Return to Nag el-Qarmila and Lower Nubia for some considerations about Early Predynastic chronology

Introduction

The analysis of the ceramic materials recovered in the predynastic settlement and necropolis WK15 and WK14 at Nag el-Qarmila (Aswan, Egypt, fig. 1) was recently resumed in the frame of the TECHNOPREGYPT Project (Polonez Bis 1, co-financed by the European Union and the Polish National Science Centre), in collaboration with the Aswan-Kom Ombo Archaeological Project (AKAP) and the BORDERSCAPE Project (POLS, co-financed by the Norway Grants and the Polish National Science Centre).¹ This led to a discussion on some vessel types with Nathalie Buchez and Rita Hartmann, which opened the possibility that some of the types dated to Naqada IC may be older than currently thought.

The pottery material retrieved in Nag el-Qarmila by AKAP, a joint venture between University of Bologna and the Polish Academy of Sciences co-directed by Maria Carmela Gatto and Antonio Curci, was first studied by the late Stan Hendrickx, who created a chrono-typology mainly based on diagnostic fragments from the 2007-2008 excavations, and by Maria Carmela Gatto and the late Hans-Åke Nordström, who analyzed the Nubian fabrics.² According to the pottery assemblage coming from the first occupational phases of the settlement WK15, S. Hendrickx dated the earliest phase of the site to Naqada IC-beginning of IIA, and the second phase to Naqada IIC-IIIA2, based on the relative chronology resulting from the fundamental work of chronological reassessment carried out by Stan himself.³ Later, in 2016, Rita Hartmann revised the first stages of the relative chronology of the so-called Naqada Culture in light of a very comprehensive seriation work she did on the pottery assemblages from Cemetery U in Umm el-Qaab/Abydos and of other Upper Egyptian sites.⁴ Her reexamination prompted Nathalie Buchez to reconsider the chronology of the most ancient tombs of Adaima, which until then had been dated to Naqada IC.⁵ It emerged instead that the pottery contained in tombs S55, S28, and S42 located in the cemetery,⁶ in tombs 9000-U2-13b and 4001/21d found in the settlement,⁷ and a small number of sherds retrieved in the settlement layers, were comparable to diagnostic types dated to the Naqada IA phase by Hartmann, thus predating the foundation of the site of Adaima. These important results made it necessary to do a re-evaluation of the material from Nag el-Qarmila and Lower Nubia, and this is what we propose in the present paper. In fact, as already stated by Buchez,⁸ the impact of the broadening of the chronological range to include the most ancient phases of Naqada I (Naqada IA and B) for sites until now dated from Naqada IC would directly influence the model proposed by Kaiser⁹ which sees the diffusion of the so-called Naqada Culture from the Abydos region towards the south, which has sometimes been recalled but never discussed in depth,¹⁰ with the exception of a recent contribution by Hartung.¹¹ Consequently, this is a topic that requires attention, and with our preliminary analysis, we want to rekindle the discussion on the subject.

This contribution, therefore, draws on and, in some ways, completes the article submitted by Nathalie Buchez for the volume of tributes to S. Hendrickx. And there is no better place to publish it than this volume dedicated to Nathalie’s long and fruitful career.

Materials and method

The present study uses the typological analysis of the ceramic assemblage and its comparison with the relative chronologies elaborated by R. Hartmann¹² and N. Buchez¹³ to re-evaluate the position of the analyzed material within the relative chronology of the Naqada Culture. The assemblages considered are those coming from WK15 and WK14 excavated by the AKAP team at Nag el-Qarmila, kept in the storehouse of Kom Ombo and, on a bibliographic basis, the ceramic material from the excavations carried out by George Andrew Reisner and the Archaeological Survey of Nubia south of the First Cataract. Concerning the material from WK14 and WK15, the whole corpus was revised, while for the ceramics retrieved by Reisner, only the samples available in the volume published in 1910 and in the online catalogue of the Museum of Fine Arts Boston¹⁴ have been considered.

