RECURRENT THEMES IN THE ART OF THE PREDYNASTIC PERIOD

Edward BROVARSKI

S
mall tags of ivory, bone, horn, alabaster or slate are common in graves of the
Amratian and Gerzean periods (Naqada I-II).1 An especially impressive set of such
objects was found in grave a88 at El Amrah of early Naqada II date (Pl. 1). The
woman who was buried in the grave was lying on her right side, with her two arms sharply
bent and the hands brought up almost to her face. Alongside her arms were a set of tags of
different shapes: two siltstone tags with ornamented tops, three lat ivory tusks with incised
black-illed linear decoration, ive dentiform ivory pendants similarly decorated, and two
limestone 'pegs', as well as two hollow tusks.2
In a late predynastic burial in tomb T4 at Naqada, Petrie found a set of three human
igurines or 'mannikins' of slate (Fig. 1 a),3 associated with a pair of long ivory tubes, one solid
and one hollow, and an ostrich egg.4 The three slate mannikins were tied together by a 'cord'
through them. In a second burial at Naqada, N 1419, two 'anchor-bird' slates, two ivory tubes,
a shell hook, and an ivory 'peg' were found alongside the arms, while another shell hook was
found near the knees. The ivory tubes were bound round with leather thongs.5
Petrie imagined that the two ivory tubes, the three slate mannikins, and the whole group
of objects from Naqada grave T4 were 'intended for manipulation in some ceremonies, in
the hand', and thought that they belonged to the outit of a medicine-man, for performing
enchantments.6 MacIver and Mace likewise conjectured that the objects from El Amrah
tomb a88 formed the paraphanelia of a 'witch-doctor'. The two groups of objects just
described came from the graves of women, however, so 'medicine-man' and 'witch-doctor'
are not really accurate terms.
MacIver and Mace observed that the stone tags with ornamented tops like the two from
El Amrah grave a88 illustrated in Plate 1, were always found with women at that site.7 At
other sites swimming- and anchor-bird palettes and amuletic combs were also apparently
found exclusively with women.8 Other types of tags were found in men’s graves, however.
Two instances are Matmar grave 2682, in which four ivory mannikins (Fig. 1 g) were
found in a box, and Matmar grave 3133, which contained two slate tags with ornamented
tops (Fig. 3 a). Therefore, if the different classes of tags were indeed used for 'performing
enchantments', they were in all likelihood used by members of both sexes.

* Ali Radwan is a many-sided scholar who has published widely
on subjects as diverse as gestures of mourning and and kingship in
ancient Egypt and the Sudan. To their good fortune, he has shared his
extensive knowledge of Egyptian art, architecture, and archaeology
with several generations of students at Cairo University. The
Predynastic period ranks among his many interests, and I offer this
study in tribute to an esteemed colleague whose acquaintance I was
fortunate to make many years ago.
1 The author would like to thank Kea Johnston and Richard
L. Cook for inking several of the drawings reproduced in the
figures accompanying the present article; their contributions are
acknowledged in the footnotes.
2 D. Randall-Maciver and A. C. Mace, El Amrah and Abydos 1899-
1901 (London, 1902), 16, 36, pl. 7 (2).
3 W. M. Flinders Petrie and J. E. Quibell, Naqada and Ballas
(London, 1896), 18-19, pl. 59 (2). On the date of the grave, see E.
Finkenstaedt, ‘Egyptian Ivory Tusks and Tubes,’ ZÄS 106 (1979),
51-59.
4 Petrie and Quibell, Naqada and Ballas, 47; see Finkenstaedt,
ZÄS 106, 52.
5 Petrie and Quibell, Naqada and Ballas, 28; see also Finkenstaedt,
ZÄS 106 (1979), 52.
6 Petrie and Quibell, Naqada and Ballas, 19.
7 Randall-Maciver and Mace, El Amrah, 48.
8 See below, 18-19.

1
E. BROVARSKI

Brunton observed that the tags found in the the predynastic graves and settlements
at Qau, Hemamieh, and Badari were all in pairs or threes, except two single tags from
disturbed contents.9 There are exceptions though: four slate human-headed tags were
found in Matmar grave 2682 (Fig. 1 g) 10 and four others in Naqada grave 271 (Fig. 4 b), both
of which were evidently single occupancy graves.11
The tags are generally lat, although round ones also occur in the case of the stone
'pegs'.12 They are generally notched and grooved at the base and sometimes perforated
with a suspension hole as well for tying them together. As Petrie noted: 'They cannot have
been intended to stand upright, as they have no lat bases; nor to hang, as the holes are
at the bottom'.13 With the groove (and sometimes a perforation as well) at the bottom, if
strung in a necklace, the objects would have hung upside down. This was undoubtedly
why Petrie concluded they were meant to be manipulated in the hand in some ceremony or
ritual. Capart, on the other hand, was not at all troubled by the fact that the objects would
have hung upside down, and thought that this might simply be a device to enable the
wearer to see them as they hang.14
In her important monograph on predynastic Egypt, E. J. Baumgartel came down irmly
on Petrie’s side of the issue. She likewise felt that the tags were neither ornaments nor
amulets worn round the neck or about the person.15 If they had been meant to be worn, she
observes, they surely would have possessed holes for suspension and not grooves, which
would be a clumsy means of attachment to a necklace. Moreover, leather thongs would
be not be used for personal ornaments. In addition, she argues, the position of the tags in
grave T4 at Naqada, some distance from the skeleton in the northwest corner of the burial,
or within easy reach of the hands, would conirm the view that the tags were not worn on
the person.16 This might also support Petrie’s view that they were manipulated in the hand
in some ceremony.
According to Petrie the tags from Naqada graves often had leather attachments to
the pierced part.17 Petrie actually provides an illustration of one dentiform pendant
from Naqada grave 1469 with a leather binding still in place around the grooved end,18
and we have already seen that the three mannikins from Naqada grave T4 were tied
together with a leather thong. (Other instances of the presence or traces of leather
thongs are noted in the text or footnotes below). These facts takes on added interest
considering that the tusk-shaped and dentiform tags often bear incised lines suggestive
of a leather wrapping (Fig. 9 a-f) or more rarely of braiding (Fig. 9 g). These incised
designs often look as if they imitated a leather thong that was wound round the tag
spirally.19 Otherwise the incised decoration of the tags consists of horizontal groups of
lines, diagonal lines, zigzags, and edge notches. Not infrequently, the incised designs
are illed with black paste.

9 G. Brunton and G. Caton-Thompson, The Badarian Civilisation
and Predynastic Remains near Badari, BSA/ERA 30 (London, 1928),
59.
10 G. Brunton, Matmar (London, 1948), 20. The tally here is
confusing, as Brunton, Matmar
Matmar, 13, 14, says two ivory tags were
found in 2660 and three in 2720.
11 Petrie and Quibell, Naqada and Ballas, 21; Brunton, Matmar,
pl. 9.
12 E. J. Baumgartel, The Cultures of Prehistoric Egypt 2 (London,
1960), 63.
13 Petrie and Quibell, Naqada and Ballas, 19.
14 J. Capart, Primitive Art in Egypt, translated from the revised and
augmented original edition by A. S. Griffith (London, 1905), 76.
15 Baumgartel, Cultures of Prehistoric Egypt 2, 65.
16 J. Crowfoot Payne, Catalogue of the Predynastic Egyptian
Collection in the Ashmolean Museum (Oxford, 2000), 236, n. 19,
cites three other instances in which tags were found lying along the
forearm of a body: Randall-Maciver and Mace, El Amrah and Abydos,
24 (grave b 75), 36-37 (grave a 88; already referred to above); Guy
Brunton, Mostagedda and the Tasian Culture (London, 1937), 88
(grave 1857).
17 Petrie and Quibell, Naqada and Ballas, 46; see also Brunton,
Mostagedda, 88; Brunton, Matmar
Matmar, 20.
18 Petrie and Quibell, Naqada and Ballas, 28, pl. 62 (28).
19 Baumgartel, Cultures of Prehistoric Egypt 2, 63, and fig. 9 of the
present article.

2 CASAE 34/I
 RECURRENT THEMES IN THE ART OF THE PREDYNASTIC PERIOD

Reference has already been made to the human-headed tags from Naqada grave T 4
(Fig. 1 a) and N 271 (Fig. 1 b).20 Petrie considered the human-headed tags or 'mannikins'
to represent men with rudely indicated long, pointed beards.21 The human-headed ivory
tubes found in predynastic graves similarly show male faces with long, pointed beards, and
here the hairs of the beards are clearly indicated by incised lines (cf. Fig. 9 l).22 The human-
headed tags from Naqada T4 have circular shell eyes inlaid in black paste, like many of the
other mannikins do or originally did. Most of them also have some indication of ears.
In fact, a goodly number of human-headed tags were recovered from the graves at
Naqada.23 In the slate tag from N271, the breasts of the igure are also represented by
circular shell inlays (Fig. 1 b), while a bone tag from N1757 wears a necklace composed
of two rows of drill holes (Fig. 1 c).24 Two ivory and alabaster(?) igures from N1329 have
a pair of double lines at mid-height, which may indicate a belt or garment (Fig. 1 d). The
decoration of the other two mannikins from Naqada (Fig. 1 e-f) consists of groups of incised
horizontal or diagonal lines and, in the case of the latter mannikin, little edge notches at the
shoulders. Both igures are made from bone, a more readily workable material than stone,
which probably accounts for the more extensive decoration on the bone and ivory tags of
all categories than on slate ones. The former igure has diagonal lines on the chin, which
presumably represent a beard, while the latter is unusual in showing indications of hair.
Human-headed tags are rarer at other sites, but grave 2682 at Matmar yielded a set of
four, virtually identical, ivory tags (Fig. 1 g). Baumgartel thought the double lines beneath
the chins might indicate garments, but she was uncertain of the meaning of the three lines
on each side below the waists, although she felt the circle illed with black paste between
them might indicate the navels.25 On account of the narrow waist and skirt, Brunton
thought the igures might be female. Baumgartel, who also points to the rounded upper
parts, was convinced that this was so, but as Brunton also remarked the face seems to have a
pointed beard. Another probable human-headed tag (the head is lost) in ivory from grave
3075 at Matmar is even more densely covered with incised horizontal and diagonal lines
(Fig. 3 h). The overall effect is that of a cloak, but the impression may be illusory.26
In Matmar Cemetery 3000 Brunton found a bird-headed slate tag (Fig. 2 a) with a
rectangular body, two notches, and a groove at the bottom which demarcates a rounded
base.27 Its body is one with the middle piece of the tag, and from one corner of the top a
single bird’s head on a long neck protrudes. The slate tag is completely plain, but in another
tag from Matmar grave 3123 an eye is indicated (Fig. 2 b). Three bird-headed tags were
found in the latter grave, but of one only a small fragment remained, while another was

