Upload
sychevdmitry
View
229
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
STANDARDIZING THE ANALYSIS OF PREDYNASTIC POTTERY: A LOOK AT PETRIE, FREIDMAN AND ADAÏMA
by
Hannah Reshel
Submitted to the Faculty of
The Archaeological Studies Program Department of Sociology and Archaeology
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Science
University of Wisconsin-La Crosse
2013
ii
Copyright © 2013 by Hannah Reshel All rights reserved
iii
STANDARDIZING THE ANALYSIS OF PREDYNASTIC POTTERY: A LOOK AT PETRIE, FREIDMAN AND ADAÏMA
Hannah Reshel, B.S.
University of Wisconsin-La Crosse, 2013
Abstract
Since Flinders Petrie first discovered Predynastic Egypt in the late 1800s, pottery has been the leading artifact in determining the date of settlements and cemeteries. But over the past 100 years, his typology for Predynastic pottery has undergone many changes. Many archaeologists create their own typology based on what they find during their excavations. The purpose of this study is to examine the typologies put forth by Flinders Petrie, Renée Freidman and the excavators of the site of Adaïma in order to propose which system, of the three, could become the standard typology of Predynastic pottery.
iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank my reading group, Jeri Bohac and Rebecca Loew for giving me
constructive criticism and support throughout the process of writing my thesis. I would also like
to thank Dr. Mark Chavalas for giving me feedback on my thesis. Finally, I would like to thank
Dr. David Anderson for helping with me throughout this process.
1
INTRODUCTION
Pottery has always been an important artifact in archaeological studies. It is particularly
useful when cultures have no written language. It gives a basis for chronology within a
culture through relative dating systems. It gives information on the diet of the people
through residue analysis. It also can aid in understanding the social structure of the
culture based on the complexity of the pottery.
Pottery is especially important to the study of the Egyptian Predynastic. Flinders
Petrie was the first to develop a chronological sequence for Egyptian pottery he found
when excavating at Naqada in 1892 (Midant-Reynes 2000a:41-42). Since his creation of
the Predynastic seriation, multiple revisions have occurred to try and make the system
more consistent and more specific (Friedman 1994). There is no one standard typology
for the Predynastic assemblage. Most typologies are created or adapted for specific sites.
The way these typologies develop is based on what the researchers want to research.
With this study, I am looking at two predynastic typologies, Freidman and
Adaïma, to propose which would be better for a standardized classification of pottery in
Egypt. In the process I will be looking more at the original classification by Petrie to see
how he has influenced and continues to influence the classification of Predynastic
pottery. The reason I am looking at this issue is because having different typologies
make it more difficult to do comparative studies of sites.
2
PREDYNASTIC EGYPT
The Predynastic Period in Egypt was roughly the thousand years before Egypt was
unified under one ruler. The exact dates of the Predynastic have been debated over the
years but more recently are thought to be between 4000-3000 BC (Table 1). There is not
one distinct culture that characterizes this time period but two, which can be separated
geographically into the Upper Egyptian Naqada Culture and the Lower Egyptian Maadi
Culture (Midant-Reynes 2000). The Maadi Culture is named after the site of Maadi
which is located in the southern suburb of Cairo of the same name (Midant-Reynes
2000b). The Naqada Culture is similarly named after the site of Naqada in Upper Egypt,
north of modern day Luxor (Midant-Reynes 2000a). The two cultures were
contemporaneous until the end of Naqada II/ beginning of Naqada III when the Naqada
Culture became the dominant culture and replaced that of the Maadi Culture in the north
(Midant-Reynes 2000a). For the purpose of this study, only the Naqada Culture will be
examined.
Table 1. Chronology of the Upper Egyptian Predynastic (Midant-Reynes 2000a:44 and Bard 2000:57) Compiled.
Period Absolute Dates Naqada I ca. 4000 – 3500 B.C. Naqada II ca. 3500 – 3200 B.C. Naqada III/Dynasty 0 ca. 3200 – 3000 B.C.
3
Figure 1. Map of Predynastic Egypt showing sites mentioned in text (Midant-Reynes 2000a:42).
4
The Chronology of Upper Egypt
During the time of the Naqada culture, there were noticeable changes within the
archaeological record, specifically burial practices. As a result, the Naqada was further
broken down. Petrie originally came up with three periods, the Amratian, the Gerzean,
and the Semainean, based on his pottery seriation (Midant-Reynes 2000b). These periods
are now referred to as Naqada I, Naqada II, and Naqada III/Dynasty 0 following the
system developed by Werner Kaiser in his seminal studies in 1956-1957 and work in
1990 (Bard 1994: 268)..
