This pdf is a digital offprint of your contribution in M.D.

Adams (ed.), B. Midant-Reynes, E.M. Ryan & Y. Tristant

(coll.), Egypt at its Origins 4, ISBN 978-90-429-3385-9

The copyright on this publication belongs to Peeters

Publishers.

As author you are licensed to make printed copies of the

pdf or to send the unaltered pdf file to up to 50 relations.
You may not publish this pdf on the World Wide Web –
including websites such as academia.edu and open-access
repositories – until three years after publication. Please
ensure that anyone receiving an offprint from you
observes these rules as well.

If you wish to publish your article immediately on open-

access sites, please contact the publisher with regard to
the payment of the article processing fee.

For queries about offprints, copyright and republication

of your article, please contact the publisher via
peeters@peeters-leuven.be
 ORIENTALIA LOVANIENSIA
ANALECTA
————— 252 —————

EGYPT AT ITS ORIGINS 4

Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference

“Origin of the State. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt”,
New York, 26th – 30th July 2011

edited by

matthew douglas adams

with the collaboration of

béatrix midant-reynes, ellen m. RYAN

and YANN TRISTANT

PEETERS
LEUVEN – PARIS – BRISTOL, CT
2016

98874_Adams_OLA_Voorwerk.indd 3 10/11/16 11:07

 Contents

Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii

Acknowledgements
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .xvii

Tell el-Farkha and Lower Egyptian Sites

Grzegorz Bąk-Pryc, Stone vessels from Tell el-Farkha. Seasons 2001–

2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Marek Chłodnicki, Beginnings of mud brick architecture in Egypt: A
case study from Kom C at Tell el-Farkha
. . . . . . . . . 21
Krzysztof M. Ciałowicz, Beginnings of the Naqadan occupation of the
Nile Delta: A view from Tell el-Farkha . . . . . . . . . 33
Joanna Dębowska-Ludwin, Early Egyptian niche architecture from the
perspective of Tell el-Farkha
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Mariusz A. Jucha, The northeastern part of the Nile Delta during the
Naqada III Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Piotr Kołodziejczyk, The Nile Delta before Naqadans – Remarks on
cultural sequence and development of Lower Egyptian community . 77
Agnieszka Mączyńska, Naqadan-Lower Egyptian interactions during the
4th millennium BC. A comparative study of pottery dated to the
Naqada II period from the sites at Adaïma and Tell el-Farkha .  . 83
Michał Kurzyk, The Egyptian bone and ivory artefacts from Tell el-
Farkha . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .109
Angela Sophia La Loggia, Egyptian construction in the Early Dynastic
period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .121
Yann Tristant, Abu Rawash 2009–2010. preliminary results from the
re-excavation of 1st Dynasty elite mastabas at the Cemetery M .  . 155

98874_Adams_OLA_Voorwerk.indd 5 10/11/16 11:07

 VI contents

Abydos, Hierakonpolis and Upper Egyptian Sites

Masahiro Baba & Renee F. Friedman, Recent excavations at HK11C,

Hierakonpolis
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .179
Baruch Brandl, The sealings and the pr-wr labels from Tomb U-j at
Umm el-Qa‘ab, Abydos reconsidered . . . . . . . . . .207
Maria Carmela Gatto, Nag el-Qarmila and the southern periphery of the
Naqada Culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .227
Frederick E. Hardtke, Occupation and settlement at Hierakonpolis – A
rock art perspective
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .247
Ulrich Hartung, Chronological aspects of the development of funeral
equipment in Cemetery U at Abydos (Umm el-Qa‘ab) .  .  .  .  . 271
Yaser Mahmoud Hussein, The brick architecture of a new tomb from the
Early Dynastic cemetery at South Abydos . . . . . . . . .299
Colleen Manassa Darnell, The Predynastic period in the provinces: a
view from Moalla and the northern portion of the Third Nome .  . 309
Vera Müller, Evidence for chests and boxes from the royal tomb of Den
at Abydos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .335
Marinus Ormeling, Modelling labour in Ancient Egypt: the First Dynasty
mud brick fortress at Elephantine . . . . . . . . . . .355
Joel Paulson, Mapping in the fourth dimension . . . . . . . .377
Izumi H. Takamiya, Another type of heating/cooking installation at
Hiera­konpolis: a view from the excavations at Locality HK24B .  . 399
Alberto Urcia & Antonio Curci, Digital documentation and three-
dimensional reconstruction of ­Predynastic-Early Dynastic rock art in
Aswan (Egypt) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .411
Bart Vanthuyne, Early Old Kingdom rock circle cemeteries in Deir el-
Bersha and Deir Abu Hinnis . . . . . . . . . . . . .427

Objects and Iconography

Alain Anselin, Sociological aspects of the development of the phonetic

writing in the Preydnastic inscriptions and potmarks .  .  .  .  . 463
Marcelo Campagno, Kinship, sacred leadership, and conditions for the
emergence of the Egyptian State
. . . . . . . . . . . .493

