Cylinder Seal Glyptic in Predynastic Egypt and Neighboring Regions 9781841715889, 9781407326351

Table of contents :
Front Cover
Title Page
Copyright
Dedication
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
ABSTRACT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER 2 THE ABYDOS CYLINDER SEAL IMPRESSIONS
CHAPTER 3 THE LOWER NUBIAN SEALS AND SEAL IMPRESSIONS
CHAPTER 4 THE ‘EN BESOR SEAL AND SEAL IMPRESSIONS
CHAPTER 5 MESOPOTAMIAN PARALLELS FOR SEAL USE AND DEVELOPMENT
CHAPTER 6 THE DEVELOPMENT OF PREDYNASTIC ART ON SEALS AND OTHER MONUMENTS
CHAPTER 7 CONCLUSIONS
REFERENCES

Citation preview

C

BAR S1223 2004 HILL: CYLINDER SEAL GLYPTIC IN PREDYNASTIC EGYPT AND NEIGHBORING REGIONS

B A R red cover template.indd 1

Cylinder Seal Glyptic in Predynastic Egypt and Neighboring Regions Jane A. Hill

BAR International Series 1223 2004

21/11/2011 13:00:55

Published in 2016 by BAR Publishing, Oxford BAR International Series 1223 Cylinder Seal Glyptic in Predynastic Egypt and Neighboring Regions © J A Hill and the Publisher 2004 The author's moral rights under the 1988 UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act are hereby expressly asserted. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be copied, reproduced, stored, sold, distributed, scanned, saved in any form of digital format or transmitted in any form digitally, without the written permission of the Publisher.

ISBN 9781841715889 paperback ISBN 9781407326351 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781841715889 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library BAR Publishing is the trading name of British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd. British Archaeological Reports was first incorporated in 1974 to publish the BAR Series, International and British. In 1992 Hadrian Books Ltd became part of the BAR group. This volume was originally published by Archaeopress in conjunction with British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd / Hadrian Books Ltd, the Series principal publisher, in 2004. This present volume is published by BAR Publishing, 2016.

BAR

PUBLISHING BAR titles are available from:

E MAIL P HONE F AX

BAR Publishing 122 Banbury Rd, Oxford, OX2 7BP, UK [email protected] +44 (0)1865 310431 +44 (0)1865 316916 www.barpublishing.com

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The present work is based on the author’s Masters thesis in Egyptology and Art History at the University of Memphis. For all the knowledge, patience dedication and enthusiasm he showed in advising me on this work I wish to express my deepest thanks to Dr. Stephen P. Harvey. I am also grateful to the members of my thesis committee, Dr. Lorelei H. Corcoran and Dr. Melinda K. Hartwig, whose helpful and useful comments improved this research. I would like to express my deepest gratitude to the late Dr. William J. Murnane for offering me the opportunity to work and study in Egypt during the Great Hypostyle Hall Project’s 2000 season. Dr. Murnane’s skill as a scholar, patience as a teacher, and unfailing humor as a companion set an example of academic and personal excellence I will endeavor to emulate in my own life and work. This book is dedicated to him, whose absence will always be keenly felt. I would also like to thank Dr. Ann Macy Roth for giving me the opportunity to extend my study and travel in Egypt as part of Howard University’s Giza Cemetery Project’s 2000 and 2002 seasons. Many thanks are due to Dr. David P. Silverman and Dr. Josef Wegner of the University of Pennsylvania for their advice and the lending of sources and information that aided in the completion of this work. Special thanks are due to Dr. John Weeks, head librarian of the University of Pennsylvania Museum Library, whose encouragement, support and guidance helped see this work through to its final publication. I would also like to thank the staff of the Interlibrary Loan Department of the University of Memphis Libraries and the staff of the University of Pennsylvania’s Museum Library for their unflagging diligence in helping to provide the materials necessary to conduct this research. Finally, I would like to thank my husband, Richard deWitt, without whose love and support none of this work would have been possible.

ii

ABSTRACT

The study examines the development of the glyptic imagery of cylinder seals and sealings in late Predynastic Egypt and its periphery in light of recent discoveries made at the Upper Egyptian Cemetery U at Abydos. Seals and sealings from Lower Nubia and the southern Palestinian site of ‘En Besor are examined to trace the development of the Predynastic Egyptian glyptic style from the Naqada IId period to the beginning of the First Dynasty. This development is used to suggest a sequence for other Predynastic art works without provenance. The social and political implications of early Egyptian cylinder sea use are also examined using models established in the study of Mesopotamian seal use and sealing practices.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES…………………………………………………………….........................….... vii LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS………………………………………….........................………....… viii Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION ………………………………………………………............................… 1 Issues Raised by the Abydos Sealings Bodies of Evidence Methodology Comments on Mesopotamian and Egyptian Sealing Practices 2. THE ABYDOS CYLINDR SEAL IMPRESSIONS ……………………............................… 11 The Abydos Excavations by the German Archaeological Institute The Naqada II d Glyptic Discoveries at Abydos The Naqada II d Seal Impressions Tomb U-127 Tomb U-133 Tomb U-134 Tomb U-153 Tomb U-170 Tomb U-210 The Naqada III a2 Seal Impressions Tomb U-g Tomb U-j Petrie’s Related Abydos Finds The Abydos Seal Impressions Stylistic Groups The Naqada II d Seal Impressions Groups Field of Geometrics or Single Symbols Group Multiple Repeating Symbols Group Animal Rows Group

iv

Central Figure on Field of Single or Alternating Symbols Group Single Designs Related to Other Predynastic Art Works Tomb U-j/Naqada III a 2 Seal Impression Traits 3.

THE LOWER NUBIAN SEALS AND SEAL IMPRESSIONS ……...........................…… 55 Archaeological Background of A-Group Nubia A-Group Nubian Iconography and Early Egypt Lower Nubian Seals and Sealings The Tomb L-17 Seal The Sarras West Seal The Faras Seal The Siali Seal Impressions The Qustul Incense Burner The Gurf Hussein Seal The Ikkur/Koshtamna Seals Contacts and Transfers

4.

‘EN BESOR SEAL AND SEAL IMPRESSIONS ……………………...........................…

71

Archaeological Context of ‘En Besor ‘En Besor Seal Impression Style Groups “Praising” Human Figure Group Birds with Wave Border Group Inverted “Ka” Arms Group Birds with Throw Sticks Group The ‘En Besor Seal Contacts and Colonization 5.

MESOPOTAMIAN PARALLELS FOR SEAL USE AND DEVELOPMENT…………………………………………………............................……... 95 Issues of Mesopotamian Parallels for Seal Use and Development Mesopotamian Influence on Egyptian Sealing Practices Mesopotamian Usage of Cylinder Seal Glyptic A Mesopotamian Model for Early Colonial Empire Predynastic Egyptian Colonial Parallels

v

6.

THE DEVELOPMENT OF PREDYNASTIC ART ON SEALS AND OTHER MONUMENTS………………………………………….............................……… 109

7.

CONCLUSIONS.................................................................................................................... 117

REFERENCES….…………………………………………………………….............................… 121

vi

TABLES

Table

Page

1. Comparative Chronology in Predynastic…………………………………................................ 17 2. Comparative Chronology of Predynastic Glyptic Art with Other Predynastic Art Forms…………………………………………………….............................. 111

vii

ILLUSTRATIONS

Figure

Page

1.

The Narmer Palette (verso and recto)...................................................................................... x

2.

Map of early Egypt Showing This, Naqada, and Hierakonpolis........................………………10

3.

The Royal Cemetery of Umm el-Qa’ab at Abydos…........................…………………………12

4.

Umm el-Qa’ab: The B and U Cemeteries ………………………………….......................…..14

5.

Abydos Tomb U-127 Seal Impressions ……………………………………........................….31

6.

Abydos Tomb U-133 Seal Impressions ……………………………………........................….32

7.

Abydos Tomb U-134 Seal Impressions ……………………………………….........................33

8.

The Brooklyn Knife Handle ...………………………………………………...........................34

9.

The Gebel el-Tarif Knife Handle………………………………………………........................35

10. The Carnarvon Knife Handle ………………………………………………….........................36 11. Abydos Tomb U-153 Seal Impressions ………………………………………........................37 12. Seals with Styles Related to the Abydos Seals.............………………………….....................38 13. Abydos Tomb U-170 Seal Impressions......................................................................................39 14. Abydos Tomb U-210 Seal Impressions ……………………………………….........................40 15. Abydos Tomb U-g Seal Impression and Predynastic Boat Standard from D-ware Pottery……………………………………………………………….............................41 16. Abydos Tomb U-j Seal Impressions ………………………………………….........................42 17. Abydos Temple Seal Impression and Seal …………………………………............................43 18. Field of Geometric or Single Symbols Group………………………………...........................44 19. Multiple Repeating Symbols Group ………………………………………….........................45 20. Animal Rows Group …………………………………………………………........................ 46 21. Proto-Elamite Seal Impression and Seal Impression from Susa ……………...........................47 22. Central Figure on Field of Single or Alternating Symbols Group ………................................48 23. The Gebel el-Arak Knife Handle …………………………………………..............................49

viii

24. The Constellation Orion and Slate Palette with Hathor motif……………...............................50 25. Single Designs Related to Other Predynastic Art …………………………..............................51 26. Other Predynastic Seals with Fish and “Net” or Sanctuary Designs ………............................52 27. Seals and Seal Impressions Found in Lower Nubia...................................................................64 28. Re-cut Seal and sealings from Djet’s Tomb………………………...........................................65 29. More Predynastic Nubian Cylinder Seals ………......................................................................66 30. Bone Tags Engraved with (Nubian?) Bowmen ........................................................................ 67 31. Imagery on the Qustul Incense Burner ………………………….................................……….68 32. The Levantine Coast, Predynastic Egypt and Lower Nubia ……………….............................72 33. Reconstructions of ‘En Besor Seal Impression and Seal in Use …………...............................75 34.

“Praising” Human Figures Group ………………………………………................................82

35. Birds with Wave Border Group …………………………………………................................83 36. Pre literate Mesopotamian Examples of Wave Borders on Seals..............................................84 37. Inverted “Ka” Arms Group.........................................................................................................85 38. “Ka” Arms Potmarks and Early Dynastic Sealings from Abydos..............................................86 39. Birds with Throw Sticks Group………….................................................................................87 40. Building or Architechtural Structures Group……………………………………………….... 88 41. Potmarks with Fence and Plant Motif……………………........................................................89 42. The ‘En Besor Cylinder Seal……………………......................................................................90 43. Seals Depicting Seated Figure Before Offering Table with Personal Names............................91 44. White Cross Line Pottery Images from Naqada I Period and D-Ware Images from Naqada II Period...............................................................................................92 45. Possible Trade Routes Between Mesopotamia and Egypt in the Predynastic...........................97 46. Seals from Uruk’s Core Culture and Seals from Uruk’s Periphery ………..............................105 47. Sealings from Egypt’s Core Culture, Seals from the Southern Periphery and Seals from the Northern Periphery…………………………………………............................106 48. Early Dynastic Seals from Southern Iraq ……..........................................................................107 49. Cylinder Seals in the Brooklyn Museum Collection…………………………………..............114 50. Narmer Ivory Tag and Seal .......................................................................................................115

ix

x

1 INTRODUCTION

Prior to the last decade, few cylinder seals and no impressed sealings had ever been discovered in Predynastic Egyptian archaeological contexts.1 Podzorski wrote as recently as 1988, “No Predynastic sealings have been recovered in Egypt, and although the Predynastic Egyptians obviously had knowledge of the artifact, there is no evidence that they made use of its sealing function.”2 The following study will review important new finds from Abydos which demonstrate that cylinder seals were indeed used for sealing purposes, as well as other finds from Egypt and Nubia, which may be reevaluated in light of these discoveries.

Predynastic administration and trade with other regions. The seal impressions discussed here were found in multiple graves at the U Cemetery at Abydos by the German Archaeological Institute expedition under the direction of Günter Dreyer and were published in a preliminary report in 1998.3 The seal impressions and their archaeological context present the first evidence that the Egyptians, at least at this location, were making use of cylinder seals in the same ways and for the same purposes as Mesopotamians during the same period (ca. 3400 BC). The fact that Abydos has long been recognized as a key in the study of the development of the early Egyptian state and is known as the burial place of the first kings of a united Egypt adds even more weight to the discovery of seal impressions at this location.4

Predynastic cylinder seal glyptic discovered at the Cemetery U site at Abydos in Upper Egypt is the latest known of several art forms existing at the turn from the fourth to the third millennium BC. The Abydos seal impressions provide a new gallery of representations dating to Egypt’s proto-literate period. The development of Egypt’s glyptic style from the Naqada IId period through the First Dynasty can be traced through an examination of the Abydene, Nubian and southern Palestinian seals and seal impressions. Unprovenanced Predynastic monuments generally dated to this period may then be compared, re-evaluated and re-dated based on this chronology of glyptic development. Additionally, the Abydene sealing impressions provide us fresh insight into Upper Egyptian

Few Predynastic Egyptian cylinder seal studies have been conducted since it has long been assumed that the early examples recovered from cemeteries were non-functional objects. The stylistic affinities that these few examples share with Uruk and Elamite seals led archaeologists to conclude that the Egyptians had been exposed to

3 U. Hartung, “Prädynastiche Siegelbrollungen aus dem Freidhof U in Abydos (Umm el-Qa’ab),” MDAIK 54 (1998), 187-217. 4 T.A.H. Wilkinson, Early Dynastic Egypt (London: Routledge,1999), 46-47. Wilkinson names the polity of This, in which Abydos is located, as a key player in the power struggle between three Predynastic Upper Egyptian political centers: This, Naqada and Hierakonpolis. Despite the adoption of the Horus falcon of Hierakanpolis as the ultimate symbol of kingship, Wilkinson states that it is apparent that the rulers of This were the first to control the Nile Delta and ultimately unite Egypt, though they adopted some of the royal symbols of their rivals to the south, perhaps as a means of consolidating power.

1 R.M. Boehmer, “Das Rollsiegel im Prädynastischen Ägypten,” Archäologischer Anzeiger 4 (1974): 495-514. Boehmer reports 15 cylinder seals found in Egypt and a large percentage of these were purchased from antiquities dealers. Podzorski added three cylinder seals to this list in her publication on the seals of the Naga-ed-Der Cemetery. See P. Podzorski, “Predynastic Egyptian Seals of Known Provenance in the R.H. Lowie Museum of Anthropology,” JNES 47, no. 4 (1988): 259-268. 2 P.Podzorski, “Predynastic Egyptian Seals of Known Provenance,” 259.

1

Cylinder Seal Glyptic in Predynastic Egypt and Neighboring Regions

Seal impressions provide a set of images that we can infer were significant to the Predynastic Egyptians. Some of the Abydos seal impressions fit neatly into the existing corpus of Predynastic Egyptian art. Others present new and puzzling images that appear to have dropped out of the Egyptian repertoire in the Dynastic

seals through contact with these expansionist Mesopotamian cultures.5 Based on this evidence, conventional wisdom held that Egyptians used seals as personal ornaments, like shell beads, not as tools. Podzorski concluded that two seals discovered at the site of Naga-ed-Der and a single seal discovered at the site of Ballas were either imports from southern Mesopotamian or local imitations of seals from Elam.6

Period. Many images are repeated iconic fashion in a variety of different seal compositions. In some cases the images’ similarities to later hieroglyphic signs, hint at their meaning and point to the development of the Egyptian writing system during this period.

The study of the cylinder seals used in the contemporary cultures of Uruk and Elam in southern Iran is well established and provides some interesting models through which to examine the parallel development of cylinder seal glyptic and use in Egypt.7 Egyptian seal impressions are usually small lumps of clay were used to fasten two ends of a string or thong holding a jar lid or a bag tie in place. When they were still wet, the lumps of clay were impressed several times with a seal that left a small intaglio relief on the surface. After the sealing dried, it would be impossible to remove without breaking and impossible to replace unless one possessed the original cylinder seal.

Additionally, the use of seals indicates that Upper Egyptians at Abydos were engaged in controlling trade as well as establishing the bureaucratic structures Egyptians maintained throughout the dynastic periods. Seal impressions, like the goods they sealed, were mobile so different seal impression styles can indicate different point of origin. Therefore, similarities between seals and seal impressions found in different parts of Egypt and neighboring regions can be compared. These comparisons, combined with chronological controls provided by archaeological context, permit the construction of a history of cylinder seal glyptic development in Predynastic Egypt. By extension, the development of seal use can be used to re-examine seals and sealing impressions found on Egypt’s periphery, such as ‘En Besor in southern Palestine and the A-Group site of Qustul in Lower Nubia.

5 Egyptologists have long postulated contact between Egypt and the Mesopotamian civilizations of Uruk and Susa based upon the iconography of many Predynastic Egyptian monuments. See H. Kantor, “Early Relations of Egypt with Asia,” JNES 1 (1942): 174-213; H. Kantor, “Further Evidence for Early Mesopotamian Relations with Egypt,” JNES 11 (1952): 239-250; and P. Amiet, Art of the Ancient Near East, trans. J. Shepley and C. Choquet (New York: Harry N. Abrams Inc.,1980), 34. 6 Podzorski, “Predynastic Egyptian Seals of Known Provenance,” 268. 7 The bibliography of iconographic studies of Mesopotamian glyptic imagery is large ands only a selection can be presented here. H. Frankfort established the chronological framework for the development of glyptic imagery. See H. Frankfort, Cylinder Seals: A Documentary Essay on the Art and Religion of the Ancient Near East. (London: Macmillan and Co., 1939). Following him, E. Porada and P. Amiet have written numerous articles and volumes cataloging and investigating aspects of cylinder seal art. A relatively recent summary of modern contributions to Near Eastern glyptic studies is provided in E. Porada, “Introduction,” Ancient Art in Seals, ed. E. Porada (Princeton, 1980), 3-32. In the last decade scholars such as Pittman and Matthews (among others) have furthered Mesopotamian glyptic research through semiotic studies and analyses, which contextualize the images with their archaeological findspots. See R. Matthews, Cities Seals and Writing: Archaic Seal Impressions from Jemdet Nasr and Ur (Berlin: Gebr. Mann Verlag, 1993); H. Pittman, The Glazed Steatite Glyptic Style: The Structure and Function of an Image System in the Administration of Protoliterate Mesopotamia (Berlin: Deitrich Reimer Verlag, 1994); and H. Pittman, “Toward an Understanding of the Role of Glyptic Imagery in the Administrative Systems of Proto-Literate Greater Mesopotamia,” Archives Before Writing, ed. P. Ferioli, E. Fiandra, G. Giacomo Fissore and M. Frangipane (Rome: Centro Internazionale di Recerche Archeologiche Antropologiche e Storiche, 1994), 177-203.

Seals and sealing impressions were discovered at the turn of the twentieth century in the graves of the kings of Dynasties 1 and 2 and therefore an administrative role for seals was believed to have begun with the establishment of Dynastic Egypt and at the same time as early hieroglyphs.8 Even recently, Fischer has hypothesized that Egyptian writing was “invented” during the First Dynasty, perhaps at the command of one of these early rulers.9 The lack of evidence of any earlier stages in the development of Egyptian glyptic bolstered this hypothesis. Hieroglyphs seemed to

8 The most extensive work on early hieroglyphic signs and writing is P. Kaplony’s three-volume work. More recently J. Kahl has published on the hieroglyphic writing of the Protodynastic and Archaic Periods using data gathered from the Cemetery U excavations. See P. Kaplony, Die Inschriten der Ägyptischen Frühzeit, 3 vols. Ägyptologische Abhandlungen 8 (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1963) and J. Kahl, Das System der ägyptischen Hieroglyphenschrift in der 0.-3. Dynastie, (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 1994). 9 H.G. Fischer, “The Origin of Egyptian Hieroglyphs,” Origins of Writing, ed. W.M. Senner (Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press, 1989), 66.

2

Introduction

have been a whole, self-contained system that was brought forth from the imagination of an individual, rather than something that had developed over centuries from the simple counting systems employed in Near Eastern cultures.10

may have indicated the source estate/region of these goods, or may have signaled what types of goods were being sealed.13 This meant that from the time of their acquisition or importation, the goods were controlled by means of sealing, opening for inspection, and resealing.

What had been lacking in the Egyptian Predynastic archaeological record until recently was evidence of the development of organization and administration prior to the development of written records. Such a system had been in place in Proto-literate Mesopotamia as of ca. 35803480 BC where imagery, epitomized by cylinder seal glyptic, was a means of exercising control over large regions and resources located great distances from the core civilization. However, in Egypt civilization was defined as history, history was defined as writing and writing was defined as civilization. Within this circular paradigm it is no wonder that earlier investigators of Predynastic Egypt hypothesized a race of “dynastic” invaders imposing order on the more primitive indigenes.11 This seemed the best and easiest explanation of the suddenness with which the Egyptians became equipped with all the “tools of civilization.” While this argument, with its implicit Indo-European bias, has been abandoned by succeeding generations of scholars, the underlying assumption that the Egyptians needed a cultural injection from Mesopotamia containing the concept and iconography of divine kingship, administration and political unification is still very much with us.12

Issues Raised impressions

by

the

Abydos

Sealing

The study of cylinder seal impressions from Cemetery U bears on artistic and iconographic development as well as political and social organization in Egypt’s Predynastic period. Sufficient numbers of sealing impressions and sufficient variation in designs of seal impressions exist to enable the identification of distinct stylistic groups. Once these groups have been distinguished in Chapter 2, it will be possible to trace the continued development or abandonment of these stylistic groups through time because of the continuous occupation of Abydos from the late Predynastic through the Dynastic period. Sealing designs can be compared to other Predynastic Egyptian art works to trace similarities in design or symbolic meaning. Evidence presented by the Abydos sealing impressions also offers an opportunity to place unprovenanced Predynastic objects within a general time frame in Egypt’s cultural development.14 The Abydos cylinder seal impressions dating to the Naqada IIc-d period are the earliest known examples of Egyptian cylinder seal use and are roughly contemporaneous with the Early Middle Uruk period or LC 3 of southern Mesopotamia (ca. 3510-3370 BC).15 By examining the

The recent discovery of Egyptian cylinder seal use in the Naqada IId period (ca. 3580-3480 BC) in Upper Egypt provides a new category of comparison between the development of the civilizations of Mesopotamia and Egypt. Not only does seal use, apparently for the designation and protection of imported trade goods, indicate an earlier signing system than had hitherto been proposed, but it also indicates that long distance trade networks existed in Upper Egypt in this period. Under this system mud sealing impressions may have designated the destinations of goods bound for a particular estate/region or

13 G. Dreyer, “The Royal Tombs of Abydos,” The Near East in Antiquity Vol. 3, ed. Susanne Kerner (Amman: GoetheInstitut, 1992), 55-67. Dreyer interprets the signs engraved on bone labels in the Naqada III a2 Period Tomb U-j as a stylized tree sign followed by an animal sign representing a particular region of the country or estate from which the goods were produced. No such explicit readings of the seal impressions found in Tomb U-j have yet been offered. 14 An excellent case in point are the carved ivory knife handles from this period, almost all of which are unprovenanced but yet have so much in common with the adaptation and development of cylinder seal imagery. 15 A recent updating of Uruk Mesopotamian chronology was the result of a conference in which more recent C 14 dates were taken into account, both from sites the Mesopotamian interior as well as sites on the periphery of this influential culture. Members of the conference adopted LC (or Late Chalcolithic) 1-5 to denote different stages in this cultural continuum. Mitchell S. Rothman, “The Local and the Regional,” Uruk Mesopotamia and Its Neighnors: Cross

10 D. Schmandt-Besserat, How Writing Came About (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1996), 89-99. 11 W.M. Flinders Petrie, Prehistoric Egypt (London: British School of Archaeology in Egypt, 1920), 49-50. 12 H.S. Smith, “The Making of Egypt: A Review of the Influence of Susa and Sumer on Upper Egypt and Lower Nubia in the 4th Millenium BC,” The Followers of Horus, eds. R. Freidman and B. Adams (Oxford: Oxbow Books, 1992), 235.

3

Cylinder Seal Glyptic in Predynastic Egypt and Neighboring Regions

of Predynastic cylinder seal use, even if the archaeological evidence suggested an earlier date and despite the fact that there was no explicit use of hieroglyphic writing on the seal or seal impression characteristic of the dynastic era.19 Now that the sealing impressions discovered at Abydos provide a securely dated continuum of Predynastic seal development it is possible to reexamine and re-date earlier seal and sealing discoveries in Palestine and in Nubia.

differences in the glyptic styles of the core cultural centers and their nearest neighbors, we may arrive at a better understanding of the nature of relations between Egypt and her trading outposts and/or partners during this period. By using Mesopotamian systems as a model it will be possible to evaluate different theories of how and when contact between Egypt and Mesopotamia were made. The evidence suggests that contact between Egypt and Mesopotamia ebbed and flowed during the Predynastic Period, depending on sporadic contact made through a Red Sea trading route and later on the fortunes of Uruk’s trading colonies in Syria and Egypt’s trade relations in Palestine and Lower Egypt.16 During periods of intense contact, the adoption and the adaptation of some aspects of Mesopotamian iconography is evident and has been noted in the art produced in Egypt.17 However, Egyptian artists appear not to have slavishly copied Mesopotamian iconography, but to have selectively chosen images that fit with existing Egyptian iconographic and social norms.18 These issues will be explored in Chapter 5.

Current archaeology offers evidence of a history of contact between the people of the Nile Valley and those of southern Palestine dating back to the Naqada I period (ca. 3650 BC).20 Some Egyptologists propose that the elimination of the “middleman” in trade relations with the Palestinians was a major motivating factor in the spread of Naqada culture to Lower Egypt and the subsequent eclipse of native Lower Egyptian culture during the Naqada II period.21 The discovery of ninety cylinder sealing impressions and one seal at the southern Palestinian oasis site of ‘En Besor has sparked two decades of debate over the nature and timing of the Egyptian influence at this location and others in southern Palestine showing evidence of Egyptian occupation.22 The ‘En Besor sealing impressions were executed in an Egyptian style, yet were

Seals and sealing impressions discovered in Egypt’s neighboring regions will be compared to the Abydos material in Chapters 3 and 4. These seals and sealing impressions were often dated to the First and Second Dynasties by their excavators because of the unrefined nature of the chronology established for Preand Protodynastic material. Dynastic dates were also assigned simply because there was no evidence

19 See G.A. Reisner, The Archaeological Survey of Nubia: Report for 1907-1908, vol. 1 (Cairo: National Printing Department, 1910): 54; A. Schulman, “The Egyptian Seal Impressions from ‘En Besor,” Atiqot 11 (1976): 16-26; A. Schulman, “On the Dating of the Egyptian Seal Impressions from ‘En Besor,” JSSEA XIII (1983): 249-251; and R. Gophna, “Egyptian Immigration into Southern Canaan during the First Dynasty,” Tel Aviv 3 (1976): 31-37. 20 I. Rizkana and J. Seeher, Maadi I, The Pottery of the Predynastic Egyptian Settlement (Mainz am Rhein: Verlag Philipp von Zabern, 1987), 69 and T. Levy, “Cult, Metallurgy and Rank Societies – Chalcolithic Period (ca. 4500-3500 B.C.E.),” The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land, ed. T. Levy (New York: Facts on File, 1995), 241-243. 21 I. Rizkana and J. Seeher, Maadi I, 72 and S.P. Tutundzic, “Relations between Late Predynastic Egypt and Palestine: Some Elements and Phenonmena,” L’urbanisation de la Palestine a l’âge du Bronze ancien, ed. P. de Miroschedji (Oxford: B.A.R., 1989), 428. 22 And a lively debate it has been. In the heat of the argument over whether the sealings date to the first or second half of the First Dynasty an author compares one of his detractors to Little Jack Horner. See W. Helck, “Einige Betrachtungen zu Den Frühesten Beziehungen Zwischen Ägypten und Vorderasien,” Ugarit-Forschungen 11 (1979): 357-363; S. Mittman, “Frühägyptische Siegelinschriften und ein srXemblem des Horus-aHa aus dem Nördlichen Negeb,” EretzIsrael 11 (1981): 1-9; A. Schulman, “On the Dating of the Egyptian Seals from ‘En Besor,” 249-251; and J. F. Quack, “Die Daterung der Siegelabdruecke von Tel ‘En Besor,” ZDPV 105 (1989): 18-26.

Cultural Interaction in the Era of State Formation, ed. Mitchell S. Rothman (Santa Fe, N.M.: School of American Research Press, 2001), 7-9. 16 See S. Mark, From Egypt to Mesopotamia: A Study of Predynastic Trade Routes (London: Chatham Publishing, 1997), 127-129, and R. Gophna, “Southern Canaan during the EB I: The Egyptian Connection,” The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land, ed. T. Levy (New York: Facts on File, 1995), 277-278. 17 See H. Kantor, “The Early Relations of Egypt with Asia,” 174-75; H. Kantor, “Further Evidence for Early Mesopotamian Relations,” 239-40; H. Kantor, “Egypt and Palestine,” Chronologies of Old World Archaeology, ed. R.W. Enrich (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992), 245; K.M. Cialowicz, “Le manche de couteau de Gebel elArak: Le problème de l’interprétation de l’art prédyanstique,” Warsaw Egyptological Studies I: Essays in Honor of Prof. Dr. Jadwiga Lipinska (Warsaw: Warsaw University and National Museum in Warsaw, 1997), 339-52; and Mark, From Egypt to Mesopotamia, 89-121. 18 B. Tessier, “Glyptic Evidence for a Connection Between Iran, Syro-Palestine and Egypt in the Fourth and Third Millennia,” Iran 25 (1987): 27-53 and H. Pittman, “Constructing Context: The Gebel el-Arak Knife, Greater Mesopotamian and Egyptian Interaction in the Late Fourth Millennium B.C.E.,” Narrative and Event in Ancient Art, ed. P.J. Holliday (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 9-32.

4

Introduction made of local clays.23 Their discovery at a northwestern Negev Desert location of strategic

made based both on stylistic grounds and archaeological context to place the ‘En Besor material within the cultural and administrative development of Predynastic Egypt.

importance because of its water source implied an Egyptian outpost along an established trade route. Scholars assumed an early Dynastic date for cylinder sealing impressions at this location the material, in spite of contrary archaeological evidence in the stratum under investigation.24 This presupposition has resulted in creative attempts to “read” royal names of Dynasty 1.25 Schulman originally dated the finds to the later part of Dynasty 1 and has fiercely defended his interpretations.26 The ‘En Besor seal impressions are now being reinterpreted in light of new archaeological discoveries in Egypt’s Delta region and on the ‘En Besor excavation evidence itself which contains pottery dating to the Naqada III or Dynasty 0 period.27 Now that a continuum of cylinder seal use has been attested for at least one site in Upper Egypt,28 an attempt can be

Excavations and surveys of seven sites in Lower Nubia have yielded either cylinder seals or seal impressions, which have provocative implications in terms of the possible establishment of Egyptian trading colonies in Lower Nubia and the possible “Egyptianizing” of aspects of A-Group Nubian culture. Controversy over the source of Egyptian divine kingship, whether Nubian or Upper Egyptian, has yet to be settled.29 However, the archaeological record both in Egypt and Nubia suggests that there was at least a lively trade in the material culture and raw natural resources of the two groups during the Naqada IIIa period (ca. 3200 BC). That this material trade influenced the transfer of more ideational aspects of culture is well demonstrated by artifacts such as the cylinder seal and decorated censers discovered in the Cemetery L site at Qustul in Lower Nubia. The Cemetery L material dated to the Naqada IIIb-c period (ca. 3200 BC), and the artifacts recovered bore representations of kingship, such as the White Crown traditionally associated with Upper Egypt. These images raised the question of whether the iconography of Egyptian kingship and the style of the Nubian cylinder seals and sealing impressions were imported from Egypt, or whether the Nubians exported these ideas by force down river to Egypt.30 This interpretation of the Cemetery L evidence has been superseded

23 N. Porat, “Local Industry of Egyptian Pottery in Southern Palestine during the Early Bronze I Period,” Bulletin of the Egyptological Seminar 8 (1986/87):109-129. 24 Many Egyptologists remain dazzled by the image of the smiting Narmer as being the first legitimate representation of early Egyptian conquest despite evidence of Egypt’s expansionist and colonial tendencies predating the founding of the First Dynasty. See Schulman, “On the Dating of the Egyptian Seal Impressions from ‘En Besor,” 250-251 and R. Gophna, “The Egyptian Pottery of ‘En Besor,” Tel Aviv 17(1990): 144-162. 25 E.g. the “reconstruction” of an entire Horus falcon atop a group of lines interpreted as a serekh containing the royal name Den. See A. Schulman, “The Egyptian Seal Impressions from ‘En Besor,” 25, fig. 2, and plate 1:7. 26 A. Schulman, “On the Dating of the Egyptian Seal Impressions from ‘En Besor,” 249-251 and A. Schulman, “At the Fringe: The Historiography and Historicity of the Relations of Egypt and Canaan in the Early Bronze Age I,” L’urbanisation de la Palestine a l’âge du Bronze ancien, ed. P. de Miroschedji (Oxford: B.A.R., 1989), 433-453. 27 Hartung proposes that ‘En Besor was founded as an Egyptian outpost one or two reigns after the ruler who was buried in Tomb U-j at Abydos and that it is abandoned before the founding of Dynasty I or shortly thereafter. See U. Hartung, “Zur Entwicklung des Handels und zum Beginn wirtschaftlicher Administration im prädynastichen Ägypten,” SAK 26 (1998): 35-50. Though the excavators of the site have revised their assessment of the material, most still date the site to within early Dynasty I. EC.M. van den Brink, “The ‘En Besor Seal Impressions in Retrospect,” Excavations at ‘En Besor, ed. R. Gophna (Jerusalem: Ramot Publishing House and Tel Aviv University, 1995) 201-214 and for a viewpoint that concurs with Hartung see L. Watrin, “The Relationship Between the Nile Delta and Palestine during the Fourth Millennium: From Early Exchange (Naqada I-II) to the Colonization of Southern Palestine (Naqada III).” Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress of Egyptologists, ed. C.J. Eyre (Leuven: Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 82, 1998), 1215-26. 28 New evidence is soon to be published indicating that long distance trade and sealing was also being conducted at the Upper Egyptian site of Naqada during the Naqada II d period. R. Di Maria, “Rediscovering Naqada: The Sealing Evidence,” paper presented at the Eighth International Congress of

Egyptologists, Cairo, Egypt, 2000. Ms. Di Maria has graciously permitted the mention here of the discovery of 264 clay sealings, four seals and a potential warehouse for trade goods at the site of Naqada’s “South Town” during excavations conducted by the late Dr. Claudio Barocas from 1982-86. 29 B. Williams, “The Lost Pharoahs of Nubia,” Archaeology 33 (1980): 12-21 and W.Y. Adams, “Doubts about the ‘Lost Pharaohs,” JNES 44, no. 3 (1985): 185-192. Though the majority of scholars studying Nubia have rejected Williams’ hypothesis of Lower Nubian supremacy in the Predynastic, few have wrestled the iconographic puzzle presented by objects like the Qustul Incense Burner and cylinder seals. See J Wegner, “Interaction between the Nubian A-Group and Predynastic Egypt: The Significance of the Qustul Incense Burner,” Egypt in Africa, ed. T. Celenko (Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1996), 98-100 and B. Williams, “The Qustul Incense Burner and the Case for a Nubian Origin of Ancient Egyptian Kingship,” Egypt in Africa, ed. T. Celenko (Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1996). 9597. Wegner points out that if the Nubians were the conquerors who united Egypt as Williams argues, their disappearance from the archaeological record of their homeland after the beginning of Dynasty I is extremely puzzling. 30 See B. Williams, “The Lost Pharaohs,” 20-21 and a spirited rebuttal of Williams’ hypothesis in W.Y. Adams, “Doubts about the ‘Lost Pharaohs,’” 185-192.

5

Cylinder Seal Glyptic in Predynastic Egypt and Neighboring Regions

The Abydos seal impressions show signs of foreign contact, but also reflect a vigorous and highly developed local style that has much in common with other Predynastic works of art from all over Upper Egypt. Though there are a relatively small number of Egyptian seal impressions in comparison to the large Mesopotamian collection of seals from the same period, there are enough to suggest different stylistic groupings of Egyptian cylinder seal glyptic. While similarities between Egyptian and Mesopotamian stylistic or iconographic elements will be noted when they arise, specific Mesopotamian elements of the seal designs are not the primary focus of this study.31 Studies of Mesopotamian cylinder seals can provide useful, general models for studying the semiotic meaning of seals,32 and the differences in glyptic styles between core and peripheral cultural centers. As the Abydos Cemetery U seals are the first evidence for Naqada II Egyptian administration, they provide an interesting structural comparison with the preliterate Mesopotamian sealing system. Isolating recognizable stylistic groups amid the Abydos Cemetery U seal impressions dating to the Naqada IId period can indicate different uses, different points of origin or different administrative levels for the sealing impressions.33 These stylistic groups will be compared to the cylinder sealing impressions that followed in the Naqada IIIa2 elite tomb U-j at Abydos, Protodynastic (Naqada III b-Dynasty 0) seals discovered at the bottom levels of the Abydos temple site, and some unprovenanced Archaic seals to trace developments of these stylistic groups.

by recent discoveries of Egyptian royal iconography from graves at Abydos that predate the Qustul finds. Also the discovery of hieroglyphic inscriptions in Tomb U-j of a Naqada IIIa2 date (3380 BC) predates the hitherto earliest known Egyptian writing by more than a century. Further, some of the Abydos cylinder seal impressions date to the Naqada IId period, still earlier than the Naqada IIIb Qustul seal. Current evidence indicates that Egypt was the exporter of royal iconography to Nubia during the late Predynastic period, and not the reverse. A comparison of the Nubian seals and sealing impressions with the Abydos Naqada IId and IIIa2 seal impressions in Chapter 3 offers a fresh perspective on where the Nubian material fits into this development. It will also permit us to examine the possibility of Egyptian trading outposts and iconographic transfers in Lower Nubia in the late Predynastic. Finally, after comparing sealing impressions from locations within Egypt and its periphery, it is possible to examine the parallels between Egyptian and Mesopotamian cultural development. Examples of sealing impressions support the hypothesis that Egypt’s powerful regional rulers were establishing trading colonies while the Egyptian writing system was still in its developmental stage, much the same as Uruk did with its colonies in northern Syria. Evidence suggests that Upper Egypt was the core culture of its region as early as the Naqada IId period, prior to complete political unification of Egypt. Competition between the Upper Egyptian polities of Abydos (This), Naqada and Hierakonpolis provided the impetus for the creation of long distance trading networks and ultimately for the spread of Upper Egyptian culture to Lower Egypt, and thence to southern Palestine and Lower Nubia. Further, the iconography used on these instruments of trade indicate that the relations Egypt established with the neighboring cultures of Nubia and Palestine in this formative period set the pattern for her historic relations with these peoples.

