Conflict-related representations in the 4th

millennium Egypt.
A study on ideology of violence

Alberto Giannese

Dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of

the requirements for the degree of MA in Egyptian
Archaeology
of University College London in 2012

UCL INSTITUTE OF ARCHAEOLOGY

Abstract

State formation is traditionally studied in an evolutionary framework and

on the premise that, at a certain point, social evolution will generate
violence, counterbalanced by control. Egyptian state formation is no
exception, and many scholars agree on the fact that it was achieved
through war. The supporters of this view largely rely on representations
linkable to conflict and violence. Building on the belief that
representations are better suited to address ideology than events, I
engage in the iconographical analysis of conflict-related representations.
The information acquired on author, focus, message and public allow us
to sit the data within the wider representational cosmos of the Naqada
phases, to analyse the relationship between ideology and statecraft, to
speculate on the nature of elite and ultimately to suggest some new
directions for addressing the slippery topic of state formation.
 Index

1 Violence, evolution and state formation

-Kaiser versus Wilkinson
-Was violence the heart of state formation?
-Relevance and limits

2 Methods and theoretical framework

-Whose ideology is this?
-Data
-Relevance and limits
-Chronology
-Geography

3 Data
-Naqada I
-Naqada II
-Naqada III

4 Discussion
-Introduction
-Victory scenes in Naqada I
-Naqada II, the first blood
-Naqada III, controlled explosion
-Themes
-Authors and subjects
-Politics and Society
-What we can make of iconography
5 Conclusions
-Our research
-Ideology
-Complexity
-The rise of the elite
-Where do we go from here

Bibliography

Webgraphy

Images

Appendix A
1_Violence, evolution and state formation

In the same way a baby evolves in a child, then he grows up, starts
school, faces puberty, enters manhood, grows old and dies, nurturing the
soil and favouring the appearance of new life, so does society. This
biological parallel, on which many would not agree, is a very simple and
common thought. Its evidently evolutionary nature (Yoffee 1979), even
when rationally rejected, creeps back in. Beginning and end of a phase,
as well as the passage from one phase to another, are bound to draw
much attention.
In Archaeology, and especially in Prehistory, this is particularly evident:
titles like “The birth of...” and “The first...” are among the most recurrent
in the literature, and the Archaeological vocabulary overflows with terms
like dynamic, process, formation.
Even the complexity of the explanations regarding these transitional
phases appears to be evolutionary crescent: from the tendency to interpret
changes in material culture as due to external invasions or, more
generally, as brought in by a different human group (one of the most
criticised “paradigms” of the so labelled Culture-historical Archaeology.
For a witty and more nuanced view see Flannery 1982), to the focus on
processes and general laws proper of the New Archaeology and later to
the epistemological questioning of our discipline, resulting in a whole
(almost) new array of themes and interests like post-structuralism,
gender, agency. It may even be argued that this evolution goes hand in
hand with the increasing amount of data and knowledge about the past,
and that this ought to be the “normal” trajectory of Archaeology.

While I agree with the generic concept of evolution, the apparent

linearity of it calls for more comments. It is true that a child cannot
evolve into a courgette, but it is also true that, observing a baby, we
cannot predict what kind of adult he will become. Neither, analysing a
grown up, we can determine when or how he acquired a particular trait.
This bring us to other two considerations: biology cannot explain
everything; it is important not to use biology to explain psychology,
sociology to explain anatomy and so on. Later on we will consider the
implications of these considerations.

As a matter of fact, changes can be either tranquil or traumatic (just

consider how brutal adolescence can be!), long or short, more or less
evident, depending on the individual experiences.
In Archaeology, this means that some aspects can only be understood as
culture-specific (as robustly argued by Hodder 1982: 92-121; Tilley
1989; Bard 1992: 4).
State formation is one of the transitional stages that attracts the attention
of archaeologists the most, both in terms of first principles and general
covering laws (see Carnero 1970 for a brief but poignant overview), in
terms of specific locations and from almost every possible angle.
The two aspects of major interest here will be the socio-political
categorisations applied to the population of a rising state and the study of
power relations inside it.
After the influential work of Service (1971), much effort has been put in
blurring the contours among the steps of his social ladder (e.g. Gat 2003;
Wright 2006; also, Earle 2005 presents an useful overview of the
pertinent literature), in order to better match the variability encountered
across the World. The brilliant book by Trigger (1993) isolates, quite
successfully, some commonalities among pre-industrial civilisations
(note the meaningful shift in his terminology), without neglecting the
differences.
Getting closer to Egypt, the work of Algaze (1993) kindled the debate
about state formation and its link to power, materialised in the ability to
control and gather raw resources from the periphery (see Griswold 1992:
233, 236; Watrin 2004-2005 for some applications to Predynastic Egypt)
and in the capacity to influence and direct the development of more
remote regions. Among the many counterproposals to its monolithic
model, the more influential is probably Rethinking world-systems by
Stein (1999).
As lamented by Trigger (1993: 1) and Wenke (1991: 283), Egyptologists
in the past have been scarcely concerned with anthropology and social
sciences (a cogent opinion on the reason for that is expressed by Kemp
1989: 7). If we have to speculate, this lack of anthropological
consciousness, probably together with the major focus on Art History and
History (fostered by the relatively great amount of textual sources) and
with the apparent elite, theocratic nature of the pharaonic power, may be
the causes of the major focus on politics other than other aspects. As a
consequence, until not much time ago, the major number of papers on the
birth of pharaonic Egypt, principally dealt with political change, in a real
“historic” fashion (Andrén 1998: 41-42; for wider considerations of the
influence of History on Archaeology and Prehistory see Harris 1986;
Moreland 2001; Sauer 2004). While this trend today appears almost
reverted (consider, for instance, Bard 1992; Wengrow 2006),and the
necessity of a multilinear theory (Countryman 2007) has been suggested
by many, the political dimension of the Egyptian state formation process
will be the one of major interest here.

Kaiser versus Wilkinson

Two principal theories have been formulated about the unification of
Egypt. The first sustains that Egypt evolved into a unique political entity
through conflicts among different polities, in a process that ended with
the formation of a territorial state around 3100 BC. It is better reassumed
by Wilkinson (2000a), but it counts many supporters, who reached the
same conclusion coming from different perspectives: Hassan (1998:
172), Kemp (1989: 42), to cite only some of them.

The second theory (Kaiser 1990) argues that Egypt was culturally (and
possibly politically) unified already by the early Naqada III, judging from
the substantial homogeneity observable in the material culture. “The
expansion of the Naqada culture may therefore indicate the growth of an
early state.” (Digitalegypt a). Because it may be important later, we need
to stress that Kaiser’s hypothesis does not deny conflicts, it simply moves
them before Naqada III.

Evidence for the existence of conflicts may be of different kind. Let us

start considering direct evidence. The archaeological record is practically
mute in term of skeletal remains bearing wounds or marks clearly
referable to conflict, but it may depend on the early date of excavations
(skeletal analyses were usually concerned with gender and ethnicity,
analysing crania and discarding other bones, often without any further
recording (e.g. Morant 1935; Stoessiger 1927); moreover, it is plausible
that the majority of casualties from a battle would have been buried in
some sort of mass grave, probably not far from the battlefield and
therefore very difficult to locate. The difficulties related to settlements
studies (Craig Patch 2004: 907-908) may be responsible for the absence
of another important indicator of conflict and warfare: fortifications,
including fortified or particularly thick walls (but see the revaluation of
the walls of Jericho by Bar-Yosef 1986), palisades, ramparts, moats. The
precious book by Gilbert (2004) informs us on the sheer number and
distribution of weapons but, as the title Weapons, warriors and warfare
in Early Egypt suggests, these three subsets shall not be considered as
equivalent and the existence of utensil-weapons (Gilbert 2004: 3)
complicates the matter even more.
Let us turn now to the indirect evidence usually considered as possibly
related to conflicts: increasing social complexity, rank, hierarchy and
competition, sometimes linked to trade as means to display and prestige,
have largely been discussed, but they do not tell us much about conflicts,
on the contrary rely on the western opinion that social complexity must,
at some point, require coercion (an idea that tracks back to Marx, Hobbes
and Machiavelli. For a theoretical examination see Carneiro 1970; Leone
et al. 1987 and for a bright example Liverani 2009). More or less abrupt
disappearance of polities from the political chessboard has also been
suggested (Friedman & Hendrickx 2002; Kahl 2003), but definitive proof
in terms of destruction level or burnt settlements are not present. Last but
not least, iconography is often cited as proof of warfare.
Borrowing an oversimplified (compared, for instance, to Miller & Tilley
1984: 5-8) but fair definition by Earle (2005: 940), we can regard
political power as composed of three spheres: military, economic (which
includes bureaucracy), and ideological control.
However, as suggested before, we should not try to explain psychological
characteristics by biological means! Representations is a very specific
kind of archaeological record, and it is best suited to address the thought
of ancient Egyptians (however difficult it may be) than the factuality of
their political actions (this point will be extensively developed in Chapter
2. For a discussion about ideology in Early Egypt see also Bard 1992). It
is indeed strictly related to politics, but it tells more about ambitions,
rhetoric, justification and ultimately ideology than it does about events
and actual military control.

Was violence the heart of state formation?

This dissertation will analyse the representation of conflict-related
violence in the 4th Millennium BC, in order to individuate its first
occurrences, how the authors shaped representation through time,
deciding what was to reiterate and what was to change. I will try to
distinguish peculiar features in order to understand who the enemies were
(and which aspects identified them as enemies), what was the aim of the
depictions and where was the focus put, to assess the relative importance
of violent iconography in the broader realm of Egyptian art and
ultimately, what representation of conflicts can really tell us about state
formation.

Relevance and limits

In writing this paper, a point very present to me was the tendency -shared
by many of us- to draw from every kind of available evidence. While this
attitude is justifiable by the desire to understand ancient Egypt in its
network of interrelated phenomena, at the stake there is the ability to
recognise that different data are more suitable for different researches,
and that excessive generalisation and all-embracing explanations risk to
make us overlook important details that only a more specific study can
reveal. I hope not to make the same methodological error when I will
provide some general considerations, and to be able to shift the focus of
representational analyses from the factual toward a more ideological
level, reviving iconographical studies on slightly new and more fruitful
premises.
Perhaps, the principal limit of this paper relies in its subjectivity. Images
are analysed according to common sense, but there are no guarantees of
correctness. Moreover, considerations based on statistics (i.e. relative
importance and major or minor codification of represented themes),
depend on a very small sample.
The important attention gained by the Archaeology of warfare from the
second half of the 90’s (the major catalyser for the discussion being
Keeley 1996), has now produced a vast array of researches, and many
aspects of prehistoric warfare have now been addressed, not last its
social, gender, agency implications. Much of this literature concentrates
on European prehistory and it is principally built upon Western cultural
coordinates. Even within Egyptology, recent books like the one by
Gilbert (2004) pertain to what can be defined a “classic” approach to
warfare, principally interested in weaponry and warriors (Vandkilde
2003). The opportunity to research the ideological aspects of conflict, as
presented in iconography, and on Egyptian soil, may help to compare
European theories with less western scenarios.
This research aims to better define Predynastic violence, and its
ideological and rhetoric importance, within the wider representational
cosmos of Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt. Moreover, the clear
link between king and sanctioned violence (Mulhestein 2011) in the 1st
and 2nd Dynasties, calls for some thoughts on the monopoly of force
(which implies both the capacity to use it and the exclusivity to control it)
in the time immediately preceding Narmer.
2_Methods and Theoretical Framework

Admittedly, the privileged link between representations and ideology,

suggested in the previous chapter, is problematic, both on a theoretical
and a methodological level.
Studies on representation are subjects to divergent opinions, from
excessive reliance to open mistrust. Iconography, intended as “... the
branch of the history of art that concerns itself with the subject matter or
meaning of works of art, as opposed to their form.” (Panofsky 1955: 26,
quoted in Garfinkel 2001: 241)”, is often considered with suspect by
Archaeologists (and indeed many recur to it only to corroborate
hypotheses based on data of different kind). On the other hand, some
scholars, on the premise that the human mind presents some basilar
common settings that are not affected by the flowing of time, rely on
images even too much.
Egyptology offers many examples of both attitudes: it is not infrequent to
read that an image tracks back to the archetypical action/model, set once
and for all in the Predynastic. Conversely, many scholars working on
Predynastic imagery, do not hesitate to draw parallels with later images,
citing the evident continuity of the Egyptian traditions.
While these views are certainly corrected to a certain degrees, we are in
the presence of a dangerous loophole, one that would allow us to talk
about different periods of the Egyptian history as they were pervaded by
the same spirit and governed by the same essential rules and traditions, so
contributing to the old cliché of an immutable Egypt. For instance, many
scholars have tried to read human-animal representations on Predynastic
knife-handles and palettes as early examples of containment of chaos
(Asselberghs 1961: 166-192; Baines 1993; Kemp 1989: 46-53;
Hendrickx 2006: 739-740, Muhlenstein 2011: chapter 2;
Wilkinson2000b: 25), without being able to retrieve the intermediate
links of the representational chain between Predynastic and Dynastic
examples.
The opposite tendency can be seen in authors adhering to the principles
of the New Archaeology, generally very critique against what Binford
has defined paleopsychology (Binford 1965: 204-205).

These different approaches can be attributed to personal sensibility and to

different schools of thought, and fit in the wider debate on the possibility
to recovery ancient mind, most recently advocated especially by (post-
)structuralist and neo-marxist theories, as observed by Leone (1982) in an
admirably straightforward paper.
Structuralism operates on the assumption that recovering the ancient
mind is a proper object of study, because “... the structure of the human
mind has been constitutive of the past since reaching its modern
condition tens of millennia ago.” (Leone 1982: 743), that is equivalent to
saying that an unbroken chain of logical organisation links the present to
the past.
Therefore, while the particular language of a culture may be lost, its
grammar and vocabulary are retrievable, because they were created in a
system that, with many changes, is the same of our own.
Within this approach, Marxist theories, addressing the concept of
ideology, generally agree on its role as “... a system of sacred or secular
beliefs that rationalize an economic or political order.” (Leone 1982:
746).
While I recognise a debt of gratitude towards these two theories, some
clarifications are due here.
First, I consider only a small range of elements as probably archetypical
and therefore common to all mankind, regardless time: biological
constraints that make us to be born, die, eat and drink, plus very few
behavioural attitudes -commonsensical observable- like the fact that
every child plays and that we all experience an array of emotions like
hate, love, fear. This means that we should be very cautious even on
apparently plausible generalisations like “the bond between mother and
new born” and the equivalence between water and life, because, if
archetypical at all, such general concepts are deeply culture-oriented.
Second, coming to the Marxist interpretation of ideology, I argue that this
is only one of the aspects to take in account when analysing the past.
There can be no guarantee that, outside Western history, societies create
sets of beliefs as camouflage or justification for economic and power
structures. Moreover, in my view, Marxist interpretation of ideology fails
to take in account another aspect of representation: fashion. A
geometrical recurrent pattern, while with every probability culturally
significant, and therefore ideological, can with difficulty be accounted as
means to rationalise political or economic order.

Now that the theoretical linchpins of this study have been addressed, we
can return to the initial observation: representations are best suited to
study ideology than other aspects of society.
Representation, more than something showing actual actions, works like
a still life photograph: every detail in it can be controlled by the author.
It may or may not faithfully represent real events, but it surely is the
transposition of something that was in the mind of the author.
Considering this observation under another perspective, it is possible to
state that representation is always mediated (fig.1).

fig.1 Representation as always mediated

When we observe an image this concept is surprisingly often overlooked;
I suspect that one of the reason for our oversight depends on a property
of the images themselves: the magic of pictures is that they make us
forget that they are not “the real thing” (fig.2). The impact of
photography and cinema in our society is perhaps due to the major
resemblance to reality (for deeper considerations on this theme see Colla
2007: 2; Jenkins 1992: 60; Preziosi 2003: 90-91), but even in describing
a Flemish oil paint we will probably give a narrative account of it as if
the scene represented actually happened in the past.
Consequences for Archaeologists, apart from the risks to interpret some
images in the narrow sense of factual narrative accounts, is the exciting
possibility to have a direct window on the mind of ancient people.
While virtually every object, as meaningfully constituted (Hodder 1982:
117; Hodder 1991 [1986], Olsen 2003: 90), contains ideological
information, regardless our ability to retrieve them or not, many would
agree that the amount of ideological information of a depiction is far
superior than that of a posthole.
 fig.2 “L’Oreal for men” advertisement. The unnatural look of the picture, which
defies physical laws,
is created through artificial light sources, soft box and computer graphic, in
order to convey a specific
message to the public (dennisperdersen)

Whose ideology is this?

