TABLE OF CONTENTS     Blurred thresholds; an introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1     Part 1 The gift of Osiris; irrigation and the flood . . . . . .  . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4     Part 2 Corn in Egypt; early plant husbandry  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .9     Part 3 Cattle large and small; the growth of animal husbandry . . . . . . . . . . . . 15     Part 4 The green blade rises; agricultural iconography in religion and culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21   Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26   Notes and references . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  28   Picture credits (other than those in text or references) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33  

Bibliography  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 34                      Sue Bridgwater, CEMS London                                                                                                                                  1998

INTRODUCTION The establishing of a tidy context for a brief survey of any topic related to the transition between pre-agricultural and agricultural living patterns is conditioned by the absence of anyrigid demarcation lines.  The history of this transition is, likeall human change, a process of crossing a series of “blurred thresholds”.1  The purpose therefore of this Introduction will beto establish and explain the parameters of the study both in space and time, and in terms of their content.   The time-scale selected is the period from about 5,500 BC to 2,200 BC.  This is widely accepted as covering, in a general historical sense, the Late Pre-Dynastic and the Early Dynastic (Archaic) periods.  There is a “blurred threshold” between the Early Dynastic and the Dynastic (Old Kingdom) period, centring around the Third Dynasty; and another between the late Pre-Dynastic and the “Time beyond reckoning”2 that precedes it.   Forthe purposes of this study, the chosen period is important as thetime during which Egypt made the transition into the agriculturalmode from the previous hunter-gatherer cultures of the Nile valley. 

  Around 8000 BC a series of climactic shifts brought about a movement of peoples into the Nile valley. “Though the Neolithic period in the western Sahara was marked by a relatively ‘wet’  phase - - - there was a gradual drift towardsthe valley by the hunters and gatherers who made up the bulk of the population of the savannah-like lands which bore on it.  - - - they found a veritable wonderland waiting for them - - - - a splendid and harmonious ecology.” 3   The topography of the Nile valley is the basic precondition for the development of Egyptian farming culture and will be looked atin more detail in Part 1.  However, the early settlements mentioned below are representative of the three important divisions of habitation within Egypt; the valley topography of middle and upper Egypt, the Delta region and the Fayum Oasis. The important sites excavated and studied that yield evidence from this period include; the Fayum (from c5000 BC), Badari (fromc4200 BC), Merimde (from c3900 BC), Naquada (from c3800 BC), and Hierakonpolis (from c3600 BC).    First identified as containing important Neolithic sites by Gertrude Caton-Thompson and Elinor Gardiner in 1924-1926,4 the Fayum  oasis remained an important fertile area throughout Egyptian history.  Badari in Middle Egypt was first dug between 1922 - 1925 by Guy Brunton and Gertrude Caton-Thompson 5.    Merimde in the Delta was first dug by Herman Junker in 1927 - 1928.6  In Upper Egypt, Naquada I (Amratian) was opened up originally by Sir Flinders Petrie (1896) 7 and Naquada II (Gerzean) by  a succession of his followers (de Morgan, Reisner, Quibell).8  From 1897 onwards J.E.Quibell and his colleague F.W.Green were working on Hierakonpolis (Nekhen).9  This survey of early exploration is necessarily brief, but establishes the framework for resources; these and successive excavations - as written up in monographs and journals -  will provide the materials for this survey, together with Ancient Egyptian writtenand pictorial sources and archaeological evidence.  Of the three kinds of evidence from Ancient Egypt - textual, pictorial and archaeological - priority will be given to the archaeological, as

far as is possible in the current state of investigations.  Within that class of evidence priority will be given to ecofacts,that is to organic remains, with artefacts as supporting evidence.    In general it is true to say that the methods of environmental archaeology, the study of the organic deposits in archaeological sites, was less prominent in early Egyptology because of the  sheer wealth of artefacts to be recovered.  Moreover, Egyptology in the past has tended to eschew terminology and classifications common in the study of other regions.  The period under consideration would, in the context of Aegean or Middle Eastern Archaeology, be consistently described  as the Late Neolithic - Early Bronze Age periods of cultural development, while Egyptology tends to adhere to the terms set up in the nineteenth century of late Pre-Dynastic and early Dynastic.  It has been suggested that one result of this adherence to a separate chronological system and to traditional methodology may be to encourage a continuation of the situation whereby; “Until you getto the 5th Dynasty and the beginning of written records, everything is on a strictly scientific basis, and then it all disappears”.10    In other words, the search for environmental, organic evidence has been curtailed by the lingering belief that the surviving pictorial and written record for ancient Egyptian life is somehow adequate.  More recent studies, particularly overthe past two decades, have begun to correct these imbalances bothof methodology and of isolationism and continue to do so.  In particular, insights are being gained into the Neolithic period and the transition into the bronze age, which cannot rely on contemporary records to the same extent as is possible from the 5th Dynasty onwards.  However, evidence is still fragmentary and many studies remain either undone or unpublished, which situationwill unavoidably be reflected in the present survey.   For the previously-cited reasons of space, the topics to be covered will be those related to food production, in the sense ofanimal and plant husbandry for food products.  Processing to eat (cooking) and production of textiles and clothing will not be covered.  Part 2 will consider the cultivation of cereal crops,

notably emmer wheat, fruits and vegetables.  Part 3 will examine the husbandry of animals, notably caprines and bovines, with brief mention of fowl, pigs and bees.  Part 4 will survey the underlying agricultural imagery in Egyptian religion and culture before a brief summary in the last section.                       PART 1 THE GIFT OF OSIRIS; IRRIGATION & THE FLOOD The Blue Nile rises from lake Tana  in the highlands of Ethiopia,the White Nile from lake Victoria in Uganda, the two flowing together at Khartoum. From Khartoum to the Delta the conjoined Nile flows for some 2,000 kilometres.  For the purposes of this study, “The Nile Valley” should be taken to refer to the stretch of the river between Aswan and the Mediterranean, including the Delta; this being the main region of settlement, apart from the Fayum, in the period under consideration.   Butzer describes the geomorphology of the river valley as follows; “The Nile valley is a seasonally inundated river plain -- - - of the ‘convex’ variety - - - accumulating primarily through bank overflow of suspended sediment (silt or clay).”1   This flooding used, before the building of the modern dams at Aswan, to rise to bank-level each summer in southern Egypt, and move steadily northwards until four to six weeks later the northernmost parts of Lower Egypt would receive the waters.  (Photo missing)  