31 In any case, these similarities are not overwhelmingly obvious in the case of the seal repertoire, in contrast to the “Master of Animals” on the Gebel el-Arak Knife Handle or animal renditions on certain carved slate palettes. 32 Semiotic study can mean different things to different art historians. For the purpose of clarity, the definition put forward by Eric Fernie is used here. See E. Fernie, Art History and Its Methods: A Critical Anthology, (London: Phaidon Press Limited, 1998), 359. “Semiotics or semiology is structuralism applied to signs instead of language, and is the study of how sign systems produce meanings. It contains three categories of signs: the iconic, where the sign resembles what it stands for, as with a picture of an object; the indexical, where the sign is related to what it stands for by association, as with lightning and speed; and the symbolic where the link with the referent is purely conventional.” 33 Holly Pittman casts doubt on interpretations of cylinder seal designs as designating particular individuals within this administrative system in pre-literate cultures. Instead she suggests that the seal glyptic was more transaction specific and dealt with the products being sealed, the destination for the products or the planned use of the products. See H. Pittman, “Toward an Understanding of the Role of Glyptic Imagery,” 191. See also discussion in Chapter 5 below.

Bodies of Evidence In pursuit of answers to these questions, several bodies of evidence will be examined, beginning with a detailed examination of the Abydos cylinder and stamp seal impressions. These will be studied in reference to their archaeological context and divided into stylistic groups.

6

Introduction

The Lower Nubian glyptic imagery examined is derived from excavation reports of seven different sites: Siali, Sarras West, Qustul, Faras, Ikkur, Koshtamna and Gerf Hussein.34 These sites have yielded one cylinder seal impression and six cylinder seals. Related material such as decorated censers and rock carvings dated to this same period are mentioned in the discussion of the Nubian material. They are included because of the relation of their iconography to that found on cylinder seals, and for the light they shed on the relationship between Upper Egypt and Nubia during the late Predynastic Period. Given that the Nubian material has been dated to the Naqada IIIb period, they can be compared to the style and iconography of finds from the Naqada IId period at Abydos and to the Tomb U-j sealing impressions dating to Naqada IIIa2 period. This provides a sequence of cylinder seal decoration from Naqada IId through Dynasty 0.

comparison. Therefore, twenty-one of the more complete seal impressions from the published corpus are compared to the Abydos material.37 As with the Abydos material, the ‘En Besor seal impressions are examined and placed into identifiable stylistic groups or families for the purpose of comparison. A re-examination of the ‘En Besor excavated material suggests that the controversial Stratum III where the cylinder seal impressions were discovered would be better dated to late Dynasty 0 or early Dynasty I (ca. 3240-3110 BC).38 The ‘En Besor material is compared to the earlier Abydos Naqada IId sealing impressions and to the Abydos Tomb U-j seal impressions and Proto-dynastic seals discovered elsewhere at Abydos to determine whether they share direct stylistic similarities. Thus the Nubian and Palestinian material rounds out the chronology.

A total of ninety cylinder seal impressions and one cylinder seal have been recovered from the southern Palestinian site of ‘En Besor. Previously these seals were assigned to the latter half of the First Dynasty, though archaeological context suggested an earlier date. Currently scholars are re-evaluating the ‘En Besor seal impressions to determine how they might fit into a Predynastic Egyptian trading system. This study will examine whether their artistic and iconographic “language” reflects a further step in the development of Egyptian glyptic style as seen at Abydos. Twenty-five of these cylinder seals were considered too small and illegible for publication.35 Schulman published the remaining sixty-five seals with his interpretations of their signs and iconography in three separate articles.36 Only a fraction of these published seal impressions is suitable for stylistic analysis and

Once this basic corpus of material has been defined, in Chapter 5 the Abydene, Nubian and Southern Palestinian seal impressions are compared to Mesopotamian models based on cylinder seals from Uruk grouped according to types of scenes, uses of seals and where the seals were discovered. This contextual comparison requires us to ask questions about where the central administration was, how it dealt with trade from distant areas, whether and how sealing practices differed between these areas, and how these differences may have affected the style of the seals.

Methodology The methodology for the analysis of the cylinder seals and seal impressions involved in this study is confined to four issues: 1) the critical study of seal reconstructions; 2) an analysis of individual

34 See G.A. Reisner, The Archaeological Survey of Nubia, 54; A.J. Mills and H. Å. Nordström, “The Archaeological Survey from Gemai to Dal. Preliminary Report on the Season 1964-65,” Kush 14 (1910): 1-15; B. Williams, The A-Group Royal Cemetery at Qustul: Cemetery L, The University of Chicago Oriental Institute Nubian Expedition, vol. III (Chicago: The Oriental Institute University of Chicago, 1986), 157-190; F. Griffith, “Oxford Excavations in Nubia,” Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology 8 (1921): 1-18; and C.M. Firth, The Archaeological Survey of Nubia, Report for 1908-1909 (Cairo: National Printing Department, 1912), 611, 146, and plate 6. 35 E.C.M. van den Brink, “The ‘En Besor Cylinder Seal Impressions in Retrospect,” 201. 36 A. Schulman, “The Egyptian Seal Impressions from ‘En Besor,” Atiqot 11 (1976):16-26; A. Schulman, “More Egyptian Seal Impressions from ‘En Besor; Atiqot 14 (1980):17-33; A. Schulman, “Still More Egyptian Seal Impressions from ‘En Besor,” The Nile Delta in Transition:4th-3rd Millenium BC, ed. E. C.M. van den Brink (Tel Aviv: The Israel Exploration Society, 1992): 395-417.

37 The seals were selected from Schulman’s first two Egyptian sealing publications for which he seems to have chosen the most complete and legible examples available to him. Twenty-one of the most complete examples were selected for discussion. In presenting the ‘En Besor seal impressions for this study, the numbering system Schulman assigned to the sealings has been preserved for easy reference. 38 E.C.M. van den Brink, “The ‘En Besor Cylinder Seal Impressions in Retrospect,” 201; R. Gophna, “The Contacts Between ‘En Besor Oasis, Southern Canaan and Egypt during the Late Predynastic and the Threshold of the First Dynasty, a Further Assessment,” The Nile Delta in Transition: 4th-3rd Millennium BC, ed. E.C.M. van den Brink (Tel Aviv: The Israel Exploration Society, 1992): 385-86; and U. Hartung, “Zur Entwicklung des Handels,” 42-43. Again, Hartung dates the beginning-end dates for the occupation of ‘En Besor to the Naqada IIIb period to the end of Dynasty 0, earlier than both van den Brink and Gophna date the site.

7

Cylinder Seal Glyptic in Predynastic Egypt and Neighboring Regions

The last method of analysis is similar to what is known in art history as iconology or semiotics, the study of the cultural meaning of images. The study of such cultural context and meaning in imagery is usually confined to historical periods because it depends in large part on associations made with written texts. A classic iconological examination of this material is not appropriate in this study because a body of contemporary textual evidence that articulates the cultural meaning of the imagery of early Egyptian cylinder seals does not exist.41 However it is possible to think in general terms about the relationship between written and visual modes of expression and how these have traditionally interacted on a very intimate level in Egyptian culture from other Egyptian Predynastic and historic examples.42 Even with these well-known examples to guide us, a literal reading of these seals remains beyond our reach. However, such an analysis might provide clues to the general purpose of different seal design families.

motifs and seal styles; 3) the archeological and cultural context of seal impressions and seals; and 4) the iconology/semiotic study of signing. The Abydos cylinder seal impressions and other impressions included in this study are frequently reconstructions or composite drawings based on the study of multiple seal impressions.39 Reconstructing these images is no simple task especially in view of the poor preservation and faint, patchy nature of some of the individual seal impressions. The composite line drawings of the seals and seal impressions under study are those provided by Hartung, Williams, Schulman and Ben-Tor.40 It should be kept in mind that some aspects of these reconstructions are conjectural and there is a possibility that some of the composites offered as separate seals came originally from the same cylinder seal. It is also the case that some composite reconstruction drawings could represent a fusion or conflation of more than one seal impression. In all cases the reconstructions are critically examined and doubts and observations about the material are made explicit.

Comments on Mesopotamian and Egyptian Sealing Practices

The second stage of the analysis is iconographic and stylistic, involving a description of the motifs and style of the seal impressions, as well as survey and discussion of the relevant comparative material from Predynastic Egypt. The Abydos, Nubian and ‘En Besor seals and seal impressions are arranged by design group. This method involves a more formal study of the imagery of the seals and seal impressions, which involves a detailed analysis of the iconography, style, design elements and the compositional principles of the representations.

It is important to keep in mind while studying cylinder seals and sealing impressions that, apart from serving as evidence of glyptic styles and reflections of earlier stages in the development of hieroglyphic writing, they served real, practical functions. From prehistoric times, even before cylinder seals came into use, clay seals were used as a form of security or a guarantee that a particular object had not been tampered with as long as the clay seal attached to it remained unbroken. These pieces of clay were attached to items that could easily be transported such as pots bags, and baskets. However, they also could be affixed to stationary objects such as the pegand-string devices attached to walls adjoining doors. In this way access to rooms (such as storerooms) could be controlled and thosein charge of them held accountable.

It is the case with all the material discussed in this study that the examples are first arranged and discussed in terms of their archaeological context. It is this contextual analysis that defines the larger framework in which the seals and seal impressions were used in the Predynastic. Further, it is the contention of this study that ignoring, discounting or conflating the surrounding archaeological evidence has led scholars to misinterpret the meaning of data from seals and seal impressions.

Additionally, seals held a deeper, more symbolic meaning to the people who used them. To an ancient Egyptian, the use of a seal was almost a magical performance ensuring protection. Practically, it seals a good from misuse.

39 For excellent and explicit illustrations of how this reconstruction is accomplished, see Hartung, “Prädynastiche Siegelabrollungen aus dem Friedhof U,” 188-205. 40 Ibid., 188-205; B. Williams, The A-Group Royal Cemetery at Qustul, 157, 168, and 170; A. Schulman, “The Egyptian Seal Impressions from ‘En Besor,” 129; A. Schulman, “More Egyptian Seal Impressions from ‘En Besor,” 146, 149, and fig. 1.; and A. Ben-Tor, “A Cylinder Seal from ‘En Besor,” Atiqot 11 (1976), 13-15, figs. 1-2, pl. 1.

41 One might argue that such an explicit association between art and written texts rarely, if ever, existed at any point in ancient Egyptian history. The Egyptians for the majority of their history seemed to delight in hidden rather than explicit cultural knowledge. 42 Cf. H.G. Fischer, “Hieroglyphen,” Lexikon der Ägyptologie. Band III. (Wiesbaden, 1982): 1189-1199.

8

Introduction

However, in a more ideational realm, through the “creation” of icon and image by rolling the seal across wet clay, an act of protection and an imposition of order are taking place. This power flows from the king or the deity or both. The person wielding this power can therefore view himself as being a key player in the scheme of social order.43 Thus, personal names and titles eventually appear on seals in the Dynastic period, as well as the title “seal bearer” that becomes so prominent in the biographical texts of historic Egyptian officials.44

evidence at Abydos however presents us with a high number and variety of cylinder sealing impressions, which hints at a complexity that was heretofore unsuspected.

A sealing can be viewed as having two sides. The first side (or obverse) receives the seal impression, often in the form of one or more impressions of the same seal, but sometimes impressions of several seals. The second side, or the reverse face, is pressed to the surface of the object or chamber being sealed. Clay seals then, in fact, often carry two impressions, both of which are informative.45 For example, if it can be determined that a seal was used to seal a door, then one can assume that the sealing was made close to the context in which it was found. If however, it can be determined that the seal was removed from a portable good like a pottery vessel or basket, then one cannot assume that the sealing was made in the same location in which it was found, since vessels and baskets were frequently moved between communities. To further complicate the picture, we know from studies of seal use in historic periods in Egypt and in Mesopotamia that goods received from other locales were often opened, inspected and resealed upon arrival.46 Evidence of Predynastic sealing in Egypt is so limited at this time that it would be impossible to reconstruct a full blown administrative system based on the Abydos seal impressions alone. The

43 For a discussion of the daily ritual surrounding seal breaking and making in the god’s sanctuary see R. David, Religious Ritual at Abydos, c. 1300 BC, (Warminster: Aris and Phillips Ltd., 1973.) 44 W.A. Ward, Index of Egyptian Administrative and Religious Titles of the Middle Kingdom (Beirut, 1982). 45 Even to the well-established study of Mesopotamian cylinder seals, the examination of the reverse sides of cylinder sealings is relatively new, and a great deal of work remains to be done. Piera Ferioli and Erica Fiandra have sought to contextualize cylinder seal use by determining precisely what objects were being sealed. See P. Ferioli and E. Fiandra, “Archive Techniques and Methods at Arslantepe,” Archives Before Writing, eds. Piera Ferioli, Erica Fiandra, Gian Giancomo Fissore and Marcella Frangipane (Rome: Centro Internazionale di Ricerche Archeologiche Antropologiche e Storiche, 1994), 149-161. 46 R.J. Matthews, Cities, Seals and Writing, 13-14.

9

Cylinder Seal Glyptic in Predynastic Egypt and Neighboring Regions

10

2 THE ABYDOS CYLINDER SEAL IMPRESSIONS

The images presented by the Abydos Cemetery U cylinder and stamp seal impressions will be divided into categories based on composition, style and motifs. These groups will then be examined to determine whether different groups might indicate different semiotic meaning for their users. The seal impressions will be compared and contrasted with other glyptic material recovered from Abydos and with other types of Predynastic Egyptian artworks. Additionally, Early Dynastic period glyptic styles at Abydos will be examined for affinities to the late Predynastic material. Finally, a tentative seriation of the cylinder seals and seal impressions of Abydos will be proposed and used as a comparative base from which to discuss other Predynastic seals and seal impressions from sites with Egyptian-related material in Nubia and southern Canaan. This stylistic progression will suggest a Predynastic dating criteria for seals and seal impressions previously thought to be Early Dynastic.

good indication of that individual’s status while living.2 Examination of mortuary evidence therefore has proven a good indicator of how and how long ago Egyptian society began to change from a primarily egalitarian one to a stratified one.3

The Abydos Excavations Archaeological Institute

by

the

German

A re-assessment of the artifacts, records and publications already taken from Predynastic excavations can tell us much, particularly in light of more recent discoveries. The German Archaeological Institute excavations at Umm elQa’ab led by Günter Dreyer have demonstrated that closer examination of some of these sites can be very fruitful.4 More importantly these excavations have yielded copious amounts of new data concerning the Predynastic record at Abydos from areas previously thought fully investigated. With each passing year their findings call us to reassess what we thought we knew about Egypt before the Dynastic era.

There is still much to be learned through excavations at Predynastic cemeteries such as the U Cemetery at Abydos. The majority of information we have on the Predynastic societies of Egypt has been gathered through cemetery excavations. Egyptologists are fortunate that it was customary for the people of the Naqada cultures to bury many different types of artifacts with their dead. However, scholars seeking to interpret this data are handicapped in that they are limited to items that the Naqadans felt were appropriate burial furniture. The customs, commerce and practices of everyday life in Predynastic Egypt may not be and probably are not fully reflected in the cemetery-based archaeological records. Therefore one should use caution when proposing explanations of Egyptian Predynastic everyday life based on mortuary evidence.1

The picture emerging through recent archaeological research is one of a more complex society in which the germs of centralized rule seem already to have taken root. The evidence suggests that cultural unification in Egypt preceded political and administrative unification, and that both occurred well before Narmer wielded his mace.

2 J. Castillos, “Inequality in Egyptian Predynastic Cemeteries,” Revue D’Egyptologie 49 (1998): 25-36. This does not hold true for all cultures, however, when the “equilization” of the dead reflects different religious beliefs about the afterlife. I. Hodder, Reading the Past: Current Approaches to Interpretation in Archaeology. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986), 140. 3 Whitney Davis, “Cemetery T at Naqada.” MDAIK 39 (1983): 1729. 4 For example, by reopening and investigating the tomb of Den, Dreyer demonstrated that sites excavated by archaeologists as meticulous as Petrie was for his time could benefit from further investigation using modern excavation techniques. See G. Dreyer, “Zur Reconstruktion der Oberbauten der Königsgräber der 1. Dynastie in Abydos,” MDAIK 47 (1991): 93-104.

However, it is also a truism in Egyptian archaeology that the richness of burial goods supplied for an individual for the journey through the afterlife is a 1 As noted by U. Hartung, “Zur Entwicklung des Handels,” 35, among others.

11

Cylinder Seal Glyptic in Predynastic Egypt and Neighboring Regions

12

Abydos Cylinder Seal Impressions

Abydos is located about 500 kilometers south of Cairo, almost in the center of the area where the prehistoric Naqada culture developed in the 4th millennium BC (see fig. 2). Its last stage, Naqada IIIb transitions smoothly into Dynasty 0, the final period of the unification of Upper Egypt and the Delta. The process of unification seems to have been a gradual expansion of Upper Egyptian influence and control over the Delta, partly by peaceful means such as trade and settlement and likely in some degree also by warfare as is attested on early Egyptian monuments such as the Narmer Palette (fig. 1). Dreyer proposes that the unification took more time than had previously been proposed, close to two centuries longer.5 The unification was complete, in effect, around 3000 BC under the rule of Narmer (perhaps to be identified with Mena). Although it was at this time that the capital of the country was moved to Memphis, the rulers of Manetho’s First Dynasty continued to be buried in their traditional capital, Abydos.6

the excavation in parts of the cemetery about a decade later.10 These investigations resulted in the discovery of eight large royal tomb complexes of the 1st Dynasty, two tomb complexes of the 2nd Dynasty and several smaller Predynastic tombs some of whose occupants Dreyer now proposes were also royal.11 The 1st and 2nd Dynasty large tomb complexes consisted of a large subterranean royal chamber and up to 200 subsidiary burial chambers or store rooms built of mud brick and covered by wooden beam roof construction (see fig. 3). The presence of a Predynastic cemetery to the north of the royal tombs was recorded in Amélineau’s and Peet’s reports. Amélineau excavated about 150 small tombs and Peet another 32 tombs, but neither excavator published a plan of the cemetery or gave more than a cursory description of the finds made there. The German Archaeological Institute excavations of 1981 and 1985 revealed some single-chambered tombs of the late Predynastic period between the double-chambered tombs of the B Cemetery and the U Cemetery.12 Although the tombs had been robbed, burned or cleared by earlier excavations, the size of the chambers and the quality of the remnants of burials goods they still contained indicated that the owners of the tombs were high-ranking and possibly the predecessors of the rulers of Dynasty 0. The area between B Cemetery and U Cemetery was riddled with these tombs, indicating that the royal cemetery had developed continuously from a burial place for the elite to a necropolis designated for rulers alone.

The ancient Egyptians themselves first excavated the royal cemetery. As a major center for the worship of Osiris, Abydos became a focal point of royal devotion during the Middle Kingdom when the Egyptians attempted to locate the tomb of this deity. For this reason several of the larger Predynastic tombs at the site were excavated and cleared.7 E. Amélineau, a French Coptologist, is the next known excavator of the site and worked there from 1895-98. Amélineau was not an archaeologist and basically plundered the cemetery in search of goods he could sell to antiquities collectors.8 W. M. Flinders Petrie, the preeminent archaeologist of his time, convinced authorities to transfer the Abydos concession to him and continued the excavations from the turn of the century to 1903.9 E. Naville and E. Peet continued

Resumed excavations of U Cemetery were rewarded in 1988 when a large tomb, designated U-j, was discovered. The tomb was datable to Naqada IIIa2 and was situated about 100 meters to the north of the tomb complex of Horus-Aha. Tomb U-j was divided into 12 chambers that were partially lined in mud brick. Evidence of wooden beam and reed matting roof construction were uncovered. There also was evidence that some of the brickwork had been

5 G. Dreyer, “The Royal Tombs of Abydos,” 55. 6 G. Dreyer, Umm el-Qaab I, 173-174. Dreyer proposes that Abydos and not This was the traditional home of the early kings of Egypt. However, this assertion has not been proven since the exact location and character of This has not been identified. 7 Ibid., 17-19. Egyptians determined that the tomb of Den belonged to Osiris and made that location the focal point of annual religious processions at Abydos during the Middle Kingdom. Dreyer has noted that many of these cleared tombs can only be dated by the objects that have been deposited on the surface through the investigations of these early excavators. 8 E. Amélineau, Les nouvelle fouilles d’Abydos I: 1895-1896 (Paris:1899); E. Amélineau, Les nouvelle fouilles d’Abydos II: 1896-1897 (Paris:1902); E. Amélineau, Les nouvelle fouilles d’Abydos III:1897-1898 (Paris: 1904). 9 W.M.F. Petrie, The Royal Tombs of the First Dynasty: 1900 Part I (London: Egyptian Exploration Fund, 1900); W.M.F. Petrie, The Royal Tombs of the Earliest Dynasties: 1901 Part II (London: Egyptian Exploration Fund, 1901); W.M.F. Petrie, Abydos: Part 1, 1902 (London: Egyptian Exploration Fund, 1902); and W.M.F. Petrie, Abydos: Part II. 1903 (London, Egyptian Exploration Fund, 1903).

10 E. Naville, The Cemeteries of Abydos: Part I. The Mixed Cemetery and Umm El-Ga’ab (London, 1914) and T.E. Peet, The Cemeteries of Abydos: Part II. 1911-1912 (London: Egyptian Exploration Fund, 1914). 11 Dreyer, Umm el-Qaab I, 17-19. 12 W. Kaiser and P. Grossman, “Umm el-Qaab: Nachuntersuchungen im früzeitlichen Königsfriedhof. 1. Vorbericht,” MDAIK 35 (1979): 155-164; W. Kaiser and G. Dreyer, “Umm el-Qaab: Nachuntersuchungen im früzeitlichen Königsfriedhof. 2. Vorbericht, MDAIK 38 (1982): 211-270 and G. Dreyer, “Ein Siegel der früzeitlichen Königsnekropole von Abydos, MDAIK 43 (1987): 33-44.

13

Cylinder Seal Glyptic in Predynastic Egypt and Neighboring Regions

14

Abydos Cylinder Seal Impressions

plastered. Some of the finds recovered from the excavation of this tomb included fragments of a wooden shrine, fragments of about 100 wavy-handled pots and a complete crook (or heka ) scepter made of

incised with numbers or one to four hieroglyphic signs. According to Dreyer’s analysis, most of the numbered labels are thought to be indications of the size of bolts of cloth buried in the tomb. Other labels, like the pottery inscriptions, appear to indicate the estate origin of the goods once buried in the tomb. Dreyer has identified these as the names of localities, such as Buto and Basta in the Delta,16 several estates and different administrative departments. While some of the animal and design element motifs (such as water birds and triangles) appear on both cylinder seal impressions and bone labels, these types of objects seem to be performing different functions. Dreyer suggests that labels designate particular estates from which goods were produced and that the seal impressions designate particular individuals or officials acting on behalf of the ruler to control these goods.17 According to Dreyer most of the signs carved in the bone labels are to be read with the phonetic value known from later inscriptions, and phonetic complements are also present. Apparently the system of hieroglyphic writing was already at a rather advanced stage during Naqada IIIa2, some 150 years earlier than previously supposed.18

ivory, resembling the later n hieroglyph (Gardiner S38), a sign for the Egyptians tied to the concepts of rulership and power. Pottery in the tomb had been divided into three groups of several hundred vessels each. The first group of vessels, which were placed in the burial chamber and two of the smaller adjacent chambers, consisted of Egyptian wavy-handled pots containing oil or fat. The second group consisted of rough Nile silt ware vessels such as beer jars, bread moulds and plates placed in three of the smaller chambers. The third group consisted of large pots from Canaan, which analysis demonstrated contained wine. These were stored in two of the small chambers and the larger southeastern chamber. The wavy handled pots helped to date the tomb to the Naqada IIIa2 period because they are a distinctive variety of that period. Significantly, many of these vessels were marked in black ink with one or two hieroglyphic signs. Dreyer has demonstrated that these inscriptions are the earliest known examples of writing in Egypt. According to Dreyer, the symbols represent the estates from which the goods contained in the jars were produced. He reads the inscriptions a stylized tree symbol next to a sign representing an animal or insect, denoting in his opinion the name of a ruler. The most frequent of these animal representations is a scorpion, which has prompted Dreyer to postulate that the tomb belongs to a ruler named Scorpion.13 Other animal representations include fish, a bull’s head and a bird, among others, all understood by Dreyer as royal names.14

Naqada IId Glyptic Discoveries at Abydos Continued excavations in U Cemetery have exposed graves dating back to the Naqada IId period (ca. 3480-3380 BC). It was during the excavations in these graves in the last few years that the German expedition discovered numerous examples of cylinder seal impressions. Hartung suggests that cylinder seals, an innovation introduced through contact with Mesopotamia, were in use in Egypt as early as the Naqada IIc period. He bases this assessment on the highly developed use of the seals in the Naqada IId period and evidence at Abydos of contact with Protoliterate Elamite culture and advanced trading with Lower Egypt and southern Palestine.19 The precise route by which the seals and their meaning reached Egypt is still a question for debate. A growing number of scholars are focusing on the possibility of sea trade with Mesopotamian colonies based in Syria and a land based trade through southern Canaan with the Palestinians acting as intermediaries.20 Others believe that Predynastic art attests to a stronger Elamite influence. These scholars contend that contact with this southern Mesopotamian culture most likely occurred through a Red Sea trade, funneling Mesopotamian influence directly to Upper Egyptian

The imported pottery is also of great interest. Though it is of Palestinian manufacture, most of the types are not common Early Bronze Age I pottery. Dreyer states that most of the vessels seem to be of special manufacture for export to Egypt and says that this indicates well-established trade relations between these two regions.15 It is only on these foreign wine vessels that cylinder seal impressions were discovered. Though most of the other chambers of the tomb had been robbed out in antiquity, close investigation revealed evidence of wooden boxes, fragments of ivory sticks and gaming pieces, fragments of stone and obsidian vessels and about 150 small bone labels

16 It should be mentioned that Dreyer’s readings of the signs have not been universally accepted. 17 G. Dreyer, Umm el-Qaab I, 181. 18 G. Dreyer, “The Royal Tombs of Abydos,” 65-66. 19 U. Hartung, “Zur Entwicklung des Handels,” 41-42. 20 S. Mark, From Egypt to Mesopotamia, 50-51 and K. Prag, “Byblos and Egypt in the Fourth Millenium B.C.,” Levant 18 (1986): 59-64.

13 There are two possible candidates for this name. One is the owner of the famous monumental macehead found at Hierakonpolis. Dreyer however postulates an earlier Scorpion or Scorpion I as the one attested in Tomb U-j, not the immediate predecessor to Narmer. G. Dreyer, Umm el-Qaab I, 178. 14 Dreyer, “The Royal Tombs of Abydos,” 65-66. 15 Ibid.

15

Cylinder Seal Glyptic in Predynastic Egypt and Neighboring Regions polities through the wadis of the eastern desert21.

monumental architecture, and the ostentatious display and redistribution of wealth. Because of the parallels Egypt seems to share with Uruk during the late Predynastic period, Abydos, A-Group Nubian and ‘En Besor cylinder seal impressions will be examined in relation to this model of early colonial expansion.

Recently published evidence from the U Cemetery excavations seems to add weight to the Elamite influence argument. Dreyer reports that potsherds of vessels dating to the Naqada IIb-c period bear inscriptions of proto-literate Elamite signs.22 Since cylinder seals were in use in Elam during this period, it could also explain the introduction of cylinder seal use to Egypt, according to Dreyer.

Numerous seal impressions have been found in tombs at Abydos that are contemporary with this period of Uruk expansion. The finest examples of these newly discovered cylinder seal and stamp seal impressions are reminiscent of the precise carving and iconography on Predynastic Egyptian knife handles. According to Hartung, the motifs in use on these seals have comparative analogies to the art of the dynastic age.25 Some these seal impressions bear signs which appear to be related to hieroglyphic symbols.

Cylinder seals were used in Mesopotamia to mark ownership of trade goods and prevent pilfering and spillage. Specifically, seals were used for controlling doors, baskets, bolts of cloth, jars, and bags of goods. The widespread use of cylinder and stamp seals in the pre-literate societies of Mesopotamia is one among many factors that have lead scholars to investigate the possibility of a pre-literate, “informal” empire of the Uruk civilization in Mesopotamia.23 Key elements in this informal empire system, according to Algaze, include not only long distance trade but also colonies, outposts and way stations established in the periphery to control this trade. Algaze notes that the relationship between the central culture and the outlying trading partners was not necessarily a reciprocal one. Often, in fact, the peripheral cultures had fewer resources and were less technologically advanced and less organized than the core culture, resulting in an uneven and inherently unstable relationship. According to Algaze, the purpose of these Uruk trading colonies was to obtain rare goods such as building stone, metals and precious stones and funnel them back into the heartland of Mesopotamia.24 These goods in turn were used to sustain and enhance the power of the ruling elite in Mesopotamia through the construction of

An updated chronology is key to understanding the importance of the recent work at Abydos (see Table 1) because the evidence of developing writing and commerce have been shown to be earlier than heretofore assumed and therefore contemporary with if not earlier than these developments in Mesopotamia. The most recent data has further set apart the Naqada II period and the Naqada III period.26 The length of time between Naqada IId and Naqada IIIa is about 150 years, based on carbon 14 samples taken from graves in the U Cemetery. Again, the cultural phases denoted by the Naqada I, II and III subdivisions are based not on absolute dates, but on changes in the Predynastic artifact assemblages, particularly pottery.27 While changes in these assemblages caused archaeologists to mark different stages the development of Predynastic culture, reliable and precise BC dates have not always been assigned to these stages. This expanded time frame in the absolute chronology, according to the German Archaeological Institute findings, allows for another century and a half of cultural development between these two Predynastic “phases” of Egyptian culture. This refinement of the chronology places late Naqada I at 3650 BC when previously it was assigned a start date of 3500 BC (see Table 1).

21 H. Kantor, “The Early Relations of Egypt with Asia,”176-177 and K. Cialowicz, “Le manche de couteau de Gebel el-Arak,” 343. 22 Dreyer, Umm el-Qaab I, 181. Dreyer’s argument is compelling, given that he uses art works such as the Gebel el-Arak Knife Handle, which Boehmer postulated was created by Elamite craftsmen living in Egypt, to back up his observations. If, in fact, there were such a concentrated level of cultural exchange during this early stage of Egypt’s formative period, it could explain the adoption of Elamite motifs and style on some Predynastic works. It also could explain the introduction of cylinder seal use. 23 G. Algaze, The Uruk World System: The Dynamics of Expansion of Early Mesopotamian Civilization (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993). While some have embraced Algaze’s attempt to adapt a model built to describe the colonial practices of post industrial revolution societies to the pristine civilizations of the ancient world others are more skeptical that the level of control implied by this terminology actually existed in these early trade networks. See G. Stein, “Introduction Part II. The Organizational Dynamics of Complexity in Greater Mesopotamia,” Chiefdoms and Early States in the Near East: The Organizational Dynamics of Complexity, ed. G. Stein and Mitchell S. Rothman (Madison, Wisconsin: Prehistory Press, 1994), 14-15. ADD THREE SOURCES HERE. 24 Historical models of this type of organization are available from the Assyrian civilization, which established trading colonies in Anatolia for the same purpose.

According to Dreyer, the dates provided by this new C-14 data are in line with previous observations made 25 U. Hartung, “Prädynastiche Siegelbrollungenaus dem Friedhof U,” 216-217. 26 J. Görsdorf, G. Dreyer, and U. Hartung “C14 Dating Results of the Archaic Royal Necropolis Umm el Qaab at Abydos,” MDAIK 54 (1998): 169-75. 27 The first such ordering of Predynastic artifacts was created by Petrie who developed a system of Sequence Dates based on the evolution or degradation of different pottery styles found in Predynastic graves. This system was taken and refined by Kaiser into a system that is still basically adhered to today. See W.M.F. Petrie, “Sequence in Prehistoric Remains,” Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, vol. 29 (1899): 295-301 and W. Kaiser, “Zur inneren Chronologie der Naqadakultur,” Archaeologia Geographica 6 (1957): 69-77.

16

Abydos Cylinder Seal Impressions

17

Cylinder Seal Glyptic in Predynastic Egypt and Neighboring Regions by excavators at the cemetery.28 The Abydos cemetery was begun in the central plateau in the Naqada I period. Larger, better-furnished tombs were placed at the edges of the cemetery at the beginning of the Naqada IId period. After the advent of Naqada IId, there are no burials of commoners. Abydos had already become an elite cemetery. Interestingly, no Naqada IIc graves have yet been found at the Abydos cemetery. Based on surface finds, it appears quite possible that this portion of the cemetery lies to the north of Cemetery U and has not yet been excavated by the German team (see fig. 4).

However, it is in the Naqada IId period that artistic creation reached a new high point at Abydos. The elite people of Abydos were the carriers of both seals and ivory objects, such as knife handles, decorated with minute carving, judging from the many small fragments found.32 Fragments of seven decorated knife handles have been discovered at U Cemetery, most of them surfaces finds, though two knife handles have been found in situ in the tombs designated U127 and U-503. Burial furniture included beads of lapis lazuli and imported pottery containing palm oil or wine from Canaan. People were buried with modeled clay objects representing cloves of garlic, onions and poppy seed bulbs. Ritually killed animal figurines such as red clay hippopotami have been found in the tombs. Tomb U-127 was also one of the tombs richest in cylinder seal impressions, indicating the high status of the individual interred there.33 Chemical study of the clay sealings determined that they were made of Nile mud and therefore not imported from outside the country with the vessels themselves. In Egyptian dynastic times, it was common practice for imported goods to be opened, inspected and resealed upon arrival at their destinations.34

In Cemetery U from the late Naqada I and into early Naqada II, numerous graves of considerable size and of more extensive and expensive burial equipment appear. There are traces of wood construction in the richer burials. By the end of Naqada II, the residents of Abydos are no longer lining the graves with reed mats. Dreyer reports that there were in all the larger graves wooden constructions that were very like coffins. Up until that point reed mats were used for covering the body both from below and above. An innovation came when the mats used to cover the body were covered in plaster, perhaps in an effort to better protect or mould the body into the shape that it had in life.29

If a sealing were simply private property and was being used to mark the possessions of an individual, one would expect to one seal impression per grave. However, the wide variety of mud seal impressions found in single tombs suggests that they were not used as personal property markers but instead served an administrative function, indicating a developed economic structure. If select types of trade goods were being marked to designate their contents or the individual under whose protection they traveled or the location from whence they were distributed, one would find multiple cylinder seal impressions for different types of imported goods in a single tomb.

Recognizable roof construction over the graves begins in the Naqada III period. Even the placement of the coffin begins to change. The smaller vessels and the burial itself are in the south end of the grave while the larger rough ware vessels are in the northern sector of the grave. This placement of burial goods evolves into the northern magazine chamber and the southern chamber in the more elaborate graves of the Naqada III period. Dreyer suggests that differences between pottery types produced at Abydos and those produced to the south in Naqada itself could denote local production centers with different nets of distribution.30 He observes that not only the vessel forms, but also the motifs, shaping and technical details in the painting of the vessels differ greatly from the Naqada site material.31

Hartung notes that the mud seal impressions are found only on imported vessels containing luxury items. He further suggests that the seal impressions discovered at Abydos were being used, not as personal designations, but as insignias of administration.35 As such they are a prestige item, but they also denote a more centralized governance of an increasingly stratified society. Based on the evidence, it appears that this trade was being controlled or was being administered for the benefit of an upper class.

28 J. Görsdorf, G. Dreyer and U. Hartung, “C 14 Dating Results of the Archaic Royal Necropolis,” 175. 29 G. Dreyer, U. Hartung, T. Hikade, E.C. Köhler, V. Müller and F. Pumpenmeier, “Umm el-Qa’ab,” MDAIK 54 (1998): 95. For an Old Kingdom example of this practice, see Sue D’Auria, Peter Lacovara, and Catherine Roehrig, Mummies and Magic: The Funerary Arts of Ancient Egypt (Boston: Museum of Fine Arts, 1988), 91-92. 30 Elizabeth Finkenstaedt has done considerable work identifying the local pottery styles of Predynastic wares. See E. Finkenstaedt, “Regional Painting Style in Prehistoric Egypt,” ZÄS 107 (1980): 116-120. 31 In one of his most recent publications, however, Dreyer also postulates that the rulers of the Thinite nome during this period already controlled the Naqada culture to the south and that, in effect, there were only two Upper Egyptian kinglets: This and Nekhen or Hierakonpolis. G. Dreyer, et al, “Umm el-Qaab,” (1998): 96 and in contrast G. Dreyer, Umm el-Qa’ab I, 40-41.

32 Hartung argues that the seals that created the seal impressions discovered at Abydos were carved in ivory or bone. 33 Indeed there might be a direct correlation between the rarity of decorated knife handles and the rarity of goods protected by cylinder seal impressions. Both seem to have been the purvey of high status individuals. Hartung, “Prädynastiche Siegelbrollungen aus dem Friedhof U,” 206. 34 Hartung, “Zur Entwicklung des Handels,” 36-37. 35 Hartung, “Prädynastiche Siegelbrollungen aus dem Friedhof U,” 217.

18

Abydos Cylinder Seal Impressions

More importantly, these seal impressions are evidence that, by the Naqada II period, regions of Egypt had already laid the foundations for a nationwide system of administration and trade control. Ceramic industries during this period are becoming more uniform and the mass production that will overtake the production of Egyptian ceramics in the dynastic period was already in evidence. By the Naqada IIIa2 period these seals of administration are iconographically associated with the king as in the case of the owner of Tomb U-j, whom Dreyer has dubbed Scorpion I and assigned to the Dynasty 00 group of rulers. As mentioned above, Tomb U-j also has provided the earliest known examples of Egyptian hieroglyphs.36

proposed for it. The first of the reconstructed seals contained a design of a single vertical row of three fish before a crosshatched “net” design (see fig. 5a). The second seal impression from this tomb as reconstructed shows field of bees or flies or wasps following no particular pattern but giving the overall impression of a geometric design. One of the spaces between the flying insects contains a sign that represents a row of triangles joined at the bases,

similar to the j or HAst sign for foreign land (Gardiner N-25).40 This recurring motif in the seal impressions from this period sometimes have between four and five peaks instead of the three that are normally associated with the sign for foreign land.41

Single triangles, a small half circle sign and several, small, rough shapes that have not yet been associated with any known sign (see fig. 5b) also fill the gaps between the flying insects. The third seal (fig. 5c) as reconstructed shows a centrally placed high-prowed boat. The high-prowed boat is a point of great interest for scholars of Predynastic art not only because of the characteristics it shares with Mesopotamian cylinder seal representations of a slightly later date, but because of the centrality of its symbolism in representations of early kingship.42 Inside the boat is a larger central figure, roughly in the shape of a five-pointed star. On either side of this figure are smaller six-pointed star shaped figures. Outside the boat are a series of four legged creatures seen from a “bird’s eye” view in that they are not portrayed with four feet walking on land but more as creatures moving through water, legs splayed as if in the act of swimming. While some of these creatures are identifiable as fish, others are less coherent and may represent turtles, crocodiles or even humans in disarray or death (see fig. 5c). The fourth and final seal impression (fig. 5d) as reconstructed shows a top row of antelope or ibex heads facing left and a second row of fish facing right. The outline of the second fish is garbled and may represent a different type of fish, a predator or a fish also oriented to the left.

