Abstract
This publication is the third volume in the Umm el-Qaab series of recent work on archaeological materials from the early cemetery at Abydos, excavated and edited under the auspices of the German Archaeological Institute in Cairo. It deals with the archaeological discoveries in the important Predynastic Cemetery U, specifically the early pit graves and their inventories. It complements the data provided in three previously published volumes of the series relating to this cemetery: on tomb U-j (Umm el-Qaab I, by Günter Dreyer), imported pottery vessels (Umm el-Qaab II, also by Ulrich Hartung), and the pottery from the pit graves (Umm el-Qaab IV, by Rita Hartmann).
It is a most impressive scholarly publication, not least because of its weight of 5.4 kg, but in particular because of its enormous value for studies on Predynastic Egypt, and it has been long-awaited.
Cemetery U comprises 676 pits of different periods, the majority (552) being relatively simple sand pits dating between early Naqada I and late Naqada II (c. 3800–3400 BCE; see below). Only 36 graves are lined with mudbrick walls dating from late Naqada II to IIIB (c. 3400–3100 BCE), which are excluded from this publication, as are 86 pits of uncertain function. Although the number of graves and the large number and variety of artefacts published here are extraordinary, justifying the space and detail allocated for their publication, it should be noted that only 20 pit graves were found undisturbed, and only fifteen more had relatively well-preserved remains of burials and their grave goods in what seem to be primary or secondary contexts, which significantly reduces the ability to draw major conclusions from this cemetery.
The book is divided into two parts: Part I presents a description and synthesis of the archaeological data, both from the recent excavations in the cemetery under the direction of Günter Dreyer and Ulrich Hartung between 1980 and 2001, and material excavated in the late nineteenth century by Émile Amélineau and later by Thomas E. Peet. This part also includes chapters on different topics authored by specialists, such as on wood identification (chapter 7 by Margret Fischer), stone tools (chapter 8 by Thomas Hikade), animal remains (chapter 9 by Verle Linseele and Joris Peters), and human remains (chapter 10 by Albert Zink). Part II contains the catalogue of all the pit graves with a basic verbal description and inventory list followed by line-drawings of the graves and their contents (plates 1–234), together with photographs of selected graves (plates 235–257).
In the first chapter Ulrich Hartung provides a short introduction outlining the topography of the site, the history of research and a brief section on the method of archaeological investigation. The author proceeds in Chapter 2 with presenting his findings in relation to the state of preservation, relative and absolute dating, size and orientation of the graves, as well as the spatial development of the cemetery over time and certain particular features of the site, including pottery deposits and animal graves. It should be noted that the relative dating of the graves was made difficult due to the poor state of preservation of most of the graves and that the cemetery’s phases were mainly devised by R. Hartmann on the basis of the pottery, which was found in abundance. Only half of the graves are dated relatively securely, which is actually not a bad result in comparison with many other sites of the period. The pit graves cover two main phases of occupation, with the earliest dating from Naqada IA to early II and the later dating to Naqada II(C)/D. It is worth mentioning that with its beginning in a previously undefined early phase of Naqada IA, Cemetery U is one of the earliest sites, if not the earliest known site, where material culture of the Naqada period has been identified. At the other end of the chronological spectrum, the excavators drew a line to the mudbrick-lined tombs which are said to start with Naqada IIIA (p. 37), although the pottery analysis by Hartmann and the author of this review revealed that this clear division may not be appropriate given the overlap of material culture in a number of pit graves and mudbrick-lined tombs dating to Naqada IID (this is also mentioned on p. 39 n.78 and p. 41).
As to the absolute chronology, this publication draws together a number of previously published and new radiocarbon dates, in total sixteen datings, which, however, are presented in their raw form in fig. 2.5 without having been subjected to any form of statistical modelling for this publication. They have been included and modelled in Michael Dee et al.’s 2013 study on early Egyptian absolute chronology, nevertheless.
It is also interesting to note that more than a third of the graves are smaller than 1 m2, that less than one-third are larger than 2 m2, and that most graves are less than 1.5 m deep. This means that the vast majority of the graves in Cemetery U represent relatively simple burials which also mainly date to Phase I. The largest pit grave observed was tomb U-210 with a volume of over 20 m3 and dating to Phase II, as do most of the large pit graves at the site. The mudbrick-lined tombs continue this trend since they also tend to be larger in volume, culminating with tomb U-j of Naqada IIIA, which has a volume of over 100 m3. Unsurprisingly, there is a correlation between the number of grave goods and the grave size (fig. 2.10) and Hartung interprets these patterns as evidence for the site developing into an exclusive elite cemetery from late Naqada II onwards.
He also observed a degree of variability in the orientation of the graves, even among neighbouring tombs, and suggests that the orientation may have taken the variable location of the sunset at the horizon as a point of reference for the burial (fig. 2.16). Where preserved, most burials were found lying on the left side with the head in the south, with only very few examples on the right side facing east. Additionally, at the beginning of the site’s occupation, there was no apparent horizontal stratigraphy or clustering of graves, which only developed over time, with six groups or clusters emerging until early Naqada II, and a seventh group appearing at that time. This pattern is suggested to indicate a deliberate design of the cemetery from early on, with the clusters possibly representing family groups of different social status that grew together over time because of intermarriage, although Group 7 is interpreted as a possible new population group that only started in Naqada I/II (p. 56).
