NAHAL TILLAH REED DECORATED POTTERY: ASPECTS oF EARLYBRONZE AGE IB CERAMIC PRODUCTIONI AND EGYPTIAN COUNTERPARTS

Eric Kansa, stan Hendrickx, Thomas E. Levy and Edwin c.M. van ilen Brink

During Ram Gophna's long career as at'r archaeologist working in Israel, he has developed apropensity for using relatively small data sets to tackle large problems of broatl scholarly interest.His survey work, carried out ahnost single-handedly along the coastal plain and northern Negevregions, has provided a crucial and reliable index concerning the long-term processes of settlernentin those parts of 'Eret7 Israel'from the Chalcolithic through the Persian periocls. Long ago, Gophnarealized the importance of docuruenting these sites in light of the rapid buitding and developntentproiects that have taken pLace in those regions. It was during his service as district archaeologist inthe Negev, that Ram's colleagues Dan Gazit and JoeYehezkel, identffied the site of 'En Besor, locatedalong the northern Negev coastal plain. It was Rant who appreciated the great potential of this tinysite (ca. 0.4 acres) as a key for understanding the nature of interaction between southern CcLnaanand the earliest Egyptian state (Dynasties 0 - I ). From I970 to 1983, Gophna carried out a series ofsntall scale excavations at 'En Besor which drew th.e issue of Egyptian - Canaanite interaction intothe international scholarLy debate concenting ancient 'WorLd Systems' and the role of 'Core -

Periphery' models on social evolution.t During the recent excavations at Nahal Tittah and. the HalifTerrace, Rant Gophna was a welconte and important visitor to the site. His long-term interest in thenature of the earliest Egyptian - Canaanite interaction provided an important sounding board.forour ideas concerning the problems in our research area. In addition to his scholarly discussions withoLff tean':, the co-director of the Nahal Tillah project, tlte late David Alon, and Ram woulil sittgoperatic duets during the hot afternoon hours of pottery washing and fi.nds processing. It is witltgreat respect and affection that we dedicate this paper to professor Goplma.

Reed Decorated Pottery at Nahal Tillah / The Halif Terrace

Introduction

In the joint 1994-1996 University of California, San Diego / Hebrew Union College Nahai TillahRegional Archaeological Research Project, excavators recovered several sherds ofunique Early BronzeIb pottery. This project focused great attention on documenting the Early Bronze Ib Egyptian presencein the Southern Levant through excavations of the Halif Terrace. Excavations in these three fieldseasons uncovered broad exposures of Early Bronze Ib architecture. With this architecture, theseexcavations recovered large quantities of locally produced Egyptian and local Southern Levantinestyled pottery, lithics, ground stone artifacts, and some imported Egyptian vessels and signs ofbuteaucratic activity such as seal impressions (Levy et al. 1997 S. Among these finds is a type of

r cf. Algaze 1993; Levy and van den Brink,2002.

193

pottery made with locally avarlable clays that displays modeled decoration reminiscent of horizontalrows of reeds or basketry. For thrs reason, we term this pottery type "reed-ware". As will be discussed.the ancient inhabitants of the Halif Terace (Nahal Tillah Silo Site) probtrbly prociLrced this reed-ware as a local variant of an Egyptian lidded vessel type. Such liddeci vessels occasionally appear inmorttlary, temple as well as settiement contexts from Egypt between the 4'r' and 3'd millennia BCE.The Halif Terrace reed-ware marks the first pr-rblished finds of such lidded vessels liom the SouthernLevant. Our replication experiments demonstrate that, despite the apparent elaboration and expertiseof execution in the reed-ware, production of this decoration requires no complex procedures andIittle investment in sLr1l or time.

Chronological Considerations

Excavations recovered most of the reed decorated pottery fragments from Stratum II (late EarlyBronze Ib, circa 3300-3000 BCE) contexts. A minority of reed decorated pottery comes from StratumI contexts at Nahal Tillah. However Stratum I is comprised of heavily disturbed and reworked topsoildeposits, and includes finds ranging from recent periocls, to the Romano-Byzantine penod, the IronAge, and mixed Early Bronze I and Chalcolithic periods. Therefore, littie chlonological significancecan be ascribed to the reed-decorated pottery recovered from stratum I.

As stated, most of the reed decoratecl pottery came from Stratum II contexts at Nahal Tillah.Stratum II contexts also yielded the vast majority of Nahal Tillah's Egyptian styled finds- bothlocally produced in the Southern Levant and bona ficle imports from Egypt. These results ftrrtherconfirm the presence of both loca1ly produced and imported E-eyptian styled finds (see Dessel, 1991 ;Alon andYekutieli, 1995; and greatly expand the sample of this alien material already klown fromthe Halif Tenace. Unfortunately, the close resemblance of the locally produced Egyptian styledpottery to pottery from Egypt itself hampered the identitrcation of imported Egyptian pottery. Sincethis study relied on visual inspection of fabrics, sometimes the distinctions between local and importedEgyptian styled pottery were subtle. Therefore, pottery analysis util izecl a system to rate the certaintyof fabric identitrcations of sherds considered as potential imports (see Table 1). In this analysis, thecategory "probable marl" refers to fabrics where identification is less certain.Only less than3Va of the total Egyptian styled assembiage from Nahal Tillah was apparently imported.Of these, al1 of the Egyptian imported vessels identified have ciosed forms. These forms includecylindrical jars. wine jars, storage jars, smail "bag-shaped" jars, and small globular jars. Wine jar

sherds often seem to have Nile alluvial fabrics (but more examples were apparently locally produced,havin-q loess rich fabrics and small limestone grits).2 It needs to be noted that such Nile alluvialfabrics need not indicate a Delta origin for these vessels, since pottels of this period useci alluvialclays sources in Upper Egypt as well (e.g. Friedman, 1996: Fig. 8). The wine-jar sherds also tend tohave darker, brownish coloration. In contrast, cylindlical jars uniformly have very hard (stone-like)fabrics typical for marl c1ays. These vessels often have a yellowish gray color (almost green).

2 For a local rmitation of a Type III wine jar uncovered at Lod, see van den Brink in press: Fig. 19.5: 2.

194

Table l. Fabrics oJ irnported Egyptian pottery

Stratum Number Egyptian 7o of Imported

Imported Diagnostic Sherds of Clear

Sherds Marl Fabrics

9. nf Tmnnrter' l

Sherds of Probable

Marl Fabrics

7o of Imported

Sherds of Niie

Aliuvial/Silt Fabrics

I

(918 total analyzed

diagnostic sherds,

of which I9Vo are

Egyptian styled) 28.6Vo 42.97o 28.6Va

IIA

(i238 total analyzed

diagnostic sherds,

of which ISVo are

Egyptian styled) t6.1Vc 66.7 7o 16. l7o

IIA,ts

(416 total analyzed

diagnostic sherds,

of which 34Vo are

Egyptian styled) 25.}Vo I5 . jVo 0.)Va

IIb

(3948 total analyzed

diagnostic sherds,

of which 42Vo arc

Egyptian styled) 28 35.7 Va 50.jVo 14.3Vo

IVIII

(184 total analyzed

diagnostic sherds,

of which 4Vo arc

Egyptian styled) 50.jVa 50.}Vo 0.07o

ilCiIIIA

( 1 1 95 total analyzed

diagnostic sherds,

of which 8Vo are

Egyptian styled) 0.jVo 50.07a 50.07o

1 9 5

The imported Egyptian pottery helps establish the chronological posrtion of Stratum II at theHalif Terrace. A11 of the Egyptian styled pottery recovered fiom Stratum II ciearly parallels NaqadaIIIB-C 1 (chronologrcal terminology after Hendrickr 1989, 1996, 19991 ceramrcs recovered in Egypt.The imported cylindrrcal jars made of mari clays provide important chronological markers. Thoserecovered at Nahal Tillah had very smooth and polished surface and were ciecorated ar the neck withfine incrsions characteristic of the Naqada IIIB period (Petrie's types W80 and W80b, see also Kaiser,1957:Taf. 24: Kansa, 1998:Fig. 1; Hendrickr and Bavay, in press, Table 1). Unfortunately, excavarionsat Nahal Tillah recovered mostly tiagmentary wine-jar sherds, making typological analysis difficult.The wine-jars recovered from Nahai Tillah (Stratum IIA-IIB) that colrld be identified according tovan den Brink's typology inclr,rded Type IVa wine-jars, a type common to the Naqad aIIIb2-c2 (Kaiser1957; Naqada IIICl according to Hendriclcr 1996) period (van den Brink, 1996:Tab1e 5 and Fig. 3).However, this type of wine jar also occurs tn Straten IIId-f (Naqada IIIb) levels at Buto along withNaqada IIIb / Naqada IIIb cylindrical jars fKohler, 1999: 47 -48]. These finds lead Kohler ro suggestthat production of this type of large wine jar emerged earlier in the Delta than previously suspected.Given this possibility, the chronological significance of Egyptian styled wine jars at Nahal Tillahremains diflcult to establish.