The Naqada IId Seal Impressions The Naqada IId cylinder seal impressions described in the Dreyer excavation reports are for the most part irregularly shaped balls of clay that were wrapped around a string or thong securing the top of a jar lid. Some of them look roughly like polygons in cross section because of the flattening caused by the cylinder seal being rolled across the surface on several sides of the clay ball. These clay sealings are not comparable to the clay envelopes containing tokens known primarily from Mesopotamian studies, but are similar in shape to the bullae that preceded the “pillow-shaped tablets” on which the first examples of Mesopotamian writing are found.37 Tomb U-127 Tomb U-127, excavated by Dreyer during the 198889 season is an excellent example of a Naqada IId tomb, which, though robbed in antiquity, bears many of the characteristics of elite ownership under discussion. The tomb, according to Dreyer’s report, contained three fragments of a carved ivory knife handle and a “ripple flaked” flint blade of the type usually accompanying such handles.38 Also found in the grave were fragments of other decorated ivory objects and undecorated knife handles and a “fishtail” flint knife. As there were no wood samples in the tomb, the pottery in the grave was the primary means of placing it within the Naqada IId phase. Eight seal impressions were recovered from the grave. From the fragmentary and repeated impressions on these clay seals, Hartung reconstructed four distinct seal designs.39 One set of impressions was too faint and worn to be deciphered and therefore no design was

40 A. Gardiner, Egyptian Grammar (Oxford: Griffith Institute, 1957), 488. 41 Note however, that the bone labels discovered in Tomb U-j at Abydos show animals such as long legged wading birds in association with from one to four triangular peaks possibly representing foreign lands or a particular nome. G. Dreyer, Umm el-Qa’ab I, 126-131. 42 B. Williams and T.J. Logan, “The Metropolitan Museum Knife Handle and Aspects of Pharaonic Imagery Before Narmer,” JNES 46, no. 4 (1987): 245-85. Williams and Logan go into detail about the importance of the boat procession in early Egyptian art particularly on the Hierakonpolis Tomb 100 painting and the Metropolitan Museum Knife Handle. More recently interest in the high-prowed boat has grown because some scholars believes its presence in ancient Egypt at this time indicates that the Egyptians were capable of sea travel and trade. See S. Mark, From Egypt to Mesopotamia, 69-87.

36 Dreyer, “The Royal Tombs of Abydos,” 63. 37 D. Schmandt-Besserat, How Writing Came About, 80-84. 38 G. Dreyer, U. Hartung and F. Pumpenmeier, “Umm el-Qaab,” MDAIK 49 (1993): 26-27. 39 Hartung, “Prädynastiche Siegelbrollungen aus dem Friedhof U,” 188-190.

19

Cylinder Seal Glyptic in Predynastic Egypt and Neighboring Regions

Tomb U-133

Tomb U-134

In addition to the pottery excavated from this burial, there were wood fragments that could be dated using carbon 14 analysis. The pottery assemblage placed this grave within the Naqada IId phase and the carbon 14 analysis dated it to roughly 3220-3190 BC. The first of the seal impressions recovered from this grave shows a row of roughly fish shaped figures on the top row (see fig. 6a). Beneath it is a zigzag line most likely to be associated with water in ancient Egypt even during this period43 and below the continuous water sign are four rows of interlocking, equilateral triangles. If the seal as reconstructed by Hartung were turned over, however, the composition would make more sense. The fish-like creatures, with their

This tomb contained two seal impressions with the notable difference that one of the seal impressions was made by a stamp and not a cylinder seal. The impressions were on different clay seals, so the two forms were not used in conjunction in this case. The tomb was dated to the Naqada IId period based on the pottery found in the tomb. The first of the seals to be reconstructed by Hartung from this tomb contains imagery familiar to any student of Predynastic Egyptian art (see fig. 7a). The sealing shows three horizontal rows of animals stacked on top of one another. The first two lines of ibex march to the left and the third line marches to the right. It appears that a predator of some sort, either a dog or a lion is the central figure in the second row of herd animals. Again the space between the animals is filled with small signs, some of rows of triangles, single triangles, and double and triple lobed signs resembling flowers. Most notable for the sake comparison with other glyptic styles to be discussed below are the single, wedge-shaped signs that are inserted below the horns and over the back of each of the marching ibex. These rows of marching animals are reminiscent of several Predynastic Egyptian monuments including the Brooklyn Knife Handle, the Gebel el-Tarif Knife Handle and the Carnarvon Knife Handle (see figs. 8-10). In these better-known examples, except for Gebel el-Tarif Knife Handle, the animal rows are all facing the same direction, not opposing directions. The single example of a stamp sealing reconstructed by Hartung (see fig. 7b) a square with rounded edges containing four rows of

fins now pointing down more resemble the v sign for a fish identified as Tetrodon fahaka (Gardiner K7)44 swimming beneath the waves of the water with the triangles, recognized by Petrie as a common standard on boats represented on D Ware vessels45, above them. The second set of seal impressions discovered in this grave is more complex and shows what appears to be a line of fish above a line of land signs desert signs

c

b or perhaps

(Gardiner N-17 or N-18).46

Below this is another line of a different variety of fish that are also bordered by the land or desert signs. Below this row are what appear to be the sign for a whip7 or possibly a nome type standard (Gardiner V-23 or R-12).47

7

three “hill country” or foreign land signs j (Gardiner N-25).48 The animal rows in the seal also bear a striking resemblance to the imagery on a steatite cylinder seal in the Brooklyn Museum Collection (see fig. 49b). This small unprovenanced seal was tentatively dated to early Dynasty I, but as the finds in this tomb illustrate that this type of animal file seal was already in use in the Naqada IId period, placing this dating in doubt.49 Its simplified, single procession composition and top and bottom register lines recall seals found in Nubia (see fig. 27b). A date of no later than Naqada IIIb is suggested for the Brooklyn seal.

Below these signs is another row of determinative signs for foreign lands with the mountain peaks oriented down. Again, the overall orientation of the reconstruction of this sealing is open to question (see fig. 6b).

43 Predynastic painted ware from this period frequently depict representations that have been interpreted as river boats afloat on wavy lines representing water. See J.D. Bourriau, Umm el Qa’ab: Pottery From the Nile Valley Before the Arab Conquest (Cambridge, 1981), 31. A contrasting view which associates these representations with temples built on stilt-supported platforms is offered by J. Monnet-Saleh. See J. Monnet-Saleh, “Les représentations de temples sur plates-formes à pieux, de la poterie gerzéenne d’Egypt,” BIFAO 83 (1983): 263-96. 44 A. Gardiner, Egyptian Grammar, 477; and D.J. Brewer and R. F. Friedman, Fish and Fishing in Ancient Egypt, (Warminster: Aris & Phillips, 1989). 45 W.M.F. Petrie, Prehistoric Egypt, pl. 23. 46 A. Gardiner, Egyptian Grammar, 487. 47 Ibid., 524, 502.

The presence of this type of seal proves that Predynastic Egyptians had exposure to seals of both the stamp and cylinder seal variety being used in Mesopotamia at this time and had adapted them for their own uses. The decoration present on the seals

48 Ibid., 488. 49 W. Needler, “Cylinder Seals and a Royal Name,” Predynastic and Archaic Egypt in the Brooklyn Museum. Wilbour Monographs 9. (New York: The Brooklyn Museum, 1984), 377-378, fig. 306.

20

Abydos Cylinder Seal Impressions

might also help us to set a date for knife handles and combs with this type of animal file decoration.

Tomb U-210 In addition to three seal impressions this tomb contained wood fragments that could be dated using Carbon 14 testing to 3100-2920 BC. Based on the pottery placed in the tomb, the burial was dated to the late Naqada IId period. The most extraordinary of the seal impressions from this grave is one that features a roughly triangular form with a “head” and four “arms” that resemble three-pointed stars. A birdshaped animal strongly resembling a falcon perched on a standard is beside this figure. The “biomorphic astral creature,” as Bianchi terms it, represented in this cylinder sealing is virtually identical to a carving on a six-inch greywacke cosmetic palette in the Cairo Museum.52 The palette was reported discovered in Gerzeh, and though it cannot be dated precisely, stylistically it belongs to the Naqada II period.53 Alternating rows of signs resembling foreign land signs and rows of long-eared dogs surrounds these central figures. Again elements fill spaces between these figures. Most of the dogs carved into this seal have throwstick-shaped signs in front of their faces. These shapes are similar to representations on some Mesopotamian cylinder seal designs. In this case, all of the animal rows are facing to the left (see fig. 14a). The alternating animals pattern of this seal is repeated in an unprovenanced ivory seal published by Needler which has been dated to Dynasty I.54 In that seal the spaces between two offset lines of wild boars are filled with small unidentified floating objects and signs which Needler reads as possibly primitive mn signs (see fig. 49a). These also might be foreign land signs like those we see interspersed on these Naqada IId seals. While this seal too has top and bottom borders, it retains the busy compostional aspects of earlier seals. I suggest it dates to no later than the Naqada IIIa2 period. The second seal impression from this tomb (see fig. 14b) reproduced by Hartung also has a central figure, that of a long legged water bird. The bird is surrounded by rows of foreign land signs alternating with small bowtie-shaped signs that resemble a variant of the red granite bowl sign

Tomb U-153 Tomb U-153 contained two separate cylinder seal impressions and was dated on the basis of its ceramic assemblage to the Naqada IId period. The first presented by Hartung contains a long eared dog placed in the center of the composition and surrounded by a field of four-pointed star-like shapes (fig. 11). The dog is facing to the left side of the composition. This seal presents an interesting parallel with the design of a cylinder seal discovered at the site of Mahasna (fig. 12c).50 On that seal an animal, apparently a lion, lies in front of the representation of a tree and an unidentified symbol is positioned above the animal’s back. A frame of wavy lines, which possibly represent water, surrounds the animal, plant and symbol. The second seal from this grave shows three rows of signs similar to Old Kingdom representations of a cylinder seal.51

Tomb U-170 In Tomb U-170 two seals with seemingly purely geometric designs were discovered along with a third seal impression too worn and faint to be reconstructed. This tomb dates to Naqada IId based on its ceramic assemblage. The first seal contains thirteen columns of four triangles arranged point to base and, as Hartung has presented it, facing to the right, although the seal could have easily been oriented to the left as well (see fig. 13a). This repeating triangle motif is very common on Predynastic Decorated Ware and, as Petrie noted, frequently used as boat standards (fig. 13c). The second seal impression contains rows of horizontal hourglass (seal?) signs though more tightly arranged than in the example from Tomb U-153. In this seal impression there are no trailing elements extending from the bases of the signs and all are arranged base to base. In the center of the ovals created by this arrangement are circular dots (see fig. 13b).

R used

as a determinative for Abw or Elephantine (Gardiner W-8) or, more likely, an earlier version of

52 R.S. Bianchi, Splendors of Egypt from the Egyptian Museum, Cairo (London: Booth-Clibborn Editions, 1996), 34-35. U. Hartung, “Zur Entwicklung des Handels,” 48, who associates this image with the cult and possibly the temple estates of Hathor. 53 J. Vercoutter, L’Egypte et la Vallée du Nil (Paris: Presses Universitaires du France, 1992), 171-72, 183-84, fig. 22. Vercoutter identifies the Hathor Palette and the Min Palette as the oldest examples of the monumental carved slate palettes because there is evidence that they were actually used to grind eye paint. The image has long been identified with the cult of the “Celestial Cow” with the points of her horns and ears tipped with stars and has been likened to the images of Hathor or Bat which adorn the top of the Narmer Palette. 54 W. Needler, “Cylinder Seals and a Royal Name,”376, fig. 305.

50 U. Hartung, “Prädynastische Siegelabrollungen,” 214. Hartung hypothesizes that this seal, like seals of similar composition and design found at Abydos, represents the name of either a king or a temple estate.

[

\

and (Gardiner S-19 and S51 The signs for the cylinder seal 20) linger, though the practice of sealing in this manner rises and falls in popularity. Obviously the sign for the cylinder seal must have been created when these tools of administration were in wide use in the Egyptian administration because of the sign’s associations with titles such as treasurer. A. Gardiner, Egyptian Grammar, 506.

21

Cylinder Seal Glyptic in Predynastic Egypt and Neighboring Regions

@ (Gardiner V-32) which when shown in multiples

not in the shape of a rough ball of clay. Many of these were rolled flat and Dreyer’s reconstruction shows that they were rolled flat along the neck and shoulder of a jar to seal it instead of being impressed on all sides.59 Five cylinder seal designs were reconstructed using the cylinder seal impressions found in Tomb U-j (see fig. 16). Dreyer has proposed five categories for the classification of these seal impressions. Since the sample of impressions is so small and the styles all somewhat dissimilar, it is not surprising that the classifications chosen are very similar to Dreyer’s, which basically constitute a description of each of the five different seal impression designs as its own type.60

of three serve as the determinative for gAwt or “tribute.”55

The third reconstructed seal impression (fig. 14c) from this grave contains a top row of oval signs, which are too faint to read with any accuracy. This row is followed by two rows of the bowtie signs followed by a row of that somewhat resemble the sign for cylinder seal laid on its side. Below these signs is a row of representations resembling land signs.

Naqada IIIa2 Seal Impressions

The first seal impression, Dreyer’s Type I, displays a center “window” of figural decoration surrounded by a frame of geometric designs (fig. 16a). To the left and right of the window are three rows of concentric diamonds, each containing between four and five diamond shapes. Above and below the window are two rows of smaller diamonds, each containing only two diamond shapes. The window is delineated on the top and bottom with a double lined border. Inside the frame are the figures of several different types of animals including two horned antelope, which Dreyer identifies as Oryx, walking single file. There also are birds, including a long-legged wading bird and another bird that Dreyer identifies as a falcon. Four other figures, which appear in a vertical row between the wading bird and the first antelope, have been identified as scorpions. It is noteworthy however, that this sign does not correspond to other representations of scorpions found on U-j pottery vessels. Other animals are several figures that look like snakes. Filling in the spaces between these larger animals are smaller shapes, some of which Dreyer identifies as hunting tools such as bows, throw sticks, traps and harpoons. Even smaller designs that fill spaces between these figures are unidentifiable, but are nonetheless very common in the Tomb U-j sealing designs. Surrounding this center window is a repeating geometric pattern. This sealing was reconstructed from five different impressions found in Tomb U-j.

Tomb U-g This single chambered, brick-lined tomb marks a continuation of seal use at Abydos because it is dated to the Naqada IIIa2 period, based on its ceramic assemblage and its mud brick construction. Also found in the tomb were fragments of ivory dice, obsidian fragments, beads of carnelian, amethyst, faience, and lapis lazuli and small pieces of malachite.56 The sealing as reconstructed by Hartung contains a single loop symbol repeated in two rows (see fig. 15a). A review of the Predynastic boat standards collected by Petrie from D Ware painted vessels shows a possible forerunner of this design in a boat standard dated to the “Early” period (see fig. 15b).57 Note the similarities between this symbol and the original round cartouche sign attested from the early dynastic period. The sign ) or Snw designated the ruler’s name within a double rope, encircling, as Gardiner puts it, “the entire region ruled over by the sun (Gardiner, V-9).”58

Tomb U-j Many of the important discoveries made within Tomb U-j at Abydos have been discussed above. However, in addition to providing evidence of early hieroglyphs and possibly evidence of an earlier succession of local or regional rulers, Tomb U-j also contained examples of cylinder seal impressions that show a development and elaboration of some of the designs described above. Unlike the seal impressions dated to the Naqada IId period, the ones discovered in U-j were

Dreyer’s Type II, (fig. 16b) again shows us a central window occupied by animal figures. However, the design differs in that the design of this window is broken up by another center window filled with three rows of interlocking equilateral triangles.61 Dreyer has made the reasonable suggestion that these triangles represent mountains. This window of

55 Gardiner, Egyptian Grammar, 526, 528. Again the bird representation bears a striking resemblance to those found on bone labels in Tomb U-j. 56 G. Dreyer, et al, “Umm el-Qaab,” 28. 57 W.M.F. Petrie, Prehistoric Egypt, pl. 23. 58 A. Gardiner, Egyptian Grammar, 74, 522. J.E. Quibell and W.M.F. Petrie, Hierakonpolis I, (London: Egypt Research Account, 1900), 38.

59 G. Dreyer, Umm el-Qaab I, 108. 60 Dreyer’s numbering system is followed to avoid any confusion between the two descriptions of the data set and shall therefore start with the sealing he designates Type I. G. Dreyer, Umm el-Qaab I, 109. 61 Ibid., 110.

22

Abydos Cylinder Seal Impressions

triangles is set off from the outer window by a twolined border, which surrounds the left, right and top sides of the window. A single line delineates the bottom of this window. More than 60 small fragments of this design were found in five different rooms in Tomb U-j.

variation of the square with the cross in the center of the Type III, seal with the difference that a solid line does not separate these squares. The outer geometric border is composed of larger triangles made into a hatched design. An outer double line border marks the end of the seal. The preserved picture field is dominated by a figure carrying a staff or walking stick in one hand while his other hand appears to be holding a throw stick. Other creatures in the field include what appears to be a crocodile as seen from above, snakes and possibly lizards. Again, filler elements, some of which could be seen as weapons, occupy spaces between the larger figures. Four partial seal impressions of this design were discovered in Tomb U-j.

Around this central window marching animals are depicted including, antelope, snakes, birds and the three scorpions on the right side of the composition.62 Unidentified fill shapes again are present along with a row of three triangles on the left side of the window. Here too, Dreyer identifies weapons such as throwsticks, though the quality of preservation on this seal is not such that a definite top or bottom of the design can be reconstructed. It is therefore uncertain whether the two-lined border on the left and right sides of the larger central window were carved all around it. On either side of the window is a repeating pattern of three to four concentric diamond shapes, also reminiscent of Seal Type I (fig. 16a).

The fifth of these impressions, Dreyer’s Type V (fig. 16e), shows an off-center window framed by nine rows of repeating designs. Above each register is a continuous wavy line, possibly denoting water. In the peak of each “wave” is a dot. Between each wave rests a symbol, possibly representing a boat with sails,

or a pool with lotus flowers growing out of it ( or the s3 sign (Gardiner M-8).64 Within the off-center central window there is a schematic representation of what could be a high-prowed boat, again with a central, undefined shape positioned inside it. Dreyer suggests that this might also represent a building instead of a ship. Outside the boat is a pole with a standard, possibly representing the goddess Neith, positioned on top of it. 65 Though somewhat sketchy in the reconstruction, there appear to be two upright comma-shaped objects on either side of the frame. These signs appear to be the sign representing a piece

Except for the omission of the highly decorative borders, Dreyer’s seal Types I and II are strikingly similar in style to a cylinder seal excavated from Tomb 1035 at Abusir el-Melek (fig. 12a). The seal was dated on the basis of the pottery contained in the tomb to the Naqada IIIa1 period by Kaiser.63 The delicately rendered caprids and the crowded composition mirror the U-j seal impressions. The dog-like creatures in the bottom row are also very similar to those depicted in the first of the Tomb 210 seal impressions (fig. 14a).

of flesh turned up s (Gardiner F-51).66 Above the scene floats another unclear figure. A total of twentythree fragments of this sealing were discovered in U-j.

A third seal impression reconstructed by Dreyer as Type III (fig. 16c) again shows a central pictorial field surrounded by a geometric border. This design is composed of small squares made up of four equilateral triangles, which form an X in the center of each square. The double-lined border present in the first two seals is absent in this design. In the central field, which is poorly preserved, are a variety of mammals, birds and the animal Dreyer identifies as a scorpion. Almost in the center of this composition is a rosette with seven petals, which Dreyer interprets as a star. Only one example of this seal type was recovered from Tomb U-j.

Petrie’s Related Abydos Finds In addition to recent discoveries made by the German expedition, other seals and seal impressions may be reexamined to determine where they fit in the continuum of seal use at Abydos. Petrie spent several seasons at Abydos digging in the north Abydos cemetery as well as the site of the Abydos Temple, which saw construction during the Early Dynastic, Middle Kingdom and early New Kingdom periods.67

Dreyer’s Type IV seal impression is incomplete (fig. 16d). Dreyer hypothesizes that it too contained a central field surrounded by a frame of geometric designs. In this case, the double-lined border between the picture field and the geometric patterns is present. The frame that survives contains two geometric designs. The one closest to the picture field is a

64 A. Gardiner, Egyptian Grammar, 480. 65 In his study of the symbols painted on Predynastic D-Ware, Petrie documents the Neith standard as beginning early in the Naqada II period and continuing into the late Predynastic Naqada III/Dynasty 0. The Neith standard is also common on Early Dynastic cylinder seals as is illustrated in fig. 43b. See W.M.F. Petrie, Prehistoric Egypt, pl. 23. 66 Ibid., 467. 67 B. Kemp, “The Osiris Temple at Abydos,” MDAIK 23 (1968) 138-155.

62 Dreyer notes the importance of this detail in linking the two seal impressions to the owner of the tomb, whom he has identified as Scorpion I. Dreyer, Umm el-Qaab I, 110. 63 R. Boehmer, “Das Rollsiegel,” 506, fig. 9.

23

Cylinder Seal Glyptic in Predynastic Egypt and Neighboring Regions

Kemp, who has re-examined Petrie’s investigations of the Osiris Temple, has suggested that Petrie discovered a Predynastic component of this site. Stratigraphy at this depth was so water logged and confused that Petrie resorted to dating objects based solely on their relative elevation below datum.68 The assumption that artifacts discovered at the same depth but in different parts of the site were the same age may have led Petrie to assign incorrect dates to some of the small finds in the lower levels of the Abydos Temple excavations. However, one of the indications that the Osiris Temple site was in use during the Naqada III-Dynasty 0 period include the discovery of “hundreds of little twists of burnt clay”69 found 20 centimeters below the floor level of the early Dynastic temple. Such twists have been found in other Predynastic temple contexts. Petrie’s discovery of cylinder seals at this depth raises the possibility that earlier seals could have been mistakenly dated to the Early Dynastic Period. Petrie himself comments on the “blundered” hieroglyphs on some of the seal impressions found at these depths.70 It is possible that some of the seals found at these levels were actually preserved from an earlier period in Egypt’s development and kept in the temple, much the same as other Predynastic objects found in Hierakonpolis temple deposits. One example of a seal that was found beneath the early dynastic Abydos temple and shares affinities with the earlier Abydos cylinder seal impressions is seal 127, carved with the figures of a jackal, a caprid or antelope, and inverted k3 arms (see fig. 17).71 Some of the early cylinder seals that have been dated to the early dynastic period deserve a reexamination based on stylistic affinities with Predynastic material and keeping in mind that Egyptian temples frequently preserved Predynastic artifacts.72

seals already discussed, not all the seal impressions found at Abydos lend themselves to easy sorting. However, many of them can be usefully compared with other Predynastic representations on painted ceramic, slate palettes, carved ivories and wall paintings. Therefore, in addition to sorting the seal impressions into internally consistent groups, the seal impressions will be compared to other Predynastic works with which they share affinities. Among the seals used in the Abydos/Naqada IId horizon there are four distinguishable glyptic styles within the Naqada IId seal impressions, each of which uses a different system of design elements and rule of composition. The seals used in the Abydos/Naqada IIIa horizon form their own set of stylistic groups in time, style and probably in specific function, so these will be considered separately. Their affinities with the earlier material will be noted.

Naqada IId Seal Impressions Groups Field of Geometric or Single Symbols Group

Five seal impressions are included in this group, which is defined as a seal having a single repeating pattern, or symbol (see fig. 18). Though the variation within this group appears great, many design elements in this group evoke later hieroglyphic symbols. The most intriguing of these are the “hour glass” designs resembling Old Kingdom cylinder seal signs (see figs. 16c and 16e).73 The three remaining seal impressions in this group can, however, be related to later Egyptian glyptic and to representations on Naqada II decorated pottery. Both the repeating loop design and the triangle rows can be productively compared to ship standards represented on D-ware vessels. The descending lines on the loop could represent flags attached on either side of this symbol standard (see fig. 18a). It is perhaps significant that the loop design was found in grave U-g, which is according to Dreyer a non-royal tomb that post-dates Tomb U-j. This single chambered brick-lined tomb likely belonged to a courtier or high official of one of the kings in the B Cemetery.74 Similarly the repeating triangle pattern of the seal found in Tomb U-170 when turned 90 degrees might be read as one of these ship standards found on Predynastic Egyptian pottery (see fig. 18b). Triangles are a dominant late Predynastic decorative element, not only on seals, but on painted and

The Abydos Seal Impressions Stylistic Groups Having described the cylinder seal impressions that have been reliably reconstructed, it is now possible to begin to sort them into thematic, stylistic and iconographic groups and to suggest how these groups changed through time. Despite Dreyer’s establishment of five basic types for the Tomb U-j

68 Ibid., 148. 69 W.M.F. Petrie, Abydos II, 9, 30, pl.14, 285-287 70 W.M.F. Petrie, Abydos II, 29, pl. 12, no. 274. 71 Ibid. Petrie failed to make a line drawing of this seal for publication, but the photograph indicates that the glyptic style of this seal shares affinities with ‘En Besor seal impressions (to be discussed in Chapter 4). 72 Most Mesopotamian cylinder seals of all periods have been discovered in temple contexts. Given the centrality of the temple economy in historic Egypt, one cannot discount the possibility that seals that have previously been dated Dynastic or labeled a “second style” of the illiterate Egyptian might actually be forerunners of the dynastic seal preserved in temple stores.

73 Such an idea invokes a classic case of Egyptian visual play in which a seal not only performs its function, but performs it by recreating itself. 74 G. Dreyer, Umm el-Qaab I, 17-18.

24

Abydos Cylinder Seal Impressions

appliquéd pottery also. Their meaning has yet to be fully understood, but their similarity and frequent

Animal Rows Group

direct associations with the signs for mountain

This type of representation occurs in Naqada IId period representations and can be found on D-Ware painted pottery, carved ivory knife handles, carved combs and now cylinder seal impressions (fig. 20).77 A faience cylinder seal purchased in 1911 from the Cairo art market featuring three rows of animals (possibly frogs) provides another parallel, albeit an unprovenanced one, for this group (see fig. 12b).78 Excellent examples of this type of representation can be seen in such works as the Brooklyn Knife Handle and the Carnarvon Knife Handle (figs. 8 and 10). While scholars have pointed out that contemporary Mesopotamian cylinder seal glyptic includes numerous examples of animal row representations (fig. 21), it should be observed that the Mesopotamian examples seem to deal almost wholly with domesticated animals, while in the Egyptian examples non-domesticated creatures, particularly those of the desert predominate. Pittman has suggested that Mesopotamian glyptic animals (frequently pack animals or those that provide commodities such as wool) are shown to illustrate that the animals are serving or will serve their economic and administrative purpose within the system employing the seals.79 Similarly, Hartung suggests that, to the Egyptians, rows of creatures such as fish represent the same principle, namely offerings or tribute to the temples or royal precincts.80 Considering that Egyptian historic representations of desert animals depict them as elements of chaos requiring control,81 it is possible that this meaning is present in the cylinder seal glyptic of this period and becomes more explicit as the style develops.

k,

horizon l and foreign land j should be noted (Gardiner N-26, N-27 and N-25).75

Multiple Repeating Symbols Group In the seal impressions in this group (fig. 19), rows of single signs are grouped with the intention of representing natural associations between the signs and figural representations. The first seal from this group (fig. 19a) if Hartung’s reconstruction is inverted, shows the multiple triangles, which can be linked to boat standards or place names. These appear above a continuous wavy line representing water. The water appears above a line of animals that suggest a certain species of fish, whose representation is later used as a hieroglyphic sign. The resulting association is BOAT-WATER-FISH. If the triangle standard was widely recognizable as belonging to a particular region, temple or ruling family, then another layer of meaning is contained within the association that we cannot fully ascertain. The second seal impression in this group shows a more complex association. When inverted, the row of signs for foreign land is at the top, followed below by a row of signs resembling the whip

6

or a standard

followed below by rows of alternating land

c

7,

b or

desert signs and rows of fish (see fig. 19b). Reading the second row of signs from the bottom as standards, the mountain signs below could denote the god HA or combined with the third row of signs could denote the god Min.76 Since these associations were already being made on the D-ware painted pottery of this period, it is not surprising that we might find similar symbols on contemporary cylinder seals.

R

As far as glyptic style on Egyptian seals is concerned, the seal impression found in tomb U-134 is an excellent example of the cross fertilization that occurred during this period between the Mesopotamian and Egyptian styles. The “filler” elements between the ibexes and predator are divided between ones with purely Egyptian connotations (such as the triangle rows) and ones found in Mesopotamian glyptic, such as the three-lobed

75 A. Gardiner, Egyptian Grammar, 488-98. Numerous labels carved from bone and ivory discovered in Tomb U-j show the figures of animals stepping on the peaks of these triangle signs. Dreyer reads these labels as general directional designations depending on the animal associated with the peaks. For instance the Ax bird is associated with the rising or appearance of the sun, and therefore the east. See G. Dreyer, Umm el-Qaab I, 141-42. 76 A. Gardiner, Egyptian Grammar, 502

77 For a nearly complete compendium of the Predynastic monuments bearing this type of representation, the reader is referred to R.T. Ridley, The Unification of Egypt as Seen Through a Study of the Major Knife Handles, Palettes and Maceheads (Deception Bay: Shield Press, 1973). Scholars have also analyzed the animals to determine their species, see D.J. Osborn and J. Osbornova, The Mammals of Ancient Egypt: The Natural History of Egypt Vol. 4 (Warminster: Aris and Phillips Ltd, 1998). 78 R. Boehmer, “Das Rollsiegel,” 501, fig. 15. 79 H. Pittman, “Toward an Understanding of the Role of Glyptic Imagery,” 191. 80 U. Hartung, “Zur Entwicklung des Handels,” 48. 81 H.A. Groenewegen-Frankfort, Arrest and Movement (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1951), 53.

The third seal in this group from Tomb U-210 (fig. 19c), though not fully reconstructed, shows much the same as the arrangement of symbols as the first seal in this group. There are multiple rows of a sign that was historically used to determine a general location or polity followed below by signs possibly representing cylinder seals, followed by a row of signs designating land or desert.

25

Cylinder Seal Glyptic in Predynastic Egypt and Neighboring Regions

symbol and the floating elements over the backs of the ibexes (compare fig 20a with fig. 21).

and golden flies were awarded to outstanding warriors. It is possible that this representation carried the same militaristic meaning during the Naqada IId period. Again, the insertion of fill elements including foreign land signs and single triangles as well as other unidentified objects links this seal impression with traditional Egyptian animal row representations.

The second animal rows seal impression (fig. 20b) is unusual in that it shows only the heads of Ibex or Oryx instead of their entire bodies. The line of fish below varies from the type of animal rows found on ivory knife handles, because land animals and water animals are usually not depicted together. This natural division between animals of the land and water, coupled with the abbreviated animal representation, suggest that this is another version of a scene of tribute like Hartung proposes for the fish and temple enclosure seals.82 These animals are out of their natural context, and therefore are shown caught or butchered in preparation for use. The inclusion of a seemingly random arrangement of flying insects might at first seem out of place in this group (fig. 20c). However, the representation of animal movement in this period was extremely naturalistic. Herd animals tend to travel in single file. Schools of fish swimming upstream exhibit the same, seemingly ordered behavior. Flying insects, even when swarming as a group, never exhibit this type of motion, and the Egyptian artists did not try to force an unnatural order upon them. Therefore this apparently random arrangement is a natural one, and this seal impression is not at all out of place within this group.

Central Figure on Field of Single or Alternating Symbols Group This group (fig. 22) is particularly interesting because it appears to have no stylistic precedents in Elamite or Uruk cylinder seal impressions. It therefore is a purely Egyptian stylistic development. Additionally, the seal impressions in this group feature images, which have links not only to later hieroglyphic signs, but to other Predynastic artworks, and to the cylinder seal designs that followed in the Naqada III period. In all three examples in this group there appears a central figure or figures surrounded by signs, which would appear to have direct relationship to the central figure. The first seal impression included in this group, discovered in Tomb U-153, shows a canine, (possibly a wild dog or jackal) in the center surrounded by four rows of four-pointed stars (fig. 22a). Dogs are not uncommon in Predynastic Egyptian artistic representations, but are not found on Mesopotamian cylinder seal art of the same period.86 Meanwhile, hunting dogs on leashes appear on the Gebel el-Arak Knife Handle. They are shown on either side of the knife’s boss, and attacking caprids on the lower half of the bossed side of the knife handle (see fig. 23). However, the animal shown on the Abydos sealing seems to be imbued with more celestial meaning as he is represented against a background of stars. That the ancient Egyptians, even in the Protohistoric period, were keen observers of major celestial movements has already been commented upon by scholars such as Parker.87 Not only did the Egyptians determine the beginning and end of their months through the phases of the moon but also marked the beginning of the new year through the annual re-appearance of the star Sothis or, as we know it, Sirius. Utterances from the Fifth and Sixth Dynasty Pyramid Texts associate the dead king with the imperishable stars or more precisely the stars

The argument here for the identification of this flying insect is based both on archaeological evidence and entomology. As noted above, the Predynastic Egyptians were keen observers of their environment and preferred naturalistic representation. The body of this insect is not segmented and therefore does not represent a bee or a wasp, which in later glyptic is illustrated with a clearly segmented body

y (Gardiner L-2).83 however,

resemble

This flying insect does the later hieroglyphic

representation of a fly w (Gardiner L-3) with its consolidated triangular body.84 The exception in the case of the seal impression is that its wings are spread in flight and not folded back in a resting position. However, as noted above, this representation was intended to show the flies in motion. That this type of fly could be depicted during the Predynastic period is attested in the L Cemetery in Lower Nubia where a golden fly on a necklace of gold barrel beads was discovered in Tomb L-17 at Qustul.85 In later Egyptian periods, the fly was associated with valor in battle in service of the king,

86 See P. Amiet, La Glyptique Mesopotamienne Archaique (Paris: Editions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique 15, 1980), 41. While scenes of predators attacking wild animals are common in Uruk representations, dogs (particularly leashed dogs) are wholly absent. Scholars have long noted the fact that the pariah dog was a species native to Egypt. That the Egyptians adapted cylinder seal design to make it relevant to their cultural and environmental landscape is not at all surprising. 87 R.A. Parker, “Ancient Egyptian Astronomy,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society London A. 276, no. 1257 (1974): 52.

82 Ibid. 83 A. Gardiner, Egyptian Grammar, 477. 84 Ibid. 85 B. Willians, The A-Group Royal Cemetery at Qustul , 306-07, pl. 110. It is also significant that the only cylinder seal discovered in the L Cemetery was also found in this grave.

26

Abydos Cylinder Seal Impressions

of the northern horizon which are visible throughout the year.88

which can be translated “mansion of Horus.” He proposes that this seal impression was meant in part to designate goods that came from the precinct or shrine dedicated to this goddess.90

The next seal impression included in this group is from Tomb U-210 and shows a wading bird in the center of the composition and surrounded by five rows of signs (fig. 22c). The first row of signs resembles the three peaked sign for foreign land

To pursue the celestial meaning implied by this figure, the three stars composing the head and hands of the biomorphic star creature could be associated the three stars in the belt of Orion: Alnitak, Alnilam and Mintaka (see fig. 24a).91 The star shapes extending from either side of the base of the figure could represent the “feet” of Orion, the stars Saiph and Rigel. In a direct line twenty degrees west from the belt of Orion is Sirius or Sothis, whose significance to the ancient Egyptian calendrical cycle was paramount, since its appearance heralded the coming of the annual inundation. If one accepts Hartung’s interpretation of the central imagery on this seal impression, the significance of designating precincts or shrines to particular gods on cylinder seals using what amounts to hieroglyphic writing during the Naqada IId period can hardly be overstated. They provide an important clue to the development of Egyptian writing and to the highly developed social systems that must have been in place during this period of Egyptian prehistory. The earliest documented use of cylinder seals in Mesopotamia also was on behalf of temple economies. If an analogous organization existed during the Naqada IId period in Egypt, a parallel development of these two Near Eastern cultures must be further investigated. However, this would only be possible through the excavation of town and temple sites of the Naqada II period, not cemeteries.

j (Gardiner

N-25). The second row of signs appears to represent the sign of a stone vessel later used as a determinative in the writing of the Egyptian

R (Gardiner W-8) or, more version of @ (Gardiner V-32)

word for Elephantine

likely, an earlier which when shown in multiples of three serve as the determinative for gAwt or “tribute.” Rows of these signs alternate and end with a row of foreign land signs. This seal is of particular interest not only for the possible use of signs designating dues or tribute, but also because long-legged wading birds figure prominently in the design of a seal discovered in Cemetery L in Lower Nubia in a Naqada IIIb context (fig. 27c).89 In that seal the design also includes a man carrying a staff, it may have served as a title designation for an official trade liaison of the Nubians who had regular dealings with Egypt. The Cemetery L seal and its possible meaning will be discussed in detail in Chapter 4. For now, the iconographic association in this earlier cylinder seal material is noted in an attempt to show some continuity in the development of these seals and their uses. The last seal in this group also was discovered in Tomb U-210 (fig. 22b). It, too, has alternating rows of signs. The decorative field consists of pairs of a four-peaked sign, possibly designating mountains, alternating with a dog-like figure; these occur in three rows. Separating each of the dog figures is a small sign that resembles a throw stick. In the center of the composition is the “biomorphic star creature” (possibly the celestial cow goddess Hathor), and what appears to be an easily recognizable icon from later in Egyptian representation, a falcon on a standard. The startling similarity between the representation in this seal and on the slate palette discovered in Gerzeh has been noted above. The direct association of this figure with a recognizable sign of royal authority (a falcon on a standard) is less clear. Hartung also associates this representation with Hathor (Hwt-Hr), and suggests that the falcon on a standard is a possible writing of the second part of her name Hr,

Single Designs Related to Other Predynastic Artworks Two cylinder seal impressions remain which find no place in the general stylistic groups of the Naqada IId seal impressions found at Abydos (see fig. 25). However, both these seal impression have direct relevance to other Predynastic seals and monumental artworks. Both the seal impressions were found in Tomb U-127. The first of these impressions described above as a vertical row of three fish seemingly swimming toward a netlike design is familiar to students of other Predynastic Egyptian cylinder seals. It seems almost a copy of the design on a seals found at Naga ed Der and Matmar. Two other seals, one found at found at Zawiyet el-Aryan and the other purchased on the

88 R.O. Faulkner, Ancient Egyptian Pyramid Texts (Oxford: Clarendon, 1969), 184-85. See also L.H. Lesko, “Ancient Egyptian Cosmogonies and Cosmology,” Religion in Ancient Egypt: Gods, Myths and Personal Practice. ed. Byron E. Schafer (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University, 1991) 99-100. In this particular passage Abydos is mentioned as a way station on the king’s journey to celestial transformation. 89 B. Williams, The A-Group Royal Cemetery at Qustul, 157.

