Abstract
This paper is investigating the use of rock art by local/regional powers in the Lower Nile Valley in the late 4th millennium bc. It situates the rock art record in its historical and archaeological settings and proposes methodological options (which are, in some cases, still theoretical) to elucidate it further in its social context. Two research questions are addressed: the first one discusses the existence of rock art commissioned by authorities and the criteria that could help identify them. The second deals with the ways in which rock art may express political power. The iconographic and technical aspects of rock art are discussed. This preliminary survey suggests that rock art specialists appeared at the end of the Predynastic period and that rock art may have been a strategic element in the competition between the polities that were rising in the Lower Nile Valley at that time.
1 Introduction
Rock art is a common form of visual media practised in the Lower Nile Valley since the Palaeolithic.1 In Upper Egypt and Lower Nubia, the bulk of Prehistoric petroglyphs belongs to the 5th to early 3rd millennium bc;2 a period which saw the development of the Predynastic (Badarian and Naqada i-ii: c. 4500–3325 bc), Protodynastic (“Dynasty 0”: Naqada iiia-b, c. 3325–3085) and Early Dynastic (First and Second Dynasties: Naqada iiic-d, c. 3085–2686 bc) chrono-cultural phases. Although rock art is notoriously difficult to date, Predynastic iconography attested on a variety of media (pots, palettes, ivory objects, stone vases, etc.) offers numerous parallels which help build typological analogies.3 Indeed, catalogues of Egyptian pre-Pharaonic rock art4 mainly display images of human figures (often capped with feathers and armed with a bow), animals, and boats, most of which can be found in the repertoire of Predynastic art. These images are sometimes combined to create visual compositions which are generally considered to express ideological and symbolic concepts narrowly associated with the notion of the primacy of ‘Order over Chaos’ and the exaltation of the power and superiority of local elites.5 Other hypothetical functions of Predynastic rock art, less commonly accepted, refer to funerary rituals and rites de passage.6 Because of this association of figurative drawings to create scenes that are symbolically meaningful, such compositions are sometimes labelled as “complex” in opposition to panels engraved with petroglyphs that are “isolated” or “self-sufficient” because not inserted into a scripted composition (these isolated petroglyphs usually consist of animal depictions). Although the purpose and meaning of these isolated rock drawings still elude us, that does not allow us to consider them less intrinsically complex than scenes combining, for example, hunting activities, flotillas and processions of human figures topped with feathers. However, the latter bears testimony of a social complexity (social stratification, communal/ritual activities, possible expressions of religious beliefs, etc.), which is not the case for isolated petroglyphs.
Rock art studies in Egypt have gained in visibility in the past two decades. They generally focus on engravings that can be compared with the available archaeological material and the visual imagery of Predynastic, Protodynastic, Early Dynastic, and Pharaonic Egypt.7 Thousands of isolated and non-characteristic petroglyphs, often consisting of animal depictions and schematic human figures, still resist interpretation and chronological/cultural attribution. Although there are no precise statistics on the number of petroglyphs or decorated panels for each stage of the 4th millennium bc,8 it has been observed that Protodynastic and Early Dynastic petroglyphs are less common than their Predynastic counterparts.9 Those referring to kingship are even rarer and mainly limited to few serekhs (images of palace facades bearing the name of a king and surmounted by the falcon-god Horus), and to a few scenes depicting a crowned figure (identified as a ruler or a king).10 This crowned figure is often represented in or next to a boat. The limited number of examples of Proto-/Early Dynastic royal rock art compared to earlier periods gives the impression that rock art only partially integrates with the official media sets used by early regional rulers and kings in Egypt.
The use of rock art by local/regional authorities11 in the Lower Nile Valley during the second half of the 4th millennium bc warrants in-depth study as it may elucidate how the Nilotic and desert landscapes were integrated by local elites to impose codified messages of authority.12 It may also provide evidence of how these messages were disseminated, influenced, and appropriated by groups of different ethnic origins across the region at this watershed moment in the history of the Nile Valley. Facing these images, one wonders: how was rock art supposed to interfere with local communities? Were some engravings commissioned by local/regional authorities (on behalf of the ruler)? Did rock art only inform about pre-existent conditions of power/authority, or did it actively enforce those conditions? Did it express power through visibility/dimension/complexity and/or degree of aesthetic achievement? Were its supposed semantic aspects universally understandable to local/regional communities? To which extent does rock art tell us about how a particular area was integrated into the “organised world” of local communities?
The scope of these problems goes beyond the sole field of rock art studies. They are part of a new appraisal of the socio-ecology of the Lower Nile Valley (in this case, Upper Egypt and Lower Nubia) during the 4th millennium bc13 and of the role played by cohabiting forms of power in a multicultural environment characterised by borders and frontiers of various natures.14 In such a context, rock art, as a mediator between time and space, is a perfect case study.15
The author initiated in October 2023 a two-years research project called PowerArt16 to tackle these research questions. Among them, only two are raised in the following lines: is there any rock art commissioned by local/regional authorities (and, if yes, how could we prove it) and did rock art express power through visibility/dimension/complexity and/or degree of aesthetic achievement. Discussions are based on both published and unpublished data related to specific Upper Egyptian rock art sites (Sheikh Uthman, Wadi Hilal (Elkab), Wadi Abu Subeira, Sheikh Mohamed, Nag el-Hamdulab), but also on the data obtained from their direct observation in the field. The methodological aspects of the project, most of which is still theoretical at this stage, are introduced in a specific section of the paper. At the end of the day, this paper offers a general introduction to the PowerArt project. It focusses on its first phases which consists of situating the predynastic rock art record in its historical and archaeological settings, establishing a methodology for further elucidation of this record in its social context and providing food for thought for future studies dedicated to Nilotic rock art.
2 The Historical and Archaeological Contexts
Upper Egypt was the core region of the Predynastic culture, which is generally divided between the “Badarians” (c. 4500-3900 bc) and the “Naqadans” (c. 3900-2686 bc).17 Although members of the “Badarian group” have most certainly left their marks on rocks, the lack of iconographic material on other media generally prevents scholars from attributing specific petroglyphs to them.18 The “Naqadan”, or rather “Upper Egyptian Predynastic”, material culture spread through the entire territory of Egypt and in Lower Nubia in the second half of the 4th millennium bc. It mingled with local communities, namely the Lower Egyptian Culture in the North and the “A-Group”, or rather “Lower Nubian Predynastic”, in the First Cataract region and Lower Nubia. It is generally considered that this led to a first cultural unification of the land, which may have facilitated the political one achieved soon after it.19
This period is characterised by the development of early forms of power, or polities, in both Egypt and Nubia20 (Fig. 1), followed by the apparition of kingship and the development of writing in Egypt.21 These socio-political developments were accompanied by the appearance of an assembly of specialists in various crafts inside workshops producing exceptional objects for the authorities and diffusing their official discourses (painting, sculpture, rock art, etc.).22 Among these “powerfacts”23 produced by a limited number of specialists are painted ceramics made from marl clay extracted from restricted desert locales,24 flint “ripple-flaked” knifes,25 skilfully crafted/decorated ivory knife handles26 and boat models,27 stone vases, the production of which necessitates a high degree of specialisation,28 and objects made in exotic materials such as lapis lazuli and obsidian.29 This production of prestigious goods for the elite was accompanied by mass-production (mostly ceramics) and iconographic standardisation during Naqada iii, which strongly suggests the existence of specialised workshops. This standardised iconography is mainly composed of hunting and victory scenes involving human figures capped with feathers and with their arms curved above their head during Naqada i; flotillas (with or without the presence of a crown figure), and “ceremonial” actions involving dances, processions, subjugations of enemies (prisoners) during Naqada iic-iiib.30
Map of Egypt and Nubia
Citation: Old World: Journal of Ancient Africa and Eurasia 4, 1 (2024) ; 10.1163/26670755-04020001
© google earth; map modified by the authorThe emergence of kingship and the unification of the land of Egypt are the results of a complex process that remains a source of debates.31 Nomads/pastoral communities and desert peoples showing strong ties with southern Nubian regions were roaming the deserts (the Eastern Desert still seasonally offered some green areas and water supply points during the Predynastic despite the acceleration of the aridification process) and were in regular contact with the politically structured societies in the Valley.32 Their role in the socio-political process at play at that time has long been underestimated and remains to be evaluated, but it has certainly been important.33
Lower Nubia corresponds to the territory delimited by the first two cataracts of the Nile. Studied extensively at the beginning of the 20th century and within the framework of the unesco Campaign as a result of the construction of two dams south of Aswan,34 it has since been largely submerged by Lake Nasser. Archaeological research has confirmed the progressive stratification of the A-Group communities inhabiting this area,35 which “reached its peak at the time of the Egyptian unification, c. 3100 bc, to collapse soon after, around 2900 bc. Less famous than its northern neighbour, the A-Group is characterised by a distinctive pathway to complexity and power, which deviates in many respects to that followed by ancient Egypt, despite their contemporaneity, common roots and interplay”.36 At least two Protodynastic centres of power were identified at Sayala and Qustul in Lower Nubia.37 However, the ties with the Upper Egyptian material culture remained tangible through shared iconographic themes, particularly royal naval processions, depicted on objects found in Lower Nubian sites and in rock art.38
The Predynastic material culture in Lower Nubia (the “A-Group”) disappears from the archaeological records in the first half of the First Dynasty. The archaeological data does not allow us to describe accurately the political power that seems to have developed in Lower Nubia at that time. We do know, however, that the Predynastic groups in Lower Nubia were characterised by a high degree of mobility, a diverse economy, a strong connection with its pastoral roots, and a knowledge of the desert that was used to develop and control long-distance trade involving the Nile Valley, the deserts on both sides, and the Horn of Africa.39
The role played by Lower Nubia in the development of political and religious authority in Upper Egypt and the First Cataract deserved to be reassessed as the First Cataract region was neither completely dependent nor completely independent from the polities developing in what was to become the territory of Ancient Egypt.40 The Aswan-Kom Ombo region and the First Cataract were inhabited by a population mixing Upper Egyptian and Lower Nubian cultural traits41 and appears, indeed, as a strategic area. It is also, quite interestingly, in this “borderscape”42 that most of the documented official Early Dynastic rock art is found.43
Pre-, Proto-, and Early Dynastic figurative rock art is the product of all the various communities active in the Lower Nile Valley and its surrounding deserts for nearly two millennia (c.4500–2686 bc). Interestingly, it has been observed that these compositions seem to gradually diminish by early Naqada iii, as they give way to strategically located productions, such as inscriptions of a royal nature, commissioned by select and specific authorities.44 Such proto- and Early Dynastic rock images echoing official iconographic and craft productions, which had become standardised as they answered a predetermined visual program, are relatively rare. This explains the hitherto underestimated value of rock art for the analysis of the socio-political phenomena at play in Egypt and Nubia during the state formation period. However, this supposed rarity should probably be questioned as new, still unpublished, discoveries and the reappraisal of the available material suggest that local and regional early forms of power used rock art to shape their territory during the Protodynastic and Early Dynastic.