The majority of Stratum II's building activities took place in the sub-phase Stratum IIB. Themajority of the reed-ware fragments also originated fiom filis assigned to Stratum IIB, ancl to alesser extent from the Stratum IIA sub-phase. In addition, excavations documented two reed-warefragments from loci 59 and 102. These loci also contained fragments of imported Naqada IIIbcylindrical jars, of the same type as those discussed above. Only two small reed-ware fragmentsoriginated from a iocus assigned to an earlier sub-phase in Stratum II (Stratum IIC). The small sizeof these fragments makes any significance to their recovery in these early context doubtfr-rl.

Spatial Distribution

Excavations on the Halif Tenace recovered reed-ware sherds primarily from filVdump contextsscattered throughout Areas A, B, C, and D. Interestingly, Area A contexts yielded all of the lidfragments, including the reconstructed example and the partially reconstructed examples. Contextsfurther north, in Areas C and D, held the majority of reed-ware jar fragments. Most of the reed-warebody sherds also originated in Area C. This pattem is puzzling, since we hyporhesize that the jars

and lids functioned together. Perhaps this type of pottery took on multiple uses in its life time, andone can easily image accidental breakage and use of the remaining parts for other functions. Therarity of the reed-ware finds makes it difficult to determine if this spatial pattern resulted from chancealone. In Egypt, vessels and matching lids have rarely been found together. Most of the reievantvessels found in -graves lack a iid. No reason has ever been suggestecl for this. One should keep inmind though that these jars, iike al1 Predynastic pottery, was not a priori intended for deposition in

-qraves, but for use in daily life.

Overa11, Egyptian styied potreq/ compnses 20-35V0 (depending on qlrantillcation techniques) ofthe Stratnm II pottery from the 1994-1996 excavations at Nahal Tiilah (Levy et al. 1997). However,the Egyptian styled pottery has a "patchy" distribr-rtion and, in some loci, Egyptian-styled potteryoutnumbers local pottery styies, while other contemporary loci have very little Egyptian styled pottery

196

(Kansa and Levy 2002; see also Alon andYekutieli i995; Dessel 19g1,).In every case. the reed-waresherds originated from loci with large quantities of Egyptian styled potrery. The pottery assemblagesin these loci probably resulted from domestic use and disposai activities as indicated by the presenceof storage, serving, and cooking vessel fragments.

One exception to this generally domestic and ordinary picture may be Locus 841. This locuscontained a reed-ware jar fragment and two unique, modeled pottery sherds: a bas-relief modeled"giraffe"' and a bas-relief modeled with human legs (Levy et a7. 1991: Fig. l7: 5-6). These modeledsherds may be part of one or more Egyptian styled ritual "cult-stands", paralleling finds flom eustul(Wil l iams 1986: Fig. 181),Abydos (Harvey 1996), Coptos (Adams 1986: 19-20; pls. I andVII) ,Hierakonpolis (Adams and Friedm an 1992: Fig. 12), possibly Buro (Kohl er 1993: pl. 57: 1-2), TellIbrahirn Awad (Eigner 2000), and closer at hand. 'En Besor (Gophna 1972: Fig. 2:'/ , Karrn Doranpersonal com. 1 999). Other loci in the rmmediate vicinity of Locus 84 t had roughly ca. 500 kg. ofbread-mould sherds as well as sherds from Egyptian styled straw tempered basins (see Gophna 1990for close parallels; for an apparently imported basin see Gophna and Buzaglo 2000). Such a quantitlzneed not indicate production of bread beyond the needs of a household. Nevertheless, this quantityof breadmoulds is unusually rich for the Halif Terrace, and the presence of potter's marks on somebread-mould sherds (from this and other areas) may indicate some minor bureaucratization associatedwith some bread prodr-rction (Kansa and Levy in press). Since cult-stands likely had ritual functio'sand this nearby concentration of breadmould sherds is atypical for the Halif Terrace, the recovery ofreed-ware sherds from locus 841 may hint at special functions for this type of pottery. Such specialuses of the reed-ware may have included (but are not necessarily limited to) ritual functions. Weemphasize that this is merely a suggestion; the rarity of the reed-ware makes functional or syrnbolicintelpretations based on contextuai analysis premature. However, the rarity of reed ware seems toexclude a regular domestic function.

Morphology

We believe that the reed-ware sherds from Nahal Tillah represent a local variant of a type of liddedvessel that occasionally appeared in Egypt and Lower Nubia between the 4,h and 3d millennia BCE.These lidded vessels have two basic components, lids and jars, both of which appear at Nahal Tillah(see Fig.2). Based on two reconstructed examples (from Locus 123 and Locus 134), the lids hadrounded, concave interiors and rounded and pierced tops, resembling small inverled bowls. Accordingto the terminology presented by Rice (1987: 2I9),the lids have an "unrestricted ovaloid" shape. Thebases/rims of the lids often had traces of powdely red pigment. Interestingly, this was not a red slipor well-bounded paint since it remains somewhat powdery to the touch, and was pr-obably appliedafter firing. The overall shape of the lids differs fi'om both the Southerr Levantine-styled and Egyptian-styled bowls recovered fiom Nahal Tillah. It is therefole unlikely that these lids were simply bowlswith a special decoration. We recovered a portion of a pre-fired hole at the top of one lid, furtherreinforcing our argument that these objects were indeed lids. The hole suggests that these lids, likesome of the more completely preserved Egyptian counterparts. had string attachments joining themto the reed-ware jars (cf. Scharff 1926:34; Hendrickx 1994: 87).

Only one pre-fired perforation remained preserved in the lip of a reed-ware jar sher-d (L. 841, B.

r97

3103). However, since the Egyptian lidded-vessels hzrd four holes at the rim or lip, we sr.ispect thatthe Nahal Tillah reed-ware jars also probably had four holes around the lip. Like the Egyptian para1lels,the reed-ware jars also had a "holemouth" or neck-less morphology. Also paralleling f,inds fromEgypt, the reed-war jars had internaiiy ridged (guttered) rims, a shape that faciiitates the use of a iicl.Unfortunately, we cannot comment on the overali shape of the jars, since we only recovered rim andbody sherds. Based on the parallels from Egypt and our examination of the rim stances, it is like1ythat the jars had a restricted mouth and an ellipsoid/ovaloid form (see Rice 1987:2\9).It is alsolikely, based on these Egyptian parallels, that the jars had a flat bottom, though this inference cannotbe confirmed, since excavations at Nahal Tillah recovered no identified reed-ware base sherds.

Manufacturing Techniques

Determining the manner in which the ancient craftspeople at Nahal Tillah / Halif Tenace decoratedthe reed-ware provides an important basis for determining the significance of this type of pottery.Some potential manufacturing methods require elaborate ancl time-consuming procedures andexpertise. Ifthis type ofpottery did indeed result from such costly procedures, the production ofthispottery may imply a degree of craft specialization. C.ostiy production procedures may also implythat the owners of the reed-ware intended to express wealth and status through dispiay of a costlyproduct.

Some colleagues have informally suggested that the reed-ware was mosr likely produced by acostly and complex procedure, and have indicated that the mostly likely manufacturing methodmade use of a clay mould. This "mould method" would have required a craftsperson to build oracquire a basket, cover it with clay, and fire the clay-covered basket in order to burn out the organi.c

a \

Fig. I

1 9 8

tT

Reed decorntecl pottery recoveredfrom Nahal Tillah

Fig. 2. More reed-decoratecl pottery recoyered frcnt Nahal Tillalt

reeds to make a negative impression in clay for use as a stamp mouid. Presumably. the artisan wouldhave impressed fragments of the clay mould into the surface of the vessel that he or she wanted toproduce. We also considered another variant of the "mould method". The alternative method makesuse of a specialiy carved cylinder (much like a cylinder seal) to impress a reed pattem onto thesurflace of the pottery.

While it rs possible to produce a similar decoration using the mould method, it is unlikely that rhepotters of Nahal Tillah actually used such an elaborate and complex procedule. Though the reed-ware decoration does resemble basketry, it does not reproduce it exactiy. We have observed onlyhorizontal reed-like impressions in the surface of this pottery, and no vertical rmpressions. On closeinspection. the "reeds" of the decorated sherds vary somewhat in shape and bear no close resemblanceto naturally occuming reeds (see Fig. 8). In addition, the pattems of reed-impressions do not repeatas would be expected if the potters used some sort of mould or seal. The impressions are also deepand indented, and in some instances, produced in high rellef (see Fig. 9). Such deep impressions aredifficult to produce with a mould. Finally, we have not recovered anv such clav moulds in theexcavations of the Halif Terrace.