20 The sources for Figure 1 are the following: (a) Petrie and Quibell,
Naqada and Ballas, pl. 59 (2) (T 4); (b) Petrie and Quibell, Naqada and
Ballas, pl. 59 (4) (N 271); (c) Petrie and Quibell, Naqada and Ballas, pl.
59 (8a) (N 1757);(d) Petrie and Quibell, Naqada and Ballas, pl. 59 (3)
(N 1529); (e) Petrie and Quibell, Naqada and Ballas, pl. 59 (8) (N 276);
(f) Payne, Predynastic Egyptian Collection, 238, fig. 81, cat. no. 1961 (=
Petrie and Quibell, Naqada and Ballas, pl. 59 (10) (T 24); (g) Brunton,
Matmar, pl. 16 (19) (2682); (h) Brunton, Matmar, pl. 16 (20) (3075).
The number in parentheses after the individual citation represents
the number of the tomb or find spot where the object in question was
discovered. A prefixed letter is added only when there is the possibility
of confusion as, for instance, in the case of another cemetery with a
different designation at the same site.
It should be noted that in the plates of Naqada and Ballas Petrie and
Quibell generally provide only a single drawing of a particular object
type, even though more than one specimen was found; the latter are
indicated by tomb numbers alongside the drawing. This is the case,
for example, with our Figure 1 a, d-e.
21 W. M. F. Petrie, Prehistoric Egypt, BSA/ERA 23 (London, 1920), 7.
22 See Finkenstaedt, ZÄS 106, fig. 1. The examples shown in Petrie,
Prehistoric Egypt, pl. 1, are all purchased. The only detailed example
from an excavated context was found in a cache of objects from Town
Site 7 at Badari (Brunton and Caton-Thompson, Badarian Civilization,
pl. 53).
23 Petrie and Quibell, Naqada and Ballas, 45.
24 Baumgartel, Cultures of Prehistoric Egypt 2, 64.
25 Baumgartel, Cultures of Prehistoric Egypt 2, 64.
26 A number of protodynastic figures of women from the main
deposit at Hierakonpolis wear a cloak; see J. E. Quibell, Hierakonpolis,
I, ERA 4 (London, 1900), pls 9, 10. A cloak is also worn by Queen
Khamerernebty II in a statue from the Galarza tomb at Giza; see B.
S. Lesko, ‘Queen Khamerernebty and Her Sculpture’, in L. H. Lesko
(ed.), Ancient Egyptian and Mediterranean Studies in Memory of
William A.Ward (Providence, 1998), 155-159, figs 2 a, b.
27 The following are the sources for Figure 2: (a) Brunton, Matmar,
Matmar
pl. 16 (23) (3000); (b) Brunton, Matmar
Matmar, pl. 16 (21, 22) (3123); (c) E. R.
Ayrton and W. L. S. Loat, Pre-dynastic Cemetery at El Mahasna, EEF
31 (London, 1911),15-16, pl. 15 (2) (H 25).

2005 3
E. BROVARSKI

damaged.28 All three tags are made of ivory, and a pair of horizontal lines illed with black
paste bisect the intact igure, which also has edge notches at both sides of the body. The
damaged tag is missing the head and neck of the bird but, in addition to the horizontal lines
and edge notches, the body of the damaged bird is crossed by two diagonal lines (Fig. 2 b).
Baumgartel remarks that ivory tags with solitary bird tops are very rare, slate being
the more usual material.29 In fact, three ivory bird-topped tags derive from the rubbish
illing of grave H 25 at Mahasna (Fig. 2 c), although Baumgartel does not appear to have
recognized them as such. Ayrton and Loat were convinced that they represent ostriches.
All three are damaged, which may explain Baumgartel’s omission. They are all incised
with zigzag lines, as though in imitation of leather binding, and all three are notched at the
bottom. They were found with fragments of leather adhering to the notch.30
According to Baumgartel,31 tags like Fig. 3 a from Matmar grave 3133 irst appear in the
Naqada II period.32s She sees in tags like Fig. 3 k from Naqada grave 1646 the double-curved
horns and ears of the cow-goddess, although in this particular instance she admits that the
ears are treated rather fancifully, and look as if they have been tripled.33 Examples like our
Fig. 3 i and j with only one pair of projections might better have bolstered her argument.
There is, of course, no reason why the 'ears', if that is what they are, could not simply have
been mutiplied for decorative effect. It should be noted though that neither example has
inlaid eyes, while the tag of Fig. 3 i has three incised, diagonal lines which would be hard to
explain if the tag really represented an animal’s face.
Moreover, it is dificult to imagine which cow-goddess in particular Baumgartel had
in mind. The traditional iconography of the goddess Hathor, with the long horns of the
domesticated bovine and sun-disk is apparently irst attested in art of the Fourth Dynasty
(Fig. 4 b),34 whereas the face the sky-goddess Bat with incurved cow’s horns and ears
appears as early as the late predynastic period, for example, on a palette from Gerzeh,35 on
an archaic black-and-white porphyry bowl from Hierakonpolis,36 and again at the top of the
Narmer Palette (Fig. 5 c).37 However, a glance at Figs 4 and 5, will show that the horns of
the tags, if horns they really are, appear to be neither the long, outward curving horns of the
domesticated bovine38 or the heavy horns with tips turned inward of wild cattle.39
The 'horns' of Fig. 3 k instead resemble those of a hartebeest, as represented, for
instance, on the reverse of the smaller Hierakonpolis or Two-dog Palette (Fig. 6 a) or
on a Protodynastic cosmetic palette from Matmar (Fig. 6 b).40 The resemblance caused
28 Brunton, Matmar
Matmar, 16. (l) Petrie and Quibell, Naqada and Ballas, pl. 59 (9) (T 24); (m) Petrie,
29 Baumgartel, Cultures of Prehistoric Egypt 2, 65. She mentions Prehistoric Egypt, pl. 44 (103 N); (n) Petrie and Quibell, Naqada and
two bird-headed slate tags from Naqada 1590 and a set of three from Ballas, pl. 62 (43) (N 1675).
Naqada 1781. One of the slate tags from grave 1781 is drawn in Petrie 34 H. G. Fischer, ‘The Cult and Nome of the Goddess Bat’, JARCE
and Quibell, Naqada and Ballas, pl. 64 (90). Petrie, Prehistoric Egypt, 1 (1962), 12 and n. 35.
pl. 44 (102P) illustrates a tag from N 146. 35 W. M. F. Petrie, Ceremonial Slate Palettes, BSAE 66 (A) (London,
30 Ayrton and Loat, Pre-dynastic Cemetery of El Mahasna, 15-16, 1953): pl. B (5).
pl. 16 (2). 36 A. J. Arkell, ‘An Archaic Representation of Hathor’, JEA 41
31 Baumgartel, Cultures of Prehistoric Egypt 2, 86. (1955), 125-126; A. J. Arkell, ‘An Archaic Representation of Hathor’,
32 A pair of slate tags have also been found at Diospolis Parva (W. JEA 44 (1958), 5; E. M. Burgess and A. J. Arkell, ‘The Reconstruction
M. F. Petrie, Diospolis Parva: the Cemeteries of Abadiyeh and Hu of the Hathor Bowl’, JEA 44 (1985), 6-11, pls 8-9.
(London, 1901), pl. 12 (39-40)). For a bone tag from Alawniyeh grave 37 Petrie, Ceremonial Slate Palettes, pls J-K. By the time of the
229, see J. Garstang, Mahâsna and Bêt Khallâf Khallâf, ERA 7 (London, Narmer Palette, if not earlier, the goddess Bat had acquired a human
1903), 5, pl. 4. face.
33 The sources for Figure 3 are: (a) Brunton, MatmarMatmar, pl. 16 (10) 38 The sources for Figure 4 are: (a) H. Junker, Giza V (Vienna and
(3133); (b) Petrie and Quibell, Naqada and Ballas, pl. 62 (42) (1251, Leipzig, 1941), fig.19; (b) B. V. Bothmer, ‘Notes on the Mycerinus
1757); (c) Petrie, Prehistoric Egypt, pls 44 (103 J), 45 (2); (d) Brunton Triad’, BMFA 48, no. 271 (February, 1950), 16, fig. 8 [revised]).
and Caton-Thompson, Badarian Civilisation, pl. 53 (49) (3759 x 3); 39 The sources for Figure 5 follow: (a) B. J. Kemp, Ancient Egypt:
(e) Brunton, Matmar
Matmar, pl. 16 (12) (2696); (f) Petrie, Prehistoric Egypt, Anatomy of a Civilization (London and New York, 1991), fig. 14, left
pl. 44 (103 H), 45 (4); (g) Petrie and Quibell, Naqada and Ballas, pl. (revised) (Smaller Hierakonpolis or Two Dog Palette) (Redrawn by K.
62 (38) (149); (h) Petrie, Diospolis Parva, pl. 10 (U 104) (i) Petrie and Johnston); (b) W. B. Emery, Archaic Egypt, A Pelican Book (Baltimore,
Quibell, Naqada and Ballas, pl. 62 (40) (1348); (j) Petrie, Diospolis 1961), fig. 4; (c) Emery, Archaic Egypt, fig. 4.
Parva, pl. 12 (42) (B 414); (k) Petrie, Prehistoric Egypt, pls 44 (103 T), 40 The sources for Fig. 6 are the following: (a) Kemp, Ancient Egypt,
45 (3) (= Petrie and Quibell, Naqada and Ballas, pl. 44 (89)) (N 1646); fig. 14, left (Redrawn by K. Johnston) (b); Brunton, Matmar
Matmar, pl. 22 (28).

