Others (e.g. Hendrickx 2001 ) have remained sceptical, rightly pointing out that the
development of Egyptian architectural forms is difficult to substantiate given that early
funerary superstructures were constructed in perishable materials, as is evident from
the elite necropolis at Hierakonpolis where all that remain are post holes. Hendrickx
( 2001 : 97 ) also cites differences in building technique between Uruk and Egyptian
palace-facade forms.
Corroborative evidence for an external impetus seemed to come in the 1980 s when
it was reported that terracotta wall pegs of typical Uruk type, yet made in local Nile
clay, had been recovered from Buto in the western Delta (von der Way 1987 ). These
apparent architectural embellishments were not, however, found in the context of any
structure and their identification as decorative nails has lost support, as has the idea
of a Lower Egyptian origin for niched architecture (van den Brink 2001 ). Material
references for contacts with Syria in the Delta archaeological record are thus, at present,
threadbare. Circumstantially, it remains the case that the sudden appearance of the
niched form in Egypt seems to occur against the backdrop of the much longer
developmental sequence in Mesopotamia (Sievertsen 2008 ) and an external influ-
ence remains plausible. Frankfort also advanced the idea that it was not just the style
of these buildings, but their very substance, mud-brick, that was introduced from
Mesopotamia (see also Sieversten 2008 : 791 – 794 ). He argued that there was no
evidence for extensive use of mud-brick before the Dynastic period although there is
now limited evidence for its development, at least from Naqada II (Kemp 2000 ).
Others have proposed a Levantine influence (e.g. Rizkana and Seeher 1989 : 49 – 56 ).
–– Egypt and Mesopotamia ––Figure 32.3First Dynasty niched mastabaat Saqqara (photograph in the Lucy Gura Archive,
Egypt Exploration Society, courtesy of the Egypt Exploration Society)