Our repiication experiments support an altelnative modeling technique. The reed-ware decoration,though apparently elaborate, is actually easy to produce. Manufactuling this pottery lequired nocomplex processes or elaborate too1s. A skilled potter can easrly produce these decorations with onlysome creativity and a simple concave tool, such as a small split bone shaft flagment, a split reed, ora split twig. In our replication technique we worked according to the following procedure:

1. The vessel body was formed.

2. While the clay was stil l damp, horizontal incisions were made with a toothpick at regulalintervals (- 2-4 mm) down the body of tire vessel (see Fig. 3)

r99

3. A split reed was used to model the clay surfaces between the horizontal incisions, while turnins

the vessel on a tollrnette (See Figs. 4-6)

A fragment of bone or reed with a concave end makes for a very simple and effective modeling too1.

One hand is free to rotate the tournette r,vhile the other hand gently presses a concave tool into the

surface of the vessel. While the potter turns the vessei, he or she can regularly exert more presslue ata steeper angle, thereby mak-rng modeled crescents in the horizontal ridges. With this method, ourfirst attempt to decorate a vessel similar in srze to the restored reed-ware lid took less than ten

minlrtes. As shown (see Figs. 6-7), our replication attempt produced a decoration pattern very similar

to the archaeological specimen of reed-ware recovered from Nahal Tillah. With practice, we could

reduce this already rapid decoration time. Additional attempts demonstrate that step 2 (the incision

of horizontal lines) may be redundant, and one can closely reproduce the decoratton without such

horizontai incisions. It should also be noted that some sort of tournette (even a very simple one, such

as a flat mat, board, or platter) makes production of relatively evenly spaced and horizontal rows of

reed-impressions easy to accomplish. Use of the toumette is well documented in both Egyptian

Naqada III and Sor,rthern Levantine Eariy Bronze I pottery (e.g. Mazar et al. 1996; Vandiver and

Lacovara 1985).

We have found it more difficult to determine the vessel building techniques than the decoration

techniques. The interior of the jar bodies tend not to have riling marks and are stightly variable in

thickness. The breaks ofthese sherds also tend to be "stepped". These observations suggests coil or

slab building techniques (see Vandiver and Lacovara 1985; Rice 1981: 126-f28). However, potters

probably finished the jar rims on a tournette, since one can observe ril ing marks at the very regular

and symmetrical rims. Egyptian potters routinely employed such techniques fbr jar production dunng

the Naqada III, and investigators have observed evidence for these techniques in Southern Levantinejar product ion (examples: Bourr iau 1981;Vandiver zrnd Lacovara 1985; Wil l iams 1986:73-74;

Fig. 3. Making of horizontal incisions Fig. 4. Use of conc(we tool for ntodeling reed-like

impressions on vessel body

200

Fig. 5. Experilrtental replication of "reed" decoration Fig. 6. Expet'intental repLication of "reed" decoration

(-1 minutes elapsed) (-9 ndnutes elapsed)

Hendrickx 1994:16-79, pi. LXXI; Mazar and

Miroschedj i 1996; Kansa and Levy 2002).

Unfortunately, we have recovered no base sherds

and cannot comment on manufac tur ing

techniques for this part of the vessel.

The procedure for forming the reed-ware lids

also remains unclear. However, according to our

observations, unlike the bowls it is likely that the

ancient potters used some sort of mould (perhaps

a rounded jar base) to shape the interior of the

lids. We suggest this scenario, as the interior of Fig' 7' Finishedreplicated "reed" decoration

these lids are concave and have shallow diagonal

gouges probably a result from twisting off an

interior mould. These gouge marks do not appear to be riling marks (see Fig. 9) We also suspect that

turning was not used to finish the lids, since the 1id rims are somewhat irregular, variable in thickriess,

and have an inclined edge with no visible ril ing marks. Close inspection of the lid rims suggests

cutting and tlimming and not toumette finishing. Additionally, the tops of the lids have no traces of

any attachment to a turning device, though admrttedly the leed-ware makers may have obliterated

these traces through surface treatments.

Mould production presents problems with drying and shrinking of the clay that can hamper

successful removal of the mould. However, since we have demonstlated that the modeling of the

reed decoration can be cornpleted quite rapidly, the problem of drying on a mould may not have

presented a great obstacle. Despite such dlying problems, Egyptian potters appear to have commonly

used similar mould methods, as this technique has been observed at Kafr Hassan Daud in the Delta

on chaff ten-rpered bowls (el-Senoussi personal com.). At the Halif Terrace, potters often produced

other Egyptran styled open forms, such as bread-moulds and chafftempered lotus forms, with mould

techniques (Kansa and Levy 2002). Ther:efore the technique of vessel mould building was locally

known and available for application on reed-ware lids.

201

Fig. 8. Reed-ware specimens recove recl from NtthaL Tillah

{[xtericri

I *cus: 1 0 lSask : 1 135

{i*?*ri*r j

202

Fig. 9. Reed-ware licl sherd (interior) with evidence for mor,tlcL prodrtction from NahaL Tillal

In terms of fabric and firing conditions this decorated pottery closely matches the other Egyptian

styled pottery at Nahal Tillah. Potters made these vessels with a locally available homogenous loessial

clay that had few inclusions of iimestone. Naomi Porat has shown that this fabric is typical of Egyptian

styled pottery produced in the Southern Levant (Levy et al. 1997; Porat 1989; 1992).In addition to

these assessments based on visual inspection, Porat's petrographic analysis of one sherd of reed-

decorated pottery further demonstrates its similarity, in terms of fabric, to the other Egyptian styled

pottery recovered at the Halif Tenace (Levy et al. 1997: Table 4, Sample#198 "bamboo-relief '). For

this reason, and since the closest typological parallels for this pottery come from Egypt, we classify

the reed-ware as an example of "Egyptian styled" production at Nahal Tillah. Whether or not the

potters who produced this reed-ware actually thought of themselves as "Egyptian" or even came

from the Nile Valley or Delta is open to debate beyond the scope of this paper (see Kansa and Levy

2002).

Jars with Conical Lids and Perforated Guttered Rims from Egypt and Lower Nubia

Introduction

The most likely influence for the Halif Terrace reed-decorated pottery came from Egyptian

"prototypes". Inspiration from Egypt seems most probable, given the overall context of Egyptian-

Canaanite interaction during the Late EB I (Dynasties 0-1), as attested io by so many sites in the

Southern Levant (see e.g. van den Brink and Levy [eds.], 2002), including the Halif Terrace in

pafiicular. Researchers investigating sites in Pre- and Early Dynastic contexts in (Upper) Egypt and

A-Group Lower Nubia have recovered morphologically-related, basketry-imitated pottery jars with

perforated guttered rims and conical lids. They have also been found modeled in stone and faience.

The presence of reed decorated pottery as described above - apparently imitating actuai organic,

lidded baskets, - and recently identified for the first time rn a late EB I context at the Halif Tenace,

seems so far unparalleled in other contemporary Southern Levantine sites.

The morphology of the pottery j ars at issue here are all very much reiated. Neariy all of them have

flat bases, overall "barrel" shapes, and restricted mouths without a neck or external rim. Except for

the examples from Adaima tomb S 55 (Type 2, below), all of the jars have an internal (guttered) rim,

usually with four perforations. In rare instances the pelforations are through the vessel's wall itself,

immediately below the rim. The function of the hoies in the rim of the jars has never been much

discussed. Except for Junker (1919: 5i), who assumed the holes to have served for hanging the

vessei, early on schoiars accepted the interpretation ofthe lid gliding on strings connected to the rirr

of the jar (Scharff 1926: 34 Hendrickx 1994: 87 ).In our consideration of this type of vessel, we have classified the known examples recovered from

Egypt.With reference to Petrie (1921)'s pottery classes, the fabric of these lidded pottery containers

or their mode of exterior decoration provide the basis of the following divisions (see also Table 3):

1. C-class or White Crossed-Line (of Nile silt fabrics)

2. Charcoal decorated pottetj (included here, but not represented in Petrie's classification)

3. N-class or Incised decoration

4. L-class or Late (undecorated marl clay)

5. D-class or Decorated (marl clav)

203

In addition to these five types of ceramic lidded vesseis, we also consider below versions of liddedvessels produced in laience. stone and actual basketry.

