteryof Hierakonpolis(Adams1987),andof the othercemeteries at Hierakonpolisexploredby Quibell andGreen(Adamst974a),is mostimportantsinceno cemeteryfromthis major sitehadbeenpublishedpreviously.More informationconcemhg Hierakonpolis anda numberof othersitesbetweenEsnaandGebeles-Silsilacomesfrom the work of H. deMorgan in this areaduring the beginningof the centurt, also publishedrelatively recently (Needler1984, Cleyet-Merle& Vallet 1982).The editionby Dunhamof Lythgoe'snoteson cemetery7000at Nagaed Deir (Lythgoe& Dunham1965)is of coursevaluable,but doesnot allow a detailedidentificationof the gravegoods. This however,is suppliedby Friedman(1981),while the humanremainshavebeen publishedby Podzorski(1990).Dunhamwasalsoresponsiblefor thepublicationof an earlydynastic cemeteryatZawiyetel-Aryan,excavated by FisherandReisnerin 1910(Dunham1978). Importantinformationcomesfrom excavationswhich had alreadytakenplaceduring the decade beforeWorld War II, but especiallysincethe end of the fifties.gBetween1957and 1959A. Klasens excavated, on behalfof theLeidenMuseum,severalearlydynasticcemeteriesat Abu Roash(Klasens 1957-1961). in 1965-8at el SheikhIbadawherea smallearlydynastic More recentarethe excavations cemeterywasdiscovered(Zimmerman1974)andin 1966-7by theEgyptianAntiquitiesOrganisation, underthe direction of A. el-Sayed,of a predynasticcemeteryat Salmany,nearAbydos (el-Sayed 1979).Thesurprisinglyrich resultsof theexcavations Institut(DAI) Arcfuiologisches of theDeutsches at Umm el Qaab,which startedin 1977andaredirectedby G. Dreyer(e.g.Kaiser& Grossman1979; Kaiser& Dreyer 1982;Dreyer 1990, 1992U1993)are of courseof the utmost importancefor the connectionbetweenthe Naqadacultureand the historicalperiod.A NaqadaIII cemeteryof limited extentwas excavatedby the author at Elkab between1977 and 1980,on behalf of the Comitdde FouillesBelgesenEgypte(Hendrickx1994).Across the Nile, at Hierakonpolis,a numberof cemeter- 43 ieswereinvestigatedby theHierakonpolisProjectunderthedirectionof thelateM. Hoffman( 1982a). Finally, for Upper Egypt,therearethe excavationsof theInstitut Frangaisd'Arch4ologieOrientale, et al. 1990;l99I; 1992;1993b;1994).In at Adarma(Midant-Reynes directedby B. Midant-Reynes the Memphite are4 a few early dynasticgravesfrom North Abu Roashwere publishedby Hawas (1980),while the apparentlyfar more importantcemeteryfrom the sameageat Abusir has only revondenDriesch& Eissa1992;Leclant& Clerc 1992). centlybeenfound(Radwan1991;Boessneck, In recentyears,a considerablenumberof excavationshaveshednew light on the relationof the NaqadaculturebetweenUpperandLower Egypt.l0Besidesthevery importantMunich excavationsat Minshat Abu Omar in the EastemDelta, which startedin 1978 and are under the direction of D. Kroeper1988;1992),onehasalsoto WildungandK. Kroeper(e.g.Kroeper& Wildung1985;1994:mentionthe limited numberof gravesfound at Tell Ibrahim Awad (van den Brink 1988b:77-II4: I992c:50-1),BeniAmir andTell el-Masha'la(Krzyzaniak1989,el-HaggRagabI992),EzbetHassan Dawud(el-Hangary1992)anda numberof othersites(cf. Krzyzaniak1989).Importantnew information hasalsobecomeavailablefor Nubia,ll but this falls beyondthe scopeof the presentarticle. 5. Problemsrelated to the published data 12 despitetheimportanceof all this new information,it is obviousthatthe old excavations Nevertheless, still representthe majority of the dataavailable.Therearetwo fundamentalproblemsfor re-studying theseexcavations.The first oneis that,in manycases,no mapof the cemetery,or only an incomplete one,hasbeenpublishedandit thereforebecomesimpossibleto studythe spatialdistributionof objects The secondis that the cemeterieswere,in the bestcases,published characteristics. or archaeological by graveregisterswhich referredto typologicalsystems.Thegreatmajorityof the originalobjectsare neitherdescribednor drawn.The objectsthemselvesareno longeravailablefor studyin their totality, and they will neverbe accessibleagainsinceonly a (limited) numberof themhavefound their way hasbeenlost.An important into museums,andeventhenin manycasesthedetailsof theirprovenance numberof vesselswhich were lessattractivefor the museumswere left in the field. Therefore,one inevitablyhasto rely on thepublishedgraveregistersandthetypologicalsystemsto which theyrefer (cf. SeidlmayerI99O:24). 'predynastic'(PetrieI92l), the'protodynastic'(Petrie1953)and Threetypologicalsystems,the 'archaic' (Emery1938-58,Klasens1957-6I),haveto bediscussed, althoughmorehavebeenused the (Reisner1908:90-9;Reisner& Firth I9I0:314-22;JunkerI9l2:31-44; Junkerl9I9: 48-79,Scharff 1926:16-35).All threeof themare descriptivetypologies,to which typescould alwaysbe added. The 'predynastic'typologywasflrst developedby Petriefor his excavationsat NaqadaandBallas (Petrie& Quibell 1896).At thattime hedistinguishedabout300potterytypes.However,afterexcavations at other sitesby himself and others,the numberof types was augmentedto 1718 when the 'predynastic'corpuswaspublished(PetrieI92l). Finally, after additionsby otherexcavators,a total of almost3000 typeswas reached.l3The real significanceof this enormousnumberof typesis very difficult to evaluate,sincePetrieneverdescribedthe criteria usedfor distinguishinga type from a on severaloccasionsthat 'needlessmultiplications'shouldbe avoided relatedone.He only stresses (e.g. Petrie t92l: 5). As a result, it is to be expectedthat the definition of types,and thereforethe additionof new typesto the corpus,was not applieduniformly by all excavators.It is most obvious that Brunton, when publishinghis excavationsat Badari (Brunton & Caton-Thompson1928), Mustagedda(Brunton 1937)andMatmar (Brunton 1948),recognisednew types more readily than earlier(seealsoKaiser1957:76,note10).14 Petriedid somedecades thecemeteries.l5 1553wereusedforthepublicationof Outof about3000distinguishedtypes,only The greatdifferencebetweenthesenumberscameaboutfor variousreasons.Oneof the mostimporwere readily madeinto separate tant is that pots with decoration,or otherparticularcharacteristics, types,but a large numberof them had beenpurchasedratherthan excavated,and thereforedid not featurein an excavationreport.The fragmentarygraveregisterof the Naqadacemeteriesis another reasonwhy a numberof publishedtypesarenot represented. The relationbetweenthenumberof typesandthenumberof examplesknownfor eachtype,shows A A importantdifferencesbetweenthe potteryclassesdistinguishedby Petrie(table3). The numerically PolishedRed,Wavy Handled,Rough,Late) also show the *"il-r"pr"r"nted classes(Black-Topped, (White highestrarioper type,between4 and7 examples,while thenumericallylessdominantclasses by 1 to 2 examplesper type only. This Cioss-lined,Fancy,Black Incised,Decorated)arerepresented with particularshapes,areto pottery, orpottery decorated of classes indicatesthatthetypologiesof the be regardedas an almostcompletecorpusratherthan a typologicalsystem.Wheneverthe individual excavationreportsare examined,even strongerdifferencesappear.It is obvious,for instance,that petriedistinguishes far fewerRoughtypes,andthereforewill havea far largernumberof examplesfor eachof thesetypes,thanBruntondoes.An obviousexamplearethesubtypesdistinguishedby Brunton for the very frequentlyoccurringlarge,pointedjar R 81 (Brunton1927:pl. XLtr), which were apptlrently consideredasoneuniform rypeby Petrie' % typs frequency # types # examples % examples L 2 3 4 5 6 7 740 222 139 1 5 5 7 740 444 417 10,35 6,21 5,83 5,09 3,84 3,77 3,62 3,58 2,89 1,82 10,21 7,84 8,49 3,L3 6,54 6,88 3,74 1,75 1,15 3,31 47,65 14,29 8,95 5,86 3,54 2,90 2,38 2,06 1,48 0,84 3,67 100,00 100,00 8 9 10 11-15 16-20 2r-25 2644 31-40 41-50 5l-60 6r-70 82 237 total 9 5 4 3 3 2 (1) Q) (3) (4) 2 3 13 57 31 26 8 t4 11 5 2 l l 1553 3& 275 270 259 2s6 207 130 730 561 607 224 468 492 265 125 82 237 7r53 2rW r,67 0,52 0,90 0,71 0,32 0,13 0,06 0,06 Tab. 3. Frequenciesfor Petrie's "predynastic"typology (cf. note 16). ( 1 ) :B 57 b; R24 a; R 85 h; W 19;W 43 b. (2):P 2 2 a ; R 2 2 a . (3):R 84. (4):R 8 1 . The numberof examplesknownfor onetype may differ greatly(table3). Typesof which only one exampleis knownrepresent47 Voof thetypesbut only 10 Vaof theexamples.Some89 7oof the types occurlessthan 10 times,representing 45 Voof the pottery.The 11 Voof thetypeswhich occur 10 or more times represent55 Voof the pottery.The unique 'types' are lessexceptionalthan the figures suggestsincethey arepart of seriesof relatedtypes(cf. Seidlmayer1990:9). 'predynastic'typology.First, confusion Finally, somepracticalproblemsshouldbe notedfor the exists in the numberingof the typesbecausePetrie renumberedpreviouslypublishedtypes when integratingthem into his corpus.A numberof thesealterationswerementionedby Petrie(1921:pl. LX), but otherswerenot (Hendrickx1989,II: 33-5;Patchl99l: 177-8).Secondly,if thepotteryfrom new excavationsis to be identifiedwith the Petrietypology for comparisonwith the old excavation 45 reports,this is not only hamperedby the fact that the 3000 types are scatteredover a numberof publications,but also by the small scaleand abbreviateddetailsof the drawings.Also, it would be usefulto investigatetheaccuracyof thedrawings,a taskwhichshouldbepossiblesincea largeamount of the drawnpotteryis presentlyin thePetrieMuseumof EgyptianArchaeology. of Tarkhan(Petrie,Wainwright The 'protodynastic'typotogywasfrst developedfor thecemeteries & Gardiner1913;Petrie l9I4). The original typology of Tiarkhanconsistsof 527 types,which had 'protodynastic' published(Petrie. corpuswasposthumously to 885 by the time the beenaugmented 1953),on which occasiona numberof the originaltype identificationsfrom Tarkhanwere changed. The additionsby The additionaltypesarealmostexclusivelyfrom theroyal tombsat Umm el QaaS.16 T which brings the total to 1119 included,l were not 234 types, otherexcavators,representinga further known Thenumberofexamples of cemeteries.18 forthepublication fypes.Outof these,743wercused when comparedto the 'predynastic' for each of the types (table 4) showsdifferent characteristics frequency I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11-15 rG20 2l-25 2G30 31-40 41-50 51-60 6r-70 71-80 81-90 91-100 101-150 151-200 339 total (1 ) Q) (3) (4) (5) (6) a (8) # types # examples % examples 301 136 67 35 4l 27 L7 19 7 4 27 l5 11 6 8 3 6 I 2 I I 2 5 I 301 272 140 205 162 119 152 63 40 328 263 260 168 269 r37 320 67 155 84 94 223 865 339 5,76 5,20 3,85 2,68 3,92 3,10 2,28 2,91 l,2l 0,77 6,28 5,03 4,97 3,21 5,15 2,62 6,L2 L,28 2,97 1,61 1,80 4,27 16,55 6,49 743 5227 100,00 20r typology(cf. note19). for Petrie's"protodynastic' Tab.4. Frequencies (1)a : 6p ; 4 7 h ; 4 8 s ; 4 9 e ; 6 3 e ; 6 6 i . ( 2 ) : 5 9p . Q): 47 p; 60j. (4): 60 m. (5):a6 k. (6): a9 L 60 g. Q): a6 d; 46 f; 46 m;49 d; 60 d. G): a6 h. 46 % trypes . 40,51 18,30 9rM 4,7L 5,52 3,63 2,29 2,56 0,94 0,54 3,63 2,Q2 1,48 0,8 1 1,08 0,40 0,8 1 0,1 3 0,27 0,13 0,13 0,27 0,67 0,13 100,00 typology.Typesfor which only oneexampleis knownrepresent40 Voof thetypesbut not even6 Voof by lessthan 10examples,makingup 3l Voof thepottery.A total of 87,5Voof thetypesis represented the pottery.T'he12,5Vaof thetypeswhich occur 10 or moretimesrepresent69 Voof thepottery. no classesof pottery,since,accordingto typology(Petrie1953)distinguishes The 'protodynastic' into theearlydynasticperiod.However, Wavy classes continued and the Handled the Late only Petrie, with regardto theceramicfabric.This, it hasalreadybeenseenthattheLate classis not homogeneous of course,causesconfusionbetweenthewell-madepotteryin Mari clay andtheRoughpottery,mostly . Nile Silt. Sincethe publisheddrawingsare small and similar fypes are madefrom straw-tempered known to occurin both ceramicfabrics,in a limited numberof casesit cannotbe decidedto which categorya particularvesselbelongs. A particularproblemis raisedby the confusionwhich is apparentwithin the group of cylindrical jars, which are the descendants of theWavy Handledclass.Petrieusesthe shapeof the wavy handle decorationitself as the main criterionfor distinguishingtypes(Petrie,Wainwright& Gardiner1913: pl. XLD(), while the differencesin shapeof the vesselsareconsideredto be only of secondaryimportance.This results,for instance,in importantdifferencesin shapebetweencertainvesselswhich areall artributedto type 46 d (Petrie1914:pl. XXVil). As for the publisheddrawings,the sameproblems 'predynastic'corpus. occurasin the The 'archaic'typologywasdevelopedby W.B. Emeryfor thepublicationof thefinds from thelarge at Saqqara(Emery1938-58).Thistypologyhasbeendevelopedin a morestructuredmanner mastabas 'predynastic' and 'protodynastic'typologies.On theotherhand,anindisputabledisadvantage thanthe is that Emery limited the numberof typesby allowing a considerabledegreeof variationwithin one type.Unfornrnately,this cannotbe checked,sincethe originalobjectsarenot availablefor study,and becauseEmery in his 1949,1953and 1958publications,usesa set of standarddrawingswhich are alwaysrepeatedfor illustratinghis finds.Comparisonwith Emery 1938,beforethesestandarddrawingswereused,makesit clearthat importantdifferencesoccurbetweenvesselsattributedto the same type (e.g.typesA 3 andA 4). As a result,it is not clearif thereis any real valuein the standardisation by Emery'spublications. of the gravegoodssuggested at Abu Roash The 'archaic'typologywasenlargedby A. Klasenstheon occasionof his excavations (Klasens1957-61).Klasensaddsanimportantnumberof typesto the alreadyexistinglist, despitethe This is onemore factthatthenumberof objectswasfar smallerthanthosefoundby Emeryat Saqqara. indicationof thevariationEmeryallowedwithin thetypes.Whenconsideringtherelationbetweenthe numberof types and the numberof objectsfor the cemeteriesat Abu Roashalone (table 5), it is only 5 Voof thepottery,whilst 81 7o remarkablethat42 Voof thetypesoccuroncebut this represents of the typesoccur lessthan 10 times,representing 25 Voof the pottery.The 19 Voof the typeswhich occur 10 or more times represent75 Voof the pottery.The drawingsof the objectspublishedby Klasens,althoughreproducedon a smallscale,areof farbetterqualitythanthoseof Petrie'stypologies. Also,Klasenspublishesa largenumberof examplesfor eachrype,which helpsconsiderablyin understandingthe principlesby which the typologywasestablished. havebeenfound,amongwhich Besidespottery,an importantnumberof othertypesof gravegoods arestonevessels,palettes,beads,etc.However,thetypesarerepresented in suchsmallnuinbersthat they offer only limited possibilitiesfor comparisonbetweengraves.Thereis one exception,namely thestonevesselsfromAbu Roashpublishedaccordingto theprinciplesusedfor the 'archaic'typology (Klasens1957-61).Although89 Voof thetypesoccurlessthan 10 times,this represents only 50 %oof thevessels.Thus,the remainingll Voof thetypesmustalsorepresenthalf of the numberof vessels. 6. Statusquaestionisof researchon the relative chronology of the Naqadaculture since Kaiser 1957. Only a few studies,the most extensiveof them as yet unpublished,havetried to check,corrector amendKaiser'sStufenchronology.For thetime being,theycanbe dividedinto two groups:thosewho areusingcomputer-based multivariateseriationandthosewho areprimarily relying on the studyof spatialdistribution.For a studymentionedby Vertesalji(1988),no informationis available. 