As with most sites of Upper Egypt, the stratigraphic disturbance related to the sandy context and the clandestine excavations in search of sebakh (fertile soil from archaeological sites) and archaeological finds also affected the preservation of WK14 and WK15, particularly the necropolis. For this reason, it has unfortunately not been possible to elaborate an internal relative chronology for the site of Nag el-Qarmila. Nevertheless, Hartmann’s study has shown that, despite the presence of local variations, the relative chronology developed for Umm el-Qaab/Abydos is also applicable to other sites in Upper Egypt.¹⁵

Background

The settlement WK15 and the cemetery WK14 are the southernmost predynastic sites recently investigated (apart from the settlement of Elephantine, which is, however, slightly later and larger in size and scope). The sites, located approximately 17 km north of Aswan on the west bank of the Nile, in a small valley facing the river, were partially excavated between 2007-2008 and 2012 by AKAP (fig. 1 and 2).¹⁶ At that time, their preservation was good enough to provide valuable archaeological information; now they have been severely damaged by new building construction. A series of areas were excavated in the village (WK15) and cemetery (WK14), as well as a storage facility located on the first terrace of the slope overlooking the valley from the south (WK22) (fig. 2).

The cemetery WK14, found on the northern wadi terrace, was poorly preserved because of the sandy sediment in combination with wind erosion, ancient plundering, and modern disturbance that resulted in major post-depositional damage to the tombs. A concentration of artefacts defined the area of the cemetery; its maximum extension was estimated to be around 65 x 50 m, of which approximately half was excavated. The tombs found in the north-western portion of the site were placed on a Middle Pleistocene dune; the rest were dug into a Late Pleistocene alluvial deposit. Out of 60 identified features, 32 were excavated and turned out to be tombs, of which only two were intact (tombs 14 and 59).

The settlement WK15 is located near the cemetery but closer to the wadi bottom on a Late Pleistocene alluvial deposit and was indicated by a concentration of material, the maximum extension of which was estimated to be approximately 60 x 60 m. The analysed ceramics come from excavation Area B, a 5 x 8 m unit that was investigated to evaluate the site’s nature and state of preservation. The remains of the settlement primarily consist of fireplaces, postholes and in situ material. No areas dedicated to specific activities have been identified. Three radiocarbon determinations were made on samples from the first occupational phase (composed of two main occupation layers: Layer 16 is the earliest in the sequence, superimposed by Layer 11), providing a date for the village’s main occupation to the first half of the 4th millennium BC (3900-3600 cal. BC).¹⁷

The area Reisner and his team investigated between 1907 and 1908 goes from the Shellal Plain, south of the First Nile Cataract, to Bab el-Kalabsha. The mission, funded by the Egyptian Government, provided a systematic archaeological survey of the valley, which would later be submerged by the increase in the reservoir of the Aswan Dam, which came into operation in 1902.¹⁸ Of the many excavated sites, those where the material of the period covered by this study was found are Cemetery 17, located in Khor Bahn, and Cemetery 45, located close to Wadi Shem Nishei (fig. 1).

Results

In the assemblage of WK14 and WK15 some shapes now considered characteristic of the first stages of the Naqada period have been identified. These shapes are: small Black-Topped cups with a slightly rounded profile and slightly recessed direct rim (fig. 3, b and 4, c), or with a carinated profile and direct rim (fig. 3, a and 4, a), Black-Topped beakers with straight walls, direct or flaring rim and slightly squat proportions (fig. 3, c, f and 4, d), and small bowls with flat base and everted and slightly flattened rim (fig. 3, e and 4, b). The latter are often decorated with white paint on a burnished red background (C-Ware/White-Crossed-Lines in Petrie’s classification),¹⁹ but in the case of Nag el-Qarmila the only known example is without decoration. These are associated with less distinctive forms such as Red-Polished bowls with a rounded base (fig. 3, i) and Black-Topped beakers with straight walls and slightly flaring rim (fig. 3, g-h) –types that are also common during Naqada IC-IIA–, and carinated Red Polished bowls which are however rather rare and a bit random, difficult to date. These types of vessels find comparisons in the oldest assemblage of Adaima,²⁰ retrieved in the Western Necropolis (tombs S55, S28, S42),²¹ in two tombs found in the settlement (9000-U2-13b and 4001/21d),²² and in the settlement. And these same shapes have been pointed out as diagnostic of the first stage of the Naqada Culture by R. Hartmann in her seriation of the pottery material from the cemetery U, ϕ, X, E and C, at Umm el-Qaab/Abydos, Matmar, Mostagedda, Badari, Hemamieh, Qau el-Qebir, Nag ed-Dêr 7000, Mahasna H, Salmany, Amrah a and b, Naqada, and Armant 14/1500.²³ From her work, in particular, it emerges that some specific forms are diagnostic of the period Naqada IA, such as the carinated vessels, the small cups, and the small bowls with flat bases and everted and slightly flattened rims, in addition to other single types that have been dated to the early phases by the seriation analysis (fig. 5).²⁴ Given the presence of these forms also in the Nag el-Qarmila assemblage, it is no longer possible to restrict the initial occupation of the site to the Naqada IC phase but the range must be widened to include the oldest phase and backdating the first occupation of the site. We are aware that relative chronologies may vary from site to site, with forms and surface treatments appearing earlier or later but the data illustrated no longer allow us to restrict the dating to Naqada IC alone.