4 CASAE 34/I
 RECURRENT THEMES IN THE ART OF THE PREDYNASTIC PERIOD

Brunton and Caton-Thompson to refer to the tags illustrated in Fig. 3 d and e as 'hartebeest
amulets'.41 Brunton thought the eyes inlaid with shell beads in a black paste setting show
clearly that the head of a horned antelope is represented, to be confused at a later date with
the so-called 'double birds', like Fig. 3 a.42 He believed that, when a bird is intended, an eye
is added at the top. In fact, none of the tags in Fig. 3 has an eye added at the top, unless one
elects to single out the topmost drill holes in the tag from Naqada 1348 (Fig. 3 h) as eyes,
which seems implausible. To my knowledge, the only tag with an eye at the top, is the bird-
headed tag in Fig. 2 b. The other solitary bird-headed tags in Fig. 2 likewise lack eyes. It is
possible that Brunton had in mind the birds’ heads of the ‘double-bird’ palettes, which do
indeed often have inlaid shell eyes (see e.g. Fig. 20).
Modern scholarship appears to favor the identiication of the ornament at the top of the
tags in Fig. 3 as birds looking in two different directions rather than the the horns and ears
of the cow-goddess or a hartebeest amulet.43 The derivation of this type of tag can readily
be imagined in comparing the outline of the single bird-headed tag in Fig. 2 a to the tag with
back-to-back-birds in Fig. 3 a. In essence the addorsed birds represent two solitary bird-
headed tags placed back to back with their bodies melded together.
Circumstantial evidence in favor of the identiication as addorsed birds comes from
two sources. The irst is the tag in Fig. 3 l which show a vertical excrescence between the
two birds.44 The excrescence is reminiscent of the grooved and perforated excrescence that
appears in the middle of the back of the 'swimming-bird' or 'anchor-bird' tags (Fig. 10 a-c).
The 'anchor-bird' palettes again show two birds back-to-back, and the predynastic craftsman
must have had these in mind when he transferred the design in toto to the tag, where his
intent would have made sense only if the ornamented tops of the other tags also depicted
birds, not animal horns. Something very similar is evident in the comb of Fig. 14 j.
The other evidence derives from the bone and ivory combs, a subject to which we will
return below. In the case of the combs, it is more apparent that the ornamented tops do
actually represent birds, at least originally.
The addorsed tags in slate are usually plain (Fig. 3 a-c, j-k, m), although, as previously
mentioned, they may on occasion be inlaid with ostrich-shell beads ixed in black paste
(Fig. 3 d-e, f?) or adorned with drill holes (Fig. 3 h). The shape of the body of the tags
varies considerably and can be nearly square (Fig. 3 k), rectangular (Fig. 3 a, d, j, l),
trapezoidal and wider at the top (Fi. 3 c) or at the bottom (Fig. 3 b, e ?, g) or even curved
(Fig. 3 f, h-i).
Two tags are taller and slimmer than average (Fig. 3 g and l) and bear considerably
more incised decoration than is normally the case with the slate tags. This is probably
explained by the fact that the irst is made from ivory and the second from bone, more
tractable materials than slate. The tag of Fig. 3 e is also carved from ivory and is again more
elaborately decorated than the slate tags.
In several tags there is what Petrie called a 'base' or 'stages' beneath the horns (Fig. 3
j-k).45 These projections are actually formed by deep edge notches and are one or three
in number.
In certain of the slate tags one or more protuberances are visible between the addorsed
birds. In one unprovenanced tag, this element is triangular (Fig. 3 m). In a greater number

41 Brunton and Caton-Thompson, Badarian Civilisation, 59.
42 Brunton, Matmar
Matmar, 20.
43 See e.g. W. Needler, Predynastic and Archaic Egypt in the Brooklyn
Museum (Brooklyn, 1984), 320, fig. on p. 321, cat. no. 252; Payne,
Predynastic Egyptian Collection, 240, fig. 82, cat. nos 1986-1993.
44 See also below, 22-23. Baumgartel, Cultures of Prehistoric Egypt
2, 64, thinks this is an image of the cow-goddess.
45 Petrie, Prehistoric Egypt, 39.

2005 5
E. BROVARSKI

of tags, the protruberances are rounded on top.46 A tag from Naqada grave 1675 has a single
such protuberance between the birds (Fig. 7 a). Fig. 7 d likewise has one protuberance, but
the other tags have or originally had multiple protuberances. In an example from Naqada
grave 1861, the middle part of the tag is inlaid with two shell-beads (Fig. 7 c). The two
surviving protruberances of this tag appear to be square instead of rounded. In most of
the tags, one or both of the addorsed birds is broken off. Those drawn in Fig. 7 a-b and d-e
preserve one of the birds, while the beak of both birds is lost in the tag of Fig. 7 h. In the tag
from Naqada illustrated in Fig. 7 d, the protuberance is pierced and at one time presumably
held a circular shell bead inlaid in black paste.47 This is deinitely the case with a purchased
example in Berlin which has four protruberances with inlaid shell-bead decoration (Fig.
7 e). The tag from El Amra grave a16 (Fig. 7 g) in all likelihood represents an additional
example of the category of tag under discussion, although the addorsed birds are broken
off and the protruberances are greatly multiplied. If it is indeed a member of the class,
as seems likely, it is a much more elaborate occurrence, with each of the protruberances
pierced and inlaid with a circular shell bead (three have fallen out) plus an entire additional
row of bead inlays below. In the tag in Lyon (Fig. 7 h), each of three protruberances has a
pair of shell 'eyes'. A very fragmentary example found by Reisner in Nubia preserves two
pierced protruberances, but clearly possessed a larger number originally (Fig. 7 f). The left
edge of this piece is preserved and appears to be curved, like the sides of the Lyon tag or,
for that matter, the sides of the tag in Fig. 7 a.
Another category of tags in all likelihood shows the incurved horns and ears of a wild
bull or cow, seen from the front. The horns on these tags are inward curving, like those of
the wild cattle in Fig. 5. Moreover, the elements 'jutting out' below the horns in Fig. 8 a-b,
f actually look somewhat like ears, though this is certainly not the case with the rigidly
horizontal projections in two other tags (Fig. 8 d, g).48
Three of the eight tags are without decoration of any sort (Fig. 8 a, e, f).49 The tag of Fig. 8 b,
one of an identical pair of made of limestone, exhibits three drill holes which may originally
have been inset with circular shell beads.50 This tag and the damaged tag drawn in Fig. 8 d lack
either a suspension hole or a notched groove. In the tag of Fig. 8 b, however, a leather thong
could have been wrapped around what appears to be a shallow groove just above the drill
holes (not visible in the drawing). The tag of Fig. 8 g, which is made of 'noble serpentine', again
lacks a notched groove and is, moreover, unusual in having quite a large suspension hole.
The tag of Fig. 8 d is made of ivory and is decorated with incised black-illed zigzag
lines.51 The horns of the limestone tag of Fig. 8 c are covered with a series of small drill holes,
while Fig. 8 e (unknown material) bears a pattern that resembles the cross of St. Andrew.
Unlike the so-called 'hartebeests' of Fig. 3 d-e, none of these tags have inlaid shell eyes.
Even though eyes are lacking, it is likely that these tags do symbolize a wild bull, as an early
embodiment of rulership or kingship, or alternatively the sky-goddess Bat.

46 The sources for Figure 7 are the following: (a) Payne, Predynastic
Egyptian Collection, 240, fig. 82, no. 1992 (= Petrie and Quibell,
Naqada and Ballas, pl. 62 (43)) (N 1675); (b) Payne, Predynastic
Egyptian Collection, 240, fig. 82, cat. no. 1993 (purchased); (c) Payne,
Predynastic Egyptian Collection, 241, fig. 83, cat. no. 1998 (= Petrie
and Quibell, Naqada and Ballas, pl. 62 (41)) (N 1861); (d) Petrie,
Prehistoric Egypt, pls 44 (103 Q), 45 (6) (N 1681 ?); (e) Ägyptisches
Museum Berlin (Berlin, 1967), 11, cat. no. 59 (purchased) (drawn by
Kea Johnston) (f) G. A. Reisner, The Archaeological Survey of Nubia:
Report for 1907-1908, I (Cairo, 1910), pl. 63 a (9); (g) MacIver and
Mace, El Amrah and Abydos, 19, pl. 10 (7) (a 16) (drawn by Kea
Johnston); (h) L’Egypte avant les Pyramides: 4th millénaire, exhibition
catalogue (Paris, 1973), 46, 60, fig. 54.
47 Cf. Brunton, Mostagedda, pl. 43 (14).
48 See Brunton, Mostagedda, 87.
49 The sources for Fig. 8 follow: (a) Petrie, Prehistoric Egypt, 23, pl.
44 (104 G), 461(9) (El Amrah a 26); (b) Petrie, Prehistoric Egypt, 8, pl.
44 (104 D), 461(8) (El Amrah b 220); (c) Petrie and Quibell, Naqada
and Ballas, pl. 62 (37) (N 149); (d) Payne, Predynastic Egyptian
Collection, 240, fig. 82, no. 1996 (= Petrie, Diospolis Parva, 33, pl. 5)
(Abadiyeh B 102); (e) Petrie, Prehistoric Egypt, 8, pl. 44 (104 L), 46
(20) (provenance unknown ?); (f) Petrie, Prehistoric Egypt, pl. 23 (6)
(N 632); (g) Petrie, Diospolis Parva, pl. 10 (12) (Hu U 119).
50 See the photograph in Petrie, Prehistoric Egypt, pl. 46 (18).
51 Payne, Predynastic Egyptian Collection , 240, fig. 82, no. 1996.

