thus easily accommodated within the developing elite’s concern with ‘the containment
of unrule’ and the domination of order over chaos (Baines 1995 : 13 – 14 ; Kemp 2006 :
92 – 99 ). The potency of these images as representations of the dangerous edges of the
habitable landscape may also explain the manner in which they were materially
incorporated into the Egyptian world. The positioning of such images on the handles
of knives, for example, made it possible for certain individuals to physically grasp them,
effectively smothering and controlling these images of chaos. The association of
ceremonial object and elite subject in this way, as Baines ( 1995 ) has suggested, restricted
modes of communication and display to an inner elite and these images did not
circulate beyond this enclosed social world.
OTHER EARLY IMPORTSThe case for directly imported Mesopotamian pottery is much weaker. Baumgartel
( 1955 : 52 – 102 ) argued strongly for extensive Mesopotamian influence upon decorated
pottery. Few scholars, however, regard the simple geometric patterns as evidence for the
adoption of foreign designs and debate has focused instead on ceramic form. The most
convincing parallels are triangular lug handles present on some painted vessels of
Naqada IIC/IID (Petrie 1921 : pl. XXXIV–V; Figure 32. 2 ). The marl pottery fabric and
the designs upon them are local, but the type of handles are known from Uruk pottery
(Amiran 1992 : 427 – 428 ) and form another example of the selective incorporation of
foreign elements within the local oeuvre similar to the adoption of the Canaanite wavy
handle. Imported prototypes are rare, but a sherd from Badari (Petrie Museum
UC 9796 ) and a vessel from Mostegedda (Brunton 1937 : pl. 32. 3 ) should be noted. More
direct imports in the form of spouted vessels have also been claimed (e.g. Marks 1997 ;
Wilkinson 2002 ), but the ware of many of these is local (contra Wilkinson 2002 ) and
independent invention or local imitation is possible for this rather generic form
(Hendrickx and Bavay 2002 : 70 ). Thirteen sherds found in the Delta at Buto that were
identified as Amuq F-ware ceramics from Northern Syria (Köhler 1992 , 1998 ) remain
contentious (Faltings 1998 : 366 – 371 ). On the subject of pottery sherds, it should be
noted that only one piece of evidence for Egyptian material in the Sumerian world has
been proposed: a fragment of ‘black incised’ pottery (N-ware) found at Habuba Kabira-
South (Sürenhagen 1986 : 22 ), a type of ceramic created in Egypt’s neighbouring Nubia.
This fragment is, however, small (< 5 cm) and its identification is open to question.
The material elements so far mentioned are the most visible references in the
archaeological record to wider exchanges from beyond Egypt. There remain, however,
more ambiguous traces, such as the movement of resins, as these are more difficult
materials to analyse. A wide variety of resins may have been exploited by Egyptians and
while Levantine sources were more accessible, resources are widely distributed (Serpico
2000 ). Similarly, bitumen could have been available to Egyptians from a number of
locations and deposits in the Near East (Serpico 2000 : 454 ). More intangible still are
supposed stimuli for technical concepts such as writing and faience production, for
which Mesopotamian origins have been proffered (Dalley 1998 : 11 ; Lucas and Harris
1962 : 464 – 465 ), but for which no substantiation currently exists (Tite and Shortland
2008 : 58 ). In the case of writing, recent evidence from tomb U-j at Abydos has certainly
pushed back the date for the earliest notation in Egypt to Naqada IIIA 1 , but this is far
from establishing whether this or the Mesopotamian system is older (Baines 2004 : 176 ).
–– Egypt and Mesopotamia ––