90 U. Hartung “Zur Entwicklung des Handels,” 48. 91 T. Dickenson, Nightwatch: An Equinox Guide to Viewing the Universe (Camden East, Ontario: Camden House Publishing, 1992), 103.

27

Cylinder Seal Glyptic in Predynastic Egypt and Neighboring Regions

antiquities market show more elaborate treatments of the “net” design which actually seems to represent a building and not a fishing net (see figs. 26 a-e). The unprovenanced seal (fig. 26e) contains representations of a plant or tree, a building enclosure and flags designating a god’s temple, together with the familiar vertical row of fish at the end. Taken together, these signs seem almost an early representation of temple estate offerings. On the basis of this evidence, both Dreyer and Hartung propose that the Abydos seal is one of a standard seal type throughout Predynastic Egypt designating jnw or offerings made to a temple.92 Another Tomb U-127 seal with the designs of horizontal rows fish and heads of ibex or oryx, included in the Animal Rows Group, may also related to this theme of tribute.

appears to be one of an offering of animal flesh before this sacred bark.

Tomb U-j Seal Impression Traits The Tomb U-j seal impressions present a special case in this analysis because they are a closed find from a dated context and therefore give us a single time capsule of cylinder seal styles designated for royal or high status use in the Naqada IIIa2 period. Other inscribed material from Tomb U-j provides us with examples of different, more explicit types of signing and writing in both ink inscriptions on vessels and ivory and bone labels.95 Therefore within this limited context we can contrast the use of early hieroglyphic writing with development and change in cylinder seal glyptic. The evidence suggests that hieroglyphic writing was well developed by this period, but was not seen as an essential element in seal glyptic. Instead this type of signing was limited to inscriptions on pottery and carved ivory and bone labels. This restrictive use of early hieroglyphic writing is probably related to the different functions served by the labels, vessels and seals. Ivory labels on jars are engraved with designational signs, many examples of which Dreyer reads as “Name-Estate.”96 The pottery vessels with inscriptions often have the same specific designational meaning.

The second seal impression in this group is one representing a high-prowed boat with a central figure in the shape of a star, flanked by two smaller star shapes. The high-prow boat obviously had religious and royal meaning during this period in Egypt.93 The prominent role that the high-prow boat played on Naqada II painted pottery, and other representations such at the painted Tomb 100 at Hierakonpolis and the Gebel el-Arak Knife Handle, bolster the interpretation that the boat design on this sealing represents a sacred bark. Surrounding the boat is a plethora of aquatic animals including crocodile, turtles and fish. For the purposes of comparison with other seals and seal impressions, it is interesting to note the distinct “busy” style of the relief on this seal and the profusion of animal symbols portrayed on it. This is a style that would continue from Naqada IId through Dynasty 0 cylinder seal impressions, particularly in the seal impressions used in Upper Egypt and Palestine during the Naqada IIIb period.

Seals during this period go through a different kind of elaboration process that seems designed to mark and enhance the high status of the person for whom the goods are intended or the place from whence the goods are produced. The most dramatic markers of this elaboration are the complex geometric borders which frame the figural scene engraved in the seal. These geometric designs, with the exception of the boat border (see fig. 16e) can be found as painted decoration of niches and paneling on the superstructure façade of First Dynasty tombs at Saqqara.97 Elements of these borders also appear on carved ivory, bone and wooden staffs found in Predynastic graves and early royal tombs at Abydos.98 These geometric borders may indicate a high level of status in either temple or government administration. However, these designs probably do not indicate the identity of a specific individual, but rather a certain socio-economic status. It is therefore unlikely that all cylinder seals made during the Naqada IIIa period included these border designs; lower status seals

Another, seemingly insignificant, but recurring motif introduced in this seal impression is the large commashaped sign to the right of the high-prow boat. In the position it appears on this sealing it looks like the

hieroglyphic sign for a piece of flesh s (Gardiner F51). However, it does not always retain this downward orientation on these early seal impressions. Gardiner has noted that during some periods of Egyptian history this glyph has been represented with the point of the “comma” oriented up instead of down.94 In this particular seal impression, the sign

92 U. Hartung, “Zur Entwicklung des Handels,” 48 and G. Dreyer, Umm el Qaab I, 181. 93 B. Williams and T.J. Logan, “The Metropolitan Museum Knife Handle,” 270. 94 A. Gardiner, Egyptian Grammar, 467. Interestingly, Gardiner notes that the upward orientation appears in the Middle Kingdom in the writing of the names of Osiris and Isis. Gardiner attributes this to superstitious writing. However, it is interesting to note that it was during the Middle Kingdom that the Egyptians excavated graves at Abydos in search of Osiris’ tomb. The possibility that their finds included numerous examples of this sign could have

influenced the writing of the deity’s name and that of his consort during this period. 95 G. Dreyer, “Umm el Qaab I,” 47-83, 113-145. 96 Ibid., 137. 97 W. Emery, Great Tombs of the First Dynasty III (London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1958), pl. 6-8. 98 W.M.F. Petrie, Royal Tombs II, pl. 45.

28

Abydos Cylinder Seal Impressions

might be of a totally different character. Their discovery in a tomb believed to be that of a “preking” of Dynasty 00 probably accounts for most of their elaborate framing designs and some of the imagery contained in the scenes carved into them.99

of a wading bird are frequent combinations on carved ivory and bone objects such as the Davis Comb, the Brooklyn Knife Handle, the Carnarvon Ivory, and the Pitt-Rivers Knife Handle. It is perhaps significant, then, that the man holding the staff in example (d) from Figure 16 is standing on a serpent. Apart from the presence of serpents, these pairings of desertdwelling creatures being attacked by predators or intertwined serpents dominated by floral designs is comparable to the decoration on many carved ivory knife handles.101

Other cylinder seal glyptic developments during this period were more widespread and their style can be traced to seal imagery outside the royal appointments of Tomb U-j. Primary among these is the busy, crowded compositions contained in the animal rows design. These examples demonstrate the early stages of a consistent trait in ancient Egyptian art. The horror vacui during this period is expressed through the use of numerous small, virtually shapeless elements filling small spaces in these compositions. An ideational addition to the animal rows is the presence of what might be termed a “controlling element,” a human or animal figure seemingly controlling disorder. The most dominant of these controlling elements are represented by animals, humans or symbols either within the composition itself, or isolated in a central panel as is the case in Dreyer’s Type II seal (see fig. 16b). This panel, containing triangles arranged in a base-to-base, pointto-point design, recalls the repeating motif of triangles appearing on most of the Predynastic cylinder seal impressions of the Naqada IId period. The other seal impressions exhibiting this type of “controlling element” are (see figs. 16 a, c and d) include scorpions, a rosette and a walking man carrying a staff in one hand and possibly a throwstick in the other. 100

The play between imagery, meaning and early writing so commented upon by scholars of Protodynastic Egyptian art clearly is at work here. All that is lacking is the direct playfulness necessary to “put arms on the catfish,” or the scorpion, in this case, and thereby give anthropomorphic form and human identity to the symbolic animal.102 Imagery symbolizing a general condition such as “control over chaos” may be what is depicted in the Tomb U-j seal impressions. Signs with phonetic value that name the ruler and the place he rules are written elsewhere, either on the vessels themselves or carved into ivory labels from his estates and the estates of other (past?) rulers and temples.103 The single exception to this “control over chaos” composition within the Tomb U-j seal impressions is Dreyer’s Type V sealing (see fig. 16e). In some ways this sealing comes closer to the decoration of an ivory label than that of a Predynastic cylinder sealing. The Neith standard and bark or enclosure framed by offerings, while not writing, does seem to designate products from a particular estate dedicated to this goddess.

The appearance of serpents for the first time in cylinder seal imagery at Abydos is significant, given the role that snakes play in other Predynastic art. Serpents trampled by elephants or trapped in the beak

Elements of the style of sealing in Tomb U-j continue in the seal impressions of the Naqada IIIb-Dynasty 0 period used at the Egyptian trading colony at ‘En Besor in southern Palestine and in certain sites in Upper Nubia where trade with Predynastic Egypt is known to have occurred. While definitely showing stylistic influences from Northern Syria and Palestine, the ‘En Besor cylinder seal imagery in this trading outpost is predominantly Egyptian in character. The

99 Alternations of existing chronological structures is frequently awkward. As we learn more from the discoveries at Abydos and other Upper Egyptian polities using royal iconography in the Naqada II period, the “beginning” of Egyptian kingship is continually pushed back. E.C.M. van den Brink has proposed that the rulers of this period be grouped under the heading “Dynasty 00,” though this terminology has not yet been widely accepted. See E.C.M. van den Brink, “Preface and Short Introduction,” The Nile Delta in Transition, 4th –3rd Millenium BC, ed. E.C.M. van den Brink (Tel Aviv: van den Brink, 1992), vi, 1. 100 G. Dreyer, Umm el Qaab I, 178. Dreyer associates the scorpions in this compositions with the King Scorpion I of his Predynastic king list, H.S. Smith “The Making of Egypt,” 242-43. Smith writes that the florette symbolizes the triumph of the hero (represented by the florette) over the powers of darkness and evil or more specifically, over “Sethian desert creatures.” The fact that this floral motif is represented on three Predynastic carved ivory knife handles dated to the Naqada IIIa period, adds some weight to this assertion. The man carrying a staff as a symbol of power and authority is one that continues through all of Dynastic Egyptian history. In cylinder seal imagery, this human actor seems to have been introduced during Naqada III and continues as a controlling element into the Early Dynastic period. See W.M.F. Petrie, Royal Tombs I, pl. 19, nos. 8-9 and W.M.F. Petrie, Royal Tombs II, seal no. 128.

101 The Scorpion Macehead is one Predynastic monument in which this floral design is associated with kingship. Note, however, that the floral design is also associated with Narmer’s sandalbearer on both the Narmer Palette and the Narmer Macehead. It is possible therefore that the florette could have developed a more nuanced or specific meaning in later periods. See Ridley, The Unification of Egypt, 49,51,62, 68. 102 See O. Goldwasser, From Icon to Metaphor: Studies in the Semiotics of the Hieroglyphs (Fribourg, Switzerland: University Press, Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1995). 13. for a discussion of the metaphoric symbolism used in the images employed to represent the person of the king and the identity of his enemies in the Narmer Palette. 103 Dreyer, Umm el Qaab I, 173-180.

29

Cylinder Seal Glyptic in Predynastic Egypt and Neighboring Regions

“busy” composition with its enigmatic filler elements continues in use in both southern Palestine and Lower Nubia while other aspects drop out. The element from this Upper Egyptian style of Abydos that is most often used is the walking or “praising” man, though his tools or symbols of authority and control frequently change or disappear altogether. This may have more to do with the differences in status of the seal carriers and users at ‘En Besor and Lower Nubia, who were funneling goods to Egypt’s interior and those at Abydos for whom the goods were intended.

cylinder seals and sealing at ‘En Besor and Lower Nubia as they relate to the stylistic and iconographic developments at Abydos.

In the seals from ‘En Besor and Nubia, the complex decorative border around the center scene all but disappears, and is represented primarily in the addition of distinct flat double-line, register-like borders at the top and bottom of the composition (figs. 27 and 34). The single exception is in the cylinder seal found at ‘En Besor, which has a wave border pattern at the top and bottom of the seal (fig. 42a). Cylinder seals and seal impressions found in Lower Nubian cemeteries either have the doublelined border or a wave border at the top and bottom of the seal impression. This sparser decorative program around a central scene again may indicate the user’s status rather than a major stylistic shift. Additionally, local styles and traditions would influence artists living in locations far from the core culture. Another major feature of the Naqada II seals at ‘En Besor is a representation that plays in the fertile ground between visual signaling and written meaning: that of inverted “ka arms.”104 The “ka arms” element is echoed in an Abydos seal dated by Petrie to late Dynasty 0 that was found “at the lowest levels of the Abydos Temple precincts.105 In addition to inverted “ka arms,” the figures of an antelope and a jackal, that seal also is bordered by a wave pattern at the top of the composition (see fig. 17a). These stylistic threads connect the glyptic material of ‘En Besor in the north to that of Abydos in Upper Egypt to that of Nubian sites below the First Cataract. Again they prompt us to ask precisely what was the relationship between these peripheral regions to the north and south and Upper Egypt from which this stylistic and iconographic influence seems to radiate.

Through study and use of this model, it will be possible to critically examine the development of

104 Several scholars have tried without marked success to read this symbol a definitively, as can be done with later Egyptian inscriptions of the Early Dynastic Period. At this point in the development of the Egyptian administration, and in later periods as well, seal imagery was meant to be “read” on a level that nonliterate Egyptians could understand. 105 W.M.F. Petrie, Abydos II, 29, pl. 12.

30

Abydos Cylinder Seal Impressions

31

Cylinder Seal Glyptic in Predynastic Egypt and Neighboring Regions

32

Abydos Cylinder Seal Impressions

33

Cylinder Seal Glyptic in Predynastic Egypt and Neighboring Regions

34

Abydos Cylinder Seal Impressions

35

Cylinder Seal Glyptic in Predynastic Egypt and Neighboring Regions

36

Abydos Cylinder Seal Impressions

37

Cylinder Seal Glyptic in Predynastic Egypt and Neighboring Regions

38

Abydos Cylinder Seal Impressions

39

Cylinder Seal Glyptic in Predynastic Egypt and Neighboring Regions

40

Abydos Cylinder Seal Impressions

41

Cylinder Seal Glyptic in Predynastic Egypt and Neighboring Regions

42

Abydos Cylinder Seal Impressions

43

Cylinder Seal Glyptic in Predynastic Egypt and Neighboring Regions

44

Abydos Cylinder Seal Impressions

45

Cylinder Seal Glyptic in Predynastic Egypt and Neighboring Regions

46

Abydos Cylinder Seal Impressions

47

Cylinder Seal Glyptic in Predynastic Egypt and Neighboring Regions

48

Abydos Cylinder Seal Impressions

49

Cylinder Seal Glyptic in Predynastic Egypt and Neighboring Regions

50

Abydos Cylinder Seal Impressions

51

Cylinder Seal Glyptic in Predynastic Egypt and Neighboring Regions

52

3

THE LOWER NUBIAN SEALS AND SEAL IMPRESSIONS

Due to a lack of comparative material early cylinder seals and seal impressions found in Lower Nubia have long presented a puzzle to the Egyptologists who have discovered and published them. G.A. Reisner commented in his publication of Cemetery 40 (see fig. 27a) that the material culture appeared to him to be that of the late Predynastic, yet according to the accepted wisdom of the time, the presence of seals had to be an indication of Early Dynastic influence.1 The paradox arose from a lack of evidence that Egyptians actually used cylinder seals as an administrative tool until the beginning of the dynastic period.

already well established in Egypt during the Naqada IIIa period. Subsequent excavations have provided even more evidence of an established administrative practice of using cylinder seals dating at least as far back as the Naqada IId period.4 This discovery implies the development of long distance trade and control or exploitation of regions bordering Egypt, and calls for a reassessment of the previously anomalous glyptic evidence from Lower Nubia. Additionally, a chronological continuum of Predynastic cylinder seal use in Upper Egypt permits us now to discuss a development of Egyptian glyptic style from the late Naqada IId to Dynasty I and II and to examine where and how the Nubian material, with its close affiliations to Predynastic Egyptian artistic style, fits into this continuum.

Stylistically, these early Nubian seals and seal impressions differed from dynastic examples, in that they lacked the archaic writing characteristic of the early Egyptian seals and seal impressions for example those discovered by Petrie at the Abydos Osiris temple enclosure or First Dynasty royal tombs (fig. 17 and fig. 43b).2 Further, most Nubian seals and seal impressions were distinctly Egyptian in style and possessed a pictorial narrative structure more akin to presentations on late Predynastic slate palettes, maceheads and knife handles than to the relatively simple designs of dynastic Egyptian glyptic. Bruce Williams established that the Nubian examples should be placed in the Naqada IIIb period.3

Both the Abydos and the ‘En Besor material are compared to the Lower Nubian seals and seal impression for the purpose of examining possible Nubian adoption and adaptations of Egyptian imagery, as well as the development of that imagery over time. Of the seals and seal impressions that date to the Classic or Terminal A-Group Nubian culture, the overall stylistic characteristics are increasingly narrative in structure and border on hieroglyphic representations in a few cases.5 These two characteristics place the later Nubian material in a transitional stage between a strictly

The discovery of Tomb U-j at Abydos in the late 1980’s confirmed the likelihood of Predynastic dates for the Nubian seals from Qustul since finds from U-j demonstrate that royal iconography and the use of cylinder seals were

4 The practice may date even earlier than this period, given that the Naqada IIb-c section of the Umm el Qaab cemetery at Abydos has not yet been excavated. Surface finds of sherds incised with what may be Proto-Elamite signs hint at Naqada IIc contact with the Proto-Elamite Mesopotamian culture that first used seals. The possibility that the practice could have been introduced to Egypt at an even earlier date exists. See G. Dreyer, Umm el Qaab I, 181. 5 Williams establishes that this type of representation existed in the Naqada II period through his detailed examination of the Hierakonpolis Tomb 100 Painting which he argues presents a royal victory procession. B. Williams and T. Logan, “The Metropolitan Museum Knife Handle,” 265.

1 G.A. Reisner, The Archaeological Survey of Nubia: Report for the 1907-1908 Season, Vol. 1, (Cairo: National Printing Department), 331. 2 W.M.F. Petrie, Abydos I, pl. XI and W.M.F. Petrie, Abydos II, pl. XVI. 3 B. Williams, The A-Group Royal Cemetery at Qustul, 158.

55

Cylinder Seal Glyptic in Predynastic Egypt and Neighboring Regions

iconographic use of imagery on Egyptian seals exemplified in Naqada IId designs from Umm el Qaab and the adoption of writing as the medium for expressing meaning on the seals. Though evidence is strong that the Egyptian writing system was in development long before writing appears on cylinder seals, the combination of seals and writing seems to have been a strictly dynastic invention, intimately tied to the political and administrative consolidation of the Egyptian state.6

indicated by the presence of some Palestinian ceramics found in A-Group graves.8 The AGroup Nubians appear to have been well on the way to developing a state-level society that might have rivaled the Egyptians’. Nubian pottery found in A-Group graves included coarse brown wares, red polished wares (some of them black topped), and very thin “eggshell” ware that is beige in color and painted in red designs. Beakers, bowls and cups are common in graves, but jars are rare, except those that were imported from Egypt. Other common grave furniture includes stone cosmetic palettes often made of quartz (in contrast to the slate palettes imported from Egypt); jewelry made of stone, ivory and shell; and tools of bone and stone. Metal rarely occurs in graves and, according to O’Connor, was always imported.9

Archaeological Background of A-Group Nubia Despite intensive survey in Nubia during the first decade of the 20th century and again 1960s before the flooding of the Aswan High Dam, the archaeology of the Lower Nubian A-Group suffers from a similar bias in evidence as that of Predynastic Upper Egypt. Thus, the settlements that would have provided the most complete picture of A-Group social organization have almost never been excavated, while archaeologists have concentrated on cemeteries located in the low desert.7 Although some of the same types of artifacts used in daily life also were included in burials, the proportions and varieties of objects placed in burials cannot be trusted to represent everyday life.

Of the A-Group cemeteries that have been excavated, all lie in the low desert adjoining the floodplain. As is the case in Upper Egyptian cemeteries, it is clear that a cross section of the A-Group society is not represented in these cemeteries. A-Group society was sufficiently stratified to support elite cemeteries separate from those of the “common” people. Further stratification is indicated in the rich burials of high status women and children in some of these cemeteries. O’Connor has suggested that lower status people in Lower Nubia were buried in floodplain cemeteries just as they were in Egypt and that few have been excavated because the floodplain was in constant habitation.10

Generally speaking, the A-Group culture of Lower Nubia spans a period from 3500 BC (roughly contemporary with Naqada I culture) and continued until the abandonment of Terminal A-Group sites at ca. 2900 BC (roughly contemporary with the first half of Dynasty 1 in Egypt). Until the A-Group Nubians vacated or were forced from Lower Nubia by the Egyptians, they played a part in a trade network extending from Upper Nubia to Southern Palestine as is

Though Egyptian imports are common in cemeteries of Classic and Terminal A-Group Nubia, it appears that Nubian material culture overall was not much influenced by Upper Egypt. Evidence suggests that A-Group people raised considerable animal herds and practiced flood irrigation. The evidence that they supported an upper class in their society also indicates that they produced more than enough food to support the population. O’Connor has hypothesized that the A-Group Nubians acted as middlemen for the Egyptians, funneling exotic goods from inner Africa to Upper Egypt.11 Trade with Egypt (especially of gold) appears to have been under strict control of the A-Group upper class and the

6 See J. Kahl, Das System der ägyptischen Hieroglyphenschrift, 171. Kahl marks the beginning of writing on seals as beginning with the reign of Iry-Hor, a king of Dynasty 0, though he dates the beginning of writing itself to the Dynasty 00 graves of U-j and U-s. 7 See C.M. Firth, The Archaeological Survey of Nubia, Report for 1908-1909, Cairo: National Printing Department, 1912; F. Ll. Griffiths, “Oxford Excavations in Nubia.” Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology 8 (1921): 1-18; A.J. Mills and H.Å. Nordström, “The Archaeological Survey from Gemai to Dal. Preliminary Report on the Season 1964-65,” Kush 14 (1966): 1-15; HÅ. Nordström, “A-Group and CGroup in Upper Nubia,” Kush 14 (1966): 63-68; G.A.Reisner, Archaeological Survey of Nubia: Report for 1907-1908, vol. 1. Cairo: National Printing Department, 1910; and B. Williams, The A-Group Royal Cemetery at Qustul: Cemetery L, Chicago: University of Chicago Oriental Institute Nubian Expedition Volume III, 1986.

8 D. O’Connor, Ancient Nubia: Egypt’s Rival in Africa, (Philadelphia: The University Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania, 1993), 15. 9 Ibid. 10 Ibid. 11 Ibid., 16.

56

The Lower Nubian Seals and Seal Impressions

Nubian elite hoarded prestige goods gained through trade as is indicated by their elaborate burial practices and funerary goods.

Another of these tombs, Tomb L-17, contained a partially deteriorated ivory cylinder seal. Williams drew on previously excavated Lower Nubian glyptic images to build an argument in his 1986 publication that the iconography of kingship adopted by Egypt in Dynasty 0/1 was originated in Nubia. The subsequent discovery of Egyptian royal iconography in Tomb U-j dating to the Naqada IIIa period and some of the imagery on the Naqada IId cylinder seal impressions at Abydos predate the Cemetery L findings and disprove Williams’ interpretation of chronological primacy for the Qustul materials. Even so, the images discovered on the seals and seal impressions of Lower Nubia do provide evidence of a stage in the development of Egyptian glyptic imagery and iconography in the late Predynastic period, a stage not yet well attested in Egypt itself. The presence and use of seals in Lower Nubia also speak to the nature of the relations between the polities of Upper Egypt and the fledgling “kinglets” of Lower Nubia.

Large tombs with wooden beam construction such as those found in the Lower Nubian Cemetery L at Qustul. The elite tombs in this cemetery, as well as those of other cemeteries excavated in Lower Nubia, may be ranked in size, with the richest grave goods buried in the largest graves. Conspicuous consumption of exotic trade goods from Egypt or funneled through Egypt such as stone vessels, copper tools and ornaments, vessels from Syria and Palestine and cylinder seals are found in some of these elite tombs. Though the graves had been robbed and some burned in antiquity, the richness and quantity of the remaining contents of the tombs indicate rulers of great wealth and status. The fact that there are no other cemeteries reported in Lower Nubia containing graves of this size and quality indicate that those buried in this cemetery probably ruled a large area of Lower Nubia during the Classic and Terminal A-Group Periods.12

Affinities with Upper Egyptian art, particularly of the period immediately predating the Nubian material suggest a placement for the Nubian material toward the end of the development of Predynastic Egyptian cylinder seal glyptic. Additionally, the seals and seal impressions found in Nubia are evidence of an active administrative system transferred to the Nubians by Egyptians, or one that was in part controlled by Egyptians to secure a steady supply of goods from their neighbors to the south. As a consequence of these relations, trade in iconography and stylistic conventions was also being conducted between the two cultures.

A-Group Nubian Iconography and Early Egypt Bruce Williams, who published the excavations of the L Cemetery at Qustul was convinced by the contents of some of these graves that the precedents for what would become enduring symbols of Egyptian divine kingship had first been developed by the A-Group Nubians. Williams statements were based primarily on details of iconography and secondarily on the richness of objects contained in the graves. Williams dated the tombs at Qustul to the Naqada IIIb period on the basis of Egyptian pottery imports found in the tombs. At the time of their discovery, they were the oldest known tombs containing images associated with Egyptian kingship such as an enthroned figure wearing a white crown, niched doorways associated with the king’s palace or temples, and the Horus falcon perched on a blank serekh. The decorated object that became the focus of this speculation was the Qustul Incense Burner, which Williams assigned to Tomb L-24.13

Lower Nubian impressions

Seals

and

Seal

The relative scarcity of Predynastic cylinder seals found within all of Egypt (18 seals total) makes the discovery of so many cylinder seals and seal impressions (7) between the first and second cataracts in Lower Nubian contexts particularly noteworthy. While the Siali seal impression provides strong evidence that cylinder seals were being used to protect and seal goods, for the most part the Nubians were thought, like the Egyptians of Naqada I, not to have developed the cultural complexity to use seals as an administrative tool. Accordingly, seals found in Nubia are described in the literature as personal ornaments received through trade from Egypt or perhaps from southern

12 D. O’Connor, Ancient Nubia, 17. 13 This has been disputed by Adams who points out that the burner was first reported by Keith Seele (the original excavator of Qustul) to have been found in pieces and scattered about the site, not contained in the closed context of a single grave. See W. Y. Adams, “Doubts About the ‘Lost Pharaohs,’” JNES 44, no. 3 (1985),187.

57

Cylinder Seal Glyptic in Predynastic Egypt and Neighboring Regions Mesopotamia.14 However, a more complex and sustained period of interaction between Nubia and Egypt, as well as trade contacts in the Near East, is indicated by the variety of glyptic designs, their types of manufacture and the contexts of their discovery in Nubia.

This design has some affinities with the Abydos animal rows group of seals (see fig. 20a) and with the one seal found in Tomb U-j at Abydos (fig. 16a). The inclusion of a harpoon in this composition firms up this connection, as hunting tools are commonly included as filler elements in the animal rows group of seals (fig. 20a). Also like the U-j seal impressions, a decorative border hems the composition, though in this case the border carved in a continuous wavy line could have been meant to represent water, which is not unlikely considering the watery context of bird hunting.

Seals found on the surface at the Ikkur Fortress and Kostamna could indeed have been influenced by the designs on Mesopotamian examples (fig. 29). The seals and seal impressions discovered in Classic to Terminal AGroup sites such as Faras, Sarras West, Siali and Qustul fit into the later development of Egyptian cylinder seal glyptic concurrent with, or perhaps immediately following, the glyptic style of seals used at the Egyptian trading post of ‘En Besor in southern Palestine.15 The presence of dominant human figures, animal rows or processions and aspects of early Egyptian royal iconography such as high-prowed boats and falcons atop blank serekhs place them firmly in the late Predynastic Egyptian stylistic repertoire.

Sarras West Seal This ivory cylinder seal is carved with a representation of a man standing in a highprowed boat containing a seat or throne (fig. 27b). He holds a long staff or a bow. Above the stern of the boat is a pair of down turned arms. In front of the boat is another long-legged water bird. Small fill elements surround the bird and one even floats above the seat in the boat.

Although Williams reviewed much of this material in his discussion of the relative chronology of the tombs within Cemetery L, three other seals discovered in Nubia and republished by Boehmer in 1974 will also be included in this survey.

This seal shares elements with the royal seal impressions found in Tomb U-j, but also includes several new elements that share affinities with seal impressions discovered at ‘En Besor. A standing man holding a staff is a familiar feature of the Tomb U-j seal impressions. The small unidentifiable filler elements common on the U-j seal impressions are present as well.

Tomb L 17 Seal Though partially deteriorated, this seal clearly shows the walking figure of a man with one upraised hand following a procession of long legged water birds (see fig. 27c). The right side of the man’s body is not preserved so one cannot determine whether both his arms are raised, a characteristic of some of the walking human figures in the ‘En Besor seal impressions (fig. 34). The man appears to wear a penis sheath. The birds are schematically executed, each possessing a long, hairpin-curved neck, pearshaped body and one leg ending in a three-toed foot. Above the birds floats a harpoon-shaped object. This design is bordered on both top and bottom by a double lined border containing a continuous wave pattern.

Characteristics also encountered in the ‘En Besor material include what could be termed inverted “ka” arms.16 The unadorned ground line bordering the top and bottom of this seal along with the presence of inverted “ka” arms that play such a prominent role in the southern Palestinian material as well as Early Dynastic glyptic mark the style of this seal as transitional between the early Naqada IIIa period and the Naqada IIIb period. Hartung states that it was after the time of Tomb U-j that the active colonization of southern Palestine began together with the establishment of trading posts on Egypt’s periphery.17 Perhaps this seal and the others in 16 It is perhaps interesting to note that this author could find no attempts in the literature to translate the presence of these “ka” arms into a recognizable early pharaonic title or name as has been so insistently done with the southern Palestinian material. This could be because the image preserved on this ivory seal is unambiguous, unlike that on badly deteriorated mud seal impressions. Consequently, there is less “wiggle room” in which to hypothesize the spelling of a name. 17 U. Hartung, “Zur Entwicklung des Handels” 47-48.

14 R.M. Boehmer, “Das Rollsiegel im prädynastichen Ägypten,” 498, 500. 15 We are fortunate that, except in the case of the Siali seal impression, we can examine the full images on the seals themselves rather than partial or poorly preserved impressions as were discovered in Stratum III at ‘En Besor.

58

The Lower Nubian Seals and Seal Impressions

this group are indications of a similar intensification of trade relations between Upper Egypt and Lower Nubia during the late Predynastic.

artistic representations and the fact that this figure wears the same headdress as figures carrying the bow, it is possible that the seated figure on the Faras seal is simply meant to represent a Nubian. This figure with the curving headdress is also known from later representations of foreigners wearing similar hats found in the B cemetery at Abydos.20 The figure’s relaxed posture does not suggest a prisoner or defeated foe. During this early period, prisoners were depicted with their arms tied behind their backs, helpless, or pitched forward, arms and legs akimbo in the “disarray” of death.

Faras Seal This ivory seal (see fig. 27d) was discovered in the Faras cemetery, a site on the western bank of the Nile near Qustul’s Cemetery L. The Faras cemetery dates to the Terminal A-Group Period and contained several elite graves furnished in part with contemporary Egyptian trade goods. Faras Grave 4, in which the seal was discovered, had been robbed of most of its valuables in antiquity, but the quality of the remaining pottery indicates that the person buried there was of high status. Given smaller size of Faras Grave 4, it is doubtful that the tomb’s owner ranked as high as the owners of the largest graves in Qustul’s Cemetery L.

The nested rectangles strongly resemble early representations of serekhs or niched doorways. Williams has interpreted the sign floating above the center serekh as a rosette naming an as yet unidentified king.21 Griffith identified it as a standard of Neith laid on its side.22 New seal impressions from Abydos once again provide compelling parallels. This shape closely resembles the images carved into the Geometric Group seal from Tomb U-153 (fig. 18e) at Abydos that has been identified here as a representation of a seal itself. The Faras seal appears to depict a royal seal securing goods from Nubia, as indicated by the depiction of the Nubian. If correct, this interpretation would mean a variation of the glyptic concept illustrated in the U-j jar labels: that of designating the destination or recipient of the goods as well as the location from which they originated.

The seal shows a seated person with hair or a headdress curving over the back of the head. The person holds a long, straight object to his face or head. Above this object floats a smaller roughly semi-circular shape. In front of the seated person are a series of three nested rectangular shapes, which are open at the bottom. The rectangles on the right and left are larger, each containing three nested shapes, while the central group is shorter and is formed of only two nested shapes. Above this smaller rectangle is a shape consisting of a horizontal line with a bowtie shape in its center. Above and below this central decoration is a double lined border containing a continuous wave pattern.

Siali Seal Impressions Reisner discovered the Siali Seal Impression (fig. 27a) in Cemetery 40 on the east bank of the Nile, near Meris, just south of Elephantine in northern Nubia.23 The Siali Seal Impression was found in what was first thought to be a beehive shaped

The precise action of the seated person is difficult to determine. Scholars have suggested various interpretations including a person raising his arm in supplication or salute, playing a flute, or that a personified club might be striking the figure, who could be a prisoner. Griffith interpreted this person to be a seated woman who was applying eye paint from a shell floating above her head.18 Given the imprecision of the representation and the lack of parallels in the Predynastic corpus, an exact interpretation of this figure’s actions will not be attempted. However, several ivory and bone labels found in Tomb U-j are carved with the figure of a man wearing a similar headdress and carrying a bow and arrow (fig. 30a-f).19 Given the long association of Nubians with the bow in Egyptian language and

20 W.M.F. Petrie, Royal Tombs II, pl. IV 3-5, 12. 21 B. Williams, “ The A-Group Royal Cemetery at Qustul,” 168. 22 G.A.Reisner, Archaeological Survey of Nubia, 238-239. 23 The importance of the proximity of this site to the late Predynastic/Archaic Egyptian installation at Elephantine can hardly be overstated. See W. Kaiser, G. Dreyer, G. Grimm, G. Haeny, H. Jaritz and C. Müller. “Stadt und Tempel von Elephantine. Fünfter Grabungsbericht,” MDAIK 31 (1975): 39-84; W. Kaiser, G. Dreyer, R. Gempeler, P. Grossman, G. Haeny, H. Jaritz, and F. Junge, “Stadt und Tempel von Elephantine. Sechster Grabungsbericht,” MDAIK 32 (1976): 67-112; W. Kaiser, G. Dreyer, R. Gempeler, and H. Jaritz. “Stadt und Tempel von Elephantine. Siebter Grabungsbericht,” MDAIK 33 (1977): 63-100; W. Kaiser, R. Avila, G. Dreyer, H. Jaritz, F.W. Rösing and S. Seidlmayer. “Stadt und Tempel von Elephantine. Neunter/Zehnter Grabungsbericht,” MDAIK 38 (1982): 271-345.

18 B. Williams, The A-Group Royal Cemetery at Qustul, 168. 19 G. Dreyer, Umm el-Qaab I, 118-19, figs. 44-49.

59

Cylinder Seal Glyptic in Predynastic Egypt and Neighboring Regions grave with a robbed-out burial 24 but was later identified as a storage pit.25 The site’s date also has undergone a revision from the time it was first excavated; it is now identified as a Classic to Terminal A-Group site and could therefore be dated later than the Faras and Sarras West Cemetery sites. In his excavation report, Reisner describes the storage pit as being closed with stones and heavily plastered with mud.26 This mud bore three seal impressions, none of them complete because of the multiple rollings. Williams’ reconstruction of this seal impression is the basis of the description offered here. However, after close examination of the photographs of the seal impressions published by Reisner, differences of opinion with Williams’ reconstruction of the seal impressions will be noted.27

Williams describes the central element in this seal impression as an archaic serekh or palace façade surmounted by an archaic falcon. This combination, of course, gives the representation a decidedly royal flavor. However, Williams discounts a line that ran through the roughly rectangular nested arches, attributing them to a crack in the seal’s surface. Reisner, who took the line to be part of the seal carving, identified this figure as tree or plant. From an examination of the photograph and Williams’ own line drawings of the seals, it appear that the “crack” Williams sees in the sealing starts from a carved line or stem of the tree or plant and splits the border at the base of the composition. If this reading is correct, the figure resembles the “aloe” or the Ensete edule plant, a type of banana frequently depicted on Naqada II painted pottery, rather than an early serekh.

The impressions feature a human seated on a chair. He wears a penis sheath similar to that worn by the figure on the Qustul L-17 seal. His left arm is raised above his head in an apparent salute, while his right arm appears to be touching an animal (a canine or bovine) standing atop a platform. Two dogs are to the left of this animal, but are not standing on platforms or standards. Above the seated figure’s head is one complete and another incomplete (broken) archaic serekh, the complete one showing the Horus falcon perched atop it. In front or to the right of the figure is a bow above what Williams has tentatively identified as a land or t3 sign. To the right of this construction is a set of nested rectangles similar to those on the Faras seal, though much more elaborately detailed with five rectangles instead of two or three. On top of it is another Horus falcon. On either side of this falcon are the D-shaped signs frequently associated with the markers for the ritual heb-sed race run by the king of Egypt, like that depicted on the Narmer macehead, according to Williams. Above the entire composition and interrupted by the two smaller serekh constructions is a row of round shapes with comma-like terminals at their top.

The figure of man with one hand raised in a gesture, which might b interpreted as one of praise strengthens the impression that the falcon atop the serekh or plant is a royal one. Williams’ interpretation of signs appearing to spell t3 sty (Nubia) is problematical. He argues that the only way to understand this representation is that there were early pharaohs in t3 sty. However, given the evidence, the symbols could quite as easily be read as the inhabitants of t3 sty making obeisance to the Horus of Egypt. If correct, such a gesture of submission by foreigners to the ruling power of Egypt is not rare in Old Kingdom representations. For example, in the so-called “Libyan Family” scene found in Old Kingdom funerary temples the Libyan chief’s wife and two sons make similar gestures of respect and submission.28 Williams has identified the line of circular shapes above the falcon as incense burners with stylized flames coming out of the top of each. It is possible, however, that these shapes instead represent bags of gold dust, a principle Nubian export in the Predynastic and later. In Nubian tribute scenes of following periods, such as in the 18th Dynasty tomb of Rekhmire, bags of gold dust are depicted in this manner, sometimes with small clay seals joining their ties.29 The two early serekhs interrupting these bags are possibly of even greater significance in the dating of the Siali Seal. Based on evidence discovered at Cemetery U and representations on the late

24 G.A. Reisner, The Archaeological Survey of Nubia, 23839. 25 B. Williams, The A-Group Royal Cemetery at Qustul, 169. 26 G.A. Reisner, Archaeological Survey of Nubia, 238. 27 Ibid., pl. 65 f.