The author can be considered as the physical person or institution which
conceives the representation, decides the subject and the way it must be
rendered.
Representation also has a material executor (coinciding or not with the
author), thus involving a technical dimension, functional choices related
to the properties of a particular material and possibly a certain degree of
expressive freedom.
Given the nature of this research, our attention will be principally
devoted to the author; but information about the materiality and
production of the artefacts will be presented whenever useful to
recovering ideology.
It has been suggested that representations of violent interaction, in the
framework of state formation, have a particular importance (Flannery
1999: fig. 12; Garfinkel 2001: 252), and that state formation require the
existence of some kind of social hierarchy.
While both these observations may not always be true, indeed, as it will
become clear when analysing the data for Predynastic Egypt, the authors
of these representations are to be found among the elite. This term, in
itself, does not say much; especially considering that we analyse a period
of some 1000 years; moreover, it is absolutely meaningless if not in
comparison with other hierarchically lower groups. We will try to use
elite as an empty box and to fill it with the information offered by the
data and by their contexts, considered in a diachronic pattern.
3_Data

The evidence this dissertation is based on will be presented in the next

chapter.
It consists of 2-dimensional depictions of human conflict-related images
of the 4th and early 3rd Millennium BC, as they appear on 41 artefacts of
different type and material.
A diachronic exposition is chosen to achieve a better understanding of
the development of conflict-related representations through time, both in
term of stylistic and ideological change. The presence of Early Dynastic
pieces in the corpus serves the same aim; moreover, it offers the
opportunity to evaluate if and to what extent the unification process
(traditionally considered as concluded under Narmer) marked an
ideological change.
All the subjects represented fit in one or more of these groups: battles,
fortifications and sieges, one against one combats, captives,
executions and warriors.
These categories have been chosen because they are fairly recognisable
and comprehend many if not all the forms of violence that may be related
to conflicts.
The categories have been elaborated specifically to address the more
numerous and codified Naqada III representations. The conflict-related
repertoire of Naqada I and II will be discussed to a major extent, in order
to understand the prehistory of this codification.
The affiliation of an image to a particular group is not always obvious,
neither exclusive; it must be considered heuristically oriented, sometimes
relying upon previous interpretations and personal to a certain degree.
While I have tried to collect and include, among these data, any possible
piece of evidence, the corpus is not intended as an exhaustive catalogue.
In order to assess where these representations sit within contemporaneous
iconography, brief information on the representational cosmos of each
Naqada phase will also be given.
The exclusion of 3-dimensional images (statuettes, clay models) is
largely due to difficulties in evaluating the evidence: the sample would
not be representative without a careful examination of the pieces within
the vast and complex universe of figurine studies (for theoretical
discussions on the topic see Bailey 1994, 2005; Gimbutas 1982 [1974];
Lesure 2011; more specifically on Egyptian figurines see Ucko 1962,
1965, 1968).
For the same reason, this study would largely benefit from the existence
of updated and detailed monographs about some archaeological object
category wrongly considered as “well known”, such as tags, mace-heads
and knife-handle. The existence of such books would allow scholars to
study the famous decorated examples within a wider framework,
analysing materials, techniques, spatial and temporal distribution and
offering a better background for the analysis of the more famous,
decorated pieces.
Compositional and structural analyses have been carried out only for few
of the artefacts in this work (e.g. Fairservis 1991 on the Narmer Palette
and Czichon & Sieversten 1993 on the Gebel el-Arak knife-handle);
attempts to define a representational grammar and dictionary (as in Graff
2004) are very promising and constitute an important step towards a
better understanding of the overall Predynastic representational pool, but
they are still in an early phase.
For practical reasons, it would be impossible to analyse materials and
technical know-how of the artefacts in detail.
As it would appear from the discussion, it is possible to identify few
recurrent themes, vaguely corresponding to some of the groups indicated
above, on objects different for material, typology and temporal
coordinates. This repetitiveness demonstrates the existence of a
representational code (Davis 1982) and is possibly the privileged key to
access ideology.
In chapter 4 a discussion of the groups will be presented, in order to
isolate these recurrent themes, their ideological message and their
chronological transformations. It will be useful to consider
archaeological data of other nature (direct and indirect evidence, as
described in chapter 1, for the existence and nature of eventual conflicts),
in order to observe how representation conforms to the socio-political
setting.
The last chapter will offer some conclusive thoughts as well as
suggestions for future research. The charts in Appendix A are provided
as an handy instrument to cross-compare the characteristics of similar but
not identical images, and present more detailed bibliography for each
artefact considered in the corpus.

Relevance and limits

The methodology adopted has no real precedents, so no solid model to
build upon and, as every work which has its ultimate object in ideology,
can only have a subjective and partially arbitrary nature. However it
presents the advantage to combine quantitative (the statistical
identification of recurrent themes) with qualitative (theme-focused
analysis) methods. Admittedly, as every qualitative method, its quality
depends much on the ability of the author, both as researcher and as
writer, however, contrary to any quantitative method, allow us a better
grasp on the beating heart of the past, and a vivid reconstruction of the
dynamics of Predynastic society, even if from the declared from-the-top
viewpoint. The choice of a vast, cross-material corpus of enquiry, lends
itself to excessive generalisation but, on the other hand, help us to make
the most of a patchy group of representations. Indeed, the methodology
adopted relies on the assumption that it is possible to address
representations regardless of the medium they appear on. While the
problematic core of this assumption cannot be easily solved, the method
applied, if successful, provides the possibility to revive iconography as a
useful study on new, more solid premise.
Chronology (fig.3)
Admittedly, the long time span considered in this study and the not
settled internal chronology of the Naqada phases (Savage 1997: 1997:
237-244) would necessitate major discussion. However, given the nature
of this study, which is concerned with ideology in change, it is perhaps
preferable to leave the contours voluntary blurred. The dates suggested
would serve only as general indications. The definition Predynastic and
Early Dynastic are self-evident, once indicated Narmer as first king of
the I Dynasty (3100 BC) and do not need further comment. Early Egypt
and Prehistoric Egypt, which frequently appear in the literature,
sometimes with very different connotations, would be also used, the
reader should know that with them we refer invariably to Predynastic.
Future research, more specifically oriented to the comprehension of
recurrent themes within smaller time spans, may address the
chronological implications to a major extent.

Geography (fig.4)
The reader should bear in mind that the corpus considered here is
eminently Upper Egyptian. This would result in an unbalanced idea of
the Egyptian state formation. The recent ongoing excavations in the Delta
(for instance Tell el-Fara′in and Tell el-Farcha) may provide further
evidence of conflict-related representations (e.g. Cialowicz 2009: 778,
figurine of a prisoner), so enabling a more complete picture and new
research topics.
fig.3 Locations of major Predynastic sites (Savage 2001:
104)
fig.4 The chronology elaborated by Hendrickx (1996) is probably the one
most currently adopted. (Ciałowicz 2001: 15)
3_Data

Categories of the study

This chapter presents the iconographic data considered in this study.
Differences in material, technique, provenience, excavation’s reliability
and chronology make our corpus patchy at best; moreover, the violent
character of some depictions is not granted and the link between violence
and conflict not always obvious: some of the images may depict hunters
instead of soldiers, civil criminals instead of enemies, etc.
As already stated, the images we are dealing with fit in one or more of
these groups: battles, fortifications and sieges, one against one
combats, captives, executions and warriors.
The majority of our data dates Naqada III, these will be presented by
category.
The few objects from Naqada I will be addressed together, in
consideration of the resemblances among those representation. The two
pieces dating Naqada II will be discussed individually, in consideration
of their possible importance as prototypes for later representations.

The existence of a canon for some of the categories is noteworthy: it

constitutes a hint of the will to represent the same particular subject over
large time spans and suggests the existence of a common iconographic
vocabulary, possibly shared by a public and organised by some kind of
elite.

In particular, a clear and well defined “body vocabulary” for representing

prisoners, to-smite-enemies and dead people appears developed by
Naqada III.
The features of these themes can be summarised as follow:
Prisoners are invariably represented with arms folded behind their back;
sometimes clearly tied, kneeled or conducted away by
officials/warriors/kings who sometimes hold one end of the rope that
fasten their arms, wrists or necks (fig.5).
fig.5 Prisoners. a: ivory label from Abydos, Naqada III (Gilbert 2004: 96); b: ivory
knife-handle from Hierakonpolis, Naqada III, detail (francescoraffaele a); c: graffiti
from Gebel Sheikhh Suleiman; Naqada III, detail (Gilbert 2004: 94); d: Gebel el-Arak
ivory knife-handle, Naqada III, detail (francescoraffaele b); e: greywacke palette,
perhaps from Abydos (British Museum), Naqada III, detail (Ashmolean Museum
1892.1171); f: ivory fragment from Abydos, Naqada III (Petrie 1901: pl III)
Corpses (fig.6) are represented lying horizontally in unnatural position,
with arms and legs folded. They are represented always and only in
representations of battlefields (the only exception being a statue base
dating to the reign of Khasekem(wi), II Dyn., see Quibell 1900: pl. XL),
nude and never in direct link with weapons of any kind.

fig.6 Corpses. a: Gebel el-Arak ivory knife-handle, Naqada III, detail (francescoraffaele
b); b: graffiti from Gebel Sheikh Suleiman; Naqada III, detail (Gilbert 2004: 94); c:
greywacke palette perhaps from Abydos (British Museum), Naqada III, detail (British
Museum b)
To-smite-enemies are shown kneeled, looking towards the executioner
who holds them from the hair (fig.7); sometimes the dispatcher holds a
pole or long stick together with or instead of the mace. To interpret some
depictions literally, this long stick may stand for caning and not killing. It
is interesting to note that both these attributes will be incorporated as
regalia in the determinative for king (Gardiner 1927: 424, A23 of the
Sign List).

fig.7 Smiting scene. a: Den’s ivory label, I Dyn., detail (francescoraffaele c); b:
Narmer’s ivory label, detail (francescoraffaele d); c: Aha’s ivory label, I Dyn., detail
(francescoraffaele e); d: Narmer’s greywacke palette, from Main Deposit,
Hierakonpolis, detail (francescoraffaele f)
Stabbed men are always depicted kneeled and -like prisoners- with arms
folded behind their back; the executioner hits them on the thorax, holding
a bowl with the other hand, certainly to receive (or not to split) some
blood (fig.8). It needs to be said that not all scholars agree on the violent
character of this theme (Piquette 2004: 938) and, what is of major
importance here, this group cannot be clearly linked to conflict.

fig.8 Stabbed men. a: Djer’s ivory label from Saqqara, I Dyn., detail (francescoraffaele
g); b: reconstruction of Aha’s ivory label from Abydos, I Dyn., detail
(francescoraffaele h) c: Aha’s ivory label from Abydos, detail (Piquette 2004: 938)
Naqada I
2d depictions in Naqada I are principally composed by those on the white
Cross-lined ware (C-Ware) vessels (fig.9). This ceramic class, so named
by W. M. F. Petrie (1901a: 4-5; 1920: 3, 14-16), was a fundamental step
in the elaboration of the Sequence Date (SD), thus allowing the first
reliable chronology for the Naqada phases. It is typically constituted by
open forms (Wengrow & Baines 2004: 1081) and roughly datable to
3900-3500 BC (Crowfoot Payne 1992: 186; Kemp 1982: 12, 15). Early
iconographic analyses by Finkenstaedt (1981, 1988) were oriented
towards the identification of regional patterns, her major contribution to
our topic being the observation that hunting and cultic scenes (although it
is not clear to which images she refers) are typical of the Abydos region,
while pastoral scenes are predominant in the Naqada area (Finkenstaedt
1981: 10).
It often presents linear and geometrical patterns, probably resembling
basket motifs (Petrie 1920: 14); other common depictions are vegetation
and riverine animals, occasionally in associations with human hunters
(Wengrow 2009: 3). An important characteristic, as evidenced by the
structuralist study of Graff (2004: 771), is the tendency to represent
isolated subjects, in contrast with the figures on the Decorated pottery
(D-Ware).
fig.9 Examples of C-Ware decoration, Naqada I. (Petrie 1921). a: pl XXII, 35; b: pl
XXI, 19n; c: pl XX, 5m; d: pl XXV, 93m

The oldest depictions which have sometimes been considered as violent

are the anthropomorphic figures on five Naqada I C-Ware tall bakers
(fig.10). As subtly observed by Wengrow & Baines (2004: 1085), these
human depictions are among the few filled with solid colours on C-Ware.
Two elongated bottles are from Abydos U-415, and are interpreted by the
excavators as victory scenes (Dreyer et al. 2003: 80-83, 137).
Descriptions and interpretations for the other three (one pot found in
Abydos U-239 (fig.10 b), the other two bought on the market) are
optimally presented by Garfinkel (2001): they have been alternatively
considered dance or victory scenes, with lack of agreement on the gender
of the figures as well.
Determination of sex is of importance here for two reasons: no images of
violence performed by or against women are known for the Predynastic
so far; female figures with raised arms, “... sometimes together with
smaller men wearing a penis sheath...” (Wengrow & Baines 2004: 1086)
are a famous subject on D-Ware and in the form of figurines, and are
usually interpreted as dancers (Needler 1984: 29; Vandier 1952: 349–55)
or as the representation of goddesses (Crowfoot Payne 1993: 34).
Analysing the U-239 pot, Garfinkel (2001: 246) is probably correct in
pointing out that male genitals are displayed in some of the smaller
figures, but are absent in the taller ones, whom he interprets as old female
individuals, considering their emphasised bellies (on the possible
connection between exaggerated physical features such as buttocks,
breasts and bellies and mature female individuals see Meskell et al. 2007:
293; McDermott 1996; Nakamura & Meskell 2009: 215; note, however,
that all these papers principally deal with figurines).
Sexual organs are not clearly discernible for any figure on the other four
pots, and differences in representation among the vessels are evident, but
the similarities among the scenes is striking enough to suggest that all the
vessels are decorated with a similar theme.

fig.10 Claimed “victory scenes” on C-Ware vessels, Naqada I. a: E3002 (MRAH,

Bruxells), unknown provenience (francescoraffaele i); b: from tomb U-239, Abydos
(francescoraffaele j) c: UC15339 (Petrie Museum, London), unknown provenience
(francescoraffaele k); d: from tomb U-415, Abydos (Dreyer et al. 1998: 114); e: from
tomb U-415, Abydos (francescoraffaele l)
 Naqada II
Naqada II D-ware presents a clear change in fabric (use of marl) and
decoration colour, with a shift from white to red pigment, as well as a
change in vessel forms which are now predominantly closed, the most
distinctive being the globular jar, probably inspired by contemporaneous
stone vessels and more adapt for transport (Wengrow & Baines 2004: 3-
4). Differently from C-ware, which is found virtually exclusively in
Upper Egypt (Finkenstaedt 1981: 7), this class has a much larger
distribution, considering that samples have been found in Lower Nubia
and Southern Levant (Wengrow & Baines 2004: 4); it dates
approximately 3600-3200 BC. There is a partial change in the
represented fauna (flamingos and other birds appear, plus a major
number of semi-arid environment animals, according to Graff 2004:
768); the riverine set is maintained, but now hosts boats and
anthropomorphic figures, often but not always in association (fig.11).
This repertoire has attracted much attention from the very discovery.
Among the many studies on the argument those by Graff (2004) and
Wengrow & Baines (2004) deserve special mention. The former reveals a
minor but recurrent number or represented subjects for the D-ware
compared to the C-ware, this indicating an increasing degree of
canonisation (Graff 2004: 769-771); the latter, after considering more
traditional approaches, turn to analyse the broader dimension of burial
practices, concluding that it is only in the complex phenomenon of
interment that D-ware acquires its ultimate sense, as one of the
components of social persona of the deceased (Wengrow & Baines 2004;
for a theoretical discussion of the concept of social persona see Bellinger
2003).
During Naqada II, 2d complex scenes appear for the first time on other
media, like greywacke/schist1 palettes (for an overview of the most
famous see Petrie 1953), the oldest examples probably being the
hippopotamus hunting on a palette now in the Medelhavsmuseet of
Stockholm (E.M.6000, for relevance and dating see Hendrickx &
Depraetere 2004 and Säve-Söderbergh 1953). Later pieces, dating

1
distinguishable only by microscopic examination (Crowfoot Payne 1993: 221)
towards the end of Naqada II, probably show proto-religious signs or
effigies, like the so-called Hathor (Petrie et al. 1912: 22; see Kohler
2004: 548 for one parallel and alternative interpretation) and Min (Petrie
1953: 10; Wainwright 1931: 185-188) palettes.

fig.11 Examples of D-Ware decoration, Naqada II. (Petrie 1921). a: pl XXXIII, 35b; b:
pl XXXIV, 49f; c: pl XXXIII, 41m; d: pl XXXIV, 46d

Generally accepted representations of interpersonal violence in Naqada II

period appear in the painting on the south-west wall of tomb 100 at
Hierakonpolis (henceforth T100), first published by Quibell & Green
(1902: 20-21; pl. LXXV-LXXVIII) (fig.12), and on the painted linen
fragments found at Gebelein (Galassi 1955) (fig.13).
The former, which dates Naqada IIC (Kaiser 1958: 188-189; but see Case
& Crowfoot Payne 1962: 15 for a slightly earlier dating and more
insights on the chronological attribution), is one of the larger tombs of
the period and one of the first brick-lined; the chiefly/kingly identity of
the owner (Case & Crowfoot Payne 1962: 15; Monnet Saleh 1987: 73;
Williams et al.: 255) is suggested by the architectural features (for
description and comparisons see Wengrow 2006: 109-111) and by the
presence and themes of the painting.

fig.12 Decorated wall of tomb 100, Hierakonpolis, Naqada IIC. a: whole painting
(francescoraffaele m); b: plan, painted wall in red (Case & Crowfoot Payne 1962: 10);
c: first smiting scene, lower left quadrant, detail (Quibell & Green 1902: pl LXXV) d:
possible scene of fighting, lower left quadrant, detail ( Quibell & Green 1902: pl
LXXVI)
fig.13 Painted linen from Gebelein, Naqada II. Drawing of the whole representation
(francescoraffaele n) and detail with prisoner (francescoraffaele o)

Coming to iconography, many scholars define the painting as a threshold

in Predynastic representation, meeting point of D-ware repertoire (Kantor
1944: 114-116) and new images destined to become widespread during
Naqada III (Case & Crowfoot Payne 1962: 17), more precisely the
ground line, the smiting scene in the lower left part, the pear-shaped
mace-head (found in graves but never represented before, according to
Case & Crowfoot Payne: 14) and the so called master of animals, the
latter often considered of foreign origin (Wengrow & Baines 2004: 4-5).
If we agree that the first attestation of the exotic master of animals and
the first smiting scene come both here into play, it may be interesting to
compare the Nilotic violent repertoire with the Urukean one (fig.14).
Similarities and possible implications will be considered in the next
chapter.
fig.14 Conflict-related images on seal impressions from Choga Mish, Uruk and Susa,
4th-early 3rd Millennia BC. a: from Uruk (Collon1987: 163); b: from Uruk (Porada
1993: 570) c: from Susa (Collon 1987: 163); d: from Choga Mish (Collon 1987: 163);
e: from Choga Mish (Collon 1987: 159)

In a very controversial paper, Williams and Logan consider the repertoire

of T100 as an organic composition (Williams et al. 1987: 253) and try to
anchor it to earlier and later representations of the Naqada phases and of
Early Dynastic date, in the conviction that a common “pharaonic”
imaginary was already established by the end of Naqada I (Williams et
al. 1987: 272). While I do not agree with their conclusion, that ultimately
denies depth, independence and importance to the representations,
considering them only as parts of the all-including Heb-Sed ritual
(Williams et al. 1987: 255), they raise an important point: hunting, bark
processions, dancing women, victory and sacrifice (which, may be
argued, are all represented in this painting) are essential elements in the
Naqada symbolism, and it may be worth to further investigate possible
connection among them in future studies.
The Gebelein linen is usually considered slightly earlier than the T100
painting (Wengrow & Baines 2004: 1092) and correlated to it in terms of
images. It bears the first probable representation of a prisoner (the man
with arms folded behind is back, on the lower boat (fig.13).

