This Content Downloaded From 174.114.90.200 On Thu, 13 Aug 2020 23:43:23 UTC

Special Animals from a Special Place?
The Fauna from HK29A at Predynastic

Hierakonpolis
Author(s): Veerle Linseele, Wim Van Neer and Renée Friedman
Source: Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt , 2009, Vol. 45 (2009), pp.
105-136
Published by: American Research Center in Egypt
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.com/stable/25735449
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
American Research Center in Egypt is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt
This content downloaded from

174.114.90.200 on Thu, 13 Aug 2020 23:43:23 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Special Animals from a Special Place?
The Fauna from HK29A at Predynastic Hierakonpolis
Veerle Linseele, Wim Van Neer,1 and Renee Friedman
Abstract
Locality HK29A at Predynastic Hierakonpolis has been identified as a ceremonial center

based on archaeological, architectural and macrobotanical data, although alternative func
tions as a feasting or butchery site have also been proposed. Animal bone assemblages ex
cavated at the locality in the 1980s and in 2002 have been studied and are compared in
detail to those from other localities at Hierakonpolis, as well as from other Predynastic sites
in Upper and Lower Egypt. The comparisons show that HK29A shares several features
with other Upper Egyptian sites, which can be related to their similar ecological settings.
The fauna from Hierakonpolis settlement localities in general, including HK29A, show
some peculiarities that distinguish them from other Predynastic sites in Upper Egypt, which
may be explained by the status of the site as a large and powerful center. More importantly,
the comparisons clearly show that the fauna from HK29A has some unique features not
shared with any other locality at Hierakonpolis. They are argued to reflect a variety of sym
bolic roles that animals had, which probably changed throughout the period of use of the
locality. Moreover, the faunal remains testify of the high social status of the people taking
part in the clearly special activities at HK29A.
Introduction
The famous site of Hierakonpolis is located between the modern towns of Esna and Edfu in Upper
Egypt (fig. 1). Occupied from at least 4000 BC onward, it is the largest Predynastic site still extant and
accessible anywhere in Egypt. Exploration of the low desert portion of the site has revealed diverse
remains (fig. 2),2 which include cemeteries (e.g., HK6, HK43, HK27), domestic areas (e.g., HK29,
HK11C Test A, HK11 Operation G), industrial zones (e.g., HK11C Operations A-B, HK24A) and
what has been described as a ceremonial center (HK29A).3 Excavations at Locality HK29A, un
dertaken by Michael Hoffman in 1985-1989 and by Renee Friedman in 2002 and 2008 revealed a
1 The contribution of Wim Van Neer to this paper presents research results of the Interuniversity Attraction Poles
Programme?Belgian Science Policy.
2 Michael A. Hoffman, ed., The Predynastic of Hierakonpolis, ESA 1 (Cairo-Illinois, 1982); Barbara Adams, Ancient Nekhen.
Garstang in the City of Hierakonpolis, ESA 3 (New Maiden, 1995); Renee Friedman, Amy Maish, Ahmed G. Fahmy, John C. Dar
nell, and Edward D.Johnson, "Preliminary Report on Field Work at Hierakonpolis 1996-1998,'7A#C? 36 (1999), 1-35; Renee
Friedman, Ethan Watrall, Jane Jones, Ahmed G. Fahmy, Wim Van Neer, and Veerle Linseele, "Excavations at Hierakonpolis,"
Archeo-Nil 12 (2002), 55-68.
3 Renee Friedman, "The Ceremonial Centre at Hierakonpolis, Locality HK29A," in Jeffrey Spencer, ed., Aspects of Early
Egypt (London, 1996), 16-35. See Friedman, this volume.
105

174.114.90.200 on Thu, 13 Aug 2020 23:43:23 UTC
106 JARCE 45 (2009)
multi-phase architectural complex surrounding a large oval

courtyard, which was renovated on at least three occasions. As
sociated archaeological material dates the main phases of ac
tivity to Naqada IIB-IIC (c. 3600-3400 bc), Naqada IID-IIIA
yj^ Tell eMswid (c. 3350-3200 bc) and early Dynasty 0-1 (c. 3150-3000 bc).4
LOWER EGYPT-?4
Merimde*Vj f The aim of this contribution is to compare the faunal data
~ \l* Maadi ) from HK29A with that from other localities at Hierakonpolis
Cairay ElOmari A and the faunal record of Predynastic sites elsewhere in Egypt
(table 1) in order to determine whether the animal remains
from HK29A can confirm its special function as suggested by
the archaeological, architectural and macrobotanical data,5
and contrary to its identification as only a feasting area or per
haps merely a butchery site as recently proposed by Kemp.6
Material and Methods
^>
The faunal remains from the excavations at HK29A under
taken in 1985-89 were analyzed byj. McArdle,7 but never pub
lished in detail. The assemblage has recently been restudied
along with the fauna obtained from renewed excavation at the
EI-MahasnaV\M^^endera 2 site in 2002 and 2008. Preliminary impressions and inferences
EIAbadiya22Nac*ada
Armantt" Luxor from these new studies were formulated earlier8 and the data
Esna * are now presented in a more comprehensive fashion.
Adaima #S The site was excavated in a series of subjective find units or
Hierakonpolis*!
EdfuT loci within a 10x10 m grid system. The material has been
merged here for discussion into groupings of related context
Modern towns N / and date, which are named after associated location or archi
0Predynastic
Km 100 sites [
I 1 Aswan tectural features (fig. 3). Most significant in this discussion are
the deposits associated with the so-called wall trench and the
modified silts on the northeast side of the oval floor, which
Fig. 1. Map of Egypt with the Predynastic
sites mentioned in the text. were extremely rich in faunal remains. Nearly 40,000 bones
were recovered in total, with over 25,000 coming from square
150L40SW, a 5x5 m area with less than 45 cm of deposition,
which was excavated in 2002 (table 2). Mixed with an equally large number of sherds of distinctive
pottery, these deposits appear to be the result of refuse disposal. In the mixed sand that accumulated
above the courtyard floor about 4,000 animal bones were collected, while the discrete deposit of or
ganic rich sediment directly upon the floor itself ('the floor deposit') yielded slightly more than 2,000
remains. The low density of both faunal and ceramic material in this floor deposit contrasts sharply
4 Dates based on Stan Hendrickx, "Predynastic?Early Dynastic Chronology," in Erik Hornung, Rolf Krauss, and David A.
Warburton, eds., Ancient Egyptian Chronology, HdO 83 (Leiden-Boston, 2006), 55-93, 487-88.
5 See Renee Friedman, this volume; Ahmed G. Fahmy and Mohamed Fadl, this volume.
6 Barry J. Kemp, Ancient Egypt: Anatomy of a Civilization, 2nd ed. (London, 2006), 114-48.
7 John McArdle, "Preliminary Observations on the Mammalian Fauna from HK-29A," in Michael A. Hoffman, ed., A Final
Report to the National Endowment for the Humanities on Predynastic Research at Hierakonpolis 1985-1986 (Columbia, SC, 1987), 42
44; John McArdle, "Preliminary Observations on the Mammalian Fauna from Predynastic Localities at Hierakonpolis," in
Renee Friedman and Barbara Adams, eds., The Followers of Horus (Oxford, 1992), 53-56.
8 Veerle Linseele and Wim Van Neer, "Gourmets or Priests? Fauna from the Predynastic Temple," Nekhen News 15 (2003),
6-7.

174.114.90.200 on Thu, 13 Aug 2020 23:43:23 UTC
LINSEELE, VAN NEER, AND FRIEDMAN 107
Fig. 2. Plan of Hierakonpolis with the localities mentioned in the text. Shaded areas indicate the extent of known Pre
dynastic occupation; the hatched areas indicate modern habitation (cartography by Joel Paulson).
with the wall trench and the modified silts. Scattered animal remains were also collected on the south
side of the excavated area from two large, but very disturbed pits (Features 5 and 6), which also con
tained the distinctive pottery of the wall trench/modified silts deposits and may originally have been
ancient disposal pits. Exploration to the south of the floor in 2008 revealed heavily mixed deposits
containing highly weathered faunal material, some of which may have originated from these pits. An
other sebakh pit on the northwest side (160L80), from which a concentration of Early Dynastic pot
tery was recovered, also contained animal bones, but only 166 specimens, and is too disturbed to be
of value. To insure reliable recovery, excavated sediments were dry sieved during the 1980s cam
paigns through 6 mm mesh and during the renewed excavations through 4 mm mesh screens.
It is mainly fauna from the wall trench and modified silts on the northeast side of the complex and
the material on the courtyard floor itself ('the floor deposit') that is discussed in detail below. The
deposits in the wall trench and contiguous modified silts can be dated by associated pottery to the
Naqada IIB-C period, although the material collected in 2002 in square 150L40SW appears to be
somewhat earlier in time (Naqada IIAB).9 The deposits from the floor have been dated to Naqada
IIIA. Because of the mixed and unclear nature of the sand deposits above the courtyard floor, mate
rial collected there will not be discussed. Nevertheless, its faunal composition shows many similarities
9 See Friedman, this volume.

174.114.90.200 on Thu, 13 Aug 2020 23:43:23 UTC
108 JARCE 45 (2009)
HK29A
Excavated Area
Wall trench
n=14792
Mixed Sands,
above floor
.. n=4105 - . '
. . Tlodr deposit". .
L60 L50 L40
Fig. 3. Plan of Locality HK29A at Hierakonpolis, showing the relevant excavation areas and the number of animal bones
collected from each.
with that of the floor deposit below it. The material recovered from the south side of the com
plex in 2008 is unfortunately too disturbed to be useful for discussion at the present time, and only
a few of the special features of that characterize the faunal assemblage at HK29A were observed in
this location.10
The relatively poor preservation of the faunal material collected in the courtyard itself and the area
to the south is probably a consequence of exposure to the elements and trampling by humans and
animals. In general, however, the faunal remains from HK29A are rather well preserved, albeit they
do not show the remarkable preservation seen at some of the other localities at Hierakonpolis, such
as the wadi site of HK11C Operation G (see below), where hair, hoofs and tendons were recov
ered. Very little of the HK29A fauna can be considered to have been found in its primary place of
deposition. The vast majority of the material was apparently gathered up in antiquity and re-depos
10 Excavation along the southern side in 2008 produced approximately 11,500 bones of which 10% were identifiable, as is
generally the case throughout the locality. The special features present in this assemblage included a significant number of
large Nile perch, crocodile and softshell turtle, with the majority coming from the east side of the 318 m2 excavation area, in
the vicinity of the sebakh pits Features 5-6 from which they probably originated.

174.114.90.200 on Thu, 13 Aug 2020 23:43:23 UTC
ited in refuse pits along the periphery of the court at an unknown time after its primary deposition
in a location and under conditions still unknown. In addition, wetter soil condition and greater insect
activity may have had a negative impact on preservation. Recent coring suggests that in Predynastic
times a Nile channel was present to the west of the Dynastic town site ('Nekhen') in the alluvium11
and flood waters may on occasion have come close to the site at HK29A.
Comparative Samples
To place the faunal assemblages from HK29A in a greater context, they are compared first with
those from other localities at Hierakonpolis and then with other sites throughout Upper and Lower
Egypt from which useful data are available. The first comparative locality is HK29,12 which is a part
of the same large, multi-functional settlement nucleus as HK29A (fig. 2). At HK29, Hoffman exca
vated a pottery workshop with associated kiln and semi-subterranean, wattle and daub house that was
preserved thanks to an accidental fire. It is dated to the Naqada IIAB period. An area of approxi
mately 600 m2 was excavated here and produced nearly 10,000 animal bones in total.13
HK11 is another large cluster of settlement remains situated on the southeast side of the Wadi Abu
Suffian, approximately 2 km west of HK29A. Relatively undisturbed by sebakh activities, the level of
organic preservation is quite high. Several areas within this locality have been investigated. In Oper
ation G (Squares G, I, J), part of a farmyard associated with a domestic structure was explored, reveal
ing three distinct phases of activity ranging from Naqada IC to Naqada IIC.14 The limited exposure
of 167.5 m2 produced a total of 4,442 animal bones.
Further up the wadi, excavations at HK11C Operations A (Squares A6-7) and B (Squares B4-5)
revealed an integrated industrial zone involving a brewery and pottery manufacturing area respec
tively.15 After these establishments were abandoned, the sites were apparently used for domestic
refuse disposal and the faunal material from these later deposits compares well with that retrieved
from HK11C Test A, a stratified midden nearly 2.5 m deep, located 40 m to the south.16 Together, the
localities mentioned above represent a cross-section of what may be considered animal usage in a
domestic context.
The cemeteries of Hierakonpolis have also yielded faunal remains, those from the elite cemetery at
HK6 being the most interesting on several levels. To date, more than one hundred animals, buried
whole, have been discovered, albeit the graves are often severely disturbed and the skeletons not al
ways complete. Species encountered include traditional domestic animals, such as dog, cattle, sheep,
and goat, as well as wild species, such as anubis baboon, elephant, hippopotamus, wild donkey,
11 Judith Bunbury and Angus Graham, "There's Nothing Boring about a Borehole," Nekhen News 20 (2008), 22-23.
12 Michael A. Hoffman, "An Amratian House from Hierakonpolis and Its Significance for Predynastic Research " JNES 39
(1980), 119-37; Hoffman, The Predynastic of Hierakonpolis, 7-14.
13 The faunal remains from HK29 were analyzed previously by John McArdle, "Preliminary Report on the Predynastic
Fauna of the Hierakonpolis Project," in Hoffman, The Predynastic of Hierakonpolis, 116-21. They were restudied in order to
ensure that identification and quantification methods were consistent for the whole of Hierakonpolis and allow for intra-site
comparisons.
14 Friedman et al., "Excavations at Hierakonpolis," 55-68.
15 Izumi Takamiya, "Firing Installations and Specialization: A View from Recent Excavations at Hierakonpolis Locality 11C,"
in Beatrix Midant-Reynes and Yann Tristant, eds., Egypt at its Origins 2. Proceedings of the International Conference "Origin of the
State. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt," Toulouse, 5-8th September 2005, OLA 172 (Leuven, 2008), 187-202; Masahiro Baba,
"Pottery-Making Tools: Worked Sherds from HK11C Square B4, Hierakonpolis," in Midant-Reynes and Tristant, Egypt at its
Origins 2, 7-20. Only the faunal material excavated in 2003 is considered here. At that time, the 2x3 m exposure at Operation
A produced in total approximately 1,000 animal bones, while similar exposure at Operation B (Square B4NW) yielded a total
of about 1,200 bones, with the stratigraphic test trench in Square B4NE providing about 800 pieces.
16 J. Fred Harlan, "Excavations at Locality 11C," in Hoffman, The Predynastic of Hierakonpolis, 14-25.

