Reshel. Standardizing the Analysis of Predynastic Pottery a Look At

STANDARDIZING THE ANALYSIS OF PREDYNASTIC POTTERY: A LOOK AT PETRIE, FREIDMAN AND ADAÏMA

by Hannah Reshel

Submitted to the Faculty of The Archaeological Studies Program Department of Sociology and Archaeology in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Science

University of Wisconsin-La Crosse

2013

Copyright © 2013 by Hannah Reshel All rights reserved

ii  

STANDARDIZING THE ANALYSIS OF PREDYNASTIC POTTERY: A LOOK AT PETRIE, FREIDMAN AND ADAÏMA Hannah Reshel, B.S.

University of Wisconsin-La Crosse, 2013

Abstract Since Flinders Petrie first discovered Predynastic Egypt in the late 1800s, pottery has been the leading artifact in determining the date of settlements and cemeteries. But over the past 100 years, his typology for Predynastic pottery has undergone many changes. Many archaeologists create their own typology based on what they find during their excavations. The purpose of this study is to examine the typologies put forth by Flinders Petrie, Renée Freidman and the excavators of the site of Adaïma in order to propose which system, of the three, could become the standard typology of Predynastic pottery.

  iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank my reading group, Jeri Bohac and Rebecca Loew for giving me constructive criticism and support throughout the process of writing my thesis. I would also like to thank Dr. Mark Chavalas for giving me feedback on my thesis. Finally, I would like to thank Dr. David Anderson for helping with me throughout this process.

  iv

INTRODUCTION Pottery has always been an important artifact in archaeological studies. It is particularly useful when cultures have no written language. It gives a basis for chronology within a culture through relative dating systems. It gives information on the diet of the people through residue analysis. It also can aid in understanding the social structure of the culture based on the complexity of the pottery. Pottery is especially important to the study of the Egyptian Predynastic. Flinders Petrie was the first to develop a chronological sequence for Egyptian pottery he found when excavating at Naqada in 1892 (Midant-Reynes 2000a:41-42). Since his creation of the Predynastic seriation, multiple revisions have occurred to try and make the system more consistent and more specific (Friedman 1994). There is no one standard typology for the Predynastic assemblage. Most typologies are created or adapted for specific sites. The way these typologies develop is based on what the researchers want to research. With this study, I am looking at two predynastic typologies, Freidman and Adaïma, to propose which would be better for a standardized classification of pottery in Egypt. In the process I will be looking more at the original classification by Petrie to see how he has influenced and continues to influence the classification of Predynastic pottery. The reason I am looking at this issue is because having different typologies make it more difficult to do comparative studies of sites.

1  

PREDYNASTIC EGYPT The Predynastic Period in Egypt was roughly the thousand years before Egypt was unified under one ruler. The exact dates of the Predynastic have been debated over the years but more recently are thought to be between 4000-3000 BC (Table 1). There is not one distinct culture that characterizes this time period but two, which can be separated geographically into the Upper Egyptian Naqada Culture and the Lower Egyptian Maadi Culture (Midant-Reynes 2000). The Maadi Culture is named after the site of Maadi which is located in the southern suburb of Cairo of the same name (Midant-Reynes 2000b). The Naqada Culture is similarly named after the site of Naqada in Upper Egypt, north of modern day Luxor (Midant-Reynes 2000a). The two cultures were contemporaneous until the end of Naqada II/ beginning of Naqada III when the Naqada Culture became the dominant culture and replaced that of the Maadi Culture in the north (Midant-Reynes 2000a). For the purpose of this study, only the Naqada Culture will be examined.

Table 1. Chronology of the Upper Egyptian Predynastic (MidantReynes 2000a:44 and Bard 2000:57) Compiled. Period Naqada I Naqada II Naqada III/Dynasty 0

Absolute Dates ca. 4000 – 3500 B.C. ca. 3500 – 3200 B.C. ca. 3200 – 3000 B.C.

2  

Figure 1. Map of Predynastic Egypt showing sites mentioned in text (Midant-Reynes 2000a:42). 3  

The Chronology of Upper Egypt During the time of the Naqada culture, there were noticeable changes within the archaeological record, specifically burial practices. As a result, the Naqada was further broken down. Petrie originally came up with three periods, the Amratian, the Gerzean, and the Semainean, based on his pottery seriation (Midant-Reynes 2000b). These periods are now referred to as Naqada I, Naqada II, and Naqada III/Dynasty 0 following the system developed by Werner Kaiser in his seminal studies in 1956-1957 and work in 1990 (Bard 1994: 268)..