3 Corpus
Most of the prehistoric figurative rock art we know for the Lower Nile Valley and the surrounding deserts was published in a number of catalogues that serve us today as basis for study.45 Although numerous surveys allowed to significantly augment these catalogues,46 most of the surveyed material remains unpublished. This partial availability of the existing material and its dispersion in publications focusing on specific areas (Eastern Desert, Nile Valley, Western Desert, Lower Nubia) makes it difficult to properly evaluate the evolution of the use of rock art through time and space during the 4th millennium bc.
In recent years, most of the major discoveries were made in the Theban Western Desert, in the region of el-Hosh, Wadi Shatt el-Rigal and Gebel el-Silsila,47 in the archaeological district of Elkab and its eastern desert hinterland,48 and in the Kom Ombo-Aswan region, both in the deserts and the valley (fig. 2).49 This complements the classical map of Predynastic rock art in Egypt, which has long been dominated by Eastern Desert sites, few in the Western Desert and some others documented decades ago in the Nile Valley. In Lower Nubia, rock art was documented all along the Nile River by various expeditions organised in the frame of the construction of the Aswan Dam.50 It is now lost under Lake Nasser’s waters. New discoveries are thus concentrated in the Atbai, or Sudanese Eastern Desert.51 It is also worth mentioning the fact that all regions in Lower Nubia did not offer the same amount of rock surface from which to execute rock art. Western Lower Nubia and the region south of the Third Cataract, for example, were not as “rocky” than the Egyptian Eastern Desert.52
Map of Upper Egypt showing the rock art clusters mentioned in the text
wsr: Wadi Shatt el-Rigal; GeS: Gebel el-Silsila; was: Wadi Abu Subeira; nh: Nag el-Hamdulab.
Citation: Old World: Journal of Ancient Africa and Eurasia 4, 1 (2024) ; 10.1163/26670755-04020001
© google earth; map modified by the authorAmong these discoveries are several important examples of rock art that, as will be argued below, were commissioned by Protodynastic authorities or, at the very least, were narrowly associated with local/regional political power. Sites such as Sheikh Uthman53 near Elkab (1 panel, at least 4 phases; fig. 3-4), Wadi Abu Subeira54 (kass 1, at least 2 panels linked with political and religious power; fig. 5-6-7-8), Sheikh Mohamed55 (1 panel linked with political power (fig. 5, 9) and Nag el-Hamdulab56 (7 panels linked with political power; fig. 5, 10-11-12) are very informative in this regard. Although scholars familiar with official iconography of Early Egypt may find the identification of these panels as commissioned productions straightforward, it is nevertheless necessary to justify such an interpretation. Indeed, it is based on subjective readings of rock images and no scientific criteria have ever been set in order to differentiate rock images that refer to a form of social and/or political authority (rock panels produced by specialists working for the authorities) from others. Defining such criteria is mandatory before analysing these productions further. This paper focuses on these criteria and offers some suggestions for reflection.57
Map showing the localisation of Sheikh Uthman
Citation: Old World: Journal of Ancient Africa and Eurasia 4, 1 (2024) ; 10.1163/26670755-04020001
© google earth; map modified by the authorDrawing of panel 7 at Sheikh Uthman
Citation: Old World: Journal of Ancient Africa and Eurasia 4, 1 (2024) ; 10.1163/26670755-04020001
north of elkab, upper egypt; drawing by the authorMap showing the localisation of Sheikh Mohamed, Wadi Abu Subeira and Nag el-Hamdulab
Citation: Old World: Journal of Ancient Africa and Eurasia 4, 1 (2024) ; 10.1163/26670755-04020001
© google earth; map modified by the authorNaqada iiia-b (c. 3300-3100 bc) boat engraved at Wadi Abu subeira
Citation: Old World: Journal of Ancient Africa and Eurasia 4, 1 (2024) ; 10.1163/26670755-04020001
kass 1; photo by the authorComplex predynastic panel engraved at Wadi Abu subeira
Citation: Old World: Journal of Ancient Africa and Eurasia 4, 1 (2024) ; 10.1163/26670755-04020001
kass 1; photo by the authorNaqada iid-iiia (c. 3400-3300 bc) boat with standard topped by a falcon
Citation: Old World: Journal of Ancient Africa and Eurasia 4, 1 (2024) ; 10.1163/26670755-04020001
kass 1; photo by the authorNaqada iiib-c (c. 3100-3000 bc) boat at sm36 (Sheikh Mohamed; Aswan West Bank) after cleaning and its digital drawing
Citation: Old World: Journal of Ancient Africa and Eurasia 4, 1 (2024) ; 10.1163/26670755-04020001
photo and drawing by the authorNaqada iiia-b (c. 3300-3100 bc) royal scene at Nag el-Hamdulab
Citation: Old World: Journal of Ancient Africa and Eurasia 4, 1 (2024) ; 10.1163/26670755-04020001
site 7, panel 7; © aswan-kom ombo archaeological projectNaqada iiia-b (c. 3300-3100 bc) royal scene at Nag el-Hamdulab
Citation: Old World: Journal of Ancient Africa and Eurasia 4, 1 (2024) ; 10.1163/26670755-04020001
site 2, panel 2a; © aswan-kom ombo archaeological projectNaqada iiia-b (c. 3300-3100 bc) nautical scene at Nag el-Hamdulab
Citation: Old World: Journal of Ancient Africa and Eurasia 4, 1 (2024) ; 10.1163/26670755-04020001
site 2, panel 2c; © aswan-kom ombo archaeological project4 Methodology
Because this research project is still in its early stage, it is not yet possible to provide a definite methodology nor irrefutable examples supporting our various hypotheses. However, the main guidelines for the methodology that will be adopted can be broadly sketched out. A combined approach is favoured, involving, on the one hand, the gathering and analysis of published and archival material, and, on the other hand, the direct observation, recording and documentation of the engravings during fieldwork.58 Since the first approach does not require explanations, the focus will be on the second one.
In the field, all panels will be digitally drawn based on extensive photogrammetric recordings and 3D models. The photographs will be taken with a Nikon hybrid Z fc. The 3D models and orthomosaic files will be generated using MeshLab Direct. Each panel will then be digitally drawn directly on these orthomosaic files using a portable device (e.g. iPad).59 We have already applied this approach during a short mission in the winter of 2022 and it has proved its operability and effectiveness.60
Among the wide range of approaches available for dealing with rock art production techniques, one has never really been applied in Egypt: traceology. It consists of a use-wear analysis which aims to identify manufacturing technologies, use and functionality of archaeological artefacts through the analysis of macro and microscopic modifications of the original surfaces occurring during the manufacture processes and reuse as well. Observations should take into account recurrent patterns such as the way the rock surface was hit or carved, the diameter and depth of the peck-marks, their arrangement in relation to each other, but also the simultaneous employment of different techniques to create one single motif. In a long-term perspective, such documentation could allow improving our knowledge about the makers of these images, about their set of skills and the possible existence of workshops specialised in rock art in Upper Egypt in the last third of the 4th millennium bc. Traceological analysis has originally been developed by Prehistorians studying stone tools.61 It has since been adapted to other categories of material. This allows a detailed reconstruction of the way a rock image has been pecked/hammered/incised, to identify repetitive processes and, potentially (although we must admit that this is quite optimistic), recurrent hands, artistic ‘schools’, or styles. This involves, among other actions, measuring the depth and diameter of peck-marks, the depth and inclination of incisions, the space between each peck-marks, their density, etc.
Traceology addresses key research questions in the social history of rock art such as: should Predynastic engravers be considered “artists” or, more neutrally, “professionals”? Is there any consistency, if not systematism, in the way images were produced?62 If yes, can we identify workshops and, with some ambition, hands? Although these issues are extremely complex to address and subjected to animated debates, we need to shift our attention to these questions and to create new field methods from which to address them. Current methods, which are mainly based on descriptive and comparative analysis are not sufficient anymore.
Traceology might help to overcome this challenge, and even to reconstruct the chaîne opératoire followed by the engravers. Recently, a team of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem successfully conducted micromorphological analysis of rock art productions in Timna Park (Southern Israel) thanks to the ArchCUT3-D software.63 This approach allows conducting a precise study of the rock surface and how it has been altered by engravers, as well as computational and mathematical analysis of the engravings. Technology can thus help to precisely measure the volume, depth, and width of the peckings, the angle at which the tool hit the rock surface, engraving gestures, etc. We plan to apply and evaluate this approach during our next fieldwork session. If successful, it could scientifically attest to the quality of a rock composition in terms of techniques, applied gestures, possible experience of the engravers (suggesting the existence of school(s) of knowledge), and artistic nature. Indeed, consistency, regularity and iconographic precision are good indicators of the skills of an engraver.