174.114.90.200 on Thu, 13 Aug 2020 23:43:23 UTC
110 JARCE 45 (2009)
Table 1. The Predynastic localities and sites considered in this study

Site Chronological phase
HK29A8
Wall trench Nagada IIB-C
Modified silts Naqada ll(A)B-C
Floor deposit Nagada IIIA
Other localities Hierakonpolis
HK6b Naqada IC-III
HK11C Test Ac Naqada IC-IIB
HK11C Operation Gc Nagada IC-IIC
HK11C Operations A and Bc Naqada II
HK29C Naqada IIA-B
Upper Egypt
el-Mahasnad Nagada IC-IIC
Maghar Dendera T Badarian-early Naqada I
Naqada Khattara sites' Naqada l-IIB
Naqada South Townf Naqada IIC-III
El Abadiya 29 Nagada IA-IB
Armanth Badarian - Naqada IIC
AdaTma' Naqada IC-IIID
Lower Egypt Upper Egypt equivalents
Buto 1-2-3j Naqada l-IIIA
Tell el-lswidk Naqada III
Merimde Ml' Neolithic
Merimde lll-IV' Badarian
Maadim Naqada IC-IIB
El Omarin Neolithic
a. This study.
b. Wim Van Neer, Veerle Linseele, and Renee Friedman, "Animal Burials and Food Offerings at the Elite Cemetery HK6
of Hierakonpolis," in Stan Hendrickx, Renee Friedman, Krzysztof M. Cialowicz and Marek Chlodnicki, eds., Egypt at its
Origins?Studies in Memory of Barbara Adams, Proceedings of the International Conference "Origin of the State. Predynastic and
Early Dynastic Egypt" Krakow, 28th August-lst September 2002, OLA 138 (Leuven, 2004), 67-130; Wim Van Neer, Veerle
Linseele and Renee Friedman, "More Animal Burials from the Predynastic Elite Cemetery of Hierakonpolis (Upper
Egypt): the 2008 Season," Proceedings of the 9th Meeting of the ICAZ Working Group Archaeozoology of southwest
Asia and adjacent Areas' (in press).
c. Van Neer and Linseele, unpublished data.
d. David Anderson, "Power and Competition in the Upper Egyptian Predynastic: A View from the Predynastic Settlement
at el-Mahasna, Egypt" (PhD diss, University of Pittsburg, 2006). At the time that this paper was submitted, the faunal
study of Stine Rossel, "The Development of Productive Subsistence Economies in the Nile Valley: Zooarchaeological
Analysis at El-Mahasna and South Abydos, Upper Egypt" (PhD diss, Harvard University, 2006) was not yet available.
e. Stan Hendrickx, Beatrix Midant-Reynes, and Wim Van Neer, Maghar Dendera 2 (Haute Egypte), un site d'occupation
Badarien, Egyptian Prehistory Monographs 3 (Leuven, 2001).
f. Achilles Gautier and Wim Van Neer, "The Animal Remains from Neolithic Sites near Nagada, Egypt," Archaeofauna 18
(2009), 27-50.
g. Pierre Vermeersch, Wim Van Neer, and Stan Hendrickx, "El Abadiya 2, a Naqada I site near Danfiq, Upper Egypt," in
Hendrickx et al., eds., Egypt at its Origins, 262-76.
h. Joachim Boessneck and Angela von den Driesch, "Tierknochenfunde einer negadezeitlichen Siedlung bei Armant," in
Boleslow Ginter andjanusz K. Kozlowski, eds., Predynastic settlement near Armant, SAGA 6 (Heidelberg, 1994), 183-90.
i. Wim Van Neer, "Le materiel faunique," in Beatrix Midant-Reynes and Nathalie Buchez, eds., Ada'ima 1. Economie et
Habitat, FIFAO 45 (Cairo, 2002), 521-65.
j. Angela von den Driesch, "Tierreste aus Buto im Nildelta," Archaeofauna 6 (1997), 23-9.
k. Joachim Boessneck and Angela von den Driesch, "Tierknochen- und Molluskenfunde," in Edwin C. M. van den Brink,
"A Transitorial Late Predynastic?Early Dynastic Settlement Site in the Northern Nile Delta, Egypt," MDAIK 45 (1989),
94-102.
1. Angela von den Driesch and Joachim Boessneck, Die Tierknochenfunde aus der neolithischen Siedlung von Merimde-Beni
salame am westlichen Nildelta (Munich, 1985), 6-14.
m. Joachim Boessneck, Angela von den Driesch, and Reinhard Ziegler, "Die Tierreste von Maadi und dem Friedhof am
Wadi Digla," in Ibrahim Rizkana and Jiirgen Seeher, eds., Maadi III, The non-lithic small finds and structural remains of the
Predynastic settlement, AV 80 (Mainz, 1989), 87-128.
n. Joachim Boessneck and Angela von den Driesch, "Tierreste aus der vorgeschichtlichen Siedlung El Omari bei Heluan/
Unteragypten," in Fernand Debono and Bodil Mortensen, eds., El Omari. A Neolithic settlement and other sites in the vicinity
ofWadiHof AV 82 (Mainz, 1990), 99-108.

174.114.90.200 on Thu, 13 Aug 2020 23:43:23 UTC
aurochs, hartebeest, swamp cat, and wild cat.17 Portions of animals, presumably meant as food offer
ings were also encountered in the graves, while small but significant samples were also recovered
from deposits in and around the pillared halls, or funerary temples, uncovered in the south-central
part of this cemetery.18 Almost by definition, activity within a mortuary context is ritual behavior and
therefore this faunal assemblage forms an important collection for comparison with HK29A.
The faunal remains from HK29A are also compared with assemblages from other Neolithic-Pre
dynastic settlement sites in Upper Egypt (el-Mahasna, Maghar Dendera 2, Naqada South Town, and
Khattara sites, El Abadiya 2, Armant, and Adaima) and Lower Egypt (Buto, Tell el-Iswid, Merimde,
Maadi, and El Omari) (fig. 1, table 1). All of the comparative Predynastic sites are permanent settle
ments with the exception of Maghar Dendera 2, where occupation appears to have been seasonal and
heavily based on fishing.19 Adaima, the most geographically and chronologically proximal site to Hi
erakonpolis, provides a good contrast, as it represents a far smaller, more rural and less complex
settlement, considered to be within the influence zone, if not the control, of Hierakonpolis.20 Al
though extensively excavated, a faunal assemblage similar to that from HK29A was not found, sug
gesting that settlement size and complexity are significant factors in faunal composition. Notably, at
the larger and more diverse site of el-Mahasna, recent investigations have revealed a post-built struc
ture containing a quantity of bovine and anthropomorphic figurines and surrounded by a special
faunal assemblage which can be closely compared with that at HK29A. The excavator has linked this
structure and its contents with ceremonial activity.21
The HK29A Fauna: Considerations
A detailed overview of the faunal remains identified from the various contexts at HK29A is pro
vided in table 2. In the discussion of the significance of the HK29A fauna below only those animals
that are of deliberate anthropic origin will be considered. Some of the species encountered at the site
can be classified as intrusives because they arrived at the site without (conscious) human intention.
This is assumed to be the case for the birds of prey (eagle, falcon, and owl) and most of the small ani
mals, including the frog or toad, small lizard and snakes, small perching birds, and small rodents that
probably lived and died on the site either around the time of ancient occupation (pene-contempora
neous intrusives) or long after (late intrusives).22
17 Wim Van Neer, Veerle Linseele, and Renee Friedman, "Animal Burials and Food Offerings at the Elite Cemetery HK6 of
Hierakonpolis," in Stan Hendrickx et al., eds., Egypt at its Origins?Studies in Memory of Barbara Adams, Proceedings of the Interna
tional Conference "Origin of the State. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt," Krakow, 28th August?1st September 2002, OLA 138
(Leuven, 2004), 67-130; Wim Van Neer, Veerle Linseele, and Renee Friedman, "More Animal Burials from the Predynastic
Elite Cemetery of Hierakonpolis (Upper Egypt): the 2008 Season," Proceedings of the 9th Meeting of the ICAZ Working Group
Archaeozoology of southwest Asia and adjacent Areas' (in press); Veerle Linseele, Wim Van Neer, and Stan Hendrickx, "Evidence
for Early Cat Taming in Egypt," JAS 34, no. 12 (2007), 2081-90; Veerle Linseele, Wim Van Neer, and Stan Hendrickx, "Early
Cat Taming in Egypt: a Correction," JAS 35, no. 9 (2008), 2672-73; Wim Van Neer and Veerle Linseele, "Animal Hospital:
Healed Animal Bones from HK6," Nekhen News 21 (2009), 10-11.
18 See Friedman this volume and Renee Friedman, "The Cemeteries of Hierakonpolis," Archeo-Nil 18 (2008), 8-29.
19 Stan Hendrickx, Beatrix Midant-Reynes, and Wim Van Neer, Mahgar Dendera 2 (Haute Egypte), un site d 'occupation
Badarien, Egyptian Prehistory Monographs 3 (Leuven, 2001).
20 Beatrix Midant-Reynes and Nathalie Buchez, eds., Ada'ima 1. Economie et Habitat, FIFAO 45 (Cairo, 2002).
21 David Anderson, "Power and Competition in the Upper Egyptian Predynastic: A View from the Predynastic Settlement at
el-Mahasna, Egypt" (PhD diss, University of Pittsburg, 2006); David Anderson, "Zoomorphic Figurines from the Predynastic
Settlement at el-Mahasna, Egypt," in Zahi A. Hawass and Janet E. Richards, eds., The Archaeology and Art of Ancient Egypt. Essays
in Honor of David B. O'Connor, SASAE 36 (Cairo, 2007), 33-54. See also Stine Rossel, "The Development of Productive Subsis
tence Economies in the Nile Valley: Zooarchaeological Analysis at El-Mahasna and South Abydos, Upper Egypt" (PhD diss.,
Harvard University, 2006), which was not yet available when this paper was submitted.
22 Achilles Gautier, "Taphonomic Groups: How and Why?" Archaeozoologia 1, no. 2 (1987), 47-52.

174.114.90.200 on Thu, 13 Aug 2020 23:43:23 UTC
I Feat 5-6 I 1980s
Sands 0 0 2 0 0 3 2 2 9 0 0 715 052 0 51158 1167

2002
floor
above
MNI 2 47 0128
Floor deposit 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 3 0 1 0 1 130 040

1980s 2002 all
40081100001 1 0 6 0 0 1 0 0 0 5 0 013 0 0 2 8 023 0 61317 088

MNI 2
all
0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 119 1 0 1 0 2 113 3 2 8 0 3 621 474 0 622624 0790
20024 mmmesh 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 18 0 0 1 0 2 112 2 2 7 0 3 513 357 0 318330 0459
Modified silts
hand 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 6 115 0 1 2251 0278
1980s 2002
0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 2 243 053
all 0030 19 35040

14 0 413 1 03
27 768 18
25862 11046
reontext
denoted
areaswith MNI (Minimal
at HK29A. Number
Numbers
mesh referoftoIndividuals)
2002
4 mm
the amount of identified
01010702210362
19 0 0 666 0116
Wall trench
010 204 021000 2080 24 0252
hand 226
1980s 2002
0010000 10
3 3 0 1 0 3 0 010 0 0 019 541 1 615570 1678
rat)
Small P a sseri formes (perching birds) Mormyrus sp. (elephant-snout fish)
Hum anSpathopsis
(Homo sapiens sapiens)
Mormyridae (elephant-snout fishes)
Arvicanthis niloticus(Ur\striped grass
Tetraodon lineatus (puffer fish)

rubens/ Mute la dubia
A/estes/Brycinus
Hydrocynus sp. (tigerfish)
(cf. A. dentex)
Accipitridae, d.Aquila (eagle)
Acomys sp. (spiny mouce)
Mugil cephalus(m
Total identified molluscsullet)
Etheria elliptical We oyster)
Bar bus bynni (barb el 1)

Cyprinidae (barbel family)
Synodontisschall(catfish 2)
Auchenoglanis sp. (catfish 3) Lates nHoticus(Hile perch)
Cleopatra
Corbicula bu/imoides
consobrina
Labeo sp. (barbel 2)
Cith arinusf Distichodus

Bagrussp. (catfish 4)
Bulinus truncatus
Falco sp. (falcon)
Gerbillus sp. (gerbil)
Hyperopisus be be
Clariidae (catfish 1) Total identified fish
Strigiformes (owls)
Synodontis sp. Tilapiini (tilapia)
Small lizard Sm all rodent Large bivalve Po/ypterus sp.

