A.M. DODSON, J.J. JOHNSTON & W. MONKHOUSE (eds), A Good Scribe and an Exceedingly Wise Man: Studies in Honour of W.J. Tait (London: Golden House Publications, 2014).  

Scribal Practice and an Early Dynastic

Stone Vessel Inscription: Material and Aesthetic Implications*

Kathryn E. Piquette

Freie Universität Berlin My interest in writing as a material practice was sparked in part during one of John Tait’s courses on ancient Egyptian scripts that I attended while studying for my Master’s degree at the UCL Institute of Archaeology during 2000–1. Using modern papyrus, ink and lengths of rush which we made into pens, John encouraged us to consider the importance of the scribal practices – the complex relationships between tools, materials for writing with and on, and the embodied actions and socio-cultural knowledge of the scribe – which lay behind the written documents we were learning to read. I continued to explore writing materiality and practice in my doctoral research on early Egyptian writing (Piquette 2007), in part under John’s guiding hand. His thought-provoking perspectives on scribal practice continue to inform my research (Piquette 2008; 2010; Piquette and Whitehouse [eds] forthcoming), as they do the following case study on a First Dynasty inscribed stone vessel fragment from the World Museum, Liverpool (1977.112.296).

ver four thousand inscribed objects survive from the Early Dynastic Period (here defined as up to the end of the reign of Netjerikhet). Most bear short inscriptions

including personal names and titles, place names and accounting information (Regulski 2010: 6, 242). Depending on interpretive method, this graphical imagery can be understood as serving linguistic, representational, emblematic and other symbolic functions (e.g. Baines 1989). Many studies on early writing grapple with questions of system development and function as a technology for communication and admin-istration of the early Egyptian state, as well as construction of royal and elite identities (e.g. Baines 1989; 2004; Kahl 1994; 2001; Kaplony 1963; Regulski 2010). One often encounters assertions in the literature concerning linguistic meaning and socio-cultural function which exceed the capacity of the evidential basis. In attempting to overcome quantitative and qualitative limitations one may see little alternative to deriving explanation from later evidence. I argue, however, that grappling head-on with data shortcomings can provoke adoption and adaptation of new analytical methods and approaches which open up new potential for contextually-derived insight. In contrast to emphasis on the outcome of the writing act—how signs functioned and communicated meaning in the Egyptian world—I direct attention to another area of the continuum: the writing act itself. As emphasised previously, written meaning is preceded by its physical expression, and as such warrants investigation as material culture (Piquette 2007; 2008; see also Moreland 2001; 2006). Indeed, omitting such aspects from our reconstructions can lead to over-estimations of what writing did in

                                                                                                                         * These interim results and observations derive from a larger project on writing and art materialities in early Egypt and Mesopotamia, funded by a Marie Curie COFUND Fellowship at Freie Universität Berlin, with the support of Excellence Cluster TOPOI.

O

PIQUETTE

242

premodern societies and the extent of its cultural impact (Baines 2010: 135). The following case study on an Early Dynastic inscribed stone vessel fragment is thus informed by notions of materiality and practice (e.g. DeMarrais et al. 2004; Dobres 2000; Joyce and Lopiparo 2005), in an attempt to characterise early scribal acts, and to think about what this can reveal about broader social questions. Inscribed stone vessel fragment 1977.112.296 (figs. 1–4)

mong the surviving Early Dynastic inscriptions, no less than half occur on ceramic or stone vessels. Inscriptions may be incised, written in ink or, more rarely,