Chapter 3 outlines the evidence for structural modifications and support of the graves with matting, wooden posts, or mud to stabilise the sand pit and to protect the burial. One very good example is U-200, which exhibited several preserved vertical wooden posts that were interconnected with horizontal wooden boards (fig. 3.1). Also a rather unusual feature was a dry wall of field stones in U-149 about 60–80 cm high, with traces of mud, that may have represented the foundation of a roof cover. Very few graves had preserved timber laid across the (lower) pit covered by matting, which itself was plastered with mud. Because the graves rarely overlapped or cut into each other, Hartung suggests that they may have been marked at the surface, but the poor state of preservation made this impossible to ascertain.
The few preserved burials indicate that the human remains were clearly protected from the environment by animal skins, textiles, basketry, and later also wooden and ceramic body containers. Hartung defines six burial types with – sometimes overly complicated – sub-groups which he describes in much detail and with helpful graphs that illustrate the enormous variability of burials in the cemetery in time and over time.
Chapter 4 discusses the numerous mobile furnishings of the graves and is generally structured according to the raw materials of the artefacts; they include stone vessels, mace heads, palettes, stone implements, gaming pieces, ornaments and cosmetic utensils, figurines, metal objects, and various organic materials. Some of these artefacts are remarkable pieces of prehistoric craftsmanship and artistry, such as delicately shaped (‘ripple-flake’) flint knives with carved ivory handles from tomb U-503 or objects made of hard stones like basalt and porphyry, which again underline the socio-economic significance of some of the individuals buried in the cemetery. Notably, however, Hartung rightly offers an alternative to an earlier interpretation by Dreyer that elaborate ivory staffs such as that from tomb U-j may well have served as symbolic chisels instead of heka sceptres.
In Chapter 5, Hartung presents his conclusions and interpretations of the cemetery and emphasises how Cemetery U came to be appreciated as a Predynastic elite cemetery only relatively late in comparison with the other important sites at Hierakonpolis and Naqada. He concludes that, while there are limitations owing to the poor preservation of the majority of graves, it is possible to draw an overall picture of the site’s chronological development from an early phase with a wide distribution of numerous small and medium-sized graves clustered in family groups, to a later phase with fewer but significantly larger graves. It is these that Hartung interprets as burials of upper-class individuals or elites that would stand in a direct line with the Early Dynastic royal tombs. He, and previously also Hartmann in volume IV of the Umm el-Qaab series, had observed a conspicuous gap in the cemetery’s occupation during Naqada IIB–C, which Hartung sees as consistent with the picture arising from the analysis of other cemeteries in the Abydos region. He interprets this decrease in grave numbers as evidence for a possible emigration of society at this time, and a return of that society in Naqada IID, indicated by the deliberate placement of burials in direct proximity to large tombs of the early phase. The owners of these graves, according to Hartung, may have been descendants of the earlier occupants or members of a non-local elite.
Moreover, the author describes how changes in the composition of grave goods may reflect variable funerary beliefs and a variable combination of social strata. Although the elite character of the later tombs is evident, Hartung posits that some graves of the earlier phase may also have had a similar character given the numerous mud figurines representing hippos and bulls as well as the iconography of elaborately painted C-Ware vessels of this period, which he interprets as an ideological claim of strength and power of their owners. It is interesting to note, though, that the examination of the human remains produced a somewhat different picture of the population buried in this cemetery. Albert Zink concluded that the consistent evidence for degenerative joint diseases and physical stress among adults points to this community having engaged in hard physical labour. Also, the very few injuries and lack of trauma suggesting interpersonal conflict would indicate that the population buried in Cemetery U was a peaceful society (p. 363).
In conclusion, all this evidence is interpreted by focusing on the site’s special significance not only for the Abydos region, but also for all of Upper Egypt, as a funerary centre for the ‘Naqada elites’, which Hartung believes was the reason why the Early Dynastic kings were later buried at Umm el-Qaab (p. 270). He argues for this interpretation because of the area’s apparent lack of economic significance, as indicated by an absence of major Predynastic settlement remains, although it should be noted that the region’s archaeological evidence is very much limited to sites along the edges of the low desert, with a vast body of evidence probably being buried in the alluvial plain and thus unknown. Hartung also posits that, beside the symbolic significance of the early ancestors’ tombs at the site, the cemetery’s natural setting at the foot of a major desert wadi – in reprojection of Dreyer’s interpretation of the landscape’s religious character in Early Dynastic times – was also a key factor in the site’s location in Predynastic times. While the architecture and design of the later royal tombs, as well as early inscriptions, certainly invite considerations as to the religious focus in relation to the ritual landscape, the suggestion that the later idea of the tomb of Osiris at Umm el-Qaab may have its origins in the fourth millennium BCE seems somewhat farfetched. Caution is advised because there is no direct reference to the wadi in the Predynastic graves and because Cemetery U is the most distant area from the wadi at Umm el-Qaab. Hartung’s interpretations and theories about the significance and meaning of these burials, especially given their unique character and wealth in archaeological data, at times seem overly traditional and not founded in scientific theoretical or modern Egyptological approaches. This publication is hence well-situated within twentieth century archaeological research but the exquisite quality and level of detail of the documentation of the evidence clearly make up for this and now enable fresh approaches to the interpretation of such important data from one of the key archaeological sites of Predynastic Egypt.