47 # types frequency t a l lLl I 2 3l 27 l9 15 7 8 a J 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I 1-15 t6-20 2r-25 26-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 6L-70 71-80 81-90 134 137 a J a J (1) (2> 9 8 t0 5 5 9 2 I 1 I 0 (3) (4) (s) J # examples % examples 12l 62 81 76 75 1a +z 56 )4 27 90 103 r82 111 t39 308 96 56 62 0 256 1 < a I I 137 lJ+ 5,41 2,77 3,62 3,40 135 1,88 2,50 1,07 l,2l 4,02 4,60 8,13 4,96 6,21 13,76 4,29 2,50 2,77 0,00 11,30 5,gg 6,L2 types 41,97 10,73 9,34 6,57 5,19 a L tA a L1 7,77 1,04 1,04 3,1I 2,77 3,46 L,lJ | / 1 3,11 0,69 0,35 0,35 0,00 1,04 0,35 0,35 for Klasen's"archaic"typologyat Abu Roach. Tab. 5. Frequencies (l): A 3. (2): K 2. ( 3 ) :B 8 ; L 7 ; W 7 . (a): B 10. ( 5 ) :J 1 . A studyby E.M. Wilkinson (1974),dealingwith seriationtechniques,which are,as a test,applied Threeseriationsarecarriedout (Wilkinson to theArmantcemeteryis only of historicalimportance.19 1974 87).Whencomparedto the spatialdistribution,theresultsof all threeseriationsarecompletely eventhe one using Kaiser'soriginal orderas startingorder.20Also, no archaeological unacceptable, evaluationof Kaiser'sresultsis made. More importantis the articleby B.J. Kemp (1982),wherethe seriationby multi-dimensionalscaling of the graveswithin cemeteryB at el-Amrahandthe cemeteryof el-Mahasnais discussed.However,it shouldbe mentionedin advancethat the seriationis not usedfor the evaluationof Kaiser's Dating.First, Petrie'spottery corpuswas condensedto 43 Stufenchronology,but Petrie'sSequence Accordingto the excatypes,unfortunatelywithout mentioningwhich typeshavebeenamalgamated. at el-Amrahcemetery vationreport(Randall-Mclver& Mace1902),228 potterytypesarerepresented B. Out of 90 gravesfor which informationis available,70 could be seriatedbecausethey contained types.After seriation,Kempdistinguishesthreegroupsof graves(Group two or moreof thecondensed 'transitional'groups. Thetransitionalgroupsrepresent17graves,i.e.24Voof theseriated I-Itr) andtwo gmves.If comparedwith Kaiser'sdatingof the gravesat el-Amrah(Kaiser 1957:73),Group I correspondswith Srufel-trc. The transitionalgroupbetweenGroupI andGroupII matchesStufellc (except grave210 -ndz), while Group II, as well as the transitionalgroup betweenthe GroupsII and trI, correspondswith Stufetr-Ild2. None of the gravesfrom GrouptrI is datedby Kaiser,but the objects for his StufeIlIb. Thechoiceof el-AmrahcemeteryB seemsrather from thesegravesarecharacteristic unfortunate,sinceit may well be that the entirepredynasticperiod was coveredby the cemetery,as (Randall-Mclver& Mace 1902:3, seealsoKemp 1982:7-12),but only 98 statedby the excavators 48 gravesout of about400 havebeenpublished,andamongthe publishedgravestherearenonecharacteristicfor StufeIIIaI (exceptgmve22I) andnla2, as alreadystatedby Kaiser(1957:73).Kemp's questionwhethera periodis missingat el-Amrah(Kemp 1982: L2) canthereforebe answeredposiit is to be expectedthat the tively, as far as the publisheddata are concerned.As a consequence, very distinct. separationbetweenKemp'sGrouptr andGroupIII is potterytypesarenot Kemp,of course,alsonoticedthata numberof well-knownandcharacteristic at el-AmratrcemeteryB, andtherefore,a similar studywasmadefor the cemeteryat elrepresented Mahasna,where313ponerygpes areidentifiedin the excavationreport(Ayrton&Loat 1911)and informationis availablefor 131graves.The potterytypesare condensedto 38 typesafter which 98 gravescould be seriated.Threegroupsof graveswith two transitionalgoups are also distinguished for el-Mahasna,but this time the transitionbetweenthe Groupstr and III is lessmarked,indicating that the cemeterywas in continuoususe.Comparisonwith Kaiser's Snfen chronologyis diffircult gtavesfromMahasna(Kaiser 1957:74).Nevertheless, sinceKaiserdatedonlyarestrictednumberof GroupI seemsto matchwith StufeIb-Ic, thetransitionbetweenGroupsI andtr with StufeIIa-IIc, and Group tr with StufeI[c-nd2. The transitionbetweenthe Groups tr and Itr as well as group Itr itself seemsto be coveredbyStufeIIIaI-IIIb, althoughKaiserdatedonly threegravesof this Group. between Apart from the 'missing'typesat el-Amrah,the threeGroupsshowstrongresemblances with Kaiser'sStufenchronology.Finally Kemp thetwo sites,asis alsoconfirmedby theconcordances the validity of thethreeperiodswhich aretraditionallydistinguishedwithin thepredynastic discusses culture.Becauseof his identificationof GroupItr at el-Amratrasearlydynastic,he distinguishesonly two mainperiodswithin thepredynasticculture,despitethe fact thattheearlierpart of GroupIII at elMahasnastill belongsto the predynasticperiod. A far more elaboratestudyof the relativechronologyusing seriationhasrecentlybeenmadeby T.A.H.Wilkinson (I993Q.zt Eight predynastic- early dynasticcemeteries22wereseriatedusingthe Bonn SeriationProgram.For the purposeof seriation,the typesfrom Petrie'scorpuswhich occurred in the eight cemeterieswere condensedto 141 types.The use of a universaltypology for all eight horizontalstratigraphy cemeteries alloweddirectcomparison of theseriationresults.Whereverpossible, was used to check the seriationresults.In all cases,the spatial distributionconfirmedthe phases derivedthroughseriation.Eachindividual sequencewas comparedagainstKaiser'sStufenchronology.Significantdifferencesemerged,mostnotablyin Kaiser'sdemarcationof thethreemajorNaqada culturephases.The eight individual site-basedsequences were correlatedusing diagnostictypes,to 'chronological producea matrix' coveringLower,Middle and UpperEgypt during the predynasticearlydynastictransition. Regardingthe problemsandpossibilitiesof seriation,somegeneralremarkshaveto be made.Obviouslythe variousproblemsconcernedwith thetypologiesusedfor thepublicationof graveregisters will have consequences for the applicationof seriation.As alreadymentioned,it is impossibleto establisha newtypologicalapparatus, moresuitedfor computerseriationthanPetrie's,sincethe original objectsareno longeravailable,nor arethey publishedin a marner allowingrenewedtypological work. The main problemis that the numberof typesis very largewhile the numberof examplesof thesetypesis generallyvery low (table3-4).Therefore,seriationseemsimpossiblewithout grouping typesor usingonly a limited numberof frequentlyoccurringtypes.Limiting thenumberof typeswill of courseresult in a tendencytowardsexplicit differencesbetweengrcupsof graves.On the other hand,groupingtypesseemsperhapsevenmoredangerous,consideringthe alreadydiscussedheterogeneityof the criteriausedfor distinguishingtypeclassesas well asindividualtypeswithin thePetrie typologies.More important,the variationallowedwithin onetype seemsto differ ratherimportantly accordingto the interpretationof the individualexcavators.The unfortunateresultof this sinrationis that the effect of combiningtypescannotbe checkedin an adequateway, and may well causevery differentshapesandevenpotteryfabricsto endup asthe sametype.Nevertheless, if seriationis to be applied,carefulgroupingof Petrie'stypesseemsto be the only possibility. A generalarchaeological problemis thechronologicalvalueof seriation.In otherwords,thedifferencesbetweenthe groupsof relatedgravesshouldbe due to time and not to, for example,social differentiationor foreign influences(cf. Mortensen1991: 15).Although,generallyspeaking,this is certainlyan importantproblemfor interpretingtheresultsof seriation,theimpactof non-chronolog! 49 Petrie L92L L10 L30c L30k L30m L30s L33m L34 e L36 a L36a L 36b L36n L37 m L38a L38a L46 L58c{ w33 w35 w 33-35 w 33-35 w 33-35 W 5 1a W 5 1a w58 w58 w58 w58 w62 w62 w62 w63 WTla W 7 1a WTla w80 w80 w80 w80 w85 w85 w90 w90 w90 w90 l* Petrie 1953 3 m 55r 55n 55n 55s 56f 56f 60d 60m 60b 6og 65k 59b 59b 82c 86 d-f Mf 47 b2 47 b5 47 b9 75s 43r 43s 46d 46t 46h 46k 46b 46m 46p 47b 46i 47p 48d 47r 47t 48s 49e 49d 491 50d 50d 50e 50f 5og 50s 50t 1 1b 57b 59d 59h Emery / Klasens I' Petrie :n" : A3 A3 A3 c6 B8 :u _ Petrie 1953 65p 749 74p 75a 75d 76a 76b 76c 76d 76e 76r 76m 76n 85d 85e 85f 822 822 E22 E.22 E22 i t-s F 7-8 F 7-8 F9 F9 F9 F10 F10 Fl0 :'o Flt (F 1) F12 F ll-12 F lr-12 (F 1) (F 1) K7 D3 B8 B8 Tab. 6. Table of typological concordancesfor characteristicpottery types. 50 Emery/ Klasens C2 823 D 8 A4 A4 A6 A6 A7 A7 AL2 A 8 A8 A 8 E2 E2 E2 for the Naqadaculture.Up to the presentmoment, cal elementscan almostcertainlybe disregarded (cf. Dreyer the evidencefor foreign influenceon the Naqadacultureof UpperEgypt is very scanty have an imconsidered to be cannot andcertainly 1992a,Holmes lggzb,Adams & Friedmant992) Wavy of the pacton theresultof seriation.The only majorexceptionis of coursethePalestinianorigin i{andled potter}, but this causesno real problemsinceonly the prototypes,which most probably arrivedin UpperEgypt within a limited spaceof time, areto be consideredas foreigninfluence.The morphologicalevolutionof theWavy Handledclasstook placein Egypt itself. The impact of social differentiationupon the evolutionof potterytypes seemsmore difficult to define.However,by looking at thecontentsof particularlyrich graves,itbecomesclearthattheseonly occasionallycontainpotteryof exceptionalshapeor function.At the sametime it will be noticedthat was expressed throughthe quantifyof similar objectsratherthan the socialpositionof the deceased throughexceptionalobjects.23Although the existenceof thesekinds of objectswithin the graves thattheywill haveno realimpact cannotbe denied,their isolatedoccurrenceautomaticallyguarantees on the resultsof seriation. A questionwhich is very difficult to evaluate,but which might have considerableinfluenceon seriation,is the estimationof theperiodof time betweentheproductionof thePotteryandthemoment Thepotteryof the Naqadaculturewasnot madeespecially whentheybecamepart of thegravegoods. for the funerarybeliefs(cf. Hendrickx 1994:50-t1.2+Different functionswill causevariationsin the spanof time duringwhich the vesselshavebeenused.Also, the excavationreportsnevermentionthe conditionsof usein which the potterywasfound(cf. Hendrickx 1994:50-1,734). A particularproblemfor seriationis raisedby Petrie'sdistinctionbetweenthe Roughandthe Late class.The Late classincludesa numberof rypeswhich areboth in shapeandfabric closelyrelatedto typesfrom the Rough class,but they are excludedfrom this classbecauseof their chronological position.This shouldbe takeninto accountfor seriationsinceotherwisethesetypeswill causemarked transitionswithin the generatedmatrix. Finally, the most obviousproblem for seriationis that an availablesourceof information,i.e. the spatialdistribution,is not takenin account,or only usedasan elementof control after the seriationhasbeencarriedout. As far as the authoris awale,no attempts haveyet beenmadeto includethe positionof a graveinto the datausedfor seriation. Besidesthe studiesusing seriationfor discussingthe relative chronologyof the Naqadaculture, Oncemore, thereis the secondgroupwhich startsfrom the spatialdistributionwithin the cemeteries. discussedwith referenceto seriation,will occur,althoughto a theproblemof groupingtypes,already lesserextent. The frst studyof this kind to be discussedis anunpublishedmasterof artsthesisby R. Friedman, presentedat the University of Californiain 1981andconcerningthe sPatialdistributionand relative chronologyat Nagaed Der cemetery7000(Friedman1981).Comparisonis madewith Kaiser'sSrufen chronology.Spatiallydistinguishedgroupsof graveswith objectscharacteristicfor theStufenlc-trd at Nagaed Der.Althoughgravesarcpresentwhich shouldbeplacedbeforeSrufe arealsorepresented Ic, it was not possibleto confirm Kaiser's differencebetweenStufela and Ib. Also, a numberof differencesbetweenArmant and Naga ed Der are observed,the most importantbeing the massive presenceof Black-Toppedwareduring Srufefrb.lnthis respectit seemsto be possibleto connectthe (FriedmanI98l:745), wherea similarphenomcemeteryat Nagaed Der with the oneat el-Mahasna by Kaiser(1957:74). enonhadalreadybeenobserved J. C. Payneapplied Kaiser's chronologyto the informationavailablefor the Main Cemeteryat Naqada(Payne1990,1992).Sheconcludesthatthe sameSnfen canbe distinguishedboth at Armant descriptionof theSnfen remainvery andat Naqadaandalsothatthe differencesin thearchaeological limited, the mostimportantbeing situatedn Snfe trb (Payne1990:81). The gravesfrom the cemeteryat MinshatAbuOmarhavebeendividedby Kroeper(1988,Kroeper & Wildung 1985:92-6,seealsoKaiser 1987)into four groups,somewith subdivisions,accordingto Thesegroups,which vary stronglyin numberand whose the burial tradition and the gravegoods.2S spatialdistributionshowsno really obviouspattern(Kroeper& Wildung 1985:Abb. 315-21),certainly havea chronologicalvalue,but thedetailsarenot yet known, sincethe publishedreportis only preliminary.Also, the relationbetweenthe relativechronologyat MinshatAbu Omar,in the eastern Delta,andUpperEgypt shouldbe a point of greatcaution. 51 vesselshavebeendividedby van den Brink (this volume)into four Recently,the serelih-bearing chronologicalgroups,startingfrom the serekhsthemselvesaswell asthe vesseltypesand the spatial 26' distributionof the cemeteriesin which thesevesselshavebeenfound Finally, thereis the author'sdoctoralthesispresentedat LeuvenUniversity in 1989,which deals betweenAsyut andAssuananda part of which is devotedto theproblem primarily with thecemeteries -321)'Although the of the relativechronologyfor the whole of Egypt (Hendrickx1989:239-46,257 full publicationof this study will have to wait for sometime, it seemsneverthelessappropriateto 'predynastic'cemeterieS for which both a mapahd discusssomeof theresults.The limited numberof point.27 For the early dynastic as a starting a graveregister,evenif incomplete,are availableserved 'archaic' 'protodynastic' cemeteriesin Lower Egypt. and period,informationcamefrom a numberof 18Ar fot the methodologicalprocedure,thereis not muchdifferencefrom the methodalreadydevelopedby Kaiser.This impliesthatthe distinctionof relatedgtoupsof gravesis basednot only on their contentsbut also on their spatialdistributionwithin the cemetery.As a result,a conflict of interests will arisebetweenthesearchfor closerchronologicalproximity of all examplesof onepotterytype on the one hand,and the definition of spatiallywell-definedgroupsof graveson the other.Neither of thesetwo elementscan be acceptedas prevailingover the other.Thus,most unfortunately,it seems 'objective' rules for the definition of archaeologicalcomimpossibleto establishclearly defined, plexesrepresentingrelativechronologicalperiodswithin the Naqadaculture.The samemethod,applied by Kaiseraswell asby ourselves,is of courseultimatelyfoundedon the seriationprinciple,but extenton the personalinterpretationof the researcher. dependsin real termsto a considerable By comparingthe cemeterieswhich were analysed,it becomesclearthat similar groupsexist for different cemeteries.In that manner,11 groupsof graves,an equalnumberto Kaiser's Stufen,arc distinguishedandtheir relativechronologicalorderdefinedthroughtheir mutualpositionin the cemeteriesand throughthe evolution of the potteryclassesand types of objects.However,comparing doesnot haveto imply thattheyare groupsof relatedobjectsfrom geographicallydifferentcemeteries this questioncannotbe answered terms. Unforhrnately, in absolutechronological contemporaneous 14 from UpperEgypt (cf. becauseof the limitednumberof C datesavailablefor theNaqadacemeteries Hassan1984b,1985,Hassan& Robinson1987).For thisreason,andsincerelatedgroupsof archaeological objectscan be distinguishedat severalsites,we may as well, until any proof to the contrary groups,meaningthat the same of closelysimilararchaeological emerges,acceptthecontemporaneity At this stageof theinvestigacemeteries. different for the existed well have periods may chronological integrated. were tion, the datafrom cemeterieswithout publishedmaps Finally, after an investigationfor the possibilitiesof regionalvariability (seepp.61-3),a list of all typesof objectswasmade,mentioningfor eachof themthe relativechronologicalperiod(s)in which descriptionof eachof This allowsan archaeological they arepresentandthe numberof occunences. the relativechronologicalperiods. madeby Kaiserfor cemetery1400-1500atArmantarenot fundamentally The generalobservations contradictedand thereforethe numberof relativechronologicalperiodsis equal to the numberof Snfen distinguishedby Kaiser,althoughin somecasesimportantdifferencesoccurin their archaeothoughit might causeconfusion,it was decidedfor the logical description(cf. infra). Nevertheless, 'Stufe'by 'Naqada'andat the sametime time beingto useKaiser'sterminologybut replacethe word 'NaqadaIA' etc. changethe letterindicationinto capitalletters,which resultsin Sincemy researchon the relativechronologywill haveto be enlargedwith the datafrom cemetery for Kaiser'sSrufenIalb-IId, only N 7000at Naqaed Der (cf. note 16),which seemto be characteristic the NaqadaIII chronologywill be dealtwith further. It has alreadybeendiscussedthat Kaiser'sdefinition of the Stufenlldz-IJJaz showsa numberof problems(seepp.41-2),the most importantof which is that the distinctionbetweenKaiser'sSnfen trd2 and IIIaI is not reliable,sinceneitherthe spatialdistributionnor the characteristictypesmentioned by Kaiser allow rwo periodsto be distinguished.Also, Kaiser'sdescriptionof StufeIna2 at Armant, is basedon a very limited numberof graves;it is obviousthat the typesof objectsgiven by Kaiser as characteristicfor StufefrIa2 (Kaiser 1957:tf . 