6 CASAE 34/I
 RECURRENT THEMES IN THE ART OF THE PREDYNASTIC PERIOD

The extraordinary tag illustrated in Fig. 8 h is unique in combining the horns of the wild
bovine with addorsed birds or, just possibly, hartebeest horns, a question we shall return to
below. Otherwise, a series of edge notches ornaments the sides.
In contrast to the preceding types of tags, the categories of tags that follow would have
hung the right way up. The ivory tags in the form of lat, curved tusks constitute the irst of
these categories (Fig. 9 a-d).52 The lat tusks have notches, generally a groove round the top,
and are occasionally pierced at the top for suspension.53 They are decorated with incised,
black-illed designs suggestive of leather bindings and also sometimes with edge notches.
Those illustrated in Fig. 9 are all from Naqada, but this category is also well represented at
a number of other sites.54
Petrie was of the opinion that the lat tusks derived from the large class of hollow tusks,
pierced by holes round their tops through which leather thongs were passed that secured
the leather covers which closed the tusks. The leather covers were to protect the contents
of malachite or resin used in making up green eyepaint.55 The earliest tusks, from the
Badarian period, are plain, as tusks of the Amratian and Gerzean periods may also be,56 but
the hollow tusks of these later periods are often decorated with incised designs suggestive
of a wrapping of leather thongs, like Fig. 9 e, from Naqada grave N 271.57 So Petrie may
have been right in his conjecture.
Clearly related to the curved tusks are straighter dentiform or tooth-like tags made from
ivory or bone (Fig. 9 f-h). The dentiform tags may be plain or they may bear incised binding
(Fig. 9 f) or more rarely braiding designs (Fig. 9 g). Then again, they may be decorated with
horizontal lines or edge notches (Fig. 9 h).
Three dentiform tags from Badari town group 3165, a large pot containing a collection
of miscellaneous objects (including a human-headed ivory tube, two lat tusks, and
three ordinary dentiform tags) are unique in having a lat knob at the pointed end (Fig.
9 h).58 Brunton and Caton-Thompson thought that the ancestors of all the tusks were
anthropomorphic and that the knob is a debased human head.59 They were also of the
opinion that the zigzags on the dentiform tags might just possibly derive from the hair and
beard of human-headed ivory tubes like those illustrated by Petrie in Prehistoric Egypt, pl. 1
(cf. our Fig. 9 l from N 3165), a derivation that seems improbable, since the incised binding
or braiding designs of the lat tusks and dentiform tags are more likely derived from the
leather thongs or binding of the various categories or objects, as we have already seen.
Petrie thought the round, solid stone pegs with a groove round the top (Fig. 9 i) were
stoppers for plugging water-skins.60 These pegs are made of pink limestone,61 white
52 Petrie believed that the tusks spanned the entire Amratian and Badarian Civilisation, pl. 53 (16) (pot 3165).
Gerzean Periods. W. Kaiser, ‘Zur inneren Chronoloie der Naqadakultur’, 54 E. g. Petrie, Diospolis Parva, pl. 5 (B 102); Ayrton and Loat,
Archeologica Geographica 6 (1957), pl. 21, likewise shows both ivory Predynastic Cemetery at El Mahasna, pl. 15 (H 18, H 25), 17 (H
tubes and pendant tusks in the Amratian and early Gerzean (Stufe IIa) 41); Brunton and Caton-Thompson, Badarian Civilisation, pls 47 (pot
periods. On the other hand, Finkenstaedt, ZÄS 106, 51ff., esp. 54, is 3165), 48 (3802), 53 (19) (1787 x 2).
quite categorical in assigning all decorated tusks of whatever type 55 Petrie, Prehistoric Egypt, 33; see also Brunton, Mostagedda, 88;
(face or faceless variety; pendant type with incised decoration recalling Finkenstaedt, ZÄS 106, 54.
leather binding; the utilitarian tubes decorated in hatched lines similar to 56 See Brunton and Caton-Thompson, Badarian Civilisation, 59;
designs on the pendants tusks) to the Gerzean subphase. Brunton, Mostagedda, pl. 42 (24).
53 The sources for Fig. 9 are: (a) Petrie and Quibell, Naqada and 57 Baumgartel, Cultures of Prehistoric Egypt 2, 57. For hollow tusks
Ballas, pl. 62 (45) (1419); (b) Petrie and Quibell, Naqada and Ballas, of Naqada I and II, see e.g. Brunton, Mostagedda, pl. 42 (26, 34).
pl. 62 (46) (1497); (c) Petrie and Quibell, Naqada and Ballas, pl. 62 58 Brunton and Caton-Thompson, Badarian Civilisation, 45-46, 59,
(32) (1497); (d) Petrie and Quibell, Naqada and Ballas, pl. 62 (29) pl. 47 (6).
(108); (e) Petrie and Quibell, Naqada and Ballas, pl. 62 (39) (1732); (f) 59 Brunton and Caton-Thompson, Badarian Civilisation, 59, pl. 47
Petrie and Quibell, Naqada and Ballas, pl. 62 (28) (1409); (g) Brunton, (6); Brunton, Matmar, 20.
Matmar, pl. 16 (25) (5106); (h) Brunton and Caton-Thompson,
Matmar 60 Petrie, Prehistoric Egypt, 34; see also Brunton, Matmar
Matmar, 19
Badarian Civilisation, pl. 47 (3165) (drawn by Kea Johnston); (i) (stoppers); Brunton, Mostagedda, 88.
Brunton, Mostagedda, pl. 42 (24) (1800 x 2); (j) Petrie and Quibell, 61 Brunton and Caton-Thompson, Badarian Civilisation, 59, pls 54
Naqada and Ballas, pl. 62 (34) (226); (k) Petrie and Quibell, Naqada (6), 58 (5) (area 3200); Brunton, Mostagedda, 88, pl. 42 (24) (grave
and Ballas, pl. 62 (35) (108); (l) Brunton and Caton-Thompson, 1800).