executed in low relief (Regulski 2010: 16, 20–28); stone vessel fragment Liverpool 1977.112.296 is of the first type. This fragment was first brought to my attention by Ashley Cooke, Curator of the Department of Antiquities at the World Museum in Liverpool. The piece was donated to what was then the Merseyside Country Museums in March 1977 by the late Lt. Col. John R. Danson (1893–1976). He had inherited it from his father, Francis Chatillon Danson of Birkenhead (1855–1926 – Newberry 1905: 105[p];1 Warhurst 1977–78; Bier-brier [ed.] 2012: 142) who, according to museum records, acquired it in April 1904 via W. Talbot Ready from the Sotheby’s Paris sale of the collection of Émile Amélineau (1850–1915 – Bierbrier [ed.] 2012: 17) on 8/9 February 1904 (lot 363). The fragment was found during Amélineau’s 1895–96 season at Abydos (Amélineau 1899: 175, 286–87, pl. 8, second row, right). In his report, where the fragment was published by means of a written description, typeset transcription and a rather dark photograph, Amélineau correctly attributed the inscription to a First Dynasty ruler (see also Newberry 1905: 105, bottom;2 Porter and Moss 1937: 82).3 Subsequent publications on early writing provide limited information on this object (e.g. Kahl 1994: 282[1604]; Kaplony 1965: 13, Abb. 26; 1963; Regulski 2010: 23, n. 177, 428, G7), doubtless due to the poor quality of the publication photograph,4 and it being in private hands for over half a century. The fragment itself measures 15.5 cm in length and 7.4 cm in width and preserves a section of the rim indicative of an open vessel type. Museum records identify the stone as serpentine, although subsequent examination suggests it is actually gneiss (Cooke, pers. comm. 29 August 2012), a hardstone probably sourced from southern Egypt (Aston et al. 2000: 32; see also Aston 1994). The surface is well-polished and symmetrical in its curvature and thickness, a testament to the high degree of skill of its maker. On the basis of the find context of the ‘royal’ cemetery at Abydos and later evid-ence concerning access to stone, skills required for production and stone vessel use and ownership (Aston et al. 2000: 5–6, 32–34; El-Khouli 1978: 793; Regulski 2010: 23), this fragment seems to derive from a socially-restricted environment characterised by a high degree of cultural and aesthetic investment (see below).                                                                                                                          1 Newberry’s entry, ‘Fragment of a diorite vase ... from Amélineau excavations at Abydos [In the collection of Mr. F. Danson of Birkenhead]’, contains compositional omissions which suggest he was unable to consult the original. 2 My thanks to Elizabeth Fleming of the Griffith Institute for bringing this reference to my attention and for additional archival information concerning this object. 3 Bourriau 1980: 139[111], however, lists it under the heading ‘Old Kingdom’, calling it a ‘Fragment of a diorite bowl inscribed with a royal name’. Ashley Cooke (pers. comm. 27 November 2012) confirms that the museum’s post-Second World War acquisitions are still being studied and this fragment had been misdated until its recent examination prior to being placed on display. 4 Kaplony (1965: 13, Abb. 26) remarked subsequently ‘Auf dem Original keine Marke’.

A

AN EARLY DYNASTIC STONE VESSEL INSCRIPTION  

243

Fig. 1. Vessel fragment 1977.112.296 as it appears under default lighting in the RTI viewer.

Abydos, First Dynasty, reign of Adjib. (Author’s photograph, courtesy World Museum, Liverpool.)

The piece is inscribed on the exterior wall with nine signs located between 1.5 and 5 cm below the rim. The incisions of some retain a reddish-brown5 paste infilling (darkened incisions in fig. 1). Reading from the viewer’s right to left and top to bottom, the ‘falcon-on-standard’ sign ‘G7’6 is repeated twice, reading ‘nTr.wi’ or ‘nb.wi’, assuming linguistic values from later usages (Frankfort 1978: 337[9]; Regulski 2010: 119). Next is the cluster ‘M23’/‘sedge-like plant’ and ‘L2’/‘bee’, below each of which is incised ‘X1’/‘type of bread’, together conventionally read nsw.t-bi.t. Below this cluster appear ‘U6’/‘hoe’, ‘Q3’/‘reed matting’ and what may be ‘N41’ or ‘N42’/‘well?’. Following Sethe (1897), Amélineau (1899: 286) read these lower three signs as ‘Merbapen’, identity markers which, however interpreted (e.g. Mr-p-biA, Helck 1987: 102), are associated with Adjib who ruled during the second half of the First Dynasty (Kahl 1994: 620; Regulski 2010: 153). Characterising Script In developing a material practice approach to writing (Piquette 2008; 2010; Piquette and Whitehouse [eds] forthcoming), it is important to ‘establish what were the characteristics of a script and the pattern of its usage, and only then ask what its potential was and what social changes it might have stimulated’ (Baines 2010: 135). This then raises the question: what level of detail is appropriate for early script character-isation? Palaeographic methods, developed over the past century through the work of Hilda Petrie, Peter Kaplony, Henry Fischer, Jochem Kahl, Ilona Regulski and others, charac-terise script through first-hand observation and photography, upon which drawings and written description are based. Anachronistic yet pragmatic characterisation via stan-

                                                                                                                         5 Whether or not the substance is original could not be determined at this time. 6 All sign designations follow Kahl 1994, but are used here as a means to describe morphology only and are not intended to presume proposed linguistic values or semantic functions.