Fossil coral
Frog or toad Small snake
Mugilidae
Mute la dubia
o !

174.114.90.200 on Thu, 13 Aug 2020 23:43:23 UTC
0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 00 2 0 0 0 9 1 1 8 0 0
22 0 0130
11 2 013 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 43 22 100

38 2 059 0 01349852
3267
6 13 0 0 0 00 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 32
17 0 0 032 2 271 1 51412 22
999 1719
4 92 20 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 8 0 0 010 0 1
33 0 055 2 4
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 2 9 0 0 0
22 2 1
38 1 58620 2720
70112 0182 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 6 2 0 0 1 7 0 0 0 019 23 3 0 0 34624 2 24618105 2 1 6387 8 4222 25861013 19699

31416
636 042 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 1014 1 0 0 3 513 2 0 10 42 0 0 217

1 1 0
25 034170 212 715534
42 39 081 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 2 1 0 0 0 1 00 0 0 7 8 0 0 0 0
3311 0 224 41 2 15
1 3236 4 2131
243657360 42411
2237 059 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 00 0 0 2 1 2 0 0 0 8 0 0 0
12 222 0 0 1
134
3 266 1
1627042 5 1754
103212 1318 1 1 0 2 2 1 4 11 0 2 0 2 3 1 1 1 13330 8 1 3 99315 2 28321128 3 017806331853825901925 211
2812003
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 00 0 0 1 7 2 0 1 0 1 4 2 0 2 0 6 0 0 0 7 0 0
10 1 9
5276 1
2570
2737 064 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 3 0 1 0 0 1 00 0 0 7 9 0 0 1 0
19 10
02
13 8 17
1 010187 4 1991540436
24 3 2644
75173 249
1 1 1 0 2 2 0 3 8 0 1 0 2 1 11 1 1
25 14 6 1 1 973 1 0 06813105 2 0 7612
2917429 9411437111246787
Threskiornithidae, size Plata ha leucordia (African spoonbil )
Rallidae, size Porphyrio porphyrio(purple galinule)

Gruidae, size Anthropoidesvirgo(demoiselle crane) Equus africanus(1. asinus) (domestic or wild donkey)
Ammotragus lervia (barbary sheep) or ovicaprines
Ardeidae, size Nycticorax nycticorax(n\gW. heron) Gazella dorcas (dorcas gazelle) or ovicaprines
Cam's lupus f. familiaris{dog) (or jackal?) Hippopo tamusa mphibius (h ipp opota m u s)
Alee lapAmmotragus lervia (barbary sheep) Capra aegagrus f. hircus(goat)

hus buselaphus (hartebeest)
Trionyx triunguis{soft&ie\\ sp. (monitorBubulcus
Egrettasp. ibis/
(egret)
lizard)turtle)
Hyaena hyaena (striped hyena)
Bos primigenius f. taurus (cattle)

Crocody/u s n Ho ticus(aro cod il e)
Varanus Gazella dorcas (dorcas gazelle)
Nycticorax nycticorax(night heron)
Vu/pes rueppelli (R uppell's fox) Ovis a mm on f. aries (sheep)
Mycteria ibis>4/)ser
(yellow-billed stork)
Nanger dama (dam a gazelle)
Sus scrofa f. dom estica (pig)
Ciconia ciconia(white
Ardea cinerea(grey heron) stork)
sp., size A.anser (goose)

Ciconia nigra(b\ack stork)
Total identified reptiles_ Lepus capensis (hare)
Dom estic ovicaprines
Grusgrus (crane) Felis sp. (small cat) Vulpes zerda (fennec) Unidentified carnivore
Total identified mammals
Ciconiidae (stork)
Anas sp. (duck)
Unidentified canid
Total identified bird

Charadriiformes
Unidentified bird
Ciconiiformes Threskiornithidae Unidentified fish Unidentified mamm

5) O !s

174.114.90.200 on Thu, 13 Aug 2020 23:43:23 UTC
114 JARCE 45 (2009)
The burrowing small rodent taxa Arvicanthis and Gerbillus probably belong to the category of late
intrusives, and their activities have caused a great deal of disturbance to the archaeological deposits.
The small snails, Corbicula consobrina, Cleopatra bulimoides, and Bulinus truncatus may be considered as
geological intrusives.23 They are all of aquatic origin and were either naturally present in the sedi
ment at the locality or were unconsciously transported there inside building materials such as mud
brick. The pieces of fossil coral found at the site are probably geological intrusives as well. It is sus
pected that they are naturally present in geological formations of marine origin near the site. This
fossil coral is distinct from the Red Sea coral, which was recorded in disturbed deposits on the south
side of the HK29A complex in 2008.
At such an exposed site, without significant overburden, a certain level of natural disturbance due
to wind and weathering can be assumed. In addition, human disturbance in ancient times during ren
ovations and in modern times from sebakh diggers and even archaeologists24 can be held responsible
for a certain level of admixture with remains from elsewhere. The minimal presence of human bone
may be explained in this way.25 Nevertheless, the vast majority of the animal bones from HK29A
must have been deposited there deliberately by humans. Most of them can be assumed to be the re
mains of animals that were consumed and/or used in some way within the complex.
The various animal groups encountered at HK29A and the other Predynastic sites are discussed
below. Attention is focused on the species composition of the assemblages, skeletal distributions and
animal ages and sizes, although such data, especially on slaughtering ages and size, are not always
available from the comparative sites.
Aquatic Fauna from HK29A
Molluscs
The low number of identified specimens suggests that the harvesting of aquatic molluscs was not an
important activity for food procurement at most of the Predynastic sites considered here (table 3),
and its importance seems to have been particularly low at Hierakonpolis, especially at HK29A and
the wadi sites at HK11C. Only a few large freshwater bivalves were retrieved from HK29A, amongst
them one Mutela dubia and one Nile oyster (table 2). The latter species can typically be found in the
deeper waters of the Nile whence it is most easily caught when water levels are low.26 Mutela dubia
can be collected there as well, but may also be found in the floodplain. Large freshwater bivalves are
well known as Predynastic burial gifts to hold cosmetics or serve as scoops,27 and have been recov
ered from the non-elite cemetery at HK43.28 Only rare shattered remnants have been recorded from
the HK6 elite cemetery of Hierakonpolis, where a variety of shells from the Red Sea were highly
23 Cf. Achilles Gautier, "Freshwater Mollusks and Mammals from Upper Palaeolithic Sites near Idfu and Isna," in Fred
Wendorf and Romuald Schild, eds., Prehistory of the Nile Valley (New York, 1976), 349-65.
24 Henri De Morgan reports that at Hierakonpolis and other early sites he set his men to work with rakes. This method
netted him many fine lithic and ground stone artefacts, but wreaked havoc on the archaeology. The description of the material
he recovered at Hierakonpolis strongly suggests that he worked in this manner in the area of HK29A (cf. Winifred Needier,
Predynastic and Archaic Egypt in the Brooklyn Museum [New York, 1984], 53, 114-21).
25 A human phalanx was recovered from the courtyard floor; a partial fibula and vault fragment from the wall trench/
modified silts. For discussion of human bone in settlement contexts at Hierakonpolis see Sean P. Doughtery and Renee Fried
man, "Sacred or Mundane: Scalping and Decapitation at Predynastic Hierakonpolis," in Midant-Reynes and Tristant, Egypt at
its Origins 2, 7-20, 331.
26 Dirk Van Damme, The Freshwater Mollusca of Northern Africa: Distribution, Biogeography and Palaeoecology (Dordrecht, 1984),
75-77.
27 Wim Van Neer, "Le materiel faunique," in Midant-Reynes and Buchez, Ada'ima 1, 521-65.
28 Friedman et al., "Preliminary Report on Field Work at Hierakonpolis," 8.

174.114.90.200 on Thu, 13 Aug 2020 23:43:23 UTC
prized and placed in deposits of apparently votive nature in the pillared halls.29 Other than one piece
of coral found in the 2008 excavations, no species from the Red Sea have so far been identified at
HK29A.
Fish
Because fish bones are smaller on average, the relative importance of fish in archaeozoological
assemblages is largely dependent on the sampling techniques employed. For optimal recovery of fish
remains, sieving is recommended, ideally through meshes as fine as 2 or 1 mm.30 The recovery of
large fish, such as Nile perch and several catfish species, is much less affected when excavated sedi
ments are not subjected to fine sieving. At HK29A the effect of the sieving techniques is clearly vis
ible. The 2002 assemblage from the wall trench area (Square 150L40SW) was sampled through finer
mesh than that used in the 1980s excavations and contains a significantly higher proportion of fish:
41% versus 30% of all identified remains of consumed animals, although other factors may have influ
enced the composition of the two assemblages (see below). Even when different sampling techniques
may have biased the results to some extent, it is clear that with such high average percentages (36%
and 43% in the wall trench/modified silts and floor deposit respectively), the relative importance of
fish at HK29A is high compared to the other localities at Hierakonpolis (table 3). In the elite cemetery
HK6, fish are completely absent from contexts clearly associated with burials or the pillared halls.
At the other Predynastic sites in Upper Egypt, the proportion of fish rarely exceeds 25%. Excep
tional is the Badarian-early Naqada I site of Maghar Dendera 2, which had a particularly high compo
nent of fish (82%) and for this reason it is considered to be a temporary fishing camp. More
significantly, el-Mahasna also yielded a high percentage of fish remains in general (58% of the identi
fied fauna),31 and specifically around the ritual structure in Block 3 and the adjacent trash disposal
area in Block 2.32 At Lower Egyptian sites the relative importance of fish is quite variable and fish
may sometimes be present in high percentages within the assemblages.
Nilotic fish can be subdivided into two groups according to their habitat requirements: species
adapted to living in shallow water and species requiring deep, well-oxygenated water.33 At HK29A,
fish of the barbel family, clariid catfish and tilapia belong to the first group, while Bagrus and Syno
dontis catfish and Nile perch are open water species. The other identified species are not typically tied
to either shallow or deep water.
The importance of open water fish at Predynastic localities is variable (table 4). They predominate
at most Upper Egyptian sites, but at Hierakonpolis deep water species are generally more common
than at nearby and contemporary Adaima. They are especially numerous at HK29A, where their
dominance is more marked in the wall trench and modified silts than on the floor of the courtyard.
Moreover, in the wall trench and the modified silts about 88% of the deep water fish are Nile perch,
against about 60% in the courtyard where Synodontis and Bagrus catfish are more numerous (tables 2
and 4). Excavations at HK11C Operations A and B (samples selectively sieved only) and HK29 (sieved
29 Xavier Droux and Renee Friedman, "The Columned Hall at HK6 and Other Wonders," Nekhen News 19 (2007), 7-9;
Renee Friedman, "Excavating Egypt's Early Kings: Recent Discoveries in the Elite Cemetery at Hierakonpolis," in Midant
Reynes and Tristant, Egypt at its Origins 2, 1177, fig. 10.
30 Sebastian Payne, "Partial Recovery and Sample Bias: the Results of Some Sieving Experiments," in Eric S. Higgs, ed.,
Papers in Economic Prehistory (Cambridge, 1972), 49-64.
31 The calculations here and in the tables include only identified and non-intrusive fauna for all sites including el-Mahasna,
and for this reason some figures differ from those published in Anderson, "Power and Competition in the Upper Egyptian Pre
dynastic," tables 6.5 and 6.7.
32 Anderson, "Power and Competition in the Upper Egyptian Predynastic," fig. 6.23.
33 Wim Van Neer, "Evolution of Prehistoric Fishing in the Nile Valley," Journal of African Archaeology 2 (2004), 251-69.