WEST BANK OF NILE JUST NORTH OF ASWAN, OCTOBER 1987.  THE DEEP BANK BETWEENTHE WATER LEVEL AND THE MODERN HOUSES IS THE BUILD UP OF NILE SILTS FROM MILLENNIA OF FLOOD DEPOSITS.  (OWN PHOTOGRAPH)   Although the flood varied in height from year to year, the regularity of the inundation provided the basis for Egyptian concepts of periodicity and by historical times the agricultural calendar was based on three seasons of 120 days each;  Flood (3ht), Planting (prt) and Harvest (smw).2    Besides the dominance of the Nile flood cycle in the lives of theearliest Egyptian agriculturalists, there was a further environmental element that was fundamental to their developing world picture on the one hand, and to the basic practices of their daily labour on the other. This was the duality between thetwo kinds of land, the kmt  or black land laid down by the floodsand the dsrt  or red land that was the desert.  The sharpness of the division between these two environments is still clear today,in the abrupt termination of the cultivated riverbank strip and the beginning of the arid sands.    (Photo missing)     EAST BANK NORTH OF EDFU, OCTOBER 1987.  HERE THE DESERT HILLS DRAW CLOSE TO THE RIVER AND THE FERTILE STRIP IS EXTREMELY NARROW.   The use of artificial irrigation carried not only the waters but also the silts borne in them at the time of flood, over a wider area and thus gradually extended the cultivable acreage. As the flood waters drew back, it was possible to plant crops on the newly-deposited silts which were rich and fertile and assuredthe valley peoples from earliest times of a plentiful harvest andof the security that certainty gave.   Butzer suggests that this supportive environment was exploited at an early stage, and that   “the great bulk of the settlements must already have been concentrated on the levees and immediate riverbanks during late paleolithic times”.3  

  He goes on to discuss the movement of peoples posited by Rice (above p.1) and to assert that “there was no settlement shift from the margins of the desert hills, the khaset   land, into the fertile floodplain, or ta  land, after agriculture was introduced.” 4  So by the late pre-Dynastic the floodplain settlements were established and their patterns of agricultural activity beginning to evolve.  Among these activities was the development of irrigation.  Kryzazaniak reveals,   “Until the moment mechanical pumps were introduced in the XIX century A.D., three main forms of irrigating cultivated lands were employed;

1. Uncontrolled: utilizing natural irrigation - - - - 2. Controlled: irrigational basins, which began to be utilized from the decline of the Predynastic period. 3. Controlled; artificial irrigation of the lands under cultivation by raising the water to a higher level by means of a water-wheel - - - appeared on the Nile during the Ptolemaic period.”5

  The period under consideration in this survey therefore covers the beginnings of the move from natural to controlled irrigation in Egypt. Kryzazaniak refers to examples of natural irrigation in Nubia, where until as late as the early twentieth century A.D. crops would be sown on riverbanks and islets once the flood had receded, then weeded and protected from birds and wildlife.   This system of relying on the flood was the origin of  husbandry in Egypt and the method that evolved from it - controlled irrigation by a gradually improving basin system - was essentially a means of extending and prolonging that natural phenomenon, so successful that it endured in Egypt for nearly 5,000 years.    “The advantages of artificial irrigation were to increase the area of the annual crop land in relation to variable flood level,to retain water in the basins after undesirably brief flood

crests, to allow planting in the new ground along the perimeter of the floodplain, and to permit a second or even a third crop inintensively utilized garden plots.”6   So this evolution of irrigation exemplifies the development of techniques by which human populations  improve on or extend the provisions of the natural cycle.  Where the settled agricultural way of life comes to replace the nomadic, gathering and hunting stage, dependence on the climate, on the seasonal predictability of the weather, becomes absolute as fields cannot be taken up andmoved to a more favourable location, along with houses and furnishings and large numbers of domesticated animals which have perhaps reduced hardiness to travel due to the changes brought about by selective breeding; therefore the vagaries of flood, rain, heat and cold must be overcome or accommodated as far as ispossible. In late Pre-Dynastic Egypt, it was essential for the new agriculturalists to come to a working arrangement  with the floods, or to be wholly at their mercy.  So skilled did the Egyptians become that by Pharaonic times the foundations of modern Egyptian agriculture were effectively laid - “The modern system of canals in upper Egypt is based on ancient, natural but seasonal branches of the Nile.” - and a system of orchards and plantations was in existence that coaxed maximum production from the irrigated land.7   Turning back to the beginnings of the system, organic evidence ishard to produce, since the basins consisted of earthen dikes built parallel to the river to retain the flood waters, which were then opened by means of wooden gates to let in the rising floodwater so that it could deposit its fertile silt.  Periodically washed away and periodically renewed over millennia,these constructs have left not archaeological traces, but rather their modern successors in the form of today’s dikes, basins and canals. The best-known illustrative evidence contemporary with the shift from natural to artificial irrigation is the depiction on an elaborately carved ceremonial macehead from Pre-Dynastic Nekhen (Hierakonpolis), of the King known as Scorpion.  This is reproduced as Illustration (A) on the cover of this study, and

shows Scorpion in a stance typically used to depict Kings of Egypt from these early times up until the Ptolemaic period; striding forward with the left leg.  In his hands he grasps a hoe, shaped exactly like a later wooden example from the Agricultural Museum at Dokki, Cairo.8 *  Beneath his feet flows a canal, or perhaps the Nile itself.  Out of this watercourse there flows at right-angles a newly-cut canal.  A slave, depicted as is traditional upon a smaller scale than the King, bows before Scorpion with a basket to receive the soil cut by the ruler.  Further study will be made in Part 4 of the religious and cultural implications of such iconography; here, this striking image stands as evidence of the early existence of irrigation in Egypt, by the end of the Pre-Dynastic period (c3100 BC).         PART 2 “CORN IN EGYPT”; EARLY PLANT HUSBANDRY “Now when Jacob saw that there was corn in Egypt, Jacob said untohis sons, Why do ye look one upon another? And he said, Behold, I have heard that there is corn in Egypt: get you down thither, and buy for us from thence; that we may live, and not die.”1   Egypt was fabled as a source of grain in the ancient world. However, the “corn” that has passed into proverb because of its biblical associations, whether in Egypt or in “Canaan’s pleasant land”,2 was not the same cereal that is so called today.  The cereals found in the wild in the Middle east and north-east Africa, from ancient times, were einkorn wheat (triticum monococcum), emmer wheat (triticum diccoides) and barley (hordeum spontaneum).  Both varieties of wheat “-- - were nutritious but had a grave disadvantage to primitive farmers; the seed-bearing ear of corn would shatter as soon as itwas ripe - - Man therefore selected the grains with the toughest