98874_Adams_OLA_Voorwerk.indd 6 10/11/16 11:07

 contents VII

Stan Hendrickx, Paul Simoens & Merel Eyckerman, “The facial veins”
of the bull in Predynastic Egypt
. . . . . . . . . . . .505
Stan Hendrickx, Frank Förster & Merel Eyckerman, The Narmer Pal-
ette – A new recording
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .535
Antje Kohse, Bracelets in Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt .  .  . 547
Robert Kuhn, Some ideas concerning vessel imitations from the forma-
tive phase in Ancient Egypt . . . . . . . . . . . . .553
Alice Stevenson, Peculiar pebbles and freak flints: unusual assemblages
from Early Egypt in the Pitt Rivers Museum .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 575
Bruce Williams, Tracing institutional development before detailed
records
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .589

98874_Adams_OLA_Voorwerk.indd 7 10/11/16 11:07

 THE SEALINGS AND THE pr-wr LABELS FROM
TOMB U-J AT UMM EL-QA‘AB, ABYDOS RECONSIDERED

BARUCH BRANDL
IsraelAntiquitiesAuthority,Jerusalem,Israel

ThesuggestedreconstructionsoftheimpressionsfoundontheclaysealingsfromTomb
U-jatUmmel-Qa‘ab,Abydos,havebeengenerallyaccepted,inspiteoftheirunique
appearance.Anaccurateexaminationofthepublishedmaterialhasindicatedthatthose
impressionsshouldnotbeconsideredascylindersealimpressions.Accordingtoour
observations, two different types of objects made the impressions: small labels and
bracelets,bothmostprobablymadeofivory.TheuseofivorybraceletstypicalofAby-
dosclearlyconfirmsthatthesealimpressionsfromTombU-jwerelocallymade.
Thesmallgroupofninelabelsfromthesametombwithdepictionsofthepr-wr,or
thePredynasticnationalshrineofUpperEgyptatHierakonpolis,togetherwithdead
elephants,maycontributetotheunderstandingofitsoriginalshapeandthelaterdevel-
opmentsuptotheOldKingdom.
Asaby-product,thelastobservationmaycontributeaswelltoanewidentification
ofthePredynasticbull/elephantheadamulets.

Introduction

Whilst studying a new ivory Predynastic cylinder seal from the recent excava-
tions at Megiddo, Israel, on which three human figures and an elephant stand-
ing on a three-peaked-mountain (Brandl 2013) are carved, I surveyed the
appearance of elephants and ivory products in Predynastic Egypt. The two most
important sites in this respect are Hierakonpolis and Abydos. The excellent
Umm el-Qa‘ab final reports (Dreyer 1998; Hartung 2001), with the high qual-
ity of the graphics showing interalia the finds from Tomb U-j, enabled me to
re-evaluate some of those finds.
I will be discussing three separate subjects, each of an iconographic nature
and each relating to a different aspect of Predynastic Egypt: administration,
religious architecture and the changing environment.
• The first part will reconsider the exceptional physical nature of the impres-
sions that appear on the jar sealings from Tomb U-j.
• The second part will concentrate on a small group of labels showing struc-
tures identified with the pr-wr, the Predynastic national shrine of Upper
Egypt at Hierakonpolis (Nekhen). I will be suggesting a new location for the
shrine.
• In the third part I will be discussing not an actual find from Tomb U-j, but
rather a group of amulets that may be interpreted on the basis of some
observation concerning the pr-wr labels. I will concentrate on the various
208 B. BRANDL

identifications of the Predynastic bull/elephant’s head amulets and will sug-

gest a new interpretation.

The sealings from Tomb U-j

Nearly 250 sealings were found in Tomb U-j, divided into five types (Dreyer
1998: 108–112; Hartung 2001: 216–229, 230–238). The suggested reconstruc-
tions of the Umm el-Qa‘ab impressions and the assumption that they were
made by cylinder seals have been generally accepted, this in spite of their
unique appearance in relation to Predynastic glyptic.
Each of the five reconstructed impressions from Tomb U-j consists of a
central panel surrounded by a frame decorated with geometric motifs (Fig. 1).
This exceptional appearance is clearly noticed in a figure presented in Guyot
(2004: 87, fig. 3) where the Type I seal impression was adjusted to the others
in the figure by erasing most of its frame. I shall be discussing here only Types
I and II.

ImpressionTypeI

A close examination of the reconstruction (Fig. 2) indicates that there is no

justification for the inclusion of the upper strip of the frame as an integral part

Fig. 1. Reconstructions of the five impression types found on jar sealings

from Tomb U-j at Umm el-Qa‘ab (Hartung 2001: fig. 41a).
 THE SEALINGS AND THE pr-wr LABELS FROM TOMB U-J 209

of the central panel. Sealing K817u shows parts of two central panels, above
and below the cutting (or overlapping) line (A), where impression 2 – without
the upper geometrical strip – cuts impression 1, and therefore the right part of
the upper strip as shown in the reconstruction is only theoretical. In this case
then, can the existence of the upper strip of the frame, above the left side of
the central panel, be claimed?
A closer examination of that area shows another phenomenon (Fig. 3). The
reconstructed upper strip of the frame is separated from the left hand vertical
strip by a double line clearly seen in the photograph (marked by an arrow) and
which clearly relates to the left geometric design and not in any way to the
central panel. Moreover this double line is slightly offset from the double line
of the reconstructed upper strip of the frame. It seems that this entire impressed
area was stamped in the following sequence (Fig. 3 – marked 1, 2 and 3).
Therefore the suggested reconstruction of a central panel surrounded always by
a continuous frame does not seem to be viable.

