Flint and Forts

The role of flint in Late Middle-New Kingdom Egyptian weaponry

by

Carolyn Graves-Brown

Studies of ancient Egyptian pharaonic warfare tend to privilege metal over flint1,

giving the impression that, with the exception of arrowheads, flint weapons were not

normal military issue (e.g. Yadin 1963; McDermott 2004). Moreover, there is a tendency

to assume that post Middle Kingdom bifacial artefacts found in Egypt must be foreign

(Vila 1970, 192). There is good reason for these viewpoints. It does seem that within

Egypt itself there are far more extant metal than flint weapons. Metal weaponry had been

used since Early Dynastic times and has the advantage of robustness and possibilities of

elaborate forms. Flint weapons from Nubian sites such as Buhen and Mirgissa are

perhaps exceptional and could be explained as an inability to keep a distant outpost

supplied with the latest technologically advanced weapons, an inability afforded by

‘primitive’ nature of Nubian warfare. However, I will argue that at least until the Early

New Kingdom there is strong evidence that flint weapons were standard military issue

and far from being a primitive technology they were a natural choice for both utilitarian

and ideological reasons. I concur that metal was a component of warfare, but make a plea

for the role of lithics. I take as my starting point a summary of Vila’s (1970) study of flint

weapons found at Mirgissa.

1 In this paper ‘flint’ is taken to also include chert.

Summary description of the Mirgissa material

Vila (1970) dated the Mirgissa lithics to the Early New Kingdom, and I here

assume him to be correct. As will be shown below, the technology is consistent with near

contemporary Egyptian flint-work.

As at Buhen (Emery et al. 1979, 8. 48) groups of flint tools at Mirgissa were

discovered in would appear to be a main administrative building (Vila 1970, 174, fig. 1),

presumably an armoury. The lithics described by Vila exhibit the skill, regularity and

standardisation consistent with specialist production. Debitage was found but did not

relate to manufacture of these weapons (Vila 1970, 176), suggesting off-site manufacture.

This concurs with lack of debitage for the working of fine pieces at Askut (Tyson Smith

pers.com.). Specialist lithics workshops are known for Egypt, for example, as evidenced

by the ‘hoards’ at Kom Rabi’a, Memphis (Giddy 1999, 228).

Vila categorised the material according to type, though admited the dangers of

etic, and thus possibly artificial, divisions (Vila 1970, 180). He defines 310 ‘javelots’ and

‘javelines’; 88 spears; and 2700 arrow-heads. It is noticeable that there are large numbers

of arrowheads. Miller et al. (1986, 188) estimate that at this date the Egyptians could

shoot 30 arrows every three minutes.

Vila’s ‘javelots and javelines’ (I will henceforth refer to them as ‘lances’) average

153mm long and only 6.4mm maximum thickness. Vila’s belief that these may have been

thrown, is supported by their light weight, no more than 40g. That similar metal tools

were employed as projectiles is clear (e.g. McDermott 2002, 174). Vila’s ‘spears’ are

significantly larger, averaging 222mm long 17.7mm. Such weapons could have been used

for thrusting or throwing. Similar items from Buhen were categorised as daggers (Emery

et al. 1979, 116-118, pl.102), but the hafting evidence from Mirgissa suggests otherwise.

No flint daggers were found. Vila (1970, 91) stated that daggers are also rare in metal and

are a personal weapon rather than military issue. Gilbert (2004, 43) observes that daggers

were usually manufactured of metal, as flint would tend to break when twisted.

Arrowheads were tranverse, of lunate and trapezoidal shape.

Were the lithics standard military issue?

Arguments against the Mirgissa material being standard military issue rest partly

on the assumption that the artefacts appear anomalous and un-Egyptian. However, the

Mirgissa lithics are clearly not Nubian.

Nubian flint work is quite unlike the Mirgissa pieces. Bonnet (1990, 137) states

that the flint industry is not pre-eminent in Kerma culture, and fine, bifacial Nubian flint

working of large pieces unknown. A bifacial tabular flint knife from the town of Kerma,

which Bonnet dates to Middle Kerman (contemporary with Egyptian Middle Kingdom),

is considered an Egyptian import as it is unique to Kerma (Bonnet 1990, 137, 153, fig.

119). It is almost identical in form to a number of Middle Kingdom Egyptian specimens,

e.g. (Manchester Museum M239c from Lahun). Nubian types consist of scrapers, sickle

blades, microliths, borers, all with little core preparation (Gratien and Olive 1984; Säve-

Söderbergh 1989, 122-125 fig. 41; Bonnet 1990, 137-139; Bracco and Gratien 2002).

Large bifacial forms are not present. Perhaps the most beautifully executed Nubian

bifacial pieces are the arrowheads, some of which are discussed below. The raw material

is largely grey pebbles, quartz, carnelian and agate and rarely flint (Bonnet 1990, 137;

Bracco and Gratien 2002), while Egyptian forms, after the Early Dynastic, are almost

invariably flint. It appears likely that the material from Mirgissa is Theban, and Tyson

Smith (pers. com.) has stated that the fine bifacial tools found at Askut appear to be from

the same source.

I critically examine the arguments suggesting that the Mirgissa material is anomalous

and conclude that the pieces are consistent with Egyptian lithic technology. The

arguments against are:

• The Mirgissa material is anomalous in technology and forms

• Model soldiers carry metal weapons

• Metal weapons are known

The first argument for the flint being anomalous is that the technology is too fine

for Egyptian lithics of this date. Assessing the decline of Egyptian technology during the

bronze age is not an easy exercise. Egyptian lithic technology continues until at least the

26th Dynasty, though this later material is not of the quality of the Mirgissa pieces.

Generally, it seems that by the Early New Kingdom flint tools tended to be ad hoc rather

than formal but there were still specialist workshops producing fine bifacial material.

The technology of producing fine bifacial tools is not easily learnt. As it requires

specialist manufacture one or two extant examples must indicate that more were

originally manufactured. New Kingdom fine bifacial forms, requiring pressure flaking,

are known in the case of arrowheads and knives.

Bifacial Knives

It is my belief that during the New Kingdom bifacial flint knives gradually gave

way to metal forms. However, bifacial knives continued in manufacture throughout the

New Kingdom. An example was found at the Akhenaten Temple complex of East Karnak

(Miller 1985, 233, fig.2; Tillmann 1992, fig.77). A 19th Dynasty flint knife found in the

Ramesseum at Thebes is now in the Pitt Rivers Museum (PR1896.53.2.1-2) and several

early-mid 18th Dynasty and even Third Intermediate Period bifacial flint knives were

discovered at Kom Rabi’a, Memphis (Giddy 1999, 238-243). A fine bifacial knife is

known from a Third Intermediate Period context from the town of el-Ashmunein

(Spencer 1993, pl. 27).