28 J. Leclant, “La ‘famille libyenne’ au temple haut de Pépi Ier,” Livre du centenaire (1980): 49-54. 29 N. de Garis Davies, Paintings from the Tomb of Rekhmire at Thebes, (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1935): pl. XXII.

60

The Lower Nubian Seals and Seal Impressions

Predynastic “Libyan Palette” or “Cities Palette,” Dreyer has postulated a Predynastic king list in which a King “Horus-falcon” is one. On the palette, a falcon with an anthropomorphic arm is shown hacking into one of the fortresses, apparently identified by the figure inside as a specific locality.30 These factors place the Siali Seal Impression in the same administrative seal type as the Faras Seal. The imagery strongly suggests the residents of t3 sty paying tribute to the Horus of Egypt (whether “King HorusFalcon” or the iconic symbol of Egyptian kingship) and illustrates the form that this tribute took, again above or near the royal symbol that was to be the recipient of this largess.

praise or salute. He wears an elaborate penis sheath like those identified in the Siali Seal Impression and the Qustul L-17 seal. Behind this figure is an antelope standing on its hind legs or leaping on. Behind this animal and directly abutting the prow of the next boat is a vertical harpoon. The boat nearest the façade (reading left to right) appears to contain an altar on which a bound prisoner kneels. In this heavily reconstructed area of the burner, the prisoner is held by a tether from behind by another man who also hold a mace or club with the head down. Their boat appears to be the only one in the procession that is driven by a sail, which is a possible indication that the boat was traveling south or upstream and therefore required a sail while the other vessels, traveling north, required no sails. The final destination of the vessel containing the prisoner appears to be the nested arches of the archaic palace façade. In front of this façade is a small plant, which may have designated the temple as a southern one.32

Qustul Incense Burner The imagery on the Qustul Incense Burner will be included in this discussion for two reasons. First, its imagery is closely related to the seals and seal impressions found in Lower Nubia. Second, the method of decoration on the Qustul Incense Burner is closely related to the intaglio carving on cylinder seals (fig. 31).

Williams also published several painted ceramic vessels from the Qustul cemetery. The decoration of one of these, a long necked bird pecking what might be a t3/land sign, he interprets as recording the conquest by Nubia of southern Egypt. Since the discovery of earlier royal iconography in the cemetery at Abydos, Williams has modified his argument to state that it is possible that some of the rulers at Qustul were buried at Abydos.33 Since there is no evidence that the rulers buried at Abydos are of Nubian origin, this argument is unconvincing.

This Nubian-style artifact was, in Williams’ original argument, proof that Egyptian royal iconography originated in Nubia, since at that time it possessed the earliest known royal representations. The high-prow boat, the rosette (which some have argued is a symbol of royalty) and a representation of a seated figure in the traditional white crown of Upper Egypt with an archaic serekh floating above him lent weight to this argument.31 Overall, the burner seems to represent a royal or holy procession to a temple or palace façade. However, the details of sections of this procession have in large part been reconstructed by Williams. The procession consists of three high-prow vessels, the second of which contains the figure wearing the white crown. The first boat contains the figure of a fantastic animal which some have identified as a bull. However, the toes on the feet of this creature argue against this reading, and therefore Williams has suggested that it represents some form of feline with extended claws. Outside this boat are representations of a fish. Above the fish is a spiny frond of a plant that has been associated with the god Min on monuments such as the Min colossi from Coptos. To the right of this symbol stands the figure of a man with arm upraised in

David O’Connor argues that the painted pottery Williams refers to is of Egyptian manufacture, and therefore images painted on it would record the victory of Egyptians over other Egyptians, not the Nubian conquest of Egypt. He further argues that objects such as the Qustul Incense Burner and the lesser known Archaic Horus Incense Burner are likely to have been imports from Egypt, gifts decorated by Egyptian artisans and presented to the rulers of Nubia at that time.34 The reappearance of the motif of a person in Nubian attire praising a symbol or an image of a king of Egypt, supports the Egyptian origin of this object.

32 Ibid. 33 B. Williams, “The Qustul Incense Burner and the Case for a Nubian Origin of Ancient Egyptian Kingship,” Egypt in Africa. Edited by T. Celenko (Indianapolis: Indianapolis Museum of Art, 1996), 95-97. 34 D. O’Connor, Ancient Nubia, 21.

30 G. Dreyer, Umm el Qaab I, 180. 31 B. Williams, “The Nubian Royal Cemetery at Qustul,” 144.

61

Cylinder Seal Glyptic in Predynastic Egypt and Neighboring Regions

Additionally elements in the decoration of the Qustul Incense Burner have precedents in the cylinder seal art of the Naqada IId and IIIa periods at Abydos. A high-prow boat is also known from the seal impression found in Tomb U-127 (fig. 5c). Seal impressions found in Tomb U-j contain impressions of the rosette, the highprow boat and, according to this interpretation, scenes of a god’s standard and ritual sacrifice. Combinations of these images in the Qustul Burner such as the walking person with wild animals and a “controlling element” or weapon are also attested in the earlier Abydos Cemetery U material. As noted above, some of the engraved bone seals found in U-j are carved with figures of men carrying bows and wearing the elaborate penis sheaths that Williams comments upon in his examination of the Qustul material.35 In as much as the incense burner is of A-Group Nubian style and contains some images unknown in the Egyptian repertoire, the possibility exists that the images engraved on it are indigenous symbols of loyalty or authority. However, close stylistic relationships on the Nubian seals and seal impressions not only identify the imagery as being of Egyptian origin, but in all likelihood point to Egyptian manufacture. With the exception of the Sarras West Seal the above examples containing the figures with upraised hands of praise or submission are early Egyptian representations of Nubians submitting to Egyptian power or, in the case of the Qustul Incense Burner, praising an Egyptian royal and religious procession.

Alternating Signs Group (fig. 6a) and the central panel of the Tomb U-j Type II seal (fig. 16b).37 It also bears some affinities to the seal from Tomb U-170 in the Geometric Group (fig. 13a). It seems likely that this seal is an import to Nubia, given that glazed steatite objects are not common in the A-Group Nubian assemblage during this period. Boehmer took both the material of this seal and its pattern as evidence that it had been imported from Mesopotamia. Triangles frequently occur on seals of Elam and those found in the Uruk colonies in northern Syria.38 If the frequency of triangle-dominant patterns in southern Mesopotamia, its northern Syrian colonies and Abydos is a reliable indication of its widespread use in the Naqada II period, it is perhaps not surprising that this design can also be found in the Lower Nubia which was trading directly with Egypt and possibly indirectly with southern Mesopotamia and its colonies. Ikkur/Koshtamna Seals These two clay seals were collected from the surface during the Nubian survey work conducted by Firth in 1908-09 (figs. 29b-c). Both seals are made of clay, and both bear hatching marks. A line drawing of the design was provided only for the seal discovered at the site of the Ikkur fortress. The other seal, discovered on the east side of the Nile at Koshtamna, is so badly worn that a drawing of its design was not provided in the original publication (a line drawing based on the published photograph is provided).

Gerf Hussein Seal C.M. Firth excavated this seal (fig. 29a) in 1908 in a Predynastic cemetery in Lower Nubia. The other artifacts in the tomb date it to the Naqada IIc/d period.36 Made of glazed steatite it measures 3.1 cm tall and 2.2 cm in diameter. The seal is of particular comparative interest to the Naqada IId seals at Abydos because of its abundant use of triangles. The design consists of two rows of triangles in an alternating upright and inverted pattern, causing the triangles in the two rows to alternate between a point-to-point and base-to-base orientation. Between each triangle are two slanting nicks or lines separating it from the next triangle.

Though these seals lack a stratified archaeological provenence, they are noteworthy for two reasons. First, they are made of clay, unlike most of the Predynastic seals that have been discovered in Egypt and Nubia, which are most often made of ivory, bone or limestone. No study has yet determined the source of the clay from which these seals were made. In any case, the homogeneity of Nile silt clays make a finer determination of the exact source of this clay unlikely. According to Boehmer, the crudity of the design and the construction material argued for the seals to have been made in Egypt.39 This 37 G. Dreyer, Umm el-Qaab I, 110. 38 R. M. Boehmer, “Das Rollsiegel im Prädynastischen Ägypten,” 503. 39 R.M. Boehmer, “Das Rollsiegel,” p. 505. The poor quality of the seal material and their seemingly chaotic hatch design are the reasons Boehmer rejects the possibility that these seals could have been imported from Mesopotamia. As was the traditional argument, he states that they were probably made as personal ornamentation, not as administrative

With the subtraction of the slanting dividing lines this pattern is exactly like the triangle patterns presented in the Tomb U-133 seal of the 35 G. Dreyer, Umm el-Qaab I, plate 29. 36 R.M. Boehmer, “Das Rollsiegel im Prädynastischen Ägypten,” 498.

62

The Lower Nubian Seals and Seal Impressions

busy hatched design might appear unusual in comparison to the representational designs on the other Nubian material and the Abydos seal impressions. However, it shares some parallels with the seal impressions from the Egyptian outpost of ‘En Besor in southern Palestine, where designs of this type can be found in the Birds with Throw Sticks Group and the Architectural Structures Group (see Chapter 4 and figs. 39 and 40).

presence of animal rows, high-prowed boats, the standing human figure, random filler elements and the use of framing elements above and below the main compositional field. The discovery of the Siali Seal Impression on a Nubian structure and employed in a classic Near Eastern fashion demonstrates how elastic, wellestablished and widespread the use of cylinder seals was by the Naqada III period. It also is a good illustration of how well established was the influence exerted by the Egyptians on their nearest neighbors to the south.

Contacts and Transfers

However, the majority of the stylistic evidence we have so far from Lower Nubia indicates that the Egyptians were exporting iconography and possibly seals and other objects along with their seasonal administration as a means of controlling the highly valuable trade in gold and exotic items from the south. Except for the southernmost Egyptian installation at Elephantine established in the late Predynastic period, indications are that Egyptians did not have a continuous presence in the form of colonies or trading outposts in Lower Nubia. Instead, as was the pattern in the Old Kingdom, Egypt sent expeditions into Nubian territory periodically, possibly seasonally, to treat with select A-Group chiefdoms. That these chiefdoms gained both power and influence through their dealings with Egyptians is clear from the Qustul Cemetery evidence. Seal use was a method by which both Egyptians and Nubians secured goods to be sent north. Those chiefdoms successful in this trade maintained a tight level of control over valued trade goods from Egypt and those being funneled to Egypt from the interior of Africa. Cemetery archaeology tells us that imports were in the hands of the highest levels of Nubian society. Settlement archaeology might provide more information as to whether the Egyptians themselves maintained a trading outpost or military presence below the first cataract during this period. Both the iconography and the archaeological evidence indicate, however, that the Egyptians and the A-Group Nubians of this period were for the most part trading partners in the Predynastic.

An examination of the surviving glyptic material discovered in Lower Nubia emphasizes the lively trade in raw materials and finished goods between the Naqada IId – IIIb cultures of Upper Egypt and the Classic and Terminal A-Group Nubians. That ideas and images were being exchanged as well is clear from adoption, adaptation and, in some cases, the melding of Egyptian and Nubian iconography. Dating to late in Egypt’s Predynastic relations with Nubia, these seals and seal impressions provide a glimpse into the later stage of development of the Egyptian cylinder seal glyptic style. The Faras, Qustul L-17, Sarras West seals and the Siali Seal Impression appear to document the development of and increasingly narrative structure. The Siali Seal Impression illustrates the short-lived combination of pure imagery with hieroglyphic writing, which was soon to dominate cylinder seal decoration in the Archaic Period. At the same time, the seals present a variation on the themes presented in the glyptic of ‘En Besor. While the Nubian seals were also used in an area just outside Upper Egyptian hegemony, they appear to elaborate the theme of subjugation or service. Only the Sarras West seal features a human character apparently in the act of managing the elements of chaos on behalf of the king, as those on the ‘En Besor seal impressions do. The presence of inverted ka arms on this seal, and the lack of icons marking the person as a Nubian are perhaps visual clues that the person who carried and used it was an agent of a central (i.e. Egyptian) authority. In all cases, the seals and seal impressions of Lower Nubia have direct similarities to the styles and conventions employed in the Abydos U Cemetery seals. Most notably, these include the controls over goods. Though Boehmer does not acknowledge the possibility, it is also true that the seals could have been made in Nubia.

63

Cylinder Seal Glyptic in Predynastic Egypt and Neighboring Regions

64

The Lower Nubian Seals and Seal Impressions

65

Cylinder Seal Glyptic in Predynastic Egypt and Neighboring Regions

66

The Lower Nubian Seals and Seal Impressions

67

Cylinder Seal Glyptic in Predynastic Egypt and Neighboring Regions

68

4

THE ‘EN BESOR SEAL AND SEAL IMPRESSIONS

With the long-awaited publication of the Maadi excavation data in the late 1980s and more recent excavations at the Lower Egyptian sites of Buto and Minshat Abu Omar, it has become clear that Lower Egypt shared a long-term relationship with the southern Palestinians that began early in the Maadi/Buto culture ca. 3650 BC.1 Tracing the development of this relationship throughout the Predynastic is now a major focus of Egyptological and Syro-Palestinian archaeological research. Evidence of sealing practices has been discovered at numerous southern Palestinian sites after the initial discovery of seal impressions at ‘En Besor in the mid-70s.2 This study has chosen the site of ‘En

Besor as a focus of comparison for two reasons. First, the ‘En Besor oasis demonstrates two prehistoric periods of interaction with Egyptian culture, one predating cultural unification of Egypt during the Naqada IId period and one dating to the late Predynastic Naqada IIIb period. Second, unlike the more recently discovered Tel ‘Erani sealings which had no discernable seal impressions on them, the ‘En Besor material is clearly impressed with decorations and therefore provides the largest available sample of Predynastic/Early Dynastic cylinder seal impressions, as well as a complete seal, with which to compare the Abydene and Nubian material.

1 I. Rizkana and J. Seeher, Maadi I; I. Rizkana and J. Seeher, Maadi II: The Lithic Industries of the Predynastic Settlement,Mainz am Rhein: Verlag Philipp von Zabern, 1988; I. Rizkana and J. Seeher, Maadi III, The Non-Lithic Small Finds and the Structural Remains of the Predynastic Settlement, Mainz am Rhein: Verlag Philipp von Zabern, 1989; I. Rizkana and J. Seeher, Maadi IV: The Predynastic Cemeteries of Maadi and Wadi Digla, Mainz am Rhein: Verlag Philipp von Zabern, 1990; T. von der Way, “Indications of Architecture with Niches at Buto,” The Followers of Horus, Edited by Renee Friedman and Barbara Adams, (Oxford: Oxbow Books, 1992): 217-226; and T. von der Way, “Excavations at Tell El-Fara’in/Buto in 1987-89” The Nile Delta in Transition: 4th-3rd Millennium BC, Edited by E.C.M. van den Brink (Tel Aviv: The Israel Exploration Society, 1992): 1-10. 2 Clay sealings without cylinder seal impressions have been discovered in Layer C and Layer D at the site of Tel ‘Erani. These seals, which apparently were used to seal cloth bags, date closer to the Abydos seal impressions, Naqada IIIa2 in the case of the Layer C sealings and Naqada IId in the case of the Layer D sealings. However, their lack of impressions leave little room for comparison, except in sealing methods and types of goods sealed. See A. Kempinski and I. Gilead, “New Excavations at Tel ‘Erani: A Preliminary Report on the 1985-1988 Seasons, Tel Aviv 18 (1991): 164-191. Another cylinder seal impression found on well preserved clay bulla has been found by Levy and Alon on the Tel Halif Terrace, Silo site, Stratum II a. This seal impression dates to the early first Dynasty and bears the name “Hr-ntrwy.” See T.E. Levy, E.C.M.van den Brink,Y. Goren and D. Alon, “New Light on King Narmer and the ProtoDynastic Egyptian Presence in Canaan,” Biblical Archaeologist 58 (1995): 26-35.

The discovery of cylinder seal impressions dating back to the Naqada IId period at the Upper Egyptian Predynastic cemetery at Abydos has for the first time supplied art historians and archaeologists with near contemporary glyptic material with which to compare the ‘En Besor seal impressions. Now glyptic evidence from sites in southern Palestine can be compared for the purpose of tracing Egyptian and Palestinian influences on glyptic style. It is also possible to further evaluate the extent to which Palestine served as a corridor to the Near East, funneling artistic influences and the use of cylinder seals and their administrative functions from Mesopotamian colonies in Syria into Egypt. Recent investigations of Predynastic levels in Nile Delta sites have revealed a complex series of interactions between Egyptians and southern Palestinians which date back to the Early Naqada I period (ca. 3900-3650 BC). It has been assumed for many years that Predynastic Lower Egypt was a hinterland that did not achieve any level of cultural complexity until after Upper

71

Cylinder Seal Glyptic in Predynastic Egypt and Neighboring Regions

72

The ‘En Besor Seal and Seal Impressions Egyptians conquered it.3 This view was fostered by a dearth of evidence to the contrary. Upper Egyptian domestic sites are usually buried under meters of Nile silt and are therefore very difficult to excavate. Additionally, the Egyptian Delta has become in modern times the most populous area of the country and modern-day cities and towns frequently cover sites that could yield more information. As a result, Lower Egyptian Predynastic sites were virtually ignored by turnof-the-century archaeologists who focused almost exclusively on drier, less populous Upper Egypt sites.

achieved ca. 3100 BC or later.5 From an archaeological standpoint, the evidence does not wholly support this interpretation of the material. The site itself has the character of a trading outpost populated by Egyptians near an important water source in the northern Negev and not a subjugated local population. Palestinians living in neighboring settlements appear to have been peacefully co-existing with the Egyptians at ‘En Besor.6 Sensitive time indicators such as pottery testify to an occupation dating from the Naqada IIIb period to early First Dynasty. Similarly the glyptic evidence presented by the cylinder seal impressions found at ‘En Besor are not in the later Dynastic style, but demonstrate a transition between the seal impressions found in Tomb U-j at Abydos and those of the early Dynastic Period.

Today, with the benefit of settlement archaeology in some Delta sites, Egyptologists can now begin to piece together a sequence of economic and settlement pattern changes that marked the development of relations between Egypt and her closest neighbors to the northeast.4 These excavations also have provided a more detailed picture of the gradual cultural and political unification of the Egyptian state. Contrary to the traditional view of Lower Egypt as a cultural backwater, the scenario that is emerging is of a population involved in a complex long distance trade network that was receiving goods, ideas and imagery from as far away as Mesopotamia via trading posts in northern Syria. A key region in this long distance trade network was southern Palestine.

Archaeological Context of ‘En Besor Scholars are now proposing a progressive development in relations between southern Palestinians and Egyptians beginning with the two cultures participating in an “open borders” trade relationship characterized free movement of Palestinian and Egyptian traders between the two regions in the Naqada I period (ca. 39003650 BC). The final phase of these Predynastic trade relations with Palestine is marked by the outright colonization of southern Palestinian and possibly Nubian sites by Egyptians. Trade was controlled by the “pre-kings” of Egypt, more than likely based in the nome of This/Abydos. In Egypt this last period covers the end of Naqada III, or Naqada IIIb to Dynasty 0 (ca. 3150-3000 BC). In Palestine, this period corresponds with Early Bronze Ib.7

Excavations conducted at sites such as ‘En Besor, and Tel ‘Erani in southern Palestine, revealed close interactions between Egypt and Palestine early in Egypt’s history in part through finds of seals and seal impressions. For years these discoveries have been vexed by questions of chronology. Because there was little or no comparative Predynastic glyptic material from within Egypt, it was assumed that the seal impressions found at these southern Palestinian sites had to date to Egypt’s early Dynastic period. This assumption colored the interpretations of the data and led to the conclusions that Egypt’s earliest relations with Palestine were of a hostile, conquest-driven nature and that these relations did not commence until the unification of the two lands had been

5 One of the main proponents of this view for the past 20 years has been Alan Schulman. See A. Schulman, “On the Dating of the Egyptian Seal Impressions from ‘En Besor,” 249-51. But the view has had its proponents from among Syro-Palestinian scholars as well, See S. Yeiven, “Early Contacts Between Canaan and Egypt,” Israel Exploration Journal 10, no. 4 (1960): 200. 6 R. Gophna, “Egyptian Trading Posts in Southern Canaan at the Dawn of the Archaic Period,” Egypt, Israel, Sinai, Archaeological and Historical Relationships in the Biblical Period. ed. Anson F. Rainey (Tel Aviv, 1987), 13-21. 7 For fuller discussions of the development of the relationship of Egypt and Palestine in the Predynastic see L. Watrin, “The Relationship between the Nile Delta and Palestine during the Fourth Millennium: From Early Exchange (Naqada I-II) to the Colonization of Southern Palestine (Naqada III),” Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress of Egyptologists, Cambridge, Uitgeveru Peeters Leuven, 1998, 1215-1226.

3 E. Baumgartel, The Cultures of Prehistoric Egypt, I, (London, Oxford University Press, revised ed. 1955). 4 See E.C.M. van den Brink, ed., Nile Delta in Transition: 4th-3rd Millennium BC, (Tel Aviv: The Israel Exploration Society, 1992); Interregional Contacts in the Later Prehistory of Northeastern Africa, (Poznan: Poznan Arcaheological Museum, 1996); and S. Mark, From Egypt to Mesopotamia: A Study of Predynastic Trade Routes.

73

Cylinder Seal Glyptic in Predynastic Egypt and Neighboring Regions

During this period, Palestinian imports can be found in the north of the country at sites such as Minshat Abu Omar, and as far south as Qustul in Lower Nubia. Watrin argues that Egyptians had in effect taken control of the Northern Sinai and that settlements like ‘En Besor served as administrative outposts for the control and possibly taxation of goods coming into Egypt from the north.8 According to clay analysis the total ceramic assemblage at ‘En Besor is Egyptian, with some vessels imported from Egypt, some Egyptian style vessels made with local clay and some Palestinian style pottery made using Egyptian techniques.9 The buildings unearthed at ‘En Besor were also made using Egyptian building techniques and employing Egyptian floor plans. But the most widely publicized finds at ‘En Besor remain the cylinder seal impressions recovered from Stratum III.

the area. He suggests that Lower Egyptians were enticed to settle there by the availability of resources such as bitumen, copper, timber and olive oil. Once established, these Egyptian/Canaanite settlements traded these goods to Lower Egyptian communities like Maadi. This settlement and trade arrangement between southern Palestine and Lower Egypt was established before the rapid spread of Upper Egyptian culture to the Nile Delta. Whether the spread of Naqada culture was a peaceful one motivated by trade and adoption of Upper Egyptian cultural practices, or a transformation accomplished by force is still a matter for debate.13 Gophna points out, however, that Site H seems to have been abandoned soon after this transition between Maadi/Buto culture and Naqada IId culture came about.14 Of greatest interest to archaeologists and Egyptologists in the early 1970s was Stratum III of the tell excavations at ‘En Besor, south of Site H. It was this level which yielded 90 cylinder seal impressions, which had a particularly Egyptian character.15 Twenty-five of these seal impressions were considered too fragmentary and eroded to publish. The remaining 65 seals were studied and published by Schulman over a 16-year period.16

The oasis site of ‘En Besor is located in the northwestern Negev (see fig. 32) and was discovered by survey archaeologists working for the Israeli Antiquities Authority in 1960.10 A series of excavations carried out between 19701983 at the tell site provided stratigraphic data from three different occupation levels. These occupations dated from the Hellenistic period back to the Early Bronze Ib, which corresponds to Dynasty 0 or Naqada IIIb-c in Egypt. The northern part of the oasis provided yet another single occupation site, named Site H, which dates back to the Early Bronze Ia period or Naqada IIb in Egypt.11

Analysis of the clay used in the seal impressions revealed that they were of local manufacture

Site H is located to the north of Besor Springs in the oasis. It is the earliest occupation in the site. Some scholars have suggested that the contacts between Site H and Lower Egypt began before the Naqada IIc-d culture began its spread north to the Delta and subsumed the Maadi/Buto cultures of Lower Egypt.12 Gophna states that the occupants of Site H are an offshoot of the late Predynastic Lower Egyptians of the Maadi/Buto cultural tradition. These people, he asserts, settled in the almost deserted region of southern Canaan during the Early Bronze Ia, after the late Chalcolithic/Ghassulian populations had vacated

13 Köhler argues that the cultural unification of Egypt was accomplished long before political consolidation and that this was a gradual, peaceful process. Others, such as Schulman, still adhere to the model that Lower Egypt was assimilated through conquest. In either case, the spread of Naqada culture to the north signaled a interruption in trade relations with southern Palestine and resulted in the abandonment of settlements like Site H. See E. Christiana Köhler, “Evidence for Interregional Contacts,” 215-225 and A. Schulman, “At the Fringe,” 433-453. 14 R. Gophna, “Contacts Between ‘En Besor Oasis,” 273. 15 It was the practice in Syria and Palestine during the EB I to seal jars by pressing seals (usually stamp seals) directly on the wet fabric of a pottery vessel before it is fired. This practice was meant more to identify and decorate the vessel than it was to seal or protect the goods the jar would eventually contain. See A. Ben Tor, Cylinder Seals of the Third Millennium Palestine, (Cambridge, Mass.: BASOR Supplement Series 22, 1978), 1. In Egypt during this period, however, it was more common to use a wet clay stopper over the mouth and neck of a jar that was closed using a cylinder seal or covering the mouth of a jar with cloth or leather and tying a rope or thong tie around the neck of the jar secured with a blob of clay that was impressed with a cylinder seal. The ‘En Besor bullae are of this latter type. 16 A. Schulman, “The Egyptian Seal Impressions from ‘En Besor,”16-26; A. Schulman, “More Egyptian Seal Impressions from ‘En Besor;” 17-33; A. Schulman, “Still More Egyptian Seal Impressions from ‘En Besor,” 395-417.

8 L. Watrin, “The Relationship Between the Nile Delta and Palestine,” 1225. 9 R. Gophna, “The Contacts Between ‘En Besor Oasis, southern Canaan, and Egypt,” 392. 10 R. Gophna, “First Preliminary Report: Excavations at ‘En Besor, Atiqot 11 (1976): 1-9. 11 R. Gophna, “Tel ‘En Besor Excavations in Retrospect,” Excavations at ‘En Besor, Jerusalem: Ramot Publishing House: 13-15. 12 R. Gophna, “The Contacts Between ‘En Besor Oasis,” 385-394.

74

The ‘En Besor Seal and Seal Impressions

75

Cylinder Seal Glyptic in Predynastic Egypt and Neighboring Regions using local clays.17 In his discussion of the seal impressions, Schulman states that they were most likely used to seal bags of grain and not jars, though Schulman offers no detailed description of the reverse side of the mud seals found at ‘En Besor. However, reconstruction provided by van den Brink reconstructs the practical use of the ‘En Besor seal impressions (see fig. 33b) as jar seals.18 The initial dating of Stratum III, which was partially disturbed by historic Bedouin burials, was at first based on the glyptic evidence, which during the 1970s was thought not to date before Dynasty 0. Schulman’s analysis and dating of the ‘En Besor cylinder seals placed them in the second half of the 1st Dynasty, based largely on his identifications of royal names.19 However, it was not long before he was called upon to defend his analysis from criticism both on epigraphic and archaeological grounds.20 Gophna’s reexamination of the artifacts found in association with the clay seal impressions, namely Egyptian-style pottery, placed the Stratum III date much closer to the end of Dynasty 0 or the beginning of the 1st Dynasty.21

Although the controversy over the dating of the stratum containing the cylinder seal impressions is largely settled, scholars have not yet considered stylistic relations between the Abydos and ‘En Besor seal impressions due to the recent discovery of the Abydos material. The secure dating of the material found at both these sites, one a cemetery of early Egyptian rulers and the other an Egyptian trading outpost, permits us now to talk of a continuous Predynastic development of Egyptian glyptic style used on cylinder seals, something unimaginable only a decade ago. Tracing this development can provide clues to the dating of other Predynastic monuments found outside datable contexts, laying the foundations for a discussion of the continuous development of Egyptian art from the early Predynastic to the Dynastic period. In making this comparison, we must keep in mind the very different social contexts in which these two sets of seal impressions were discovered, i.e. one set in royal or elite tombs at Abydos and the other set in an administrative outpost on the outermost border of the Egyptian sphere of influence. Additionally, the ‘En Besor seal impressions, used for securing Palestinian trade goods to be sent to Egypt or agricultural supplies shipped from Egypt, were employed for considerably humbler tasks than those sealing wine vessels or other goods intended for elite or royal use in the afterlife, as was the case at Abydos. Therefore, while we might expect an absence of the elite iconography employed for cylinder seals used in a royal or elite tomb, we expect there to be some stylistic and compositional similarities in the figural representations.

17 E.C.M. van den Brink, “The ‘En Besor Seal Impressions in Retrospect,” 204. 18 For the purposes of this discussion we accept van den Brink’s reconstruction of jar sealings. The study of what can be determined by the “other” side of sealings has continued in new and informative directions, though most vigorously in Mesopotamian cylinder seal studies. See P. Ferioli and E. Fiandra, “Archive Techniques and methods at Arslantepe.” 149-161. 19 Schulman published his drawing and analysis of the ‘En Besor material in three articles. See A. Schulman, “The Egyptian Seal Impressions from ‘En Besor,” 16-26; A. Schulman, “More Egyptian Seal Impressions from ‘En Besor,” 17-33; and A. Schulman, “Still More Egyptian Seal Impressions from ‘En Besor,” 395-417. 20 See W. Helck, “Einige Betrachtungen zu den Frühesten Beziehungen zwischen Ägypten und Vorderrasien,” Ugarit Forschungen 11(1979): 357-363; S. Mittman, “Frühägyptische Siegelinschriften und ein srx-Emblem des Horus aHA aus dem Nördlichen Negeb,” Eretz ‘Israel, Vol. 15 (1981): 1-9.; and J.F. Quack, “Die Daterung der Siegelabdruecke von Tel ‘En Besor,” Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereinss 105 (1989): 18-26. Much of the discussion in these articles centers not on the seal impressions themselves, but on a pot sherd bearing a small engraved serekh which Schulman attributed to King Den, fifth king of the 1st Dynasty. It was on the basis of this reading of the serekh’s owner that much of the dating of the seal impressions was founded. The identification of this symbol as an archaic serekh necessitates the complete reconstruction of the Horus falcon atop it. Other scholars are by no means persuaded that this symbol indeed contains the name Den. 21 See R. Gophna, “The Egyptian Pottery of ‘En Besor,” Tel Aviv, vol. 17 (1990): 144-162. See E.C.M. van den Brink, “The ‘En Besor Seal Impressions in Retrospect,” figs. 1 and 2, pp. 205-206 and Fig. 31a above for an example of a more recent drawing of the ‘En Besor seals. A complete reexamination of the seal impressions themselves in light of

If, as Hartung proposes, the ‘En Besor Egyptian administrative settlement postdates the ruler of Tomb U-j, it might be possible to find affinities with, and trace developments from, the Abydos seal impressions in the ‘En Besor cylinder seal and cylinder seal impressions. Influences from Mesopotamian sources will also be noted below in Chapter 5.

this new dating has been undertaken by E.C.M. van den Brink, but has not yet been published.

76

The ‘En Besor Seal and Seal Impressions

“Praising” Human Figure Group

‘En Besor Seal Impression Style Groups

This group, consisting of seven seal impressions, has in common the figure of a walking person. All human figures in this group share the characteristic of one or two upraised arms (see fig. 34). This could be described as an early representation of praise, as Williams has done with similar characters on seals and seal impressions found in Nubia.24 It is also similar to the determinative for words such as “be high,”

Despite the shortcomings of the drawings and interpretations published by Schulman, the purpose here is not to critique his interpretations of the Stratum III seal impressions. The hypothesis being explored is that these seal impressions “fill the gap” in the development between seal impressions of the late Predynastic that express a general idea or designation through the combination or juxtaposition of images and those of the Early Archaic period that express specific identity (i.e. the owner’s name) or location through actual writing. The line between image and written message has always been an extremely fine one in Egyptian visual representation. Some scholars would argue that it does not exist at all.22 Perhaps it is only during the late Predynastic that this integration first took place. This examination will therefore take two steps back from any direct epigraphic reading of the ‘En Besor material and evaluate it on stylistic and compositional grounds. For that reason, descriptions of individual seal impressions will not be given, except as their details relate directly to specific elements familiar in the Abydos material or in other Predynastic art. One very practical reason for this approach is the schematic published drawings of the ‘En Besor seal impressions. In this analysis, the confused orientation of some of the seals is noted or compensated for, as others have done (see note 27). Seals were selected for discussion from the published corpus only if enough of the seal impression is intact to allow for an accurate analysis of its composition and style. Twentyone of the seal impressions published by Schulman fit this description.23 This group of twenty-one seal impressions was divided into five stylistic groups.

“rejoice,” or “extol”  (A-28).25 As in the Abydos U-j seal containing a walking figure, the human appears as “master” of the composition or at least a framing element. This figure, whether or not carrying a symbol of authority or old age such as a staff, commands the other elements in the frame, seeming to herd them before him. Frequent elements in this group include triangles, slightly bent upright lines, and a variety of elliptical shapes. Also what appear to be enclosures are represented, but not of the hatched temple or niched doorway type that we have seen in the Egyptian and Nubian seals and seal impressions thus far.

Triangles, a common motif in the cylinder seal impressions from Abydos dating back to the Naqada IId period, continue to serve as a key element in the Tomb U-j seal impressions as well. The prominent use of triangles in examples 32c and 32d from ‘En Besor is further confirmation of the Egyptian character of these seal impressions. Schulman has interpreted the slightly bent upright line elements as upright cobras and marsh reeds, depending on their context. Neither explanation is satisfying given the lack of such representations of cobras and reeds elsewhere in the Predynastic/Early Dynastic Egyptian corpus. However they quite possibly represent staffs of authority, given that a staff is a common accessory for walking figures of this type in the seals from Nubia and in the seal impression from Abydos. Little can be said about the smaller elliptical elements except that filler signs abound in the U-j material, particularly where animal figures are also present (see figs. 16a, b and d).

22 See H.G. Fischer, “Redundant Determinatives in the Old Kingdom,” Metropolitan Museum Journal Vol. 1-11 (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1977): 73. Fischer notes that during the Old Kingdom if an image of a person was present near the writing of a person’s name, the determinative was not written because the image served this function of writing. 23 All of these impressions came from Schulman’s first two publications on ‘En Besor. The third set of seal impressions published in 1992 proved too small and fragmentary to fit the selection criteria. See Schulman, “The Egyptian Seal Impressions from ‘En Besor,” 16-26; “More Egyptian Seal Impressions from ‘En Besor,” 17-33. The number system used by Schulman has been preserved for ease of reference to the original publications.

24 B. Williams, The A-Group Royal Cemetery at Qustul, 158. 25 A. Gardiner, Egyptian Grammar, 445.

77

Cylinder Seal Glyptic in Predynastic Egypt and Neighboring Regions

as an early Egyptian monarch represented as a lion. Dreyer has proposed that Predynastic monuments such as the “Cities Palette” and signs carved on the Min Colossus provide a Predynastic “king list” of which King “Lion” may be one example. While his attempt to formulate a king list in conjunction with a sequence of high prestige graves at Abydos is interesting, there is still too little evidence provided by the graves or from the known inscriptional material themselves to correlate this reading of the material. Also, in potmarks from this period, inverted ka arms of this crude type are frequently found (see fig. 38a-d).29 This is not to say that all of Schulman’s readings of ka arms are valid. More detailed reconstructions of the some of the images provided by the ‘En Besor seal impressions would be welcome in determining the differences that obviously exist.

Birds with Wave Border Group This group of cylinder seals (see fig. 35) appears to meld two different influences: 1) the traditional animal rows group, and 2) a decorative wave border element that can be found on seal impressions from Mesopotamia. The “wave” border containing decorative elements is a common feature in seals from Mesopotamia’s preliterate period ca. 3580-3480 BC (see fig. 36). In the best example from this group (see fig. 35a) in addition to the wave borders there again is the triangle element. The other two examples in this group are of such poor quality that it is difficult to say more than that they appear to have an example of this wave element in their composition.

Inverted “Ka” Arms Group There are no representations of “ka arms” in the Naqada IId or Naqada IIIa seal impressions from Abydos. However, there is a pair of “ka arms” depicted above a walking human figure in the Sarras West Seal found in Lower Nubia (see fig. 27b).30 When compared to Figures 37a 31 and 37d there appears to be a traceable continuity between the walking figure depicted with animal rows at Abydos (fig. 16d) and these representations from ‘En Besor. In figure 37a, the presence of groups of two and three triangles in addition to the “ka arms” and walking figure, provides a link between the earlier style in Naqada IIIa at Abydos and the one developed during Naqada IIIb or Dynasty 0. Also note that the human figures included in this group have arms and hands down to their sides, not raised in a gesture of salute or praise.

Since their discovery, what have been identified as inverted ka arms have been a major persuader in the argument that the seals from ‘En Besor can be read in the same way that early Dynastic seals are read (see fig. 37).26 Now some scholars are raising questions as to whether these signs should be read as ka arms at all.27 The peculiar threeand four-fingered representations seem to indicate that Egyptian artisans of this period did not have the skill to render a human hand realistically, when this demonstrably was not the case. The exquisite obsidian bowl modeled like two cupped hands found in Tomb U-j demonstrates this point amply.28 However, in the absence of any plausible alternative to reading these signs as ka arms, and since there are numerous examples of signs of this type in the early Dynastic seal impressions found by Petrie at Abydos, here they are accepted as such (see fig. 38e-g). In addition to seal impressions from Abydos, this three- and four- fingered representation of ka arms can be found in the “Cities Palette” as the name or designation of the bottom right fortified city being conquered by what Dreyer now describes

The other “ka arms” represented in this group seem to use the ka sign as a repeating decorative element, not without meaning, but perhaps without spelling a specific title as Schulman has suggested. The semi-circular shapes that Schulman reads as inverted nb baskets could just as easily be the filler/decorative elements that 29 E.C.M. van den Brink, “Corpus and Numerical Evaluation of the ‘Thinite’ Potmarks,” The Follwers of Horus. eds. Renee Freidman and Barbara Adams (Oxford: Oxbox Books, 1992) 90-94. These potmarks are most frequently associated with an hypothesized King “Ka” or “Sechen” associated with Tomb B 7 at Abydos. See J. Kahl, Das System der ägyptischen Hieroglyphenschrift, 173-176. 30 B. Williams, The A-Group Royal Cemtery at Qustul, 168. 31 The seal impression has been reoriented following van den Brink’s publication of a more detailed rendering of the sealing, which indicates that the original published by Schulman was upside down. E.C.M. van den Brink, “The ‘En Besor Cylinder Seal Impressions in Retrospect,” 206, fig. 2. See fig. 31.