Fig. 2. Sealing K817u versus the reconstruction of Type I sealing

(Hartung 2001: figs. 30e, 41a [Typ I], pl. 88 [K817u]).
210 B. BRANDL

Fig. 3. Sealing K817u versus the reconstruction of Type I sealing

(Hartung 2001: figs. 30e, 41a [Typ I], pl. 88 [K817u]).

ImpressionTypeII

The situation in the reconstructed Type II sealing is even more complicated.

According to sealing K812a there is no lower inner segment in impression 2,
and the cutting (or overlapping) line (A2) should be recognised as its base line
(Fig. 4).
Another observation regarding the reconstruction of Types I and II indicates
that both central panels are bordered by double lines on two opposing sides,
either horizontally (Fig. 1, Type I) or vertically (Fig. 1, Type II). As shown
earlier, these double lines actually belonged to the geometric strips.1
These observations – that there are no single continuous frames around a
central panel and that each geometric strip is independent – lead to the overall
conclusion that all five reconstructed types of seal impressions found in Tomb
U-j were not produced by single cylinder seals.
Support for this conclusion is found in a group of ivory bracelets, bearing
rhombi with double line edges, that was found during the old and the new
excavations at the tomb of Djer at Umm el-Qa‘ab (Fig. 5). Three types among

1
A point that is relevant for the understanding of how the sealings were technically made.
 THE SEALINGS AND THE pr-wr LABELS FROM TOMB U-J 211

Fig. 4. Sealing K812a versus the reconstruction of Type II sealing

(Hartung 2001: figs. 31b, 41a [Typ 2], pl. 88 [K812a]).

Fig. 5. Ivory bracelets from the Tomb of Djer at Umm el-Qa‘ab

(Petrie 1901b: pl. 6.19-21; Dreyer 2009: pl. 6.c).
212 B. BRANDL

Fig. 6. Reconstruction of Type I sealings and bracelets Type A and B

(Hartung 2001: fig. 41a [Typ I]; Petrie 1901b: pl. 6.20; Dreyer 2009: pl. 6.c).

them resemble the geometric impressions found on the Umm el-Qa‘ab seal-
ings: Bracelets A and B resemble the impressions on Sealing Type I (Fig. 6).
Bracelet C resembles the impressions on Sealing Type II (Fig. 7).
Sealing K817f was made by three impressions of the same bracelet (B),
without any traces of usual central panels (Fig. 8).
In my view the central panels were stamped by flat ivory labels. This sepa-
rate observation could be deduced from the situation on the U-j impressions,
where there is not even one case of changing places between the right and left
parts of the central panel (Hartung, 2001: 219–222, figs. 29–32) comparing to
the typical phenomenon found among cylinder seal impressions.
 THE SEALINGS AND THE pr-wr LABELS FROM TOMB U-J 213

Fig. 7. Reconstruction of Type II sealings and bracelet Type C

(Hartung 2001: fig. 41a [Typ 2]; Dreyer 2009: pl. 6.c).

Fig. 8. Sealing K817f and bracelet Type B

(Hartung 2001: pl. 88 [K817f]; Dreyer 2009: pl. 6.c).
214 B. BRANDL

The bracelets found in the nearby tomb of Djer (Fig. 5) (at a distance of
about 200 m)2, lead to the conclusion that those bracelets used earlier to stamp
the sealings from Tomb U-j were also produced in the vicinity of Umm el-
Qa‘ab. If this suggestion is correct, then it supports the view (McGovern 2001:
407 [point number 8], 416) that the sealings of the wine jars from Tomb U-j
were locally made at Abydos and not in the Delta.3

The pr-wr labels from Tomb U-j

Nine labels among those found in Tomb U-j show structures made of wood and
reeds that were identified with the pr-wr, the Predynastic national shrine of
Upper Egypt at Hierakonpolis (Nekhen) (Dreyer 1998: 120–122, nos. 61–69)
(Fig. 9a). This identification is based on their resemblance to the more elabo-
rate structures appearing on seal impressions dated to Dynasty 1. It was Emery
(1939: 26, 99–100, no. 47) (Fig. 9b) who compared such seal impressions with
the pr-wr determinative on a relief dated to Sneferu of Dynasty 4 (Fig. 9c).

Shapeofthepr-wr

Dieter Arnold is among those who tried to explain the strange shape of the
pr-wr shrine (1982; 1994: 190). He identified that structure as representing
either an elephant or a rhinoceros.4 I fully agree with the first option – the
elephant.5
An important observation that will serve us in the following discussion is the
leg positions of the various elephants appearing on the labels from Tomb U-j.
Three different groups of elephants are depicted, each with its own typical leg
position:
• The first group consists of freestanding elephants showing a row of 4 legs
in a vertical position (Fig. 10a [IIII]).
• The second group shows an elephant standing on a three-peaked mountain.
Here the two inner legs share the central peak, and the general shape of the
leg arrangement resembles the capital letter M (Fig. 10b [M]).
• The third group consists of recumbent elephants with only two bent legs
(Fig. 10c [LL]).