PIQUETTE

244

dardised fonts is also commonplace7. Some document-ation methods only visualise general sign morphology, while other imaging techniques enable ductus to be discerned. The latter type of visual information provides important clues for early scribal/ copyist practices, yet acquiring sufficiently and consistently high-quality images often presents challenges. Analysis Using Reflectance Transformation Imaging A relatively recent digital imaging technique that facilitates detailed study of script is Reflectance Transformation Imaging (RTI). Multiple high-resolution photo-graphs are taken of a target surface with light systematically applied from different positions (Schroer et al. 2009). The exposures are

amalgamated using the Polynomial Texture Mapping or other mathematical algorithms (Malzbender et al. 2001; Mudge et al. 2006). Open access viewing software allows the user to re-light the surface virtually and apply different rendering modes to enhance morphological features, such as tool and other marks that may not be visible under normal inspection. Using the highlight RTI technique (Mudge et al. 2006), I undertook photography of the object. With the benefit of raking light, zoom and the ‘specular enhancement’ rendering mode, a highly complex surface becomes visible (figs. 2–3). Multiple incisions accumulate into recognisable hieroglyphic signs. Of note are strokes that veer away or extend beyond the primary cuts. The former appear less ‘intentional’ and may be understood as ‘tool slips’. Amélineau commented that these marks bear witness to: ‘une méthode qui n’était pas encore sûre d’elle-même et avec des outils que la dureté de la pierre ne permettait pas de conduire comme on voulait’ (1899: 287). One might surmise that the scribe’s8 apparent struggle for control of his/her tool on the stone creates a contrasting aesthetic when compared with the controlled manufacture of the vessel fragment, as noted above. Given the dearth of early depictive and other archaeological evidence for vessel production, detailed examination of surface transformation can provide fresh insight into manufacturing processes. Discernment of the types and

                                                                                                                         7 As far as I am aware, the much needed development of fonts for Early Dynastic writing has yet to be tackled. 8 Term used here without assuming a particular level of reader/writer literacy or precluding copying. Whether the ‘writer’ or ‘scribe’ was incising over previously-inked signs is not clear (ink, if preserved, is not discernible under visible light), nor is it clear whether work was copied from another source or incised from memory.

Fig. 2. Line drawing based on RTI image data showing both the incised signs and numerous tools marks resulting from the

production process. (Author’s illustration.)

 

AN EARLY DYNASTIC STONE VESSEL INSCRIPTION  

245

qualities of skill involved can also shed light on the roles of different artesans, as well as the aesthetic expectations and environments in which practioners worked. Turning to the surface marks which I tentatively term ‘tool slips’, analysis reveals two patterns that may be significant for understanding scribal practice and embodiment. Almost all vertical strokes run towards the rim of the vessel. If we assume the vessel was oriented with the rim away from the body, the tool(s), perhaps of copper, bronze or flint (El-Khouli 1978: 800; Regulski 2010: 26), would have been applied to the surface such that incision was directed away from the body. For horizontal and oblique lines, incision is predominantly from right to left and lower-right to upper-left, as evidenced by the numerous slips to the left and upper left. This is particularly clear for ‘L2’/‘bee’ where slips occur repeatedly (fig. 4), often extending beyond the core lines forming the sign by 3-4 times the distance! Exceptions include the second ‘G7’/‘falcon-standard’, where tool slips extend beyond the core line of the ‘standard pole’ (fig. 3, downward pointing arrows), and thus away from the rim. Other slips extend away from the ‘tail feathers’ of the left ‘falcon’. Two slips veer off the top of ‘M23’/‘sedge-like plant’ from right to left and lower left (fig. 4), also apparently the result of incising away from the rim. These would seem to necessitate substantial contortion of the hand and wrist accompanied by the outward

Fig. 3. Fragment under raking light in the RTI viewer, combined with zoom and ‘specular enhancement’

rendering mode to clarify surface transformations. (Author’s photograph, courtesy World Museum, Liverpool.)