26 When Schulman goes beyond reading the sign simply as “ka,” he usually reads this sign as part of the title Hm kA or “mortuary priest” followed by a name of an official. See A. Schulman, “More Seal Impressions from ‘En Besor,” 27. 27 W. Helck has suggested that this sign might be a cloth with fringe, again associating it with the commodities representations typical of trading post seal of the Mesopotamian variety. See W. Helck, “Untersuchungen zur Thinitenzeit,” Ägyptologische Abhandlungen 45 (1987), 141. Kahl offers the possibility that the sign might be read “to embrace.” J. Kahl, Das System der ägyptischen Hieroglyphenschrift, 38-40. 28 G. Dreyer, Umm el Qa’ab I, ab. 238.

78

The ‘En Besor Seal and Seal Impressions

have appeared in cylinder seal impressions since the Naqada IId period.

originally to the Naqada IIIa2 to IIIb-c period. The seal became an heirloom or, more likely, a rediscovered artifact that was re-carved and personalized at a later date. Such reuse is not without precedent. Other examples of Predynastic objects reused include two fragments of a slate palette one in the Brooklyn Museum and the other in the Egyptian Museum in Cairo. The Brooklyn fragment has an inscription of late 18th Dynasty Queen Tiye, chief wife of Amenhotep III, on one side and the figure of a Predynastic man in a penis sheath on the other.34

An interesting stylistic parallel to the seal impressions in this group and in the Praising Figures Group is in the collection of the British Museum and was most recently published by Fischer (see fig 28a).32 The steatite seal, which measures 7.5 cm long, is partially inscribed for an official of Pepy I. However, it bears a taller inscription, very much in the style of the ‘En Besor material (see figs. 34f and 37d) particularly in the rendering of the human figures bearing staves, throw sticks and walking sticks. While Fischer hypothesized that the 6th Dynasty Pepy section of the seal might have been cut into an older seal, he did not compare the original carving to archaic glyptic. Additionally these human figures resemble a figure in one of the Tomb U-j seal impressions (see fig. 16d). Fischer argues that this portion of the seal belongs in a group of seals owned by lower class individuals of the late Old Kingdom. However, this seal does not meet his criterion with regard to use of the tête-bêche motif for this group of seals, and is more similar to the ‘En Besor seal impressions. Heraldic and balanced compositions were definitely in use in Egypt’s Predynastic period.33 The similarities between this seal, the ‘En Besor material and the early Archaic seals (such as ones Petrie discovered in the tomb of King Djet of the First Dynasty, fig. 28b-c) indicate a bridge between the ‘En Besor style and those employed very early in the Dynastic period. The height of this seal and the pairs of figures arranged in a vertical composition might indicate that the central decoration of the seal was essentially complete and that the remainder of the seal was to be carved with an elaborate decorative border such as the ones employed on the U-j seals (fig. 16). But, as it was never completed or was recut when it was reused in Dynasty 6, this is speculation.

Birds with Throw Sticks Group The seal impressions in this group, two of which might indeed have been made by the same seal, depict one or more birds walking atop a row of lines that are slightly bent at the top (fig. 39). Schulman has interpreted these lines as marsh reeds,35 but they might also be representations of throw sticks. These weapons are common in the Naqada IId and the Naqada IIIa/Tomb U-j seal impressions from Abydos in association with animal rows (figs. 16b and d). Additionally, the throw stick as a weapon was commonly associated with foreign lands, in particular Tjehenu or Libya, as on the lowest register on the reverse side of the “Cities Palette.”36 In a very general way, the bent staff or throw stick recalls the design on the cylinder seal found near the Ikkur fortifications in Upper Nubia (fig. 29b). Though in that design the bent staff elements overlap to create a hatched design. It is also possible that this seal and the one collected across the Nile at Koshtamna were both influenced by the chevron-patterned diagonal lines that are common in some of the temple enclosure seals, such as the one discovered at Matmar (see fig. 26b). The oblique signs near the bird’s heads and chests in the seal impressions from ‘En Besor might suggest a serpent or fish caught in the

Based on the style of the seal’s design as well as the material from which it is made and the fact that the older decoration fills the length of the seal, it is entirely possible that the piece dates

34 W. Needler, Predynastic and Archaic Egypt in the Brooklyn Museum, 332-334. 35 A. Schulman, “The Egyptian Seal Impressions from ‘En Besor,” 18-19. 36 K. Sethe, “Zur Erklärung einiger Denkmäler aus der Frühzeit der ägyptischen Kultur,” ZÄS 52 (1915): 55-60. Sethe reads this throwstick and the rounded sign below it together as tA THnw or “ land of Libya.” Scholars have often interpreted the palette as a monument commemorating a successful campaign against the Libyans. It is possible, given the context and the find spot of these seal impressions that the throw stick and its associations with desert hunting could have had a more general meaning for the Egyptians in the late Predynastic.

32 H.G. Fischer, “Old Kingdom Cylinder Seals for the Lower Classes,” Ancient Egypt in the Metropolitan Museum Journal. Vols. 1-11. (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1977), 53, fig. 6. Thanks to Dr. Stephen P. Harvey, for pointing out this example. 33 This is well demonstrated on better-known Predynastic monuments such as the Gebel el-Arak Knife Handle, the Dog Palette, the Cities Palette, the Lion Palette and the famous Narmer Palette, where pairs of animals ranging from dogs to giraffes to serpopards, as well as humans, balance a composition.

79

Cylinder Seal Glyptic in Predynastic Egypt and Neighboring Regions

bird’s beak. Not only are lines of long-legged wading birds common in Predynastic art, but the image of a bird holding a snake or fish in its beak has also been attested; both the Davis Comb and the bossed side of the Brooklyn Knife Handle (fig. 8) have images of this kind. Other monuments such as the Carnarvon Knife Handle (fig. 10), the Pitt-Rivers Handle, and the Manchester Palette contain rows of wading birds, though the lead bird does not in all cases have a serpent or fish in its beak.37

The second seal impression in this group (see fig. 40b) is both faint and incomplete. However, it might suggest a fence line that often accompanies shrine representations during the late Predynastic and early Dynastic periods. The faint plant-like impression to the right of the “fence” is reminiscent of the plant that Williams identified outside of the shrine engraved on the Qustul Incense Burner (fig. 31) and on the cylinder seal depicting a shrine and fish bought on the art market (see fig. 26e). Plants representations of this type are also found on some Early Dynastic cylinder seals found at Abydos. This seal impression with its plant representation, bears some striking similarities to Early Dynastic potmarks also found at Abydos, which contain representations of a shrine with a plant inside it and a fence bordering one side (fig. 41). These could indeed be some of the first images of a swt plant standing in as a representation of Upper Egyptian authority.

Building or Architectural Structures Group Though alternately fragmentary and faint the impressions placed in this group appear to denote different types of buildings or accompanying structures (see fig. 40). The first of these was identified by Schulman as a seal with an early representation of a shrine.38 The hatched design of this type of shrine is common on both late Predynastic and Early Dynastic cylinder seals. This hatched design also appears in the Naqada IId cylinder seal impressions from Tomb U-127 (fig. 5a), which also contained figures of fish that Hartung has identified as offerings placed before a shrine or temple enclosure. Unfortunately, the fragmentary state of preservation on this seal does not permit a more detailed analysis. The small signs floating to the right and above the hatched shrine design more closely resemble the flags that would have flown in front of the shrine than they do the mr-hoe sign (Gardiner U-6)39 which was suggested by Schulman.40 These flags frequently occur as early as the Naqada II painted pottery representations of flags flying below ship standards, when the flags are usually denoted by two lines extending down from a center pole. Although sometimes the ends of these two lines meet to form a triangle, often they do not. This type of flag representation is also represented on a seal depicting a shrine purchased on the art market (fig. 26e). Both the ‘En Besor seal and the art market seal probably belong in the same fish and temple enclosure group as the seal impression found in Tomb U127.

The ‘En Besor Seal The cylinder seal found in ‘En Besor’s Stratum III, the only actual seal found at the site, is made of black steatite (fig. 42). It is perforated slightly off center and was drilled through from both ends.41 The seal design is bordered on top and bottom by a wave design enclosed between two lines. The scene contains a type of building structure composed of an M-shaped base and topped by two sickle-shaped curving lines. Behind this is a caprid with two round shapes hovering over its back. Following the animal is a human figure with one arm raised perhaps in a gesture of praise. Behind him is a stick-like object rooted in another round blob and ending at the top in shape that resembles a flame or the head of a flower. The schematic connect-the-dots representation of the human figure is very much like the “birdheaded” human figures found in Jemdet Nasr cylinder seals. Additionally, this type of human representation also is found in Upper Egypt in

37 For representations of all these Predynastic monuments the reader is referred to R.T. Ridley, The Unification of Egypt As Seen Through a Study of the Major Knife-Handles, Palettes and Maceheads, Deception Bay, 1973. 38 A. Schulman, “The Egyptian Seal Impressions from ‘En Besor,”18. 39 A. Gardiner, Egyptian Grammar, 516. 40 Ibid.

41 A. Ben-Tor, “A Cylinder Seal from ‘En Besor,” 13-15. Ben-Tor compares this seal with one discovered at the Tel Brak site also in southern Palestine. He concludes that it and the Tel Brak seal are poorly executed copies of seals from Mesopotamia or Jemdet Nasr.

80

The ‘En Besor Seal and Seal Impressions

the human figures in the Hierakonpolis Tomb 100 painting. Naturally, both of these representations could have been influenced by the style of imported seals and seal impressions from Northern Syria.

of ‘En Besor is a strong indication of this shift from dual-access trading during the occupation of Site H at the oasis in the Naqada IIb period and the complete Egyptian colonization and control at the ‘En Besor tell site generations later in the Naqada IIIb-c period.

Nonetheless, the building structure bears some resemblance to the shrines depicted on two Egyptian seals purchased on the art market (fig. 26d-e) even the multi-layered, sickle-shaped roofs. The caprid with round elements hovering over its back can be found in the Abydos Tomb U-134 Animal Rows Group seal impression. As noted in the discussion of that design, these sorts of fill elements were common in Mesopotamian style seals. While less naturalistically portrayed, the human figure with arm raised in praise or submission is also common in the ‘En Besor seal impressions. The decorative border places this seal at the earliest in the Naqada IIIa period, when this type of decorative border was in common use, as is illustrated by the Lower Nubian seal designs. The archaeological context in which this seal and the other seal impressions were discovered indicates that it probably dates to the Naqada IIIb or Dynasty 0 period.

The ‘En Besor seal impressions, however poorly preserved, provide a set of images that show influences deeply rooted in the Egyptian Predynastic period through the similarities they share with the Tomb U-j seal impressions from Abydos. The ‘En Besor seals share busy compositions with numerous filler elements with the Abydene material. Though from a completely different cultural context, the Nubian seals and seal impressions share the scattered representations of ideograms such as “ka arms” and human figures representing a controlling or ruling element in the seal compositions with the ‘En Besor seal impressions. Additionally, there is evidence for strong influences from Northern Syrian glyptic, particularly in the imagery of the ‘En Besor seal and in a few of the decorative elements, such as wave borders in the seal impressions.43 The style in this area indeed shows a stronger Mesopotamian influence than the seal impressions discovered in Upper Egypt and Lower Nubia. This is not surprising, given that the southern Palestinians served as middlemen in much of the overland long distance trade between Egypt and Mesopotamia’s colonies. However strong the foreign stylistic influences may have been at ‘En Besor and other Egyptiancontrolled trading outposts in the northern Negev, the message expressed in these seal impressions appears to have been Egyptian in style and meaning. Here, the iconography of the seals communicates both locality in the use of signs such as throw sticks and temple enclosures and fealty to the increasingly centralized government through figures of humans in the act of praising and herding. These human figures are in the act of managing the elements of chaos on behalf of the king for whom this administrative outpost was transporting goods south. Just as Egyptians living in this colony imitated Palestinian pottery styles while still using Egyptian pottery methods, so too did they imitate foreign seal styles, but imbued them with Egyptian religious and political ideology.

Contacts and Colonization Settlement archaeology in southern Palestine has answered many of the questions concerning the relationship between Palestinians and Egyptians during the late Predynastic. Co-habitation and close trade relations between the Lower Egyptian Maadi/Buto cultures and the southern Palestinians have been well established throughout the late Chalcolithic and early Naqada periods. Perhaps because of these close ties, borders were not recognized between the Nile Delta and the northern Negev when Upper Egyptian culture spread to Lower Egypt. Through well-established long distance trade contacts, Upper Egyptians knew the valued trade goods came from the north. However, the drive toward consolidated, centralized power would not permit the co-habitation and dual-access trade relationships that had existed previously and had in any case collapsed with the cultural unification of Egypt.42 Subsequent colonization 42 Watrin, “The Relationship between the Nile Delta and Palestine,” 220. G. Algaze, “Expansionary Dynamics of Some Early Pristine States,” American Anthropologist 95 (1993): 324. Algaze argues that imperial expansion and exploitation of less advanced cultures on the periphery go hand in hand with early state formation. Under his model dual access trading would not guarantee the absolute control over prestige trade goods necessary to maintain the reality of an Upper Egyptian ruling class.

43 A. Ben-Tor, “A Cylinder Seal from ‘En Besor,” 13-15

81

Cylinder Seal Glyptic in Predynastic Egypt and Neighboring Regions

Several models from Mesopotamian cylinder seal studies applied to the Egyptian material provide ways of understanding how cylinder seals were used in long distance trade relations between central, but essentially non-consolidated core cultures and peripheral settlements. They also show the mechanism for how cylinder seal imagery was transferred and adapted from southern Mesopotamia to Egypt in the Naqada IIb period. Semiotic studies of Mesopotamian seal imagery can also provide some clues as to how to “read” the symbolic and iconographic imagery of cylinder seal impressions. Mesopotamian cylinder seal studies can also provide models for gauging the adoption and adaptation of style by cultures on the periphery of an increasingly powerful core culture.

82

The ‘En Besor Seal and Seal Impressions

83

Cylinder Seal Glyptic in Predynastic Egypt and Neighboring Regions

84

The ‘En Besor Seal and Seal Impressions

85

Cylinder Seal Glyptic in Predynastic Egypt and Neighboring Regions

86

The ‘En Besor Seal and Seal Impressions

87

Cylinder Seal Glyptic in Predynastic Egypt and Neighboring Regions

88

The ‘En Besor Seal and Seal Impressions

89

Cylinder Seal Glyptic in Predynastic Egypt and Neighboring Regions

90

The ‘En Besor Seal and Seal Impressions

91

Cylinder Seal Glyptic in Predynastic Egypt and Neighboring Regions

92

The ‘En Besor Seal and Seal Impressions

93

5

MESOPOTAMIAN PARALLELS FOR SEAL USE AND DEVELOPMENT

A growing body of evidence from sites such as Abydos, Buto and Naqada indicates trade contact with the cultures of southern Mesopotamia introduced the practice of sealing to the Egyptians at least as early as the Naqada IIc-d period.1 Moreover it suggests that this practice was rapidly adopted into the developing Egyptian political system as a means of controlling trade with other cultures, goods at home and as a propagandistic tool of Upper Egyptian hegemony.

A discussion of the contemporary development of Mesopotamian glyptic is fruitful in terms of providing comparison methodologies for stylistic analysis and seal use. Now that an extended period of development and use of Egyptian cylinder seal imagery is attested through the Abydos Cemetery U seal impressions, we can look to the longer established study of Mesopotamian cylinder seals for insight into the structure of the societies that used cylinder seals, the part seals played in these societies and the meaning of the signing systems employed in seal imagery, among other features. Additionally, Mesopotamian seal style and sealing practice needs to be examined in terms of its influence, whether direct or indirect, on Egyptian seal style and sealing practice.

The imagery of the earliest examples of Egyptian seal impressions has strong affinities with the glyptic art of Southern Mesopotamia just as Predynastic art works like monumental slate palettes, maceheads and carved ivories have. Stylistic comparisons of these works with different phases of the art of proto-literate Mesopotamia have provided evidence of contacts between these two cultures. However, uncertainty remains as to when this contact was first made or how direct its influences were. Recently excavated and securely dated Egyptian material indicates that Egypt was developing along parallel lines with Mesopotamia in the areas of art, writing and administration. Within this framework, it is now possible to trace the development of a uniquely Egyptian glyptic style from its beginnings as an art form and technology borrowed from Mesopotamia to an iconographic tool of the emerging Egyptian state. This evolving Egyptian glyptic style, ranges from the Naqada IId period to the dawn of the Dynastic age (ca. 3480-3100 BC).

The first model deals with the relationship between the core culture based at Uruk in southern Mesopotamia that controlled trading during Mesopotamia’s proto-literate period or Uruk Level IVA (ca. 3000 BC or LC 5 period).2 Guillermo Algaze argues that both early Mesopotamia and Predynastic Egypt underwent periods of colonial expansion during their process of internal state formation.3 Both these early states employed cylinder seals as a means of controlling trade that supported their core cultures.4 These trading posts were colonial in character, exploiting neighboring cultures that were not as technologically advanced and less politically organized. Algaze argues that both these long distance trading systems underwent a collapse

1 R. Di Maria, “Rediscovering Naqada: The Sealing Evidence,” paper presented to the Eighth International Congress of Egyptologists (Cairo, 2000); F. Förster, personal communication, April 2000; U. Hartung, “Zur Entwicklung des Handels,” 47. Di Maria’s evidence suggests that the Naqada settlement contained an intake/storage area for sealed goods originating in Southern Mesopotamia in the Naqada IIc/d period.

2 M. Rothman, “The Local and the Regional,” 7. 3 G. Algaze “Expansionary Dynamics,” 304-333. 4 In Upper Egypt’s case, these competing polities would have been centered at Abydos or This, Naqada and Hierakonpolis, although there are indications that Abydos or This was the first to consolidate power in Lower Egypt. T. Wilkinson, Early Dynastic Egypt, 36-41.

95

Cylinder Seal Glyptic in Predynastic Egypt and Neighboring Regions empire in 1069 BC and beyond.10 Aside from Egyptian politico-religious propaganda, a variety of economic relationships ranging from equal access trade to outright colonization has been attested in the archaeological records of southern Palestine and Lower Nubia in the late Predynastic to Early Dynastic periods in Egypt. Clearly Egyptians desired the raw minerals, metals and agricultural products that could be attained through contact with these neighboring cultures and employed more than one method of obtaining them, depending largely on the strength of its political position during any given period.

immediately before their dynastic periods were established.5 Algaze’s model of expansionary early states has come under criticism by anthropologists who study Uruk Mesopotamia’s “peripheral” cultures and who argue that considerable cultural complexity existed in these outlying areas before the Uruk expansion. Algaze’s model has also been critiqued for what some scholars see as its uncritical application of a system designed to describe 19th century industrial imperialism to preindustrial, precapitalistic societies. Instead they argue that elites of Uruk Mesopotamia were unable to exert the level of control in peripheral sites implied by Algaze’s application of the world systems model.6

In Mesopotamia following the founding of the relatively more stable and consolidated dynastic systems, cylinder seal glyptic becomes both constricted stylistically and closely tied to the culture’s writing system.11 Because Egypt’s writing system never lost its pictographic and representational elements, unlike Sumerian writing, Egyptian cylinder seal glyptic retained its intimate interaction with writing. The two never became disassociated, as was the case in Mesopotamia.12 However, Egyptian cylinder seal glyptic also became standardized, as can be attested by the many funerary offering scenes found on private First and Second Dynasty cylinder seals (see fig. 43).

Certainly the vast inequalities between the technology and resources of industrialized European nations and 19th century Africa of Wallerstein’s original world system theory are not direct analogs to protoliterate Mesopotamia and northern Syria in the Late Chalcolithic, as Algaze’s critics point out. However, the difference between the two cases is more a question of degree than kind. Full capitalist systems are not required for one cultural group to exploit the natural resources of neighboring groups of lesser population and political organization. The application of Algaze’s model in some cases appears overly simplistic in its description of Uruk’s neighboring cultures as pliant hinterlands lacking technical and social organization compared to Mesopotamia’s nascent city-states.7 More recent research at sites peripheral to Uruk Mesopotamia has emphasized variations in the cultural relations that existed between southern Mesopotamians and peripheral groups.8 Clearly “economic imperialism” does not accurately describe all of these cases, but it does appear to apply to some of them.9

Issues of Mesopotamian Influence As many scholars have pointed out, the cylinder seals of Uruk and Susa during the late Uruk period share many stylistic analogies with the motifs present on Predynastic Egyptian works.13 Comparisons have been made between Egyptian and Mesopotamian renditions of the “master of animals” motif, the rendering the musculature of humans and animals and the introduction of niched architecture to artistic representations of niched palace facades on various works of art from this period.14 Aside from individual motifs or stylistic renditions, it has often

In the case of Egypt, the exploitation of the people and resources of Lower Nubia and Southern Palestine, both actual and propagandistic, is well and repeatedly attested from the country’s earliest historical monuments to the disintegration of Egypt’s

10 Pharaoh subduing foreigners of all descriptions is one of the most enduring motifs in Egyptian royal art. Its use continues well after Egypt’s political power had waned beyond the point its rulers could have carried out the domination implied by their artistic representations. 11 H. Pittman, “Towards an Understanding of the Role of Glyptic Imagery,” 192. Pittman makes the point that after governmental consolidation in the Dynastic period, the scenes employed on cylinder seals become considerably less varied. 12 Ibid., 191. Pittman characterizes cylinder seal glyptic of southern Mesopotamia’s Early Dynastic Period as being dominated by the “undifferentiated and illegible theme of animal combat.” 13 R. Boehmer, “Gebel-el-Arak und Gebel-el-Tarif-Griff,” 54-55; H. Kantor, “Further Evidence for Early Mesopotamina Relations,” 247 and H.S. Smith, “The Making of Egypt,” 235. 14 H. Pittman, “Constructing Context,” 15-17 and T. von der Way, “Investigations Concerning the Pre- and Early Dynastic Periods in the Northern Delta,” 55-56.

5 G. Algaze, “Expansionary Dynamics,” 325. 6 M. Rothman, “The Local and the Regional,” 17-22. 7 See G.J. Stein, “Indigeous Social Complexity at Hacenibi (Turkey) and the Organization of Uruk Colonial Contact,” Uruk Mesopotamia and It’s Neighbors, ed. Mitchell Rothman, (Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research Press, 2001): 265-306. 8 See Marcella Frangipane, “Centralization Processes in Greater Mesopotamia: Uruk “Expansion” as the Climax of Systemic Interactions among Areas of the Greater Mesopotamian Region,” Uruk Mesopotamia and It’s Neighbors, ed. Mitchell Rothman (Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research Press, 2001): 316344. 9 See Gil Stein, “Indigenous Social Complexity at Hacenibi,” 293304.

96

Mesopotamian Parallels for Seal Use and Development

97

Cylinder Seal Glyptic in Predynastic Egypt and Neighboring Regions

been assumed that whole classes of compositions such as animal rows, religious processions and the presentation of bound prisoners were derived from Mesopotamian art.15 This idea persists despite native precursors to these compositions and ritual scenes in the representations on White Cross Line Ware pottery of Naqada I and later D Ware pottery of the Naqada II period (see fig. 44). That Egyptians were first introduced to Mesopotamian glyptic style through contact with objects deriving from the Mesopotamian cultures of Elam and Uruk is well established. What still remains to be determined is when this contact was made and what its character was.

Expansion” in Northern Syria to funnel Mesopotamian finished goods and raw materials into Egypt. Mark states, “The distribution patterns of pottery, raw materials, cylinder seals and motifs indicate that a second route through northern Syria and then by sea to Egypt continued in use and was greatly expanded with the appearance of the colonies in Northern Syria.”17 This concurs with Prag’s analysis, which notes that a boat journey from Naqada in Upper Egypt to the eastern Delta is a journey of 800 kilometers, while a boat journey from the eastern Delta to Byblos is about 450 kilometers.18 The direct Byblos to Egypt connection suggested by Prag has itself come under criticism by scholars contending that there is little to no artifactual evidence of such a direct connection between the two regions in the Predynastic.19 Mark proposes that the increased Egyptian presence in the Sinai and sites like ‘En Besor, Tel Erani and Azor in southern Palestine were the result of increasingly controlled trade with Palestine, particularly to secure copper sources. Another reason for this expansion may have been to control trade with northern Syria.20 In this scenario, Lower Egyptian sites such as Buto play a large role as intermediaries. Evidence at Buto of niched architecture decorated with ceramic cones like those used in Mesopotamian buildings during the Uruk Level IV period implies that contact with Mesopotamia was more than ephemeral.21 We might infer from this and from the evidence of Predynastic Egyptian monuments already mentioned that Egyptians may have been exposed to seals and seal impressions deriving from Mesopotamian trading colonies. However, direct evidence of Mesopotamian seals and seal impressions has yet to be demonstrated in the Egyptian archaeological record. Tessier, in her detailed study of the glyptic evidence connecting Iran, Syro-Palestine and Egypt during this period, notes that all the Egyptian parallels with Mesopotamian and Syro-Palestinian iconography reflect the elaborate and modeled style of Mesopotamian cylinder seals.22 She also concludes that Palestine was receiving exposure to these same motifs through the same means as Egypt, by trading with Uruk colonies in Northern Syria. The adoption in Palestine of certain

The route through which these goods were imported remains a point of contention. Traditionally, it has been held that southern Mesopotamians traded with Egypt by sailing down the Persian Gulf around what is now modern day Saudi Arabia and up the Red Sea, entering Upper Egypt through the Wadi Hammamat (see fig. 45). This theory accounted for the higher concentration of Mesopotamian-influenced iconography in Upper Egypt as opposed to other regions of the country. Recently Dreyer added some support to this position when his expedition to Abydos discovered B-Ware pottery sherds with markings that resemble proto-Elamite script incised on them.16 More recently, competing theories have emerged suggesting that the Egyptians were receiving trade goods and iconography through a variety of trade routes. These mechanisms include indirect trade through Palestinian middlemen and direct trade by means of sea routes to Northern Syria and the Uruk trading colonies established there. Mark has proposed that the Egyptians were involved in the sea trade by early Naqada II and that the cultural expansion of Upper Egyptians in the Naqada IIc-d period encouraged an intensification of this comparatively quick and easy means of transporting goods. This theory dovetails with the “Uruk 15 H.S. Smith, “The Making of Egypt,” 235. The contention of Smith’s article is that the entire Predynastic Egyptian repertoire including the royal hunt, domination over animals, domination over enemies, ritual sacrifice and boat processions was the result, not of trade, but of “an important cultural interplay; and that in this interplay Sumer, espeically Susa must be inferred to have priority.” Smith does not specify the character of this interplay, but if by his own definition it is more direct than trade, one must assume he means a form of colonization or warfare. 16 G. Dreyer, Umm el-Qaab I, 181. Dreyer adds that this find supports observations made by Boehmer that certain Predynastic monuments such as the Gebel el-Arak Knife Handle, which bear such close affinities with Mesopotamian seals, could have been made by an Elamite craftsman living in Egypt. While suggestive, this evidence does not prove that the Uruk expansion extended into Egypt proper. While these pottery fragments were securely dated to the Naqada IIc period on typological grounds, they were also surface finds, so precisely when they were incised is by no means certain.

17 S. Mark, From Egypt to Mesopotamia, 125. 18 K. Prag, “Byblos and Egypt in the Fourth Millennium BC,” 5974. 19 G.M. Schwartz, “Syria and the Uruk Expansion,” Uruk Mesopotamia and It’s Neighbors, ed. Mitchell Rothman, (Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research Press, 2001): 264, 20 S. Mark, From Egypt to Mesopotamia, 126. 21 It is rare that architectural styles are exported. Some archaeologists insist that this type of cultural transfer could never have happened unless some Mesopotamians had for a time settled in Egypt. At the same time niched and buttressed architecture as a practical means of supporting the joins of internal walls isn’t exactly a great architectural leap that could have developed only in a single location. 22 Beatrice Tessier, “Glyptic Evidence for a Connection Between Iran, Syro-Palestine and Egypt in the Fourth and Third Millennia,” Iran 25 (1987):27-53.

98

Mesopotamian Parallels for Seal Use and Development

Mesopotamian motifs, which do not make the transfer to the Egyptian repertoire such as caprids with exaggerated, long horns, animals with three pronged tails and humans with three pronged hands, bears out this observation.23 It also indicates that both the Egyptians and the Palestinians were selective in the images they chose to adopt from the Mesopotamian glyptic to which they were exposed. 24 The evidence indicates that this selectivity was due in part to the indirectness of the contact with Mesopotamia and in large part to the fact that Egyptians had already developed their own complex repertoire of scenes, images and emblems. They adopted Mesopotamian iconography that dovetailed with their own cultural constructs and could therefore bear an Egyptian message. However, the underlying function of cylinder seals remained unchanged: to control and protect trade goods within an administrative system. Additionally, we know from historic periods that the possession and use of a cylinder seal conferred upon its owner a particular social status.25 We might therefore infer that some aspects of this social dimension of seal carrying and use were present in the Predynastic. That purpose, though operating under the cultural norms of the society in which it is being employed, will continue to share some common attributes with other societies that use seals.

ideas as picture-writing and rectangular mud-brick construction reached Egypt, they developed rapidly along native lines.”30 Under this model the flowering of Egypt is exemplified by monuments such as the Narmer Palette, which has long stood as a crystallization of Mesopotamian influence, unification, and early writing in a single stroke of creation. Works such as the Hunter’s Palette have long been ascribed to a period preceding the Narmer Palette. According to this model, most of what we consider Predynastic Egyptian monuments including carved ivory knife handles, palettes, the Hierakonpolis Tomb 100 painting, and maceheads were created in a very short span of time during this swift consolidation process. That many of these objects were obtained through non-scientific exploration or outright looting has prevented an analysis that might clarify their internal or relative chronology. Art historians have repeatedly found themselves at a loss to account for the “sudden” transformations in iconography31 and have had difficulty explaining the apparent incongruity between the simple representations on Naqada II painted pottery and works of the technical and artistic sophistication of the Narmer Palette or the Gebel elArak Knife Handle. Elise Baumgartel, Bruce Williams and Thomas Logan have established some grounds for discussing the development of Predynastic Egyptian royal iconography, based both on the Naqada II material and the late Predynastic monuments.32 Recent work by Mesopotamian scholars has given Egyptologists cause to call into question long established assumptions of the Mesopotamian city-state’s chronological primacy in relation to the formation of the Egyptian state.33

Theories of Mesopotamians conquering Egypt have long been rejected. British archaeologist W.M. Flinders Petrie was one of the earliest to postulate an invasion of Egypt by peoples of the East via the Red Sea and the Wadi Hammamat. He identified these invaders as Elamites or simply “The Dynastic Race.” 26 According to Petrie, it was through contact and then conquest by this “Dynastic Race” that Egyptian culture was given the impetus to develop into a state level society with a writing system.27 Indigenous development of pharaonic society is now well established.28 However, it is still widely held that the Egyptians adopted their ideas of political organization, written language and state art from Mesopotamia and that the formation of the Egyptian state quickly followed this contact.29

New evidence of Egyptian seals and seal impressions allows reinterpretation of the transition from Predynastic to Dynastic art and the role of Mesopotamia as a stylistic and technological influence, as well as a possible model for trade networks.

Aldred suggested that a “broad-headed ruling caste” composed the population of Dynastic Egypt, dominating (if not replacing) the more narrow-headed indigenous population. He wrote that, “Once such 30 C. Aldred, Egyptian Art in the Days of the Pharaohs, (London: Thames and Hudson, 1980), 31 and 38 and H.S. Smith, “The Making of Egypt,” 235. 31 H. Kantor, “The Final Phase of Predynastic Culture: Gerzean or Semainean(?),” JNES 3, no. 2 (1944): 110-136. 32 E.J. Baumgartel, The Cultures of Prehistoric Egypt I, (London:University of Oxford Press, revised edition 1955); B. Williams, Decorated Pottery and the Art of Naqada III, (Berlin: Müncher Ägyptologische Studien, 1988); and Bruce Williams and Thomas J. Logan, “The Metropolitan Museum Knife Handle and Aspects of Pharaonic Imagery Before Narmer,” JNES 46, no. 4 (1987): 245-85. 33

23 B. Tessier, “Glyptic Evidence for a Connection,” 43-46, 49. These examples are motifs adopted into the Syro-Palestinian repertoire, however, again suggesting that a type of selection was occurring. 24 B. Tessier, “Glyptic Evidence for a Connection,” 49. 25 D. M. Doxey, Egyptian Non-Royal Epithets in the Middle Kingdom, (Leiden: Brill, 1998), 58. 26 W.M.F. Petrie, Prehistoric Egypt, 49-50. 27 Ibid. 28 E.J. Baumgartel, Predynastic Culture of Egypt, (London:Oxford University Press, 1947), 49-51. 29 H.S. Smith, “The Making of Egypt,” 245.

99

Cylinder Seal Glyptic in Predynastic Egypt and Neighboring Regions

three categories of information that scholars can examine in an effort to reconstruct these systems of administrative control.38 The first of these is identifying what precisely the sealing protected. For instance, it could seal the door to a storage room, a document or a sack of grain. Examination of the relationship of glyptic imagery to the types of objects and spaces sealed could provide some clues as to the meaning that particular seals had for their users. The second category of potential information derives from the provenience of a seal or seal impression, in particular, its archaeological context. For instance, if seals and seal impressions are discovered in proximity to a fabric or pottery manufacturing area, this can provide an extra dimension of information. The third and final category identified by Pittman is the seal design itself, its relation to other designs on seals and its relation more generally to the iconography of the culture in question.

Mesopotamian Influence on Egyptian Sealing Practices Egyptians were undergoing many competitive, expansionary cultural changes at about the same time as Uruk’s final “expansion.” This indicates that far from being passive recipients of “cultural ideas” from Mesopotamia, Upper Egyptian polities were engaged in spreading their own political/religious/economic agenda. A central element in this expansionary policy was the art of the elite. Another key element was the consumption and transformation of exotic trade goods from Egypt’s distant trading partners as well as “tribute” from the lands over which Egypt exercised immediate control or domination. Trade goods from Mesopotamia and the images they carried were doubly valuable to the Egyptian elite since possession and control of images from places far away was in itself a demonstration of power.34 From much later historic periods and records we know that distant places like Punt to the south and Syria to the north were considered the “God’s Land” where rare and exotic goods could be obtained for the pleasure of the king and the glorification of the gods.35

“Underlying any consideration of seal design in any period must be such questions as the place they occupy in the larger scheme of imagery in the considered culture. Some of the questions that lie behind any discussion of imagery are what are the symbolic meaning(s) of images, who controls imagery, how it is controlled, how images are generated, and why and when do they fall out of use.”39

Mesopotamian Uses of Cylinder Seal Glyptic The role that cylinder seals played in the maintenance and control of social systems during the Uruk period is a subject Near Eastern art historians continue to debate. While the “idea” for sealing came to Egypt from Mesopotamia, aspects that were borrowed from this system by Egyptians were adapted and developed along indigenous Egyptian lines. A good example of adaptation is the transfer of the sealing function from the cylinder to the scarab in the early Dynastic Period and Old Kingdom.36 However, examining the way in which semiotics37 has contributed to the study of cylinder seals in Uruk could provide a useful model through which to examine the evidence for Egyptian sealing practices and uses of imagery.

An established analysis of cylinder seal imagery is that different styles were meant to designate an individual seal owner. This interpretation arises from historic examples of seals in which the seal bearer is named on the seal itself. Pittman argues persuasively that a pictorial imaging system meant solely to designate individuals would soon become too unwieldy and would have required people within the system to memorize innumerable combinations of images to identify the seal’s owner. She also notes that in literate periods, personal names are conveyed through writing only, not through imagery.40

Ancient Near East cylinder seals and the seal impressions made from them were a part of an administrative system intended to control the flow of goods and the products of labor. Pittman defines

What is more likely, Pittman argues, is that the “typical scenes” on the seals in protoliterate periods

34 That the Egyptians understood the imported images of power and how to use them within the Egyptian sphere is clear from their use of the “master of animals” motif in the representations of both the Gebel el-Arak Knife handle and the Hierakonpolis Tomb 100 painting. 35 Louise Bradbury, “Reflections on traveling to “God’s Land” and Punt in the Middle Kingdom,” JARCE 25 (1988): 127-156 and J.H. Breasted, Ancient Records of Egypt, Vol. II (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1906), 106. 36See W.M. Flinders Petrie, Scarabs and Cylinders with Names (London: University College, 1917), 10-12; Pl. I-X. 37 The definition put forward by Eric Fernie is used for this study. See E. Fernie, Art History and Its Methods: A Critical Anthology, 359.

38 H. Pittman, “Towards an Understanding of the Role of Glyptic Imagery,” 180. 39 H. Pittman, “Response,” Archives Before Writing, ed. Piera Ferioli, Enrica Fiandra, Gian Giacomo Fissore and Marcella Frangipane, (Rome: Centro Internazionale di Ricerche Archeologiche Antropologiche e Storiche, 1994), 121. 40 In fact, Pittman makes the point that after the development of cuneiform script, seal ownership only becomes important in the later part of the Early Dynastic I period. Once personal names are commonly engraved on seals, other imagery becomes considerably less varied, consisting almost entirely of scenes of fighting animals. See H. Pittman, “Towards an Understanding of the Role of Glyptic Imagery,” 191.

100

Mesopotamian Parallels for Seal Use and Development

differed somewhat between the core sites like Uruk and the periphery sites such as Habuba Kabira and Jebel Aruda. She divides scenes appearing in all Uruk-influenced regions into two categories. The first category depicts events or activities having ritual/political/military significance or goods being manufactured or processed. The seals depicting the manufacture of goods are most often found in the peripheral sites while seals with scenes of greater political significance (such as the presentation of bound prisoners before the priest-king) are found in the core sites (fig. 46).

prestige of the ruler and the cult centers/temple estates is enhanced. If, as some scholars believe,44 there was a competition among three Upper Egyptian polities of Abydos, Naqada and Hierakonpolis at this time, the control and importation of these goods would have been one way in which the rulers of these polities maintained their power base. The images on the seals used at the center would focus on the divine aspects of the ruler and the gods who supported him. The rituals, sacrifices and offerings that maintained the order provided by the ruler and the gods would also play a key role in asserting his control (see fig. 47).

Pittman’s second category depicts things, places or emblems. Images with symbolic character occur both in the core culture and the peripheral colonies. These seals usually take figures, images or elements that occur in the action scenes and present them in more iconic or geometric compositions.

On the other hand, the needs of the trading posts in the peripheral regions outside Egypt would have been interested in demonstrating their efficacy in obtaining and delivering the goods needed at the center. Or, as we know was later the case with outposts in potentially hostile areas, the outpost’s ability to keep the native inhabitants productive and pliant to the Egyptian ruler would have been fundamental goals of the administrators of an Egyptian enclave.