Although traceology is mainly about techniques and not about iconography, the fact remains that a better appraisal of the operational sequences presiding over the production of rock art is crucial when it comes to analysing visual “styles”. Commissioned productions generally follow iconographic standards that are learned by the artists/craftspeople at the same time as the techniques they use to shape their work.64 In rock art, styles are usually defined based on loose comparisons of petroglyphs showing similar patterns (e.g. a human figure sharing a same position of the arms, or the same shape of the head; animals with horns depicted the same way, etc.). The problem is that such similarities are not sufficient to prove that the images were produced by the same persons/groups, especially when such content may recreate common motifs or ritual events or even culturally ubiquitous patterns. Arguments are often based on subjective determinations and their validity only rely on the “feeling” that there is a visual link between some engravings. The notion of style is thus complex to use and is not as straightforward as it might seem.65 Consecutively, no chronological or geographical division to styles has ever been proposed for Predynastic rock art. Moreover, the concept of “style”, which is often restricted to one specific group of rock art makers and/or region should not be confused with the one of “school”, which could refer to “specific features and differences that are felt moving from one sphere to another” and could help “recognising the individuality of the different areas”.66
This explains the difficulty of building typo-chronologies for Predynastic rock art,67 although recent works focusing on specific themes such as animal68 and boat69 engravings show the potential of the polythetic typological system, which “avoids neglecting idiosyncrasies and small variants within a single iconographic repertoire”.70 This system consists of breaking down iconographic figures into as many morphological features as relevant, before undergoing a Multiple Correspondence Analysis to exhibit which elements correlate the most. An image is thus not solely identified based on a formal (aesthetical) description but is rather the sum of its structural and morphological elements. The more such structural and morphological elements appear together, thus forming visually similar boats or animals, the more we have a chance to be confronted with a specific “type”. These types, their geographical distribution and evolution throughout the 4th millennium bc can then be analysed.
Our goal is to apply these various approaches on the field and to integrate the results into a database of all rock art compositions. This would allow us to analyse the geographic distribution of these rock art panels and to evaluate to which extent, and how, their location in the landscape was meaningful. This would open the door to a discussion about their reception by a specific and targeted audience, their interactions with the landscape and local communities, and their various possible functions.
5 Criteria
On what grounds could we distinguish a commissioned production conveying an official message from a “traditional” rock engraving? This question carries several problems. First, there is no such thing as a “traditional” rock image. Every instance of rock art is the result of specific motivations and is part of “landscape in motion” (Förster & Polkowski 2023) which evolves through time. However, the fact remains that there is a fundamental difference between rock images produced by political authorities and those produced by, among other possibilities, pastoralists, (semi-)nomads, “desert people”,71 people involved in expeditions (hunting, mining, quarrying, etc.) or commissioned to a specific place for a specific reason (guardians, soldiers, etc.). In the specific context of the Lower Nile Valley during the Predynastic, one can distinguish between isolated petroglyphs, usually animals, that are not involved in any complex composition72 and “scenes”.73 This leads to the first criterion: the thematic and iconographic motifs involved.
Recurring motifs in Upper Egyptian elite iconography are well attested and are quite helpful. However, there is no obvious standardised pattern, agency or technique before the Protodynastic. Although hammering/pecking are dominant, almost all engravings have their own visual and technical “style” and specificities. These differences are notably induced by the nature of the rock (e.g. sandstone, limestone and schist). Some surfaces make the tracing of curves more difficult than others, for example. Similarities can, of course, be identified and some “styles” might even be suggested,74 but this remains highly elusive. The interpretations derived from the analysis of visual styles are “hypotheses among others” and cannot generally be extrapolated outside the restricted archaeological concessions in which the analysis was carried out. The only way to conduct efficient stylistic analysis would be to consider every rock art production of the Lower Nile Valley and in the deserts. Since rock art is ubiquitous in Egypt and Nubia, such a titanic task has never been initiated.
This general situation, coupled with the fact that we do not fully apprehend the full scale of local and regional polities in the Lower Nile Valley from roughly 4000 to 3300 bc, makes the attribution of Predynastic rock art to specific forms of power difficult. As already stated, this changed with the onset of the Protodynastic period (c. 3325–3085; Naqada iiia-b), especially in terms of techniques involved in the process of rock art making. The socio-cultural context was not the same anymore, with a stronger uniformisation of ideological discourses, artistic productions, and geographic extension of centralised political power. The second criterion then relates to the techniques used by the engravers, which would supposedly be more advanced or complex in the case of official productions because of the skills required to reproduce official iconography on rock (although it would be wrong to consider that this is systematically the case). The location of these productions, which was supposedly meaningful to the authorities and local populations, could become a third criterion. However, in the current state of knowledge, it is extremely difficult to explain why some localities that appear isolated and irrelevant today offer important archaeological and/or rock art material while others, supposedly strategic, are devoid of official images. If some (most?) engravings were produced by people crossing the area, others were most probably connected with structures such as guard posts, camps, shelters, hunting grounds, pasturages, etc. Until we possess a better reconstruction of the original socio-ecological landscape, this criterion will remain tenuous.
5.1 Criterion 1: Thematic and Iconographic Motifs
Although there is today a tendency to interpret figurative engravings as symbols conveying long lost ideological, religious, cosmological and/or political meanings, it is important to note that this does not have to be systematically the case. Indeed, some rock images may be pictorial markers fulfilling a practical function that cannot be determined anymore.75 However, even if isolated figures might not necessarily be loaded with an ideological and/or spiritual symbolism, the fact remains that compositions involving iconographic motifs that are known to be important in the visual culture of their makers are certainly more than mere decorative images.76
From Naqada i, recurrent iconographic themes attested on prestigious productions such as painted ceramics and craft items convey hunting and victory scenes and boat depictions.77 These themes were an intrinsic part of the visual and ideological culture of the inhabitants of Upper Egypt during the Predynastic, and we tend to relate them to the elites of these communities. Hunting and pastoral scenes in rock art are also typical of nomads and desert people, especially in Nubia and, to a lesser extent, in the Egyptian Eastern Desert. It was a common visual theme and, although the capture of hippopotamus and wild bulls has been interpreted as the expression of the concept of the primacy of Order over Chaos78 (fig. 13), thus falling under Upper Egyptian Predynastic ideology, it cannot be directly associated with any specific form of political power.
Predynastic composition showing two bulls being captured by “hunters”.
Citation: Old World: Journal of Ancient Africa and Eurasia 4, 1 (2024) ; 10.1163/26670755-04020001
wadi barramiya, site db1; photo contributed by the anonymous reviewerDepictions of human figures capped with feathers, armed with a mace head, or raising their arms above their head are identified as elite members of Upper Egyptian communities. They are mainly attested in the Eastern Desert, far from the Nile Valley.79 This can be explained as a way to extend Upper Egyptian ideology in remote areas, thus “socialising” and “territorializing” the deserts, but also bringing order in these arid lands where chaos lies.80 As already stated, other explanations have been suggested, such as the potential role played by the accomplishment of rites de passage or hunting parties exalting the qualities of a leader.81 In any case, they are expressions left by members of a hierarchical community. What cannot be clarified, however, is the motivation behind these engravings. If these images of prestigious figures and boats are good indicators of rock productions engraved by people who are familiar with official iconography and discourses, that does not necessarily imply that they all have been commissioned by an authority. The recent discovery of a flotilla, among which a boat whose type is typical of Naqada ii iconography, in the Eastern Desert of Nubia82 testifies to the large geographical range of these visual semiotic markers and the variety of their uses. They have been shared across cultures in Egypt and Nubia during the 4th millennium bc, but most probably also adapted to various needs depending on the geographical and chronological context.83
Conversely, the few serekhs attested in the Egyptian Eastern and Western Desert,84 but also in South Sinai Peninsula85 and in Gebel Sheikh Suleiman86 (south of Lower Nubia, on the Second Cataract) are clear expressions of political messages. Although it is generally supposed that they are delimiting the geographic extension of Early Dynastic kings’ sphere of influence, the question of the “who” and the “why” behind their discreet presence in what are now inhospitable desert areas is still open. It calls for the development of landscape and topo-geographical analysis aiming at reconstructing the ecosystem of these places during the 4th millennium bc.87 The rare depictions of crowned figures holding staff/sceptre88 are also, for obvious reasons, more clearly associated with political authorities. At the very least, they are communicating ideas of rulership.
At the end of the day, comparisons with the drawings on Upper Egyptian decorated vases help to build elements of periodisation, but nothing more because the images on the rocks are not a pure echo or copy of those on the vases. They belong to a different social sphere and a different technological system, even though they are part of the same cultural entity. This first criterion is thus an indication that a rock panel uses semiotic visual elements that refer to mutually understood social, religious and/or political dimensions, but it is not a definite argument for a direct implication of local/regional Predynastic authorities in rock art.
5.2 Criterion 2: Techniques
Scholars have at their disposal a large amount of archaeological data related to the increasing complexity of Predynastic cultures, and how it impacted craftmanship. The existence of specialised workshops has been postulated for the Naqada ii phase, notably as far as painted vases and sickle-blade knives are concerned.89 Sites identified as “centres of power” such as Abydos, Naqada and Hierakonpolis offered insights on the professionalisation of a part of the population to produce beer, ceramics, prestigious handcrafted objects, etc. By the Protodynastic period, the existence of specialists producing decorated ivory objects and stone vases, for example, is well accepted.90 It is also well acknowledged that one of the characteristics of the Early Dynastic period is the progressive standardisation of official discourses, which was expressed through specific iconographic themes.91 At the same time, artistic productions became more standardised too, to an extent that the existence of specialised workshops working for the elite and first kings could reasonably be postulated.92 It would seem logical that this process also impacted rock art productions.
Predynastic rock art in Upper Egypt is mainly pecked, sometimes incised. Techniques differ greatly depending on the geological surface: i.e. granite productions seem different to sandstone which also seems distant to the metamorphic rocks like schist, etc. It should be more difficult to draw curves on friable surfaces than on harder ones. For example, flaking must have occurred in poorer quality sandstone during engraving processes.93 This partly explains why, even within a same broad category (e.g. boats, animals, human figures), no two drawings are identical in terms of visual similarity and technical execution. This prevents suggesting the existence of specialists or “schools” during the Predynastic.
Upper Egyptian painters seem to have worked in workshops or, at the very least, to have been trained to precisely reproduce specific motifs by Naqada ii. It was probably the case earlier, as suggested by some Naqada i painted vases.94 However, we do not witness such organisation in rock art. The common suggestion is that Predynastic engravers, independently of their cultural affiliation, shared a common Upper Egyptian visual culture either because they were part of the “Naqadan” community or in regular contact with it and using their visual syntax to communicate.95 The situation was certainly more complex, but the current state of research does not allow progressing on this problematic nor discussing the existence of workshops for rock art during the Predynastic.