Arrowheads

While the technology of bifacial arrowheads is not identical to that for large

bifacial items, it does show that a tradition of producing fine bifacial pressure-flaked

forms existed. There is, however, a problem. While it is usually agreed that the Egyptians

used stone arrowheads until late (e.g. Forbes 1966 VII, 108; Tillmann 1999; Hikade

2001), bifacial arrowheads specifically, in New Kingdom contexts, are often explained

away as either Nubian or plunder from earlier graves. It is my belief that the Egyptians

manufactured bifacial arrowheads until the 19th Dynasty.

Although there are Middle Kingdom iconographic depictions of what appear to be

transverse arrowheads (e.g. in the Middle Kingdom tomb of Senebi at Meir), the shape of

many others apparently indicate metal forms. However, metal and bifacial flint forms

would take the same iconographic form.

Five bifacial arrowheads are known from ‘Ezbet Helmi, Tell el Dabaa from 18th

Dynasty contexts (Tillmann 1994, 108, 257; Bietak 1996, 11). Tillmann and Bietak both

considered these to be the products of Nubian mercenaries. A similar argument was made

for the pieces from 19th Dynasty Qantir (Tillmann 1986; 1992, 91-92, fig. 24-25). The

idea of a Nubian origin for the Qantir material is tentatively supported by Hikade (2001,

123), at least until Nubian material can be accurately dated or further Rameside material

found in Egypt (Hikade 2001 makes no mention of the Tell el Dabaa examples). Zibelius-

Chen (1994, 14) however, doubts that the Qantir arrowheads are Nubian.

Arguments for a Nubian origin rest upon the following premises:

• The raw material looks like non-local flint

• Other Nubian material is known from the eastern Delta

• Textual evidence proves that arrows were imported from Nubia

• They are typologically similar to Nubian pieces

The raw material may indeed be non-local flint, but this does not preclude the

possibility of Egyptian flint being used. Flint may have been procured from a great many

sites in Egypt. The actual sourcing of flint is difficult. Despite general lack of

Egyptological work on sourcing, at least one New Kingdom Egyptian flint mine is known

(Harell 2006).

I certainly would not deny Nubian presence in the Delta as other Nubian material is

indeed known from the region. Bourriau has used the presence of Nubian pottery as

evidence for Nubian mercenaries (Bietak 1996, 12 footnote 18; Bourriau 1991). Textual

evidence shows that arrowheads themselves were imported from Nubia as tribute

(Zibelius-Chen 1988, 114). However, Nubian lithic material of this date does not look

like the Delta pieces either in material or form.

Tillmann (1994, 108) states that flint arrows from Tell el-Dabaa are similar to those

from Soleb II and from el- Kurru. Bifacial Nubian arrowheads of the 18th Dynasty are

indeed known from Soleb II (Giorgini 1971, 94, fig. 128), but these are quite unlike the

Delta forms. With one exception, out of a group of eleven published pieces from Soleb II,

they are without a tang. Those from the Delta and, as I will show, from other Egyptian

sites are tanged. Additionally, Nubian pieces are rarely flint but rather quartz or carnelian.

The el-Kurru connection is more convincing but still problematic. El-Kurru has

tanged examples (Dunham 1950, 13, 15, 16, 17, 72, fig. 1c, fig. 2c, fig. 3b), as well as

lunates (e.g. Dunham 1950 fig. 1C, 2C, 3B), the later being comparable to Mirgissa finds.

The problems are those of date, size and raw materials. Dunham, following the excavator,

Reisner, dated the el-Kurru examples to c.860-840 BC, making them later than

comparable Egyptian examples. However, the date is disputed. In 1982 Kendall (1982,

23-24, fig. 18) dated the context to the 12th to 10th centuries BC but later revised this

(Kendall 1999 a and b), agreeing with Reisner on an early 9th century date. This was

disputed by Török (1997, 88-92; 1999) who preferred a date of 1020-960 B.C., still too

late to be contemporary with the Tell el- Dabaa finds but perhaps comparable to Qantir.

Additionally, the average length of the el-Kurru arrowheads is 4.5cm, somewhat longer

than the Tell el-Dabaa finds at 3.9cm and the Qantir pieces averaging 3.119cm (Tillmann

1992, 89). Additionally, the tang of the el-Kurru examples is much more pronounced.

The slight variation in size and tang could be overlooked in view of the small database,

and the date is debatable. However, as stated above, the el-Kurru examples, as with

Nubian lithics in general, are manufactured from carnelian, quartz etc., rarely flint. The

Delta examples however, are flint. Thus, while the Delta examples could be Nubian, there

are serious doubts surrounding this conclusion.

Other probable examples of Egyptian New Kingdom bifacial tanged arrowheads are

extant. A group of bifacial arrows was found in the 18th Dynasty tomb D29 at Abydos

(Ashmolean 1896=1908 E2703 and Pitt-Rivers 1900.42.9-10). Believing that fine flint

work of the New Kingdom was unlikely, the excavator believed that these might have

been taken from an Early Dynastic tomb (Randall-McIver and Mace 1902, 89). However,

the form of Early Dynastic pieces is very different. The barbs of those from the 18th

Dynasty graves are more pronounced and the cutting edges straighter than those from the

1st-2nd Dynasty graves. One might argue that the Early Dynastic pieces were originally

straight but rejuvenated. Towner and Warburton (1990) show similar rounding of

arrowheads after rejuvenation though the Early Dynastic pieces are so regularly knapped

that they do not, in my opinion, appear rejuvenated. Besides, the problem remains that the

constructors of the 18th Dynasty tomb had somehow managed to find extremely rare

unused versions from Early Dynastic tombs – possible but unlikely. The D29 examples

most closely resemble the el-Kurru forms, though again are small at c.3cm average

length. The D29 examples are also made from specially selected variously coloured, non-

local flint. Nubian examples likewise are made from exotic stone, though as we have

seen, rarely flint. The D29 examples are of course earlier than the el-Kurru examples.

Fragmentary New Kingdom bifacial arrowheads are also found at Kom Rabi’a,

Memphis (Giddy 1999 no. 1155, p. 227, 234). Their ‘crude’ form could be the result of

rejuvenation. Hikade (2001, 122) cites a 26th-27th Dynasty bifacial arrowhead from

Elephantine. Bifacial stone arrowheads and ivory points were also found at 21st-24th

Dynasty Medinet Habu (Hölscher 1954, 6. pl. 3A). Here the stone points seem to imitate

those of bone.