The decoration of the vessels belonging to Petrie's N-class was always assumed to representbasketry (see Type 3, below). However, it needs to be noted that the very shape of these vessels mayalso point to basketry. Indeed, both the absence of external rims and the maximum diameter, whichis located below half of the height of the vessels, are typical for basketry. This is clearly corroboratedby the reed imitations of the Halif Terrace examples. Further confirmation for this is to be for-rnd inthe basketry examples found in Tarkhan (see below, sub 8). These are, however, much larger thanmost of the ceramic vessels recovered from other sites. Nevertheless, the size of the Halif Terrace

. reed-ware resembles that of some of the N-class basketry examples.

The number of these lidded jars known to date from Egypt and Nubia remains restricted. However,one shouid note that an important number of other types def,rned by Petrie (1921) are even far morerare. The rarity of lidded jars does not apply only to cemetery assemblages, but apparenrly also tothose associated with settlements. Although not mentioned in Hoffman's (1982) preliminary report,and Friedman s ( 1994) study for the settlements at Hierakonpolis, a limited number of fragments hasbeen identified among collected surface materials (Friedman pers. com.). Also at Adaima, a (very)

limited number of sherds belonging to lidded jars has been found in the settlement (Midant-Reynes

and Buchez, pers. com.). These vessels are, however, only occasionally attested for settlements andthey are absent for the settlements of the Badari region and Naqada/Khattara (Friedman 1994). Onthe other hand, the limited pottery sample from the temple site HK 29A at Hierakonpoiis yielded an

example (Friedman 1994: Fig. 9.J4,fabnc-temper Class 5, subjective shape 5-1p =Ll5 d). For theimportance of temples with respect to this type of pottery, see Type 6, below.

Corpus of lidded jars

The following discussion outlines the five different types of lidded jars recovered from Egypt. For

full reference to the various tombs and graves mentioned here, see below, Table 3.

l. White Crossed-Line (Petrie's C-ware): Together with the next class, the White Cross lined jars

from Tomb 162I at Naqada, dating from Naqada IC are probably the earliest examples of thevessels under discussion. As for all of the White Cross-lined pottery, they are made from Nile si1t.

They have no internal (guttered) rim and the perforations are through the wall of the vessels,belor,v the rim. Otherwise, they are ordinary White Cross-1ined jars and, therefore, do not point to

a foreign origin of this type of jar.

The meaning of the decoration remains somewhat unclear, but most probably the triangular wavylines covering all the vessel are an imitation of basketry. This is i.a. corroborated by the fact thatWhite Cross-1ined pottery regularly imitates basketry, as already mentioned a long time ago by

Petrie (1920: l4'\.

2. Charcoal decoration: The three examples from Adaima tomb S 55 are unique. The jars have nointernally guttered rim and the perforations are through the wall of the vessels, below the rim. Thedecoration consists of wavy lines, applied with ash - charcoal, after the vessels had been fired. Asfor the White Cross-lined vessels, the decoration most probably represents basketry. Apparently,

204

the person(s) who handled these vessels appiied decoration only at the moment of depositionwith the burial or just before. In addition, the fabric of these particular ve ssels differ from the

,qreat majority of pottery recovered at Adaima. It is neither Nile silt nor Marl clay, suggesting thattheseexamplesweremostprobablynot local lymadepots.3Becauseoftheircl ,onologicalposit ion

(Naqada IC). these jars can either be regarded as copies of White Cross-lined jars or of jars withincised decoration (Petrie's N-class, see below).

The shape and the perforations are identical to contemporary White Cross-lined specimens fromNaqada. It is also remarkable that in both Tomb 1621 atNaqada and Tomb S 55 atAdaima more rhanone example of these jars occuls. Perhaps these examples stand as a typological predecessor of theinternal guttered rim with perforations.

3. Incised decoration (Petrie's N-class): Jars with incised decoration are generally considered to be"Nubian" (e.g. Needler 1984: 224-231). The main reason for this supposition is that inciseddecorations can be frequently found on Nubian pottery. Nevertheless, the "barrel" shaped jarswith conical lid at issue are extremely rare in Nubia (one example with iid derives from Kostamneh,a j ar from Sen a East and a lid from Mediq).a Moreover, the barrel shape as well as this type of lid,do not occur among the characteristic shapes of A-group pottery. Therefore, the Nubian origin ofthis vessel type seems highly questionable. Nevertheless, a number of examples were apparentlyproduced in Nubia (cf . Needler 1984:224-231;Payne 1993:127;Raue 1999: 187-189). However,- ^ r ^ 1 1 i ^ - ^ ^ f + L i ^not allJars or tnls group are automatically to be accepted as having been produced in Nubia. Thisproblem of provenance can only be solved by ware analysis of the relevantjars.

Unfortunately, among the examples of certain Nubian pottery with incised decoration found inEgyptian tombs, only a few can be dated with some certainty. Apparently this type of decorationcontinued to be used from the end of the Naqada I period onwards, well into the First Dynasty. Thedecoration has always been supposed to imitate basketry (e.g. Petrie and Mace 1901: 14; ScharffL926), but obviously, basketry is not restricted to Nubia.

Incised decoration was already present before the fourth millennium BC on pottery from theBadarian and the Neolithic pottery frorn the Sudan and the Western Desert. Incised Naqada potteryimitating basketry is, therefore, neither specifically Egyptian nor Nubian or Sudanese in origin. inNubia, however, the early Predynastic (i.e. Naqada I-IiA/B) pottery technology (Nile silt fabrics,black-topped pottery) continued to be used until the end of the Kerma culture, in the mid 2''d millenniumBC. The production of incised pottery may therefore also have continued longer in Nubia than inEgypt. The banel shaped pottery with conical lids is probably Egyptian in origin, because rhe earliestexamples (also the typologically "earliest" examples) occur in Egypt and because the shape does notoccur among the typical A-group pottery. A few more arguments against a Nubian origin are relatedto the next groups to be discussed below and will be treated there.

3 A more precise definition of the fabric will be given in the final publication.a Only the foliowing publications were checked: Reisner 1910, Firth 1912, 1915,1927 (Nubia Survey);Williams 1986, 1989, 1993; Nords trom 1912. These, however, represent the large majority of Predynastic/ A-group graves excavated in Nubia.

205

5.

One should note, tlnally, that a few examples belonging to this group, and related to Petrie's TypeD 7 4, ate much larger than the others. The size differences may indicate diff-erent functions for thesevessels.

(JnclecorcLted, marl c/ay (Petrie's L-class): The jars belonging to this groLrp are certainly locallymade in Egypt. The fabric cannot be differentiated from other Egyptian marl clay vessels. A11dated examples belong to the Naqada IiIA-B periods. Since similar sherpes with decoration alreadyoccur from the Naqada IIC times onwards, one cannot rule-out the possibility that some of theundated examples and Stratum IIC examples from Halif Terrace might date to a period earlierthan the Naqada III. In addition, if the original examples derived from Nubia, this type of potterywould be very unique in representing an Egyptian imitation of a Nubian prototype. Thus far. noother Nubian shapes seems to have been imitated in Egypt di-rrin-9 the Predynastic ancl EariyDynastic periods. This point, of course, stands as an additional argument against the Nubianorigin of this type of pottery.

Decoratecl, marl clay (Petrie's D-ciass): Like the previous group, these jars are certainly locallymade in Egypt This is not only obvious from the fabric, but also from the decoration, mainlyrepresenting painted undulating lines. Such decoration tlts very well within the repertoire ofdecoration typical of iate Naqada II - early Naqada III Egypt, and may represent water or liquidsin general. While this type of decoration may be evocative of liquids, the shape of these iiddedvessels seems pooriy suited for liquid storage. Especially the guttered rim would be mostinconvenient for pouring oLlt water. Therefore, we have to accept that the original motif of basketry,which was no longer frequently used on Naqada IIC-iII pottery, may have changed into themorphologically related motif of water - liquid, which became very popular from the Naqada IICperiod onwards. The faience models lfype 6; see below) and especially the Nahal Tiilah piecesprove, however, that the original idea of basketry was not yet completely lost by the Naqada IIIB-C1. Petrie's type D 29 probably also demonstrates the continued reference to basketry.

Faience models (cf. Dreyer 1986: 82 for general discussion): Because of their small size andrelative thick walls, the faience vessels are considered model versions of the lidded vessel type.This group is most important because the examples derive mainly trom Egypt's earliest templesites. At least two different shapes are represented. among them the "barrel" shape which alwaysis recurrent in pottery lidded vessels. The other has the shape of a small cup. The size of the lidfiom Hierakonpolis (Adams l9l 4: n" 160) fits well the opening of both vessels from Hierakonpolis(Adams 1914: n' 217 , 220) and might therefore have belonged to either of them.

Most of these faience models must originally have belonged to foundation deposits. Those derivingfrom the Mdn Deposit at Hierakonpolis,s because of their context, probably date from the EarlyDynastic period. The examples from Qustul and Tarkhan derive from elite tombs dated to NaqadaIIIA-8. These objects are most interesting, first of all because they also seem to imitate basketry,aithough in a manner more crude than the ceramic examples from the Halif Terrace. The differences

s These were k-rndly brought to our attention by Barbara Adams.