Our interest focuses on productions that show developed techniques involving preparatory work, a well-thought-out approach to the rock surface and the engravings, the use of specific tools ensuring consistency in the dimensions of the peck-marks, their density, and intervals between them. One famous example is the Nag el-Hamdulab rock art royal cycle in the West Bank of Aswan. Dated to Naqada iiia-b (the so-called Dynasty 0) thanks to the typologies of boats and human figures, but also thanks to a small proto-hieroglyphic inscription,96 these sites offer the formal iconographic program typical of this period. It notably includes naval processions and a crowned figure with followers. There is no doubt about the official nature of these compositions,97 nor can it be doubted that their engravings required time and skills: “Le style uniforme et les sujets choisis indiquent que les sites d’art rupestre de Nag el-Hamdulab font partie d’un programme plus large. Ils sont le résultat d’un concept prémédité, pas d’additions successives, ce qui semble assez différent de la pratique habituelle pour l’art rupestre prédynastique. On remarque en outre que les dessins sont souvent structurés à partir du côté droit de la surface disponible. Ceci diffère aussi des scènes prédynastiques généralement structurées à partir du centre, ce qui pourrait indiquer que l’artisan était influencé par l’habitude d’écrire de droite à gauche. Quoi qu’il en soit, il faut que l’artisan ait été un professionnel et, à cette époque très ancienne de l’histoire égyptienne, on peut admettre qu’il était étroitement lié à la cour royale.”98
The most often discussed composition in Nag el-Hamdulab is panel 7 (fig. 14), which shows a crowned figure with followers and a flotilla of complex and standardised boats. The systematism in their tracing and their quality justified their identification as the “Hamdulab type”.99 A careful look at the engravings shows that the motif is first skilfully outlined. The inside of the delimited shape is then carefully smoothed and/or filled with very tightly packed peck-marks, all sharing a similar diameter100 (fig. 15). The degree of achievement and complexity of such an image, and especially the coexistence of different techniques (low relief as preparatory work, packed and regular peckings, smoothing and polishing) to create one single motif inform on the degree of specialisation of the author(s) and, potentially, of the existence of high-status commissioners. This observation is consistent with the iconographic analyses of this panel carried out after its rediscovery.101 In order to move beyond these preliminary observations, a more in-depth study of all the Nag el-Hamdulab panels remains to be carried out in future fieldworks.
Drawing of the Naqada iiia-b (c. 3325–3100 bc) royal scene at Nag el-Hamdulab
Citation: Old World: Journal of Ancient Africa and Eurasia 4, 1 (2024) ; 10.1163/26670755-04020001
site 7, panel 7; © aswan-kom ombo archaeological projectDetail of one boat from the royal scene at Nag el-Hamdulab
Citation: Old World: Journal of Ancient Africa and Eurasia 4, 1 (2024) ; 10.1163/26670755-04020001
site 7, panel 7; photo by the authorA Naqada ii c-d flotilla engraved in the entrance of Wadi Hilal in Elkab offered another example of rock art that may have been officially commissioned102 (fig. 16). One of the boats is very large and well preserved. It is a precise parallel of what can be seen on Naqada iic-d ceramics and on the famous painting from Tomb 100 in Hierakonpolis.103 The outline of the hull has been smoothed before being highlighted by a careful pecking of the rock (fig. 17). The pecks are generally quite small and packed with regularity, which is an indication of the skill and care of the makers. Because this engraved boat is an almost exact reproduction of the canonical boat attested in Naqada iic-d iconography, it is reasonable to assume that its makers knew very precisely how to trace it, and which chaîne opératoire to follow. The nature of the relation between the people that engraved this boat, on the one hand, and the vase painters, on the other hand, is difficult to define. However, all the evidence suggests that they were part of the same cultural group or, at the very least, that they shared the same codified iconography.104 The incised lines, but also some incised human figures above the deck, are contemporaneous with the boat. Under the stern are steering oars that ends with an oval paddle. These paddles have been pecked, while the oars seem to have been incised before the final pecking. There is thus a mixture of techniques. The whole scene was reactivated and updated during Naqada iii with the addition of another boat, which was put directly over the large Naqada ii boat. Ultimately, there are several phases of intervention which indicate that the composition was important. The fact that this is a naval procession along with figures wearing feathers advocate for its official nature linked with political and/or religious power (criterion 1). The high degree of specialisation of the makers, who mastered official iconography and were able to skilfully reproduce it along with its visual codes on rock, strengthens the hypothesis that this panel was commissioned by authorities (criterion 2).
Naqada iic-d boat (c. 3400–3325 bc) from Wadi Hilal
Citation: Old World: Journal of Ancient Africa and Eurasia 4, 1 (2024) ; 10.1163/26670755-04020001
elkab; photo by the authorDetail of one extremity of the Naqada iic-d boat (c. 3400-3325 bc) from Wadi Hilal
Citation: Old World: Journal of Ancient Africa and Eurasia 4, 1 (2024) ; 10.1163/26670755-04020001
elkab; photo by the authorAnother case study is the engraved panel of Sheik Uthman, which is a site located a few kilometres north of Elkab (fig. 3-4). The panel is dominated by boats and several rock art phases can be identified. The different typologies belong to Naqada iid, iiia-b and iiic periods. The panel has been engraved following a progression that starts in the top left corner and ends in the lower right corner. This gives the impression of a large flotilla organised in a slanting line across the panel.
The first phase is characterised by a large, pecked boat engraved on the upper left of the panel (fig. 18). The peck-marks that delimit the outline of the hull are deep and irregular. Chisel marks can also be observed along the hull, at the summit of the prow and near the basis of the stern. In a second phase, a flotilla of heavily smoothed boats was added to the panel (fig. 18). No peck-marks, chisel marks or incisions seem to be associated with these boats. Phase iii is related to two “folded sickle-shaped” boats which are very similar to boats recorded at Nag el-Hamdulab (fig. 19).
Detail of Phase i and ii showing pecked and smoothed boats from panel 7 at Sheikh Uthman
Citation: Old World: Journal of Ancient Africa and Eurasia 4, 1 (2024) ; 10.1163/26670755-04020001
north of elkab; photo by the authorDetail of Phase iii showing boats of the “Nag e-Hamdulab” type from panel 7 at Sheikh Uthman
Citation: Old World: Journal of Ancient Africa and Eurasia 4, 1 (2024) ; 10.1163/26670755-04020001
north of elkab; photo by the authorPhase IVa shows at least two other boats, far smaller than the previous ones (fig. 20). They are characterised by a mixture of several techniques: it seems that preliminary incisions had been made in order to sketch the general shape of the boat. In a second phase, a careful pecking of the rock was executed in order to underline the whole structure. The boat on the upper left seems unfinished, but the trajectory of the peck-marks gives reasonable indication as to its original shape. Phase IVb is contemporary with the serekh of King Qa-a, the last king of the First Dynasty (fig. 21). The boats and the serekh are mainly incised.
Detail of Phase IVa of panel 7 at Sheikh Uthman
Citation: Old World: Journal of Ancient Africa and Eurasia 4, 1 (2024) ; 10.1163/26670755-04020001
north of elkab; photo by the authorDetail of Phase IVb of panel 7 at Sheikh Uthman
Citation: Old World: Journal of Ancient Africa and Eurasia 4, 1 (2024) ; 10.1163/26670755-04020001
north of elkab; photo by the authorThe high artistic quality of these compositions’ which, based on boat typo-chronology,105 seem to have been produced over several generations and not by various contemporaneous groups, advocates for the fact that they were commissioned by different authorities over time, each new phase being an addition to earlier ones. The typology changed over time, and so did the techniques used. Irregular peck-marks are characteristic of the earlier phase while smoothing appeared in late Naqada ii. Also, incision was more common during the Early Dynastic period than before. The combination of diverse techniques to make a single drawing suggests the use of different tools, a planification of the work, and, probably, experience.
Beside these eloquent examples, there are engravings showing high technical standards which are not part of such clear royal compositions. For example, some engraved Naqada iii a-b boats are precise renditions of the reference type, which is well attested in Protodynastic Upper Egyptian iconography and relatively easy to date for that reason (fig. 4). These engravings are far more standardised that what was common during the Predynastic. Several techniques are involved and all evidence suggests that they are not spontaneous engravings. Also, they are not images made by someone who, although he has good knowledge of official iconography, is not master in reproducing them on rock. However, because they are not part of a composition involving flotillas and/or a crowned figure, it is less easy to affirm that they were commissioned by some authorities. A recent, and so far unique, discovery suggests that it might have been the case on certain occasions: it shows a Protodynastic boat supporting what seems to be a member of the ruling elite based on comparisons with royal ceremonial objects found in the temple of Hierakonpolis106 (fig. 9).
6 New Perspectives
Pre- and protodynastic petroglyphs were mainly affixed to the rock by hammering or incising in various places in the Nile Valley and the deserts adjacent to it. They can be found on steep, vertical walls, on horizontal surfaces barely above the ground level or in rock shelters. Sometimes highly visible and exposed, often located in what were then “busy” places, they can also be hidden in the landscape and at a relative distance from the main traffic routes. The apparent failure of ensuring the visibility of some of these productions, in particular the serekh disseminating the names of Early Dynastic kings,107 remains open to debate and it is important to bear in mind that what appears to be isolated areas were not necessarily so in the past.
Although this might seem unrelated to our main subject, which is the use of rock art by early forms of political powers, it would be instructive to compare the locations of rock art sites in the Eastern Desert with those of mines and quarries known to have been used during the 4th millennium bc.108 Such a study would have the potential to inform us about the motivations of the makers and, by extension, about the primary function of these engravings. Another point of interest, unfortunately impossible to address at the current state of knowledge, is the possible presence of guard posts in the desert from the Protodynastic period onwards. Such modest and temporary military settlements may have been accompanied by rock art, particularly serekh-petroglyphs.
In the context of the increasing complexity of Upper Egyptian society and the development of centralised forms of political power, rock art could have become a privileged form of communication requiring the development of a cast of specialists. Indeed, if simple graffiti109 (whether they were spontaneous or not) could be produced by various categories of people, large compositions that are precisely reproducing motives visible on other contemporaneous media (paintings on ceramics, decorated ivory and stone objects, sculpted palettes, etc.) and follow what appears to be carefully learned techniques could only be produced by a trained cast of engravers. These specialists would have improved traditional engraving techniques and developed new ones so as to produce high-quality compositions. If we accept this hypothesis, new questions arise. One might wonder, for example, if there were one or several schools of knowledge and if each of them had a “visual stylistic identity”. This would explain typological differences in productions apparently belonging to the same period. Traceology and the analysis of rock art chaîne opératoire might facilitate the progress on these issues.