spikes which did not disintegrate on harvesting - - produced a strain of domesticated wheat by 7000BC.”3   Significant finds of emmer wheat from Pre-Dynastic Egypt are noted by Zohary and Hopf.4  Hopf (unpublished) and Helbaek (1955)record rich cereal and legume remains, with emmer wheat prevailing, from Merimde (early and middle Neolithic).  In the Fayum, Caton-Thompson and Gardner (1934) pioneered the use of environmental evidence in Egyptology and recorded rich remains ofemmer wheat, finds supported by Stemler (1980).  From Nagada in upper Egypt Wetterstrom reports emmer wheat prevailing among numerous plant remains, while at Saqqara Lauer et al (1950) record rich remains of emmer in the Zoser pyramid (c 2900 BC) andin the tomb of Queen Icheti (C2550 BC). Although there are some finds of einkorn wheat it would seem that emmer predominated as one of the two main cereal crops of Pre-Dynastic times.  This choice is explained by Brewer et al as follows;   “Although einkorn is considerably more resistant to cold, heat and drought than emmer, it is a low-yielding wheat.  Although einkorn can out-produce emmer in mountainous regions or areas characterised by severe climates, in the cultivated fields of theNile valley, einkorn’s adaptations would render it less productive than emmer.  Therefore, emmer, with its higher grain yield would be the cereal of choice and remained the predominant and nearly exclusive wheat of ancient Egypt until Graeco-Roman times. -- In Egypt today cultivated emmer remains only as a relic.”5   However, remains of barley on the same sites listed above are equally numerous with, and sometimes more numerous than, emmer.  “ - - -most finds of ancient Egyptian barley fall within the group of four-rowed and six-rowed.  Barley is frequently recovered from tombs and settlements of all periods, usually in association with emmer.” 6   In fact, one study has investigated the possibility of very earlycultivation of barley at Wadi Kubbaniya in Upper Egypt.  (Stemlerand Falk, 1980).  Scanning electron microscopy was employed in an

attempt to ascertain whether barley remains indicated a wild or cultivated origin for cereals dated to 17,000 years ago.   “More botanical material must be found on the site and studied ifwe are ever to know whether the inhabitants of Wadi Kubbaniya were gathering or cultivating populations of morphologically wildcereals or whether they were growing truly domesticated cereals. The evidence as it now stands does suggest that the interaction between human populations and wheat and barley that resulted in domesticated cereals may have begun much earlier than was previously thought - - “ 7   This glimpse back into the early Neolithic shows the possible length of the association between ancient Egyptian populations and cereals.  Certainly emmer wheat and barley seem to have shared the role of staple crop during the late Pre-Dynastic and the Old Kingdom.8  Both bread and beer, the staples of the lower classes of society, were produced from these two grains, and played their role not only in everyday life but also in religiouspractice.   Indeed, by the time of  written records, the expression it bdt  (barley and emmer) was a commonplace scribal reference.9   Grain sowing took place after the flood had receded and the land had been ploughed.  Wooden ploughs were pulled by oxen and the seed sometimes trampled into the soil by cattle too.10 * Reaping scenes from Egyptian illustrations of all periods show cereals being harvested with sickles.   Caton-Thompson in 1924 discovered bifacial stone blades which she believed to be sickles, dating to the earliest part of the period under consideration here and indeed crossing over that particular “blurred threshold” (c6150 - 5190 BC).  Threshing was carried outon threshing-floors where the grain was trodden by hooved animals, as evidenced by tomb illustrations from Saqqara (dating from the Fifth Dynasty, c. 2465-2323 BC).11 Many other vegetables were produced in this period, and there is space only to consider the most important, or at least those mostwidely discovered and documented on archaeological sites.  Zohary

and Hopf 12 record the discovery in Merimde and Nagada of legumes- peas and lentils are named.  Darby et al elaborate; “Lentils have been found in Pre-Dynastic tombs (Brunton, 1948), in the underground stores of Zoser’s pyramid (Lauer et al, 1951) among funeral offerings at Dra’Abul Naga and Deir el Bahari (Schweinfurth, 1885) and at sites of all epochs, down to the Coptic era.”13   Like emmer wheat and barley, legumes have been cultivated from the very earliest periods of agriculture.  Lentils (genus lens) are restricted to the Mediterranean area and South-west Asia in their wild form, according to Brewer et al. “The lentil ranks among the oldest and most appreciated of the cultivated old-world legumes - - in Mediterranean agriculture it is a characteristic companion of wheat and barley - - - Lentils were probably introduced into Egypt at the same time as wheat andbarley or shortly thereafter.”14   Brewer et al go on to relate finds of lentil in Neolithic Merimdeand Omari, in the underground stores of Zoser’s pyramid, and among funeral offerings at later sites.  “After lentils, the pea was probably one of the next legumes to be cultivated in the Old World.”15 It is well-adapted to warm Mediterranean climates and was an important source of protein in the ancient world as it is today.  The history of its cultivation, like that of lentils, is that of a close companion to wheat and barley.  Pulses in generalare important not only for their high protein content but for their relationship to a root bacterium (Rhizobium) which is able to turn atmospheric nitrogen into nitrates and thus improve the soil in which they are grown; “- - - mixing legume crops with cereals or rotating between cereal and legume crops maintains a higher level of soil fertility.  Thus, in addition to offering a dietary balance between protein rich legumes and starchy cereal, the two crops complement each other agriculturally as well.”16   Other vegetables known to have been cultivated in Egypt include garlic, onion and lettuce.  Although actual organic remains