2
For a combined plan of the cemetery at Umm el-Qa‘ab, where Tomb U-j and that of King
Djer appear together; see Dreyer 2009: pl. 1.
3
For the view that most of the so-called Canaanite ceramic assemblage from Tomb U-j was
produced in nearby Wadi Qena, see Porat and Goren (2001), and more recently the finds from
El-Amra may be considered as a support (Hill & Herbich 2011: 128–131).
4
This convincing suggestion was omitted from the English translation (Arnold 2003: 174).
For other supporters of the rhinoceros option; see Müller 2011: 595–596.
5
Arnold also produced an isometric reconstruction of such a shrine, a subject that will be
referred to below (Fig. 12c).
 THE SEALINGS AND THE pr-wr LABELS FROM TOMB U-J 215

Fig. 9. Artistic depictions of pr-wr shrines: a. on labels from Tomb U-j at Umm
el-Qa‘ab, b. on seal impressions from Saqqara, c. on reliefs of Sneferu
(Dreyer 1998: fig. 77.61–69; Emery 1939: 99; Arnold 1982: 935 respectively).

Fig. 10. Leg position of the various elephants appearing on the labels from Tomb U-j
(Dreyer 1998: figs. 76–77).
216 B. BRANDL

An additional difference between the free standing elephants and those

standing on a three-peaked hill is the number of the tusks. The freestanding
elephants have two horizontal tusks related to their hanging trunks (Fig. 10a).
Only Label 59 (Dreyer 1998: 119 no. 59, pl. 29.59) shows an elephant standing
on a three-peaked-hill with two horizontal tusks and a tree, while all the other
elephants in the same position have only one tusk (Fig. 10b).
Coming back to the pr-wr labels, the shrines depicted in six out of the nine
labels (see arrows in Fig. 11, lower) could be compared with freestanding
elephants (Fig. 11, upper), since both share the same features. In those six
labels the front section of the shrine is for the most part separated from the rest
of the structure, except at the top and bottom, and two or three protrusions jut-
ting from the upper parts. It seems to me that those elements could be identified
as representing the hanging trunk and the related tusks.
Therefore we suggest that the pr-wr shrines on the Tomb U-j labels are
shaped as elephants.
If our observation is correct, one can see the development in the shape of
those shrines, all the way from Tomb U-j labels (Fig. 12a) to the determinative
dated to Sneferu of Dynasty 4 (Fig. 12e). The simple trunks on the labels
(Fig. 12a) were changed into a more elaborate trunk, to which were added an
elephant’s head and back silhouette, an obvious tail and a door in the rear
(Fig. 12b).6
The engaged pillars in front of the stone pr-wr shrines from the complex of
King Djoser’s Step Pyramid (Fig. 12d) represent the hanging trunks, and the
strange floral elements on their upper part may be identified with elephant’s
ears. The strange shape of the pr-wr determinative (Fig. 12e) still maintains the
elephant’s rounded back, his tail, his trunk, and his tusks in schematic style.

Locationofthepr-wr

An additional observation regarding the pr-wr labels may contribute to the

question of its actual location in the area of Hierakonpolis.
• According to the first suggestion, the pr-wr was standing on the circular and
the revetted mound in the enclosure, near the location of the Main Deposit.
That shrine, which was reconstructed by combining the Djoser and Sneferu
images, was surrounded by other shrines, as per Hoffman (shown in McNamara
2008: Fig. 7), or isolated, as per Lehner (1997: 7274).
• An additional location for the pr-wr shrine at Hierakonpolis was suggested
by Hoffman to be in Locality HK29A where traces of a pillared structure
were found (Friedman 1996). Recently, the temple theory was abandoned

6
This interpretation differs from Arnold’s (1994: 190; 2003: 173; see here Fig. 12c), where
the trunk became a façade).
 THE SEALINGS AND THE pr-wr LABELS FROM TOMB U-J 217

Fig. 11. Six labels of pr-wr shrines compared to three labels with free standing
elephants with hanging trunk and related tusks (Dreyer 1998: figs. 76–77).

Fig. 12. The development of the pr-wr shrines from a. the predynastic label
in Tomb U-j (Dreyer 1998: fig. 77); through b. the Saqqara seal impressions
(Emery 1939: 99); c. a different suggested reconstruction (Arnold 1994: 190);
to d. the pyramid complex of Dynasty 3 King Djoser (Lauer 1976: pl. 13, ills. 92–93);
to e. the determinatives on reliefs of Sneferu (Arnold 1982: 935).
218 B. BRANDL

Fig. 13. The leg position of the recumbent elephants

depicted on the labels from Tomb U-j with those of a young elephant
(Dreyer 1998: fig. 77; Gröning & Saller 1998: 68).