206

in quality of execution may stem hom the smaller dimensions of the faience examples. The Elepirantinemodels are slightly different. The lid has three perforations and a central knob, while rhe cup had 4or 5 perforations in the upper part of the walI. These differences may weil be expiained by the morerecent ( i.e. Early Dynastic) date of rhese objects.-'

Since symbolic food offerings are very important in foundatron deposits, this might be aconfirmation of the use of the banel shaped vessels with lids as containers for food (see Hendrickx1994:87)Th iscanverywe l lbebrought in toconnect ionwi th the in te rpre ta t ionbyRaue(1999: 189)that these jars are used for feasts of particular families or clans of Nubian origin. As mentionedabove, the Nubian origin is a not very iikeii' given the chronological position of the earliest examplesfrom Upper Egypt. It seems on the other hand obvious that during the Early Dynastic period, ther-e isa Nubian connection as suggested by Raue. Frustratingly, attempts at Gas-Chrornatography / Mass-Spectrometry analysis of one leed-decorated sherd recovered from the Halif Terrace failed to recoverdetectable residues, despite the generally excellent preservation and rate of organic residue recoveryfrom the other analyzed Halif Terrace samples (Reber, Kansa and Levy in prep.).

Because of their inclusion in foundation deposits. in which foreign objects do not occur, thelidded jars may not have been considered "foreign" during the Early Dynastic period. This pointmay stand as one more argllment againstthe often acclaimed Nubian origin of this specific type jars.

7. Stone vessels'. Only two examples of stone lids ale known, both of them imitating basketry. Theywere found in the "royal mastaba" at Naqada, and indicate once more the importance of many ofthe tombs when these objects are found in a funerary context. The smail size of the lids couldindicate that they are to be considered model vessels, similar to the faience examples.

8. Basketry,: Only two exampies from Tarkhan are known and another from the Turin museum whichis considered Predynastic for unclear reasons. Their dimensions are by far superior to the imitationsin pottery, stone and faience. It is, however, to be noted that similar baskets are known for all ofthe more recent periods of the Egyptian history (e.g. Gourlay 1981: pl. X, XIII-XVI, XVID.

Discussion

The Nahal Tillah reed-ware fragments appear to come from secondary domestic disposal contexts.This situation stands in marked contrast to the distribution of the majority of other lidded vesselsknown fi'om Egypt. In Egypt, most such lidded vessels came from tomb and temple contexts.6 Althoughthis pattern couid well result from iimited archaeological explorations of settlements, it seemscorroborated by Friedrnan (1994)'s caleful perusal of settlement ceramics from Hierakonpolis andNaqada. Neveltheless, the recovery contexts of most the Egyptian lidded vessels clearly refer toreli-sion (temple sites) and the elite (various elite tombs). The symboiic value -and, therefore, ritualcontext- is corroborated by the models in faience and stone. The recovery of lidded vessels in suchcontexts and occasional use of faience and stone may sirnilarly suggest an element of prestigeassociated with these i tems.

6 Notable exceptions sofar are few related fragments uncoveled in clear settlement contexts at Adaimaas well as, most recently, at Hierakonpolis, identified among collected surface materials.

201

The special decoration, rzinty, and poorly bor-ind red parnt, of the Halif Terrace specimens coLrld

also indicate ritr"ral. The fact that their context in the Halif Terrace does not suggest a rituarl context,

seems irrelevant because the preces were not recovered in primary contexts. This ritual importance

of the preces should be stressed with the conclusion that elements of Egyptian ritual apparently were

also conducted at the Halif Terrace, even though -unfortunately- we klow littie of the nature of this

ntual activity. Therefore, the Halif Terrace joins 'En Besor, where Ram Gophna's excavations

recovered a "cult-stand", as well as a faience statuette, in providing evidence for eiements of Egyptian

ritual activrty in the Southern Levant at the close of the 4'h millennium BCE (Gophna,I9l2:Ftg.2:7;

Gophna, 1993: Figs. | -2). These observations provide important evidence deserving consideration

on how scholars treat the Egyptian presence in this region.

Despite the likely ritual role of the reed-decorated pottery, we cannot demonstrate the expression

of wealth or prestige in the lidded vessels recovered from Nahal Tillah, as seems to have been the

case for their Egyptian counterparts. Though ornately decorated. they recluired no significant

investment in labor or skill to produce. Our replication experiments reproduced a close lpproximation

of the decoration for a lid in under ten minutes. Given that this type of decoration does not involve

any special investment in time or specialized labor, we cannot conclude that the reed-ware served as

objects of wealth or prestige. Though their rarity sLrggests a special, non-utilitarian function for the

reed-ware vessels, we should not tmmediately assume thi-it they functioned to display wealth.

The Nahal Ti1lah reed-ware should be considered a local manifestation of a highly variable, yet

well-defined, lidded vessel type found occasionally in Egypt and Egypt's near neighbors. As discussed,

excavations in Egypt and Lower NLrbia have recovered this type of vessel in stone, faience, and

ceramic forms, a1l decorated in a variety of techniqr-res. The variability in media and decorative

techniqLres used in the production of this vessel type may suggest that both conslrmers and producers

exerted f'ew constraints or pressures to standardize the expression of this type of container. Unlike

much of the pottery typically produced in Naqada iII Egypt, ancient potters did not make these reed-

decorated vessels according to pre-established standards. The Egyptian / Egyptian trained potters of

Nahal Tillah displayed more flexibility and individual creativity in producing these reed decorated

vessels than they did in producing more standard Egyptian pottery types sr-rch as storage jars. The

fact that the reed-ware decorative technique is unique (at least thus far), straight-forward. and requires

littie labor investment, suggests an acl hoc and idiosyncratic approach to the production of this lidded

vessei type. The great variability in the lidded vessels may stem from severai factors (more than one

may apply):

l. Rarity of the vessel t,vpe. Arttsans made lidded vessels so infrequently that theirproduction dtd

not become ror:tine and was therefore more improvisational than standardized.

2. Variable function. The ancient craft workers may have produced these vessels for related but

differing tunctrons. If, for example. these vessels had some ritual purpose, their inconsistenctes

may reflect variability in the ritual. Most lidded vessels recovered in Egypt come from mortuary

and temple contexts. In addition, the faience and stone specimens have to be considered as models.

Bearing these points in mind, and that excavations recovered the Nahal Tillah versions from

settlement contexts, any ritual or symbolic activity associated with these lidded vessels may have

been somewhat var iable.

208

3. More corrlrrlon in other media. Perhaps craft producers made lidded vessels more typically inother media, such as basketry. The archaeologically observed lidded vessels may be occasionaland rdiosyncratic arlifacts inspired by, or dedvative from, a cefiain common tirpe of lidded basketry.Support for this scenario can be found in the many. but highly valiable examples of basket-likedecoration found on the lidded vessels in Egypt.

Thus far, lrttle can be said with certainty regarding the reed-decorated pottery at Nahal Tillah or therelated lidded vessels of Egypt. As mentioned, the morphology of these vessels may suggest onepossible function, namely that these vessels may have served as containers of food. More exampiesneed to be recovered fi'om more informative archaeological contexts to enable functional, sociological,and symbolic interpretations. We can oniy conclude with celtainty that the lidded vessel-type seemsto be highly variable and only occasionally produced. Hopefully, future excavations and analysesmay shed more light on the lidded vessels and their significahce.