2005 7
E. BROVARSKI

limestone,62 or alabaster.63 Petrie believed he could trace an evolution from early cone-
shaped tags to later long cylindical tags.64
Unlike the lat ivory or bone dentiform tags, the round stone pegs are never decorated.
Nevertheless, in terms of function, it has already been pointed out that two limestone pegs
formed part of the set of tags discovered in grave a 88 at El Amrah (Plate 1). Pegs have also
been found together with other kinds of tags in graves at El Armrah65 and at Abadiyeh,66 so
they seemed to have served pretty much the same purpose as the other classes of tags.
The birds represented in another form of double-bird palette or tag are shown whole,
the body as well as the heads.67 Petrie included these crescent-shaped objects under
the heading 'magic slates'.68 Two different types occur. The irst has a single head and
accordingly represents a solitary bird, head and tail (Fig. 10 a).69 The second type features
two heads looking in different directions (Fig. 10 b). To distinguish the two categories, we
will designate the irst 'swimming bird' and the second 'anchor-bird'.70
The heads in both the swimming-and anchor-bird palettes originally had shell bead eyes
inlaid in black paste, although these are sometimes missing. The objects are small for palettes
and do not really have enough room for the grinding of malachite.71 In addition, the birds carry
on their backs excrescenses that are notched and perforated with a suspension hole, like many
of the tags in Figs 1-3, 7-9. Consequently, it seems reasonable to categorize them as tags also.
Swimming-bird72 and anchor-bird73 tags alike were put into graves in pairs. Where it
was possible to identify the sex of the skeletons, they were all female. Both swimming-bird
and anchor-bird tags were found in graves along with other categories of tags.74
The so-called 'amuletic combs' are carved from ivory, bone, and pink limestone (Fig. 11
a-c).75 The horizontal line(s) which frequently separate the top of the comb from the bottom
and the notches or incised lines that form the 'tines' are generally illed with black paste.
The combs are notched and perforated for suspension at the top and, in consequence,
like the lat tusks, dentiform tags, the 'plugs', and the swimming- and anchor-bird tags,
would have hung the right way up.76 Two comb amulets found at Matmar were both in
female graves, as were two others discovered at Qau and one at Hu, while another with an
unsexed body was also found at Hu.77 Brunton thought it hardly coincidental that in all six
62 Brunton and Caton-Thompson, Badarian Civilisation, 51, 59 23) (Qau 136); Brunton, MatmarMatmar,16, pls 10, 15 (35). Another anchor-
(grave 3828). bird tag was found in Hemamieh village at locus1967; see Brunton and
63 Brunton, Matmar
Matmar, 19, pl. 16 (31-35). Caton-Thompson, Badarian Civilization, pls. 31, 52 (21).
64 See Petrie, Prehistoric Egypt, 34, pl. 33 (42-52). 74 We will not deal in the present article with the type of palette
65 MacIver and Mace, El Amrah and Abydos, 17 (a 89); 18 (a 92), pl. which Petrie (Prehistoric Egypt, 37) called the ‘pelta’ or the possible
7 (center); 18-19 (b 68). relationship of this type of palette to swimming- and anchor-bird
66 Petrie, Disopolis Parva, 33, pl. 5 (B 102); pl. 6 (B 109). palettes. It is our hope to do so in the near future.
67 See Baumgartel, Cultures of Prehistoric Egypt 2, 86-87. 75 Petrie, Prehistoric Egypt, 30, included these combs along with
68 Petrie, Prehistoric Egypt, 38-39. functional combs. On the other hand, Baumgartel, Cultures of Prehistoric
69 Brunton, Matmar
Matmar, pl. 15 (35-37) is the source for Figure 10 a-c. Egypt 2, 54, very much doubts that these objects represent combs.
70 The term ‘anchor-bird’ is after Petrie and Quibell, Naqada and 76 The sources for Fig. 11 are the following: (a) Brunton and Caton-
Ballas, 43, and Finketstaedt, ZÄS 106 (1979), 58. Baumgartel, Thompson, Badarian Civilization, pl. 53 (43) (136); (b) Brunton and
Cultures of Prehistoric Egypt 2, 86, thinks both types developed from Caton-Thompson, Badarian Civilization, pl. 53 [44] (3844) (c) MacIver
what she calls ‘the swimming bird’. and Mace El Amrah and Abydos, 22, 41 (b63), pl. 12 (8).
71 Finkenstaedt, ZÄS 106 (1979), 58, pace Baumgartel, Cultures of 77 Brunton and Caton-Thompson, Badarian Civilization, pls 34 (6), 53
Prehistoric Egypt 2, 87. (43, 44); Brunton, Matmar
Matmar, pls. 8, 16 (15), 17 (61), p. 13 (=Ägyptisches
72 Petrie, Diospolis Parva, 32, pls 6,12 (35-36) (B 51); 33, pl.12 Museum Berlin, 10, cat. no. 39-41) (2644); 10, 16 (16), 17 (72), p. 16
(37-38) (B 109); Brunton and Caton-Thompson, Badarian Civilization, (3123 [x 3]); Petrie Diospolis Parva, 33, pl. 6, (B 51,109); cf. Matmar,
Matmar
52, pls 33, 52 (20) (Badari 3844); Brunton, Matmar
Matmar, pls 8, 15 (36) 20. The amuletic comb from grave B 109 at Hu was found together with a
(2644). For other examples found loose in cemeteries, see Brunton, curious little palette in the form of a ruminant, a dentifom tag, and a stone
Mostagedda, 71, pl. 43; R. Mond and O. H. Meyers, Cemeteries of plug. Yet another example from Badari (Brunton and Caton-Thompson,
Armant I (London, 1937), pl. 15. Badarian Civilization, pl. 47) came from town group 3165, on which see
73 Petrie, Prehistoric Egypt, pls. 44 (101H), 45 (21) (= E. J. Baumgartel, page 15 above. Petrie and Quibell illustrate only one of the amuletic
Petrie’s Naqada Excavation: A Supplement, (London, 1970), 43; combs from Naqada in Naqada and Ballas, pl. 63 (51) (N 325), although
Finkenstaedt, ZÄS 106 (1979), fig. 4 (N 1419); Petrie, Prehistoric Egypt, they give the numbers of three others from graves N1413, N1875, Q 185.
pl. 44 (101G) (=Baumgartel, Naqada Supplement, 60) (N 1865); pl. 44 For the examples from Naqada, see Baumgartel, Naqada Supplement, 14
(101S) (N 185) (pace Baumgartel, Naqada Supplement, 8); Brunton (N 325), 42 (N 1413 = Petrie, Prehistoric Egypt, 30, pl. 30 (11); 61 (N 1875 =
and Caton-Thompson, Badarian Civilization, p. 49, pls 30, pl. 52 (22, Payne, Predynastic Egyptian Collection, 233, fig. 78, cat. no. 1929).

8 CASAE 34/I
 RECURRENT THEMES IN THE ART OF THE PREDYNASTIC PERIOD

graves the amuletic combs were found together with a pair of 'amuletic bird palettes'. 78 It
is possible that Brunton was relying on his memory here, but amuletic combs were indeed
found together with swimming-bird tags in Abadiyeh B 109, Badari 3844, and Matmar
2644, as well as with three solitary bird tags in ivory in Badari grave 3123 (see Fig. 3 b).79
An amuletic comb of a slightly different form (Fig. 11 c), being square rather than wide,
was found in El Amrah grave b63 together with an anchor-bird tag. The body in this last
grave was also female. Unfortunately, the relationship between the amuletic combs and
the swimming-bird tags is no clearer today than when Brunton made his observation many
years ago.
The little lat tags of hippopotami (Fig. 12) have a circular or rectangular, grooved, and
sometimes perforated knob on the back for suspension.80 Carved from ivory, slate or pink
limestone, they may have served a purpose similar to the tags already discussed, since
they to could be tied together by means of the knobs on their backs.81 On the other hand,
to my knowledge, no hippoppotamus tags appear to have been found in association with
other types of tags.82 The stone examples are quite plain, but the ivory hippopotamus of
Fig. 12 b is decorated with incised diagonal lines illed with black paint lines. If not purely
decorative, these lines may represent folds of lesh.
The tags are unquestionably fascinating in themselves. Nevertheless, it is also of
considerable interest that many of the objets de toilette of the predynastic period---in
particular combs, hairpins, and cosmetic palettes---exhibit the same ornamental motifs that
are characteristic of the different categories of tags.
The human-head is less frequently depicted elsewhere than some of the other motifs
that appear at the tops of the ornamented tags. Even so the head does occur on two ivory
and bone combs from Naqada graves 1561 and 268 (Fig. 13 a-b).83 The long teeth of the irst
of these combs is missing and, due to this and the rows of circular holes that undoubtedly
represent necklaces, it resembles even more closely the tag illustrated in Fig. 1 c.
The human-head is not attested on hair-pins. However, a round pin in bone from
Mostagedda grave 1854 (Fig. 19 a) shows a simpliied human igure with both arms
raised.84
A human head does appear at the top of a rhomboidal cosmetic palette in University
College London (Fig. 13 c).85 Damage at both shoulders suggests something was broken
away, conceivably arms. Regrettably, this was the only human igure on a palette known to
Petrie and, since he makes no mention of a provenience, it may have been purchased. This
at least raises the specter of its being a forgery.
Apart from the class of objets de toilette, a human head is found on a reddish brown
limestone vase from Abydos grave 2 (Fig. 13 d). Petrie provides an illustration of a
fragmentary white limestone vase of the same sort, again apparently without provenience .86

78 Brunton, Matmar
Matmar, 20.
79 See Petrie Diospolis Parva, 33, pl. 12 (37-38) (B 109 x 2); Brunton
and Caton-Thompson, Badarian Civilization, 52, pl. 52 (20) (3844 x 2);
Brunton, Matmar
Matmar, pls 15 (36), 16 (15), 17 (16) (2644 x 2).
80 The sources for Figure 12 are: (a) Payne, Predynastic Egyptian
Collection, 239, fig. 82, cat. no. 1977 (= Petrie, Diospolis Parva, 33, pl.
5) (B 101); (b) Brunton and Caton-Thompson, Badarian Civilisation,
pl. 53 (42) (3823 x 3).
81 Baumgartel, Cultures of Prehistoric Egypt 2, 65.
82 Petrie, Prehistoric Egypt, 12, pl. 9 (28-30); Brunton and Caton-
Thompson, Badarian Civilization, 59, pls 34 (4), 53 (42) (grave 3823
x 3); Petrie, Diospolis Parva, 33, pl. 5, (B 101 x 2); A. M. Lythgoe
and D. Dunham, Naga-ed-Dêr IV: The Predynastic Cemetery
N 7000, University of California Publications, Egyptian Archaeology 7
(Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1965), 69-70, fig. 27 j (7119).
83 Petrie and Quibell, Naqada and Ballas, pl. 59 (1, 5). Both combs
are now in Oxford; see Payne, Predynastic Egyptian Collection, 230,
fig. 77, cat. nos.1900, 1901.
84 Baumgartel, Cultures of Prehistoric Egypt 2, 47, is certainly
correct in rejecting Brunton’s identification of a human figure in ivory
from Mostagedda grave 1832 as a hairpin (Mostagedda, 47, pl. 42
(61)) and in identifying it instead as a servant figure.
85 Petrie, Prehistoric Egypt, 37, pl. 43 (1). For a photograph, see
Capart, Primitive Art, fig. 52.
86 Petrie, Prehistoric Egypt, pl. 40 (128). For the cemetery in
question, see MacIver and Mace, El Amrah and Abydos, 53-54. The
vase without provenance is published in Petrie, Prehistoric Egypt, pl.
40 (127).