174.114.90.200 on Thu, 13 Aug 2020 23:43:23 UTC
116 JARCE 45 (2009)
through 6 mm mesh) also produced quantities of deep water fish with very high proportions of Nile
perch. Nile perch generally preserves better than many other fish species because its bones are sturdy
and therefore have a better chance of survival when preservation circumstances are poor. However,
the low amount of remains from clariid catfish, a typical shallow water species, which also has strong
bones, indicates that the high proportion of Nile perch cannot exclusively be explained by the
chances of survival. The large number of fish taxa recorded at HK29A from fish with rather fragile
bones, such as mullet and Alestes, also argues against a significant influence from differential preser
vation of the fish samples.
In addition to the large numbers in which they are present, it is also striking that the Nile perch of
the wall trench/modified silts at HK29A frequently represent individuals that must have had a length
of one meter or more (figs. 4-5).34 Moreover, the number of individual Nile perch of large size in this
part of HK29A has no doubt been under-estimated because many of the vertebrae are fragmentary
and therefore size estimates were difficult to make. It is not clear if large Nile perch also predomi
nated on the courtyard floor, since only six Nile perch remains allowed size estimates, of which one
gave a result of over one meter.
Nile perch is ubiquitous at Epipalaeolithic and later archaeological sites in the Egyptian Nile Valley
and indicates that fishing took place in the main river channels.35 The species is easiest to catch when
water levels are low. Larger specimens are found in deeper parts of the River Nile. The large-sized Nile
perch, which are abundant in the samples from HK29A and elsewhere around the site, suggest that
access to larger specimens was relatively easy at Hierakonpolis. This view is supported by recent
geomorphological investigations indicating that the Nile in this region had a much deeper channel in
the past.36
At present, young specimens, measuring up to about 60 cm in length, are considered to yield the
best quality flesh;37 however, the capture of larger Nile perch requires more efforts and these large
fish may have been considered more prestigious, their size rather than their flesh being the decisive
factor. The deposits in and around the structure at el-Mahasna (Block 3) yielded fish of larger size
than any other parts of the site.38 In this case not only Nile in this Region perch, but also clariid cat
fish and tilapia were larger than usual.
Within the samples from HK29A, elements from the body (mainly vertebrae) of Nile perch appear
to be over-represented when compared to other Predynastic sites (table 5). It is possible that this
skeletal distribution is a result of processing at another location, where elements from the head,
pectoral girdle and fins, to which less flesh adhere, were removed. However, the significance of this
distribution may be more apparent than real due in part to the large numbers of fragmentary verte
brae, each one able to fall into many still recognizable (and quantifiable) parts. Whatever the case,
there is a notable difference in the percentage of body parts present in the assemblage collected in
2002 in 150L40SW (82% were vertebrae) and that collected during the 1980s excavations (65%). The
taphonomic circumstances between the two areas were not notably different and the distinction may
relate to differences in the activities of which this refuse is the remnant.
34 Taphonomic processes may partly explain the high amounts of large Nile perch, as their large bones have better odds for
survival and retrieval than small remains. Smaller specimens can also be under-represented when no sieving is carried out
during excavation, or when it involves the use of only large mesh sizes. However, since there are no reasons to assume that
sieving was less adequate at the localities where large Nile perch abound, the observed size distributions may be relevant.
35 Van Neer, "Evolution of Prehistoric Fishing in the Nile Valley."
36 Judith Bunbury and Angus Graham, pers. comm.
37 William Reed, John Buchard, A. J. Hopson, Jonathan Jenness, and Ibrahim Yaro, Fish and Fisheries of Northern Nigeria
(Zaria, 1967).
38 Anderson, "Power and Competition in the Upper Egyptian Predynastic," 195-208.

174.114.90.200 on Thu, 13 Aug 2020 23:43:23 UTC
Z wwrw $z zww >Zo I?IW a >z
CD O
15.40.2
i
79.5
2.2 0.0
1.11.6
1217 COCN (3D
g> i
<D ,0)
3.442.70.3 384
0.0 0.3
0.8
CD E CD
2
"OEa32 35.2 0.10.00.91.4
5.8
Lower Egypt
1016 806 7272 3194

77.516497.618826.2 19.937.215.930.237.224.9 18.9 30.8 20.0
Lower Egypt
> <D
"OE
> DE
42.40.10.1
0.6 2.9
1.0
:> 28.0 79.6 65.9 63.0 52.6
1558 7582 13859 8787
CO
CO
7.510.60.10.00.41.6
EO
CO
1.765.20.1 0.43.8
0.8
57.6
6.50.1 0.3
0.5
CD n.d.
COCD
CN "DC CD
Q
11.4 35.1
Q 82.1
0.0
4.4 0.5 0.5
1.1
CD
556 2332 1105 5144

~u cr
CO CO co
41.687.1
49.3 32 39 20.5
2556 85 59 302 907 2958
42 26
22.426.1 39.7 39.7
Upper Egypt
13.0
0.5 <
2.1 1.4 0.3
0.0
egCO
Upper Egypt
"OCO-O<LU5.910.60.20.00.29.7
Remarks: The table is based on number of identified remains in each category. Where the specimens could not be be precisely identified, they were attributed to spe
70.5 78.8 73.4 82.8
3.212.3 0.00.05.5
0.3
cific species using the same proportions in which these species occur in the precisely identified specimens. Taking for example, 'small bovids', which could be domestic
Table 4. Relative importance of deep water fish and Nile perch at Predynastic settlement sites in Upper and Lower Egypt
Table 3. Relative importance (%) of the different economic activities used to obtain animal food at
or hunted, when a site yielded 2 bones identified as gazel e, 198 as she p/goat, and 10 as smal bovid, then 1 bone of the category 'smal bovid' was counted with ga
Predynastic settlement sites in Upper and Lower Egypt
11260 693 X
3.722.70.5 0.2
0.5 2.0
CD <CLO X
X 6.60.20.40.0
1.5 1.0
2328 HK other
90.3 58.3 76.1 91.5 84.456.0 33.1 92.0 83.8

156 159 153 154
?o X
CD < X0.0
17.90.0 2.777.8855
0.60.9
HK other
< "So
^ O o X
X 17.5
0.10.0 906
78.8
1.8 0.0 1.8
CD 3OO <
CD
CM I
HK29A
X0.1
18.90.00.00.7 79.8
825 0.5
1839 128
CO
<2
90.0 60.88.90 60.3
CM X0.343.40.73.10.78.4 43.4295
HK29A
zelle (hunted) and 99 bones with ovicaprines (domestic).
< CM X
0.1 35.56.23.3
46.0
1.07.9
CT> 5185
Numbers of identified fish remains
% Nile perch of deep water fish
% deep water fish
Catching softshell turtle

Collecting of molluscs
Catching crocodile
Fowling
Stock keeping
Hunting
Fishing

174.114.90.200 on Thu, 13 Aug 2020 23:43:23 UTC
118 JARCE 45 (2009)
Fig. 4. Distribution of estimated standard length (SL) of Nile perch at several Predynastic sites in Upper and Lower Egypt.
Aquatic reptiles
Whereas the fish fauna from HK29A display some exceptional characteristics, the aquatic reptiles
are even more distinctive. No other Predynastic settlement site has yielded as many remains of croc
odile and only at el-Mahasna (although not concentrated in Block 3) were comparable quantities of
softshell turtle found (table 3).
Present in almost all contexts at HK29A, there are some differences in distribution. While the
courtyard floor and wall trench/modified silts both produced quantities of crocodile (3% of all iden
tified remains of consumed animals in both contexts), large numbers of softshell turtle were re
corded only in the wall trench/modified silts (6% compared to 1% on the floor). Crocodile is
represented by limb bones, vertebrae, and especially dermal scutes. Of softshell turtle only carapax
fragments have been found, and judging from their thickness (up to 9 mm), they are from rather
large individuals. Softshell turtles can grow up to 70 cm long. They are generally very aggressive and
can bite ferociously.39 The animals can therefore be rather dangerous. Nevertheless, meat of softshell
turtles featured on the menu of the ancient Egyptians.40 Larger animals may have been speared as
shown in pharaonic art, while small specimens were possibly captured in nets together with fish.41
Contemporary depictions of the crocodile hunt on White Cross line pottery of the Naqada I-IIA
period suggests that nets were generally used to capture the crocodile,42 although a vessel of Decorated
39 Andre Villiers, Tortues et crocodiles de VAfrique Noire Francaise, Initiations africaines 15 (Dakar, 1958), 197-219.
40 Henry G. Fischer, Ancient Egyptian Representations of Turtles, MMA Papers 13 (New York, 1968); Joachim Boessneck, Die
Tierwelt des Alten Agypten, untersucht anhand kulturgeschichtlicher und zoologischer Quellen (Munich, 1988), 110-12.
41 See Van Neer, "Le materiel faunique."
42 Joan C. Payne, Catalogue of the Predynastic Egyptian collection in the Ashmolean Museum (Oxford, 1993), cat. no. 388 and 405.

174.114.90.200 on Thu, 13 Aug 2020 23:43:23 UTC
Fig. 5. Nile perch vertebrae from HK29A at Hierakonpolis and a vertebral column of a recent specimen with a
standard length of 40 cm from the reference collection of the Royal Belgian Institute for Natural Sciences.
ware shows the crocodile being harpooned.43 Together with the hippopotamus, crocodiles are fre
quently depicted in early Predynastic art as representatives of the most powerful (and chaotic) ani
mals encountered in the riverine environment. Reports of the consumption of crocodile flesh are
limited to the classical authors,44 suggesting that their capture in the Predynastic was for reasons
other than nourishment.
Avifauna at HK29A
Birds are not very abundant at any of the studied Predynastic sites (table 3). Since their bones
are more fragile than those of other vertebrates, they have more chance of being destroyed by vari
ous taphonomic processes. On the level of a single site, their relative economic importance may
therefore be underestimated; however, since this factor is constant, it does not hamper inter-site
comparisons. Most taxa at HK29A are aquatic, as is usually the case at Predynastic sites, and include
43 Payne, Catalogue, cat. no. 317.

44 William J. Darby, Paul Ghalioungui, and Louis Grivetti, Food: the Gift of Osiris, vol. 1 (London-New York-San Francisco,
1977), 405-10.

174.114.90.200 on Thu, 13 Aug 2020 23:43:23 UTC
120 JARCE 45 (2009)
Table 5. Relative presence (%) of Nile perch bones from different

parts of the body at Predynastic settlement sites in Upper and Lower Egypt
HK29A HK other Upper Egypt Lower Egypt
cn
CD 9s
co
< < >
w cd
cd q3
8 Q <d
"D
cd
< O ? O
CD T? CD E
cn
? CO
co O co
co 0
X X x X X X < LU
Skull 17.4 11 15 33 44.9 34.036.6 31.330.0 27.7 28.9 42.5
Pectoral girdle 3.4 2 13 3 8.5 15.1 4.5 4.5 6.3 9.2 8.6 10.9
Body and tail 76.1 74 28 43 28.0 42.5 47.8 54.6 40.9 15.5 62.6 46.6
Fins 3.1 13 45 23 18.6 8.5 11.1 9.6 22.8 47.5 0.0 0.0
n 1370 47 40 40 118 106 467 313 303 238 374 221
heron, egret, stork, ducks and geese, and crane. Many of these are seasonal visitors to the area, but
most species must have been available during the autumn,45 when Nile floodwaters would have been
receding.
Hunted Mammals and Terrestrial Reptiles at HK29A
At the comparative Predynastic sites, bones of animals obtained by hunting usually do not exceed
5% of the remains of all consumed species (table 3). Higher proportions are found in the early sites
in Upper Egypt, for example, at El Abadiya (10%) where they are almost exclusively due to the large
number of gazelle bones found there.46 At Maghar Dendera 2, there was also a high frequency of
game compared to domestic animals,47 although this is obscured in table 3 by the large amounts of
fish. By Naqada II times, however, hunting as a subsistence activity declined.
In the settlement sites at Hierakonpolis, the percentage of hunted animals is only 1-3%. In marked
contrast stands HK29A, where hunted animals make up an average 8% of the assemblage, and in
clude a diverse spectrum of species. At el-Mahasna more game was also found around the ritual struc
ture in Block 3 than in other parts of the site, with over 62% of all wild mammals originating from
this area.48
Dorcas gazelle
Dorcas gazelle is the main wild species at all of the Upper Egyptian Predynastic settlements consid
ered here (table 6). Gazelle makes up nearly 70% of all hunted mammals in the wall trench/modified
silts at HK29A, although a smaller amount of gazelle (46%) was recovered from the deposits in the
northeast excavated in 2002 than in those from further to the west uncovered in the 1980s (77%). In
comparison to Adaima, where gazelle is also prominent, making up 68% of all hunted mammals,
HK29A has yielded more remains of meat-bearing skeletal elements. It is also notable that propor
tionally more small feet elements were found on the courtyard floor than in the wall trench/modified
45 Steven M. Goodman and Peter L. Meininger, The Birds of Egypt (Oxford-New York, 1989).
46 pjerre Vermeersch, Wim Van Neer, and Stan Hendrickx, "El Abadiya 2, a Naqada I site near Danfiq, Upper Egypt," in
Hendrickx et al., Egypt at its Origins, 262-76.
47 One in ten was gazelle, see Veerle Linseele and Wim Van Neer, "Exploitation of Desert and Other Wild Game in Ancient
Egypt: the Archaeozoological Evidence from the Nile Valley," in Heiko Riemer, Frank Forster, Michael Herb, and Nadia Pollath,
eds., Desert Animals in the Eastern Sahara: Their Position, Significance and Cultural Reflection in Antiquity. Proceedings of an International
ACACIA Workshop held at the University of Cologne, Germany December 14-15, 2007, Colloquium Africanum 4 (Cologne, 2009), 47-78.
48 Anderson, "Power and Competition in the Upper Egyptian Predynastic," 185.