Naqada I
Much of the archaeological evidence shows that the Naqada I and the Badarian had very
similar cultures (e.g. burials) which led many to believe that the Naqada was simply a
continuation of the Badarian instead of a separate culture (Midant-Reynes 2000b). There
is some evidence, which suggests that the two periods were contemporaneous (Hendrickx
and Vermeersch 2000).
The burial practices of the Naqada I show the beginning of a stratified society
through the two different types of burials. The first type was pit burials while the second
type were larger and had better funerary equipment (Midant-Reynes 2000b). During the
transition from Badarian to Naqada I there was a decrease frequency in multiple pottery
types, such as Black-topped red ware and Black-polished pottery. Settlements during this
period, from the little information we have, were often small villages or hamlets
(Friedman 1994, Anderson 2006). The style of the houses in the settlements varied
5
based on the region and were often associated with storage pits, hearths, animal
enclosures and refuse areas (Freidman 1994:26). In order to sustain themselves, residents
kept domesticated animals such as cattle, sheep and goats (Freidman 1994:26). They also
utilized domesticated plants such as barley and wheat (Anderson 2006:12). During this
period there was also evidence of craft specialization at some of the larger settlements
such as Hierakonpolis (Friedman 1994:26).
The predominant pottery types of this time within cemeteries are Black-topped
red ware (B-ware) and Polished red wares (P-ware), both of which are characterized by
the red color of the surface and the highly polished/burnished finish, and Rough-ware (R-
ware) within the settlement area (Anderson 2006). The difference between the two red
wares is that the former has a blackened area around the mouth of the vessel whereas the
latter has no decoration.
Naqada II
The time of the Naqada II was one of expansion (Midant-Reynes 2000a:49). Sites
containing Naqada I material were clustered around the site of Naqada but during this
time the cultural material associated with Naqada are found further away. The social
stratification became more prominent at this time with more elaborate tombs with special
compartments for offerings (Midant-Reynes 2000a:50). Another change in burial
practices was the increase of multiple burials: burials with up to five people (Midant-
Reynes 2000a:590). There were more specialty items being made such as ripple-flaked
knives and various copper items (Midant-Reynes 2000a:51).
6
Settlements during the Naqada II show a greater range with small agricultural
villages up to larger political centers (Anderson 2006:14). More evidence for craft
specialization is found in this period along with increased evidence of foreign trade
(Anderson 2006:14).
The pottery assemblage of the Naqada II stayed fairly similar to the previous
period but with the addition of Late ware (L-ware) and Rough ware (R-ware) beginning
to appear in the pottery assemblage (Midant-Reynes 2000b:189; Friedman 1994). C-
ware decreases and completely leaves the assemblage as brownish-black motifs on a
cream background became the favored style (Midant-Reynes 2000b). Another addition
to the assemblage is imported Palestinian vessels (Friedman 1994).
Naqada III
Naqada III is considered the transitional phase from the Predynastic to the dynastic. This
time was transitional because the culture had increased social stratification, as well as, the
unification into one culture. As stated earlier, the Maadi culture disappeared during the
beginning of Naqada III (Midant-Reynes 2000b). It is still debated, though, if this was
through military action which caused the Maadi culture to integrate or if it was simply
through the diffusion of ideas and materials (Midant-Reynes 2000b).
The increased complexity of social stratification can be seen through the presence
of exotic materials in the archaeological record (Bard 2000:57). This also shows that
trading and communication with people outside of Egypt occurred (Midant-Reynes
2000b). During this time there was an increase in agricultural production and artificial
irrigation (Midant-Reynes 2000b). There was also movement of settlements from the
7
desert to the river valley (Midant-Reynes 2000b). A more complex hierarchy is
demonstrated through the greater diversity and complexity of tombs (Anderson 2006).
Within the pottery assemblage, L-ware increased in frequency while there was a
degeneration of D-ware and the form of W-ware (Friedman 1994). There is also
evidence that a potter’s wheel was used to make some of the pottery (Petrie and Quibell
1896).