2005 9
E. BROVARSKI

Birds adorn the top of combs from the Badarian period onwards.87 The ornamentation
of Amratian and Gerzean combs includes well-modelled, long-necked birds, which are
probably ostriches (Fig. 14 a-c), as is also the case with the bird-headed tags of Fig. 2 a-c.88
Interestingly, the disembodied bird-head of the tags drawn in Fig. 2 a-b also appears in one
comb with a nearly square body from Naqada grave 260 (Fig. 14 d). As in the tag, a solitary
bird’s head on a long neck protrudes from one corner of the comb.89
The ornamented top of several of the combs argues that the device which has been
identiied alternatively as 'addorsed birds' or 'the ears and horns of the cow-goddess' may
indeed have represented birds in origin. Fig. 14 e clearly showed two birds at the top of
forked excrescences. Today one of the birds is lost, but there can be little doubt about the
original design, as Petrie recognized. The ornaments at the top of the combs in Fig. 14 f-
g resemble the surviving bird closely, with the thickness of the body clearly shown, and it
unlikely that they represent horns.90 Then again, there is the comb of Fig. 14 j which has a
tall, narrow and notched excresence between the birds, so that the whole is reminiscent of
the 'anchor- bird' palettes. We have previously remarked on this feature in connection with
one of the tags, where the same ornament occurs (Fig. 3 l).
In other instances as well, the correspondence between the ornamented tops of the tags
and the combs is remarkably close. For example, the triangular projection between the
addorsed birds on the tag in Fig. 3 m is also apparent in the comb of Fig. 14 i. For that
matter, at least one comb (Fig. 15 a) probably bore the motif of rounded protruberances
between addorsed birds that is visible on several tags (Fig. 7).91 As not infrequently with
such tags, in this instance the birds are broken off.92
As is the case with certain of the other tags (Fig. 3 j-k; Fig. 7 a, d), there are a number
of combs that exhibit 'stages' beneath the birds. These paired projections vary in number
from one to three (Fig. 14 f, h; Fig. 16 a-c). Noteworthy is the pair of deep edge projections
beneath the well-modelled bird in Fig. 14 c. Their presence in this particular comb once more
suggests that these projections did not represent ears, at least in origin. In fact, the rearward
projecting legs of the ostrich in Fig. 14 b raise the possibilty that combs like this were the
prototype of the horizontal projections, which were then paired for reasons of symmetry.
The conventional rendering of the addorsed birds is evident in Fig. 16 a.93 The motif of
the addorsed birds comes into its own in the combs, and a number of what Petrie referred
to as 'multiple bird tops' were created (Fig. 15 c, e).94 The most extravagant example, from
Gebel el-Tarif, now in Cairo (Fig. 15 e), has no less than four pairs of addorsed birds topped
off by a gazelle. The comb is a veritable 'tour de force' and a tribute to both the virtuosity
and imagination of the predynastic artist.
The Gebel el-Tarif comb is interesting from another perspective. The outline of the
lyre-shaped horns of the gazelle at the top of the comb differs markedly from that of the
87 See Baumgartel, Cultures of Prehistoric Egypt 2, 47ff. long-toothed combs alone or with a pair of projections below; see
88 The following constitute the sources for Fig. 14: (a) Petrie, e.g. Reisner, Archaelogical Survey of Nubia, pl. 66 a (2); Payne,
Diospolis Parva, pl. 9 (21) (B 102); (b) Petrie and Quibell, Naqada Predynastic Egyptian Collection, 232, fig. 78, no. 1919 (= Petrie,
and Ballas, pl. 64 (85) (N 1815); (c) Petrie, Diospolis Parva, pl. 9 (24) Diospolis Parva, pl. 5 (B 101)); Petrie and Quibell, Naqada and Ballas,
(=Petrie, Prehistoric Egypt, pl. 29 (5)) (R 128 B); (d) Petrie and Quibell, pl. 64 (88) (N 1863).
Naqada and Ballas, pl. 63 (62) (260); (e) Petrie and Quibell, Naqada 92 The sources of the illustations in Figure 15 are the following: (a)
and Ballas, pl. 64 (86) (1503); (f) Petrie, Diospolis Parva, pl. 9 (22) (B Petrie and Quibell, Naqada and Ballas, pl. 64 (71) (293); (b) Brunton
102); (g) Petrie and Quibell, Naqada and Ballas, pl. 63 (56) (1497); and Caton-Thompson, Badarian Civilisation, pl. 52 (11) (3165).
(h) Lythgoe and Dunham, Naga-ed-Dêr IV IV, 87, fig. 35 G (7150); (i) 93 The following are the sources for Figure 16: (a) Brunton, Matmar,
Matmar
Brunton and Caton-Thompson, Badarian Civilisation, pl. 53 (31) pl. 16 (5) (2626); (b) Petrie, Prehistoric Egypt, pl. 29 (10) (150 ?); (c)
(3844); (j) Petrie and Quibell, Naqada and Ballas, pl. 63 (58) (1480). Petrie, Prehistoric Egypt, pl. 29 (8); (d) Petrie, Prehistoric Egypt, pl. 29
89 Possibly also Brunton, Mostagedda, pl. 42 (43). (9); (e) Quibell, Archaic Objects, 272, pl. 57 (14478).
90 Baumgartel, Cultures of Prehistoric Egypt 2, 52, acknowledges 94 Petrie, Prehistoric Egypt, 29. Figs 16 b-d were drawn by Richard
that the tops of the combs in Fig. 10 e and g represent birds. L. Cook.
91 The round-topped element also occurs as an ornament of

10 CASAE 34/I
 RECURRENT THEMES IN THE ART OF THE PREDYNASTIC PERIOD

paired elements below.95 Each of the latter possesses a short protrusion which is clearly
intended for the head and beak of a bird. The dissimilarity between the two components
very probably serves to resolve the conlict between the identiication of these ornaments
as addorsed birds and the 'ears and horns of the cow-goddess'. Even the 'horns' with the
down-turned tips of so-called 'hartebeest amulet' of Fig. 3 d are thereby clearly identiied as
head and neck of two back-to-back birds. On the other hand, the tips of the horns of the tag
in Fig. 3 e are not turned so sharply down and lack a deinite head and neck, so that this tag
may in fact represent a hartebeest.
The heads of the addorsed birds at the top of the comb in Fig. 16 d are broken off. The
silhouette below is curious. The projections look like a more organic rendering of ears (cf.
Fig. 18 c) than the stifly horizontal projections of Fig. 16 a-c or those on several of the tags
in Fig. 3. The silhouette is, in fact, reminiscent of the Bat-emblem of Upper Egyptian nome
8 as seen, for example, in one of the Mycerinus triads (Fig. 17 a), on the walls of Neuserre’s
sun-temple (Fig. 17 b) or on the White Chapel of Senusert I (Fig. 17 c),96 and it is conceivable
that this comb and the hairpin in Fig. 19 e provide early evidence for the existence of the
goddess. The hairpin comes from Naqada grave N 1678, which is dated by Petrie to the
Amratian or Gerzean periods (S.D. 31-56).97
Like the tags in Fig. 8, the tops of a number of combs depict the horns of a wild cow or
bull (Fig. 18 a-c).98 Whereas the irst two combs have a pair of deep edge notches, the third
has the same 'loppy' ears whose presence was commented upon in the last paragraph.
Addorsed birds with a single stage below also appear at the top of a round hairpin in Fig.
19 b.99 In three lat hairpins with addorsed birds at their tops, the number of projections is
greatly multiplied (Fig. 19 c-e). The silhouette of the hairpin drawn in Fig. 19 e resembles
that of the comb depicted in Fig. 16 d and may similarly represent an early instance of
the Bat symbol, even though the 'ears' here are the normal horizontal side notches. If the
hairpin indeed represents another occurrence of the Bat emblem, this could indicate that the
maker of this hairpin at least equated the two types of ears in his mind.
W. Kaiser illustrates a lat hairpin with the device of the inward curving horns of
the wild cow or bull (Fig. 19 f). Ears are lacking and the stages beneath the horns are
exceptionally curved rather than pointed. The stages of the hairpins in Fig. 19 d and e seem
to be intermediary between the sharply point and curved types of stages.
It may be worth mentioning in passing that Brunton questioned whether the broad
pointed pins, lat in cross-section, were hairpins at all, and not amulets or fetishes of some
kind. Moreover, while certain of the round pins were actually found in the hair of the
bodies to which they once belonged, this was not the case with the lat pins.100
Baumgartel thought that the tags or 'magical palettes' made of siltstone were copies in
miniature of the larger cosmetic palettes and come in no shapes peculiar to them alone. 101
She may well be right in this, one possible exception being the human-headed tags for which
the only known parallel is the purchased palette with a human-headed top (Fig. 13 c).

95 See D. J. Osborn and J. Osbornová, The Mammals of Ancient
Egypt (Warminster, 1998), 175. The artist has elected here, as in
most depictions of the hartebeest, to combine two lateral views of the
opposing horns; see Fig. 6 a-b and the illustrations provided in Osborn
and Osbornová, Mammals, figs 13-128/13-131.
96 Fig. 17 a-c is after P. Montet, Géographie de l’Égypte ancienne
2 (Paris,1961), 92.
97 Petrie, Prehistoric Egypt,, pl. 51.
98 The sources for Figure 18 are: (a) Petrie and Quibell, Naqada and
Ballas, pl. 63 (57) (1417); (b) Brunton, Mostagedda, pl. 42 (47) (320);
(c) Petrie and Quibell, Naqada and Ballas, pl. 64 (70) (259).
99 The sources for Fig. 19 are the following: (a) Brunton,
Mostagedda, pl. 42 (59) (1854); (b) Petrie, Diospolis Parva, pl. 10
(10) (U 262); (c) Petrie, Prehistoric Egypt, pl. 8 (20) (N 1293) (drawn
by Kea Johnston); (d) Brunton, Matmar
Matmar, pl. 16 (2) (2640); (e) Payne,
Predynastic Egyptian Collection, 229, fig. 77, cat. no. 1885; (f) Kaiser,
Archeologica Geographica 6 (1957), pl. 21.
100 Brunton, Mostagedda, 87; see also Baumgartel, Cultures of
Prehistoric Egypt 2, 47.
101 Baumgartel, Cultures of Prehistoric Egypt 2, 85; see also Capart,
Primitive Art, 85.