Consistencies inside different categories of Proto- and Early Dynastic craft production have already been observed and discussed.110 They testify to the existence of specialists trained to reproduce official images during Naqada iii. Because the actions involved in the production of decorated greywacke palettes, ivory knife handles, and stone vases, among other examples, were mostly a reductive process consisting of incision, smoothing and pecking, one might wonder if there was a relationship between these specialised craftsmen and rock art makers. Indeed, it is not necessary to imagine the existence of independent rock art workshops as these rock art “masters” could have been part of larger workshops gathering both sculptors and painters, for example. The answers to these new research questions are still largely beyond our grasp, but the development of new holistic approaches augurs well for major advances in the study of Nilotic rock art in the years to come.
As far as the two criteria (thematic and iconographic motifs, and techniques) and hypotheses discussed in this paper are concerned, these are merely starting points. They are based on the assumption that a commissioned rock art composition will differ from a non-commissioned one by the level of precision and effort put into creating it. However, it remains unclear how this level of precision and effort can be scientifically evaluated. Indeed, many questions remain to be addressed: how can we interpret rock art depictions that show motifs related to authority (boats, kings, members of the elite) but are technologically much rougher?111 Was it the subject or the way it was produced that mattered and distinguished a non-commissioned rock art from a commissioned one? Or still something else in addition? Could non-commissioned rock art be considered equally “official” to the commissioned one? If yes, could this be determined and how? Although traceological and technological analysis might facilitate progress on these questions since they provide evidence-based results, we will still have to deal with a certain degree of subjectivity in our interpretations of the scenes. Currently, we suggest that the combination of these two criteria is necessary in order to define a rock composition as official and possibly commissioned.
Another aspect that needs to be taken into account is the nature and quality of the rock. Although most of the rock art is inscribed on sandstone, this category of rock is quite diversified in terms of quality and composition. The nature of the surface has an impact on the level of technicality that can be reached and, consecutively, on the quality of a petroglyph. Although one might assume that commissioned productions were made on surfaces selected by specialists for their quality and suitability, nothing allows suggesting that it was systematic. For this reason, considering the nature of the rock as a third criterion is currently problematic. Further fieldwork is required to achieve progress on this matter.
7 Conclusions
This paper examines Predynastic, Protodynastic and Early Dynastic rock art in its historical context. The high variety in engraving techniques and “styles” before the Protodynastic is notably linked to the social organisation of the Predynastic Upper Egyptian communities and their use of rock art. It is also explained by the presence in the Lower Nile Valley and the deserts of nomads and pastoralists who also engraved rocks with similar motifs (hunting scenes, isolated animals, etc.) but with different motivations. Standardisation and formal techniques, which remain to be precisely defined and described,112 only appeared concomitant to the development of a centralised political and administrative system. Although more work remains to be done, it could be tentatively suggested that rock specialists appeared at the very end of the Predynastic period and were quite active during the Protodynastic. This period probably saw various forms of authoritative powers entering into competition in both Egypt and Nubia, which might have stimulated the development of visual productions aiming at delimiting their sphere of influence, legitimising their status, and conveying their messages to local populations.113 Commissioned rock art compositions might have been strategic elements in the competition between these various polities.
The development of new recording techniques and analytical methods such as traceology and the analysis of rock art chaîne opératoire would allow reaching a better appraisal of the operational sequences leading to the production of rock art. This could be achieved with the help of digital technologies and machine learning. This would allow classifying rock compositions based on clear criteria and factual data, rather than through subjective and empiric stylistic analysis.
It might be possible to identify rock images commissioned by authorities and produced by specialists thanks to the establishment of specific analysis criteria. When found together on a decorated rock panel, they could serve as solid interpretative arguments. The focus is on two of them: motifs such as the boats or the human figures with specific paraphernalia (the iconographic programme), on the one hand, the techniques and engraving process, on the other. Other criteria, such as landscape characteristics (visibility, accessibility, potential strategic/economic/liminal nature), need to be added to the list. This work will be conducted in parallel with studies of important rock art sites, such as Nag el-Hamdulab and Wadi Rasras,114 which are planned to be published in the years to come.
Funding Statement
This research is conducted at the Institute of Mediterranean and Oriental Cultures, Polish Academy of Sciences as part of the project PowerArt co-funded by the National Science Centre in Poland and the European Union (Framework Programme for Research and Innovation Horizon 2022 under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement no. 945339. Project n°2022/47/p/hs3/02953).
References
Asselberghs, Henry (1961). Chaos en Beheersing. Documenten uit Aeneolithisch Egypte (Documenta et monumenta Orientis antiqui 8). Leiden: Brill.
Barich, Barbara (2018). A Discourse on Human Representations and Recognition of Gender Roles in North-African Rock Art. In: D., Huyge, ed., International Conference What Ever Happened to the People? Humans and Anthropomorphs in the Rock Art of Northern Africa Royal Academy for Overseas Sciences Brussels, 17–19 September, 2015, Brussels: Royal Academy for Overseas Sciences, pp. 219–230.
Basch, Almagro M., and Gorbea, Almagro M. (1968). Estudios de arte rupestre nubio, I. Yacimientos situados en la orilla oriental del Nilo, entre Nag Kolorodna y Kars Ibrim (Nubia Egipcia). Madrid: Dirección de Relaciones Culturales.
Bavay, Laurent (2000). La pierre et le pouvoir dans l’Égypte prépharaonique et des premières dynasties. In: Chr. Karlshausen and Th. De Putter, eds, Pierres égyptiennes. Chefs- d’œuvre pour l’éternité, Bruxelles-Mons: Faculté polytechnique, pp. 63–67.
Begon, Mathieu (2018). La royauté thinite et le désert oriental. Égypte, Afrique & Orient 90: pp. 13–24.
Bourgeois, Marie, Crépy, Maël, and Gatto, Maria C. (forthcoming). Augmenting Current Understanding of Mobile Pastoral Communities through Landscape Analysis and Archaeological Research: A View from the Egyptian Eastern Desert and the First Nile Cataract Region (5th-3rd millennia bce). Archéo-Nil 34.
Brémont, Axelle (2020). Un éléphant, ça trompe énormément … Animal fantastique ou perte de référent de Loxodonta africana en Egypte au Pré- et Protodynastique (IVe-IIIe millénaires). In: E. Paillet, M. Sepulveda, É. Robert, P. Paillet and N. Mélard, eds, Caractérisation, continuités et discontinuités des manifestations graphiques des sociétés prehistoriques. Proceedings of the XVIII UISPP World Congress (4–9 June 2018, Paris, France), Oxford: Archaeopress, pp. 89–107.
Brémont, Axelle (2021). L’envers du décor. Perspectives archéologiques et anthropologiques sur l’iconographie animale nagadienne (ca. 3800-3100 av. J.-C.): Production, Consommation, Représentations, PhD thesis, Sorbonne université.
Brémont, Axelle (2024). Quand les Nagadiens peignaient la girafe. Deux D-wares inédites et une note préliminaire sur la chronologie fine des céramiques peintes à Nagada iic-iiia. NeHeT 8, pp. 43–71.
Brémont, Axelle, and Vanhulle, Dorian (forthcoming). A ‘Nubian touch’? A Rock Art Perspective on Culture Contacts in the First Cataract Area during the Fourth Millennium bce. In: M.C. Gatto, P. Medici, P. Polkowski, Fr. Förster and H. Riemer, eds, Proceedings of theifraoCongress Dedicated to D. Huyge (Internet-Beiträge zur Ägyptologie und Sudanarchäologie 27), London: Golden House Publications.
Červiček, Pawel (1974). Felsbilder des Nord-Etbai, Oberägyptens und Unternubiens: Ergebnisse derviii. Diage nach Ägypten 1926. Wiesbaden: F. Steiner.
Conkey, Margaret W. (1990). Experimenting with Style in Archaeology: Some Historical and Theoretical Issues. In: M. Conkey W. and Chr. Hastorf A., eds, The Uses of Style in Archaeology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 5–17.
Cooper, Julien, and Vanhulle, Dorian (2019). Boats and Routes: New Rock Art in the Atbai Desert. Sudan & Nubia 23, pp. 3–12.
Cooper, Julien, and Vanhulle, Dorian (2023). Rock art Surveys in the Sudanese Eastern Desert: Results of the 2018–2019 Atbai Survey Project. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 109 (1–2), pp. 189–208.
Daniel, James (2012). Ambiguous Images: The Problems and Possibilities of Analysing Rock-art Images in the Egyptian Western Desert. In: Chr. Knoblauch and J.C. Gill, eds, Egyptological Research in Australia and New Zealand 2009: Proceedings of the Conference Held in Melbourne, September 4th-6th (bar International Series 2355), Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, pp. 71–84.
Darnell, John C. (2002). Theban Desert Road Survey in the Egyptian Western Desert. Volume 1: Gebel Tjauti Rock Inscriptions 1–45 and Wadi el-Hôl Rock Inscriptions 1–45 (Oriental Institute Publications 119). Chicago: Yale Egyptological Institute.
Darnell, John C. (2009). Iconographic Attraction, Iconographic Syntax, and Tableaux of Royal Ritual Power in the Pre- and Proto-dynastic Rock Inscriptions of the Theban Western Desert. Archéo-Nil 19, pp. 83–107.
Darnell, John C. (2011). The Wadi of the Horus Qa-a: A Tableau of Royal Ritual Power in the Theban Western Desert. In: R.F. Friedman and P.N., Fiske, eds, 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) (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 205), Leuven: Peeters, pp. 1151–1193.
Darnell, John C. (2013a). A Bureaucratic Challenge? Archaeology and Administration in a Desert Environment (Second Millennium B.C.E.). In J.C. Moreno Garcia, ed., Ancient Egyptian Administration, Leiden and New York: Handbuch der Orientalistik, pp. 785–830.
Darnell, John C. (2013b). Theban Desert Road Surveyii. The Rock Shrine of Pahu, Gebel Akhenaton, and Other Rock Inscriptions from the Western Hinterland of Qamûla. Yale: Yale Egyptological Institute.
