spheres of the Nile’s inhabitants who incorporated outside influences within their own
technologies. However, despite the horizon’s distinctiveness in relative terms, its
absolute resolution oscillates over a 200 -year time range. High chronologies favour a
date c. 3600 BCfor the beginning of the Naqada IIC phase (e.g. Hendricx 2006 ), while
lower estimates place its onset at c. 3400 BC(e.g. Joffe 2000 ). The restricted number of
currently available radiocarbon dates does not permit greater resolution, but new
datasets may in future clarify some issues (cf. Bronk et al. 2010 ). Whether full
synchronisation is truly possible remains to be seen, however, as temporal signatures
in separate regions are based on different contexts and taphonomic environments.
In comparison, the Mesopotamian temporal framework has been refined over the
last ten years, providing a longer duration for the Uruk expansion (Joffe 2000 ;
Schwartz 2001 ; Wright and Rupley 2001 ). In place of a short-lived phenomenon
restricted to the Late Uruk period, an extension of Uruk material into Syria is
recognised in LC 4 , dated roughly to 3600 – 3400 BC, which still corresponds
approximately with the Naqada IIC phase. These new estimates accommodate the
evidence for Mesopotamian influences in Egypt far better than had ever previously
been the case (Joffe 2000 ). This is particularly so with regard to the occurrence of lapis
lazuli, cylinder seals, glyptic motifs and (perhaps) niched architecture.
LAPIS LAZULI
The overlap of social networks radiating out from both Egypt and Mesopotamia is first
signalled in the Egyptian archaeological record by the striking semi-precious stone lapis
lazuli. This vibrant blue and speckled pyrite material is one of the most direct pieces
of evidence archaeologists have for the links extending from the East to Egypt, for it
is unknown in Egypt itself, as are the geological conditions necessary for its forma-
tion (Bavay 1997 : 80 ). The most likely provenance is in the Badkhshan province of
Afghanistan, although an alternate source in the Chagai Hills of Pakistan (Casanova
1992 ) remains unsubstantiated for this time period. An estimated 167 Egyptian
Predynastic graves out of some 15 , 000 known contained lapis (Hendrickx and Bavay
2002 : tab. 3. 3 ), but given the statistical vagaries introduced by tomb robbing and the
limitations of early excavation reports, this occurrence is likely to have been higher.
Nevertheless, the amount of lapis in circulation was still limited and contact with the
East is likely to have only been small scale and indirect.
Lapis first appears sporadically in one or two graves in Naqada I/II, but it is not until
Naqada IIC that a definite presence of lapis across Upper Egyptian communities is
established (Hendrickx and Bavay 2002 : tab. 3. 3 ). It has been found in a cross-section
of Upper Egyptian burial contexts, from small, basically furnished burials to large
tombs with more elaborate assemblages. By the first dynasty, however, lapis appears to
be restricted to only the most elite of contexts, including the burials of the first rulers.
Yet in the succeeding second and third dynasties not a single example can be cited and
some lapis found in the tomb of King Qa’a, the final king of the Egyptian first dynasty
(Hendrickx and Bavay 2002 : 66 ), is the last known example for almost half a
millennium. It is not until the fourth dynasty that it appears again, notably in the
burial of Queen Hetepheres, a wife of King Sneferu (c. 2613 – 2589 BC). Whether this is
a true hiatus in lapis availability is uncertain, as second dynasty contexts are very poorly
attested relative to the previous dynasty.–– Egypt and Mesopotamia ––