The similarity of many of these images to Susan as opposed to Sumerian styles has
been noted (e.g. Boehmer 1974 a: 514 ; Moorey 1987 : 39 ; Smith 1992 : 245 ), but perhaps
overstated as evidence of a transmission route that bypassed Sumer. Given that these
iconographical features have been found in Northern Syria on the LC 4 – 5 sites of
Habuba Kabira, Sheikh Hassan and Jebel Aruda (Pittman 2001 ), it is not necessary to
seek their direct origin as far as Susa. Ultimately, however, it is possible that seals and
sealings were conveyed along several routes.
As other scholars have noted (e.g. Moorey 1987 ), the original meanings associated
with these motifs within the Sumerian world may not have been known in Egypt and
indeed could have been irrelevant as they were reinterpreted to fit the developing
ideology of the Egyptian elite. Moorey suggested ( 1987 : 43 ) that they were symbols of
the authority and power of the distant people who controlled access to such exotic
materials as lapis. Yet as with lapis, the potency of these images was as much bound
up with their status simply as exotic imports and their inherent drama as in whatever
they may have symbolised. Their fantastical nature lent them a unique position outside
the indigenous repertoire of representation, which by contrast drew from the
Egyptian’s natural environment (Pittman 1996 : 19 – 22 ). Consequently, such images
were appropriate references for the margins of the Egyptian’s known world. They were
–– Alice Stevenson ––Figure 32.1Portion of the painted wall of Naqada IIC tomb 100 at Hierakonpolis.
A figure holding back two animals can be seen in the bottom left-hand corner,
a motif seen first on round button seals from Susa, but later also common in the
Sumerian glyphic repertoire (Kemp 2006 : 80 )