Darnell, John C. (2015). The Early Hieroglyphic Annotation in the Nag el-Hamdulab Rock Art Tableaux, and the Following of Horus in the Northwest Hinterland of Aswan. Archéo-Nil 25, pp. 19–43.
Darnell, John C. (2017). The Early Hieroglyphic Inscription at el-Khawy. Archéo-Nil 27, pp. 49–64.
Darnell, John C. (2018). Homo Pictus and Painted Men: Depictions and Intimations of Humans in the Rock Art of the Theban Western Desert. In: D. Huyge, ed., International Conference What Ever Happened to the People? Humans and Anthropomorphs in the Rock Art of Northern Africa Royal Academy for Overseas Sciences Brussels, 17–19 September, 2015, Brussels: Royal Academy for Overseas Sciences, pp. 397–418.
Darnell, John C. (2021). Egypt and the Desert (Cambridge Element. Ancient Egypt in Context). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Darnell, John C. and Vanhulle, Dorian with Brémont-Bellini, Axelle, Urcia, Alberto, and Darnell, Colleen M. (forthcoming). Setting a Seal Upon the Desert: Protodynastic and Early Dynastic Augmentation and Interpretation of Predynastic Rock Art in the Upper Egyptian Deserts. In: M.C. Gatto, P. Medici, P. Polkowski, Fr. Förster and H. Riemer, eds, Proceedings of theifraoCongress Dedicated to D. Huyge (Internet-Beiträge zur Ägyptologie und Sudanarchäologie 27), London: Golden House Publications, pp 67–87.
Davis, Whitney (1990). The Canonical Tradition in Ancient Egyptian Art. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dubinski, Lena, David, Marcello, and Grosman, Leore (2023). Recognizing Technique Variation in Rock Engravings: ArchCUT3-D for Micromorphological Analysis. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 10, https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01742-7.
Dunbar, John (1941). The Rock Pictures of Lower Nubia. Cairo: Government Press edition.
Emberling, Geoff, and Williams, Bruce, eds. (2020), Oxford Handbook of Ancient Nubia, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Engelmayer, Reinhold (1965). Die Felsgravierungen im Distrikt Sayala-Nubien. Teil 1: Die Schiffsdarstellungen. Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Fullagar, Richard and Carney, Mathheson (2020). Stone Tool Usewear and Residue Analysis. In: Cl. Smith, ed., Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology. Springer: Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-30018-0_842.
Gatto, Maria C. (2011). The Nubian Pastoral Culture as Link Between Egypt and Africa: A View from the Archaeological Record. In: K. Exell, ed., Egypt in its African Context. Proceedings of the Conference Held at The Manchester Museum, University of Manchester (2nd-4th October 2009) (bar International Series 2204), Oxford: Archaeopress, pp. 21–29.
Gatto, Maria C. (2019). The Later Prehistory of Nubia in its Interregional Setting. In: D. Raue, ed., Handbook of Ancient Nubia. Volume 1: 259–291, Berlin-Boston: De Gruyter, pp. 259–291.
Gatto, Maria C. (2020). The A-Group and Fourth Millennium bce Nubia. In: G. Emberling and W. Bruce, eds, Oxford Handbook of Ancient Nubia, Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 125–154.
Gatto, Maria C., Nicolini, Serena, and Curci, Antonio (2022). Surveying the Eastern Desert: New Archaeological Evidence from Wadi al-Lawi and Wadi Rasras (Aswan-Kom Ombo region). Sudan & Nubia 26, pp. 18–32.
Gatto, Maria C., Vanhulle, Dorian, and Nicolini, Serena (2024). Place-Making Through Rock Art: Wadi Rasras in the Desert East of the First Nile Cataract. Paper presented at the International Conference Place-making in the Desertscape: The Socialisation of the Egyptian-Sudanese Eastern Desert Landscape in the longue durée (4th Millennium BCE- 4th Century CE) (Cairo, April 27–29, 2024).
Gilbert, Gregory P. (1999). Some Notes on Prehistoric Decorated Vessels with Boat Scenes. Bulletin of the Australian Centre for Egyptology 10, pp. 19–37.
Graff, Gwenola (2009). Les peintures sur les vases de Nagadai– Nagadaii. Nouvelle approche sémiologique de l’iconographie prédynastique (Egyptian Prehistory Monographs 6). Leuven: Leuven University Press.
Graff, Gwenola (2013). Construire l’image, ordonner le réel. Les vases peints du IVe millénaire en Égypte. Paris-Arles: Éditions Errance.
Graff, Gwenola, and Jiménez-Serrrano, Alejandro, eds. (2013). Préhistoires de l’écriture. Iconographie, pratiques graphiques et émergence de l’écrit dans l’Égypte prédynastique. Prehistories of writing. Iconography, graphic practices and emergence of writing in Predynastic Egypt.
Graff, Gwenola, and Kelany, Adel (forthcoming). Les Nagadiens et les autres. Considérations sur les conditionnements et les stratégies d’exploitation du désert Oriental au prédynastique, à partir de l’exemple du wadi Abu Subeira (région d’Assouan). Archéo-Nil 34.
Hans, Barnard, and Duistermaat, Kim, eds. (2012). The History of the Peoples of the Eastern Desert (Monograph 73). Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press.
Hardtke, Frederick, Claes, Wouter, Darnell, John C., Hameeuw, Hendrik, Hendrickx, Stan, and Vanhulle, Dorian (2022). Early Royal Iconography: A Rock Art Panel from el-Hosh (Upper Egypt). Archéo-Nil 32, pp. 25–49.
Hartwig, Melinda (2016). Method in Ancient Egyptian Painting. In: V. Angenot and Fr. Tiradritti, eds, Artists and Colour in Ancient Egypt, Proceedings of the Colloquium Held in Montepulciano, August 22nd – 24th, 2008 (Monografie Poliziane di Egittologia 1), Montepulciano: Missione Archeologica Italiana a Luxor, pp. 28–56.
Hellström, Pontus, and Langballe, Hans (1970). The Scandinavian Joint Expedition to Sudanese Nubia. Vol. 1, The Rock Drawings. Stockholm & Copenhagen: Scandinavian University books.
Hendrickx, Stan (2006). The Dog, the Lycaon Pictus and Order over Chaos in Predynastic Egypt. In: K. Kroeper, M. Chłodnicki and M. Kobusiewicz, eds, Archaeology of Early Northeastern Africa. In Memory of Lech Krzyzaniak (Studies in African Archaeology 9), Poznań: Poznań Archaeological Museum, pp. 723–749.
Hendrickx, Stan (2011a). Crafts and Craft Specialization. In: E. Teeter, ed., Egypt Before the Pyramids (Oriental Institute Museum Publications 33), Chicago: Oriental Institute Museum, pp. 93–98.
Hendrickx, Stan (2011b). Iconography of the Predynastic and Early Dynastic Period. In: E. Teeter, ed., Egypt Before the Pyramids (Oriental Institute Museum Publications 33), Chicago: Oriental Institute Museum, pp. 75–81.
Hendrickx, Stan (2020). The Predynastic Period. In: I. Shaw and E. Bloxam, eds, The Oxford Handbook of Egyptology, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 573–595.
Hendrickx, Stan, and Bavay, Laurent (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: E.C.M. Van Den Brink and T.E. Levy, eds, Egypt and the Levant. Interrelations from the 4th through the Early 3rd Millennium B.C.E., Londres-New York: Bloomsbury Academic, pp. 58–80.
Hendrickx, Stan, and Förster, Frank (2010). Early Dynastic Art and Iconography. In: A.B. Lloyd, (ed.), A Companion to Ancient Egypt, Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 826–852.
Hendrickx, Stan, and Eyckerman, Merel (2010). Continuity and Change in the Visual Representations of Predynastic Egypt. In: Fr. Raffaele, N. Massimiliano and I. Ilaria, eds, Recent Discoveries and Latest Researches in Egyptology. Proceedings of the First Neapolitan Congress of Egyptology (Naples, 18th-20th June 2008), Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, pp. 121–144.
Hendrickx, Stan, and Eyckerman, Merel (2012). Visual Representation and State Formation in Egypt. Archéo-Nil 22, pp. 23–72.
Hendrickx, Stan, Darnell, John C., Gatto, Maria. C. (2012). The Earliest Representations of Royal Power in Egypt: The Rock Drawings of Nag el-Hamdulab (Aswan). Antiquity 86, pp. 1068–1083.
Hendrickx, Stan, Darnell, John C., Gatto, Maria. C., and Eyckerman, Merel (2012). Iconographic and Palaeographic Elements Dating a Late Dynasty 0 Rock Art site at Nag el-Hamdulab (Aswan, Egypt). In: D. Huyge and Fr. Van Notten, eds, The Signs of Which Time? Chronological and Palaeoenvironmental issues in the rock art of Northern Africa, Brussels: Royal Academy for Overseas Sciences, pp. 295–326.
Hoffman, Michael A. (1980). Egypt Before the Pharaohs: the Prehistoric Foundations of Egyptian Civilization. New York: Knopf.
Huyge, Dirk (1995). De Rostekeningen van Elkab (Boven-Egypte) Registratie, Seriatie en Interpretatie, PhD, Leuven University.
Huyge, Dirk (2002). Cosmology, Ideology and Personal Religious Practice in Ancient Egyptian Rock Art. In: R. Friedman, ed., Egypt and Nubia. Gifts of the Desert, London: British Museum Press, pp. 192–206.
Huyge, Dirk, and Wouter, Claes (2013–2015). Art rupestre gravé paléolithique de Haute Égypte: El Hosh et Qurta. Bulletin de l’Association Scientifique Liégeoise pour la Recherche Archéologique 28, pp. 21–39.
Ikram, Salima, and Corinna, Rossi (2009). An Early Dynastic Serekh from Kharga Oasis. The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 90, pp. 211–15.
Judd, Tony (2009). Rock art of the Eastern Desert of Egypt: Content, Comparisons, Dating and Significance (bar International Series 2008). Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.
Kees, Hermann (1955). Das alte Ägypten: eine kleine Landeskunde. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.
Kelany, Adel (2023). A Possible Transition in Rock Art from the Late Palaeolithic to the Epipalaeolithic period in Wadi Abu Subeira, Aswan. In: P. Polkowski, Stone Canvas: Towards a Better Integration of ‘Rock Art’ and ‘Graffiti’ Studies in Egypt and Sudan (Bibliothèque d’Étude 183), Warsaw-Cairo: Polish Center of Mediterranean Archaeology/Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale, pp. 269–282.
