ASPECTS OF EARLY EGYPT

EDITED BY

JEFFREY SPENCER

BRTTISH MUSEUMPRESS

The Relative Chronology of the Naqada Culturet Problemsand Possibilities

Stan Hendrickx

l.Introduction. and early dynastic periodswithin the predynastic Terminologyregardingthe relativechronological completereliability. Neverthefrequentlyusedin a mannersuggesting culture of Egypt is nowadays the problemsconcerning relativechronologyof the Naqadaculture still less, severalfundamental terminologyexistsfor accepted authors no generally that by exist.It hasalreadybeenstressed several (e.g.Mortensen 1991:fig. 1; Tutundzic1992).For instance, Egypt's late prehistoryandearlyhistory (Scharff193 : 16-30; Baumgartel Kantor1965; (Petrie1920:46-50), 1 Protodynastic thetermsSemainean (Hassan1988)canbe used, Abb. 1) or TerminalPredynastic Naqada (Kaiser 1957;1990: Itr 1970a), preferences, the period.Besides traditionandpersonal andareactuallyused,for moreor lessthesame ill-defined,both archaeoto for main reason this confusionseems be that the termsarein mostcases culturehasnot been of well aschronologically. Sincethe relativechronology theNaqada logically as informathe and way dealtwith in a systematic duringthe lastfew decades, sincemeanwhile available the to absolutely necessary re-examine subject. considerably, seems it tion hasincreased

Dating. 2. Sequence The original study goesback to the early yearsof the century whenW.M.F.Petrie worked out his Dating (Petrie1899;Petrie& Mace l90l: 4-12; Petrie 1920:34), the first attemptat what Sequence from the cemeteries Dating is basedon the gravegoods is now known as seriation.The Sequence Ballas(Petrie& Quibell 1896)and DiospolisParva at by excavated Petrieandhis assistants Naqada, (Petrie& Mace 1901).As a fust step,the potterywas uuranged a corpusof 'predynastic'pottery, in Next" potteryandover 700types(Petrie1921,seealsobelow,pp.44-46). of consistingof nine classes in all objectsfrom eachgravewerenotedon a slip of card.Finally,thecardswerearranged a relative of of orderbased theresemblance types.In this stage thework, Petrieusedonly nine chronological on five or moredifferentpotterytypes,out of over four thouhundredrelativelyintactgraves containing graves. orderwasdefinedby two mainprinciples.First, an earlier The chronological sandexcavated of throughthe observation that the classes White Cross-lined and a later phasewere distinguished pottery on one hand,and Decorated Wavy Handledpottery on the other hand,neveror almost and of that it neveroccured together. Secondly, wasaccepted therehadbeena degradation the form of the When all gravecardshad beenarWavy Handledtypes,going from globularto cylindrical shapes. .-gia in order,pltrie dividedthe cardsinto fifty equalgroupi, eachof themconsistingof 18 graves, to numberingthem as Sequence Datesfrom thirty to eighty.By choosing startat SD 30 he left space Finally the fifty SD's weredivided for earliercultures,which he thoughtwere still to be discovered. different. to culturallyandchronologically into threegroupswhich he considered be archaeologically, 'cultures'were namedAmratian (SD 30-37),Gerzean (SD 60-75), (SD 38-60)and Semainean The cemetery sites. after someimportantpredynastic with a second typologicalcorpus, the 'protodynastic'potfor The Sequence Dateswerecontinued cemeteries Tiukhan at on from theextensive tery (Petrie1953). This is almost exclusively based material (Petrie,Wainwright& Gardiner1913,Petrie 1914).This time the numberof typesreached 885 (see 'protodynastic'corpus partly overbelow,pp.a6-a7) no classes potteryweredistinguished. and The of Datesfor corpus, a resultof which the Sequence lapswith themostrecent typesof the 'predynastic' as the 'protodynastic' corpusstartfrom SD 76 andcontinue SD 86,which shouldmark the beginning to because the of theThird Dynasty. However, SD's 83-86remained almostcompletely theoretical of the Datesis not carried lack of Second Dynastymaterial. Thedistinctionbetween individualSequence the 36

Date is corpus,but the transitionto a new Sequence out in the samemanneras for the predynastic the Wavy Hanof bur.d on typologicalbreakswhich Petriedefinedmainly throughthe development Datingwith the historicallydatedpotterytypesand the Finally,Petrieconnected Sequence dt.d ,yp"r. Wainwright& Gardiner atAbydos(Petrie, dynasties from theroyal tombsof theearliest otherobjects 1913:3). one Datescertainlyrepresents of the major intellectual of Althoughthe development theSequence shortcuts anumberofmethodological Egypt(cf. Kendall1963), thestudyof predynastic in achievements (1913),Scharff whomLegge among pointed authors, outby several errorswereafterwards andpossible (1955:2, 1970a:4-5) Kaiser(1956b) the mostimare and Kantor(l9M), Baumgartel Ogi6:7I4), pointsmay be noted. problems methodological several Among the Dortant. He typologyandchronology. postulates no It is obviousthatPetriemakes cleardistinctionbetween of for without sufficientevidence theearlierstages its evoluclass of theWavy Handled theevolution (Petrie1921) of classes for thedefinition thepottery used 93-5).Also,thecriteria tion(Kaiser1956b: The heterogeneous. basiccriterionmay be eitherthe fabric (Roughclass),the methodof firing are (White CrossLined and Decorated), Red),the decoration finishing (Black-TopandPolished and/or (Late).This last (WavyHandled)or the relativechronology detail (Fancy),a morphological theshape (cf. Patch 1991: in of a causes specialproblembecause the lack of consistency potteryfabric class is the definition of the individual typeswithin theseclasses not bound by strict l7l). Furtherrnore, way for eachof the pottery in the same (cf. rules Petriel92l: S).Also, thetypesarenot distinguished includingthe onedevisedby problems any type of seriation, for All classes. these factorswill cause petrie. use Whensubsequent is madeof this kind of rypologicalcorpusfor typing objectsin the grave that not of registers excavations carriedoutby Petriehimself,it is only to beexpected errorsarebound to arise. Petrie Cal BC

SD PetrieSD's I number

_s-"ssr,sgr_-ir-lgkLfq__igq__-+pJ6_-i-tt----ig{g---,
2----+-zs----;1t49-Qgp*!----j-1t1390---+-3lL---+iqf Amratian irs.zr it !zso izr-tt !:soo:oso
(1). After Hassan(1988):138. Dates. implicationsof Petrie's Sequence Tab. 1. Absolute chronological As alreadystated,the systemwas developed using only nine hundredgravescontainingfive or morepotteryfypes.Sinceit is now obviousthat the average numberof objectsin a graveincreased through the time (cf. Seidlmayer1988),it is generallyaccepted this causes earlierperiodsto be that under-representedPetrie(e.g.Petrie1920:4;Kaiser 1956b: if 92). However, we testthis ideawith by thecurrently (table1).The importance accepted chronology, ratherpuzzlingimageappears a absolute of thefinal phase thepredynastic although not period,asdefinedby Petrie,seems over-represented, of tt remains fact that the earliestphase under-represented. is most probablythe result of the This a is numerically whenPetriedeveloped theSequence his dominating at role of theMain Cemetery Naqada Dates. Indeed, this cemetery numberof gravesbelongingto the Naqada periodis restricted III at the (cf.Paynet992: frg.l-Z). The SD's for the 'predynastic' corpuswerenot definedin the s:rmeway. and the 'protodynastic' _. Ihrs implies of coursethat their eventualchronologicalvalue cannotbe compared. Also, the protodynastic weredefined means typologicaldifferences, to which werea priori accepted SD's by of nave chronological from differentsitesas an entity. He value.Furthermore, Petrietreatscemeteries accepts cultural uniformity of the predynastic the leavingno place for local culrureas guaranteed, variation. This is characteristic the time when Petriewas working; far moreattentionwas paid to of culrural diffrrsionthanto local srowthandevolution.
5t

Dateswasmadein a mannerto minimize the chronoFinally, the definition of the original Sequence the claims between competing This resultsin a compromise of logical dispersion eachtypeof pottery. of all pottery types for closerproximity. This perfectbalance,however,is purely artificial, since, Datesfor a numberof typeswill the to whenever new graves added the system, rangeof Sequence are purely hypothetiDating becomes by suggested the Sequence and haveto be expanded the accuracy Petrieaddednew typesto the alreadyexistingcorpus. cal. Also, it is not at all clear in what manner types(e.g.Wavy Handled)in the company to Probablynew typesweredatedaccording characteristic 1991:16).Of couise, to of which they werefoundandno longeraccording gravegloups(Mortensen the the when addingnew datato the system, original point that eachSD represented archaeological was originally basedon an materialfrom 18 graveswas also lost. Obviously,the fact that eachSD a equalnumberof gravesneverimplied that every SD represented similar periodof time. This was of since (Petrie1920:4) andalwaysremained inconvenience the system, an realised Petriehimself by units. the tendsto consider SD's as chronological one automatically the However, moststrikingomissionof Petrie'sway of workingremainsthefact that he nevertook This despitethe fact that he noticed,for the horizontaldistributionof the gravesinto consideration. from DiospolisParvacoveredthe whole rangeof the Sequence instance, noneof the cemeteries that 'early' and 'late' cemeteries (PetrieaadMace could be distinguished Datesbut that,on the contrary, of Petriedoesnot mentionspatialdistributionwithin the cemeteries enough, lgOI:3I-2). Strangely that he did not noticeanythingat it Naqada, Ballasor DiospolisParva,although is hardly imaginable of of by all. On the occasionof later excavations former assistants Petrie, the existence groupsof was in the differences the spatialdistributionof objects, and chronologically relatedgraves, therefore and timesat differentsites(e.gRandall-Mclver Mace 1902:3;AyrtonandLoat 1911: noticedseveral weremadeto usethese 1928:50-1)but no attempts 2; Peet1914:18;BruntonandCaton-Thompson purposes. for observations chronological

3. Snfen chronologr of Dating was rightly criticised,the generalprinciplesof the development the Although Sequence contradicted, neither are they by Naqadaculfilre, as established Petrie,were never fundamentally Datingcannotbe maintained, it today.Nevertheless, haslong beenobviousthatthe originalSequence will become increasingly while in realitythe system ideaof greataccuracy, sinceit givesa misleading generallyreplaced Dating is nowadays Therefore, Sequence impreciseasnew dataare incorporated. the by W. Kaiser'sSrufenchronology(Kaiser 1957).Unfornrnately, study of Kaiser was only pubplates, this already by and versionasan articleof ninepages accompanied eleven lishedin anabridged publication,Kaiserwasunableto include within the of 38 yearsago.Because the limitationsof space of in detailson his analyticalmethod.RecentlyKaisermentioned an article the extension his Snfen chronologyinto the First Dynasty(Kaiser 1990:Abb. 1, seealsop. 42),but the mannerin which this was donestill remains unpublished. and In his original study,Kaiserstartsfrom the horizontaldistributionof potteryclasses typesof at objectswithin the cemetery1400-1500 Armant (Mond and Myers 1937).Althoughthis cemetery cannotbe controlfor was published a very high standard the time, the identificationof the objects to in and led, sincetheoriginalobjectsareno longeravailable only typeswhich werenot yet represented of by the corpusweredrawn.Threespatialzonesweredistinguished the relativepercentages Blackare to eachof themdominating onezone.Thesezones considered be Topped,RoughandLateWares, of of as which canberegarded thethreemainstages thedevelopment theNaqada chronological stages, wererecognised according the to elevensubperiods, calledStufen, threeperiods, culture.Within these the between individualSufen,and Thusthedistinctions chiefly pottery. clusteringof typesof objects, the thereforealsobetween threemain periods,aremadeup primarily on the basisof objecttype and contains only 149graves morethan and SincetheAnrumtcemetery notby therepresentation wares. of half of the potterytypesoccurredonly once,the groupingof limited numbersof relatedtypeswuls (Kaiser1957:77,n.67),although is not freefrom risk (seebelow).Of course, this this unavoidable point of view, sinceit more or lesspostulates the methodcan be criticisedfrom the methodological 38

implicationsof the spatialdistribution,but this doesnot seemto be a major practical chronological problemwithin Egyptiancemeteries. of has Dating,Kaiser'ssystem the advantage includingnot only to When compared the Sequence distributionof the objects. but the informationfrom the typologicalapparatus, alsofrom the spatial but of accuracy, by defining periods,it escapes it doesnot give an impression extreme Furthermore, as meaningless new dataare increasingly not completely, problemof becoming the although largely, added. AlthoughKaiserincludeddata is However,this doesnot meanthat thesystem free from problems. truethatdatafrom only it theoneatArmant,essentially remains besides from a numberof cemeteries Upper Egypt. culturethroughout of has a singlecemetery beenusedfor the description the Naqada Kaiser is well awareof the possibilitiesfor regionaldifferentiation,and has noticed Nevertheless, by for at regionalphenomena, Mahasna example(Kaiser 1957:74).The problem caused using the cultureis phase theNaqada of sincethe earliest evenmorecomplicated of cemetery Armantbecomes Therefore, or documented absent. are there,andalsothe mostrecentphases very sparsely present not from cemeteries examples although on thedefrnitionof theSnfen Ia andIb is based merehypothesis, thanSnfen Ia and of otherthanArmantaregiven.The description Snfe IIIb, thoughlesshypothetical to it ln on is alsobased informationfrom othercemeteries. mostcases was not possible studythe Ib, Kaiser'sdescriptionof Snfen Ia-b and IIIb and of spatialdevelopment thesecemeteries therefore by evolutionofpottery typesasalreadyaccepted Petrie. largelyon the theoretical depends cultureinto threephases or is initial point of debate whether not Kaiser'sdivisionof theNaqada An whetherthe limits of the threemain periodsof the Naqada is valid. If so, it shouldbe questioned As culturearebasedon factswhich are sufficientlyobvious. far as the distinctionof threeperiodsis belongingto the there seemsto be no problem on frst inspection.Severalcemeteries concemed, respectively by groupsof graves, dominated of culturebearevidence the presence three for Naqada are threeclasses identifiedin RoughandLatepottery.However,these of thepresence Black-Topped, primarily for a Nile Silt fabric, (seeabove,pp.44-5), Black-Topped stands although differentmanners mainly (cf. Nile for mainly Nile Silt A; Roughstands a straw-tempered Silt fabric while Late stands and 1986).Most of the otherpotteryclasses a below)for a Marl fabric (for all fabrics,cf. Nordstrcim of their individual types can be attributedto one of thesethreefabrics.It would be more number defined logicalto studythe spatialdistributionofthe threefabricsandnot only ofthe potteryclasses the by Petrie.Kaisernotedthe problem and describes relationbetweenthe fabrics and the pottery (Kaiser1957:76,note 8). classes, continues work by Petrie'spotteryclasses but to (table2a-b,cf. raises certainquestions Thetransitionfrom SrzleIto Sufe II at theArmantcemetery SrufelshouldbedominatedbyBlackFriedman1981:70-1).AccordingtoKaiser'sgeneralprinciples, Topped pottery which is indeedthe case,andStufeII by Roughpottery.This rule, however,fails to Nile SiltApottery with potteryremains applyfor Sufe IIa, whenBlack-Topped dominant. Comparing straw-tempered Silt pottery,thedominance the second fabric (52Voo 39 7o)remainslimited of Nile evenfor Sufe nb. The differences betweenStufeIIa and Ifb, when the dominantclassof ponery changes Stufe\b andIIc, with the introductionof from Black-Topped Rough,as well asbetween to Wavy Handled and a number of new Decoratedtypes,are much more important than the difference is between in Srufelc and tra (cf. table 2a-b).Anotherpoint of importance this discussion, that the the Naqada Roughpottery doesnot appearout of the blue at a certainmomentin the evolutionof culture.It is more than obviousfrom settlement that the Roughware makesup the large excavation majorityof potteryfrom thebeginning theNaqada culture(e.g.Brunton1937;Hendrickx& Midanr of Reynes1988:8; FriedmanL994),but the Roughware finds its way only slowly to the cemeteries. Sincethe Roughpottery alreadyexistedat a periodprior to its regularappearance graves,its abin sence presence not sufficientreason distinguishing main periodsin the Naqadaculture. or for two is However,Kaiser'sdistinctionbetweenStufelandStufeII doesnot depend only on therepresentation of thewares.Of greatimportance theappearan n StufeIIa of a number potterytypes,especially of ce is smallbag-shaped duing Stufe Roughtypes(R 65 b, R 66 a, R 69 r, R 93 c), whichwerenot yet present Ic. Nevertheless, a distinctionbetween first and a second period within the development the of a if Naqadaculture is to be made,it seems more logical to draw the line betweenStufena and IIb or perhaps evenbetween Srufetrb andtrc. 39

I I I

trA
I t
I

trB

trc

I I I

IIDI

IJDZ

ItrAI

i tot

1 !
t l l

t :
-----!-- r
r
r

1 r ---.-1+-

- t ---J.----r---:

- 3

| t J----J.-

- l

- l ---+-----

- ---

9:
P R
r

8i

zri'

2o1

16i

16:

7i

- , - r ---+-----i------+---::r - r
l

- i
t

9 :
I
l

4 1
|
l

l 0 :
|

- l - l - t l t -_---+----+-------+----:+-----+---+-------+---------l

' t - r

I 3 : +---------| l

-P-4
flint total

8 i 4 t ---r----:.-L-----i l r

- 1

- l l r l

- !

l l rl

1 :

- r 4 l ._J--_..-+------+r l r l .

- r

- :

2 t

- :

701

1351

7si

72

'lab. ?-a.Armant Cemetery140G'1500. Number of objects,after Kaiser 1957.

trA
54.3|
r l
I t I

ITD? 1 0 . 5 1 5 . 81 : +---':J---:-:J----L-+-------4-l - t t - l l
t l l

I I

IIIAl

6,7:
- l l
l

- 'l
l - l

- l - t l Q t -----'-;!+------+-.------+--------+------+--------+--------+----------

- : 1 . 4 1 -------+--------+-------+-----+--------+--.----.-+---------+---------

- r

- t

- r

- r

- ll

.P
R L--

---:.i--Z,Li-J1g+--s7Ay-J22i-e'9
I l

j---jlai---lg',-

w 34
flint

---:+-----:+-----:+---ga+---:'!L-Ea
I l I

j----1-q'-0-+--J,4-I l

15.4:

9,6i

I l

3 - l
l

totat

99,9 i

100,1 100,0 100,0 100,0 i i i:

s9,gi

too,o

Percentage potteryclasses eachSW, after Kaiser for 1400-1500. of Tab. 2b. ArmantCemetery 1957. 40

them between The difference The transitionfrom Stufeu.toStufeItr is alsonot without problems. which takesoverfrom theRoughclassasthenumericallymostimportant is madeup by the Late class Kaiser'sview of the spatialdistributionof the Roughand Late pottery at Armant group.However, numberof theLate types the : iKuir"r 1957 tf . 15B-C) doesnot takeinto account factthatan important althoughhe the arein realitymadein the Roughfabric (especially typesbelongingto theL 30 series), with the Roughclassgivesa these note9). Counting the problem(Kaiser1957:76, of is well aware of differentpicture.The Late typesreach50Vo the potterytypesin only one,small,grave completely (l5g}), wheretwo out of four potsbelongto theLate class,the othertwo beingRoughtypes.On the the of section the cemetery, Roughtypesmakeup 50 Vo in otherhand,for all of thegraves the southern which is far or in most cases more of the pottery.Thus,at Armant there is no part of the cemetery by dominated Marl clay pottery.However,this doesnot meanthat groupsof gravesdominatedby at largegroupsof graves, culture.On the contrary, Marl clay potterydo not occurduringthe Naqada (Adams 1987)and even entirecemeteries (Hendrickx 1994)and Hierakonpolis Elkab for instance, (Junkerl9l2) and Wainwright& Gardiner1913,Petriet9'1.4),Tura asthoseof Tarkhan(Petrie, such by (Klasens1957-61) completely dominated Marl clay pottery.Only the transitionin are Abu Roash be from 'Rough'to 'Late'potteryshould placedlater. dominance of the theseproblemsconcerning main structure the Stufm chronology,a few problems Besides StufeTaand Ib is At mentioned. first, the distinctionbetween relatedto particularStufenhaveto be basedon the contentsof a numberof glavesfrom sitesfor which no cemeteryplan is apparently 37 containing (Abydos,el-Amrahand Mahasna, Kaiser 1957:73-4).Fifteengraves, cf. published to StufeIb. Althoughthereis a containing66 objects, are objects, attributedtoStufeIa and27 graves it to betweenthe groupof objectsattributed eachof the Stufen, must alsobe noticedthat difference with thelimited This,together (B 22b,8 22 f ,B 26b,P 1 a, P 17)occurfor bothStufen. several rypes to controlled,seems numberof dataand the fact that the spatialdistributionof the objectscannotbe as Ia that indicate theStufen andIb shouldbetterbeconsidered anentity,aslong asno furtherevidence is available. trd2 andIIIa1, which share Kaiser'sStufen between by Anotherproblemis caused the relationship of or the sameWavy Handledtypesand differ mainly throughthe presence absence Black-Topped from R 84-86to L 30 are types.Also of importance thetransitions types,andthroughtheir Decorated of b,c and from P 40 gl andP 40 el to P 40 q andP 46 blArm, as well asthe appearance restricted typeswhich Kaiser(1957:tt.23) bowlse 2a q. However,whenlooking at the importantDecorated that givesastypical for Stufetrd2, it appears thereis not a singlegravewhereoneof theseDecorated type and a Wavy Handlejar typical for StufeIId2.2 typesis presenttogetherwith a Black-Topped 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 other than Petriemay have been rather attributionof a vesselto one of thesetypesby excavators 14001500easilyallowsa differentclusterarbitrary. at Also the spatialdistribution ArmantCemetery ing of graves, which the groupdefinedby KaiserasStufeIId2 no longerexists.Finally, sincethe by nc WavyHandledtypes,from the momentof theirfrst appearance duringSrufe until their disappearit ing at the endof the First Dynasty, evolutionof shape, would be alwaysseem displaythe fastest to reasons the very strange this would not alsohavebeenthecase these . duringStufeULdZ-lIIalFor all if archaeological in of IId2 andIIIaI cannotbe maintained the way it was defined description theStufen by Kaiser. from Kaiser's The reason the confusionbetweentheStufen trd2 and trIal probablyoriginates for analysis theArmantcemetery. distinction a trIal andIIIa2 causes particular the between Stufen of The problem. belongingto First it shouldbe noticedthat on the spatialdistributionmapwherethe graves each Stufelfral andItra2 Stufeareshown(Kaiser 1957 tf . 20 C), thesymbolsindicatingrespectively : haveerroneously that beeninterchanged. wouldnot be a realproblemif it did not suggest it is the This latterStufe,at the extremesouthern which is represented only threegraves by limit of the cemetery, (1558,1.559,1594; onemoreisolated part of the cemeterywhich grave,1578,in the northern and however not onetype in commonwith the otherthreegraves). Looking at the spatiaidistribution has with this correction mind, itrs StufeIIIai whichis represented just threegraves, two richest the by in 4l