Table 2. l'lahal Tillah/Halif Terrace provenience o.f aII recovered reed-wqre sherds

Area Square Stratum Context Type Figure

r23 r31 5 IIB fill Lid, restored

t23 1380 v20 IIB |l11 Body sherd

t34 1461 IIA/IIB Ii1 Lid, restored

148 1 505 U1 iIB fill Body sherd

5084 F l 8 nrl Body sherd

3062 K18/L i9 IIB fiIl / breadmould Body sherd

dump of jar

1034 nilIIBF 1 5 Body sherd

1 : ALidfillIIB91 v20124 l

r02 I 285 Lidp1tIIB l : B a n d 9

filtIIBt24191 Rim of jar l : C a n d 8 : A

841 3 103 Ltg-20 1 : DIIB fill / breadmould Perforated rim

dump of jar

f,111I IBlK 1 88 2 1 Body sherd 2 : A

820 3047 fillIIBL20 Body sherd 2 : B a n d 8 : G

V356 1026 topsoil/fill Body sherd of jar 2 : C

2 : Do / I t J / - l 1J3ft14 topsoil Body sherd

LidhllIIAU iJ 7 r019 2 : E a n d 8 : E

-101 t243 A20 fi11 Body sherd ofjar /.'- t

693 5043 8 : BF 1 6 IIC ashy frll Shor,rlder of jar sheld

8 : CLidf,rliIIBU11.+8 1405

625 2300 F17-F18 8 : DI IB l fill Shoulder ofjal sherd

8 : Hfi11IIAU11045

625 2300 F17-F18 8 : lfilrI IB l Body sherd

625

4006

F 1 7 - F 1 8 fiil Body sherd

209

1000 8 : JG 1 6 topsoil Body sherd

L 8 : KI iB l

Table 3. Predynastic - Early Dynastic basket-imitctted vessels from Egypt

Site tomb type Naqada Nluseum or site Bibliographyperiod

l. White Cross-lined

Naqada 1621 c61 d IA oxfordANl 1895.486 payne 1993:n 416Naqada 1621 c 61 d IA Beriin 13027 scharff t93t: n 25?Naqada 1621 1id IA Philadelphia E.1411 Baumgartet 1970: pt. l i i

2. Charcoul decorution

Adaima S 55 IC Adaima Midant-Reynes a.o. 1996: 15

3. Incised decoration

Abadiya 8.107 N 65 IC (?) oxfordAM E.2830 petrie 1901: pl. xiv, N 65

Petrie 1921: pl. xxvii, N 65Payne 1993: n 1081

Abu Zeidan N 65 III (?) Brooklyn 09.889.446 Needler 1gg4: 130, n 67,

f ig .25 ;221-228,n 93( n o s f r i n o h n l e q )

Abu Zeidan N 75 III (?) Brooklyn 09.889.444 Needter 1984: 130, n 6g.

f i rg .25 ; 221-228,n 9 IAdaima s 153 D 14 - rrrc2 Adaima Midant-Reynes ao. in press

Hendr ickx 1998:111Adai'ma s 552 N 75 IIIAI-IIIA2 Adaima unpublishedT

Adaima (?) lid Brooklyn 0'/ .411 .485 Needler 1984: 221-228, n 94Armant 1425 N 68 a IIA Mond and Nlyers 1937: 27

Badari 3223 D 74 k III London UC 14516 Brunton and Caton-ThomDson

1928: pl . x l , D 74 kDiospolis Parva N 70 cairo cG 18803, petrie 1901:pi. xiv, N 70

JdE 33683 Petr ie 1921: p l . xxv i i , N 70von B i ss ing 1913 :47 , T f . I I

Diospolis Parva bought N 68 London UC petrie 1901: pl. xiv, N 6gi0871 Petr ie 1921: p l . xxv i i , N 68

Elefantine bowl Dyn.2-4 Elefanrine Raue 1999: Abb.41.5.Elkab D 74 - III (?) oxford AM Quiberl 1898: pr. xi,7Gebelein N 65 St.-Germain-en-Laye Cleyet-Merle and Vallet

'77 .'/ 48d 1982: li .i 48d

Hu R.131 N 67 I I I (?)

(sD 68)Petr ie i901: 10, p i . v i , x iv

N 6 7

7 We are thankfui to Bdatrix Midant-Reynes and Nathalie Buchez for the information provided con-ceming this and reiated specimens and for their pennission to mention this unpublished specimen, aswell as another one listed below. sub 4.

2r0

Site tomb t)'pe Naqada

period

Nluseum or site Bibliography

Koshtamna, cem. 89

683

N 708 A - s r n r r n F i r t h 1912 : i 93 , p l . 46 , c5

Masaid l 4 N 6 7 IIIAl-IIIC2 (?) Brooklyn

09.889.445

Needier 1984: l4 l . n 46,

f rg . 31 ; 221 -228 .n 92

Matmar 1028 IIIA2 Brunton 1948: pl. xxi,6( n n q . r r i n o h n l e q \

Mediq, cem. 79 5'l I ide A-group Fir th l9 l 2 : 134.pI . 46.c3

Naqada D 1 4 Petrie and Quibeli 1896:pl. xxxv, D 74Petrie 1921: p1. xxxvi, D 74

Sena East, cem. 9

298

. r - - l o" * v A -s ror rn Nordstrom 1972: p|. 162,2

Tarkhan 2033 glazed ? III London IJC 11214 Petr ie 1914: p l . iv , v ,12

Unknown N 67-80 New York MMA

21.2.1r8Arnold and Bourriau 1993:93, f ig . 103 A

Unknown D 1 4 d London UC 36304

Unknown N 7 5 London IJC 11814

Unknown N 8 0 London UC 17875

4. Marl clay. undecorated

Abadiya 8.56 (lid) I-IIA Oxford AM 8.3140 Pavne 1993: n 707

Abu Umuri 140 m ? Cairo Museum unpublished

Abusir el-Meleq 32e3 rough Berlin 18629 Scharff 1926:34, n 155

Adaima s 546 L 1 5 d IIIAl-IIIA2 Adaima unpublished

Diospolis Parva H i03 L 1 5 d London, BM

EA 30895

Petrie 1901: pl. xix, L 59 bPetr ie 1921: pl . 1i . L 75 d

Diospolis Parva L 1 5 a IIIA.IIIB

(?) (sD 75,78)Petrie 1901: pl. xix, L 59 a

Pe t r i e 1921 :p l . l i , L 75 a

Diospolis Parva L 1 5 n(rid)

Petrie 1901: pl. xix, L 59 n

Petr ie 1921: p1. l i , L 75 n

Diospolis Parvarr L 7 5 m(rid)

Petr ie 1901: p l . x ix , L 59 m

Pe t r i e 1921 :p l . l i , L 75 m

Elkab L 7 5 a IIIA] Cairo Museum Hendrickr 1994 87, pl. xi, xxx

Hammamiya

cemetery 1600

18 v2 (l id) --- Brunton 1927 pI. xiii, 18 v2

Hammamiya

cemetery 1700

18 v3 (l id) --- Brunton \927'. pl. xi i i , 18 v3

8 It can not be seen on the published photograph whether or nots "Cup polished brown ware with incised pattern, hole in base"r0 Round-based cup with large number of perforations throughinternal rim.

there are holes in the rim.(Fir th 1912: 134).the wali, just under the rim. Without

211

Site tomb type Naqada Nluseum or site Bibliography

period

Hierakonpolis tempie L15 - IID2-IIIA1 Hierakonpolis Friedman 1994: fig. 9.74,5-1p

HK 29A

Matmar 908 IIIA2 Brunton 1948: p1. xxi,8

Matmar Brunton 1948: pl. xxi,7

Matmar (lid) R r r r n t n n l Q J R n l r v i a 5

Mustagedda 219 IIC-IIIB' ': Brunton 1931 pI. xxxv, 25

Naqada 1212 L 75 m (lid) Cambridge FW Bar-rmgartel

1970: pl. xxxiv

Qau el-Kebir, cem.400 --- L24b Brunton and Caton-Thompson

1928: pl. xl iv (internal rim, butholes in shoulder)

Tarkhan 1113 91 r IIIA2 Petrie 1914: pl. xxxi

E10.1 895

Tarkhan 1113 91 t I iIA2 Petrie 1914: pl. xxxi

Tarkhan 1651 9i v IIIA2 Petne 1914: p l . xxx i

5. Marl clav. decorated

AbLr Umuri D 20 b IIIAI-IIIB Cairo Museum unoubiished

Abu Umuri D 66 p IIIAI-IIIB Cairo Museum unpublished

Abu Umuri D 66 n IIIAI-IIIB Cairo lvlr.rseum unpublished

Adaima S 543 D 20 b IIIAI-IIIA2 Adarma unpublished

Gebel Tarif D 29 - Cairo JdE 31473 Quibell 1905: CG 1 1740

Hammamiya 1534 D 20 b3 IIIB Brunton and Caton-Thompson

1928: pl. xxxix, D 20 b3

Kubaniya-south 20.h.1 IID (?) Junker 1919:51

lvlahasna 12 D 66 p IIIA1 Ayrton and Loat 191 1: 18, p l .

xxxvii i , D 66 fPe t r i e l 91 l : p l . xxxv . D 66 p

lvlediq, cem. 79 66 D 17rr A-group - Fir th 1912: 135, pL.43,a7

Nlustagedda 1648 D 29 c IID1 Brunton 1937: pl. xxix

Naqada 524 D 75 b IIC Oxford AM Petrie 1921: pi. xxxvi, D 75 b

1895.580A Payne 1993: n 9 i5

Nirqada 1126 D 29 a IIA Oxford AM 1895.610 Payne 1993: n 836

Lr One of the two lids published by Petrie and Mace 1901: pl. xix, L 59 m-n is probably the one pub-lished by Payne 1994: n 707, which she, however, attributes to tomb B 56 at Abadiya, with a reference toPetne and Mace 1901: pl. v, photo B 56 objects, lower right corner. However the object identified by heras a 1id is in reality a mace head, probably a symbolic one, made out of clay.12 Tomb 2I9 at Mustagedda contained a very iarge number of objects, mainly pots, which, however,seem not to be chronologically homogeneous.r3 Uncertain if rim is perforated.