174.114.90.200 on Thu, 13 Aug 2020 23:43:23 UTC
silts at HK29A. Nearly all of the gazelle bones from HK29A have fused articulations, indicating that
mainly adult animals were hunted. A similar emphasis on adult gazelles was observed at Adaima,
while at Merimde minimally one-third of the gazelle bones were from juveniles.49
Dorcas gazelle was much less important as a game animal in Lower Egypt, probably as a conse
quence of the ecological differences between the two regions. The habitat of dorcas gazelle at present
includes stony deserts to coastal plains with vegetation.50 It has been suggested that dorcas gazelles
were easier to catch during the part of the year when Nile levels were low, since they were then
attracted to areas closer to the river where they could still find water and food.51
Burials of gazelles in various Predynastic Upper Egyptian cemeteries (mainly in the Badari region)
are mentioned in the literature;52 however, this attribution may at least in part be an erroneous iden
tification of ovicaprines.53 Gazelle was not found amongst the animals buried in the elite cemetery
HK6,54 but, just beyond three of the four corners of the pillared Structure 07 at HK6, small clusters
of dorcas gazelle bones were found in shallow pits dug into the hard gravely soil, in one case in con
junction with the only pig bones found in the entire precinct.55
Hare
The second most commonly hunted mammal in Predynastic Upper Egypt is hare, an inhabitant o
open country, open grasslands, steppes, and subdesert.56 The animal is not especially frequent in th
Predynastic sites of Lower Egypt, but today seems to thrive equally well in all parts of the country.
As a small animal that was probably exploited when larger alternatives were not available,58 it may
have been hunted more frequently in Upper Egypt, as this region had a more limited selection
game. Hare makes up 14% of the wall trench/modified silt hunted mammal assemblage, but o
about 5% of that from the floor deposit; nevertheless, only the early camp at Maghar Dendera 2 an
Naqada have greater frequencies percentage-wise.
Small wild bovids
In addition to hare and dorcas gazelle, other desert species like Barbary sheep, ibex, and da
gazelle were occasionally hunted in Upper Egypt during the Predynastic period. Ibex and Barb
sheep prefer similar rocky mountains habitats, but the distribution area of the ibex is believed to
limited to the east side of the Nile.59
49 Angela von den Driesch and Joachim Boessneck, Die Tierknochenfunde aus der neolithischen Siedlung von Merimde-B
salame am westlichen Nildelta (Miinchen, 1985), 6-14.
50 Richard Hoath, A Field Guide to the Mammals of Egypt (Cairo-New York, 2003), 152.
51 Achilles Gautier and Wim Van Neer, "The Animal Remains from the Late Paleolithic Sequence in Wadi Kubbaniya,
Fred Wendorf, Romuald Schild, and Angela E. Close, eds., The Prehistory of Wadi Kubbaniya, vol. 2, Stratigraphy, Palaeoecono
and Environment (Dallas, 1989), 119-61.
52 Diane V. Flores, Funerary Sacrifice of Animals in the Egyptian Predynastic Period, BAR-IS 1153 (Oxford, 2003), 54-56.
53 Joachim Boessneck, Angela von den Driesch, and Reinhard Ziegler, "Die Tierreste von Maadi und dem Friedhof am W
Digla," in Ibrahim Rizkana and Jurgen Seeher, Maadi III, The non-lithic small finds and structural remains of the Predynastic sett
ment, AV 80 (Mainz, 1989), 87-128.
54 Van Neer, Linseele, and Friedman, "Animal Burials and Food Offerings."
55 Van Neer and Linseele, unpublished data.
56 Jonathan Kingdon, The Kingdon Field Guide to African Mammals (London, 1997), 154-55.
57 DaleJ. Osborn and Ibrahim Helmy, The Contemporary Land Mammals of Egypt (Including Sinai) (Chicago, 1980), fig. 30
58 Mary C. Stiner, Natalie D. Munro, and Todd A. Surovell, "The Tortoise and the Hare: Small-Game Use, the Br
Spectrum Revolution and Paleolithic Demography," Current Anthropology 41 (2000), 39-73.
59 Dieter Kock, "Zur Verbreitung Mahnenschaf und Steinbock im Nilgebiet. Ein Beitrag zur Zoogeographie Nordost-A
kas," Sdugetierkundliche Mitteilungen 19 (1971), 28-39.

174.114.90.200 on Thu, 13 Aug 2020 23:43:23 UTC
0 0 2 9 0 0 8 0 0 0 019
50 0
29 0 6 0 0
1.1 2.0 3.2 3.3 0.5 0.4

Lower Egypt
56 46 196 16
7
61 0 0 0 59 125 357 101 1
4 2 00 16 2 00 1232 209 1 0
82 00 0 0000 0 0
00 803
"DCD
CD 1 2 01 1 00 2 1?
17 920 0
14 3 0 0 40
LU 0 0
CD
13 111
CN ~oc Q
CD 4 00 00 00 2 0 0
29 0 0 0
*D cr
CD CD CD
Upper Egypt
1.2 2.6 1.4 1.7 2.7 1.2
LU 218 38 54 11 17
0 0 00 0 0 149 35 49
800 1? 0 0 0 0
CDE'CD 3 17 2 0 12 0 0 1 327 0 1 90 110 0
4 0 0 0 0 0 0 022 0 0 0
CO <Q. OS2t- CN? 1 0 02 0 0 0 00 12 83 8 15 0 030 0

X_X 16 23 23
X
Table 6. Number of identified remains of hunted mammals and carnivores at Predynastic settlement sites in Upper and
0.4 0.3 1.3 1.2
0 0
HK other
Lower Egypt and the percentage represented by carnivores remains in the assemblage of all identified mammals
< co^ CD O?
HK29A
40 288
56 10 00 0 2 145 0 0 1 415 17 12 00 0 0139
CD
<
Q3 X CN 26 0 0 11 0130 39 0 4 6.8 3.0 as "Gazelle sp."; 2: including one compl
Key: ?: identification uncertain; 1: identified
Remarks: For the method of category attribution, see table 3.
Hippopotamus amphibius (hippopotamus)
Canis lupus f. familiaris (dog) (or jackal?) Ictonyx lybica (Saharan striped weasel)
Alcelaphus buselaphus (hartebeest) lervia (Barbary sheep)

Hyaena hyaena (striped hyena)
Ammotragus
% carnivores of identified mammals
Gazella dorcas (dorcas gazelle) Giraffa camelopardalis (giraffe)
Nanger dama (dama gazelle)
Equus asinus (wild donkey) Vulpes rueppelli (Ruppell's fox)Canis aureus (golden jackal)
Bos primigenius (aurochs)
Lepus capensis (hare)

Vulpes zerda (fennec)
Vulpes vulpes (red fox)
Panthera leo (lion)
Sus scrofa (wild pig) Felis sp. (small cat) Unidentified carnivore
Capra ibex (ibex) Unidentified canid
Vulpes sp. (fox)
Carnivores
Consumed
Total

174.114.90.200 on Thu, 13 Aug 2020 23:43:23 UTC
Despite its apparent frequency in art of the period,60 with the sole exception of a tarsal bone found
at HK11 Operation G, ibex is absent from all Predynastic contexts in Upper Egypt including HK29A.
Barbary sheep are also depicted with some frequency in the art of the Predynastic period,61 but their
remains are rare at sites outside of Hierakonpolis and Adaima. Only at el-Mahasna, again originating
from the area of the ritual structure, have the remains of Barbary sheep been reported in fre
quencies comparable to HK29A.62
Dama gazelle is another species that is also rare in Predynastic assemblages and to date is known
only from HK29A, HK11 Operation G and Adaima. In the desert, dama gazelle is often found in
close association with dorcas gazelle,63 and the two species may therefore have been caught together
during the same hunting trips.
Of the animals discussed above, none are represented in Lower Egyptian sites with the exception
of the ibex, which has been identified at Maadi.64 However, most of the ibex remains at Maadi are
horn-cores, which may have been traded and therefore may not be truly indicative of the frequency
of this animal in the Maadi area.
Hartebeest and aurochs
In contrast to the above, hartebeest bones have been found at many of the Predynastic sites in
Lower Egypt. The animal was very common at Merimde, especially during Phases I?II. Its remains
have also been identified at Maadi and El Omari. In Upper Egypt, a few bones were recorded at
Naqada, El Abadiya, and Adaima. At Hierakonpolis, hartebeest occurs in the wall trench/modified
silts deposits at HK29A and one complete individual was buried in the elite cemetery HK6 after hav
ing spent some time in captivity.65
Together with aurochs and dorcas gazelle, hartebeest was among the most frequently hunted ani
mals in the Nile Valley during the Late Palaeolithic.66 Its population declined in later times under the
pressure of continued hunting, and probably more significantly because of competition with domes
tic cattle.67 Such competition may also explain the notable drop in hartebeest remains at Merimde
between Phases I?II and Phases IV-V. The animal is now extinct in Egypt. The fact that hartebeest
remains are present only at HK29A and HK6 may indicate that the animal was already difficult to
obtain by the early Naqada II period in Upper Egypt.
The aurochs presumably also disappeared due to competition with domestic cattle. Both aurochs
and hartebeest probably survived longer in Lower than in Upper Egypt, since their preferred habitat
is open grassland, which was more extensive in the Delta.68 Aurochs still occurred in Lower Egypt un
til at least the Roman period.69 During the Predynastic it was apparently still part of the available
60 Dale J. Osborn and Jana Osbornova, The Mammals of Ancient Egypt (Warminster, 1998), 181-83. But see also Sebastian
Payne, "Comments on the Identification of the Animals," in Payne, Catalogue, 260-61.
61 Stan Hendrickx, Heiko Riemer, Frank Forster, and John C. Darnell, "Late Predynas tic/Early Dynastic rock art scenes of
Barbary sheep hunting from Egypt's Western Desert. From capturing wild animals to the 'Women of the Acacia House,'" in
Heiko Riemer et al. (eds.), Desert animals in the eastern Sahara, 189-244.
62 Anderson, "Power and Competition in the Upper Egyptian Predynastic," 185.
63 Jean Dorst and Pierre Dandelot, A Field Guide to the Larger Mammals of Africa (London, 1970), 237.
64 Boessneck, von den Driesch, and Ziegler, "Die Tierreste von Maadi und dem Friedhof am Wadi Digla."
65 Van Neer, Linseele, and Friedman, "Animal Burials and Food Offerings," 94-95; Van Neer and Linseele, "Animal Hospi
tal," 12.
66 Gautier and Van Neer, "The Animal Remains from the Late Paleolithic Sequence in Wadi Kubbaniya."
67 Kingdon, The Kingdon Field Guide to African Mammals, 427-28.
68 Linseele and Van Neer, "Exploitation of Desert and Other Wild Game in Ancient Egypt."
69 Angela von den Driesch, "Tierreste aus Buto im Nildelta," Archaeofauna 6 (1997), 23-29.

174.114.90.200 on Thu, 13 Aug 2020 23:43:23 UTC
124 JARCE 45 (2009)
game in Upper Egypt, although aurochs is only attested at Hierakonpolis by the complete skeleton
found in Tomb 19 of the HK6 cemetery.70 Aurochs has only rarely been identified at other Predynas
tic sites, but in settlement contexts its presence has probably been obscured by the difficulties of dis
tinguishing its bones from those of domestic cattle, the main criterion being that aurochs is larger on
average, but there is considerable size overlap.
Hippopotamus
Hippopotamus, an enormous semi-aquatic mammal, is thought to have been commonly hunted
during the Predynastic, particularly in Lower Egypt. Although the hippopotamus is an important
motif in the art of Predynastic Upper Egypt,71 remains of this animal are comparatively uncommon.
In the settlements of Upper Egypt, only Locality HK11 Operation B yielded relatively high amounts
of hippo bones, but all may derive from a single individual. In the elite cemetery HK6, three young
hippos, one only a few days old, were found buried either individually or with other animals.72 At
HK29A hippopotamus bones were present in the wall trench, modified silts, and in the courtyard.
Many of these bones are unfused or not yet well ossified, indicating that young animals were present
here also. However, judging from their larger size and the recovery of some elements with fused epi
physes, for example, a second phalanx, they must have been on average older than the individuals
from the HK6 cemetery. Whatever the age, the harpooning of these animals must have been a dan
gerous enterprise that was probably carried out as a group activity. This is also suggested by scenes on
contemporary pottery and rock art,73 although by Dynasty 1 it is the king alone shown undertaking
this heroic task with explicit symbolic overtones.74
Other hunted animals and carnivores
The remains of carnivores are much more numerous in the wall trench and modified silts of
HK29A than in any other Predynastic settlement context, including the courtyard floor (table 6).
They appear to be more common in the deposits recovered during 2002 excavations at the eastern
end of the wall trench area (8% of all identified mammals) than in those found earlier to the west
(6%). Canid remains, identified as Canis sp., are responsible for this high percentage (table 6). They
are most probably domestic dogs, although the presence of jackal cannot be totally excluded since
that animal's bones resemble those of dog very closely. Similar skeletal elements are present in all
70 Van Neer, Linseele, and Friedman, "Animal Burials and Food Offerings," 99-101; Sylvia Warman, "Predynastic Egyptian
Bovid Burial in the Elite Cemetery at Hierakonpolis," in Sharyn J. O'Day, Wim Van Neer, and Anton Ervynck, eds., Proceedings
of the 9th ICAZ conference, Durham 2002, vol. 1, Behaviour Behind Bones. The Zooarchaeology of Ritual, Religion, Status and Identity
(Oxford, 2004), 34-40.
71 Almuth Behrmann, Das Nilpferd in der Vorstellungswelt der Alten Agypter, Europaische Hochschulschriften 38, Archaologie
22 (Frankfurt am Main, 1989); Gwenola Graff, Les peintures sur vases de Naqada I?Naqada II. Nouvelle approche semiologique de
Viconographie predynastique, Egyptian Prehistory Monograph 6 (Leuven, 2009), 60-61.
72 Van Neer, Linseele, and Friedman, "Animal Burials and Food Offerings," 76, 84; Van Neer and Linseele, "Animal Hospital."
73 E.g., Gunter Dreyer, Rita Hartmann, Ulrich Harting, Thomas Hikade, Heidi Kopp, Claudia Lacher, Vera Miiller, Andreas
Nerlich, and Albert Zink, "Umm el-Qaab. Nachuntersuchungen im fruhzeitlichen Konigsfriedhof 13./14./15. Vorbericht,"
MDAIK 59 (2003), 80-85; Stan Hendrickx, Nabil Swelim, Francesco Raffaele, Merel Eyckerman, and Renee Friedman, "A Lost
Late Predynastic?Early Dynastic Royal Scene from Gharb Aswan," Archeo-Nil 19 (2009), 169-78.
74 Vera Miiller, "Nilpferdjagd und gekopfte Feinde?zu zwei Ikonen des Feindvernichtungsrituals," in Eva-Maria Engel, Vera
Miiller, and Ulrich Hartung, eds., Zeichen aus dem Sand. Streiflichter aus Agyptens Geschichte zu Ehren von Gunter Dreyer, Menes 5
(Wiesbaden, 2008), 477-93.