Wavy Handledtypes(W 41) which are closelyrelatedto thoseoccurringfurther of them containing by north (cf. Kaiser 1957:d. 16 B) in the groupsof gravesauributed Kaiserto Sufe trd2.As already part of the cemetery Nile mentioned, straw-tempered Silt potteryis dominantfor the entiresouthern from to just asit is for Kaiser's StufeIJdZ graves. appropriate omit the four graves Therefore, seems it group. SrufeVIal asa separate at Next we haveto tum to theStufentrIb-Itrc3, which are not represented Armant cemetery1400the 1500.StufeIIfb wasalreadydefinedin Kaiser'soriginalpublication, morerecentperiodhowever and arinformation,inscriptions in was originally described anotherway. Startingwith architectural (Kaiser1964:92-6;Ka'periods, three called Horizonten Kaiserdistinguishes material, chaeological & Dreyer 1982:260-r.4 The definition of theHorizontendoesnot rely on spatialdistributionand ser to With regard the pottery,theHorilonten chronology. of is therefore a differentorderfrom the Stufen as aredescribed follows (Kaiser& Dreyer 1982:264): large Irj-Hor):W 80 andsimilar'protodynastic'types; jars 74b,75 q-v. HorizontA (before but Horizont B (Irj-Hor - Narmer):cylindricaljars with and without incisedwavy decoration, the jars as for previousgroup with ('protodynastic' type 50); large in secondgroupincreases number additionaltypes76 and75 a-o. largejars mainly Horizont C (startingwith Hor-Aha):cylindricaljars without inciseddecoration; to belonging fype 76 or 75 a-o. clear thatHorizont becomes of description the Horizontenittmmediately From the archaeological betweentheHorizontenB andC is lessobvious. A can be identifiedwith Stufelnb. The difference which Kaiser startsis very limited sincehe dealsonly with gravesin which The informationfrom Horizont The this havebeen found.However, is notthemainproblem. distinctionbetween serekhmarks B andHorizontC is particularlydifficult to makesincethereareno typesof objectswhich arecharacof can teristicfor eachindividualHorizont,andthedifference only bemadethroughthe frequency the 'Wellendekor' q-v) occuronly (proto-dynastic 74b,75 typeswith Also, thediagnostic sametypes. are among5138pots.s only 8 examples present At very exceptionally. Tiarkhan Dynasty(Kaiser1990: up chronology to theendof theSecond the RecentlyKaiserextended Stufen and Abb. 1). Stufeffibwasdividedinto two subphases threeStufen,Itrc1,IIIc2 andIIIc3, wereadded. stages distinthe With the latetypesof theWavy Handledclassasmain characteristics, chronological in table7.6 guishedby Kaiseraresummarised justified, sinceat Tiarkhan, not betweenStufeffibI andIIIb2 does seem Kaisermakes Thedistinction for for instance, there are226 gravesin which oneof the typesoccurswhich shouldbe characteristic typesbelongingto the 46 and graves(i.e over50 Vo) (48 s,t or 49 d,l), whilst in 116of these Snfe nlb} (Snfe Itrbl) arealsopresent. Furthermore, spatialdistributionof the two groupsof types the 47 series showsno obviouspatterning(seealso p.59) and the very obviousspatialdistribution of the Turah types. the difference between above-mentioned thi cemetery doesnot support ideaof a chronological betweenthe rypesbelongingto that by This view might be supported the observation the difference nor in of the47 series types48 s,t| 49 d,l is not a difference the shape thevessels, evenin the shape and wasapplied. Therethetechnique whichthedecoration by but of or importance thedecoration, only in to fore, and alsoby virnreof the fact that StufeIIIb2 coversa very limited period of time according to Kaiser(cf. Kaiser 1990:Abb. 1), it is preferable makeno distinctionbetweentbeStufentrIbl and

Itrb2.
of Kaiser's Stufefrcl consistsof types which are partly characteristic StufeItrb2 and partly of 'transitional periods'within the evolution of the Naqada of Stufelnc1. The existence thesekinds of to whetherit is necessary distinguish culturecanof course be denied,but it shouldbe questioned not true since This is especially and a periodfor which thereareno characteristic uniquetypesof objects. of the archaeological description theStufenis oftenusedfor datingindividual gravesor evenobjects. It thereforeseems betterto distinguishfewer periods,and admittedlyhaveeventuallya slightly less whilst on the other handarchaeologically evolutionof a cemetery, detailedideaof thechronological
A1 -z

phases will offer far betterpointsof comparison. distinctchronological of Finally we shouldpay attentiononcemoreto Kaiser's1957article.In this study,the description typesof objectsfor which the mostimportantandcharacteristic theStufenis illustratedby plateson or : Snfe are drawn (Kaiser 1957 tf . 2I-4) . Theseplateshave beenreproduced referredto in a each numberof srudiesdealingwith the Naqadaperiod.However,the relationshipbetweenthese large platesand the study of the Armant materialis not obviousat all. The platespresent2M types of at only 119 - lessthanhalf - arerepresented Armant.Theother 125 typescomefrom ponery.Of these by which wereallocated Kaiserto a particularSrufe,but this is not foundin othercemeteries graves Among these125are the largemajority of of basedon the horizontalstratigraphy thesecemeteries. whenthe Decorated Wavy Handledtypes,which areoftenusedasdiagnostic and White Cross-lined, fresh are or chronologyof the Naqadacultureis discussed, when attempts madeto compare relative 37 out of IL2, i.e.32,8 Vo,lta at For datawith theStufenchronology. the typesrepresented Armant, for given by Kaiseras characteristic morethan oneStufe,while the figure is only 13 out of 125,i.e. the in at for lO,4Vo, thepotterytypesnot represented Armant.Furthermore, a numberof cases, assignthe platesandthe resultsof the between not mentof potterytypesto a certainStufedoes correspond atArmant,amongthemthreeout of the This is truefor 34 7 out of 112typesrepresented Armantsfudy. obviousthatthe platesshownby Kaiserhaveto be regarded Wavy Handledtypes.It is therefore five guidelines, occurstoo often in as as and with greatprudence certainlycannotbe considered absolute as the literature,sincethis was not Kaiser's intention,and the platesare only to be considered an of of the development theSufen. outline idealised

belongingto the Naqada culture in Upper 4. The presentinformation available for cemeteries and Lower Egypt. and SinceKaiser'sstudyin 1957,an importantquantityof dataon predynastic earlydynasticcemeterin already excavated UpperEgypt during the first two available. Severalcemeteries, ies hasbecome published, after long andpainsE.J. decades this century havesincebeenpublished.8 Baumgartel of (Baumgartel 1970b,corrections and cemeteries from the Naqada taking work, the corpusof objects sincea will alwaysremainincomplete which however supplements Payne1987,Hendrickx1986), in largenumberof objects,mainly Roughtypes,remained the field. The publicationby B. Adamsof (Adams1987), of the othercemeterand of at Garstang's excavation theFort Cemetery Hierakonpolis ies at Hierakonpolis explored Quibell andGreen(Adamst974a),is mostimportantsinceno cemby previously. More informationconcemhg Hierakonpolis eteryfromthis major sitehadbeenpublished comesfrom the work of H. deMorgan EsnaandGebeles-Silsila anda numberof othersitesbetween in this areaduring the beginningof the centurt, also publishedrelatively recently (Needler1984, 7000at Nagaed noteson cemetery of Cleyet-Merle Vallet 1982). The editionby Dunham Lythgoe's & valuable, doesnot allow a detailedidentificationof Deir (Lythgoe& Dunham1965)is of course but (1981),while the humanremainshavebeen the gravegoods. by This however,is supplied Friedman published Podzorski for (1990).Dunhamwasalsoresponsible thepublicationof an earlydynastic by in cemetery by andReisner 1910(Dunham1978). excavated Fisher atZawiyetel-Aryan, which had alreadytakenplaceduring the decade Importantinformationcomesfrom excavations beforeWorld War II, but especiallysincethe end of the fifties.gBetween1957and 1959A. Klasens (Klasens at excavated, behalfof theLeidenMuseum, several earlydynasticcemeteries Abu Roash on 1957-1961). in at More recent the excavations 1965-8 el SheikhIbadawherea smallearlydynastic are AntiquitiesOrganisation, cemetery discovered (Zimmerman1974) in 1966-7 theEgyptian by and was underthe direction of A. el-Sayed,of a predynastic nearAbydos (el-Sayed at Salmany, cemetery 1979).The Institut(DAI) Arcfuiologisches of surprisingly resultsof theexcavations theDeutsches rich at Umm el Qaab,which started 1977andaredirected G. Dreyer(e.g.Kaiser& Grossman 1979; by in Kaiser& Dreyer 1982;Dreyer 1990, 1992U1993)are of courseof the utmost importance the for connection between Naqadacultureand the historicalperiod.A NaqadaIII cemeteryof limited the extentwas excavated the author at Elkab between1977 and 1980,on behalf of the Comitdde by FouillesBelges Egypte(Hendrickx1994).Across Nile, at Hierakonpolis, numberof cemetera the en

43

Project underthedirectionof thelateM. Hoffman( 1982a). by ieswereinvestigated theHierakonpolis of Finally, for Upper Egypt,therearethe excavations theInstitut Frangaisd'Arch4ologieOrientale, In et at Adarma(Midant-Reynes al. 1990;l99I; 1992;1993b;1994). directed B. Midant-Reynes by the Memphite are4 a few early dynasticgravesfrom North Abu Roashwere publishedby Hawas from the sameageat Abusir has only re(1980),while the apparently more importantcemetery far & (Radwan vondenDriesch Eissa1992;Leclant Clerc 1992). & 1991;Boessneck, centlybeenfound haveshednew light on the relationof the numberof excavations In recentyears,a considerable Munich excavations at the UpperandLower Egypt.l0Besides very important Naqada culturebetween Delta, which startedin 1978 and are under the direction of D. Minshat Abu Omar in the Eastem (e.g.Kroeper Wildung1985;1994:onehasalsoto Kroeper1988;1992), & WildungandK. Kroeper mentionthe limited numberof gravesfound at Tell Ibrahim Awad (van den Brink 1988b:77-II4: (Krzyzaniak Ragab I992),Ezbet 1989, el-Hagg Hassan BeniAmir andTell el-Masha'la I992c:50-1), Importantnew informaDawud(el-Hangary1992)anda numberof othersites(cf. Krzyzaniak1989). of for tion hasalsobecomeavailable Nubia,ll but this falls beyondthe scope the presentarticle. 5. Problemsrelated to the published data 12 of the despite importance all this new information,it is obviousthatthe old excavations Nevertheless, problems re-studying for Therearetwo fundamental of the dataavailable. the still represent majority or no The theseexcavations. first oneis that,in manycases, mapof the cemetery, only an incomplete distributionof objects to becomes impossible studythe spatial and one,hasbeenpublished it therefore published were,in the bestcases, is The characteristics. second that the cemeteries or archaeological are to The which referred typologicalsystems. greatmajorityof the originalobjects by graveregisters for themselves no longeravailable studyin their totality, are nor neitherdescribed drawn.The objects againsinceonly a (limited) numberof themhavefound their way and they will neverbe accessible has the into museums, eventhenin manycases detailsof theirprovenance beenlost.An important and were left in the field. Therefore,one which were lessattractivefor the museums numberof vessels graveregisters thetypologicalsystems which theyrefer to and inevitablyhasto rely on thepublished (cf. SeidlmayerI99O:24). (Petrie1953)and (PetrieI92l), the'protodynastic' the 'predynastic' Threetypologicalsystems, 'archaic'(Emery1938-58, morehavebeen 1957-6I), although used Klasens haveto bediscussed, the (Reisner Scharff & 1908:90-9;Reisner Firth I9I0:314-22;JunkerI9l2:31-44; Junkerl9I9: 48-79, to typologies, which typescould alwaysbe added. All 1926:16-35). threeof themare descriptive at by The 'predynastic'typologywasflrst developed Petriefor his excavations NaqadaandBallas (Petrie& Quibell 1896). thattime hedistinguished about300potterytypes.However,afterexcavaAt to tions at other sitesby himself and others,the numberof types was augmented 1718 when the 'predynastic' published(PetrieI92l). Finally, after additions otherexcavators, total by a corpuswas numberof typesis very The real significance this enormous of of almost3000 typeswas reached.l3 the a difficult to evaluate,sincePetrieneverdescribed criteria usedfor distinguishing type from a on severaloccasions that 'needless multiplications'shouldbe avoided relatedone.He only stresses (e.g. Petrie t92l: 5). As a result, it is to be expected that the definition of types,and thereforethe It additionof new typesto the corpus,was not applieduniformly by all excavators. is most obvious publishinghis excavations Badari (Brunton & Caton-Thompson 1928), at that Brunton, when (Brunton 1937)andMatmar (Brunton 1948),recognised new types more readily than Mustagedda earlier(seealsoKaiser1957:76,note 10).14 Petriedid somedecades thecemeteries.l5 1553wereusedforthepublicationof Outof about3000distinguishedtypes,only thesenumbers One of the mostimporcameaboutfor variousreasons. The greatdifferencebetween were readily madeinto separate or tant is that pots with decoration, otherparticularcharacteristics, and ratherthan excavated, thereforedid not types,but a large numberof them had beenpurchased graveregisterof the Naqada cemeteries another report.The fragmentary is featurein an excavation reason why a numberof publishedtypesarenot represented. knownfor eachtype,shows the The relationbetween numberof typesandthenumberof examples
A A

by distinguished Petrie(table3). The numerically the between potteryclasses importantdifferences (Black-Topped, PolishedRed,Wavy Handled,Rough,Late) also show the classes *"il-r"pr"r"nted (White while thenumericallylessdominantclasses 4 highestrarioper type,between and7 examples, per by are Fancy,Black Incised,Decorated) represented 1 to 2 examples type only. This Cioss-lined, are pottery,orpotterywith particularshapes, to of classes decorated of that indicates thetypologies the the Whenever individual corpusratherthan a typologicalsystem. as be regarded an almostcomplete that It appear. is obvious,for instance, even strongerdifferences reportsare examined, excavation for will petriedistinguishes fewerRoughtypes,andtherefore havea far largernumberof examples far by Brunton distinguished are An types, thanBruntondoes. obviousexample thesubtypes eachof these jar very frequentlyoccurringlarge,pointed R 81 (Brunton1927:pl. XLtr), which were apptlrfor the as ently considered oneuniform rypeby Petrie' frequency L 2 3 4 5 6 7 # types 740 222 139 1 5 5 7 # examples 740 444 417

% examples 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 3,31 100,00

% typs 47,65 14,29 8,95 5,86 3,54 2,90 2,38 2,06 1,48 0,84 3,67
2rW

9 5 4 3

3& 275 270 259

8 9 10 11-15 16-20 2r-25 2644 31-40 4 1 - 50 5l-60 6r-70 82 237 total

3 2

(1) Q) (3) (4)

2 3 13 57 31 26 8 t4 11 5 2 l l 1553

2s6
207 130 730 561 607 224 468 492 265 125 82 237 7r53

r,67 0,52 0,90 0,71 0,32 0,13 0,06 0,06 100,00

Tab. 3. Frequencies Petrie's "predynastic"typology (cf. note 16). for

( 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 examples knownfor onetypemay differ greatly(table3). Typesof which only one Some89 7oof the types of exampleis knownrepresent Vo thetypesbut only 10 Va theexamples. 47 of occurlessthan 10 times,representing Voof the pottery.The 11 Voof thetypeswhich occur 10 or 45 than the figures more times represent Voof the pottery.The unique 'types' are lessexceptional 55 suggest 1990:9). types(cf. Seidlmayer of sincethey arepart of series related 'predynastic' typology.First, confusion Finally, somepracticalproblemsshouldbe notedfor the previouslypublishedtypes when exists in the numberingof the typesbecause Petrie renumbered by integratingthem into his corpus. numberof thesealterations werementioned Petrie(1921:pl. A if LX), but otherswerenot (Hendrickx1989,II: 33-5;Patchl99l: 177-8). Secondly, thepotteryfrom with the old excavation new excavations to be identifiedwith the Petrietypology for comparison is 45

over a numberof by reports,this is not only hampered the fact that the 3000 types are scattered of the drawings.Also, it would be details publications, also by the small scaleand abbreviated but sincea largeamount of a the usefulto investigate accuracy thedrawings, taskwhichshouldbepossible potteryis presentlyin thePetrieMuseumof EgyptianArchaeology. of the drawn (Petrie, Wainwright of was for The 'protodynastic'typotogy frst developed thecemeteries Tarkhan consists 527 types,which had of & Gardiner1913;Petrie l9I4). The original typology of Tiarkhan (Petrie. published corpuswasposthumously the time the 'protodynastic' to beenaugmented 885 by from Tarkhanwere changed. a 1953),on which occasion numberof the originaltype identifications by The from theroyal tombsat Umm el QaaS.16 additions The additionaltypesarealmostexclusively T werenot included,l which bringsthe total to 1119 234 types, a representing further otherexcavators, known examples The of forthepublication cemeteries.18 numberof of fypes.Out these,743wercused when compared the 'predynastic' to 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

# types
301 136 67 35 4l 27 L7 19 7 4 27 l5 11 6 8 3 6 I 2 I I 2 5 I 743

# examples

% examples 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 6,49 100,00

% trypes 40,51 18,30 9rM 4,7 L 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

301 272

20r
140 205 162 119 152 63 40 328 263 260 168 269 r37 320 67 155 84 94 223 865 339 5227

(1 ) Q) (3) (4) (5) (6)

(8)

(cf. typology note19). for Tab.4. Frequencies Petrie's"protodynastic' ( 1 ) a 6p ; 4 7 h ; 4 8 s ; 4 9 e ; 6 3 e ; 6 6 i . : (2):59 . p 47 p; 60j. Q): (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

40 of of is typology.Typesfor which only oneexample knownrepresent Vo thetypesbut not even6 Vo makingup 3l Voof by A pottery. total of 87,5Voof thetypesis represented lessthan 10examples, the 69 the pottery.T'he12,5Vaof thetypeswhich occur 10 or moretimesrepresent Voof thepottery. 'protodynastic' to of since, according no typology(Petrie1953) distinguishes classes pottery, The period.However, into classes continued theearlydynastic theLateandtheWavy Handled Petrie,only with is that it hasalreadybeenseen theLate class not homogeneous regardto theceramicfabric.This, potteryin Mari clay andtheRoughpottery,mostly . between well-made the confusion causes of course, drawingsare small and similar fypes are Nile Silt. Sincethe published madefrom straw-tempered it known to occurin both ceramicfabrics,in a limited numberof cases cannotbe decidedto which belongs. a category particularvessel within the group of cylindrical which is apparent A particularproblemis raisedby the confusion of Petrieusesthe shape the wavy handle jars, which are the descendants theWavy Handledclass. of types(Petrie,Wainwright& Gardiner1913: itself as the main criterionfor distinguishing decoration importo are in of pl. XLD(), while the differences shape the vessels considered be only of secondary certainvessels which areall between in differences shape for in This results, instance, important tance. the to artributed type 46 d (Petrie1914:pl. XXVil). As for the publisheddrawings, sameproblems 'predynastic' corpus. occurasin the by The 'archaic'typologywasdeveloped W.B. Emeryfor thepublicationof thefinds from thelarge (Emery1938-58). in manner developed a morestructured Thistypologyhasbeen at mastabas Saqqara 'predynastic' 'protodynastic' an disadvantage theotherhand, indisputable typologies. On and thanthe degree variationwithin one of is that Emery limited the numberof typesby allowing a considerable for sincethe originalobjectsarenot available study,and this Unfornrnately, cannotbe checked, type. set of standard drawingswhich are usesa Emery in his 1949,1953and 1958publications, because drawwith Emery 1938,beforethesestandard for alwaysrepeated illustratinghis finds.Comparison vessels to attributed the same occurbetween differences ingswereused,makesit clearthat important type (e.g.typesA 3 andA 4). As a result,it is not clearif thereis any real valuein the standardisation by suggested Emery'spublications. of the gravegoods of at the by The 'archaic'typologywasenlarged A. Klasens on occasion his excavations Abu Roash the (Klasens1957-61). existinglist, despite Klasens addsanimportantnumberof typesto the already This is onemore wasfar smaller factthatthenumberof objects thanthosefoundby Emeryat Saqqara. Whenconsidering relationbetween the the indicationof thevariationEmeryallowedwithin thetypes. (table 5), it is at numberof types and the numberof objectsfor the cemeteries Abu Roashalone only 5 Voof thepottery,whilst 81 7o remarkable 42 Voof thetypesoccuroncebut this represents that of the typesoccur lessthan 10 times,representing Voof the pottery.The 19 Voof the typeswhich 25 pottery.The drawingsof the objectspublishedby occur 10 or more times represent Voof the 75 Klasens, of typologies. reproduced a smallscale, of farbetterqualitythanthose Petrie's on are although Also,Klasens publishes largenumberof examples eachrype,which helpsconsiderably underin for a standing principlesby which the typologywasestablished. the Besides havebeenfound,amongwhich pottery,an importantnumberof othertypesof gravegoods arestonevessels, in palettes, beads, However, typesarerepresented suchsmallnuinbersthat etc. the they offer only limited possibilities comparison graves. Thereis one exception, namely between for thestonevessels published to according theprinciplesusedfor the 'archaic'typology fromAbu Roash (Klasens only 50 %o of 1957-61). Although89 Voof thetypesoccurlessthan 10 times,this represents thevessels. half Thus,the remainingll Voof thetypesmustalsorepresent of the numberof vessels.