POTTERY OF THE PREDYNASTIC
Petrie’s Corpus of Predynastic Pottery
During the 1894-95 field season, Petrie and Quibell excavated at Naqada and Ballas
respectively, focusing mainly on the cemeteries (Petrie and Quibell 1896). When he first
excavated Naqada, he believed that some of the burials were not from the native
Egyptians but from an invading people he called the “New Race” (Petrie and Quibell
1896). Through work preformed by Petrie and others such as Henri de Morgan, it was
determined that the “New Race” was in fact the prehistoric people of Egypt (Petrie 1901).
Excavations at Naqada enabled Petrie to create a corpus which he used to identify the
pottery found. In conjunction with this, he created the first relative dating seriation.
Before this it was very hard to try and date anything unless it was to estimate a similar
time period elsewhere (Petrie 1901:4). Based on Petrie’s corpus, a person would be able
to tell when within the Predynastic the site dated to.
8
The corpus was first divided by type, which Petrie divided into nine groups
(Petrie and Quibell 1896, Petrie 1901). The first group is Black-topped Red ware (B-
ware) which Petrie determined to be the oldest (Petrie 1901:13). This type of pottery is
burnished red with a black top which resulted from firing the pottery mouth down in a
bed of ashes (Petrie 1901:13). Polished Red ware (P-ware) is the second grouping. This
pottery was the same as the B-ware except it was kept above the ashes so that it could
maintain a solid red color all over (Petrie 1901:13). White Cross-lined (C-ware) is the
third type but was one of the more short lived styles (Petrie 1901:14). This pottery is the
P-ware with white designs which ranges from lines and chevrons to humans and animals
(Petrie 1920:14). One of the most unique types is Black Incised Ware (N-ware) (Petrie
1901:14). Contrasting the B-ware, N-ware is completely black except for the interior of
the incised lines put on the pottery. The lines were often filled with a white clay or
pigment (Petrie 1920:14, Friedman 1994:96). Wavy Handled (W-ware) is one of the
most important types in Petrie’s seriation. This type was the focus of the seriation
because, when excavating at Naqada, he observed that there was a very clear evolution of
the style of W-ware over time (Petrie and Quibell 1896:11). Decorated ware (D-ware)
was made with similar materials to W-ware and had painted decoration but the motifs
were different than those used on the C-ware (Petrie 1901:15). Fancy class (F-ware) was
the group in which the abnormally shaped pottery went (Petrie 1901:14). Rough ware
(R-ware) was dull brown in color, was porous and straw-marked and was made from
rough clay (Petrie and Quibell 1896:11). The final type of pottery that Petrie identified
was Late ware (L-ware) (Petrie 1901). The defining characteristic of this type was it
9
“having ugly and degraded forms and being linked on to the historical pottery (Petrie
1901:17).”
The form was the second attribute that divided pottery. Numbers were assigned
to forms in an arbitrary but meaningful way (Petrie 1899). Petrie believed that as
excavations continued, more intermediary forms of pottery would be found (Petrie
1899:297). He therefore left gaps in the numbers to accommodate (Petrie 1899:297).
These letter and number combinations were then assigned a date range for ease of
calculating.
10
Figure 2. Petrie’s Predynastic Seriation (Petrie 1901).
11
Friedman’s Pottery Typology
In 1994, Renée Friedman published her dissertation on Settlement Ceramics. Her
purpose was to “describe and compare the full range of diversity found within the
ceramic assemblages of [Hierakonpolis, Nagada and Hemamieh] settlements over time
and space (Friedman 1994:69).”
In order to compare the assemblages of the three different settlements, she modified the
Hierakonpolis system to accommodate the information she would receive from the other
areas.
The Hierakonpolis system is a temper based system developed M.A. Hoffman and
M. Berger in 1979 in order to sort and analyze the large amount of sherds being
excavated at the site (Friedman 1994:127). The creation of this typology centered around
four general objectives (Freidman 1994:127). The first objective was for the system to be
practical for sorting, analyzing and performing a full quantification of large numbers of
sherds while in the field (Freidman 1994:127). The second objective was for it to permit
a cost and time intensive analysis of selected samples (Freidman 1994:127). Being able
to connect the system with that of full pot ones such as Petrie’s and the sensitivity to the
regional and functional variations within the assemblages were the final two goals which
Hoffman and Berger had when creating this system (Freidman 1994:127). The reason
behind trying to correlate Hierakonpolis’ system with full pot typologies is because the
primary form of pottery was sherds. There were not enough full pots found in order to
incorporate them into the typology (Freidman 1994).