174.114.90.200 on Thu, 13 Aug 2020 23:43:23 UTC
deposits and the presence of fused and unfused bones indicates individuals of all age classes. A
cut-mark on a talus found in the wall trench area suggests that the pelts may have been removed.75
The burial of dogs is relatively frequently in Predynastic Egypt. Several examples occur in the elite
cemetery HK6,76 but also in the cemetery at Adaima77 and elsewhere.78
Fennec, RuppeH's fox, striped hyena, and small cats were identified from the wall trench and mod
ified silts at HK29A. Cutmarks on the distal end of the scapula of the fennec suggest that it was also
skinned. Fennec has not been recorded at any of the other Predynastic sites except Merimde. Riip
pell's fox is equally rare and is elsewhere only present at Adaima and HK11 Operation G. A metatar
sal of striped hyena was found in the wall trench of HK29A and the courtyard yielded an axis of this
species. One hyena bone was found at Naqada and this carnivore is also attested at Merimde and
Maadi in Lower Egypt. Small cats are found regularly at Predynastic settlement sites and swamp cat
and wild cat were also found buried at HK6.79
Birds of prey and carnivores, wild as well as domestic, are usually not considered food refuse unless
there are clear indications to the contrary, such as butchery marks. The wild carnivores from HK29A?
fennec, Ruppell's fox, striped hyena, wild cat, and perhaps also jackal?may have been hunted for
their pelts. Domestic dogs probably served the humans during their lives, but the cut marks on a dog
talus suggest that they too could be skinned. Since it is assumed that the carnivores from HK29A
were not eaten and their carcasses were disposed of after death, more or less complete skeletons
would be expected in the deposits, but this is not the case. The state of preservation and degree of
fragmentation of the carnivore bones were not noticeably different from those of species considered
as consumed animals. Although it cannot be entirely excluded that at HK29A carnivores were also
eaten, the observed pattern may instead relate to the removal of debris, including carcasses, from an
original location (primary refuse), which was then dumped and dispersed along the wall trench and
in the pits dug into the modified silts (secondary refuse).
Apart from mammals, two terrestrial reptiles also appear among the species captured during the
Predynastic: tortoise and monitor lizard, although neither of them seems to have been of significant
economic importance. Tortoise has been identified only in Lower Egypt, while monitor lizard is at
tested in both Lower and Upper Egypt. One monitor lizard bone was found in the wall trench area
at HK29A and another in its courtyard. The only other Upper Egyptian site where this animal has
been identified is Adaima.
Final remarks on hunted animals
The wild mammal species that occur at HK29A have been found at other Predynastic sites (table 6),
but nowhere else is the species richness80 of one location and context so high. The wild species from
75 Stan Hendrickx, "The Dog, the Lycaon pictus and Order over Chaos in Predynastic Egypt," in Karla Kroeper, Marek
Chlodnicki, and Michal Kobusiewicz, eds., Archaeology of Early Northeastern Africa. In Memory of Lech Krzyzaniak, Studies in Afri
can Archaeology 9 (Poznari, 2006), 723-49.
76 Van Neer, Linseele, and Friedman, "Animal Burials and Food Offerings," table 1; Van Neer and Linseele, "Animal Hospital."
77 Van Neer, "Le materiel faunique."
78 Flores, Funerary Sacrifice of Animals in the Egyptian Predynastic Period, 56-57.
79 Linseele, Van Neer, and Hendrickx, "Evidence for Early Cat Taming in Egypt"; Linseele, Van Neer, and Hendrickx,
"Early Cat Taming in Egypt"; Van Neer, Linseele, and Friedman, "More Animal Burials."
80 Cf. Kathryn Cruz-Uribe, "The Use and Meaning of Species Diversity and Richness in Archaeological Faunas," JAS 15
(1988), 179-96.

174.114.90.200 on Thu, 13 Aug 2020 23:43:23 UTC
126 JARCE 45 (2009)
HK29A are also remarkable in the sense that they derive not only from the Nile valley (hippo, harte
beest, small cats) and the adjacent semi-desert plains (dorcas and dama gazelle, Ruppell's fox), but
also from the mountain ranges (Barbary sheep) and high desert (fennec). This indicates that hunting
was not only more intense (as indicated by the high percentage of wild mammals), but also that it was
taking place in a wider array of biomes.
The spectrum of wild species found buried at the elite cemetery HK6 is considerably different from
all Predynastic settlement sites, but some species are shared with HK29A. Although the cemetery was
used from Naqada I into the Naqada III period, the burial of wild animals is a feature of its earlier
phases only (Naqada IC-IIB), which are roughly contemporary with the earliest phase at HK29A. The
complete, unbutchered carcasses of the animals were interred often in group burials, with and with
out grave goods and rarely with human accompaniment.81 Most notable in the cemetery is the pres
ence of baboons and elephants. Unattested at any other Predynastic site, they must have been
imported from more southerly regions. Together with the aurochs and hartebeest, they suggest a
focus on the exotic and rare, and may be considered at minimum as expressions of the power or
wealth of their owners.82
Healed injuries observed on the bones of several of the animals buried at HK6 indicate that they
were kept in captivity for some time before their death.83 Such pathologies were not observed on the
fauna from HK29A or any other Predynastic settlement site. However, it can not be excluded
that the animals were held captive prior to their offering/consumption at HK29A, and it has recently
be argued that capture rather than killing is what is being expressed in the contemporary scenes of
hunting on pottery and in rock art.84 Pathologies formed on the animal skeletons as a consequence
of capture or the unnatural conditions in which they were kept would be less easily observable on
fragmentary refuse than on complete individuals, and may therefore not have been recorded.
Domestic Livestock at HK29A
The figures for the identified remains of animals classified as food refuse in table 3 make it clear
that animal proteins were obtained at the Predynastic sites considered in this study by practicing a
variable mixture of gathering, hunting, fowling, fishing and stock keeping, the latter two activities
being economically the most important. Taking into account their greater meat weight in comparison
to fish, domestic livestock was usually the main source of animal protein. Only at Maghar Dendera 2
was livestock of lesser importance. The site has been considered as a temporary fishing camp used by
a small group of people who probably brought with them only a few livestock animals to herd while
they were away from their permanent base and homestead.85
81 Amongst the limited faunal remains in the non-elite cemetery HK43 at Hierakonpolis (Naqada IIA-C) wild animals were
not found (Van Neer and Linseele, unpublished data).
82 Van Neer, Linseele, and Friedman, "Animal Burials and Food Offerings"; Renee Friedman, "Elephants at Hierakonpolis,"
in Hendrickx et al., Egypt at its Origins, 131-68.
83 Healed injuries were observed on the swamp cat (Linseele, Van Neer, and Hendrickx, "Evidence for Early Cat Taming in
Egypt"; Linseele, Van Neer, and Hendrickx, "Early Cat Taming in Egypt"), several of the baboons (Wim Van Neer and Veerle
Linseele, "New analyses of old bones?The faunal remains from Hierakonpolis," Nekhen News 14 [2002], 7-8; Van Neer,
Linseele, and Friedman, "Animal Burials and Food Offerings"; Van Neer, Linseele, and Friedman, "More Animal Burials"), a
hippopotamus and the hartebeest (Van Neer and Linseele, "Animal Hospital").
84 Gwenola Graff, Merel Eyckerman, and Stan Hendrickx, "Architectural Elements on Decorated Pottery and Ritual Present
ing of Desert Animals," in Renee Friedman, Liam McNamara, and Peter Fiske, eds., Egypt at its Origins 3. Proceedings of the Third
International Colloquium on Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt (forthcoming).
85 Hendrickx, Midant-Reynes, and Van Neer, Mahgar Dendera 2, 99-101.

174.114.90.200 on Thu, 13 Aug 2020 23:43:23 UTC
Cattle
The economic importance of the domestic species, that is, cattle, sheep, goat and pig, appears to
have varied between sites (table 7). Hierakonpolis is the sole Predynastic settlement where cattle
bones predominate. It is only in the courtyard area at HK29A and in the midden at HK11C Test A
that ovicaprines dominate the domestic species composition. Possible reasons for the high propor
tions of cattle at Hierakonpolis may include locally better ecological circumstances, such as greater
grazing capacity in the Wadi Abu Suffian,86 as well as or in addition to a higher social status for its
inhabitants, since cattle have always been the domesticate to which the most status or economic
wealth has been associated.87
Cattle bones are poorly represented on the courtyard floor at HK29A possibly because this area
was periodically cleaned. It may be assumed that the chances of bones being removed during clean
ing activities increase with their dimensions and cattle bones are generally large. Although the total
amount of cattle bones recovered from the courtyard is low and the skeletal distribution may there
fore not be reliable, the (small) foot bones of cattle are more common in the courtyard area than in
the wall trench and modified silts. This may indicate the selective removal of large bones and the fact
that small bones were overlooked during cleaning. It could also suggest changes in ritual practice,
since footbones as representative of the full animal are found in the funerary deposits, for example
at Dayr al-Barsha, although the larger metapodals are also present at that site.88
Analysis of the fusion data on the long bones of cattle from the Hierakonpolis localities and
Adaima indicates that the animals from the wall trench and modified silts of HK29A were on aver
age killed at a younger age, although individuals of all age classes are present (table 8). For the
courtyard deposits the evidence for age was insufficient. Analyses of the osteometric data indicates
larger cattle on average at HK29A than at the other settlement sites at Hierakonpolis or Adaima
(fig. 6). In the elite cemetery HK6, the cattle also had a large average size. Cattle at the elite ceme
tery were buried whole but also occurred as butchered food offerings, sometimes in the form of a
right foreleg.89 Similar offerings are known from Adaima,90 as well as from later Dynastic sites91 and
Dynastic iconography.92
It is unclear if the larger average size of cattle at HK29A is due to the slaughtering of a generally
larger type ('breed') of animals, or if it is a consequence of sex distribution in the assemblage. Males
are usually larger than females, and average size therefore rises when proportionally more males are
killed. At the elite cemetery at HK6 male and female individuals have been identified in equal pro
portions, pointing to generally large animals, but the data from HK29A are insufficient to establish
the sex ratio and the precise reason for the larger average size of its cattle. At el-Mahasna the ritual
structure showed a higher proportion of cattle, and particularly of young cattle, than the other parts
of the site.93 The same area also contained a larger proportion of elements from the forelimbs of
cattle. No details were provided on the size of these cattle.
86 Harlan, "Excavations at Locality 11C."

87 Stan Hendrickx, "Bovines in Egyptian Predynastic and Early Dynastic Iconography," in Fekri A. Hassan, ed., Droughts,
Food and Culture. Ecological Change and Food Security in Africa s later Prehistory (New York-Boston-Dordrecht-London-Moscow,
2002), 195-207.
88 Marleen de Meyer, Wim Van Neer, Christoph Peeters, and Harco Willems, "The Role of Animals in the Funerary Rites at
Dayr al-Barsha/'/A^CE 42 (2005-2006), 45-71.
89 Van Neer, Linseele, and Friedman, "Animal Burials and Food Offerings," table 1.
91 De Meyer et al., "The Role of Animals in the Funerary Rites."
92 Salima Ikram, Choice Cuts: Meat Production in Ancient Egypt, OLA 69 (Leuven, 1995), 129.
93 Anderson, "Power and Competition in the Upper Egyptian Predynastic."