6. Statusquaestionisof researchon the relative chronology of the Naqadaculture since Kaiser 1957. Only a few studies,the most extensive them as yet unpublished, havetried to check,corrector of amend Kaiser'sStufen chronology. thetime being,theycanbe dividedinto two groups:thosewho For areusingcomputer-based multivariateseriation andthosewho areprimarily relying on the studyof spatial distribution.For a studymentioned Vertesalji (1988),no informationis available. by 47

frequency I

# types
t a l lLl

# examples 12l 62 81 76 75
+z
1a

% examples 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 tA L L a 1

2
a

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I 1-15 t6-20

3l 27 l9 15 7 8
a J a J

56
)4

2r-25 26-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 6L-70 71-80 81-90 134 137

(1)

(2>
(3) (4)

9 8 t0 5 5 9 2 I
1
I

0
J
1

27 90 103 r82 111 t39 308 96 56 62 0 256

< a

7,77 1,04 1,04 3,1I 2,77 3,46

L,lJ
| / 1

(s)

lJ+

137

3,11 0,69 0,35 0,35 0,00 1,0 4 0,35 0,35

for Tab. 5. Frequencies Klasen's"archaic"typologyat Abu Roach. (l): A 3. (2): K 2. ( 3 ) :B 8 ; L 7 ; W 7 . (a): B 10. ( 5 ) :J 1 . which are,as a test,applied techniques, A studyby E.M. Wilkinson (1974),dealingwith seriation are Threeseriations carriedout (Wilkinson is to theArmantcemetery only of historicalimportance.19 are to the 1974 87).Whencompared the spatialdistribution, resultsof all threeseriations completely Also, no archaeological startingorder.20 eventhe one using Kaiser'soriginal orderas unacceptable, of evaluation Kaiser'sresultsis made. scalMore importantis the articleby B.J. Kemp (1982),wherethe seriationby multi-dimensional is discussed. Howof within cemetery at el-Amrahandthe cemetery el-Mahasna B ing of the graves that the seriationis not usedfor the evaluationof Kaiser's ever,it shouldbe mentionedin advance to Dating.First, Petrie'spottery corpuswas condensed 43 but Stufenchronology, Petrie'sSequence Accordingto the excawhich typeshavebeenamalgamated. without mentioning types,unfortunately at & vationreport(Randall-Mclver Mace1902) ,228 potterytypesarerepresented el-Amrahcemetery they contained because 70 B. Out of 90 gravesfor which informationis available, could be seriated (Group threegroups graves of types. After seriation, Kempdistinguishes two or moreof thecondensed 'transitional'groups. transitional i.e.24Voof theseriated 17 groups represent graves, The I-Itr) andtwo with Kaiser'sdatingof the graves el-Amrah(Kaiser 1957:73),Group I correat gmves.If compared Stufellc (except groupbetween GroupI andGroupII matches with Srufe l-trc. The transitional sponds -ndz), while Group II, as well as the transitionalgroup betweenthe GroupsII and trI, grave210 from GrouptrI is datedby Kaiser,but the objects with Stufetr-Ild2. None of the graves corresponds rather B graves characteristic his StufeIlIb. Thechoiceof el-Amrahcemetery seems for from these are period was coveredby the cemetery, as sinceit may well be that the entirepredynastic unfortunate, (Randall-Mclver Mace 1902:3, seealsoKemp 1982:7-12), only 98 but & stated the excavators by 48

graves and therearenonecharacgraves of about400 havebeenpublished, amongthe published out (except gmve22I) andnla2, as already stated Kaiser(1957:73).Kemp's by teristicfor StufeIIIaI posiwhethera periodis missingat el-Amrah(Kemp 1982: L2) cantherefore answered be question As it that the tively, as far as the publisheddata are concerned. a consequence, is to be expected Kemp'sGrouptr andGroupIII is very distinct. between separation potterytypesarenot alsonoticedthata numberof well-knownandcharacteristic Kemp,of course, a at at B, represented el-Amratrcemetery andtherefore, similar studywasmadefor the cemetery el(Ayrton&Loat 1911)and ponerygpes areidentified the excavation report where313 in Mahasna, The potterytypesare condensed 38 typesafter which 98 to informationis availablefor 131graves. Threegroupsof graves with two transitionalgoups are also distinguished gravescould be seriated. but the for el-Mahasna, this time the transitionbetween Groupstr and III is lessmarked,indicating with Kaiser's Snfen chronologyis diffircult use.Comparison that the cemeterywas in continuous gtaves arestrictednumberof 1957:74).Nevertheless, fromMahasna(Kaiser Kaiserdatedonly since GroupsI andtr with StufeIIa-IIc, and to GroupI seems matchwith StufeIb-Ic, thetransitionbetween Group tr with StufeI[c-nd2. The transitionbetweenthe Groups tr and Itr as well as group Itr itself Kaiserdatedonly threegraves this Group. of to seems be coveredbyStufeIIIaI-IIIb, although 'missing'typesat el-Amrah,the threeGroupsshowstrongresemblances between Apart from the with chronology. Finally Kemp thetwo sites,asis alsoconfirmedby theconcordances Kaiser'sStufen which aretraditionallydistinguished within thepredynastic the discusses validity of thethreeperiods of he only of culture.Because his identification GroupItr at el-Amratrasearlydynastic, distinguishes the culture, despite fact thattheearlierpart of GroupIII at eltwo mainperiodswithin thepredynastic period. to Mahasna belongs the predynastic still studyof the relativechronologyusing seriationhasrecentlybeenmadeby A far more elaborate 22 usingthe T.A.H.Wilkinson (I993Q.zt Eight predynastic early dynasticcemeteries wereseriated For the purpose seriation, typesfrom Petrie'scorpuswhich occurred of the Bonn Seriation Program. were condensed 141 types.The use of a universaltypology for all eight to in the eight cemeteries Whereverpossible, results. horizontal cemeteries alloweddirectcomparison theseriation of stratigraphy was used to check the seriationresults.In all cases,the spatial distributionconfirmedthe phases Eachindividual sequence compared was againstKaiser'sStufenchronolderivedthroughseriation. ogy.Significantdifferences emerged, mostnotablyin Kaiser'sdemarcation thethreemajorNaqada of culturephases. were correlated The eight individual site-based using diagnostic types,to sequences produce 'chronological matrix' coveringLower,Middle and UpperEgypt during the predynastic a earlydynastictransition. Regarding problems possibilities seriation, the and of somegeneral remarks haveto be made.Obviouslythe variousproblems concerned with thetypologies usedfor thepublicationof graveregisters will have consequences the applicationof seriation. alreadymentioned, is impossibleto for As it establish newtypologicalapparatus, a moresuited computer for seriation thanPetrie's,sincethe original objectsareno longeravailable, aretheypublished a marner allowingrenewed nor in typological work. The main problemis that the numberof typesis very largewhile the numberof examples of these typesis generallyvery low (table3-4).Therefore, seems impossible without grouping seriation typesor usingonly a limited numberof frequently occurringtypes.Limiting thenumberof typeswill of courseresult in a tendency betweengrcupsof graves.On the other towardsexplicit differences hand,groupingtypesseems perhaps the heteroevenmoredangerous, considering alreadydiscussed geneityof the criteriausedfor distinguishing as typeclasses well asindividualtypeswithin thePetrie typologies. More important,the variationallowedwithin onetype seems differ ratherimportantly to according the interpretation the individualexcavators. unfortunate to The resultof this sinrationis of that the effect of combiningtypescannotbe checkedin an adequate way, and may well causevery differentshapes evenpotteryfabricsto endup asthe sametype.Nevertheless, seriation to be if is and applied, possibility. carefulgroupingof Petrie'stypesseems be the only to A general problemis thechronological valueof seriation. otherwords,thedifferarchaeological In ences betweenthe groupsof relatedgravesshouldbe due to time and not to, for example,social differentiation foreign influences Mortensen1991: 15).Although,generallyspeaking, (cf. or this is certainlyan importantproblemfor interpreting resultsof seriation, impactof non-chronolog! the the 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

Petrie 1953 3 m

Emery / Klasens

Petrie

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

I'
A3 A3 A3 c6 B8

:n"

:u
822 822 E22 E.22 E22

Petrie 1953 65p 749 74p 75a 75d 76a 76b 76c 76d 76e 76r 76m 76n 85d 85e 85f

Emery/
Klasens C2 823 D 8 A4 A4 A6 A6 A7 A7 AL2 A 8 A8 A 8 E2 E2 E2

i t-s
F 7-8 F 7-8 F9 F9 F9 F10 F10 Fl0

:'o
Flt (F 1) F12 F ll-12

l*
50

F lr-12
(F 1) (F 1) K7 D3 B8 B8

Tab. 6. Table of typological concordances characteristicpottery types. for

moment, for can cal elements almostcertainlybe disregarded the Naqadaculture.Up to the present cultureof UpperEgypt is very scanty(cf. Dreyer for the evidence foreign influenceon the Naqada to Holmes lggzb,Adams & Friedmant992) andcertainlycannotbe considered havean im1992a, origin of theWavy the is The only majorexception of course Palestinian pacton theresultof seriation. which most probably no i{andled potter}, but this causes real problemsinceonly the prototypes, The as to be considered foreigninfluence. of arrivedin UpperEgypt within a limited space time, are evolutionof theWavy Handledclasstook placein Egypt itself. morphological more difficult to The impact of social differentiationupon the evolutionof potterytypes seems only itbecomes clearthatthese particularly rich graves, of by define.However, looking at thecontents time it will be noticedthat shape function.At the same or containpotteryof exceptional occasionally was throughthe quantifyof similar objectsratherthan deceased expressed the socialpositionof the of Although the existence thesekinds of objectswithin the graves throughexceptionalobjects.23 that guarantees theywill haveno realimpact automatically occurrence their isolated be denied, cannot on the resultsof seriation. influenceon but A questionwhich is very difficult to evaluate, which might have considerable the of is seriation, the estimation theperiodof time between productionof thePotteryandthemoment culturewasnot madeespecially gravegoods. potteryof the Naqada The part of the whentheybecame variationsin the Different functionswill cause for the funerarybeliefs(cf. Hendrickx 1994:50-t1.2+ reportsnevermentionthe Also, the excavation havebeenused. spanof time duringwhich the vessels potterywasfound(cf. Hendrickx 1994:50-1,734). of conditions usein which the the is A particularproblemfor seriation raisedby Petrie'sdistinctionbetween Roughandthe Late and The Late classincludesa numberof rypeswhich areboth in shape fabric closelyrelatedto class. of from this classbecause their chronological typesfrom the Rough class,but they are excluded marked typeswill cause these for sinceotherwise This shouldbe takeninto account seriation position. matrix. Finally, the most obviousproblem for seriationis that an transitionswithin the generated or is distribution, not takenin account, only usedasan of source information,i.e. the spatial available elementof control after the seriationhasbeencarriedout. As far as the authoris awale,no attempts haveyet beenmadeto includethe positionof a graveinto the datausedfor seriation. the the Besides studiesusing seriationfor discussing relative chronologyof the Naqadaculture, Oncemore, groupwhich startsfrom the spatialdistributionwithin the cemeteries. thereis the second will occur,althoughto a to with reference seriation, discussed problemof groupingtypes,already the lesser extent. of master artsthesisby R. Friedman, is The frst studyof this kind to be discussed anunpublished distributionand relative the presented the University of Californiain 1981andconcerning sPatial at is (Friedman Comparison madewith Kaiser'sSrufen 1981). 7000 chronology Nagaed Der cemetery at for with objectscharacteristic theStufenlc-trd groupsof graves chronology. Spatiallydistinguished which shouldbeplacedbeforeSrufe arc at arealsorepresented Nagaed Der.Althoughgraves present Ic, it was not possibleto confirm Kaiser's differencebetweenStufela and Ib. Also, a numberof the differences Armant and Naga ed Der are observed, most importantbeing the massive between the to to it wareduring Srufefrb.lnthis respect seems be possible connect presence Black-Topped of (FriedmanI98l:745), wherea similarphenomat el-Mahasna cemetery Nagaed Der with the one at by enonhadalready beenobserved Kaiser(1957:74). J. C. Payneapplied Kaiser's chronologyto the informationavailablefor the Main Cemeteryat both at Armant Snfen canbe distinguished that (Payne1990,1992). Sheconcludes the same Naqada of description theSnfen remainvery in andat Naqada alsothatthe differences thearchaeological and limited, the mostimportantbeing situatedn Snfe trb (Payne1990:81). at The graves from the cemetery MinshatAbuOmarhavebeendividedby Kroeper(1988,Kroeper to according & Wildung 1985:92-6,seealsoKaiser 1987)into four groups,somewith subdivisions, Thesegroups,which vary stronglyin numberand whose the burial tradition and the gravegoods.2S spatialdistributionshowsno really obviouspattern(Kroeper& Wildung 1985:Abb. 315-21),cerreportis only value,but thedetailsarenot yet known, sincethe published tainly havea chronological preliminary. the Also, the relationbetween relativechronologyat MinshatAbu Omar,in the eastern Delta,andUpperEgypt shouldbe a point of greatcaution. 51

havebeendividedby van den Brink (this volume)into four vessels Recently,the serelih-bearing as themselves well asthe vesseltypesand the spatial groups,startingfrom the serekhs chronological vessels havebeenfound26' in distributionof the cemeteries which these at Finally, thereis the author'sdoctoralthesispresented LeuvenUniversity in 1989,which deals to and Asyut andAssuan a part of which is devoted theproblem between with thecemeteries primarily -321)'Although the (Hendrickx1989:239-46,257 for of the relativechronology the whole of Egypt appropriate to nevertheless full publicationof this study will have to wait for sometime, it seems 'predynastic'cemeterieS which both a mapahd for The limited numberof someof theresults. discuss For as are a graveregister,evenif incomplete, availableserved a startingpoint.27 the early dynastic 'protodynastic' 'archaic'cemeteries Lower Egypt. in and period,informationcamefrom a numberof from the methodalreadydevel18Ar fot the methodological thereis not muchdifference procedure, not opedby Kaiser.This impliesthatthe distinctionof relatedgtoupsof gravesis based only on their As but contents also on their spatialdistributionwithin the cemetery. a result,a conflict of interests of proximity of all examples onepotterytype on closerchronological for the will arisebetween search groupsof graveson the other.Neither of the one hand,and the definition of spatiallywell-defined it as can thesetwo elements be accepted prevailingover the other.Thus,most unfortunately, seems 'objective' rules for the definition of archaeological comclearly defined, impossibleto establish culture.The samemethod,apperiodswithin the Naqada relativechronological plexesrepresenting principle,but ultimatelyfoundedon the seriation is plied by Kaiseraswell asby ourselves, of course of interpretation the researcher. on the personal extent in depends real termsto a considerable clearthat similar groupsexist for it which were analysed, becomes By comparingthe cemeteries In different cemeteries. that manner,11 groupsof graves,an equalnumberto Kaiser's Stufen,arc orderdefinedthroughtheir mutualpositionin the cemand distinguished their relativechronological and types of objects.However,comparing eteriesand throughthe evolution of the potteryclasses doesnot haveto imply thattheyare differentcemeteries from geographically groupsof relatedobjects this terms.Unforhrnately, questioncannotbe answered chronological in contemporaneous absolute 14datesavailable theNaqada from UpperEgypt (cf. cemeteries for of because the limitednumberof C groups archaeorelated of and For 1987). thisreason, since & Hassan Robinson 1985, 1984b, Hassan we may as well, until any proof to the contrary at logical objectscan be distinguished severalsites, groups, meaning that the same of the accept contemporaneity closelysimilararchaeological emerges, At of for periods may well haveexisted thedifferentcemeteries. this stage theinvestigachronological mapswereintegrated. without published tion, the datafrom cemeteries of for Finally, after an investigation the possibilities regionalvariability (seepp.61-3),a list of all period(s)in which for objectswasmade,mentioning eachof themthe relativechronological typesof description eachof of allowsan archaeological This and they arepresent the numberof occunences. periods. the relativechronological 1500atArmantarenot fundamentally 1400madeby Kaiserfor cemetery general observations The contradictedand thereforethe numberof relativechronologicalperiodsis equal to the numberof occurin their archaeoimportantdifferences by Snfen distinguished Kaiser,althoughin somecases confusion,it was decidedfor the (cf. infra). Nevertheless, thoughit might cause logical description 'Stufe'by 'Naqada'andat the sametime the time beingto useKaiser'sterminologybut replace word 'Naqada etc. IA' changethe letterindicationinto capitalletters,which resultsin with the datafrom cemetery will haveto be enlarged my research the relativechronology on Since Ialb-IId, only for to N 7000at Naqaed Der (cf. note 16),which seem be characteristic Kaiser'sSrufen III the Naqada chronologywill be dealtwith further. that It has alreadybeendiscussed Kaiser'sdefinition of the Stufenlldz-IJJaz showsa numberof problems(seepp.41-2),the most importantof which is that the distinctionbetweenKaiser'sSnfen typesmentrd2 and IIIaI is not reliable,sinceneitherthe spatialdistributionnor the characteristic Also, Kaiser'sdescriptionof StufeIna2 at periodsto be distinguished. tioned by Kaiser allow rwo it Armant, is basedon a very limited numberof graves; is obviousthat the typesof objectsgiven by for Kaiser as characteristic StufefrIa2 (Kaiser 1957:tf . 24H*)arefar more numerousthan can be for and from theArmantcemetery that theyarein fact largelyderivedfrom othercemeteries, deduced which the spatialdistributioncouldnot be investigated. 52

dl

J tll

'

J i ' * . - a -\c)\c)\O\O;
9 S 3 V q
h

x
fr l

; ; ; - ; ; h 6 6 h

f ; ; h ; A ^ A 0 E Q O O G

o '/ =

9 :

0 =

'U E

r )

a0> At r- =-o t nn\ O

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

: x
- X
c .

< o D<a I

'C -t
a : = t

- / =

=
D

^
.
.

'
o 6 ' . - o

oo

. * - '
r h t '

D*tr

o
v n

o t r o '

. 9 .
-.o

. J

o o o o o :

> . " o . .
F D

F ' o o ' o .

,
. h O .

. O

.o oo

o o o o ' o

c.t

J O O O

-l

iI
i
J

I
O l! o O O

F.

U) c.l

o o >

= *
3

o F

d%
q.b cq *o.. "o o'. ' ada o ..13'

#r

o. 8o

. oo
<t

'8.

'E

o ' . . o o o o o c l ' c t o ' o

o '

.3fft'=
'- b
'

o :9
v

. o 9b

'o..'ro c 8

.f''a Eouo.
o_ -' o

oo.

v
t-

. . ", " o
?

.o5 !
E'to;

.
'_
n !

S.xX
de d i
e E O o ! cie ! 9 r o o -i;-iFiX 9 9 9 9 I , a a r 8
d 4 4 4 :

3.'o +Eef o. E .'