1 1 4

Site tomb type Naqada

period

Nluseum or site Bibliography

Naqada / Ba11as D 7 5 a Petr ie and Quibel l i896: p l .

xxxv, D 75 a Petrie 192i:pl. xxxvi, D 75 a

Qaw e1-Kebir,

cem. 200

surf. D 2 0 b 2 Brunton and Caton-Thompson

1928: p l . xxx ix , D 20 b2

Semaina H.8 D 5 5 b IIC.IID (?) Oxford AM E.2876 Payne 1993: n 881

unknown D 2 0 b London IJC 36210 D a t r i o l O f 1 . ^ l - - - i i. y r . ^ ^ ^ u

unknown D 2 0 b de Morgan 1896: p l . ix . - la-b

unknown D 2 0 b Paris Louvre E 22508 unpublished'1

unknown D 2 0 b Stockholm MM 18.812 Georse 1975: 68, n 110

unknown D 2 0 b Stockholm MM 11.091 Georqe 1975:68, n 115

unknown D 20 -15 StockholmMM 18.808 George 1975:68. n 137

unknown D 2 9 c London UC 10888 Petrie 1921: pl. xxxii

unknown n 7 < NewYork MMA 12.182.41 unpublished

unknown D 7 5 d D - r . i - t o r I . ̂ t " " " , . ; n 7 5 d

unknown D 7 5 d Cairo CG 2124 von Biss ing 1913: 38, Tf . VI I

6. Faience models

Abydos, temple,

chamber M 69

tid dyn. I

Buto TeF87 T IX --- fragm. Schicht Buto

IIIc-IIIdIIIAI.IIIA2

von der Way 1997:

\ 6 1 , 2 0 5 . T f . 7 1 , n o . 4 0

Elefantine cup early O.K. Elefantine K 1 103 Dreyer 1986: i23 , no .258

Elefantine lid dyn. 3-4 Elefantine K 9i3 Dreyer 1986: 125, no.2' /3

Hierakonpolis

Main Deposit

barrel early dyn London UC 11014 Adan-rs 1914 42. no. 2Il

Hierakonpolis

Main Deposit

fra sm early dyn. London UC i5037 Adams 1911: 12, no. 22 t

Hierakonpolis lid early dyn Oxford AM 4006 Kaczmarczyk and Hedges

1983: hg. 33,b; Dreyer 1986:82

Hierakonpoiis

Main Deposit

l id early dyn. London UC 11012 Adams 1914 33, no. 160'6

Hierakonpolis cup early dyn London UC 27598 Adams 1914:43. no. 220

Qustul L 2 barel IIIA2 Wiiliams 1986: 128, pl. 60,b

Qustul L 5 IIIAl-IIIB Will iams 1986: 128, pl. 60,a

Qustul L 2 2 fragm. IIIAi-IIIB Wil l iams 1986: 128, pl . 60,c

1a Information kindly provided by Catherine Bridonneau.r5 Modern decorat ion.

2r3

Site tomb type Naqada Nluseum or site Bibliography

period

Tarkhan 2051 barrel IIIA2 Manchester Petrie 1914:

and lid pl. iv, v,13

irnknown barrel early dyn. Berlin 22.693 Scharff 1931 243, no. 736'7

7. Stone

Naqada mast. l id IIIC 1 Cairo CG 1 1926 de Morgan 1 897: I 87, f ig. 68 1

Naqada mast. l id IIIC1 Cairo CG 11927 Quibell 1905: CG 11927

8. Basketry

Tarkhan ? l id Brussels E.6141 Petrie 1913:25, pl. X,l

Tarkhan \25 basket and lid IIIC2 Petr ie 1913: 25.p l rX,2

unknown basket Torino supl. 282 Bergamini 1988: 21

16 Dreyer (1986: 82) considers the lid to be a "Spitskorbmodell".r? Scharff 1926: 243 mentions an identical example, also unprovenanced, in the private collection ofGuy Brunton, London.

214

References

Adams, B.1974 Ancient Hierakonpolls. Warminster.1986 Sculptured Pottery front Koptos in the

Petrie ColLe ction. Warminster.

Algaze, G.1993 Expansionary Dynamics of Some Early

Pristine States. American Anthropologi st95: 304-333.

Gourlay, Y.1981 Les sparteries de Deir el-Mddineh. XVIIIe

- XXe dynasties. Documents de fouillesXVII. Le Caire.

Alon, D. andYekutieli, Y.1995 The Tel Halif Terrace 'Siio Site' and its

Implications for the Early Bronze AgeI. 'Ariqot 27: 149-189.

Arnold, D. and Bourriau, J.D. (eds.)1993 An Introduction to Ancient Egyptian pot-

rery. Deutsches Archiiologisches InstitutAbte i lung Ka i ro , Sonderschr i f t 17 .Mainz am Rhein.

Ayrton, E.R. and Loat, W.L.S.1911 Pre-dynastic Cemetery at El-Mahasna.

EEF 31. London.

Baumgartel , E.J.1910 Petrie's Naqada Excavation: A Suppte-

ment. London.

Bergamini, G.1988 Re l ig ion e t p ra t iques fundra i res de

I'Egypte prdpharaonique. Pp. 20-3j inA.M. Donadoni Roveri (.ed.), La civilisa-t ion des 6gypt iens . Les c royancesreligieuses. Torino.

Bourr iau, J.1981 Umm el-Ga'ab: Potteryfromthe NileVal-

ley before the Arab Conquest. FitzwilliamMuseum, Cambridge.

Brunton, G.1927 Qatt and Badari 1. BSAE and ERA 44.

London.1931 Mostagedda and theTasian Culture.Lon-

don.1948 Matmar. London.

Brunton, G. and Caton-Thompson, G.1928 The Badarian Civilisation and Prehistoric

Remains near Badart. BSAE and ERA46. London.

Cleyet-Merle, J.-J. and Vallet, F.1982 Egypte . Pp. 68-165 in F . Beck , J .J .

C leye t -Mer le e t . a l i i . , ArchdoLog iecomparde. Catalogue sommaire des col-lections du musde de Saint-Germain-en-Laye,7 . Par is .

de Morgan, J.1896 Recherches sttr les origines de l'Egypte.

I. L'Age de la pierre et des ru4taux. Paris.1897 Recherches sur les origines de I'Egypte

II. Ethnographie prdhistoriqtLe et tombeauroyal de Negadah. Paris.

Dessel, J. P.l99l Ceramic Production and Social Complex-

ity in Fourth Millennium Canaan: A CaseStudy from Tel Halif Terrace. Unpub-lished PhD. thesis,University of Arizona,Tucson.

Dreyer, G.1986 Elephantine VIIL DeT Tempel der Sater.

Die Funde der Friihzeit und des AltenRe iche s. Archi iologische Veroffent-l ichungen 39. Mainz am Rhein: vonZabern Verlag.

Fir th, C.M.I9l2 The Archaeological Sunte! of Nubia: Re-

port for I 908- I 909. Cairo.1915 The Archaeological Sttrvey of Nubia: Re-

port for 1909-1910. Cairo.1921 The Archaeological Survey of Nubia: Re-

port for l9 10- l9 I 1. Cairo.

Friedman, R. F.1994 Predynastic Settlement Ceramics of Up-

per Egltpt: A Comparative Study of theCeramics of Hemaruieh, Nagada and

2r5

Hierakonpol ls. Berkeley, unpubl ishedPhD. thesis.

George, B.1975 Fr i iher Keramik aLrs Agypten . D ie

Dekor ie r te Naqada I I Keramik imMede lhavsmuseet . Bu l le t in o f theMedelhavsmuseet,10.

Gophna, R.1990 Egyptian Pottery of 'En Besor. Tel Aviv

l'7: \44-162.

Gophna, R. and Buzaglo, E.2000 A Note on an Egyptian Pottery Basin

from 'En Besor. Tel Aviv 27lI :26-21 .

Harvey, S. P.1996 A Decorated Protodynastic Cult Stand

from Abydos. In Studies in Honor ofWilliam Kelly Simpson, edited by PeterDer Manuelian, pp. 361-378. Museum ofFine Arts, Boston.

Hendrickr, S.1989 De grafvelden der Naclada-cuLtunr in

Zuid- Egypte, met bijzondere aandachtvoor het Naqada III grafield te Elkab.In te rne chrono log ie en soc ia led i f fe ren t ia t ie . Unpub l . Ph .d . d iss .Lenven.