She began by looking at the fabric/temper and assigning each type a number. To
accommodate some types which are present in Nagada and Hemamieh assemblages,
12
double-digit numbers were added (Friedman 1994:137). She identified 16 different
tempers ranging from untempered Nile silt to Palestinian fabric (Table 2)(Freidman
1994). She next looked at types of surface treatments. This category was divided into
coatings, finishes, and decoration (Tables 3-5). This division was to limit the number of
attributes in order to have a more workable data set (Friedman 1994:177). These three
were specifically chosen because they are often mutually exclusive. The coatings were
divided into 10 types based on the color of the slip used. The finish was divided into
eight types based on what manufacturing technique was used to create the ending
smoothness or roughness of the finished pot. The final attribute, decoration, was also
divided into eight types. Decoration had the widest variety between the types, which
ranged from paint to impressed/incised.
The shape of the pottery is partly separated from the previous two attributes.
Because of the available assemblages from Hierakonpolis, Nagada and Hemamieh, the
shape of the pottery had to be inferred based on diagnostic sherds such as rim or base
sherds. This is the first step in classifying the pottery. Next is determining whether the
form is open or closed. From there the forms can become as specific as possible based on
the slopping of walls, type of rim, size, etc. (Figure 3).
13
Figure 3. Friedman’s subjective shape class system (Friedman 1994:figure 6.3).
Adaïma’s Pottery Typology
Located approximately eight kilometers south of the modern Upper Egyptian town of
Esna, Adaïma is a locus of Predynastic activity (Midant-Reynes and Buchez 2002). It is
comprised of two cemeteries and a large settlement area on the West Bank of the Nile
(Midant-Reynes and Buchez 2002). While the cemeteries contain remains which date
from Naqada I through Dynasty 3, the settlement only shows evidence of occupation
from Naqada I through Naqada IIC with a gradual abandonment thereafter (Buchez
2011a, Buchez 2011b). The majority of our knowledge comes from the excavations
performed by the l'Institut Français d'Archéologie Orientale between 1989 and 2005
under the direction of Béatrix Midant-Renyes (Buchez 2011a).
14
The system created for Adaïma to classify the pottery was arborescent with eight
levels, beginning at the most broad aspect and becoming increasingly specific (Midant-
Reynes and Buchez 2002:169). They wanted to create a system that which would cover
all the possible variations of pottery found on the site. As mentioned earlier, there was
both cemetery and settlement contexts which contained numerous sherds and full pots.
As with the Petrie and Friedman typologies, each level had a number or letter
assigned to the attributes to create a code (Table 6). As the attributes of the pottery is
looked at, a letter, number or combination of the two is added to a sequence which gives
a specific description of that pottery. For example AV1.1 1a1/1 R is an alluvial paste
with fine sand and coarsely chopped straw. It has an unpolished unenclosed surface and
it is open form with an oblique convex straight sided wall without a rim. The closest
Petrie type was Rough-ware.
The first level of the Adaïma typology is the paste. Three pastes are defined:
alluvial, limestone and platelets (Midant-Reynes and Buchez 2002:170). Alluvial paste is
further subdivided based on different types and size of inclusions within the clay
(Midant-Reynes and Buchez 2002:173-174). Finishing technique is the second aspect
looked at when determining the pottery classification (Midant-Reynes and Buchez
2002:170). Included within this category is the surface color and whether the pottery was
polished or not. The third level consists of specific techniques which can be determine
based on firing technique, slip, painted decoration, etc. (Midant-Reynes and Buchez
2002:170). The type of pottery (i.e. rim sherd, full pot, etc.) is the fourth level. This is
complemented by the fifth level, which is descriptive of the shape of the bottom of the
pottery (Midant-Reynes and Buchez 2002:171).
15
Form was the seventh level and was created by measuring the distance between
contour points (Midant-Reynes and Buchez 2002:176). The criteria used to determine
the measurements came from principles established by Nordström and Holthoer, which
were later adapted for the Predynastic by Hendrickx (Midant-Reynes and Buchez
2002:176). Eight shape groups were defined based on whether or not they had different
transitional points (Midant-Reynes and Buchez 2002:176). These were condensed into
4 in order more easily incorporate sherds (Midant-Reynes and Buchez 2002:177). (Table
7)
CONCLUSIONS
There are both advantages and disadvantages to both typologies. One of the
advantages which Friedman’s typology has over the Adaïma is that it was created to be
utilized in the field (Friedman 1994: 127). Since there is an over abundance of pottery
sherds in Egypt, it is impossible to look at them all. The typology which Friedman
adapted, tries to make processing the pottery in the field as efficient as possible. Another
of the advantages which it has is the inclusivity of it. The typology of Adaïma was
created exclusively for classifying the pottery found at the site while Friedman’s was
adapted to look at a wider range of attributes which are not found in Hierakonpolis,
where the typology was originally created. An advantage which the Adaïma typology
has over Friedman’s is the way the arbitrarily assigned letters and numbers can collapse
16
to create a shortened code for the pottery. The Friedman typology is better suited to a
table structure.