.o^8 &L

olo-:

oo
.
n

,'*i;i"ii: i+"
o ' : g -_ 9.g s . . S " ' o
F u . F O

! 5 5E 6

s5."9

:""

: z i
E ! E =

e.'3 l ; rF8 ,>7

? : c . . B.^" _ ooo o . " : ' &.' o . 'Fsge ' . -u . ^!L .' dd .;.tf, B...oo . po tr c * .
a--.
E

: ! ! : o o o r

I I

. F
o

When studyingthe spatialdistribution at the NaqadaIII cemeteryof Elkab (Hendrickx 1994:205and both by their contents by their spatialdistribu16) four groupr of gruu"r could be distinguished, of theWavy Handledtypeswithin thesegtaveswas of tion (fig. l). The homogeneity the distribution for and within materialcharacteristic Kaiser'sSrufeIIIa2, two groupscould be quite rernarkable, with theStufenfrd2problems and of Because this observation theabove-mentioned &stinguished.2g ItrAl to within Kaiser's Snfefrl&' wasreadjusted Naqada IIIal, the mostrecentgroupdistinguished of the Snfe ild2 types,are while most of the originalSrufelfral types,togetherwith a largenumber IJDZ. for characteristic Naqada considered periodto historicaltimes,the early dynastic of In orderto link the relativechronology the Naqada from largecemeteries sincewell published of cemeteries Lower Egypt haveto be takeninto account, for this periodarenot available UpperEgypt.The switchfrom Upperto Lower Egypt shouldnot be a m{z,the wholecountry by that,certainly Naqada accepted problem,sinceit is generally fund-amental (cf. Kaiser 1990).The cemeteries was alreadya cultural entity and probablyalso politically united 'protodynastic'and 'archaic' typologies, involved (note 16) have beenpublishedaccordingto the typolwith the 'predynastic' if for advantages seriation compared which offer a numberof statistical starting groupsof relatedgraves, to it ogy (cf. pp.M-7).Therefore, wasquite straightforward identify jars and the cylindrical jars pottery Upes, mainly storage timited number of characteristic from a of the which represent final stages the evolution of the Wavy Handledclass.The evolution of the himself(Junker1912:1)' and Turahis particularlyclear.This wasnotedby theexcavator cemeteryat tbreeclearzones displays The spatialdistributionof this cemetery lateralsoby Kaiser(1964: 108-9). jars.3o The southern in by (fig.2),which arecharacterised the difference latetypesof Wavy Handled (= W 8A - 47 P), the central (zone1) is dominated Junker'stypesLK-LXV by part of the cemetery fypesLXVII(= 50 d) andthenorthempart (zone3) by Junker's pu.t 1ron" 2) by Junker'stype LX\n 3l is lessobvious,but still allows ValleyCemetery L>Of (= 50 t). The spatialdistributionat Tarkhan (fig. 3). The cemetery two largegtoupsof tombsand two or threesmalleronesto be distinguished 'path' runningSW-NE.The frst group,dominated 46 b-h (= W by alonga to seems havedeveloped of the 'path', with the mostmarkedconcenffato immediately the north and south 58-62),is situated 47 group,dominatedby p,48'49 (= (zone1).The second sections tionsin thecentralandnorth-eastern in furtherawayfrom thepath,with the mostmarkedconcentrations W 71 a, W 80, W 85), is situated (zone2). Two smallzones,one in the centralsectionto the sections and the south-westem southern 'path' andonein thenorth-eastern by (zones34), arecharacterised the presence section north of the (= W 90). of 50 d-f and at Groupsof relatedgravescould be distinguished all of the large cemeteries, a numberof gtoups*om TarkhanValley CemeteryTurahandAbu RoashCemetery400 showvery closeparallels. It was,therefore,a rather simple matterto draw up onetypo-chronologicalframework which gives a threeof evolutionin Lower Egypt.Five periodsaredistinguished, globalimageof the chronological periods, two show five Of of themrepresented the cemetery Turatrwhich is underdiscussion. these at for which arevery similarto two mostrecentperiodsdistinguished the characteristics archaeological (Tarkhat, zone 1) and IIIB (Turah,zone 1; of Naqadacemeteries Upper Egypt, i.e. NaqadaIIIA2 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 by ItrCl and IIIC2 arerelatedto one another the cylindrical 0 Roash, cemeteries and 800). Naqada IIID. The reladuringNaqada jars, which become graduallylesscarefullymadeandwhich disappear in is of extension his originalSufen chronology summarised tion between theseperiodsandKaiser's table7. 7. Correlation betweenNaqada IIIA2 - IIID and the First Dynasty can A numberof tombsfrom Lower Egyptiansites,as well asfrom the royal tombsat Abydos,32 be thosetombsfor Only with the earlydynastickings.33 connected inscriptionsor sealimpressions by materialare known, are which both inscriptionswith royal namesand the (partial)archaeological definedwhen tombswasin mostcases positionof these takeninto consideration.34 chronological The 59

of Itr distributionwithin theNaqada cemeteries Lower Egypt.However,a number studyingthe spatial they contained. 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 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

'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

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

HorizontA HorizontA : )corplonr

u-j

IITB 83 Im 84 trIB 85 mA? 86 rrtA1 87

to according the is at the Whenever distributionof the potteryfrom the mastabas Saqqara arranged distributionarisesfor a date,a clearchronological of kingsfrom whosereign the mastabas sequence jars the fair numberof poneryrypes.Asan example, importantgroupsof largestorage andthe cylinby that in dricaljars arepresented table8. Let us keepin mind,however, this imagemight be idealised of variationwhich Emery allowswithin the types(cf. above,p.47). the degree here,hasalsobeenmadefor the stonevessels which will not be discussed A similar investigation, of bandon or from which it hasbecomeclearthat the presence absence a decorative from Saqqara, jars cannotbe usedas a chronological indicator,sinceboth typesoccurfrom the time of cylindrical Hor-Ahauntil Qa-a.

8. Absolute chronologr. culture,aswell asfor C14datesfor the entireNaqada of The most recentinterpretation the available (Hassan 1980,1985,1988, has thekings of the First Dynastyin particular, beenmadeby F. Hassan in Theseresultshavebeencombined table9 with the relativechronology & Hassan Robinson19S7). only as an initial attempt.The by established the presentstudy.However,this is to be considered periodof the the limited.In somecases, relativechronological remains C14dates numberof available beyonddoubt.Finally,the positionof certain archaeological materialcannotbe determined sampled defrnedto makeoptimumuse of the within the relativechronologyshouldbe more securely kings It beyonddoubtthat the needfor C14datesfor all possibilities offeredby the C14dates. is, therefore, very urgent. periodsof the Naqada culturestill remains

9. Regional differentiation. as can An importantquestion whetheror not local or regionaldifferences be distinguished, wasthe is two differentkinds by case the lithics of the Naqada culturestudied D. Holmes(1989).Basically, for of regional differentiation might be found to occur.On one hand,different typesof objectsmight occurat differentsites,whilst on the otherthe sametypesof objectsmight occurat all sites,but in thereare several in chronology. Unfortunately, otler combinations, with differences their absolute or get a clearpictureof eventualregionaltendencies amongthe reasons which makeit very difficult to gravegoods. of Regarding possibilityof differenttypesoccurringat differentsites,animpression uniformity the usedby Petrieandtheother amongthe cemeteries of system mightbe theconsequence theregistration excavators during 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 Dating uniformity on the entireNaqada culture.SincePetrie'stypologicalcorpusandthe Sequence were developed the combinedinformationfrom the excavations the regionof both Diospolis in on Parvaand Naqad4it hasto be accepted possibleregionalpeculiarities were obscured from the that beginning.88 Leaving asidepossibletypologicalerrors,it is possibleto comparcthe combinationof types of objectsin graves differentcemeteries, althoughthis is hampered the largenumberof types.Of by of course this kind of comparison only meaningful frequentlyoccurringtypes.In an attemptto see for is whethercertainpotterytypesarecharacteristic a certainregion,all cemeteries studiedweregrouped for into four regions,89 cemeteries namelythe Badaridistrict,9O regionaround the Abydos,gltheNaqada 92and finally thecemeteries Armant.93 potterytypesrepresented or moretimesin total, a five For of 61

Kaiser 1957,L990

Stufe Hendrickr 1989

no cvlindrical iars IIID

Naqada

50t
50d 48 s.tl49 d,Y50 d

Itrc3

50 b-c. h-t

we
ucl

mcz
IIIcI

50 d-s

d,l 48 s.U49
47

Itrb2 Itrb1
47 r-t148 V49 d.s
IIIB

w 50/51al55l56el6l-62 w 4ll43bl47z W 4Ll43bl47 s w 24125

m^2
Itral r7d2

w 55t58t6h62
a.s, W 49l5G'51156

wAz
mA1

a,s,m W 4Ll42l43bl47 w 24t25127

rcz
IIDl

w 3/19

trdr trc

w 3/19

trC

by perids asdistinguished Kaiser 1957, 1990and Hendriclot 1989, Tab.7. Relativechronological by the tlpes of Wavy Handled/ Cylindrical Jars. illustrated

rype

Hor-Aha

Djer

Djed

Den

Adjib

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 16 2r 809 : 7; 103 174 F01 2 F A 2 1 I 65 67 F03 ; 46 F04 38 38 F05 q, 700 ca. 700 Fll jars in vessels the lst dyn. tombsat Saqqara of Tab. 8. Occurrence cytindrical andlargestorage (afterEmery1938-58). 1

Semerkhet 66

Qa-a

62

103 in or checkwasmadeof their presence absence the four regions.Out of 339 types,94 occurin all thanthesefigures far greater homogeneity , four regions 129n three,77in nvo and30 in oneonly.A cultureis not of and is to be inferred,sinceboththeearliest the mostrecentphase theNaqada suggest Armant was the (out of 129 cases whereonly three regionsarerepresented, at represented Armant and regionin 81 instances), sinceonly a very limited numberof Roughtypesis known for the nrissing Finally,the at (cf. at Naqada p.43).From96 Roughtypes,only 53 arerepresented Naqada. cemeteries which occur only at one site are types which have beenaddedto Petrie's. majority of the 30 types originaltypology.SinceBruntonallowedfar lessvariationwithin onetypethanPetrie,it may well be that parallelsfor many (?) of thesenew types did exist at Naqadaor Abydos but were supposed be types. in all, it cannot deniedthattheuniformity of thegravegoods All by attributed Petrieto related of of cemeteries UpperEgypt,overa distance nearly400 km, is remarkable. in the Naqada In above,relatedgoups of typesare presentin differentcemeteries. this respect As mentioned of certainpotterytypes,exceptfor the or thereareno obviousshiftsin the appearance disappearance earlierat Armant than,for instance, potteryseems havedisappeared to possibilitythat Black-Topped studyof the Naqaed to in the Abydosregion.This seems be confirmedby the resultsof Friedman's 1981:35-6). Der cemetery @riedman it chronological differences, hasalreadybeensaidthat the informationin As for possibleabsolute regarding problemof possithe doesnot allow any conclusions is very scantyandtherefore this field ble regionaldifferentiation. alongexactlythe samelines and developed if it Nevertheless, would be surprising all cemeteries until now But the havebeenobscured that regionaldifferences a fairly good chance thereis indeed new excavations. will haveto restuntil moredataareavailableon old or question III of The Naqada cemeteries Lower Egypt (cf. note 19),arelocatedwithin a relativelysmall area. Tarkhan,and the most northern,Abu Roash,is cemetery, betweenthe most southern The distance that some60 km. Also it may be assumed the culnrralunity had grownthroughpolitical unification. of that the gravegoods the burials at Tbrkhan,for by This seemsto be supported the observation of the Therefore, possibilityfor regionalvariationseerns little a strikinghomogeneity. show instance, from Upper Egypt, nothing defiimportance.As for comparisonwith the late NaqadaIII cemeteries of nite canbe saidfor the time beingbecause the lack of datafrom UpperEgypt.

10. Conclusions article,it seems of at mentioned thebeginning thepresent confusion With regardto theterminological culturedown to of bestfor a discussion the materialcultureto distinguishperiodswithin the Naqada for SecondDynasty.95 Thereare fwo principal reasons this. First, when no written the time of the materialdoesnot allow a the which is nearlyalwaysthe case, archaeological informationis available, thereis no break in the preciseassignment the reign of a particularearly king of Egypt. Secondly, to of the historic period.As a matterof fact, obvious materialculture of UpperEgypt at the beginning of differences materialculture,meaningthe development typical Old Kingdom typesbf objects, in 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, greatproblems,especiallyfor seriation.For this reason,the casesincompletelypublished,causes the to presented Kaiserover35 ye:m agostill seems be valid. However, possibilities methodology by with the offeredby seriation(cf. Seidlmayer 1990)cannotbe ignored,but they shouldbe integrated merelyasa control for the other. studyof the spatialdistribution, without using oneof the two systems (Hendrickx 1989),of which someresultshavebeen of The investigation the relativechronology presented, follows similar divisionsto Kaiser's,but doesnot coincidecompletelywith the Srufen chronology. mostimportantdifferences situated Kaiser'sSufen\d2-maz aswell asin the in are The (cf. table7). These mainly by are differences caused Stufen which Kaiseradded recentlyto his system on thefact that Kaisertriesto definetransitional periods(e.g.Stufelfrcl),while my own studyfocuses moreperiodswithin archaeologically periods. a result,Kaiserdistinguishes clearly distinguished As

63

that it III. Naqada Nevertheless, shouldbe remembered the definitionof a relativechronologycannot of tool but is only an indispensable for studyingseveralaspects the history of a be a goal in itself, well-definedand only archaeologically to appropriate distinguish given period.Therefore,it seems periods. characteristic For the NaqadaIII period,which was the main topic of interestin this article,the following sumIIIB can IIIA2. Naqada royal tombsatAbydosdateto Naqada marycanbe given (table9). Theearliest are tombsfor which serekh's knownandthusalsowith Kaiser'sHorizontA. with theearliest be Linked IIIB. SincetheinschpandKa, arealsoto be placedin Naqada Tlvo of thekings of Dynasty0, Irj-Hor to tions which were previouslyattributedto Scorpionare now no longer considered belong to his macehead,nor is his on of reign,no inscriptions this king remain,exceptof course the Hierakonpolis questionable. Naqada IIIC1 is certainly becomes his tombknownatAbydos.Therefore very existence IIIC2 coversthe reignsof Djed, Den identicalwith the reignsof Narmer,Hor-Ah4 andDjer. Naqada does not from tombU at Umm el-Qaab, for available Semerkhet, andAdjib. The very limited evidence with NaqadaIIID might be found to commence allow a choice betweenNaqadaItrC2 and IIID. Semerkhet,but it can certainly be recognisedalready in the tombs attributed to the time of Qa-a. Dynasty,a limit to Naqada of Because the lack of historicallydatedmaterialfrom the early Second IIID cannotbe defined.

-Naq43-El
NaqadaIIIAI-IIIB Naoada -:::=a:--- IIC-TIDZ Naqada IA-IIB

i ca. 310G3000
l

! Narmer - Died
l

100 i ca.330G3 ____-1l*ogfA:-Ettro3t5e---i ca. 365G3300 i ca. 390C3650 --+ t!-

culture. Tab. 9. Absolute chronologyof the Naqada the of between princidescription the differences regarding archaeological the The inconsistencies However, in to cultureareimportantenough enforcea change terminology. pal periodsof theNaqada that moredatawill becomeavailablewithin the is to be expected to it seems be too early to do so. It which Thesewill comebothfrom old excavations next few years,thanhasthroughthelastfifty years. (el still remainto be (re)published Ahaiwa,Mesaid,Mesheikh,Naqaed Deir, Nagael Hay, Shurafa cf. Deir el Ballas,Hierakonpolis, note9), andfrom recentones(MinshatAbu Omar,Abusir,Umm el conseit Therefore, is betterto wait until the chronologibal el Adarma,Elkab,Hierakonpolis). Qaab, change, suchasproposing a beforeaccepting far-reaching quences ofthese datahavebeenevaluated terminology. a new chronological

Acknowledgements of I wish to thank W.V. Daviesand the staff of the British Museumfor the perfectorganisation the who to on symposium Early Egypt.Manythanksaredueespecially Dr.A.J. Spencer, was sokind asto to Englishtext. I am alsogreatlyindebted Prof. Dr. W. Kaiser,E.C.M. van denBrink and improvemy article. on Dr. T. Wilkinson for their comments an earlierdraft of thepresent

64

Notes: Dynasty(cf. period,i.e. theFirst andSecond culturewill alsobe usedfor the earlydynastic l. ThetermNaqada for pp.$-g.An historicaloverviewof the research therelativecbronologyof the Naqadaculturewill alsobe in Payne1990andPatch1991:153-170. found 229.D 49 b: Abydos D Z.Tinefollowingtombsareinvolved. 10 m: Armant 1530,Badari3753,Mustagedda Naqaed Deir B A E 340.D 63 a: el Amra Cemetery 118,Cemetery 021,230,Armant 1458,1547, Cemetery 524. Main Cemetery Naqada 1626,1633, 70, Fort Cemetery Mustagedda TIyT,Ifterckonpolis for studiedby Hendrickx1989(cf. note 15)theoccurrences thesetypesare:P 40 g1: 1; P 3. For thecemereries q: 5;P 46 b: 5; P 24 q: l. 40el: 1;P 40 (pers. by 4. The Hoizonten were conceived Kaiseras a preliminarysystemonly, basedon limited evidence related theHorizonten'seevan den Brink (1996,this vollo a numberof problems of comm.).For discussion ume). to 5. Recently,Kaiser seems have omittedHoizont C (Kaiser 1990:Abb. 1) and probablyalso revisedthe of characterisics Hoizont B. archaeological for description thesenew Stufen,neitherdoeshe discussthe way in 6. Kaiser 1990gives no archaeological informationsuppliedby Kaiser table7 is basedon personal Therefore, which they have beendistinguished. with the early kings of Egypt canbe correlation The following 30 (poznan symposium1992,letter Oct. 1993). Sufe IIfb2 = hj-Hor and earlier; Snfe Tnd = Ka - Narmer; Snfe frlc2 = Hor Aha Djer; Stufefrc3 = made: 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 1910and 1937(Marro 1920,1929;d'Amicone 1988); between at the For instance Italianexcavations Gebelein and Expedition the HarvardBostonExpedion and of theexcavations Reisner his assistants behalfof theHearst Brovarski1982:300;Needler 1936:371-7; Mesaid(Reisner 1900-1;1936:377-8), tion at el Ahaiwa(Reisner (Mortensen I99l:36) andDeir elShurafa 1974), Nagael-Hay(Freed 1913), Mesheikh 1984:138-45), @sher 1915and1918 between work at Dendara 1988: 260);C.S.Fisher's 1936:55-6,379Podzorski Ballas(Reisner carriedout at Hierakonpolisby Lansingin 1935 (Fischer 1969: l-2); the MetropolitanMuseumexcavation concerning individualsites,seealsoHendrickx(1995). (Lansing1935).For additionalbibliography can that only somevery generalconclusions be so 9. For a numberof excavations, little hasbeenpublished the is in made.The most importantexcavation this respect of course hugecemeteryat Helwan,where10,258 therearefor between1942and1954(Saad1947,195I, 1969)'Furthennore, by tombswereexcavated Z. Sarrd at of examplea numberof smallerexcavations the EgyptianAntiquitiesOrganisation Abu Umuri (1936,cf. Kaplony 1965;Kromer 1973),Naga el-Gaziriya(1938, L944,cf. Kdiser 196I: 2O'l), el-Qatta(1948-52,cf.. ?, Tura (1957-79 cf. Leclant1961;el-Khouly N.N. 1952), Brunner1952-53: Leclant1950,1952,1953,1954l' (1965-8, el-Sayed 254),Nag' cf. 1979: Hawashim Yacoub 1, 1983), 198 1980; 1968; 1973,1978,1979, Leclant & cf. Edtu(1983-4, Leclant Clerc 1994:427),el Adwa(1988, (1975,1980-1, Maher1977), cf. el-Hagg Tnidan cf. Leclant& Clerc 1994 421),Helwan (1966,cf. Leclant 1968;el-Banna1990),Khozam(1989,cf. Shehata for 1989).Among other excavations which hardly anythingis known, an early dynasticcemeteryat Mendes (Puglisi 1967)canbe mentioned as (Hansen1967 L6)andanotheronein the neighbourhood Qasrel Sagha of the Wadi Harunamat(Debono1951)at Esna(Debono1971)and at Adatma well as the work of Debonoin at by (Debono1971;SauneronlgT4). Finally,nothingat all is knownfor excavations Naqada the Universityof (1971-2,1981 cf. Leclant1973,1974,1982). ?, Alexandria at by the cultureis underdiscussion, publication theDAI of theexcavations Merimde, 10.Sinceonly theNaqada Maadi, S/adi Digla, el Omari and Heliopolis are left aside. WadiAllaki (Piotrovski1967),Faras-Gamai Q'{ordstrdm 11.Cemeteries Sayala andQustol(Williams 1986), at Periodobjects LateOld Kingdom- First Intermediate 12.An extensive analysis a similarproblemconcerning of (1990:8-12). wasmadeby Seidlmayer & Randall-Mclver Mace L902:pl. Ktr-XV; 13.Theadditional typescanbe foundin thefollowingpublications: Hall Wainwright& Mackay I9I2: pl. D(-X[; Naville, Peet, Ayrton& Loat 1911:pl. )OnnU-)OO(VlI; Petrie, & & Haddon 1914:pl. V; Peet 1914:pl. )OCV[; Engelbach Gunn 1923:pl. )O(VI-XD(; Brunton & CatonThompson 1928:pl. )OOil/-XIVL; Mond & Myers 1937:pl.>OCtr-XXVm; Brunton 1937:pl. )fl-)iltr; 1948: pl. )OO(tr-X)O(V between typologicalidenthe (1990:10)for the difference was 14.The sameobservation madeby Seidlmayer Periodobjecs by Petrieand Brunton. tificationof late Old Kingdom - First Intermediate

r972).