Ethnographic studies have shown that a wide range of arrowhead sizes and designs

can arise among archers within the same region (Weissner 1983; Miller et al.1986, 189-

190). There could well a great diversity in Egyptian lithic arrowhead form because

different forms would be particularly suited for particular uses and because archers

exchange arrows (Miller et al. 1986, 189). The New Kingdom spread of armour as well

as improvements in the bow may have afforded increased diversity. Armour penetration

would require heavier arrowheads which would be made more efficient through use of

the composite bow. The tranchet type may alternatively have been more suited to cutting

into unprotected flesh, causing profusely bleeding wounds (Edmonds 1987, 192-193).

Finally, one might ask, why, if flint was ubiquitous in Egypt and the technique of fine

bifacial work still known, would the Egyptians really go to the trouble of importing flint

rarely found in Nubia, from Nubia?

Thus, I would question the assumption that the bifacial arrowheads found in Egypt in

New Kingdom contexts are foreign or Early Dynastic.

Comparable Pieces

Not only does Egyptian flint work include fine bifacial lithics but the same actual

types as those at Mirgissa. Admittedly, most comparable pieces are from military sites,

but this is as one would expect.

Transverse arrowheads

Archaeological examples of transverse arrowheads comparable in date and form

with the Mirgissa pieces come from the tombs of Tutankhamun (McLeod 1982, 24-25,

59), Mahirpir (Daressy 1902, 33-36, pl. 11), and Senenmut (Hayes 1990, 212), and from

New Kingdom East Karnak (Miller 1985, fig. 1.6). In fact, transverse arrowheads are

known from as late as the 26th Dynasty (Balfour 1897; Hickman 1959; Pitt Rivers

1896.2.1.16). There are also similar dated examples from Theban tombs in the

Ashmolean (illustrated in Clarke et al. 1974, 350, pls. XII-XIII) with microlithic tips and

separate barbs.

It could be argued that two of these sites are not comparable with the Mirgissa

pieces. Those from the tomb of Tutankhamun appear to be blue glass (McLeod 1982, 24-

25, 59), or perhaps blue agate (Gilbert 2004, page). Given the quantity of blue glass

found in other artefacts from this tomb and the fact that the nearest source of blue agate

would appear to be South Africa, blue agate seems unlikely. While the material is

different, the technology of knapping was the same as that for flint. The items from the

tomb of Mahirpir, one might argue, are Nubian, since the occupier was a Nubian official.

However, as Smith (1992; 2003, 22-23) has demonstrated, his grave goods are purely

Egyptian.

Spears and javelins

A number of late Middle Kingdom – Early New Kingdom pieces have been

described in Egyptological literature as spear or javelin heads.

I first describe specimens which I feel unhappy about accepting as weapons, but

which others have identified as such. A New Kingdom bifacial tool described as a spear

is published from el-Ashmunein (Roeder 1931-32, 108, fig.3; Larsen 1935, 79). As it is

incomplete, it could be part of a slightly odd-shaped knife. Larsen (1935, 79, fig 18 nos.

1-7) mentions possible spear-tips from Abu Ghâlib, though points out that these may also

be parts of knives. The dating of Abu Ghâlib is disputable though it is generally

considered Middle Kingdom (see Kemp 1989, 161-166; Bagh 2002, 42 for dating of this

site). Petschel et al. (2004, 118.111) also published two ‘Speerspitzen’ from Kahun in the

Liverpool City Museum collection (56.20.58 and 56.20.54). Having seen them, it is my

opinion that the pieces are slightly asymmetrical and thus probably knife-tips. In a

number of other publications there are also items neither described in detail nor illustrated

but instead published in such terms as ‘a finely made knife’. These items could be

projectiles.

I now describe pieces which I believe are spears or lances. These include items

seen by Vila but not described in detail or illustrated. Vila’s credentials and publications

as a lithics specialist mean I have no reason to doubt his analysis!

As well as those published by Vila in 1970, additional javelin-heads were found at

Mirgissa away from the main armoury (Dunham 1967, pl. XCII B and C). The

illustrations show spear or javelin heads. Spear and arrowheads were also found at

Buhen, in conjunction with late Middle Kingdom-Early New Kingdom pottery (Emery et

al. 1979, 48). These include: Birmingham Museum 513.1965 (Emery et al. 1979, pl.

102); Emery et al. 1979, pl.120). Vila (1970), also reports other similar material from this

site then residing in Khartoum Museum. He also cites comparable pieces from Semna

and Uronarti (Vila 1970, 193; Dunham 1967, pl. XLVa) also in Khartoum Museum.

Again, the illustrations in the Dunham volume confirm his identification. At least one

lance-head was also found at Askut dating to the early New Kingdom (Smith 2003, fig.

5.8).

Other than military sites, two 18th Dynasty ‘probably spear-heads’ were found at

Kom Rabi’a, Memphis (Giddy 1999, page 227, 233 no. 951/69 and no. 1066, p227, 234).

These are described as crude and bifacial, which could imply unfinished or heavily

sharpened items (they are not illustrated).

Model soldiers with metal spear heads

Since model soldiers in the tomb of Meseheti, 11th Dynasty Assiut, are shown

with metal spears (Saleh and Sourouzian 1987, pl. 73), it might be thought that soldiers

were commonly issued with such items. However, as Vila (1970, 192) points out, it

would have been practically impossible to make such tiny items in stone.

Metal weapons are known

In light of the fact that most extant Egyptian weapons are made of metal, it might

appear perverse to state that flint was commonly used. However, while some metal

weapons were certainly used in warfare, most known examples are from burials. As

Pinch (2002, 446) states, no-one thinks of weapons as exclusively funerary, but their use

in graves is not the same as that in everyday life. I am not claiming that weapons were

made especially for the grave, rather, because burial goods have a ritual purpose, they

have been selected for, from the wide choice of artefacts and materials. Secondly, graves

from which objects are derived are those of the elite, rarely the common soldier. The two

social groups may have had very different arms. I suggest that metal was considered

particularly suited to the grave and secondly that the items placed in graves belonged to

the individual rather than the collective military. My first suggestion is open to dispute

and needs support.

There are exceptions to the sacred context of metal weapons. I give two examples.

The first is the Qantir arms factory, which produced daggers, and javelin heads, probably

dating to reign of Ramesses II (Spalinger 2005, 227 has further references), thus slightly

later than the Mirgissa material. Avaris also produced metal arrowheads of copper or

bronze (Tillmann 1994, 256; Bietak 1996, 12) though some at least may be Greek

imports as the typology suggests a Late Helladic type (Bietak 1996, 12).

However, the majority of New Kingdom metal weapons are from burial deposits.

Artefacts placed in the grave are always ritual (Whitehouse 1996). They have a purpose

relating to this context, which must be other than kinetic, a point made particularly

obvious when they are placed with individuals who can have had no utilitarian use for

them in life, e.g. weapons in the graves of children (McDermott 2004, 72).