dating from the period in question have not been found, there arevery early representations of each of these plants. Garlic remains have been recovered from later sites, including Thirteenth Dynasty tombs (c1783-1640 BC) and the tomb of Tutanhkamun (c1325 BC).  However, clay models of garlic survive from Pre-Dynastic tombs.17  The situation is similar for onions, which are not found in situ before the Thirteenth Dynasty but which are represented “on the inner walls of the pyramids of Unas(ca 2423 BC) and Pepi II (ca 2200 BC).”18   Lettuce is also absent from the early archaeological record but is represented onthe walls of Fifth Dynasty mastabas at Saqqara.19 Fruits were abundant in Ancient Egypt and only a selection of themost important will be studied here.  Grapes, figs and palm-fruits feature largely in wall-paintings depicting the afterlife in tombs of all periods.  The importance of grapes is two-fold in that they can be eaten orprocessed to produce wine.  Date palm, doum palm and fig are alsoprominent in pictorial and written records. “The grape vine, together with olive, fig and date palm, constitute the oldest group of cultivated fruit trees developed in the Mediterranean basin.”20   Sealed wine jars have been recovered from First and Second Dynasty tombs (c2920-2694 BC) by Emery (1962) and references to vineyards go back to the earliest written records (Dynasty I).21 Darby et al go on to state that illustrations from the Old Kingdom onwards  (Saqqara and Giza, c2575-2134BC)  show two methods of vine cultivation, either as short stubby bushes or by means of trellises.   Moreover, Brewer et al record the discoveryof grape-seeds associated with a tomb at El-Omari (c3000BC) and in Dynasty I tombs at Abydos and Nagada (c3100-2770 BC).22    Olives seem not to have been cultivated in Egypt until long afterthe period under consideration here; the oil-supplying plant mostfirmly attested in the Pre-Dynastic period is castor, whose seedswere found by Brunton at Badari in the 1920’s.  He felt that the samples were probably wild, due to their small size, so were probably gathered rather than cultivated at that point (from 5000BC).23

Of the two species of fig, Ficus carica or true fig and Ficus sycomorus, or sycamore fig, it is the latter which has produced the greater number of archaeological finds.    “The cultivation of - - (Ficus sycomorus) has been almost exclusive to Egypt. There is little doubt among botanists that Egypt was the principle location of its domestic development, butnot necessarily its origin. - - - The archaeological history of the cultivated sycamore extends from the Neolithic, where identifiable remains have been recovered from Omari - - “24   The tree was valued for its wood and for the shade it gave, as well as for the fruit.  Its cultivation is particularly interesting as it does not occur naturally nor reproduce spontaneously in Egypt, where the species of wasp that cross-fertilises the wild form of sycamore elsewhere in Africa, does not occur. Reproduction is by clonal propagation, (rooting of cuttwigs), and some of these clones can set fruit without fertilisation.  The process of clawing open the fruit with a special tool to instigate ripening is depicted in an early tomb scene from the old Kingdom, according to Brewer et al 25, which dates the practice to at least c 2500 BC.  This is evidence of the early development and gradual sophistication of intrusive andpro-active agricultural operations. designed not merely to exploit the naturally-occurring cycles of growth and seasonal changes, but to go beyond them and to establish human control over them.   Dates are among the most important exports from modern Egypt.  However, archaeological and pictorial evidence both  suggest thatin ancient times the doum palm was more widely cultivated, not only for its fruit but for the leaves, bark and timber which wereprized as construction materials.  Fibres have been found in Sixth Dynasty tombs, and leaves and fruits dating to the Badarian(from 5000 BC).  Very early finds of date palm, by contrast, seemto be wild rather than cultivated forms.  However, these wild trees might have been artificially pollinated as early as 2400BC.26   The fruits of both palms  are full of nourishment,

dates being rich in carbohydrates and proteins, while the doum fruit was made into a kind of cake or bread.27 Space precludes the exploration of other cultivated plants in early Egypt; however, it is clear that the unfailing source of fertile soils and water, the Nile, led to a gradually widening diversity of agricultural production and to a broad choice of vegetable diet, at least among the wealthier classes,  that mightsatisfy the strictest of modern dieticians.                               PART 3 CATTLE LARGE AND SMALL; THE GROWTH OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY “It is generally agreed that 22 different animal species were domesticated during the period between 8500 BC (when Middle Eastern farmers first herded sheep/goats) and 1000 BC - - “ 1   Sheckley further suggests that sheep and goats were among the earliest animals to be domesticated because of their abundance inthe wild in the Middle East.  A study carried out by Hassan in 1978 (continuing the excavations begun in 1975 by T.R.Hays) surveys the agricultural economy of the populations of the Nagadaregion (c5270BP to 4400BP).  This reveals a shift in the ratio ofsheep/goats to cattle from 5:1 in the older layers to 1.05:1 in the upper.  “This temporal variation suggests that the early inhabitants of the Nagada region were most probably involved in a pattern of

subsistence emphasising use of desert resources since goat and sheep are better adapted to the desert than either cattle or pigs.”2   Hassan goes onto confirm the “blurred threshold” aspect of agronomic change; “Agriculture - - did not displace the pre-existing subsistence patterns, but supplemented it.”3  In confirmation of Shackley’s point above, this too implies that thespecies first domesticated were those which were present in abundance in the wild and which temperamentally and economically were most suited to the transition to domestication. Brewer et al state; “A survey of the evidence for domesticated animals in Egypt indicates that the earliest undisputed appearance of domestic cattle and ovicaprids dates to about 4800 BC - - Animal domestication is usually associated with the beginning of plant cultivation, but  - - sheep and goat may have come under human control somewhat earlier than plants.“4   Ancient representations indicate the existence of two forms of domestic sheep, the long-horned variety (ovis longipes palaeo-aegyptiacus)  preceding that with recurved horns (ovis platya aegyptiaca).  This latter form is not commonly represented until the Middle Kingdom (from c 2000 BC) which indicates that most of the remains found in sites from the dates covered by this survey,come from ovis longipes..5  However, “separating sheep from goat bones is difficult” and deposits may contain both since the animals were generally kept in common flocks.6    Brewer et al refer to “Goat and/or sheep bones  - - recovered from the Fayum and Merimde” and state; “goats and sheep played a significant role in the prehistoric Egyptian economy.”7    However, excavations of these sites, as mentioned in the Introduction to this study, were not originally carried out with great attention to the details of the animal remains, especially to the evidence of bones remains.  Fortunately more recent studies such as that at the fort of Qsr Ibrim (from c 1000 BC) carried out by Peter Rowley-Conwy in the early 1980s, are beginning to collect samples more rigorously.8  Meticulous