2005 11
E. BROVARSKI

As is the case with the tags of Fig. 2, as well as the combs of Fig. 14 a-c, the decoration
of some of the earlier cosmetic palettes includes long-necked birds, which once again are
probably to be identiied as ostriches. Petrie dated the palette from Abadiyeh tomb B 117
(Fig. 20 a) with a vaguely triangular part and a bird projecting from one of its corners to
the Amratian Period (S.D. 35),102 while Brunton assigned a somewhat similar palette from
Matmar tomb 2631 (Fig. 20 b) to early or middle Naqada II (S.D. 41-48).103
The form of the solitary bird-headed tag of Fig. 3 a and b or the comb of Fig. 14 e is
paralleled to some extent by cosmetic palettes of solitary bird-form.104 It is dificult to know
what species of bird is represented in many of these, including the example illustrated in
Fig. 20 c,105 although the longer neck and the shape of the body of others, like the palette
drawn in Fig. 20 d, which is also provided with legs, indicates that it is once again a question
of an ostrich. An even closer parallel to the bird-headed tag and the comb is provided by a
what is apparently a palette of unique form from Hu Cemetery U, with an oblong body and
a head projecting from one side (Fig. 20 e).
A closer correspondance between the slate tags and the cosmetic palettes occurs in the
case of the motif of the back-to-back birds found at the top of the rhombic palettes of the
early Gerzean period. Generally, the addorsed birds on these rhombic palettes are set
above a pair of projections, as is the case with Fig. 20 f.106 It has previously been noted in
discussing the tags that Baumgartel considered this type of ornamented top to symbolize
the 'ears and horns of the cow-goddess'. However, since the decorated tops do seem to
represent birds, it is likely that the projections are present simply for decorative purposes.
Indeed, they contibute to a more visually satisfying design than is the case with the palette
of Fig. 20 g, which omits the projections. On the other hand, it is conceivable that certain
predynastic artists, like the maker of the hairpin in Fig. 19 e, did now and again visualize a
single pair of the projections as ears.
The palette of Fig. 20 g inds a close counterpart in the late Gerzean palette from Tarkhan
illustrated in Fig. 20 j, in which the birds are separated from the plain part of the palette by
deep notches and are more readily recognizable as such, particularly when compared with
the addorsed birds at the top of another late Gerzean palette from Abadiyeh shown in Fig.
20 k. The resemblance between the decorated tops of the palettes in Fig. 20 f, k, and l again
indicates that the predynastic craftsman was well aware of the nature of the ornamented
tops of the rhombic palettes like Fig. 20 f and in general conceived of them as back-to-back
birds, not horns.
The incurved horns of the wild bovine which we have previously observed on tags,
combs, and hairpins, likewise ornament the tops of cosmetic palettes. In Fig. 20 h, they
appear above jutting ears like those in the tags of Fig. 8 a-b and f. Several examples of the
type of palette were found at Naqada and El Amrah.107 In another occurrence of the inward
curving horns, the jutting ears are replaced by horizontal projections (Fig. 20 i). 108 Worthy
of note are two drill holes below the same kind of projections, which probably once held
102 Baumgartel, Cultures of Prehistoric Egypt 2, 85; Petrie, Diospolis (outline completed); (k) Petrie, Tarkhan II, pl. 22 (241) (grave 753); (l)
Parva, 20, pls 3 and 11 (12). Petrie, Diospolis Parva, pl. 12 (33) (Abadiyeh H 21). Petrie, Corpus of
103 Brunton, Matmar
Matmar, pl. 15 (29). Slate Palettes, pl. 53 (23K) (Naqada 1480).
104 The sources for Figure 20 are the following: (a) Petrie, Diospolis 105 See Petrie, Corpus, pls 53 (22 a-24 R), 54 (24 U-26 H).
Parva, pl. 11 (12) (B 117); (b) Brunton, Matmar
Matmar, pl.15 (29); (c) Petrie, 106 See e.g. Petrie, Corpus of Slate Palettes, pl. 58 (91 T) (Mahasna
Corpus of Slate Palettes, pl. 53 (24 D) (= Petrie and Quibell, Naqada without tomb reference); Brunton, Mostagedda, pls. 34 (3); 43 (2);
and Ballas, pl. 47 (24) (177)((d) Capart, Primitive Art, fig. 59 (24) Needler, Predynastic and Archaic Egypt, 320, pl. 57, cat. no.252 (El
(=Petrie, Corpus of Slate Palettes, pl. 53 (23K) (Naqada 1480); (e) Ma’mariya).
Petrie, Diospolis Parva, pl. 12 (34); (f) Petrie, Prehistoric Egypt, pl. 107 See Petrie and Quibell, Naqada and Ballas, pl. 49 (92).
49 (91 T); (g) Petrie, Prehistoric Egypt, pl. 49 (91 U); (h) Petrie and 108 For other examples, see Brunton and Caton-Thompson, Badarian
Quibell, Naqada and Ballas, pl. 49 (92); (i) Quibell, Archaic Objects, Civilization, pl. 34 (3); Brunton, Mostagedda, pls 34 (3), 43 (2);
232, pl. 48 (CG 14236); (j) Petrie, Diospolis Parva, pl. 5 (B 102) Needler, Predynastic and Archaic Egypt, 320, pl. 57, cat. no. 252.

12 CASAE 34/I
 RECURRENT THEMES IN THE ART OF THE PREDYNASTIC PERIOD

egg-shell 'eyes', in a palette from El Amrah grave a 97.109 A rhombic palette with incurved
horns from Abadiyeh grace B 102 lacks projections and has what may be the horns of a wild
bull or cow on a standard in raised relief towards the top (Fig. 20 j).110
In examining the slate tags, we have seen that protuberances sometimes appears
between the addorsed birds. In one tag this element is triangular (Fig. 3 m), while in others
it is rounded (Fig. 7 a-b, d-g) or square (Fig. 7 c) at the top. Both the triangular and round-
topped protuberances likewise occur on combs (Fig. 14 i; Fig. 15 a). All three types of
protuberances are also found in the case of the cosmetic palettes (Fig. 15 b, c; Fig. 21 a).
Unexpected is the elaborately ornamented top of a rhombic palette from Badari town site
7 in which the median element is multiplied (Fig. 15 c). 111 This ornament is very similar to
that at the top of the tags in Fig. 7 and the comb in Fig. 15 a. It is dificult to be absolutely
certain that the same decoration is involved, because the terminal elements which would
have represented the addorsed birds are broken off, but it seems very likely that this was so.
The row of drill holes is unlikely to represent a necklace and is probably purely decorative.
The omission of the triangular element (what Petrie and Baumgartel refer to as a 'hump’)112
in palettes like Fig. 21 a or the rounded protuberance of Fig. 15 b could well have resulted in
the type of double-bird-head palette represented by Fig. 22 b.113 Similarly, the notching of a
triangular protuberance such as that in the palette of Fig. 21 a could have resulted in a palette
like that in Fig. 21 c.114 Ultimately this might have led to the type of double-bird-head palette
of the middle and late predynastic periods in which the heads of the bird are separated from
each other by a larger, deeply notched hump (Fig. 21 d) or by a squared off hump with or
without vertical incisions (Fig. 21 g-h).115 Petrie and Baumgartel suggest the deep notches
might represent feathers, which has a certain logic to it, and this could also be the case with
the incisions.116 It should be noted though that Petrie thought it more likely that the feathers
might more easily be degraded to a form like Fig. 21 e and that in turn to a notched block as
in Fig. 21 f, rather than vice versa, as we have suggested here. He had to admit, however,
that the examples of the squared off block are late in the history of the form.117
As Baumgartel observed, the makers of these different luxury objects realized early on
how much the silhouettes of the addorsed birds and the horns of the animals resembled
each other.118 The ornamented top of the comb in Fig. 22 a represents a dorcas gazelle with
its horns strongly curved backward and forward.119 The animal at the top of the comb in
Fig. 22 b is a apparently a hartebeest with the outward terminal curvatures of the horns
sharply deined, as in Fig. 6 a-b.120 On the other hand, the 'horns' of the curious creature
without head or legs at the top of the comb in Fig. 22 c, are provided with a bird’s head and
beak and are clearly not horns at all, but rather addorsed birds. The animal on this comb
may be an early instance of monstrous creature. On the other hand, the shape of the body of
the gazelle at the top of the comb of Fig. 16 e is equally distorted, and it is possible that the
creature of Fig. 22 c was also intended to be a gazelle.121 Even more curious is the appearance

109 Baumgartel, Cultures of Prehistoric Egypt, 83, pl. 6 (1).
110 For the horned device, see the drawings of wild cattle in Brunton,
Matmar, pl. 22 (2, 3).
Matmar
111 Brunton and Caton-Thompson, Badarian Civilisation, 58.
112 Petrie, Prehistoric Egypt, 38; Baumgartel, Cultures of Prehistoric
Egypt, 86.
113 Cf. W. Kaiser, ‘Einige Bemerkungen zur ägyptischen Frühzeit’,
ZÄS 91 (1964), 110, fig. 6.
114 The sources for Figure 21 follow: (a) Petrie and Quibell, Naqada
and Ballas, pl. 49 (90) (1725); (b) Petrie and Quibell, Naqada and
Ballas, pl. 49 (79) (164); (c) Petrie, Corpus of Slate Palettes, pl. 56
(75 D) (=MacIver and Mace, El Amrah and Abydos, pl. 8 (3)) (B 62);
(d) Petrie, Prehistoric Egypt, pl. 44 (75 C); (e) Petrie, Corpus of Slate
Palettes, pl. 57 (76) (= Petrie and Quibell, Naqada and Ballas, pl. 49)
(75); (f) Petrie and Quibell, Naqada and Ballas, pl. 49 (70) (T 55); (g)
Petrie and Quibell, Naqada and Ballas, pl. 49 (77) (T 18); (h) Petrie
and Quibell, Naqada and Ballas, pl. 49 (65) (T 10).
115 Baumgartel, Cultures of Prehistoric Egypt 2, 86.
116 Petrie, Prehistoric Egypt, 38; Baumgartel, Cultures of Prehistoric
Egypt 2, 86.
117 Petrie, Prehistoric Egypt, 38.
118 Baumgartel, Cultures of Prehistoric Egypt 2, 86.
119 See n. 95.
120 See Osborn and Osbornová, Mammals, 171-173.
121 The sources for Fig. 22 are as follows: (a)-(c) Payne, Predynastic
Egyptian Collection, 231, fig. 77, cat. nos 1903-1905 (order reversed).