Naqada I Much of the archaeological evidence shows that the Naqada I and the Badarian had very similar cultures (e.g. burials) which led many to believe that the Naqada was simply a continuation of the Badarian instead of a separate culture (Midant-Reynes 2000b). There is some evidence, which suggests that the two periods were contemporaneous (Hendrickx and Vermeersch 2000). The burial practices of the Naqada I show the beginning of a stratified society through the two different types of burials. The first type was pit burials while the second type were larger and had better funerary equipment (Midant-Reynes 2000b). During the transition from Badarian to Naqada I there was a decrease frequency in multiple pottery types, such as Black-topped red ware and Black-polished pottery. Settlements during this period, from the little information we have, were often small villages or hamlets (Friedman 1994, Anderson 2006). The style of the houses in the settlements varied

4  

based on the region and were often associated with storage pits, hearths, animal enclosures and refuse areas (Freidman 1994:26). In order to sustain themselves, residents kept domesticated animals such as cattle, sheep and goats (Freidman 1994:26). They also utilized domesticated plants such as barley and wheat (Anderson 2006:12). During this period there was also evidence of craft specialization at some of the larger settlements such as Hierakonpolis (Friedman 1994:26). The predominant pottery types of this time within cemeteries are Black-topped red ware (B-ware) and Polished red wares (P-ware), both of which are characterized by the red color of the surface and the highly polished/burnished finish, and Rough-ware (Rware) within the settlement area (Anderson 2006). The difference between the two red wares is that the former has a blackened area around the mouth of the vessel whereas the latter has no decoration.

Naqada II The time of the Naqada II was one of expansion (Midant-Reynes 2000a:49). Sites containing Naqada I material were clustered around the site of Naqada but during this time the cultural material associated with Naqada are found further away. The social stratification became more prominent at this time with more elaborate tombs with special compartments for offerings (Midant-Reynes 2000a:50). Another change in burial practices was the increase of multiple burials: burials with up to five people (MidantReynes 2000a:590). There were more specialty items being made such as ripple-flaked knives and various copper items (Midant-Reynes 2000a:51).

5  

Settlements during the Naqada II show a greater range with small agricultural villages up to larger political centers (Anderson 2006:14). More evidence for craft specialization is found in this period along with increased evidence of foreign trade (Anderson 2006:14). The pottery assemblage of the Naqada II stayed fairly similar to the previous period but with the addition of Late ware (L-ware) and Rough ware (R-ware) beginning to appear in the pottery assemblage (Midant-Reynes 2000b:189; Friedman 1994). Cware decreases and completely leaves the assemblage as brownish-black motifs on a cream background became the favored style (Midant-Reynes 2000b). Another addition to the assemblage is imported Palestinian vessels (Friedman 1994).

Naqada III Naqada III is considered the transitional phase from the Predynastic to the dynastic. This time was transitional because the culture had increased social stratification, as well as, the unification into one culture. As stated earlier, the Maadi culture disappeared during the beginning of Naqada III (Midant-Reynes 2000b). It is still debated, though, if this was through military action which caused the Maadi culture to integrate or if it was simply through the diffusion of ideas and materials (Midant-Reynes 2000b). The increased complexity of social stratification can be seen through the presence of exotic materials in the archaeological record (Bard 2000:57). This also shows that trading and communication with people outside of Egypt occurred (Midant-Reynes 2000b). During this time there was an increase in agricultural production and artificial irrigation (Midant-Reynes 2000b). There was also movement of settlements from the

6  

desert to the river valley (Midant-Reynes 2000b). A more complex hierarchy is demonstrated through the greater diversity and complexity of tombs (Anderson 2006). Within the pottery assemblage, L-ware increased in frequency while there was a degeneration of D-ware and the form of W-ware (Friedman 1994). There is also evidence that a potter’s wheel was used to make some of the pottery (Petrie and Quibell 1896).