174.114.90.200 on Thu, 13 Aug 2020 23:43:23 UTC
128 JARCE 45 (2009)
Ovicaprines
After cattle, sheep and goat are the next most numerous domestic animals at HK29A and at Hi
erakonpolis in general. They are also very common at the other Predynastic settlements, and have
been found in cemeteries, both as buried animals and as food offerings.94 In Upper Egypt goat usu
ally predominates over sheep, while in Lower Egypt, the opposite is true, with the most pronounced
case being at Merimde (table 7). This distinction may be due to the poorer ecological conditions in
Upper Egypt, since goats are better suited than sheep for survival in areas with low quality pasture.95
In Upper Egypt, only in the midden at HK11C (Test A) and in el-Mahasna have more sheep than
goat bones been recorded. The greater grazing capacity afforded by the terraces of the Wadi Abu
Suffian may have allowed sheep to flourish here. The factors influencing the sheep/goat ratio at
el-Mahasna are unknown.
As was the case for cattle, the skeletal distribution of ovicaprines shows an over-representation of
small foot elements on the courtyard floor as compared to the wall trench/modified silts at HK29A.
The fusion data for the ovicaprines from HK29A also points to a younger average age at death than
at other localities at Hierakonpolis and Adaima (table 9). Osteometrical data on ovicaprines bones
have not yet revealed any significant size differences between Predynastic sites.
pig
During the Predynastic period, fewer pigs appear to have been kept in Upper Egypt than in Lower
Egypt, no doubt as a consequence of less suitable ecological conditions.96 The proportion of pig in the
settlements of Hierakonpolis generally appears to be lower than at Adaima (9% and 19% respectively),
but the lowest frequency of pig can be observed at HK29A, and especially on its courtyard floor (2%).
The infrequency of pig at Hierakonpolis may also be connected to its role as a central place, since it
has been suggested that pigs in the Near East were less common where control by a central authority
over the economy was high.97 It is possible that the number of pigs eaten dropped as the social status
of the consumer rose. These animals are therefore more typical of rural settlements.
Pig is absent at Maghar Dendera 2 as this animal is not suited for long distance movement and
the people seasonally occupying the site probably did not take pigs with them. At Merimde, it has
been suggested that pigs had religious significance because several skeletons of neonate animals
were found;98 however, the death of these young animals may simply have been due to natural causes
such as drought or disease. Similar evidence has not been observed at any other Predynastic site,
although a juvenile pig was found associated with a human burial at Wadi Digla,99 and a young pig
was buried within the settlement area at Adaima.100 Pigs were not identified in the buried fauna of
the elite cemetery HK6,101 but several bones were recovered from shallow deposits outside the
94 Van Neer, Linseele, and Friedman, "Animal Burials and Food Offerings," table 1; Flores, Funerary Sacrifice of Animals in the
Egyptian Predynastic Period; Diane V. Flores, "Funerary Sacrifice of Animals in the Egyptian Predynastic Period," in Hendrickx
et al., Egypt at its Origins, 731-63.
95 Gudrun Dahl and Anders Hjort, Having Herds. Pastoral Herd Growth and Household Economy (Stockholm, 1976).
97 Richard W. Redding, "The Role of the Pig in the Subsistence System of Ancient Egypt: A Parable on the Potential of Faunal
data," in Pam J. Crabtree and Kathleen Ryan, eds., Animal Use and Culture Change, MASCA Research Papers in Science and Ar
chaeology 8 (1991), 20-30; Melinda A. Zeder, Feeding Cities: Specialized Animal Economy in the Ancient Near East (Washington, 1991).
98 von den Driesch and Boessneck, Die Tierknochenfunde, 108.
99 Boessneck, von den Driesch, and Ziegler, "Die Tierreste von Maadi und dem Friedhof am Wadi Digla."

174.114.90.200 on Thu, 13 Aug 2020 23:43:23 UTC
>z
31.0 37.6 19.6

52.9 38.649.4
46.1 23.8 1.0
5540 202 968
581 9
Lower Egypt
> CD"DEc CD
2 369
24
acaCO 46.238.323.3
41.9 20.634.8
437 6038 9131
22.741.1 31.1 441438
CO EOLU
sz
<co CO
0.0 15.0
126 1805
172104
89.6 57.3
10.4 27.6
CM 20"OcCDQ
~o cr Z18.922.558.61932
CO CO CO 13
Upper Egypt
aCO.q< 13.2 63.4408 933

23.4
in
1042
Upper and Lower Egypt and the number of identified sheep vs. identified goat remains
18.5 5.1
31.3 31.9 7940 546
50.2 63.0
Table 7. Relative importance (%) of domestic cattle, ovicaprines and pig at Predynastic settlement sites in
COECOo< 188211
X9.9 38
68.421.7
CM 2102 19
DO < X9.2 666 413

56.034.8
HK other
CD x 1222
24.3 45.4
69.8 45.5
658 714
5.9 9.1
O^ X 2011
<Gi X 2.3
128 22
25.072.7
CM
HK29A
CO
CM X5.450.044.62384 2241
Remarks: For the method of catagory attribution, see table 3.
Numbers
Numbers of identified of identified goat
sheep
Ovicaprines
Cattle
Pig n

174.114.90.200 on Thu, 13 Aug 2020 23:43:23 UTC
130 JARCE 45 (2009)
southeast corner of the large pillared hall Struc

Table 8. Fusion data for cattle (cf. Ian A. Silver,
ture 07 in conjunction with gazelle and ovicaprine
"The Ageing of Domestic Animals," in bones.
Don Broth well and Eric Higgs, eds., Science in
Archaeology [London, 1963], 250-68) The fusion data obtained from the pig bones at
Hierakonpolis and Adaima indicate that the animals
were generally slaughtered at a rather young age
(table 10). At HK29A, only 5 out of 24 remains are
CD
of individuals older than 2 years of age. Although
Fusing age CD
< -C
-??' the data is limited, the emphasis on young animals
eg o
may have been greater than elsewhere. Very few
X X measurements could be taken on the bones from
% NF 21 6
HK29A, but they fit within the known variation for
12-18 % fusing 3 0
months %F 76 94 Upper Egypt, where pigs seem to have been on aver
n 29 17 age smaller than those in Lower Egypt. This may be
% NF 18 6 related to less favorable ecological conditions for pig
5 8
18 months % fusing breeding.102
%F 76 86
n 55 102
% NF 60 47 Donkey
24-30 % fusing 10 0
months %F 30 53 Donkey is rare at HK29A, attested by only four re
n 20 30 mains in the wall trench/modified silts deposits. It is
55 33 not clear whether these remains derive from the wild
24-36 % fusing 0 2 or domestic form, and the same is true for a few iso
months %F 45 65 lated donkey bones retrieved from HK11C Opera
n 11 52 tion B, and HK29. Remains of both wild and
27-36
% NF 60 40
40 60 domestic donkeys have been found at the elite ceme
months tery HK6, but in disturbed contexts.103 The tapho
5 10
73 63 nomic status of the donkey remains from HK29A is
36-42 % fusing 0 6 not clear. Although their state of preservation is not
months 27 31 dissimilar from that of the rest of the fauna, it cannot
11 16 be entirely excluded that they are recent intrusives.
% NF 93 67
42 months 7 33
n 14 9 Discussion
% NF 91 70
42-48 % fusing 2 15
months 7 15 Peculiarities of the HK29A fauna
58 20 The faunal assemblages collected from HK29A are
unique in many respects, but they also share in a
Key: NF: not fused; F: fused.
number of overall economic trends visible during
the Predynastic period. At HK29A, as at other Predy
nastic settlement sites in both Upper and Lower
Egypt, harvested shells and captured birds are of limited importance. The HK29A assemblages also
correspond to the pattern generally seen in the Predynastic for livestock-keeping as the main eco
102 Cf. Van Neer, "Le materiel faunique."


174.114.90.200 on Thu, 13 Aug 2020 23:43:23 UTC
average size aurochs HK6
AdaTma
female HK6 male

O OODCJD CX3XDO O (3D ?i ?Mi
HK29
XX X XXtMC XXXXX)<WwjiiidBPC "MXSKXX )HC x* x xxxnc X
HK11C (test A)
xx x Hx X
HK11 (Op. G)
mm DM mm m
HK11C(0p. A-B)
A AA AAA Out A\ MA A A
HK29A all
^ smaller cattle_largercattle
-0.250 -0.200 -0.150 -0.100 -0.050 0.000 0.050 0.100
LSI value
Fig. 6. Logarithmic Size Index (LSI) analysis of breadth measurements on cattle remains from Hierakonpolis and Adaima.
Each symbol represents a measurement on one bone. The squares are the average values for a locality. The LSI value rises
with the size of the bone relative to the standard animal (Female aurochs from Holocene Denmark, Magnus Degerb0l and
Bert Fredskild, The Urus [Bos primigenius Bojanus] and Neolithic domestic cattle [Bos taurus domesticus Linne]
in Denmark, Biologiske Skrifter 17.1 [Copenhagen, 1970]).
nomic activity from which animal proteins were obtained, followed by fishing, although the amount
and type of fish at HK29A are notable.
The faunal material from HK29A also exhibits several characteristics that are typical only of Upper
Egyptian Predynastic sites, such as the prevalence of goat over sheep and the relatively infrequency
of pigs, which are usually smaller in size. The differences between archaeozoological assemblages
from Predynastic Upper and Lower Egypt are probably due in large part to diverse ecological condi
tions prevailing in the two parts of the country. All Upper Egyptian settlement sites have a similar
spectrum of hunted species, amongst which gazelle is the most prevalent, but some rare, additional
animals are present at HK29A.
Although sharing in the overall trends visible in Upper Egypt, the assemblages from the Hierakon
polis localities differ in a number of significant ways. Hierakonpolis, in general, differs from other
Upper Egyptian Predynastic sites in that cattle are the most frequently consumed domestic animal
species in most of its settlement localities. This is also the case in the wall trench/modified silts of
HK29A. As discussed above, cattle may be under-represented in the courtyard area because of cleaning
activities. Pig is rarer at Hierakonpolis, including HK29A, than at most other Upper Egyptian sites.
Both the higher rate of cattle consumption and the low frequency of pig at Hierakonpolis may be

174.114.90.200 on Thu, 13 Aug 2020 23:43:23 UTC
132 JARCE 45 (2009)
Table 9. Fusion data for ovicaprines (cf. Silver, Table 10. Fusion data for pig (cf. Silver,
"The Ageing of Domestic Animals") "The Ageing of Domestic Animals")
Fusing age
CO
<
0
sz
Fusing age
<
i
CM o CM o
X.
X x X x
27 0 % NF 43 29
7 0 % fusing 14 8
10 months % fusing 1 year
67 100 %F 43 63
15 29 n 7 24
50 35 % NF 50 41
13-16 % fusing 0 3 % fusing 0 17
months 50 62 2 years %F 50 41
n 4 34 n 10 29
% NF 75 48 % NF 0 100
18-24 % fusing 0 0 3-3,5 years % F 0 0
months %F 25 52 n 0 3
n 4 23 % NF 100 78
88 84 % fusing 0 0
18-28 % fusing 0 0 3,5 years %F 0 22
months 12 16 n 7 9
n 17 32
% NF 0 33 Key: NF: not fused; F: fused.
20-28 % fusing 50 0
months %F 50 67
n 2 6
% NF 92 75 attributed to the general higher status or wealth o
30-36 % fusing 0 6 the inhabitants of this large and powerful center.
months %F 8 19 Within Hierakonpolis itself, HK29A stands ou
n 13 16
as one of the few localities that has yielded a large
67 56
0 19 quantity of fish, particularly open water specie
36 months % fusing and especially Nile perch. The Nile perch fro
33 25
n 6 16 HK29A are also of large size with many specimen
% NF 85 69 exhibiting an estimated standard length of on
36-42 % fusing 0 0 meter or more. Another unique feature is th
months %F 15 31 younger average age at which livestock was slaugh
n 20 13 tered. In addition, the larger average size of th
Key: NF: not fused; F: fused.
cattle from HK29A is remarkable when compare
to the other settlement sites of Hierakonpolis an
Adaima. Hunted animals are also exceptionall
frequent at HK29A and their diverse species spe
trum includes fennec, hyena, and hartebeest, animals that are not found at any other settle
cality at Hierakonpolis. Further striking characteristics of the HK29A fauna are the particula
number of remains from crocodile and softshell turtle. The habitat requirements of the differ
cies illustrate that hunting was practiced in a wide variety of biomes.
The unusual features of the faunal assemblage, specifically the large quantities of sizable fi
game, and young cattle as well as the presence of crocodile and turtle, have also been ob

ff:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff on Thu, 01 Jan 1976 12:34:56 UTC
el-Mahasna around a structure containing a number of figurines, many portraying slaughtered cattle.104
This pattern of animal usage is clearly more than coincidental and indicates that activities were taking
place in these localities that were significantly different from those undertaken elsewhere at the same
sites.
Symbolic meaning
In Dynastic times, many of the species found at HK29A and el-Mahasna, such as the crocodile,
turtle and wild mammals, were considered symbols of typhonic forces or agents of chaos.105 The role
that crocodile, turtle, hippopotamus and gazelle play in the rather restricted artistic iconography of
the Naqada I-IIC period, often in association with the hunt, gives some indication of the importance
that these animals had at the time the structure at HK29A was in use. This hunt, whether undertaken
by human agents, dogs or left unstated,106 is considered to represent the containment of chaos and
the capture or killing of wild animals in general has long been understood as an allegory on untamed
chaos brought under control. The recent publication of a seal impression from Abydos showing King
Den harpooning not a hippo, but beheaded human enemies, makes this connection explicit at least
by Dynasty l.107
The similarity of the fauna and the architectural remains at HK29A to the scene carved on the
Narmer macehead has been commented on before.108 Wherever one wishes to locate the action de
picted on the macehead or however one wants to explain it,109 the presence of animals, both wild and
domestic, in a ritual context makes their use as symbols of power and control clear. The fact that ani
mals, including an unusually high percentage of wild and especially presumably inedible carnivore
species, occur at HK29A suggests that they were brought to the site and sacrificed as embodiments of
chaotic forces and not simply for consumption during (ritual or secular) feasting. The material from
HK29A would thus appear to be the physical remains of the actual execution of a ritual with a long
history in Egypt, the containment of unrule being one of the chief roles of the king as depicted on
and within temple structures throughout the Dynastic period.110
In addition to the symbolic meanings of the fauna from HK29A, it can also be argued that many of
its special characteristics are due to the high social status of the people taking part in the activities
therein,111 their status and wealth being reflected in the selection of particular animal species (Nile
perch and cattle) and of animals with special qualities (large Nile perch, young and large livestock).
The high proportion of game also implies a connection with the elite segment of society. The associ
ation between hunting and the Predynastic elite has been described by Hendrickx112 and the breed
ing and training of domestic dogs for the hunt have strong elite connotations.113 In this respect, the
presence of dogs (and other carnivores) in the deposits can be read as elite largesse in sacrificing us
able assets or showing power over the powerful. While butchery marks are rare amongst all of the
104 Anderson, "Power and Competition in the Upper Egyptian Predynastic"; Anderson, "Zoomorphic Figurines."
105 LdA 2, 146-47, s.v. "Feindsymbolik."
106 Hendrickx et al., "A Lost Late Predynastic-Early Dynastic royal scene," 3, 6.
107 Miiller, "Nilpferdjagd und gekopfte Feinde."
108 Frieciman) "The Ceremonial Centre at Hierakonpolis, Locality HK29A."
109 Nicholas B. Millet, "The Narmer Macehead and Related Objects,"JARCE 27 (1990), 53-59; Alejandro Jimenez Serrano,
Royal Festivals in the Late Predynastic Period and First Dynasty, BAR-IS 1076 (Oxford, 2002), 44-45.
110 LdA 4, 594-96, s.v. "Opfertier"; Kemp, Ancient Egypt, 92-99.
111 Cf. connection between rituals and elite in Anderson, "Power and Competition in the Upper Egyptian Predynastic."
112 Hendrickx, "The Dog, the Lycaon pictus and Order over Chaos in Predynastic Egypt," 735-36.
113 John Baines, "Symbolic Roles of Canine Figures on Early Monuments," Archeo-Nil 3 (1993), 57-74.