Both typologies utilize similar attributes in order to classify the pottery, though
they use different terms and utilize them in different ways. For example, both typologies
look at the materials of the pottery, the clay and inclusions. Friedman’s typology calls
this the Fabric/temper while the Adaïma typology calls this the paste. They both
incorporate Petrie’s original classification as well. This is beneficial to the typologies
because, even though most researchers create their own typology, almost all typologies
are based on some aspect of Petrie’s system. This creates a link which would make it
easier to transition data into a standard typology.
Although both typologies present good qualities for a standard typology, of the
two Friedman’s would be better because of its ease of use in the field and its inclusivity.
Overall, though, it may be better to create a whole new typology using the best elements
from the Adaïma and Friedman’s typologies. Friedman’s typology was only adapted to
include the elements found at Naqada and Hemamieh. There are probably many more
elements which were not included which can be found in other areas of Upper Egypt. To
create the best comprehensive typology, all existing typologies should be gathered and
condensed, taking into account how easily it would be adapted to work in the field as
well as work within a laboratory.
17
APPENDIX
Table 2. Friedman Fabric/Temper.1
Fabric/Temper 1. Straw Tempered Nile silt 2. Untempered "Plum Red" Nile silt 3. Shale tempered clay 4. Straw and Stone tempered Nile silt 5. Crushed Calcium Carbonate tempered Nile silt 6. Undetermined 7. Grog tempered Nile silt 8. Sandy Marl 9. Sand tempered Nile silt 11. Dung tempered Nile silt 12. Marl clay mixed with Nile silt 21. Coarse organic tempered Nile silt 22. Fine Untempered "Plum Red" Nile silt 26. Fine organic tempered Nile silt 27. Grog and coarse organic tempered Nile silt 100. Palestinian fabric
Table 3. Friedman Surface Treatment.2
Surface Treatment Coating 0. Uncoated 1. Red slip 2. Black slip 3. Brown slip 4. Black and red slip 6. Whitish slip 7. Self slip
1 Note: Data from Friedman 1994:167
2 Note: Data from Friedman 1994:167
18
Table 3 (Continued)
8. Red wash 10. Worn 24. Black and brown slip
Table 4. Friedman Decorations.3
Decoration 1. White paint 2. Red paint 3. Rippling 4. Punctuation 5. Inpresses/Incised designs 6. "Half polished" 7. Indentation 16. Milled rim
Table 5. Friedman Finishes.4
Finish 0. Untreated 1. High grade burnish/polish 2. Streak burnish 3. Pattern burnish 5. Burnished while moist 7. Roughened 10. Worn 22. Streak polished
3 Note: Data from Friedman 1994:167 4 Note: Data from Friedman 1994:167
19
Table 6. Adaïma Typology.5
Level 1: Pastes A- Alluvial AM- Alluvial with mineral inclusions AV- Alluvial with vegetable/organic inclusions C- Limestone P- Platelets
Level 2: Finishing Technique 1. Unenclosed surface unpolished 2. Red surface, may not be enclosed, polished 5. Polished non enclosed surface 6. Buff surface, may not be enclosed, polished 7. Buff surface, may not be enclosed, unpolished 8. Red surface, enclosed, unpolished
Level 3: Specific Techniques a. Specific firing b. Rough c. Smoky edge d. Partial slip e. Non uniform polish f. Raised surface g. Painted decoration h. Printed decoration i. Incised decoration j. Clear appearance of red slip l. excised decoration m. Molded/patterned decoration n. Non-slip covering applied by sweeping
Level 4: Quality of Material P-body F-base FAC- complete form, intact B- rim
Level 5: Form F1- round bottom F2- flat bottom F3-pointed bottom F4- flattened bottom F5- raised bottom