POTTERY OF THE PREDYNASTIC

Petrie’s Corpus of Predynastic Pottery During the 1894-95 field season, Petrie and Quibell excavated at Naqada and Ballas respectively, focusing mainly on the cemeteries (Petrie and Quibell 1896). When he first excavated Naqada, he believed that some of the burials were not from the native Egyptians but from an invading people he called the “New Race” (Petrie and Quibell 1896). Through work preformed by Petrie and others such as Henri de Morgan, it was determined that the “New Race” was in fact the prehistoric people of Egypt (Petrie 1901). Excavations at Naqada enabled Petrie to create a corpus which he used to identify the pottery found. In conjunction with this, he created the first relative dating seriation. Before this it was very hard to try and date anything unless it was to estimate a similar time period elsewhere (Petrie 1901:4). Based on Petrie’s corpus, a person would be able to tell when within the Predynastic the site dated to.

7  

The corpus was first divided by type, which Petrie divided into nine groups (Petrie and Quibell 1896, Petrie 1901). The first group is Black-topped Red ware (Bware) which Petrie determined to be the oldest (Petrie 1901:13). This type of pottery is burnished red with a black top which resulted from firing the pottery mouth down in a bed of ashes (Petrie 1901:13). Polished Red ware (P-ware) is the second grouping. This pottery was the same as the B-ware except it was kept above the ashes so that it could maintain a solid red color all over (Petrie 1901:13). White Cross-lined (C-ware) is the third type but was one of the more short lived styles (Petrie 1901:14). This pottery is the P-ware with white designs which ranges from lines and chevrons to humans and animals (Petrie 1920:14). One of the most unique types is Black Incised Ware (N-ware) (Petrie 1901:14). Contrasting the B-ware, N-ware is completely black except for the interior of the incised lines put on the pottery. The lines were often filled with a white clay or pigment (Petrie 1920:14, Friedman 1994:96). Wavy Handled (W-ware) is one of the most important types in Petrie’s seriation. This type was the focus of the seriation because, when excavating at Naqada, he observed that there was a very clear evolution of the style of W-ware over time (Petrie and Quibell 1896:11). Decorated ware (D-ware) was made with similar materials to W-ware and had painted decoration but the motifs were different than those used on the C-ware (Petrie 1901:15). Fancy class (F-ware) was the group in which the abnormally shaped pottery went (Petrie 1901:14). Rough ware (R-ware) was dull brown in color, was porous and straw-marked and was made from rough clay (Petrie and Quibell 1896:11). The final type of pottery that Petrie identified was Late ware (L-ware) (Petrie 1901). The defining characteristic of this type was it

8  

“having ugly and degraded forms and being linked on to the historical pottery (Petrie 1901:17).” The form was the second attribute that divided pottery. Numbers were assigned to forms in an arbitrary but meaningful way (Petrie 1899). Petrie believed that as excavations continued, more intermediary forms of pottery would be found (Petrie 1899:297). He therefore left gaps in the numbers to accommodate (Petrie 1899:297). These letter and number combinations were then assigned a date range for ease of calculating.

9  

Figure 2. Petrie’s Predynastic Seriation (Petrie 1901).

  10

Friedman’s Pottery Typology In 1994, Renée Friedman published her dissertation on Settlement Ceramics. Her purpose was to “describe and compare the full range of diversity found within the ceramic assemblages of [Hierakonpolis, Nagada and Hemamieh] settlements over time and space (Friedman 1994:69).” In order to compare the assemblages of the three different settlements, she modified the Hierakonpolis system to accommodate the information she would receive from the other areas. The Hierakonpolis system is a temper based system developed M.A. Hoffman and M. Berger in 1979 in order to sort and analyze the large amount of sherds being excavated at the site (Friedman 1994:127). The creation of this typology centered around four general objectives (Freidman 1994:127). The first objective was for the system to be practical for sorting, analyzing and performing a full quantification of large numbers of sherds while in the field (Freidman 1994:127). The second objective was for it to permit a cost and time intensive analysis of selected samples (Freidman 1994:127). Being able to connect the system with that of full pot ones such as Petrie’s and the sensitivity to the regional and functional variations within the assemblages were the final two goals which Hoffman and Berger had when creating this system (Freidman 1994:127). The reason behind trying to correlate Hierakonpolis’ system with full pot typologies is because the primary form of pottery was sherds. There were not enough full pots found in order to incorporate them into the typology (Freidman 1994). She began by looking at the fabric/temper and assigning each type a number. To accommodate some types which are present in Nagada and Hemamieh assemblages,