This new relative chronology is also compatible with the radiometric dating obtained for WK15 that sets the first occupation of the settlement during the first half of the 4th millennium BC (ca. 3900-3600 cal. BC),²⁵ with the radiometric dating from a context possibly related to an old pottery assemblage at Adaima (3700-3500 cal. BC),²⁶ and by their comparison with the chronological sequence formulated by Dee et al. ²⁷

Consulting the radiocarbon dating work done by Dee et al.²⁸ has made us notice that some typological dating of the tombs from where their samples were collected has since changed based on Hartmann’s research.²⁹ We have therefore updated the sample list with Hartmann’s new proposed dating for the chronological range spanning from Naqada IA to Naqada IID2 (see tab. 1). Unfortunately, we were only able to update 25 contexts, as for the unpublished tombs (and not revised by Hartmann) we could not see the material to verify the relative dating. After updating the relative chronology of the tombs, we verified if something changed in the distribution of the time spans for every Naqada phase. Even if the dates now follow one another more coherently and it has been possible to better date the oldest phase (tab. 1), still, the results were more or less the same as those obtained by Dee et al. The sub-phases continue to overlap to some extent, especially toward the end of Naqada II. As a result, the doubts raised by Dee and colleagues on the chronological succession of the typological sub-phases and, consequently, about the relevance of typological dating to date contexts that perhaps had an asynchronous development remain and need to be addressed in the future with more in-depth studies. In particular, it is necessary to review the relative dating of all the contexts included in the study by Dee et al. 2013 and 2014, possibly by organizing a workshop gathering together specialists in relative chronology and absolute dating to link these two on a more solid basis. In fact, even radiocarbon dating, with its wide calibration ranges, poses problems in dating sub-phases and it is not sufficient by itself to clarify this issue. Especially when performed on the content of tombs excavated long ago and preserved in museums, for which we are not sure that the sampled organic material definitely comes from a specific tomb and in association with the typologically dated pottery.

Concerning the sites investigated by Reisner south of the cataract, a revision of the material available in publications allowed us to confirm that most of the earlier ceramic assemblages date to Naqada IC (see in particular Cemetery 17 located in Khor Bahan).³⁰ Two tombs, however, have yielded two ceramic forms attributable to an older phase: tomb no. 208 found in cemetery 45 (roughly 500 m north of Wadi Shem Nishei),³¹ and tomb 47 in cemetery 17 (Kor Bahan).³² These two shapes consist in the first case of a Black-Topped cup (fig. 3, m), and in the second case of a carinated cup (fig. 3, l). These forms find comparison in the Nag el-Qarmila assemblage and, in Hartmann’s relative chronology, are dated to Naqada IA-beginning of IB. The shapes just described are accompanied by beakers and bowls, which can be found throughout the Naqada I and which, for this reason, cannot be dated more precisely.

The impossibility of making a complete revision of the material excavated by Reisner for this preliminary article does not allow us to formulate new hypotheses on the dating of the sites he investigated but is enough to raise some doubts about the widely accepted dating starting from Naqada IC. Comprehensive revision work would, therefore, be necessary to explore this possibility.

Discussion and conclusions

Based on the new dating proposed by Hartmann³³ for several sites of northern Upper Egypt, for Adaima by Buchez,³⁴ for Elkab by Claes et al.,³⁵ and on the new data presented here, we can preliminarily state that several sites south of the regions of Umm el-Qaab/Abydos and Naqada are equally ancient and were founded during the Naqada IA phase and not during Naqada IC as generally stated. This is true up to the area north of Aswan (Nag el-Qarmila). Further south, the evidence is actually limited to two tombs perhaps preceding Naqada IC identified in cemetery 45 close to Wadi Shem Nishei and cemetery 17 in Kohr Bahan –but a complete review of the material (not fully available in publications) would be necessary to confirm or not these latter results.