65

& I on 15.This is based the datafrom: AbydosCemeteries andX (Randall-Mclver Mace 1902:53-5;Petrie& E U Mace l90l: 11-2),AbydosCemetery (Peetl9l4: 146),Abydos Cemetery (Naville, Peet,Hall & Haddon Frankfort@rankfort1930:213'5),el-Ahaiwa@eisner1936: AbydosExcavations 1914:17-9), l9l4: L2-7;Peet Gardiner el-Badari(Brunton, (Randall-Mclver Mace 1902), Arrrant (Mond& Myers 1937), & 377-8),el-Amratr 1928),Elkab (Hendrickx1993),Hanmamiya (Brunton,Gardiner & Petrie1927;Brunton& Caton-Thompson Matmar(Brunton1948), (Ayrton& Loat 1911), 1928),el-Matrasna Brunton& Caton-Thompson & Petrie1927, (Petrie& Quibell 1896,Petie 1920:pl. (Brunton1937), Naqada el-Mustagidda Mesaid(Reisner1936:371-7), 1928), Salnany & Payne1987), Hendrickx1986, 1970b, LI, Baumgartel Qawel-Kebir(Brunton Caton-Thompson of is (el-Sayed at The 'Fort'cemetery Hierakonpolis not includedsincethetypologicalidentifications the 1979). solid enough(Adams 1987:2). CemeteryN 7000 at Naqa ed Der is not includedsince the objectsare not to 1981)wasnot yet available the authorat thetime whenthis wasstudied. tombregister(Friedman unpublished material from Umm el Qaabwith that from Tarkhanby meansof the 16. When comparingthe archaeological 'protodynastic' at betweenthe two, sincethe typesPresent typology,thereseemto be hardly any likenesses picture. The pottery from Umm el Qaabwas not Umm el Qaabrarely occur atTarkhan.However,this is a false 'protodynastic'corpus, type nurnber. a received separate sincenearlyall ofthe vessels really 'integrated'inthe pots with alreadyexistingtypesif they had It is beyonddoubt that Petriewould haveidentifredmanyof these beenfound at Tiarkhan. & Engelbach Gunn 1923:pt.30; Petrie 17. The additionaltypes can be found in the following publications: 1923:pl. LI-LItr; Brunton 1927:pl. )Otr-XVI; Mond & Myers 1937:pl. )O(D(-)OO(; Brunton1937:pl. )Ofi; 1948:pl. )OIV. (Brunton, (Brunton, Gardiner Hammamiya & Gardiner Petie 1927), on 18.This is based thedatafrom: el-Badari (Brunton,Gardiner& (Brunton1937),Qaw el-Kebir & Petrie 1927),Matmar (Brunton1948),el-Mustagidda Petrie,Wainwright Tura(Junker1912, Petrie1914), Wainwright& Gardiner1913, Pette |9}/),Tarkhan (Petrie, 1913). & Gardiner the with Kaiser's. Therefore, dataarenottakenfrom the his in 19.Wilkinsonis only interested comparing results original publication(Mond & Myers 1937),but from Kaiser(1957:'77,note67), which implies that a small numberof typesis omitted. in part of the cemeteryis seriated the following 20. The spatiallyisolatedgroup of gravesin the southern 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 hamiltonian circuits beingshortest result' (.POLISH)with initial orders to 'bestpolished 2. positionaccording (.HAMIL). circuit' (.HAMIL) to 'besthamiltonian 3. positionaccording 'bestpolishedresult' (.POLISH)usingKaiser'soriginal orderas starting order. to 4. positionaccording providedby T.A.H. has and thereforethe following suurmary kindly been 21. This studyis not yet published Wilkinson (October1993).Sincethe study iSelf hasnot beenseenby the authorno furtherconmentscan be madefor the time being. CemMustagedda Turah,Matnar Ceneteries200/3000-3100/5100, 22. Tirkhan Hill and Valley Cemeteries, Fort Cemetery. Hierakonpolis 1400-1500, b, el-AmrahCemetery ArmantCemetery Mahasna, etery 1600-1800, Peetl9L4: I7Hall & Haddon1914:15-16; E75,8169,84034,W344(Naville,Peet, 23.8.9. Abydosgraves tomb 100 (Payne1973), graves48, 83, 107, 115, 120 (Ayrton & Loat 1911),Hierakonpolis 19), el Mahasna is of Elkab grave85 (Hendrickx L994: 194-6).The presence enonnousnumbersof identical(?) vessels also (cf. at typical for the First Dynasty mastabas Saqqara table 8). On as 24. This doesnot imply that the samepottery is presentin the cemeteries well as in the settlements. the contary, settlementpottery showsvery distinct characteristics. with the relativechronology by suggested theauthor(cf. infra),canbe made: a 25.With reservation, correlation IIIA1, Group 3a = NaqadaIIIA2, IID1, Group2 = Naqada Group la = NaqadatrC-IIDl, Group lb = Naqada IIID. mCl-mC2, Group4 = Naqada IIIB, Group3c = Naqada Group3b = Naqada suggested with the relativechronology by correlation 26. From informationsupplied van denBrink, a tentative 66

IIIC1. IIIB, GroupIII-W = Naqada by the author(cf. infra), canbe made.GroupI-II = Naqada 2600-27W(Brunton1948: cemetery involved:Matrnar, from northto south,are Z;l.fye following cemeteries, 1928: pl. m, )OO(II3700 and 3800 (Brunton& Caton-Thompson pl. VItr-D( XDQ, el Badari,cemeteries 1928: (Brunton1927:pl.VI, X-XI; Brunton& Caton-Thompson cemetery1500-1800 l)Oiltr), Hammamiya, (Brunton& Caton-Thompson 1928:pl. m, )OO(), el-Salnany(el 100 pl. )CO(-)OCfl); Qawel-Kebr, cemetery 'Sayed 1979),NaqadaMain Cemetery(Petrie& Quibell 1896:pl. DO(XII-LXX)fiII; Baumgarteli970b; (Mond & Myers 1937),Hierakonpolis, 1300and 1400-1500 Armantcemeteries Hendrickx 1986;Payne1987), 'Fort Cemetery' (Junker19i9). Southcemetery Kubbaniya, (Adams1987), Elkab(Hendrickx1994), locality 27, N The dataconcerningcemetery 7000werenot yet availableto the authorat the time whenthe studywascarried They are to be locatednorthAsyut havenot beentakenin to consideration. cemeteries The 'predynastic' out. by sincethey comefrom a differentregionandin Lower Egypt the possibilityof influences studiedseparately the part culture.Nevertheless, only the second of the Naqada Maadi-Butocultureexists,alsotheyrepresent the Abusir el Meleq (Scharff (Petrie, Wainwright& Mackay 1912), of spatialdistributionin the cemeteries Gerzeh with UpperEgypt.Also, it and & igZ6),U*ue"h @ngelbach Gunn 1923)shouldalsobeinvestigated compared of with the cemetery MinshatAbu Omar,where chronological most useful to make a comparison would be (Kaiser1987;Kroeper1988). goups havealreadybeendistinguished 0, cemeteries 300,400-500'800from northto south,areinvolved:Abu Roash, ig. Th" following cemeteries, Turah(Junketl9l2), 1940), westofSerapeum (Klasens1958-61), cemetery Saqqara, QVlacrarnallah 900andM A, R G, H, J and Q (Petrie,Wainwright& Mackay 19i3, Petrie l9i4). cemeteries Valley cemetery, Tarkhan, at for Althoughmapsareavailable a partof the excavations Helwan(Saad1947)andalsosomeinformationon atAbu Also, the excavations distribution. of investigation thespatial this thegravegoods, is far too limited for an which doesnot allow their (I\4ontet in 1938,1946) a manner published by Roash MontetandLacauin L9l3-4are sfudy. in integration the present by 29. This wasalsoobserved Kaiser(pers.com.)for othercemeteries. (Junker1912:31-43).As a whenpublishing this cemetery his 30. Junkerdeveloped own typologicalapparatus which allow muchvariationwithin eachof only of a numberof broadtypes matterof fact his typologyconsists with his own typology(Petrie,Wainwright& Gardiner1913:pl. the types.Petriemadetablesof concordance L)ilI-L)fltr, LXV, L)il/[.LXVM). The tomb graves indicated. are 31. On the mapof theValleyCemetery 1Pefie 1914:pl. >(LVD 1064numbered informapl. )OOil-)OIII; contains Wainwright& Gardiner1913:pl. lX-LXVtr; Petrie19i4: register@etrie, tion for only 712 of them. archaeological materialand the earliestEgyptian between the 32.'I\e bestinformationconcerning correlation which most at to rulers might be expected come from their own tombs at Abydosor the mastabas Saqqara tombshaveancientlybeenheavily looted'Also, the these officials.However, to probablybelonged their highest very much a large scale at igst excavations Abydos,by Amdlineau(1899a,1899b,1902,l9M), resembled are the plundering(Maspero1912;Petrie 1901:2).Furthermore, resultsof Petrie'sexcavations only partially (Petrie 1900, 1901, 1902).Finally, the modern are publishedas far as pottery and stonevessels concerned 1979;Kaiser & Dreyer 1982; by excavations the DAIK are not yet publishedin detail (Kaiser& Grossman by and the Dreyer 1990,1993).As for Saqqara, excavations publications Emery (1938-58)arewell produced, problems. The objectsfound causes usedby Emeryfor the publicationof theobjects but the typologicalsystem drawings.More important is illustratedby the reproductionof standard for eachof the tombswerein most cases within onetype. Naturally, this does the fact that it can not be deniedthat Emery allowedratherwide differences cf.. not allow detailedtypologicalresearch. p' 47. informationand of are 33. In the presentcontext,the inscriptions only of interestbecause their chronological therefore their contentetc. will not be discussed. materialis insufficientlyknown. E.g. tombsfrom sincethe archaeological 34.A numberof tombsareexcluded at Abu Roash(Montet 1938,L946);a tombfrom the time of Djed at NazletBatran the time of Den, excavated (Daressy1905)andespecially numberof tombsat Helwan(cf. Kaplony 1963:81, I33, 136,141,149).As far a judged from the excavationreports,the archaeological materialfrom thesetombs frts well in Naqada ascan be betweenthis periodandthe reignsof Djed and Den' On the ItrC2 and thereforeseems supportthe conelation to 1959:58; Kaplony 1963:85) is to attributed the tirneof Djer or Djed (Klasens otherhand,a tomb arAbu Roash no ground.Two tombsat Abusir el-Meleq (tombs i021 and to not includedsincethe attributionseems hold of the are potterywith uninscrib serekh's not includedbecause contents the tombsareinsufed 11214) containing by n" 28).Thesetombsare attributed Kaiser& ficiently known (Scharff1926:20,35, 150-1,162-3,tf..11, probablyto Naqada IIIA2 and/orIIIB. Dreyer(1982:266-7)to Hoizont A, anddate 35.Emery 1949:l2l-44. 36.Emery 1949:116-20. 37.Emery1958:98-109.

67

5-36. 38.Emery 1958: 39. Petrie 1900:Pl. X)O(D(-)(LIII. Naqada doesnot allow a choicebetween available The 40.petrie t900: fl. >OO<D(->{Lm. very limited evidence ItrC2 and IIID. 41.Emery 1949:82-94. 42.Emery1949:95-106. 43. Emery 1949:125-9. 44. Petrie 1900:pl. XIO(D(->(LItr 1940:58. 45.Macramallah 46. Macranallah 1940:66. 1961. 47. Klasens 1938. 48. Emery 49.Emery1958:37-72. 50. Emery 1958:73-97. 51.Emery 1949:107-15. only a limited variationof potterytypeswhich doesnot allow a 52.Emery 1949:7 l-8I. This tomb contained ItrCl andItrC2. Naqada madebetween clearchoiceto be 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, the within the cemetery, tomb may in all probabilitybe placedwithin this period. the considering localisation 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. ItrC2. However'the to this tomb wasattributed Naqada 61. While studyingthe spatialdistributionat Tarkhan, ItrC1. The problemcannotbe Naqada objects*" not typi.al for this periodalone,but might alsooccurduring of at soiuedbeyonddoubt,sincetomb 300 doesnot occuron the mapsof the cemeteries Tarkhan.Because its (IIIA2-firB). However, since the number,the tomb has to be sought in cemeteryA (NaqadaIIIB-ItrC2) or L an with Hor-Aha'snameon it doesnot occurin the tombregister(Kaiser& Dreyer 1982:267e), errorby vessel Peeiemight not be excluded. 'protodynastic'50g to are 62.Dunha6 1978:1.Amongthe gravegoods four cylindricaljars, belonging thetype (NaqadamCl). 1L873-7. 11.760-8, cG 1905: 11.665-8, frg. 63.deMorgan1897: 562-73;Quibell Dunham1978:1. 64. for are 65. Over ?00 cylindricalvessels mentioned this tomb, which shouldbelongto type F 2 @mery 1949: with the puband th" typ" wasstill ill-defrnedat the momentof the excavation, a comparison 152).Howev"t, (Emery 1937:pl. l6;7-aki & Iskander1942:ftg.52-3) showsthatthey belongin reality to type F lishedobjects ItrCl. d, fig. 1958b: 13)(= 'protodynastic'50 50 0, whichis typicalfor Naqada 11(Klasens petrie 1900:pl. )OO{D(-){Ln; Kaiser& Dreyer 1982:227-8,Dreyer 1990:647.The very limited evidence 66. IIIB and ltrCl. Naqada between of disnubance the tomb,doesnot allow us to choose andthe extensive pl. )(LIII. This is the only tombwheretheking'snameis not writtenin ink on ajar or impressed 67.Petrie,1914: objectmight well have on a seal,but it occun, very carefullywritten,on a calcitecylindricaljar. This precious of part of the equipment a tomb' The NaqadaItrC2 date time beforebecoming beenusedfor a considerable might thereforenot applyto the vesselwith Namter'sname. 'archaic'tYpe E to Abb. 33). It belongs the with theinscriptionis published flilildung 1981: 6SlOnty the vessel 'group 3c', which matches with NaqadaItrCl/ ItrC1) andis placedby Kroeper(1988:fig. 141)in 22 (Naqada

c2.
69. Petrie,Wainwright& Gardiner1913:pl. DC. 70. Petrie,Wainwright& Gardiner1913:pl. L)OV. 71. Petrie 1914:pl. )OOOIIU. pl. & 1913: L)fl. 72.Petie, Wainwright Gardiner 73.JunkerI9I2:74. 74. Petrie,Wainwright& Gardiner1913:pl. L)O. with theinscriptionis known (Saad1947:pl. 60)' 75.For boththetombsHelwan 1627and1651,only the vessel IIIB-IIICI). to the 'archaic'type E22J22a(Naqada They belong 68

-6. Karser Dreyeri982: 229-30. 58. & tf. -7. Petne1913:pi. )il-. The inscnptions as liom rhisancithe tbilowrnggravewere onginallvreaci Scorpton a to iKaplony1963:1090;Kaiser& Dreyer1982 ?66-i), but arenow attnbuted HorusCrocodile. king from is This interpretation somehow a Egyptwho may havebeen rival to theAbydoskrngs(Dreyer1992b). Lower which also by of of 'HorusCrocodile'in tomb 414 at Tarkhan corroborated the presence a seaiimpression (Petrie1914: pl. are inscnptions Narmer. Tarkhan several of 1549, objects in thetombregister six For conrained jars for IIICI besides themtwo cylindricai ('protodynastic' 50 d, 50 e) characteristic Naqada rype among )C-), jar for IIIB. to whrchbelongs type49 l, characteristic Naqada occurs, thecyiindncal on whichtheink inscnption a jars with inscnptions exceptional that are is not impossible the objectonly became funerary objects, it Since IIIB or ItrCl. The earlierdateof thisjar The dateto eitherNaqada gift at a laterstage, inscnpuonmay therefore (1964:104,note2) andis alsoconfirmed Dreyer(1992b:260). by suggested Kaiser by wasalready jars arementioned the tomb register(Petne,Wainwright& Gardiner in 78.For Tarkhan315,tiree cylindncal 'prorodynasric' IIIA2. to to types46b,46 f and46 k, whichdatethegrave Naqada l9l3: pl. LX), belonging the However, to (id. Theink inscriptionis published pl. X)Ofl,66) withoutdrawingof the vaseor reference a fype. for to according Dreyer 1992b:260),the type is 49 l. This type, whrch is charactenstic NaqadaIIIB, diffen it by mentioned Petne.Unforrunately, from 46 b etc.andcantherefore hardlybe oneof the vases considerably with wasmadein theexcavation that reportandthattheink inscnptioncannotbeconnected is possible a mistake 315. Tarkhan 'archaic' (Wildung1981:Abb. 33). is typeE22(Naqada ItrCl), with theinscripuon, published. 79.Only thejar, jars IIICl. Kroeper1988:hg. 42 for Dreyer1987: mentions thistombcylindncal whicharerypicalfor Naqada 'group3b' which matches also IIIB. The possibiiitythat the inscripuon the with Naqada 95 places objectin by to HorusCrocodile suggested vandenBrink (thisvoiume). belongs thenewlyidenufied is pl. tf. 80.Petrie1900: X)O(D(-)(LItr; Kaiser& Dreyer1982:230-1, 58. SeeaisoMlkinson 1993b. pl. Wainwright Gardiner & 81.Junkerl9l2:64; Petrie, 1913: LXI. Petrie, Wainwright Gardiner 82.Junker1912:65; & l9l3: pl. DilI. pl. Wainwright Gardiner 83.JunkerI9l2:63; Petrie, & 1913: DCI. pl. 84.Petrie 1914: XL. 8 5 .D r e y e 1 9 9 3 : 3 1 , 4 8 . r 86.Dreyer1990: 57-8. 87.Dreyer 1992u 1993:34-5,4O-9. to this 88.As already stated Mortensen by 1991:15,Petrie not seem realise problem. did - Elkab.However, wasof no usein the present this 89.Anotherregionmight bedistinguished Hierakonpolis for are contextsincethe Elkab cemetery III represents only Naqada and at Hierakonpolis hardly any tombspub(e.g. el-Mamariya, deMorgan1912: cf. lished Naqada although at I, for theywerecenainly present thisregion in 3G8;Needler 1984: 103). 9G 90.This groupincludesall cemeteries Matmar,el Mustagidda, Badari,Hammamiya andQaw el Kebir. el of At 91.This groupincludes cemetenes el Mahasna, and ei all Abydos, Amrah,el Aharwa Mesaid. the of Salmany, Had time whenthis wasworkedout, the informationon cemetery 7000at Naqaed Der wasnot at our disposal. thisbeenso,another in groupcouldhavebeen of consisting theNaqaed Der cemetery combinadistinguished, tion with the few gravesknown for el-AhaiwaandMesard, which areincludedin theAbydosgroup,but which arenumerically mrnorimponance. of 92.This groupincludes cemeteries Naqada Der el Bailas. all of and 93.This groupconsists only of the cemeteries Armant. at (e.g.R 1.R 3) wasleft 94.In reality361typesoccurfive or moretimes, a number uncharacterisuc shapes of but aside. 95.Terms cultures. suggest different they suchas 'Amrauan' 'Gerzean' to beomrned or because incorrectly are

69

References

olis. Warminster. 4a. Adams,B . 197 Ancient H i erakonp Warminster. s Adams,B . I97 4b.AncientH ierakonpoli Supplemenr. 'Artifacts(fromLocalify6)', in: Hoffman, 56-58. M.A. (ed.)1982a: Adams,B. 1982. London. Hierakonpoiis. at Adams,B. 1987.TheFort Cemetery 'Two More Lionsfrom UpperEgypt:Hierakonpolis Koptos',in: Friedman & and Adams,8.1992. Adams(eds)1992:69-76. 'Hierakonpohs1992',tn:Bulletin de Liasondu GroupeInternationald'Etude de Adams,B. 1993a. Egyptienne, XVII: 35-6. la C1ramique 'tn: in from Abydos', Discussions B. 1993b.'PotmarkForgery:A Serekhof Semerkhet Adams, I-12. Egyptology,25: New Malden. Nekften. Ancient B. Adams, 1995. 'Importsand Influences the Predynastic Protodynastic and in R. Adams,B. & Friedman, 1992. in: at Hierakonpolis', van den Brink, E.C.M. (ed.) Assemblages and Settlement Funerary 1992a:317-338. Adams,W.Y. 1977.Nubia, Corridor to Africa, London. n: H.1974.'Djebaut', IA 1: 1098-1099. Altenmiiller, Paris. I. Les E. Am6lineau, 1899a. nouvelles fouillesd'Abydos (1895-1896). d'Osiris.Pans. E. 1899b. tornbeau Le Am6lineau, s Ies E. Am6lineau, 1902. nouvelles fouilles d' Abydo tr. ( 1896-I 897).Paris. Paris. Itr. d'Abydos (1897-1898). Les E. Am6lineau, 1904. nouvellesfouilles in Vessels Excavated Egypt with EgyptianSignatures'in: IEJ , R. 1968.'Two Canaanite Amiran, 18,no 4:241-243. in Amiran, R. 1969.AncientPotteryof theHoIy Landfrom itsBeginnings theNeolithicPeriod to lronAge. Jerusalem the End of the 'An EgyptianFirst DynastyJar', rn: TheIsrael MuseumNeltls8: 89ff. Amiran, R. 1970. with the Nameof Narmerfrom Arad', n: IEJ 24: 4Amiran, R. 1974.'An EgyptianJarFragment 12. from Arad: anAddendum' tn IEJ 26:M'46. Amiran, R. 1976.'The NarmerJarFragment , 'Chemotaxonomic in: aspects the chemisty of Acacia gtm exudates', of D.M.W. 1978. Anderson, Bulletin 32: 529-536. Kew Mainz. von des Arnold, D. 1974.Der Tempel KdnigsMentuhotep Deir el-Bah"ari. n: Arnold,D. 1982a.'Per-nu', LA 4: 932-933. 'Per-wer in: fA +: gZ+-gZS. II', Arnold,D. 1982b. Arnold, D. 1991.Building in Egypt,PharaonicStoneMasonry.New York . Leiden. uit Egypte. Documenten aeneolitisch H. Asselberghs, 1961.Chaosen beheersing; London' Cemetery El-Mahasna. at Pre-dynastic The Ayrton,E.R. & Loat,W.L.S.1911. Baer,K. 1960.Rankand Title in the Old Kingdom,Chicago. (1984)',in: Kufur Nigm; the First Season atBzbetel-Tell, Bakr,M. I. 1988.'TheNew Excavations ' van denBrink (ed.) 1988a:49-62. des Balcz,H. 1934.'Die Gef?issdarstellungen Alten Reiches',in: MDAIK 5: 45-94. 'Zum altiigyptischen NamendesKonigsAches',n: MDAIK29: 14. Barta,W.1973. E.J. 1955.TheCultures PrehistoricEgyptI. (2nd.rev. ed.).London. of Baumgartel, AncientHistory, vol. Egypt' (2ndrev. edn)in: TheCambridge E.J. 1970a.'Predynastic Baumgartel, I, chap.IXa. London. 159