Klemm, Rosemarie, and Klemm, Dietrich D. (2008). Stones and Quarries in Ancient Egypt. London: British Museum Press.
Köhler, Christiana (2020). Of Culture Wars and the Clash of Civilizations in Prehistoric Egypt – An Epistemological Analysis. Ägypten und Levante 30, pp. 115–117.
Lankester, Francis (2013). Desert Boats. Predynastic & Pharaonic era Rock-Art in Egypt’s Central Eastern Desert: Distribution, Dating and Interpretation (British Archaeological Reports International Series 2544). Oxford: Archaeopress.
Lankester, Francis (2016). Predynastic Egyptian Rock Art as Evidence for Early Elites “Rite of Passage”. Afrique: Archéologie & Arts 12, pp. 81–92.
László, Török (2009), Between Two Worlds. The Frontier Region between Ancient Nubia and Egypt 3700bc–ad500 (Probleme der Ägyptologie 29). Leyde-Boston: Brill.
Lenssen-Erz, Tilman (1992). Coherence – A Constituent of “Scenes” in Rock Art. Rock Art Research 9 (2), pp. 87–105.
Lippiello, Lauren, and Gatto, Maria C. (2012). Intrasite Chronology and Palaeoenvironmental Reconstruction at Khor Abu Subeira South 1 (Aswan, Egypt). In: D. Huyge, Fr. Van Notten and D. Swinne, eds, The Signs of Which Time? Chronological and Palaeoenvironmental issues in the rock art of Northern Africa. Brussels: Royal Academy for Overseas Sciences, pp. 270–293.
Lorblanchet, Michel, and Bahn, Paul G. (1993). Introduction. In: Lorblanchet, Michel and Paul G., Bahn, eds., Rock Art Studies: The Post-Stylistic Era or Where Do We Go from Here. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. v–vii.
Midant-Reynes, Béatrix (1987). Contribution à l’étude de la société prédynastique: le cas du couteau “Ripple-Flake”. Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur 14, pp. 185–224.
Moreno Garcia, Juan C. (2023). Pharaonic Egypt: A Singular Pathway to Statehood in the Early Bronze Age. Old World: Journal of Ancient Africa and Eurasia 3 (1), pp. 1–31.
Morenz, Ludwig, Abdelmonem, Said, and Abdelhay, Mohamed (2020). Binnenkolonisation am Beginn des ägyptischen Staates. Eine Fallstudie zur Domäne des Königs Skorpion im späten Vierten Jahrtausend v. Chr. (KATARAKT 1). Berlin: EBVerlag.
Morrow, Maggie, Morrow, Mike, Judd, Tony, and Phillipson, Geoff (2010). Desertrats: Rock Art Topographical Survey (bar international series 2166). Oxford: Archaeopress.
Nilsson, Maria (forthcoming). Stylistic Diversity and Spatial Distribution: Recent Rock Art Documentation in Gebel el-Silsila – Shatt el-Rigal. In: M.C. Gatto, P. Medici, P. Polkowski, Fr. Förster and H. Riemer, eds, Proceedings of theifraoCongress Dedicated to D. Huyge (Internet-Beiträge zur Ägyptologie und Sudanarchäologie 27), London: Golden House Publications.
Osypiński, Piotr, Osypińska, Marta, and Zych, Iwona (2021). Wadi Khashab. Unearthing Late Prehistory in the Eastern Desert of Egypt (Polish Publications in Mediterranean Archaeology 5). Leuven, Paris, Bristol: Peeters Publishers.
Polkowski, Paweł (2018). Egyptian Rock Art. In Cl. Smith, ed., The Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology, s.v. [available from: Springer], doi:10.1007/978-3-319-51726-1_3334-1.
Polkowski, Paweł (2023). Stone Canvas: Towards a Better Integration of ‘Rock Art’ and ‘Graffiti’ Studies in Egypt and Sudan (Bibliothèque d’Étude 183). Warsaw-Cairo: Polish Center of Mediterranean Archaeology/Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale.
Quibell, James E., and Frederick W., Green (1902). Hierakonpolisii. London: Bernard Quaritch.
Raffaele, Francesco (2010). Animal Rows and Ceremonial Processions in Late Predynastic Egypt. In: Fr. Raffaele, N. Massimiliano and I. Ilaria, eds, Recent Discoveries and Latest Researches in Egyptology. Proceedings of the First Neapolitan Congress of Egyptology (Naples, 18th-20th June 2008), Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, pp. 245–285.
Rebecca, Döhl (2022). Felsbilder Ägyptens. Zeichen einer sozialisierten Landschaft. Heidelberg: Propylaeum.
Resch, Walter (1967). Die Felsbilder Nubiens. Eine Dokumentation der ostägyptischen und nubischen Petroglyphen. Graz: Akademische Druck- und Verlagsanstalt.
Rohl, David (2000). The Followers of Horus. Eastern Desert Survey Report. Vol. 1. Abingdon: Bezier Journals.
Stauder, Andréas (2022). Origine et premiers développements de l’écriture hiéroglyphique égyptienne. Guide des écritures de l’Égypte ancienne. In: S. Polis, ed., Guide des écritures de l’Égypte ancienne, Cairo: IFAO, pp. 34–41.
Stevenson, Alice (2009). Social Relationships in Predynastic Burials. The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 95, pp. 175–192.
Stevenson, Alice (2016). The Egyptian Predynastic and State formation. Journal of Archaeological Research 24, pp. 421–468.
Sukova, Lenka (2011a). The Rock Art of Lower Nubia. Czechoslovak Concession. Prague: Charles University in Prague, Faculty of Arts, Czech Institute of Egyptology.
Sukova, Lenka (2011b). The Rock Paintings of Lower Nubia. Czechoslovak Concession. Prague: Charles University in Prague, Faculty of Arts, Czech Institute of Egyptology.
Takamiya, Izumi (2004). Development of Specialisation in the Nile Valley During the 4th Millennium bc. In: S. Hendrickx, R. Friedman, K.M. Ciałowicz and M. Chłodnicki, eds, 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 – 1st September 2002 (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 138), Leuven: Peeters Publishers, pp. 1027–1039.
Tallet, Pierre (2015). La zone minière du Sud-Sinaïii. Les inscriptions pré- et protodynastiques du Ouadi ‘Ameyra (Mémoires publiés par les membres de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale 132). Cairo: IFAO.
Tallet, Pierre, and Somaglino, Claire (2014). Une campagne en Nubie sous la Ière dynastie. La scène nagadienne du Gebel Sheikh Suleiman comme prototype et modèle. NeHeT 1, pp. 1–46.
Testard, Alain (2005). Éléments de classification des sociétés. Paris: Errance.
Urcia, Alberto, Darnell, John C., Darnell, Colleen, and Zaia, Sara E. (2018). From Plastic Sheets to Tablet pc s: A Digital Epigraphic Method for Recording Egyptian Rock Art and Inscriptions. African Archaeological Review 35 (2), pp. 169–189.
Váhala, František and Pawel, Červiček (1999). Katalog der Felsbilder aus der tschechoslwakischen konzession in Nubien. Prague: Karls-Universität Prag, Karolinum.
Vanhulle, Dorian (2016). Le bateau pré- et protodynastique dans l’iconographie et l’archéologie égyptiennes. Pour une étude analytique et sémiologique de la navigation au 4e millénaire avant J.-C. PhD. Université libre de Bruxelles.
Vanhulle, Dorian (2018). Boat Symbolism in Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt (ca 4500-2600 B.C.). An Ethno-Archaeological Approach. Journal of Ancient Egyptian Interconnections 17, pp. 173–187.
Vanhulle, Dorian (2021). New Perspectives on Predynastic and Early Dynastic Rock Art in Egypt (c. 4500-2600 bc). In: E. Anati, dir., XXXVIII Valcamonica Symposium 2021. Capo di Ponte (Bs), Italy, October 28 to 31, 2021. Rock Art, A Human Heritage, Capo di Ponte: ccsp, pp. 279–287.
Vanhulle, Dorian (2023a). Pre-Pharaonic Rock Art: A New Eldorado for Research? When Answers Are Carved in Stone. In: P. Polkowski, ed., Stone Canvas: Towards a Better Integration of ‘Rock Art’ and ‘Graffiti’ Studies in Egypt and Sudan (Bibliothèque d’Étude 183), Warsaw-Cairo: Polish Center of Mediterranean Archaeology/Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale, pp. 33–51.
Vanhulle, Dorian (2023b). Drawings Along the Nile. Documenting the Endangered Rock Art from West Bank Aswan. Egyptian Archaeology 63, pp. 32–37.
Vanhulle, Dorian (2024). Giving a Voice to the Voiceless: Investigating the Socio-Ecology of the Lower Nile Valley during the Pre-/Protodynastic (5th-early 3rd Millennium bce). Archéo-Nil 34, pp. 13–27.
Vanhulle, Dorian, and Lorre, Christine. Un modèle de bateau protodynastique égyptien récemment acquis par le Musée d’archéologie nationale (Saint-Germain-en-Laye). Revue des Musées de France 2018 (4), pp. 28–39.
Vanhulle, Dorian, Gatto, Maria C., Hendrickx, Stan, Cooper, Julien, Hamdan, Mohamed, Crépy, Maël, Lagaron-Khalifa, Anna, Darnell, John C., Nicolini, Serena, and Curci, Antonio (in prep.). Crossroads of Art: An Exceptional Rock Art Concentration in the Desert East of Aswan (Wadi Rasras, Egypt). Azania.
Varadzinová, Lenka (2017). The Rock Art of Northeast Africa: Methodological Achievements and Perspectives of Further Research. Journal of African Archaeology 15 (2), pp. 234–255.
Villaeys, Julie (2021). Graver des serekh: pratiques de définition du pouvoir et de la royauté. In: E. Anati, dir., XXXVIII Valcamonica Symposium 2021. Capo di Ponte (Bs), Italy, October 28 to 31, 2021. Rock Art, A Human Heritage, Capo di Ponte: ccsp, p. 99–105.
Ward, Cheryl (2006). Boat-Building and Its Social Context in Early Egypt: Interpretations from the First Dynasty Boat-Grave Cemetery at Abydos. Antiquity 80, pp. 118–129.