Naqada III
There are numerous problems of internal chronology within Naqada III,
which is often considered extending to Dynasties I and II (Kantor 1944:
110; fig.4), just like (and partially in virtue of the fact that) the later SDs
of the Semainean span before and after Narmer (Petrie 1920: 3-4). In
fact, except for those images which bear a serekh and thus the name of
some kind of chief/king (on the debate about various kingly figures
before Narmer see Raffaele 2003), it is sometimes impossible to
distinguish between pre-pharaonic and pharaonic artefacts, not to
mention the lack of knowledge about kingly influence and power at a
particular point inside the time span.
The general impression is that the representational horizon presents some
common elements from about 3300 to 2686 BC (traditional date for the
beginning of the III Dynasty); for this reason, while this study is
principally concerned with the contribute of violence to the state
formation process, and therefore focuses on Predynastic iconography,
later examples will be included.
While many important researches focus on a particular object category,
like palettes (Ciałowicz 1991; O’Connor 2002) or labels (Kahl 2001;
Kaplony 1963), the majority of these representations is not confined to a
particular medium, thus encouraging a transversal analysis (fig.15).
Among these images we find animal and, more rarely, human theories.
While the first have received much attention and are commonly
considered as symbolic of control and order (Asselbergs 1961; Baines
1993; Kemp 1989: 46-53; Hendrickx 2006: 739-740; Raffaele 2010: 254-
255; but see Wengrow 2001, 2006: 31-71 for some deeper insights on the
nature of the relationship between man and animals in Early Egypt), the
latter are still waiting for systematic research.
Other widespread images include enclosures surmounted by animals and
animal-like buildings (see Jéquier 1908: 26 for an example), the rosette,
the palace façade motif, mythical animals (principally griffins and
serpopards of Near Eastern tradition: see Teissier 1987 for a rather
compelling discussion) and conflict-related images of different kind.
Some of these images are also found in recurrent combinations, possibly
suggesting the existence of some sort of codification based on the
mechanism of addition and interchange; among these rosette and
serpents, elephant on triangles/mountains (Dreyer 1998: 139), elephant
on snakes (Friedman 2004: 161) and giraffes and tree. The not (only)
aesthetical dimension of these depictions appears granted by their
presence on utilitarian tags such those found in the U-j tomb at Abydos
(Dreyer 1998).

fig.15 Examples of Naqada III representations. a: ivory knife-handle from tomb 32 at

Abu Zaidan (Huyge : 824); b: greywacke fragment (Cairo Museum JE46148), unknown
provenience (francescoraffaele p); c: greywacke palette from Main Deposit,
Hierakonpolis, detail (Ashmolean E3924); d: Narmer’s stone mace-head, Main Deposit,
Hierakonpolis, detail (francescoraffaele q); e: cylinder seal from Tomb 160 H3 at Elwan
(francescoraffaele r); f: ivory knife-handle (UC16294), unknown provenience (Petrie
Museum)

Battles and battlefields (fig.16) count few representations: only on the

Gebel el-Arak knife-handle (Bénédite 1916; for structural and
compositional analysis see Czichon & Sievertsen 1993) we see the “real
thing”: the men, represented in the act of fighting, use their bare hands,
maces and what appear to be knives, with no trace of bows or spears.
One prisoner is apparently depicted in the middle of the battlefield. The
peculiarities of this artefact have been addressed elsewhere (e.g. Kantor
1944) and are of not immediate interest here. While it is generally
accepted as a Naqada III artefact, some authors date it to Naqada IIC-D
(Hill 2004: 109; Teissier 1987: 28).
The Battlefield slate palette (for a tentative reconstruction see Smith
1967: 76-78; for an analysis of the other side see Keimer 1942), shows
the battlefield after the action took place, with scavenger birds feeding on
corpses and prisoners taken away by the winning party.
The absence of any kind of weapons makes our interpretation tentative at
best; any kind of violent death may be displayed. Its violent character, on
the other hand, appears granted by the presence of the captives.
A similar scene is represented on a graffiti discovered at Gebel Sheikh
Suleiman (Arkell 1950: 28-31; see Williams et al. 1987: 263-264, 282-
284 for its probable dating); but there are no scavenging birds and at least
one of the corpses appears headless (however, considering the poor
preservation of the rock surface in that point, it is difficult to judge)
moreover, a prisoner, recognisable by the arms behind his back, is passed
through by a spear or long arrow. Another captive is handcuffed.
At least judging from the two latter cases, the principal focus of the
depictions appears to be on victory/defeat and power, more than on the
conflict itself.
fig.16 Battles and battlefields. a: Gebel el-Arak ivory knife-handle, Naqada III
(francescoraffaele b); b: greywacke palette, perhaps from Abydos (British Museum),
Naqada III, detail (upper fragment: Ashmolean Museum 1892.1171; lower fragment:
British Museum b); c: graffiti from Gebel Sheikh Suleiman; Naqada III (Gilbert 2004:
94)
The seven squared enclosures on the famous “Towns palette” (for the
traditional interpretation about aggression see Petrie 1953: 14; Vinci
2007: 66 offers a quite opposite view), the similar two enclosures present
on the Bull palette (Bénédite 1904, p. 114) and the one on the Narmer
Palette (Quibell 1900: pl. XXIX), are traditionally considered fortified
towns (for an early, controversial attempt to distinguish among fortresses,
walled towns and palace or religious enclosures see Monnet-Saleh 1969).
Another example of fortifications (fig.17) for this period appears on a
knife-handle now at the Metropolitan Museum (see Williams & Logan
1987 for detailed bibliography and description), in the form of a man
couching behind a tall wall/building. A possible fourth example is on a
label dating to the reign of Aha, where the serekh of the king is carved
behind a wall/structure. It needs to be said that towards the end of
Naqada III, the number of open or closed structures which may represent
fortifications increases: the interpretations range from temples, palaces
and funerary enclosures to fortifications. However, given the poor
knowledge about settlements, it is perhaps safer not to consider these
later examples in this study.
fig.17 Fortifications. a: greywacke palette, unknown provenience, Naqada III (Cairo
CG14238); b: greywacke palette, unknown provenience, Naqada III (Louvre E11255);
c: ivory knife-handle, unknown provenience, Naqada III (Williams et al. 1997: 274) d:
reconstruction of Aha’s ivory label from Abydos, I Dyn. (francescoraffaele h)

Two representations of one against one combat (fig.18) exist: one on a

label found in tomb U-j at Abydos, datable to Naqada IIIA (O’Connor
2009: 145), the other in one of the squares of the Towns palette. The
interpretation of the two men as wrestlers, and the violent nature of the
scene should not be taken for granted.
fig.18 One against one combat. a: label from tomb U-j, Abydos, Naqada III (O’Connor
2009: 145); b: greywacke palette, unknown origin, Naqada III, detail (Cairo CG14238)

The greater number of representations for this period depicts prisoners

(fig.19). Other than those already mentioned, they can be found on
another graffiti at Gebel Sheikh Suleiman (Needler 1967) and on a
graffiti at Djebel Tjauty (Friedman & Hendrickx 2002 and Kahl 2003
propose different hypotheses, but agree on the political-narrative
character of the graffiti), on an incense burner from Qustul (Williams
1986: pl. 34, 38). On the Narmer’s mace-head (Quibell 1900: pl. XXV-
XXVI), Narmer’s palette (beheaded, Quibell 1900: pl. XXIX. As noted
by Davies & Friedman 1998, the prisoners are also evirated), on an ivory
knife-handle (Whitehouse 2002) and on a plaque, all from the Main
Deposit at Hierakonpolis. On the Narmer cylinder seal from Abydos now
at the Ashmolean Museum (E3915), on a fragment from a Narmer ivory
box from Abydos (Dreyer et al. 2003) and on two ivory fragments from
the same site (Petrie 1901: pl. III). Prisoners are also observable on one
mace-head and three cylinder seals (where they are to be struck from
behind) from the Main Deposit at Hierakonpolis (Quibell 1900: pl. XII,
XV; for the difficulties in dating this cache see Savage 2001: 108). Other
occurrences from Abydos are on three carvings with the serekh of Aha
(one is perhaps interpretable as a smiting scene, the other two show
stabbed men. Petrie 1901: pl. III, XI), on a Djer’s label from Saqqara
(stabbed; Dougherty 2004: 11) and on a gaming reed dating to the reign
of Qaa (Petrie 1900: 23, XII, XVII).

fig.19 Prisoners. a: rock graffiti from Gebel Sheikh Suleiman, Naqada III, detail
(Jiménez Serrano 2008: 1132); b: Narmer’s ivory cylinder seal, from Abydos, detail
(Ashmolean E3915); c: rock graffiti from Djebel Tjauty, Naqada III, detail
(francescoraffaele s); d: stone incense burner, from tomb L24, Qustul, Naqada III, detail
(francescoraffaele t); e: Narmer’s stone mace-head, Main Deposit, Hierakonpolis, detail
(francescoraffaele q) f: Narmer’s box ivory fragment, from Abydos, Naqada III, detail
(Dreyer et al. 2003: abb. 16); g: Narmer’s greywacke palette, from Main Deposit,
Hierakonpolis, detail (francescoraffaele f); h: ivory cylinder seal, Hierakonpolis,
Naqada III (Gilbert 2004: 91); i: stone macehead, from Hierakonpolis, Naqada III
(Quibell 1900: pl XII); j: Qaa’s ivory fragment, I Dyn. (francescoraffaele u)
Executions, in the known form of the smiting scene (fig.7) are
observable on the Narmer palette, on a Narmer label from tomb B16 at
Abydos (Dreyer et al. 1998: 138-139), on the already cited Aha’s carving
from Abydos, on a Den’s label now at the British Museum (EA55586),
on three graffiti from Wadi el-Humur bearing the serekh of Den (Ibrahim
& Tallet 2009; Tallet 2010) , on two stone vessels from Hierakonpolis
(even if stylised, the motif appears fairly recognisable, Quibell 1900: pl.
XXXVI-XXXVIII) inscribed with the serekh of Khasekem(wy).

Another kind of execution, which to date has not received the deserved
attention, can be observed on three labels, two dating to Aha’s reign and
one to the time of Djer (Petrie 1901: pl. III. Note that only one of the two
clearly show the scene, the other one being a reconstruction: Jiménez
Serrano 2002: 61f). Here they are addressed as stabbed men (fig.8),
considering that an eventual sacrificial nature of the images has never
been thoroughly investigated. However, the suggested existence of
subsidiary graves at Abydos (Petrie 1925) may enforce this hypothesis.
While, being their violent nature evident (for a different opinion see
Piquette 2008: 938), I included them in the dissertation, no clear link to
conflict is discernible.

Other possible executions are on the graffiti of Gebel Sheikh Suleiman (it
is indeed difficult to understand the exact role of the scorpion in relation
to the captive), on the Narmer’s cylinder seal now at the Ashmolean
Museum (E3915), on three seals from the Hierakonpolis Main Deposit
(already mentioned above, under the heading prisoners).

Warriors is a slippery denomination and the identification of armed men

not directly involved in violent action as soldiers is problematic. While
representations of bowmen and men carrying sticks, maces, knives,
throwing-sticks and possibly shields are relatively numerous in Naqada
III, their clear involvement in conflict or in any kind of violent action is
not. Those involved in battles are the only men for whom the definition
of warriors fits well. Set apart from corpses and prisoners (who are never
associated to weapons), the only warriors left are those represented on
the Gebel el Arak knife-handle (fig.16 a).
4_Discussion

Introduction
The data presented in chapter 3 will be now analysed. A diachronic
summary will help us to evaluate relative frequency and importance of
conflict related representation within a wider representational pool.
Within the categories used in chapter 3, recurrent themes will be isolated
and discussed in order to evaluate their possible ideological implications:
focus, message, author and eventual public.
In order to address the socio-political background in which they
developed, our observations will be set against Wilkinson’s theory
(2000a; see chapter 1) on the formation of the state.

Victory scenes in Naqada I

The supposed “victory scenes” on C-ware vessels (fig.10) are of very
difficult interpretation, especially because they do not fit well in the
general C-Ware image repertoire, principally composed by geometrical
patterns and riverine animals (Petrie 1920: 14; Wengrow 2009:3), while
human representations are rare and clearly interacting human subjects
even rarer.
As observed in chapter 3, the vessels in questions are usually considered
together, and indeed a certain degree of resemblance appears evident.
Considered all together, their character appears non violent, for different
reasons: while the lines jointing the smaller characters to the taller ones
in a and d are probably ropes, the lines in e appear to be arms. The fact
that these lines depart from the armpits or from the shoulders of the
human with raised arms is difficult to explain. However, the total absence
of weapons suggests to be cautious in interpreting the scene as violent.
What is usually interpreted as a mace (Dreyer et al. 2003: 81) in b may
be a sceptre or a stick with a pumpkin or other vegetable on top.
Moreover, the characters represented in fig.10 b are clearly holdings
hands, a motif that can be difficultly associated to violence, not only in
view of our modern conception, but also considering later Egyptian
representations. The two figures in c are also jointed by a line, running
from the neck of the smaller character to the chest of the taller one.
Again, it is difficult to read this line as a spear (as evidently implied by
Petrie 1920: 16) and therefore to consider the scene violent.
While I do not totally agree with Garfinkel, especially on his confidence
in interpreting scene b as composed by old female and young male
(Garfinkel 2001: 247), I find his dancing hypothesis fascinating and
agree on the general non-violent character of these depictions, very
probably showing dancing or other ritual, perhaps involving some sort of
“ring-a-ring-a-roses”, as suggested by the round form of the pots (as
observed by Garfinkel 2001: 244 and Wengrow & Baines 2004: 1084, in
analysing round surfaces we shall not rule out the possibility of a
connection between form of the object and representation).
Evident differences in stature observable on four out of five vessels
suggests different relevance between small and tall figures. How to
interpret this relevance is a more delicate matter. The taller figures may
have been higher ranked individuals, possibly representing some sort of
chief, but they may also stand for divine beings, be in charge of a
particular office or be invested with power for a specific lapse of time or
occasion. However, even interpreting the taller figures as chiefs, this does
not make the images any more violent.
To conclude, we should not overlook the possibility that these
representations were not all pertinent to the same theme. If violence at all
can be seen, then d appears to me the most probable candidate, judging
from the presence of the presumed mace, from the presence of the tied
figures and from the absence of figures holding hands.

Naqada II, the first blood

On around 350 D-Ware vessels painted with recognisably figural motives
(Wengrow & Baines 2004: 1082), there are no violent scenes (Monnet-
Saleh 1987: 55), if we exclude hunting.
Similarly, considering other decorated objects of the period, there seems
to be no violence at all.
Therefore, the painted linen from Gebelein (fig.13) and the painted wall
of T100 (fig.12) can be considered the earliest conflict-related scenes
ever found in Egypt.
While the framework of their appearance is exquisitely Egyptian (Kantor
1944: 114-116), drawing from precedent common subjects on D-ware
and portraying a “typical” Nilotic scenario, the prisoner on the painted
textile and the smiting scene on the painted wall present some generic but
suggestive similarities with violent representations from the Near East
(fig.14). I am not implying that violent themes entered Egypt as imports
or as results of imitation, but it is not to exclude that some shared
ideological traits were present (and known by each part) in both regions,
and that the respective identities of Egyptian and Mesopotamians were
shaped “... through a long process of exchange and interactions.”
(Wengrow 2010: 52). To date, it would be premature push these
conclusions any further, but more researches may shed new light on the
topic.
Some scholars have considered the painting of T100 as a narrative
account, according particular importance to the warfare-related images
(e.g. Monnet Saleh 1987: 55; Petrie 1939: 67), while others prefer a more
symbolic reading and consider some of the images as non-violent (see
Case & Crowfoot Payne 1962: 16, where they discuss the possible magic
character of the two figures with zebra pointed “shield” and vest). As
clearly stated, it is not the aim of this paper to side with an interpreter or
the other: on the one hand, violent representations very probably had
some roots in reality (whether contemporaneous or in earlier times is a
different matter, that we will address later), on the other hand, our
analysis is principally concerned with ideology, that is what the author
chose to represent.
In this respect it is noteworthy that conflict-related representations in
T100 appear together with other fundamental Predynastic themes,
namely hunting, bark processions and dancing women (Williams et al
1987: 272). The connection among them, if any, remains obscure, but the
possibility that the painting was conceived as an overall, comprehensive
representation of the symbolic universe of its time constitutes a
fascinating hypothesis, worth of more detailed study. Probably, it is in
these themes, in their transformation through time, context, combination,
representational fortune and disappearance, that we need to look to
understand a conspicuous part of the early Egyptian Weltanschauung.
If these themes are to be read together, the proto-smiting scene in T100
seems to occupy a marginal position -an observation that has rarely come
up- in terms of dimensions and location within the painting and may be
the last important symbolic theme chronologically developed, as it would
appear from the absence of other conflict-related representations dating
Naqada I and II.

Naqada III, controlled explosion

As observed in chapter 3, judging from the existence of some recurrent
motifs like animal and human theories, buildings and enclosures (fig.15),
we obtain the impression that a more structured cosmos is represented, a
cosmos now framed by the existence of ground-lines (Davis 1976 offers
a diachronic analysis on the topic) and sometimes proper registers (as
defined in Davis 1976: 405). This novelty is usually interpreted as a more
or less implicit statement of control and dominion over chaos, but, in my
view, it does not need to. The classical scheme of “man subjugating an
hostile environment” may be more meaningful once inverted: due to the
new human marks on landscape and nature (as inferable by
archaeological data and also by the significant increase of buildings in
representation, especially toward the later part of Naqada III), it is the
way of perceiving the world that has changed. The human mind has now
new, more rigid categories to interpret existence. Moreover, as the
permanence of more “chaotic” images suggests, this vibrant process is all
but concluded, and vital to the understanding of Predynastic ideology.
Old themes disappear (or change in forms that we are not able to track),
for instance women with raised arms, making place to new motifs, such
mythical animals, the rosette, elephants on snakes or mountain. Some of
these images are usually considered as precursors of writing and there are
many attempts to translate them (for a more systematic analysis see
Baines 1989). While this is a fair hypothesis, what is more relevant here
is the fact that both writing and (some of) the new images work on
principles of addition and interchange, suggesting a new way to interpret
reality and communicate.
In this evolving scenario, the appearance of conflict-related
representations, already organised by some structural principles, is
particularly informative. Within a range of stylistic variations, possibly
due to fashion, the recurrence of clearly recognisable motifs suggests that
this particular kind of images was probably strictly categorized from a
very early date.