London. A E.J. 1970b.Petrie'sNaqadaExcavation: Supplemerlt. Baumgartel, 'Two Burial Caves theProto-Urban I: Periodat Azor',in Qedem 1-53. of A. Ben-Tor, 1975. 'The Relations during theThird MillenEgypt andthe Land of Canaan between A. Ben-Tor, 1982. nium BC', in: IEJ 33 3-I7. einer archtiologisch'geographischen Bietak,M. 1975.Tell el-Dab'a II, Der Fundortim Rahmen Vienna. Ostdelta. rigyptische IJntersuchung iiber das and K. in: Bietak,M. Lg|g.'EgyptologyandtheUrbanSetting', Weeks, (ed.)Egyptology the Cairo. 95-144. SocialSciences; 'Das Stadtproblem Alten Agypten',in 150 Berlin JahreDAI, Kolloquium im Bierak,M. 1981. 1979:68-78. Mainz. 'La naissance la notionde ville dansl'EgypteAncienne un actepolitique?', de Bietak,M. 1986. n: CRIPELS:29-35. 'MiddleNubianSites...', tn: Bi.Or.50:385-91. Bietak,M. 1993.Reviewof T. S2ive-Soderbergh, Cairo. T6d(1934d 1936)" Bissonde la Roque,F.1937. and Conservation Analysisof Anifacts, (Jubilee in Advances the . Black, J. (ed.) 1987 Recent (Jniversity London,Instiruteof Archaeology, July 6-10, 1987): of Conference, Conservation Whitstable. 253-256. 'Einige friihzeitlichel4C-Datierungen Abydos aus R.M., Dreyer,G. & Kromer,B. 1993. Boehmer, und Uruk', in: MDAIK49,63-68. aus Tierknochen Agypten' an J. Boessneck, & von denDriesch,A. 1982.Studien subfossilen Munich. in der Eselsbestattung 1. Dynastie A. A. J., Boessneck, von denDriesch, & Eissa, 1992.'Eine Abusir', in MDAIK 48: 1-10. Grtiberfeldbei Abusir.Leipzig. Bonnet,H. 1928.Ein frtihgeschichtliches de . B orchardt,L. 1907 D as Grabdenlcrnal s Ki)nigs Ne-user-rec' Leipzig. 'The KarnakStatue Ny-user-ra',rn: MDAIK 30: 165-70. of 8.V.1974. Bothmer, 'Les tombeaux et linguistiques Etudearch4ologiques, d'Hierakonpolis',n Bouriant,U. 1885. Leiden. d historiques dddi1e M. de Dr C. Leemans:37-40. beforetheArab Conquest. the Nile VaIIey Pottery Bourriau,B. 1981.Ummel-Ga'ab. from Cambridge. 'New Evidencefor EgyptianConnecR. Braun,E., van den Brink, E.C.M., Gophna, & Goren,Y. Israel', in: in tionsduring the Late Early BronzeAge I, from the Soreq-Basin South-Central (in preparation). Memorial Volume Wolff, S. (ed.)DouglasEsse from HK-291f, in: Hoffman,M.A' (ed.)1987: Brewer,D. 1987.'AReport on theAquaticFauna 4547. SouthCarolina. R. Brewer,D. & Friedman, 1989.Fishand Fishingin AncientEgypt.Warminster. Wiesbaden. in: E.J. 1982.'Naga(Nag')-ed-D6r', tA q: Zg6-217. Brovarski, Period', in: JNES32 453-65" Steleof theFirst Intermediate Brovarski,E.J. L973.'An Unpublished 'El H. Brunner, 1952-3. Qatta',in:AfO 16: 160-1. Brunton,G. 1927.QauandBadari,I. London and . Brunton,G. 1937 Mostagedda the TasianCulture'London. Brunton.G. 1948.Matmar.London. Rem-ains Brunton,G. & Caton-Thompson L928.TheBadarianCivilizationand the Predynastic , G. near Badari. London. ArchaeoShellsfrom Hierakonpolis: Datesfor Freshwater Burleigh,R. 1983.'Two Radiocarbon . Sciencel0 361-67 rn: iogical and GeologicalInterpretations', Joumal of Archaeological n: Tombat Hierakonpolis', JEA 1962.'Tomb100:theDecorated H. J.-Crowfoot. Case, & Payne, 4 8 :9 - 1 8 . London E. G. Caton-Thompson, & Garner, W. 1934.TheDesenFayum.Plates. 'Les vases el-Beda', ASAE13: Il5-I21. in: de M.J. 1914. Cledat.

160

J.-J.et alii. Archdologie J.-J.& Vallet,F. 1982.Egypte.in: Beck,F.,Cleyet-Merle, Cleyet-Merle, en de du des sommaire collections mus,4e Saint-Germain lnye,l: Catalogue comparde. Paris. 68-165. et fundraire pal6obiologie',rn:Arch4o-Nilno2E. Crubezy, (ed.) 1992.'Palo-ethnologie A.M. (ed'),[-a in: de E. d'Amicone, 1988.'Le sitearch6ologique Gebeleyn', Donadoni-Roveri, e es: lz civilisationdes 6gyptiens. s croyanc s religieus 38-43.Turin. 'Un 6dificearchaique NezletBatran',in: ASAE6:99-106. i G. Daressy, 1905. in: de F. Daumas, 1953.'Le tr6ned'unestatuette P6piIer trouvei Dendara', BIFAO52:163-72. 'DerechefP6piIer d Dendera',rn RdE 25 7-20. F. Daumas, 1973. of Davies,N. de G. 1902.The RockTombs Deir el GebrawiI. London. 'Ancient EgyptianTimberImports:anAnalysisof WoodenCoffinsin the Davies,W.V. 1995. (eds)1995:146-156BritishMuseum',in: Davies& Schofield in W.V. & Schofield,L. (eds)1995.Egypt,theAegeanand the Levant,Interconnections the Davies, Millennium BC. Second de de deMorgan,H. 1909.'L Egypteprimitive',Revue l'Ecoled'Anthropologie Paris: L28-140, 263-28t. madein UpperEgypt during theWinter 1907-1908' de Morgan,H. 1912.'Reporton Excavations n: ASAE (1912):25-50. 12 prdhistorique et sur de Morgan,J. 1897.Recherches les originesde l'EgypteII. Ethnographie royaldeNegadah.Patis. tombeau antique,I.l. de et des Catalogue Monuments Inscriptions I'Egypte deMorgan, et al. 1894. J. Vienna. oriental(Keft Kosseir):Rapport royaleau d6sert Debono, 1951.'Expeditionarchdologique F. 1949' in: ASAE51: 59-110' pr6liminaire la campagne sur , 'Recherches dans pr6historiques la rgiond'Esna(4 Mars-2Avril 1968)',in: F. Debono, 1971. BIFAO 69,245-261. MDAIK3T:1234. aus Kiinigsfigtirchen Elephantine,in: G. Dreyer, 1981.Ein frtihdynastisches Die Fundeder Frtihzeitund desAlten Tempel Satet, der 8: Dreyer,G. 1986.Elephnntine Der Mainz. Reiches. aus mit Gefii8aufschriften Jahresnamen Elephantine', Dreyer,G. 1987.'Drei archaisch-hieratische Wiesbaden. (eds)Form undMaP, Fs.G. Fecht:98-109. in: Dreyer, & Osing,J. G. 3./4. im Nachuntersuchungen friihzeitlichenKcinigsfriedhof. Dreyer,G. 1990.'Umm el-Qaab: Vorbericht', MDAIK 46 (1990):53-90. n: 'Zur Rekonstru}lionder Oberauten Kdnigsgriiber 1. Dynastie Abydos', in der der Dreyer,G. 1991. n: MDNK 46:93-10/. at in Discoveries the U-Cemetery Abydos', in: van denBrink (ed.) Dreyer,G. L992a.'Recent 7992a:293-300. & der Dreyer,G. 1992b.'HorusKrokodil, ein Gegenkdnig Dynastie0', in: Friedman Adams(eds) 1992:259-63. 5./6. Konigsfriedhof. im Nachuntersuchungen fr{ihzeitlichen Dreyer,G. 1993.'IJmm el-Qaab. Vorbericht'.in: MDAIK 49: 23-62. 'Zn denkleinenStufenpyramiden in: Ober-und Mitteliigyptens', Dreyer,G. & Kaiser,W. 1980. MDAIK36:43-59. 'Die kleine Stufenpyramide Abydos-Siid(Sinki),Grabungsvon Dreyer,G. & Swelim,N. 1982. 38: 83-93. bericht',n: MDAIK 'de 'L'anthropologie terrain': Duday,H., Courtaud, Crubezy,E.,Sellier,P.& Tillier, A.M. 1990. P., in: des fun6raires', BuII. et Mdm.de la Soci4td et reconnaissance interprtation gestes n.s.,t.2, n"34'.29-50.1 de d'Anthropologie Park, in Inscriptions Nekhebu BostonandCairo',n: JEA24: of Dunham, 1938.'The Biographical D. 1-8. Adjacentto the Layer Pyramid.Boston. Dunham,D. 1978.fuwiyet el-Aryan.TheCemeteries 161

Chicago. in Ehrich,R.W. (ed.) 1954.Chronologies Old WorldArchaeology. 'Une n6cropole prbs d6couverte, de H6louan,au in6dited'6poquearchaique A. el-Banna, 1990. in: GM II7-8:7-54. Suddu Caire', region',in: Hoffman,M.A. (ed.) Floraof theHierakonpolis M.N. 1982.'ThePredynastic el-Hadidi, 1982a:102-115. 'A AntiquitiesOrganization of A.M. 1992. Reporton theExcavations the Egyptian el-HaggRagab, 'Amir andel-Masha'la theEastern in: vandenBrink (ed.) Nile Delta', (E.A.O.)at Beni in I992a:207-13. 'The Excavations the EgyptianAntiquitiesOrganization EzbetHassan at of S.M. 1992. el-Hangary, (ed.) 1992a:215-61990',in: van den Brink Dawud (WadiTumilat),Season at , el-Khouly,A. 1968.'A PreliminaryReporton the Excavations Tura, 1963-64' in: ASAE60.1: 73-6. of and 1967-1971 Catalogue Finds. at Reportof Seasons el-Sawi, A.1979. Excavations TellBasta, Prague. Cemetery theAbydosArea', in: MDAIK 35:249-301. in el-Sayed, 1977.'A Prehistoric A. field at on Elias,J. 1986.Observations theExcavations Hierakonpolis Locality29A. Unpublished report. Cairo. at Emery,W.B. 1938.Excavations Saqqara:TheTombof Hernaka. (1937-38). Hor-Aha.Cairo. at Excavations Saqqara Emery W.B. 1939. of Emery W.B. 1949.GreatTombs the FirstDynasty,I.Cairo. of W.B. 1954.GreatTbmbs the FirstDyrnsty,II. London. Emery, of Emery W.B. 1958.GreatTbmbs the FirstDynasty,III.London. Harageh. London. R. & Gunn,8.1923. Engelbach, in Epstein,C. 1993.'Oil Production the GolanHeightsduring the ChalcolithicPeriod', in: TeIAviv 2O(2): 133-146. Age Palestine,Chicago. Trade,and SocialChangein Early Bronze Esse, D.L. 199I. Subsistence, of East of theNichedGate,Season 1981. of W.A. 1986.Excavation theArchaicRemains Fairservis, N.Y. (TheHierakonpolisProjectOccasional Papersin AnthropologyIII). Poughkeepsie, n: View of theNa'rmr Palette', JARCE28,l-20. W.A. 1991.'A Revised Fairservis, pt. of at Fakhry,A. 1961.TheMonuments Sneferu DahshurII, The ValleyTemple, l, TheTemple Reliefs.Cairo. in: reviewof Habachi1957(b), AJA 62: 330-3. H.G. 1958. Fischer, Bat', in: JARCEl:7-23. Fischer, H.G.1962.'The Cult andNomeof the Goddess Delta', in: JARCE2: 4447 . 1963.'A First DynastyWine Jarfrom the Eastern Fischer, H.G. H.G. 1964.Inscriptions Fischer, from the CoptiteNomeDyrnsties VI-XI.Rome. Domination.New Fischer. H.G. 1968.Denderain the Third Millennium8.C., Down to the Theban York. in: Vessel the SixthDynasty', JARCE30: 1-9. of H.G. 1993.'AnotherPithemorphic Fischer, Fisher,C.S. 1913.'The HarvardUniversityMuseumof Fine Arts EgyptianExpedition.Work of l9l2 at GizehandMesheikh',in:BMFA11,no. 62: 19-22. 'The Cemeteries Abydos:Work of the Season L925-1926,II.Tombs',n: JEA of Frankfort,H. 1930. 16:213-9. at in: Freed, R.E. 1974.'Cemetery Naqael-Hai(Qena)', NARCE9l:28. in Analysisof the HK-29A CeramicAssemblage', Friedman, 1987.'Descriptionand Qualitative R. 68-185. M.A. (ed.)1987: Hoffman, Locality 29A', in: Bulletin de Liason,KV: 18-25. Friedman, 1990.'Hierakonpolis, R. Naga ed DAr 7000.Berkeley. Cemetery: R. Friedman, 1981.SpatialDistribution in a Predynastic (unpubl. M.A. thesis). Studyof the SeftIement of Ceramics UpperEgypt:A Comparative Friedman, 1994.Predynastic R. Berkeley. Naqadaand Hierakonpolis. Ph.D.dissertation. Ceramics Hemamieh, of Dedicatedto MichnelAllen Friedman, & Adams,B. 1992.(eds)TheFollowersof Horus: Studies R. H ofirnn I 944-I 990. Oxford.

r62

G. Galassi, 1955.L'arte del piil anticoEgitto nel Museodi Tbrino.Rome. in: the A.H. 1944.'Horus Behdetite', JEA30:23-116. Gardiner. A.H. 1957.EgyptianGrammar 3rd ednOxford. Gardiner, Reprintof the 3rd edition.London-Oxford. A.H. 1969.Middle EgyptianGrammar. Gardiner, /. Onomnstica Oxford. A.H.1947.AncientEgyptian Gardiner, J. Garstang, 1903.Mahdsnaand Bt KhaUAf.London. at at I. Garstang, 1907.'Excavations Hierakonpolis, Esnaandin Nubia',in: ASAE8: 132-148. R. 1986.'Zeder',in: Zl 6: 1357-8. Germer, Hildesheim. aus Germer,R. 1989.Die Pflanzenmaterialien demGrab desTutanchamun, 'Memphis, n 1990', JEA77,I-6. D.G. 1991. L.L. & Jeffreys, Giddy, Ny-Swth', tn ZAS81: 18-24. H. 1956.'ThePharaoh Goedicke, aus . H. Goedicke, 1967 KdniglicheDokumente demAhenReich.Wiesbaden. and H.1979. 'Cult-Temple "state" duringtheOld Kingdomin Egypt', in: Lipinski,E. Goedicke, in (ed.)Stateand Temple Economy theAncientNearEast:Il3-32. of Goelet,O. Jr. 1982.Twoaspects the RoyalPalacein theEgyptianOId Kingdom. Diss. Columbia Universiry. Samalutund dern W. zwischen R. Gomai, F., Miiller-Wollermann, & Schenkel, 1961.Minekigypten pharaonischen Zeit. Wiesbaden. der Topographie GabalAbu-SiaBeitrtigezur historischen 'A HaaretzTelAviv EgyptianJarfrom Rafiatr' in'.Museum R. , Gophna, 1970. Protodynastic 12, 53-54. Bulletin,no. 'EgyptianTradingPostsin Southern at Canaan theDawn of theArchaic Period', R. Gophna, 1987. Tel Egypt,Israel,Sinai:13-21. Aviv. A.F. (ed.), in: Rainey, Old andMiddle KingdomGraffiti on Elephantine', Habachi,L. 1957a.'A Groupof Unpublished in: Fs.H. Junkern:WZKM 54:55-71. 22. L. Habachi. 1957b.TelIBasta,SASAE Curo. 'A PreliminaryReporton the Geoarchaeological Settingof Locality HKH.A. 1987. Hamroush, M.A. (ed.)1987:22-3t. in: Region Hierakonpolis', Hoffman, at ZgAinthe Low Desert Rub'a', in: JARCE6: 16. at D.P. 1967.'TheExcavations Tell el Hansen, Ph.D. dissertation, Patterns:A Vewfrom Hierakonpolis. Settlement Harlan,J.F. 1985.Predynastic University,St. Louis, Missouri. Washington Hierakonpolis', Friedman,R. & in at Harlan,l -F.1992.'WadiandDesertSettlement Predynastic Adams,B. (eds)1992:14-18. 'Radiocarbon of Chronology ArchaicEgypt',in: JNES39:203-7. F.A. 1980. Hassan, 'The Beginnings Civilisationat Hierakonpolis' (reviewof ThePredynastic of Hassan, F.A. 1984a. t3-L5. in: of Hierakonpolis), QuarterlyReviewof Archaeology: Egypt', in: Naqada Settlements, Chronologyof Predynastic F.A. 1984b.'Radiocarbon Hassan, 25: Anthropology 681-3. Current Sitesin UpperEgypt Chronologyof Neolithic andPredynastic F.A. 1985.'Radiocarbon Hassan, Review3: 95-116. andthe Delta', rn TheAfricanArchaeological 2:135-86. of F.A. 1988.'ThePredynastic Egypt',in: Joumalof WorldPrehistory Hassan, 'High-Precision Chronometry AncientEgypt of Radiocarbon S.W. 1987. F.A. & Robinson, Hassan, in: with Nubia Palestine Mesopotamia', Antiquity6t: ll9-35. and and Comparisons RecentlyFoundat North Abu Roash' in: MDAIK 36:229-44. Z. , Hawass, 1980.'ArchaicGraves, of Hayes,W.C. 1953.Scepter EgyptI. New York. v. im Agyptens vorderasien 3. und2. Jahnausend Chr zu Helck,W. 1962.Die Beziehungen Wiesbaden. . Gaue.Wiesbaden. Helck,W. L974.Die alttigyptischen TdpfmarkenWiesbaden. Helck,W. 1990.Thinitische 'The LatePredynastic at cemetery Elkab (UpperEgypt)', in l(rzyzaniak,L. Hendrickx,S. 1984. of M. and Kobusiewicz, (eds)Origin and Early Development Food ProducingCulturesin Poznan. of PolishAcademy Sciences, Africa:225-230. Northeastern 163