24H*)arefar more numerousthan can be for deducedfrom theArmantcemeteryandthat theyarein fact largelyderivedfrom othercemeteries, which the spatialdistributioncouldnot be investigated. 52 dl - J tll d J i ' * . - a -\c)\c)\O\O; ' o '/ = 6 9 S 3 V q f ; ; ; ; ; - ; ; h 6 6 h 9 : 0 : h h ; A ^ A 0 = = 0 Q O E x fr l G O - x € = 'U E o a0> At r- =-o t nn\ O r ) a ao C <c r - € 3} } > , , N N N d 6 l C t o 0 o u o o ! L g L L ! o o o 0 q ) 0 < o D<a I : x - X c . 'C -t a : = t - / = . = t ^ D oo . D . D*tr . J . 9 . v n t r o F D t . - o 6 o ' -.o ' > . " o . . h o o o o . * - ' r ' o o o : ' o F ' o o ' A , o . . h O o . . - . O .o oo o o o ' o o c.t J O O O o o o -l I F. I iI G O i l! o J O O U) c.l o o > = * \ 3 { o F d% q.b cq *o.. "o' o'. ada o ..13' o. 8o #r . o€o <t € L '8. . o 9b . 'E o :9 .3fft'= o ' . . o o o o o c l ' c t o ' o ' o oo. .f''a Eouo. c 8 'o..'ro . '_ S.xX de d i o €-' n ! oo -i;-iFiX 9 9 9 9 I , a a r 8 -; 6 .o^8 &- . u . F zi E ! E = : ! ! : I I F O ? : c . . B . _ ooo. o . " :^' " &.' o 'F g se ' . -u . ^!L .' dd .;.tf, B...oo c . po tr * . a--. . F o c L :"" o ' : g" -_' 9.g s . .o S n : e.'3 l ; rF8 ,>7 o o o r E'to; 3.'o +Eef o. E .' E I olo-: s5."9 . ! 5 5E 6 d 4 4 4 : t- .o5 ! ,'*i;i"ii:i+" e E O o ! cie ! 9 r o o v o_ . ", " o. € ? v ' '- b t When studyingthe spatialdistribution at the NaqadaIII cemeteryof Elkab (Hendrickx 1994:20516) four groupr of gruu"r could be distinguished,both by their contentsandby their spatialdistribugtaveswas tion (fig. l). The homogeneityof the distributionof theWavy Handledtypeswithin these groups could be two IIIa2, Srufe quite rernarkable,and within materialcharacteristicfor Kaiser's the Stufenfrd2problemswith Becauseof this observationandtheabove-mentioned &stinguished.2g was readjustedto NaqadaItrAl Snfefrl&' Kaiser's within IIIal, the mostrecentgroupdistinguished while most of the originalSrufelfral types,togetherwith a largenumberof the Snfe ild2 types,are consideredcharacteristicfor NaqadaIJDZ. In orderto link the relativechronologyof the Naqadaperiodto historicaltimes,the early dynastic cemeteriesof Lower Egypt haveto be takeninto account,sincewell publishedlargecemeteriesfrom this periodarenot availablefor UpperEgypt.The switchfrom Upperto Lower Egypt shouldnot be a problem,sinceit is generallyacceptedthat,certainlyby Naqadam{z,the wholecountry fund-amental The cemeteries was alreadya cultural entity and probablyalso politically united (cf. Kaiser 1990). 'archaic' 'protodynastic' typologies, and involved (note 16) have beenpublishedaccordingto the 'predynastic'typolwith the if compared seriation for which offer a numberof statisticaladvantages ogy (cf. pp.M-7).Therefore,it wasquite straightforwardto identify groupsof relatedgraves,starting jars from a timited number of characteristicpottery Upes, mainly storagejars and the cylindrical which representthe final stagesof the evolution of the Wavy Handledclass.The evolution of the cemeteryatTurahis particularlyclear.This wasnotedby theexcavatorhimself(Junker1912:1)' and lateralsoby Kaiser(1964: 108-9).The spatialdistributionof this cemeterydisplaystbreeclearzones by the differencein latetypesof Wavy Handledjars.3oThe southern (fig.2),which arecharacterised part of the cemetery(zone1) is dominatedby Junker'stypesLK-LXV (= W 8A 47 P), the central pu.t 1ron" 2) by Junker'stype LX\n (= 50 d) andthenorthempart (zone3) by Junker'sfypesLXVII3l L>Of (= 50 t). The spatialdistributionat TarkhanValleyCemetery is lessobvious,but still allows two largegtoupsof tombsand two or threesmalleronesto be distinguished(fig. 3). The cemetery 'path' runningSW-NE.The frst group,dominatedby 46 b-h (= W seemsto havedevelopedalonga 'path', with the mostmarkedconcenffa58-62),is situatedimmediatelyto the north and southof the sections(zone1).The secondgroup,dominatedby47 p,48'49 (= tionsin thecentralandnorth-eastern in W 71 a, W 80, W 85), is situatedfurtherawayfrom thepath,with the mostmarkedconcentrations to the section central the in zones, one (zone Two small 2). the south-westemand southernsections 'path' andonein thenorth-eastern by the presence section(zones34), arecharacterised north of the of 50 d-f (= W 90). Groupsof relatedgravescould be distinguishedat all of the large cemeteries,and a numberof gtoups*om TarkhanValley CemeteryTurahandAbu RoashCemetery400 showvery closeparallels. It was,therefore,a rather simple matterto draw up onetypo-chronologicalframework which gives a globalimageof the chronologicalevolutionin Lower Egypt.Five periodsaredistinguished,threeof themrepresented at the cemeteryof Turatrwhich is underdiscussion.Of thesefive periods,two show which arevery similarto two mostrecentperiodsdistinguishedfor the characteristics archaeological Naqadacemeteriesof Upper Egypt, i.e. NaqadaIIIA2 (Tarkhat, zone 1) and IIIB (Turah,zone 1; Tarkhan,zone2). The three remainingperiodsfor Lower Egypt were labelledNaqadaItrCl (e.g. Turah, zone2; Tarkhanzones3-4); NaqadaItrC2 (e.g.Turah,zone 3) and NaqadaIIID (e.g. Abu Roash,cemeteries0 and 800). NaqadaItrCl and IIIC2 arerelatedto one anotherby the cylindrical jars, which becomegraduallylesscarefullymadeandwhich disappearduringNaqadaIIID. The relation betweentheseperiodsandKaiser'sextensionof his originalSufen chronologyis summarisedin table7. 7. Correlation betweenNaqada IIIA2 - IIID and the First Dynasty A numberof tombsfrom Lower Egyptiansites,as well asfrom the royal tombsat Abydos,32canbe connectedby inscriptionsor sealimpressionswith the earlydynastickings.33Only thosetombsfor which both inscriptionswith royal namesand the (partial)archaeologicalmaterialare known, are takeninto consideration.34 Thechronologicalpositionof thesetombswasin mostcasesdefinedwhen 59 of Lower Egypt.However,a number studyingthe spatialdistributionwithin theNaqadaItr cemeteries contained. they of tombsfrom othersitesaredatedby typical objects Saqqara Saqqara Saqqara Saqqara Abydos Abydos Saqqara Saqqara Saqqara Abydos Saqqara Saqqara Abu Roash Saqqara Saqqara Saqqara Saqqara Saqqara Abydos Tkukhan Saqqara Abydos Turah Saqqara Saqqara Abydos Tarkhan Tawiyetel-Aryan Naqada Abu Roash Saqqara Abydos Tarkhan MinshatAbu Omar Tarkhan Tarkhan Tarkhan Abydos Tiukhan Tbrah Tarkhan Helwan Helwan Abydos Tarkhan Tarkhan MinshatAbuOmar Abydos Tirrah T[rah 60 S 3120 S 3121 S 3500 S 3505 a U S 3038 S 3111 S 3338 X 190 230 M25 S 3035 S 3506 S 3507 SX S 3036 T 1060 S 3504 Z 235 S 3471 S 3503 O 300 22 'RoyalTomb' 402 s 3357 B t0ll5lr9 r982 44 414 4t5 1100 B 17-18 412 313 261 1627 1651 B7l9 1549 [315?] 160 B Il2 & 89 Qa-a Qa-a Qa-a Qa-a Qa-a Semerkhet Adjib Adjib Adjib Adjib Den Den Den Den Den Den Den Den Den Djed Djed Djed Djer Djer Djer Djer Hor-Aha Hor-Aha Hor-Aha Hor-Aha Hor-Aha Hor-Aha Narmer Narmer Narmer Narmer Narmer Narmer HorizontB HorizontB Ka Ka Ka Ka HorusCrocodile(?) HorusCrocodile(?) HorusCrocodile(?) Irj-Hor HorizontA HorizontA IIID 35 IIID 36 IIID 37 IIID 38 IIID 39 wcz.ID-40 wc24r frcz42 mc2 43 mc2 44 mc2 4s frcz 46 wcz47 wcz 48 wcz4e mc2 50 mc2 sl mcu2s2 mcz s3 wcz s4 ItrC2ss mcz s6 mcl 57 mcl 58 mcl se mcl 60 mcrz6L mcl 62 mcl 63 mc1 s mcl 65 r[R/cl 66 mcz67 mc1t268 ItrCl 6e ItrCl 70 mc1 7l mct 72 mc1 73 mcl 74 Im/cl 7s rnR/cl IIIB 76 IJJD,tct77 tnA?/B 78 IIIB/CI 79 IIIB 80 IIIB 8I mB 82 Turah Tarkhan Abydos Abydos Abydos 54 t702 U-t U-s u-j HorizontA HorizontA : )corplonr IITB 83 Im 84 trIB 85 mA? 86 rrtA1 87 at Saqqarais arrangedaccordingto the Wheneverthedistributionof the potteryfrom the mastabas mastabas date, a clear chronologicaldistributionarisesfor a whose the reign of kings from sequence groups of largestoragejars andthe cylinfair numberof poneryrypes.Asan example,the important in table8. Let us keepin mind,however,thatthis imagemight be idealisedby dricaljars arepresented which variation Emery allowswithin the types(cf. above,p.47). of the degree A similar investigation,which will not be discussedhere,hasalsobeenmadefor the stonevessels from Saqqara,from which it hasbecomeclearthat the presenceor absenceof a decorativebandon cylindricaljars cannotbe usedas a chronologicalindicator,sinceboth typesoccurfrom the time of Hor-Ahauntil Qa-a. 8. Absolute chronologr. The most recentinterpretationof the availableC14datesfor the entireNaqadaculture,aswell asfor thekings of the First Dynastyin particular,hasbeenmadeby F. Hassan(Hassan1980,1985,1988, Hassan& Robinson19S7).Theseresultshavebeencombinedin table9 with the relativechronology establishedby the presentstudy.However,this is to be consideredonly as an initial attempt.The numberof availableC14datesremainslimited.In somecases,the relativechronologicalperiodof the materialcannotbe determinedbeyonddoubt.Finally,the positionof certain sampledarchaeological within the relativechronologyshouldbe more securelydefrnedto makeoptimumuse of the kings possibilitiesofferedby the C14dates.It is, therefore,beyonddoubtthat the needfor C14datesfor all periodsof the Naqadaculturestill remainsvery urgent. 9. Regional differentiation. An importantquestionis whetheror not local or regionaldifferencescanbe distinguished,as wasthe casefor the lithics of the Naqadaculturestudiedby D. Holmes(1989).Basically,two differentkinds of regional differentiationmight be found to occur.On one hand,different typesof objectsmight occurat differentsites,whilst on the otherthe sametypesof objectsmight occurat all sites,but in otler combinations,or with differencesin their absolutechronology.Unfortunately,thereare several reasonswhich makeit very difficult to get a clearpictureof eventualregionaltendenciesamongthe gravegoods. Regardingthepossibilityof differenttypesoccurringat differentsites,animpressionof uniformity amongthe cemeteries of theregistrationsystemusedby Petrieandtheother mightbe theconsequence excavatorsduring the fust half of this century.They weremakingup their graveregistersby referring to an already existing typology, and thereforeit may well be supposedthat they forced a kind of uniformity on the entireNaqadaculture.SincePetrie'stypologicalcorpusandthe SequenceDating were developedon the combinedinformationfrom the excavationsin the regionof both Diospolis Parvaand Naqad4it hasto be acceptedthat possibleregionalpeculiaritieswere obscuredfrom the beginning.88 Leaving asidepossibletypologicalerrors,it is possibleto comparcthe combinationof types of objectsin gravesof differentcemeteries,althoughthis is hamperedby the largenumberof types.Of coursethis kind of comparisonis only meaningfulfor frequentlyoccurringtypes.In an attemptto see whethercertainpotterytypesarecharacteristicfor a certainregion,all cemeteriesstudiedweregrouped into four regions,89 namelythe Badaridistrict,9O the regionaroundAbydos,gltheNaqadacemeteries 92and finally thecemeteries five or moretimesin total, a of Armant.93For potterytypesrepresented 61 Naqada Stufe Hendrickr 1989 Kaiser 1957,L990 no cvlindrical iars IIID 50t Itrc3 50 b-c. h-t we 50d mcz 50 d-s ucl 48 s.tl49 d,Y50 d IIIcI 48 s.U49d,l Itrb2 47 Itrb1 47 r-t148V49 d.s IIIB w 50/51al55l56el6l-62 m^2 w 55t58t6h62 wAz a.s, W 49l5G'51156 mA1 w 4ll43bl47z Itral W 4Ll43bl47s r7d2 a,s,m W 4Ll42l43bl47 rcz w 24125 trdr trc w 24t25127 IIDl w 3/19 trC w 3/19 Tab.7. Relativechronologicalperids asdistinguishedby Kaiser 1957, 1990and Hendriclot 1989, illustrated by the tlpes of Wavy Handled/ Cylindrical Jars. rype # Hor-Aha Djer Djed Den Semerkhet 66 Adjib Qa-a 434 u 138 637 A01 261 475 2 804 AO2 30 419 347 23 819 A03 4 40 61 108 A04 t67 167 A06 . : I 24 25 Aw 4 r62 166 A08 A 0 9 2 7 7 A10 1 2 : : T2 All 2 2 ALz 8 ?; 26 8 tt4 B0l 2 9 56 85 B02 1 0 1 5 16 B03 24 ,: 35 94 B04 1 7 17 B05 6 r20 126 806 I 8 0 7 1 8 4 12 808 5 1 6 2r 809 : 7 ; 103 174 F01 2 F A 2 1 65 I 67 F03 ; 46 F04 38 38 F05 q, 700 ca. 700 Fll in the lst dyn. tombsat Saqqara of cytindricaljars andlargestoragevessels Tab. 8. Occurrence (afterEmery1938-58). ? 62 1 checkwasmadeof their presenceor absencein the four regions.Out of 339 types,94103occurin all four regions, 129n three,77in nvo and30 in oneonly.A far greaterhomogeneitythanthesefigures suggestis to be inferred,sinceboththeearliestandthe mostrecentphaseof theNaqadacultureis not Armant was the representedat Armant (out of 129 caseswhereonly three regionsarerepresented, is known for the types nrissingregionin 81 instances),andsinceonly a very limited numberof Rough at Naqada.Finally,the at Naqada(cf. p.43).From96 Roughtypes,only 53 arerepresented cemeteries been addedto Petrie's. which have types are site which at one occur only majority of the 30 types originaltypology.SinceBruntonallowedfar lessvariationwithin onetypethanPetrie,it may well be supposedthat parallelsfor many (?) of thesenew types did exist at Naqadaor Abydos but were attributedby Petrieto relatedtypes.All in all, it cannotbedeniedthattheuniformity of thegravegoods in the Naqadacemeteriesof UpperEgypt,overa distanceof nearly400 km, is remarkable. As mentionedabove,relatedgoups of typesare presentin differentcemeteries.In this respect of certainpotterytypes,exceptfor the or disappearance thereareno obviousshiftsin the appearance earlierat Armant than,for instance, possibilitythat Black-Toppedpotteryseemsto havedisappeared in the Abydosregion.This seemsto be confirmedby the resultsof Friedman'sstudyof the Naqaed Der cemetery@riedman1981:35-6). As for possibleabsolutechronologicaldifferences,it hasalreadybeensaidthat the informationin this field is very scantyandthereforedoesnot allow any conclusionsregardingthe problemof possible regionaldifferentiation. it would be surprisingif all cemeteriesdevelopedalongexactlythe samelines and Nevertheless, a thereis indeed fairly good chancethat regionaldifferenceshavebeenobscureduntil now But the questionwill haveto restuntil moredataareavailableon old or new excavations. The NaqadaIII cemeteriesof Lower Egypt (cf. note 19),arelocatedwithin a relativelysmall area. The distancebetweenthe most southerncemetery,Tarkhan,and the most northern,Abu Roash,is some60 km. Also it may be assumedthat the culnrralunity had grownthroughpolitical unification. This seemsto be supportedby the observationthat the gravegoodsof the burials at Tbrkhan,for Therefore,the possibilityfor regionalvariationseernsof little instance,showa strikinghomogeneity. importance.As for comparisonwith the late NaqadaIII cemeteriesfrom Upper Egypt, nothing definite canbe saidfor the time beingbecauseof the lack of datafrom UpperEgypt. 