1994 Elkab V. The Naclada III Cemetery.Bruxelles.

1996 The Reiative Chronology of the NaqadaCulture: Problems and Possibilities. Pp.36-69 in A.J. Spencer (ed.), Aspects ofEarly Egypt. London.

1998 La ndcropole de I'Est d Adaima. Positronchronologique et parallbles. Archdo-Nil.8 : i 0 5 - 1 2 8 .

1999 La chronologie de la prdhistoire rardiveet des ddbuts de I'histoire de I'Egypre.Archdo-lli l, 9: 13-Bi, 99-1,01.

Hendrickx, S. and Bavay, L.2002 The Relative Chronoiogical Position of

Egyptian Predynastic and Early Dynas-tic Tombs with Objects Imported fromthe Near Eas t and the Nature o fInterregional Contacts. Chapter 3 inE.C.M van den Brink and T.E. Levy (eds),

2 t 6

Egypt and the Leyant - Interrelationsfromthe 4'h tLrough the Early 3,'d MillenniLLmB.C.E. London: Le ices ter Un ivers i tyPres s .

Hoffman, M.A.1982 The Predynastic of Hierakonpolis. An

Interim Report. Egyptian Studies Asso-ciation Publication 1. Cairo.

Junker, H.I9I9 Bericht iiber die GrabtLngen von cler

AkaclcLmi e cle r Wis s ens chafi en in Wi en, at fden Friedhdfen von El Kubanieh - Sucl.1910-19I l . DAWW 62.3. Wien.

Kaczmarczyk, A. and Hedges, R.E.M.1983 Ancient Egttptian Faience. An Analytical

Survey of Egypt ian Faience fromPredynast ic to Roman T imes.Warminster.

Kansa, E. C., and Levy, T.E.2002 Ceramics, Identity, and the Role of the

State: The View from Nahal Chapter 12in E.C.M. van den Brink and T.E. Levy(eds.), Egypt and the Levant. InterreLa-tions from the 4th. Through the Early 3rd.Mi lLennium BCE. London: LeicesterUniversity Press. New Approaches toAnthropological Archaeology Series.

Kohler, E.Ch.),993 TeLl el-Fara'tn - Buto III. Die Keramik

von der spiiten Naqada-Kultur bis zumfriihen Alten Reich (Schichten III bisVI ) . AV 94. Ma inz-am-Rhe in : vonZabern Veriag.

Levy, T. E, van den Brink, E.C.M., Goren, Y. ,Porat, N., Rowan, Y. and Kansa, E.C.

1997 Preliminary Report for the 1994-1995Excavations at Nahal Tillah, Silo Site.Bulletin of the American Schools of Ori-ental Research 307 : 1-5]r.

Levy, T. E. and van den Brink, E. C.M.2002 Interaction NIodels, Egypt and Levanrine

Periphery. Chapter 1 in E.C.M. van denBrink and T.E. Levy (eds.), Egypt and

the Levant - Interrelations from the 4,hthrough the Early 3,'d Millerutium B.C.E.London: Leicester University press.

Mazar, A., de Miroschedji, P. and Porat, N.1996 Hartuv, an Aspect of the Early Bronze I

Culture of Southern Israel. Bultetin ofthe American Schools of Oriental Re-search 302 1-40.

Midant-Reynes, 8., Crubdzy, E. and Janin, T.1996 The Predynastic Site of Adaima. Egyp-

tian Archaeology, 9 : 1 3- 1 5.

Mond, R.L. and Myers, O.H.1931 Cemeteries of Arutantl. EES 42. London.

Needler, W.1984 Predynastic and Archaic Eg,rpt in The

B ro o klyn M us e um. Wilbour Monographs9. Brooklyn.

Nordstrom, H.A.1912 Neo l i th ic and A-Group . ! i res .

Scandinavian Joint Expedition to Suda-nese Nubia 3. Copenhagen.

Payne, J.C.1993 Catalogue of the Predynastic Egyptian

Collection in the Ashmolean Museunt.Oxford.

Petrie, W.M.F.1901 Diospol is Parva. The Cemeteries of

Abadiyeh and Hu. 1B9B-1899. EEF 20.London.

1903 Abydos. Parr lL 1903. EEF 24. London.1913 Tarkhan I and Memplzls V. BSAE and

ERA 23. London.7914 Tarkhan 1L BSAE and ERA 26. London.\92I Corpus of Prehistoric Pottery and pal-

ertes. BSAE and ERA 32. London.1953 Corpus of Proto-Dyn.astic Pottery.BSAE

66 (B). London.

Petrie, W.M.F. and Quibell, J.E.1896 l,,laqada and Ballas. London.

Porat, N.1989 Composition of Pottery. Application to

the Study of the Interrelations betweenCanaan and Egypt during the 3rd Mil-lennium B.C. Unpublished Ph. D. The-sis. The Hebrew University. Jerusalem.

1992 An Egyptian Colony in Southern pales-t ine during rhe Lare Predynast ic - EarlyDynastic Period. Pp.433-440 in E.C.M.van den Brink (ed.). The Nile Delta inTransition: 4th- 3 rd M illenniumB. C., TelAviv-Jerusalem: Israel Exploration So-ciety.

Quibel l , J.E.1898 El Kab. ERA 3. London.1905 Cata logue Gdndra l des Ant iqu i tds

Egypt iennes. nos. I1.001 - 12.000 et14.001 - 14.754. Archaic Objects. Cairo.

Raue, D.1999 Agyptische und nubische Keramik der

1.-4. Dynastie. [in:] Kaiser, W.; Arnold,F., Bommas, M., Hikade, T. a.o., Stadtund Tempel von Elephantrne 25.126.127 .Grabungsberichr. MDAI K, 55: 173- 1 89.

Reber, E., Kansa, E., Levy, T.E.(in prep.) Residue Analysis of Pottery from

Nahal Tillah, an Early Bronze I site inthe Southern Levant.

Reisner, G.A.1910 The Archaeological Survey of l{ubia. Re-

portfor 1907-1908. Vol. L Archaeologi-cal Report. Cairo.

Rice, P. M.198'7 Pottery- Analysis: A Sourceboot. Univer-

sity of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Scharff, A.1926 Das Vorgeschichtliche Grriberfeld von

Abus i r e l -M e Le q . Wissenschaf t l i cheVeroffentlichung der Deutschen OrientGesellschaft 49. Leipztg.

1931 Die Altertiimer der Vor- und FruihzeitAgyptens. I. Werkzeuge, Waffen, Gefc)sse.Staa t l i che Museen zu Ber l in .Mi t te i lungen aus der i igyp t ischenSammlung 4. Berlin.

2 1 1

vrn den Br ink , E .C.M.2002 An Egyptian Presence at the End of the

late Early Bronze Age I at the Tel of Lod,Central Coastal Plain, Israel. Chapter19 in E.C.M. van den Brink and T.E.Levy (eds), Egypt and the Levant - Inter-relations from the 4'h through the Early3'd Millennium B.C.E. London: Leices-ter University Press.

van den Brink, E. C. M. and Levy, T.E. (eds).2002 Egypt and the Levant - Interrelations from

the {'h through the Early 3'd MillenniumB.C.E. London: Leicester Universi tvPress .

Vandiver, P., Lacovara, P.1985 An Outline of Technological Changes in

Egyptian Pottery Manufacture. Bulletinof the Egyptological Seminar 7: 53-85.

von Bissing, F.W.1913 Tongefcisse, l. Teil: Bis zttm Beginn des

Alten Reicf t . Catalogue Gdndral desAntiquit6s Egyptiennes du Musde duCaire. Kairo.

von der Way, T.1997 Tell el-Fara'in - BtLto I. Ergebnisse zLLm

fr[ihen Kontext. Kampagnen der JahreI 9 B3 - I 9 89. Archeiologische Veroffent-lichungen 83. IVIainz.

Williams, B.B.I986 Excavations benveen Abu Simbel and the

Sudan Frontier: The A Group Royal Cem-etery at Qustul Cemetery l. Onental In-stitute Nubian Expedition, vol. III. Chi-cago, 1986.

1989 Excavations betvveen Abtt Simbel and theSudan Frontier, Keith C. Seele, Director.Parts 2, 3 and 4: NeoLithic, A-group andPo s t - A- G roup Remains from C eme t e ri e sW, V S, Q, T, and a Cave East of Cem-etery K. Oriental Institute Nubian Expe-dition, vol. IV. Chicago.

1993 Excavations at Serra East. A-Group, C-Grottp, Pan Grave, New Kingdom, andX-Group Remains from Cemeteries A-Gand Rock Shelters. Oriental InstituteNubian Expedition, vol. X. Chicago.

2 1 8