'Predynastische and uit objecten Naqada DiospolisParva(BovenEgypte)', in: Hendrickx,S. 1986. BMMH 57,2:31-M. aandacht met in der Hendrickx,S. 1989.De grafvelden Naqada-cubuur Zuid-Egypte, bijzondere en chronologie socialedffirentiatie. Leuven, Interne voor het NaqadaIII grafveldte Ellcab. (unpubl. Ph.D.thesis). Brussels' III EIlabY.The Naqada Cemetery. S. Hendrickx, 1994. Prehistoryand the Early DynasticPeriod of . Hendrickx,S. 1995.AnalyticalBibliographyof the 1. Northernsudan.EgyptianPrehistoryMonograph.s Leuven. Egyptan^d 'PreliminaryReporton the Predynastic Living Site B. Midant-Reynes, 1988. Hendrickx,S. & Periodica 19 5-16. Maghara2 (UpperEgypt)', rn OrientaliaInvaniensia Age. Londonduring theEarly Bronze of . J. Hennessey, 1967 TheForeignRelations Palestine 'spectrographic Analysisof the ForeignPotteryfrom the J.B. Hennessey, and Millett, A. 1963. 6, , RoyalTombsof AbydosandEarly BronzeAge Potteryof Palestine' in Archaeometry 1017. 'A for and Housefrom Hierakonpolis Its Significance Hoffman,M.A. 1980. RectangularAmratian in: Research', ,[NES39: Il9-137. Predynastic an of The Hoffman,tr,I.A.(ed.) 1982a. Predynastic Hierakonpolis, Interim Report,EgyptianStudies Association1, Cairo. 'settlement in: Systems', HoffmanM.A. (ed-) and Patterns Settlement Hoffman,M.A. 1982b. 1982a:122-138. 'Excavations Locality 29', in: HoffmanM.A. (ed.)1982a:7-13. at M.A. 1982c. Hoffman, 'WhereNations 83, Began',in: Science no'4:42-5I' M.A. 1983. Hoffman, at Research Hierakonpolisin 1985. Reponrc theEAO on Predynastic Hoffman,M.A. 1985. report. Unpublished A Hoffman,V1.A.(ed.) 1987. Final Repontu theNationalEndowmentfortheHumanitieson Columbia,SouthCarolina. at Research Hierakonpolis,1985-86. Predynastic 'An Introductionto the Predynastic Periodin Egypt', in Tbrra(Nanrral Hoffman,M.A. 1989 County)27 (5-6):34-43. HistoryMuseumof Los Angeles 'AModel of UrbanDevelopment the for H.A. & Allen, R.O. 1986. Hoffman,M., Hamroush, Old KingdomTimes', n: JARCE23: 175through Regionfrom Predynastic Hierakonpolis 87. 'APreliminary Reporton the Floral Remains from HK-29A Hoffman,M.A. andH. Barakat.1987. M.A.(ed.) 1987:404I. in: Hoffman, (8. in aus Hollmann,A. 1990.Stiugetierknochenfunde Elephantine Oberrigypten bis 16. g aI Grabun sl<amp ne, 19 78-I 987), Diss.Munich. 'APreliminaryReport theChipped from HK-29A, in: Assemblage Stone on D.L. 1987. Holmes, Hoffman,M.A. (ed.)I98l: L96-212. Sndy of the Lithic Industriesof UpperEgypt.A Comparative Holmes,D.L. 1989.ThePredynastic Lithic Traditions of Badai, Naqadaand Hierakonpolis. Oxford. 'ChippedStone-working and Hierakonpolis the Rise of CivilizaCraftsmen, Holmes,D.L. t992a. &Adams (eds)1992:37'44. tion in Egypt', in: Friedman 'The EvidenceandNatureof Contacts UpperandLower Egypt between Holmes,D.L. 1992b. 301-16. AView from UpperEgypt',in: VandenBrink (ed.)1992a: duringthe Predynastic: ChronicaBotanicaCo.,Waltham,MA. Resins, Gumsand Howes,F.N. 1949.Vegetable H. Izs Jacquet-Gordon, 1962. nomsdesdomaines fundrairessousI'ancienempire|gyptien. Cairo. 'Les Temples dansI'Architecture des Persistance TypesArchaiques Primitifs et La G. J6quier, 1906. in: Religieuse', BIFAO6:244I. du G. 1940.I* monument J6quier, funiraire de Pepi II, tomeIII, les approches temple.Cairo. in derWissenschaften Akademie der Kaiserlichen H. Junker, 1912.Bericht liber die Grabungen Vienna. inTurah,Winter1909'1910. Wien, demFriedhof auf in der von H. 1919.Bericht tiber die Grabungen der Akadamie Wssenschaften Wien,auf Junker, -I 9I I . Vienna. I denF riedhdfenvon El-Kubanieh-Sud,9I 0

r64

Nord. Vienna. von el-Kubanieh ... Junker,H. 1920.Bericht iiber die Grabungen auf den Friedhdfen 'VorlliufigerBerichtiiber die zweiteGrabung Akademieder Wissenschaften der Junker,H. 1930. bis vom 7 Februar 8 MerimdeBeni-SalAme Siedlung in Wien auf der vorgeschichtlichen (Wien),14 Mai i930. der in April 1930' Vorgelegt der Sitzung phil.-hist,Klasse , 'An Inscriptionfrom an Early EgyptianFortress',in: JNES29:99-102. Kadish,G.E. 1970. 'Zt denSonnenheiligtiimern 5. Dyn.', rn:MDAIK 14: 104-16. der Kaiser,W. 1956a. 'Standund Probleme Agyptische n:ZAS 81: 87Vorgeschichtsforschung', der W. Kaiser, i956b. 109. 'Zur lnnerenChronologie Naqadakultur', Archaeologica 6l: Geographica in der Kaiser,W. 1957. 67-77. 'Bericht tiber einearchiiologische-geologische in Felduntersuchung Ober-und Kaiser,W. 1961. in: Mitteliigypten', MDAIK L7: L-53. 'Einige Bemerkungen Agyptischen FriihzeitIII', in: ZAS 9t:86-125. zur Kaiser,W. 1964. 'Zur Reiheder gesamtiigyptischen Konigevor Aha', in: Kaiser& Dreyer 1982: Kaiser,W. 1982. 260-269. 'Zum Friedhofder Naqada-kultur MinshatAbu Omar' in: A^SAE 119-26. 7I: von Kaiser,w' 1987. 'Zur Entstehung gesamtagyptisches n: MDAIK 46:287-299Staates', des Kaiser,W. 1990. im Nachuntersuchungen fnihzeitlichen Kaiser,W. & Dreyer,G. 1982.'IJmmel-Qaab. Vorbericht',in: MDAIK 38: 2lI -70. 2. Kdnigsfriedhof. 'Umm el-Qaab. im Nachuntersuchungen friihzeitlichen P. Kaiser,W. & Grossman, 1979. Kdnigsfriedhof.1. Vorbericht',in MDAIK 35: 155-64. l.-22. von Elephantine, Kaiser,W. et al. I}TO (&following yearsasbelow).StadtundTempel (1971): MDAIK28, 181-201, MDAIK26,(1970):87-L39,MDAIK27, Grabungsbericht,in MDAIK 32, (1976): (1974):65-90, MDAIK 31, (1975):39-84, (1973):157-2OO, MDAIK 3O, MDAIK36,(1980):245-gI,MDAIK38,(1982):27167-Il2,MDAIK33,(1977):63-100, MDAIK 44,(1988):135-82, MDAIK 43,(1987):75-114, 345,MDAIK40, (1984):169-205, MDAIK 51, (1995):99-187. MDAIK 49,(1993):133-87, MDAIK 46,(1990):185-249, 'The Final Phase Predynastic or , Culture,Gerzean Semainean'in: JNES3: of Kantor,H.L tgA. 110-36. 'The RelativeChronologyof Egypt andIts ForeignCorrelations beforethe Late Kantor,H.J. 1965. 1-46.Chicago. (ed.)Chronologies OIdWorldArchaeology: in Age', in: Ehrich,K. Bronze 'Gottespalast Gdttersfestungen der ?igyptischen Frtihzeit', in: ZAS gg: in und Kaplony,P. P6t. 5-16. Friihzeit I-I[. Weisbaden. Kaplony,P. 1963.Die Inschriftender Agyptischen 'Eine Schminkpalette K6nig SkorpionausAbu Umuris', tn: Orientalia 34: von Kaplony,P. 1965. 132-67. (Grabungsjahre 1976bis in aus L. Katzmann, 1990.Tierknochenfunde Elephantine Obertigypten Vdgel,Reptilien,FischeundMollusken'Diss.Munich. 1986/87), irn R. & Germer, 1984.Die Gartenpflanzen altenAgypten,BandII. Mainz. Keimer,L. 'Excavations Hierakonpolis APreliminaryNote', in: JEA 49:24-8. Fort, 1905: at Kemp,B.J. 1963. 'TempleandTown in AncientEgypt', in: Ucko, P.,Tringham,R. & Dimbleby,G. Kemp, B.J. 1972. London. and (eds)Man, Settlement Urbanism:657-680. Tombat Hierakonpolis' in: JEA 59: 36-43. , of Kemp, B.J. Ig73.'Photographs the Decorated 'TheEarlyDevelopmentofTownsinEgypt', n:Antiquity5I:185-200. Kemp,B.J.t977. 'AutomaticAnalysisof Predynastic A Cemeteries: New Methodfor an Old Kemp, B.J. 1982. n: Problem', JEA 68: 5-15. Kemp, B.J. 1989.AncientEgypt,Anatomyof a Civilization.London. 'A Dating', rn: BulI. Int. Approachto FlindersPetrie'sSequence Kendall,D.G. 1963. Statistical Inst. 40:657-80. Statist. Reportof of A. Klasens, 1957.'The Excavations the LeidenMuseumof Antiquitiesat Abu-Roash: PartI',in OMRO38:58-68. 1957. theFirstSeason: 165

'The Excavations the LeidenMuseumof Antiquitiesat Abu-Roash: Reportof of A. Klasens, 1958a. .Part II', in: OMRO39:20-31. 1957 the First Season: 'The Excavations the LeidenMuseumof Antiquitiesat Abu-Roash: Reportof of A. Klasens, 1958b. Partl' ,in: OMRO39:32-55. Season 1958. the Second 'The Excavations the LeidenMuseumof Antiquitiesat Abu-Roash: Reportof of A. 1959. Klasens, OMRO 40:4I-61. PartII', in: 1958. Season the Second 'The Excavations the LeidenMuseumof Antiquitiesat Abu-Roash: Reportof ' of A. Klasens, 1960. PartI',in: OMRO 4I:69-94 1959. the Third Season 'The Excavations theLeidenMuseum Antiquities Reportof atAbu Roash: of of A. Klasens, 1961. M', in: OMRO42: lO8-128. 1959,PartII, Cemetery the Third Season: im D. 1993.Steineund Steinbrilche Alten Agypten.Berlin. Klemm R. & Klemm, Kohler,E. Ch. 1992.'T\ePre- andEarly DynasticPotteryof Tell el-Fara'in/Buto',in: van den II-22. Brink (ed.)1992a: 'The Ceramics the PrelEarlyDynasticCemetery MinshatAbu Omar', of of . Kroeper,K. 1986187 - 94. Semirnr8:73 tn: Bulletinof theEgyptological 'The Excavations the Munich East-Delta Expeditionin MinshatAbu Omar', of Kroeper,K. 1988. (ed.)1988a: 11-46. in: vandenBrink 'LatestFindingsfrom MinshatAbu Omar', in: Schoske, Sylvia (ed.)Aktendes Kroeper,K. 1989a. Miinchenl985,Band2. Hamburg:217-228, Agyptologen-Kongresses viertenInternationalen Tat.2l-24. 'Palestinian Egypt', in: De CeramicImportsin Pre- andProtohistoric Kroeper,K. 1989b. d Miroschedji,P.(ed.)L'urbanisationde Ia Palestine l'6ge du Bronzeancien,Actesdu 407 20-25 octobreI 9 86,Jerusalem: -42I. Oxford. Colloqued' Emmaiis, 'Tombsof the Elite in MinshatAbuOmar',in: vandenBrink (ed.)1992a:127K.Igg2. Kroeper, 150. Kroeper,K. &Krzyzaniak, L. 1992.'Two Ivory Boxesfrom Early DynasticGravesat MinshatAbu & Omar', in: Friedman Adams(eds)1992:207-214. Vorbericht & Wildung,D. 1985.MinshatAbu Omar MtinchnerOstdelta-Expedition. Kroeper,K. Munich. 1978-1984. Friedhof im Kroeper,K. & Wildung,D. t994. MinshatAbu Omar: Ein vor-friihgeschichtliche grtiber1-114. Mainz. Nildelta,T, 'Die Pflanzenfunde Maadi', in Rizkhana,I.andSeeher, Maadi III: TheNon' J., von Kroll, H. 1989. 129-36. Mainz. Settlement, of Lithic SmaIIFinds and theStructuralRemains thePredynastic AntikeWelt4,3 (1973):31-4. in L973.'Ausgrabungen Agypten',inl. Kromer,K. 'RecentArchaeological in Evidenceon the EarliestSettlement the Eastern Krzyzaniak,L. 1989. M. L. Nile Delta', rn: Krzyzarriak, & Kobusiewicz, (eds)lnte Prehistoryof the NiIe Basin . Poznan. andthe Sahara:267-85. p. Antiquity 65,Nr 248,Sept.1991, 529,fig. L1,3. Krzyzaniak,L.1991. at Krzyzaniak,L. !992.'Again on the EarliestSettlement MinshatAbu Omar', in: van den Brink (ed.)1992a: 151-156. 'The Museum's in: at Excavations Hierakonpolis', BMMA Supplement:37-45. A. Lansing, 1935. L'architecture.Curo. ln Pyramidd degrds. Lauer,J-P.1936. du sur Lauer,J-P.1948.EtudescomplAmentaires les monuments roi Zoserd Saqqarah.Cairo. 'L'apporthistoriquedesr6centes du d6couvertes ServicedesAntiquit6sde Lauer,J-P.1954. 9. n: CMIBL 1954:368-7 memphite', l'ligypte dansla ndcropole d'Egypte,I. Cairo. des Lauer, J-P.t962a.HistoireMonumentale Pyramides de monumentale Zaoui0telde Lauer, J-P.lg62b.'Sur I'dge et l'attribution possible I'excavation Aryan', n: RdE 14:21-36. Lauer,J-P.1985.'A proposde I'invention de la pierrede taille par Imhoteppour la demeure du d'6ternit6 roi Djoser',in: Fs. G. Mokhtar:6I-7. Cairo. 'Compterendudesfouilles et travauxmen6s Egyptedurantla campagne 1948en Leclant,J. 1950. du 1950.Lisidreoccidentale Delta', in: Orientalia19:494-5. t66

du Lisidreoccidental Delta(El Qatta)" en et J.1952.,Fouilles travaux Egypte,195G.1951. Leclant, rn: Orientalia2l:247 . 'Fouilles travaux Egypte,t95l-1952.El Qatta',in: Orientalia22:98-9. en et J. Leclant, 1953. 'Fouilles travaux ligypte, 1952-1953. Qatta',tn. Orientalia23:74. El en et J. Leclant, tg54. 'Fouilles travaux Egypte,1957-1960. lO4. Tourah',in: Orientalia3O: en et J. Leclant, 1961. 'Fouilles travauxen Egypte au Soudan,1966-7967. Hdlouan',rn: Orientalia et et Leclant,J. 1968. 37: IO7. 'Fouilles travaux Egypteet au Soudan,IgTt-I972. in: Naqadah', Orientalia en et Leclant,J. 1973a. 42:406. 'Fouilleset travauxen ligypte et au Soudan, l97L-1972.Tourah',in: Orientalia Leclant,J. Ig73b. 42:403. 'Fouilles travaux Egypte au Soudan,1972-1973. rn: Naqada', Orientalia et en et Leclant,J.Ig74. 43 187. 'Fouilles travaux ]igypteet au Soudan,1976-1977. Tourah',in].Orientalia en et Leclant,J. 1978. 47:274. 'Fouilles travaux Egypte au Soudan,1977-1978' Tourah',tn: Orientalia et en et Leclant,J.lg7g. 48:353-4. 'Fouilleset travauxen Egypteet au Soudan,1978-1979. Tourah',in: Orientalia Leclant,J. 1980. 49:368. 'Fouilles travaux Egypte au Soudan, tn: Naqada', Orientalia 1980-1981. et en et J. Leclant, 1982. 5I 447. 'Fouilleset travaux Egypte au Soudan, in: 1984-1985', et en Leclant,J. & Clerc,G. 1986. Orientalia 55:236-319. 'Fouilleset travaux Egypte au Soudan,l99O-l99L Abousir',in: et en Leclant,J. & Clerc,G.lgg2. Orientalia6L:242. 'Fouilleset travaux Egypte au Soudan, el Adwa,Edfu', in: .. et en Leclant,J. & Clerc,G.lgg4. Orientalia 62: 427. 'New Light on Sequence-Dating', PSBA35: 101-13' in: G.F.1913. Legge, 'Le Shatter Rigal(Sabah in: Rigaieh)', ASAE4: 220-3' G. 1903. Legrain, 'Seila JARCE25:215-351981',in: L.H. 1988. Lesko, 'TheOriginsof theJmy-wtFetish',in JARCE27: 6l- 69' Logan,T. 1990. 'Quelques XVI, pp. 33-51' notessurl'arbreach',in ASAE Loret,V. 1916. by andIndusffies,rev. J. R. Harris,London. Materials Ancient Egyptian A. Lucas, 1989. 'The OtherEgypt.In Search the First Pharaohs', Lore (MilwaukeePublic in: of Lupton, C. 1981. 3I,no.3:2-21. Musewn) 'Tombs Features', Hoffman,M.A. (ed.)1982a: 50-56' in: and Lupton,C. 1982. 'An Offering Standof King Khafra" 'n BMMA 2: 180-1. Ly$goe, A.M. 1907. Part fV. Naqa-ed-Der. N7000. Cemetery D. A.M. & Dunham, 1965.ThePredynastic l-yttrgoe, Berkeley. Leipzig. at Mace,A.C. 1909.TheEartyDynasticCemeteries Naqa-ed-Der.Pantr. Cairo. du rnoyenne peupled Saqqarah. de Ia classe R. Macramallah, 1940.Un cimetiire archatque 'PreliminaryReporton an Excavation Nag el HaggTnidan',in: CdE 52:203-6. at Malrer,R. 1977. V. & Rinaldi,C.A. 1963.L'architefturadellepiramidi menfite,tr. Turin. Maragioglio, 'Les n{cropoles6gyptiennes les fouillesde la missionarchdologique Italienne', et Mano, G. lg2}. 33,2:399442. de de in Annales I'(Jniversitd Grenoble Dai dellanecropolidi Gebelen. lavori dellaMissione G.1929. 'r--esplorazione Marro, delle ltaliana per il Progresso della Societa Italianain Egitto', in: Ani Archaeologica Pavia. 1928:592-636. 15-22Settembrc Scienze,Torino, et de Etudes mythologie G. M. IgI2.'Amefineauet sesfouillesd'Abydos1895-1899',in: Maspero, Paris. vol. gie d' arch4olo 6gyptiennes, 6: I 53-82. 'PreliminaryReporton the Predynastic Project',in: Faunaof the Hierakonpolis McArdle, J. 1982. Hoffman,M.A. (ed.) 1982a:116-12l. 167

from HK-29y't',in: Hoffman, . 'PreliminaryReporton the MammalianFauna McArdle, I . 1987 M.A. (ed.) 1987:42-44. 'PreliminaryObservations the MammalianFaunafrom Predynastic Localities on McArdle, J.1992. (eds)1992:53-56. & in: at Hierakonpolis', Friedman Adams World.Oxford. and Timberin theAncientMediterranean Meiggs, R. 1982.Trees 'Le C. A. B., Buchez, Hesse, & Lechevalier, 1990. sitepr6dynastique N., Midant-Reynes, de d'Adaima. Rapportpr6liminairede la campagne fouilles 1989',n: BIMO 90 247-58, plJ-VItr. 'Le d'Adarma. T. E., Buchez, Crubezy, Janin, 1991. siteprddynastique N., Midant-Reynes,8., in: de C. de Vartavan), une campagne'(avec annexe Rapportpr6liminairede la deuxiEme BIWO 9I:231-247,pls. 63-70. E., B., N., Midant-Reynes, Buchez, Crubezy, Janin,T. & Hendrickx,S. 1992.'Le site pr6dynastique de d'Adaima.Rapportpr6liminairede la troisibmecampagne fouille' , rn: BIFAO 92:.t33-46, 7 fre. raisonn6 de Ramassage C. A,, N., B., Midant-Reynes, Buchez, Hesse, Lechevalier, I993a.Adarma: 'U artee I'ambientedel Sahara preistorico: Dati e interpretazione', actesdu colloque: surface, Naturali e del MuseoCivico di StoriaNaturaledi ltaliana di Scienze Memoriedelln Societa Milan. II: Milano,vol. )Q(VI, Fascicolo 359-363. 'Le d'Adar'ma. 8., E., Midant-Reynes, Crubezy, Janin,T. & vanNeer,W. 1993b. siteprddynastique de campagne fouille',in: BIFAO 93:349-70. Rapportpr6liminairede la quatridme d'Adarma. T. E. B, N, Midant-Reynes, Buchez, Crubezy, & Janin, 1994.'Lesitepr6dynastique de campagne fouille', in: BIMO 94:329-48. Rapportde la cinquibme Review,vol. of 1969.'TheDeforestation MountLebanon',tn: TheGeographical Mikesell,M.W. 1-28. LIX, no. 1,Jan., 'TheNarmerMacehead Related in: Objects', JARCE27:53-59. and Millet, N. 1990. Chemistry and Their Sources, White, R. 1977.'Natural Resinsof Art andArchaeology: Mills, J. & ervation,v oI. 22: l2'3L. Identification'.in: Sudies in Cons 'The Identity of theResinsfrom theLate BronzeAge Shipwreckat Ulu Mills, J. & White, R. 1989. 3l:37-M. Archaeometry Burun(Kas)', in:. Londonof Mills, J. & White, R. 1994.OrganicChemistry MuseumObjects. I. of Mond, R. & Myers,O.H. 1937.Cemeteries Armarzr London. of Mond, R. & Myers, O.H. 1940.Temples Armant.London. 'Les Repr6sentations TemplessurPlate-formes Pieux,de la Poterie i de J. Monnet-Saleh, 1983. d'Egypte',n: BIFAO83:263-296. Gerzdenne 'Remarques les Representations la Peintured'Hierakonpolis(Tombe de J. sur Monnet-Saleh, 1987. No. 100)',in: JEA73: 51-58. 'Tombeaux la Ire et de la IVe dynasties Abou-Roach', Kemi 7: 1l-69. in: i de Montet,P. 1938. partie: deuxibme d la IVe dynasties Abou-Roach, de Montet, P. 1946.'Tombeaux la Ire et de des inventaire objets',rn;Kemi 8: 157-227. Patternand Populntionin theBeginningof'the B. Mortensen, 1991.Changein the Senlement Histoical Period,n: Agyptenund Levante2: II-37. Mtiller, H.W. 1966.Bericht iiber im Miirz/April 1966 in das dstliche Nildelta unternomrnene Philosophisch-historische der Akademie Wissenschaften Bayrische Erkundungsfahrten, Heft Klasse,Sitzungsberichte, 8, Munich. 'Priiliminierungen igyptischenStadt', in: ZAS 118:48-54. zur R. Mtiller-Wollerrnann, 1991. 'El-Qatta. 1951-1952'in: CdE27:350-1. des Fouilles Service Antiquits, du , N.N. 1952. of Naville, E. 1898.TheTemple Deir el-Bahari1//. London. I. of K. T.E.,Hall, H.R. & Haddon, 1914.TheCemeteries Abydos, London. Naville,8., Peet, Brooklyn. and Needler,W. 1984.Predynastic ArchaicEgyptin theBrooklynMuseurn. Nordstrdm,H.A. 1972.NeolithicandA-GroupSires.Uppsala. V/iesbaden. H.A. 1986.'Ton'. in LA 6:629-34. Nordstrcim.