 

PIQUETTE

246

rotation of the elbow and shoulder, a potentially adverse po-sture for tool control and cutting force. The scribe may have rotated the surface clockwise, up to 180º, or repositioned her-/ himself such that inc-ising movements were directed away from the rim, as well as the body. Another pattern in tool marks is inform-ative for questions of scribal habit and em-bodiment. Almost all slips associated with horizontal lines occur in a left-ward direct-ion. Likewise, lines following a lower-right to upper-left angle ex-

hibit slips in a left- and rim-ward direction. Based on this pattern and that of the vertical lines just discussed, it is tempting to conclude that the individual who made this inscription was right-handed. Comparison with other inscribed vessels is underway along with research on handedness and embodiment (cf. e.g. Bromage and Boyde 1984; Delluc and Delluc 1993; Steele and Uomini 2005) with the aim of exploring this hypothesis further. Assessing Aesthetic Significance Having characterised the physical expression of these signs in some detail, I examine another aspect of their relationship to their specific media (cf. Baines 2010: 135). In contrast to the symmetry of the vessel fragment and the skill and concern this indicates, the inscription presents a seemingly different aesthetic sensibility. In addition to the apparent lack of tool control, the inscription lacks compositional symmetry. The signs are poorly aligned on the horizontal plane vis-à-vis the rim and each other and they are pitched at different angles in relation to the vertical axis of the vessel. Spacing between signs is also inconsistent, and the scale and shapes of repeated signs, e.g. ‘X1’/‘type of bread’ and ‘G7’/‘falcon on standard’ are also variable. Questions arising at this juncture include: how should we understand these char-acteristics aesthetically? Are they indicative of a lack of skill or tool control, as Amélineau (1899: 287) also wondered? Or are we looking at the work of a scribe or copyist in training? Whether as part of learning or not, should we consider the slips to be ‘errors’? We certainly do not see evidence that the latter were recognised as such and physical action taken, i.e. scratching out or polishing away of extraneous lines, as attested elsewhere (e.g. Emery and Sa‘ad 1938: pl. 18B; Piquette 2007; Piquette forthcoming).

Fig. 4. Detail showing incisions with selected marks highlighted with arrows

to indicate probable direction of tool travel, notable among these being the upper part of 'M23'/'sedge-like plant' where tool slips are

directed away from the rim. (Author’s photograph, courtesy World Museum, Liverpool.)

 

AN EARLY DYNASTIC STONE VESSEL INSCRIPTION  

247

The scribe seems to have been satisfied with the inscription’s appearance on some level, if the presence of the vessel in the cemetery context rather than the rubbish heap is a reliable indicator. This apparent acceptance or lack of aesthetic concern may also be bound up in the scribe’s social relationships, such as an apathetic overseer or commissioner. Although an example from much later, a study of the Late Ramesside Letters by Jac Janssen (1987: 163) may be instructive. Letters written by the scribe, Butehamun, to his superiors exhibit more care than those written to his father. Janssen concludes that Butehamun may have been less concerned with impressing his father than other members of his social group. In our case, too, it is worth considering how attitudes of the vessel-maker, scribe, commissioner or others, and the intended function(s) of the vessel, differentially informed the aesthetic environment of each phase of production (see Regulski 2010: 26–27). That incision and low-relief carving on early stone vessels were almost exclusively reserved for royal and private names (Regulski 2010: 27), suggests that the person named, or individuals acting on their behalf, would have examined the inscription at some point. Presumably it was assessed according to an aesthetic standard as being adequate for subsequent use that eventually saw it deposited in the ‘royal’ cemetery at Abydos. Looking to the broader archaeological data, evidence roughly contemporary with the vessel9 led Petrie (1900: 12) and others (e.g. Wilkinson 1999: 236–37) to suggest that the reign of Adjib came to an abrupt end. Evidence that his burial was undertaken in haste raises the possibility that the aesthetic environment in which the vessel was inscribed was characterised by a shortage of time – a factor that could also explain the hasty appearance of the inscription. There is an additional aspect of the material evidence that may impact on this question of apparent aesthetic dissonance. Close examination of the signs in good light shows, as mentioned above, a reddish-brown pigment still adhering to some incisions. This is seen on other contemporary incised vessels, as well as inscribed labels, furniture and box elements and other objects elaborated through subtractive techniques such as incising and carving (Piquette 2007). Caution is needed since coloured infill was sometimes applied post-excavation to enhance contrast for photography (e.g. Petrie 1902: 5); however, the colour and inconsistency of application here may point to it being original. It is possible to imagine that when freshly applied, the visual impact of bold red/reddish-brown coloured lines would have created a tidier, crisp inscription that would have overpowered the ‘visual noise’ of the extraneous marks on the surface, the latter also being somewhat lost in the patterning of the stone. The point concerning viewing experience is important since our modern viewing experiences, especially with the aid of modern technologies, differ from those of people in the past. The augmented visualisations obtained through the various rendering modes provided by RTI are powerful and revealing, but they are not representative of past viewing experiences. Nevertheless, we can be certain that these marks are indicative of a past individual’s embodied experience, even if just fleetingly – here for the ‘scribe’ who pressed the tool into the surface with enough force and momentum to carve away the stone – and then some! Summary