Fig. 14. Two pr-wr shrine labels from Tomb U-j as reflecting the situation
between elephant’s Tomb 24 and Structure 7 in Locality HK6 at Hierakonpolis
(Dreyer 1998: fig. 77; Friedman 2008: fig. 3)
 THE SEALINGS AND THE pr-wr LABELS FROM TOMB U-J 219

and the complex was identified as a ceremonial centre devoted to feasting or

perhaps butchery (Friedman 2009: 81).
The pr-wr labels from Tomb U-j may contribute to this matter, but first we
must solve the question of the interpretation of Label 61 (Fig. 13.61). Accord-
ing to Dreyer (1998: 120, no. 61) the elephant is freestanding, but he has only
two legs, both of which are bent, and as such it should be identified as a recum-
bent elephant. This observation contributes to two aspects regarding the pr-wr:
• First, it confirms that all the other recumbent animals are indeed elephants
contrary to Kahl’s (2003: 125) interpretation, followed by Wegner (2007:
483–484) and Regulski (2010: 105–106 [E21] and 384 [E21]), that these
are Seth-animals.7
• The second aspect is that with this correction it is noticed that all the pr-wr
shrines depicted on Tomb U-j labels are related to recumbent elephants.
I fully agree with Dreyer’s and Regulski’s comment, that “…not only is this
position anatomically impossible, but the elephant is always depicted in stand-
ing position” (Regulski 2010: 105), and suggest that these depictions should
be interpreted as elephant burials.
This interpretation stands behind our new suggestion for the location of a
Naqada IIA period pr-wr shrine in Locality HK 6 – the elite cemetery in Wadi
Abu Sufian.8 There, Tomb 24 contains an elephant burial. It seems that the
nearby columned Structure 07 is the best candidate for the pr-wr location.
Structure E8 in which Tomb 24 is located is a lesser candidate (Friedman 2004;
2008).9 This observation is based on Label 61 where the recumbent elephant is
depicted above the pr-wr shrine, and not below – as on Label 66 (Fig. 14) and
the other labels – indicating a separation between the elephant burial and the
shrine.10

“Bull’s/elephant’s head” amulets – a new suggestion

Until now seven different identifications have been suggested for this type of
amulet (Fig. 15a-h), of which more than forty examples are known from the
literature:
• The first identification was given by Flinders Petrie. In 1896 he wrote that
“the strange object is inexplicable” (Petrie & Quibell 1896: 46), and it was

7
More recently Darnell (2011: 1174) identified Labels 65 and 67 as depicting jackals.
8
Contrary to the suggestion that those labels bear the name of Hierakonpolis (Nekhen) – see
Anselin 2004: 562–567
9
For a panoramic view of those structures with modern indicating of the wooden columns
placing – see Friedman 2011: 85 fig. 15.
10
For another elephant’s tomb (33) without a nearby columned structure, see Friedman et al.
2011: 175–176, fig. 1.
220 B. BRANDL

only five years later that he identified the motif as a bull’s head (Petrie
1901a: 26, pl. 4 [Amulets]).
• In 1914 Petrie changed his identification to a ram’s head (1914: 44, pl.
38.212) (Fig. 15 [d–e]).
• The third identification – a Hathor head amulet – was proposed by Brunton
and Caton Thompson (1928: 108 [Area F Inventory], pl. 71.63).
• Two more identifications were offered by Michael Hoffman – “bucranium”
or elephant (1989: 321, fig. 1, nos. 2 and 4) (Fig. 15f–g).
• A special article was devoted by Jonathan Van Lepp (1999) against the
bull’s head identification and in favor of the elephant’s head identification.
In addition he even added a resultant reconstruction of frontal views based
on two mirrored images of an elephant (1999: 108, fig. 11).
I identify the image as depicting the front parts of two elephants (head, trunk,
and front leg) in profile, each facing in an opposite direction (Fig. 15a).11 The
division of the amulet into two parts is supported by the sophisticated use the
artisans made of the inner morphology (Fig. 15b) while carving the two ivory
amulets from Naqada.
The “two elephants solution” solves three additional problems: asymmetry,
thickening, and the connection to a deity.
• The first problem, which has been neglected until now, is the asymmetry
that appears on several amulets (Fig. 15c–g) if one maintains the old “fron-
tal view interpretations.”
• The second problem was raised by Hendrickx (2002: 284–288) while reject-
ing the elephant’s head suggestion. According to him, the thickening on the
lower part of the amulet (Fig. 15h) could not belong to an elephant’s trunk
(Hendrickx 2002: 286). This thickening fits well with the lowest part of an
elephant’s legs (Fig. 15 lower).
• The third problem is a neglected connection between the amulet and the
very similarly shaped ideogram of the god dwꜢ-wr as was already suggested
by Scharff (1926: 57, no. 369).
The identification of that name with a god is based on a relief dated to
Sahure of Dynasty 5, and to the existence of a ḥm-nṯr priest of that deity
(Borchardt 1913: pl. 19) (Fig. 16b). The same ideogram appears on a piece of
an ivory box found by Petrie in Umm el-Qa‘ab in the Tomb of Djet (1900: 21,
pls. 10.9, 13.2) (Fig. 16a). The inscription ḥry-nṯr.w dt ḫrp ḥm(.w) dwꜢ was
translated by MacArthur (2010: 129, no. 72) as “Hery-netcheru (PN), Djet,
chief of the servant(s) of royal beard.” Jones (2000: 729, no. 2650) read its end
as “…director of the servants of dwꜢ(-wr?).”