Pittman suggests that the visual signing system in use with cylinder seals had much in common with the proto-cuneiform script that was being developed during this period. This seal imagery had to be both consistent in its representations and readily recognizable (readable) to the people within the administration controlling the goods being sent and received. Finally, the scenes had to be arranged in a composition that would be compatible with the transmission or understanding of verbal messages.41

Having proposed that the seal representations serve purposes specific to their users and location, it follows that the images presented on seals would represent scenes relevant to that purpose. The small marks and symbols that differentiate some of these seals and seal impressions from each other may never be able to be “read” directly given that they have no direct referents in the later written language or in the artistic repertoire. However, using the systems Pittman has suggested, it is possible to recognize the purpose these symbols may serve within the representation, if not their specific meaning.

Action scenes frequently contain design elements that appear to act as determinatives, in giving an additional meaning or location to a scene by means of an emblem or sign.42 Pittman suggests that some of the elements in the glyptic imagery in the Uruk cylinder seals are similar in many ways to the developing writing system, in that some design elements act iconically through resemblance, like a pictograph/ideogram. Others appear to act like logograms, serving as an abstract symbol for a thing or word. Still others act as determinatives that are added to a “typical” scene in order to provide more information or identity.43

This approach to the seal glyptic from Abydos, ‘En Besor and Lower Nubia offers richer possibilities in interpretation given that it is based on the ancient Egyptian worldview, a remarkably consistent and stable one. Given that a writing system was developing alongside Egyptian glyptic representation permits us a first glimpse into the interplay between words and images that is so characteristic of Egyptian art. In this aspect of the study, Mesopotamia can provide us with no parallels. While proto-cuneiform script employed a basically pictographic signing system, the writing system into which it developed lost its relation to pictographs with more abstract symbols -- Egyptian writing did not.

The system outlined by Pittman recognizes the different goals and therefore the different glyptic needs of seals being used at core centers and those being used on the periphery. It has been noted above that these needs were present in Predynastic Egypt as well. The centralized Naqada culture was interested in obtaining and controlling trade goods. Through the use and redistribution of these goods, the power and

41 Ibid., 191. 42 This of course is a major feature of Egyptian hieroglyphs as well as proto-cuneiform script, and has thus far helped to shed some light on the possible meanings of the Abydos seal impressions. 43 H. Pittman, “Toward an Understanding of the Role of Glyptic Imagery,” 190.

44 B. Kemp, Ancient Egypt: Anatomy of a Civilization (London : Routledge, 1989), 31-39 and T. A.H. Wilkinson, Early Dynastic Egypt (London : Routledge, 1999), 47-52.

101

Cylinder Seal Glyptic in Predynastic Egypt and Neighboring Regions

This key difference in the development of the writing of the two cultures is illustrated in the changing style of cylinder seals in the dynastic age of both cultures. Both systems undergo a standardization of style, but once writing appears on Mesopotamian cylinder seals, the variety of glyptic images is reduced primarily to scenes of animal conflict (fig. 48). While the variety of seal designs also becomes less varied on Egyptian seals, the Early Dynastic glyptic retains the interaction between image and meaning while “spelling out” the ownership or purpose of the seal. The image on the seal represents the owner of the seal.

fords of rivers through which traders from the highlands had passed for centuries. The majority of the centers were established at already existing towns such as Ninevah and Tell Brak. Others, uncovered by more recent surveys of the upper Euphrates Basin had never been settled before and were completely abandoned after the Uruk period.46 Two of the bestdocumented outposts of this type are Habuba Kabira and the nearby settlement of Jebel Aruda in Syria. Because of their strategic placement on traditional routes of travel, trade and communication, Algaze infers that the Uruk outposts exerted considerable influence over the flow of goods into and out of the Mesopotamian lowlands.

A Mesopotamian Model for Early Colonial Empire Predynastic Egyptian Colonial Parallels In addition to the different meanings that Egyptian cylinder seal design had depending on their place of origin and intended destination of the portable goods they marked, the widespread distribution of cylinder seal and seal impressions within and outside the country’s traditional borders requires explanation. Though there is a severe shortage of Predynastic settlement archaeology in the Nile Valley, an examination of the existing evidence suggests that the civilization of Upper Egypt developed along many of the same lines as the Late Uruk period culture of southern Mesopotamia. This is indicated particularly with regard to the central culture attempting to control the flow of rare and exotic trade goods from neighboring regions. An examination of just such a system developing on Egypt’s doorstep at roughly the same period might therefore prove fruitful.

A discussion of the dissemination of the iconography of Upper Egyptian elite culture through seals and seal impressions is inseparable from the issue of the spread of Upper Egyptian influence as a whole. Trade fueled the growing dominance of Naqada culture in Lower Egypt and conversely, freer access to trade goods was a key motivating factor in the Naqadans expansionist role in the area. A recent growing interest in the mechanism of the spread of Naqada culture from Upper Egypt to the Lower Nile region has spawned more studies at Lower Egyptian sites such as Maadi, Minshat Abu Omar, Mendes and Buto. Such sites began with a wholly Lower Egyptian material culture (known as the Buto-Maadi culture) that was either abandoned or subsumed by an Upper Egyptian culture in the Naqada IId period.47 Köhler has argued that there is no abandonment of residential areas between Naqada IIb settlements at Buto containing traditional Lower Egyptian pottery assemblages and the settlements of Naqada IId through Dynasty 0 periods, in which both ceramic assemblages and burial practices are decidedly Upper Egyptian.48 She argues that there appears to have been a gradual transition from one to the other. In some respects, this transition is similar to the spread of Uruk colonists to the plains of southwestern Iran during which Uruk subsumed the local chiefdoms of Susa. Similarly, after the apparently peaceful yet swift spread of Upper Egyptians, the cultural character of both the Upper and Lower sections of the

The rise of Sumerian civilization in southern Iraq in the Late Uruk Period (ca. 3300 to 3100 BC) presents an example of an early state supporting itself through access to resources that are not available locally, just as Egyptians depended upon gold from Nubia and oils, wood and wine from Palestine and Syria. Except for agricultural and pastoral products, the lowlands of Iraq lack almost all of the products such as timber and wood products, precious and base metals, and building and precious stones. These resources are available only on the periphery of southern Mesopotamia, primarily in the highlands of Iran and Anatolia. The latest archaeological evidence suggests that in the late Uruk period these resources were obtained, in part, through a complex system of outposts at select locations across the high plains of northern Mesopotamia, northern Syria and southeastern Anatolia.45

46 G. Algaze, “The Tigris-Euphrates Archaeological Reconnaissance Project: A Preliminary Report on the 1989-1990 Seasons,” Anatolica 17 (1991):175-240. 47 I. Rizkana and J. Seeher, Maadi I, 76; Thomas von der Way, “Investigations Concerning the Pre- and Early Dynastic Periods in the Northern Delta of Egypt,” The Near East in Antiquity Vol. II, ed. S. Kerner, (Amman:Goethe-Institut, 1991), 47-61; C. Köhler, “Evidence for Interregional Contacts Between Late Prehistoric Lower and Upper Egypt:: A View from Buto,” Interregional Contacts in the Later Prehistory of Northeastern Africa (Poznan: Poznan Archaeological Museum, 1996), 215-225. 48 C. Köhler, “Evidence for Interregional Contacts,” 220.

Instead of full-scale colonization, isolated outposts placed at key junctions of trade routes characterized this expansion. For instance, outposts were built at

45 G. Algaze, The Uruk World System, 2-3.

102

Mesopotamian Parallels for Seal Use and Development

country became basically homogenous and Upper Egyptian in character by the Naqada IId period.

Patterns of interaction between Predynastic Egypt and southern Palestine are better documented, and apparently were more intense than those between Upper Egypt and Nubia. Egyptian expansion into Palestine took place during the Naqada IIIa –Dynasty 0 period and early Dynasty I, following soon after the cultural consolidation of the Nile Delta region. Egyptian expansion took place through a varied Egyptian presence in at least a dozen sites in northern Sinai, the land bridge between Egypt and Western Asia. A recent synthesis of available evidence shows these sites to have varied in type and size. Yet they compose a network consisting of 1) a string of small way stations across northern Sinai such as ‘En Besor in Wadi Gaza; 2) small and short-lived Egyptian trading posts with Egyptian assemblages within sight of larger Palestinian sites such as Tel Ma’ahaz; 3) Palestinian sites with evidence of a small, physically segregated Egyptian population such as Tel Halif; and 4) larger colonies with mixed Egyptian and Palestinian assemblages within important and strategically located Palestinian sites such as Tel ‘Erani on the southern coastal plain of Palestine.53 Evidence from sites such as ‘En Besor and Tel ‘Erani has provided proof of Egyptian colonists in the Predynastic.

The complete consolidation of power within Upper Egyptian culture probably had not taken place by Naqada IId. Hierakonpolis, Naqada and Abydos emerged as important political, religious and administrative centers in this period. However, unlike the conditions that existed in Uruk, there is a lack of evidence in Upper Egypt for the population pressures, trade bottlenecks and the need for more arable land that spurred Uruk to expand its borders.49 Beyond the consolidation of Egyptian culture in Egypt proper, expansion into neighboring areas began at an early date. This expansion is best documented in southern Palestine and, to a lesser degree, in Lower Nubia, both areas that were geographically accessible but culturally distinct from Egypt. Lower Nubian AGroup people lived directly to the south of Egypt in the Nile Valley, while southern Palestine is due east of the Nile Delta and is accessible through routes crossing 200 kilometers of desert along the northern rim of the Sinai Peninsula. Late Predynastic Nubian cultures, also known as the Classic and Terminal A-Group, were in close contact with the Upper Egyptians. Numerous Egyptian ceramic vessels and luxury goods are found in high status Nubian graves. As was the case in dynastic times, settlements in extreme Upper Egypt could have mediated trade between the two cultures.50 Elephantine is located on the First Cataract which during the historic period has traditionally served as a major trade center and the “border town” between Egypt’s official southern boundary and Nubia. Excavations at Elephantine have revealed evidence of an occupation of a Naqada II-III date.51 A possible Egyptian outpost is the site of Khor Daûd, which may represent a seasonally inhabited trading station within Lower Nubian territory (fig. 32). This site is located about 100 kilometers south of Elephantine and, while yielding no trace of permanent occupation, it does have well over 500 large storage pits, many containing vessels of Naqada IIb-III date, flint and bone tools, and traces of grain and dried fruits.52

There is substantial evidence for the export of Egyptian luxury items to Lower Nubia in the late Predynastic period, however, few Nubian finished goods are found in Egyptian contexts. This suggests that Nubian exports were primarily in the form of raw materials or perishable items not available in Egypt such as exotic fruits, tropical woods, animal skins and cattle, which was largely true in dynastic periods as well. Gold, of course, was always of primary interest to Egypt in its relations with Lower Nubia, as is well attested in Egypt’s historical periods. In historic representations gold from Nubia is shown in “raw” form of ingots or bags of gold dust, which are later transformed into prestige goods by Egyptian artisans. Evidence of exports of Palestinian origin is common in Egyptian sites and consists primarily of liquid commodities such as wine, oils, resins and honey imported inside sealed ceramic vessels. Other imports include agricultural products such as beans, bitumen from Dead Sea sources, wood and wood products, turquoise and, of primary importance, copper ores from the Feinan/Wadi Arabah area.54

49 K. Bard, “The Geography of Excavated Predynastic Sites and the Rise of Complex Society,” JARCE 24 (1987): 91-92. 50 H.Ä. Nordström, “Neolithic and A-Group Sites,” The Scandinavian Joint Expedition to Sudanese Nubia, Vol. 3 (Sweden:Scandinavian University Books, 1972), 33. 51 W. Kaiser, G. Dreyer, H. Jaritz, A. Krekeler, J. Lindemann, C. von Pilgrim, S. Seidlmayer and M. Ziermann, “Staadt und Tempel von Elelphantine, 15/16 Grabungsbericht,” MDAIK 44(1988):135182. 52 B. Piotrovsky, “The Early Dynasty Settlement of Khor-Daûd and Wadi Allaki, the Ancient Route of the Gold Mines,” in Fouilles en Nubie, 1961-1963, (Cairo: Minisrty of Tourism and Antiquities):127-140.

Opinions vary as to whether this Egyptian presence in southern Palestine was characterized by peaceful cohabitation and mutual trade,55or whether it is evidence of a more aggressive attempt to dominate and control 53 G. Algaze, “Expansionary Dynamics,” 318. 54 H. Kantor, “Egypt and Palestine,” 43-45, S. Mark, From Egypt to Mesopotamia, 12-21. 55 L. Watrin, “The Relationship between the Nile Delta and Palestine,” 1226.

103

Cylinder Seal Glyptic in Predynastic Egypt and Neighboring Regions its nearest neighbor.56 Outside of Tel ‘Erani, there is little evidence that Egypt established the type of planned and self-contained urban outpost established by the Uruk culture at Habuba Kabira. Most, like ‘En Besor, seem to be trading outposts rather than fullscale colonies.57 The outcome of these relations between Egypt’s core and the peripheral regions differed considerably. By the end of Dynasty I, the trading outposts in southern Palestine were abandoned. This abandonment coincided with the establishment of many fortified Palestinian urban areas throughout the region.58 Early in the Egyptian Dynasty I, the Nubian A-Group culture appears to have collapsed or been driven out of Lower Nubia, apparently as the result of an organized Egyptian invasion.59 By the Old Kingdom period (ca. 2650-2180 BC), Lower Nubia had become a colonial domain exploited by strategically placed Egyptian garrisons.

56 E. Oren, “Early Bronze Age Settlement in Northern Sinai: A Model for Egypto-Canaanite Interconnections,” L’urbanisation de la Palestine a l’âge du Bronze ancien, ed. Pierre de Miroschedji, (Oxford: B.A.R., 1989), 403. 57 G. Algaze, “Expansionary Dynamics,” 319. 58 D.L. Esse, Subsistence, Trade, and Social Change in Early Bronze Age Palestine, (Chicago: Oriental Institute, 1991), 15. 59 D. O’Connor, Ancient Nubia, 23.

104

Mesopotamian Parallels for Seal Use and Development

105

Cylinder Seal Glyptic in Predynastic Egypt and Neighboring Regions

106

Mesopotamian Parallels for Seal Use and Development

107

6 THE DEVELOPMENT OF PREDYNASTIC ART ON SEALS AND OTHER MONUMENTS

Evidence discussed in the preceding chapters demonstrates that the Upper Egyptian polities of Abydos/This and Naqada had been exposed to the sealing practices of southern Mesopotamians and were adapting them to their own uses as early as Naqada IId (3480 BC).1 That these uses included the control of trade goods from neighboring regions is not at all surprising, and well attested by the archaeological evidence of seals, seal impressions and other finds from Lower Nubia and Southern Palestine. No single tactic seems to have been at work in the spread of this control. The sudden abandonment of Lower Egyptian trading settlements such as Maadi and the establishment of new settlements nearby with Upper Egyptian characteristics (such as Minshat Abu Omar) points to elements of colonization, competition and aggression. The gradual replacement of Lower Egyptian cultural characteristics by Upper Egyptian ones at sites such as Buto and Mendes indicates that the two cultures co-existed for a time until the newcomers eventually gained full dominance over the indigenous population. Through both peaceful and warlike means the Upper Egyptians mastered the Nile Delta and the foreign contacts and trade, which its inhabitants controlled.

decorated by three-lobed symbols such as are used on Mesopotamian seals indicates a period of intense contact between the two cultures at this time (see fig. 7b). Carved ivory monuments contemporary with this earlier period of contact with Mesopotamia would include the Gebel elArak and Gebel el-Tarif Knife Handles, both of which show heavy influence from Mesopotamia. The vertical orientation of decoration on the knife handles (as opposed to the horizontal orientation of later handles) is another indication that they come from this period.3 Slate palettes from this period or from a slightly earlier one would include the Gerzeh Palette and the Manchester Palette. The latter shows not only the “birdheaded” style of human representation as is also seen in the Hierakonpolis Tomb 100 painting, but also the “drill hole” treatment of figures, such as is characteristic of many cylinder seals in the proto-Elamite horizon.4 Other palettes that arguably date firmly within this horizon include the Smaller Palette of Hierakonpolis, and the Louvre Palette.5 They evidence of cylinder seals in use even earlier in the Naqada II period. 3 G. Dreyer, et al, “Umm el Qaab,” 99. In tomb U 503 (dating to the Naqada IId period), Dreyer discovered the fragments of an ivory knife handle featuring vertically oriented decorations of men herding animal processions, further strengthening a Naqada IId dating for similar unprovenanced material. 4 H. Pittman, The Glazed Steatite Style, 62, figs. c, j and k. 5 It is possible that the Hunter’s Palette belongs to this period as well. It confines the circularity of its narrative structure to one side of the palette alone, instead of splitting the action between the front and back of the piece. Interestingly enough, a sign of the joined foreparts of two bulls appears at the top of the palette. In historic periods this designated the third Delta nome and also served as a determinative for the word xns which means “to move in two directions.” Could the palette’s artist be giving directions on how to read the work or presenting us with one of Egypt’s earliest puns? See W. Davis, Masking the Blow: The Scene of Representation in Late Prehistoric Art, (Berkeley: University of California

These centuries of intense growth and change are reflected in the development of Egyptian glyptic style (see Table 2). Now that there exists a continuum of images dating as early as the Naqada IId we can more clearly discuss the development of Egyptian glyptic style and related arts.2 The use of caprid/predator rows 1 R. Di Maria, “Rediscovering Naqada.” It is not inconceivable that continued work at these and other Upper Egyptian sites such as Hierokonpolis will unearth more evidence of these early trade networks through sealing. 2 Although from its already highly developed signing system, it is possible future excavations in Upper Egypt will discover

109

Cylinder Seal Glyptic in Predynastic Egypt and Neighboring Regions

share the vertical orientation of decoration and drilled-out eyes of the earlier works, and in addition they feature the heraldic compositions and fantastic animals of early Mesopotamian art, such as the griffin.

Egyptian. The seals in Tomb U-j appear to show a drive to proscribe certain symbols and decoration for the ruler. These efforts are denoted in the addition of elaborately decorated borders on the seals placed in the ruler’s tomb. The addition of symbolic figures such as a human with a throw stick and scepter, standards with god’s symbols, and certain animals that might have been identified with the ruler himself distinguish the elite examples of this style (see fig. 16a-e). The seal excavated from Tomb 1035 at Abusir el-Meleq (fig. 12a) provides a nonroyal example of this style.8 As pointed out in Chapter 2 the rendering of the caprids and the crowded composition are very similar to the style of two of the U-j seal impressions (see fig. 16ab). An unprovenanced seal (fig. 12b) purchased on the art market showing three lines of animals (frogs?) can also be assigned to this time period.9 Note that both these seals were not cut with top and bottom register lines, a characteristic that does not appear on seals outside a royal context until the Naqada IIIb-c/Dynasty 0 period.

Though undoubtedly influenced by actual seals and cylinder seal impressions received through trade with Mesopotamian colonies of northern Syria, or with the core cultures of Elam and Uruk, the Abydos Cemetery U seals are distinctly Egyptian in character and meaning. Several aspects of seal design and iconography signal this. For example, the appearance in the Naqada IId period of a seal impression containing a central image that could spell hwt Hr or Hathor (see fig. 14a), demonstrates that essentially Egyptian meaning was already imbedded in the seal impressions being manufactured. It is also is an indication that ideograms, which would later become determinatives in the written language, could already have been in use. Lack of further evidence for writing in the Naqada IId phase prevents us from speculating on the development of the written language during this period. Instead, what we can see is that the images on these seals appear to be designating locations, and possibly religious/political entities such as cult centers, between which goods were being exchanged or redistributed.6 Parallels with Cemetery U seal impressions dating to Naqada IId indicate that several unprovenanced seals featuring fish with temple structures also belong to this period.7

Carved ivory monuments contemporary with the Naqada IIIa2 period include the Davis Comb and the Brooklyn, Carnarvon and Pitt Rivers Knife Handles. Stylistically, they demonstrate a transition to the horizontal compositions characteristic of later, canonical Egyptian art, and it can be argued that the animals represented upon them designate a meaning beyond the animals themselves. It is possible that they represent earlier rulers -- a type of genealogy/king list as Dreyer argues -- or regions/nomes/estates key to the consolidation of power in Upper and Lower Egypt occurring during this period. On the Brooklyn Knife Handle, for instance, some of the rows terminate with a dominant animal or symbol, such as a dog, a scorpion and a star rosette, which possibly represent an earlier ruler.10 Ivory tags marking goods within Tomb U-j strengthen the locality interpretation, since these animal signs followed by phonetic complements seem to designate estates or regions providing goods for the burial of this “pre-king.”

In the Naqada IIIa2 period this adaptation of Mesopotamian forms was advancing and taking on more characteristics that were uniquely Press, 1992); R.T. Ridley, The Unification of Egypt, 35 and R.O. Faulkner, A Concise Dictionary of Middle Egyptian, (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1976), 193. 6 We might well ask ourselves why these symbols do not appear on other forms of Naqada IId art works such as D Ware pottery, (save for the use of boat standards which designated either regional or religious affiliation). It should be noted that D Ware pottery seems to have been manufactured to serve as burial furniture and, as such, would deal more with themes of the afterlife such as sacred boat journeys and religious festivals. Also, the manufacture of pottery was at this point in Egyptian prehistory a household industry. So, while fully in step with the cultural milieu of the time, it was not designed to carry the messages of control and authority that cylinder seals were. 7 See R. Boehmer, “Das Rollsiegel,” 500-501, figs. 3-5,11, 13-14. It is possible given the number of examples we have of this type seal and the differences in their styles and execution that the fish/temple seal style was used for an extended period of time. The presence of borders to two of our examples of this type might indicate that it was used as late as Naqada III b-c. See R. M. Boehmer, “Das Rollseigel,” 500-501, figs. 5 and 12.

8 R.M. Boehmer, “Das Rollseigel,” 499-500, fig. 9. 9 Ibid., 501, fig. 15 and 503. 10 B. Williams and T. Logan, “The Metropolitan Museum Knife Handle,” 266.

110

The Development of Predynastic Art on Seals and Other Monuments

111

Cylinder Seal Glyptic in Predynastic Egypt and Neighboring Regions

hieroglyphs play a larger role, but again, these might name localities. For instance, “ka arms,” common symbols on the ‘En Besor seals, are used to name one of the walled towns on the Cities Palette. Early in this period (3300 BC) the remnants of the Tomb U-j style, notable for its intense horror vacui and distinctive through its use of small fill elements (see figs. 27b, 34a-e and 39d), predominates. Later this gives way to a cleaner, more narrative structure and style (see figs. 27a,c-d, 34g, and 35a).

Slate palettes that should be assigned to this same period are the fragmentary Cities (or Libyan) Palette and the Lion Palette. In the case of the former, animal rows, experimentation with register lines, and the use of early signs giving the place name of Libya on the reverse side appear to follow the pattern of signing location used on seal impressions just prior to this period (figs. 11a, 14a-b). If Dreyer’s Predynastic king list is to be believed, the palette commemorates a period of consolidation in which the owner of Tomb U-j may have taken part, as indicated by the scorpion (symbolizing King Scorpion I) attacking a fortified city on the obverse side of the palette. The Lion Palette also belongs to this period because of the appearance of the same anthropomorphic animals that appear on the Cities Palette. The lion, the falcon and two birds on standards are put among representation of actual enemies to be vanquished, but essentially they themselves are performing the same actions, i.e. vanquishing foes. It is possible that the same type of location signing used on the Cities Palette is also used on the obverse side to designate the location of the foes, but a break prevents a proper reading of this sign. The heraldic arrangement of giraffes on the reverse side harkens back to earlier palettes.

The carved ivory that might best be associated with this period is the Metropolitan Museum Knife Handle (Table 2). It has a narrative structure that focuses almost entirely on the actions of a human figure, who can only be characterized as royal. Wearing the white crown of Upper Egypt and surrounded by the symbols and regalia of kingship such as high-prowed boats with shrines, stars, and palace façades, the royal figure appears to be taking part in a boat procession on the bossed side of the handle and making ritual offerings of bound prisoners before a temple shrine or palace façade on the other.11 This is likely the latest of the carved ivory knife handles known today in the world’s museums. As other scholars have noted, the progress of canonical Egyptian art seems to have been one of ever increasing refinement, a narrowing down of possibilities to a repertoire of a few scenes that epitomized the rituals performed by the ruler to renew his dominion and ensure the cosmic order.12 The Scorpion Macehead gives a glimpse into what may once have been a much broader repertoire of scenes of royal action before this refining process gained momentum. It depicts the king with his apparent name designation floating before his face topped by a royal rosette, sometimes read as Hr or Horus.13 The king carries a hoe, while an underling with a basket kneels before him. This scene has been interpreted as one of the king officiating over a ceremony to open an irrigation canal.14 In the register above him, the symbols of victory over many regions (standards with dead birds hanging from them) are lined up in testimony to the king’s triumph. The only other slate palette that

In the Naqada IIIb-c period (3300-3120 BC), the control that the Upper Egyptian pre-kings were exerting on the regions under their control is reflected in glyptic art from the northern and southern periphery. In Nubia, this is expressed through images on seals and seal impressions of human figures whose hands are raised in praise to symbols of Egyptian kingship such as serekhs, and people that are “controlling” animal rows. It is possible that here we begin to see the beginning of seals designed for officials, though explicit naming of individuals on seals has not yet begun. For instance, the Tomb L-17 seal depicts a person behind a row of birds, which could be read as overseer of a particular region designated by that bird (see fig. 27a-d). Surface-find seals from Lower Nubia appear to be of a geometric style characteristic of early contact with Mesopotamia. These could represent local copies of earlier seal styles, filtering upriver from sites such as Naqada. However, without clear archaeological context it is impossible to tell with any certainty.

11 B. Williams and T. Logan, “The Metropolitan Museum Knife Handle,” 271-272. Williams and Logan characterize both these scenes as triumphal ones in which the victorious king journeys in the sacred bark to make offerings of prisoners before sacred shrines as part of the heb sed ritual. 12 B. Adams and K.M. Cialowicz, Protodynastic Egypt, (Buckinghamshire: Shire Publications Ltd., 1997), 45. 13 J. Kahl, Das System der ägyptischen Hieroglyphenschrift, 55. 14 Ibid.

At ‘En Besor in the Negev desert, we again see a pattern of human images appearing to show fealty to the intended recipients of the goods being sealed. Here symbols associated with later

112

The Development of Predynastic Art on Seals and Other Monuments

might belong to this period is the fragmentary Bull Palette. The imagery portrayed there with the anthropomorphic nome standards holding a rope, presumably tied to prisoners, is similar to that on the Scorpion Macehead. Above these standards a bull tramples underfoot a human similar to those on the Lion Palette. On the reverse, two walled towns are again under attack as on the Cities Palette.15

follows that the famed Narmer Palette commemorates this same event of smiting the Libyans.17 It would seem that at least initially in this period of intense territorial consolidation, what had been the traditional representations and iconography of cylinder seals in the Predynastic period also served the founders of the First Dynasty. However, the economic, political and military conservatism that followed the establishment of Dynastic Egypt saw the collapse of the long distance trading networks and the abandonment of bases in southern Palestine and Lower Nubia. Within Egypt proper, the king and the power of his name became the primary referents for all transactions. This changed forever the style of seals during the Archaic period. The decorative/symbolic character of Predynastic seal style was replaced by a more literal/symbolic seal style. The narrowing of possibilities for artistic portrayals of decorous actions for the king had reached the tools by which the king was served, including seals. Royal seals carried the name of the king, his deeds and accomplishments. Officials’ seals carried the name of the seal bearer, his position the administration and therefore his position in reference to the king. Since much, if not all, of this information could be expressed in writing, the figural representation on seals became less varied, confined in most cases to offering scenes.18

At the end of Dynasty 0 (3110 BC) glyptic art begins to take on an entirely different character than in the preceding four centuries. The advent of a more fully developed writing system and the consolidation of power in Upper Egypt are factors which favored increased references to the king while diminishing the importance of regional location, product designations or even personal/official names. In cylinder seals this trend is best illustrated on the ivory seal of Narmer (fig. 50b). The seal bears the name of the king written in hieroglyphs, but even if we lacked the ability to read the language we see the principle sign in his name take action before our eyes, sprouting arms and smiting three registers of bound prisoners with a long staff. It is here that the pictorial representations on seals and the writing system are completely melded. An identity represented by a sign in the spelling of a name doubles as an actor in a visual narrative. Above the catfish, as though it were a representation of the king himself, flies the protective vulture and a falcon (?) bearing an ankh sign. Below Narmer we see the name of the group he has conquered THnw or Libyans and possibly the names of other conquered lands below these (though these are too worn to read). An ivory tag recently discovered by Dreyer’s expedition in Cemetery B at Abydos provides much of the same information in its top register (fig. 50a). In the register below is written a quantity of oil, and apparently the name of the estate from which it was delivered, though this has been lost in a break.16 Here the position of the king is made even more explicit with the addition of the king’s name in a serekh. Dreyer argues that both the tag and the seal commemorate an historic event in the king’s reign, rather than a generic representation of the ruler smiting the enemies of Egypt. In historic periods, specific years were often recorded in reference to events in a king’s reign such as ascension date, jubilees and battles. It then

17 Ibid., 8. 18 A similar dynamic is noted for Mesopotamian cylinder seal glyptic in the Dynastic age. See H. Pittman, “Towards an Understanding of the Role of Glyptic Imagery,” 192.

15 See R.T. Ridley, The Unification of Egypt,” 37-38. 16 G. Dreyer, “Egypt’s Earliest Historical Event,” 7.

113

Cylinder Seal Glyptic in Predynastic Egypt and Neighboring Regions

Figure 49. Cylinder seals in the Brooklyn Museum collection (W. Needler, Predynastic and Archaic Egypt, fig. 305-306).

114

The Development of Predynastic Art on Seals and Other Monuments

115

7

CONCLUSIONS

Early Dynastic, and to suggest dates for carved bone and ivory objects and greywacke palettes without provenance.

Employing a wide variety of excavated material that has thus far received little scholarly attention, this monograph presents a thorough investigation of seals and sealing practices in Egypt and Neighboring regions prior to Dynasty 0 (ca. 3110 BC). The goal of this study was the re-evaluation of the stylistic development of seals and sealing during the gradual coalescence of the Egyptian dynastic state. It has been demonstrated that cylinder seals and sealings found in the U Cemetery at Abydos, A-Group Lower Nubian sites, and the Egyptian trading post at ‘En Besor in southern Palestine provide a continuum of glyptic development beginning in the Naqada IId period (ca. 3480 BC), and continuing to the end of Dynasty 0 (ca. 3110 BC). This continuum reflects early contact with southern Mesopotamia and her colonies, but also the spreading influence of Upper Egyptian culture, the development of the Egyptian hieroglyphic writing system, and the eventual ascendancy of an allpowerful Egyptian monarchy.

This stylistic evolution was characterized in the Naqada IId period (ca 3480) by Mesopotamian stylistic influences, which Egyptians adapted to their existing symbolic and social templates. Similarly, the use of the seals, which carried these images, was adapted to local trade networks with Nubians to the south and Canaanites to the north. From these beginnings, Egyptian glyptic design developed its own repertoire of symbols and compositions. Some of these may designate the location or source of sealed goods, while others may designate the recipients of those goods. Many glyptic design elements hint at the contemporary development of the Egyptian writing system and a heightened control over inter-regional trade. The Naqada IIIa2 period (ca. 3380 BC) witnessed the introduction of an increasingly narrative structure in cylinder seal glyptic, characterized by figures (usually animal, but sometimes human) controlling or mastering creatures of the natural world. The symbolic use of animals and architectural framing devices in seals coincides with the appearance of early writing in Cemetery U at Abydos.

This seriation system was reached by dividing the images of the Abydos Cemetery U cylinder and stamp seal impressions into categories based primarily on date and secondarily on the basis of composition, style and motifs. These groups were then examined to determine whether different groups might indicate different semiotic meaning for their owners, using a system suggested by Mesopotamian cylinder seal studies. The sealings were then compared and contrasted with other glyptic material recovered from Abydos and with other Predynastic Egyptian artworks. Early Dynastic period glyptic styles at Abydos were then examined for affinities to the late Predynastic material. The stylistic development of cylinder seals and sealings at Abydos was used as a base from which to discuss other Predynastic seals and sealings from sites with Egyptian-related material in Lower Nubia (dating to the Naqada IIIb-c period) and southern Canaan (dating from late Dynasty 0 to the beginning of Dynasty 1). Finally, this stylistic progression was used in proposing Predynastic dating criteria for seals and sealings previously thought to be

Further refinement in the representation of royal figures and their subjects is reached in the Naqada IIIb-c period (3300-3120 BC), when symbols of royal power such as the serekh and the Horus falcon appear on seals and on carved ivories and stone maceheads. Cylinder seal glyptic being produced on Egypt’s northern periphery was influenced stylistically by northern Syrian trading colonies. Its content, however, was strongly influenced by the Egyptian administrative network in place at the time. Elements characteristic of this stage, such as human figures in gestures of praise, or human figures controlling animals and symbols denoting foreign lands, all make reference to a centralized Egyptian royal power. At

117

Cylinder Seal Glyptic in Predynastic Egypt and Neighboring Regions

the end of Dynasty 0 cylinder seals reflect the narrowing gap between figural representation and hieroglyphic writing, a stage reflected in the ivory seal of Narmer. This use of visual metaphor on seals is short-lived, and gives way to more standardized hieroglyphic writing on seals and scenes of offering in the Dynastic Period. Thus the focus of the Egyptian glyptic repertoire narrows following the complete unification of Egypt, and dynastic cylinder seal glyptic gives little hint of the rich variety of symbol and style employed in the Predynastic.

118

REFERENCES

Améllineau, Emile. Les Nouvelles Fouilles d’Abydos 1985-1895. Paris: Ernest Leroux, 1899.

Adams, Barbara. “Imports and Imitations in Predynastic Funerary Contexts at Hierakonpolis.” Interregional Contacts in the Later Prehistory of Northeastern Africa, edited by Lech Krzyzaniak, Karla Kroeper and Michal Kobusiewicz, 133-143. Poznan: Poznan Archaeological Museum, 1996.

________. Les Nouvelles Fouilles d’Abydos. Seconde Campagne1896-1897. Paris: Ernest Leroux, 1902. ________. Les Nouvelles Fouilles d’Abydos 18971898. Paris: Ernest Leroux, 1904.

Adams, Barbara and Krzysztof M. Cialowicz. Protodynastic Egypt. Buckinghamshire: Shire Publications Ltd., 1997.

Amiet, Pierre. La Glyptique Mesopotamienne Archaique. Paris: Editions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique 15. 1980.

Adams, Barbara and Renée Friedman. “Imports and Influences in the Predynastic and Protodynastic Settlement and Funerary Assembalges at Hierakonpolis.” The Nile Delta in Transition; 4th-3rd Millennium B.C., edited by E.C.M. van den Brink, 317- 38. Tel Aviv: The Israel Exploration Society, 1992.

________. Art of the Ancient Near East. Translated by John Shepley and Claude Choquet. New York: Harry N. Abrams Inc., 1980. ________. “The Mythological Repertory in Cylinder Seals of the Agade Period (c. 2335-2155 B.C.).” Ancient Art in Seals. Edited by Edith Porada. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. 1980.

Adams, William Y. Nubia, Corridor to Africa. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1977. ________. “Doubts About the ‘Lost Pharaohs.’” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 44, no. 3 (1985): 185-192.

________. Sceaux-Cylinderes en Hématite et Pierres Divereses. Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations. 1992.

Abu al Soof, Behnam. “A Discussion of Uruk and Related Pottery in Iran, Northern Syria, Anatolia and Egypt in Relation to Mesopotamia.” Mesopotamia 3-4 (1968-69): 159-178.

________. “Sceaux et Administration a Suse a L’epoque D’Uruk.” Archives Before Writing. Edited by Piera Ferioli, Enrica Fiandra, Gian Giacomo Fissore, and Marcella Frangipane, 8794. Rome: Centro Internazionale di Ricerche Archeologiche Antropologiche e Storiche, 1994.

Algaze, Guillermo. The Uruk World System: The Dynamics of Expansion of Early Mesopotamian Civilization. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1993.

Amiran, Ruth. “An Egyptian Jar with the Name of Narmer from Arad.” Israel Exploration Journal 24 (1974): 4-12.

________. “Expansionary Dynamics of Some Early Pristine States.” American Anthropologist 95, no. 2 (1993): 304-333.

Amiran, Ruth and Ram Gophna. “The Correlation between Lower Egypt and Southern Canaan during the Early Bronze I Period.” The Nile Delta in Transition; 4th-3rd Millennium B.C.. Edited by E.C.M. van den Brink, 357-60. Tel Aviv: The Israel Exploration Society, 1992.

________. “The Prehistory of Imperialism: The Case of Uruk Mesopotamia.” Uruk Mesopotamia and Its Neighbors: Cross-Cultural Interactions in the Era of State Formation. Edited by Mitchell S. Rothman, 27-84. Santa Fe, New Mexico: School of American Research Press, 2001.

121

Cylinder Seal Glyptic in Predynastic Egypt and Neighboring Regions

Ayrton, E.R. and W.L.S. Loat. Predynastic Cemetery at El Mahasna. Egypt Exploration Fund Memoir 31. London, 1911.

Bourriau, Jannine. Umm el Qa’ab: Pottery from the Nile Valley Before the Arab Conquest. Cambridge, 1981.

Bard, Kathryn A. “The Geography of Excavated Predynastic Sites and the Rise of Complex Society.” Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 24 (1987): 81-93.

Bradbury, Louise. “Reflections on traveling to ‘God’s Land’ and Punt in the Middle Kingdom.” Journal of the American Research Center In Egypt 25 (1988): 127-156.

Bard, Kathryn A. “Toward an Interpretation of the Role of Ideology in the Evolution of Complex Society in Egypt.” Journal of Anthropological Anthropology 11, no. 1 (1991): 1-24.

Brandl, Baruch. 1989. “Observations on the Early Bronze Age Strata of Tel Erani.” L’urbanisation de la Palestine a l’âge du Bronze ancien. Edited by Pierre de Miroschedji. Oxford: B.A.R., 1989.

Baumgartel, Elise. The Cultures of Prehistoric Egypt I. London: Oxford University Press, 1947.

Braun, Eliot and Edwin C.M. van den Brink. “Some Comments on the Late EBI Sequence of Canaan and the Relative Dating of Tomb U j at ‘Umm el Qa’ab and Graves 313 and 787 from Minshat Abu Omar with Imported Ware: Views from Egypt and Canaan." Egypt and the Levant VII. Edited by Manfred Bietak, 71-94. Vienna: Institut für Ägyptologie der Universität Wein, 1998.

________. Petrie’s Naqada Excavations: A Supplement. London: University College, 1970. Bénédite, George. “Le couteau de Gebel el-Arak.” Fondation Eugène Piot Monuments et Mémoires 22. Paris: Ernest Leroux, 1916.