2005 13
E. BROVARSKI

of addorsed birds on the forehead of a 'swimming bird' palette from Matmar (Fig. 10 c). In
nature birds do not possess horns but that ostensibly seems to be the case here.
Addorsed birds likewise substitute for horns in theriomorphic cosmetic palettes in
the form of ruminants.122 Unfortunately, the projecting horns of such palettes are not
infrequently broken off. Fig. 24 b and d apparently depict a hartebeest, although the artist
has clearly once again taken liberties with the body of the latter animal. The only instance
where both horns are preserved is on the left-hand head in the fabulous palette of Fig. 24 c,
the maker of which transformed the rear feet of the turtle into the two hartebeest heads. In
contrast to all of these is the animal of Fig. 24 a which, from its heavy body and powerful
head, looks more like a bovine than an antelope. The surviving horn is slimmer than the
other horns and lacks the bird’s head and beak as well, so real horns were evidently not
intended in this instance.
A number of the recurrent themes or motifs investigated above --- in particular the
human heads, the solitary birds, the addorsed birds (frequently paired with round-topped
protruberances), and the horns of a wild bull or cow --- served as ornaments for a whole
series of objects fashioned from stone, ivory, and bone, especially tags, combs, hairpins,
and cosmetic palettes. The combs, hairpins, and palettes fall into the category of objects
of daily use, speciically objets de toilette. Throughout the course of their history, the
ancient Egyptians displayed a love of artistic ornament for its own sake that is relected
in the decoration on objects of daily use. Even so, the ornamentation not infrequently
incorporated magic symbols of power and protection.123
As we saw towards the beginning of this article, Petrie believed the tags, bound together
as they were by leathers thongs, were meant to be manipulated in the hand in some magic
ceremony or ritual. The shared ornamentation which appears in the tags and the objets de
toilette alike suggests that both categories of objects imparted protection to the the dead
as well as to the living. Their recurrent nature also indicates that the motifs all possessed
signiicance for their makers and users. That signiicance is much less evident today, and
we can only guess at their meaning.
The tags and toilet objects provide us with insight into the mind, or at least the design
sense, of the predynastic artist. He had keen powers of observation, and drew much of his
inspiration from the natural world around him. This is true of a good deal of predynastic
art, including the long-toothed combs with birds and quadrupeds at their tops and the
theriomorphic slate palettes. But the predynastic artist was also adept at abstraction, as is
particularly evident in the case of the bodies of the gazelles that surmount the combs of Figs
16 e and 22 c or the addorsed birds at the top of the comb of Fig. 14 h. These correspond little
to the anatomy of their originals, but are nonetheless successful from the point of view of
design. The principle of symmetry is also abundantly evident in the products of the ancient
artist, and resulted, for example, in the placement of the same sylized igure of a bird at
each end of the axis of tags, combs, and palettes.124 Working within a conined repertoire of
magically potent motifs, he was notwithstanding able to produce inventive and individual
works of art. Through the multiplication of addorsed birds, for example, he created the
towering construction of the comb from Gebel el-Tarif in Fig. 16 d, and then topped it off
122 The following are the sources for Figure 23: (a) Petrie, Corpus of Ballas, pl. 47 (11)) (271)); (d) Petrie, Corpus of Slate Palettes, pl. 52 (4
Slate Palettes, pl. 52 (4 J) (= Reisner, Nubian Archaeological Survey, S) (=Petrie and Quibell, Naqada and Ballas, pl. 47 (4)) (241).
pl. 63 b (10)); (b) Una-Dia-Verlag, Farbdia positive # 01084, seen in the 123 See e. g. Edward Brovarski, Susan K. Doll, Rita E. Freed, Egypt’s
archives of Carsten Niebuhr Institute, University of Copenhagen, 1994 Golden Age: The Art of Living in the New Kingdom 1558-1085 B. C.
(present whereabouts unknown) (drawn by Richard L. Cook); (c) Petrie, (Boston, 1982), cat. nos. 266, 267, 285.
Corpus of Slate Palettes, pl. 52 (9 D) (=Petrie and Quibell, Naqada and 124 Cf. Capart, Primitive Art, 73-74.

14 CASAE 34/I
 RECURRENT THEMES IN THE ART OF THE PREDYNASTIC PERIOD

with the stylized gazelle. He also gave his imagination free rein in the swimming bird tag
of Fig. 10 c with the addorsed birds springing from its crown.
At irst glance, the motif of round-topped protruberances between addorsed birds
appears to present an exception to the general employment of naturalistic forms used by
the predynastic artist. On the other hand, especially when well preserved (Fig. 7 a-b, d, f),
they bear a strong resemblance to the closed papyrus-bud ornament that forms the capital
of the so-called 'tent-poles' of the Old Kingdom and later.125 So it is likely too that the round-
topped protruberances were drawn from nature. Whatever their origin, they produce a
very decorative effect.
The mastery of materials which the tags and toilet utensils exhibit, as well as the
uniformity in iconography and style of the various categories of artworks, suggest that the
artists who produced these luxury objects must have devoted much or even all of their time
to their manufacture. Odds-on they were full-time specialists, supported by a sedentary
and hierarchical society in which high-status individuals, interested in display, had the
resources at hand to support such a specialized group or groups of craftsmen.
It is a striking fact that the same designs occur on grave goods from Nubia to Middle
Egypt. B. G. Trigger has observed that the standardized forms of Gerzean pottery vessels
that are found distributed throughout Egypt are evidence not of cultural uniformity but
of the mass-production of this ware in one or, at most, only a few centers.126 On the other
hand, the people who acquired the tags and objets de toilette must, at least to some extent,
have shared a common aesthetic sense and value system that made the designs on these
objects both appealing and comprehensible.

125 Edward Brovarski, ʻStudies in Egyptian Lexicography III: CC 20506 MA, 1955), pl. 9 c.
and the Word for “Bed Canopy”ʼ(forthcoming). For an example, see G. A. 126 B. G. Trigger, in B. G. Trigger, B. J. Kemp, D. OʼConnor, and A. B.
Reisner and W. S. Smith, A History of the Giza Necropolis 2 (Cambridge, Lloyd, Ancient Egypt: A Social History (Cambridge, 1983), 53.

2005 15
E. BROVARSKI

e. f. g. h.

Fig. 1. Human- head tags.

a. b. c.

Fig. 2. Simple bird-headed tags.

16 CASAE 34/I
 RECURRENT THEMES IN THE ART OF THE PREDYNASTIC PERIOD

i. j. k. l. m.

Fig. 3. Addorsed bird-headed tags.

2005 17
E. BROVARSKI

Fig. 4. Outward curving horns of domesticated bovine.

c.

Fig. 5. Inward curving horns of wild cattle.

18 CASAE 34/I
 RECURRENT THEMES IN THE ART OF THE PREDYNASTIC PERIOD

b.

Fig. 6. Depictions of hartebeest.

g. h.

Fig. 7. Tags with protruberances between the addorsed birds.

2005 19
E. BROVARSKI

g. h.
Fig. 8. Tags with horns of wild bull or cow.

Fig. 9. Flat tags (a-d), hollow tusks (e), dentiform tags (f-h), peg (i), and ivory tubes (j-1).

20 CASAE 34/I
 RECURRENT THEMES IN THE ART OF THE PREDYNASTIC PERIOD

b.
Fig. 10. Swimming-bird and anchor-bird tags.

c.
Fig. 11. Amuletic combs.

a. b.
Fig. 12. Hippoppotamus tags.

Fig. 13. Combs and other human-head objects.

2005 21
22

E. BROVARSKI
CASAE 34/I

j.
Fig. 14. Combs with tops in the form of ostriches and addorsed birds.
 RECURRENT THEMES IN THE ART OF THE PREDYNASTIC PERIOD

e.
Fig. 16. Combs with addorsed birds and multiple bird-topped combs.

2005 23
E. BROVARSKI

a. b. c.
Fig. 17. The Bat emblem in the Old and Middle Kingdoms.

a. b. c.
Fig. 18. Combs with the horns of wild cattle.

24 CASAE 34/I
 RECURRENT THEMES IN THE ART OF THE PREDYNASTIC PERIOD
f.

Fig. 19. Round and flat hairpins with ornamented tops.

d.
2005 25
26

E. BROVARSKI
CASAE 34/I

h. j.

Fig. 20. Cosmetic palettes with birds and horns.

 RECURRENT THEMES IN THE ART OF THE PREDYNASTIC PERIOD

e. f. g. h.

Fig. 21. Bird-headed cosmetic palettes.

b.

Fig. 22. Combs with ornamented tops in the form of ruminants.

2005 27
E. BROVARSKI

c.
Fig. 23. Cosmetic palettes in the form of ruminants.

Pl. 1. Set tags from El Amrah grave a 88 (Courtesy of the Egypt Exploration Society).

28 CASAE 34/I