10. Conclusions With regardto theterminologicalconfusionmentionedat thebeginningof thepresentarticle,it seems bestfor a discussionof the materialcultureto distinguishperiodswithin the Naqadaculturedown to the time of the SecondDynasty.95Thereare fwo principal reasonsfor this. First, when no written materialdoesnot allow a informationis available,which is nearlyalwaysthe case,the archaeological preciseassignmentto the reign of a particularearly king of Egypt. Secondly,thereis no break in the materialculture of UpperEgypt at the beginningof the historic period.As a matterof fact, obvious differencesin materialculture,meaningthe developmentof typical Old Kingdom typesbf objects, can be observedto start during the final stagesof the Naqadaculture, but the results of this only becomeimportant after NaqadaIIID. which arein nearlyall It is morethanobviousthatworkingwith informationfrom old excavations, casesincompletelypublished,causesgreatproblems,especiallyfor seriation.For this reason,the methodologypresentedby Kaiserover35 ye:m agostill seemsto be valid. However,the possibilities offeredby seriation(cf. Seidlmayer1990)cannotbe ignored,but they shouldbe integratedwith the studyof the spatialdistribution, without using oneof the two systemsmerelyasa control for the other. The investigationof the relativechronology(Hendrickx 1989),of which someresultshavebeen presented,follows similar divisionsto Kaiser's,but doesnot coincidecompletelywith the Srufen chronology.The mostimportantdifferencesaresituatedin Kaiser'sSufen\d2-maz aswell asin the Stufenwhich Kaiseraddedrecentlyto his system(cf. table7). Thesedifferencesarecausedmainly by thefact that Kaisertriesto definetransitionalperiods(e.g.Stufelfrcl),while my own studyfocuseson archaeologicallyclearly distinguishedperiods.As a result,Kaiserdistinguishesmoreperiodswithin 63 that the definitionof a relativechronologycannot it shouldbe remembered NaqadaIII. Nevertheless, tool for studyingseveralaspectsof the history of a be a goal in itself, but is only an indispensable given period.Therefore,it seemsappropriateto distinguishonly archaeologicallywell-definedand characteristicperiods. For the NaqadaIII period,which was the main topic of interestin this article,the following summarycanbe given (table9). Theearliestroyal tombsatAbydosdateto NaqadaIIIA2. NaqadaIIIB can be Linkedwith theearliesttombsfor which serekh'sareknownandthusalsowith Kaiser'sHorizontA. Tlvo of thekings of Dynasty0, Irj-Hor andKa, arealsoto be placedin NaqadaIIIB. Sincetheinschptions which were previouslyattributedto Scorpionare now no longer consideredto belong to his reign,no inscriptionsof this king remain,exceptof courseon the Hierakonpolismacehead,nor is his NaqadaIIIC1 is certainly tombknownatAbydos.Thereforehis very existencebecomesquestionable. identicalwith the reignsof Narmer,Hor-Ah4 andDjer. NaqadaIIIC2 coversthe reignsof Djed, Den from tombU at Umm el-Qaab,doesnot andAdjib. The very limited evidenceavailablefor Semerkhet, might be found to commencewith IIID Naqada allow a choice betweenNaqadaItrC2 and IIID. Semerkhet,but it can certainly be recognisedalready in the tombs attributed to the time of Qa-a. Becauseof the lack of historicallydatedmaterialfrom the early SecondDynasty,a limit to Naqada IIID cannotbe defined. I -Naq43-El NaqadaIIIAI-IIIB Naoada IIC-TIDZ -:::=a:--Naqada IA-IIB i ca. 310G3000 ! Narmer - Died l l 100 ____-1l*ogfA:-Ettro3t5e---i ca.330G3 i ca. 365G3300 i ca. 390C3650 --+ t- - !- Tab. 9. Absolute chronologyof the Naqadaculture. descriptionof the differencesbetweentheprinciregardingthearchaeological The inconsistencies pal periodsof theNaqadacultureareimportantenoughto enforcea changein terminology.However, it seemsto be too early to do so. It is to be expectedthat moredatawill becomeavailablewithin the next few years,thanhasthroughthelastfifty years.Thesewill comebothfrom old excavationswhich still remainto be (re)published(el Ahaiwa,Mesaid,Mesheikh,Naqaed Deir, Nagael Hay, Shurafa Deir el Ballas,Hierakonpolis,cf. note9), andfrom recentones(MinshatAbu Omar,Abusir,Umm el Qaab,el Adarma,Elkab,Hierakonpolis).Therefore,it is betterto wait until the chronologibalconsequencesofthese datahavebeenevaluatedbeforeacceptinga far-reachingchange,suchasproposing a new chronologicalterminology. Acknowledgements I wish to thank W.V. Daviesand the staff of the British Museumfor the perfectorganisationof the symposiumon Early Egypt.Manythanksaredueespeciallyto Dr.A.J. Spencer,who was sokind asto improvemy Englishtext. I am alsogreatlyindebtedto Prof. Dr. W. Kaiser,E.C.M. van denBrink and Dr. T. Wilkinson for their commentson an earlierdraft of thepresentarticle. 64 Notes: (cf. l. ThetermNaqadaculturewill alsobe usedfor the earlydynasticperiod,i.e. theFirst andSecondDynasty will also be pp.$-g.An historicaloverviewof the researchfor therelativecbronologyof the Naqadaculture foundin Payne1990andPatch1991:153-170. 229.D 49 b: Abydos Z.Tinefollowingtombsareinvolved.D 10 m: Armant 1530,Badari3753,Mustagedda Naqaed Deir 1458,1547, Armant B 021,230, A 118, Cemetery Amra Cemetery a: el D 63 340. E Cemetery 524. Cemetery Main Naqada 1626,1633, 70, Mustagedda Cemetery Fort TIyT,Ifterckonpolis for thesetypesare:P 40 g1: 1; P studiedby Hendrickx1989(cf. note 15)theoccurrences 3. For thecemereries q: l. P 24 q: 46 5; b: 40el: 1;P 40 5;P 4. The Hoizonten were conceivedby Kaiseras a preliminarysystemonly, basedon limited evidence(pers. comm.).For discussionof a numberof problemsrelatedlo theHorizonten'seevan den Brink (1996,this volume). 5. Recently,Kaiser seemsto have omittedHoizont C (Kaiser 1990:Abb. 1) and probablyalso revisedthe characterisicsof Hoizont B. archaeological 6. Kaiser 1990gives no archaeologicaldescriptionfor thesenew Stufen,neitherdoeshe discussthe way in which they have beendistinguished.Therefore,table7 is basedon personalinformationsuppliedby Kaiser (poznansymposium1992,letter30 Oct. 1993).The following correlationwith the early kings of Egypt canbe made:Sufe IIfb2 = hj-Hor and earlier; Snfe Tnd = Ka - Narmer; Snfe frlc2 = Hor Aha Djer; Stufefrc3 = Djed/Denuntil the end of the lst dynasty' t.gtga,B25f,B25g,B53a,B53c,B57bl,B58a,B68b,D68a,Lt2d,L16b,L30g,L7b,P23a, p 23b,P 24m,P 24 n,P 80 s, R 21 b, R24 a,R 3 a,R 3 c, R 65 b, R 66 a,R 66 p, R 67,R 69 b, R 81,R 84,R 84d, R 84 e, R 93 c, W l9,W 24,W43 b. carriedout before1957still remainto be published. 8. On the otherhandan importantnumberof excavations For instancethe Italianexcavationsat Gebeleinbetween1910and 1937(Marro 1920,1929;d'Amicone 1988); on behalfof theHearstExpeditionandthe HarvardBostonExpeditheexcavationsof Reisnerandhis assistants Mesaid(Reisner1936:371-7;Brovarski1982:300;Needler tion at el Ahaiwa(Reisner1900-1;1936:377-8), 1984:138-45),Mesheikh@sher 1913),Nagael-Hay(Freed1974),Shurafa(MortensenI99l:36) andDeir elBallas(Reisner1936:55-6,379Podzorski1988:260);C.S.Fisher'swork at Dendarabetween1915and1918 (Fischer 1969: l-2); the MetropolitanMuseumexcavationcarriedout at Hierakonpolisby Lansingin 1935 (Lansing1935).For additionalbibliographyconcerningindividualsites,seealsoHendrickx(1995). 9. For a numberof excavations,so little hasbeenpublishedthat only somevery generalconclusionscan be made.The most importantexcavationin this respectis of coursethe hugecemeteryat Helwan,where10,258 tombswereexcavatedby Z. Sarrdbetween1942and1954(Saad1947,195I, 1969)'Furthennore,therearefor examplea numberof smallerexcavationsof the EgyptianAntiquitiesOrganisationat Abu Umuri (1936,cf. Kaplony 1965;Kromer 1973),Naga el-Gaziriya(1938, L944,cf. Kdiser 196I: 2O'l), el-Qatta(1948-52,cf.. N.N. 1952),Tura (1957-79?, cf. Leclant1961;el-Khouly Brunner1952-53:Leclant1950,1952,1953,1954l' 1980;Yacoub1981, 1983),Hawashim(1965-8,cf. el-Sayed1979:254),Nag' 1968;Leclant1973,1978,1979, cf. Maher1977),Edtu(1983-4,cf. Leclant& Clerc 1994:427),el Adwa(1988, el-HaggTnidan(1975,1980-1, cf. Leclant& Clerc 1994 421),Helwan (1966,cf. Leclant 1968;el-Banna1990),Khozam(1989,cf. Shehata 1989).Among other excavationsfor which hardly anythingis known, an early dynasticcemeteryat Mendes (Hansen1967 L6)andanotheronein the neighbourhood of Qasrel Sagha(Puglisi 1967)canbe mentionedas (Debono 1951)at Esna(Debono1971)and at Adatma Wadi Harunamat the well as the work of Debonoin (Debono1971;SauneronlgT4).Finally,nothingat all is knownfor excavationsat Naqadaby the Universityof Alexandria(1971-2,1981?, cf. Leclant1973,1974,1982). thepublicationby theDAI of theexcavationsat Merimde, 10.Sinceonly theNaqadacultureis underdiscussion, Maadi, S/adi Digla, el Omari and Heliopolis are left aside. Q'{ordstrdm 11.Cemeteries at SayalaandQustol(Williams 1986),WadiAllaki (Piotrovski1967),Faras-Gamai r972). 12.An extensiveanalysisof a similarproblemconcerningLateOld Kingdom- First IntermediatePeriodobjects wasmadeby Seidlmayer(1990:8-12). 13.Theadditionaltypescanbe foundin thefollowingpublications:Randall-Mclver& Mace L902:pl. Ktr-XV; Ayrton& Loat 1911:pl. )OnnU-)OO(VlI; Petrie,Wainwright& Mackay I9I2: pl. D(-X[; Naville, Peet,Hall & Haddon 1914:pl. V; Peet 1914:pl. )OCV[; Engelbach& Gunn 1923:pl. )O(VI-XD(; Brunton & CatonThompson1928:pl. )OOil/-XIVL; Mond & Myers 1937:pl.>OCtr-XXVm; Brunton 1937:pl. )fl-)iltr; 1948: pl. )OO(tr-X)O(V 14.The sameobservationwasmadeby Seidlmayer(1990:10)for the differencebetweenthe typologicalidentificationof late Old Kingdom - First IntermediatePeriodobjecs by Petrieand Brunton. 65 15.This is basedon the datafrom: AbydosCemeteriesI andX (Randall-Mclver& Mace 1902:53-5;Petrie& Mace l90l: 11-2),AbydosCemeteryU (Peetl9l4: 146),Abydos CemeteryE (Naville, Peet,Hall & Haddon l9l4: L2-7;Peet1914:17-9),AbydosExcavationsFrankfort@rankfort1930:213'5),el-Ahaiwa@eisner1936: 377-8),el-Amratr(Randall-Mclver& Mace 1902),Arrrant (Mond& Myers 1937),el-Badari(Brunton,Gardiner 1928),Elkab (Hendrickx1993),Hanmamiya (Brunton,Gardiner & Petrie1927;Brunton& Caton-Thompson (Ayrton& Loat 1911),Matmar(Brunton1948), 1928),el-Matrasna & Petrie1927,Brunton& Caton-Thompson Mesaid(Reisner1936:371-7),el-Mustagidda(Brunton1937),Naqada(Petrie& Quibell 1896,Petie 1920:pl. 1928),Salnany LI, Baumgartel1970b,Hendrickx1986,Payne1987),Qawel-Kebir(Brunton& Caton-Thompson of the (el-Sayed1979).The 'Fort'cemeteryat Hierakonpolisis not includedsincethetypologicalidentifications since the Der is not included ed Naqa (Adams 7000 at 1987: 2). N Cemetery enough solid are not objects when this was studied. the time at yet (Friedman was to the author not available 1981) register unpublishedtomb 16. When comparingthe archaeologicalmaterial from Umm el Qaabwith that from Tarkhanby meansof the 'protodynastic'typology,thereseemto be hardly any likenessesbetweenthe two, sincethe typesPresentat Umm el Qaabrarely occur atTarkhan.However,this is a falsepicture. The pottery from Umm el Qaabwas not 'protodynastic'corpus, type nurnber. sincenearlyall ofthe vesselsreceiveda separate really 'integrated'inthe if they had existing types pots already with It is beyonddoubt that Petriewould haveidentifredmanyof these beenfound at Tiarkhan. 17. The additionaltypes can be found in the following publications:Engelbach& Gunn 1923:pt.30; Petrie 1923:pl. LI-LItr; Brunton 1927:pl. )Otr-XVI; Mond & Myers 1937:pl. )O(D(-)OO(; Brunton1937:pl. )Ofi; 1948:pl. )OIV. 18.This is basedon thedatafrom: el-Badari(Brunton,Gardiner& Petie 1927),Hammamiya(Brunton,Gardiner & Petrie 1927),Matmar (Brunton1948),el-Mustagidda(Brunton1937),Qaw el-Kebir (Brunton,Gardiner& Pette |9}/),Tarkhan (Petrie,Wainwright& Gardiner1913,Petrie1914),Tura(Junker1912,Petrie,Wainwright & Gardiner1913). 19.Wilkinsonis only interestedin comparinghisresultswith Kaiser's.Therefore,thedataarenottakenfrom the original publication(Mond & Myers 1937),but from Kaiser(1957:'77,note67), which implies that a small numberof typesis omitted. 20. The spatiallyisolatedgroup of gravesin the southernpart of the cemeteryis seriatedin the following manner: 4. 2. 3. grave 1. 4. grave 1. 2. 3. 1559 1558 1594 t592 1583 t557 138 140 t4t 142 t43 rr4 47 12 30 4l 10 15 12 15 4t 8 110 36 LM r49 148 115 111 65 1590 1518 1595 1593 1591 145 146 147 148 r49 8 42 75 13 25 148 98 84 r47 63 134 123 r47 84 131 'seriation' 1. positionin Kaiser 'bestpolishedresult' (.POLISH)with initial ordersbeingshortesthamiltoniancircuits 2. positionaccordingto (.HAMIL). 'besthamiltoniancircuit' (.HAMIL) 3. positionaccordingto 'bestpolishedresult' (.POLISH)usingKaiser'soriginal orderas startingorder. 4. positionaccordingto 21. This studyis not yet publishedand thereforethe following suurmaryhaskindly beenprovidedby T.A.H. Wilkinson (October1993).Sincethe study iSelf hasnot beenseenby the authorno furtherconmentscan be madefor the time being. MustageddaCem22. Tirkhan Hill and Valley Cemeteries,Turah,Matnar Ceneteries200/3000-3100/5100, etery 1600-1800,Mahasna,el-AmrahCemeteryb, ArmantCemetery1400-1500,HierakonpolisFort Cemetery. 23.8.9. AbydosgravesE75,8169,84034,W344(Naville,Peet,Hall & Haddon1914:15-16;Peetl9L4: I719), el Mahasnagraves48, 83, 107, 115, 120 (Ayrton & Loat 1911),Hierakonpolistomb 100 (Payne1973), Elkab grave85 (Hendrickx L994: 194-6).The presenceof enonnousnumbersof identical(?) vesselsis also typical for the First Dynasty mastabasat Saqqara(cf. table 8). 24. This doesnot imply that the samepottery is presentin the cemeteriesas well as in the settlements.On the contary, settlementpottery showsvery distinct characteristics. by theauthor(cf. infra),canbe made: 25.With reservation,a correlationwith the relativechronologysuggested Group la = NaqadatrC-IIDl, Group lb = NaqadaIID1, Group2 = NaqadaIIIA1, Group 3a = NaqadaIIIA2, Group3b = NaqadaIIIB, Group3c = NaqadamCl-mC2, Group4 = NaqadaIIID. 