sieving on this site recovered a total of 451 skulls, and consonant numbers of other bones, of “sheep/goat and pig sized animals”.9   Until these methods have been put into operation at earlier sites the main evidence for the breeds of sheep and goat common in the late Pre-Dynastic and early Dynastic remains illustrative material, which is abundant in tombs of the period. In the tomb of Nefur at Saqqara (Fifth Dynasty c2465-2323 BC)  a herdsman with a stick is seen supervising browsing goats as they nibble at a tree.10  On a relief in the tomb of Ti, (Sixth Dynasty c2323-2150 BC) a small flock of sheep of the longipes  type is seen driven by a shepherd with a stick, and following a man who scatters seed on the land, so that their hooves will tread in the seed.11  Both caprines were kept for their meat and milk as well as for their wool and hides.  Although there is somepossibility that sheep were regarded with some religious awe and that mutton may therefore not have been commonly eaten, their milk was utilised and the wool provided garments for the poorer people who could not obtain linen.12   “The Ancient Egyptians classified herd animals into two groups: large cattle and small cattle.  “Large cattle” implied Bos  (bulls, cows, oxen) and small cattle - - goats, sheep and pigs.”13  As in the case of caprines, there are many paintings ofbovines and references to them in written sources, but not much work on surviving organic remains. “Apart from the cattle of south-east Asia, all cattle are descended from a single wild species, Bos primigenius,  the extinct wild aurochs - - - a ubiquitous species that was very successful in the late Pleistocene and early Holocene, and was widespread over most of the northern hemisphere with the exception of North America.”14   Brewer et al refer to the evidence of ancient illustrative material which indicates the predominance in the late Pre-Dynastic and early Dynastic period of long-horned cattle,  which were later replaced by short-horned or, occasionally, hornless cattle.  This may be “the evolutionary product of human control”.15  Archaeological evidence of cattle herding has been

uncovered at some of the sites listed (Introduction, above) as important in the chosen time-period. At Nekhen,   “The bones found at desert sites suggest that residents - - - herded - -  their cattle - - on the seasonal pastures that fringed the Sahara.”16   Hoffman also briefly mentions finds of cattle bones at Omari,17 Merimde 18, and Badari 19, with reference to mixed herding as part of an evolving lifestyle that combined hunting, fishing, early plant cultivation and early animal domestication.  However,evidence for herding, butchery and milking practices has traditionally been taken from Egyptian illustrative sources, on which such surveys as those by Brewer et al and Darby et al, heavily rely.  From this evidence it seems that cattle were herded by people who moved and lived with them, seasonally shifting to the marshes of the delta from the drier lands furthersouth in order to keep cattle healthy on a predominantly grazed diet.  Some supplements of fresh green produce and of bread seem to have been offered.20  An excavation by Moustafa of a much later animal cemetery (Twenty-Sixth Dynasty c 655 to 630 BC) suggested that the animals grazing together in herds may have been identified for their different owners by etchings or markings on their horns.21 Written records indicate that a censushad to be taken by scribes of the owner on the return from migratory pasturing, and surviving lists confirm that cattle wereherded together with sheep, goats and donkeys.22  It must be noted that little of this evidence is based on bone-studies or other archaeological reports, and that, for example, Brewer et alshow a tendency to rely on earlier summarising studies - notably Darby et al!  Even a specialist work such as that of Krzyzaniak is forced to report of his study of the Fayum culture ;   “ - - there were 9 cases of cattle bones, 8 cases of sheep or goat bones - - - unfortunately, a more thorough study of these bones, which would have probably  shed more light on the degree ofdomestication, has not yet been carried out.”   23  [my italics]  

Until more such studies are carried out then the habitual reliance on non-environmental evidence cannot change; however, lack of resources and the present increased danger of archaeological work in Egypt may preclude such developments in the foreseeable future.  Yet as Krzyzaniak concludes;   “There is no doubt that further studies are needed on the cultural development of the early farming groups inhabiting the Lower Nile Valley in the 4th Millennium BC.  First and foremost this requires intensive field-explorations on the Predynastic sites and also the revaluation of the already known archaeological materials.  These investigations should fill in atleast some of the large gaps which still exist in the sources concerning the Predynastic period.”24   Until this work is done then meaningful conclusions about the physical processes of the domestication of cattle - changes of size and other characteristics - will remain difficult if not impossible to draw. Wild pigs were commonplace in Egypt from ancient times until a deliberate programme of eradication wiped them out in the late 19th century.  Brewer et al suggest that the pig is more useful an animal to settled farming cultures than to nomadic herders, asit is not an easy animal to control and lacks the flocking instinct of sheep or goats.  It filled a useful role in the agricultural economy of village settlements because of its willingness to eat a wide range of material rejected by other beasts, including household waste.  The date of first domestication of pig in Egypt remains elusive, however.24 Successive excavations at Merimde have recovered thousands of pig-bones, indicative of a large pork consumption by that particular group.  Most other lower Egyptian sites have produced some pig bone; Omari, Naqada and Hierakonpolis  among them.   Theindications are that swine were reared for food at least as earlyas c 4000BC. 25  However, unlike bovines and caprines, pigs are very little represented in Egyptian art, even at those earliest periods of illustrative art that come into the scope of this survey. This is one of the pieces of evidence adduced by Darby etal in a chapter-long discussion (some of which is closely

reproduced by Brewer et al) regarding the vexed question of whether or not pork was taboo in Pre-Dynastic and/or Dynastic Egypt.26  While the absence of illustrations is unfortunate, thisis less relevant to the present survey since the evidence of the bones recovered, even though it is numeric rather than meaningfully interpreted, does at least show that in the early stages of the transition to agriculture the pig was of value.      Birds of various wild and domestic breeds are among the most familiar of the pictorial images from ancient Egypt, and indeed form many of the hieroglyphs of the priestly  written language.  Unfortunately, archaeological evidence for early domestication ofgoose, duck, chicken and quail is scarce, largely because of the fragile nature of the bones and the likelihood of their being consumed by dogs and pigs after human meals had been made of the flesh.  However, Emery discovered quail among the preserved foodsin a 2nd Dynasty tomb at Saqqara (c 2770-2649 BC).27  This is confirmatory organic evidence to set alongside the many illustrations of the bird from the late Pre-Dynastic onwards.  Its image stands in the hieroglyphic system for the sound W - presumably from the piping cry of the bird.  Here Brewer et al again reproduce the conclusions of Darby et al, that quail was not a domesticated species and was only eaten seasonally at the time of the two annual migratory movements of the flocks of wild quail.  It is hard to see the basis for this conclusion in the absence of more detailed and analysed evidence from archaeological exploration, since an absence of evidence cannot be used to adduce an absence of domestication any more than a presence of domestication.  Similarly, remains of offering meals of goose and duck, together with many tomb-paintings, date from the period under consideration, but insufficient archaeological evidence is available to determine when these birds made the transition from wild and hunted creatures to semi-domesticated, “managed” flocks and finally to truly domesticated status.28 It is again because of an abundance of pictorial evidence and because of the iconographic importance of the bee symbol in Egypt, that we are aware of the practice of bee-keeping from early Dynastic times onwards.  However bees leave very little in the way of organic remains, and the remains of honey documented

by Darby et al are all from later Pharaonic tombs.29  We are therefore forced at present to accept Brewer et al’s conclusion that “The origin of beekeeping is still a mystery”.30  This is another area of early agricultural activity in Egypt that awaits closer study of organic samples from early settlement sites.                                         PART FOUR “THE GREEN BLADE RISES”; AGRICULTURAL ICONOGRAPHY IN RELIGION ANDCULTURE   “Now the green blade rises from the buried grain, Wheat that in the dark earth many days has lain; love lives again that with the dead has been: Love is come again like wheat that springs up green.”1   These lines from a twentieth century Christian song demonstrate the persistence of agricultural reference in religious thought, and indeed of images from ancient Egyptian religious belief, oversome 8000 years and more since those beliefs began to be shaped. 