We can deduce from the fact that not all materials and artefact forms were placed

in tombs, that certain materials and objects were considered particularly suitable in the

burial context. There is evidence that certain types of weapons were employed in

funerary rites. For example, McDermott (2004) discusses rituals connected with bowmen

and funerals.

It is outside the scope of this paper to discuss in detail the purpose of metal in

burials, but briefly, there is firstly its display value, arguably high status compared to

flint, because of production costs (Richards 2005). The public nature of Egyptian funerals

would make display apposite. Secondly, the inherent physical properties of metal may

have acted as an aid to the deceased in the afterlife. The revitalising and rebirth properties

of luminosity (with which both lightness of colour and shininess are associated) are much

discussed by Egyptologists (for faience see Friedman 1998, 15-16; Patch 1998, 32-43; for

coffins see Serpico and White 2001, 36-37; Taylor 2001, 166). The quality of shininess is

associated with the blessed or transfigured dead, the Axw, of Egyptian mythology. Their

qualities of scintillation have been well studied (for example Ritner 1993, 30ff who gives

further references).

For Prehistoric Italy, it has been argued that metal daggers were put in graves

because of their divine quality of brightness (Keates 2002). One can imagine this too for

Egypt. Metal would normally have been brighter than flint. Such an argument would help

explain why pale coloured flint was selected for in Predynastic graves (Harris 1961, 139),

when metal was rarely available, and secondly why flint is quickly superseded by metal

as a suitable material for grave-goods, while continuing to play an important part in

everyday life.

That metal was specifically selected for the grave is supported by the frequency

with which large quantities of lithics are found on settlement sites compared with burial

sites, especially after the Old Kingdom. Common use of flint seems to have continued

into the New Kingdom e.g. at Memphis (Giddy 1999, 226-243), Amarna (Spurrell 1894,

37), the Valley of the Kings (Carnarvon et al. 1912, 10). As well as the fine bifacial knife

discussed above, sickle blades were also found at Third Intermediate Period el-

Ashmunein (Spence 1993, 15, 21, 33, pl.27.20, 22, 23,24, 27, 29,30g, 30j, 30.l) also Tell

el-Balamun (Spencer 1999, 77, pl. 87). James Harrell (2006, with additional information

kindly supplied pers. com.) has recently discovered a Rameside flint quarry specialising

in production of blades at Wadi Umm Nikhaybar in Wadi Araba. Flint in graves is largely

limited to occasional sickle blades and tranchet arrow-heads. The small visible flint

surface area of such tools would restrict its ability to signify shininess, or lack of.

Personal weapons such as daggers and perhaps axes may enter the grave, while

‘military issue’, that is, non-personal property would not. Personal weapons, one would

imagine, were longevous, metal artefacts, as opposed to the short-lived flint weapons.

Thus, artefacts placed in the grave may not be a true reflection of military arms.

We might rather expect to find army weapons in suddenly abandoned forts or on

battlefields. As flint is readily reshaped, one would not expect to see large pieces of the

material other than in abruptly abandoned contexts. The large quantity of flint work at

Mirgissa compared with other Egyptian sites could be explained as exceptional

circumstances. Except in Nubia, there are few purely military buildings built on a large

scale, not extensively reused, but extensively excavated, where one would expect to find

caches of weapons.

It could be argued that the material from Mirgissa is only feasible because of

Nubia’s backward technology. The implication being that flint was an inferior medium

considered substandard by the Egyptians. Because metal was used in warfare, one might

explain its rarity in Nubia as rationing. Metal, one might argue, was reserved for Egypt’s

Eastern frontier for use against more ‘advanced’ metal-using cultures. This idea is posited

in Tillmann’s excellent work (Tillmann 1992, 212-213; 1998, 265), nevertheless it is

questionable. While the Egyptians would have employed different tactics against the

Nubians than the enemies in the north and east, the argument that primitive Nubians were

easy to put down with ‘inferior’ weapons, can easily be overplayed. It was perhaps not so

much that the south was easier to conquer, nor that flint was inferior, but rather that flint

was the best material for the job in the particular circumstance.

First, on the question of the metal shortage, there is little real evidence for this,

though absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Vast quantities of copper and tin

are known to have been imported into Egypt from both archaeological and textual

evidence (Smith 2003, 71-73), though of course we do not know if this met demand.

The price of copper may indicate its rarity value. While slightly later than

Mirgissa, in Rameside Egypt a bronze (or copper) spear sent to a coppersmith was worth

1 ½-2 deben (Janssen 1975, 326). For comparison a bundle of vegetables ½ to 1 deben

(Janssen 1975, 527). An ordinary workman would get about 11 deben each month

(Janssen 1975, 534). So copper was not cheap but was it rare? Copper was used for

mirrors, statuettes and other luxury items, it is certainly not uncommon in New Kingdom

tombs, but perhaps such luxuries were considered more important than arms.

Copper may have more scarce in the outposts of Nubia. However, Smith (2003,

105, fig.5.9) shows metal artefacts becoming increasingly common during the 2nd

Intermediate Period at Askut and dominating the assemblage by the New Kingdom. Nor

were these tools simply weapons. This does not suggest a shortage of the material. It

simply does not make sense to say that metal, when in short supply, was being used on a

large scale for non-military items.

Yet, it is not perhaps so much copper that was critical but tin. Sources of tin

would have come from north of Egypt and hence may have been difficult for Nubian

outposts to acquire. However, the evidence for regular use of bronze is not apparent until

the Rameside Period (Ogden 2000, 153, 171), the same time as flint for weapons

declines.

Thus, at the time of the Mirgissa hoard, the Early New Kingdom, the argument

that a shortage of copper or bronze supplies led to use of flint in Nubia is debateable.

On the question of primitive technological weapons of Nubia, there are also

questions. Spalinger (2005, 62) suggests that the Nubians lacked bronze whereas the

Egyptians had it. Daggers and razors were made of copper alloy in the Kerma Classic

Period (Second Intermediate Period–Early New Kingdom) e.g. at Kerma (Bonnet 2004,

86). In fact, the copper alloy dagger is standard in Middle-Classic Kerma burials and the

short copper alloy sword is famous in Classic Kerma burials (O’Connor 1993, 30-31). Of

course, we cannot be sure of the quantities available to the Nubians, compared to the

Egyptians.

We may also question the claim that Nubians were easier to put down than the

enemies of the north-east. Why use Nubian mercenaries unless they had a reputation for

being good fighters, and why build forts unless there was a problem? However, this does

not mean that tactics and weapons differed between Nubia and the north-eastern frontier.

Chariots would have necessitated the use of a longer range weapon like the composite

bow, as the Nubians did not use chariots, the composite bow was not so vital. As stated

above, while flint arrowheads were possible with the composite bow, the new technology

made the use of heavy metal tips more efficient.