26. From informationsuppliedby van denBrink, a tentativecorrelationwith the relativechronologysuggested 66 by the author(cf. infra), canbe made.GroupI-II = NaqadaIIIB, GroupIII-W = NaqadaIIIC1. from northto south,areinvolved:Matrnar,cemetery2600-27W(Brunton1948: Z;l.fye following cemeteries, pl. VItr-D( XDQ, el Badari,cemeteries3700 and 3800 (Brunton& Caton-Thompson1928: pl. m, )OO(IIl)Oiltr), Hammamiya,cemetery1500-1800(Brunton1927:pl.VI, X-XI; Brunton& Caton-Thompson1928: 1928:pl. m, )OO(), el-Salnany(el pl. )CO(-)OCfl); Qawel-Kebr, cemetery100(Brunton& Caton-Thompson 'Sayed pl. 1979),NaqadaMain Cemetery(Petrie& Quibell 1896: DO(XII-LXX)fiII; Baumgarteli970b; Hendrickx 1986;Payne1987),Armantcemeteries1300and 1400-1500(Mond & Myers 1937),Hierakonpolis, 'Fort Cemetery'(Adams1987),Elkab(Hendrickx1994),Kubbaniya,Southcemetery(Junker19i9). locality 27, The dataconcerningcemeteryN 7000werenot yet availableto the authorat the time whenthe studywascarried 'predynastic'cemeterieslocatednorthAsyut havenot beentakenin to consideration.They are to be out. The studiedseparatelysincethey comefrom a differentregionandin Lower Egypt the possibilityof influencesby the theMaadi-Butocultureexists,alsotheyrepresentonly the secondpartof the Naqadaculture.Nevertheless, (Scharff el Meleq Abusir 1912), (Petrie, Wainwright & Mackay of Gerzeh in the cemeteries distribution spatial andcomparedwith UpperEgypt.Also, it igZ6),U*ue"h @ngelbach& Gunn 1923)shouldalsobeinvestigated Minshat Abu Omar,where chronological cemetery of with the a comparison useful to make most be would (Kaiser Kroeper 1988). 1987; already been distinguished goups have from northto south,areinvolved:Abu Roash,cemeteries0, 300,400-500'800ig. Th" following cemeteries, 1940),Turah(Junketl9l2), (Klasens cemeterywestofSerapeumQVlacrarnallah 1958-61),Saqqara, 900andM 19i3, Petrie l9i4). (Petrie, Mackay Wainwright & J and H, G, A, Q Tarkhan,Valley cemetery,cemeteries R informationon (Saad also some and Helwan 1947) at part excavations of the Althoughmapsareavailablefor a atAbu the excavations Also, the spatial distribution. of investigation for an this is far too limited thegravegoods, not allow their which does (I\4ontet 1946) in a manner 1938, published Roashby MontetandLacauin L9l3-4are integrationin the presentsfudy. 29. This wasalsoobservedby Kaiser(pers.com.)for othercemeteries. whenpublishingthis cemetery(Junker1912:31-43).As a 30. Junkerdevelopedhis own typologicalapparatus matterof fact his typologyconsistsonly of a numberof broadtypeswhich allow muchvariationwithin eachof with his own typology(Petrie,Wainwright& Gardiner1913:pl. the types.Petriemadetablesof concordance L)ilI-L)fltr, LXV, L)il/[.LXVM). 31. On the mapof theValleyCemetery1Pefie 1914:pl. >(LVD 1064numberedgravesareindicated.The tomb register@etrie,Wainwright& Gardiner1913:pl. lX-LXVtr; Petrie19i4: pl. )OOil-)OIII; containsinformation for only 712 of them. materialand the earliestEgyptian 32.'I\e bestinformationconcerningthe correlationbetweenarchaeological rulers might be expectedto come from their own tombs at Abydosor the mastabasat Saqqarawhich most probablybelongedto their highestofficials.However,thesetombshaveancientlybeenheavily looted'Also, the igst excavationsat Abydos,by Amdlineau(1899a,1899b,1902,l9M), resembledvery much a large scale plundering(Maspero1912;Petrie 1901:2).Furthermore,the resultsof Petrie'sexcavationsare only partially publishedas far as pottery and stonevesselsare concerned(Petrie 1900, 1901, 1902).Finally, the modern excavationsby the DAIK are not yet publishedin detail (Kaiser& Grossman1979;Kaiser & Dreyer 1982; Dreyer 1990,1993).As for Saqqara,the excavationsand publicationsby Emery (1938-58)arewell produced, but the typologicalsystemusedby Emeryfor the publicationof theobjectscausesproblems.The objectsfound for eachof the tombswerein most casesillustratedby the reproductionof standarddrawings.More important is the fact that it can not be deniedthat Emery allowedratherwide differenceswithin onetype. Naturally, this does not allow detailedtypologicalresearch.cf..p' 47. 33. In the presentcontext,the inscriptionsare only of interestbecauseof their chronologicalinformationand thereforetheir contentetc. will not be discussed. materialis insufficientlyknown. E.g. tombsfrom 34.A numberof tombsareexcludedsincethe archaeological (Montet a tombfrom the time of Djed at NazletBatran 1938, L946); Roash at Abu the time of Den, excavated (Daressy1905)andespeciallya numberof tombsat Helwan(cf. Kaplony 1963:81, I33, 136,141,149).As far ascan bejudged from the excavationreports,the archaeologicalmaterialfrom thesetombs frts well in Naqada ItrC2 and thereforeseemsto supportthe conelation betweenthis periodandthe reignsof Djed and Den' On the otherhand,a tomb arAbu Roashattributedto the tirneof Djer or Djed (Klasens1959:58; Kaplony 1963:85) is not includedsincethe attributionseemsto hold no ground.Two tombsat Abusir el-Meleq (tombs i021 and thecontentsof the tombsareinsuf11214) containingpotterywith uninscribed serekh'sarenot includedbecause These tombsare attributedby Kaiser& n" 28). ficiently known (Scharff1926:20,35, 150-1,162-3,tf..11, and/or IIIB. probably Naqada IIIA2 to Dreyer(1982:266-7)to Hoizont A, anddate 35.Emery 1949:l2l-44. 36.Emery 1949:116-20. 37.Emery1958:98-109. 67 38.Emery 1958:5-36. 39. Petrie 1900:Pl. X)O(D(-)(LIII. The very limited evidenceavailabledoesnot allow a choicebetweenNaqada 40.petrie t900: fl. >OO<D(->{Lm. ItrC2 and IIID. 41.Emery 1949:82-94. 42.Emery1949:95-106. 43. Emery 1949:125-9. 44. Petrie 1900:pl. XIO(D(->(LItr 45.Macramallah1940:58. 46. Macranallah 1940:66. 47. Klasens1961. 48. Emery 1938. 49.Emery1958:37-72. 50. Emery 1958:73-97. 51.Emery 1949:107-15. 52.Emery 1949:7 l-8I. This tomb containedonly a limited variationof potterytypeswhich doesnot allow a clearchoiceto be madebetweenNaqadaItrCl andItrC2. 53. Petrie 19CI:pl. X)O(D(-)(LItr 54. Petrie,Wainwright& Gardiner1913:pl. L)CV. 55.Emery 1954:5-127. 56. Petrie 1900:pl. X)O(D(-)(Lil 57. This tomb containedonly a few objectswhich are not exclusivelytypical for NaqadaIIICI. However, period. consideringthe localisationwithin the cemetery,the tomb may in all probabilitybe placedwithin this For the attribution to the time of Djer, cf. Kaiser 1964: 102-3. 58. Emery 1949:13-70. 59.Emery 1954:128-70. 60. Petrie 1900:pl. X)OO(-)Gil. 61. While studyingthe spatialdistributionat Tarkhan,this tomb wasattributedto NaqadaItrC2. However'the objects*" not typi.al for this periodalone,but might alsooccurduringNaqadaItrC1. The problemcannotbe soiuedbeyonddoubt,sincetomb 300 doesnot occuron the mapsof the cemeteriesat Tarkhan.Becauseof its number,the tomb has to be sought in cemeteryA (NaqadaIIIB-ItrC2) or L (IIIA2-firB). However, since the vesselwith Hor-Aha'snameon it doesnot occurin the tombregister(Kaiser& Dreyer 1982:267e),an errorby Peeiemight not be excluded. 'protodynastic'50g arefour cylindricaljars, belongingto thetype 62.Dunha6 1978:1.Amongthe gravegoods (NaqadamCl). 1L873-7. 11.760-8, 1905:cG 11.665-8, 63.deMorgan1897:frg. 562-73;Quibell 1. 1978: Dunham 64. 65. Over ?00 cylindricalvesselsare mentionedfor this tomb, which shouldbelongto type F 2 @mery 1949: 152).Howev"t, th" typ" wasstill ill-defrnedat the momentof the excavation,anda comparisonwith the publishedobjects(Emery 1937:pl. l6;7-aki & Iskander1942:ftg.52-3) showsthatthey belongin reality to typeF 'protodynastic'50 d, 50 0, whichis typicalfor NaqadaItrCl. 11(Klasens1958b:fig. 13)(= petrie 1982:227-8,Dreyer1990:647.The very limited evidence Dreyer & pl. Kaiser )OO{D(-){Ln; 1900: 66. us to choosebetweenNaqadaIIIB and ltrCl. allow not tomb, does of the disnubance andthe extensive nameis not writtenin ink on ajar or impressed king's where the tomb pl. is the only )(LIII. This 67.Petrie,1914: jar. This preciousobjectmight well have cylindrical calcite on a seal,but it occun, very carefullywritten,on a of a tomb' The NaqadaItrC2 date equipment part of the beenusedfor a considerabletime beforebecoming might thereforenot applyto the vesselwith Namter'sname. 'archaic'tYpeE 6SlOnty the vesselwith theinscriptionis publishedflilildung 1981:Abb. 33). It belongsto the 'group 3c', which matcheswith NaqadaItrCl/ 22 (NaqadaItrC1) andis placedby Kroeper(1988:fig. 141)in c2. 69. Petrie,Wainwright& Gardiner1913:pl. DC. 70. Petrie,Wainwright& Gardiner1913:pl. L)OV. 71. Petrie 1914:pl. )OOOIIU. 72.Petie, Wainwright& Gardiner1913:pl. L)fl. 73.JunkerI9I2:74. 74. Petrie,Wainwright& Gardiner1913:pl. L)O. 75.For boththetombsHelwan 1627and1651,only the vesselwith theinscriptionis known (Saad1947:pl. 60)' 'archaic'type E22J22a(NaqadaIIIB-IIICI). They belongto the 68 -6. Karser& Dreyeri982: 229-30.tf. 58. -7. Petne1913:pi. )il-. The inscnptionsliom rhisancithe tbilowrnggravewere onginallvreacias Scorpton iKaplony1963:1090;Kaiser& Dreyer1982 ?66-i), but arenow attnbutedto HorusCrocodile.a king from is somehow LowerEgyptwho may havebeena rival to theAbydoskrngs(Dreyer1992b).This interpretation 'HorusCrocodile'in tomb 414 at Tarkhanwhich also presence the by of a seai impression of corroborated severalinscnptions of Narmer.ForTarkhan1549,six objectsarein thetombregister(Petrie1914:pl. conrained jars ('protodynastic' for NaqadaIIICI besides them two cylindricai rype50 d, 50 e) characteristic among )C-), jar for NaqadaIIIB. 49 l, characteristic to type on which the ink whrch belongs inscnption occurs, thecyiindncal a funerary jars only became the object that with inscnptions impossible are exceptional is not objects,it Since date of thisjar The earlier IIIB or ItrCl. Naqada stage, The inscnpuon may thereforedateto either gift at a later (1992b:260). (1964: by Dreyer confirmed by Kaiser 104,note2) andis also wasalreadysuggested 78.For Tarkhan315,tiree cylindncaljars arementionedin the tomb register(Petne,Wainwright& Gardiner 'prorodynasric' types46b,46 f and46 k, whichdatethegraveto NaqadaIIIA2. l9l3: pl. LX), belongingto the Theink inscriptionis published(id. pl. X)Ofl,66) withoutdrawingof the vaseor referenceto a fype.However, accordingto Dreyer 1992b:260),the type is 49 l. This type, whrch is charactensticfor NaqadaIIIB, diffen considerablyfrom 46 b etc.andcanthereforehardlybe oneof the vasesmentionedby Petne.Unforrunately,it is possiblethata mistakewasmadein theexcavationreportandthattheink inscnptioncannotbeconnectedwith Tarkhan315. 'archaic'typeE22(NaqadaItrCl), with theinscripuon,is published.(Wildung1981:Abb.33). 79.Only thejar, Dreyer1987:42 mentionsfor thistombcylindncaljars whicharerypicalfor NaqadaIIICl. Kroeper1988:hg. 'group3b' which matcheswith NaqadaIIIB. The possibiiitythat the inscripuonalso 95 placesthe objectin by vandenBrink (thisvoiume). belongsto thenewlyidenufiedHorusCrocodileis suggested 80.Petrie1900:pl. X)O(D(-)(LItr; Kaiser& Dreyer1982:230-1,tf. 58. SeeaisoMlkinson 1993b. 81.Junkerl9l2:64; Petrie,Wainwright& Gardiner1913:pl. LXI. 82.Junker1912:65;Petrie,Wainwright& Gardinerl9l3: pl. DilI. 83.JunkerI9l2:63; Petrie,Wainwright& Gardiner1913:pl. DCI. 84.Petrie1914:pl. XL. 8 5 .D r e y e 1r 9 9 3 : 3 1 , 4 8 . 86.Dreyer1990:57-8. 87.Dreyer 1992u 1993:34-5,4O-9. 88.As alreadystatedby Mortensen1991:15,Petriedid not seemto realisethisproblem. 89.Anotherregionmight bedistinguishedfor Hierakonpolis- Elkab.However,this wasof no usein the present contextsincethe Elkab cemeteryrepresentsonly NaqadaIII and at Hierakonpolisare hardly any tombspubcf. deMorgan1912: lishedfor NaqadaI, althoughtheywerecenainlypresentin thisregion(e.g.atel-Mamariya, 3G8;Needler1984:9G 103). 90.This groupincludesall cemeteriesof Matmar,el Mustagidda,el Badari,HammamiyaandQaw el Kebir. 91.This groupincludesall cemetenes Abydos,ei Amrah,el AharwaandMesaid.At the of el Mahasna, Salmany, time whenthis wasworkedout, the informationon cemetery7000at Naqaed Der wasnot at our disposal.Had thisbeenso,anothergroupcouldhavebeendistinguished, consistingof theNaqaed Der cemeteryin combination with the few gravesknown for el-AhaiwaandMesard,which areincludedin theAbydosgroup,but which arenumericallyof mrnorimponance. 92.This groupincludesall cemeteries of NaqadaandDer el Bailas. 93.This groupconsistsonly of the cemeteries atArmant. (e.g.R 1.R 3) wasleft 94.In reality361typesoccurfive or moretimes,buta numberof uncharacterisuc shapes aside. 95.Termssuchas 'Amrauan'or 'Gerzean'areto beomrnedbecause differentcultures. theyincorrectlysuggest 69 References Adams,B . 1974a.Ancient H i erakonpolis. Warminster. Warminster. Adams,B . I97 4b.AncientH ierakonpolis Supplemenr. 'Artifacts(fromLocalify6)', in: Hoffman,M.A. (ed.)1982a:56-58. Adams,B. 1982. London. at Hierakonpoiis. Adams,B. 1987.TheFort Cemetery 'Two andKoptos',in: Friedman& More Lionsfrom UpperEgypt:Hierakonpolis Adams,8.1992. Adams(eds)1992:69-76. 'Hierakonpohs1992',tn:Bulletin de Liasondu GroupeInternationald'Etude de Adams,B. 1993a. la C1ramiqueEgyptienne,XVII: 35-6. 'PotmarkForgery:A Serekhof Semerkhetfrom Abydos', 'tn:Discussionsin Adams,B. 1993b. Egyptology,25:I-12. Adams,B. 1995.AncientNekften.New Malden. 'Importsand Influencesin the PredynasticandProtodynastic Adams,B. & Friedman,R. 1992. at Hierakonpolis',in: van den Brink, E.C.M. (ed.) SettlementandFuneraryAssemblages 1992a:317-338. Adams,W.Y. 1977.Nubia, Corridor to Africa, London. H.1974.'Djebaut',n: IA 1: 1098-1099. Altenmiiller, Paris. Am6lineau,E. 1899a.Lesnouvelles fouillesd'AbydosI. (1895-1896). tornbeau d'Osiris.Pans. E. 1899b. Le Am6lineau, Am6lineau,E. 1902.Ies nouvellesfouilles d' Abydos tr. ( 1896-I 897).Paris. Paris. d'AbydosItr. (1897-1898). Am6lineau,E. 1904.Lesnouvellesfouilles 'Two CanaaniteVesselsExcavatedin Egypt with EgyptianSignatures' , in: IEJ R. 1968. Amiran, 18,no 4:241-243. Amiran, R. 1969.AncientPotteryof theHoIy Landfrom itsBeginningsin theNeolithicPeriod to the End of thelronAge. Jerusalem 'An EgyptianFirst DynastyJar', rn: TheIsrael MuseumNeltls8: 89ff. Amiran, R. 1970. Amiran, R. 1974.'An EgyptianJarFragmentwith the Nameof Narmerfrom Arad', n: IEJ 24: 412. Amiran, R. 1976.'The NarmerJarFragmentfrom Arad: anAddendum', tn IEJ 26:M'46. aspectsof the chemisty of Acacia gtm exudates',in: Anderson,D.M.W. 1978.'Chemotaxonomic Bulletin 32: 529-536. Kew Arnold, D. 1974.Der TempeldesKdnigsMentuhotepvonDeir el-Bah"ari.Mainz. n: LA 4: 932-933. Arnold,D. 1982a.'Per-nu', 'Per-wer in: fA +: gZ+-gZS. D. 1982b. II', Arnold, Arnold, D. 1991.Building in Egypt,PharaonicStoneMasonry.New York . H. 1961.Chaosen beheersing;Documentenuit aeneolitischEgypte.Leiden. Asselberghs, Cemetery at El-Mahasna.London' Ayrton,E.R. & Loat,W.L.S.1911.ThePre-dynastic Baer,K. 1960.Rankand Title in the Old Kingdom,Chicago. (1984)',in: atBzbetel-Tell,Kufur Nigm; the First Season Bakr,M. I. 1988.'TheNew Excavations ' van denBrink (ed.) 1988a:49-62. desAlten Reiches',in: MDAIK 5: 45-94. Balcz,H. 1934.'Die Gef?issdarstellungen 'Zum NamendesKonigsAches',n: MDAIK29: 14. altiigyptischen Barta,W.1973. Baumgartel,E.J. 1955.TheCulturesof PrehistoricEgyptI. (2nd.rev. ed.).London. Baumgartel,E.J. 1970a.'PredynasticEgypt' (2ndrev. edn)in: TheCambridgeAncientHistory, vol. I, chap.IXa. London. 159 London. Baumgartel,E.J. 1970b.Petrie'sNaqadaExcavation:A Supplemerlt. 'Two Periodat Azor',in QedemI: 1-53. Burial Cavesof theProto-Urban Ben-Tor,A. 1975. 'The of Canaanduring theThird Millenthe Land and Egypt between Relations Ben-Tor,A. 1982. nium BC', in: IEJ 33 3-I7. Bietak,M. 1975.Tell el-Dab'a II, Der Fundortim Rahmeneiner archtiologisch'geographischen IJntersuchungiiber dasrigyptischeOstdelta.Vienna. Bietak,M. Lg|g.'EgyptologyandtheUrbanSetting',in: Weeks,K. (ed.)Egyptologyand the 95-144.Cairo. SocialSciences; 'Das im Alten Agypten',in 150JahreDAI, KolloquiumBerlin Stadtproblem Bierak,M. 1981. 