Imagery used here to describe the Christian belief in the resurrection of Jesus might be applied without alteration to the Egyptian belief in Osiris as a god of both the vegetative cycle of death and growth, and of the souls in the afterlife.   The practices, tools and products of agriculture are prominent inEgyptian religious belief and in the state culture.  The iconography of the King’s regalia, which reproduces that of Osiris; the representation in tomb frescoes and funerary models, of agricultural activity; the offerings of food and grain, in physical form or in the formulaic burial inscriptions; the potency of animal and vegetable icons such as the sedge and the bee 2, all point to the physical facts of agricultural labour andthe bond between culture and land, as the conditioning framework for much of Egyptian religious and social practice.  An examination of such evidence as can be traced back to the transitional period under consideration will help to elucidate the relationship between the experience of adaptation through cultural change and the resultant sense of identity and culture that contributed to the evolution of the Egyptian state and its religious system. Fahmy reports on a 1997 expedition to study the Pre-Dynastic cemetery at Hierakonpolis (Nekhen).  Here his study was of botanical material from the contents of straw-tempered pots whichhad been placed with the bodies, and from the matting that covered the human remains.  Sieving of the fine sand from within the pots recovered carbonised macro-remains of plants.  Almost all of Fahmy’s samples revealed the presence of emmer wheat in the form of grains and glume bases.  Fahmy concludes from the small amount of botanical remains within each bottle, that each was filled with a beverage, probably beer, that was prepared fromemmer wheat.  He describes also the mats that covered the bodies,which were made from long culm fragments  from the rush Juncas , bound together with a transverse cord of the same.  Further, his preliminary analysis of the contents of conical jars which were commonly found in the graves, suggests that they contained bread.  Further reports will be forthcoming. 3  Fahmy’s work provides, first of all, a picture of burial practices during the transitional period that is the subject of

this survey.  Individuals were supplied with the products of agricultural technology - bread and beer - and covered with mats made from rushes gathered at the waterside.  Secondly, there are clear links with later, more elaborate burials that indicate the continuity of cultural practice from the Pre-Dynastic across the threshold into the early Dynastic and beyond.  Bread and beer feature in the formulaic offering inscriptions of tombs from the earliest appearance of such texts, usually in a form similar to that reproduced below; * which translates as “An offering which the King makes to Osiris lord of Djedu, great god, lord of Abydos, that he may make a voice-offering of bread and beer.”4  This stela dates to the Middle Kingdom, yet presents to the dead by means of its magical inscription, the same basics as are seen to be present in the form of physical offerings in the Pre-Dynastic burial.  We can draw tentatively from such examples, the conclusion that the burial practices so characteristic of Egyptian culture and religion originate at least in part from the concern people in the early stages of agricultural development felt for the well-being of their dead in the afterlife, however that was at first conceived. Later, more complex beliefs in individual gods then stem from this original impulse of concern for the dead.  Alongside the “practical” function of the bread and beer offerings as food for the journey or afterlife of the deceased, can be traced allusive or sympathetic magical associations between the “death” and “rebirth” of the grain as new vegetation;and the possibility of human survival into a life beyond the physical. This is confirmed by the development of beliefs in Osiris; “Osiris - - became a vegetable god, symbolic of the river’s life-giving force and the annual renewal of crops.  He was especially connected with the grains which nourished the gods of Heliopolis as well as the people of earth; when turned into liquid form, thegrains became beer which was sacred to the gods and joy-giving tomen.”5    Behind this account of the association of Osirian belief with theexperiences of sowing and reaping cereals, may be discerned the

ongoing debate or dichotomy cutting  across archaeology and anthropology as to what motivates or drives patterns of human behaviour - practical or cultural imperatives?  Legge supports the notion that the technological precedes the cultural since cultural practice (such as eating  or not eating pork) varies from place to place, whereas methods of husbandry depend on the unvarying requirements of the material husbanded (sheep require fodder and conditions of a given kind, grains require water/sun/soil nutrients in specific proportions.) 6  In the Egyptian context, this would imply that  Osiris evolved as a god of vegetation out of the experience of people in the new farming cultures of the “miracle” of regrowth, rather than communities planting grains because they were sacred to Osiris.  Further, thelater developments of belief in Osiris as lord of the underworld and even as a kind of “personal saviour” similar to Jesus in Christian belief, may therefore ultimately be traced back to the practicalities of grain production by Pre-Dynastic farmers of thelate Neolithic.   “Hail to you Osiris, Lord of eternity, king of gods - - - - - - Plants sprout by his wish, Earth grows its food for him. - - - - -The crown placed firmly on his head, He counts the land as his possession, - - - - All extol his goodness: How pleasant is his love for us, His kindness overwhelms our hearts, Love of him is great in all.”7   Space precludes an in-depth elaboration of such links between theorganic and the metaphysical dimensions of the Egyptian experience; but brief mention should be made of their effect uponthe role of the kingship and the symbolism associated with it, and of the ownership of land and its produce in the developed Egyptian state.   Part I of this study included a close examination of the early representation of Pharaoh, wielding a hoe, and at least