Thus I conclude that while we cannot prove that copper or tin was not in short

supply and rationed for use against the more threatening enemies of the north-east, there

is little evidence supporting this view.

Why Use Flint?

That flint-working continued in Egypt later than in neighbouring regions may

suggest that the apparent late use of flint at Mirgissa is unsurprising.

Tillmann (1998) drew up a comparative table of flint use for Egypt and adjoining

regions. The detail could be debated. For example, Tillmann stated that flint working

ceased in Greece c. 1500 B.C. However, a study by Runnels (1982) showed that obsidian

and chert was used until the 10th and 9th centuries BC. Obsidian was used until 400-300

BC. Part of the difficulty lies in differentiating between a lithic and metal using society

when there is a continuum, not dichotomy. For example, threshing flints were known in

the Levant until the 20th century (Rosen 1997, 163). Yet, this society would not be

considered ‘stone-age’.

However, Tillmann’s general conclusion that flint was used in Egypt until a

surprisingly late date is correct. The technological insularity of the Egyptians is

frequently offered by way of explanation. Shaw (1991, 31) for example discusses the

general lack of change in Egyptian weaponry during the Dynastic Period. In an age, still

obsessed with Victorian notions of ‘progress’ this ‘traditionalism’ may be seen a negative

light. However, one could argue that there are good ideological and utilitarian reasons for

the continued use of flint, apart from its ubiquity. It is to these reasons that I now turn.

While accepting that the division between functional and ideological is arguably

arbitrary I use the terms here in a pragmatic sense, taking functional to imply kinetic

utility and ideological to imply social factors (including religion).

Firstly there are utilitarian reasons why flint may or may not have continued in

use on Egypt:

1.Flint cuts better than metal

2.Flint is lighter than metal

3.Flint is more fragile than metal

Cutting qualities

As late as the seventh century BC the Egyptian army preferred stone tipped

arrows as they pierced the armour of the day (Forbes 1966 VII, 108). This utility is borne

out by experimental archaeology. Pope (1962) showed the superiority of flint over metal

for penetration, thus making it advantageous against armour clad enemies. Its powers of

penetration lie in the fact that it is sharper than metal. The serrated quality of bifacial

tools further enhances cutting and their irregular surface might additionally encourage

haemorrhaging. Modern hunters draw a file across metal arrowheads to produce the same

effect (Edmonds 1987, 193). For Whale hunting, the Koryak used stone projectiles as the

rifle bullets simply stuck in the blubber without causing injury (Ellis 1997, 51).

Lightness

Flint has a specific gravity of 2.65, copper 8.2, and bronze 7.4–7.9. Thus, flint is

much lighter than Early New Kingdom metals of war. A bifacial arrow of flint weighs

one gram and a comparable one in bronze of the same size weighs 6-16 grams (Tillmann

1986). This relative lightness can be either advantageous or disadvantageous. Heavier

arrows are needed for penetrating armour, though lighter arrows will travel further. Since

the arrow kills by bleeding rather than impact (Miller et al. 1986, 181), once the weapon

penetrates the flesh, one would not need a heavy arrow for increased impact wounds.

Choice of arrow weight also depends upon the type of bow. An inefficient bow will

reduce the distance an arrow may fly, but an efficient bow may also cause a light arrow to

be inaccurate and even to snap (Blyth 1980). Thus, generally, light arrows are better with

inefficient bows, heavy with efficient bows. Thus, it may be argued that the use of metal

for arrows may have been influenced by the introduction of the composite bow and, until

this date, flint had the edge over metal for arrow manufacture. This does not however,

take into account other lightweight materials such as bone, ivory and wood which were

used as arrowheads. The weight advantages/disadvantages of flint over metal also apply

to some extent to spears and lances. A heavier spear or lance may penetrate deeper but be

easier to carry and could be thrown further.

Fragility

The completed spearhead is a really beautiful object with a needlepoint and

wonderful symmetrical edges….Yet all this highly skilled labour is for one thrust

of the spear!....The wonder is that such care is lavished on an article destined to

have such a short life. (Love 1936, 75).

While it is sometimes stated that flint is not fragile, this false assumption seems to rest on

experimental archaeologists shooting into stationery meat rather than living, moving

targets (Ellis 1997, 52). Fragility demands an efficient transport system. As stated above,

lack of debitage at Mirgissa and Askut affords the possibility that weapons were

transported there in a completed state. There is also transportation to the battlefield to

consider and once there weapon breakage would be particularly acute for prolonged

combat. However, the fragility of the material might even be considered advantageous in

certain circumstances. A broken blade within a body will do more damage than a cleanly

removed one.

A ready supply of replacements or use of thicker tools may to some extent

compensate for fragility. The spear-heads at Mirgissa were around 17.7mm in thickness,

considerably thicker than the lances, or even Egyptian flint knives of the same date

(around 6-7mm maximum thickness).

If the spears and lances are indeed fragile, this reinforces the belief that the

Egyptian archers played a part in weakening the opposition so that they were ‘finished

off’ at closer range with spears and lances. As (Miller et al.1986, 181-182) state, the Story

of Sinuhe demonstrates that at least in the Middle Kingdom it appeared normal practise to

first shoot an opponent but then follow through by one-to-one combat. Ethnographically,

a flint spear is a ‘woman’s weapon’ used on sleeping or injured enemies, for the coup de

grâce (Ellis 1997, 60; Bamforth and Bleed 1997, 12).

The expense factor

One would assume that an expensive material would be the least advantageous.

Since bronze was not commonly used for weapons until the later New Kingdom, only the

price of copper in comparison with flint is relevant here.

I discuss Janssen’s description of Rameside cost of copper tools above. Richards

(1992; 1997; 2005, 109-119) has ranked Middle Kingdom Egyptian materials firstly

according to ‘effort expenditure’ and secondly by emic considerations. First, I discuss her

effort expenditure index. In an effort to establish a wealth index, she employs five

variables, which she scores: distance of material sources; difficulty of transport; method

of extraction; preworking process and hardness of material. Flint is ranked 10, on a scale

of 1 to 19. Copper is ranked 8. Richards’ analysis does not of course apply to Nubia,

where distance from source for both flint and copper would be greater. Likewise, the

working of the material very much depends on the form of the final product. A fine

bifacial tool requires greater effort expenditure than a simple flake, though Richards

groups these together. Richards (1992, 109-119; 1997, 2005, 110-111) also uses a second

index which shows ascribed value, to ascertain the emic view. In this flint is ranked as 5,

copper as 16. Richards states this is based both on Harris’ (1961) ranking of materials in

Middle Kingdom texts and on a ‘cautious treatment’ (Richards 1992, 117) of Janssen’s

work (Janssen 1975) on monetary value for the Rameside Period. However, Janssen does

not give monetary value to flint, and I know of no texts of any period which do so. He

(1975, 324) does say that a sft knife was worth 3 deben but the knife could be of flint or

copper. Similarly, Janssen gives prices for spears and axes but assumes them to be metal.