Themes
Within the groups considered in chapter 3, we have observed the
existence of more categorised representations, which, regardless the
medium they appear on, are liable to be recognised and read every time
in a similar way. It is now time to analyse them and to think about their
meaning.
Prisoners are the most represented subjects of the considered sample. In
terms of representational features, they all conform to the description
made in chapter 3 and closely resemble the captive on the Naqada II
textile from Gebelein. Given that, in different cases (e.g. on the
battlefield palette, fig.5 e), they are shown without an executioner, we
should assume that their fate is unclear. Some of them may have been
enslaved (although we do not know much about the existence of slavery
in Predynastic Egypt), some are perhaps destined to be caned (it could be
the case of the prisoners in the Narmer cylinder seal), others to be killed
and others are already dead (like the beheaded captives on the Narmer
palette, fig.19 g). Differently from the kneeling men of the smiting
scenes, they are not always associated with a clear chiefly figure (as
evident from the fact that in many occasions they are of the same size of
their “guardians”), so it cannot be said, as a general law, that only the
highest in status can deal with them; in any case their hands or arms are
always fastened, they have been subjugated and are now impotent. The
presence of prisoners on the battlefield, during the action or after it, does
not add much to our analysis, but clarifies that some of them are certainly
related to conflict. The prisoners depicted on the battlefield palettes are
carried away not by human beings, but by two armed standards (fig.5 e).
The partial personification of an object is a powerful ideological
indicator: whatever the standards may represent (cities, temples, gods,
battalions), those entities -and not real people- have now jurisdiction over
the prisoners.
Corpses are represented in number on battlefield scenes (the only clear
exception being the beheaded prisoners already mentioned), lying
horizontally and with the limbs bended in an unnatural position. To my
knowledge, there are no representations of corpses outside our scenes.
The theme of dead and dying men (as may be defined the figures
trampled by a raging bull on the Narmers’s and the so-called Bull palette:
Louvre E11255) apparently revolves around defeat, more than on any
consideration related to life or death, however the simplicity of the
stylistic choice is striking: death is represented as the reverse of life,
horizontal instead of vertical, without any control over the limbs.
Corpses are first represented on the Gebel el Arak knife-handle, both the
Sheikh Suleiman graffiti and the battlefield palette being late
Predynastic. Again, even setting aside the famous comments of Frankfort
(1951: 103, 107, 109) about the different artistic sensibility of Egyptians
and Mesopotamians, and his clear-cut division between Near Eastern
obverse (the side containing the boss) and Egyptian reverse (Frankfort
1951: 102), the co-presence of violent and Near Eastern themes on this
somewhat bizarre artefact is fascinating.
Proper smiting scenes (see chapter 3) always depict royal figures (with
the only possible exceptions of the three almost identical cylinder seals
from Hierakonpolis: fig.19 h), perhaps suggesting that the topic relates to
the paramount power of the king over the life of the defeated. Another
possible pointer of this is that the to-smite-enemy is never tied (the only
exception being the Aha’s label in fig.7), this perhaps indicating his
complete impossibility to escape the power of the king.
While Naqada III smiting scenes differ, in terms of stylistic rendering,
from the one in the T100 painting, the theme appears fairly recognisable.
As suggested, the presence of a cane instead of the mace, in some cases,
may indicate that not always the action had to result in death, but it is
impossible to speculate any further.
What is remarkable is that the final blow is never shown. Therefore, in
my view, the message of these images does not lies in the killing, but
more probably in the menace represented by the pending mace: the
enemy is under the sword of Damocles, at the mercy of the king (for a
different, more complex interpretation of “masked” blows, see Davis
1992. For reviews of this very controversial book: from an Art Historical
perspective see Elsner 1994; from an Egyptological one see Finkenstaedt
1994).
On this respect, the category I named stabbed men appears to be on the
opposite side of the spectrum: the contact of the knife with the chest of
the victim is represented, the focus seems to be on the bowl below, and
thence on blood. While the concept of focus of the representation is liable
of personal bias, and therefore my interpretation may be wrong, the
duality of the treatment may well be meaningful. Differences in
addressing these two kind of executions may or may not be due to an
early form of decorum (a concept developed by Baines. See Baines: 1983
for a brief exposition). While the interest of the subject is great, and
researches addressing dismemberment (for a comprehensive discussion
see Wengrow 2006: 99-123), scalping and de-fleshing (see the recent
article by Dougherty & Friedman: 2008, on evidence for these practices
at Hierakonpolis) altogether are desirable in order to understand body
treatment in its different nuances, stabbed men will not be addressed any
further, because no clear elements relate them to conflicts. Their
inclusion in the discussion provide us with an important comparison and
allow us to show how different meanings can be deduced from different
pictures, in other words: while the mortal blow in itself, as we have seen,
was not the essential carrier of meaning in the smiting scene, here the
killing is represented and the major focus appears to be on its
consequence: the spilling of blood. Moreover, while the stabbed men
(probably also because of the medium they appear on, invariably labels)
are represented as stick-figures, and lack major characterization, some of
the to-smite-enemies, even in their more stylised forms (e.g. on the stone
vases dating Dynasty II), present recurrent features that make them part
of an unclear (to us) but defined category: long hair, bearded chin and
connection with the papyrus plant (as in the Narmer palette).

Summarising, with the exception of hunting, there are no clear violent

representations before Naqada II. The two oldest themes, namely
prisoners and smiting scene, came to be during the final part of Naqada II
and appear already fixed in standard forms in their earliest Naqada III
representations (however, in regard to the smiting scene, the gap is great,
in fact the first Naqada III representations of this kind date to Narmer,
with the only possible exception of the cylinder seals from
Hierakonpolis: fig.19 h). Also, during Naqada III, according to our data,
there is a noteworthy “explosion” of violent representations. It is in this
phase that clear conflict-related imagery becomes statistically significant:
in a period of about 600 years we find 34 out of 41 of the artefacts
considered here.
As previously mentioned, this does not imply, by itself, that this period
was any more or any less violent than the preceding ones, but it clearly
suggests that violence became an important topic in Naqada III,
remaining so for hundreds of years and, also important, both before and
after the unification of Egypt by Narmer.
The focus of our repertoire appears to be not so much on battles and
warfare in se, but on their consequences, namely prisoners, executions of
enemies and corpses, thus suggesting the predominance of strength over
courage, of victory, power and control over conflict. While not
conclusive enough to reject a narrative interpretation of these images, this
observation discourages it: certainly, we must be cautious in using the
word propaganda, for an ancient and still poorly understood culture, but
it is fair to say that, if these representations had been created in the 20th
century, this label would fit like a glove.
Authors and subjects
Even if the representations considered are not narrative accounts, an
understanding of who was fighting whom remains crucial to their
interpretation. This problem concerns the subjects of the scenes as well
as their authors.

Recent studies focused on the human body rightly emphasise its

importance as preferential medium to create and display identity
(Piquette 2004; Tassie 2011; Wengrow 2006: 99-123; Wengrow &
Baines 2004), so we can expect to find precious information about the
subjects in particular features relating to physical traits and body
adornments.
Since the New Race invasion hypothesis (Petrie: 1896; Petrie 1920: 46-
50), Egyptologists have tried to interpret some of the individual
represented in our corpus as belonging to groups other than Egyptians,
usually under the generic labels of Libyans (see Smith 1967), inhabitants
of the Delta and Nubians.
On the other hand, those scholars interested in the political dimension of
the state formation process, often enlist conflict-related representations
among their evidence about warfare (within Upper Egypt during Naqada
III and against Lower Egypt towards the end of the period), with little
attention to this aspect.
Representation is certainly a favourable ground for analysing the topic of
identity but, within our data, only Naqada III depictions are so detailed
that we can try to make something of differences in facial features and
clothing. Moreover, as already mentioned, corpses are always nude (and
often prisoners as well) and the victors are not always represented, thus
reducing the value of our observations. Waging these factors, and
considering the very specific nature of our analysis and its admittedly
narrow angle, here we will only try to establish if victors are clearly
differentiated from the defeated and, if they are, to evaluate if this
difference can be ascribed to race.
Judging from the data in this essay, we encounter three different cases. In
some representations eventual racial/cultural differences between victors
and defeated are not discernible (e.g. fig.7 a; fig.18. a); sometimes the
two groups are discernible only by few features: penis sheath (which was
also worn by Egyptians, as observed by Ucko 1969), hairstyle, beard
(e.g. fig.5 b, d).
Other representations apparently point towards major differentiation
(especially on the more detailed carving, like the Narmer palette and the
Battlefield palette; fig.5 e; fig.7 d ).
It is very plausible that different combinations corresponded to groups
easily identifiable for contemporaneous viewers (but see Köhler 2010: 49
for a quite opposite view), sometimes marked by ethnic connotations and
sometimes by features not relatable to our conception of ethnicity; in
general the picture is that of a much more complex and assorted social
texture than usually emphasised (for a good anthropological discussion of
the topic see Barth 1969), but very few of our data point toward a racial
interpretation of the subjects.

As suggested by the analysis of conflict-related themes, the author of the

representations must be found among the highest elite. This is confirmed
by context (when known), materials and, in turn, labour expended to
produce the artefacts, but also by their typologies: the objects we deal
with are, by far, among the most elaborated survived from Predynastic
and Early Dynastic Egypt: decorated knife-handle, maces, palettes and
cylinder seals have long being recognised as high-status objects and
labels, especially those coming from I and II Dynasty funerary
enclosures, are powerful indicators of rank (Baines 1989: 476-477) or, to
be more precise, our idea of rank partially depends on these objects.
The term elite lacks substance without considering lower groups, and our
record is utterly mute about them. With the only possible exception of the
Gebel el-Arak knife-handle, the nature of our representations appears
highly conceptual, poorly concerned with people, warriors, military
ranking and the army.
The scarce importance accorded to the victorious soldiers as collective
group deprives us of information about the social dimension of war.
The bindings that war reinforces and its social functions -so much
highlighted in modern propaganda (e.g. Ben-Ari & Frühstück 2003;
Murck 2007)- are absent, or perhaps concentrated in a very narrow range
of symbols (e.g. the standards of the Battlefield palette).
Theoretically, any warlike scenario can be represented in such a
conceptual way, but different social organisations present different
attitudes towards war and different practical ways to deal with it, and
scholars have often stressed the preferential focus on the social functions
of war in non-state societies (Keeley 1996: 60-63; Thorpe 2003: 146).
It seems to me that the poor attention devoted to the fighting subjects and
the eminently conceptual nature of the message find their closest
parallels into the ideology of state societies (for similar opinions see Bard
1992: 5; Trigger 1993: 6-7), and specifically in the notion of monopoly
of violence, traditionally conceived as non egalitarian relation of forces
par excellence (Campagno 2004: 690-691; Anñelkovic 2008: 1042-1044;
Keeley 1996: 5).
However, a further observation is pertinent here: while the notion of
monopoly, and indeed the very idea of elite, are usually built upon the
conceptual category of accessibility, and while accessibility is useful and
perhaps quintessential in addressing economic control and social
differentiation in terms of mortuary goods and religious practices, when
addressing representation we also need to ask if any aspect of royal
imagery was desirable to lower groups. As suggested by Gilbert (2004:
83), in Early Egypt there was no warrior elite, considering that weapons
were quite frequently buried within women and children graves (Gilbert
2004: 83; for a critique of similar inferences as androcentric see Gilchrist
2003: 4-5; Vandkilde 2003), therefore it seems unlikely that common
people would have had any interest in representing themselves as
warriors or in images of warfare in general. This lack of “popular”
interest in conflict imagery may have allowed the elite to freely express
itself also outside the framework of state society. Therefore, while the
control of violent representations appears monopolised by a powerful
elite, namely the king of a centralised state or his immediate entourage,
our vision of the phenomenon may be partial and excessively pending
towards a political, power-oriented reading. This last observation also
calls for a comment on the addressees of representation.
With the exceptions of the graffiti, our artefacts come from graves or
from the Main Deposit of the temple enclosure at Hierakonpolis (Quibell
& Green 1902: 13-14; 28-30). As everybody knows, the latter presents
serious difficulties in terms of dating and function of the findings
(Fairservis 1991: 1; Savage 2001: 108-109), and both temple caches and
tombs are poorly informative about the biography of the objects before
deposition. The objects are usually considered intended for display, but
did someone other than the owner have the actual chance to observe
them, in a temple, during funerary rituals, in other ceremonies or perhaps
in a palace? The very term display appears vague, while in order to get an
idea of the public involved, we need to consider to whom it was
displayed.
The size of labels, knife-handles, cylinders and other ivory fragments
does not easily support the idea of display to a large public. Mace-heads
and palettes may have been shown to a larger audience, but, if we have to
speculate, they also appear better suitable to a small public.
All considered, even if their production was intended specifically for
ritual purpose (e.g. O’Connor 2002: 9 suggests that carved palettes may
have been used in temples for the make-up of statues), the celebrative
aspect of their image repertoire appears unaffected, and I am more
inclined to consider them as prestige objects circulating into a very
limited network of people, possibly as gifts from a king/chiefs to
members of his retinue (Moorey 1987: 42-43, who however addresses
redistribution of prestige goods in a pre-state society). Whatever the case,
an elite able to summon a flux of highly valued resources and to use them
with scopes other than religious or display to larger public (as mechanism
for consolidating its power), is most probably the well structured elite of
a state or quasi-state society (Kemp 1989: 43-44 suggests that only from
the III Dynasty Egypt became a proper state).

To balance these impressions, and to verify the possible existence of state

or quasi-state power before Narmer, we need to turn to other
archaeological evidence and anthropological models upon which their
interpretation is built.

Politics and society

As suggested in chapter 1, the most successful theory about the political
formation of the Egyptian state involves competition among some five to
eight major Upper Egyptian centres already in Naqada I, endemic war
during Naqada II (or at least during its later part) and Naqada III and the
final conquest of the Delta by Narmer or by some other kingly figures
slightly earlier (Andelkovic 2008: 1042; Hassan 1988; Wilkinson 2000:
378-379).
As for the trigger of war, while circumscription theory (Carneiro 1970:
734-736) does not apply very well to the Predynastic situation (Hassan
1987:53; Hassan 1988: 165; Kemp 1989: 31), control of trade would
appear the most plausible motivation (Bard 1987: 90-91; Campagno
2004). Bard’s observation that individual households may not be able to
maintain regular trade network (Bard 1987: 91), while a more complex
society, not organised on kinship, may succeed in doing it seems partially
confirmed by the data: the flow of raw material (at least considering
prestigious goods) from abroad during Naqada I appears occasional
(Hendrickx & Bavay 2002), while it largely increases in Naqada II
(Griswold 1992; Hill 2004), period in which conflicts of substantial
entity would begin. In this respect, the conflict related scenes of Naqada
II -regardless their principally symbolic nature- may suggest the
existence of contemporary or slightly earlier actual conflicts.

All considered, this hypothesis works mighty well, but some points need
to be addressed.
On a theoretical level this model is developed on social evolution and is
powerfully anchored to the anthropological literature, but its
archaeological discussion is somewhat ill-based: the considered evidence
for conflicts is quite poor in statistical terms and all the negative evidence
is often completely bypassed. As evidence of conflicts scholars usually
mention the clay model of a wall from Diospolis Parva, dating to Naqada
I (tomb B83, Petrie 1901a: pl. VI), the two metres thick (as deducted by
Kemp 1977: 198, presumably from the observation of the plan) northern
wall of the South Town at Naqada (Petrie & Quibell 1896: 54, pl
LXXXV; the authors consider it a fortification), the presence of weapons
in graves (Campagno 2004: 689) and some of the representations here
examined.
On the other hand, the absence of destruction levels from the few
settlement sites partially excavated in Upper Egypt: El-Mahasna
(Gargstang 1989: 5-6, pl. II, IV), Naqada (Petrie & Quibell 1896: 50, 54),
Hierakonpolis (Quibell & Green 1902); the virtually total absence of
physical remains clearly relatable to warfare (Gilbert 2004: 66-67) and in
general the small number of unhealed and therefore deadly fractures
reported (a personal observation principally based on few detailed
studies: Lythgoe 1965; Podzorski 1990; Rizkana & Seeher 1990: 125-
136) suggest caution in interpreting the representations here illustrated as
proofs of conflicts.
Interestingly, recent and less recent excavations carried out in Lower
Egypt, as those of Tell el Fara’in and Tell el Farkha, highlight the non
violent nature of the Upper Egyptian expansion into the Delta
(Kołodziejczyk 2009; Wildung 1984: 269).
Admittedly, my observation are vitiated by the fact that old excavators
were rarely concerned with studies of physical anthropology and by the
small amount of data available for settlements in Upper Egypt.

In my view, the great relevance accorded to violence by Wilkinson’s

theory is just a consequence of its focus on the political aspect of state
formation (see chapter 1) and possibly vitiated by the unconscious
comparison with historical western societies.
Probably we can hypothesise a less violent scenario than usually
conjectured, neither devoid of conflicts neither dominated by continuous
endemic war, with contacts and exchanges among different polities
(possibly in spirit of open competition) far more numerous than violent
episodes.
There is some contrast between ideology of victory and dominion and
clear reduction of centres of power in Naqada III on the one side and the
substantial homogeneous and untroubled development of the Naqada
culture on the other.
This contrast may be solved when considered in a wider framework:
4th Millennium Egypt resulted from a fortunate combination of
autochthonous elements with Near Eastern and probably Saharan ones
(as suggested by Rock Art studies: Le Quellec 2005; Navajas Jiménez
2011; Riemer 2009; and by similarities in material culture: Barich 133-
134; Mc Donald 1991: 100-101, 104; Warfe 2003: 183-193), it was the
outcome of some two thousands years long tradition of interregional
contacts. While these contacts had deep repercussions onto Predynastic
Egypt, their political consequences are poorly observable today, and
indeed scholars still have an hard time in improving Service’s social
ladder (Service 1971) when considering units less developed than state
(Bard 1992: 2).
The explosion of conflict-related representations in Naqada III, more
than a proper state of warfare, may mark the exact phase in which
political actors, namely the still vague elites we referred to, gained
sufficient power to lead society, are shaping their new ideology, drawing
from those spheres which they more autonomously control.