168

'New FuneraryEnclosures (Thlberzirke) the Early DynasticPeriodat of O'Connor,D. 1989 Abydos',n: JARCE26: 5I-86. An O'Connor,D. 1992.'TheStatusof EartyEgyptianTemples: AlternativeTheory', in: Friedman (eds)1992:83-98. & Adams und und satirisch-erotischenZeichnungenInschrifien. Omlin,J. A.1973. Der Papyrus55001 seine Tirrin. in Egypt andCanaan the Early BronzeAge', in: OverlandRoutebetween Oren,E.D. 1973.'T"lte IEJ 23 198-205. 'Eariy BronzeAge Settlement NorthernSinai:A Model for Egypto-Canaanite in E.D. 1989. Oren, (ed.)L'urbanisationde la Palestined l'6ge du in: Interconnections', De Miroschedji,P. Oxford. d'Emmaus:389-405. Actesdu Colloque ancien. Bronze for EarliestEvidence EgyptianInterconnections', 1992.'ThurIkhbeineh: Oren,E.D. & Yekutieli,Y. (ed.) I992a:361-364. in: van denBrink of Patch,D.C. 1991.TheOrigin and Early Development Urbanismin AncientEgypt:A Regional Sndy. Ph.D.thesis.Universityof Pennsylvania. Confirmed' in: JEA 59: 31-5. Tombat Hierakonpolis , Payne, J.C. 1973.'Tomb100.TheDecorated 'Appendixto Naqada Supplement'rn:. Excavations , JEA 73: 181-90. Payne, J.C. 1987. 'The Chronologyof Predynastic inl. EgyptianDecorated'Ware', Eretz-lsrael2l: Payne,J.C. 1990. 77-82. at Chronology Naqada',in: Friedman& Adams(eds) 1992:185-92. Payne,J.C. 1992.'Predynastic Museum. EgyptianCollectionin theAshrnolean of Payne, J.C. 1993.Catalogue thePredynastic Oxford. of Peet,T.E. 1914.The Cemeteries Abydos,Il. London. Petrie,W.M.F.& Quibell,J.E. 1896.Naqadaand Ballas.London. Petrie,W.M.F. 1896.Koptos.London. n: Remains', JMI29:295-3O1. in W.M.F.1899.'Sequences Prehistoric Petrie, of Petrie,W.M.F. l9O0.TheRoyalTombs the FirstDynosty,I. London. of Petrie,W.M.F. l9}l. TheRoyal Tornbs theEarliestDytasties,II. London' Abydoq I. London. Petrie,W.M.F. 1902. tr. Petrie,W.M.F. t903. Abydo,s, 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. Pottery.London. SlatePalettes and Corpusof Protodynastic Petrie,W.M.F. 1953.Ceremonial and Hu. 1898of Diospolis Parva.TheCemeteries Abadiyeh V/.M.F.& Mace,A.C. 1901. Petrie, London. 1899. and Mazguneh. Peffie,W.M.F.,Wainwright,G.A. & Mackay,E.lglz.The Labyrinth,Gerzeh London. I A. Petrie,W.M.F.,Wainwright,G.A. & Gardiner, 1913.Tarkhan and MemphisV. London. 'Applicationof FI-IR Microscopyto theAnalysisof PaintBindersin Pilc, J. & White, R. 1995. Bulletin,16 (in press). EaselPaintings',in National Gallery Technical of B.B. 1967.'The Early DynasticSenlement Khor DaoudandWadi-Allaki: The Piotrovski, L2740. Cairo. AncientRouteto the Gold Mines', tn Fouillesen Nubie (L961-1963): in of EgyptianSeals Known Provenience the R.H. Lowie P.V.1988.'Predynastic Podzorski, 47:259-68. in: Museumof Anthropology', ,INES, HumanSkeletal P.V.1990.Their Bonesshall not Perish.An Emminationof Predynastic Podzorski, Naga-ed-D?r Egypt.New Malden. in Rernains frorn of Porat,N. 1989.Composition Pottery- Applicationto the Studyof theInterrelationsbetween Ph.D.thesis, HebrewUniverCanaanand Egyptduring the3rd MilleniumB.C. Unpublished sity of Jerusalem. Porta"G. 1989.L'ArchitetturaEgiziaDelle Origini in Legnoe Materiali lzggeri. Milan.

r69

Cairo. du P. Posener-Krifger, 1976.ks archives temple fundraire de NiferirkarA Kal<ai. de d'Abousir et l'dconomiedestemplesfundraires I'Ancien P. Posener-Kri6ger, 1979.'Lespapyrus . in Economy theAncientNear East: 133-51 Empire', in: Lipinski, E. (ed.)Stateand Temple Leuven. 'Missione ricerche preistoriche Egitto', n: Origini l:3Ol-12in per Puglisi,S.M. 1967. 'Keramik desFriedhofes in: Dreyer 1993:39-49. LI" F. Pumpenmeier, 1993. Quibell,J.E. 1898.EI Kab.London I. Quibell,J.E. 1900.Hierakonpolis, London. et nos. 1gyptiennes. 11.001-12.00014.001gdndral antiquitds des Quibell,J.E. 1905.Catalogue Cairo. 14.754.Archaic Objects. II. Quibell,J.E. & Green,F.W.1902.Hierakonpoiis, London. 'Ein Treppengrab 1.Dynastie Abusir', in MDAIK 47:305-8aus der A. Radwan, 1991. London. EI AmrahandAbydos,1899-1901. D. Randall-Mclver, & Mace,A.C. 1902. 'TheAcquisition Foreign in GoodsandServices the Old Kingdom',in: of D.B. 1981. Redford, a M editerrane 2: 5 -16. Scripta 'EgyptandWestern Asiain the Old Kingdom',n: JARCE23: 125-43. D.B. 1986. Redford, 'Work of the Universityof Californiaat El-AhaiwahandNaga-ed-D6r', G.A. 1900-1901. Reisner, 23-5.London. Report 1900-1901 rn EEF Archaeological at Reisner, G.A. 1908.TheEarly DynasticCemeteries Naqa-ed-Der.Pattl.Leipzig. (Mass.) of Reisnet G.A. 1931.Mycerinus,TheTemples the Third Pyramidat Giza.Cambridge 1908-9, for of Survey Nubia:Reports 1907-8, Reisner, G.A. & Firth,C.M. lgl}-27. Archaeological Cairo. 1910-1. 1909-10, 'Inscriptions Ktim el-ahmar', PBSAI0:73-78in: at P. Renouf, le Page1887. des Agyptischen Baukunst Alten Reichs.Zurich. zur Ricke,H. 1944.Bemerkungen l:N.{.ai;nz. . l. Rizkana I. & Seeher, 1987 Maadi I: ThePottery of the PredynasticSettlement. Mainz. settlement. of J. I. Rizkana, & Seeher, 1988.Maadi II: TheLithic In"dustries the Predynastic of Maadi III: Thenon-LithicFinds and the StrucruralRemains the J. Rizkana I. & Seeher, 1989. nas Predy ti c Settlernent.Mainz. 'Priidynastische vorAswin von Menschenreste der Nilinsel Elephantine Rrising,F.W. 1970. (Agypten)',in: Horno2l:2lO-20. 'ProvisionalNoteson theOld Kingdom Inscriptionsfrom the Diorite Quarries',in: Rowe,A. 1938. 38:391-6. ASAE Cairo. and at Excavations Saqqara Helwan(1941-1945). Royal Saad,Z.Y.1947. Cairo. and Helwan(1945-1947). at Saad, Z.Y. 1951.RoyalExcavations Saqqara Egyptian Art and Civilizationin the First and Second at Saad. Z.Y. 1969.TheExcavations Helwan: Oklahoma. Dynasties. 4:9'Ll. Archaeology and D.lgg4. 'ANew Look at Bread Beer', n: Egyptian Samuel, 'Les travauxde I'Institut Frangais d'ArchdologieOrientaleen 1973-1974. S. Sauneron, 1974. Adaima',n: BIFAOT4:L86-95. Annalen.Betltn. H. Schiifer, 1902.Ein Bruchstiickahdgyptischer von Grriberfeldes Abusir des Ergebnisse vorgeschichtlichen Scharff,A. 1926.Die archaeologischen el-Meleq. LeiPzig. Geftisse. Waffen, Scharff,A. 1931.Die Altertiimerder Vor-undFriihzeitAgXptens,I.Werkzeuge, Berlin. 'Funerdrer Eine methodische Aufwandund sozialeUngleichheit. S.J. Seidlmayer, 1988. aus Gliederung der zum Problemder Rekonstnrktion gesellschaftlichen Anmerkung in: Friedhofsfunden', GM 104:25-51. vomAlten zumMinlerenReich.Studienzur aus S.J. Seidlmayer, 1990.Grtiberfelder demUbergang Ahtigyptenst. Sn^dien Arcfuiologieund Geschichte ErstenZwischenzeit. zur Arcfuiologieder Heidelberg. 170

'

aus KeramikausKontextendeshohenAlten Reiches nubischer S.J. Seidlmayer, 1992.'Beispiele 1991,337-50. Sondernummer Afril<nnistische Arbeitspapiere Elephantine', Gs.P.Behrens, in: Kttln. von Anlageder 3. Dyn. in der Nordweststadt Elephantine, S.J. Seidlmayer, 1995.'Die staatliche Probleme',in: Bietak,M. (ed.),Haus und Palastim Ahen und Archiiologische historische der 8 Symposium bis 11April 1992n Kairo, Untersuchungen Agypten,Internationales (forthcoming). Kairo des0AI, Vienna Zweigsteele von 1979-1982 in 12: Seidlmayer, Elephantine Ausgrabung der Nordweststadt Elephantine S.J. (forthcoming). Mainz. Egypt using GasChromatografrom ancient Resins Serpico,M. 'ChemicalAnalysisof Coniferous (GCilvIS)'to appear Proceedings the Seventh International of phy/TVlass in:. Spectrometry (forthcoming). Congress of Egyptologrsrs von derInselKytheramit demNamen K.I9I7.'Ein Zigyptisches DenkmaldesAltenReichs Sethe, des desSonnenheiligtums KdnigsUserkaf',n: ZAS53: 55-58. Leipzig. des Sethe, 1933.Urkunden AltenReiches,I. K. 'Use of DifhrseReflectance in FourierTransformInfraredSpectroscopy fut . Shearer, G.L. 1987 in Conservation', Black,J. (ed.) 1987:253-256. andArchaeological of Cemetery Khozam','tnl.VA6: 165-6. Shehata, R.Z.A. 1989.'statusReporton the Predynastic Wallsin Egypt during the Middle Sinusoidal Sliwa, J. 1992.'On the Meaningof the so-called X[V), Budapest: 523-526. Aegyptiaca Kingdom', tn: IntellectualHeritageof Egypt (Studia 'The NubianB-Group',tn: Kush 14:69-124. Smith,H.S. 1966. 'A-Group' Culturein NorthernLower Nubia', in: of Smith,H.S. 1991.'The Development the Davies,W.V. (ed.),EgyptandAfrica: Nubiafrom Prehistoryto Islam:92-lII. London. Boston. and Smith,W.S. 1946.A History of EgyptianSculpture Painting in the OldKingdo,m, 'La ville d'Ayn-Asil i Dakhla,Etat des D. Soukiassian, Wuttman,M. & Schaad, 1990. G. recherches', BIFAO90 347-58. in by II', Sourouzian, 1988.'standingRoyal Colossiof the Middle KingdomReused Ramesses in: H. MDNK44:229-54. in Spencer, . 1979. A.I Brick Architecture AncientEgypt.Warminster. Spencer, A.J. 1980.Catalogue EgyptianAntiquitiesin theBritish Museum,Y.Early Dynnstic of Objects. London. Stager, L.E. 1985.'The Firstfruitsof Civilization',in Tubb,J. N. (ed.)1985:172-188. Reliefsand Paintings Stewart,H.M. 1979.EgyptianStelae, from the Petrie CollectionII. Warminster. Archaeological Historiand Swelim,N. 1983.Some Problems the History of the Third Dynosty, on cal Studies Alexandria. 7. /987, unpublished Swelim,N. 1987.TheBYU Expeditionto Seila,ThePyramidof Seila,Season newsletter. Thckholm, V.1974. Sn^dents'Flora Egypt Beirut. of on Trad,M. L992.'T\e Sequence Artist's Strokes a Sherdfrom Hierakonpolis',in Friedman& of (eds)1992:65-8. Adams Societies',in: Ucko, P.J., Trigger,B. L972.'Determinants UrbanGrowthin Pre-Industrial of and London. Tringham,R. & Dimbleby,G.W. (eds.)Man, Settlement Urbanism:575-99. 'The Evolutionof Pre-Industrial in: Mdlanges Trigger,B. 1985. Cities:A Multilinear Perspective', offensd Jean Vercoutter:343-53. Tubb,J. N. 1985.(ed.)Palestine the Bronzeandlron Ages:Papersin Honour of OIga Tufuell. in London. Tutundzic,S.P.1992.'Meaningand Use of the Term 'Predynastic' EgyptianArchaeology',in: in Sesto congresso internazionale eginologia. de Atti. Vol.I: 605-11. Turin. Uphill, E.P.1988.EgyptianTowns and Cities.Princes Risborough.

17L

Valbelle,D. 1981.SatisetAnoukis. Mainz. 'Deux objetsth6riomorphes V dansle Mastaba de Balat', tn: Livre dcouverts Valloggia M. 1980. lO4 143-51. du Centenaire; and Priorities. of . van den Brink, E.C.M. (ed.) 1988a TheArchaeology theNiIe Delta; Problems of occasion the fifheld in Cairo, 19-22October1986,on the of Proceedings the Seminar in and Instituteof Archaeology Arabic Studies Cairo. of teenthanniversary the Netherlands Amsterdam. 'The Amsterdam university SurveyExpeditionto the Northeastern van den Brink. E.c.M. lgggb. of a Contribution W. van Zeist,in: vandenBrink (ed.)1988a: with Nile Delta(1984-1986)'; 65-114. The NiIeDelta in Transition;4th - 3rd milleniumBC. Proceedvan den Brink, E.C.M. (ed.) 1992a. Instituteof hetdin Cairo, 2L-24October1990,at the Netherlands ings of the Seminar Tel and Archaeology Arabic Studies. Aviv. 'CorpusandNumericalEvaluationof the "Thinite" Potmarks',in: 1g92b. van den Brink, E.C.M. Friedman& Adams(eds)1992:265-296. at Reporton theExcavations Tell IbrahimAwad' van den Brink, E.C.M. 1992c.'Preliminary in: 1988-1990', vandenBrink (ed.)1992a,43-68. Seasons 'The incised Serekh-Signs Dynasties and 1; Part I: The Complete 0 of van den Brink, E.C.M. 1996. Jars',this volume. 'AnotherRecordof HorusCrocodile? A Brief Discussion MAO T. of van den Brink, E.C.M. 160.1'.forthcoming. 'T]11e 0-1. PartII: Fragments'(inpreparation). Signsof Dynasties Serekh van den Brink, E.C.M. 'Empreintes sceaux rn archaiques', Fouillesde Elkab,documents:9\-8de vande Walle,B. 1940. Brussels. I'architecture 6poques, J. Vandier, 1955.Manueld'archiologie igyptienne,fr* Les Grandes et religieuse civile. Pais. K., E., P.M.,Paulissen, Huyge,D., Neumann, VanNeer,W. andVan Peet,P.1992. Vermeersch, 'Predynastic & in Hearths UpperEgypt', in: Friedman Adams,(eds)1992:163-172. 'Naqada in Reconsidered', Cherif,A. (ed.),RisumesdesCommuni' Chronology P. Vertesalji, 1988. g s Congre Intemationald' Egyptolo ie: 278. Cairo' cations.Cinqui?me der W. H. H., Grapow, & Westendorf, 1958.Grundrisse Medizinder ahenAgyptealY von Deines, 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 i de ,In: R. 1912.'Un temple Noutirkha-Zosit Heliopolis' Sphinx15:9-26. Wpill, Cairo. Prdpharaoniques. et les Temps sur Weill, R. 1961.Recherches Ia ler Dynastie 'K6m el-Hisn:Excavation an Old KingdomSettlement theEgyptian in of Wenke,R.J.et al. 1988. Delta'. n: JARCE25:5-34. 'Palette, Schminck-' in LA 4: 654-656. W. Westendorf, 1982. , Materials',tn:'Atiqot XD(: 81-88. of White,R. 1990.'Analysis Resinous 'The Hierakonpolis Ivoriesin Oxford.AProgressReport', in Friedman& Whitehouse,H. L992. -82. Adams(eds)1992:77 in Ausgrabungen Agypten.Munz. Mi)nchner Agyptenvor denPyramiden. Wildung, D. 1981. 'Techniques DataAnalysis:Seriation und Theory', in: Technische of Wilkinson, E.M. 1974. 5: Archaeo-Physil<a 1-134.Kdln. Beitragezur Feldarchaologie. Naturwissenschaftliche and the EgyptinTransition: Predynastic Early DynasticChronology Wilkinson, T.A.H. 1993a. Effectsof StateFormation.Cambridge(unpub.Ph.D.thesis). of Wilkinson,T.A.H. 1993b.'The identificationof TombB.1 at Abydos:refutingthe existence a n: king RoAry-Hor', JEA79:24I-3. 'TheLost Pharaohs Nubia', in: Archaeology 1833: of Williams,B.B. 1980.

172

Abu Simbeland the SudanFrontietrKeith C.SeeIe, between Wiltiams.B.B. 1986.Excavations L. at Director.Part 1: TheA-Group RoyalCemetery Qustul:Cemetery Chicago. 'NarmerandtheCoptos Colossi',n: JARCE25:35- 59. Williams,B.B. 1988. 'The Metropolitan MuseumKnife HandleandAspectsof Williams, B.B. & Logan,T. 1987. ImagerybeforeNarmer',in: ,INES46:245-285. Pharaonic Wilson,J.A. 1951.TheBurdenof Egypt.Chicago. 'Buto andHierakonpolis the Geography Egypt',in: ,/NES14 209-236. of in Wilson,J.A. 1955. 'Egypt throughout New Kingdom,Civilization without Cities', in: Kraeling, the Wilson, J.A. 1960. Chicago' R.M. (eds)CityInvincible:124-36. C.H. & Adams, 'Zur Deutungder Sonnenheiligtiimer 5. Dyn.', in WKM 54 222-33. der Winter,E. 1957. 'AReconstructionof in:JEA60:82-93' KingMycerinus', theTriadsof W.Ig74. Wood, 'TheArchaicTombsat Turael-Asmant',in: ASAE 64: 159-61. Yacoub,F. 1981. 'Excavations Truael-Asmant', ,ISSEA 103-6. 13: in: at F. Yacoub, 1983. 'An ImportedPot Redated' in: Friendsof the PetrieMuseum Newsletter13 (in press). yukutieli, Y. , in: Cheese', ASAE4L:295-313. Z.1942. 'AncientEgyptian A. Zal<I, & Iskander, de des stiles,peintureset reliefs4gyptiens I'Ancien Ziegler,Ch. 1990.Musdedu Inuvre, Catalogue Paris. Empireet de la Premi\re PdriodeIntermddiaire. in und Befestigungsanlagen Stadtentwicklung der Friihzeit und 1993.Elephantine16, Ziermann,M. imfriihen Alten Reich.Mainz. Missione in: A.S. !974.'Ilcimitero protodinastico', Antinoe(1965-1968). Zimmermann, di in Archaeologica Egitto dell'IJniversita Roma:23-31.Rome. New York. Zohary,M. L962.Plant Life of Palestine. aad Text,IsraelAcademyof Sciences Humanities, Zohary,M. 1966.Flora Palaestina,PartOne, Jerusalem. and Text,IsraelAcademyof Sciences Humanities, Zohary,M. Lg72.Flora Palaestina,PartTwo, Jerusalem. of Foundations theMiddle East, vol tr. Stuttgart. Zohary,M. 1973.Geobotanical of Zohary,D. & Hopl M. 1993.Domestication Plantsin the OldWorld. Oxford.

Abbreviations usedin the abovebibliography

Berlin. r AfO Archivfiir Orientfo schung. desAntiquitdsde I'Egypte.Cairo. isen en oles du Sert'ice g BI FAOBulletin de I' Instirutfrangais d' Archeolo ie Orientale.Cairo. Bi. On BibliothecaOrientalis.Leiden. of BMMA Bulletin of theMetropolitanMuseum Art. New York. BMFABulletin of the Museumof FineArts' Boston. d'art et d'histoire-Brussels. Royaux BMMH Bulletin desmusdes d' CdE Chronique Egypte. des de des CMIBL Comptes-rendus sdances l'Aca.demie Inscriptionset Belles-Izttres.Pais. GottingerMiaellen Gtittingen. GM IEJ Israel ExplorationJournal.Jerusalem. Centerin Egypt.New York. JARCEJournal of theAmericanResearch London. Archaeology. of Egyptian JEA Journal Chicago. JNESJournal of Near EasternStudies. Instituteof GreatBritian and lreland. London. Anthropological JMI Journal of the Royal Toronto. Joumal of theSociety theStudyof EgyptianAntiquiries. JSSEA for Wiesbaden. LA Lexikonder Agyptologre. 173

InstitutsAbteilungKairo. Wiesbaden. Archatilogischen MDAIK MitteilungendesDeutschen Centerin Egypt. of NARCE Newsletter theAmericanResearch van te uit hetRijlcsmusewn Oudheden Leiden.Leiden. Mededelingen OMRO Oudheidkundige of of Proceedings the Society Biblical Archaeology.London. PSBA d'Egyptologie.Paris. RdE Revue des du aux SASAE SupplAment Annales Service Antiquitdsde l'Egypte.Cayo. SanAntonio. YAVaria Aegyptiaca. Vienna. WZKM WienerZeitschrift die KundedesMorgenlandes. fiir Leipzig/Berlin. und Sprache Ahertumskunde. ZASZeitschnftfu, Agyptische

t74