  11

double-digit numbers were added (Friedman 1994:137). She identified 16 different tempers ranging from untempered Nile silt to Palestinian fabric (Table 2)(Freidman 1994). She next looked at types of surface treatments. This category was divided into coatings, finishes, and decoration (Tables 3-5). This division was to limit the number of attributes in order to have a more workable data set (Friedman 1994:177). These three were specifically chosen because they are often mutually exclusive. The coatings were divided into 10 types based on the color of the slip used. The finish was divided into eight types based on what manufacturing technique was used to create the ending smoothness or roughness of the finished pot. The final attribute, decoration, was also divided into eight types. Decoration had the widest variety between the types, which ranged from paint to impressed/incised. The shape of the pottery is partly separated from the previous two attributes. Because of the available assemblages from Hierakonpolis, Nagada and Hemamieh, the shape of the pottery had to be inferred based on diagnostic sherds such as rim or base sherds. This is the first step in classifying the pottery. Next is determining whether the form is open or closed. From there the forms can become as specific as possible based on the slopping of walls, type of rim, size, etc. (Figure 3).

  12

Figure 3. Friedman’s subjective shape class system (Friedman 1994:figure 6.3).

Adaïma’s Pottery Typology Located approximately eight kilometers south of the modern Upper Egyptian town of Esna, Adaïma is a locus of Predynastic activity (Midant-Reynes and Buchez 2002). It is comprised of two cemeteries and a large settlement area on the West Bank of the Nile (Midant-Reynes and Buchez 2002). While the cemeteries contain remains which date from Naqada I through Dynasty 3, the settlement only shows evidence of occupation from Naqada I through Naqada IIC with a gradual abandonment thereafter (Buchez 2011a, Buchez 2011b). The majority of our knowledge comes from the excavations performed by the l'Institut Français d'Archéologie Orientale between 1989 and 2005 under the direction of Béatrix Midant-Renyes (Buchez 2011a).

  13

The system created for Adaïma to classify the pottery was arborescent with eight levels, beginning at the most broad aspect and becoming increasingly specific (MidantReynes and Buchez 2002:169). They wanted to create a system that which would cover all the possible variations of pottery found on the site. As mentioned earlier, there was both cemetery and settlement contexts which contained numerous sherds and full pots. As with the Petrie and Friedman typologies, each level had a number or letter assigned to the attributes to create a code (Table 6). As the attributes of the pottery is looked at, a letter, number or combination of the two is added to a sequence which gives a specific description of that pottery. For example AV1.1 1a1/1 R is an alluvial paste with fine sand and coarsely chopped straw. It has an unpolished unenclosed surface and it is open form with an oblique convex straight sided wall without a rim. The closest Petrie type was Rough-ware. The first level of the Adaïma typology is the paste. Three pastes are defined: alluvial, limestone and platelets (Midant-Reynes and Buchez 2002:170). Alluvial paste is further subdivided based on different types and size of inclusions within the clay (Midant-Reynes and Buchez 2002:173-174). Finishing technique is the second aspect looked at when determining the pottery classification (Midant-Reynes and Buchez 2002:170). Included within this category is the surface color and whether the pottery was polished or not. The third level consists of specific techniques which can be determine based on firing technique, slip, painted decoration, etc. (Midant-Reynes and Buchez 2002:170). The type of pottery (i.e. rim sherd, full pot, etc.) is the fourth level. This is complemented by the fifth level, which is descriptive of the shape of the bottom of the pottery (Midant-Reynes and Buchez 2002:171).

  14

Form was the seventh level and was created by measuring the distance between contour points (Midant-Reynes and Buchez 2002:176). The criteria used to determine the measurements came from principles established by Nordström and Holthoer, which were later adapted for the Predynastic by Hendrickx (Midant-Reynes and Buchez 2002:176). Eight shape groups were defined based on whether or not they had different transitional points (Midant-Reynes and Buchez 2002:176).

