opportunistic borrowings that include raw materials such as lapis lazuli, a handful of
cylinder seals, artistic inspiration from a limited number of glyptic motifs, a few
tenuous pottery parallels and, more controversially, the concept of niched architecture.
In contrast, no material correlates of reciprocal borrowings from Egypt are currently
known from Mesopotamia.
The source, scale and nature of such borrowings in early Egypt has been continually
scrutinised since the beginning of the twentieth century. Frankfort’s ideas were
enthusiastically taken up by Kantor ( 1942 , 1952 ), Baumgartel ( 1955 ) and Ward ( 1964 )
who all drew attention to further artefacts of possible Mesopotamian derivation. The
latter part of the twentieth century saw further syntheses by scholars such as Moorey
( 1987 , 1990 ) and Smith ( 1992 ). The validity of specific identifications of some of the
imports they describe has been debated persistently as reflected by a vast literature of
opinion. It is not the intention here to provide another exhaustive review of the same
set of data. Rather the concern is how Egypt became ‘acquainted with achievements
in Mesopotamia’ and why certain elements were borrowed in the way they were. To this
end, the possible networks of communities through which material could travel should
be considered, as there is a tendency to simply juxtapose two ‘great civilisations’ at the
expense of appreciating the role of surrounding societies. The analysis of networks
through which material flowed from the East to Egypt has in the last few decades
focused on the ‘Uruk expansion’ and connections through Syria. This does not,
however, preclude the possibility of additional points of entry for exotica and ongoing
consideration ought to be given to the wider field of social networks extending across
and around the Arabian peninsula. Such an attempt remains complicated by
outstanding problems of chronological synchronisation and gaps in the archaeological
evidence, but it is still possible to challenge definitive statements about the movement
of ideas and materials in prehistory. A second theme explored below concerns how
foreign imports may have been socially evaluated through consideration of the recep-
tion and incorporation of exotic materials and images. Overall, this review is not
intended to be conclusive as many questions remain concerning the dating, materials
and routes of exchange, and this field is always open to new findings and inter-
pretations.PREDYNASTIC AND EARLY DYNASTIC EGYPT
In the winter of late 1894 and early 1895 , the pioneering archaeologist Flinders Petrie
excavated a vast cemetery in Upper Egypt at Naqada. Some 3 , 000 graves were opened
over the course of the season and Petrie was struck by the seemingly ‘wholly un-
Egyptian’ (Petrie and Quibell 1896 : 8 ) character of the burial assemblages found within.
At that time prehistoric Egypt was only a vague concept without tangible reference
points and Petrie did not at first recognise that what he had documented at Naqada
were in fact the forebears for the better-known dynastic culture. Following similar
discoveries, however, the true significance of Naqada as a prehistoric necropolis was
accepted. Petrie’s innovative sequence dating of the grave assemblages from both
Naqada and cemeteries around Diospolis Parva formed the material framework for
what became known as the Predynastic period (Table 32. 1 ).
In stark contrast to Uruk period evidence, mortuary contexts have remained the
primary source of data for the interpretation of the Egyptian Predynastic, especially
–– Egypt and Mesopotamia ––