What we can make of iconography

As suggested in chapter 2, representation can be considered as the
tangible, materialised form of ideological statements. Considering the
“return” of Predynastic images in much later periods, I would argue that
themes are more likely to survive than their physical representations.
An example extracted from the data considered in this essay will help me
to explain this statement: the smiting scene on the Narmer palette. As
observed in chapter 3 and above, while the theme of prisoners is a
constant during Naqada III, the smiting scene experiences a gap of
hundreds of years between its first known representation (T100) and the
carving on the Narmer palette. Because it would be difficult to claim that
Narmer’s carvers had direct knowledge of the painting in T100, we are
left with two possibilities: 1) there were intermediate depictions of
smiting scene not survived today or not yet discovered. 2) While
representations of this specific motif were not reiterated, its theme
survived until Narmer and was felt suitable to convey a precise
ideological statement and filled with new meaning. Therefore, while
pharaonic reinterpretation and re-proposition of older scenes should be
considered as entirely new scenes, not to misinterpret their real meaning,
themes can fairly be regarded as old boxes for new contents. As every
box, themes must be convenient for their content, therefore a link
between previous and later representation is undeniable; problems arise if
we interpret the nature of this link straightforwardly: acknowledging the
complexity of the relationship between representations, themes and
ideology means to recognise that all the components can only be
addressed as generated “... through histories of practice” (Piquette 2004:
926).
In this new perspective, themes can truly be regarded as analytical
categories, and the study of their characteristics, modification through
time, adoption and re-qualifications in different temporal and socio-
economical sets may constitute a revitalised powerful instrument for
archaeologists.
5_Conclusions

Our research
This dissertation was born as an enquiry on the relationship between state
formation and conflict-related representation, in order to address the role
of conflicts in the formation of the Egyptian State.
At a political level, two main theories of state formation have been
suggested, one proposed by Kaiser (1990), who observes the existence of
a cultural and perhaps political unity in Upper Egypt already by the early
Naqada III and the other, more currently accepted, by Wilkinson (2000a),
who gives prominence to warfare (chapters 1 and 4) and largely relies on
some of the representations considered here to prove his point.
On the belief that iconography is better suited to investigate ideology
than actual events, we have tried to gather all the representations of inter-
human violence from the Naqada phases.
The data have been grouped under different headings, in order to be more
easily controlled: battles, fortifications and sieges, one against one
combat, captives, executions and warriors.

The earliest representations usually considered violent date to Naqada I

but their nature, after careful consideration, does not seem violent at all
(chapters 3 and 4).
The first certainly violent representations appear towards the end of
Naqada II; parallels from the Near East suggest that the two areas may
have shared some ideological traits, given the relevance of inter-regional
contacts for the interconnected development of Egypt, Mesopotamia and
Iran.
The fortune of the themes represented (prisoners and smiting scene) will
last for some 800 years (as long as the time lapse considered in this study
is concerned, fig.4) and for all pharaonic history.
During Naqada III new themes appear and there is an substantial increase
in violent representations.
We narrowed down the number of our groups to those examples that
effectively are more informative about the ideological dimension of
represented violence: prisoners, corpses, to smite enemies and stabbed
men. Regardless geographical and chronological coordinates, the
principal features of each scene are respected, this suggesting their
canonical character from an early date.

Our four themes do not constitute equally valid subjects in addressing

ideology, but all bear important information and seem to convey a
common message.
Corpses are represented in three scenes only, two showing the aftermath
of battles and one (Gebel el-Arak knife-handle) the battle in its progress.
The fact that they are always nude may indicate that they have been
stripped of their identity and specificities, while the unnatural attitude of
the limbs and the horizontal position may inform us, by contrast, of what
was considered characteristic of the living: vertical position (as easy to
image) but also the ability to control parts of the body that may have
been perceived as detachable to a certain degree (see the interesting
article by Piquette 2004 and the increasing literature on dismemberment).
Some non-violent themes of Naqada III seem to work on similar
principles of addition and interchange, especially elephants, snakes and
the rosette. While they may or may not be related to writing, they
indicate a change of perspective. Possibly as a consequences of the new
human marks on landscape and nature, a new and more ordered
worldview developed (the use of ground lines and registers in
representation point to the same conclusions).
Although violent, representations of stabbed men are not clearly related
to conflict. Nevertheless they are useful as comparison for the other type
of execution examined the smiting scene.
The first smiting scene appears towards the end of Naqada II and the
theme then reappears, after a gap of some 400 years, on the Narmer
palette. Its relatively marginal position in the Naqada II wall painting and
the long gap may suggest that, although an important theme (it appears
together with other scenes that are central in the ideology of Naqada I
and II, see Williams 1987: 272), its crucial role was not yet established
before Narmer. Nevertheless, its retrieval after such a long gap and its
later history are remarkable, and suggest that themes, with or without
being represented on a physical support, can be regarded as long-life
containers for concepts, deeply rooted in culture. While concepts can
only be understood in connection with their specific socio-cultural
matrix, themes can be adapted to new concepts and can be used by
scholar as a true analytical category, thus allowing to study iconography
on a more solid base.
The most striking feature of the smiting scenes is probably the absence of
the final blow. While, in general, gory elements are not represented
during Predynastic, and violence is somewhat mitigated (Fischer 1958:
75-76; Frankfort 1951: 103), representations of stabbed men always
show the contact between weapon and man. This duality is most
probably meaningful, and I interpret it as a difference in focus and
message. In the latter case, the focus is on the bowl and on the bowl that
will collect the blood of the stricken, in the smiting scene it is on the
menace represented by the pending mace and on the fact that the kneeled
enemy is at the mercy of the king.
While the to-smite-enemies represented on the painted wall of T100 were
fastened, the absence of ties in the Narmer palette may empathise the
overwhelming power of the royal figure: the enemy is not tied because
there is no need for it, there is no escape from the might of the king.
Prisoners are found from the end of Naqada II through all the Egyptian
history. They are not exclusively associated with kingly figures neither
always in association with a guardian, it is possible that some of them
may have been enslaved (but we lack safe information about slavery in
Prehistoric Egypt), some caned (see discussion) and some killed. It is not
easy to ascertain if they represented specific enemies or not (see chapter
4), however the ideas they suggest are those of subjugation and
impotence and, by contrast, of dominion and power of the “guardians”.
Ideology
Considered the paucity of clear battle scenes, the amost complete absence
of the victorious soldiers, the small number of representations portraying
corpses, the always royal character of the smiting scene and the larger
predominance of prisoners on the other themes, we have the impression
not to deal with an ideology centred on conflict. None of our themes
points to those bindings and virtues (e.g. courage, comradeship,
obedience, order) that warfare requires and enforces and that are
particularly important in pre-state societies (Keeley 1996: 60-63; Thorpe
2003: 146). Indeed, all the themes apparently relate to propaganda of
political power.
While the term propaganda may sounds suspect for the period, and its
meaning must be understood within the specific setting of the 4th
Millennium Egypt, this observation bear important consequences on
different levels: it tell us something about the degree of political
complexity and about the authors (intended as those who decided the
subject of the representations more than their material executors), it
informs us on the possible function of the artefacts and allows some
thoughts about state formation.

Without any doubt, the findings considered belonged to the elite.

The term elite makes sense only in comparison to lesser groups, but these
lesser groups appear bypassed in our samples. Therefore, we had to
evaluate the nature of this elite from other parameters. On the one hand,
the lack of lesser social units suggests their great distance from the
leadership. Moreover, regardless the specific function of the objects
(display, ritual or both have been suggested by previous scholars), their
size would suggest that they probably circulated and were watched by a
small number of individuals. Their repertoire is not centred on conflict,
but on its consequences: death, victory, dominion, punishment, as
embodied in political power and monopoly of force as utmost non-
egalitarian statement (Anñelkovic 2008: 1042-1044).
The capacity to gather precious resources in order to produce objects that
were not displayed to large assemblies suggests that this elite was already
beyond the immediate need to justify and enforce its power to the larger
social groups. These artefacts may have circulated between the chief/king
and its retinue, perhaps as gifts, in order to remember and secure the
position of the higher elite to a lower one and/or to strengthen the
bindings between the two. All these characteristics appear more suitable
to the complexity of a state than to a chiefdom.
On the other hand, the not completely fixed canon of the themes and the
absence of always recognisable hierarchies (as already seen only the
smiting scene is a kingly scene and often prisoners are of the same size of
their guardians) apparently point to a pre-state society.
How we do reconcile these apparently conflicting views?

Complexity
In The monastery of Epiphanius at Thebes, Winlock (1926: 96-97)
compellingly argued that scholars are sometimes mistaken in equating
technology and degree of civilisation or, in other words, evolution and
technological progress.
A similar mistake may be what hold us back from a systematic
understanding of state formation: we need to consider its political and
social aspects. In fact, while state formation had immediate consequences
on the political life of Egypt (and, especially in the long run, on many
other aspects), its impact on everyday life was probably not so
revolutionary. To put it very simply: the farmer still had to sow and
harvest, the potter to make vessels.
This idea is all by new, and has been recently expressed, although in
different terms and nuances, by Yoffee (2005: 17, he stress differences
between civilisation and state) and Köhler (2010, who suggests that state
formation and political unification are not one and the same).
On a more theoretical level, the problem corresponds to the difficulty to
better define the passage between chiefdom and state (for some attempts
see Gat 2003; Wright 2006).
However, there is a difference from what these scholars have suggested
and my perspective. Whilst they split the terms of the problem, in order
to better address its complexity, my approach is almost the opposite: I
argue that state formation (as political process) was possible only after
that elevated degrees of social, economical e technological evolution
were reached. Moreover, as appears from the archaeological record, up
until Naqada II social dynamics and economy developed much faster
than political organisation, while during Naqada III, as we have observed
indirectly through iconography, the political factors “accelerated” and
eventually “took over” the other forces; political agents (elite,
aristocracy, chief,) become gradually able to control the other factors.

The rise of the elite

Wilkinson’s theory works well in general, but probably its supporters
overestimate the role of military in the process (Gilbert 2004: 83 argues
that there was no warrior elite during the Naqada phases). In fact, whilst
other pieces of evidence they use to strengthen the theory are not
conclusive (see chapter 4), they heavily rely on some of the findings
considered in this study.
It is plausible that feuds, battles and even wars occurred during the
Naqada phases, and some representations may well have been narrative
accounts, but images must be principally considered ideological
statements (chapter 2), and should not be used to infer the existence and
scale of actual conflicts.
One possible reason for this disproportionate attention may simply be the
fact that Wilkinson principally addresses political changes.
Accounting for the millenary tradition of foreign Western and Eastern
contacts, and for their crucial impact on the development of society,
technology and probably ideology, we can image Egypt during Naqada
III as a fast-developing civilisation (here I borrow the term from Trigger
2005), whose leadership was probably trying to keep up with,
summoning resources, power, control and renewing its ideology, partially
drawing on its more ancient heritage, partially creating new themes.
These themes were probably related to those spheres of life under the
direct jurisdiction of the elite, namely development of larger buildings
and other infrastructures and control over violence (trade, army,
enforcing law), thus suggesting us where to look for the sources of the
elite power. Curiously, trade and control of trade, which are often rightly
highlighted among these possible sources, are not clearly represented, but
this foreign input can be spot in materials and possibly in themes and
ideology.
No wonder that, analysing a similar process from some of its splinters,
what was repetition may appear to us expansion, what was celebration of
power and control large scale conflict.
As argued, Naqada III is, in my view, the exact stage on which the
transformations that elite was undergoing, gradually became faster than
social transformation. It was in this time span that Naqadan political
actors gain enough power to effectively lead society.
A good part of the state formation process took place in this phase. Its
political “conclusion”, judging from archaeological data (see chapter 4)
and the representations analysed, did not involve endemic warfare.

Where do we go from here?

In this paper we analysed representations of inter-human violence, which
can be considered a subgroup of violent images. In consideration of the
mitigate character of violence and of the particular importance of animals
(as suggested by representations and by the numerous animal burials) to
the ideology of Predynastic Egypt, it would be interesting to extend the
study to other representations including violence among animals and
human-animal violence. This would allow to drag data from Naqada I
and II into discussion, in order to achieve a diachronic knowledge of the
topic and, on that, to start reconstructing how Early Egyptians thought of
violence and if/how this conception changed through time.

As already considered, iconography does not have a good reputation

among Archaeologists, and it is either discarded as poorly scientific and
exclusive field of Art Historians either misused to reinforce “more
sound” archaeological data. Themes, if used as analytical categories, may
become useful instruments for the study of iconography (as defined in
chapter 2) allowing for more binding analyses and for less subjective
interpretations. Like every analytical category, its validity will depend on
number of occurrences, canonisation, intelligibility, interpretation.
Bibliography

Algaze, G. 1993. The Uruk world system: the dynamics of expansion of

early
Mesopotamian civilisation. Chicago; London: The University of Chicago
Press

Anñelkovic, B. 2008. Parameters of statehood in Predynastic Egypt. In:

Midnant-Reynes, B.; Hendrickx, S. (eds) 2008, Egypt at its origins 2:
proceedings of the international conference "Origin of the State,
Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt", Toulouse, France, 5th-8th
September 2005. Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters en Departement Oosterse
Studies, 1039–1056

Anderson, W. 1992. Badarian burials: Evidence of social inequality in

Middle Egypt during
the Early Predynastic Era. Journal of the American Research Center in
Egypt 29, 51-66

Andrén, A. 1998. Between artifacts and texts. Historical Archaeology in

global perspective.
Translated by A. Crozier. Contributions to global historical Archaeology.
New York: Plenum Press

Arkell, A. J. 1950. Varia Sudanica, The Journal of Egyptian

Archaeology 36, 24-40

Asselberghs, H. 1961. Chaos en beheersing: documenten uit

aeneolithisch Egypte. Leiden: E. J. Brill

Bailey, D. W. 1994. Reading prehistoric figurines as individuals. World

Archaeology 25 (3), 321-
331

Bailey, D. W. 2005. Prehistoric figurines. Representation and

corporeality in the Neolithic.
Abingdon (Uk); New York: Routledge

Baines, J. 1983. Literacy and Ancient Egyptian Society, Man, New

Series 18 (3),572-577

Baines, J. 1993. Symbolic roles of canine figures on early monuments.

Archéo-Nil 3, 57-74

Bar-Yosef, O. 1986. The walls of Jericho: An alternative interpretation,

Current Anthropology 27 (2), 157-162

Bard, K. 1987. The Geography of Excavated Predynastic Sites and the

Rise of Complex Society, Journal of the American Research Center in
Egypt 24, 81-93
Bard, K. 1992. Toward an Interpretation of the Role of Ideology in the
Evolution of Complex Society in Egypt, Journal of Anthropological
Archaeology 11 (1), l-24

Barich, B. E. 1991. Preistoria di Farafra (Sahara Occidentale Egiziano):

nuovi dati e prospettive di
ricerca, Rivista trimestrale di studi e documentazione dell’Istituto
italiano per l’Africa e l’Oriente
46 (1), pp. 128-134

Barth, F. 1969. Introduction. In: Barth, F. (ed) 1969. Ethnic groups and
boundaries: the social organization of culture difference, Oslo:
Universitetsforlaget, 9-38

Bellinger, C. K. 2003. The genealogy of violence: reflections on

creation, freedom and evil. Ebook. Oxford Scholarship Online. Available
at
http://www.oxfordscholarship.com.libproxy.ucl.ac.uk/view/10.1093/0195
134982.001.0001/acprof-9780195134988-miscMatter-1. Last access:
08/05/2012

Ben-Ari, E.; Frühstück, S. 2003. The celebration of violence: a live-fire

demonstration carried out by Japan's contemporary military, American
Ethnologist 30 (4), 540-555

Bénédite, G. 1916. G. Le couteau de Gebel el-Arak: Etude sur un nouvel

objet préhistorique acquis par le Musée du Louvre, Fondation Eugène
Piot, Monuments et mémoires publiés par l’Académie des Inscriptions et
Belles-Lettres 22, 1-34

Binford, L. R. 1965. Archaeological systematics and the study of culture

process, American Antiquity 31 (2), 203-210

Campagno, M. 2004. In the beginning was the war. Conflict and the
emergence of the Egyptian State. In: Hendrickx, S.; Friedman, R. F.;
Ciałowicz, K. M.; Chłodnicki, M. (eds) 2004. 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, 28 August-1st September 2002, Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters en
Departement Oosterse Studies, 689-703

Carneiro, R. L. 1970. A Theory of the origin of the state, Science, New

Series 169 (no 3947), 733-738

Case, H.; Crowfoot Payne, J. 1962. Tomb 100: The decorated tomb at
Hierakonpolis, The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 48, 5-18

Ciałowicz, K. M. 1991. Les palettes Égyptiennes aux motifs zoomorphes

et sans décoration, Studies in Ancient Art and Civilization 3, 7-82

2001. K. M. Ciałowicz, La Naissance d’un Royaume. L’Égypte dès la

période Prédynastique à la Fin de la Ière Dynastie, Krakow 2001

Ciałowicz, K. M. 2009. The Early Dynastic administrative-cultic centre

at Tell el-Farkha. British Museum Studies in Ancient Egypt and Sudan
13, 83–123

Colla, E. 2007. Conflicted Antiquities. Egyptology, Egyptomania,

Egyptian modernity. Durham;
London: Duke University Press

Countryman, K. 2007. The road to Sumer: a look into the development

of Mesopotamia’s
early cultures using the multilinear evolution theory, Lambda Alpha
Journal 37, 56-74

Craig Patch, D. 2004. Settlement patterns and cultural change in the

Predynastic period. In: Hendrickx, S.; Friedman, R. F.; Ciałowicz, K. M.;
Chłodnicki, M. (eds) 2004. 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, 28 August-1st
September 2002, Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters en Departement Oosterse
Studies, 905-918

Crowfoot Payne, J. 1973. Tomb 100: The decorated tomb at

Hierakonpolis confirmed, The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 59, 31-
35

Crowfoot Payne, J. 1992. Predynastic chronology at Naqada. In

Friedman, R.; Adams, B. (eds) 1992. The Followers of Horus. Studies
dedicated to Michael Allen Hoffman. Egyptian Studies Association
Publication No. 2. Oxbow Monograph 20. Oxford: Oxbow Books

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

collection in the Ashmolean Museum. Oxford: Clarendon Press

Czichon, R. M.; Sieversten, U. 1993. Aspects of space and composition

in the relief representations of the Gebel el-Arak knife-handle, Archéo-
Nil 3, 49-55

Davies, V.; Friedman, R. 1998. The Narmer palette: a forgotten

member, Nekhen News 10, 22

Davis, W. M. 1976. The origins of register composition in Predynastic

Egyptian art,
Journal of the American Oriental Society 96 (3), 404-418

Davis, W. 1980 “Late Predynastic” decorated pot in the British Museum,

Göttinger Miszellen 40, 15-20

Davis, W. 1982. Canonical representation in Egyptian art, Anthropology

and Aesthetics 4, 20-46
Davis, W. 1992. Masking the blow: the scene of representation in late
prehistoric Egyptian art. California studies in the history of art 30.
Berkeley; Oxford: University of California Press

Dougherty, S. P. 2004. A little more off the top, Nekhen News 16, 11-12

Dougherty, S. P.; Friedman R. F. 2008. Sacred or mundane: scalping

and decapitation at Predynastic Hierakonpolis. In: B. Midnant-Reynes,
B.; Hendrickx, S. (eds) 2008, Egypt at its origins 2: proceedings of the
international conference "Origin of the State, Predynastic and Early
Dynastic Egypt", Toulouse, France, 5th-8th September 2005. Leuven:
Uitgeverij Peeters en Departement Oosterse Studies, 1119-1137

Dreyer, G. 1998. Umm el-Qaab I: Das pradynastische Konigsgrab U-j

und seine fruhen Schriftzeugnisse, Mainz: Verlag Philipp von Zabern

Dreyer, G.; Hartung, U.; Hikade, T.; Köhler, E. C.; Müller, V.;
Punpenmeier, F. 1998. Umm el-Qaab. Nachuntersuchungen im
frühzeitlichen Königsfriedhof. 9./10. Vorbericht, Mitteilungen des
Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts Abteilung Kairo 54, 77-167

Dreyer, G.; Hartmann, R.; Hartung, U.; Hikade, T.; Köpp, H.;
Lacher, C.; Müller, V.; Nerlich, A.; Zink, A. 2003. Umm el-Qaab.
Nachuntersuchungen im frühzeitlichen Königsfriedhof. 13./14./15.
Vorbericht, Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts
Abteilung Kairo 59, 67-138

Earle, T. 2005. Political domination and social evolution. In Ingold, T.