symbolically opening a new waterway for irrigation. However, Pharaoh is also frequently represented carrying the symbols attributed to Osiris; the crook and the flail (see Illustration (F) at the beginning of this section).  This usually in a funerary context, since the dead king is assimilated to Osiris and referred to after death as “The Osiris - - -”. * Above, the third coffin of Tutanhkamun, (c 1325 BC) clearly showsthe crook grasped in the left hand and the flail in the right.8  Although none of the King’s official titles is “shepherd” or “thresher”, the persistence of these two agricultural objects through all the millennia of the Egyptian kingdom, as part of theroyal regalia, acknowledges the roots of the state in the late Neolithic transition into settled farming as the established modeof life in the Nile valley.   The primacy of the land and its produce is also reflected in the economic system and in the concepts of who “owns” the produce.  Manley points out that individual farmers did not perceive themselves as landowners, but as “belonging to” a temple estate or royal estate.  It can be argued that all produce “belonged to”the gods and to the king as the god on earth.  This is the symbolism of the offering of food, beer and wine in the temples each day and of the redistributive nature of the domestic economyof the state.  Village settlements and towns all centred on temple or palace complexes, but this urbanisation signified not so much alienation from the land as a statement of the dependenceof society on the land, mediated through the temples. 9       CONCLUSIONS If, as Legge suggests, the purpose of environmental archaeology is to answer as far as possible the question, “What was life like”1, then clearly this survey has been able to produce only a fragmentary answer.   This first conclusion to be drawn is that there is a need for rigorous application of the methods of environmental archaeology to be applied in all new explorations, and where possible to be retrospectively applied to the finds of

earlier Egyptologists.  The unevenness of the evidence presented in the survey exemplifies the problem; where a detailed environmental study exists, like that of Fahmy at Nekhen, then there is a reasonable foundation of verifiable fact to work on.  Where the main available evidence is from general surveys, perhaps themselves relying on previous general surveys, which in turn overemphasise the funerary texts and illustrations that are focused more upon the afterlife than upon daily life and practice; then only general statements can be made, and these upon an uncertain foundation.   As regards the overt subject of this present survey, it can be confirmed from the evidence surveyed that the late Neolithic to early Bronze Age transition in Egypt was indeed taking place in the period of the late Pre-Dynastic and early Dynastic, and was characterised by a consolidation of farming knowledge and practice among the communities established in the Nile valley c 8,000 BC onwards.   Growing skills in irrigation, plant cultivation  and animal husbandry laid the economic and cultural foundation for the elaborate and wealthy civilisation that followed.   “Amid all the pomp and circumstance and the spectacular new products  that herald the dawn of Egyptian civilization, it is easy to lose track of the simple fact that Egypt was, to an even greater extent than other early civilizations of the ancient world, an agricultural country. - - - In Dynastic Egypt, the provision of grain was assumed to be one of the duties of a leader, one of the ways that he legitimated his authority. - - -”2    It is vital that archaeological exploration continue to integratethe methods of environmental and organic research into Egyptology, in order that this bedrock of agricultural life and development is not obscured.  There is no detraction from the wonder of Egypt’s cultural uniqueness and high achievement, in acknowledging that this most complex and most elaborately organised of states was in essence a Bronze Age farming culture; rather, the wonder is increased.

                                                              NOTES AND REFERENCES Introduction Legge, A.J. CEMS Lecture, London, 7th October 1997.   Hoffman, Michael A. Egypt before the Pharaohs London: Ark Paperbacks, 1984.  Title of Chapter 2, p 11 ff.  

Rice, Michael Egypt’s making; the origins of ancient Egypt 5000 - 2000 BC  London: Guild Publishing, 1990.  p 16.   Hoffman, p 182.   Hoffman, p 136.   Hoffman, p 168 ff.   Hoffman, p 105.   Hoffman, pp 106 - 107 ff.   Hoffman, p 125 ff.   Perez-Accino, Jose in conversation  23rd March 1998.   Part 1 Butzer, Karl W. Early hydraulic civilization in Egypt ; a study in cultural ecology  Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1976.  pp 15 -16.   Darby, William J., Galiounghui, Paul & Grivetti, Louis Food: the giftof Osiris  (2v) London: Academic press, 1977.  Vol. 1 p 46. [Darby etal]   Butzer, p 19   Butzer, p 19   Krzyzaniak, Lech Early farming cultures on the lower Nile; the Predynastic period in Egypt  Warsaw: Editions Scientifiques de Pologne, 1977.   p 33 ff.   Butzer, p 20.   Eyre, C.J. “The water regime for orchards and plantations in Pharaonic Egypt” in  Journal of Egyptian Archaeology Vol. 80  London: EgyptExploration Society, 1994. pp 57 - 80.  

Brewer, Douglas J., Redford, Donald B. & Redford, Susan Domestic Plants and animals; the Egyptian origins  Warminster: Aris & Phillips, n.d. p 19 [Brewer et al]   Part 2 The Book of Genesis  Chapter 42 vv 1-2.   Number 339 Hymns Ancient and Modern Standard edition, 1916.   Shackley,Myra Using environmental archaeology  London: Batsford, 1985. p60.   Zohary, Daniel and Hopf, Maria Domestication of plants in the old world; the origin and spread of cultivated plants in West Asia, Europe and the Nile valley.  Oxford: OUP, 1988. p 189.   Brewer et al, p 25.   Brewer et al, p 26.   Stemler, Ann and Falk, Richard H. “Evidence of grains from the site of Wadi Kubbaniya (Upper Egypt)” in  Krzyzaniak, Lech and Kobusiewicz, Michal (eds) Origin and early development of food-producing cultures in north-eastern Africa.  Poznan: Polish academy of sciences.  pp 129 - 136.   Brewer et al, p 28.   Brewer et al, p 28.   Brewer et al, p 18.   Brewer et al, p 20.   Zohary & Hopf, p 189.   Darby et al, p 687.   Brewer et al, p 70 - 71.

  Brewer et al, p 71.   Brewer et al, p 69.   Brewer et al, p 67.   Brewer et al, p 69.   Brewer et al, p 75.   Brewer et al, p 54.   Darby et al, p 555.   Brewer et al, p 55.   Brewer et al, p 45.   Brewer et al, p 53.   Brewer et al, p 54.   Brewer et al, p 49 - 50.   Darby et al p 724 & p 733.   Part 3. Shackley, p 64.   Hassan, Fekri A. “Toward a model of agricultural developments in Predynastic Egypt” in  Krzyzaniak and Kobusiewicz, pp 221 - 224.   Hassan, p 222.   Brewer et al, p 79 & p 90.   Darby et al p 212.  