11
For the first critic concerning this suggestion, see Patch 2011: 52, n. 84. However, for
images of double animals, see Hendrickx 2002: fig. 16.1 “Double bull’s head amulets,” fig. 16.8.
“‘Pelta’ palette with two bird heads.”
 THE SEALINGS AND THE pr-wr LABELS FROM TOMB U-J 221

Fig. 15. “Bull’s/elephant’s head” amulets – symmetric and asymmetric, in comparison

to the thickening on the lower parts of some amulets to that of an elephant’s leg
(a. Crowfoot Payne 1993: fig. 72 no. 1693; b. Adams 1988: fig. 31; c. Capart 1905:
195 fig. 153 [M.16.]; d.-e. Petrie 1914: pl. 38.h-j; f.-g. Hoffman 1989: fig. 1.2
and 4; h. Hendrickx 2002: fig. 16.4; i. Dreyer 1998: fig. 76, Gröning & Saller 1998:
69, Arieh Rochman-Halperin [Kruger Park, South Africa]).
222 B. BRANDL

Fig.16. The ideogram and symbol of DwꜢ-wr, “the great Morning-God:”

a. piece of an ivory box with the name of King Djet (Petrie 1900: pl. 13:2);
b. a relief dated to Sahu-Re (Borchardt 1913: pl. 19); c. amulet from Naqada
(Crowfoot Payne 1993: 207, fig. 72 no. 1693; Wengrow and Baines 2004: fig. 3:3);
d–e. unprovenanced mace-head (Wengrow & Baines 2004: fig. 3:4; Scharff 1926:
49, pl. 30 no. a); f. unprovenanced vase (Payne 1993: 144, fig. 57 no. 1201).

I follow Gardiner’s (1944: 29, n. 1) reading for DwꜢ(-wr) as “the (great)

Morning-God.”
As an aside, the same shape of the hieroglyph for ḫrp(= chief, or director)
appears in the title of the “director of Nekhen (Hierakonpolis)” (Jones 2000:
723 no. 2633).
The image of two elephants’ front parts in profile is therefore identified as
the icon of the “Morning-God” DwꜢ-wr. This identification also explains its
appearances as an amulet (Fig. 16c) and as a decorative element on three well-
known prestigious items made of stone – a mace-head from Abusir el-Meleq
(Scharff 1926: 49, pl. 30 no. 288)12 and unprovenanced mace-head and vase
(Fig. 16d-f). Moreover, the termination in the manufacture of this type of amu-
let during the Early Dynastic period (Hendrickx 2002: 284, 287) could be
connected to the disappearance of the African elephant from the Nile Valley

12
For a mace-head from Hierakonpolis decorated with bulls’ foreparts, see Quibell 1900: 8,
pl. 19.3; Bußmann 2010: 268–269, fig. 5.387: H5058.
 THE SEALINGS AND THE pr-wr LABELS FROM TOMB U-J 223

north to Aswan. That environmental change is the result of the killing or expul-
sion of the elephants from cultivated lands.

Acknowledgements

Thanks are due to Pamela Ullman and Sam Wolff, who kindly improved the
English of this paper and to Zvi Lederman for his help with the graphics. I am
also grateful to Benjamin Sass for his assistance concerning the bibliography,
and to Diana Craig Patch for the invitation to participate in the conference.

Bibliography
ADAMS, B., 1988. PredynasticEgypt. Shire Egyptology 7. Aylesbury.
ANSELIN, A., 2004. Problèmes de lecture et d’écriture – les noms des polities naga-
déennes [in:] HENDRICKX, S.; FRIEDMAN, R.F.; CIAŁOWICZ, K.M. & CHŁODNICKI,
M. (eds.), Egypt at its Origins. Studies in memory of Barbara Adams. Proceed-
ingsoftheinternationalconference“OriginoftheState.PredynasticandEarly
Dynastic Egypt”, Kraków, 28th August - 1st September 2002. Orientalia
Lovaniensia Analecta 138. Leuven/Paris/Dudley, MA: 547–573.
ARNOLD, D., 1982. Per-Wer II [in:] LexikonderÄgyptologie 4. Wiesbaden: 934–935.
ARNOLD, D., 1994. LexikonderägyptischenBaukunst. Düsseldorf/Zürich.
ARNOLD, D., 2003. TheEncyclopaediaofAncientEgyptianArchitecture.London/New
York.
BORCHARDT, L., 1913. Das Grabdenkmal des Königs ŚaꜢhu-Rec Band II: Die Wand-
bilder. Leipzig.
BRANDL, B., 2013. Cylinder seals [in:] FINKELSTEIN, I.; USSISHKIN, D. & CLINE, E.H.
(eds.), MegiddoV:The2004–2008seasons. Tel Aviv: 993–1010.
BRUNTON, G. & CATON-THOMPSON, G., 1928. TheBadariancivilisationandPredynas-
ticremainsnearBadari. Egyptian Research Account & British School of Archae-
ology in Egypt 46. London.
BUSSMANN, R., 2010. Die Provinztempel Ägyptens von der 0. Bis zur 11. Dynastie:
Archäologie und Geschichte einer gesellschaftlichen Institution zwischen Resi-
denzundProvinz. Leiden/Boston.
CAPART, J., 1905. PrimitiveartinEgypt. London.
DARNELL, J.C., 2011. The Wadi of the Horus Qa-a: A Tableau of Royal Ritual Power
in the Theban Western Desert [in:] FRIEDMAN, R.F. & FISKE, P.N. (eds.), Egyptat
itsOrigins3.ProceedingsoftheThirdInternationalConference“Originofthe
State. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt”, London, 27th July - 1st August
2008. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 205. Leuven/Paris/Walpole, MA: 1151–
1193.
DREYER, G., 1998. Umm el-Qaab I: das prädynastische Königsgrab U-j und seine
frühenSchriftzeugnisse.Archäologische Veröffentlichungen86. Mainz am Rhein.
DREYER, G., 2009. Report on the 21st campaign of reexamining the royal tombs of
Umm el-Qaab at Abydos 2006/2007. Annales du Service des Antiquités de
l’Égypte 83: 165–175.
EMERY, W.B., 1939. Hor-Aha.ExcavationsatSaqqara1937-1938. Cairo.
FRIEDMAN, R.F., 1996. The ceremonial centre at Hierakonpolis locality HK 29A [in:]
SPENCER, A.J. (ed.), AspectsofearlyEgypt. London: 16–35.
224 B. BRANDL