Richards states that the consistency with which items were listed in Middle Kingdom

texts led Harris to believe that they were listed in order of perceived value. However, it

seems to me that Harris (1961, 11-13) actually ascribes grouping to categorisation of

materials, not necessarily equating this with value. In fact, an analysis of material with

which flint is associated shows its most common partner is meteoric iron, which is not in

Richards’ wealth index.

Meskell (1999, 183-212) has ranked grave goods for New Kingdom Deir el-

Medina based upon possible cost as adduced from literary sources and material evidence

analysed by Janssen (1975) and Smith (1992) and through actual numbers of tomb goods.

As stated above monetary cost of flint is unknown, though Meskell (1999, 195) still gives

a flint razor a value of 1 deben. She gives the value of a ‘bronze’ razor as 3 deben

(Meskell 1999, 201).

Both the manufacture of copper and flint tools would require specialists. There is

evidence for copper working at Old Kingdom Buhen (Ogden 2000, 152). Copper/bronze

working also took place at Middle Kingdom-New Kingdom Askut (Smith 2003, 105).

While it obviously takes more time to make a single copper tool than a single flint tool,

copper has the advantage that the artefact may be mass-produced in moulds. This is not

the case for flint.

Thus, I would conclude that we cannot know if flint or metal was the more

expensive at Mirgissa.

The efficacy of flint is established for certain contexts. In fact, its practical

efficiency in killing has led to the myth that flint is “naturally poisoned” (Ellis 1997, 47).

It is to these ideological realms that I now turn. Technological choice is not dependent

solely on functional superiority, nor upon effort expenditure. Throughout history weapon

development has been guided by ideology, including such unlikely or seemingly illogical

areas as aesthetics (van Creveld 1989, 75-76). Therefore, the notion that flint or metal

was functionally superior may not even be relevant!

Material culture studies now commonly hold that new technologies will only be

accepted if they fit the current ideology. Simply because one material is better suited to a

particular task on utilitarian grounds does not mean that it will be automatically selected.

For an example specifically dealing with metal use, Bamforth (1993) shows that

acceptance of apparently technologically superior metal tools by Native Americans was

conditioned by symbolic considerations. Historical and ethnographic research clearly

shows that weapons are subject to the same strictures (van Creveld 1989, 67-78). Spears

in contemporary Africa are not only practical weapons, they are also markers of age,

ethnicity and social status (Larick 1986).

Egyptian weapons were unlikely to be exempt from such considerations. The

ideological significance of warfare itself, and the subjugation of Nubia, is demonstrated

by smiting scenes on Pharaonic religious artefacts. There are indications that weapons in

general had ideological import. For the ideological significance of arrows see Brunner-

Traut (1956) and McDermott (2004), for spears see Reymond (1963, 1964, 1965) and

McDermott (2004).

The ideological significance of flint in Dynastic Egypt is dealt with in particular

by: Aufrère (1983, 1991); Graves-Brown (2005). To summarize, flint is associated with

meteoric iron, it is described in ophidian terms (like the uraeus), it is associated with Seth

and Thoth, the fiery daughters of Re, with doorkeepers of the underworld and the

northern sky, it is a perfect celestial weapon against the enemies of Re.

In fact, the very existence of the fragile, bifacial tool, as opposed to an equally

efficient but more crudely made weapon, in itself argues an ideological element as

Sinclair (1995, 55) posits for Solutrean points. The effort expended in manufacture does

not make sense in the light of the likely utilitarian return. Organic points are significantly

more robust when used in the same way.

Within Nubia, flint would have displayed its Egyptian origins, and its possible

specific source from the religiously imbued hillside of Western Thebes. It embodied the

homeland in material form. While basically unprovable, it is surely plausible that the use

of emotive materials would have had some effect upon the fighting ability of Egyptian

troops.

The limited use of lithic grave-goods from the late Middle Kingdom, may argue

against flint’s ideological importance. However, ideologically value is contextually

dependent. As discussed above, there could well have been symbolic reasons why metal

was considered more suitable for the grave.

As Vila (1970, 195) stated, there is no reason to see flints as replacements for

situations in which metal was not available. Indeed, one might almost wonder why metal

was ever adopted. As Rosen (1996, 1997) has noted there was certainly nothing

inevitable about its use.

Conclusion

Thus, while clearly the Egyptians of the late Middle Kingdom-Early New

Kingdom used metal weapons, I hope I have here demonstrated the importance of

studying flint weapons in Dynastic Egypt. Petrie had intended a volume on chipped stone

tools and weapons (Gilbert 2004, 33), such an item is surely long overdue.

References

Aufrère, Sydney. “Caractères principaux et origine divine des minéraux.” Revue D'

Égyptologie 34 (1983): 3-21.

Aufrère, Sydney. 'L'univers minéral dans la pensée égyptienne. 2 vols. IFAO:

Bibliothèque d' Étude 105.1 and 105.2. Cairo: Institut Français D'Archéologie Orientale,

1991.

Bagh, Tine. “Abu Ghâlib, an Early Middle Kingdom Town in the Western Nile Delta.

Renewed Work On Material Excavated In The 1930s.” Mitteilungen der Deutschen

Archäologischen Instituts Abteilung Kairo 58 (2002): 26-61.

Bamforth, Douglas B. “Stone tools, steel tools.” In Ethnohistory and Archaeology:

Approaches to Postcontact Change in America, edited by S.M. Wilson and J.D. Rogers,

49-72. New York: Plenum Press, 1993.

Bamforth, Douglas B. and Bleed, Peter. “Technology, flaked stone technology, and risk.”

Archaeological papers of the American anthropological association 7 (1997): 109-139.

Bietak, Manfred. “Le Début de la XVIIIe Dynastie et les Minoens à Avaris.” Bulletin de

la Société Françoise d'Egyptologie 135 (1996): 5-29.

Blyth, P. H. “Ballistic properties in ancient Egyptain arrows.” Journal of the society of

archer-antiquaries 23 (1980): 34-29.

Bonnet, Charles. Kerma, Royaume de Nubie. Geneva: Universite de Geneva, 1990.

Bonnet, Charles. “Kerma.” In Ancient Treasures: an exhibition of recent discoveries from

the Sudan National Museum, edited by D.A. Welsby and J.R. Anderson, 78-89. London:

British Museum Press, 2004.

Bourriau, Janine. “Relations between Egypt and Kerma during the Middle and New

Kingdoms.” In Egypt and Africa: Nubia from Prehistory to Islam, edited by W.V.