Brewer, Douglas J. and Renee F. Friedman. Fish and Fishing in Ancient Egypt. Warminster, Aris & Phillips, 1989.

Ben-Tor, Amnon. “A Cylinder Seal from ‘En Besor.” ‘Atiqot 11 (1976): 13-15. ________. Cylinder Seals of Third Millennium Palestine. Cambridge, Mass.: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1978.

Brink, E.C.M. van den. “Preface and Short Introduction,” Nile Delta in Transition:4th-3rd Millennium B.C.. Edited by E.C.M. van den Brink, vi-viii, Tel Aviv, 1992.

________. “The Trade Relations of Palestine in the Early Bronze Age.” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 31 (1986): 1-27.

Caneva, Isabella. “Predynastic Cultures of Lower Egypt: The Desert and the Nile.” The Nile Delta in Transition; 4th-3rd Millennium B.C.. Edited by E.C.M. van den Brink, 217-224. Tel Aviv: The Israel Exploration Society, 1992.

Bianchi, Robert S. Splendors of Ancient Egypt. London: Booth-Clibborn Editions, 1996. Bietak, Manfred. “Zur Landnahme Palästinas durch die Seevölker und zum Ende der ägyptischen Provinz Kana’an.” Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Institus. Abteilung Kairo 47 (1991): 35-47.

Castillos, Juan Jose. “Inequality in Egyptian Predynastic Cemeteries.” Revue D’Egyptologie. Vol. 49 (1998): 25-36. Cialowicz, Krzysztof M. “Le manche de couteau de Gebel el-Arak: Le problème de l’interprétation de l’art prédynastique.” Warsaw Egyptological Studies I. Essays in Honor of Prof. Dr. Jadwiga Lipinska. Warsaw: Warsaw University and National Museum in Warsaw, 1997.

Boehmer, Rainer “Das Rollsiegel im prädynastischen Ägypten.” Archäologische Anzeiger, 4 (1974): 495-514. ________. “Gebel-el-Arak und Gebel-el-Tarif-Griff: keine Fälschungen.” Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Institus. Abteilung Kairo 47 (1991): 51-60.

Collon, Dominique. First Impressions: Cylinder Seals in the Ancient Near East. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1987.

Boehmer, Rainer, Günter Dreyer, and Bernard Kromer. “Einige Früzeitliche C-14-Datierungen aus Abydos und Uruk.” Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Institus. Abteilung Kairo 49 (1993): 63-68.

Czerwinski, Kazimierz A. Religion and Cognition in Predynastic Egypt: A Design Analysis of Gerzean D Ware. M.A. thesis, Washington State University, 1996.

122

References

D’Auria, Sue, Peter Lacouvara, Catherine Roehrig. Mummies and Magic: The Funerary Arts of Ancient Egypt. Boston: Museum of Fine Arts, 1988.

________. “Ein Siegel der frühzeitlichen Königsnekropole von Abydos.” Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Institus. Abteilung Kairo 43 (1987): 33-44.

David, Rosalie. Religious Ritual at Abydos, c. 1300 BC, Warminster: Aris and Phillips Ltd., 1973.

________. “Umm el-Qaab: Nachuntersuchungen im früzeitlichen Königsfriedhof.” Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Institus. Abteilung Kairo 46 (1990): 53-90.

Davies, Vivian and Renée Friedman. Egypt Uncovered. New York: Stewart, Tabori & Chang, 1998.

________. “Zur Rekonstruktion der Oberbauten der Königsgräber der 1. Dynastie in Abydos.” Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Institus. Abteilung Kairo 47 (1991): 93-104.

Davis, Whitney. The Canonical Tradition in Ancient Egyptian Art. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1989.

________. “The Royal Tombs of Abydos.” The Near East in Antiquity. Vol. 3. Edited by Susanne Kerner, 55-67. Amman: Goethe-Institut, 1992.

________. Masking the Blow: the scene of representation in the late prehistoric Egyptian art. Berekely: University of California Press, 1992.

________. “Recent Discoveries in the U-Cemetery at Abydos.” The Nile Delta in Transition; 4th-3rd Millennium B.C. Edited by E.C.M. van den Brink, 293-300. Tel Aviv: The Israel Exploration Society, 1992.

________. “Narrativity and the Narmer Palette.” Narrative and Event in Ancient Art. Edited by Peter J. Holliday. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.

________. Umm el-Qaab I. Das prädynastische Königsgrab U-j und seine frühen Scriftzeugnisse. Archäologische Veröffentlichungen 86. Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Abteilung Kairo. Mainz: Verlag Philipp von Zabern, 1998.

________. “Cemetery T at Naqada.” Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Institus. Abteilung Kairo 39 (1983): 17-29. De Cree, Fernand J. “Mutatis Mutandis: Egyptian Relations with Palestine in the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age I-IV.” Göttinger Miszellen 124 (1991): 21-43.

________. “Ein Gefäß mit Ritzmarke des Narmer.” Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Institus. Abteilung Kairo 55 (1999): 1-6, Tafel 1. ________. “The Earliest Kings of Egypt and Their Tombs.” (paper presented to the Council of Friends, Institute of Fine Arts, New York University, New York, 15 October 1999).

De Miroschedji, Pierre. “Les Égyptiens au Sinaï du nord et en Palestine au Bronze ancien.” Le Sinaï Durant L’Antiquité el le Moyen Âge: 4000 ans d’histoire pour un désert. Edited by Dominique Valbelle and Charles Bonnet. Paris: Editions Errance, 1998.

________. “Egypt’s Earliest Historical Event,” Egyptian Archaeology 16 (2000): 7-8.

Dickenson, T. Nightwatch:An Equinox Guide to Viewing the Universe. Camden East, Ontario: Camden House Publishing, 1992.

Dreyer, Günter,Ulrich Hartung,and Frauke Pumpenmeier. “Umm el-Qaab.” Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Institus. Abteilung Kairo 49 (1993): 23-62.

Di Maria, Rita. “Rediscovering Naqada: The Sealing Evidence,” paper presented to the Eighth International Congress of Egyptologists (Cairo, 2000).

Dreyer, Günter, Ulrich Hartung, Thomas Hikade, Eva Christiana Köhler, Vera Müller, and Frauke Pumpenmeier. “Umm el-Qaab.” Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Institus. Abteilung Kairo 54 (1998): 77-167.

Doxey, Denise M. Egyptian Non-Royal Epithets in the Middle Kingdom, Leiden: Brill, 1998.

Emery, W.B. Great Tombs of the First Dynasty III. London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1958.

Dreyer, Günter. “Ein frühdyanstisches Königsfigurchen aus Elephantine.” Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Institus. Abteilung Kairo 37 (1981): 123-124.

123

Cylinder Seal Glyptic in Predynastic Egypt and Neighboring Regions

________. Archaic Egypt. Edinburgh: Pelican Books, 1961.

________.“The Origin of Egyptian Hieroglyphs.” Origins of Writing. Edited by Wayne M. Senner, 59-76. Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press, 1989.

Esse, Douglas L. Subsistence, Trade, and Social Change in Early Bronze Age Palestine. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1991.

Frangipane, Marcella. “New Groups of Clay-Sealings from the 4th Millenium Levels of ArslantepeMalatya.” Aspects of Art and Iconography: Anatolia and Its Neighbors. Studies in Honor of Nìmet Özgüç. Edited by Machteld J. Mellink, Edith Porada, and Tahsin Özgüç, 191-200. Ankara: Türk Tarìh Kurumu Basimevì, 1993.

Farman-Farmaian, Massoumeh. Elamite Cylinder Seals. M.A. thesis. University of California, Berkeley, 1984. Faulkner, Raymond. Ancient Egyptian Pyramid Texts. Oxford: Clarendon, 1969. Ferioli, Piera and Enrica Fiandra. “Archive Techniques and Methods at Arslantepe.”Archives Before Writing. Edited by Piera Ferioli, Enrica Fiandra, Gian Giacomo Fissore, and Marcella Frangipane, 149-161. Rome: Centro Internazionale di Ricerche Archeologiche Antropologiche e Storiche, 1994.

________. “Centralization Processes in Greater Mesopotamia: Uruk “Expansion” as the Climax of Systemic Interactions Among Areas of the Greater Mesopotamian Region.” Uruk Mesopotamia and Its Neighbors: Cross-Cultural Interactions in the Era of State Formation. Edited by Mitchell S. Rothman, 403-443. Santa Fe, New Mexico: School of American Research Press, 2001.

Fernie, Eric, ed. Art History and Its Methods: A Critical Anthology. London: Phaidon Press, Ltd., 1998.

Frankfort, Henri. Cylinder Seals: A Documentary Essay on the Art and Religion of the Ancient Near East. London: Macmillan and Co., 1939.

Finkenstaedt, Elizabeth. “Regional Painting Style in Prehistoric Egypt,” Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 107 (1980): 116120.

Gardiner, Alan. Egyptian Grammar. Oxford: Griffith Institute, 1957. Gatto, Maria C. and F. Tiraterra. “Contacts between Nubian ‘A-Groups’ and Predynastic Egypt.” Interregional Contacts in the Later Prehistory of Northeastern Africa. Edited by Lech Krzyžaniak, Karla Kroeper and Michal Kobusiewicz, 331334. Poznan: Poznan Archaeological Museum, 1996.

Firth, Cecil M. The Archaeological Survey of Nubia, Report for 1908-1909. Cairo: National Printing Department, 1912. Fischer, Henry George. “Some Emblematic Uses of Hieroglyphs with Particular Reference to an Archaic Ritual Vessel.” Metropolitan Museum Journal 5 (1972): 31-49.

Glanville, S.R.K. “An Archaic Statuette from Abydos,” Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 17 (1931): 65-66, pl. IX.

________. “Hieroglyphen.” Lexicon der Ägyptologie II. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1977.

Gophna, Ram. “Egyptian Immigration into Southern Canaan during the First Dynasty.” Tel Aviv 3 (1976): 31-37.

________. “Old Kingdom Cylinder Seals for the Lower Classes.” Ancient Egypt in the Metropolitan Museum Journal, Volumes 1-11 (1968-1976). New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1977.

________. “First Preliminary Report: Excavations at ‘En Besor,” Antiqot 11 (1976): 1-9. ________. “Egyptian Trading Posts in Southern Canaan at the Dawn of the Archaic Period.” Egypt, Israel, Sinai, Archaeological and Historical Relationships in the Biblical Period. Edited by Anson F. Fainey, 13-21. Tel Aviv, 1987.

________. “The Evolution of Composite Hieroglyphs in Ancient Egypt.” Metropolitan Museum Journal Supplement: Volumes 12-13 (1977-1978). New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1980.

________. “The Egyptian Pottery of ‘En Besor.” Tel Aviv 17 (1990): 144-162.

124

References

________. Umm el-Qaab II : Importkeramik aus dem Friedhof U in Abydos (Umm el-Qaab) und die Beziehungen èagyptens zu Vorderasien im 4. Jahrtausend v. Chr. Mainz am Rhein : P. von Zabern, 2001.

________. “Tel ‘En Besor and Site H, Spatial Stratigraphy: The Early Bronze I Settlement at ‘En Besor Oasis.” Israel Exploration Journal 40 (1990): 1-11. ________. “The Contacts Between ‘En Besor Oasis, Southern Canaan and Egypt during the Late Predynastic and the Threshold of the First Dynasty, a Further Assessment. The Nile Delta in Transition: 4th-3rd Millennium B.C. Edited by E. C. M. van den Brink, 385-394. Tel Aviv, 1992.

Hassan, Fekri. “Les Relations culturelles entre l’Égypte et ses voisins orientaux durant la Préhistoire récente.” Le Sinaï Durant L’Antiquité el le Moyen Âge: 4000 ans d’histoire pour un désert. Edited by Dominique Valbelle and Charles Bonnet, 12-19. Paris: Editions Errance, 1998.

________. Excavations at ‘En Besor. Jerusalem: Ramot Publishing House and Tel Aviv University. 1995.

Helck, W. “Einige Betrachtungen zu Den Frühesten Beziehungen Zwischen Ägypten und Vorderasien.” Ugarit-Forschungen 11(1979): 357-363.

________. “Southern Canaan during the EBI: The Egyptian Connection,” The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land. Edited by Thomas E. Levy, 277-280. New York: Facts on File Inc., 1995.

________. “Untersuchungen zur Thinitenzeit.” Ägyptologische Abhandlungen 45 (1987): 136145.

________. “Observations on the Earliest Phase of Relations between Egypt and Canaan during the Early Bronze Age.” Interregional Contacts in the Later Prehistory of Northeastern Africa, 311314. Poznan: Poznan Archaeological Museum, 1996.

Hendrikx, Stan. “The Relative Chronology of the Naqada Culture: Problems and Possibilities.” Aspects of Early Egypt. Edited by Jeffrey Spencer, 36-69. London: British Museum Press, 1996. Hennessy, J.B. The Foreign Relations of Palestine during the Early Bronze Age. London: Colt Archaeological Institute Publications. Bernard Quaritch Ltd., 1967.

Gophna, Ram and Dan Gazit. “The First Dynasty Egyptian Residency at ‘En Besor.” Tel Aviv 12 (1985): 9-16. Görsdorf, Jochen, Günter Dreyer and Ulrich Hartung. “C14 Dating Results of the Archaic Royal Necropolis Umm el-Qaab at Abydos.” Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Institus. Abteilung Kairo 54 (1998): 169-175.

Hodder, Ian. The Meaning of Things: Material Culture and Symbolic Expression. London: Unwin Hyman, 1989. Hoffman, Michael A. Egypt Before the Pharaohs. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1979.

Griffiths, F. Ll. “Oxford Excavations in Nubia.” Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology 8 (1921): 1-18.

Hornung, Erik. Idea into Image: Essays on Ancient Egyptian Thought. Translated by Elizabeth Bredeck. Something: Timken Publishers Inc., 1992.

Groenenwegen-Frankfort, H.A. Arrest and Movement, an essay on space and time in the representational art of the ancient Near East. London: Faber and Faber, 1951.

Hutflies, Ann Marlene. Politics and Potsherds: A Tentative Typology of the Predynastic and Early Dynastic Pottery from Mendes, Egypt. M.A. thesis. University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign, 1995.

Hartung, Ulrich. “Zur Entwicklung des Handels und zum Beginn wirtschaftlicher Administration im prädynastischen Ägypten.” Studien zuraltägyptischen Kultur 26 (1998): 35-50.

Ilan, Ornit and Michael Sebbane. “Copper Metallurgy, Trade and the Urbanization of Southern Canaan in the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age.” L’urbanisation de la Palestine a l’âge du Bronze ancien. Edited by Pierre de Miroschedji. Oxford: B.A.R., 1989.

________. “Prädynastiche Siegelbrollungen aus dem Friedhof U in Abydos (‘Umm el-Qa’ab).” Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Institus. Abteilung Kairo 54 (1998): 187-217.

125

Cylinder Seal Glyptic in Predynastic Egypt and Neighboring Regions

Kahl, Jochem. Das System der ägyptischen Hieroglyphenschrift in der 0.-3. Dynastie,Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag. 1994.

________. “The Final Phase of Predynastic Culture: Gerzean or Semainean (?)” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 3, no. 2 (1944): 110-136.

Kaiser, Werner. “Zur inneren Chronologie der Naqadakultur.” Archaeologia Geographica 6 (1957): 69-77.

________. “Further Evidence for Early Mesopotamian Relations with Egypt.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 11 (1952): 239-250.

________. “Einige Bemerkungen zur ägyptischen Früzeit. III. Die Reichseinigung.” Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde, 91 (1964): 86-125.

________. “Egypt and Palestine.” Chronologies in Old World Archaeology. Edited by Robert W. Enrich, 2-45. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992.

Kaiser, Werner, G. Dreyer, G. Grimm, G. Haeny, H. Jaritz and C. Müller. “Stadt und Tempel von Elephantine. Fünfter Grabungsbericht.” Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Institus. Abteilung Kairo 31 (1975): 39-84.

Kaplony, Peter. Die Inschriften der Ägyptischen Frühzeit. Ägyptologische Abhandlungen 8. 3 vols. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1963. ________. Die Inschriften der Ägyptischen Frühzeit (Supplement). Ägyptologische Abhandlungen 9. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1964.

Kaiser, Werner, G. Dreyer, R. Gempeler, P. Grossman, G. Haeny, H. Jaritz, and F. Junge. “Stadt und Tempel von Elephantine. Sechster Grabungsbericht.” Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Institus. Abteilung Kairo 32 (1976): 67-112.

Kelley, Allyn L. “A Review of the Evidence Concerning Early Egyptian Knife Handles.” The Ancient World, Vol. VI, nos. 1-4. Edited by J.K. Hoffmeier and E.S. Meltzer, 95-102. Chicago: Ares Publishers Inc., 1983.

Kaiser, Werner, G. Dreyer, R. Gempeler, and H. Jaritz. “Stadt und Tempel von Elephantine. Siebter Grabungsbericht.” Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Institus. Abteilung Kairo 33 (1977): 63-100.

Kemp, Barry J. “Abydos and the Royal Tombs of the First Dynasty.” Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 52 (1966): 13-22. ________. “The Osiris Temple at Abydos.” Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Institus. Abteilung Kairo 23 (1968): 138-155.

Kaiser, Werner and P. Grossmann. “Umm el-Qaab. Nachuntersuchungen im frühzeitlichen Königsfriedhof. 1. Vorbericht.” Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Institus. Abteilung Kairo 35 (1979): 155-63.

________. Ancient Egypt: Anatomy of a Civilization. London: Routhledge, 1989. ________. “The Colossi from the Early Shrine at Coptos in Egypt.” Cambridge Archaeological Journal 10, no. 2 (2000): 211-242.

Kaiser, Werner and Günter Dreyer. “Umm el-Qaab. Nachuntersuchungen im frühzeitlichen Königsfriedhof. 2. Vorbericht.” Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Institus. Abteilung Kairo 38 (1982): 211-69.

Köhler, E. Christiana. “The Pre- and Early Dynastic Pottery at Tell el-Fara’in/Buto,” The Nile Delta in Transition; 4th-3rd Millennium B.C. Edited by E.C.M. van den Brink, 11-22. Tel Aviv: The Israel Exploration Society, 1992.

Kaiser, Werner, R. Avila, G. Dreyer, H. Jaritz, F.W. Rösing and S. Seidlmayer. “Stadt und Tempel von Elephantine. Neunter/Zehnter Grabungsbericht.” Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Institus. Abteilung Kairo 38 (1982): 271-345.

________. “Evidence for Interregional Contacts between Late Prehistoric Lower and Upper Egypt: a View from Buto.” Interregional Contacts in the Later Prehistory of Northeastern Africa. 215-225. Poznan: Poznan Archaeological Museum, 1996.

Kantor, Helene J. 1942. “The Early Relations of Egypt with Asia.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 1: 174-213.

126

References

___________. Préhistoire de L’Égypte: Les Premiers Hommes aux Premiers Pharaons. Paris: Armand Colin, 1992.

Kroeper, Karla. “Palestinian Ceramic Imports in Preand Protohistoric Egypt” L’urbanisation de la Palestine a l’âge du Bronze ancien. Edited by Pierre de Miroschedji, 407-422. Oxford: B.A.R., 1989.

Millet, N.B. Ancient Egyptian Cylinder Seals. M.A. dissertation. Chicago: The University of

Lacovara, Peter. “Non-Chronological Approaches to the Study of Ceramic Material: The Origin of Ceramic Specialization in Mesoamerica and Egypt.” Unpublished paper.

Chicago, 1959. Mills, A.J. and H.Å. Nordström. “The Archaeological Survey from Gemai to Dal. Preliminary Report on the Season 1964-65.” Kush 14 (1966): 1-15.

Largacha, Antonio Perez. “Relations Between Egypt and Mesopotamia at the End of the Fourth Millennium.” Göttinger Miszellen 137 (1993): 59-76.

Mittman, Siegfried. “Frühägyptische Siegelinschriften und ein srh-emblem des Horus‘H’; aus dem Nördlichen Negeb.” Eretz Israel 11 (1981): 1-9.

Lesko, Leonard. “Ancient Egyptian Cosmogonies and Cosmology.” Religion in Ancient Egypt: Gods, Myth and Personal Practice. Edited by Byron Schafer, 88-122. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1991.

Monnet- Saleh, J. “Les representations de temples sur platforms à pieux, de la poterie gerzéenne d’Egypt,” Bulletin de l’Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale 83 (1983): 263-96.

Levy, Thomas E. “Radiocarbon Chronology of the Beersheva Culture and Predynastic Egypt.” The Nile Delta in Transition; 4th-3rd Millennium B.C. Edited by E.C.M. van den Brink, 345-56. Tel Aviv: The Israel Exploration Society, 1992.

Moorey, P.R.S. “On Tracking Cultural Transfers in Prehistory: the Case of Egypt and Lower Mesopotamia in the Fourth Millennium B.C.” Center and Periphery in the Ancient World. Edited by Michael Rowlands, Mogens Larsen, and Kristian Kristiansen, 36-46. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987.

________. “Cult, Metallurgy and Rank Societies – Chalcolithic Period (ca. 4500-3500 BCE).” The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land. Edited by Thomas E. Levy, 226-43. New York: Facts on File Inc., 1995.

Naville, H. E. The Cemeteries of Abydos. Part I. The Mixed Cemetery and Umm el-Ga’ab. Egypt Exploration Fund 33. London, 1914.

Marfoe, Leon. “Cedar Forest to Silver Mountain: Social Change and the Development of Long-Distance Trade in Early Near Eastern Societies.” Center and Periphery in the Ancient World. Edited by Michael Rowlands, Mogens Larsen, and Kristian Kristiansen, 25-35. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987.

Needler, Winifred. Predynastic and Archaic Egypt in the Brooklyn Museum. Wilbour Monographs 9. New York: The Brooklyn Museum, 1984. Nissen, Hans J. The Early History of the Ancient Near East 9000-2000 B.C. Translated by Elizabeth Lutzeier and Kenneth J. Northcott. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988.

Mark, Samuel. From Egypt to Mesopotamia: A Study of Predynastic Trade Routes. London: Chatham Publishing, 1997.

Nordström, HÅ. “A-Group and C-Group in Upper Nubia.” Kush 14 (1966):63-68.

Matthews, Roger J. Cities, Seals and Writing: Archaic Seal Impressions from Jemdet Nasr and Ur. Berlin: Gebr. Mann Verlag, 1993.

________. Neolithic and A-Group Sites, The Scandinavian Joint Expedition to Sudanese Nubia, Vol. 3. Sweden: Scandinavian University Books, 1972.

Mazar, Amihai. Archaeology of the Land of the Bible. New York: Doubleday, 1990.

O’Connor, David. “The Locations of Yam and Kush nd Their Historical Implications.” Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 23 (1986): 27-50.

Midant-Reynes, Béatrix. 1987. “Contribution a l’étude de la Société Prédynastique: Le cas du couteau “ripple-flake.” Studien zur altägyptischen Kultur 14 (1987): 185-224.

127

Cylinder Seal Glyptic in Predynastic Egypt and Neighboring Regions

________. Prehistoric Egypt. British School of Archaeology in Egypt vol. 31. London, 1920.

________. Ancient Nubia: Egypt’s Rival in Africa. Philadelphia: The University Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania, 1993.

________. Corpus of Prehistoric Pottery and Palettes. British School of Archaeology in Egypt vol. 32. London, 1921.

Ogden, Jorge R. “Studies in Archaic Epigraphy IV. On Architectural Design for Names of Constructions on Archaic Hieroglyphs.” Göttinger Miszellen 62 (1983): 55-61.

________. Ceremonial Slate Palettes. British School of Archaeology in Egypt 66 (A). London, 1953.

Oren, Eliezer D. “Early Bronze Age Settlement in Northern Sinai: A Model for Egypto-Canaanite Interconnections.” L’urbanisation de la Palestine a l’âge du Bronze ancien. Edited by Pierre de Miroschedji, 389-406. Oxford: B.A.R., 1989.

Philip, Graham. “Contacts between the ‘Uruk’ World and the Levant During the Fourth Millenium BC: Evidence and Interpretation.” Artefacts of Complexity: Tracking the Uruk in the Near East. Edited by J.N. Postgate, 207-235. Iraq Archaeological Reports 5. British School of Archaeology in Iraq, 2002.

Osborn, Dale J. and Jana Osbornova. The Mammals of Ancient Egypt: The Natural History of Egypt Vol. 4. Warminster: Aris and Phillips Ltd., 1998.

Piotrovsky, B. “The Early Dynastic Settlement of Khor-Daûd and Wadi Allaki, the Ancient Route of the Gold Mines,” Fouilles en Nubie, 19611963, 127-140, Cairo: Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities, 1967.

Parker, R.A. “Ancient Egyptian Astronomy.” Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. A. 276 (1974): 51-65. Payne, Joan Crowfoot. Catalogue of the Predynastic Egyptian Collection in the Ashmolean Museum. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993.

Pittman, Holly. “Constructing Context: The Gebel elArak Knife Greater Mesopotamian and Egyptian Interaction in the late Fourth Millennium B.C.E.” Narrative and Event in Ancient Art. Edited by Peter J. Holliday, 9-32. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.

Peet, T.E. The Cemeteries of Abydos. Part II. 19111912. Egypt Exploration Fund Memoir 34. London, 1914. Petrie, W.M.F. “Sequence in Prehistoric Remains.” Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 29 (1899): 295-301.

________. The Glazed Steatite Glyptic Style: The Structure and Function of an Image System in the Administration of Protoliterate Mesopotamia. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag, 1994.

________. The Royal Tombs of the First Dynasty. 1900. Part I. Egypt Exploration Fund Memoir 18. London, 1900.

________. “Toward an Understanding of the Role of Glyptic Imagery in the Administrative Systems of Proto-Literate Greater Mesopotamia.” Archives Before Writing. Edited by Piera Ferioli, Enrica Fiandra, Gian Giacomo Fissore, Marcella Frangipane, 177-203. Rome: Centro Internazionale di Ricerche Archeologiche Antropologiche e Storiche, 1994.

________. The Royal Tombs of the Earliest Dynasties. 1901. Part II. Egypt Exploration Fund Memoir 21. London, 1901. ________. Diospolis Parva. The Cemteries of Abadiyeh and Hu. 1898-1899. Egypt Exploration Fund Memoir 20. London, 1901.

________. “Response,” Archives Before Writing, ed. Piera Ferioli, Enrica Fiandra, Gian Giacomo Fissore and Marcella Frangipane, (Rome: Centro Internaziionale di Ricerche Archeologiche Antropologiche e Storiche, 1994.

________. Abydos. Part I. 1902. Egypt Exploration Fund Memoir 22. London, 1902. ________. Abydos. Part II. 1903. Egypt Exploration Fund Memoir 24. London, 1903.

________. “Mesopotamian Intraregional Relations Reflected Through Glyptic Evidence in the Late Chalcolithic 1-5 Periods.” Uruk Mesopotamia and Its Neighbors: Cross Cultural Interactions in the Era of State Formation. Edited by Mitchell S.

________. Scarabs and Cylinders with Names. British School of Archaeology in Egypt and Egypt Research Account Memoir 29. London, 1917.

128

References

________. Maadi III, The Non-Lithic Small Finds and the Structural Remains of the Predynastic Settlement. Mainz am Rhein: Verlag Philipp von Zabern, 1989.

Rothman, 403-443. Santa Fe, New Mexico: School of American Research Press, 2001. Podzorski, Patricia V. “Predynastic Egyptian Seals of Known Provenance in the R.H. Lowie Museum of Anthropology.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 47, no. 4 (1988): 259-268.

________. Maadi IV. The Predynastic Cemeteries of Maadi and Wadi Digla. Mainz am Rhein: Verlag Philipp von Zabern, 1990.

Porada, Edith. “Introduction.” Ancient Art in Seals. Edited by Edith Porada, 3-32. Princeton, 1980.

Rothman, Mitchell S. “Sealings as a Control Mechanism in Prehistory: Tepe Gawra XI, X and

Porat, Naomi. “Local Industry of Egyptian Pottery in Southern Palestine during the Early Bronze I Period.” Bulletin of the Egyptian Seminar 8 (1986/87): 109-129.

VII.” Chiefdoms and Early States in the Near East: The Organization Dynamics of Complexity. Edited by Gil Stein and Mitchell S. Rothman, 103-120. Madison, Wisconsin: Prehistory Press, 1994.

________. “An Egyptian Colony in Southern Palestine during the Late Predynastic/Early Dynastic Period.” The Nile Delta in Transition; 4th-3rd Millennium B.C. Edited by E.C.M. van den Brink, 433-440. Tel Aviv: The Israel Exploration Society, 1992.

________. “The Local and the Regional: An Introduction.” Uruk Mesopotamia & its Neighbors: Cross-Cultural Interactions in the Era of State Formation. Edited by Mitchell S. Rothman. 3-26. Sante Fe: School of American Research Press, 2001.

Postgate, J. N. ed. Artefacts of complexity : tracking the Uruk in the Near East. British School of Archaeology in Iraq, 2002.

Savage, Stephen H. Descent, Power and Competitionin Predynastic Egypt: Mortuary Evidence from Cemetery N7000 at Naga-ed-Der. Ph.D. dissertation. Arizona State University, 1995.

Prag, Kay. “Byblos and Egypt in the Fourth Millennium B.C.” Levant 18 (1986): 59-74.

Schmandt-Besserat, Denise. How Writing Came About. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1996.

Quack, J.F. “Die Daterung der Siegelabdrücke von Tel ‘En Besor.” Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palestina-Vereins 105 (1989): 18-26.

Schulman, Alan R. “The Egyptian Seal Impressions from ‘En Besor.” ‘Atiqot 11 (1976):16-26.

Quirke, Stephen. “The Regular Titles of the Late Middle Kingdom.” Revue D’Egyptologie 37 (1986): 107-30.

________. “More Egyptian Seal Impressions from ‘En Besor.” ‘Atiqot 14 (1980): 17-33.

Quibell, J.E. and W.M.F. Petrie, Hierakonpolis I. London: Egyptian Research Account, 1900.

________. “On the Dating of the Egyptian Seal Impressions from ‘En Besor.” Journal of the Society for the Study of Egyptian AntiquityXIII (1983): 249-251.

Reisner, George A. Archaeological Survey of Nubia: Report for 1907-1908, vol. 1. Cairo: National Printing Department, 1910.

________. “At the Fringe: The Historiography and Historicity of the Relations of Egypt and Canaan in the Early Bronze Age I.” L’urbanisation de la Palestine a l’âge du Bronze ancien. Edited by Pierre de Miroschedji, 433-453. Oxford: B.A.R., 1989.

Ridley, R.T. The Unification of Egypt As Seen Through a Study of the Major Knife Handles, Palettes and Maceheads. Deception Bay: Shield Press, 1973. Rizkana, I. and J. Seeher. Maadi I, The Pottery of the Predynastic Settlement. Mainz am Rhein: Verlag Philipp von Zabern, 1987.

________. “Still More Egyptian Seal Impressions from ‘En Besor.” The Nile Delta in Transition: 4th-3rd Millenium B.C. Edited by Edwin C.M. van den Brink, 395-417. Tel Aviv: The Israel Exploration Society, 1992.

________. Maadi II, The Lithic Industries of the Predynastic Settlement. Mainz am Rhein: Verlag Philipp von Zabern, 1988.

129

Cylinder Seal Glyptic in Predynastic Egypt and Neighboring Regions

Schwartz, Glenn. “Before Ebla: Models of Pre-State Political Organization in Syria and Northern Mesopotamia.” Chiefdoms and Early States in the Near East: The Organization Dynamics of Complexity. Edited by Gil Stein and Mitchell S. Rothman, 153-74. Madison, Wisconsin: Prehistory Press, 1994.

Taylor, John H. Egypt and Nubia. London: British Museum Press. 1993.

________. “Syria and the Uruk Expansion.” Uruk Mesopotamia and Its Neighbors: Cross Cultural Interactions in the Era of State Formation. Edited by Mitchell S. Rothman, 233-264. Santa Fe, New Mexico: School of American Research Press, 2001.

________. Egyptian Iconography on SyroPalestinian Cylinder Seals of the Middle Bronze Age. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis Series Archaeologica. Fribourg, Switzerland: Othmar Keel and Cristoph Uehlinger, 1996.

Tessier, Beatrice. “Glyptic Evidence for a Connection Between Iran, Syro-Palestine and Egypt in the Fourth and Third Millennia.” Iran 25 (1987): 2753.

Tiradritti, Francesco, ed. Egyptian Treasures from the Egyptian Museum in Cairo. New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc., 1999.

Sethe, Kurt. “Zur Erklarung einiger Denkmaler aus der Frühzeit der ägypten Kultur.” Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 52 (1915): 55-60.

Tutundzic, Sava P. “Relations between Late Predynastic Egypt and Palestine: Some Elements and Phenomena.” L’urbanisation de la Palestine a l’âge du Bronze ancien. Edited by Pierre de Miroschedji. Oxford: B.A.R., 1989.

Sievertsen, Uwe. “Das Messer Vom Gebel el-Arak.” Baghdader Mitteilungen 23 (1992): 1-75. Smith, H.S. “The Making of Egypt: A review of the influence of Susa and Sumer on Upper Egypt and Lower Nubia in the 4th Millennium B.C.” The Followers of Horus. Edited by Renee Freidman and Barbara Adams, 235-46. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 1992.

________. “A Consideration of Differences Between the Pottery Showing Palestinian Characteristics in the Maadian and Gerzean Cultures.” Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 79 (1993): 33-55.

Smith, W. Stevenson. The Art and Architecture of Ancient Egypt. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1965.

Van den Brink, Edwin C.M. “Corpus and Numerical Evaluation of the ‘Thinite’ Potmarks.” The Followers of Horus, edited by Renee Freidman and Barbara Adams, 265-94. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 1992.

Spencer, A.J. Early Egypt: The Rise of Civilization in the Nile Valley. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1995.

________. “The ‘En Besor Cylinder Seal Impressions in Retrospect.” Excavations at ‘En Besor. Edited by Ram Gophna, 201-14. Jerusalem: Ramot Publishing House and Tel Aviv University, 1995.

Stein, Gil. “Introduction Part II. The Organizational Dynamics of Complexity in Greater Mesopotamia.” Chiefdoms and Early States in the Near East: The Organization Dynamics of Complexity. Edited by Gil Stein and Mitchell S. Rothman, 11-22. Madison, Wisconsin: Prehistory Press, 1994.

Vandier, Jacques. Manuel d’archéologie égyptienne, 2 Vols. Paris: Picard, 1952. Vercoutter, Jean. L’Égypte et la Vallée du Nil. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1992.

________. Rethinking world-system: diasporas, colonies, and interaction in Uruk Mesopotamia. Tucson : University of Arizona Press, 1999.

Vertesalji, P.P. “Le manche du couteau de Gebel elArak dans le contexte des relations entre la Mésopotamie et L’Égypte.” La circulations des biens des personnes et des idées dans le ProcheOrient ancien. Edited by D. Charpin and F. Joannes, 29-30. Paris: R.A.I., 1992.

________. “Indigenous Social Complexity at Hacinebi (Turkey) and the Organization of Uruk Colonial Contact.” Uruk Mesopotamia and Its Neighbors: Cross Cultural Interactions in the Era of State Formation. ed. Mitchell S. Rothman, 265-306. Santa Fe, New Mexico: School of American Research Press, 2001.

Voigt, Mary M., and Robert H. Dyson. 1992. “Iran.” Chronologies in Old World Archaeology. Edited by Robert W. Enrich, 77-90. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992.

130

References

Postgate, 237-248. Iraq Archaeological Reports 5. British School of Archaeology in Iraq, 2002.

Von der Way, Thomas. “Investigations Concerning the Pre-and Early Dynastic Periods in the Northern Delta of Egypt.” The Near East in Antiquity Vol. II. Edited by Susanne Kerner, 4761. Amman: Goethe-Institut, 1991.

Williams, Bruce. “Lost Pharaohs Archaeology 33 (1980): 12-21.

________. “Excavations at Tell El-Fara’in/Buto in 1987-89.” The Nile Delta in Transition; 4th-3rd Millennium B.C. Edited by E.C.M. van den Brink, 1-10. Tel Aviv: The Israel Exploration Society, 1992.

of

Nubia.”

________. The A-Group Royal Cemetery at Qustul: Cemetery L. Chicago: University of Chicago Oriental Institute Nubian Expedition Volume III, 1986. ________. Decorated Pottery and the Art of Naqada III. Müncher Ägyptologische Studien. Berlin: Deutscher Kunstverlag München Berlin, 1988.

________. “Indications of Architecture with Niches at Buto.” The Followers of Horus. Edited by Renee Freidman and Barbara Adams, 217-26. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 1992.

________. “The Qustul Incense Burner and the Case for a Nubian Origin of Ancient Egyptian Kingship.” Egypt in Africa. Edited by Theodore Celenko, 95-97. Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1996.

Wallerstein, Immanuel. 1974. The Modern World System, Vol. 1. New York: Academic Press. Ward, William A. Index of Egyptian Administrative and Religious Titles of the Middle Kingdom. Beirut, 1982.

Williams, Bruce, and Thomas J. Logan. “The Metropolitan Museum Knife Handle and Aspects of Pharaonic Imagery Before Narmer.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 46, no. 4 (1987): 245-85.

Watrin, Luc. “The Relationship Between the Nile Delta and Palestine During the Fourth Millennium: From Early Exchange (Naqada I-II) to the Colonization of Southern Palestine (Naqada III). Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress of Egyptologists. Edited by C.J. Eyre, 1215-26. Leuven: Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 82, 1998.

Wright, Henry T. and Gregory A. Johnson. “Population, Exchange, and Early State Formation in Southwestern Iran.” American Anthropologist 77, no. 2 (1975): 267-89. Wright, Mary. “Contacts Between Egypt and SyroPalestine during the Protodynastic Period.” Biblical Archaeologist 48 (1985): 240-253.

Weber, Manfred. “Fliege.” Lexicon der Ägyptologie II. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1975.

Yeivin, S. “Early Contacts Between Canaan and Egypt.” Israel Exploration Journal 10 no. 4 (1960): 193-205.

Wegner, Joseph W. “Interaction between the Nubian A-Group and Predynastic Egypt: The Significance of the Qustul Incense Burner.” Egypt in Africa. Edited by Theodore Celenko, 98-100. Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. Weinstein, James M. “The Significance of Tell Areini for Egyptian-Palestinian Relations at the Beginning of the Bronze Age.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 256 (1984): 61-67. Weiss, Harvey. Ebla to Damascus: Art and Archaeology of Ancient Syria. Washington D.C.: Smithsonian Institution, 1985. Wilkinson, Toby A.H. Early Dynastic Egypt. London: Routledge, 1999. ________. “Uruk into Egypt: Imports and Imitations.” Artefacts of Complexity: Tracking the Uruk in the Near East. Edited by J.N.

131