These were condensed into

4 in order more easily incorporate sherds (Midant-Reynes and Buchez 2002:177). (Table 7)

CONCLUSIONS There are both advantages and disadvantages to both typologies. One of the advantages which Friedman’s typology has over the Adaïma is that it was created to be utilized in the field (Friedman 1994: 127). Since there is an over abundance of pottery sherds in Egypt, it is impossible to look at them all. The typology which Friedman adapted, tries to make processing the pottery in the field as efficient as possible. Another of the advantages which it has is the inclusivity of it. The typology of Adaïma was created exclusively for classifying the pottery found at the site while Friedman’s was adapted to look at a wider range of attributes which are not found in Hierakonpolis, where the typology was originally created. An advantage which the Adaïma typology has over Friedman’s is the way the arbitrarily assigned letters and numbers can collapse

  15

to create a shortened code for the pottery. The Friedman typology is better suited to a table structure. Both typologies utilize similar attributes in order to classify the pottery, though they use different terms and utilize them in different ways. For example, both typologies look at the materials of the pottery, the clay and inclusions. Friedman’s typology calls this the Fabric/temper while the Adaïma typology calls this the paste. They both incorporate Petrie’s original classification as well. This is beneficial to the typologies because, even though most researchers create their own typology, almost all typologies are based on some aspect of Petrie’s system. This creates a link which would make it easier to transition data into a standard typology. Although both typologies present good qualities for a standard typology, of the two Friedman’s would be better because of its ease of use in the field and its inclusivity. Overall, though, it may be better to create a whole new typology using the best elements from the Adaïma and Friedman’s typologies. Friedman’s typology was only adapted to include the elements found at Naqada and Hemamieh. There are probably many more elements which were not included which can be found in other areas of Upper Egypt. To create the best comprehensive typology, all existing typologies should be gathered and condensed, taking into account how easily it would be adapted to work in the field as well as work within a laboratory.

  16

APPENDIX

Table 2. Friedman Fabric/Temper.1 Fabric/Temper 1. Straw Tempered Nile silt 2. Untempered "Plum Red" Nile silt 3. Shale tempered clay 4. Straw and Stone tempered Nile silt 5. Crushed Calcium Carbonate tempered Nile silt 6. Undetermined 7. Grog tempered Nile silt 8. Sandy Marl 9. Sand tempered Nile silt 11. Dung tempered Nile silt 12. Marl clay mixed with Nile silt 21. Coarse organic tempered Nile silt 22. Fine Untempered "Plum Red" Nile silt 26. Fine organic tempered Nile silt 27. Grog and coarse organic tempered Nile silt 100. Palestinian fabric

Table 3. Friedman Surface Treatment.2 Surface Treatment Coating 0. Uncoated 1. Red slip 2. Black slip 3. Brown slip 4. Black and red slip 6. Whitish slip 7. Self slip                                                                                                                           1

Note: Data from Friedman 1994:167

2

Note: Data from Friedman 1994:167

  17

Table 3 (Continued) 8. Red wash 10. Worn 24. Black and brown slip

Table 4. Friedman Decorations.3 Decoration 1. White paint 2. Red paint 3. Rippling 4. Punctuation 5. Inpresses/Incised designs 6. "Half polished" 7. Indentation 16. Milled rim

Table 5. Friedman Finishes.4 Finish 0. Untreated 1. High grade burnish/polish 2. Streak burnish 3. Pattern burnish 5. Burnished while moist 7. Roughened 10. Worn 22. Streak polished

                                                                                                                        3

Note: Data from Friedman 1994:167

4

Note: Data from Friedman 1994:167

  18

Table 6. Adaïma Typology.5 Level 1: Pastes A- Alluvial AM- Alluvial with mineral inclusions AV- Alluvial with vegetable/organic inclusions C- Limestone P- Platelets Level 2: Finishing Technique 1. Unenclosed surface unpolished 2. Red surface, may not be enclosed, polished 5. Polished non enclosed surface 6. Buff surface, may not be enclosed, polished 7. Buff surface, may not be enclosed, unpolished 8. Red surface, enclosed, unpolished Level 3: Specific Techniques a. Specific firing b. Rough c. Smoky edge d. Partial slip e. Non uniform polish f. Raised surface g. Painted decoration h. Printed decoration i. Incised decoration j. Clear appearance of red slip l. excised decoration m. Molded/patterned decoration n. Non-slip covering applied by sweeping Level 4: Quality of Material P-body F-base FAC- complete form, intact B- rim Level 5: Form F1- round bottom F2- flat bottom F3-pointed bottom F4- flattened bottom F5- raised bottom                                                                                                                         5

Note: Data from Midant-Reynes and Buchez 2002:170-172.