5 Note: Data from Midant-Reynes and Buchez 2002:170-172.
20
Table 6 (Continued)
Level 6: Precision a-simple edge b- lip edge with variation Level 7: Precision (Morphology) Table #
Level 8: Petrie's Equivalent
Table 7. Adaïma’s Morphology.6
Code Form 1 and 2 Open form
1a Oblique convex wall without a rim 1a1 Strait sided 1a3 Thick wall 1b Oblique convex wall with a rim 1b1 Bulging rim 1b2 External slanted rim, horizontal or hanging 1b3 Coiled rim emphasized by external groove 1b4 Triangular rim 1b5 Flattened edge 2a Oblique concave wall without a rim 2a1 Slightly everted wall 2a2 Very everted wall 2a3 Thick wall 2b Oblique concave wall with a rim 2b1 Bulging rim 2b2 External slanted rim, horizontal or hanging
3 and 4 Closed form 3a Without a neck, without a rim 3a1 Wall slightly tipping 3a2 With curvature 3a3 Very slanted walls 3b Without a neck, with a rim 3b1 Bulging rim, vertical clearance 3b2 External rim, slanted
6 Note: Data from Midant-Reynes and Buchez 2002:171-172.
21
Table 7 (Continued)
3b3 Coiled rim emphasized by external groove 3b4 Triangular rim with upper flat surface 3b5 Flattened edge 3b6 Groove in upper edge (in relation to a lid) 3b7 Square rim 4a With a neck, without a rim 4a1 Vertical clearence, short neck 4a2 Flared high neck 4a3 Tapered neck 4a4 Cylindrical neck 4b With a neck, with a rim 4b1 Flared short neck, bulging rim 4b2 Flared high neck, bulging rim 4b3 Tapered neck, bulging rim 4b4 Short neck, rim or triangular flat upper surface 5 Cylindrical 5b Without a rim 5b1 Bulging rim
22
Bibliography
Anderson, David A.
2006 Power and Competition in the Upper Egyptian Predynastic: A View from the Predynastic Settlement at el-Mahâsna, Egypt. Ph.D. dissertation University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.
Bard, Kathryn A.
1994 The Egyptian Predynastic: A Review of the Evidence. Journal of Field Archaeology 21(3):265-288.
2000 The Emergence of the Egyptian State. In The Oxford History of Ancient
Egypt, edited by Ian Shaw, pp 57-82. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Buchez, Nathalie
2011a Adaïma (Upper Egypt): The Stages of State Development from the Point of View of a ‘Village Community’. In Egypt at its Origins 3. Proceedings of the Third International Conference “Origin of the State. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt”, London, 27th July – 1st August 2008. Edited by R.F. Friedman and P.N Fiske, pp 31-40. Peeters, Leuven.
2011b A Reconsideration of Predynastic Chronology: The Contribution of
Adaïma. In Egypt at its Origins: Studies in Memory of Barbara Adams. Proceedings of the International Conference “Origin of the State. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt”, Kraków, 28th August - 1t September 2002. Edited by S. Hendrickx; R.F. Friedman, K.M. Ciaowicz, and M. Chodnicki, pp. 939-951. Peeters, Leuven.
Friedman, Renee Frances
1994 Predynastic Settlement Ceramics of Upper Egypt: A Comparative Study of the Ceramics of Hamamieh, Nagada, and Hierakonpolis. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.
23
Hendrickx, Stan and Pierre Vermeersch
2000 Prehistory: From Palaeolithic to the Badarian Culture. In The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt, edited by Ian Shaw, pp 16-40. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Midant-Reynes, Béatrix
2000a The Naqada Period. In The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt, edited by Ian Shaw, pp 41-56. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
2000b The Prehistory of Egypt: From the First Egyptians to the First Pharaohs.
Translated by Ian Shaw. Blackwell, Oxford
Midant-Reynes, Béatrix and Nathalie Buchez
2002 Adaïma.1. Économie et habitat. Fouilles de l’Institue français d’archéologie orientale, number 45. Cairo.
Petrie, W.M. Flinders
1899 Sequence in Prehistoric Remains. Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain29: 295-301. London.
1901 Diospolis Parva. Egyptian Exploration Fund, volume 20. London. 1920 Prehistoric Egypt. British School of Archaeology in Egypt, volume 31.
London
Petrie, W.M. Flinders and J.E. Quibell
1896 Naqada and Ballas. British School of Archaeology in Egypt, 1. London.