Brewer et al, p 90.   Brewer et al, p 91.   Rowley-Conwy, Peter “Dung, dirt and deposits; site formation under conditions of near-perfect preservation at Qasr Ibrim, Egyptian Nubia” in  Luff, Rosemary and Rowley-Conwy, Peter Whitherenvironmental archaeology?  Oxford: Oxbow books, 1994.  pp 25 - 32.   Rowley-Conwy, p 26.   Brewer et al, p 92.   Brewer et al, p 90.   Darby et al pp 220 - 221.   Brewer et al, p 77.   Brewer et al, p 80.   Brewer et al, p 84.   Hoffman, p 163.   Hoffman, pp 196 - 197.   Hoffman, p 170.   Hoffman, pp 140 & 143.   Brewer et al, pp 86 - 87.   Brewer et al, p 87.   Brewer et al, p 86.   Krzyzaniak, p 59.  

Brewer et al, pp 94 - 95.   Brewer et al, p 95.   Darby et al, Ch. 4 (pp 171 - 209).   Brewer et al, p 124.   Brewer et al, p 124 cf  Darby et al, p 310.   Darby et al, p 434.   Brewer et al, p 126.   Part 4 Crum, J.M.C. Hymn no. 204 in Hymns and psalms; a Methodist and ecumenicalhymn book  London; Methodist Publishing House, 1983.   Ransome, Hilda M.  The sacred bee in ancient times and folklore  London: Allen and Unwin, 1937. and  Quirke, Stephen Who were the Pharaohs?  A history of their names with a list of cartouches  London: British Museum Publications, 1990 p 11.   Fahmy, Ahmed Gamal el-Din “Plant macro-remains from the Predynastic cemetery at HK43: 1997 season report.” in  Nekhen NewsVol. 9 1997.  Milwaukee: Milwaukee Public Museum, 1997. p 5.   The first line of the offering formula on the stela of Key, BM EA558  in Collier, Mark & Manley, Bill How to read Egyptian hieroglyphs; a step-by-step guide to teach yourself.  London: British Museum Publications, 1998.  p 108.   Armour, Robert Gods and myths of ancient Egypt  Cairo: American University in Cairo press, 1986. p 44.   Legge, A.J. CEMS Lecture  London, 7th October 1998.   The great hymn to Osiris on the stela of Amenose, Louvre C286. 18th Dynasty (c 1550 - 1525 BC) in Lichtheim, Miriam Ancient

Egyptian Literature  - a book of readings; Volume II: the New Kingdom   Berkeley: University of California press; 1976.  pp 81 - 86.   Carter, Howard Tutankhamen’s treasure  (abridged) London: Sphere Books, 1972.  p 94.   Manley, Bill CEMS Lecture  London, 9th January 1995.   Conclusions Legge, A.J. CEMS Lecture London, 23rd September 1997.   Hoffman, pp 317 - 318.   PICTURE CREDITS   A) Detail from the Scorpion macehead, Nekhen, c 3200 BC.  Scannedfrom; Brewer, Douglas J., Redford, Donald B. & Redford, Susan Domestic Plants and animals; the Egyptian origins  Warminster: Aris & Phillips, n.d. p 14. B) Upper; hieroglyphic determinative for Ram  showing Ovis Longipes Palaeo-aegypticus               Lower; Late Pre-Dynastic bowl decorated with paintings of the same species.  Both scanned from; Rice, Michael Egypt’s making; the origins of ancient Egypt 5000 - 2000 BC  London: Guild Publishing, 1990. p 76. C) Twin androgynous figures of Nile-god Hapi, engraved on the throne of a statue of Sesostris I, Tanis, 12th Dynasty c 1971 -1926 BC. Scanned from; Wilson, Eva Ancient Egyptian designs  London; British Museum Publications, 1986. p 35. D) Ear, spikelet and grain of wild emmer wheat scanned from; Brewer et al, p 26. E) Assisted birth of a calf, tomb of Ti, 5th Dynasty Saqqara c 2465 - 2323 BC.  Scanned from; Brewer et al, p 85. F) Osiris, Lord of Djedu, great god, Lord of Abydos.  Scanned from; Armour, Robert Gods and myths of ancient Egypt  Cairo: American University in Cairo Press, 1986. p 43 (plate 13). G) Man kneeling by a pond in the shade of a doum-palm.  Tomb of Irinufer, Deir-el-Medina no. 290, 20th Dynasty c 1200 - 1085 BC. Scanned from Wilson, p 4.

              BIBLIOGRAPHY Armour, Robert Gods and myths of ancient Egypt  Cairo: American University in Cairo Press, 1986. ISBN 9774241134 Brewer, Douglas J., Redford, Donald B. & Redford, Susan Domestic Plants and animals; the Egyptian origins  Warminster: Aris & Phillips, n.d. ISBN 0856685852 Butzer, Karl W. Early hydraulic civilization in Egypt ; a study in cultural ecology  Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1976.  ISBN 0226086348 Collier, Mark & Manley, Bill How to read Egyptian hieroglyphs; a step-by-step guide to teach yourself.  London: British Museum Publications, 1998. ISBN 0714119105 Darby, William J., Galiounghui, Paul & Grivetti, Louis Food: the giftof Osiris  (2v) London: Academic press, 1977 ISBN 0122034015 & 0122034023 Hoffman, Michael A. Egypt before the Pharaohs London: Ark Paperbacks, 1984.  ISBN 074480020X Krzyzaniak, Lech Early farming cultures on the lower Nile; the Predynastic period in Egypt  Warsaw: Editions Scientifiques de Pologne, 1977.  Krzyzaniak, Lech and Kobusiewicz, Michal (eds) Origin and early development of food-producing cultures in north-eastern Africa.  Poznan: Polish academy of sciences.  Lichtheim, Miriam Ancient Egyptian Literature  - a book of readings; Volume II: theNew Kingdom   Berkeley: University of California press; 1976. ISBN 0520036158 Luff, Rosemary and Rowley-Conwy, Peter Whither environmental archaeology?  Oxford: Oxbow books, 1994.  ISBN 0946897697 Quirke, Stephen Who were the Pharaohs?  history of their names with a list of cartouches  London: British Museum Publications, 1990 ISBN 071410955X Ransome, Hilda M.  The sacred bee in ancient times and folklore  London: Allen and Unwin, 1937

Rice, Michael Egypt’s making; the origins of ancient Egypt 5000 - 2000 BC  London: Guild Publishing, 1990.  ISBN 0415050928 Shackley,Myra Using environmental archaeology  London: Batsford, 1985  ISBN 0713448491 Zohary, Daniel and Hopf, Maria Domestication of plants in the old world; the origin and spread of cultivated plants in West Asia, Europe and the Nile valley.  Oxford: OUP, 1988. ISBN 0198541988