174.114.90.200 on Thu, 13 Aug 2020 23:43:23 UTC
134 JARCE 45 (2009)
fauna, the cut marks on the dog and fennec suggest these animals were procured for their skins; per
haps one could even suggest for the creation of the imiut symbol, depicted already in Early Dynastic
documents as the skin of a canid suspended from a pole set up before a ritual structure.114 Their use
as garments, shields or symbols of power in their own right is also possible.115
Much of this discussion is based on the assumption that most of the animals arrived at HK29A
alive.116 Clear evidence from the tombs at HK6 attests to the ability of the elite to capture and then
keep wild mammals in captivity for some time.117 It is therefore quite possible that the species slaugh
tered at HK29A could have been confined and maintained until the time came to perform the activi
ties for which they were required.
Another type of symbolism that can be seen in the fauna from HK29A is the contrast between the
riverine (fish, aquatic reptiles, and hippos) and desert (wild game) environments, a dichotomy also
stressed in the art of the period. Several of the animal species found at HK29A, including large Nile
perch, Nile oyster, and gazelles, were easiest to obtain during the parts of the year when the Nile wa
ters were low and the spatial distance between the two environments was least pronounced. The
festivities taking place at the temple may therefore have been related to the anticipated arrival of the
Nile flood, which occurred at the end of June in ancient times. However, over its long use-life
the complex was no doubt the locus of a variety of ritual activities that may also find reflection in
the faunal assemblages.
The fauna from the wall trench/modified silts and the courtyard at HK29A are generally similar,
yet within these assemblages temporal and compositional differences have been observed. The mate
rial collected in 2002 from the relatively undisturbed refuse pits in square 150L40SW appear some
what earlier in time (Naqada IIAB), based on associated pottery, than the material recovered in the
1980s (Naqada IIBC). The faunal collection contained slightly more fish (possibly due to finer sam
pling techniques), but much less gazelle (46% of all wild fauna) compared to the 1980s material (77%),
and more carnivores (8% versus 6%). Such variation may simply be seen as the luck of the hunt at any
given time, or differing perceived requirements for the ritual activity undertaken; nevertheless, the
overall similarity in the faunal constituents indicates certain basic needs.
On the other hand, the deposit from the courtyard floor, dated to the early Naqada III period, may
provide evidence for changing requirements or conceptions over time. The more limited courtyard
assemblage yielded proportionally less deep water fish, less Nile perch and less cattle. These differ
ences can be attributed to the periodic cleaning of the floor when the largest and most visible bones
were removed, but the predominance of foot bones from cattle and ovicaprines may also suggest that
only 'representative' parts of the animal were offered, while the more meat bearing portions were
retained for other purposes or consumed at another place. The floor deposit also had a lower pro
portion of turtle, pig and carnivore bones compared to the wall trench/modified silts and this cannot
be explained by cleaning. Especially for the carnivores the difference is striking. As the majority of
this category is composed of what is most probably domestic dog, the limited numbers on the court
yard floor may be related to the diminishing status of this animal at this time.118 It may also reflect
waning interest in depictions of the hunt to express control in light of the growing codification of
114 Thomas J. Logan, "The Origins of the Jmy-wt Fetish," JARCE 27 (1990), 61-69; Baines, "Symbolic Roles of Canine
Figures."
115 Stan Hendrickx, "Peaux d'animaux comme symboles predynastiques. A propos de quelques representations sur les vases
White Cross-lined," CdE 73 (1998), 203-30; idem, "The Dog, the Lycaon pictus and Order over Chaos in Predynastic Egypt."
116 Fish being an obvious exception, although clariid catfish can survive for a relatively long time outside water.
118 Hendrickx, "The Dog, the Lycaon pictus and Order over Chaos in Predynastic Egypt"; Hendrickx et al. "A Lost Late Pre
dynastic-Early Dynastic Royal Scene."

174.114.90.200 on Thu, 13 Aug 2020 23:43:23 UTC
royal iconography119 and the sole role the king ultimately takes in this regard as witnessed in the
documents of King Den.120 Decreased interest in wild animals as well as dwindling supplies thereof
may also be observed in the elite cemetery at HK6, where the burials of wild animals are no longer a
feature of the Naqada III period of cemetery activity.121
While animals are frequent in the Naqada IC-IIB burials at HK6, apparently as expressions of the
wealth and power of their deceased owners, their remains are much less prevalent in the contem
porary pillared halls, or 'funerary temples' in that cemetery. The specialized pottery forms found only
in the pillared halls and at HK29A indicate that ritual activity was undertaken at both locations, but
manifest in different ways. Interest in expressing control over chaos is present in the funerary tem
ples, but is mainly restricted to the artistic record, with wild animals shaped in flint and deposited
together with a number of arrowheads.122 The only examples of actual gazelle and pig remains in the
cemetery occur in shallow pits outside the corners of the pillared hall Structure 07, which perhaps not
coincidentally are oriented to the cardinal points. Fragmentary and outside, it seems likely that these
remains reflect these animals as enemies to be destroyed and cast out, and then used in apotropaic
fashion to protect the structure.123
In contrast to the HK29A complex, the consumption of animals by the living does not appear to
have taken place in the funerary temples HK6 or its debris was thoroughly removed. Although there
seems to be a slight over-representation of meat bearing elements in fish and domestic and wild
mammals in the HK29A assemblages, it is not clear whether this is sufficient to draw any conclusions
on the place where processing took place (i.e., on-site or off-site). However, as over 80% of the lithic
assemblage from HK29A is composed of the debitage from the manufacture of finely flaked bifacial
tools, which based on the few examples recovered from the site are probably knives,124 it may
plausibly be suggested that "ritual butchery" as well as consumption took place in the vicinity, if
not within the excavated structure.
In contrast to the funerary assemblage, at H29A, the importance of fish and aquatic reptiles is con
siderable. The later prohibition against the consumption of fish by priests and officials has been
found reflected in archaeozoological faunal samples at Middle Kingdom Abydos;125 however, the use
of fish in temple feasts in the New Kingdom is well documented.126 Whether symbolic of the chaos
(or bounty) of nature,127 or simply food for feasting, the large size of the fish at HK29A must have
made them impressive trophies. Their large number and apparent importance at both HK29A and
el-Mahasna suggests that the early cylinder seals depicting what are generally agreed to be temple struc
tures and fish might be best interpreted in a literal way rather than as evidence of early writing.128
119 Cf. Baines, "Symbolic Roles of Canine Figures."

120 Cf. Miiller, "Nilpferdjagd und gekopfte Feinde."
122 Friedman, "Excavating Egypt's Early Kings."
123 Robert K. Ritner, The Mechanics of Ancient Egyptian Magical Practice, SAOC 54 (Chicago, 1993).
124 Diane L. Holmes, "Chipped Stone-Working Craftsmen, Hierakonpolis and the Rise of Civilization in Egypt," in Fried
man and Adams, The Followers of Horus, 37-44.
125 Stine Rossel, "Food for the Dead, the Priests and the Mayor: Looking for Status and Identity in the Middle Kingdom Set
tlement at South Abydos, Egypt," in O'Day, Van Neer, and Ervynck, Proceedings of the 9th ICAZ conference, Durham 2002, vol. 1,
Behaviour Behind Bones, 198-202.
126 Douglas J. Brewer and Renee Friedman, Fish and fishing in Ancient Egypt, The Natural History of Egypt 2 (Warminster,
1989).
127 Hartwig Altenmuller, "Der Konig als Vogelfanger und Fischer (nbty wh^?zu friihen Belegen eines traditionellen Motivs,"
in Engel, Miiller, and Hartung, Zeichen aus dem Sand, 1-18.
128 Ilona Regulski, "The Origin of Writing in Relation to the Emergence of the Egyptian State," in Midant-Reynes and
Tristant, Egypt at its Origins 2, 985-1009.

174.114.90.200 on Thu, 13 Aug 2020 23:43:23 UTC
136 JARCE 45 (2009)
Conclusions
Animals in ancient Egypt were ascribed a variety of roles which changed with time and context.
While certain themes are pervasive, the testimony of one time and place need not necessarily be valid
for another. The faunal assemblages from HK29A have been compared with contemporary assem
blages throughout Predynastic Egypt and within the site of Hierakonpolis itself. The unique compo
sition of the HK29A faunal material leaves no doubt that something special was happening here,
whether annually or only occasionally is unknown. The large, dangerous, and rare animals acquired,
apparently at great effort, makes explanations of the place as simply a butchery site or feasting area129
untenable. Although feasting was no doubt an important part of the activities at the site, the full
range of the animals found at HK29A, especially in light of contemporary artistic iconography,
strongly indicate a ritual or ceremonial purpose. These are special animals in a special place.
Center for Archaeological Sciences, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven

Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences and Katholieke Universiteit Leuven
British Museum
129 Kemp, Ancient Egypt, 148.

174.114.90.200 on Thu, 13 Aug 2020 23:43:23 UTC

This Content Downloaded From 174.114.90.200 On Thu, 13 Aug 2020 23:43:23 UTC

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

This Content Downloaded From 174.114.90.200 On Thu, 13 Aug 2020 23:43:23 UTC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Special Animals from a Special Place?

The Fauna from HK29A at Predynastic

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.com/stable/25735449

This content downloaded from

Veerle Linseele, Wim Van Neer,1 and Renee Friedman

Locality HK29A at Predynastic Hierakonpolis has been identified as a ceremonial center

This content downloaded from

multi-phase architectural complex surrounding a large oval

Material and Methods

This content downloaded from

9 See Friedman, this volume.

This content downloaded from

L60 L50 L40

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

Table 1. The Predynastic localities and sites considered in this study

This content downloaded from

The HK29A Fauna: Considerations

This content downloaded from

Sands 0 0 2 0 0 3 2 2 9 0 0 715 052 0 51158 1167

Floor deposit 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 3 0 1 0 1 130 040

40081100001 1 0 6 0 0 1 0 0 0 5 0 013 0 0 2 8 023 0 61317 088

20024 mmmesh 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 18 0 0 1 0 2 112 2 2 7 0 3 513 357 0 318330 0459

hand 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 6 115 0 1 2251 0278

all 0030 19 35040

Small P a sseri formes (perching birds) Mormyrus sp. (elephant-snout fish)

Tetraodon lineatus (puffer fish)

Bar bus bynni (barb el 1)

Cith arinusf Distichodus

Small lizard Sm all rodent Large bivalve Po/ypterus sp.

This content downloaded from

11 2 013 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 43 22 100

70112 0182 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 6 2 0 0 1 7 0 0 0 019 23 3 0 0 34624 2 24618105 2 1 6387 8 4222 25861013 19699

636 042 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 1014 1 0 0 3 513 2 0 10 42 0 0 217

Threskiornithidae, size Plata ha leucordia (African spoonbil )

Rallidae, size Porphyrio porphyrio(purple galinule)

Alee lapAmmotragus lervia (barbary sheep) Capra aegagrus f. hircus(goat)

Bos primigenius f. taurus (cattle)

sp., size A.anser (goose)

Total identified bird

Ciconiiformes Threskiornithidae Unidentified fish Unidentified mamm

This content downloaded from

Aquatic Fauna from HK29A

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

1217 COCN (3D

1016 806 7272 3194

:> 28.0 79.6 65.9 63.0 52.6

1558 7582 13859 8787

556 2332 1105 5144

70.5 78.8 73.4 82.8

Predynastic settlement sites in Upper and Lower Egypt

90.3 58.3 76.1 91.5 84.456.0 33.1 92.0 83.8

Numbers of identified fish remains

% Nile perch of deep water fish

% deep water fish

Catching softshell turtle

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

43 Payne, Catalogue, cat. no. 317.

This content downloaded from