1979:68-78.Mainz. 'La naissance de la notionde ville dansl'EgypteAncienne- un actepolitique?', Bietak,M. 1986. n: CRIPELS:29-35. 'MiddleNubianSites...', tn: Bi.Or.50:385-91. Bietak,M. 1993.Reviewof T. S2ive-Soderbergh, Bissonde la Roque,F.1937.T6d(1934d 1936)"Cairo. Black, J. (ed.) 1987. RecentAdvancesin the ConservationandAnalysisof Anifacts, (Jubilee ConservationConference,(Jniversityof London,Instiruteof Archaeology,July 6-10, 1987): 253-256.Whitstable. 'Einige friihzeitlichel4C-DatierungenausAbydos Boehmer,R.M., Dreyer,G. & Kromer,B. 1993. und Uruk', in: MDAIK49,63-68. Boessneck,J. & von denDriesch,A. 1982.Studienan subfossilenTierknochenausAgypten' Munich. der 1. Dynastiein J., von denDriesch,A. & Eissa,A. 1992.'EineEselsbestattung Boessneck, Abusir', in MDAIK 48: 1-10. Bonnet,H. 1928.Ein frtihgeschichtlichesGrtiberfeldbei Abusir.Leipzig. B orchardt,L. 1907. D as Grabdenlcrnaldes Ki)nigs Ne-user-rec' Leipzig. Bothmer,8.V.1974. 'The KarnakStatueof Ny-user-ra',rn:MDAIK 30: 165-70. linguistiqueset Bouriant,U. 1885. 'Les tombeauxd'Hierakonpolis',n Etudearch4ologiques, Leiden. historiquesdddi1ed M. de Dr C. Leemans:37-40. VaIIeybeforetheArab Conquest. Nile the Pottery Bourriau,B. 1981.Ummel-Ga'ab. from Cambridge. 'New Evidencefor EgyptianConnecBraun,E., van den Brink, E.C.M., Gophna,R. & Goren,Y. tionsduring the Late Early BronzeAge I, from the Soreq-Basinin South-CentralIsrael', in: Wolff, S. (ed.)DouglasEsseMemorial Volume(in preparation). Brewer,D. 1987.'AReport on theAquaticFaunafrom HK-291f, in: Hoffman,M.A' (ed.)1987: 4547. SouthCarolina. Brewer,D. & Friedman,R. 1989.Fishand Fishingin AncientEgypt.Warminster. Brovarski,E.J. 1982.'Naga(Nag')-ed-D6r',in: tA q: Zg6-217.Wiesbaden. Brovarski,E.J. L973.'An UnpublishedSteleof theFirst IntermediatePeriod', in: JNES32 453-65" Brunner,H. 1952-3.'El Qatta',in:AfO 16: 160-1. Brunton,G. 1927.QauandBadari,I. London Brunton,G. 1937. Mostageddaand the TasianCulture'London. Brunton.G. 1948.Matmar.London. Brunton,G. & Caton-Thompson , G. L928.TheBadarianCivilizationand the PredynasticRem-ains near Badari. London. Burleigh,R. 1983.'Two RadiocarbonDatesfor FreshwaterShellsfrom Hierakonpolis:Archaeoiogical and GeologicalInterpretations',rn:Joumal of ArchaeologicalSciencel0 361-67. Tombat Hierakonpolis',n: JEA Case,H. & Payne,J.-Crowfoot.1962.'Tomb100:theDecorated 4 8 :9 - 1 8 . G. & Garner,E. W. 1934.TheDesenFayum.Plates.London Caton-Thompson, Cledat.M.J. 1914.'Les vasesde el-Beda',in: ASAE13: Il5-I21. 160 Cleyet-Merle,J.-J.& Vallet,F. 1982.Egypte.in: Beck,F.,Cleyet-Merle,J.-J.et alii. Archdologie de Saint-Germainen lnye,l: comparde.Cataloguesommairedescollectionsdu mus,4e 68-165.Paris. fundraireet pal6obiologie',rn:Arch4o-Nilno2Crubezy,E. (ed.) 1992.'Pal€o-ethnologie A.M. (ed'),[-a de Gebeleyn',in: Donadoni-Roveri, d'Amicone,E. 1988.'Le sitearch6ologique civilisationdes 6gyptiens.lz s croyances religieuses:38-43.Turin. i NezletBatran',in: ASAE6:99-106. G. 1905.'Un 6dificearchaique Daressy, 'Le de P6piIer trouvei Dendara',in: BIFAO52:163-72. tr6ned'unestatuette Daumas,F. 1953. 'Derechef P6piIer d Dendera',rn RdE 25 7-20. Daumas,F. 1973. Tombsof Deir el GebrawiI. London. Rock The 1902. N. de G. Davies, 'Ancient EgyptianTimberImports:anAnalysisof WoodenCoffinsin the Davies,W.V. 1995. BritishMuseum',in: Davies& Schofield(eds)1995:146-156in the Davies,W.V. & Schofield,L. (eds)1995.Egypt,theAegeanand the Levant,Interconnections SecondMillennium BC. de Paris: L28-140, deMorgan,H. 1909.'L Egypteprimitive',Revuede l'Ecoled'Anthropologie 263-28t. de Morgan,H. 1912.'Reporton Excavationsmadein UpperEgypt during theWinter 1907-1908' n: ASAE12 (1912):25-50. sur les originesde l'EgypteII. Ethnographieprdhistoriqueet de Morgan,J. 1897.Recherches tombeauroyaldeNegadah.Patis. et Inscriptionsde I'Egypteantique,I.l. deMorgan,J. et al. 1894.CataloguedesMonuments Vienna. Debono,F. 1951.'Expeditionarchdologiqueroyaleau d6sertoriental(Keft Kosseir):Rapport pr6liminairesurla campagne1949', in: ASAE51: 59-110' dansla r€giond'Esna(4 Mars-2Avril 1968)',in: pr6historiques Debono,F. 1971.'Recherches BIFAO 69,245-261. MDAIK3T:1234. ausElephantine,in: Kiinigsfigtirchen Dreyer,G. 1981.Ein frtihdynastisches und desAlten Frtihzeit der Funde Die Tempel der Satet, 8: Der Dreyer,G. 1986.Elephnntine Reiches.Mainz. ausElephantine', mit Jahresnamen Gefii8aufschriften Dreyer,G. 1987.'Drei archaisch-hieratische Wiesbaden. (eds) G. Fecht:98-109. Form und MaP, Fs. in: Dreyer,G. & Osing,J. im friihzeitlichenKcinigsfriedhof.3./4. Dreyer,G. 1990.'Umm el-Qaab:Nachuntersuchungen Vorbericht',n: MDAIK 46 (1990):53-90. Dreyer,G. 1991.'Zur Rekonstru}lionder Oberautender Kdnigsgriiberder 1. Dynastiein Abydos', n: MDNK 46:93-10/. Dreyer,G. L992a.'RecentDiscoveriesin the U-Cemeteryat Abydos', in: van denBrink (ed.) 7992a:293-300. Dreyer,G. 1992b.'HorusKrokodil, ein Gegenkdnigder Dynastie0', in: Friedman& Adams(eds) 1992:259-63. im fr{ihzeitlichenKonigsfriedhof.5./6. Dreyer,G. 1993.'IJmm el-Qaab.Nachuntersuchungen Vorbericht'.in: MDAIK 49: 23-62. 'Zn denkleinenStufenpyramiden Ober-und Mitteliigyptens',in: Dreyer,G. & Kaiser,W. 1980. MDAIK36:43-59. 'Die kleine Stufenpyramide von Abydos-Siid(Sinki),GrabungsDreyer,G. & Swelim,N. 1982. bericht',n: MDAIK 38: 83-93. 'L'anthropologie'de terrain': Duday,H., Courtaud,P.,Crubezy,E.,Sellier,P.& Tillier, A.M. 1990. et interpr€tationdesgestesfun6raires',in: BuII. et Mdm.de la Soci4td reconnaissance de Park, n.s.,t.2, n"34'.29-50.1 d'Anthropologie 'The BiographicalInscriptionsof Nekhebuin BostonandCairo',n: JEA24: Dunham,D. 1938. 1-8. Adjacentto the Layer Pyramid.Boston. Dunham,D. 1978.fuwiyet el-Aryan.TheCemeteries 161 Ehrich,R.W. (ed.) 1954.Chronologiesin Old WorldArchaeology.Chicago. 'Une n6cropolein6dited'6poquearchaiqued6couvert€e, prbsde H6louan,au el-Banna,A. 1990. II7-8:7-54. in: GM du Caire', Sud 'ThePredynastic region',in: Hoffman,M.A. (ed.) Floraof theHierakonpolis el-Hadidi,M.N. 1982. 1982a:102-115. 'A el-HaggRagab,A.M. 1992. Reporton theExcavationsof the EgyptianAntiquitiesOrganization 'Amir (E.A.O.)at Beni andel-Masha'lain theEasternNile Delta',in: vandenBrink (ed.) I992a:207-13. 'The Excavationsof the EgyptianAntiquitiesOrganizationat EzbetHassan el-Hangary,S.M. 1992. Dawud (WadiTumilat),Season1990',in: van den Brink (ed.) 1992a:215-6el-Khouly,A. 1968.'A PreliminaryReporton the Excavationsat Tura, 1963-64', in: ASAE60.1: 73-6. and Catalogueof Finds. 1967-1971 at TellBasta,Reportof Seasons el-Sawi,A.1979. Excavations Prague. el-Sayed, A. 1977.'A PrehistoricCemeteryin theAbydosArea', in: MDAIK 35:249-301. Elias,J. 1986.Observationson theExcavationsat Hierakonpolis Locality29A. Unpublishedfield report. Emery,W.B. 1938.Excavationsat Saqqara:TheTombof Hernaka.Cairo. at Saqqara(1937-38).Hor-Aha.Cairo. Emery W.B. 1939.Excavations Emery W.B. 1949.GreatTombsof the FirstDynasty,I.Cairo. Emery,W.B. 1954.GreatTbmbsof the FirstDyrnsty,II. London. Emery W.B. 1958.GreatTbmbsof the FirstDynasty,III.London. R. & Gunn,8.1923.Harageh.London. Engelbach, Epstein,C. 1993.'Oil Productionin the GolanHeightsduring the ChalcolithicPeriod', in: TeIAviv 2O(2): 133-146. Trade,and SocialChangein Early BronzeAge Palestine,Chicago. Esse,D.L. 199I. Subsistence, Fairservis,W.A. 1986.Excavationof theArchaicRemainsEast of theNichedGate,Seasonof 1981. N.Y. (TheHierakonpolisProjectOccasionalPapersin AnthropologyIII). Poughkeepsie, 'A n: JARCE 28,l-20. W.A. 1991. RevisedView of theNa'rmr Palette', Fairservis, Fakhry,A. 1961.TheMonumentsof Sneferuat DahshurII, The ValleyTemple,pt. l, TheTemple Reliefs.Cairo. Fischer,H.G. 1958.reviewof Habachi1957(b),in: AJA 62: 330-3. Fischer,H.G.1962.'The Cult andNomeof the GoddessBat', in: JARCEl:7-23. 'A Fischer,H.G. 1963. First DynastyWine Jarfrom the EasternDelta', in: JARCE2: 4447 . Fischer,H.G. 1964.Inscriptionsfrom the CoptiteNomeDyrnsties VI-XI.Rome. Fischer.H.G. 1968.Denderain the Third Millennium8.C., Down to the ThebanDomination.New York. 'AnotherPithemorphic Vesselof the SixthDynasty',in: JARCE30: 1-9. Fischer,H.G. 1993. 'The HarvardUniversityMuseumof Fine Arts EgyptianExpedition.Work of Fisher,C.S. 1913. l9l2 at GizehandMesheikh',in:BMFA11,no. 62: 19-22. 'The Cemeteriesof Abydos:Work of the SeasonL925-1926,II.Tombs',n: JEA Frankfort,H. 1930. 16:213-9. Freed,R.E. 1974.'Cemeteryat Naqael-Hai(Qena)',in: NARCE9l:28. Friedman,R. 1987.'Descriptionand QualitativeAnalysisof the HK-29A CeramicAssemblage',in Hoffman,M.A. (ed.)1987:68-185. Friedman,R. 1990.'Hierakonpolis,Locality 29A', in: Bulletin de Liason,KV: 18-25. Friedman,R. 1981.SpatialDistribution in a PredynasticCemetery:Naga ed DAr 7000.Berkeley. (unpubl.M.A. thesis). Friedman,R. 1994.PredynasticSeftIementCeramicsof UpperEgypt:A ComparativeStudyof the Ceramicsof Hemamieh,Naqadaand Hierakonpolis.Ph.D.dissertation.Berkeley. Friedman,R. & Adams,B. 1992.(eds)TheFollowersof Horus: StudiesDedicatedto MichnelAllen H ofirnn I 944-I 990. Oxford. r62 Galassi,G. 1955.L'arte del piil anticoEgitto nel Museodi Tbrino.Rome. in: JEA30:23-116. theBehdetite', A.H. 1944.'Horus Gardiner. 3rd ednOxford. Gardiner,A.H. 1957.EgyptianGrammar Gardiner,A.H. 1969.Middle EgyptianGrammar.Reprintof the 3rd edition.London-Oxford. /. Oxford. Gardiner,A.H.1947.AncientEgyptianOnomnstica Garstang,J. 1903.Mahdsnaand B€t KhaUAf.London. at Esnaandin Nubia',in: ASAE8: 132-148. at Hierakonpolis, I. 1907.'Excavations Garstang, 'Zeder',in: Zl 6: 1357-8. R. 1986. Germer, Hildesheim. ausdemGrab desTutanchamun, Germer,R. 1989.Die Pflanzenmaterialien 'Memphis, 1990',n JEA77,I-6. D.G. 1991. Giddy,L.L. & Jeffreys, 'ThePharaohNy-Swth' tn ZAS81: 18-24. H. 1956. Goedicke, , Goedicke,H. 1967. KdniglicheDokumenteausdemAhenReich.Wiesbaden. 'Cult-Templeand"state" duringtheOld Kingdomin Egypt', in: Lipinski,E. Goedicke,H.1979. (ed.)Stateand TempleEconomyin theAncientNearEast:Il3-32. Goelet,O. Jr. 1982.Twoaspectsof the RoyalPalacein theEgyptianOId Kingdom. Diss. Columbia Universiry. Gomai, F., Miiller-Wollermann,R. & Schenkel,W. 1961.MinekigyptenzwischenSamalutund dern Zeit. Wiesbaden. GabalAbu-SiaBeitrtigezur historischenTopographieder pharaonischen 'A Gophna,R. 1970. ProtodynasticEgyptianJarfrom Rafiatr', in'.MuseumHaaretzTelAviv Bulletin,no. 12, 53-54. 'EgyptianTradingPostsin SouthernCanaanat theDawn of theArchaic Period', Gophna,R. 1987. in: Rainey,A.F. (ed.),Egypt,Israel,Sinai:13-21.TelAviv. Habachi,L. 1957a.'A Groupof UnpublishedOld andMiddle KingdomGraffiti on Elephantine', in: Fs.H. Junkern:WZKM 54:55-71. Habachi.L. 1957b.TelIBasta,SASAE22. Curo. 'A Settingof Locality HKHamroush,H.A. 1987. PreliminaryReporton the Geoarchaeological in: Hoffman,M.A. (ed.)1987:22-3t. ZgAinthe Low DesertRegionat Hierakonpolis', JARCE6: 16. Rub'a', in: at Tell el Hansen,D.P. 1967.'TheExcavations Harlan,J.F. 1985.PredynasticSettlementPatterns:A Vewfrom Hierakonpolis.Ph.D. dissertation, WashingtonUniversity,St. Louis, Missouri. Harlan,l -F.1992.'WadiandDesertSettlementat PredynasticHierakonpolis',in Friedman,R. & Adams,B. (eds)1992:14-18. 'Radiocarbon Chronologyof ArchaicEgypt',in: JNES39:203-7. Hassan,F.A. 1980. 'The Beginningsof Civilisationat Hierakonpolis'(reviewof ThePredynastic Hassan,F.A. 1984a. of Hierakonpolis),in: QuarterlyReviewof Archaeology:t3-L5. 'RadiocarbonChronologyof PredynasticNaqadaSettlements, Egypt', in: Hassan,F.A. 1984b. 25: 681-3. CurrentAnthropology 'RadiocarbonChronologyof Neolithic andPredynasticSitesin UpperEgypt Hassan,F.A. 1985. andthe Delta', rn TheAfricanArchaeologicalReview3: 95-116. 'ThePredynastic of Egypt',in: Joumalof WorldPrehistory2:135-86. Hassan,F.A. 1988. 'High-PrecisionRadiocarbonChronometryof AncientEgypt Hassan,F.A. & Robinson,S.W. 1987. and Comparisonswith Nubia PalestineandMesopotamia',in: Antiquity6t: ll9-35. Hawass,Z. 1980.'ArchaicGraves,RecentlyFoundat North Abu Roash', in: MDAIK 36:229-44. Hayes,W.C. 1953.Scepterof EgyptI. New York. Agyptenszu vorderasienim 3. und2. Jahnausendv. Chr Helck,W. 1962.Die Beziehungen Wiesbaden. . Helck,W. L974.Die alttigyptischenGaue.Wiesbaden. Helck,W. 1990.ThinitischeTdpfmarkenWiesbaden. 'The LatePredynasticcemeteryat Elkab (UpperEgypt)', in l(rzyzaniak,L. Hendrickx,S. 1984. and Kobusiewicz,M. (eds)Origin and Early Developmentof Food ProducingCulturesin Poznan. Africa:225-230.PolishAcademyof Sciences, Northeastern 163 'Predynastische objectenuit NaqadaandDiospolisParva(BovenEgypte)', in: Hendrickx,S. 1986. BMMH 57,2:31-M. Hendrickx,S. 1989.De grafveldender Naqada-cubuurin Zuid-Egypte,metbijzondereaandacht voor het NaqadaIII grafveldte Ellcab.Internechronologieen socialedffirentiatie. Leuven, (unpubl.Ph.D.thesis). Brussels' Hendrickx,S. 1994.EIlabY.The NaqadaIII Cemetery. and the Early DynasticPeriod of . Prehistory Hendrickx,S. 1995.AnalyticalBibliographyof the Egyptan^dNorthernsudan.EgyptianPrehistoryMonograph.s1. Leuven. 'PreliminaryReporton the PredynasticLiving Site Hendrickx,S. & Midant-Reynes,B. 1988. Maghara2 (UpperEgypt)', rn OrientaliaInvaniensiaPeriodica 19 5-16. J. 1967. TheForeignRelationsof Palestineduring theEarly BronzeAge. LondonHennessey, 'spectrographicAnalysisof the ForeignPotteryfrom the J.B. and Millett, A. 1963. Hennessey, RoyalTombsof AbydosandEarly BronzeAge Potteryof Palestine', in Archaeometry6, 1017. 'A Housefrom HierakonpolisandIts Significancefor Hoffman,M.A. 1980. RectangularAmratian PredynasticResearch',in: ,[NES39: Il9-137. Hoffman,tr,I.A.(ed.) 1982a.ThePredynasticof Hierakonpolis,an Interim Report,EgyptianStudies Association1, Cairo. 'settlementPatterns Systems',in: HoffmanM.A. (ed-) andSettlement Hoffman,M.A. 1982b. 1982a:122-138. 'Excavations at Locality 29', in: HoffmanM.A. (ed.)1982a:7-13. Hoffman,M.A. 1982c. 'Where NationsBegan',in: Science83,no'4:42-5I' Hoffman,M.A. 1983. theEAO on PredynasticResearchat Hierakonpolisin 1985. Repon rc Hoffman,M.A. 1985. Unpublishedreport. Hoffman,V1.A.(ed.) 1987.A Final Repontu theNationalEndowmentfortheHumanitieson PredynasticResearchat Hierakonpolis,1985-86.Columbia,SouthCarolina. 'An Introductionto the PredynasticPeriodin Egypt', in Tbrra(Nanrral Hoffman,M.A. 1989 HistoryMuseumof Los AngelesCounty)27 (5-6):34-43. 'AModel of UrbanDevelopmentfor the Hoffman,M., Hamroush,H.A. & Allen, R.O. 1986. HierakonpolisRegionfrom PredynasticthroughOld KingdomTimes', n: JARCE23: 17587. 'APreliminary Reporton the Floral Remainsfrom HK-29A Hoffman,M.A. andH. Barakat.1987. in: Hoffman,M.A.(ed.) 1987:404I. ausElephantinein Oberrigypten(8. bis 16. Hollmann,A. 1990.Stiugetierknochenfunde aI ne, 19 78-I 987), Diss.Munich. Grabung sl<amp 'APreliminary from HK-29A, in: Reporton theChippedStoneAssemblage Holmes,D.L. 1987. Hoffman,M.A. (ed.)I98l: L96-212. Holmes,D.L. 1989.ThePredynasticLithic Industriesof UpperEgypt.A ComparativeSndy of the Lithic Traditions of Badai, Naqadaand Hierakonpolis. Oxford. 'ChippedStone-workingCraftsmen,Hierakonpolisand the Rise of CivilizaHolmes,D.L. t992a. tion in Egypt', in: Friedman&Adams (eds)1992:37'44. 