(ed) 2005. Companion encyclopedia of Anthropology. London:
Routledge, 940-961

Elsner, J. 1994. Masking the Blow: The Scene of Representation in Late

Prehistoric Egyptian Art by Whitney Davis, The Art Bulletin 76 (3), 535-
536

Finkenstaedt, E. 1981. The location of styles in painting: white Cross-

lined ware at Naqada,
Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 18, 7-10
Finkenstaedt, E. 1988. Prehistoric Egyptian pottery, The Bulletin of the
Cleveland Museum of Art 75 (3), 74-94

Finkenstaedt, E. 1994. Masking the Blow: The Scene of Representation

in Late Prehistoric Egyptian Art by Whitney Davis, Journal of the
American Oriental Society 114 (4), 664-665

Fischer, H. G. 1958. A fragment of Late Predynastic Egyptian relief

from the Eastern Delta, Artibus Asiae (1), 64-88

Flannery, K. V. 1982. The golden Marshalltown: a parable for the

Archeology of the 1980s, American Anthropologist 84 (2), 265-278
Flannery, K. V. 1999. Process and agency in early state formation,
Cambridge Archaeological Journal 9 (1), 3-21

Frankfort, H. 1924. Studies in early pottery of the Near East (Vol. 1).
Occasional papers No° 6. London: Royal Anthropology Institute of Great
Britain and Ireland

Frankfort, H. 1951. The birth of civilization in the Near Est. London:

Williams and Norgate Limited

Friedman, R. 2004. Elephants at Hierakonpolis. In Hendrickx, S.;

Friedman, R. F.; Ciałowicz, K. M.; Chłodnicki, M. (eds) 2004. 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, 28 August-1st September 2002, Leuven:
Uitgeverij Peeters en Departement Oosterse Studies, 2004, 131-168

Friedman, R.; Hendrickx, S. 2002. Gebel Tjauti rock inscription 1. In.

Darnell, J. C. 2002 (ed). Theban desert road survey in the Egyptian
western desert. Oriental Institute Publications volume 119. Chicago: The
Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago,95-109

Galassi, G. 1955. L'Arte del più antico Egitto nel Museo di Torino.
Rivista Studi Orientali (4), 5-94

Gardiner, A. H. 1927. Egyptian Grammar. Oxford: The Clarendon Press

Garfinkel, Y. 2001. Dancing or Fighting? A recently discovered

Predynastic scene from Abydos, Egypt, Cambridge Archaeological
Journal 11 (2), 241-254

Garstang, J. 1989. Mahâsna and Bêt Khallâf. Egyptian Research

Account memoir 7. London: Histories & Mysteries of Man Ltd

Gat, A. 2003. Rural petty-state and overlordship. Missing links in the

evolution of the early state, Anthropos 98 (1), 127-142

Gautier, P. 1993.Analyse de l'espace figuratif par dipôles. La tombe

decorée N°100 de Hiérakonpolis, Archeo-Nil 3, 36-47

Gilbert, G. P. 2004. Weapons, warriors and warfare in Early Egypt.

BAR International Series 1208. Oxford: Archaeopress

Gilchrist, R. 2003. Towards a social archaeology of warfare, World

Archaeology 35 (1), 1-6
Gimbutas, M. A. 1982 [1974]. The goddesses and gods of Old Europe :
6500-3500 BC : myths and
cult images. London: Thames and Hudson

Graff, G. 2004. Les peintures sur vases Nagada I-Nagada II. Nouvelle
approche sémiologique. In Hendrickx, S.; Friedman, R. F.; Ciałowicz, K.
M.; Chłodnicki, M. (eds) 2004. 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, 28 August-1st
September 2002, Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters en Departement Oosterse
Studies, 2004, 765-777

Griswold, W. A. 1992. Imports and social status: The role of long-

distance trade in
Predynastic Egyptian state formation. Ph.D. thesis. Ann Arbor (USA):
University Microfilms
International

Harris, R. 1986. The tiranny of the alphabet. In: R. Harris (ed.) 1986.
The origin of writing.
London: Duckworth. 29-56

Hassan, F. A. 1987. The dynamics of a riverine civilization: A

geoarchaeological perspective on the Nile Valley, Egypt, World
Archaeology 29 (1), 51-74

Hassan, F. A. 1988: The Predynastic of Egypt, Journal of World

Prehistory 2 (2), 135-185

Hendrickx, S. 1996. The Relative Chronology of the Naqada Culture.

Problems and Possibilities. In: Spencer, J. A. (ed.) 1996: Aspects of Early
Egypt. London: British Museum Press

Hendrickx, S. 2006. The dog, the Lycaon pictus and order over chaos in
Predynastic Egypt, Studies in African Archaeology 9, 723-749

Hendrickx, S.; Bavay, L. 2002, The Relative Chronological Position of

Egyptian Predynastic
and Early Dynastic Tombs With Objects Imported From the Near East
And The Nature of
Interregional Contacts, in van den Brink, E. C. M.; Levy, T. E. (eds)
2002. Egypt and The
Levant: interrelations from the 4th through the early 3rd millennium
BCE. London: Leicester
University Press

Hendrickx, S.; Depraetere, D. 2004. A theriomorphic Predynastic stone

jar. In Hendrickx, S.; Friedman, R. F.; Ciałowicz, K. M.; Chłodnicki, M.
(eds) 2004. 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, 28 August-1st
September 2002, Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters en Departement Oosterse
Studies, 2004, 801-822

Hendrickx, S.; Friedman, R. 2003. Gebel Tjauti rock inscription 1 and

the relationship between Abydos and Hierakonpolis during the early
Naqada III period, Göttinger Miszellen 196, 95-109
Hill, J. A. 2004 Cylinder seal glyptic in predynastic Egypt and
neighboring regions. BAR International series 1223. Oxford:
Archaeopress

Hodder, I. 1982. Symbolic and structural Archaeology. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press

Hodder, I. 1991 [1986]. Reading the past. Current approaches to

interpretation in archaeology.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Ibrahim, M. R.; Tallet, P. 2009. King Den in South-Sinai: the earliest

monumental inscriptions of the pharaonic period, Archeo-Nil 19, 179-184

Jenkins, I. 1992. Archaeologists & aesthetes: in the sculpture galleries

of the British Museum
1800-1939. London: British Museum Press

Jéquier, G. 1908. Les Temples Primitifs et la Persistance des Types

Archaïques Dans l’Architecture Religieuse, Bulletin de l’Institut
Français d’Archéologie Orientale 6, 25-41

Jiménez Serrano, A. 2002. Royal festivals in the late Predynastic period

and the first dynasty. BAR International Series 1076, Oxford:
Archaeopress

Kahl, J. 2001. Hieroglyphic writing during the fourth Millennium BC: an

analysis of systems, Archeo-Nil 11, 101-134

Kahl, J. 2003. Das Schlagen des Feindes von Hu: Gebel Tjauti
Felsinschrift 1, Göttinger Miszellen 192, 47-54

Kaiser, W. 1958. Zur vorgeschichtlichen Bedeutung von Hierakonpolis,

Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts Abteilung Kairo
16, 183-192

Kaiser, W. 1990. Zur Entstehung des gesamtägyptischen Staates,

Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts Abteilung Kairo
46, 287-299

Kantor, H. J. 1944. The final phase of Predynastic culture Gerzean or

Semainean(?), Journal of Near Eastern Studies 3 (2), 110-136

Kaplony, P. 1963. Die Inschriften der ägyptischen Frühzeit. Wiesbaden:

Otto Harrassowitz

Keeley, L. K. 1996. War before Civilization. The myth of the peaceful

savage. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Keimer, M. L. 1942. Deux representations Egyptiennes du Gerenuk,

Annales du Service des Antiquités de l’Egypte 41, 161-181
Kemp, B. 1977. The early development of towns in Egypt, Antiquity
1951 (203), 185-200

Kemp, B. 1982. Automatic analysis of Predynastic cemeteries: a new

method for an old problem, The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 68, 5-
15

Kemp, B. J. 1989. Ancient Egypt. Anatomy of a civilization. London:

Routledge

Köhler, E. C. 2004. On the origins of Memphis – The new excavations

in the Early Dynastic Necropolis at Helwan. 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, 28 August-1st September 2002, Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters en
Departement Oosterse Studies, 2004, 295-315

Köhler, E. C. 2010. Theories of State Formation. In: Wendrich, W. (ed)

2010. Egyptian Archaeology. Blackwell studies in global archaeology.
Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell

Kołodziejczyk 2009. Lower Egypt in modern research on state

formation in Egypt. Available at
http://www.farkha.org/english/artykuly.html; last access: 12/08/2012

Lacovara, P. 1982. British Museum 35324, again, Göttinger Miszellen

59, 41-50
Leone, M. P. 1982. Some opinions about recovering mind, American Antiquity 47 (4),
742-760

Leone, M. P.; Potter, P. B.; Shackel, P. A.; Blakey, M. L.; Bradley, R.; Durrans, B.;
Gero, J. M.; Grigoriev, G. P.; Hodder, J.; Lanata, J. L.; Levy, T. E.; Silberman, N.
A.; Paynter, R.; Rivera, M. A.; Wylie, A. 1987. Toward a Critical Archaeology,
Current Anthropology 28 (3), 283-302

Le Quellec, J. 2005. Une nouvelle approche des rapports Nil-Sahara d'après l'art
rupestre, Archéo-
Nil 15, 67-76

Lesure, R. G. 2011. Interpreting ancient figurines. Context, comparison, and

Prehistoric art. New York: Cambridge University Press

Liverani, M. 2009. Antico Oriente. Storia società economia. Bari (Italy): Editori
Laterza

Lythgoe, A. M. 1965. The predynastic cemetery, N 7000 : Naga-ed-Dêr. University of

California publications. Egyptian archaeology 7. Berkeley : University of California
Press

McDermott, L. 1996. Self-representation in Upper Paleolithic female

figurines, Current Anthropology 37 (2), 227-275

McDonald, M. M. A. 1991. Technological Organization and Sedentism

in the Epipalaeolithic of
Dakhleh Oasis, Egypt, The African Archaeological Review 9, 81-109

Meskell, L.; Nakamura, C.; King, R.; Farid, S. 2007. Figurines. In AA.
VV. 2007. Çatalhöyük
2007. Archive report. Çatalhöyük Research Project. Retrieved on 08
January 2012 from World
Wide Web: http://www.catalhoyuk.com/archive_reports. 277-302

Midant-Reynes, B. 1992. Préhistoire de l’Égypte des premiers hommes

aux premiers pharaons. Paris: Armand Colin Éditeur

Miller, D.; Tilley, C. (eds) 1984. Ideology, power and prehistory.

Cambridge University Press

Monnet Saleh, J.1969. Forteresses, ou villes-protégées thinites?, Bulletin

de l’Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale 67, 163-187

Monnet Saleh, J.1987. Remarques sur les representations de la peinture

d'Hierakonpolis (Tombe No 100), The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology
73, 51-58

Moorey, P. R. S. 1988. Ancient Egypt. 2nd rev. ed., Oxford: Ashmolean

Museum

Morant, G. M. 1935. A study of Predynastic Egyptian skulls from

Badari based on measurements
taken by miss B. N. Stoessiger and Professor D. E. Derry, Biometrika 27
(3/4), 293-309

Moreland, J. 2001. Archaeology and text. London: Duckworth

Muhlestein, k. 2011. Violence in the service of order: the religious

framework for sanctioned killing in Ancient Egypt. BAR International
series 2299. Oxford: Archaeopress

Murck, A. 2007. Golden mangoes: The life cycle of a cultural revolution

symbol, Archives of Asian Art 57, 1-21

Nakamura, C.; Meskell, L. 2009. Articulate bodies: forms and figures at

Çatalhöyük. Journal of
Archaeological Method and Theory 16, 205-230

Navajas Jiménez, A. I. 2011. The Predynastic Bos primigenius as a

royal image of territory,
boundaries and power in an African context. In: Exell, K. (ed). Egypt in
its African context:
proceedings of the conference held at the Manchester Museum,
University of Manchester, 2-4
October 2009. BAR International series 2204. Oxford: Archaeopress, 30-
42
Needler, W. 1984. Predynastic and Archaic Egypt in the Brooklyn
Museum, New York: The Brooklyn Museum

Needler, W. 1967. A rock-drawing on Gebel Sheikh Suliman (near Wadi

Halfa) showing a scorpion and human figures, Journal of the American
Research Center in Egypt 6, 87-91

O’Connor, D. O. 2002. Context, function and program: Understanding

ceremonial slate palettes, Journal of the American Research Center in
Egypt 39, 5-25

O’Connor, D. 2009. Abydos. Egypt’s first pharaohs and the cult of

Osiris. London: Thames & Hudson

Olsen, B. 2003. Material culture after text: re-membering things.

Norwegian Archaeological
Review 36: 87-104

Petrie, W. M. F. 1900. The royal tombs of the first dynasty. London:

Egypt Exploration Fund

Petrie, W. M. F. 1901. The royal tombs of the first dynasty II. London:
Egypt Exploration Fund

Petrie, W. M. F. 1901a. Diospolis Parva. The cemeteries of Abadiyeh

and Hu, 1898-9. London: Egypt Exploration Fund

Petrie, W. M. F. 1920. Prehistoric Egypt: illustrated by over 1,000

objects in University College, London. British School of Archaeology in
Egypt & Egyptian Research Account 31. London: British School of
Archaeology in Egypt

Petrie , W. M. F. 1925. Tombs of the courtiers and Oxyrhynkos. London:

British School of Archaeology in Egypt

Petrie, W. M. F. 1939. The making of Egypt. London: The Sheldon Press

Petrie, W. M. F. 1953. Flinders Petrie centenary, 1953: Ceremonial

slate palettes: Corpus of proto-dynastic pottery. London: British School
of Egyptian Archaeology

Petrie, W. M. F; Quibell, J. E. 1896. Naqada and Ballas: 1895.

Publications of the Egyptian Research Account and British School of
Archaeology in Egypt 1. London: B. Quaritch

Petrie, W. M. F.; Wainwright G. A.; Mackay, E. 1912. The labyrinth,

Gerzeh and Mazghuneh. London : School of Archaeology in Egypt

Piquette, K. E. 2004. Representing the human body on late Predynastic

and Early Dynastic labels. In Hendrickx, S.; Friedman, R. F.; Ciałowicz,
K. M.; Chłodnicki, M. (eds) 2004. 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, 28 August-
1st September 2002, Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters en Departement Oosterse
Studies, 2004, 923-947

Podzorski, P. V. 1990. Their bones shall not perish : an examination of

human skeletal remains
from Naga ed-Dêr in Egypt. New Malden: SIA

Preziosi, D. 2003. Brain of the earth’s body : art, museums, and the
phantasms of modernity.
Minneapolis; London: University of Minnesota Press

Quibell, J. E. 1900. Hierakonpolis. Part I. London: B. Quaritch

Quibell, J. E.; Green, F. W. 1902. Hierakonpolis. Part II. London: B.

