As it stands, however, this parabolic pattern of lapis lazuli occurrence over time does
coincide with the ebb and flow of social networks across the Egyptian and Sumerian
worlds. For instance, one of the earliest cemeteries in Lower Egypt associated with the
northwards spread of Naqadan social practices is el-Gerzeh, founded in Naqada IIC
and which notably has a high concentration of lapis (Stevenson 2009 : 118 – 119 ). Out
of 298 graves, sixteen were found to contain lapis, the highest percentage of graves with
lapis known from any Predynastic cemetery of that date. The high incidence of lapis
at el-Gerzeh relative to other cemeteries may be attributable to the unusually intact
condition in which the majority of tombs were found. It might also, however, point
to the social ability of community members here to acquire material through the
new opportunities afforded by closer proximity to the expanding social currents in
Mesopotamia.
Passage through the Uruk colonies in Syria and then across a sea route from the
northern Levant is currently the favoured model (Kantor 1992 ; Moorey 1987 , 1990 ;
Tessier 1987 ) and certainly the discovery of lumps of raw lapis at Jebel Aruda (van Driel
and van Driel-Murray 1979 : 19 – 20 ) is suggestive of such a route. The role of Byblos
on the Levantine coast has been noted in this context as a possible intermediary
between the Uruk and the Egyptian worlds (Prag 1986 ). This, however, is disputed (e.g.
Philip 2002 : 219 ) and not until the first half of the third millennium BCdoes the port
definitely occupy a central position in inter-regional trade. This in itself is part of a
wider pattern of shifting exchange interests and opportunities. Just as the upturn in the
quantity of lapis coming into Egypt coincides with a meeting of the Uruk and Naqada
expansions, its seeming disappearance at the end of the first dynasty corresponds with
the retraction of the Uruk sphere of influence.
The coincidence of lapis in both Egypt and Syria, however, does not necessarily
prove a direct or exclusive ‘trade’ route (contraMarks 1997 ). As a visually striking
substance, lapis invited complex biographies as it circulated through communities and
travelled far from its geological point of origin. At el-Gerzeh, as at most Predynastic
sites, lapis is most usually found in the form of small disc beads that comprise part of
longer composite strings of beadwork. Such beads are frequently so tiny and so few in
number that they were not visually prominent in the wider set. In such small quanti-
ties, lapis could have been transported the 4000 km to Egypt by any number of routes,
through multiple hands and via several stops (Sherratt and Sherratt 1991 : 357 ). Thus
while lapis was likely propelled north through Sumer, it could also have become
entangled in other geographies of exchange bypassing Sumer entirely. For instance, it
has been noted (Smith 1992 : 245 ) that the earliest parallels for glyptic art found in
Egypt (see below) are with Susa, rather than Sumer suggesting that the former could
have been the southern Mesopotamian intermediary for the transmission of imports,
such as lapis, to the Nile Valley.
A sea route around or a land route across Arabia, for instance, has long been mooted.
In the earlier twentieth century, this was considered to be the direct link between Egypt
and Mesopotamia (e.g. Frankfort 1951 : 110 – 111 ; Kantor 1952 : 250 ; Petrie 1917 ), with the
Wadi Hammamat in Egypt’s Eastern desert seen as providing the crucial channel
connecting the Nile to the Red Sea. Early rock art depicting high-prowed boats was
cited as evidence to support this maritime connection (Winkler 1938 : 26 ), as were the
boats carved on the Gebel el-Arak handle (Petrie 1917 ). Yet as Moorey noted ( 1987 : 39 )
Winkler’s boat distinctions are not clear cut and their distribution is not restricted to
–– Alice Stevenson ––