'The EvidenceandNatureof ContactsbetweenUpperandLower Egypt Holmes,D.L. 1992b. AView from UpperEgypt',in: VandenBrink (ed.)1992a:301-16. duringthe Predynastic: Gumsand Resins,ChronicaBotanicaCo.,Waltham,MA. Howes,F.N. 1949.Vegetable H. 1962.Izs nomsdesdomainesfundrairessousI'ancienempire|gyptien. Cairo. Jacquet-Gordon, 'Les TemplesPrimitifs et La Persistance desTypesArchaiquesdansI'Architecture J6quier,G. 1906. Religieuse',in: BIFAO6:244I. J6quier,G. 1940.I* monument funiraire de Pepi II, tomeIII, les approchesdu temple.Cairo. in Junker,H. 1912.Bericht liber die Grabungender KaiserlichenAkademiederWissenschaften Vienna. Wien,auf demFriedhofinTurah,Winter1909'1910. in Wien,auf der Wssenschaften Akadamie von der tiber Grabungen Bericht die 1919. H. Junker, Vienna. I 9 I I . I 9I 0 denF riedhdfenvon El-Kubanieh-Sud, r64 Junker,H. 1920.Bericht iiber die Grabungen... auf den Friedhdfenvon el-KubaniehNord. Vienna. 'VorlliufigerBerichtiiber die zweiteGrabungderAkademieder Wissenschaften Junker,H. 1930. vom 7 Februarbis 8 SiedlungMerimdeBeni-SalAme in Wien auf der vorgeschichtlichen (Wien), 14 Mai i930. in der Sitzungderphil.-hist,Klasse April 1930', Vorgelegt 'An Inscriptionfrom an Early EgyptianFortress',in: JNES29:99-102. Kadish,G.E. 1970. 'Zt denSonnenheiligtiimern der 5. Dyn.', rn:MDAIK 14: 104-16. Kaiser,W. 1956a. 'Stand n:ZAS 81: 87und ProblemederAgyptischeVorgeschichtsforschung', Kaiser,W. i956b. 109. 'Zur lnnerenChronologieder Naqadakultur',in ArchaeologicaGeographica6l: Kaiser,W. 1957. 67-77. 'Bericht tiber einearchiiologische-geologische in Ober-und Felduntersuchung Kaiser,W. 1961. Mitteliigypten',in: MDAIK L7: L-53. 'Einige Bemerkungenzur AgyptischenFriihzeitIII', in: ZAS 9t:86-125. Kaiser,W. 1964. 'Zur Reiheder gesamtiigyptischen Konigevor Aha', in: Kaiser& Dreyer 1982: Kaiser,W. 1982. 260-269. 'Zum Friedhofder Naqada-kulturvon MinshatAbu Omar' in: A^SAE 7I: 119-26. Kaiser,w' 1987. 'Zur 46:287-299n: MDAIK Staates', Entstehungdesgesamtagyptisches Kaiser,W. 1990. im fnihzeitlichen Kaiser,W. & Dreyer,G. 1982.'IJmmel-Qaab.Nachuntersuchungen -7 0. : 2lI AIK 38 MD Vorbericht', in: Kdnigsfriedhof.2. 'Umm el-Qaab.Nachuntersuchungen im friihzeitlichen Kaiser,W. & Grossman,P. 1979. Kdnigsfriedhof.1. Vorbericht',in MDAIK 35: 155-64. Kaiser,W. et al. I}TO (&following yearsasbelow).StadtundTempelvon Elephantine,l.-22. (1971):181-201, MDAIK28, MDAIK26,(1970):87-L39,MDAIK27, Grabungsbericht,in MDAIK 31, (1975):39-84,MDAIK 32, (1976): (1973):157-2OO, MDAIK 3O,(1974):65-90, MDAIK36,(1980):245-gI,MDAIK38,(1982):27167-Il2,MDAIK33,(1977):63-100, MDAIK 43,(1987):75-114,MDAIK 44,(1988):135-82, 345,MDAIK40, (1984):169-205, MDAIK 49,(1993):133-87,MDAIK 51, (1995):99-187. MDAIK 46,(1990):185-249, 'The , in: JNES3: Final Phaseof PredynasticCulture,Gerzeanor Semainean' Kantor,H.L tgA. 110-36. 'The RelativeChronologyof Egypt andIts ForeignCorrelationsbeforethe Late Kantor,H.J. 1965. in OIdWorldArchaeology:1-46.Chicago. BronzeAge', in: Ehrich,K. (ed.)Chronologies 'Gottespalast Frtihzeit', in: ZAS gg: in der ?igyptischen und Gdttersfestungen Kaplony,P. P6t. 5-16. Kaplony,P. 1963.Die Inschriftender AgyptischenFriihzeit I-I[. Weisbaden. von K6nig SkorpionausAbu Umuris', tn: Orientalia 34: Kaplony,P. 1965.'Eine Schminkpalette 132-67. ausElephantinein Obertigypten(Grabungsjahre1976bis Katzmann,L. 1990.Tierknochenfunde 1986/87),Vdgel,Reptilien,FischeundMollusken'Diss.Munich. irn altenAgypten,BandII. Mainz. Keimer,L. & Germer,R. 1984.Die Gartenpflanzen 'Excavations Fort, 1905:APreliminaryNote', in: JEA 49:24-8. at Hierakonpolis Kemp,B.J. 1963. 'Temple andTown in AncientEgypt', in: Ucko, P.,Tringham,R. & Dimbleby,G. Kemp, B.J. 1972. (eds)Man, Settlementand Urbanism:657-680.London. Kemp, B.J. Ig73.'Photographsof the DecoratedTombat Hierakonpolis', in: JEA 59: 36-43. 'TheEarlyDevelopmentofTownsinEgypt', n:Antiquity5I:185-200. Kemp,B.J.t977. 'AutomaticAnalysisof PredynasticCemeteries: A New Methodfor an Old B.J. 1982. Kemp, Problem',n: JEA 68: 5-15. Kemp, B.J. 1989.AncientEgypt,Anatomyof a Civilization.London. 'A Kendall,D.G. 1963. StatisticalApproachto FlindersPetrie'sSequenceDating', rn: BulI. Int. Statist.Inst. 40:657-80. Klasens,A. 1957.'The Excavationsof the LeidenMuseumof Antiquitiesat Abu-Roash:Reportof 1957.PartI',in OMRO38:58-68. theFirstSeason: 165 'The Excavationsof the LeidenMuseumof Antiquitiesat Abu-Roash:Reportof Klasens,A. 1958a. the First Season:1957.Part II', in: OMRO39:20-31. 'The Excavationsof the LeidenMuseumof Antiquitiesat Abu-Roash:Reportof Klasens,A. 1958b. the SecondSeason1958.Partl' ,in: OMRO39:32-55. 'The Excavationsof the LeidenMuseumof Antiquitiesat Abu-Roash:Reportof Klasens,A. 1959. the SecondSeason1958.PartII', in: OMRO 40:4I-61. 'The Excavationsof the LeidenMuseumof Antiquitiesat Abu-Roash:Reportof ' Klasens,A. 1960. the Third Season1959.PartI',in: OMRO 4I:69-94 'The Excavations of theLeidenMuseumof AntiquitiesatAbu Roash:Reportof Klasens,A. 1961. the Third Season:1959,PartII, CemeteryM', in: OMRO42: lO8-128. Klemm R. & Klemm,D. 1993.Steineund Steinbrilcheim Alten Agypten.Berlin. Kohler,E. Ch. 1992.'T\ePre- andEarly DynasticPotteryof Tell el-Fara'in/Buto',in: van den Brink (ed.)1992a:II-22. . 'The Ceramicsof the PrelEarlyDynasticCemeteryof MinshatAbu Omar', Kroeper,K. 1986187 tn: Bulletinof theEgyptologicalSemirnr8:73 - 94. 'The Excavationsof the Munich East-DeltaExpeditionin MinshatAbu Omar', Kroeper,K. 1988. in: vandenBrink (ed.)1988a:11-46. 'LatestFindingsfrom MinshatAbu Omar', in: Schoske,Sylvia (ed.)Aktendes Kroeper,K. 1989a. Miinchenl985,Band2. Hamburg:217-228, viertenInternationalenAgyptologen-Kongresses Tat.2l-24. 'PalestinianCeramicImportsin Pre- andProtohistoricEgypt', in: De Kroeper,K. 1989b. Miroschedji,P.(ed.)L'urbanisationde Ia Palestined l'6ge du Bronzeancien,Actesdu Colloqued' Emmaiis,20-25 octobreI 9 86,Jerusalem:407-42I. Oxford. 'Tombsof the Elite in MinshatAbuOmar',in: vandenBrink (ed.)1992a:127Kroeper,K.Igg2. 150. Kroeper,K. &Krzyzaniak, L. 1992.'Two Ivory Boxesfrom Early DynasticGravesat MinshatAbu Omar', in: Friedman& Adams(eds)1992:207-214. Vorbericht Kroeper,K. & Wildung,D. 1985.MinshatAbu Omar MtinchnerOstdelta-Expedition. Munich. 1978-1984. Kroeper,K. & Wildung,D. t994. MinshatAbu Omar: Ein vor-friihgeschichtlicheFriedhof im Nildelta,T,grtiber1-114.Mainz. 'Die Pflanzenfundevon Maadi', in Rizkhana,I.andSeeher,J., Maadi III: TheNon' Kroll, H. 1989. Lithic SmaIIFinds and theStructuralRemainsof thePredynasticSettlement,129-36.Mainz. in Agypten',inl.AntikeWelt4,3 (1973):31-4. Kromer,K. L973.'Ausgrabungen 'Recent ArchaeologicalEvidenceon the EarliestSettlementin the Eastern Krzyzaniak,L. 1989. Nile Delta', rn: Krzyzarriak,L. & Kobusiewicz,M. (eds)lnte Prehistoryof the NiIe Basin . Poznan. andthe Sahara:267-85. Krzyzaniak,L.1991.Antiquity 65,Nr 248,Sept.1991,p. 529,fig. L1,3. Krzyzaniak,L. !992.'Again on the EarliestSettlementat MinshatAbu Omar', in: van den Brink (ed.)1992a:151-156. 'The Museum'sExcavations in: BMMA Supplement:37-45. at Hierakonpolis', Lansing,A. 1935. L'architecture. Curo. d degrds. ln Pyramid Lauer,J-P.1936. du roi Zoserd Saqqarah.Cairo. sur les monuments Lauer,J-P.1948.EtudescomplAmentaires 'L'apport du ServicedesAntiquit6sde historiquedesr6centesd6couvertes Lauer,J-P.1954. 1954: 368-79. CMIBL n: memphite', l'ligypte dansla ndcropole Lauer, J-P.t962a.HistoireMonumentaledesPyramidesd'Egypte,I. Cairo. Lauer, J-P.lg62b.'Sur I'dge et l'attribution possiblede I'excavationmonumentalede Zaoui0telAryan', n: RdE 14:21-36. Lauer,J-P.1985.'A proposde I'invention de la pierrede taille par Imhoteppour la demeure d'6ternit6du roi Djoser',in: Fs. G. Mokhtar:6I-7. Cairo. 'Compterendudesfouilles et travauxmen6sen Egyptedurantla campagne1948Leclant,J. 1950. du Delta', in: Orientalia19:494-5. 1950.Lisidreoccidentale t66 Lisidreoccidentaldu Delta(El Qatta)" Leclant,J.1952.,Fouilleset travauxen Egypte,195G.1951. rn: Orientalia2l:247 . 'Fouilleset travauxen Egypte,t95l-1952.El Qatta',in: Orientalia22:98-9. Leclant,J. 1953. 'Fouilleset travauxen ligypte, 1952-1953. El Qatta',tn. Orientalia23:74. Leclant,J. tg54. 'Fouilles Tourah',in: Orientalia3O:lO4. et travauxen Egypte,1957-1960. Leclant,J. 1961. 'Fouilles Hdlouan',rn: Orientalia et travauxen Egypteet au Soudan,1966-7967. Leclant,J. 1968. 37: IO7. 'Fouilleset travauxenEgypteet au Soudan,IgTt-I972.Naqadah',in: Orientalia Leclant,J. 1973a. 42:406. 'Fouilleset travauxen ligypte et au Soudan,l97L-1972.Tourah',in: Orientalia Leclant,J. Ig73b. 42:403. 'Fouilleset travauxen Egypteet au Soudan,1972-1973. Naqada',rn: Orientalia Leclant,J.Ig74. 43 187. 'Fouilleset travauxen ]igypteet au Soudan,1976-1977. Tourah',in].Orientalia Leclant,J. 1978. 47:274. 'Fouilleset travauxen Egypteet au Soudan,1977-1978' Tourah',tn: Orientalia Leclant,J.lg7g. 48:353-4. 'Fouilleset travauxen Egypteet au Soudan,1978-1979. Tourah',in: Orientalia Leclant,J. 1980. 49:368. 'Fouilleset travauxen Egypteet au Soudan,1980-1981. Naqada',tn: Orientalia Leclant,J. 1982. 5I 447. 'Fouilleset travauxen Egypteet au Soudan,1984-1985',in: Leclant,J. & Clerc,G. 1986. Orientalia 55:236-319. 'Fouilleset travauxen Egypteet au Soudan,l99O-l99LAbousir',in: Leclant,J. & Clerc,G.lgg2. Orientalia6L:242. 'Fouilleset travauxen Egypteet au Soudan,.. el Adwa,Edfu', in: Leclant,J. & Clerc,G.lgg4. Orientalia 62: 427. 'New Light on Sequence-Dating', in: PSBA35: 101-13' Legge,G.F.1913. 'Le Legrain,G. 1903. Shatter Rigal(SabahRigaieh)',in: ASAE4: 220-3' 'Seila1981',in:JARCE25:215-35Lesko,L.H. 1988. 'TheOriginsof theJmy-wtFetish',in JARCE27: 6l- 69' Logan,T. 1990. 'Quelques notessurl'arbreach',in ASAEXVI, pp. 33-51' Loret,V. 1916. by J. R. Harris,London. Lucas,A. 1989.AncientEgyptianMaterialsandIndusffies,rev. 'The OtherEgypt.In Searchof the First Pharaohs',in: Lore (MilwaukeePublic Lupton, C. 1981. Musewn)3I,no.3:2-21. 'TombsandFeatures',in: Hoffman,M.A. (ed.)1982a:50-56' Lupton,C. 1982. 'An Offering Standof King Khafra" 'n BMMA 2: 180-1. Ly$goe, A.M. 1907. l-yttrgoe,A.M. & Dunham,D. 1965.ThePredynasticCemeteryN7000.Naqa-ed-Der.Part fV. Berkeley. at Naqa-ed-Der.Pantr.Leipzig. Mace,A.C. 1909.TheEartyDynasticCemeteries de Macramallah,R. 1940.Un cimetiire archatque Ia classernoyennedu peupled Saqqarah.Cairo. 'PreliminaryReporton an Excavationat Nag el HaggTnidan',in: CdE 52:203-6. Malrer,R. 1977. Maragioglio,V. & Rinaldi,C.A. 1963.L'architefturadellepiramidi menfite,tr. Turin. 'Les n{cropoles6gyptiennes et les fouillesde la missionarchdologiqueItalienne', Mano, G. lg2}. in Annalesde I'(Jniversitdde Grenoble33,2:399442. 'r--esplorazione dellanecropolidi Gebelen.Dai lavori dellaMissione Marro, G.1929. ArchaeologicaItalianain Egitto', in: Ani della Societaltaliana per il Progressodelle Scienze,Torino,15-22Settembrc1928:592-636.Pavia. Maspero,G. M. IgI2.'Amefineauet sesfouillesd'Abydos1895-1899',in:Etudesde mythologieet vol. 6: I 53-82.Paris. gie 6gyptiennes, d' arch4olo 'Preliminary Reporton the PredynasticFaunaof the HierakonpolisProject',in: McArdle, J. 1982. Hoffman,M.A. (ed.) 1982a:116-12l. 167 'PreliminaryReporton the MammalianFaunafrom HK-29y't',in: Hoffman, McArdle, I . 1987. M.A. (ed.) 1987:42-44. 'PreliminaryObservations on the MammalianFaunafrom PredynasticLocalities McArdle, J.1992. in: Friedman& Adams(eds)1992:53-56. at Hierakonpolis', Meiggs, R. 1982.Treesand Timberin theAncientMediterraneanWorld.Oxford. C. 1990.'Le sitepr6dynastique B., Buchez,N., Hesse,A. & Lechevalier, Midant-Reynes, d'Adaima. Rapportpr6liminairede la campagnede fouilles 1989',n: BIMO 90 247-58, plJ-VItr. 'Le d'Adarma. Midant-Reynes,8.,Buchez,N., Crubezy,E., Janin,T. 1991. siteprddynastique in: de Vartavan), de C. Rapportpr6liminairede la deuxiEmecampagne'(avecune annexe BIWO 9I:231-247,pls. 63-70. Midant-Reynes,B., Buchez,N., Crubezy,E., Janin,T. & Hendrickx,S. 1992.'Le site pr6dynastique d'Adaima.Rapportpr6liminairede la troisibmecampagnede fouille' , rn: BIFAO 92:.t33-46, 7 fre. raisonn6de C. I993a.Adarma:Ramassage B., Buchez,N., Hesse,A,, Lechevalier, Midant-Reynes, 'U surface,actesdu colloque: artee I'ambientedel Saharapreistorico:Dati e interpretazione', Memoriedelln Societaltaliana di ScienzeNaturali e del MuseoCivico di StoriaNaturaledi Milano,vol. )Q(VI, FascicoloII: 359-363.Milan. 'Le Midant-Reynes,8., Crubezy,E., Janin,T. & vanNeer,W. 1993b. siteprddynastiqued'Adar'ma. Rapportpr6liminairede la quatridmecampagnede fouille',in: BIFAO 93:349-70. d'Adarma. B, Buchez,N, Crubezy,E. & Janin,T. 1994.'Lesitepr6dynastique Midant-Reynes, Rapportde la cinquibmecampagnede fouille', in: BIMO 94:329-48. 'TheDeforestation Review,vol. of MountLebanon',tn: TheGeographical Mikesell,M.W. 1969. LIX, no. 1,Jan.,1-28. 'TheNarmerMacehead andRelatedObjects',in: JARCE27:53-59. Millet, N. 1990. 'Natural Resinsof Art andArchaeology:Their Sources,Chemistry and White, R. 1977. Mills, J. & Identification'.in: Sudies in Conservation,v oI. 22: l2'3L. 'The Identity of theResinsfrom theLate BronzeAge Shipwreckat Ulu Mills, J. & White, R. 1989. 3l:37-M. Burun(Kas)', in:.Archaeometry Mills, J. & White, R. 1994.OrganicChemistryof MuseumObjects.Londonof ArmarzrI. London. Mond, R. & Myers,O.H. 1937.Cemeteries Mond, R. & Myers, O.H. 1940.Templesof Armant.London. 'Les Repr6sentations deTemplessurPlate-formesi Pieux,de la Poterie Monnet-Saleh,J. 1983. d'Egypte',n: BIFAO83:263-296. Gerzdenne 'Remarquessur les Representations de la Peintured'Hierakonpolis(Tombe Monnet-Saleh,J. 1987. No. 100)',in: JEA73: 51-58. 'Tombeauxde la Ire et de la IVe dynastiesi Abou-Roach',in: Kemi 7: 1l-69. Montet,P. 1938. Montet, P. 1946.'Tombeauxde la Ire et de la IVe dynastiesd Abou-Roach,deuxibmepartie: inventairedesobjets',rn;Kemi 8: 157-227. Mortensen,B. 1991.Changein the SenlementPatternand Populntionin theBeginningof'the Histoical Period,n: Agyptenund Levante2: II-37. Mtiller, H.W. 1966.Bericht iiber im Miirz/April 1966 in das dstliche Nildelta unternomrnene Philosophisch-historische BayrischeAkademieder Wissenschaften Erkundungsfahrten, Heft 8, Munich. Klasse,Sitzungsberichte, 'Priiliminierungenzur igyptischenStadt', in: ZAS 118:48-54. Mtiller-Wollerrnann,R. 1991. 'El-Qatta.Fouillesdu ServicedesAntiquit€s,1951-1952' , in: CdE27:350-1. N.N. 1952. Naville, E. 1898.TheTempleof Deir el-Bahari1//. London. of Abydos,I. London. Naville,8., Peet,T.E.,Hall, H.R. & Haddon,K. 1914.TheCemeteries Needler,W. 1984.Predynasticand ArchaicEgyptin theBrooklynMuseurn.Brooklyn. Nordstrdm,H.A. 1972.NeolithicandA-GroupSires.Uppsala. H.A. 1986.'Ton'. in LA 6:629-34.V/iesbaden. Nordstrcim. 168 'New FuneraryEnclosures(Thlberzirke)of the Early DynasticPeriodat O'Connor,D. 1989 Abydos',n: JARCE26: 5I-86. O'Connor,D. 1992.'TheStatusof EartyEgyptianTemples:An AlternativeTheory', in: Friedman & Adams(eds)1992:83-98. undInschrifien. Omlin,J. A.1973. Der Papyrus55001undseinesatirisch-erotischenZeichnungen Tirrin. Oren,E.D. 1973.'T"lteOverlandRoutebetweenEgypt andCanaanin the Early BronzeAge', in: IEJ 23 198-205. 1989.'Eariy BronzeAge Settlementin NorthernSinai:A Model for Egypto-Canaanite E.D. Oren, Interconnections',in: De Miroschedji,P.(ed.)L'urbanisationde la Palestined l'6ge du Oxford. Bronzeancien.Actesdu Colloqued'Emmaus:389-405. for EgyptianInterconnections', Evidence Earliest 1992.'Thur Ikhbeineh: Oren,E.D. & Yekutieli,Y. (ed.) I992a:361-364. in: van denBrink of Urbanismin AncientEgypt:A Regional Patch,D.C. 1991.TheOrigin and Early Development Sndy. Ph.D.thesis.Universityof Pennsylvania. Confirmed', in: JEA 59: 31-5. Tombat Hierakonpolis Payne,J.C. 1973.'Tomb100.TheDecorated 'Appendix rn:. JEA 73: 181-90. Supplement' Excavations to Naqada , Payne,J.C. 1987. 