Quaritch

Raffaele, F. 2003. Dynasty 0. In: Bickel, S.; Loprieno, A. (eds): Basel

Egyptology prize 1: junior research in Egyptian history, archaeology,
and philology. Aegyptiaca Helvetica 17. Basel: Schwabe, 99-141

Raffaele, F. 2010. Animal rows and ceremonial processions in late

Predynastic Egypt. In:
Raffaele, F.; Nuzzolo, M.; Incordino, I. (eds) 2010. Recent discoveries
and latest researches in Egyptology. Proceedings of the First Neapolitan
Congress of Egyptology. Naples, June 18th-20th 2008. Harrassowitz,
Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 245-286

Riemer, H. 2009. Prehistoric Rock Art research in the Western Desert of

Egypt. Archéo-Nil 19, 31-
46

Rizkana, I.; Seeher, J. 1990. Maadi: excavations at the predynastic site

of Maadi and its cemeteries conducted by Mustapha Amer and Ibrahim
Rizkana on behalf of the Department of Geography, Faculty of Arts of
Cairo University, 1930-1953 4, The predynastic cemeteries of Maadi and
Wadi Digla. Mainz am Rhein: von Zabern

Sauer, E. W. 2004. The disunited subject: human history’s split into

‘history’ and ‘archaeology’.
In: E. W. Sauer (ed.). 2004. Archaeology and ancient History. London;
New York: Routledge. 17-
45

Savage, S. H. 1997. Descent group competition and economic strategies

in Predynastic Egypt, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 16, 226–
268

Savage, S. H. 2001. Some recent trends in the Archaeology of

Predynastic Egypt, Journal of
Archaeological Research 9 (2), 101–155

Säve-Söderbergh, T. 1953. On Egyptian representations of

hippopotamus hunting as a religious motive. Lund: Gleerup

Scharff, A. 1928. Some prehistoric vases in the British Museum and

remarks on Egyptian prehistory, The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 14
(3/4), 261-276
Service, E. R. 1971. Primitive social organization, an evolutionary
perspective. 2nd edition. New York: Random House

Smith, W. S.1967. Two Archaic Egyptian Sculptures, Boston Museum

Bulletin 65 (340), 70-84

Stein, G. J. 1999. Rethinking world-systems: diasporas, colonies, and

interaction in Uruk Mesopotamia. Tucson: The University of Arizona
Press

Stoessiger, B. N. 1927. A study of the Badarian crania recently

excavated by the British School of
Archaeology in Egypt, Biometrika 19 (1/2), 110-150

Tassie, G. J. 2011. What your hair says about you: changes in hairstyles
as an indicator of state formation process. In: Friedman, R. F.; Fiske, P.
N. (eds) 2011 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. Leuven: Uitgeverij
Peeters en Departement Oosterse Studies, 605-643

Tallet, P. 2010. Le roi Den et les Iountiou. Les Égyptiens au Sud-Sinaï

sous la 1re dynastie, Archeo-Nil 20, 97-105

Teissier, B. 1987. Glyptic evidence for a connection between Iran, Syro-

Palestine and Egypt in the fourth and third millennia, in Iran 25, 27-53

Tilley, C. 1989. Interpreting material culture. In Hodder, I. (ed) 1989.

The meanings of things: material culture and symbolic. London:
Routledge, 185-194

Trigger, B. G. 1993. Early Civilizations: ancient Egypt in context. Cairo:

American University in Cairo Press

Ucko, P. J. 1962. The interpretation of prehistoric anthropomorphic

figurines, The Journal of the
Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 92 (1), 38-
54

Ucko, P. J. 1965. Anthropomorphic ivory figurines from Egypt, The

Journal of the Royal
Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 95 (2), 214-239
Ucko, P. J. 1968. Anthropomorphic figurines of Predynastic Egypt and
Neolithic Crete with
comparative material from the prehistoric Near East and Mainland
Greece. Royal Anthropological
Institute Occasional Paper No 24. London: Andrew Szmidla

Ucko, P. J. 1969. Penis sheaths: a comparative study, Proceedings of the

Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland no. 1969,
24-67

Vandier, J. 1952. Manuel d’Archéologie Égyptienne. Vol I. Paris:

Éditions A. et J. Picard

Vandkilde, H. 2003. Commemorative Tales: Archaeological Responses

to Modern Myth, Politics, and War, World Archaeology 35 (1), 126-144

Vinci, S. 2007. Narmer e la nascita dello stato nell’Antico Egitto,Tesi di

Dottorato di Ricerca in Archeologia, Bologna, a.a. 2006-2007

Warfe, A. R. 2003. Cultural origins of the Egyptian Neolithic and

Predynastic: An evaluation of
the evidence from the Dakhleh Oasis (South Central Egypt), African
Archaeological Review 20
(4), 175-202

Watrin, L. 2004-2005. From intellectual acquisitions to political change:

Egypt-Mesopotamia
interaction in the fourth millennium BC, De Kêmi à Birit Nari : revue
internationale de
l'Orient Ancien 2, 48-94

Wengrow, D. 2001. Rethinking cattle cults in Early Egypt: Towards a

Prehistoric perspective on the Narmer palette, Cambridge Archaeological
Journal 11 (1), 91-104

Wengrow, D. 2006. The Archaeology of Early Egypt. Social

transformation in North-East Africa, 10,000 to 2650 BC. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press

Wengrow, D. 2009. Predynastic art. In Wendrich, W. (ed). UCLA

Encyclopedia of Egyptology. Los Angeles.
http://repositories.cdlib.org/nelc/uee/1064. Last access: 12/06/2012

Wengrow, D. 2010. What makes civilization? The ancient Near East and
the future of the West. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Wengrow, D.; Baines, J. 2004. Images, human bodies and the ritual
construction of memory in Late Predynastic Egypt. In Hendrickx, S.;
Friedman, R. F.; Ciałowicz, K. M.; Chłodnicki, M. (eds) 2004. 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, 28 August-1st September 2002, Leuven:
Uitgeverij Peeters en Departement Oosterse Studies, 2004, 1081-1113

Wenke, R. J. 1991. The evolution of early Egyptian civilization: Issues

and evidence, Journal of World Prehistory 5 (3), 279-329

Whitehouse, H. 2002. A decorated knife handle from the “Main

Deposit” at Hierakonpolis, Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen
Instituts Abteilung Kairo 58, 425-446

Wildung, D. 1984. Terminal Prehistory of the Nile Delta: Theses. In

Lech Krzyzaniak, L.; Kobusiewicz, M. 1984 (eds). Origin and early
development of food-producing cultures in North-eastern Africa. Poznan:
Polska Akademia Nauk-Oddzial W. Poznaniu, 265-269.

Wilkinson, T. A. H. 2000a. Political Unification: towards a

reconstruction, Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts
Abteilung Kairo 56, 377-395

Wilkinson, T. A. H. 2000b. What a king is this: Narmer and the concept

of the ruler, The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 86, 23-32

Williams, B. 1986. Excavations between Abu Simbel and the Sudan

frontier / Keith C. Seele, director. Part 1, The A-group royal cemetery at
Qustul: Cemetery L. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of
Chicago

Williams, B.; Logan, T. J.; Murnane, W. J. 1987. The Metropolitan

Museum knife handle and aspects of pharaonic imagery before Narmer,
Journal of Near Eastern Studies 46 (4), 245-285

Winlock, H. 1926. The archaeological material. In: Winlock, H.; Crum,

W. E. 1926. The Monastery of Epiphanius at Thebes. Part 1. The
archaeological material. The literary material. Publications of the
Metropolitan museum of art Egyptian expedition 3. New York:
Wright, H. T. 2006. Early State Dynamics as Political Experiment,
Journal of Anthropological Research 62 (3), 305-319

Yoffee, N. 1979. The decline and rise of Mesopotamian civilization: An

Ethnoarchaeological perspective on the evolution of social complexity,
American Antiquity 44 (1), 5-35

Yoffee, N. 2005. Myths of the archaic state: evolution of the earliest

cities, states, and civilizations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Webgraphy

British Museum:
http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highlights/highlight_objects/aes/t/
the_battlefield_palette.aspx; last access: 12/07/2012

Digitalegypt a: http://www.digitalegypt.ucl.ac.uk/naqadan/info.html; last

access: 12/05/2012

Global Egyptian Museum:

http://www.globalegyptianmuseum.org/detail.aspx?id=459; last access:
15/08/2012
___________________________________________________________

Images

British Museum b:
http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highlights/highlight_image.aspx?i
mage=ps207946.jpg&retpage=15627

Collon, D. 1987. First impressions: cylinder seals in the Ancient Near

East. London: British Museum

dennispedersen:
http://dennispedersen.com/portfolio/main/?gclid=CIukzfr-
grECFUdlfAody2PWOw

francescoraffaele
a:
http://xoomer.virgilio.it/francescoraf/hesyra/egypt/Oxford_E4975_HKha
ndle.jpg
b: http://xoomer.virgilio.it/francescoraf/hesyra/egypt/Gebel_el-Arak.jpg
c: http://xoomer.virgilio.it/francescoraf/hesyra/labels/xxden31.htm
d: http://xoomer.virgilio.it/francescoraf/hesyra/labels/xxnarmer1.htm
e: http://xoomer.virgilio.it/francescoraf/hesyra/labels/xxaha5.htm
f: http://xoomer.virgilio.it/francescoraf/hesyra/palettes/narmerp.jpg
g: http://xoomer.virgilio.it/francescoraf/hesyra/labels/xxdjer2.htm
h: http://xoomer.virgilio.it/francescoraf/hesyra/labels/xxaha2.htm
i: http://xoomer.virgilio.it/francescoraf/hesyra/egypt/Brussels-E3002.jpg
j: http://xoomer.virgilio.it/francescoraf/hesyra/egypt/Abydos_u-
239pot.jpg
k: http://xoomer.virgilio.it/francescoraf/hesyra/egypt/UC15339.jpg
l: http://xoomer.virgilio.it/francescoraf/hesyra/egypt/Abydos_u-
415_637.jpg
m: http://xoomer.virgilio.it/francescoraf/hesyra/Hierakonpolis-
tomb100.htm
n: http://xoomer.virgilio.it/francescoraf/hesyra/gebeleincloth.gif
o: http://get.nccu.edu.tw:8080/getcdb/retrieve/329339/098_0054_033.jpg
p: http://xoomer.virgilio.it/francescoraf/hesyra/palettes/CairoBrooklyn-
Cairo.jpg
q: http://xoomer.virgilio.it/francescoraf/hesyra/narmrmhd.jpg
r: http://xoomer.virgilio.it/francescoraf/hesyra/new/tomb160H3seal.jpg
s: http://xoomer.virgilio.it/francescoraf/hesyra/dynasty00.htm
t: http://xoomer.virgilio.it/francescoraf/hesyra/qustul.gif
u: http://xoomer.virgilio.it/francescoraf/hesyra/labels/xxqaa13.htm

Huyge, D. 2004. A double-powerful device for regeneration: the Abu

Zaidan knife-handle reconsidered. In: Hendrickx, S.; Friedman, R. F.;
Ciałowicz, K. M.; Chłodnicki, M. (eds) 2004. 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, 28 August-1st September 2002, Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters en
Departement Oosterse Studies, 2004, 823-836

Jiménez Serrano, A. 2008. The origin of the state and the unification:
Two different concepts in the same context. In: B. Midnant-Reynes, B.;
Hendrickx, S. (eds), Egypt at its origins 2: proceedings of the
international conference "Origin of the State, Predynastic and Early
Dynastic Egypt", Toulouse, France, 5th-8th September 2005. Leuven:
Uitgeverij Peeters en Departement Oosterse Studies, 1119-1137

Petrie, W. M. F. 1921. Corpus of prehistoric pottery and palettes.

London: British school of archaeology in Egypt

Petrie Museum:
http://petriecat.museums.ucl.ac.uk/photo.aspx?maxphotos=2

Porada, E. 1993. Why cylinder seals? Engraved cylindrical seal stones

of the ancient Near East, fourth to first Millennium B.C., The Art Bulletin
75 (4), 563-582
Appendix A
The first chart presents the evidence diachronically, respecting (as far as possible) the order adopted
in chapter 3. The other charts group the data by represented subject, object category, provenience
and material.
Note Well: Cursive type stands for representations which are not considered as conflict-related, but
have however been examined in this study.

Naqada I (5)
Represented Bibliography Provenance Fig.
Categories
Pot prisoners Dreyer 2003 Abydos U-415 10
Pot prisoners Dreyer 2003 Abyfos U-415 10
Pot prisoners Dreyer et al. 1998: 112-114; Garfinkel 2001; Dreyer Abydos U-239 10
2003
Pot (MRAH prisoners s Scharff 1928: 268-269; Vandier 1952: 287-288, Fig. unknown 10
E3002) 194: 287; Garfinkel 2001
Pot prisoner or one Petrie 1920, 16, pl XVIII; Scharff 1928: 268-269; unknown 10
(UC15339) against one Garfinkel 2001
combat

Naqada II (2)
Represented Bibliography Provenance Fig.
Categories
Painting smiting scene, one Quibell Green 1902: pl LXXV-LXXVIII; Hierakonpolis 12
against one combat? Case & Crowfoot Payne 1962; Crowfoot T100
Payne 1973;

Textile 1 prisoner Galassi 1955; Williams et al. 1987: 255-256 Gebelein 13

Naqada III (34)

Represented Bibliography Provenance Fig.
Categories
Knife-handle Battle, 1 prisoner, Bénédite 1918; Czichon & Sievertsen unknown 16
(Gebel el-Arak) corpses 1993; Global Egyptian Museum
Palette after-battle, Bénédite 1904, p. 105-122; Vandier 1952; unknown 16
(battlefield) prisoners, corpses Petrie 1953; Midant-Reynes 1992: 225-
226
Graffiti after-battle, Arkell 1950; Williams et al. 1987 Gebel 16
prisoners, corpses Sheikh
Suleiman
Palette fortifications, one Petrie 1953; Asselberghs 1961, Plaat unknown 17
(Towns) against one XCII, Afb. 164, 165
 combat
Palette (bull) fortification, Steindorf 1897: 129; Bénédite 1904, p. unknown 17
dying men 114; Petrie 1920
Knife-handle fortification Williams et al. 1987 unknown 17
Label (Aha) fortification, Petrie 1901: pl III; Jiménez Serrano 2002: Abydos 17, 8
Reconstruction stabbed man 61f; Piquette 2004: 938
Label (U-j) one against one O’Connor 2009: 144-145, fig. 78 Abydos 18
combat
Graffiti 1 prisoner Needler 1967; Serrano 2008: 1132 Gebel 19
Sheikh
Suleiman
Graffiti 1 prisoner Friedman & Hendrickx 2002: 10-19; pl Djebel 19
IX; Kahl 2003; Hendrickx & Friedman Tjauty
2003
Incense 1 prisoner Williams 1980; Williams 1986 Qustul L24 19
burner
Mace-head 1 prisoner Quibell 1900: pl XXV-XXVI; Moorey Hierakonpol 19
(Narmer) 1988, 15 is
Palette prisoners Quibell 1900: pl. 29Bénédite 1904, pp. Hierakonpol 19
(Narmer) (beheaded), 105-122; Petrie 1939: 65; Pl XL: 87; is
Fairservis 1991
smiting scene,
dying man,
fortification
Knife-handle prisoners Whitehouse 2002 Hierakonpol 5
is
Plaque prisoners Whitehouse 2002: 434 Hierakonpol /
is
Cylinder seal smiting scene Quibel 1900: pl XV Abydos 19
(Narmer)
Box 1 prisoner Dreyer 2003: pl. 16 Abydos 19
fragments
(Narmer)
Fragment prisoners Petrie 1901: pl III Abydos 5
Fragment prisoner Petrie 1901: pl III Abydos 5
Mace-head prisoners Quibell 1900: pl XII Hierakonpol 19
is
Cylinder seal prisoners or Quibell 1900: pl XV Hierakonpol 19
smiting scenes is
Cylinder seal prisoners or Quibell 1900: pl XV Hierakonpol /
smiting scenes is
Cylinder seal prisoners or Quibell 1900: pl XV Hierakonpol /
smiting scenes is
Label (Aha) prisoner, stabbed Petrie 1901: pl III Abydos 8
man
Label (Aha) prisoner, smiting Petrie 1901: pl XI Abydos 7
scene
Label (Djer) prisoner, stabbed Dougherty 2004: 11 Saqqara 8
man
Gaming reed prisoner Petrie 1900: pl XII, XVII Abydos 19
(Qaa)
Label smiting scene Dreyer 1998: 138-139 Abydos B16 7
(Narmer)
Label (Den) smiting scene Spencer 1980 Abydos 7
Graffiti (Den) smiting scene Ibrahim & Tallet 2009; Tallet 2010: 98 Wadi el- /
Humur
Graffiti (Den) 2 smiting scenes Ibrahim & Tallet 2009; Tallet 2010: 98 Wadi el- /
Humur
Graffiti (Den) smiting scene Ibrahim & Tallet 2009; Tallet 2010: 98 Wadi el- /
Humur
Stone vessel smiting scene Quibell 1900: XXXVI-XXXVIII Hierakonpol /
is
Stone vessel smiting scene Quibell 1900: XXXVI-XXXVIII Hierakonpol /
is
Statue base corpses Quibell 1900: pl XL Hierakonpol /
(Khasekem(wy) is
)
by Subjects

Prisoners (27)
Naqada Bibliography Provenance Fig.
Pot I Dreyer 2003 Abydos U-415 10
Pot I Dreyer 2003 Abyfos U-415 10
Pot I Dreyer et al. 1998: 112-114; Garfinkel 2001; Dreyer Abydos U-239 10
2003
Pot (MRAH I Scharff 1928: 268-269; Vandier 1952: 287-288, Fig. unknown 10
E3002) 194: 287; Garfinkel 2001
Pot I Petrie 1920, 16, pl XVIII; Scharff 1928: 268-269; unknown 10
(UC15339) Garfinkel 2001
Textile II Galassi 1955; Williams et al. 1987: 255-256 Gebelein 13
Knife- III Bénédite 1918; Czichon & Sievertsen 1993; Global unknown 16
handle Egyptian Museum
(Gebel el-
Arak)
Palette III Bénédite 1904, p. 105-122; Vandier 1952; Petrie unknown 16
(battlefield) 1953; Midant-Reynes 1992: 225-226
Graffiti III Arkell 1950; Williams et al. 1987 Gebel Sheikh 16
Suleiman
Graffiti III Needler 1967; Serrano 2008: 1132 Gebel Sheikh 19
Suleiman
Graffiti III Friedman & Hendrickx 2002: 10-19; pl IX; Kahl Djebel Tjauty 19
2003; Hendrickx & Friedman 2003
Incense III Williams 1980; Williams 1986 Qustul L24 19
burner
Mace-head III Quibell 1900: pl XXV-XXVI; Moorey 1988, 15 Hierakonpolis 19
(Narmer)
Palette III Bénédite 1904, pp. 105-122; Petrie 1939: 65; Pl XL: Hierakonpolis 19
(Narmer) 87; Fairservis 1991
Knife- III Whitehouse 2002 Hierakonpolis 5
handle
Plaque III Whitehouse 2002: 434 Hierakonpolis /
Box III Dreyer 2003: pl. 16 Abydos 19
fragments
(Narmer)
Fragment III Petrie 1901: pl III Abydos 5
Fragment III Petrie 1901: pl III Abydos 5
Mace-head III Quibell 1900: pl XII Hierakonpolis 19
Cylinder III Quibell 1900: pl XV Hierakonpolis 19
seal
Cylinder III Quibell 1900: pl XV Hierakonpolis /
seal
Cylinder III Quibell 1900: pl XV Hierakonpolis /
seal
Label (Aha) III Petrie 1901: pl III Abydos 8
Label (Aha) III Petrie 1901: pl XI Abydos 7
Label (Djer) III Dougherty 2004: 11 Saqqara 8
Gaming III Petrie 1900: pl XII, XVII Abydos 19
reed (Qaa)
Smiting scene (14)
Naqada Bibliography Provenance Fig.
Painting II Quibell Green 1902: pl LXXV-LXXVIII; Case & Hierakonpolis 12
Crowfoot Payne 1962; Crowfoot Payne 1973; T100
Palette III Bénédite 1904, pp. 105-122; Petrie 1939: 65; Pl XL: Hierakonpolis 19
(Narmer) 87; Fairservis 1991
Cylinder seal III Quibel 1900: pl XV Abydos 19
(Narmer)
Cylinder seal III Quibell 1900: pl XV Hierakonpolis 19
Cylinder seal III Quibell 1900: pl XV Hierakonpolis /
Cylinder seal III Quibell 1900: pl XV Hierakonpolis /
Label (Aha) III Petrie 1901: pl XI Abydos 7
Label (Narmer) III Dreyer 1998: 138-139 Abydos B16 7
Label (Den) III Spencer 1980 Abydos 7
Graffiti (Den) III Ibrahim & Tallet 2009; Tallet 2010: 98 Wadi el-Humur /
Graffiti (Den) III Ibrahim & Tallet 2009; Tallet 2010: 98 Wadi el-Humur /
Graffiti (Den) III Ibrahim & Tallet 2009; Tallet 2010: 98 Wadi el-Humur /
Stone vessel III Quibell 1900: XXXVI-XXXVIII Hierakonpolis /
Stone vessel III Quibell 1900: XXXVI-XXXVIII Hierakonpolis /