onventional palaeographic methods are important for assessing writing styles and distribution of patterns in usage across space and time, but these can over-

                                                                                                                         9 Bearing in mind the pitfalls of date attribution on the basis of names alone (Emery 1954: 3; Piquette 2007).

C

PIQUETTE

248

generalise and present a passive picture of writing. In addition to improving legibility, RTI reveals the dynamic process of writing creation. In the case of Liverpool 1977.112.296, incised signs and the individual strokes that constitute them were examined for the ways in which these evidence scribal (or copyist) practice. Embodiment including body and writing surface orientation, tool manipulation and use were examined in relation to the stone surface, handedness, and technical skill. From one perspective, an aesthetic harmony is presented by the exclusivity of hardstone, the time and skill investment for its manufacture into a vessel and its inscription with royal identity markers (cf. Baines 2010: 138). However, we are confronted with an apparent aesthetic dissonance when we examine the physical expression of the inscription in detail. I discussed the pitfalls of assuming that modern ways of looking and seeing are representative of past viewing experiences and aesthetic sensibility. In order to further explore these and other issues raised by this case study, I continue to investigate writing materialities and thereby increase our understanding of early scribal practice its significance for wider palaeographic and cultural concerns. Bibliography AMÉLINEAU, E. 1899. Les nouvelles fouilles d’Abydos: 1895–1896: Compte rendu in extenso des

fouilles, description des monuments et objets découverts. Paris: Ernest Leroux. ASTON, B.G. 1994. Ancient Egyptian Stone Vessels: materials and forms. Studien zur

Archäologie und Geschichte Altägyptens 5. Heidelberg: Heidelberger Orientverlag.

ASTON, B.G., J.A. HARRELL and I. SHAW 2000. ‘Stone.’ In Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technologies, edited by I. Shaw and P.T. Nicholson, 5–77. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

BAINES, J. 2010. ‘Aesthetic Culture and the Emergence of Writing in Egypt during Naqada III.’ Archéo-Nil 20: 134–49.

– 2004. ‘The Earliest Egyptian Writing: development, context, purpose.’ In The First Writing: script invention as history and process, edited by S.D. Houston, 150–89. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

– 1989. ‘Communication and Display: the integration of early Egyptian art and writing.’ Antiquity 63: 471–82.

BIERBRIER, M.L. (ed.) 2012. Who Was Who in Egyptology, 4th edition. London: Egypt Exploration Society.

BOURRIAU, J. 1980. ‘Museum Acquisitions, 1978: Egyptian antiquities acquired in 1978 by museums in the United Kingdom.’ JEA 77: 137–43.

BROMAGE, T.G. and A. BOYDE 1984. ‘Microscopic Criteria for the Determination of Directionality of Cutmarks on Bone.’ AJPA 65: 359–66.

DELLUC, B. and G. 1993. ‘Images de la main dans notre préhistoire.’ Les Dossiers d‘Archéologie 178: 32–45.

DEMARRAIS, E., C. GOSDEN and C. RENFREW (eds) 2004. Rethinking Materiality: the engagement of mind with the material world. Cambridge: McDonald Institute Monographs.

DOBRES, M.A. 2000. Technology and Social Agency: outlining a practice theory for archaeology. Maiden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.

EL-KHOULI, A.A.-R.H. 1978. Egyptian Stone Vessels: Predynastic Period to Dynasty III. Typology and Analysis. Mainz: von Zabern.

EMERY, W.B. 1954. Great Tombs of the First Dynasty, II. London: Egypt Exploration Society.

EMERY, W.B. and Z.Y. SA‘AD 1938. The Tomb of Hemaka. Cairo: Government Press.