FRIEDMAN, R.F., 2004. Elephants at Hierakonpolis [in:] HENDRICKX, S.; FRIEDMAN,

R.F.; CIAŁOWICZ, K.M. & CHŁODNICKI, M. (eds.), EgyptatitsOrigins.Studiesin
memoryofBarbaraAdams.Proceedingsoftheinternationalconference“Origin
oftheState.PredynasticandEarlyDynasticEgypt”,Kraków,28thAugust-1st
September 2002. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 138. Leuven/Paris/Dudley,
MA: 547–573.
FRIEDMAN, R.F., 2008. The cemeteries of Hierakonpolis. Archèo-Nil 18: 8–29.
FRIEDMAN, R.F, 2009. Hierakonpolis Locality HK29A: The Predynastic ceremonial
center revisited. JournaloftheAmericanResearchCenterinEgypt 45: 79–103.
FRIEDMAN, R.F, 2011. Hierakonpolis [in:] PATCH, D.C. (ed.), Dawn of Egyptian art.
New York: 82–93.
FRIEDMAN, R.F.; VAN NEER, W. & LINSEELE, V., 2011. The elite Predynastic cemetery
at Hierakonpolis: 2009-2010 update [in:] FRIEDMAN, R.F. & FISKE, P.N. (eds.),
EgyptatitsOrigins3.ProceedingsoftheThirdInternationalConference“Ori-
gin of the State. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt”, London, 27th July -
1stAugust 2008. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 205. Leuven/Paris/Walpole,
MA: 157–191.
GARDINER, A.H., 1944. Horus the Behdetite. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 30:
23–60.
GRÖNING, K. & SALLER, M., 1998. DerElefantinNaturundKulturgeschichte. Köln.
GUYOT, F., 2004. Structuration sociale et dynamisme des émulations interculturelles.
Quelques considérations sur les contacts entre l’Égypte et la Mésopotamie au
4e millénaire. Archéo-Nil14: 81–100.
HARTUNG, U., 2001. Ummel-Qa‘abII.ImportkeramikausdemFriedhofUinAbydos
(Umm el-Qaab) und die Beziehungen Ägyptens zu Vorderasien im 4. Jahr-
tausendsv.Chr.Archäologische Veröffentlichungen92. Mainz am Rhein.
HENDRICKX, S., 2002. Bovines in Egyptian Predynastic and Early Dynastic iconogra-
phy [in:] HASSAN, F.A. (ed.), Droughts,foodandculture.Ecologicalchangeand
foodsecurityinAfrica’slaterprehistory. New York: 275–318.
HILL, J.A. & HERBICH, T., 2011. Life in the cemetery: Late Predynastic settlement at
el-Amra [in:] FRIEDMAN, R.F. & FISKE, P.N. (eds.), Egypt at its Origins 3. Pro-
ceedingsoftheThirdInternationalConference“OriginoftheState.Predynastic
and Early Dynastic Egypt”, London, 27th July - 1st August 2008. Orientalia
Lovaniensia Analecta 205. Leuven/Paris/Walpole, MA: 109–135.
HOFFMAN, M.A., 1989. A stratified Predynastic sequence from Hierakonpolis (Upper
Egypt) [in:] KRZYŻANIAK, L. & KOBUSIEWICZ, M. (eds.), Late Prehistory of the
NileBasinandtheSahara. Studies in African Archaeology 2. Poznań: 317–323.
JONES, D., 2000. An index of ancient Egyptian titles, epithets and phrases of the Old
Kingdom. British Archaeological Reports, International Series 866. Oxford.
KAHL, J., 2003. Die frühen Schriftzeugnisse aus dem Grab U-j in Umm el-Qaab. Chro-
niqued’Égypte 78: 112–135.
LAUER, J.-P., 1976. Saqqara:TheroyalcemeteryofMemphis.Excavationsanddiscov-
eriessince1850. London.
LEHNER, M., 1997. Thecompletepyramids. London.
MACARTHUR, E.V., 2010. The Conception and Development of the Egyptian Writing
System [in:] WOODS, C. (ed.), Visible Language. Inventions of Writing in the
AncientMiddleEastandBeyond.Oriental Institute Museum Publications 32. Chi-
cago: 115–136.
MCGOVERN, P.E., 2001. The origins of the Tomb U-j Syro-Palestinian type jars as
determined by neutron activation analysis [in:] HARTUNG, U., Umm el-Qaab II.
ImportkeramikausdemFriedhofUinAbydos(Ummel-Qaab)unddieBeziehungen
 THE SEALINGS AND THE pr-wr LABELS FROM TOMB U-J 225