'The inl.Eretz-lsrael2l: EgyptianDecorated'Ware', Chronologyof Predynastic Payne,J.C. 1990. 77-82. Payne,J.C. 1992.'PredynasticChronologyat Naqada',in: Friedman& Adams(eds) 1992:185-92. Payne,J.C. 1993.Catalogueof thePredynasticEgyptianCollectionin theAshrnoleanMuseum. Oxford. Peet,T.E. 1914.The Cemeteriesof Abydos,Il. London. Petrie,W.M.F.& Quibell,J.E. 1896.Naqadaand Ballas.London. Petrie,W.M.F. 1896.Koptos.London. 'Sequences Remains',n: JMI29:295-3O1. in Prehistoric Petrie,W.M.F.1899. Petrie,W.M.F. l9O0.TheRoyalTombsof the FirstDynosty,I. London. Petrie,W.M.F. l9}l. TheRoyal Tornbsof theEarliestDytasties,II. London' Petrie,W.M.F. 1902.Abydoq I. London. Petrie,W.M.F. t903. Abydo,s,tr. London. Petrie,W.M.F. l9l4.Tarkhan, II. London. Petrie,W.M.F. 1920.PrehistoricEgypt.London. Petrie,W.M.F. L92I. Corpusof PrehistoricPotteryand Palexes.London. Petrie,W.M.F. 1923.Lahun,IL London. Petrie,W.M.F. 1953.CeremonialSlatePalettesand Corpusof ProtodynasticPottery.London. of Abadiyehand Hu. 1898Petrie,V/.M.F.& Mace,A.C. 1901.DiospolisParva.TheCemeteries 1899.London. Peffie,W.M.F.,Wainwright,G.A. & Mackay,E.lglz.The Labyrinth,Gerzehand Mazguneh. London. Petrie,W.M.F.,Wainwright,G.A. & Gardiner,A. 1913.TarkhanI and MemphisV. London. 'Applicationof FI-IR Microscopyto theAnalysisof PaintBindersin Pilc, J. & White, R. 1995. EaselPaintings',in National Gallery TechnicalBulletin,16 (in press). 'The Early DynasticSenlementof Khor DaoudandWadi-Allaki: The Piotrovski,B.B. 1967. AncientRouteto the Gold Mines', tn Fouillesen Nubie (L961-1963):L2740. Cairo. 'PredynasticEgyptianSealsof Known Proveniencein the R.H. Lowie Podzorski,P.V.1988. Museumof Anthropology',in: ,INES,47:259-68. Podzorski,P.V.1990.Their Bonesshall not Perish.An Emminationof PredynasticHumanSkeletal Rernains frorn Naga-ed-D?rin Egypt.New Malden. Porat,N. 1989.Compositionof Pottery- Applicationto the Studyof theInterrelationsbetween Canaanand Egyptduring the3rd MilleniumB.C. UnpublishedPh.D.thesis, HebrewUniversity of Jerusalem. Porta"G. 1989.L'ArchitetturaEgiziaDelle Origini in Legnoe Materiali lzggeri. Milan. r69 Posener-Krifger,P. 1976.ks archivesdu templefundraire de NiferirkarA Kal<ai.Cairo. P. 1979.'Lespapyrusd'Abousir et l'dconomiedestemplesfundrairesde I'Ancien Posener-Kri6ger, Empire', in: Lipinski, E. (ed.)Stateand TempleEconomyin theAncientNear East: 133-51. Leuven. 'Missioneper ricerchepreistoriche in Egitto', n: Origini l:3Ol-12Puglisi,S.M. 1967. 'Keramik in: Dreyer 1993:39-49. LI" des Friedhofes F. 1993. Pumpenmeier, Quibell,J.E. 1898.EI Kab.London Quibell,J.E. 1900.Hierakonpolis,I. London. et 14.001nos. 11.001-12.000 Quibell,J.E. 1905.Cataloguegdndraldesantiquitds1gyptiennes. 14.754.Archaic Objects.Cairo. Quibell,J.E. & Green,F.W.1902.Hierakonpoiis,II. London. 'Ein Treppengrab der 1.DynastieausAbusir', in MDAIK 47:305-8Radwan,A. 1991. London. D. & Mace,A.C. 1902.EI AmrahandAbydos,1899-1901. Randall-Mclver, 'TheAcquisition of ForeignGoodsandServicesin the Old Kingdom',in: Redford,D.B. 1981. Scripta M editerranea 2: 5 -16. 'EgyptandWesternAsiain the Old Kingdom',n: JARCE23: 125-43. Redford,D.B. 1986. 'Work of the Universityof Californiaat El-AhaiwahandNaga-ed-D6r', Reisner,G.A. 1900-1901. Report 1900-190123-5.London. rn EEF Archaeological at Naqa-ed-Der.Pattl.Leipzig. Reisner,G.A. 1908.TheEarly DynasticCemeteries of the Third Pyramidat Giza.Cambridge(Mass.) Reisnet G.A. 1931.Mycerinus,TheTemples Surveyof Nubia:Reportsfor 1907-8,1908-9, Reisner,G.A. & Firth,C.M. lgl}-27. Archaeological 1909-10,1910-1.Cairo. 'Inscriptionsat Ktim el-ahmar',in: PBSAI0:73-78Renouf,P.le Page1887. zur AgyptischenBaukunstdesAlten Reichs.Zurich. Ricke,H. 1944.Bemerkungen Rizkana I. & Seeher,l. 1987. Maadi I: ThePottery of the PredynasticSettlement.l:N.{.ai;nz. of the Predynasticsettlement.Mainz. Rizkana,I. & Seeher,J. 1988.Maadi II: TheLithic In"dustries and the StrucruralRemainsof the Finds non-Lithic Maadi III: The Rizkana I. & Seeher,J. 1989. Predynasti c Settlernent.Mainz. 'Priidynastische von der Nilinsel ElephantinevorAswin Menschenreste Rrising,F.W. 1970. (Agypten)',in: Horno2l:2lO-20. 'ProvisionalNoteson theOld Kingdom Inscriptionsfrom the Diorite Quarries',in: Rowe,A. 1938. ASAE38:391-6. Cairo. at Saqqaraand Helwan(1941-1945). Saad,Z.Y.1947.RoyalExcavations Saad,Z.Y. 1951.RoyalExcavationsat Saqqaraand Helwan(1945-1947).Cairo. Saad.Z.Y. 1969.TheExcavationsat Helwan: Art and Civilizationin the First and SecondEgyptian Dynasties.Oklahoma. 'ANew Look at BreadandBeer', n: EgyptianArchaeology 4:9'Ll. Samuel,D.lgg4. 'Les en 1973-1974. Orientale d'Archdologie travauxde I'Institut Frangais Sauneron,S. 1974. Adaima',n: BIFAOT4:L86-95. Annalen.Betltn. Schiifer,H. 1902.Ein Bruchstiickahdgyptischer GrriberfeldesvonAbusir Ergebnissedesvorgeschichtlichen Scharff,A. 1926.Die archaeologischen el-Meleq. LeiPzig. Waffen,Geftisse. Scharff,A. 1931.Die Altertiimerder Vor-undFriihzeitAgXptens,I.Werkzeuge, Berlin. 'FunerdrerAufwandund sozialeUngleichheit.Eine methodische Seidlmayer,S.J. 1988. Gliederungaus Anmerkungzum Problemder Rekonstnrktionder gesellschaftlichen Friedhofsfunden',in: GM 104:25-51. Seidlmayer,S.J. 1990.GrtiberfelderausdemUbergangvomAlten zumMinlerenReich.Studienzur Sn^dienzur Arcfuiologieund GeschichteAhtigyptenst. Arcfuiologieder ErstenZwischenzeit. Heidelberg. 170 ' Seidlmayer,S.J.1992.'BeispielenubischerKeramikausKontextendeshohenAlten Reichesaus 1991,337-50. ArbeitspapiereSondernummer Elephantine',in: Gs.P.Behrens,Afril<nnistische Kttln. Seidlmayer,S.J.1995.'Die staatlicheAnlageder 3. Dyn. in der Nordweststadtvon Elephantine, Archiiologischeund historischeProbleme',in: Bietak,M. (ed.),Haus und Palastim Ahen der Symposium8 bis 11April 1992n Kairo, Untersuchungen Agypten,Internationales (forthcoming). ZweigsteeleKairo des0AI, Vienna von Elephantine1979-1982 Seidlmayer,S.J.Elephantine12: Ausgrabungin der Nordweststadt (forthcoming).Mainz. Serpico,M. 'ChemicalAnalysisof ConiferousResinsfrom ancientEgypt using GasChromatography/TVlass Spectrometry(GCilvIS)'to appearin:.Proceedingsof the SeventhInternational (forthcoming). Congress of Egyptologrsrs DenkmaldesAltenReichsvon derInselKytheramit demNamen Sethe,K.I9I7.'Ein Zigyptisches desKdnigsUserkaf',n: ZAS53: 55-58. desSonnenheiligtums Sethe,K. 1933.UrkundendesAltenReiches,I.Leipzig. in fut Shearer,G.L. 1987. 'Use of DifhrseReflectanceFourierTransformInfraredSpectroscopy andArchaeologicalConservation',in Black,J. (ed.) 1987:253-256. Shehata,R.Z.A. 1989.'statusReporton the PredynasticCemeteryof Khozam','tnl.VA6: 165-6. Sliwa, J. 1992.'On the Meaningof the so-calledSinusoidalWallsin Egypt during the Middle Kingdom', tn: IntellectualHeritageof Egypt (StudiaAegyptiacaX[V), Budapest:523-526. Smith,H.S. 1966.'The NubianB-Group',tn: Kush 14:69-124. 'A-Group' Culturein NorthernLower Nubia', in: Smith,H.S. 1991.'The Developmentof the Davies,W.V. (ed.),EgyptandAfrica: Nubiafrom Prehistoryto Islam:92-lII. London. Smith,W.S. 1946.A History of EgyptianSculptureand Painting in the OldKingdo,m,Boston. Soukiassian, G. Wuttman,M. & Schaad,D. 1990.'La ville d'Ayn-Asil i Dakhla,Etat des recherches', in BIFAO90 347-58. II', in: Sourouzian,H. 1988.'standingRoyal Colossiof the Middle KingdomReusedby Ramesses MDNK44:229-54. Spencer,A.I . 1979.Brick Architecturein AncientEgypt.Warminster. Spencer,A.J. 1980.Catalogueof EgyptianAntiquitiesin theBritish Museum,Y.Early Dynnstic Objects.London. Stager,L.E. 1985.'The Firstfruitsof Civilization',in Tubb,J. N. (ed.)1985:172-188. Stewart,H.M. 1979.EgyptianStelae,Reliefsand Paintingsfrom the Petrie CollectionII. Warminster. Swelim,N. 1983.SomeProblemson the History of the Third Dynosty,Archaeologicaland Historical Studies7. Alexandria. Swelim,N. 1987.TheBYU Expeditionto Seila,ThePyramidof Seila,Season/987, unpublished newsletter. Thckholm,V.1974. Sn^dents'Flora of Egypt Beirut. Trad,M. L992.'T\e Sequence of Artist's Strokeson a Sherdfrom Hierakonpolis',in Friedman& Adams(eds)1992:65-8. Trigger,B. L972.'Determinants of UrbanGrowthin Pre-IndustrialSocieties',in: Ucko, P.J., and Urbanism:575-99.London. Tringham,R. & Dimbleby,G.W. (eds.)Man, Settlement 'The Trigger,B. 1985. Evolutionof Pre-IndustrialCities:A Multilinear Perspective',in: Mdlanges offensd Jean Vercoutter:343-53. Tubb,J. N. 1985.(ed.)Palestinein the Bronzeandlron Ages:Papersin Honour of OIga Tufuell. London. Tutundzic,S.P.1992.'Meaningand Use of the Term 'Predynastic'in EgyptianArchaeology',in: Sestocongressointernazionalede eginologia.Atti. Vol.I: 605-11. Turin. Uphill, E.P.1988.EgyptianTownsand Cities.PrincesRisborough. 17L Valbelle,D. 1981.SatisetAnoukis. Mainz. 'Deux objetsth6riomorphesd€couvertsdansle MastabaV de Balat', tn: Livre Valloggia M. 1980. du Centenaire;lO4 143-51. van den Brink, E.C.M. (ed.) 1988a. TheArchaeologyof theNiIe Delta; Problemsand Priorities. Proceedingsof the Seminarheld in Cairo, 19-22October1986,on the occasionof the fifteenthanniversaryof the NetherlandsInstituteof ArchaeologyandArabic Studiesin Cairo. Amsterdam. 'The Amsterdamuniversity SurveyExpeditionto the Northeastern van den Brink. E.c.M. lgggb. Nile Delta(1984-1986)';with a Contributionof W. van Zeist,in: vandenBrink (ed.)1988a: 65-114. van den Brink, E.C.M. (ed.) 1992a.The NiIeDelta in Transition;4th - 3rd milleniumBC. Proceedings of the Seminarhetdin Cairo, 2L-24October1990,at the NetherlandsInstituteof ArchaeologyandArabic Studies.Tel Aviv. 'CorpusandNumericalEvaluationof the "Thinite" Potmarks',in: van den Brink, E.C.M. 1g92b. Friedman& Adams(eds)1992:265-296. van den Brink, E.C.M. 1992c.'PreliminaryReporton theExcavationsat Tell IbrahimAwad' in: vandenBrink (ed.)1992a,43-68. Seasons1988-1990', 'The incised Serekh-Signs of Dynasties0 and 1; Part I: The Complete van den Brink, E.C.M. 1996. Jars',this volume. 'AnotherRecordof HorusCrocodile? A Brief Discussionof MAO T. van den Brink, E.C.M. 160.1'.forthcoming. 'T]11e SerekhSignsof Dynasties0-1. PartII: Fragments'(inpreparation). van den Brink, E.C.M. 'Empreintes rn Fouillesde Elkab,documents:9\-8de sceauxarchaiques', vande Walle,B. 1940. Brussels. Vandier,J. 1955.Manueld'archiologie igyptienne,fr* Les Grandes6poques,I'architecture religieuseet civile. Pais. Vermeersch,P.M.,Paulissen,E., Huyge,D., Neumann,K., VanNeer,W. andVan Peet,P.1992. 'PredynasticHearthsin UpperEgypt', in: Friedman& Adams,(eds)1992:163-172. 'NaqadaChronologyReconsidered', in Cherif,A. (ed.),RisumesdesCommuni' Vertesalji,P. 1988. cations.Cinqui?meCongres Intemationald' Egyptologie: 278. Cairo' von Deines,H., Grapow,H. & Westendorf,W. 1958.Grundrisseder Medizinder ahenAgyptealY 1. Berlin. Studie,documenta von den Driesch,A. 1986.Fischeim Alten Agypten,eineosteoarcfuiologische naturae34.Munich. Notes',in: ASAE11:170-6Weigall,A.E.P.1911.'Miscellaneous 'Un templede Noutirkha-Zositi Heliopolis',In: Sphinx15:9-26. 1912. R. Wpill, Cairo. Weill, R. 1961.RecherchessurIa ler Dynastieet les TempsPrdpharaoniques. 'K6m el-Hisn:Excavationof an Old KingdomSettlementin theEgyptian Wenke,R.J.et al. 1988. Delta'. n: JARCE25:5-34. 'Palette,Schminck-' in LA 4: 654-656. , Westendorf,W. 1982. White,R. 1990.'Analysisof ResinousMaterials',tn:'Atiqot XD(: 81-88. 'The HierakonpolisIvoriesin Oxford.AProgressReport', in Friedman& Whitehouse,H. L992. Adams(eds)1992:77-82. in Agypten.Munz. Wildung, D. 1981.Agyptenvor denPyramiden.Mi)nchnerAusgrabungen 'Techniques of DataAnalysis:SeriationTheory', in: Technischeund Wilkinson, E.M. 1974. 5: 1-134.Kdln. Archaeo-Physil<a Beitragezur Feldarchaologie. Naturwissenschaftliche Wilkinson, T.A.H. 1993a.EgyptinTransition: Predynastic Early DynasticChronologyand the Effectsof StateFormation.Cambridge(unpub.Ph.D.thesis). Wilkinson,T.A.H. 1993b.'The identificationof TombB.1 at Abydos:refutingthe existenceof a king RoAry-Hor',n: JEA79:24I-3. of Nubia', in: Archaeology33: 18Williams,B.B. 1980.'TheLost Pharaohs 172 Wiltiams.B.B. 1986.ExcavationsbetweenAbu Simbeland the SudanFrontietrKeith C.SeeIe, Director.Part 1: TheA-Group RoyalCemeteryat Qustul:CemeteryL. Chicago. 'NarmerandtheCoptosColossi',n: JARCE25:35- 59. Williams,B.B. 1988. 'The MetropolitanMuseumKnife HandleandAspectsof Williams, B.B. & Logan,T. 1987. PharaonicImagerybeforeNarmer',in: ,INES46:245-285. Wilson,J.A. 1951.TheBurdenof Egypt.Chicago. 'Buto andHierakonpolis of Egypt',in: ,/NES14 209-236. in the Geography Wilson,J.A. 1955. 'Egypt throughouttheNew Kingdom,Civilization without Cities', in: Kraeling, Wilson, J.A. 1960. C.H. & Adams,R.M. (eds)CityInvincible:124-36.Chicago' 'Zur Deutungder Sonnenheiligtiimer der 5. Dyn.', in WKM 54 222-33. Winter,E. 1957. 'AReconstructionof theTriadsofKingMycerinus',in:JEA60:82-93' Wood,W.Ig74. 'TheArchaicTombsat Turael-Asmant',in: ASAE 64: 159-61. Yacoub,F. 1981. 'Excavations at Truael-Asmant',in: ,ISSEA13: 103-6. Yacoub,F. 1983. 'An yukutieli, Y. ImportedPot Redated', in: Friendsof the PetrieMuseumNewsletter13 (in press). 'AncientEgyptianCheese',in: ASAE4L:295-313. Zal<I,A. & Iskander,Z.1942. Ziegler,Ch. 1990.Musdedu Inuvre, Cataloguedes stiles,peintureset reliefs4gyptiensde I'Ancien Empireet de la Premi\re PdriodeIntermddiaire.Paris. in der Friihzeit und und Stadtentwicklung Ziermann,M. 1993.Elephantine16,Befestigungsanlagen imfriihen Alten Reich.Mainz. Missione in: Antinoe(1965-1968). A.S. !974.'Ilcimitero protodinastico', Zimmermann, Archaeologicain Egitto dell'IJniversitadi Roma:23-31.Rome. Zohary,M. L962.Plant Life of Palestine.New York. Zohary,M. 1966.Flora Palaestina,PartOne,Text,IsraelAcademyof SciencesaadHumanities, Jerusalem. Zohary,M. Lg72.Flora Palaestina,PartTwo,Text,IsraelAcademyof SciencesandHumanities, Jerusalem. Zohary,M. 1973.GeobotanicalFoundationsof theMiddle East, vol tr. Stuttgart. Zohary,D. & Hopl M. 1993.Domesticationof Plantsin the OldWorld. Oxford. Abbreviations usedin the abovebibliography AfO Archivfiir Orientforschung.Berlin. isen en oles du Sert'icedesAntiquitdsde I'Egypte.Cairo. BI FAOBulletin de I' Instirutfrangais d' Archeologie Orientale.Cairo. Bi. On BibliothecaOrientalis.Leiden. BMMA Bulletin of theMetropolitanMuseumof Art. New York. BMFABulletin of the Museumof FineArts' Boston. BMMH Bulletin desmusdesRoyauxd'art et d'histoire-Brussels. CdE Chroniqued' Egypte. desInscriptionset Belles-Izttres.Pais. dessdancesde l'Aca.demie CMIBL Comptes-rendus GM GottingerMiaellen Gtittingen. IEJ Israel ExplorationJournal.Jerusalem. JARCEJournal of theAmericanResearchCenterin Egypt.New York. JEA Journal of EgyptianArchaeology.London. JNESJournal of Near EasternStudies.Chicago. JMI Journal of the RoyalAnthropologicalInstituteof GreatBritian and lreland. London. JSSEAJoumal of theSocietyfor theStudyof EgyptianAntiquiries.Toronto. LA Lexikonder Agyptologre.Wiesbaden. 173 ArchatilogischenInstitutsAbteilungKairo. Wiesbaden. MDAIK MitteilungendesDeutschen NARCENewsletterof theAmericanResearchCenterin Egypt. van Oudhedente Leiden.Leiden. Mededelingenuit hetRijlcsmusewn OMRO Oudheidkundige PSBAProceedingsof the Societyof Biblical Archaeology.London. RdE Revued'Egyptologie.Paris. aux Annalesdu ServicedesAntiquitdsde l'Egypte.Cayo. SASAE SupplAment YAVaria Aegyptiaca.SanAntonio. WZKM WienerZeitschriftfiir die KundedesMorgenlandes.Vienna. Leipzig/Berlin. ZASZeitschnftfu, AgyptischeSpracheundAhertumskunde. t74