Corpses and dying men (6)

Naqada Bibliography Provenance Fig.
Knife-handle III Bénédite 1918; Czichon & Sievertsen unknown 16
(Gebel el-Arak) 1993; Global Egyptian Museum
Palette III Bénédite 1904, p. 105-122; Vandier 1952; unknown 16
(battlefield) Petrie 1953; Midant-Reynes 1992: 225-
226
Graffiti III Arkell 1950; Williams et al. 1987 Gebel 16
Sheikh
Suleiman
Palette (bull) III Steindorf 1897: 129; Bénédite 1904, p. unknown 17
114; Petrie 1920
Palette III Bénédite 1904, pp. 105-122; Petrie 1939: Hierakonpol 19
(Narmer) 65; Pl XL: 87; Fairservis 1991 is
Statue base III Quibell 1900: pl XL Hierakonpol /
(Khasekem(wy) is
)

Battle and battlefields (3)

Naqada Bibliography Provenance Fig.
Knife-handle III Bénédite 1918; Czichon & Sievertsen unknown 16
(Gebel el-Arak) 1993; Global Egyptian Museum
Palette III Bénédite 1904, p. 105-122; Vandier 1952; unknown 16
(battlefield) Petrie 1953; Midant-Reynes 1992: 225-
226
Graffiti III Arkell 1950; Williams et al. 1987 Gebel 16
Sheikh
Suleiman
Fortifications (4)
Naqada Bibliography Provenance Fig.
Palette III Petrie 1953; Asselberghs 1961, Plaat unknown 17
(Towns) XCII, Afb. 164, 165
Palette (bull) III Steindorf 1897: 129; Bénédite 1904, p. unknown 17
114; Petrie 1920
Knife-handle III Williams et al. 1987 unknown 17
Label (Aha) III Petrie 1901: pl III; Jiménez Serrano 2002: Abydos 17
Reconstruction 61f; Piquette 2004: 938

One against one combat (4)

Naqada Bibliography Provenance Fig.
Pot (UC15339) I Petrie 1920, 16, pl XVIII; Scharff 1928: unknown 10
268-269; Garfinkel 2001
Painting II Quibell Green 1902: pl LXXV-LXXVIII; Hierakonpol 12
Case & Crowfoot Payne 1962; Crowfoot is T100
Payne 1973;

Palette III Petrie 1953; Asselberghs 1961, Plaat unknown 17

(Towns) XCII, Afb. 164, 165
Label (U-j) III O’Connor 2009: 144-145, fig. 78 Abydos 18

Stabbed men (3)

Naqada Bibliography Provenance Fig.
Label (Aha) III Petrie 1901: pl III; Jiménez Serrano 2002: Abydos 17, 8
Reconstruction 61f; Piquette 2004: 938
Label (Aha) III Petrie 1901: pl III Abydos 8
Label (Djer) III Dougherty 2004: 11 Saqqara 8
by Object categories

Vessels (7)
Naqada Bibliography Provenance Fig.
Pot I Dreyer 2003 Abydos U- 10
415
Pot I Dreyer 2003 Abyfos U- 10
415
Pot I Dreyer et al. 1998: 112-114; Garfinkel Abydos U- 10
2001; Dreyer 2003 239
Pot (MRAH I Scharff 1928: 268-269; Vandier 1952: unknown 10
E3002) 287-288, Fig. 194: 287; Garfinkel 2001
Pot (UC15339) I Petrie 1920, 16, pl XVIII; Scharff 1928: unknown 10
268-269; Garfinkel 2001
Stone vessel III Quibell 1900: XXXVI-XXXVIII Hierakonpol /
is
Stone vessel III Quibell 1900: XXXVI-XXXVIII Hierakonpol /
is

Wall painting (1)

Naqada Bibliography Provenance Fig.
Painting II Quibell Green 1902: pl LXXV-LXXVIII; Hierakonpol 12
Case & Crowfoot Payne 1962; Crowfoot is T100
Payne 1973;

Textile (1)
Naqada Bibliography Provenance Fig.
Textile II Galassi 1955; Williams et al. 1987: 255- Gebelein 13
256

Graffiti (6)
Naqada Bibliography Provenance Fig.
Graffiti III Arkell 1950; Williams et al. 1987 Gebel 16
Sheikh
Suleiman
Graffiti III Needler 1967; Serrano 2008: 1132 Gebel 19
Sheikh
Suleiman
Graffiti III Friedman & Hendrickx 2002: 10-19; pl Djebel 19
IX; Kahl 2003; Hendrickx & Friedman Tjauty
2003
Graffiti (Den) III Ibrahim & Tallet 2009; Tallet 2010: 98 Wadi el- /
Humur
Graffiti (Den) III Ibrahim & Tallet 2009; Tallet 2010: 98 Wadi el- /
Humur
Graffiti (Den) III Ibrahim & Tallet 2009; Tallet 2010: 98 Wadi el- /
Humur
Knife-handles (3)
 Naqada Bibliography Provenance Fig.
Knife-handle III Bénédite 1918; Czichon & Sievertsen unknown 16
(Gebel el-Arak) 1993; Global Egyptian Museum
Knife-handle III Williams et al. 1987 unknown 17
Knife-handle III Whitehouse 2002 Hierakonpol 5
is

Palettes (4)
Naqada Bibliography Provenance Fig.
Palette III Bénédite 1904, p. 105-122; Vandier 1952; unknown 16
(battlefield) Petrie 1953; Midant-Reynes 1992: 225-
226
Palette III Petrie 1953; Asselberghs 1961, Plaat unknown 17
(Towns) XCII, Afb. 164, 165
Palette (bull) III Steindorf 1897: 129; Bénédite 1904, p. unknown 17
114; Petrie 1920
Palette III Bénédite 1904, pp. 105-122; Petrie 1939: Hierakonpol 19
(Narmer) 65; Pl XL: 87; Fairservis 1991 is

Mace-heads (2)
Naqada Bibliography Provenance Fig.
Mace-head III Quibell 1900: pl XXV-XXVI; Moorey Hierakonpol 19
(Narmer) 1988, 15 is
Mace-head III Quibell 1900: pl XII Hierakonpol 19
is

Labels (7)
Naqada Bibliography Provenance Fig.
Label (Aha) III Petrie 1901: pl III; Jiménez Serrano 2002: Abydos 17, 8
Reconstruction 61f; Piquette 2004: 938
Label (U-j) III O’Connor 2009: 144-145, fig. 78 Abydos 18
Label (Aha) III Petrie 1901: pl III Abydos 8
Label (Aha) III Petrie 1901: pl XI Abydos 7
Label (Djer) III Dougherty 2004: 11 Saqqara 8
Label III Dreyer 1998: 138-139 Abydos B16 7
(Narmer)
Label (Den) III Spencer 1980 Abydos 7

Cylinder seals (4)

Naqada Bibliography Provenance Fig.
Cylinder seal III Quibel 1900: pl XV Abydos 19
(Narmer)
Cylinder seal III Quibell 1900: pl XV Hierakonpol 19
is
Cylinder seal III Quibell 1900: pl XV Hierakonpol /
is
Cylinder seal III Quibell 1900: pl XV Hierakonpol /
is
Other (9)
Naqada Bibliography Provenance Fig.
Incense III Williams 1980; Williams 1986 Qustul L24 19
burner
Plaque III Whitehouse 2002: 434 Hierakonpol /
is
Box III Dreyer 2003: pl. 16 Abydos 19
fragments
(Narmer)
Fragment III Petrie 1901: pl III Abydos 5
Fragment III Petrie 1901: pl III Abydos 5
Gaming reed III Petrie 1900: pl XII, XVII Abydos 19
(Qaa)
Stone vessel III Quibell 1900: XXXVI-XXXVIII Hierakonpol /
is
Stone vessel III Quibell 1900: XXXVI-XXXVIII Hierakonpol /
is
Statue base III Quibell 1900: pl XL Hierakonpol /
(Khasekem(wy) is
)
by Provenience

Abydos (14)
Naqada Bibliography Provenance Fig.
Pot I Dreyer 2003 Abydos U- 10
415
Pot I Dreyer 2003 Abyfos U- 10
415
Pot I Dreyer et al. 1998: 112-114; Garfinkel Abydos U- 10
2001; Dreyer 2003 239
Label (Aha) III Petrie 1901: pl III; Jiménez Serrano 2002: Abydos 17, 8
Reconstruction 61f; Piquette 2004: 938
Label (U-j) III O’Connor 2009: 144-145, fig. 78 Abydos 18
Cylinder seal III Quibel 1900: pl XV Abydos 19
(Narmer)
Box III Dreyer 2003: pl. 16 Abydos 19
fragments
(Narmer)
Fragment III Petrie 1901: pl III Abydos 5
Fragment III Petrie 1901: pl III Abydos 5
Label (Aha) III Petrie 1901: pl III Abydos 8
Label (Aha) III Petrie 1901: pl XI Abydos 7
Gaming reed III Petrie 1900: pl XII, XVII Abydos 19
(Qaa)
Label III Dreyer 1998: 138-139 Abydos B16 7
(Narmer)
Label (Den) III Spencer 1980 Abydos 7

Hierakonpolis (12)
Naqada Bibliography Provenance Fig.
Painting II Quibell Green 1902: pl LXXV-LXXVIII; Hierakonpol 12
Case & Crowfoot Payne 1962; Crowfoot is T100
Payne 1973;

Mace-head III Quibell 1900: pl XXV-XXVI; Moorey Hierakonpol 19

(Narmer) 1988, 15 is
Palette III Bénédite 1904, pp. 105-122; Petrie 1939: Hierakonpol 19
(Narmer) 65; Pl XL: 87; Fairservis 1991 is
Knife-handle III Whitehouse 2002 Hierakonpol 5
is
Plaque III Whitehouse 2002: 434 Hierakonpol /
is
Mace-head III Quibell 1900: pl XII Hierakonpol 19
is
Cylinder seal III Quibell 1900: pl XV Hierakonpol 19
is
Cylinder seal III Quibell 1900: pl XV Hierakonpol /
is
Cylinder seal III Quibell 1900: pl XV Hierakonpol /
is
Stone vessel III Quibell 1900: XXXVI-XXXVIII Hierakonpol /
is
Stone vessel III Quibell 1900: XXXVI-XXXVIII Hierakonpol /
is
Statue base III Quibell 1900: pl XL Hierakonpol /
(Khasekem(wy) is
)

Other (9)
Naqada Bibliography Provenance Fig.
Textile II Galassi 1955; Williams et al. 1987: 255- Gebelein 13
256
Graffiti III Arkell 1950; Williams et al. 1987 Gebel 16
Sheikh
Suleiman
Graffiti III Needler 1967; Serrano 2008: 1132 Gebel 19
Sheikh
Suleiman
Graffiti III Friedman & Hendrickx 2002: 10-19; pl Djebel 19
IX; Kahl 2003; Hendrickx & Friedman Tjauty
2003
Incense III Williams 1980; Williams 1986 Qustul L24 19
burner
Label (Djer) III Dougherty 2004: 11 Saqqara 8
Graffiti (Den) III Ibrahim & Tallet 2009; Tallet 2010: 98 Wadi el- /
Humur
Graffiti (Den) III Ibrahim & Tallet 2009; Tallet 2010: 98 Wadi el- /
Humur
Graffiti (Den) III Ibrahim & Tallet 2009; Tallet 2010: 98 Wadi el- /
Humur

Unknown (7)
Naqada Bibliography Provenance Fig.
Pot (MRAH I Scharff 1928: 268-269; Vandier 1952: unknown 10
E3002) 287-288, Fig. 194: 287; Garfinkel 2001
Pot (UC15339) I Petrie 1920, 16, pl XVIII; Scharff 1928: unknown 10
268-269; Garfinkel 2001
Knife-handle III Bénédite 1918; Czichon & Sievertsen unknown 16
(Gebel el-Arak) 1993; Global Egyptian Museum
Palette III Bénédite 1904, p. 105-122; Vandier 1952; unknown 16
(battlefield) Petrie 1953; Midant-Reynes 1992: 225-
226
Palette III Petrie 1953; Asselberghs 1961, Plaat unknown 17
(Towns) XCII, Afb. 164, 165
Palette (bull) III Steindorf 1897: 129; Bénédite 1904, p. unknown 17
114; Petrie 1920
Knife-handle III Williams et al. 1987 unknown 17
by Materials

Painted pottery (5)

Naqada Bibliography Provenance Fig.
Pot I Dreyer 2003 Abydos U- 10
415
Pot I Dreyer 2003 Abyfos U- 10
415
Pot I Dreyer et al. 1998: 112-114; Garfinkel Abydos U- 10
2001; Dreyer 2003 239
Pot (MRAH I Scharff 1928: 268-269; Vandier 1952: unknown 10
E3002) 287-288, Fig. 194: 287; Garfinkel 2001
Pot (UC15339) I Petrie 1920, 16, pl XVIII; Scharff 1928: unknown 10
268-269; Garfinkel 2001

Painted wall (1)

Naqada Bibliography Provenance Fig.
Painting II Quibell Green 1902: pl LXXV-LXXVIII; Hierakonpol 12
Case & Crowfoot Payne 1962; Crowfoot is T100
Payne 1973;

Linen (1)
Naqada Bibliography Provenance Fig.
Textile II Galassi 1955; Williams et al. 1987: 255- Gebelein 13
256

Rock Graffiti (6)

Naqada Bibliography Provenance Fig.
Graffiti III Arkell 1950; Williams et al. 1987 Gebel 16
Sheikh
Suleiman
Graffiti III Needler 1967; Serrano 2008: 1132 Gebel 19
Sheikh
Suleiman
Graffiti III Friedman & Hendrickx 2002: 10-19; pl Djebel 19
IX; Kahl 2003; Hendrickx & Friedman Tjauty
2003
Graffiti (Den) III Ibrahim & Tallet 2009; Tallet 2010: 98 Wadi el- /
Humur
Graffiti (Den) III Ibrahim & Tallet 2009; Tallet 2010: 98 Wadi el- /
Humur
Graffiti (Den) III Ibrahim & Tallet 2009; Tallet 2010: 98 Wadi el- /
Humur
Stone (10)
Naqada Bibliography Provenance Fig.
Palette III Bénédite 1904, p. 105-122; Vandier 1952; unknown 16
(battlefield) Petrie 1953; Midant-Reynes 1992: 225-
226
Palette III Petrie 1953; Asselberghs 1961, Plaat unknown 17
(Towns) XCII, Afb. 164, 165
Palette (bull) III Steindorf 1897: 129; Bénédite 1904, p. unknown 17
114; Petrie 1920
Incense III Williams 1980; Williams 1986 Qustul L24 19
burner
Mace-head III Quibell 1900: pl XXV-XXVI; Moorey Hierakonpol 19
(Narmer) 1988, 15 is
Palette III Bénédite 1904, pp. 105-122; Petrie 1939: Hierakonpol 19
(Narmer) 65; Pl XL: 87; Fairservis 1991 is
Mace-head III Quibell 1900: pl XII Hierakonpol 19
is
Stone vessel III Quibell 1900: XXXVI-XXXVIII Hierakonpol /
is
Stone vessel III Quibell 1900: XXXVI-XXXVIII Hierakonpol /
is
Statue base III Quibell 1900: pl XL Hierakonpol /
(Khasekem(wy) is
)

Ivory (19)
Naqada Bibliography Provenance Fig.
Knife-handle III Bénédite 1918; Czichon & Sievertsen unknown 16
(Gebel el-Arak) 1993; Global Egyptian Museum
Knife-handle III Williams et al. 1987 unknown 17
Label (Aha) III Petrie 1901: pl III; Jiménez Serrano 2002: Abydos 17, 8
Reconstruction 61f; Piquette 2004: 938
Label (U-j) III O’Connor 2009: 144-145, fig. 78 Abydos 18
[or wood?]
Knife-handle III Whitehouse 2002 Hierakonpol 5
is
Plaque III Whitehouse 2002: 434 Hierakonpol /
is
Cylinder seal III Quibel 1900: pl XV Abydos 19
(Narmer)
Box III Dreyer 2003: pl. 16 Abydos 19
fragments
(Narmer)
Fragment III Petrie 1901: pl III Abydos 5
Fragment III Petrie 1901: pl III Abydos 5
Cylinder seal III Quibell 1900: pl XV Hierakonpol 19
is
Cylinder seal III Quibell 1900: pl XV Hierakonpol /
is
Cylinder seal III Quibell 1900: pl XV Hierakonpol /
is
Label (Aha) III Petrie 1901: pl III Abydos 8
Label (Aha) III Petrie 1901: pl XI Abydos 7
Label (Djer) III Dougherty 2004: 11 Saqqara 8
Gaming reed III Petrie 1900: pl XII, XVII Abydos 19
(Qaa)
Label III Dreyer 1998: 138-139 Abydos B16 7
(Narmer)
Label (Den) III Spencer 1980 Abydos 7