Williams, Bruce B. (1986), Excavations Between Abu Simbel and the Sudan Frontier. Vol. 1: The A- Group Royal Cemetery at Qustul: Cemetery L (Oriental Institute Nubian Expedition 3). Chicago: Oriental Institute Museum.
Williams, Bruce B. (2011), Relations Between Egypt and Nubia During the Naqada Period. In: E. Teeter, ed., Egypt Before the Pyramids (Oriental Institute Museum Publications 33), Chicago: Oriental Institute Museum, pp. 81–93.
Williams, Bruce B., Logan, Thomas J., and Murnane, William J. (1987). The Metropolitan Museum Knife Handle and Aspects of Pharaonic Imagery Before Narmer. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 46 (4), pp. 245–285.
Winkler, Hans A. (1938). Rock-Drawings of Southern Upper Egypt I. Sir Robert Mond Desert Expedition. Saison 1936–1937 (Egypt Exploration Society 26). London: Egypt Exploration Society; Milford.
Winkler, Hans A. 1939. Rock-Drawings of Southern Upper Egyptii. Sir Robert Mond Desert Expedition. Saison 1937–1938 (Egypt Exploration Society 27). London: Egypt Exploration Society; Milford.
For more references: Varadzinová (2017); Polkowski (2018); Vanhulle (2021, 2023a). Epipalaeolthic (8th-6th millennium bc) productions are attested, particularly in the Aswan-Kom Ombo region (Kelany 2023). They are geometric, not figurative, and fall outside the scope of this paper. The painted rock art attested in the Gilf Kebir and Jebel Uweinat belongs to Saharan neolithic and pastoral traditions which are geographically, chronologically, and culturally distant from the Predynastic Nile Valley (Polkowski 2018: 5, 9, 17). For that reason, it is not taken in consideration either.
On comparisons between rock art and Predynastic iconography: Rohl (2000: 6–7, 159–161); Judd (2009: 79–81); Morrow et al. (2010: 17–22); Lankester (2013: 1, 111–115); Polkowski (2018: 15).
Mainly Winkler (1938, 1939); Dunbar (1941); Engelmayer (1965); Resch (1967); Basch & Gorbéa (1968); Hellström & Langballe (1970); Červiček (1974, 1986); Červiček & Vahalla (1999); Sukova (2011a-b).
Asselberghs (1961); Hendrickx (2006); Hendrickx & Eyckerman (2012). Concerning the use of iconography as a means of communication and visual expression, see Graff (2009); Graff & Jiménez Serrano (2016).
See Polkowski 2018 for a complete overview.
The relevance of such statistics is limited as new panels are regularly discovered, large portions of Egypt territory (especially in the desert) cannot be accessed, because they are located inside military areas, and the quality of the documentation varies significantly depending on when the recordings were made.
Darnell et al. (forthcoming: 68).
Williams, Logan & Murnane (1987); Tallet & Somaglino (2014); Bégon (2018); Hendrickx et al. (2012); Tallet (2015) for more references.
Villaeys (2021). What is power, a king, a ruler, a chief, an “elite” in Prehistoric societies? Such terms are extremely difficult to use and to define and are at the centre of debates among anthropologists for decades: e.g. Testart (2005). In this paper, we refer to a pyramidal social organisation topped by a cast of people presiding at the cohesion and development of a community. Their domination is presumably based on specific abilities, charisma and on the monopoly of violence.
Bourgeois, Crépy & Gatto (forthcoming). The main cultural entities that developed forms of power are the “Naqadans” in Upper Egypt and the “A Group” in Lower Nubia.
Rock art is one factor in the transformation/humanisation of the landscape through time. To be efficient, it has to be produced and, most of the time, to be seen. This implies an interaction. This interaction can be effective (direct connection between people and the rock art through time) or virtual (rock art that was not of interest, or even visible, to anyone except its maker). Rock art can transform an undefined territory into a place integrated into the cognitive system of a specific group. It thus plays a social function as symbolic performer in a “place-making” process. If desert rock art is often considered to be the result of attempts to “socialise”/“niloticise” the desert (Darnell 2009; 2021), it was also a way to create meaningful places in territories that were, before then, external to the cognitive universe of rock art makers. Meanings can be lost, reactivated or modified through time, but images and inscriptions still create the power of the place: Gatto, Vanhulle & Nicolini (2024).
PowerArt is co-funded by the National Science Centre in Poland and the European Union Framework Programme for Research and Innovation Horizon 2022 under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement no. 945339 (Project n° 2022/43/p/hs3/02953). (powerart.iksiopan.pl).
“Badarian”, “Tasian”, “Naqadan”, “A-Group” are expressions belonging to a terminology which oversimplifies complex socio-ecological contexts. Although these terms are still widely used because of their historical place in the discipline, they now tend to be avoided and replaced by more neutral expressions. Indeed, none of these entities were fully homogeneous in terms of identities, cultural preferences, material productions, etc. At best, it can be said that they shared a common visual language, similar funerary traditions, and a core of oral traditions.
Certain types of giraffe and elephant depictions (Brémont 2020, 2024), which progressively disappeared from Egypt due to the aridification process that grew stronger in the second half of the 4th millennium bc, are sometimes attributed to the Early Predynastic (“Badarian”), but without any certainty.
Hendrickx (2020). This “Naqadan expansion”, although widely accepted, is debated (Köhler 2020).
Stevenson (2016) for a critical review and further references.
Gatto (2011); Osypiński, Osypińska & Zych (2021); Gatto, Nicolini & Curci (2022); Bourgeois, Crépy & Gatto (forthcoming).
https://www.borderscapeproject.org/ (18/03/2024).
Darnell (2013a: 787); Tallet & Somaglino (2014); Tallet (2015), Darnell et al. (forthcoming: 68).
Winkler (1938); Dunbar (1941); Engelmayer (1965); Basch & Gorbéa (1968); Hellström & Langballe (1970); Červiček (1974); Rohl (2000); Morrow et al. (2010). See Varadzinová (2017) and Polkowski (2018) for an exhaustive list.
e.g. Huyge (1995, 2002), Darnell et al. (2002); Darnell (2013b); Morenz, Said & Abdelhay 2020; Döhl (2022).
Darnell (2017, 2018); Darnell et al. (forthcoming).
Hendrickx et al. (2012); Lippiello & Gatto (2012); Gatto (2021); Vanhulle (2023b); Vanhulle et al. (in prep.).
We thank Julien Cooper for his most welcome and useful comments in this regard.
Although a detailed, renewed analysis of these panels and rock art sites would be welcome, it cannot be conducted in these few pages. Moreover, most of these sites are currently in the process of being published. Preliminary studies already exist (see n. 53–56).
We express our gratitude to the Elkab Desert Survey Project (edsp) and the Aswan-Kom Ombo Archaeological Project (akap) for welcoming us in their team and giving us access to their material.
This work has been discussed and initiated by A. Brémont, whom we thank for giving us access to some of her unpublished observations (2018).
Davis (1990). The study of Egyptian painting, for example, take into consideration “stylistic proportions, iconography and techniques of manufacture”: Hartwig (2016: 29–30).
Although there might be an accumulation of images in one panel (e.g. an accumulation of donkeys engraved over several generations), this only suggests an “iconographic attraction” (Darnell 2009) and an importance of the place for a specific category of people. Indeed, rock art is a perfect tool for “place-making”, that is to say, transforming a meaningless territory into a place that is meaningful for specific people at a given time.
About the concept of “scene”: Lenssen-Erz (1992).
Williams, Logan & Murnane (1987); Hendrickx & Eyckerman (2010, 2012); Vanhulle (2018).
Although we tend to consider the social and political developments in the Lower Nile valley during 4th millennium bc as linear and global, it was not the case. Most of the changes and challenges that occurred over the courses of generations, and impacted the way rock art was used by the various communities in Egypt and Nubia, escape us.
Crowned figures are attested in Wadi Gash (Egypt Eastern desert: Winkler 1938: pl.xiii-xiv), Wadi Mahamid in Elkab (Huyge 1995: 177, pl.152) and in Wadi Abbad (Ward, 2006: fig.2a). This last example is problematic as it is only known from an old publication (Kees 1955, fig. 5) and it cannot be ascertained that it was located in Wadi Abbad.
We thank J. Cooper for recalling us this factual reality.
We recall here that this Upper Egyptian visual culture was present as far as the Atbai desert: Cooper & Vanhulle (2019).
“The uniform style and the subjects chosen indicate that the rock art sites of Nag el-Hamdulab were part of a larger programme. They are the result of a premeditated concept, not of successive additions, which seems quite different from the usual practice for Predynastic rock art. It is also noticeable that the drawings are often structured from the right-hand side of the available surface. This also differs from Predynastic scenes, which are generally structured from the centre, which might indicate that the craftsman was influenced by the habit of writing from right to left. In any case, the craftsman must have been a professional and, at this very early stage in Egyptian history, it is safe to assume that he was closely associated with the royal court”: Hendrickx et al. (2016: 51–52).
This remark is made based on the direct observation of the panel. Precise analysis and measurement of these peckmarks remain to be conducted.
First spotted by A.H. Sayce in 1890, an incomplete sketch of panel 7 is first published by J. de Morgan (1894: 203). Lost for decades, it is photographed by L. Habachi (1906–1984) at an unknown date when he was Director of the Aswan Antiquity Service. The photograph was found in L. Habachi photographic archives, which are stored in the Chicago House (Luxor), in 2008. The site was rediscovered soon after by the team of the Aswan-Kom Ombo Archaeological Project: Hendrickx, Darnell & Gatto (2012); Hendrickx et al. (2012); Hendrickx et al. (2016). See also n. 96 and 98.
Darnell (2018) for a detailed description.
Lankester (2013); Vanhulle (2016: 16–18, 356–357, 456–460).
Ikram (2004); Begon (2018).
E.g. Hardtke et al. (2022).
By saying “formal technique”, we mean the recurring patterns in the way rock compositions are produced (e.g. size, depth, and space of peckmarks and smoothing of the surface before engravings) which result in a drawing that reproduces iconographic typologies also attested on other contemporaneous media.
See for example the Proto-hieroglyphic inscription of el-Khawy near Elkab: Darnell (2017).