  19

Table 6 (Continued)   Level 6: Precision a-simple edge b- lip edge with variation Level 7: Precision (Morphology) Table # Level 8: Petrie's Equivalent

Table 7. Adaïma’s Morphology.6 Code 1  and  2 1a 1a1 1a3 1b 1b1 1b2 1b3 1b4 1b5 2a 2a1 2a2 2a3 2b 2b1 2b2 3  and  4 3a 3a1 3a2 3a3 3b 3b1 3b2

Form Open  form Oblique  convex  wall  without  a  rim Strait  sided Thick  wall Oblique  convex  wall  with  a  rim Bulging  rim External  slanted  rim,  horizontal  or  hanging Coiled  rim  emphasized  by  external  groove   Triangular  rim Flattened  edge Oblique  concave  wall  without  a  rim Slightly  everted  wall Very  everted  wall Thick  wall Oblique  concave  wall  with  a  rim Bulging  rim External  slanted  rim,  horizontal  or  hanging Closed  form Without  a  neck,  without  a  rim Wall  slightly  tipping With  curvature   Very  slanted  walls Without  a  neck,  with  a  rim Bulging  rim,  vertical  clearance External  rim,  slanted

                                                                                                                        6

Note: Data from Midant-Reynes and Buchez 2002:171-172.

  20

Table 7 (Continued)   3b3 3b4 3b5 3b6 3b7 4a 4a1 4a2 4a3 4a4 4b 4b1 4b2 4b3 4b4 5 5b 5b1

Coiled  rim  emphasized  by  external  groove   Triangular  rim  with  upper  flat  surface Flattened  edge Groove  in  upper  edge  (in  relation  to  a  lid) Square  rim With  a  neck,  without  a  rim Vertical  clearence,  short  neck Flared  high  neck Tapered  neck Cylindrical  neck With  a  neck,  with  a  rim Flared  short  neck,  bulging  rim Flared  high  neck,  bulging  rim Tapered  neck,  bulging  rim Short  neck,  rim  or  triangular  flat  upper  surface Cylindrical   Without  a  rim Bulging  rim

  21

Bibliography

Anderson, David A. 2006

Power and Competition in the Upper Egyptian Predynastic: A View from the Predynastic Settlement at el-Mahâsna, Egypt. Ph.D. dissertation University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.

Bard, Kathryn A. 1994

The Egyptian Predynastic: A Review of the Evidence. Journal of Field Archaeology 21(3):265-288.

2000

The Emergence of the Egyptian State. In The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt, edited by Ian Shaw, pp 57-82. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Buchez, Nathalie 2011a Adaïma (Upper Egypt): The Stages of State Development from the Point of View of a ‘Village Community’. In Egypt at its Origins 3. Proceedings of the Third International Conference “Origin of the State. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt”, London, 27th July – 1st August 2008. Edited by R.F. Friedman and P.N Fiske, pp 31-40. Peeters, Leuven. 2011b A Reconsideration of Predynastic Chronology: The Contribution of Adaïma. In Egypt at its Origins: Studies in Memory of Barbara Adams. Proceedings of the International Conference “Origin of the State. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt”, Kraków, 28th August - 1t September 2002. Edited by S. Hendrickx; R.F. Friedman, K.M. Ciaowicz, and M. Chodnicki, pp. 939-951. Peeters, Leuven. Friedman, Renee Frances 1994

Predynastic Settlement Ceramics of Upper Egypt: A Comparative Study of the Ceramics of Hamamieh, Nagada, and Hierakonpolis. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.

  22

Hendrickx, Stan and Pierre Vermeersch 2000

Prehistory: From Palaeolithic to the Badarian Culture. In The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt, edited by Ian Shaw, pp 16-40. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Midant-Reynes, Béatrix 2000a The Naqada Period. In The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt, edited by Ian Shaw, pp 41-56. Oxford University Press, Oxford. 2000b The Prehistory of Egypt: From the First Egyptians to the First Pharaohs. Translated by Ian Shaw. Blackwell, Oxford Midant-Reynes, Béatrix and Nathalie Buchez 2002

Adaïma.1. Économie et habitat. Fouilles de l’Institue français d’archéologie orientale, number 45. Cairo.

Petrie, W.M. Flinders 1899

Sequence in Prehistoric Remains. Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain29: 295-301. London.

1901

Diospolis Parva. Egyptian Exploration Fund, volume 20. London.

1920

Prehistoric Egypt. British School of Archaeology in Egypt, volume 31. London

Petrie, W.M. Flinders and J.E. Quibell 1896

Naqada and Ballas. British School of Archaeology in Egypt, 1. London.

 

  23