The high C14 dating obtained for the settlements also seems to point to this same conclusion and makes it necessary to reconsider the settling pattern of Upper Egypt. However, we must keep in mind that C14 dating records rather wide chronological ranges, which do not allow us to appreciate variations in close proximity over time, and that the relative chronologies may vary from site to site, with shapes and surface treatments appearing at different times.

As already observed by Hartung in his analysis of the funeral landscape of the Abydos region,³⁶ it is however very interesting to note how the material datable to Naqada IA is much more numerous at the sites of Umm el-Qaab/Abydos, Naga ed-Dêr 7000, Mahasna H, Naqada,³⁷ and Abadiya 2,³⁸ while the further south (and north) you go, the rarer it is. How to explain this phenomenon? According to Hartung, this tendency testifies that the Naqada culture originated in this specific region and that the Cemetery U of Umm el-Qaab/Abydos was a reference point for the burial first of the chiefs and then of the elite of the communities settled in the region. This is said on the basis of the fact that artefacts dating to Naqada I are more abundant in the Cemetery U and also more prestigious, while instead the traces of settlement in the same region are very scarce, and nothing suggests the presence of a large settlement which was the site of the social and economic developments visible in the funerary context.³⁹ Consequently, the results of our reevaluation of the data, although showing a greater geographical spread of communities datable to Naqada IA-B, for the spatial and quantitative distribution of material is still compatible with the hypothesis expressed by Kaiser⁴⁰ and reformulated by Hartmann⁴¹ and Hartung.⁴²

Nevertheless, considering the wider, albeit quantitatively limited, distribution of material datable to the early phases of Naqada I from Middle Egypt to the First Cataract, we cannot state with certainty that the Naqada culture developed in the Abydos region, other hypothesis should be explored. However, the preeminent importance of the Abydos region must certainly be recognised, as it likely possessed some form of spiritual appeal for the communities living in the Nile Valley, and which prompted them to choose it as a common burial site at the regional (and supra-regional?) level.⁴³

The pronounced, and in several cases unique, characteristics of the ceramics from Abydos and Naqada could make detailed dating of these sites easier. Whereas, on the other hand, minor necropolis (with tombs often containing one or two pots) and habitation sites in more distant areas are characterised by simple vessel shapes that are long-lasting and common throughout the whole Naqada I period. Often, moreover, the poor state of preservation of the funerary sites (e.g., the case of Nag el-Qarmila) does not allow for pottery seriation work to be done. It is possible therefore that there is more material dated to Naqada I at these sites but we do not see it. Another contributing cause could also be due to the characteristics of the sites further south, which are smaller, and perhaps the area less inhabited. With the data at our disposal we cannot even exclude that the uneven distribution of the Naqada IA-B material is due to problems related to excavation: for example, the site has not been excavated in its entirety, or it was dug up a long time ago, or it was only partially published. It is true, however, that this disparity is confirmed at Adaima, which has been extensively investigated. There is certainly no single explanation to justify the phenomenon described; it is likely a combination of various dynamics that we cannot better define at the moment. What remains, however, is the fact that below Armant the first Naqada settlements do not date from Naqada IC but are earlier. It would, therefore, be important to review all the material from other sites in Upper Egypt but also in Middle Egypt to verify their relative chronology and possibly confirm the results. The ideal would be a multidisciplinary approach that combines material analysis (not only ceramics but all types of predynastic artefacts) and C14 dating and/or alternative dating methods, even though the application of new dating methods is currently not easy on Egyptian excavations, nor is the application of destructive analysis on museum material. Perhaps a workshop that brings together specialists in typological studies and dating methods would be the most suitable option to deal with this topic and better understand the development of the so-called Naqada culture and its relationship with contemporary groups living in the neighbouring regions or with whom they shared spaces.⁴⁴

Funding

This research is part of the TECHNOPREGYPT Project No. 2021/43/P/HS3/03262 co-funded by the Polish National Science Centre and the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement no. 945339. For the purpose of Open Access, the author has applied a CC-BY public copyright license to any Author Accepted Manuscript (AAM) version arising from this submission. This analysis has been done in collaboration with the Aswan-Kom Ombo Archaeological Project and the BORDERSCAPE Project, the latter funded by the Norwegian Financial Mechanism 2014-2021 through the Norway Grants and the National Science Centre of Poland, Grant POLS 2020/37/K/HS3/04097.

Aknowledgments

We are sincerely grateful to Rita Hartmann for revising our paper and providing fruitful comments and to Nathalie Buchez for planting the seed of doubt about the dating of the oldest pottery from Nag el-Qarmila.