Ägyptens zu Vorderasien im 4. Jahrtausends v. Chr. Archäologische Veröffent-
lichungen92. Mainz am Rhein: 407–416.
MCNAMARA, L., 2008. The revetted mound at Hierakonpolis and early kingship: A re-
interpretation [in:] MIDANT-REYNES, B. & TRISTANT, Y. (eds.); ROWLAND, J. &
HENDRICKX, S. (coll.), Egyptatitsorigins 2. Proceedingsofthesecondinterna-
tionalconference“OriginoftheState.PredynasticandEarlyDynasticEgypt”,
Toulouse(France),5th–8thSeptember2005. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 172.
Leuven/Paris/Dudley, MA: 901–936.
MÜLLER, V., 2011. A Peculiar Pottery Shape from Abydos [in:] FRIEDMAN, R.F. &
FISKE, P.N. (eds.), EgyptatitsOrigins3.ProceedingsoftheThirdInternational
Conference “Origin of the State. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt”, Lon-
don, 27th July - 1st August 2008. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 205. Leuven/
Paris/Walpole, MA: 595-603.
PATCH, D.C., 2011. From land to landscape [in:] PATCH, D.C. (ed.), DawnofEgyptian
Art. New York: 21–81.
PAYNE, J.C., 1993. CatalogueofthePredynasticEgyptiancollectionintheAshmolean
Museum.Oxford.
PETRIE, W.M.F., 1900. The royal tombs of the First Dynasty. 1900. Part I. Egypt
Exploration Fund 18. London.
PETRIE, W.M.F., 1901a. DiospolisParva:ThecemeteriesofAbadiyehandHu1898–9.
Egypt Exploration Fund 20. London.
PETRIE, W.M.F., 1901b. TheroyaltombsoftheEarliestDynasties. 1901.PartII. Egypt
Exploration Fund 21. London.
PETRIE, W.M.F., 1914. Amulets. London.
PETRIE, W.M.F. & QUIBELL, J.E., 1896. NaqadaandBallas.1895. London.
PORAT, N. & GOREN, Y., 2001. Petrography of the Naqada IIIa Canaanite pottery from
Tomb U-j in Abydos [in:] HARTUNG, U., Umm el-Qaab II. Importkeramik aus
dem Friedhof U in Abydos (Umm el-Qaab) und die Beziehungen Ägyptens zu
Vorderasien im 4. Jahrtausend v. Chr. Archäologische Veröffentlichungen 92.
Mainz am Rhein: 466–481.
QUIBELL, J.E., 1900. HierakonpolisI. Egypt Research Account 4. London.
REGULSKI, I., 2010. A palaeographic study of early writing in Egypt. Orientalia
Lovaniensia Analecta 195. Leuven/Paris/Walpole, MA.
SCHARFF, A., 1926. AusgrabungenderDeutschenOrient-Gesellschaftaufdemvorge-
schichtlichenGräberfeldvonAbusirel-Meleq I. DiearchaeologischenErgebnisse
desvorgeschichtlichenGräberfeldesvonAbusirel-MeleqnachdenAufzeichnun-
genGeorgMöllersbearbeitetvonAlexanderScharff. Leipzig.
VAN LEPP, J., 1999. The misidentification of the Predynastic Egyptian bull’s head amu-
let. GöttingerMiszellen 168: 101–111.
WEGNER, J., 2007. From elephant-mountain to Anubis-mountain? A theory on the ori-
gins and development of the name Abdju [in:] HAWASS, Z.A. & RICHARDS, J.
(eds.), The archaeology and art of ancient Egypt. Essays in honor of David
B.O’Connor. Supplément aux Annales du Service des Antiquités de l’Égypte
Cahier 36.2. Cairo: 473–491.
WENGROW, D. & BAINES, J., 2004. Images, human bodies, and the ritual construction
of memory in Late Predynastic Egypt [in:] HENDRICKX, S.; FRIEDMAN, R.F.;
CIAŁOWICZ, K.M. & CHŁODNICKI, M. (eds.), Egyptatitsorigins.Studiesinmem-
ory of Barbara Adams. Proceedings of the international conference “Origin of
the State. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt”, Kraków, 28th August - 1st
September 2002. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 138. Leuven/Paris/Dudley,
MA: 1081–1113.