AN EARLY DYNASTIC STONE VESSEL INSCRIPTION  

249

FRANKFORT, H. 1978. Kingship and the Gods: a study of ancient Near Eastern religion as the integration of society and nature. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

HELCK, W. 1987. Untersuchungen zur Thinitenzeit. Ägyptologische Abhandlungen 45. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.

JANSSEN, J.J. 1987. ‘On Style in Egyptian Handwriting.’ JEA 73: 161–67. JOYCE, R. and J. LOPIPARO 2005. ‘PostScript: doing agency in archaeology.’ JAM&T

12/4: 365–74. KAHL, J. 1994. Das System der ägyptischen Hieroglyphenschrift in der 0.–3. Dynastie.

Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. – 2001. ‘Hieroglyphic Writing During the Fourth Millennium BC: an analysis of

systems.’ Archéo-Nil 11: 102–134. KAPLONY, P. 1963. Die Inschriften der ägyptischen Frühzeit, I–III. Ägyptologische

Abhandlungen 8. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. – 1965. ‘Bemerkungen zu einigen Steingefäßen mit archaischen Königsnamen.’

MDAIK 20: 1–46. MALZBENDER, T., D. GELB and H. WOLTERS 2001. ‘Polynomial Texture Maps.’ In

Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference on Computer graphics and interactive techniques (SIGGRAPH ’01), 519–28. New York, NY: ACM Press.

MORELAND, J. 2001. Archaeology and Text. London: Duckworth. – 2006. ‘Archaeology and Texts: subservience or enlightenment.’ ARA 35: 135–51. MUDGE, M., T. MALZBENDER, C. SCHROER and M. LUM 2006. ‘New Transformation

Imaging Methods for Rock Art and Multiple-Viewpoint Display.’ In 7th International Symposium in Virtual Reality, Archaeology and Cultural Heritage (VAST 2006), edited by M. Ioannides, D. Arnold, F. Niccolucci and K. Mania, 195–200. Budapest: Eurographics Association.

NEWBERRY, P. 1905. ‘Extracts from My Notebooks.’ PSBA 27: 101–5. PETRIE, W.M.F. 1900. The Royal Tombs of the Earliest Dynasties. London: Egypt

Exploration Fund. – 1902. Abydos, I. London: Egypt Exploration Fund. PIQUETTE, K.E. 2007. Writing, ‘Art’ and Society: a contextual archaeology of the

inscribed labels of late predynastic–early dynastic Egypt.’ PhD dissertation, Institute of Archaeology, University College London.

– 2008. ‘Re-materialising Script and Image.’ In Current research in Egyptology 2008: proceedings of the ninth annual symposium which took place at the KNH Centre for Biomedical Egyptology, University of Manchester, January 2008, edited by V. Gashe and J. Finch, 89–107. Bolton: Rutherford Press.

– 2010. ‘A Compositional Approach to a First Dynasty Inscribed Label Fragment from the Abydos Tomb Complex Ascribed to Qa‘a.’ ZÄS 137: 54–65.

– forthcoming. ‘“It is Written”?: making, remaking and unmaking early “writing” in the lower Nile Valley.’ In Writing as Material Practice: substance, surface and medium, edited by K.E. Piquette and R.D. Whitehouse. London: Ubiquity Press.

PORTER, B. and R. MOSS 1937. Topographical Bibliography of Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphic Texts, Reliefs, and Paintings, V: Upper Egypt, Sites. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

REGULSKI, I. 2010. A Palaeographic Study of Early Writing in Egypt. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 195. Leuven: Peeters.

SCHROER, C., J. BOGART, B. MUDGE and M. LUM 2009. Guide to Highlight Image Capture. Cultural Heritage Imaging. <http://culturalheritageimaging.org/>.

SETHE, K. 1897. ‘Die ältesten geschichtlichen Denkmäler der Ägypter.’ ZÄS 35: 1–6.

PIQUETTE

250

STEELE, J. and N. UOMINI 2005. ‘Humans, Tools and Handedness.’ In Stone Knapping: the necessary conditions for a uniquely hominin behaviour, edited by V. Roux and B. Bril, 217–39. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.

WARHURST, M. 1977–78. ‘The Danson Bequest and Merseyside County Museums.’ Archaeological Reports 24: 85–88.

WILKINSON, T.A.H. 1999. Early Dynastic Egypt: strategies, society and security. London: Routledge.