Davies, 129-144. London: British Museum Publications, 1991.

Bracco, Jean-Pierre and Gratien, Brigitte. “Les habitats ruraux Kerma de Gism el-Arba,

campagne 1997-1998: Analyse techno-economique de l'industrie lithique taille de

l'habitat 1.” Archeologie du Nil Moyen, 9 (2002): 43-51.

Carnarvon, George E. S. M. H., Carter, Howard, Griffith, Francis L., Legrain, George,

Möller, George, Newberry, Percy E. and Spiegelberg, Wilhem. Five years' explorations

at Thebes: a record of work done 1907-1911. London: Oxford University Press, 1912.

Daressy, Georges. Fouilles de la Vallée des rois (1898-1899), Caro: Institut français

d'archéologie orientale, 1902.

Dunham, Dows. El Kurru. The Royal Cemeteries of Kush. Vol. 1. Cambridge,

Massachusetts: Havard University Press, 1950.

Dunham, Dows and Janssen, Josef M.A. Second Cataract Forts Excavated by George

Henry Reisner II: Uronarti, Shalfak, Mirgissa. Boston: Boston Museum of Fine Arts,

1967

Edmonds, Mark R. and Thomas, Julian. “The Archers: An everyday story of country

folk.” In Lithic Analysis and Later British Prehistory, edited by A.G., Brown, and M.R.

Edmonds, 187-199. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, 1987.

Ellis, Christopher J. “Factors influencing the use of stone projectile tips. An ethnographic

perspective.” In Projectile Technology, edited by H. Knecht, 37-74, New York: Plenum

Press, 1997.

Emery, Walter B., Smith, Harry S., Millard, Alan R. and Dixon, David M. The fortress of

Buhen: the archaeological report. London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1979.

Forbes, Robert J. Studies in Ancient Technology. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1966.

Friedman, Florence D. Gifts of the Nile: ancient Egyptian faience. London: Thames and

Hudson, 1998.

Giddy, Lisa. Kom Rabi'a: The New Kingdom and Post-New Kingdom Objects. London:

Egypt Exploration Society, 1999.

Gilbert, Gregory P. Weapons, warriors and warfare in Early Egypt. BAR International

Series 1208, Oxford: Archaeopress, 2004.

Giorgini, Michela S. Soleb II. Les nécropolis. Firenze: Sansoni, 1971.

Gratien, Briggite and Olive, Monique. “Fouilles à Saï 1977-1979: L'habitat du Kerma

classique: analyse de l'industrie lithique.” Cahiers de Recherches de L' Insitut de

Papyrologie et d' Egyptologie de Llille 6 (1984): 83-125.

Graves-Brown, Carolyn A. “the Spitting Goddess and the Stony eye:Divinity and Flint in

Pharaonic Egypt.” In Current Research in Egyptology 2003: Proceedings of the

fourth annual symposium which took place at the Institute of Archaeology,

University College London, 18-19 January 2003. Oxbow Books: Oxford, edited

by K. Piquette and S. Love, 57-70, Oxford: Oxbow Books, 2005.

Harrell, James A. Table 1: Ancient Egyptian Hardstone quarries.

http://www.eeescience.utoledo.edu/Faculty/Harrell/Egypt/Quarries/Hardst_Quar.html

(accessed May 19, 2006)

Harris, John R. Lexicographical studies in ancient Egyptian minerals. Berlin: Akademie

Verlag, 1961.

Hayes, William C. The scepter of Egypt: a background for the study of the Egyptian

antiquities in the Metropolitan Museum of Art. (1675-1080 B.C.). New York:

Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1990.

Hikade, Thomas. “Silex-Pfeilspitzen in Ägypten.” Mitteilungen des Deutschen

Archäologischen Instituts Abteilung Kairo, 57 (2001), 109-125.

Hölscher, Uvo. The Excavations of Medinet Habu. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,

1954.

Janssen, Jac J. Commodity prices from the Ramessid period: an economic study of the

village of Necropolis workmen at Thebes. Leiden: Brill, 1975.

Keates, Stephen. “The flashing blade: Copper, colour and luminosity in North Italian

copper age society.” In Colouring the Past. The significance of Colour in Archaeological

Research, edited by A. Jones, and G. MacGregor,, 109-125, New York: Berg, 2002.

Kendall, Timothy. Kush lost kingdom of the Nile. A loan exhibition from the Museum of

Fine Arts Boston. September 1981-August 1984. Brockton: Brockton Art Museum, 1982.

Kendall, Timothy. “The origin of the Napatan state: El Kurru and the evidence for the

royal ancestors.” In Studien zum antiken Sudan. Akten der 7. Internationalen Tagunf für

meroitistische Forschungen vom 14. bis 19. September 1992, edited by S. Wenig, 3-138,

Weisbaden: Harrassowitz Verlarg, 1999.

Kendall, Timothy. “A response to Lásló Török's "Long chronology" of El Kurru.” In

Studien zum antiken Sudan. Akten der 7. Internationalen Tagunf für meroitistische

Forschungen vom 14. bis 19. September 199, edited by S. Wenig, 164-176, Weisbaden:

Harrassowitz Verlarg, 1999.

Larick, Robert. “Age grading and ethnicity in the style of Loikop (samburu) spears.”

World Archaeology 18 (1986): 268-282.

Larsen, von. Hjalmar. “Vorbericht Über Die Schwedischen Grabungen In Abu Ghâlib

1932-1934.” Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 6

(1935): 4-87.

Love, James R.B. Stone-Age Bushmen of Today: Life and Adventure among a Tribe of

Savages in Northwestern Australia. London: Blackie, 1936.

McDermott, Bridget. Warfare in ancient Egypt, Stroud: Sutton Publishing Limited, 2004.

McLeod, Wallace. Composite Bows From the Tomb of Tutankhamun. Oxford: Griffith

Institute, 1970.

McLeod, Wallace. Self Bows and Other Archery Tackle From The Tomb Of

Tut'ankhamun. Oxford: Griffith Institute, 1982.

Meskell, Lynn. Archaeologies of social life. Oxford: Blackwell, 1999.

Miller, Robert. “Lithic technology in East Karnak.” Journal of the Society for the Study of

Egyptian Antiquities 13 (1985): 228-236.

Miller, Robert, McEwen, Edward and Bergman, Christopher. “Experimental Approaches

to ancient Near Eastern archery.” World Archaeology 18.2 (1986): 178-195.

O'Connor, David B. Ancient Nubia: Egypt's rival in Africa. Philadelphia: University

Museum University of Pennsylvania, 1993.

Ogden, Jack. “Metals.” In Ancient Egyptian materials and technology, edited by P.T.

Nicholson and I.Shaw, 148-176, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.

Patch, Diana C. 1998 “By necessity or design: faience use in ancient Egypt.” In Gifts of

the Nile. Ancient Egyptian Faience, edited by F.D. Friedman, 32-45. London: Thames

and Hudson, 1998.

Petschel, Susanne, Falk, Martin von. and Bayer, Christine. Pharao siegt immer: Krieg

und Frieden im alten Ägypten, Katalog zur Ausstellung im Gustav-Lübcke-Museum der

Stadt Hamm, Bönen: Kettler, 2004.

Pinch, Geraldine. “Redefining funerary objects.” In Egyptology at the dawn of the

Twenty-first century. Proceedings of the Eighth International Congress of Egyptologists.

Cairo 2000, edited by Z. Hawass, and L. Pinch Brock, 443-227 Cairo: American

University in Cairo, 2002.

Pope, Saxton T. Bows and Arrows. Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1962.

Randall-Maciver, David and Mace, Arthur C. El-Amrah and Abydos, London: Egypt

Exploration Fund, 1902.

Reymond, Eve A. E. “The origin of the spear I.” Journal of Egyptian Archaeolog, 49

(1963): 140-146.

Reymond, Eve A. E. “The origin of the spear II.” Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 50

(1964): 133-138.

Reymond, Eve A. E. “The cult of the spear in the temple at Edfu.” Journal of Egyptian

Archaeology, 51 (1965): 144-148.

Richards, Janet E. Mortuary variability and social differentiation in Middle Kingdom

Egypt. PhD thesis. Michigan: Ann Arbor, 1992.

Richards, Janet E. “Ancient Egyptian Mortuary Practice and the study of socioeconomic

differentiation.” In Anthropology and Egyptology a developing dialogue, edited by J

Lustig, 33-42, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997.

Richards, Janet E. Society and death in ancient Egypt: mortuary landscapes of the Middle

Kingdom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.

Ritner, Robert K. The Mechanics of Ancient Egyptian Magical Practice. Chicago:

Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1993

Roeder, Gunter. Vorläufiger Bericht über die Ausgrabungen in Hermopolis, 1929-1932.

Wein: Druck von Adolf Holzhausens Nachfolger, 1931-1932.

Runnels, Curtis. “Flaked stone artefacts in Greece during the Historical Period.” Journal

of Field Archaeology 9 (1982): 263-273.

Saleh, Mohamed and Sourouzian, Hourig., ed. Official Catalogue. The Egyptian Museum

Cairo., Mainze: Verlag Philipp von Zabern, 1987.

Säve-Söderbergh, Torgny and Scandinavian Joint Expedition to Sudanese Nubia. Middle

Nubian sites, Vol 4.1. Partille: Astrom Editions, 1989.

Serpico, Margaret and White, Raymond. “The use and identification of varnish on New

Kingdom funerary equipment.” In Colour and painting in ancient Egypt, edited by

Davies, 33-42, London: British Museum Press, 2001.

Shaw, Ian. Egyptian warfare and weapons. Princes Risborough: Shire, 1991.

Sinclair, Anthony. “The technique as a symbol in Late Glacial Europe.” World

Archaeology 27.1 (1995): 50-62.

Smith, Stuart T. “Intact tombs of the seventeenth and eighteenth dynasties from Thebes

and the New Kingdom burial system.” Mitteilungen der Deutschen Archäologischen

Instituts Abteilung Kairo 48 (1992), 193-231.

Smith, Stuart T. Wretched Kush. Ethnic identities and boundaries in Egypt's Nubian

Empire, London and New York: Routledge, 2003.

Spalinger, Anthony J. War in Ancient Egypt. Maldon, MA: Blackwell, 2005.

Spencer, A. Jeffrey. Excavations at el-Ashmunein III. The Town. London: British

Museum Trust, 1993.

Spurrell, Flaxman C. J. “Flint Tools from Tell el Amarna” In Tell el Amarna edited by

W.H.F. Petrie, 37-38, London: Metheun and Co., 1894.

Taylor, John H. “Patterns of colouring on ancient Egyptian coffins from the New

Kingdom to the Twenty-sixth Dynasty: an overview.” In Colour and painting in ancient

Egypt edited by W.V. Davies, 164-181, London: British Museum Press, 2001.

Tillmann, Andreas. “Ein Steingerätinventar des neuen reiches aus Qantir/Piramess

(Ägypten) Vorbericht.” Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 16 (1986): 149-155.

Tillmann, Andreas. Die Steinartefakte des dynastischen Ägypten, dargestellt am Beispiel

der Inventare aus Tell el-Dab'a und Qantir. (PhD thesis University of Tübingen)

Tübingen: University of Tübingen, 1992.

Tillmann, Andreas. “Die Steinartefakte.” In Pharaonen und Fremde : Dynastien im

Dunkel. 194. Sonderausstellung des Historischen Museums der Stadt Wien in

Zusammenarbeit ... 8.Sept. - 23.Okt.1994. 194. Sonderausstellung des Historischen

Museums der Stadt Wien, edited by I. Hein, 105-109, 257, Wein: Eigenverlag der Museen

der Stadt, 1994.

Tillmann, Andreas. “Dynastic stone tools.” In Encyclopedia of the archaeology of ancient

Egypt, edited by K.A. Bard, 262-265, London: Routledge, 1999.

Török, László. The Kingdom of Kush. Handbook of the Napatan-Meroitic Civilization.

Leiden, New York and Köln: Brill, 1997.

Török, László. “The origin of the Napatan state: The long chronology of the El Kurru

cemetery.” In Studien zum antiken Sudan. Akten der 7. Internationalen Tagunf für

meroitistische Forschungen vom 14. bis 19. September 1992 edited by S Wenig, 149-159,

Weisbaden: Harrassowitz Verlarg, Weisbaden, 1999.

Towner, Robert H. and Warburton, Miranda. “Projectile point rejuvenation: a

technological analysis” Journal of Field Archaeology 17. 3 (1990): 311-321.

Van Creveld, Martin. Technology and war from 2000BC to the present. New York: The

Free Press, 1989.

Vila, Andreas. “L'armement de la forteresse de Mirgissa-Iken.” Revue D' Égyptologie 22

(1970): 170-199.

Weissner, Polly. “Style and social information in Kalahari San projectile points.”

American Antiquity 48 (1983): 253-276.

Whitehouse, Ruth D. “Ritual objects. Archaeological joke or neglected evidence?” In

Approaches to the Study of Ritual, edited by J.B. Wilkins, 9-30, London: Accordia

Research Centre, London, 1996.

Zibelius-Chen, Karola. Die ägyptische Expansion nach Nubia, Eine Darlegung der

Grundfaktoren. Weisbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichertverlag, 1988.